S ARGETIA

VIII 2017 SERIE NOUĂ

ACTA MVSEI DEVENSIS

SARGETIA
VIII (XLIV)
SERIE NOUĂ

DEVA
2017
Manager – Ec. Liliana Ţolaş

Colegiul Ştiinţific

Mihai Bărbulescu – Membru corespondent al Academiei Române, Filiala Cluj-Napoca

Michel Feugère – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 5138, Lyon
Arja Karivieri – Classical Archaeology and Ancient History Stockholm University
Ioannis Motsianos – Museum of Byzantine Culture Thessalonik
Ioan Aurel Pop – Membru titular al Academiei Române, Filiala Cluj-Napoca
Marius Porumb – Membru titular al Academiei Române, Filiala Cluj-Napoca
Richard Petrovszky – Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer
Reinhard Stupperich – Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Heidelberg
Denis Zhuravlev – The State Historical Museum Moscow
Cornel Tatai-Baltă – Universitatea „1 Decembrie 1918” din Alba Iulia

Colegiul de redacţie

Ioan Alexandru Bărbat – redactor responsabil

Georgeta Deju – secretar de redacţie
Cătălin Cristescu – membru
Daniel Iosif Iancu – membru
Antoniu Tudor Marc – membru
Ionuţ Cosmin Codrea – membru
Adrian Stroia – membru

Proiectare copertă: Ionuţ Cosmin Codrea, Cristina Filcea

Coperta 1: Figurină antropomorfă aparţinând culturii Turdaş, descoperită la Orăştie – Dealul
Pemilor X2, din colecţia Muzeului Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane (Foto: Marius Mîndruţău)
Machetare volum: Dorina-Liliana Dan, Georgeta Deju, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat

ACTA MVSEI DEVENSIS ACTA MVSEI DEVENSIS

Orice corespondenţă referitoare la publicaţia Toutes correspondance concernant la revue
Sargetia se va adresa: Sargetia doit être adressé:
Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane
330005 Deva, str. 1 Decembrie nr. 39, 330005 Deva, str. 1 Decembrie nr. 39,
judeţul Hunedoara, România judeţul Hunedoara, România
Telefon 0254 216750 Téléphone +4 0254 216750
Fax 0254 212200 Fax +4 0254 212200
[email protected] [email protected]
www.anuarulsargetia.ro www.anuarulsargetia.ro

Responsabilitatea pentru conţinutul materialelor publicate,

inclusiv a traducerii textelor, aparţine în exclusivitate autorilor.

Copyright © Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane, Deva

ISSN 1013 – 4255
SUMAR SOMMAIRE INHALT CONTENTS

ARHEOLOGIE

STUDII I ARTICOLE

Beatrice Ciută, ContribuŃii la dieta comunităŃilor Otomani. Analiza

Zsolt Molnár macroresturilor vegetale recuperate din situl de la
Carei – Bobald ……………………………………... 11
Contribution to the Vegetal Diet of Otomani
Communities. Analysis of Macroremains Recovered
from Carei – Bobald site

Gică Băe tean, About the Second Dacian-Roman War (105-…) ….. 29
Valentin A. Boicea Despre al doilea război daco-roman (105-…)

Ana-Cristina Hamat VTERE FELIX Inscribed Rings Discovered in

Roman Dacia …………………………………......... 57
Inele cu inscripŃia VTERE FELIX descoperite în
Dacia romană

Marius Gheorghe Barbu, New Archaeological Information Regarding the

Ioan Alexandru Bărbat Exploitation of Andesite in Măgura Uroiului
(Hunedoara County) ...……………………………... 71
Noi informaŃii arheologice privind exploatarea
andezitului la Măgura Uroiului (jud. Hunedoara)

RAPOARTE I NOTE ARHEOLOGICE

AncuŃa-Ioana Bobînă Reprezentări antropomorfe i zoomorfe neolitice i

eneolitice descoperite în judeŃul Hunedoara ……….. 125
Neolithic and Eneolithic Anthropomorphic and
Zoomorphic Representations Found in Hunedoara
County

Marius-Mihai Ciută O statuetă antropomorfă recent descoperită la eu a

– În Grui (com. Ciugud, jud. Alba) ........................... 139
An Anthropomorphic Clay Statuette Discovered at
eu a – În Grui (Ciugud Commune, Alba County)

Octavian-Cristian Rogozea, A ezări CoŃofeni i Wietenberg din judeŃul

Florentina MărcuŃi, Hunedoara ………………………………………….. 149
Răzvan GuguŃ, CoŃofeni and Wietenberg Settlements from
Simion Câmpean Hunedoara County
4

Nicolae Cătălin Ri cuŃa Un topor aparŃinând bronzului timpuriu descoperit

la Hărău (jud. Hunedoara) ............................................ 177
An Early Bronze Age Copper Axe Discovered at
Hărău (Hunedoara County)

Dinu Ioan Bereteu A ezarea dacică de la Cojocna .................................. 197

The Dacian Settlement from Cojocna

Mihaela Bleoancă O furcă de tors pentru deget din epoca romană

descoperită la Apulum – Colonia Aurelia Apulensis .... 205
The Roman Finger Distaff Discovered at Apulum –
Colonia Aurelia Apulensis

Bogdan Alin Craiovan, O locuire medieval timpurie pe Valea Mure ului

Octavian-Cristian Rogozea, mijlociu. Tărtăria – Situl 9 ......................................... 213
Dorel Micle, Early Medieval Habitation on the Middle Mure
Remus Constantin Dumitru Valley. Tărtăria – Site 9
Dincă

ISTORIE

STUDII I ARTICOLE

Viorel Câmpean Moise Sora Noac, un cărturar născut la HaŃeg, cu

activitate în nordul Transilvaniei …………………... 231
Moise Sora Noac, A Scholar Born in HaŃeg, with
Activity in North of Transylvania

Marta Cordea Constantin Papfalvi, deputat în Dieta de la Pesta .…. 245

Papfalvi Constantin, Deputy in the Diet from Pesta

Nicolae Dumbrăvescu Din „memorialistica măruntă” a RevoluŃiei de la

1848-1849 din Transilvania. Însemnări despre
prefectul Legiunii Câmpiei, Nicolae VlăduŃiu …….. 261
From the “Small Memoirs” of the 1848-1849
Revolution from Transylvania. Notes About the
Prefect of the Câmpia Legion, Nicolae VlăduŃiu

Cristina Bodó Dealul CetăŃii Deva în administrarea SocietăŃii de

Istorie i Arheologie a comitatului Hunedoara …….. 287
Dealul CetăŃii Deva in the Administration of the
History and Archaeology Society of Hunedoara
County
 5

Minodora Damian Publicitatea vestimentară în Timi oara interbelică .... 301

Publicité des vêtements en Timi oara entre-deux-
guerres

Ioachim Lazăr Accidentul aviatic din zona Muntelui Găina, 23

august 1940 ...…………………………………….… 317
Das Flugunfall aus dem Bereich der Găina Gebirge
23 August 1940

Carmen Albert ContribuŃia Banatului la „Pacea de Mâine” în

corespondenŃa lui Silviu Dragomir ………………… 335
Banat's Contribution to the “Peace of Tomorrow” in
the Correspondence of Silviu Dragomir

Eugen Mioc Lumea rurală i agricultura din Banat în primele

două decenii de regim comunist (1945-1965) ….….. 347
The Rural World and the Agriculture in Banat in the
Two Firsts Decades of the Communist Regime
(1945-1965)

Iuliu-Marius Morariu Omul din spatele Orei 25. Constantin Virgil

Gheorghiu în dosarele SecurităŃii ………………….. 373
The Man Behind the 25th Hour. Constantin Virgil
Gheorghiu in the Securitate Files

ISTORIA CULTURII

STUDII I ARTICOLE

Lăcrămioara Manea Biblioteca Colegiului Sfântul Sava din Bucure ti.

Încercare de reconstituire, istorie i ex-libris ...…….. 385
The Library of Saint Sava College from Bucharest.
Attempt of Reconstitution, History and Ex-Libris

Drago Curelea EvoluŃii funcŃionale cu privire la cunoa terea istoriei

Bibliotecilor pentru popor din DespărŃământul Alba
Iulia al Astrei între anii 1887-1946 ………………… 403
Functional Developments Regarding the Knowledge
of History of Libraries for the People in Alba Iulia
Partition of Astra in 1887-1946

Cornel Tatai-Baltă Daniel Luca Voina, un remarcabil ilustrator de carte

contemporană ………………………………………. 427
Daniel Luca Voina, an Outstanding Contemporary
Book Illustrator
6

CONSERVARE I RESTAURARE

STUDII I ARTICOLE

Sergiu-Sorin Popescu Metamorfozele Cenu ăresei. Etapele restaurării unui

Iosif Vasile Ferencz vas dacic din fier …………………………………… 453
Cinderella’s Metamorphoses. The Restore Stages of
a Dacian Iron Vessel

Elena Manuela PătruŃescu Analiza condiŃiilor de păstrare a colecŃiei de textile

etnografice din depozitul temporar al Muzeului
Regiunii PorŃilor de Fier ...…………………………. 473
Analysis of the Storage Conditions of the Collection
of Ethnographic Textiles in the Temporary
Warehouse of Iron Gates Museum

RECENZII I NOTE DE LECTURĂ

Maria Basarab Anca Elisabeta Tatay, Cornel Tatai-Baltă,

Xilogravura din cartea românească veche tipărită la
Bucure ti (1582-1830) [The Woodcut in the Early
Romanian Books Printed in Bucharest (1582-
1830)], Cluj-Napoca, Ed. Mega, 2015, 516 p.,
(ISBN 978-606-543-647-3) ………………………... 485

Georgeta Deju Ioan Chindri , Niculina Iacob, Eva Mârza, Anca

Elisabeta Tatay, Otilia Urs, Bogdan Crăciun,
Roxana Moldovan, Ana Maria Roman-Negoi,
Cartea românească veche în Imperiul Habsburgic
(1691-1830). Recuperarea unei identităŃi culturale
[Old Romanian Book in the Habsburg Empire
(1691-1830). Recovery of a cultural identity], Cluj-
Napoca, Ed. Mega, 2016, 1010 p., 1 hartă, (ISBN
978-606-543-733-3) ………………………………... 487

Ronald Hochhauser Viorel Rusu, Lucia Pop, Călătorie în universul

ceasului. ColecŃia de orologerie [A Journey in the
Universe of the Clock. The Horological Collection],
ColecŃii Muzeale, V, Baia Mare, Ed. Eurotip, 2016,
100 p., (ISBN 978-606-617-244-8) ...……………… 491

Nicolae Dumbrăvescu Emil Arbonie, PoliŃi ti urbani arădeni (1929-1949)

[Urban Policemen from Arad (1929-1949)], Arad,
Ed. „Vasile Goldi ” University Press, 2017, 291 p.,
(ISBN 978-973-664-831-1) ………………............... 493
 7

Daniel I. Iancu Iosif Vasile Ferencz, Muzeul din Deva. Arc peste
timp [The Museum in Deva. Arch Over Time], Cluj-
Napoca, Ed. Mega, 2017, 166 p., (ISBN 978-606-
543-887-3) …………………………………………. 497

Lista abrevierilor ………………………………………………………………….. 501

NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE
EXPLOITATION OF ANDESITE IN MĂGURA UROIULUI
(HUNEDOARA COUNTY)1

MARIUS GHEORGHE BARBU

Muzeul CivilizaŃiei Dacice i Romane, Deva
[email protected]
IOAN ALEXANDRU BĂRBAT
Muzeul CivilizaŃiei Dacice i Romane, Deva
[email protected]

Keywords: archaeological researches, sources of raw materials, quarry, prehistory,

Roman period
Cuvinte cheie: cercetări arheologice, surse de materie primă, carieră, preistorie, epocă
romană

The present stage of research on this subject shows that the earliest evidences of
the use of the andesite from the Măgura Uroiului volcanic hill were found during a
survey of certain dwellings from the Early Neolithic period in Rapoltu Mare. The
volcanic rock was used throughout the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, when two
fortifications were erected on the terraces of Măgura Uroiului.
The andesite quarry was systematically exploited during the Roman period. The
traces of the ancient techniques of extracting stone blocks are still visible today. The
site’s strong connection with the Micia Roman stonemasons’ centre lead to the
discovery, in the Uroi exploitation site, of an anthropomorphic representation in an
early stage of manufacture, a representation that bears the artistic marks of the Micia
sculpture practices.
The Uroi andesite was also used throughout the Middle Ages, as proven by a
nearby fortification. Evidences of medieval and modern exploitations are also still
visible through different markings left in the native rock.

Introduction
In the context of the recent systematic or survey archaeological endeavours
made in the areas around the villages near the volcanic hill, namely around Uroi and
Rapoltu Mare, between 2014-20172, a reassessment of an apparently “worn out” subject
in the archaeological scholarly literature regarding the exploitation of andesite in the
Măgura Uroiului (Hunedoara County) quarry is absolutely necessary. Given the extent
of the subject and the ongoing archaeological research projects, we shall attempt to
illustrate the main results obtained in the aforementioned time interval. In a future
study, we shall provide a more detailed presentation of the archaeological discoveries
that can be attributed to the exploitation of andesite in the Măgura Uroiului
promontory.

1
A Romanian version of the present study will be published in the journal Banatica, 27/2017.
2
Băe tean et al. 2015a, p. 120-122; Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 122-123; Băe tean et al. 2016, p. 67-68;
Barbu et al. 2016, p. 273-321; Băe tean et al. 2017, p. 109-111.

Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis (S.N.), VIII, 2017, p. 71-121.

72 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Localization
The Măgura Uroiului archaeological site, also known as Măgura, Dealul
Uroiului3 (Uroi Hill) or Muntele de Aur (The Golden Mountain, or Arany Hegy, in
Hungarian4), is located in south-western Transylvania and it is part of the administrative
region of the Hunedoara County: in Rapoltu Mare commune5, in Rapoltu Mare village,
on the outskirts of Uroi village, administrated by the town of Simeria6 (Pl. I/1-2).
The landform under scrutiny is part of the Mure River Valley Intermountain
Depression, in the Sebe – Deva sector7, and it outlines the following geographical
subunits: the Oră tie Corridor8 in the north-west, and the Lower Strei Corridor9 in the
North. Măgura Uroiului is located on the northern side of the Mure course and of the
county road DJ 107A, Uroi – Geoagiu10. The right bank of the aforementioned river, at
its confluence with the Strei River, is on the southern side of the foot of the hill11
(Pl. II/1).
Due to its geographical layout, the Uroi Hill can be considered to be one of the
last mountain formations of the Southern Apuseni Mountains. Măgura Uroiului is
connected to the Apuseni Mountains through the Alistrei mountain pass, resembling a
“wedge” in the Mure Valley12.

Geology
The present shape of the hill is the product of natural and anthropogenic factors.
The latter represented our motivation to elaborate the present article (Pl. II/2-3, IV/1-2,
X/1-2). In respect to the natural factor, we must mention the fact that there were
numerous endeavours made in the attempt to identify the genesis of the volcanic neck
located between the present rural communities of Uroi and Rapoltu Mare. There were
an equally large number of studies whose purpose was to identify the petrographic
characteristics of the rock. We must mention the ones that five decades ago concluded
that Măgura Uroiului belonged to the “late subsequent magmatism”, namely to the
second phase of the Neogen volcanism13. More recently, through K-Ar dating, it has
been pointed out that the age of the Uroi volcanic apparatus was 1.9±2 Ma14. Recent
studies indicate an even later dating – 1.6±0.1 Ma15 and it is considered to have

3
Floca, uiaga 1936, p. 85; Niculescu-Varone 1945, p. 12.
4
Téglás 1887, p. 60; Téglás 1902, p. 116; Roska 1942, p. 27; Păunescu 2001, p. 301.
5
A commune is the lowest level of the Romanian administrative subdivisions. If not marked
otherwise, the term will be used in accordance with this meaning.
6
The GPS coordinates of the Măgura Uroiului plateau: latitude: N 45°51'38.47" and longitude:
E 23°02'45.51". Regarding the altitude, the data differs from one author to another, namely 389 m (Savu
et al. 1994, p. 9) or 392 m (Solomon 1939, p. 10; Niculescu-Varone 1945, p. 12).
7
Zotic 2007, p. 1, fig. 1, pl. 1-3.
8
Badea, Buza, Cîndea 1987, p. 360-361, fig. 133; Badea, MărculeŃ 2012, p. 305; MărculeŃ 2013, p. 9,
13, fig. 4.
9
Marcu 2007, p. 42-49, fig. 1-2.
10
Savu et al. 1994, p. 9.
11
Solomon 1939, p. 10; Trufa 1962, p. 171, 175, fig. 1-3.
12
Trufa 1962, p. 171, 175, fig. 1-3.
13
Savu et al. 1968, p. 46; Ianovici et al. 1969, p. 393; Ianovici et al. 1976, p. 480-481; Mutihac,
Ionesi 1974, p. 559; Mutihac 1990, p. 359.
14
Savu et al. 1994, p. 9, 11, 21.
15
Ro u et al. 2001, p. 7; Ro u et al. 2004, p. 158, Table 1; Bojar, Walter 2006, p. 504.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 73

appeared due to the volcanic activity that occurred at the end of the Upper Pliocene –
Quaternary periods16.
Due to the petrographic data obtained throughout the years, the Măgura
Uroiului volcanic “neck” was included in the category of the andesite magmatic rocks
with augite17 and pseudobrookite18. Recent geological researches showed that due to the
high concentration of potassium oxide (K2O), Dealul Uroiului is, petrographically
speaking, a trachyandesite19.
Finally, we must mention the chromatics of the volcanic rock – some opinions
consider it to be reddish-grey20 or red-brown21, while other studies point out the
presence of two shades: one identified in the central part of the hill, bluish (sometimes
described as reddish or pinkish), and another greyish shade displayed around the first22.

