Initiating the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) of Romania (ARR)

 

The 1949 working plan of the Institute of History and Philosophy included the elaboration of the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) of Romania. This work was aimed at gathering and grouping the information on the archaeological finds in our country grouped territorially according to localities. Thus, a scientific tool has been built up in view of ensuing field researches, speciality studies and establishing a base for carrying out the archaeological map of the country.

The planned repertory (directory) corresponded to a deeply felt scientific necessity especially as regards the elaboration of an encompassing plan of archaeological researches.

Consequently, the archaeological repertory (directory) has been conceived as a  topographic dictionary of the ancient monuments on Romanian territory from the oldest Palaeolithic times until the Romanian Countries were established.

 

 

Structure and objectives of the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) of Romania

 

At first it had been established for the work to have a strictly scientific content under a sober concise shape, as the data comprised just the following preocupations: the topographic situation of the archaeologically relevant sites, their date, the researches conducted, the conditions and nature of these researches,  their essential results, the museums and collections where the discovered material is, the bibliographic references.

The main concern should be the topographic specifications of the sites described, in order to facilitate as much as possible their identification and use on the ground. In the case of settlements, the work had to include the intensity, duration, extent, state of conservation and the conditions in which the life of the settlement in question had come to an end. All these data were to be rendered in the shortest possible sentences, while the bibliographic source provided details for the reader. Only the unpublished information included extra specifications, as the work was not expected to develop into an encyclopaedia, comprising detailed data and commentaries that put together into a complete rigorous form would have required a long time.

For the Repertory to be consulted successfully also by the readers outside the speciality it was decided to add an Introduction that, besides the usual technical explanations, should include a short presentation on the development of human settlements on the territory of this country during the entire antiquity.

The entries of the Repertory were given in alphabetical order, according to localities (hamlets, villages, towns), not according to administrative-territorial units (communes). Each locality corresponds to an entry describing by turn, preferably in chronological order, all the archaeological sites near that locality, even if they had not been researched, only signalled out.

The tumuli were excepted, that because of their wide spread, of the homogeneity of their forms and of the impossibility to be dated and classified without excavations, would have been a worthless ballast had they been introduced in the Repertory with no selection. It remained established that the  tumuli should be mentioned only as far as they were subjected to research or if they were in a locality where there are also archaeological documents of another kind. The finds of uncertain provenience, but conducted on the territory of this country were mentioned in a separate chapter, at the end of the work, on the basis of a selection, according to their scientific value.

The work will include in the annex the bibliographical abbreviations and a series of analytical maps according to regions, ages, and cultures. At the same time, the texts will include illustrations of the characteristic objects in the more relevant finds. The maps, developed on the basis of the data in the text, will represent the first full mapped projection  of the archaeological sites in Romania known until the date when the work was issued.

The archaeological repertory of Romania was meant to be a working tool of high importance yet unachieved in other countries, that would surpass by far from all points of view the few partial attempts of this kind made before in our country. Those attempts referring only to some regions or only some ages of antiquity presented, besides the inconveniences of these territorial or chronological restrictions, a series of shortcomings and failures inherent for individual works. The most remarkable attempt of this kind was the Repertory of Marton Roska limited, however, to the territory of Transylvania and to prehistory. The repertory (directory) initiated by the Institute of History and Philosophy of the Academy, developed by a team, would represent, for the first time, a topographic systematisation of all the news on the archaeological finds in all the provinces of this country and referring to all the periods of antiquity.

 

 

The working method

 

The working method included three successive stages: 1 – data collection; 2 – elaboration; 3 – checking of the elaborated articles, the elaboration of the introductory chapters, bibliographical references, maps, illustrations.

The first stage, the data collection, presupposed making excerpts of all the Romanian periodicals, and partially foreign ones, from history and archaeology books, unpublished archaeological manuscripts in the collection of the Academy, from the papers of the State Archives, from the personal notes of various researchers, as well as  investigations in museums and public and private archaeological collections. As far as it was possible also direct checks on the ground were conducted, especially in the case of the sites for which the data did not suffice.

