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

We examine herein the golden plaque identified in the looted Sarmatian grave identified at Dunaharaszti. On its surface are rendered three wolves (?) running left and a tamga, all in relief. The tamga is in the shape of two adjoining volutes. The loops are waving inward on the first, and outward on the second. The symbol is believed similar to that ascribed to king Farzoios for whom Olbia struck golden coin grosso modo by the end of AD the 50’ies – end of the 70’ies. Tamga symbols of king Farzoios are mainly known from coins and are in the shape of two half-circles set by the extremities and joined by a vertical line.Upon the examination of the symbol on the plaque from Dunaharaszti it was noted that parallels mentioned for it differ much, while its’ ascribing to king Farzoios farfetched. The author agrees that tamgas with certain deviations from those on the coins for Farzoios had belonged to other individuals, likely, from amongst the group led by this king or from within a group of Sarmatians under the control of the kingdom of Farzoios.The author mentions for the tamga on this plaque a few analogies identical or similar from the north-Pontic area, arguing that some are specific to the region on the right bank of the Dniper. In terms of dating, it is noted they are specific mainly to the period comprised between mid 1st century AD and mid 2nd century AD. It is further mentioned that in the north-Pontic area tamgas with parts similar with that from Dunaharaszti are numerous (in particular, the volutes with loops waving inwards), yet, these are not parallels with the tamga discussed here, according to the author.Last but not least it was noted that the tamga on the plaque at Dunaharaszti is practically the single authentic symbol on a valuable object from the Sarmatian Iazyges environment of the Great Hungarian Plain. Another observation is related to the fact that the tamgas in the Sarmatian Iazyges environment of the Great Hungarian Plain come from a series of finds that span over a period of ca. three centuries, while their number is insignificant. The small number of the tamgas in the Sarmatian Iazyges environment confirms they were used by a restricted number of Sarmatian tribes, the Iazyges from the Great Hungarian Plain not included. This further underlines also that tamgas in the Germanic environment were not adopted from the Iazyges, but reached the Germanic peoples upon contacts and military conflicts with the Sarmatian world from the north-west Pontic area.The plaque at Dunaharaszti dates most likely to the second half of the 1st century AD and reached the Great Hungarian Plain sometime towards the end of the 1st century AD (AD 80’ies) when very likely another Sarmatian migration occurred in the area. The tamga on the plaque evidences, according to the author, the presence in this area of the elites and is evidence, given the approximate period of Farzoios’s rule, that not those Sarmatians in the first wave carried the plaque to the Great Hungarian Plain. This confirms, together with other finds, that the Sarmatians entered this area in a few waves over the second half of the 1st century AD, possibly even by its end. Also, it is concluded that part of those migrating to the area were connected or even formed part for a short while from the Sarmatian group led by Farzoios and Inismeos.Lastly, it is not excluded that the plaque from Dunaharaszti indicates, beside a series of artefacts and elements from several archaeological finds, the presence within the wave of Sarmatians that entered the Great Hungarian Plain of individuals from the elites of the Sarmatians (Alani/Aorsi) who settled the north-west Pontic area starting with mid 1st century AD. This is possible, according to the author, should one keep in mind also that such elite might have been involved in the Iayzgian aristocracy from the north-west Pontic area. Regardless the facts, it is very likely that its representatives played an important role within this wave.

