MUZEUL JUDEŢEAN MUREŞ MARISIA S T U D I I Ş I M AT E R I A L E XXX ARHEOLOGIE Târgu Mureş 2010 CONTENT ARTICLES Áldor Csaba BALÁZS he Coţofeni Site from Șincai–Cetatea Păgânilor (Mureş County). he 1996–1997 Campaigns ........ 7 Laura DIETRICH „Du bist, was du ißt“. Zu den Kochsitten der Wietenberg- und der Noua-Kultur ............................... 25 Oliver DIETRICH Eine Knochenpfeife der Noua-Kultur aus Rotbav–La Pârâuţ? ................................................................ 41 Botond REZI he Bronze Hoard from Sâmbriaş (Mureş County) ................................................................................. 45 Sándor BERECKI Two La Tène Bronze Discs from Târgu Mureş, Transylvania .................................................................. 69 Szilamér Péter PÁNCZÉL Domina and Dominus from Cristeşti (Mureş County) ........................................................................... 77 Nicoleta MAN–Daniel CIOATĂ–Coralia CRIȘAN A New Brick Kiln Discovered in the Roman Settlement from Cristești ................................................ 85 Nicoleta MAN Art and Religions on the Eastern Part of Dacia (With Special Regard to the Upper Mureş Area) .... 95 Gregor DÖHNER–Manuel FIEDLER–Constanze HÖPKEN–Christoph MERZENICH– Szilamér Péter PÁNCZÉL–Veit STÜRMER–Zsolt VASÁROS Forschungen im Kastell von Porolissum. Bericht zur Kampagne 2009 ............................................... 115 Lóránt VASS Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia ................................ 127 István FÁBIÁN Some Considerations Concerning the Weapons during the Great Migrations in the North Danubian Area (4th–7th Centuries AD) .............................................................................. 153 Keve LÁSZLÓ he Early Medieval Pottery from Sângeorgiu de Mureș–Roman Catholic Cemetery (Mureş County) ........................................................................................................................................... 159 Zalán GYŐRFI–Szilárd Sándor GÁL Archaeological Data Regarding the Medieval History of the Unitarian Church in Adămuş (Mureş County) ........................................................................................................................................... 171 Zoltán SOÓS–Szilárd Sándor GÁL Burials in the Târgu Mureș Franciscan Friary. A Fourteenth Century Burial with Diadem............. 187 Ünige BENCZE Late Medieval Graphite Ware in the Târgu Mureș Franciscan Friary and the Study of Imported Pottery in Transylvania................................................................................ 205 Beatrice CIUTĂ Archaeobotanical Analyses Carried on Macro-Remains from Târgu Mureș–Franciscan Friary. (2007 campaign) .......................................................................................................................................... 213 BOOK REVIEW Bartosiewicz László–Gál Erika–Kováts István (Ed.), Csontvázak a szekrényből (Skeletons from the Cupboard), Budapest, 2009 (by Erzsébet BERENDI).......................................... 219 Gáll Erwin–Gergely Balázs, Kolozsvár születése. Régészeti adatok a város 10–13. századi történetéhez (he Birth of Cluj. Historical Data related to the city’s history from the 10th to the 13th century), Kolozsvár, 2009 (by Keve LÁSZLÓ) ........................................................................................................ 221 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 223 WOMEN IN A MAN’S WORLD? FEMALE RELATED ARTEFACTS FROM THE CAMPS OF DACIA Lóránt Vass Babeș–Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca Keywords: forts, ban of soldiers’ marriage; ‘sexing’ small inds, jewellery; spinning, barracks, Buciumi he hypothesis according to which women played an active role in the daily life of a soldier within military forts is one of the major themes of the Roman gender archaeology. he large quantity of female sized-shoes in the barracks in the camp of Vindolanda,1 not to mention the written evidence of one of the famous tablets from this site,2 or the large distribution of female related artefacts at Vetera I3 indicate that, in spite of the legal ban, women could have had access to the inner buildings of one camp, and lived an active life within it. he presence of women in military spaces seems to be accepted by researchers of the military history as well. Adrian Goldsworthy in his work about the Roman army treats this subject as evidence supported by artefacts unearthed from diferent forts.4 In spite of the legal ban of the soldiers’ marriage introduced by Augustus and lited only in the 3rd century AD by Septimius Severus, many researchers leave from the premise that 25 years of military duty would be too long period for excluding women from the daily life of a soldier.5 hough the diferent jewellery articles as well as some clothing accessories found in military camps in the Roman Empire seems to be the most convincing proofs of female presence in military spaces, all the researchers agree that their ‘sexing’ is very subjective, sometimes even impossible.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 van Driel-Murray 1997; 2001. he writing tablet found in the fort of Vindolanda contains a warm invitation of Suspicia Lepidina, the wife of Flavius Cerialis, prefect of one of the cohorts from this camp, to the birthday of Claudia Severa. his letter proves that wives were not only present in camps, but they lived a very vivid social life as well, Bowman–homas 1987, 137–140. Allison 2005, 835–836, ig. 11. Goldsworthy 2003, 103. “How can there even be any doubt about the presence of women, when a large percentage of males spent 25 years – for many of them their entire life span – in the army and the system was maintained over 400 year?” (van DrielMurray 1997, 55). van Driel-Murray 1997, 55. Taking into consideration the subjective character of ‘sexing’ small inds, the author believes that the female size shoes can be related to women with more certainty. B. Rudán and U. Brandl ater a critical review of ancient sources and artefacts came to the conclusion that there is almost no objective and convincing argument to point out the presence of women in forts (Rudán–Brandl 2008). In order to exclude the subjective feature of ‘sexing’ P. M. Allison developed a special methodology (with critical review) in mapping artefacts in the camp of Vetera I (Allison 2005; 2006). MARISIA XXX, p. 127‒152 128 L. Vass How do we understand questionable and subjective artefacts are they enough to highlight a possible female presence, such as in the case of the province of Dacia? Although the number of the possibly female related artefacts (hairpins, brooches, necklaces, earrings, rings, pendants, spindle whorls) recovered from the camps of Dacia do not represent large quantities, they are too many to be ignored. he aim of this paper is to interpret these artefacts found in the military forts of Dacia and to apply the general gender methodology in order to point out the possible presence of women in forts. Gender archaeology in Roman archaeology in Romania is a totally unknown domain. he research of the diferent Roman archaeological sites is characterized rather by positivistic methodology that produced quantitative studies in what concerns the investigation of material culture. In this conception clear and close categories exist concerning the usage, the origin, the meaning of an object, which are not questioned by anybody. Taking into consideration the historical evidence consisting of ancient written sources7 regarding the ban of marriage of the soldiers, the restriction of women to enter forts led to a very false preconception in Romanian archaeology: the military camp is a closed entity where civilians, especially women had no access, a world where the two sexes do not interact. his preconception is so strong that archaeologists in the case of handling women related objects within forts tend to give them another functionality that its in this general clichés. It is the case of some spindle whorls recovered in the military fort from Buciumi8 and Răcari.9 In the Romanian literature there are only two studies on jewellery items found in military forts written by A. Isac. he author analyzing the jewelleries from Ilişua10 and of diferent forts from Dacia Porolissensis11 limited her research on the typological study of the artefacts. Beside the passive and spurned attitude of researchers, the research of this subject is hardened by some special features as well which originate from the special character of the province of Dacia. During the almost 165 year of Roman domination in Dacia crucial and significant changes couldn’t be done in the province’s social and economic life, though this interval of 2nd and 3rd century is generally characterized by fundamental social, economic and military changes on the level of Empire.12 In comparison with the western provinces, where a certain continuity of time existed, the period of change can be easily pointed out, whilst Dacia whose existence covers the whole above mentioned period, has no continuity of time. hus, it is almost 7 8 9 10 11 12 he ban of soldiers’ marriage until the rising of Septimius Severus seems to be a constant element in the ancient contemporary biographies or histories. Augustus in the urge of disposing a stricter discipline ater the civil wars, prohibited the marriage of soldiers in service; Suet. Aug. 24.1, apud Campbell 1978, 154, note 8. At this ban is referring Cassius Dio when he mentions at Claudius that “he gave the rights of married men to the soldiers, since in accordance with the law, they were not permitted to have wives” (Cassius Dio 76.15.2, apud Campbell 1978, note 2). he statement of Quintilanus that “…intrare castra feminis non licet” emphasize the same prohibition (Quintilian, Declamatio 3.12, apud Rudán–Brandl 2008, 1), that is suspended only ater two centuries, under Septimius Severus (Herodian III.8.5, apud Campbell 1978, 160). For the legal aspect and efects of this ban see the paper of Campbell 1987. Chirilă et al. 1972, 132, note 76. N. Gudea leaving from the premise of the archaeological context where these objects were recovered from, states that these artefacts could have had other functionality. he authors believe that the spindle whorls recovered from Răcari belonged rather to the vicus, or they were manufactured by the soldiers for their families or for other purposes (Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 196). Isac–Gaiu 2006. Isac 1999. he recruitment of ethnically based auxiliary units is assured by the inhabitants of the place where the units were stationed. Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 129 impossible to determine a strict chronological and typological evolution of material culture in these two centuries, not to mention the fact that the artefacts used in this period had a very long period of usage. So, many objects found in military forts without the precise indication of the archaeological context, were dated generally to the 2nd and 3rd century (Appendix). he native population of a province usually preserved its traditional habits, ways of dressing, its typical accessories, jewelleries during the Roman occupation. hese typical objects ease the ethnical correlation of some type of artefacts,13 thus allowing the formulation of some kind of social conclusion concerning the nature of relation between a soldier and a woman in a fort.14 In the case of Dacia the original native population, the Dacians, mysteriously disappeared or withdrew in the background ater the war led by Trajan against them, in 105–106 AD. hus, in the lack of supportive artefacts we don’t know if there existed any kind of social interaction between the soldiers and local, native population. Determining the sex of a small ind can be made on the basis of the grave goods found in women inhumation burials as well. In Dacia, the rite of the inhumation burial, for a certain reason, has never become fashionable, so the majority of the graves are incineration graves.15 he correlation of a special type of artefacts to a gender is nearly impossible in these conditions. In plus, there are very little Roman cemeteries known, researched and published in Dacia. Although in the Roman archaeology the military space is the most researched domain in Romania, only a few of the researched complexes were investigated properly and carefully. here are only a few sites where barracks were researched and published.16 herefore we do not dispose of precise information concerning the inner organization of a camp and micro-social world of the soldiers within a fort. he publications of small inds recovered from the Dacian camps are very scarce, too. In the case of many camps, the published artefacts are usually selected and have only an illustrative purpose; the inds in most of the cases, are not correlated to the ind spots.17 Still there are some forts that provided bigger quantity of material and made possible to observe the distribution of them. We have to mention here the fort of Buciumi, Ilişua, Căşeiu and Gilău where the excavations have been carried out more carefully or a part of the objects have been analyzed and published – it is the case of the jewelleries coming from the camp of Căşeiu, Gilău or Ilişua –,18 allowing thus a more precise record of the artefacts. Methodology Relating an artefact to a certain gender in the Roman material culture is very problematic and very subjective. It is almost impossible to apply objective and clear criteria concerning the gender related artefacts. Observing the presence of women in the Dacian forts I based my research on those small ind types that are traditionally considered as typical female related objects such as: 13 14 15 16 17 18 In the western gender studies usually the hand-made pottery as opposite to the typical Roman tableware is used as ethnicity marker (Allison 2006, 350). As W. S. Hanson mentions the original native inhabitants of an area could be another category of civilian population that could have interacted with the military sphere (Hanson 2005, 304). he correlation of certain artefacts to the inhabitants would suggest that soldiers could have had their concubine or slaves from the local population. Damian et al. 2008 (Alburnus Maior); Protase 2002 (Obreja). Chirilă et al. 1972 (Buciumi); Isac 2003 (Cășeiu); Gudea 1997 (Porolissum); Bondoc–Gudea 2009 (Răcari). Bondoc–Gudea 2009 (Răcari); Protase–Zrínyi 1994 (Brăncoveneşti); Protase et al. 2008 (Gherla); Bărbulescu 1997, Abb. 27/3 (Potaissa). Isac 1999 (Căşeiu and Gilău); Isac–Gaiu 2006 (Ilişua). 130 L. Vass a) jewellery and adornment articles: hairpins, pendants, necklaces, earrings, bracelets, rings, combs; b) dress accessories: certain types of brooches; c) items related to female occupation: spinning: spindle whorls. It is to notice that almost all types of artefacts mentioned above could have had multiple functions and could have been used by both sexes. Diferent types of brooches, rings or pendants were usual accessories of the male costume as well. he lunulla-shaped pendants appear frequently on funerary monuments as terminals of the military apron from the Early Empire.19 Hairpins, especially those with lat heads could have been easily used as medical instruments. To reduce this possibility as much as possible, I constrained the grouping of these artefacts to distinctive types: Type Cociş 11a Type Cociş 20b3a 1) As already mentioned diferent types of rings were worn by men and women, therefore seal rings and those with a diameter larger than 1.70 cm were rejected, instead I focused upon simple small-sized rings. 2) As S. Cociş in his monograph Type Cociş 8a5 Type Cociş 12b of Roman brooches in Dacia mentions,20 the majority of brooches with known Fig. 1. Female brooch types (ater Cociş 2008). indspots were recovered from military forts. herefore I limited my sample to those types that are considered by Cociş – judging by the iconographical evidences of the funerary monuments from Dacia – as typical female brooches. Brooches of type 11 are represented on funerary monuments associated only with female clothing. hese brooches appear on monuments coming from Apulum and from Cristeşti. Brooches of type 20b3–20b4 appear on female costume on a monument from Oltenia.21 In this way I reduced the sample to only four types of brooches: Type Cociş 8a5; Type Cociş 11a; Type Cociş 12b; and Type Cociş 20b3 (Fig. 1), although it is not excluded that other types of brooches – especially those of little sized – could have been worn by women, as well. 3) he primary stage of textile work, the spinning is traditionally considered to be the most typical occupation for Roman women. Ancient sources, the iconography of funerary monuments belonging to native women have all conirmed the female character of this activity, separating from the weaving and dying processes that could have functioned in workshop conditions with the participation of men, too. Spindle whorls are the only objects from this category that survived in camps, so I limited my selection to this distinctive type of artefact.22 19 20 21 22 Bishop 1992, ig. 25. Cociş 2008, 451, graph 2. Cociş 2008, pl. CLXXIII/1a–1b; CLXXIV/1a–1b (Apulum); CLXXV/1a–1b; CLXXVI/1a–1b (Cristeşti); CLXXVIII/2 (Oltenia). he association of spinning and textile working with women is a constant element in ancient sources. Lucretius mentions that processing of wool was originally made by men and undertook later by women (Lucretius, On Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 131 Artefacts All the researched objects are standardized products of the Roman material culture typical for the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD we hardly ind any unique and especially beautiful items among them. Concerning the types of artefacts present in military forts from Dacia, it needs to be mentioned that the aim of this article is not to give a typological analysis; it provides rather a general picture of the main types found in camps. Regarding the brooches (Pl. 1/1–5), S. Cociş distinguishes four types (Fig. 1): strongly proiled brooches (Type Cociş 8a5), Norican-Pannonian brooches with two knobs (Type Cociş 11a), Norican-Pannonian brooches with little wings (Type Cociş 12b) and anchor-shaped head brooches (Type Cociş 20b3a).23 he irst three types of brooches considered by S. Cociş as typically female are all of Norican-Pannonian origins and are generally dated to the irst half of the 2nd century. Only the brooches with anchor-shaped head date to the 3rd quarter of the 2nd century and irst half of the 3rd century. hese brooch types are quite rare inds in the forts; we know only a few examples from Buciumi, Răcari, Bologa, Porolissum and