A generalisation of this last investigation, undoubtedly the most certain and fruitful, could not be achieved because it required complex costly means, a large number of researchers and long endeavours. The Repertory is made up of the data available until then (1949 - 1950). Given the state they are in now, some of them complete and certain, others concise, their check on the ground and their enriching with new researches is a task for the future. In the phase of development archaeology was at that time, the role of the Repertory was that of stimulating and facilitating such researches.

 

The team

 

It was decided that the Repertory should be worked out by a team of qualified researchers, recruited from all over the country, having two working centres, the main one in Bucharest, as part of the section of Ancient History of the Institute, and a  regional one, based in Cluj, belonging to the local Institute of History and Philosophy of the Academy.     The work was organised according to regions, a criterion entailed by the almost exclusively topographic subject. In principle, the Cluj center tackled the material on Transylvania and Banat, while the Bucharest one that on Wallachia, Little Wallachia, Moldavia and Dobrudja.

 

The Bucharest team members: Emil Condurachi, Ion Nestor, Dumitru Berciu, D. M. Pippidi, Iorgu Stoian, Dorin Popescu, Grigore Florescu, Ion Barnea, V. Canarache, Vladimir Dumitrescu, Hortensia Dumitrescu, Radu Vulpe, Ecaterina Vulpe, Bucur Mitrea, Gh. Cantacuzino, Alexandrina Alexandrescu, Eugen Comşa, Corneliu Mateescu, Suzana Dumitriu, Ştefan Constantinescu, Eugenia Zaharia-Petrescu, Vlad Zirra, Dinu V. Rosetti, Expectatus Bujor, Pamfil P. Polonic, cartographer Ana Matrosenco (secretary), Adelina Piatkovski, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor (Museum of Little Wallachia), Dumitru Tudor (University of Iassy), Mircea Petrescu-Dâmboviţa (University of Iassy).

The Cluj team members: Constantin Daicoviciu (researcher in chief), I. I. Rusu, Mihail Macrea, Virginia Macrea, Kurt Horedt, I. H. Crişan, E. Chirilă, Iudita Winkler, Ştefan Ferenczi, N. Lascu, N. Gostar, D. Protase, N. Vasiu, Mircea Rusu, Ion Berciu (Museum of Alba-Iulia), D. N. Covaci (Museum of Arad), Octavian Floca (Museum of Deva), Marius Moga (Museum of Timişoara), Szekely Zoltan (Museum of Sf. Gheorghe), N. Lupu (Brukenthal Museum, Sibiu).

It is interesting to mention that since 1953, due to the need for financial saving and the law of labour, the collaborators have not been paid any more. The work at the Repertory has been done by a few employees of the Section of Ancient History and of the National Museum of Antiquities, as they gave for the Repertory just 20% of their activity. In practice such a measure, taken in the very last stage of the elaboration, when many endeavours were needed, undoubtedly led to another delay. For those reasons, in January 1953 fresh proposals were made regarding the personnel working at the Repertory, as the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) could have been finished by the end of December 1953 provided these proposals had been accepted by the Academy.

Below we are going to present the personnel proposed by the management of the National Museum of Antiquities to work at the Repertory:

ุ       R. Vulpe and D. Berciu - Revisers (articles and introduction);
ุ       Ecaterina Vulpe – Bibliography and museums;
ุ       Gr. Florescu – Revision of the articles on Little Wallachia (Classic age);
ุ       E. Comşa, C. Mateescu – Cultures indices and topographic check);
ุ       D. Popescu (part time) – Check of the articles from Transylvania;
ุ       P. P. Polonic – Elaboration of the 10 maps (by contract);
ุ       D. Pecurariu, Tr. Bilţiu (part time) – Drawing of the objects to be reproduced in the  Repertory (Directory);
ุ       V. Zirra – Gathering of the illustrations;
ุ       E. Bujor – Record of the articles from the sub-Carpathian region;
ุ       Ana Matrosenco – Secretariate and Transylvania.

The effort to deliver for publication the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) at the end of 1953 failed first of all from lack of financial support. For those reasons the Academy was demanded a delay until the 1st of June 1954. Meanwhile, the National Museum of Antiquities required that, besides the personnel available at the Museum, two more typists should be employed to type the over 30,000 excerpted cards and the over 5,500  articles (voices - site), as well as drawers necessary to draw the maps and objects necessary for illustrating the work.

