Crisan Burebista and His Time 1978

https://biblioteca-digitala.
ro
https://biblioteca-digitala.ro
BUREBISTA
and
·Hrs·11ME
BIBLlOTHECA HlSTORlCA ROMANIAE
MONOGRAPHS
XX
ION HORA ŢIU CRIŞAN
BUREB 5fA
an
HIS TIME
EDITURA ACADEMIEI REPUBLICII SOCIALISTE ROMÂNIA

Calea Victoriei, 125, Bucureşti 71021
1978
This îs an abridged nrsion of "Burel>ista şi epoca sa'', 211 d edition,
EDITCRA ŞTIINŢIFICĂ ŞI ENCICLOPEDICĂ, BUCHAREST, 1V77
Translated from Romanian

by
Sanda :Mihailescu
T he C ollection
BIBLIOTHECA HISTORICA ROMANIAE
is sponsored by
THE ACADEl\IY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROl\L\NJA

and
THE ACA.liilEMY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES OF THE
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA
Dirtclors : ŞTEFAN PAscu, Member of the Academy of the Socialist

Republic of Romania
and
ŞTEFAN ŞTEFĂNEscu, Corresponding Member of tbe Academy
of the Socialist Republic of Roman ia
Editorial Secrelary : GHEORGHE DIACONU
C O N TEN T S
Preface 7
Chapter I
INTERNAL PRE:\llSES 11
1. The concept or La Tene 11
2. The Celts on the territory of Dacia 16
3 . Relations between the Celts and the Daco-Getae 20
4. When can we speak of a Romanlan La Tene? 23
5. The Daco-Getae at the end of the 2nd century B.C.. 25
Chapter II
EXTER::-.;AL PREl\IISES 31
1. The Roman expansion in the Balkan peninsula
and in the East . . . • 31
2. The 'Barbaricum' on Dacia's boundaries 34
3. Social upheavals in Rome . . . . . . 36
Chapter III
THE FIRST AND THE GREATEST OF THE THRACIAN KINGS . . 38
1. Burebista's personality 38
2. The name . . . . . . 42
3. The beginnlng of the reign . 43
4. The capital ( ?) . 55
5. The origin . . . . . . . . . 64
Chapter IV
INTERNAL POLICY 72
1. Unification of the Daco-Getae 72

2. Economic and urbanistic activity 86
3. The army and the court. 89
4. The state . . . . . 94
5. The social formation . . 106
Chapter V
EXTERNAL POLICY 113
1. The wars against the Boii and the Taurisci 113

2. The fights with the Scordiscl and the encroach ment
on the Roman borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3. The conquest of the west-Pontlc Greek city-states 122

4. Peoples subjected in eastern Dacia 131
·'· Diplo matic relations 134
Chapter J'I
THE REAUI 138
1. The western and northwestern borders 138

2. Thc soulhern , eastern and northeastern borders 144
Chapter l'Il
FORT RE S SES A'.':D FORT IFIED SETTLE'IIE'.':T S OF THE DAV A
T YPE . . 150
1. Fortified settlements of the Dm•a type and forl resses

with stone walls . . . . . . 150
2. Th c complex in the Orăşlie 'llountains 178
Cha pter J' III

CCLTlJRE 193
1. 'llatcrial culture 193

2. Art and science 218
:i. Heligion . . . . 227
4. Characl eristic feat ures of the Daco-Getic culture 237
Chapter IX
T HE E:'\D 241
1. The dissolution of Burebis! a's realm and i ts causes . 2.t 1

2. H u rebista's place in the history of t h e Daco-Getae and
in a ncient history 246
List of abbretiat-ions 251
P R E FA C E
Herodotus considered the Getae "the bravest and the fairest of the Thra
cians" and the Thracians "the largest people in the world, second only to
the Indiana". Herodotus thought that "had they one leader only, or could
they agree with each other, this people would be inv incible and much more
powerful than all the others". But the historian of Halicarnassus hastened to
add ";1Jet this is not possible and never will be" 1 and he was quite right, too.
The Thracians had never been united as one single people. A certain meas
ure of unit.I/ was achieved by most of the southern Thracian tribes under the
Odrysae2 kings (in mid-5th century B.C. and early 4th century B.C.) and
also by the northern Thracians, namely the Daco-Getae under Burebista when,
as foreseen by the great Greek historian f our centuries earlier, they could not
be conquered.
There can be no doitbt whatsoever that the rnost glorious page in the
Gei<>-Dacians' long and turbulent history is the one carrying the name of
Burebista "the first and the greatest of the Thracian kings" as he is referred
to in an inscription of the period.
Burebista is the one who succeeded, at least for a time, in drawing togeth
er all the Daco-Getic tribes either of their own jree will or by jorce of arms.
He was capable to enforce his rule jar beyond the boundaries of their permanent
homeland and to play a prorninent part in the history of Europe at the time.
He surpassed Ms people in importance and will go down in history as one
of the greatest rnen of genius that Antiquity had ever produced. Burebista
was the worthy rival of Caesar, the greatest Roman general, whom he failed to
meet on the battlef ield.
Burebista was the ri1ler of the Daco-Getae when these were reaching the
apex of their glory. He was the jounder of the ffrst Daco-Getic state.
Burebista was nnquestionably one of the leading figures and heroes of
the first half of the first century B.C. About Caesar, his rival in Rome, the
founder of Roman monarchy, scores of books have been written. Caesar himself
put down his deeds 3 in writing and so did his contemporaries, the greatest
historians of Antiqnity 4, especially the historiographers of later times. New
1 I\', 93; Y, 3. On llerodolus' work see F. Jacobi, R f:. Supp/., 2, 191:3, col. 205ff;
T . R. G l ov er, Tlerodo/us, Cambridge , 1924; :\I. Pohlenz, llerodolus, !Jer ersle llisloriker des
Abendlandes, Leipzig, Berlin, l!l:.!7; H. H. Immerwahr, Form and Thouqht in llerodolus , Cleve
land , 1966 ; A. Piatkowski, F. \" an \-�lef, llerodol Istorii (2 volumes), Bucharest, 1961-196-1.
2 For thc Odrysae's kingdoms see l I. :\I. D::mov, A.ncienl Tlrrace (in Rom.). Bucharest.
1971i, pp. 2Giff.
3 C. fulius Caesar. De Bello Gal/ico, De Relio Ci11i/i.
4 For conlempuraries' o piniuns sec, for in stance , I-1. Slrassburger, Ciisar im Vriei/ der
175, pp. 225-264. Of the sources about Caesar
Zeilgcnosscn, in llislorisclre Zeitsclrri(I, l!J5:l,
tbe most important are : Appian, Ci11i/ \\"ars, Book Ir; Plutarch, Paral/el Lives, IX, Alexander
and Caesar; Suetonius. !Je \"ila Caesarum.
m011ographs on Caesar's 5 life and work are coming out each year, but very
little has been written about Burebista. Of works by aiicient writers onl.11 frag
ments have been preserved. Few as they are, the writings that have been handes
down to 11s are full of praise for the great king from the Danube. Equallly
laudatory pages have been devoted to him by Vasile Pârvan 6, CamilleJullian 7,
Theodor J!ommsen 8, Constantin Daicoviciit 9, Radu Vulpe 10• The fact
that no (l,ttempt has been made at an ample monograph oan be accomited fo-r
by the scarcity of the written sources that have reached down to us. Literary
sources on Burebista are regrettably parsimonious with regard to details.
Epigraphic sources are no better either. Archaeological discoveries wMch have
considerably expanded due to the intensified research conducted during tke
past two decades brought to light the characteristics, dimensions and place of
the Daco-Getic civilization among ancient civilizations in general. lVe know
incomparably more about the Daco-Getae's oulture today than, say, twenty
years ago. Unfortunately, however, archaeological discoveries oannot Jill in
oompletely the gaps left by the absence of written sources, nor oan they depict
or supply details about the most outstanding figures of our ancient history.
That is wh!/ the reader wil l have to be reminded, here and now, that the present
book hardly tells him anything about Burebista the man, about the way he
looked and lived, about his family life. Jforeover, we must admit that we do
not even 1.:now how was his name oorrectly pronounced. All these things and
many more are unknown to us. The reader will naturally ask himself whether
with so .few things known about Burebista, to write a book on the subject is
not rather a hazardous undertaking.
The reader will be able to see for himself, while browsing through th-e
following pages that the scarce literary material only partially completed w1"th
epigrapMc and archaeological discoveries, is conclusive enough and capable
of vividly 011tlining this impressive jigure of the Romanian ancient history ..
At the beginning of the lst century B.C. , the Daco-Getic society attain
ed a high level of development which was brought home to us by the endless
encleavours of archaeologists and historians in Romania and the neighbour
ing conntries, whose territories were inhabited and brought down into history
by the Daco-Getae. The Daco-Getic society had all the conditions to reach the
superior form of state organization and occupy its proper p lace in the histo1·y
of A.ntiquity. At the beginning of the first century B.C. , the Daco-Getic
society was in great need of a man capable to organize t he new state and
enable it to play a prominent part in the international arena. That man was
to be Burebista. His genius helped him use the internal and external conditions
propitious to such a wo-rk and, mo-re than anything else, enabled Mm to
integrate himself in contemporaneity and to win for those under his rule a
dignified place in the development of European history. That was the reason
why we thought that a monograph on Burebista has to be written and can be
written despite the scarce informatton about his person.
5 The best monograph seems to he Jerome Carcopino, Jules Cesar, Paris. 1 968. For
historiography on research into the life and work of Caesar, dating from the inter-war period,
:see P. Fabre, \'ingt annees d'etudes sur Cesar, in the volume dedicated to J. Marouzeau,
Paris, 1 943, pp. 2 1 5 - 23 1 and, more recently, M. Rambaud. Cesar, ln Actes du Congres ie
Lyon de I' Association Gui llaume Bude, Paris. 1 960, pp. 205-238.
6 Geli ca, pp. 80ff.
7 Histoire de la Gaule, pp. 1 4 4 - 1 54.
8 R omische Geschichle, I II, p. 304.
8 La Transylvanie, pp. 46ff.
10 B11rebisla the Geta, pp. 33 - 55.
lll e h(r,ve trie<l to put together everything we know about the great king,
about his exploits and achievements and of course about the time he lived in.
We have equall.1/ tried to help the reader understand the major role played
in Europe's ancient history b:i1 Burebista who, in many respects, may oredi
tably stand alongside Caesar, his great contemporary and enemy whose tragic
end he shared. It is our Jirm belief that such a work as the present one will
prove to be useful, will contribute to a better understanding of the Romanians'
forebearers and to a more rigorous knowledge of the place they held in the
ancient history of Europe.
W e think that the 11nusual splendour and power of the Geto-Dacian
societ.I/ in the middle of the ist century B.C. is also due to Burebista's more
than thirty years rule over the Daco-Getae. He remains for us a great jounder,
an excellent organizer and able army commander, a skilful politician and
diplomat, an overwhelming personality.
W e have attempted to make an as accurate as possible presentation
of Burebista and his time, given the limitations of the current state of research.
W e have refrained jrom advancing undocumented hypotheses, no matter how
tempting they might have been; we have presented, however, all the assumptions
which have been made so jar and which we know of. It will be for the reader
to decide whether we have succeeded or not. W e f eel confident that many
of the affirmations made here are liable to questions and improvements and,
why not, even to refutations in the ligkt of jurther discoveries and researches.
We also believe that such a book like this one oould never have been written
without the tireless work carried on by generations of Romani an and foreign
scholars and, most particularly, by the present generation of old and young
researchers alike. It is to all of them that we owe a debt of deep gratitude.
The present book is intended not only to specialists, but also to anybody
willing to get a better insight into the history of our forebearers.
In order to enable the reader to judge for himself, we have presented
in each case all the available documents relevant to the point in question,
then the dif ferent opinions put jorward by experts and only after that our
own view. It will again be for the reader to judge who is right and who is not.
We have also trfod to the be.'Jt of our ability to build up a monument in
solid stone, while being fully aware that its foundations are not too deeply
rooted into the secure ground of documents.
The points of view voiced here are the result of many endeavours span
ning more than two full decades. They are desig1ied to add to the body of already
existing knowledge and to shed light on the still controversial aspects of the
Daco-Getae's long and turbulent history.
The present book is an abridged Jorm of the second Romanian edition.
This second edition, rendered necessary within less than one year by the keen
interest shown by Romanian readers, was revised and considerably enlarged.
l.H.c.
C hapter I
I NTERNAL PREMISES
I. Tlre concepi of I.a T enc. :!. Tlle Ce/ls 011 Ilie lerrilory of Dacia.
3. Rcla/ions bcl11ice11 Ilic Celts and Ilie Daco-Ge/ae. 4. WJ1en can we
spea/..: o( u Uomanian I.a Tenc � .). 1 Irc !Jaco-Gelae al /he end o(
lire :!JI(/ a11/11ry R.C.
1. The concept of la T ene

The exceptional deYelopment beginning with the 3rd century B.C. of
the Daco- Getic society and its progress to civilization is generally account
ed for by the transition from the Hallstatt culture, characteristic of the
Early Iron Age, to the La Tene culture (Late Iron Age) and most particu
Jarly to the generalization of the latter. But before <lh;cussing this phenom
enon of capital importance which constitute:,; the fundamental premise
of the state led by Burebista, let us take a closer look at the concept of
La Tt'me. Our approach to most of the issues concerning us is related to
t.h e different acceptat ions of this very concept.
However paradoxical it might seem, since we are dealing with two
diametrically-opposed concepts, the La Tt'me period is assumed to encompass
the barbarian civilization of Europe i.e., of those peoples living outside
the frontiers of the Greco-Roman world, but under its influence. It was
natural for the beneficiaries of an adYanced civilization like the Greco
R oman one, lying at the root s of the present civilizat ion, to consider
everything beyond its limits as 'barbarian' .
The concept of La Tt'me has both chronological and cultural conno
tations, yet, for quite a long t ime, the chronological a:;;pect bas maintained
its preponde rance. Gradually afterwar<ls the concept. was assigned to a cer
tain type of culture. The La Tt'me culture is mainly characterized by
substantial advances over the previous period which are materialized
in the w idespread use of iron metallurgy, iron implements and weapons,
the potter's wheel, the <levelopment of hand icrafts, the emergence of the
tribal aristocracy a nd the intensitication of commercial exchanges.
The term of La Tene as such belongs to H. Hildebrand 11• The name
derivei\ from the Swiss settlement of La Tt'me on the shores of lake Neu
châtel which was investigated beginning with the 1 9th century 12• Later
1 esearches revealed that the material unearthed from the respect ive
settlement is characteristic of only a limited perio d in the evolution
of the I�a Tene culture, namely it s mid<lle phase.
H. Hildebrand's main anu only contribution was to clarify the perio
dization of the pre-historic age established in the first part of the 1 9th
century according to which the Stane Age had been followed by the
Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Hildebrand divided the Iron �.\ge info
11 H. Hildebrand, Congres Intern. d'.-l11tl1ropologie el Archt'ologic Pri:hisl„ Stockholm,

1 874, 2. p. 592;
12 P. \'ouga, La Tene , Leipzig, 1 928.
11
Hallstatt 13 and La Tene. These two were in the beginning thought to
be synchronic, but covering different geographical areas. Later on, however,
it became clear that Hallstatt had preceded the La Tene culture, the for
mer being considered as the Early lron Age and the latter as the Late
Iron Age.
Earlier studies demonstrated that the La Tene culture covered a
very wide area which coITesponded with the dissemination of the Celtic
ethnic element. The conclusion was therefore reached that the creators
and bearers of the La Tene culture throughout Europe had been the Celts,
with the result that the La Tene culture was automatically equated with
them. Researches undertaken mainly after the Second World War re
vealed the existence: a part from the Greco-Roman world, of other peoples
than the Celts, whose culture belongs chronologically to the Iiate Iron Age.
Among these cultures was also Daco-Getic culture which usually goes by
the name of Daco-Getic La Tene.
'.rhe concept of La Tene has therefore acquired, in addition to the
more restricted meaning of Celtic culture, a much broader sense, including
a1so other contemporary cultures with similar contents, of similar kind,
but belonging to distinct populations 14•
The J.Ja Tene cultura represents the highest level of development
eYer known by the 'barbarians' of Europe. It was initially created by
the Celts who spread it over a vast area stretching from the British Isles
to the Black Sea. All across this area the Celts largely contributed to the
emergence of the La Tene type of culture with other peoples who later
differentiated themselves from the Celts.
This is neither the place nor tbe case to elaborate on the history o.f
the Celts or on Celtic lin guistics16 and archaeology16• We shall stress, how-
1 3 After the name of Hallslatt. a ocality in North-Anslria where a necropolis

-
containing over 1250 graves was found.
14 R. Vulpe. in Rom. llisl. (in Ro m.), pp. 2 1 6 - 2 1 7; H. :\liiller-Karpe. Civilia d1
La Tene, in EA, LV, 1 962, pp. 491 - 49 8; D. Berciu 41 lhe Source of llislory (in Ro m.),
• .
B ucharest, 1 967, pp. 267 - 273; C. Daicov iciu. Em. Condurachi. Roumanie, Ed. Nagel , G eneva,
1 972, pp. 83 - 84 .
1 5 A . Holder, Allkeltischer Sprac/1schal:, 3 volumes. Leipzig, 1 896. 1913 ; A. '.\leillet -
M. Cohen , Les langues du monde, Paris, 1 924; J. Vendryes , La posilion linguislique du Celtique,
in Proc. Brilish Acad. . XXIII. 1 937, pp. 333-37 1 ; Holger Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammalik
der Kellischen Sprachen. 1 909 - 1 913; L. Weisberger. Die Sprache der Fesllandkelte11, in Ber.
RGK, XX. 1 930, pp. 1 4 7 - 226; H. Hubert. Les Cel/es el l ' expansion cellique jusqu'â l 'epoque
de La Tene, Paris, 1 932. pp. 42ff; G. Dottin. La la11gue gauloise, Paris. 1 9 1 5; J. Kenneth,
Language and History i11 Early Brilai11, Harvard University Press, 1 953; J . Pokorny, art.
Celtic f,ang1zage, Celtic L ileralure, Celtic Peoples,dn Encyclopaedia Americana, 1 953 ; idem
Allkell ische D ichlungen, Bem, 1 944; T. Arwyn Watkins. in voi. Celtic Sludies i11 Wales, Cardiff,
1963, pp. 1 43 - 1 82; F. Gourvil. Langue el /ilteralure bretonnes, Paris, 1 968.
16 The biblio graphy on Celtic archaeology is extremely far-ranging. We shall indicate
here some of the works which seem to be more representative. P. Reinecke, Zur Kennlnis
der La Tene-Denkmăler der Zone nordwărls der Alpen, i nFeslschrifl des Rlimisch-germanischeR
Zenlralmuseums zu Mainz, 1 902, pp. 53 - 1 09, new edition in voi. P. Reinecke . Main:er Au(sălze
zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eiscn:eil , Bonn. 1 965, pp. 88 - 1 4 4 ; Niese s.v. Gal /i, in RE.
XIII, 1 910, pp. 610 - 639; E. Rodemacher. J. Pokorny, s.v. Kelten, in M. Ebert, Rea//exikon
der Vorgeschichle, VI, Berlin. 1 926, pp. 280- 300; H. d' Arbois de Jubainville. Les premlers
h11bitanls de I'Europe, Paris. 1 982; Idem, Les Celtes depuis les lemps les plus recules jusqu'ii
!'an 100 avani nolre ere, Paris, 1 903; J. Dechelette, Manuel d'archiwlogie prehislorique celtique
el gallo-romaine, I- I V, Paris, 1 908 - 1 91 4 ; G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir a / ' elude de /'anli
quile ce/tique, Paris , 1 9 1 5; Paul-Marie Duval, Paris anlique, des origines ari lroisieme siec/e,
Paris. 1 961; J . Filip. J{e/1011e ve slredn i E11rope. 1 956; A . Grenier, Les Gaulois, Paris , 1 945 ;
Idem, La Gau/e cellique , 1 945; H. Hubert. Les Ce/Ies el l' e:cpansion ce/tiquc jusqu' â l ' epoque de
La T�ne el la ci11i/isalion ce/lique, Paris. 1 932 ; R. Giessler - G. Kraft, Unlersuchungm zar
friihen and ii/teren Latenezeil am Oberrb.ein und in der Schwei:, in Ber. RG[(, 32, 1 942 ( 1 944) ,
12
ever, that such studies led to the unanimously accepted conclusion that
the Celts belong to the great family of Indo-European peoples, constitut
ing their westernmost branch.
The first Greek authors who wrote about the Celts used to call them
KEA'ttu, those having written in Latin call them CeUae 17• This amounts
to a general ethnic name just as in the case of other populations, like the
Daco-Getae 18 for instance.
In addition to this general denomination, the one of Galli comes to
the fore in Latin historic documents dating from the early 3rd century
B.C. with its rcxt.iX"t'cxL variant in Greek documents. Since the names of
Galli and Celts are used concomitantly by ancient writers, all the attempts
made by scholars to distinguish between the two ended in complete
failure 19•
As regards the old Celtic language, we have, apart from the preseut
day Celtic lauguages, ancient Greek aud Latin texts that either use or
explain Celtic wordR. To these should be added the large number of iu
scriptions, legends ou coins and medals, toponyms and authroponyms.
It is generally admitted that the cradle of the Celtic civilization lies
in an area covering the upper basin of the Rhine and the Danube. It îs
iu this area that the oldest necropolises attributed to the Celts were unco
vered. }fany graves were given the name of princely graves (Fiirstengră
ber) owing to their rich inventory of gold adornments.
From this initial area the Celts had irr upted into other territories
at a nrnch earlier date, probably under the successive pressures exerted
upon them by various Germanic tribes, and forced their way into lands
inhabited by populations having settled there a long time before 20•
The chronology of the different stages in this long journey made
by the Celts is one of the controversial questions besetting researchers.
The greatest difficulty in solving this issue lies in the absence of literary
sources, the only ones capable to pinpoint with accuracy, in both time aud
2
space, certain historic events 1•
Unfortunately only two moments of the Celts' early history are
referred to with some precision. These are: 390 B.C., the year when Rome
was destroyed by them, and 278 B.C., the year when they raia.ed the sacred
sanctuaries of Delphi.
pp. 20-115; I. Hunyady, Die Kelten im Karpatl1enbecken, Budapest, 1 942; c. Jullian, Hisloire
de /a Gau/e, 4 Yols., Paris, 1 920 - 1921 ; R. Lantier, in Hisloria 1Wundi, III, Bem, 1954,
pp. 400-458; F. Lot, La Gau/e, Paris, 1!l47; L. M ărton , D ie Friih-La Tene-Zeit in Ungarn,
Budapest , 1 953; K. Willvonseder, Die Ke/ten in Mille/europa, in Bei trăge Osterreichs zur Erfor
schung der Vergangenheil und Ku/turgeschichle der Menschheil, Horn, 1 959 , pp. 7 5 - 93 ; J. l\Ioreau,
Di e Well der Kellen, 1 961 ; J. M. Navarro , in Cambridge Ancieni Hislory, VII, Cambridge, 1 928,
pp. 4 1 - 74 ; T. G. E . Powell, The Ce/ts, London, 1 958 ; J. Raftery, The Ce/ts, 1 964; N. K. Chad
wick, The Ce/ls, London , 1 970 ; J. 2\farkale, Les Ce/ies ei la civilisation celtique, Paris, 1 969"
1 7 A. Bertrand - G. Reinach, Les Celles dans Les ua/lees du P6 el du Dan ube, Paris.
1 894; J. J. T ierney, The Ce/ts and ihe Classica/ A uihors. in J. Raftery, The Ce/ts, 1 964, pp. 23ff. ;
Congny-Lebegue, Extrails des auteurs grecs concernani la geographie el l'hisloire des Gaules, voi. 6,
Paris, 1 878- 1 892.
1e C. Daicoviciu, in Rom. Hist., I, pp. 257ff.
19 J . Rhys, Celts and Galii, London , 1 905 ; W. Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe, London,
1 900, p. 127 ; H. Hubert. Les Celtes ei l' expansion celtique jusqu'a l'epoque de La Tene, Paris,
1932. p. 26.
20 H. Hubert. Les Cel/es el l'expansion ce/tique, Paris, 1932, p. IX: cf. and F. Lot,
La fin du monde anlique. Foreword, p. X, Note 3 ; S. Feist, Kul/ur A..11sbreit1111g und Herkunfl
der J.ndo-Germanen , Berlin, 1913, p. 50.
21 Cf. Fr. Hertz, Die Wanderungen, ihre Typen und i hre geschich.l/iche Bede11/11ng, in l\ o!irer
\'ierle/jahrsl!efte fii.r So:illlogie, 1929, 1, p. 36.
13
S cho lar P. Bosch-Gimpera 22 explained the movement s of the Celts
by th e successive pressures exerted upon them by the Germans. The first
movement of the Germanic tribes occurred around the year 800 B.C. when
thev
' descended southward from the Elba basin to that of the Rhine. This
cau sed the first Celtic d isplacement dated i:;omewhere between 800 and
700 B .C. 23
At various times, the chronology of which is still to be closely esta
blished, the Celts took over the Iberian peninsula 24, the territory of what
is now France 25, the British Isles and Ireland 26• Further south they
infiltrated the land which constitutes modern Switzerland, occupying
northern Italy 27 and, to the east, Bohemia and Austria 28 as well as parts
of what is now Poland 29• Given the present stage of research it is difficult
to est ablish the exact limits of Celtic expansion to the east and especially
to the north-east. There are, however, indications that the Celts did cross
22 P. Bosch- Gimp era. Les mouvemenls ce/liques, Essai de reconsli / ulio11, in Etudes c el /iq11 cs,
\li, 1, 1952, pp. 71-126; \'I, 2, 1953-1954, pp. 328-352; \'II, 1955-l!J5G, pp. 147-185.
23 Concerning the land of origin of l hc Celts see. in addition to general works. also :
K. Bitt el,
Die l\.e/len in Wiirllemberg, Berlin, Leipzig, 193·1; :\I. .Jahn, Die l\.ellen in Sc hlesien,
Leipzig, 1931; H. Giessler - G. Kraft, in Ber. RG/\, 1942 (1950) , pp. :W-115; A. Dauber -
\V. Kimmig, in Bad. Fundber„ 20, 1956; G. :\lahr, Die jiingere Latenek111/11r des Trierer Landes,
Berlin, 1967; \\'. Dehn, Die lleuneburg an der oberen Donau und ihre Wehranlagen, in c oli .
Neue A.usgrabungen in Deulschland, Berlin, 1958; W. Krămer, Jfanching, ein vindelikisches
Oppidum an der Donau, in the same volume;:\!. Kersten, in Bonner Jahrbiiclier, 1948, pp. 5-
80; W. Kimmig, H. Hei!, Vor:eil am Rhein und an der Donau, Stuttgart. 1958, pp. 26ff. ;
R. Pittioni, Zum Herkunflsgebiel der Ke/len. in Oste/"/"eiclrisclie ..\kadcmic dCJ' ffissensclwften,
PMl.-Ilisl. Klasse Sil:ungsberichle, voi. 233, 195!), pp. 1-23.
24 J. :\I. de Navarro. in Cambrid,qe ..\ncienl Ilislor!f, Vil, ch ap. 2, C a mbrid ge . l!Jli4;
P. Bosch-Gimpera, La formaci6n de Los pueb/os de Espw1a, :\Iexico, 19·15; L. Peric'ot Garci[l,
La Espwia primitiva, Barcelona, 1950.
25 G. de ?llortillet, Materiaux pour /'/iisloire primitive el nalurcllc de /'l/omme, 10, 1875,
pp. 375ff. ; F. �\loreau, Colleclion Caranda, A I bum des principau:r objels, Saint- Qurnl în, 18i7 ;
F. Henry, Les Tumu/us du Deparlemenl <ic la Câ!e-d'Or, l!J:n ; L. ?\!orei, La Clwmpag1;e srmler
iaine, 18!J8; .J. Dcchelette, op. cil. and H. Huberl. op. cil.; G. Fabre, Les civi/isalions prol o
hislo riq ues de I' .-tnliquite, Paris, 1952 ;Breth-:\lahler, La ciui/ isal io n de La Te ne I en Champagne,
Paris, l!J71.
26 T. G. E. P owell, op. cil.,; T. D. Henclrick - G. Hatkes, Arclweo/og!J of England aml
Wa/cs, London, 1931 ; G. Childe, Preliisloric Communilies of lire lirilislr ls/es, London, 19-Hl;
N. K. Chadwick, Ear/!J Scol /and, Cambridge, 1919; idem, Cel/ir JJril a in, J.onclon, 1967: .J. Raf
tery, l'relrisloric lre/and, Dublin, 1960.
27
J. P. :\lillotte, Le Jura el Ies l'/aines de Sao ne au.r 1igcs des mtla11.r, I \Hi3 : \\'. Draek,
Die ii/Ieie Eisen:eil der Sclrwei : !\./. Bem, 1958; P. \'ouga, op. cil.: D. T riim pk r , Ilie friihe
La T1'ne:eil im ,l/i/le//and und Jura, in Re perlori1 1111 der L'r- 1111d Friilrgesrlriclrte <ier Schwci:, 3,
Ziirich, 1957, pp. 15-21 ; R. Wyss, Die .Hill/erc- und Spii l c La Tene:eil i111 Jlil/e/ /a1;d und
J ura, in the sa me voi., pp. 21-28; id., in voi . I. 1974, pp. 105-138 and pp. 167-l!JG: ici„
Arclweo/ogische Forsclrungen, Z iirich, 1975; E. Vogt. Die Eisen:eil <ier Scliwei: im Oberb/icJ.:, in
Reperlorium, voi. 3, pp. 3-5; F. R. Hodson, Tlrc La T � ne Cemelcr!J al J/iinsingen-Rcin,
Acta Berncnsia, 5, Bern, 1968; for l ta ly sec, for inst an ce , (i_ ele :\lorlillet. Les Ciau/ois â Jlar:a
bollo dans / 'A. penni n, Rev . •.\rch., 1871, p. 2!JO; A. Grenier . Bo/ogne uil/1111ovie1111c el t!lrnsquc,
Pa ris , 1912; l'. Ducali, Sloria di Bologna , I. Hologna, l!J28; I. l'auli, /Jic Go/asecca-l\11/111r
und .Hillc/europa, in Ila111burger Beilrăge :11r ..\rcl1ăo/ogir, 1, 1971.
2• G. :\lildenberg, ''or- und F rii lrgesclric llt c <Ier Jlij/1111ische11 Ui111ler, in Ilandbuch rfrr
Geschic hl e dcr Bolrmischen Lănder, I, Stuttga rt . 1966, pp. 81-105 (with lhc r n ti re biblio
grnphy). For Austria see A. :\Iahr, D ie La Te!ll' l'C'rio<lc in Obe r iislc rrcic /1, în .Hillei//11ngen
d. l'riilrisl. J\.ommission, Vienna, 1915; K. v. :\liskc, ''c/em St. \'id., 1908; R. Pittioni, Die
Lalene:eil/iclren Funde Niederoslerreichs, Vienna, 1930; idem, L'rgesclrichle des iislcrreichischen
Raumes, Vie nn a, 1954, pp. 651-723 ; E. Penninger, /Jcr Diirrenberg bei Hal /eim, I. :\lunich, 1972.
29 A. Zaki, Les Ce/Ies sur Ies lerres de Po/ogne, in Bericht Hamburg, 1958. 1961, pp. 869-
873 ; Z. W o zniak , The Chrono/ogy of lhe Celtic Cemeleries of Poland, in '\'iadomosci Archeolo
gic:11c, 1959-1960, pp. 119-141 ; idem, O sadniclwo cellyckie w l'o/sre, Wroclaw - Warsaw -
Cracow, 1 !!70.
14
the Carpathians, occupying parts of the area later known as Hungary 30
and SloYakia 31, driving as far as Transylvania. The Celtic remains dis
coverecl north-east of the Carpathians down to the northern shores of
the Black Sea are accounted for by trade relations and not by the settle
rnent of Celtic tribes in those parts, despite the presence of specific topo
n,\·ms aud inscriptions referring to the Celts' attacks on Olbia. More on
this later when the presence of the Celts on the territory of Dacia will be
discusseu.
To the south-east, in the Balkan peninsula, the Celts invaded the
IJanubian parts of what is now Yugoslavia 32, reaching further south the
coasts of the Adriatic 33 wherefrom they could easily cross into Asia;
Minor.
The whole of this vast territory came, at one time or another, under
the Celtic rule. In spite of all this, the Celts never achieved the politica!
unity of a state or large tribal confederation capable to enforce its supremacy
ornr wide areas 34• Their conquests had nothing of a colonizing nature.
The Celtic tribe;; liYed in permanent hostility with each other and were,
tllerefore, una ble to achieve anything more than some regional unions
ornr rather limited expanses of land 35• lt must also be added that in most
of the cases the Celt8 irrupted iuto areas inhabited by other peoples over
which they managed to maintain their supremacy for a time, being ulti
mately assim i lateu into their mas:5. They were unable to unite with the
other tribes eYen in the territories they came from. A certain measure of
unity was, however, achieved for a very short lapse of time, by Vercin
getorix in the face of the Roman policy of conquest at the time of Caesar36•
The Celts are credited with having disseminated and generalized
the La Tene culture over wide stretches of European land. Unusually
:;;killed in metal working, they introduced new methods of melting and
processing the iron and the bronze out of which they made weapons, imple
ments aud all kinds of adornments. By introducing the potter's wheel,
they <leveloped the ceramic industry. They tilled the land with the help
of the iron coulter plough. They are the creators of an original art charac
terize<l by specific motifs on weapons and ornaments; these advances in
the style of their art have been used by researchers as reference point in
establishing the chronology of Celtic discoveries.
3o I. Hunyady. op. cil„ L. :\lărton, op. c i l . ; idem, Das Fundinvenlar der Friihlate11e
griibcr, în Do/gS:eged, 9- 10, 1-2, 1 933 - 3-!, pp. 1 28 - 1 66; E. Bonis. Die /{e/len, in voi
Archiio/ogische Funde in Ungarn, Bu d apcs l . 1956; '.\I. Szabo, Sur Ies l races des Ce/Ies en Hongrie,
Budapcst. 1 9i l .
31 See B . Benadik - E. Vlcek - C . Ambros, Kellische Grăber(e/der der Siidwesls/owakei.
în S/ovemka Arclieo/ogia, 19, 2, 1 971. pp. 465 - 498.
3, J. Tod()ro,·ic, J{e[l i li Jugoislocnoj Evropi, Belgrade , 1 968 ; /{araburma, Belgrade.
19i2; id„ Skordisci, Novi Sad, Belg ra de , 1 9i-1.
33 G. Al fii l di . Des l erriloires occupes par Ies Scordisques, in Acla A.nt{qua, Budapest.
1 2. 1962. pp. 10i-12i; BiziC Drechsler R„ Jslragivanje nekropole praisloris/-.:ih .!apodu u
JCompobijiri, in Arheo/oski Radovi i Rasprane, 1 , 1 959. pp. 245-280; S. G a brovec , Sredu
jelelensko obdobje v S/oveniji, in Arheolos/-.:i Veslni/-.:, 17, 1966, pp. 169- 242 ; N. :\Ia j naric
Pandzie, l\ellsko-Lalenska Kullura u S/avonigi i Srijemu, Vi nko v ci, 1 970.
34 Sometimes in l iterature use is made of the inadequate term of Ligurian. Indo
European, Cel tic 'empire' such as in: A. Grenier, Les Gaulois, pp. 27, 29, 35 where reference
to the 'Celtic empirc· is made. H. Berr and H. Hubert have shown, and rightly so. tlrnt there
cannot be an empire wit ho ut politica! unity and a central power. and that a unity in tc r ms
of ethnicily or civilizatlon does not mean a n e mpire .
36 H. Hubert. Les Celles el l'expansion cellique, Paris. 1 932, p. XIX.
31 About Vercingetorlx see c. Jullian's monograph Verci ngt!lorix, it h edilion, Paris. 1921.
15
At a i·elatively late stage in their h igtory, the Celts erected powerful
fortificat ions in stone (oppida), embarking upon a quasi- urban life.
2. The Celts on the territory of Dacia
Researches undertaken in Romania, especially during the past two deca

des, led to a better understanding of the Celtic issue which had at one time
received very little attention. It is unanimously accepted today that
without a careful and thorough-going investigation of the Celtic phenome
non one cannot fully understand the manysided development of the
Daco-Getic society and, most particularly, its transition to a higher
degree of progress corresponding in time to the La Tene period . That is
why we deem it necessary to dwell at length on this issue and to stress the
correctness of Vasile Pârvan's thesis 37 on the important part played
by the Celts in the formation and the development of Daco-Getic La
Tene. His was the merit of having grasped, in a brilliant manner, the
significance of the integration of the Geto-Dacian space into the area of
the La Tene cultura in Europe. This phenomenon will have many impli
cations and exceptional consequences for the Romanization of Dacia and
even for the formation of the Romanian people. In spite of the great, and
often decisive influence of the Celts, the Daco- G etic civilization did not
merely become a more or less accurate copy of it, but retained its indivi
duality. Judging by its basic and defining elements, it represents an
independent creation, with a vigorous indigenous substance, on which
were grafted the different foreign influences over which the Celtic ones
took an unquestionable precedence. These influences came on top of the
Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, south -Thracian, lllyrian and Scythian ones as
well as those of other populations with which the Geto-Dacians mixed
together, contributing to the emergence of that complex whole that goes
by tb e name of La Tene Geto-Dacian civilization.
There can be no doubt that at the time when tbe Daco-Getic society
came into direct contact with the Celts who had settled in Transylvania,
it was still rather poorly developed. But after the generalization of the
La Tene culture and as a civilization of their own came to be created towards
the end of the 2nd century B.C., it rose to the level of the contemporary
Celtic civilization showing signs of visible superiority over tbe latter in
many respects. The achievement of the Daco-Getae's unity is in itself the
expression of this very superiority .
At present we know of more than eighty localities in Transylvania
where Celtic remains have been discovered 38• Large necropolises have
been systematically investigated at Ciumeşti 39, Pişcolţ 40, Fîntînele 41 ,
37 Getica, pp. 459ff.

38 The latest repertory we worked out in Sargelia, J O, 1 973, pp. 45-78.
38 \'I. Zirra, A Celtic Cemelery in lhe 1101'//1-wesl of Romania (in Rom . ), Baia !\lare,
1 967; I. :!\iemeti , in Dacia, 19, 1 975, p. 243.
40 I . �emeti, .Vouvelles consideralions sur Ies probtemes celliques du nord-ouesl de la
Roumanie, ci la lumiere des <lecouvertes celliques de Pişco/I (dep. Satu Mare), paper delivered
before the Intern. Conf. : The Cells in Central Europe, Sz�kesfehervăr, May, 1 974 (abstract).
u I n connection with the necropolis at Fintinele the paper L a necropole de Flnllnele
ei son imporlance pour le probltme des Ce/Ies en Translyvanit el en Europe Centrale, containing
the ::ifore-mentioned note was delivered at the above scientific event (in prei;.!').
16
and Sanislău 42, to mention only a few. The number of graves unearth�d
by digging is put at many hundreds.
Inside the Carpathian arch the map of lecalities known so far fer
Celtic remains points to the existence of three groups 4 3• The first group
covering the northwestern area, belongs to the large Celtic branch esta
blished in the upper Tisza basin and spreads across vast stretches of
land in what is known today as Slovakia and Rungary. The second and
smaller group lies in the region of Arad , representing the easternmost
limit of Celtic expansion between the rivers Tisza, Crişul Alb and Mureş.
Tbe third group occupies almost the whole of the Transylvanian basin,
reaching, in some areas, down to the foot of the Carpathians. Many of
the Celtic necropolises were found in the fertile valleys of the great Transyl
vanian riYers like the Mureş, the two Tîrnava, the Someş and the Olt.
The territories covered by the two first groups, the northwestern
one and the one in central Transylvania, were thickly populated by the
Celt s. This fact is corroborated by the large number of localities evincing
such discoveries and also by the density of the graves found in the necro
polises. Whereas the Ciumeşti cemetery contains only 36 investigated
graves to which we can add at least an equal number of graves destroyed
during public works being executed within the radius of the necropolis,
the nearby cemetery at Pişcolţ, belonging to the same area, contains no
less than 160 graves. The Fîntînele necropolis, which is situated in the
central zone, contaiDs more than 100 graves. It is of interest to note that
in both cases researches are still under way .
The abo-rn shows that we are in the presence of some massive
settlements which run counter to previous assumptions according to which
the Celts of 'Jransylvania would represent only small-scale infiltrat ions
from the ·west, detached from the branch previously established in the
upper Tisza basin. It becomes abundantly clear that we can no longer
speak of mere scattered remnants of the large group having headed towards
the Balkan peninsula, or of survivors of those defeated at Delphi 44 • This
latter hypothesis is categorically rejected by the existence of large necropo
lises like those found at Pişcolţ and Fîntînele which unquestionably
belong to the La Tene Bl culture i.e., long before the year 278 B.C. when
the sacking of the Delphi sanctuary took place. Today we know for sure
that during the large- scale Celtic expansion originating în central and
eastern Europe, one of several tribal confederations which had settled down
in the upper basin of the Tisza, occupied territories in what is now Slovakia,
Hungary and Romania. They must have been theAnartiwho are located by
Ptolemy (III, 8, 3) in northwestern Dacia in the immediate vicinity of the
Taurisc1:. The fact that Caesar refers to the .Anarti as living between the
Dacians and the Germans (De Bello Gallico, VI, 25) is an additional argu
ment in support of this idea. As a matter of fact, both the ethnic signifi
"ations regarding the Taurisci and the Anarti and their geographical
location are mere hypotheses 45•
42 \'I. Zirra, in Studii şi Comunicări. Satu :\lare. 2 , 1 972, pp. 1 5 1 - 285 ; I. Neme ti,
ln Dacia, 1 9, 1 975, pp. 247 - 248.
43 I. H. Crişan, in SCJl', 22, 3, 1 971 , pp. 1 4 9-164 and Arch. ro=„ 1 !171, Heft 5.
pp. 5 4 8 - 558.
44 I. :-.:estor, in Dacia, 7-8, 1 937 - 1 940, pp. 1 82ff.
45 \'.PârYan, op. cit„ pp. 239, 24'3, 564, 565 ; J. Filip, Die kellische Zi1Jilisalion und ihre Erbe,
Prague, 1 961 ; W. Tomaschck, in RE, I, 2, 1 894, 2063 ; I. I. Ru ssu , Dielionary (in Rom.), p. 33.
2 - c. 1702
�\nother large group of Cclts consisting probably of several tribal
confederations, whose names arc not mentioned in any written sources,
is supposed to have lived in the central part of Transylvania. The 8yn
chronism of archaeological vestige8 of the t wo groups demonstrates that
they left western Europe at th e same t ime, so that we can no longer speak
of tbe Celts who arrived in central Transvlvania as of an offshoot of the
Tisza group, or about pm;sible infiltration s to the east originating from
tbe same group . l\Iost researchers pu t thi8 date at about 300 B .C. Others,
howevcr, among whom Paul R einecke, th ink that the process happenefl
as early as the 5th centun- B.C. 41;.
The oldest Celtic finds prove to be, aecording to more recent studie s ,
of ver�- early date, helonging, i n a relat ive chronology, to t h e first phase
of tbe La Time Bl period, probably to the final stages of this sub-phase.
In absolute chronology, t h i8 means the middle of the 4th cen tury B . C . ,
approximately around the year 3i:JO B . C . There can b e no doubt, in our
opinion, that the two large and Hystematicall�- investigated necropolises
of Fintînele and P i:;; c olţ eame to ex ist at about that time. To the same
period are dated a eouple of graves at Archiud a8 well as the graves found
at Peeica, Arad, 'l'urdaş and other places. All the three groups that we
have :>stablished contain early finds (La Tene Bl and B 2 ) and remains
datec:l to the Middle La Tene period. Hence the conclusion that all these
three groups are, generally speaking, contemporaneous.
\Ve have already said th at Rome Celtic graves can be dated to the
La Tene El period and that the necropolises a t Fîntînele and Pişcolţ
came into existence at about the 8ame time. On 1he other hand, there are
other necropolises like those at Ciume:;; t i and Curtuiuşeni, whose begin
nings are dated to the encl of the earl�· plrnse, namely the La 'fene B2
sub-phase. This might lead t o the conclusion that the Celts settled down
on Transylvanian territory by stages in se vera! successive waves or through
subşequent movements within the same geographical area. The time lag
we have already mentioned and the existence of at least two stages in
whieh the Celts probably established themselves in Transylvania could
well be interpreted as clear archaeological corroboration of an ancient
souree. ·we learn from Trogus Pompeius (XXIY, 4, l 6) that some three
-
hundred thousaml Celts were forced to leave their homeland . Some of

them crossed into ltaly, conquered Rome and set it on fire ( an eYcnt
taking place somewhere around the year 390 B . C . ), others settled down
in Pannonia . The discoveries we referred to above ent itle u s to assume
that it was at this time or shortly after i.e . , during the first half of the 4th
cent ury that the Celts arrived in Transvlvania . The same author tells us
J
that " encouraged by their successes, the ' split into t wo group : one group
invaded Greece, the other Macedonia, laying everything waste in their
way " and that after the unhappy war waged against the city of Delphi
(in 279 - 278 B .C . ) some of thcm fled to Asia Minor, others to Thrace.
"l<�rom bere, taking the same road back, they headed northwards to their
own lands. One group put up at the confluence of Sava and the Danube
and found the name Scordisci very much to their liking" 4 7•
41 P. Reinecke. in .tE, X\' I I I, 1 898, p. :306ff . ; .J. :\-foreau, Die We/t der Kellen,
Stuttg:ut, 1 961. p. 36.
t7 Iustlnus, The Pro/ogue, XXIV, 4, 6, and XXXI I , 3, i - 8.
18
Celtic remains are not confined to Romania's intra-earpathian area
alone. They are pretty numerous especially in Oltenia where VI . Zirra 4 8
found some -10 such arcbaeologicaJ sites of which only two or tbree have
been investigated or checked by specialists, the rest being just occasional
finds. They are located in southwestern Oltenia which may have provided
shelter in 109 B .C. to the Celtic branch of Scordisci having crossed from
wbat is now Yugoslavia as a result of the actions taken against them by
tb e Roman gov ernor Minucius Rufus.
In \Yalacbia Celtic discoveries are few and could be found in the
Daco- Getic archaeological zones. Because of this they have been looked
upon, and rigbtly so, as import s.
A question much disputed j ust recently is the presencc of the Celtic
populations in the space ea st of the Carpatbians.
In bis fundamental work on the Celtic issue P. Heinecke show:'\
that the area of dissemination of the }Iiddle La Tene shrank in some
place,,; as it happened in eastern Italy while "extending itself further cast
ward ,,; as revealed by material evidence in the Eastern Carpathiam" 49•
Tbe presence of the Celts east of the Carpathians, in Moldavia, going a s
far as Olbia, i s maintained by ahnost all the modern authors having dcalt
witb the Celtic question, of whom we shall mention C . Jullian, li . Hubert ,
J. l\Ioreau . The Romanian historian and archaeologist V. Pâr rnu, taking
into account the data provided by Ptolemy (Geogr., III, 10, 7 ), localized
the Celtic tribe of the Britolagi or Britogalli in Moldavia. The Brit olagi
b ave been localized north of tbe Danube mouth by W. Tomaschek 50• Ea,,;t
of the Carpathians, in the Dniester and Prut basins, have also been lo
calized those :.:ettlement s bearing Celtic narnes like : Aliobrix, Maetoni
mn, VibantaY a rium, Eractmn, and listed by Ptolemy (Geogr. , III. 5, 1 5 ) 51
According to Va sile Pârvan, the Celts, in their eastward dr ivn
bad to put up with the Dacians' opposition and were forced, at least part
of them, to make a detour nortb of Dacia through the sub-Carpathian
Ukraine and sou 1 lwm Poland, heading along the Dniester valley and rven
further, towards the nortbern shores of the Black Sea. This is thought to
b a-ve happened around 300 B . C . when the Celts east of the Carpathians are
impposed to have brougbt the Skein'. and the Bastarnae along with them 52•
Tbe presence of the Celts east of thc Carpathians is evidenced archaeo
logically as well. To the archaeological discoveries known by P. Reinecke
we can add lot s of others among which the inburnation graves of the La
Tene B2 phase 5 3• The rnap of Celtic material dissernination in l\foldavia
point s to their presence both between the Carpathians and the Siret and
between thc Siret and the Prut . Being relatiYely few, we cannot speak
of a d efinit e group.
Celtic discoveries are not confincd to the territory of Moldavia alone .
Tbey can he found further east, reaching the Dnieper and even beyond.
4B Daria, 1 5 , 1 97 1 , pp. 222- 228. See also Z. \Y 6zniak, Wschodnic pogramic:e 1.:11/lury
Lale11skicu, \\" rol'law - \\"ursaw - Gclan s k . 1 9 7 4 , pp. 8Clff , who includes most of lhese
discovcries i n a group whieh h e calls Paclea-Panagjurski Kolonii.
49 Zur Kennlnis der La Tene-Denkmiiler <Ier Zone nordwiirls der ..! lpen, new edilion,
Bonn , 1 965, p . 99 and Note 34.
60 R /:", 3, J, Stut tgart, 1 897, col . 880.
u Y. l'ârnrn, Getica, index.
62 Ibidem, pp. G5 - M.
63 A. U1szl6, in Analele r..:n iv. laş i , 15, 1, 1 969, pp . 89 - 9 7 .
19
I. V. Kuharenko 54 recorded 137 such finds north and east of the Carpa
thians. They consist of bronze and iron fibulae belonging to the characteris
tic types of early and middle La Tene (La Tene B and C) as well as bronze
bracelets which are in their turn, dated to La Tene B2 . A close look at
the Soviet researcher's map indicates a cluster in the upper Dniester basin
and another in the middle Dnieper basin. We know of the existence in the
upper Dniester basin (Bovsiv, the lvano-Frankovsk region) 58 of a Celtic
settlement where wheel-made pottery dating from La Tene C was
uncovered. Since nothing else than pottery was found, any attempt at a
chronology would be rather hazardous.
With regard to the Celts' presence on )foldavian territory, the numiR
matic studies underta.ken by C. Preda on the Huşi-Vovrieşti type, dat ing
from the end of the 3rd century B .C. down to the middle of the next cen
tury, are of invaluable help. These support the idea of the Celts' presence
in Moldavia alongside the Bastarnae 56 • Finally, we also lean on the proofs
brought forward by toponymy ; although some place names got lost,
those along the Danube survived throughout the whole of Antiquity.
Thes(\ are Noviodunum (Isaccea, '!'ulcea county ) and Arubium (Măcin,
Tulcea county ) 5 7 • lt bas been maintained that these two toponyms might
originate in the influence exerted in Dobruja by the Celtic state of Tylis 58 •
D . �I. Pippidi shows, however, that we cannot speak of such an influence
north of the Balkans and that the t wo toponyms should be related to
the Celts ha ving arrived from the north 59•
The only conclusion that may be reached is that the presence o f
the Celtic element i n 1\foldavia i s strongly supported by both literary
and archaeological evidence. We certainly do not imply a settlement com
parable in intensity with that of Romania's intra-Carpathian space. This
confirms the thesis advanced by Vasile Pârvan that about 300 B.C. the
Geto-Dacians were surrounded by Celtic tribes 60 •
The Celts differ from the migrating peoples in that they are the bear
ers of the La Tene culture, their main pursuits being agriculture aud me
tallurgy, in spite of their being recruited as mercenaries to the Macedonian
kings Philip V and Perseus, as written sources relate. The Celts also differ
from the Germanic Bastarnae, whose economy was based mainly on cattle
raising, which explains their instability by contrast with the sedentary
Celts. We shall have to bear this in mind when seeking to find out what
happened on Dacian territory after the Celts settled down there.
3. Relations between the Celts and the Oaco-Gc tae
Few are the issues of R omanian ancient history shrouded in such obscurity
and so difficult to approach as the one concerning relations between the
Dacians and the Celts.
54 Sov. A.rh„ 1, 1 959. pp. 3 1 - 5 1 , Figs 1 - 2 .

55 L . I . Kruselnitskaja. in f{ S , 1 0 5 , 1965. pp. 1 1 9 - 122.
68 c . Preda, The Coins (in Ro m.) , pp. 1 1 1ff.
67 For Noviodun u m see. for instance, Ch. J. Guyonvarc'h, in Apulum, 12, 1974,
pp. 75 - 86.
5B C . .Jullian, Hisloire de la Gaule, I, :! , p . 303, 6lh edition ; H. Huber t , Les Ce/Ies, p. 52 ;
R. Vulpe, Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja , Buchares t , 1938, p. 84.
69 D . M. Pippidi, Contributions (in Rom. ) , pp. 2 1 5 - 21 6 , including the bibliography
of the question.
eo V. Pârvan, Getica , p. 65.
20
The almost complete absence of written sources can be only partially
compensated by the archaeological material available.
The Celts' penetration into the Dacian space was achieved sword
in hand. Evidence of this are the words of Trogus Pompeius from whom
we learn that : "The Gauls subjected the Pannonians and for a number of
years fought their neighbours in wars with changing odds" 61 • By the Pan
nonians' neighbours we must understand the Dacians în the first place.
The same can be inferred from the scores of hundreds of weapons found in
the graves unearthed by diggings or brought to light during agricultural
or public works. The number of the newcomers must have been pretty
large, judging by the existence of over 80 Transylvanian localities known
to us so far where the finds, unmistakably belonging to the Celts, contaiu,
within their radius, scores and even hundreds of graves.
The map we worked out shows, in addition to a number of Celtic
groupings more or less compact, wide areas where Celtic traces are extre
mely scarce or do not exist at all. In the Banat, for instance, we know of
only one small necropolis (Remetea Mare) anu of a few scattered disco
veries, the largest part of Crişana, except for its western side, falling out
side the Celtic occupation. The whole region of Hunedoara is also devoid
of Celtic remains, with the exception of several isolated items which seem
to indicate one of the Celts' roads of access to central Transylvania. There
are no Celtic finds in Maramureş either, and the same applies to eastern Tran
sy lvania as well. These territories were not occupied by the Celts, most
probably because the Daco-Getae succeeded în fighting them back and
preventiug them from settling down on their lands. These independent
zones most likely bred such chieftains as Oroles who, at about 200 B.C.,
checked the advance into Transylvania of other peoples like the Bastar
nae. vVe owe this piece of information to Trogus Pompeius. Iustinus'
summary tells us that the Dacians belong to the same people as the
Getae and that " at the time of king Oroles they [the Dacians] have un
successfully fought against the Bastarnae and because of that" they were ·
punished until " they wiped out the disgrace brought onto them in the
previous war " 6 2•
A comparison between the map showing the spread of Dacian coins
in Transylvania and the map of Celtic discoveries seems quite relevant .
The areas lacking in Celtic finds are overlapping the areas where most
Dacian coins were discovered 6 3 • Hence the only possible conclusion viz,
that these areas had never been occupied by the Celts. What happened
then to those areas that had fallen under the Celtic rule ? It stands to
reason that all territories rich in Celtic finds had also known the political
supremacy of the Celts.
The fact that the Dacians and the Celts lived together inside the Tran
sylvanian space is evidenced by the autochthonous graves uncovered in
the Celtic necropolises. At Ciumeşti ( Satu Mare county) the Dacian graves
could be differentiated from the Celtic ones both by the characteristic
6 1 Iustinus, XXIV, 4 , 5.
6 2 Trogus Pompeius - Iustinus, Epi/. , XXXI I , :J , 1 6 ; C. Daicoviciu , La Transylvanie,
pp. 4 5 - 46 ; idem , in Rom. Hisl . , I, p . 243.
s3
I . Winkler, in Numismatcky Sbornik, 5 , Prague, 1 958, pp. 5 - 4 3, in particular Figs
1-2 ; idem, in Acla MN, li, 1968, pp. 33 - 48 with map în Fig. 1 (p. 34) ; Acta 1'11N, 6,
1969, pp. 6î - 88 with map in Fig. 2 (p. 68) ; idem, in Robert Forrer, Keltische Numismalik
der Rhein- und Donauliinder, Band 2, Graz, 1969, map No. 1 0 , p. 5� (containlng the most
important cliscoveries).
21
potten· making up the funerary inventory and by ccrtain other partic ula
rit ieis of the funerarv rite itself. The fact that Dacians and Celts were buried
together in the same cemetery points out to someth ing more than a shared
living. It is the incontestable proof of a symbiosis of two ethnic elements,
a historical process presupposing a series of borrowings of materia l and
spiritual goods resulting in a strong reciproca! influence. Thus, after
approximately two centuries, the Celts were fully assimilated into the mass
of the autochthonous population, and hence, their influence as bearers
of the advanced La Tene culture hastened the enhancement of tbe
Daco- Getae's material c ulture as well as their socio-economic and
spiritual development.
The Celts, in their turn, took over many elements of Daco- Getic
culture which unfortunately are ven· difficult to identify.
The great number of spccifically Dacian Ya ses foun<l in the Celt i c
necropolises are eYident proof o f the mutual borrowings between the
two peoples. A large quantity of autochthonous pottery wa s uncoYere<l in
the necropoliR at Fînt înele, containing also the prototype immediately
preceding the Dacian cup .
The peaceful coexistence of the two ethnic elements, Celtic and Dacian,
is abundantly eYidenced by those settlements where Celtic and indige
nou s products are found side by side in the same dwelling. Among these
an important place is held by the Halh;tatt potten•. Judging by the t ype
of dwelling and the large quant ity of locally made pottery, these settle
ments were attributed to the native Dacian populat ion which had bor
rowed from the Celts many metal or ceramic object 8 of an evidently h igher
quality, all worked on the potter's wheel 64•
The Daco- Celtic :;vmbiosiis
" seems to have mat erialized also in the
language spoken by the Daco-Getao 6''. B. P. Hasdeu di:;t inguished be
tween t wo principal branches within the Thracian language : a northern
branch , which he called the Thraco-Dacian dialect , arnl a :·;outhern branch,
tbe Thraco-Epirote, which gaYe birth to the Albanian language 66 • In
making this dist inct ion between Thracian proper and the Dacian language,
Ha �deu had in mind first and foremost the Celtic elements.
"Although we cannot speak of a Thraco-Celt ic mixture, " f>ays C . Po
gh irc, " it must be stressed that there are man�· and important lexical
and somet imes phonetic concordallces between the Dacian in the fo·:;t
place a nd the Celtic languages, aud even between the Romanian phonetic
phenomena attributed to the substratum and similar facts in the modern
Celtic languages. " Celtic toponymf> were preserved within the Daco- Getic
space throughout the whole of Antiquity. According to C. Poghirc 67 ,
u I. H. Cri şan, !Jacian J l a l e ria/s (in Horn. ), pp. 4-trf.

65 For l h i s sec I. I. Russu , T/1c Languagc o( Ilic Tllraco-!Jacia11s (in Rom . ), 2nd eclilion,
B u cha r e s l , 1 96i, a l l bibliography included.
66 A bo u t B . P. Hasdeu ' s contribution to Lhc s l udy or thc Dacians' Janguagc ancl history
sce , for ins tan c e , I . J. Russu , A. u/ochlllonous elemenls in /he Romanian Language (in R o m . ) ,
Buchares t , 1 9i0 ; C. Poghirc, B. P. Hasdeu as Pllilologist and J.inguist ( i n Rom.), Bu charest,
1 968, pp. 1 66ff ; i d . , i n The llislor y o( the Romanian Language (in Rom . ) , voi. 2 , Bu charest,
1 969, pp. 313H ; i d . , in Linguistique Ba/J.:anique, 16, 2 , 1 97:i, pp. 85 - 98 ; I . H. Crişan, in
A nuarul Jnst. de ist. şi arheologie Cluj-1\'apoca, 20, 1 9i7.
67 B. P. Hasdeu as Linguist (in Rom.), pp. 1 8i - 1 88.
22
these are t o be found also within the intra-Carpathian space, as for instance,
Potaissa ( Turda at present ) with its correspondent Patavium in Cisal
pine Gaul.
The nati,·es� fruitful and effective coexistence with the Celts as
carriers of an advanced culture, produced under the impact of the Greco
Etruscan influences, apparently manifested itself at the same time with
the first signs of Celtic settlement in Transylv:rnia i.e., appro:ximately
during the .tth century B.C. From then onwards, we have the well-docu
mented certitude of a La Tene culture, evidently superior to the traditio
nal, local culture of the Hallstatt type.
4. \Vh e n can we speak of a Roman ian La T cne ?
The Daco- Getae's transition from the Hallstatt to the evidently superior
La Tene culture is one of the most important issues of the Romanian an
cient history. Its importance lies in its wide-ranging implications and con
sequences for the material, spiritual and socio-political development of
the Daco-Getae. Naturally enough, this issue was given great prominence
in the literature, without satisfying results or clarifications of its many
aspect s having been reached. Among the latter, a key place is held by that
of getting to know when and where it did happen and under what influences .
The opinion has been advanced that the transition t o the L a Tene
culture took place in a differentiated way with regard to both time and
intensity, that a so-called Histro-Pontic zone had reached a high levei of
culture much earlier due to the influences brought to bear by the south
Thracian culture in contrast with the inter-Carpathian space which had
lagged behind, embracing, as was only natural, the traditional culture of
the Hallstatt type. The transition to the La Tene culture in the Histro
Pontic zone is thought to have been prepared ever since the 6th century
B . C . , 'lvith the 5th century marking the very height of the La Tene 68 •
A close and thorough look at all archaeological discoveries leads to
a number of conclusions as to the beginnings of the La Tene period on
Romanian territory. One of these conclusions which has gained consider
ably more ground, would be that thelDaco- Getic society developed through
out its dissemination area in a unitary way without any lags or zones
where the process of transition to the La Time culture took place earlier
or later.
Another significant conclusion refers to the distinction that should
be made in connection with the origin of those peoples who develo� or to
be more precise, bring along with them a culture of the La Tene type.
The peoples we refer to are the Celts and the southern Thracians.
68 D. Berc i u , in Dacia N. S . , 1, 1957, pp. 1 3 3 - 1 42 ; idem, in SC/ li, 1 1 , 1960, pp. 26 1 -
283 ; idem, The Dawns of His/ory in /he Carpathians and o n the Danube (ln Rom.), Bucharest,
1966, pp. 287 - 302 ; Idem, Romania before Burebfsta, London, 1967, pp. 136 - 1 48 ; idem,
Thraco-Gelic Art (ln Rom.), Bucharest, 1969, pp. 1 0 - 13 ; C. Preda, in Materiale, ti , 1959 ,
pp. 251 -261 ; Materiale, 7, pp. 209 - 2 1 2 ; idem, ln Dacia N.S„ 3, 1959, pp. 1 79 - 1 94 ;
idem, in SCH', 1 1 , 1, 1960, pp. 25 - 3 6 ; SCI V, 2 1 , 4• 1970, pp. 571 - 578 ; R. Vulpe, in
Rom. Hisl„ I, 1960, p. 223 ; idem, in Dacia N. S. , "· 1960, p. 309 ; idem, Getic Settlements
(in Rom.), p. 1 i.
23
It is common knowledge that ever since the 5th century B.C. Celtic
culture displays the characteristic features of a La Tene type of cultnre
in the generally accepted meaning of the concept.
The southern Thracians in their turn developed, at about the same
ti.me, a La Tene type of culture under the direct impact of the Greeks who
had established themselves on their lands.
The presence of these two ethnic groups and the strong inftm.ences
exerted by them - and we have în mînd the southern Thracians in tJrn
first place - does not necessarily imply the immediate transition of the
autochthonous Daco- Getae to a superior culture of the La Tene type. It
must be emphasized that the presence of the La Tene culture on Romanian
territory is evidenced ever since the first half of the 4th century B.C. either
through the Celts, inside the arch of the Carpathians, or through the south
ern Thracians, in the Danubian area.
We can therefore speak of a La Tene culture în Transylvania in the
first half of the 4th centurv B.C. when the arrival of the first Celts is
archaeologically attested. oiice established on the territory of Dacia,
the Celts got assimilated into the mass of the autochthonous Daco- Getae,
without the latter necessarily acquiring a superior culture of the La Tene
type. The Dacians will continue to work their vases in the tradit ional
Hallstatt manner and the number of iron implements will still be
very small.
The same can be said about the Danubian area where the La Tene
type of culture is due to the southern Thracians as has been shown above.
Here, too, the La Tene culture was not acquired and generalized by the
Getic population in the 5th century B.C. Greek influences made themsel
ves felt în the vicinity of the Black Sea and în the Danubian area ever
sînce the arrival there of the Greek settlers (7th and 6th centuries B . C . )
a s a resuit o f trading transactions.
The process of Latenization of the Daco-Getic culture, started some
time in the first half of the 4th century B .C., was completed in the 2nd
century B.C. when the whole Daco-Getic civilization with its dual nature,
material and spiritual, reached the phase of its full maturity. It is about
that time that we can speak of the generalized use of iron implements and
of the presence of all those elements which are characteristic of the La
Tene culture. The lapse of t ime spanning the second half of the 4th century
and the whole of the 3rd century B.C. can be considered as the period
when the Daco- Getic La Tene took shape. Its beginnîngs cannot be put
earlier than approximately to 350 B.C. or even 300 B .C. despite the exis
tence before this obviously conventional date, of already numerous direct
and powerful înfluences exerted by the Greeks, the southern Thracians and
the Celts 69•
The early stages of the Daco-Getic La Tene can be chronologically
paralleled with the early phase of the La Tene of central and western
Europe, more precisely, with the La Tene B from Reinecke chronology,
69 Vasile Pârvan. in his Getica, pp. 460, 466, put lhe beglnning of the La 1"ene a t
around 300 B.C. , obviously a conventional dating ; Em. Condurachi, Influences grecques el
romaines dans Ies Balkans, en llongrie e l e n Pologne, in VIII• Congres lnlernalional d'Archeo
logie Classique , Rapporls el Communicalions, Paris, 1963, pp. 1 1 - 1 26 ; Idem, in SC/ V, 16,
1965, pp. 48 - 49 ; H . Daicoviciu, The Dacians (in Rom.), Bucharest, 1968, pp. 55 - 63 ;
ide m , Dacia , p. 10 ; R. Vulpe , in Historu of the Romanian People (in Rom.), edited by Acade
mician A. O ţetea, Bucl:larest, 1 970, p. 45 ; idem, Burebisla lhe Geta (in Rom.), p. 4 4 ; C . Dai
coviciu , Em. Condurachi, Roumanie, Ed. Nagel, Geneva, 1972, p. 83.
24
while the mature pha-se of the Daco-Getic civilization corresponds to the
La Time D from the chronology of the same German scholar 70 •
To sum up, we must by all means underline the fact that the Daco
Getic culture of the La Tene type jutted out from a vigorous Hallstatt
autochthonou s stern with roots going much deeper in time, to whi1;1h were
added several outside influences from very different directions. What
ever the latter's origin, Celtic, southern Thracian, or Greek, they failed
to turn the Daco- Getic culture into a La Tene culture proper. These many
foreign influences proved to be highly beneficia! at all levels in the sense
that they accelerated the development of the Daco- Getic culture. The one
and only determining factor remains the development of the internal
prt>ductive forces.
In spite of all the influences brought to bear upon it, the Daco
Getic culture of the La Tene type represents a separate entity in its own
righ t . It did emerge and manifest itself across a vast area between the
Carpa thians and the Danube, representing one of the most remarkable
cultures a t the periphery of the Roman world. As regards the comparison
between the Daco-GetiQ and the Celtic cultures, it must be said and empha
sized that although in the 4th century B .C. the Daco- Getae were still
ra ther poorly developed, after acquiring and generalizing the La Time
culture during the 3rd and 2nd centuries, their level of development could
match that of the Celts whom they even surpassed in more than one re
spect. This will have to be remembered whenever references are roade to
the Celtic world which Caesar depicted with enough details. Such compa
risons are intended to make it easier for us to understand the facts at the
time of Burebista. Caesar wrote about the war he had to fight against
the Celts, putting down in ·writing his whole experience on that occasion
just as Trajan, who defeated the Dacians, did later on, taking him, most
probably, for example. Unfortunately, the latter's writings failed to
reach down to us. Since neither the text of those who accompanied the
emperor in his Dacian wars is available, we shall have to confine oursel
ve:-i to the few writing:-i handed down to us and most particularly to t.lte
archaeological sources.
5. The Daco-Gctae at the end of the 2nd century B.C.
The large number of discoveries within the intra- and extra-Carpathian

space demonstrate that in the 2nd century B .C. and particularly in its
latter h.alf, iron had become a common means of production, being used
quite extensively. Furnaces for ore reduction, dating from earlier times
(4th - 3rd centuries B.C.), were found in Oltenia at Cireşu (Mehedinţ i
district ) 71• Their number grew considerably during the 2nd century,
being attested in Walachia wit.hin the radius of the capital city of Bucha
rest - at Bragadiru 72 and most particularly in Transylvania where
-
70 \Y. Kramer, in Germania, :JO, 1952, pp. 330 - 337 ; R. Pittioni, Beilrăge =ur lJrgeschichle
der I.andscha{l Burgenland, in Reichsgau Xiederdonau, Vienna, 1941, pp. 126ff ; Urgeschichle des
oslerreichiscl1en Raums. \'ienna, 1954 ; l\loberg, C. Aa. , When Did Laie La Tene Begin ? A S/udy
o{ /he Currenl Absolute Da/ing, in .4 cta Archaeologica , Copenhagen, 2 1 , 1950, pp. 83 - 1 36 ;
23, 1952, pp. 1 - 29 ; 25, 1954 , pp. 1 - 48 : W. Kramer, Manching . II, Zu den AusgrabungeH
in den .Jallren 1951 bis 1961, în Germ11nia , 40, 1962, pp. 29:3 - 31 7 ; G. Malu, in Berliner Beilriige
:ur \"or- und Friihgeschic/1/e , 12, 1 967, pp. 197ff.
71 E. Bujor, L. Roşu, in Rev. Mu:„ 4, 1968, pp. 307 - 309 ; SCH", 11, 1, 1960, p. 1 87 .
n :\1 . Turcu, in voi . I n memoriam Constanlini Daicoviciu , Cluj, 1 9 7 4 , p p . 389 - 393.
25
iron ore deposits were richer. Such furnaces were discovered also at Hezid
(l\Iureş eounty) 7 3 , at Doboşeni ;4 and Caşinul Nou ;s (Harghita county)
and at )foacşa (Covasna county ) i6 •
Traces of iron reduction processing as early as the 2nd centur:v B.O.
are found in several localities inside and outside the Carpathian arch such
as Teiu and Cetăţeni (Argeş county), Căţelu Nou (municipality of Bucha
rest ) and Botoşani 77• Such traces are quite frequent in the basin of Ciuc,
particularly l'ich in iron ore, at Cozmeni, Mădăraş, Păuleni-Ciuc, Tomeşti,
all in the county of Harghita 78•
The iron mines at Teliuc and Ghelar (Hunedoara county) have
apparently been exploited as early as the 2nd century B.C. The adrnnced
stage reached by the Daco- Getic iron workers is evidenced hy countless
implements 8pread throughout the settlements of the 2nd century B.C.
In the rich settlement at Poiana ( Galaţi count:v ), one of the most
thoroughly inYestigat ed Daco- Getic sites, the upper levels contain larger
quantities of iron implement s beginning with the 2nd century R.C. ;9•
W e could mention any of the Daco-Getic sites in Transylvania or outside
the Carpathian arch inhabited at the time, because each of them contains
plenty of iron implements of Yarious shapes and uses, either for agriculture
or handicrafts. To these, weapons aud sundn' objects must he added.
It is obvious that output in agriculture (one of the Daco-Getae's
chief pursuits) increased considerably after the introduction of these
iron implements. The plough with iron coulter and share is attested with
the Daco- Getae beginning with the 2nd century B.C. When we tackled
the plough question 80 we specified that the Dacian ploughshare \vas
different from the Celtic or the Roman one, and we favoured the hypothe
sis that it may have been introduced into our territory under the influence
of the Greeks. Further research conducted by Maria C icikova 81 showed
that the ploughshare we used to call Dacian was found in the area liYed
in by the southern Thracians ever since the first half of the 4th century
B.C. This spoon- shaped ploughshare may well have been taken oYer by
the Daco- Getae from the southern Thracians.
The ploughshare was not therefore taken over from the skilful
Celtic farmers but from the Thracians living south of the Danube to whom
we are indebted for other cultural elements as well. This constitute;; an
important differentiating element from the Celtic culture.
And yet, the iron implements used in farming are not confined to
those related to the plough. Sickles, scythes and hoes, all made of iron,
73 Z. Sze k c l y , in .Uateriale, 8, 1 962 , pp. 3:l6 - 3:l/, date lhem to the .Jth cenlury A.O. ;
ll. DaicoYicin, lJaci a , 2 : ! , p.l :i , has �hown, howeYer, Lhal lhey are of Dacian origin a n d belong
to the 2nd ccn l u ry .-\. D. Z. Szekely rcnounccd thc initial dating and a s a resuit cloes not
include ! he m a mong discovcries o f thc 4th century ln Aluta, 1, 1969, pp. 60 - 65.
74 Z . Szckely, i n .\laleriale , 5 , 1 959, pp. 231 a n d 23:! wilh plate I, 8. For t heir daling
t o the 2 n d centmv H . C. , sec l i . Daicoviciu, loc. cit.
;5 I'. J ânos : 1.;. Kovacs, i n Studii şi materiale, T g . l\Iureş, 2 , 1 9 6 7 , pp. -1 3 - 50 .
76 G . T<.'glas, in .AE, 7 , 1 887, p p . 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 ; S t . Fcrenczi , Geologica/ Uascs ()( /he Process
ing of Ferrous am/ .\"on-ferrous Ores iii Ilie Complex of" Dacian Fot/resses iii /he Orăştie Jlts.
(in Ro m . ) . Paper dclinred a t Caranse beş , 1 9 75 (manuscript).
77 'li. Turcu, op. cil. , p. :192 ; :'.'\. 'lla giar, St. Oltea n u , Frnm l/1e llis/i;ry o( J/i11i11g in
Roma11ia ( i n Horn.), Cluj, 1 9 10, pp. -1 3 - -1-1 .
;s S l . i:ercnczi , op. cil.
79 R . Vulpe, in SCJ 1·, J , 1 95 1 , p . 2m.
80 In s c 1 1 · . :! , 1 960, pp . 285 - 30 1 . Sce also I. G lollariu, :\I. Cimpea n u , in scn·, 1 7,
1966, pp. 1 9 - 32, who a d d new discoYeries.
s1 I n Apulum, 7, J , 1 968, pp. 1 1 8 - 1 22 .
.26
have aho been discovered, indicat ing that important progress had beeu
made in farming implements, a fact which made possible a substantial
rise in agricultural output.
There were, however, other iron tools which were not used in agri
culture. Large quantities of axes, hatchets, chisels, made of iron, are proof
of the development aud improvement of trades.
Also in the 2nd century B.C'. the potter's wheel goes into general
use aud potter y as trade will greatly expand. This is not the place to go
iuto further detail or to proceed with arguments based upon a thorough
examination of all the ceramic shapes spreading over the Balkan-Danu
bian area inhabited by the Daco-Getae. We shall take up very briefly
only the most important conclusions reached so far 8 2•
The appearance of the wheel-made pottery is not the immediate
effect of the arrival iuto the Daco- Getic space of the Greeks or the southeru
Thracians, or the Celts for that matter. This does not rule out the influence
that those peoples had upon pottery making with the Daco-Getae. The
earthenware made by the new technique is dated as early as the 3rd cen
tury B.C. and will go into general use in the 2nd century B . C. without,
however, amounting to an allout replacement of hand-made pottery.
Stratigraphic studies conducted in the settlement at Poiana clearly show
that the new processing technique was adopted by the indigenou s pot
ters in the 2nd century B.C. The hypothesis is being put forward that it
may h ave sporadically appeared even in the previous century 8 3• The new
techni que may have been taken over from the Greeks, the southern Thra
cians or the Celts, according to those geographical zones inhabited by the
Daco- Getae which we refer to.
\Ye owe an explanation for the rather late emergence of wheel
made pottery, given the fact that throughout the wide area lived in by
the D aco- Getae the latter had known and used manv centuries before this
kind of pottery produced b�' the Greeks, the south�rn Thracians and the
Celts. The answer must be �mught in the levei of development of the inter
nai pr oductive forces. Prior to the progress of the Daco- Getic productive
forces at a faster pace, the quan t i t y of wheel-made pottery of foreign origin
seemed to he sufficient. There was no need for an increased production of
pottcr y, and besides this could only have been achievt-d by the introduction
of the n ew processing technique. \Vhen this need arose, the new technical
procedure was soon acquired and, before long, the wheel-made pottery
went into general usc becoming a common good by the end of the 2nd
centu1T B.C.
v"Ve have insisted upon this wheel-made pottery sincr it is an indi
rect proof of the development of the productive forces aud an important
element marking the transition to the La Tene type of culture.
Vestige:;; brought to l ight in all the regions inhabited by the Daco
Getae (particularly during the last two decades ) attest the fact that at
the end of t he 2nd century B.C. the Daco- Getic culture had been fully
formed, containing all the characteristic features of the La Tene culture.
EY idences of the unity of the Daco-Getic culture of the 2nd century B . C .
which attained the maturity o f i t s forms b y the end o f the century,
are so eloquent that researchers are unanimous in recognizing it.
The rapid development of the productive forces brings about a
:-ubstantial rise in population, a fact convincingly evidenced by a compa-
>2 I . H. Crişan , Ceramica , pp. 65 - 1 50. Daco-Getic Pollery (in Rom.).
; a H. Y u lpe , in Dacia , N. S. , 1 , 1 9 5 7 , p. 156.
27
rative study of the map of Iocalities containing finds of Daco- Getic pottery8"
stretching along se•eral stages . The number of Transylvanian localities
where researchers unearthed. pottery dating from about the time of Bure
bista is almost equal to that of the present ones, although the size of
the population is quite different. The phenomenon we referred to is charac
teristic of the whole Carpatho-Danubian area inhabited by the Daco
Getae. Apart from the increasing number of such settlements during the
2nd century B.C., a numerica! rise îs noted in those human agglomerations
the Dacians called dava which will form the subject of a separate chapter.
It is at about this time that some of the most important extra-Carpathian
Daco-Getic settlements came into existence like those at Popeşti and Cetă
ţeni (Argeş county ) or Piatra Neamţ (Bîtca Doamnei).
Of the major sites in Transylvania whose early beginnings go back
to this time we shall mention now only those at Sighişoara, Pecica or
Piatra Craivii. For each of these regions scores of examples could be giYen.
We did not recall the fortified settlements lying within a restricted area in
the Orăş tie Mountains. More about them later.
Almost all the afore-mentioned settlements are fortified (largely
by natural means) and clustered together within a small area showing the
characteristics of what is usually called an oppidum. These have certainly
been mainly trading centres and possibly military, political and religious
sites of some tribes or tribal confederations, representing early beginnings
of towns the function of which they discharged. Such a conclusion is also
encouraged by the fact that the Greek authors writing about these terri
tories usually translate the word dava iuto polis, a term used for the urban
agglomerations of the Mediterranean world. The natural fortification of
some of the settlements was completed with vallums, moats, palisades and
sometimes, walls.
Attempts have been made to identify many of these settlements
which have preserved the ancient toponyms. In all the cases identifications
are of a purely hypothetical nature and will continue to be so until the
names are corroborated by a written source.
The La Tene period is also characterized by intensified imports and
trading transactions in general. A substantial rîse în the number and qua
l ity of imported goods from the Hellenistic, Roman and Celtic worlds is
clearly noted througbout tbe 2nd century B.C. 85• Some of tbese imports
could be reproduced by the Daco- Getae, an eloquent proof of their need
for such products. 'Ve bave in mind the imitations of slender vases with
relief motifs known under tbe name of Delian or Megarian bowls whose
ornaments are completed witb autochthonous motifs. An important
centre wbere such imitations, widely spread throughout the Daco- Getic
world, were produced was the settlement at Popeşti 86• Tbe Celtic cultura
knows of no sucb imitations of l\fogarian or Delian bowls, one more charac
teristic differentiating tbe two cultures.
An unquestionable proof of the intensified trade in commodîties is
supplied by the circulation of coîns. The development of the productive
forces will brîng in its wake a surplus of products wbich will be traded in
both tbe internai and the foreîgn 'market'.
s.i See in l h i s sense the maps drawn up h y n s for phase I , I I a n d I I I i n the C\"olution
of Daco-Getic pottery, Ceramica , plate X X V I I with XLV arid plate C X l l .
es I . G!odariu , Trude Rel11tions o f Dacia wilh /he Ilellenistic and Roman Worlds (in Rom.),
Onj , 1 9 7-l , pp. l 3 ff.
se H. Vulpe, Getic Sel/lements (ln Rom . ) , pp. :H - :-15.
23
As is known, the intensification of trading relations between the
Daco- Getic tribes and, later on, between them and the Greco-Macedonian
world, prompted the need for the Daco- Getae to mint their own coins.
The model taken by them was the coinage issued by Philip II and Alexan
der the Great, which they had used previously 8 7• Beginning with the latter
half of the 2nd century B.C. and the early part of the l st century RC.
an unusual increase in the circulat.ion of both Daco- Getic and foreign coi
nage is noticed. The coins issued by the Roman province of Macedonia
Prima, in the isle of Thasos or in such cities as Dyrrhachium and Apollo
nia, are in very large numbers, indicating a shift in the trading relations
of the Dacians, especially of those in Transylvania.
It is worth mentioning that the largest number aud types of Dacian
coins was found in the southeastern parts of Romania and that, signifi
cantly enough, on"' can easily note a continuity in theose coins minted early,
from the beginnings down to the l st century B.C. We know that this is the
very area lacking in Cf ltic finds which prov�s that these coin imitations
could have been made by no other than the native Dacia.ns. Towards the
middle of the 2nd century, the thriving minting workshops in the north
and west of Transylvania and in Molda.via will either disappear or become
less active. These are exactly the areas inhabited by the Celts. The disap
pearance of these monetary centres marks the end of theiI· politica! power.
Everything that bas been said so far points to a rapid and buoyant
economic upsurge all over the trrritories lived in by the Daco- Getae,
especially during the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. The development
of the productive forces, of commodity production and of trade, will
bring about sub8tantial changes in the production relations aud also a
clear-cut division of the Daco-Getic society into antagonistic clas>ies : the
exploiting rich and the exploited poor, the latter being dependent on the
former. The struggle between the two classes will push the Daco-Getic
society on to a superior organization, viz, the state. Started towards the
end of the Bronze Age, the breaking up of the primitive commune was now
reaching its climax.
The deep socio-political changes originating in the rapid develop
ment of the Daco- Getic society, beginning with the latter half of the 2nd
century B.C. accounts for the emergence, during the first decades of the
l st century, of the centralized state headed by a prominent figura : Bure
bista. Of course, the basic premise of this state resides in the socio-economic
development we have talked about.
It is a well-known fact that the Thracians living north of the Bal
kans, in the Carpatho-Danubian area, were divided, like all the other
Tbracian tribes, or Indo-European peoples, iuto a multitude of tribes,
eacb witb its own name. Tbe earliest b istoric references speak of the Getae
as tbe people inbabiting tbe area between the Haemus (tbe Balkan l\foun
tains), the Black Sea and tbe Danube as well as the t erritory on the left
bank of tbe lower Danube (Walachia, l\foldavia, etc . ). Tbe nortbern group
Jiving in the Carpathians and in Transylvania is referred to under tbe name
of Dacians. Ancient authors and inscriptions alike speali of the Dacia.ns
when they refer to tbe territory south of tbe Danube, and call the people
living inside tbe arch of tbe Carpatbians also Get ae. Hence the conclusion
that in tbe beginning these had been collect ive names of certains tribes
that expanded later on. Tbe significance and tho exact meaning of these
87 C . Pre da, T/1c Coins (in H o m . ) , p. -107ff, a l l l h c hibliography included.
29
two regional names is still obscure. Yet, it is quite obvious that the Getae
and the Dacians are inter-related, speak the same language, as indicated
by Strabo (VII, 3, 13 ), are of Thracian origin just like the Moesi, the Tri
balli, the Crobisci, a.o. north of the Haemus 88 •
Differences between the Dacians and the Getae stern from their
having lived in separate tribal formations for quite a long period of time.
The Celts, too, are attested by documents under the names of CeUae and
Galatae. In both cases the older forms of Getae and Celtae used bv Greek
writers will be superseded by those of Dacians and Gauls ( Galli) u sed
mainly by Latin language writers.
Since the exact significance of the names of Getae and Dacians is
unknown, and as these were geographical rather than ethnic differences,
it has been unanimously agreed that the native population of the larglj
geographical unit called Dacia should be called Geto-Dacians or Daco
Getae. These were divided just like the Celts into a great many tribes
speaking the same language, only with local variation�. The names of the
different tribes are only partially known from epigraphic sources. Not all
of these sources can boast full authenticity 89• What we know for certa.în
is tbat only a very small number of the names of Daco- Getic tribes was
handed down to us. As a reference point we may recall tbe existence of
approximately seventy-five Celtic tribes at tbe time of Caesar. These were
unitecl as a rule, into larger groupings under the leadership of a more power
ful tribe 90• The same process may have taken place with the Daco- Getae
as well. The absence of literary sources is, in our case, compensated by
numismatic discoveries which prove the existence, during the latter half
of the 2nd century B.C. and the early lst century B.C. of four distinct
zones of Daco-Getic coins, each one with its own particularities. These
coins were certainly minted by some powerful tribal confederations, the
fact having been demonstrated that the Daco- Getic coins had been used as
a means of exchange on the territory of individual tribes or tribal unions 91 .
Further discoveries and researches will bring additional knowl
edge as to the dissemination of certain coins, will possibly modify some of
our conclusions, or will pinpoint the location of new issuing centres. What
has been so far achieved is the clear knowledge of the existence of several
such centres, representing unions of larger tribes which coined tbeir own
money. Burebista wil1 not have to establish his supremacy over a multi
tude of separate tribes. He will achieve the unity of some already consti
tutecl politica! formations covering a wider area. This might explain the
short time in which this unity was achieved, a fact that could not but
amaze his contemporaries. The nucleus of Burebista's realm consisted,
in all probability, of those four large tribal confederations which fell apart
after the death of its founder 92•
ss Abo u t the Daco - G et a e sec, for inslancc, \V. Tomaschek, Die allen Thraker. E inP.
e//1riologische Unters11chung, I - I I , in Sil:ungsberic/1/e phil.-his/. Cl„ t. 1 28 , 1 30, 1 3 1 , Vicnna,
1 893 - 1 894 ; Weiss s.v. Ge/ae, i n RE, V I I , 1 9 1 0 , 1 3 30 - 1 33 4 ; Brandis s . \'. Dacia, in RE,
IV, 1 90 1 , 1 94 8 - 1976 ; Gr. G . Tocilescu, Dacia before /he Romans (in Rom.), Buchares t , 1 880 ;
V. Pârva n , Getica ; C. Daicoviciu , in Rom. I/isl. , I , pp. 257 - 268 ; I . I. Russu, The Languaqe
of /he Tliraco-Dacians (in Rom. ), 2nd cdition, Bucharest, 1967, pp. 3 3 - 36. \Yc u s e the name
of Daco-Getae, Dacians or Getae in the seuse indicated.
89 I. I. Russu, in A H�. 11, Cluj , 1 947, pp. 398 - 40 - L
90 8. Lambrechts, Geschichle des Weslkellenlums und der Ibcrer, in \"O l . Abriss der Geschichle
anlikcr Randkulluren , :\Iuniei!, 1 9 6 1 , pp. 2 H.
91 C. Preda , T h e Coins (in Rom. ), pp. 430ff.
92 R. Vulpe, Bllrebisla /he Geta (in Rom)„ p . 46.
30
C hapter II
EXTERNA L PREM ISES
I. The Roman cxpa11sion i 1 1 l h e /]aiJ,:1111 prninsu/a a11c! i11 lhc Easl. 2. 1'/1e
• Barbaricurn' on Dacia's boundarics. .1. Sr.cia/ uphcava/s in Rome.
1 . The Roman expansion i n the Balcan

pen i nsula and in thc East
The history of the Daco-Gctae is closely connecte�l with the Carpatho