Gherla.24 he larger category of beads (Pl. 1/6–18) usually made of glass, ceramic or bronze, is a more frequent ind in forts. he most popular types of beads are the melon shaped items, followed by the globular, annular, hexagonal, semispherical, discoid, elongated, biconic and spindle shaped beads.25 Bracelets made of bronze, silver, gold or glass are not so numerous inds (Pl. 2/1–7). he majority of them were recovered from the forts of Ilişua, Gilău, Căşeiu, Gherla, Răcari26 and they 23 24 25 26 the Nature of hings 5, 1350–1360, apud Humphrey et al. 1999, 347). By Columella the spinning appears like an essential attribution of women (Columella, On Agriculture, 12.3.6, apud Humphrey et al. 1999, 363). his association of gender and task was accepted by researchers as well, J. P. Wild in his work on the textile industries of Roman Britain mentions “hat spinning was a regular chore for the female members of a household in Roman Britain seems highly probable” (Wild 2002, 9). N. Guidicelli in her recent work on the female related crats uses this association as evidence (Guidicelli 2009, 38, ig. 2). Cociş 2008, 53–54, 72–73, 74, 108. One item of type 8a5 and one item of type 11 were recovered from Buciumi (Chirilă et al. 1972, 89, nr. 12, Taf. XCIII/4; 88, nr. 6, Taf. XCII/2). In Răcari only 2 items of type 20 are known (Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 270, nr. 1053, pl. CL/1053; 271, nr. 1056, pl. CL/1056). Only two brooches of type 11 are known from the fort of Bologa (Gudea–Cociş 1995, 52, nr. 1–2, pl. 1/1–2). he big auxiliary fort from Porolissum provided two pieces of brooches of type 20 (Gudea et al. 2001, 80, nr. 33–34, pl. V/33–34). he auxiliary fort from Gherla is represented by one brooch of type 12b (Protase et al. 2008, 236, nr. 1, Taf. 1); and one example of type 20b3 (Protase et al. 2008, 237, nr. 3, Taf. X/3). Melon shaped beads: Chirilă et al. 1972, 90–91, nr. 1–13, Taf. XVII/1–12; XVIII/5 (Buciumi); Isac 1999, 761, nr. 23– 25, 27–28, Taf. V/23–28 (Căşeiu); Isac–Gaiu 2006, 425, nr. 21–23, pl. 2/21–23 (Ilişua). Globular beads: Isac 1999, 726, nr. 31, Taf. V/3 (Gilău); Isac–Gaiu 2006, 425, nr. 13, pl. 2/3 (Ilişua); Gudea 2008, nr. 3, pl. LXX/3 (Feldioara); Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 280, nr. 1133–1135, pl. CLX/1133–1135 (Răcari). Annular beads: Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, nr. 14, 16, Taf. XCVIII/1, 4 (Buciumi); Isac–Gaiu 2006, 425, nr. 13–20, pl. 2/13–20 (Ilişua); Gudea 2008, 229, nr. 1, pl. LXX/1 (Feldioara). Hexagonal beads: Isac–Gaiu 2006, 426, nr. 25, pl. 2/25 (Ilişua); Gudea 2008, 229, nr. 2, pl. LXX/2 (Feldioara). Semispherical bead: Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 280, nr. 1132, pl. CLIX/1132 (Răcari). Discoid beads: Isac 1999, 762, nr. 32, Pl. VI/32 (Gilău); Bondoc–Gudea 2000, 195, nr. 409, pl. LXXXII/409 (Răcari). Elongated bead: Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 279, nr. 1130, pl. CLIX/1130 (Răcari). Biconic beads: Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, nr. 17, Taf. XCVIII/3 (Buciumi); Gudea 2008, 174, nr. 10, pl. XXIX/9 (Feldioara); Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 280, nr. 1131 pl. CLIX/1131 (Răcari). Spindle shaped beads: Isac 1999, 762, nr. 36, Taf. VI/36 (Gilău); Isac–Gaiu 2006, 426, nr. 26, pl. 2/26 (Ilişua). In the fort of Ilişua two bracelets made of bronze were recovered: one with simple open ends and another piece with serpent open ends (Isac–Gaiu 2006, 425, nr. 11–12, pl. 1/11–12). he bracelets from Gilău are represented by ive examples, of which two are made of silver each having open ends (Isac 1999, 760, nr. 15, pl. II/15; 761, nr. 18, pl. IV/18) and three of bronze (Isac 1999, 760, nr. 16–17, with closed ends, 761, nr. 20, with serpent open ends, 132 L. Vass are usually simple types: bracelets with open ends, bracelets with closed ends and bracelets with serpent ends. he set of glass bracelets recovered from the fort of Răcari are unique pieces. Rings (Pl. 2/8–16) are very frequent inds in military milieu, and they were worn by men as well by women.27 Rings with seals and with inlaid gems were usually worn by men as sign of status and for legitimating documents. For this consideration we included only those types of simple rings with overlapped ends and twisted on the hoop and rings with simple circular form under the diameter of 1.7 cm. hese types were found in Gilău, Căşeiu, Ilişua, Brâncoveneşti, Feldioara,28 etc. Pendants (Pl. 2/17–24) of bullae29-, lunulla30 or Hercules’ club (Herkuleskeule)31 type used as amulets are not so well represented either. hough these objects recovered are frequently used as accessories of military equipment,32 as a funerary monument from Apulum reveal,33 they were used by women as hairdo ornament as well. Earrings and necklaces (Pl. 3/1–2) are the most under represented jewellery types in Dacia. Except the earring of gold from Gherla with unknown archaeological context and two necklaces (one of gold and one of bronze) from Bologa and Căşeiu34 we don’t ind any other examples in military milieu. Spindle whorls (Pl. 3/3–7) could not be built in any typology as they all look the same (Appendix). Only their size and weights difers which determines the quality of the yarn.35 Hairpins (Pl. 3/8–21) are not just the most numerous and wide spread category of artefacts but they show the largest variety in typology. We hardly ind any fort that has not at least one pin. Among all types hairpins with pointed, rounded and lat heads, together with the diferent sized globular headed hairpins are the most popular types. We ind more sophisticated, decorated hairpin types as well like those with pinecone, or with igurate head.36 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 pl. III/16–17; IV/18, 20. he one example made of bronze from Căşeiu has closed ends and twisted ornamentation (Isac 1999, 761, nr. 19, Taf. IV/19). he only bracelet made of gold is coming from the camp of Răcari (Bondoc– Gudea 2009, 276, nr. 1102, pl. CLVI/1102). he unique glass bracelets from Răcari are all broken, so their type of endings could not be observed (Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 279, nr. 1125–1129, pl. CLIX/1125–1129). Riha 1990, 51. Isac 1999, 760, nr. 9–12, 13, Taf. II/9–12, 14 (Gilău); Isac 1999, 760, nr. 13, Taf. II/132 (Căşeiu); Isac–Gaiu 2006, 424, nr. 7, 8, 425, nr. 9, 10, pl. 1/7–10 (Ilişua); Protase–Zrínyi 1994, 128, nr. 3, pl. LIV/3 (Brâncoveneşti); Gudea 2009, 142, pl. LXVII/1 (Feldioara). Only one example of this type is known from Gilău (Isac 1999, 762, nr. 37, Taf. VI/37). his type of pendant is represented in the largest amount in military forts from Dacia: Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. CXVII/5, 7, 9 (Buciumi); Isac 1999, 762, nr. 41, Taf. VI/41 (Căşeiu); Isac 1999, 762, nr. 39–40, Taf. VI/39–40 (Gilău); Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXXI/20–21 (Ilişua); Gudea 2008, 221, nr. 3, pl. LXVII/3 (Feldioara); Bondoc– Gudea 2009, 218, nr. 580, pl. CIII/580 (Răcari). Isac 1999, 762, nr. 42, Taf. VI/42 (Gilău); Macrea et al. 1993, 107, nr. 5, pl. XXVI/5 (Praetorium). Isac 1999, 758. Ciongradi 2007, 253, nr. M/A 2, Taf. 113/M/a 2. Protase et al. 2008, 106, nr. 2, Taf. LXXXII/2 (Gherla); Gudea 1973, 137, pl. 21/3 (Bologa); Isac 1999, nr. 21, Taf. V/21 (Cășeiu). Wild 2002, 10. Hairpins with pointed heads: Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 275, nr. 1094, pl. CLV/1095 (Răcari); Gudea 2008, 225, nr. 3, pl. LXIX/3 (Feldioara); Isac 1999, 763, nr. 48, Taf. VII/48 (Căşeiu); Isac 1999, 763, nr. 50, 51, Taf. VIII/50, 51, nr. 56, Taf. IX/56 (Gilău), Isac–Gaiu 2006, 428, nr. 43–46, pl. 4/34–46 (Ilişua); Protase et al. 2008, 258, nr. 2–3, Taf. LV/2–3 (Gherla); Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, nr. 47.28, 49.30, 50.31, 51.32, 52.33, 53.34, pl. VI/28, 30–34 (Porolissum); Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, nr. 6, Taf. C/5; Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 92, nr. 27.8, 28, 9, pl. IV/8, 9; 93, nr. 45.26, pl. V/26 (Buciumi). Hairpins with rounded and lat heads: Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, nr. 48.29, pl. VI/29 (Porolissum); Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 275, nr. 1096, pl. CLV/1096 (Răcari). Globular headed hairpins: Gudea– Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 133 Combs (Pl. 3/22) made of bone or other materials are very rare inds not only in camps but in the whole province. he fashion of combs appears mostly in the 4th century AD.37 his could be probably the explanation of their lack in Dacia. he only published and known bone comb from Dacia was recovered from the fort of Gherla.38 he semicircular comb decorated with incised dot-circle motif is very untypical for the Roman material culture; I did not ind any analogy for this artefact for the 2nd and 3rd century AD in the Empire so far. It is not excluded that this object with unknown indspot was rather a spoil ind from the surrounding area dated to a later period. 