Overview of the archaeological research

The first “scientific” approaches of Măgura Uroiului were probably made before
the first half of the 19th century; however, only later, in 1856, Johann Michael Ackner
wrote about the exploitation markings found in the ancient quarry on the eastern bounds
of the Uroi village23 and about the stone blocks that seemed to have been left mid-
carving.
At the end of the 19th century, in a repertoire of the Transylvanian
archaeological sites, Téglás Gábor provided new archaeological information regarding
the prehistoric, ancient and medieval discoveries from Dealul Uroiului24 (Pl. III/1-2).
The better part of the archaeological data published at the end of the 19th century
and the beginning of the 20th century and later reassessed, showed that, from a
topographical viewpoint, Măgura Uroiului corresponds with the location of the ancient
Petrae (Petris) from Tabula Peutingeriana (Pl. VIII/1). The arguments in this respect
are given by the fact that the toponymy indicated a place that contained stone (a quarry),
as well as by its approximately equal distance from the neighbouring localities,
Germisara (Geoagiu-Băi) and Aquae (Călan-Băi), which were also present on the
ancient map. This idea can also be confirmed today through field research25.
In 1937, probably through surveys made in the south-eastern area of Măgura
Uroiului, in the archaeological sites Corabia Mică, Baia Ro ie or Baia lui June
(Pl. III/3-4), a batch of 17 potsherds from the Eneolithic and the Bronze age was

16
Savu et al. 1994, p. 9, 11, 21.
17
Téglás 1887-1888, p. 57-58; Orosz 1903, p. 206; Floca, uiaga 1936, p. 86; Solomon 1939, p. 9-11;
Niculescu-Varone 1945, p. 12; Pîrvu 1964, p. 219; TIR 1968, L 34, p. 89; Ianovici et al. 1969, p. 500;
Wollmann 1973, p. 111; Ianovici et al. 1976, p. 481; Wollmann 1996, p. 257; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 113.
18
Savu et al. 1968, p. 46; Ianovici et al. 1976, p. 480.
19
Savu et al. 1994, p. 9, 19, 21; Ro u et al. 2001, p. 7-9; Ro u et al. 2004, p. 157, 159; Bojar, Walter
2006, p. 503-504. In the present study we shall use the term andesite, which is used in the archaeological
scholarly literature, but we also take into consideration the results obtained by geologists regarding the
petrography of the Măgura Uroiului, in which case the term trachyandesite is used.
20
Pîrvu 1964, p. 219; Ianovici et al. 1976, p. 481; Mârza 1997, p. 822.
21
Floca, uiaga 1936, p. 86; Niculescu-Varone 1945, p. 12.
22
Pîrvu 1964, p. 219; Savu et al. 1994, p. 9, 11-13, 21.
23
Ackner 1856, p. 6; Wollmann 1973, p. 106; Wollmann 1996, p. 253, 268.
24
Téglás 1887, p. 60.
25
Téglás 1889-1890, p. 110; Téglás 1902, p. 116-118; Roska 1942, p. 27; Niculescu-Varone 1945,
p. 12-13; TIR 1968, L 34, p. 89, 116; Tudor 1968, p. 127; Macrea 1969, p. 152, 307; Rusu 1977, p. 539;
Branga 1980, p. 85, 110; Popa 2002, p. 207-208; Lazăr, Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 14-15; Luca 2008,
p. 178; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 113; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86.
74 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

uncovered; the batch became part of the collection held by the Museum of Dacian and
Roman Civilization, in Deva26.
According to the stories told by a villager from Uroi, it would appear that the
history professor Beniamin Bassa from Simeria made several surveys in order to
identify the Roman road that crossed the foot of the Măgura Uroiului in the mid-20th
century or in the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, we have no
documentary information in the form of an archaeological report of these endeavours;
they are merely part of the locals’ memories27.
In the vicinity of road DJ 107A, the 1974 discovery of a rectangular grave with
brick walls can be attributed to the Roman period. The discovery was made during the
contemporary construction work carried out in order to widen a side road south of the
volcanic mamelon28.
At the end of the 20th century, on Măgura Uroiului, there was an accidental
discovery of a scraper made of brown jasper, attributed to the Palaeolithic period; strong
analogies can be made between this discovery and the items from the Mousterian from
France29.
Between 1999-2000, William S. Hanson and Ioana A. Oltean carried out field
surveys on Măgura Uroiului in order to identify the Early Ion Age fortification that had
appeared in aerial photographs a short while before30.
In January 2001, a fibre optic cable was installed and a salvage archaeology
endeavour was carried out at the foot of Măgura Uroiului. The research uncovered a
rampart (a defensive bank) and several dwelling-type structures. The relevant ceramic
materials from the archaeological layers or complexes showed that the discoveries were
from the Early and Late Iron Age31.
The systematic archaeological survey of Măgura Uroiului started in August
2003. The site was coordinated by a collective of archaeologists from the Museum of
Dacian and Roman Civilization, Deva. To this day (2017), spectacular results were
obtained regarding the anthropogenic activities on the terraces of the volcanic neck,
especially in respect to the Hallstattian defensive system32 (Pl. VI/1-2, VII/1). We must
mention that during the archaeological research campaign from the summer of 2004, an
andesite platform was discovered on terrace III of Măgura Uroiului, where fragments of
human and animal skeletons were found more frequently than the anatomically
connected skeletons that were found later. The subsequent researches (2005-2016)

26
Bărbat 2012, p. 28, note 48. The box in which the materials had been deposited, together with some
items discovered in Godine ti – Pe tera de Sus, also contained three potsherds from the Early Neolithic
period.
27
Scientific researcher Costin-Daniel łuŃuianu from the Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilization,
Deva, was kind enough to provide this information.
28
Mărghitan 1974-1975, p. 42; Rusu 1977, p. 539-542, fig. 1-4; AndriŃoiu 1979, p. 28; Lazăr,
Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 15; Luca 2008, p. 179.
29
Cârciumaru et al. 1999, p. 1-3, fig. 1; Păunescu 2001, p. 301.
30
Hanson, Oltean 2000, p. 45-49, fig. 1-4; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 114.
31
Bălos 2001, p. 15-16; Bălos, Ardeu 2002, p. 249-250, 439, pl. 87; Ardeu, Bălos 2002, p. 67-81, foto
1-4, pl. I-XVIII; Ardeu, Bălos 2003, p. 183-186, pl. I; Lazăr, Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 15; Bălos et al.
2010, p. 114; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86.
32
Bălos et al. 2004, p. 250-251, 445, pl. 55/B; Pescaru et al. 2005, p. 287-288; Pescaru et al. 2006,
p. 281-282; Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286-287, 461, pl. 57; Lazăr, Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 15; Luca
2008, p. 178; Pescaru et al. 2008, p. 248-249, 393, pl. 55; Pescaru et al. 2009, p. 181; Bălos et al. 2010,
p. 114; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86; Pescaru et al. 2011, p. 106; Băe tean et al. 2013, p. 113; Băe tean et al.
2014, p. 84-85; Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 122-123.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 75

confirmed the fact that the burials were made in the Hallstatian fortification ditch, thus
outlining a funeral complex from the Hallstatt B phase33.
During the same year when the systematic archaeological surveys started, in
2003, archaeological poaching also started to be practiced on terrace II, thus destroying
the site that contained bronze items. Out of the artefacts collected from around the
illegal dig, only 20 bronze objects could be recovered – items that were weathered,
dating to Ha A2-Ha B134.
Furthermore, different real-estate investments gave archaeologists the
opportunity to carry out certain preventive archaeology campaigns in the sectors
neighbouring the volcanic hill. Such is the case of the sites Pescărie/Nearo and
Ciupercărie in the areas around Rapoltu Mare, where the prehistoric dwellings and the
ones from the Migration Period were considerably numerous35. We must also mention
the results obtained from the preventive archaeology endeavours carried out in advance
of the construction of the A1 Deva – Sibiu highway: in the proximity of the Uroi
village, in the Sigheti and Pod Mure /Locu Boilor points, dwelling-type structures from
the Bronze Age to the Early Middle Ages were identified36.
Another step in the archaeological study of Măgura Uroiului was an
interdisciplinary archaeological approach37 (Pl. II/1-3). The aerial photographs taken
between 1998-199938 and the later ones from 200939 and 201340 are thus relevant. In
2004, magnetometric prospections were made in the site, which showed the existence of
certain archaeological structures, as well as several more recent objects from the two
world wars41. During the archaeological research campaigns from 2006-2007, terraces I
and II were studied through soil resistivity testing42. The same endeavour was carried
out in 2008 in the case of the medieval fortification from Uroi43. There is also an
ongoing anthropological study of the osteological material found in the Hallstattian
fortification ditch, part of which was published in 200644.
From a chronological perspective, different terraces of Măgura Uroiului can be
attested to almost all the ages of prehistory, from the Palaeolithic to the end of the Early
Iron Age; the terraces show the presence of archaeological cultures such as Starčevo-
Cri , Bodrogkeresztúr III, CoŃofeni, Wietenberg, Gáva, Gornea-Kalakača, Basarabi, or
cultural groups from the Early Bronze Age, like Gornea-Orle ti45. The antiquity is very
33
Pescaru et al. 2005, p. 288; Pescaru et al. 2006, p. 281; Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286-287; Pescaru et
al. 2009, p. 181; Pescaru et al. 2010, p. 159; Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 123.
34
Bălos et al. 2004, p. 251; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 114, fig. 3; Ardeu, Bălos 2013, p. 175-180, fig. 2/1-20.
35
Bărbat 2009, p. 11-15; łuŃuianu, Barbu, Codrea 2012, p. 175-178.
36
Damian et al. 2012, p. 278-279; Bodó et al. 2012, p. 293; Marc et al. 2013, p. 119-139; Băe tean
2013, p. 241-258; Marc et al. 2015, p. 81-86; Beldiman et al. 2015, p. 93-96; Bărbat, Tutilă Bărbat, Mitar
2015, p. 289-290.
37
Bălos et al. 2007, p. 205-210; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 113-115; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86-89; Crandell,
Bălos 2011, p. 157-165.
38
Hanson, Oltean 2000, p. 45; Lazăr, Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 15; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86.
39
Berecki, Czajlik, Rupnik 2013, p. 90-91.
40
Czajlik, Berecki, Rupnik 2014, p. 462.
41
Pescaru et al. 2005, p. 288; Bălos et al. 2007, p. 206-210, fig. 2-5; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 113.
42
Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 287; Pescaru et al. 2008, p. 249; Crandell, Bălos 2011, p. 159-160.
43
Pescaru et al. 2009, p. 181.
44
Pescaru et al. 2006, p. 281-282.
45
Téglás 1887, p. 60; MarŃian 1920, p. 41; Roska 1942, p. 27; AndriŃoiu 1974-1975, p. 138; Petrescu-
DîmboviŃa 1977, p. 72; AndriŃoiu 1992, p. 126; Cârciumaru et al. 1999, p. 1-3, fig. 1; Hanson, Oltean
2000, p. 45-49; Păunescu 2001, p. 301; Bălos 2001, p. 15-16; Bălos, Ardeu 2002, p. 249-250; Ardeu,
Bălos 2002, p. 67-70; Ardeu, Bălos 2003, p. 183-185; Bălos et al. 2004, p. 250-251; Pescaru et al. 2005,
76 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

well represented through the traces of the La Tène dwellings46 (on terrace III), as well as
through the Roman quarry, whose traces are visible on the surface47. Dwellings from the
post-Roman period are displayed particularly at the foot of Măgura Uroiului, near the
Mure Meadow48. A fortification from the Middle Ages can be found in the eastern part
of the Uroi village, at the base of the volcanic cone. A similar position is occupied by
the ruins of a noble court from the beginning of the modern age (?)49.

Historical periods and andesite exploiting techniques

The results of the field surveys carried out on the rough surfaces of the Măgura
Uroiului plateau and on the terraces that outline this hill showed numerous traces
andesite exploitation. They were divided into multiple categories, according to the
mineral extraction techniques; their spatial distribution outlines several areas of activity
in this quarry. There were multiple work fronts throughout an extended chronological
interval. This idea is sustained by the fact that there are traces of different exploitation
techniques, as well as by the fact that different markings left by the andesite extraction
can be found on higher or lower terraces of the hill.
Prehistory. We can assume that from the earliest prehistoric periods, Măgura
Uroiului represented a benchmark for the human communities living in the Mure
Corridor. It is very likely that the people visited the volcanic neck in prehistorical times
due to its location, but it might also have been due to the morphology of the andesitic
cone and the visibility that the upper plateau of the hill offered over the Mure Valley.
The archaeological researches sustain this idea – they indicate a great intensity of
different types of prehistoric habitation on the terraces and promontories of
Măgura Uroiului; most of them are from the Late Eneolithic, Late Bronze Age and the
First Iron Age.
However, given the uninterrupted evolution of the presence of human groups on
Dealul Uroiului and in its proximity, we could assume that the volcanic cone also held
certain spiritual attributes for the prehistoric populations, an idea that is quite difficult to
assert merely through the “study” of the products of the material culture.
We could certainly make the assumption that once the Early Neolithic
communities settled in the vicinity of Măgura Uroiului, the area was prospected in

p. 288; Pescaru et al. 2006, p. 281-282; Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286-287; Pescaru et al. 2008, p. 249; Luca
2008, p. 178; Pescaru et al. 2009, p. 181; Bărbat 2009, p. 11-15; Bălos et al. 2010, p. 114-115; Pescaru et
al. 2010, p. 159; Pescaru et al. 2011, p. 106; Băe tean et al. 2013, p. 113; Băe tean et al. 2014, p. 84-85;
Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 122-123.
46
Bălos 2001, p. 15-16; Bălos, Ardeu 2002, p. 250; Ardeu, Bălos 2002, p. 69-70; Pescaru et al. 2005,
p. 288; Pescaru et al. 2006, p. 281; Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286-287; Luca 2008, p. 178; Pescaru et al.
2008, p. 249; Pescaru et al. 2009, p. 181; Pescaru et al. 2010, p. 159; Băe tean et al. 2014, p. 85;
Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 123.
47
Ackner 1856, p. 6; Téglás 1902, p. 116-118; Floca, uiaga 1936, p. 86; Niculescu-Varone 1945,
p. 12-13; Tudor 1968, p. 127; Macrea 1969, p. 152, 307; Wollmann 1973, p. 111; Rusu 1977, p. 539;
Wollmann 1996, p. 257; BoroneanŃ 2000, p. 146; Hanson, Oltean 2000, p. 43-44; Popa 2002, p. 150, 177,
207; Oltean 2007, p. 151, 153-155, 183, 219, fig. 5.26; Lazăr, Stârcescu EnăchiŃă 2008, p. 14-15; Luca
2008, p. 178; Măruia et al. 2010, p. 86.
48
Bodó et al. 2012, p. 293; łuŃuianu, Barbu, Codrea 2012, p. 175-178.
49
Téglás 1902, p. 116; MarŃian 1920, p. 41; Floca, uiaga 1936, p. 86-88; Niculescu-Varone 1945,
p. 13; Luca 2008, p. 178. Regarding the issue of the medieval fortress and the noble court from Uroi, see
the following link: http://www.cetati.medievistica.ro/cetati/Transilvania/U/Uroiu/Uroiu.htm (Accessed:
25.08.2017).
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 77

order to collect lithic material50. Our assumptions are especially confirmed by the recent
results obtained from the archaeological site from Rapoltu Mare – La Vie.
The archaeological research campaigns from 2014 and 2017 provided important
information regarding the extraction of volcanic rock from Dealul Uroiului in three
Starčevo-Cri complexes from Rapoltu Mare – La Vie, from the vicinity of the volcanic
hill, namely Cx 4/2014, L 1 (Pl. V/1) and L 2/2017 (Pl. V/2), in which pieces of
andesite of different sizes were identified51. The current archaeological information was
retrieved in the summer and autumn of 2017. Two Early Neolithic dwellings – similar
to platforms – were studied (L 152 and L 253) and a significant number of ceramic, lithic
and fauna material was found, as well as a considerable number of andesitic rock
fragments54 (Pl. V/1-2).
On the one hand, considering the stratigraphic position and the sharp edges of
the rocks, it would be difficult to compare such andesitic platforms with the concept of
floors55. On the other hand, we must note the abundance of rocks that are mostly
between 5 and 10 cm in diameter, and the ones larger in diameter bear markings that
might have been left by carving (?). These items were brought from Dealul Uroiului,
1 km away from the location in which the Neolithic dwelling was identified (Pl. V/1-2).
What is strange is that although the area in which the dwelling-type complex was
discovered is abundant in limestone, the geological structure of the terrace is made of
the travertine that was visible on the surface in prehistoric times; this type of rock,
together with mica schists and pebbles were less preferred in the construction of
dwelling-type structures (L 1 and L 2/2017)56.
Given the preliminary results obtained from the surface structures studied in the
site from Rapoltu Mare – La Vie, we can assert that the andesites were exploited by the
Early Neolithic communities and they were used in the architecture of two possible
dwellings57. In respect to the exploitation techniques, in the present state of research, we
can assume that the members of the Neolithic settlements could choose to either collect
the volcanic rocks from the debris on Măgura Uroiului, or, through direct percussion, to
detach rock fragments from the mamelon or from the andesitic occurrences on the
surface58. The final exploitation technique from the Early Neolithic is illustrated in the