Danubian space lying between the middle course of the Danube, the
Balkan Mts. and the western coast of the Black Sea. This territon- held
an important place in the ancient history of Europe and bad on many ·
occasions been tbe target of the expansion of great powers from both
Europe and Asia. Tbe reference to the Daco- Getae in written source:'l is
practically related to such events. About tbe year 514 B.C. Dariu:-;, :-;on
of Hystaspes, who had extended and strengthened his empire, declared
war on tbe Scytbians. The Persian king was unsuccessfully opposed by
the Getae, "the bravest and the fairest of the Tbracians" as they are
characterized by Herodotm (IV, 93 ). Tbe expedition of the great king
against tbe Scythians pushed the frontiers of the Achemenides' empire
11p to the Danube only in name because its actual border was confined
solely to the Aegeic coast of Thrace alone 93•
In tbe 4tb centur�· B.C. :Macedonia will rise first during Philip 11
and then under the reign of hi8 son , Alexander the Great 94• At thf tune of
Philip II, the Scythians launcbed lheir great expedition into the Balkans,
being led by king Ateas. The adnnce of the latter was checked on hoth
sides of the Danube by the Getae under the leadership of an anonymous
re.r Histrianormn 95• Following the annexation of the south-Thracian
kingdom of the Odrysae an<l the defeat of the Scythians, the Macedonian
front ier rearhed the Danube.
Alexander the Great met with serious difficuh ies a t the hands of
the Getae north of the Danube when he crossed the river in 355 B . l' . in
an attempt to bring to his beel the Triballi whom his father had failed to
overcome. Later on, one of his generals, Zopyron, perished together with
bis 30,000 soldiers in the battles against the Getae 91; .
The great empire founded by Alexa nder the Great was nothing eh;e
than a short-lived and non-viable military union which fell to pieces on
93 P. Alexandrescu, i1: sc1 1 · . 7, :J-- 1 , 1 95 6 , pp. :3 19 - :1 12 , with a comprehcnsi\·c
bibliography on the l i m i t s of thc Persia n powcr in thc Balka : i 1w 1 1 i t1su la .
94 Sec, in addl tlon to general trcatisC's : l ' . Wilc-kcn , .He.rander cler (jrosse , Lei p z i g , 1 9:.ll ;
G. Glolz, P. Roussc l , H. Co hen , . \ lc.rnndrc ci ' " dcmcmbremcnl de so11 l:'mpil c , I aris, t 9:l8.
os Iuslinus. I X , 2- :l.
06. ,\ r
ria n , . \ 11a/1asis„ 1 , :i - f .
31
tbe death of its brillia.nt architect 97, following the fierce struggles wa.ged
between his successors. The conflicts between the Diadochi took, in most
of the cases, very violent forms and finally led to the emergence of the Hel
lenistic states 98• Those which sought to extend their boundaries over the
Daco- Getae's land had to put up with the fierce opposition of its inhabi
tants. That was the case of Alexander the Grea.t's former general, Lysi
machus, by then king of Thrace 99, who was defeated by Dromichae tes
sometime about 300 B . C.
The Daco- Getae would resist the Roman expansion just as they
opposed all those who had attempted to encroach upon their territories.
At the time when Burebista rose at the head of bis people, the Romau
aquilae were still far away and the targets of Rome's conquering ambitions
lay elsewhere. If we add to this the extremelv serious internai conflicts
stemming from the unreconcilable contradictions besetting Roman society,
we shall better understand how the emergence of such a powerful figura
like Burebista was possible. Here are some of the most significant externai
conditions which enabled Burebista to deploy h is armies from one end of
the Carpatho-Danubian space to another, to draw together under his sceptre
all the Daco- Getic tribes, and to establish their supremacy over all those
peoples that had intruded upon their lands. As soon as Rome became a
great power it turned its attention upon him.
By fighting innumerable battles both in the east and the west, Rome
had set up the largest slave-owning state in the Mediterranean world. The
creation of the vast Roman empire was not the outcome of a carefully
designed plan, but a stagewise process.
The Roman conquests, which gradually led to the emergence of the
empire, were soon to affect the Balkan peninsula as well. The first Roman
troops arrived on the Illyrian coast of the Adriatic as early as the end
of the 3rd century B.C. The cause of the first Roman conquests in the
Balkans was the conflict with the Illyrians of queen Teuta, who were
nccused of having hampered the Roman merchants' activity in the waters
of the Adriatic (229 - 228 B.C. ) 1 00 • The Balkan peninsula again witness
ed :Macedonia's revival under Philip V who had conquered the thriving
Greek cit.ies on the Aegean Sea, those of Thrace as well as those of Asia
Minor which had been previously ruled by the Hellenistic kingdom o f
Egypt.
This sweeping rise and consolidation of Macedonia could hardly
be to the Romans' liking. The pretext for intervention was the request for
assistance put out by Egypt, Pergamon and Rhodes. The Roman armies
led by proconsul C. Quintius Flaminius defeated Philip in the battle of Cynos
cephalae (197 B.C. ) Macedonia was completely overcome at the time of
Perseus, son of Philip V, following the battle of Pydna (168 B.C. ), and
turned into a Roman province ia 48 B . C.
97 U. Wilcken , Alexander der Grosse , Leipzig, 1931 ; G. Gtolz, P. Roussel, R. Cohen, op.
cil. ( G . Glotz, Hisloire generale) ; K . K . Zelin, i n Istoria Universală (Unh·ersal History), 2 ,
Buchares t , 1959, pp. 206 - 21 3 ; W . W . Tarn, A le:rander /he Greai, I I , Sources and Studies,
Oxford, 1950.
98 i\I. I. R ostovtzeff, The Social and Economic Hislory of /he Hellenislic \\"arid , 3 vots . ,
Oxford , 1941 ; W . W . Tarn, The Hellenislic Civili:alion, Oxferd, 1926 ; A . B . Ranovici, Hellenism
and /fa Hisloric Role (in Russian) , Buchares t , 1953 ; A. J. Toynbee, llellenism; /he Hislory of
a Uvilization , Oxford, 1 959 ; Hellenislic Civili:alion (in Rom.), Buchnrest, 1974.
99 Diodorus, X X I , 12.
1 oo M . Holleaux, Rome, la Grece el Les monarchies hellei:iisliqwes au II I• siecle , Paris,
1 92 1 , p. 74 ; D. M. Plppldi, in From /he Hislory of Dobruja (in Ro111 . ) , I, 1965, p. 273.
32
After Macedonia came Greece, whose independence was swept off
in 146 B.C. From then onwards the Roman expansion entered a new phase
during which time the rich Hellenistic kingdoms of the east were conque
red. Evidence of this state of affairs and of the fact that Rome's expansio
nist policy aimed in other directions are the northern territories of the
Balkan peninsula which were brought to heel by the Romans much later.
The province of l\Ioesia came into existence as late as the year A.D. 15
and Pannonia in A.D. 8 1 01 • In addition to this, the northern and western
part;; of Macedonia were inhabited by 'barbarian' tribes which would
relentle8sly attack the new province (we shall soon see that), but which
were not organized into a large politica! formation eapable to represent
a real threat to the R oman state. During the latter half of the 2nd century
B.C. and the early part of the lst century the Romans were concerned
mainh· with the east.
khereas in 188 B.C. a grip of the Roman power on Asia Minor
wa s still premature, after the conquest of Macedonia and the submission
of continental Greece in 130 B.C. it became a reality with the kingdom
of Pergamon being turned into the province of Asia. The Pergamon, one of
the largest Hellenistic states in Asia Minor, was bequeathed to the R o
mans by king Attalus III. There was in Asia l\Iinor a power in ascendancy
i.e. , the kingdom of Pontus, constituted at the end of the 4th century
B .C'. which would give the R omans a lot of trouble. The founder of the
Pontus dynasty was Mithradates, the successor of an Iranian aristrocratic
family having pursued a Hellenization policy in the country. The rise
and affirmation of Pontus hegan with Pharnaces I (183 - 1 70 B . C . ) , a
dangerou s enemy of the R omam, and particularly so , after the accession
to the throne of l\Iithradates YI Eupator ( 1 1 1 - 63 B . C . ) 1°2, who managed
t o set up a real anti-Roman coallition b�- winning over to his side the sta
t es north of the Black Sea and b:v concluding an alliance with Olbia and
C'hersone:,;e, two large Greek city-states. l\Iitbradates' alliances includ ed
also the 'barbarian' populations living north of the Black Sea. T h e
conquest of Rosporus brought important incomes to tbe king o f Pontus,
enabling bim to raise a powerful army. At the head of this army, l\Iithra
dates overcame Armenia l\Iinor which he annexed to his kindgom, aud
after that, Colch is, on the eastern coast of tbe Black Sea.
l\Iithradat es' policy aimed at strengthening his realm and winning
new allie8, was c;arried over to the western coast of the Black Sea which
waf.: inhabited by Daco- Getae when Burebista was already well known.
Although tbis issue will be discussed again later on, we must recall here
and now that the Greek cities of Histria, Callatis and Apollonia were
either controlled by or allied with the king of Pontus 1 0 3• In this manner,
Mithracla tes was able to raise against Rome all the populations living around
the Black Sea with the exception of Bithynia which would remain the
faithful ally of R ome 10 4• But let us go back to l\Iithradates.
10 1 '.\ I. Fluss , i n IU:, 1 .; , 1 93 2 , 2350 - 24 1 2 ; C. Patsch, Beilriige zur \."i:ilkerkunde vo11
Siidosteuropa, \', 2. /Jer l\.ampf um den Donauraum unter Domilian und Traja11, Sitzber.
Akad. Yienna , 2 1 4 , 1 9:i2 , p. 2 1 7 ; A. M6csy, s . v . Pannonia , i n RE, Supp l . IX, 1962, pp. 5 1 5 -
776 ; idem , Gesellsclwft und Romanisalion i n der r i:imisclien Provi n : Jloesia Superior, Budapes t ,
1 970 ; E m . Doru ! i u - Boilă , Dictionary ( i n Ro m . ) , p p . 397 - 40 1 .
1 02 Th. Reinaci., Millll"idale Eupalor roi d u Pon t , Paris, 1 890 ; D . l\ 1 . Pippidi, Conlri
/111/ions (in Rom . ) , p. 221 .
103 An inscription in Apollonia ( I . G. B . , I, 392) indicates tha t 011 the lJasis of 'symmahia'
a garrison of Mithradates was camped i n the city.
10� E u tropius, V, 5 .
3 c. 1 702
-
33
His internai policy , particularly în the Greek city-states, was charac
t erized by large- scale social reforms, cancellation of debts, redistribution
of lands, freedom for great numbers of slaves, which caused the well-off
population to want the return of the Roman rule. Bere we must add the
various oppressive measures enforced by Mithradates upon the Greek
cities which were more of a burden than those im.posed by the Romans.
Concomitantly with the first successes scored by the army led by Sulla,
a series of pro-Roman revolts took place as well. The peace between Mi
thradates and the R omans was concluded în the year 85 B.C. at Dardanos.
Under the agreement Mithradates was obliged to give up all the territo
ries conquered by him în Asia Minor, to pay a huge suro of money as war
reparations, and to t urn over his whole fleet. He got în exchange the title
of 'friend and ally of the R oman people'. True, Mithradates was defeated ,
but he never turned into a friend and ally of the Romans, although he
had to accept the t itle. The fight agaînst him contînued în a number of
wars wbich will be dealt with later.
2. The 'Barbaricum' on Dac ia' s boundaries
We haYe reached the point ·where Lucius Cornelius Sulla succeeded by

means of a coup, to come to power în Rome, and Burebista entered the stage
of history. Before setting out to examine the part played by Burebista.
throughout his long reign, we shall remaîn a little longer with tbe tribe:;
in the Balkan peninsula and around the Daco- Getic boundaries. Literary
somces are rather reticent on these 'barbarians". They mention mainly
their înroads int o the territories newly acquired by Rome. \Ve are told
that the Romans had to fight against such war-like populatiom as the
lllyrians, the Celt s, the Bastarnae, the Thracians and the Daco- Getae.
The R oman advance came up against these peoples who would stubbornly
defend their land and make repeated inroads into Macedonia. These inroads
were maînly of a predatory nature, specific to the_ latter phase of the pri
mitive commune. Even before the creation of the Roman proYînce, în
182 B.C. Philip V of }facedonia called the Bastarnae to his assistance.
The :Macedonian king asked for this assistance against the Dardani and
the R omans. It seems that the Bastarnae, together with the Celts and
possibly the Dacians, called in as mercenaries, started from somewhere
in what is now )foldavia and cro ssed the Danube iuto Dobruj an t erritory.
From there they went round the Balkans, through Apollonia aud }Ie-,mn
bria, and finally got into }facedonia. Perseus, son of the Macedonian king,
would h imself ask for help from north of the Danube în bis battle against
the Romans. This help is put at some 10,000 mounted troops and an equal
number of foot soldiers. About the origin of those arrived to support Per
seus, ancient authors do not agree. Some call them Galli ( Gaub ) or
Gallati, that is Celts, others refer to them as Bastarnae, while _.\.ppian 1°"
calls them Getae. It probably was the case, as earlier, at the t iine of Ph.i
Jip V and after him, of coallitions of Bastarnae, Celts and Getae.
An incursion south of the Danube by the Bastarnae, this time to
gether with the Thracians aud the Scordisci, is reported by Tit.nil LiYius
(Periochae, XLI, 19, 7 8) as having taken place at 179 B.C. \Ye learn
-
1 os Jlacedonica, I X , 1 6 , 1 - 2 .
34
from h iin that in collusion with the Scordisci and Thracians, the Bastarnae
attacked the Illyrian Dardani, with the resuit that the latter called
in the Romans to assist them. lt is very likely that the appelation of
Thracians could have been given to the Daco- Getae, the Thracian neigh
boms of the Dardani south of the Danube.
During the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. the Sarmatians, belong
ing t o the same large west Iranian group of populations as the Scythians,
settled east of the Bastarnae. Beginning with the latter half of the 4th
century B.C. while heading west of the Don (Tanais) they dislodged the
Scythians. At the tiine of Herodotus, the Sarmatians' westernmost border
was the Don. In the peace treaty concluded in 179 B .C. between Phar
naces I, king of Pontus, and the kings of Pergamum, Bithynia and Cappa
docia, mention is made of a Sarmatian king named Galatos who ruled over
the territory between the Dnieper and the Don (Polynius 26, 6, 13 ). The
Sarmatians would advance into the north-Pontic regions, dislodging and
assimilating the Scythians, supplanting the military and political supre
macy of the latter. According to Strabo (VII, 3, 1 7 ) the Sarmatians had
reached the borders of the Daco-Getic lands about the vear 100 B.C.
R eferring to the populations living on the northern coast of the Black Sea,
Strabo shmvs that between the Danube and the Dnieper lies first the
Getae's plain (the Bugeac), further on, the land of the Tyragetae and
bevond it live the Sarmatians. The Sarmatians' westward advance
into Daco- Getic territories was repelled by Burebista 1 06 when his rea.Im
extended as far as Olbia.
Celtic tribes had arrived into the northwestern and western parts of
the Carpatho-Danubian space already in the middle of the 4th century
B.C. and particulari�- at the beginning of the 3rd. These were the Roii,
Taurisci and Anarti who were either driven off or overcome by Burebista.
Another Celtic tribe, the Scordisci, had settled on the territory of
wha t is now Yugoslavia, approximately in the area where the Sava meets
the Danube. The time and circumstanceR of their settlement are related
in In;;t inu,;; ' summary of Trogus Pompeius. \Ve are told 1 07 that "Philip
Y turned the Gaulish Scordisci iuto bis allies and had he not <lied, the
Romans would have got involved into a difficult war. After haviug fought
an unlucky war agaiust the city of Delph i when God, beiug more powerful
than the enemy, the Gauls lost their commander Brennus, and were driven
off and fled, some of them to Asia, others to Thrace. From there they
headed back into their homeland, taking the same roads they had used
on coming. Oue group settled at the confluence of the Sava and the Danube
aud took on the name of Scordisci". When mentiouing the warlike actious
of the Sc ordisci iu the first half of the 2ud ceutury B.C., literary sources
refer to them alougside the Bastaruae 1 08 • Aloue or iu associatiou with
other peoples, they would plague the province of l\Iacedouia for a long tirne .
Only uiue years after the settiug up of Rome's admiuistratiou iu Macedo
nia, in 13 7 B.C., a Roman army was defeated by the Scordisci. Similar
106 R. \\-erner. i n \'O l . .-1.briss der Gesclzichle a nliker Randl.-ulluren, :\Iunich. 1 9 6 1 , p . 138 ;
l ::-Iestor. in R'ml. Tlisl„ (in Rom.)," I, 1 9 60. p p . 6 7 1 - 682 a n d Gh. Bichir, in Pe11ce, 1 , Tulcea,
19/U : id�m. i n ..\.clcs du \'fli" Co11gr. Inl. d . scienccs pre- el pmlolzisloriq11es, 1 , Belgrade, 1 97 1 ,
pP· :.!/3 - 2 8 5 .
101 1'he Ilislory of Philip ( i n Rom.), XXX I I , 3 . 5 .
lOd G . Zipp � I. D i e romiscile Herrsclzafl i n Illyrien bis au{ .'\ ug11sl11s, Leipzig, 1 877, pp.
45ff. ; \'. Pan·:.m. Getica, p p . 73 - 7î : R . \'ulpe, in .-1.ctes, 2. Sofia, 1 969, p p . 33 - 34.
35
attacks followed in a row, but only the must important oneR are recorued
by a.ncient h istoriography. Such an attack is known to have been launched
in the year 135 B.C., another one being out at 117 B.C. The attempted
counter-attack by the governor of Macedonia, O. Porcius Cato in 114 B.C.,
ended in complete failure. Following the defeat of the governor's army,
the Celtic Scordisci raided not only Macedonia, but also the Roman pos
sessions on Illyrian territory down to the Adriatic coast. This situation
compelled the Romans to step up their offensive in the Balkans. The
first victory was obtained in 112 B.C. by M. Livius Drusus who succeeded
in imposing peace on the Scordisci and the other tribes having j oined them
in their raids against Roman Macedonia. The peace was short-lived aud
the same governor had to fight the Thracians.
A.ccording to Frontinus ( Strat. , II, 4, 3 ) the governor of l\Iacedonia.
Marcus Minucius Rufus, was "squeezed between the Scordisci and the
Dacians who were more numerou s". This happened in the years 1 09 -
106 B.C. The same governor had to fight back the Bessi as well as
other peoples of Thrace. A Delph i inscription tells us that Marcus Minu
cius Rufus was given a triumph following these victorious battles spanning
two whole years against the Gaulish Scordisci, Bessi and other tribes 109•
In 97 B . C . , the .Moesi from the Strymon valley, and the Dardani
from the .Morava, again attacked Macedonia, reaching down to Epirus
where they looted the sanctuary of Dodona.
Throughout the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. and the early
l st century, the R omam; would fight the free populations of the Balkan
peninsula. They tried to check the advance of the 'barbarian' tribes into
the territory of Macedonia, sometimes pursuing them deep into their native
1 ands. This happened again in the years 74 aud 73 B.C.
During the first half of the lst century B.C. , the Romans h ad to
face the difficult situation created as a result of the rise of l\Iithradates
VI Eupator, king of Pontus aud Bosporus. He was the number one enemy
of Rome in its drive on the East. The wars waged by the Romans against
l\fithradates have undoubtedly helped the rise of Burebista. The Roman
armies were still far from the borders of Dacia, in Macedonia, engrossed
in the wars against l\fithradates, the only real danger for the Romans in
this part of the world.
The situation was rendered worse by the serious internal upheavals
besetting Rome in the first half of the l st century B.C. and Burebista
knew how to make the most of it.
3. Soc ial u phea va l s in Rome
When Sulla <lefeated )lithraclates VI, king of Pontus and Bosporus,

and brought back peace in the East, he could not think of pushing Rome's
boundaries into the Balkan peninsula. He was impeded to do this by the
unstable situation in Rome which was traversililg the most difficult period
in its history 110 .
1 09 T. Sa ra fo v , Les Besses el Rome, in A.cles, Sofia, 1 969, p. 1 43.

no K . :\larx and F. Engels, Selecled Works i n Two Vo/umes (i n Rom.), voi. 1. Bu drnrest,
1 955, p. 2.J6.
3i
During the battle between patricians and plebeians two large oppo
sing groupings had emerged. One of these, the optimates, consisted mainly
of the �enatorial aristocracy which had its vested interest in maintaining
its former privileges and was, naturally enough, fiercely opposed to any
attemp1 s at democratic reforms in the leadership of the state. The popu-
1ares, the other large politica! grouping, was fighting for changes ii::t the
state leadership, for privileges and for the broadest possible participation
in the leadership and administration of the state. During the first half of
the l st century B . C . , the fight between the optimates and the populares
turned into a violent civil war. The populares were led by Marius and the
optimates by Sulla. The fierce battle between the two ended in the vic
torv of the latter who was named dictator for life. The institution of dic
t at orship was the only solution by which the conflict could be resolved m.
After :Marius' defeat and the accession of Sulla to supreme power,
the optimates thought they had won the struggle once and for all. But to
the amazement of bis contemporaries and the historians of the time Sulla
l eft the politica! scene while still at the height of bis power. Following
bis d eath, soon after his abdication, the popular forces would continue
the struggle, this time more successfully under the leadership of Caesar.
A new bloody civil war ensued to which we shall duly refer when speaking
of Burebista. Rome's internai conditions added to the general externai
situation made possible the rise of a great power at the periphery of the
Roman world and, a t the same time formed one of the externai premises
that favoured the emergence of 'the first and the greatest of the Thracian
k ings'.
111 Th. :\fommsen, R omische Geschichte, 1 1. 2, Berlin, 1933, p. 364ff. ; J. Carceplno,

Jlislt1ire ancienne, llisloire romaine, li, Paris, 1 935. pp. 389 - 488.
Chapter III
T HE FIRST ANO THE GREA TEST

OF THE THR A CIAN KINGS
1 . Burebista 's personalily. 2. Tlre namc. 3. The beginninr; o( his reign.

4 . T!rc capital (?) . .; . Tlre origin.
1 . Burebista's perso n a l i t y
After having reviewed the internai and externai conditions th at made

it possible for Burebista to emerge and assert himself, it would be only
natural to proceed by presenting his biography, his physical and moral
trait s.
It is verv unfortunate that the documents available to researchers
today fail to throw any light on the real physical and moral dimensions
of this outstanding figure. Burebista's achievements are the only th ings
known to us and they were, indeed, quite exceptional.
Assuming, while keeping all proportions, that we had no literary
source describing aud presenting Alexander of Macedonia, wouldn't
we still consider him a unique figure, a genius even, j udging by the vast
empire he had built ? It is in this light, without recourse to any direct
historical description, that we shall attempt to outline Burebista's spiri
tual profite. This is o bviously the most important thing in the case of an
active historical figure e \'en when the man is seen through the outcome:'l
of his actions alone . Burebista's amazing aud wonderful achievements
are known to us from direct sources. It would certainlv be of in terest to
know how this man of unusual energy, will and strength looked like. The
king's figure failed to become a model for the artists of the time. 'Ve could
have seen his effigy on coins had not the denarii of the Roman republic
been the onlv source of imitation.
It has been suggested that the male figure represented on the guil
ded- silver phalaera-shaped fibulae of the treasure discovered in Bucha
rest (Herăstrău ) would feature B urebista112 • The sam0 figure is to be
found on other Dacian silver fibulae like those unearthed at Vălenii de
:'.\fonte 113 aud Coada Malului (Prahova county) or Bălăneşti ( Olt county) 1 u .
The silver fibulae uncovered at Bălăneşti, together with other adorn
ments made of the same metal, were part of the funerary inventory of
a grave. 'Ve believe them to have belonged to some Getic chieftains,
although the human figure represented on the Bălăneşti fibulae was attri
buted, judging by the hairstyle, to a woman identified as Goddess Bendis.
It so happened that similar representations were attributed to both
the Goddess Bendis and king Rurebista. In both cases these are mere
1 1 2 Dorin Popescu , in Studii şi referate, p. 102.

11 3 K. Horedt. in Dacia, 11 - 1 2 . 1 9 .t.'i - 1 9.! 7 , p . 267, Fig. 3.
11 4 E . Popescu. in Studii şi Comunicliri. P i teşti, 2 , 1 969. pp. 109 - 1 1 1} .
38
assumptions which can only be corroborated by eventually conclusive
d i scoveries. One thing i:;; , however, certain : tbat sucb representations are
extremely rare, in fact quite exceptional, in tbe wbole of tbe Daco- Getic
world. As regards tbe subject of tbe aforementioned fibulae, we are incli
ned to believe tbat the ornamental motif is of a more antbropomorpbic
cb aracter. The artist - and we know it is tbe work of an artist, not of an
ord inary craftsman - mav bave bad as model one of bis fellowmen.
Tbe weapons represented on tbe pbalaera-sbaped fibulae found in Bucba
rest (Herăstrău ) could well indicate a warrior, a Daco- Getic cbieftain, or
a god, possibly tbe god of war. It is difficult to believe tbat tbe king served
as model for tbe bust represented on these silver fibulae.
Strabo is tbe onlv· ancient wri ter wbo tells us m ore about Burebista.
Tbe Greek geograpber was born in Ama sya in Pontus in 64/63 B.C. and
died in A . D . 21 being contemporary w itb tbe great king. Bis main work
entitled " Geograpbia", wbicb was completed in tbe year preceding bis
d eatb is, indeed, the most comprehensive and autboritat ive work of
its kind ever written in Antiquity 115 •
Strabo 's narrative about tbe land we are concerned witb is extre
mely valuable and reliable. He m·ites about Burebista (VII, 3, 11 C. 303 ) :
"Leaving aside the distant past of the Getae the happenings of our
time are the following : Having become the leader of bis people, exhausted
by frequent wars, tbe Geta Boerebistas raised it so much through drilling,
abstention from wine and obedience to orders, that he acbieved a powerful
i,;t ate within a few years and subjected to tbe Getae the bulk of tbe neigh
bouring populations, coming to be feared by tbe Romans themselves
because he crossed the Istros, raiding Tbrace down to Macedonia and
Illyria, exterminating tbe Celts wbo bad mixed witb tbe Thracians aud
Illyrians as well as the Boii led by Crisasiros and tbe Taurisci. In orde� to
conv;nce bis people he secured the assistance of Deceneus, a wizard who
bad travelled extensively tbrougb Egypt where he bad learned tbe pro
phet s ' signs wbicb belped bim interpret tbe will of tbe gods. After a time,
he was t hought to be a god bimself, as I have said when speaking about
Zalmoxi s. Tbey (the G etae) obeyed him so mucb tbat they even lived with
out wine. As for Burebist a, he came to be overthrown by some rebels
before tbe Romans sent their armies against him. Bis successors divided bis
realm into several parts. "\Vhen Caesar Augustu s recently sent bis army
against them, t h e realm was divided into five parts, but previously there
b ad been four, because such partitions are short-lived, changing with
tbe tune ".
Almos t every word in Strabo's text is of exceptional value and signi
fi canc e for us.
Of equ a l imp ortanc: e for a re1rospect of Burebista's history is the
decree of the people's asrnmbly at Dion�· rnpolis (now Balcic in B nlgaria)
in honour of their fellow citizen Akornion, son of Dionysius. The inscrip
tion that bas been presen-ed, unfortunately in fragments only, adds to
S trabo's infu m a1 iGn abcut t h e great king.
Thern 1 wo ba sic rnurcei' as well as rnveral others focus our attention on
a number of fact s. I n a relat iYely �bort time, Burehista succeeded in
brin ging togeth er all 1 h e D a c:o- G etic 1 ril:: e :-, and in ext ending his rule over
\\" . Chri s [ , O. Stiihlin. \\". S c h m i d t . Geschichlc ci. yriec/rischen

11 5 L i l ernlur, :\ I un i c h .
H J20, l i , p . -1 1 1 ; E. E . Honigmann, in RE, n·, a J , 1 93 1 . pp. i8 - 1 55 ;
1. Em. Eloru \iu-Boil ă ,
Diclionary ( i n Rom . ) , pp. 5 5 1 - 55-2.
39
the t wo i-;ides of the Danube. He overwhelmed the foreign peoples having
crossed into the Daco-Getae's Carpa.tho-Danubian lands or settled nearby.
Burebista conquered and ruled over all the Greek city-states in western
Pontus from Olbia to Apollonia. He is the founder of the first and largest
Daco-Getic state referred to by Strabo as a great kingdom (&pxfi). This
vast teritory was encompassed between the Slovakian Carpathians, the
middle Danube, the Balkan Mts. and Olbia (to the east ). Burebista achie
ved "the greatest barbarian power in Europe", in Camille Julian's 11 6
own words, compared, by Theodor Mommsen 11 7, to that of Islam. This
outstanding achievement was the work of a man of unusual energy and
ability.
One is also impressed by the wisdom of Burebista's internai policy
which was aimed at the 'education' of the Daco-Getae. During his long
reign, Dacia experienced a thriving economic and socio-political life. Such
achievements could only be the work of an active man possessing great
virtues and able to engage himself in a manysided and fruitful activity.
Decebalus, one of Burebista's successors, who would reunite part
of the Daco- Getae and restore the centralized state to more modest limits
than his hrilliant predecessor, is depicted by Dio Cassius in his monumental
work 'The Roman History' (Histo1·ia Romana). While relating the wars
between Trajan and Decebalus, the historian outlines a suggestive moral
portrait of the hero-king who defended his country with so much courage.
vVe would rather let Dio Cassius speak himself (Hist. Rom., 67, 6 ) : "he
was skilled in war and able in action ; he knew when to attack and when
to retreat ; he was a master in laying traps, courageous in battle, knowing
how to make the most of a victory and to come out well from defeat ;
for which he was long feared by the Romans".
This îs how a description of Burebista might have looked had it
heen given by a contemporary writer. It is very unfortunate that no such
portrait had ever been drawn, aud even if it had, it failed to reach us .
.Just like his follower and even more so, Burebista was feared by the
Romans as we are clearly told b,v Strabo. The testimony of the grea t
geographer is completed by the Latin poet Lucanu s, who, in his epos
"Pharsalia" ( II, 295 - 297 ) describing the civil war between Caesar aud
Pompeim;, insists on the Daco- Getic threat, on the "disaster that could
s et the Dacians and the Getae in motion". We are told the same by Appian
( Civil TVars, II, 110).
\Ve can therefore infer that at the time of Burebista, the likelihood
of an attack by the Daco- Getae was not ruled out by Roman public opi
nion. The great power represented by Burebista was his own work and
lasted only as long as he lived. A personality such as this appears from the
very beginning as something extraordinary and can well be d efined as a
"genius". True, to be able t o draw together in such a short time all the
Daco- G et ic tribes only by the strength of his authority, to do a.way with
t he rule of the Celts and of other peoples around Dacia in order to become
master of all the Greek cities on the western shore of Pontus, representing
a threat to the power of Rgme itself, means that Burebista could n.ot have
heen an obscure leader. His energy, authority, cleverness, broad views,
ahility as political thinker and organizer, his masterful grip on the
u e llisloire de la Gau[e, I I I, Paris, 1 920, p. 1 4 4 .

117 Romisc/1e Geschichle, I I I , 1 933, p. 304.
4fl
masses, bis milit ary Yalour had to rneasure up, by all means, to bis extra
ordinary a('hieYernent s. Bis deeds compell us to imagine him in the super
l ative 118 •
In order to outline a military personality and the part he played in
a vict ory we must first assess the force of the enemy. Burebista did not
face, or t o be more precise, did not come to measure his forces with too
powerful an enemy. The Celts, Bastarnae or Sarmatians that were defea
ted by him had not been constituted into a great power, although most of
them , particularly the Celts, were reputed warriors.
ArioYistus, king of the G ermanic Suebi (after 72 B.C. ), lived in the
same period as Burebista. An audaciow.s and clever man, he tried to bring
the G ermanic t ribes t ogether. A confrontation between the two was expec
ted at one point when it was thought that the submission of Europe would
be contended between the Suebi and the Daco- G etae on the middle-Danu
bian plains. The two great army cornrnanders did not come to measure
their forces as each headed to opposite directions : Burebista towards the
shores of Pontus Euxinus and Ariovistus towards Gaul 119 •
Burebist a did not come to fight against his great contemporary
and rival C. Iulius Caesar either. A cla1<h between the two would have
revealed 1he true rneasure of Burebista's skill as a strategist . He would
b ave b ad to put up w ith an enemy conunanding a large army, well trained
aud equipped, let alone the exceptional qualities of Caesar and bis generals.
Sucb a confrontation was on tbe point of getting started, but it stopped
short in tbe wake of the eYent s that took place during the !des of Mars,
44 B . C . when Caesar's life came to a tragic end.
So Burebist a did not get involved in a direct conflict on the battle
field with any of the m ilitary figures of his t ime. He brought under his con
trol, one by one, the foreign tribes having crossed into the Daco- Getic
Carpatho- Danubian space and thorn on Dacia's borders. In order to carry
out such act ions he needed an exceptional ingenuity as well as unusual
strategic and tact ica! skilh;. Account should be taken, however, of the
great authority of this reputed king oYer all the Daco- Getic tribes at a
time .when they were in the stage of military democracy, when war was
the maiu concern of everybody, when the authority of a leader could only
be established and maintained by genuine achievement s on the battle
field. These were the abilities that Burebistahad to show off when he brought
the D aco- Getic tribes to bis heel. Some of the tribal chieftains, if not most
of them, may have opposed his undertaking. Finally , they declared allegi
ance to h im aud so did the Celtic tri bes on the lower Danube, the Bastar
nae aud the Sarmatians in the east as also the Greek cities on the western
shore of the Black Sea.
All this was made possible not just by the superiority of Burebista's
armed forces, but also by the skill and swiftness with which they were
tleployed over such a vast area. The military and politica! genius of this
resourceful and dynamic leader, who inscribed some of the most epic
pages in th e h istory of Antiquity, must have been mutually interrelated 1 20•
The very significance of his name apparently stood for 'the most
brilliant', 'the most powerful', ' the noble ' 1 21 •
118 R. Vulpe, Burebisla - A. .Ui/i lary or Po/ilica/ Genius? (in Rom.), in Jlaya:in istoric,
m, 4, 1 959, pp. 2 - 5.
11e c . Jullian, op. cil„ pp. 1 53 - 1 54 .
120 R. vulpe, loc. cil.
1 21 G . G . :\lateescu, in .H J.\', 4, 1 926 - 1 927, p . 332.
41
2. Thc n a me
In addition to being few, the ancient literary and epigraphic texts referring
to Burebista are in disagreement over his name. They handed it down in
different 1:1pellings. In Strabo's text, for instance, we find it mentioned
in four different ways. The most frequent form is that of BuFe�l.o--:1J !;. In
some manuscripts we come across the form Botpe�to-T:X:; and even
Bztpz�to--rocc; 122• The famous inscription devot ed hy the Dion�·sopolis
people to thPir ff llow citizen Akornion (whom we shall deal with lawr)
contains the name of Burebista in two different spellings. The name
comes up first in line 22 as Bupe�l.o-Toc, and then in lines 33 - 34 as
Bu FZ�el.o--rix,c;.
The form Bupe�do--roc also occurs in another incompletely preserved
epigraph discovered at Mesembria (now Neseb.lr, Bulgaria) on a monument
ere::ted in honour of some military leaders, whose names are unknown,
but who distinguished themselves " while leading the army in the war
against Burebista" ( hd Bup::�l.o-T:Xv ;t)l.eµ.ov )1 23.
With the ancient authors writing in Latin, the name of the Daco
Get ic king is to be found în Jordanes (Getica, 11, 67) who spells h is name
B ;1rvista ( Dehinc regnante Gothis Burvista). In the summary of Trogus
Pompeius' work "Historia e Philippicae" due to Iustinus, the Prologue to
book XXXII refers to incrementa Dacorumper Rubobosten regem. As a result,
modern historiography advanced the thesis that Rubobostes and Bure
bista is one and the same person, and that the wrong spelling is the work
of either the author himself or of later copyists 121•
Since it is more likely that the two spellings stand for two distinct
persons, two kings having lived approximately one centW'y a.part from
each other, no different spelling of BW'ebista's name should be added to
the original one, even if this were a mistake.
Like all the Daco- Getae, Burebista had only one name as was the
usage with most of the Indo-Europeans. The name as such is specific to
the Thraco-Dacians and belongs to those anthroponyms that are not
found with other peoples of the great Indo-European family 125• Proper
names have been thoroughly examined by the comparative etymologica.l
method with both the Thraco-Dacians and the other peoples belonging to
tbe same family. They consist of lexical elements and suffixes current in
the usual language, dating from the phase in which proper names cam e
iuto existence. The name of Burebista is one of those anthroponyms
(names of persons) and toponyms (names of places) that, with the Indo
Europeans - and consequently with the Daco- Getae, too - were made of
two elements called stems or themes. Such names consisting of two themes
are called by linguists compound of 'full' names (zweistămm ige, Vollna.
men) 1 26 •
122 C . Brandis. ln RE, Suppl.. J, 1903, pp. 261 - 264 ; G. G . :\hteescu , in A. IIN, 4 , 1 926 -
1 92i, p. 331 ; R. Vulpe, Burebista the Geta (in Ro m.), p. 34, '.'l'ote 1 .
12 3 G . Mikhailov, Inscripliones Graecae i n Bulgaria repertae, 1 , 2nd edition , Sofia, 1 970,
3 2 3 with the older blbliography.
114 V. Iliescu, Rubobostes oder Burobasles? Zu Trog. Pomp. Pro/. XXX I I, in Studii Clasice.
10, 1 968, pp. 1 1 5 - 123 ; C. Daicoviciu, Rubobostes - Burebista? in Acta 1"1 N, 6, 1969, pp.
459 - 463.
126 E . Frănkel, in RE. XVI, 1935, pp. 1 6 1 1 - 1 670 ; I. I . Russu. op. cil. , p . 159. where
Note 1 contains a comprehensive bibliography.
ne I . I. Russu, op. cil„ p. 165.
The fi.r st element of Burebista's neme, Bur- Bure- Bitris is also
encounteretl in ot her Thracian anthroponyms or toponyms like : Bur
-re- nus, Bit r-re11a, Boup-xhr-;wc;, Boup-ye�Aoc;, Bur-gaena, Boup-6et6·ri c;, Bop
B p:::y oc, Ilt po-�opt-8ocuoc, etcetera 12 7 • The second and final element also
has many analogies. The number of proper names or collective names
ending in bista- beista is pretty large in the Thraco-Dacian world. Here
�tl'e two examples : A•j Aou-�:o:�cr•oc, �L't'u-�Lcr't'oc;, Zaeri--vista, Btcr't'o-x.oc;,
or in compound names like tara-bostes 128 • The second theme of
Bure bis ta 's name is a co-radical of Bistonis, Bistonia, found in such anthro
ponyms as : Btcr6cuv, B tcr-:-oc, B tcr-:-oc;, B tcr6occ;, Btcr&ocpoc;, B tcr6octoi:; B tcr6·rii:; 1 29 •
Attempts have been macle to clarify the etymology of Burebista's
name. \V. Tomaschek connects it with the Sanskrit *bhuri- h meaning
plentiful, p owerful, much (reichlich, viel, gewaltig 1 30). D. Detschew
equates it ·with the Greek personal name 'Av8po1m6"f)c; and traces its origin
back to bheidh-to which in Greek turns into m:t6"f)c;, Boupxev·noc; meaning
'the first among men' 1 31 • Others suggested the meaning of 'the brilliant
one' deriving from such Thraco- Geto-Dacian words as bostes, tarabostes
which originate in *bho-s-1.: standing for 'brilliant ', 'noble' 1 3 2 or 'well
known' 1 3 3 •
The different spelling of Burebista's name in both Greek and Latin
t exts, and even on the same epigraphic monument as in the inscription
dedicated to Akornion, or in one and the same paragraph of Strabo's
work, can have only one explanation : the fact that the Thracian vowels
bad neither Greek nor Latin equivalents. They may bave been similar in
sound to oa, o, ii, or even to a or i which the ancient authors or the
J apidaries tried to reproduce each in bis own way into the Greek or the
Latin alphabet.
As regards the name, it remains an established fact tbat the closest
form to the autbentic phonetic aspect is Byrebistas. This spelling is most
frequent1y used in inscriptions and texts. According to the transliteration
standard s of t h e time, it gives tbe Latin form of Burebista. A second
variant should be added, tbat of Boerebista, originating in the translite
ration of the exceptional variant of Botp::: � tcr•occ; which is to be found
in Strabo 's text . It is not , bowever, indicated since it is an exception.
3. The bcgin n i ng of t he r c r g n
Tb e first chapters clearly point to the conclusion that both t h e internai
and externa! cond it ions preva iling in the first two d ecades of the l!st
century B.C. may bave favoured the emergence of a great figurP J ike
Burebista's. Following a long evolution, the Daco- Getic society had reach
e<l the point when a skillful organizer, a military and politica! genius
12 7 G . G . :\lalcescu , in .-l JJX, Cluj, 3, 1 !!2 -t - 1 925, p. 5i ; id„ in ED. 1, l!J23, p. 1 7 5 ;

D. Detschew, JJic lhrakischcn Sprachrcsle, Vienna, 1 957, p. 80 ; I . I. R u ssu, op. c i t . , p. 96.
12s G. G . :\Iateescu. op. c i l „ p . 427 ; i d „ in ED, 2, pp . 22!J - 2:rn.
129 I. I . Russu. op. cit . • pp. 9-t - !J5.
130 \\" . Tomaschek. /Jie a l lcn Tlrrakcr, in Sil:bcr . .-lkad. Vienna, Ud. 1 3 1 ( 1 8!J,I). li, 2,
Personennamen und Orlsnamen, pp. 15 - 1 6 ; I. I. Russu, op. cit . , p. !JCi.
1 3 1 D. Dctschew, IH e l hrakisclren Sp1acl11csle, Viennr, , 1 !!57, p. 80.
1 3 2 G. G . �lateescu. in A. li S, 4. 1 926- 1 927, p . 3 3 2.
isa c . C . and D. c. Giurescu, llislory of tlre Romanians (in Rom.), 1, Ed. ştiinţifică,
Bucharest, 1974, p. 68.
43
could accomplish the unity of all the Daco- Getae. Prevailing condit ions
allowed the transition to the higher form of organization that was the
state. The trend towards unification and the setting up of powerful states
was a feature of the time. Rome continued to expand its empire beyond
the limits of Europe. l\Iithradates VI Eupator had founded a vast and
powerful state in Asia Minor which dragged him into an irreconc ilable con
flict with the Romans who were tirelessly seeking world domination. Such
trends towards unification were not alien to the 'Barbaricum' either. We
have of course in roind Ariovistus, who was, at that time, trying to bring
together the Germanic tribes living in the west and the north of Europe.
Similar trends were at work in the Celtic world where the desire for unifi
cation was also present, as well as in the south- Thracian world where unity
had been achieved ever since the 5th century B.C.
It was agairn>t this background that Burebi sta's outstanding perso
nality emerged, making the most of both the internal and external c ircum
stances, accomplish ing the union of all the Daco- Getic tribes into a.
large state whose boundaries will form the topic of a future chapter.
The evident proof that Burebista's crucial achievement i .e., the unification
of his people, was largely due to his military and organizational genius,
is his work that lasted only as long as he liYed. Such an exceptional
apparition could not but leaYe deep and long-lasting traces in the history
of the Daco- Getae. The Daco- Get ic state set up by Burebista would not
vanish. It would cont inue to exist even a fter its dismemberment, following
the death of its founder. The state as form of government represented a.
point reached and called for by the objective development of the Daco
G etic society and could not be imposed by the will of a man, however
strong he might have been. Burebista's death marked only the dismem
herment of his kingdom.
The same thing happened, although on a larger scale, of which we
are fully aware, with the vast empire of Alexander the Great which owed
its existence to the exceptional military and political skill of the Macedo
nian king.
Alexander of 1\Iacedonia went into legend, amazed and inspired,
traversed the ages also because his magnificent achievements were cele
brated throughout the centuries b�' history and legend. By contrast,
BUl'ebista's accomplishments, even if recorded in -m'iting, failed to reach
u s except for a number of cursory notes. Burebista must have got iuto
the legends of his people, but at the time of the great king and even later,
throughout their history prior to the Roman conquest, the Daco- Getae
had been 'barbarians' in the last analysis, failing to attain the civilization
of the \uitten word, let alone historical writing. Even the Daco- Getae's
knowledge of writing is still under a big question mark.
The problem is to wha.t extent can the time and the circumstances
which placed Burebista at the head of the Daco- Getae, be known. In hi�
'History of the Getae' Dion Chrysostomus relates in great detail the con
ditions in which Burebista came to the throne and the time when that
happened. Unfortunately, th is work failed to reach us, except for a few
scattered fragments. It was still extant în the 6th century A.D. when Jor
danes, a Goth by origin, was writing his work. In his History of the Goths,
the author draws heavily on several valuable sources most of which have
been lost. Among these, according to Jordanes, were the writings of Dion
44
Chrysostomus as well 1 34• Hy confusing the Goths with the Getae, he en
t itled h is work 'De Getarum sive Gothorum origine et rebus gestis'. Appa
rently the confusion was not a mistake. It is difficult to imagine how a
scholar of his erudition, having himself written a universal chronicle and a
history of the Goths, could make unknowingly and in good faith, such a
confusion, as long as he had at his disposal whole histories of the Getae
written by historians enjoying a well-deserved reputation in their time.
It is more probable that Jordanes did make an intentional and deliberate
confusion prompted by the desire to assign his people (of Ostrogoth origin)
a more glamorous beginning 1 35• That may have been the reason why he
chose to confuse the Getae with the Goths and sometimes to mix up
things.
That is how Jordanes' text reads in connection with the subject
that concerns us : "Then during the rule of Burebista over the Goths (i.e.,
the Getae), there came into Gothland ( Getic land ) Decineus at the t ime
when Sulla took power in Rome. On receiving Decineus, Burvista bestow
ed almost royal powers upon h im. On h is advice, the Goths (i.e., the
Getae) started devastating the German lands which are now controlled
by the Franc R " 1 3 6 .
Jordanes' text shows that Burebista was already reigning in the
vear 82 B.C. when Sulla took on the title of dictator in Rome. The fact
that Burebista's accession to the throne did occur at about that time
(82 B . C . ) is proved by Strabo 's already reproduced passage, whose only
possible interpretation is that Burebista disappeared at about the same
time as his rival Caesar, who was on the point of attacking him in 44 B.C.
or very soon after. These thirty-eight years between 82 and 44 B.C.
compel ns to admit that Burebista's accession to the throne could no t
happen long before Sulla came to power in Rome. ln 44 B.C., when he
was assassinated, he was very likely an old man, but still very much in
authority since a plot was required to oust him from the throne and
from life.
A reign of about thirty- eight years was not an unusual thing in
Antiquity and even later. Many similar instances might be recalled.
One of Burebista's successors, Scorilo- Coryllus, reigned, according to
Jordanes, for forty long years. Teres, the king of the Odrysae (south
Thracians) died at the age of ninety-two according to Theopompos (F.H.G.,
115, fr. 310). We refer to Teres who was the first king of the Odrysae1 37•
Mithradates VI Eupator, a contemporary of Burebista's, reigned for forty
eight years (11 1 - 63 B . C . ) . Stephen the Great, the prince of Moldavia,
had a long and glorious reign spanning a period of fourty-seven years
(1457 -1504). His reign coincided with the most flourishing period in
the history of Moldavia, just like Burebista's, which was by far the most
brilliant for Dacia.
lM
About Jordanes sec, for instance, Kappelmacher, in RE, I X, 2 , 1916. 1 900 - 1 929 ;
R. Vulpe, Burebista I lie Geta (in Rom.), p. 39 ; R. Hachmann , D i e Goten und SJ.:andinavien , B erlin,
1 970, pp. 35ff .
i as l-or the so-cal led confusion see. for instance, N. \Vagner. Untersuchungen :um Leben
des Jordanes und :ur (rii /1en Geschicllle dcr Golen, Berlin, 1 967 ; J . A. Leake. The Gea/s o
Beowu/(, l\ladison, 1 967, pp. 72ff.
iaG G etica, XI, 67.
in A . Solari. Sui dinasli deg/i Odris i . Pisa. 1912, p. 5tl ; K . J . Beloch. !rriec/1. Gesch„ 2nd
edition. I I I . 2. p. 85 ; A. Vulpe. Diclionary. pp. 4 3 6 - 438.
45
l\lany of the dates furnished by Jordanes have been contested by
modern historians when compared to other sources. The same thing
happened with the date marking the beginning of Burebista's reign. Few
were those willing to accept the fact that Burebista was already reigning
over the Daco- Getae by about 82 B.C. Many historiographers questioned
this date 1 33 and many others flatly rej e<!ted it 1 39•
vVe are here confronted with a controversial issue and in the presence
of extremely divergent views. Before tackling them one by one, we deem
it advisable to discuss the decree dedicated to Akornion, a source that all
researchers rej ecting or questioning Jordanes' information relied upon
withou t exception.
Given the exceptional .importance of the decree for our subj ect,
we shall present all the data referring to the inscription, mentioning most
of the commentaries ( even though some are no longer valid while others
a.r e downright rejected by us). \Ye are doing this because we want, by
putting them together, to assist all those eager to read the text and who
have no access to the various commentaries.
The inscription 140 carved on a marble slab of low . quality and
gre,yish colour was discovered at Balcic (Bulgaria) and is kept in the Katio
nal Museum in Sofia (inv. No . 1200). Unfortunately this document of
exceptional significance for the dates of Burebista's reign consists only
of fragments. Its upper part is lacking, whereas the first lines of what has
been recovered are damaged, a fact that led to different variants being
put forward when completed. Hence the divergent views and the large
number of controversies.
)Iinus the upper part which was destroyed, the inscription is o . r n m
high , 0.465 m wide and 0.09 m thick. The letters carved in between the
lines are approximately O.Ol m high. The damaged upper part of the
slab deprived us of the beginning of the decree which, judging by similar
d ecrees discovered in the Greek city-states on the western shores of Pontus
Euxinus, contained, in all probability, the motifs having determined the
citizens of Dionysopolis to p ay tribute to Akornion. Likewise, of the first
five lin es only a couple of words have remained. The damage also partly
affected the two edges. Some of the letters can hardly bc seen, other,;
have been completely effaced.
All in all the inscription contains at present fourty-nine lines of
which the last twenty are almost intact and quite readable. Each line
bas between fourty-fiYe and fourty-six letters.
Here is th e text of the famous decree issued by the citizens of Diony
sopolis 1 41 :
138 C . Brandis, in RE, n·, '!, 1 958 - 1 !)59, p. 2250 ; C. DaicoYil'iu , in SC.5, Cluj. I , 1 950,
fasc. 2 , 1 ; idem, in Rom. Hisl„ I. 1 960, p . 286.
13e \'. Pârvan, Getica, p p . 7 8 - 7 9 ; G. G. �laleescu, in A. li.\', 1 , 1 926 - 1 !)27, p . 329 ;
R. Vulpe, /Jurebisla the Geta (in Rom.), p. 4 1 .
140 T he p l c ture i s p u blished b y courtesy o f �!aria Cicikova, o u r colkague f ro m Sofia,
whom we thank again here.
141 In � likhailov's transcrlp tion, lnscripliones Graecae in Bulgaria rrpe1iae, 2nd editioM,
I , 1.3, Sofia, 1970, p p . 3 1 - 56.
46
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXL -:;:oe�?-
-:-ov &v€ /..oe�� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .
•
-o:; E>s:68wpoy xoct ' Ei:t"L- • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .
-11oc•1 -:-oi:::; 18 loL:; 8oc7t'ocv Tiµoccn[v . . • • • • • • • ]
. . . • . . • -oc-:-wv cruvoc7t'o8[i') ]µwv &7t 1i[p ]ocT[o

. • . . . . • ] • . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • •
. . . . . . d }:; ApyE81X!J OV 7t'po::; TOV 7tlXTEp1X oe[ UTOU ' ]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ . • . • . 7tocpoc°yE ]voµEvo::; 8€ xoct cruvTuzwv &µgt

• . . . • • • . • . . . . • • • • • . • • •
. . • • . . • v TI)v &7t' oc uTou xoc-rE xT +i crocTo T'ij[::; 8e ]

• • . . . . . • . • • • . . • . •
[ . • • &7te ] /..ucrEv Tov 8'ijµov, LEpEu::; TE y EvoµEy [o ::; ]

. . • • • • • . •
[- "! -:-oij 0Eou Mey Joci.ou Toc::; TE 7t0µ7toc::; xoct Toc::; &ucrloc� [ E ]-
[ 7t'E·:Ll,EcrE ),ocµ7t'p ]w::; xoct ·roi:::; 7to :A hocLc; µETe8wxEy :f wv ]
[ XpEc7iv, ':"�) ':"E �1Xp ]OC7t'EL ÂIX)'.WV LEpEuc; oµo lw::; TOÎ:c; 8oc7t[ocv 1i ]
[µoccr �·1 &·1EcrT pocqi ] i') xcc/.. w ::; xcct q n)..ocyoc&wc;, •oij TE E7t'wvu[ µou ]
[-:-�:; :To /..Ew:; L1Lov ]ucrou o u x €xono::; b:p'ij &qi' e•wv 7tAi')6�[wv ]
[ m x ? oc x i, lj �d::; u ]i:t" o Twv 7t'O ALTwv E7te8w xEv ectuTov x[ oct xix ]
[•:X -;·lj·1 r :X [ou ] ' AvTwv[ou 7t1Xp1X)'.ELµor.cr[or.v &vcc/..or. �[ wv]
[ -:-0·1 cr -:-€ 9 :xvo ]v Tou &Eou Toce; TE 7toµ7t' occ; xor.t &ucri.occ; [E7tE]
[-:-€/.e:crE xoci, ]<!>::; xoct µEyoc /.. o µEpw::; xcct 7tO A L•ocL :; p.[E ] -
[•e8c->XE xpE ]wv &qi.&Ovwc;, &Ewv TE T[ w ]v Ev �oc µo&p�x[?l ]
[cr-:-€Ţior. ]vo•1 iXvELAi'J<pwc; 8Loc �lou Toce; TE 7t'oµ7t'occ; �[oct]
[•oc:; &ucrb: ]<:; E7tLTE Ae:î: U7tep TE Twv µucrTwv xor.t T'ijc; 7t[6 ]
[ i.Ec0 :;, •1e:c.lcr-:-]d TE TOU �occnMw::; BupE�LGTIX 7tpWTO\J xcct !'L[E]-
[ylcr•ou YEY ]ov6Toc; TWV E7t'L 0 p�xi')c; �ctcrL)..ew•1 xa.l. '7t'� cr �[�]
[.-�v :-t e p }xv •ou 7toToc.µou xoct T�v E7tL Toc8E xoc.TELGX"IJ-
[ x6-:-o::; y]i;; v oµEvoc; xoc.l. 7rpo::; TOUTov Ev T?j 7tpw•11 xoc.t µE
[ ylcr-:-·n qi[ � ).. lq: T oc �EATLcrToc. xoc.TEpyoc�noc.L T?i 'lroc.Tp L8t :Aţ-
[ywv xoc. ]t cruv�ou)..E uwv T OC xpoc·ncrToc. xoct �v E uvoLocv •ou �[oc.]-
[crLAE ]C)lc; 7t po ::; TL�V T� ::; 7t'OAEWc; GWT"IJ�[ l ]ocv 7rpOG7rot p oc. P. [u]
:
[&o u ]µEvo::; ev TE TOÎ:::; AOL7rOÎ:::; ot'lrlXO"tv &qiEt8w::; EIXUTOy
[Ev } � � 8o u ::; xcct Toc ::; T'ij::; 7tOAEw ::; 7rpEcr� +ioc::; xoct xLv8uvouc; E7t[L ]
�E zoµEvo::; [ iX ]rŞ xvw::; 7rpoc; To 7rocvTw::; n xoc.TEpyoc�Ecr&� [L]
T?j 7r!XTp l8L cruµq:iepov, 7rp6c; TE fvoc.î:ov Iloµ7t' �·(o•1 I'voc. lou u[t ]-
0•1 oc.uTo xpoc-:-opcc ' Pwµoc.î:ov &7rocrToc.)..d c; U7rO �oc.crt )..e wc; Bupcc�E[t]
[ G ]-;oe. 7rpEcr��YT�c; xccl. O"UVTU)'.WV oc u•c'Jl -�c; MctxE8ovlocc; EV TO[î:c; ]
r.Ep[t ' H p ]� XAi')ctV T�v fot Tou Au xou o u µ6vov Touc; U7rEp Tou �cc[crL]
/,ewc; zp·fj µX7LGµouc; 8Le&e:To T�c; e: uvo[L]ctv T�V • Pwµcc lwv 7t'ct[p]
ocy6µEvoc; •Cil �cccrt)..e:î: , â( ).. ) ).. oc xoc.t 7rEpt •'ii c; 7rctTp l8oc; To uc; xcc).. :A lcrTou[c; ]
8te&ETo XP"IJ µctTtcrµouc;, xcc&6)..ou 8 e xcc't'oc .,.�a(oc.)v 7t'Ep LcrT1Xcrtv x[cct ]-
[p ]wv �u x 'ii xoc.l. crwµctTt 7t'1Xpot�IXAAOµe:voc; XIXL 8ct7tOCVIXtc; X pwµ[ E ]-
voc; Totî:c; h TOu � [ou, Ttvoc 8e xccl. Twv '7t'OAtTtxwv zopi')y lwv crwµccT[o ]-
7tOLwv 7tocp' ectUTOU T�v µEytcrT7JV Ev8E lxvu't'ct[t] cr7t'ou8�v Ele; T�v u-
7rEp T'ijc; 7t'ctTp L8oc; crwTi')p la.v· (vcc oov xcct o 8'ijµoc; q:i oc. lvi')TIXL Ttµwv
Touc; XIXAO[ uc;] XIXL &ycc&ouc; dtv8pccc; xa.t EOC.UTOV EUEpyETOUVTotc;, 8E[86]
[ z& Joc.[t T?j ] �ou).. ?j xccl. T<i) 8 �µcp E7r1JV'ija&cct µev E'lrL TouTot::; Axopv lwv[cc]
Ât�y[ u ]i;rlou xqi:l. crTe:q:ia.vw&'ijva.L IX UTOV EV TOÎ:c; ÂLOVUO"LOLc; zpuq [ cjl ]
crTe:q:iocvcp xccl. E1x6vt zcc:Ax7j, O'Te:q:iccvoucr&oc.t 8 E: IX UTOV XIXL d e; TOV ?-[OL]
[7r]ov XP[ 6v ]ov xcc&' exccaTOV E:-roc; EV Toi:c; Â tovualotc; xpucrcii crTe:[ q:ioc]-
[v Jep, 8E[86 ]cr.&cct 8e cc uT<j) xoc.l. de; · &vocaTccatv iiv8ptcivToc; T6-
7t'ov TOV E7ttcpotvfo-rotTOV T'ijc; &yop�c;.
,d
. '
47·
Published for the first time at th e end of the last ce11turv b•
the Russian scbolar V. Latysh ev 142, the inscription was later on i11c luded
in the collection compiled by \V. Dittenberger 143 • The most scholarly
publication of the Dionysopolis decree is due to E. Kalinka, whose
transcription and completion of the text is accompanied by a very
clear picture 144• The inscription was commented upon by several scientists.
Mention should also be roade of a recent re-publication of the epigraph
which we owe to the Bulgarian erudite G. l\likhailov 145•
Of the scholarly studiPS that attempted to fill în the gaps in the
inscription or discussed the events referred to in the epigraph, we shall
tackle only those due to Georges Seure 146 a11d l\L Holleaux 147• The other:>
will be commented at greater length in connection with the much debated
problem of Burebista's cap ital and with the information contained in
the precious document.
From the first five fragmentary lines one can infer that :
"Together with his fellow traveller:;, with one of Theodorus' so11s
and with Epi [ . . . ], at his own expense, he went on his mission [ . . . ]
travelling a long way and arriving at Argedava, where his father [ . . . ]
lived, and on meeting him he obtained from him [ . . . ] (some ten letters
are missing, probably his goodwill for ) the city [ . . . ] and relieved the
people (another ten letters are missing : possibly from tribute) . Becoming
(afterwards ) a priest of the Great God, he diligently carried out processions
and sacrifices and distrihuted chunks of meat (from the slaughtered
animals). Being elected priest of Sarapis, he paid the expenses with both
diligence and goodwill. Bt�ause Dionysus (the God ), eponym of the city
for many years had no ·priest at all and because he was acclaimed by
th e citizens, h e devoted himself (to this function ) ; while [Caius ] Antonius
was spending the winter 1 here, he (again) took the crown of the god (becom
ing a priest), beautifull )' and magnificently carried out processions and
sacrifices and gave the people plenty of meat. And accepting the crown
of the Gods of Samothr ace for life, he carried out processions and sacrifices
for the initiated and for the city. And as Burebista had recently become
th e greatest king of T hrace, ruling over the whole territory on this side
of the river (Danube l and Qll the other, he went to him ( Burebista ),
became his best frieJ .d, talking to him and advising him with respect
to the most imporbmt questio11s, win11i11g the king's goodwill for the
be11efit of the city ; Jind on all the other (occasions ) offeri11g to act as
the city's emissary Limself, taking upon him without fear of danger:-> to
contribute to the good of the country in all possible ways. And 011 being
sent by king Bureliista as ambassador to Cn(aeius) Pompeius, son of
Cnaeius, emperor o e the Romans and meeting him in Macedonia near
Heraclea Lyncestis (now Bitolia-1\lonastir) fulfilled the tasks assig11ed
to him by the king, winning for this the Romans' goodwill and conducti11g
negotiations for h i � homeland (Dionysopolis ) . Whatever the state of
1 4 2 Inscripliones Prae seplenlrionalis Ponli Euxin i . in Journa l Jlin islerslva narodnogo
prosveslenija, :\Ioscow, 1 �96, J, pp. 1 - 1 9.
UJ Sylloge In scri plionum Graecarum, 2nd edition, 2, 342, 1 900, and 3rd edit1on re\" i sed
by F. Hillcr v . Gaertringen, 762.
144 E. Kalinka, A1rtike Denkmii/er in Bu/garim, in Schri{len du Ba/kan-Kommissio11,
Vienna , 1 906, 95, pp. 86 - 94.
145 See Note 1 4 1 .
1 48 Archeo/ogie lhrcice, Documenls inedils o u peu connus, i n Rev. Arch., 18, 1 91 1 . pp.
430 - 432.
147 Etudes d'epigraphie el d'hisloire grecques, 1 , Paris. 1 938, pp. "285 - 287.
48
affairs, he devoted himself body and soul to the cause, using bis own
money (bis :private wealth) and giving money from bis fortune (from bis
own money) to several offices in th e city (assisting the public treasury
with money) he showed every zeal for his country's welfare. So that the
people be able to show that tbey bonour the good anti wortby men who
do them good, the council and the people (of Dionysopolis ) decided that
Akornion be praised for these (merits) and be crowned during Dionysus'
feast with a golden crown, and a bronze statue be erected in his honour
and that he be crowned with a golden crown eacb year during Dionysus'
feast and the best place in tbe agora be allotted for the statue to be
erected . "
For t h e dating o f tbe Dionysopolis decree i n honour o f .Akornion
we bave two moments, as mentioned in tbe inscription, tbat can he
accurately set in tinie. Tbe first is tbe winter spent by tbe Macedonian
proconsul C . .Antonius Hybrida in Dionysopolis in the year 62 - 61 B.C.
Because of bis many abuses a revolt of tbe Greek cities on the western
coast of Pontus Euxinus took place in the spring of 61 B .C . , when he
suffered a severe defeat near Histria. The reference to C. Antonius Hvbrida
stationing at Dionysopolis before bis defeat at Histria is accompanled by
a mention about tbe sacrifice made by .Akornion in accepting to become
tb e priest of Dionysus, tbe city's eponymous god, a fact po ; . l ing to a
precarious ernnomic situation possibly caused by the expem�es incurred
upon tb e city by the stay, over tbe winter, of tbe proconsul aml his
armies us.
'Ihe �ec ond moment and the la:;;t in a series of actions carried out
by the farnou :-; citizen of Dionysopolis is his errand as emissary of king
Burebist a 1 0 Cn. Pompeius whom he rnet near Heraclea Lyncestis in
Maeedonia . 'Ihe event took place, in all probability, before August 9,
48 B .C. when Pompeius suffered his defeat in the battle of Pbarsalos,
but after June 7, when the triumvir scored bis short-lived victory over
Caesar bis rival. In our epigraph Pompeius is called imperator ( otu"t'oxpoc"t'wp ) ,
a title under which he was acclairned by b is soldiers after bis spring victory
over Caesar.
The decree was voted and carved in marble between June 7 and
August 9, 48 B.C. because it is difficult to believe tbat tbe people of
Dionysopolis could ignore the defeat suffered by Pompeius at Pharsalos
which was followed by bis flight into Egypt where, at the end of Septem
ber, he would be killed on orders given by Ptolemy XIV. After August 9,
48 B.C. the only imperator alive was the victor, Caesar, a fact that could
not be ignored by the Greeks of Dionysopolis 149 •
Akornion's embassy to Pompeius and tbe implicit dating of the
important Dionysopolis decree was interpreted in quite different ways
by modern historiograpbers and present-day researchers. E. Kalinka stands
for tbe year 48 B.C. 15 0 whereas W. Dittenberger 151 tbinks the embassy
took place in 49 B . C . although the inscription could well be dated also
to 48 B . C. G. Seure 15 2 dates the inscription to 48 B.C. D. M. Pippidi 15 3
1 48 \' . Pârvan, Getica, pp. 77 - 7 9 ; D. :\I. Pippidi, From i/1e Hislory of Dobruja (in Rom.),
1 , 1 965, p. 2 8 1 ; R. Vu lpe. op. cil . , p. ·!1 .
149 G . G . :\lateescu, op. cil„ p. ::12!! ; R . V u lpe, From the Hislory of Dobruja (in Rom. ) ,
2, 1 968. p. 27 and :'\:ote 1 3.
1 5 0 E. Kalinka, op. cil „ p. 9 3 .
161 Sul / 3 , l i , p. 448.
152 l n Uev . .4rch„ 1 8, 1 91 1 , p. 4 3 1 .
153 D. :\I. Pippidi, Frcm lhe His!01y of DGbTUja (in Rom.). J, H l65. p. 282, Note 69.
- c. 1'102
49
belieYes that the decree in honour of Akornion is dated 'shortfr after
48 B.C. ' but the same author says that the alliance offered to Pompeius
by Burebista was concluded in 48 B.C.154• I.âke Dittenberger, the Viennese
h istorian C. Patsch 155 sets Akornion's embassy to Pompeius at 49 B.C.
Oondurachi dates the event to 48 B.C. 156•
These are only a few of the opinions made known in connection
with the date when the decree in honour of Akornion was issued. Their
number could very well rise. l\Iost historiographers date the embassy to
Pompeius to 48 B.C., and consequently, the issuing and the writing o f
the Dionysopolis epigraph to the same year.
In o ur opinion, dating Akornion's embassy to l\Iacedonia sometime
between June 7 and August 9, 48 B.C., in which interval the decree
celebrating him could well have been issued and carved, need not be
questioned 157• If the views on the Dionysopolis inscription do not differ
too much and are almost unanimous in accepting the year 48 B.C. as
the most likely date, on the basis of the same "c ursus honorum" of Akor
nion, the same cannot be said about the beginning of the text. We parti
cularly refer to the widely different fill- ins that have been suggested.
The existing gaps in the Dionysopolis epigraph were filled out in quite
different ways by various epigraphists, arousing heated debates, some
of which are of great significance for our subject, that is, for the beginning
of Burebista's reign. Some scholars opine that the missing lines of the
inscription as well as the damaged ones would refer to a diplomatic
move carried out by Akornion at the court of a Getic king. But who
was that king '
The sixth line of the Dionysopolis inscription preserves two clearly
visible words : Apye:8cx.uov and 'ltot-r&poc (father) while from the frag
mented lines before and after one can infer that the reference applies
to a certain embassy of Akornion to a certain king, an important figure
who is the father of somebody. Starting from the twenty- second line,
the inscription speaks about Burebista who had become the first and
greatest of the Thracian kings. Hence the conclusion that the mutilated
lines referred to Burebista's father. Dittenberger 158 completed lines 5
to 7 to this effect :
.j[µe:, ] ii -rw•1 auvoc'lto8[ l) ]µwv ix1-:-·�a[ocaqiix),etotv]
[ i1t'ope:v u 6e: e:ti;] ' A pye8oc[ u ]ov 7tpoi; -rov ;.oc-repoc ['ov �ocat),ewi;]
[Bupe:� ta-rot] mxpot . . .
A few years later, following a revision of the text of the inscription
as suggested by W. Dittenberger, E. Kalinka found out that in the sixth
line, ,eiv 7toc-reixp is succeeded by the letter A of which the left half
is still clearly visible. The identification of this new letter prompted
15' Idem. Conlribulions Io !he ..\ncienl /Iislory of Romani a (in Ro m.), 2nd edition. Bucha
res l , 1 967, p. 540.
iu c. Patsch. A us jOO .Jaliren vorr omischer und r omischer Geschic/1/e Siidosleuropas, Bei
lrlige :ur Vo/kerkundc von Siidosteuropa, V, J , Vienna , 1 932, p. 1 85 .

158 E m. Condurachi, Burebisla a11d lhe Pontic Ci/ies (in Ro m.), in SCI i·, 4. 3 - I, 1953,
p. 3 1 9 ; H. Daicoviciu , .Voles about Dacia IX (in Rom.), in Steaua, XIX, :!, 1968 , p. 83ff)
thinks the decree was voted during the first half of the year 48 B.C.
m R. Vulpe, Burebista lhe Geta (in Ro m . ) , p. 4 1 .
us Dittenberger, Sy/ /2 , I , p. 342.
50
Kalinka and Hiller v. Gaertringen t o modify the fill-in of the sixth line
proposed by vV. D ittenberger as follows :
, A py&80tUO'I 7tpoi;; 'TOV 7t()('TEp0t 0t[1hou n
t.bat is : at Argedava to bis fatber 159•
The opinion was advanced that the beginning of the inscription
d ed icated to Akornion, son of D ionysu s, would not refer to his embassy
to Burebista's father, as previously thought by W. Dittenberger, but to
a first embassy of king Burebista himself 16 0 •
\Yhen the Yiennese erudite epigraphist Dittenberger had put forward
the thesis according to which the first lines of the epigraph would be
concerned with Burebista 's father, he relied not only on lines 22 and 23
of the epigraph mentioning the king, but also on the presence in line 2.5
of tbe partide x0tt (and)
25 y ]zv6µzvoi;; x0tt 7tpoi;; TOU'T ov
tb at is : _.\.kornion went also to him (to Burebista). We are going t o come
back to this line in the inscription.
The view according to which tbe sixth line of the D ionysopolis
inscription devoted to Akornion refers to Burebista's father is a modern
conjectura which can still be open to discussion. It bas been sh arecl by
a great many scholars of whom we shall quote, in addition to 1 �le editors
of the text (W. D ittenberger and Hiller v. Gaertringen), V. Panan 161,
O. Daicoviciu 16 2, A. Alfoldi 16 3, G. G. l\Iateescu 164, C. Patsch rn:> and
R . Vulpe 166 •
The time when Akornion's diplomatic mission to Burebista's father
took place can be deduced, with approximation, from the D ionysopolis
decree.
The diplomatic missions and sacerdotal functions clischarged by
the illustrious c itizen of Dionysopolis are listed by the text of the decree
in the following order :
Jine ? - 9, an embassy to someone he met at Argedava ;
9 - 12, priest of the Great God ;
1 2 - 1 3, priest of Serapis ;
13 - 15, priest of Dion�·:ms, eponymous god of the city ;
1 .5 - 1 9, again priest of Dionysus during C. Antonius Hybrida's
winter stay at Dionysopolis ;
1 9 -22, priest of the Samothrace gods ;
22 -32, embassy to king Burebista who had become the first and
t he greate st of the Thracian kings ;
32 -38, mission to Pompeius in l\Iacedonia assigned by Burebista.
There can be no doubt that this 'cursus honorum' of Akornion,
as well as the various important missions and sacerdotal functions assigned
to h im, were chronologically recorded in the decree. Two of these, as
bas already been underlined, can be accurately timed. These are contained
159 E. Kalinka, op. cil„ 1 , p. 87 ; Hiller ,._ Gaerlringen, Syl/3, I I, 762.
l&o G. Seure, op. cil„ p . 4 3 1 , :'\ole 2.
161 Get ica, p . 78.
HZ I n scn-. 6, 1 - 2, 1 955, pp. 52ff ; idem, in Rom. llisl „ I , 1 960, p . 286.
113 Z ur Geschichle des J\arpalenbeckens im J. Jahrhunderl 11. Chr„ in A. rchivum Europac
Centro-Orienta/is, 8, 1 - 2, 1 942, p. 5.
164 () p. cil „ p. 325, 329.
166 011. cit„ p. -15ff.
166 Op. cil „ p . 40.
51
in lines 15 -19 in which we are told that Akornion took on for the
second time the priesthood of the city's eponymous god, an event coincid
ing with the winter stay at Dionysopolis of C. Antonius Hybrida, governor
of Macedonia. This means the winter of the year 62 - 61 B.C. The second
event that can be chronologically pinpointed is Cn. Pompeius' embassy
which is dated to 48 B.C. 'l'his is the last of the events recorded by
the clecree and is separated from the first datable one by a lapse of th ir
teen years during which tiine Akornion discharged the function of priest
of the Samothrace gods. Bctween the first diplomatic mission and the
second priesthood, more priesthoods are recorded : those of the Great
God, Serapis ancl Dionysus. This entitle us to assume that the first
diplomatic mission of Akornion of Dionysopolis was carried out years
before Antonius Hybrida took shelter in the city. We do not know
for certain how many years earlier, may be ten, may be more. Yet, we
cannot set the date too far from the vear 62 because we are conf ined
to the active part of a human life which comes to be known as early
as the year 48 B.C. , when a diplomatic mission of ex:ceptional importauce,
namely the embassy to Pompeius, took place.
The lapse of time between 80 and 70 B . C . 16i was suggested for
Akornion's first diplomatic mission. Since the event takes him to
Burebista's alleged father, the conclusion was reached that the information
supplied by Jordanes on Burebista's reign prior to the year 82 B.C. is
erroneous, and that the date when the great king takes upon himseLE
the leadership of the Daco- Getae must have been much earlier. This is
the documentary evidence which caused most modern rcsearchers to
question the information of the Ostrogoth historian.
The hypothesis that the sixth line of the Dionysopolis inscription
would refer to Burebi8ta's father, which was accepted by the best experts
in the history of the Daco- Getae, has of late been rejected as a new
theory came to the fore. The latter contests that the first lineil of the
decree dedicated to Akornion refer to Burebista's father since his name
Htart8 being mentioned only in the 22nd line of the inscription. The
first lines of the decree would mention, according to the new t heory,
another Getic chieftain (whose name is unknown to us) who may have
ruled over Dobruja. Consequently, that 'father' of the sixth line of the
epigraph to whom the Greek Akornion takes the embassy is not Bure
bista's father, and the tiine of the diplomatic journey of the famous
Dionysopolitan is put between 70 aud 62 B.C . 168 •
Taking up all the fill-ins suggested for the text of the inscription
devoted to Akornion, N. Gostar 169 shows that the latter A at the end
of the sixth line has been too easily pieced together into ix[1h·ou ]. fn
hi8 opinion, it is more probable that the letter should represent. the begin
ning of a proper name. On this basis Gostar suggested the completion of
lines 5 - 7 in the following manner :
µ[ 1hov O"uva7to8[ i'l ]µwv oc7t �[p ]a1"[o •.•
�A P r E LlA Y O N 7tpoi:; -rov 7taTepa A . ..
7trtpaye: ]v6µe:voi:; 8$ xat O'U\ITU )(W\I & µa • . .
167 G . G . i\ lateescu. op. cil . , p . 329.

168 H. Daicoviciu, Notes aboul Dacia IX. Where and \l'lren Did Ilie Dacian Slute Appear ?
(in Rom.), in Steaua, XI X , 2, 1 968. p. 83 ; idem , D a c i a , p. 39.
169 N. Gostar. in Analele Uni11. Iaşi , S.N.. sec. I I I , a. Ist., 16, rase. J, 1970, p . 6 1 .
52
When translated the respective lines would read :
. . . travelling far away . . . be reached Sargedava
the king . . . that is the father of A . . . and upon meeti ng him etc.
N. Gostar retains from the decree dedicated to Akornion the fact
that the latter first took part în an embassy sent to the son of a 'barba
rian' king, the ernbassy being referred to in the upper lines of the inscrip
t ion which are rnissing today. The narne of the prince rnentioned in the
inscription begins with the letter A. Apparently, the c itizens of Dionyso
polis were not satisfied, or fully satisfied, with the outcome of the ernbassy
to the son, and possibly, the presumptive heir to the king's throne.
That might well be the rnotif of Akornion's second mission. He travels
for the second time far away &7tfip1X"rn and succeeds in meeting the king
hirnself (the father of A . . . ). The name of the king was present în the
inscription, after that of the son, on the left side of the sixth line.
Judging by the length of the other lines, approximately fourteen letters
are rnissing frorn the left side of the sixth line. Akornion met the respective
king at Sargedava. This 'barbarian' king, whose narne we do not know,
was reigning somewhere on the left side of the Danube, a fact that may
be inferred frorn the reference to the 'long voyage' Akornion had to make
in order to reach him.
N. Gostar's hypothesis is supported by yet another honorific decree
issued at Histria and rnentioned by the author who recalls it, but does
not elaborate. This is a decree in honour of Agathocles, son of Antiphilos,
dating frorn the year 200 B . C .1 70 • The important Histrian inscription,
very much like the one discovered at Dionysopolis, lists Agathocles'
feats for which he was honoured by the council and the assembly of the
people of Histria. This îs neither the tirne nor the place to go iuto the
details of the decree. We shall point out, however, that under the difficult
situation of tbe city caused by the inroads of the soutb-Thracians led
b y Zoltes, the Histrians asked for tbe assistance of a 'barbarian' king
who ruled north of the Danube. The people of Histria sent on this errand
their fellow citizen Agathocles to negotiate wiih Zoltes and then with
king Rhemaxos. Although Zoltes had pledged to refrain from attacking
the territory of Histria in exchange of a large sum of money, he went
back on his word and, in violation of the agreement, made further inroads.
In these circurnstances Agathocles was sent to king Rhemaxos in order
to persuade him to come to the aid of the Histrians. The Histriot emissary
obtained from him only a detachment of one hundred horsemen who,
during a strong attack by the Thracians, retreated, leaving the territory
of Histria without defense. It was at this point that Agathocles was
assigned another mission aimed at obtaining assistance, this time from
the king's son, Phrad( . . . ? ) who gave him six hundred horsemen who
(possibly together with the Histrian forces) managed to repel the Thra
cians led by Zoltes (lines 53 - 57 ).
This îs the document that recorded, one century earlier, the embassy
sent bv a Greek citv-state on the western shore of Pontus Euxinus to
the son of a king who could make his father change his mind. From
Rhemaxos, Agathocles received only a detachment of one hundred horse
rnen. Following the intervention of the son, Phrad( ? ) ( only fragments
. . .
of the name have been preserved), the number of horsemen rose sixfold.
1 7 0 The inscription had been discovered as early as 1929 but its entire text was pub
lished only in 1961. For this decree see O. '.\I. Pippidi, in Studii clasice , 5. 1 963, p. 138ff. ;
I . I. Russu. in Apulum , 6, 1967, pp. 123- 144, the entire biblio graphy included.
53
The Histrian decree, while paying tribute to AgathocJe:-;, son oi
Antiphilos, lends plausibility to Akornion's embassy to the son of a
Getic king. In the case of both decrees clarifications are needed a" to
the territory north of the D anube which was controlled by Rhema xos
and by the king having received Akorn;on's embassy. In both cases the
element s likely to underlie such clarifications are rather flimsy and cannot
be taken as certain evidence. Hence the divisiveness of views, hypothese-;
and heated debates.
w·e shall not, for the t ime being, insist on the question of geogra
phically locating the territory of the unknown king and his son to whom
Akornion was sent by the citizens of D ionysopolis. The conclusion we
have reached is that the first part of the decree paying tribute t o
Akornion does not refer either to Burebista or to hi8 father.
Consequently, the basis on which the informat ion supplied by .Jor
clanes about the beginning of Burebista's reign could be dismissed does
no longer exist . Akornion went to another king than Burebista or bis
father and he did this before the year 62 B.C., possibly in 70 B.C. or
even earlier. \Ve cannot push the date too far because Akornion could
be neither too young when assigned his first diplomatic mission in 48 B.C.
nor too old when he went as Burebista's ambassador to Cn. Pompeius.
The presence of another Getic king north of the Danube doe8 not preclude
Burebista's concomitant rule over other Daco- Getic territories as ·well .
_.\s a result, the only available source on the beginning of Bme
bista 's reign remains Jordanes' text which has not been 80 far contendecl
by any other document. The fact should also be taken iuto considera tion
tha t the chronology of Burebista's successors, due to the same historian,
proves to be accurate, being one more evidence in :mpport of the infor
mation that Burebista was already reigning at the time when Cornelius
Sulla took power in R ome.
Around the year 82 H . C .171, when Burebista came to power, h e
must have been a young man endmYed with unusual moral qualities that
helped him accomplish the deeds we know of.
It should also be said that by removing the as:mmption that the
sixth line of the D ionysopolis epigraph refers to Burebista's fat her, the
only mention of the great king's father does no longer exist. Here we
are reduced to mere logica! deductions and hypotheses.
Hurebista's father may have been himself a 'king' in the acception
given hy ancient authors to the chiefs of the large tribal confederations.
There is no way in which to prove that the beginnings of the centralized
Daco- Getic state can be traced back to him 1 7 2•
\Ve do not know either which part of the Daco- Getic Carpatho
Danubian space was inhabited by the tribal union h eaded first by Bu
rebista's father and later by Burebista himself i.e., the territory in which
the great king emerged . To be more precise, we would say that we lack
the peremptory evidence liable to answer the question raised with respect
to Burebista's homeland.
Before attempting to answer this question, let us see whether
Burebista ever had a capital.
1 7 1 The dating of Burebista's early reign around 82 B.C. has lately been upheld also
by H. Daicoviciu and J. Trynkowski ; H. Daicoviciu , in Dacia, pp. 34
- 35.
17 2
The hypothesis about a centralized state a t the time of Burebista's father was put
forward by C. Daicoviciu in scn·, G, 1 -2, 1 955, p. 5'1.
54
4. The capita l (?)
When h e first pubfo>hed the Dionysopolis decree which pays tribute to

Akornion, V. Latyshev filled in the gaps in lines 2 5 - 26 as follows :
l.v T?i 7tpw•ri xcxl. µ[ey ] &ii.ii.wv xcxl. l8[ lq; or E:v T?J 7tpwni xcxl. µ[e]yloTn 7toii.s:L •.
/, ] lcx 1 7 3 • According to the second variant the text could read i n the follow
ing way :
"(Akornion) came to him (to Bnrebista) in the most important and
largest ci ty ( . . . )lia. "
This might be the evidence that the text of the decree in honour
of Akornion mentions by name (of which we only have th e ending ( . . . )lia)
the sea t of Burebista.
E . Kalinka's fill-in version 174 for the same lines of the inscription
is th e following : ye]v6µevoc; (Akornion) xcxl. 7tpoc; -rou-rov lv T?i 7tpWT7J
xcxl. µ.::: [ y (cr-:-ri L]8Lq;. This version was adopted by V. Pârvan who trans
lated the respective passage in this way : "Akornion was the first
and the closest also to him " 175•
"\\- . Dittenberger and Hiller v. Gaertringen complete the same sec
tion of the Dionysopolis decree this way : y ]ev6µevoc; xcxl. 7tpoc; TOuTov E:v T?i
r.pw-r·IJ xcxt µe[ ytcrT ][ T?i �cxcrL]ii.l !l' i;u.
The above fill-in is accepted by G. G. Mateescu 177 who translated
it in this manner :
"aud going Akornion also to him, to the fil'st and the greatest
kingdom . . . "
According to H. Egger and P. Foucart, the word �cxaLii.lcx was
used instead of �ixat/..e lix and in this way the passage E:v T?i 7tpWT?J xixl.
µ[eytcr•„ri �ixaL]ii.l!l' could be translated : in the most important and greatest
royal residence.
This being said the conclusion can be reached that the Dionysopolis
inscription paying tribute to the reputed citizen named Akornion clearly
refers to Burebista's capital, since the firat and largest city could be no
other than the capital. Moreover, the reconstitution suggested by the
first editor of the monument preserves even the ending of the capital's
name . . . lia.
The reconstitutions of lines 25 -26 of the Dionysopolis inscription
listed so far have b een categorically and rightfully dismissed by the French
epigraphist M. Holleaux who maintains that they are unacceptable in
terms of both meaning and lack of space. None of the suggested fill-ins
can find room on the marble slab discovered at Balcic. The space in which
they should be fit is much too small, a fact that rules them out com
pleiely. The word �ixcrL/.. lix makes no sense to the French scholar, who
cannot conceive of the D ionysopolis envoy being sent to meet Burebista
in his 7tpWT?J xixt µey Earn �ixat/..[ e:] lif, when it is obvious that Dionysopolis
was part of Burebista's 'empire' 178 • In the same manner, the attempt of
na M. Holleaux, Eludes d'epigraphie el d' hisloire grecques, I. Paris, 1938, pp. 286 and Note 1 .
m Anlike Denkmiller in Bulgarien , Vienna, 1906, p . 95.
1 75 Getica, p. 78.
178 Syt 13, 762.
177 A l lN, 4. 1 926 - 1 927, p. 326.
1 78 M. HoUeaux, loc. cil.
55
H. Egger aud P. Foucart to translate fjixat A[e] lix by royal residence is
completely groundless as bas been rightfully noted by Dittenberger.
::\I. Holleaux arrives at the conclusion that the reconstitutions
suggested are either difficult to understand or the mere fruit of imagination
and fantasy. He shows, just as the Viennese epigraphist did independently
of him, that only approximately seven letters at the most can be missing
from line 26. His fill-in variant for the respective gap reads as follows :
[y e ]v6µevoc; xixl. '1t'poc; -rnu't"ov tv 'TI '1t'pW't"'fl xixl. µe[ y la't"'fl (fi t] A l� which
would mean : "on coming (Akornion) also to him (to Burebista) with
foremost and closest friendship". Therefore, Akornion received from
king Burebista the aulic title of '1t'pw1"0c; xixl. µiyia't"Oc; (f> LAoc;. We intend
to revert to the significance of the title.
The completion put forward by 111. Holleaux and Ad. Wilhelm delete
the capital of Burebista only from lines 25 - 26 of the Dionysopolis inscrip
tion. There still remains the mention of a locality at the beginning of
the epigraph.
As we have already noted the sixth line preserves two clearly visible
words : Apyeaixuov and ;r;ix-r �pix. Since we have tackled the second word
when the question of Burebista's father was raised, we shall now deal with
the first. Borne authors have read it : Apyeaixpov. Such was the case
with epigraphist E. Kalinka 179 who saw in the last but two letter a P
with its upper part destroyed. This interpretation was revised later on
when, following a more careful reading of the text, it was established that
in fact the word "Titten had been A pyeacxuov 18 0 and so it is a Y and
the reading was completed as A PI' E dA ION.
'Ye are in the presence of the oldest documentary attestation of
a Dacian dava, a word meaning town, borough, city, which is frequently
translated in Greek by ;r;o ),ic;. E. Kalinka had also noticed before the word
A pyiacxuov two horizontal lines (hastae) which, according to tbe epi
grapbist, are imprints of the letter I: 1 81 • The same is sbown also by
G. )likhailov, the last editor of tbe Dionysopolis decree : "lapis :
I:APr'E dA ION prima littera incerta est, sed fortasse I: " 182•
Tbe identification of this letter before Argedava raised no problems
as far as the interpretation of the text is concerned, the opinion being
advanced that it was the ending of the preceding word with the result
that the sixth line was completed with : ( . . . d) 'Apyeacxuov18 3. Assuming
that the lapidary of the decree in Akornion's honour did not separate
the words, but jointed them instead, using no punctuation marks,
H. Daicoviciu advanced the hypothesis that the letter might have belonged
to tbe word I:ixpyiaixuov and, consequently the toponym would read
I: ixpyeaixuov instead of 'Apyiacxuov184.
The assumption that the s ixth line of the Dionysopolis inscription
refers to Sargedava and not to Argedava has a,lso been made by N. Gostar,
who thinks that the accurate form would be Zargedava.
1 79 E. Kalinka, op. cil„ 9 5 ; cf. and R. Yulpe, in OCD, Bucharest. 1 960, p. 558.
1 89 Sy / 1 3 , 762 ; G . )!ikhailo\", op. cil„ p. 53.
181 E. Kalinka, op. ci/„ p. 90.
182 G. )Iikhailov, Inscripliones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, J, 2nd edition , Sofia , 1 970.
p. 53.
183 Sy / /3, 76 2 ; G . )!ikhailov, op. cit„ 9 1 .
184 H . Daicoviciu, in S CJ V, 13, 1, 1 962, p. 1 4 ; The Dacians ( in R om . ) , Bucharest, 1 965,
pp. 104 - 105.
56
Although still highly hypothetical, we shall insist on the form o f
Argedava, which i s widely accepted b y modern researchers .
A close look at its elements reveals that the toponym abides by the
norms of the Thracian language. Like many other anthroponyms or
toponyms it is made up of two elements or themes : Arge- and -dava and
belongs to what linguists are calling compound or 'full' nouns.
The first element Arge is also found in the structure of other Thracian
toponyms such as Argarm1m, a Dobrujan locality mentioned in a Histrian
document at the time of Trajan under the form Domfohtm Argamensium1 85•
The name 'Apyixµw comes up in Procopius as well (De aed., IY, 1 1 ) .
The first theme can also be found i n such toponyms a s 'Apyixv6 xLAL i n the
Timoc valley 186•
The second theme dava is widely spread throughout the Daco-Getic
world, constituting a particularity of th e latter and distinguishing it
from the southern Thracian space 1 87• To this we must add that the first
theme has no accurate analogy and that our toponym, taken as a whole,
with its two component parts, has close parallels in Dacia.
After the fact has been established that the Dionysopolis inscriptio n
speaks of a locality called Argedava, attempts have naturally been made
to locate it, all the more so, as this was directly related to the question
of Burebista's father . This view was at one time unanimously accepted
on the ground that the mention of Argedava was followed by the word
1t1:1.:: �poc (father) which did not, however, refer to Burebista, but to another
Daco- Getic king.
A locality named Argedava was known to have been mentioned in
Dacia later on, to be more precise, in the Roman times. It is referred
to in Ptolemy's description (III, 8, 4) as well as in the two ancient
itineraries : Tabula Peutingeriana (VII, 3) and the Geographer of Ravenna
(204, 4 ) . One has to admit that there were sufficient reasons for scholars
to identify the Argedava from Akornion's inscription with the one iu
Ptolemy's description all the more so as in the latter's ' Geographia'
the name of th e locality is :-;pelled 'ApyLaixuix. 'Ye must also add that
ArgedaYa has been identified at Yăr<1dia in the Cara� valley (the soutll
of Banat ) tallying with the ancient itineraries that located Argidava
along the Lederata to Tibiscum route.
A Roman castrum was discovered at Vărădia ( Caraş-Severin county )
in 1 933 whose name of Arcidava had been taken over bY the Romans
from a Dacian settlement in the immediate vicinity 1 88• Hen�e the accurate
assessment of those researchers 189 who argued that Argedava was one and
18° V. Pârvan, Ilisl ria, 4, 16, pp. 28ff.
lS& D. Detschew. I>ie l /1rakiscl1e11 Sprachresle, \'ienna, 1 95 i .
1 87 G . c ; . :\lat ee scu , in EI>, 1, 1 92:1. p p . 1 05ff ; id„ i n A IIN, 3, C l u j , 1 !!2 4 - 1 925.
p p . 3 9 1 . 405, 466, 479 : i d „ in A J /S, 1 , 1 92 () - 1 927, p . 330. R. Vulpe, i n OCIJ, p. 558. The
Idea o f a dialectal division was advanccd by B. P. Haşdeu i n Fra§ments for lile Ilistory of t lie
Romanian Language ( i n Rom.), li, Bucharest. 1 876, p . 72. See also VI. GeorgieY, iu Studii
C/asire. 2. 1 960. pp. 44ff. : C . Peghirc, in Studia Balcanica, V, Sofia, 1 97 1 . p p . 1 7 l ff .
186 (� r. Florescu, in Istros. I , rase. 1 , p p . 6 0 - 7 2 where one finds t h e history o f the
assumption according to whil'h Argida\·a is identica! with Argeda\'a in the inscription p a y i n g
t r i b u l e to Akornion, p . 6 1 .
189 C . Patsch, Aus J O IJ .Jahren vorromisrher und romischer Geschic/1te Siidostcuropas, Bei
trăge :ur r olkerkunde 11011 Siidosteuropa, \-, 1, Vienna, 1 932, p. 46, !'\ole 2 ; \'. Pâryan, Getica,
pp. 81 and 26� ; A. Alfiildi. 7.11r (iesc/1icl1te des [{arpalenbeckens im 1. Jahrhundert 11. Chr. • in
Arclli1mm Europae Cenlro-Orienta/is, B. 1 - .?, 1 942, p . 5 ; C. Daicoyiciu, La Transy/11anie,
p . 4G.
57
tbe same with mans·io Arcidava as mentioned in Tabula Peutingeriana
and the Geograpber of Ravenna on tb e Banat route Lederata-Aizis-Tibis
cum and identified near Vărădia.
V. Pf1rvan advanced a second hypothesis starting from the idea that
the present-day Argeş may have been named almost identically in ancient
times. The river Ordessos referred to by Herodotus (IV, 48) as tributary
of tbe Danube would represent an erroneous spelling, standing for Argesis,
under tbe influence of the Cariau ending in -crcroi; 190• Y et, O. Daicovic:iu 191
opines that there can be no mistake in Herodotus' text for the simple
reason that in the 2nd century B . C. Polybius mentions tbe form Orde,:;sos
and not Argesis, with the result that Argedava must be sought somewhere
along the upper course of tbe river Argeş, on the southern side of the
Carpathians, in the area where the first capitals of what was to be later
\Yalachia, were founded. Argedava may well have been the capital oi
the Getic kings ever since Dromichaetes, being somehow symmetrirnlly
opposed to Sarmizegetusa on the 'l'ransylvanian side of the Carpath i.rns.
Argedava was located by R. Vulpe 192 at Popeşti, where an important
Getic settlement was uncovered.
The identification of Argedava in the inscription found at Balcic
with the Popeşti settlement has been contested by H. Daicoviciu 193 ancl
also by N. Gostar 194. The latter, while rej ecting the identification of Arge
dava in the inscription paying tribu te to Akornion with the Getic settlement
at Popeşti, puts forward a different bypothesis : starting from the text
of the Dionysopolis inscription and referring to the sixth line, he takes
the view that Apyiaocuo\I may well have been preceded by a Z not by
an S as assumed by some experts . The two lines (hastae) so clearly Yi:< ible
today ma,y have belonged to the following word not to the previom one,
as maintained by Ernst Kalinka in bis [e:L]i;. In this case the spelling
in the text could be Zargedavo n and not Argedavon, or Sargedaw• n a,,;
bas been assumed so far.
Among the ancient toponyms mentioned by geographer Ptolemy
in the description of Dacia (Geogr., III, 10, 8 ) on the left side of the
river Siret, we come across a, locality named Zargidava alongside Piro
boridava and Tamasidava. All these can be located, in all probability,
in the southern part of Moldavia where important Daco - G etic settlements
are known to have existed. One of these could be Zargedava as it is men
t ioned in the Dionysopolis inscription. N. Gostar's hypothesis is quite
veridica! and worthy of attention. Recent researches 195 point to the dec:isive
1 90 \'. Pârya n , î n A. /U/S/, ser. I I I , I , 1 923, pp. 2 9 - 30 ; idem, Getica , pp. � 2 . 8 1 , 2 35 ;

idem , Dacia ; A ncienl Ci11i/i:alions in /he Carpallw-lJanubian //egions (in Rom . ) , 3rd edition,
Bucharest , 1 958, p. 82 .
18 1 Dromichailes'Land, in Emlekk onyv /{elemen Lajos, Cluj, 1 957, pp. 1 80 - 1 82 ; id . , i n
Steaua , \'I II , 1:2 , 1 957, pp. 95 - 98 ; id„ in SC/V, G , 1 - 2 , 1 955, p . 52, Note 1 .
192 l n OCJJ, pp. 557 - 5 6 4 .
193 H . DaicoYiciu, Daci a , p. 3 -1 , placed Lhe locality, judging by Hs na me, near Sargeda\"a
in the Orăşlie :\Its. and more recen tly, in Dobruja /in Steaua, 8, 1 9 75 , p. 37/ on the bash. of an
inscription referring to a vicus Arcidava which, in our view, is a twin Banat Iocality bcarit'g the
sa m e namc.
1 8� :\:. Gostar , in A„ nale/e Univ. Iaşi, S.X. sec. I I I , a. Ist„ 16, 1 970, fasc. 9 , 0p p. 6:2 - 6:3.
195 Prcliminary reports haYc been publishcd or are under way as researches ha,·e not
as y e t been completed. See A. Florescu and Gh. Melintc, in SC/ V, 19, I, 1 968 , pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 4 ;
A. Florescu a n d S. Raţă, in Studii şi .Ualeriale , Suceava, I, 1 9 6 9 , pp. 9 - 1 6 ; id„ in Ce;cetări
istorice, Iaşi, .J , 1 9 i l , pp. 1 03 - 1 1 6 ; A. C. Florescu , in Cercetări istorice , Iaşi , :!, 1 9 7 1 , pp.
1 03 - 1 1 6 .
58
part played by what is now Moldavian teITitory in the history of the
Daco- Getae. We have in mind the monumental earth defenses discovered
by systematic diggings in northern and central 1\foldavia at Stînceşti
(Botoşani county ), Cotnari (laşi county ) , Moşna (Iaşi county) which
b elong to the second half of the lst millenium B.C., more precisely
between the 6th and 2nd centuries B.C. Geto-Dacian fortresses o f
the same kind with those in Moldavia were investigated b y Soviet archae
ologists at Butuceni, Mateuţi, Vîhvatinţi and Saharna 196•
These Moldavian fortresses testify to the existence of a numerous
and well-organized Getic population which as early as the 6th century
B . C. was able to build such constructions. Even after the 3rd century
B . C . . when these earth defenses apparently ceased being erected, the
presence of a political power in the form of an influential tribal union
is proved by the Dacian coins discovered in increasingly larger quantitieil
on )foldavian teITitory. The presence of a minting centre, which became
very active starting with the latter half of the 2nd century B . C. 197,
has been established in southern Moldavia between the lower Siret basin
and northeastern "\Valachia down to the valley of the Buzău river.
It seems very plausible that the centre of gravity of the politica,l
formation lying in northern and central Moldavia during the 6th - 4th
centuries B.C. and materialized iuto those imposing earth fortresses, to
which must be added the treasure troves of golden obj ects worked in the
animalistic style 198 found at Băiceni and Stînceşti, should have moved
southward after the Bastarnae's anival on the scene. To what extent
this means the retreat of a politically constituted organization, headed
by powerful chieftains, or the emergence of other, local ones from southern
Moldavia, is anybody's guess.
Y et , the first alternative seems much more plausible. Anyhow,
one thing is certain, namely that the Moldavian territory was lived in by
powerful tribal confederations of Daco- Getae which were very active
ever since the 6th century B.C. The tribal confederation having coined
its o wn money, beginning with the latter half of the 2nd century B.C.,
may well h�lYe expanded eastward into the lower basin of the Siret . These
are ;;ufficient grounds to back up the assumed existence of a powerful
confederation of Getic tribes in southern Moldavia including, in all pro
babil ity the territory north of the Danube Delta as well. By about t he
,
year 200 B.C. it might h ave been led by king Rhemaxos, who is mentioned
in the Histrian decree paying tribute to Agathocles, son of Antiphilus 199•
His kingdom may well have been located, as shown in the afore-mentioned
decree, in the north-Danubian region including probably a vast area in
southern �Ioldavia and Bessarabia 2 0 0 •
196 For l h is s ce A. I . :\Ieliukova, in KS, ;;s, 1 95 1 , p p . 59ff. ; i d . , in .l! LI., 64, 1 95 8 ,

p p . \hlff . ; G . B . Fedorov, i n JILi., 89 , 1 960, p p . 8 - 56 ; T . D . Zlatkovskaia, in JILi. , p p . 1 95
- H J 7 , p p . 266 - 2i0.
m Cf. C. Preda, Tize Coins, p p . 1 95 - 1 9 i , 266 - 2i0.
iis \ ! . Petrescu-Dlmbovi ţ a , s.v. Băiceni , i n En:yklopiidisches Handbuch :ur L"r- und
Friilzg:">chichle Europas, · 1, Prag u e , 1 966, p p . 77 - 78 ; :\!. Petrescu-Dimboviţa, D . :\Iarin,
in Dacia , 19, 1 9i 5 , pp. 105 - 123.
rn9 D. \[ . Pip p i d i , i n Studii Clasice, \', 1963, p p . 1 3 i - 1 6 1 ; id., .4.c/a .4.nliqua Philippopoli
tww , S/11dia llislorica e l Philologica , Sc r cl i cae , 1963, pp. 91 - 98 ; i d . , în \'Ol . J!elanges d'arc/leo
logie , 1/'t'pigraf!hie el d'hisloire o{{erls a Jerome Carcopitw , Par is , 1 966, p p . 763 - 770 ; I. I. Russ u ,
în A. p11/11m. G . 1 9 6 i , p p . l :l3 - 1 3 7 .
� oo
I . I . Russu , loc. cil.
59
It is quite obvious that the basic ethnic element inhabiting the
teuitory north of the Danube's last bend between the mouths of the
Siret and the Dniester in the 3rd to 2nd centuries B .C. and later during
Burebista's time was the Daco- Getic element, and before that, the Thracian
one. This teuitory was first invaded by the Scythians and afterwards
by the Bastarnae who , constituted in enclaves, held, for a time, the poli
tical power. To back up this view bere is the conclusion of th e Soviet
researcher G. B. Fedorov : "Therefore, the territories in the south-west
of the Soviet Union were populated during the period under survey, i.e.,
in the last centuries B . C. and the first centuries of our era, by the Tyra
getae-Getae or Getae intermixed with Sarmatians, Bastarnae, Veneti and,
towards the end of the period, with Goths 201 •
It seems quite probable that king Rhemaxos and his son should
have ruled north of the Danube in an area lying between the Siret river
and the Dniester, reaching further east, as indicated by coin discoveries 20 2 •
Their supremacy may have taken the form of a protectorate over the west
Pontic cities including Histria.
Assuming that the locality referred to in the sixth line of the imcrip
tion pa.ying tribute to Akornion is Zargedava, the fact that another 'barba
rian' king protector, or rather one entitled to levy tribu te from th e west
Pontic Greek cities, is mentioned în much the same geographical space
one century later cannot be interpreted as a mere coincidence. The
latter is supposed to have received Akornion's embassy around the year
70 B .C. It is worth recalling that the Greek emissary would also undertake
bis diplomatic mission with the king's son, and later on with the king
himself from whom we do not know what he got. The mutilated text
of the Dionysopolis inscription leads to the conclusion that he got some
thing, most probably a certain measure of goodwill and something more,
the fact that th e people of Dionysopolis was exempted from sometlling.
This seems to have been an exemption from tribute. It is difficult to
bint to something else tha t a 'barbarian' chief could bave exempted
th e Dionysopolis people from.
In the second inscription, the one of Dionysopolis, no mention
is made of the names of the 'barbarian' chief and bis son with '1-hom
the Dionysopolis envoy discussed bis diplomatic euand, which ·we know
had a positive outcome. We are told, however, that Akornion met the
father in a locality called Argedava, Sargedava or rather Zargedava,
according to N. Gostar, whose opinion we share. Even if the name of
the respective locality cannot be elucidated, one thing is certain, namely
that the place in question is a dava which represents an important Daco
Getic settlement . This point:'l to the conclusion that the two men were
l eaders of the indigenous tribes not of the Scythians or any other people.
The exact limits �f the territorv ruled bv them are not indicated bv the
epigraph . Nevertheless, it seems highly probably that it was some�here
in southern l\foldavia, lying on both sides of the Siret basin.
A recent interpretation of th e decree in honour of Akornion according
to which th e first existing lines refer not to Burebista or bis father as
previously believed, but to another Getic king, whose rule might coincide
with king Rhemaxos', as mentioned in the Histrian decree, leads us into
201 G . B . Fedorov, in $C1 ' ", IO, 2, 1959, pp. :l/ 1 - .J03.
202 C f. C. Pred a . The Coins. pp. 269 - 270.
60
assuming that the latter ruled over a Getic territory even if his or1gm
was different. \Y e may assume, by analogy with Transylvania, in this
case, too , that an -incrementa Dacoritm viz, a rise in the Getae's power
took place · inside the Carpathian arch, to the detriment of the Celts,
and very similarly within the space concerning us, to the detriment of
the Scythiarn;. The event could very well happen at approximately the
same time.
Proceeding with our hypothesis, we can also assume that the settle
m ent in southern J\foldavia represents a powerful tribal union, one of the
four politica! formations that will be drawn together by Burebista.
Anyhow, the similarities between the two epigraphs cannot be
questioned though they are one century apart and the current stage of
researches fails to provide the necessary clarifications.
Each time when problems remain obscure, further clarifications
can only be obtained from additional discoveries. Yet, no one can say
when these will come up.
But let us go back to our problem : the identification of Argedava
or rather Zargedava. The only conclusion to be reached concerning the
first existing lines of the Dionysopolis inscription paying tribute to Akor
nion is that they are not visible enough and that the diplomatic mission
of Akornion, who travelled far away to meet somebody's father in Zarge
d ava or Argedava, is referred to pretty ambiguously. One can also assert
that Akornion's first diplomatic errand to the son of that somebody did
not seem to have pleased the people of Dionysopolis . Hence his second
mission, this time to that father who must have been a man of great
authority since he was able to exempt the Dionysopolis people from that
something which we assume to be the tribute. A strong pointer to a king
protector entitled to levy the tribute from the west-Pontic cities which
included also Dionysopolis.
A thorough examination of the inscription in honour of Akornion
J eads to the assumption that th e opening lines do not speak of Burebista,
the latter being referred to only in lines 22 -23 of the epigraph. He is
called there 'the first and the greatest of the Thracian kings', a more recent
d evelopment, viz, his rule over territories on both sides of the Danube
including the land previously held by somebody else.
A different interpretation of the particle xixt in the twenty-fifth
Jine of the inscription (npoc;; -rou-rov), which relates Akornion's mission to
Burebista to the first king mentioned in the opening lines and which
caused most researchers to believe that he was Burebista's father, should
not be ruled out. We have in mind that portrayal 'the first and the
greatest of the Thracian kings' which could imply the existence at the
time of other kings in Thrace, ruling over peoples occasionally referred
to by literary sources : the Odrysae, Sapaei, D entheletae, Maedi or the
Bessi. Bv the other characterization 'ruler of the lands on both sides
of the Danube' the author of the decree may have wanted to distinguish
Burebista from the other Dacian kings, particularly the one Akornion
was sent to in Zargedava (Argedava) with his diplomatic mission. As
in the case of Burebista, Akornion was held in high esteem. If things
happened this way, then we must necessarily infer that the king reigning
north of the Danube, designated in th e Dionysopolis inscription only by
ncx-r fipcx, had heen subj ected and his territory included in Burebista's
kingdom.
61
Although the absence of documents makes it impossible for us to
get a better insight into the events, all available data point to the conclu
sion that the unification of the Geto-Dacians , their submission to a central
authority i.e., that of Burebista, was carried out stagewise. Akornio n's
diplomatic mission to Burebista must have taken place after 55 B .C . ,
but certainly before 4 8 B .C. when the king had completed the unification
of the Daco- Getic lands by extending the boundaries of his kingdo m
eastward.
}fany researchers have repeatedly maintained, what has already
become a sort of commonplace, that Burebista's capital and residence
was Argedava.
Burebista's capital used to be located by different scholars according
to ·what they thought to have once been Argedava 20 3•
The decree issued in honour of Akornion speaks only of Zargedava
(Argedava) and only of that Getic king whose name is unknown to us .
The possibility of this having been the residential city of that mighty
chief of tribal confederation should not be ruled out since manv other
such places may well have existed across the vast Carpatho-D anubiau
space inhabited by the Daco- Getae.
The author of the decree paying tribute to Akornion does not specify
where did the latter meet Burebista, nor does he name the capital o f
the great king. H e tells u s only that he was the ambassador of the Diony
sopolis people to the king, that he was held in high esteem, becoming
the councillor of that king, who would assign to him various diplomatic
missions. We have no evidence of the fact that Akornion lived in Burebista's
residence. As a matter of fact such a reference is not contained in any
other document. Akornion's meetings with the Daco- Getic king may
lrnve been held in whatever locality suited Burebista at the time.
In our Yiew one cannot speak in Burebista's time of a permanen t
administrative capital as in the case of the Hellenistic states or other
ancient kingdoms since none is indicated by documents, at least in the
current stage of researches . Such a capital would presuppose the existence
of a place boasting some measure of urbanistic development as well as
a long- established municipal administration made up of a pretty large
number of institutions . It is difficult to believe that the Daco- Getae
had attained that stage of development during the reign of Burebista.
�o such capital has so far been indicated by existing written source:i
or archaeological discoveries. The ' princely' palace at Popeşti, despite it'.'!
several rooms and the plan inspired by the Hellenistic world, stretching
over a wide area 2 04 , remains a wooden and clay structure likely to have
met the needs of a tribal chieftain, or of a chief ruling over the larger
territory of several united tribes. It could not have proved adequate
enough to Burebista, who we know now ruled an immense territory and had
certainly seen the imposing edifices of the Greek city-states of the western
shorţl of Pontus Euxinus. B esides, he had at his disposal the Greek builders
and artisans of those cities whose skill he would use when erecting the
grantliose fortresses in the Orăştie Mts.
20 1 In thc Banat at Vărădie by C. Patsch, Beilrăge :ur V oll.:erl.:unde von Siidos/europa,

