Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources 9783515112628

Citation preview

Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag

Geographica Historica – 34

Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

geographica historica Begründet von Ernst Kirsten, herausgegeben von Eckart Olshausen und Vera Sauer Band 34

Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

Franz Steiner Verlag

Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2016 Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-11262-8 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-11271-0 (E-Book)

To my wife Angela, my two sons Alexandru Florin and Dan Mihai, and to my parents Viorica and Gheorghe Fodorean

Zum Geleit Es ist keine Frage: die vorliegende Studie fügt sich thematisch geradezu selbstverständlich in die Reihe der Geographica Historica ein. In ihrem Zentrum stehen mit der Tabula Peutingeriana und dem Itinerarium Antonini zwei der klassischen historisch-geographischen Quellen. Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean nutzt sie nicht nur als Quelle für die Geschichte der römischen Provinzen an der Mittleren und Unteren Donau und speziell deren Verkehrsinfrastruktur, sondern trägt Dank einer vergleichenden Analyse Wesentliches zur Diskussion über ihre Entstehung bei. Eckart Olshausen und Vera Sauer

Contents

Zum Geleit............................................................................................................................

7

Introduction ........................................................................................................................

13

Chapter 1 Pannonia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background ........................

17

Chapter 2 Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background ..............................

22

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Dacia, terra cognita? Literary Sources about the North-Danubian Territories before the Roman Conquest ..................... The Conquest. Economic, Strategic, Personal and Geographical Reasons. Benefits and Disadvantages .............................. Trajan and Dacia. Preparing the Conquest. Tabula Traiana ........................ Organizing the Army: Preparations for Conquest ......................................... The First Dacian War. Trajan, Balbus, the mensores and the Creation of the First Itineraria .......................................................................................... 102 A. D. South-Western Dacia and the Roman Military Control .............. 103–105 A. D. Apollodorus’ Bridge at Drobeta .............................................. ‘… Trans Danuvium in expeditionem’. The Hunt Papyrus ............................ Trajan and Dacia Augusti Provincia .................................................................

22 24 27 28 29 34 34 35 35

Chapter 3 Moesia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background ............................

37

Chapter 4 Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources. History of Research ............................................................................................................

41

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

41 43 44 48 51

The Peutinger Map. Questions, Unsolved Problems ..................................... The Antonine Itinerary ...................................................................................... State of Research. Pannonia .............................................................................. State of Research. Dacia ..................................................................................... State of Research. Moesia ..................................................................................

10

Contents

Chapter 5 Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources ............................................................. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.2.9 5.2.10 5.2.11 5.2.12 5.2.13 5.2.14 5. 2.15 5.2.16

Tabula Peutingeriana and Pannonia ................................................................ The First Road: the Limes Road – Ripa Pannonica ........................................ Clues for Dating the Information Regarding the Limes Road in Pannonia ......................................................................................................... The Second Road: Carnuntum – Petavione .................................................... The Third Road: Emona – Siscia – Sirmium – Tauruno. Along the River Sava .......................................................................................... The Fourth Road: Emona – Petavione – Mursa maior – Sirmium – Tauruno. Along the River Drava ...................................................................... Pannonia in the Antonine Itinerary ................................................................. The First Road: From Aquileia / Hennoma civitas to Singiduno castra ..... The Second Road: Ulmos – Mursa – Cetio ..................................................... The Third Road: the Limes Road from Laurino/Tauruno to Cetio/Citium .................................................................................................. The Fourth Road: Item ab Hemona per Sisciam Sirmi ................................... Adprotoriu / Ad Praetorium / Incero sed mansio Augusti in praetorio est. Reconstructing the Sources of the Pannonian Maps on the Peutinger Map and in the Antonine Itinerary .................................... The Fifth Road: Item a Vindobona Poetovione ................................................ The Sixth Road: Item a Poetovione Carnunto ................................................. The Seventh Road: A Sabaria Bregetione ......................................................... The Eighth Road: A Sabaria Aquinco .............................................................. The Ninth Road: A Sopianas Aquinco .............................................................. The Tenth Road: Item a Sopianas Bregetione .................................................. The Eleventh Road: Iter a Siscia Mursam ........................................................ The Twelfth Road: A Poetavione Siscia ............................................................ The Thirteenth Road: A Sabaria Vindobona ................................................... The Fourteenth Road: Item ab Acinquo Crumero que castra constituta sint ...................................................................................................... The Fifteenth Road: Item a Sirmio Carnunto ..................................................

Chapter 6 Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources ................................................................... 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Tabula Peutingeriana and Dacia ....................................................................... The Lederata-Tibiscum Road. The Peutinger Map, De Bello Dacico and Trajan’s Column .............................................................. The Second Road: Dierna – Tibiscum – Porolissum ..................................... The Third Road: Drubetis – Romula – Apula ................................................. The Peutinger Map, Dacia and other Data ...................................................... Final observations. Dacia and itineraria .........................................................

53 53 53 56 57 59 60 61 61 62 64 70 71 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 80 81 82 83 83 84 85 91 94 95

Contents

11

Chapter 7 Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources ................................................................. 101 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14

The Sirmium-Singidunum Road ...................................................................... The Second Road: Singiduno – Viminatio ...................................................... The Third Road: From Viminatio to Durostero. Along the Danube ........... The Fourth Road: From Durostero to Tomis. Along the Danube and the Coast of the Black Sea .......................................................................... The Fifth Road: Tomis – Ancialis. Along the Coast of the Black Sea .......... The Sixth Road: Ancialis – Durostero ............................................................. The Seventh Road: Ancialis – Philipopolis ..................................................... The Eighth Road: Philipopolis – Marcianopolis ............................................ The Ninth Road: Sostra – Esco ......................................................................... The Tenth Road: Viminacium – Naissus ......................................................... The Eleventh Road: Naissus – Ratiaris ............................................................ The Twelfth Road: Naissus – Phinipopolis ..................................................... The Thirteenth Road: Naissus – Gabuleo ........................................................ The Fourteenth Road: Naisso – Scuiris ...........................................................

101 107 111 119 121 123 123 123 123 124 124 124 124 124

Chapter 8 The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries. The Antonine Itinerary and Cursus Publicus. Comparisons .................................................................................. 125 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10

Pannonia on the Peutinger Map ....................................................................... Pannonia in the Antonine Itinerary ................................................................. Dacia on the Peutinger Map ............................................................................. Moesia on the Peutinger Map ........................................................................... Moesia in the Antonine Itinerary ..................................................................... The Danubian Provinces on the Peutinger Map ............................................ The Danubian Provinces in the Antonine Itinerary ...................................... Comparisons between the Peutinger Map and the Antonine Itinerary ....... Roman ‘Maps’: itineraria picta, itineraria adnotata, formae. Archaeological Discoveries and Literary Sources .......................................... The Antonine Itinerary and cursus publicus ...................................................

125 130 136 138 142 145 147 149 150 153

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 156 Bibliography and References ............................................................................................. 164 List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 179 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 179 Figures .................................................................................................................................. 181 Indices .................................................................................................................................. 193

Introduction

The histories of the Middle and Lower Danubian provinces, i. e. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia, were characterized by the same traits. Pannonia became a target of Roman military conquest around 35–33 B. C. In the preceding years Roman interest in that region had been restricted exclusively to Pannonia’s economic resources. Now it was turned into an imperial province of consular rank, under the name of Illyricum inferius, in the wake of the defeat of the Dalmato-Pannonian rebellion of 6–9 A. D. Between 102 A. D. and 106 A. D. Trajan divided it into Pannonia Superior, located on the upper reaches of the Danube and guarded by three legions, and Pannonia Inferior, further to the south-east, with one legion garrisoned at Aquincum. Although Moesia had close ties with Dacia and Pannonia, it was a separate historical and geographical entity.1 It became a Roman province in the last years of Augustus’ reign. According to ancient geographical sources, the province was bounded in the east by the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea), in the west by the river Drinus (Drina), in the north by the Danubius (Danube) and in the south by the Haemus (Balkan) and Scardus (Šar) mountains. Today it includes territories in Macedonia, Southern Serbia (Moesia Superior), Northern Bulgaria and the Dobrudja (south-eastern Romania). The territory to be conquered last by the Romans was Dacia. There were many reasons for Trajan’s action, among them the decision to secure the river frontier along the Danube. By creating the province of Dacia, this goal was accomplished. The history of the region was characterized by numerous threats that had to be dealt with incessantly. Thus the Dacians attacked Moesia during Domitian’s reign. They also crossed the river in the winter of 101/102. In 102 A. D. the Moesian troops remained in their south-western territories, which had been under Roman military control since the end of the first war against the Dacians. In 105 the pridianum of cohors I Hispanorum veterana, from Moesia Inferior, mentions a vexillatio of these units intra provinciam (i. e. in Moesia Inferior), at Piroboridava (along the valley of Siret, at Poiana, Galați County) and Buridava (Stolniceni, Vâlcea County). Then, at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, in order to solve the problems with the Sarmatians, the emperor put Quintus Marcius Turbo in charge of the armies of Pannonia and Dacia. After the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars, the most difficult moment in the existence of the province of Dacia, the legio V Macedonica was transferred in 168 A. D. from Moesia Inferior to Potaissa (Turda, Cluj County), in Dacia Porolissensis. These examples show that on numerous occasions the Danubian provinces cooperated in order to solve difficult situations. 1

Mócsy 1974.

14

Introduction

These are data from military history, which forms a connection of the Danubian provinces. But there are also other features that may be analyzed as a whole. That is why I decided, throughout this book, to pursue an in-depth investigation concerning the representation of this geographical space in the Roman itineraries. Regional investigations like the present one can offer interesting results, as A. Mócsy noted.2 After more than one century of scholarly studies focused on the Roman itineraries we are still far from explaining some details, but also from making general statements. The Peutinger map and its dating are still a problem today, generating intense debates. The same is true for the Antonine itinerary. The idea for this book started from several fundamental questions: 1. Do the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary offer different information related to Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia? 2. How can one establish this? 3. Why is Dacia not listed in the Antonine itinerary? 4. How did other late sources, such as the Notitia Dignitatum, the Bordeaux itinerary, or the Cosmography of the Anonymous from Ravenna, present or describe these regions? 5. How were the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary actually compiled? 6. By analyzing these provinces, can one obtain new information useful to dating the above-metioned documents? 7. So far, in order to date these documents, historians have discussed them as a whole or separately, focusing on small, sometimes insignificant details from certain areas. What other methodological criteria or means can be employed, beside the classical, established methods, to provide new data? 8. Can we differentiate between the purpose of the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary? 9. Supposing that new dating criteria can be identified, will they be useful for further research and could this method be applied to other regions, and finally to all former Roman provinces? 10. The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary each list around 2700 settlements. Can one compare these two documents by analyzing the presence or the absence of certain settlements, in order to date the documents? I started my research with these questions in mind. I realized that few historians thought to compare the distances mentioned in these two itineraries. Is this method useful? Can it provide new data? The reader can find answers to these two questions in the subsequent chapters of the present book. The geographical space of my research includes the provinces of Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia.3 The main investigations are focused on data provided by the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. In some cases, I have also used data provided by Roman milestones, useful when comparing the distances between various settlements. However, there is a misbalance: In Dacia only nine milestones are known so far.4 For comparison, 338 milestones from Pannonia were recently investigated by P. Kiss.5 180 milestones were

2 3

4 5

Mócsy 1974, Preface, xix. It should be mentioned that my research focuses on seven provinces (Pannonia Superior, Pannonia Inferior, Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Superior, Dacia Inferior, Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior). Fodorean 2006, chapter 2, 63–82. Kiss 2007.

Introduction

15

discovered on the territory of Bulgaria alone.6 I have also used Talbert’s online database concerning the Peutinger map.7 This information is related to Talbert’s recent study.8 The book is divided into eight chapters. Each province is presented individually. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 contain brief descriptions of each province: Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia. Each presentation follows the same pattern. I have tried to highlight some features for these provinces: 1. the models of conquest; 2. the organization of the military infrastructure; 3. their administrative structure. Chapter 4 presents a history of the research into information from Roman itineraries for each province. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 investigate all the available data on the ancient cartographic sources. Chapter 5 presents the situation of Pannonia. The reader will observe that for this province the majority of information available is related to the limes road along the Danube. For the settlements listed or depicted inside the province, few data are still available. Chapter 6 is dedicated to Dacia. It presents the data concerning the representation of this province on the Peutinger map. I have also tried to locate, where I found accurate data, the ancient placenames. Each road sector is described separately. In my analysis I used data provided by other sources as well: Trajan’s Column, the Ravenna Cosmography (Anonymus Ravennas), and archaeological data. I employed the same method to the Roman itineraries from Moesia, in chapter 7. In chapter 8 all data available are resumed, analyzed and interpreted. The conclusions provide new insights into the purposes, the historical context, the origins and the role of the most important Roman itineraries with direct reference to the geographical space my research focuses on. * * * This book is the result of 14 months of research in Germany, at the University of Erfurt. I was a DAAD fellow from November 1, 2010 to December 25, 2010. Then, for a year, from January, 1, 2010 to December, 31, 2011, I benefited from a prestigious Fritz Thyssen scholarship for postdoctoral researchers. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kai Brodersen for all his help and the support he offered in Germany, helping me during this stay. I would also like to express my gratitude to my professor, Mihai Bărbulescu, for all his support. I would also like to thank Péter Kiss, Zsolt Visy, Michael Rathmann, and András Bödőcs for all their help. My gratitude also goes to my colleagues Dragoș Blaga, who helped me with the graphics in this book, and to Sorin Nemeti, with whom I had numerous interesting debates during the last years regarding the historical geography of the Romans. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleague, Dieter Prankel, who made a great effort to revise the entire English text of this book. For their patience and the sacrifices they made in 2011, when we lived apart, I would like offer heartfelt thanks to my wife Angela and my son Dan Mihai, two of the dearest persons in the world to me. I dedicate to them, and to my second born son Alexandru-Florin, this book, with all my love. 6 7 8

Madzharov 2009, 58. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert Talbert 2010.

Chapter 1 Pannonia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

Pannonia first gained the attention of the Romans in 35–33 B. C. During this period, the inhabitants of these regions, the Pannonii, allies of the Dalmatians, were attacked by the Romans, who conquered and occupied Siscia (Sisak, in Croatia). Before that, the Roman interest in this area had focused exclusively on economic resources (silver and iron).1 The founding of Aquileia in 181 B. C. may be the very first clue to the Romans’ economic interest in the Balkan area. Aquileia continued to develop in the subsequent period. Even after the establishment of the Roman provinces it played an important role as the starting point of the road to Emona, east of the Julian Alps. From there, one road followed the old line of the Baltic traffic northwards via Poetovio (Pettau) to Carnuntum on the Danube. The other road descended into the valley of the river Sava, by way of Sirmium (Mitrovitsa), to the confluence of that river with the Danube at Singidunum (Belgrade). Between the foundation of Aquileia and the first Roman military actions in that area, it seems that the Romans were only interested in its natural resources.2 The ancient sources provide information regarding this war against the Pannonii. Appian mentions all the populations east of the Alps: Sallasoi, Iapodes, Segestanoi, Dalmatai, Daisitiatai and Paiones.3 Cassius Dio provides a short list of the populations involved in this event.4 Appian notices that the conquest of Siscia and of the valley of river Sava was motivated by Octavian’s desire to use Siscia and the river itself as a military base in a future war against the Dacians and the Bastarni.5 Strabo describes Siscia as a place which, due to its location, was very suitable as a base for military action against the Dacians.6 Cassius Dio suggests that Octavian had no reproach against the Pannonii, because they did not harm to the Romans.7 He continues with a description of this conflict.8 According to Cassius Dio, this expedition was organ1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mócsy 1974, 31. Mócsy 1974, 31. Appian, Illiriké 17. Cassius Dio 49,34,2; Nemeth 2007, 131. Appian, Illyriké 22; Nemeth 2007, 32. Strabo 7,5,2. Cassius Dio 49,36,1,2. Cassius Dio 49,37,1–6.

18

Chapter 1

ized in order to train the soldiers. The specialists agree with these two ancient sources.9 Some of them accepted Arrian’s version.10 Mócsy understood the conquest of Siscia as an action related to Augustan propaganda.11 In fact, if one looks more closely, the true purpose was, as observed by Mócsy, the creation of a land connection between Northern Italy and the Roman territories in the Balkans, but also the pacification of the neighbouring population in North-Eastern Italy.12 I think the same strategy was applied in Dacia. The decision to conquer this territory was not only motivated by its resources, but also by the wish to pacify the barbarian populations which lived north of the Danube. The conquest of Siscia and parts of the Sava valley served to create not only a land connection between Italy and the Balkans, but also a strategic point for a future conflict with the Dacians, even if such a war was not yet included in the Roman plans. After this conquest the sources remain silent until 16 B. C. Cassius Dio states that Macedonia was attacked by the Scordisci.13 Tiberius acted against the Pannonians in the subsequent year, 15 B. C. The rebellions of the Pannonians, who sometimes had the Dalmatians as allies, continued over the following years, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 and 8 B. C.14 Some of these events were recorded by Velleius Paterculus.15 In the beginning, Agrippa and M. Vinicius were in charge of the military operations. After Agrippa’s death, operations were led by Tiberius. Even Augustus came to Aquileia. The measures taken by the Romans after this intensive conflict were very harsh; for example, most of the young men were captured and sold as slaves.16 In 11 B. C., Illyricum was constituted as an imperial province. It included the area of what was later to become Dalmatia and Pannonia. The Danube came to be the northern limit of this vast area.17 We do not know the extension of the territory conquered on that occasion. We may be sure that the tribes living in the southern part of future Pannonia and in the northern part of the future province of Dalmatia came under Roman control. But Augustus, in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti (30), specified that after Tiberius defeated the Pannonians, the frontiers of Illyricum were pushed back to the bank of the Danube (ripa fluminis Danuvii). Anyway, matters regarding this frontier are related to the fact that Augustus viewed the river as an important axis of communication. He was aware that for future military actions the control of the Danube was more than necessary.18 In 6 A. D., the Pannonians, Dalmatians and other Illyrian tribes started a rebellion, which was crushed in 9 A. D. This was the last big revolt against the Romans. Illyricum was dissolved and its territory divided between the new Pannonian provinces. Other attacks stemming from outside of the province are not known, with the exception of the one in 10 A. D., when the Dacians tried and succeeded to cross over the frozen 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Nemeth 2007, 32. Tóth 2003, 19. Mócsy 1974, 32–33. Mócsy 1974, 32. Cassius Dio 54,20,3. Nemeth 2007, 132. Velleius Paterculus 2,96. Mócsy 1974, 32. Mócsy 1974, 34; Cassius Dio 54,34,4. Mócsy 1974, 35.

Pannonia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

19

Danube to Pannonia.19 This is the first mention of a conflict between the Romans and the Dacians on the territory of the future province of Pannonia. It has not been established exactly where this conflict took place. E. Nemeth thinks that the South of Pannonia is a good possibility.20 Anyway, from the same paragraph of Augustus’s Res Gestae we know that this attack was followed by some Roman actions.21 The ancient sources document another Roman military action against the Dacians during Augustus’ reign. But there is not enough information to establish when and where this attack happened. Annaeus Florus notes that every time the Danube was frozen the Dacians attacked the neighbouring areas.22 Augustus decided to remove such a dangerous tribe from the Roman frontiers and sent Cn. Cornelius Lentulus to do the job. Lentulus managed to repel the Dacians to the opposite bank of the Danube (the left bank). He built surveillance posts on the right bank, which was controlled by the Romans. Despite these measures, the Dacians were not defeated, but only removed from the border area. Very soon, the Romans clashed with the Dacians during their occupation of the future province of Pannonia. The Dacians perceived this Roman proximity as a real danger. In Illyricum the Roman domination was not yet secured either. The last significant revolt took place between 6 and 9 A. D. Tiberius, together with M. Valerius Messala Messalinus, the governor of Illyricum, started a military expedition against Maroboduus. The majority of the army participated in this expedition. Cassius Dio mentions this episode,23 which is also described by Velleius Paterculus.24 The revolt started immediately afterwards. At the same time the Dacians and the Sarmatians also attacked Moesia, in 6 A. D. Caecina Severus, the governor of Moesia, was in Sirmium at the time. E. Nemeth noticed some interesting aspects.25 Only the southern part of the future province of Pannonia was affected by this rebellion. The people living south of the river Sava, on the territory of the future province of Dalmatia, figure as the ‘Dalmatian people’ in the literary sources, e. g. in Strabo.26 The populations north of the Sava did not participate in the rebellion. This aspect proves that the Roman military occupation had not yet extended to that area. The region between the Drava and the Sava was not fully conquered by the Romans, since Suetonius states that the conflict of 6–9 A. D. was an external one.27 The first auxiliary troops were recruited from the Southern Pannonian tribes only after the defeat of this rebellion. After that, some men were recruited from the tribes north of the river Drava, but not before the middle of the first century A. D.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Res Gestae Divi Augusti 30; Nemeth 2007, 133. Nemeth 2007, 134. Res Gestae Divi Augusti 30: et postae trans Danuvium ductus exercitus meus Dacorum gentes imperia populi Romani perferre coegit. Epitome de gestis Romanorum 2,28. Cassius Dio 54,20,2. Velleius Paterculus 2,109. Nemeth 2007, 136. Geographia 7,5,3. De Vita XII Caesarum 3, Tiberius, 16,1.

20

Chapter 1

After that time, the province of Illyricum was created. Recent research indicates that the Romans created two provinces: Illyricum inferius and Illyricum superius.28 This division was required by the significant size of the province. Still, another explanation is based on the fact that five legions remained there after the defeat of the Dalmatian-Pannonian rebellion. In Northern Illyricum, the legio XV Apollinaris (at Emona?), the legio VIII Augusta (at Poetovio?) and the legio IX Hispana (at Siscia?)29 are attested. In the Southern Illyricum, the legiones VII and XI (later Claudiae p. f.) were garrisoned in Tilurium and Burnum respectively.30 After the defeat of the rebellion, such a concentration of military troops was no longer a necessity. It also represented a real danger for Italy, not far away from Illyricum. Soon after Augustus’ death, in 14 A. D., Tacitus31 describes a rebellion of three legions in the northern part (in Pannonia). This episode was also presented by Velleius Paterculus32 and Cassius Dio.33 The north-eastern corner and the eastern part of Pannonia were an important strategic area, which the Romans had an eye on from the beginning. The real danger there was the presence of the Sarmatians (Iazyges). We do not know exactly when the Sarmatians occupied these regions. Their first literary mention is of found in Tacitus.34 The Sarmatians lived close to the Marcomanni and the Quadi for a while; in Tacitus they are perceived in some sort of alliance with Vannius. Mócsy argued that the Iazyges were intentionally settled between Pannonia and pre-Roman Dacia, to act as a barrier against the Dacians.35 One should notice that this represents the first ‘common feature’ of the Danubian regions. Having set up military control so well in Pannonia, the Romans avoided further attacks of the Dacians in the area. For Rome, Pannonia was primarily significant with a view to the defence of Italy.36 The central provinces of the Roman Empire were well defended to the north and west by the Alps. But the area was vulnerable from the east. The Amber Road, which connected the Baltic sea to the Adriatic, represented a danger because along it anyone was able to approach Roman territory with ease. With the creation of Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia, the Amber Road was no longer the main commercial route. Before the establishment of Roman control in these areas, the Amber Road was the only route available for long-distance trade.37 Starting with the second century A. D., all the traffic was redirected along the course of the Danube.38 The creation of Pannonia triggered a ‘chain process’: Italy was safe now, and the Marcomanni and the Quadi were no longer a big threat, at least for the time being. The next problem was the Dacian threat. When Pannonia and Moesia were consolidated, the next step was made: 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Nemeth 2007, 137–140. Mócsy 1974, 42–43. Nemeth 2007, 138, note 63. Annales 1,16–30. Historiarum Libri Duo 2,125. Historia Romana 57,4. Annales 12,29,3. Mócsy 1974, 37–39. Fitz 2003, 207. Burns 2003. Wilkes 2005, 124: ‘the river itself is the core, as it was for the Roman presence in Central and Eastern Europe from early in the first century A. D. to the last decades of the fourth century’.

Pannonia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

21

the conquest of Dacia represented very good deal for the Roman Empire, both economically and strategically. The northern frontier of Moesia was now secured and the Dacian gold reinforced the finances of the Empire. After the Dacian invasion of Pannonia in 10 B. C. no further hostilities were recorded for this area. In the first century A. D. all Dacian attacks were focused on the Moesian regions. It seems obvious that the Sarmatians played an important role here. Pliny’s description supports this.39 Pannonia was founded as an imperial province of consular rank under the initial name of Illyricum inferius sometime after the defeat of the Dalmatian-Pannonian rebellion of 6–9 A. D. It stretched to the northern and the eastern part of the Danube.40 The archaeological evidence indicates that under Augustus the Roman occupation army was positioned only in the southern part of the province, i. e. in the Sava-Drava area. The occupation of the northern part happened later, in the Tiberian-Claudian period. First, the legio XV Apollinaris was sent to Carnuntum. Many auxiliary troops were installed along the Amber Road. At this stage the Danube defence was also strengthened by auxiliary troops. They were settled in Arrabona (Györ) and Brigetio (Komárom-Szöny). Under the Flavian emperors the entire Pannonian army was moved to the Danubian frontier.41 Both Vespasian and Trajan continued to consolidate the limes and the military defense in Pannonia as well as in neighboring Noricum. As a single province, until Trajan’s reign, Pannonia included territories from the Drava-Sava interfluve (the western half of present-day Hungary), the Vienna Basin, the Burgenland, to parts of Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia. Between 102 and 106 A. D. Trajan divided the province into Pannonia Superior and Inferior. In Pannonia Superior, located upstream on the Danube, three legions were stationed. In Pannonia Inferior, located to the south-east, only one legion was garrisoned, in Aquincum. In 214 A. D. Caracalla modified the demarcation lines between the two provinces.42 Starting with Caracalla’s reign, Brigetio, the garrison of the legio I Adiutrix, was administratively assigned to Pannonia Inferior. The civilian settlement, located circa 2 km west of the military fort, was granted the status of municipium under Caracalla. Soon it was promoted to the rank of colonia. The rank of the governors of the Pannonian provinces varied according to the number of legions under their command. The governor of Pannonia Superior was of consular rank. His headquarters were in Carnuntum.43 Until Caracalla, the governor of Pannonia Inferior, based at Aquincum, was a praetorian, having only one legion under his command.

39 40 41 42 43

NH 4, (25) 80–81. Nemeth 2007, 141. Nemeth 2007, 142; Mócsy 1974, 80. Fitz 2003, 205. Jobst 1983.

Chapter 2 Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

2.1 Dacia, terra cognita? Literary Sources about the North-Danubian Territories before the Roman Conquest The regions to the north of the Danube were basically unknown until Trajan conquered Dacia. In the fifth century B. C. Herodotus knew from the Thracians that the land north of the Ister (Danube) was occupied by bees. The same Herodotus stated that it was so cold in the territories north of the Danube that neither bees nor people could live there (5,10).1 Gaius Julius Caesar, in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico (6,25), knew nothing of Dacia. His only observation regarding these areas relates to the length of the Hercyniae silvae. Basically, most of the ancient authors used the same topos to describe Dacia. They mention the ‘legendary’ Scythicum frigus,2 the drunkenness of the barbarians, and their awkward, savage way of life. Publius Ovidius Naso (43 B. C.–17/18 A. D.), exiled by Augustus to Tomis, did not mention the Dacians. For him, ‘Dacian’ was the same thing as Getae. His main emphasis is on the coldness of the weather, the savageness of the barbarians and their strange, wild customs.3 Pompeius Trogus (first century B. C.) wrote Historiae Philippicae (44 books), of which only several passages survive, transcribed by Justinus (second century A. D.). He painted the same apocalyptic image regarding the barbarity of the Dacians. Even a highly educated and important geographer as Strabo provides only a general description of Dacia.4 The region was outside the area of interest to the Greek geographer. During his time, Dacia was not part of the Roman Empire. Strabo described, in very general lines, the courses of the rivers Marisus and Danubius (7,3,13). Strabo was a respected historian, geographer and philosopher, who traveled a lot.5 Even so, in spite of all his opportunities to travel, explore, and read, even though he had access to information, his descriptions of Dacia are very general. 1 2 3 4 5

Bărbulescu 1999, 33. Nemeti 2009, 411–427. Ovidius, Tristia 2; Popa-Lisseanu 2006, 30, 46. Strabo 7,1,1. See Dueck 2000.

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

23

Like Strabo, the famous Pliny the Elder had also little knowledge of the territory under discussion. Susan Mattern’s observation is to the point: Pliny’s knowledge of Dacia was limited.6 The name ‘Dacia’ is mentioned only once, at the end of Book 6, (39) 219. It is obvious that Pliny had a vague idea about these lands and that his writing style, in this case and in others, was linear.7 This means that he tried to inform the reader using geographic and topographic details, but he did not provide proper ‘spatial descriptions’, but rather a linear construction of his discourse.8 The geography of Dacia remained a mystery until the reign of Domitian. This was, in my opinion, the first moment when the Romans, i. e. the military troops, took notice of the north-Danubian territory. In Domitian’s reign, the Dacians, reunited again in a powerful centralized state under the rule of Diurpaneus, Decebalus’ predecessor, threatened Moesia again. Domitian’s war against the Dacians and its political and military consequences have been the subject of numerous debates.9 The differences of opinion focus on some chronological and geographical issues. This conflict also affected the neighbouring provinces of Dacia, especially Moesia. In Moesia the Dacians unleashed a devastating attack 10 in the winter of 85/86 or already in the spring or summer of 85 A. D. The causes of this attack have been discussed several times. It seems that the Dacians were dissatisfied with the Roman measure of reducing the subsidies. But another strong reason for the Dacians to attack was their desire to regain control over the north-Danubian territories supervised by the Romans. The governor of Moesia at that time, C. Oppius Sabinus, was incapable of repelling the Dacians’ attack. He was killed in battle. The situation became so critical that Domitian himself came to Moesia and installed Cornelius Fuscus (praefectus praetorio) as chief commander of the Roman army. He succeeded in driving the Dacians across the Danube. Then, in 86 A. D. he attempted a very bold, yet reckless action.11 He invaded Dacian territory, but was defeated at Tapae (the Transylvanian Iron Gates, close to the capital of the Dacian kingdom) and lost his life here. As a result, Domitian returned to Moesia, moving in the legio II Adiutrix from Britannia. Another consequence of these events was the division of Moesia into two provinces in 86. Then, in 87, Tettius Iulianus was designated to prepare and lead an expedition into Dacia; this proved successful. In 88 he managed to defeat the Dacians in the same place where his predecessor died, at Tapae. After these episodes, things became more complicated for Domitian. Parts of the army from Germania Superior rebelled. At the same time, the Marcomanni and the Quadi attacked the Roman Empire. In this situation, the Roman emperor decided to put an end to the conflict with Decebalus. A peace treaty was signed and the Dacian king became rex amicus sociusque populi Romani. After ending hostilities with the Dacians, Domitian focused his attention on the conflict with the Germans. According to Cassius Dio (57,7), the emperor was very angry because the Germans had refused to provide 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mattern 1999, 209. McQuiggan 2006–2007, 80–81. Whittaker 2004, 68. Strobel 1989; Jones 1992; Stefan 2005; Nemeth 2007, 144. Iordanes, Getica 76. Jones 1992, 141; Tacitus, Agricola 41,2 wrote: tot exercitus amissi temeritate … ducum (‘so many armies lost through the rashness of their commanders’). This was addressed directly to Fuscus.

24

Chapter 2

military aid to the Romans in their conflict with the Dacians. He wanted to approach the areas inhabited by the Germans rapidly. Thus the Roman troops took the shortest route from the Dacian war sites.12 One inscription shows that some of them had to march through Dacia13 and then northwards through the Hungarian Plain. But Domitian soon left Pannonia for the Rhine, but then he returned when the Romans were defeated. After that he accepted peace with the Dacians. In Rome he celebrated a triumph over the Dacians and the Chatti, but not over the Germans. So, some troops marched through Dacia and maybe this was the first time when the Romans were really in the position to see some of the areas which were later to form Trajan’s Dacia. Information regarding the Dacian territories could also have been gathered by merchants. Italian merchants may have often been present in Dacia between the first century B. C. and the first century A. D., since products from Italy have been discovered in the area. But there are no strong arguments to prove that such objects entered Dacia with such merchants. Indeed, some of the information provided by merchants was far from the truth. Caesar was unable to obtain data on Britain from merchants,14 and Strabo complained that the merchants who claimed have visited the Ganges did not know anything about the history of those places.15 Between 89 and 101 the literary sources do not provide further information on the Dacians. Pannonia, though, was affected by the attacks of the Iazyges and the Suebi in 92.

2.2 The Conquest. Economic, Strategic, Personal and Geographical Reasons. Benefits and Disadvantages Almost every historian who wrote about the reasons for the conquest of Dacia invoked three arguments: 1. Dacia was invaded because of its gold resources; 2. The second motive was strategic: the separation of the Sarmatians Iazyges and Roxolanii;16 3. Trajan wanted to create a province north of the Danube to avoid further attacks on Moesia Superior. Nevertheless, some historians have described the process of the conquest of Dacia and the reasons for this action in other terms. Whittaker perceived the annexation of Dacia in totally different terms.17 Unfortunately, many of his arguments are unsustain12 13 14 15 16 17

Mócsy 1974, 84. ILS 9200: […] et bel/lo Marcommannorum Quadorum / Sarmatarum adversus quos expedi/tionem fecit per regnum Decibali […]. Mattern 1999, 36. Mattern 1999, 36. Bărbulescu 2001, 74. Whittaker 2004, 34–35: ‘Or, to take another prominent example, much has been made of Trajan’s motives for war and his supposed strategy in annexing Dacia in the early second century AD. Trajan’s aims are ascribed by Roman authors, some of them contemporaries, to revenge or desire for gold and glory, but never elevated to a grand, strategic aim for the defence of the Balkans. The results, if we are meant to believe Trajan had secretly planned some wider, strategic aim behind closed doors, are hardly convincing. Trajan had no time to organize the defence of Dacia before rushing off to Parthia. While the Dacian army tied down some 55–60,000 men by the early third century (one eighth of the Roman army), it still failed to deter the Marcommani invasion of Pannonia in the later second century or the Gothic incursions of the third century,

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

25

able. Trajan had enough time to prepare the conquest of Dacia: 1. The construction of the road along the right bank of the Danube was finished in 100 A. D., as Tabula Traiana proves; 2. Trajan used a huge number of soldiers from Pannonia and Moesia. On the other hand, the Marcomannic invasion affected not only Dacia, but also other important provinces. Strangely enough, the Gothic invasions of the third century A. D. tended to avoid Dacia. The abandonment of the province, in fact, happened not because Dacia was attacked, but on the contrary, because it was not targeted by these attacks. Troops from Dacia were moved to other provinces; for instance, vexillationes from the legio V Macedonica from Potaissa and legio XIII Gemina from Apulum are attested, in the third century A. D., at Poetovio in Pannonia Superior. They were sent there to defend the most important land connection between Italy and the Balkans: the road Aquileia – Poetovio – Singidunum. The Dacian kingdom may have been stable in its interior, but it represented a huge threat for the Roman Empire, for provinces such as Moesia Inferior. It should be noted that the first military campaign started in March 101. After one year, the Banat region was already under Roman control. Longinus was designated, before the creation of Dacia, as commander in chief of the military troops left by the Romans north of the Danube. In two years’ time, the Romans built the longest bridge ever known in their Empire, at Drobeta. The second campaign lasted for one year (105 to the summer of 106). Dacia was conquered quickly and efficiently. Of course there were strategic dimensions to the Dacian annexation. A frontier across the Hungarian plain, as imagined by Whittaker, does not reflect strategy, but rather a misunderstanding of the landscape’s features. The Romans were extremely good at strategy. Why conquer, occupy, administrate and control marshy areas, such as those in the western Banat? The first glance at a map of the Roman Empire shows the awkward position of Dacia. Luttwak noticed that in fact, on a map, the new province presented a classic profile of vulnerability.18 Possibly Trajan, among the reasons mentioned above, wanted to reach the Northern Ocean, based on information provided Agrippa, who located that ocean only

18

which led to the abandonment of the province. By destroying a stable Dacian kingdom, Trajan created a threat from the now invigorated Sarmatians and Iazyges that continued to plague the Empire for the next two hundred years. If the annexation of Dacia was really strategically determined, why on earth did the province not include a frontier across the Hungarian plain, which would have shortened the defences of the middle Danube by some 500 km? In fact, the action does not appear to have been based on any geo-political assessment of the military viability of the annexations. That is what Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, realized, although he could not reverse the decision, according to Dio. It was also what Aurelian must have discovered when he finally abandoned the province in the next century. Hadrian did in fact withdraw from Trajan’s other conquest in Parthia, much to the anger of the military establishment. That may have been due to an intelligent reassessment of ends and means. If so, it was unpopular with the Roman public and reversed by Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. Commodus’ reassessment of Marcus Aurelius’ intentions to annex two provinces north of the Danube may, by some stretch of the imagination, also have been strategic, rather than due to his depravity, as the sources say. If so, the decision was taken against the advice of his military council.’ Luttwak 1976, 100.

26

Chapter 2

396 miles from the Danube.19 The same idea was adopted by Marcus Aurelius. He wanted to create two new provinces: Sarmatia and Marcomannia.20 As previously mentioned, the Roman conceptions about this area were mainly mythological. Maybe the emperor wanted to explore and conquer a territory that might be rich in resources, especially gold.21 It is not certain that the Romans already possessed relevant information about the Dacian gold, located during the Roman period and extracted in Alburnus Maior. In fact, I think they found out about it only after the creation of the new province when exploring this new territory. Therefore, I would suggest that it was only after the second military campaign and the annexation of Dacia that the Romans became aware of this region’s huge potential.22 Conscious or not of the Dacian gold, Trajan did not hesitate to use an enormous number of soldiers in his two military campaigns against Dacia. In the first campaign Trajan relied on nine legions (from a total of 30) available at that time in the Roman Empire and already stationed along the front. Four legions were placed in Pannonia (XIII Gemina, XV Apollinaris, I and II Adiutrix), three in Moesia Superior (XIV Gemina Martia Victrix, IIII Flavia felix and VII Claudia pia fidelis) and two in Moesia Inferior (V Macedonica at Oescus and I Italica). As for the auxiliary troops, no less than 90 auxiliary troops were camped along the Ister at this date.23 In the second campaign, Trajan used an even larger army. He even ordered the creation of two new legions, the II Traiana fortis and XXX Ulpia victrix.24 If Trajan gathered such an army, obviously the costs of the annexation of Dacia were high. Certain historians asked themselves whether the Romans had followed a strategy of cost–benefit analysis before annexation.25 In other words, did Trajan or his staff act like good economists, calculating the ratio cost-benefits, or the costs of the war against the Dacians? To this question, the answer is negative. Neither Strabo nor Pliny the Elder were really conscious of Dacia’s resources. This region did not enjoy a reputation for wealth. On the contrary, the ancient authors described Dacia as a cold and infertile region, inhabited by drunken, savage barbarians. Pliny the Younger imagined that the barbarian people might be Trajan’s only benefit from Dacia.26 He never referred any riches to be found there. In the case of Britain, the situation was perceived differently. Strabo believed that

19 20

21 22

23 24 25 26

Mattern 1999, 61. Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius 27,10: triennio bellum postea cum Marcomannis Hermunduris Sarmatis Quadis etiam egit et, si anno uno superfuisset, provincias ex his fecisset (‘For three years thereafter he waged war with the Marcomanni, the Hermunduri, the Sarmatians, and the Quadi, and had he lived a year longer he would have made these regions provinces’). Quoted after Loeb Classical Library 139, 1921. Historia Augusta, vol. I, translated by David Magie. Mattern 1999, 61. One argument is that during the first campaign the Romans did not penetrate so deep into the Dacian territory. Alburnus Maior (today Roșia Montană) is located in the heart of the Apuseni Mountains. In 102 A. D. the Romans only occupied the south-western region (Banat). Bennett 1997, 91; Popescu, Ţentea 2006, 75–120. Bennett 1997, 101. Whittaker 2004, 35. Mattern 1999, 155.