50
Luca 2008, p. 137; Bărbat 2009, p. 11-17; Bărbat 2012, p. 43, note 200; Barbu et al. 2016,
p. 281-283, 286-287.
51
Băe tean et al. 2015a, p. 121-122; Barbu et al. 2016, p. 281.
52
L 1 was studied in the trench C 5, in the eastern part of the Roman villa; the complex occupies the
entire surface of the survey, 3 × 2 m, which is why we believe that the dimensions of the Neolithic
dwelling could have been much greater.
53
L 2 was studied in Sp II, in the western half of S 2; the entire archaeological complex extends in the
north and west profiles; the eastern and northern sides of the Neolithic dwelling were also partially
studied.
54
The results of the researches are currently being processed and will be published in due time.
55
See the discussions in the archaeological scholarly literature regarding the complexes on this type of
stone platforms (Lazarovici 1984, p. 73; Lazarovici, Maxim 1995, p. 63-64; Ciută 1998, p. 1-12; Ciută
2005, p. 72-73; Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006, p. 99-106), and more recent discussions regarding the roles
played by the river stones (pebbles) or rock fragments from the Early Neolithic dwellings from Cristian I
(Luca et al. 2014, p. 7-10, fig. 1-6, reconstruction 1-3; Luca 2015, p. 91-92, 127-132, 135, fig. 70-77,
90-95, 98-103, 105, reconstruction 1-4, photo 83-88; Lazarovici 2016, p. 16-17, 19-23, fig. 8/1-4, 10-15).
56
Pîrvu 1964, p. 226; Trufa , Stanciu 1983, p. 9, fig. 3; Barbu 2014, p. 81-84, fig. 3-6.
57
Bărbat 2014, p. 13-23.
58
The rock was probably heated and then abruptly cooled, which facilitated the detachment of certain
andesitic blocks of considerable sizes.
78 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

site from Co kuntepe, in north-western Turkey, whose community was specialised in

exploiting and processing volcanic rocks59.
A new phase in the extraction of andesite from the volcanic neck is, on a much
larger scale, represented by the construction of two typically Hallstattian fortifications
with moats and defensive banks on terrace III of Măgura Uroiului (Pl. VII/1) and on its
plateau (Pl. VI/1-2)60. The andesite was used exclusively in the construction of the
stone ramparts and we consider that its large scale exploitation is obvious, through the
size and mass of the boulders that had to be manoeuvred in order to create the defence
system. In light of the recent research, the people of the Gáva culture appear to have
been the ones who made the efforts to fortify the Hallstattian settlements on the terraces
of the volcanic hill from Uroi61.
It is very likely that the detachment techniques used in the case of the blocks
from the rocky cliff of Măgura Uroiului during the Ha A-Ha B were much more
advanced and diverse than the ones from the previous periods, like the Neolithic and the
Eneolithic. We must emphasise the fact that the use of certain metal tools to detach the
andesitic blocks is not out of the question, not to mention other means of exploitation
used in the Early Neolithic.
Antiquity. Before we present the evidence of andesite exploitation between Uroi
and Rapoltu Mare during the Roman period, we must mention that until recently, in the
Romanian archaeological scholarly literature, scholars asserted that the quarry from
Măgura Uroiului should be regarded as a type of structure similar to the ones used by
the Dacians in the religious and/or military architecture from the Oră tie Mountains62,
although petrographic analyses carried out two decades ago by the geologist Ioan Mârza
indicated something entirely different63. Even though the hill from Uroi was not the
source of andesite used by the Dacian nobility in the construction of the buildings in the
capital Sarmizegetusa Regia, the andesite from the Măgura Uroiului mamelon could
have been exploited by the La Tène communities that lived in its vicinity, as proven by
the volcanic rock fragments found in the archaeological complexes on terrace III
(Pl. VII/2-3)64, as well as in the archaeological site from Uroi – Pod Mure 65.
During the Roman period, Măgura Uroiului was one of the most important
quarries from Roman Dacia. The high quality of the volcanic rock, the pleasant
appearance and colour and the relatively short distance from the great stonemason
centre from Micia (Pl. VIII/2) lead to the large scale use of the Uroi andesite both as
construction material and as raw material in sculptural monuments or in inscriptions.

59
Takaoğlu 2005, p. 425-431, fig. 6-10; Takaoğlu 2006, p. 705-706, 708, fig. 2/1-3, 3/4-6, 4/1-3, 5;
Takaoğlu, Özdemir 2013, p. 36-37, 42, fig. 7; Bărbat 2014, p. 11-12, fig. 1.
60
Bălos, Ardeu 2002, p. 249-250, 439, pl. 87; Bălos et al. 2004, p. 250-251, 445, pl. 55/B; Pescaru et
al. 2005, p. 287-288; Pescaru et al. 2006, p. 281-282; Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286-287, 461, pl. 57; Pescaru
et al. 2008, p. 248-249, 393, pl. 55; Luca 2008, p. 178; Pescaru et al. 2009, p. 181; Pescaru et al. 2011,
p. 106; Băe tean et al. 2013, p. 113; Băe tean et al. 2014, p. 84-85; Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 122-123.
61
Bălan 2013, p. 271; Băe tean et al. 2014, p. 84-85.
62
Pîrvu 1964, p. 220; Glodariu, Iaroslavschi 1979, p. 105; Ferenczi 1979, p. 265-266; Glodariu 1985-
1986, p. 100; Oltean 2007, p. 102.
63
Mârza 1997, p. 822.
64
Pescaru et al. 2007, p. 286; Băe tean et al. 2015b, p. 123.
65
Unpublished material, held by the archaeology repository of the Museum of Dacian and Roman
Civilization, Deva, obtained through the preventive archaeological research carried out in the summer and
autumn of 2011; scientific coordinators: Romică Pavel and Gică Băe tean, PhD.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 79

The Roman engineers and architects differentiated numerous categories of rocks

that were useful in construction; the sturdier ones were obviously the preferred choice66.
However, often enough, for financial reasons, lower quality rocks were also used, raw
material that could be found at shorter distances from the great Roman metropolises67.
According to their toughness, Jean-Pierre Adam classifies construction rocks in six
categories, from softest to toughest. The first groups include chalkstones and the
sedimentary rocks, like slate, as well as certain types of tophus, while the opposite
categories include marble and whinstone68.
In Roman Dacia, there were quite a significant number of stone quarries, since
the predominantly mountain and hilly terrain ensures a wide variety of rocks, many of
which hold great construction qualities. The first mentions regarding the Roman stone
quarries in Dacia appeared in the second half of the 19th century, when scholars such as
Johann Michael Ackner, Téglás Gábor or Torma Károly noted different traces of
ancient rock exploitation in the Transylvanian mountains69.
By analysing a remarkable number of Roman monuments, Volker Wollmann
managed to establish the nature and origin of some wide categories of rocks used in the
cities and castra of the Roman Dacia70. Therefore, he classified them according to their
geological nature71: “a) extrusive igneous rocks (the tuff of pyroxene-andesite from the
Gurghiu Mountains, the Uroi andesite from Măgura Uroiului, the Deva andesite from
Dealul Pietroasa, the basalt breccia from the Hoghiz region), b) volcanic tuff (the dacite
tuff from the Măgura of Moigrad, the Dej tuff from the northern part of the
Transylvanian basin), c) sedimentary rocks (the quartz slates from the Jibold Hill from
the Zlatna region, the carbon slate from the vicinity of Deva), d) limestone (the
crystalline/marble limestone of Bucova, the Eocene limestone from the Cluj region, the
Tortonian limestone from the eastern part of the Apuseni Mountains, as well as from the
southern part of Transylvania)”72.
Judging by the analyses made by the aforementioned researcher, we can note an
increased variety of rocks from a petrographic viewpoint, as well as a distribution of
sources strongly linked to the great centres of Roman Dacia. In these circumstances, the
location of the Măgura Uroiului quarry upstream from the Micia Roman site is
understandable. Besides, the great stonemason centre here, which even attested a
lapidary college73, held multiple quarries for the extraction of different types of rocks,
out of which the most utilised seems to have been andesite. Situated at approximately
20 km East of Micia, the stone quarry from Măgura Uroiului proved to be extremely
viable in supplying raw material. Due to the fact that both settlements were located on
the banks of the Mure River (Pl. VIII/2), the transportation of the rocks was easier,
since the water currents carried the rafts or the weirs loaded with rocks, which was
much cheaper and easier than on land. The field surveys have shown that a plateau on
the southern part of Dealul Uroiului, near the river, could have been a loading point for
the rocks exploited in the open quarries in the volcanic neck (Pl. VIII/3). The site
contained multiple andesite blocks that bore traces of processing, but whether the site
66
Vitruvius II, 7.
67
Vitruvius II, 7.
68
Adam 1984, p. 23.
69
Ackner 1856, p. 6; Téglás 1889, p. 157.
70
Wollmann 1973, p. 111-116; Wollmann 1996, p. 257-268.
71
All fragments from Volker Wollmann’s work present in this article were translated from Romanian.
72
Wollmann 1973, p. 111-116; Wollmann 1996, p. 257-268.
73
IDR III/3, p. 141.
80 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

was a loading point or a stone carving workshop remains to be established by future

archaeological researches.
The strong connection with the settlement and the castrum from Micia
considerably influenced the evolution of the Uroi quarry, whose establishment and
expansion could be directly linked to the evolution of the Micia community. We do not
know for certain the moment in which the Roman administration opened the first
andesite exploitations in Uroi, but a considerable development seemed to have occurred
in the mid-2nd century AD, when the great castrum from Micia was rebuilt in stone74.
The fortification’s walls were 2 m thick and over 4 m tall; it covered an area 180 m
wide and 360 m long, which must have required a considerable quantity of stone; most
of this raw material consisted of the andesite blocks brought from Măgura Uroiului75.
This detail could indicate the idea that the military troops stationed in VeŃel were
implicated in the management and exploitation of the quarry, probably in a manner
similar to the quarry from Deva – Bejan, with the oversight of the vexillatio of the legio
XIII Gemina, who dedicated an inscription to the gods Hercules and Silvanus within
that exploitation76. Beginning with the third quarter of the 2nd century AD, at the time of
the establishment of the “sculpture school” of Micia, specialised in Uroi andesite
funerary monuments77, the quarry gained even more importance, since it is very likely
that sculpture workshops were established around it, as was the case of other quarries
that produced raw material so sought after by sculptors and artists78.
During the pre- and protohistoric periods, the human communities who used the
Uroi andesite only exploited unfinished rocks, but once the Roman administration was
established, they started using the Mediterranean exploitation methods and techniques.
These techniques focused primarily on obtaining massive, even-shaped blocks of stone
of specific dimensions which could later be transformed into finished construction
materials, architectonic or sculptural elements, or different types of monuments. Of
course, the processing activities left behind a large quantity of unfinished stone, which
constituted the raw materials for the buildings erected through the masonry
construction79.
Depending on the types of rocks and the morphology of the source, the Romans
opted for different types of methods for extracting the stone blocks. Most of the time,
surface exploitation was employed, but, in some cases when the bedrock was softer and
of lower quality, better and deeper loads were used in order to conduct subterranean
exploitation, as is the case of the tuff quarries from the vicinity of Rome80 and
Syracuse81, the slate quarry from Coves del Llorito (Spain)82 or the travertine quarry
from Rapoltu Mare, Hunedoara County83.
Surface quarries were the most numerous and they usually employed
exploitation in the form of stepped terraces; the stonemasons used the geological strata

74
Tudor 1968, p. 122; Macrea 1969, p. 223; AndriŃoiu 2006, p. 27.
75
AndriŃoiu 2006, p. 35; Barbu 2013a, p. 119, fig. 107.
76
Tudor 1968, p. 127.
77
łeposu-Marinescu 1982, p. 71; AndriŃoiu 2003, p. 207.
78
Diaconescu 2003, p. 425-427.
79
Barbu 2013a, p. 119-131.
80
Adam 1984, p. 28.
81
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, pl. 11/1.
82
Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno 2009, p. 189.
83
Barbu 2014, p. 82.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 81

and the natural cracks in the rocks in order to create work fronts84. The sizes and the
methods of the exploitations varied depending on the petrographic types of the deposits,
as well as on the quantities of rocks that needed to be dislocated. Wherever it was
possible, the quarries covered large plane surfaces that provided easy exploitation85, but
they were most often stepped, canted exploitation planes and, after they were exhausted,
they left behind large vertical stone walls86. This approach was also employed in the
case of the Roman quarry from Măgura Uroiului. The exploitation in the form of
stepped terraces is still visible in the southern part of Măgura Uroiului (Pl. XI/1-2,
XII/1) and the vertical walls formed on the southern side of the hill provide the
evidence of the intense stone extraction activities (Pl. X/1-2). This area of the volcanic
hill was not chosen randomly as an exploitation site – besides the morphology of the
land, the vicinity of the Mure River course, used as a means of transporting the
andesite to Micia was also an important factor.
The techniques of exploitation in the Roman quarries were chosen depending on
the characteristics of the rocks and the users’ needs. Three main types of stone
extraction can be identified in the quarries throughout the Roman Empire87. The first
and most wide-spread88 of these techniques implied cutting small channels into the rock
in which iron or wooden wedges were hammered until deep, linear cracks were
obtained, which managed to break away blocks with straight edges89 (Pl. IX/2, XIII/7).
This type of traces of stone processing are visible in many Roman quarries, such as Los
Covachos (Spain)90, La Bueta (Spain)91, or in the andesite exploitation points around
Deva (Hunedoara County)92.
The second technique implied cutting channels around the item that needed to be
obtained and the final detachment was made through the pressure applied by a lever93
(Pl. IX/1). This technique was most often used in order to extract certain parallelepiped-
shaped blocks with very precise dimensions and polished edges, but it was also
sometimes used in order to cut certain architectonic items, such as the column spindles
found in the quarries from Chemtou (Tunisia) or Aliki (Thasos)94; the same method was
probably used in the case of the column fragments that were still visible in the 19th
century in the marble quarry from Bucova (Cara -Severin County)95. In order to obtain
the parallelepiped-shaped stone blocks, this type of approach implied creating
horizontal planes and the extraction was made downwards, leaving traces in the form of
steps (Pl. XIV/5), as is the case of the quarries from Saint-Boil (France)96, Syracuse
(Italy)97, Montjuïc (Spain)98, Maritima Residencial (Spain)99, Los Covachos (Spain)100
or Rapoltu Mare (Hunedoara County)101.
84
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 78-79.
85
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, pl. 10/1.
86
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 80.
87
Chatziconstantinou, Poupaki 2002, p. 63.
88
Blagg 1976, p. 155.
89
Adam 1984, p. 32-34; Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 80; Wollmann 1996, p. 269.
90
Rodriguez et al. 2012, p. 648, fig. 5.
91
Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, Royo, Andreu 2012, p. 655, fig. 10.
92
Wollmann 1996, pl. CXIII/1; Barbu 2013b, p. 35, fig. 6-8.
93
Adam 1984, p. 28-30; Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 79.
94
Adam 1984, p. 27.
95
Wollmann 1973, p. 107; Bărbulescu 2003, p. 57.
96
Adam 1984, p. 25.
97
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, pl. 11/2.
98
Miró, Revilla 2012, p. 683, fig. 3.
82 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

