Explorați Cărți electronice
Categorii
Explorați Cărți audio
Categorii
Explorați Reviste
Categorii
Explorați Documente
Categorii
Radu PoPa
Studii i aRticole (i)
ediie ngRijit de
editura
2014
nota editoRiloR
editoRS note
he present volume continues the republishing of the scientiic work of the historian
and archaeologist Radu Popa (1933-1993) by reprinting 23 articles written between
1965 and 1993. Unlike the previous tome (La nceputurile evului mediu romnesc, Alba
Iulia, 2008), which followed a selection made by Radu Popa, in this volume the selection
belongs to the editors.
he articles are thematically grouped as follows: 1. Studies concerning the Land
of Haeg. 2. Articles regarding archaeological artefacts. 3. Assorted articles. In the
irst part, we included those studies pertaining to the Land of Haeg that were not
published in the 2008 volume. he second part includes almost all studies focused on
archaeological artefacts while the last part consists of varied works, be them studies or
simple notes. Unfortunately, we could not recover all the articles that would belong in
this last category, since some publications could not be accessed in the timeframe of this
volumes preparation.
We must underline the fact that we had no intent to publish a critical edition, but only
to reprint these articles, thus allowing the interested parties a better access to them. For
this reason we followed to the letter the previously published text, making only minor
modiications, generally because of the orthography currently in use. Weve retained the
authors own highlighting, marked through distinct characters, and weve tried to be
true to the original illustration. However, as weve already stated in the foreword of the
2008 volume, the Radu Popa archives oicial or private alike do not preserve the
original documentation of the articles, so we could not recover the initial illustration
drawings or photographs. As such, our only option was to try to improve the published
variant, making changes only when the result could not be considered satisfying. Some
drawings had to be redone, several photographs had to be replaced (1 - ig. 2, 6; 13 - ig. 2;
14 - ig. 1, 4, 6, 7; 15 - ig. 3, 4, 6, 9; 18 - ig. 5; 19 - ig. 2-4, 6) and in a few cases we
were forced to substitute the photographs made during the excavations with drawings
illustrating approximately the same situation (12 - ig. 3; 15 - ig. 2, 5, 8). his way we
ensured that all articles preserve their original design.
Regarding the notes, weve removed some out-of-date comments and weve improved
the references to works that at the time were not published yet (such as the article about
the church in Streisngeorgiu or the Land of Haeg monograph). In the bibliographical
references unlike the originally published text weve tried to use the whole title for
the diferent publications.
he articles initially published in Romanian are accompanied by an English translation
(although the igures appear only in the Romanian variant). he articles written from
the start in French or German are published as such, with no English translation.
Braov, 24 martie 2014
ceRcetRI
N ARA HAEGULUI I.
cetile din
aRa Haegului *
1.
2.
3.
I. Conea, Basarabii din Arge. Despre originea lor teritorial i etnic, Bucureti, 1935, extras din
Rnduiala, an I, nr. 2. Cf. i R. Vuia, ara Haegului i regiunea Pdurenilor, n Lucrrile Institutului de
Geograie din Cluj, 1926, p. 55 i urm.
Vezi n special V. Vtianu, Vechile biserici de piatr romneti din judeul Hunedoara, n Anuarul
Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice. Transilvania, Cluj, 1930 i mai nou n sinteza aceluiai, Istoria artei feudale
n rile romne, I, Bucureti, 1959. Cf. de asemenea V. Drgu, Vechi monumente hunedorene, Bucureti,
1968. Pentru pictura bisericilor haegane, cu datri foarte timpurii, vezi I. D. tefnescu, La peinture
religieuse en Valachie et en Transylvanie depuis les origines jusqu au XIXe sicle, Paris, 1932.
R. Popa, Cnezatul Marei. Studii documentare i arheologice n Maramureul istoric, Baia Mare, 1969, p. 5-6,
precum i n capitolul introductiv al lucrrii noastre ara Maramureului n veacul al XIV-lea, Bucureti,
1970.
Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice, XLI, 1972, 3, p. 54-66
1.
10
ele nu s-au bucurat nc, cu dou excepii azi depite4, de o publicare propriu-zis
n literatura de specialitate.
mprejurarea potrivit creia interesul artat pn acum cetilor din Haeg s-a
manifestat prin considerarea individual a monumentelor respective, desprinse din
contextul de istorie social-politic, tratate independent de particularitile geograice
locale i totodat desprinse din grupul cetilor haegane, neles ca un ansamblu
coerent, a mpiedicat n mod practic valoriicarea acestor mrturii pentru istoria
regiunii. Dar n realitate i faptul nu mai trebuie demonstrat cetile medievale
nu i-au fcut apariia n afara unor stricte condiionri. Mai mult dect la oricare
alt gen de monumente, data construciei, locul ales, apartenena sau forma cetilor,
au reprezentat relexul unora dintre cele mai intime particulariti ale mecanismului
social-politic dintr-o regiune dat. Considerarea cetilor din Haeg ca un ansamblu
de monumente, iecare cu semniicaia sa dar toate determinate de realitile istorice
locale, poate contribui la precizarea etapelor i a formelor speciice de evoluie a
societii haegane. Acestea sunt aspectele pe care vom ncerca s le tratm n
paginile urmtoare.
Dup cum este cunoscut, cea mai veche meniune din izvoarele medievale
referitoare la ara Haegului dateaz din 1247 i se al n celebra Diplom a
cavalerilor Ioanii. Ea oglindete, dei n forme greu de reconstituit, o anumit
legtur, probabil i cu aspecte politice, ntre ara Haegului i formaiile statale de
la sud de Carpai, de pe teritoriul Olteniei5.
Urmtoarea meniune documentar este cu trei decenii mai trzie, din 1276 i
se refer la un Petru comite de Haeg6. Precizm c la nceputurile organizrii sale
politico-administrative n cadrul regatului medieval maghiar, ara Haegului este
desemnat cnd drept comitat, cnd drept district, pentru ca abia ulterior regiunea
s-i deinitiveze statutul de district al comitatului de Hunedoara7. Oricum,
pomenitul comite Petru era, n acelai timp i n primul rnd, mare comis al curii
regale8, el iind deci un nalt dregtor din preajma regelui, cu o nsrcinare special
n ara Haegului.
Cea mai veche cetate medieval de piatr cunoscut azi n regiune, castrul regal
de deasupra localitii Haeg, trebuie pus n legtur cu aceast meniune. Pentru
datarea nceputurilor ei n deceniul opt al veacului al XIII-lea pledeaz i o alt
mprejurare. n primii ani ai domniei lui Ladislau IV Cumanul s-a produs aciunea
voievodului Litovoi, de airmare a independenei i de ocupare a unor regiuni
innd de autoritatea regal, urmat la scurt vreme de expediia militar care s-a
ncheiat cu nfrngerea i uciderea voievodului din Oltenia i cu luarea n prinsoare a
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Este vorba de prezentrile succinte fcute n urm cu opt decenii cetii Col i turnului de la Crivadia de
ctre Szinte Gbor, cu planuri i desene bune dar cu datri eronate; cf. mai jos notele sub monumentele
respective.
Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, ara Romneasc, vol. I, p. 4.
Documente privind istoria Romniei., C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 179, o traducere incomplet
dup un regest din Hurmuzaki, Documente, I, p. 410, ntemeiat pe o transcriere din 1291. Titlul exact al
personajului este Petrus magister agasonum nostrorum comes de Haczak, cf. ntz Geza, Die Baukunst
Transsilvaniens im 11.-13. Jahrhundert, n Acta Historiae Artium, tom XIV, Budapesta, 1968, p. 167.
Pesty Frigyes, Az eltnt rgi vrmegyk, vol. I, Budapesta, 1880, p. 9. La 1390 era nc vorba de comitatus
et districtus Hachsak; cf. Csnki, Magyarorszg trtnelmi fldrajza a Hunyadiak korban, vol. V, Budapesta,
1913, p. 45-46.
Vezi nota 6.
10 .
11 .
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 272. O discuie detaliat asupra
documentului la A. Sacerdoeanu, Comentarii la diploma din 1285 privind pe magistrul Gheorghe, n
Analele Universitii C. I. Parhon-Bucureti, Seria tiine sociale, istorie, 9, 1957, p. 27-43.
Istoria Romniei, vol. II, p. 146-147.
Pentru asemenea opinii n lucrri mai vechi, vezi la A. Sacerdoeanu, op. cit.; cf. de asemenea M.
Constantinescu C. Daicoviciu t. Pascu, Istoria Romniei-compendiu, Bucureti, 1969, p. 128.
Fig. 1.
ara Haegului
hart cu cetile
medievale
11
12
larg privelite asupra ntregii depresiuni, att spre Poarta de Fier, pe unde drumul
venea din Banat, ct i spre izvoarele Streiului pe unde, peste pasul Merior-Bnia,
se ajungea pe valea Jiului. Particularitatea excepional a amplasamentului cetii
const n posibilitatea de a vedea de aici, peste un umr de deal, i nspre nord, de-a
lungul vii inferioare a Streiului pn n valea Mureului.
Din cetate nu s-au mai pstrat dect poriuni de zidrie nconjurate pe trei laturi
de un an adnc de aprare cu traseu semicircular. Diametrul mare al cetii a fost de
cca. 60-70 m. Orice ncercare de reconstituire a planului monumentului pe temeiul
urmelor de ziduri, azi acoperite n cea mai mare parte de moloz i vegetaie, ni se
pare riscant. n orice caz, cetatea a fost de dimensiuni mici, o imagine sugestiv
iindu-ne oferit de un desen din secolul trecut, din epoca n care zidurile erau mult
mai bine conservate, desen ce pare s respecte n linii mari conturul construciilor
chiar dac opereaz cu rvn romantic asupra detaliilor topograice12. Ar rezulta din
acest desen existena unui bastion circular nspre nord, a unui turn-donjon central,
probabil cel din care s-a pstrat un fragment de zid nalt de cca. 6 m (ig. 3) i a altor
construcii mai puin importante pe latura de sud.
Prima meniune documentar a cetii propriu-zise pare a i din anul 1317 cnd
unul dintre cei cinci ii ai lui Nicolaie, iul lui Iwanka din neamul Bolugh (familia
Szechy), rspltii de regele Carol Robert pentru slujbe credincioase, este pomenit
ca Nicolaus de Hatzak comite i castelan al regelui13. Cu toate rezervele exprimate
deja pe marginea meniunii14 sau a acelora care s-ar mai putea formula, faptul c
Nicolae Szechy a participat n acest an la o lupt ante castrum Dewa mpotriva
adversarilor regelui angevin, ce ineau pe atunci n minile lor aceast din urm
cetate, pledeaz pentru calitatea sa efectiv de castelan al nvecinatei ceti regale
din Haeg.
Urmtoarea meniune documentar, de aceast dat sigur, referitoare la cetatea
regal de la Haeg, este de la mijlocul veacului al XIV-lea. n 1360 alm c un
numr de moii coniscate de Andrei Lcki, fostul voievod al Transilvaniei, au fost
alipite domeniului cetii Haeg15. Or, Andrei Lcki a fost voievod al Transilvaniei
ntre 1356 i 135916. Pe de alt parte, Petru de Iara i de Oarda, vicevoievod al
Transilvaniei, poart tot n 1360 i titlul de castelan de Haeg17. De la aceast dat
nainte, meniunile documentare ale cetii se nmulesc iar la 1421 alm despre o
lupt cu turcii petrecut sub castro Haczok18. Episodul a avut loc n toamna anului
1420, n timpul primei incursiuni otomane n aceste pri ale Transilvaniei.
n afar de cetatea regal, la Haeg sau lng Haeg a existat i un domus regis
despre care avem cea mai veche tire din anul 1402 cnd castelanii cetii Haeg
12 .
13 .
14 .
15 .
16 .
17 .
18 .
N. Nagy de Fogaraschi, Ansicht des Hatzeger Tales, stamp din colecia Dr. Emmerich Borger, reprodus
n volumul Siebenbrgen, I, Bucureti, 1943, p. 428.
Gyorfy Gy., Adatok a romnok XIII. szzadi trtnethez s a romn llam kezdeteihez, n Trtnelmi
Szemle, 1964, p. 547.
M. Holban, Despre raporturile lui Basarab cu Ungaria angevin i despre relectarea campaniei din 1330
n diplomele regale i n Cronica pictat, n Studii, I, tom 20, 1967, p. 8-9.
Castrum nostrum de Hathchak; E. Lukinich L. Gldi, Documenta historiam Valachorum in Hungaria
illustrantia usque ad annum 1400 p. Christ., Budapesta, 1941, p. 144.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, Introducere, vol. I, p. 501.
A Hunyadmegyei Trtnelmi s Rgszeti Trsulat Evknyve, I, p. 60-62.
Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 515.
judec in Haczak in domo regia19 dar care este cu siguran mai vechi. nc din
1349, regele Ungariei Ludovic I n drumul su prin Transilvania se oprete la Haeg
i acord aici o diplom de ntrire20 iar n anul urmtor, n timp ce vicevoievodul
Transilvaniei participa la campania din Italia, soia lui i avea reedina la Haeg i
ddea de aici porunci n numele soului ei21.
Cu alte cuvinte, dac cetatea regal de la Haeg a avut de la nceput rosturi strict
militare, putnd adposti o garnizoan permanent de cca. 20-30 lupttori, ea nu
a depit niciodat acest caracter. Rolul de centru administrativ al districtului i
de reedin a castelanului, uneori identic cu comitele, alteori un reprezentant al
acestuia, l-a avut de fapt domus regis de la poalele cetii, ce a fost construit foarte
probabil n acelai timp cu cetatea. n acest fel privind lucrurile, credem c acel turris
lapidea pe care regele Matei Corvin l druiete n 1462 iilor lui loan Cnde din
Ru de Mori mpreun cu satul Varalja (Subcetate) de lng Haeg22, nu este altceva
dect chiar fosta cetate regal. Dania nu afecta funcionarea n continuare a centrului
administrativ regal de la Haeg. De altfel, n 1496 este vorba ntr-un document de
castrum... Haczakwara, aparinnd unui descendent al familiei, Mihail Kendefy23.
Prin mprejurrile construirii i prin funcia pe care a ndeplinit-o mai bine de
150 de ani, cetatea regal de lng Haeg are valoarea unui unicat printre cetile
medievale din ara Haegului. Situaia se prezint deosebit pentru alte patru
monumente de care ne ocupm n cele ce urmeaz.
La 20 km vest de Haeg, n colul de nord-vest al rii Haegului, se al cetatea
de la Rchitova. Monument pn acum n mod practic necunoscut, semnalat doar
ca turn de paz ntr-un ghid local24, cetatea de la Rchitova domin centrul actual
al satului de pe un pinten de deal nalt de 70-80 m deasupra vii cu acelai nume.
Cetatea se compune dintr-un turn de piatr cu zidul gros de aproape 2 m, de plan
ptrat, cu latura de 8,40 m, avnd iniial trei sau patru nivele deasupra unei pivniedepozit i dintr-o incint de plan oval, cu diametrele de 45 i 35 m, mrginit de un
val de pmnt, i pe direcia de acces, de un an de aprare (ig. 4-6).
Spturile arheologice iniiate n vara anului 1970 la Rchitova25 nu au dat nc
rezultate care s poat i considerate deinitive. Menionm totui c a fost surprins
armtura din stlpi de lemn a valului i un an de aprare mai vechi, situat la numai
10 m distan de turn, an astupat n momentul amenajrii incintei actuale. Puinele
fragmente ceramice i piese de metal surprinse n sptur se dateaz din secolul al
XIV-lea pn n secolul al XVI-lea.
19 .
20 .
21 .
22 .
23 .
24 .
25 .
Mlyusz Elemr, Zsigmondkori oklevltr, Budapesta, 1951-1958, vol. II1, nr. 1877.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C,Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. IV, p. 491.
Idem, p. 526.
Szabo Kroly, A Kendeiek, n Szzadok, 1868, p. 38; cf. i Csnki, Magyarorszg ... fldrajza, V, p. 5253. Satul Subcetate este situat ntre dealul pe care se al castrul regal i rul Strei. Opinia ultimului autor
citat, dup care ar i vorba de un turn oarecare, altul dect castrul regal, este nefondat. Pentru 1496-1499,
Csnki citeaz un document din care reiese c de acest turn a inut din vechime pdurea Balomirului
(op. cit., loc. cit.); compar cu nota urmtoare!
Silva ... balamer vocata ad castrum suum Haczakwara vocatum pertinente; ntz, op. cit., p. 167. Este evident
c documente contemporane folosesc pentru cetatea regal cnd denumirea de turris cnd pe aceea de
castrum, datorit probabil dimensiunilor mici ale cetii.
Octavian Floca, Hunedoara. Ghid al judeului, Deva, 1969, p. 224.
Cercetri organizate de Muzeul Judeean din Deva n colaborare cu Institutul de Arheologie din
Bucureti, sub conducerea autorului. Din colectiv au mai fcut parte Gh. Lazin, C. lonescu i M. Grigore.
13
14
Fig.2.
Cetatea de
la Mlieti,
vedere de
ansamblu
Cea mai veche tire documentar privind Rchitova este din anul 1360 i se
datoreaz unui proces purtat ntre familia cnezial din Densu i nepoii de bunic ai
unui oarecare Costea de-o parte, i o a treia familie cnezial pe care deocamdat nu
ncercm s o localizm, pe de alt parte26. Familia cnezial din Densu, reprezentat
prin Stoyan i Bolyen, iii lui Musana, airm cu acest prilej c satul a fost ntemeiat
de amintitul Costea cu ajutorul lui Musana, tire care ar plasa nceputurile Rchitovei
ca sat cel mai trziu pe la 1310-1320. Ei obin ntrire n stpnirea a dou treimi
din moia Rchitova, moie care, aa dup cum rezult din document, o stpneau
de facto i pn atunci. Densuul se al peste deal de Rchitova, la o distan de 4-5
km, pe o vale paralel i aluent
rului Galbena.
Din
deceniile
urmtoare
posedm cteva tiri care atest
moia Rchitova ca alndu-se n
continuare n stpnirea familiei
cneziale din Densu, mpreun
cu alte sate din aceast parte a
rii Haegului i din nvecinata
vale a Cernei27, dar cetatea nu
este pomenit n nici unul dintre
documentele accesibile nou28.
La o distan de aproape 20
km de Rchitova, n colul de
sud-vest al rii Haegului, la
captul dinspre munte al satului
Suseni innd de nvecinatul Ru
de Mori, se al unul lng altul dou monumente relativ binecunoscute n literatura
de specialitate.
La piciorul ultimelor creste ale Retezatului, exact n punctul n care valea ngust
a Ruorului iese dintre muni, pe un tpan de pe partea stng a apei, se pstreaz o
construcie cu o siluet particular. Este vorba de o biseric sal, de dimensiuni mici,
cu altarul rectangular nclecat de un turn masiv ce cuprinde trei etaje ncoronate
de piramida de piatr a acoperiului29. n ordinea noastr de preocupri, ne limitm
aici la descrierea turnului, de plan aproape rectangular, cu laturile de 7,00x6,80 m,
la al crui prim etaj, compus dintr-o camer spaioas, se ajungea n exterior, pe o
scar de lemn azi disprut, situat pe latura sudic. Al doilea etaj cuprinde o alt
ncpere, cu ferestre pe trei dintre laturi iar deasupra acesteia, nglobnd i spaiul
din interiorul coifului de piatr, se ala o ncpere prevzut cu zece ferestre mici de
tragere. Coiful acoperiului este strbtut de un co de fum care dovedete existena
sobelor n ncperi.
26 .
27 .
28 .
29 .
Fig. 3.
Ruinele cetii
regale din
Haeg
15
16
Fig. 4.
Cetatea de
la Rchitova.