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

27

Britain was very rich in gold and silver.27 Therefore, information about Dacia or about other territories was often far from the truth. No matter the costs, the benefits of the annexation of Dacia were immense. Besides gold, other natural resources could be exploited by the Romans in Dacia: iron, copper and silver in Banat, marble from Bucova (close to Sarmizegetusa) and Ampoiţa (close to Apulum). Salt was extracted in numerous places in Dacia (Ocna Dejului, Jelna, Domneşti, Sic, Cojocna, Pata, Potaissa, Salinae, Mărtiniș, Sânpaul, Ocna Sibiului, Ocnele Mari), thermal waters were available at Germisara (today Geoagiu-Băi) and Băile Herculane, and there was a great number of stone quarries.28 The conquest of Dacia also brought Trajan glory, and Dacia was no longer tabu; the humiliation of Domitian’s military campaigns was erased. That is why Trajan raised a huge army against the Dacians: He made sure that the issue of Dacia would be settled.

2.3 Trajan and Dacia. Preparing the Conquest. Tabula Traiana Trajan had carefully prepared the invasion of Dacia. The Optimus Princeps accomplished three crucial things: 1. He made sure that he could rely on a huge army; 2. he took with him the best military commanders available at that time, together with other important specialists in logistics and land measurement (the mensor Balbus, the architect Apollodorus); 3. he had the road infrastructure improved, in order to reach the areas close to the Dacian lands easily. The construction of the road on the right bank of the Danube started during the reign of Tiberius. Two inscriptions discovered in the Gornja Klisura – one in Gospodjin Vir and the other one in Boljetin –, provide data on the planning and construction of this road by two legions: IV Scythica and V Macedonica.29 The inscriptions are dated 33/34 A. D. Another inscription from Gospodjin Vir, a rock carved at 1.7 m above the Roman road, dates from 46 A. D., during the reign of Claudius (41–54 A. D.).30 The text mentions the name of Martius Macer as legatus augusti pro praetore and the legions involved in the project, IV Scythica and V Macedonica. This road was the axis which assured the connection between the central provinces of the Roman Empire and the eastern areas. It was a frontier road, separating the Romans from the Barbarians, but also a road that ensured the proper movement of the armies along the border. Rufus Festus31 (fourth 27 28 29

30

31

Strabo, Geographia 4,5,2. Strabo provided reasons against conquering more of Britain (Scotland). See for this Breeze 1988, 10. Bărbulescu et alii 2005, map XVII (mineral resources). Ti. Caesare Au[g(usti) F(ilio)] / Augusto Imperato[re] / Pont(ifice) Max(imo) Tr(ibunicia) Pot(estate) XXXV / Leg(io) IIII Scyt(hica) Leg(io) Maced(onica); Šašel 1963; Gabričević 1972, 408; Bošković 1978, 425–463; Mirković 1996, 27–40; Mirković 2007, 26–27. Ti. Claudio Drusi f(ilio) Caesare / Aug(usto) Germanico pontif(ice) max(imo) / trib(unicia) pot(estate) VI imp(eratore) XII p(atre) p(atriae) co(n)s(ule) desig(nato) IIII / Leg(io) IIII Scyth(ica) Leg(io) V Mac(edonica) / montibus excisis [facisque anc]onibus [(s(ub)c(ura)] / Mar(tii) Marci leg(ati) Aug(usti) propr(aetore). Breviarum 8,1.

28

Chapter 2

century A. D.) noticed: Et limes inter Romnos ac barbaros ab Augusta Vindelicum per Noricum, Pannonias ac Moesiam est constitutus (‘And a limes was established between the Romans and the Barbarians from Augusta Vindelicum through Noricum, Pannonia and Moesia’).32 During Trajan’s rule this road was completed and the conditions of navigating across the Danube Klisura were improved.33 At Ogradena, a rock-carved inscription attests to the works performed by the Romans to finish this road in 100 A. D.:34 Imp(erator) Caesar Divi Nervae F(ilius) / Nerva Traianus Aug(ustus) Germ(anicus) / Pontif(ex) Maximus Trib(unicia) IIII / Pater Patriae Co(n)s(ul) III / montibus excisi anco(ni)bus / sublat(is) via(m) f(ecit). According to this text and to what one can see today at Ogradena the huge Roman efforts behind the construction of this road, above the waters of the Danube, are obvious. Large oblique pieces of wood fixed in the rock sustained a wooden bridge, an extension of the road cut in the rock. Two legions were involved in this action with logistic material and soldiers: legio IIII Flavia Felix and legio VII Claudia.35

2.4 Organizing the Army: Preparations for Conquest On March 25th of the year 101 A. D. Trajan left Rome, travelling overland along the Via Flaminia by way of Ariminum (Rimini) to Viminacium (Kostolac). In late April, after one month of travelling, the emperor and his staff arrived at Viminacium. Titus Claudius Livianus, praefectus praetorio, accompanied Trajan, together with the Praetorian Guard.36 Lucius Licinius Sura participated as well. Quintus Sosius Senecio, Frontinus’ son-in-law, also accompanied Trajan, together with Gaius Julius Quadratus Bassus, Cneius Pinarius Pompeius Longinus, governor of Moesia Superior between 93 and 96, Lucius Julius Ursus Severianus, governor of Pannonia in 99–100, and Lusius Quietus, commander of the Moorish cavalry, which surrounded the Dacian capital. Publius Aelius Hadrianus, comes expeditionis Dacicae, was also with Trajan. One must not forget the mensor Balbus, who was in charge of land measurements and military operations which required the finding of the right location for the future forts. Trajan started the campaign immediately after his arrival in Viminacium. In May or June 101 he stepped on Dacian territory. Unfortunately, only fragmentary details have

32 33

34 35

36

Mirković 2007, 27. An inscription dated 101 A. D. discovered at Karataš attests the efforts for the rehabilitation of the Danube course, in order to make it easily navigable: ob periculum cataractarum derivato flumine tutam Danuvi navigationem fecit (see Nemeth 2007, 148); Šašel 1973, 80–85; Timoc 2001, 97–116; AE 1973, 475. CIL 3, 1699; Petrovič 1986, 41; Rossi 1968, 41–46; Becatti 1982, 566; Le Roux 1998, 73. Petrovič 1986, 52: Herculi sacrum / lapidarii qui exieru / nt ancones facien / dos legionis IIII Fl(aviae) / et legionis VII Cl(audiae) vot(um) so[lverunt]; Ti. Claudio Drusi f(ilio) Caesare / Aug(usto) Germanico pontif(ice) max(imo) / trib(unicia) pot(estate) VI imp(eratore) XII p(atre) p(atriae) co(n)s(ule) desig(nato) IIII / Leg(io) IIII Scyth(ica) Leg(io) V Mac(edonica) / montibus excisis [facisque anc]onibus [(s(ub)c(ura)] / Mar(tii) Marci leg(ati) Aug(usti) propr(aetore). Bennett 1997, 90.

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

29

survived of the war that followed. It is not my intention here to present this war in detail, but to outline the relation between the lines of advance, the construction of the future roads in Dacia and the creation of the first itineraria.

2.5 The First Dacian War. Trajan, Balbus, the mensores and the Creation of the First Itineraria During this first campaign the Roman troops penetrated into territory of the Banat using two routes, which became parts of the Roman imperial road rapidly. The first was the road between Lederata (today Ram in Serbia) and Tibiscum (today Jupa in Caraș-Severin County). The second one was the road between Dierna (today Orșova in Mehedinți County) and the same Tibiscum. The sources for the reconstruction of the Dacian wars have been almost entirely lost. Criton of Heraclea (Titus Statilius Crito), Trajan’s famous Greek doctor, wrote a book entitled Getica, now lost.37 Dio Chrysostomus also wrote about Trajan’s period, but his contributions have been lost, too. The Histories of Tacitus end with Domitian’s reign. Suetonius’ work on the life of the twelve emperors also concludes with Domitian. The Historia Augusta starts with Hadrian. Thus the only sources for reconstructing the Dacian wars are Trajan’s Column and Trajan’s work De bello Dacico. Obviously, one should keep in mind the fact that Trajan’s Column was a propagandistic monument. Therefore, attempts to locate all the scenes depicted on it rapidly, remain, unfortunately, pure speculations.38 Trajan wrote, as his predecessor Caesar did, a ‘book’ on the military campaigns in Dacia: De bello Dacico. Only one sentence has survived: inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus (‘from there we advanced to Berzobis, and then to Aizis’). This sentence describes the advancement of the Roman army led by Trajan himself on a road constructed during the first military campaign in the western part of Banat. The most important aspect here is the sentence itself. It matters that Trajan presented all the settlements, and maybe also the distances between them, in the form of a written itinerarium.39 This knowledge could be easily transformed into an itinerarium pictum. The Roman surveyor Balbus wrote a book on topography and geometry. His text, entitled Expositio et ratio omnium formarum, was dedicated to Celsus, the famous mathematician from Alexandria in Egypt. Unfortunately, only a part of his text has survived. But the information is essential for understanding the role played by surveyors during the expeditions against the Dacians:40 At postquam primum hosticam terram intravimus, statim, Celse, Caesaris nostri opera mensurarum rationem exigere coeperunt. Erant dandi interveniente certo itineris spatio duo rigores ordinati, quibus in tutelam commeandi ingens vallorum adsurgeret molis: hos invento tuo operis decisa 37 38

39 40

Russu 1972, 111–127; Petolescu 2007, 144. The apogee of these attempts was reached in Antonescu’s book printed in 1910. See also: Daicoviciu 1959, 317–319; Daicoviciu, Daicoviciu 1966; Daicoviciu 1972, 278–335; Miclea, Florescu 1980; Vulpe 1988; Coulston 2001, 106–137. Bărbulescu 1999, 34. Text and translation after Crișan, Timoc 2004–2005, 157–170.

30

Chapter 2 ad aciem parte ferramenti usus explicuit. Nam quod ad synopsim pontium pertinet, fluminum latitudines dicere, etiam si hostis infestare voluisset, ex proxima ripa poteramus. Expugnandorum deinde montium altitudines ut sciremus, venerabilis diis ratio monstrabat. Quam ego quasi in omnibus templis adoratam post magnarum rerum experimenta, quibus interveni, religiosius colere coepi, et ad consummandum hunc librum velut ad vota reddenda properavi. Postquam ergo maximus imperator victoria Daciam proxime reseravit, statim ut e septentrionali plaga annua vice transire permisit, ego ad studium meum tamquam ad otium sum reversus, et multa velut scripta foliis et sparsa artis ordini inlaturus recollegi. But as soon as we stepped into the enemy’s land, Celsus, the operations of our emperor started to request the help of measurement sciences. It happened that along a certain sector of the road we needed to draw two straight regular lines, with the help of which we built the huge defense constructions necessary for the defense of routes. Thanks to your invention (the measurement instrument), this allowed the drawing of these (lines) in a big part of Dacia. For example, regarding the design of the bridges, even if the enemy wanted to attack us, we could calculate from our bank, which was the width of the rivers. All this venerable science, gifted by the gods, has showed me how to find out the heights of the mountains which needed to be conquered. After the experience of these great facts, in which we participated, I started to worship it (this science) even more, as it could be worshiped in all the temples, hurrying myself to finish this book, as if I should fulfill certain promises made to the gods. So, after the great emperor soon opened for us Dacia, with his victory, after one year he allowed me to leave this northern region, and I returned to my basic occupation as to a moment of peace, and I gathered together many things, as if they were written and spread on different papers, and I wanted to arrange them in a proper order which is useful for any science.

Using geometric methods, Balbus established the width of the rivers, even if one bank was controlled by the enemy. He also mentioned that he managed to establish the position of the future military forts in Dacia. However, the most important aspect is his presence in Dacia for a year. Trajan also spent one year in Dacia, after the Roman conquest of 106 A. D. It seems possible that Balbus was in Dacia together with the emperor. This reveals an important aspect, i. e. the fact that Trajan was strongly interested in the rapid administrative and military organization of the newly conquered territory. The Romans always accomplished two things when entering foreign territory: They built the roads necessary for the troops to advance and the forts to accommodate the soldiers of the legions and the auxiliary troops. Therefore, Balbus and other surveyors (the legions’ mensores) took part in this huge effort. The soldiers of the legions worked hard to accomplish this, as the reliefs on Trajan’s Column show. They cut down trees, built bridges and roads. After 106 two legions remained in Dacia: the legio XIII Gemina at Apulum (today Alba Iulia, Alba County) and the legio IIII Flavia Felix at Berzobis (today Berzovia in Banat). Both were strategically placed on Dacia’s main Roman road, exactly 72 Roman miles south and north of the Dacian capital, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. This shows again that very precise, accurate measurements along roads were made from the beginning of the Roman presence in Dacia. These data were grouped into written or painted itineraria, first used by the army. It is logical to assume that Balbus was not the only mensor in Dacia. He was, obviously, the ‘chief-engineer’, and from this position he supervised all works related to establishing the routes of the roads and selecting the sites of the military forts. In their advancement into Dacia, the Romans used cavalry units, the so-called exploratores, for the reconnaissance of the terrain. The most famous in this context was Tiberius Claudius

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

31

Maximus (ca. 65–117), the decurion who followed Decebalus sometime after September 2nd, 106, after his withdrawal from the Dacian capital. His entire career is known because his tombstone was found, by chance, at Grammeni, in Macedonia.41 He began his military career as a cavalryman in the legio VII Claudia, with the rank of vexillarius. It should be mentioned that he was decorated for bravery during Domitian’s Dacian campaigns. He was then transferred to the auxiliary. He became an explorator in the same unit. Ala II Pannoniorum was created during the first half of the first century A. D., in Pannonia. During the second half of this century we find it in Syria and then in Upper Moesia. Radu Ardevan argued that the ala II Pannoniorum must have been transferred in Upper Moesia sometime after 88 and before 93.42 A tile stamped with the initials of this ala was found near Lederata. This suggests that its fortress should have been located in the proximity. The troop played a crucial role in the conquest of Dacia. Immediately after the conquest, it was garrisoned at Gherla, in northern Dacia, where its soldiers built a timber-and-earth camp. From this stronghold, the troop had to safeguard the communications in the region, and the connection between the legio XIII Gemina – located in Apulum – and the northern frontier. Exploratores were usually cavalrymen forming troops whose main tasks were the recognition of the terrain, identifying the position of the enemy, and establishing the ideal course of future routes. Unlike the speculatores, they acted almost always jointly, as troops. The literary sources attest various kinds of auxiliaries in the Roman Empire: exploratores Batavi, Divitienses, Germanici, Nemaningenses, Sciopenses (in Germania), Bremenienses (in Britannia), and Pomarienses (in Africa). They are also mentioned for the armies of the Danubian provinces.43 Numerous inscriptions were found in Germania. 41

42 43

Speidel 1984, 173–187 (originally in JRS, 60, 1970, 142–153); Pavkovicz 1994, 223–228; Rankov 1990, 165–175; Campbell 1994, 32–33 (English translation of the text of the inscription) and plate 1. Text: Ti(berius) Claudius / Maximus vet(eranus) / [s(e)] v(ivo) f(aciendum) c(uravit) militavit eque(s) in leg(ione) VII C(laudia) P(ia) F(ideli) fac/tus qu(a)estor equit(um) / singularis legati le/gionis eiusdem vexil/larius equitum item / bello Dacico ob virtu/te(m) onis donatus ab Im/p(eratore) Domitiano factus dupli(carius) / a divo Troiano(!) in ala secu(n)d(a) / Pannoniorum a quo et fa(c)/tus explorator in bello Da/cico et ob virtute(m) is donis / donatus bello Dacico et / Parthico et ab eode(m) factus / decurio in ala eade(m) quod / cepisset Decebalu(m) et caput / eius pertulisset ei Ranissto/ ro missus voluntarius ho/ nesta missione a Terent[io Scau]/riano consulare [exerci]/tus provinciae nov[ae Mes]/[opotamiae. Translation: Tiberius Claudius Maximus, veteran, took care of setting this up while he was alive. He served as trooper in Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis, was made quaestor equitum, then singularis of the legatus legionis of the same legion, then vexillarius of the troopers of that unit, received awards from Emperor Domitian for bravery in the Dacian War, was made duplicarius in the Ala II Pannoniorum by the Emperor Trajan and was made explorator in the Dacian War and twice received awards for bravery in the Dacian and the Parthian War and was made decurio in the same ala by him because he had captured Decebalus and bore his head to him in Ranisstorum. He got his honorary discharge as a voluntarius from the consular commander Terentius Scaurianus, of the army of the Provincia Mesopotamia Nova); Popescu, Ţentea 2006, 75–120 (with English summary: Auxiliary units from Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior at the conquest of Dacia). References: AE 1969/70, 583 = AE 1974, 589 = AE 1985, 721; Petolescu 2000, no. 363. Ardevan 2007, 139–155. See http://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epiergebnis_en, Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS, which provides, searching the term ‘explorator’, 42 examples of inscriptions. In Pan-

32

Chapter 2

Trajan might also have been assisted in his military campaigns by his bodyguards, the equites singulares Augusti. They are depicted in many scenes of the Column, advancing on horses, lightly equipped, therefore extremely mobile. A numerus Germanorum (Germanicianorum) Exploratorum is attested without in Dacia44 at Orăştioara de Sus, on stamped tiles45 and on a funerary stela dedicated for Julius Secundus by his heirs.46 The tile stamps are very simple. They are usually written from right to left. On this material (numerous stamps were found on the site), one can read with certainty ‘NGE’. The funerary inscription is very interesting, bearing the following text: D(is) M(anibus) / Iulio Secundo / expl(oratori) stip(endiorum) XXXII / domo Agrip(pinensi) / vix[i]t an(nos) LV / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit).47 Julius Secundus, explorator in Dacia, served for 32 years in the Roman army and lived to the age of 55. This was a very long military term. Born in Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium, Iulius participated in the conquest of Dacia, with his auxiliary troops. During the Dacian wars, they constructed a wood-and-timber fortress (later rebuilt in stone) at Orăştioara de Sus. Today the fortress no longer exists. Only its western and northern parts are visible. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate its original dimensions,48 though N. Gudea noted that in its stone phase the fortress measured 135 × 183 m.49 The location of this fortress is relevant for my argument; it is circa 55 km north-east of Sarmizegetusa, 55 km south-west of Apulum and circa 20 km north of Sarmizegetusa Regia, Decebalus’ former residence and capital. 55 km equals 37 Roman miles, or three marching days, in terms of a iustum iter, which is 12 miles. From this location, the exploratores controlled everything: the Roman imperial road and Sarmizegetusa. They could also reach Apulum or Ulpia Traiana easily. In fact, the latter was the most important, since it had no military garrison. The military surveyors were an important branch of the army. They are usually called mensores, though this category includes all kinds specialists in measuring. In Dacia three mensores are attested by inscriptions. The first one is mentioned in an inscription found

44 45 46 47

48 49

nonia Inferior, for example: CIL 3, 3254 (Acumincum / Novi Slankamen): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Tib(erius) Dexter / (centurio) explora/torum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito); CIL 3, AE 1966, 303 (Lugio / Dunaszekcso): D(is) M(anibus) / C(aiae) Val(eriae) Alpin(a)e / a(n)norum / VIII hic sit/a est pat(e)r et / mater fili(a)e / ben(e) mer(e)nti / posuerunt / et sibi vivis / Ael(ius) Ressatus / explorat(or) et / Val(eria) Aelias / mater; CIL 3, 3648 (Aquincum): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / M(arcus) Ulpius / Pusinnio (centurio) ex/ploratorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Pannonia Superior: CIL 3, 4276 = RIU-03, 689 (Brigetio / Kornye): Bato Dasentis / filius an(norum) XXV exp/lorator Dases / pater p(osuit) h(ic) s(itus) e(st); RIU-02, 00424 = AE 1944, 122 = AE 1960, 118 (Brigetio / Komarom): / et Iunoni reg(inae) / [g]enio explo/[rator]um co(hortis) VII / [Breucorum]. For the history of the unit, see: Speidel 1983, 63–78. AE 1972, 487 (Apulum / Alba Iulia); AE 1974, 548 (Orăştioara de Sus). AE 1974, 546; IDR III/3, 263. Also Austin, Rankov 1995, 191. The translation is: To the gods Manes (for the chthonic Gods) / to Julius Secundus / explorator (scouter), who served for 32 years (in the army) / born in Agrippina (Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium) / he lived for 52 years / the heir (heirs?) took care to dedicate (the funerary monument). Matei 2006, 67, note 123. Gudea 1997, 104.

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

33

in the amphitheatre of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.50 Another mensor is attested at Potaissa, in the legio V Macedonica. His name is Aurelius Castor. He calls himself mens(or) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae) p(iae). The third inscription, discovered in Apulum, names another mensor, Aurel(ius) Maximilia(nus). He was a soldier of the XIII Gemina legion. Basically, mensores served in many branches of the Roman army, holding prominent posts. They played a crucial role in geographical expeditions and military campaigns. Balbus, a civilian mensor, was invited by Trajan to take part in the organization of Dacia, doubtlessly because he was the best in his field at the time. In 1974, Robert K. Sherk argued that every legion had mensores.51 They are attested, in many cases, on funerary monuments. An interesting case is CIL 3, 8312, from Viminacium, where 11 mensores are mentioned. Another monument is AE 1904, 72, from Lambaesis, which mentions 9 mensores in legio III Augusta, one for each cohors. As for the auxilia, there seem to have been few mensores. Sherk pointed out that only one was known in 1908. CIL 13, 6538 from Mainhardt in Upper Germany names a Maximus Dasantis mensor coh. [I?] Asturum. Papyri mention some mensores on duty in the cohors XX Palmyrenorum in the middle of the third century A. D.52 Mensores were designated to choose the lay-out and perform the measurement of the military forts, and the surveys for the construction of roads and frontier limites. Further on, in my analysis of the route of the imperial road in Dacia, I will try to highlight the importance of their decisions in the creation of the new province. Mensores were responsible for choosing the location of the military forts and the routes of the new roads. All these actions required careful planning and solid technical expertise. Thus before the conquest, information about Dacia was extremely general. During and after the conquest, the Romans began to explore the geography of the regions situated north of the Danube. This confirms Pliny the Elder’s observation that one cannot expect to know anything about a region where the Roman army had never been before. The army played the main role in expanding such geographical knowledge.53

50

51

52 53

Alicu, Paki 1985–1986, 469–479. On a grid stone placed at the entrance of a room accessed from the arena the archaeologists could read the inscription LOC(us) MENSO[RIS]. The editors advanced two possible explanations for this inscription. The first one outlines the fact that it could make reference to a member of the technical stuff of the arena. The second one, more plausible, is that the inscription reffers to a mensor frumentarius. The inscription discovered at Ulpia Traiana is probably related to activities regarding the distribution of alimenta. Few mensores are recorded in the auxiliary units. See also Baatz 1984, 315–325. Mensores among the auxilia (CIL 3, 6358), as Michael Spiedel observed, are recorded as mensores frumenti, i. e. supply officers rather than surveyors (Speidel 1987, 143–144). Sherk 1974, 546–551. See also for more general aspects Nicolet 1991, 151–157. Nicolet 1991, 85–94; Sherk 1974, 534–562; Mattern 1999, 24–80. Mattern mentions the fact that the Romans were unaware of vast regions in Europe or Asia (Siberia, for example). Only a part of India was known. As for China, the Romans did not knew its extent.

34

Chapter 2

2.6 102 A. D. South-Western Dacia and the Roman Military Control At the end of the first military campaign the region of the Banat came under Roman control. Parts of the occupying troops were from Moesia Superior. Their commander was Cnaeus Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus.54 A peace agreement was concluded between the combatants, but neither of them respected it. Several camps were built along the two main roads from the Banat: the fortifications from Vărădia, Surducu Mare, Berzovia, Fârliug and Cornuțel along the western road; and the fortifications from Dierna (today Orșova, Mehedinți County), Mehadia and Teregova along the eastern road. From the crossing point at Tibiscum (today Jupa), a single road continued along the tight valley of the river Bistra, through the Iron Gates of Transylvania, until it reached Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Between Tibiscum and Ulpia a fortress was built at Zăvoi.55 At the end of the first military campaign, the entire south-western part of the future province of Dacia was under Roman control. Numerous troops from Moesia Superior and Pannonia are attested in this area. Before the province was founded, the Roman army in Dacia was under the command of Longinus, the former governor of Moesia Superior and Pannonia, and, without any doubt, comes Traiani during the first military campaign. In juridical and administrative matters, the Roman army was subordinated to the legate of Moesia Superior during this period.56

2.7 103–105 A. D. Apollodorus’ Bridge at Drobeta Between 103 and 105 the Romans built the most famous and longest bridge in the entire Empire.57 Trajan’s bridge, constructed by Apollodorus, over the Danube was situated to the east of the Iron Gates, near the present-day cities of Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Romania) and Kladovo (Serbia). The structure measured 1,135 meters in length (the Danube is 800 meters wide in that area) and 15 meters in width; it reached 19 meters in height (measured from the river’s surface). A Roman castrum was built at each end. The Romans used wooden arches set on twenty masonry pillars each spanning 38 meters. The impact of the construction of this bridge was immense. Cassius Dio described as the eight wonder of the world.58 The bridge was important not only because it was an amazing architectural achievement. It proved something else, too: the power of the Roman Empire, its immense ability to conquer everything, its capacity to overcome any physical obstacle. This image was strong and a mighty weapon in the ‘mental’ conflict between the Romans and the Dacians. Building this bridge amounted to conquering nature as Caesar 54 55 56 57

58

Piso 1993, 1. Nemeth 2005; Nemeth, Fodorean, Matei, Blaga 2011, 56, and figs 18, 120, 19, 121, figs 41, 142. More in Popescu, Țentea 2006, 75–120. Tudor 1974, 47–134;  O’Connor 1993, 142–145 (no. T13); Galliazzo 1994, 320–324 (no. 646); Gušić 1996, 259–261; Bancilă, Teodorescu 1998, 401–409; Vučković, Mihajlović, Karović 2007, 119–130. Cassius Dio 68,13,1–6.

Dacia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

35

had done: He had set up a wood bridge in 10 days, and the effect of his action had been huge. The Barbarians felt that the river was not the enemy, but the ally of the Romans.59

2.8 ‘… Trans Danuvium in expeditionem’. The Hunt Papyrus The exploration of the north-Danubian provinces from 102 A. D. to 106 A. D. is also attested to by a document entitled the ‘Hunt papyrus’,60 dated September 105. It is a pridianum61 of the cohors I Hispanorum veterana. A vexillatio of this troop is mentioned intra provinciam (meaning in Moesia Inferior), at Piroboridava (along the valley of Siret, at Poiana, Galați County) and Buridava (Stolniceni, Vâlcea County). The vexillatio, consisting of a centurion, a decurion, twenty-two horsemen and two pedestrians, was sent in expeditionem: Pirob[o]ridavae in praesidio, Buridavae in vexillatione, trans Danuvium in expeditione. A paragraph in the same text mentions an on-site reconnaissance performed by a group lead by a centurion: iter exploratum cum Pauliano centurione. Sometimes such military expeditions were quite dangerous. The same papyrus mentions the murder of a horseman by a robber (occisus a latronibus).62 The papyrus contains important information regarding Roman military explorations. First, the very existence of this document allows the observation that, in this particular case, a vexillatio from cohors I Hispanorum veterana went north of the Danube, but intra provinciam. This clearly proves that at that moment, i. e. before the end of the second Dacian war, Oltenia and south-eastern Walachia were already under Roman control. At the same time, the south-western part of the future Dacia was already controlled by the Romans from 102 onwards.

2.9 Trajan and Dacia Augusti Provincia In 106 Dacia officially became a Roman province. It included Transylvania (without its south-eastern corner), the Banat and western Oltenia. The other territories north of the Danube conquered in 102 (eastern Oltenia, Walachia, south-eastern Transylvania and southern Moldavia) were incorporated into Moesia Inferior. Dacia Augusti Provincia was constituted based on an imperial decree (lex provinciae), promulgated by Trajan before his return to Rome.63 This law covered the status, organization and managerial principles of the province and it established the taxes that had to be paid to the imperial fiscal authorities. It also set the frontiers and assigned the military troops who were to defend the new province. In the beginning, Dacia was an imperial province, led by a legatus Augusti pro praetore of senatorial class. In order to become governor of this province, one needed to be a vir consularis, i. e. a former consul in Rome. Two legions remained in Dacia: XIII Gemina at Apulum (today Alba Iulia, Alba County), and IIII Flavia Felix, at Berzobis (today Berzovia, Caraș-Severin County). 59 60 61 62 63

Braund 1996, 47. Vulpe 1960, 337–357; Fink 1971; Rădulescu, Bărbulescu 1981, 353–358. Campbell 1994, 110. Bărbulescu 1999, 34. Protase 2001, 44–45.

36

Chapter 2

Balbus, the head of surveyors during the Dacian conquest, remained in Dacia together with Trajan for one year after 106. Therefore, he had enough time, together with the mensores and the other surveyor specialists, to measure, explore, and position, with great care, all the elements of the infrastructure in the field: roads, forts, surveillance towers etc.64 At the same time, Trajan took care to bring colonists from all over the Empire to Dacia.65 Illyrians from Dalmatia were brought to Alburnus Maior. Roman economical, social, political and religious structures were rapidly implemented in Dacia. The main tool to achieve this was massive colonization. This also explains another aspect: the rapid romanization process in Dacia. This is proved by epigraphy: Around 3,000 Latin inscriptions were found in Dacia.

64 65

Contra, with no solid arguments, Whittaker 2004, 34. Eutropius (8,6,2): Traian, victa Dacia, ex toto orbe Romano infinitas eo copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes colendas.

Chapter 3 Moesia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

‘Military decisions at all levels are partly determined by geographical considerations’.1 This statement is also true for our historical investigation. Domitian’s war against the Dacians was triggered by numerous Dacian attacks in Moesia south of the Danube. Moesia occupied the central and eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula.2 The geography of the Balkan Peninsula offered numerous possibilities for economic development and communication facilities. The central part of the peninsula is crossed by the river of Niš (Naissus). Considering all these advantages of terrain and natural resources, it is logical to assume that this region was important during all the periods, especially to the Roman Empire. Moesia experienced its own particular history in this area, but a history closely related to that of Dacia and Pannonia. It became a Roman province during the last years of Augustus’ reign. In the ancient geographical sources, the province was delimited to the east by the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea), to the west by the river Drinus (Drina), to the north by the Danubius (Danube) and to the south by the Haemus (Balkan) and Scardus (Šar) mountains. Today it includes territories from Macedonia, southern Serbia (Moesia Superior), northern Bulgaria and the Dobrudja (south-eastern Romania). The Romans first approached this territory during the last years of Caesar’s reign. Burebista intended to expand his control over the north-eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. Octavian Augustus, Caesar’s successor, considered a war against the Dacians inevitable. In 35 B. C. Augustus captured Siscia. This settlement was strategically positioned at the confluence of the rivers Odra, Kupa and Sava, in Croatia. Subsequently, Octavian abandoned the idea of a war against the Dacians, but the benefits of such a conflict were obvious. He secured the Eastern Alps and the control along the coastal strip of the Northern Adriatic.3 During Augustus’ reign, in 6 A. D., Dalmatia was organized as an imperial province. In 87 A. D., after attacks by the Dacians, the emperor Domitian personally arrived in Moesia and divided it into two provinces: Moesia Superior to the west and Moesia Inferior to the east. The provinces were separated by the river Ciabrus. The Danube never represented a genuine frontier between the Dacians and the Roman Empire. In fact, on the contrary, ‘rivers, like highways, are not barriers but means of 1 2 3

Isaac 1996, 153. Petrović 2007, 7. Mócsy 1974, 22.

38

Chapter 3

lateral communication and transport’.4 Before the Roman conquest, numerous military attacks initiated by the Dacians affected the territories south of the Danube (Moesia Inferior). Therefore, conquering Dacia was a shrewd move. The line of the Danube was as hard to defend as the frontier of Roman Dacia. The ancient literary sources provide a wealth of information about this territory, but most of the time these data are very general, with no direct reference to itineraries or roads. The data mostly cover the geography of the region. Pliny the Elder refers to these regions in several of his books. The most direct description is recorded in book 3, 149. In book 4, 40–45, Pliny describes Thracia. Dacia, Pannonia and Moesia formed a very powerful military region. The distribution of the legionary fortresses in Dacia indicates that the main concern of the Romans was to secure the imperial road and the province to the west. In Dacia, the legio IIII Flavia Felix was garrisoned in Berzobis (Berzovia). From this point it could easily strike against the Iazyges. The legio XIII Gemina was garrisoned in Apulum, and it remained there until 271. After the Marcomannic wars, the legio V Macedonica was transferred from Moesia Inferior (Troesmis, today Igliţa/Turcoaia, Tulcea County) to Dacia and stationed at Potaissa (Turda, Cluj County). Stationed on the imperial road, this legion was in the ideal position to defend the western frontier. In Moesia Superior the legions from Singidunum and Viminacium safeguarded the defense of the Danube line. In this landscape shared by Dacia, Pannonia and Moesia, Singidunum5 (today Belgrade, Serbia) was one of the most important cities in Moesia Superior. In my opinion, this city held the key to the control of the limes road. Strategically positioned on the Danube (at the confluence of the Sava with the Danube) and on the most important roads of the area, the city attracted the attention of the Romans in the first century B. C. In a general effort to drive out the Scordisci, Dardanians and the Dacians from this area, in 75 B. C. Gaius Scribonius Curio, the proconsul of Macedonia, invaded the interior of the Balkan Peninsula as far as the Danube. Positioned on the frontier road to Pannonia, between Sirmium (today Sremska Mitrovica) and Viminacium (modern Kostolac), Singidunum flourished after the arrival of the legio IIII Flavia Felix in 86 A. D.6 The legion constructed the fortress and a bridge across the river Sava, connecting Singidunum with Taurunum. Under Hadrian the settlement became a municipium. The second legion from Moesia Superior in the second century A. D. was the VII Claudia,7 garrisoned in Viminacium. During Augustus’ reign, the legion had been stationed in Dalmatia, where it remained for a while. Viminacium became its base in the second century A. D. In 88 A. D. the legio VII Claudia participated in the invasion of the north-Danubian territories, together with other troops under the command of Tettius Iulianus. During the two military campaigns against the Dacians, Trajan used Viminacium as a military base and the legion mentioned was involved in the military actions. It may have been soldiers from this unit who built the famous bridge across the Danube. The legion also participated in Trajan’s campaigns against the Parthian Empire. Vimi4 5 6 7

Isaac 1990, 410. Mirković 2007, 50–52. Le Bohec, Wolff 2000, 239–245. Le Bohec, Wolff 2000, 239–245; Strobel 2000, 515–528.

Moesia. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Background

39

nacium enjoyed an exceptional strategic position.8 Today the archaeological site spreads over approximately 450 hectares. During Hadrian’s rule it received municipal status. In the third century it became a colonia. Three legions defended Moesia Inferior. Legio I Italica was garrisoned at Novae (modern-day Svishtov, in northern Bulgaria).9 The unit stayed in Moesia for a long time. From Novae, the legion took part in the Dacian wars led by emperors Domitian and Trajan. It seems that one subunit of this legion was moved to Britain between 139 A. D. and 142 A. D. A centurion from it was in charge of the building of a part of the Antonine wall between Edinburgh and Glasgow.10 Legio XI Claudia took part in Trajan’s invasion of Dacia.11 At that time it was being garrisoned at Brigetio, in Pannonia Inferior. In 104 A. D. it was transferred to Durostorum (modern-day Silistra, on the Danube, in Bulgaria). The unit stayed there for three centuries. Among its major tasks was the defense of Crimea, together with the legio I Italica and legio V Macedonica. The third legion in Moesia Inferior was the V Macedonica, stationed, after the second of Trajan’s Dacians wars, at Troesmis. It participated in Trajan’s campaigns against the Parthian Empire.12 In 168 it was transferred to Potaissa (modern-day Turda, Cluj County), and stayed there until Aurelian’s withdrawal from Dacia in 271.13 The military troops which participated in the conquest of Dacia were from Pannonia and Moesia Superior and Inferior:14 ala I Asturum, ala I Claudia Nova, ala I Vespasiana Dardanorum, ala I Claudia Gallorum Capitoniana, ala Gallorum Atectorigiana, ala Hispanorum, ala I Pannoniorum, ala II Pannoniorum, cohors II Flavia Bessorum, cohors I Bracaraugustanorum equitata, cohors I Augusta Nerviana Pacensis milliaria Brittonum, cohors II Augusta Nerviana pacensis Brittonum milliaria, cohors I Brittonum milliaria, cohors I Britannica milliaria c. R., cohors II Brittonum / Britannorum milliaria c. R. p. f., cohors III Campestris (milliaria) c. R., cohors I Flavia Commagenorum, cohors II Flavia Comamgenorum sagittariorum equitata, cohors I Creta sagittariorum, cohors IV Cypria c. R., cohors II Gallorum, cohors II Gallorum Macedonica, cohors III Gallorum, cohors V Gallorum, cohors I Hispanorum equitata veterana, cohors I Hispanorum p. f., cohors I Flavia Hispanorum milliaria, cohors II Hispanorum (scutata Cyrenaica), cohors I Montanorum c. R., cohors II Flavia Numidarum, cohors I Pannoniorum veterana p. F., cohors VIII Raetorum c. R., cohors I Thracum c. R., cohors II Thracum veterana equitata, cohors I Tyriorum sagittariorum, cohors Ubiorum, cohors I Vindelicorum milliaria c. R. p. f., pedites singulares Britanniciani. There were developments common to the three provinces. After the first Dacian war, a part of the Dacian territory came under Roman control. Cassius Dio stated that, in order to release the Roman general Longinus, king Decebalus claimed the return of the territory as far as Istros (68,12,2). In other words, the Romans occupied the Banat and they left a garrison in the Dacian capital, as Cassius Dio also recorded (68,9,7). Archaeology 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Mirković 2007, 52–56. Absil 2000, 228–238; see also Mrozewicz 1993, 221–225. Keppie 1983, 402. Fellmann 2000, 127–131. Piso 2005, 412–418. Bărbulescu 1987; Bărbulescu 1991, 22–30; Bărbulescu 1994; Bărbulescu 1997. Popescu, Ţentea 2006, 75–120; Petolescu, Popescu 2006, 357–367.

40

Chapter 3

has proven that a Roman fortification was built there at the end of the first Dacian war, by vexillationes from legio II Adiutrix and VI Ferrata.15 The fact itself is very important: The Romans succeeded to gain control over the north-Danubian territory rapidly, using military troops from Moesia Superior and Inferior.

15

Piso 2005, 411.

Chapter 4 Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources. History of Research

The relevant research contributions discussing the Roman itineraries and roads in the provinces of the middle and lower Danube (Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia) are spread across hundreds of journals. In many ways, even if one feels that a large quantity of research on this topic has been published, numerous aspects have not been yet analyzed and discussed.

4.1 The Peutinger Map. Questions, Unsolved Problems The most important contributions on the Peutinger map are found in the books of Miller,1 Levi and Levi,2 Weber,3 Bosio,4 and Talbert’s monograph recently published in 2010.5 Besides these a large amount of articles and book chapters6 discussing various aspects of the map’s history, dating, design and character should be noted. All of these are useful in understanding the complexity of this document.7 Comparisons with other maps were also made, for example of the Peutinger map with the Madaba Map.8 The Peutinger map kept today in the National Library of Vienna is a copy of another map created during the late Roman period. The medieval copy was recently meticulously 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

Miller 1887; Miller 1888. A. and M. Levi 1967. Weber 1976. Bosio 1983. Talbert 2010. See especially Whittaker 2004, ch. 4 (Mental maps and frontiers. Seeing like a Roman), 63–87; or Talbert 2008, 9–28. Arnaud 1988, 302–321; Weber 1989, 113–117; Brodersen 2001, 7–21; Salway 2001, 22–66; Allen 2003, 403–415; Brodersen 2003, 289–297; Gautier Dalché 2003, 43–52; Prontera 2003; Gautier Dalché 2004, 71–84; Talbert 2004, 113–141; Albu 2005, 136–148; Salway 2005, 119–135; Talbert 2005, 627–634; Pazarli, Livieratos, Boutoura 2007, 245–260; Talbert 2007, 353–366; Talbert 2007a, 221–230; Albu 2008, 111–119; Elliot 2008, 99–110; Talbert 2008, 149–156; Talbert 2008a, 9–27; Talbert, Elliott 2008, 199–218; Pazarli 2009, 101–116; Fodorean 2011, 9–19. Weber 1999, 41–46.