90 80 70 Fort in general. Unknown spot 60 Inner streets 50 Other buildings, features and possible barracks 40 Barracks 30 Central buildings, headquarter 20 Entrances 10 0 hairpin bead spindle necklace whorl pendant bracelet ring brooch earring Fig. 2. Distribution pattern of artefacts. he distribution pattern of the mentioned artefacts (Fig. 2) shows a striking inequality in representation. Necklaces and earrings are very rare founds in the military forts in Dacia, yet from nearly every fort at least one or two hairpins made of bone and bronze were recovered (Appendix). his could indicate that hairpins, especially those made of bone were cheap and very popular articles of hairdressing that could be easily replaced when lost. Various types of glass, ceramic or bronze beads are the second largest category. heir large quantity could also be misleading. As in the case of 12 glass beads39 found in the same spot in the fort from Buciumi shows, their large individual number, may relate to a few individual item. 37 38 39 Bajusz 1991, 95, nr. 79.7, pl. IX/7 (Porolissum); Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, nr. 7–8, 10, Taf. C/6–7, 9; Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 97, nr. 97.11, pl. XII/11 (Buciumi); Isac 1999, 764, nr. 61–62, Taf. IX/61–62 (Căşeiu); Protase et al. 2008, 253, nr. 4–6, Taf. XLII/4–6; 258, nr. 4–6, Taf. LV/4–6 (Gherla); Isac–Gaiu 2008, 427, nr. 41, pl. 3/41; 428, nr. 42, pl. 3/42 (Ilişua); Protase–Zrínyi 1994, 130, nr. 2, pl. LVIII/2 (Brâncoveneşti); Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 275, nr. 1095, pl. CLV/1095 (Răcari); Macrea et al. 1993, 108, nr. 9–11, pl. XXVI/9–11 (Praetorium). Decorated hairpins: Protase et al. 1972, 92, nr. 5, 9, pl. C/4, 8; 93, nr. 1–2, pl. CII/1–2; Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 99, nr. 124.1, pl. XVII/1 (Buciumi); Isac 1999, 763, nr. 49, Taf. VIII/49; 764, nr. 63, 68, Taf. X/63, 68 (Căşeiu); Isac 1999, 764, nr. 59–60, Taf. IX/59–60, 764, nr. 64, 65, Taf. X/64, 65; 765, nr. 69, Taf. X/69 (Gilău); Protase et al. 2008, 253, nr. 1–3, Taf. XLII/1–3 (Gherla); Isac–Gaiu 2008, 426, nr. 29, pl. 2/29; 426, nr. 30–32, pl. 3/30–32; 427, nr. 36, pl. 3/36 (Ilişua); Protase–Zrínyi 1994, pl. LIVa/7 (Brâncoveneşti); Gudea 2008, 230, nr. 3, pl. LXXI/3 (Feldioara). Hairpins with pinecone: Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 101, nr. 140.4, pl. XIX,/4; 102, nr. 146–147 (Porolissum); Isac 1999, 764, nr. 67, Taf. X/67 (Gilău); Protase et al. 2008, 258, nr. 1, Taf. LV/1; 259, nr. 7, Taf. LV/7; 259, nr. 1, Taf. LVI/1 (Gherla); Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 101, 134.5, pl. XVIII/5 (Râşnov). Hairpins with igurate head: Isac 1999, 763, nr. 45, Taf. VII/45 (Căşeiu); Isac 1999, 762, nr. 43, Taf. VII/43 (Gilău); Bărbulescu 1997, Abb. 27/3 (Potaissa). Bíró 1994, 13. Protase et al. 2008, 259, nr. 9, Taf. LV/9. Chirilă et al. 1972, 90, nr. 1–12, Taf. XCVII/1–12. 134 L. Vass Findspots inside the forts I based my research on the published material from the excavations of forts and tried to determine in each case the typical female related objects, whilst observing their distribution. Unfortunately I could not cover the entire province, due to the poor state of prior research and publications. Dacia Porolissensis is the most researched province among the three Dacian provinces (Fig. 3); therefore the majority of the material and information comes from the auxiliary forts from there. From Dacia Superior only the camp from Inlăceni, Brâncoveneşti, while from Dacia Inferior the auxiliary fort from Răcari and Praetorium provided data and material which could be explained by the scant level of research in this area and the poor quality publications. It would have been very interesting to observe possible similarities or diferences between auxiliary forts and the two legionary forts from Apulum and Potaissa,40 but again the current state of research did not allow it. Fig. 3. he Roman province of Dacia (ater Tóth 1988, ig. 9): Forts with female related artefacts. he distribution of the analyzed artefacts (Fig. 4) within the forts clearly shows the concentration of certain small inds in the places where the soldiers were accommodated which must be more than a coincidence. Again, due to the careless documentation of inds from the excavations of forts, the majority of objects have unknown provenance. hey could have been recovered anywhere in the territory of the camp. he second largest provenance of artefacts was the barracks (Buciumi, Porolissum, Căşeiu, Gilău, see Appendix) and the possible barrack or 40 From Potaissa only some hairpins are mentioned without the precise indication of indspot (Bărbulescu 1997, Abb. 27/3). 135 Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia other buildings with diferent destination from the praetentura and retentura. It is very interesting that the material of the barracks is the most diversiied of all: this is the only place in a camp where articles related to spinning are found together with jewellery and dress accessories, proving that the presence of these objects is not just coincidental. Ater the barracks the second largest concentration of material can be observed in the latus praetorii, inside the building connected to headquarters and the oicer’s residence. It is known that the ban of marriage was not valid for the oicers; they had the right for legal marriage even during their duty. he concentration of hairpins, beads and brooches in this area can be related hypothetically to the oicer’s wives or members of his households who could have lived inside the forts, as the famous Vindolanda tablets reveal. Objects were recovered in a small number from the area of the major communication gates, towers and inner roads as well that could be accidental inds or it could show a possible mobility of women within the forts. Another important fact to notice is that the category of hairpins is the only category that appears in all the spots mentioned. Chronology of inds As it is well know, a Roman soldier was forbidden to marry during his 25 year long duty, a ban that was suspended by Emperor Septimius Severus at the end of 2nd century or at the beginning of 3rd. Many may think that this law is the most convincing argument to forbid women to enter the camps, forgetting in the same time that a woman could enter a fort not only in the status of wife but of that of a prostitute or of a member of the household. As an inscription found in Alburnus Maior reveals, an active soldier, Claudius Iulianus, from legion XIII Gemina buys a female slave, probably for his household.41 his could mean that in Dacia women were present in camps as members of the household and not necessarily only as concubine or wives. he legalization of marriage during military duty brings only a fundamental legal change of status; it does not afect the personal relationship between man and concubine, the common habits and lifestyle. 140 120 earring brooch 100 ring 80 bracelet pendant 60 necklace spindle whorl 40 bead hairpin 20 0 Entrances Central buildings, headquarter Barracks Other buildings, Inner streets features and possible barracks Fort in general. Unknown spot Fig. 4. Distribution of artefacts inside the forts. 41 IDR I, 38. 136 L. Vass 140 120 earring brooch 100 ring 80 bracelet pendant 60 necklace spindle whorl 40 bead hairpin 20 0 2nd century AD 3rd century AD 2nd–3rd century AD Fig. 5. Chronology of inds. Nevertheless we tried to separate the analyzed material into chronological sequences to observe if there is any kind of concentration of small inds in any of the above mentioned periods (Fig. 5). he result proved our belief that in the case of Dacia these chronological sequences have no importance in clarifying the situation. he majority of the studied objects are generally dated to the 2nd–3rd century that indicates that the archaeological contexts were unknown, or there was no dating element that would have put the archaeological context in chronological sequence. his means that these objects could have belonged with equal chances to both centuries. he presence of objects dated to the 2nd century is not so considerable comparing to the 3rd century where a bigger amount of objects belonged to. he predominance of objects from the 3rd century relects rather the general tendency of reconstruction works in the Roman forts42 and its better research than the right of soldier to marry. We can observe that the majority of the inds from the 2nd century are hairpins that have the biggest period of usage among the other categories, so their dating on the basis of typology is impossible. he situation of the brooches is quite diferent; they are dated usually by typology43 and not on the basis of their archaeological contexts. his leads to the situation where the context is dated through the object. he danger of these typological chronologies is that it excludes the very simple fact that even a brooch afected strongly by the changing fashion trends, could have had a longer usage time. Case of study: the auxiliary fort from Buciumi As I already mentioned, most auxiliary forts from Dacia sufer from poor documentation which, in some case, are almost inexistent. Under these conditions it is very hard to follow the distribution pattern of small inds within a fort and to gain relevant pieces of information. From the published reports I chose the auxiliary fort from Buciumi because only this fort allowed establishing some major observations concerning the subject of this paper. It also should be 42 43 Chirilă et al. 1972, 14–32 (Buciumi); Isac 2003 (Căşeiu). It is the case of the brooches coming from Răcari (Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 267, nr. 1029, 271, nr.1053, 1056), or of those from Gherla (Protase et al. 2008, 72, nr. 1, 3). 