Translated by Kirsty Bennett, Matt Canty and haiducul
Located on the nipple on the Blidaru hill (altitutide 705 m), having an excelent visibility towards Valea Muresului (Mures Valley) and towards Gradistea Muncelului (the ancient Sarmizegetusa Regia), fortress, which had strictly military purposes, is the most imposing work of this type from this area.
In order to make the proper terain from this type of a construction, the nipples top was smoothened and widen, fitting out flat surfaces in the interior of the fortress, and a little bit lower, at the heights of the saddle linking it to the hills from the south and west, a narrower terrace was fitted, backing for the inner wall. From the superior plateau their is good visibility over the fortress and over the towers enumerated on the Faeragul hill peak.
The fortification was risen in two phases. In the first phase the east precinct was risen, having the shape of a irregular quadrilater, having its sides of 56, 61, 47 and 65 m. At the corners four quadrilater towers were risen, of which towers 3 and 4 are exterior to the perimeter of the fortress and the towers 1 and 2 are partially contained in it. The linkage between the inner wall and the towers is organic, the blocks being weaved, proving their simultaneous rise.
The entrance to the fortess was made through tower I, in the sout-west corner. Once the wooden gate was down, the enemy entering the tower came up against the back wall of the construction and was forced to turn to the right, towards a new gate, leading to the fortress. The leafs and the exterior corner of the tower is decorated with vertical shapes.
Also in this phase was risen, on the south-west slope of the nipple, an isolated tower, square, and at the southern half of the plateau, in the interior of the fortress, a square home-tower, the side meassuring 7,60 m and having thick 2 m walls. The entry was made through a door on the south-east side. In some of the blocks made of rock from the first layer the letter “C” can be noticed, probably a constructor sign. The walls of all the towers, as well as the one in the precinct, are risen in a common manner to other dacian fortresses, consisting of two liners made out of rock, united using wooden beams, and in the interior having an emplecton made out of earth and shattered rock.
Unlike the walls of “Cetatuia” from Costesti, kegs are missing, those long blocks which were fitted in the emplecton. This observation, corroborated by the unusual plan of the fortification, which took great efforts to set up, led to the conclusion that at the making of this fortress greek experts (especialy in the elaboration of the plan) worked, but prevalent vernacular dacians, which gave the elenistique tehnique a local interpretation. Chronologically, the construction dates after the Burebista’s reign.
In the second phase the second fortress was built, much more comprehensive, including the first precinct. Now, the isolated tower was linked through walls which started from the north and east. The wall having the north direction ends with a tower from which another wall starts linking it to tower 4 of the first precinct. The entry gate was placed on the east side and was flanked in the interior with two short walls. Certainly, the wall between the towers 1 and 4, became unuseful, being abolished, the blocks resulting in this used at the rise of the second fortress.
On the north and west side of the fortress, from the inner facade, other perpendiculat walls start, meeting in the back a wall which unites them, forming rooms of uneven dimensions. The walls were risen using the local rock – slates of shaped micaschist – alternating with block of calcar, the appereance of the wall reminding somehow of the chess table. The rooms contained in the walls had at their base a space used for the storage of supplies, and on the top had genuine pill boxes, having platforms on which war machines could be set up. The estimated height of the wall in this sector was about 5-6 m. In the interior of the fortress were discovered remains of a hut, the shelter for the garrison located there. The dating of the second construction is late, most likely after the second confruntation with the romans, the hurry in which the war preparations were made explaining the “arhitectural inovations”."