DOUA CUIE, TREI PIROANE” CÂTEVA NOTITE PRIVIND ARHEOLOGIA PROVINCIALA ROMANA DIN ROMÂNIA

The author’s starting point in writing this work constituted a romantic conception of a professor at the ancient history department of the Babes-Bolyai University, according to whom the monographs of roman settlements (towns, rural settlements, camps), where series and lists of artefacts are published, are nothing else but a „heap (mixture) of nails and spikes”. The theoretical knowledge and the use in his own practice of some theoretical works on Roman provincial archaeology (Fischer 2001) of monographs of archaeological materials and artefacts (Dolenz 1999; Harnecker 1997), monographs of settlements especially camps (Gröncke- Weinlich 1991; Karnitsch 1972; Müller 1979; Schmidts 2004; Ulbert 1969; respectively Bishop 1996; Frere 1972; Richmond 1968; Robertson 1976) the author tries to point out that without such monographs, without the assembly of manufactured and circulated goods, provincial archaeology can not exist and it has no effects on the plan of historical interpretation. On the contrary, the absence of such monographs in the Romanian provincial archaeology (on settlements, towns, villae rusticae, camps) makes any attempt to make a monograph void of the essence for demonstration. The author suggests the reading of the cited works from the German and British archaeological literature (and others even noncited) by the above mentioned university professorbe change his conception and not to insinuate antiquated and retrograde conceptions in his students’ minds, which would pollute Romanian archaeology even more.