42

Chapter 4

analyzed by Martin Steinmann, who dated the document to the first quarter of the thirteenth century.9 The dating of the original map, in my opinion, as yet remains an unsolved issue.10 Dozens of attempts have been made. The original is a ‘compilation tardive’11; it has been dated to the late third, fourth, or fifth century A. D., created in the third century and then completed with other data in the fourth and fifth centuries,12 around 250 A. D.,13 after 260 A. D.,14 during Diocletian’s Tetrarchy (around 300)15, in 365–366,16 between 402 and 452,17 in 435,18 during ‘the fourth to fifth centuries’19 or, according to a speculative, and unfortunately, not sufficiently argued hypothesis, in the early ninth century A. D.20 These attempts were based on the content of the map, the inclusion of certain cities and settlements (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch21 – personified vignettes; Ravenna, Aquileia, Nicaea, Nicomedia, Tessalonicae, Ancyra? – vignettes of the ‘cities surrounded by walls’ type), certain landscape details (silva Vosagus: 2A2–3, silva Marciana: 2a4–3a1), the presence/absence of certain roads, the representation/non-representation of vignettes of the ‘double-tower’ type, or the meaning of special vignettes/drawings (Ad Sanctum Petrum, the temple of Apollo in Antioch). Suppositions about the map’s author, place of production, method of creation, dimensions, purpose, role, and sources used were also made. The document preserved today in Vienna is a parchment roll consisting of 11 segments. Miller suggested that one segment is missing on the left. All the other researchers accepted this statement, with one exception: Talbert argued that the original had 14 segments.22 Even the numbering of these segments is a matter of disagreement. According to Miller’s reconstruction, segment no. 1 is the lost one (representing, in his opinion, Britain, western Spain and north-western Africa).23 On the other hand, Ekkehard Weber has numbered the segments starting with the first one preserved.24 Currently, the division developed by Talbert in his online databases can be used.25 The map was as9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Talbert 2010, 83 (ch. 2 – coauthored with Martin Steinmann, entitled The Surviving Copy: The Material Object and Its Paleography). Fodorean 2004, 51–58. Chevallier 1997, 53–56. Levi and Levi 1967. Von Hagen 1978, 14. Manni 1949, 30–31. Talbert 2010, 136, 153. Miller 1916, XXX. Bosio 1983 has agreed with this date. Weber 1999 (see http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/articles/WeberPeutingeriana. html#Web9). Weber 1989, 113–117. Salway 2005, 131. Albu 2005, 136–148; Albu 2008, 111–119. Leylek 1993, 203–206. Talbert 2010, 89. Miller 1916, L–LI. Weber 1976, the maps (1:1 scale). See: http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert; http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a. Useful, even if sometimes the name of the settlements or some distances are not perfect, is http://omnesviae. org. This site links the reader to Talbert’s database from the Cambridge University Press page. Talbert’s database is complete: all the settlements, rivers, networked symbols, islands, moun-

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

43

sumed to have served as a road map,26 reflecting the official transportation system (cursus publicus),27 or as a propaganda map, depicting, at the time of the Tetrarchy, the former glory, power and geographical extent of the Roman Empire.28 The distances written in between settlements are sometimes correct, but at times they are not, and the vignettes represent important cities, or stopping places along the routes (mansiones).29 The map was ordered by a private citizen or by an emperor (Septimius Severus,30 Theodosius II)31 and it stood as a parchment scroll in a library or was displayed on a wall in Diocletian’s palace in Split (Spalatum).32 The author of the original was either Castorius, or an anonymous, or a team. Peutinger’s map mentions Pompeii, Roman Dacia, Constantinople, Antioch, old St. Peter’s church in Rome, and regional names such as Francia, Suevia and Allamania. From this a simple question arises: How can such a document be dated, which covers so much and differing chronological information?33 Can one explain the variegated data contained in the document? Both Pascaul Arnaud in 198834 and then Benet Salway in 200135 have succeeded in explaining the diverse chronological frame of some details contained by the map.

4.2 The Antonine Itinerary The Itinerarium Antonini has had the same fate and has generated almost the same amount of literature as Peutinger’s map. Pascal Arnaud has noted the difficulty of dating it.36 A recent contribution was published by Bernd Löhberg.37 Hans Bauer’s study of the main roads between Iller and Salzach is useful because of its methods – an investigation closely related to the data provided by the Itinerarium Antonini and Tabula Peutingeriana.38 In 2001 Ray Laurence published a helpful study focused on the Antonine

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

tains, people, regions etc. are separately catalogued and listed as clikable items which provide exactly the part of map in which they appear. Most researchers agree with this. Levi and Levi 1967. Talbert 2010, ch. 5: The Original Map, 133–157. See recent information in Klee 2010. Levi and levi 1967. Weber 1989, 113–117. Talbert 2010, 149. I want to remind a similar state of research concerning Agrippa’s map, well described by Brodersen 2003, 269–270, and Brodersen 2004, 185. Arnaud 1988, 309. Salway 2001, 44. Arnaud 1993, 33, with the essential bibliography. The first edition is Cuntz 1929, reproduced with updated bibliography by Gerhard Wirth (Stuttgart, B. G. Teubner, 1990). Löhberg 2006. Bauer 2007.

44

Chapter 4

itinerary.39 Numerous aspects regarding the content, dating, and other issues related to this document are far from being solved.40 The Antonine itinerary lists the following regions (stated here following the document’s internal subheadings): I. PROVINCIAE AFRICAE (2,1): Mauretania – Numidia – Africa – Tripolitania – Cyrenaica – Aegyptus (1,1–78,3); II. SARDINIA. ITER SARDINIAE (78,4); III. CORSICAE (85,4); IV. SICILIAE (86,2); V. ITALIAE (98,2): Italia – Noricum – Pannonia – Moesia – Thracia – Bithynia – Galatia – Cappadocia – Syria – Palaestina – Aegyptus (98,2–173,4); VI. ITER THRACIAE (175,1); VII. Cappadocia – Syria (176,3–217,4); VIII. Moesia – Thracia – Bithynia (217,5–231,7); IX. ITEM DE PANNONIIS IN GALLIAS (231,8): Pannonia – Noricum – Raetia – Gallia; X. ITEM PER RIPAM PANNONIAE … IN GALLIAS (241,1–2): Pannonia – Noricum – Raetia – Germania; XI. Raetia – Noricum – Pannonia (256,4– 265,3), DE ITALIA PER HISTRIAM IN DALMATIAM (333,1); XII. ITER DE DALMATIA IN MACEDONIAM (337,3); XIII. DE ITALIA IN GALLIAS (339,6): Italia – Gallia – Germania; XIV. DE ITALIA IN HISPANIAS (387,4), DE HISPANIA IN AQUITANIA (453,4), DE AQUITANIA IN GALLIAS (461,1); XV. ITER BRITANNIARUM (463,3).

4.3 State of Research. Pannonia Local interest in the Roman period started when the first excavations of forts and settlements along the limes captured the attention of modern scholars in the nineteenth century, at the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.41 Before this period, the most important fortress in Pannonia, Aquincum, was mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum, an anonymous historical work dated to the end of the twelfth century.42 During the Renaissance, the ruins of Brigetio, Intercisa and Mursa were discovered. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries several travelers from England recorded Roman antiquities in the territory of Hungaria. At the end of the seventeenth century, Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli43 (1658–1730) was the first to describe several Roman settlements. He included this information in his book Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus observationibus geographicis, astronomicis, physicis perlustratus ab Aloysio Ferd. Com. Marsili, I–II (The Hague – Amsterdam 1726). Marsigli, an Italian in imperial service, made a trip along the middle and lower Danube. Unlike his contemporaries, he did not only describe inscriptions, coins and monuments of art, but he visited the ruins of numerous Roman settlements. He 39 40 41 42 43

Laurence 2001, 67–94. Salway 2005, 182 thinks that the Antonine itinerary was a private commision. Visy, Nagy 2003, 15. Visy 2003, 9. Luigi Ferdinando, Count Marsigli / Marsili / Marsilly / Marsilÿ, was born in July 10, 1658, in Bologna and died in November 1, 1730, in the same city. Since 1683 he was in the service of the Royal Habsburg House. In 1686 he was appointed general inspector of the fortifications. From March 1699 until May 1701 he was the representative of the Habsburg House (Commissario Cesareo) in the joint committee for the establishment of the new Otoman-Habsburg frontier. On January 24, 1700, he became ‘Generalfeldwachtmeister’. For all his activity and life, see: Stoye 1994.

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

45

described, for example, the legionary fortress at Brigetio, the aqueduct in Aquincum, the Roman bridge across the river Drava at Mursa (Eszék/Osijek, Croatia) and the road that led to the bridge. Numerous archaeological sites, such as Roman roads, bridges or ruins, were mapped at the occasion of the first military survey of Hungary, which started at the behest of Emperor Joseph II (1780–1790). Today, these maps are treasures for archaeologists, geographers and historians. Their investigation and analysis and the identification of the elements that changed the historical landscape can provide new data about the former Roman settlements.44 These maps are of crucial importance. The three topographic surveys performed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries marked a huge step in the development of cartography. It is interesting to take a look at the general context that determined the rulers of the Habsburg Empire to map all their territories. The content of these maps proved a great advantage for archaeologists: The Austrian surveyors and cartographers took great pains to represent the most accurate map of the territory in question, including the Roman antiquities. At the end of the eighteenth century, István Schönwisner excavated the baths of the legionary fortress of Aquincum. In this context, he described the route of the limes road in his work entitled Commentarius geographicus. Then, in 1780 and 1782, István Szalágyi (Salagius) wrote about two Roman milestones found in Buda and in EszékMursa (Osijek, Croatia) respectively. Flóris Rómer is considered the father of Hungarian archaeology. He surveyed and described the entire Pannonian limes. The results of his research were assembled as a repertory. His manuscript is preserved in the Hungarian National Museum.45 Rómer presented a very accurate description of the limes between Brigetio and Lugio;46 unfortunately, his work remained unpublished. An important moment in Hungarian archaeology was 1877, when the National Committee for Monuments was established. Károly Torma published numerous articles on the Pannonian limes. At the end of the nineteenth century Gábor Finály performed archaeological research along the Ripa Pannonica. G. Halaváts treated the road between Lederata and Tibiscum in two notes.47 After World War I research was resumed in the late 1920s. The National Museum initiated excavations in the legionary fortress of Brigetio. In 1938 István Paulovics published an Italian book concerning the Roman limes of Hungary.48 Andreas Alföldi was the most important researcher during the 1930s and 1940s. He founded and edited the

44

45

46 47 48

Fodorean 2005, 185–201; Fodorean 2006a, 997–1010; Fodorean 2010, 93–102; Fodorean 2011c, 469–478; Fodorean 2011d, 121–133; Fodorean 2011e, 51–62; Fodorean 2012, 255– 279. The title of the manuscript is ‘Újabb tanulmányaim a rómaiak dunamenti erődítési rendszerét illetően Ó-Szőnytől Szekcőig’ (‘My current studies concerning the Roman system of fortifications along the Danube from Ó-Szőny to Szekcő’). Visy, Nagy 2003, 17–19. Halaváts 1896, 4; Halaváts 1910, 270–271. Paulovics 1938.

46

Chapter 4

Dissertationes Pannonicae series. An interesting book on the subject was published by András Graf in 1936.49 After World War II András Mócsy published numerous articles50 and several books on the Pannonian roads and the Pannonian limes. His most important contribution remains, to this day, the book focusing on the history of Pannonia and Upper Moesia.51 It was Mócsy who initiated the project ‘The Archaeological Handbook of Pannonia’. Between the 1950s and the early 1970s Sándor Soproni excavated some fortlets and watchtowers along the Danube.52 In 1979 Andrew Burghardt published an interesting study about the origin of the roads and city network of Roman Pannonia.53 It starts from the observation that ‘the pattern of the network was determined by the selection of basic strategic objectives, which were placed on specific sites of high military-transport potentiality’.54 The book is a study of network genesis; the author chose Pannonia for it because of its particular features.55 He identified an ‘impulse chain’ pattern,56 including six points: 1. An impulse generator is the decision-making centre. In the case under discussion this is Rome, envisaged as the initiator of the decision to conquer new territories, set up new roads and create new cities. 2. The forward base of operation is perceived by Burghardt as the link between the generator and the primary objective. 3. The launching point is considered to be the point from which the movement begins.57 4. The author believed that the next strategic point was ‘the first established major transport node’.58 5. The next point is the central communication node;59 6. The final point is the primary or strategic objective, which is ‘the site towards which the movement is directed’, normally positioned on the further periphery of the affected area. Burghardt’s construction can be also applied to Dacia. As far as Pannonia was concerned, the cities chosen as examples for each category are: 1. Rome, the administrative centre of the Roman Empire. 2. Aquileia, as the closest city to Pannonia. 3. Emona (modern-day Ljubliana) was chosen as the launching point. 4. The gateway was Poetovio (Ptuj). This was the place where in 69 Vespasian was elected Roman emperor by the Danubian legions; it was also the base-camp of legio XIII Gemina. Under Trajan, in 103, the settlement became Colonia Ulpia Traiana Poetovio. In the Antonine itinerary, the main roads of the province start from Poetovio. 5. The central communication node was Savaria. 6. The strategic objectives were Carnuntum (at the beginning of Roman occupation), then Aquincum. The third city, according to its strategic importance, was Brigetio.

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Graf 1936. Mócsy 1955, 59–69; Mócsy 1962, 515–776; Mócsy 1965, 27–36; Mócsy 1970. Mócsy 1974. Soproni 1978. Burghardt 1979, 1–20. Burghardt 1979, 1. Burghardt 1979, 1. Burghardt 1979, 6. Burghardt 1979, 7. Burghardt 1979, 7. Burghardt 1979, 7.

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

47

The fourth city in significance for the Romans was Vindobona.60 According to the author, in addition to these cities, other important centres developed over time, such as Arrabona or Scarabantia. In 1980 A. Lengyel and G. T. B. Radan edited a volume on the archaeology of Roman Pannonia. It describes the geography of the province; it also presents the main roads, briefly, together with data contained in the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary.61 Zsolt Visy also made important contributions in numerous books and articles. They cover a wide area of subjects, but, most of all, he studied the limes, the roads, and the ancient sources on these monuments. He also used aerial photography in his research of the Roman frontier.62 Visy organized and supervised numerous archaeological excavations along the Pannonian limes.63 His book about Ripa Pannonica, published in English in 2003, is a study of central importance.64 Visy was also the editor-in-chief of a comprehensive book on Hungarian archaeology,65 which presents the Roman period in detail.66 Another achievement of Hungarian archaeology was the publication of the volume La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano in 1994.67 In 2006, Tóth Endre presented the main data regarding the Itinerarium Antonini.68 Before this, he published materials on Roman roads, milestones and archaeological research on the Roman forts and cities.69 Research relevant to the study of the Roman roads and itineraria in Pannonia was recently published by András Bödőcs.70 He observed that, even though the research of the Roman roads has become a priority, the roads passing through the interior of Pannonia are almost unknown. Recently, Péter Kiss has studied Pannonian milestones.71 Starting from fundamental questions, i. e. who placed the milestones in Pannonia and where and why this happened, the author discusses 338 milestones, including 58 without inscription and 22 with overlaid secondary inscriptions. Of these, 293 are from Pannonia,

60 61 62

63 64 65 66 67

68 69 70 71

Neumann 1980; Harl 1979. Lengyel, Radan 1980. Visy 1971; Visy 1977; Visy 1978, 235–259; Visy 1978a, 106–111; Visy 1980, 166–175; Visy, Lörincz 1980, 681–701; Visy 1981, 39–52; Visy 1983, 201–213; Visy 1984; Visy 1984a, 47–74; Visy 1985, 169–179; Visy 1986, 482–517; Visy, Lörincz 1986, 241–249; Visy, Lörincz, Szabó 1986, 362–368; Visy 1989; Visy 1997; Visy 1997a; Visy 2000; Visy 2004; Visy 2005; Visy 2006, 147 sqq.; Visy 2007; Visy 2009. Visy 1987. Visy 2003a. http://www.telekialapitvany.hu/books/Hungarian_archeology.pdf. Visy, Nagy (eds) 2003, 203–261. Hajnóczi (ed.) 1995. 24 articles are grouped in several sections of the book: 1. Impero e provincia; 2. La romanizzazione; 3. L’esercito: storia e archeologia militare; 3. Rapporti commerciali e culturali; 4. Città romane; 5. Ville romane; 6. Arte romana; 7. La tutela dei monumenti. Tóth 2006. Tóth 1971, 143–169; Tóth 1975, 275–278; Tóth 1977, 65–77; Tóth 1980, 91–103; Tóth 1986, 163–181; Tóth 2003, 307–330; Tóth 2004, 43–48; Tóth 2005, 1–8. Bödőcs 2008. Ph.D. disseration entitled A Római kori úthálózat térinformatikai vizsgálata a mai Magyarország területén (A study of the Roman road network in Hungary using GIS). Kiss 2007. I thank Péter Kiss for his help.

48

Chapter 4

37 from Noricum and 8 from Italy. Beside these central studies, other articles and books present, directly or partially, aspects of Pannonian history.72

4.4 State of Research. Dacia Older Romanian studies of the Roman itineraries were informed by certain methodological misconceptions which lead, in some cases, to unsatisfactory results. Some historians have tried to date the Peutinger map starting from small details such as the presence of absence of certain regions or Roman roads. However, they omitted one important aspect: the Peutinger map is a selective, not an exhaustive document. Therefore, such attempts have failed to add new elements useful to the dating of the document. Starting from the idea that the eastern part of Roman Dacia is not represented on the Peutinger map, C. Daicoviciu dated the document between 251 and 271, when this part of Dacia had been abandoned.73 However, archaeological research carried out in the last seven decades have proved that Dacia was not abandoned in the time of Gallienus, but during the reign of Aurelian. Therefore, Daicoviciu’s theory is no longer an option. D. Tudor published the hypothesis that the Peutinger map should be dated to 250.74 M. Macrea dated the map to the mid third-century A. D.;75 he thought that the prototype was compiled between 260 and 270, using the argument mentioned above, i. e. that the eastern part of Dacia is not represented on the Peutinger map. A. Aricescu agreed with Macrea’s opinion and dated the original of the Tabula to 260–270.76 O. Răuţ, O. Bozu and R. Petrovszky argued that the Peutinger map was created in several stages. The first phase, in their opininion, may be dated to the beginning of the third century A. D.; then some revisions were presumably made in the second phase, during the time of Theodosius II, in the fifth century.77 M. Popescu-Spineni thinks that the prototype of the Peutinger map was compiled in the imperial era, because of the presence of Dacia and its official roads.78 P. Hügel has described the main information regarding Dacia mentioned in the Peutinger map.79 R. Florescu has attempted to analyze the Roman roads represented on Trajan’s Column, presenting general observations, but failed to add to the de72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Barkóczi, Mócsy 1972; Barkóczi, Mócsy 1976; Barkóczi, Soproni 1981; Bender, Wolff 1994; Bíró 1974, 23–57; Borhy, Sosztarits 1996–1997, 115–127; Burger, Fülep 1984; Cserményi, Tóth 1979–1980, 171–201; Cserményi, Tóth 1982, 238–290; Fitz 1962, 25–112; Fitz 1989, 533–558; Fitz 1991, 219–224; Fitz 1991a; Fitz 1993–1995; Fülöp 1978, 281–285; Gabler 1989; Gabler 1991, 39–84; Gabler 1997, 85–92; Gabler 1999, 75–86; Gömöry 1999; Hajnóczi, Mezős, Nagy, Visy (eds) 1998; Kérdö 1998, 246–258; Kiss, Sosztarits 1996–1997, 101–113; Láng 2003, 95–110; Láng 2005, 657–666; Lőrincz, Visy 1987, 337–345; Molnár, Komoróczi, Székely 2006; Szirmai 1986, 426–428; Tabula Imperii Romani 1938 (L 34, Aquincum–Sarmizegethusa–Sirmium); Thomas 1964; Zsidi 1995, 213–220. Daicoviciu 1941, 253–254; Daicoviciu 1945; Daicoviciu 1964, 737. Tudor 1968, 50. Macrea 1969, 52. Aricescu 1977, 134. Răuţ, Bozu, Petrovszky 1977, 138. Popescu-Spineni 1978, 80. Hügel 2003, 78–84.

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

49

bate.80 Al. Suceveanu and Iuliana Barnea compared some data on Dobrudja from the Peutinger map and from the Antonine itinerary.81 They concluded that in ten cases there is perfect coincidence regarding the distances between certain settlements in Dobrudja. In four cases it seems that the Peutinger map was closer to reality. In their opinion, these similarities as well as differences between the two ancient sources do not support the hypothesis of a revision of the Peutinger map during the fourth century A. D. The two Romanian scholars suggested that the both documents were created in the Severan period. After that, the Itinerarium Antonini might have been updated during the reign of Diocletian (284–305), whereas the Peutinger map may have undergone the same process in the time of Theodosius II (408–450). Doina Benea seems to favour the general opinion according to which the Peutinger map should be dated, as a whole document, to the fourth or fifth century A. D., but she also tries to prove that for Dacia the Tabula reflects the reality of the same period.82 Her arguments are: 1. Dacia was not totally abandoned after Aurelian’s withdrawal in 271; the Romans kept a certain military and juridical control over the trans-Danubian territories. 2. The cities represented through vignettes (Tivisco, Sarmategte, Apula, Napoca and Porolisso) suggest that the main road of Dacia was kept in use for economic reasons: to secure access to the gold mines of the Apuseni Mountains, to the salt of Potaissa and to the iron resources of Banat. 3. The archaeological discoveries in south-western Dacia attest that some fortifications continued to function in the fourth century A. D., along with rural settlements. 4. The toponyms mentioned for Dacia have a corrupt form specific to the late Roman period. D. Benea also argued that the five vignettes, corresponding to the mentioned cities, attest that these settlements were Christian centres. In her opinion, the Roman imperial roads remained in use in the fourth century A. D. and were represented on the Peutinger map for this reason. Does the Peutinger map reflect, for Dacia, the reality of the fourth century A. D., or did the mapmaker accidentally include the north-Danubian province? D. Benea thinks that the answer to this question is related to the absence of the eastern part of the province. This absence reflects, in her opinion, a de facto situation, i. e. that eastern Dacia was no longer under Roman control, because the population belonging to the cultural area of Sântana de Mureş-Cerneahov (the Goths) had taken over this territory. These arguments are unfortunately unsustainable in all their aspects. Dacia was no longer an issue for the Roman Empire in the fourth century A. D. During the reign of Gallienus, military troops from Dacia were massively used to defend the Balkans and the eastern part of the Empire. In 254 the Goths had unleashed devastating attacks in the Balkans. They had reached Thracia up to Thessalonica. There was an onset of panic in the Balkans, and several military fortifications were rapidly restored. In 256 Dacia stopped issuing its own coins. In 257 the free Dacians attacked the province. Gallienus assumed the title of Dacicus Maximus. Then, in 257–258, the Goths, the Carps and other barbarians started to attack and destroyed several cities on the western coast of the Black Sea, heading towards Asia Minor. To sum up, in 260 the Roman Empire was threatened by three critical situations: 1. The Occident was practically separated from the Empire by Germanic invaders and the usurpers; 2. military rebellions started in Pannonia, led by Ingenuus and Regalianus; 3. 80 81 82

Florescu 1985, 51–58. Suceveanu, Barnea 1993, 171. Benea 1999, 138–154; Benea 2000, 117–123; Benea 2001, 135–149; Benea 2001a, 285–300.

50

Chapter 4

the Orient was lost when Valerianus was captured. In this situation, Gallienus evaluated the strategic situation and dropped Dacia from his strategic plans. Put simply, Dacia was detoured by the Barbarians in this period. They made their attacks in Moesia and Thracia, using Dobrudja as a connection. Understanding this, Gallienus decided to move soldiers from Dacia to strategic points. One of these was the road connecting Italy to the Balkan Peninsula. On it, Poetovio was crucial. Therefore, to avoid further attacks along this route, vexillationes from the two legions of Dacia (legio V Macedonica from Potaissa and legio XIII Gemina from Apulum) are attested at Poetovio (in Pannonia Superior) after the middle of the third century A. D. Five inscriptions dedicated to Mithras were found in a mithraeum.83 They mention Flavius Aper, v(ir) e(gregius) and praepositus of the legions V Macedonica and XIII Gemina. The epithet of these legions is Galliena. Other officiales are also mentioned, as is a canaliclarius in one of the inscriptions.84 The movement of these legionary vexillationes from Dacia to Poetovio obviously weakened the central defensive system of Roman Dacia. During the reign of Gallienus, soldiers from Dacia were moved to other provinces and the barbarian attacks actually avoided Dacia. Poetovio was the key point on the route connecting Italy to the Balkans.85 To sum up again, Dacia was de iure still a Roman province, but de facto the military control of the province under Gallienus had been seriously jeopardized by the movement of troops. Aurelian abandoned Dacia. He established the frontier along the Moesian Danube and withdrew the military forces and the Roman administration from Dacia in 271. This leads to the argument and the conclusion regarding the presence of Dacia on the Peutinger map. However, it is not recommended, methodologically, to explain military actions of the late Roman period starting from the presence or the absence of certain details on the Peutinger map. Some Romanian historians have not taken into account that the mapmaker used selective data in the fourth or in the fifth century A. D. To be more precise, he obviously had no option to represent all the details for one province or another. Today, in cartography, this method is known as cartographic generalization. The mapmaker was forced by the map support (a parchment roll 7 m in length and 34 cm in width) to reduce the quantity of data included (in case he had so many data). Therefore, the absence of the eastern part of Dacia has absolutely no connection to the occupation of this territory by the Goths. As for the roads, the Peutinger map does not represents other important routes from Dacia, such as the one connecting Dacia and Pannonia along the river Mureş. Apparently, the settlements represented by vignettes are mansiones, accom83

84 85

IDRE II, no. 266–270. No. 266 (AnnÉp 1936, 53): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro sal(ute) d(omini) n(ostri) Gallieni P(ii) F(elicis) / Invicti Aug(usti), Fl(avius) Aper, v(ir) e(gregius), l(ibens) m(erito). No. 267 (AnnÉp 1936, 54): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro sal(ute) officialium Apri prae / positi legg(iorum) V M(acedonicae) et XIII Gem(inae) / Galli(enarum). No. 268 (AnnÉp 1936, 57): [–––] / [legg(ionim) V] M(acedonicae) et XII [I G(eminae)] / [G]allienarum / [Fl(avius)] Aper v(ir) e(gregius) / [pra] epositus. No. 269 (AnnÉp 1936, 56): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro salute / canaliclari / et actariorum / et codicarior(um) / et librariorum / legg(ionum) V M(acedonicae) et XIII G(eminae) / Gallienarum. No. 270 (AnnÉp 1936, 53): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro salute / tesserarior(um) / et custod(um) ar/mor(um) legg(ionum) V M(acedonicae) / et XIII Gemin(a)e / Gallienarum. IDRE II, 269. See, for maps, Gudea 1997.

Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

51

modations along the main roads. They are not related to the Christian centres of the late Roman period. Al. Diaconescu has demonstrated that the distance of 12 Roman miles, indicated so many times on the Peutinger map along the roads from Dacia, represents a normal marching day, a iustum iter.86 C. C. Petolescu concluded that the cities represented by vignettes in Dacia were the most important settlements of the province: 1. Tibiscum (at important crossroads in Banat); 2. Sarmizegetusa (capital of Dacia); 3. Apulum (headquarters of the legio XIII Gemina); 4. Napoca (municipium Hadrianum, then colonia Aurelia and the residence of the procurator Daciae Porolissensis); 5. Porolissum (key to the Roman defense system on the Northern frontier and municipium Septimium).87 Petolescu seems to have misinterpreted the data, using erroneous methods. The vignettes refer to the stopping points along the Roman roads. They have nothing to do with the juridical status of the cities. Some years ago, in a short article about the Dacian roads represented on the Peutinger map, I reached the conclusion that the source used for Dacia by the mapmaker was a military itinerary which can be dated to the period of Trajan and Hadrian.88 D. Hortopan has analyzed the roads of Dacia Inferior, but failed to find new data for the sources of the Peutinger map for Dacia.89 Recently, C. C. Petolescu suggested that the Peutinger map was created during the reign of the emperor Hadrian because the latter needed itineraries as he did a lot of travelling.90

4.5 State of Research. Moesia Several articles have only partially focused on the roads from Moesia represented on the Peutinger map.91 In 2004, A. Panaite studied the Roman roads of Moesia Inferior, investigating also data referring to this region provided by the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary.92 At the end of her article, she provided a useful catalogue of the milestones discovered in Moesia Superior. In another study, she described the Roman roads within the territory of the city of Tropaeum Traiani.93 In one of his books, D. Benea provided data concerning the military infrastructure and the history of the legions IIII Flavia and VII Claudia.94 S. Conrad recently made an interesting contribution to the topic,95 focusing on the archaeological survey of the Lower Danube. A central part of his article is dedicated to the Roman settlements from 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Diaconescu 1997, 13–52. Petolescu 2000a, 19–21. Fodorean 2004, 51–58. Hortopan 2006, 47–54. Petolescu 2007a, 274; Petolescu 2007b, 276–279. Ivanov 1997, 467–640; Lisičar 1978, 9–19; Todorov 1937; Torbatov 2000, 59–72; Zavadzki 1964, 531–538. Panaite 2004, 41–92. I hereby express my gratidude for her help. Panaite 2006, 57–70. Benea 1983. Conrad 2006, 309–331.

52

Chapter 4

the first century A. D. to the fifth century A. D.96 J. J. Wilkes has successfully investigated the Danubian area.97 M. Madzharov recently published a book about the Roman roads of Bulgaria. In presenting the main roads he included data provided by the Roman cartographic sources. In 1979 P. Petrović published the fourth volume of the Inscriptions of Upper Moesia.98 The third volume was published in 1995.99 In 1982 B. Dragojević-Josifovska published the sixth volume.100 The Roman road along the Iron Gates has been studied by P. Petrović.101 In 2007 he discussed the historical and the geographical characteristics of Roman Dardania.102 Petrović analyzed the same area in a book published in 2007,103 adding an important study on the Roman road from Naissus to Lissus in 2008.104 The Roman frontier in the Iron Gate area of Upper Moesia was investigated in 1996.105 The traces of the Roman road Naissus-Ratiaria were identified on site and the results were published in 2007.106 In 2008 the road Lissus – Naissus – Ratiaria and the problem of the location of the Timacus Maius station were again investigated.107 The same station was the object of another article published in 2010.108 Other studies, such as the one published by P. Donevski about Durostorum, are very useful for details of the settlements discussed.109 Of course, essential contributions by A. Mócsy, P. Petrović,110 Miroslava Mirković111 and D. Mitova-Džonova should also be taken into consideration.112

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

Conrad 2006, 315–321. Wilkes 2005, 124–225. Petrović 1979. Petrović 1995. Dragojević-Josifovska 1982. Petrovič 1986, 41–47. Petrović 2007, 7–24. Petrović 2007a. Petrović 2008, 31–40. Petrović, Vasić 1996, 15–26. Petrović, Filipović 2007, 29–43. Petrović, Filipović 2008, 47–58. Petrović, Filipović 2010, 25–30. Donevski 1991, 277–280. Petrović 1996. Mirković 1977, 171–178; Mirković, Dušanić 1976; Mirković 1986; Mirković 1994, 345– 404; Mirković 1996, 27–40; Mirković 2002, 757–763; Mirković 2003; Mirković 2007. Mitova-Džonova 1986, 504–509.

Chapter 5 Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

5.1 Tabula Peutingeriana and Pannonia At first glance, one might think that the roads of Pannonia are very well known. An indepth analysis, though, shows that there is a lot that we do not know concerning the road system of this province. Pannonia is depicted on the Peutinger map in segments IV and V.1 Four roads are represented: 1. Citium – Tauruno (the limes road); 2. Carnuntum – Petavione; 3. Emona – Sirmium – Taurunum (along the river Sava); 4. Emona – Mursa – Taurunum (along the river Drava) (Fig. 3). Each road will be presented separately, including the following data: 1. the names of all settlements, as they are recorded on the Peutinger map, and the distances in Roman miles; 2. the total length of the road, summing up the individual distances; 3. the settlements marked by vignettes; 4. the elements of the landscape (rivers etc.); 5. statistics of the frequency of the distance figures; 6. the present-day equivalent of each settlement (whenever such an identification is possible); 7. clues regarding the possibility of dating information on the Peutinger map for Pannonia. 5.1.1 The First Road: the Limes Road – Ripa Pannonica Undoubtedly, this is the best known road in Pannonia, and yet some questions remain. For example, we do not know the exact number of military forts along this road. The Peutinger map depicts the following settlements and distances2 (starting from the left to the right, as the mapmaker himself has drawn the map): Citium – VI – Vindobona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – X – villagai – VII – Aequinoctio – XIIII – Carnunto (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIIII – Gerulatis – XVI – Ad Flexum – XIII – Stailuco – XII – Arrabo fl. – XXX – Brigantio (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – V – Lepavist – XIII – Gardellaca – XIII – Lusomana – XII – Aquinco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIIII – Vetusallo – XXII – Annamantia – XV – Lusiene – X – Altaripa – XXII – Lugione – XII – Antiana – XII – Donatianis – XIII – Ad Labores – XIII 1 2

According to the numbering suggested by Weber 1976. These are mentioned in Lengyel, Radan 1980, 215, but the distances or other details are not included in the description.

54

Chapter 5

– Tittoburgo – XVI – Cornaco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIII – Cuccio – XVI – Milatis – XVI – Cusum – XI?/XL? – Acunum – VIII – Bittio – XIII – Burgenis – X – Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). Presented in reverse, from the right to the left (on a standard map from the south to the north), the settlements and the distances are: Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Burgenis Bittio Acunum Cusum Milatis Cuccio Cornaco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Tittoburgo Ad Labores Donatianis Antiana Lugione Altaripa Lusiene Annamantia Vetusallo Aquinco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Lusomana Gardellaca Lepavist Brigantio (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Arrabo fl. Stailuco Ad Flexum Gerulatis Carnunto (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Aequinoctio villagai Vindobona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) Citium

10 13 8 XI?/XL? 16 16 13 16 13 13 12 12 22 10 15 22 14 12 13 13 5 30 12 13 16 14 14 7 10 6

The first task is to calculate the total distance. We must accept XI miles between Cusum (Petrovaradin, Serbia3) and Acunum (Acumincum, today Stari Slankamen,4 Serbia), instead of XL, which is only a reading supposition, owing to the poor preservation of the map in that particular area. In this case, there is a total distance of 401 miles, which (based on the Roman mile of 1.4785 km) equals 592.878 km. Today, the same route amounts to 616 kilometers. 3 4

CIL 3, 3700–3702; 3260. Mentioned also in Ptolemy, Geogr. 297,13. CIL 3, 3252 = 10241; 3253; 3256.

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

55

31 settlements and 30 distances are mentioned along this road. The frequency of these distances is: 5 (miles) – 1 (one time), 6–1, 7–1, 8–1, 10–3, 11–1, 12–4, 13–7, 14–3, 15–1, 16–4, 22–2, 30–1. 24 out of 30 figures are show values from 8 to 16 miles. This represents exactly 80 %. Six settlements on this route are represented by vignettes: Vindobona (Vienna, symbol Ab1, segment grid 4A15), Carnunto/Carnuntum (Petronell/Bad Deutsch-Altenburg, symbol Ab1, segment grid 4A2), Brigantio/Brigetio (Komárom-Szőny,6 symbol Aa1, segment grid 4A3), Aquinco/Aquincum (Budapest, symbol Aa1, segment grid 4A4), Cornacum (Sotin in Croatia, symbol Aa2, segment grid 5A2), and Taurunum7 (Zemun in Serbia, symbol Aa7, segment grid 5A5). Of these settlements, the first four (Vindobona, Carnuntum, Brigetio and Aquincum) were the most important in strategical and military terms. What seems strange and somehow unusual is the representation of Cornacum and Taurunum by vignettes. Cornacum is mentioned in several late Roman sources.8 A small castellum was built there; nowadays, according to Mirjana Sanader,9 its traces are almost invisible. Still, a large number of discoveries have been recorded on the site over time. The military units garrisoned there were the cohors I Montanorum, cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum Antoniniana and equites Dalmatatae. The Roman fortress was built in the first century A. D. It was probably still in use in the fifth century. Taurunum (Zemun, Serbia) seems to have gained in importance in the Flavian era, when the classis Flavia Pannonica was created. Its base was set up in the southernmost settlement of the province.10 Other military units stationed there were formed by detachments of the legio VII Claudia11 and combined units of the exercitus Pannonicus. The Notitia Dignitatum also mentions equites promoti and auxilia ascarii.12 Taurunum also appears in the Antonine itinerary (131,6), as Tauruno classis. Pliny’s observation on its position is quite interesting.13 He noticed: Sirmio oppido influit, ubi civitas Sirmiensium et Amantinorum. inde XLV Taurunum, ubi Danuvio miscetur Saus. For Pliny Sirmium was a reference point. He indicated the distance from Sirmium to Taurunum as 45 miles, a correct value. Once again, Pliny’s tendency to mix geographical data with narration, in a sort of ethno-geography, is noticeable.14

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

According to Talbert’s database, avilable at http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase. Komárom-Esztergom County, Hungary. Ptolemy, Geogr. 2,15,3: Ταύρουνον. Plinius, NH 3,148. CIL 3, 10675; 13355; 13394; 143408–10, 15137. Ptolemy, Geogr. 2,15; It. Ant. 243,3; Not. Dign. Occ. 32,3; 32,12; 32,22; 32,31; Geogr. Rav. 4,20. Visy 2003, 141–142. Visy 2003, 28; Lengyel, Radan 1980, 132. Founded by Caesar in 58 B. C. From 9 to 58 A. D. it was garrisoned in Dalmatia, then in 58 A. D. it was moved to Viminacium, in Moesia Superior (Kostolac, Serbia), where it stayed until ca. 400 A. D. Not. Dign. Occ. 31,91; 31,116. Plinius, NH 3,148. McQuiggan 2006–2007, 77.

