Dacia capta

Daicoviciu, Constantin

doi:10.1524/klio.1960.38.jg.174

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous archaeological artefacts and documents (mining tools, lighting lamps with inscriptions on them, different objects belonging to miners, fragments of ore reduction furnaces, ore processing installations and metal treatment) as well as written proofs (waxed plates, Roman writers' papers, etc.) confirmed the intensity of the metal mining in Roman Dacia [4].…”

Section: Mining In Dacia In the Time Of Roman Rulesupporting

confidence: 58%

Romanian Mining - Past, Present and a Possible Future

Fodor,

Georgescu

2023

Mining Revue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper follows the unfolding of the history of Romanian mining in its several major stages: the beginnings until the conquest of Dacia by the Romans, mining in Dacia during the Roman rule, mining activity after the Romans left Dacia until the 10th century, mining activity during the Middle Ages, mining during the capitalist period, Romanian mining during 1948–1990, Romanian mining after 1990, a possible future of Romanian mining and ends with some considerations regarding mining and the environment.

show abstract

Section: Mining In Dacia In the Time Of Roman Rulesupporting

confidence: 58%

Romanian Mining - Past, Present and a Possible Future

Fodor,

Georgescu

2023

Mining Revue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1968; 1977a; 1977b), Constantin and Hadrian Daicoviciu (e.g. C. Daicoviciu 1938; 1941; C. Daicoviciu and H. Daicoviciu 1960; H. Daicoviciu 1968; 1972), Ioan Glodariu (e.g. Glodariu and Iaroslavschi 1979; Glodariu 1983), Dumitru Berciu (e.g.…”

Section: The Academic Retreatmentioning

confidence: 99%

The significant past and insignificant archaeologists. Who informs the public about their ‘national’ past? The case of Romania

Popa¹

2016

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the role of archaeologists in informing the public about a fundamental component of contemporary Romanian identity: the Dacian heritage. I start by exploring how the Dacians and Romanians came to be connected, a process that resulted from a combination of nationalistic zeal on behalf of archaeologists and the nationalist propaganda of the Ceauşescu regime during the 1970s and 1980s. I then move to the present-day situation, where I argue that archaeologists have reduced themselves to having a minor role in the public sphere, while discussions about the Dacians are dominated by two main players: pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. This state of affairs delegitimizes Romanian archaeology and places self-declared specialists and enthusiasts in the position of experts. Some of the Dacian narratives produced in this environment are infused with strong nationalist messages and have the potential to fuel extreme right-wing and even xenophobic movements. Consequently, in the final part of the paper, I recommend that Romanian archaeologists should challenge the representations and interpretations of pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. Moreover, academics should make it a priority to re-engage with the public and disseminate their work to a broad audience in a convincing manner.

show abstract

“…It must, at the outset, be recalled that the Dacians had, on their side, learnt much from Roman supremacy in military techniques by hiring Roman specialists and retaining Roman deserters, 1 in accordance with the harsh terms of the truce dictated by Decebalus after the Domitianic disasters in Dacia (A.D. 86-8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All this C. Daicoviciu's excavations have revealed; 1 and it is fascinating to see these actual details depicted on the Column's frieze (scene LXVII), 2 at a point which fits the conventional chronology and topography characteristic of the sculptures. 1 Dacians are felling and cutting up trees in great haste, in order to erect two stretches of palisade on either side of a tower-like stone building (pi. vnib): this clearly indicates both the actual plan of the twin-fort and the situation of emergency that dictated its planning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%