137 Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia mentioned, that the camp from Buciumi is one of the few camps from Dacia where barracks have been excavated in their entirety and the inds were recorded with their exact indspots. 25 20 15 spindle whorl hairpin 10 bead brooch 5 0 Porta praetoria Porta principalis sinistra Barrack no. 5 Barrack no. 1 Barrack no. 2 Barrack no. 4 Building 3 Building 4 Via sagularis Fig. 6. Distribution of female related artefacts inside the camp. he not so numerous artefacts, dated mostly to the 3rd century AD, related to women have a very interesting distribution pattern (Fig. 6; Pl. 6). It is striking that the majority of the objects is concentrated in the area of the barracks, especially in barrack no. 5.44 his large concentration of objects relects that possibly the main activities of women were linked to this place. Another considerable amount of these artefacts can be found in the latus praetorii dextrum, in the buildings related to the oicer’s accommodation,45 which could have belonged to women from the oicer’s entourage. he rest of the objects were found in the communication area of the fort, in the tower of the entrance gates (porta praetorian,46 porta principalis sinistra47) and on via praetoria48 and via sagularis.49 Most of the artefacts connected to women were found within barrack no. 5 (Pl. 4/1). his archaeological feature is very interesting for several reasons. his construction dated to the 3rd century AD, having four ireplaces identiied among waste material refers to multiple workshop activities (bronze working, iron working, bone working).50 It raises the question whether this barrack was used for accommodation purposes, or in fact it was a workshop for producing articles that satisied the inner demands of the troops. All the categories of objects related to women coming from this fort meet here inside the barrack. We ind here articles of jewellery (especially glass beads, Pl. 4/5–6 and hairpins, Pl. 4/7–8), dress accessories (brooches, Pl. 4/2–3) as well as objects connected to textile manufacturing (spindle whorls, Pl. 4/4).51 he association of spindle whorls with brooches and jewellery articles would be too much of a coincidence to regard the former as simply products of a local workshop as N. Gudea 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, nr. 2, 3, 5; 88, nr. 8; 89, nr. 12; 90–91, nr. 1–12; 91, nr. 15; 92, nr. 1, 6, 9, 6. Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, nr. 2, 7, 9, 1, 16; 92, nr. 5, 8, 10. his spot is represented only by a bead, Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, nr. 17, Taf. IX/61. Only a spindle whorl was recovered from this spot, Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, nr. 1, Taf. CXIX/2. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, nr. 3., Taf. C/2. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 97, nr. 98.12, Pl. XII/12. Chirilă et al. 1972, 124; Gudea 1997, 29, 70–71. Chirilă et al. 1972, 90–91, nr. 1–12, 15, Taf. XCVII/1–12; XCVIII/2 (glass beads); 92, nr. 1, Taf. XCIX; nr 6, Taf. C/5; nr. 2, Taf. CII/2 (hairpins); 88, nr. 8; Taf. XCII/4; 89, nr. 12, Taf. XCII/4 (brooches); 61, nr. 2, 3, 5, Taf. CXIX, 3, 4 (spindle whorls). 138 L. Vass and D. Bondoc sustain in the case of the spindle whorls from Răcari.52 he brooches recovered here are the typical Norican-Pannonian brooch types that appear on funerary monuments associated with women, as an element of their dress. It is very interesting that hairpins, as the most popular and most numerous artefacts, are represented only by two examples. his excludes the hypothesis that hairpins made of bone would be the products of the bone working workshop from this building. he waste material and debris relects that the bone workshop produced diferent kind of handles and gaming pieces.53 he concentration of artefacts related to women in this barrack could indicate that this place could have been the scene of stable working activities where women could have been employed in textile manufacturing. Another concentration of artefacts of female character can be observed in two other buildings from the latus praetorii dextra. By its size and location next to the principia, one of the buildings, building no. 454 (Pl. 5/1), having a set of rooms (some disposing of heating system) arranged around an inner court (perystil) could have functioned as praetorium. his building dated to the 3rd century AD has a concentration of hairpins (Pl. 5/8–11) and a bead (Pl. 5/7) especially in room P.55 If we accept that oicers were allowed to marry even before Septimius Severus’ edict and they lived together with their families, these objects hypothetically could have belonged to the wives and other female person of the commander’s household. Building no. 3 (Pl. 5/1), which was added later to one of the corner of praetorium, on the basis of the heating system and waterproof isolating layer revealed in the rooms, was interpreted by N. Gudea as a possible bath of commanders’ use.56 Just like in building no. 4, sets of hairpins (Pl. 5/2–6) were recovered within.57 he variety of hairpin types from these two buildings comparing with hairpins coming from barracks does not indicate, as we believe, a larger concentration of female presence. hey could relect rather a long termed residency of their users. As we can observe the distribution pattern of hairpins (Pl. 5/12), we can state that these artefacts were the most wide-spread and most used artefacts. It is noticeable that they are concentrated in the area where women are usually attested in forts everywhere in the Empire: barracks (B1: Pl. 4/9–10; B2: Pl. 4/11–1358) and buildings related to headquarter. heir little number in the inner streets (Pl. 4/14–17) and major entrance gates either refer to the mobility of women in a fort or they are just purely coincidental. he distribution area of spindle whorls is much more restricted (Pl. 5/13). hey appear mostly in barracks (B2, B4, B5), especially in barrack no. 5 where, as already mentioned, could be related to workshop activity. Only one item was recovered from porta principalis sinistra (Pl. 4/20–21).59 Whether women from this fort were working for production purpose or they were just practicing their socially imposed tasks, cannot be decided. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 196. Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. CXX/4–7; CXXI/1–6. Chirilă et al. 1972, 24–27, Abb. 3. In the more recent but brief monograph of the fort from Buciumi N. Gudea refers to this building as to Building no. 3 instead of Building no. 4 used in the former mentioned monograph (Gudea 1997, 48–49, Abb. 8). Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, nr. 5, 8, 10, Taf. C/4, 7, 9 (hairpin); 91, nr. 16, Taf. XCVIII/4 (bead). Chirilă et al. 1972, 31, Abb. 52; Gudea 1997, 59. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, nr. 2, 7, 9, Taf. C/1, 6, 8; nr.1, Taf. CII/1; Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 99, nr. 124.1, pl. XVII/1. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 92, nr. 27.8, 28.9, 45.26, pl. IV/8–9; V/26. Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, nr. 1–7, Taf. CXIX/2. Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 139 Beads from this site (Pl. 6/2) appear only in barrack no. 5 in the building of praetorium and in porta praetoria (Pl. 4/18–19; 5/7).60 he large number of beads from barrack no. 5 can be explained by the ind consisting of a necklace of 12 glass beads. his ind shows clearly that these beads were rather used as jewellery and not as diferent decorating elements of dresses or of other issues. Typically female brooches are in the smallest number among these special artefacts (Pl. 6/3). he two examples were all recovered from barrack no. 5.61 he small number of brooches of these types in Buciumi and in other forts (Appendix) shows that these brooches represented the typical accessory of women dress comparing with the other types found in big numbers and which can be related to the military costume. hese brooch types are generally dated to the 2nd century AD and they are known as typical accessories of the native Celtic population from Pannonia and Noricum.62 he fact that they were recovered from a building dated to the 3rd century shows that diferent types have a much longer period of use as it is believed. *** he presence of artefacts related to women in several forts in Dacia, even in a small number or with unknown provenance is not coincidental and I believe that they can be an indicator of female presence within the camp. hough the ‘sexing’ of artefacts is very subjective and many types of objects could have been used by both sexes, the concentration of these artefacts in the area of barracks and buildings considered as oicers’ residence in most of the cases is too regular to be neglected. As shown by the example of Buciumi the distribution pattern of these objects could provide a range of information, even if their demonstration or control is impossible. he positivistic manner of archaeological research, the careless documentation of inds and features, the unbreakable position of some clichés based on the one-sided interpretation of ancient sources make the research of gender very diicult in Romania. For better results in gender research traditional patterns and concepts related to relationship, chronology, functionality of objects, gender based tasks should be revised and reinterpreted. 