Turnul-locuin
cu incinta
mrginit de
val i an de
aprare
La 1359, moia Ru de Mori i alte dou sate innd de ea, coniscate nainte vreme
de la Mihail zis Cnde, sunt napoiate vduvei lui Mihail din porunca regelui
Ludovic33. Coniscarea s-a produs foarte probabil cu doi-trei ani mai devreme, cu
prilejul represiunilor iniiate de Andrei Lcki, voievod al Transilvaniei, mpotriva
feudalitii romneti din ara Haegului, cnd Mihail Cnde i ali cneji romni au
fost executai34. Tot din acest document alm c tatl lui Mihail se numea Nicolae
zis Cnde din Ru de Mori. Acesta din urm, cel mai vechi personaj cunoscut al
familiei, poate i deci plasat pe la anul 1300.
n 1394, alm despre alte dou generaii ale
familiei, Ioan i Cnde, iii lui Cnde, iul lui Mihail35,
deci nepoii i iul celui executat nainte de 1359.
De la aceast dat nainte, tirile privind familia se
nmulesc iar Cndetii cunosc sub Sigismund de
Luxemburg, Ioan de Hunedoara i Matia Corvin, o
ascensiune excepional36.
Abia de la sfritul veacului al XV-lea posedm
informaii documentare referitoare la monumentele
ce ne intereseaz. n 1493 este vorba de un turris
supra possessionem Malomwyz (Ru de Mori), n
1501 se vorbete de rul sub quadam turri Kolcz
nuncupata intra metas possessionis Zyzen... decurrens
(Suseni), iar o cercetare din 1519 pomenete de
domus Ladislai Kendefy in Malomwyz, de domus
Nicolai et Michaelis Kendefy in Koch habita, curia
scilicet nobilitaris i apoi din nou de domus curiaque
nobilitaris Ladislai necnon Nicolai et Michaelis
Kendefy in (possessiones) Malomwyz ac Kolch subtus
castrum similiter Kolch... habita et adiacens37. Primele
dou meniuni care ne sunt accesibile doar prin
intermediul citatelor desprinse din contextul rmas inedit, ar putea s se refere ie
la cetate, ie la turnul de pe altarul bisericii Col38. Meniunea din 1519 se refer
cert la cetate caliicnd-o drept castrum i precizeaz n plus existena a dou curi
nobiliare distincte, una n Suseni, lng care se ala capela cu turn pe altar, a doua n
Ru de Mori, satul originar al familiei. Pe temeiul documentelor mai vechi, epoca
la care familia Cndetilor s-a desprit n dou ramuri distincte se plaseaz spre
sfritul veacului al XIV-lea i nceputul celui urmtor, cnd fraii Ioan i Cnde,
reprezentnd a patra generaie cunoscut a familiei, ncep s apar n diplome ca
avnd drepturi patrimoniale distincte39.
33 .
34 .
35 .
36 .
37 .
38 .
39 .
Csnki, Magyarorszg ... fldrajza, V, p. 52. Atacul s-a putut produce ie asupra turnului de pe altarul
bisericii, ie asupra cetii.
V. Drgu, op. cit., p. 34.
Fig. 5.
Cetatea de
la Rchitova.
Releveu arh.
C. Ionescu
17
18
suntem informai despre existena unei puternice familii cneziale iar n 1453, cnd
avem prima tire scris sigur despre possessio Malaesd, aceasta aparine tocmai
cnezilor din Sla42. Despre acetia din urm posedm tiri nc din 1360 cnd un
Konztantyn de Zallas face parte dintre cei 12 cnezi romni ce asist ca jurai, la
Haeg, pe vicevoievodul Transilvaniei ntr-un proces privind stpniri romneti din
ara Haegului43.
Un document destul de ciudat, din 1392, se refer la un schimb de moii ntre
doi cnezi nrudii, desemnai ca iind amndoi din Strei-Sngiorgiu (Kendres ilio
Gregorii de Zenthgeorgh i Lachk ilio Nicolai de eadem), localitate situat pe cursul
inferior al Streiului, n care una dintre persoane cedeaz prile sale de stpnire
in possessionibus Zalaspathaka et Fenyalath vocatis in districtu Hathzak existentes44.
Prima moie este Slaul iar cea de a doua, semniicnd n traducere Sub brazi, nu
mai apare sub acest nume n nici un document ulterior, ea putnd i deci identic
cu Mlieti. O anumit rezerv pstrm numai n msura n care cele dou sate
Sla existente azi, -de Jos i -de Sus, apar precizate cu adjectivul respectiv abia cu
ncepere de la mijlocul veacului al XV-lea i astfel, acel Fenyalath de la 1392 ar
putea i numele mai vechi al unuia dintre Slauri.
n poida pomenitului schimb de moii, aceleai persoane cu rudele lor (Kenderes
et Barb, iliis Gregorii nec non Kozta ilio Nicolai, Keneziis de Hattzagh precum i
Laczk ilio Nicola de Zentgewrgy ilio ejusdem Kenderes) sunt ntrite la 1404 n
stpnirea quandam possessionem seu Keneziatum Zalaspataka vocatum, in comitatu
Hunyad existentem45. Documentele ulterioare oglindind ascensiunea familiei, ntr-o
oarecare msur asemntoare celei parcurse de Cndeti, ne intereseaz aici mai
puin. Oricum, cetatea de la Mlieti nu este atestat n documentele din veacul al
XV-lea accesibile nou46.
Interpretate ndeobte ca turnuri de observaie, ca turnuri de paz sau puse n
legtur cu drumurile ce treceau peste munte, monumentele la care ne-am referit,
n cea mai simpl i mai veche form a lor, nu au fost altceva dect turnuri-locuin,
exemplare ale Wohntrme-lor sau donjoanelor izolate cum li spune n literatura
de specialitate, rspndite pe aproape ntreaga suprafa a Europei din primele 2-3
veacuri ale mileniului nostru. Nici turnul de la Col i nici cel de la Mlieti nu
aveau de pzit vreun drum, pentru simplul motiv c cei care s-ar i ncumetat s
treac, clare sau pe jos, peste crestele Retezatului nspre versantul oltean, puteau
foarte bine s o ia pe oricare dintre vile nvecinate, lipsite de turnuri. Nici nu se
poate pune de altfel problema existenei unor garnizoane permanente n aceste
cetui n vremea n care ele iinau doar ca turnuri, ci poate doar a unui paznic,
familiar al cneazului proprietar. Spaiul limitat la dou-trei ncperi suprapuse, lipsa
sursei de ap, atestarea satelor lng care se al turnurile ca iind n veacurile XIV42 .
43 .
44 .
45 .
46 .
49 .
50 .
Fig. 6.
Cetatea de
la Rchitova.
Latura de est
a turnului
locuin
19
20
Fig. 7.
Cetatea Col.
Releveu
din arhiva
Institutului de
arhitectur
I. Mincu din
Bucureti
T. Trpcea, Despre unele ceti medievale din Banat, n Studii de istorie a Banatului, Timioara, 1969, p.
65-66.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. X I I I , vol. II, p. 192-193.
Idem, p. 180.
Gh. Anghel I. Berciu, Ceti medievale din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Bucureti, 1968, p. 21 i urm., vezi
n special p. 47 i planul la p. 54.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 363 i 507.
Idem, p. 445.
K. Horedt, op. cit., p. 608; cf. i Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. I, p. 142.
Se pare c un asemenea turn, ridicat de familia Gutkeled la Arie, la locul de vam al srii ce cobora
pe Some (Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 390-391), a fost
transformat ulterior n cetatea regal atestat n secolul XIV.
altele trebuie s i fost turnuri construite n cuprinsul unor curi locuite permanent,
aa cum sugereaz exemplul citat la Rodna. O mprire pe categorii a acestui gen
de monumente necesit cercetri temeinice i analiza iecrui caz particular, n
contextul tirilor documentare i mai ales a situaiei sale topograice. n ceea ce ne
privete, socotim important faptul c n grupul acestor monumente transilvnene
se gseau, n a doua jumtate a veacului al XIII-lea, destule exemplare care s poat
servi drept model pentru turnurile-locuin ale cnejilor haegani.
Analogiile pe care le putem ncerca nu se limiteaz doar la mediul feudalitii
catolice laice sau eclesiastice, de origine german sau maghiar. Dispunem de un
monument asemntor i n mediul romnesc din Maramure, unde la Onceti,
pe valea Izei, cetatea situat pe vrful unui deal, la cca 3 km de sat, se compune
dintr-un turn-locuin de plan ptrat, cu latura de 7,50 m i dintr-un val de pmnt
cu traseu circular, cu diametrul de cca 60 m (ig. 12)59. Cetatea de la Onceti are
i o form mai veche de existen, dar turnul de piatr dateaz cu certitudine din
prima jumtate a veacului al XIV-lea iar proprietarii ei au fost cnejii din Onceti60.
Asemnarea cu turnul-locuin de la Rchitova este n toate privinele perfect.
Bineneles c nu avem n vedere o legtur direct ntre cele dou monumente, ci
vrem doar s subliniem c n condiii social-politice
asemntoare, de conservare a unei autonomii
mai mult sau mai puin largi n zonele mrginae
ale Transilvaniei, feudalitatea romneasc s-a
manifestat identic.
i pentru c tot am luat n discuie o analogie
din Maramure, putem aminti aici c reedina
fortiicat a bogdnetilor de la Cuhea, distrus pe la
1359, cuprindea n incint o cldire cu dimensiunile
de 9x12 m, deci exact ct turnul-locuin al greavilor
din Clnic. Este adevrat c, spre deosebire de
turnul din Clnic, cldirea bogdnetilor a fost din
lemn i pmnt, pe o temelie din bolovani de ru,
dar grosimea de peste un metru a pereilor ei i
constatarea c parterul a fost folosit ca depozit ofer
sugestii pentru aprecierea nlimii construciei i
reconstituirea elevaiei sale61.
n legtur cu grupul de monumente haegane
la care ne-am oprit, credem c trebuie s lum n
discuie i una dintre cetile rii Romneti,
aceea de la Poenari-Arge. Aa cum s-a airmat
59 .
60 .
61 .
H. Daicoviciu O. Bandula I. Glodariu, Cercetrile de la Onceti, din Maramure, Baia Mare, 1965, p. 8
i 25-26.
Despre cetatea de la Onceti, vezi i R. Popa, ara Maramureului, p. 161-162 i 233-234 precum i Idem,
Noi cercetri de arheologie medieval n Maramure. antierul Srsu, n Studii i Cercetri de Istorie
Veche, 4, tom 22, 1971.
Complexul de la Cuhea publicat de R. Popa M. Zdroba, antierul arheologic Cuhea. Un centru voievodal
din veacul al XIV-lea, Baia Mare, 1966, p. 8 i urm. Am revenit cu precizri n plus n lucrarea nostr, ara
Maramureului, p. 235-237. Datorit analogiilor aici discutate, nu putem exclude posibilitatea ca aceast
cldire s i avut mai multe nivele construite din lemn apropiindu-se deci de forma obinuit a turnuluilocuin, dar cu utilizare permanent.
Fig. 8.
Cetatea Col.
Latura de vest
a turnului
locuin
21
22
64 .
65 .
66 .
67 .
68 .
69 .
Acesta ni se pare a i o limit ante quem pentru construirea unor monumente att de simple, aparinnd
unui mod de via caracteristic nceputurilor Evului Mediu. De altfel, la mijlocul veacului al XV-lea s-a
produs trecerea la catolicism a principalelor familii cneziale romneti din ara Haegului iar acestea
din urm, transformate n familii de nobili, nu mai puteau construi asemenea turnuri-locuin primitive.
Curtea fortiicat de la Sntmria-Orlea, ridicat dup 1447 de Cndeti (vezi mai jos notele 75 i 81)
ar putea ilustra noua serie de construcii datorate descendenilor cnezilor haegani.
Adic pn ctre 1320. n 1317, cetatea regal de la Haeg pare a se ala n stpnirea regelui angevin
(vezi notele 13 i 14) i nu este exclus ca cnejii haegani s i luptat de partea lui Carol Robert sub
conducerea castelanului din Haeg, la fel ca i cnejii maramureeni pe Tisa superioar (R. Popa, ara
Maramureului..., p. 239-240).
Spre mijlocul veacului al XIV-lea, n epoca de centralizare care a culminat n aceast regiune cu represiunile
iniiate de Andrei Lackfy, construirea cetuilor ni se pare exclus. Dup moartea lui Ludovic I i pn
ctre 1404, raporturile mai stabile cu ara Romneasc i rolul militar din ce n ce mai important al
cnejilor haegani, au creat din nou condiii pentru airmarea unor anumite veleiti ale acestora.
Fig. 9.
Cetatea de la
Mlieti.
Releveu
arh. Olga Bzu
23
24
Fig. 10.
Cetatea de la
Clnic. Turnullocuin
71 .
72 .
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. I, p. 406-409; Documenta Valachorum,
p. 143-144, 268-269 (in aliis possessionibus ad eandem possessionem Brittonia pertinentibus) i p. 321-322;
cf. i comentariile lui M. Holban, Deposedri i judeci n Haeg, p. 149-153. Localizarea Britoniei
n colul de vest al rii Haegului (Csnki, Magyarorszg ... fldrajza, V) se ntemeiaz n principal
pe meniunea din 1366 dup care possessio Brithonia se nvecineaz cu possessio olachalis Brazua
(Documenta Valachorum, p. 206-207), ultima identiicat cu Breazova. Dar despre aceeai nvecinare, textul
documentului precizeaz c este a parte civitatis Hachzak iar Haegul este departe de Breazova, ntre cele
dou localiti alndu-se alte dou sau trei sate. Aceast ultim precizare se potrivete mai bine cu poziia
satului Bretea-Strei, de lng Haeg. Din toate aceste motive pstrm o anumit rezerv n localizarea
Britoniei.
Documenta Valachorum, p. 401-402 i p. 508.
Pe valea Rului Alb, mai sus de satul cu acelai nume, la locul numit Cetate, se mai desluete pe
teren existena unor temelii ocupnd o suprafa cu diametrul de cca. 30 m. Orice precizare n plus este
imposibil nainte de efectuarea unor spturi.
73 .
74 .
75 .
Fig. 11.
Cetatea de
la Grbova.
Turnul-locuin
transformat n
sec. XIX
25
26
Fig. 12.
Cetatea de
la Onceti.
Releveu dup
H. Daicoviciu
i colab.
Fig. 13.
Cetatea de
la Poenari.
Releveu din
arhiva D.M.I.
82 .
83 .
Fig. 14.
Curtea ntrit
din Slaul de
Sus. Ruinele
capelei
27
28
Fig. 15.
Turnul de paz
de la Crivadia.
Releveu arh.
Eugenia
Greceanu
*
*
84 .
85 .
86 .
Fig. 17.
Turnul de paz
de la Crivadia
29
tHe FoRtReSSeS oF
tHe land oF Haeg *
1.
2.
3.
I. Conea, Basarabii din Arge. Despre originea lor teritorial i etnic, Bucureti, 1935, excerpt from
Rnduiala, I, n. 2. According likewise to R. Vuia, ara Haegului i regiunea Pdurenilor, in Lucrrile
Institutului de Geograie din Cluj, 1926, p. 55f.
Especially see V. Vtianu, Vechile biserici de piatr romneti din judeul Hunedoara, in Anuarul
Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice, Transilvania, Cluj, 1930 and later in his synthesis Istoria artei feudale n
rile romne, I, Bucureti, 1959. According likewise to V. Drgu, Vechi monumente hunedorene, Bucureti,
1968. For the very early dating of some church paintings in the Land of Haeg see I. D. tefnescu, La
peinture religieuse en Valachie et en Transylvanie depuis les origines jusquau XIXe sicle, Paris, 1932.
R. Popa, Cnezatul Marei. Studii documentare i arheologice n Maramureul istoric, Baia Mare, 1969, p. 5-6,
and the introduction of R. Popa, ara Maramureului n veacul al XIV-lea, Bucureti, 1970.
Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice, XLI, 1972, 3, p. 54-66
1.
32
of Haeg. hese are known to a degree but of yet they were not properly published
in specialty literature (with two outdated exceptions4).
A sensible way of inding out more about the regional history was hindered by
studying the fortresses of Haeg as separate entities, detached from their social and
political context, treated independently from their local geographical particularities,
without considering all the fortresses of this area as a coherent group. In reality
and this statement no longer needs to be demonstrated medieval fortresses
did not appear outside some strict conditionings. More than on any other kind
of monument the fortresses date of construction, choice of place, ownership and
shape, were the retort of some of the most intimate particularities of the social and
political mechanisms of a given region. If we think about the fortresses of Haeg
as a group, each with its signiicance, but all of them moulded by the same local
historical realities, we may better understand the speciic shapes taken by Haegs
society during its evolution. hese are the aspects I intend to approach in this paper.
*
*
5.
6.
7.
8.
Succinct presentations, eight decades ago, of the fortress in Col and the tower in Crivadia by Szinte
Gbor, with reliable plans and drawings but wrong dating; see further on, the notes refering to the
respective monuments.
Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, ara Romneasc, vol., I, p. 4.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 179, an incomplete translation
after a regest from Hurmuzaki, Documente, I, p.410, based on a transcription from 1291. he exact title
of the person is Petrus magister agasonum nostrorum comes de Haczak, according to Entz Geza, Die
Baukunst Transsilvaniens im 11-13 Jahrhundert, in Acta Historiae Artium, tom XIV, Budapest, 1968, p.
167.
Pesty Frigyes, Az eltnt rgi vrmegyk, vol. I, Budapest, 1880, p. 9. In 1390 it was still named comitatus
et districtus Hachsak, according to Csnki, Magyarorszg trtnelmi fldrajza a Hunyadiak korban, vol. V,
Budapest, 1913, p. 45-46.
See note 6.
his brother Brbat taken in captivity9. his expedition has been dated in 127710, based
on the Diploma granted in 1285 to its leader. Even though the documents related
to the campaign against Litovoi place on the southern side of the Carpathians the
territories dependent to the Hungarian crown which the voivode had invaded, there
are some historians who consider the Land of Haeg as one of the disputes reasons,
or who localize the ighting in Haeg11, probably inluenced by the existence on the
Strei Valley of the village Ru-Brbat, mentioned for the irst time a century after
these events.
Beyond the details of the discussion, it is clear that Peters actions in Haeg, the
conlict followed by the military expedition against voivode Litovoi and the initial
development of the Land of Haeg as part of the Hungarian Kingdom, (implied,
among other signs, by the founding of the fortress of Haeg), were part of the same
historical moment and were reciprocally conditioned.
he fortress was built on the last of the forested hills that geographically form
the northern border of the Land of Haeg. From a height of about 200 meters the
fortress dominates the conluence of the three main waterways of the region: Strei,
Rul Mare and Galbena or Frcdin. his place afords a large view over the entire
depression, both toward the Iron Gates of Transylvania (Poarta de Fier), with the
road from Banat, and toward the Strei headwaters from where, through the MeriorBnia Pass one would reach the Jiu Valley. he exceptional quality of this place is that
one would observe, over the hill and northward, the entire lower valley of the Strei
River, all the way to the Mure River.
Only some portions of wall remain of the fortress, surrounded on three sides by
a deep semicircular moat. he larger diameter of the fortress used to be of about 6070 m. Any attempt in reconstructing the monuments plan is risky, because today
even what little remains of the walls is covered by debris and vegetation. In any case,
we know that the fortress was small. A suggestive image is given by a nineteenth
century drawing, made in a time when the walls were better preserved; although the
topographic details are approached with a lot of Romantic eagerness, it seems to
respect the constructions contour12. he drawing points to the existence of a circular
bastion to the north, of a central donjon (which is probably preserved to this day as a
6 m tall wall fragment ig. 3) and of several less important buildings on the southern
side.
he actual fortress was mentioned for the irst time in 1317, when one of the ive
sons of Nicolae, son of Iwanka of the Bolugh family (the Szechy family), who were
rewarded by King Charles Robert for faithful services, is mentioned as Nicolaus de
Hatzak, count and castellan of the king13. Although some doubts were and can still
9.
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 272. A detailed discussion on the
document: A. Sacerdoeanu, Comentarii la diploma din 1285 privind pe magistrul Gheorghe, in Analele
Universitii C. I. Parhon-Bucureti, Seria tiine sociale, istorie, 9, 1957, p. 27-43.
Istoria Romniei, vol. II, p. 146-147.