1, p. 2:) I . I and A. ,\lfill d i , in Archivum Europae Cenlro-Orienlalis, 8, I - 2, 1 94 2 , p. 5.
20-i R. Vulpe, in O CD, p. 563 ; id„ Burebisla l/1e Geta, p. 4 9 .
62
Likewise, the two tower-dwellings in the Costeşti fortress 205, the
other place thought to have been Burebista's residence and capital, also
fall short of the requirements that the cllipital of a monarch reigning
over most of eastern Europe should meet.
If evidence of a permanent capital to satisfy the needs of a grea,t,
king can be found neither at Popeşti nor in the fortresses of the Oră�tie
Mts. or in any other part of the Daco- Getic space, the question ariRes
whether such a capital of which no mention is made in written so urcefi
and no archaeological diggings brought to light, had enr existed � In
our opinion, the answer to this question is negative. Y. P;1rvan was right
when he stated that the residence of a king of RurebiRta's stature,
constantly on the move due to the vastness of his realm, moved along
with him from one place to another. "Burebh;ta's life and actions, " 'nites
V. Pârvan, "must be visualized according to the pattern of the great
conquering monarchies where the capital is where the king is. All the
fortresses lining the great routes and defending the borders are also his
capitals. " 206 And these were not few.
Burebista could only have had a permanent residence or 'capital '
when he was the chief of his own tribal union. This residence must have
been of the dava type, the most important centre of the respective region ,
without subsequently becoming the capital of the realm.
Therefore, even after having united all the Daco- Getic tribes and
laid the foundations of the state, Rurebista had no capital in the true
sense of the word, nor did he have a permanent residence, or a centre
concentrating the apparatus of a centralized state, let alone a 'city'
with palaces for th e king and his courtiers . No such centre has been
discovered for the simple reason that there never had been one. However
impressive and formidable his achievements, however vast the territory
b e ruled over, Burebista remained first and foremost a 'barbarian' king,
who failed to attain the level of organization and civilization of the Helle
nistic monarchies, let alone other slave-owning states of ancient times.
A telling analogy in this connection is provided by the first state in the
'Ihracian history viz, the kingdom of th e Odrysae, the capital of which
is not known. "Where exactly wa s the capital of the Odrysae kingdom
during the reign of Sitalces, " sayR St. Casson, "if one can speak of a
capital, it still open to question" 20 7 •
In connection with this capital, bearing in mind the proportions
of course, we cannot but think of Alexander of �facedon ia's capi tal .
There can be no doubt that at the beginning of his reign when he ruled
only over Macedonia, his capital, and that of his father'R, was the city
of Pella. But can Pella still be considered the capital of Alexander the
Great after he conquered Asia ? Definitely not. Alexander 's capital was
where he was together with his court, with his administration, and parti
cularly with his armies . \Vere there a,ny definite indication of an initial
eapital during his time or his father's, we could easily solve another of
2 05 T h c idea of Burebisla's cap i l a l haYing bcen at Cos l c� l i was first advanccd by

El. M. Teodoresc u , in A. CJIJ T, for 1 92 9 , Cl uj, 1 9:�0. p . 25 1excerpt/ and l a kcn O\'CI' hy o t hers.
205 G etica, p. 8 1 .
207 S t . Casso n , .1/acedon i a , Tlrracc am/ 11/yria , O x fo r d , 1 926, p . 1 9 5 . SC'c a I s o H . Dano\" ,
A ncicnl Tlrrace (in Hom . ) , B uchare s l , 1 9 76, p p . t :rnrr.
63
the much controversed issues in the Romanian speciality literatu.re
namely, the origin of Burebista.
\Ve have already shown that whatever its location, Argedava,
( S)argedava or (Z)argedava has no connection whatsoever with Burebista
or his father and is therefore unlikely to give any indication as to Bu.re
bista's place of origin. This will have to be established, as far as poss ible,
on other criteria.
5. The origin
Whereas the dating of Burebista's glorious reign is possible due to well

documented evidence, though lacking the precision we would have desired,
the same cannot be said about the place of origin of the great king or
about the way in which he came to rule over the territories north and
south of the Danube and became 'the first and the greatest of the Thra
cian kings' .
Strabo (VII, 3, 11) tells u s that Burebista "founded a vast kingdom
within a few years" . The statement of the famous ancient geographer
entitlel" us to suppose that at about the time of Burebista's emergence,
some larger Daco - Getic politica! formations consisting of po werful tribal
confederations were already in existence. This certainly made possible
a rapid unification of all the Daco- Getae, for it is difficult to imagine how
could Burebista have succeeded in bringing together in such a short time
the Daco- Getic tribes which were so numerous. The names and numbers
of these tribes are unknown to us. Judging by the other peoples
who lived contemporaneously with them and reached approximately
the same level of development - and we have in mind here the Celts
in the first place - a great many tribes must have been spread all over
the Carpatho-Danubian space, from the Slovak Carpathians to the Balkans,
and from the middle Danube to Tyras. The names of some of these tribes
are known to us from various sources. We know, for instance, that the
Celtic people was made up of approximately one hundred and fifty tribes.
In De Bello Gallico Caesar lists some sixty tribes in Gaul alone : Aquitani,
Bythurgi, Helveti, Sequani, Haedui, Allobrogi, Senones and many others
whose names are of no consequence here. 'Ve must retain from Caesar's
text a fact of great interest to us, namely that "when Caesar arrived
in Ga,ul, one group of tribes was led by the Haedui, and another by the
Sequani". Unions of larger tribes lived under the domination of a more
powerful tribe.
The same must have been the case with the Daco-Getae before Bu
rebista came to be known. The introductory chapter has made it clear
that after the La Tene culture was generalized, considerable advan@es
were noted in all the spheres, most particularly in the economic field.
The remarkable development of the productive forces, of commodity pro
duction, of trade in general, would bring about substantial changes in
the sphere of relations of production. Of these, the one we are interested
in 11ow is the formation of some increasingly united and long-lasting tribal
confederations.
The q_uestion is how maity such political formations existed during
the early . decades of the last century B.C. and to which did Burebista.
belong ? Literary and epigraphic texts are more than reticent in this matter.
94
The only written but indirect mention is supplied again by Strabo (VII,
3, 1 2 ) who tells us that after Burebista's death "his successors shared
out among them the land he had ruled over. l\Iore recently, when Caesar
Augustus had sent his armies against them, the kingdom was divided
into five parts, but now there were only foUl'" . Today this piece of infor
mation has led to the conclusion that the separate parts int o which Bure
bista's kingdom had been divided were identica! with those having made
it up 2 o s.
If existing literary sources are not much help in answering the firs t
question, the discovery of coins is.
\Ye know today that the Daco- Getae minted their own coinage by
imitating the Greco-Macedonian ones, most particularly those of Philip II
and Alexander the Great. During the past twenty years, discoveries
of Dacian coins have increased considerably. At the same time, quite
a large number of works have been written with the intention of eithe1·
publishing some of the finds or examining the essential as well as the
less important aspects : of the Daco- Getic coinage 2 09• Four centres
have been established 210 during the second important stage of the Greco
Macedonian type of coins issues. This particular stage dates from abou t
the middle of the 2nd centurv · B . C. until the first two or three decades
of the last century B . C. that is, approximately until the beginning o f
Burebista's reign.
Here we come across another coincidence which should bv ' no means
be looked upon as accidental. Strabo tells us that following the death
of Burebista, his kingdom was divided into four parts , and that the Daco
Getic formations which minted their own coinage until about his appear
ance, were also four .
By and large, the first group of coins (of the Vîrteju-Buchares t
type) conrs the middle part of Walachia. The agglomeration of the finds
in an <nea around Bucharest led to the location of the issuing centre there,
possil)ly right in the heart of the rich settlement at Popeşti. Accordin g
to Ptolemy's indications, the Getae living in this area may have been
the P.i efigi.
The second monetary centre is thought to have existed in southern
l\Ioldaxia with ramifications in northeast \Valachia between the Buzău
and the Siret rivers. The Dumbrăveni and lnoteşti-Răcoasa type of coins
have been attributed to this centre. Here too, large tribal confederations
led by th e Siensi may have existed. The space inhabited by the tribal
union, whose chieftains had their own coins minted, apparently extended
beyond northeast \Valachia, including the zones of Buzău, Rîmnicul Sărat
and Brăila . It must have spread further east, beyond the lower cours e
of the rinr Siret. This tribal union owned the rich settlements in southern
l\Iolda>'"ia known as Poiana, Brad, Răcătău and Cîndeşti.
Another important monetary centre, in addition to the other two,
was located on the territory of Oltenia. lt contains a single category
of coins, those of the Aninoasa-Dobreşti-Şuşiţa type, the name being
given by the localities where the eoins were found. Similar c oins were
�os R . Vu lp e , Rurebisla t/1e Geta , p. 46 ; i d . in The Hislory of lhe Romania
, n People ( in
R o m . ) , p p . -18
- 49.
0 09 Of the researchers having lately tackled these qucstions we mention : B. :'llitrea,
I. Winkler, C. Prtda, E. Chirilă ; their Cindings are rcferred to in C. Preda's monograph Tl1.e
Coins, p p . 13ff.
uo C . Preda, op. cil . , p . 429.
5 c. - 170%
&5
discovered throughout the whole of Oltenia , yet the most intense circu
l ation seems to have been along the Jiu Valley. Just like in other cases,
the dissemination area is not coufined to the space b etween th e rivers
Olt and the Danube, and the Carpathians, but exceeds these limits. This
type of coins are also found on the right side of the Danube as well as
beyond the Carpathians, in southern Transylvania and across the river
Olt, în \Yalachia.
Th e fourth important monetary centre was identified inside the
arcb of the Carpathians. By contrast to all the other centres, thi:=; one
shows four different types of coins. They are interrelated in terms of
style, technique and dissemination with the result that they were tbougbt
to have been minted by one and the same centre. The dissemination area
of the coins minted by this centre is în southern Transylvania, mainly
a.Jang the valley of the river Mureş and its tributaries. Such coins go as
far as the Banat, but are not found in northwest Transylvania or in
extra-Carpathian territories . This would be the fourth politica! formation,
the fourth tribal union possibly headed by the Ratacensi. Tbis formation
is thought to have been made up of four tribes, judging by the four
types of coins still preserving some traces of traditional independence.
It is difficult to assess where the centre of this tribal union was located.
The coin concentration in the Hunedoara region may indicate that the
coins were minted în the area. It would be only natural for us to think
of the Dacian fortified towns of the Orăştie Mts. But there, only small
quantities of coins belonging to the four types attributed to this centre,
have been found .
It must be added that wide stretches of land within the Daco
Getic Carpatho-Danubian space remained outside the dissemination area.
of the four principal centres which are supposed to have been active
from 150 B.C. until the first decades of the Ist century B.C. We refer
particularly to the Dobruja territory, where the coins of the Greek city
states may have sufficed, aud also to northern l\foldavia, wbere tbe absence
of such coins could be accounted for by tbe arrival into tbe area of the
Bastarnae who wielded the politica! power. This same absence în those
parts of Transylvania, north of the river Mureş and in tbe north west,
may be accounted for by the politica! control exerted by the Celts, altbougb
arcbaeological discoveries, mainly of the past two decades, indicate tbat
only a narrow strip of land in northwestern Romania h ad been occupied
by the Celts, and that the Maramureş area completely lacks sucb finds .
Other such areas would be Criş::rna and some parts of eastern Transylvania,
as was shown in the introductory chapter. The appearance of ne\\- aud
strong monetary centres, otber than those of the first pbase, point to
the rise of the Daco- Getae and tbe fall of the Celts whose politica! supre
macy was gradually removed even in those areas where it bad flourished 21 1 •
Altbough the coin finds resulting from current investigation,.; îail
to give us a complete picture, the existence of other monetary centres
baving to be demonstrated by further discoveries, we can reasonably
assume that at the time of Burebista's emergence, tbose political for
mations consisting of tribal confederation::;, the outcome of the fa st evo
lution of the Daco- Getic Rociety in all its sphereR, were already in exist
ence. Some of them may bave been of a, more recent date, other..- go
a long way into th e past a:;; t estified by literary texts.
211 Ibidem. p. � 1 6 .
66
We must confine ourselves, for the time being, to what information
coiu discoveries corroborated by more recent archaeological finds can
give us. These have been helping us to get a better insight into what
the Daco- Getic material and spiritual culture was like. To this must
certainly be added Strabo's text which does tally with all the numismatic
sources.
The question that now arises is to what extent can we p inpoint
the territory of origin of Burebista i.e., his cradle. To put it differently,
whether we can say to which of the large politica! formations of tribal
unions did he belong and where was the process of unification started.
Heated discussions have b een going on between Romanian experts
on this topic, with two schools of thought emerging : one considering
the territory of W alachia as being bis land of origin, the other holding
that Burebista originated in the intra-Carpathian zone of Transylvania.
Before tackling these two hypotheses, let us briefly deal with the other
areas so far ignored by the discussions.
Southern Moldavia, on both sides of the Siret valley, seems to
have been inhabited by a very powerful tribal union. Evidence of this
are the rich natural fortifications at Poiana, Brad, Răcătău and Cîndeşti. The
large quantity of pottery, belonging to all categories and displaying a
wide rauge of forms and decorations, the metal implements and adorn
ments, the workshops discovered here, all point to a high-level economic
activity. The presence of Hellenistic luxury articles, besides coins, indicates
the close relations between the Getae l iving in those parts and *he Greek
colonists ou the western shores of Pontus Euxinus.
The discoveries that have been made in the settlements investigated
so far shmY that the economic resources of the autochthonous population
were sufficient to enable it to maintain active and permanent trading
relation:; with the G reek city-states on the west coast of the Black Sea.
This economic development is sure to have underlain the kind of advanced
political organization apparently headcd by those kings to whom the
Greeks of thc west-Pontic colonies would go for help whenever the need
aro:;e. It is to these regions that seem to refer the Histrian inscriptions
presenting Zalmodegikos and Rhemaxos as protectors of the city. Zalmo
degikos i:; mentioned by an inscription discovered at Histria in 1 95 9 21 2 •
The epigraph in question refers to a decree dating from the 3rd century
B.C. ·which was issued in honour of some envoys having b een sent to
Zalmodegikos. The latter must have been a �occrtku�, although he
is not designated as such by the inscriptiou, aud must have ruled some
where in northwestern Dobruj a. He was entitled to raise tribute from
Histria a" shown in the decree.
The indications contained in the Histrian inscription about the
territory over which this powerful figure had ruled, in fact the only docu
ment referring to him, are extremely vague. 'Ve are told only about the
courage of the envo�Ts who got tired "travelling through enemy territory
where they had to face all kinds of peril" . Such indications are unlikely
to lead to a localization. D. M. Pippidi localized Zalmodegikos' territory
itt Dobrudja whereas R. Vulpe thinks that it must be sought in eastern
"\Valachia 21 3 • Such hypotheses are refuted by archaeological discoveries
212 D. :\!. Pippi d i , i n SCI V, 1 960, pp. ::l9 - 4 5 / Epigraphische fleilriige , pp. 75 - 88 ;
id„ in Studii Clasic e , :J, 1 96 1 , pp. 53 - 66.
21 a R . Vulpe, B11rebisla lile Geta , p. 40, Note 1 6 .
67
and particularly by numismatic evidence which supply no clue as to tb e
existence, either in northern Dobruja or in eastern Walachia, of D aco
Getic politica! formations powerful enough to be able to raise tribute and
give assistance to such Greek cities as Histria 214• One should not, however,
rule out the possibility of their having existed in southern Moldavia where
another 'protector' of Histria, king Rhemaxos, was to govern later on 215•
It must be remembered that somewhere north of the Danube mouths,
possibly in about the same area where the territories of Zamoldegikos
aud king Rhemaxos were lying, there was a powerful Getic politica}
formation ever since the first half of the 4th century B . C . We know
that Zopyrion, the governor of Thrace during Alexander the Great's
glorious campaign in Asia, launched an attack against Olbia and the
other Greek cities on the northern coast of Pontus Euxinus. In 326 B.C.,
on his way back, Zop�Tion was killed together with his whole arrny of
some thirtv thousand men 216.
However strong it might have been, the tribal union inhabiting
southern Moldavia cannot supply an answer to the question of Burebista's
origin. The Dionysopolis inscription in honour of Akornion refers, in all
probability, to another Getic king. It is that king that is defeated by
Burebista at an approximate date which we shall try to establish when
referring to the conquest of the west-Pontic Greek cities .
The second tribal union in Romania's extra-Carpathian area is
the one inhabiting the t erritory of what is now Oltenia. The Daco- Getic
settlements discovered h ere, some of which are fortified, like that of
Ocniţa, maintained trading relations with the Thracian population 011
the right side of the Danube. Evidence of such relations are th e Greek
products discovered in the autochthonous settlements in this part of
Dacia plus the monetary finds. Alsa worthy of mention are th e f'ilver
coins imitating the coins of Philip III Arrhidaios which are thought to
have been minted somewhere south of the Danube 21 7 • The Getae living in
Oltenia had active economic and cultural ties with the Dacian tribes in sout
h ern 'Iransylvania, judging by the circulation of coins aud the similarity in
style provided by the imitations of contemporary coins in both areas.
\Ve possess extremely few data about the history of the Getic tribes
that inhabited Oltenia. The treasure containing silver obj ects discovered
at Craiova, which looks like a princely funerary inventory, indicates
that the tribes of this area were well organized, being headed by a powerful
a.ristocracy. The obj ects in the Craiova treasure are decorated in th e
Thracian- Scythian faunistic style 218• These objects are not produced
by the autochthonous population, but could have been made in a foreign
workshop, either on order by the chief of a local tribe or else procured,
în one way or another, by him. The silver treasure discovered somewhere
around Craiova points to the existence of an economic and implicitly
214 C. Preda , T/1e Coins, p. 270.
21 5
I n conneclion with the history of these two kings, see R . Vulpe, Hisloire ancirnne de
la Dobroudja , Buoharest, 1938, pp. 87 - 90 ; S. Lambrino, in IIistoria, 1 1 , 1962 , pp. 21 - 22 ;
D . :'II. Pippidi, Conlribulions (in Rom . ) , pp. 1 86 - 21 7 ; C. Preda, The Coins, pp. 269 - 270 ;
I. I. Russu, in Apulum, 6, 1967, pp. 1 23 - 1 43 and :'II. I . RostoYtzev, Skylhien und der Bospo
r us , I, Berlin, 1 921, p. 493 , Note 1 , think Rhemaxos is a Scyth and P. O. Karyszkowski , in
VD I, 1 971 2 , pp . 35 - 56, thinks he is a Celt and must be located north of Pontus Euxinus
21& R. Vulpe, in Rom . Hisl. , 1, 1960, p. 228 .
21 7 C. Preda, op. cit. , pp. 428 - 429.
218 P. Alexandrescu , in Dacia, 18, 1974, pp. 273 - 281 ; I. H . Crişan, in .\nuaru/ Jnst.
.
de ]st. şi ..\rh. Cluj-Xapoca , 1 7, 1974, pp. 25 - 35.
613
politica! power, a union of local tribes, as far back as the 4th century B . C .
when t h e treasure was dated 219 •
This same tribal union, numismatically recorded ever since the latter
half of the 2nd century B.C., must have fought back the Celtic tribes
which tried to invade its territory. This accounts for the fact that only
a limited area in southwestern Oltenia was occupied by the Celts. Th e
eremation graves with Celtic funerary inventories discovered in south
western Oltenia seem to have belonged to the Scordisci having arrived
bere from what is now Yugoslavia, possibly dislodged by the Roman
armies under the command of Minucius Rufus, the governor of Macedonia
(109 B . C . ) who, following bis victory, obliged them to seek refuge.
\Ve learn from Trogus Pompeius, through Iustinus (IX, 2 -3 ) , that
the Scythian king Ateas, on bis way from th� north-Pontic steppes,
attempted to cross into the south-Danubian area. His advance was checked
by an anonymous 'king of the Histrians' (Histrianorum rex) who headed
a very powerful politica! formation, unquestionably a tribal union. Led
by the anonymous king, the Getae attacked Ateas and succeeded in
preventing him from advancing, at least for a time, south of the Danube.
In 339 B . C.220 Ateas was defeated by Philip II and the Scythians' advance
balted. Some researchers localize the realm of the anonymous king in
northern Dobruj a, wondering whether he was or was not the Moskon
basileus whose name can be read on the coins discovered on this terri
tory 221 • Other researchers opine that this was the chief of a tribal union
occupying both banks of the Danube 222 • Later on, in 335 B.C., the same
union of Getic tribes, living in the Danube plain would oppose Alexander
o.f Macedonia.
This is not the place to detail the expedition of the Macedonian
king 22 3• We shall, however, recall that documents of the first half of
the 4th century B.C. indicate the presence of a powerful politica! for
mation in the ·walachian plaiu. This will show itself to be very active
around the year 300 B . C. when under the leadership of Dromichaetes.
The wars between the latter and Diadoch Lysimachus are related by
Diodorus 2 24• The tribal confederation headed by Dromichaetes, which
was powerful enough to fight back Lysimachus' armies, is supposed to
bave had its centre somewhere in Walachia on the river Argeş.
After Dromichaetes' spectacular victory, literary sources remai.R
silent as far as his tribal union is concerned. No other reference to the
Getae's presence in the Walachian Plaiu is to be found throughout the
3rd and 2nd centuries B . C. The Histrian inscriptions which speak about
Za-lmodegikos and Rhemaxos must have referred, as we have already
showu, to other territories. N evertheless, the politica! formation led by
the brave and wise Dromichaetes could not just disappear. It certainly
continued to live in that area despite th.e fact that its history cannot be
reconstructed in the absence of written sources . The presence of a union
of Getic tribes in Walachia is demonstrated by coin discoveries there
219 For the dating of the Craiova treasure see D. Berci u , Thraco-Getic Art, Bucharest.
1 969, pp. 1 23ff ; id . , Contribution a /'ciude de l'arl lhraco-gele, Bucharest, 1974, pp. 1 37ff.
220 \'
. Pârvan, Getica , pp . 51 ff. ; R. Vulpe, in llom. Hist . , 1 , 1960, p. 227.
221 D. Berci u , in From the Ilistory of Dobruja, 1, Bucharest, 1965, p. 129 ; C. Preda, in SCI V,
1 5 , J, 1 96.J , pp. 401 ff.
222 R. \' ulpe, loc. cil.
223 Arrian, :l nabasis, I, 3- .J .
224 Bib. ist . , XXXI, 1 2 ; V. Pârvan, Getica, pp. 56- 65.
69
only after the middle of the 2nd century B.C. The large number of coiu
emissions and the agglomeration of the settlements attributed to this
political formation led to the conclusion that we are in the presence o f
the mast important Geto -Dacian tribal confederation. The settlement at
Popeşti is thought to have been the residence of the head of the Getic
tribal confederation in the central part of 'Valachia during the latter
half of th e 2nd century B . C. as well as Burebista's place of origin and
starting point in his large-scale undertaking of uniting all the Geto
Dacians 2 :!5.
According to the second hypothesis advanced on the subject,
Burebista, would be of Transylvanian origin, the centre of his power
having been somewhere in the Dacian fortified towns of the Orăştie l\Its.226•
Following earlier archaeological discoveries and particularly the ones made
in the past twenty years, many Dacian settlements have been brough t
to light in Romania's intra- Carpathian space, a vast proportion of which
seem to have been extremely rich and thriving, and alsa fortified. Of
these, we shall mention only some i.e., the mast important and thoroughly
investigatcd ones such as the fortresses of the Orăştie Mts. Their systematic
examination and exposure was begun as early as 1 935 and continued
more extensinlv after the Second World "Tar . To these must be added
the fortresses �f southern Transylvania : C:I pîlna, Băniţa and Piatra
Crai vii, those in the southeast of Transylvania : Zetea, Covasna, Jigodin a.o.
and the fortified settlement at Pecica. The vast majority of the fortresses
investigatecl in t,h e intra-Carpathian space came into existence during
the 2nd centun B . C .
Archaeulogical findings are abundantly clear i n pointing to a wide
range of activities anu to a thriving economic, cultural and political life.
Though not many, the literary sources having reached us speak
of the existence in Transylvania of powerful tribal confederations. Living
farth er awa�· from the civilized Mediterranean world, the Dacians were
noticed bv the Greco- Romans rnuch later than their brothers in the extra,
Carpathian areas. This certainly accounts for their scant and belated
presence in ancient texts.
Powerful politica! formations must have existed in Transylnmia
as earlY as the first half of the 4th centurY B . C . It is to them that in
all probability the t ext of Trogus Pompeius ( XXIV, 4, 3 ) refers : "The
Gauls subj ectecl the Pannonians and for a number of yea,rs shared changing
fortunes in the wars with their neighbours . " The strong tribal unions
we h;we in mind here were able to check the advance of the warring
(!;eJts either when thev first came into the Pannonian Plain or later on
when the�· returned aî'ter having been defeated in Greece. This must also
�wcount for the fact already mentioned by us in the first chapter - that
in wide areas of intra- Carpathian Dacia the Celts failed to force their
way. These independent areas 'vere very propitious for the constitution
of tribal unions i.e., political formations like those headed in 200 B . C .
by Oroles or Rubobostes.
225 R . Vulpe, Burebisla /he (;e/a, pp. 33rf. ; id. From lile llislory of Dobruja , 2 , Bucharcs t ,
1 96 8 , pp . 27 - :n .
226 The idea of Transylvania being t h c start of Burcbista in his u n i f ication of Daco - Ge t i c
t r i b e s w a s firsl p u l o u l by C . Daicoviciu i n sc n·, G , 1 - :! , 1 955, p p . 5G - 59 a n d resumed
laler i n other works : Rom. llisl. , 1 , 1960, pp . 294 - 295 ; C . Daicovic i u a n d H. Daicovici u .
Sarmi:egelusa, 2nd e d i lion, Buclnrc s t . E d. :\leridiane, 1 962, p. 9 and hy H. Daicovici u , in /Jacia,
p. 3 1 and :\"ole 91 wherc thc wholc bibliography is givcn.
7()
Numismatic discoveries show the existence, beginning with the
latter half of th e 2ncl century B . C . , of an active monetary centre for
coim; of the Rădulc�ti-Aiucl-Peţelca and Chereluş types. Such a centre
unquestionably enjoyed the backing of a mighty tribal confederation.
This is sufficient evidence of the presence, on both sides of the
Carpathians, of a likely nucleus around which Burebista could unite all
tb e Daco- Getic tribes into tbat economic and political force wb icb imposed
tbe Daco- Getae on tbe historical scene of Europe and secured Burebista,
a place alongside the geniuses of Antiquity.
Tbe absence of "Titten sources prevent us from pinpointing the
place wherefrom Burebista embarked upon bis vast work. Walachia
and Transvlvania
" are still the two controversial areas around which
discussions keep going on. Because of the lack of peremptory evidence,
these hypotheses are of much less significance tban previously assigned
to tbem in tbe heat of the debate. This does not mean that it would be
of no interest to know where did Burebista come from, where was his
plaee of origin. ·what seems to be particularly and essentially important
is Burebista's achievement no matter whether it happened in Transyh-ania
or in \Yalachia. The indications pointing to the Danubian or tbe intra
Carpatbian areas are not sufficient to lead to a firm, let alone cate
goric, conclusion . However exciting tbis issue and wbatever the passion
tbat goes into its solution, the chance of clearing it up witb the help
of available documents is very slim, indeed.
If we cannot know wbat was the initial nucleus around which Bure
bista could in such a sbort time unify all the Daco- Getic tribes, let us
try to see -.,ybat can we get to know about tbe concrete modality that
made possible such an exceptional achievement, in other words, about
bis interna! policy.
C hapter I V
I NTERNAL POLICY
2. Economic a n d urbanistic activily

1 . U11i{icalion o f l h e Daco-Getae.
3. The army and lhe courl. 4 . The stale. 5. Th e social {ormalio 1 1 .
1 . Unifica t i o n of the Daco-Getae
With regard to the ways and means of Burebista's policy by which he

succeeded in bringing all the Geto-Dacians under his rule, we are indebted,
as far as literary sources go, to that early part of Strabo's text which
tells us that "Having become the leader of his people, exhausted by
frequent wars, the Getia Burebista raised it so much by drilling, abstentiou
from wine and obedience to orders, that he achieved a powerful state
within a few years . . . " and further on "in order to convince his people
he secured th e assistance of Deceneus, a wizard . . . ". To this scant infor
mation supplied by Strabo must be added the unwritten archaeological
evidence. These are of course lacking the precision we need in order to
reconstitute a veridica! picture of the great king's internal policy. We
know that about the time when Burebista was to come on the scene,
the Daco- Getae had attained a high level of economic development. It
is of interest to note that this economic development materialized in all
the spheres of activity. This development had its impact upon the social
aspect as well. The Daco- Getic society had been deeply stratified for
quite a long time. The politica! formations made up of tribal unions headed
by a powerful and wealthy aristocracy were already in existence. The
nobility had always been, by its very essence, a centrifugal force, opposed
to a central authority likely to reduce its power and diminish its revenues .
The problem is, how was this Daco - 6etic aristocracy, especially its top
bierarcby, determined to give up its independence and unite under Bu
rebista's authority. According to Strabo , one of the ways in which Bure
b ista's rise to power and the ascendancy of his entire people were possible
must be sought in the latter's abidance by the laws.
Given this situation, the following question arises : was tbe process
of tbe Daco - Getae's unification carried out by peaceful means or was
it acbieved by force �
It bas been suggested that the unification of the Daco- Getae was
accelerated by external threats of which the most important was that
of the Romans 2 2 7 • We know for sure that Rorne's expansionist p9licy
had other regions in view. The slave-owning masters of the city on the
Tiber river were beset by other matters . The c0nquest of the East was
227 R . Vulpe, Burebisla Ilie Geta, p. 4 7 .
72
just beginning. )Iitbradates YI Eupator, king of Pontus and Bosporus,
was very much iu evidence at the time. It is against him that the Romans
were to wage three difficult wars, after which they set foot in Asia Minor
and started overrunning the rich and thri:ving Hellenistic states founded
upon the ruins of Alexander the Great's Empire. N either the unification
bv ' Burebista of the Daco - Getic tribes nor the establishment of his vast
'r ealm', threatening the Roman state by its force and incursions into
:Macedonia made the Romans change their policy or the objects of their
conquest at that time. Caesar would plan a campaign, would want to
remove Burebista and conquer the Geto-Dacians, because they were a
serious o bstacle in the way of Rome's expansion. A similar and much
greater obstacle was also Mithradates, whose very ambition was to take
all the Hellenistic cities for himself. He had managed to bring some of
them together, in one way or another, turning them into a solid anti
Roman bloc which was joined by the peoples living on the northern and
western shores of Pontus Euxinus. There can be no doubt that bv 80 B.C.
the west-Pontic cities were already subordinated to Mithradates : Some of
these, from Olbia to Apollonia ( Sozopol, Bulgaria) were conquered by
Burebista later on, after he had succeeded in uniting the D aao-Getic
politica} formations and in becoming a great power.
Tbe war planned by Caesar against Burebista was, as shown by
Brandis 2 28 , a personal move which failed to take place for the simple
reason that the two rivals got killed . The large army raised by Caesar
was prepared to fight first the Parthians and only after that to punish
Burebista who had taken sides with Pompeius, thus becoming Caesar's
personal enemy. According to _.\ppian 229, Caesar's plan was first to punish
the Getae and then fight the Parthians . We learn from the same author
that these were mere pretext s invoked by Antonius who wanted to seize
Caesar's army which he badly needed in order to wrest the power from
him. The main purpose of Caesar was to figh t against the Parthians,
wh ile pursuing his general policy of conquests in the East.
It is true that at the t ime of Burebista, in 74 B.C. to be more precise,
the Roman armies reached the borders of Dacia. vYe have in mind the
expedition headed by the Roman general C. Scribonius Curio, governor
of )facedonia, which took place between 75 and 73 B.C. Curio had to
fight against the Scordisci, a Celtic tribe having overrun, alone or together
with other tribes, the province of Macedonia. This time, in 7 4 B. C. Scri
bonius pursued the Scordisci as far as the Danube. The event is recorded
bv L. Aeneus Florus who narrates how Curio advanced into the Dacian
t erritory, but got frightened by the darkness of the forests there 2 a o.
There is no denying that the action undertaken by the Roman· army
under governor C. Scribonius Curio had no other purpose than to follow
and punish the Scordisci (who were most likely accompanied by D acians
and Dardani ) who had attacked Macedonia. It had certainly been a
da;ring move since it took the soldiers deep into the 'Barbaricum' far
from the borders of the Roman Empire, of Macedonia. Tbat is why
upon reaching the right bank of the Danube, probably somewhere in the
Iron Gate area, the man who had defeated the Scordisci woulcl not dare
22s RE, Supp l . J , 1 903, col. 263, s.\". Burebisla.
229 Appian, Hisloria Roma n a , I I I , 25, in Sources, 1, p. 575.
2ao F!orus, Epil. , I, 39, :ii .
73
cross on.'r to the other 8i<le covered with forests 2 3 1 . It is diffieult to �;a,y
whether Hurebista took part in the attack ln.unehed against �faceuonia
which was Ro switfly repelled by governor Curio . The possibilit�· should
uot be ruled out if we take into account Strabo's reference to him " cro s s ing
the Istros without fear and depredating Thrace down to )facedonia and
Illyria". Literary sources make no mention of other important a ttacks
against Macedonia by the barbarians during the reign of Burebis ta . Curio's
vietory must have been of some consequence since it was scored over the
barbarians' massive attack and not a mere inroad of small proportions
and won him the triumph of the year 72 B.C. 2 3 2 •
The likelihood of Burebista's part in the attack, or rather coali
tion of barbarian tribes in 74 B . C . , since we are positive that it was
not ,-., mere attack b�· the Scordisci, given Curio 's triumph for the defeat
of th e Thraciam; and the Illvrian Dardani should not be ruled out. Even
so, th is 'ms not the onlv att ack that Burebista launched on )fa c edonia,.
The one of 7 4 B.C. e n d ecl in total failure for the invaders and in a re.� ound
ing victory for the Romans, who pur..;ued the enemy deep into their ter
ritories . An unsuccessful attack such as this could have hardly prompt
td St rabo (VII, 3, 1 1 ) to present Burebista as "being feared enn by
t h l' Romans, as he crossed the Istros without fear, depredating Thrace,
J\lacedonia and Illvria . . . " When C. Scribonius Curio arrived at the
Danube, Burebista may not have yet been ruling over the whole of Dacia,
as the unification of the Daco - Getic tribes was to be achieved later.
This first advance to the Danube by the Roman army was to be
followed, two years later, by a second advance under another governor
of )facedonia known as M. Terentius Varro Lucullus . During an action
of reprisal against the peoples living in the north of the Balkan penin
sula, the Bessi, the Moesi a.o . , Lucullus arrives at the mouths of the
Danube. Here he conquers and occupies the west-Pontic Greek cities.
The event is recorded by several sources and debated at length in mo
dern his toriogra,phy 2 3 3 • We shall not elaborate on it except for recalling
the treaty of alliance imposed upon the occupied Greek cities by l\I. Teren
tius Varro Lucullus, who did not refrain from raiding those cities which
fiercely opposed his r nle. The treaty imposed on the city of Callatis haa
been preserved.
The Romans' advance to the Danube reaches contiguous to the
Banat under C. Scribonius Curio, was nothing more than a show of strength,
after which the Romans retrdated inside the borders of the province of
Macedonia. The Romans' second move that took them to Dobruja and
ende<l in the 'alliances' imposed upon the Greek cities did not last long
either. In 61 B . C. , C. Antonius Hybrida, proconsul of Macedonia, would
pr0mpt the revolt of t h e Greek federal cities. He was disgracefully defeat
ed near Histria and driven away. This is how the Romans' treaties of
'alliance' with the Pontic cities came to an end.
The Romans' expansionist policy did not enter a new stage until
during the reign of Augustus when Rome was ruling over a huge territary,
stretching over the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. The conquered
2a1 R. Vulpe, in Dacia, N. S. , 4, 1961 , pp. 309ff.
23l Titus Livius, Periochae , XCV ; Festus, Breviarium, 7 ; Eu tropius, VI, 2 ; Orosins, V,
23, 20 .
233 V. Pârvan, Getica, pp. 75ff. ; D. :\I. Pippidi, From the History of Dobruja , 1, 1965, pp.
277 - 280 ; R. Vulpe, From !he Ilistory of Dobruja, 2, 1968, pp. 25 - 26, with the wholc biblio
gr.iphy on thc issue and the citation of all ancient texts referring to this evcnt.
74
Jancls hacl to be clefenclecl ag;tinst the nmnerous free peoples whicb kept
attacking from different clirections. Tbe large river:-; repreHented good
ob8tacle8 and continuous strategic lines that could be ea8ily strengthened
and defended so as to offer additional security. That is why Rome
would attempt from now onwards to push the border8 of the ''Vorld
wide' empire on to tbe Rhine, the Danube and the Euphrates (e 1ren
to the Tiger if possible). 'Ye are interested particularly in the Danube line.
Thi8 is where the efforts of Rome were direct.ed to and, as wa:-; expect
ed, before long, the boundaries of the Empire, which had been kept for
such a long time at the limits of l\Iacedonia were carried as far as the Da
nu be. In .:\ . D. 1 5 under emperor Tiberius, the province of :Moesia 234 was
.
foundecl, stretching eastwarcl to the Dimum (Belene, Bulgaria). The ter

ritory further east, which included also Dobruja, remained under the
control of the Odrysae kings who were tbe clients of Rome. Dobruja
would not come under Roman administration until the year 46 B . C . when
t b e province of Thrace was set up by emperor Claudius.
Pannonia came into existencc earlier, in A.D. 8 during the rcign of
Augustus.
The long lapse of time between 146 B.C. when Alexander of 1\facedo
nia's homeland was turned into a Roman province and A . D . l i) when
tb e province of Moesia was founded can be accounted for by the Romarn;'
consistent policy of conquests elsewhere, such as the East. It is difficult
to believe that Rome could not bave subjected throughout this time the
tribes of Celts, Illyrians and Thracians living north of Macedonia and
on the Danube had it -..v anted to. One must note that during the whole
of tbis period the borders of Macedonia had been repeatedly violated by
tbe different peoples from the north which were pestering without respite
tbe governors of the province. Rome waged three wars against Mithra
clates VI Eupator because the latter was an obstacle in the way of the
policy of conquests in the Hellenistic world. Obviously, the Romans could
not view with a friendly eye the rise in this part of the world of a power
likely to put its fingers into their pie. And they were right because, relying
on his strength, Burebista was now getting involved in Rome's internal
affairs, namely in the conflict b4'tween Caesar and Pompeius. To this must
be added the fact that Burebif;ta had succeeded in bringing under his
rule all the Greek city-states from Olbia to Apollonia. He was, therefore,
a,n enemy to be feared by the Romans, a fact explaining why the army
raised by CaeRar for the war against the Parthian8 was prepared to fight
first against Burebista. But that was to happen much later, not until
Burebista had completed the vast work of unifying a,11 th e Daco-Getic
tribeR, bringing under their supremacy the peoples neighbouring Dacia and
creating the greatest power in the southeast of Europe.
It has also been suggested that the p!'ocess of unification was stepped
up under the pressure of a second threat from outside i.e., the one repre
sented by the Celt8 in the west. As the introductory chapter showed the
periods of Celtic expansion and how it evolved, there is nothing to add
b ere except that cluring the earlier half of the lst century B . C. we can
no longer speak of a Celtic danger. The Celts had completecl their conquests
23� �lax F!uss, in RE, X\', 1 932, pp. 2350 - 2 4 J 2 : C. Palsd1 , i n Sil:bu. A kad. Vien n a ,
2 1 4 , 1 932 a n d 2 1 7 , 1 93 7 ; H. Vulpe, Jlisloire ancienne de l a l'c>/Jroudja, B u 1·b:1rrst , l 938 ; D. �I. Pip
picli, in From lhe llislory of Dobruja , 1, 1 965 ; B. Vu!pr, in Fromtbe llistory of Dobruja , 2, 1968 ;
B. Gerov, in Godishnik, Sofia, 1 94 8 - 1 95� ; A �Jocsy. Gnel/şchaff und Romanisation i11 der
riimischen Provin= Jfoesia Superior, Budapest, 1 970.
75
two centuries before and had since ceased being the sort of threat the
Romans now were. The only thing the Celts were doing was to try to
defend themselves against a twofold danger : the one from the south repre
sented by the Romans, and the one from the north wherefrom the Germanic
peoples kept launching fierce and relentless attacks. One thing is reaso
nably certain : that at the time when Burebista came on the scene, there
'vere no signs of Celtic movements or expansion of any kind throughout
the whole of central and eastern Europe. The Celts had been living on
Dacian soil ever since the 4th century B . C. It was the Scordisci who were
constantly raiding the Roman provinces in the southern parts of the
Balkan peninsula.
Towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. the process of the Celts'
assimilation into the mass of the autochthonous population had been com
pleted or nearing completion all over the Dacian territory exc ept for the
western borders . Moreover, as recorded by literary sources, the Geto
Dacians were taking part alongside the Scordisci, Dardani and Bas tarnae
in coalitions, attacking the borders of the Roman state in the Balkan
peninsula. Since they were allies not ene:·"1ies, they were not that dangerous
to give cause for the union of all the Daco - Getae, a union understandably
o posed to the vested interests of the tribal aristocracy .
So we cannot speak of a Celtic expansion towards Dacia during
the early half of th e 2nd centnry B .C . , nor of a Celtic danger likely to
affect the unification of the Daco- Getae and their submission to Burebista.
Caesar's reference to Vercingetorix' actions shows how unimportant
the Roman threat was for the unification of the "barbarian" tribes . Let
us not forget that part of Gaul had already been occupied and that even
so, Vercingetorix could achieve but a partial unification. There is no
doubt that a Roman danger did exist but it was not that great to make
the Geto-Dacians unite. It was, as a matter of fact, by far less ilnmi
nent than some researchers would have it.
lf the process we talk about had no externai causes then it means
tha,t it was generated by motifs of an internal nature. 'Vhat could
these be �
R elying on Strabo, who speaks of Burebista's religious and political
reforma, Theodor 1\fommsen 235 claims that the rise and the unification
of the D aco- Getic people originated in these very reforms . He compares
the organization of Burebista, who we know had been assisted throughont
his reign by the high priest Deceneus, with that of the Arab caliphates .
The analogy seems to hold and the similarity seems obvious, although
on a different scale. It is very unlikely that religious motifs, however
important the role of religion and the clergy in the Daco- Getic society,
triggered off the unification of the many Daco- Getic tribes which finally
br<.mght Burebista to power.
Another explanation, although put forward by a reputed historian
like Camille Jullian, seems equally naive and idealistic. Speaking of Bure
bista to whom he devoted some inspiring pages in his work 'Histoire de la
Gaul e' 236, the French historian writes : "His ( Burebista's) conquests
were of a regular and durable nature, like periodic rewards he deserved
from the Gods. That was because the Gods lond and protected him.
�as R iimische Gesclrichte , voi. I I I, Ber l i n , 1 93 3 , p. :JO � .

2ao C . Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, voi. I , pp. -13ff. ; De Bello Gallico, 1 , 2 , 1 ; 8.
71
He had b�· his side a high priest, named Deceneus , who never left him and
who used to i predict his victories ( Jordanes, Getica, XI, 67 ; Strabo,
VII, 3, 5 and 11 ; XVI, 2, 39). The Dacians basked in enthusiasm and satis
faction for some thirty years around these two men. A perfect concord
reigned throughout the nation. The king did what he pleased with his
people. Like all the barbarians, they were inclined to drinking. Burebista
ordered them to stop drinking and even to destroy their vineyards and
they obeyed. "'hich means that he knew how to rule them for their owu
goocl" . This idyllic picture is far from real. It did not and could not exist
in a society already divided into rich and poor, nobles (the rich ) and com
mon people, the latter subject to exploitation by and dependent on the
former. The two social categories were involved in a ruthless and con
tinuing general struggle stemming from sharp social contradictions.
A picture such as the one presented by C. Jullian is categorically
discounted by both literary texts and archaeological discoveries. Strabo
(YII, 2, 1 1 ) tells us plainly that : "As to Burebista, he ended by being
overthrown by some rebels even before the Romans sent their army agains t
h im' ' . Ho w can this information be reconciled with the "delirious enthu
sia:m1 and satisfaction", with that "perfect concord" which allegedly
reigned "throughout the nation". The Dacian society was far from being
'enthusiastic' as a whole ; it was rent by internal struggles which eventually
led to the elimination of Burebista himself. The same conclusion can be
reached from the frequent burials of treasures containing silver adorn
men ts or coins at the time of Burebista's arrival on the scene and through
out the whole of his reign.
If the process of unification achieved by Burebista can find no exph
nation in threats from outside or in religious motifs, it means that the
process evolved in a different manner and had different causes . These
causes cannot lie elsewhere than in the internal development of the Daco
Getic society, plus the exceptiona,l qualities with which its founder wa;,;
endowed. There is no direct reference to this in literary sources which keep
silent about the way in which Burebista carried out the major work o f
hi;,; life : the unification o f the Daco- Getic tribes across the Carpatho
Danubian space. Given this situation, we shall try to see to what extent
we can use available data about other peoples at approximately the same
level on the ladder of social evolution.
"'e shall again refer to the Celts all the more so as Caesar's narrative
is the sole literary source supplying details about a 'barbarian' people.
"Everywhere in Gaul, " writes Caesar, "the mighty and those
·with sufficient means to have people in their pay sought to come to power"
(I, XVII, 3 - 9 ) . About Dumnorix who belonged to the Haeduic tribe
(Aediuc in Celtic and Haeduic in Latin) , one of the most important tribes
in Gaul, Caesar relates that he had taken on lease customs duties and other
taxes at a lower price on auction, that he paid for an army and enjo yed
great influence not only with his own people, but also with the neighbour
ing peoples through matrimonial ties . His main aud only aim was to co me
to power.
"vYith another Celtic tribe, the Helveti, " 'nites the same author,
"the man who distinguishes himself most through his origin aud wealth
was Orgetorix . " He came to power with tlle help of the army and his per
sonal fortune. About the same Orgetorix we are told that the numbcr of
his clients and debtors was very large, being put aţ about 10,000. It is
on them that he had i·elied when coming to power. Caesar also tells us that
in 61 B.C., during the consulate of l\larcus Valerius l\lesala �iger and
l\Iarcus Pupius Piso Calpurnius, Orgetorix persuaded the Helveti to leave
the country. "He," �ites Caesar, "convinces bis fellow citizens to
emigrate en masse with all their belongings, telling them it will be very
easv for them to take control of the whole of Gaul beause they are the
bravest of all." To arrange their departure, Orgetorix headed a deputation
to the neighbouring tribes. On that occasion he persuaded Dumnorix and
the Sequan Casticus to take the throne. "The three of them take a solemn
oath and hope that on becoming kings of the three peoples, which are the
greatest and the most powerful, they will come to rule over the whole of
Gaul". Being informed about this plan, the Helveti called Orgetorix to
account and had him tried. In the meantine Orgetorix died, but Caesar
tells us that he committed suicide. It is more likely that he was elimi
nated.
Caesar's comment on the war against the Gauls, contained in another
passage, is of particular interest for our subject. "\Vhen speaking of Vercin
getorix the man who succeeded in uniting the Celts in the fight agalnst
the Roman conquerors 237• Caesar "Tites : "Arvern Vercingetorix, son of
Celtillus, a young man of great strength, whose father had been the first
man in the whole of Gaul aud got killed by bis fellow citizens for having
aspired to the throne, summons his clients and easily inspires them . . .
recruiting the poor and lost people from the countryside. After assembling
these people, he wins over to him all the fellow citizens he met and whom
he advised to take up the arms in defence of their common freedom. After
raising a large army he drives away from the country his enemies ,,-ho
had been hunting him shortly before. He is then proclaimed king by his
own inen" 238 •
R eferring to the Haedui, Caesar tells us that with them ;.there are
people of great influence with the crowd and who, although holding no
official posts, are more powerful than the magistrates. They often per
suacle the crowds by inflammatory speeches" 2a9•
An important place in C. Julius Caesar's work is held by the Celtic
clergy, the druids. The information Caesar gives us on thi8 subj ect had
been passed on to him by Diviciacus, a priest himself, brother and colla
borator of Dumnorix, the hea d of the Haedui. "\Y e shall not reproduce
tbe t ext of Caesar or of any other ancient author about the druicls. Y et
we shall note the extremely important part they played in the Celtic society
at th e time of Caesar not only in the field of religion, but also in politics,
l aw, education and instruction.
From Caesar's passages on the Celts a number of facts are worth
mcntioning. The men who will take the leadership of a people or of all
the Celts are those enjoying great popularity with the masses of the people.
'fhese men are of noble descent and possessed of large fortunes. _.\.notber
conclusion reached by the author is that both Dumnorix and Orgetorix
or Yercingetorix are endowed with unusual qualities, and most important
of all , have their personal army made up of clients and debtors. It is on
237 C. J u l lia n , \'ercingelorix, Paris, 1 901 ; idem, 1/isloire de la Gaule, I I I ; :\I. Gelzer, in
RE, \"l l l , A 1 ; 1955, pp. 981 - 1008.
2 3 s JJ e Bello Gal/ico, V I I , 4 , 1.
239 De Bello Galii co, I, 17, 1.
tbi:'l army that tbey all rely whenever their actions are aimed at seizing
· the power. When they fight tbeir fellow citizens to attain their aim, the
Celtic chiefs, be tbey nobles (pr·incipes, as Caesar calls them) or kings
(reges ) will seek support witb the mass of poor people. These will make
up the nucleus of Vercingetorix' army in bis fight against Caesar to set the
Gauls free.
For all tbe key role played by the nobility, Caesar's texts leave no
donht as to the great importance that the mass of the people had in all
tbese actions. Celtic cbieftains will all seek their backing, trying to persuade
tlwm, to win them over to their side in the fight for power either over their
own tribe or over the wbole of Gaul. Orgetorix, Dumnorix and Castianus
alikt>, dreamt themselves masters of the whole of Gaul. This pursuit of
unification and expan:-;ion was, tberefore, characteristic of all tbe nobles
or · ·reges ' ' ruling over any of the more important Celtic tribes.
Attempts at seizing power were met each time with the fierce opposi
t io :1 of the tribal nobilitv. It was this tribal nobilitv that summoned
Orgetorix, one of tbe Heh� eti's chiefs, and because he came at tbe head
of h i ,.; powt:>rful army he was sentenced to death.
It may be of interest to note the way in which the same Orgetorix
tril'd to risr to power b�· gaining the goodwill of other Celtic tribes through
marriage tie:-; witb tbeir potentates. All these moves were intended to help
him establisb bis :-;upremacy over the whole of Gaul.
One bas to remember that the Celts could only be drawn together
at tbe time, when Caesar had already conquered part of Gaul, and that
even then Vcrcingetorix, leading the fight against the Romans and facing
the stubborn opposition of the nobility, achieved only a partial unification.
In the beginning, he did, indeed, rely on the masses of poor rural people,
wbich made Caesar oft.en ridicule bis army.
One final conclusion has to be reached with regard to the special
rol e played by the Celtic clergy in such fields as religion, politics, law and
ecluta tion.
"·e know that Dumnorix, the chief of the Haedui, had a permanent
�md active help in tbe person of Diviciacus, a druid, who was also his
hrother. Extrapolating the elements dealt with above to the Daco- Getic
Mciety, we can better understand, mutatis mutandis, what Strabo tells us.
His few but significant words can definitely be enlarged and their meaning
brought closer. Catching the mood of the time, we can outline the internai
}Jolicy pursued by Burebista who could not depart from the general rulei!
and cu:-;toms of the 'barbarian' world of bis time and become a singular
exception. 'Ve can reasonably assume, on the basis of what has already
been shown, the way in which Burebista succeeded in drawing together,
in such a short time, all the Daco- Getic tribes, his own people, and in
fonnding in the end, a vast 'kingdom'.
The main spring of his action must have been the great appreciation
and affection showu to him by the masses of people whom literary sources
fail to mention. It seems highly plausible that they had backed up Bure
bista in all bis actions. It is with their assistance that he crushed the
fierce opposition of the great lords, of those tarabostes entitled to cover
their heads in token of their high rank. It will be for the poor people again
to man the bulk of the army and to ensure his victories in the wars against
the Celts, Bastarnae, Sarmatians or the Greek city-states on the shores
of Pontus Euxinus. Only such a policy can account for the success which
79
obviously amazed bis contemporaries. BUl'ebista also relied in bis actiou
upon the clergy and in particular upon Deceneus, bis high priest who
had been given "an almost royal power" (pene regia potestas) in Jordanes'
own words (Getica, XI, 6 7 ) . Deceneus must have been an outstanding figUl'e
himself, endowed with exceptional qualities. He waR next in line to Bure
bista whom he supported throughout bis reign. After Burebista's death,
he succeeded him to power as we learn from Jordanes. The reign of Dece
neus must have been a short one, taking into account the fact that he was
about the age of bis great friend and sovereign. Of the two men's fruitful
collaboration we learn something from ancient literary soUl'ces. Strabo
(VII, 3, 1 1 ) relates that : "in order to convince bis people he (BUl'ebista)
secured the assistance of Deceneus a wizard who had travelled extensively
through Egypt . . . " . Deceneus is referred to twice in the text of
the ancient geographer. Speaking about the important part played by
soothsayers with the Getic kings, Strabo writes : "at the time when the
Getae were led by Byrebistas against whom a war was being prepared by
the divine Caesar, this honour was bestowed upon Deceneus " (VII, 3, ;) ).
\Yhen referring, in the same context, to the significant role of prophets
with different peoples, Strabo mentions Orpheus and Moses, adding :
''just like Zalmoxis, a Pythagorean and God with the Getae in ancient
times, Deceneus predicting the future to Byrebistas" (XVI, 2, 39). \Ve
hear again about Deceneus from Criton in bis Geticae 240 •
It is quite obvious that the clergy, headed by the high priest, play
ed an important part in the life of the Daco- Getic people and particu
larly in changing its moral and religious standards, one of the main actions
undertaken bv Burebista inside bis realm.
Here are, therefore, the two basic factors on which Burebista basecl
bis entire activity. He must have been one of those wealthy and extremely
powerful aristocrats possessing a large army made up, after the Celtic
pattern, of clients and debtors. 'Ihe terms of clients and debtors are taken
over from Caesar who, in bis tUl'n, applied these Roman concepts to cer
tain Celtic institutions.
It becomes clear from Caesar's text that these powerful and influ
ential Gaulish chiefs (principea) who rested their power on their wealth,
were surrounded by people (just like the Romans ) in need of protection.
Those receiving protection were, in their turn, bound to help their protec
tor, whenever the need arase. The clientele of the Celtic nobility consisted
of t wo categories of people : The first category were the ambacti i.e., people
declaring allegiance to the nobility, but empoverished by debts and taxes,
and oppressed by other nobles. Those accepting their allegiance had almost
the same rights upon them as the slave-owning masters had upon their
slaves. The second category consisted of devoti, as Caesar calls them, or
sold11rt', in the Celtic language. These were freemen, many of them of no ble
descent, who used to join a leading figure in order to learn the mastery
of the arms. They pledged their faith to their master alongside whom
and for whom they fought, sharing bis fate for better and for worse.
They lived near him and when he died, bis devotees had to take their lives,
not being allowed to outlive him. This law turned the devoti into staunch
and stubborn defenders of their lord's life.
The debtors (obaerati) were those Celts who could not pay off their
debts, with the result that they needed the protection of a lord. In this
24e /. a Suidas, I I , 3 5 , 368.
80
way they managed to eschew the creditors, both private aud official. The
d ebtors belonged to all social strata.
It is quite possible that the Daco- Getic chiefs were surro unded by
an army similar to that described by . Caesar when speaking about the
Oelts. \Ve venture this assumption given the fact that the Daco- Getic
society had long been divided iuto nobles and common people. This bas
been attested by literary sources and particularly by archaeological
disconries. Our assumption is also supported by the fully testified reality
that at the time of Burebista the two societies had reached the same
point on the ladder of social evolution, presenting many similarities, wb ich
bave and will be duly dealt with .
Burebista must have had a large army. When the Helvetian Orge
torix was summoned to answer for his boldness in aspiring to the lead
ership of Gaul, he came before the court accompanied by some 10,000
men ( Caesar, I, 4 ) . The _.\.quitanian Adiaturnus had 600 de·voti ( Caesar,
III, 22 ) and Lucterius' clientele was made up of a whole city ( Caesar, VII,
52 ) . The personal army of the king probably represented the nucleus of
Burebista's military force, following the unification of the whole Daco
Getic people, which was put by Strabo to 200,000 men.
It is only natural to imagine Burebista as the son of a "king" being
in fact, the powerful chief of a tribal confederation, ruling ovcr onP of the
existing politica! formations, most certainly during the latter half of the
2nd century B . C . and the beginning of the next.
The secund possibility i.e., of Burebista not being of royal descent,
a heir, but of having come to power on bis own, should not be ruled out.
By accepting the latter hypothesis, we shall have to assume that Bure
bista had first ammas sed a large fortune just like Dumnorix or other pro
minent Celtic chieftain. Apart from his fortune, Burebista must have
raised bis own personal army largely benefitting by the sympathy and
affection of the ma�ses of people. After that he came to power. We are
inclined to accept the Iatter possibility, basing our belief on Strabo 's nar
rative which runs as follows : "Leaving aside the distant past of the Getae,
the events of our time are tbe following : Taking the leadership of bis people
. . . " Rad Burebista been of royal blood, the ancient geographer, who as
we know was very well informed, would have definitely mentioned it.
\Yhatever he was, whether successor to a dynasty or its armed con
queror - since it makes no difference whichever of the two is true - Bure
bista remains, in the last analysis, the representative of the aristocratic
class, a member of the nobility.
A young and dynamic man, endo"\ved with many exceptional qualities,
which we can only conceive in the superlative, aided by the high priest
Deceneus, himself an enthusiastic spirit, Burebista embarked on the work
of reforming the Daco- Getae. How did he accomplish this ? Again it is
from Strabo that we learn about. it : "through exercise, sobriety aud obe
dience to laws". There can be no doubt that the example was set by Bure
bista himself aud by Deceneus, bis closest associate. W e do not suspect
the inculcation of a religious fanaticism because if it were so it would
certainly be recorded as such by Strabo. It was not through religious
fanaticism that Burebista raised the Daco- Getae "corrupted by endless
wars" but through "abstinence" as well as "sobriety and obedience to
laws" says the great geographer of Amasya. What lies behind Strabo's
wording � To the endless wars wa�ed between the different tribes must be
81
added the depredation raids characteristic of all the barbarian peoples
having reached the so -called stage of military democracy that marked the
end of the primitiYe commune system m . As the depredation war8 became
more frequent, they led to the enrichment of the growing and increasingly
powerful aristocracy. The same happened with other peoples as well, in
effec t , with all the "barbarian" people8 outside the frontiers of the Greco
Roman world of the time. It suffices to mention the Celts only. C'ae8ar, when
speaking about the HelYeti, tells ns that because of their n atural bounda
ries they "could not penetrate too far" a nd found it difficult to fight their
n eighbours ( to plunder thern) "which caused much grief to such a warlike
peopl e" 242 ; let alone the Scordi8ci ·who:,;e incursions iuto the proYince of
)facedonia have been duly discussed in the preYious chapters. Burebista
must have forbidden all inter-tribal fighting, channeling the energies of
his people to other purposes . 'Ve cannot be far from the truth if we ima
gine Burebista gearing the energy of his people towards the sphere of peace
ful ;rnd constructiYe work.
The evidence we rely upon cannot be held for bias since it testifies
sine ira et studio. \Ve have in mind the great proRperity characterizing all
the Daco- Getic settlements during· thi8 period. This has been abundantly
prowd by archaeological discoveries which brought to light signs of intense
activity at the time of Burebista in the field of handicrafts, trade a.o .
wbiC'h speak of a sustained economic pro8perity.
In order to change the life of a people used to wars and looting as
sole sources of earnings, one had to diRcipline and organize it. This requir
ed much energy which could only emanate from a man of great courage,
det ermination aud perseverance. Only such a man could persuade the Daco
Getae into realizing the n eed for and the advantages of renunciation and
abstinence. This man was Burebista .
Bv those "endless wars" referred to in Strabo's text we must unde1·
stand not only the large-scale actions undertaken by vast cellecti,-ities ,
several Daco- Getic families possibly joined by other, umelated ones,
directed towards the civilized worlds, but also those small-scale raids
and conflicts between different Daco- Getic communities or between the
latter and their neighbours . To the organization of expeditions south o f
the Danube into the Roman world, more precisely into Macedonia, Illyria
ancl Thrace, Burebista was no stranger. \Ye read about this in Str<lbo's
same text : (VII, 3, 11) "he was feared eYen by the Romans becau8e he
crossed the Istros without fear, depredating Thrace down into Macedonia
and Illyria " . Therefore, only those wars sapping the strength of the Daco
Getic tribes were forbidden.
One of the principal objectives of Burebista's internai policy was
the establishment of a good understanding among the Daco- Getae. This
policy was to be continued by the kings that succeeded him. This is what
we are told �y Criton with regard to Decebalus' time : "Through deceit
and magic did the Getic kings inculcate into their subjects fear of the
Gods aud mutual understanding and in this way could they achieve great
tb ings" 243• Criton was perfectly right ! By drawing the Daco- Getae togeth
er, Burebista did actually accomplish such things. In the same context
of abstinence and sobriety must be considered another measure taken by
241 Fr. Engels, The Origin of /he Farnily, pp. 1 72 - 1 73 ; VD I, .Z. 1 949. p . 1 75 ; C. Daico
viciu , în SCSCluj, 1, 1952 , fasc. 2, p. 1 Hi.
u2 De Bello Gallico. I, 2, 4 .
Ha Strab11, î n Souras, 1 , 1964, p . �09.
52
Burebista on Deceneu's initiative as related by Strabo (VII, 3, 1 1 ) . Accorc.1.
ing to tbe text, tbe Daco- Getae were obliged to destroy their vineyards
and to live witbout drinking wine. Abuse of wine could only bave nefa
rious consequences and a measure sucb as tbis reasonably induces one to
assume tbat sucb excesses bad not been unusual in tbe past. As a matter
of fact the phenomenon was not a mark of the Geto-Dacians alone. ·we
learn from Tacitus tbat tbe Germans : "appease tbeir hunger without
too much cooking and spicing ; yet, wben it comes to drinking
tbey are far less moderate ; if one were to give tbem to drink to
tbeir hearts' content tbey could be put down much easier by their
vice than by the enemy's weapons" 244• Burebista's prohibition of win e
c1rinking and possession of vines on the advice and with tbe aid
of bis bigh priest, constitutes one of tbe practicai steps we lmow to have
been taken for the advancement of his people. Strabo's narrative seems to
make sense and looks quite natural if we take into account Burebii;ta's
internai policy whose main objective was to raise tbe Daco- Getae's 1.;tan
dards and eradicate tbe consequences of those depredation wars. This
mea:mre was far from being a singular onc in tbe barbarian worlc.I., it
having its analogies elsewbere as sbown by Caesar wbo tells us in bis own
words : "tbe import of wine is tborougbly forbidden witb tb<' Suebi he
cause \vine is thought to weaken people and make tbem incapable of stn nd
ing any kind of effort" 24s .
The information given by Strabo concerning the destruction of
vines and a lifo without wine is meant to show how tbe Daco- Getae obey
ec1 their high priest Deceneus and their king Burebista. "Another proof
- reads Strabo 's text - of their (the Getae's) obedience is tbe fact that
they let tbemselves be persuaded into destroying their vines and living
witbout wine". Tbis does not necessarily mean that all the vines of Dacia
were destroyed.
Let us no\Y try to establish - as far as this will prove possible
what kind of concrete measures were undertaken for the unification of
the Daco- Getae. It has been sbown that as far as tbe externa! threats
were concerned these were coming neitber from the Romans in the south
nor from the Celts in tbe west. Even if such threats had virtually existec.I.
as a possibility, it seems unlikely that they should have been of such an
imminent nature as to cause the chiefs of other tribes or tribal unions to
submit to Burebista's rule. 'Ve come across such an analog y in the same
Celtic world to which we bave repeatedly referred for reasons alreadv made
clear. At the time of Caesar's war against Gaul, when a number of tribes
bad alreac.l.y been defeated, Vercingetorix met with a stubborn resistance
from his own people and the other tribes as well. Tbe reasons of tbis resist
ance are too numerous to be dealt witb bere. It must be noted, however,
tbat a, serious stumbling block sbould be sougbt in tbe fundamental prin
cipie divide et impera tbat governed the Roman rule. Tbe fact is tbat Vercin
getorix was able to win over to bis side tbe majority of Gaul's nobility
or most of the tribes only during tbe revolt against tbe Romans wbo were
2H Taci t u s , De origine el situ Germanorum.

245 De Bello Gallico, IV, 2, 6.
83
already ruling over a large tract of the Celtic space and after Caesar's
returu to Rome 24 0.
"\iVe also learn from Caesar's narrative that at least part of the Celtic
aristocracy was not against the Roman rnle under whose protection they
felt free to exploit their subjects. True, not all the Celtic nobles shared
this view. It is quite conceivable that the Daco- Getae should liave felt
the same in the event of an impending Roman conquest. "-e may well
assume that in that case even a threat from the outside wonld not have
heen necessarily regarded as a, call for politica! unity and submission to
a central authority, whatever the potential benefits of the internal policy
pursued on the territory of it8 initial power. It is very likely that such
actions were opposed at least by the tribal chiefs who were afraid of losing
their personal independence, privileges and advantages stemming from a
regional autonomy however limited it may have been. "\Ve can hardly
believe that they might have let themselves be persuaded of the utility
of such measures as Burebista had applied in his own territory and that
they joined any kind of confederation in the face of the still distant Roman
threat. A certain measure of agreement may have existed within the mas11
of freemen, but not among the nobles who could only be opposed to such
an idea. Nevertheless, unable to keep up their resistance they finally had
to surrender to Burebista and his already well trained and organized army.
This army, which had been formed back in Burebista's land of origin would
be the nucleus of bis huge army which was, according to Strabo, 200,000
strong and with which Burebista would conquer htnds upou lands, defeat
the Celts and the Bastarnae and crush the <tge-old -..valls of the -..wst-Pontic
Greek cities.
Our thesis on the opposition put up by the upper layer of the arif!
tocracy to Burebista's action is based on several factors which concur to
support it. The probative force of each of these factors is under;:;tandably
different. Strabo himself speaks in favour of it when he writeil that : "AR
to Burebista he ended by being ove thrown by some rebels even before
the Romans sent their army against him" 24 7.
Because of the lack of written sources there is c011siderable incerti
tude as to what happened to the heads of the three politica! formations
unified by Burebista. It is very unlikely that theJ· should ha...-e accepted
Burebista's rule on account of an impending Roman danger, for the simple
reason that no such danger ever existed. The cream of the Daco- Getic
tribal aristocracy, particularly the heads of the politica! formations that
we know of, opposed Burebista's moves to unification for the reasons
discussed above.
One indication of the unrest caused mainly among the members
of the nobility by Burebista's action for unification might be the burial
of large numbers of silver treasures · between the arrival on the scene
of history of the great king and the middle of the lst century B.C. These
treasure troves are generally roade up mostly of adornments and coins .
One of these was found in the spring of 1964 on the territory of the Gli
ganul de Jos village (Argeş county) it containing three bra�elets, four
temple rings, one fibula, a saltaleone and eleven republican denarii. The
248 It has bcen said about Vercingetorix that he was nothlng el se lrn t Caesar's agent
and that the Gauls' general revolt a t the end of 54 B . C . had been started by Caesar himself.
J . Harmond, Deux problemes de De Bello Ga/lico, I : Qui ful Fercingelori x ? in Ogam, V I I , 37,
1955, pp. 3 - 26.
m Gsogrfl.pbia, VII, 3 , 1 1 .
a4
coins conr the period between I50 B.C. and 8I B.C. The fact that the
latest coin was minted in the vear 8I B . C. led to the conclusion that it
bad been buried shortlv after that date and so the burial of the treasure
is connected with the 'events that caused Burebista to take the leader
sbip of tbe Daco- Getae and unify tbe territories of tbe respective tribes 248 •
Anotber silver treasure containing· Thasian tetradrachms has been disco
vered in Moldavia. This treasure was dated to the end of the 2nd century
B.C. 249. The Bulgarian researcher G. Katsarova advanced the hypothe
sis according to which the Thasian coins should be related to Sulla's wars
against 3fithradates VI 250 • If bis hypothesis is accepted it may be possible
that the 3Ioldavian treasure was buried at about the time when Burebista
was just beginning the unification of the Geto-Dacians.
An examination of deposits of Roman silver coins in Dacia preceding
Trajan's wars leads to the conclusion that large quantities of coins were
hidden during the Ist century B.C. if compared to those buried in tbe Ist
century A.D. Apart from these there are also deposits containing silver
ornaments which point to a time of unrest and uncertainty caused by the
war waged in connection with the unification of the Geto-Dacians 25 1 •
Tbe discoveries on Dacian territory of thirty-two deposits of coins dating
from the early half of the Ist century B .C. gives rise to the assumption
that Burebista's attempt at unification was the only reason for their owners
to hide these treasures 202•
It obviously had been a period of uncertainty especially for the
upper circles of the aristocracy wbose wealth was eventually committed
to the ground. It is quite likely tbat not all the treasure h iding during
the early half of the Ist century B .C. was prompted by the nobles' oppo
sition to Burebista's unification policy. As a matter of fact, the determina
tion of the exact causes of this process is both difficult and uncertain.
In the first place because it is hard to find out when exactly they had been
buried and because of other different reasons as well.
In spite of these reservations, the very burial of many silver trea
sures containing coins or ornaments, points to a period of unrest which
definitcly upholds our thesis .
The Daco- Getae's unification, at least in part, by peaceful means
could abo be accepted as a possibility, though the hypothesis lacks in
factual evidence. We learn from an already discussed passage from Cae
sar that when Dumnorix attempted to win supreme power, he had esta
blished either himself or through members of his family matrimonial rela
tions with the chieftains of otber Celtic tribes. Written sources are silent
about Burebista's family and so are archaeological discoveries. �<\ny assump
tions on this subject, bowever tempting, are not much use.
Nevertheless, taking into account Caesar's narrative about the
Celts, we may reasonably suppose, mittatis mutandis, that Burebista ma
naged to extend his authority over some Daco- Getic territories peacefully ,
2 � 8 Y. Teodorescu , I . Rizea and A. Dupoi, i n Studii şi Comunicări, Pi teşti, 1 969,

pp. 1 0 1 - 109.
eH
I . '.\-li trea, in SC/ V, 23, 4, 1972, pp. 641 - 646.
250 G . Katzarova, in /zv. Ins/. , 27, 1 964, p. 1 5 1 ; E . Chirilă, I. Pop, in Apulum, 7/1 , 1 968,
pp. 1 59ff. with a map and a catalogue of the Thassian coins discovered on Romanian territory
nnd with an older bibliography.
251 I. Winkler, in Jahrbuch fur Sumismatik und Geldgeschichte, 1 7 , :\Iunich, 1 967, pp.
135ff, with catalogue, map and synoptic table.

m :\!. Ghiţescu, in Dacia , 19, 19 5, pp. 249 - 2Ş4.
meeting no opposition, due to the possible ties established hy himself
or his family. This idea can be advance<l, though not without cautilm,
given the motifs already mentioned.
The absencc of literary documents makes it difficult, if not downr ight
impossible, to pinpoint th e various stages in the process of the Daco- Getae's
unification, the major goal of Burebista's interna! policy. Burebista,
succeeded in crushing the opposition of tribal chieftains and in unifying
the entire Daco- Getic people either by peaceful means, for the most
part at least, or by force of arms, with the help of his army an<l possibly
with the support of the comati i.e., the common people, and even of some
of the tarabostes. With regard to the stages in which this unity was accom
plished, we can reasonably infer that they followed each other in a fa irl�
rapid succession as according to Strabo : "he aehicved a powerful �tate
within a few years" (VII, 3 , 1 1 ) .
Attempts havc been matle to delimit the several stages o f the uni
fication process and their succession with the help of coin tliscoveries.
The first stage was put between 78 and 73 H . C . , the second between 69
and 62 H.C. and the thirtl between 60 a,nd ;) ;) B . C . 2c3• �o matter how
interesting these specifications might be, we hold that they should be
regarded with the greatest caution, given the afore-mentioned reasons.
It has been shown in the beginning of the chapter that at th e time
of Burebista's appearance on the scene of history the Daco - Getic territories
were experiencing a certain measure of economic unity. This was evidenced
by the dissemination of the R oman republican coins 2'°4• Economic unity was
the groundwork of the unification achieved by Burebista. By crushing
the resistance of the tribal aristocracy, Burebista accomplished the poli
tica! unity of th e Daco - G etae called for by their economic unity.
2. Economic and urb a n i s t ic ac l i \· i l y
Taking the leadership of the whole Daco - G etic people and enjoying the
backing of high priest Deceneus, his closest councillor, Burebista probably
extended to all the Daco - G etae the policy of education, instruction aud
iron discipline he had already imposed on the inhabitants of his natin•
land . This would usher in the brightest period in the history of the Daco
Getae which can be perfectly understood due to the large number of
diggings and discoveries made all over the Daco- Getic Carpatho-Danu
bian space.
'Ve do not intend to look into the essential aspects of the tlevelop
ment of the Daco- Getic society i.e., its material and spiritual culture.
W e want to emphasize that under the rule of Burebista an intense economic
activity was taking place throughout the whole of Dacia . Burebista did
not achieve the advancement of his people only through applying his
precepts of sobriety, abstinence and obedience to laws, but mainly through
a wise internal policy which made possible a lively activity in crafts, trade
and public works . The production of commodities is stepped up, and
trading, both inside the country and with the outside world, equally
2°a Ibidem, loc. cit.

25� B. :'.\litrea, in yoJ. r..: 1 1ity and Conlin uity i11 l/1e lfistory of lire Romanian People (in Rom . ) ,
Bucharest , 1 968, p p . 5 3 - 64 .
86
developed 255• This activity required a medium of cxchange viz, money.
At that time Burebista ruled over all those territories where the Daco
Getic tribal chiefs had coined their own money two centuries before
imrticularly for their interna! needs. It has been established that after
an activitv of more than two centuries the Daco-Getic coins of the Greco-
1\Iacedoni�tn type ceased being used in Dacia. This fact was blamed on
the penetration into Dacia of the Roman money. The explanation does
not seem to hold. One had to find out the reason why did the tribal
chiefs give up their own coinage, mostly the ones with a limited circu
lation. The politica! unification achieved by Burebista will put an end
to these practices also accounting for the disappearance of the local
emissions. The state set up by Burebista required a single currency for
the whole of the Daco- Getic world in order to meet the growing needs of
the home market on the one hand, following the rise in production, and
those of the foreign market handling a much bigger volume of goods,
on the other 25 6 •
The Roman coins that entered Dacia were not sufficient : they
c:ould not cope with the needs of the intense activity prevailing at the
time. Hence the Roman denarii coined by the Daco- Getae themselves .
rrhese are not imitations as in the case of previous coins where the Greek
prototype can be guessed with difficulty, but represent a perfect replica
of the Roman coins which cannot be distinguished from the originals
whatever the expert's effort and meticulosity. Evidence of this are the
moulds uncovered at Tilişca ( Sibiu county).
The discovery of the Tili�ca workshop clarified the question of
the Dacian mint under Burebista. The latter did not order his effigy to
be engraved on the coinage, but demanded instead the reproduction of
the Roman republican denarius which tended to become a 'universal'
currency, a fact duly grasped by Burebista. More than 20,000 such coins
have been discovered until now, exceeding the number of those found in
Thrace, Pannonia, Germany aud even Gaul 257 •
That is how the Dacians under Burebista came iuto the possession
of the universal currency which was circulating not only in the Greco
Roman world but in the barbarian world as well. lt is most likely that
Burebista allowed, and possibly encouraged, the arrival of the Roman
traders into the territories under his rule. This is the moment when
Dacia is first visited alongside the Greek traders from the basin of the
Ae,gean and Pontus Euxinus by those coming from the eastern coast
of the .Adriatic and from ltaly.
The presence in Dacia of merchants from the Greco-Roman WOCld
at the time of Burebista was first noted by V. Pârvan 258 • There is nothing
extraordinary about this fact since it tallies in a perfect manner with
what was happening in all the parts of the world known at that time.
\Ve refer to the penetration of the Roman traders into the barbarie world
far from the frontiers of the Roman republic. The presence of the
Roman traders in the Celtic world is recorded in written sources. Diodorus .
255 I. G!odariu, Trade Relalions of D:icia wilh 1/1! Hellenislic and Roman Worlds (in Rom . ) ,
Cluj, 1 97-1.
268 C . Preda, op. cil. , pp. 345 - 350, all the bibliograpliy included .
2s1 Ibidem, p. 347.
258 <ielica, pp. 610ff. ; I . GJodariu, op. cil„ pp. 126 - 133.
87
of Sicily, like Poseidonius before hiln, speaks of the Roma.ns in G mtl dea ling
in wine 259• In the lst century B.C. the presence of the Roman merclrnnts
in Gaul is mentioned also by Cicero 260• They are attested in Britain hy
literary documents. Roman merchants dea.ling in wine with the Germanic
tribes of the Suebi and Ubi are referred to by Caesar 261 from whom we
learn what the Germans sold to the Roman traders and what they bought
in return 26 2• Like elsewhere, the Roman merchants' trade with the
Germans is evidenced by both literary sources and numismatic disco
veries 26 3•
Documents note the sporadic presence of the Roman traders closer
to our territories, in the Balkan peninsula, ever since the end of the 2nd
century B . C . This becomes, during the following centuries, <t general
phenomenon in Ill�Tia, Epirus and Thrace 264• During the reign of Burebis ta,
trade in Dacia was largely oriented towards the western Roman territories.
The Roman merchants roaming Dacia come from Dyrrhachium and Apol
lonia on th e eastern shore of the Adriatic or from northern Italy, which
becomes an important supplier of some of the goods found in the Daco
Getic settlements. Italian tradesmen would take control of commercial
exchanges in the north-Danubian part of Dacia 265•
In addition to the Roman merchants, there must have been in Dacia
a category of native traders whose presence is not recorde<l by literary
sources, but is evidenced by the large quantities of coins discovered,
and by the whole development of the Daco- Getic society at the time
of Burebista 26 6• Trading exchanges were carried on not only by the
Roman and autochthonous merchants, but also by those arrived from
the north-Pontic Greek city-states and other parts of the vast Hellenistic
world. The Hellenistic products discovered all over Dacia, let alone the
extra- Carpathian territory of Romania, testify to the activity carried
on by these Greek merchants. Archaeological finds in Transylnrnia also
point to the penetration of the Greek traders into these parts . The same
is indicated by the coins of the Greek cities uncovered in the Dacian
fortress of Costeşti 267 • An unusually intense commercial activity must
have been carried on by the Greek traders after Burebista's conquest
of the west-Pontic cities and their incorporation into bis realm.
The discovery in the Daco- Getic settlements of Celtic products
dating from Late La Tene like the luxury painted ceramic, entitle us
to suspect the presence of Celtic traders as well. Such products of Celtic
origin, made in the workshops of northern Europe or rather in the handi
craft centres closer to our territory, were discovered not only in Transyl
vania, but also in the extra-Carpathian space 2 68 • The deposit of irnple
ments found in the vicinity of the Brad settlement (Bacău county ) and
259 V. Pârvan, Die Sationalitiil der Kaufleule im r iimischen /{aiserreich, Breslau, 1909,
p . 22.
26 ° Cicero, Pro Foniei o, II, 5; B . )Ji lrea, in Revista istorică română, 5 - 6, 1935- 1936,
p . 286 wil h Note 3.
2n De Bello Gallico, IV, 3 , 3.
262 I V, 2, 1 , V . Pârvan, op. cil. , p. 27 ; A. Riese, Das rheinische Germanien in der anliken
Lileratur, Leipzig, 1 892 pp. 19 and 62 wilh index s.v. mercato1·es.
28 3 B. Mitrea. op. cil . , p. 286 with Note 5 containing thc bibliography of the problem.
m Ibidem, p. 286.
286 I. Glodarlu, op. cil . , pp. 1 72ff.
286 C. Daicoviciu, in Rom. His/., 1 , 1960, pp. 281 - 282 ; I. Glodariu, op. cil., p. 1 3 1 .
267 M . l\lacrca, in A ISC, 2, 1933 - 1 935, p p . 1 4 7 - 1 6 4 .
21e I . H . Crişan , i n Dacia, N . S., 1 0 , 1966, pp. 329ff.
as
the Celtic coins uncovered in Dacia are tangible evidence of the presence
of Celtic traders at the time of Burebista.
These foreign traders brought into Dacia especially luxury articles
destined to the aristocracy, taking back farming produce and cattle.
The thriYing trade at the time of Burebista both inside Dacia and with
the Greco-Roman and Celtic worlds indicates a certain prosperity featuring
an aclvanced agricultural production capable to meet the growing needs
at home and also the demands from outside. lt also points to Burebista's
clearsightedness, ability and skill in matters of internai policy.
Burebista's time was also marked by developments in the urba
nistic sphere. New fortresses were added to the older ones. Earth walls
were superseded by stone walls after the Greek and Celtic pattern. Bure
bista must be credited with having designed and realized with the help
of craftsmen brought from the west-Pontic Greek cities the whole system
of fortifications in the Orăştie Mts. which even today captures the imagi
nation by its magnificence 269 • To the same period are dated also the
sanctuaries of the religious centre at Grădiştea Muncelului.
If ''"e were to sum np Burebista's internai policy, we could only say
that it was extremely wise, aimed at the Daco-Getae's union, susta.ined
ec-011omie activity and integration with contemporaneity.
3. Thc army a n d the court
It can he said with reasonable certainty that the power of Burebista

rested mainly on his army the size of which must have largely differed
in peacetime from what it was when mobilized for war. In both peace and
war its nucleus must have been the personal army of the king. "Te know
very little about the latter, but we can avail ourselves of analogies with
other p eopl es. No ancient text or inscription makes any reference to
the king':-; :-;tanding army. In spite of this we may hold that such an army
did e::-;_ i st and tha t like in the case of the Celtic kings or chieftains, it consisted
of client,.; and debtors. We do not know the number of either horse or
foot that were in the service of the king, but Caesar's text about the
Celt:'> is q_uite clear. Caesar tells us that the army of Adiaturnus from
Aquitania was made up of six hundred 'solduri' (III, 22), whereas Dum
nori:x: , the Haeduan, had a squadron of horsemen ( II, 18). So we may
assume that Burebista's army was a large one, too . lt must have increased
consiclerably its numbers once Burebista became the leader of the entire
Daco - Getic people, playing a key role in the unification process. Whereas
no clata are available about Burebista's own guard, we find ample ref
erene e to his army and the number of meu he could throw into battle in
Strabo 2 •0 who tells us in his own words : "As to the Getae and the
Dacians, after their numbers rose unthinkably high so that they could
throw into battle anything up to two hundred thousand men, they dimi
nishecl and are, in these days, somewhere in the region of fourty thousand
ancl are now ready to surrender to the Romans". The credibility of
Stral)o 's information according to which Burebista could raise 200,000
rnen in case of war may well be questioned by modern historians. The
26 9 D . 'li. Teodorescu , i n .-1. C.\I I T, 1 929, Cluj, 1930, p . 25 (excerpt), a Yicw taler sharctl
by all t hose dea ling w i th the problem of the Orăş t ie 'll t s . complex .
21e Gcagraphia , \'II, :1 , 1 3 .
question lrns been asked from the very beginning to what extent can the
estimated figures of ancient \ITiters be generally accepted, particularly
when these refer to barbarian populations . l\Iost scholars hold that they
are fictitious and wholly subjective. Things are different in the Greco
Roman world where figures can be checked with the help of the texts
containing information about censuses taken at various times as well
as other records of this kind 271• The issue was tackled by 0. Patsch 2 7 2,
an expert in the ancient demography of southeast Europe. Patsch opines
that Strabo 's estimate of 200,000 men for Burebista's army is gi·os8ly
exaggerated unless it also includes other contingentf; of Sarmatiam and
Germans having joined the army led by Burebista.
G. Kazarow 2 7 3 , equally concerned with the issue of the Daco
Getae's numbers, does not bring into play any figure.
N . Iorga also thinks that the figure is gros:;;ly exaggeratecl aud
that it might be taken as such only if it includes many allied contingents,
a view strongly upheld hy C. PatRch m. Y. Pf1rvan comes to the conclusion
that the figure given by Strabo is not exaggerated being rather a nwde:;t
estimate 275• Strabo 's information is similarly admitted by Em . Panaites
cu 27 6 , but questioned by C. Daicoviciu 2 i 7 •
The rnilitary potential of a state depends, among other th ings,
on the size of its population and this naturally applies to Burebista's
kingdom aR well . Once this is known, Strabo 's estimate of 200,000 men
may or rnay not be accepted as reflecting the truth . On this issue, too,
opinions are divided according to the amount of credit given by different
modern historiographers to Strabo , the latter being the only ancient
source we have on the subj ect.
}fo st attempts at establishing the number of the Daco - G etae re
sorted, by analogies, as we did on several occasions, to Caesar':;; narrative
about the Celts and the Germans . Caesar often refers in his Comment,uie8
to the number of the various Celtic tribes and to the size of the enemy
they defeated. l\Ioreover, Caesar relates that some tablets written in Greek
characters were found in the camp of the Helveti and that they were
brought over to him : "they contained the names of those who had left
their country and were able to wear arms ; children , old people and women
were listed separately. According to the tables, there were 263,000 Helveti,
36,000 Tulingi, 14,000 Latobisci, 23,000 Rauraci, 32,000 Boii. Of these
approximately 92,000 could handle arms. AU in all there were about
368,000 people" ( II, 2 9 ) .
A s t o the number o f Helveti and their allies, opinions differ even
with ancient authors. Plutarch savs that the number of those who came
back home was over 100,000278• According to Appian, of the 200,000 com
batants 80,000 perished 2 79• Strabo 's figures are utterly fantastic. H e puts
271 .J. Beloch, Die Bcv olkcrung der gl'. rom. Wc//, 1/ omisclle Gesclric/Jie , 1 926, pp . 2 1 6ff
272 C . Palsch, Beilrăge =ur r olkcrkunde VOII Siidosle11ropa , V, p . 4 4 .
2 73 G . Kazarow, Beilrăge =ur /{u//urgcscllichle der T/rra /, cr , Sarnjc v o , 1 91 5 , p p . iO - 1 1 .
274 � - Iorga , Geschiclrle des Rumiiniscllcn l " ol ke s , I , G o l ha , 1 90 5 , p . :l5.
215 V . Pârvan, Getica, p. 91
276 E m . Panaitescu , in v o i . Jn .1Iemory of , . asile Pârvan (in R o m . ) , Bucharest , r n:l L
277 C. Daicoviciu, in Romanian T/rough l (in Horn . ) , I I , Cluj, 1 934, pp . 366 - 37'1 ; idem,
La Transyloanie, p . -1 8 . A n e ga t ive review o f E m . Pana itescu's work was published also by
St. Bezdech i , Some Consideralions 011 Jlr. Em . Panaitescu's S t u dy ' The Sumbcr of lire Getae
and lire Dacians' (in Ro m . ) , Cluj , 1 9 3 -1 .
21s Plu tarch, Caesar, 1 8 .
21s Appian , Celtica, 1 , 3 .
90
the number of the dead at 400,000 and that of the living at only 8,000 280 •
It has been shown that Caesar's estimate of 263,000 includes besides the
Helveti also their 105,000 allies, a figure which Caesar mistakenly or pur
posely reckons twice, thus reaching to 368,000 people which is nowhere near
to reality 281 • Diodorus of Sicily tells us that Gaul was inhabited by several
peoples, very different in size. The largest of them are put at approxi
mately 200,000 each, whereas the smaller ones could hardly exceed the
50,000 limit 282 • Hence the conclusion that the average size of a Celtic
tribe was somewhere in the region of 1 25,000 people 283 •
The entire population of Gaul in th e lst century B.C., at the time
of Caesar's wars, is estimated by various researchers at between five and
fourty- eight million people 284 •
This does not apply only to the Celts, but to other peoples as well,
and we have here in mind particularly the Germans. They are thought
to have been no less than five million, the estimate being again based o n
the figures supplied b y ancient authors 285• Things are quite different
when it comes to determining the size of the population in the Greco
R oman world due to the fact that censuses and other ancient statistics
anilable greatly reduce the degree of probability and shortens the way
to t ruth. There is no denying that here too figures are only relative 286 •
Estimates regarding the Daco- Getae are between 100,000 as inferred
by �. Iorga and 2 . 5 million as maintained by Em. Panaitescu. Given
the relativity of these figures, we think that to deal with the methods,
calcula tions and criteria having been used would lead us nowhere.
Setting out from Strabo 's references to Burebista's army, V. Pârvan
holds that the entire Daco - Getic population ruled by the great king
could be put at approximately one rnillion 28 7 • C. Daicoviciu favours
a figure anywhere up to 500,000 288 • Archaeological criteria are apt to
show whether those 200,000 men of Burebista referred to by Strabo could
o r eould not exist. It stands to reason that with a population of only
100,000 people, as estimated by N. Iorga, we cannot have twice as much
warriorli. Xor could the 500,000 Daco- Getae, suggested by Daicoviciu,
provide an army 200,000 strong. The approximate figure of one rnillion
propo sed by V. P�\rvan seems more likely. The discoveries roade during
the last t 'rn decades all over the Daco - Getic Carpatho-Danubian area
demonstrate the presence of a large number of settlernents. We shall
illustrate the statement by dwelling only on Romania's intra-Carpathian
spac-e, wh cre until 1966, more than 300 localities containing Dacian
pottt>ry 'rnre found 289, their number increasing every year. li we take
into account that manv of these localities cover wide stretches of land
(nnfortunately none h�1 s been thoroughly excavated ) and were densely
2° 0 Strabo, Geogr„ ! \' , :1, :1 .