The research and documenting of the historical monuments are fundamental and key tools for their adequate understanding and protection. Despite the numerous national and international laws, agreements and recommendations, regulating almost all aspects related to the protection of the monuments, they are not fully complied with and applied in Romania. The Dacian fortresses from the Orăștiei Mountains, on the list of UNESCO world heritage sites make no exception to the rule.Recognition of the universal value of this fortified complex, formed of several fortresses, carried both prestige and responsibilities for Romania. The latter involved, among other, adequate legal frameworks, ensuring optimal conditions for the management, protection, restoration, research and highlight of these unique monuments that belong to the world heritage.Romania counts among the 193 signatory states of the 1990 Convention for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in 1972. Nevertheless, the effective enforcement of the Convention occurred only in 2000, when the government approved measures for the protection of the historical monuments on the World Heritage List.After 2000, various laws on the management, preservation and protection of the monuments on the World heritage list were issued, nonetheless, there is sufficient space for improvement of the national regulatory framework, especially as regards the management of the cultural and natural heritage, the fight against archaeological poaching, the illegal traffic of antiquities etc., all of the above with impact also on the Dacian fortresses on the World Heritage list. Some of the provisions of these laws have not been applied or complied with, which made that some of the Dacian fortresses not to have a legal administrator, further resulting in the monuments decay.To date, there are no management plans for the six Dacian fortresses. To this lack of management plans adds the lack of managers for these monuments, but also the lack of management plans and minimal short-term strategies that would solve stringent issues.Another issue that the Romanian authorities failed to resolve is related to the permanent security of the monuments. The only Dacian fortress from the Orăștiei Mountains to benefit from 24/24-security services is Sarmizegetusa Regia, which is under the administration of the County Council of Hunedoara. Therefore, the phenomenon of the archaeological poaching and deliberate destruction disappeared completely in the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia. Not the same applies for the remaining fortresses, where the destruction, vandalism and archaeological poaching may be still found, and not rarely. In almost all these fortresses, there are buildings in ruin and walls dislodges on several parts. Access routes to some of these Dacian fortresses are inadequate, in some cases even difficult. Vegetation in these unmanaged sites has invaded the monuments, while significant parts of walls and buildings are covered with layers of moss, lichens and bryophytes. The poor state of these fortresses is due to the fact they are managed by no one, although the County Council of Hunedoara has requested repeatedly the central authorities to transfer the management right of the other Dacian fortress in the county of Hunedoara, which was constantly refused. For the lack of a manager and financial support, these monuments’ risk for significant damage, with portions that might physically disappear over the course of time is very high, unless financial resources are allotted on a constant basis for preservation, restoration and protection. Also, the legal status of the land on which the mentioned monuments lay and its registration was not clarified until now; the land mapping; the establishment of the holders of the ring to manage UNESCO remains; the inclusion of the monuments and protection areas in the PUZ (regional Urban Plan) and PUG (General Urban Plan) type documentations of the administrative-territorial units within the range of which lie respective monuments and documentation for the draft of large scale feasibility studies for each fortress were not prepared and drafted. At Sarmizegetusa Regia, under the administration of the County Council of Hunedoara, things have changed for the better in the last six years, while discrepancies between this site and those unmanaged are increasingly more visible. There were set up the Administration of the historical monument of Sarmizegetusa Regia, constant security/surveillance, video surveillance, a Consulting Scientific Council was created and a regulation for visiting the site was drafted and enforced. There were established visiting routes and created explanatory panels with texts in Romanian and English for each monument, while in the pavilion from the access to the site may be purchased adequate informative materials. The access road to Sarmizegetusa Regia was asphalted, while at ca. 1 km from the entrance into the fortress was built a parking. The site is constantly attended and cleaned, regardless the season, thus reaching one of the standards that UNESCO monuments must comply. The County Council of Hunedoara also finances archaeological excavations, which led to the significant extension of the period when they are conducted, which led to outstanding results and impressive finds. A series of preservation works were also performed and the Day of Open Gates was set us as well.Past all these positive things, there is a series of aspects that still require remedy. Amongst, the dislodgement of the constructional block and elements on certain parts of the fortification walls, the issue of the trees that fall onto the monument and lack of management plans.The poor state in which lay part of these universal interest monuments reveals that the Romanian state, through the Ministry of Culture and National Identity, whose purpose, is among other, to protect the cultural...