56

Chapter 5

Along this road, some copyist’s mistakes drew Talbert’s attention. The first is the settlement villagai.15 The letter ‘g’ suggests, as Talbert noticed, a correction of another, previously written letter.16 From Vindobona to Aequinoctio lettering and line work are not well coordinated. ‘X villagai VII’ is written above the first chicane. ‘X’ indicates the distance from Vindobona to villagai. Then a short chicane is represented after villagai.17 In the segment between Ad Labores and Tittoburgo it seems that the copyist wanted to draw a connecting stretch between Ad Labores and Mursa maior, but he never did this later on.18 The start of the stretch from Milatis to Cusum is not marked.19 The distance from Cusum to Acunum seems to be XI, not XL.20 From Bittio to Burgenis the copyist drew two stretches. Above the first one, he stated the name of the settlement, above the second one the distance.21 5.1.2 Clues for Dating the Information Regarding the Limes Road in Pannonia Intercisa is not depicted on the Peutinger map, and it is not listed in Ptolemy’s list of settlements. However, it is marked in the Antonine itinerary (245,3), between Annamantia in medio (245,2) and Vetus Salinas in medio (245,4).22 Intercisa is today’s Dunaújváros (Fejér County, Hungary). A timber fortress of 190 × 165 m was built there, probably during Trajan’s reign. Zsolt Visy has noticed that the stone gates and the inner angle-towers of the fort were built only under the Severi.23 The military units garrisoned at Intercisa were: ala II Asturum under Vespasian; ala I Augusta Ituraeorum, from 91/92 until 105 A. D.; until 105 A. D. ala I Britannica civium Romanorum; until 117/119 A. D. ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana; until ca. 133 A. D. ala I Thracum veterana sagittaria; until 176 A. D. ala I civium Romanorum. From 176 A. D., for about 100 years, the cohors I Hemesenorum was garrisoned in Intercisa.24 The following milestones were discovered in Intercisa:25 1. One dated to 198 A. D. (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta); 2. one dated to 206–305 (Diocletianus, Maximianus); 3, 4, 5. Three milestones cannot be dated (fragmentary inscriptions); 6. one dated to 249–251 (Traianus Decius); 7. one dated to 284–305 (Tetrarchy, Diocletianus); 8. one dated to 236 (Maximinus Thrax); 9. one dated to 218 (Elagabalus); 9. one dated to 245– 246 (Philippus Arabs, Otacilia Severa); 10. one dated to 236 (Maximinus Thrax); 11. one dated to 236 (Maximinus Thrax); 12. one dated to 237 (Maximinus Thrax, Maximus). It may be observed that no milestone prior to 198 A. D. was found there. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1543.html R. Talbert personally made observations on the original of the Peutinger map, in Wien. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1543.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1637.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1641.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1642.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1644.html It appears also in Not. Dign. Occ. 33,25; 33,26; 33,38. Visy 2003, 118. Visy 2003, 117–118. Kiss 2007. I hereby express my gratitude for his help.

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

57

Since Intercisa is not represented on the Peutinger map, but is mentioned in the Antonine itinerary, the settlements and other data included along this road might possibly reflect the situation during Trajan’s period. 5.1.3 The Second Road: Carnuntum – Petavione This road started at Carnunto. The settlements and distances depicted on the Peutinger map are: Carnunto – XIIII – Ulmo – XXV – Scarabantio – XXXIII – Sabarie (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa1, segment grid 4A2) – XX – Arrabone – XLIII – Advicesimum – XX – Petavione (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Ab1, segment grid 4A2). The total distance stated for this road was 155 miles (229.16 km). Six settlements are mentioned and six distance figures. I have not counted in the first settlement, Carnunto, since it was already calculated with the first road. The frequency of these distances is: 14 (miles) – 1 (time), 20–2, 25–1, 33–1, 43–1. Some of the distances seem to be inaccurate. From Carnuntum (Petronell) to Scarabantia (Sopron, Hungary) I have measured 69 kilometers on digital maps.26 The Peutinger map mentions 14 + 25 = 39 miles, i. e. 57.66 kilometers. Therefore, another 13 miles (one segment) must be added here. From Scarabantia to Savaria (Szombathely), along the shortest route, I have measured 64 km. The Peutinger map’s total amounts to 33 miles, i. e. 48.79 kilometers. Thus, 16 km must be added here, i. e. circa 11 miles. The distance between Savaria and Arrabona (Körmend) is rendered accurately. The Peutinger map states 20 miles; the current distance amounts to 27 kilometers. From Arrabona to Advicesimum (Veržej, Slovenia), the Peutinger map indicates 43 miles, i. e. 63.57 kilometers. The current distance, however, is 84 kilometers. Therefore, 20 kilometers must be added, i. e. 13.5 miles. From Advicesimum to Petavione (Ptuj, Slovenia), the distance mentioned on the Peutinger map is 20 miles (circa 29 kilometers). The actual distance is 35 kilometers. Therefore, another 6 kilometers (4 miles) must be added. The total distance mapped from Petronell to Ptuj is around 278 km. If one adds to the initial distance stated on the Peutinger map (155 miles) the calculated figures (9 + 11 + 13), the total distance amounts to 188 miles, i. e. 277.95 km. R. Talbert noticed some copying mistakes. The start of the stretch from Ulmo to Scarabantio is not marked.27 The distance figure from Scarabantio to Sabarie is XXX.III.28 Arrabone is mentioned as a city, although there are no traces of a city here.29 Arrabone features on segment grid 4A3, along the limes road, before Brigantio/Brigetio and Arrabo fl. River names are indicated also in other provinces. For example, Apo Fl. is represented in Dacia along the first road which started from Lederata and continued to Tibiscum. Arrabona, with this denomination, is listed in the Itinerarium Antonini four times. First, it is 26

27 28 29

Usually, to check approximately the accuracy of the values of the distances depicted in the Peutinger map and listed in the Antonine itinerary, I have used Google Earth to measure these distances. Obviously, some data are only approximated, because not always one has accurate information regarding the route of a former Roman road. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1559.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1560.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1562.html

58

Chapter 5

included in the list of the settlements along the limes road (246,6), between Ad Mures et ad Statuas in Medio (246,5) and Quadratis in medio (247,1). Secondly, Arrabona (261,8) is mentioned on the road segment from Vindobona to Poetovio (261,4: Item a Vindobona Poetavione – CLXXXIIII), between Sabaria (261,7) and Alicano (261,9). Thirdly (263,1), Arrabona features along the road from Sabaria to Bregetione, between Mursella (262,11) and Bregetione (263,2). The fourth time the same settlement (267,10) is mentioned on the road from Sirmium to Carnuntum, between Crispiana (267,9) and Flexo (267,11). It is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum.30 Arrabona (today’s Győr, Káptalan Hill, Győr-Moson-Sopron County) was an important site in Pannonia.31 It was named after the river Arrabo (Rába/Raab), a toponym of Celtic origin.32 Located close to the mouth of the Mosoni Danube, the site was identified at the beginning of the twentieth century. Péter Tomka and Eszter Szőny made decicive contributions to the knowledge of this settlement. They carried out archaeological excavations from 1974 to 1984. The Roman castellum had two phases: an earlier, timber structure, and a later one stone structure. Even though most of the auxiliary troops were transferred to the Danubian limes under Vespasian and Domitian, the castellum of Arrabona dates from an earlier period. During the reign of Claudius, the first legionary fortress in Carnuntum was built, together with the auxiliary forts of Arrabona, Brigetio, Budapest–Viziváros, Lussonium and Lugio.33 A watchtower was also discovered there.34 In the Julio-Claudian period the ala Pannoniorum was garrisoned in the vicinity of the Amber Route and in Arrabona.35 Then, at some time during Hadrian’s reign, the ala I Ulpia contariorum milliaria was transferred there. The archaeological investigation of the Savaria-Brigetio road is a promising prospect. North of Sárvár, this road branched in two. One route, the southern one, continued to Aquincum. The other crossed the river Rába, passed through the settlement of Mursella and finally reached the limes road to Arrabona, near Ménfõcsanak. A Roman milestone was found along this route and a road station was investigated.36 Returning to the Peutinger map, another observation is related to the distance figure from Arrabone to Advicesimum, written XL.III.37 The final part of this road marked in the Roman itinerary is represented in a strange manner. The name Advicesimum is written above the line representing the road, while the distance is stated under the same line. The stretch to Poetovio is not indicated. These two settlements are separated by a river38 (no. 27b in Talbert’s database). This river is unnamed, despite its length (segment grid: 4A2–5A3), but it can be identified as the Dravus.

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Not. Dig. Occ. 34,5; 34,16; 34,27. Gabler, Szőny, Tomka 1990, 9–25. Visy 2003, 68. Visy, Nagy 2003, 209. Visy, Nagy 2003, 213. Visy 2003, 24. Visy, Nagy 2003, 219. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1562.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1563.html

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

59

5.1.4 The Third Road: Emona – Siscia – Sirmium – Tauruno. Along the River Sava This road starts from Aquileia. Its route until Emona is the following: Aquileia – XIIII – Ponte sonti – / – Fl. Frigido – XV – Inalpe Iulia – V – Long[- ? –]ico – VI – Nauporto – Fl. [– ? –] – XII – Emona. I will focus only on the segment starting from Emona, therefore my calculations will refer only to Pannonia. From Emona the settlements and distances are: Emona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Ab1, segment grid 4a1) – XVIII – Aceruone – XIIII – Adprotoriu (Praetorium Latobicorum) (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Ab19) – XVI – Crucio – XVI – Novioduni – X – Romula – XIIII – Quadrata – XIIII – Adfines – XX – Siscia (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Ab1, segment grid 4a5) – no distance figure; river crossing39 – Ad Pretorium (vignette, symbol C10, segment grid 4A5)40 – XXX – Servttio (vignette, symbol C11, segment grid 5A141) – XXIII – Urbate – XXXIII – Marsonie – no distance figure, river crossing42 – Adbasante – XX – Saldis – river crossing43 – XVIII – Drinum fl. – XVIII – river crossing44 – Sirmium (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa1, segment grid 5a4) – XVIII – Bassianis – VIII – idiminio – VIIII – Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa7, segment grid 5A545). The total distance covered on the Peutinger map from Emona to Taurunum is 309 miles, i. e. 456.85 km. Along this road, 19 settlements are mentioned (I counted 19, Taurunum was already counted for the first road) and 17 distance figures. The frequency of these is: 8 (miles) – 1 (time), 9–1, 10–1, 14–3, 16–2, 18–4, 20–2, 30–1, 33–2. Out of these, 8 distance figures are recorded between the values of 8 to 16 miles. This means that out of 17 distance figures 8 represent 47.05 %. Along this route, the distances are a little longer compared to those along the first road. If I include also the distance figure of 18 (4), the percentage increases to 12/17, which is 70.58 %. Strategically and economically, this road was very important for Pannonia. During Augustus’ reign, Aquileia, Emona and Siscia were the most important settlements. They were used as military bases for the army. E. Nemeth noticed, in the text of Appian, Octavian’s desire to use Siscia and the river itself as a military base in a future war against the Dacians and the Bastarni.46 A. Mócsy suggested that the conquest of Siscia may be perceived as related to Augustan propaganda.47 Strabo was convinced that Siscia was well chosen as a military base for future actions against the Dacians.48 When the rebellion of 6–9 A. D. started, the people north of the Sava did not participate. The efficience of the Roman strategy was outstanding. By controlling the river Sava, along the road discussed 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Colapis fl. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace3559.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1610.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1660.html No. 27a, Savus River. No. 27a, Savus river. No. 27a, Savus river. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1646.html Appianos, Illyriké 22; Nemeth 2007, 32. Mócsy 1974, 32–33. Strabo 7,5,2.

60

Chapter 5

above, the Romans succeeded to conquer the northern area quickly, up to the Sava, and then the whole region up to the Danube course. Therefore, in my opinion, the road Emona – Siscia – Taurunum was probably represented in an early itinerarium, initially created by the army. The same mechanism was implemented in Dacia, where the road from Lederata to Tibiscum was built during Trajan’s military campaigns in Dacia. Along this route, five settlements are marked by ‘double-tower’ type vignettes: Emona, Adprotoriu, Siscia, Sirmium and Taurunum. The most interesting case is Adprotoriu (Praetorium Latobicorum), an important settlement on this road, which belonged to the territory of Neviodunum.49 5.1.5 The Fourth Road: Emona – Petavione – Mursa maior – Sirmium – Tauruno. Along the River Drava The settlements and distances along this road are: Emona – VIIII – river crossing (Fl. [– ? –])50 – Savo Fl. – Adpublicanos – VI – Adrante – XXXVII – Celeia (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa1, segment grid 4A2) – XVIII – Ragandone – XVIII – Petavione (vignette) – X – Remista – X – Aqua viva – XI – Populos – VIII – Botivo – VIIII – Sonista – XII – Piretis – XI – Luntulis – VIII – Iovia – X – Sirotis – X – Bolentio – X – Marinianis – VIIII – Seronis – X – Berebis – VIIII – Iovallio – VIIII – Mursa minor – X – Mursa maior (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Ac1, segment grid 5A251) – XII – Ad Labores Pont Ulcae – X – vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa1, segment grid 5A3, no name, possibly Vinkovci, Croatia (Roman Cibalae) – XI – Cansilena – XI – Ulmospaneta – XIII – Sirmium (vignette) – XVIII – Bassianis – VIII – idiminio – VIIII – Tauruno. The total distance registered on the Peutinger map from Emona via Mursa to Taurunum is 336 miles, i. e. 496.77 km. Along this road, 31 settlements are mentioned (I have counted 29, Emona and Taurunum have already been counted) and 29 distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 6 (miles) – 1 (time), 8–3, 9–6, 10–8, 11–4, 12–2, 13–1, 18–3, 37–1. Of these, 24 distance figures are recorded between the values of 8 to 16 miles. This means that 24 of the 29 figures, representing the average distance achievable in one day, amount to 82.75 %. As in the case of the roads mentioned above, Talbert noticed some interesting cartographic details. From Emona the stretch crosses the river Savus. The name Adpublicanos and the distance figure VI, as well as the next one (Adrante XXXVII), were added after NORICO.52 A clear stop is marked between the words Aqua viva.53 The start of the stretch from Ad Labores Pont Ulcae is not marked.54 As Talbert noticed, it seems logical

49 50 51 52 53 54

Horvat 1999, 228. River no. 27A. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace3361.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1652.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1587.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1591.html http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1653.html

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

61

that the vignette between Ad Labores Pont Ulcae and Cansilena has no name because of the lack of space there.55

5.2 Pannonia in the Antonine Itinerary Within the territory of Pannonia, the Antonine itinerary lists 15 road sections (Fig. 2).56 At first glance, it is obvious that the redactor used more sophisticated, accurate sources. My analysis and comparisons will prove that things are not so simple and that data in the Antonine itinerary are not so accurate. 5.2.1 The first road: from Aquileia / Hennoma civitas to Singiduno castra The road is part of segment 123,8–132,1. This section of the Antonine itinerary lists six roads, all starting from Mediolanum. As shown by Arnaud, this very settlement is considered to be an important crossroads in this document. The Antonine itinerary states: 123,8 123,9 124,1 124,2 124,3 124,4 124,5 124,6 124,7

Ab Urbe Mediolanum inde Aquileia inde Sirmium inde Nicomedia inde Antiocia inde Alexandria inde in Aegypto Hiera Sicaminos usque

CCCCXXXIII CCLX CCCCI DCCLXXXII DCCLV DCCCII

433 260 401 782 755 802

DCCLXIII

763

Then, the first road is listed.57 I have mentioned the toponyms exactly as listed in the Antonine itinerary, then the basic form, the current settlement, and the distance in Roman miles. 128,6 128,7 129,1 129,2 129,3 129,4 55 56 57

Aquileia civitas Fluvio Frigido Longatico mansio Hennoma civitas Adrante mansio Caleia civitas

Aquileia Fluvius Frigidus Longaticum mansio Emona civitas Atrans mansio Celeia civitas

Aquileia (Italy) Ajdovščina (Slovenia) Logatec/Oberloitsch (Slo) Ljubljana/Laibach (Slo) Trojane (Slo) Celje (Slo)

XXXI XXXVI XXII XVIII XXV XXIIII

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1654.html I used the list published in Talbert 2010, 206–248: Antonine Itinerary (ItAnt), text with journeys numbered. Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 136–137, road VI: ‘Balkan, Kleinasien, Levante, Ägypten. F. 3. 3. Etappe: Von Aquileia bis Sirmium (401 Meilen = 594 km). Straße durch Slowenien und entlang der Drau [785 Meilen = 1163 km]’. See also Löhberg 2006, vol. II, map 20. 1. Emona, 1:1,000,000.

62

Chapter 5

129,5 129,6 130,1 130,2 130,3 130,4 130,5 130,6 131,1 131,2 131,3 131,4 131,5 131,6 132,1

Ragundone Patavione civitas Aqua Viva Iovia hic Sinistra Lentulis Sirota Marinianis Vereis Mursa civitas Cibalas civitas Ulmos vicus Sirmi civitas Bassianis civitas Tauruno classis Singiduno castra

Ragando Poetovio civitas Aqua viva Iovia Lentulis Serota Magniana Berebis/Vereis Mursa civitas Cibalae civitas Ulmos vicus Sirmium civitas Bassiana civitas Taurunum Singidunum castrum

Spodnje Grušovje (Slo) Ptuj (Slo) Petrijanec (Croatia) Ludbreg (Cr) close to Gradac (Cr) close to Orašac (Cr) Donji Miholjac (Cr) Podgajci (Cr) Osijek (Cr) Vinkovci (Cr) Tovarnik (Cr) Sremska Mitrovica (Serbia) Donji Petrovci (Se) Zemun (Se) Beograd/Belgrade (Se)

XVIII XVIII XX XVIII XXXII XXXI XX XXII XXVI XXIII XXII XXVI XVIII58 XXX

Between Emona and Singidunum the Antonine itinerary lists 18 place-names and 17 distance figures. The total distance, if summed up, amounts to 391 miles. The frequency of these distance figures is: 18 (miles) – 5 (times); 20–2; 22–2; 23–1; 24–1; 25–1; 26–2; 30–1; 31–1; 32–1. I will now compare the data provided by the Antonine itinerary and the Peutinger map with reference to this road. First, the length of the road differs: 336 miles on the Peutinger map and 391 miles in the Antonine itinerary. The Peutinger map depicts 31 settlements (including Emona and Taurunum), while the Antonine itinerary lists only 18. The distances are very different. Their comparison leads to an important conclusion: all the distance figures in the Antonine itinerary are higher by comparison to those on the Peutinger map. From this example and from my further demonstrations it emerges that even if both the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary are late Roman sources, they are based, in my opinion, after comparing the distances, on totally different sources. One fundamental difference between the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary is provided by the distance figures and the topographic order of the settlements. The analysis of the distance figures along the road mentioned above shows that only in one (!) case does one find a matching distance, 18 miles from Ragandone (TabPeut)/Ragundone civitas (ItAnt) to Petavione (TabPeut)/Patavione civitas (ItAnt). 5.2.2 The Second Road: Ulmos – Mursa – Cetio This road is part of segment 231,8–240,5. It crossed diagonally, from south-east to northwest, the entire province of Pannonia and continued further to Noricum, to Lauriacum. The Antonine itinerary states:

58

The distance figure at Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 140 is erroneously written (20 miles instead of 18).

63

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources 231,8 231,9 231,10 231,11 232,1 232,2 232,3 232,4 232,5 232,6 232,7 232,8 233,1 233,2 233,3 233,4 233,5 233,6 233,7 233,8 234,1 234,2 234,4 235,1 235,2

ITEM DE PANNONIIS IN GALLIAS per mediterranea loca, id est a Sirmi per Sopianas Treveros usque: A Sirmi Lauriaco CCCCXXXVII 437 Augusta Vindelicum CCXVI 216 Ad Fines CXXXVI 136 Treveros leugas, non m. p., CCXXI 221 (347 miles)= Ulmos Ulmo Tovarnik (Croatia) Civalis Cibalae Vinkovci (Cr) Mursa Mursa Osijek (Cr) Antianis Antianae Popovac (Cr) Suppianis Sopianae Pécs (Hungary) Limusa Limusa Szigetvár (Hu) Silicenis Silacenae Beleg (Hu) Valco Valc/Volgum Fenekpuszta (Hu) Mogetiana Mogetianae Tüskevár (Hu) Sabaria Savaria Szombathely (Hu) Scarabantia Scarabantia Sopron (Hu) Muteno Mutenum Eisenstadt (Austria) Vindomona Vindobona Vienna (Au) Comagenis Commagena Tulln (Au) Cetio Cetium St. Pölten (Au) Arlape Arelapa Pöchlarn (Au) Loco Felicis Locus Felicis Url/Wallsee (Au) Lauriaco Lauriacum Lorch/Enns (Au)59

647 km 320 km 201 km 512 km XXVI XXIII XXII XXIIII XXX XXII XVI XXIIII XXX XXXVI XXXIIII XII XXII XXIIII XXIIII XXII XXVI

From Sirmium to Lauriacum, the road measures 437 miles (647 km). Within the territory of Pannonia, from Ulmos to Cetio, the road has a length of 369 miles. Along this road, 15 settlements and 15 distance figures are mentioned. The frequency of these distances is: 12 (miles) – 1 (time), 16–1, 22–3, 23–1, 24–4, 26–1, 30–2, 34–1, 36–1. Compared with data from the Peutinger map, this road has two common sections. The first, in the southern part of Pannonia, is the one between Mursa and Sirmium. The Peutinger map depicts the following settlements and distances: Mursa minor – X – Mursa maior – XII – Ad Labores Pont Ulcae – X – vignette, unnamed (possible Vinkovci) – XI – Cansinela – XI – Ulmospaneta – XIII – Sirmium. Therefore, from Mursa to Ulmospaneta the Peutinger map contains six settlements and a total distance of 54 miles. The Antonine itinerary, as shown above, mentions three settlements and two distances, a total of 49 miles. As one can see (and this is an exceptional case), the distances show relatively similar values (54 miles TabPeut/49 miles ItAnt). On site, the distance between Tovarnik (Ulmos/Ulmospaneta, in Croatia) and Osijek (Mursa, Croatia), via Mirkovci – Vinkovci – Jarmina – Markušica – Ernestinovo – Antunovac – Osijek (on the Drava) is 72 kilometers. The value recorded in the Antonine itinerary is, in this case, much closer to the actual distance (49 miles × 1.4785 = 72.44 km). The Peutinger map depicts a higher number of settlements and among them Ad Labores Pont Ulcae is important for my argument

59

Data from Löhberg 2006, 195–196.

64

Chapter 5

here. In the Barrington Atlas60 (Map 20: Pannonia – Dalmatia), the modern location proposed for Ad Labores Pont Ulcae is Bobota, in Croatia, close to Trpinja (Vukovar-Syrmia County). The Peutinger map indicates 10 miles for the distance between Vinkovci and Ad Labores Pont Ulcae, and from the latter to Mursa maior (Osijek) another 12 miles. From Civalis to Mursa the Antonine itinerary indicates 23 miles (34 km). This figure matches the current distance between Vinkovci and Osijek. The second common section is the one betwenn Scarabantia and Savaria. Both the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary indicate the same distance: 36 miles. In a straight line, from south to north, the on-site distance amounts to approximately 50 km, close enough to 36 miles. The section from Citium (St. Pölten, Austria) to Scarabantia (Sorpon, Hungary) is represented very differently in the two sources. The Antonine itinerary names only four settlements from Cetio to Scarabantia: Cetio – XXIIII – Comagenis – XXII – Vindomona – XII – Muteno – XXXIIII – Scarabantia. In contrast, the Peutinger map depicts this road separately. From Citium to Carnunto, along the limes road, the following settlements and distances are mentioned: Citium – VI – Vindobona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – X – villagai – VII – Aequinoctio – XIIII – Carnunto (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). Then, along the Carnunto-Petavione road the Peutinger map depicts: Carnunto – XIIII – Ulmo – XXV – Scarabantio. The Antonine itinerary lists a total distance of 92 miles from Cetio to Scarabantia. In sum, the Peutinger map provides a total distance of 76 miles. Therefore, once again, it seems that the compilers of these two documents used different sources. This fact may also be observed in the case of the section from Mursa to Sabaria in the Antonine itinerary. The settlements mentioned there (Antianis, Suppianis, Limusa, Silicensis, Valco, Mogetiana) are not depicted on the Peutinger map. The Cosmographia of the anonymous author from Ravenna only mentions the following settlements along this route: Sirmium, Cibalis, Mursa minor, Antiana and Savaria. 5.2.3 The Third Road: the Limes Road from Laurino/Tauruno to Cetio/Citium This road ran along the limes.61 The Antonine itinerary presents it from south to north, as follows: 241,1 241,2 241,3 241,4 241,5 241,6 242,1 242,2

60 61

Item per ripam PANNONIAE a Dauruno in GALLIS ad leg. XXX usque: A Tauruno Lauriaco inde Augusta Vindelicum Argentorato ad leg. XXX m. p., sic: A Laurino Taurunum Ritti in medio Rittium Aciminci Acunum/ Acumincum

Talbert 2000, 287. Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 203–206.

DLXXXVII XL XXXVIII

587 40 38

Zemun (Serbia) Surduk (Se) Slankamen (Se)

XXV XXXIII CXIII

65

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources 242,3 243,1 243,2 243,3 243,4 243,5 243,6 243,7 244,1 244,2 244,3

Cusi Bononia/Malata Cucci Cornaco Teutiburgio Mursa Ad Novas et Aureo monte Antianis Altino in medio Lugione Ad Statuas in medio

244,4 244,5 245,1 245,2 245,3 245,4 245,5 245,6 245,7 246,1

Alisca ad latus Ripa alta Lussunio Annamatia in medio Intercisa Vetus Salinas in medio Matrica Campona in medio Aquinquo leg. II adiut. A laco Felicis in medio

246,2 246,3 246,4 246,5

Crumero Azao in medio Bregetione leg. I adiut. Ad Mures et Ad Statuas in medio Arabona Quadratis in medio Flexo Gerulata in medio Carnunto leg. XIIII Gemina Germanica Aequinoctio et Ala Nova in medio Vindobona leg. X Gem. Comagenis Cetio Arlape Loco Felicis Lauriaco leg. III.

246,6 247,1 247,2 247,3 247,4 248,1 248,2 248,3 248,4 248,5 248,6 249,1

Cusum Bononia Cuccium Cornacum Teutoburgion Mursa Ad Novas et Aureus Mons Antianae Altinum Lugio Ad Statuas in Medio Alisca Alta Ripa Lussonium Annamantia Intercisa Vetus Salina Matrica Campona Aquincum Ad Lacum Felicis Crumerum Azaum Brigetio Ad Mures et Ad Statuas Arrabona Quadrata Castra Flexum Gerulatum Carnuntum

Petrovaradin (Se) Banostor (Se) Ilok (Croatia) Vukovar (Cr) Dalj (Cr) Osijek (Cr) Vőrősmart (Cr)

XXXIII XVI XVI XVI XVI XVI

Popovac (Cr) Kölked (Hungary) Dunaszekcső (Hu) Várdomb (Hu)

XXIIII

Aequinoctium

Fischamend (Au)

Vindobona Commagena Cetium Arelapa Locus Felicis Lauriacum

Vienna (Au) Tulln (Au) St. Pölten (Au) Pöchlarn (Au) Url/Wallsee (Au) Lorsch/Enns (Au)

Szekszárd (Hu) Tolna (Hu) Dunakőmlőd (Hu) Baracspuszta (Hu) Dunaújváros (Hu) Adony (Hu) Százhalombatta (Hu) Nagytétény (Hu) Budapest (Hu) Piliscsaba, close to Pilisszántó (Hu) Nyergesújfalu (Hu) close to Almásfüzitö (Hu) Szőny-Komarom (Hu) Concópatak (Hu) Győr (Hu) Lébény (Hu) Mosonmagyaróvár (Hu) Rusovce (Slovakia) Petronell (Austria)

XXV

XXVIIII XVIII XXIIII XXVI XX XXXIII XVIII XXX XXII XXX

XXVII XX XXX XX XXV

The Antonine itinerary lists 37 settlements from Laurino to Cetio (including both of them) and 23 distance figures. The total distance from Laurino to Cetio is of 630 Roman miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 16 (miles) – 5 (times); 18–2; 20–2; 22–1; 24–2; 25–2; 26–1; 27–1; 29–1; 30–2; 33–3; 113–1. Along the limes road, the Peutinger map depicts 31 settlements and a total distance of 401 miles. On site, this distance is of

66

Chapter 5

616 kilometers. Therefore, the Antonine itinerary is a long way from the real figures. Even if we do not count the strange, unusual distance figure of 113 miles from Aciminci to Cusi, we obtain a higher figure distance (630–113 = 517 miles) than in reality. I will mention, again, the settlements and the distances depicted on the Peutinger map along this road (starting from left to right, meaning from north to south): Citium – VI – Vindobona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – X – villagai – VII – Aequinoctio – XIIII – Carnunto (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIIII – Gerulatis – XVI – Ad Flexum – XIII – Stailuco – XII – Arrabo fl. – XXX – Brigantio (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – V – Lepavist – XIII – Gardellaca – XIII – Lusomana – XII – Aquinco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIIII – Vetusallo – XXII – Annamantia – XV – Lusiene – X – Altaripa – XXII – Lugione – XII – Antiana – XII – Donatianis – XIII – Ad Labores – XIII – Tittoburgo – XVI – Cornaco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIII – Cuccio – XVI – Milatis – XVI – Cusum – XI?/XL? – Acunum – VIII – Bittio – XIII – Burgenis – X – Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). If one lists the settlements in reverse order (from south to north, as in the Antonine itinerary), one obtains the following: Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 10 – Burgenis – 13 – Bittio – 8 – Acunum – XI?/XL? – Cusum – 16 – Milatis – 16 – Cuccio – 13 – Cornaco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 16 – Tittoburgo – 13 – Ad Labores – 13 – Donatianis – 12 – Antiana – 12 – Lugione – 22 – Altaripa – 10 – Lusiene – 15 – Annamantia – 22 – Vetusallo – 14 – Aquinco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 12 – Lusomana – 13 – Gardellaca – 13 – Lepavist – 5 – Brigantio (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 30 – Arrabo fl. – 12 – Stailuco – 13 – Ad Flexum – 16 – Gerulatis – 14 – Carnunto (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 14 – Aequinoctio – 7 – villagai – 10 – Vindobona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – 6 – Citium. The data is also presented in Table 1. Table 1. Pannonia. The Taurunum-Cetium limes road. Comparative values of the Antonine itinerary and of the Peutinger map Itinerarium Antonini 242,1

A Laurino

Tabula Peutingeriana 25 Tauruno

– Ritti in medio

Burgenis 33 Bittio 113 Acunum

Current settlement 10 Zemun (Serbia) 13 8 Surduk (Se)

242,2

Aciminci/ Acumincum

242,3

Cusi/Cusum

33 Cusum

16 Petrovaradin (Se)

243,1

Bononia/Malata

16 Milatis

16 Banostor (Se)

243,2

Cucci

16 Cuccio

13 Ilok (Croatia)

243,3

Cornaco/Cornacum

16 Cornaco (vignette)

16 Vukovar (Cr)

243,4

Teutiburgio

16 Tittoburgo

13 Dalj (Cr)

243,5

Mursa

16

243,6

Ad Novas et Aureo monte

–

XI?/ Slankamen (Se) XL?

Osijek (Cr) Vőrősmart (Cr)

67

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources 6263646566

Itinerarium Antonini

Tabula Peutingeriana

–

Ad Labores?

13 Nemetin, close to Osijek (Cr)62

–

Donatianis?

12 Vardarac, Osijek (Cr)63

24 Antiana

Current settlement

243,7

Antianis/Antianae

244,1

Altino in medio / Altinum

244,2

Lugione/Lugio

244,3

Ad Statuas in medio

–

Várdomb (Hu)

244,4

Alisca ad latus/Alisca

–

Szekszárd (Hu)

244,5

Ripa alta/Alta Ripa

28 Altaripa

10 Tolna (Hu)

245,1

Lussunio/Lussonium

18 Lusiene

15 Dunakőmlőd (Hu)

245,2

Annamatia in medio

245,3

Intercisa

245,4

Vetus Salinas in medio

245,5

Matrica

245,6

Campona in medio/Campona

245,7

Aquinquo leg. II adiut.

246,1

A laco Felicis in medio

–

246,2

Crumero/Crumerum

33

246,3

Azao in medio/Azaum

–

–

Kölked (Hungary)

25 Lugione

– Annamantia

Bregetione leg. I adiut.

246,5

Ad Mures et Ad Statuas in medio

246,6

Arabona

62 63 64 65 66

22 Dunaszekcső (Hu)

22 Baracspuszta (Hu)

24

Dunaújváros (Hu)

– Vetusallo 26

14 Százhalombatta (Hu)

–

Nagytétény (Hu)

20 Aquinco (vign.)

12 Budapest (Hu) Piliscsaba (Hu) Nyergesújfalu (Hu) close to Almásfüzitö (Hu)

Lussomana?

13 Bicske (Hu)64

Gardellaca (Cardabiaca)

13 Gradina (Hu)65

Lepavist 246,4

12 Popovac (Cr)

Brigantio (vign.) – 30 Arrabo fl.

5 Along the road Brigetio-Aquincum66 30 Szőny-Komarom (Hu) Concópatak (Hu) 12 Győr (Hu)

http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 287 (Map 20, Pannonia – Dalmatia). http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 291 (Map 20, Pannonia – Dalmatia). http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 293. http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 290. http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 300.

68

Chapter 5

6768

Itinerarium Antonini 247,1

Quadratis in medio/ Quadrata Castra

Tabula Peutingeriana –

Lébény (Hu) Stailuco

247,2

Flexo/Flexum

247,3

Gerulata in medio/ Gerulatum

247,4

Carnunto leg. XIIII Gemina Germanica

248,1

Aequinoctio et Ala Nova in medio

Current settlement

22 Ad Flexum Gerulatis 30 Carnunto (vign.) – Aequinoctio villagai

13 Föttveny (Hu)67 16 Mosonmagyaróvár (Hu)68 14 Rusovce (Hu) 14 Petronell (Hu) 7 Fischamend (Hu) 10

248,2

Vindobona leg. X Gem.

27 Vindobona (vign.)

6 Vienna (Austria)

248,3

Comagenis

20

Tulln (Au)

248,4

Cetio/Cetium

30 Citium

St. Pölten (Au)

villagai, Stailuco, Lepavist, Gardellaca, Lusomana, Donatianis, Ad Labores, and Milatis are depicted only on the Peutinger map. Lepavist, Gardellaca and Lusomana are represented on the Peutinger map between Brigantio/Brigetio and Aquincum: Brigantio – V – Lepavist – XIII – Gardellaca – XIII – Lusomana – XII – Aquinco. The Antonine itinerary lists (245,7–246,4): Aquinquo leg. II adiut. – XX – A laco Felicis in medio – / – Crumero – XXXIII – Azao in medio – / – Bregetione leg. I Adiut. The distance on the Peutinger map is 43 miles, whereas the Antonine itinerary offers 53 miles. Neither reflects the real distance, which is 110 km (circa 74 miles) from Szőny-Komarom to Budapest. One should notice, once again, the different sources used by the creators of these two documents. When the sources used were not accurate, the differences between the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary are significant. Brigetio was the garrison of legio I Adiutrix. Together with Carnuntum, Vindobona, and Aquincum, Brigetio was the fourth legionary base in Pannonia, from the first century A. D. to the end of Roman rule. An early earth-and-timber fort was replaced, during the reign of Trajan, by the stone fortress of legio I Adiutrix. Strategically positioned at the mouth of the river Vág, this legionary fortress was constructed with the help of engineers from other legions: XIII Gemina, XIIII Gemina and XV Appolinaris.69 Under Marcus Aurelius a fortress was established at Celamantia (Iza-Leanyvar, Slovakia), on the ‘barbaricum’ side of the Danube. West of the legionary fortress the Romans built the amphitheatre, the remains of which were still visible during the eighteenth century. In 214 A. D., during the reign of Caracalla, the civilian settlement was granted the status 67 68 69

http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf, 296. For all the other current locations of the Roman settlements I have used the Map by Map Directory, map 20 (Pannonia-Dalmatia, http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf). Visy 2003, 76.

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

69

of municipium. It was also administratively annexed to Pannonia Inferior in the same year.70 Azaum mentioned in the Antonine itinerary is located today at Almásfüzítő. It is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. XXXIII). A vicus and a castellum existed here. It was also called Odiavum: col(legium) fab(rum) Odiavensi(e)/(ium).71 According to the experts, the fort was built during Trajan’s reign. LEG(io) XI CL(audia) participated in its construction, as attested by stamped bricks discovered here. The military units garrisoned there were: ala I Britannica c. R. (97–101); ala I Bosporanorum (101–118/119); ala III Thracum sagittaria (118/119 – fourth century); equites Dalmatae (fourth century A. D.).72 A castellum is attested at Crumerum, today Nyergesúifalu, Komárom-Esztergom County. The settlement is mentioned also in the Notitia Dignitatum.73 The fortress lay north of the Danube, on a hill slope. The military units attested there were: cohors V Callaecorum (second and third centuries A. D.); equites promoti (fourth century A. D.). The fortress was built in the second century A. D. and it was in use until the end of the fourth century A. D.74 The modern names of the settlements mentioned on the Peutinger map (Lepavist, Gardellaca and Lusomana) are listed in the Barrington Atlas.75 Gardellaca/Cardabiaca76 is Tokod (Hungary) and Lusomana is Bicske (Hungary).77 Lepavist is not mentioned. Unfortunately no one was able to indicate a modern equivalent. A Roman fortress was built at Gardellaca (Tokod). It has an irregular shape: 122 × 140 × 115 × 142 m. The fortress is positioned between Crumenum and Salva (Esztergom). According to Márta Kelemen, this was not a limes fortress, but a supply base for the army stationed on the frontier.78 The fort was built during the reign of Valentinian I, but the settlement was established in the first century A. D. The settlements mentioned only in the Antonine itinerary are: Comagenis, Quadratis in medio, Ad Mures et ad Statuas in medio, Azao in medio, Crumero, Ad laco Felicis in medio, Campona in medio, Matrica, Intercisa, Alisca ad latus, Ad Statuas in medio, Altino in medio, Ad Novas et Aureo Monte, and Bononia. An unusual situation is noticeable in distance between Cusum and Acunum. The Peutinger map mentions: Cusum – XI?/XL? – Acunum, while the Antonine itinerary states CXIII (113 miles) between Aciminci and Cusi. The distance should be, of course, XI miles.79 The frontier road along the Danube in Pannonia remains difficult to reconstruct, although it is listed both on the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary.80 Even though

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Visy, Nagy 2003, 229. Visy 2003, 80. Visy 2003, 82. Not. Dign. Occ. 33,32. Visy 2003, 82–83. http://press.princeton.edu/B_ATLAS/BATL020_.pdf. Not. Dign. Occ. 33,50. Talbert 2000, 293. Visy 2003, 84. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1642.html Visy, Nagy 2003, 215.

70

Chapter 5

we may feel that all is known about the limes road of Pannonia, there are still many unsolved problems concerning its route.81 Still, the road system of Pannonia was based, it is safe to say, on four major arteries: a. the limes road; b. the Carnuntum-Poetovio road; c. the Emona-Siscia-Taurunum road, along the Sava; d. the Emona-Poetovio-Taurunum road, along the Drava. At the end of this chapter, I will take the discussion further. 5.2.4 The Fourth Road: Item ab Hemona per Sisciam Sirmi This is the road along the river Sava. The Antonine itinerary lists: 259,11 259,12 259,11 259,13 259,14 260,1 260,2 260,3 260,4 260,5 260,6 260,7 260,8 260,9 261,1 261,2 261,3

Iter ab Hemona per Sisciam Sirmi Hemona Praetorio Latovicorum Novioduno Quadrato Siscia Varianis Manneianis Incero sed mansio Augusti in Pretorio est Picentino Leucono Cirtisa Cibalis Ulmos Sirmi

CCCXI, sic: 311 Emona Praetorio Latobicorum Neviodunum Quadrato Siscia Varianae Menneianae Incero Mansio Augusti

Ljubljana (Slovenia) Pristava/Trebnje (Slo) Drnovo (Slo) Bratina (Croatia) Sisak (Cr) Kutina (Cr) Daruvar (Cr) Vetovo (Cr) Close to Vetovo

XXXIIII XXXI XXVIII XXVIIII XXIII XXVI XXVIII

Picentinum Leucoreum Cirtisia Cibalae Ulmo Sirmium

Buzet (Cr) Donji Andrijevci? (Cr) Strbinci / Dakovo (Cr) Vinkovci (Cr) Tovarnik (Cr) Sremska Mitrovica (Serbia)

XXV XXVI XV XXII XXII XXVI

Fourteen settlements are listed across a total distance of 310 miles. The frequency of the distance figures in the Antonine itinerary for this road is: 15 (miles) – 1 (time); 22–2; 23–1; 25–1; 26–2; 28–2; 29–1; 31–1; 34–1. Data related to the sector Emona – Adprotoriu reveal, yet again, that the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary rely on different sources. The Peutinger map mentions: Emona (vignette) – XVIII – Acervone – XIIII – Adprotoriu (vignette), therefore a total distance of 32 miles. The Antonine itinerary lists: Hemona – no distance figure – Praetorio Latovicorum. Further on, some distances match, but the Antonine itinerary mentions few settlements. From Adprotoriu to Siscia the Peutinger map depicts seven settlements, while the Antonine itinerary lists only four. Divided in subsegments, the situation is the following: 1. TabPeut: Adprotoriu – XVI – Crucio – XVI – Noviodum (32 miles) vs. ItAnt: Praetorium Latovicorum – XXXIIII – Novioduno (34 miles); 2. TabPeut: Noviodum – X – Romula – 14 – Quadrata (24 miles) vs. ItAnt: Novioduno – XXXI – Quadrato; 3. TabPeut: Quadrata – XIIII – Ad fines – XX – Siscia (vignette) (34) vs. ItAnt: Quadrato – 81

Bödőcs 2008, 11–12 (http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/hist/bodocs/thesis.pdf).