For such opinions in older papers see A. Sacerdoeanu, op. cit.; according likewise to M. Constantinescu
C. Daicoviciu t. Pascu, Istoria Romniei, Bucureti, 1969, p. 128.
N. Nagy de Fogaraschi, Ansicht des Hatzeger Tales, engraving from the collection of Dr. Emmerich Borger,
reproduced in Siebenbrgen, I, Bucureti, 1943, p. 428.
Gyrfy Gy., Adatok a romnok XIII. szzadi trtnethez s a romn llam kezdeteihez in Trtnelmi
Szemle, 1964, p. 547.
33
34
be expressed about this mention14 it is a fact that Nicolae Szechy took part that year
in a battle ante castrum Dewa, against the Angevin kings adversaries (enemies that
at the time were holding this fortress), which supports the assumption that he actually
was castellan of the neighbouring royal fortress of Haeg.
he next written reference to the royal fortress of Haeg, this time a sure one, is
from mid-fourteenth century. In 1360 some estates coniscated by Andrew Lcki, the
former voivode of Transylvania, were attached to the domain of the Haeg fortress15.
Or Andrew Lcki was voivode of Transylvania between 1356 and 135916. In the same
1360, Petru of Iara and of Oarda, vice-voivode of Transylvania, is also mentioned as
castellan of Haeg17. From this date on we have more and more documents concerning
the fortress and in 1421 is even mentioned a battle against the Turks that happened
sub castro Haczok18. he incident happened in the fall of 1420, during the irst
Ottoman incursion in these parts of Transylvania.
Apart from the royal fortress, in Haeg or near Haeg there was also a domus regis of
which the oldest piece of information is from 1402, when the castellans of the Haeg
fortress passed judgment in Haczak in domo regia19, but which has to be older than
the actual mention. In 1349 Louis I, king of Hungary, en route through Transylvania,
stops in Haeg, where he signs a diploma of conirmation20, and in the following year,
when the vice-voivode of Transylvania took part in the Italian campaign, his wife was
residing in Haeg, from where she was ruling in her husbands name21.
In other words, if the royal fortress in Haeg had, from its beginnings, a strictly
military purpose, able to support a permanent garrison of about 20-30 ighters, it
never went beyond this nature. he role of district administrative centre and residence
of the castellan (sometimes the same as the count, sometimes his representative)
actually belonged to the nearby domus regis, probably built at the same time. I think
therefore that the turris lapidea that king Matthias Corvinus donated in 1462 to the
sons of Ioan Cnde of Ru de Mori together with the village Varalja (Subcetate) near
Haeg22 is none other than the former royal fortress. he donation did not afect the
continuous functionality of the royal administrative centre of Haeg. More to the
point, from 1496 dates a document mentioning that castrum... Haczakwara is being
held by a descendant of the Cnde family, Mihail Kendefy23.
14 .
15 .
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
21 .
22 .
23 .
M. Holban, Despre raporturile lui Basarab cu Ungaria angevin i despre relectarea campaniei din 1330
n diplomele regale i n Cronica pictat, in Studii, I, 20, 1967, p. 8-9.
Castrum nostrum de Hathchak; E. Lukinich L. Gldi, Documenta historiam Valachorum in Hungaria
illustrantia usque ad annum 1400 p. Christ, Budapest, 1941, p. 144.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, Introduction, vol. I, p. 501.
A Hunyadmegyei Trtnelmi s Rgszeti Trsulat Evknyve, I, p. 60-62.
Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 515.
Mlyusz Elemr, Zsigmondkori oklevltr, Budapesta, 1951-1958, vol. II1, nr. 1877.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. IV, p. 491.
Ibid., p. 526.
Szab Kroly, A Kendeiek, in Szzadok, 1868, p. 38; according likewise to Csnki, Magyarorszg ...
fldrajza, V, p. 52-53. he village Subcetate is between the hill with the royal castrum and the river Strei.
he later authors opinion, according to which this is just a regular tower, other than the royal castrum,
is ungrounded. For the years 1496-1499, Csnki cites a document stating that the forest of Balomir
depended of old on this tower (op. cit., loc. cit.); compare with following note!
Silva ... balamer vocata ad castrum suum Haczakwara vocatum pertinente; Entz, op. cit., p. 167. It is obvious
that contemporary documents use for the royal fortress the names turris and castrum alternatively,
probably because of the small size of this fortress.
*
*
hrough the circumstances of its building and the function it had fulilled for
more than 150 years, the royal fortress near Haeg has a unique value among the
medieval fortresses of the Land of Haeg. he situation is completely diferent for
the following four fortresses we expound upon in this paper.
Twenty kilometres west of Haeg, in the north-western corner of the Land of
Haeg, we ind the fortress of Rchitova. It is a practically unknown monument,
signalled only as a watch tower in a local guide24. he Rchitova fortress dominates
the current village centre from a 70-80 m high hill, well above the homonymous
valley. It consists of a stone tower, with almost 2 m thick walls. he tower has a
square plan with the side 8.4 m long. It initially had three or four levels above an
underground store. he tower was surrounded by an oval enclosure, with diameters
of 45 and 35 m. he enclosure was further protected by an earthen rampart and, on
its access point, by a moat (ig. 4-6).
Up till now the archaeological excavations started during the summer of 1970 in
Rchitova25 havent provided any conclusive results. Nevertheless, we may note the
discovery of a structure of wooden poles that reinforced the earthen rampart and of
an older moat, only 10 m away from the tower, which was illed-in when the current
enclosure was created. he few pottery fragments and metallic objects discovered in
the excavation date from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries.
he oldest written reference to Rchitova dates from 1360 and we owe it to a
process between the kneaz family of Densu and the grandsons of a certain Costea,
on one side, and a third kneaz family (with an unknown location) on the other
side26. he kneaz family of Densu, represented by Stoyan and Bolyen, sons of
Musana, claimed that the village was founded by Costea with the help of Musana.
his would place the beginnings of Rchitova as a village around 1310-1320 at the
latest. he family from Densu obtained thru the lawsuit a conirmation of their
rule over two thirds of the Rchitova estate, which, as stated in the document, they
already ruled over de facto. Densu is over the hill from Rchitova, 4-5 km away, on
a parallel valley, tributary to the Galbena River.
From the following decades we have some bits of information which mention
that the estate of Rchitova was still owned by the family of Densu, as well as other
estates from this side of the Land of Haeg and in the neighbouring Cerna Valley27.
However the fortress is not mentioned by any of these documents28.
Two monuments that are relatively well documented in the bibliography lie, in
close proximity, almost 20 km away from Rchitova, in the south-western corner
of the Land of Haeg, at the mountain end of the village Suseni belonging to the
neighbouring Ru de Mori.
Near the last summits of the Retezat Mountains, in the exact point where the
narrow Ruor Valley exits the mountains, on a slightly sloped terrace of the left
24 .
25 .
26 .
27 .
28 .
35
36
water bank, one can see a building with a very particular silhouette. It is a small
single nave-church, with a rectangular sanctuary topped by a massive three-levelled
tower with a pyramidal stone roof29. Because of the nature of this study, I shall only
describe the churchs tower. It presents an almost rectangular plan, with sides of 7.0,
respectively 6.8 m. he access to the irst level housing a spacious room was from
outside, on a wooden ladder nowadays gone, initially located on the southern side. he
second level, housing yet another room, presents windows on three of its sides. Above
it is another room with ten arrow slits, which also includes the space inside the stone
roof. he roof is pierced by a chimney, proving the existence of stoves inside the rooms.
Stylistically, this monument was dated at the beginning of the fourteenth century,
a time when in Transylvania the late Romanesque and the early Gothic styles
coexisted30. Both the rectangular sanctuary and the towers pyramidal stone roof
place the monument in a group of Haeg churches dated from the second half of the
thirteenth century to the beginning of the fourteenth century. he oldest preserved
churches of this group are the ones from Densu, Sntmria-Orlea and Strei.
About 70 m away from this church there are the still un-investigated ruins of a
noble residence31, which leads to the hypothesis that one of the churchs functions was
of court chapel. Presenting its second functionality would require the presentation of
all the monuments from this group and therefore I will come back to it.
On the other bank of Ruor, on a terrace 200 m high on the mountain slope,
with a wide view over the entire western side of the Land of Haeg, lies the fortress
Col (ig. 8). he fortress presents an approximately triangular plan, a moat and two
bastions attached to the curtain wall. In the inner yard there is a square planned
donjon, with the side 7.5 m long, built right on the crag overlooking the abyss. Even
today this donjon stands about 12 m high, and initially it had two or three storeys
above a ground loor used for storage (ig. 8). he transformations over the years make
diicult to establish the place of the initial entrance and make us wonder if the current
ground loor entrance existed since the beginning.
In the bibliography it has been repeatedly underlined that the construction of Col
fortress was made in several stages but, without exception, it has been stated that the
donjon and the curtain wall were built from the beginning32. Taking into account the
analogy ofered by the monument from Rchitova, the observation that the curtain
wall is not interlinked with that of the donjon (the two only stand one next to the
other) and the fact that the construction materials of the curtain wall are not similar
to the ones used to build the donjon, it is obvious that only the donjon dates from the
irst stage of construction.
29 .
30 .
31 .
32 .
he monument was published since the nineteenth century by Szinte Gbor, Koloszvr, in Hunyadmegyei
... vknyve, VII, p. 69-73; more recent, see V. Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale, p. 121-122 and V. Drgu,
op. cit., p. 25-26.
V. Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale, loc. cit.
Signalled by Szinte Gbor, op. cit., p. 74, at a time when the walls were better preserved. For the mention
of the court see note 38.
Szinte, op. cit., p. 74f.; Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale, p. 268-269; V. Drgu, op. cit., p. 24. Only Csnki
stated that initially there was only one tower transformed into a fortress between 1501 and 1519, based
on the changing of the terms used in documents (turris in 1501, castrum in 1519, see bellow and note
38). his argument is not decisive since the mention in 1501 could refer to the tower over the sanctuary
of the church in Col and especially since the royal fortress in Haeg is also named turris, as Ive already
mentioned. I believe that the curtain wall of the Col fortress dates at the latest from the irst half of the
ifteenth century.
he documents are once more rather scarce and quite late even though the archives
of the Cnde family of Ru de Mori, later Kendefy, owners of these lands, are the
regions richest family archives. In 1359, the Ru de Mori estate, as well as two other
villages that belonged to it, earlier coniscated from Mihail, also known as Cnde,
was returned to Mihails widow by order of King Louis33. he estate was probably
coniscated two or three years earlier, during voivode Andrew Lckfys repressions
against the Haeg Romanian nobility, when Mihail Cnde and other Romanian
kneazes were executed34. From the aforementioned document we also ind out that
Mihails father was named Nicolae, also known as Cnde of Ru de Mori. his Nicolae,
the oldest known member of the family, was probably living around the year 1300.
In 1394 we learn about two more generations of the family, Ioan and Cnde, sons
of Cnde, son of Mihail35, therefore the grandchildren and the son of the Mihail
executed before 1359. From this date onwards the news about the family are more
numerous and in the time of Sigismund of Luxemburg, John Hunyadi and Matthias
Corvinus the Cndes advance on the social ladder to remarkable positions36.
he aforementioned two monuments belonging to the Cnde family appear in
documents only at the end of the ifteenth century. A documentary mention relating
to the year 1493 refers to a turris supra possessionem Malomwyz (Ru de Mori), while
another one related to the year 1501 talks about the river sub quadam turri Kolcz
nuncupata intra metas possessionis Zyzen... decurrens (Suseni), a survey from 1519
mentions domus Ladislai Kendefy in Malomwyz, domus Nicolai et Michaelis Kendefy
in Koch habita, curia scilicet nobilitaris and then again domus curiaque nobilitaris
Ladislai necnon Nicolai et Michaelis Kendefy in (possessiones) Malomwyz ac Kolch subtus
castrum similiter Kolch... habita et adiacens37. he irst two references, available to us
only through quotes (their context being unpublished up till now), may refer either
to the fortress, either to the tower over the Col church sanctuary38. he one from
1519 certainly refers to the fortress, classifying it as a castrum, and also specifying
the existence of two distinct noble courts: one in Suseni (in vicinity was the chapel
with the tower topping the sanctuary), and a second one in Ru de Mori, the primary
village held by the family. Older documents show that the Cndes had separated into
two distinctive branches between the end of the fourteenth century and the beginning
of the next one, when the brothers Ioan and Cnde, the fourth known generation of
the family, start to appear in diplomas as holders of distinctive patrimonial rights39.
Wed also point out a suggestive document from 1511, talking about a brutal
robbery from the tower of the Cnde kin, happened in 1493, when 3,000 lorins in
money and 400 lorins worth of jewellery and silverware40 were stolen.
33 .
34 .
35 .
36 .
37 .
38 .
39 .
40 .
37
38
irst estate is Sla but the name of the second, in translation Below Fir Trees (Sub
brazi), never again appears in later documents, thus it may very well correspond to
Mlieti. We airm this not without a certain reluctance, since the two villages of
Sla existing nowadays, -de Jos (Lower) and -de Sus (Upper), are designated with
the respective adjectives only since the middle of the ifteenth century, therefore the
Fenyalath from 1392 could be an older name for one of the Sla villages.
Despite the aforementioned estate trade, the same persons and their relatives
(Kenderes et Barb, iliis Gregorii nec non Kozta ilio Nicolai, Keneziis de Hattzagh and
also Laczk ilio Nicolai de Zentgewrgy ilio ejusdem Kenderes) are conirmed in 1404
in holding quandam possessionem seu Keneziatum Zalaspataka vocatum, in comitatu
Hunyad existentem45. Later documents, mirroring the familys ascension, much like
that of the Cnde family, are of little interest for our subject. Either way, the fortress
in Mlieti is not attested in accessible ifteenth century documents46.
Most of the time interpreted as observation towers, as guard towers or connected
to the roads crossing over the mountain, the above mentioned monuments, in their
simplest and older form, were nothing more than dwelling-towers; such Wohntrme
or isolated donjons, as they are named in literature, spread over the entirety of
Europe during the irst two or three centuries of our millennium. he towers of Col
or Mlieti didnt have any roads to guard since the ones who dared to cross the
Retezat Mountains, on horseback or on foot, could opt to pass through any of the
nearby valleys, which lacked towers. Also, we shouldnt even begin to imagine that
these fortresses had a permanent garrison at the time when they consisted solely of
towers, but at most a lonely watchman, a close familiar of the title-holding kneaz.
he space, limited to two or three overlapping rooms, the lack of a source of water,
the fact that the villages around them were under the rule of kneaz families during
the fourteenth and the ifteenth centuries, all plead for this interpretation, as do the
extant analogies.
hese four abovementioned monuments were fortiied residences, with a
temporary character, used in times of danger by the Romanian kneaz families of the
Land of Haeg and, at the same time, a safe place for valuables assets.
Following the natural low of study, we need to ponder now when and under the
inluence of what previous models did these monuments appeared in the Romanian
society of the Land of Haeg of those times.
Judging on the base of the written documents but also taking into account the
preserved monuments, the dwelling-tower trend spreads throughout Transylvania
during the second half of the thirteenth century and at the beginning of the next.
It appears that a big contribution at introducing them in Transylvanias architecture
panoply should be attributed to the greaves, leaders of the Saxon colonists. In
any case, the oldest documented mention of such a dwelling-tower speaks of
turris lapidea et domus lignea apud turim et curiam circummunitam, all of them
also designated with the term of castrum, owned before 1268 in Rodna by a comes
Henchmannus and sold at the time by his brother, Count Rotho47.
45 .
46 .
47 .
Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 428. In the regest in Mlyusz, Zsigmondkori oklevltr, II1, nr. 3368, Costea
is mentioned as son of Jaroslaus.
It seem important again that in Csnki, Magyarorszg ...fldrajza, V, there is no discussion of the fortress
in Mlieti , which proves that in the novelty documents seen by him this fortress is never mentioned.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 498.
39
40
49 .
50 .
51 .
52 .
53 .
54 .
Ibid., p. 118-119. he document is dated in 1269 but refers to events from 1264. For the monument also
see R. Heitel, Cetatea din Clnic, Bucureti, 1968. he author told us that he considers very plausible the
existence of the isolated, initial dwelling-tower, without enclosure.
K. Horedt, Zur siebenbrgischen Burgenforschung, in Sdost-Forschungen, Mnchen, VI, 1941, p. 607
and V. Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale, p. 17.
V. Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale, p. 19. his dating is based on the fact that in 1289 King Ladislaus IV
was laying siege to Cheresig (Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p.
357), and the next year the same king is killed prope castrum Kereszeg (Izvoarele istoriei romnilor, XI,
Cronica pictat de la Viena, ed. G. Popa-Lisseanu, Bucureti, 1937, p. 98). Probably the donjon was already
surrounded by a palisade and a moat. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, in 1313, a document
speaks of the castellan of Cheresig (Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. I, p.
220), then of the conquest of a castrum in Cheresig by King Charles Robert (Idem, p. 295) and in 1321
it speaks about the kings castellan in Cheresig (Idem, vol. II, p. 4). Without archaeological excavations it
is diicult to establish if the donjon was later on surrounded with stone walls and when.
T. Trpcea, Despre unele ceti medievale din Banat, in Studii de istorie a Banatului, Timioara, 1969,
p. 65-66.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 192-193.
Ibid., p. 180.
Gh. Anghel I. Berciu, Ceti medievale din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Bucureti, 1968, p. 21f. especially see
p. 47 and the plan on p. 54.
in other places with the intent of harm55 and his so called constitution of 1298
reiterates that the fortiications (munitiones et castella) that were built anew without
royal permission and those older ones from where harm spreads or may spread
through the land, as well as the small fortiications built on churches and monasteries
should be demolished56.
Returning to an area closer to the Land of Haeg, we have some information
from 1309, the agitated era of King Charles Roberts early reign, according to
which, in the province of Sibiu, heutonici de partibus illis destruxerunt turreset
fortalitia quarumdam nobilium de partibus illis, quae impediebant bonum statum et
pacem provinciae57.
Of course, not all the monuments discussed here even initially functioned as
dwelling-towers, used temporarily, situated elsewhere than the nobles regular
residences. Among them are actual guard towers, constructed near custom points
by the noble families that owned them58, while others must have been towers built
inside permanently lived courts, as suggested by the aforementioned example from
Rodna. To categorize these monuments would necessitate a thorough investigation
and analyzing each particular case according to what we know of from documents
and especially in its topographical context. From our point of view, we believe
signiicant that among these Transylvanian monuments were, during the second
half of the thirteenth century, enough specimens that could serve as models for the
dwelling-towers of the kneazes of the Land of Haeg.
he analogies are not limited to the Catholic, laic or ecclesiastical nobility
environ of Saxon or Hungarian origin. here is such a monument in the Romanian
society of Maramure, at Onceti, on Iza Valley. he fortress, built on a hill, about
3 km away from the village, consists of a square dwelling-tower, with 7.5 m long
sides, and of a circular earthen rampart, about 60 m in diameter (ig. 12)59. It has an
even older form of existence but the stone tower most certainly dates from the irst
half of the fourteenth century and its owners were the kneaz family of Onceti60.
Its similarities with the donjon from Rchitova are close to perfect. Of course, we
do not try to establish a direct connection between these two monuments, we only
want to underline that in similar socio-political conditions (of preserving a more
or less large autonomy in Transylvanias border areas) the Romanian landed gentry
manifested identically.
Since weve already mentioned an analogy from Maramure, we could point out
here the fortiied residence of the Bogdan family in Cuhea, destroyed around 1359,
which included a building sized 9 by 12 m, the exact dimensions of the dwelling55 .
56 .
57 .
58 .
59 .
60 .
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 363 and 507.
Ibid., p. 445.
K. Horedt, op. cit., p. 608; according to Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol.
I, p. 142 as well.
It seems that such a tower was built by the Gutkeled family in Arie, at a custom point for the salt coming
on the Some River (Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIII, vol. II, p. 390-391) and
was later transformed into the royal fortress attested in the fourteenth century.
H. Daicoviciu O. Bandula I. Glodariu, Cercetrile de la Onceti, din Maramure, Baia Mare, 1965, p. 8
and 25-26.
On the fortress in Onceti, also see R. Popa, ara Maramureului, p. 161-162 and 233-234 and Idem, Noi
cercetri de arheologie medieval n Maramure. antierul Srsu, in Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche,
4, tom. 22, 1971.