28 1 E. CaYignac, Papula/ion el c'Lpilal dans le mmrle medilerraneen, 1 92 3 , p . 1 3 8 .
2s2 D ioclor of Sicily, Bibliolh tea, V, 25.
283 F. E n g e l s , The Origin of /he Family , p . 15Î, :\ote 1 .
28� .-\ . c ; renicr , l.es Gaulois, Paris , 1 92 3 , p . 9 0 . H . De!briick, Gesch. d . Kriegsku n s l , I . Berlin ,
1 90 8 , p. ·18 1 .
2ss F . Engels, op. cil „ p . 1 5 Î .
286 F or a n assessmc n t o f popula t ions i n t he d iffcrent proyinces o f the Emp ire s e c .J.
cil.
l l e l och , op.
�s; V . p,\rva n , Getica , p . 9 1 .
2'8 C . D a icovici u , i n l/om. llisl„ 1 , p . 2 6 7 .
�89 I . H . Crişan, Ceramica , catalogue, p p . 2 5 1 - 279.
91
populated in Burebista's time, we think it enough said. This does not
apply to the intra- Carpathian area alone, but also to what is n01v Oltenia,
Walachia, Dobruja and l\foldavia, let alone the areas south of the Danube.
Larger or smaller Daco- Getic settlements, densely populated in the lst
century B . C . , have been found everywhere 290•
Consequently, the number of Daco- Getic settlements, large or small,
known today runs into thousands, an evidence supporting V. PârYan's
proposition. At such a mass of people it seems very likely that Burebista
could raise an army 200,000 strong as reposted by Strabo. Though an
approximate figure, it is acceptable and rather modest than exaggernted,
if we take into account the fact that the tribute included th e obligation
to put a certain number of warriors at the king's disposal. This was, as a
matter of fact, the source whereby the army was recruited, and let us
not forget that this holds for all the D aco - G etic tribes across a Yast
territory.
Burebista is creditcd with having imposed a, severe discipline on
his army which was led by him from one victory to another. It was with
the help of this army that he could frec the western Dacian territories
from under the Celts, to defeat the Bastarnae having penetrated into
l\Ioldavia, and to check thc westward advance of the Sarmatian t ribes.
An army such as this made him feel secure and justified his pose of
great ruler daring to involve himself in Rome's intestine conflicts, to
back up one of the pretenders to power, in a word, to pursue a policy
of European stature. With the help of his huge army Burebista s u bdued -
to use Strabo 's wording to the Getae the bnlk of the neighbour·ing pop n
-
laf1'ons and came to be fearecl even by the Romans .

.Further details about Burebista's army, its training, structure,
composition a.o . would be of exceptional interest. But literary sources
on any of these issues and archaeological finds cannot enlighten us .
When commenting the decree issued by the people of D ionysopolis
in honour of their fellow citizen Akornion, we underscored the fact that
the latter was "one of the greatest and closest friends" of Burebista.
Akornion advised the king "on most important matters". Th is same
invaluable document shows that Akornion was "sent by king Burehista
as envoy to Cnaeius Pompeius , son of Cnaeius, emperor of the Romam;".
·.rhe term used by the decree in honour of Akornion is excitingly
similar to the aulic title i . e . , the position of r:pi;J-;o c; q:itt-oc; used for certain
dignitaries at the courts of the Hellenistic monarchs ruling over the states
set up following the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire. The rank
of 7tpw-;oc; q:i lt-oc; is met with the councillors of the Antigonid dynasty
which ruled over l\Iacedonia and Egypt and also at the court of the Lagead
kings. The title is present, too, in the functions nomenclature of the state
whose capital was Babylon and whose kings belonged to the Seleucid
dynasty. It can also be found at the court of the king of Poutu s and
equally at the court of the Spartocids who resided at Pan tic apaion
(Kerci) 29 1 •
2 0 0 For archaeological excavations eon duct cd on Homanian t erritory since 1 950 see ::mnual
reports, i n SCJ l', and i n Dacia.
29 1 � I. Holleaux, Etudes d'epigraphie el d'histoire grecques, YOI. I , Paris, 1 938 , pp. 29t' - :297 ;
A d . Wilhelm , Xeue !Jeilriige :ur Griec/1. 111sclrri(le11kunde, Sil:ber . •-lkad. Vienna , 18.J , Bd. 3, 1921,
p p . 26 - 39 ; C . Daicevici u , in SCJ l', 6, 1 955, p . 53.
92
Although we do not know its spelling in the Dacian language, the
aulic title received by Akornion from Burebista evidences the existence
of a royal court with high dignitaries after the pattern of the Hellenistic
states 292• 'Ye are in possession of no details about the court of Burebista
and there is no way of knowing to what extent was it comparable to
t.h ose of the Hellenistic kings in terms of organization and pomp. W e
should not forget that Burebista was, in the last analysis, a barbarie
king who, although ruling over a vast territory and pursuing a far-reaching
policy, was still a long way off the civilizat.ion of the Hellenistic states
which he could have used as a source of inspiration. His receptivity to
what was good and advanced in the surrounding world was an essential
and specific trait of the Daco- Getae of all times. The fact that Burebista,
came to adopt such a policy once again testifies to his exceptional perso
nality and genius.
Of th e positions at the court of the great king documents say very
little, indeed. And we hasten to recall that they had been much more
numerous, some of them being referred to in connection with the Dacian
kings of later times until the Roman conquest.
'Ve know that Burebista had granted Deceneus the title of pene
reg1'am potestatem which would amount to a viceroy. According to Dio
Cassius (Hist. Rom . , LXVII, 1 0, 1 ) , the same function was discharged hy
Vezina "who was second to Decebalus".
The inscription in honom· of Akornion, the Greek of Dionysopolis,
indicates that he discharged th e functions of both councillor and
a mbassador. In addition to the high offices referred to by documentH ,
several others mav have existed a t Burebista's court. Some o f these are
mentioned in the few written sources handed down to us as belonging
·
to the court of Decebalus, one of Burebista's successors. The likelihood of

tb eir having been in force much earlier, namely at the time of Burebista,
is not to be ruled out since they are important, we may say, key posts
for the court of any king ruling a state of the Daco- Getic type. "-e
learn from Criton (FHG, IV, 374) that during Decebalus "some people
were charged with supervising those working (the land) with oxen, while
others -from among those surrounding the king -were charged with (look
ing after) the fortresses".
This reliable literary evidence entitles us to maintain that just
like Decebalus Burebista had a court of his own including the military
commanders of those fortresses . It may be possible that not all those assign
ed to the command of fortresses belonged to Burebista's r etinue. Judg
ing by the number of the most important fortresses we know today,
tb ev' must have been too manv for that. The court of Burebista mav ' also
b av e included other military commanders holding top posts in the army
which is supposed to have been similar to that of other barbarie kings .
Besides these military men, in overwhelming number, there certainly were
tbe civil dignitaries, some of wbom, and not tbe only ones, were respo:nsible
for th e good farming of the land, as would be the case during the rule of
Decebalus. w· e should not forget the honsehold of the great king. Unfor
tunat.ely, we know next to nothing about it. It may he possible that the
m al e m embers of the royal family were assigned high offices . An indication
in this sense would be the fact that the high dignitary sent to negotiate
292 C . DaicoYiciu , i n Rom. llisl. , 1 , p . 28-1 ; R . V u lpe, Rurebis/a /he Geta . p. 32.
93
with emperor Domitianus was Decebalus' brother, Diegis. l\Iembers of
the sacerdotal layer led by the high priest who, as has b een shown, was
second only to the king, were also part of the king's court.
If we add to these the nobles arrived at the court to be taugh t
the skill of arms - and there is no denying that they had who to learn
it from - we are entitled to conclude that there are sufficient and solid
grounds for maintaining the existence of Burebista's court which may
have, at least partly, followed the pattern of the Hellenistic courts .
The presence of these dignitaries raises the question of a centralized
state apparatus, of the state itself, and particularly of t,h e social formatio n
it emerged from.
4. T hc state
On this subj ect, too, there are, as it often happens, several opm10ns,
falling under two main schools of thought : one which admits the exis
tence at the time of Burebista of a state outstripping the primitive
order, and another which dismisses such a possibility and maintains tha t
Burebista's time is nothing else but a later pbase of the primitive com
mune, the society based on antagonistic classes i.e., the state, being still
a long way off.
As staunch partisans of the former thesis, we shall try to see whicll ·
social formation did the state of Burebista belong to .

Historical materialism holds that the development of any humau
societv we want to examine stems from and rests on interna! causes and
inner contradictions . The self-development of any society is brought
·
about bY the multilateral dialectica! interaction of two fundamental

and clos ely intertwined, though different, relationships : people's relation
ships with nature expressed in the productive forces, and people'srelation
ships with each other in the process of production. "In the social production
which men carry on," says Marx, "they enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of their will ; these relations of
production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material
forces of production. The totality of these relations of production consti
tutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on wbich
rises a legal and politica! superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness" 293• The fundamental law of social life
is the law of the concordance between the forces and the relations of
production to which is added the law of the superstructure being deter
mined by the basis. Each time, understanding of the dialectics of produc
tion, economy and superstructure will implicitly lead to the understanding
of the society in question. The thesis on the superstructure being deter
mined by the basis should not be applied onesidedly. It requires a many
sided approach where account must be taken of several circumstances :
the basis does not determine directly all superstructural phenomena,
the respective relationship presupposing an often sufficiently complex
mediacy. Furthermore, the superstructural forms are changing under
the influence of an accumulated material which determines specific forms
293 K. �larx, Con/ributions to /he Criticism of Polilical Economy (in R o m . ) , Bucharest,

Edi tura politică , 1960, p . 9.
94
and trends of tlevclopment . ' ' A certain system of economic relations,"
states C. Borgeanu, "does not automatically generate certain institutions
aud ideas . It creates, however, a framework which people should neces
sarily and spontaneousJy take into account whcn organizing their society,
th eir ins titutions "294•
In our case, the phenomenon in question is und cniably institutional
and superstructural and was generated by the basis under specific condi
tions ·which we shall duly analyze. Romanian Marxist historians havc
attempted a definition i.e., a characterization of the politica! formation
headed by Burebista for about four decades. The thesis on th e existence
of a Daco- Getic state was put forward by C. Daicoviciu 295 and later
shared by most researchers . l\I. )!acrea 296 was among the few Romanian
historians embracing the theory that wc cmmot ::;peak of a state at
that time.
It would be only natur;tl to start with thc development of productive
forces at the time of Burebista. \Ye shaJl not do that because the issue
is dealt with in a separate chapter. Yet, wc shall emphasize that the
productive forces, the whol e material culture of the Daco- Getic society
had reached a high levei of development putting them on a par with
those of the Celts. \Ve though t it necessary to make this specifica tion
be�ause we shall frequently refer the subject to the Celtic world. If we
do not elaborate on the productive forces and their development, pro mi
n ence will be given instead to the relations of production which underlie
all thc other social relations. Productive forces and economic rela tionl'l
are dialectically correla t ed, not as two distinct phenomena, but as two
facets of the same historical process viz, the productive activity. The most
important place within the framework of relations of production is held
by ownership relations. All the other economic relations depend on the
nature of these ownership relations. The latter obj ectively regulate the
position of individual and social groups within the system of production
and their actual role in the orga,nization of work. They impress upon
t.h e essence of relationships between different groups or classes. Tlr ny
model, in the last analysis, the allout picture of economic life.
\Ve have dealt with the exceptional importance of ownership rela
t.ions because documents on them are more numerous than on any otherl'l .
Besides, it is these ownership rehltions that help clarify the prohlem
of the state and social system which the Geto- Dacian society during
Burebista belonged to.
B y about A . D . 200 northern Dobruj a experienced a border di;-;pute
between a female landowner named )lessia Pudentilla and Dacian peasants
of Buteridava (vicani Buteridavensis). To settle the difference recourse
was made to the arbitration of the governor of Moesia Inferior who esta
blished, or r e-establish ed, in a decree which has been preserved on two
carved boundary stones, the definitiv (or the boundary line between two
properties ) . The task of planting the stone:-; was assigned to a, praefectus
classis, the commander of the military fleet, known by the name of Vindius
Verianus 297• The Dobruja inscription (preserved in two copies ) attests
29� C. Borgeanu, Essay on J>rogress (în H o rn . ) , B u c h a rc s l . Ed. p o l i l i d , H l 6!) , p. 58.

295 C . D aicoviciu, in SC.')Cl11j, I , 1 950, rase . 2 , p p . 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 .
296 � I. �!acrea, ir.i S/11dii şi ref"e rall', p p . 1 1 !l - 1 4 1i .
297 r. r. fl.11ss11 , in sr.n·, G, 19,) ,) , 1 - !, pp. i5ff. ( w i t h t h c w h o l e hihliogrn p h y ) .
95
the existence of joint ownership with the Daco- Getae until the end of
the 2nd century A.D. alongside the large Roman estate 298 • Since these
documents refer to a later time than the one concerning us, it might
be inferred that joint ownership came to be known by the Daco- Getae
much later than Burebista's time. Yet, this is not so. In an ample study
on the subject, A. Bodor arrived, and rightly so, at the conclusion that
the village communities were known to the Daco- Getae as early as Bu
rebista's time 299•
In one of his b eautiful odes (Carmina, III, 24), Horace, one of the
most celebrated Roman poets, talks about the Getae, referring to their
borderless lands. Lacking in accuracy, Horace's relation cannot be, and
is not, a historical document of any consequence 3 00 • A comparison be
tween Horace's lines and Caesar's text on the Germanic Suebi 3 01 reveahi
that Horace related in verse about tb e Getae what Caesar's prose told us
about the Suebi. When characterizing the Getic society, Horace is largely
indebted to the work of Caesar, particularly to those passages that are
concerned with the Germanic Suebi. This indebtedness is of no avail
because of the numerous and essential differences between the Daco
Getic society at the time of Caesar and the Germanic tribes . The Germans'
levei of economic and social development was much lower than that
reached by the Daco- Getae. Iron was not widely spread, being used for
weapons but not for implements, as testified by botb literary texts 3 0 2
and archaeological discoveries. Nor was the potter's wheel, with all its
consequences for pottery production, in general use during the lst century
B.C. The Germans' settlements were small and with poor inventories '303 •
Tbese are only a few of the key elements pointing to the fact that the
La Tene culture was far from being generalized with the Germans. Horace
knew that the Daco- Getae practised their agriculture in a kind of commu
nity, but in the absence of further details, he used Caesar's text which
dealt with the Germanic Suebi. As a resuit, Horace's lines show the
Daco- Getae engaged in a communal-type agriculture, without it being
identica! to that prevailing with the Germans at tbe time. Though no t
a major document, the historical importance of Horace's text canno t
be denied, all the more so as the existence of a communal-type agriculture
-
is attested by otber literary texts as well. One of these emanates from
Flavius Iosephus who tackles the three philosophical schools with the
Jews (genern philosophia) represented by the Pbarisees, Sadducees and
Essenes. Of the way of life of the members of the third school Flavius
Iosephus tells us : " . . . their goods are jointly owned" 3 04•
298 T. D. Zlatovskaia, J1ezija v I - II vekah nashei ery, 1951 , pp. 86 - 87 ; E. :\!. Staer
mann, in VDI, 1953, 2, p. 61 ; A . P. Kajdan, în \ "DI, 1952 , J, p. 91 ; A . Bodor, in SC / l ", 8, I - 4,
1957, p. 1 3 7 .
299 A. Bodor, in SC/ V, 7, J - 4 , 1 956, pp. 2 5 3 - 266 ; ide m . î n SC/ l", 8, I - 4 1957,
,
pp. 137 - 148.

300 A . Bodor, in SCI \", 7, 3 - 4 , 1956, p p . 256([.
301 De Bello Gallico, IV, 1 .
3 0 2 Tacitus, D e origine e l situ Germanorum, V I , 1 .
3 0 3 H . Rosenfeld, Kullur der Germanen , i n \'Ol. Abriss der Gesclliclite anliker Randkulluren,
:\lunich , 1 9 6 1 , pp. 17ff.
39� li1sephus Flavius, Anliquilales Judaicae, V I I I , 1 , 5.
915
The Ei!senes' way of life anu religious beliefs are dealt with by
Flavius Iosephus also in 'Eellum Iudaicum' 3 05 • From what the Jewish
writer relates about the Essenes we single out the following : they lived
in communities, had their own priests, believed in the immortality o f
the soul and did not care for family life, but when they had a family,
they set much store on womens' virtues and the purity of family life. At
the time of Flavius Iosephus the Essenes had their own wealthy people.
Yet in the Essenes' community they took no more atlvantage of their
wealth than the dispossessed. They had no slaves and elected their owu
tax collectors.
Similarities between the Daco- Getae and the Essenes' sect can,
therefore, be established in terms of jointly owned goods and faith in the
immortality of the soul which, in the case of the Daco- Getae, is attesteEI.
bv other sources as well.
·
The existence of joint o wnership with the Daco- Getae beginning

with Bnrebista's time until the late 2nd century B . C. is evidenced both
literarily and epigraphically. Let us see now what forms did this collective
ownership take in the lst century B.C.
The issue of joint ownership forms has been examined by Fr. Engels
who shows that '1with all the peoples the land was worked j ointly by
the tribes and later on by communist family communities, the existence
of. which is related by Caesar with the Suebi . . . the land apportioned to
the tlifferent families was periodically reapportioned . . . Kowalewski
maintains, however, that the situation described by Tacitus presupposes
the existen.ce not of a village community, but Of the household community,
and that the latter evolved much later into a village community as a
result of the rise in population" 3 00 • K. Marx also tackled, on s everal
occasions, the question of joint ownership forms a o7•
_\n analysis of the work of th e two Marxist classics clearly showil
that joint ownership took three successive forms, namely : the tribal
coin nrnn i ty, the family, or household, community, and last but not least,
the Tillage community, agrarian or neighbourhood community as it is
sometimes called.
\Ye have pointed out that at the time of Burebista and Caesar
the Daco- Getae were more developed than the Germans . As Engels esta
blished with the help of Caesar's text that the Germans had reached the
stage of family communities (gentes et cognationes homin1im) the only
conclusion left is that we can speak of the village com:tnunity or neigh
bomhood community with the Daco- Getae.
The Celts, too, were more developed than the Germans, both econo
mically and socially . The text of Caesar speaks for itself in this se:nse as
do m·chaeological discoveries for that matter. Referring to the ITbii,
Caesar writes : "they are a little more civilized than the other Germanic
tribes because they live along the Rhine and are often visited by tradesmen
and because they borrowed the customs of the Gauls with whom they
are neighbours" 3 os. As far as we know the Marxis� classics did not embark
3 05 Bellull1 Judaicum, I I , 8 .
386 K . :\lan:, F r . Engels, Selected ll'e1rks (in !'lom . ) , Bucharest, E S PLA, 1 9 6 5 , 2 , p. 3 1 5,
:! 1 6 .
3&7 I\:. :\larx, Tlle Capital (in Rom . ) , I I I , part I , Bucharest , 1 956, pp. 326 -
327 ; K '.\larx,
Fr. fai gels, \\"orJ.:s (in Rom. ), 9, Bucharest, Ed. pelitică, 1 959, pp. 13/ff. ; id„ 19, 1964, pp.
419 - 420 · and 434.
aos De l'Jello Gllllico, I V, 3 .
7 - c . 170%
97
u pon an analysis of the Celtic society to which only occasional references
are made.
The village community is the first form of social organization whose
members are not linked by the kinship ties specific to the primitive society,
but by relations stemming from the space, the neighbourhood they lived
in. True, blood relations are not ruled out either. They did exist without
thereby being compulsory. That was the firet form in which two types
of ownership e:xisted side by side : the joint ownership and the private
ownership. "The house and its appurtenances, " writes K. Marx, "a.r e
aJready privately owned by the farmer, whereas in the distant past the
jointly owned house had been one of the material bases of the previous
forms of ownership. l\foreover, although the arable land ie owned by the
community, it is periodically distributed amongst the members of the
village community, so that each farmer works the land apportioned to
bim, taking hold of the fruits of his labour" I09.
To reach this stage many social changes must have taken place
within the tribal community . These changes can only be accounted for
by the development of the productive forces. The two large divisions
of labour which separated first the farmers from the cattle raisers and
second, the craftsmen, are facts that took place long before the appearance
of village communities . As far as the Daco- Getae are concerned they
are abundantly evidenced by the large number of archaeological finds.
lron had long been used in agriculture and in the making of different
implements by craftsmen. l\fany settlements show signs of densely popu
Jated production centres where the items made were increasingly u.sed
for trading. The growing number of implements led to a considerable
rise in labour productivity and output. "The means of production point
not only to the degree of development of labour, but also to relation;;hips
within the working process" 310• All this generated new relations of pro
duction for whose further development the limits of tribal cornmunities
were no longer broad enough. They had to be rernoved and replace<! by
others likely to ensure a continued growth of the productive forces. The
d evelopment of the means of production stepped up the differentiation
between rich and poor. The family-based tribal community was replace<!
by the village cornmunity which provided the necessary framework for
the advancement of the Daco- Getic society. The village community ori
ginates in the tribal community. This changeover did not take place
by bounds and leaps, nor was it homogeneous in nature. The fact is
evidenced by the stubborn perpetuation of family communities in Egypt,
Mesopotamia aml India long after the emergence of the class-divided
society. Consequentl�, we might infer the perpetuation of some form,;;
of earlier communal ownership with the Daco- Getae as well, the main
and most frequent form being, however, that of the village cornmunity.
The same conclusion seems to emerge from Caesar's text about the Gauls
viz, the persistence, with certain tribes, of the earlier forms of organi
za.tion according to the system characteristic of the end of the primitive
order including the family, household community on the one hand, and
the existence of social relations and bodies compatible with the ti·ibal
11yst.em , on the other. The village community necessarily implies the
308 IC :\Jarx, Drafl A.nswer Io V. 1, Zasulici's Le/Ier, in K. :\Iarx a n d Fr. Engels, ll"orl;s.
(in Rom. ) , 1 9 , Ed. politică, 1964, pp . .J. 1 9 - -120. 1.; . :\Iarx uses the term 'a grarian comnrn n i t r ' ·
3 1 0 K . :\fan: , The Capital, 2nd edition , Bucharest , Ed. P:O.·I R , li, p. 1 87.
92
existence of social stratification and :rntagonisms . Members of the village
conununity were no longer equal as far as the goods _they owned aud
the place they held in the social hierarchy are concerned 311•
There are indications that the Daco- Getic society at the time o f
Burebista had long been stratified. Speaking about those men who had
taught the Getae (mistakenly referred to as Goths) philosophy, amoug
which was also Deceneus, Jordaues writes : "That is why the Goths
( Getae) have always been superior to almost all the barbarians and almost
equal to the Greecks as showu by Dio (Dion Chrysostomus ) who compiled.
their hbtory aud annals in the Greek language. He says that those o f
noble descent were first called tarabostes and later pilleati : from amoug
them the kiugs and the priests were elected" 312• The pilleati are sub
sequently mentioned by Dio Cassius who deals with the period of Trajan's
wars against D ecebalus 313.
It is an established fact that at the time of Burebista the nobles
which Latin language sources refer to as pilleati were already known.
Tbey wore the pilleus, a kind of cap as a sign of thei.r rank 314• Long
before that they had been called tarabostes according to Dion Chrysos
tomus' narration conveyed to us by Jordanes. It is obvious that the
nobilitv was of no recent date in the Daco- Getic societv. . It was fro m
its ranks that kings and priests were elected.
Beside this noble hierarchy, ancient sources speak of the capillati
or comati. Their presence is mentioned by the same Jordanes at the time
of Burebista and equally by Dio Cassius at the time of D ecebalus. Referring
to D eceneus and the way he had chosen from among the pilleati the wisest
men to t each them theology, Jordanes writes : "the rest of the people
were to be called capillai1", a name which the Goths (the Getae) keep
recalling to thh; day (6th centur�· A.D . ) in their songs, since it was held
in high e>5teem" 315• The second mention refers to a period subsequent to
Burebista's. Dio Cassius, narrating 'l'rajan's second war against Decebalus,
writes : "The envoys sent to D ecebalus, just before bis defeat, were no t
chosen from among the comati - as in the past - but from among the
best of the pilleati" 31 6•
The pilleati mm be equated with the Celtic nobility and the R oman
pa tricians 317•
Jll
For the villagc community of feudal limes in the Romanian Jands wlth reference to
past periods. see, for instance : Henri H . Stahl, Contributions to the study of Romanian joinlly
owned 11illages (in Rom. ) . Bucharest. 1958 ; id . , Studies of historical socio/ogg (in Rom. ), Ed. ştiin
ţ ifică , Bucharest, 1972 ; P. P. Panaitescu, The peasant community in Walachia and Moldavia,
Tl!e feudal system (in Rom . ) , Bucharest , 1 964 ; Romulus Vulcănescu, Juridica/ ethrwlogy (in
Rom.), Hucharest , 1 970 ; G. Ba k u , in SCI \l.4. , 2G, 3 , 1975, pp. 371 - 379.
au .Jordanes, Getica , 40.
3 1 3 Dio Casslus, Ilisl. Rom. , L XV I I I , 9, 1 .
314 The custom l s not characterlstlc only o f the Daco-Getae since I i lerary sources attest it
wilh other peoples, such as the Scythlans. The Scythian nobles are referred t o by Luclanus,
a writer of the 2nd century A . O . as wearing a pilleus ( The Scytlrian or the guest 1.). Of people
wearing a sort of fur cap with the Dacians we are told by Dion Chrysostomus in yet another
part of his work (Or, L X X I I, 3). Crlton speaks of the pilofori Getae. Pilleus ls of Phrygian origin.
Cf. Brandis, in RE, n· , 1901 , col. 1948 ; .J. Wiesner, Die Thraker, Stuttgart, 1963, p. 176 ;
O. Gamber. in Jalrrbuclr der l\unslhistorisc/1en Sammlung in \l"ien, 60, 1964, p. 7 .
315 J ordanes, Getica, 72.
3 11 Dio Cassius, /li st . Rom. , L XV I I I , 9, 1 .
317 I n the Romanlan edition w e a dvanced the hypothesis according to which co ma t i =
capillati would represent a privlleged ca tegory similar to that of the Roman knights to be found
a lso in the Celtic society.
The large number of wars waged by the Gauls, according to the
description of Caesar, tallies perfectly with what Strabo tells us ( YII,
3 , 11 ) namel y that when Burebista carne on the scene, the Getic people
was "exhausted by frequent wars" .
I n both cases the 'knights' (we do n o t know their Celtic equivalent)
were those who took part in war. They belonged to the nobility and dis
tinguished thernselves frorn the Roman equites, an order between the aris
tocracy and the plebeiana.
The Celtic 'knights' were wealthy men, but we do not know exactly
the size of their wealth . Literary sources give no details in this respect
for either people. They had pro bably taken hold of the land previously
owned bv the communitv. Thev mav have had their own herds of cattle
which they grazed on collectively owned pastures . Similar assumptions
could go on indefinitely. The private ownership of the land with both
Celts and Dacians may be postulated although it lacks the support of
written sources.
The Celtic 'knights' and especially the principes constituting the
Celtic nobility (nobilitas ) and the Daco- Getic pilleati had their own
clients (clie11tes ) . Caesar uses this time a Latin word for the general
concept, but when he tries to explain it, when he tells us who made up
the clientele of the Celtic aristocracy, he has to resort to foreign terms i.e.,
the original ones, since in the Roman society they were not used as such .
It is the case of the ambacti, former freemen, now in a condition close
to slavery. To these must be added the soldui, a kind of military clientele
consisting of freemen in the service of a nobleman.
To round off the list of the privileged, the sacerdotal layer has
to be mentioned as one of the main social categories in the Celtic society.
Caesar wrote at length about the druids and we are, thanks to him, in the
possession of most valuable information . Similarities between the Celtic
druids and the Daco- Getic priests are quite striking and have long been
underscored 31 8 • The description of the druids, their doctrine and actiYities,
emanating from Caesar, are strikingly similiar to what we learn from
Jordanes (Get. , 6 9 - 7 1 ) about the Geto-Dacian priesthood. 3Iore about
this later. Suffice it so say, for the time being, that the Daco- Getic clergy
was hierarchized and powerful, exerting a strong influence in all spheres
of life. Deceneus, the high priest, who was also a viceroy, had his power
vested in him by Burebista. We can therefore assume that the functions
discharged by the druids, as related by Caesar, may well have been the
same as those implemented by the Daco- Getic priests. The latter were
mostly recruited from the ranks of the nobles, otherwise known as pnleati.
We hear about them, as has already been shown, from Jordanes (Get., 7 1 ) .
This literary and archaeological evidence entitles u s t o speak of
a wealthy, but stratified nobility in Burebista's time. The pilleatt'. (pilo
phoroi ) most certainly formed the ruling, exploiting class to which the
mass of common people were being subjected. in more ways than one.
Literary SQUrces are silent about this m ass of producers of material
goods, about the farmers who tilled the land jointly or on their sman·
private properties, about the shepherds, craftsmen, traders or miners.
This is not at all surprising if we take into account what Caesar writes
about the Celts : the plebeians were treated almost like slaves, having no
318 C . Dalco\'iciu, L a Transylvanie, p. 4 4 ; :\I. Eliade, De :lalmoxis a Gengis-1\han, Paris.

1971, p. 69 .
. .
100
share in public life and the affairs of the state. They were the ones who
paid the taxes, bore the brunt of wars and were abused by the powerful.
Unable to cope with so many obligations , some of them entered the service
of the rich, being treated much like the slaves of the Greco-Roman world .
There is nothing to indicate why Caesar's description should not hold for
the Daco - Getic world as well. Quite on the contrary, there is ample evi
dence to support such a proposition. That is why the common people
found no place in the scant writings that faced the adversity of time and
reached down to u s . These writings scarcely mention the people who
ruled the destiny of the Daco - Getae. Rad Caesar's work got lost we
would have known as little about the Celts as we know about the
D aco- Getae.
Although written sources say nothing about this, we may well
imrmise that certain differentiations took place within the mass of those
producers of goods i.e., craftsmen, traders, a.o.
These were all, in the last analysis, freemen, despite their being
dependent on the nobility. About some categories of clients in the Celtic
world Caesar tells us that they resembled the slaves . Yet, it is no less true
t,h at in their relationship:� the noble's rights over them were much like those
of the slave-owners. Referring to funerary rites with the Gauls, Caesar
(VI, 19, -1 ) writes : "until recently the slaves and clients known to have
been dear to the dead were cremated with them after the usual funerary
ceremonial". This is all we know about slavery with the Celts. In the
case of the Daco - Getae things are even worse since all the information
on th e subject amounts to two vague mentions. One of these is due to
Artemidor of Dalsis (I, 8 ), author of a book on dream interpretation .
One o f the passages reads as follows : "with the Thracians, the nobles'
c-hildren are tattoo ed, with the Getae, the slaves" . In one of his letters to
emperor Trajan, Pliny the Younger writes about a slave, Callidromus
by name, who had first been owned by Laberius Maximus, governor of
l\Ioesia Inferior (100 - 102 A.D.) and later by a Roxolan chief named
Susagus wherefrom he was taken by Decebalus who would send him to
Pacorus, king of the Parthians 3 19 •
These are all the literary sources we have with regard to the existence
of slaves in pre-Roman Dacia. No matter how well inclined, we must
admit that these two references do not enţitle us to postulate the presence
c:if slaves with the Daco - Getae prior to part of them b eing included within
the boundaries of the Roman empire. In spite of his having been held by
king Decebalus for a while, Callidromus came from a slave-owning world.
Artemidor 's mention, on the other hand, let alone the fact that it was
included in -a, book on dream interpretation, is of a much later date (the
end of the 2 nd century A.D . ) when some Getae may have had slaves whom
they tattooed or branded following the custom of the time in the entire
slave� owning world . Hence, Artemidor's testimony is not worth b eing
taken for granted and can, therefore, provide no ground for the assumption
of the Daco- Getae's possession of slaves to work the land owned by
the nobles.
In spite of all this we should not, by analogy to other peoples, rule
out the existence of a particular type of slaves, although there are no
documents t-0 support our proposition. Whai seems to be certain is that
th eir labour i . e . , the surplus product originating in slave labour, was
ne D. Tudor, in Studii şi articole de istorie , Bucharest , 1956, pp . 19 - 30.
101
consume<l by the owner, reaching the market only occasionally. E ven il
it did exist, slavery certainly had no significant weight in the economy
of the Daco - Getic societv either în Burebista's time or la ter before the
Romans ' coming în to D �cia 320 .
This necessarily leads to the following conclusion : <luring Burebh;ta
the Daco- Getic society was deeply stratified into two large classes : the
rich and the poor, without thereby meaning freemen and slaves . The rich
exploited the poor while a fierce struggle must have been going on. Conti
nued feuds must have sapped the nobility as well, if we think, în analogical
terms, of the Celtic society we referred to many times before. On this subject
Caesar's text reads as follows : "There are în Gaul political groupings
not only în all the tribes, districts and villages, but almost in every household.
The people h eading these groupings are, according to thc Gauls, thm1e
who enj oy the greatest authority ; they are entitled to haYe the final
say în all matters , în all debates. This arrangement must have been
made a, long time back so that no plebeian should be left defencelesH
against those more po werful, because no chief ever permitted his men to
be oppressed o r cheated, and if he behaved differently he lost his authority
with hi s m en . The same order îs enforced, by and large, all O \'er Gaul,
beca,use all the tribes are divided into two camps" 321 •
To get a better irn;ight into th e system, recourse must be made to
those already commented passages in Caesar's text in which he describeH
the endeavours and struggle of various Celtic nobles to wrest the powe1·
(imperimn ) and rule over their own tribe or the entirc people of Gaul.
There had been many attempts such as these and the narrative covers
even the forms of opposition put up by the aristocracy.
lt is obvious that a continuous and violent struggle was going o n
a t the timc of Caesar between the two groupings on the one hand, aud
for th e conquest of political supremacy, on the other. The closest allies
of the aristocracy were the knights and the druids .
This must have been the general picture of the Daco- Getic society
whatever the particular aspects that may have also existed.
In order to answer the question whether there was a state at the
time we must take a closer look at the superstructure erected on the bas is
referred to, at the institutions during Burebista's epoch . The one and
only written document on the subject is a tiny fragment of Criron's
text, preserved in a lexiooR attributed to Suidas, which refers to the time
spanning the wars between Decebalus and Trajan. In our opinion the mos t
plausible interpretation of Criton's text is that the dignitaries charged
by Decebalus with keeping a lookout on agriculture were fulltime offici
als 322 • This was the manner în which the whole agriculture was organized
if we take, by analogy, the Sumerians where 'nubanda' was the body
charged with the guidance and supervision of agricultural work. These
0fficials also collected taxes in kind from farmers and supervised the
building of barns where the produce was kept 323.
By accepting this thesis, we have the existence of taxes in kind
directly documented. There is no denying that the Daco - Getae of Bure
bista's time were no strangers to the tax system. Caesar repeatedly refers
0
a 2 D . M . Pippldi , Conlributions (in Rom . ), pp. 519ff.
3 U De Bello Gallico , V I , t 1 , 2 - 5 .
332 A. Bodor, ln SC / \ ', 8, 1 - 4 , 1 95i, p . 1 4 6 .
a i a \'. I. A\'d ie\· , llis/ory o f lile Ancienl East ( i n Rom.), Bncharest , 1 95 1 , p p . :J 5 - :l6.
to tb ese taxes when writing about the Celts. Some of these taxes were
too bigb to be paid h�· the plebs (VI, 13). Tbe same author tells us about
the druids that . . . " tbey do not go to war and pay taxes like the rest
of tb e population ; they are exempted from military service and any other
additional obligation" (VI, 14, 1 ). It becomes obvious from the afore
m entioned text that apart from taxes and military service, the Celts,
and mutat-is muta nd-is, în aU probability tbe Daco - G etae, had otber duties
to co pe witb . What could these be ?
Caesar (I, 1 8 ) \\Tites about Dumnorix that he had got by a low
l ease eustoms duties and all other taxes. Here is a clear indication of
customs duties besides the other taxes and the way in which they were
administered. They were all leased to the rich, by auction, where, like in
tb e c ase of Dumnorix, the final say went to the rich whom nobody dared
cballenge. Let us now look into the royalty, the institutio n on top of
tbe social pyl'amid.
W e know t.hat Burebis ta was king and this is clearly evidenced by
Jiterary texts aud the title carved on the stone slab at Dionysopolis i.e.,
in the epigrapb in honour of Akornion. l\foreover, he is referred to as 'the
first and the greatest of the Thracian kings'. But Rhemaxos was a king,
too, at about 200 B.C., to name only one example. It is a well-known fact
that the title of king (rex or �ixaLAEuc;) was given by Greek or Roman
writers to those chiefs of tribal unions which had re,ached the final stage
of the primitive commune bearing the name of military democracy.
Tbe Germanic peoples at the time of Caesar also had their own kings
although it is clear that they were a long way off the end of the primi
tive communal system. Such appelations were given during the so-called
b eroic period in Greek history, or Roman royalty, to those military com
manders who managed to come to power and held the authority of a king.
"In short," - writes Fr. Engels, - "the word basileia which Greek
autbors use for the so-called Homeric royalty (its main characteristic
being leadership by the army) sooonded by the council and the assembly
of tbe people means only military democracy" 3 24•
The title of rex (reges ) is given by Caesar to many of the Celtic
chieftaim;. B�· rule (regnum ) Caesar means the supreme authority, the
absolute power vested in certain military chiefs. W e learn, again from
Caesar, that this power is of a hereditary nature. In the same work Caesar
(I, 16, 5) writes about the senate (senatus ) Elsewhere (VII, 4 ) the king
.
is proclaimed by hil'I men like in the case of Vercingetoi:ix. Of the Getic

kings and priests we hear from Dion Cbrysostomus through Jordanes
(Getica, 73) tbat th e� were elected from among the pilleati.
·
It is very difficult to say to what extent does Caesar's repeated

reference to different Celtic tribes having a senate (senatus ) correspond
to the Roman institution that goes by the same name. There are reasons
to believe that some of these are the old tribal councils . Caesar (VI, 13)
relates that Rome tribes had a supreme magistrate, called vergohret, who
was elooted for a one-year t enu and who had a life-and-death right over
b is fellow citizens. We also J earn (VII, 32) that tbe same tribe was, during
earlier times, in the habit of appointing a single magistrate to the supreme
office (regnum) for a one-�·ear term, and that at the time of Caesar there were
two such magi:-; trate.-. These must have distinguished themselves frorn t he Ro
m an con.-ul, ,;isce Caesar gives t he m t he Celtic appelation. A clear distinct ion
i.e., tbelife-and-death right over his fello,„ citizens is related even by himself.
a::.a Fr. Engels, The Oriyin of the Fami/y (ln Rom.), p. 1 10.
103
In C'aesar's time ( VII, 20, 1 ) legal power was vested in the drnids .
They were the ones who made all public and private decisions .
The druids ' functions must have been performed approximately. irr
the same manner by the Daco- Getic priests. This is pointed out by
Jordanes who writes : "After the death of Deceneus, they held in almost
similar esteem Comosicus, a man of equal intelligence. He was considered
by them king, high priest and judge owing to his skill, and he adminii!
tered justice to the people as the last instance" 3 25• The fact that Comos_icus
was judge in the last instance necessarily implies the existence of other
judges down to the hierarchy scale. These could only be the priests and the
cases thev had to hear must have been verY similar to those the Celts
took bef�re the druids .
·
The function of supreme judge discharged by Comm;icus was uu

doubtedly held by Deceneus, the latter's immediate predecessor who m
according to Jordanes he matched in cleverness.
These are clearlv documented indications that in Caesar\.; time
the Celts experienced �;: clear-cut stratification : a class of rich people aud
a class of poor people, each of them with its different layers. 'Ye also
know that power over certain communities, large or small alike, or over
the whole of Gaul, was jealously disputed by wme chiefs . There were
magistrate offices, courts and laws no longer comparable with the tribal
organization, as well as taxes and customs .
To these must be added the coim:; which often carry the effigy o f
the leader a s supreme authority 3 26• True, this is neither a decisive nor a
determining .criterion likely to answer the question whether the changeove1·
from the tribal system to the state as new social formation based on anta:
gonistic classes had been accomplished. There had been large states in
Antiquity (Egy pt for instance) 3 2 7 which had no coinage at all or had
them much later, as well as powerful tribal confederations which issued
their own coinage, without having had their system based on antagonistic
classes. That was the case of . the Daco- Getae during the 3rd and- 2nd
centuries B.C.
In th e lst century B . C. the Celtic traders were constituted into
a self-standing social layer even if they had not yet completely detached
themselves from agriculture. Their existence is attested by literary sources
;which are in their turn corroborated by archaeological discoveries . So
we are entitled to believe that the Celts had already experienced the
emergence of the state, that instrument whereby an exploiting minority
ruled and controlled the exploited majority. Caesar (VI, 20, 1 ) refers him
s elf to the "re publica" of the tribes that better organize their public
affairs. Y et a conclusion such as this is dicounted by other propositions
emanating from Caesar with respect to the Gauls' revolt in the winter
of 54 - .53 B . C. Caesar writes about the armed council (armatum conciliiim)
which was convened, according to customs in Gaul, in case of war. " Thi:3
institution is characteristic of the final stage in the evolu1;ion of the
primitive community of military democracy.
a2s Getica, 73 - 74.

328 R. Forrer, J\eltische .\'umismalik da Rhein - und D•naulănder, B d . 2, Bibliograph!
sche .\'achlrăge und Ergiinzungen, Gra z, 1 969.
327 For the l\istory of Egypt see, for instance, G. Dyckmans, llis/oire Economique e l
Sociale de l'A ucienne Egyple, Paris, 1 9:36 - 1 937, 3 \'ols. ; J . :.\l . White, Everyday L ife in
A ncienl Egypl, Lendon, 1963.
1 04
This is how the relatively large body of information we possess about
the Celts, thanks to C'aesar's work, is not sufficient to provide us the
necessary ground for categorica! and final conclusions on the existence of
a Celtic state. Cae1mr's texts are rather obscure in this respect. It is this
J ack of clarity that prevented K. Marx and Fr. Engels from examining
th e Celt.ic society. NeverthelesR, the Marxist classies resorted to Caesar's
text when they looked at the Germans' form of Rocial organization which
clearly points out that the tribal system viz, the primitive commune was
still prevailing. The many differences b etween the Celtic society and that
of the Germam in the l st century B.C. should not be ignored. The net
superiority of the former was repeatedly underscored by Caesar and
mentioned as such by Fr. Engels 3�8 •
Far from pretending to have resolved this difficult problem, we
think it more likely that conditions prevailing in the Celtic society during
the lst century B .C., were calling for au organization su�h as the state.
These had been formed throughout a longer period of time. Following a
quantitative accumulation, the qualitative leap which led. to the appearance
of the state took place or was still under way in the time of Caesar.
However strange and surprising it may seem, the written sources
tl ealing with the Daco- Getae are more comprehensive and categorica! on
t.h e existence or non- existence of the state and are thus able to provide
an answer. Strabo's text (VII, 3, 1 1 ) as principal source for Burebista's
time reads : "he achieved a powerful state within a few years and subjected
to the Getae the bulk of the neighbouring populations " . . . Burebista
conquered and incorporated into bis realm the Greek cities on the west
coast of the Black Sea from Olbia to Apollonia. He subdued the Celtic
trihes having infiltrated western Dacia - the Boii and the Taurisci whom
b e failed to exterminate, according to Strabo . The discoveries made by
the Czech archaeologists throw more light on the fact that Slovakia
continued to be inhabited by the Celts throughout the lst century B.C.
and hundreds of years thereafter. It seems very likely that many warriors
of the Boii and Taurisci perished in battle whereas others moved west
ward as we learn from Caesar. They went on living în large numbers in
their former settlements together with or alongside the Dacians. Their
politica! power, supplanted by that of Burebista was, however, obli
terated.
The vast territory ruled over by Burebista extending from the
middle Danube to Olbia and from the northern Carpathians to the Balkans
is a reality incontrovertibly evidenced by literary, epigraphic and archae
ological sources. His supremacy over such peoples as the Celts, Bastarnae,
Greeks a .o. i8 another hard fact which speaks for itself. The only reason
able conclusion removing all suppositions is that a vast territory such a s
this could not b e ruled by means o f t h e tribal system institutions, but only
by a state. If the maintenance of the old institutions made sense when
Burebista ruled over the limited territory of his tribe, however large it
may have b een, or of the tribal union he belonged to, there can be no
dcnibt that as his realm was being extended and the bulk of the neigh
bouring populations were subj ected to the Getae - to recall Strabo's
own words - these institutiom; had to b e replaced by a new institution
capable to ensure the progress of society. "The domination over the
a ze Fr. Engels, The Orig in of the Family (in Rom.), p. 1 57, Note 1 .
105
oppressed," writes Fr. Engels, "is incompatible with the tribal system 329,
the latter being superseded by a new one."
These were the reasom that made us adopt the thesis of the existence
of a Daco- Getic state in Burebista's time and reject the propositions
put forward by M. �facrea 330 , T. D . Zlatkovskaia 331 , and I. T. Krugli
kova 332, who maintain that Burebista was only a chief ruling over a
large tribal confederation still in the grip of the tribal system. Instead of
further arguments we think it advisable to use the analogy with the
Germanic world about which Fr. Engels ·writes the following : "the state
( with the Germans ) emanates straight from the conquest of vast foreign
territories for th e domination of which the tribal organizntion could not
provide th e means" 333 •
5. Thc social forma l i o n
\Yhen C. Daicoviciu put forward the thesis about t h e Dacian state h e

characterized i t a s being a slave-o,vning state "with a specific form due
to the local particularities in which it came forth and different, in some
respects, from the classic type of Greek and Roman slave-owning state" 334•
Taking into account these very differences, C. Daicoviciu defineci the Dacian
state as an "incipient slave-owning state" and refeITeci to an "incipient
slave-owning system" at the time of Burebista 335• The Dacian state is
calleci a slave-owning state because the slave-owning relationships, though
poorly developed, in Burebista's time and during his immeciiate s uccessors,
represented the new element capable to be developed and which was in
fact steadily developed. This element making its way slowly but surely,
gradually removing the vestiges of the primitive communal system, is
the element that had to win by virtue of the implacable and law-like nature
of historical development" 336•
The slave- owning nature of the Daco-Getic state is denied by severa.I
Romanian researchers : M. Macrea 337, D . :M. Pippidi 338, Miron Constan
tinescu 339, and questioned by H. Daicoviciu 340•
Let us try to see to what extent did the slave-owning element con.sti
tute the novelty that h ad to win given the reduced and insignificant pro-
329 Ibidem, p. 327.

330 1\1. Macrea , op. cit . , pp. 1 19 - 146.
3 31 T. D. Zlatkovskala, in VDJ, 2 , 1955, pp. 73 - 97.
33� I. T. Kruglikova , Dakja v epoky rimskoj okkupalsii, Moscow, 1955, p. 34.
333 Fr. Engels, op. cil. , p. 183.
33' C . Daicoviciu, in SCS Cluj, 1 , Casc. 2 , p. 1 2 1 .
335 Id. , in S C I V , 2 , 1 , 1950, p. 1 47 .
338 Id . , Rom. Hist. , 1 , 1 960, p. 280 a n d 283.
337 M. Macrea, op. cil„ pp. 1 44 - 145. Slavery is denied also by P . P. Panaitescu, Intro
duc/ion to lhe hislory of Romanian cullure , Bucharest, (in Rom.) 1969, p. 1 5 .
333 D . M . Plppldi, Contributions, p. 522. R. Vulpe, without taking a stand with regard to
the slave-owning character of Burebista's state, avoids the concept of slavery. The author
speaks only of a unltary state : "Bureblsta laid the foundations of an incipient Geto-Dacian
state", Burebista the Geta p. 53, and of the slaves being forced to do different kinds of work
among which also the constructlon of the fortresses ln the Orăştie l\lts . , Dacia, N . S . I , 1957,
p. 169, and in Studia Thracologica, Bucharest , 1976, pp. 1 1 8 - 1 1 9.
339 M. Constantinescu, ln Probleme economice , 1 1 , 1972, pp. 28 - 4 4 ; id„ Ouiline of a
Marxist lheory of the lributary socio-economic formalion (in Rom.), Bucharcst, 1974, p. 45.
310 H. Daicoviciu, Dacia, pp. 76ff.
106
portions of slaYe labour in the Dacian society. Since the presence of slaves
in pre-Roman Dacia has so far not been proved, the sole justification for
cbara.c terizing the Daco-Getic society as a slave-owing society would
lie in thc objectiYe nature of novelty, of progress.
Social progress is an undeniable law ol history. Human society and
tb e Daco- Getic society for that matter, developed along an ascending
Jill(,, yet this progress was not a simple, linear one. Attempts at over
simplifica tion were rejected by Y. I. Lenin who stressed the complexity
of the issue and the danger of looking at things onesidedly 341 • The regu
larity of the :mccession of social formatiom� should not be turned into
rigid schema ta of a mechanistic nature which run counter to the fundamen
tal spirit of ::\Iarxism. Historical time should not be turned into an "empty
carcass where events and people must find a place by all means" 342•
"The theory of the 'five stages', " - w1·ites the French Marxist Jean
Suret-Canale, - "reduces l\Iarxism to a 'philosophy of history', namely to
a rigid, pre-established system to which reality must submit ; an approach
consistently combated by :Marx" 343• In formulating the regularity of
social formation succession, the two classics of Marxism, K. :\Iarx and
FT . Engels, have repeatedly protested against any attempts to turn this
regularity into a compulsory scheme, into an universal key intended to
resolYe all problems. Even when they first presented their genial discovery
on social evolution i.e., the succession of social systems, Marx and Engels,
as if foreseeing the absolutizing interpretation that was to be given to
tbeir theses, pointe<l out that "detached from actual history and taken
in se, these abstractions have no value whatsoever. 'l'hey can only be
used to make the systematization of the historic material easier, to indicate
the order in the succession of its different layers. But . . . these abstractions
offer in no way a recipe or a scheme to be adjusted to historical epochs"344•
Like an�· law, the law of the succession of social formations is of a pro
fomul dialectica! nature. In order to get a better insight into the essence
of this law one has to bear in mind, as Constantin Borgeanu shows 346,
that it does not amount to the existence of a fixed and determined number
of social formations. In addition to the five well-known formations more
and more stress is laid upon that "Asian mode of production" referred
to by both K. )larx and Fr. Engels.
One has to take into acconnt yet another important circumstance
d emonstrated by history, namely that not aU peoples have necessarily
traversed the snme formations. On the contrary, the most frequent case
is the bypassing of some 'classical' formations in the development of
tbe historical p1·ocess. Such was the case of the Germanic peoples which,
at the time of Caesar, were organized in tribal unions with some of their
ch ieftairn; seeking, and sometimes succeeding, to achieve absolute power.
ln spite of this, the Germans failed to get organized into states346, even in
tb e 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. although they had engaged in regular
3n V. I . Lenin, Complete ll"orks, (in R o m . ) , 1 , Bucharest, 1 963, p. 1 5 1 .

34 2 H . Garau dv , Jlarxisme d u 2 0-ime sii!cle, Paris-Gcncvc, 1 958, p. 2 1 3 .
34 3 .Jean Sure t -Canale, Prcmii:res societi:s d e cla�ses el mode d e rrod11c/io11 asia/ique, ln
Reclrerches internalionales <i la lwniere du marxisme, j7 - j 8 , 1 96i, p . 6 . U. Şt. \"oicu , i n Era
socialistă, J.j, 1 9 7:l, pp. :l2 - 3i.
344 K . '.\lan: , F . Engcls, German Ideology i n Works, ( i n R o m . ) 3 , Editura politicli, Bucha
res t, 1 958,p. 28.
345 C . Borgea n u , Essay on Progress (in R o m . ) , Bucharest, 1 969, pp. 78ff.
346 Fr. Engels, The Ori gin of lile Family ( i n R o m . ) , p. 1 53 .
107
trading exchanges with the neighbouring Roman Empire. The Germans
did not experience the slave labour system, but passed directly to
feudalism .
The succession of social formations discovered by l\Iarx i;; an
objective law of history. lt constitutes one of the fundamental elements
of historical materialism, the validity of which has been confi.rmed by
history. Its profoundly scientific character lies in the fact that it points
to the basic line of development which leads mankind from pre-capitalist
or capitalist forms to socialism. "This is the onl�' fundamental line of
development that has - according to Şt. Voicu 34i a universal charac -
ter, whatever the variations of some social formations and relations. It

confi.rms, at the present time, the basically historic fact that the main
substance of our time is the transition of the whole mankind to the socialist
system, a transition which takes place at different paces and in extremely
varied forms and stages."
"\Ve may say that the most eloquent proof that the Daco- Getic
society was not developing towards a slave labour system must be found
in the Daco- Getae's later condition. As we all know, only part of the
Dacian territory came, for a while, under the Roman rule. The borders
of the Caesars' empire failed to take in "\Vide stretches of land inhabited
by the Daco- Getae both inside and outside the Carpathian chain. No
slave social formation came into existence in this world of the free Dacians,
for all the progress of thei.r material and spiritual culture, particularly
with the Carpae 34 8• Throughout the period of the great migrations until
the emergence of the feudal states, the social system prevailing all over
the free Dacians' world and, after 271, all over the territory of the former
Roman province, was the 'Asian' system that materialized in the village
community 349 •
In the Daco- Getic society of Burebista's time, therefore, slave
labour played no significant part in the social production despite the
existence of the patriarchal type of slaves. Furthermore the direction
in which the society was heading did not necessarily point to the slave
social system. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that
slavery was împlanted in Dacia and that it superposed itself upon a.
non-slave Dacian reality. The joint ownership in agriculture characteristic
of the village communities held firm even after the conquest of Dacia.
It was an actual fact, in blatant disagreement with the Roman legal
norms under which the whole territory of the new province belonged to
the emperor. This is neither the place nor the case to examine the forms
of ownership în Roman Dacia or to elaborate on them 35 0 • One thing is,
however, clear : slavery lasted a little longer than a century and a half
în the Daco- Getic world, except for Dobruja of course. Even there docu
ments testify în favour of our thesis. We have already shown that the
Getic village community was still attested in Dobruja in A.D. 200 .
The slave social formation was obviously superior to the primitive
communal system. It îs also a commonly accepted fact that the Daco-
m In Era socialistă, 15, 1 973, p. 3-L

348 G . Bichir, The Carpathian Cullure (in Rom . ) , Buchare s t , 1 9 72 .
319 P. P . Panai tescu, The Piasant Com.71 :.I.'lily in Wa/acliia a n d Jfo/davia, The Feudal
pp. 1 9ff. ; :\!. Constanlinescu, op. cil. , pp. 45ff.
System (în Rom.), Buch1rest, 1 96 4 ,
au A . Bodor, in voi. Universitatea Bolyai 1 9 4 5 - 1955, Cluj, 1 9 6 5 , pp. 209 - 221.
108
Getic society in Burebista's time had exceeded the limits of the tribal
system. It had already become a class-divided society, within the frame
work of a state which was not a slave labour society. Hence the con
clusion that it represented another social formation, one different from
the slave labour formation, but able to ensure the further development
of the productive forces and of the new type of social relations tha t
emerged in Dacia. A social formation such as this is called by the Marxist
class ics the 'Asian' or 'oriental' mode of production.
Discussions o n the 'Asian' social formation have multiplied recently
and the number of those supporting the existence of this formation is
on the increase 351 • The issue was tackled also by Romanian philosophers
and sociologists 35 2 • We do not intend to survey the pros and cons o n
this question. Inventories have been made o f the texts i n the works of
the :Yiarxist classics who referred to the Asian mode of production 353 and
opposing Yiews are still being aired 354• Some elements of these discussions
are, however, worth being recalled. "For the Marxist scholar," asks
I. Banu, "are not facts the last instance in checking a theory ? Is it
not his task to start from hard facts in order to aITive, in the spirit of
Marx', Engels' and Lenin' s thought, to the theoretical conclusions imposed
bY new facts ? " The same author spells out the existence of two lines of
r esearch : one grounded into the Marxist-Leninist theory intended to
know the theses put forward by l\Iarx , Engels and Lenin on the subject
and another, that of the concrete researches aimed at clarifying to what
extent can data be theoretically interpreted by using the concept of
'Asian mode of production' 355• \Ye shall naturally adopt the second line
joining the ranks of those who advocate the adoption of this concept
which is imposed by facts. Such a stance would, in our view, better
reYeal the essence of the data we possess about the Daco- Getae. This does
not imply limiting ourselves to Burebista's time, but rather extending
the concept to the whole of Antiquity including the migrations period
in Romanian history. Only such a stand will help us account for facts
and their substance, get closer to the truth without having to resort to
contrivances or to concepts contradicted by both reality and pres ent-day
documentation. By adopting the concept of 'Asian' or 'tributary' social
formation, we shall not have to go beyond existing evidence in order
to demonstrate the existence of a slave labour social formation, be it
'incipient', of a 'neo-classic' type, or whatever. It is common knowledge
that the social formation under discussion is not confined to Asia, but
a;;i .Jean Chesenaux, Recenls travaux marxisles sur le mode de produc/ion asialique , in La
Pensee , 1 1 .J , 1964, pp. 67 - 73 ; idem, Ou est la discussion sur le mode de produc/ion asialique?
in La Pensee , 1965, 1 22 , pp. 40 - 59 ; F. Tiikei, A: azsiai termelesi mod kerdesehez , Budapest,
1965 ; Jean Suret-Canale, op. cil.
362 I. Banu, Universal Meanings- and Specific Differences i n Ilie Philosophy of Ancienl
Easl (in Rom.) Bucharest, 1967, pp. 1 5 - 36 ; idem, in Revista de filozofie , 13, 2 , 1966, pp. 2 1 3 -
228 ; in t h e same issue, p p . 2 2 0 - 2 3 8 t h e study by I . Natansohn and N. Simion, ii. boul
lhe Existence of lhe So-called 'Asian Mode of Produc/ion' (in Rom. ) ; C. Borgeanu , op. cil . , pp.
43 - 44 and 80 - 8 1 ; M. Constantinescu , works cited i n Note 335 ; Ştefan Voicu, in Era socialistă
57 - 5 9 , 1 967, pp. 32 - 37.
363 '.\I. Gaudelier, Les ecrils de Marx el Engels sur le mode de produc/ion asialique, in L a
Pensee, 1 9 6 4 , 1 4 , pp. 56 - 66 ; 1\ 1 . A . Vitkin, a n d N. B . Ter-Acopian, Po s/ranilsa jurnala ' L a
Pensee' in \ 'oprosu filosofii , J , 1 965, pp. l i2 - 1 7 6 ; M. Constantinescu , Oulline . . „ pp . 5ff.
au E . Varga, Ob aziatskom sposobe proizvodslva , ln voi. Ocerki po problemam polilekinomii
kapilalizma, '.\Ioscow, 1964, pp. 358 - 382 ; V. V. Struve, Ponia/ie 'a:ia/skii sposob proi:vodslvll,
în Narodi A:ii i Afriki, Moscow, 1965, 1 .
Sia I . Ban u , in Revista d e filozofie , 1 3 , :!, 1966 , p . 2 1 4 .
1 09
covers a much broader area including Africa, South America and Europe.
For this reason several terms have been suggested of which 'tributary'
mode of production, 'tributary' social formation (the latter is due to
K. :Marx ). In our opinion neither term is adequate because : it has heen
established that it is not a mode of production specific to Asia alone
since the tribute is not a characteristic of this system, since the tribute
relationship continues, under different forms, in other systems as well .
Until a consensus is reached on the subject, we shall stick to the somehow
generally accepted term of 'Asian' social formation which is essentiall�·
characterized by the fundamental contradiction between the subjected
communities and the ruling class in its entirety, by the joint ownership
of the land alongside the ownership of the state or other supreme power
existing side by side with the private o-wnership, by a despotic state system
aud by the sporadic nature of slave labour.
The 'Asian' social formation differs from the primitive, slaYe labour
and feudal systems. Ties between community members are no longer
based on kinship or blood relations as in the primitive commune. but on
economic neighbourhood requirements (the village or neighbourhood
community ) . Other traits differentiating the 'Asian' social formation
· from the primitive commune are : the existence of social classes, exploi-
tation and the state. In the 'Asian' social formation slaves are not the
only ones involved in production and the land is commonly owned. " The
n ew mode of production", writes :Maurice Godelier, 356 "is apparently
based on the former relations of production , continuing them, but in
realit�· new relations of production were introduced based on oppression
and domination . . . the 'Asian' mode of production prolongs and contra
dicts the former communitv relations. It also differs from the slaYe labour
0
and feudal systems . "

The social formation under di:;; cussion does not constitute an inter
m ediate phase between the primitive commune on the one hanu, a nd
slavery or feudalism, on the other. It is a distinct formation characterized
by the existence of social classes, by contradictions and antagoni:-ms
between them.
The main criterion by which a certain social formation can be charac
terized is the form of ownership of the mea ns of production 357 • In our
case, given the fact that the Geto -Dacians of Burebista's time were mainly
agriculturist:-;, the ownership issue is related mostly to the land i.e., to
1ht> forms of ownership in agriculture.
It has becn made clear that available documents attest the joint
ownership of the village community as prevailing form of ownership in
Burebista's time. This fonn of organization does not preclude the priYate
ownership of the land even if it applies to the rather small plot around
the honwstead. Romanian specialit�· literature has been giving quite a,
lot of attention to the land privately owned by the Daco- Getic nobility
or clergy 358• It must be stressed that no evidence is given on this subject
by literary or epigraphic sources, Jet alone archaeological discoveries .
The latter point rather to the contrary, giving no indication of luxlll'iou:-;
d wellings contrasting with the more modest ones, nor of the detached
366
ln La Pensi:e , l'\o. 1 59, Octobre, 1 9i1 . Apud l\L Constantinescu , op. cit., p. 32.
3 57 Cf. for instance , I. Banu , op. cil„ p. 2HL
358 C. Da icovki u , in R�m. I/ist. , I , 1 960, p. 28:3 ; A. Bodor, in SC! \', 8 , J - I . 1957
p. 1 1 ti .
l lO
type of rustic villas of the slave labour world or larg er agglomerations .
A n explanation for some of the rare exceptions like tht 'palace' a t Popeşti
ancl the towers of the Dacian fortresses must be sought elsewhere.
There are no indications of large estates with the Celts either. \Yhen
writing a bout the wealth and riches of Gaul's nobilit,\· and chiefs, Caesar
does not spell out what they were like 359• The lack of a well-founded
documentation does not prevent us from assuming the existence in Bu
rebista's time of the private ownership of the land. given the nobles'
ten<lency to 8eize as much land as possible from the village community.
How large aud close to each other were these estates in Burebista's time
is anybody's guess.
It may well be that on parts of the Daco-Get ic territory having
bet'l1 pieced together by Burebista and included iuto h is realm, the family,
household community, characteristic of the primitiv e communal social
formation 360, would have been preserved for a time a longside the village
conununity. There il'l nothing unusual about this if w e bear in mind the
fact that forms of the former system are occasiona Jy perpetuated for
long· periods of time within the newl,\· emerged social formations.
Th e typical forms of the village community are to be found în the
East and in Egypt, in l\Iessopotamia, India, China e tcetera, aud also in
Europe. 'Ihe village community was the prevailing form of ownership
with the south-Thracians 361, appearing also with the Iberians, in their
more de,·eloped regions as early as the 3rd - 2nd centuries B .C .362• It
mav be assumed to have also existe<l with the Celts as well as with
mai1y other 'barbarian' people8 from outside the borders of the Roman
ErnpiTe. It must have been the prevailing form of organization of all
the 'barbarian' peoples of Europe having reache<l a high level of develop
ment beyond the limits of thc primitive communal social formation.
Therefore, the Daco- Getic society, headed by Burebista for about
fourty years, experienced several forms of land ownership of which the
joint form characteri8tic of the village community was the most frequent.
The existence of those dignitaries entruste<l by the king with supervis
ing agricultural work and the existing analogies with the same mode of
product.ion in other societies, point to a second form of ownership, that
of the i'tate or the king which superposes itself over that of the commu
nities. Hence, the first major characteristic of the 'Asian' social formation
is the coexistence of the dual na.ture : joint ownership with private
owneri->hip.
Let us now take a look at the second characteristic : the state system.
K. Marx assigne<l, the 'Asian' states three functions in such fields as finance
( taxes, internai pillage), wars (externa! pillage), community works (aimed
at ensuring reproduction) 363 • AU three functions are present in the Daco
Getic society of Burebista's time. Taxes were levied in kind and Criton
an A. M6csy, in Acta Anliqua, Budapest, 4, I - 4 , 1956 , p . 226 speaks of the accnmula

tion of the large Ianded property with the Celtic Bo ii and of sJavery, wilhout any documentary
lmsis. The coins with ephlgles cannot be adduced a s a decisive argument in favour of the state's
exis tence and they can even less testlfy to the presence of Iarge estates .
38 0 A. Bodor , in SCI V. 8, 1 - 4, 1956, p . 1 4 7 .
38 1 A. Ranovicl, Vostochnye provintsii rimskoj, I , Moscow, 1949, pp. 2 4 i - 248 ; llistory,
of Bulgaria, ed. P. N. Tretlakova , Moscow, 1954, p . 24; A. Bodor, op. cil . , p . 1 4 1 .
ae2 A . V . Mishulln, Antl�inajy lspt1nijy, Moscow, 1 952, p . 200.
18 3 K. Marx:, Forms preceding capitalist produclion (tn Rom. ) , Bucharest, 1956, p. 8 - 1 0 .
111
goes as far as to list the officials who�e task was to supervise agricultlll'e
and collect taxes. There is also the analogy with the Celtic world where
taxes were ( according to Caesar ) such a burden that many people had to
trade their freedem for the protection of the rich .
The wars of conquest whose aim was th e plundering of the defeated
population are fully attested. Suffice it to mention, in this connection,
the writing of Dion Chrysostomus (Or, XXVI, 1 ) who deplores the tragic
fate of Olbia, ransacked by Burebista's armies.
The third functioE. of Burebista's state i.e., the community work
is amply evidenced in all the stone fortresses, particularly those of the
Orăştie Mts. complex which constitute an a-Otual system. The quantity
of la bour invested in the construction of the defensive system of the Oră�tie
l\lts. must have been immense, judging by its monumentality. The erec
tion in a relatively short time, of this system could only be possible by the
use of community, compulsory labour recruited from all over the vast
realm ruled by Burebista. In order to build in the Orăştie Mts. one had
first to dig a number of terraces in the rock of the mountain itself. The
building material i.e., the limestone had to be excavated from distant
quarries, then cut and transported. The great building blocks, which can
hardly be handled by several people, had to be carried up the steep moU:n
tain slopes : the large fortress at Grădiştea Muncelului being at a height
of about 1200 metres just like the isolated mountain peaks at Piatra R oşie,
Blidaru, B ăniţa, to mention only a few. If we add to this the colossal quan
tity of blocks, running into millions, needed for the construction of th e
walls which are several kilometres long and over three metres wide, we
think that quite enough has been said.
Who ever takes this into account will realize that the fortresses in
the Orăştie Mts. could only be raised by the compulsory community labour
of a population the size of that inhabiting the vast territory of Burebista's
kingdom. These constructions have nat ceased amazing and inspiring people
to this very day. Each of them speaks, in its own language, of the colossal
work performed to build them and, at the same time, of the genius of
their designer.
To conclude, we can safely say that the social formation of the Daeu
Getae under Burebista was not a slave labour society. It did nat belong
to the primitive communal system, but to the system known as 'A.sian'
or 'tributary' system. It was characterized by : the existence of social
classes as a result of the development of the productive forces ; the dual
nature of ownership (community ownership with its dual character and
private ownership ) ; the existence of the state with its three functiqns
(tax collecting, wars, community works ), and also the sporadic nature
of slave labour. In the lst century B . C. the Daco- Getae had already
reached a high level of economic development. These were the conditions
in which the foundations of the first state in the history of the Daco- Getae
were laid by Burebista, the background against which he pursu ed bis
active and fruitful interna! policy.
112
C hapter V
EXTERNAL POLICY
J. The wars against the Boii a n d the Taurisici. 2 . 1'he fighls wllh lhe
Scordisci and lhe encroachmenl on I lie Roman borders. 3. The conquesl
of lhe wesl-Ponlic Greek cily-slales. 4. Peoples subjected in caslern Dacia,
,;, Diplomatic relalions.
1. The wars against the Boii and thc Taurisci

After h aving unified the Daco- Getic tribes and subjected them to discipline
and obedience, Burebista embarked upon his great wars, leading the Daco
Getae from victory to victory to the very heights of glory. The Daco
Getae and through them Burebista, came to master a vast territory,
stretching from the Morava (Marus ), the river separating Slovakia from
Moravia, to Olbia, and from the northern Carpathians to the Balkans,
and subdue the bulk of the neighbouring populations.
To pinpoint the succession of these wars is no easy matter. But one
thing is certain, that the pacification and unification of the Daco- Getic
tribes was a long-drawn process, accounting for more than half of Burebista's
reign . He did not arrest the attention of contemporary historians until
after he became a powerful figure, a man to be feared. The first part of
the reign , devoted to the internal organization of the Daco- Getae, failed
to arouse the interest of the Romans, since the places where these develop
ments were taking place fell outside their conquering schemes. This accounts
for the deplorable gap left by ancient historiography which was mainly
concerned with events in the Greco -Roman world and the history of the
different stages and wars whereby the modest town on the Tiber had come
to rule the world. Developments in the Geto-Dacian world could only be
recorded by those ancient authors whose main interest had been the history
of this world . There were a few, but unfortunately their writings failed to
withstand the time and reach down to us. Once the Daco- Getic people
becarne a great power under the leadership of a man of genius, it could
no longer pass unnoticed. This being said, let us refer it to Strabo who
starts relating about Burebista when the latter had come to represent
a Q.anger for the Romans "leaving behind the distant past of the Getae".
The great geographer from Arnasya is amazed at the way in which Bure
bista "had achieved a powerful state (ocpx�) within a few years and sub
j ected to th e Getae the bulk of the neighbouring populations" . How many
calendar years are implied nobody knows.
Before looking, with the help of the few available sources at the
wars waged by Burebista, we deem it necessary to spell out the character
of tb,ese wars. It bas been shown as early as the beginning of this century
by C. Brandis 364, followed by others a65, that the war against the Boii
aH Burebisla, s . v . în RE, 2 , 1 90 1 , clO. 1959- 1 960.
365 For instance '.\!. :\facrea , op. cil . , pp. 1 22ff . ; C. Daicoviciu, în Acles, 2, Sofia, 1 969
p. 65.
113
and the Taiurisci was designed to free the western territories of Dacia
encroached upon by the Celtic tribes. Consequently that war was a libe
ration war. If that is so, aud we kno w it is, the same does not apply to
Burebista's other wars. The Scordisci lived intermingled with Illyrian
and Thracian tribes, the Dacians included. Yet, it was not to liberate the
latter that Burebista crossed into l\facedonia, nor was the conquest o f
Olbia, and the other west-Pontic citv-states motivated bv the liberation
of the Daco- Getae who are shown i_,,. documents to ha\·e li\·ed in that
territory a,long with other tribes . The character of some of the wars carried
on by Burebhita at the head of his l arge army is clearly shown by Strabo :
"because crossing fearlessly the Danube and plundering Thrace down to
:Macedonia and Illyria" , means that his inroads into Macedonia were decid
edly motivated by looting. The wars he waged within the western or
ea.stern parts of the Daco- Getae's lands were quite different. The main
purpose of Burebista's war in the east was to annihilate the politica! supre
macy of the Celts.
Tbe wars of plunder and subjection of various foreign peoples cha
ra.cterized such statei> as the one ruled by Burebista. The latter was no
exception to the rule, and the fact is attested by documents in spite o f
lac k of details.
The only literary source relating Hurebista's military exploits is
Stra,bo 's ' Geographia'. In addition to the passage already commented
upon, the ancient geographer refers to those events on two more occasions.
When describing the territory lying along the Danube, he \\Tites : " Part
of the mentioned territory was devastated by the Dacians in the war in
which they defeated the Celtic tribes of the Boii and the Taurisci led by
Critasiros" 388• In another passage we are told about the settlement and
actions of the Celts, with reference to the Boii as well. The latter are ded
cribed by Strabo as one of the most numerous Celtic peoples who had in
the past occupied Rome following an unexpected attack launched together
wit.b the Insubres and Senones. The event took place at about 390 B.C.
'.rbe Boii were driven off by the Romans. "l\Ioving into the regions adjo in
ing Istros, they intermixed with the Taurisci, fighting the Dacians until
they were decimated by the latter. Their territory which was part of
Illyria was turned into pastureland for the neighbouring peoples" 3117 •
These three passages throw little light, if at all, on the chronology
of tbe military moves undertaken by Burebista. Some clue could be given
by the sequence in which events are dealt with ( VII, 3, 11 ). Y et, it is very
likely that Strabo did not relate them in their chronological order, but
a�cording to the importance each of them had for Rome. If we accept this
thesif!, it would have been only natural that soon after Burebista's inroads
into the Empire and the territories controlled by the Romans, Strabo
should first relate the defeat of the Celts who were intermingled with the
lllyrians and the Thracians and only after that the war witb the Boii and
the Taurisci. Without ruling out the possibility of Burebista's expedition
to the south against the Scordisci to prevent them· from aiding Cristasi
ros prior to his attack on the Boii and the Taurisci, we think it more plau
sible that he refrained from going south against tb.e Romans and the Celta
M long as his right flank was threatened by the Boii and the Taurisci who
•8 Strabo, Geogr„ V I I , 52.

317 Ibidem, V, 1, 6 .
114
could have obstructed his return and, together with the Scordisci, sl'll'r ound
ed Burebista's armies at least on two large fronts : one with the Romans
facing him, and the other, in the rear, with a coalition of at least three
Celtic tribes. W e can hardly imagine Burebista such venturesome or poor
strategist when everything points to his exceptional gift as army comman
der aud rnilitary genius. "Te are inclined to believe that Burebista's
first important move was directed against Critasiros.
The question is whether we can establish the time and place of the
war as well as its outcome.
Of the major events marking Burebista's time few are those that
can be set in time with any measure of accuracy. One of these is the co11-
<1uest of the west-Pontic Greek city-states which took place between .').')
and 48 B.C. 'Ye also know that Burebista was murdered in the vear H
B.C. Given these two exact dates, the question must be answered '�·hether
bis wars against the Celts preceded the ones that took him as far as Olbia.
Some modern historians maintain, and rightly so, that the western
actions occurred before thnse în the east and can be dated to approxima
tely 60 B.C., others put them anytime about 40 B.C., therefore after the
conquest of the Greek colonies. The former hypothesis was advanced
back in the late 1 9th century by B. Niese 368, being shared latPr on by
most researchers 369• Naturally enough, in the absence of do<'nmented
evidence, opinions differ, with some scholars dating the wars tu 60 B.C.
and others lowering the date to 5 4 - 52 B.C. 370 • There îs however, full
agreement on the fact that the events preceded those which took Bure
bista to the city of the Borysthenians.
\Vhenever Strabo's narrative lacks precision, recourse can be made
to the text of Caesar which once again sheds more light on the event.
When relating the decision rn ade by the Helveti to leave their country
most likely under the pressure of the Germanic tribes, Caesar narrates how
they persuaded their neighbours to do the same "becoming în the end allies
and welcoming to them the Boii, a people from across the Rhine having
irrupted into Noricum and besieged Noreia" 371 • The event referred to
by Caesar occurred în !i9-58 B.C. This means that Burebista's war against
the Boii had to be carried before that, but not much earlier, since we are
told that in 59-58 B.C. the Boii had just arrived and been admitted
into the territory of what îs now Switzerland 372• It could not take them
too long to cover the distance between the �Iiddle Danube and Switzer
land in spite of the sporadic fighting they were involved in on their way
tbere.
\Ye can , therefore, assume without fear of being mistaken that the
war between BurPbista and Critasiros took place at approximately 60 B .C.
Among those researchers lowering the date of the war by two decades
is also the numismatist R. Paulsen. Studying the coins of the Boii 373,
us B. :\iese , in Zeitsclirifl fiir deulsches A.llertum, XL I I , 1 898, p p . 1 53 f f .

369 C. Hranclis, loc. cit. , ; C . .Jullian , llistoire de la Gaule, I I I , 1 910, pp. U 5 ff ; C. Patsch ,
op. cit. , p . ..J .J ; J. Carcopino, Cesar, in Jlisloire romaine, I I I , Paris, 1 936, p. 698 ; V. Pân·an,
Getica , p. 79 ; C. Daicoviciu, in Rom. Jlist, m . p . 286 ; ::\!. :\!acrea , op. cil. , pp. 121 - 1 22 .
370 ::\ ! . Chj\escu, in Dacia , 1 9 , 1 975, p. 25..J .

37 1 lJe Bello Gallico, 1 , 5, 4 .
372 C. .Jullian, op. cil. , p . 1 -15, !'\ole 5 .
3;3 R. P:rnlsl'n, JJie .Hilnzpriigung der Boier, Leipzig - Vienna, 1 933.
115
he established that the area they lived in covered western Slovakia, part
of lower Austria east of the Alps, the Burgenland and some of the regions
adjoining what is now Hungary. Paulsen demonstrates that the coinage
struck by the Boii circulated only from about 60 B.C. (when the Celts
moved from Bohemia down to the Danube) until after 44, but before 35
B.C. In support of his i:oference which alsa includes the suggested date of
Burebista's victory over the Boii, R . Paulsen resorts to a coin hoard found
in southern Austria containing one Roman coin issued in 43 B.C. in addi
tion to thirty-eight coins struck by the Boii. Y et, this does not change
the facts since there is no necessary link between the time a floin is str1wk:
and the time it circulates.
As the Boii's coins were made of gold and silver, they could rema i n
in circulation much longer after they had been minted and hoarded up
later 374• To this must be added still another circumstance : R . Paulsen
refers to the Boii ha,ving descended from Bohemia to the Danube by about
60 B.C. This assumption is dismissed by both literary texts and archaeolo
gical discoveries. The Celtic finds in those areas where the coins struck
by the Boii were circulated attest to their presence from the late 4th cen
tury B.C. as well as an uninterrupted continuity throughout the following
centuries, even after their crushing defeat in 60 B.C. 375• The fact that the
Boii did not pull themselves away from the bulk of the populations inha
biting Bohemia is corroborated by a passage in Strabo's ' Geographia'
(V� 1, 6) already quoted by us. The Boii were driven off from their original
homeland lying between the Alps and the river Po much earlier since the
territory concerned was turned into a Roman province as early a � 191
B .C. under the name of Cisalpine Gaul. Strabo clearly shows that"Later
on (that is after 390 B.C. when the Celts destroyed Rome) the Romans . . .
chased the Boii from these places. Moving into the area near Istros, they
intermingled with the Taurisci and fought the Dacians . . . "'Ye may,
therefore, hold that the Boii did not cross southward into Bohemia, but
rather expanded eastward from an area encompassed between the Alps
:tnd the river Po . The Boii had settled along the Danube long before 60
B .C. in the early 3rd century B.C. when no Celtic settlement is evidenced
there archaeologically. The fact that the Boii living along the 3Iiddle Da
nube did not mint their coinage before 60 B.C. is accounted for by their
internai development.
R . Paulsen's views and reasoning were taken over and expounded
by _.\. Alfoldi 376, who is compelled to put the date of Burebista's death
to 40 B.C. and even later. A. Alfoldi's arguments will be duly dealt with
in the chapter devoted to the end of Burebista. For the time being we
shnJl only recall that one of the grounds invoked by A. Alfoldi in support
of the thesis that Burebista fought the Boii in 40 B.C. is a coin of the latter,
called Biatec, that could only be minted in 44 B .C. The trouble is that the
coin in question is not genuine as was proved by R. Paulsen 377 • AU the
coin hoards discovered in Pannonia are dated to 55 B.C. 37 8• The Celtic
374 :.\I. :.\Iacrea, op. cil. , pp. 128 - 1 2 9 .

375 B . Bcnadik, in Zpravy ( Annonces de l a societe Tchi!coslooaque d ' archeologi e ) , 18,
1 968, pp. 3 1 - 46 ; id. , in S I . Arch . , 19, 2, 1 97 1 , pp. 465 - 4 9 8 .
376 A . Alfoldi, Z u r Geschichle d e s Karpale11beckens im I. Jahrhunderl 11. Chr . , 1 9 1 2 , pp. 1 2
- 1 6.
377 See the entire discussion with :.\I. Macrea, op. cit. , p. 1 30.
a1s M. Ghiţescu, in Dacia, 19, 1 975, p . 25 1 .
1 16
coins found in Slovakia date from the same period 379 • Coin emissions after
48 B . C. could be spotted nowhere.
By another far-fetched argument A. Alfoldi tries to demonstrate
that the detachment of 300 horsemen sent to Caesar during the fighting
against Pompeiu s in 48 B.C. means that the Taurisci, and implicitly
the Boii, had not yet been destroyed. Hence, no clashes had taken place
between the latter and Burebista in 48 B.C. That this statement is grossly
exaggerated is proven by realities, let alone the fact that even Strabo
(VII, 3, 1 1 ) makes no mention of the Taurisci's complete annihilation .
Following their defeat, the Boii moved on t o what i s now Switzerland and
fought the Taurisci. One more evidence that the latter had not been liqui
dated, but continued to exist and hold their grip on Noricum until the
Roman conquest.
'Yith no arguments against, we must admit that Burebista's war
with the Boii and their allies can be put at about 60 B .C.
Yet, before attempting to locate the battle-field where the 'catas
trophe' that had alkegedly swept the Boii off the face of the earth ( Strabo,
Y, 1 , ? ) occurred, we shall have to clarify who that Critasiros wa s .
The single ancient text referring t o h i m i s due t o Strabo. The great
ancient 'geographer' speaks about him on two occasions, each time in
connection with the defeat of the Boii and the Taurisci during the war
with Burebista. The name of Critasiros is also said to be inscribed on a
coin cliscovered in the Austrian Alps, carrying the legend : Gaestori Ecritu
sfr·i reg(1"s) fil(ius) seo .
In our view, Strabo 's text clearly indicates that Critasiros was
ruling over the Boii whom he had led in their unsuccessful battle against
Burebista who must have had only the Taurisci as allies during that war.
It is to this effect that the second reference by Strabo must be understood
when h e describes Critasiros ' rule over the two Celtic tribes . That this
-..vas so is pointed out by Caesar's account of the siege of Noreia (Neumarkt in
Austria ) . 'Ye can well assume that in the wake of the disaster which prov
ed to have been far from total, Critasiros would seek to punish his allies.
The Boii living along the Danube must have, in all probability,
succeeded in establishing their supremacy over several Celtic tribes inha
biting the territory of what is now Slovakia aud Hungary. The fact that
the same territory was lived in by other Celtic tribes apart from the Boii
is evidenced by several literary sources . When describing the western
borders of Dacia (at about 52 B . C . , ) Caesar refers to the tribe of the Anarti
later mentioned by Ptolemy (Geogr., 8, 3 ; III; 5, 8 ) . Along with the Anarti
are mentioned the Taurisci and the Ctini 381 in Slovakia, aud the Eravisci
in northern Pannonia.
There is nothing unusual about this if we bear in mind that it was
the same in Gaul, at the time, i.e., one or several powerful tribes were
fighting to overcome the others which were no few either. Likewise, the
powerful chiefs of these powerful tribes were also fighting for power. In
tbe wars they waged the Celtic tribes often sought the support, and even
the alliance, of neighbours of the same origin, or of the Germans even.
The same must have happened on the Middle Danube where the supre-
3 79 E. Ko!nikova, in Studii şi Cercetări de .Vumismatică, 5, 1 97 1 , pp. 39 - 49.

38 0 W. Kubischek, Konig Ecri/usirus, in Jahreshefte des lJ si. arch. Ins/„ 9, 1906, pp.
70 - 74.
as1 The text of M . Vicinius' eulogy, De&sau, ILS, 89155 ; A. Premers tein, in Jalu. - O st.
«rch. Inst„ 8, 1904. p. 227 ; 28, 1 93:il, p . 1 40 ; 29, 193-4, p. 90.
117
macy was possibly held by the Boii whose leatlership was, in one way or
another, in the hands of Critasiros. One argument in support of thi:s sta
tement is the fact that the Boii were those who struck their own coin,;.
This i:;; a certain indicatioi:l of their supremac�· even though short-lind.
C. Jullian adntnced the thesis of a great 'empire' led by Critasiros including
all the Celtic ' states' on the Danube, that is, the Boii of Austria (from
Pm;�au to Lake Balaton), the Norisci and even the Boii of Bohemia 382 •
W e do not beliern in the existence, at that time, of Celtic states on the
Danube, Jet alone an 'empire'. Coinage alone is not sufficient proof of the
existence of a state. ţ\i-e are not sure whether even the Celts of Gaul had
a state of t heir own.
To this must be added that the Boii who lived on the Danube were
intermingled with the Taurisci who are attested b�· Str,lbo. "In the region
near lstros they (the Boii) lived intermingled \Vith the Taurisci" (V, 1, 6 , ) .
N evertheless, their main settlement was unquestionably in :Xoricum,
in what are now the Austrian provinces of Styria, Carinthia and Carnia.
ln A.ntiquity, like in more recent times, the boundaries of a certain tribe
were not related to their ethnicity. The presence of the Taurisci is recorded
much later in northwestern Slovakia by Ptolemy (III, 8, 3 ) .
So, Critasiros was a chief of the Boii, a tribe having overpowered
the other Celtic tribes on the Middle Danube. How far did the territory
ruled by them stretch is verY difficult to sav. · One indication in this sense
is provfded by the area over \vhich the coins struck by the .Boii were circu
lated. It is of no little consequence that after the removal of the Boii's
supremacy and their final defeat by Burebista the Evarisci of Pannon ia,
who had used the coins issued by the Boii lwfore 60 B.C., started imitat
ing their own coinage, hearing the legend R avis(ci) or 1r.wisci. This o bvious
ly means that following the Boii's defeat, supremacy in Pannonia wai'.
taken over by the Eravisci.
�.\11 this points to the afore-mentioned conclusion and argues in favour
of Critasirm; being one anu same person with the Ecritusirus inscribed
011 the coin found bv ::\Iallnitzer Tauern in Am;tria. This however does no t
e11title us, to contest Strabo 's information and make of Critasiros a king
of the Taurisci as A. Alfoldi has done 383 •
Critasiros' army must have consisted, in addi tion to the Boii, of
other tribes overpowered by the Celts as well as of their allies, the Tau
risci. The army of the Boii and the Taurisci was decimated by Burebista.
and the defeat must have had disastrous consequences particularly for the
Boii since Strabo insists so much on their allout defeat, 011 the Boii';;
obliteration from the face of the earth. Their fate was decidedly shared
by their allies as well. Yet, Strabo's words should not be taken ad litte
ram, although in our view his exaggerated wording hides nothing else but
real facts. After their crushing defeat and Critasiros ' death, the Boii left
Switzerland. The fact that Caesar makes no mention of Critasiros might
be an indication that the latter died in the war with the Daco- Getae some
where on the Danube. The likelihood of his having been killed during the
siege of Noreia should not be ruled out. Assumptions such as these might
go on indefinitely and will remain so until new discoveries bring further
clarifications. One thing is, however, certain namely that follo-wing the
as2 '.\I . '.\ Iacrea, op. cit. , p . 1 3 1 .