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

71

XXVIII – Siscia. The distance figures, however, are close in their values. The next section is very interesting. It is presented totally different on the Peutinger map and in the Antonine itinerary. The Bordeaux itinerary does not list this road, only the Emona – Poetovio – Mursa – Sirmium road. The Peutinger map states: Siscia (vignette) – no distance figure – Ad Pretorium (vignette, symbol C10 –mansio type building) – XXX – Servttio (vignette, symbol C11) – XXIII – Urbate – XXXIII – Marsonie – no distance figure, river crossing – Adbasante – XX – Saldis – river crossing – XVIII – Drinum fl. – XVIII – river crossing – Sirmium (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). Nine settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 152 miles. The Antonine itinerary lists: Siscia – XXVIIII – Varianis – XXIII – Manneianis – XXVI – Incero sed mansio Augusti in praetorio est – XXVIII – Picentino – XXV – Leucono – XXVI – Cirtina – XV – Cibalis – XXII – Ulmos – XXII – Sirmi. Ten settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 187 miles. The distance measured in digital maps between Sisak and Sremska Mitrovica is circa 273 km. The Antonine itinerary with its 187 miles (276.47 miles) is close to the calculated figure. Yet some details regarding the place-names must be clarified. 5.2.5 Adprotoriu / Ad Praetorium / Incero sed mansio Augusti in praetorio est. Reconstructing the Sources of the Pannonian Maps on the Peutinger Map and in the Antonine Itinerary According to Talbert’s database,82 there are four toponyms derived from the form Ad Praetorium/ Praetorium: 1. Ad Pretorivm (segment grid 4C1), between Cerva and Presididiolele; 2. Ad Pretorium (4A5, symbol C1083), between Siscia and Servttio, in Pannonia; 3. Adpretorum (5A1, symbol C184), between an unnamed/illegible settlement (no. 36) and Lorano; 4. Adprotoriu (4A2, symbol Ab1985). The other category consists of toponyms derived from Praetorium (without the particle Ad). Based on information from the same database, there are seven place-names derived from it, out of which four are Pretorio, one is Pretoriu Agrippinae, one is Pretorium and one is more special, Pretorium Laverianum Nuceri(a)e Apul(a)e. Their characteristics are: 1. Pretorio (name, no symbol, 8C2), between a settlement unnamed/illegible, no. 55 and P[– ? –]scv;86 2. Pretorio (name, no symbol, 1B2), between Ausrito and Argantomago/Acitodonum;87 3. Preto-

82 83

84

85 86 87

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/all-alphabetical.html. ‘This example of symbol class C10 is associated with Ad Pretorivm (4A5)’. This is Talbert’s observation at http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/symbolclass-C10.html. It is a unique drawing on the Peutinger map. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/symbolclass-C1.html: ‘Symbols conforming to this classification: [– ? –]ndesina (1A5); Adpretorvm (5A1); Aqvas Passaras (4B1); Aqvis (4C3); Aqvis calidis (9B2); Aqvis Nisincii (1B4); Mindo Fl. (4B2); Qvaeri (4A1); Tres Tabernas (5B1).’ http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/symbolclass-Ab19.html. This is, in fact, a version of the double-tower type symbol. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace361.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace715.html.

72

Chapter 5

rio (name, no symbol, 6A4, in Dacia), between Admedia and Ad Pannonios;88 4. Pretorio (name, no symbol, 7A1, in Dacia), between Arutela and Ponte vetere;89 5. Pretoriu Agrippine (symbol C2, 1A290), between Lugduno and Matilone; 6. Pretorium (name, no symbol, 6C5), between Ad ficum and Putea niga;91 7. Pretorium Laverianum Nuceri(a)e Apul(a)e (symbol C1992, 5B3), between Arpos and Aecas.93 To sum up, the place-names starting with ‘Ad …’ / ‘At…’ are associated with vignettes marking mansiones (see Tres Tabernas, 5b1). Incero sed mansio augusti in pretorio est, listed in the Antonine itinerary, is interesting too. It designates a stopping point, but not for everybody who travels, but for the emperor. The significance is to be contextualized, in my opinion, in the official transport system, cursus publicus. Within this system, such stopping points were crucial in planning and making a journey using the official infrastructure (vehicles, horses, mansiones). The toponym Ad Pretorium, the one after Siscia, is also an interesting case. The ancient literary sources (Appian, Strabo) emphasize the strategic importance of Siscia as a base settlement used for controlling the river Sava and as a military base for a future war against the Dacians. In this context, the road connecting Italy to the Balkans, starting from Aquileia to Sirmium, became a strategic route right from the beginning of Octavian’s campaigns into the future Pannonia. Therefore, the presence of a place-name such as Ad Pretorium close to Siscia represents a normal situation. It was there that a military base was installed. In time, it became an important stop-over for travellers using the cursus publicus. What I am trying to suggest, here and further on, is that the Peutinger map was based on military sources, i. e. itineraria picta initially created and used by the army. The Antonine itinerary was compiled using sources from the official archives of cursus publicus. Pretorium designated two types of constructions in Roman times. In its classical meaning, the term refers to a building inside a Roman fortress.94 During the military marches, praetorium was the name of the tent of a Roman general. In the context of the cursus publicus, the term designates a stopping point and the building used by the governor of a province or by high ranking officials.95 Another late meaning of this term is related to palaces, as opposed to agricultural structures (praetorio voluptati tantum deservientia).96

88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1733.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1760.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace553.html: ‘This example of symbol class C2 is associated with Ad Aqvas casaris (3C4). Symbols conforming to this classification: [– ? –]estis (2B1); Ad Aqvas casaris (3C4); Ad aqvas Hercvlis (3C1); Aqvas tavri (4B3); AQVIS BORMONIS (1B4); Aqvis Segete (1B5); Pretoriv– Agrippine (1A2); (symbol, no name, no. 46) (6A4).’ http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace315.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/symbolclass-C19.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1337.html. Daremberg, Saglio 1877–1919, tome 4, vol. 1 (N-Q), 640. Daremberg, Saglio 1877–1919, tome 4, vol. 1 (N-Q), 642. Daremberg, Saglio 1877–1919, tome 4, vol. 1 (N-Q), 642.

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

73

Some inscriptions also record this type of building, related to the transportation system. Much more numerous are the monuments concerning praetoria in castra. Here are two examples. The first is an inscription from Dalmatia. It was found in Skradin (Croatia, ancient Scardona) and is dated to 177–180 A. D. The text reads:97 Praetoriu[m vetustate] / conlapsum [Stulpini et?] / Burnistae [Lacinien]/ses(?) ex pec(unia) [publ(ica) refecer(unt)] / Scapul[a Tertullus] / leg(atus) Augg(ustorum) p[rov(inciae) Dalmatiae] / restit[uit]

Another inscription of this type, but much more interesting, was found in Dion (Colonia Iulia Augusta Diensis), in Greece, in the region of Kentrikí Makedonía.98 The text reads: Ex mandatis / P(ubli) Mestri C(ai) f(ili) Pal(atina) Pomponiani Capitonis II[viri] / Mestriae C(ai) f(iliae) Aquilinae sacerdotis Minervae / C(aius) Mestrius C(ai) f(ilius) Pal(atina) Priscus Maianus N(umerius) Mestrius C(ai) f(ilius) / Pal(atina) Priscus praetorium cum tabernis duabus / et apparatura ea quae infra scripta est / lectis cubicularibus V culcitis V pulvinis V / subselis X cathedris II triclinio aerato culci/tis III emitulis III pulvinis longis III foco ferreo / mensis XX grabattis XX emitulis XX haec omnia / colonis de sua pecunia faciendum curraverunt / idemque dedic(averunt).

The inscriptions also record other facilities specific to the transportation system that served as stopping points within the cursus publicus. Some of these are mansiones, stationes, and stabula. Regarding the meaning of the term ‘praetorium’, apart from Pannonia, two toponyms are mentioned in Dacia. One is along the Dierna-Tibiscum road, between Admedia (today Băile Herculane, Caraş-Severin County) and Ad Pannonios (Caraş-Severin County). This road, together with the Lederata-Tibiscum route, was designed and constructed during the two wars against the Dacians, between 101/102–105/106. The presence of the toponym Pretorio should be explained in close connection with the army, which was directly involved in the construction of these roads. In this context, pretorium means a stop-over used by high ranking officials of the Roman army. The second example from Dacia is Pretorio between Arutela (north of Păuşa, on the spot called Poiana Bivolari, Vâlcea County) and Ponte vetere/Pons Vetus (Câineni, Vâlcea County), on the left bank of the river Olt. These settlements are all Roman auxiliary forts positioned from south to north along the valley of the river Olt, starting from the Danube up north, along the socalled limes Alutanus. The road which connected these forts was also designed and built during Trajan’s two wars against the Dacians. To sum up, the mentioning of these toponyms indicates, in my opinion, that the maker of the Peutinger map used early documents of the itineraria picta type as documentation for his magnum opus both for Dacia and Pannonia. These sources were military records of the roads covered by the army. In the case of Pannonia, one can easily see that the route along the river Sava was constructed in early periods, maybe starting with Octavian’s occupation of the area. The same mechanism may be identified in Dacia.

97 98

CIL 3, 2809; Jagenteufel 1958, 48–49, no. 25. AE 2000, 1295; Manils, Pascual 2005, 14, note 33.

74

Chapter 5

Concerning the place-name Incero sed mansio Augusti in pretorio est from the Antonine itinerary, it was located somewhere close to Vetovo, in Croatia. Ad Pretorium between Siscia and Servitio in the Peutinger map is to be found today, according to the Barrington Atlas,99 at Suvaja, near Bosanka Dubica, in Bosnia. Servitio is Bosanska Gradišk, and Urbate is Srbac, both also in Bosnia. All these settlements stretch across an area east– south-east of Siscia, and indicate a series of very important stopping points established early in the first century B. C. and developed afterwards, until the late Roman era, as the toponyms Varianis and Manneianis demonstrate. In conclusion, I would suggest that there are solid arguments in favour of rating the road along the river Sava as one of the earliest routes in Pannonia. Initially, it was a military communication artery, and, as in the whole Roman Empire, it became one of the important routes connecting Italy to the Balkans. It was clearly used intensively and in the late period stations along this road served to supply the infrastructure necessary for the official transportation system. This late state of affairs is reflected in the Antonine itinerary. 5.2.6 The Fifth Road: Item a Vindobona Poetovione This road is listed in the Antonine itinerary (261,4–262,2) from north to south.100 Its route corresponds to the second road depicted on the Peutinger map in Pannonia. The Antonine itinerary states: 261, 4

Iter a Vindobona

Poetovione

CLXXXIIII

184

261,5 261,6 261,7 261,8 261,9 262,1 262,2

Aquis Scarabantia Sabaria Arrabone Alicario In medio Curta Poetovione

Aquae Scarbantia Savaria Arrabone Halicanum Curta Poetovio

Baden (Austria) Sopron (Hungary) Szombathely (Hu) Körmend (Hu) Martin (Slovenia) Ormoz (Slo) Ptuj/Pettau (Slo)

XXVIII XXXI XXXIIII XX XL XXXI

From Vindobona to Poetovio the Antonine itinerary lists seven settlements and six distance figures. The total distance is 153 miles. The frequency of these distance figures is: 20 (miles) – 1 (time); 28–1; 31–2; 34–1; 40–1. From Carnunto to Petavione the Peutinger map records 155 miles. The next columns are intended to ease the comparison among the three sources:

99 100

Map 20, Pannonia-Dalmatia, 287. The route is presented in Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 214.

75

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources Tabula Peutingeriana

Intinerarium Antonini

Carnunto XIIII (vign.) Ulmo Aquis Scarabantio Sabarie (vign.) Arrabone Alicario In medio Curta Petavione (vign.)

XXV XXVIII XXXIII XX XLIII XL -

Total distance

155 miles

Geographus Ravennas

Scarabantia Sabaria Arrabone Poetovione

____

XXXI XXXIIII XX

_______

Savaria Aravona Petaviona

153 miles

The distance between Scarabantia and Savaria is quite similar on the Peutinger map (33 miles) and the Antonine itinerary (31 miles). But between Savaria and Arrabone the distance figure from the Peutinger map (20 miles) is much shorter than the one from the Antonine itinerary (34 miles). The on site distance between Szombathely and Körmend is circa 25 kilometers. So the Peutinger map is closer to reality. Both the Peutinger map (43 miles) and the Antonine itinerary (60 miles) fail to give the correct distance between Körmend and Ptuj, which is today of approximately 123 kilometers (circa 83 miles). 5.2.7 The Sixth Road: Item a Poetovione Carnunto This road is listed from south to north:101 262,3

Item a Poetovione

Carnunto

CLXIIII, sic:

164 miles = 264 km

262,4 262,5 262,6 262,7 262,8

Halicano Salle Savaria Scarabantia Carnunto

Halicanum Salle Savaria Scarbantia Carnuntum

Martin (Slovenia) Zalalövő (Hungary) Szombathely (Hu) Sopron (Hu) Petronell (Au)

XXXI XXX XXXI XXXIIII XXXVIII

The total distance recorded is 164 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 30 (miles) – 1 (time); 31–2; 34–1; 38–1. Some settlements are repeated if one compares this road to the fifth road discussed above. Another fact is even more interesting: the distance between Savaria and Scarabantia is 31 miles on both roads. But the listing of other settlements (Halicano, Salle) shows, I think, that roads 5 and 6 were reconstructed using different sources. This situation can also be observed in other cases, as I will further explain, providing relevant examples.

101

Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 214–215.

76

Chapter 5

5.2.8 The Seventh Road: A Sabaria Bregetione This road crossed diagonally, from south-west to north-east, the upper part of Pannonia. The Antonine itinerary lists: 262,9

A Sabaria

Bregetione

CII, sic:

102 miles = 151 km

262,10 262,11 263,1 263,2

Bassiana Mursella Arrabona Bregetione

Bassiana Mursella Arrabona Brigetio

Sárvár (Hungary) Morichida (Hu) Györ (Hu) Szöny-Komarom (Hu)

XVIII XXXIIII XX XXX

Four settlements are listed and a distance of 102 miles is stated. The frequency of the distance figures is: 18 (miles) – 1 (time); 34–1; 20–1; 30–1. E. Tóth briefly described the road.102 He was certain about his facts concerning the road from Savaria to the river Rába. The reconstruction of its route was based on archaeological data and modern documents. According to the data used by Tóth, the road split in two branches north of the current settlement of Sárvár. From there, a branch continued south-east towards Aquincum. This could be the road a Savaria Aquinco listed in the Antonine itinerary (263,3–263,9). The northeastern branch seems to have run parallel to the current E 65 road from Szombathely to Beled/Vásárosfalu. The traces of the Roman road from Ostffyasszonyfa to Pápóc were unfortunately destroyed by plowing but this sector is represented on a nineteenth-century manuscript map. At Pápóc, the road changed its course towards the east, crossed the river Rába and continued northeastwards, reaching Egyed. An interesting discovery is the Roman milestone north of Rábaszentandrás. The inscription indicates only the distance, XLVII miles, probably from Savaria to the spot where it was found. Measuring this distance on digital maps, the estimate of around 66 kilometers matches the figure stated by the milliarium (47 miles equalling 69.48 kilometers). Therefore, it seems possible that the tract of the road was correctly reconstructed. Further on, as Tóth noted, the road crossed the river Rába, continued to Mursella and then reached the limes road at Arrabona, close to Ménfőcsanak. From there it continued to Brigetio. In 2006 geophysical surveys were carried out on the territory of Mursella (today’s Árpás-Kisárpás, Mórichida-Dombiföldek).103 The investigations succeeded in determining the structure of the town. The road was also identified over a significant stretch.104 The researchers also discovered traces of the former wood-and-timber fortress. Mursella became a municipium under Hadrian. The settlement developed in the proximity of the military fort.105 Along with this town, Zala/Zalalövő (municipium Sallensium) and Mogentiana were also promoted to the rank of municipia during Hadrian’s reign.

102 103 104 105

Visy, Nagy 2003, 219. Bíró, Molnár, Salat, Teichner 2006, 67–78. Bíró, Molnár, Salat, Teichner 2006, 70. Visy, Nagy 2003, 222.

77

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

Recently, A. Bödőcs examined the route of the road, trying to find out if it followed the shortest line from Savaria to Mursella on the western bank of the river Rába.106 He studied the centuriation grid in this area and observed that the road from Szombathely to Sárvár seems to correspond to the east-west axis of a centuriation grid, created, according to Bödőcs, some time after the second century A. D. To sum up, archaeology decisively contributed to our knowledge of this road. The fact that is was listed in the Antonine itinerary and that Mursella became a municipium during Hadrian’s reign leads to the observation that once again the Peutinger map’s sections of Pannonia were compiled using earlier sources, maybe from the reign of Trajan. 5.2.9 The Eighth Road: A Sabaria Aquinco This route is the southeastern branch of the road starting from Szombathely. The Antonine itinerary lists: 263,3

A Sabaria

Aquinco

CLXVIIII

169 miles = 250 km

263,4 263,5 263,6 263,7 263,8 263,9

Mestrianis Mogentianis Caesariana Osonibus Floriana Acinquo

Mestrianis Mogetianae Caesariana Osonibus Floriana Aquincum

Zalaszentgrót (Hungary) Tüskevár (Hu) Szentkirályszabadja (Hu) Fehervarcsurgo (Hu) Csakvar (Hu) Budapest (Hu)

XXX XXV XXX XXVIII XXVI XXX

Six settlements are mentioned along a total distance of 169 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 25 (miles) – 1 (time); 26–1; 28–1; 30–3. This road is not indicated on the Peutinger map. According to E. Tóth, the road was identified in the field, along short sections, from Sárvár to Celldömölk. From there the road reached the Bakony Mountains, somewhere east of Somló Hill.107 P. Kiss has catalogued three milestones along this route.108 One of them was discovered at Tordas, a settlement situated about 33 km (in a straight line) south-east of Budapest, and about 3 km north of road no. 7.109 At present, no further data have been discovered that might help reconstruct the route of this road.

106 107 108 109

Bödőcs 2008, 20, at http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/hist/bodocs/thesis.pdf. Visy, Nagy 2003, 219. Kiss 2007, nos 66, 67, 68 in the catalogue. CIL 3, 3720. Dated during Macrinus, Diadumenianus, in 217 A. D.: Imp(erator) Caesar M(arcus) [Opel]/lius Severus [Macrinus] / pius [A]ugustus trib(unicia) [po]/test(ate) [co(n)s(ul) proco(n) s(ul)] et [M(arcus) Opellius / Diadumenianus] nobilissi / mus Caesar vias et po[ntes] / vetusta[te] cor[ruptas] / restitu[e]ru[nt] cu[ra(m) a / ge]nte A(elio) Tr[icciano / leg(ato)] Augg(ustorum) [pr(o) pr(aetore)] / ab Aq(uinco) m(ilia) p(assuum) / [---].

78

Chapter 5

5.2.10 The Ninth Road: A Sopianas Aquinco This road is not mentioned on the Peutinger map. Its route was west of the limes road (close to it). The Antonine itinerary lists: 264,1

A Sopianas

Acinquo

CXXXV, sic:

135 miles = 200 km

264,2 264,3 264,4 264,5 264,6

Ponte Sociorum Valle Cariniana Gorsio sive Hercule Iasulonibus Acinquo

Pons Sociorum Vallis Cariniana Gorsium sive Herculia Iasulones Aquincum

Dombovar (Hungary) XXV Ozora (Hu) XXX Tác (Hu) XXX Baracska (Hu) XXV Budapest (Hu) XXV

Five settlements are mentioned over a total distance of 135 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 25–3; 30–2. The stations along this road are unknown.110 Only the starting point and the final destination are known. A. Bödőcs recorded several settlements harbouring Roman discoveries along this road: Mecseknádasd, Bonyhád, Kajdacs, and Nagyvenyim. He advanced the suggestion that the section between Adony and Szekszárd (from north to south) was part of the limes road. In a straight line, the distance between these two settlements amounts to circa 90 kilometers. The most interesting station along this road is Gorsio sive Hercule. Bödőcs discussed E. Tóth’s theory, who interpreted the word sive as referring to the existence of two settlements: one called Gorsium, the other called Herculia, both locared 50 Roman miles from Aquincum. Regarding the same toponym, P. Arnaud noted that Gorsio sive Hercule suggests a denomination from the period of the Tetrarchy.111 As in other sections of the Antonine itinerary, all these data reflect its late Roman compilation, based on sources different from that of the Peutinger map. 5.2.11 The Tenth Road: Item a Sopianas Bregetione This is another road not depicted on the Peutinger map. Its route describes a line from south to north, approximately along the same line of the road above mentioned, between Sopianae and Aquincum. The Antonine itinerary lists:112 264,7

Item a Sopianas

Bregetione

CXS:

110.5 miles = 163 km

264,8 264,9 265,1 265,2 265,3

Iovia Fortiana Herculia Floriana Bregetione

Iovia Fortiana Gorsium Floriana Brigetio

Heténypuszta (Hungary) Nagyszokoly (Hu) Tác (Hu) Csakvar (Hu) Szöny-Komarom (Hu)

XXXII XXV XX XV VIII

110 111 112

Löhberg 2006, 216. Arnaud 1993, 42. I transcribed the modern name of the settlements after Löhberg 2006, 216–217.

79

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

Five settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 100 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 8 (miles) – 1 (time); 15–1; 20–1; 25–1; 32–2. Although I refer to the modern locations of the Roman settlements, as in the case of the road from Sopianae to Aquincum, the exact location of the settlements are unknown. The distance between Pécs and Szöny-Komarom is larger in comparison to the one specified in the Antonine itinerary. In a straight line, this distance is about 190 kilometers; more than 100 miles (147.85 km) are mentioned in the Itinerarium Antonini. Which road stations were omitted? Which distances were erroneously specified? These questions are still waiting for an answer. No milestones are recorded along this route, except for one discovered at Pécs.113 Starting from some recent discoveries made by Gábor Bertók, who identified the settlement of Iovia with Szakcs, Bödőcs suggested that a major road passed through this area.114 It was identified in aerial photographs. But despite all this data, Bödőcs is not sure if this road section is part of the Sopianae-Brigetio road. The Hungarian historian also mentions the Mánfa – Magyarszék – Oroszló route, which is, however, also hypothetical. According to A. Bödőcs, this line of the road must be reconstructed keeping in mind the geographical features of the landscape. Until further archaeological data become available, any discussion is premature. 5.2.12 The Eleventh Road: Iter a Siscia Mursam This road is positioned north of the road along the river Sava and it is not mentioned on the Peutinger map. The Antonine itinerary lists: 265,4

De Italia per Histriam in Dalmatia

265,5

Iter a Siscia

Mursam

CXXXIIII, sic:

134 miles = 199 km

265,6 265,7 265,8 265,9 265,10

Varianis Aquis Balissis Incero Stravianis Mursa

Varianae Aquae Balissae Incero Stravianis Mursa

Kutina (Croatia) Daruvar (Cr) close to Tekič (Cr) Gradac, close to Našice (Cr) Osijek (Cr)

XXIII XXX XXV XXIIII XXX

Five settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 132 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 23 (miles) – 1 (time); 24–1; 25–1; 30–2. Some settlements are listed also by the fourth road, item ab Hemona per Sisciam Sirmi (259,11–260,9), the artery along the river Sava, and on road 3 from the Peutinger map, mentioned above: Varianis and Incero (sed mansio in Augusti Pretorio est). It is another case of the compiler ‘repeating’ settlements.

113 114

Kiss 2007, no. 320. Bödőcs 2008, 18.

80

Chapter 5

5.2.13 The Twelfth Road: A Poetavione Siscia This road connected the two roads along the rivers Drava and Sava: 265,11

A Poetavione Siscia

265,12 266,1 266,2 266,3

Aqua Viva Pyrri Dautonia Siscia

Aqua Viva Pyrri Andautonia Siscia

C: 100 miles = 148 km Petrijanek (Croatia) Komin (Cr) Ščitarjevo (Cr) Sisak (Cr)

XVIIII XXX XXIIII XXVII

There are no other data for this road, apart from the existence of two Roman milestones. One of them is dated to the reign of Maximinus Thrax; it was discovered at Jelkovec. The settlement should be Jelkovečka (close to Zagreb, Croatia). The text of the inscription mentions a distance of 30 miles (circa 44 kilometers from Siscia to the spot where it was found), which, measured in a straight line, fits with the current distance between Sisak and Jelkovečka.115 Another milestone was discovered at Sela, close to Sisak.116 If the reconstruction of the text is correct – [---] And(autonia) m(ilia) p(assuum) XXII – and Andautonia is Ščitarjevo (Croatia), the distance mentioned is correct as well. In a straight line there are circa 33 km from Ščitarjevo to Sela. XXII miles equal 32.5 kilometers. 5.2.14 The Thirteenth Road: A Sabaria Vindobona This is a road briefly listed: 266,4

A Sabaria

Vindobona

LXXXVIII, sic:

88 miles = 148 km

266,5 266,6 266,7

Scarabantia Muteno Vindobona

Scarbantia Mutenum Vindobona

Sopron (Hungary) Eisenstadt (Austria) Vienna (Au)

XXXIIII XVIII XXXVI

Three settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 88 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 18 (miles) – 1 (time); 34–1; 36–1. The same road is repeated (road 5 presented here). But the stations are different.

115 116

Kiss 2007, no. 108, 236 A. D. Kiss 2007, no. 109.

81

Pannonia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

5.2.15 The Fourteenth Road: Item ab Acinquo Crumero que castra constituta sint This short route is quite interesting. The Antonine itinerary lists: 266,8

Item ab Acinquo Crumero que castra

266,9

constituta sint

266,10 266,11 266,12 266,13

Ulcisia castra Cirpi mansio Ad Herculem castra Solva mansio

Castra Ulcisia Cirpi Castra ad Herculem Solva

XLII:

62

Szentendre (Hungary) Dunabogdány (Hu) Pilismarót (Hu) Esztergom (Hu)

VIIII XII XII VIIII

Four settlements are listed and a total distance of 42 miles. The frequency of these distance figures is: 9 (miles) – 2 (times); 12–2. This short road lists only castra and mansiones. The road from Hemona to Sirmium via Siscia (259–260, road 4 in my presentation) lists a mansio Augusti in Praetorio. A list of civitates is mentioned in the Antonine itinerary along the road from Mediolanum (123,8) to Aureus Mons (132,2), including the Emona-Singiduno road sector (129,2–132,1, road 1 in my presentation). Out of the 58 settlements listed between Ab Urbe Rostrata Villa (124,8) and Aureo Monte (132,2), 30 are recorded as civitates, five as vici, three as mansiones, one as classis (Tauruno) and one as castra (Singuduno). P. Arnaud investigated the relation between mansio et vicus in terms of terminology. He mentioned that the Antonine itinerary lists civitates and vici in a series of three roads, all starting from Mediolanum: 1. one leading to Ariminum and then back to Mediolanum; 2. the second (98,2–106,4), entitled ITALIAE. Iter quod a Mediolano per Picenum et Campaniam ad Columnam id est Traiectum Siciliae ducit; 3. the third (127,9–132,2) to Aureus Mons. Referring to the third road, Arnaud outlined that along it only civitates et mansiones are recorded.117 As I have already noted above, among these civitates et mansiones, five settlements are vici. P. Arnaud reached the conclusion that mansio should be understand as a travelling stage of the emperor or a marching day of the army.118 To support his hypothesis, Arnaud mentioned a document from 10 July 405 (from Cod. Theod., 7,10,1: Nulli manendi intra palatia nostra in qualibet civitate vel mansione facultas pateat), which makes a distinction between mansiones et civitates, but he rated both of them as habitable places where one could find an imperial palatium. To sum up, in the fourth century A. D. these two terms are considered to have been, more or less, habitable human places. To conclude, this road presents military facilities. I compared this road with a sector of the Tauruno-Cetio road (road 3: the limes road) and I identified different sources used by the compiler of the Antonine itinerary. The limes road mentions (245,7) Aquinco leg. II Adiut. – XX – (246,1) A laco Felicis in medio – [no distance figure] – (246,2) Crumero. Road 13 lists totally different settlements.

117 118

Arnaud 1993, 36. Arnaud 1993, 36, note 18.

82

Chapter 5

5.2.16 The Fifteenth Road: Item a Sirmio Carnunto This road lists the settlements from south to north. From Sirmium to Sopianae it doubles the data of road 2 (232,4–232,8): 266,14 Item a Sirmio Carnunto

CCCXI:

311 miles = 461 km.

267,1 267,2 267,3 267,4 267,5 267,6 267,7 267,8 267,9 267,10 267,11 267,12

Tovarnik (Croatia) Vinkovci (Cr) Osijek (Cr) Popovac (Cr) Pécs (Hungary) Dombovar (Hu) Ságvár (Hu) Papkeszi (Hu) Bakonyszentlászló (Hu) Györ (Hu) Mosonmagyaróvár (Hu) Petronell (Austria)

XXVI XXIIII XXII XXIIII XXX XXV XXX XXV XXV XXV XXV XXX

Ulmo Cibalis Mursa Antianis Sopianis Ponte Mansuetiana Triciana Cimbrianis Crispiana Arrabona Flexo Carnunto

Ulmo Cibalae Mursa Antianae Sopianae Pons Mansuetiana Tricciana Cimbrianae Crispiana Arrabona Flexum Carnuntum

Twelve settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 311 miles. The frequency of the distance figures is: 22 (miles) – 1 (time); 24–2; 25–5; 26–1; 30–3. The settlements of the Sirmium – Sopianae road are also recorded along the road a Sirmi Lauriaco. I have arranged the data so as to compare them: A Sirmi Lauriaco 232,4 232,5 232,6 232,7 232,8

Ulmos Civalis Mursa Antianis Suppianis

A Sirmio Carnunto XXVI XXIII XXII XXIIII XXX

267,1 267,2 267,3 267,4 267,5

Ulmo Cibalis Mursa Antianis Sopianis

XXVI XXIIII XXII XXIIII XXX

As one can see, except for the figures for Civalis (23/24), all the distances are the same. The orthography of the name of the settlements is almost identical, with only small differences.

Chapter 6 Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

6.1 Tabula Peutingeriana and Dacia Over the last century, historians have published a large amount of data about the Peutinger map.1 The document is an itinerarium pictum which reflects, in my opinion, the Roman linear perception of space. Dacia is depicted in segments VI and VII.2 Three roads are represented: Lederata-Tibiscum, Dierna-Tibiscum-Sarmizegetusa-Apulum-Napoca-Porolissum and Drobeta-Romula-Caput Stenarum-Apulum (Fig. 1). Sarmizegetusa and Aquae are not connected to any road, albeit after the name of the first locality the distance to the next one (XIIII MP) is marked. Five settlements are represented by double-tower vignettes: Tivisco, Sarmategte, Apula, Napoca and Porolisso. Ad Aquas is marked by a special vignette, indicating spas or thermal constructions.3 The other settlements, villages or mansiones are marked only by their names and the distance between them. The distances and settlements indicated in Dacia are: 1. Segmentum VI 2: the road between Lederata and Tibiscum: Lederata-XII (Roman miles); Apus flumen-XII; Arcidava-XII; Centum Putea-XII; Berzobis-XII; Aizis-III; Caput Bubali-X; Tivisco (depicted by a vignette). Eight settlements are mentioned as well as a total distance of 73 Roman miles. 2. Segmenta VI 3 and VII 1: the road between Tierva and Porolisso: Tierva-XI (Roman miles); Ad Mediam-XIIII; Pretorio-IX; Ad Pannonios-IX; Gaganis-XI; MasclianisXIIII; Tivisco-XIIII; Agnavie-VIII; Ponte Augusti-XV; Sarmategte-XIIII; Ad Aquas-XIII; Petris-VIIII; Germizera-VIIII; Blandiana-VIII; Apula-XII; Brucla-XII; Salinis-XII; Patavissa-XXIIII; Napoca-XVI; Optatiana-X; Largiana-XVII; Cersie-IIII; Porolisso. Twenty-four settlements are indicated as well as a total distance of 270 Roman miles.

1

2

3

Talbert 2010 with all the former contributions mentioned there. See also Talbert 2004, 113. See my review on Talbert’s book at http://www.plekos.uni-muenchen.de/2011/r-talbert.pdf. An analysis on this topic: Fodorean 2004, 51–58. I prefer to use Weber’s system, who counted the 11 existing segments. Miller reconstructed the western part of the map, adding one more segment. Talbert considered the map as a propagandistic document, with Rome in its center, and he developed a theory about the existence not of one, but of three segments in the left part of the document, so a total of 14 segments. Fodorean 2004, 51–58; Fodorean 2012a, 255–279.

84

Chapter 6

3. Segmenta VI 4, VI 5 and VII 1: the road between Drubetis and Apulum, via Romula: Drubetis-XXXVI (Roman miles); Amutria-XXXV; Pelendova-XX; Castris novis-LXX; Romula-XIII; Acidava-XXIIII; Rusidava-XIIII; Ponte Aluti-XIII; Burridava-XII; Castra tragana-VIIII; Arutela-XV; Pretorio-VIIII; Ponte vetere-XLIIII; Stenarum-XII; Cedonie-XXIIII; Acidava-XV; Apula. Seventeen settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 379 Roman miles. To sum up, three roads are indicated in Dacia along with 48 settlements and a total distance of 703 Roman miles (1039.385 km).

6.2 The Lederata-Tibiscum road. The Peutinger map, De Bello Dacico and Trajan’s Column The first road is the one between Lederata (today Ram, Serbia) and Tibiscum (Jupa, Caraș-Severin County, Romania). This road was traced, constructed and used by the Roman armies led by Trajan in the first military campaign (101 A. D.). Inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus (‘From there we advanced to Berzobis, and then to Aizis’), the emperor reports in his De Bello Dacico. The location of the Roman settlements depicted on the Peutinger map is problematic in some details.4 Ram is positioned on the right bank of the Danube, in Serbia. Banatska Palanka (Serbia), another important settlement, is on the opposite bank. Military stamps were found in this small village. One of them belonged to a(la) II P(annoniorum). This cavalry unit participated in the wars against the Dacians and then it became part of the Roman army in Dacia under Trajan.5 The presence of coh(ors) I Cre(tum) and coh(ors) II Hisp(anorum) is also attested there. Stamps from vexillationes of legio VII Claudia and legio IIII Flavia have also been found here. These were legions from Moesia Superior. The next station on the Tabula is Apus flumen. This can be identified with the river Caraș. If one measures XII miles (17.742 km) from Ram, then Apus fl. is somewhere close to Orešac (Serbia). The next stations could be located (some of them only hypothetically) as follows: Arcidava (Vărădia or Vršac); Centum Putea (Surducu Mare?); Berzobis (Berzovia); Aizis (Fârliug); Caput Bubali (Cornuțel); Tivisco (Jupa). The distance (73 miles – almost 108 km) is correct if the locations proposed are correct as well. There is, however, one mistake. Between Aizis and Caput Bubali only III miles are depicted on the Peutinger map. If there were not only III, but XIII miles, the stretch would fit the current distance between Fârliug and Cornuțel. Such a mistake could have occurred when the medieval copyist transposed the information from the original. In that case, this segment renders a total distance of 83 miles, which equals 122.7 kilometers. A Roman fortress was built at Vărădia in the spot called ‘Pustă’. The fort in Surducu Mare is located 20 kilometers north of this point. The fortress, which measures 132 × 128 m, was built of timber and earth. Legio IIII Flavia Felix was camped at Berzovia, 20 kilometers north of Surducu Mare, in a fortress of 490 × 410 m. Not a lot is known about this fortress, because a village has been 4 5

Diaconescu 1997, 13–52. Ardevan 2007, 140.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

85

built on top of it. The legion was withdrawn from Dacia to Moesia Superior, and stationed at Viminacium (Beograd, Serbia) at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. A scene on Trajan’s Column provides a conventional representation of a road as depicted in an itinerarium. Flavius Josephus,6 Arrian or Vegetius7 offer descriptions of the marches of the Roman army.8 In the period of Trajan, as in the age of Caesar,9 military organization, the construction of roads and the establishment of new fortresses were very important elements when the Romans conquered new territories. Scene L from Trajan’s Column depicts the march of legio I Minervia. Within this scene, a zigzag road is depicted. Gerhard Koeppel10 and other historians have reached the conclusion that this detail might suggest an itinerary representing the road of a Roman army, linking one fortress to another.11 It is legitimate to draw a parallel between the Peutinger map and Trajan’s Column. The elongated form of the itinerarium is similar to the linear form of the column reliefs. The scroll of the Peutinger map represents thousands of miles of Roman roads crossing the Empire as well as topographic features such as rivers, mountains and cities, over its total length of almost 7 m and a width of only 30 to 34 cm. The column is the illustrated version of Trajan’s commentaries. It presents every episode of the two military campaigns in Dacia. Unravelled, the reliefs measure 200 m in length; they depict no less than 2500 human figures and 124 episodes, presenting landscape details, conflicts, ad locutio or marching scenes. It was clearly a propaganda monument that celebrates the invasion of Roman armies into the Dacian territories, with Trajan leading all the military operations. It is obvious that he used maps or itineraria to achieve his ends. These were drawn even as the Roman armies advanced. In scene LXVIII (Cichorius) Trajan holds something in one hand. It could be a scroll, an itinerarium – a cartographic document.

6.3 The Second Road: Dierna-Tibiscum-Porolissum The other road in the Banat is the one starting from Tierva (corrupt name, the correct form is Dierna), today Orșova (Mehedinți County). It intersects with the first road at Tibiscum. According to the present state of research, one cannot be sure whether a Roman fortress existed at Dierna. The ancient city was completely destroyed in 1968–1970, when a dam was built for the supply of the Iron Gates I hydroelectric power station.12 The next settlement mentioned on the Peutinger map is Ad Mediam. This toponym might indicate a crossroads. The distance from Dierna to this point is XI Roman miles. Ad Mediam has never been identified. Exactly XI miles (16.26 km on digital maps) further, one reaches a place with two roads: the one mentioned on the Peutinger map, and another one leading

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bellum Iudaicum 3,8. Epitomae rei militaris 3,6. Le Bohec 1989. Chevallier 1988, 251. Koeppel 1980, 301–306. Strobel 1984, 194. Nemeth 2005, 39.