The third technique used a type of pendulum saw, known as the “Carrara saw”,
which used sand in order to cut hard rocks, such as marble and basalt. Pliny the Elder
explained the functional principle of this tool, which employed the sand stream into a
“back and forth” motion that, in time, managed to cut the hard stone102 (Pl. IX/3). The
ancient author suggests that this technique was especially used to cut marble blocks in
order to obtain slabs, but some archaeological discoveries made in Anatolia103 and
Thasos104 prove that this method was also used in the extraction of quarry rocks.
The Roman quarry from Măgura Uroiului covered the entire southern part of the
volcanic hill, since the andesite could only be found in this hill. The rock was thus
extracted both horizontally and vertically. The stepped terraces on this side of the hill
indicate an intensive stone extraction activity that ranged from the Mure River (in the
areas where the native rock was close to the surface) to the upper part of the hill. On the
lower levels, there are exploitation areas similar to those in the quarry from Byllis
(Albania)105. The cliffs cut in the shape of stepped terraces are visible in several places
on the upper part of the hill (Pl. XI/1-2, XII/1, 3-4). Here, in the immediate vicinity of
the margin of the upper plateau, two circular pits with flat bottoms were identified, dug
into the native rock. The orifices are 20 cm in diameter; they are 15 cm deep and are
situated at 0.90 m distance away from each other, parallel to the edge of the cliff,
0.60 m away (Pl. XII/2). It is very likely that wooden poles were mounted in these
orifices – the pillars of a construction or constituting elements of an installation used in
the stone extraction, like a scaffold or a sheave.
The better part of the ancient quarry was destroyed by later proceedings, during
the Middle Ages and the modern period, the methods of stone extraction characteristic
to these periods (fire-setting) are visible on wide surfaces, on large and easily accessible
terraces located in the proximity of the county road that connects Uroi and Rapoltu
Mare (Pl. XVII/1-2). However, there are more isolated or more inaccessible points,
such as the area of the piedmont located on the south-eastern side of the main cliff or in
the area south of the aforementioned road, points in which, even today, traces of the
Roman stone extraction practices are still visible (Pl. X/1-2, XIV/1-4).
Starting with the mid-19th century, traces of ancient stone quarries have been
identified on the entire southern and south-eastern front of the hill, at the foot of the hill,
in an area packed with pits and terraces in which massive blocks detached from the cliff
are still visible, as well as a great quantity of rock debris106. Many of the blocks have
almost smooth surfaces, a fact which suggests that they had been cut – the stonemasons
most likely used the natural cracks of the lodes. Some of the cliffs bear the marks of the
ancient techniques of detaching the rocks. For example, we managed to identify a
massive block whose surface bears multiple marks left by tools. The block has an east-
west orientation; it is 2.60 m long, 1.80 m wide and 0.8-1.2 m thick; its southern and
western sides show that it had been cut. It also shows an incised groove in the east-west
direction. The groove has a rectangular surface and a triangular profile in depth; it is

99
Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno 2009, p. 129, fig. 133.
100
Rodriguez et al. 2012, p. 648, fig. 6.
101
Barbu 2014, p. 82, fig. 5.
102
Plinius XXXVI, 7.
103
Wollmann 1996, p. 270.
104
Kozelj, Wurch-Kozelj 2012b, p. 721, fig. 10-11.
105
Kozelj, Wurch-Kozelj 2012a, p. 622, fig. 5.
106
Ackner 1856, p. 6; Téglás 1889, p. 157; Wollmann 1973, p. 106; Wollmann 1996, p. 253, 268.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 83

21 cm long, 5 cm wide and 9 cm deep107. Another massive block detached from the cliff
is oriented north-south and is 2.40 m long, 1.60 m wide and 0.80-1 m thick. The
southern end seems to have been cut, which implies that another stone segment had
been detached. At a distance of 0.60 m from this southern end, on the upper side of the
block there is a sequence of three consecutive incisions that form a line, displayed from
east to west across the width of the block. The rectangular grooves with triangular
transversal profiles are between 17.5 and 18.5 cm long, 3.5-4.5 cm wide and 9-12 cm
deep. The intervals between these incisions are 22-25 cm108 (Pl. XIII/1). Other blocks
on the same level curb bear similar marks of the stone cutting technique of using
wedges; the dimensions of their grooves and of the spaces between them are very
similar to the ones described above (Pl. XIII/2-6). Even though the wedges technique
continued to be used during the periods that followed antiquity, the general appearance
of the area, the dimensions and the evenness of the grooves dug into the stone suggest
that they originated in the Roman period. There are very compelling analogies with, for
example, the marble blocks used in the construction of the forum from Ostia109, in the
quarry from La Buerta (Spain)110, or the Dacian architectonic fragments reused by the
Roman army in the structures built after the year 106 in Sarmizegetusa Regia111.
On the south side of the county road that connects Uroi and Rapoltu Mare, there
is another area that contains traces characteristic to a Roman quarry (Pl. XIV/1-4). This
small exploitation area covers approximately 400 square metres and it is located near
the Mure riverbed. It affected an isolated stone cone that was partially above the
surface in the south-western part of the Uroi andesite source112. The quarry seems to be
a stepped terrace, its main front extends in a south-west direction, where a significant
quantity of stone seems to have been exploited (Pl. XIV/1-2). Its better part is covered
by soil and vegetation, but in the autumn of 2014, the rock was uncovered on an area of
approximately 20 square metres, thus making the archaeological survey on the upper
part of the work front possible. The traces of characteristic Roman stone exploitation
were thus clearly identified. The upper extremity, in the form of a relatively plane
plateau, is crossed from east to west by a line that marks an exploitation level along
which the traces of stone detachment technique through the use of wedges are visible.
On the north-western side of this line, the cliff is slightly flattened, while the south-
eastern side shows traces of the fact that several rectangular blocks had been extracted,
cut out by digging a narrow, straight groove with a chisel. Three blocks seem to have
been extracted in steps, in downwards motions (Pl. XIV/3). The upper step had been
prepared for the extraction of other items and it bears the markings of the extraction of
an andesite block, 1.20 m (four feet) long on the east-west line, 0.60 m (two feet) wide
on the north-south line and 0.30 m (one foot) high. The middle step is in the shape of a
rectangular prism. It is 0.65 m wide on the north-south line and it indicates the fact that
a two-foot-wide block had been extracted; the 5-6 cm difference represents the width of
the groove dug around the block, but it also indicates the use of a narrow chisel (caelum
dens), or rather of a pick113. The depth of the mark is 0.30 m, which could also include
107
Barbu 2013b, p. 36.
108
Barbu 2013b, p. 36.
109
Adam 1984, p. 41.
110
Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, Royo, Andreu 2012, p. 655.
111
Glodariu 1965, p. 121-127.
112
In September 2014, the villager Tiberiu Florian from Uroi village told us about the traces of the
ancient exploitation and about the presence of an anthropomorphic representation.
113
Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 75.
84 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

the length of the step below, since the exploitation was done downwards; therefore, the
east-west length of the block can no longer be estimated. The height of the extracted
block was measured to 0.29 m. The step below is in the shape of a rectangular trapezoid
and it was also affected by the extractions from its lower part; the present depth is of
0.23 m on the southern side and 0.40 m on the northern side. The width of the mark of
the extracted andesite block is of 0.66 m; therefore, the final piece was probably two
feet wide. Just like the other two markings, the height of the carving is of 0.29-0.30 m.
The western side of the cliff was made into a vertical wall that limited this exploitation
front. The three markings provide important information on the lapidary items obtained
from this point on Măgura Uroiului. We can thus conclude that the stone elements
extracted here were in the shape of rectangular prisms, approximately two feet wide and
one foot thick. The exploitation techniques hinder our assessment of the length of these
stone blocks. The 1.20 m (four feet) length of the marking on the upper step, together
with the present depth of the marking on the middle step (0.30 m), indicates the fact that
the stone extracted here was at least 1.50 m (five feet) long. In this case, we can assume
that a certain category of 0.60 m wide, long and relatively thin slabs were obtained.
If our reasoning is correct, the steps on the south-western side of Măgura
Uroiului, not far from the Kapi family castle (Pl. XVIII/2-3), can be attributed to the
manufacturing of certain funerary monuments (stelae, walls of aediculae, headpieces),
like the many items found in Micia, most of which having been made from the rocks
extracted from Dealul Uroiului114 (Pl. XIV/6).
The northern part of the cliff had also been processed and it shows traces of the
wedging technique. On the north-eastern extremity, on the aforementioned andesite
massif, there are processing traces, the most important of which being an
anthropomorphic sculpture in an early stage. The sculptor chose the edge of a massive
cliff as a location for his creation (Pl. XV/1); part of the rock had already been
subjected to a volumetric analysis, which indicates that if the sculpture was to be
finalised, it would have been a statue or a high-relief, since a plane surface is more
favourable for a relief. On a surface 0.65 m high and 0.40 m wide there are several
curved lines and markings where the head, neck and shoulders of the character would
have been (Pl. XV/1-2). The artist started by focusing on the head of the sculpture. The
facial features can be clearly distinguished, depicting a mature female character
(Pl. XV/3). The face is in a more advanced stage than the shoulders and the neck, but
the sculptor stopped before he could finish the features. Among the traces left by the
stonemason tools, the most visible ones are those of the kivel (ascia), used to hew the
work area (Pl. XV/2) and the pick, used to clear the sculptural field and to trace the
lines of the shoulders and neck (Pl. XV/1). The same tool left deep marks around the
right cheek, only partially extricated from the stone massif (Pl. XV/4). The pick was
also used in order to carve some of the character’s curls, since the narrow chisel was
used for the initial finishing of the facial features.
Regarding its conservation, the sculpture’s nose tip and chin are slightly
chipped. The total length of the head (including the neck and hair) is of 0.48 m; the face,
from the tip of the chin to the hairline, is 0.27 m long and 0.25 m wide. Judging by the
canons described by Vitruvius, according to which the length of the face is one tenth of
the character’s height115, the height of the statue (if it were to depict an entire human
body in a standing position) would have been over 2.50 m. If the average stature of a
114
łeposu-Marinescu 1982, p. 102-224.
115
Vitruvius III, 1.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 85

woman in that period was about 1.58-1.61 m, the proportions of the statue would have
exceeded the natural statue and even the heroic stature, thus reaching colossal
dimensions116.
The face is constructed symmetrically: the length of the forehead occupies one
third (9 cm), the length of the nose third and the chin occupied the remaining 9 cm, all
in accordance with the canons and proportions of antiquity117. The very tall hairstyle
(10 cm) leaves enough room to carve numerous details, but in this early stage in which
it remained, it only shows a parting in the middle, from the forehead to the apex (as
much as the artist managed to carve before abandoning it) and many curls framing the
face. On the left side of the face – which was left in a more advanced stage – the curls
partially or completely covered the ear. The well outlined nose has a chipped tip, but the
nostrils are visible. The cheeks have prominent cheekbones and the chin was well
defined, although it is now chipped. Due to the incipient stage of the carving, the
eyebrows are barely visible. The 6.5 cm wide eyes are slightly almond-shaped and their
iris is schematically depicted; the statue seems to gaze slightly to the right (Pl. XV/4).
The edges of the mouth are bent downwards and the face thus seems to be sad. There
seems to be a bulge around the neck, which is due either to the incipient stage of the
work or to the intention to carve a type of jewellery (Pl. XV/2).
We can thus assert that, in the quarry from Măgura Uroiului, there is an
incipient form of a sculpture depicting a mature female character. The nature of this
discovery implies a series of questions: “Who carved it and when was it sculpted? What
would its final shape have been? Was there even an intention to finalise the sculpture?
Who was the depicted character? What was the purpose of this work? Why was it left
unfinished?”, just to name a few.
Considering the stage in which this sculpture was left, it is impossible to define
the sculptural genre in which it could have been included, but its general appearance
and the volumetric analysis of the material indicates a voluminous form. If it was meant
to be a statue, the proportions of the face greatly exceed the natural human dimensions;
therefore, it was most likely supposed to depict either a member of the imperial
family118 or a goddess119. But why would a statue be in the Uroi quarry?
The Mician sculptors created many architectonic or funerary monuments, most
of which used the andesite from Măgura Uroiului as their raw materials, but the lack of
andesite statues raises many questions regarding the formation of these masons. The
ancient world differentiated stonemasons from sculptors very clearly120 and their ranks
were very different, from simple carvers to artists. Furthermore, there was also a
difference between the marble carvers and the ones who manufactured using these
rocks, the former being considered superheroes and they were much better
remunerated121. By assessing the main array of statues on the Dacian territory, we can
conclude that most of them were made of marble or fine limestone, just like the one
under scrutiny122. Alexandru Diaconescu believes that most of these statues were made
either by the sculptors who practiced their work in the areas around the marble quarry

116
Cool 2006, p. 25.
117
Vitruvius III, 1.
118
Diaconescu 2004, p. 51.
119
Diaconescu 2004, p. 131-132.
120
Diaconescu 2003, p. 421.
121
Diaconescu 2003, p. 421.
122
Diaconescu 2004, p. 50-185.
86 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

from Bucova, or by the graduates of the sculpture schools from the great centres, such
as Apulum and Napoca123. Diaconescu states that some of the more roughly
manufactured items, or the items made of low quality raw materials could indicate the
existence of some craftsmen that targeted a market of more affordable items, mostly in
the rural area124. The discovery of a female marble statue in the eastern necropolis of
Micia determined the aforementioned author to question whether the stonemasons
attested to the settlement from the Mure River Valley were capable of creating such a
piece125. The “Mician sculpture school”, established in the second half of the 2nd
century126, focused on creating funerary monuments with relief decorations (stelae,
aediculae, medallions, pillars), that, by combining the characteristic elements of the
Sarmizegetusa and Apulum Dacian Colonies created a unique, recognisable style127.
The features of the statue described above perfectly matches the model of female
figures present on the Mician funerary monuments (Pl. XV/6). From this viewpoint,
there could be no doubt regarding the origins and professional formation of the person
who made the sculpture.
The fact that the artist chose to carve into the native rock instead of an already
extracted stone block is not part of the usual practice of creating a statue128. The
tridimensional nature of the statues and of some complex architectonic items compel the
sculptor to work all around the pieces and thus to use stone blocks of certain sizes, as
proven by a statue deposited at the lapidary of the National Museum of Transylvanian
History in Cluj-Napoca129. Therefore, we can assume that the sculpture from the stone
quarry in Măgura Uroiului was not meant to be a statue and was probably never meant
to leave that place. Could it have merely been an exercise or a game? This is hard to
believe, since the face was made by the steady hand of an experienced person belonging
to the school of Mician sculptors, which most likely also owned workshops around the
source of stone from Uroi.
There is no indication as to what the purpose of the human figure from Măgura
Uroiului could have been. Why would an oversized female character be depicted in the
work front of a Roman quarry? What is certain is that this is not a unique case in Roman
Dacia. Throughout the 19th century, other anthropomorphic sculptural representations
were identified in the ancient stone exploitations from Transylvania130. Three human
figures were visible in the quarry from Ione ti, while the quarry from Creaca (Sălaj
County) would represent the closest analogy with the sculpture from Măgura Uroiului –
a “female image dug into the rock”131. The colossal statue attested to the vicinity of
Porolissum, depicting a female character holding a basket above her head was destroyed
in 1842132 by dismantling, but it was mentioned in the Roman quarry work front, which
confirms the fact that the sculpture from Măgura Uroiului was also not an accidental
occurrence. Another representation found in a possible Roman quarry, this time in the
Dobrogea region, depicts a male character, which Grigore Florescu considers to be

