Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 33/4. (2013)
Articles
Family Funerary Monuments in Roman Dacia 71 cases the graves inner pit was in fact a sarcophagus built of bricks, covered by an andesite lid. These two graves were found in a large tumular ring, which is the closest analogy for the ‘Aurelius’ Mausoleum’, but not only their rite is different but their size too, this one is 9 meter in diameter, while the ‘Aurelius’ Mausoleum’ is 21 meter in diameter.54 Unfortunately the source-works does not always make us known the findings, but one thing is sure: pottery is the most common material in family funerary monuments. Most of them were storing vessels, or lamps. An interesting habit was noted at Casolt,55 Calbor56 and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa57: in a large storing vessel a small one was placed, most of them were Dreifußschalen. Glass objects are also mentioned, green and blue melon-beads and white or green unguentaria mostly. Many of them are visibly burnt. The mentioned worked bone objects are: dice, comb, fragment of a disc, needle, and two hairpins. Between metal objects iron is the most common, approximately 90%. These are nails, probably used at the pyre, frequently with burnt marks on them. A few articles of clothing were identified: there were four silver and 27 bronze fibulas among them. They were dated to the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 3rd century. Iron weapons and tools were found too. The very few gold objects are jewels: rings and earrings. Bracelet, pendant, tutulus, two mirrors and hairpins were also found, all of bronze. Seven iron combs were mentioned, with burnt marks on them exclusively from Casolt.58 56 coins were found, these can be dated from the end of the 1st century, but most of them come from the 2nd century. Afterword The aim of this paper is to provide a better understanding of family funerary monuments of Roman Dacia by comparing their structures. It was also important to find the main forms, their general characteristics, than to present all of their particularities and differences too. We can pick 54 Damian et al. 2006b; Damian et al. 2007. 55 Damian et al. 2005; Damian et al. 2006b; Damian et al. 2007. 56 Simion et al. 2003, 105-106; Simion et al. 2004. 57 Floca 1941a; Macrea 1957; Macrea 1959; Macrea - Berciu 1955; Macrea et al. 1959; Protase 1971. 58 Macrea 1957; Macrea et al. 1959. up on specific combination of elements, such as the rate of occurrence of busti in tumuli; the rate of occurrence of inhumations in graveyards; the trend of rings to have a tumular completion, or the trend of graveyards to have a sarcophagus and a tombstone. The term of‘family funerary monument’ in the light of the number of the graves refers mainly to graveyards, but considering the particularities in other forms, shows us that ancient societies strongly connected to their rites and traditions. There is so much more to study regarding to family funerary monuments, as we are still at the beginning of the research. It is very likely that some data will be precised by new discoveries, but hopefully this will provide us a just picture and a more polished view-point system. References Alföldy-Gäzdac et al. 2007 Á. Alföldy-Gäzdac - Sz. Pánczél - L. Vass - C. Gäzdac - I. Bajusz - N. Gudea, Project „Necropolis Porolissensis”. Methods and Perspectives, ActaTS 6/1,2007, 9-17. Andritoiu 2006 I. Andritoiu, Necropolele Midéi (Timisoara 2006) Babes 1970a M. Babes, Zu den Bestattungsarten im Nördlichen Flachgräberfeld von Romula. Ein Beitrag zur Grabtypologie des römischen Daziens, Dacia 14, 1970,167-206. Babe?1970b M. Babe?, Miliutin Garasanin, Razmatranja о nekropolama tipa Mala Kopasnica-Sase (Considérations sur les nécropoles du type Mala Kopasnica- Sase. Contributions á la délimitation des Illyriens et des Daces á Tépoque romaine), „Godisnjak”, VI, Knjiga 4, Sarajevo, Centar za balkanoska ispitivanja, 1968, pp. 5-26, résumé francais pp. 27-34, RESEE 8/4, 1970, 727-730. Bajusz 2008 I. Bajusz, Moigrad-Porolissum, com. Mir?id, Jac, com. Creaca, jud. Sälaj [Porolissum], CCÁ 2007, 2008, nr. 107, 201-204. Bäe?tean et al. 2007 G. Bäe?tean - F. Marcu - O. Jentea - I. Peti? - C. Pläia? - R. Varga - P. Ureche, Sarmizegetusa, com. Sarmizegetusa, jud. Hunedoara [Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa]. Punct: La Cire? - Necropola Esticä, CCA 2006, 2007, nr. 156, 307-308. Bärbulescu 2003 M. Bärbulescu (Ed.), Funeraria Dacoromana: Arheologia funerarä a Daciei Romane (Cluj Napoca 2003)