41
42
tower held by the greaves of Clnic. True, unlike the tower in Clnic, this residence
was built of earth and wood on a river stone foundation, but the over 1 m thick walls
and its ground loor used for storage purposes do more than just suggest the height
and elevation of the structure61.
In connection with the group of monuments from the Land of Haeg, I reckon
that a fortress from Wallachia should be considered as well: the one in PoenariArge. As already stated in the bibliography62 and recently demonstrated through
archaeological investigations (executed with the occasion of the monuments
consolidation), the old part of this fortress consists of a square tower, with a ground
loor used for storage purposes and two or three other storeys with one room
respectively63. he place chosen for the construction of this tower, at a considerable
height above the Arge gorge and above a road that during the Middle Ages was
not an important route since it led to the crest of Fgra, excludes, in our opinion,
the possibility that this construction could have served as a guard tower. Whoever
would have dared cross the crest, covered in snow for seven or eight month a year,
or would have known the region so well as to actually journey on this road, on horse
or on foot, would, without a doubt, have been capable of choosing any of the other
numerous valleys or paths toward the mountain.
Based on the facts established above and on the consulted examples, we believe
adequate to consider that in its initial phase the Poenari fortress was the dwellingtower of one of the feudal potentates who exercised their authority over the nearby
villages, temporarily used by the family in times of need. Later on, after it became
the property of the voivodes, the dwelling-tower was converted into a royal fortress,
the donjon becoming the core of the newly built walls. Whether this has happened
during the time of Mircea cel Btrn or only during Vlad epe reign, as asserts the
tradition preserved by the written sources64, is less important for this paper. What
is important is that from Maramure to Wallachia we meet with the same type of
monuments, built and used by the Romanian noble class.
While we avoided pointing to a direct connection between the stronghold
in Rchitova and the one in Onceti, in Maramure, we do believe that such a
connection may exist between the dwelling-towers of the Land of Haeg and the
initial phase of the fortress of Poenari. he geographical closeness and the data
provided by the written documents both support this assumption. hus, a document
from 1377 mentions a kneaz Cnde from the Strei Valley, executed by hanging,
most likely during Andrew Lckis repercussions in this region (1356-1359), whose
villages were coniscated and his sons, refugees in Wallachia, were still committing
at the time when the document was written quamplurimas inidelitates de partibus
61 .
62 .
63 .
64 .
Transsalpinis domino nostro regio65. Obviously, there is no need to imagine the sons
of Cnde from the Strei coming with the idea of the Poenari tower, but the quoted
document proves that there were not only noble lines taking shelter in Transylvania
during the fourteenth century (course of action interconnected to Wallachias
attempts at state centralization)66. In the same way, from Transylvania, especially
from its southern regions, in those moments when the pressure of the Angevin
administrative and political apparatus hardened its pressure, some Romanian kneaz
families took shelter south of the Carpathians. his seems to be the most logical
explanation for the appearance of the dwelling-tower of Poenari (ig. 13).
Next well be approaching the timeframe of the dwelling-towers from the Land
of Haeg. It already seems somehow obvious after all these considerations. But
because we lack unequivocal written references on the monuments and because
the archaeological examination of the area has yet to bring strong arguments, the
proposed dating should be considered for now within the limits of a hypothetical
statement. hese limits are what well be trying to deine further on.
As pointed out before, the history of the Romanian kneaz families of the Land
of Haeg cannot be reconstructed prior to the beginning of the fourteenth century,
much like how the general historical frame of this region is only sketchy during
the thirteenth century. What we do certainly know is that since before 1300 the
kneazes from Haeg have built stone churches, adapting late-Romanesque and
Early-Gothic western models to the cultural and spiritual needs of a Romanian
Orthodox environment. Also we know that the design of the dwelling-towers was
in use since the second half of the thirteenth century in many areas of Transylvania.
On the other hand, since building a fortress, even a modest stone tower, was
during the entire Midde Ages a political action toward which the state central
authority would not be indiferent, it is natural to wonder when, in the time frame
we may take into account (from mid-thirteenth century to mid-ifteenth century67),
were the conditions auspicious in Transylvania for the Romanian kneazes of Haeg
to build stone fortiications. he conditions were met only during the last decades
of the thirteenth century and the irst two decades of the next one, thus during the
time of the feudal anarchy that accompanied the extinction of the Arpad dynasty,
followed by the consolidation of Charles Roberts reign68 and to a lesser extent
65 .
66 .
67 .
68 .
Documenta Valachorum, p. 271-272. he match in name and destiny and the fact that we see similar cases
of Romanian kneaz families owning villages both in the Land of Haeg and on the lower Strei (see above,
note 45) makes it possible that this Cnde, from which were coniscated the two Chitids and Ocoliul
(Mic ?), was the same as Mihail Cnde of Ru de Mori. Still, the name of Cnde is quite spread among
the Romanian kneazes from Transylvania; according to Documenta Valachorum, p. 294; for Alba see as well
R. Popa, ara Maramureului..., p. 111.
Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 60.
his seems like an ante quem limit for the building of such simple monuments that are characteristic for
the early Middle Ages. At the middle of the ifteenth century the principal Romanian kneaz families of
the Land of Haeg converted to Catholicism and, once counted among the true nobles of the kingdom,
they wouldnt build such primitive dwelling-towers anymore. he fortiied court from Sntmria-Orlea,
erected after 1447 by the Cndes (see notes 75, 81) could illustrate a new series of constructions founded
by the descendants of the Haeg kneazes.
I mean until about 1320. In 1317 the royal fortress in Haeg seems to be owned by the Angevin king
(see notes 13 and 14) and it is not excluded that the Haeg kneazes fought on Charles Robert side, under
the command of the castellan of Haeg, just like the Maramure kneazes did on the upper Tisa River
(R. Popa, ara Maramureului..., p. 239-240).
43
44
during the last two decades of the fourteenth century, in the early reign of Sigismund
de Luxemburg69.
As for dating elements provided by the monuments proper, considered from
the point of view of architectural history, we remind of the general accepted dating
at the beginning of the fourteenth century of the chapel in Col, with a dwellingtower above the sanctuary. Some of the carved stones, such as the window frames
of the tower in Rchitova, have simple shapes, in a Gothic style, probably from one
of its early stages, in fact possessing good analogies with the monument in Col.
Obviously the dating will have to be made diferently for each monument, preceded
by archaeological investigations, but the common traits of the four dwelling-towers,
and the aforementioned arguments, allow us to date the monuments somewhere at
the beginning of the fourteenth century.
A very interesting discussion could be made about another situation that advocates
for the almost simultaneous apparition of the four scrutinized monuments. hey
were built and belonged to the most preeminent Romanian feudal families of the
Land of Haeg. hrough the documents from the fourteenth and ifteenth centuries
we encounter the kneazes of Densu lording on the Galbena Valley and in the northwestern side of the region, the Cnde family of Ru de Mori in a similar position on
the valley of Ru Mare while the kneazes of Sla did the same in the central area of
the Land of Haeg. Moreover, these three families are the ones that receive, in the
fourteenth century, conirmations of their village holdings while the other kneazes
are being attested until 1400 (with two exceptions) not as masters over villages,
acknowledged as such by the king, but only as attendants to the internal patrimonial
and legal procedures of the Land of Haeg.
he two exceptions are geographically placed on opposite corners of the region.
A family that ruled Britonia (Brtunia?) as well as other villages, probably in the
western Land of Haeg70, and another family from the north-eastern corner of the
region, in the area of Ru Alb-Ru Brbat71. If our way of interpreting the historical
information presented here proves to be correct, then we should expect to discover
the remains of a similar monument at least on the domain of one of these two
69 .
70 .
71 .
Toward the middle of the ifteenth century, an age of centralization culminating with Andrew Lckfys
repercussions, it seems impossible for these fortresses to be built. After the death of Louis I until toward
1404, the more stable relations with Wallachia and the more and more important military role of the
Haeg kneazes have created again favourable conditions for them to act according to their own particular
plans.
Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania, sec. XIV, vol. I, p. 406-409; Documenta
Valachorum, p. 143-144, 268-269 (in aliis possessionibus ad eandem possessionem Brittonia
pertinentibus) and p. 321-322; according to M. Holbans comments, Deposedri i judeci
in Haeg, p. 149-153. Britonias location in the western corner of the Land of Haeg (Csnki,
Magyarorszg ... fldrajza, V) is mainly based on the 1366 mention according to which the
possessio Brithonia is neighbouring the possessio olachalis Brazua (Documenta Valachorum,
p. 206-207), which was identiied with Breazova. But about the same boundary the document states that
Britonia is a parte civitatis Hachzak although the town of Haeg is far away from Breazova and two
or three other villages can be found in-between. So this inal documentary statement better its to the
position of the village Bretea-Strei, near Haeg. For all these reasons I maintain certain doubts when it
comes to locate Britonia.
Documenta Valachorum, p. 401-402 and p. 508.
families. We primarily suspect the latter exception, that of the area near the Strei
headwaters72.
Either way, regardless of the research perspectives and discovery of other
monuments, a logical and obvious conclusion comes into view. he presented
monuments and their repartition on the territory of the Land of Haeg mirror,
together with the written documents, (at least for the development level of the
fourteenth century) a certain stratiication of the medieval Haeg society through
the existence of a few families with social and political pre-eminence. he analogy
with the lands ruled by kneazes in the valleys of Maramure, complex political
organisms with socio-patrimonial and political traits73, is logical.
*
*
73 .
74 .
75 .
On the Rul Alb valley, upstream from the village with the same name, on the place called Cetate
(Fortress), one may still see some foundations on a surface with a 30 m diameter. Anything more is
farfetched before excavating the place.
R. Popa, ara Maramureului..., p. 150f.
Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 741; oppidum regale Bodogasszonyfalwa vocatum, simul cum foro annuali et
telonio.
he Priest Ioan de villa Sancte Marie, who represents in 1315 the Chapter in Alba Iulia at the gathering
that establishes the ownership of the Britonia estate (Documente privind istoria Romniei, C, Transilvania,
sec. XIV, vol. I, p. 407; for the location of Britonia see above, note 71) cannot be other than the vicar
of Sntmria-Orlea. he same villa Sancte Marie appears in the papal registers in 1332, where the
Catholic villages are named topographically from the mouth of Strei upstream (Idem, vol. III, p. 129)
therefore its location is certain. But the Bodoghazzonyfalwa estate, belonging in 1346 to the nobles of
Pesti (Idem, vol. IV, p. 654-655), named in 1444 possessio ... Wolachica Bodogazzonfalwa is not the same
as Sntmria-Orlea, as Entz thinks in op. cit., p. 157, but Sntmria de Piatr, a Romanian village on
the lower Strei. I believe that Sntmria-Orlea was one of the two Catholic communities settled toward
the end of the thirteenth century in the Land of Haeg, probably in connection with the events of 12751277 discussed above. his date perfectly corresponds with the one proposed by V. Vtianu, Istoria artei
feudale, p. 77 for the church in Sntmria-Orlea. Based on written documents alone we cannot for now
explain the presence in this church of mural paintings in accordance with the Orthodox iconography,
dated by specialists, with no exceptions, earlier than the middle of the ifteenth century.
45
46
end of the village on a lat terrain, surrounded by a 1-1.1 m thick wall, preserved
today on only two of the sides, at a height of 1.5 to 3 m. On certain portions one
may still see the traces of a moat. It seems that there were towers on the corners and
sides of the enclosure. Inside it the ground outline points to the existence of some
ruined buildings covered by debris and vegetation. Most interesting are the rather
well preserved ruins of a court chapel (ig. 14) with a polygonal sanctuary closed in
a sharp angle, a nave wider than its length (exterior length 7.5 m; exterior width
14 m) and of a tower with the irst loor transformed into a tribune, which could be
accessed from the exterior. Based on its plan and preserved elements the chapel cannot
be newer than the irst half of the ifteenth century but the ruined walls attest to at
least two stages of construction or transformation of the monument76.
he oldest documentary pieces of information referring to the family of Sla were
referred to earlier on, in connection to the neighbouring fortress in Mlieti77. During
the eldest phase of this familys history this information is valid for its fortiied court
too. In any case, the site waits for an archaeological investigation to establish the exact
dating of the still extant buildings and especially to explore the older phase, whose
existence we may now regard as a certainty.
Right in the middle of the Ru de Mori commune still stand segments of the walls
of a similar fortiied court, although here later constructions and recent alterations
have greatly modiied the old appearance. his court, belonging to the Cnde family,
preserves to this day (ig. 16) a fragment of the enclosure wall and a ruined chapel
with a rectangular nave and a polygonal sanctuary, somewhat similar to the altar of
the chapel in Slaul de Sus. In the basements of some newer buildings, the walls and
vaults of older cellars are still preserved78.
Weve dealt above with the oldest documentary evidences concerning the Cnde
family79. As for the connection between these mentions and the court in Ru de
Mori, we think the latter isnt older that the irst half of the ifteenth century, such
a date being at least partially conirmed by the information we have regarding the
familys history during this century80. here is of course the possibility that some older
constructions exist here as well. But the very same evidence grants us the knowledge
that at the end of the ifteenth century the Cndes had yet another residence close to
the church in Col, between the mountain and the neighbouring Suseni village. he
fact that this church, which also functioned as a chapel for the court, dates from the
beginning of the fourteenth century, allows for an interesting approach regarding both
the place and the time of the Cnde kneazes original court.
*
*
he fourth, and currently last, category of medieval fortresses of the Land of Haeg
consists, as far as we know today, of only one monument. he tower of Crivadia (ig.
17), in the Merior-Bnia Pass, was the subject of contradictory dating and debates
76 .
77 .
78 .
79 .
80 .
over the ownership81 until 1961-1962, when investigations performed during its
consolidation works have proven its medieval origin82.
he tower has a circular plan, with an inner diameter of 13.3 m and a 1.9 m thick
wall. It initially had seven embrasures placed on a high ground loor (ig. 15). he
entrance, placed at a height of about 4 m on the opposite side of the embrasures,
was reachable through an exterior wooden ladder, destroyed today. he tower also
had a bracketed crown and most likely crenellations reachable through a wooden
parapet walk83.
Built on the side of a stone wall descending vertically for over 100 m to the
bottom of the Merior canyon, the tower dominated the road from the Land of
Haeg to the Petroani depression. Whats more, the embrasures are oriented
toward this road, the only side from where the fortiication could be assaulted. he
inner surface, of almost 140 sq m, allowed for enough wooden or adobe buildings to
accommodate 20-25 ighters, a number more than enough to defend the tower in
the eventually of an attack, but, in times of peace, it is obvious that fewer sentinels
secured and controlled the road. his monument functioned, by size and placement,
as an actual guard tower.
he shape of the embrasures indicates a relatively late era of construction, when
the use of ire arms was spreading, namely the ifteenth century. We allude to the
time of John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus. An important document from the
end of the century tells us that the Cnde family was involved in building this tower.
Among the domains that King Vladislav conirms in 1493 to Mihail Kendefy,
mentioning they were ruled ab antiquo by his family, is a Murylowar to be found
next to the lands in the Petroani depression84. No matter if the correct reading
of said name is Murilorvar, in which -var means fortress, or more likely
Murisowar, meaning Merior, the name of the stream and of the village nowadays
to be found beneath the fortress85, it is obvious that this region was, in the midifteenth century and maybe even earlier, under the rule and control of the Cnde
family. he tower from Crivadia was built by the Cndes as landlords of this region
or as grand nobles of the kingdom, to guard the road leading toward Oltenia, either
against Turkish strikes or at a time of tense political relations with neighbouring
Wallachia. It is very possible that, at the same time, a similar tower was built by the
Cndes in the Iron Gates of Transylvania (Poarta de Fier a Transilvaniei), the other
important entrance into the Land of Haeg86.
81 .
82 .
83 .
84 .
85 .
86 .
Szinte G., Kerek erd Krivdia fltt, in Archeologiai rtesit, Budapest, u.f., XIV, 1894, p. 110-114;
Tegls G., Hunyadvrmegye fldjnek trtnete az skortl a honfoglalsig, I, Budapest, 1902, p. 158-159.
O. Floca, op. cit., p. 184-185.
Recent consolidation works have partially deformed the monument, such as transforming one of the
embrasures into a gate. he drawing published by Szinte G. in the quoted paper presents rather accurately
the monuments physiognomy at the end of the nineteenth century.
Csnki, Magyarorszg ... fldrajza, V, p. 109-110; V. Motogna, op. cit., p. 76-77.
According to C. Suciu, Dicionar istoric al localitilor din Transilvania, I, Bucureti, 1967, p. 391.
he pass had been donated to the Cnde family ever since 1430 by King Sigismund, with the obligation
of maintaining the road in exchange for receiving annually 5,000 blocks of rock salt from Ocna Sibiului
(Hurmuzaki, Documente, I2, p. 655-656; Szabo, op. cit., p. 26). his information is preserved because of
a conirmation from 1439, after the destruction of the initial diploma. Obviously, such an important
donation would imply that the beneiciaries also had to safeguard the pass and this is why I believe a
guard tower must exist in the Iron Gates of Transylvania as well.
47
48
*
*
his presentation of all the medieval fortresses known in the Land of Haeg
highlights the fact that these monuments, dissimilar in age, shape, purpose or
ownership, did not form a unitary functioning system but also that the ensemble
of the monuments is a coherent one since it mirrors in its peculiar way the general
stages and features of the regions historical development.
he main results of this study are that the repertoire of Transylvanias Romanian
medieval monuments was enriched and that, in our opinion, the signiicance of
these monuments is now better known. he dwelling-towers of Haeg prove once
again that the Romanian ruling class of Transylvania, the kneazes, were during the
Middle Ages actually established nobles.
Knowledge of the preserved fortresses from the Land of Haeg is a necessary
step and also a starting point in the study of the era and of the monuments that
preceded the apparition of the stone-built military architecture of this region.
TABLE OF FIGURES:
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
2.
1.
2.
3.
t. Moldovan, Adnotaiuni despre Tieara Haiegului, VII, Cetatea Sergidava, n Foaie pentru minte,
inim i literatur, Braov, 1854, nr. 36; Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche, XIV, 1963, p. 411-418.
Iacob Radu, Istoria vicariatului greco-catolic al Haegului, Lugoj, 1913, p. 215-216.
C. Daicoviciu, Neue Mitteilungen aus Dazien. Funde und Einzeluntersuchungen, n Dacia, VII-VIII,
1937-1940, p. 312. Cf. i Tabula Imperii Romani, L,. 34, Budapest, 1968, sub Haeg i Sntmria-Orlea.
Acta Musei Napocensis, IX, 1972, p. 439-447
Fig. 1.
Zona de la
conluena
rurilor Galbena
i Rul Mare,
cu punctul
Grindanu
50
Fig. 2.
Planurile
spturilor de
pe Grindanu
Fig. 3.
Denar de la
Septimius
Severus
5.
6.
Un denar de la Septimius Sever ntr-o stare de conservare excepional; British Museum Catalogue of
Coins of the Roman Empire, Roma, V, 375, anii 201-210. La una dintre cercetrile de teren a participat i
Gheorghe Lazin de la Muzeul Judeean Hunedoara-Deva.
R. Popa, "Cetile din ara Haegului", n Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice, 3, 1972.
Ibidem.
*
*
Situaia stratigrafic
Solul viu de pe Grindanu se al la o
adncime medie de 0,40-0,50 m i este
reprezentat de pietri cu bolovani de ru,
de origine aluvionar. Deasupra lui, dar
fr a constitui un nivel continuu, apare
un strat subire de pmnt castaniudeschis, de 0,05-0,10 m, coninnd urme
de locuire din comuna primitiv (ig. 4).
n zona cldirilor romane, stratul a fost
complet distrus de lucrrile de amenajare
a solului fcute de constructori. Cele
cteva fragmente ceramice gsite n acest
strat pledeaz pentru ncadrarea locuirii
7.
8.
Fig. 4.
Proile din
seciunile
de pe
Grindanu:
A. Proilul
vestic al lui S.
II. B. Poriune
din proilul
nordic al lui
S.I.
51
52
Fig. 5.