:18 3 . Alfiil d i , op. cit . , p. 1 6.
llS
defeat of the Boii in 60 B.C. no ancient source ever mentioned their pre
i-ence on the Lower Danube.
The war operations under Burebista on one side and under Crita
siros on the other were carried on somewhere in the l\Iiddle Danubian
area as indicated by Strabo. How far did Burebista advance while chasing
the enemy and where exactly did the battle take place are no easy answers.
Dacian materials including pottery of common use, of which the
Dacian cup is most important, discovered on the right side of the Danube,
in Budapest 384, at Einsenstadt, and farther away in Silesia, cannot prove
the tt>rritorial limits of Burebista's military operations. Yet, these materials
have also another significance in that they attest the effective and long
standing presence there of a Dacian population, not a short-lived passage
occa.sioned by a war which implies motion by definition.
The westward advance of Burebista's armies can be traced with
the help of the bW'ied hoards of Celtic coins. These run all along the Danube
from the river's bend (north of Budapest) down to Vienna 185• Given Bure
bista's considerable ability as a strategist we can hardly picture him as
crossing the Danube which means that he chased the Boii and the Taurisci
on the left side of the river.
ThL;; is of course only a supposition. The buried hoards on the right
side of the Danube may well support this supposition, the fact being
known that fortunes are hidden in panic which, in our case, could hardly
he tonfined to just one side of the river.
The area in which fights were fought and territories occupied by
Burebista before he reached the middle course of the Danube were inha
bited, apart from the Celts, by Dacian tribes. Referring to the land be
tween the Danube and the Tisz11., Strabo writes : "The Dacians claim that
thii,: territory had been theirs although it lies beyond the river Parisos" 3118•
This was not a mere claim, but a hard fact as daily evidenced by archaeo
logical di,,;coveries. This area was lived in by tribes of Dacians whom Bure
hista would subject and draw together when taking the borders of his
realm to the Danube, the Morava (Marus) and the northern Carpathians.
But more about this later
The form Parisos we come across in Strabo's text is not without
interest. This must be due to a mistake made by a copyist, since the cor
rect i'pelling of the ancient name of the Tisza was Patisos 387•
In addition to liberating the Dacian tribes in the west from under
the politica! supremacy of the Celts and driving away the Boii, Burebista's
warlike actions also ended in looting. Evidence of this are the Boii's gold
and silver coins buried in both Transylvania and Walachia. About 40
gold coins of the time struck by the Boii who lived along the middle course
of the Danube have been discovered in the commune of Geoagiu (Hune
doara county) near Orăştie. Four other silver coins part of a treasure trove
have been unearthed at Tămădău (Ilfov county) 388 • One Celtic coin ha.s
3 l' Tbeir m1p witb z. Visy, Die Daker im Gebiel oon Ungarn, în A J'16.ra Ferencz Muzeum
Evkonyve , 1970, 1, p. 1 1 , For the Budapest settlement see E. Bon.is, Die spălkeltische Siedlung
Gellerlhegy Taban ln Budapest, Budapest, 1969.
395 M . Macrea, op. cit„ p . 125.
388 Strabo, V I I , 5, 2 ; cf. and Brandis, loc. cit.
387 Piiny the Elder uses the correct form Pathisus, Nat. Hist. , I V , 1 2 , 80 .
3 88 B. Mitrea, in Studii şi Cercetări d e Numismatică, 1, 1957, p p . 1 9 - 39 ; N. Lupu,
in the same journal, 3 , 1960, pp. 8 1 - 88.
1 19
also been discowred in the Coste�ti fortress in the Orăştie l\lts. 3 89• Apart
from these several other coins have been uncovered all of them repre�ent
ing only a tiny part of the spoils of war consisting mostly of cattle, grain:-;
etc. The beneficiaries of this booty were certainly the nobles, either tho:i\e
at the top end of the hierarchy or those resembling the knights of the
Roman wcirld.
Nor were the German territories bordering on those of the Dacian�
after they took their boundaries to the Marus spared these looting actions.
Jordanes writes in his Getica : "On his advice (Deceneus' ) the Goths (the
Getae) started ravaging the Germans' lands which were now held by the
Francs" 39 0 • V. Iliescu believes the text refers to the wars with the Boii
and the Taurisci 391 not with the Germans, whereas N. \Vagner thinks
the text refers to a German locality lying between Thrace and Illyria
which was ransacked by the Getae under Burebista 39 2 •
The victory of Bm ebista over the Celtic coalition of the Boii and
Taurisci opened the way towards the heart of Europe. Following the
valley of the Danube, he could now advance further afield, but he did
not. He had in all probability a stone fortress built on the territory of
what is now Bratislava. In no document can we gather any information
about the motifs having prompted Burebista not to follow the Boii on their
way to Gaul. C. Jullian assumed at one time that the Danube plain bet
ween Bratislava and Vienna was the place where the Daco- Getic armies
were to clash with those of the German Suebi under Ariovistus. The clash
did not take place because Ariovistus is thought to have gone to Gaul and
Burebista to the east 3 � 3 • So it would be the fear of a confrontation with
Ariovistus that caused Burebista to stop in the Bratislava zone. "- e are
inclined to think" that others were the reasons that made Burebista halt
there. He did not cross the Dacian border nor did he venture further into
the 'Barbaricum ' . His warlike actions aimed instead at the Roman pos
sessions in the Balkan peninsula and the west-Pontic Greek city-states.
2.The fights with t he Scord isc i and t hc cncroachrncnt

on the Roma n borders
On Burebista's wars south of the Danube we rely, like in the case of the
war with Critasiros, only on Strabo's text. The passa.ge so often referred
to before (VII, 3, 1 1 ) tells us that after having raised the Daco-Getae
through his wise internai policy, Burebista subjected to them the bulk
of the neighbouring populations, achieving a powerful state, a 'kingdom'
(&px�) and came to be also feared by the Romans. "By fearlessly cros
sing the Danube, devastating Thrace down to Macedonia and Illyria, h e
overcame the Celts who were intermingled with Thracians and Illyrians ."
This passage allows us to suppose that Burebista moved in two directions
3e9 )I. :\!acrea, in .US C , 2, 1 933 - 1 935, p . 160.

390 Jordanes, Getica , 67.
391 VI. Iliescu, in Rev. Ro um . L ing. , 1 7, J, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 63 - 65 ; id. , Ph ilologus, 1 11), 1 97 1 ,
p. 1 37 - 1 3 9 .
382 �- Wagner, Getica, Unlersuchungen zum Leben des Jordanes und zur friihen Geschichle
der Goten , B�rlin, 1 967, pp. 7 8 - 80. Rejected by VI. Iliescu, loc. cil. ; id . , in Actes de la X l l•
Con{. Inter. d'Eludes Classiques, Eirene, Buchares t - Amsterda m , 1 975, 1 0, p. 424.
393 C . Jullian, op. cit. , pp. 1 53 - 1 54.
120
during his attacks south of the Danube. One of these passed through
'i'B.race down to Macedonia, the province set up by the Romans in 168
B .C. The other may have taken him through the territory inhabited by
the Illyrian Dardani and the Celtic Scordisci. That these were the Sc@r
disci is once again evidenced by Strabo's text. When describing the Illy
rian-Pannonian lands in the Danube area, he "Tites that the river Tisza
"descends from the mountains and flows into the lstros where the Gauls
named Scordisci live. True these lived alongside the Illyrians and the
Thracians" 394• Amid the Thracians who lived together with the Celts
there must have also been the Daco- Getae as evidenced by archaeological
discoveries made on the territory of Yugoslavia. The autochthonous popu
lation of the whole space between the Danube and the Adriatic 395 was
made up of Illyrians whose territories had been infiltrated by the Celts
�rnd other peoples.
The lancl inhabited by the Scordisci ever since the beginning of
the 3rd century B .C. is roughly traced by many archaeological discover
ies made, most recently, in what is now Serbian territory between the
l\Jora,va and the Drina 396•
\Yhich of the two directions was taken bv Burebista and how often
did he undertake such inroads, encroaching upon Roman-controlled
territories or crossing the borders of the Roman republic, sources do no t
tell and any supposition seems wholly futile.
. �.\s for the Scordisci, Strabo speaks of their having been annihilated
by Burebista, only to contradict himself a few lines below397 in the same
book " Geographia". Describing the lands along the Danube, the geogra
pher of .A.masya refers to the territories denuded by the Dacians during
the wars against the coalition of the Boii and Taurisci led by Critasiros .
"X evertheless," "Tites Strabo, "the former (the Boii and the Taurisci)
were decimated by the Dacians, whereas with the latter (the Scordisci)
tlwy often formed alliances" 398.
\Ye cannot conceive of an annihilation of the Celts who lived along
side the Thracians and the Illyrians, namely the Scordisci, since even
Straho clearly refers to the alliances formed by the Dacians with the Scor
disci in parallel with the destruction of the Boii and the Taurisci. I. Tod.o
rovic opines that the Scordisci were Burebisia's allies even during the war
a�:ain;;t the Boii and the Taurisci 399.
The Daco- Getae's alliance with the Scordisci must have been aimed
a t plnndering the southcrn end of the Balkan peninsula. Literary sources
testify to such incursions as eai'ly as the 2nd century B.C. as being directed
to the l\Iacedonian bordel's which were often crossed by coalitions includ
ing, apart from the Scordisci and other peoples, the Dacians as well. It
look;; very probable that at least some of the incursions undertaken into
Macedonia by the Scordisci and the Dacians during the first half of the
lst century B.C. like the one of the year 74 B.C. must have been joined a1so
:i u S lrabo,Geogr„ ii , 2 .
o • s A ppia n ,I/ist. Rom. , Jllyria, 1 - -1 .
31 6 A . A lfol d i , i n Acta Anliqu a , 1 2 , 1 - 2 , 1 96-1, p p . 107 - 1 2 7 ; J . Todonl\·il' , 1'elti u
Jugoislocnoi Evropi , Belgra d e , 1 968 ; i d . , SJ.:ordisci , Ko,·i Sa d - Belgrad e , 1 97-1.
397 For t he contlnued presence o f the Scordisci t h roughout t he l st cent l uy B.C. see J .
TodoroYic. Skordisci , p p . 1 50ff.
398 Ceogr. , V I I , 5 , 2 ; Sources, 1 , p . 2 4 5 .
39 9 J. Todorovic, op. cil. , p. 264.
121
bv Burebîsta. Hîs name îs not mentioned sînce he had not at that tîme
eÎn erged as a noticeable fîgure, being still at the beginning of his reign wht:'n
he had to put an end to the internal strifes between the Daco- Getic tribes
he would unite later on. As soon as Burebista succeeded in bringing uuder
his rule all the Daco- Getic tribes and became a great force he no longer
needed to resort to alliances in order to attack the Roman frontiers and carry
on hîs looting into Macedonia. Even if such alliances with the Scordisci ever
existed as 1·elated by Strabo (VII, 5, 2) they must have been a source of
discontent for the Daco- Getic king who eventually undertook to pun ish
the Scordisci. The motin• of the discord could well have been the sharing
of the booty captured in thP territories encroached upon. If, for a timt>,
the supremacy which was materialized in 'the lion's share' at dividing
the loot was held by the Scordisci, now it could no longer be theirs. Here
îs, in our opinion, one of the possible motives of Burebista launching- wa:r
against the Scordisci. The outcome of the confrontation îs recordetl hy
Strabo who relates how the Celts, intermingled with Thracians and Ill�-
rians ( Scordisci), were decimated. This meant a serious defeat for th e
latter. 'Ve haYe seen the Scordisci at the head of many coalitîons 01· at
tacking the Macedonian borders on their own. From 141 B.C. onward)' the
Scordisci had often plundered the Roman pmisessions down to the Adria
tic or traversed l\lacedonia înto Epirus. Beaten off by Burebîsta they
ceased to play an important politica! part. Sources also cease mentioning
them. Strabo 's statement should thus be interpreted as meanîng the iiUp
pression of their politica!, not ethnic, power. In the wake of t b eir fights
with Bmebista the Scordisci continued to live around what is now the
city of Belgrade ( Singidunum ) throughout the whole of the lst cen tury
B . C. and even after that 400•
3. The conquest of the west-Pontic Greck ci ty-states
We learn from the d ecree îssued by the city of Dionysopolis in bonolU' of

Akornion that Burebista had "recently" started ruling "the lands on both
side.s of the Danube". What în fact does this 'recently' mean and what did
in fact the author of the decree understand by it, is no easy answer. Hypo
theses can and have of course been adva.nced. One thing is, however, cer
tain, that în 48 B.C., when the peoples of Dionysopolis were paying tri
bute to their distinguished fellow citizen, Burebista had already establish
ed his supremacy over both sides of the Danube and the conquest of the
rich Greek colonies on the west coast of Pontus Euxinus was an accom
plished fact. BUI'ebista had be,come the "first and the greatest of the Thra
cian kings". The question is to what extent can we speli out the chronologi
cal succession of events. The pNtector of the west-Pontic Greek cit.ie8 who
received .Akornion's diplomatic mission recorded in the celebrated epi
graph is neither the father of Burebista nor Hurebista himself. VI. Ilie,scu
thinks that Oroles, who is referred to by Trogus Pompeius, was a Dacian
king in Burebista's time 4 01 who ruled somewhere in Moldavia, given the
fact that he is mentioned in connection with the defeat of the B asturnne.
If we admit thîs hypothesis, then we must date much later Burehi:-; ta,'8
4 oo .J . Todorovic, I\araburma , Helgra d e , 1 972 .

'° 1 V I . I liescu, in .-lrh. Jlold„ 7, 1 972, pp. 377- 38 1 .
1 22
actions on the lower Danube and, implicitly, south of the Danube. Avai
lable da ta in the current stage of researches come in support of this hypo
thesis. It seems very plausible to hold that in 72 B.C., when the Roman
armies launched their military offensive under M. Terentius Yarro Lucul
lus, Burebista was not yet ruling over the territories south of the Danube.
The e\-ent we refer to may well have been an adjacent action of diversion
within the framework of the Romans' third war against l\Iithradates VI
Eupator, king of Pontus and Bosporus. While fighting the Romans, 1\Iithra
dates had managed to win over to his side the Greek cities on the western
shores of the Black Sea 4 02 • l\I. Terentius Varro Lucullus, the Macedonian
procornml, will pull some of the cities out of the alliance with l\Iithradates,
forcing upon them a treaty of alliance with Rome.
During the diversion in the third war against Mithradates already
referred to, the Macedonian proconsul repelled the Bessi and the l\Ioesi,
overcoming and pillaging, one by one, the west-Pontic Greek cities from
Apollonia to the mouths of the Danube. It is of interest to note that during
his military actions in Dobruja l\L Terentius Varro Lucullus defeated also
the Getae 403• It was unlikely that the Getae resisting 1\L Terentius Varro
Lucullus on the right side of the Danube should have been led by Bure
bisrn, since at that time he was ruling only over his own tribe and the
latter's territory was decidedly on the left side of the river.
The alliance imposed upon the west-Pontic Greek colonies by Van·o
Lueullus did not last long. It was broken by a coalition of Greeks, Bastar
nae and Getae who would beat back the armies of C. Antonius Hybrida,
proconsul of Macedonia between 62 and 60 B.C. The event related by
Dio Cassius (Hist. Rom., XXXVIII, 10, 1 - 3 ) according to whom the
flags captured from C. Antonius Hybrida were taken to the Getic for
tress of Gemela on the Dobrujan bank of the river, lends plausibility to
the G etae's participation in the battles near Histria. There is no word,
however, about Burebista's participation in the events nor is his presence
in Dobruja in 61 B.C. referred to in any way 404•
The hypothesis that the Bastarno- Getic-Hellenic action at Histria
in 61 B.C'. was led by Burebista is disproved by quite a number of facts .
"· e know that in 60 B.C. Burebista was fighting the Boii and the Taurisc i
on the middle Danube. It is difficult t-0 believe that he could have taken
part in the fighting against C. Antonius in Dobruja only one year earlier.
Enn if rnch a possibility were admitted the groundlessness of the above
hypothesis would be evidenced by yet another circumstance. According
to Dio Cassius the Bastarnae were the only ones to come to the Greeks'
assistance, the Getae's presence in the fighting being only conjectured in
the a,bsence of well-documented evidence. Rad Burebista taken part in
the action, we would then have to admit that his large army had already
been raised (let us not forget that we are only one year before the war
against the Celts) . Had he offered his help to the Greeks at Histria the
latter would not have needed the support of the Bastarnae. But to admit
such a possibility we shall have to accept the idea of Burebista's being
4 0� Chr. Danoff, Die Bezielrunge11 des ponlischen Reiches :ur linken Schwarzmeerklisle,
in /:11,·slia , 1937, pp. 54ff. ; D . :\I. Pippidi, in From lire Ilislory of Dobruja , 1, Bucharest , 1 965
p p . 299ff.
4 03 Sallustius, Fragm„ I\', 18 ( = Servlus, scholia with Vergilius, Aeneis, V I I , 60·1 ) ; V.
l ' :lrY:> n . Getica . pp . 7 , 6 ; R. Vulpe, From /he Hislory of Dobruja , 2, Buchares l . 1968, p. 26.
4 04 V. Pâr\·a n , Getica , pp. 77 - 79 ; D . :\I. Pippidi, From /he Hislory of Dobruja , I , p. 282 ;
K \'1 1 l pe , Burebisla , l ire Geta p. 4 1 ; illem, in From /he llislory of Dobruja , 2, p. 27 ; H. Daico
vil"i 1 1 , Dacia, pp. 3 7 - 38.
123
already a force to be reckoned with which could not have passed unnotic
ed by the respective literary texts.
'rhe Rastarnae's presence in the battle against and the defeat of
C. Antonius in Dobruja makes it difficult to assume Burebista's partici
pation then and there. When Burebista crossed south of the Danube,
bringing under his control the lands on both sides of the river and putting
an end to the politica! supremacy of the Bastarnae, he pushed them
northward and prevented them from encroaching upon the Daco- Getic
territories. The Bastarnae never found the opportunity to infiltrate again
into the Balkans until after Burebista's death and the troubled period that
followed it.
In 61 B.C. therefore, Burebista was not ruling over the south-Danu
bian territories nor did he take part in military actions like those ending
in the expulsion of C. Antonius Hybrida and the Roman armies from
Dobruja. At that time Bure bis ta, was engaged in the great offem;in against
the Celtic tribes on the middle Danube and later on against those in the
area of what is now the city of Belgrade.
Following the categoric victories scored in the west, his military
strength increased, his prestige rose to its highest, a fact that could not
but amaze his contemporaries. The fearlessness referred to by Strabo was
rooted in the increasing strength he kept acquiring. Only after crushing
the Boii and the Taurisci, after doing away with the politica} power of
the Scordisci, after his predatory inroads deep into Macedonia would
Burebista take his armies to the rich Greek cities on the western shores of
Pontus Enxinus.
What was Burebista's final goal in overcoming all the city-stateii from
Olbia to Apollonia � It can only be guessed in the light of his entire policy
and the world scene at the time.
It has been repeatedly maintained by severa} researchers that Bure
bista occupied the Pontic Greek cities in order to check the Roman ad
vance � 05 • The assumption has alsa been made that his aim had been to
defend the Greek colonies against the Romans who were approachh1g
the Danube 406• In our opinion this hypothesis is completely unfounded.
\Ve know that not even Mithradates VI Eupator, king of Pontus
and Bosporus, could bring under his control the Pontic Greek citie1i in
preparation of the fierce fight that he would give against the Romans.
The acceptance by these cities of the policy pursued by the king of Pontus
was economically motivated and prompted by the vital necessity of the
Greek city-states to integrate themselves into a large economic unit of
the type of the Hellenistic states south and east of the Mediterranean.
An integration into the system of alliances conceived by the powerful
enemy of Rome meant, on the one hand, the removal of the obstacles in
the way of commodity exchanges between the members of the large poli
tica! entity, and on the other, a support much needed against the autoch
thonous populations whose increased pressure could not have been resisted
with their own means 4 07• One cannot deny that during his protracted wars
against the Romans in both Asia and Europe, Mithradates Eupator car
ried along the Pontic Greek cities as well. It is equally true that the pur
pose of the arrival at the mouths of the Danube of general M. Terentius
405 R. Vulpe, From lhe Hislory of /Jobruja , 2, pp. :J2 - 33.
406 Em . Condurachi, in scn · , 4, 3 - 4 , 1 953, pp. 515 - 523 ; C. Daicovicin ,in A. ctes,
2, Sofia , 1 969, p. 65.
'01 D. !\ I . Pippi di , op. cil . , p. 269.
1 24
Varro Lucullus was to pull some of those cities out of Mithradates' eco
nomic and politica! system and thereby weaken it.
-
The reascms of Burebista's attempt to overcome the west-Pontic
Greek cities, let alone to protect them against the existing, but far
from imminent threat of a Roman conquest, were of no politica! nature.
They must instead have been deeply rooted in the economic situation.
'Ye may bold that they were not isolated actions aimed at plunderinµ;
one or another of the Greek cities, but a carefully planned policy of inte
grating the whole of the west-Pontic coast with all its cities iuto the Daco
Getic state. Burebista was well aware of the exceptional advantages, for
the newly established state, of the oonquest of the Greek cities and thei..I·
inclusion int;o its spbere of influence. An action such as this could only be
a profitable one. Burebista would have bis powerful system of fortifica
tions erected in the Orăştie Mts. by tbe Greek masons and builders brought
from the overwhelmed cities. It is with their help that he built several
other fortresses. Greek merchants from the Pontus would spur on the
development of the economy, step up trade and învigorate production.
Greek goods would no longer be traded only in the extra-Carpathian terri
tories, but reach deep iut;o Transylvania and further west to the outer
boundaries of Burebista's kingdom. It is worth recalling in this connection
that in the Costeşti fortress alone nineteen bronze coim; (not a precious
metal likely to attract as such) struck at Histria were identified 408 • _\.lth
ough issued after 200 B.C., the obverses of the coi11s show that they were
still circulating at Histria in the lst century B.C. In our opinion this fact
is of a particular importance. The discovery at Coste�ti of no less than
nineteen Histrian coins, undoubtedly used and lost by those living in the
area, entitle us to suppose tbat tbe coins had kept tbeir purcbasing power
tbere, too. This would be a clear proof of tbe spread of Greek economy,
witb its many implications, into tbe most distant parts of Burebista's
kingdom. Tbe diggings conducted at Costeşti also brougbt to ligbt coinage
from )lesambria. These are also present at Popeşti and at Reşca and Orlea,
in Oltenia 409• Products originating from such Greek cities as Pergamum
are found in Transylvania 41 0 and are very frequent in the Geto-Dacian
extra-Carpathian settlements 411•
All this points again to the outstanding personality of Burebista,
who had an unusual intuition of the many and particular advantages
that the conquest of the Pontic Greek city-states could offer stemming
from his life-long concern with "raising his people", to quote Strabo .
_.\. comparison between the policy of Burebista and that of Philip
II, king of Macedonia, is of exceptional importance in our opinion. Phi
lip would first make secure the northern boundaries of Macedonia by defe
ating in fierce, but not always final, battles the Illyrian and the Thracian
tribes and then undertake the conquest and annexation to bis state of the
Greek cities on the shores of Thrace41�. Burebista would do much the same
tbing. He would first make secure Dacia's western boundaries which h e
4oe :\ I . :\!acrea, i n .USC, 2 , 1 93 :l - 1 935, pp. J.1 7 - 1 6: ! .

409 B . :\litrea, i n SCJ \", l i>, 1 9 64 , p . 5 7 1 ; I . \\"inkler, in A cta J/X, 8, 1 9 71 , p . 1 6 3 , 1 6ti.
4 1 0 Z. Szt'kely, i n SC/ \", 24, 3 , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 527 - 531 .
41 1 S. San i e , in SCJ l", 23. 4, 1 972, p p . 407 - 4 3 4 .
u 2 E m. Condurachi, o p . cil . , p . 522. T h e comparison be lwcen L h e Daco- ( ; e lae a n cl l h e
Ma cedonians h a v i n g similar cles l inies w a s macle also b y C. Daicovici u , i n Transyillania, 7:J,
5 - 6, Sibi u , p . :Jl'.59 .
125
set on the middle Danube, then drive off tke Boii and the Taurisci who
had infiltrated the territories of western Dacia and subject the Scordisci
who held the politica! supremacy over the 'Barbaricum' south of the Da
nuoe. Only after that would Burebista start pushing his boundaries to
the Black Sea shores, overcoming and integrating the west-Pontic Greek
cities into his realm.
The conquest and submission of the Pontic Greek cities was largely
facilitated by the externai conditions. Mithradates had already been de
feated by the Romans who were involved in their wars against the Gauls
and beset by serious internai upheaval. So the Greek had nobody to turn
to and Burebista would make the most of the situation ( in the wake of
C. _\ntonius Hybrida's defeat) when the Roman armies were driven off
and compelled to retreat within the borders of Macedonia.
Whatever the feelings of Burebista, one thing is certain, namely
that starting with 55 B.C. and until his death he ruled over all the Greek
cities on the western shores of Pontus Euxinus, from Olbia at the mouths
of the river Bug, to Apollonia, on the coast of Thrace. This fact is clearly
related by Dion Chrysostomus when speaking of Olbia (Borysthenes) :
"The last and the longest conquest (is said to have taken place) no less
than one hundred and fifty years back when the Getae took the city o f
Borysthenes as well as other cities o n the western Pontus down to Apol
lonia" 413• Existing documents are unable to specify when and how did
Burebista take over all the cities from Olbia to Apollonia. What we know
is that Olbia was conquered at about 55 B.C. and that the action was
completed by the year 48 B.C. when the Dionysopolis decree in honour
of Akornion is dated.
By and large the conquest and subjection of the Greek cities took
place between 55 and 48 B .C. 414• It is very likely that the space south of
the Danube down to the Balkans was also conquered during that interval
Burebista could not accomplish the conquest and subjection of those
Greek cities in one campaign only, nor did he act in the same manner. It
may be possible that some of those cities offered no resistance, being
willing to open their gates. Such was the case of Dionysopolis which we
know was enjoying the favour of the king. Others put up an armed resis
tance and had to pay a high price for that. The resistance was crushed,
the walls brought down and the respective city burnt to ashes. We read
about this in literary texts and in the inscriptions found on the territories
of different cities. In presenting them, we shall start with Olbia 415, the
northernmost of the Greek colonies overrun by Burebista even though we
do not know whether it was the first to be conquered. lt seems more
likely that the first cities to be subjected were the ones on Dobrujan ter
ritory nearer to the Danube. ln the absence of any documents on the
u a Dion Chrysostomus, Or, XXXVI, 4.

u� C. Patsch, Beitrăge :ur V olkerkunde von Siidosteuropa , 1932 , \", 1, p. 48 sq. ; C. Brandis,
RE, 1 r. 1960 ; V. Pârvan, Getica , pp. 79 - 80 ; G. G . Mateescu, in A llN, 4, p. 332 ; E. D ie hl
in RE, XVll. 1937, 2422 ; R. Vulpe, Hist.anc. de la Dobroudja , Bucharest, 1938 pp. 97ff ; C. Dai
coviciu , La Transylvanie, p. 4 7 ; A. Alfiildi, Zur Geschichte des Karpatenbeckens im J. Jalirhun
derl v. Chr. , 1942, p. 8 ; Em. Condurachl , in SC/ \„, 4. 3 - 4, 1953, pp. 5 17ff ; N. Telich in A cta
Arc/1. , .1 , 1953 , p. 127 ; D. !\I. Pippidi, From lhe Hislory of Dobruja , 1 , pp. 282 - 286 ; idem,
in Studii Clasice, 9, 1967, pp. 161 - 1 6 4 ; R. Vulp e , From lhe Hislory of Dobruja, 2, 1968, pp.
27ff.
0• K. Treu, Zue Boryslhenilica des Dion Chrysoslomos, in Griechische Slii.dle u. einlleimische
V mker des Schwar:m.eergebietes, Berlin, 1 96 1 , pp. 1 3 7 - 1 5 4 .
1 26
eubject we shall follow the geographic criterion, starting from north
t.o south.
About Olbia or Borysthenes, a )Iilesian colony set up during the
second half of the 7th century on the Bug (now Porutino, not far from
Nikolaiev, the Ukraine S.S. R . ) we are t.old by Dion Chrysost.omus that
the signs of the ruin left behind by Burebista could still be seen by the
ye.ar 95 B.C. when he visited the place. "One sign of the ruin," "Tites
Dion, "is the state of bad repair of the buildings and the small area of the
city" 416• The hist.orian of Pruea describes in compassionate word:i the
plight of the Greeks in Olbia during his time, a hundred nnd fifty year11
aft.er the city had been overrun and devastated by the G etae. The city
had been rebuilt, but on a much smaller arca than before. Traces of the
disaster caused by the conquest and devastation of the city have been
archaeologically evidenced as well m.
About the destruction of Olbia bv Burebista we also have an Olbi-0 -
politic inscription i.e., the decree i n h�nour o f Nikerat.os which refers to
the 'enemy having come against the city from everywhere'. The date of
the inscription is not specified, hence the assumption by certain historians
that it may refer t-0 events previous to the conquest of Olbia by the Getae418•
On the basis of Dion Chrvsost-0mus' narrative the date of Olbia's
conquest was put by some modern historians to the middle of the lst
century B.C. namely to 55 B.C.419• To occupy the city on the Bug was not
an easy enterprise. The city was surrounded by century-old imposing
walls, let alone the fact that it was overlooking the sea. N evertheless, the
walls were pierced and the city partly destroyed. Such an action required
not only a powerful a1·my like the one that Burebista had tempered in
bis fights against the warring Celtic tribes, but also a special ingenuity and
skill on the part of the commander. Burebista proved to have been, on
that occasion, too, a man of considerable military ability.
What was tbe fate of the city of Tyras (Cetatea Albă now Belgorod
Dniestrovski in the Moldavian S.S. R . ) no document would tell. It ma�· be
that the Greeks at the mouths of the Dniester, sca1·ed by the tragic fate
of Olbia, offered no resistance, but opened instead the gates of the eity to
Burebista and his army.
It has been said that the city of Aegysus 011 the Danube (what is
now Tulcea) resisted the attack and was consequently besieged and con
quered 420• The passage in the epistles of the Latin po et Ovid, exiled at
Tomis during Augustus' reign, invoked in this connection, refers to his
time 421 .
41& Dion Chrysos lomus, Or, X X Y I , 6 .

41 7 A . Wasowicz, in Dacia 1 3 , 1969, p. 100, gives a comprehmsive bibliography o u archa
eological invesligalions i n Olbia. V . and L. 2\1. Slavin, Drermyj gomd Olr>ija , Kin , 1 9 5 1 , J: P ·
1 3ff. ; id . , i n .4rkheologieni Pamialki, 5 , Kie\', 1 955, pp . 1 27 - 1 50 ; i d „ i n JJ Lt , :;o, 1 9!:.6, pp.
255 - 272 ; D . 2\1. Pippidi, Co11lributions, pp. 2 1 7 - 221 , 270- 286, 534 - 5�6.
4 1 8 Syll.3, 730 ; V. V. La t i she\', JOS PE, J, 1 7 ; E . H . :\linns, Scyl/1ia11s a n d Gree/."s,Cam
bridge , 1913, p. ·164 ; Em. Condurachi, op. cil„ pp. 51 7 - 51 8.
4 18 l l has becn admi tled a s such even by Th . 2\lommsen , Rom. (;csc/ric/rlc \", p . 285 with
Note 1 ; E . H. :\linns, op. cil„ p. 464 ; \'. Pân·a n , op. cil„ p . 79 ; C. Patseh , op. cil„ p. 4 5 and
by severa I others. ThP. opinion of G . :\lareng ( A.. r riano, Periplo de/ Ponto Eussino, Napoli 1958,
p. 21) according to whom the conquest of Olbia by Lhc Get n e hali l a kcn plal·e ·poco a\'anli i i 100
d.C.' cannot be laken into aecount as shown by D. :\I. Pippidi , in .�l/1enat·11111, :16, 1 !)58, p. 268.
u o Ovid, Ep. ex J>onlo, l, 8 ; Em. Condurachi , op. cil„ p. 520.
ni R . Vulpe, in J)acia, IV, 1 960, p . :-1:.10, l'ote f>7.
1 27
We know that Histria was not only plundered by Burebista but
also occupied for a time together with the nearby area. An inscription
found here i.e., the decree in honour of Aristagoras, son of Apaturios, <1.22
speaks of the calamity that befell the city, of the destruction of the defence
walls, of the difficult times that the city and the whole area had to expe
rience. The information provided by the inscription paying tribute to Aris
tagoras is corroborated by the observations made in the course of exca
vations ·carried out in the 'sacred zone' of Histria where traces of a fire
dated to the middle of the lst century B .C., can be seen. The whole area
seems to have been abandoned following the fire and the existing modest
buildings were erected one century later. The archaeologically evidenced.
catastropbe in the 'sacred zone' briefly but eloquently described in the
epigrapb devoted to Aristagoras could only be caused by Burebista's
conquest as a result of tbe armed resistance put up by tbe Histrians. After
bringing down the walls, looting tbe city and setting part of it on fire,
Burebista left a military garrison tbere. The ruins of tbe temples reveal
abundant traces of Geto-Dacian troops living within tbe city for quite· a
long time.
Tbe details contained în tbe decree bonouring Aristagoras are quite
revealing not only for Histria, but also for tbe other Greek cities subjected.
by Burebista. Some of tbese details convey very interesting information
in our case. Tbose of the west-Pontic Greek cities tbat resisted tbe attack
launcbed by Burebista were severely punisbed. It is only natural that. in
order to occupy a city part of tbe walls bave to be pulled down. Yet as
soon as tbe upset caused by the conquest died away, tbe fortifications
started being rebuilt in spite of tbe fact that Burebista was in control of
tbe city. Tbis is clearly evidenced by the decree in bo:p.our of Aristagoras
which refers to tbe captives and to the large number's of those returned
:from enemy land wbere they had been taken prisoners. Tbese pris oners
could be and were in fact bought back. Burebista would go on ruling
not only the territory of Histria, but also tbe area between the Danube
ancl tbe Balkans. If tbat territory bad not been conquered before, now it
certainly came under bis rule, making 'the first and the greatest of the
Tbracian kings' as he was rigbtly referred to in tbe Dionysopolis ins
cription .
Tbe decree i n bonour of Aristagoras, son of Apaturios, supplies unqu
estionable evidence that tbe conquest of the west-Pontic Greek citi es was
carefully planned and prepared by Burebista wbo wanted them included
into bis territory. Burebista's actions were not mere inroads aimed at
looting, but part of a well-thougbt policy intended to subject all tbe cities
ancl tbeir territories 423 so as to take bis frontiers to tbe sbores of the Black
Sea. Tbe same decree refers to tbe rule af the 'Barbaricum' eYen tbree
H2 \Y. Di ltenberger, Syll 3 7 88 . For the interpre tation of thc inscription sce D. tvi_
Pippicl i , i n A nalele 1Jniv. C. I. Parhon , ser. Ist . , 5, Buchare s t , 1956, pp. 2 1 - 22 ; i d . , Conlri.
hutions, pp. 2 1 9 - 220 ; id . , i n voi. Melanges d ' archeologie, d'epigrapllie el d'hisloire o(ferts li Jerome
Carcopino, Paris, 1 966, pp. 7 63 - 770. The view of the a u thor is shared also by G. F . '.\Iaier ,
Griechisclie Jlauerbauinschriflen, I, Heidelberg , 1 950, pp. 259 - 260 ; i. a n d L. Ro ber t , in
Rev. d ' etudes Grecques, LXXI, 1958, p. 222 ; LXXI, 1959, p. 2 1 4 ; R. Vulpe, Burebisla lhe Geta
P• :39.
ua For the territory of Histria see, for instance, S. Dimitriu, in SCI \', 23, 1, 1972 ,
.
pp. 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 a n d A. Wasowicz, ln Dacia, 1 3 , 1 969, pp. 73 - 100 with an a 111 p le bibliography
on the terrltory of Lhe Pontic Greek citi�s.
1 22
year,; after that. Yet Hurebista's rule did not last for only three years,
but for the whole of his lifetime. His :mpremacy would come to an end at
the hands of the killer who assassinated the great king 'the first and the
grea,test' that the Daco- Getae ever had.
\Ye learn from the same source about the arbitrariness imposed on
the people of Hh�tria (we are now in the third year of it::; occupation)
·which had drained the cit�·\; wealth. This reference seems to apply to
the tribute imposed by Burebista on the city. And like in all class divided
societies, the brunt had to be borne by the broad masses of people. We are
told that Aristagoras was willing to wear the crown of the protecting god,
an honour with very serious material implications. The same happened
to Akornion în Dionysopolis during the winter stay there of O. Antonius
Hybrida and bis army.
Aristagoras who, according to the decree, was given the responsihi
lity of supervising the construction of the city, put at the 'citizen::;' dispo
sal the money needed for ransom 'granting them many Ioan::;'. This shows
that in spite of the tribute having 'drained ' the city, such financial resour
ces like those of Aristagora::; ' had still been left, since the bulk of the tribu te
affected mainly the poor masses which found it much more difficult to
pay it.
"'e are implicitly enlightened on at least one a8pect of the functions
discharged by the state of Burebista : the plundering of the subjected
foreign people8 . The 'hardships ' that the author of the decree in honour
of Aristagora8 is complaining of did not seem to have been too severe. The
city was soon rebuilt, the people of the city who had been taken into
captivity came back 'one by one' - to quote the inscription - to their
homes, and life returned to normal . Priests were elected, intense trading
relations were carried on throughout the realm ruled by Burebista. His
trian coim circulated up and down the Dacian territory. l\Ierchants'
profits would again be secure and the l\lilesian colony continued its life ·
and activity for more than a decade under Hurebista, a sovereign capable
to guarnntee it:'> security. By submitting to Burebista, Histria was ushered
into a new historic era . This time it was no longer a protectorate as under
Rhemaxos when it amounted, in the last analysis, to the levying of the
tribute, but an effective military occupation followed later on b�· its
actual integration into the Geto-Dacian state.
The text of the decree in honour of Aristagoras makes no
mention of Burebista's name. \Ve do not interpret this as a mere acci
dent. R eference to the name of the king ruling over the city in an inscrip
tion recalling the atrocities whereby the city had been conquered and
the ' arbitrary actiorn;' duc to him in the first place would have meant
sheer effrontery and great risks. Hence the use of the uncommitting t.erm
of 'barbarian' without an�· reference to the king or his people.
Available document;,; on Tomis, the other l\Iile8ian colony on the
t erritory of what is now the city of Constanţa, are equally obscure. A
decree issued în honour of the civic guard would illustrate, according to
some authors, the tragic fate of the city in the wake of the attack mounted
by the Getae under Burebista. The siege is said to have caused such great
panic among the people that many of them, losing all hope of saving the
dty, left it. On the same occasion two strategi were put in charge of a guard
fourty men strong to keep wa tch on the towers and the ways of access to
3 - c. 1702 129
the city 424• According to other authors, the decree paying tribute to the
civic guard would reflect a state of emergency and slackening in the city
defence brought about by disease and wants 4 25 • A civic guard fourty
men 11trong, no matter how well trained, could not be supposed to defend
the city against a siege by Burebista's troops. Furthermore the text of the
inscription doe:,; not make the slightest mention of Tomis being occupied
b�· the Getae. On the contrary, it clearly shows that due to the vigilance
of the two strategi and the guards, the people of Tomis managed once again
to avert an imminent danger. Opinions also agree with regard to the dating
of the respective document between the 2nd century and lst century
B.C. 426 . In the absence of other documents we must accept the hypothesis
tlrnt Tomis did oppose Burebista's rule.
There is similar incertitude in the case of the city of Callatis (l\Iangalia
today) as well. An inscription discovered there speaks of a citizen of the
city, whose name remains unknown, who equipped a warship at his own
expense and thus contributed to the defence of bis country, a merit for
which he is praised in th e inscription 427• The epigraph was related by some
historian:,; to events in Burebista's time 428 , a fact contested by other;;,
without any certitude on either side 429• We think more plausible the opi
nion that the respective inscription has no connection whatever with
Burebista's time, bearing in mind the fact that Burebista will attack the
west-Pontic Greek cities from the land, not from the sea. Hence the war
ship referred to in thc inscription must have been connected with other
events. If wc accept this thm;is, we may hypothetically infer - until fresh
evidence comes up - that Burebista met with no armed resistance from th e
people of Callatis either.
The people of Dionysopolis (Balcic-Bulgaria) seem to have done the
Rame. The inscription in bonom· of Akornion speaks of the good relations
between the city and Burebista and about the advantages that Akornion
gained from the great king for his country. This invites to the conclusion
that the city of Dionysopolis was not affected and corn;equently mounted
no opposition to Burebista.
It seems very likely that the peopleof Tomis, Callatis and Dionysopolis,
hearing about the destruction perpetrated on Histria and Olbia, should try
to win king Burebista's favours and submit to him without rising in arms.
The list we have from Odessos (Varna - Bulgaria) containing the
names of some prieRts (possibly eponymous ) was drawn up 'after their
return from exile' 430 .
The inscription is thought to be a clear allusion to the flight of the
inhabitants occasioned by Burebista's attack or by the news of his ap
u• G. D i t tenberger . Syl/3. , 7 3 1 ; V. Pârvan , T/le Wali of I/le Tomi Fortress, (in Rom . )
Buchares t , 1 9 1 5 , ( A RM S I , ser. I I , X X XV I I , p . -126) ; Em. Condurach i , in SCJ \ " , .{, J - 1 ,
1 95:l, p. 520 ; I . Stoia n , in SCJ \ ' , 5, 1 95-1 , pp. 557 - 568.
·
4 26 D :\I. Pippidi , From I/le Hislory of Do/Jruja , 1 , p . 283, Note 72 and p. 2 9 7 , �ote 4 6 .
4 28 :\ I . r. Rostovtzeff, Social a n d Economic Hislory o f Ilie llellenislic World, I I , Oxford ,
H lH , p. 765 followed by T . V . Blavatskaia , Zapadnoponliiskie gorodîv \"JJ - 1 vekah d . n . c . , :\los
cow, 1 95 3 , p. 1 88 and 1 95 - 1 96 ; A nalele româno-so11ielice , Istorie, 1 964 , 4111 p. 8 and I . Stoian
Tomilana , Buchare s t, 1962, p. 84 date t h e inscription to t h e end of the 2nd century B . C . whe
reas D. :\I. Pippidi , loc. cil . , thinks that it can be dated to the first years of our era.
427 A rchăologisch-epigrap/lische Milleilungen aus O slerreic/1- Ungarn , 6, 16, 1 882 , p . 1 0
4 28 B . Pi nk , K . Regling, Die anli/.:en Miin:en 1Vord-Griec/1enla11ds, r , 1 Die anliken
.
Miin:en von nacieii und Moesien , Berlin, 1 898, p. 86, 1 ; C. Pa tsch , Bei trăge , 5, I, p .fi , i:';ote
4 ; Em. Condura ch i , op. cil. , p. 520.
429 D. :\I. Pippid i , op. cil. , pp. 28:1 - 28-t , :'.'iote 73 .
4 30 G. :\linailov, lnscri pliones Graecae i n Bulgaria repulae, 1, -16.
1 30
proaching armies 431 • The epigrnph is a clear evidence of the suffering en
dured by the people of Odessos but no proof that Rurebista took the
citv
" bv force 432•
'\Vhereas we do not know for certain to what extent did the people
of Odessos resort to armed resistance against Burebista it is obvious that
the people of Mesembria (Nesebar-Bulgaria) did just that. A fragmentary
inscription found there pays tribute to the three strategi who distinguish
ed themselves 'by leading the army in the war against Burebista'. ThiH
fragmentary im;cription was published by E. Kalinka 433 and completed
and very accurately interpreted by G. Seure 434• It refers to the da�- and
nigh t watches organized to give notice of any surprise attack.
The way in which Burebista subjected Apollonia ( Sozopol - Bul
garia) is 8till very obscure. We do not know to what extent was Apollonia,
largely destroyed by the Romans under l\L Terentius Val'l'o Lucullus,
rebuilt , as V. Pârvan assumed 435, so as to be able to mount an armed
resistance against Burebista . The inscription on which V. Pârvan groundH
his thesis seems to be dated to the 2nd-3rd centuries A.D. 436• Consequently
we may assume that the people of Apollonia, unable to defend themselves
behind the walls, found it impossiblc to hold for too long.
Although available documents do not specify the details we would
like to know, they are sufficiently clear in demonstrating that Burebista
occupied Olbia and Histria, that in one way or another all the rich west
Pontic Greek colonies from Olbia to Apollonia were submitted b�- him.
Burebista incorpornted into his realm not only the respective cities, but
ah.;o the whole territory south of the Danube, down to the Balkans and
the Black Sea Coa8t. This 8pace was inhabited, apart from the Getae,
b�- other people8 which Burebista brought under his rule ju8t as he would
do with other foreign peoples in the east.
-L Peop les subjcc tccl i n castern Dac i a

1,et u s first see which were the populations living east of the Danube and
the Dniester down to Olbia where we know that the realm of Burebista
had stretched. \Vhen describing these regiom; Strabo (VII, 3, 1 7 ) \\Tites :
"the first part of the area stretching from the north between Istros and
Rorysthenes is lived in by the Getae. N ext come the Tyragetae and further
on the Sarmatia,n Y�isyges and those who call themselves 'royals' and then
the 'Urges". East of the Carpathians, Ptolemy ( III, 8, 1 -3 ) recalls the
('ostoboci, Carpae, BaRtarnae and Sarmatians.
The Carpae, a Daco- Getic tribe, originally settled in the eastern
Carpathian region, gradually moved southward, establishing its supre
macy over an increasingly larger number of Dacian tribes. Later on, in the
ni V . Latishe\", in .1lillei/1111ge11 des deu/sclren Arcl1iiologisclren Insli/u/s, .-lllrenisc/1e A blei
Jung, 1 1 , 1886, pp. 202 - 20:1 ; Em. Condurachi op. cil. , p . 520 ; D . :\I. Pipp i d i , in Studii
Clasice , 9, 1967, p . 1 62 .
432 D . :\I. P i p p i d i , From lire I/is/ory of lJobruja , 1 , p p . 2 8 3 - 284, Note 7 .
n3 E . Kalinka, Anlike Denkmiiler in Rulgarien , i n Sclrriflen der Ba/kankommission, Wien,
1 906, :!:27 ; G . Mihailo\", OfJ. cil. , J2J.

�3 4 G . Seure, Archeologie llrrace, l n Rev . .-lrclr. , 1 9 1 1 , 2, p . 42:Hf. ; V. Pân·an , Getica,
p. i9 ; G . G. :\lateesc u , in •.t JI.Y, 4, p . 3:J3 ; E m . Condurachi , op. cil . , p. 5 1 8 ; D. :\I. Pippidi,
Studii Clasice , 9, 1 967, pp. 161 - 162 ; R. Vnlpe, Burebisla , lire Geta p . 39.
ns V .
Pârvan , Getica , pp. 76 - 78 ; idem, Tht Wali of lire Torni Forlress p . 434.
t as G. :\lihailo\', op. cil . , 1 0 0 wilh lhe ent lre blbliography ; D . :\I. Pippldl, op. cil., p. 277,
.t\ote � 9 .
131
2nd and 3rd centuries A . D . tbey will bold the political �mpremac�· onr
all tbe Geto- Dacian tribes east of tbe Carpathiarn;, constantly attacking
the boundaries of the Empire 437• We do not know the southern limits of
the Carpae's supremacy at the time of Burebista. What we know for sure
i s that tbe wbole of Moldavia will become part of Burebista's realm .
Available sources do not specify the way in wbicb Hurebista drew togetber
the tribes living in what is now Moldavia and the other Daco- Getic tribef\ .
W e do not know either the time when tbis was accomplished. Bure bis ta.
may have extended bis rule over tbe Daco- Getic territories east of tbe
Ca1�pathians at approximately tbe same time with biii conquest of the
west-Pontic Greek cities in preparation of this latter move 438 •
Tbe Costohoci lived somewhere in northern Molda via. Some re,;ear
chen; believe they occupied an area stretching both west and east of
t.be Carpatbians. Modem bistorians are divided in their opinions as to
their origin . Most scholars tbink they are of Thraco- Getic origin, others
maintain that they were Slavs, Celts or Dacized Celts 439 • Epigrapbic
and archaeological discoveries point to the Daco- Getic origin of the Costo
boci who were, in all probabilit�', living within the boundaries of Burebista's
realm. Theirs is the eul ture known as the Lipitsa culture covering the upper
and middle basin of the Dniester, the regions of Stanislav, Lvov, Cernăuţi
and northern Molda.via 440•
The T�Tagetae, who are mentioned several times in Strabo's work
(II, 5, 1 2 ; II, i>, ;3 0 ; VII, 3, 1 7 ), were a Getic tribe 44 1 which occupied as
indigenous population the lower valley of the Dniester (Tyras ) and the
whole area between the Dniester and the Prut 442• The Tyragetae had
never been a great political power, submitting finit to the supremacy of
the Celts and afterwards to that of the Bastarnae who infiltrated their
lands 443 •
In Burebista's time the politica! supremacy over the space between
the Carpathians and the Dniester was held by the Bastarnae. Theirs is
the Poieneşti culture (named after the village of Poieneşti and Luka
shevska, l\foldavian S.S.R.) 444•
The Hastarnae's Poienesti- Lukashevska culture comes to an end
by the middle of the lst centu;y B.C. The Dacian settlements dating from
the Ist century B . C . contain no traces of Bastarnian elements. The pheno
menon was accounted for by the Bastarnae's assimilation into tbe mass of
the autocbthonous popula.tion 445• Altbough the explanation can be partly
437 ( i h . Bichir, i n SC/ \ ' , 22, :!, 1 97 1 , pp. 1 79 - 1 9 9 .

43 8 � . Gos l a r , i n A. na/ele şliin/ i{ice ale U11i v . ' A l. I . Cu:a ' Iaşi , N . S . sec. l l l I s l „ x\·1,
1 970, tase. 1 , pp. 65 - 66.
439 The bibliography of I. I. Russ u , i n Dacia , N. S. , 3, 1 959, pp. :!4 4 ff.
u o :\ I . Smi§ko, f{u//ury We:e.rnego Okresu, l.wow, 1 932 ; id„ i n A rheologia, Kiev . 2, 194&
p p . 9 8 - 1 2 8 ; i d „ i n /\. S , 44, 1 95:!, p p . 67 - 82 ; G . B . Fedorov, i n M I A , 89, 1 960 ; G h . Bichir
Carpian <:11//ure ( l n Rom . ) , Buchares t , 1 97:!, p . 1 7:! - 1 7·1 .
H I Some doubls as to lhe their Geto-Dacian origln are expressed hy I . I . Russu , i n
SC! \ ', 9, :! , 1 95 8 , p . :l06, Note :!.

u2 G . B . Fedorov, i n SC J \ ', 10, :! , 1 959, pp. :1 7 1 - lO:l.
u 3 R . \'uipe, i n Rom. llisl„ I , 1 960, pp. 2 4 :l - 2 ·1 1 ; C i . B. Fedora\-, i n /\S , 68, 1 957„
JIP · 51 - 62 ; idem, i n S C / V , 10, :! , 1 95 9 , pp. :l7-1 - :175 ; :\I. Babeş , in SCH', 20, 2 . 1 969,
p p . 196 - 2 1 6 ; :\I. Babeş , I. l ' nlaru , i n Dacia, � . S „ J :J, 1 961 , pp. 283 - 290 ; V. I . Dupoi ,
in A. na/ele UniCJ . Buc11reşl i , istorie , 20, J, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 27 - 50.
m :\1. Babeş , in SC/ \ ', 20, :!, 1 969, pp. 1 95 - 2 1 7 ; i d „ in .U e m . A 11/iq . , 2, 1 970 ( 1 972)
2 1 5 - 2:l5.
"6 S . Teodor, i n SC! l ' , 20, J , 1 96 9 , p. :rn.
1 32
justified for northern Moldavia, it mm;t be emphasized that for the same
area as well as for central and eastern Moldavia the absence of Bastarnian
cultural elements it clue to the latter's having been driven off by Burebista.
Literary documents make no mention of Burebista's war with the
Bastarnae. Yet it seems that such a war really took place. Its existence has
been postulated by C. Brandis ever 8ince the beginning of the century 44 6 •
The Bastarnae, who had established their politica! supremacy on the
lower Danube, 447 were beaten off by Burebista and driven somewhere to
a northern region . Taking advantage of the great king's death and of the
confusion that followed it, large numbers of Bastarnae would in 29 B.C.
try to move south into the Balkan peninsula. The end of the Poieneşti
Lukashevska culture in the middle of the Ist century 448 comes in support
of the propo8ition that Burebista fought them out of Dacia . We may a8-
t-mme that not all the Bastarnian tribes were pushed northward. Some of
them may well have been incorporated within the boundaries of Bure
bista 's realm like severa! other foreign people8. Once the politica! power of
the Hastarnae was annihilated it may be possible that those of the Rastar
nae that had been left behind were assimilated into the mass of the na
tives, leaving no traces to be evidenced archaeologically.
Let us now turn to the Sarmatians 449 • They belong to the same ea8t
Iranian group like the Scythians whose politica! supremacy over the north
Pontic regions will be taken over by them. Strabo tells us about Sarmatian
tribe8 living east of the Dniester. The assumption bas been made that an
'empire' ruled over by the royal Sarmatians 450 stretched from the Don to
the Danube also incorporating southeastern Transylvania and northwes
tern Bulgaria. The Sarmatian 'empire' is supposed to have been in exis
tence between 125 and 61 B.O. ThiR was established on the basis of the
8tvle URed in the decoration of some silver ornaments discovered throu
ghout this vast area. Such Iranian influences could well enter the Geto
Dacian art through the Sarmatians, although other possible and more
plausible channels cannot be ruled out. Yet this does not necessarily a
mount to the Sarmatians' presence in these regions, let alone to an 'em
pire'. Stylistic affinities of Iranian origin can hardly support this thesis.
The Sarmatians kept on advancing towards the Danube, but in the
1 st century B.C. the western boundary of the territory actually occupied
by them did not go beyond the line of the Dnieper 451 • Their incursions
were certainly made west of the Dnieper where they had formerly exerted
their politica! supremacy. Strabo's reference to the Tyragetae living in
the vicinitv of the Sarmatians iR due to the fact that somewhere in the
north-Pon tic steppeR the Daco- Getic and Sarmatian tribes lived Ride by
side. The Sarmatians' westward expansion would be checked by Burebista,
who advanced a8 far as Olbia. Archaeological excavations brought to
448 C. Brandis, in RE, Suppl . , / , 1 90 3 , p. 26:J. See, for example , a lso R . Pariben i , op. cil . ,
p. 212.
" 7 \'. Pârvan, Getica, p p . 65 - 7-1 , 85 - 91 ; C . Patsch , i n Beilrăge , 3 , I ; B i s : u r Festset:ung
der Ramer in Transdanu1Jien, V ienna , 1 93 2 , pp. 5 - 82 ; D . :\ I . Pippidi, From the History of Do
bruja , 1 . pp . 291 - 293 ; fi.. Vulpe, From the l/istory of lJobruja , 2, pp. :J2 - 33 .
u s :\ ! . Babeş , Jlem . .-lnliq. , 2, 1 9 70 (1972), p. 2 1 8 .
44 9 I . �estor, i n Rom. //ist. , I , 1 960, p p . 6 7 1 - 682 ; G . B ichir, i n A. ctes d u l " //J•
Cang. inl. d . sci . pre. el protohistoriques, I , Belgrade, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 275 - 285.
450 J . Harm a tta , Studies 011 lhe l/istory of the Sarmatians, in Jlagyar-Giiriig Tanulma
nyok, :JO, Budapcst, 1 950, pp. :J - 64 and in .icta.-lrch . , 2, Casc . .t , Budapest, 1 952, pp. 354ff.
451 K. Smirnov, in .-ltti de/ \'I Congresso interna:iona/e del i e scien:e preisloriche e proto
sloriche, III, Rome, 1 966, pp. 1 4 2 - 1 43 ; Gh. Bichir, Les sarmates, p. 281 .
133
light in the Daco - G etic settlement at Piatra Şoimului (formerly Calu),
Neamţ county in l\foldavia, a Sarmatian-type bronze cauldron which
may have been captured by Burebista's troops and brought over to the
l\foldavian settlement.
It seems very likely that fighting should have taken place between
the Daco- Getae of Burebista and the Sarmatians. This was how the latter's
advance westward was held in check for a while.
It is pos8ible that Burebista waged war also against the southern
Thracians i.e., the Odry8ae under king Sadalas when taking bis frontier
south of the Danube to the Balkan 1\Its. We have, however, no literary
or other evidence on this point. The Odrysae's kingdom to the Danube line
will be dealt with in the next chapter.
5, Dip lomatic rela tions
After drawing together all the Daco- Getae, winning the wars against the
Celtic peoplm;, overcoming the west-Pontic Greek cities and defeating the
Bastarnae and the Sarmatians, Burebista became not only the ruler of a
vast territory, but also a powerful figure 'the first and the greatest of the
Thracian kings' as he was rightly referred to in the decree paying tribute
to Akornion. He was thus entitled to aspire to a leading position in the
politics of his time.
Burebista is supposed to have carried on a prodigious diplomatic
activity. Yet only a tiny part of it came to be known to ms. Of Burebista's
mmw ambal-!sadors the name of onlv one reached down to us. He is Akor
nion; the distinguished Greek of b ionysopolis, whom Burebista sent as
envoy to Pompeius. The precise aim of his diplomatic mission and the
tasks assigned to him by the Geto-Dacian king are not spelled out in the
Dionysopolil-1 decree. These can only be inferred.
A civil war had started in Rome where the power was contended
by two men each having bis own army. Early in 48 B.C. he two adver
saries, C. Iulius Caesar and Cnaeus Pompeius 45 2, both famous army com
manders and generals, were ready to match their forces. Burebista inter
vened in the conflict. The assistance that the Daco- Getic king could offer
was welcomed and certainly sought by Pompeius.
By giving preference to Pompeius Burebista proved to be a politician
of considerable ability though later events showed that he had not been
inspired. Burebista intervened at a point when the odds seemed to be
in favour of Pompeius . Caesar had been defeated in the battle of Dyrrha
chimn and bis adversary had already been proclaimed imperator by bis
soldiers who outnumbered by far bis own troops. There seemed to be no
doubt as to what lay in store. Pompeius hastened 'to spread the news of
his victory everywhere, by word and writing as if nothing could ever change'
writes Caesar 453 • Pompeius' envoys may well have arrived at the court
of king Burebista. The latter decides to support the victor of Dyrrha-
452 Allo u t Pompeius ( 1 06 - 48 B.C.) see, for instance , Ed. '.\Ieyer. Caesar l\Ionarchie und
<las Prinzipal des Pompejus, 3rd edition. Stuttgart - Berlin, 1 922 ; J . Van Ooteghem, Pompee
le Grand, bâlisseur d' Empire, Brussels, 1 954 ; :\L Gelzer. Pompejus, :\lunich, 1 959.
�53 Civil War. I I I, 72 ; See also Appian. Civil Wars, I I , 63.
1 34
chium and sends Akornion on a diplomatic mission to him. The meeting
takes place at Heraclea Lyncestes in l\Iacedonia in June 48 B.C. in the
thick of preparations for a new confrontation with Caesar. The concrete
objectives of the negotiations carried on by Akornion on behalf of his
sovereign are not detailed in the Dionysopolis decree or any other source.
Burebis ta will offer Pompeius military aid in the first place.
Appian reproduces the speech delivered by Pompeius before bis
supporters at the end of 49 B .C. after having left Italy. "All the peoples,
of the east," writes Appian, "and those on the shores of Pontus Euxinus,
bot]}. Greek and barbarian are on our side. And the kings, both friends of
the Roman people and mine, provide us with troops, arms, food and other
things needed in our preparations" 454 •
Pompeius was unquestionably thinking of Burebista as well, if not
of him in the first place, when speaking of his own friends, the kings. As
to the friendship bet·ween Pompeius and Burebista the decree in honoUI'
of Akornion spea,ks for itself.
We are therefore entitled to assume that Burebista had offered
Pompeius, through the agency of his envoy Akornion, 'troops, arms, food
and other thingR needed' in war. Burebista may well have asked in exchange
Pompeius' recognition of hi8 state and conquests as well as the Romarn;'
pledge for non-interference in this part of the world. Economic h;sues may
also have been at stake.
Akornion's negotiationR with Pompeius in Macedonia were succes
sful as the text of the Dionysopolis inscription reads 455 : "not only did he
fulfill the ta8ks the king (Burebista) had assigned to him by winning the
Romam;' favours for the king, but he also carried on most fruitful negotia
tions for th e benefit of his homeland". The settlement agreed upon between
Pompeius and HurebiRta through Akornion failed to be translated into life
because PompeiuR was defeated in the battle of Pharsalus before even the
arrival of Burebista'R men to his aid. Rad Burebista's armies arrived in
time, the fate of the battle of Pharsalus might have changed and with it
that of Rome, too . It waR decidedly a crucial moment.
Burebista's overtureR to Pompeius also originate in the fact that the
latter's power was based on his eastern army and his entire activity was
aimed at precisely that part of the Roman rule, whereas Caesar represent
ed Italy and the very essence of Roman policy which did not allow him to
renounce hi8 Danubian schemes, a thing which Pompeius could easily
do. Hence our understanding that Burebista's leaning to Pompeius stem
med from his great politica! acumen despite the fact that the course of
events turned against him.
By offering his assistance to Pompeius and striking a friendship
with him, Burebista turned Caesar into his personal enemy. Caesar will
prepare himself to punish him, as h e did with many of Pompeius' allies, soon
after defeating his rival and his supporters in Rome.
Caesar's revenge scheme against Burebista and the Daco- Getae
start ed taking shape immediately after his victory in the civil wars. "Caesar",
4 54 Appian, Civi l \l"ars, l i , 51 .
455 See the en tire tex t .
1 35
writex Appian, "thought to launch a large-scale cxpedition against
the Getae and the Parthians, planning to attack first the neighbouring
Getae, a warlike people hardened in battles. He went againxt the Parthians
in order to punish them for having broken their oath to Crassu8" 456•
The same expedition is described by other ancient authors like Strabo,
Plutarch, Suetonius, Velleim; Paterculus.
Strabo's text (VII, 3, 5) reads : "\Vhen the Getae were ruled b�- Bure
bista, whom the divine Caesar was preparing to attack" . . . Plutarch
xupplies more details about the intentions of Caesar who . . . "had made
militar�- preparations for an expedition against the Parthian8 with the
intention of 8ubduing them and rounding afterward the Pontus along the
Caspian Sea in order to penetrate through the Caucasm; into Scythia,
cross into the lands neighbouring Germany and return to Ital�- through the
Celtic inhabited lands" ( Gaul) 457 • "After overrunning the Hispanic terri
toriex - \\Titex Suetoniux - Caesar planned an expedition agaimt the
Dacians and then against the Parthians" 458• Velleius Paterculm; speakx of
Caesar's intention with Augustus, the future emperor, whom "he wanted
to take ax comrade in arms in the war he planned to wage firHt againxt the
Getae and then against the Parthians" 459• •
Cae8ar'8 arm�- for the expedition, consisting of Hixtecn legions and ten
thousand horsemen, was quartered in .Macedonia 460• He justified the war
he planned to carr�- on in Dacia by his intention of "holding in check the
Dacians who had 8pread all over Thrace and PontuH". We think that Sue
tonius would have been far more accurate (Aug., VIII, 4) when referring
to the Dacians ha<l he xaid : the Daciam who hatl taken hold of part of
Thrace and west-Pontus.
lt Heems very likely that Rurebista was kept informed about Caesar's
intentionH and preparations for war. He may have taken the appropriate
measur�s in view of the impending confrontation. Yet literary sources
xay nothing about this. \Ye know that the two rivals did not come to match
their power on the battle-field. Caesar was murdered in the Senate on
l\Iarch, Li, 44 R.C'. shortl�- before leaving Rome to take command of the
large army waiting for him in Macedonia to march on Dacia's borden; .
Burebista was killed at about the same time.
Burebista's diplomatic actions are not supposed to have been limited
to the Roman world onh·. Thev ' must have extended to the so-called 'Bar
baricum' as well. Since they ar e not referred to in the textt> of ancient hi8-
torianx they remain unknown to us.
lt is very likely that the virtual confrontation between ArioYistus ,
the chief of the German Suebi, and Burebista conjectured by Camille
.Jullian 461 did not take place after all on account of precisely such diplo
matic moves 462•
HG A p p i a n . Civi l \l'ars, l i , 1 10 .
t57 Plutarch. Caesar, 58.
ns Suelonlus, Aug., V I I I , 4 .
u 9 Velleius Palercu lus, Hisl. Rom., I I , 59, 4 .
ts o R . \' u lpe, Hurebisla /he Geta, p . 42.
te t C . . J u l lian , llisloire de l a Gau/e, III, Paris. 1 920, p p . 1 49ff.
te! A l b e r t Grenier, Les (i au/ois. Paris. 1 945, p. 132 spcaks e\·cn o f an alliance sealed by
A riovistus' marrlage to on � of Eurebista's daughters. This is. in fac t . a confusion. since the
ennt is reia led to thc dau ghler of Voccio, lhe Celtic King of !\oricum. Cf. C . J u l l ian. op. cil .•
p. J .'°) t aRd p. 382.
1 36
'Jhe i<lea has been a<lvance<l that Burebista, attempte<l to streng
then his ties with llithra<late8 VI Eupator, king of Pontus, in view of the
battle with the Romans 463• A hypothesis such as this has no documentary
foundation. lt seems that Burebista came to subdue the lands south of
the Da,nube only after the death of Mithradates. Consequently, a direct
contact by wa:v of alliances was not possible although, as remarked by
Appian (XI, 69), the Getae were also among the allies of Mithradates.
It must be recalled that Hurebista was not a commanding figure at the time.
Though few, the documents we have clearly outline the diplomatic
activity of Hurebista as part of his external policy. This policy was decid
edly carried on at a high level, having the 'world' touch about it and
being aimed at the protection of Dacia, at the defence and consolidation
of the Daco- Getic state and its conquest. When Burebista completed
bis work he was unquestionably at the head of the most powerful 'barba
rian' state in Europe at the time and the policy he pursued was naturally
commensurate with it.
•13 C. Daicoviciu, in Ist. Rom., I. p. 287.
137
Chapter VI
T HE REALM
1 . T/1c wcslern a n d norlhwcs/crn borders. 2. Thc soulhern, easlern and

nori lreaslcrn borders
1 . T he western and north western borders
No literary source having reached down to us refers to the boundaries

of Burebista's vast realm. Nevertheless, mentions by some ancient authors,
contemporary with the great king or of later times, help us establish
the limits of the Daco- Getic state under Burebista. In locating the borders
we a.re greatly assisted by archaeological discoveries made occasionally
nnd most particularly by those resulting from systematic excavations.
In each case the archaeological finds corroborate, complete and confirm
the literary texts. These two categories of sources verify each other. We
must make it clear that we cannot speak of some determined boundaries.
The space settled and inhabited by the Daco- Getae covers a vast
territory on both sides of the Danube. Over this space, taken in ib; entirety,
there has never been an ethnic Daco- Getic supremacy, in the sense that its
peripheral zones were inhabited, in addition to the Daco- Getae, by other
peoples as well, at times outnumbering the natives. The territory under a
permanent ethnic Daco- Getic supremacy roughly corresponds with the
Romanians' dissemination area today 464• However, Burebista incorporated
into his realm the whole of the Daco- Getic territory and even those lands
inhabited mostly by other peoples whom he subdued to the Daco- Getae.
Let us now try to locate, to the extent to which archaeological or
literary sources allow us to, the northern and western boundaries of the
Daco- Getic state at the time of Burebista.
When describing the frontiers of Burebista's Getic 'empire', V. Pâr
van notes that it spread as far as Bohemia and the Norican Alps (Austrian
Alps) 465• This is of course an exaggeration since nothing induces us to
assume that Burebista's realm could stretch as far to the west as to reach
Bohemia's quadrilateral. The Boii defeated by Burebista were not those
of Bohemia, nor were the Taurisci the ones of Noricum, on what is now
Austrian territory466• Both the Boii and the Taurisci subdued or driven
off by Burebista were, as was previously stated, Celtic tribes inhabiting
the lands north of the middle Danube. The only area incorporated iuto
the Daco- Getic state after the defeat of the Boii and the Taurisci was th6
484 C. Daicovici u , in Transylvania , 72, July-August. 5- 6, Sibiu, 1941, p. 363 ; id„ in

Rom. llisl 1. pp. 285ff.
.,
ui; V. Pârvan, Getica, p. 80.

4 88
C. Daicoviciu , La Transylvanie, p. 46. Note 1 .
1 38
· ...'("\
·· · · ·
/' i <>' �pt> � �

„„ � I) "'· ' '--S"'
„ · ·. .
..
„
· ···· ('
··
„ „ -q ,�t- „
··
·· .. <t-'* „ ·
. .. . . �•:' -4 E G I P T U S
„ .
.
„ . c,'-'
DACIA UNDER BUREBJSTA . - -https://biblioteca-digitala.ro

- - The Daco - G e t i c s t a t<l uncler Burebista. The Roman stale u n der Caesar.
territorv of what is now Slovakia and the area between the Tisza and the
Danub�. The Daco-Getae's settlement on the territory of Slovakia is
dealt with in a separate study 467 • We pointed out there that the archaeo
logical discoveries made during the past twen ty years by the Slovak archae
ologists evidence a ver�· early settlement of thh; zone by the Thracian
ethnic element. M. Dusek, who studied the period of Late Hall::;tatt in
Slovakia, reached the conclusion that the 'Thracization' of the Slovak
territory took place as earl�· as the so-called Thraco-Cimmerian period
( 7 ;)0 - ;,50 B.C.) after which �mbsequent waves of Thracian populations
ca,me to live there 4 68 •
The penetration of a north-Thracian population (the Daco- Getae of
later times ) into the territory of Slovakia, at least in its eastern, and
apparently, central areas, took place towards the end of the Bronze Age
ancl the beginning of the Iron Age. Ever since that time the Thracians con
tinued to live there intermingled with other populations, but constituting
the basic ethnic element in thosc territories 469, over which other popu
lations, coming from both east and west, would 8ettle. Towards the end of
the 4th century and the beginning of the 3rd century B .C. these areas
were infiltrated by the Celts, who settled, a8 archaeologically evidenced,
in a compact mass in the 8outhwestern part8 of Slovakia near the Danube.
'l'he necropolises discovered in the area belonged, in all probability, to the
Boii and the Taurisci referred to by literary sources. By contrast with the
Celtic necropolises of southwestern Slovakia, the ones in the northeastern
areas extending across the territory of the Carpathian Ukraine ( U. S. S.R)
to the northern Carpathians are much 8maller, containing fewer graves
with a less pronounced Celtic cha,racter in the sense that, archaeologically
speaking, they evidence a marked autochthonous Daco- Getic element.
'l'he presence of the autochthonous population in settlements and ceme
teries is revealed especially by the specific Daco-Getic pottery 47 0 • The
continuity of the Daco- Getae's inhabiting, in the 3rd and 2nd centuries
B.C., the territory of Slovakia and the adjoining space as far as the Car
pathians, and th A Transcarpathian Ukraine ( U. S. S.R. ) is also demonstrated
by numismatic discoveries.
A silver treasure consisting of approxinrntely one hundred imita
tions of the tetradrachms issued by Philip II and Alexander the Great
was found at Velikaja Gorazdovka, in the Beregov region. The treasure
was hidden in a hand-made vase, apparently Dacian 471 • About twenty
similar coins were occasionally uncovered in the same region near Muka
cevo (l\Iunkacs ). The treasure of Velikaja Gorazdovka belongs to the
' Banat' type of Daco- Getic coins whose dissemination is specific to the
space between the Danube and the Tisza, to Transylvania, Moldavia and
the Carpathian Ukraine as the northernmost point 472 • A hoard of Geto-
467 I. H. Crişm, in S/11 Jiijne Zvesli archeologickeko ' ustavu slovenskej akademie vi ed', 18,
Nitra, 1 970, pp. 83 107 and in Ar/1. .\fold„ 6, 1 969, pp. 91 - 1 09.
-
463 M. Du�ek, in A l . Arc/1 . , 9, 1- 2, 1 96 1 , pp. l:J5 - 1 69 ; id„ Thrakisches Grăberfe/d

Bratislava, 1 966 (Note 37 of lhis hook cites al! the works of our Slovak
der llal/slall:eit i11 Chol in,
colleague with regard to the Thracians of Slovakia).
469 Our view is also shared by B. Benadik, in Arclr. Ho:„ 23, 3, 1 97 1 , p . 323.
470 .J.Filip, Ke/love ve slfdni Evrope, 1 956, pp. 304 - :l05 a nd p. 541 ; B. Benadik in Ger
man i a . 43, 1965, p. 65. (Thc au thors use the concept of Kus lanobice culture).
1,
m Petr· Sova- Gmitrov , Studijni! Zvesli ,cl US.4 \", 1, Nitra, 1 961 , pp. 1 27
- 1 38.
472 I. \\'inkler, in Acta Archaeo/ogica Carpatica, 1 966.
140
Dacia n coins discovered in l\Ioldavia at Vovrieşti (la�i county ) presents
perfect analogies with the Y elikaja Gorazdovka treasure. It is worth
noting that both contain the same type of cut coins with identical or very
};imilar obverses.
The treasure of Velikaja Gorazdovka which is made up of Daco-Getic
coins belonging to earlier issues, some of which preserve traces of their
legends, can be dated to the latter half of the 3rd century or to the 2nd
century B.C. 4i3•
Isolated Daco- Getic silver coim; were also found in Slovakia at
Pezinok and Bratislava 474• To this must be added the Daco- Getic coim1
uncovered in the southwestern part uf Slovakia.
Archaeological finds clearly indicate, therefore, that in the 3rd and
2nd centuries B . C . the Slovak territorv was inhabited bv a Daco- Getic
population representing the basic ethnic element upon ,\·hkh the Celts
were superposed.
\Yith regard to the lst century H.C. the Slovak researcher A. 'l'oCik475
must be credited with having been the first to publish a synopsis of the
Daco- Getic materials found in Slovakia and to draw the attention of
};pecialists to the discoveries made before the Seconcl World \Var and
mainly in the past two decades. In 1959 A. Tocik inscribed on the dissemi
nation map drawn up by him twenty-eight localities of eastern and wes
tern Slovakia. Their number h:u; since considerablv risen 47 6 • The Slovak
researcher distinguished between two successive stages in the develop
ment of the Dacian material culture in Slovakia : an earlier period going
])ack to 100 R.C. and a more recent one spanning the interval between 60
B.C. and the mid-lst century B.C. This is not the place to detail out the
chronology of the two stages. \Vhat should, however, be noted is the fact
that the incorporation of the territory of what is now Slovakia into Rure
bh;ta's Daco- Getic state marked a new epoch for the latter. Tbis epoch
is characterized, througbout the realm of Burebista, by a rich and intPnse
economic activity that materialized in the wealth of archaeological remains
found in different settlements in Slovakia. The number of Dacian settle
ments dating from Burebista's time is very large indeed. In eastern Slo
Yakia alone thirty such settlements have been discovered 80 far 477.
Details about the Daco-Getic settlements of Slovakia and about
the boundaries of Burebista's 8tate are given by archaeological finds and
ancient authors alike. While delimiting the Germans' boundaries, Caesar
writes : "The forest (the Hercynian one) starts from the borders of the
473 C. Preda, in SCN, 3, 1 960, pp. 66 - 70 ( with the older bibliography) and in Arh.
Moid„ 4 ; E . Chi ri lă , in Dacia, N - S„ 9. 1 965 , pp. 99 - 200.
474 V. Ondrouch , Na/e:y kellekyc/1, an/irkych a by:anlskycli minei n a S/ovebsko, Bratislava.
1 964, pp. 41 - 1:1 ; id„ Mince 1\/elov a Dako-Gelov na Slovensku, in .\1ora1Jskem1mi:ma/irk�
Zprasy, 8, 1 96 1 .
475 A . Tocik, i n Arc/1. rozii„ 1 1, 1 959, pp. 8-11 - 874 ; idem. i n Re{eraly o prarovnyclwys
ledkoch ceskoslovensk11cl1 arclleologov :a rok 1 9 5 8 Cast, II, Liblice, 1 959. pp. 7 1 - 86.
478 Some of the discoveries referred to as inedited by A. T o c ik have in the meantime been
p u blished such as those of Hradac , okr. Prievidza (D. Bialekova, K. Pieta, in S l . A. rcli„ 1 :! ,2,
1 964 , pp. -162 - 463) or Sreda nad Bodrogom, okr. Krălovsky Chlmec (\'. Budinsky - Kricka,
in SLArc/1„ 8, 1 960, p . 224) and also those of Zemplin, okr, Krălovsky Chiemec ( \'. U u dins ky -
Kricka, \ ·yskum n'.I m 1hi/nic " Zempline roku 1 9 5 8 , in Re{eraly o pracovnycll arclleology :a
rok 1968, Cast l i , Liblice , 1 959, pp. 61 - 69 ; B. Benadik, in Germania -13). The !atest map of
the localit ies in Slovakia containing Daco - Geti c discoveries was drawn by K. Horedt, in .4. rrhaeo
Jogia .4. uslriaca, 43, 1 969, \'ienna, p . 5-1 , Fig. 1 with Note 3.
477 B. Benadik , in Germani'1 , 43, 1, 1 965, p. 65.
141
Helveti, Naemeti and Ramacci, stretcbing in a straigbt line along the
Danube to the borders of the Daci and Anarti. From there it turrn; left
ward, opposite the river and, due to its size, touches upon the lands of
other peoples" 4 78 •
·w e read the same in Strabo " . . . Only some of tbe Suebi live, a,s I
bave already said, in the forest (th e Hercynian one), tbe others live out
side it, neighbouring the Getae" 479 •
Strabo makes several references to the Daco- Getae's western hor
ders as well. Speaking of Germany, he shows that its northern area was
inhabited by the Suebi. "After which follows the Getae's territory, first
a narrow strip-bordered to the south by the Istros opposite the mounta,ins
of the Hercynian forest and incorporating also part of the mountains .
There it broadens and stretches northward to tbe lands inhabited bv the
Tyragetae." 4 80
•
By the Hercynian forest ancient autbors meant the area covering

the Carpathian Mts. , the northern and smaller Carpathians of southwes
t ern Slovakia to the river Morava (l\farus). These were the northern and
northwestern boundaries of Burebista's realm. Ptolemv situates several
localities and tribes of Daco- Getic origin on the north western part of
Roman Dacia. He mentions such localities as Carpis481 north of Aquincum,
right aJong the Danube bend, and Singone, somewhere on the river Nitra,
facing the city of Brigetio 482 as well as the names of two Dacian tribes :
Racatriai and Racatai 4 83 •
The continuitv ' of the Daco- Getae on the territorv of what is now
Slovakia along with other tribes, the Celts in the first place, can be traced
in the current stage of researches, even after Burebista's death , until the
end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th centuries A.D.
C'onsequently, we cannot speak, at the time of Burebista, of an
extended settlement of the Daco- Getic element westward into the terri
tory of Slovakia 4 84 , for the simple reason that tbe Daco- Getae had long
inhabited that space. Burebista subdued or drove off the Celts who were
holding the politica} supremacy over those western Daco- Getic areas
which he would incorporate into bis realm. During the time of Burebista
we can only speak of an expansion of the Geto-Dacian power into Slovakia.
Looking at the boundaries of Burebista's state, we naturally reach
the Danube which is indicated as boundary line by several ancient authors .
To the previously quoted texts must be added the text of Appian who
relates Augustus' intention to subdue tbe Dacian8. On that occasion h e
478 De Bel l o Gal i i co, \' I , 25, 2 - 3.

479 Strabo , Geogr., \' I I. l , 3.
48 0 Ibidem, \' l i , 3, 1 .
48 1 Geogr. , I I . 1 1 , 3 ; l i , 1 5, 3 andI I I, 7 , 1 ; \'. Pârvan, Getica, p. 225 ; :\I. :\!acrea, in .·l pu-
·
lum, 7, 1 968, p. 1 7 1 .
482 Geogr., l i, 1 1 . 1 5 ; X Gostar, in SC/ l', 9, 1 958, pp. 4 1 3 - -1 1 9 ; C. Daicoviciu, in Rom.
llisl . , 1, p. 263. See also Em. Simek, \'elkti Germania 1'/audia Plo/ emaia, 3, l, Brno , 1 94\J,
p . 90 and 109.
483 Geogr . • I I , 1 1 , 1 1 ; cf. V. Pârvan, Getica, p . 225 ; C. Daicoviciu , in Steaua, G, 4 1 955,
pp. 1 22 - 1 2 4 ; G, 6, 1 955, pp. 1 1 4 - 1 1 6 ; id. , in Uom. /Jisl . , 1 , 1 960, p . 263.
484 Such an erron eous vlew was supported by A. Alfiildi, Budapesl uz 6k6rban, 1 , Budapest,
1 942, p. 1 4 1 and 1 47 ; idem , Zur Geschichle des /(arpalhenbeckens im I . .Jahrhunderl v. C/1r.,
Budapest, 1 942 , p . 11 ff. ; Z. Wosniak , in .t el u A rchaeo/ogica Carpalhica, 3 , Krakow, 1 962,
p. 256 - 259.
142
�pecifies that the Dacians' border in these western parts was the middle
Danube 4115• The situation was not new since it dated back to Burebista
as attested bv other sources. The Dacian settlement went bevond · the
Danube, penetrating into eastern Pannonia on a strip of land near the
Danube. This is indicated by Dacian materials containing the primitive,
hand-made pottery found in various settlements. Of these we shall recall
only the settlement of Budapest (Tabân- Gellerthegy) where specific hand
made pottery was found alongside Celtic pottery. 'fhe most revealing
forms are the rushlights ( characteris tic Daco- Getic cu p-sha ped recipients ) 486•
Since they belong to a primitive category of pottery, the likelihood of
their having arrived there by trading links must be ruled out. The assump
tion of their having been carried there by Burebista's armies îs equally
unfounded. In our opinion the presence of Dacian pottery testifies to
the existence of the Daco- Getic ethnic element within the framework of
Celtic-Eravistic settlements. ·when and how did thev · infiltrate on the
right side of the Danube is difficult to say. What seems t-0 be quite obvious
is that this infiltration of the Daco- Getae into Pannonia should not be
connected to Burebista's wars in the west. The presence of the afore-men
tioned materia,ls does not entitle us to maintain that Burebista extended
hi8 rule over Pannonia 487•
Dacian remains have also been di:;covered further wm;t în Noricum,
on the territorv · of what îs now Austria 488 and even în central Silezia 489•
To these must be added a Dacian cup uncovered in Moravia 490• AH these
materials, as în the case of those în Pannonia, point to sporadic penetra
tions of ethnic elements without thereby implying the presence there of
Burebi8ta's armies or his state borders.
\Ye take the view that the western boundaries of Burebista's state
did not go beyond the line of the middle Danube or the smaller Carpa
thians viz, the river 1\Iarus. The whole of the area between the middle
Danube and the river Tisza was inhabited by the Daco- Getic tribes inter
mixed with other peoples. The reason of the war between Burebista and
('ritasiro:; was, as shown by Strabo, (VII, 5, 2 ) the reco very by the Daco
Getic king of those territories that had been overrun by the Celts. The
large number of archaeological finds due to the Hungarian researcher
485 Appian, 11/yr., 22. For the Danube as western border cf. and C. Brandis, in RE, IV,
s.Y.Dacia and Supp / . , s. v. Burebista ; Kazarov, Beitriige :ur I\u/lurgesc/iiclrte der Thraker,
Sarajevo, 1 9 15, p. 25 ; C. Patsch, Beit riige, p. 45.
498 E. B mis , Die sp'!tk�llische Gel / erthegy- Taban i n Budapes/, Budapes l , 1 969, and for
the o ther discoveries see the catalogue worked oul by Z. Visy, in A ,1f6ra Ferenc: Mu:eum evkii
ny11, 1, 1 970, Szeged, pp. 5 - 29.
487 Cf. C. Daicoviciu , in Revista romană de studii internaţionale, Bucharesl, 1 966, pp.
�7 - 1 1 1 .
48 i S. t. Foltiny, in Feslschri{t {iir .-ll plions .-l . Barb, Wissenscha(lliclre A.rbeiten aus dem
Burgenland, Heft :l5, Eisenstadt, 1 966, pp. 79 - 80 ; I. H. Crişan, Ceramica, p. 1 60, Fig. 72 .
K. Horedt (loc. cit.) opines that the grave containing the Dacian cup of :\liillendorf (Burgenland)
had belonged to a Dacian brou ght along from Slovakia by Vannius' quasi- Germans and should
bc daled after A . O . 50.
489 It i� a rushlight (Dacian cup) incidentally discovered a t Herrnsta d t . It is kcpt
in the Herrnstadt National :\luseum (inv. No. H . 731) and was published i>y Christian Pescheck,
Die rr:"iln1 1 11 l11. l i s �/1� f{ _11tur in Jfil/el- Schlesien, in col. Q11ellenschri{len :ur ostdcutschen l "or - und
Friigeschiclrtc, Leipzig, 1 9:l9, p . 308, plate 1 9 , 6.
490 l l was discovered in a settlemenl on the territory of Vrchoslavice. R . :\I. Pernicka,
D i e li:eramik der ăllern rom ischen l\aiserzeit in Miihren, in col. Opera Universilalis Purkyniane
Brnnensis, 1 1 2, Brno, 1 966. p. 56, plate XXX IV, 8. a.c.
143
1\L Pârducz 491 clearly demonstrate that the space between the Danube
and the Tisza was inhabited bv the Daco-Getae who had settled there
long before the time of Burebis ta and kept on living there even after the
death of the great king. An important change will occur on that territory
by about A.D. 20 during emperor Tiberius' reign, when the area between
the Danube and the Tisza is infiltrated by the Sarmatian Yazyges. Accord
ing to Pliny the Elder, they pushed the Daco- Getae westwarcl to the
Pathissus (Tisza) 492• The arrival of the Yazyges between the Danube
and the Tisza did not mean that the Dacians left the area, but only that
they were subdued. They continued to live in those regions alongside the
Sarmatian tribes as abundantly evidenced by archaeological discoveries.
2. Thc southern, eastern and northeastern borders

Let u s now follow t h e frontiers o f Burebista's state as thev were set b v
the great king t o the Carpathians in the northwest, to t h e riv er )farm; in
the west and the Smaller Carpathians, and thence all long the bank of
the Danube.
For Burebista's battles with the Scordisci and bis warlike incursion,;
south of the Danube we must rely on Strabo, the only ancient author
who relates these events yet without specifying the limits of Burebista's
realm. Hence the difficulty of pinpointing the boundaries of the Daco
Getic state. W e do not know how much of the territory · inhabited bv · the
Scordisci was incorporated into the state founded by Burebista or whe
ther the latter stopped on the Danube line. One indication is offered by
archaeological discoveries containing pottery and adornments of specific
Daco- Getic character. These cannot, however, give a categoric and relia
ble answer to the point at issue.
)fany discoveries of Daco- Getic materials have been macle on the
territory of what is now Yugoslavia, either casually or in the course of
systematic excavations 493• These can be divided into two large groups
according to geographical criteria : the former i8 made up of materials
found north of the Danube, particularly on the territory of the Yugoslav
Banat ; the latter consists of remains discovered on the territory of Serbia
and )facedonia. Either group contains both isolated items and archaeologi
cal complexes unearthed systematically by means of excavations. The
number of settlements in the Yugoslav Banat containing Dac;o- Getic
materials ii; put to twelve. Among the most important are those at Zivodar,
Vrfac, Banatski Karlovac, Bela Crkva, Dubovac, Kovin and Orefac 494•
All these discoveries attest an intense Daco-Getic presence in the space of
the Yugoslav Banat which was, in our view, incorporated into the state
of Burebista 495 • Whereas the historic significance of the first group is
obvious and easy to establish, the same cannot be �miel about the discove-
49 1 \I. Parducz, in A.rchaeologica llungarica, 25, Budapest. 1 941 . pp. 24 - 66 : idem, in
A Mora Ferenc: Jlu:eum E11kony11e, S:eged, 1 965 , and more recently. Z. \'isy. op. cil., pp. 5 - 29.
4 92 Pliny the E lder. Xat. Hisl., I\", 80, 82 ; Tacitus, .4. nnales, \·n, 29, :l ; C. Daicoviciu. in
Apulum, 1, 1 9:i9 - 1 942, pp. 98ff ; idem , in Rom. I/ist ., 1, p . 624 .
493 .J. Todorovic, in Tra11aux des musees de roilJodina, Novi Sad, 1 1 , 1 962. pp. 1 4 5ff. , drew
a map showing the spread of Dacian cups in .Iugoslavia : id., in \ " J l\.ongres .4. rcheologa Jugosla
vijes, Ljubljana, 1 963, Belgrade, 1 964, pp. 73 - 77 ; \I. Gara�anin , Conlribulions a l 'arclliologie
el l'hisloire de .�cordisques, in voi. A . Pedro Bosch Gimpera en el sepluagessimo an iversari o de 1:as
cimen/o, ::\lexico, 1 963 , pp. 1 73 - 1 80.
494 H. DaicoYiciu, The li lyrians and Dacia ns, Exhihiticm Ca\alogue , Belgrade, 1 9 7 1 . p. 76.
495 I. H . Crişan, Ceramica, p . 23 1 .
1 44
rie8 made soutb of tbe Danube. Corn;isting mainly of adornments and
rudimentary pottery, tbeir presence cannot be accounted for, as rigbtly
maintained by )I. Gara8anin 4�6, only by occasional incursions. A diffe
rent explanation must be sougbt bere. According to 1\L Gara8anin, tbe
Daco- Getic artifacts discovered in Serbia and Macedonia may represent
only a cultural influence witbout necessarily implying an effective ethnic
presence. In our view, tbe materials in question represent more tban a
cultural influence wbicb can bardly bold in tbe case of rudimentary pottery.
We believe tbat tbese zones indicate tbe effective presence of tbe Daco
Getae baving infiltrated from nortb of tbe Danube. Proceeding witb tbis
bypotbesis and resting it upon tbese very materials, we may assµme tbat
tbe Tbracians said by Strabo(VII, 3, lO) to bave lived alongside tbe Scordisci
must bave been none otber tban Daco- Getae intermingled witb tbe
Illyrians and tbe Celts. It is quite obvious tbat tbe cremation graves unco
vered at Paracin by Draga Gara�anin belonged to tbe Daco- Getae. Tbey
are dated to tbe early stages of tbe Empire and Draga Gara8anin assumes
tbat tbey indicate tbe presence of tbe Daco- Getae dislodged from nortb of
tbe Danube to )foesia in tbe wake of tbe expeditions led by Cn. Cornelius
Lentulus and Sex. Aelius Catus in A.D. 11-12 resulting in some 50,000
Getae being pusbed soutb of tbe Danube 497•
Wbatever tbe trutb, tbe question is bow far did Burebista take the
bonlers of tbe Daco- Getic state soutb of tbe Danube, more precisely to
tbe middle Danube area. And if he did, bow far and to wbat point. Let
it be clear tbat wbatever tbe answer to tbis question it is deprived of any
reliable sourcP. We bave seen tbe different ways in wbicb tbe Daco- Getic
antiquities fom' cl soutb of tbe Danube can be interpreted. What is certain
is tbat tbey cannot provide an answer to our question 498•
\Ybereas tbe situation is far from clear concerning tbe northwestern
zones of tbe Balkan peninsula in that tbe Daco-Getic presence in tbe area
seems to be of sporadic nature and tbe incorporation of tbis zone witbin
tbe boundaries of Burebista's realm still doubtful, tbings are different
wben we refer to th e nortbeast. Here, between eastern Danube and Haemus
(tbe Balkan 1\Its. ) tbe Daco- Getic presence is very old. This territory is
part of the vast area "\Yhere tbey originate from and represent the autocb
thonous element. It is to them, Yiz., tbe Getae on tbe rigbt side of Istros,
that tbe first written sources refer. It is equally true that later autbors
writing during tbe early stage:-; of the Empire tell nothing of tbe Geto
Dacians south of tbe Danube. And tbis is not difficult to explain : tbat
was the time when tbe respective space bad already been incorporated into
tbe Empire of tbe Caesars wben there was no motive to talk about tbe Getae.
Starting with Augustus tbe Roman frontiers were definitively set on tbe
Danuhe. The bulk of tbe population inhabiting tbe space between tbe
Danube and the Balkans were the Thracian peoples known to tbe ancient
autbors under tbe generic name of Getae and l\Ioesi divided in tbeir turn
into severa} tribes : Crobisci, Triballi, Dardani etcetera 499• Soutb of tbe
Balkan 1\lts. the Tbracian tribes were at times drawn togetber under tbe
496 ln Z i11a .-l ntika, 8, J, 1 958, pp. 127 - 1 28.

497 D. Garasanin, in The 11/yrians and /Jacians, Exhibilion Catalogue, Cluj-Bucharesl .
1 972, p . (i2. For t h e expedition o f Aelius Calus, d . Strabo, Geogr„ \' I I, 3, 10.
498 H . DaicoYiciu, (op. cil „ p . i(i), thou ght of the incorporation o f t h e western part of the
Balkan peninsu l a .
499 Pliny t h e Elder, X a t . Hisl„ I I I , 26. 1 49 ; Ptolemy, Geogr„ I I I, 1 0, 1 .
10 c . 1702
-
145
leadership of the Odrysae who tried, whenever possible, to rh;e over the
other Thracian tribes only to relapse again into oblivion after some unhappy
clash . In the latter half of the 5th centun· and the first half of the next
the Odrysic kingdom was at its largest. 'nuring that time the political
supremac�· of the Odrysae was exerted as far as the Danube line. In
the battle of Pharsalus, Pompeius was backed by two Thracian princes :
Rhascuporis of the Sapaean house and Cotys of the Astian tribe 500• 'Ve do
not know whose wa-8 the political supremacy over the territory between
the Balkans and the Danube and by whom was that territory ruled.
"\Vhoever this supremacy belonged to, Burebista was sure to remove it by
incorporating the respective area within the boundaries of his state 5 01•
The Daco-Getae's presence south of the eastern Danube in the space
lying between Istros and Haemus is also evidenced by the archaeological
discoveries made particularly in recent years by both Romanian and
Bulgarian archaeologists 5 02• These include settlements and necropolises
with their usual inventory consisting largely of pottery.
The inscription in honour of Akornion testifies to the inclw;ion of
the Houth-Danubian territorv into the Daco- Getic state. The text of the
inscription refers to Burebista aH "ruling over the entire area on both sides
of the river Danube". As the decree in honour of Akornion was h;sued in
Dionysopolis, it is from there that the orientation must be set. This means
that Burebista ruled over the whole of the south-Danubian area at least
down to the Balkan Mts. Let us not forget that Burebista overran Apol
lonia as well.
Dealing with the eastern and northeastern borders of Burebista's
state, we must accept the idea that the whole coast of the Black Sea,
from Apollonia to Olbia, was included within its frontiers. We have ela
borated on the subject when we discussed the conquest of the Greek cities
and no further details are necessarv. The certitude about this border
is in sharp contrast with the obscurity we plunge into as we leave
the coast.
"\Ve have alreadv shown that the northwestern boundaries of the
Daco-Getic state went as far as the Northern Carpathians including the
territory of what is now Slovakia and part of the transCarpathian Ukraine.
It seems that the space inhabited by the Daco- Getae at that time stretched
beyond the Carpathians, across Podolia and Galicia in the northwe:-;tern
part of what is now the Ukrainian S. S. Republic. It is in this area'south
of the river Tyras near Dacia' that Ptolemy mentions a dava : Clep1"dava5 0 3�
The area east of the Carpathians, in the upper basin of the Dniester was
inhabited in, all probability, by the Co.-;toboci. They lived in the lands
500 D. :\I. Pippidi, From lile Hislory of Dobruja, l , p. 302.

