Doboka várkomplexuma tudomány-tudománypolitika és régészet a ’60- /

The village of Dabaca/Doboka is situated 30 kins northwest of Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvar/Klausenburg, by the stream called Lona/Lonya, which flows into the River Little Some?/Kis-Szamos 10 kins away from this place. One side of the mountain called Nagyhegy, which is situated southwest of the village (529...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gáll Erwin
Laczkó Nándor
Format: Book part
Published: 2013
Series:Monográfiák a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszékéről
A honfoglalás kor kutatásának legújabb eredményei : tanulmányok Kovács László 70. születésnapjára
Kulcsszavak:Régészet - leletek - Magyarország - középkor
Online Access:
Summary:The village of Dabaca/Doboka is situated 30 kins northwest of Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvar/Klausenburg, by the stream called Lona/Lonya, which flows into the River Little Some?/Kis-Szamos 10 kins away from this place. One side of the mountain called Nagyhegy, which is situated southwest of the village (529 m above sea level) made the valley of the stream Lona/Lonya so narrow that it is a vantage point of the pass. The road in the narrow valley, squeezed between two hills, in the middle of the village takes a sharp turn to the left. The old fortress district was in the area curbed this way. The two hills are gradually declining towards northwest. The shape of the fortress is similar to a pie with a sharp angle and an arc at the end, pointing towards north-northeast. Both sides are well defendable, sloping in 25°-45°. the early medieval fortress district was built in this place with a number of villages and churches around it. The excavations beginning in the early 60s in the last century were conducted with preconceptions, as the centre of ‘lord Ge/ow’was thought to have been discovered before the start of the excavations, which is an impassable way from a scientific point of view. In this brief research history, which in many cases is not so relevant in our research, one can draw three conclusions: 1. Dabaca perfectly demonstrates the concepts, interpretations and vision of the expert who lived in the various eras in the 20th century; 2. in the interpretation of Dabaca historical narrative and linguistic data have played the main role so far, archaeology has played an auxiliary part, being reduced to providing arguments for different historical theories; 3. Scientific-political, political and supposedly personal interests and careerist considerations all played a part or worked as the driving forces behind the start of the excavations in Dabaca in the 60s. Unfortunately the past political manipulations have had a great ,career’ in national-communist Romania, and Dabaca is a sad symbol of this. From 1964 on there were archaeological excavations carried out in Dabaca with shorter intervals, which took more than 20 years. During these excavations three churches were excavated which were renovated and rebuilt several times (Fortress Area IV, A. Taman’s Garden, and the Church of Boldaga/Boldogasszony) together with 871 graves in three cemeteries around them (most of the graves were dated back to the 11th-13th centuries) and sections of settlements that were inhabited in different periods from the stone age to the 16th century. It is a serious deficiency that the bones found in the cemeteries could not been identified. According to Tudor Sàlàgean, at the beginning of the 90s the bones were buried again in the ground by Petru Iambor somewhere in Dàbâca (either in the fortress or near it). Even if we managed to identify the bones and to publish one of the sites in a small mongraphy, unfortunately, the loss of the bones is an irreparable damage. A modern, scientific analysis of the population in the old Dàbâca can only be done after new and successful excavations. Any conclusions concerning the excavations in the area of the fortress can only be drawn carefully, due to the present stage of research described above. During the 20 years of work only a small area of the fortress was excavated, not more than an estimated 20%. On top of this, the documentation of the excavations is also poor, in several cases they do not exceed the level of the 19th century, and in other cases (such as the excavation in 1980) no documentation has remained, just some notes. Therefore the great conclusions that can be read in the article written in 1968 and in Petru Iambor s paper of 2005 (and based upon them, in several other papers) must be considered in a more relative way. To draw such overall conclusions, the excavation of the whole site would be required with a much more accurate documentation! Unfortunately, at the moment it can be stated that the quality and the documentation of the excavations in the Dàbâca/Doboka site only reach Research