Fragmente
ceramice
gsite n
nivelul
din epoca
bronzului
n bronzul timpuriu9 (ig. 5). ntr-un punct de lng zidurile cldirii romane au
aprut i cteva fragmente ceramice hallstattiene, provenind probabil dintr-un mic
complex distrus de constructorii romani10. n afara acestui punct, nu am mai gsit
alte urme din prima epoc a ierului i nici n proile nu a putut i surprins un nivel
de depuneri corespunznd acestei epoci.
Deasupra solului viu i pe alocuri
deasupra nivelului din epoca
bronzului, a aprut pretutindeni
un strat de pmnt castaniunchis,
coninnd
ceramic
roman i crbune, gros de 0,100,20 m. El s-a format n timpul
locuirii romane din acest loc. n
apropierea zidurilor, acest nivel
roman cuprinde la baz lentile
de pmnt cu sau fr mortar,
rezultate din amenajarea anurilor
de fundaie a zidurilor sau din
nivelri.
Anumite indicii stratigraice
furnizate de proilele din interiorul
cldirii mari (stratul de umplutur
dintre cele dou plci de mortar
vezi ig. 4 A) atest o refacere
sau o modiicare a construciei. Indiciile se conirm prin observaiile fcute asupra
zidurilor i asupra altor amenajri interioare, despre care va i vorba mai jos. Prin
dezvelirea n suprafa a mai putut i surprins i o a treia faz a locuirii romane,
de dup ruinarea parial a cldirii, dar aceast faz nu i gsete corespondena pe
proilele pe care le-am putut realiza. De altfel, n exteriorul cldirii amintite, nici a
doua faz de construcie i nici aceast ultim faz de locuire roman nu au putut i
identiicate stratigraic, nivelul respectiv iind unitar.
n interiorul celor dou cldiri parial cercetate precum i pn la o distan de
3-4 m n exteriorul lor, nivelul urmtor este reprezentat de molozul rezultat din
drmarea zidurilor. n proilurile realizate prin cldirea mare, existena unui strat
compact de igle i olane, alat n grosimea sau deasupra molozului, strat ce se
ntinde i peste o temelie de zid (vezi proilul), dovedete ruinarea iniial a zidurilor
interioare, urmat n timp de prbuirea acoperiului. A treia faz a locuirii romane,
despre care a fost vorba mai sus, se al deasupra unui strat de moloz i sub stratul
de igle i olane.
n sfrit, ntr-o epoc ulterioar, n exteriorul cldirilor s-a depus un strat de
pmnt negru-castaniu, acoperit azi de solul vegetal, iar n interiorul construciei
mari s-au spat mai multe gropi, desigur pentru strngerea unor materiale de
9.
10 .
Pare a i vorba de ceramic aparinnd culturii Wietenberg, cu elemente de tradiie Coofeni. Mulumim
colegilor S. Morintz i A. Vulpe care au studiat materialele.
Urmele se leag foarte probabil de marea cetate hallstatian alat la cca 500 m spre nord-est, dincolo de
rul Galbena; cf. M. Moga, n Sargetia, II, 1941, p. 151 i urm.
Cldirile romane
A. Cea mai mare dintre cele dou construcii aprute n sptur are un plan
dreptunghiular cu laturile de 22/15,80 m, iind orientat cu axul lung aproape riguros
pe direcia est-vest. Dei toate patru laturile cldirii au fost cel puin surprinse prin
seciuni, dac nu dezvelite parial sau integral, nu este totui exclus ca pe exteriorul
dreptunghiular s mai i existat anumite anexe. Rezerva este valabil n special pentru
colul de nord-est al cldirii,unde zidul de est pare a continua n direcia nord (vezi ig.6)
pentru a delimita o ncpere de dimensiuni mici (praefurnium?) sau pentru a se lega
de ruinele unei cldiri alate la cca 120 m distan. n acest din urm caz ar i vorba
11 .
Puinele materiale feudale timpurii descoperite, asupra crora vom reveni cu alt prilej, par a data din
secolul al XIII-lea i deocamdat nclinm s le punem n legtur cu construirea n vecintate a cetii
regale i a bisericii din Sntmria-Orlea. Nu este totui exclus ca celelalte ruine ale complexului roman
s rezerve surprize, n sensul refolosirii lor pentru o locuire din aceast epoc. Datorit culturilor agricole,
nu am putut face sondaje.
Fig. 6.
Poriunea
cercetat din
cldirea mare
cu hipocaust
53
54
Fig. 7.
Partea estic a
cldirii mari,
dup dezvelire
Fig. 8.
Caseta de
zidrie n S II a
de un zid de incint, la colul cruia s-a alipit cldirea discutat12. Urmele pstrate
la suprafaa terenului nu ofer suiciente indicii, iar condiiile concrete ale cercetrii,
despre care a fost vorba, ne-au mpiedicat s stabilim cu exactitate situaia din acest
col al cldirii ca i din cel opus, de sud-vest.
Temeliile i poriunile de pn la
nlimea pstrat a zidurilor cldirii
sunt construite din piatr de carier
i bolovani de ru, cu mortar din
pietri mrunt, nisip i var, n opus
incertum. Fa de nivelul de clcare
al constructorilor, temeliile nu se
adncesc n sol dect cu 0,20-0,30 m.
Consistena solului viu fcea inutil
sparea unor anuri de fundaie mai
adnci.
La zidurile exterioare ale cldirii,
groase de 0,60-0,65 m, temelia se
lrgete pe ambele fee prin crepide
pn la 0,75-0,80 m. Zidurile interioare sunt groase de 0,40-0,50 m i au aproape
pretutindeni aceleai crepide ce lrgesc temeliile (vezi ig. 3-4).
Au fost degajate trei ncperi, dou integral, iar una doar parial, care compuneau
partea de est a cldirii. ncperea din colul de nord-est are un plan riguros ptrat,
cu latura de 3,70 m. Judecnd dup temeliile pstrate,
ea comunica printr-o u cu spaiul nvecinat dinspre
vest. ncperea urmtoare, de pe mijlocul laturii de est
a cldirii, are un plan dreptunghiular cu laturile de 4,35
i 3,70 m. O u lat de 0,90 m o lega de ncperea din
colul de sud-est a cldirii.
Aceast din urm ncpere este cea mai mare dintre
cele descoperite, avnd una dintre laturi de 5,40 m. Ea
cuprinde totodat o instalaie de hipocaust, amenajat
de-a lungul peretelui de sud al cldirii. Au aprut trei
rnduri de picioare de hipocaust, iecare format din cte
ase picioare, n majoritate conservate (ig. 9). Chiar i la
picioarele disprute (probabil spoliate n epoc feudaltimpurie) se mai observ amprenta lor pe podeaua de
mortar (cocciopesto) care formeaz baza ntregii instalaii.
Dac ncperea are aceeai lrgime de 3,70 m ca i cele
dou anterior descrise, ceea ce pare probabil, atunci
hipocaustul cuprinde cte 7 picioare pe iecare rnd,
deci 21 de picioare.
12 .
Din descrierea fcut cu mai bine de un veac n urm de t. Moldovan (op. cit.) rezult c atunci se mai
vedea conturul unei incinte (ceti) cu laturile de 120 pe 80 (stnjeni? deci circa 220/150 m)
cuprinznd n interior cinci locuri mai ridicate de form patrat-oblong. n exteriorul incintei, pe latura
de est, s-ar mai i vzut urmele unui turn rotund. Citnd aceast descriere, I. Marian, Repertoriu arheologic
pentru Ardeal, Bistria, 1920, p. 35, vorbete de o incint cu circumferina de 680 m.
Distana dintre dou picioare ale hipocaustului variaz ntre 0,25 i 0,35 m.
Fiecare picior are la baz cte o crmid ptrat cu latura de 0,30 m, groas de 0,06
m, deasupra creia au fost cldite, cu legtur de mortar, crmizi de aceeai grosime
i de aceeai form ptrat dar ceva mai mici, cu latura
de 0,20 m. Piciorul cel mai bine conservat este compus,
n afara crmizii de baz, din nc apte crmizi, iind
nalt de 0,52 m. Deoarece picioarele de hipocaust aveau
n partea superioar cte o crmid de dimensiuni mai
mari care facilita amenajarea podelei ncperii, putem
airma c aceasta din urm se ala la nlimea de cel
puin 0,60-0,65 m deasupra fundului hipocaustului.
O crmid alat la limita superioar pstrat a
unui picior de hipocaust a fost obinut prin ajustarea
la dimensiunile necesare a unei crmizi mai mari,
aparinnd altui tip, prevzut pe una dintre fee cu
un ornament erpuit adncit n past crud. i aceast
obser vaie reprezint un indiciu asupra existenei unei
a doua faze de construcie la cldirea alat n discuie.
Tot instalaiei de hipocaust i aparin crmizile cu
picior (tegulae mammatae) care au aprut n numr mare
n molozul din ncpere (ig. 10), n special n apropierea
peretelui de sud, pe care au fost desigur montate.
Partea de nord a ncperii cu hipocaust se prezint
n plan ca un coridor lung de 3 m i lat de 1,80 m, alat n continuarea uii dinspre
camera nvecinat. Coridorul este delimitat de dou ziduri construite ca nite
casete (ig. 8-9), umplute cu pmnt i care au fost acoperite, la o nlime cu puin
mai mare dect aceea pstrat, cu o plac de mortar coninnd mult crmid
sfrmat. Aceast plac s-a pstrat parial n proilul de deasupra casetei dinspre
vest (vezi ig. 4). Pe zidria casetei opuse s-a pstrat in situ la adncimea de 0,05 m
o crmid mare, aezat pe un strat de mortar rou coninnd aceeai sfrmtur
de crmid. Din proil rezult c plcile de mortar acoperite cu crmizi, ce se alau
deasupra celor dou casete, erau cu cca. 0,75 m mai sus dect fundul hipocaustului.
Nu se poate totui preciza dac ele constituiau un fel de platforme mai nalte dect
podeaua camerei, sau dac ele se continuau nemijlocit cu pavimentul de deasupra
hipocaustului. n a doua dintre soluii, coridorul din partea de nord a ncperii
discutate nu ar i altceva dect o rezolvare a amenajrii substruciilor.
n orice caz, cele dou casete au fost zidite (sau refcute?) n a doua faz de
construcie a cldirii, deoarece zidul uneia dintre ele acoper o mic poriune de
tencuial de pe peretele nordic al ncperii. Pe lng faptul c observaia contribuie
la precizarea existenei acestei faze de construcie, ulterioare celei iniiale, ea ne
permite s airmm c interioarele cldirii erau acoperite cu o tencuial de mortar
din nisip in i var.
n legtur cu alte compartimentri ale cldirii nu putem semnala dect urmele
foarte slab conservate ale unei temelii de zid interior, orientat transversal n raport
cu axul lung al cldirii, la 4,80 m distan de peretele ei vestic. Acest zid sugereaz
Fig. 9.
Caseta de
zidrie i
picioarele
hipocaustului
n S II
55
56
Fig. 10.
Olan, tegulae
mammatae i
crmizi (de
paviment?)
Fig. 11.
igle din
molozul
cldirii mari
13 .
Un fragment de igl cu decor identic ntr-o villa rustica de lng Aiud; I. Winkler V. Vasiliev T. Chiu A. Borda, Villa Rustica de la Aiud. Cteva observaii privind villae-le rusticae din Dacia
Superior, n Sargetia, V, 1968, ig. 8/9.
Materiale descoperite n
spturi
A. Piese din ier.
Dintre obiectele din aceast categorie atrage
atenia un lan de dimensiuni mari, compus din
dou zale alungite i o verig triunghiular cu
colurile rotunjite, avnd lungimea total de 0,69 m (ig. 12). Asemenea lanuri par
a i relativ rare printre descoperirile din complexele romane i, datorit masivitii
lor neobinuite, au fost interpretate ca lanuri de traciune14. Piesa noastr a aprut
n exteriorul cldirii mari, pe latura ei de est.
14.
I. Winkler i colab., op. cit., p. 72, ig. 12/2 i nota 20. Autorii cunosc trei exemplare descoperite n provincia
Dacia. Pentru un exemplar identic descoperit n Pannonia, tot ntr-o villa rustica, cf. E. homas, Rmische
Villen in Pannonien, Budapesta, 1964, pl. LXXXVI.
Fig. 12.
Obiecte din
ier, greutate
din lut i pies
din corn de
cerb
57
58
Fig. 13.
Zidul de nord
al cldirii mici
surprins n
seciune
Fig. 14.
Ceramic din
villa rustica de
lng Haeg
O. Floca - M. Valea, Villa rustica i necropola daco-roman de la Cinci, n Acta Musei Napocensis, II,
1965, p. 163 i urm., J. Winkler i colab., op. cit., p. 72 i ig. 7.
ars reductor i ceramica neagr-roietic ars ntr-o tehnic mixt sau, mai degrab, ntr-o tehnic imperfect. Aproape toate vasele sunt produse n ateliere locale,
caracteristic iind n cazul multor fragmente utilizarea aceleiai paste, cu nisip i
pietricele ca degresant, ca i la confecionarea crmizilor i a iglelor. Remarcm
totui c multe fragmente ceramice
cenuii, provenind n special de la
castroane, dar i cteva fragmente
de oale arse la rou se caracterizeaz
printr-o past coninnd foarte
mult mic.
Ceramica in este reprezentat
prin cteva fragmente provenind
de la vase mici, din past omogen
ars oxidant, acoperit cu culoare
roie. S-au gsit i cteva fragmente
de ceramic in cenuie. Forma
predominant n cadrul ceramicii de
lux este strachina mic i bolul, cu
baz inelar (Standring) (ig. 15 a).
n cuprinsul ceramicii arse
la rou, au aprut fragmente de
la cteva amfore cu mnu de
seciune rotund i de la vase mari
de provizii. Oalele de dimensiuni
mijlocii i mici au gtul scund i
buza mult ngroat, rsfrnt n
afar i teit pe partea superioar
(ig. 14 b, c, d). Din aceeai categorie
ceramic fac parte cteva fragmente
purtnd decor executat cu rotia (ig.
14 p), precum i un capac mare de oal cu marginea desfcut n dou benzi ce au
fost unite din loc n loc prin apsarea cu degetele (ig. 15 c). Amndou procedeele
decorative se rentlnesc n ceramica medieval.
Au aprut n numr destul de mare fragmente de la capace simple de oal, avnd
n partea superioar un buton circular gol n interior (ig. 15 b). Diametrele lor
variaz ntre 0,12 i 0,16 m. Ele se ncadreaz n special n categoria ceramicii
negre-roietice.
n categoria ceramicii cenuii, n afara unor fragmente de oale cu toart purtnd
pe umr caneluri dese i avnd coaste pe perei n interior, caracteristice sunt mai
ales fragmentele provenind de la castroane. Acestea din urm, perfect circulare, au
fundul cu diametrul de cca. 0,20 m, pereii uor nclinai n exterior, nali de cca.
0,05 m, iar buza ie rotunjit i ngroat spre interior (ig. 15 d-f, i, j), ie lit spre
exterior i cu marginea superioar, dreapt, purtnd n unele cazuri dou caneluri
adnci (ig. 15 g, h). Ultimul dintre tipurile amintite ale buzelor de castron se
ntlnete i pe cteva fragmente de oale cenuii (ig. 14 h).
Fig. 15.
Ceramic din
villa rustica de
lng Haeg
59
60
Consideraii finale
La ncheierea spturilor am astupat seciunile i suprafeele n scopul conservrii
ruinelor pn la data la care condiiile vor permite dezvelirea i conservarea ntregului
complex roman. n ceea ce privete concluziile de ordin mai general pe care le putem
formula, ele sunt destul de reduse, pe msura amploarei spturilor noastre.
Includerea construciilor romane de pe Grindanu n seria de villae rusticae
cunoscute din provincia Dacia nu se ntemeiaz pe vreun argument decisiv. Dar toate
indiciile care pot i luate n considerare pledeaz pentru considerarea complexului
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
Nu am reuit s identiicm locul exact, el este consemnat de t. Moldovan, op. cit., loc. cit. n Tabula
Imperii Romani, sub Sntmria-Orlea se precizeaz o ,,lndliche Siedlung vicus cum vestigiis, fr
localizare mai exact, dar n bibliograia citat este vorba att de urmele de pe malul drept al Rului Mare,
ct i de cele de pe malul opus.
Identiicare de teren fcut n 1970 mpreun cu Gh. Lazin. Nu tim dac lndliche Siedlung vicus
cum vestigiis, din Tabula Imperii Romani de sub Haeg, se refer la acest punct sau la Grindanu. n orice
caz, conducta roman consemnat n Tabula se al la vest de oraul Haeg; cf. Anuarul Comisiunii
monumentelor istorice. Secia pentru Transilvania, 1926-1928, p. 175.
I. Winkler i colab., op. cit., ig. 14 i bibliograia.
Ibidem, p. 80. Monedele pe care le-am gsit n villa rustica dezvelit parial cu prilejul cercetrilor de la
biserica din Strei-Clan, ntinzndu-se de la Antoninus Pius pn la Caracalla-Elagabal, se nscriu n
aceeai perioad. Rezultatele de la Strei-Clan sunt n curs de publicare.
61
eXcaVationS in a
Villa RuStica neaR Haeg *
hile surveying the southern side of Hunedoara County, especially the Land
of Haeg, in order to identify some early medieval archaeological features,
my attention was also drawn by a site between the town of Haeg and SntmriaOrlea on the left side of the road that leads to Subcetate. he place is known as
Grindanu, standing as a 3-4 m high terrace between the watersides of Rul Mare
and Galbena, its peak facing the junction of these two rivers. he area from here to the
outskirts of Haeg Town, over the Subcetate-Caransebe railroad, is nowadays used
as agricultural terrain. here is one small exception, a small portion of the terrace,
toward Sntmria-Orlea, inside the administrative boundaries of this commune,
about 150 m long, 15-40 m wide, where the uneven terrain, hiding ruined walls now
covered in top soil, prevented the usage of large agricultural machines. he ruins of
two or three other stone buildings, about 60-150 m away from the aforementioned
point, were incorporated in the agricultural area and are about to be completely
destroyed (ig. 1).
he place is already mentioned in the bibliography. At the middle of the nineteenth
century Vicar tefan Moldovan was noting on the point Pe Grindanu traces of a
rectangular enclosure with ruined buildings, which he identiied as a fortress1. At the
beginning of the twentieth century Iacob Radu had noted the tradition according to
which the old centre of Haeg was here, at the junction between Galbena and Rul
Mare, a place where one could still see traces of walls2. Recently C. Daicoviciu has
also signalled the point and rightfully enumerated it among the Roman vestiges3.
In the spring of 1970, I found Roman pottery on the freshly ploughed terrain,
fragments of Roman tiles and bricks and even a Roman silver coin4 (ig. 3). Several
areas where I found numerous fragments of mortar and quarry stones indicated
the existence of walls damaged by the iron plough. At the same time I was able to
ind in the same area several early medieval pot shards. hese and the topographic
particularities of the area have convinced me to include it in an excavation project.
1.
2.
3.
4.
t. Moldovan, Adnotaiuni despre Tieara Haiegului, VII, Cetatea Sergidava, in Foaie pentru minte,
inim i literatur, Braov, 1854, nr. 36; Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche, XIV, 1963, p. 411-418.
Iacob Radu, Istoria vicariatului greco-catolic al Haegului, Lugoj, 1913, p. 215-216.
C. Daicoviciu, Neue Mitteilungen aus Dazien. Funde und Einzeluntersuchungen, in Dacia, VII-VIII,
1937-1940, p. 312. Also Tabula Imperii Romani, L,. 34, Budapest, Budapest, 1968, under Haeg and
Sntmria-Orlea.
A denarius from Septimius Severus exceptionally well preserved; British Museum Catalogue of Coins of the
Roman Empire, Roma, V, 375, years 201-210. Gheorghe Lazin from the County Museum of HunedoaraDeva also took part at one of the surface surveys.
Acta Musei Napocensis, IX, 1972, p. 439-447
2.
64
*
*
we couldnt ind other traces from the First Iron Age nor could we see a layer that
corresponds to this era in our trench.