5 0 1 For the history of T hracian territories see , for instance, J. Beloch , Griechisc/1e Ge
schichte, I I I . 2, 2nd edition, pp. 85 ff. ; Th. :\Iommsen. in Ephemeris Epigraphica, l i , p. 250 ;
A. Solari, Sui dinasli deg/i Odrisi, Pisa, 1 91 2, p. 50 ; R. Vulpe, in voi. ln !Hemory of \". Pârvan
(in Hom.), 1 934, p. 313 ; D. P. Dimitrov, La Rulgarie, pays de civi/ isalion a11cie1111e, So fia. 1 96 1 ;
Chr. Dannov. Drevna Trakija, Sofia, 1 968, pp. 264ff.
5o 2 For Dobruja see C. Scorpan , in Ponlica, 4, 1 971 , pp. 135ff. and for northern Bulgaria
see M . Gicikova. in Acta Anliqua Phi lippopo/ilana. Sofia, 1 963, pp. 35 - 48 with thc oldcr biblio
graphy.
5oa Geogr„ I I I, 5, 15 ; V. Pârvan, Getica, p. 238 : I . I. Russu, in SC/ \". 9, 1 958. p. 307 ;
C. Daicoviciu, in Rom. llisl . . 1 , l 960, p. 541 ; �I. }lacrea, in Apulum, 7, 1 968, p. 1 75.
146
west and east of the Carpathians. l\fodern scholars disagree as to their
' and location 5 04 • Wbat we know for sure is the existence in the
ethnicitv
area of a material culture known as the Lipit.za culture 5 05, belonging to
a Daco- Getic population, and attested by a pottery identical to the one
discovered in the large Daco- Getic stations all over Romania's territ-Ory.
Many discoveries belonging to the Lipitza culture, graves and settlements
alike, are dated to the period stretching between the Ist century B .C. and
the 3rd century A.D. The bearers of the Lipitza culture have been identi
fied bv most researchers as the Costoboci who are mentioned bv ancient
literar�· sources and inscriptions 506 •
•
'Ve are not in a position to specify to what extent were the Daco
Getae inhabiting the upper basin of the Dniester attached to the other
tribes drawn together by Burebista or how far did the king's rule extend to
these regions. W e think it likely that the intra- and extra- Carpathian
Costoboci were incorporated within the borders of Burebista's vast realm
although no ancient literary source confirms it.
The 8pace between the Siret and the Dnieper bas from the oldest
times been part of the so-called ancient and permanent homeland of the
Geto-Dacians. Their presence there can be traced with the help of archaeo
Jogical discoveries of which the most important is, as usual, the Daco
Getic pottery dating as far back as the 6th-5th centuries B . C . 5 07• The
Daco- Getae are the autochthonous population of these lands which will
be infiltrated first by the Scythians, then, at about 200 B.C. by tht> Has
tarnae, and later on by the Sarmatians. The Dacian fortresses of Butu
ceni and Mateuţi 5 08 or those at Vîhvatinţi and Saharna 509 which are da
ted to the 4th-3rd centuries B.C. 510 were erected against precisely these
foreign infiltrations. Soviet researchers discovered sixty-eight Dacian set
tJements and four necropolises in the )foldavian SSR which are dated to
the Jast centuries B .C. and the first decades of our era 511•
The Dacian8' settlement in the space between the Prut and the
Dniester is also attested by ancient texts. Ptolemy indicates the course
of the river Siret (Hierasus) as Dacia's eastern boundary and it is again
he who mentions such localitie8 as Zargidava, Tamasidava and Piro
boridava east of the same river. There are still other Daco-Getic toponyms
apart from these 51 2• Strabo refers to the space north of Istros ( th e Danube)
as far as the Borysthenes as the ' Getic steppe' and the Tyragetae (the
so4 A . P re m erste in, in J\. / io, 12, 1 91 2 , pp. 1 45 - 1 64 ; \'. Pârvan, Getica, pp. 221 - 223 ;
O. V. Ku dr ia v t ev, in ,.DI, 1 950 , 3, pp. 56 - 70 ; X Gostar, in Buletinu/ Univ. Babeş-Bolyai ,

Cluj, 1, 1 - 2, 1 956, pp. 1 83ff : I. I. Russu, in /Jacia, X D . :I, 1 959, pp. 341 ff. ; E m . Popescu ,
in Sl udii Clasice, 6, 1 964 , p. 1 93 .
sos :\I. I . smgko, I\.ul tury wi:emego okrcsu epoki cesarslwa r:ymskiego 111 Jla /opolske
wschodniej, Lvov, 1 932 ; i d . , in A.rhco/ogia , Kiev, 2, H l48, pp. 1 29ff. ; i d . , in Sov.4rch., 1, 1957,
pp. 238 - 243 : i d . . in J1aleria/i i doslidjenia e arheolog hi priccarpallia i ro/nni ' 4 , 1 962. p p .
54 - 70 : A. I . :'lleliukova, in J\.S, 5 1 , 1 953, pp. 60 - 67 ; G . B. Fedorov, in SC1 '", 10, 2 , 1 959 ,
pp. :f75 - 376 ; i d . , in JII .4 , 89, 1 960 : I. S. \'inokur. L. \'. \'okulenko, in KS 1 1 2, 1 967, pp.
1 26 - 1 3 1 ; :\I. A . Tihonova. in Sov . .4rch., 4 , 1 957, p . 1 85 ; Gh. Bichir, The Carpian Culture
(in R o m . ), Bucharest. 1 973, pp. 1 73 - 1 7 4 .
soe For instance I. I. Russu, in Dacia. ::\. S., 3, 1 959, pp. 341 - 352.
so? I . H . Crişan. Ceramica, pp. 70, 72 and 23 1 .
6 0s T . D . Zlatovskaia, in M IA , 130, 1 965, pp. 220 - 225.
soe A . I. :'\lelinkova, in KS, 56, 1 954, pp. 59 ff.
s1 0 Ic! . . in M I A . 64, 1 958, pp. 9ff.
5 11 (; . B. Fedorov, in SC1 ' ', 1 0, 2, 1 959, p. 374. For Soviet researches on the Geto-Dacians
see lhe monograph by the same author in M I A. , 89, 1 960, pp.8 - 56,
s12 \" . Pârvan, Getica, 240 ; I. I. Russu, in SC/ V, 9, 1 958, p . 306.
147
Getae of the Tyras area) are located by him in the lands north of the
Danube between the Bastarnae and the Scythian population on the
Dnieper 51 3• Ptolemy (III, 5, 1 1 ) locate::; the Tyragetae north of the Danube
in an area lower than that of the Bastarnae and the Tagri (probably an
o ther Dacian tribe) 514• The Getae are noted in the �mme area in the lst
century A.D. by Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist., IV, 80).
Y et the typically Daco- Getic pottery is not confined to the banks
of Tvras. It was uncovered as far as Olbia 515 and further east în settle
ments on the Bug, reaching further into the area of the lower Dnieper.
The Daco-Getic pottery of these eastern regions is basicall�· different from
the well-known one of the settlement8 included in the Daco- Getae's
permanent habitat even though some of it8 forms, among which the eup
shaped rushlights, are alike 516 •
The presence of the Daco- Getic popula tion east of T�·ras is also
atte8ted by large number8 of inscriptions, discovered in different Greek
cities, which contain many anthroponym8 of certain Dacian origin 517•
Dionysius the Periegete (2nd century A.D . ) tells us that the region
between the northern basis of Istros and the :Meotic lake (the Azov Sea,)
was inhabited b�· several tribm; such a .; Germans, Sarmatians, Getae and
Bastarnae (lines 300 - 305). 'Vhen writing his work Dionysius resorted
to ancient sources and the demographic situation described b�· him was
prior to the time he lived in. Recent epigraphic and archaeological disco
veries made by Soviet researchers show that the ancient writer was right,
giving an accurate description of the situation.
'Ye find, therefore, the Daco- Getae living along8ide other peoples
in an area east of the Dniester and as far a8 the lower basin of the Dnie
per. It is difficult to say when and how they rcached the afore-mentioned
area. 'Vhat we do know is that their infiltration there <lates lwfore the time
of Burebista 518 • It seems that SeUdava and S·�tsnllava which wert:> located
by Ptolemy, and after him by sonw modern scholar8,519 furthl'r west on his
rmip, must be looked for in this very area . The Daco- Getae inhabiting the
north-Danubian space between the Dniester and the lower Dnieper conti
nued to live there until very late as evidenced archaeologicall�· and, for the
zone of the Greek cities, epigraphically 52 0 • How mueh of this vast territory
was incorporated b�· Burebista into hi,.; state is rather difficult to speeify.
\Vhat we know îs that Olbia, lying on the Bug, was conquered by Bure
bista,'s armies. The diRcoverie:-; of Dacian material,.;, including the hand
worked rushlights found at Olbia or in ,.;uch Rettlempnts as the one at
Kozîrka, on the right bank of the Bug, cannot be related to the military
al a Geogr„ VII, J, 1 7 ; \'. Pârvan, Getica, p. 67.
5 1 4 Y. Pârvan. Getica, p . 240.

5 16 T . Knipowitsch. Die Keramik r iimisclrer Zeii aus 0/bia in der Samm/ung der Ermilage.
in Maleria//en :ur romisclr-germanischen I\eramik, I\', 1 929, pp. :1, 52 as well as plate 7 /4 - 5.
5 16 Rescarchcs by Pogrebova, I. H. Crişan , Ceramica, Figs. 69 - 70, p. 1 59.
5 1 7 G . G. Mateescu, in ED, 2, Home, 1 924, pp. 22:1 - 237 ; \'. Pârvan , lietica, pp. 243ff. ;
I. I. Russu. in SGI \', 9, 2, 1 958, pp. 30:1 - 335.
518 E . H . Minns, Scytl1ians and (ireeks, Cambridge, 1 9 13, p. 38 ; G . G . :\lateescu. op. cil.,
pp. 223 - 238 ; \'. Pârvan , Getica pp. 242 - 2-17 : I . I . Russu , op. cil „ pp. 308 - :1 1 4 .
5 19 C. Daicoviciu, i n Steaua, 6 , Cluj, 1 955 , p. 1 1 5 and in Ist . Rom„ 1, p . 265.
52 0 G . Kossina , in ll1annus, -'• 1 91 2, pp. 292 - 294 ; G . Schiitte, Plo/ emy Jlaps of Nor
lhern Europe, Copenhagen, 1 9 1 7 , p. 1 1 3 ; V. Pârvan, Getica . pp. 222 and 281 ; I. Andrieşcscu,
ln voi. Tribule Io N. Iorga on llis 601 11 Birlh .'l.nniversary, Cluj, 1 93 1 , p . 1 1 ; Em. S imek. Ve/kd
Germanie K/audie Pto/emia, 3, 1, Brno, 19"49, pp. 1 1 7 - 1 1 9 ; I . I . Russu, i n Dacia, N.S„ 3, 1 959,
p . 342.
148
actions undertaken by Burebista in these areas. Sueh materials could not
bc carried by tbe arm�', but represent specific products of the Daco- Getic
population living tberc intermingled with otber peoples.
The current stage of researches makes it impossible for us to spell
out the exact location of the Daco- Getic state's boundaries east of T.rms
at the time of king Burebista .
·
In the wake of bis many victorious battles, Burebista came to rule

over an immense territorv. Tbe boundaries of bis state were set as far
·west as the Middle Danube aud the river Morava (Marus) adjoining the
German,;. To the north they went as far as the northern Carpathians. South
ward tbey ran along the Balkans (Haemus) and eastward along the west
eoast of Pontus Euxinus from Apollonia to Olbia . Burebista was not
only 'tbe first aud the greatest of the Thracian kings' as referred to in the
decree paying tribute to Akornion of Dionysopolis, but also the first aud
most powerful of the 'barbarian' kings of Europe at the time.
To eonclude we must emphasize that no matter how large the realm of
Burebista it did not go beyond the area lived in by the Daco- Getae.
'Ve can, therefore, speak of no conquests of foreign territory. Burebista
did subject only those peoples who had infiltrated into parts of Dacia,
some having establisbed even their politica] supremacy there.
149
Chapter VII
FO RTRESSES ANO FORTIFIED

SETTLEMENTS OF THE
DA VA TYPE
1. Fortified sell/emenls of the Dava type and fortresses wilh stonc mal/s.
:! . The complex in the Orăştie Mountains.
1 . For t i ficd sct t leme nts of the Daoa type

and for tresses w i t h stone wal l s
The Daco- Getic fortifications are hanlly mentioned b�· literary sources.
It must be stressed that even these scarce and incomplete mentions refer
either to times prior to Burebista or to those after him.
A fortified town of the Getae on the right bank of the Danube h;
noted by Arria,nus at the time of the expedition of Alexander of :Macedonia,
in 3;).') B.O . .m .
Another fortress, mentioned by the rntme of Hez.is, is referred to
four decades later bv Diodorus of Sicilv 5 �2 • Both are located north of the
Danube, but without much accuracy. ·The Daco-Getic fortresses will not
reappear in aneient historic literature until after the death of the great.
king ancl then mainly in connection with the wars of conquest waged by
Trajan .
The cursory data supplied by ancient authors on the period before
Rurebista are not much help in getting even a rough picture of the Daco
Getic fortresses on the Danube, all the more so �ls these were subject to
neither field investigations nor systematic excavations. \Ve know, however,
of some fortresses in Moldavia dating from about the same time as the lite
rary rnentions. Given their impressive size it is worth dwelling upon them.
Twent�· such fortresses have so far been identified in this part of the coun
try dating from between the 6th and 3rd centuries B.C. We shall cite only
two of them, one at Stînceşti (Botoşani county ) 523 and another at Cotnari
(Iaşi county 5 24 ) . The Stînceşti fortress encompasses within its huge val
lumR �tnd moats an area of twenty-three hectares, the Cotnari strong
hold covern an area of four and a half hectares. In both cases natural
defences are combined with artificial ones. The earth vallum surrounding
the Stînceşti stronghold is about 1 km long and f>.5 metreR high with a
base structure between 20 and 22 metres wide. The earth with which the
vallum wa8 raised was dug out of the foRse smTounding the fortress which
was 6.;) - 7 .2 metres deep and 2 metre8 wide.
521 Arrianus, .-lnabasis, I , 4 , 4 ; Geogr., Strabo, \'II, 3, 8.
522 Bib/iotheca I/istorica, XXI, 12, 2 ; V. Pârvan, Getica , p . 62.
5 23 A . C. Florescu, S. Raţă, i n Studii şi Materia le, Suceava, 1, 1 969, pp. 9 - 1 6 ; id . , in
Cercetări istorice, Iaşi, :J, 1 971 , pp. 103 - 1 1 6 ; A. C. Florescu, Diclionary, p . 551 .
5 u A. C. Florescu. in Cercetări istorice - laşi, 2, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 1 03 - 1 1 6.
1 50
The Cotnari vaJlums contain, in addition to earth, wooden beams and
even stone walls joined together with clay.
Investigations and excavations, particularly those conducted during
the past two decades, revealed several fortified settlements and strong
l1olds all over the area inhabited by the Daco-Getae. The vast majority
of tbese came into existence before Burebista establisbed bis rule over
his people. During bis time all tbese fortresses experienced unprecedent
ed development. Tbey continued to exist long after tbe tragic death of
Burebis ta.
'Ve ;;ball deal onlv with tbose Daco- Getic fortified settlements and
fortresses wbicb bave been tbe object of large-scale investigations. Tbere
must be more, as indicated by recent researcbes and particularly by syste
matic excavations whicb are bringing to ligbt eacb year more and more
fortified ;;ettlements all over tbe area inbabited by tbe Daco- Getae 525•
1 . Arde'lt (Hunedoara county) . A Dacian fortified settlement with
natural defences bad once flourisbed on a hilltop. The excavations carried
out there brought to light ricb vestiges attesting an intense settlement as
far back as the Ist century B .C . The materials discovered include pottery
and various iron objects. Wortb mentioning are tbe traces of a jeweller's
shop represented by a bronze anvil.
The settlement was overlooking the valley of tbe river Mureş and
had an excellent strategic position. It gradually spread over the nearby
terraces. 526
2. Arpaşu de Sus ( Sibiu county). A Dacian settlement was discovered
on the plateau of a bigh promontory wberefrom the Olt valley could be
<'ontrolled. Tbe plateau is separated from tbe rest of tbe promontory by
an earth vallum and a fosse. The rnllum is 3.5 - 4 metres high and I3 - I4
rnetres wide at the base. Tbe fosse is I3 metres wide and 2 . 2 metres deep.
The vallum was surmounted by a palisade of thick wooden poles arrayed
în four row8. Judging by the material discovered there the settlement can
be dated between the Ist centurv B.C. and the Ist centurv A.D. 527 •
3. Barboşi (it belongs to the Galaţi municipality). A < Dacian settle
ment of the dava type surrounded by a 4.5 metre-thick vallum with pali
�ading and a fosse was discovered on the 'Tirighina' hillside. The forti
fication seems to bave been erected in tbe Ist century B .C . Systematic
arcbaeological investigations, started as early as I9I2, revealed a rich and
variecl archaeological material - autochthonous and foreign - consisting
of pottery, metal objects, coins a .o. A sanctuary with wooden posts was
a Iso uncovered 528 .
4 . Băniţa Petroşani (Hunedoara county) . A Dacian fortress
-
was discovered and systematically investigated on an isolated cone-shaped

hilltop with very abrupt slopes standing on tbe westernmost limit of the
Jiu Vallev at an altitude of 904 metres. The svstem of fortification consists
of a stone and earth vallum, a wall of rough limestone bound with mortar,
525 For every locality the most relevant bibliography will be cited containing detailed data
on the settlement and the materials discovered.

520 L. :\'1 ărghitan, in Sargetia, 7,11970 , pp. 12 - 1 3 ; L. Nemoianu, in Dacia, 19, 5, 1 975,
p. 270, id„ in Abstracts (in Rom.), p . 1 1 .

527 M . '.\facrea, D . Berciu, i n SC/ V, 6 , 3 - 4, 1 955, pp. 6 1 5 - 61 9 ; :\I. '.\facrea, in Mate-
1 ia / e , 8, pp. 1 45 - 1 48 ; M. Macrea, I. Glodariu, The Dacian Settlement al .4rpaşu de Sus(in Rom.),
monograph. in press.
5 2s 1'. Gostar, in Apulum, 5, 1 965, p. 1 4 5 ; id„ in Fortresses (in Rom. ) , p. 34 ; id„ in Mate
ria le (in Rom.), 8, pp. 505, - 5 1 1 L ; S. Sanie , I. T. Dragomir, in Danubius, 4, 1 970, pp. 1 35ff.
151
walls of l'.quared lime:'.tone (opus qnadratnm) , towers, battle platforms a.o.
The pl<tteau and terraces are of reduced dimensions and artifieial . HPHC·e
the need for the l'.Upporting walls. The finds also include a gate in the inrwr
wall, the monumental steps of which are cut in the same type of limt•,.. t o11e
as the wall.
The inner walls and the walls supporting the terracel'. are made of
two block paraments joined together with wooden beams and an emplec
t on of local l'.tone and earth. These walls are no more than 2 metres wide.
The constructions on both the plateau and the terraces were made of
timber with :'.tone supports in some cases. Despite the prel'.ence of a large
quantity of pottery, tools, moulds for metal objects and a sanctuar�·, the
reduced dimensiom of the space available determined Octavian Floca,
the researcher in charge of the diggings conducted there, to conclu<le that
it was a fortress with a marked militan· character and not a civil settle
ment. Its purpose was to control the :lccess from the Jiu Valle�· to the
complex of fortifications in the Oră�tie Mts.
It seeml'. obvious that the Băniţa fortress was not used as a mere
refuge, although its walls certainly provided shelter to people in the
neighbourhood in case of danger. It probably was the residence of one of
the Dacian warlike nobles, serving a s a 'princely seat' ( Herrschers-if'::: ) .
The different stages of its construction could not be establi�hed with
accuracy. The material uncovered by diggings, especially pottery, indi
cates that life rnay hiwe started there as early as the latter half of the 2nd
centur�· B.C. and the fortress stood until the Roman conquest 529.
;) . Berindia (Arad county) . A natura1ly fortified settlement , prohably
with palisading, was discovered on a prominence. Excavations brought to
light iron implement � , adornments as well as hand-made and wheel
worked pottery. On the basis of the finds the settlement was dated to the
2nd centul'Y B.C. and the lst centurv A.D. 5 � 0•
6. Bern adea (:\Iure� county). A. fortified Dacian settlement was
uncovered on a high point and partly investigated in the course of syste
matic excavations. The fortifications consist of an earth vallum and a,
fosse separating part of the plateau 531 •
7. Bixad ( Covasna county). Under the medieval fortress there,
a fortified Dacian settlement with an earth vallum and a moat was dii>cover
ed. Judging by the material uncovered it was dated to the 18t century
B.C. - lst centurv A . D .53�.
8. Bîtca D"'oamne·i - Piatra Neamţ (Neamţ county) . Four kilo
metres west of the town of Piatra Neamţ stands on a hill known as Bîtca
Doamnei. It has an absolute altitude of 457 metres and rises 140 metres
above the Bistriţa Valley. A Dacian fortress was built on the hilltop.
The northern and eastern slopes were so abrupt that they needed no
fortificat.ion. The southern side was strengthened with a stone wall bound
with clay, 3 . 5 metres wide. A 8imilar wall, backed by palisading closed
52 9 Oct. Floca , Dacian Fortresses (in Rom.), pp. 23 - :3:3.

530 S. Dumitraşcu, in Crisia, 1 972, pp. 1 25 - 1 27 ; S. Dumitraşcu, I. Ordcnllich. in
Crisia, 1 973, pp. 4 7 - 95 .
53 1 Diggings report in Dacia, 12, 1 968, p . 42 8, 54 and the information provided by I . Glo
dariu.
63 2 Al. Ferenczi, in .4 CM / T, 1 , 1 92 6- 1 928. p . 245 ; 4, 1 932 - 1 938, pp. 3 1 6 - 3 1 9 .
The stone walls belong to lhe feudal fortress : C. Daicoviciu, in Dacia, 7 - 8, p . 320 ; Z. Szekely,
Alamanah, pp. 12 - 13.
1 52
the west side. The wall was preced.ed by an earth and stone vallum
6 metres wide. The wall has an outer parament made of stone Rlabs
joined together by clay and consolidated with the help of wooden beams.
The core of the wall is of stone and earth.
On the upper plateau and the terraces included within the forti
fication there were uncovered dwellings with a rich inventory, two sanctua
ries and several workshops. The finds take the beginnings of the fortress
to the 2nd century B.C. and its end to the beginning of the 2nd century
A.D. It is thought to have flourished between the Ist century B.C.,
starting with the time of Burebista, and the rule of Decebalus 533•
9. Blidaru (Hunedoara county). Standing 4 kilometres south of
the Coste�ti village, the isolated crag known by the local people as Blidaru
is 703 metres high and bas an extremely favourable strategic position.
Its upper plateau is largely surrounded b�· walls of squared Rtone. The
plan of the fortress followi'l the form of the terrain in the 8hape of an
irregular polygon covering an area of 5670 sq. metres. The fortress has
two precinctR. One of them is a trapezoid with four outer angle towers
and a central one ; the other is connected to the first which it completes
and has an isolated tower which originally had belonged to the first
fortress 531•
10. Brad ( Bacău county). On a promontory overlooking the left
bank of the river Siret, there was uncovered, and investigated by syste
matic excavations, a rich Daco- Getic fortified settlement with a cultural
layer 2 metres thick and ten habitation leveh;. It represents the acropolis
of a settlement covering an area of about ten hectares. The defence
system ţontains an earth vallum. On the basis of the material discovered
the settlement was dated to between the 2nd and the lst centuries B.O.
and the lst century A.D.535• The unusual varietv and richness of the
find" which include large quantities of foreign products point to the
e:-dstence of a prosperous centre where products were both made and
sold. This dava ha:-i been hypotheticall�· identified with Zarg1"dava.
1 1 . Brat·islava ( CzechosloYakia ). During excavations for public works
has been uncovered in the cit�· centre, at a depth of 2 metres, part of
a tower built of limestone blocks with two paraments and an emplecton
of rough stone joined together with mortar. A pretty large quantity of
pottery dated to the La Tene III was discovered on the walking level
corresponding to the wall. The closeness of the edifices roade it impossible
to continue with the excavations and follow the contours of the tower.
Given the fact that the Celts did not use blocks of squared stone
(op us quadratum ) in their walls and that no Greco-Roman type of walls
are to be found there, Professor B. Novotny supposed it to be a Dacian
fortification built by Burebista . The assumption is quite acceptable.
533 A. :\' i t u a n d '.\!. Zamoştcanu, i n Jlateriale, 6, 1 958, p. 3il : C . '.\lătasă and '.\ ! . Zamoş-
1 en n u , i n Jlateria /e, 7, 1961. pp. 339 - 3i2 : :\'. Gostar. in Apulum. 5, 1 965, pp. 15i - 1 65 ;
idem, Fortresses, 19G9, pp. 9 - 22 ; Dacia, l\. S . . 15, 1 7, 19it, p. 363 ; A. Buzilă, in .Uem. A n t iq.
2 . 1 9 / 0 , pp. 2:li - 250.
534 C. Daicoviciu nnd coli.. in SC/ I', 5, 1- 2 , 1954, pp. 1 25 - 1 2 6 : SC J r. G, 1 - 2,
1 955, pp. 2 19 - 228 ; .\lateriale, 3, 195i, pp. 26:1 - 2i0 ; Materiale. 8, 1962, pp. 4G3 - 466 ;
v
C Daico\·iciu and H. D a ic o ic i u . Sarmi :egetusa, Ed. Meridiane, Bucharest. 1960, pp. 22 - 2 4 .
•a5 A l . Vulpe, i n Studii Clasice, G , 1964. p . 238 ; report o n diggins i n Dacia, S . S„ 8, 6 1
1 968, p. 393. Dacia, X S„ 1 1 , 4 /; : 19Gi, p. :rn3, .\1aga :in istoric, L\", 2 (35), February 1 9i0, p. iO
s
\". l ' r a e hi . in Carpica, 1 , 1 968. pp. lil - 18-l ; id., in Mem. Anliq . • 1 , 1 969, pp. 105 - 1 1 9
Y. Căpitanu and V. t :rsachi, in Crisia, 1 9i2, pp. 9i - 1 1 4 ; V. Ursachi. i n Abslracts, p . l i.
1 51
The fact that the emplecton of the wall discovered in Bratislava contains
mortar as binding material does not contradict the Slovak professors'
hypothesis which has been shared by us without any reservations. l\Iortar
is a common material in the Dacian walls even though it is not too widely
used and one cannot always accurately establish which period in the
Daco-Getae's history it belongs to. It can also be found in the walls of
the Piatra Roşie fortress and in the cistern at Blidaru. So, the technique
of walls with mortar as binding material must have been taken over by
the Daco-Getae from the Greco- Roman world.
It seems very likely tha.t Burebista should build a fortress or a
fortified point with stone walls after having beaten off the Boii and the
Taurisci led by Critasiros and after setting the borders of his state along
the l\liddle Danube. The place is admirably chosen. It commands the
view of that passage to western Europe which has played such an impor
tant part in the development of the whole history of the continent 536 •
I2. Breaza (Braşov county) . The medieval fortification stantling
on a high point with an excellent strategic position was built over and
above a fortified Dacian settlement which it largely destroyed. The clay
bound stone wall, one metre thick, belongs to the Dacian fortress. The medie
val fortification contains blocks of cut limestone with swallow-tail shaped
holes having been used in the walls of the Dacian fortress. Pottery frag
ments dated to the Ist centurv R.C. - Ist centurv A.D. were found
inside the fortress.
· ·
In the vicinity of the prominence the existence of a settlement

contemporaneous with the Dacian fortress, containing a hoard of Roman
republican coins dated to the Ist century B.C., could be established.
Given the cricumstances, the form, the dimensions and the nature of the
Dacian fortification cannot be accurately assessed. The walls, particularly
those of cut stone provided with the specific notches for the joints of
wooden beams, entitle us to postulate the existence of a fortress at Breaza
without, however, being able to specify whether it was a mere refuge
or a permanently inhabited princely residence. Th e likelihood of it having
been a dava type of settlement should not be ruled out. The second hypo
thesis seems much more plausible 537•
I3. Bretea ll!urcşană (Hunedoara county). A Dacian settlement
with natural defences dated between the Ist century B.C. and the Ist
century A.D. was discovered on an isolated crag between Bretea :'.\Iure�ană
and Brăni�ca 5 38 •
14. Caşinu .J.lfic (Covasna county ). A Dacian fortress with stone
walls dated between the Ist century B.C. and the Ist century A.D.,
whose character is still to be established, was unearthed on a, plateau
near the village 5a9•
I 5 . Căpîlna (Alba county) . A Dacian fortress with opus quadratmn
stone walls was discovered I 8 kilometres from the town of Sebeş on a rounded
53 6 The discoveries made at Bratislava are incdiled. \Ye extend our thanks to Prof.
B. �ovotny for lhe information kindly provided.
537 T . '.'<ăgler, in Studii şi Comunicări, Sibiu , 14, 1 969, 89 - 1 1 7 : N. Lupu, in the same
journal, pp. 261 - 266 ; Gh. Poenaru-Bordea, C. Ş tirbu , in Studii şi cercetări de numismatică, 5,
pp. 265ff.
63 8 C. Daicoviciu, La Transy/11anie, p. 56, Note 1 ; N. Gostar, in SCJ \", 9, 2, 1 958, p . 4 1 7 ;
L. '1ărghitan, in Sargetia, 7, 1 970, p p . 15 - 1 6,
539 Z. Szckely, .4./mana/r, p. 9 ; id., The De(ence System o( lhe Dacians in Soul/1-Eastern
Transy/vania (in Rom.) (manuscript).
1 54
hillock with a good strategic position overlooking the Sebeş valley. The
walls encircle the upper part of the hill. A rectangular dwelling tower
was found inside the fortress. The fortress plateau, consisting of three
small-size terraces, is oval-shaped being fifty-six metres long and fourty
two metres wide. Access from the southwest was blocked bv an earth
vallum of moderate height provided with an inner ditch. Th� stone for
t ress had been erected, in all probability, by Burebista and was to last
until the Roman conquest. It apparently served as residence to a Dacian
noble and had an obviously military character 54 0 •
16. Cernat ( Covasna county) . A settlement inhabited in the Hallstatt
period and in the lst century B.C. up to the lst century A.D. was
discovered on a hilltop. It contained pottery, metal tools, fibulae, Thasian
coim; and local imitations.
The settlement which was provided with a ditch and with an earth
and stone vallum seems to have extended down to the foot of the hill 541 •
1 7 . Cetăţeni (Argeş county). A Dacian fortification with rough
;.;tone walls having a,n inside rectangular tower was found on a promi
nence. The fortification is dated between the 2nd centurv B.C. and the
lst century B.C. representing, in all probability, the fortified point of
the rich Dacian settlement there or a place of refuge in case of danger.
Since the excavations at Cetăţeni are still in their early stages we cannot
be more specific a,s to the nature of the fortification. Diggings carried
out in the adjoining settlement revealed abundant material originating
from workshops, dwellings with joints, related to religious practices, and
graves. The finds point to an intense economic activity, especially in trade,
Marting with the 2nd century R.C. but mainly during the time of Bure
bista. Foreign items of which Greek amphorae are the most important,
t estify to the existence of a sort of reshipment point for the goods destined
to the Dacian space within the Carpathian arch. To the Greek amphorae
mu�t be added the discovery of others, local one� (few in number) made
by the Getae possibly even at Cetăţeni where a dava was flourishing
at the time of Hurebista542• The walls of the Cetăţeni fortress were dismantl
('d towards the end of the lst century B .C. or the beginning of the next 543•
18. Cîmp un· Surduc (Hunedoara county). Two Dacian fortifica
-
tions were discovered near the pass linking the Banat and the l\Iureş
valley. The fir:'lt stands on a ridge with steep slopes commanding an
excellent strategic position. The oval-shaped plate.au (37 per 22 metres)
of the ridge was surrounded by a wall of rough, locally quarried stona
bound with earth. The wall is onlv 1 . 5 metre thick. The second forti
fication is smaller. It has a 25 metre diametre and is rounded up by a
-..rn,J l and fosse. On the basis of the material discovered, especially coins ,
the two fortifications are dated to the first half of the lst centurv B.C.
repre,.;enting fortified posti\ of the so-called Roman castella type 544• •
5�0 :\I. :\lacrea. I. Herciu, in lJacia, p. 1 66 ; I . Berciu. I. Moga , in Crisia, 1 972, 66 - 68 ;

Y. Pavel, I . Berciu , in Studi i si Comunicări Sibiu, 1 8 , 1 974, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 24 ;
su Z. Sztkely. in Cumidava, :1, 1 969, p. 10 1 ; id. , Jlateria/e, 9, 1 970, p. 307 ; id„ Tlie System
. . . ; B . :\ l itrea, in SC! \·, 1 2 , J, 1 96 1 . p. 1 46.
54 2 R . Vulpe. (;etic Setl/ements, pp. 38 - 42 : Report on diggings in Dacia, K S„ 14, 5 5 ,
1 970, p . -129 , D. V. Rosetti, L . Chi tescu. in Buletinul J!onumentelor istorice 42, 4, 1 973, pp. 5H. ;
A l . Vulpe, lJictionary (in Rom.), jl . 1 58.
54a :\I. Chi l escu, in lJacia , 19, 1 975, p . 252 , l\'ote 58.
m :\1. \"alea, L. :\ lărghi tan, in Sargetia, 4, 1 966, pp. 65 - 7 2 ; id„ in Sarge/ ia, 7, 1970,
p. 1 6 .
155
19. Cîndeşti (Yrancea county) . A rich Dacian settlement dating
from the 2nd centurv B.C. - 2nd centurv A.D. was unearthed on the
upper terrace of a brook. The nucleus oi' the settlement is represented
by an acropolis standing on a height eroded by the brook out of its
terrace, with the settlement extending to the surrounding terraces as
well. Four habitation levels have been determined, containing a rich and
varied archaeological material made up of autochthonous and imported
pottery, iron and bronze implements, adornments a.o. An important
dava is known to have flourished here in BurebiRta's time 545•
20. Clit (Arad county ) . A Dacian fortress waR uncovered on the
top of a promontory. To the natural defences a fosse wa8 added on
the narrow side of the saddle linking the fortress with the rest of the
promontory and possibly a palisade. Among the find8 were iron tool8 and
weapons, hand-made and wheel-worked pottery, adornments, coins a.o.
On the basis of the potter�' and two Roman republican denarii the fortress
was dated to between the Ist centurv B . C. and the lst centurv A . D .546•
It seems to have served as a fortiffed point or as a small sanctuary.
21. Costeşti (Hunedoara count�' ). A Dacian fortress occupying the
upper plateau of a promontory (561 metres altitude) was wholly exposed
i-;ince 1925 on a cone-shaped hillock with steep slopes. The fortress i:>.
defended by a big earth vallum 6 -8 metres thick and 2 - 2.5 metres high,
by an inner wall 3 metres thick with rectangular bastions, and by a
double pafo;ade. The wall made of cut limestone blocks (opus quadratu m )
defends only the southern and southeastern slopes, the rest being inac
cessible on account of the steepness of the slope. There are also
8everal isolated towers with foundations of limestone blocks spread over
the descending terraces of the promontory controlling the acceRs.
The upper plateau has two large dwelling towers with Rtone walls
continued bv massive structures of unfired brick. A monumental staircase
cut in ston� leads to one of the towers. The terraces surrounding the
fortres:,; revealed two :,;anctuarie8 : one inside and another out8ide the
fortifications. The Co8te';'ti stronghold is a, fortified princely residence. It is
the firRt of the elements in the fortification complex of the Orăştie l\lts. 547•
22. Covasna (CovaRna county) . A Dacian fortre88 covering the
upper plateau and three terraces stand on a promontory Rituated at
an altitude of 930 metre8. The fortification consists of two concentric walls,
an earth vallum and a palisade. The wall is built of cut stone 8labs with
approximately uniform edges, bound with clay. The wall is 2 metres
thick. On the basis of the discoveries brought to light by diggings, espe
cially the coins, the life of the fortre8s was put between the Ist century
B.C. and Trajan's wars 548• The abundance of the material point8 to the
flourishing of an important centre of the dava type.
545 :\1. Florescu , in Dicl ionary, pp. 1 68 - 1 iO.
548 S. Dumitraşcu, in Scienlific Works (in Rom.), Oradea, 1 970, pp. 1-li - 1 60 : id. Dac/.. e
lrra isko 11 Clrile, in ryc/1odos/011ensky Pravek, 2, Kosice, 1 !li t , pp. :H - 49 : id., in Crisia, 1 972,
p. 1 2 i : S . Dumitraşcu, L. :\lărghitan, in Sarge/ ia, 8, 1 !li l , p. 48, Note !l.
547 D . :\I. Teodorescu, in A CM I T, 1 929, Cluj, 1 !l30, pp. 265 - 298 : C. Daicovici. A l .
Ferenczi. Dacian Se/l/emenls i n lire Orăştie .'H l s (in Rom .), Bucharest, 1 95 1 . pp. 9 - 29 : C. Dai
.•
CO\'iciu and coli.. in Jlaleria/e, r;, pp. 331 - 332 : C. and H. Daicoviciu, Sarmi:egelusa, Ed. :\leri
diane, Bucharest. 1 960, pp. 1 9 - 22.
548 A. Ferenczi. in Erdet y i Tudoman yos Fii:elek, Cluj, 1 947 ; C. Daicoviciu, in Dacia,
7- 8, 1 940, p. :l20 : C. Daicoviciu and roi i . in SC n ·, 1, l, 1 950, pp. 1 1 9 - 1 20 ; Report on
diggins in Daria , '.\' . S . , 1:.1, 6.1, 1 969, p. 5 1 6, Z. Szt'.· kely, in SCJ V, 23, 2, 1 972, pp. 201 lf. ; id.,
in Materia l e JO, pp. 2 1 !l ff.
1 56
23 . Cozla - Piatra Neamţ (Neamţ county) . A Dacian fortres,
now for the most part destroyed, was found on a height overlooking
the city of Piatra Neamţ. It had stone walls very similar to those at Bitca
Doamnei. The discoveries made there date its construction to the 2nd
century B.C. and its thriving period between the 18t century B.C. and
the lst century A.D.549.
24. Cucu·i.� (Hunedoara county). A Dacian fortification with two
earth vallums and two fosses was identified on an isolated height. It
has not been systematically investigated, but the pottery casually found
there date it to the lst century B.C. - lst century A.D.55°.
25. Cugir (Alba county) . A Dacian fortification is thought to have
stood on an eminence dominating the town from an important strategic
point overlooking the Mureş valley. It bas not been investigated syste
matically by excavations but the pottery fragment8 casually discovered
on the upper plateau of the hill date tbe fortification to the 2nd - lst
centuries B.C. A small hoard of coins hidden in a vase unearthed at tbe
foot of tbe fortress hill points to the same period. Tbe hoard still preserves
eight tetradrachms issued by .Macedonia Prime and a Dacian imitation
of a coin of the Philip II type. Another coin hoard was found on the
upper plateau of tbe fortress 551 .
26. Deva (Hunedoara county ). A rich Dacian settlement intensely
inbabited in Burebista's time and identified by occasional discoveries
stood on tbe territory of the town. A pottery kiln and ruins of several
dwellings were uncovered among other things. The respective settlement
8eems to have had its fortification on the 'Fortress' 55 2 bill. This is an
isolated eminence with steep 8lopes dominating not only tbe present town,
but also a sizeable part of the Mureş valley from its excellent strategic
position. Dacian vestiges were found on the upper plateau and on the
bill terraces. The existence of a fortification with cut stone walls i8 evi
denced by several limestone blocks presenting the characteristic swallow
t.ail shaped notches fitted in the walls of the medieval fortress. The latter
was superposed over the Dacian fortre8s, largely destroying it. The mate
rials found on the upper plateau and terraces are dated between Bure
bista's time and the Roman conquest. It was, in all probability, an impor
tant Dacian 8ettlement of the dava type. Another Dacian fortified settle
ment was discovered near the town on a rocky peak 686 metre8 high
which dominates the whole of the l\Iureş valley. This is a fortress with
natural deff'nces dated, with the help of the finds, between the 2nd cen
tury B . C . and the lst century A.D.553.
2 7 . Gh·indari (Mureş county ) . A small Dacian settlement fortification
was found on an isolated promontory. The walls made of claybouud
M9 A . :-; i ţ u and :\I. Zamoştean u , în .llaleriale fi, 1 !!59, pp. 359 - 372 ; N. Gostar, Forlrcs
ses, pp. 23 - 26.
550 I. :\lar(îan. Traces of tl1e Romans' \\'ars witli / /ic /Jacian.,, (in Rom.), Cluj, 1 !!2 1 .
pp. 4 0 - ·l i and i n formation provîded by Ş L . Fl'renczi.
551 C. Daicoviciu. I . :\ I . :-.leda, i n Revista isloric<i ronuin<i, JO, 1 9-10. pp. :J85- :l86 : C. Dai
coviciu, A l . Ferenczi, Dacian Sell/emenls, p . G : Oct . Floca, in SC.\"., :!, 1 958. pp. 95 - 96 and
information proYîded by Eng. Cornel Caşin of Cugir.
552 Oct. Floca, i n OCIJ., p . 201 , Figs 5- 1 2 : idem, in Saryc/ ia , li, 1 969, p. 20 ; Oct . Floca
: m d Ben. Bassa. lJe11a Forlress (in R o m . ), Ed. :\leridianl', Bucharcs l , l \'G5, pp. 1 0 - 1 1 ; l . P. Albu,
fn Apulum, 9, 1 97 1 . pp. 1 39 - 1 47 ; L. Mărghîtan, !n Sa1yc/ia, li, l!JîO, pp. 2:1 - 24.
553 :\ I . Yalea, L. :\lărghilan, î n Sargelia, G, 1 969, pp. -1 7 - 5:l ; Oct. Florica , in Sarge/ia,
9, 1 969, pp. 22 - 2-1 : ! . . :\lărghitan, i n Sargelia , 7, 1 !!70, pp. 1 1 - 20 ; L. :-:ernoian u , A . R u s u .
in lJaeia, 19, t; .;, 1 975, p . 28:1.
157
stone surround the oval-shaped upper plateau of the promontory which
is 38 metres long and 20 metres wide. The material found there dates
the place to between the lst century B.C. and the lst century A.D.554•
28. Grădiştea Muncelului (Hunedoara county) . At a 1200 metres
altitude on a long ridge between two valleys stands the most gi·andiose
Dacian fortress known so far. lt bas the shape of an irregular rectangle,
looking more like a hexagon. The area enclosed within the walls is of
approximately 3 hectares. If our hypothesis that the sacred precincts
were also included inside the fortifications is correct, its area is twice
as large. The road of access to the fortress is guarded, bere and there,
by tower8, the road leading to the gate being blocked by an earth vallum
200 metres long.
The quantity of walls unearthed so far in the so-called military
precincts and the sacred area i s quite impressive. Some of the still
standing walls are 5 metres high at certain points. Some of the walls
display an uncommon technique in addition to the usual one. \Ve shall
deal with that later.
The first known excavations in the complex of ruins on Grădiştea
hill were carried out on July 21 -31, 1803 following the di8covery of
a trea.�mre containing several thousand:,; of gold coins. The first diggings
had nothing to do with scientific research, being aimed at the discovery
of more treasures. After that, the ruins were described by several scholars
and were subject to persistent diggings 555 • The systematic investigation
and exposure of the ruins at Grădiştea Muncelului were started in 1925
under D. M. Teodorescu and were continued, on a much larger scale, in 1950
hy a team headed by C. Daicoviciu. Despite the large amount of work
done we are still far from having laid bare all the ruins on Grădiştea
hill, nor are we able to give an answer to the host of questions they raise 556•
Nevertheless we must say that the re:,;ults obtained so far have been quite
i-;ensational and put in an entirely different light the Daco- Getic civili
zation, clarifying a lot of ke�' is:mes related to the history of the two
centuries preceding the Roman conquest of Dacia. ]\fost, if not all, o f
the monumental construction8 o n Grădiştea hill, whether erected for
defence or for worship, were built at the time of Burebista, representing
one of bis most outstanding achievements. They are unique in the whole
of Europe outside the Greco-Roman world.
29. J1"godin l\Iiercurea Ciuc (Harghita county). Here were identi
-
fied and partially investigated three Dacian fortifications. .Jigodin I,

situated on a small plateau and defended to the south by a vallum made
of crmihed local stone and earth ; Jigodin II, standing on a plateau
at 900 metres altitude. The walh; of the existing feudal fortification were
built upon a Dacian vallum of stone and earth ; Jigodin III (the third
fort) is located and built like Jigodin I.
The materials found in all the three fortifications led to the con
clusion that they were places of refuge in case of danger and to their
m Z. Szekely, in Materiale. !J, 1 970, p. 302.
556 For the history of the researches see C. Daicoviciu, AI. Ferenczi. Dacian Sell /emenls
pp. 3:! - 3 4 a n d pp. 67 - 100 ; S . .J a k 6 . in Acta.li X, 3, 1 966 , pp. 1 03 - 1 20.
5 68 On the diggings carried out on Dealul Grădiştii the following preliminary reports
have so far been published : C. Daicoviciu and coli. , in SC/ ' "· 2, l, 1 959, pp. 95 - 126 ; SC/ V,
:i, 1 952, pp. 281 - 307 ; sc1 r. 4, 1 - 2. 1 95:i. pp. 153 - 1 87 ; scn-. :>, 1 - 2 . 1 954. pp.
1 47 - 1 52 ; scn·, 6, 1 - 2, 1 955, pp. 1 95 - 2 1 6 ; in Materiale, 3, 1 957, pp. 256 - 263 ; in
Jlaterillle, J, 1 959, pp. 391 - 399 ; in Materiale, 8, 1 959. pp. 335 - 3 4 1 ; i n Materiale, 7, 196 1
pp. 3 10 - :i20 ; i n Jlaleriale, 8, 1 962. p p . 463 - 746 ; J-Iateriale, 10, 1 973, pp. 6 1 - 87.
1 5tl
being dated to between the ht century B.C. and the Ist century A.D.557 •
30. Jlarca ( Sălaj county ). A Dacian fortress with natural defences
including two fosses and two vallums in the narrow strip of land that
separates the fortress from the :mrrounding heights was discovered on
a peak. The weapons, adornments and pottery unearthed there date the
fortress to hetween the 2nd century B.C. and the Ist century A.D .55 8 •
31. Jlînăstioara (Vrancea county). A Dacian settlement with natural
defences was discovered on the upper terrace of a hrook. It lies on an
eroded protrusion with steep slopes. Diggings revealed three habitation
layers containing iron implements, a large qua.ntity of pottery, imported
amphorae, silver adornments a.o. This material dated the dava to the
period between the Ist century B.C. and the Ist century A.D.559•
32. Ocniţa. Casota-Ocnele Jlari ( Vîlcea county) . A defence complex
made up of three Dacian fortresses standing on the peaks of prominences
was discovered here. The fortresses were :mrrounded by earth vallums
and moats on all sides, except for those flanked by precipices. The main
fortress (fortress I ) may have represented the acropolis of the entire com
plex where a, large edifice i.e., 'a palace' with three underground rooms
was laid open . In one of these rooms a provisions vase ( Chiup) was unco
vered carrying an irn;cription which mentions the name of king Thiamarcm;.
The necropolis of the settlement was a,lso exposed. Systcmatic excavations
brought to light dwellings with a rich inventory including pottery, adorn
ments, iron implements as well as metal workshops (processing bronze
and possible silver). The finds date the rich Dacian settlement to between
the Ist century H.C. and the Ist century A.D. At the time of Burebista,
a dava wa8 certainly thriving there which must he added to those important
Dacian centres with economic and possibly political and administrative
attributions. The hypothesis according to which the Daco- Getae settlement
at Ocniţa must be related to the salt mining there and was called B11rida1.!a
i8 quite plausible 5oo .
33. Odorhet"ul Secu·iesc (Harghita county ). The fortified place that
occupied an isolated promontory was used throughout severa} periods
beginning with the end of the N eolithic, the Bronze Age and the Hallstatt
and alsa in the time of the Daco- Getae between the Ist centurv B.C'.
and the Ist century A.D. The prominence has natural defences 011 three
sides. The northern side, the mast accessible one, has three earth vallums
and two defence moats. The upper plateau of the promontory has an
oval 8hape, 280 metres long by I80 metres wide. In spite of the several
Dacian dwellings uncovered here, we cannot say whether the fortifications
were erected in Burebista's time or before him. A vast Dacian settlement
was discovered at the foot of the hill dominated by the fortres8. The
557 Al. Ferenczi. in .-l C.\/ I T, 4, 1 !l:l2 - 1 \l:l8, pp. 235 - 253 ; 'li. :\!acrea nnd co l i . . in
SC/ V , 2, I, 1 95 1 . pp. 307 - :1 1 0 ; R . Y u l p e , in SC/ \', 6, 3 - .J„ l!l55, p. 565 ; Z. Szckely,
The System.
558 S. Dumitraşcu, in Crisia, l !l i 2 , p. I :18 ; S. Dumi lraşcu, Y. Lucăcel, The Dacia11
Forlress a l Jlarca, (in Rom . ) Cluj, 1 9i -t .
559 'li. Florescu, in ])iclionary, p p . 3 !J 6 - 3!Ji.
560 D . Berciu, i n Jlaga:in istoric I„ 6, Scptember H l6i, pp. 5 - !J ; id„ in S C / \', 24,
4, 1 973, pp. 6 1 6 - 6 1 8 : id„ in SCJ Lt , 25, .J, 1 !J7 4 , pp. 3 8 1 - :187 ; id„ in .-lpu/11111, l:J, 1 97 5 ,
p p . 615 - 6 1 8 ; I . I . Hussu, in A.nuaru/ lmlillllllllli d e Istorie ş i .·1rheo/ogic C/11j-.\"v 1 rcr', l\Ji6
(în press) ; I. H. Crişan, i n Sclnleia Ti nere/11/lli , Wednesday, April 7, 1 9i6, pp, 1, 3 .
1 59
fortress may have represented the acropolis of the settlement which could
-..vell he an important dava 561•
3 4 . Pecica ( Arad county). On a crag standing in the immediate
vicinity of the river Mureş, but isolated from the rest of the upper terrnce
of the river by a huge ditch 60 metres wide, a rich and vast Dacian
Hettlement was discovered and largely inve8tigated by systematic exca
vationH . The crag, with its very abrupt slopes and surrounding ditch,
offered an excellent natural defence. It was inhabited ever since the
Neolithic and throughout the Bronze Age. In the Dacian period the
eminence represented only the acropolis of the settlement that covered
a wide area nearby. In the acropolis were discovered a round sanctuary,
another one with an apse, workshops and dwellings with a rich inventory
including pottery, iron implements, gold, silver and bronze ornaments.
The Dacian settlements had two layers with the help of which it wa8
dated back to the 2nd century B.C., it thrived in Burebista's time and
ended shortly before the Roman conquest of Dacia. Both the size of the
Hettlement and the wealth of the material found point to its having been
a notable dava which we identified, hypothetically, with Z·iridava 562•
35. Piatra Cmivii (Alba county). An important Dacian settlement
with an acropolis 8Urrounded by walls of squared stone (opus quadratum)
Iying at 1083 metres altitude was discovered on a huge rock with an
excellent strategic position. The settlement covers eleven terraces, most
of which are Hupported by walls. On these platforms they built defence
towers, stone base sanctuarieH (like thoHe at Grădiştea l\Iuncelului), work
shops and dwellings. The large quantity of pottery, iron implements,
adornments, coim a.o. attest to a flourishing economic activity. The
fortified precinct of rectangular shape, 67 metres b�· 36 (with walls 3 metres
thick) stands on the peak of the rocky massif.
The beginnings of the Dacian settlement at Piatra Crai,·ii and the
date when the stone walls were erected cannot be specified. In our opinion
the oldest material found in this settlement is dated to the 2nd century
B.C. :L\lost of the finds belong to the maturity phaHe of the Daco- Getic
civilization which Htarted with the lst centurv B.C. under Burebista.
So it seems only natural that the walls of th e fortified precinct Rhould
have been built then, if not earlier. The place was an important econo
mic, religious and politicaJ centre, a dava, of the settlement at Piatra
Craivii which was identified with "A7touAov or Ranisstor11m 563•
36. P.iatra Roşie (Hunedoara county ) . The fortress here is Rituated
on an almoRt inaccesRible peak at 823 metres altitude. It was erected
to defend the access from the west to the main fortre8s at Grădistea
l\Iuncelului. The fortress precinct enclosed by stone walls, display ing
the ,;ame technique as the fortress in the Orăştie 1\Its., is rectangular,
102 metres long and 45 metres wide, and provided with five inner towers :
four at the angles and one in the middle of the east side. The second
precinct connects two isolated towers that had originally belonged to the
511 G. and St. Ferenczi, in .\lateriale , 10, H l73, pp. :144 - 345 ; id., in Crisia, 1 972,
pp . ')9 - 63.
562
.
I . H. Crişan. in Apulum, ă. 1 965. J(), 1 97a, pp. 1 5 1 - 1 5 5 ; id .. in Acta.li.V, J, 1 966,

pp. !Jl - 1 0 1 : id. , in ActaMiV, 6, 1 969 , pp. 9:3 - 1 1 5.
563 I . Berciu, Al. Popa and H. Daicoviciu, in Cellicum, 1 2 ( 1 965) , pp. 1 1 5 - 46 ; I. Berciu,
in Dacian Forlresses, pp. 5�ff. ; Report on diggings in Dacia, N . S. , 15, 1 97 1 , p . 38, r\ote 1 26 ;
Al. Popa, in Apulum, 9, 1 97 1 , pp. 2il - 281 ; I . Berciu, I. !\loga , in Crisia , 1 972 , pp. 68 - 71 .
H iO
first precinct by a wall 1.8 m -2m thick built of local stone and earth.
This wall was provided with a palisade made of thick tree trunks. Access to
the fortress was ensured through its northeastern tower which is approa-0 h
ed by a monumental stairway of limestone slabs. On the basis of the
finds· uncovered in the cours� of excavations the fortress was dated t o
Burebista's time. It served as a princely residence.564
37. Piatra Şoimului (former Calu, Neamţ county). The Daco-Getic
settlement lies on a crag overlooking the Bistriţa valley being separated
from the rest of the height by a ditch defended with a palisade. The two
layers of habitation con.tain a rich archaeological material including pot
tery, metal tools and other objects, crucibles, amphorae a.o. The find"1
date the settlement to between the 2nd century B.C. and the lst century
A.D. It has been assumed that the fortress and the settlement covering
the territory of the town of Piatra Neamţ had formed a complex which
can be identified with Petrodava 565•
38. Piscul Crăsani (Ialomiţa county ) . On a promontory with very
abrupt slopes, securing a strong natural defence, was found a rich Daco
Getic settlement with three cultural layers, three metres thick. In addition
to the natural fortification access to the settlement (where the promontory
is cemnected with the rest of the terrace) was obstructed by an earth vallum
and a fosse. The many finds, especially the imported Greek amphorae,
date the beginning of the settlement to between late 4th century B.C
or early 3rd century B.C. and the lst century B .C. or the beginning o f
the next. Recent research brought to l ight other fortified Dacian settlements
dependent on the main one. These seein to have come into being in the
2nd century B.C. and end their life at the same time with the principal
one. The large number and the character of the finds, including many
imported items, testify to the existence of an important dava 566 •
39. Poiana ( Galaţi county) . The rich and representative Daco
Getic site here is situated on a commanding plateau at an altitude o f
3 0 0 metres, occup�·ing a n important strategic position in the Siret valley.
The first signs of habitation, dating from the Bronze Age, continued
throughout the l\liddle Hallstatt. The Daco- Getic settlement goes Q ll
without interruptions from the 4th century B.C. until the lst century A.D .
under Burebista, when the settlement know·s its most thriving period, the
natural defence provided by the precipice is supplemented with an artificial
fortification consisting of an eartlt vallum 3 metres high and a fosse. A
1'trong timber palisade is erected on the :hilltop.
The rich and varied finds discovered in the Poiana settlement
t estif�· to an intense economic a,ctivity particularly during the time of
Burebi,;; t a. Bot:B workshops and dwellings are dated to that period. The
large quantity of Greek products are signs of close trading relations with
the west-Pontic Greek cities incorporated into the Daco- Getic state,
and date from the same time. The discovery, by systematie excavations,
of the Poiana settlement was carried out between 1926 and 1951. This is
ss.i C. Daicovici u , The Dacian Forlress al Piatra Roşie ( Archaeological Monograph) (în
Rom. ) , Bucnarest, 1 95 1 ; C . Daicoviciu and H. Daicoviciu, Sarmi:egetusa , pp. 25 - 26 .
m R . Vulpe, in Dacia , 7 , 8, 19:J? - 19 HJ, p p . 13 - 68 ; A . Vulpe, i n Studii Clasice
G, 196-l , p. 2:38 ; id. , in Diclionary, p. 467 ; V. :\lihăilescu-Blrliba, in A bstracls, p. 16.
:;es I . Andrieşescu , in Academia Romdni, .llemoriile Secţiei Istorice , III, Ser. I I I . :\Icni. 1,
Bucha res t , 192-l, pp. 1 5 - 20 ; V. Pârvan , Getica, pp. 1 78 - 182 ; H. Vulpe, Getic Selllemenls,
pp. 12 - 26 ; :\'. Couo\·ici , in A bstracls, p. 5 ; :\I. Bai>eş, in Dacia, 19, 1975, P• 139 ; A. Vulpe,
in Diclio11ary, p . 1 92 .
l l - e. 170!
HH
undoubtedly an important dava which was hypothetically identified witb
Pfroboridava "67 •
40. Polovragi ( Gorj county ). A Dacian settlement with two habi
tatioB layers was discovered here and partly investigated. It contains a.
principal fortification (the acropolis ) situated on a ridge, and a secondary
one separated from the first by a narrow saddle. During the first phase
the principal fortification served as residence of a chieftain and was
defended by an earth and stone vallum. During the second phase it was
enclosed by a wall made of blocks of cut limestone and rough blocks
of sandstone. The secondary fortification which served as a refuge fortress
was defended by a stone vallum. The northern side of the vallum had,
at the base, a layer of lime slaked in a low fire. At the foot of the mountain
on which the fortifications were erected, a settlement with two habitation
Jevels has also been found.
The diggings revealed a rich archaeological material containing
Jocal and imported pottery, numerous metal objects, coins a.o. The finds
Jed to the conclusion that it is an important settlement of the dava type
that started in the 2nd century B.C. and lasted throughout the lst cen
tury B . C. although all the coins having been found so far are prior to
the vear
' 70 B. c .<> ss .
41 . Popeşti (Ilfov county ). The wealthy and most representative
Daco - Getic flettlP.ment discovered at Popeşti is only 25 kms away from
Bucharest. It stands on a, triangular promontory situated on the right
side of the river Argeş at a height of 1 8 - 20 metres above the surrounding
meadow, securing it a good strategic position. The more accessible slopes
of the height were strengthened with three parallel ditches and a Yery
high earth vallum set with timber palisading.
The promontory, whose plate.au is 160 metres long and 120 metres
wide, represents only the acropolis with the fortified part of the settlement
covering a much wider area.
On the basis of the abundant finds (the cultural layer is over
2 metres deep) it was established that the settlement had been inhabited
as e.arly as the Bronze Age with the fortification being raised during
the earlier period of the Iron Age (Hallstatt) . The Getic habitation of
the promontory started at the end of the 2nd century B.C. or even in the
Jate 3rd century B . C. and flourished in the period coinciding with Bure
bista's reign. In the investigated sectors of the acropolis the Dacian layer
reveals 4 - 6 levels which point to an intense habitation. At the present
time the old earth vallum built during the Hallstatt is being re-used. It
was originally made with a kernel burnt to vitrification, a technique
well known and largely spread over much of Europe ever since the first
phase of the Iron Age 569• Most of the unearthed dwellings are near the
surface and built of timber or wattle and daub. There are also title
covered dwellings made after the Hellenistic pattern. Of all the com:.truc-
067 R. Vulpe, in Ue11 A.rch . , 34, 2, 1 93 1 , pp. 237 - 257 ; R.-E. Vulpe, in lJacia , 3, .J,
1 927 - 1 932, pp. 253 - 351 ; R. Vulpe and coli . , i n SCf l', 2, 1, 1 9 5 1 , pp. 1 8 1 - 1 91 ; ibidem,
în SCI ''· 3, 1 952, pp. 1 9 1 - 209 ; R . Vulpe , in Dacia, N . S. , 1, 1957, pp. 1 46 - 1 4 7 ; A . Vulpe,
in Diclionary, p. 475 and in Studii Clasice.
568 C . S. Nicolăescu- Plopşor, i n SCJ V, 4, 1 - 2, 1 95:J, p . 207 ; Report on excaYalions,
ln Dacia , X S . , 9, 1965, pp. 4 7 7 , Jll and 1 5 , 1 97 1 , p. 381 , Note 1 32 . FI. Marinescu , in Crisia ,
r n72, pp. 79 - 27 ; id. , in A bstracts, p. 1 0 ; A. Vulpe, V. Vesclovschi-Buşilă, in Drobeta, l,
1 97 4 , pp. 1 4 1 - 1 4 5 ; A . Vulpe, in Diclionary, p . 478.
569 For these see, hir instance, Gy. :\:oYăki, i n A.ctaA.rch. , 16, 1 964, pp. 9 9 - 1 4 9 with
o comprehensive bibliography.
1 62
tions uncovered so far the most remarkable is a princely court dating
from late 2nd century B.C. or early lst century B.C. It has several rooms,
corridors, barns, all of Hellenisttic influence.
Among the buildings the ones related to religious observances are
also present.
The material exposed by excavations, mainly in recent years, is
of unequalled variety and wealth, attesting not only the character of the
settlement, but also the high level of the Daco- Getic civilization at the
time of Burebista.
It is in the workshops of the settlement that the large quantity
of weapons and iron implements found were manufactured, alongside
ceramic object:s, as evidenced by remains of foundries as well as stone and
clay moulds. Among implements are those used in agriculture and in
:,;everal trades. \Vorth mentioning are the numerous grinding mills, both
primitive and rotative, of a more advanced kind.
A sizeable quantity of gold, silver and bronze adornments made
in the local workshops were also uncovered. l\fany of the existing fibulae
reproduce the well-known types of the Late European La Tene period,
most of them representing Celtic prototypes. The glass objects, luxury
vases and ornaments are also worthy of mention .
Another category o f finds, very well represented, are the coins .
Like many other imports, they indicate the intensity and direction of
trading exchanges. Silver tetradrachms of Thasos, drachms of Dyrrha
chimn and Roman republican denarii are all present. The best represented
are the local imitations of the gold coins of Philip II, Alexander the Great
and Lvsimachus. T h e bronze coins of different Greek citv-states are
represented by thoRe struck at Maroneia (on the Aegean coast of Thrace),
Amisos (in Mithradates' realm), Mesembria and Callatis.
The settlement a t Popeşti was a remarkable economic, commercial
religious and politica! centre typical of the time of Burebista, on the one
hand and of the dava type settlements, on the other. It was hypothetically
identified with Argedava, a topic already dealt with at len gth 5 70 •
-!2. Porumbenii �71/ari (Harghita county) . A Daco- Getic settlement
dated to the lst century B.C. - lst century A.D. was discovered on an
isolated height with obvious strategic advantages, whose plateau is 250
metres long and 1 50 metres wide.
The eastern slope, gentle and consequently more accessible, was
fortified by seven earth vallums and four, almost parallel, ditches, arranged
in three defence lines. The southern slope has two vallums and two ditches,
and the western slope, a huge earthen vallum. The edges of the outside
vallums had been provided with palisading made of thick tree trunks.
Investigations carried out so far in the fortified settlement at Porumbenii
Mari are unable to assess its nature. It may have served as refuge in case
of danger or as permanent fortified residence as the existence of the three
discovered dwellings seems to indicate 571 •
Vulpe, Getic Selllements, pp. 27 - 38 with the entire older bibliography ; R. Vulpe
570 R.
and col i . , in SC! V, G, 1 - 2, 1955, pp. 239ff ;
.\1ateriale, 3 , 1957, pp. 235 - 2 4 1 ; Materiale,
341 ff. ; Material e , 6 , 1959, pp. 308ff. ; Jf.ateriale , 7, 1 960, pp. 323 ff. ; Materiale,
5, 1 9.'> 9, pp.
8, 1 96 2 , pp.
457 ff. ; A. Vulpe, in Diclionary, pp. 481 - 482.
51 1 Z.
Szekely, in .llaleriale , 6 , 1959, p . 1 9 4 ; Dacia, 11, 4 4 , 1967, p. 363 ; Dacia, 12,
427 ; G. Ferenczi , St. Ferenczi, in .'lla leriale, 10, 1 973, pp. 340ff. ; id. , ln voi.
4 8 , 1968, p.
In J,femoriam ConsiaRlini Daicovicill, Quj, 1 974, pp. 1 37 - 1 49 .
43 . Racu (Harghita county). A Dacian fortress encircled by walls
of stone and earth 25.3 metres thick was uncovered on a high plateau
with very abrupt slopes. Access to the north, east and south is barred
by walls. The western slope being too steep there was no need for an
artificial fortification. The connecting saddle is strengthened by a ditch
and vallum. Early Iron Age and Daco- Getic (Ist century B.C. -lst cen
tury A.D . ) traces of inhabitation have been found. The fortification
belongs to the Dacian period. The scant signs of habitation inside the
fortress point to the conclusion that it was used merely in emergenci�s
as a sanctuary 572•
44. Răcătău de Jos (Bacău county ). The acropolis of an extremely
rich Daco- Getic settlement was discovered and partially investigated
here. Diggings revealed vast quantities of autochthonous and imported
material consisting of pottery, tool, ornaments, coins etcetera, dating
from the 2nd century B.C., but mostly from Burebista's time. The acro
polis was separated from the rest of the settlement by a ditch. Exca
vations carried out so far have not covered the whole area of the acropolis
and settlement. The ceramic objects found in large quantities are of very
rich forms and ornamentation. Locally produced objects were uncoverecl
alongside Greek imported pottery. It is unquestionably a dava, hypo
thetically identified with Tamasidava 5 73•
45. Rîşnov (Braşov county ) . A vast Dacian settlement (about
four hectares ), on which the feudal fortress was built, was discoYerecl
here. Archaeological excavations revealed two phases of the settlement
which was fortified with two earth vallums and two fosses. The vallum
of the second phase is 1 6 metres thick at the base and the fosse is 7 .1 me
tres wide and 3 metres deep. The settlement extends over several teITaces
and was intensely inhabited. Surface and lower dwellings with hearth�
and ovens were found, displaying rich and varied archaeological reniains,
including hand-made and wheel-worked pottery, Greek vases-imitations,
iron implements for agriculture and various trades, adornments a.o.
On the basis of these finds the settlement was dated to between the 2nd
century B.C. and the Roman conquest. lt was a main centre of the dava
type at the time of Burebista 574•
46. Săcălăsău Nou ( Bihor county ). A natural fortified Dacian s ettle
ment was discovered on a crag encircled by a ditch and earthen wall erected
on the saddle that connects it with the surroundings. The remains found
here date the settlement to the Ist century B.C. - lst century A.D.
A treasure of silver ornaments was unearthed nearby 5i5•
4 7 . Sărăţel ( Bistriţa-Năsăud county) . A Dacian fortress built over
a Hallstatt fortification was partially unearthed on a height dominating
the Bistriţa and the Şieu valleys. The Dacian wall is made of local stone
cut in middle-sized slabs joined together with clay and beam on both
572 Al. Fercnczi , in A CM I T, 4, 1932 - 1 938, pp. 238 - 288 ; R. Vulpe, in SC/ \-, G,
J - 4 , 1955, pp. 565 - 566 ; Z. Szekely, in .Hateriale , 9, 1 970, pp. 304 - :rn5 ; id„ in Cumidava,
3, Braşov, 1 969, p. 103.
573 Report on excavations, i n Dacia, � . S . , 1 5 , 138, 1971, p. 384 ; V. Căpi lanu ancl
V. Crsachi, ln Carpica , 2, 1969, pp. 93 - 1 30 ; id. , i n Crisia , 1 972, pp. 97 - 1 1 4 ; A . Vulpe,
V. Căpitanu , in Apulum, 9, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 1 55ff ; A. Vulpe, in Studii Giasice , 6, 1964, pp. 233 - 243.
o7' FI . Costea, i n Cumidava , 4, 1970, pp. 1 7 - 4 8 ; i n A bstracts, p. 12, ancl personal
Information for which we exte11.d our thanks to him.
576 S. Dul11 i traşcu, l n Crisia , 1972 , PJI- 1 36 - 1 3 7 ; id„ in Repertory of Jlonumenls in
Bihor County, Oradea, 323, 1974, pp. 59- 60, id. , in Crisia , 1 975, pp. 4 5 - 67.
·: l S4
faces. The building technique consisted in a wooden framework built first
which was then filled with masonry and earth. The few remains exposed
by diggings point to a temporary occupancy of the fortress in cases of
emergency. There is reason to believe that this is only the fortified part
of a Dacian settlement having formerly extended to the foot of the
promon tory.
On the basis of the finds the Sărăţel fortress was dated to the
l st century B.C. - lst century A.D.576•
48. Sighişoara (Mureş county ). Here, on the plateau of the pro
montory dominating the Tîrnava Mare valley by its excellent strategic
position was discovered one of the richest intra-Carpathian Getic sites.
Systematic excavations showed a two-stage intense settlement on the
vast plateau of the triangular hill. The first stage belongs to the Iron
Age, lending its name to the Sighişoara-Wietenberg cultur e ; the second
titage belongs to the Getic La Tene period.
The exact nature of the Dacian settlement on Dealul Turcului has
not been established with accuracy. The steep slopes of the eminence
offered good natural protection. The artificial fortification added to it,
of which a curtain wall of grave! and earth, is 0.5 metre high and 1 . 5 metre
wide, ancl could be traced along 27 metres. Casual and mostly systematic
exca>ations brought to light a large quantity of Dacian remains of which
ten coins : five silver drachms minted at Dyrrhacihium, a tatradrachm
imitation, two Roman republican denarii and two imperial coins (one
from Antoninus Pius and another from Caracalla). On the basis of the
finds the settlement was dated to between the 2nd century B . C. and the
Roman conquest. The fortification points to the existenc e of a prosperous
dava in Burebista's time 577.
49. Şeica Mică ( Sibiu county ). This is an eminence standing at
a 3 0 - 40 metres height over the surrounding meadow. The plateau (650 per
25 metres ) was fortified during the Hallstatt period and subsequently
used by the Dacians between the 2nd century B .C. and the lst century
A.D. The artificial defence system made up of six lines of fortifications
consists of vallums, ditches and a curtain wall of stone and earth running
along the contours of the terrain. Much cannot be said about the character
of the Daco- Getic settlement at Şeica Mică, given the small proportions
of the sounding 578• It was apparently a refuge using older fortific ations.
50. Şimleul Silvaniei ( Sălaj county) . A naturally fortified Dacian
settlement, to which a ditch and timber palisading was added, lies under
th e feudal fortress overlooking the town. Here a Dacian silver treasure
as well as hand-made and wheel-worked pottery were found. The Dacian
settlement was largely destroyed when the feudal fortress was built,
h ence the difficulty in assessing its character 579•
51 . Tăşad ( Bihor county) . A Dacian fortified settlement was disco
vered on higher ground. The artificial fortification consists of a fosse and
576 X VJassa and St. Dănilă, in Jlateriale , 8, 1962, pp. 341 - 347.
577 K . Horedt, C. Seraphin, Die prăhislorische A nsied/ung au( dem Wielenberg bei Sighi
şoara - Schăssburg, Bonn, 1 9 7 1 , where the whole Jiterature on both researches and dlscoveries
is cited. Review I . H. Crişan, in ..\nuarul Ins/. de Ist . •4.rh. Cluj-Napoca , 17, 1974, pp. 3 1 7 -
320. See also t h e report o n excavations i n Dacia, N . S . , 1 5 , 1 5 9 , 1 9 7 1 , p. 387.
57 8 K. Horedt , in SC/ V, 15, 2 , 1 96 4 , pp. 1 8 6 ff. , in particular pp. 1 9 4 - 195.
679 S. Dmuitraşcu, in Crisia, 1971, pp. 39 - 46 ; S. Dumitraşcu, I. Căbuz, in Scienlifie
Works, Oradea , 1 9 7 1 , pp. :n• - 30.
165
earth vallum. The settlement was first inhabited during the Hallstatt
period aud afterwards by the Dacians. Diggings exposed large quantities
of pottery and ornaments dating the Dacian settlement to between the
Ist century B.C. aud the 2nd century A.D.580•
52. Teliu ( Braşov county) . On a hillock guarding the Buzău pass
there was discovered a Dacian fortress provided with three ditches aud
three vallums with palisading. Excavations revealed a single cultural
layer containing few materials which point to a temporary Dacian habi
tation. This place of refuge was dated to between the Ist century B.C.
and the Ist century A.D.s81 .
53 . Tilişca ( Sibiu county) . Archaeological investigations led to
the discovery of an important Daco- Getic fortress on a plateau with
a perfect strategic position (712 metres altitude). The very steep eastern
aud southern slopes of the hill have no fortifications. The more gentle,
aud therefore accessible, western aud northern slopes were strengthened
with an earth and stone vallum aud an inner ditch 800 metres long. At
certain points the vallum is double-faced. Inside the vallum (7 -8 metres
wide nowadays ) two paraments of local stone were built to ensure its
stability. On the upper plateau two towers were erected in nicely cut
limes tone slabs (opus quadratum ) . The tower walls have two paraments,
a skilfully worked radial bed aud a stone and earth emplecton. The
walls are 2.12 metres thick aud were continued in low-fired brick.
Dwellings, stores aud workshops were discovered inside the fortified
precinct on hoth the plateau and the terraces. The rich and varied archae
ological material includes luxury and ordinary ceramic, hand-made a ud
wheel-worked, weapons and iron implements that were used by craftsmen
having currentl�' processed iron, wood, bronze and precious metals. Two
of the workshops in the Dacian fortress at Tilişca are worth mentioning
as thpy shcd light on many of the issues raised by Burebista's reign.
The8e �He : 1 ) the bakery and 2) the mint, containing fourteen bronze
matriees and three iron hoses with which the Roman republic denarii
were minted 582. The matrices are perfectly worked so that the coins struck
with them can hardly be distinguished from the genuine ones issued on
Rotrntn territory. The fourteen matrices �tt Tilişca contain the negative
engrnving of the republican denarii minted between 145 - 137 and in
72 B.C. The latter coin is contemporaneous with Burebista's reign .
The Dacian fortress at Tilisca was built over a Hallstatt settlement.
It Î8 dated back to the 2nd century B.C. and is an important site of the
dava t ype centre of a tribe or even tribal union 583.
;) 4 . Tinosnl (Prahova county) . A naturally fortified Daco- Getic
settlement was discovered on an eminence dominating the surrounding
area from a height of 20 metres. The plateau of the settlement was separated
from the steep-sloped eminence by an earth vallum with traces of burnt
58 0 !J acia
, 14, 1 9 70, p. 438 ; S. Dumitraşcu, in Crisia , 1972, pp. 1 29 - 1 3 1 ; N. Chidioşan,
i n Reperlory of .Uonu menls in Bihor Counly, Oradea, 4 03 , 1974, pp. 77.
5 8 1 Report on excavations in SCJ V, 13, 1 , p. 208 ; XV, p . 558 ; Dacitt. , K S.
, 8, 60,
1 964, p . 393, Inedited diggings by I. Pop.
5112 N. Lupu, Die Miinze in der dakischen Btug von Tilişca , ln Forschungen zur Vol-ks
w1d Landeskunde , 7/1 , Bucharest, 1964, pp. 5 - 31 ; id. , .4 spekle des Miinzenlau{s im l'orrii
l/lischen Dakien , in JNG, 17, 1967, pp. 1 0 1 - 121.
68 3 N. Lupu, i n Materiale , 8 , pp. 477- 483 ; .Ualeriale, 9, 1970, pp. 233 - 243 ; id.,
l>acian Jlorlresses, pp. 3 4 - 45.
Hi6
palisading and a fosse. The finds revealed by diggings date the place to
between the Ist century B . C . and the Ist century A.D. The place is assumed
to have been the ancient locality known as Tiason 584•
55. Tîrgu-Ocna - Tiseşti (Bacău county) . A Daco- Getic settlement
dated to the Ist century B . C . - Ist century A.D. was discovered on a height
(480 metres altitude) with a good strategic position near the confluence
of the riYers Trotuş and Oituz. The settlement is isolated from the rest
of tbe plateau by a narrow fortified spur. The steep slopes of the hill
proYided a good natural defence. The dwellings extend also outside the
fortified area of the plateau which represents, as usual, only the
acropolis of the settlement. One of the Daco- Getic davas, the settlement
was hypothetically identified with Utidava, whose name refers to the riwr
Utus i .e . , Oituz 585.
56. Zemplin (Czechoslovakia). A Dacian fortified settlement was
discowrecl in northeastern Slovakia on the bank of the river Bodrog.
Partially inYestigated, this settlement is typically situated on an eminence
defendecl by an earth Yallum, well preserved for the most part, measuring,
at certain points, IO metres high. The settlement extends well beyond
the fortified area .
ExcaTations exposed a large quantity of Daco- Getic hand-made
and ·whcel-worked pottery, implements, adornments and coins. On the
basis of these finds, the settlement was dated to the first half of the Ist
century B .C.586 •
The settlement at Zemplin has all the characteristics of a Daco
Getic fortified dava. It represents the economic, politica! and religious
centre of a Dacian tribe or tribal confederation having lived in this north
eastern part of Slovakia and subsequently united by Burebista with the
other unions of Daco- Getic tribes . It has severa! analogies with similar
places throughout the area inhabited by the Daco- Getae.
5 i . Zetea (Harghita county ). The Dacian fortress discovered at
Zetea lies on a prominence with steep slopes in the vicinity of the river
Tîrmwa. The more accessible northeastern slope has three successive earth
v allnms. The oval-shaped higher plateau (46 metres long and 27 metres
wicle ) is surrounded with a curtain wall made of rough stone 1 . 8 metre
thick. The remains date the fortress to the I st century B .C . - Ist cen
tury A.D .587 ancl point to a meagre habitation, classifying the place as
sanctuary used in case of emergency.
38. Zidovar (Orefac commune) in Yugo.slavia. On the bank of the
river Karas, in the eastern part of the Deliblatski Pesak plain, not far
from Vrsac, in the Yugoslav Banat, stands a B.igh hill (I35 metres altitude)
with steep slopes offering an excellent natural defence. The natural
684 R. -E. Vulpe, in Dacia, 1, 1924, pp. 167- 169 ; E. Vulpe, Getic Se ttlements, pp. 47 - 5 1 .
5 ss A . );jţu a n d :\I. Zamoştean u , i n J1ateriale , 6, 1959, p p . 369 - 38 1 . For t h e name
Utidava, A . Vulpe, in Studii Clasice , 6, 1964, pp. 243 - 34 5 .
1>S6 B . Benadik, i n Germania, 4 3 , 1965, p p . 64 - 9 1 ; i d „ in Arch. roz„ 23, 3, 1971,
pp. 322 - 325.
'87 Z. Szekely, Zetevara , Sf. Gheorghe, 1949 ; id„ in Cumidava, 3, Braşov, 1969, pp. 99-
123 ; G . and St. Ferenczi, in Materiale, 10, 1 973, pp. 345 - 346.
1 67
fortifiC'at ion of the elliptical plateau was partly completed by a curtain
wall of RtoneR joined together with earth 588 •
On the hasis of the remains dug out from a cultural layer three
metres deep, the settlement was dated to the Bronze Age continuing with
the bearers of the Basarabi culture up to the Early Iron Age. A rich Dacia n
settlement containing large quantities of hand-made and wheel-worked
pottery, adornments and metal tools was superposed probably în the
2nd centur�· B .C. over the prehistoric settlement .
The C'haracter of the Rettlement, the shape of the terrain and p a rti
culari�· the find8 have very close analogies with the Pecica Rettlement
In both cases the naturally fortified heights Rtarted being inhabited in
the Bronze Age. Both 8ettlements were mtensel�· populated în the Dacian
period and represent important economic, commercial and politica.I
centres. lt may he that the Zidovar tell too was only the aC'ropolis of
the Rettlement stretching well beyond its limits.
+
The fortresse8 a nd fortified settlements presented so far raise a
host of important questions and lead to conclusiom with major historic
implic a t ion s .
It muRt he stated from the start that despite the numerou" re
searches and excavatiorn; carried out, particularly during the past twenty
years ·when most of the respective fortre8ses and fortified settlement:-;
havc bl'('Tl hrought to light, we are still far from having exhausted them
or solved the problems they raise. Many Daco- Getic settlements, already
identified, arc still waiting to be looked into 589•
ThP l'ommon note of all the Daco- Getic fortresses and fortified settle
ments îs their emplacement on heights, isolated promontories or hilh�
with a good strategic position, natural defences and a d ifficult access.
In the vast majorit�· of the cases, the more vulnerable parts of the terrain
;u·e artificia lly fortified with earth vallums ( consolidated, at times, with
stone, timber pal hmdes, ditches (resulted from the dislocation of the ec1rt h
used în the vallum) and stone walls erected according to different practiceR.
The 8hape of the fortification depends on that of the terrain and the upper
phtteau on which it s tand s .
Fortified settlements are no novelty în eastern Europe : they appear

as early as the :K eolithic. Many of the sites containing painted ceram.i� o f
the Cucuteni-Ariuşd type were surrounded b y earth vallums and defence
ditches 590 • During the Bronze Age, settlements will be increasingly
rai8ed on na turall y fortified heights, often occupying dominant strategic
positions on promontories or isolated plateaus . Also during the Bronze
Age, there will come into being, in addition to settlements with ditch and
Y<tllum ( $imple or double) provided with palisading, settlements surrounded
by curtain walls roade of rough stone like those at Lutoasa, Satu Mare
588 Branko B. Gavela, Keltski oppidum Zidovar, Belgrade , 1952. Without a detailed
and competent analysis of the finds, the author erroneously a ttributes the settlements to the
Celts. CL I. H . Crişa n , Daco-Getic Pollery (ln Rom.), Bucharest , 1969, p. 1 60 and H . Daicoviciu,
Tlle lllyrians and /he Dacians (ln Rom.), Exhibition Catalogue, Cluj-Bucharest , 1 972, p. 78.
589 See, for instance, in this sense the se ttlements identified on the ::\loldavian territory ;
N. Zaharia, M. Petrescu-Dimboviţa, Em. Zaharia, .\loldavia11 Selllemenls (in Rom.), Bucharest ,
1J 7 ,), pp. 5 trr .
080 YL Dumitrescu, in /sl. Rom. , 1, 1960, p. 70 ; D. Berciu, in th� 1>ame volume,
pp. 80 - 8 1 .
162
(Odorhei ) arul $trăţeni 5P 1 • The first half of the Ist millenium B.C. (Hall
statt B - C ) witnesses the gradual development of fortified settlemenb;,
standing on heights aud covering several hectares, built after an often
intricate plan. Some of them served as sanctuaries for neighbouring people
in casp of danger. This was the case of the Hallstatt fortresses at Bodoc,
Sărăţel, Tuşnad a.o. Others were intensel�· inhabited like those at Lechinţa,
Media� ancl Teleac in Trarn;ylvania, to name only a. few examples.
'Yhether mere sanctuaries or fortified settlements inhabited over
longer periotls of time, all the Hallstatt fortresses were centres of whole
regions and tribes and were huilt b�· the latter 592 •
An ('X amination of those thirty-three Hallstatt fortified settlements
discowretl in Transylvania points to a steady decline in the size of the
enclosure inside the fortifications593 • The end of the Early Iron Age i.e., the
6th - 5th <'enturies B .C. mark8 the beginning of the fortified settlements
in Moldavia ·we have alreadv dealt with. These will continue to exist
throughout the following centuries. The 4th -3rd centuries B.C. witness
the emergence of some of the Daco- Getic fortified settlements intensely
inhabited until the time of Burebista and even later. Besides these per
manently occupied 8ettlements, the seconcl Iron Age witnessed the emer
gence of fortresses used as sanctuaries, situated again on heights, defended
by vallums, ditches or curtain walls, and of smaller and larger strongholds
llSed exclusively for military purposes. The vast majority of the Daco
Getic fortified settlements listed so far came into existence during the
2nd century B .C . or in Burebista's time. They fall under four categories :
large fortified settlements, heavily populated, with a flourishing economic
life, having, as a rule, a fortified upper part representing the acropolis.
Such settlements are rated as economic, politica! and religious centres
situated in a densely populated area. The Daco- Getae called them dava
in their language and they are currently refeITed to in both literary sources
and inscriptions.
Some important Daco- Getic settlements are defended by stone
w alls. Others have their acropolis fortified only by the traditional vallums
and ditches. More often than not the two defensive systems are skilfully
combined in the garb of those Celtic oppida viz, agglomerations of proto
urban type discharging the same functions as tbe cities of the :Mediterranean
world, without having their urbanistic aspect for that matter.
The second category inclutles the fortresses proper, raised for mili
tary purposes par excellence. )fost of these may bave been resided in by
some notable figures of the Daco- Getic society, like the high dignitaries
at Burebista's court. In addition to tbese preeminently military forts
t.h ere are other smaller structures, either isolated or adjoining and
dependent on larger fortresses, representing defended posts. These make
up the tbird category. The fourth category is formed of the sanctuaries.
These, too, are set up on heights, in places difficult to approach and easy
591 St. Ferenczi, in Apulum, 5, 196� . pp. 1 1 5 - 126, particularly pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 with
a comprehensive blbliography.
59 2 K. Horedt, in Probleme de mu:eogra(ie, Cluj, 1966, pp. 1 79 - 1 87 ; Id. , Befestigte
Siedlung der Spiitbron:e- und l/ali:ftAtl:eit im Innerkarpatischen Rumănien (wilh a catalogue),
in voi. Symposium : LI Problemen der jiingeren Hallstatt:eit im Jfitteleuropa, Bra lislava, 1974,
pp. 205 - 229 .
na M. Rusu, Considerations sur quelques problemu de l'epoque halslatlieRne de Transyl
vt111i e, paper delivered before the 8th Internalional Congress of Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences,
Be!grade, 1 9 7 1 .
169
to defend, reinforced with vallums , ditches, palisades or even stone walls.
These fortresses were sporadically occupied, mostly in case of emergency.
The fortifications inside the Daco- Getic inhabited space are not
singular, they can be associated with similar ones throughout Europe.
We come across settlementR fortified with earthen vallums (surmounted
by palisading), defence ditches and, at times, stone walls as early as the
N eolithic. The character and purpose of these fortifications has not been
accurately aRcertained, but the idea was advanced that, at that t ime,
they represented some kind of boroughs (bourgades ) comparable, in
some respects, to the cities in the East 594• The same applies to Italy
where urban settlements will be the lineal successors of former tribal
fortresses called opp-ida 595.
In Gaul the process whereby the largc Celtic fortified settlements
called opp-i<la came to be set up is the usual one. Here too, defended
settlements date back to the Neolithic 596 , evolving along two character
istic lines : as sanctuaries for emergency and as steadil�· inhabited settle
ments until the time of Caesar, a period of particular interest in our
case. The large Celtic settlements of Caesar's time were set up, just like
the Daco- Getic ones, on heights, occupying dominant strategic positions.
Such are Bribacte, an oppidum lying on the plateau of mount Beuvray
( 2 7 kms from what is now the town of Autun in France), Gergovia, standing
on a plateau at 744 metres altitude, and Alesia, on mount Auxois, to name
only a few examples. All of them are defended by natural barriers .
\Vhere the slopes are not steep enough to prevent access by the enemy,
stone walls, earth vallums and defence ditches were made. The settlement s
already mentioned, to which can be added several others in the Celtic
occupied perimetre, are not mere sanctuaries for people and livestock
in case of danger, but permanently resided centres with a stable population
and craftsmen's workshops. These are basically production centres to
which worship places are added, characterized by an active commercial
life, a kind of emporium for the sale of products both locally made and
imported from the Greco-Roman world. Some of these trading centres
had their own mints. In urbanistic terms, the Celtic fortified settlements,
no matter how important, are far from the Greco-Roman Medit.erranean
cities or those in the East. Their dwellings are either mud huts or surface
dwellings, and in both cases, with only one room (those with two rooms
are quite an exception) 3 metres by 4. Apart from these, there are the
different workshops identified, for the most part, on the basis of tool
remains. Sanctuaries as places of worship cannot match the lavish struc
tures of the Greco-Roman temples. In the Celtic world the concentration
of population in fortified settlements coincides with the end of the 2nd
century B.C. and is accounted for by the internal socio-economic de
velopment 597 •
During the 2nd century B .C. in Gaul and the British Isles, large
or small parts of usually towering promontories - large or small - were
094 V. G. Ghilde, The Dawn of European Civili:alion, London, 1 946, pp. 98ff. ; J. Neus
tupny, in Archiv Orientcilni, 18, 4, Prague, 1950, pp. 1 3 1 - 1 58, especially pp. 1 3 4 and 158.
696 F. Kornemann, Oppidum, in RE, XXXV, 1 939, pp. 708 - 725.
598 J. Dechelette, Manuel, II, 3, Paris, 1 9 1 4, cap. Oppidumus, villages el habilalion,
pp. 942 ff.
697 J. Filip, Keltoveve stfedni Evrope, Prague, 1 956, p. 550.
"1 78
fenced in aud protected by earthen Yallums, sometimes 10 metres high,
Jined with wide ditcltes. In such cases no traces of wa]h; can be found 698 •
Quite often the Celt:;; re-use older fortifications dating from the
NeoJithic or Bronze Age, let aJone those raised in the Early lron Age 699 •
On the territorv of what is now France there have been discovered and
partly investigated beside:;; the intensely populated settlements of consi
derable dimensions, many smaller Celtic fortified settlement:;; used as
sanctuaries or defended posts. Their shape closely follows the terrain
they are built upon . The defence system differs, consisting, in most of
the cases, of ditches, Yallums or walls of rough stane and earth. The pre
sence j,.; aJso noted of earth vallums reinforced on the inside with timber
or en'n ·with stane walls soo .
The Celtic fortified settlement is currently named oppidum. The
concept as such has aroused a lot of queRtions and is still being debated
wlth no agreement in sight between scholars specialized in the Celtic
issue 601 • Ancient authors particularly Caesar, used the term opp1"dttm
in a broad sense intended to de:;;ignate all fortified Celtic places or settle
ments. Some of these were not permanently inhabited , being used as sanc
tuaries in emergencies and occupying a small natural fortified area which
was also fenced il'l and protected by artificial defences. Others covered
vast tracts of land with a stable population and had proto-urban and
even urban characteristics. The only criterion for naming them oppidum
was tbe pre:;;ence of a defence system. Modern historians take over the
tenu opp -i<ltun from the ancients applying it in a broader sense to any
Celtic fortification. Tbere are some, bowever, like W. Dehn, who restrict
the sphere of the concept to only those fortified agglomerations of proto
urban character dating from the Late La Tene 6 02• In this latter acceptation
an oppidwni would occupy a central position in a more or less densely
populated area, surrounded by an inner wall built according to different
practices and frequently using the -nmrns gallicus that bestows upon it
the character of a fortress. In these cases the fortifications are provided
with gates and are situated in their vast majority at road junctions .
They are permanently and intemely inhabited, representing centres for
commodity production and sa,le. Sucb settlements are usually divided
into quarters and carry out certain administrative functions. In some of
them one or even several mints are run 60a .
\V. Dehn distinguishes between three categories of Celtic fortifi
cations : tbe afore-mentionecl opp ida whicb he named oppida-tr·ibale
(Stammes-opp·ida or Tribal Oppicla,) ; the oppida of the Fecamp typc tbat
are found in Belgium and are defended by earth vallums and ditcbes ;
coasta I forts ( Kilstenforts or Cliff Castles) characteristic of the Veneti
(a Celtic tribe in Gaul ) 604.
598 W. Wheeler, R . Richardson, Hill-Forls of Southern, Oxford, 1956.
699 J . Dechelette, op. cil . , voi. cil. , p. 985.
600 O. Biichsenschiit z, Blat de la recherche sur Ies oppida en France, par/iculieremenl
dans le centre, in Arch. roz . , 23, 4, 1 9 i 1 , pp. 406 - 41 6 with a comprehensive bibliography, a
dissemination map, and a table with the main forms of Celtic fortifications in France.
601 S. J. De Laet, Forlifications de l'epoque de la Tene en Belgique , in the Yolume cited
in the preceding note, pp. 432 - 450 ; R. P. :'\oche, De la no/ion d'oppidum dans Ies ciles gauloises,
in Ogam , 22 - 23 , 1 9 70 - 1 9 7 1 .
602 W. Dehn, D i e gallisc/1e 'Oppida' b e i Casar, i n Saalburg J b . , 1 0 , 1 951, p p . 36 - 49 ;
idem, in Gernwnia , 1952, pp. 280 - 287.
603 R . Gensen, in },Jarburger Beilriige :ur Archaologie der J\ellen, Festschr. , W. Dehn,
1 969, pp. 20 - 29 .
6 04 W. Dehn, in Arclr. roz. , 23 , 4, 1971 , p. 398.
An analysis of Caesar's 'Commentaries' on the 'var8 again:4 Gaul
shows that such word:;; as 1trbs and oppidum are indiscrimina tel,\· u:;; ed
for onc and the same localitv. · Such is the case with thc settlements �tt
Alesia ( opp·idum, VII, 68, 1 ; urbs, VII, 68, 2), Gergovia ( oppid·nm, VII,
4, 2 ; 11,rbs, VII, 3 6 , 1, VII, 15, 1) and Avaricum (oppidmn, VII, 13, 2 ;
'ltrbs, VII, 15, 4 ) . This twofold designation stems from thc as::;e,;sment
of a Roman for whom 'ltrbs means a town of Roman type by which he
meant, first �tnd foremost, Rome with its buildings, urban ancl adminis
trntive sy8tem etcetera. The Celtic settlements besieged or eonquered
by Caesar, were basically different from these. They were 8imiLn in term8
of functionality and presented the charaeteristic features of towns. Hence
the twofold designation of oppida and urbs which di8tinguii'hei' them
from the v-ici (villagm;) or aed·ificia (detached houscs) . Caesar ali'o useR
the term castella whereby he designates tbe defencled posts inhabited
per1rntnPntl,\· or only on occasions.
Caesar's text show:,; that the number of fortified settlementi' iu
Gaul was pretty large, judging only by his reference to the Helwti who
set fire to twelve oppida and four lmndred villages (viei) when leaving
their original homeland. Even if a little exaggerated, these figures come
in support of the �tbove proposition. In addition to this archaeological
tlat�t that evidence onlv in what is now France more than two hundred
oppida must be added those in Switzerland, Germany, Bohemia, Moravia,
Austria a .o.605•
It îs again from Caesar that we learn about the way in which the
Celtic stone wall, that murus gallfous was built. Caesar's relation has been
archaeologically checked in many Celtic fortifications. On French territory
alone there have been surveved · over twentv-four
0 fortified settlements
surrounded by walls raised in the way described by Caesar 6 06 • \Yith such
a murus gallicus was enclosed the largest Celtic oppidttm known so far
viz, the one at Manching in Bavaria on the upper course of the Danube.
The oppidum at Manching covers an area of 380 hectares inside its walls
and is the only Celtic oppidttm that lies in a plain, though on an eminence
some sixty-three metres high. It was occupied and destroyed by the
Romans in 15 B .C.l D 7 •
A comparison between the Celtic and the Daco- Getic fortifications
points to many similarities and differences due to the characteristics of
the two civilizations. All these fortified settlements demonstrate that
at the time of Burebista and Caesar the Celts and the Daco- Getae were
at approximately the same level on the scale of social evolution, with
the latter being a little ahead of the Celts, a fact possibly due to the close
contact with the Greeks living on the west shores of Pontus Euxinus
ever since the end of the 7th century B .C. This contact i.ntensified during
the 3rd and 2nd centuries B . C . as attested by the large quantities of
Greek products found in the extra-Carpathian Daco- Getic settlements,
particularly during Burebista's rule when the Greek city - statcs of Olbia
and Apollonia were incorporated into the Daco- Getic state. To illustrat0
our statement we must point out that one of the main common fea,tures
is the location of both Daco- Getic and Celtic fortresses on heights, isolated
prominences with difficult access, excellent strategic positions anu good
806 J. Filip, Die kellische Zivilisalion und ihre Erbe, Prague, 1961, pp. 1 1 9ff.
8 00 Ibidem, p. 122.
807 For Manching see \V. Krămer, F. Schnbert, Die Ausgrabungen i11 Jlanching, 115.5 -
196 1, Wiesbaden, 1970.
172
natural defences. Their shape is of great diversity, being determined
by the terrain. Both categories are characterized b�- high htnd fenced in
and protected with the help of vallums and ditches. They all use, or
rather re-use some older fortifications preserved in their original shape
to which other defensive elements a,re added. Of equally ancient date is
also the most simple defence procedure so frequentl�- encountered with
hoth the Daco- Getae and the Celts wherebv the earth hewn from the ditch
is raised into a vallum. The earthen vallum used to be consolidated with
i:,;tones or timber, this technica,1 practice knowing sevcral variants with the
Celt" and the Daco- Getae, �-et prese1Ting much 1lhe same principle.
"� e see the same categories of fortifications with both ciYilizations
like i,;olated posts, sanctuaries, rich residences and large agglomeratiom of
t he oppi<fom type.
Fortified agglomerations appear earlier in the Geto-Dacian world
under Greek influence. Such Hites a8 those at Zimnicea, Poiana and
Crăsani came into being during the 4th century B .C. or early 3rd cen
t ur�- B.C. whereaR the oldest Celtic opphla date from the late 2nd century
B . C . and mainlv . from the lst .
The stone wall used independently, not as consolidation of the
earthen vallum, is dated to about the same time in both the Celtic and
the Daco- Getic world, in all probability, to the end of the 2nd century
B .C. or rather the first half of the next. Chronological specifications in
this respect are difficult to make for either civilization, a fact underlined
hy seholars concerned with Celtic fortifications. w·e lmow, however, that
in Caesar\,; time many important Celtic settlements were protected by
wa,lls which are duly described in the literature. And it is a fact that in
Burebi8ta 's time such walls defended at least some of the Daco- Getic
settlements even though they are neither described nor mentioned by lite
ran· ' sources.
The Daco- Getae borrowed various technical procedures and even
resorted to foreign masons when building their walls. An illustration of
this are the wall8 of the fortress in the Orăştie Mts . The Celtic pattern
is al"o present in the fortress walls of the Bîtca Doamnei peak at Piatra
:Keamţ, although we cannot speak of a genuine mw·1is gallfons 60 8 • Much
closer to Caesar's description and to what archaeological investigations
conducted in a number of Celtic oppida have demonstrated are the walls
of the Dacian settlement at Sărăţel. These are built in much the same way
as the Celtic walls and we could even assume that they were inspired
b�· them. The material uncovered inside and outside the Sărăţel fortress
abundantlv demonstrates that the walls of this Dacian fortress are raised
in the Celtic technique.
Another type of wall used in the Dacian fortresses is the Greek one.
The technique used in erecting the walls of Dacian fortresses mainly
those in the large complex of tne Orăştie Mts. is the s�une. In some of the
cases they do not differ at all from the Greek original8 as is revealed by
certain sections of the great precinct at Grădişte:t Muncelului or of the
Tilişca fortress towers. The large-scale use of wooden beams in the Dacian
fortresse" adds a new note if compared to the Greek ones, yct we cannot
speak of a munis <laciciis. The thickness of these walls Yaries between
2 and ! metres and the blocks of the two paraRient" are, for the most
part, 0.;! - 0.8 metres long, 0.4 - 0.6 metres wide and 0.3 - 0 A metres thick.
Go e Cf. N . Gostar, Fortresses, p . 3 6 .
173
Tbe emplecton is made of eartb and broken local stane mucb like tbe
Greek one. Sucb walls were used not only to fence in the fortress precincts,
but also to erect the dwelt·in towers and the walls supporting the arti
ficially hewn terraces. In the case of the dwelt-in towers like those at
Costeşti and Tilişca, the walls are lined, all along their thickness, with
raw or low-fired bricks of shapes and dimensions bespeaking the Hellenistic
patterns. Of similar origin are the tiles used in roofing some of the edifices
belonging to the Grădiştea Muncelului complex and the Popeşti settle
ment. Another Hellenistic influence are the pipes supplying drinking water
to some of the fortifications of the Grădiştea complex.
In the present stage of research we cannot bz more specific about
the date when the Daco- Getae started building or re-building fortresses
enclosed by walls of squared stane (opus quadratum) . They may well
be dated to the 2nd century B.C. or, more likely, to the time of Burebi:;: ta.
The Daco- Getae will apparently take over the use of mortar from
the Romans. The number of walls and other military or civil structures
using mortar as binding material is relatively small. Such structures
can be found at Piatra Roşie, Băniţa and Blidaru within the complex
of the Orăstie :Mts.
The Celts never reached that level of development allowing them
to build fortresses with wa,lls of squared stane which are both costly and
monumental. Thev did not use mortar either. This adds to the differentia
tion between the b aco- Getic civilization and the Celtic one, placing the
former well ahead the latter in many ways than one.
Another distinct feature of the Daco- Getic culture, when compared
to the Celtic one, are the fortified settlements of the oppidmn type, settle
ments of a proto-urban type as they are called by some authors . �enr
in their independent bistory did the Celts 6r the Daco- Getae come to
have towns like those in the Greco-Roman world. Evolution along t his
line was, in both cases, stopped short by force and continued within the
context, and as integral part, of the more advanced Roman civilization .
The Daco- Getae had never had such large fortified settlements
as the Celts, enclosing within their walls huge tracts of land. Let us
mention in this connection only some of the most representative opp ida
that have been fully or partially uncoYered by systematic investigation :
the opp-illwni at Stare Hardrnko (l\Ioravia) enclosed within itR fortification,.,
an area of 37 hectares divided into two wards : one of 13.5 hectares and
another of 23.5 hectares €o9 ; the well-known oppidttm at Stradonice 610
(Bohemia), stretching over an area of 82 hectares, and the one at Z aYist 6 11
(near Prague) covers 1 70 hectares of which 24 make up the care. The
Manching oppidum, already referred to, extends over 380 hectares.
In Gaul, too, on the territory of what is no\v France, we come across
large fortified settlements. Alesia (now Alise-Sainte Reine) co vers
97 hectares 61 2, S oviodunum (now Paumiers) encloses some 40 hectares 61 3
within its fortifications and Bribracte, the Haedui's main centre on
60 9 J . :\leduna, in Arch. ro; . , 23, 3, 1971 where the whole bibliography on this site
is cited.
610 J . L. Pic, Slaro:ilnosti :eme CesJ.:e II, J ( Uradisle u Stradovic), Pra gue, 1903 ;
d . , Le hradi se/li de Stradonilz en Bohi:me, Leipzig, 1906 (translation by J. Dechelette).
6 1 1 L. Jansov ă, i n Arch. roz . , 23, 3, 1971, 273 - 28 1 and, in the same volume, P. Drda,
p p . 282- 287. ln both works the older lit erature is clted.