123
Diaconescu 2003, p. 427.
124
Diaconescu 2003, p. 427.
125
Diaconescu 2004, p. 113-114.
126
łeposu-Marinescu 1982, p. 71.
127
łeposu-Marinescu 1982, p. 71; Bărbulescu 2003, p. 65.
128
Bărbulescu 2003, p. 69.
129
Diaconescu 2003, p. 422-423.
130
Bărbulescu 2003, p. 57.
131
Macrea 1969, p. 308; BoroneanŃ 2000, p. 134, 144-145; Bărbulescu 2003, p. 57.
132
Téglás 1898, p. 121-122; Wagner 2011.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 87

Hercules Saxanus, dated based on the iconography of the 3rd century133. Petre Diaconu
believes that the appearance of the character and the quarry date from the second half of
the 10th century134.
We must also take into account a possible religious side of this issue.
Representations and altars dedicated to Hercules and Silvanus, the patron gods of the
stonemasons and the quarry workers, were identified in many cases135. Could the
sculpture under scrutiny be this type of female character, a patron of the stonemasons
and of the activities in the stone quarries?
The appearance of the face, the sad mimic and the tall hairstyle, parted on top,
with wavy curls that cover the ears are all traits that indicate an incipient work, dating to
the first part of the 3rd century, bearing the characteristics of the Severan Dynasty. Here
we mention the depictions with Iulia Domna from the Roman Empire, in stone (like
busts, statues) or in metal (like coins), very close with the anthropomorphic
representation from Uroi (Pl. XVI/1-4). The features of the figure from Măgura
Uroiului somewhat resemble the details of the head of a marble funerary statue
discovered in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, which depicts a woman of the La Grande
Ercolanese136 type (Pl. XV/5). However, since the stonemasons’ school from Micia137
formed certain patterns for the representation of the human typology, this type of female
iconography could have been perpetuated even after the end of the Severus period. The
sculpture was left unfinished, and it was probably abandoned either when the sculptor
left the work point (although the work front had not yet been completely exhausted), or
when the entire quarry was abandoned, which points to the idea that it could date back
to a later time than it was initially thought.
The fact that Roman quarries were identified in the northern and southern
extremities of the andesite quarry from Măgura Uroiului indicates that it had extended
over large surfaces and impressive quantities of rocks had been extracted: construction
and sculptural elements cut in even shapes, as well as an immense amount of raw stone
and debris, which were useful in the construction of the walls in opus incertum and opus
mixtum that can be seen in all the Roman points within a few kilometres around Uroi.
Such constructions are the villae from Simeria Veche – Ferma IAS138, Sântandrei –
AldăcuŃu Mic139 or Rapoltu Mare – La Vie140 (Pl. VIII/2).
The medieval, modern and contemporary periods. The exploitation of andesite
from Măgura Uroiului that followed the Roman period abridged the size of the areas
that bear traces of ancient quarries, but they left their own traces and evidence of the
activities undertaken by the medieval and modern stonemasons (Pl. XVII/1-7). Traces
of exploitation through the fire-setting technique were identified on all easily accessible
terraces on the northern side of the county road that connects Uroi and Rapoltu Mare.
The cliffs with rough and cracked surfaces bear the marks of fire – they are most often
blackened by smoke (Pl. XVII/1-2). The medieval monuments from around Uroi
(Pl. XVIII/1-3) and Rapoltu Mare (Pl. XVIII/4) were mostly built using the local
andesite, extracted from the local quarry. Much of the construction material used in
133
Florescu 1936, p. 33-46, fig. 7-9; BoroneanŃ 2000, p. 139-140.
134
Diaconu 1980, p. 185-194, fig. 4; BoroneanŃ 2000, p. 140.
135
Bărbulescu 2003, p. 57.
136
Diaconescu 2004, p. 107-108.
137
łeposu-Marinescu 1982, p. 71; Bărbulescu 2003, p. 65; AndriŃoiu 2003, p. 207.
138
łuŃuianu et al. 2012, p. 291.
139
Barbu et al. 2017, in print.
140
Barbu et al. 2016, p. 278-286.
88 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

these cases are reused pieces either from already existing Roman constructions141, or
from the blocks and items left behind in the work fronts of the ancient quarry.
Much of the andesite used in the Middle Ages and in the modern period was
extracted from the terraces at the foot of Măgura Uroiului. The traces indicate that the
violent thermic technique had been used in order to detach irregular blocks (which are,
in fact, visible in the walls of the medieval fortification from Uroi). In order to obtain
even shaped pieces, the carvers of this period seem to have used the claw chisel – this
tool was also used in antiquity and the marks left by it are visible in the areas described
above (Pl. XVII/3-4).
Besides this aspect, several marks connected to the exploitation of andesite in
the medieval and modern periods were identified. One of these marks shows two 4 cm
letters carved with a chisel in the native rock (Pl. XVII/5). The size of the letters “F”
and “V” (most likely the initials of a name) and the location of the terrace on which they
were discovered indicate that they originate from the medieval or pre-modern period.
“1731” is inscribed on another raw stone massif which had been exploited using the
thermic technique (Pl. XVII/6). The year probably represents the moment that section
of the quarry was closed, considering the fact that the traces of exploitation also stop;
the event could be connected to the construction/establishment of the Józsika family
manor from Rapoltu Mare (Pl. XVIII/4) or the Kapi family manor from Uroi
(Pl. XVIII/2-3).
The andesite from Măgura Uroiului continued to be used locally in the modern
and contemporary period – many of the buildings and household annexes from the
villages around the hill were made from this type of rock (Pl. XIX/1-4). Furthermore,
throughout the 18th and 20th centuries, the local stonemasons used andesite to create
certain architectonic elements or funerary monuments142 (Pl. XX/1-7).

Conclusions
From the dawn of time, stone was an extremely important raw material for
humanity. The qualities of the volcanic rocks from Măgura Uroiului, as well as the
location of this hill determined the human communities to use this andesite ever since
the Early Neolithic period. The rock source continued to be used throughout the ages,
but it was more intensely exploited once the Hallstattian fortifications were established
in the area. In the Roman period, Dealul Uroiului was transformed into a very large
quarry. Traces indicate an intense activity during the Roman period and the work areas
were in the form of surface stepped terraces. The marks are visible on the entire
southern side of the hill, both in the upper part and on the wide terraces from the foot of
the massif to the Mure riverbed.
Characteristic marks of the ancient stone exploitation techniques were identified
almost on the entire area of the Măgura Uroiului site. Massive stone blocks, detached
using the wedges technique were studied on the terraces from the foot of the hill. Steps
were uncovered in the south-western extremity of the quarry, which indicates the use of
the cutting method; the sizes and shapes of these blocks indicate the fact that slabs were
extracted in order to create funerary monuments. The location of the quarry, near the
Mure River, allowed for these raw materials to be transported to the stonemasons
centre from Micia, the main market for the andesite exploited in Uroi.

141
Bălos 2001, p. 16-20; Barbu et al. 2016, p. 279.
142
Pîrvu 1964, p. 219-220; łuŃuianu 2001, p. 115.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 89

The presence of Mician sculptors in the quarry from Măgura Uroiului is proven
by the presence of an anthropomorphic sculpture in an early stage of manufacturing, a
sculpture whose features reflect the practices of the Mician sculpture school. The
dimensions of the female face carved in the native rock suggest that it would have been
a colossal piece. It can be dated to the 3rd century AD.
The exploitation of the volcanic rocks from Uroi continued throughout the
Middle Ages and the modern period; this raw material was used in order to build
different edifices, like the medieval fortress from Uroi, the Reformed church from
Rapoltu Mare, or the mansions of the neighbouring noble families.
Today, the use of the Uroi andesite is visible on a local level, in the villages,
since the rock was used in the construction of households or of the locals’ funerary
monuments.

Acknowledgements
We wish to express our gratitude for the English translation of the text, made by Anca Chiorean,
from the “Lucian Blaga” Central University Library of Cluj-Napoca.

Bibliography

Plinius – Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis historia, trad. I. Costa,

Ia i, 2004.
Vitruvius – Vitruvius, De Arhitectura, trad. G. M. Cantacuzino,
T. Costa, G. Ionescu, Bucure ti, 1964.
Ackner 1856 – M. J. Ackner, Die römischen Alterthümer und deutschen
Burgen in Siebenbürgen, in JKKCC, 1856, p. 3-50.
Adam 1984 – J.-P. Adam, La construction romaine: matériaux et
techniques, Paris, 1984.
AndriŃoiu 1974-1975 – I. AndriŃoiu, O monedă bizantină descoperită la Uroi, in
Sargetia, XI-XII, 1974-1975, p. 137-138.
AndriŃoiu 1979 – I. AndriŃoiu, ContribuŃii la repertoriul arheologic al
judeŃului Hunedoara, in Sargetia, XIV, 1979, p. 15-34.
AndriŃoiu 1992 – I. AndriŃoiu, CivilizaŃia tracilor din sud-vestul
Transilvaniei în epoca bronzului, BiblThrac, II, Bucure ti,
1992.
AndriŃoiu 2003 – I. AndriŃoiu, Carierele de piatră ale Miciei, lapicizi, in
Sargetia, XXXI, 2003, p. 203-214.
AndriŃoiu 2006 – I. AndriŃoiu, Necropolele Miciei, Timi oara, 2006.
Ardeu, Bălos 2002 – A. Ardeu, A. Bălos, Cercetări arheologice la Măgura
Uroiului (jud. Hunedoara), in Cumidava, XXV, 2002,
p. 67-81.
Ardeu, Bălos 2003 – A. Ardeu, A. Bălos, Figurine zoomorfe descoperite la
Măgura Uroiului, in Marmatia, 7, 1, 2003, p. 183-186.
Ardeu, Bălos 2013 – A. Ardeu, A. Bălos, Depozitul de bronzuri de la Măgura
Uroiului (judeŃul Hunedoara), in vol. ed. A. Stavilă,
D. Micle, A. Cintar, C. Floca, S. ForŃiu, Arheovest I, - In
Memoriam Liviu Măruia-, Interdisciplinaritate în
Arheologie i Istorie, Timi oara, 7 Decembrie 2013,
Szeged, 2013, p. 175-182.
90 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Badea, MărculeŃ 2012 – L. Badea, I. MărculeŃ, Tipuri genetice de relief în Culoarul

Oră tiei, in CM, II, 2012, p. 305-311.
Badea, Buza, Cîndea – L. Badea, M. Buza, M. Cîndea, Culoarul Oră tiei, in vol.
1987 coord. D. Oancea, V. Velcea, Geografia României, III,
CarpaŃii Române ti i Depresiunea Transilvaniei,
Bucure ti, 1987, p. 360-364.
Barbu 2013a – M. G. Barbu, Materiale i tehnici de construcŃie utilizate la
realizarea clădirilor din fazele de piatră ale Coloniei Ulpia
Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, Teză de doctorat,
Universitatea „Babe -Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca, 2013, ms.
Barbu 2013b – M. G. Barbu, Urme ale exploatării în carierele antice de
andezit din judeŃul Hunedoara, in vol. ed. G. Prelipcean,
A. Jaba, I. Condratov, M. Lupan, B. Cocieru, P. Stanciu,
Lucrări volum conferinŃa internaŃională desfă urată în
cadrul proiectului, Doctoratul: O carieră atractivă în
cercetare, III, tiinŃe Sociale, Suceava, 2013, p. 29-42.
Barbu 2014 – M. G. Barbu, Cariera romană de exploatare a calcarului
de la Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara, in Sargetia (S.N.), V,
2014, p. 77-85.
Barbu et al. 2016 – M. G. Barbu, I. A. Bărbat, G. Băe tean, A. Bălos, A.
Gonciar, A. Brown, Raport preliminar privind cercetările
arheologice de la Rapoltu Mare-La Vie, campaniile 2013-
2015, in Banatica, 26, I, 2016, p. 273-321.
Barbu et al. 2017 – M. G. Barbu, I. A. Bărbat, C. D. łuŃuianu, I. L. Barbu, A.
T. Marc, A ezarea romană de la AldăcuŃu Mic, jud.
Hunedoara, in print.
Băe tean 2013 – G. Băe tean, A ezări umane pe lunca Mure ului. Punctul
Uroi – Pod Mure . Raport preliminar, in Sargetia (S.N.),
IV, 2013, p. 241-258.
Băe tean et al. 2013 – G. Băe tean, R. Pavel, I. Barbu, M. Barbu, M. Barbu, A.
Marc, A. Bălos, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi,
ora Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in
CCA, campania 2012, Craiova, 2013, p. 112-113.
Băe tean et al. 2014 – G. Băe tean, I. Barbu, M. Barbu, M. Barbu, A. Bărbat, A.
Marc, R. Pavel, A. Bălos, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu
Mare, Uroi, ora Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura
Uroiului, in CCA, campania 2013, Oradea, 2014, p. 84-85.
Băe tean et al. 2015a – G. Băe tean, A. Bălos, M. G. Barbu, I. A. Bărbat, A.
Gonciar, A. Brown, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare,
jud. Hunedoara. Punct: La Vie, in CCA, campania 2014,
Pite ti, 2015, p. 120-122.
Băe tean et al. 2015b – G. Băe tean, A. Bălos, I. A. Bărbat, O. C. Bărbat, I. L.
Barbu, M. G. Barbu, M. M. Barbu, A. T. Marc, R. Pavel,
A. Pescaru, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, ora
Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in
CCA, campania 2014, Pite ti, 2015, p. 122-123.
Băe tean et al. 2016 – G. Băe tean, A. Bălos, M. G. Barbu, I. A. Bărbat, A.
Gonciar, A. Brown, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare,
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 91

jud. Hunedoara. Punct: La Vie, in CCA, campania 2015,

Târgu-Jiu, 2016, p. 67-68.
Băe tean et al. 2017 – G. Băe tean, A. Bălos, M. G. Barbu, I. A. Bărbat, A.
Gonciar, A. Brown, I. L. Barbu, D. C. łuŃuianu, O. C.
Tutilă, M. M. Barbu, I. C. Codrea, Rapoltu Mare, com.
Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: La Vie, in CCA,
campania 2016, Bucure ti, 2017, p. 109-111.
Bălan 2013 – G. Bălan, A ezări fortificate din aria culturii Gáva din
România, in vol. ed. S.-C. Ailincăi, A. łârlea, C. Micu, Din
preistoria Dunării de Jos. 50 de ani de la începutul
cercetărilor arheologice de la Babadag (1962-2012),
BiblIP SA, 9, Brăila, 2013, p. 267-312.
Bălos 2001 – A. Bălos, Descoperiri arheologice pe raza comunei
Rapoltu Mare. Preistorie, epoca romană, in vol. ed. D.
UrsuŃ, A. Bălos, Comuna Rapoltu Mare, schiŃă
monografică, Deva, 2001, p. 8-20.
Bălos, Ardeu 2002 – A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare,
jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA,
campania 2001, Buzia , 2002, p. 249-250.
Bălos et al. 2004 – A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, C. Mitar, . Andrei, V.
Papp, P. Straja, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, campania
2003, Cluj-Napoca, 2004, p. 250-251, 445.
Bălos et al. 2007 – A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, C. uteu, Arch-
geophysical prospecting at Magura Uroiului (Romania), in
vol. ed. A. Figueiredo, G. Velho, The World in Your Eyes –
CAA 2005 – Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 33rd
Conference, Tomar, March 2005, Tomar, 2007, p. 205-210.
Bălos et al. 2010 – A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, C. Mitar, Uroi Hill
(Magura Uroiului). The Beginning of an Interdisciplinary
Research, in vol. ed. F. Niccolucci, S. Hermon, Beyond the
Artifact. Digital Interpretation of the Past. Proceedings of
the CAA 2004, Prato 13-17 April 2004, Budapest, 2010,
p. 113-115.
Bărbat 2009 – I. A. Bărbat, Ceramica neolitică timpurie de la Rapoltu
Mare-Ciupercărie (jud. Hunedoara), -campania 2007-, in
Corviniana, XIII, 2009, p. 11-27.
Bărbat 2012 – I. A. Bărbat, Descoperiri aparŃinând neoliticului timpuriu
din colecŃiile de arheologie ale muzeului devean, in Terra
Sebus, IV, 2012, p. 23-64.
Bărbat 2014 – I. A. Bărbat, Materii prime de origine vulcanică prezente in
a ezările Starčevo-Cri de pe teritoriul României:
Andezitele, in Caietele CIVA, 3, 2014, p. 9-35.
Bărbat, Tutilă Bărbat, – I. A. Bărbat, O. Tutilă Bărbat, C. M. Mitar, A Kernos
Mitar 2015 Vessel from Uroi – Pod Mure (Hunedoara County) and
the Problem of a Ritual Pit, in vol. ed. N. C. Ri cuŃa,
I. V. Ferencz, O. Tutilă Bărbat, Representations, Signs and
92 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Symbols, Proceedings of the Symposium on Religion and