Above the natural subsoil and, in places, overlapping the Bronze Age layer, over
the entire investigated surface there was a layer of dark brown soil, 0.1-0.2 m thick,
with Roman pottery and charcoal. It had formed during the Roman habitation of
the area. Near the walls this Roman layer also contains, on its lower part, lenses
of soil with or without mortar, lenses resulted from digging the walls foundation
ditches or from levelling.
Certain stratigraphic clues provided by the trench proiles inside the large
building (the illing layer between the two beds of mortar see ig. 4 A) testify for a
modiication or restoration of this building. he clues are conirmed by observations
on the walls and other interior arrangements, of which I will talk later. he further
unveiling of the surface revealed a third stage of Roman habitation, after the building
had partially fell into ruin, but this stage doesnt have a correspondence in the proiles
of the trenches we were able to dig. As a matter of fact, outside the Roman building,
we couldnt stratigraphically identify the second phase of construction or this last
stage of habitation, since they represented a unitary level.
Inside the two partially investigated buildings and 3-4 m outside them the next
level is represented by rubble resulted from the ruining of the walls. In the interior
proiles of the large building, a compact layer of roof tiles (both lat - tegulae and
concave - imbrices) located in the mortar layer or above it but also found over a
wall foundation (see the drawing of the proile) proves that the inner walls crumbled
irst, followed in time by the roof collapsing. he aforementioned third stage of
Roman habitation settles over a mortar layer and is overlapped by the bed of roof
tiles.
Finally, in a subsequent epoch, outside the buildings took shape a stratum of
chestnut-black soil, today covered by the vegetal soil, while inside the building
several pits were dug up, obviously for recuperating construction materials. hese pits
have partially destroyed the walls and stirred the rubble layer. he Early Medieval
pottery we found in the upper level of the rubble and in the area of the pits locates
in time the moment when the Roman ruins on Grindanu were exploited for their
construction material11.
The Roman buildings
A. he larger of the two buildings uncovered by the excavations presents a
rectangular plan, with sides 22 by 15.8 m long and its long axis is almost rigorously
east to west oriented. Although all four sides of the building were partially or
entirely unveiled by our excavation, we do not exclude the potential existence of
other annexes outside of the rectangle. his could especially be the case in the northeastern corner of the building, where the eastern wall seems to continue northward
(ig. 6) in order to mark a smaller room (praefurnium?) or to connect this building to
11 .
he very few early medieval materials (which I intend to approach another time) seem to date from the
thirteenth century and for now I tend to connect them to the nearby establishment of the royal fortress
and of the church in Sntmria-Orlea. It is not excluded that the other ruins of the Roman complex
may still surprise us with signs of having been re-used and inhabited during this period. Because of the
farming on the area we couldnt perform excavations.
65
66
another one, about 120 m away, in which case we are dealing with an enclosure wall
at whose corner the building was erected12. he surface traces do not ofer enough
clues and the already mentioned conditions in which the investigation took place
did not allow us to establish exactly the situation in this corner and in the opposite,
south-western one.
he foundations and the preserved elevation of the walls are built from quarry
and river stones, with mortar of lime, sand and small grained gravel, in the opus
incertum manner. According to the constructors ground level the foundation ditch
is only 0.2-0.3 m deep because the consistency of the natural subsoil would make
digging deeper ditches useless.
he exterior walls of the building are 0.6-0.65 m thick but their foundations
grow thicker on both sides, to 0.75-0.8 m wide. he inner walls of the building are
0.4-0.5 m wide and almost everywhere their foundations thicken (ig. 3-4).
We unveiled three rooms, two completely and one partially, which formed the
eastern side of the building. he room in the north-eastern corner has a rigorously
square plan, with sides 3.7 m long. Judging by the preserved foundations, this room
communicated with the nearby western space through a door. he next room, located
in the middle of the eastern side of the building, presents a rectangular plan with
the sides 4.35 m and 3.7 m long. A 0.9 m wide door led from it to the room in the
south-eastern corner of the building.
his last room is the largest discovered, one of the sides being 5.4 m long. It
also had a hypocaust installation alongside the southern wall of the building. We
discovered three rows of hypocaust pillars, each row with six pillars, most of them
preserved (ig. 9). he pillars that disappeared (probably taken during the Early
Middle Ages) have left their prints in the mortar loor (cocciopesto) that forms
the basis of the entire installation. If the room had the same 3.7 m width as the
aforementioned ones, then the hypocaust was actually made of rows of seven pillars,
21 in total.
he distance between two hypocaust pillars varies between 0.25 and 0.35 m.
Each pillar stands on a square brick, 0.3 m long and 0.06 m thick, above which were
laid in mortar other square bricks, just as thick as the large one, but with shorter
sides, of only 0.2 m. he best preserved pillar is made of the basis larger brick and
seven other bricks, making it 0.52 m tall. Since hypocaust pillars had at the top yet
another bigger brick that would better sustain the looring we may estimate that the
loor of the room was at least 0.6-0.65 m above the bottom of the hypocaust.
One of the bricks on the upper side of one pillar was made by adjusting to the
necessary size a larger brick, of a diferent type, which presents on one of the sides a
meandering impression imprinted in the crude paste. his fact is another clue that
this building underwent a second stage of construction.
A large amount of bricks with conical projections (tegulae mammatae) that were
discovered in the rubble inside the room (ig. 10) used to belong to the hypocaust,
12 .
t. Moldovans description from over a century ago (op. cit.) states that the contour of an enclosure
(fortress) was still visible; its sides were 120 by 80 (the measurement is probably in stnjeni
therefore about 220 by 150 m) with ive more elevated places shaped like an oblong square inside.
Outside the enclosure, on its eastern side there were still visible the traces of a round tower. When
quoting this description I. Marian, in Repertoriu arheologic pentru Ardeal, Bistria, 1920, p. 35, talks of an
enclosure measuring 680 m in circumference.
especially considering that they appeared mostly along the southern wall, where we
already established the existence of the installation.
he northern side of the hypocaust room is planned like a 3 m long and 1.8 m
wide corridor, in which opens the door of the neighbouring room. he corridor is
delimited by two walls built like boxes (ig. 8-9), illed with earth and covered
with a mortar slab (containing a large amount of crushed brick) at a slightly higher
level than their preserved height. his slab was partially preserved in the proile
above the western box (ig. 4). On the wall of the opposite box we uncovered
in situ, 0.05 m deep, a large brick set on a layer of red mortar that contained the
same crushed bricks. Studying the proile we could see that the mortar slabs with
bricks set on top which covered the two boxes were about 0.75 m higher than the
bottom of the hypocaust. I couldnt say if these boxes were some sort of platforms
higher than the loor of the room or whether they were actually connected with the
pavement above the hypocaust. If the second solution proves to be true, then the
corridor in the northern side of the room is nothing more than an arrangement of
the substructures.
What is certain is that the two boxes were raised (or reconstructed?) during
the building second stage of construction because one of their walls covers a small
portion of plaster on the northern side of the room. More than conirming the
existence of a second stage of construction, this observation also allows us to state
that the inner walls of the building were covered with a coating of mortar made
from ine sand and lime.
As for the other compartments of the building, we can only signal the poorly
preserved traces of an inner wall foundation, transversally orientated as reported to
the longer axis of the building, 4.8 m away from its western wall. his wall suggests
that in the western side of the house there was another set of two or three rooms,
maybe also a large central one (a peristyle?).
From the materials attributable to the construction uncovered by the excavations
irst of all we mention the iron nails and spikes, of variable sizes, from 0.06 m to
0.35 m long, and several iron clamps that seem to have belonged to the doors (ig.
12). In my opinion we should especially note the shapes, sizes and other peculiarities
of the bricks and roof tiles discovered among the ruins. With their help we could
specify certain workshops that were producing such items at the time in this part of
the Roman province. Otherwise, as many medieval monuments from the Land of
Haeg use bricks or ceramic slabs on their cornices, portals, loors and even walls, an
extensive catalogue of the Roman construction materials found in this region would
help identify the spolia.
he imbrex fragments and the few whole ones discovered among the rubble are
of the same type, 0.44 m long, 0.18 m wide on the upper edge and 0.16 m on the
lower edge. he imbrices are 0.02 m thick and have the maximum height of the
curvature of 0.08 m. hey are not decorated but present on the upper side supericial
grooves from the wooden moulds where they were made (ig. 10).
he tegulae are rectangular and big, 0.52 m long, 0.38 m wide and 0.025 m thick.
he edges are erected, 0.02 m wide and 0.055-0.06 m high. For their joint ixation
in successive rows, the tiles lack the elevated edges in the upper side on a length of
0.05-0.06 m and in the lower side, on the back, present two similarly sized stubs.
he tegulae are decorated on the upper inferior side with three small concentric
67
68
semicircles (0.035 m radius) done in the crude paste13, or with a triangle traced with
two ingers (ig. 11).
An isolated discovery is a roof tile from the same type that was perforated on the
upper side, oriice done secondary that preserves an umbrella head rooing nail that
would have aixed it on the wooden skeleton of the roof (ig. 11). Since the other
roof tiles did not present such oriices, this one in particular seems to have been
repaired.
Among the brick fragments found in the rubble, apart from the ones of the
hypocaust pillars, we could distinguish some large, rectangular ones, 0.42 m long,
0.28 m wide and 0.05 m thick. On one of the sides they present an S shaped
ornament, with tight curls, traced in the crude paste with two ingers, resulting two
parallel lines (ig. 10). his type of brick seems to have been used for the pavements
inside the rooms.
B. he second building is about 40 m west of the irst one, their longer axis
being almost extensions of each other. Judging by the appearance of the terrain, this
building had a rectangular plan, with sides approximately 32 and 15 m long (ig. 2).
his buildings northern wall, uncovered in a trench (ig. 13), had 0.9 m wide
foundations, showing a construction technique that difers from the one employed
for the other building. he walls outer faces are made of river stones and large
quarry stones while the emplecton is made of tiny stones and a small quantity of
mortar. We couldnt unveil the southern wall of this building as in Trench III it
was destroyed and spoiled down to the very last remains of foundation, but the
rubble that remains in its place attests its position and orientation. If, as I have
already alluded, the entire complex had an enclosure wall then this wall included
the southern side of building B. More to the point, in this case the building was
constructed against the enclosure, using it as one of its walls.
Since no trace of loor or pavement materials were found inside this building, I
believe it had served a domestic purpose, being probably used as a barn, tool shed or
stable. In contrast, the roof was altogether similar to the one of the other building, as
proven by the matching roof tiles (both imbrices and tegulae) that we found in large
amounts next to the walls and in the rubble.
Materials discovered during the excavation
A. Iron objects.
Among the objects of this category draws attention a large chain, made of two
elongated links and of a triangular loop with rounded corners, with a total length of
0.69 m (ig. 12). Such chains seem to be rare inds in Roman complexes and, because
of their unusual massiveness, were interpreted as traction chains14. Our piece was
discovered outside the larger building, on its eastern side.
An ornamental (?) fragmentary object is made of two iron rods with their ends
13 .
14 .
A roof tile fragment with the same decor was discovered in a villa rustica near Aiud; I. Winkler - V.
Vasiliev - L. Chiu - A. Borda, Villa Rustica de la Aiud. Cteva observaii privind villae-le rusticae din
Dacia Superior, in Sargeia, V, 1968, ig. 8/9.
I. Winkler et al., op. cit., p. 72, ig. 12/2 and note 20. he author knows of three such pieces discovered in
the Province of Dacia. An identical piece was discovered in Pannonia, again in a villa rustica, according
to E. homas, Rmische Villen in Pannonien, Budapesta, 1964, pl. LXXXVI
ixed together through hot tapping; the irst rod is straight while the second one
is winding, with four meanders (ig. 12). Its length is now of 0.31 m but it must
have been 0.42 m long, assuming that it was initially symmetrical. Based on traces
preserved on it, this item seems to have been made of three rods, the straight one
framed by two winding ones. It could belong to a window grille or to a door, since
it was discovered in the rubble inside the north-eastern room of the larger building.
Other than the nails, spikes and clamps we already talked about, we have also
found a fragmentary arrowhead with a simple tang and a socket; total length
0.065 m (ig. 12).
B. Pottery
We found a large amount of ceramic fragments from vessels of diferent shapes
and sizes, especially inside and close to the larger building. A smaller amount
of such artefacts appeared inside the second building or in the Roman layer on
Grindanu. Unfortunately the fragments are rather small and because we were not
able to completely excavate the ruined buildings there is little chance of recovering
complete shapes or proiles. Such being the case we will make only some general
observations on the material and present a few characteristic pieces.
In the rubble inside the larger building, together with provincial Roman potsherds,
we also found several fragments of gray Dacian ware, wheel-thrown, among them
the rim of a fruit dish (ig. 14 a). he presence of Dacian ware in villae rusticae, also
attested in other places of the province15, seems to be almost a rule.
he Roman potsherds belong, with few exceptions, to vessels of common use.
he various types listed below appear in almost equal proportions: red pottery, ired
in an oxidation atmosphere; gray pottery, ired in a reduction atmosphere; reddishblack pottery, ired in mixed atmospheres, or, more likely, in an imperfect technique.
Almost all the vessels were produced in local workshops, and a notable characteristic
is that in many cases the paste, tempered with sand and pebbles, is the same one as
for the bricks and roof tiles. Nonetheless, we should take notice that many of the
gray fragments, especially from bowls, and several red fragments were made from a
paste tempered with a lot of mica.
he ine ware is represented by several fragments of small vessels, of a homogeneous
paste, ired in an oxidation atmosphere, covered with a red slip. We also discovered
several fragments of ine, gray ware. he predominant shape of the luxury pottery
is the small shallow dish and the bowl, both with ring-shaped footing (Standring)
(ig. 15 a).
We found red pottery fragments of several amphorae with round section handles
and large supplies vessels. he middle-sized and small pots present a short neck
and have the rim highly thickened, splayed and blunted on the upper side (ig.
14 b, c, d). From the same ceramic category we found some fragments that were
decorated with incised lines made with a small wheel (ig. 14 p) and a large pot
lid with the edge opened into two bands that were united from place to place by
applying pressure with the ingers (ig. 15 c). Both decorative procedures are also to
be found on medieval pottery.
15 .
O. Floca M. Valea, Villa rustica i necropola daco-roman de la Cinci, in Acta Musei Napocensis, II,
1965, p. 163f, J. Winkler et al., op. cit., p. 72 and ig. 7.
69
70
We also found quite a large number of fragments from simple pot lids, with a
circular, hollow button on the upper side (ig. 15 b). heir diameters vary between
0.12 and 0.16 m. hey belong mostly to the category of reddish-black pottery.
Belonging to the category of gray pottery we found some fragments of pots
with handles, decorated on the shoulder with thick cannelures and ribs inside the
walls, but we especially found bowls. hese were perfectly circular, with about 0.2 m
bottom diameter and about 0.05 m high walls, slightly inclined toward the exterior;
the rim was either rounded and thickened inwardly (ig. 15 d-f, i, j), or widened
outwardly, with a straight upper edge; in some cases the rim presented two deep
cannelures (ig. 15 g, h). his inal type of rims is also found on several of the gray
pot fragments (ig. 14 h).
To put an end to the ceramic chapter, we point out that we could not ind any
chronological diferentiations that would correspond to the aforementioned stages
of construction and habitation of the larger building. he materials we found on the
ground level of the irst construction and in the layer of rubble from the destruction
of the inner walls are identical to the ones we found in the feature representing the
last stage of Roman habitation, namely a stratum of potsherds, animal bones and
charcoal, located above the rubble and covered with the layer of roof tiles.
C. Other materials
In this category we include several small fragments of glass vessels and two
lattened, circular pieces, perforated on the axis. he irst is made of clay, ired to a
red colour, of the same paste tempered with pebbles as some of the large common
pots. It presents rounded edges, a 0.085 m diameter and it is 0.03 m thick; the
perfectly circular oriice has a diameter of 0.015 m (ig. 12). his piece was found
inside the smaller building and it seems to have been used as a weight, maybe on a
vertical loom.
he second piece was discovered in the stratum of the last stage of Roman
habitation and it was made of a single slice cut from the root of a deer antler. he
central oriice, polished through long use has a vaguely triangular shape and a
diameter of 0.02 m (ig. 12). It was likely used to join together three diferent strings,
probably as part of a belt.
D. Osteological material
Although we couldnt ind a lot of animal bones, I still want to present here
the identiied material16, important for the knowledge of the day to day life in a
villa rustica. he animal bones discovered on the bottom of the hypocaust and in
the rubble inside the larger building belong to several animals: domestic pigs (Sus
scrofa), at least two juvenile bovines (Bos taurus), one goat (Capra hircus) and perhaps
a sheep (Ovis aries). We also found several fragments of unidentiiable bird bones.
he only part of wildlife discovered is a deer antler (Cervus elaphus).
In the complex from the last stage of Roman habitation we found remains from
almost the same species: juvenile bovines and domestic pigs, sheep and several bird
bones.
16 .
Conclusions
At the end of our investigation we have covered the trenches in order to preserve
the ruins until such times when the whole Roman compound could be fully
excavated and preserved. As for the general conclusions, they are pretty reduced, as
beits the extent of our excavations.
here are no decisive arguments to place the Roman constructions on Grindanu
among province Dacias villae rusticae. But all the clues lead to this conclusion:
the dimensions, the particularities and placement of the buildings, the discovered
inventory, the lack of any kind of traces that could be related to a military unit and,
last but not least, the topography of the entire complex.
he ruins on Grindanu are at the edge of a great agricultural area, the most
fruitful in the region, encompassing several hundred hectares bordered by the rivers
Galbena and Rul Mare. here is no doubt that the terrain had the same agricultural
purpose during the Roman period. We do not know where the boundaries between
properties were at the time, but the closest Roman vestiges (except the ones signalled
across Rul Mare17), are 3 km away, on a high terrace near the western edge of Haeg
City18. his signiies that the agricultural terrain administrated from the investigated
compound had a considerable expanse.
Judging by the number of buildings and the surface they occupy (surface which,
as shown, was probably delimited by an enclosure), the complex on Grindanu
seems to be the largest and most important villa rustica known so far in the Province
of Dacia19.
Only one coin allows us to date this complex more thoroughly, although it was
found outside the actual dig. We cannot really rely on it, but the date when it was
minted (between 201 and 210) coincides with other coins discovered in Dacian
villae rusticae, all of them indicating a period from the end of the second century
and the irst half of the third century20.
So it would seem that the compound near Haeg is not an exception from what
we know of the lourishing period of villae rusticae in the province of Dacia.
As for the date when this complex ended, we could interpret the results provided
by the diggings in two ways. As shown, in the larger building we uncovered traces
of Roman habitation even after the partial downfall of the construction. his
would date the moment when the villa stopped fulilling its intended function, as
the administrative centre of a great farming area, sometime before the end of the
province, probably at the middle of the third century. We do not know if the last
traces of habitation are later than the date when the entire complex fell into ruin or
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
I couldnt identify the exact location, mentioned by t. Moldovan, op. cit., loc. cit. In Tabula Imperii Romani,
under Sntmria-Orlea he speciies a lndliche Siedlung vicus cum vestigiis, without a more speciic
location but the cited bibliography notes traces both on the left and on the right bank of Rul Mare.
Identiication made in the ield in 1970 together with Gh. Lazin. I do not know if the lndliche
Siedlung vicus cum vestigiis, from Tabula Imperii Romani under Haeg was referring to this point or
to Grindanu. In any case, the Roman pipe noted in the Tabula is west of Haeg; according to Anuarul
Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice. Transilvania, 1926-1928, p. 175.
I. Winkler et al., op. cit., ig. 14 and the bibliography.
Ibid. p. 80. he coins we have uncovered in the partially excavated villa rustica near the church in StreiClan, minted in a period from Antoninus Pius to Caracalla-Elagabalus, are from the same period. he
results form Strei-Clan are waiting to be published.
71
72
if the situation is limited to the partially investigated building, therefore the villa
rustica actually functioning as such until the last years of the Province. he answer
will be provided only by the methodical investigation of the entire complex.
TABLE OF FIGURES:
Fig. 1 he area where the rivers Galbena and Rul Mare join waters, with the Grindanu
site.
Fig. 2 he plan of the Grindanu excavations.
Fig. 3 Denarius from Septimus Severus.