60 61 62 Chirilă et al. 1972, 90–91, 764, nr. 1–12, 15–16, 61, Taf. IX/61; XCVIII/4. Chirilă et al. 1972, 88, nr. 8, Taf. XCII/4; 89, nr. 12, Taf. XCIII/4. Cociş 2008, 161. 140 L. Vass APPENDIX Repertory of female related artefacts in the forts from Dacia Spot Fort No. of Object type object Chronology Bibliography Entrances porta praetoria porta principalis dextra Căşeiu Buciumi 1 1 hairpin bead 2nd–3rd c. 3rd c. Porolissum 2 hairpin 3rd c. Căşeiu (NW tower) Gilău Ilişua 1 hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 1 2 hairpin hairpin 3rd c. 1/2 of 3rd c. Isac 1999, 764, no. 61, Taf. IX/61. Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, no. 17, Taf. XCVIII/3. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, no. 52.33, pl. VI/33; 102, no. 146. Isac 1999, 763, no. 45, Taf. VII/45. Isac 1999, 762, no. 43, Taf. VII/43. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 427, no. 37, pl. 4/37; 428, no. 44, pl. 4/44. Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, no. 1, Taf. CXIX/2. porta principalis sinistra N tower Buciumi 1 spindle whorl 3rd c. Feldioara Tower NW tower Feldioara Brâncoveneşti 1 2 2 1 hairpin spindle whorl bead ring 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. Gudea 2008, 230, no. 4, Taf. LXXI/4. Gudea 2008, 173, no. 2–3, pl. XXIX/2–3. Gudea 2008, 174, no. 9, 10, pl. XXIX/8, 9. Protase–Zrínyi 1994, 128, no. 3; pl. LIV/3. 1 5 bead bead 2nd–3rd c. 2/2 of 3rd c. 1 1 4 hairpin hairpin hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 3rd c. 1 bead 3rd c. Porolissum Ilişua 1 1 brooch hairpin 2nd c. 1/2 of 3rd c. Isac 1999, no. 32, pl. VI/32. Isac 1999, 761, no. 23–25, 27–28, Taf. V/23–28. Isac 1999, 764, no. 68, Taf. X/68. Isac 1999, 764, no. 60, Taf. IX/60. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, no. 4, 5, 8, 10, Taf. C/3, 4, 7, 9. Chirilă et al. 1972, 91, no. 16, Taf. XCVIII/4. Gudea et al. 2001, 80, no. 33, pl. V/33. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 427, no. 41, pl. 4/41. Porolissum Building 3 (bath) Buciumi 1 5 hairpin hairpin 3rd c. 3rd c. Building 3 (mithraeum, aerarium?) Porolissum 1 hairpin 3rd c. Bologa Buciumi 1 3 brooch hairpin 1/2 of 2nd c. 3rd c. 13 bead 3rd c. 3 spindle whorl 3rd c. 2 brooch C.ral buildings, headquarter principia Gilău praetorium Căşeiu praetorium (Building 4) latus dextrum praetorium (room d) Barracks Barrack Barrack no. 5 Gilău Buciumi 3rd c. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 95, no. 79.7, pl. IX/7. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, no. 2, 7, 9, 1, Taf. C/1, 6, 8; CII/1; Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 99, no. 124.1, Pl. XVII/1. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, no. 49.30, Pl. VII/30. Gudea–Cociş 1995, 52, no. 2, Pl. I/2. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, no. 1, 6, 2, Taf. XCIX/1; C/5; CII/2. Chirilă et al. 1972, 90, no. 1–12, Taf. XCVII/1–12, 91; no. 15, Taf. XCVIII/2. Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, no. 2, 3, 5, Taf. CXIX/3, 4. Chirilă et al. 1972, 88, no. 8, Taf. XCII/4; 89, no. 12, Taf. XCIII/4. Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia Spot Fort Barrack no. 1 Buciumi Bologa Feldioara Ilişua No. of Object type object 1 hairpin 1 1 1 bead hairpin ring 1 2 Barrack no. 4 Ilişua 1 Barrack no. 6 Buciumi Ilişua 1 1 Other buildings, features and possible barracks “Building A” Gilău 1 ring (praetentura sinistra) 1 ring 1 pendant 1 hairpin praetentura Căşeiu 1 necklace sinistra Water tank Porolissum 2 hairpin Building 9 (fabrica?) Building 5–7 SIII SXX SXIX, irst layer of big earthen fort SXIX SXVII (of the big fort) 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2/2 of 2nd c. Isac, 761, no. 23, Taf. V/23. Isac 1999, 763 no. 49, Taf. VIII/49. Isac 1999, 760, no. 10, Taf. II/10. 106–117/118 Isac 1999, 760, no. 12, Taf. II/12. 2/2 of 2nd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 1/2 of 2nd c. Isac 1999, 760, no. 14, Taf. II/14. Isac 1999, 762, no. 40, Taf. VI/40. Isac 1999, 763, no. 50, Taf. VIII/50. Isac 1999, 761, no. 21, Taf. V/21. 3rd c. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, no. 47.29, pl. VI/29; no. 52–4. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, no. 54–55. Porolissum 2 hairpin 3rd c. Porolissum Căşeiu Căşeiu Gilău 1 1 1 1 brooch bracelet hairpin bracelet Gilău Gilău 1 2 hairpin hairpin 2nd c. 3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 117/118–2nd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2 bead 2nd–3rd c. 1 hairpin 3rd c. Buciumi 1 hairpin 3rd c. Ilişua Gilău 1 1 hairpin pendant 2/2 of 2nd c. 3rd c. waste pit (latus Porolissum praetorii dextrum) Inner roads Via sagularis 3rd c. 1 1 1 1 1 3 Buciumi Gilău Chronology Bibliography Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 92, no. 28.9, pl. IV/9. necklace 2nd–3rd c. Gudea 1973, 127, ig. 21/4. spindle whorl 2nd–3rd c. Gudea 2008, 174, no. 4, pl. XXIX/3. pendant 2nd–3rd c. Gudea 2008, 221, no. 3, pl. LXVII/ 3. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 427, no. 39, 40, pl. 4/39– hairpin mid 2nd c. 40; 429, no. 53, pl. 5/53. rd spindle whorl 3 c. Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, no. 6. hairpin 3rd c. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 92, no. 27.8, pl. IV/8; 93, no. 45.26, pl. V/26. hairpin beginning of Isac–Gaiu 2006, 428, no. 46, pl. 5/46. 2nd c. spindle whorl 3rd c. Chirilă et al. 1972, 61, no. 7. hairpin beginning of Isac–Gaiu 2006, 426, no. 29, pl. 2/29. 2nd c. hairpin 1/2 of 3rd c. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 428,no. 43, pl. 4/43. ring 1/2 of 2nd c. Isac 1999, 760, no. 13, Taf. II/13. Barrack no. 2 praetentura Căşeiu dextra retentura sinistra Căşeiu 141 Gudea et al. 2001, 80, no. 34, pl. V/34. Isac 1999, 760, no. 16, Taf. III/16. Isac 1999, 764, no. 62, Taf. IX/62. Isac 1999, 761, no. 20, Taf. IV/20. Isac 1999, 763, no. 52, Taf. VIII/52. Isac 1999, 763, no. 56, 764, no. 59, Taf. IX/56, 59. Gudea 2008, 174, no. 9–10, pl. XXIX/9– 10. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 93, no. 47.28. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 97, no. 98.12, pl. XII/12. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 426, no. 32, pl. 3, 32. Isac 1999, 762, no. 37, Taf. VI/37. 142 Spot via principalis L. Vass No. of object 1 1 1 1 1 Object type Chronology Bibliography hairpin hairpin ring ring hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 3rd c. 1/2 of 2nd c. 2/2 of 2nd c. 3rd c. Gudea 2008, 225, no. 3, Taf. LXIX/3. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 102, no. 147. Isac 1999, 760, no. 9, Taf. II/9. Isac 1999, 760, no. 11, Taf. II/11. Chirilă et al. 1972, 92, no. 3, Taf. C/2. Porolissum 1 hairpin 2nd–3rd c. Căşeiu 1 2 bracelet hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 1 1 1 2 pendant bracelet bracelet bead 2nd–3rd c. 2/2 of 2nd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 1 1 7 pendant pendant hairpin 3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 15 hairpin 3rd c. 4 ring 2nd–3rd c. 1 earring 2nd–3rd c. 1 1 bracelet brooch 2nd–3rd c. end of 2nd c. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 102, no. 140–4, pl. XIX/4. Isac 1999, 761, no. 19, Taf. IV/19. Isac 1999, 763, no. 48, Taf. VIII/48, 764, no. 63, Taf. IX/63. Isac 1999, 762, no. 41, Taf. VI/41. Isac 1999, 760, no. 15, Taf. II/15. Isac 1999, 760, no. 17, Taf. III/17. Isac 1999, 762, no. 31, 36, Taf. V/31; Taf. VI/36. Isac 1999,762, no. 42, Taf. VI/42. Isac 1999, 762, no. 39, Taf. VI/39. Isac 1999, 763, no. 51–52, Taf. VIII/51– 52; 764, no. 64, 65, 67, 765, no. 69, 70; Taf. X/64, 65, 67, 69, 70. Protase et al. 2008, 88, no. 2–6, pl. XLII/2–6.; 92–93, 1–7; pl. LV/1–7; LVI/1–2. Protase et al. 2008, 88, no. 3, pl. XLIII/3; 107, 3 rings without numbers. Potase et al. 2008, 106, no. 2, pl. LXXXII, 2. Protase et al. 2008, 106, without number. Protase et al. 2008, 72, no. 1, pl. X/1. 1 brooch 3 hairpin 3/4 of 2nd c.–mid of 3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 5 spindle whorl 2nd–3rd c. 3 pendant 2nd–3rd c. 4 ring 2nd–3rd c. 14 bead 2nd–3rd c. 1 2 2 2 hairpin spindle whorl hairpin hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. 1 3 spindle whorl 2nd–3rd c. ring 2nd–3rd c. Fort Feldioara Porolissum Gilău via praetoria Buciumi Fort in general Gilău Gherla Ilişua Potaissa Inlăceni Brâncoveneşti Protase et al. 2008, 72, no. 3, pl. X/3. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 427, no. 36, 38, 428, no. 45, pl. 4/36, 38, 45. Protase et al. 1997, passim, Pl. LVII/5–8, 11. Protase et al. 1997, passim, pl. LXXXI/15, 20, 21. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 424, no. 7–8; 425, no. 9–10, pl. 1/7–10. Isac–Gaiu 2006, 425–426, no. 13–26, pl. 2/13–26. Bărbulescu 1997, Abb. 27/3. Gudea 1979, 188, no. 1–2; pl XI/1–2. Gudea 1979, 199, no. 1–2, pl. XXIV/8–9. Protase–Zrínyi 1994, 130, no. 2, pl. LVIII/2; LIVa/7. Protase–Zrínyi 1994, passim, pl. LIVa/1. Protase–Zrínyi 1994, 128, no. 2, passim, pl. LIV/2; pl. LIVa/3, 6. Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia Spot Fort Feldioara No. of Object type object 1 hairpin Chronology Bibliography 2nd–3rd c. Râşnov 3 hairpin 2nd–3rd c. Răcari 3 hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 6 bracelet 2nd–3rd c. 7 bead 2nd–3rd c. 1 bead 1/2 of 2nd c. 21 spindle whorl 2nd–3rd c. 1 brooch 1 brooch end of 2nd c.