86

Chapter 6

to the thermal settlement Băile Herculane.13 Numerous inscriptions have been found in Băile Herculane, many of them dedicated to Hercules as the protector of the thermal waters.14 The next station from Ad Mediam is Praetorium, today’s Mehadia (Caraş-Severin County). The distance stated on the Peutinger map is 14 Roman miles. A Roman fort was built there. The next station, after 9 miles, is Ad Pannonios (Teregova?), also home to a fortress. The next point is Gaganis, 9 miles north of Ad Pannonios. After another 11 miles, we get to Masclianis, before, after 14 miles, the road reaches Tivisco. Today, one travels along the same route between Orşova and Jupa, for a total distance of 97 km. The overall distance recorded between these settlements on the Peutinger map amounts to 68 miles (100.5 km). There are two segments of 11 miles each, two that are 14 miles long and two more that measure 9 miles each. An important detail should be highlighted. Tivisco (Tibiscum) is shown twice on the Tabula, once at the end of the first road (Lederata-Tibiscum) and the second time along the Dierna-Tibiscum road. In the first case the settlement is marked by a vignette; its position indicates the end of the road because there is no other line starting from there. The second Tibiscum is depicted as an ordinary settlement; it is part of the section starting from the Danube and ending in the north of the province, at Porolisso (today’s Zalău, Sălaj County). Talbert described this as a ‘puzzling duplication’ created by the mapmaker.15 In my opinion, there is a logical explanation. The person who drew the map used different sources. One or maybe several of them depicted Tibiscum twice. This demonstrates Tibiscum’s importance during the two military campaigns and after the conquest. In the list of the settlements of Dacia, Ptolemy mentions Tibiscum twice, stating different coordinates. In the Cosmography of the Ravenna Anonymous the same ‘mistake’ appears: Tibiscum occurs twice. First, the author presents the settlements placed along the Dierna-Tibiscum road:16 In this Dacian regions I read that in former times numerous cities existed, of which we will present some of them, like Drubetis, Medilas, Pretorich, Panonin, Gazanam, Masclunis, Tibis, which connects with the city of Agmonia from Moesia.

Then he names the other Tibiscum, on the Lederata-Tibiscum road: Also in other parts cities exist even in Dacia, like: Tema, Tiviscum, Gubali, Zizis, Bersovia, Arcidaba, Canonia, Potula, Bacaucis.

It is likely that the Anonymous from Ravenna had as source for Dacia an itinerarium possibly dating from 168–170 A. D., since the settlement Macedonica is mentioned along the main road in Dacia. Obviously, this name refers to the legio V Macedonica, which was present in Dacia from A. D. 168. Apart from that, he lists other settlements, unknown 13 14 15 16

Fodorean 2006, 236. Pippidi, Russu 1977, 76–99 (no. 54–74). http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1737.html Text and translation after Hügel 2003, 87–88.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

87

to the Peutinger mapmaker or in Ptolemy’s Geography, such as Canonia, Potula and Bacaucis. Therefore, for Dacia, the Anonymous from Ravenna used a document dated after 168 A. D. containing the same double mention of Tibiscum, transmitted from an earlier document. The entire road depicted on the Peutinger map between Dierna and Porolisso has a total length of 270 miles. After Tivisco, the next point is Agnavie, today’s Zăvoi (CaraşSeverin County). A large Roman marching fort was constructed there during the wars against the Dacians. The Peutinger map indicates 14 Roman miles (20.6 km) between Tivisco and Agnavie. After another 8 miles the next settlement is Pons Augusti (today’s Marga, Caraş-Severin County). Then, after 15 Roman miles (circa 22 km) the Peutinger map shows Sarmategte, a settlement represented by a vignette. It was founded by Trajan as a colonia deducta (Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa), located in the depression of Haţeg. The walls of the city initially enclosed a surface of 24 ha. Shortly after its official foundation, the surface of the city was extended to 32.4 ha. The Roman road was identified on Austrian and current maps. It was investigated in the field over a distance of almost 16 km, from Sarmizegetusa to Sântămărie Orlea.17 In this particular area, the Roman surveyors chose, again, the most suitable route. They constructed the road along the right side of Haţeg Hill, making it more accessible. From Sarmizegetusa, the next settlement is Ad Aquas. There is no line on the map indicating a road linking these two settlements. The distance between them is given as XIIII Roman miles. On site, the distance between Sarmizegetusa and Ad Aquas (Călan?) is circa 37 kilometers, a value close to 24 miles (circa 36 kilometers). There are, in my opinion, several explanations for this mistake: 1. The copyist forgot to write an X before XIIII. If an X is added, the result is XXIIII miles (36 km), which is close to the actual value measured on site. 2. The copyist forgot an entire segment between these two settlements (distance and place name). 3. The mapmaker used several itineraria as his sources; one of these documents ended at Sarmategte. He also drew inspiration from some other document that started with Ad Aquas. This may explain the absence of the line between those two settlements. Another aspect is awkward. This thermal settlement, Ad Aquas, was not as famous as the other two spas in Roman Dacia: Germisara (Geoagiu-Băi, Hunedoara County) and Ad Mediam (Băile Herculane, Caraş-Severin County). Still, only Ad Aquas is depicted marked by the specific vignette indicating places with thermal water. The location of Ad Aquas at the main imperial road might be the explanation. XIII miles from Ad Aquas the next settlement is Petris (Uroi?). VIIII miles from Petris is the location Germizera (correct name: Germisara, today’s Geoagiu-Băi, Hunedoara County). The road follows the northern bank to the right of the river Mureş. The distance in the field (circa 13 km) corresponds to the one indicated in the itinerarium. Because of the quality of the thermal waters, and owing to its position at the centre of the province, Germisara was the most-visited thermal spa in Dacia. Marcus Statius Priscus, governor of Dacia Superior in 157 and 158 A. D., is attested as staying there by two votive monuments erected for the gods and the protectors of the thermal waters.18 The next 17 18

Fodorean 2007, 365–384. IDR III/3, 240, 241.

88

Chapter 6

governor of Dacia Superior (in 161 A. D.), Publius Furius Saturninus, is also commemorated by two votive inscriptions at Germisara.19 The thermal baths were also visited by decuriones and quaestores from Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, augustales from Sarmizegetusa, and soldiers from the auxiliary troops. The members of the collegium Galatarum dedicated an inscription pro salute imperatoris to Hercules Invictus.20 The members of the collegium Aurariarum, with their representative, Lucius Calpurnius, dedicated another inscription to Jupiter.21 The next settlement beyond Germisara is Blandiana (today also Blandiana, Alba County). The distance between these two is VIIII miles (13.3 kilometers). After VIII miles the road reaches Apula (Apulum, today’s Alba Iulia, Alba County). Apulum was the most important crossroads in Dacia. Several roads converged in the city: 1. the road connecting Dacia with Pannonia along the river Mureş towards Partiscum (today’s Szeged, Hungary); 2. the roads along the valleys of Târnava Mare and Tîrnava Mică; 3. the road leading to the gold district, in the Apuseni Mountains, at Alburnus Maior (Roşia Montană). The Peutinger map shows the main road at Apulum as well as the road which connects Drobeta, via Romula, to Apulum, along the valley of the river Olt. The settlement is represented by a vignette. Apulum was the headquarters of the legio XIII Gemina from 106 to 271, when the province was abandoned. The city flourished during Marcus Aurelius’ rule, when the initial pre-urban nucleus (in the southern part of the current city) became a municipium. Under Commodus the settlement turned into colonia Aurelia. At the beginning of the third century A. D. the colonia received ius Italicum. The rest of the city developed close to the fortress, on Cetate Hill, and under Septimius Severus it became municipium Septimium Apulense and then colonia under Traianus Decius. These two cities, together with the military fortress, formed the biggest and the most important settlement in Roman Dacia. With an estimated population of ca. 35,000, Apulum was also the headquarters of the consular governor of Dacia. Commercial traffic developed along the river Mureş, and a harbour was constructed to handle all the settlement’s activities. The fortress of legio XIII Gemina (440 × 430 m) now overlaps with the medieval and modern Vauban citadels. One aspect should be mentioned: The porta principalis dextra is very well preserved to this day. Stamps reading LEG XIII GEM were found everywhere in a vast area, up to the gold district in the north-west. This underlines the strategic importance of this legion positioned along the main imperial road, capable of acting in different areas, especially in the west and north, to safeguard the gold mines. Apulum is followed by Brucla (Aiud?), Salinis (Ocna Mureş) and Patavissa (Turda, Cluj County). All these three roads sections have the same value, XII Roman miles. Al. Diaconescu suggested that the copyist forgot to insert a whole section of 12 miles.22 The current distance between Alba Iulia and Potaissa is 68 km. Adding 12 miles (one section), one arrives at 4 segments × 12 miles each, thus a total distance of 48 miles (70.9 km). Where exactly should the missing section be added? The distance between Apulum and 19 20 21 22

IDR III/3, 232, 236; Piso 1972, 463–471. This important character is mentioned in Dacia in seven inscriptions. IDR III/3, 234. IDR III/3, 235. Diaconescu 1997, 15.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

89

Brucla is 36 kilometers, corresponding to 24 Roman miles. Today we know the route of the Roman road in this area. The road exits from Apulum and then it rounds Bilag Hill to the north-west. It connects the current settlements of Şard, Ighiu, Cricău, Tibru and Galda de Jos. Measuring from Apulum towards the north-west, along the route of the Roman road, after 12 miles (18 km) we reach Tibru. The ruins of a building were discovered here in 1877, circa 200 m south of the village, in a place called ‘Rât’. Stamped tiles reading LEG III GEM were also found, together with inscriptions.23 Historians have advanced several hypotheses regarding this building (fortress, villa rustica). In my opinion, it might have been a mansio, located in the vicinity of the most important road of Roman Dacia. Ala I Batavorum milliaria was garrisoned at Salinis (Salinae, today’s Ocna Mureş or Războieni-Cetate). The next settlement is Potaissa. It was the most important military settlement in the northern part of Dacia. With an estimated population of 20,000 inhabitants, Potaissa was the headquarters of legio V Macedonica. Its fortress (573 × 408 m) was positioned on Cetate Hill, in the western part of the city.24 Initially, Potaissa was a vicus. The city certainly existed from the first years of the province. Potaissa is mentioned in the text on the milestone found at Aiton25 and in Ptolemy’s list. The crucial time in the development of this settlement was 168/169 A. D., when, in the context of the Marcomannic wars, legio V Macedonica was transferred there from Troesmis (Moesia Inferior, today’s Igliţa, Brăila County). Potaissa developed rapidly and in 197 A. D. it became municipium Septimium Potaissense. Septimius Severus rewarded the fidelity of the legion during the civil wars. As in the case of Apulum, two urban settlements are known at Potaissa. The first was the vicus, which became municipium under Severus and is also attested during Caracalla’s rule with this status. The other settlement developed in the proximity of the military fortress. It is documented by Ulpianus26 as a colonia with ius Italicum under Severus. Two aqueducts supplied the city the city and the military fortress with water.27 A Roman bridge was built over the river Arieş, in the southern part of the city.28 The legion was strategically positioned along the main Roman road, 72 miles away from Apulum. The distance between Potaissa and Napoca stated by the Peutinger map is 24 miles (35.484 km). The stretch between these two settlements was identified in the field, surveyed and mapped.29 In this particular stretch, Roman engineers again proved their amazing skills and knowledge in establishing the perfect route for the road. That is why the road does not climb the steep Feleac Hill, but was designed to avoid it. The road connects the villages of Ceanu Mic, Aiton and Gheorghieni, before it reaches Napoca. Thus the Roman road is only 4 kilometers longer than the current road, but it avoids the steep hill. Along this road, at Aiton (Cluj County), exactly 10 miles (14.785 km) north of 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

CIL 3, 7444 = IDR IDR III/4, 55; CIL 3, 7745 = IDR III/4, 56; CIL 3, 7816 = IDR III/4, 58; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, 191, s. v. Tibru. Bărbulescu 1987; Bărbulescu 1994. CIL 3, 1627; Winkler 1982a, 80–84. De censibus, in Digestae 50,15,1,9: Patavissensium vicus, qui a divo Severo ius coloniae impetravit. Fodorean 2011a, 95–108. Fodorean 2011b, 143–147. Winkler, Blăjan, Cerghi 1980, 63–73; Winkler 1982, 587–589.

90

Chapter 6

Potaissa, a Roman milestone was erected in 108 A. D., during Trajan’s reign. The monument was found in 1758, but has unfortunately been lost. Its inscription ran:30 Imp(erator) / Caesar Nerva / Traianus Aug(ustus) / Germ(anicus) Dacicus / pontif(ex) maxim(us) / [tribunicia] pot(estate) XII co(n)s(ul) V (sic) / imp(erator) VI p(ater) p(atriae) fecit / per coh(ortem) I Fl(aviam) Ulp(iam) / Hisp(anorum) mil(liariam) c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatam) / a Potaissa Napocae / m(illia) p(assuum) X

The monument is of threefold importance: 1. The formula a Potaissa Napocae provides the first epigraphic evidence of Potaissa as well as Napoca. 2. This road sector was built by cohors I Flavia Ulpia Hispanorum milliaria civium Romanorum equitata. The unit is mentioned among the military forces used by Trajan in the war against the Dacians. After fulfilling its mission, it was garrisoned at Orheiu Bistriţei (Bistriţa-Năsăud County), along the north-eastern frontier.31 Because it was equitata, it is possible that it was used for reconnaissance missions in northern Dacia. 3. This example can be added to the list of military units which built roads, even if M. Rathmann argued that there is little evidence today demonstrating the specific existence of the term via militaris in Roman times.32 A section of the road was excavated in Aiton. Today it can be seen in the courtyard of the village school, together with a replica of the milestone. One should note, however, that the exact location of the milestone was not here, but south of the village. In 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2014 I had the chance to identify a well-preserved stretch of this road close to the village of Ceanu Mic. At several points within the territory of Aiton (private gardens) wall substructions, coins, and ceramic fragments have been recorded. All these discoveries are solid arguments for the existence and the functioning, during the Roman period, of a stopping point along the road, a mansio.33 The Roman road reached Napoca from the south-east and it entered the city through its southern gate. Napoca is represented on the Peutinger map by a double-tower vignette. The city flourished during Hadrian’s reign, when it became municipium Aelium Hadrianum Napocensium. Napoca was surrounded by a wall of the opus quadratum type, which enclosed a total area of 32.5 ha. The city had an average population of 15,000. During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Napoca became colonia Aurelia. Septimius Severus rewarded the city with the ius Italicum. The Roman city was later almost totally covered by the medieval settlement. Because of the ius Italicum, numerous landowners positioned their farms in close proximity to the city. Napoca was also the site of a very important crossroads. It was the starting point of a westwards route leading to the military fort in Gilău.34 This route continued along the valley of Someşul Mic, following the right bank of the river, until it reached another military fortress at Gherla. The next settlement on the Peutinger map after Napoca is Optatiana (Sutor?, Sălaj County).35 The distance given is 16 miles (23.656 km). A Roman milestone found in 30 31 32 33 34 35

CIL 3, 1627. Protase 2008. Rathmann 2003, 40. Blăjan, Cerghi 1978, 21–27; Fodorean 2006, 133. Fodorean 2002, 97–102. Fodorean, Fodorean 2010, 199–204.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

91

193236 south of the village of Mera (Cluj County) records 10 miles from Napoca up to that point: Imp(erator) Caes(ar) [M(arcus) Aurelius] / Antoni[nus Aug(ustus) Armen(iacus)] / p(ontifex) m(aximus) tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) XIX imp(erator) III co(n)s(ul) III et] / Imp(erator) Cae[s(ar) L(ucius) Aurelius] / Verus Au[g(ustus) Armen(iacus) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) V imp(erator) III] / co(n)S(ul) II fece[runt a Napoca] / mp [X] / Imp(eratore) [Caes(are) M(arco) / Aur(elio) A[nto] / nino [Aug(usto)].

Further on, past Optatiana the next point is Largiana (Românaşi?, Sălaj County). The distance recorded on the Peutinger map between these two settlements is 10 miles. After Largiana the next settlement is, after 17 miles, Cersie (Certiae, Romita?, Sălaj County). The final point is Porolisso (Porolissum, today Moigrad), marked on the Peutinger map by a vignette. Porolissum is the northernmost point in Dacia. It was the centre of a sophisticated defense system. Two Roman forts were built there, in whose vicinity, as in other cases, a large civilian settlement developed. The Roman road is very well preserved at the entrance to the city. Porolissum became a municipium during the reign of Septimius Severus.37 Beside the two forts, the archaeological excavations unearthed a statio portorii, temples (among them, one dedicated to Iupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus), an aerial aqueduct (the only one of this kind found so far in Dacia), an amphiteatrum castrense built of wood in the early period of the province and rebuilt in stone in the time of Antoninus Pius. A large bi-ritual cemetery has also been identified. The military units attested in Porolissum are: cohors V Lingonum, cohors I Brittonum milliaria, cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum, cohors I Hispanorum quingenaria, cohors III Campestris, numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium sagittariorum, together with vexillationes from legions XIII Gemina, VII Claudia, VII Gemina and III Gallica. The city was estimated to have housed 20,000 inhabitants.38

6.4 The Third Road: Drubetis-Romula-Apula This road started at Drubetis (Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Mehedinţi County), another important city in Dacia. The Roman fortress (137.50 × 123 m) was built in stone immediately after the conquest of Dacia. The military units garrisoned there were: Cohors I Antiochesium, Cohors I Cretum saggitariorum, III Campestris civium romanorum equitata and I sagittariorum miliaria equitata. The city became a municipium during Hadrian’s

36

37 38

Daicoviciu 1928–1932, 48–53; Fodorean 2002a, 55–95. In the first publication, Daicoviciu noted an interesting detail: he found several anepigraphic stone monuments in that point. This is solid proof, in my opinion, of the fact that this was an exact point where measurements were made and then the milestones were distributed along the road. Gudea 1986, 124–125. Protase 2001, 66.

92

Chapter 6

reign (municipium Aelium Hadrianum Drobetense) and a colonia during the rule of Septimius Severus.39 The next point after Drubetis is Amutria. The distance between them is 36 miles. There are several settlements where Roman discoveries have been made between these two stations. That is why researchers have proposed two routes for the road.40 The northern one seems to be more accurate, since Ad Mutrium involves a connection with the current river Motru. The next point (after 35 miles) is Pelendova (close to Craiova, Dolj County), then (after 20 miles) Castris novis (today’s Castranova, Dolj County). This road section reaches the valley of the river Olt at Romula (today’s Reşca, Olt County). From there, the road continues northwards, following the right bank of the river. The stations mentioned on the Peutinger map in this sector are all Roman forts. The frontier, together with these forts, was built during Hadrian’s reign. The stations, distances and their current locations are: 1. from Romula (Reşca) to Acidava (Enoşeşti) – XIII MP; 2. from Acidava to Rusidava (Momoteşti, close to Drăgăşani) – XXIIII MP; 3. from Rusidava to Ponte Aluti (Ioneştii Govorei) – XIIII MP; 4. from Ponte Aluti to Buridava (Stolniceni, Vâlcea County) – XIII MP; 5. from Buridava to Castra tragana (Sânbotin, Vâlcea County) – XII MP; 6. from Castra tragana to Arutela (Poiana Bivolari, Vâlcea County) – VIIII MP; 7. from Arutela to Pretorio (Copăceni-Racoviţa, Vâlcea County) – XV MP; 8. from Pretorio to Ponte vetere (Câineni, Vâlcea County) – VIIII MP; 9. from Ponte vetere to Stenarum (Boiţa, Sibiu County) – XLIIII MP; 10. from Stenarum to Cedonie (Guşteriţa, Sibiu County) – XII MP; 11. from Cedonie to Acidava (Miercurea Sibiului, Sibiu County) – XXIIII MP; 12. from Acidava to Apula (Alba Iulia, Alba County) – XV MP. Along this road, the most important strategic forts were Ponte vetere (Pons Vetus) and Stenarum (Caput Stenarum). The first is located at a critical point along the valley of the Olt, at the entrance to a narrow mountain path. There, the Romans cut a road into the rock, above the river, during Hadrian’s reign. Before this, in Trajan’s time, the army avoided the massif of Cozia, taking another route east of the Olt valley. Because of the difficulty of this section, during the Roman occupation of Dacia this road was guarded by a special military unit, the numerus Burgariorum et Veredariorum,41 garrisoned in the fort of Praetorium (Racoviţa-Copăceni, Vâlcea County). The Roman fort was constructed by this unit in 138 A. D. Almost two thirds of it have since been destroyed by the waters of the Olt. Almost all the forts situated in the Olt valley have been damaged by the changing course of the river since antiquity. 39 40 41

Protase 2001, 58. Tudor 1968. CIL 3, 13.795 = ILS 8909 = IDR II, 587: Imp(eratore) Caes(are) divi Trai(ani) Parth(ici) f(ilio) / divi Nerv(ae) nep(ote) Trai(ano) Hadri(ano) / Aug(usto) pont(ifice) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) / XXIII / co(n)s(ule) III p(atre) p(atriae) et imp(eratore) T(ito) / Ael(io) Caes(are) Antoni / no Trai(ani) Aug(usti) f(ilio) divi Trai(ani) / Parth(ici) nep(ote) divi Ner(vae) pronep(ote), tr(ibuni / cia) / pot(estate) / N(umerus) burg(ariorum) et veredario(rum) Daciae Inf(e / rioris) sub / Fl(avio) Constante proc(uratore) Aug(usti). Dated in 138 A. D. CIL 3, 13.796 = ILS 9180 = IDR II, 587: Imp(eratore) Caes(are) Tito Aelio Hadriano / Antonino Aug(usto) Pio trib(unicia) potes(tate) III / co(n)s(ule) III / castra n(umerus) burg(ariorum) et vered(ariorum) quod / anguste / tenderet duplicato valli pede et in / positis turribus ampliavit / per Aquilam Fidum proc(uratorem) Aug(usti). Dated in 140 A. D.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

93

The Roman road was projected and constructed along the higher right bank of the river Olt. Only in the section between Sânbotin and Câineni the road was constructed along the left bank. Its total length, from Drubetis to Apulum, indicated on the Peutinger map, is 365 Roman miles (539.65 km). The current distance is 454 km. It is probably that mistakes were made in the calculations of distances. For example, the distance figure between Castris novis and Romula – 70 Roman miles – is far too high.42 The correct number should be XXIV (24 miles), because the distance measured on the map is around 34 kilometers. The second mistake concerns the section between Ponte vetere (Câineni, Vâlcea County) and Stenarum (Boiţa, Sibiu County), which is rendered on the Peutinger map as measuring 44 miles (65 km). In the field, the correct distance is 19 kilometers (13/14 miles). If these values are correct, the total distance amounts to 289 miles, i. e. 427 kilometers – which is much closer to the actual distance (454 km). Along the whole sector from the Danube to Apulum four milestones were found. From south to north, the first one was discovered at Băbiciu de Sus (Olt County), on the road from Islaz to Romula.43 Only one fragment of it has survived44 (47 cm × 27 cm). The text is: Im[p(erator)] (Caes) / Sept(imius) Sev(erus). The milestone has been dated to Septimius Severus’ reign (205 A. D.). It shows that this road was repaired in this period, possibly at the time when the Roman military fortress of Slăveni was renovated. Another milestone was found circa 5 km north of this point, in the territory of the current settlement of Gostavăţu (Olt County).45 Only a small fragment has survived from this chalk milestone (48 cm × 26 cm). Of the whole inscription only several letters from two rows remain. The letters are 10 cm in height. The entire monument could have measured at least 2 m in height (minimum 10 rows, 10 cm the height of the letters, plus the base and the upper part). The text says: Divi[…f(ilius)]. As in the other case, this milestone has been dated to Septimius Severus’ reign. The third milestone was discovered at Praetorium (Copăceni – Racoviţa, Vâlcea County). The monument has survived in its entirety, but has been broken in two pieces. The height of the monument is 1.20 m, its diameter is 40 cm. The letters are 5 cm in height. The text reads: Im[perator] Caes[ar] / [C Iul(ius) Veru(s)] / M[aximi]nus / pius fe[lix] Aug[ustus] / pon[tifex] max[imus] / trib[unicia] [po]t[estate] / II co[n]s[ul] proco[n]s[ul] / pa[ter] pa[triae] et [C I]ul[ius] Veru[s] / [Maximinus] / nobilis[simus] / Cae[sar] III M[illia] P[assuum].46

42 43 44 45 46

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1752.html TIR L 35, s. v. Băbiciul Episcopiei. CIL 3, 13802; IDR II, 493; Tocilescu 1896, 1,82; Tudor 1968, 52; Macrea 1969, 153; Vlădescu 1986, 103; Fodorean 2006, 80. TIR L 35, s. v. Gostavăţ; CIL 3, 1421618; IDR II, 494; Tocilescu 1896, 1, 81, no. 12; Tudor 1968, 52; Macrea 1969, 153; Vlădescu 1986, 103; Fodorean 2006, 80. Translation after IDR II, 229: ‘For the emperor Caesar C. Iulius Verus Maximinus Pius Felix Augustus, high priest, invested with the second tribunician power, consul, proclamed three times emperor, proconsul, father of the land, and C. Iulius Verus Maximinus, the most nobile Caesar. Three thousand paces (until the fortress…)’.

94

Chapter 6

The publishers of the monument noted that the names of the emperors (rows 2, 3 and 10) seem to have been hammered. The monument dates from 236 A. D., during Maximinus Thrax’s reign. Another milestone dated to the same year was discovered in the northern part of Dacia, at Almaşu Mare (Sălaj County), along the road from Bologa to Sutor, a section not mentioned in the Tabula. The fourth milestone along this road is dated to the time of Constantine the Great. Even if Dacia was no longer part of the Roman Empire, the monument proves the emperor’s concern for the defence of the Empire along the line of the Danube. The milestone was discovered at Sucidava in 1913.47 Its current height is 1.60 m, its diameter is 41 cm. Only the left part of the inscription has survived. The text is: Imp(eratori) [d(omino)] n(ostro) [Fl(avio) Val(erio) Con] / stant[ino Aug(usto) et] / Con] / stant[ino Aug(usto) et] / C[a]ess(ari)b(us) no[stris (duobus)] / m(illia) p(assuum) I

Based on the imperial epithets, the monument was set up in 324 A. D. According to the distance mentioned (1 Roman mile), it was positioned exactly 1 mile north of the pillar of the bridge built there under the same emperor, between Sucidava and Oescus.

6.5 The Peutinger Map, Dacia and other Data Besides these three roads, four rivers are represented on the Peutinger map in Dacia. All of them are depicted as short lines, from north to south. The first one is positioned between Brucla and Salinis, the second between Patavissa and Napoca (Someşul Mic?), the third between Optatiana and Largiana and the fourth between Certiae and Porolisso. It cannot be ascertained which rivers are represented, because there are many options to choose from. The Amaxobii Sarmate are mentioned right above Viminacium (located in Stari Kostolac – old Kostolac –, a Serbian town on the Danube east of Belgrade). These are the Sarmatian Iazyges. Lupiones Sarmate is the name of another people, marked by red colour and located in a northern area between the settlements of Tivisco and Ad Aquas. Another group of people is the Venadisarmatae, north of the road between Ad Aquas and Apula. Their name is written in black ink. Blastarni (i. e. Bastarni) is the name of the people located north of the Alpes Bastarnice on the Peutinger map, in the north-eastern part of these mountains. The Bastarni were a Germanic population originating from central Europe. At the end of the second century B. C., they moved east and occupied the northern part of today’s Moldavia. Their neighbors were the Costoboci, a Dacian population. The first literary mention of the Bastarni dates from 200 B. C., when the geographer Demetrios of Callatis described the regions north of the Danube’s mouths. He located the Bastarni there, with the specification that they came from other regions. Pompeius Trogus mentioned the battles between the Dacians and the Bastarni. Gradually, they became allies of the Dacians, but they did not 47

Tudor 1938, no. 95–96, 1–7; Tudor 1968, 52, 431, 506–507, SE 188; Tudor 1971, 185–186; Tudor 1974a, 123–127; Popescu 1976, 295, no. 278.

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

95

gain hegemony in this area.48 This hegemony was held first by the Dacians, then by the Sarmatians, the Carpi and finally by the Goths. Strabo refers to the Bastarni several times (2,1,41; 2,5,12; 2,5,30; 7,1,1; 7,2,4; 7,3,13; 7,3,15; 7,3,17). DACPETOPORIANI (Daci Petoporiani) are represented on the right side of the Alpes Bastarnicae. They inhabited the northern territories of Dacia. These regions were under Roman military control, but they were not included by the in the future Romans province. Trajan was not interested in the whole territory of the former Dacian kingdom (which basically corresponded with the territory of today’s Romania). He gained military control of a large area after the second campaign, but when he created Dacia, only Transylvania, the Banat and Oltenia were included in the new province for economic, strategic and military reasons. In the same area, south of the Daci Petoporiani, four other populations are mentioned on the Peutinger map: the Piti, Gaete, Dagae and Venedi.

6.6 Final observations. Dacia and itineraria The military roads indicated on the Peutinger map represent the lines of advance taken by the Roman marching columns during the Dacian wars. The camps and stations built immediately after the conquest replaced the provisory ones built by the army during the military campaigns. In many cases, the distance between the stopping points is 12 miles (sometimes 13, 11 or 9).49 Ancient sources mention that the average distance to be covered in one day was 20 Roman miles; but this did not apply to times of military campaigns.50 It was only when the new recruits were trained that such a distance was covered in one day. During military marches it was very difficult for the Romans to achieve more than 12 miles per day. During the conquest of the Dacian territories, the Romans applied an extraordinary military strategy.51 They used at least five marching columns to attack Dacia. These columns usually marched for three days, making 12 miles per day. One column, led by Trajan, started from Viminacium and advanced into Dacian territory along the Lederata-Tibiscum road. Another one entered Dacia at Dierna and then advanced along the Timiş and Cerna valleys. A third column used the most direct route to the Dacian capital, starting from Drobeta, through the Vâlcan Pass, until it reached the Depression of Haţeg. The troops from Moesia Inferior marched along the river Alutus (Olt). The Pannonian legions advanced from Lugio to Partiscum and along the river Mureş towards Apulum. One should also be aware that these five marching routes were turned into the first functional roads immediately after the conquest. Two of them are not depicted on the Peutinger map: the Drobeta – Vâlcan Pass – Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa road and the road along the Mureş valley. But the Peutinger map was a document of spatial limits and precise dimensions. There was not enough space to represent all the roads, such as might have been the case with other local itineraries created after these campaigns. 48 49 50 51

Preda 1994, 164–166, s. v. bastarni. Diaconescu 1997, 13–52. Vegetius, 1,9–10; translation in Cambell 2004, 48, 51–52; Milner 1993, 10; Bennett 1997, 92. Diaconescu 1997, 20.

96

Chapter 6

All the data are grouped in the following three tables. Each one contains the essential information: 1. the Roman name of the settlement; 2. its modern equivalent; 3. the distance (in Roman miles and kilometers); 4. comments and observations. The first table (Table 2) presents the Lederata-Tibiscum road. The data for this sector are quite accurate, excepting the Azizis-Caput Bubali section, where I have replaced the unusually small distance of 3 miles with 13 miles. This is, in my opinion, a mistake made by a copyist, not by mapmaker. It may be assumed that this road sector was accurately recorded in the first written itineraria. Moreover, this was the road taken by Trajan himself. Recent archaeological research performed by me and my colleagues in 2010 have led to the discovery of Roman remains at Fârliug and Cornuţel.52 These two settlements are circa 20 kilometers apart. Therefore, we are now able to correct this distance. In total, 8 settlements and a total distance of 73 miles are mentioned on the Peutinger map. Adding another 10, one ends up with 83 Roman miles for 8 settlements (7 sections or stretches). The average distance for each section is 11.857 miles (83:7). A double-tower vignette is shown at Tivisco, indicating that a station existed there. It should also be noted that every distance in this section represents an average distance covered by a military marching column. Five segments are 12 miles in length; one is 10 miles and the corrected one is 13 miles. The road from Lederata crossed the Danube, before reaching Apo fl. Table 2. Dacia. The settlements and the distances along the Lederata-Tibiscum road on the Peutinger map. Starting point Roman name

Distance Modern MP correspondent

Km

Ending point

Observations

Roman name

Segm. VI 2. Ab Lederata ad Tibiscum. Summa millia passuum: 73. Corrected distances: Summa MP 83. 1. Lederata (caput viae)

Ram, Serbia

XII

17.742 apo Fl.

Iustum iter.

2. Apus flumen

Caraş River

XII

17.742 Arcidava

Iustum iter. River crossing.

3. Arcidava

Vărădia

XII

17.742 Centv– Putea

Iustum iter.

4. Centum Putea Surducu Mare XII

17.742 Bersovia

Iustum iter.

5. Bersovia

Berzovia

XII

17.742 Azizis

De Bello Dacico: inde Berzobis, deinde Aizis processimus.

6. Azizis

Fârliug

III XIII

4.435 Caput Bubali 19.220

Wrong distance. Suggested correction: XIII miles.

7. Caput Bubali

Cornuţel

X

14.785 Tivisco

‘Double-tower’ vignette.

8. Tivisco

Jupa

52

Also in Ptolemy Crossroad. Mentioned twice and Cosm. Rav. in TabPeut.

Field investigations together with Eduard Nemeth, Dan Matei, and Dragoş Blaga.

97

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

The second table (Table 3) presents data regarding the Tierva (Dierna) – Porolisso (Porolissum) road. In this section, the Peutinger map mentions 265 miles and 23 settlements. The distances are correctly registered, with one exception: the section between Apula and Brucla, where I have included another entire sector of 12 miles. Adding 12 miles, one obtains a total value of 277 miles (409.54 km). The current distance is 442 km, but the Roman roads followed, in many places, a route different from the current ones. Therefore, the map indicates 277 miles for 23 settlements (i. e. 22 segments). Dividing 277 by 22 one arrives at an average segment of 12.590 miles. In this sector, there is one segment of 4 miles, 1 of 17, 1 of 16, 1 of 24, 3 of 12, 1 of 13, 2 segments of 15, 2 of 8, 4 of 9, 4 of 14 and 2 of 11 miles. The longest segment is the one between Patavissa and Napoca. Table 3. Dacia. The settlements and the distances along the Dierna – Porolissum road on the Peutinger map. Starting point Roman name

Modern correspondent

Distance

Ending point

MP

Roman name

Km

Observations

Segm. VI 3, VII 1. Ab Tierva ad Porolisso. Summa millia passuum: 265. Corrected distance: 265 + 12 = 277 miles (409.54 km). Current distance: 442 km. 1.

Tierva

Orşova

XI

16.263 Admediā

2.

Admediā

Băile Herculane

XIIII

20.699 Pretorio

3.

Pretorio

Mehadia

IX

13.306 Ad Pannonios

4.

Ad Pannonios Teregova

IX

13.306 Gaganis

5.

Gaganis

XI

16.263 Masclianis

6.

Masclianis

XIIII

20.699 Tivisco

7.

Tivisco

Jupa

XIIII

20.699 Agnavie

8.

Agnavie

Zăvoi

VIII

11.828 Ponte Augusti

9.

Ponte Augusti Marga

XV

22.177 Sarmategte

10.

Sarmategte

Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa

XIIII

20.699 Adaquas

11.

Adaquas

Călan

XIII

19.220 Petris

12.

Petris

Uroi

VIIII

13.306 Germizera

13.

Germizera

Geoagiu Băi

VIIII

13.306 Blandiana

14.

Blandiana

Blandiana

VIII

11.828 Apula

15.

Apula

Alba Iulia

XII

17.742 Brucla

Double-tower vignette.

Double-tower vignette.

Vignette. Bath complex.

Double-tower vignette.

98

Chapter 6 Starting point Roman name

Modern correspondent

Distance

Ending point

MP

Roman name

Km

Observations

A whole segment missing. 12 miles. Apulum – ? Identification: TIBRU, Alba County. Roman settlement. 16.

Brucla

Aiud

XII

17.742 Salinis

17.

Salinis

Războieni-Cetate XII

17.742 Patavissa

18.

Patavissa

Turda

XXIIII

35.484 Napoca

19.

Napoca

Cluj-Napoca

XVI

23.656 Optatiana

20.

Optatiana

Sutor

XV

Largiana

21.

Largiana

Românaşi

XVII

Cersi(a)e

22.

Cersi(a)e

Romita

IIII

Porolisso

23.

Porolisso

Moigrad

Double-tower vignette.

Double-tower vignette

The third table (Table 4) presents data concerning the Drubetis-Romula-Apula road. Excepting two unusually large distances, the other data are accurate. The Peutinger map mentions a total of 365 miles (539.65 km), but today the distance is only 454 km. The correction of the two large distances results in 289 miles, which is 427 km. Therefore, 289 miles apply to 17 settlements (i. e. 16 segments). Dividing 289 by 16 one obtains an average segment of 18.062 miles. Along this sector, there is one segment of 36 miles, 1 of 35, 1 of 20, 3 of 24 (including the one corrected between Castris novis and Romula), 2 of 14 (including the one corrected between Ponte vetere and Stenarum), 2 of 13, 2 of 15, 2 of 12 and 2 of 9 miles. The average segment is longer because the two exceptional segments measure 36 and 35 miles respectively. It seems to me that between Drubetis and Amutria two settlements should have functioned in Roman times (36 miles equal three marching days, then a stop). Once again, a river was chosen as a toponym, as in the case of Apo fl. Rivers are elements of nature easy to use as landmarks in the field. 35 miles are recorded between Amutria and Pelendava and here, too, I suspect the existence of two stopping points. It may also be supposed that each of the three 24-mile-long segments should have an intermediate point for stopping. Therefore, if another 7 settlements are added to the present calculations, the result is an average segment of 12.565 miles [289 : (17 + at least 7 more settlements, thus 24, i. e. 23 segments or 22 on the road presented above)]. This is how I suggest that the information on the Peutinger map should be approached. It stems from military itineraria, and its fundaments were provided by these documents. It does not present forts, but rather the settlements where the forts used to be. The map was adapted and transformed later. Its main content consists of roads and distances. This is no propaganda map, or, if it is, it is road propaganda, obviously, reflecting Rome’s power through her communication system.

99

Dacia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

Table 4. Dacia. The settlements and the distances along the Drobeta – Apulum road on the Peutinger map. Starting point

Distance

Roman name Modern correspondent

MP

Ending point Observations Km

Roman name

Segm. VI 4, VI 5 and VII 1. Ab Drubetis ad Apula, via Romula. Summa mp: 365. Corrected distances: summa mp: 289. 1.

Drubetis

Drobeta-Turnu Severin

XXXVI

2.

Amutria

Along the Motru XXXV river

3.

Pelendova

Craiova

4.

Castris novis Castranova

XX LXX?

53.226 Amutria 51.747 Pelendova 29.57 Castris novis 103.495 Romula

XXIV

35.484 The distance (LXX) is unusually great. There is no individual XXIV – the correct stretch for this settlement. distance. (http://www.cambridge.org/us/ talbert/talbertdatabase/ TPPlace1752.html) 5.

Romula

Reşca

XIII

19.220 Acidava

6.

Acidava

Enoşeşti

XXIIII

35.484 Rusidava

7.

Rusidava

Momoteşti (close to Drăgăşani)

XIIII

20.699 Ponte Aluti

8.

Ponte Aluti

Ioneştii Govorei

XIII

19.220 Buridava

9.

Buridava

Stolniceni

XII

17.742 Castra tragana

10.

Castra tragana

Sânbotin

VIIII

13.306 Arutela

11.

Arutela

Poiana Bivolari

XV

22.177 Pretorio

12.

Pretorio

CopăceniRacoviţa

VIIII

13.306 Ponte vetere

13.

Ponte vetere

Câineni

XLIIII

65.054 (Caput) Stenarum

XIIII 14.

(Caput) Stenarum

Boiţa

XII

The start of this stretch is not marked.

Correct distance: XIIII (14). 17.742 Cedoni(a)e

100

Chapter 6 Starting point

Distance

Ending point Observations

Roman name Modern correspondent

MP

15.

Cedoni(a)e

Guşteriţa

XXIIII

35.484 Acidava

16.

Acidava

Miercurea Sibiului

XV

22.177 Apula

17.

Apula

Alba Iulia

Km

Roman name

Therefore, in my opinion, the sources used to create the map of Dacia were military itineraries from the early times of the province. In the same way the Habsburg and the Austro-Hungarian maps were created in the eighteenth and the nineteenth century.53

53

Timár et alii 2007, 83; Timár et alii 2008, 127; Fodorean 2010, 93–102.

Chapter 7 Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

The Peutinger map mentions several roads in Moesia. Applying geographical and strategic parameters, I have divided these roads into fourteen segments (Fig. 4).