Fig. 4 Stratigraphic sequences in the Grindanu excavations: A. he western side of S II; B.
Part of the northern side of S I.
a) Sterile soil. b) Light brown soil. c) Backill with earth and rocks. d) Brown earth with a
lot of mortar. e) Mortar plaque. f ) Mortar loor. g) Stone pavement. h) Roman age strata. i)
Mortar plaque with crumbled brick. j) Rubble. k) Layer of roof tiles. j) Chestnut black soil.
m) Topsoil.
Fig. 5 Pottery shards uncovered in the Bronze Age strata.
Fig. 6 he uncovered area of the large, hypocaust building.
a) Exterior wall. b) Mortar loor. c) Stone pavement. d) Pit. e) Irregularities of the loor. f )
Interior wall belonging to phase I. g) Interior wall belonging to phase II.
Fig. 7 he eastern side of the large building, brought out in the open.
Fig. 8 he masonry box in S II a.
Fig. 9 he masonry box and the hypocaust pillars in S II.
Fig. 10 Concave roof tile, tegulae mammatae and (pavement?) bricks.
Fig. 11 Flat roof tiles found in the rubble of the large building.
Fig. 12 Iron objects, clay weight and an item made of deer antler.
Fig. 13 he northern wall of the small building, as it appeared in the excavation.
Fig. 14 Pottery found the villa rustica near Haeg.
Fig. 15 Pottery found the villa rustica near Haeg.
oBSeRVaii PRiVind
ZiduRile cu MoRtaR din
cetile dacice HunedoRene *
4.
3.
74
valoriicate, datele publicate i puse astfel n circulaie5 sunt totui suiciente pentru
a ti c i aici, ca i la Piatra Roie, zidul legat cu mortar delimiteaz o incint
exterioar. Lung de peste 60 m i gros de 0,85-0,95 m, zidul legat cu mortar pare a i
avut la cele dou extremiti cte un turn de lemn. La fel ca i la cetatea de la Piatra
Roie, cercetrile de la Bnia au stabilit c n zidul legat cu mortar au fost folosite
i spolii, pietre fuite provenind de la construcii mai vechi6.
n ceea ce ne privete, n ncercarea veche de civa ani de a face inventarul
fortiicaiilor medievale din ara Haegului i de a deslui semniicaia istoric a
acestora7, am lsat n afara ateniei noastre zidurile legate cu mortar de la cetile
dacice. Cercetri ntreprinse ulterior la faa locului i analiza unor materiale
arheologice, inedite sau publicate, provenind de la Bnia i Piatra Roie, justiic
atenia acordat de medievist acestor obiective.
Zidul legat cu mortar din cetatea dacic de la Bnia, vizibil azi la suprafaa
terenului doar pe o lungime de civa metri i pstrat pe o nlime care ajunge pn
la 1,5 m, se al ntr-o stare de conservare foarte precar ce mpiedic reconstituirea
sigur a aspectului paramentelor sale. Se poate totui spune c, n poriunea vizibil,
el a fost construit din piatr de carier de mrime mijlocie, provenind din coasta
muntelui pe care se al. Pentru cel familiarizat cu arhitectura militar medieval
transilvnean i n mod special pentru cine a vzut cetile medievale din ara
Haegului, frapeaz de la bun nceput asemnarea dintre zidurile acestora din urm
i zidul legat cu mortar de la Bnia. Nici din punctul de vedere al consistenei i
compoziiei mortarului, fcut din nisip i var, i nici din acela al modului de a pune
piatra n oper, nu pot i stabilite deosebiri notabile ntre zidurile medievale i zidul
presupus a i din epoca dacic.
Pe de alt parte, n patrimoniul Muzeului din Deva se al mai multe fragmente
ceramice care provin de la cercetrile efectuate n cetatea de la Bnia8 (pl. II). Stadiul
la care se ala n urm cu 15 ani cunoaterea ceramicei medievale transilvnene
explic cum a fost posibil ca aceste materiale s nu atrag atenia la data descoperirii
lor. Este vorba de fragmente de buz sau de umr de la oale modelate pe roata
de mn cu nvrtire rapid sau chiar pe roata de picior, dintr-o past destul de
omogen n care s-a folosit ca degresant nisipul, decorate cu caneluri simple sau
cu succesiuni de linii n val. Aceste fragmente dateaz din secolele XIII-XIV, mai
probabil din a doua jumtate a secolului al XIII-lea i nceputul secolului urmtor.
Descoperirea acestor materiale n cetatea de la Bnia dovedete c locul a fost
folosit i n epoca mai sus precizat. Dar n acest caz, se pune justiicata ntrebare
dac zidul legat cu mortar nu reprezint cumva urmarea folosirii n secolele XIIIXIV a cetii dacice ruinate. Din simpla examinare a zidului de la Bnia dar i din
luarea n considerare a unor analogii9, suntem nclinai s rspundem airmativ.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Oct. Floca, Cetatea dacic de la Bnia, n M. Macrea Oct. Floca N. Lupu I. Berciu, Ceti dacice din
sudul Transilvaniei, Bucureti, 1966, p. 26-27.
Ibidem; C. Daicoviciu, op. cit., p. 63.
R. Popa, Cetile medievale din ara Haegului, n Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice, XLI, nr. 3, 1972, p.
54 i urm.; Idem, ber die Burgen der Terra Hatzeg, n Dacia, N.S., XVI, 1972, p. 243 i urm.
Fragmentele au numerele de inventar: 14.081, 14.122, 14.846, 14.971, 15.250, i 15.460. Mulumim i
aici directorului Muzeului din Deva, dr. Mircea Valea, care ne-a permis studierea i publicarea acestor
materiale.
Dintre numeroasele ceti dacice refolosite ca fortiicaii la nceputurile evului mediu, amintim aici, alturi
de Jigodin-Miercurea Ciuc (vezi mai sus nota 2) pe aceea de la Btca Doamnei-Piatra Neam (A. Niu i
colab., n Materiale,VI, 1959, p. 356-366; N. Gostar, Ceti dacice din Moldova, Bucureti, 1969, p. 11-12)
unde reamenajarea fortiicaiei pare a i fost fcut fr construirea unor ziduri legate cu mortar.
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
Am putut culege asemenea fragmente n cercetrile de teren efectuate acolo n anul 1975.
C. Daicoviciu, op. cit. p. 101-102 i pl. XVIII/16-18.
Ibidem: pe platoul superior la sud de incint i n turnul B, indicaii mult prea sumare pentru aprecierea
condiiilor de descoperire.
Vezi de exemplu, C. Daicoviciu, op. cit., pl. XX/7, 10, 13.
Fig. 1.
ara Haegului
cu localitile
i punctele
amintite n
text
75
76
Fig. 2.
Fragmente
ceramice
medievale
(sec. XIII -XIV)
descoperite n
cetatea dacic
de la Bnia
15 .
Pasul Merior-Bnia se continu spre sud cu pasul Vlcanului prin care se ajunge la Schela, la nord
de Trgu-Jiu. Urmtoarea trectoare situat spre est, legnd sudul Transilvaniei de partea rsritean a
Olteniei, se al ntre izvoarele Sebeului i Novaci.
Pentru comitatul Haegului de la sfritul secolului al XIII-lea i cetatea regal de la Haeg, vezi R. Popa,
Cetile din ara Haegului, p. 55-56 i Idem, Structures socio-politiques roumaines au sud de la
Transylvanie aux commencements du Moyen ge, n Revue Roumaine d'Histoire, XIV, 1975, nr. 2, p. 299.
77
78
20 .
21 .
22 .
R. Popa, O spad medieval din valea Streiului i cteva consideraii istorice legate de ea, n Sargeia,
IX, 1972, p. 78-79; pe larg: Idem, Streisngeorgiu. Ein Zeugnis rumnischer Geschichte des 11.-14.
Jahrhunderts im Sden Transilvaniens, n Dacia, N.S., XX, 1976, p. 39-40.
Ibidem, p. 42.
R. Popa, ber die Burgen ..., p. 249 i urm.
coMMentS on tHe
MoRtaR WallS oF HunedoaRaS
dacian FoRtReSSeS *
4.
5.
3.
80
to let us know that here also, as is the case at Piatra Roie, the mortar wall delimits
an outer enclosure. he wall, over 60 m long and 0.85-0.9 m thick, seems to have
had wooden towers at each of the two extremities. As in Piatra Roie, the Bnia
investigation proves that spolia processed stones from older buildings were used
while erecting the mortar wall6.
In my earlier efort to describe the medieval fortresses of the Land of Haeg
and clarify their historical signiicance7, I did not approach the mortar walls of the
Dacian fortresses. My attention as a medievalist toward this problem was roused
later on by investigations conducted on the site and after analyzing some novelty or
published artefacts from Bnia and Piatra Roie.
he mortar wall of Bnia is visible today above the ground for only several meters
and preserved up to 1.5 m high. Its state of conservation is precarious, therefore an
accurate reconstitution of its paraments is almost impossible. Still, it can be stated,
on account of the still distinguishable part, that the wall was built of mid-sized local
quarry stone extracted from the side of the same mountain. For someone familiar
with the medieval military Transylvanian architecture and especially for someone
who had seen the medieval fortresses of the Land of Haeg it is striking how alike
are the medieval walls with the mortar wall of Bnia. Taking into account the
consistency and composition of the mortar as well as how the stones were placed
into the wall, one cannot establish notable diferences between the medieval walls
and the one assumed to be Dacian.
On the other hand, the Museum in Deva holds in custody several pottery shards
discovered in the fortress of Bnia8 (ig. 2). Considering the stage of research in
studying medieval Transylvanian pottery ifteen years ago, it is understandable that
these ceramic fragments did not attract anyones attention at the time of discovery.
here are rim and shoulder fragments of pots thrown on hand or even foot powered
fast wheels. he paste is homogenous, tempered with sand, and the decoration
consisted of simple grooves or successions of waving lines. hese pot fragments date
from the thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries, more speciically from the end of
the thirteenth century and the beginning of the next one.
he discovery of the aforementioned fragments proves that the fortress in
Bnia was used in that period. In this case, a very justiied question is whether the
mortar wall exists due to the reclamation of the ruined Dacian fortresses during the
thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. By simply examining the wall in Bnia, but
also by considering some analogies9, I am inclined to say yes.
he wall fragment that delimits the outer enclosure of the fortress in Piatra
Roie cannot be seen above ground but along its trail we could collect some
fragments of mortar whose examination conirms the conclusions of the laboratory
6.
7.
8.
9.
analysis10. But, just as at Bnia, some medieval materials were uncovered during
the archaeological excavations in Piatra Roie. Some of them were recorded in the
monograph dedicated to the monument, dated very likely from the pre-feudal era
or from the beginning of the feudal era and their presence in the fortress was
explained by the fact that they were brought here by shepherds11.
he fact that the pottery from Piatra Roie dates only from the Early Middle
Ages and never later, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries, makes me
doubt that it was brought accidentally by shepherds as shepherds have used this
route during all epochs. Unfortunately, even though we are told the topographic
repartition of the medieval pottery, the stratigraphic conditions of their discovery are
not speciied12. On the other hand, among the drawings of pottery in the mentioned
monograph there are some sherds that seem to date from the Middle Ages as well,
dating at the latest at the beginning of the fourteenth century, though is diicult
to appreciate such materials only from drawings13. Following this train of thought,
it is very possible that some of the metallic objects, especially the iron ones whose
Dacian character is not sustained by speciic typological traits, could actually belong
to the medieval habitation that seems a certainty in the former Dacian fortress of
Piatra Roie.
In the light of all that was said here, we have all the reasons to doubt that the
mortar walls of Piatra Roie and Bnia are Dacian. Since the uncovered materials
attest an early medieval habitation in both fortresses, presence that seems to end at
the beginning of the fourteenth century, we have no reason to suspect an accidental
habitation or a shepherding settlement because the condition of the terrain, the
mountain peaks where the fortresses were built, the presence of the ruined Dacian
walls, of the earthen ramparts and the terraces would implicitly give to any settlement
in the respective locations a fortiied or military character. It is historically logical
to consider the mortar walls as additions or restorations made during the medieval
resettlement of the Dacian fortresses, at least until some further archaeological
investigations may provide some contrary evidence.
Taking things a step further and using bits of information, scarce as they are, from
written sources concerning the history of the Land of Haeg during the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries, we could even advance a hypothesis on the purpose of
these two medieval fortiications, re-used ruined Dacian fortresses. hey seemed
to have had diferent functions since their layout in the surrounding area is also
diferent.
he fortress in Bnia-Dealul Bolii, located at the end of a pass that seems to
have represented the main route between south-western Transylvania and Oltenia14,
must have been used during the Middle Ages to defend the aforementioned gap.
hus the most plausible hypothesis is that the fortress was refurnished and re-used
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
14 .
I was able to ind such fragments during the 1975 area survey.
C. Daicoviciu, op. cit., p. 101-102 and pl. XVIII/16-18.
Ibid. on the upper plateau, south of the enclosure and in tower B. hese indications are too vague to
properly attest the conditions of the discoveries.
See for example C. Daicoviciu, op. cit., pl. XX/7, 10, 13.
he Merior-Bnia Pass is continued southward by the Vlcan Pass which leads to Schela, north of
Trgu-Jiu. he next pass to the east that connects southern Transylvania to the eastern side of Oltenia is
between the Sebe headwaters and Novaci.
81
82
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 .
For the Haeg county at the end of the thirteenth century and the royal fortress in Haeg, see R. Popa,
Cetile din ara Haegului, p. 55-56 and Idem, Structures sociopolitiques roumaines au sud de la
Transylvanie aux commencements du Moyen ge, in Revue Roumaine d'Histoire, XIV, 1975, nr. 2, p. 299.
R. Popa, ber die Burgen..., p. 244.
Ibid.
C. Daicoviciu, op. cit., p. 31 and passim; H. Daicoviciu, op. cit., p. 133.
C. Daicoviciu, op. cit, pl. XVIII/16, fragment decorated with a fascicle of lines traced with a comb on the
shoulder of the pot.
eventually take place at Piatra Roie we cannot determine how the former Dacian
fortress was re-used, whether only a portion of the outer wall was reconstructed,
whether there are traces of wooden buildings in the main enclosure that would date
from the Middle Ages or whether certain Dacian walls or buildings were re-used
during the Middle Ages, maybe for a fortiied residence, thus transforming the
ruined Dacian fortress into a medieval refuge fortress.
Instead we do have several documents that speak of the presence in the valley
of Luncani, since before the middle fourteenth century, of an important Romanian
kneaz family who ruled over at least two or even three villages: Chitidul de Jos
(currently Chitid), Chitidul de Sus (probably currently named Boorod) and Ocoliul
(Mic?)20. I have tried elsewhere to demonstrate that the kneaz named Cndea of
Valea Luncanilor is one of the documented members of the powerful and important
kneaz family Cnde of Ru de Mori21. If the former Dacian fortress of Piatra Roie
was indeed re-used by this family, it would take its place on the map of the Land of
Haeg as a novel Romanian fortress functioning as a refuge keep, much like the ones
in Rchitova, Ru de Mori-Suseni or Mlieti22.
I will end this paper underlining again that my observations here are still just
working hypotheses. Only further excavations would provide a deinitive answer
by specifying the stratigraphic contexts of the medieval materials uncovered in the
fortresses of Bnia and Piatra Roie. Until then we still have suicient grounds for
questioning whether the walls with mortar found in the two fortresses are actually
Dacian.
TABLE OF FIGURES:
Fig. 1 he Land of Haeg, including the localities and the places mentioned in the text.
Fig. 2 Medieval sherds (sec. XIII XIV) uncovered in the Dacian fortress of Bnia.
20 .
21 .
22 .
R. Popa, O spad medieval din valea Streiului i cteva consideraii istorice legate de ea, in Sargeia,
IX, 1972, p. 78-79 and in more detail: Idem, Streisngeorgiu. Ein Zeugnis rumnischer Geschichte des
11.-14. Jahrhunderts im Sden Transilvaniens, in Dacia, N.S., XX, 1976, p. 39-40.
Ibid., p. 42.
R. Popa, ber die Burgen ..., p. 249f.
83
StReiSngeoRgiu. MRtuRii de
iStoRie RoMneaSc
din Secolele Xi-XiV n Sudul
tRanSilVaniei *
N. Iorga, Cea mai veche ctitorie de nemei romni din Ardeal (1408-1409), n Academia Romn.
Memoriile Seciunii Istorice, seria III, tom VI, 1927, p. 171 i urm.
1247: ,,terra Harszoc cum pertinentibus suis, n Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, vol. I, p. 4.
N. Iorga, op. cit., p. 172.
4.
86
Fig. 1.
Cursul inferior
al Streiului i
zona central
a rii
Haegului,
cu localitile
menionate n
text
aceste chipuri. Tot din anul 1743 i tot din penelul zugravilor Gheorghe i andru
ot Fgra sunt i o parte a scenelor care constituiau pn n urm cu doi ani decorul
pictat din interiorul bisericii, att n nav ct i n altar4.
Dar repictarea pisaniei, chiar dac
a putut modiica unele litere pe care
zugravii din 1743 nu le-au neles, nu
a alterat totui nici numele personajelor
i nici data consemnat de text. n acest
sens, Nicolae Iorga observa pe bun
dreptate c jupanii Cndre i Laco
ne sunt cunoscui i din documente
contemporane pisaniei, invocnd trei
diplome regale din anul 1404 printre
care i aceea n care Cndre i Lacu
din Streisngeorgiu apar ca oameni
ai regelui pentru nvecinatul sat Strei,
alat la numai 2 km, dincolo de apa
Streiului5.
Acceptarea ideii c un monument
nlat n primii ani ai secolului al XVlea ar i cea mai veche ctitorie cnezial
romneasc din Transilvania, nu fcea
dect s relecte stadiul la care se ala,
n urm cu cincizeci de ani, cunoaterea istoriei romnilor transilvneni.
ntemeindu-se ulterior pe criterii
stilistice, istoricii de art au atras atenia
asupra vechimii mai mari a unora dintre
monumentele romneti transilvnene
de zid, datndu-le n secolul al XIV-lea
i chiar n a doua jumtate a secolului al
XIII-lea. N-au lipsit nici datrile nc
mai timpurii, lipsite ns de o argumentare satisfctoare.
Principalul merit n aceste cercetri i revine profesorului clujan Virgil Vtianu
care, nc din anul 1929, a plasat vechile biserici romneti din prile hunedorene
ntre limite cronologice mai realiste, datndu-le din secolul al XIII-lea i pn n
secolul al XV-lea6. n ceea ce privete monumentul din Streisngeorgiu, el s-a oprit
iniial asupra secolului al XIV-lea, dar n mai recenta sa lucrare de sintez, a inclus
biserica n grupul celor datnd de la sfritul secolului al XIII-lea7. n argumentarea
4.
5.
6.
7.
Cu observaia c n altarul bisericii exist i scene datate n anul 1858, dat pictat pe bolta acestuia. n
legtur cu decorul pictat al monumentului, vezi studiul semnat de Oliviu Boldura i colectiv, n Revista
Muzeelor i Monumentelor Monumente Istorice i de Art, 1, 1978.
Hurmuzaki Densuianu, Documente privitoare la istoria romnilor, vol. I2, p. 434-435.
V. Vtianu, Vechile biserici de piatr romneti din judeul Hunedoara, n Anuarul Comisiei
Monumentelor Istorice pentru Transilvania, Cluj, 1929, p. 195.
Idem, Istoria artei feudale n rile romne, vol. I, Bucureti, 1959, p. 82.
sa, V. Vtianu a emis ipoteza existenei unui altar prevzut iniial cu o absid
semicircular, nlocuit abia n secolul al XVIII-lea cu actualul altar dreptunghiular.
Asupra datrii bisericii din Streisngeorgiu la sfritul secolului al XIII-lea,
n dezacord cu airmaia att de categoric a pisaniei, s-au pronunat i Grigore
Ionescu8 sau Vasile Drgu9 alturi de ali istorici de art, din rndul crora merit
a i amintit i numele profesorului budapestan ntz Geza10. O datare mai timpurie
a monumentului, n epoca anterioar invaziei ttreti din 1241, a propus, dup
cunotinele noastre, doar I. D. tefnescu, argumentnd cu analiza iconograic a
picturilor murale11.