The management of the Academy unfortunately failed to meet the requests of the National Museum of Antiquities. Nevertheless, in the years 1954 - 1955, the work advanced, not as before, but still enough to enrich the number of excerpted cards, due to some young researchers like Petre Diaconu, Emilian Popescu, Petre Alexandrescu, Victoria Eftimie, and Nicolae Constantinescu.

It is interesting that by the note no. 266/26-II-1955, the Scientific Council of the  National Museum of Antiquities proposed to the Academy the organisation of a debate over the Repertory on the 15th of June 1955. It was proposed that the debate should be joined by about 250 people (various specialists, culture people), as well as about 50 students. The participants had to receive beforehand the model of the work published in 1953. For unknown reasons the debate that should have been patronised by the Academy never took place.

It is also interesting to remember that after a year, during the 13th of November 1956 meeting of the  Archaeological Repertory (Directory) held at the Institute of Archaeology under the leadership of its director Professor Emil Condurachi it was decided, on the proposal of Professor Ion Nestor, to publish the bulk of articles (voices) elaborated until 1953, and the bulk after 1954 to be  published as a supplement. These proposals were to no avail.

Almost six years later the issue of the Repertory was resumed. Thus,  the report handed in to the Scientific Council of the Institute by the secretary of the Repertory team, the researcher Expectatus Bujor, read: The first stage of excerption of the information in the publications issued until 1960 was finalised. The second stage, the elaboration of the articles, can be considered completed. The third stage, consisting in checking and finalising the articles – voices is being developed. On the occasion of the checks also the information excerpted from the publications issued until 1960 was introduced. The checks were carried out by Professor Radu Vulpe (for Moldavia), Professor D. Berciu, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, D. Tudor and Gr. Florescu (for Little Wallachia). The Scientific Council established that by the end of 1963 the multiplication of the Archaeological Repertory (Directory) should be completed at Gestetner.

Unfortunately also this objective failed. After 11 years, more exactly in 1973, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Archaeology, under the leadership of Professor D. M. Pippidi, took the decision to publish the Archaeological Repertory (Directory). In order to prepare for completion and updating the material for publication it was necessary to regroup the whole material depending on the new territorial-administrative organisation of Romania (1965) according to villages, communes, within the counties in question.

It is worth mentioning that during the meeting of the 22nd of June 1973 of the  Archaeological Repertory team, led by Professor D. M. Pippidi, where the following researchers took part: Vl. Dumitrescu, D. Berciu, E. Comşa, Al. Păunescu, S. Morintz, P. Alexandrescu, Al. Vulpe, E. Bujor, N. Harţuche, and M. Brudiu, the manuscript of N. Harţuche, a curator at the Brăila County Museum was submitted, regarding the Archaeological Repertory of the Brăila County. That was the first part completed by N. Harţuche on the basis of the documentary material and earlier notes in the Archaeological Repertory of Romania manuscript.

It is important to point out that over the 1949 – 1974 period,  Expectatus Bujor tackled the entire information. It can be stated that for 25 years the Archaeological Repertory had been developing. Expectatus Bujor, today an eighty year old man, had been carrying out the most difficult, overwhelming work. It is our duty to acknowledge this honest modest colleague for his endeavours that he performed anonymously, not as part of his daily tasks.

In May 1974 the Archaeological Repertory documentary was taken over by Al. Păunescu, then chief of the Documentation Section.

In 1976 the first county repertory in two volumes was issued. It was the Archaeological Repertory of the Botoşani County, signed by Al. Păunescu, P. Şadurschi and V. Chirica. Eight years later, the Iassy researcher V. Chirica, in collaboration with Professor Marcel Tanasachi, published the Archaeological Repertory of the Iassy County, in two volumes.

Over the ensuing period, until 2000, more county repertories (directories) on Transylvania were issued.

In the end we hope that the odyssey of the publication of the Archaeological Repertory of Romania is coming to an end. The collaboration between the “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology and the Institute for Cultural Memory (cIMeC), begun in 2000, has been fruitful. This hope will come true, which will be also a homage to the many researchers who have laboured to achieve this great work.