6 12 C f . J . Dechelette, op. cil. , p. 958 with the bibliography in Note 5.
61 3 Ibidem, p . 967.
174
Mount Beuvray (27 kms from present-day Anton), stretches over an area.
of 133 hectares 614• In spite of thcir dimensions, none of these Celtic settle
ments come any closer to what we might call urbanism. The dwellings
are, in their overwhelming majority, <lug into the ground, i .e., pit huts
or mud huts. The material they contain led to the conclusion that they
were important production centres running vario1u; workshops as well
as religious and political centres belonging to the Celtic tribes, whose name8
are dul�· given by Caesar în his text .
In contrast to the Celtic fortified settlements, the Daco- Getic ones
a n• smaller in size. They are, however, intensely inhabited with only the
highl:'st point fortified, this being unquestionably the acropolis of the
i-ettlement. The dwellings discovered on different acropolises or outside
the fortifications are, for the most part, surface dwellings, although the
numher of those dug iuto the ground is not negligible. Due to the limited
spate affected to them one often gets the impression that the�· are the
:-;everal :"ections of one and the same edifice. In addition to the usual
dwellings 3 - 4 metrPs long and 3 metres wide there are also more preten
t iou,,; edifices with several rooms and an Hellenistic inspired layout. A
perfect illustrations are the 'palaces' at Popeşti and Ocniţa .
Arehaeological aud numismatic discoveries made in the Daco-Getic
fortified settlements amply demonstrcite their character of production
eentres. Yestiges have been found everywhere of foundries, workshops
for t he working of bronze and iron, joiners' and potters' workshops ,
'rnrk,,;hops for the working of silver and gold, for the curing of hides and for
many other materials. Also, j ewcllers' workshops where money were coincd.
Apart from the locally manufactur�d products, these settlements
werl:' dealing in various foreign commodities originating from the Greco
Roman world. The large quantity of amphorae, fine pottery etc . , found
in the course of exc:::Prnt ions carried out în the most important fortified
settlements bespeak intense trading links running as far as the Thracian
shores of the Mediterranean, southern Greece, the west-Pontic city-states
and the Roman world of course.
The great variety of materials points to the remarkable prosperity
of the settlement they were found in and, at the same t ime, entitle us to
assert that the stage of the primitive village had long been bypassed, being
superseded, particularly in Burebista's time, by agglomerations of proto
urb::tn type. These new centres would swell the number of the existing
ones ;;et up many centuries before.
The religious buildings discovered within the walh; of such fortresses
as the ones at Piatra Neamţ and Piatra Craivii, or in the fortified settle
ments at Popeşti, Pecica and Barboşi, show that these settlements were
also strong religious centres.
The map of Dacian davas pinpoints their dissemination throughout
the Daco- Getic space. Each and every region has one or several such proto
urban centres. The term oppida suit them only partially and cannot be
applied to all the important Daco- Getic settlements . They should be more
appropriately called dava, reserving the name of fortress to only those
enclosed bv stone walls.
Ptolemy locates approx imately forty 'cities ' 615 within the Daco
Getic space in the usual order, from west to east and from north to
eu Ibidem, p . 951 .
815 Ptolemy, Geogr. , I I I , 8, 4 ; V. Pârvan, Getica , pp. 255ff.
175
south. They are referred to under the names giwn to them by the indi
genom; Daco- Getae. Hence the rather frequent presence of the daiYi
ending. As man�· of them becarne Roman cities, their names are carved in
inscriptions thereby removing all po«sible doubts as to their exact identity.
The Roman urban aspect of the old Dadan localities superseded the
autochthonous one prevailing before the province north of the Danube
was founded by emperilr Trajan. The ruins of the old Daco- Getic settle
ments contain no inscriptions to enlighten us on their names. That is
why their identification can only be hypothetically made, starting from
Ptolemy's text. As the mathematical coordinates of the ancient geographer
set for most of the already identified localities did prove to be erroneous·
tbey cannot be taken ad litteram.

Despite these difficulties wbich include the hypothetical cbaracter
of tbe identifications advanced, modern bistorians attempted to establii;h
tbe names of some of tbe most important Daco- Getic sites, taking as point
of reference the text of Ptolemy. Leaving aside tbe Roman localitie.-,
whose names testify to tbe native origin reinforced by knowledge derived
from inscriptions, we shall refer only to those which were not inhabited
wbile Dacia was a Roman province or remained outside it.
To the hypothetical cbaracter of the identifications advanced must
be added the fact that rn any scholars attributed several origins to one
and the same locality. Such is tbe case of the settlement at Barboşi
which has been identified with Di11ogetia 616 and, more recently, with
Piroboridava 61 7 previously located at Poiana 61 8 • Severa} others of 'the
most magnificent cities of Dacia' lying not far from the river Siret must
be also located in l\foldavia. The next locality north of Piroboridav;1 is
Tania.sidara (Tocµ.cxal8otuot) . It was identified with the rich fort ifiecl
settlement of the dava type discovered at Răcătău de Jos (Bacău
county ) 619 • On the same line, further east, as part of the same group
of cities, Ptolemy locates Zargi<1ava (Zotpy!8otuot). The latter could he
identified with the Jarge Daco- Getic settlement uncovered at Brad (Bacău
county) 620 •
.According to Ptolemy's coordinates west of the Siret river one
bas to look for Petrodava ( IleTp68otuot) which can be identified with the
stone-walled fortress on the territory of what is now Piatra Seamţ to
which ;:hould be added the fortress at Calu-- Piatra Şoimului 62 1 • South
of Petroclava and west of the Siret the geographer of Alexandria loeate,,
Utidava (0uTl8otuot) which might be one and the sarne with the settle
ment at Tiseşti - Tg. Ocna on the territory of which was found a forti
fied Dacian settlement 622 • Its name contains the word Utus which stood
for Oituz.
Crossing into 'Valachia and Oltenia we come across several important
Daco- Getic settlements tentatively identified by modern historians with
616 R . Vulpe, in Dacia, N. S . , I, 1 957, p. 1 62 , �ole 22 ; Gh. Ştefan, in Dacia, 1'. S„

2, 1 958, pp . 3 1 6 - 329.
61 7 X Gostar , in .4pulum, 5, 1 965, p . 1 46.
ns In addi lion to the works mentioned in Note 565, see also R. Vulpe , in Studii Clasice.
C, 196 4 , pp. 233 - 247.
ne A I . Vulpe, i n Studii Clasice, G , 1 964, p . 233 ; Id„ ln Diclionary, pp. 561 - 562.
820 Id„ ln Studii Clasice , G, 1964, p. 233.
821 Ibid em , p. 245 .
622 Ibid e m, p. 243 .
176
tbe ancient localities mentioned in Ptolemy's ' Geograpbia' as well as in
otber written sources.
Some bistorians assume tbat tbe Crăsani settlement is tbe same
tbing witb tbe H elis fortress wbere tbe Getae sougbt refuge from the
armies of Alexander the Great 6 23• V. Pârvan sbows tbat if Ptolemv's
localities are taken ad litteram tben tbe site at Piscul Crăsani could ·be
identified with N etindava (Ni::-rlv8cxucx ). Given tbe numerous mistakes
and approximations of the ancient geograpber in locating tbe 'cities',
Pân-an refrains from making any suggestion in tbis respect 6 24• Tbe same
applies to Tiason (T(cxaov ) wbicb would be tbe lineal predecessor of
tbe settlement at Tinosul 6 25 .
Tbe large settlement at Popeşti was tentatively identified, as already
sbown, ·witb Argedciva (a locality mentioned in the text of tbe decree issue«!l in
honour of Akornion, but initially compared with Sornon(l:.6pvov )628 by Ptolemy.
Burid.ava, wbicb is referred to in Roman itineraries, would correspond
to tbe tribe of tbe Biuridavenses mentioned by Ptolemy and could be
identified witb tbe important settlement at Ocniţa - Cosota belonging to
tbe town of Ocnele Mari (Vîlcea county) . Its name was later taken onr
by the Roman locality identified in tbe nearby village of Stolniceni (Yilcea,
count y ) 62 i .
Zirida.va (Ztpt8cxucx ) 628 , again mentioned by Ptolemy, i:; thought
to have stoocl at Pecica on the Mureş, in western Transyhania . Sorne
researcbers believe tbat the Dacian settlement at Măgura, lying between
Bretea Mureşului and Brănişca (Hunedoara county) is the ancient s1·n
gidavci 629 •
Tbe largcst of tbe Daco- Getic fortresses discovered so far witb
its impressin• walls arni remarkable sanctuaries, appears to bave been
Sarmizeget'llsci Regia (�cxpµt�qi:: 6ouacx Bcxatl.e:tov ) wbose ruins stand on
tbe citadel bill of Grădiştea Muncelului. Ptolemy located it fairly
aceurately on bis map, but witb erroneous matbematical coordinates 630•
Althougb no inseription revealing tbe name was ever found on tbe site
of tbe Dacian fortress, the whole complex points to tbe existence bere
of Sannizegetusa, tbe capital of Decebalus 6 31 • Tbe fortress and sanctuaries
are elearlv dated to tbe time of Burebist a . Tbe civil settlement around
them bad' most probably been destroyEd. ·we are, tberefore, entitlEd to
assume tbat tbe name is older ewn tbough tbe civil settlement will not
beeome known or mentioned in literary texts as an important site until
the tirne of Deeebalus. Its name will later be taken by tbe capital of Roman
Dacia and known as Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.
In keeping witb Ptolemy's coordinates we can locate, on tbe territory
of wbat is now Slovakia , Docidm:a (.cloxt8cxucx) wbicb appears to be
one of tbe fortified Dacian settlements, possibly tbat of Zemplin.
023
R. Vulpe, Getic Sel//emenls, p. 51.
82'
V. Pârva n , Getica, pp. 264 - 265.
826 Ibidem, loc. cil . , R. Vulpe, op. cil. , p. 51.
828 See a bove p . 167.
121 D . Tudor, in Dictionaru. pp. 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , 435- 436 ; D . Berciu, in S CJ \
' , 24, 4, 1973,
pp. 6 1 1 - 61 8.
&2e I . H. Crişan, in Apulum, 5, 1 964, pp. 1 2 7 - 135.
829 K G ostar, in SCJ V, 9, 2, 1958, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 19, with the older bibliography.
8ao \'. Pârvan
, Getica, pp. 263 - 264.
&31 C. Daicoviciu, in A CMJ T, 4, p . 360 ; id„ in Dscia, 1 , p. 225 and Note 1 ; l\f. Moga,
ln Sargetia , 2, 1 9 4 1 , pp. 1 50 - 1 6 4 where older vlews are presented.
12 c. 1702
-
177
The building of fortresses and acropolises within the Daco-Getic
proto-urban settlements originated in the political formation of self
standing tribes and tribal confederations and was carried out according
to the latter's possibilities. They can be dated before Burebista 's accession
to the throne, with only one exception i.e., the grandiose complex surround
ing the citadel of Grădiştea Muncelului .
2. The complex i n the Oră�tie Mountains
When we referred to the great citadel lying on the territory of what is

now the village of Grădiştea de Munte, we specified that it stands at
a height of 1200 metres. The place was not chosen by accident as not
a better one could have been found across the vast area inhabited by
the Daco- Getae. Here we are in approximately the heart of the Daco
Getic space, on one of the northern r<tmifications of the Sebeş Mts. criss
crossed by valleys dug into the crystalline shists of the mountain.
Orăştie is the point where the rivt:>r Mureş gets one of its tributaries
made of two brooks rounding up the hill propped up upon the Muncelu l
peak (1565 metres) in the immediate vicinity of the Godeanul (16;")9 metres ),
the highest peak in the area. The two valleys sheltering the clear mouutain
rivers lent their names to the heights from under which the�- originate.
Once formed, the river drains a narrow pass lined on both sicles by
heights. The passage is so narrow that along most of its length it can
accommodate, apart from the river, onl�r a narrow gauge forestry track.
In the vicinity of the Costeşti village the valle�- broadens and the receding
hills are replaced b�- the rich Yalley of the l\Iureş.
This is the place which nature turned into a, most appropriate
defence where the observer cannot but be enraptured by the magnificence
of nature and by the ingenuity of those who raised a system of fortifications
unequalled in the whole of Europe .
A vast area of approximately 200 square kilometres is defended
by stone walls, the construction of which required the digging up of an
entire mountain of limestone. A rough estimate of the stone exposed so
far in the course of excavations takes anyone by surprise. The same stone
was used by t.he Romans when they raised the Orăştioara castrum which
was intended to control the whole of the valley after the conquest of the
imposing fortresses where Decebalus put up his brave fight.
"The grandiose conception, " "\\Tites O. Daicoviciu 632 "ha ving
underlain the fortification of <1 whole area and the execution of this plan
could only emanate from a central power, mastering vast human and
material resources. Both historical and archaeological data point to the
rule of Burebista during the first half of the lst century B .C . "
Before dealing with the elements making up this formidable complex
of fortifications aimed at defending its nucleus i.e., the settlement lying
on Dealul Grădiştii ( Grădiştea Hill), we deem it advisable to emphasize
two facts that must be taken into account throughout its examination.
We have here a massif of micashists which, by their very nature, make
impossible the formation of large terraces. To build here, one had first
632 In Ist. Rom., 1 , 1960, p. 2i9.
1 78
tq carefully prepare the ground so as to erect the structures, be they
military, religious or civil. Each and every piece of land could only
be secured by means of huge efforts and we should not forget that we
are in the presence of pretty wide surfaces. At certain points the terraces
are hundreds of metres long as is the case with those of the sacred ward
at Grădiştea l\funcelului.
)foreover, the local stone, the micashist, is a friable rock easy to
crumble al'l.d difficult to cut. The whole quantity of stone used in the
construction had to be brought from scores of kilometres such as the
Strei valley in the neighbourhood of what is today the village of Boşorod.
Most of this stone was quarried from the Măgura hill in the village of
Sîntă )!ărie de Piatră (Hunedoara county). That was the nearest place
wbere the lime8tone easier to be cut could be brougbt from 6 33.
The quantity of stone quarried, squared, transported and lifted
on the abrupt slopes to the plateaus of the fortress was immense, requiring
an equally immense consumption of energy. The quantity of squared and
transported stone exceeds by far the one utilized in many of the Egyptian
pyramids. Suffice it to say that the walls built bere run into scores of
kilometres, most of which are 4 - .5 metres high with sections wbere the�·
attain a heigbt of 8 - 10 metres or even more as in the case of the inner
wall of the sacred ward at Grădişte. Let us not forget that each wall
bad two paraments of quite considerable size and were worked "·itb
great craftsmanship in spite of their poor facework.
Such structures, rightly referred to by some bistorians as 'Cyclo
pea.n' could not be erected with the resources of a tribe or tribal confe
deration bowever great it migbt have been. Nor could tbey be raised
with the forced labour of slaves. Onl�· a central authority ruling over vast
territories coulcl be able to mobilize tbe buge buman and material resources
required for such an achievement. These could only be found in a state
like the one founded by Burebista and this was clearly one of the functions
of the Daco- Getic state.
In the absenee of written documents it is very difficult to specify
the exact time in whieh the innumerable walls making up the Orăştie Mts.
fortifications were raised. To this must be added the fact that the exposure
of the ruins, particularly tho:;; e at Grădiştea Muncelului, is far from
being completed and it certainl�· holds many secrets. There are still many
problems be to resolved and this can only be done by further diggings
and research. One issue of top priority would be that of establishing the
time when the fortifications of the Orăştie Mts. complex were built. Avail
able data at the present stage of researches show that tbe construction
was completed in a relatively short time. The assumption is supported
by the direct participation in the construction work of the Greek masons
and builders in tbe wake of the conquest of the west-Pontic Greek cities.
This fact restricts the time of the construction to the reign of Burebista.
Thl::' walls of the Dacian fortresses in the Orăştie Mountains are built in
the same technique as the Greek ones. They are, by and large, between
2 and -1 metres thick.
The Greek influence can also be detected in the plan of some for
tresses such as those at Piatra Roşie and Blidaru. In both cases we have
rectangular precincts with angle towers of the same geometric shape 6 34 •
6 33 C. Daicoviciu and col i . , in SCJ\", 4, 1 - 2 , 1 953, p. 100.
6 3� C. DaicoYiciu , in Alli del sellimo congresso inlernazionale di archeologia classica, III,
Rome, 1 961 , pp. 83 - 85 .
1 79
The fortifications in the Orăştie l\lt:;;. cont,tin other Greek elements as
well. Such are, for instance, the Greek letters carwd in :;ome of the stone
slabs in the precincts at Blidaru, Căpîlna and Grădiştea.
Taking into account these facts we can more easily under,.;tand
the true grandeur of the Orăştie Mts. fortification complex which includes
several fortresses, castle-forts and isohtted defence and watch towerR.
All of them are built in the same technique, displaying the same conception
stemming from the necessity of defrnding the most importa,nt point,
namely Dealul Grădiştii which is deprived of the advantage of a dominant
or str<ttegic position. AU this provides a better insight into the true perso
nality of the man who conceived and partly achieved the complex. Thifl
was yet another field in which the overwhelming personality of Burebista
manifested itself.
The first fortification which faces the visitor upon entPring the
mountain pass leading to Grădiştea Muncelului, and which wa,s unquestion
abl.v intended as a barrier, is the fortress of Costeşti. lts dating, or,
to be more precise, the dating of its stone walli; built in the well-known
technique cannot be est';i,blished with any measure of accuracy. It is very
likel�· that the first of the fortificatiom; at Costeşti viz, an earth vallum
with palisading W<1S a sanctuary used in case of emergencies by the neigh
bouring population, just like the others in the Hunedoara county and
elsewhere. lts having been used as a refuge explains the absence of any
signs of habitation contemporaneous with this first stage. Giwn thiR
sporadic and short-lived occupancy the remains are ver�· few indeed.
To this must be added the fact that the rather restricted i:;pace coYered
with a thin layer of humus W<1S used for the erection of fortifications and
edifices under Burebista when the few existing m;tterial remains could
well have been disloged and removed. \Ve should not rule out the possibi
lity of the earth defence on the Costeşti citadel luwing discharged the :;ame
function then as the subsequent fortress with stone w;1lls and structures,
namely that of supervising and protecting the mountain pass leading to
·
Dealul Grădiştii.
The military role of the stone-walled fortification at the Costeşti
citaclel is evidenced by its organic integrat.ion into a comp�'l:ct group de;;ig:1ed
to hold in check the advance of any potential enemy seeking to m we
up the valley. All the heights at this point of the Apa Grildi�tii va\le.v
are fortified and dominated bv the fortress at Blidaru.
Between the Costeşti and the Blidaru fortresses severnl intervening
watch and defence towers had been built in the sa,me technique. Some
of these are of considerable size and look like genuine forts . An illu.;;tration
of t his being so is the tower standing on the 'Cetăţuia înaltă' (The High
Citadel), a promontory, having the shape of a truncated pyramid, to
the west, or the tower lying on the 'Ciocuţa' peak in the immediate vici
nit�·, also to the west. Isolated defence and watch towers (three alto
gether) are to be found on the higher plateau on the 'Făieragului' height
between the Blidaru and the 'Cetătuia' hills. Several other tower8 have
been exposed at such points as : 'curmătură', 'Poiana Popii', 'Muchia.
Chi�toarei' and elsewhere. The access road leading up to the Blidaru
fortress is controlled bv about 18 - 20 isolated defence stone-wa1lec1 towers
built in the usual technique. They fenced in and controlled the access
from northwest, north, northeast and southeast 6 31i . The fortre$S occup ies
885 C. Daicoviciu and coli„ in SC/ V, V, 1 - 2, 1 954, pp. 126 - 1 36.
180
the upper plateau of the hill. lt has an excellent strategic position, domi
nating, besides the Apa Oraşului valley, the entire group of fortifications
intended to block the access into the defile and representing, a t the same
time, b�- far the largest fortification in the whole area .
'Vith its two wards, the Blidaru fortress raises two major issues :
the <late when the wards had been built and their character. The older
ward is, without any shred of doubt, the rectangular one guarded by
four towers, one at each angle and a dwelling tower in the centre. The
plan of the fortress is obviously Greek inspired with the walls built in
the t echnique used by all the fortifications that have been discovered so
far in the Orăştie Mts. complex, the Greek letters included. A.ccess to
the ward is gained through the angle tower I, by what is known as an
entrance 'a chicane' (Zagentore), just another late Hellenistic influence.
This first ward was built, în all probability, at the time of Burebista·.
The other ward was built under his successors, possibly during Dece
balu,;; ' reign.
In spite of the existence of a rectangular tower in the centre o f
the first ward that could b e continued upward very much like the dwelling
towers at Costeşti, the fortress is thought to have had a preeminently
militan- character.
T he road running along the course of the Apa Oraşului rivulet
was not the only one whereby Sarmizegetusa could be approached. There
was a,nother way of access that started from a nearby valley to the west,
ran along the course of the Strei and then wound up on the Luncani ridge.
This approach was shut off by the fortress erected on the Piatra Roşie
peak, on the boundary of the village of Luncani .
To dare build a stone-walled fortress o n a huge isolated rock sur
roun<led by precipices was a great and exciting undertaking. lt looks very
much like a giant nest of vultures that could only be approached just
like today from the narrow spur of the hill on the eastern side of the
fortres,;; . It was through here that they carried the scores of thousands of
rock:-; u,;;e d in building the walls needed to ensure a reliable shelter to those
who,;;e t;1 sk was to check the advance of any enemy using the Strei valley
to rea<:h the narrower Luncani valley, the only one approaching the
Dealul Grădiştii hill. The peak on whose upper plateau the Piatra Roşie
was built commanded a first-rate strategic position, being surrounded
by the precipitous hills overlooking the valley south of the Boşorod
commune.
The complete exposure of the ruins of the Piatra Roşie fortress
led to the discovery of large quantities of items for different uses. The
whole of the inventory, especially the coins, come in support of dating
the stone-walled fortress on the Piatra Roşie hill plateau to the reign
of Burebista 636 •
This fortress the major role of which was to protect and control
the acce:-;s from the west to the main settlement, was place<l by Burebista
under the command of one of his courtiers, a notable warrior of his suite.
This man resided within the walls of the Piatra Roşie fortress together
with his entire retinue made up mostly of warriors. In case of emergency
the whole settlement turned into a true militarv fort. As such cases arose
only sporadically, the Piatra Roşie fortress îs believed to have currently
been a lavish aristocratic residence.
136 C. Daicoviciu, The Dacian Fortress •I Piatra Roşie. Bucbarest , 1 95 4 , p. 123.
181
The same must have applied to the fortress at Căpîlna. Alth ou gh
placcd at a considerable tlistance (approximately 40 kilometres ) from
the centre of the system (Dealul Grădiştii), it was designed, in all proh<t
bility, to control, antl, if need be, prevent any approach from the ea;;t
by an enemy having wormed himself up the Sebeş valley intent on ;ulvanc
ing on Sarmizegetusa. The defence of the place in the same direction
was apparently assigned to a fortress standing on the Vîrful lui Hulpe
peak637• The latter occupied an eminence whose levelled top overlooked
the source of the Valea Anineşului rivulet, a tributary of the Apa Grădhtii.
The fact that the Căpîlna fortress lies on the same kintl of �oil,
bas a plan very similar to that of the Costeşti fortress, with its ward and
central dwelling tower built of the same limestone blocks in a ,;imilar
tech:nique, proves tbat it is part of the complex. The outconw of the
petrographic analysis having established the same origin of the roC'k
comes in support of the above supposition.
Taking into account the finds, particularly the coins, the fortress
at Căpîlna was assigned to Burebista's time 638 • I„ater digging,; expo;;ed
the missing sections of the inner walls and made it clear that the whole
of the upper plateau had been encircled with walls. Recent finds inclutling
hand-worked ceramic objects dating from the 2nd century B .C . back
up the conjecture that the beginnings of the fortress can be dated to the
2nd century B .C. on the understanding tbat it was preceded by a forti
fication very similar to that at Costeşti, just as the one at Băniţa wa"
preceded by a fortification raised before the stone-walled one built in
tbe technique common to all tbe fortresses in the Orăştie Mts.
"\Ve take the view that the phase of stone walls at Căpîlna can be
assigncd to Burebista's time like the whole of the complex for tbat matter.
The first fortification may well have been a tribal refuge of the type so
well-known in the eastern parts of Transylvania .
The Dacian fortress at Băniţa was erected on a rocky peak very
difficult to be reacbetl, and easily comparable in many respects with
Piatra R oşie. By its extremely favourable strategic position it was meant
to control the J iu Valley and the Vulcan pass and, if need be, to prevent
the advance of a potential enemy planning to reacb the Orăştie :Mts.
area from the south. The first phase of the Băniţa fortress har; been dated
with pretty much accuracy to the 2nd century B.C. It must haw had
a pronounced tribal character, comisting of a stone and earthen vallum.
Burebista modified its nature, by turning it into a stone fortress functionally
integrated within the system gravitating around the 'Large Citadel' on
D ealul Grădiştii. It is at the time of Burebista that the walls raisetl in
the well-known technique were erected to ensure the fortress maximum
effectiveness and functionality.
The evidence of the materials exposed in thc course of excavations,
including silver adornments and hom;ehold utensils, suggest that it bad
been the residence of one of Burebista's oustanding warriors 6 39•
This îs how all the access routes leading to Dealul Grădiştii were
obstructed. Any advance from the north, up the Apa Oraşului valley
as the easiest route, was controlled by the powerful group made up of
two fortresses : one on the 'Cetăţuia' [The Citadel ] and tbe other at
8 37 C. Daicoviciu , Dacian Setllemenls, pp. 4 5 - 46.
6 38 :\1 . Macrea, Dacian Forlresses, p . 2 1 .
6 39 Oct. Floca, Dacian Forlresses, p p . 33ff.
1 82
Blidaru, to which severa} other fortifications were attached. A penetration
from the west had to come up against the fortification at Piatra Roşie
aud any attempt from the east was staved off by the fortresses at Căpîlna
aud Hulpe's Peak. The Băniţa fortress was designed to foil any enemy
attempt at overrunning the Large Citadel from the south by climbing
over the top of the southern Carpathians. One could have been tempted
to think that the high peaks to the south, almost impossible to surmount
by an army, offered enough security to a settlement almost leaning on
them. Yet, with his unparalleled foresight aud acumen, Burebista did
not let himself be fooled by appearances and so, fearing an enemy penetra
tion here, too, he had the Băniţa fortress built in stone. That he was right
was prowd by the events that took place one hundred and fifty years
after his death. It was through here that some of the Roman armies
worked their way up to Sarmizegetusa and overran the last and final
refuge of king Decebalus. We need no better illustration of the reason
having prompted Burebista to design and carry out this formidable
defence system where nature was called upon to fight alongside the men,
where the " 'mountains' were consolidated with walls" to quote the expres
sion of Dio Cassius 640 • It would be very difficult to say what enemy did
Burebista have exactly in roind when he first thought of having this
system built.
"·as he thinking of the Romans � With his clearsightedness Burebista
must haw fully realized that the Romans would find it difficult to tolerate
t he union of all the Daco- Getic tribes aud the rapid rise of the Daco
Getic state. So an imminent confrontation was sooner or later inevitable.
It was for this eventuality that the gigantic redoubt of the Orăştie Mts.
·was conceived and accomplished by Burebista.
The choice of Dealul Grădiştii as a site for refuge must have stemmed
from a number of outstanding reasons. One of these must have been the
fnd t hat it stood in approximately the core area of his realm. Another, tha t
the relief was very suitable indeed for such an undertaking, offering an
excellent defence itself. To these two major reasons must be added a third,
and possibly most important one, namely that here was the Daco- Getae's
religious centre, the mountain that symbolized the union of the whole
people. A great say in choosing the site must have had the high priest
D eceneus, the closest friend and adviser of the king.
The diggings carried out so far on Dealul Grădiştii brought to light
vestiges than can be grouped into three large categories, the significance of
which can easily be understood : a military ward (the Citadel), a sacred
ward, and a civic ward, consisting of dwellings, workshops etcetera.
Chronological specifications as to many of the monuments making up
the individual wards are not always easy to make. They are often impos
sible due to the absence of written sources. Most chronological problem:s
are raised by the military ward (the Citadel) in connection with which
severa! hypotheses have been put forward.
w·e shall have to take a closer look at the time when the large citadel
was built as the core of the whole system and to see first of all what
kind of eYidence can be adduced in support of its dating. We must admit
from the very beginning that no peremptory evidence has been found
so far and that the indications we possess are not convincing enough .
84 0 D io Cassius, Hist. Rom. , X X I I I , 4 ; X X I V, 5, and LXV I I , 9.
113
Bv. contra::;t with all the other Daco- Getic fortresses in the Orăstie
Mts. or elsewhere the Citadel on Dealul Grădiştii was not permane1�tl.v
inhabited, nor was it a princely residence. The excavations condnMl'U
inside the precincts with their five terraces brought to light few remain,,;,
either Dacian or Roman. Apart from some wooden barrach with a poor
inventory there is only one small structure of stone plastered with mortar
that belonged to the commander of the R oman troops garrisoned here
after the fall of Sarmizegetusa. Attracting the attention of treasure ,,;eekers
by its walls, the Roman construction has been steadily searched and
implicitly destroyed 641 .
Having said so much, the only conclusion i n sight is that the fortress
on Dealul Grădiştii served as a refuge 642 • It is, however, not tbe only
one as some of tbe smaller stone fortresses in southeastern Tnu1,,;vl\-ania,
like those at Jigodin and Zetea (Harghita county) seem to bas� been
assigned the sarne function. Such sanctuaries, or refuges, are not charac
teristic of tbe Daco- Getae alone. They do exist with other peoples as well.
According to Tacitus (A 11 nales, IV, 46, 5), the southern Tbracians had their
own sanctuaries built on mountain peaks. Large fortresses surrounded
by earthen vallums standing on heights and used as shelters in cases of
emergency are known to have existed with the Celtic tribe of the Belgae 643•
Caesar (V, 21, 3) describes such fortresses in Brittany. Many of the locali
ties in Gaul for which Caesar uses the term oppid'U-m are sanctuaries that
were used only when the need arose, without being permanently or in
tensely occupied.
For all its considera ble size, the interior of tbe Citadel of Dealul
Grădiştii can provide no clue as to the date when it came into exbtence.
'\Ye must try and see to what extent can the walls provide an answer
in tbis respect .
Some cbaracteristic features of the wall at Grădişte have already
been noticed by D. )I . Teodorescu. Bere, the blocks are a little smaller
and as far as it can be seen, timber is usecl to a lesser degree.
The ward has neither outer nor inner towers (the supposed existence
of a tower in the northwestern corner bas proved to be erroneous). Tbe
wall of the ward was hastilv · reb-nilt and consolidated witb new material
at a certain time. On both the western and eastern sides, either in the
soutbern or northern parts of tbe precinct one can notice severa} portions
of the wall rebuilt witb stone blocks brought over from other structure..,,
such as tbe complex of ruins B (the sacred ward). Thick andesite columni>
from sanctuaries, blocks of limestone conglomerate of peculiar shape
from the wall sheltering the terrace witb sanctuaries, stones of tbe same
material from tbe underground passage of tbe sacred ward, andesite pillars
from the same sanctuary as well as two nicely worked vault stones,
pieces of sanctuary t hresholds, pieces of andesite thresholds and door
frames with grooves originating from tbe complex of ruins B were inserted
into the wall of the ward, either to obstruct some existing openings or
to fill in the holes made into the fortress wall during tbe siege 644 •
Daicoviciu a n d col i . , in S C I V , 2 , 1, 1 9 5 1 , p. 106.

14 1 C .
u2 C. Daicoviciu, in Ist. Rom., 1, 1960, p. 278.
"' S . J . D e Laet, i n -4.rch. roz„ 23, 4, 1971 , p. 434.
Mt C Daicoviciu and coli . , in SCIV, II, 1, 1 9 5 1 , p. 102.
.
184
Obf<ervations cluring the full exposure of the walls lecl to very inte
resting eonclusions with regarcl to our i'mbject namel�· the dating of the
<'itallel of Grădiştea Muncelului. The first of these stems from the fact
that the blocks are a little smaller than those in other fortresses and
that the joints between paraments and emplecton by means of beamA
fixecl in the stone through swallow-tail shaped grooves are less frequent.
To thi;; must be added the faet that along- a sizeable seetion, south of
the west gate, the blocks of the two paraments are laid on the edge, alike
to the Greek walls, in the following manner : one, two or even three blocks
are laid with the larger side outwarcl, while the next block faces out.side
with the smaller side i.e., perpendicular to the wall. The block laid ou
its edge was obviomly meant to ensure the coupling of the wall facework
with its masonry. The swallow-tail shaped grooves are rarely seen in thiA
section of the ward . Only in a few cases do they pierce the facework
of the wall. B�· and large they are hidden. Ewn ·when such beam grooves,
vbible or hidded, can be traced, they are not continued on the other side,
whid1 mean:-; that the r-;ecurity of the wall relied on the long wooden purlinA
reaching the emplecton instead of on massive beams. It must be also
adcled that in the Ramt> southern area, between the west gate and the
c·nn·ature, a seetion of the inner wall has two paraments instead of one .
Thi,- seems to be accounted for, at first sight, by some recomtruction
w or k in the course of which a new parament wa:,; added. That this is
not "o and that we are in the presence of the initial phase when the
wall as such waR built ir-; demonstrated by the fact that the perpendicular
blo c ks of the first parament are fastened to the next parament, and that
only those of the inner parament run into the emplecton. The fastening
system by means of perpendicular blocks characterizes the outer parament
as well. Another characteristic feature of this section of the ward is the
l arge quantity of stone (local micashist) used in the small-sized emplecton.
These details are indicative of the intention to raise a powerful wall
likelr to resist any attack from the outside, without any chance whatever
of being broken into. This fact should not surprise anyone because this
is the most Yulnerable part of the fortress i.e., the one facing the access
route from the lower terrace where the slope is not particularly steep. The
thickness of the wall in this area is 3.25 metres, very much like the wall of
sector D of the Histria fortress 645• Leaving aside the section south of the
western gate, we must reiterate the remark, which holds for the whole of
the precinct at Grădişte, that the grooves for beams are pretty rare, and
that even when they do exist they have no replicas in the opposite para
ment. This is one more evidence that the facework of the wall was fas
tenetl to its core by wooden purlins and not b�· transYersal beams .
These are �mfficient reasons for us to assert that the ward at Gră ·
di�te<l Muncelului was built in the Greek style technique . E ,·idence
of this is the rnanner in which tke blocks of the two J>araments are laid
ancl <tlso the structure and junction with the emplecton which is realized
b�· m ea n:- of perpendicular blocks or with the h�lp of long wooden purlins
fitted into the swallow-tail shaped grooves. Such walls are widely known
thronghout the Greek world between the 4th and the lst centuries B.C.
Setting out from technical data to which historical data and archaeo
logical eonf<iderations wert> added, a typological and chronologieal chtssi-
ot5 C. Preda, A . Dolcescu, I n Histria, 2 , Bueharest , 1 966, p. 309.
i85
fication has been attempted on the basis of the walls at Eleusis, Sunion,
Aigosthenai, Eleutherai, Rhamnus, all da.ting from the 6th -4th centuries
B .O. In ancient times the blocks making up the walls were of about
the same size, displaying a strict observance of the straight line, both
horizontally and vertically 646• The aspect of the Greek walls will change
in the Hellenistic age, matching fully those at Histria and Grădi�tea.
Muncelului and obviously representing a system widely spread all over
t he Hellenistic world.
The striking resemblance between the walls at Histria, raised in
the lst century B.O., and those at Grădiştea Muncelului points to their
being contemporaneous, dating from the time of Burebista and entitle
us to assume that the complex of fortifications in the Orăştie )lts . was
built with skilled labourers, master masons and technicians brought
over from the Greek cities overwhelmed by Burebista. vYe could go even
further in assuming that this labour transfer came under the obligation
imposed upon the Greek city-states within the framework of the tributary
system. This might well account for the presence of a large number of
Greek masons at Grădistea Muncelului and also for the short time in
which the whole comple� \vas raised. The same compulsory labour must
have been enforced by Burebista on his Da,co- Getic subjects inhabiting
the vast territory of his rcalm under the tax system institutionalized by
the newly established body i.e . , the state. This \Vas how the huge amount
of human potential could be mobilized with a view to accomplishing
in such a short time the magnificent complex of fortifications unparalleled
at the time and still astounding the present-day visitor. The old tribal
t ype fortifications provided with earthen or stone vallums like those at
Costeşti, Băniţa and Oăpîlna were turned into strongholds endosed
by powerful walls built in the Hellenistic technique and subjected directly
t o the king. He was the one who appointed their commanders from
the ranks of his most devoted warriors. To the old fortresses new oneil
were added at Blidaru , Piatra Roşie and Dealul Grădiştii, not to speak
about the innumerable iwlated watch and defence towers scattered all
over the place across the appro-ximately 200 sq. kilometres encompassed
by the fortified area in the Orăştie Mts.
It will be convenient to stress one more fact, namely that the use
in fortifications of stone walls built in the Hellenistic technique betokens
a very advanced stage of evolution unquestionably superior to that reached
by the Oelts or the other peoples living outside the Greco-Roman \rnrld
referred to by the ancients under the generic name of 'barbarians�. 'Ve
have no reason to believe that the Daco- Getae had reached such a stage
of development before the time of Burebista : there is nothing whatever
to prove this. There are, however, countless testimonies containing refe
rences to various fields falling under the concepts of material , ;;piritual
and politica! culture which clearly indicate that in Burebista's t ime the
millenary economic, social and cultural evolution of the Daco- Getic
society had attained a level where it could acquire the Hellenistic technique
of fortificaticms all the more so as the setting up by Burebista of a ;;tate
covering a vast territory provided the human and material resources
necessary for a large-scalc use of this technique. It had bccome po,;„ible
not only to plan, but also to accomplish the impressive system revolving
around the large citadel on Dealul Grădi�tii.
646 J . Po11i11011x, La forteresse de Rhamnonle, Paris, 1 954.
1 36
The execution of the plan may have started with the construction
of the stone walls of the Costeşti fortress or even with the principal fortress
itself. In the absence of more or less certain indications any supposition
in this respect is a hazardous procedure. Since this is a unitary system
built in the same technique, time differences between the various for
tresses of the complex are of too little consequence to be distinguished
by archaeology, our sole way of documentation as it is.
Coming back to the problems raise<l by the citadel on Dealul Gră
di�tii it must be stated that the chronological order of the subsequent
restorations can only be detected with a sizeable amount of approxi
mation. What we do know for certain is that thev were made after
Burebista's time, hence our meagre interest in them � Suffice it to recall
that the idea was advanced that the fortress had been twice destroved
and twice rebuilt. The first destruction was attributed to the Dacians
in eon:,;equenee of the peace conditions imposed upon them by emperor
Trajan following the first war (101 - 102) . It was followed by a hasty
reeonstruction spanning the time between the two wars. The second
destruction was assigned to the Romans 'vho, after overwhelming the
fortress and subjecting the Daco- Getae, filled in the holes made by them
in the walb with materials taken out of the sacred ward 647•
"�e have already showu that one of the main reasons in choosing
the .;ite for this refuge fortress on Dealul Grădi�tii could well have been
the t>xistence there of a, powerful religious centre. Excavations brought
to light important stone buildings related, to all intents and purposes, to
religiou,.; observances. Of different shapes and size8, they are grouped ou
two large terraces (10 and 1 1 ) aud make up what we use to call the
t<acred ward. This is not the place to deal with them . Yet we must find
out whieh of the buildings of the sacred ward were already in existence
:tt the time of Burebista and which were built during bis long reign. "\Ye
have rea;;ons to believe that Burebista attached a considerable amount
of attention to the priesthood, judging by the key position held by Dece.neus,
the clo,.;e;;t adviser of the king whom the latter entrusted, according to
JorcLrne.;, with almost royal power. This attention may well have mater
ialiZl'd in such monuments as those making up the sacred ward. Their
dating i:-; a very difficult matter.
"\Ye can, nevertheless, distinguish between two categories of monu
ments : some built in limestone, others in andesite. The utilization of
difft'rent materials led to the conclusion that thev had been raisell in
i-evt:>ral stages 6 48 • Stratigraphic consideratioRs dat� the limestone struc
ture;; before the andesite ones. Thus, on the eleventh terrace, the widest
of those :mpporting the constructions of the sacred ward, there has beeu
diseovered a large edifice containing sixty limestone discs with a diametre
of 1 .30 metre8 each. On top of this sanctuary another one was built at
a later date. This latter sanctuary is supported by andesite pillars of
the :-;ame shape and size as those of the circular sanctuaries uncovered
on the same eleventh terrace. Finally, in the same place, on top of the
andt>site pillar sanctuary wooden barracks were subsequently ereeted
for the Roman garrison left behind to watch the area after the destruction
of f:l.annizegetusa 649•
m C. Daicoviciu and colt„ in SC! \', 5, 1 - 2 , 195-1, 1 50 and SCI V, 4, 1 - 2 , 1953, pp. 1 74ff
848 The two phases havc been noted also by D . :\I. Teodorescu, op. cit„ p. lOff.
u9 C. Daicoviciu , I . H. Crişan, in J/ateriflle , 5 , 1959 , p. 388 ; ibidem, in J/ateriale , 7,
1 9 6 1 , p p . :!02 - 305.
187
Thl' first sanctuary discovered on the elcvcnth terrace i.c., the
lowt'St ont', was certainly in use at the time of Burebista. Evidence
of thil'I is an e.r ?:oto featuring an imitation of a Roman denarius minted
in the year 80 B .C. The afore-mentioned ex vato is nothing else than a burnt
clay locket representing the head of a female viz, Diana, 011 a coin.
Allowing for the denarius issued in 80 B .C. the time needed to arriv� in
Dacia to sern as a model for the artist who reproduced it in clay, in a,n
understandably different size, we come right to Burebista's time. Here
is one indication that the sanctuary containing the locket was already
in existence at the time of Burebista. It may not be sufficient to fix the
date wben tbe respective monument had been built and eYen le:<,; the
period in which it was in use.
All the information obtainecl so far from the �mcred ward points
roughl�· to two stages in its construction : one at the time of Burehista.
and another (when the andesite was used ) during the second flouri;.;hing
period of the Dacian state, in the Ist century A.D. at the time of Duras
Diurpaneus and Decebalus, at the latest. We are inclined to believP that
the most impressive works belong to Burebi8ta's time when tbe mountain
was dug in and tbe eleventh terrace running into hundreds of metre:; ,
was built. Yet such terracing could offer no l'ltabilit�·. Thc flat platfonn
bewn in the rnountain was under the constant threat of landsliding l ikely
to be cauf:ed by the waters descending tempestuom;ly in the rainy sea:<ons
down the very abrupt slopes. Hence tbe need for raising walls to bold tbe
ground în place and prevent the artificially made terrace from sliding.
And such walls were duly erected. They were built. in the same technique
as thosp of tbe fortress. Given the great inclination of the slope, thl' wall
bad to be vertically raised, at a considerable beight, exceeding ten metres
at some points. Such a massive wall, measuring a thickness of 3.60 metre;;
with two skilfully built paraments made of limestone blocks, was found
on the southern side of the old sanctuan' on the eleventh terrace . This
is tertain eviclence that it was erected sirr�ultaneously with the re;;.pective
sanc tuary. The height. of this wall has not as yet been specified . In order
to get a better insight into the unusual monumentality of this wall here are
its dimensions again : width 3.60 metres, approximate heigbt 5 metres to
which must be added the fine workmanship conferring upon it something
of an artistic character, and this along no less than hm:idreds of metres.
In the area of tbe old sanctuary some smaller and narrower walls
join the larger wall to a perpendicular angle. Two of these enclosed the
ea stern ancl western sides of tbe sanctuary. Here again the walls coulcl not
be thoroughly traced down. The wall closing the eastern side bas been expo
sed down to a depth of eleven rows of blocks, without the mountain rock
being l'l'ached as yet.
The exact purpose of these gigantic walls îs still rather obscure. 'Ye
take tbe view that they were intended to support tbe terrace. The que:c-;tion
that arises is how long is the mammoth wall identified in tbe area of the
sixty-column old sanctuary. "\Ve bave again come across it one bundred
metres to the east in about the area of the large circular sanctuary. Here,
on a small platform under the eleventb terrace, tbe diggings carried out
în 1950 brought to light a watch tower designed to defend the sacred ward650.
Later diggings conducted in 1968 revealed that the tower in question is
not an isolated tower, but marks tbe angle of anotB.er wall of similar a,;pect
66° C. Daicoviciu and coli., in SCJ V, 2, J, 1952, pp. 291 - 292.
· 1 88
an<l size as those already discovered in thf' area of the old sixty-colmnn
sanetuary 651 • Here, too, the wall still preserves some five or six rowi\ of
blocks, running along a distance between five and ten metres on both
si<le;; of the tower. To these must be added at least the same number of
blocks in order to reach the level of the large circular sanctuary, nanwly
the walking level of the eleventh terrace.
The fact that the tower previously thought to be an isolate<l. tower
watch and defence tower is nothing else than an inner tower of a ma;;;;ive
wall consolidating its angle, entitle us to suppose that the wall did not
stop at the level of the higher terrace, but continued at least 1 2 metres -
upward. If this is so it can no longer be a mere support wall of the terrace,

but a genuine defence wall part of the huge inner wall of unprecedented
size in the whole of the Daco- Getic world. It must have been approximate
ly fifteen metres high and even the ruins still standing today cannot but
arouse the stupefaction of any observant visitor.
There is no need of any stretch of imagination to reconstitute the
monumentality and gigantic size of this wall that juts out unexpectedly
from the mountain at a very narrow angle, reaching at certain points a
height of approximately fifteen metres. And it must be added that the
sections of such heights are running into hundreds of metres.
It may seem plausible that the tower uncovered on the eastern :-;ide
of the terrace was an inner tower itself and that the wall exposed under the
eleventh terrace, after running into <• loop in the direction of the tower
of the tenth terrace, ·wail continued westward, joining the wall of the fort-
res;; (of the so-called military ward) .
'Ye should not forget yet another obsen-ation with regard to the
westernmost point where the respective wall bas been noticed. This i;; the
southwestern corner of the large sanctuary of earlier date. Herc the per
pendicular wall joins to a right angle the great wall which we suspected to
haxe been an inner wall, meaning that it is no longer continued in thi:-;
<lirection. Yet a stairway in limestone slabs, one metre wide each, ha,; been
um·overed running parallel to the perpendicular wall. The stairway ,.;eems
to have been covered. It descends the slope, but we could not trace it
along the whole of its trajectory 652 • There may have beeB. a gate in the
wall that the stairway was leading to, provided the wall continues . If so,
1 be point wbere it could IHeet the wall of tbe fortress is not far, but some
where near the eastern gate.
This would mean that the wbole of the sacred ward was enclosed by
walls and was part of the fortress itself. It will be convenient to recall
otber facts Sl:lpportiilg tbe belief tbat tbe sanctuaries were not extra, but
intrn mnros sanctuaries. Tbe northern sections of the inner walls are built
in a peculiar technique wbich is clearly evidenced in the portion starting
at tbe eastern gate and continuing up to the point wbere it turns to enclose
t.be ward to the nortb. Between this portion and the rest of the walls tbere
is a striking difference. The massive and expugnable wall is superseded by
a wall made of sinall-sized blocks witb no trace of binding between tbem
an<l. tbe emplecton whieh is, as a matter of fact, made of eartb. A wall
1mch as tbis, largely contrasting with the solidity of the other segments,
aroused tbe question as to bow could it cope "· ith an l'nemy attack at
tbis very point where tbe fortress was most vulnerable on account of the
en I . H. Crişan , S t . Fcrenczi, \". \"asilicY, in .Ualeriale, J O , 1 973, pp. 68 - ti!J .
es2 C . DaicoYic i n , I . H . Crişa n , i n .Ualerialc, 7 , 1 96 1 , p p . 302 - 305.
189
witle terr<lCes where the sanctuaries are to be found. The situation be
come8 clear and perfectly reasonable provided the segment under discus
sion was an inner wall. Our explanation would then hold, but whatever
our belief in its accuracy, it remains purely hypothetical until corroborated
by further diggings.
In connection with our assumption that the sacred ward was part
of the fortress we must add that the sanctuaries and the so-called military
ward are separated by the ninth terrace where excavation exposed large
g:ranaries. The amount of wheat stored in these granaries at about the
time of the second Dacian war was so large that the quantity having smoul
dered and calcinated is even todav the size of a hill. lt would be difficult
to imagine that the reserves of wheat so urgently needed in a siege were
left outside the walls at the discretion of the enemy. So it seems reasonably
enough to assume that the granaries were located inside the fortification.
The wall discovered (and partly traced) between the tenth terrace and
the one above it may have been intended not only to support the terrace,
but also to separate the sacred area from the one where the food reserves
were kept.
The sanctuary with limestone discs, known as the older sanctuary,
is not the only such monument built at the time of Burebista. Reasonably
enough, the space wrested from the mountain rock with so much toil and
with such colossal material and human effort was not to be left empty.
"�e have reasons to believe that most, if not all, of the sanctuaries later
built in andesite (a harder, more durable rock) were replicas of earlier ones
raised in limestone. The sixty-column limestone sanctuary lying on the
cleventh terrace îs replaced by another one, with the same number of discs,
this time in andesite aud a larger size. The new edifice is located on the
tenth terrace, the previous site of the limestone pillar sanctuary of similar
shape to fence in the new place of worship to be raiscd on the same :;; i te
where at the time of Burebista there had been erected the sanctlrnrv with
si:xt�- limestone discs. Both these circular sanctuaries, the larger and the
smaller one, may wcll have had thcir prototypes in Burebista's time 01·
even earlier.
In our view the citadel on Dealul Grădiştii wn,s much larger than
has been assumed so far, covering an area of about six hectares. lt consist.
ed of three sections : a refuge and defence area ; a section designed for
tke presen·ation of food reserves so badly needed in a siege, and a sacred
area. These three sections were separated by walls of different size and
built in different techniques from the principal defence wall which follow
ed the relief, making it impossible for the citadel to have a geometric
form. The sacred area communicated with the defence area by means of a
roacl paved with huge limestone slabs. Starting from the eastern gate,
this monumental road descends, leading into a small square covered with
similar limestone slabs.
There is still unclear how many gates did the citadel have. lts south
ern side seems to have had one gate which must be added to the other
two in the defence area.
In the eastern gate area among the vestiges discovered by treasure
seekers in the early 19th century we come across a number of pieces ori
ginating from the stone having framed some of thQ gates Perhaps these
.
frames of carved limestone once ornated the gate. lt seems very likely since
1 90
tbis was an inner gatt'. All tbese assumptions may bold provided our thesis
on the intra, mnros sanctuaries turns out to be true.
Having said so much there would be no point in furtber dwelling
upou the monumental nature of the citadel on Dealul Grădiştii. lf our
earlier compari::;on with the Egyptian pyramids seemed <tt one time too
hazardous, much of the doubt has <.:ertainly been dispelled.
'Ve have already pointed out that as far as we know there bas hee11
no other fortification at Grădişte previous to the one erected at the time
of Burebista. However, under the large circular sanctuary on the de
venth terrace, at a depth of 2 metres 'there is an earlier level containing
traces of coal fires, pieces of pottery and a row of rock stones laid down in a
(stra.ight) line. Enough to point to a sanctuary of an earlier date than the
one still standing' 653• How ol<l may this sanctuary be, what shape or size
it had, we cannot say. The great depth at which it has been disconred
should neither surprise nor be taken as a sign of a more distant past. In
order to enlarge the terrace a great amount of filling was needed which
accounts for the tbick layer deliberately 8et upon the older sanctuary. The
fact tbat for the edifice we are concerned with use has been made of onlv
local timber and 8t onc, entitle us to suppose that it can be assigned to �t
time previous to Burebista's. The religious edifice from under the larg·e
rotunda may have been, just like the others in its immediate vicinity,
of reduced dimensions. lt may also be that the great king had others, larger
ones, built on top of thl'm .
On the scores of fmnny terraces of the southern slope of Dealul Gră
diştii excavations brought to light traces of dwellings, workshops, kilns
for iron and bronze ore reduction etcetera. All these make up the so
called civic settlement and date from before the wars for the conque8t
of Dacia.
Diggings carried out up to thl' pre8ent failed to establish with aceu
rncy the beginnings of the civic 8ettlement on Dealul Grădiştii . There are ,
bowenr, indications that it is to the lst century A.D . that belong the
many workshops and dwellings making up the proto-urban settlement with
traces of urban systematization of l\Iediterranean type, containing technical
in.-tallations for the storage and decantation of drinking water which ran
tbrough terracotta pipes to the nearby terraces. There are also sigm of
earlier habitation, at least on some of the terraces, among which several
imitations of tetradrachms issued by the city of Thasos and also Roman
republican denarii dating from the lst century B . O . 654 .
An earlier habitation seems to have been detected on the fifth ter
iace near the western gate of the citadel. 'Ve cannot establish with accu
racy the d<tting of this settlements. The indications referred to above are
not sufficient to 8upport the view that a proto-urban settlement wa:-;
already in existence in Burebi::;ta's time at Grădiştea Muncelului. Such a
settlement is more likely to have come into being later on, during the lst
century A.D. in close connection with the citadel and the religious centre
tbere. lt is rather strange that Strabo mentions only the 'sacred moun
tain', making no reference whatsoever to Sarmizegetusa 655. Ptolemy,
however, (III, 8, 4) speak8 of Sarmizeget'ltsa and also confns upon it the
653 C. Daicoviciu and coli . , in SC/ V, :J , 1 952, p . 306.

65' Ibidem.
61W Strabo, Geo!Jr. , V I I , 3 , 5.
191
epithet of royal �ocpµt�:::ye6ouaoc To �ocalf..:::tov ( Sarmizegetusa Regia ia.
Lat in ) .
What w e do know for certain i s that the whole svstem o f fort ifi
cations with its massive size revolving around the large c itadel of Dealul
Grădiştii is the work of Burebista656• The whole system of fortificat ions was
intended to defend the Daco-Getae's religious centre, that ' sacred moua.
tain' (Cogaionom) referred to by Strabo, and to provide a last resort refuge
to Burebista, the ruler of a vast territory in this part of Europe. This magn i
ficent work, which matches similar achievements by peoples with older
cultures, could only be accomplished due to the existence of a centralized
state of tribal type. Only this ean account for the fact that a people hardly
having crossed the barrier of the primitive commune into a new and higher
politica! organization was capable of such achievements comparable, ia.
many respects, to those of other peoples with many centuries of state
organization behind them. The complex of fortifications in the Orăştie
Mf a . is the work o f the entire Daco- Getic people ruled b y Burebista, their
gre>at and gifted king.
Burebista had subjected all the fortresses and fortified settlements
from Bratislava to Poiana, but he actually owned only those which were
part of the carefully planned unitary defence system that centred on the
large citadel of Grădiştea Muncelului. The whole complex of fortifications
in the Orăştie Mts . was, in the last analysis the work of the entire Daco
Getic people, whereas the others, either fortresses or fortified settlements,
hatl been achieved by a certain individual tribe or possibly, tribal union.
In order to be able to accomplish a work of such great size and mas
siw beauty as the complex of Dealul Grădiştii, a certain stage of cultural
development was by all means necessary. The system of fortifications aud
mo,;t particularly the large citadel with all its monuments testify to the
remarkable level of Daco- Gl•tir culture at the time of Burebista .
8158 D . l\I. Teodorescu, ln ACMI T, 1930, p . 25 ; V. Pârvan, Getica , p . 4 1U .

157 Of C. Daicoyiciu's works we shall refer only to synopses in / sl. . ltom . , 1, pp. 27tff.
192
Chapter VIII
CULTURE
1. •llaterial cullure. 2. Ari and science. 3. Religion. 4. Characterislic

features of the Daco-Getic cullure.
The concept of culture has been given widely different acceptations. In

the vast majority of cases we understand by culture only the artistic and
scientific creation of a given society. The concept has - as rightly shown
by P. P. Panaitescu657 -a much more complex character, referring to all the
sphere,: of social life. Tlte concept of culture encompasses the totality of
values, both material and spiritual, created by a certain society as a result
of accumulations having taken place throughout its hif;tory. To define
<'ulture as the creative work of a collectivity, of a people, is the onl�- way
to thoroughly understand it against the background of historical devel
opment .
lu order to get a hettN insight into the Daco-Getic culture a t the
t iml' of Burebista , and what is equally important, in order to be able to
define it:< place and contribution to the whole of the European culture o f
the b t eentury B . C . , a careful examination o f its component elements i:-1
b�- all means necessary. One must, therefore, overview ever�·thing that
was created in the fields of material and spiritual culture in order to esta
blish the level of development of the Daco-Getic society at the t ime of
Bmebista, the level of civilization attained by the Daco- Getae. Present ·
da�· historians admit that the Greco-Roman civilization was not a singular
phenomenon in ancient Europe and that other original civilizations had
existed like those of the Celts, Germans, Daco-Getae, lberians a.o. whateve1·
the <lifferences with regard to their level.
The time of Burebista marks the beginning of that stage in the Daco ·
Getae's civilization currently referred to by researchers as the classical age
of Daco- Get.ic culture not only in terms of its climax, but also in relation
to the other European civilizations with which it integrates through it�
verv . essence. Of course we do not mean bv this that the Daco- Getic civi
liza tion reached the level of Greek or Roman classical civilizations with
·whieh it eannot be eompared .
1. � l a terial cul ture
The present work does not allow for an in-depth analysis of the Daco
Getic material culture in the Ist century B .C. Our main pnrpose is to try
857 P. P. Panaitescu, lnlroduclion to the History of Romanian C ullure (în Rom.), Bucharest,
1969, p . 1 1 .
13 c. 170I
-
· l9S
to define the level of development it ha,d reached, the extent to which it
corresponds to and integrates with the civilizations of those times, to
see how it resembles or differs from the civilization of other peoples living
outside the frontiers of the Roman Empire. One reliable indication in
this respect is provided by the tools of production. " The means of produc
t.ion , " writes K . :Marx , :'indicate not only the degree of development of
human labour, but also the social relationships under which work is car
ried on . " 658
\Ve have repeatedly emphasized that the spectacular development
experienced by the Daco- Getic society at the time of Burebista rested
on the widespread use of iron as fundamental and defining t.rait of the
La Tene type of civilization. Iron was, as stated by Fr. Engels " the rnost
important of all the raw materials having played a revolutionary lmrt
in history" 659 •
Recent researC'he8 have dernonstrated that the oldest iron imple
ments discovered on Romanian territory date from the Hallstatt A1 • One
of these is an iron axe with wrtical head-hole (celt) found in one of the
graves making up the necropolis at Lăpuş (Maramureş county ) and dated
to the 13th century B .C.6t0 . There are indications that ever since the begin
ning of the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt A) iron ore reduction and the
processing of the newly obtained metal had been carried out on the spot 661 •
During the next phase (HaJlstatt B ) we have certain evidence of iron
ore reduction and proce8sing. Such are the discoveries made at Cernatu
de Sus (Covasna county ) 6� 2 , Galiţa (Ostrov commune, Oonstanţ.a county ) 663
and Babadag (Tulcea county ) m .
Such an early appearance of iron metallurgy 665 raised the issue of
its origin and of the space over which it spread in Romania. The1·e i8 a vast
amount of literature on the subject but this is not the place to comment
upon it. It must be pointed out, however, that the hypothesis according
to which the northwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula had been ever
since the llth century B .O . , the seat of an important metallurgical centre
independent of the micro-Asian one has gained more and more ground .
This centre i8 thought to have played a key role in spreading the me of
iron and its technology to Italy, Central Europe, Dacia and further east,
contrary to what had been previously believed . Discoveries nrnde în
Greece and on the shore8 of the Aegean Sea are related with the same centre
in the northern part of thc Balkan peninsula 666 •
\Ve do not intend to trace the route of iron metallurgy in its evolution.
We must, however, dwell upon the period we �tre concerned with , namely
tbe J,a Tene period and most particularly the time of Burebista.
658 K. �larx , T/1e Capital (in Rom.), 1, 2 n d edition, Bucharest , 1949, p. 1 4 7.

659 P r . Engels, The Origin of /he Family, Privale Properly and /he State, p. 162.
66 0 C. Kacs6, i n Jtarmatia , 2, 1971, pp. 45- 4 7 .
66 1 F. Nistor, A . Vul pe , i n s c n · , 20, 2 , 1969 , p. 1 9 1 , Note 2 1 .
662 Z. Szekcly, i n Dacia, N . S . , 1 0 , 1966, p p . 209 - 2 1 1 .
663 Ş t . O l teanu , i n SCJ V, 22, 2 , 1 9 7 1 , pp. 295 - 296.
684 S. �lorinlz, i n Dacia, 8, 1964, p. 105 ; id. , in Peuce, 2, 197 1 , p . 20.
665 �I . R usu , i n voi. Jn Jlemoriam Constanlini Daicoviciu, Cluj, 1 974, pp. 349- 357 ;
A. Laszl6 , in SC! \·, 26, J, 1975, pp. 1 7 - 39.
6e& \V. K i mmig, i n S/udien sus A. lleuropa , 1, Ki:iln-Graz, 1 964 , pp. 2·1 1 - 24 4 .
.J 94
At Doboşeni (Covasna count�') there han been discovered two
kilns for the reduction of iron ore. They are circular, with a diametre of
hetween 8 0 and 90 centimetres. These kilns were dug into a slope, being
provided with a cla�· plaque in the shape of a semidisc with a central hole
through which a bellows-type tube was introduced to blow the fire.
Around the kilns and on their hearths large quantities of slag were also
diseovered 66 7 . The dating of the kilns for iron ore reduct ion at Doboşeni
{·oulll not be established with sufficient accuracy. The onl�- two available
fragments of Daco- Getic pottery (c o m i n g from the edge of some fruit
dislws) an• likely to belong to the 2nd century B.C. Yet the�- could well
h<' dated also to the Ist century B .C. given the fact that such vases span a
rather long lapse of time .
Suc·h kilns and other traces pointing to the processing of iron ore
by the Dacians in this part of Transylvania are quite numerous and can
be aecounted for b\' the abundance of this metal in the Ciuc basin. Iron
ore reduction kilns 0hav e ah;o bcen uneovered at Moacşa (Cova!'ma count�·),
Caşinul Kou (Harghita eounty ) and Bezid (Mureş count�·). Remains from
iron ore processing dating from the Daco- Getic r�a Teme have also been
discovered in othN parts of the Ciuc depression like Cozmeni, Măd�traş,
Pi'i.uleni-Ciuc and Tomeşti, all in Harghita eounty 66 8•
An important Daco-Getic site for the processing of iron ore was
uneoverecl in the mountaineous area of Mehedinţi, at Cireşu, a commune
twentv-seven kilometres northwest of Drobeta-Turnu Severin 669 . The
kilns for iron ore reduction diRcovered here are similar to the sloping ones
found at Doboşeni. Their ovoidal hearths, with the charncteristic central
hole, are bordered with a belt of fired clay or raw bricks which were part
of th<' kiln cap. Hcre, too, hcapR of slag and iron ore have been noted.
The diseoYerics also included a two-room dwelling in the immediate vici
nity of 01w of the kilns and oh\'iousl�- related to it . Pottery fragmcnts have
heen found scattered inside the dwelling and arouncl the kilns. Some
(•onw from eartht>n n•ssels of a jar t�·pe, a shape assigned b.'· UR to the
middle phas r of Daco- Getic pottery. The finds also contained fragments
of a g-rey wheel-worked vessel and possibl�· a section of a Dacian rushlight .
The typolog�· of this potter�- dated the whole complex to the carly middle
phase i.e., the 3rd C<'ntury B .C. The small number of finds are insu fficient
to help us into c hronologicall�' Rpecifications. The fragments of wheel
worked grey veRsels induces us into believing that this is the end of phase
II in the evolution of Daco- Getic pottery. The Dacian rushlight (if it
really i's a rushlight) points to much the same period. The process of crystal
lization of this sh�tpe of vesRel, eharacteristic of the Daco- Getae, will be
completed in the 2nd century B.C. 6 7 0• In spite of this ehronological uncer
tainty, we have no doubts as to the existence at Cireşu of a Dacian centre
specializing in the reduetion of iron, an ore in large supply in the respective
area . There are indiC'ationf\ that the proeessing of the metal was not done
on the spot.
667 Z. Szekely, in Materiale, ,) , 1959, pp. 23 1 - 233.

668 St. Ferenczi, Geologica/ Bases of Processing Ferross and lYon-ferrous Ores in the
Comple:r: of Dacian Fortresses în lire Orăştie :llts. with the entire bibl iography 011 lhe Ciuc
zone (:\IS).
669 E . Bujor, L. Hoşu, in Re11. Jiu:. , li, 4 , 1968, pp. 307 - 309 ; C. l\I. Tăt u lea, in
Drnbeta , 1974. pp. 1 2 9 - 1 39.
s10 I . H. Crişan, in Dobeta, 1976.
195
Another furnace for iron ore reduction was discovered at Braga<liru
(a suburban commune of the Bucharest municipality ) 6 71 • Here too, the
beartb is a sloping one and bas an oval shape. On and around tbe fumace,
slag, ashes and several iron lumps bave been found. The furnace was dated
to the 2nd century B.C., and the ore it used could be either local or brougbt
over from the sub-Carpatbian region.
Finds bespeaking iron ore reduction bave also been discovered at,
Teiu (Argeş county) and at Botoşani in Moldavia 6 7 2 •
To conclude, furnace kilns for tbe reduction of iron ore were already
in e:idfitence in Dacia during the 2nd and the Ist centuries B.C. Tbey can
be found botb inside and outside tbe arch of the Carpathians and are generally
]ocated in such areas rich in iron ore as Ciuc and Mehedinţi . As a rule,
most furnaces are sloping ones, consi8ting of a clay heartb with a central
bole needed for the reverberntion, on top of wbich the iron and coal were
alternately laid. To these were added limestone and lime a8 flux in order
to remove impurities by the lowering of the smelting point of the iron
mixture and to raise its fluiditv. The flux contributed to the inten;;ifica t ion
of the chemical reactiou inside t be kiln wherebv the iron was freed from both
imlphur and phospborm. The same procedur� is being used at tbe present
time �ts well, the load of the modern kiln consi8ting of nonferrous ore, fuel
(coke) and fluxes (limeRtOU(').
Speaking about iron ore 8melting with the Celts, J. Dechelette empba
sized that the ore was reduced in kilm dug in the slopes of the hill s . The
edge of these pits were bordered with refractory clay lined with stones.
Here w�u; placed the ore in layer8 alternating with fuel (charcoal ). An open
ing was practiced at the ba8e of the pit to make possible the draught of
air or the introduction of a primitive device designed to blow the fire 6 7 3 _
On the 8ame 8ubject of iron ore 8melting R . J. Forbes 674 shows tha,t
the simple8t type of kiln being used even today by primitive peoples con
sists of a pit lined with a clay layer to which sometimes stones are added.
Kilns for iron ore reduction are very rare with the Celts in tbe ea,rly
stagcs of the I„a, Tene period. They become more frequent during the
Late La Tene, being contemporaneous with the Dacian ones. They are of
similar shape and even size, m ade according to the same procedure . Sucb
kilns have been found in Bohemia, in the Rhine area, in B::waria and
i n France 675•
Kilns for iron ore redurtiou were used only in the firRt pbase of a,
long-drawn technological proce:;; s whereby oval or round iron lumps witb
concave upper ends aud convex lower ends were obtained. Each lmup bad
a triangular split practised on its top end before its complete cooling intend
ed to check the quality of the pig iron 80 obtained. The lumps were
sub8equently processed in iron mills where they were heated and bammered
671 :\I. Turcu , in voi. ln .Hemoriam Constanlini Daicoviciu, Cluj, 1974, pp. 38�• - 392.
672 N. :\laghiar, St. Olteanu, From the History of Mining in Romania (in Rom. ) , Ed.
�liin\ irică , Bucharest , 1 970, p. 43.
673 J . Dechel elle, .Uanuel d'Archeologie prehistorique , celtique el gallo-ronwine, II, 3,
Paris, 1914, p . 1 542.
m l n A llislory of Technology, 1, Oxford, 1958, p . 557.
&75 R. Pleier, StareevropsJ.:eJ.:ovarstvi, Prague, 1962, pp. 261 - 262. There is a rnst l i ter-
11ture on iron metallurgy ln Antiquity. See for example, M. Jahn, .fJie BelfJaf(nung der Germa
nen in der ăltesten Eisenzeil etwa von 700 v. Chr. bis 2()0 n. C/1r. , Wiirzburg, 1916 ; �. J. Friend,
Jron in Anliquily, London, 1926 ; P. Weiershausen , Vorgeschichtliche Eisenhiitten Deulsch
lands , Leipzig, 1939 ; O . Johannson, Geschichle des Eisens, 3 ml. , Dilsseldorf, 1953 ; H. R,
Schnbert, History of /he Brllish Jron and Steel lndus/ry (rom c. 4 5 0 B.C. to A . D. 1 7 75 , Lol'ldon.
1 957 .
1 96 r
wbile 8till hot 80 as to have their impurities, including the pieces of slags
atta('hed after reduction, removed. The same procedure was aimed at
redueing the numerous air bubbles and at ensuring a homogeneous structure
to the metal bars. These bars had the shape of a truncated pyramid from
whieh the quantity necessary for the manufacturing of various objects
was eut off. Such iron bars were sometimes used as a means of exchange.
Caesar (V, I2) relates that "the Britons use as money copper, gold coin8,
or iron bars of a certain weight".
Large quantities of iron bars have been discovered in the workshops
at Grădiştea :Muncelului. In one place alone thirty such lumps, weighing
some 9 11 kilograms each, have been found. The weight of the retrieved
-
Jumps is put at 887 kilograms. Adding the lost ones to this quantity we
reaeh something in tbe region of one ton of iron. For each lump some five
bundred kilograms of iron ore was needed. Consequently for the lumps
diseovered in a single place some fifty tons of iron ore must have been
usecl 6;6 •
In anotber worksbop (on the eightb terrace) at Grădiştea Muncelului
were found fifteen iron lumps of similar sbape and size677• Tbe buge amount
of iron ore used to make the lumps at Grădiştea leads us into believ
ing tbat the smelting ancl reduction were carried out elsewbere. One
sbould not rule out the possibility of tbis being done in a nearby area or
in the Poiana Ruscă Mts. exploitations wbere we know that iron ore was
being extracted inder tbe Roman 1ule 6 78 •
Traees of tbe secondary processing of iron ore are to be found in
aJmost all tbe large D aco- Getic settlements at tbe time of Burebista i".uch
as tbose at Cetăţeni 679, Poiana 6 80, Arpaşul de Sus, Sîncrăieni, Tilişca,
Rîşnov (iron slag cakes have been found in the last tbree) 6 81 , to name only
a few. Even thougb we do not know a.t present which kilns for iron ore
1eduction can accurately be dated to Burebista's time a.nd althougb tbe
worksbops at Grădiştea Muncelului are dated to tbe end of tbe Ist cen
tury A.D., we may still bold tbat during that time, too, iron ore was being
smelted in tbe Rame way as it bad been done one century before and would
be done later on as attested by tbe tbree large iron mills discovered in
1.be eivic settlement of Grădiştea Muncelului 6 8 2 • Evidence of tbis are tbe
numerous tools uncovered in Burebista's fortresses and in tbe dava dating
from bis time. Tbese finds do not differ, in terms of typology, from the
oBes of tbe late 2nd century B .C. or tbe Ist century A.D.
The exact dating of tools witb the Daco- Getae and with otber peoples
is a difficult task even wben a minutely typological classification is avail
able. Tbe reason lies in the difficulty of establishing witb accuracy tbe
different stages in t beir development. This becomes even more compli
cated wben we take into account sborter periods of time. Production imple
ments spanned a mucb longer lapse of time tban say, adornments wbich
are subject to rapid cbanges in accordance with the prevailing fasbion.
676I. Glodariu , in Act a Ml\", 12, 1 975, pp. 107 - 134.
877C. Daicoviciu and coli. , in SCJ l', 4 , 1 - 2 , 1953, p . 169, Fig. 19.
678 S t . Ferenczi, op. cil. , wi\h t h e older bibl iography.
879 FI. :'.\llrţ u , in Studii şi articole de istorie, 5, 1963, p. 2 1 .

eeo R . Yulpe, i n SCI V, 2,
1 , 1951, pp. 203 - 204.
881 FI. Costea, The Jlaterial Cu/ture of lhe Dacians in the Basin of the Transylvanian
Olt (La Ti:ne ) (in Rom.), doctoral thesis, p. 35 (l\IS), 12, with the entire bibliography.
682 C. Daicoviciu and col i . , in SCI V, 3, 1952 , pp. 297- 302 ; id . , in SCJ \·, 4, 1 - 2,
1953, pp. 1 62 - 1 7 3 ; I . Giodariu, in A cta.IUN, 12, 1975, pp. 107 - 1 35.
1 97
Hence their chronology can be more accurately ascertained. The above
specifications have been intended to emphasize the impossibility of a clear
cut distinction between the tools contemporaneous with Burebista's
reign, on the one hand and those characteristic of the Ist century A.D.,
on the other. Their overwhelming majority came to the fore during the
Ist centur�· B.C. and continued to be in use throughout the following
century. A radical change occurred with the instauration of the Roman rule
on the soii of Dacia .
Since agriculture had been the Daco-Getae's main pursuit for a
very long t ime, let us start with the implements used în agriculture.
The iron plough share had been used by the Dac o - Getae ever since
the end of the 2nd century B.C. In a study devoted to this subject 6 8 3,
we have shown that în ancient times the issue of agricultural implements,
especiall�· the plough and its evolution, held a prominent place în both
archaeological and ethnographic literature. In archaeological termi;; the
metal used for ploughs appears pretty late, namely at the end of the La
Time period 6 84 . From then onwards we can speak of metal fixtures being
fitted to the wooden plough. Specialists distinguished hetween two t�·pes
of plougfo;hare8 : a Celtic one (narrow, in the shape of a blade ) and a Roman
one (triangular, with the edges bent into a kind of muff). Both types are
ba,;; ed upon the Rame principie and are aimed at reinforcing the hottom
runner that previously turned the soil alone. Celtic settlements contain
both t �·pes, the narrow plough8hare prevailing în the southern parts oE
the Celtic space and the so-called Roman type, an equally narrow one,
on the north 6 85 .
In contrast with the Celtic- Roman plough, the Daco- Getic one îs
basically different . The Dacian ploughshare îs spoon-shaped. It looks like
a massive, flat bar with a tria ngular end very similar to a spoon with
a strong median nervure ending în a kind of hook whereby it îs fitted to
the runner. The hook îs fixed with the help of several iron muffs . The dif
fusion area of this type is restricted to the Thracian world.
The spoon-shaped ploughshare seems to have been taken over b�- the
Daco- Getae from the southern Thracians and it mav have been of Helle
nic origin 6 86 • We cannot Hpecify when did it penetrate the world of the
northern Thracians. AU we know is that it îs widel�- spread all over the
large Daco- Getic settlements north of the Danube, dating back to between
the 2nd and Ist centuries B.C.
Alongside the Thracians' ploughshare we alsa come across the Celtic
and Roman types. A Celtic ploughshare was found at Ichimeni (Botoşani
county) in Moldavia 6 8 7 • In the commune of Negri (Bacău county) there has
been unconred a very interesting deposit including 3I5 Celtic ploughsha
res, 22 bars in the shape of sword blades, and I6 minor items, weighing
i'ome 27;i kilograms 6 8 8 .
883 I . H . Crişa n , in SCJ \", 1 1 , 2, 1 960, pp. 285f
f.
884 J. Dcchelette, Manuel, I I , 3, p. 1 378.
685 A more recent typology of ploughshares is due to Gerhard Jacobi, Die Gerăle aus
dem keltischen Oppidum von Manching. Dissertation at Univ. �Iarburg/Lahn , 1968, pp. 76 - 79
(manuscript). The work is due to appear in the series Die Ausgrabungen in Manching, as the
firth volume.
886 M . C icikova, i n Apulum, 7, J , 1968, pp. 1 1 7 - 122.
687 V. Pârvan, Getica, p. 782, pi. XXXV I , Fig. 1 .
888 I . Antonescu, i n Carpica , 1 , 1968, pp. 1 89 - 19i ; �I. Babeş, i n Arc/1. ro:. , 22, 5,
.
1970, p . 608.
1 98
The swor<l-blade shaped iron bars are very well known in the Celtic
worl<l of the Ist centurv B.C. Their diffusion area covers the north of Swit
.
zerlancl and the :-;outh of Germany. Such items have been uncovered in
the l\fanching settlements and are similar in shape and size to the ones in
Moldavia 6 89 • The smaller iterrn; look very much like the chains whereby
the Celts attached their swords to their belts. The deposit can be dated
with the help of the Celtic ploughshares, but mainly of the bars (a charac
teristic shape in which iron was transported and transacted) and the·
sword ehains. Unfortunately none of these three categories of objects

could be dated with sufficient accuracy. The ploughshares, resembling
some nan·ow blades with turned up upper edges are frequent especially
in the Ist centur�· B.C. The iron ban; (ingots) may be looked upon as con
temporaneous. Hence the conclusion that the interesting deposit found
at Xegri can be dated back to the Ist century B.C. namely to the time of
Burebista when the Celtic merehants arriving from southern Gerrnany
or northern Switzerland were selling their wares in Dacia.
The triangular Roman ploughshares with their upper edges turned
up in a muff are found in larger numbers. We come across them not only
in the Roman times, but also in Dacian fortresses like that at Căpîlna,
where two :-;uch ploughshares have been discovered.
The:-;e are undeniable clues as to the iron ploughshare having been
used bv the Daco- Getae ever since the 2nd centurv B .C. at the latest .
Most of the uncovered ploughshares belong to an original pattern taken
over, in all probability, from the southern Thracians 690, the latter having
been inspired by the Greek civilization. In addition to this we come spora
<lically across the characteristic Celtic and Roman types. Some of the
foreign t�·pes were produced in local workshops, others were imported.
The deposit of iron ploughshares uncovered in Moldavia comes in support
of the assurnption that the ploughshares of Celtic type were imported
without thereby being adopted by the Daco- Getae.
As far as the Dacian ploughshares are concerned it must be adde<l
that they continued to be used in Roman Dacia, testifying once again t o
the permanence of the autochthonous population in the north-Danubian
province .
The use o f iron i n manufacturing agricultural implements was not
restricted to the plough runner and share alone. The same metal was
resorted to for many other farming tools like : scythes, sickles, hoes, prun
ing knives for vineyards, etcetera.
The number of scythes with iron blade and of iron coulters discover
e<l almost in all the major Daco- Getic settlements is quite considerable .
Their rather long (0.25 - 0.60 m ) and curved iron blade was fitted to
the equally curved wooden haft by means of rivets. Sometimes the blade
ended into a pointed tip resembling a hook and was used for the same
purpose.
There are no special stY.dies in the literature devoted to the whole
range of agricultural implements, except for the ploughshare. It must
be remembered that none of the tools used in various trades has been
dealt with in a special monograph. Yet such a work would be of great
interest and would fill a seriom; gap in our documentation with regard to
689 G. Jacobi, op. cil„ p. �2 . plate V I .
69 0
We know o f twelve localities with such discoveries (SC/ V, 1 1 , 2 , 1960, p p . 292 -
294) to which must he added those discovered later on. See I. Giodariu and �I. Cîmpeanu,
ln SC/ V, 17, 1966, p. 19ff ; I . Giodariu , i n Acta Ml\', 4, 1967, pp. 470 - 472 .
199
the material culture of the Daco-Getae. In the absence of such a work
we have to do without typological details likely to entail chronological
specificatiorn; about the scythes or the other implement:;; .
Apart from the handle, scythes can also be classified according to
the width of the blade (which varies between three and eight-ten centi ·
metres ) and its shape (which can be straight or curved).
Scythes coming in such shapes have been discovered in the areaR
inhabited by the Celts. It should, however, be n oted that scythes are
more frequent in the eastern and central parts of the Celtic world being
Tather scarce in the west. On French teITitory, for inRtance :;; c ythes are
extremely sparse 691 • Their diffusion might constitute a clue as to the origin
of the iron sc�·the. Since the same applies to the sickle, we intend to tackle
them together.
The Celtic world provides, in terms of analogy, several examp le R
Exca;vations carried out at Stradonice revealed scvthes with narrow or
broad, curved or straight blades 692• Scythes have been discovered in the
large Celtic settlement at La Tene 693 • Some fragments have been found
in the large oppidum at Manching 694• Scythes very similar to the Daco
Getic ones have been very frequently discovered amongst the Celtic findR
on the territory of what is now Hungary an<l in the immediate vicinity
at Szalacska 695, Kaposmero and Halimba 696, l\Iunkacevo 697 and Velem
Szent Vid 69 8 •
Plin�· the Elder (Nat. h?"st ., XVIII, 67, 10, 3 ) telh; of a short Italic
scythe and a long Gaulish one. Dacian scythes belong to the latter cate
gory. The queRtion is whether the Daco- Getae took this tool over from the
Celts or the other way roun<l, that iR, did it originate in the Daco- Getic
world wherefrom tit penetrated the Celtic world � The latter alternative
ma�· \Vell be supported by the frequent occurrence of scythes particularly
in Tr,rnsyh"ania and their thinning out as we head westward.
The same hold:-; for the sickles. Their frequency in bronze deposits
ditting from the end of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age is quite
astounding. The�· are present all over the area inhabited by the Daco
Get<tc but most particularly in Transylnrnia. The discovery of moulds in
large quantities evidences their local provenance. The great number o f
sickle8 discovered across Transylvanian spa,ce compelled J. Dechelette to
adva,nce the idea that the sickle as such is a north-Thracian invention
originating inside the Carpathian arch 699• Sickles were also made of iron
as far back as the Hallstatt B. Evidence of this is the sickle discovered at
Babadag in Dobruja 7 0 0 .
At the beginning of the first period of the Iron Age ( Hallstatt A1) ,
sickles are at their most totalling some 2,734 specimens. None of these
691 G . .Jacob!, op. cit . , p. 83.
692 J . L. Pic, op. cil. , plate X X XV I I .
G9 a P. Vouga, L a Ten e , plates 2 4 , 5 ; plate 25, 2 - 3 .
m G. .Jacob!, op. cit. , pi. 28, 4 9 4 - 495 ; pi. 64, 1095 - 1 106.
696 Ah', 1 9 1 2 , Fig. 1 57 , 1 - 4 ; AE, 1906, p. 422, Fig. 1 8 .
691 Folia Archrologica, ·13, 1 9 6 1 , p i . 1 7 , 7 - 9 .
e 81 AE, 1 91 1 , p. 203, Fig. 2, 4 - 5.
698 K . v. Miske, Velem St. Vid, 1, 1968, pi. 47, 1 4 .
• H J . Dechelette, op. cit . , J I , 1 , p . 1 7 ; cf. a n d V. Pârvan, Getica , p . 294 ; M . Rusu,
Bron:e lllelallurgy in Transylvania during Hallstall (in Rom.), doctoral thesis (manuscript),
record ed 284 sickles for Bronze D and Hatlstatt A 1 - B3 , 3 .
100 S. '.\lorintz, ln DaciQ, 8 , 1964, p. 105.
200
will be found hy the midclle of the Halbtatt, the hiatus lasting until the
middle of La Tene ( La Tene C . ) The phenomenon îs not specific to the
Daeo- Getic space alone, but. characterizes the whole of Europe being ac
counted for, in all probability, by � L come-back to the use of the wooden sickle.
The latter had a <"urved iron blade which has often been archaeologically
taken for a knife i 01 • It is a well-known fact that the sickle was again in
wide„preacl use towards the end of the La Tene period when, jmt like the
scythe, it was much more frequent in the Daco- Getic space and less so
as we go westward. The fact that no specimen was found 'at Manching
speaks for itsel f 7 02 •
The diffusion of both the scYthe and the sickle could well be inter
preted as the Daco-Getae's preeniinence over the Celts in terms of agri
cultural implements. Given the antecedents going as far back as the Bronze
Age, we find it plam;ible that priority in agriculture was held by the Daco
Getae from whom at least part of the agricultural tools were taken over by
tbe Celts .
I n support of the afore-mentioned priority come also the literary
texts in which the Thraciam (hence the Daco- Getae as well) are referred to
as large grain producers i oa . The naITative history of Arrianus (Anab.,
I, 4, 1) with regard to the expedition of Alexander the Great north of the
Danube is quite significant in this connection. The Getae's rich fields of
wheat provided good shelter to the Macedonian armies which secured their
advance by bending them down with their spears. Let it be remembered
tbat Athens foun<l the wheat it needed în Thrace 7 04•
:Manv of the Dacian settlements revealed numerous iron blades with
a curved point which can well be assigned the role of agricultmal imple
ments used mainl�' in vinegrowing. Such tools are very well known in
contemporaneous Celtic settlements. In the large oppidum at Manching,
for instance, eleven such tools have been discovered 7 05• They are also
reported in large numbers amongst finds in Czechoslovakia ( Stradonice
and Stare Hradrnko), Germany (Cologne, Stensburg, Korner, Amone
burg, Altenburg) , Switzerland (La Tene) and France (Fort HaITouard
department Eure-et-I„oir, Rochefort near Grenoble) to name only a
few examples 7 06 •
To these must be added the hoe aud the mattock which can hardly
be distinguished from the ones being used nowadays. \Ye will refer only
to some of those discovered at Grădiştea :Muncelului as well as în other
Da.c ian settlements in Transyh-ania . The numerom; finds on the eighth
terrace at Grădiştea :Muncelului also include an iron hoe in a shape
and size very similar to those used in farming today 7 0 7• Another such hoe
is contained among the implement� discovered in the D acian settlements
at Căpîlna 7 0 8 and Piatra CraiYii i o9 ,
101 �I. Rusu , o p . cil. , p . 356.
102 G. Jacobi , op. cil. , p. 84.
7 0 3 G . I . Kazarov, Beilrăge :ur J\.ulturgescllicllle der Tliraker, Sarajevo, 1916, pp. 36ff. ;
i d . , Thrace , în Cambridge A.ncient Hislory, \' I I I , pp. 54 1 ff.
7 04 :\I. Rostovtseff, The Social and Economic llistory of Ilie llellenistic World, Oxford,
1 9 4 1 , pp. l l lff.
105 G. Jacobi, op. cil . , p. 85.
706 Ibidem, pp. 85 - 86.