Sarmizegetusa Regia was included, together with other five Dacian fortresses (Bănița, Costești-Blidaru, Costești-Cetățuie, Piatra Roșie and Căpâlna), on the List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 1999. They are a unique synthesis of external cultural influences and local traditions in terms of building techniques and overall, in the ancient military architecture, representing the monumental expression of the civilisation of the Dacian Kingdom.These fortresses are the accurate expression of the exceptional development level of the Dacian civilisation during the 1st century BC – early 2nd century AD, Sarmizegetusa Regia lying at the forefront of this fortified complex, epitomizing the evolution phenomenon from fortified centres to proto-urban agglomerations.After 2000, various laws regulated the management, preservation and protection of the monuments listed among World Heritage Sites. Some of their provisions have never been applied or abided by. Unfortunately, currently, only Sarmizegetusa Regia has a legal administrator, the other five remaining un-administered.There is no management plan for any of the six fortresses and they have no managers or administration plans. Except for Sarmizegetusa, there are not even short term strategies for the other five fortresses that would solve urgent matters. They are not even protected 24/7. The single Dacian fortress within this fortified complex that benefits of security services 24/7 is Sarmizegetusa Regia, which is under the administration of the County Council of Hunedoara. Subsequent to these measures, the phenomenon of archaeological poaching and deliberate destruction disappeared entirely from the area of Sarmizegetusa Regia. Not the same may be said for the other fortresses, where destruction and vandalism actions and archaeological poaching are still often found. In most these fortresses, there are buildings in ruin and walls dislodged in several portions. Access roads to some of these Dacian fortresses are inadequate, while vegetation in these not administered sites conquered the monuments. The poor situation in these fortresses is due to the fact that nobody administers them. The legal status of the land on which said monuments lie was not clarified to date either, and they remain not registered in land registers; the lands were not recorded in the cadastre; the owners of the right to administer the UNESCO remains were not established; the monuments and protection areas were not included in PUZ (regional Urban Plan) and PUG (General Urban Plan)type documentations of the administrative-territorial units within whose range respective monuments lie, there are no documentations for the draft of large feasibility studies for each fortress.At Sarmizegetusa Regia, things have changed for the better in the last 6 years, while discrepancies between this site and those which remained not administered are increasingly visible. The Administration of the historical monument Sarmizegetusa Regia was set up, constant security/surveillance, video surveillance were provided, a consulting Scientific Council was created and a regulation for visiting the site was drafted and implemented. Visiting routes were set up and explanatory panels with texts in Romanian and English for each monument set up, while at the pavilion by the entrance into the site may be purchased adequate informative materials. There were introduced audio guides in Romanian and English with much information on the monument and its history. The road that ran to Sarmizegetusa Regia was modernised and the County Council of Hunedoara funds the archaeological excavations. Survey measurements of the site were completed as did the documentation for the approval of intervention works (DALI). Furthermore, the issue of the sick trees on the sites’ surface, which endangered visitors, employees as well as important parts of the monument, was partially solved. Because the efforts of the research team were also implemented a series of projects which facilitated the access of the heritage from Sarmizegetusa and the other Dacian fortresses on the List of World Heritage Sites. The efforts of the County Council of Hunedoara and the Site Administration made the site appear clean, constantly maintained, regardless the season, thus reaching some of the standards that UNESCO sites must comply.Past all these positive things, there are aspects that still require remedy. Among, count the dislodgement of the constructional blocks and elements on certain portions of the fortification walls, the pentagonal tower or the poor state of the Roman baths. To these add the lack of management and administration plans, yet also the lack of drafting and submitting projects for accessing European funds designed for historical monuments.There is obviously still much work to do, and one may not speak of perfect administration or a model of solid administration at Sarmizegetusa Regia. Nevertheless, we are confident that year by year, any dysfunctionality will disappear, the errors and failures will become increasingly few, despite the site complexity, while the gathered experience and efforts of those involved for the good of this monument will multiply.