7.1 The Sirmium-Singidunum Road First attested under the name Singidun in 279 B. C., the settlement came under Roman rule only after 75 B. C. During that year the proconsul of Macedonia, Gaius Scribonius Curio, started a military campaign in order to gain control over the Balkan regions as far as the Danube. But the Romans did not create military posts there. Later, under Octavian’s reign, Marcus Licinius Crassus stabilized the region. After the creation of Moesia, Singidunum became a strategic point, positioned between Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) and Viminacium (Kostolac, Serbia). In 86 A. D. the legio IIII Flavia Felix arrived there. Its presence triggered boom at the settlement. The fort was erected exactly at the point where the Sava flows into the Danube, in the area of today’s Kalemegdan. Initially, a fortress was built from earth and timber, then it was rebuilt in stone. To connect Singidunum with Taurunum, the legion constructed a bridge over the river Sava. The remains of the fortress are visible today at the north-eastern corner of the acropolis. The Dacians’ attack in the winter of 85–86 A. D. south of the Danube proved a huge disaster for Moesia. Even the governor of the province, Oppius Sabinus, was killed. This episode led Domitian to prepare the first important military campaign north of the Danube into Dacian territory. A large number of military troops were moved to the newly created provinces of Moesia Superior and Inferior. Legio IIII Flavia Felix was transferred from Dalmatia. It seems that this legion was garrisoned at Singidunum from 86 A. D. In Moesia Superior, tile stamps of the LEG IIII FF type (the earliest type) were found in Viminacium, Singidunum, Tricornium and Aureus Mons. Among all these settlements, Singidunum is probably the place where the legion was garrisoned. Tricornium and Aureus Mons were auxiliary forts within the military territory of the legion.1 The role played by this legion in the defensive system of the Danube line was extremely important. The difference between the precise data from the Peutinger map as compared to those from the Antonine itinerary is striking if the distances and settlements between Sirmium 1

Benea 1983, 147.

102

Chapter 7

and Singidunum are analyzed. The Peutinger map mentions Sirmium (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XVIII – Bassianis (Donji Petrovci) – VIII – idiminio – VIIII – Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – III – Confluentib(us) – I – Singiduno. The Antonine itinerary states: 131,4 131,5 131,6 132,1

Sirmi civitas Bassianis civitas Tauruno classis Singiduno castra

Sirmium civitas Bassiana civitas Taurunum Singidunum castrum

Sremska Mitrovica (Serbia) Donji Petrovci (Se) Zemun (Se) Beograd/Belgrade (Se)

XXVI XVIII2 XXX

Reading these data, we may observe several important differences: 1. The Peutinger map specifically depicts six settlements from Sirmium to Singidunum, while the Antonine itinerary lists only four. Idiminio and Confluentib(us) are missing. 2. On the Peutinger map, the total distance from Sirmium to Singidunum is 18 + 8 +9 + 3 + 1, i. e. 39 Roman miles. The Antonine itinerary mentions 26 + 18 + 30, i. e. 74 miles. Accordingly, there is a difference of 35 miles between the two sources. As usual, the the Antonine itinerary provides higher values for the distances. Further, an in-depth analysis will be provided of the ancient settlements, their archaeological remains and the correspondence between the Roman distances and modern measurements. Sirmium was one of the most important settlements of Pannonia. The city played a crucial role especially in the fourth century A. D. Systematic archaeological excavations on the site began in 1957. In 1974, Mócsy noted that there was insufficient information on the topography of Sirmium.3 As far as is known, a complete map of the ancient city is still unavailable. Mócsy has provided two figures, but these are very simple sketches, extremely general and of no topographic value, representing some archaeological findings within the territory of the ancient city.4 Sirmium was one of four imperial cities, as well as a diocesan centre. Originally, it was the administrative centre of the province of Lower Pannonia (Pannonia Inferior); after Diocletian’s administrative reforms it became the centre of Pannonia Secunda.5 Starting with 324 A. D., Sirmium became the seat of the Illyrian diocese. The original settlement was set up in the territory of the autochthonous tribes, the Sirmians and the Amantines (civitas Sirmiensis et Amantinorum). During the reign of Domitian (81–96 A. D.), Sirmium gained the status of a colony. There are inscriptions recording Sirmium as Flavia Sirmium, colonia Sirmium, Sirmensium or Sirmiensium.6 So far, archaeological excavations have failed to discover the site of the early town center or the legionary fortress. J. J. Wilkes noted that Sirmium was a major Augustan military base, then a Flavian colony and a legionary base during the wars of Domitian and Trajan. It has been supposed that the military fortress was located near the city. The legion which was garrisoned there first was the I Adiutrix, raised from the fleet in 68 A. D. The legion was moved 2 3 4 5 6

The distance figure at Löhberg 2006, vol. I, 140 is erroneously written (20 miles instead of 18). Mócsy 1974, 113. Mócsy 1974, 163, figs 29 and 314, fig. 52. Bavant 1984, 250–263. http://www.viminacium.org.rs/IRS/index.html?language=english

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

103

to the Danube from Mogontiacum (Mainz) in Upper Germany after the military episodes of 85–86 A. D.7 It was first stationed in the Sirmium area. Proof of this statement is an altar dedicated by a soldier, dated before 98 A. D. (when the legion was not yet pia fidelis). Stamped bricks with the initials of the legion were also discovered.8 The legion was held in position after Domitian’s death, when the Danubian armies numbered eight legions: I Adiutrix at Sirmium, II Adiutrix at Aquincum, XIII Gemina at Poetovio, XV Apollinaris at Carnuntum, IV Flavia at Singidunum, VII Claudia at Viminacium, I Italica at Novae and V Macedonica at Oescus.9 The legion was active in both of Trajan’s Dacian wars.10 Sirmium has been mentioned as the place where Marcus Aurelius died and the place where he had an imperial palace. Also, Maximinus Thrax, the usurpers Ingenuus and Regalianus, as well as Aurelian, Probus and Claudius Gothicus, Galerius and Licinius stayed in Sirmium for shorter or longer periods. Diocletian applied a very intensive military policy. He established mobile field armies under direct imperial command in the proximity of the imperial residencies. Among these, Sirmium was a very important point.11 Owing to its position (along the waterways), Sirmium was strategically positioned along several important communication lines. Two bridges were built across the river Sava. The city was enclosed by walls at the end of the third and during the fourth centuries A. D. According to archaeological evidence the imperial palace was located at the center of the city.12 The next settlement on the Peutinger map, 18 Roman miles from Sirmium, is Bassianis (Bassianae). It was an important city in Pannonia, located near the present-day settlement of Donji Petrovci (Serbia). After Sirmium, Bassianae was the second largest town in Syrmia. Founded as an autonomous civitas in the first century A. D., its existence continued until the sixth century A. D. In 124 A. D., during Hadrian’s reign, it obtained the status of municipium. In the time of Caracalla it was recorded as a colony.13 In the fourth century A. D. the city was the seat of a Christian bishopric. Only a very small amount of the ancient town has been excavated, first in 1882 and then in 1935. Among the discoveries there are walls, pottery, and mosaics. According to the official database on cultural monuments of Serbia, the remains of Roman Bassianae are located in the Grad site, north of the current city.14 According to modern maps, the distance from Sremska Mitrovica to Donji Petrovci is 29 kilometers. This figure corresponds to the distance noted on the Tabula between the ancient settlements in Roman miles. On the other hand, 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

14

Whately 2005, 35. Wilkes 2000, 105. Campbell 2006, 25. Piso 2005, 402–403. Strobel 2007, 269. Póczy 1980, 267; for Sirmium, also Popović, Bošković 1971; Popović, Ochsenschlager 1971; Popović, Ochsenschlager 1973; Duval, Ochsenschlager, Popović 1982; Duval, Popović 1977; Pavlović 1980. Nagy 2003, 223. In Lengyel, Radan 1980, Klára Póczy provided only a short comentary about the city: ‘The city of Bassiana has not been yet excavated. Aerial photography gives accurate documentation about the settlement around its forum, clearly indicating its walls and streets, its horseshoe type of donjons, and the position of the city gates. The city wall was probably built during the Constantinian period’ (Póczy 1980, 258). http://www.heritage-db.org/eng/nkd/pregled/basijana.

104

Chapter 7

not surprisingly, the Antonine itinerary provides a much higher figure: 26 miles (almost 40 kilometers), obviously an incorrect figure. The next settlement on the Peutinger map is idiminio, 8 miles from Bassianis. Specialists have assumed that the ancient city corresponds to the modern location of Vojka, 5 kilometers south of Stara Pazova, Serbia. The settlement is not mentioned in the Antonine itinerary nor in Itinerarium Burdigalense. Today, from Donji Petrovic to Vojka the distance stated on modern maps is circa 13 kilometers, which is close to 8 Roman miles. The next settlement on the Peutinger map is Tauruno (Taurunum), today Zemun (Serbia). In the third century B. C., the Scordisci occupied the regions close to Taurunum. Later on, in the first century B. C., around 15 A. D., Taurunum came under Roman occupation. Beside the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary, Taurunum is also mentioned by Ptolemy (2,15,3), as Ταύρουνον, as well as by Pliny (3,147): In the Savus there is the island of Metubarris, the greatest of all the islands formed by rivers. Besides the above, there are these other rivers worthy of mention: the Colapis, which flows into the Savus near Siscia, where, dividing its channel, it forms the island which is called Segestica; and the river Bacuntius, which flows into the Savus at the town of Sirmium, where we find the state of the Sirmienses and the Amantini. Forty-five miles thence is Taurunum, where the Savus flows into the Danube; above which spot the Valdanus and the Urpanus, themselves far from ignoble rivers, join that stream.15

Tauruno is marked by a vignette (segment grid 5A5, symbol Aa7). It was an important crossroads, as the Peutinger map proves. The limes road, coming from Aquincum, connected there with the road coming from Sirmium. Taurunum is also important for another aspect. It was the headquarters of the classis Flavia Pannonica. Since it was entitled Flavia, the organization of this fleet must have occurred under the Flavii. The castellum from Taurunum, i. e. the oldest Roman fortification, of small size, was founded on the plateau of ‘Gardoški breg’ (Gardoš Hill). A large fortress was built later, during the second and third centuries A. D., approximately in the area corresponding today to the present center of Zemun, on the flat part of Danube’s bank. Stamps of legio VII Claudia (garrisoned at Viminacium after 57–58 A. D.)16 version LEG VII CL P S [leg(io) VII Cl(audia) p(ia) s(everiana)] were found at Taurunum.17 Roman farms and necropoleis were discovered in the close vicinity of Taurunum. Unfortunately, little is known about the topography of the settlement.18 It is interesting that Taurunum is represented on the Peutinger map by a vignette, of the double tower type, just like settlements such as Mursa, Sirmium, Singidunum or Viminacium, even if it was not a municipium or a colonia. But it was an important place, the base of the fleet, so the vignette should not be impossible to explain. Between Bassianis civitas and Tauruno classis the Antonine itinerary mentions 18 Roman miles, close to the value provided by the Peutinger map (8 + 9 = 17 Roman miles). The settlement of Idiminium is not listed in the Antonine itinerary.

15 16 17 18

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Benea 1983, 33; Gudea 2001, 53. Benea 1983, 39, 66. Dimitrijević 1996, 145, fig. 1.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

105

Three miles from Tauruno, the next settlement on the Peutinger map is Confluentib(us). This is another example of the accuracy of the Roman military surveyors, combined with the accuracy of the cartographers. This toponym must be located at the point where the Sava reaches the Danube. On the Peutinger map, a toponym like this is mentioned only in other case: Confluentes (segment grid 2A219), which is Koblenz in Germany today. This latter point marks the intersection between the rivers Mosel and Rhine. Topographically, these are two identical situations, with two identical toponyms. In the case of Confluentes in Germany, even the drawing is correct: one river meeting another. A toponym Adconfluentes is recorded on the Peutinger map near Arimino (segment grid 4B1).20 Actually, it designates the point where the river Rubicon is represented. Another toponym, Adconfluentes, is depicted on the Peutinger map at the river Tygris (segment grid 10A2).21 The way of indicating these two settlements is the same: the name, the distance, and the representation of the rivers. Confluentib(us) is also mentioned by the Anonymous from Ravenna.22 An inscription found in Poetovio23 records a tabul(arius) et vil(icus) stat(ionis) Confluent(ium).24 The next settlement on the Peutinger map, one Roman mile past Confluentibus, is Singiduno. The small distance between these two stations is absolutely correct, since they are in fact very close. The Roman fortress is positioned exactly at the confluence of the Sava with the Danube, at a strategically significant point. Today’s Belgrade (capital of Serbia), the Roman Singidunum, marked on the Peutinger map with the usual double-tower vignette, was for the first time attested by this toponym in Ptolemy’s Geographia. The Roman settlement consisted of four different entities: 1. a legionary camp; 2. the municipium and colonia Singidunum; 3. the necropoleis (to the south-east, north-east and south-west); and 4. the territory belonging to the settlement (ager Singidonensis).25 The legionary fortress today completely overlaps with the medieval and Austrian fortification of Belgrade, on the grand plateau called ‘Kalemegdan’.26 In the Antonine itinerary, Singiduno castra (132,1) is positioned 30 Roman miles from Tauruno classis. This distance figure is absolutely wrong. The Peutinger map indicates 4 miles from Tauruno to Singiduno: Tauruno – III – Confluentib(us) – Singiduno. Once again, it should be stressed that this example, and others as well, indicate that the Peutinger map relied on early military maps, created during the conquest of each province. The accuracy of the distances measured and included in the Peutinger map is the main proof for this statement. Itinerarium Burdigalense lists the settlement, too (563,14): civitas Singiduno – VIII (8 Roman miles) – (564,1) fines Pannoniae et Misiae. Singidunum is not mentioned in the Cosmography of the Anonymous from Ravenna. Instead, the Notitia Dignitatum27 mentions there the headquarters of a praefectus legionis Quartae Flaviae Singiduno. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace874.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1156.html. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace2486.html. Pinder, Parthey 1860, 213–216. CIL 3, 15184. Dimitrijević 1996, 146. Bojović 1996, 53. Benea 1983, 159. Or. 41,3.

106

Chapter 7

The legionary fortress of Singidunum was built by the legio IIII Flavia Felix. Research was carried out there after the Second World War, in 1953, 1960, 1963–1964, 1968, and 1971–1973. Today we know the dimensions of the fortress: it had a length of 570 m and a width of 330 m. It was oriented to suit the landscape. The plateau on which it was built is oriented north-west. As in many other cases, the Roman engineers adapted the construction to the geomorphologic features of the site: The short sides of the fortress are in the north-western and in the south-eastern parts of the plateau respectively. The long sides of the fortress are to the north-east and south-west. Therefore, the shape of the fortress is an irregular trapeze. The porta praetoria is positioned on the north-western, short side of the fortress.28 The width of 330 m was measured on the south-eastern side; this means that the retentura is larger than the praetentura. In conclusion, from Sirmium to Singidunum the Peutinger map depicts a correct distance of 39 miles, while the Antonine itinerary lists a greater, incorrect total distance of 74 miles. The Cosmography from Ravenna mentions 6 settlements along this section: Confluentes, Taurinum, Idominio, Bassianis, Fossis, and Sirmium. Among these, Fossis is the only one not depicted on the Peutinger map. The toponym can be related to fossa, ae (the genitive of Fossis) and can lead to the idea that a late ditch was in use in this area. Itinerarium Burdigalense lists the following settlements and distances: 563,7 563,8 563,9 563,10 563,11 563,12 563,13 563,14 564,1

civitas Sirmium VIII Fit ab Aquileia Sirmium usque milia CCCCXII, mansiones XVII, mutationes XXXVIIII mutatio Fossis VIIII civitas Bassianis X mutatio Noviciani XII mutatio Altina XI civitas Singiduno VIII fines Pannoniae et Misiae

8 miles 412 miles 17/39 9 miles 10 miles 12 miles 11 miles 8 miles

In total, from Sirmium to Singidunum, the Itinerarium Burdigalense lists 50 miles (I did not count the final distance of 8 miles from Singidunum). Mutatio Noviciani and mutatio Altina are not listed in the other sources. From these data and from the archaeological evidence, I conclude that for this road sector the Peutinger map reflects an earlier period. Tauruno is listed with a vignette. The Anonymous from Ravenna used as a source, among other data, itineraries like the Tabula, and, perhaps, other itineraria adnotata. This way one can explain the mentioning of other settlements, beside those depicted on the Peutinger map. The Bordeaux itinerary is close to the data from the Peutinger map, except for the fact that the document is a list of settlements encountered by a pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem. What is interesting is that new settlements, which developed in the late Roman period (civitates or mutationes), are listed here with their names. In this particular case, the most controversial source is the Antonine itinerary, which lists only four settlements and an incorrect distance.

28

Gudea 2001, 50, with all the bibliography.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

107

From Sirmium to Singidunum, Péter Kiss identified five milestones (nos 333, 334, 335, 336, and 337 in his catalogue).29 Two milestones were discovered at Crepovac, between Stremska Mitrovica and Šašinci. The first was erected during Marcus Aurelius’ and Lucius Verus’ reign, in 161 A. D.30 The second piece discovered at Crepovac was erected during the reign of Septimius Severus, in 198 A. D.31 The distance mentioned in the inscriptions is three Roman miles from Mitrovica. The third milestone was discovered at Šašinci. It cannot be dated, since from the inscription only the letters D(omino) n(ostro) / nob(ilissimo) [---] have been preserved.32 The distance from Sirmium to Šašinci is VI–VII miles. These three milestones are situated between Sirmium and Fossae, which is listed in the Bordeaux itinerary nine miles from Sirmium. The fourth milestone was erected during Severus Alexander’s reign, in 222–235 A. D.33 and it was discovered in Dobrinci, approximately 3.8 kilometers south-west of Donji Petrovci (Bassianae). The distance from Sirmium to Dobrinci is XVI–XVII Roman miles. The fifth and last milestone along this road was also discovered in Dobrinci, erected during Septimius Severus’ reign, in 198 A. D.34 To conclude, five milestones were discovered between Sirmium and Bassianis: one from the time of Marcus Aurelius (161 A. D.)/Crepovac; two from the reign of Septimius Severus (198 A. D.)/Crepovac and Dobrinci; one from the reign of Severus Alexander (222–235 A. D.)/Dobrinci; one dated to the fourth century A. D./Šašinci.

7.2 The Second Road: Singiduno-Viminatio The second road starts at Singiduno and ends at Viminatio. The settlements and distances are: Singiduno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, segment grid 6A1) – XIIII – Tricornio – XII – Monte Aureo – XIIII – Margum fl – X – Viminatio (Kostolac, segment grid 6A2, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 50 miles. Five settlements are mentioned, four distance figures, and two vignettes. All these distances have values which represent around one marching day of the Roman army. The frequency of the distances is: 10 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–1; 14–2. Tricornio is today’s Ritopek, in Serbia. The settlement is positioned circa 19 km south-east, in a straight line, from Belgrade. The Peutinger map mentions 14 miles from Singidunum to Tricornium, which is 20.6 km. The distance between Singidunum and Tricornium, following the curved line of the Danube, is 25.5 kilometers. The name of the people living there is mentioned by Ptolemy, III, 9: Tricornenses. The toponym indicates a fortification, a fortress. The military territory of legio VII Claudia in the first century A. D., garrisoned at Viminacium (Kostolac, Serbia), included the area along the Danube line towards Ratiaria or east of this settlement. Beginning in 86 A. D., when Moesia was split into two provinces, legio IIII Flavia Felix was brought to Singidunum. Archaeolog29 30 31 32 33 34

Kiss 2007, 162–164 and Feliratkatalógus, no. 333–337. CIL 3, 10615; Kiss 2007, no. 333. CIL 3, 10616; Kiss 2007, no. 334. Kiss 2007, no. 335. Kiss 2007, no. 336. Kiss 2007, no. 337.

108

Chapter 7

ical research has identified Roman presence at several forts in the first century A. D.: Tricornium, Aureus Mons (Seona), Lederata, Cuppae (Golubac), Novae (Čezava), Boljetin, Saldum (Gradac), Gospodin Vir, Taliata (Donji Milanovac), Transdierna (Tekija), Kladovo, Prahovo,35 and Timacum Minus (Ravna).36 Doina Benea, discussing two military diplomas from 159/160 A. D. and 161 A. D., reached the conclusion that few data can be used to compile a general image of the auxiliary troops from Moesia Superior. She listed several settlements and the troops garrisoned there: 1. Tricornium – cohors I Ulpia Pannoniorum veterana; 2. Viminacium – cohors III Campestris civium Romanorum; 3. Cuppae (Golubac) – cohors V Hispanorum; 4. Taliata (Donji Milanovac) – cohors I Lusitanorum; 5. Transdierna (Tekija) – cohors V Gallorum; 6. Egeta (Brza Palanka) – cohors I Cretum; 7. Pontes (Kladovo) – cohors III Brittonum.37 Doina Benea has rightly observed that cohors I Pannoniorum was garrisoned at Tricornium and it was listed in the last position in both military diplomas. Based on that, she proved that the troops of Moesia Superior were listed following their order along the limes, from east to west. For me, this signifies another aspect as well: These two military diplomas listed the troops along the Danubian limes in a certain topographical order. The shield of Dura Europos also listed the settlements following a certain order.38 The same situation can be found on the Peutinger map or in the Antonine itinerary. The Romans needed to follow a certain pattern in presenting settlements, because they needed geographical landmarks. The fortress was identified by archaeological research. Cohors I Pannoniorum was mentioned in military diplomas from 103–107 A. D. and 160 A. D. In the late Roman period, Tricornium was still an important military base. The Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 41,14; 41,22; 41,28) mentions three auxiliary units here: cuneus equitum saggitariorum, Tricornio (14); Auxiliares Tricornienses, Tricornio (22); and Auxilium Aureomontanum, Tricornio (28). Several names of praepositi can be found on military stamps: Bonius, Mucianus, Sundrius, Valerius.39 Mutatio Tricornia castra is listed in the Itinerarium Burdigalense (564,3). The Antonine itinerary and the Cosmography of the Anonymous from Ravenna do not list this fortress. Twelve miles away from Tricornio the Peutinger map indicates Monte Aureo (Aureus Mons). The settlement is listed in the Antonine itinerary (132,2), Itinerarium Burdigalense (civitas Aureo Monte, 564,5), and Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 41,15: Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, Aureomonto). Ptolemy and the Ravenna Cosmography do not mention it. A Roman fortress of 100 × 150 m was built there at the end of the first century A. D. The unit garrisoned there is unknown. Today, Aureus Mons is either Seone/Seona,40 Oresac close to Groska,41 or Smederevo.42 The distance from Ritopek to Seona is circa 17.4 kilometers. The Peutinger map mentions 12 miles, i. e. 17.74 kilometers. Therefore, Aureus Mons is Seona. Circa four kilometers west of Seona, at Brestovik, stamps with the letters 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Jovanović 1996, 263–264. Benea 1983, 39–40. Benea 1983, 53–54. Arnaud 1988a, 151–161; Arnaud 1989, 373–389. Benea 1983, 192. Benea 1983, 150; Talbert 2000 (map-by-map directory), 313, C5. Löhberg 2006, 140. http://omnesviae.org/#!iter_TPPlace1648_TPPlace1944

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

109

LEG VII CL and LEG II were discovered. Doina Benea believed that detachments from legio IIII Flavia Felix were garrisoned in this fortress.43 The next settlement on the Peutinger map is Margum fl. Modern researchers have located this point either at Orašje44/Orašja45 or ‘Orasje bei Dubravica’,46 which is, in fact, the city of Veliko Orašje in Serbia. The compiler of the Peutinger map, or, more precisely, the regional itinerarium first created and used as a source for the general map, offered, once again, a perfect, accurate representation of the landscape: a river, drawn from west to east, flowing into the Danube. The river Great (Velika) Morava is in fact the final section of the Morava. It enters the Danube between the villages of Kulič and Dubravica. The settlement is also mentioned in the Antonine itinerary (132,4 – Margo), the Bordeaux itinerary (564,7 – civitas Margo), and Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 41 – Dux Moesiae Primae – 24: Auxilium Margense, Margo). M. Mirkovič supposed that legio IIII Flavia Felix was garrisoned at Margum. Nevertheless, the archaeological research carried out on the site did not lead to the discovery of a Roman fortress.47 This road sector ends with Viminatio (symbol Aa51, segment grid 6A2).48 Today Stari Kostolac (Serbia), the ancient city of Viminatio was the capital of Moesia Superior. The fortress lies 4.2 kilometers north-east from the center of the current city. The archaeological site occupies around 450 hectares, including the city, ruins of temples, streets etc. The most important feature of this settlement is its position: in a strategic point, along the Danubian road, close to Dacia (Viminacium was used by Trajan as military base for the conquest of Dacia). It became a municipium under Hadrian’s reign, in 117 A. D. Legio VII Claudia was garrisoned in the fortress. The dimensions of the fortress are 430 × 350 m. In conclusion, the Peutinger map indicates a total distance of 50 miles and five settlements. Two of them (Singiduno, Viminatio) are marked by double-tower vignette. Assuming that the tract of the road ran close to the Danube, modern measurements on digital maps provide a total distance between Belgrade and Kostolac of circa 76 kilometers, very close to the distance indicated on the Peutinger map (50 miles = 73.9 kilometers). Once again, I think that the compiler of the document used accurate military itineraria picta et adnotata, since the data provided are so precise. The Antonine itinerary lists: 132,1 132,2 132,3 132,4 133,1 133,2 133,3

43 44 45 46 47 48

Singiduno castra Aureo Monte Ab Aureo Monte Vinceia Margo et leg. m. p. VIII inde Euminacio Viminacio

4 miles 24 miles 6 miles 8 miles 10 miles

Benea 1983, 150. Talbert 2000 (map-by-map directory), 319, D5. Talbert also mentions the toponym ‘Margus Fl.’, which is Morava. Benea 1983, 27, 65, 74, 92, 95, 108, 144, 147, 150, 174, 192, 230. Löhberg 2006, 140. Benea 1983, 144, 192. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/TPPlace1717.html.

110

Chapter 7

Regarding the total distance, in this case the document states 52 miles, almost the same as the Peutinger map. However, Tricornio is missing. The Tabula provides the following data: Singiduno – XIIII – Tricornio – XII – Monte Aureo, thus a total distance from Singiduno to Monte Aureo of 26 miles. The Antonine itinerary states only four miles. Instead, from Aureo Monte, the Antonine itinerary adds another settlement with a name derived from it and positioned 24 miles away. Modern data cannot explain this strange repetition. Löhberg, without offering any arguments nor any serious research regarding the archaeological sites in this area, located Aureo Monte at ‘Oresac, bei Groska’.49 This is his first mistake. In the first place, the name of the settlement is misspelt. It is not Oresac, but Orešac or Oreşaţ (Serbian: Орешац or Orešac, Romanian: Oreşaţ). Orešac is a village in Serbia, situated in the Vršac municipality, in the South Banat District, Vojvodina province. But Löhberg makes a second mistake: Orešac is by no means ‘bei Groska’. Again, Groska is wrongly spelt. It is Grocka, south of the Danube, and 8.6 kilometers in a straight line south of Ritopek. Therefore, Grocka is obvioulsy, not ‘bei’ Orešac. The distance between these two villages, measured in a straight line, is 57 kilometers. Next, Löhberg’s table mentions the settlement of Vinceia, and locates it at Smederevo (Romanian: Semendria). This is clearly another mistake. Even if I was ready to accept Aureo Monte at Grocka (a false assumption – Aureus Mons is Seone) and the so-called Vinceia at Smederevo, the current distance between these two settlements is 17.23 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary mentions 24 miles = 36 kilometers! This is only the first problem. The second is the lack of archaeological finds within the territory of these settlements or around them. Thus Löhberg’s method fails to provide any accurate information. A final observation about Löhberg’s line of mistakes: As one can see above, the Antonine itinerary lists, after Margo, leg. m. p. VIII. Löhberg writes Et(h)lech50 and even specifies ‘unsicher’. I agree – it is not certain, because it does not exist! Another point is the repetition inde Euminacio / Viminacio. Obviously, Euminacio is a corrupt toponym. This may refer, according to D. Benea,51 to the late fortification built on the left bank of the Danube, two miles from the legionary fortress. Still, I agree with D. Benea: Lacking archaeological research in this area, the hypothesis can only be accepted with due caution. The Bordeaux itinerary lists: 563,14 564,1 564,2 564,3 564,4 564,5 564,6 564,7 564,8 564,9

49 50 51

civitas Singiduno VIII fines Pannoniae et Misiae mutatio Ad Sextum mutatio Tricornia Castra mutatio Ad Sextum Miliarem civitas Aureo Monte mutatio Vingeio civitas Margo civitas Viminacio ubi Diocletianus occidit Carinum

Löhberg 2006, 140. Löhberg 2006, 140. Benea 1983, 95.

8 miles 6 miles 6 miles 7 miles 6 miles 6 miles 9 miles 10 miles

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

111

The total distance from Singiduno to Viminacio is 58 miles. The distances are compared in the following table (Table 5): Table 5. Moesia. The Roman road from Singidunum to Viminacium. Comparative values on the Peutinger map, in the Antonine itinerary and in the Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum. TabPeut Singiduno –

ItAnt 14 Singuduno castra – –

Tricornio

12 –

ItBurd 4 Civitas Singiduno

8

– mutatio Ad Sextum

6

– mutatio Tricornia castra

6

mutatio Ad Sextum Miliarem Monte Aureo –

14 Aureo Monte Ab Aureo Monte Vinceia

Margum fl. –

10 Margo et leg. m.p. VIII – inde Euminacio

Viminatio 5 settlements

Viminacio 50 6 settlements

24 civitas Aureo Monte

7 6

6 mutatio Vingeio

6

8 civitas Margo

9

10 – civitas Viminacio 52 8 settlements

– 10 58

My conclusion is that the most accurate data are provided by the Peutinger map, even if it indicates five settlements. I would add that Viminacio is not mentions in the Cosmographia of the Anonymous from Ravenna, but it is listed in the Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 41): Cuneus equitum promotorum, Viminacio, Praefectus legionis septimae Claudiae, Viminacio. One last important observation should be added. The Roman fortresses of Sirmium, Singidunum and Viminacium are positioned at approximately equal distances: Sirmium – 40 miles – Singidunum – 50 miles – Viminacium. Forty miles represent a little more than three marching days of 12 miles each (iustum iter). Fifty miles represent four marching days. This is another clue regarding the sources for the Peutinger map: early military itineraria.

7.3 The Third Road: From Viminatio to Durostero. Along the Danube The third road is the route along the line of the Danube. The settlements and the distances are: Viminatio – X – Lederata – XIII – Punicum – XI – Vico cuppae – XII – Adnovas – X – Adscrofulas – XV – Faliatis (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – VIII – Gerulatis – VI – Unam – VI – Egeta – IX – Clevora – IX – Ad Aquas – XXIV – Dortico – XXV – Ad Malum – XVI – Ratiaris (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XII – Remetodia – IV – Almo – IX – Pomodiana – IX – Camistro – VI – Aug(us)tis – XX – Pedonianis – XI – Esco (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XIV – Vio – IX – Anasamo – XVII – Securispa – XIII – Dimo – XVI – Adnovas (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – IX – Latro – XVI – Trimamio – XII – Pristis (Ruse) – IX – Tegris (Marten) – XIV – Appiaris (Ryakhovo) – XIII – Trasmarisca – (Tutrakan) – XII – Nigrinianis (Malak Preslavets) – XIII – Tegvlicio (Sreburna)

112

Chapter 7

– XI – Durostero (Silistra, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 423 miles. 35 distance figures, 35 settlements, and 4 ‘double tower’-type vignettes are provided. The frequency of the distances is: 4 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 6–3; 8–1; 9–7; 10–2; 11–3; 12–4; 13–4; 14–2; 15–1; 16–3; 17–1; 20–1; 24–1; 25–1. Of 35 distance figures, 27 (i. e. 77.14 %) are in between the values of 8 to 16 miles. Above I described the settlement of Viminatio. Lederata and Translederata, i. e. Ram (Serbia) and Stara Palanka (‘Old’ Palanka)/Banatska Palanka (‘Palanca Bănățeană’) (Serbia) are two settlements of special strategic value. They are part of the system of crossing points. Such points were essential when the Romans turned to the offensive.52 The existence of a Roman fortress at Banatska Palanka was supposed, based on the discovery of a stamped tile belonging to al(a) II P(annoniorum). This military unit participated in the Dacian wars. The tile was discovered on Sapaja Island. R. Ardevan argued that the transfer of ala II Pannoniorum to Upper Moesia took place sometime after 88 and before 93 A. D.53 Immediately after the conquest, ala II Pannoniorum was garrisoned at Gherla, in northern Dacia, where its soldiers built a timber-and-earth fort. Stamped tiles belonging to another unit, coh(ors) I Cre(tum), were also found in Stara Palanka.54 This unit is also attested in Dacia on the military diploma dated June 2nd, 110 A. D., as cohors I Cretum sagittariorum.55 Cohors II Hispanorum scutata Cyrenaica equitata and vexillationes from the legions of Moesia Superior – legio VII Claudia and legia IIII Flavia – are also attested there. Unfortunately, the Roman fortress from the second or third century remains unknown. Only the late Roman fortification on Sapaja Island has been identified. The distance mentioned on the Peutinger map from Viminacium to Lederata is correct. Measured on modern maps, this distance is circa 14 kilometers, almost 10 miles, as depicted on the Peutinger map. The next point on the Peutinger map is Punicum. In the map-by-map directory which accompanies the Barrington Atlas,56 the settlement is located at Veliko Gradište (Serbia), at the confluence of the river Pek and the Danube. The toponym is mentioned on the Peutinger map in another place as well, near Aquas Appolinaris (4B3 at Talbert, V3 at Miller). Punicum is not mentioned in the Antonine itinerary or in the Bordeaux itinerary. From all the other sources, it seems obvious that the settlement was very important. The settlement is mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 41 (Dux Moesiae primae): Sub disposition viri spectabilis ducis Moesiae primae: Cuneus equitum Constantiacorum, Pinco; Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, Pinco.57 Pliny (3,149) also mentioned the river Pingus. The geographer of Ravenna58 listed this settlement as well after the paragraph mentioning the settlements of Dacia: Item ultra Danubium iuxta civitatem quam praediximus Nobas Italicam est civitas quae dicitur Dimon, item Securisca, Ansamon, Bion, Oaecon, Melta, Emon, Pedolanis, Vico Bapeni, Augusti, 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Karavas 2003, 192. Ardevan 2007, 139–155. Jovanović 1996a, 69–71. Nemeth 2005, 35–36. See the list in Map 21, Moesia-Dacia, 320, D5, Pincus/Punicum. Seeck 1962, 92–93. Pinder, Parthey 1860, 189–190.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

113

Regiano, Ciambron, Cumodina, Remotodion, Ratiaris, Malum, Dorticum, Aquas, Clebora, Egeta, Luna, Gerbiatis, Taliatis, Scrofulas, Novas, Vicco Cupaqe, Punicum.

Unfortunately, archaeological research has not focused on this fortress, but the location is known from the notes of various travellers, old research as well as from accidental archaeological finds.59 The next settlement is Vico cuppae, positioned 9 miles after Punicum and 12 miles before Adnovas. An auxiliary fortress was built there (165 × 165 m). An earlier timber fortress was first erected on the site, followed by a stone phase. Stamps belonging to cohors I Flavia Hispanorum and cohors V Hispanorum (for the early phase) and stamps belonging to legio IIII Flavia, legio VII Claudia were found here.60 Cuppae is the first settlement mentioned in the Antonine itinerary along the road from Viminacium to Nicomedia (217,5. Item per ripam a Viminatio Nicomediam). The Notitia Dignitatum mentions (41, Dux Moesiae primae): (19) Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, Cuppis, (25) Auxilium Cuppense, Cuppis, (32) Praefectus legionis septimae Claudiae, Cuppis. Table 6 will be useful for comparing data given by the Peutinger map and by the Antonine itinerary. Table 6. Moesia. The road from Viminacium to Durostorum. Comparative values on the Peutinger map and in the Antonine itinerary. ItAnt

TabPeut

Current settlement

Viminatio

10 Kostolac (Serbia)

Lederata

13 Ram (Se)

Punicum

11 Veliko Gradište (Se)

217,7 Cuppe

24 Vico cuppae

12 Golubac (Se)

218,1 Novas

24 Adnovas

10 Brnjica-Gradac,61 close to Česavi (Se)

Adscrofulas 218,2 Talia

218,3 Egeta

12 Faliatis (vign.)

59 60 61 62 63 64 65

8 Donji Milanovac (Se)63

Gerulatis

6 Miroč (Se)

Unam

6 Kraku Krčag? (Se)

21 Egeta Clevora

218,4 Aquis

15 Bosman? (Se)62

16 Ad Aquas

9 Brza Palanka (Se)64 9 Mihajlovac (Se)65 24 Miloševo (Se)

Petrović, Vasić 1996, 15. Gudea 2001, 61–62. Gudea 2001, 62, no. 12. According to Barrington Altas, Map 21, Dacia-Moesia, compiled by Wilkes 1996, 312, D5. Gudea 2001, 70, no. 12. Popović 1984, 153–166. Petrović, Vasić 1996, 14 (the map, no. 55).

114

Chapter 7 6667686970

ItAnt

TabPeut

Current settlement

219,1 Dortico

10 Dortico

25 Vrâv (Bulgaria)

219,2 Bononia

17 Ad Malum

16 Vidin (Bg)66

219,3 Ratiaria leg. XIIII GG.

18 Ratiaris (vignette)

12 Archer (Bg)

Remetodia 219,4 Almo

18 Almo Pomodiana

220,1 Cebro / Cebrus

18 Camistro

220,2 Augustis

18 Aug(us)tis

220,3 Variana

12

220,4 Valeriana

12

4 Orsoja? (Bg) 9 Lom (Bg) 9 Stanevo (Bg) 6 Cebro in ItAnt, Ciambron in Rav., Gorni Tsibar (Bg) 20 Hârlets (Bg) Leskovo (Bg) Dolni Vadin (Bg)

Pedonianis

11 Vadin (Bg)

220,5 Oesco leg. V Mac.

12 Esco (vignette)

14 Gigen (Bg)

221,1 Uto

14 Vio Anasamo

9 Utum (Bg) 17

221,2 Securisca

12 Securispa

13 Cherkovitsa (Bg)

221,3 Dimo

12 Dimo

16 Belene (Bg)

221,4 Novas leg. I Ital.

16 Adnovas (vignette)

222,1 Scaidava

18

Sacidava, Dunăreni? (Romania) Latro

222,2 Trimmamio 222,3 Sexantapristis 222,4 Tigra

9 Svishtov (Bg)

7 Trimamio 12 Pristis (Ruse) 9 Tegris

16 12 Mechka (Bg) 9 Ruse (Bg) 14 Martensko Kale (Bg)67

222,5 Appiaria

13 Appiaris

13 Ryahovo (Bg)68

223,1 Transmariscam

16 Transmarisca

12 Tutrukan (Bg)

223,2 Candidiana

13 Nigrinianis

13 Maluk Preslavets (Bg)69

223,3 Teclicio

12 Tegvlicio

11 Tegulitium – Vetren (Bg)

223,4 Dorostoro leg. XI Cl.