Magic, Proceedings Deva, II, Cluj-Napoca, 2015,
p. 289-316.
Bărbulescu 2003 – M. Bărbulescu, InterferenŃe spirituale în Dacia Romană,
Cluj-Napoca, 2003.
Beldiman et al. 2015 – C. Beldiman, M. Barbu, D. M. Sztancs, M. M. Barbu,
Bronze Age Artefacts Made of Perforated Shells
Discovered in a Ritual Complex from Transylvania, in vol.
ed. N. C. Ri cuŃa, I. V. Ferencz, O. Tutilă Bărbat,
Representations, Signs and Symbols, Proceedings of the
Symposium on Religion and Magic, Proceedings Deva, II,
Cluj-Napoca, 2015, p. 93-114.
Berecki, Czajlik, – S. Berecki, Z. Czajlik, L. Rupnik, Aerial Archaeological
Rupnik 2013 Prospection on the Middle Course of the Mure River and
Adjacent Areas, in Apulum, L, 2013, p. 87-109.
Blagg 1976 – T. F. C. Blagg, Tools and Techniques of the Roman
Stonemason in Britain, in Britannia, 7, 1976, p. 152-172.
Bodó et al. 2012 – C. Bodó, I. L. Barbu, M. G. Barbu, I. C. Codrea,
M. M. Ion, A. Marc, C. D. łuŃuianu, Uroi, ora Simeria,
jud. Hunedoara (Varianta de ocolire Deva-Oră tie). Punct
Sigheti, km. 20+280 – 20+512, in CCA, campania 2011,
Târgu Mure , 2012, p. 293-294.
Bojar, Walter 2006 – H.-P. Bojar, F. Walter, Fluoro-magnesiohastingsite from
Dealul Uroi (Hunedoara county, Romania): Mineral data
and crystal structure of a new amphibole end-member, in
Eur. J. Mineral, 18, 2006, p. 503-508.
BoroneanŃ 2000 – V. BoroneanŃ, Arheologia pe terilor i minelor din
România, Bucure ti, 2000.
Branga 1980 – N. Branga, Urbanismul Daciei romane, Timi oara, 1980.
Cârciumaru et al. – M. Cârciumaru, M. Anghelinu, R. Pavel, R. Dincă,
1999 R. Cârciumaru, Racloarul de la Măgura Uroiului, in
Apulum, XXXVI, 1999, p. 1-3.
Chatziconstantinou, – A. Chatziconstantinou, E. Poupaki, The extraction of
Poupaki 2002 travertine in Antiquity on the Island of Cos, Dodecanese,
Greece, in MAA, II, 2, 2002, p. 59-68.
Ciută 1998 – M.-M. Ciută, O locuinŃă de suprafaŃă aparŃinând
neoliticului timpuriu, descoperită la eu a „La Cărarea
Morii” (com. Ciugud, jud. Alba), in Apulum, XXXV, 1998,
p. 1-15.
Ciută 2005 – M.-M. Ciută, Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spaŃiul
intracarpatic transilvănean, BUA, XII, Alba Iulia, 2005.
Cool 2006 – H. E. M. Cool, Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain,
Cambridge, 2006.
Crandell, Bălos 2011 – O. Crandell, A. Bălos, Palaeotopography. The Use of GIS
Software with Data Derived from Resistivity Surveys and
Stratigraphic Profiles to Reconstruct Sites and Past
Terrains, in Cumidava, XXXI-XXXIV, 2011, p. 157-165.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 93

Czajlik, Berecki, – Z. Czajlik, S. Berecki, L. Rupnik, Aerial

Rupnik 2014 Geoarchaeological Survey in the Valleys of the Mure and
Arie Rivers (2009-2013), in DissArch, 3, 2, 2014,
p. 459-483.
Damian et al. 2012 – P. Damian, I. Bocan, C. Neagu, E. M. Paraschiv-Grigore,
M. Vasile, D. Vleja, E. S. Ene, I. Paraschiv-Grigore,
A. Bălos, Varianta de ocolire Deva-Oră tie, Km. 0 + 000 –
32 + 500, jud. Hunedoara, in CCA, campania 2011, Târgu
Mure , 2012, p. 278-279.
Diaconescu 2003 – A. Diaconescu, Statuaria majoră în Dacia Romană, vol. I,
Cluj-Napoca, 2003.
Diaconescu 2004 – A. Diaconescu, Statuaria majoră în Dacia Romană, vol. II,
Cluj-Napoca, 2004.
Ferenczi 1979 – I. Ferenczi, Cîteva observaŃii în legătură cu materialul de
construcŃie litic folosit în cetăŃile dacice din MunŃii
Sebe ului, in StComCaransebe , III, 1979, p. 263-272.
Floca, uiaga 1936 – O. Floca, V. uiaga, Ghidul judeŃului Hunedoara, Deva,
1936.
Florescu 1936 – G. Florescu, Cariera romană dela Cernavodă, in AnD,
XVII, 1936, p. 33-46.
Ginouvès, Martin – R. Ginouvès, R. Martin, Dictionnaire méthodique de
1985 l’architecture grecque et romaine. Tome I. Matériaux,
techniques de construction, techniques et formes du décor,
Roma, 1985.
Glodariu 1965 – I. Glodariu, Sarmizegetusa dacică în timpul stăpînirii
romane, in ActaMN, II, 1965, p. 119-133.
Glodariu 1985-1986 – I. Glodariu, Cariere i exploatarea pietrei în Dacia
preromană, in ActaMN, XXII-XXIII, 1985-1986,
p. 91-103.
Glodariu, Iaroslavschi – I. Glodariu, E. Iaroslavschi, CivilizaŃia fierului la daci (sec.
1979 II î.e.n. – I e.n.), Cluj-Napoca, 1979.
Gutiérrez Garcia- – A. Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, Roman Quarries in the
Moreno 2009 Northeast of Hispania (Modern Catalonia), Tarragona,
2009.
Gutiérrez Garcia- – A. Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, H. Royo, J. Andreu, The
Moreno, Royo, Roman Quarries of the Town and Territory of Los Bañales
Andreu 2012 (Uncastillo, Zaragoza, Spain), in vol. ed. A. Gutierrez
Garcia-Moreno, P. Lapuente Mercadal, I. Rodà,
Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of
the IX Association for the Study of Marbles and Other
Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona
2009), Tarragona, 2012, p. 651-656.
Hanson, Oltean 2000 – W. S. Hanson, I. A. Oltean, A multi-period site on Uroi
Hill, Hunedoara: An aerial perspective, in ActaMN, 37, I,
2000, p. 43-49.
Ianovici et al. 1969 – V. Ianovici, D. Giu că, P. GhiŃulescu, M. Borco , M. Lupu,
M. Bleahu, A. Savu, EvoluŃia geologică a MunŃilor
Metaliferi, Bucure ti, 1969.
94 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Ianovici et al. 1976 – V. Ianovici, M. Borco , M. Bleahu, D. Patrulius, M. Lupu,

R. Dimitrescu, H. Savu, Geologia MunŃilor Apuseni,
Bucure ti, 1976.
Kozelj, Wurch-Kozelj – T. Kozelj, M. Wurch-Kozelj, Grey Limestone Quarries of
2012a Byllis (Albania), in vol. ed. A. Gutierrez Garcia-Moreno,
P. Lapuente Mercadal, I. Rodà, Interdisciplinary Studies on
Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the IX Association for the
Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity
(ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009), Tarragona, 2012,
p. 619-627.
Kozelj, Wurch-Kozelj – T. Kozelj, M. Wurch-Kozelj, Use of a Saw in Roman and
2012b Proto-Byzantine Period on the Island of Thassos, in vol.
ed. A. Gutierrez Garcia-Moreno, P. Lapuente Mercadal,
I. Rodà, Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone,
Proceedings of the IX Association for the Study of Marbles
and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference
(Tarragona 2009), Tarragona, 2012, p. 715-722.
Lazarovici, Lazarovici – C.-M. Lazarovici, G. Lazarovici, Arhitectura neoliticului i
2006 eneoliticului din România, I, Neoliticul, BiblAM, IV, Ia i,
2006.
Lazarovici 1984 – G. Lazarovici, Neoliticul timpuriu în România, in ActaMP,
VIII, 1984, p. 49-104.
Lazarovici 2016 – G. Lazarovici, Despre „pebble idol” = greutate de plasă
de pescuit. Tip i funcŃionalitate, in Tibiscum (S.N.), 6,
2016, p. 13-26.
Lazarovici, Maxim – G. Lazarovici, Z. Maxim, Gura Baciului, monografie
1995 arheologică, BMN, XI, Cluj-Napoca, 1995.
Lazăr, Stârcescu – I. Lazăr, C. Stârcescu EnăchiŃă, Monografia ora ului
EnăchiŃă 2008 Simeria, Deva, 2008.
Luca 2008 – S. A. Luca (coord.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeŃului
Hunedoara, ediŃia a II-a, BB, XXVI, Sibiu, 2008.
Luca 2015 – S. A. Luca, ViaŃa trăită sub zei. Situl Starčevo-Cri I de la
Cristian I, judeŃul Sibiu, România, SSEEP, II, Suceava, 2015.
Luca et al. 2014 – S. A. Luca, F. MarŃi , A. Tudorie, A. Luca, „Consacrarea
ritualică” a primei colonizări neolitice din România.
Sanctuarul de gropi de la Cristian I, judeŃul Sibiu. Partea
II. Locuirea, in Apulum, LI, 2014, p. 1-24.
Macrea 1969 – M. Macrea, ViaŃa în Dacia Romană, Bucure ti, 1969.
Marc et al. 2013 – A. Marc, C. Bodó, I. Barbu, M. Barbu, M. Barbu, I. Codrea,
C. łuŃuianu, Un vas în formă de pasăre descoperit în
a ezarea de epoca bronzului de la Uroi - Sigheti, or.
Simeria, jud. Hunedoara, in Istros, XIX, 2013, p. 119-151.
Marc et al. 2015 – A. Marc, I. Barbu, C. Bodó, M. Barbu, Representation and
Symbol Reflected by Two Bronze Age Artefacts from Uroi –
Sigheti (Hunedoara County), in vol. ed. N. C. Ri cuŃa,
I. V. Ferencz, O. Tutilă Bărbat, Representations, Signs and
Symbols, Proceedings of the Symposium on Religion and
Magic, Proceedings Deva, II, Cluj-Napoca, 2015, p. 81-91.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 95

Marcu 2007 – D. Marcu, Donneés concernant les recherches physico-

géographyques dans le Couloir du Strei Inférieur (Le
secteur Subcetate-Simeria, le département de Hunedoara,
Roumanie), in Sargetia Naturae, XX, 2007, p. 42-61.
MarŃian 1920 – I. MarŃian, Repertoriu arheologic pentru Ardeal, BistriŃa,
1920.
MărculeŃ 2013 – I. MărculeŃ, Culoarul Mure ului între Arie i Strei, studiu
geomorfologic, Media , 2013.
Mărghitan 1974-1975 – L. Mărghitan, Urme romane pe cuprinsul judeŃului
Hunedoara, in Sargetia, XI-XII, 1974-1975, p. 37-42.
Măruia et al. 2010 – L. Măruia, D. Micle, A. Cîntar, A. Bălos, A. Pescaru,
A. Stavilă, L. Bolcu, „Măgura” Uroiului (Hunedoara
County, Romania). An Archaeological Site from the
Perspective of Landscape Archaeology, in AUVTSAH, XII,
1, 2010, p. 85-96.
Mârza 1997 – I. Mârza, Andezitul utilizat de daci în construcŃiile sacre de
la Sarmizegetusa Regia – petrografia i provenienŃa, in
ActaMN, 34, I, 1997, p. 819-823.
Miró, Revilla 2012 – C. Miró, E. Revilla, The Roman Quarry at Montjuïc
(Barcelona, Spain), in vol. ed. A. Gutierrez Garcia-
Moreno, P. Lapuente Mercadal, I. Rodà, Interdisciplinary
Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the IX
Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in
Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009),
Tarragona, 2012, p. 680-687.
Mutihac 1990 – V. Mutihac, Structura geologică a teritoriului României,
Bucure ti, 1990.
Mutihac, Ionesi 1974 – V. Mutihac, L. Ionesi, Geologia României, Bucure ti,
1974.
Niculescu-Varone – G. T. Niculescu-Varone, Monografia satului ăule ti, plasa
1945 Deva, judeŃul Hunedoara, Bucure ti, 1945.
Oltean 2007 – I. A. Oltean, Dacia. Landscape, colonisation, romanisation,
London, 2007.
Orosz 1903 – E. Orosz, İslénytani adatok az Erdélyi medencze
területérıl, in OTTÉ, XXV, 1903, p. 196-207.
Păunescu 2001 – A. Păunescu, Paleoliticul i mezoliticul din spaŃiul
transilvan, Bucure ti, 2001.
Pescaru et al. 2005 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, . Andrei,
R. Nicolicea, V. Papp, P. Straja, A. Bărbat, Rapoltu Mare,
com. Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura
Uroiului, in CCA, campania 2004, Jupiter-Mangalia, 2005,
p. 287-288, 459.
Pescaru et al. 2006 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, I. Barbu,
C. DoncuŃiu, C. D. łuŃuianu, V. Papp, Rapoltu Mare, com.
Rapoltu Mare, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului,
in CCA, campania 2005, ConstanŃa, 2006, p. 281-282.
Pescaru et al. 2007 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, A. Ardeu, R. Stăncescu, R. Pavel,
V. Papp, O. Crandell, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare,
96 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA,

campania 2006, Tulcea, 2007, p. 286-287.
Pescaru et al. 2008 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Stăncescu, R. Pavel, V. Papp,
O. Crandell, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, ora
Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in
CCA, campania 2007, Ia i, 2008, p. 248-250.
Pescaru et al. 2009 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, R. Stăncescu, O. Crandell,
Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, ora Simeria, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, campania
2008, Târgovi te, 2009, p. 181-182.
Pescaru et al. 2010 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, I. Barbu, M. Ion, Rapoltu
Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, ora Simeria, jud.
Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in CCA, campania
2009, Suceava, 2010, p. 158-159.
Pescaru et al. 2011 – A. Pescaru, A. Bălos, R. Pavel, I. Barbu, M. Ion, M. Barbu,
A. Marc, Rapoltu Mare, com. Rapoltu Mare, Uroi, ora
Simeria, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Măgura Uroiului, in
CCA, campania 2010, Sibiu, 2011, p. 106.
Petrescu-DîmboviŃa – M. Petrescu-DîmboviŃa, Depozitele de bronzuri din
1977 România, BA, XXX, 1977, Bucure ti.
Pîrvu 1964 – G. Pîrvu, Carierele din R.P.R., Bucure ti, 1964.
Popa 2002 – D. Popa, Villae, vici, pagi. A ezările rurale din Dacia
romană intracarpatică, BS, II, Sibiu, 2002.
Rodriguez et al. 2012 – O. Rodriguez, J. Beltran, P. Lopez Aldana, E. Ontiveros,
R. Taylor, The Quarries of Almadén de la Plata (Seville,
Spain): New Data from the Recent Archaeological
Interventions, in vol. ed. A. Gutierrez Garcia-Moreno,
P. Lapuente Mercadal, I. Rodà, Interdisciplinary Studies on
Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the IX Association for the
Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity
(ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009), Tarragona, 2012,
p. 645-650.
Roska 1942 – M. Roska, Erdély régészeti repertóriuma, I, Koloszvár,
1942.
Ro u et al. 2001 – E. Ro u, A. Szakács, H. Downes, I. Seghedi, Z. Pécskay,
C. Panaiotu, The Origin of Neogene Calc-Alkaline and
Alkaline Magmas in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania: The
Adakite Connection, in Rom. Jour. Min. Dep., 79, 2, 2001,
p. 3-23.
Ro u et al. 2004 – E. Ro u, I. Seghedi, H. Downes, D. H. M. Alderton,
A. A. Szakács, Z. Pécskay, C. Panaiotu, E. Panaiotu,
L. Nedelcu, Extension-related Miocene calc-alkaline
magmatism in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania: Origins of
magmas, in Schweiz Mineral Petrogr Mitt, 84, 2004,
p. 153-172.
Rusu 1977 – A. Rusu, Un mormînt roman descoperit la Uroi (judeŃul
Hunedoara), in Sargetia, XIII, 1977, p. 539-542.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 97