–1/2 of 3rd c. 1/2 of 3rd c. 1 pendant 2nd–3rd c. 1 6 pendant hairpin 2nd–3rd c. 2nd–3rd c. Praetorium 143 Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 100, no. 132.3; pl. XVIII/3. Gudea–Bajusz 1991, 90, no. 7.7, pl. II/7, 95, no. 70.2, pl. VIII/2; 101, no. 134.5; pl. XVIII/5. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 274, no. 1094– 1096, pl. CLV/1094–1096. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 276, no. 1102, pl. CLVI/1102; 279, no. 1125–1129, pl. CLIX/1125–1129. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 195, no. 409, pl. LXXXII/409; 279, no. 1130; 280, no. 1131–1135; pl. CLX/1130–1132; CLX/1133–1135. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 195, no. 408, pl. LXXXII/408. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 196–197, no. 413–426, pl. LXXXII/413–418; LXXXIII/419–426. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 270, no. 1053, pl. CL/1053. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 271, no. 1056, pl. CL/1056. Bondoc–Gudea 2009, 218, no. 580, pl. CIII/580. Macrea et al. 1993, 107, no. 5, pl. XXVI/5. Macrea et al. 1993, 107, no. 9–14, pl. XXVI/9–14. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allison 2005 Allison, P. M., Mapping Artefacts and Activities within Roman Military Forts, IN: Visy Zs. (ed.), Limes XIX, Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, Pécs, 833–846. Allison 2006 Allison, P. M., Engendering Roman Spaces, IN: Roberston, E. C.–Seibert, J. D.– Fernandez, D. C.–Zender, M. U. (ed.), Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Calgary, 343–352. Bărbulescu 1997 Bărbulescu, M., Das Legionslager von Potaissa (Turda), Zalău. Bondoc–Gudea 2009 Bondoc, D.–Gudea, N., Castrul roman de la Răcari. Încercare de monograie, ClujNapoca. Bíró 1994 Bíró M. T., he Bone Objects of the Roman Collection, Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici, Series Archaeologica II, Budapest. Bishop 1992 Bishop, M. C., he early imperial “apron”, JRMS, 3, 81–105. Bowman–homas 1987 Bowman, A. K.–homas, J. D., New Texts from Vindolanda, Britannia, 18, 125– 142. Campbell 1978 Campbell, B: he Marriage of Soldiers under the Empire, JRS, 68, 153–166. Chirila et al. 1972 Chirilă, E.–Gudea, N.–Lucăcel, V.–Pop, C., Das Römerlager von Buciumi, Cluj. Ciongradi 2007 Ciongradi, C., Grabmonument und sozialer Status in Oberdakien, Cluj-Napoca. Cociş 2008 Cociş, S., Fibulele din Dacia Romană [he Brooches from Roman Dacia], ClujNapoca. 144 Damian et al. 2008 L. Vass Damian, P. (ed.); Bâltac, A.–Cociş, S.–Moga, V.–Pescaru, A.–Simion, M.– Ştirbulescu, Ch.–Ţentea, O.–Zirra, V. V., Alburnus Maior III. Necropola romană de incineraţie de la Tăul Corna, Partea I, Cluj-Napoca, 2008. van Driel-Murray 1997 van Driel-Murray, C., Women in forts?, JahrGPV, 55–61. van Driel-Murray 2001 van Driel-Murray, C., Vindolanda and the Dating of Roman Footwear, Britannia, 32, 185–197. IDR I Rusu, I. I. (ed.), Inscripţiile Daciei Romane, Vol. 1: Introducere istorică si epigraică. Diplomele militare. Tăbliţele cerate, Bucureşti. Goldsworthy 2003 Goldsworthy, A., he Complete Roman Army, London. Gudea 1973 Gudea, N., Castrul roman de la Bologa, săpăturile arheologice din anul 1969, Crisia, 1973, 109–137. Gudea 1979 Gudea, N., Castrul roman de la Inlăceni, ActMP, III, 149–270. Gudea 1997 Gudea, N., Castrul roman de la Buciumi [Das Römergrenzkastell von Buciumi], Zalău. Gudea 2008 Gudea, N., Castrul roman de la Feldioara [Das Römerkastell von Feldioara], ClujNapoca. Gudea et al. 2001 Gudea, N.–Cociş, S.–Tamba, D.–Matei, A., Fibule de la Porolissum. Castrul Pomet şi aşezarea lui civilă, RevBis, XV, 77–89. Gudea–Bajusz 1991 Gudea, N.–Bajusz I, Ace de păr din os de la Porolissum. Câteva observaţii în legătură cu ace din os pentru prins părul din Dacia Romană, ActMP, XIV–XV, 1990–1991, 81–120. Gudea–Cociş 1995 Gudea, N.–Cociş, S., Fibulele romane din castrele de la Buciumi şi Bologa (Dacia Porolissensis), ActMP, XIX, 49–59. Guidicelli 2009 Guidicelli, N., Le travail des femmes à l’époque romaine à travers l’exemple de l’artisanat, Instrumentum, 30, dec. 2009, 38–42. Hanson 2005 Hanson, W., Civilians on Frontiers, IN: Visy Zs. (ed.), Limes XIX, Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, Pécs, 303–307. Humphrey et al. 1999 Humphrey, J. W.–Oleson, J. P.–Sherwood, A. N. (ed.), Greek and Roman Technology: A Sourcebook, London & New York. Isac 1999 Isac, A., Der Römische Schmuck in den Kastellen der Provinz Dacia Porolissensis, IN: Roman Frontier Studies. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Roman frontier studies held in Zalău, Sept. 1–10, 1997, Zalău, 755–776. Isac 2003 Isac, D., Castrul roman de la SAMVM-Căşeiu [he Roman Auxiliary Fort SAMVM-Căşeiu], Cluj-Napoca. Isac–Gaiu 2006 Isac, A.–Gaiu, C., Roman Jewellery from Ilişua. A typological study (I), IN: Gaiu, C.–Găzdac, C. (ed.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase, Bistriţa, 416–436. Macrea et al. 1993 Macrea, M.–Gudea, N.–Moţu, I., Praetorium: Castrul şi aşezarea romană din Mehadia, Bucureşti. Marcu 2009 Marcu, F., Organizarea internă a castrelor din Dacia [he internal planning of Roman forts of Dacia], Cluj-Napoca. Protase 2002 Protase, D., Aşezarea şi cimitirul daco-roman, secolele II–IV. Dovezi ale continuităţii în Dacia, Cluj-Napoca. Protase et al. 1997 Protase, D.–Gaiu, C.–Marinescu, G., Castrul roman şi aşezarea civilă de la Ilişua, Bistriţa. Protase et al. 2008 Protase, D.–Gudea, N.–Ardevan, R., Din istoria militară a Daciei Romane. Castrul roman de interior de la Gherla [Aus der Militärgesichte des Römischen Dakien. Das Römische Binnenkastell von Gherla], Timişoara. Protase–Zrínyi 1994 Protase, D.–Zrínyi A., Castrul roman şi aşezarea civilă de la Brâncoveneşti (jud. Mureş). Săpăturile din anii 1970–1987, Marisia, XXIII–XXIV, 75–158. Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia Rudán–Brandl 2008 Riha 1990 Tóth 1988 Wild 2002 145 Rudán, B.–Brandl, U., „...intrare castra feminis non licet.“ – Tatsache oder literarische Fiktion? Ein kritischer Literaturüberblick, IN: Brandl, U. (Hrsg.), Frauen und Römisches Militär Beiträge eines Runden Tisches in Xanten vom 7. bis 9. Juli 2005, 1–19. Riha, E., Der römische Schmuck aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, Augst. Tóth E., Dácia római tartomány. IN: Makkay L–Mócsy A. (szerk.), Erdély története, 1. kötet. A kezdetektől 1606-ig, Budapest, 46–106. Wild, J. P: he Textile Industries of Roman Britain, Britannia, 33, 1–42. LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Female brooch types (ater Cociş 2008). Distribution pattern of artefacts. he Roman province of Dacia (ater Tóth 1988, ig. 9): Forts with female related artefacts. Distribution of artefacts inside the forts. Chronology of inds. Distribution of female related artefacts inside the camp. LIST OF PLATES Pl. 1. Pl. 2. Pl. 3. Brooches: 1. Brooch of type Cociş 85a from Buciumi (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, pl. XCIII/4); 2. Brooch of type Cociş 12b from Gherla (ater Protase et al. 2008, Taf. X/1); 3. Brooch of type Cociş 11a from Bologa (ater Gudea–Cociş 1995, pl. I/2); 4. Brooches of type 20b3a from Gherla (ater Protase et al. 2008, pl. X/1); 5. Brooches of type 20b3a from Porolissum (ater Gudea et al. 2001, pl. V/33); Beads: Melon shape: 6–9. Căşeiu (ater Isac 1999, Taf. V/23–24, 27–28), Globular shape: 10. Feldioara (ceramic, ater Gudea 2008, pl. XXIX/8); 12. Răcari (Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. CLX/1133); Biconic shape: 11. Feldioara (ater Gudea 2008, pl. XXIX/9); 13. Răcari (ater Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. CLIX/1131); Spindle shape: 14. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VI/36); Elongated shape: 15. Răcari (ater Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. CLIX/1130); Discoid shape: 16. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VI/33); Hexagonal shape: 17–18. Feldioara (ater Gudea 2008, pl. LXX/2–3). Bracelets: With closed ends (bronze): 1. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. IV/18); 2. Căşeiu (ater Isac 1999, Taf. IV/19); With open serpent ends: 3. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. IV/20); 5. Ilişua (ater Isac–Gaiu 2006, pl. 1/12); Decorated silver bracelet: 4. Răcari (ater Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. CLVI/1102); Glass bracelets: 6, 7. Răcari (ater Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. CLIX/1125–1127), Rings: 8, 10. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. II/12, 14); 9. Căşeiu (ater Isac 1999, Taf. II/13); 11. Brâncoveneşti (ater Protase–Zrínyi 1994, pl. LIV/1); 12. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. II/9); 13–15. Ilişua (ater Isac–Gaiu 2006, pl. 1/8–10). 16. Ilişua (ater Isac–Gaiu 2006, pl. 1/7). Pendants: Lunulla type: 17–19. Ilişua (Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXI/20, 21, 26); 22. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VI/39); Bullae-type: 21. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VI/37); Herkuleskeule type: 23. Gilău (Isac 1999, Taf. VI/42); 24. Praetorium (ater Macrea et al. 1993, pl. XXVI/5). Necklace: 1. Căşeiu (ater Isac 1999, Taf. V/21). Earring: 2. Gherla (Protase et al. 2008, Taf. LXXII/2). Spindle whorls: 3–4. Răcari (ater Bondoc–Gudea 2009, pl. LXXXII/415–416); 5. Ilişua (ater Protase et al. 1997, pl. LVII/8); 6. Inlăceni (ater Gudea 1979, pl. XI/1); 7. Brâncoveneşti (Protase–Zrínyi 1994, pl. LIVa/1). Hairpins: Hairpins with pointed head: 8. Ilişua (ater Isac–Gaiu 2006, pl. 5/46); 9. Porolissum (ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. VI/32); Hairpins with globular head: 10. Porolissum (ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. IX/7); 11. Brâncoveneşti (ater Protase–Zrínyi 1994, pl. LVIII/2), 12. Praetorium (bronze, ater Macrea et al. 1993, pl. XXVI/10); Hairpins with pine-cone head: 13. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. X/67); 14. Gherla (ater Protase et al. 2008, Taf. LV/7); Decorated hairpins: 15. Căşeiu (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VIII/49); 16–17. Feldioara (bronze, ater Gudea 2008, 146 Pl. 4. Pl. 5. Pl. 6. L. Vass pl. LXIX/2); 18–19. Ilişua (both of bronze, ater Isac–Gaiu 2006, pl. 3/32, 33); 20. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. IX/60). Figurate hairpin: 21. Gilău (ater Isac 1999, Taf. VII/43). Combs: 22. Gherla (Protase et al. 2008, Taf. LV/9). 1. Plan of barrack no. 5 (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); Artefacts from barrack no. 5: 2–3. Brooches (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. XCII/4; XCIII/4); 4. Spindle whorls (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. CXIX/3– 5); 5–6. Beads (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. XCVII/1–12; XCVIII/2); 7–8. Hairpins (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. C/5; CII/2); 9. he plan of barrack no. 1 (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 10. Hairpin from barrack no. 1 (ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. IV/9); 11. Plan of barrack no. 2 (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 12–13. Hairpins from barrack no. 2 (ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. IV/8; V/26); 14. Via praetoria (ater Marcu 2009); 15. Hairpin from via praetoria (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. C/2); 16. Via sagularis (ater Marcu 2009); 17. Hairpin from via sagularis (ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. XII/12); 18. Porta praetoria (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 19. Bead found in porta praetoria (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. XCVIII/3); 20. Porta principalis sinistra (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 21. Spindle whorl from porta principalis sinistra (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. CXIX/2). Plan of building no. 3 and 4 (ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 2–6. Hairpins from building no. 3 (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. C/1, 6, 8; CII/1; no. 6 ater Gudea–Bajusz 1991, pl. XVII/1); 7. Bead from building no. 4 (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. XCVIII/4); 8–11. Hairpins from building no. 4 (ater Chirilă et al. 1972, Taf. C/3–4, 7, 9); 12. Distribution of hairpins inside the camp (plan ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4); 13. Distribution of spindle whorls inside the camp (plan ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4). 1. he auxiliary camp from Buciumi. Distribution of female related artefacts; 2. Distribution of beads inside the camp; 3. Distribution of brooches inside the camp (map ater Marcu 2009, pl. 4). 147 Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 2 1 3 6 5 7 4 12 8 14 9 11 13 10 15 16 Plate 1. Brooches: 1. Buciumi; 2, 4. Gherla; 3. Bologa; 5. Porolissum. Beads: 6–9. Căşeiu, 10–11, 17–18. Feldioara; 12–13, 15. Răcari; 14, 16. Gilău. 17 18 148 L. Vass 1 3 2 5 4 7 6 9 8 13 17 11 10 12 14 16 18 21 19 20 22 23 24 Plate 2. Bracelets: 1, 3. Gilău; 2. Căşeiu; 4, 6–7. Răcari; 5. Ilişua. Rings: 8, 10, 12. Gilău; 9. Căşeiu; 11. Brâncoveneşti; 13–16. Ilişua. Pendants: 17–19. Ilişua; 21–23. Gilău; 24. Praetorium. 149 Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 2 1 4 3 5 12 10 14 13 16 9 15 11 8 21 18 7 6 19 22 20 Plate 3. Necklace: 1. Căşeiu. Earring: 2. Gherla. Spindle whorls: 3–4. Răcari; 5. Ilişua; 6. Inlăceni; 7. Brâncoveneşti. Hairpins: 8, 18–19. Ilişua; 9–10. Porolissum; 11. Brâncoveneşti; 12. Praetorium; 13. Gilău; 14, 20–21. Gherla; 15. Căşeiu; 16–17. Feldioara. Combs: 22. Gherla. 17 150 L. Vass 3 1 2 6 4 8 5 7 9 P 10 15 14 11 16 13 21 12 18 17 20 19 Plate 4. 1. Plan of barrack no. 5; 2–8. Artefacts from barrack no. 5; 9. The plan of barrack no. 1; 10. Hairpin from barrack no. 1; 11. Plan of barrack no. 2; 12–13. Hairpins from barrack no. 2; 14. Via praetoria; 15. Hairpin from via praetoria; 16. Via sagularis; 17. Hairpin from via sagularis; 18. Porta praetoria; 19. Bead found in porta praetoria; 20. Porta principalis sinistra; 21. Spindle whorl from porta principalis sinistra. 151 Women in a Man’s World? Female Related Artefacts from the Camps of Dacia 5 3 2 4 6 1 7 9 10 8 BU 3 11 BU 3 BU 4 BU 4 12 13 Plate 5. Plan of building no. 3 and 4; 2–6. Hairpins from building no. 3; 7. Bead from building no. 4; 8–11. Hairpins from building no. 4; 12. Distribution of hairpins inside the camp; 13. Distribution of spindle whorls. 152 BU 3 BU 4 BU 3 BU 3 L. Vass BU 4 BU 4 2 1 3 Plate 6. 1. The auxiliary camp from Buciumi; 2. Distribution of beads inside the camp; 3. Distribution of brooches inside the camp (map after Marcu 2009, pl. 4). ABBREVIATIONS AB ACMIT ActaArch ActaMN ActaMP AÉ AIIA AISC AJPA Aluta Angustia Annual MS CEU AnthrAnz AnthrKözl APA Apulum ArchÉrt ArchHung ArchKorr ArhMold Banatica BayerVorg BB BCȘS BerRGK BMI BMM BMN Britannia BT BTM Műhely Bulletin EAF CCA CIL ComArchHung Crisia Cumidava Dacia N. S. DissPan EA Analele Banatului, Timişoara Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice, Secţia Transilvania, Cluj Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău L’Année Épigraphique, Paris, 1883–. Anuarul Institutulii de Istorie și Arheologie, Cluj-Napoca Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice, Cluj American Journal of Physical Anthropology Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, Budapest Anthropologischer Anzeiger, Journal of Biological and Clinical Anthropology Anthropológiai Közlemények, A Magyar Biológiai Társaság Embertani Szakosztályának folyóirata, Budapest Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz Arheologia Moldovei, Iași Banatica, Reșiţa Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţiice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria Archaeologica, Târgu Mureș/Cluj-Napoca Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca Britannia, A journal of Romano-British and Kindred Studies Bibliotheca hracologica, Bucureşti Budapest Történeti Múzeum Bulletin de l'Association Française pour l'Étude de l'Âge du Fer Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România Momsen, h. (ed), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1853-. Comunicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crișurilor, Oradea Cumidava, Anuarul Muzeelor Braşovene Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948), București; Nouvelle série (N. S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene, București Dissertationes Pannonicae, Budapest Eurasia Antiqua, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 224 EphemNap FolAnthr FolArch Gallia Germania HABES HOMÉ IDR Instrumentum Jahrbuch RGZM JahrGPV JahrÖAI JAMÉ JFS JHE JRS JRMS MAIUAW Marisia MCA MemAnt MN MSV PAS PBF Potaissa PZ RCRFA RégFüz RevBis RevMuz RIU Sargetia SCIV(A) StCom Sibiu StMat Mureș StudiaUBB hraco-Dacica UPA VHA VMMK ZA Abbreviations Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca Folia Anthropologica, Szombathely Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Budapest Gallia, Centre national de la recherche scientiique, France Germania, Frankfurt am Main Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc Inscripţiile Daciei romane, I-III/4 Bucureşti; III/6 Paris, 1975-. Instrumentum, Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l'artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l'Antiquité Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Jahresbericht der Gesellschat Pro Vindonissa Jahreshete des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza Journal of Forensic Sciences Journal of Human Evolution Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Roman Military Studies Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarisches Akademie der Wissenschaten, Budapest Marisia (V–), Studii și Materiale, Târgu Mureș Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti Muzeul Național, București Marburger Studien zur Völkerkunde, Berlin Praehistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart. Potaissa, Muzeul de Istorie Turda Praehistorische Zeitschrit, Berlin Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum acta, Abingdon Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud Revista Muzeelor, Bucureşti Die Römische Inschriten Ungarns, Budapest, 1972 Sargeţia, Buletinul Muzeului judeţului Hunedoara, Acta Musei Devensis, Deva Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche (și Arheologie 1974–), București Studii și Comunicări Sibiu Studii și Materiale Târgu Mureș (V– Marisia) Studia Universitatis Babeș–Bolyai, series Historia, Cluj-Napoca hraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, București Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn Vegetation History and Archaeobotany A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei Zeitschrit für Archäologie