7 07 C. Daicoviciu and coli . , în scn·, 3 , 1 952, pp. 297ff. ; H . Daicoviciu , The Jllyrians
arul /he Dacians. Exhibition ca/alogue, Cluj-Bucharest, 1972, p. 1 65 (0 103), pi. XXVI I I .
7 08 1\1. l\lacrea, Dacian Fortresses, p i . 1 6 , Fi g . 3 .
7 09 I . Berci u , A l . Popa and H . Daicoviciu, i n Cellicum, 12, p. 134, Fig. 2 .
201
Being no different from the ones med today în agriculture, and espe
cia,lly in vinegrowing, îs the mattock uncovered on the eighth terrace at
Grădiştea Muncelului 7 1 0 m; well as similar specimens found in 1971 711
to which must be added 8everal others discovered at Piatra Craivii 71 2 •
N either the hoe nor the mattock have any correspondent, however
distant, among Celtic finds, a fact emphasizing the Daco- Getic preponde
rance over the Celts în matter of farming. The same holds true for the
iron rakes with six teeth discovered in the eighth terrace deposit at Gră
diştea Muncelului (four specimens) 71 3 and those found in senrnl other
workshops 71 4 •
A kind of narrow axe with a large-Rize vertical headhole is thought
to have been trned in certain agricultur,tl lab:mrs. Such implements, look
ing like Rmall mattocks, when having a handle attached, are known from
the Dara- Getic settlements and the whole of the Celtic world, being widely
spreacl over the territory of modern Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia,
Switzerland and Fr,rnce 715• Another farming tool made of iron with a
large vertical headhole and a curved and sharp point was abo found.
Such tools, of which one was discovercd in the Dacian settlement at Căpîl
na, 716 are Rupposed to be hand operated ploughs (man powered). They
are lmown în the Celtic world aR well, but not in large numbers 717•
Grinding-mills are closely related to agricultural production, too.
They are prett:v numerous in the Daco-Getic settlements at Piatra Roşie 71 8 1
Costeşti, Grădiştea Muncelului 7 19, Tilişca , Poiana 72 0 and Popeşti 7 2 1•
The grinding-mill found in the Daco- Getic settlements along with
the primitive type Î8 of Greco-Roman provenance.
In contrast with the Greco-Roman ones, the grinding-mills of Celtic
type are much simpler. They come in the form of an elongated truncated
cone and are provided with a wooden axis fitted with an iron nail 722 •
The Greco-Roman grinding-mill, which is more efficient, also penetrated
the Celtic world 72'1 wherea8 the Daco-Getae from the very beginning adopt
ed the more efficient type of grinding-mill, namely the Greco-Roman one
Let us also recall the large number of tools used în the processing
of metals, particularly iron, where an important place îs held by the ham
mer. Hammers come în various forms and sizes, presenting analogies
with the Celtic world where they had been taken from, în all probability,
by the Daco- Getae. \Vorth mentioning iR first and foremost the 8ledge
or forge-hammer (Schmiedehammer). Sucb a specimen was found in the
7 1 ° C. Daicoviciu and coli„ op. cil . , Fig. 2 1 ; H. Daicoviciu , The Illyrians and Ilie Dacians,
p. 165, D 04 , pi. XXV I I I .
1
7a I. G!odariu, o p . cil . , Fig. 1 2 , 1 - 3 , 5 - 6.
7u I. Berciu, Al. Popa and H. Daicoviciu, op. cil. , Fig. 2 .
71 3 C. Daicoviciu and col i . , op. cil. , Fig. 20 ; H . Daicoviciu , op. cit. , p . 164, D101 ,
pi. X XV I I I.
714 I. G!odariu , op. cil. , Fig. 1 2 , 8 - 9.
m G. Jacobi, op. cil. , pp. 88 - 92 .
7 18 M . Macrea, op. cit. , p. 1 6 , Fig. 3 (right above).
1 1 7 G. Jacobi, op. cil . , p. 93.
7 18 C. Daicoviciu, The Dacian Fortress al Piatra Roşie, Bucharest, 1 95-1, pp. 80 - 8 1 ,
p i . X I I I, 1 2 - 13.
7 1 9 The grinding-mills of Costeşti and Grădiştea Muncelului are inedited and are being
kept at the l\Iuseum of Transylvanian History în Cluj -Napoca.
7 2 0 R. Vulpe, în Dacia, N . S . , 1, 1957, p. 1 48 , Fig. 4.
721 Id . , în SCH', 6 , 1 - 2, 1 955, p. 2-18.
7 22 .J . Dcchelette, op. cil. , I I , 3, pp. 1 386 - 1 390.
723 .J. I'ilip, Heltove, pi. LXVI/17.
202 •
eighth terrace de}JOl'iit at Grădi�tea Munceluhti 724 • lt is '" large heavy tool
(0.24 m long) with broad head-ends set crosswise on the handle with the
help of a central hole. The inventory of the deposit uncovered in 1971
contairn; sledge-hammers of various sizes 7 2 5 • Sledge-hammers of similar
8bape have been found in tbe fortresses at Tilişca 726 and Piatra Craivii 7 2 7 •
Such sledge-hammeri'i are wellknown and widely spread in the Celtic
world and in almo8t all the large Celtic Oppida of Europe. They were some
times put in blacksmiths' grave8 7 28 • Iron 8ledge-hammers are also met
with in the Greco-Roman world i 29 . Their typology is not easy to be work
ed out giwn the fact that the 8hape of the implement is conditional on
ib very use. The shape as such remained unchanged not only in ancient
times, but also l.�ter on almost down to these days. Existing differences
could only be evidenced hy in-depth and careful metallographic amilyses.
In much the i'iame form, but reduced size, come the hammers used
in the manufacture of smaller metal pieces such as rivets (Niethammer)
or embossed ornaments ( Treibhammer ) . A hammer discovered in the for
tress at Căpîlna (Alba county) belongs to this category 73 0 • Hammers with
masi'iive rectangular or rounded beads and with the headhole immediately
under the head (S etzhammer) have also been found in large num bers.
Such a specimen was discovered at Grădi:;;tea Muncelului 7 31 • Hammers
generally appear during the earlier period of the lron Age (Hallstatt ) and
will continue to be in use throughout the La Tene period. With the specia
Jization of trades, they will become more diver8ified along with all the
other implements.
Tongs used in metal working are found in large numbern all over
the space inhabited by the Daco-Getae. They come in different sizes,
ranging from 20-25 centimetres to approximately one metre. Judging by
tbeir mouth, they fall under three categories : flat, pointed and blunt.
Tbe first category includes specimens found in the eighth terrace deposit
at Grădiştea Muncelului. Their flat mouth Jooks very much like a shovel,
being about 0.7 metre wide. The same deposit holds even bigger tongs
of the other two categories in addition to the ones discovered in the inven
tory of the workshop exposed in 1971 7 3 2• Similar tongs have been unco
vered, besides Grădi�tea )luncelului, at Căpîlna 7 3 3 and Cetăţeni (Argeş
county ) 7 34 • All the categories referred to above have their analogies in
all the large Celtic settlements, both east and west, going as far as the
British fales, Czecho8lovakia and Hungary 7=>5•
724 C . Daicoviciu a n d coli . , in scn·, 3, 1952, p. 301, Fig. 22 ; H. Daicoviciu, op. cil .•
p. 166, D 108 , pi. X XV I I I .

12s I . G!odariu, op. cil . , Fig. 6 , 7 and 8 , 1 - 2 , 5 - 6.
7 26 H. Daicoviciu , op. cil . , D 108 , pi. XXV I I I .

1 21 I . Berciu , i n Dacian Forlresses, p . 49, Fig. 23.
12& G . Iacobi, op. cil . , pp. 7 - 9, pi. I , 1 - 3, with a comprehensive bibliography men
lioning the vast majority of lhe sledge hammers discovered in western , central a n d eastern
Europe .
1 29 Cf. I . G!odariu, op. cil . , p . 1 1 8 w i l h bibliography.
73 0 :\!. � !acrea, op. cil. , p. 1 6, Fig. 3.

731 I. G!odariu , op. cil . , Fig. 8 , 3 .
1 3 2 C . Daicoviciu a n d coli. , op. cil. , p. 301 , Fig. 1 9 a n d 23 ; H . Daicoviciu, op. cit.
,
p. 1 65, D 106, D 1 , XXVI I I ; I. G!odariu, op. cil . , Fig. 9.
7 3 3 :\!. Jlacrea, op. cil. , p . 1 6 , Fig. 13.
1a1 Dinu V . Rosetti, in SC1 '', 1 1 , 2 , 1 960, p. 392, Figs 3, 4.
735 G . Jacobi, op. cil. , pp. 1 1 - 1 3 , pi. 2 - 3 wilh a comprehensive bibliography.
203
The close analogies between Daco-Getic and Celtic tongs led us
into believing that the Daco- Getae took them owr from the Celts who
in their turn borrowed them, together with the sledge-hammer and other
metal working implements from the Etruscans and the Greeks. What we
know for certain is that the diffusion of such implements across vast
territories of Europe, beyond the frontiers of the Greco-Roman world,
is due to the Celts 736 • The latter's skill in metal working is repeatedly relat
etl by ancient authors. Speaking about the Iberian Celts, Diodorus
( Bib. ist., V, 33) tells us that " the�- produce excellent swords, the thrusts
of which are resis ted by neither shield nor helmet or bone".
Iron anvils in various forms and sizes are also present in the Daco
Getic settlements. The most common ones come in the form of a massive
truncated pyramid. The specimens discovered in the Pecica work;;hop
are 0 . 1 4 - O.L) m high and weigh between 7 .65 and 6.85 kilo;;737• Of sim i
lar shape are those uncovered a t Grădiştea Muncelului 738 , Tilişca 739,
Piatra Craivii 74 0 and Porolissum (Moigrad ) 741 • Similar types of anv il have
been found in Celtic workshops like that of Szalacska on Hungarian ter
r itory 74 2•
Besides these large and massive am·ils, the Daco- Getic settlements
also revealed sm<tller specimens generaJly used for the manufacture o f
tiny items especially ornaments . These come i n the shape o f a flat-headed
nail and were fitted to a tree stump. This type of anvil was found at Piatra
Roşie 743 and Grădiştea Muncelului 744 • The anvil discovered at Piatra
Roşie has a flat eight-shaped head resembling the anvil of the Manching
Celtic settlement 745• Another small-sized anvil which, unlike the one at
Piatra Roşie, has both ends of the upper part very pointed, was uncovered
at Cetăţeni 746 •
Metal working also required files and chisels in large number:S. These
come in different forms and sizes according to the object to be made.
Chisels have, as a rule, a wooden handle with the exception of tho:Se used
in the manufacture of ornaments which are usuallv made of bronze. In
most cases the shape of both files and chi::;els i::; id�ntical or very similar
to that in current use today which points to their ancient origin. Such
tools have also been discovered in the eighth terrace deposit at Grădiştea
Muncelului 747, in the inventory of the workshop found in 1971 748 and at
Piatra Roşie 749, to name only a few examples. 'Yorthy of mention are also
a number of eight smaller chi::;els uncovered in the Pecica work::;hop 75 0 •
Both files and chisels have their close analogies in the Celtic world 751 •
738 Cf. for instance, R. Pleiner, op. cit . , p. 262.
737 I. H. Crişan, in Acta MN, 6, 1 969, p. 100, pi. I I , 6 and pi. IV, pp. 7 - 8.
7 3 8 H. Daicoviciu, op. cil . , p. 166, D 109 .
739 ]';'. Lupu, op. cil . , p. 38, Fig. 1 6 .
ao I .
Berciu, op. cit. , p. 4 9 , Fig. 23.
74 1 M . Macrea, M . Rusu, in Dacia, N. S. , -'· 1 960, p. 215, Fig. 1 3/27.
m Darnay K . , in A E , 26, 1906, p. 424, Fig. 1 7 .
7u C. Daicoviciu, The Dacian Fortress al Piatra Roşie , p. 78, pi. X I I , 1 .
7 U I . Glodariu, op. cit. , Fig. 1 0 , 2 .
745 G . Jacobi, op. cit. , p . 1 6 , pi. 5 , 46.
748 Dinu V. Rosetti, op. cil. , p . 394, Fig. 3/:l.
747 C . Daicoviciu and coli. . in SCJ V, 3 , 1 952, Fig. 20 aud Fig. 2 4 .
748 I . Glodariu , op. cit. , Fig. 7 , 3 - 4 , 1 0 , 8 - 9 .
749 C. Daicoviciu, The Dacian Forlress al Piatra Roşie, p. 7 8 , p i . V I I , 1 0 - 1 1 ; pi. I C , 1 4.
75 0 I. H. Crişan . in Acta MN, 6, 1 969, p. 96, pi. V, V I .
751 Analogies with G . Jacobi, op. cil. , pp. 1 7 - 24 .
204
Tlwy come into existence with the appearance of metallurgy. Towards the
end of the La Tene period they became more diversified and specialized into
different types which have, for the most part, been in use down to these dayH.
Of the various tools being used in metal working we must recall the
borers. A specimen with a rectangular end was contained in the eighth
terrace deposit at Grădiştea Muncelului 752• It has its analogies in all the
large Celtic settlements of La Tene 753, Stradonice 754 and Stare Hradi�koil>5 .
Another implement used in wire drawing was discovered at Grădiştea
Muncelului 756 •
Of particular interest are the moulds in which the raw material,
nanwly the molten metal was poured and shaped by casting. Iron casting
in bars originates in the East (at Ninive they date from the 8th century
B . C . ) wherefrom they spread to Europe. The most frequent ones in the
Celtic world are the ingot bars coming in bipyramidal shape memmring
between 3.'i - 40 centimetres 757• Such bars are also contained in the
inventory of the Grădiştea Muncelului deposit m, representing a possible
llroof of the relationships with the Celtic metal-working workshops.
The rl'pertory of implements used in wood working is equall�- rich,
excel'cling the one of metal-working tools in terms of quantity. This is
accounted for by the fact that timber, as raw material, could be found
in great abundance throughout the Daco- Getic space. Naturally enough,
a xes and hatchets outnumber the rest, falling under two large categories,
according to the way in which the head was fixed to the handle. Some of
these tools have a vertical headhole, others a perpendicular one very much
like toda�·. Both hatchets and axes come in various sizes ranging between
8 - 9 and 17 - 20 centimetres and even more.
Of the axes and hatchets discovered so far in the Daco- Getic
settlements we think it worthy of mention those at Grădiştea Muncelu
lui 759, Piatra Roşie 70 0, Popeşti i61, Poiana 7 6 2, Tilişcai63, Piatra Craivii 764
and Sighişoara 765• Such implements are to be found in all the Daco- Gt:>tic
:-ettlements that have been studied until the present.
Daco- Getic axes and hatchets have their analogies and even identi
t ies throughout the Celtic space mainly in the large settlements (opp·ida )
of Europe. Due to their simple form these are common tools contempo
mneous with the emergence of iron metallurgy. Later on, during Hallstatt
C, they would become more numerous and their number keeps on rising
as we come nearer our time.
It i;; difficult to tell whether the hatchet and axe of the Daco-Getic
:-ettlements have been taken over from the Celtic world. They could be
752 C. Daicoviciu and coli., op. cil. , Fig. 20.
753 P. Vouga, La Tene , 1923, pi. 45, 1 2 .
751 J . L. Pic, Hradilte u Stradonice, pi. 23, 1 - 3 .
755 J . '.\cleduna , Stare Hradilko, Brno, 1 9 6 1 , pi. 2 3 , 1 - 3 .
766 I . G!odariu, op. cil. , F i g . 1 0 , 4 . For t h l s instrument s e e \'. P. R ump, Beitrag zur
Geschichte des Drahlzieheisens, în Stahl und Eisen, 88, 1968, Heft 2 , pp. 5 3 - 57.
m G . Jacobi, op. cit . , pp. 34 - 36 .
7ss I n the exhibltlon o f t h e Museum o f Transylvanian History in Ciuj-�apoca (inediled).
758 c . Daicoviciu and coli. , in SCIV, 3 , 1952, p . 300, Figs 1 6 and 2 1 .
1eo C . Daicoviciu , The Dacian Fortress a l Piatra Roşie, pi. \' I I ,
6 - 7, 1 1 - 12.
761 R. Vulpe, Gelic Selllements, Fig. 1 16 .
1e2 R . a n d E. Vulpe, in Dacia, 3 - 4 , 1927 - 1932, Fig. 1 1 6 .
763 ::-.; . Lupu, Dacian Fortresses, p . 3 8 , F i g . 1 6 .
7 H I . Berciu, in the same volume, p. 4 9 , Fig. 2 3 .
76 5 K . Horedl, C . Seraphln, Die priihistorische --\.nsiedlung au{ dem Wielenberg bei S iglii
şoara -Schiissburg, Bonn, 1 9 7 1 , Fig. 6 7 .
205
easily inspired by autochthonous prototypes whose local anteeedents go
baek to the later period of the Bronze Age.
Besides hatchets and axes there are other wood-working tools p1in
cipally used for rough-shaping wood such as the adze. The shape îs wry
similar to that of the hatchet, the only difference being their arched blade
which is sharpened on tbe concave side. A deposit containing this type
of tool was discovered near Dealul Grădiştei at Valea Largă. The cleposit
included seven such adzes and one wood-carving chisel 766• Many adzes
bave been found în the eighth terrace deposit at Grădiştea Muncelului i 6 7
and also în the deposit discovered în 1971 76 8 • To these must be adcled the
one found at ' Strîmbu' m, în t he irnmediate vicinity of Dealul Grădi�tii .
In ancient times just like today wood-cutting required the saw in
addition to axes and hatchets. The Daco- Getic saw can be classified în
two categories : saws w itb a narrow blade or plate and a wooden frame
almost identica! with the present ones 77 0, and saws with a broad blade or
plate coming in sizes sim ilar to that of the current sawmill 771 .
Saws with both narrow and broad plates are very well known în
tbe Celtic world as well. Such tools have been found in the settlements
of La Tene 772, Szalacska ii a Stradonice 774 a. o. The oldest European saws
for metal cutting bave been discovered in the neeropolis at Este (northern
Jtaly ) and date back to the middle of the 8th century B .C. The Celtic
saws of the Late La Tene are of an ordinary type, hence our inference that
they are the direct antecedents of the Daco- Getic ones, unless both had
the Hellenistic civilization as common source of inspiration 775•
Among instruments worth mentioning îs an iron compass whieh was
discovered together with other implements in the eighth terrace deposit
at Grădiştea Muncelului m. 'Ihe presence of this compass provides u;;
with an unquestionable evidence of the high technical levei that had
been reached by Daco- Getic craftsmen. Compasses can be found also
in the Celtic i i i and Roman worlds wherefrom they could be taken over
by the Daco- Getae. Here again the possibility of their having been adapt
ed from Hellenistic patterns should not be ruled out.
There can be no doubt that the large quantity of stone cut for the
monuments of the Orăştie Mts. complex required an equally large nurnber
of iron tools. Of these only a tiny part could be recovered. The deposit
uneovered at ' Strîmbu' in the vicinity of Dealul Grădiştii contains ,;everal
766 H. Daicoviciu, in A cta MX, I, 1964, p. 1 1 7 , pi. IV.
7 67 C. Daicoviciu and coli . , in scn·, :l, 1952, p. 297, Fig. 1 6 and Fig . 23.
7 68 I . Glodariu, op. cil. , Figs. 10, 1 1 ; 1 1 , 5.
76 9 I . H. Crişan, i n Studii şi Comunicări, Sibiu , 1 2 , 1965, pp. 213ff.
770 One shou l d refer to the saw found at Grădişte, on the eighth tcrrace ; C. Daicoviciu
and col i . , in SCJ \", 4, 1 - 2, 1953, p. 1 7 1 , Fig. 22, C.
771 For example the saws of Sighişoara ; A. Horedt, C. Seraphin , op. cil. , p. 85, Figs 68,
2 , or the saw discovered on one of the terraces at Dealul Grădiştii ; I . H. Crişan, i n J!aleriale ,
5, 1 959 , p. 395, Fig. 7 .
7 7 2 P. Vou ga, op. cil. , pi. 4 5 , 1 - 2.
7 7 3 AE, 1912, p. 1 57 ; I . Hunyadi, op. cil . , pi. 23, 26.
774 J. L. Pic, op. cit . , pi. 36, 26- 27.
775 G . J a cobi, op. cil. , pp. 54- 55 where many localities are cited with the respeclive
bi bliography.
776 C. Daicoviciu and coli. , ia SCJ r, :J, 1952, p. 301 , Fig. 22 ; H. Daicoviciu, op. cil. ,
pp. 166 - 167, D 1 1 2, pi. X XV I I I .
777 F r . Henry, L'arl irlandais, 1963, 1 , p. 299 . .
206
implement8 that could only be U8ed in stone cutting. These are hammers
with sharp and slightly arched head-ends. In both shape and size they
resemble the roughing off hammers used today ii 8• The same use can he
attributed to some of the iron hammers found at Piatra Craivii m .
Many of the iron blades whose handles are secured b�- means of
t�ngs were, in all probability, used either in curing hides for the removal
of the muscular tissue, or in cutting them out. Such an implement waf!
discovered at Piatra Craivii 7 8 0• Tooll'I of this type are very frequent in the
Celtic settlements of central and western Europe 7 81 •
Bone and metal awll'I 1tre pretty numerous in the Daco- Getic settle
ments, being used for piercing holes in both leather and cloth. Sewing waf!
done with the help of bronze, iron and bone needles like those discovered
at Sighişmtra 7 82 and Piatra Crctivii 7 83 • Sewing awls and needles are too
simple and long-lh•ed toolx to arouse much interest by their many ana
logie;; .
Evidence of fishing with the Daco- Getae are the iron fish-hooks
found in the xettlements of Poiana 784 and Popeşti 7 85• Similar instruments
hase been dixcovered in the large Celtic settlements of J,a Time, Strado
nice, Ma 1whing 786 a.o. without being necessarily characteristic of the
Celts.
Iron wm; used not onl ,. for the manufacture of tools for different crafts
men, but also for various household utensils. The large number of scissors
found in most of the Daco- Getic settlements like those at Popeşti, Piatra
Craivii and Sighişoara 787 are all madc of iron. They h�we fairly close analo
gies in the Celtic world. A recent typology of Celtic iron scissors is due to
G. Jacobi 788 . Daco- Getic scissors are identical with the Celtic specimemi
typical of the La Tene C and D periods.
Geto-Dacian settlements also contain many large iron spits (a kind
of forks) Marpagones, xpe:ciypix�, with two or several teeth like the onef!
found at Căpîlna, Grădiştea Muncelului, Sighişoara and Piatra Ro�ie 7 89 •
Iron spits are a common feature of the Greek world where they appear as
early as the geometric period 790 • They can be found with the Etruscan and
later on with the Celts 791 • Such spits were usually laid on supports of metal
or clay decorated with stylized animal heads. A beautiful iron support
ending in a bullhead was discovered in the settlement at Ocniţa, 792• Clay
778 I . H. Crişan, i n Studii şi Cercetări, Sibiu, 1�. 1965, p. 2 1 6, 9 - 1 0 , Fig. 1 / 4 - 5.

779 Cellicum , 12, 1 965, p . 147, pi. 75, 5 - 6 .
78 0 I bidem, pi . 76, 1 2 .
78 1 G. Jacobi, o p . cil . , p . 6 2 , pi. 2 5 .
782 K . Horedt, C. Seraphin, o p . cil . , Fig. 62.
7 83 Ce/licum, 12, pi. 83, 4 - 7 .
784 R. Vulpe and coli . , in SCI V, 2, 1, 1 95 1 , p. 204, Figs 3 - 7.
78• R. Vulpe, Getic Seltlements, Fig. 2 4 .
786 P. Vouga, La Tene, 1923, pi. 2:3, 1 - 2 ; J . Pic, op. cil . , pi. 2 4 , 32 - 33 , 36 - 39 ;
G . Jacobi , op. cil. , p. 94, pi. 27.
7 87 R . Vulpe, Getic Seltlements, Fig. 1 5 ; Cel/icum, 12, pi. 8:3, 8 ; K . Horedt, C. Sera
phin , op. cil. , Fig. 66.
788 Op. cil . , pp. 98 - 103, and Fig. 1 3 .
789 C. Daicoviciu a n d coli . , in S G I V, 4, 1 - 2, 1953, p. 1 7 1 , Fig. 22 ; :\I. :\!acrea, Dacian
Fortresses, p. 2 1 , Fig. 6 ; I. H. Crişan, Studii ?i Cercetări , Sibiu, 12, p. 218, Figs 2, 1 2 ; K. Ho
red l , C. Seraphin, op. cil. , Fig. 66 ; C. Daicoviciu, Piatra Roşie, pp. 82 - 83, Fig. 29.
79° For instance, in the warrior 's grave a t Argeş. Bull. Corresp. llellenique, 81, 1957,
p . 322ff. Figs 52 - 53 .
791 G . . Jacobi, op. cil . , p p . 1 1 6 - 120.
79 2 D. Berciu, in Jfaga:in Istoric, 3 , 9 (30), September 1 969, p. 49.
287
1mpport s handsomely orn�mented haYe al so been found in 1 he Poia na,
settlement ; 9 3 •
I t is very difficult to specify wbether these spits or their supports
were adapted by the Daco-Getae from the Greek pattern originating in
the Hellenistic world with which they had many and fruitful ties ewr
since the colonists' arrival on the Black Sea shore or from the Celtic world.
The large number of supports decorated with animal heads discovered in
the extra-Carpathian zones of Romania point to their having been taken
over from the Hellenistic world.
Among other household utensils were the chains with whieh metal
buckets were hung over the fire. Such chains have been found at Pbcul
Crăsani, Piatra R oşie and Piatra Craivii 794• They all have close analogies
in the Celt ic world '1 5 •
Iron kniYes which are present in all the Daco- Getic settlements
have been put to household uses in pretty large numbers. Their replicas
are to be found eYerywhere, in various shapes and sizes. Here again we
are in the presence of an extremely simple utensil having emergecl at the
same t ime with iron working.
AH the implements and household utensils that have been listed up
to now were made in local workshops. Evidence of this is, apart from the
respective tools, the presence of the raw material in the form of lumps
which represent one stage in the process of iron metallurgy. Whereas iron
ingots were imported, the iron lumps found at Grădiştea Muneelului or
elsewhere are definitely a local product . 'Ibis does not rule out the possibi
Jity of some of the tools having been bought from the Celts, the southern
Thracians or even from the Greco-Roman world. The technology of iron
extract ion , the large number of iron irnplements used in agriculture,
metallurgy , wood-working a .o. testify to the high level attained by the
Daco- Getae without necesrnrily ::i:ecif�·ing the develorment of the Daco
Getic civilization and the extrnt to which they represent either original
creations or Celtic and Greco-Roman influences. The analysis we have
made so far shows that the level of development of the Daco- Getic civi
lization at the tirne of Burebista as it materialized in production toob;
was at least on a par with the contemporaneous Celtic civilization. The
same applies to pottery 79 6 • Occa sional disconries and systematic· exea
vation revealed in all the Daco-Getic settlements, large and small alike,
an impressive quantity of pottery. At the tirne of Burebista's reign the
potter's wheel had long cea sed being a novelty.
The makers of earthen vessels are noted for their craftsmanship.
The range of forms and ornaments is extremely wide and rich. Hand-made
vessels are sporadically found ancl only in smaller numbers.
}fost earthenware at the time of Burebista can be traced to the old
autochthonous fund deeply rooted in time going as far back as the Bronze
Age. Altbough the potter's wheel technology as such was borrowed from
the CeltR, southern Thracians and Greeks, the Daco- Getae aclapted it
perfectly to their original production ancl seldom resorted to foreign shapeii.
793 R . Yulpe and coli. , i n SGI \", 2, 1, 1951, p . 1 96 , Figs 18, 2.
m V Pârvan. Getica. pp. 498 - 499 ; C. Daicoviciu , Piatra Roşie , p. 83, Fig. 1 9 ;
Cellicum. 12. pi. 83, 2 and 3. With regard to c remation see also I . Berciu . in Studii şi
comunicări. Sibiu. 12. 1965 , pp. 223- 227.
m G. Jacobi, op. ci l . , pp. 128 - 1 29.
796 For pollery see our monograph Pottery (in Rom.).
208
This is additional evidence of the vigour and originality of the Daco- Getic
material culture.
Some vessels like luxury cups with decoration are genuine works
of art. The Daco- Getic potters' craftsmanship is evinced by the dainti
ness and multitude of the vessels so different from the Celtic, south-Thra
cian and Greek ones, on the one hand, a.nd by the painted pottery with
relief motifs, on the other.
The Daco- Getic fine pottery painted with geometric motifs (different
from the Celtic ones of the time) was probably inspired from Helleni;;tic
patterns 797• The same can be said about the embossed vessels (Delian or
Megarian cups as they are sometimes called). The decoration of the Daco
Getic embossed vessels is largely enriched with new, original Daco- Getic
elements. These luxury vessels also contain representations of the human
figure like the two specimens descovered at Popeşti which are decorated
with female figures in a rhythmic <lance movement 798 • Of equal originality
is the pottery painted with zoomorphic and floral motifs discovered in the
Orăştie :Mts. which is, however, of a later date than Burebista's time.
The advanced stage of the Daco- Getae's material culture in the lst
century B.C. îs best illustrated în the field of architecture. Even though the
Dacian military architecture of Burebista's time îs largely Grerk inspired
and execut ed, its presence în tbe Daco- Getic world represents a i;crernptory
evidence of the advanced stage of the Daco- Getic culture.
Taking a close look at both religious and civil arcbitecture, we a rc
bound to note that the place wbere religious architecture is at its best
if.1, na turally enough, on Dealul Grădiştii. The defence wall of the so-called
military ward revealed many architectonic pieces of a secondary use, namely
tbe filling in wall breaches at various points. Among these are piece:-; of
andesite columns 799 closely related to a monumental edifice. The only
buildings likely to use the huge stones, column shafts and wooden beams
imerted into the walh; are the sanctuaries. All the afore-mentioned pieces
r:;eem to have belonged to the sixty-column sanctuary situated on the
tentb terrace. The fact that the dia1ru:tre of some columns varies along
tbeir length points to the existence of tall columns which, in their turn,
come in support of the proposition tbat the temple situated on the tenth
terrace was roofed.
C. Daicoviciu advanced two bypotheses with regard to this same
sixty-colunm sanctuary situated on the tenth terrace : one, that the temple
was not completed by the time the war with the Romans broke out,
and another, that we are in the presence of an open i .e . , 'sub caelo'
temple 8 00 •
The first hypothesis may hold, altbough it îs very likely that the
sanctuary with sixty andesite discs replaced the previous limestone one
discovered on the eleventh terrace. This replacement, and implicitly the
whole new structure, could ·well be erected under the reign of the kings
suceeeding Burebista to the throne, although we are not in a position to
797 I . H. Cri şa n , in Dacia, '.\". S. , 10, 1 966, pp. 329ff.
7 98 Al. Vulpe, i n SCJ l', 16, 2, 1 965, p. 344.
799 C . Daicoviciu and col i . , in SCJ V, 2, 1, 1951, p. 120 to which our Ialer r e ma rks
must be added.
8 00 C. Daicovic i u and coli„ i n SCJ V, 3 , 1 952, p. 294 with the reconstitution at p . 295,
Fig . 1 3 .
14 c. 1702
-
209
specify exactly when. This may have happened before the start of the wars
against the Romans if account is being taken of the fact that such a build
ing required a large amount of work that could only he done in time of
peace and prosperit;\·.
The second hypothesil'I pleading for an open sanctuary lookl'I leHs
likely. vYe fee! entitled to question the utility of the rows of columnl'I, or
to be more precise, the simple alignments of tambours reac hing the height
of no more than L> metre. Such a hypothesis is dismissed out of hand by
the hard facts, namely that, as Hhown before, the diametres of some column
shaftH vary along their length in an inexplicable manner for mere tambotus
of only 1 .5 metre high. This is tangible evidence that we are in the presence
of tall columns, the diametre of which naturally diminishes towards the
top. The base and shaft as such preimpposes the existence of a roofetl edi
fice, that is, of a monumental building. We find it difficult to beliHe th<tt
the huge a.mount of work put in to sustain the terraces with great stone
walls was aimed at erecting, on the space so obtained, only some dil'lc and
tambour alignments 1 . 5 metre high. It l'leems more likely that the existing
remains belonged to some monumental colnmn-supported edifices. This
inference makes us think of the Greek temples that naturall�· inspired the
Daco-Getae. The contribution of Greek architects and master builders to
the construction of the Oră�tie Mts. fortresses mmnot be questioned. The
sYstem of walls to which must be addetl the Greek letters carved in the
st one slabs of several fortresHes speak for them8e1Ye8. lt is tlw Greek
builders that must be credited with having raised such placeH of worship
for the Daco- Getae's gods and taught the natives to erect imch structures.
For this simple reason their temple8 could be no different from the well
known one8 of the Hellenistic world. There can be no doubt that an ori
ginal note had to be added as in the case of other things borrmwtl b�· the
Daco- Getae from the Hellenistic civiliza tion or elsewhere. To this logical
arguments mlrnt be added the hard faets revealed by a closp e x a m i na t ion
of the remainH.
R . Vulpe favours the idea that the rectangular temples are inspired
from the Greek peristylar temple 8 01 •
The existence at Sarmizegetusa of monumental buildings with roof
supporting columns is suggested by the reliefa of Trajan's Column. The
scene featuring the siege of Sarmizegetusa shows a long roofed gallery
supported by stone columns within the walls 802• R emains of such a build
ing have not been discovered inside the so-called military ward at Gră
di �tea Muncelului. Yet the picture is different if we accept the h�·pothesis
according to which the sanctuaries were extm not intra mnros. The paved
road approaching the sanctuaries from the eastern gate is lined for the
most part with wall paraments made of parallelepipedal blocks of lime
stone 8 0 3 • It is on these walls that the columns of the roofed gallery fea
tured on Trajan's Column were built. The road as such did not require
walls on both sides all the more so as the stone was brought from very
distant places.
8 01 R . Vulpe, in A/li de/ sellirno Congresso Internazionale di Arclieologia Classica , :J,
1 9 6 1 , p. 103.
8 02 The scene is also reproduced by C. and H . Daicoviciu, Trajan's Colurnn (in Rom.),
Bucharest, 1966, pi. 5 1 .
8 03 C. Daicoviciu a n d col i . , in SCI V, 2, J, 1 9 5 1 , p . 1 0 8 , pi. I I r.
210
There is abundant evidem�e that we are not in the presence of a
mere road covered with limestone slabs, but of a monumental propylaea,
namely a long roofed gallery. The impressive length of the construction
as featured on Trajan' s Column tallies perfectly with the dimensions of the
respective road. The proximity of the gallery to the fortress wall reflects
a fact as well, provided the hypothesis of intra m'Uros sanctuaries proves
to be correct.
\Ye have so far attempted to reconstitute only one of the sanctuaries
discovered at Grădiştea Muncelului. This is the sixty-limestone base sanc
tuarv situated on the eleventh terrace which we have reasons to believe
was lu use at the time of Burebista so4_
We must specify from the very beginning that our reconstitution
is hypothetical and largely ideal representing only one of several possibili
tie:-; which does not exclude the existence of others as well.
The information collected up to now about the religious centre at
Grădiştea :Muncelului leads us into believing that it had great importance
and was, to all intents and purposes, used all the year round . It was not
an anonymous place of worship with a functionality limited to a certain
season. Given the rainfall characterizing the climate in ancient times just
as it does today, the construction had to be roofed, if not even enclosed.
We must not forget that the place is situated at an altitude of 1 :200 metres
in a mountainous region where winter snow could well have made a roof
les8 sanctuary downright impracticable.
The four rows of column bases suggest a regular pattern, an emplace
ment accorcling to certain rules, proving, în the last analysis, that they
are not the circular bases of the colurnns, but only plinths (base courses) .
These plinths are laid o n the ground which means that the construction
was a t ground level, too. Another strange thing difficult to explain is
the fact that there is no floor whatever. This seems all the more inexplic
able as the building is of considerable size. Given the remains, in the
immediate vicinit y, of a gallery paved with neatly squared stone slabs and
a limestone roofrd courtyard, it is hard to imagine that the place of wor
ship itself to which special attention was undoubtedly attached and whose
construction required such a large amount of labour and huge walls to
sustain the man-made terrace was left without a floor even if we accept
the hypothesis that it was a ':mb caelo' structure. The fact might be invok
ed that the stone floor was taken off when the sanctuary was abandoned
and the deci:-;ion taken to have it replaced. This seems very unlikely because
the plinths have not been remowd . ·we think that no stone floor did
ever e�..:i st . Assuming that it did, no limestone plinths would have been
needed or tht'Y would have at best been square, not circular. A stone floor
offerecl as nrnch solidity as the circular plinths. The likelihood of a wooden
floor at ground levei is rather reduced, taking into account the area and
the elimate. All the Dacian �ettlements buildings discovered up to now
in the Oră�tie )lt8. whether of timber, stone or brick are provided with a
lower level, a kind of basement . Suffice it to mention the dwelling towers at
Co8teşti where one can easily see that the ground levei rooms served as
804 I . H . Crişan, :'.\ ! . :'.\loldovan, Greek Jn{luences i11 Dacians' Sacred Architecture , in
Tibiscum ( in Rom.) (forthcoming). Data about this can be Iound in the preliminary diggings
reports pu blished în Materiale, 5, 1 959, pp. 395 - 399 ; Materiale , 6, 1959, pp. 337 - 34 1 and
Materiale , 7, 1 960, pp. 302- 305. In the reconslitulion we propose we received substantial aid
from architect Octavian Beu to whom we extend our thanks.
211
storehouses 8 05 with the dwelling proper on top of them. The present-day
houses in the Orăştie Mts. are built in much the same way not necessarily
in perpetuation of the Dacian Rystem, but also on account of the prentiling
climate.
The Dacian basement dwellings are not specific to the area of the
Oră�tie Mts. They can be found in many other parts of the countr��. In
the important centre at Ocniţa-Cosota (Ocnele Mari, Vîlcea county) there
has been discovered a large edifice with three rooms hewn in the rock on
top of which three rows of columns had been erected 8 06 • This is, as yet,
a singular monument and we do not know to what extent a comparison
with the sanctuary at Grădi�tea, Muncelului can hold.
This latter sanctuar�· haR another strange feature, namely the wall
enclosing its Routhern Ride which ends into a small-sized rectanguhtr
platform with its four neatly cut facets, meaning that it was part of a visi
ble wall. To this must be added the flight of limestone steps discowred
on the outer face of the same wa:ll. This flight of steps could not be traced
all along its length, but we have reasons to believe that it led up to the
afore-mentioned platform 807 • Nothing more natural than the respective
platform should represent a stairwa,y turning. Sitmtted above the ground
lewl of the plinths this shows itself a8 a basement with the floor and the
edifice proper having been built higher than the plinth level. This fully
justifies both the absence of the floor and the existing remain8.
Some of the discs bear the markg of columm, whose diametre could
not be established with accuracy, but which ranges between values under
one metre. The diametre of the plinth 1:1easuring approximately 1 . 5 metre
thu,;; exceedg the column bv 0.23 metre. Such dimensions are well known
in the Greek world in the 'case of the Ionic column bases, whose plinth8
were square, not circular. In these e<lifices the plinths were organically
fitted into the stone floor, the bases being continuous, not isolated 808 •
'Ve have shown that the plinth8 are disposed in rows, in an orderly
manner. If we put the average column diametre to one metre, it follows
that the distance between the axes of . the fronton columns is about 3.5
metres which is a very well-known iriteraxial distance, tallying with that
of the normal Ionic order. The transversal disposal of the colurnns coincides
with the normal Ionic frontispiece. Lengthwise the distance differs
from the transversal one, coinciding with that of the Ionic peristyle. lu
our opinion, these dimensions and layout clearly point to a Greek-inspired
edifice very close to the Ionic order. This accounts for the craftsmanship
displayed by the paraments of the two walb enclosing the northern and
southern sides of the sanctuan' as well as for the inner facework of the
large eastern wall. Rad all these been simple terrace-supporting walls
embedded into the ground there would have been no need for a neatly
finiRhed facework. If our hypothesis proves to be correct, this fact may be
accounted for by the walls having been the very walls of the basement.
Even those fifteen columns that are disposed lengthwise have their
analogies in the Greek temples with two-winged peribolos of dipteral
type which has eight rows fifteen colurnns each, compared with the four
805 D. M. Teodorescu, in AC.li I T, 1 930, pp. 6
8 08 D. Berclu, in Apulum, 13, 1975, p. 616.
807 C . Daicovici u , I . H. Crişan, in :Uateriale , 7 , p . 304 , Figs 3 - 4.
808 Vitruvius, On Archltecture (în R o m . ) . Translation by G. l\I. Cantacuzino, T. Costa
and G. Ionescu, Bucheres t , 1 964, p . 134.
212
row8 of our sanctuary. By contrast, in the case of the pseudodipteral tem
ples only the frontispiece has eight columns, the edifice proper being built
on four rows as the sanctuary at Grădiştea Muncelului.
The afore-mentioned details made us conclude that the ancient sixty
column snnctuary at Grădiştea Muncelului is nothing else but a slightly
modified Greek temple. Starting from this premise we have attempted its
reconstitution with the firm belief that our undertaking will not depart
from the original of Burebista's time .
\Ye have already shown that there was a basement and we do think
it futile to elaborate upon it any further. A stumbling block în the way
of the intended reconstitution îs the lack of anv limestone column of
those which, in our opinion, must have stood on the still extant plinths.
True, the diggings performed on the eleventh terrace revealed severul
fragments of limestone columns, but în a very small number. The sanctuary
·we are concerned with must have had more and taller columns, whose
t-xistence seems certain in the light of the evidence adduced so far. The
presence of these limestone columns can indirectly be inferred from an
equal number of andesite columns belonging to the new sanctuary built
on the tenth terrace an<l intended to replace the ancient one of the ele
venth terrace we are dealing with.
\Yhat became of the limestone columns after the ancient sanctuary
went out of use ? There îs no way of answering this question at this stage
of research. They may have been transported and put to use elsewhere.
The rather remote possibility of the columns (at least some of them,
namely those of the temple proper) having been of wood should not be ruled
out . However, it îs difficult to imagine the sanctuaries being almost wholly
of wood when the walls are built of skilfully cut parallelepipedal blocks
in the clasRical Greek fashion. Whatever the material used, it does not
in the least belittle the monumentality of the edifice.
Ho we have reached the conclusion that the limestone plinths (discs)
were immediatelv below the circular base of the limestone columns with
the moderately high basement reaching, with approximation, the height
of the platform ending în the southern wall. Judging by the number of
plinths, the basement columns were closely serried so as the ensure the
necessary- support to a heavily trodden floor possibly made entirely of
"\vood. The edifice as such did not require the same number of columns as
the basement since it only had to sustain the framework of the roof which
was undoubtedly of timber, apart from the fact that fewer columns made
it easier to move about. By preserving the four transversal columns, the
builder8 seem to have spaced them out with the result that the longitudinal
rows were left with only eight columns instead of fifteen, the Greek ba
lance being thus observed, if not în size, at least în number. The height
of the columns waR adapted from the normal Ionic frontispiece as attested
by the inter-column distance which is Ionic, too. Taking the above as com
putation basis, we put the height of the columns at about nine metres .
Assuming that the framework of the roof was made of wood (and
we have every reason to believe that the structure was proYided with a
shingle roof), the latter necessarily implies a steep încline.
As regards the cella (the inner part of the temple) its walls may have
also been of timber. One clear indicatioa. of this are the large iron nail
heads, with a 0.30 metre in diametre and a 0.25 metre foot, which are deco
rated with Greek motifs. Such orna.ments �ould only be applied to a monu-
213
mental wooden structure. \Vhere had these huge iron discs, decoratecl
with palmettes, come from we cannot tell. They may well haw deeora ted
either the door or the walls of the cella.
The whereabouts and size of the cella are still shrouded in oh,;c u
rity. Referring again to the same Greek temples which nobody ean deny
served as source of inspiration to the architects of the Grădiştea 1-mnctuary,
we mav · assume that the cella was enclosed bv the columrn; at the centre
of the edifice, wry much like a peribolos.
•
According to our estimates, the edifice of the old temple :.;itu�l ted ou
the eleventh terrace at Grădiştea l\Iuncelului had an interaxial length of
3;) metres and a width of 10.5 metres. \Ye do not intend to elaborate on
the monumentality and beauty of the tPmple as reccnstructed hy m. Its
many possible ornaments carved in wood and adding even more to the
beauty of the edifice perished with the time.
True, some of the details m.ay depart from the original, but by ancl
large, thi:.; is the image of the Grădiştea temple which was probably built
at the same time with the defence walls of the fortress, out of the same
limestone during the t ime of Burebista, integrating itself in a perfect man
ner 1Yith the owrall grandeur of the other buildings. Suffice it to recall
the exceptional monumentality ©f the walls and particularly of the one
situated in the Yicinity of our temple which was erected to sustain the
terrace and which was, at certain points, more than ten metres high .
The assumption that the temple was raised at the time of Burebista,
is supportecl by a clay locket discoverecl near one of the plinths. It irni
tates a Roman eoin featuring goddess Dian a which was issued in 80
B .C. It most certainly represents a n ex vot o rn9 •
The temple we attemptecl to recreate was by no means n, unique
specimen . In the sacred ward at Grădişte we have noted severa) other
places of worship. Rernains of sanctuaries haYe also been uncoYered at
Costeşti, Blidaru and Bîtca Doamnei. The temple at Grădiştea :Muncelului
that we endea...- 0urEd to reconstitute was, however, by far the most monu
mental of all the buildings uncovucd up to the present.
Daco- Getic architecture is not confined to military and religious
purposes alone. It alsa comprises the dwellings, falling under the concept
of ciYil architecture. ·w e refer, in this sense, to the dwelling house with
wooden walls and a stone foundation, comprised of two rooms and surround
ecl by a large porch on three sides, discovered i n the Piatra Roşie fortress.
The whole building is 40 metres long and 28 metres wide. One of its rooms
is 30 metres by 12 .60 and the other is 10.50 metres by 12.60 8 10 • The size
of the dwelling hom:e at Piatra Roşie points to the existence of a monumen
tal building which, e-..- e n if wooden presupposes adequate knowledge of
architecture and of the practica! ways of erecting large-sized edifices.
It also bespeaks the craftsmamhip of the Daco- Getic master builders
who must have surpa �sed by far the skill of mere carpenters.
As a rule, the dwellings of the Daco- Getae and of other peoples con
temporaneous ·with them such as the Celts 81 1 , Thracians, Illyrians aud
809 C. Daicoviciu , I. H . Crişan, i n J1Jateriale , 5 , 1 959, p . 397.
81 0 C. Daicoviciu, The Dacian Fortress al Piatra Roşie, pp. 50 - 55 and the reconsli
tution in Fig. 20. Cf. and G. Ionescu, Hislor!J of Architecture in Ron;ania (in Rom. ) , 1, Bucharest,
1 963, p. 28. .
81 1 Cf. for instance, R. Lantier, Architecture celtique , in Melanges d'Architecture , d'Epi
graphie el d' llist. , of{erts a Jerome Carcopino, Paris, 1 966, pp. 587ff.
214
otber8, were built in perisbable material like wooden beams or wattle
and dauh. Remains of such dwellings are meagre enough and tbeir recon
stitution all tbe more difficult . w·e must recall, witbin tbe framework of
Daco- Getic arcbitecture, tbe complex of buildings witb 'vattle and daub
walls and tbe 'palace' discovered at Popeşti, in tbe soutbeastern angle of
tbe fortress. Tbe complex includes several rooms, some for religious obser
vances, otbers baving been put to practical uses as dwellings, kitcbens,
store-rooms, sbeds a.o. Tbe plan of tbe 'palace' at Popeşti seems to have
been inspired from tbe Hellenistic world. A clear indication of this are tbe
inner courtyards 912•
Tbe advanced level of development attained by tbe Daco- Getic
};OCiety at tbe time of Burebista can also be deduced from imports . Tbe
historical and economic value and significance of imports bas been repeat
edly underscored 813• Tbe penetration of foreign commodities, especially
of the Greek ones, into the Geto-Dacian world can be traced back to tbe
Mb century B .C. not to speak of the territories adjoining tbe Greek colo
nies on tbe western sbores of tbe Black Sea wbere contacts witb tbe native
}lopulation date as early as tbe arrival of tbe Greeks. Tbe diffusion area of
Greek, and later on of Hellenistic mercbandise would gradually expand
nortb of tbe Danube. 'Vbereas in tbe 5tb century B .C., Greek goods repre
i;;ented only rarities, reacbing, bowever, tbe territory of Transylvania,
tbey kept increasing in volume starting witb tbe 3rd century B.C. and most
particula rly in tbe lst century B.C.
E n r since tbe end of tbe 2nd century B.C. and e8pecially in tbe lst,
the preponderance of Greek merchants in the Aegean and Pontus Euxi
nuR was somehow reversed by tbe competition of tr,iders arriving from
the eastern shores of tbe Adriatic, mainly !talo-Romanic . The Greeks tried
t o maintain tbeir supremacy in wine, oil and fine ceramic trading mainly
<.•ast of the Carpatbians 814.
Dnring tbe time of Burebista tbe volume of Dacian exchanges wi th
tbe Hellenistic and Roman worlds, to wbich tbe Celtic one was added,
increa8ed considerably. Tbis increase applies to the two-way flow of
goo<h;, both to and from Dacia, and also to tbe considerable expansion of
the geogrnphical area over wbicb foreign commodities were circulated.
Tbe settlement at Popeşti is an eloquent example of tbe intensifica
tion of trading relations witb tbe Hellenistic and Roman worlds. It was
bere that large quantities of foreign articles have been discovered. Suffice
it to recall tbat imported Greek pottery was a common feature at Popeşti
during Burebista's time. We bave in roind, first and foremost, tbe ampbo
rae alongside wbicb otber eartben vessels of common type, bronze objects
a.o. took tbeir place 815 •
Tbe dissemination of foreign products in tbe Daco- Getic world pre
supposes, as empbasized by Vasile Pârvan 816 , tbe existence of mutually
812 For the complex a t Popeşti, see R. Vulpe, Getic Selllemenls, pp. 3 1 ff.
813 FJ . Preda, in Analele Univ. Bucuresli, Istorie, lu, 1 966, pp. 1 5 - 34 ; id. , The Pene
tra/ion of Greek Products inlo Exlra-Carpatllian Dacia (in Rom. ) , Summary of doctoral thesis,
Bucharest, 1972 ; I . Glodariu, Trade Relalions of Dacia wilh lhe Hellenislic and Roman Worlds
(in Rom. ) , Cluj, 1974 with the overall bibliography.
914 I . Glodariu, op. cil . , pp. 1 73 - 1 74 .
815 R . Vulpe, Getic Selllemenls, pp. 35ff.
111 8 V. Pârvan, La penelralion hellenislique ii he/Unique dans la vallee du Danube, in Bui/elin
de la seclion historique, tome X, Bucharest, 1923.
215
advantageous t ies. The rise in imports abunda,ntly demonstrate;; the aclvan
ccd level of economic and social development reached by the Daco- Getic
i,;ociety at the time of Burebista when it was capable of maintaining tl'ad
ing relations with the Greeks, Romans, Celts, southern Thraciarn; 81 7 •
The Daco- Getic production had greatly developed. Sufficiently large quan
tities of goods were being produced to be sold to the trader8 arrived in
Dacia from ever�·where. The Daco- Getic society was in a position to con
sume increasingly larger amounts of foreign products. The quantity of
Greek oil and wine imported from the Mediterranean world went up as
attested by the great number of amphorae discovered in all the Daco
Getic settlements of Romania's extra-Carpathian space 818 • The number
of containers in which the refined products of the south were brought in
were insufficient to be used for the autochthonom; products as ·well. As a,
result, imitations of amphorae would be produced in local workshops like
those at Popeşti and Cetăţeni. Locally made amphorae, imitating the Greek
ones, have also been discovered inside the Carpathian arch (Cozia - Deva,
Grădiştea }luncelului, Sighişoara) 819 • They are obviom; proof that Greek
products penetrated into the intra-Carpathian Rpace as well . The vaJuable
liquids from the south could not be transported in amphorae through the
Carpathian passes. They had to be decanted into unbreakable wooden
containers or in leather bags. This accounts for the bulk of amphorae
uncovered in the settlement at Popeşti, a place that could be reachecl by
small boats on the river Argeş, and also at Cetăţeni, a principal trans-ship
ment point for any cargo intended for the Dacians living insicle the arch
of the Carpathians. The settlement at Cetăţeni is famous for the remains
of Greek amphorae, particularly Rhodian ones, alongRide which tho;;e
from Cos and Cnidos take their place 8 �0 •
The Greek and Homan worlds supplied not only oil and wine, hut
also pottery in various shapes and of different qualities. Such pottery
abounds in the Daco- Getic settlements of 'Valachia, Moldavia an<l is
also present in those of Transylvania m.
A study of imports into Dacia shows that trading relations with the
west-Pontic Greek cities at the time of Burebista had gone on continuously
and systematically. The subjection of some of these cities had adwrse
effects only during hostilities. The Daco- Getic settlements on both :-ides
of the Carpathians revealed, apart from Greek pottery, specimens of fine
Roman ceramic . Specimens of the latter have been discovered in almo:-;t
all the major settlements such as Brad, Poiana, Răcătău, Popeşti, Cră;;;a ni,
Costeşti, Grădiştea :Muncelului, Pecica, to name only some of the most
important. Fine, painted Celtic ceramic is also present in the Daco- Gl'tic
settlements both inside and outside the Carpathian arch.
s 17 111 this sense see , for instance, Em. Condurachi , în SC! V, 2, 1951, pp .J.5 - 59 ; id„
.
in Studii şi Referate , pp. ti l ff. ; I. GJodariu, op. cit.

818 D. Tudor, Hellenislic Amphorae Discovered Deep in Romanian Territory (in Rom.),
in the volume cited in the above note , pp. 8 1 - 89 and V. Eftimie, in Dacia, K S„ r, 1959
and the )atest catalogue of the latter worked out by I . G!odariu, op. cit„ pp. 1 81 - 209.
m I. Glodariu, op. cit. , pp. 205 - 209.
820 R. Yulpe, op. cit„ p. 39 ; I. G!odariu , op. cit . , pp. 206 - 209 Catalogue.
821The ca talogue of i mported pottery up to 1971 with the entire previous bibliography
in I. GJodariu, op. cil. , pp. 209 - 221 where the author makes it clear that it refers, for the
most part, to the lst century B.C. or that it implies more comprehensive datings which include
thc 2nd- lst centuries B.C. or the lst century B.C. - lst century A.D.
216
Trading relatiorn; hetween Dacia and the Roman world can be tra
ced mainly with the help of toreutics. Roman bronze vessels produced
in Campania and in other Italian centres are pretty numerous in many
Dac·o- Getic settlements. Such vessels as well as bronze objects have been
found in the Dacian fortresses of Costeşti 82 2 , Piatra Roşie, Piatra Craivii
and Tilişca, to name only those where Roman bronze imports are to be
found in large numbers. \Ve come across similar products in the Daco
Getic clwra everywhere, mainly at Poiana, Popeşti and Răcătău 823 •
Roman bronze vases are also present in the large Celtic settlements,
for instance at Manching 8 24 • Just as in the case of the Daco- Getae, they
represent imports brought in by the Roman merchants 8 25 • At the time
of Burebista extensive trade, in terms of both imports and exports, was
earried on in Dacia, a convincing evidence of the Daco- Getae's high level
of eC'onomiC' and social development .
An aC'tiYC trade such as this required remarkable amounts of
eoinage as barter had long been abandoned. The Daco- Getae would start
coining their own mone�· as early as the 3rd century B .C . by imitating the
Greek coins which, due to the rapid development of the Daco-Getic society,
were no longer sufficient . At the time of Burebista the Daco- Getic coins
ad<tpted from the Greek-Macedonian pattern ceased being minted. This
dot:>s not mean that 'the Daco-Getae stopped coining money, lmt the
eoin,,; they minted were Uoman coim; not mere imitation8 of foreign ones
as in the past. The Roman republican denarii struck now are difficult to
distinguish from the official emissions put out by the Roman state 82 6 •
\Ye have uncovered in the Pecica workshop a kind of preils with
the faC'et to be impressed on the coin purposely destroyed. A eloser look
at the diametre of thl' press, which matches perfectly the diametre of
DaC'ian coins discovered at Pecica and Chereluş (Arad county ) and d::<ted
to between 150 and 80 B.C. led us to the conclusion that the Pecic<t press
827 •
was u:-ed for rninting scyphate coins The intentional destruction of
the prt'"" eould well stl'm from the integration of the Peciea-based politi
<:al formation into thl• state founded by Burebista.
Pre,.;ses having served to thc minting of Roman republican denarii
havt' lwen discovered at Tili:;;c a and in several other localities. One such
specimen was found in the immediate vicinity of the Costeşti fortress 828
(without much preeision as to its e x.act location) and another in the vast
i-ettlement at Poiana 8 29 .
The following question now arises : if Burebista's power was so
grt:>a.t, in other words, if he ruled over so vast a territory, rich in material
and human resources, why did he fail having his effigy struck on the
m J . Werner, in AISC, 2 , 1933 - 1935, pp. 164 - 168 ; I . Glodariu , i n .\pulum, 1,

1 968, pp. 35:Hf. ; id . , Imports (in Rom.), pp. 233 - 236.
im I . Glodariu, Import.�. pp. 233 - 242.
82� G . Jacobi, Die Gerule aus dem J.:cltisc/1en Oppidum von Manching, pp. 1 56(( w i t h
Fi6'S 20 - 2 1 .
825 H .J . Eggers, Der romische Import im (reien Germanien, Hamburg, 1 95 1 .
.
826 Only 20,000 pieces are known s o far. Cf. I . \Vinkler, in Jahrbuch (iir "\"umismatik
und Geldgeschichte , 17, 1967, pp. 124ff. ; C. Preda, T/1e Coins (in Rom.), pp. 345- 350 wi th
the overa ll bibllography on the problem.
827 E. Stoicovici and I. Winkler, in Acta JUS, 8, 1971, pp. 477- 479.
828 Ibidem, loc. cil. , wlth lhe older bilJliography. See the discovery of lhe item due
to C. Pop in the Calalogue of the exhibition Civilia rom,111a i n Romanill. , Rome, ( 1 970),
pp. 1 2 1 - 1 22 , i tem 045•
8�' Information kindly provided by Prof. R. Vulpe.
217
coins minted during bis reign as was the rule in the Hellenistic kingdoms
that served as an inspiration to him in so many respects ? The answer could
be that Burebista's realm is not to be compared with the Hellenistic king
doms. The state founded by Burebista was still in its early stages, lacking
a centmlized administration. The Daco- Getae never reached that stage of
development in their recorded history. Such being the case, it was ouly
natural for the Daco- Getae to use the powerful Roman coin in tbeir coin
mercial transactions. In order to ensure the coins they needed for hoth
internal and external dealings, the Daco-Getae started striking tbemselYe,;;
best quality Roman coins. We still cannot say whetber the skilful crafts
man who manufactured the Tili�ca, presses was a Dacian or an artisan
from tbe Greco- Roman world.
In addition to Roman coins, the circulation has been attested, through
out Burebista's realm, of coim; originating not only in the Greek city
states subjected by bim, but also in far away places like Athens, Thessa
lonica, :Macedonia, Amisos, Cyzic and otber8.
'Ye haYe elaborated a,t great length upon these coin emissions because
they evidence, in tbe best possible manner, the dimensions of tbe Daco
Getic ciYilization wbich holdR a most prominent place when compared
to the civilizations of otber peoples living oubide the frontiers of the Roman
state.
2. A r l a nd sc1ence
Quite a lot of the tbings discussed in the preceding chapter may be looked
upon, from the pen;pectiYe of artistic creation, as genuine works of art.
Even some of tbe tongs discovered at Grădiştea Muncelului haYe their
surfaces decorated with nicely incised ornaments evincing tbe tecbnical
skill and artistic t alellt of their creators, Jet alone tbe specimens
of military, religious anu eivil architecture witb all their artistic impli
cations.
We do not intencl to take up again tbe problem of Daco- Getic archi
tecture. It must, however, be said that tbe ornamentation of Daco- Getic
edifices, be tbey public or private, was most certainly done in wood, a
perisbable material, tbat failed to witbstand the time. Ornaments in stone
are fewer and come down, at least in military arcbitecture, to the semidiscs
on tbe crowning of tbe Grădiştea Muncelului walh; . They bave embossed
parallel nerYures and a stylized head of a bird on each side.
The discoveries macle so far give no clue as to the existence of a sta
tuary art in stone at tbe time of Burebista. Therc are, however, some !'ta,
tues in fired clay that can be l.ooked upon as real objects of art. A statue
bas been uncoverecl at Pope�ti, featuring a man. It must bave been only
0.45 metre higb, judging by tbe two preserved fragments of a leg. The
latter displays exquisite craftsmansbip in botb line and paint. Tbe stra,ps
of tbe footwear are represented by incisions. The statue is tbought to
be the work of a Dacian artist and bas been dated to tbe Ist centurv B.C. 830 •
The locket found in tbe ancient sanctuary situated on the elewnth ·
terrace at Grădiştea Muncelului is also roade of fired clay.
e ao R . Vulpe, in .Ua/uia/e , 7, 1 96 1 , p . 3:�:l, Fig. 9/-1.
· 218
Of the artistic manifestations materialized in cla v we must recall
the hearths, having probably served for religious obsen:ances, which are,
for the mm;t part, decorated. There are also the figurines representing
humans and animals apparentl�' related to a cult or religiorn; practice.
Although lacking in too rich a decoration, the Daco- Getic earthen
ware is of remarkable beauty and elegance which Rtem primarily from
its harmonious balance. One can rightl�' Rpeak of a geometry specific to
Daco- Getic pottery, e:_.;pecia,lly to luxury articles . The latter will in all
cases obserrn the balance of the component parts, with the result that the
vessels are very pleasant to look at. There always exists a perfect balance
between the foot antl the bod�' of the vase. Daco- Getic pottery basically
distinguishes itself from the Celtic, Hellenistic and south-Thracian ones.
It has its stamp of originality deriving from ancient autochthonous forms
to which technical procedures, ornaments and shapes borrowed from other
civilizations were applied. The repertoire of Daco- Getic potter�· includes
imitations of more refined foreign earthenware like cups with relief deco
ration whose beaut�· was enhanced by the introduction of new and original
ornamentation .
Painted potter�· excels in both technical qualit�· and artistic virtues,
eYidencing once again the high leYel of dernlopment attained by the Daeo
Getic culture.
Daco- Getic pottery appeared under the influence of the Hellenistic
one, a fact proved b�' its technical details which clearly relate it to the
·wares produced in the Hellenistic world.
It was onlv natural for the artistic virtues of the Daco- Getae to
materialize mor� vividly in the field of decoration in precious metals,
especially silver. Golden adornments are almost inexistent in the Daco
Getic settlements of Burebista's time. Of the golden adornments dated to
the Ist century B .C . it is worth noting the fibula comprised in the silwr
treasurp of Remetea (Alba county) 8 31 • In addition to it we must recall a
ring of goltlen wire tlisconn'd in one of the sanctuaries of the Pecica
settlement . A similar ring was founcl at Vrsac (Yugoshn-ia) antl a thin
golden plate in the shape of a grape was brought to light at Media � 8 3 2 •
These items cannot aceount for the strange disappearanee of golden objects
in the centuries preceding the Roman conquest as long as literary sources
clearly attest their existence. Ioannes L�·dus (De magistratibHs, II, 28)
write,.; - according to Criton - that Trajan took away from Dacia as
boot y no less than l ,6;JO,OOO kgs of gold. The figure is absolutei�· fantastic
eYen if reduced to six digits alone 8 33 • 'Vhat we kno,„ for certain is the
fact that after the conquest of Dacia the rate of exchange of gold recorded
throughout the Roman Empire a 8ensible fall which can only be blamed
on the inflow of the gold brought in from Dacia 8 34 • King BurPbista's
treasnre must have heen quite impressive if we add to the production of
831D. Popescu, in .Ualeriale, 2 , 1956, p. 235, Fig. 1 46 with t h e older bibliography.
8 32
For the ring of Pecica see I. H. Crişan in Acta Ml\', 3 , 1966, p. 95, Fig. 3. For tlle
ring of Vrsac see B. Milleker, D�lmagyarors:âg regiseglelelei, Timişoara, 2 , 1800, fi . 82 , and
for the plaque of Mediaş see C . Daicoviciu, in Ist. Rom. , 1, 1960, p. 277, Figs 63, 3.
833 J . Carcopino, in Dacia , 1 , 1 924, pp. 28 - 34 ; I. I. Russ1:2, in Sargelia , 4, 1 966,
p p . 1 9/fL
s3,i C. Gucy, De " !.'or des Daces" ( 1 9:!4) au livre de :Jture Bolin ( 1 9 5 8 ) Guerre el
Or. Or el Jlonnaie , in voi- JU:langes d'arch. , d'epigra11hie el d'hist. o(ferls a Jerome Carcopi110,
Paris, 1966, pp. 295 - 3 1 1 .
2 1 9-
Daco-Getic artisans the boot�' captured by the great king in the territo
ries subjected by him.
�obody knows what really happened to that treasure. :May be
Burebista, bequeathed it to his successors. An indication in this ,.;ense
would be the treasure8 of gold coins owned by king Co8on, one of Bure
bista 's most remarkable successors who ruled over Transylvania 8 35 •
The pre8ence of the golden adornments discovered up to now proYes
that the Daco- Getic artisans were not only silversmiths, but also gold
smith8.
\Ve cmmot speak of a real Daco- Getic silverwork before the �nd cen
tury B.C. It was during the Ist centur�' R .C . , especially at tht> time of
Burebista, that this art reached the peak of its excellence. The vast majo
ritY of Daco- Getic silver treasures discovered so far have been traced
ba,ek to the Ist century R.C. Some of them are restricted to the Ist century
B.C., others kept on being manufactured and buried during the next
centurv.
Lacking the touch of monumentalit�·, these silver object8 do repre
sent the highest and most exquisite form of Daco- Getic art . )fo,.;t of
these silYer objects have been discovered dustered in treasures . The
number of localities where such treasure troYe8 and isolated piece:- were
uncoYered is put at fifty-two 83 6•
Dacian sih-er treasures are mainly compoRed of adornments like
fibulae, ornamental chainR, belts, necklaces, bracelets, ringR, pendanh to
which must be added the vessels and sundry items whose utility failed to
be identified . A separate category is comprised of pieces decorated with
the hunrnn figure. A general characteristic of all Daco- Getic silver objects
i:-i their exquisite craftsmanship. The silver used in the manufacture of
these adornments is of very good quality indeed. The metal was probably
obtained through the mel�ing of coins or was extracted from the ore depo
siti\ of Trarnwlvania 837• 'l'he metal needed for these adornments wai' cast
in bars (ingo.t R) as was attested by the silvennniths' clay moulds found at
Peci ea aud Poiana, �3s.
Like all treasures, the Dacian treasures are casual finds made in
and around different settlements to which must be added two localities
containing graves. The existence could be established of two large groups :
one to the south, bordered to the north by the Tîrnava Mare and the l\Iureş
and to the south by the Danube, and another one north of the rivers Tîrnava
l\Iare and Mureş. The largest number of trea�mres have been found in the
southern gronp, most particularly between the Carpathians and the
Tirnant and the l\fure� rivers. The fact that l\loldavia is very poor in Dacian
silver fincls has not ai\ yet been accounted for. Examining the diffusion
of certain types of adornments and the latter's technical and stylistic
details, K. Horedt notes many foreign influences that are revealed quite
differently within the two group:-i. In the northern group, for insta nce,
sa• I. Winkler, in SCJ V, 23, 2 , pp. 1 7 4ff. ; id . , in Crisia, 1 972, pp . :17 - 4 1 .
sas K . Horedt, Die dakischen Si/berfunde, i n Dacia, 1 7 , 1 973, pp. 1 27 - 1 6 7 wit h t h e
overall bibliography of the issue which exempts us from any other references. See also the
recent studies by D . Popescu , in Buletinul monumentelor istorice , I , 4, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 1 9 - 32 and
3, I , 1 972, pp. 5 - 22, also L . l\Iărghltan , Treasures of Dacian Silver Objects J{epf in !he Colleclion
of the 11:auo11al Museum (in Rom. ) , Bucharest , 1 976.
s37 C . Preda , in SCi l'., 8 , 1956, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 ; id„ in SCX, 2 , 1 955, pp. 239 - 251 ;
K. Hored t , op. cil„ p. 128 and Xote 1 8 .
83 d I . H . Crişan, î n Acta .U.Y, 6 , 1 969, p. 9 9 , Figs 4, 1 , a n d p i . I .
220
Celtic influenee:o; are much stronger than the Hellenistic ones due to the
massive presence of the Celts in the respective area ever .since the 4th
century B.C. By contrast with the northern group, the one in the south is
marked by a preponderance of Hellenistic influences which quantifatin'ly
aDd qualitatiYely surpass the Celtie ones . The Rame southern group also
ievealR Illyrian influences 839 •
Besides native artisans there may have also been the itinerant,
foreign peddlars as was the custom throughout Antiquity. The pm;sibilit,\·
of certain items having been made in work8hops beyoncl the limib of
the Daco- Getic territory should not be discounted. In support of this
bypothesis comes up a fact recently underscored, namely the similarity
between certain Dacian silver pieces and those discovered in the Iberian
peninsula 840 • The considerable distance separating Romania from Spain
rules out the possibility of an�· mutual influences or exchanges. A doser
look at the items common to the Daco- Getic space and the Iberian space
brings to the fore silver vessels and adornments made under strong Helle
nistic influences. The latter convincingly account for the afore-ment ioned
l'imilarities. Apart from t hese similarities the two groups referred too
also display a, large number of dissimilarities which back up the idea of
the particular entity and distinct personality of each of t he two groups.
Excavation conducted so far on the Dacian territorv have revealed
twenty-four silver vessels. The large ones, belonging wit h other adom
ments to various treasures, art- richly decorated and guilded. The Greek
motifs decorating the silver vessels discovered in Dacia led to the supposi
t.ion that the�· were made by Greek itinerant arfomns or else in the Greek
workshops of Pontus Euxinufi 841•
Despite their numerous differences and influences, the Dacian silYer
fincls make up a well-defined entity with its specific, sometime defininµ;
characteristics whi<'h atteRt once again to the high level of development
attained by the Daco- Getic culture at the time of king Burebista .
There can h e n o cloubt that writing represents the most obYious
sign of an advanced civilization. 'Ve have several literary testimonies with
1egard to writing with the Daco- Getae. Dio Cassius (LXVII, 7 ) relates
about a letter written by Decebalus to Domitian and it is again Dio Cas
sius who writes about emperor Trajan having received, during the first
Dacian war, a large mushroom on which a 'message' in Latin characters
was written 842 • If at the time of Decebalus writing was known and usecl
by the Daco- Getae in their diplomatic relations, it must then have heen
u sed also during the rule of Burebista, whose ambassador Akornion we
know had been sent out on a diplomatic mission . C. Daicoviciu triecl to
provicle literary sourceR with archaeological backing based on the fincls
discovered at Dealul Grădiştii foreshadowing the existence of writing
with the Dacians. According to him, the Dacians are supposed to have
ma.de use of the Greek alphabet in Burebista'i'\ time and of the Latin alpha
bet later on during the reign of Dece-balus 843• We have in mind the isolated
839 K . Hored t , op. cil . , pp. H/ff.

Mo K . Raddalz, Die Sclial:{un<le der lberisc/1e11 llalbi11.,el 11un t:nde des drillen bis :ur
Miile des erslen Jahrhunderls vor Chr. Geb. , Be rli n , 1 969, :\ladriclu Forsch ungen, Hand 5.
su K . Horedt, op. cil. , p. 1 55 ; I. Glodarlu , op. cil . , p . 69.
842 Dio Cassiu s , LX V I I I , 8 . C. Daicovici u , in ls/ . Rom. , 1, p . 327 ; H. V ulpe, in Studii

Clasice , 5, 1963 , pp. :.!2:! - 225 wilh the overall bibliograpl:ty.
843 C.. Daico\·iciu, i R Jsl. Rom. , l , 1 69 , pp. 327- 328.
2-2 1
or combined Greek letters, in twos or threes, car,·e<l in the stones found
around the sanctuaries and having belonged either to the wall of the tenth
terrace or to the nearby tower. The groups of two or three consonants
joined together have been interpreted upon their discover '· as being either
.
name8 of persons (gods, heroes, kings and priests) or sacred marks rendere'd
h�· consonants alone borrowed, as was only natural at the time, from the
Greek :Llphabet, which was apparently completed with other signs invented
b�· the Dacian learned priests. The absence of vowels and the presence
of these new signs in a writing that was still in its very early stages were
accounted for by the particularities of the Dacian phonetism that had no
adequate equiva,lence in the Greek alphabet 844 •
A. Bodor 845 specifies that the im;criptions discovered in the Dacian
fortresses fall under three distinct categories. The first category includes
the letters incised on various implements : a 6 on a hammer and a qi
on a pair of tongs. Such signs are looked upon as deRigned to indicate
t'itber the use of the implement or its dimensions and owner. The second
category is comprised of isolated letters on blocks of walls of defence
tower:-;, being repreRented by a � (beta) and a O (sigma) carwd in the
centre of the block. These two letters have been rightly interpreted aR
pointing to the details of the construction with O as abbreviations for
the Greek word cr'f)µs:i:ov or cr'fjµix., meaning sign and � as abbreviation
for �'fjµoc, meaning heigbt (bighland). This Î8 clear evidence of the fact
that the Greek builders have been directlv involved in the construction
of tbe Oră:;;t ie Mts. fortreRses. The blocks marked with letter8 represent
·
no other than definite reference points necessary for the erection of the
wall which was, in its turn, begun right in the quarr�·. V. Pârvan also
lookPd upon tbese lettern as guidelines for an casier :u;sembly of the
huilding 846 .
The widely spread and well-known U8e of letters in the Greek building
technique refer;,; to the marks madc in the respective quarry and also
to their subsequent a8Rembly when raising the walls 847 •
The third category contains, according to A. Bodor, both the i8olated
and grouped letters <liscovered on the eleventh terrace at Grădi:;; t ea
:Muncelului. All in all we know of senntv-three block::; with inscribed
Greek letten; . It is not at all surprising that aR soon as the blocks conta
ining these Greek letters were disconred at Grădiştea Muncelului their
meaning turned into a subject of extensive research. They were in the
beginning supposed to be monogramR 848 then a writing pointing to the
exiRtence of a text even if restricted only to a list of names 849• 3fore
recently the one hundred and sixty-nine l�tters known :,;o far are thought
to be a mathematical Rystem, a kind of mathematical leg-end whereby
aRtronomical data for measuring time could be interpreted. In support
of such a use comes the presence of the sign L alongside a A (lambda)
on the blockR at Grădiştea Muncelului. Although the L sign is not part
of the Greek alphabet, it was uRed to mean fifty years during the Helle-
su C. Daicoviciu and coli. , in Scn · , 2, 1, 1951, p. 120.

s4 s A. lilodor, in Crisia, 1972, pp. 2 5 - 27.
848 V. Pârvan, Getica, p . 480.
847 Rotand Martin, Manuel d'archilecture grecque , 1, Paris, 1965, pp. 222 ; F. G. Maier,
r.riecliische .llauerbauinschriflen, 1, p. 261 .
848 J. Ackner, A. V S L , 1 , fasc. 2, 1832, p. 22 ; G . Finâly, ln AE , 3 6 , 1916, p . 1 9 .
84 9 C . Daicoviciu a n d celt . , în SCH', 2, 1 , 1951, p . 1 1 8.
222
nistic period especially in Egypt 850 • It is obvious that the Greek letters
carvecl into the blocki\ of fortreRs walls or the sacred ward are figures,
thus ruling out altogether the likelihood of a text. This resolves the
problems raised by their being interpreted as writing. A confirmation in
thii\ sense is supplied by the discoveries made at Constanţa. Investigations
conducted into the warehouse of the edifice sheltering the mm;aic of
Tomi8 brought to light large numbers of amphorae, the volume of which
was incised in Roman figures coupled with their equivalent in Greek
characters \Hitten in paint 851• Some of these figures are to be found on
the blocks at Grădiştea Muncelului in similar letter combinations.
A . Bodor's view i8 shared by I. I. Russu who think8 that the \\Titing
wai\ brought in by the Greek master builders from thc west-Pontic Hellenic
city-states and does not by any means represent 'texts in the Dacian
Janguage' 85 � .
""hereas the Greek 1etter8 at Grădiştea Muncelului are not vestiges
of a text, the inscription on a vase discovered at Ocniţa is, it mentioning
another Daco- Getic king. The 1973 campaign of excavations conducted
in the basement of the already mentioned edifice revealed fragments of
a Jarge provision jar bearing an inscription dated to the end of the lst
century B .C. performed with a pointecl implement before the clay was
firecl 853• The irn;cription could not be wholly reconstitutecl due to the fact.
that it8 two words had their ends missing : BACIAE [QC ] 0IAMAPKO [1 ]
provided it i8 a genitive or BACIAE [IC ] 0IAMARKO [C ] providecl it
is a normativ<'. Depending on the case or ra,ther on the final letters of
tbe words, the inscription may be translated as follows : 'king Thia
marcos' yase' provided it is the genitive, meaning that it is bis own
property, �1nd 'king Thiamarcos', provided it is thc nominative, meaning
that the king is the subjcct of a grammatical construction indicat ing
the owner of the place where the vase had been made. In the first casp
the inscription on the Ocniţa vase is identica! with that on the phial
found in the Agighiol grave (KOTYOC ErBEO) where Kotyos is the name
of the Odrysae king. In the second case it had a role similar to the
inscription on the va8e we discovered at Grădiştea Muncelului in the
summer of 1954. The creator of this skilfully hand-modeled vase impressed
four times upon its raw clay two stamps with ' backhandecl', 'upside
down ' Latin letters reading : DECEBALV S (in the firi\t scroll ) followed
by PER SCORILO (in the second) 85 4 •
The im;cription on the Grădi�tea va:-;e was interpreted by C. Daico
vieiu a8 the first Dacian language tex t ever written with Latin charaeters
aml translated : 'Decebalus, the son of Scorilo' 855 • Xaturally enough.
s5o K . �Ienningcn, Zahiworl und Zi{fu. Eine J\ulturgeschichle da Zahl, Giittingcn, 1 958,
pp. 77 ; A . Bodor, op. cil . , p . 3 4 .
85 1 A . Rădulescu , The /Jevelopmenl o f Cra{ts i n Romani«n lJobruja. Contribulions to
lhe Knowledge of Pol/ery (in Rom . ) . Doctoral L hesis, Cluj, 1 972. p. 95 w i l h the respective
p l a tes(�IS).
852 I . I . Russu, Creek and I.alin ffriling i n Pre-Roman lJacia, i n .-l nuarul Jnst. de isl.
şi arh. Cluj-,\'apoca , 1 976, p . 4 2 .
853 D . Berci u , i n scn·, 2 4 , / . 1 97:3, p p . 6 1 1 - 61 9 ; id. , i n SC 1 ' ' A , 2 :> . J, 1 97-1,
pp . 3 8 1 - 387.
854 F o r d e t a i l s abou l the vase see I . H . Crişa n . Po/lcru (in Hom.), pp. 1 89 - 190.
1- :! , p. 571. i d . , i n Jsl. Rom . . 1. p . :329 ; C. Daicoviciu
855 C . Daicovici u , i n SCJ V, 6 .
and coli . , in the samc issuc of Lhe journal pp. 1 95 - :W·l , publishing the preliminary cxcarnlion
report occasioned by lhe discovery of the vase. The text is ours exccpt for I he conclusions
on the inscriplion vase which are due lo C. Daicoviciu.
223
tbe ;.;em;ational nature of this finding aroused quite a lot of interest among
Kpecialists botb at borne and abroad. Since tbis rcmarkable inscription
wa;.; published up to now experts have put forward two main tbeses :
some of them accept the interpretation and reading due to C . Daicoviciu 856 ,
otbers believe that the entire text was written in Latin characters and
in the Latin language, representing tbe 'trademark', as was the custom
in the Roman world, indicating that the name of the workshop's owner
was Decebalus and the name of the artist Scorilo 857.
I. I. Russu took up the whole issue, pointing out with exceptional
accmacy that the first hypothesis has no scientific foundation whatsoe\·er.
Tbe vase at Grădiştea Muncelului bas nothing to do with a text in the
Daeian language, but with one written in Latin which may be translated
as follows : 'Decebalus (roade it) through Scorilus' . Of Dacian origin
are onlv " the two names well known from other clear and certain attes ·
ta.tions which are bere integrated with the Latin flexion. The possibility
of king Decebalus having also been the owner of the workshop should not
lw ruled out although the name proves to have been a, eommon name
However, Scorilo bas nothing to do with the king who bears the name
rnentioned laiter on. He may well have been a Geto-Dacian arrived from
south of the Danubc where the · name is very frequent indeed. It wa8
there, pm;sibly in a Roman workshop, that he may have learned the art
of pottery making and also the Latin language of which he did not, a8
a matter of fact, have a good command . This is evinced by the wrong
grammatical construction, when compared to classical Latin, that we
c·ome across in the text of the inscription 8-08• MistakeR such as these a re
rather frequent even in the epigraphy of Roman Dacia and other pro
YineeR, without thereby standing in the way of our considering the inscrip
t ion aR being a Latin text .
'Ye are, therefore, in the presence of a Latin inscription written
in I...a tin characters which, provided it iR completed a.s 'Decebalus fecit/
per Scorilo' (Decebalus made it through Scorilus) would represent a
nwre potter's 'trademark' . '\Vhether the owner of the workshop (off'iC'i na)
w a ,.; indeed the famous king Decebalus we cannot tell. Yet this would
he h�- no means an unusual thing. We do know that emperor K erva
owned a potter's workshop at Parenzo ( in the Histrian peninsula) where
the amphora diRcovered at Porolissum (Moigrad, Sălaj count�-) and bearing
thP ;.;tamp : 'Imp/eratoris/ Nervae Aug/usti/' 859 eame from. There ean
lw n o doubt that the same applies in the case of king Thia,marcos.
The inRcriptions discovered at Ocniţa and Grădiştea Muncelului
have both been da,ted to the period following the death of Burebista.
The fact that the Greek letters identified so far in the Dacian
fortre,.;ses of the Orăştie Mts. are mere figures does not diRcount the
058 For instance V. Georgiev, Trakijskijat e:ik, Sofia, 1957, pp. 25 - 26 ; I. I. Russu,
The Language of lhe Thraco-Dacians, 2nd edition, Buchares t , 1967 ; I. H. Crişan, Pollery,
pp. 1 89 - 190 ; H. Daicovici u , Dacia, pp. 9 9 - 100 ; I. Glodariu , op. cit„ p . 1 68.
857 V. Hanga, Chreslomacy for lhe Study of Romanian Stale and 1.aw, 1, Bucharest , 1955,
p. 52, thinks that he was a slave (puer) of Scorillo, Decebalus by name. V. Pisani, in t he
journal Paideia , Genua, 1 6 , 1961, p. 236, thinks that the stamps belong to two master pot ters.
K. Horedt aiso conflrms the Dacian character of the inscription in SC/ V, 24, J, 1973,
pp . 1 09 - 1 10 .
8 &8 In classical La tin, per goes with t h e Accusative whereas in o u r ca s e Scorilo is în
\ he Dat ive-Ablative lf the Nominative ended in us and not ln o (3rd declension).
859 :\I. �lacrea, D. Protase, 1\1. Rasu, in Jfaleriale, 7, 1971 , p. 378, Fig. 15. The s:i.me
lnscriptlun is also known from Aquincum cf. I. Szil:igyi, in AE, 71, 1951 , p. 128.
224
possibility of writing having been known to the Daco- Getae and used by
them at the court of thl.' great king. It is most likely that many of the
Daco- Getic priests were vpry learned men with a good command of,
mnong other things, the science of writing. Writing itself was nnt alien
to the artisans of the time (native and foreign), a fact attesting that
they had at least for a time, worked at the court of the Dacian kings .
It is also most likelv that the Daco- Getae at the time of Burebista made
use of the Greek aiphabet just like the Celts did at the tinw. '"�e lea.rn
from Caesar (VI, 14) that the druids did not allow their learning to b e
committed to writing, although they generally used the Greek alphabet
in other matters of public a.nd private intercst. \Ve do not know, however,
of any Celtic or Daco- Getic text of such nature, but wc do know that
a,t the time of Decebalus writing in JJatin characters was currently in use .
The scientific knowledge of the Daco- Getae can be inferred from
both literary texts and archaeological discoveries which clearly point
to the same high level of development that the Daco- Getic society had
attained a.t the time of Burebista .
Jordanes (Getica, 69 - 70) writes, referring to Deceneus : "Noticing
that they (the Goths, that is the Getae) are willing to obey bis orders
and that they are clever by nature, he initiated them in almost all the
branches of philosophy as he was intimately acquainted with that science.
He taught them the moral principles, persuading them to renounce their
barbarie customs, introduced them to the physical science, ma.king them
live in accordance with the laws of nature, transcribing these laws that
have been preserved to this very day under the name of belagines ; he
taught them logic, raising them above the other peoples in terms of reason ;
he advised them to live a life of Iove and goodwill ; he brought home
to them the theory of the twelve signs of the zodiac ; he showed them
the course of the planets and let them into such secrets of astronomy
as the phases of the moon and the difference in size between the ball
of fire called the sun and the earth ; he also told them the names and
signs of the three hundred and fourty-six stars along their east-to-west
j ourney that brings them close to the pole and takes them away from it.
It is with �eat pleasure that one watches these brave men indulge
into philosophical doctrines when they had so little respite after their
battles. One can see them studying the position of the sky, learning the
properties of plants and fruits, examining the phases of the moon, observing
tbe eclipses of the sun and how, burrying along their orbit (the planets)
to reach the east, they are brought back westward to rest in accordance
witb a pre-esta blished rule " . The picture presen ted by Jordanes should
not be taken at face value. Yet we think the reference to the transcriptio11.
of some laws and i>f Deceueus' teachil'lgs is worth mentioning. Jordanes '
text points, first of all, to the fa.ct that during Burebista's time the Daco
G etae wcre no strangers to writing and we have no reason whatsoever
ţo disbelieve him. In additign to this we also note that the teachings of
the Daco - Getic priests ( at least those of the high priest) were written
down, a fact downright. forbidden by the Celtic druids. We cannot conceive
ef t8.e Daco- Getae priests' scientific preoccupations having had the ampli
tude assigned to t;hem by Jordanes. Such preoccupations were most
probably restricted only to some of the priests anti possibly to those
aristocrat3 concerned with astronomy, research into the properties of
15 c. 170'.i!
-
225
me<licimtl plants, vnrious n•medies and wh<ttever. Otlwr literar�· text:'>
baving reachetl down to us provide similar clues. Strabo (VII, 3, 5 )
writes about the aRtronomical knowledge and prophesizing ability of
Zalmox is while Plato 86 0 relates to the medical experience of the latter.
One of the sanctuaries found at Grădiştea Muncelului seems to sum up
the astronomica! knowledge of t.he Daco- Getic priesthood in an original
calendar system 861 and a medical kit supplies tangible evidence of the
Daco- Getic priestR' knowledge of medicine 862 •
The fixing of the calendar which currently devolved upon the clergy,
following the general practice started by societies since the measuring
of time b�· means of astronomica! observations and calculations, called
for the culture and pre:'>tige that only the authority bestowed upon priests
could en:mre 86 3 •
The scimtific knowledge of the Daco-Getic priesthood finds its
perfect analogieR with the Celtic druids. The latter, as recorded by Caesar
(VI, 1 4, 6), knew about the planets and their movement, about the size
of the earth and the origin of things. All this knowledge the druids pa ssed
on to the youngsters they taught. Pliny (Nat. Hist., 16, 44) writes about
the druids being both magicianR and phyRicianR.
So, just lik<' the Daco- Getic priests, the druidR were concerned with
and interested in astronom�· and calendars 864 (the latter's practica! side),
in medicine, philm;ophy a .o. These scientific pursuits characterizing the
Daco-Getic society during the epoch of king Burebista, even if not to
t.he proportiom described by Jordanes, but restricted onlî to a part
of the priesthoo<l, te:,;tif�· to the high level of development that the D aco
Getic societv had attained at the time. W'"e have in roind a certain f'acer
dotal layer recruited b�· DeceneuR from among the wisest and most remark
able men whom he introduced to theology, advised to bonom· certain
deitieR and Ranctuaries, and finally ordained as priests, giving them the
name of 'pill'ati' a8 revealed by the same text of Jordanes ( Get., 71). Scien
tific knowledge in the Daco- Getic society was most probabl�· restricted
to a sacred corporation very similar to that of the Celtic druids, Iranian
magi, Indian brahmans, Roman flaminians, augurs, arvals and other
religious colleges. The institution as such is characteristic of all the Indo
European peoples and played an important part in keeping up the cohesion
of the respective peoples 865•
\Ve should not rule out the possible existence at the court of Bure
bista of a, category of learned men consisting mainly of priests, holders
880 Clrarmides, 3.
86 1 H. Daicoviciu , in Dacia , N.S. , 4 , 1 960, pp. 231 - 254 ; id. , in Dacia, N . S . , 9, 1965,
pp. 383 - 385 ; G . Charriere, in Bullelin de la Societe Prehistorique Franr;aise , 60, 7 - h , 1963,
p. � 1 0 ; K. and G. Horedt, i n Tribuna, X, 52, December 29, 1966, p. 6 and A . Popa hi the
same Cluj weekly.
sea For medical knowledge see our monograph, Jledicine and Hygiene in Dacia (forth
l'oming).
863 :\!. P. Nilsson, Primitive Time-Reckoning. A S/udy on /he Origins and Firs/ Develo�
meni in /he Ari of Counting Time among /he Primitive a11d Early Culture Peoples, rn Acla
Socie/a/ls Humaniorum Litlerarum Ludensis, I, Lund, 1 920, p. 347 .
864 Celtic calendars engraved in bronze were discovered a t :\loiranus and Coligny. For
these see P. :\!. Duval, in ,we.Langes d'arch., d'epigrgphie el d'hist. offerls d Jer6me Carc•11ino,
Paris, 1 966, pp. 285 - 3 1 1 and J. Phelps, The Prehis/oric Solar Calendar, Ballimore, i!Jii5
w i l h a cemprehensive bibliography.
886 R. Vulpe, in .'\1.aga:in istoric, IV , 6/39, June, 1970, p. 64.
�26

Crisan Burebista and His Time 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Crisan Burebista and His Time 1978

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisan Burebista and His Time 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://biblioteca-digitala.

ION HORA ŢIU CRIŞAN

EDITURA ACADEMIEI REPUBLICII SOCIALISTE ROMÂNIA

Translated from Romanian

THE ACADEl\IY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROl\L\NJA

Dirtclors : ŞTEFAN PAscu, Member of the Academy of the Socialist

Editorial Secrelary : GHEORGHE DIACONU

1. Unification of the Daco-Getae 72

1. The wars against the Boii and the Taurisci 113

3. The conquest of the west-Pontlc Greek city-states 122

1. The western and northwestern borders 138

1. Fortified settlements of the Dm•a type and forl resses

Cha pter J' III

1. 'llatcrial culture 193

1. The dissolution of Burebis! a's realm and i ts causes . 2.t 1

List of abbretiat-ions 251

1. The concept of la T ene

11 H. Hildebrand, Congres Intern. d'.-l11tl1ropologie el Archt'ologic Pri:hisl„ Stockholm,

1 3 After the name of Hallslatt. a ocality in North-Anslria where a necropolis

2. The Celts on the territory of Dacia

Researches undertaken in Romania, especially during the past two deca­

37 Getica, pp. 459ff.

hundred thousaml Celts were forced to leave their homeland . Some of

3. Relations between the Celts and the Oaco-Gc tae

54 Sov. A.rh„ 1, 1 959. pp. 3 1 - 5 1 , Figs 1 - 2 .

u I. H. Cri şan, !Jacian J l a l e ria/s (in Horn. ), pp. 4-trf.

4. \Vh e n can we speak of a Roman ian La T cne ?

5. The Daco-Gctae at the end of the 2nd century B.C.

The large number of discoveries within the intra- and extra-Carpathian

87 C . Pre da, T/1c Coins (in H o m . ) , p. -107ff, a l l l h c hibliography included.

EXTERNA L PREM ISES

1 . The Roman expansion i n the Balcan

The history of the Daco-Gctae is closely connecte�l with the Carpatho­

2. The 'Barbaricum' on Dac ia' s boundaries

We haYe reached the point ·where Lucius Cornelius Sulla succeeded by

3. Soc ial u phea va l s in Rome

When Sulla <lefeated )lithraclates VI, king of Pontus and Bosporus,

1 09 T. Sa ra fo v , Les Besses el Rome, in A.cles, Sofia, 1 969, p. 1 43.

111 Th. :\fommsen, R omische Geschichte, 1 1. 2, Berlin, 1933, p. 364ff. ; J. Carceplno,

T HE FIRST ANO THE GREA TEST

1 . Burebista 's personalily. 2. Tlre namc. 3. The beginninr; o( his reign.

After having reviewed the internai and externai conditions th at made

1 1 2 Dorin Popescu , in Studii şi referate, p. 102.

\\" . Chri s [ , O. Stiihlin. \\". S c h m i d t . Geschichlc ci. yriec/rischen

u e llisloire de la Gau[e, I I I, Paris, 1 920, p. 1 4 4 .

12 7 G . G . :\lalcescu , in .-l JJX, Cluj, 3, 1 !!2 -t - 1 925, p. 5i ; id„ in ED. 1, l!J23, p. 1 7 5 ;

-o:; E>s:68wpoy xoct ' Ei:t"L- • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .

-11oc•1 -:-oi:::; 18 loL:; 8oc7t'ocv Tiµoccn[v . . • • • • • • • ]

. . . • . . • -oc-:-wv cruvoc7t'o8[i') ]µwv &7t 1i[p ]ocT[o

. . . . . . d }:; ApyE81X!J OV 7t'po::; TOV 7tlXTEp1X oe[ UTOU ' ]

[ . • . • . 7tocpoc°yE ]voµEvo::; 8€ xoct cruvTuzwv &µgt

. . • • . . • v TI)v &7t' oc uTou xoc-rE xT +i crocTo T'ij[::; 8e ]

[ . • • &7te ] /..ucrEv Tov 8'ijµov, LEpEu::; TE y EvoµEy [o ::; ]

lrlige :ur Vo/kerkundc von Siidosteuropa, V, J , Vienna , 1 932, p. 1 85 .

�A P r E LlA Y O N 7tpoi:; -rov 7taTepa A . ..

7trtpaye: ]v6µe:voi:; 8$ xat O'U\ITU )(W\I & µa • . .

167 G . G . i\ lateescu. op. cil . , p . 329.

When h e first pubfo>hed the Dionysopolis decree which pays tribute to

Researches undertaken in Romania, especially during the past two deca

The history of the Daco-Gctae is closely connecte�l with the Carpatho

Whereas the dating of Burebista's glorious reign is possible due to well

foundecl, stretching eastwarcl to the Dimum (Belene, Bulgaria). The ter

The function of supreme judge discharged by Comm;icus was uu

an A. M6csy, in Acta Anliqua, Budapest, 4, I - 4 , 1956 , p . 226 speaks of the accnmula