Savu et al. 1968 – H. Savu, M. Pavelescu, J. Stancu, D. Lupu, Harta

Geologică, Scara 1:200.000, L – 34 –XXIV, 26. Oră tie,
Bucure ti, 1968.
Savu et al. 1994 – H. Savu, C. Udrescu, M. Stoian, E. Călinescu, The
Quaternary Quartz Trachyandesites of Uroi (Mure
Valley): Pretrology, Geochemistry and Origin, in Rev.
Roum. GÉOLOGIE, 38, 1994, p. 9-23.
Solomon 1939 – N. Solomon, ConstituŃia geologică a Devei i jur, Deva,
1939.
Takaoğlu 2005 – T. Takaoğlu, Co kuntepe: An Early Neolithic Quern
Production Site in NW Turkey, in JFA, 30, 4, 2005,
p. 419-433.
Takaoğlu 2006 – T. Takaoğlu, Ground Stone Grooved Hammers from
Co kuntepe, in vol. ed. A. Erkanal-Öktü, E. Özgen,
S. Günel, A. T. Ökse, H. Hüryılmaz, H. Tekin,
N. Çınardalı-Karaaslan, B. Uysal, F. A. Karaduman,
A. Engin, R. Spieß, A. Aykurt, R. Tuncel, U. Deniz,
A. Rennie, Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural
Reflections, Istanbul, 2006, p. 705-708.
Takaoğlu, Özdemir – T. Takaoğlu, A. Özdemir, Co kuntepe. A Neolithic Village
2013 in the Coastal Troad, in vol. ed. M. Özdoğan, N. Ba gelen,
P. Kuniholm, The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations &
New Research, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul,
Istanbul, 2013, p. 35-43.
Téglás 1887 – G. Téglás, Az Erdélyi medencze ıstörténelméhez, in OTTÉ,
XII, I, 1887, p. 55-87.
Téglás 1887-1888 – G. Téglás, Hunyadmegye barbar fémleletei, in HTRTÉ, 5,
1887-1888, p. 109-118.
Téglás 1889 – G. Téglás, Római márványbánya a Bisztravölgyben.
Bukova Hunyadmegyei falu határán, in FöldKözl, XIX,
4-6, 1889, p. 154-160.
Téglás 1889-1890 – G. Téglás, A Hunyadmegyei történelmi s régészeti társulat
museuma, in HTRTÉ, 6, 1889-1890, p. 109-118.
Téglás 1898 – G. Téglás, Római kıbányászat Porolissum közelében
Szilágymegyében, in ArchÉrt, XVIII, 1898, p. 118-124.
Téglás 1902 – G. Téglás, Római telepek Hunyadmegyében, in vol. ed.
G. Kuun, Z. Torma, G. Téglás, Hunyadvármegye
Története, Budapest, 1902, p. 59-148.
Trufa 1962 – V. Trufa , ContribuŃii la cunoa terea Măgurii Uroiului i a
eii Alistrei, in A. U. C. I. Parhon, Ser. t. Nat., Geol.-
Geogr., 23, 1962, p. 171-176.
Trufa , Stanciu 1983 – V. Trufa , L. Stanciu, Apele subterane din Culoarul
Mure ului între ibot i Uroi, in Sargetia Naturae, XIII,
1983, p. 5-28.
Tudor 1968 – D. Tudor, Ora e, tîrguri i sate în Dacia romană,
Bucure ti, 1968.
98 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

łeposu-Marinescu – L. łeposu-Marinescu, Funerary Monuments in Dacia

1982 Superior and Dacia Porolissensis, BAR IS, 128, Oxford,
1982.
łuŃuianu 2001 – A. łuŃuianu, Aspecte ale vieŃii materiale i spirituale, in
vol. ed. D. UrsuŃ, A. Bălos, Comuna Rapoltu Mare, schiŃă
monografică, Deva, 2001, p. 107-137.
łuŃuianu, Barbu, – D. łuŃuianu, I. Barbu, I. Codrea, Cuptoare medieval
Codrea 2012 timpurii descoperite la Rapoltu Mare-Punct „Pescărie”, in
Sargetia (S.N.), III, 2012, p. 175-182.
łuŃuianu et al. 2012 – C. D. łuŃuianu, I. L. Barbu, M. G. Barbu, C. Bodó, I.-C.
Codrea, M. M. Ion, A. Marc, Simeria Veche, ora Simeria,
jud. Hunedoara (varianta de ocolire Deva-Oră tie). Punct:
Ferma IAS, km 16+150 – 16+500, in CCA, campania
2011, Târgu Mure , 2012, p. 291.
Wagner 2011 – P. Wagner, Szilágysági Ütirajzok. Călătorind prin Sălaj.
Travelling in Sălaj. Rajz - desene - drawings, 2008-2011,
EL, 3, Cluj-Napoca, 2011.
Wollmann 1973 – V. Wollmann, Cercetări privind carierele de piatră din
Dacia romană, in Sargetia, X, 1973, p. 105-130.
Wollmann 1996 – V. Wollmann, Mineritul metalifer, extragerea sării i
carierele de piatră în Dacia romană, BMN, XIII, Cluj-
Napoca, 1996.
Zotic 2007 – V. Zotic, Organizarea spaŃiului geografic în Culoarul
Mure ului, sectorul Sebe -Deva, Cluj-Napoca, 2007.
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 99

Pl. I. 1. The location of Măgura Uroiului on the map of Romania (processed after
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Relief_Map_of_Romania.png/64
0px-Relief_Map_of_Romania.png) (Accessed: 12.07.2017); 2. Măgura Uroiului archaeological
site on the south-west region of Transylvania (processed after
http://www.maphill.com/romania/hunedoara/3d-maps/satellite-map/) (Accessed: 12.07.2017)
100 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. II. 1-3. 2D and 3D maps of the Măgura Uroiului archaeological site (© Arheovest)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 101

Pl. III. 1-2. Picture postcards from the beginning of the 20th century showing Măgura Uroiului
(1 – processed after https://kepeslapok.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/piski/piski27/; 2 – after
https://kepeslapok.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/piski/piski14/) (Accessed: 12.07.2017); 3. A note
describing the location of a batch of archaeological materials discovered in 1937 at Măgura
Uroiului, part of the collection owned by the MCDR, Deva; 4. Eneolithic and Bronze Age
pottery from Măgura Uroiului found in 1937 (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
102 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. IV. 1. Photograph depicting the archaeological site Măgura Uroiului from the South.
2. The same volcanic hill seen from the North (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 103

Pl. V. 1-2. Details of a “stone/andesite bed” from the Early Neolithic dwellings L 1 (1) and
L 2/2017 (2) discovered in Rapoltu Mare – La Vie (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
104 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. VI. 1-2. The Gáva culture stone ramparts from plateau of Măgura Uroiului hill
(Photo: M. G. Barbu)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 105

Pl. VII. 1. Detail of the Hallsttat stone rampart from Măgura Uroiului found on terrace III;
2-3. The base of an andesite wall of a La Tène structure from Măgura Uroiului
(Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
106 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. VIII. 1. The ancient Petris on the Tabula Peutingeriana map (processed after http://www.hs-
augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost03/Tabula/tab_or07.html) (Accessed: 25.11.2017);
2. The Uroi andesite distribution from the Roman period in the region around the volcanic hill
(processed after Google earth) (Accessed: 25.11.2017); 3. The map of the types of stone
extraction from the quarry from Măgura Uroiului (processed after Google earth) (Accessed:
25.11.2017)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 107

Pl. IX. 1. The block carving technique (after Adam 1984, p. 29, fig. 30); 2. The wedge
technique (after Adam 1984, p. 33, fig. 42); 3. The “Carrara saw” technique (after Kozelj,
Wurch-Kozelj 2012b, p. 716, fig. 1c)
108 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. X. 1-2. Overview of the excavation front on the southern slope of Măgura Uroiului
(Photo: M. G. Barbu)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 109

Pl. XI. 1-2. Details of the excavation front in the Roman quarry from Măgura Uroiului
(Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
110 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. XII. 1, 3. Details of the excavation front (Photo: I. A. Bărbat); 2. Traces of pole holes dug
into the rock (Phtoto: M. G. Barbu); 4. Overview of the excavations fronts, marked with yellow
arrows, on the southern slope of Măgura Uroiului (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 111

Pl. XIII. 1-6. Andesite blocks from Măgura Uroiului with marks that show the use of the
method of separating blocks by driving wedges into them (Photo: M. G. Barbu); 7. Marks that
show the use of the wedge method in the Roman quarry from Flix, Spain (after Gutiérrez
Garcia-Moreno 2009, p. 248, fig. 284)
112 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. XIV. 1-4. The block carving technique in the quarry from Măgura Uroiului (Photo:
M. G. Barbu); 5. The block carving technique in the quarry from Tabacalera (after Gutiérrez
Garcia-Moreno 2009, p. 179, fig. 197); 6. The Uroi andesite aedicula discovered in Micia,
MCDR, Deva (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 113

Pl. XV. 1-4. An anthropomorphic representation discovered in Măgura Uroiului, Uroi village
(Photo: M. G. Barbu); 5. Detail of the head of a marble statue from the Severan period,
discovered in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, MCDR, Deva; 6. Anthropomorphic representations
on a funerary stele originating from Micia, MCDR, Deva (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
114 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. XVI. 1. Bust of Iulia Pia (Domna), Rome (after http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/

img.htm?id=1211) (Accessed: 28.11.2017); 2. Female bust, possibly Iulia Domna, Rome (after
http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1799) (Accessed: 28.11.2017); 3. Iulia Domna,
Vienna (after http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=4773) (Accessed: 28.11.2017);
4. Obverse of a Roman coin depicting Iulia Domna (after https://finds.org.uk/assets/
rulers/JuliaDomna.jpg) (Accessed: 28.11.2017)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 115

Pl. XVII. 1-2. Marks left by the use of the thermal shock method; 3. Circular marking made
with a claw chisel; 4. Detail of the use of a claw chisel; 5-6. The F. V. initials and the year 1731
appear on the andesite blocks that show traces of modern excavations; 7. Illegible inscription on
a stone block (Photo: M. G. Barbu)
116 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. XVIII. 1. A medieval fortification from Măgura Uroiului; 2-3. The Kapi family castle at the
foot of the Măgura Uroiului; 4. The Reformed church and the Józsika family castle from
Rapoltu Mare (Photo: M. G. Barbu)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 117

Pl. XIX. The use of andesite in the modern and contemporary architecture from the Rapoltu
Mare village (Photo: I. A. Bărbat)
118 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

Pl. XX. 1-6. Funerary monuments from andesite discovered in the Reformed and Orthodox
cemeteries from Rapoltu Mare; 7. A crypt built with andesite and bricks from the Rapoltu Mare
Reformed cemetery (Photo: M. G. Barbu)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 119

Noi informaŃii arheologice privind exploatarea andezitului la Măgura Uroiului

(jud. Hunedoara)
Rezumat

Situl arheologic Măgura Uroiului (cunoscut i prin formele Măgura, Dealul

Uroiului sau Muntele de Aur – în limba maghiară Arany Hegy) se află în sud-vestul
Transilvaniei (Pl. I/1-2), pe teritoriul localităŃilor Uroi i Rapoltu Mare, i este
reprezentativ pentru aproape toate secvenŃele cronologice i culturale, din paleolitic i
până în perioada modernă. Probabil că intensitatea locuirilor umane pe terasele Dealului
Uroiului i din vecinătatea acestuia a fost influenŃată de poziŃia geografică a punctului
arheologic, la confluenŃa râului Strei cu valea Mure ului (Pl. II/1-3), dar i din alte
raŃionamente, cum ar fi caracteristicile geologice, forma de relief reprezentând un co
vulcanic (Pl. IV/1-2), deci o sursă pentru extracŃia rocilor (Pl. IV/1-2). Din punct de
vedere petrografic, dealul aflat în vecinătatea localităŃii Uroi este un andezit, termen
folosit în articolul de faŃă pentru desemnarea rocii vulcanice, cunoscută mai recent i
sub denumirea de trahiandezit.
Sub aspect arheologic, cercetările de teren întreprinse în secolul al XIX-lea de
către Johann Michael Ackner i Téglás Gábor au condus la identificarea unor fronturi de
exploatare ale andezitului, care au fost apreciate ca fiind antice, locaŃia Măgurii fiind
coroborată cu anticul Petris de pe Tabula Peutingeriana (Pl. VIII/1), localitatea antică
figurând între Aquae i Germisara. Cercetările ulterioare, întrepinse de Volker
Wollmann i Ioan Mârza, au arătat că exploatarea sistematică a andezitului la Măgura
Uroiului a început în epoca romană.
Cercetările arheologice recente (2014-2017), derulate în diferite situri
arheologice aflate în vecinătatea Măgurii Uroiului, ne confirmă faptul că andezitul de
Uroi, cum mai este denumită roca, a fost intensiv exploatat aproape în toate perioadele
istorice.
Pentru preistorie, cele mai timpurii dovezi arheologice ale utilizării andezitului
au fost întâlnite în momentul cercetării unor complexe aparŃinând neoliticului timpuriu
pe cuprinsul sitului de la Rapoltu Mare – La Vie, observându-se preferinŃa aproape
exclusivă pentru roca vulcanică în arhitectura locuinŃelor Starčevo-Cri (Pl. V/1-2).
Mult mai târziu, comunităŃile umane hallstattiene sunt implicate în amenajarea unui
sistem defensiv cu sanŃ i val, din rocă vulcanică, pe terasa a III-a a Măgurii Uroiului
(Pl. VII/1) i pe platoul acesteia (Pl. VI/1-2).
Odată cu epoca romană, cariera de andezit a fost exploatată sistematic, urmele
procedeelor antice de degajare a blocurilor de piatră fiind vizibile până astăzi (Pl. X/1-2,
XI/1-2, XII/1, 3-4). Prin cercetările desfă urate în diferite sectoare ale Măgurii Uroiului
au fost descoperite stigmate specifice tehnicilor antice de exploatare a pietrei. La baza
dealului au fost identificate blocuri masive de piatră care au fost desprinse prin metoda
icurilor (Pl. XIII/1-6). Pe partea sud-vestică a carierei au fost relevate amprente, sub
formă de trepte, care ne atestă folosirea metodei decupării blocurilor, dimensiunile i
proporŃiile acestora indicând faptul că din acest punct se extrăgeau lespezi utilizate
pentru realizarea monumentelor funerare (Pl. XIV/1-4).
De asemenea, legăturile anticului Petris cu centrul roman de la Micia sunt
confirmate i de o descoperire în cadrul unui front de exploatare de la Uroi, mai exact a
unei sculpturi antropomorfe, în curs de prelucrare, care poartă trăsăturile artistice ale
colii de sculptură miciene (Pl. XV/1-4). Legăturile cu centrul de pietrari de la Micia au
fost facilitate i de amplasarea carierei romane în proximitatea râului Mure
120 New archaeological informations regarding the exploitation of andesite

(Pl. VIII/1), fapt care facilita transportarea materiilor prime spre principalul punct de
desfacere al andezitului exploatat la Uroi.
Utilizarea andezitului de Uroi a continuat i pe parcursul evului mediu, acum
fiind ridicată o fortificaŃie în apropiere (Pl. XVIII/1). Urmele exploatărilor medievale i
moderne sunt de asemenea vizibile, din aceste perioade păstrându-se în stânca nativă i
diverse marcaje (Pl. XVII/1-7).