Level 1 in Sebastian Brather’s chart, so it does not even meet the requirements of Level 2 (structures, social-economic relations). In this phase of the research it would be problematic to draw any conclusion apart from the typology of the finds and their chronological analyses. Unfortunately, this situation cannot be changed as the bones were buried back in the ground at the beginning of the 90’s by Petru Iambor, moreover, the archaeozoological material excavated in different places of the settlement (pit dwellings, pits etc) have not been included in the inventory. For this reason, we can only aim to systematize the information we have (mainly chronological). At this stage the only thing that can be stated is that the site, since only around its 20% have been excavated, has not been lost for science, but we need more modern and responsible research methods. The churches and the cemetery belonging to them, which were excavated in the Fortress Area IV, garden of Al. Tama? and Boldâgâ/Boldogasszony can be dated to the 12th and 13th- 14th centuries and they are encompassed in the horizon of the 12th century Dabaca and its surrounding area as a power centre. The fortress, which was rebuilt several times, the settlement and the cemeteries are all parts of this horizon as is analysed in our paper. We held it very important to analyse them separately. The finds clearly show that in Doboka we can see a settlement way back in the 7,h-9 th centuries, buti t cannot be connected to the fortress. According to the finds from the fortress, the most important ones of which were the 11th century coins Stephen I, Andrew I, Peter Orseolo, Coloman I the Booklover) and the elements of material culture characteristic of this century. In our opinion, the fortress can’t have been built earlier than the middle of the 11th century and its second enlarged form can be dated to the time of Andrew I. This was destroyed at some time, in our opinion it happened during the regn of King Coloman I the Booklover, unfortunately, we couldn’t identify this coin in the collection of the Transylvanian National Museum in Cluj. As is well known, the so called anonymus denars were coined in the minters of the Hungarian Kingdom from the time of King Coloman I the Book-lover to the era of Stephen II (Time Period I), it is not obvious that the fortress was burned at the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century. It is also unclear how the stone wall was built at the beginning of the 13th century since no example of it is known in northern Transylvania and only few in the whole territory of the Hungarian Kingdom until the second half of the 13th century when the socialeconomic transition brought about major changes in the fortress system and the architecture of forts. According to the finds excavated in the fortress area, although we cannot see them as the evidence of the presence of the comes, the head of the county, the various arrow heads, sword cross iron and spurs can be connected to the group of the class of the miles, but some information on the 12th century from the Arad fortress supports that we can count with the mansios, i.e. the servant folks (servi). These also give an outline of the social classes known from the laws of King Stephen I. The silver beads with granulated ornaments may hint at some long distance commercial contact, which can also be connected to the elite. A (historical) hypothesis: the ’failure’ of Dabaca According to the archaeological and numismatic finds, the fortification built in/after the first third of the 11th century and the settlement system reached their peak in the 12th century. This is clearly shown by the coins found in the graves in Fortress Area IV, Tàmaç’s garden and the cemetery of Boldägä/Boldogasszony. The 13th century saw a decline of the central fortress as a political-military and administrative centre. We would not say that the downfall of the centre in Dàbâca can be the result of the Mongolian raid, it can be traced back to other, both administrative and political, reasons (too). As a working hypothesis we propose that the decline in its significance as a centre may be explained by the eastward expansion of the system of settlements in this county as the county received its final shape in the 12th-13th centuries. This observation of ours seems to be supported by the fact that no 13th century coin has been found in the three cemetery sections, the lates one is a coin of Béla III (1172-1196). Most of the settlement phenomena excavated so far can be dated to the 11th- 12th centuries. Certainly, we do not want to consider these data to be of absolute value, but the numismatic gap in the 13th century requires further explanation in the future. Nevertheless, this can only be proved or refuted by extended interdisciplinary researches.
Physical Description:83-125
ISBN:978 963 306 241 8