Sarmizegetusa Regia was included, together with other five Dacian fortresses (Bănița, Costești-Blidaru, Costești-Cetățuie, Piatra Roșie and Căpâlna), on the List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 1999. They are a unique synthesis of external cultural influences and local traditions in terms of building techniques and overall, in the ancient military architecture, representing the monumental expression of the civilisation of the Dacian Kingdom. These fortresses are the accurate expression of the exceptional development level of the Dacian civilisation during the 1st century BC-early 2nd century AD, Sarmizegetusa Regia lying at the forefront of this fortified complex, epitomizing the evolution phenomenon from fortified centres to proto-urban agglomerations. After 2000, various laws regulated the management, preservation and protection of the monuments listed among World Heritage Sites. Some of their provisions have never been applied or abided by. Unfortunately, currently, only Sarmizegetusa Regia has a legal administrator, the other five remaining un-administered. There is no management plan for any of the six fortresses and they have no managers or administration plans. Except for Sarmizegetusa, there are not even short-term strategies for the other five fortresses that would solve urgent matters. They are not even protected 24/7. The single Dacian fortress within this fortified complex that benefits of security services 24/7 is Sarmizegetusa Regia, which is under the administration of the County Council of Hunedoara. Subsequent to these measures, the phenomenon of archaeological poaching and deliberate destruction disappeared entirely from the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia. Not the same may be said for the other fortresses, where destruction and vandalism actions and archaeological poaching are still often found. In most these fortresses, there are buildings in ruin and walls dislodged in several portions. Access roads to some of these Dacian fortresses are inadequate, while vegetation in these not administered sites conquered the monuments. The poor situation in these fortresses is due to the fact that nobody administers them. The legal status of the land on which said monuments lie was not clarified to date either, and they remain not registered in land registers; the lands were not recorded in the cadastre; the owners of the right to administer the UNESCO remains were not established; the monuments and protection areas were not included in PUZ (regional Urban Plan) and PUG (General Urban Plan)type documentations of the administrative-territorial units within whose range respective monuments lie, there are no documentations for the draft of large feasibility studies for each fortress.

We attempt herein, based on archaeological finds, to analyse brooches of type Almgren VII, Series I, the headknob and external chord variation from territories east and south-east of Romania. The authors discuss a number of 46 such brooches. The typological analysis of the finds as well as the approach of the other issues these raise, also considered similar specimens diffused on a vast geographical area and a chronological time span comprised between the last decades of the 2nd century – early 4th century AD. Out of the total analysed exemplars, 35 were discovered in settlements and 11 in cemeteries, of which four were identified in inhumations. Out of the total brooches, only three are in silver, while with respect to the spring making type, 24 are single springed, five are provided with a double spring while in the case of 17 exemplars, it was impossible to say with certainty whether they had a single spring and chord inserted through the second hole of the support or were double-springed. Subsequent to the analysis of these type brooches and the contexts and features where they were discovered, the authors concluded that chronologically, the specimens date in the area under discussion mainly to stage C1b – early stage C3 (AD 230-320/330), though emerging in the late period of stage C1a. The authors noted, based on finds yielded by certain graves, that these were often worn in pairs, a custom specific mainly to the Germanic world, ascribing their wear to women. Based on the examination of the finds, the authors further noted that in the area discussed here it may be currently assumed that brooches of the sort were manufactured only at Bucharest-Străulești, reminding though both their making in several other sites within territories located outside the Roman empire and by possible travelling artisans. Also, it is mentioned again that these brooches of type Almgren, group VII, series I, emerged in the Przeworsk and Wielbark culture environments, where many such brooch finds are found, together with most numerous subvariants. The authors also conclude that the presence of these brooches may be related to the territories north and north-east of the Upper Dniester and that they are indicative, beside other artefacts, of the arrival and settlement in the discussed area, starting with the end phase of stage C1a – early stage C1b, of certain groups of Germanic populaces from the region of the Upper Dniester and territories north of it. Last but not least, the authors construe that in the current state of research, it is impossible to reach more definite conclusions on who were the bearers of these brooches, mentioning though that it is not excluded that their emergence is connected to the arrival of the bearers of the early stage (beginning) of the Sântana de Mureș-Chernyakhov culture on the territory east and south of the Carpathians.

No abstract

The research and documenting of the historical monuments are fundamental and key tools for their adequate understanding and protection. Despite the numerous national and international laws, agreements and recommendations, regulating almost all aspects related to the protection of the monuments, they are not fully complied with and applied in Romania. The Dacian fortresses from the Orăștiei Mountains, on the list of UNESCO world heritage sites make no exception to the rule. Recognition of the universal value of this fortified complex, formed of several fortresses, carried both prestige and responsibilities for Romania. The latter involved, among other, adequate legal frameworks, ensuring optimal conditions for the management, protection, restoration, research and highlight of these unique monuments that belong to the world heritage. Romania counts among the 193 signatory states of the 1990 Convention for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in 1972. Nevertheless, the effective enforcement of the Convention occurred only in 2000, when the government approved measures for the protection of the historical monuments on the World Heritage List. After 2000, various laws on the management, preservation and protection of the monuments on the World heritage list were issued, nonetheless, there is sufficient space for improvement of the national regulatory framework, especially as regards the management of the cultural and natural heritage, the fight against archaeological poaching, the illegal traffic of antiquities etc., all of the above with impact also on the Dacian fortresses on the World Heritage list. Some of the provisions of these laws have not been applied or complied with, which made that some of the Dacian fortresses not to have a legal administrator, further resulting in the monuments decay. To date, there are no management plans for the six Dacian fortresses. To this lack of management plans adds the lack of managers for these monuments, but also the lack of management plans and minimal short-term strategies that would solve stringent issues. Another issue that the Romanian authorities failed to resolve is related to the permanent security of the monuments. The only Dacian fortress from the Orăștiei Mountains to benefit from 24/24-security services is Sarmizegetusa Regia, which is under the administration of the County Council of Hunedoara. Therefore, the phenomenon of the archaeological poaching and deliberate destruction disappeared completely in the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia. Not the same applies for the remaining fortresses, where the destruction, vandalism and archaeological poaching may be still found, and not rarely. In almost all these fortresses, there are buildings in ruin and walls dislodges on several parts. Access routes to some of these Dacian fortresses are inadequate, in some cases even difficult. Vegetation in these unmanaged sites has invaded the monuments, while significant parts of walls and buildings are covered

No abstract