Tendina unor datri mai timpurii a monumentelor romneti s-a fcut dealtfel
tot mai tare simit n ultimul timp i, fr a i vorba n mod special de biserica de
la Streisngeorgiu, trebuie s consemnm recentele ipoteze ale existenei nc din
secolul al IX-lea a unor monumente medievale de zid n sudul Transilvaniei12. O
atare ipotez nu poate i respins aprioric, condiiile istorice din secolul al IX-lea i
tirile consemnate de izvoarele scrise de mai trziu permind luarea n considerare
a posibilitii ca maturizarea relaiilor feudale s i dus la apariia unor monumente
de piatr sau de crmid nc din secolul al IX-lea13. Dar producerea argumentelor
necesare depinde exclusiv de surprinderea unor situaii concludente sub raport
arheologic i n acest sens rspunsurile sunt de ateptat de la viitoarele cercetri.
Revenind la biserica din Streisngeorgiu, suntem datori de la bun nceput cu o
scurt descriere a monumentului n starea de dinainte de nceperea cercetrilor (ig.
3, 4). De dimensiuni foarte mici, biserica este compus din pronaos (tind), naos
(nav) i altar. Tinda este o adugire recent, din secolul al XIX-lea, fapt relevat
de toi cercettorii i conirmat de spturi, astfel nct ea poate iei din discuia
noastr. Nava bisericii este o ncpere al crei plan se apropie de acela al unui ptrat
cu dimensiunile interioare de 4,60/4,20 m. n nav, pe laturile ei lungi, se al doi
pilatri masivi plasai la distana de numai 0,70 m de limita dinspre altar a ncperii.
Pilatri susin un arc dublou. De la acest arc spre vest, nava este acoperit cu o bolt
nalt semicilindric. La est de pomenitul arc, pornind de pe dou console de zidrie,
se al o bolt distinct, tot semicilindric, dar mai joas. Acest fapt a contribuit la
considerarea prii de rsrit a navei ca iind o ncpere distinct, n genul unui cor14.
n partea de vest a navei se gsete turnul interior cu pisania din 1408 - 1409,
sprijinit pe doi stlpi de zidrie, legai printr-un arc, precum i pe zidul de vest
al navei. ntre stlpi i acest din urm zid au fost montate dou brne din lemn
de stejar pe care se reazem zidurile laterale ale turnului. De la nlimea de cca.
8.
9.
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
14 .
87
88
V. Drgu, op. cit., loc cit.; G. ntz, op. cit., loc cit.
E. Lukinich L. Gldi, Documenta historiam Valachorum in Hungaria illustrantia ..., Budapesta, 1941, p.
271-273.
treang, pentru necredin, a acelui Cndea. Alm de asemenea c iii lui Cndea,
fugii n ara Romneasc, mai continuau la data daniei s svreasc acte ostile
fa de autoritatea regelui maghiar17.
Identiicarea celor trei sate comport unele diiculti. Pe valea Luncanilor la
deal exist azi un singur sat cu numele Chitid, desprit de Streisngeorgiu prin
hotarul satului Ohaba Streiului. Deoarece Ohaba Streiului inea pe atunci de
Streisngeorgiu18, vecintatea cu Chitidul a beneiciarilor daniei poate i considerat
ca nemijlocit. Pentru al doilea sat cu numele de Chitid, trebuie s alegem ntre
identiicarea cu Boorod, care este satul urmtor pe valea Luncanilor la deal, sau
cu vatra vreunui alt sat disprut, situat tot acolo. Prima soluie pare mai probabil19. n sfrit, un Ocoliul Mic exist azi n vecintatea Chitidului, pe o vale
secundar, iar un Ocoliul Mare pe malul opus al rului Strei, n imediata vecintate
a satului Strei unde rezida primul dintre beneiciarii daniei. Pentru villa ... Oklus
identiicarea rmne prin urmare nesigur, cu att mai mult cu ct nu ne este clar
semniicaia expresiei sub duobus kenezyatis existentes prin care este desemnat
situaia (topograic?; patrimonial?) a celor trei sate20.
Reinem oricum din acest episod nrudirea apropiat la 1377 dintre cnezii de
la Strei i Streisngeorgiu, foarte probabil descendeni din acelai bunic anonim,
precum i existena nainte de 1377, n vecintatea acestor sate i pe acelai curs
inferior al Streiului, a unor stpniri de sate romneti exercitate de familia unui
cneaz cu numele Cndea.
Dac dania voievodal i ntrirea regal din 1377 au reprezentat, de la acest
an nainte, temeiul legal, al stpnirii celor dou Chitiduri i a Ocoliului de ctre
cnezii nrudii din Strei i Streisngeorgiu21, nu tim n schimb care era temeiul
juridic, dup normele regatului angevin, prin care aceiai cnezi i stpneau satele
proprii. Un document din anul 1392, pe care l considerm ca avnd o valoare cu
totul ieit din comun22, ne ncredineaz c acest temei nu era altul dect starea de
fapt, motenit de la naintai i acceptat tacit de coroana arpadian i apoi de aceea
angevin23.
Documentul din 1392, n aparen o tranzacie imobiliar ncheiat ntre dou
rude, n tabra pe Dunre, n timpul campaniei mpotriva turcilor i ntrit de regele
Sigismund de Luxemburg, nu este n realitate altceva dect o cale ocolit pentru
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
21 .
22 .
23 .
Ibidem; vezi comentariul episodului la R. Popa, O spad medieval din valea Streiului i cteva
consideraii istorice legate de ea, n Sargetia, IX, Deva, 1972, p. 77 i urm.
La prima apariie documentar, cu numele de Zabadfalva (sat liber ohab), satul este stpnit de
familia cnezial din Streisngeorgiu; D. Csnki, Magyarorszg trtnelmi fldrajza a Hunyadiak korban,
vol. V, Budapesta, 1913, p. 117.
Dou sate cu numele de Chitid sunt atestate documentar pn n secolul al XVI-lea, n timp ce Boorod
apare n documente, cu acest nume, n secolul al XVIII-lea; vezi C. Suciu, Dicionar istoric al localitilor
din Transilvania, I, Bucureti, 1967, p. 97 i 144. Deoarece informaia autorului este lacunar pentru
perioada 1526-1733, este probabil ca n cuprinsul ei s se i produs schimbarea numelui sau restructurarea
topograic a unor aezri mai mici din aceast parte a vii Luncanilor.
Pentru problemele stpnirii cu drept cnezial n secolele XIV-XV, vezi R. Popa, ara Maramureului n
veacul al XIV-lea, Bucureti, 1970, p. 168 i urm., cu bibliograia mai veche.
Temei legal care nu a putut mpiedica totui druirea ulterioar a acelorai sate, cu drept nobiliar, familiei
de nobili din Binini (azi Aurel Vlaicu); Documenta Valachorum, p. 404-405. A fost vorba desigur de o
cotropire, facilitat i de faptul c demnitatea de castelan al Haegului a aparinut acestei familii.
Documenta Valachorum, p. 429-430.
n legtur cu aceast problem vezi, printre altele, Maria Holban, Deposedri i judeci n Haeg pe
vremea angevinilor, n Studii, XIII, 1960, 5, p. 148 i urm.; R. Popa, ara Maramureului, p. 168 i urm.
89
90
Fig. 2.
Detaliu din
tabloul votiv
cu pisania din
1408 - 1409
obinerea, abia acum, a unui act regal care s apere juridic stpniri de drept cnezial
exercitate n virtutea unei situaii de fapt. Locul i momentul demersului, excluznd
desigur procedurile complicate i obinuitele veriicri, nu puteau i mai favorabile.
S-a adugat la aceasta i sprijinul lui Drag, iul lui Sas, voievodul Maramureului,
care a intervenit pe lng rege n favoarea celor doi cnezi haegani ce par a i luat
parte la campanie sub ordinele lui24.
Dar s vedem ce spune documentul. Cndre, iul lui Grigore din Streisngeorgiu
(de Zenthgeorgh), i Lacu, iul lui Nicolae din acelai Streisngeorgiu (de eadem /
Zenthgeorgh/) foarte probabil identici cu cei doi jupani zugrvii n partea stng
a tabloului votiv din 1408-1409 fac un schimb de pri de sate, cu adaosul ca n
cazul morii unuia dintre ei, cel rmas n via s l moteneasc.
Satele n care cei doi cnezi stpneau pri de moie sunt situate n dou zone
distincte ale rii Haegului. n schimbul consemnat de document, Cndre cedeaz
prile sale din satul (moia) Sla (n text: portiones suas in possessionibus Zalaspataka
et... echivalent cu valea Slaului, pe
care se al azi patru sate: Ohaba de sub
Piatr, Slau de Jos, Slau de Sus i
Mlieti) i dintr-un sat numit Sub Brazi
(n text: Fenyalath, poate identic cu
Mlieti unde se al turnul locuin al
cnezilor cu reedina n curtea azi ruinat
din nvecinatul Slau de Sus, dac nu
este vorba de un alt sat din vecintate,
disprut sau purtnd azi alt nume)25,
situate sub Munii Retezatului, n inima
rii Haegului. Pe de alt parte, Lacu
cedeaz prile pe care le stpnea n satele
Streisngeorgiu, Valea Sngeorgiului, Grid
i Strei-Scel (Zentgeorgh.... Pathak, Gred
et Kysfalu), grupate toate ntr-un singur
trup pe malul drept al cursului inferior al
Streiului.
C schimbul a fost ictiv i c nu a avut
alt scop dect consemnarea satelor ntr-un
act regal, o dovedete cu prisosin situaia
pe care o constatm cu 12 ani mai trziu,
la 1404, n documentul pe care 1-a folosit
i Nicolae Iorga. Este vorba, de aceast dat, de o adevrat ntrire a stpnirii unor
sate, acordat n formele consacrate prin practica din acei ani a cancelariei regale i
care se nscrie ntr-un grup mai mare de diplome, date tot n 1404 unor cnezi romni
din Haeg sau din alte pri ale Transilvaniei26. Diploma la care ne referim i care
ne este cunoscut doar sub forma mandatului de introducere n stpnire, adresat
24 .
25 .
26 .
de rege capitlului din Alba lulia27, privete stapnirea cu drept cnezial (possessio
seu keneziatus) a vii Slaului (Zallaspataka) de ctre o familie de cnezi haegani
(keneziis de Hathzagh) dintre care sunt pomenii Cndre (Kenderes) i Barbu, iii
lui Grigore, Costea (Koztha), iul lui Jaroslaus, i Lacu, iul lui Nicolaie, ultimul
precizat ca iind din Streisngeorgiu (de Zenthgurgh). Tot despre acest din urm
cneaz ni se spune c ar i nepotul de iu al pomenitului Cndre, iul lui Grigore,
ceea ce, dac nu se datoreaz unei greeli de copist, ngreuaz mult reconstituirea
genealogic28.
Oricum, Cndre, iul lui Grigore, i Lacu, iul lui Nicolae, din 1404, sunt cele
dou nume pomenite i n schimbul de moii din 1392 care, dup cum se vede,
nu a avut urmri reale n ceea ce privete repartizarea stpnirilor de sate n cadrul
familiei.
Pentru Streisngeorgiu i satele innd de el, nu ni s-a pstrat din aceti ani de la
nceputul secolului al XV-lea o ntrire regal, asemntoare celei mai sus pomenite,
privind valea Slaului sau celei acordate, tot n 1404, ramurii din Strei a familiei29.
Se poate totui airma, fr teama de a grei, c o asemenea diplom a existat. n
prima jumtate a secolului al XV-lea, urmaii lui Cndre sunt precizai ca iind
din Streisngeorgiu, satele din jurul Streisngeorgiului apar ca iind n stpnirea
acestei familii iar nirarea Streisngeorgiului printre satele care aparineau la 1453
cetii Deva30 nu are alt semniicaie dect precizarea condiiei juridice sub care
era stpnit satul. ntr-adevr, exercitarea unei stpniri cu drept cnezial implica
predarea unor produse i prestarea de slujbe ctre cetatea regal i, din aceast
cauz, pomenirea tuturor satelor ntrite sub asemenea condiie, ca fcnd parte din
domeniul cetii, este ct se poate de ireasc31.
Oprindu-ne n continuare asupra legturilor genealogice care pot i reconstituite
pe temeiul documentelor invocate ca i pe temeiul altor ctorva documente din
prima jumtate a secolului al XV-lea32, constatm existena a trei linii distincte ale
familiei, avnd toate legturi cu Streisngeorgiul. Facem aici abstracie de persoanele
pomenite doar n legtur cu valea Slaului, ca stpnind acolo n devlmie cu
familia cnezial din Streisngeorgiu, deoarece aceast devlmie se datoreaz unor
condiii de istorie social-politic haegan a cror evocare depete cadrul pe care
ni l-am propus n studiul de fa33. Cele trei linii ale familiei se prezint astfel (vezi
ilustraia arborelui genealogic).
Dup cum se vede, izvoarele scrise de care dispunem nu permit coborrea
reconstituirilor mai jos dect mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea iar temeiurile nrudirii
dintre cele trei linii familiare rmn n bun msur nesigure. Important este totui
27 .
28 .
29 .
30 .
31 .
32 .
33 .
Hurmuzaki Densuianu, Documente, I2, p. 428; E. Mlyusz, op. cit., nr. 3368.
Vezi mai jos tabloul genealogic.
Hurmuzaki Densuianu, Documente, I2, p. 434.
Ibidem, II2, p. 35.
Domeniul cetii avnd prin urmare nu att sensul de moii ale cetii ci acela de venituri ale cetii.
O monograie istoric i arheologic a rii Haegului, pe care o avem n manuscris, folosete informaiile
scrise de pn dup mijlocul secolului al XV-lea. (n.ed. Ulterior monograia a fost publicat: La nceputurile
evului mediu romnesc. ara Haegului, Bucureti, 1988)
Pentru existena i n ara Haegului a dou categorii de cnezi, una a cnezilor de vale din care fcea parte i
familia cnezial din Streisngeorgiu i alta, subordonat, a cnezilor de sat, vezi R. Popa, Structures sociopolitiques roumaines au sud de la Transylvanie aux commencements du Moyen ge, n Revue Roumaine
dHistoire, XIV, 1975, 2, p. 300 i urm.
91
92
certitudinea faptului c persoanele mai sus pomenite erau nrudite, aa cum o airm
rspicat documentele i cum o conirm tabloul votiv din 1408-1409, precum i,
pe planul mai larg al reconstituirilor de istorie a rii Haegului, prezena familiei
cneziale din Streisngeorgiu, n calitate de stpn de sate sau de pri de sate, pe
valea Slaului sub Munii Retezatului.
Documenta Valachorum p. 143; asupra familiei Cndea din Ru de Mori, vezi i R. Popa, O spad ..., p.
80-81 precum i Idem, ber die Burgen ..., p. 252 i urm.
37 .
38 .
n 1975 ntre 9-28 iunie i 21 iulie-6 august iar n 1976 ntre 7 mai-6 iunie.
Vezi studiile separate din Revista Muzeelor i Monumentelor Monumente Istorice i de Art, 47, 1978,
1. Din colectivul antierului au mai fcut parte, n diferite perioade: Gh. Baltag, Dan Busuioc, Victor
Eskenasy, Ioachim Lazr, Mircea Lazr, Larisa Nemoianu i Adrian Rusu.
Proiectul de restaurare i conducerea lucrrilor se datoreaz arhitectului erban Popescu-Dolj iar
cercetrile asupra picturii i restaurarea ei aparin unui colectiv condus de Marius Popescu i Oliviu
Boldura. Le mulumim i aici tuturor pentru informaiile pe care ni le-au dat.
R. Popa, Streisngeorgiu. Ein Zeugnis rumnischer Geschichte des 11.-14. Jahrhunderts im Sden
Transilvaniens, n Dacia, N.S., XX, 1976, p. 37 i urm. Prezentul studiu cuprinde i rezultatele obinute
n 1976, aducnd unele ndreptri la cele publicate anterior, ndreptri ce vor i menionate expres.
Fig. 3.
Biserica din
Streisngeorgiu
naintea
lucrrilor din
1975 - 1977.
Vedere dinspre
sud-est
93
94
3-5 m, care n punctele unde au aprut morminte recente nu au mai putut i adncite
pn la solul viu.
Interiorul monumentului a putut i n schimb cercetat integral, nti printr-o
seciune longitudinal plasat n axul bisericii i apoi prin casete (ig. 6). Martorii
lsai pentru veriicri ulterioare la sfritul campaniei 1975 n interiorul prii vechi
a monumentului au fost desiinai n anul 1976 pentru a permite montarea noilor
pardoseli.
n cuprinsul cimitirului actual, n afara seciunii trasate perpendicular pe latura
de nord a navei bisericii, s-a mai ncercat practicarea a dou seciuni, una la est i
una la nord-vest de monument, pentru veriicarea extinderii celei mai vechi faze a
necropolei. n sfrit, prelungirea spre vest a seciunii trasate pe axul bisericii a permis
precizarea faptului c biserica a fost construit iniial chiar la marginea terasei i c
actuala platform din faa intrrii se datoreaz unor nivelri recente.
Stratigrafia
Fig. 4.
Biserica din
Streisngeorgiu.
Latura estic a
altarului
Cu toate c mormintele mai noi au rscolit ntregul teren din jurul monumentului,
pn la adncimi situate cu mult sub cota solului viu, s-au gsit totui cteva puncte
n special n partea de vest a navei unde absena interveniilor ulterioare a permis
reconstituirea clar a succesiunii de straturi (ig. 7).
Solul viu se al la adncimea de 0,45-0,50 m
fa de nivelul actual de clcare, iind constituit din
pietri galben-roietic foarte compact i, la limita
superioar a acestuia, dintr-un strat de pmnt
lutos castaniu, gros de cca 0,50 m, lipsit i el de
orice material arheologic. De altfel, constructorii
bisericii s-au mulumit, pentru aezarea temeliilor,
s strpung acest strat lutos de culoare castanie
i s plaseze talpa fundaiei zidurilor pe pietriul
compact despre care a fost vorba.
Deasupra solului viu a fost surprins, n cteva
locuri i doar pe distane foarte mici, un strat
distinct de sol castaniu, gros de numai 2-3 cm,
reprezentnd solul vegetal de la nceputurile locuirii
medievale din acest loc. Pe proilul transversal
obinut n nav (ig. 8), acest strat este acoperit
parial de o lentil de pmnt roietic, pe care o
interpretm ca reprezentnd nivelul podelei bisericii de lemn care a precedat pe acelai loc actualul
monument de zid, biseric de lemn despre care va
i vorba la locul cuvenit. Aceast lentil roiatic cuprinde i pigmeni de crbune. Pe
alte mici poriuni, n locul lentilei roiatice apare o lentil distinct de lut castaniu pe
care am interpretat-o ca iind pmnt scos din anul de fundaie al bisericii de zid39.
39 .
R. Popa, Streisngeorgiu. Ein Zeugnis ..., p. 34; observaiile stratigraice din 1976 au fost mai
concludente pentru existena iniial a unui monument de lemn.
Situaia stratigraic este mai puin clar la temelia stlpului de nord unde o musta de mortar las
impresia unei refaceri mai radicale a zidriei, poate chiar pn n temelia ei.
Fig. 5.
Biserica din
Streisngeorgiu.
Latura sudic
a navei
95
96
Fig. 6. Planul cercetrilor arheologice din 1975 - 1976 de la biserica din Streisngeorgiu. Legenda: 1. Ziduri; 2. Plombe
de zidrie adugate n spatele pilatrilor; 3. Placa de zidrie a primului paviment; 4. Gropi; 5. Umplutura gropilor
mormintelor anterioare bisericii de zid; 6. Nivel de arsur; 7. Lespezi de piatr, pietre, blocuri de temelie i margini ale
temeliei de zidrie; 8. Crmizi din paviment; 9. Limite de gropi de morminte; 10. Piese de podoab; 11. Monede.
Toate adncimile se raporteaz la o cot 0, alat cu 1 m sub pragul exterior al ferestrei altarului (vezi i proil)
97
98