Lista ilustraŃiilor

Pl. I. 1. Localizarea Măgurii Uroiului pe harta României (procesare după

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Relief_Map_of_Romania
.png/640px-Relief_Map_of_Romania.png (Accesat: 12.07.2017); 2. Situl arheologic
Măgura Uroiului în regiunea de sud-vest a Transilvaniei (procesare după
http://www.maphill.com/romania/hunedoara/3d-maps/satellite-map/) (Accesat: 12.07.2017)
Pl. II. 1-3. HărŃile 2D i 3D ale sitului arheologic Măgura Uroiului (© Arheovest)
Pl. III. 1-2. Ilustrate po tale de la începutul secolului XX cu Măgura Uroiului (1 – după
https://kepeslapok.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/piski/piski27/; 2 – după
https://kepeslapok.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/piski/piski14/); 3. Bilet cu descrierea
locaŃiei unui lot de materiale arheologice descoperite în 1937 la Măgura Uroiului,
colecŃia MCDR, Deva; 4. Ceramică eneolitică i din epoca bronzului descoperită în
1937 la Măgura Uroiului (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. IV. 1. Fotografie dinspre sud cu situl arheologic Măgura Uroiului; 2. Acela i
promontoriu vulcanic văzut dinspre nord (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. V. 1-2. Detalii cu „patul de pietre/andezit” din locuinŃele neolitice timpurii L 1 i
L 2/2017 descoperite la Rapoltu Mare – La Vie (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. VI. 1-2. Valurile de fortificaŃie aparŃinând culturii Gáva de pe platoul dealului
Măgura Uroiului (Foto: M. G. Barbu)
Pl. VII. 1. Detaliu cu valul din piatră hallstattian descoperit pe terasa a III-a a Măgurii
Uroiului; 2-3. Temelia unui perete din andezit al unei structuri La Tène de la Măgura
Uroiului (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. VIII. 1. Anticul Petris pe harta Tabula Peutingeriana (procesare după
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost03/Tabula/tab_or07.html)
(Accesat: 25.11.2017); 2. DistribuŃia andezitului de Uroi în perioada romană în zona
apropiată măgurii vulcanice (procesare după Google earth) (Accesat: 25.11.2017);
3. Harta tipurilor de exploatare ale pietrei din cariera de la Măgura Uroiului (procesare
după Google earth) (Accesat: 25.11.2017)
Pl. IX. 1. Tehnica decupării blocurilor (după Adam 1984, p. 29, fig. 30); 2. Tehnica
icurilor (după Adam 1984, p. 33, fig. 42); 3. Tehnica „fierăstrăului de Carrara” (după
Kozelj, Wurch-Kozelj 2012b, p. 716, fig. 1c)
Pl. X. 1-2. Vedere generală cu fronturile de exploatare de pe versantul sudic al Măgurii
Uroiului (Foto: M. G. Barbu)
Pl. XI. 1-2. Detalii cu fronturile de exploatare în cariera romană de la Măgura Uroiului
(Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. XII. 1, 3. Detalii cu fronturile de exploatare (Foto: I. A. Bărbat); 2. Urmele unor
gropi de stâlp săpate în stâncă (Foto: M. G. Barbu); 4. Vedere de ansamblu cu fronturile
de exploatare, marcate cu săgeŃi galbene, de pe versantul sudic al Măgurii Uroiului
(Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Ioan Alexandru Bărbat 121

Pl. XIII. 1. 1-5. Blocuri de andezit cu urme ale metodei de desprindere prin baterea
icurilor, de la Măgura Uroiului (Foto: M. G. Barbu); 6. Urme ale utilizării metodei
icurilor în cariera romană de la Flix, Spania (după Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno 2009,
p. 248, fig. 284)
Pl. XIV. 1-4. Tehnica decupării blocurilor în cariera de la Măgura Uroiului (Foto:
M. G. Barbu); 5. Tehnica decupării blocurilor în cariera de la Tabacalera (după
Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno 2009, p. 179, fig. 197); 6. Aedicula din andezit de Uroi,
descoperită la Micia, MCDR, Deva (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. XV. 1-4. Reprezentare antropomorfă descoperită la Măgura Uroiului (Foto:
M. G. Barbu); 5. Detaliu cu capul unei statui din marmură, de perioadă severiană,
descoperită la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, MCDR, Deva (Foto: I. A. Bărbat);
6. Reprezentări antropomorfe pe o stelă funerară ce provine de la Micia, MCDR, Deva
(Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. XVI. 1. Bust al Iuliei Pia (Domna), Roma (după http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/
img.htm?id=1211 ) (Accesat: 28.11.2017); 2. Bust feminin, posibil Iulia Domna, Roma
(după http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1799) (Accesat: 28.11.2017);
3. Iulia Domna, Viena (după http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=4773)
(Accesat: 28.11.2017); 4. Avers al unei monede romane cu reprezentarea Iuliei Domna
(după https://finds.org.uk/assets/rulers/JuliaDomna.jpg) (Accesat: 28.11.2017)
Pl. XVII. 1-2. Urme ale utilizării metodei ocului termic; 3. Marcaj circular realizat cu
dalta cu dinŃi; 4. Detaliu al utilizării dălŃii cu dinŃi; 5-6. IniŃialele F V i anul 1731
întâlnite pe blocuri din andezit cu urme de exploatare moderne; 7. InscripŃie ilizibilă pe
un bloc din piatră (Foto: M. G. Barbu)
Pl. XVIII. 1. FortificaŃia de perioadă medievală de la Măgura Uroiului; 2-3. Castelul
familiei Kapi, aflat la poalele Măgurii Uroiului; 4. Biserica reformată i castelul familiei
Józsika din Rapoltu Mare (Foto: M. G. Barbu)
Pl. XIX. Utilizarea andezitului în arhitectura modernă i contemporană a satului
Rapoltu Mare (Foto: I. A. Bărbat)
Pl. XX. 1-6. Monumente funerare din andezit descoperite în cimitirele reformat i
ortodox din Rapoltu Mare; 7. Criptă construită din andezit i cărămizi din cimitirul
reformat de la Rapoltu Mare (Foto: M. G. Barbu)
 LISTA ABREVIERILOR

AA – Analele Aradului, Arad.

ACSPA – Anuarul Colegiului Studenţesc de Performanţă Academică, Cluj-Napoca.
ActaArchHung – Acta Archaeologica Hungaricana, Budapest.
ActaC – Acta Carpatica. Anuarul românilor din sud-estul Transilvaniei, Sfântu Gheorghe.
ActaHAB – Acta Historiae Artium Balticae, Vilnius.
ActaMN – Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca.
ActaMP – Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău.
ActaS – Acta Siculica, Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sf. Gheorghe.
ActaTS – Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu.
AÉ – L’année épigraphique, Paris.
AHR – The American Historycal Review, Oxford University Press.
AIIAI – Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie Iaşi, Iaşi.
AIIC – Anuarul Institutului de Istorie „George Bariţiu” din Cluj, Cluj-Napoca.
AM – Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi.
AMSCEU – Annual of Medieval Studies at Central European University, Budapest.
Anatolian Metal – Anatolian Metal, Bochum.
AnB (S.N.) – Analele Banatului, Serie Nouă, Timişoara.
AnD – Analele Dobrogei, Cernăuţi.
Antaeus – Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae, Budapest.
Antiquity – Antiquity, Cambridge.
Apulum – Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia.
ArchKorr – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt: Urgeschichte, Römerzeit,
Frühmittelalter, Mainz.
Archaeolingua, MS – Archaeolingua, Main Series, Budapest.
Archaeolingua, SM – Archaeolingua, Series Minor, Budapest.
ArchÉrt – Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest.
ArchInf – Archäologische Informationen. Mitteilungen zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Bonn.
Arheovest – Arheovest, Timişoara.
ArhSom – Arhiva Someşană, Năsăud.
AstS – Astra Salvensis, Salva.
AUASH – Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, Alba Iulia.
A. U. C. I. Parhon, Ser. Şt. Nat., Geol.-Geogr – Analele Universităţii C. I. Parhon, Seria
Şiinţele Naturii. Geologie-Geografie, Bucureşti.
AUC SŞFLLC – Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Limbi şi
Literaturi Clasice, Craiova.
AUVTSAH – Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste, Section d’Archéologie et
d’Histoire, Târgovişte.
BA – Biblioteca de Arheologie, Bucureşti.
BAHC – Bibliotheca Archaeologica et Historica Corvinensis, Hunedoara.
BAM – Brukenthal Acta Musei, Sibiu.
Banatica – Banatica, Reşiţa.
Banatul Românesc – Banatul Românesc, Timişoara.
BAR IS – British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford.
BB – Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu.
BCŞS – Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia.
BECA – Buletinul Episcopiei Cetăţii Albe – Ismail, Ismail.
BHAB – Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, Timişoara.
502 Lista abrevierilor

BHAUT – Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis, Timişoara.

BiblAM – Bibliotheca Archaeologica Moldaviae, Iaşi.
BiblEN – Bibliotheca Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca.
BiblIP SA – Biblioteca Istro-Pontică, Seria Arheologie, Brăila.
BiblMA – Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia.
BiblMD – Bibliotheca Musei Devensis, Deva.
BiblThrac – Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureşti.
BMA – Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, Piatra Neamţ.
BMB SH – Biblioteca Muzeului Bistriţa, Seria Historica, Bistriţa.
BMN – Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca.
BMS – Bibliotheca Musei Sabesiensis, Sebeş.
Boabe de grâu – Boabe de grâu, Bucureşti.
Britannia – Britannia A Journal of Romano-British and Kindred Studies, The Society for
Promotion of Roman Societies, London.
BS – Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis, Sibiu.
BUA – Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, Alba Iulia.
BVBL – Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, München.
Caietele CIVA – Caietele CIVA, Alba Iulia.
CambArchaeolJ – Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Cambridge.
CC – Cultura Creştină, Blaj.
CCA – Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice.
CCDJ – Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos, Călăraşi.
CIL – Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin.
Clujul – Clujul, Cluj.
CM – Collegium Mediense, Mediaş.
CN – Cercetări Numismatice, Bucureşti.
Concordia – Concordia, Pest.
Confluenţe – Confluenţe, Satu Mare.
ConvLit – Convorbiri Literare, Bucureşti.
Corviniana – Acta Musei Corvinensis, Hunedoara.
Crisia – Crisia, Oradea.
Cumidava – Cumidava, Braşov.
Dacia (N.S.) – Revue d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Ancienne, Nouvelle Série, Bucharest.
Dacia. Cotidianul Banatului – Dacia. Cotidianul Banatului şi al graniţei de vest, Timişoara.
Das Altertum – Das Altertum, Berlin.
Der Anschnitt – Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau, Bochum.
DissArch – Dissertationes Archaeologicae, Budapest.
Dolgozatok (Ú.S.) – Az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem-És Régiségtárából, Új Sorozat, Kolozsvár.
DP – Documenta Praehistorica, Ljubljana.
Dreptatea – Dreptatea, Bucureşti.
Drobeta – Drobeta, Drobeta Turnu Severin.
EL – Erdélyi Látképek, Cluj-Napoca.
EphNap – Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca.
Eur. J. Mineral – European Journal of Mineralogy, Stuttgart.
Familia – Familia, Oradea.
Fcr – Flori de crin, Şimleu Silvaniei.
Foaie – Foaie pentru minte, inimă şi literatură, Braşov.
FoliaArch – Folia Archaeologica, Budapest.
FöldKözl – Földtani Közlöny, Budapest.
Fruncea – Fruncea, Timişoara.
Gallia – Gallia. Fouilles et Monuments Archéologiques en France Métropolitaine, Paris.
Lista abrevierilor 503

Gold Bull – Gold Bulletin. Journal of Gold Science, Technology and Applications, New York.
GTr – Gazeta Transilvaniei, Braşov.
HAdW – Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg.
HAWM – Heidelberger Akademie Der Wissenschaften. Monographien, Heidelberg.
HPL – Hungarian Polis Studies, Debrecen.
HTRTÉ – A Hunyadmegyei Történelmi és Régészeti Társulat Évkönyve, Budapest, Deva.
Hunyad – Hunyad. Politikai, közgazdaságiésvegyestartalmuhirlap, Deva.
Hunyadvármegye –Hunyadvármegye. Politikai, közgazdaságiésvegyestartalmuhirlap, Deva.
IDR – Inscripţiile Daciei Romane, Bucureşti.
IEC – Interferenţe Etnice şi Culturale, Cluj-Napoca.
Instrumentum – Instrumentum. Bulletin du Groupe de Travail Europeen sur L’Artisanat et
les Productions Manufacturees dans L’Antiquite, Montagnac.
Istros – Istros, Brăila.
Învăţătorul poporului – Învăţătorul poporului, Blaj.
JFA – Journal of Field Archaeology, Boston.
JKKCC – Jahrbuch der Kaiserl. Königl. Central-Commission, Wien.
JPMÉ – Jánnus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, Pécs.
JRA – Journal of Roman Archaeology, Portsmouth, Rhode Island.
JRMES – Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies.
JRS – Journal of Roman Studies, London.
Keresztény Magvető – Keresztény Magvető, Kolozsvári Unitárius Lelkészek és Tanárok,
Kolozsvártt.
KölnerJahrb – Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Cologne.
Levant – Levant, Journal of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the British
Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History, London.
Lohanul– Lohanul. Magazin Cultural-ştiinţific, Huşi.
Luptătorul Bănăţean – Luptătorul Bănăţean, Timişoara.
Lychnological Acts – Lychnological Acts, Cluj-Napoca.
MAA – Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Rhodes.
Marisia – Marisia, Târgu-Mureş.
Marmatia – Marmatia, Baia Mare.
Manas – Manas, Berkshires.
MCA – Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti.
MENGA – Revista de Prehistoria de Andalucía, Sevilla.
MMP – Materials and Manufacturing Processes, London.
MSTRT – Monográfiák a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszékéről, Szeged.
Nădejdea – Nădejdea, Timişoara.
Nemzet – Nemzet, Pest.
OPA – The Old Potter’s Almanack, London.
Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok – Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok, Budapest.
OTTÉ – Orvos-Természettudományi Értesítő, Kolozsvárt.
PA – Patrimonium Apulense, Alba-Iulia.
PAS – Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Kiel, München, Berlin.
Patrimonium – Patrimonium, Bucureşti.
PBF – Praehistorische Bronzefunde, Berlin.
Perspective istorice – Perspective istorice. Revista Asociaţiei Profesorilor de Istorie din
România „Clio”, Filiala Hunedoara, Deva.
Pontica – Pontica, Constanţa.
Proceedings Deva – Proceedings Deva, Deva.
PZ – Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin.
Răvaşul – Răvaşul, Cluj.
504 Lista abrevierilor

RBNR – Revista Bibliotecii Naţionale a României, Bucureşti.

Realitatea Ilustrată – Realitatea Ilustrată, Cluj.
Restitutio – Buletin de Conservare-Restaurare, Bucureşti.
RevMuz – Revista Muzeelor, Bucureşti.
Rev. Roum. GÉOLOGIE – Revue Roumaine de GÉOLOGIE, Bucureşti.
RISBC – Revista Institutului Social Banat-Crişana, Timişoara.
RRH – Revue Roumaine d’Histoire, Bucureşti.
Rom. Jour. Min. Dep. – Romanian Journal of Mineral Deposits, Bucureşti.
RST – Research and Science Today, Târgu Jiu.
Sargetia (S.N.) – Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis, Serie Nouă, Deva.
Sargetia Naturae – Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis, Series Scientiae Naturae, Deva.
SASM – Studia Archaeologica Slovaca Mediaevalia, Bratislava.
Schweiz Mineral Petrogr Mitt – Schweizerische Mineralogische und Petrographische
Mitteilungen, Zürich.
SCIV(A) – Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, Bucureşti.
Scînteia – Scînteia, Bucureşti.
SEER – The Slavonic and East European Review, London.
Series Byzantina – Series Byzantina, Warszawa.
SMMIM – Studii şi materiale de muzeografie şi istorie militară, Bucureşti.
Societatea de Mâine – Societatea de Mâine, Cluj.
SP – Studii de Preistorie, Bucureşti.
SSEEP – Studies into South-East European Prehistory, Suceava.
SŞC – Studii de ştiinţă şi cultură, Arad.
Starinar (N.S.) – Starinar, Organ Srpskog Arheološkog Drustva, Nouvelle Série, Beograd.
StComCS – Studii şi Comunicări de Etnografie şi Istorie, Caransebeş.
StudIP – Studii de Istoria Presei, Iaşi.
SUCSH – Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis, Serie Historica, Sibiu.
Symposium – Symposium. Revista de Ştiinţe Socio-Umane, Institutul de Cercetări
Economice şi Sociale „Gheorghe Zane” Iaşi.
TD – Thraco-Dacica, Bucureşti.
Terra Sebus – Terra Sebus, Sebeş.
Tibiscum (S.N.) – Tibiscum, Serie Nouă, Caransebeş.
Tibiscus – Tibiscus, Timişoara.
TIR – Tabula Imperii Romani, Budapest.
TLVH – Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, Halle (Saale).
Transilvania – Transilvania, Sibiu.
Transylvanian Review – Transylvanian Review, Cluj-Napoca.
Tribuna – Tribuna, Cluj-Napoca.
VAH – Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.
Vasárnapi Ujság – Vasárnapi Ujság, Budapest.
Vestul – Vestul, Timişoara.
Vrancea – Vrancea. Studii şi Comunicări, Focşani.
Veg Hist Archaeobot – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, Berlin.
Verenamüster Zürzach – Verenamüster Zürzach, Ausgraungen und Bauntersuchunge, Zürich.
Voinţa Banatului – Voinţa Banatului, Timişoara.
WorldArch – World Archaeology, London.
Zborník SNM – Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, Bratislava.
Zbiciul – Zbiciul, Timişoara.
Ziridava – Ziridava, Arad.