EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS - Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei

Commentaria Archaeologica et Historica (I)
171
The monument from Pergamon is also important for the chronological aspect of this
discussion. Its decorative panels illustrate a large range of weapons and military equipment,
Hellenistic and ‘Barbarian’, some of them older but still in use at the beginning of the
2 nd century BC, others new and archaeologically documented up to the end of the 2 nd century
or the beginning of the 1 st century BC.
In conclusion, returning to the warrior buried at Ciumeşti, it has to be noted that the
funerary inventory points to his belonging to a warlike elite displaying well defined and visible
signs of status. Still, these have to be interpreted from two different perspectives.
The chainmail and the helmet decorated with a bird of prey were symbolic elements
designed to set him apart within the group of warriors from both its own community and on a
wider area in the Carpathian Basin. The remaining graves with weapons from Ciumeşti (no. 9
and 12) contain ‘standard’ panoplies of weapons of the period, commonly encountered in other
cemeteries from the Carpathian Basin or other areas in temperate Europe: sword (sometimes
with the chain-belt), spear head and shield 46 . For this reason the military equipment of the
mentioned deceased can be considered insignia of a chieftain having a significant authority in
his community, and perhaps even on a larger area.
On the other hand the greaves were also symbols of his rank, but of different nature
than the local traditional equipment. It may be presumed that during his peregrinations in the
eastern Mediterranean, and the military actions in which he was involved, the warrior from
Ciumeşti, as head of a unit of mercenaries, must have compared himself with the Greek officers
fighting alongside him. Aiming to be perceived as equal to these officers (perhaps also mercenaries
hired by the same master), he adopted the insignia of the prominent military function
which were comprehended and acknowledged as such by his Greek colleagues.
Lastly, it has to be noted that in the 50 years which passed since the discovery, the grave
with helmet from Ciumeşti continues to determine numerous scientific debates and to attract
the public interest whenever it is presented in exhibitions, catalogues or books of general interest,
due to its spectacular inventory.
2. The Padea-Panagjurski kolonii group in Transylvania. Old and new discoveries
Nearly four decades ago Z. Woźniak noted the spread of some cremation graves containing
panoplies of weapons consisting of swords of La Tène type, spears, shields and curved daggers
(sometimes decorated) on the territory of today Bulgaria (mainly in the north and north-west) and
Romania (mainly in Oltenia). In many cases the inventories also contained horse-bits of local type,
indicating that the graves belonged to riders. The entire phenomenon was named ‘Padea-Panagjurski
kolonii’ and was dated mainly to the 2 nd –1 st centuries BC 47 . Still it was noted that during this period
some elements of the funerary rite and ritual were different from a zone to another (tumuli in
north-western Bulgaria, cremation graves in pit, sometimes with the burnt remains placed in urns in
Oltenia etc), suggesting the existence of different traditions and ethnic origins of the members of the
warlike elites which used an otherwise unitary, typologically and functionally, military equipment.
Later discoveries revealed that the mentioned phenomenon was extended over a wider
area, including both banks of the Danube in the Iron Gates region, areas in western and southern
Muntenia, and south-western Transylvania 48 .
46
ZIRRA 1967, 24–28 (Grave 9 – complete panoply), 29–32 (Grave 12 – only a sword).
47
WOŹNIAK 1974, 74–138; WOŹNIAK 1976, 388–394. It was later noted that sometimes the military
equipment also contained helmets and chainmails: RUSTOIU 1994a, 34–35; RUSTOIU 1996, 36, 147–150 etc.
48
RUSTOIU 1994a; RUSTOIU 1994b; SÎRBU/RUSTOIU 1999 (with bibliography); RUSTOIU 2002,
11–23; RUSTOIU 2005, 110 Fig. 1; RUSTOIU 2008, 147 Fig. 73 (distribution map).