12 Durostero

18 Silistra (Bg)70

66 67 68 69 70

Milošević 1988, 117–123. Velkov 1977. Velkov 1977, 99. Velkov 1977, 105. Hoddinott 1975, 138–42; Donevski 1991.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

115

The Antonine itinerary lists between Viminatio and Durostero 28 settlements and 27 distances (Fig. 5). The frequency of the distances is: 7–1 (time); 9–1; 10–1; 12–9; 13–2; 14–1; 16–3; 17–1; 18–5; 21–1; 24–2. The total distance along this road is 398 miles, which equals 588.443 kilometers. As we can observe, out of the 27 distance figures, nine are 12 miles, and nine are higher than 16 miles. The Peutinger map lists 35 settlements; therefore the information contained is more complete and more accurate. The total distance mentioned on the Peutinger map along this route is 423 Roman miles, which is 625.405 kilometers. The current distance is 707 kilometers, so again the Peutinger map provides more accurate information. The following case studies concern several settlements and distances listed both on the Peutinger map and in the Antonine itinerary. After Dorticum, the next settlement on the Peutinger map is Ad Malum (25 miles between these two settlements) and then Ratiaria is listed after another 16 miles. The Antonine itinerary lists Dortico – 10 – Bononia – 17 – Ratiaria. Dorticum has been correctly located by Löhberg71 and Wilkes72 at Vrâv, in Bulgaria, on the right bank of the Danube, across the Romanian settlement of Gârla Mare, where a villa rustica was discovered.73 Unfortunately, as Madhzarov stated, no archaeological excavations have been carried out in Dorticum so far. Still, a Roman settlement (vicus) and a castellum are attested there. Remains of a Thracian settlement dating from the Bronze Age have also been found. Stamps belonging to cohors I Cretum were discovered here. The area where the Roman settlement is located today is called ‘Cetate’/‘The Fortress’.74 Dorticum is indicated 24 Roman miles away from Ad Aquas on the Peutinger map, and 16 Roman miles from Aquis in the Antonine itinerary. Ad Aquas/Aquis is either Miloševo, or Negotin, both in Serbia, close to each other. Madhzarov observed that the distance stated on the Peutinger map (24 miles) is too long compared to the current distance between Negotin and Vrâv. Measured on digital maps, in a straight line, this distance is 17 kilometers. Since the exact location of Ad Aquas and the route of the Roman road are not known, Madzharov’s hypothesis75 seems to be correct: The copyist of the Peutinger map might have written, by mistake, XXIIII miles instead of XIIII miles, which is 20 kilometers and fits the current distance measured on digital maps. The location of the settlements of Bononia (ItAnt)/Ad Malum (TabPeut) is a complicated problem. Some researchers assume that this was, in fact, a single settlement, initially named Ad Malum and then Bononia. Others think that these were two different settlements. The Peutinger map indicates 25 miles from Dorticum to Ad Malum, which is 36.96 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary indicates 10 miles, i. e. 14.785 kilometers. Measured on digital maps, the current distance, along the right bank of the Danube, between Dorticum and Ad Malum/Koshava is 27 kilometers, and, continuing along the line of the Danube within its elbow, one reaches Vidin. The total distance from Dorticum (Vrâv) to Vidin is 44 kilometers, i. e. closer to the information provided by the Peutinger map.

71 72 73 74 75

Löhberg 2006, 189. Wilkes 1996, 316. Stângă 2005; Gudea 2007, 31–40. Madhzarov 2009, 135. Madhzarov 2009, 135.

116

Chapter 7

So, once again, the Antonine itinerary provides an inaccurate piece of information. J. J. Wilkes locates Ad Malum at Koshava and Bononia at Vidin.76 N. Gudea, using archaeological data and other sources, provided a list of the forts in Moesia Inferior. At Brnjica-Gradac, close to Česavi, Serbia, an auxiliary fort of cohors I Montanorum was built. It is quadrangular in shape and measures 120 × 140 m. Stamps belonging to legio VII Claudia have been discovered on the site. Repairs of certain areas were observed in the forts, and they were dated to Septimius Severus’ reign. Twelve kilometers east of the fortress described, another small fortification or rather a burgus of 14 × 20 m, was discovered at Brnjica-Turski Potok. Another auxiliary fort was built at Donji Milanovac. The stone phase of this fort measures 121 × 140 m. The earth and timber phase was dated to the second half of the first century A. D. Stamps from the stone phase belonging to legio VII Claudia and cohors I Lusitanorum have been found. Repairs were made during the third century A. D.77 A small castellum (42 × 40 m) is attested 115 m east of this fortress, at Donji Milanovac– Mali Gradac.78 Other forts presented by Gudea are: (Malo) Golubinje/Cetate – a small castellum;79 Tekija (Transdierna?) – a fortress with two phases. In the stone phase the fortress covered 84 × 100 m;80 Davidovac–Karataš (Diana? Caput Bovis?) – auxiliary fortress (statio cataractarum), 128 × 132 m.81 Brza Palanka (Egeta) is also attested by Ptolemy (3,9,3). Two phases of this fortress have been investigated. During the stone phase, it covered 140 × 150 m.82 The Ravenna Cosmography provides a list of these settlements, too, but following an east to west topographical order: Item ultra Danubium iuxta civitatem quam praediximus Nobas Italicam est civitas quae dicitur Dimon, item Securisca, Ansamon, Bion, Oaecon, Melta, Emon, Pedolanis, Vico Pabeni, Augusti, Regiano, Ciambron, Cumodina, Remotodion, Ratiaris, Malum, Dorticum, Aquas, Clebora, Egeta, Luna, Gerbiatis, Taliatis, Scrofulas, Novas, Vico Cuppae, Punicum.83

The same work includes a general description of Moesia: Iterum ponuntur Mysiae duae, id est inferior et superior. quas patrias plurimi descripsernnt philosoplii; ex quibus ego legi praefatiim miserrimum Porphyrium nec non Livanium Graecorum 76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Wilkes 2005, 211. He noted: ‘Vrâv BUL (Dorticum): probable fort on right bank of Timok, near mouth, stamps of coh. I Cretum; fourth century, cuneus equitum Divitensium (B-L, 231; IV, 481; GMs, 26); […] Koshava BUL (Ad Malum): possible harbour opposite Kikinete island (IV, 481); […] Vidin BUL (Bononia) [B21E5]: possible fort; fortress of IIII Flavia before a. d. 101?; fort, stone, coh. I Cisipadensium, stamps and records of coh. I Cretum, ala I Claudia miscellanea, numerus Dalmatarum; fourth century, cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Fortensium (B-L, 230; IV, 481–2; GMs, 29).’ Gudea 2001, 70–72, no. 13. Gudea 2001, 72, no. 13a. Gudea 2001, 72, no. 13b. Gudea 2001, 73, no. 14. Gudea 2001, 75, no. 17. Gudea 2001, 87, no. 23. Pinder, Parthey 1860, 189.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

117

philosophos, sed et Castorium et Lollianum atque Arbitionem Romanorum philosophos, sed non concordarunt aequaliter in designando patrias. ego vero secundum praefatum Livanium inferius dictas civitates de super scriptis Mysiis nominavi. in qua Mysia plurimas fuisse civitates legimus, ex quibus aliquantas designare volumus, id est Bireon, Carsion, Capidapa, Sancidapa, Durostolon, Tegulicia, Nigrinianis, Stamarisca, Apiaris, Tigris, Pistis, Trimamion, Latron, Nobas Italica.84

Thus the Ravenna Cosmography mentions: 1. DIMON (basic form Dimum), on the Peutinger map Dimo, in the Antonine itinerary Dimo; 2. SECURISCA (basic form Securisca), on the Peutinger map Securisca, in ItAnt also Securisca; 3. ANSAMON (basic form Ansamum), mentioned only on the Peutinger map as Ansamo; 4. BION (basic form Utum), mentioned on the Peutinger map as Vio and listed in ItAnt as Uto. An important observation should be made here: The Cosmographer took this settlement from an itinerary, because he copied Bio, from Vio, not Uto, as in the Antonine itinerary; 5. OAECON (basic form Oescus), on the Peutinger map Esco and in ItAnt Oesco; 6. MELTA (Lovech, Bulgaria), only in the Cosmography; 7. EMON, only in the Cosmography; 8. PEDOLANIS, only on the Peutinger map, as Pedonianis; 9. VICO PABENI (basic form Variana), only in the Antonine itinerary; 10. AUGUSTI (basic form Augustae), Augustis on the Peutinger map, in ItAnt Augustis; 11. REGIANO, only in the Cosmography – Kozlodui?, Bulgaria; 12. CIAMBRON (basic form Cebrus), Camistro on the Peutinger map, Cebro in ItAnt; 13. CUMODINA, only on the Peutinger map (Pomodiana); 14. REMETODION (basic form Remetodia), only on the Peutinger map; 15. RATIARIS (basic form Ratiaria), on the Peutinger map Ratiaris, in the Antonine itinerary Ratiaria XIIII G. G.; 16. MALUM (basic form Bononia), on the Peutinger map Ad Malum, in the Antonine itinerary Bononia; 17. DORTICUM (basic form Dorticum), on the Peutinger map Dortico, in the Antonine itinerary Dortico; 18. AQUAS (basic form Aquae), on the Peutinger map Ad Aquas, in ItAnt Aquis; 19. CLEBORA (basic form Clevora), only on the Peutinger map, as Clevora; 20. EGETA (basic form Egetae), on the Peutinger map Egeta, in ItAnt Egeta; 21. LUNA, only on the Peutinger map, as Unam; 22. GERBIATIS, only on the Peutinger map, as Gerulatis; 23. TALIATIS (basic form Taliata), on the Peutinger map Faliatis, in ItAnt Talia; 24. SCROFULAS, only on the Peutinger map as Adscrofulas; 25. NOVAS (basic form Novae), on the Peutinger map Adnovas, in ItAnt Novas; 26. VICCO CUPPAE (basic form Cuppae), on the Peutinger map Vico cuppae, in ItAnt Cuppe; 27. PUNICUM, only on the Peutinger map as Punicum. Between Dimo and Punicum, the Cosmography lists 27 place-names, while the Antonine itinerary lists only 18. Instead, the Peutinger map mentions 25 place-names. Strangely, the Cosmography does not mention Viminacium or Lederata. This settlement is indicated only on the Peutinger map, but not in the Antonine itinerary. To sum up: Ansamon (Ansamo), Pedolanis (Pedonianis), Cumodina (Pomodiana), Remetodion (Remetodia), Clebora (Clevora), Luna (Unam), Gerbiatis (Gerulatis), Scrofulas (Adscrofulas), and Punicum (Punicum) are mentioned in the Cosmography and on the Peutinger map. In total, there are nine place-names. Vico Pabeni (Variana) is the only settlement mentioned exclusively in the Cosmography and the Antonine itinerary. Fourteen place-names from the Cosmography: Dimon, Securisca, Bion, Oaecon, Augusti, Ciambron, Ratiaris, Malum, Dorticum, Aquas, Egeta, Taliatis, Novas, and Cuppae, are mentioned in all three sources: the Cosmography, the Peutinger map and the Antonine 84

Pinder, Parthey 1860, 185–187.

118

Chapter 7

itinerary. Two place-names are mentioned only in the Cosmography: Melta and Emon. Valeriana and Scaidava are listed only in the Antonine itinerary. The topographic order employed by the Cosmographer is diametrically different from the method used in the Antonine itinerary or on the Peutinger map, where the place-names are listed/depicted from west to east. These data leads to the conclusion that the Cosmographer’s main source was one or several itineraries which depicted the Danubian road. But he also used another source, different from the Antonine itinerary or the Peutinger map. What was that source? In my opinion, he used local, late sources, where he found new place-names, and he combined all these data in his text. It is only because of its form that the work perpetuates the tradition of such written documents. In fact, the Ravenna cosmographer was inspired in his work mostly by itineraria. Circa 5,000 place-names are listed. This is an interesting fact. The Peutinger map mentions roughly 2,700 place-names and the Antonine itinerary lists about 2,740 place-names.85 Ptolemy refers to circa 8,000 place-names. Researchers have come to the conclusion that the presence of 8,000 place-names can be explained only in one way: In medieval times, this work was copied several times and settlements were added with each copying. Maybe the same thing happened to the Ravenna Cosmography. The Antonine itinerary and the Peutinger map are close regarding the number of the place-names included. The compiler proceeds roughly from west to east. This is true for the order of the provinces, but individually, the routes within the provinces do not reflect a certain topographical order and they have to be analyzed separately. The Notitia Dignitatum86 mentions the following settlements along this road: Sub dispositione viri spectabilis ducis Daciae ripensis: Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Fortensium, Bononia. Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Divitensium, Dortico. Cuneus equitum scutariorum, Cebro. Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Divitensium, Drobeta. Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, Augustae. Cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, Varina. Cuneus equitum stablesianorum, Almo. Cuneus equitum scutariorum, Aegetae. Cuneus equitum Constantinianorum, Uto. [..] Auxilium Mariensium, Oesco. […] Praefectus legionis quintae Macedonicae, Variniana. Praefectus legionis quintae Macedonicae, Cebro. Praefectus legionis quintae Macedonicae, Oesco. Praefectus legionis tertiaedecimae geminae, Aegeta. […] Praefectus legionis tertiaedecimae geminae, Ratiaria. […] Praefectus classis Histricae, Aegetae. Praefectus classis Ratianensis. 85 86

Fodorean 2011e, 58. Seeck 1962, 95–97.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

119

Several observations must be made here. First, in the Notitia Dignitatum the settlement Vio is spelt ‘Uto’, as in the Antonine itinerary. As previously mentioned, the Cosmographer from Ravenna used Bio, from Vio, as on the Peutinger map (not Uto, as in the Antonine itinerary). Varina and Variniana are Variana and Valeriana, two settlements mentioned only in the Antonine itinerary. Therefore, at least for this area, it seems that the Notitia Dignitatum used, as one possible source, the Antonine itinerary.

7.4 The Fourth Road: From Durostero to Tomis. Along the Danube and the Coast of the Black Sea The fourth road, a continuation of road 3, follows the line of the Danube and then along the coast of the Black Sea. The settlements and the distances on the Peutinger map are: Durostero – XVIII – Sagadava – XII – Sucidava (Dunăreni?) – XVII – Axiopolis (Cernavodă) – XVIII – Calidava – XVIII – Carsio (Hârșova) – XXV – Bereo – XXI – Troesmis (Turcoaia, vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – VIIII – Arubio – XXVI – Novioduni (Isaccea) – XLI – Salsovia (Mahmudia) – XXIIII – Adstoma – LX – Histropoli (Istria) – XL – Tomis (Constanța, vignette, ‘triple tower’ type). Along this road sector, 13 settlements are mentioned, 13 distance figures and a total distance of 329 miles. Two vignettes are displayed. The frequency of the distances is: 9 (Roman miles) – 1; 12–1; 17–1; 18–3; 21–1; 24–1; 25–1; 26–1; 40–1; 41–1; 60–1. Only two distance figures (9 and 12) are between the values of 8 and 16 miles. Some of the others are unusually high. The Antonine itinerary lists the following settlements and distances (this route is part of the road from Viminacium to Nicomedia): 223,4 224,1 224,2 224,3 224,4 224,5 225,1 225,2 225,3 225,4 225,5 226,1 226,2 226,3 226,4 226,5 227,1

Dorostoro leg. XI CI. Sucidava Axiupoli Capidava Carso Cio Biroe Trosmis leg. I Iovia Scytica Arrubio Diniguttia Novioduno leg. II Herculea Aegiso Salsovia Salmorude Vale Domitiana Ad Salices

Durostorum Sucidava Axiopolis Capidava Carsium Cius Beroe Troesmis Scytica Arrubium Dinogetia Noviodunum Aegyssus Salsovia Salmorude Vallis Domitiana Ad Salices

227,2 227,3

Historio Tomos

Histriopolis Tomis

Silistra (Bulgaria) Dunăreni (Romania) Hinog (Ro) Topalu (Ro) Hârşova (Ro) Gârliciu (Ro) Piatra Frecăţei (Ro) Igliţa (Ro)

12 18 12 18 18 10 14 18

Măcin (Ro) Garvăn (Ro) Isaccea (Ro) Tulcea (Ro) Mahmudia (Ro) Halmyris? Murighiol between Halmyris and Ad Salices between Histria and Vallis Domitiana Istria (Ro) Constanţa (Ro)

9 9 20 24 17 9 17 26 25

120

Chapter 7

To sum up, between Durostorum and Tomis, the Antonine itinerary lists 19 place-names and a total distance of 276 miles. This equals 408.06 kilometers. The total distance stated on the Peutinger map between Durostero and Tomis is 459.81 kilometers. Accepting the location of the place-names, I measured the distances between each and every settlement. From Silistra to Dunăreni the distance is 46.23 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary indicates 12 miles, i. e. 17.742 kilometers. The Peutinger map indicates 30 miles: 18 from Silistra to Sagadava, 12 from Sagadava to Sucidava. Thirty miles equals 44.355 kilometers. Therefore, the Peutinger map is more accurate in this case. The same itinerary shows Sagadava between Durostero and Sucivada. Measuring 18 miles (26 kilometers) from Silistra, I reached the settlement of Izvoarele. This settlement is mentioned in the list of the settlements provided by the Barrington Atlas87 as Sucidava, which is correct. Sucidava on the Peutinger map is Sacidava. According to my measurement, the distance between Izvoarele and Dunăreni amounts to another 21 kilometers, i. e. circa 14 miles, which corresponds to the distance stated on the Peutinger map. From Dunăreni to Hinog (Axiopolis) the distance measured on digital maps is circa 25 kilometers. This is correctly stated both on the Peutinger map (17 miles – 25.13 kilometers) and in the Antonine itinerary (18 miles – 26.6 kilometers). The distance from Hinog to Capidava is 23 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary states 12 miles, i. e. 17.742 kilometers. The Peutinger map indicates 18 miles between these two settlements, equal to 26.61 kilometers, closer to the real distance. From Capidava to Carsium (Hârșova) the distance measured is 28 kilometers. Both the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary register 18 miles (26 kilometers). From Hârşova to Gârliciu the distance is 17 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary mentions 18 miles (26 kilometers) in a straight line, and 27 kilometers if the distance is based on the meandering line of the Danube. The Peutinger map does not mention this settlement. From Gârliciu to Piatra Frecăţei the measured distance is 24 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary indicates 10 miles (14.785 kilometers). From Hârşova (Carsium) to Piatra Frecăţei (Beroe) the Peutinger map shows 25 miles (36.96 kilometers). As the total distance is 41 kilometers, the information seems quite accurate. From Beroe (Piatra Frecăţei) to Troesmis (Igliţa/Turcoaia, Tulcea County), the distance measured on modern maps is 30 kilometers. The Peutinger map registers 21 miles (31.04 kilometers), while the Antonine itinerary is wrong again, since it states only 14 miles (20.69 kilometers). From Troesmis to Arrubium (Măcin) the Peutinger map indicates nine miles. In the Antonine itinerary 18 miles are mentioned, and another settlement, Scytica. The distance measured on modern maps, in a straight line, amounts to 13 kilometers (almost 9 miles, as on the Peutinger map). From Arrubium to Dinogetia (Garvăn) the distance measured is, in a straight line, circa 7 kilometers. The Peutinger map does not show Dinogetia. From Arrubium to Noviodunum (Issacea) the distance is 35 kilometers. The Peutinger map indicates 26 miles (38.44 kilometers), therefore the distance is accurate. The distance Arrubium-Dinogetia-Noviodunum in the Antonine itinerary is 9 + 9 = 18 miles (26.61 kilometers), so once again the Antonine itinerary is inaccurate.

87

Map 22, Moesia Inferior, 340.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

121

From Noviodunum (Issacea) to Salsovia (Mahmudia) the Peutinger map does not contain intermediate settlements. The distance mentioned on the Peutinger map is 41 miles (60.61 kilometers). The Antonine itinerary lists 20 miles (29.57 kilometers) from Noviodunum (Isaccea) to Aegyssus (Tulcea). The distance measured on modern maps is circa 30 kilometers, so this time the Antonine itinerary is accurate. From Aegyssus (Tulcea) to Salsovia (Mahmudia) the same itinerary lists 24 miles (35.484 kilometers). The distance measured on digital maps is only 24 kilometers. The Antonine itinerary adds up to a total of 20 + 24 miles between Noviodunum (Issacea) to Salsovia (Mahmudia), while the Peutinger map indicates 41 miles. The current distance is 54 kilometers. From Salsovia (Mahmudia) to Tomis the Peutinger map shows a total distance of 124 miles (183.33 kilometers). Only one intermediate settlement in this segment is mapped by both the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. This is Histriopolis. From Mahmudia to Istria the distance measured on maps is circa 126 kilometers, via Ad Stoma, today’s Sfântu Gheorghe, Tulcea County. The Peutinger map totals 24 + 60 = 84 miles (124.19 kilometers). From Histriopolis to Tomis the Peutinger map registers 40 miles (59.14 kilometers). The distance measured on today’s maps is circa 55 kilometers. From Salsovia (Mahmudia) to Tomis the Antonine itinerary lists 94 miles (138.97 kilometers). The current distance is 181 kilometers. From Histriopolis to Tomis the Antonine itinerary records 25 miles (36.96 kilometers), less accurate than the Peutinger map (40 miles); the current distance is 55 kilometers. From Mahmudia to Istria the same Antonine itinerary lists 69 miles (102.01 kilometers). Again, this number is too low and inaccurate compared to the Peutinger map and the distance measured on current maps. To sum up, the total distance between Durostero and Tomis is 329 miles on the Peutinger map, i. e. 459.81 kilometers. The same distance is stated in the Antonine itinerary as 276 miles, i. e. 408.06 kilometers. The current distance, measured on digital maps, is 476 kilometers. Once again, the information from the Peutinger map is more accurate than the data provided by the Antonine itinerary.

7.5 The Fifth Road: Tomis – Ancialis. Along the Coast of the Black Sea The fifth road continues the route of the third road, along the coast of the Black Sea. The settlements and the distances are: Tomis – XII – Stratonis – XXII – Callatis (Mangalia) – XXIIII – Trissa (Bŭlgarevo) – XII – Bizone (Kavarna) – XII – Dyosinopoli (XXXII) – Odessos (Varna, vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XI – Erite – XVI – Templo Iovis (Obzor, vignette, associated with temples, type B2) – XVI – Messembria – XII – Ancialis (Pomorie, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 169 miles. Along this road, the Peutinger map registers 10 place-names, two ‘double-tower’ type vignettes, one associated with temples. The frequency of the distances is: 11 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–4; 16–2; 22–1; 24–1; 32–1.

122

Chapter 7

The Antonine itinerary lists the following settlements and distances: 227,3 227,4 228,1 228,2 228,3 228,4 229,1 229,2

Tomos Callacis Timogitia Dionisopoli Odisso Marcianopoli Scatris Ancialis

Tomis Callatis Timogittia Dionysopoli Odesos Marcianopolis Scatris Anchialus

Constanţa (Romania) Mangalia (Ro) – Balcik (Bulgaria) Varna (Bg) Reka Devjna (Bg) Sudzuluk (Bg) Pomorie (Bg)

36 30 18 24 24 18 26

The total distance listed in the Antonine itinerary is 176 miles. The following table (Table 7) compares the settlements and the distances from this section: Table 7. Moesia. The Roman road between Tomis and Ancialis. Comparative values between the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Place-name (ItAnt) 227,3 Tomos

Distance Place-name (TabPeut) 36 Tomis Stratonis

Distance Current location 12 Constanţa (Romania) 22 Between Tomis and Callatis

227,4 Callacis

30 Callatis

24 Mangalia (Ro)

228,1 Timogritia

18 Trissa

12 Between Callatis and Dyonisopolis

Bizone

12 Kavarna (Bulgaria)

228,2 Dionisopoli

24 Dionysopoli

32 Balcik (Bg)

228,3 Odisso

24 Odessos

11 Varna (Bg)

Erite / Ereta?

16 Dolni Bliznyak? (Bg)

Templo Iovis

16 ?

Messembria

12 Nesebur (Bg)

Ancialis

Pomorie (Bg)

Between Tomis and Callatis the current distance is circa 45 kilometers. The Peutinger map indicates 34 miles (50.2 kilometers), almost the same as indicated in the Antonine itinerary. Stratonis can be located at Tuzla. Trissa is today’s Balgarevo (Bulgaria). From Balcik (Dionysopolis) to Varna (Odessos) the current distance is 43 kilometers. The Peutinger map indicates 32 miles (47.3 kilometers) and the Antonine itinerary indicates 24 miles (35.484 kilometers). Once again, the distance on the Peutinger map is more accurate.

Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources

123

7.6 The Sixth Road: Ancialis – Durostero This road connects, from south to north, Ancialis with Durostero. The settlements and distances along it are the following: Ancialis – XVIII – Cazalet – XVIII – Scatras – XII – Pannisso – XII – Marcianopolis (Devnya) – XLV – Palmatis – XIIII – Durostero. Along this road, a total distance of 119 miles is recorded, together with five settlements and six distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 12 (Roman miles) – 2 (times); 14–1; 18–2; 45–1. This road section is not mentioned in the Antonine itinerary. From Ancialis, the document lists the settlements along the route Heracles – Bizantio – Nicomedia.

7.7 The Seventh Road: Ancialis – Philipopolis This road starts from the same Ancialis (a cross-roads) and, going from east to west, it reaches Phinipopolis/Philipopolis (Plovdiv). The settlements and the distances are: Ancialis – XII – Aquis calidis (segment 7B4, vignette, thermal baths type, symbol type C30) – L – Cabilis (Kabile) – LII – Berone – XXXVI – Ranilum – XXVII – Phinipopolis (Plovdiv, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 177 miles. Two vignettes are shown, one of the double-tower type and the other one associated with thermal places. Five distance figures are provided. The frequency of the distances is: 12 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 27–1; 36–1; 50–1; 52–1.

7.8 The Eighth Road: Philipopolis – Marcianopolis This road starts at Phinipopolis and ends in Marcianopolis.88 The settlements and the distances are: Phinipopolis – XII – Subradice (Hristo Danovo) – VI – Montemno – VIII – Ad Radices – X – Sostra (Lomets) – Nicopolistro (Nikjup) – CXXX – Marcianopolis (Devnya). The total distance is 166 miles. Six settlements and five distance figures are registered. The frequency of these distances is: 6 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 8–1; 10–1; 12–1; 130–1.

7.9 The Ninth Road: Sostra – Esco This road connects Sostra with Esco (Gigen). The settlements and the distances are: Sostra – XIII – Melta – X – Dorionibus – XI – Storgosia – VII – Adputea – Esco (Gigen, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). Four settlements, four distance figures and 41 miles are recorded. The frequency of these distances is: 7 (Roman miles) – 1 (time) – 10–1; 11–1; 13–1.

88

For Marcianopolis: Gerov 1975, 49–72.

124

Chapter 7

7.10 The Tenth Road: Viminacium – Naissus This road connects Viminacium with Naissus. The settlements and the distances are: Viminatio – Municipio – X – Iovis Pago – XII – Idimo – XVI – Horrea Magi – XVII – Presidio Dasmini – XV – Presidio Pompei – XII – Gramrianis – XIII – Naisso (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance is 113 miles. Eight settlements are mentioned and eight distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 10 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–2; 13–1; 15–1; 16–1; 17–1; 18–1. Among these distance figures, five are between the values of 8 and 16 miles.

7.11 The Eleventh Road: Naissus – Ratiaris This road connects Naissus to Ratiaris. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XXVII – Timaco Maiori – X – Timaco Minori – XXVII – Conbustica – XXVII – Ratiaris (Vidin, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). A total distance of 91 miles, four settlements and one vignette are recorded.

7.12 The Twelfth Road: Naissus – Phinipopolis This road connects Naissus with Phinipopolis. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XXIIII – Romesiana (Bela Palanka) – XXV – Turribus (Pirot) – XXIIII – Meldiis – XXVIII – Sertica (Sofia, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – XX – Sarto – XVIII – Egirca – XIIII – Zyrmis – XXIIII – Phinipopolis (Plovdiv, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). A total distance of 177 miles is recorded as are eight settlements and eight distance figures, together with two vignettes. The frequency of these distances is: 14 (Roman miles) – 1; 18–1; 20–1; 24–3; 25–1; 28–1.

7.13 The Thirteenth Road: Naissus – Gabuleo This road connects Naissus with Gabuleo. The settlements and distances are: Naisso – XIIII – Adherculem (Zitorada, vignette type B29, associated with this toponym) – Hammeo (Prokuplje) – XX – Adfines – XX – Vindenis – XIX – Viciano (Ulpiana) – XXV – Theranda – XXX – Gabuleo. A total distance of 134 miles is recorded, seven settlements and seven distance figures.

7.14 The Fourteenth Road: Naisso – Scuiris This road connects Naisso with Scuiris. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XIIII – Adherculem (vignette) – VI – Hammeo – Scuiris (Scupis) – XX. A total distance of 20 miles is recorded.

Chapter 8 The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries. The Antonine Itinerary and Cursus Publicus. Comparisons 8.1 Pannonia on the Peutinger Map Pannonia is represented on the Peutinger map in segments IV and V. Four roads are represented: 1. Vindobona – Tauruno (the limes road); 2. Carnunto – Petavione; 3. Emona – Sirmium – Tauruno (along the river Sava); 4. Emona – Mursa – Tauruno (along the river Drava). Along the limes road, the Peutinger map registers 31 settlements and 30 distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 5–1, 6–1, 7–1, 8–1, 10–3, 11–1, 12–4, 13–7, 14–3, 15–1, 16–4, 22–2, 30–1. Twenty-four figures between 8 miles to 16 miles represent, in percentages, 80 %: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Citium Vindobona (vign.) villagai Aequinoctio Carnunto (vign.) Gerulatis Ad Flexum Stailuco Arrabo fl. Brigantio (vign.) Lepavist Gardellaca Lusomana Aquinco (vign.) Vetusallo Annamantia Lusiene Altaripa Lugione Antiana Donatianis Ad Labores Tittoburgo Cornaco (vign.) Cuccio Milatis

VI X VII XIIII XIIII XVI XIII XII XXX V XIII XIII XII XIIII XXII XV X XXII XII XII XIII XIII XVI XIII XVI XVI

6 10 7 14 14 16 13 12 30 5 13 13 12 14 22 15 10 22 12 12 13 13 16 13 16 16

126 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Chapter 8 Cusum Acunum Bittio Burgenis Tauruno (vignette).

XI?/XL? VIII XIII X

11 8 13 10

The total distance along the second road, from Carnunto to Petavione, is 155 miles (229.16 km). Seven settlements are mentioned and six distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 14–1, 20–2, 25–1, 33–1, 43–1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Carnunto Ulmo Scarabantio Sabarie (vign.) Arrabone Advicesimum Petavione (vign.)

XIIII XXV XXXIII XX XLIII XX

14 25 33 20 43 20

From Emona to Taurunum, the third road, along the river Sava, is recorded on the Peutinger map with a total distance of 309 miles. Along this road, 20 settlements and 17 distance figures are listed. The frequency of these distances is: 8–1, 9–1, 10–1, 14–3, 16–2, 18–4, 20–2, 30–1, 33–2. Of these, eight distance figures are recorded between the values of 8 and 16. This means that out of 17 distance figures 8 represent 47.05 %. If we also include the distance figure of 18 (4), the percentage is 12/17, which is 70.58 %. These are the settlements and the distances along the third road: 1. Emona (vignette, ‘double tower’ type) 2. Aceruone 3. Adprotoriu (Praetorium Latobicorum) (vignette) 4. Crucio 5. Novioduni 6. Romula 7. Quadrata 8. Adfines 9. Siscia (vignette) – no distance figure; River crossing 10. Ad Pretorium (vignette, symbol C10) 11. Servttio (vignette, symbol C11) 12. Urbate 13. Marsonie – no distance figure; River crossing 14. Adbasante 15. Saldis – river crossing 16. Drinum fl. River crossing 17. Sirmium (vignette, ‘double tower’ type)

XVIII XIIII XVI XVI X XIIII XIIII XX

18 14 16 16 10 14 14 20

XXX XXIII XXXIII

30 23 33

XX XVIII XVIII

20 18 18

XVIII

18

127

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries 18. Bassianis VIII 19. idiminio VIIII 20. Tauruno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, symbol Aa7, segment grid 5A5).

8 9

The total distance registered on the Peutinger map along the fourth road, from Emona, via Mursa to Taurunum, is 336 miles, i. e. 513.03 km. Along this road, 31 settlements are mentioned as well as 30 distance figures. The frequency of these is: 6–1, 8–3, 9–6, 10–8, 11–4, 12–2, 13–1, 18–3, 37–1. Out of these distance figures, 24 are recorded with values between 8 and 16. This means that among 30 distance figures 24 amount to 80.00 %, representing the average distance achievable in one day. If we also add the figure 18, the proportion becomes 27 out of 30 distance figures, representing 90.00 %. These are the settlements and the distances: 1. Emona River crossing 2. (Fl. [– ? –]) Savo Fl. 3. Adpublicanos 4. Adrante 5. Celeia (vign.) 6. Ragandone 7. Petavione (vign.) 8. Remista 9. Aqua viva 10. Populos 11. Botivo 12. Sonista 13. Piretis 14. Luntulis 15. Iovia 16. Sirotis 17. Bolentio 18. Marinianis 19. Seronis 20. Berebis 21. Iovallio 22. Mursa minor 23. Mursa maior (vign.) 24. Ad Labores 25. Pont Ulcae 26. Vign., possibly Vinkovci, Croatia (Roman Cibalae) 27. Cansilena 28. Ulmospaneta 29. Sirmium (vign.) 30. Bassianis 31. idiminio 32. Tauruno.

VIIII

9

VI XXXVII XVIII XVIII X X XI VIII VIIII XII XI VIII X X X VIIII X VIIII VIIII X XII

6 37 18 18 10 10 11 8 9 12 11 8 10 10 10 9 10 9 9 10 12

X

10

XI XI XIII XVIII VIII VIIII

11 11 13 18 8 9

128

Chapter 8

To sum up, along the first road, the Peutinger map lists 31 settlements, 30 distance figures, six vignettes of the double-tower type and a total distance of 401 miles. Along the second road, from Carnuntum to Poetovio, the same document mentions seven settlements, six figures, three double-tower vignettes and a total distance of 155 miles. This road was of crucial importance. The occupation of the Amber route and the establishment of forts along it were accomplished by sending legio XV Appolinaris to Carnuntum. Between 35 B. C. and the reign of Claudius, the Roman army conquered the area between the rivers Drava and Sava. Subsequently, it occupied the zone of the Amber Route in Western Transdanubia. A milestone found near the southern gate of Savaria records the distance from Rome: the 675 miles correspond to the 1,000 km between Savaria and Rome. The third road, from Emona to Taurunum, along the river Sava, is depicted with 20 settlements, 17 figures, five double-tower vignettes, two mansiones-type vignettes and a total distance of 309 miles. The fourth road, from Emona to Taurunum, along the river Drava, is shown with 31 settlements, 29 figures, seven double-tower vignettes and a total distance of 336 miles. To sum up again, for Pannonia, the Peutinger map mentions 89 settlements, 82 distance figures, 15 double-tower vignettes, 2 mansiones-type vignettes and a total distance of 1201 miles. Out of 82 figures, 57 are between 8 and 16 miles. This is, in percentages, 69.512 % (Fig. 6, Fig. 7). I will conclude this subject by adding some data based on statistics and distances. I have organized the data on an ascending scale. Here are the data for Pannonia as stated on the Peutinger map: 12 distance figures of 10 miles; 8 distance figures of 13 miles; 7 distance figures of 9 miles; 7 distance figures of 14 miles; 7 distance figures of 18 miles; 6 distance figures of 12 miles; 6 distance figures of 16 miles; 5 distance figures of 8 miles; 5 distance figures of 11 miles. Only in one case does the Peutinger map depict 15 miles, 5 miles, and 7 miles. In two cases, it lists 6 miles. A simple calculation shows that, out of 82 distance figures, 68 are between the values of 5 and 18 miles. This represents, in percentages, 82.92 %. The rest, i. e. 14 distance figures, range between 20 and 43 miles: There are 4 distance figures of 20 miles; 2 distance figures of 22 miles; 1 distance figure of 25 miles; 2 distance figures of 30 miles; 3 distance figures of 33 miles; 1 distance figure of 37 miles; 1 distance figure of 43 miles. Table 8 shows the above data: Table 8. Pannonia on the Peutinger map. Dist. Fig. (miles)

R1

R2

R3

R4

Total

Percent

4

0

V (5)

1

VI (6)

1

VII (7)

1

1

1

1.22

2

2.44

1

1.22

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries Dist. Fig. (miles) VIII (8)

R1

R2

1

VIIII (9)

R3

R4

Total

Percent

1

3

5

6.1

1

6

7

8.54

1

8

12

14.63 6.1

X (10)

3

XI (11)

1

4

5

XII (12)

4

2

6

XIII (13)

7

1

8

From 8–16 miles: 7.32 57 dist. fig. of 82 = 69.512 % 9.76

XIIII (14)

3

7

8.54

XV (15)

1

1

1.22

XVI (16)

4

6

7.32

3 1 2

17

0

XVIII (18)

4

3

7

19

8.54 0

XX (20)

2

2

4

21 XXII (22)

4.88 0

2

2

2.44

23

0

24

0

XXV (25)

1

1

1.22

26

0

27

0

28

0

29

0

XXX (30)

1

1

2

2.44

31

0

32

0

XXXIII (33)

1

2

XXXVII (37)

1

XLIII (43) Total (dist. fig.)

129

1

3

3.66

1

1.22

1

1.22

30

6

17

29

82

Total (miles)

401

155

309

336

1201

Total (settl.)

31

7

20

31

89

From 20 to 30 miles: 9 dist. fig. of 82 = 10.97 %

130

Chapter 8

8.2 Pannonia in the Antonine Itinerary Within the territory of Pannonia, the Antonine itinerary lists 15 road sections. At first glance, it is obvious that the redactor used different, more sophisticated sources. He did not pay too much attention to the arrangement of the lists of settlements that he used topographically. Some sections are repeated, and sometimes, certain distances differ from one settlement to another. The first road, from Aquileia to Singidunum, is part of segment 123,8–132,1. 18 settlements are listed and 17 distance figures. The total distance along this road is 391 miles. The frequency of these distance figures is: 18–5 times; 20–2; 22–2; 23–1; 24–1; 25–1; 26–2; 30–1; 31–1; 32–1. The second road, between Ulmo and Cetio, has a total length of 369 miles. It mentions 15 settlements and 14 distance figures. The frequency of these distances is: 12–1, 16–1, 22–3, 23–1, 24–4, 26–1, 30–2, 34–1, 36–1. The third road, from Laurino/Tauruno to Cetio, has a total length of 630 Roman miles. It lists 37 settlements and 23 figure distances. The frequency of these is: 16–5; 18–2; 20–2; 22–1; 24–2; 25–2; 26–1; 27–1; 29–1; 30–2; 33–3; 113–1. The settlements are listed from south to north. The fourth road is the one along the river Sava, from Emona, via Siscia, to Sirmium. The Antonine itinerary records 14 settlements, 12 distance figures and a total distance of 310 miles. The Peutinger map registers 17 settlements and a total distance of 274 miles. The frequency of the distance figures in the Antonine itinerary for this road is: 15–1; 22–2; 24–1; 25–1; 26–2; 28–2; 29–1; 31–1; 34–1. The fifth road, from Vindobona to Poetovio, lists, from north to south, seven settlements, six distance figures and a total distance of 184 miles. Its route corresponds to the second road depicted on the Peutinger map in Pannonia. There is, nevertheless, one difference: The Peutinger map records 155 miles along this road. Each distance figure has a different value along this road, except for the figure of 31 miles, mentioned twice. The sixth road in the Antonine itinerary lists, from south to north, between Poetovio and Vindobona, five settlements, five distance figures and a total length of 164 miles. What about the fifth road, already mentioned above, along the same route? It mentions 184 miles. If these two roads have the same route, they should cover the same distance. Probably the compiler used different sources (lists) that provided different distances. The seventh road, from Savaria, via Mursella, Arrabona to Brigetio, lists four settlements and four distance figures from Savaria to Brigetio, and a total distance of 102 miles. The eighth road, from Savaria, via Mogentiana to Aquincum, lists six settlements, six figures and a total distance of 169 miles between Savaria and Aquincum. The seventh and the eighth roads are two important branches connecting the center of Pannonia with two large settlements housing legionary fortresses. The ninth road, from Sopianae to Aquincum, lists five settlements and a total distance of 135 miles. Gorsium sive Herculia is a clue for dating the Antonine itinerary to the Tetrarchy, when the toponyms changed. The tenth road, from Sopianae to Brigetio, lists five settlements, five figures and a total distance of 100 miles. The eleventh road, from Siscia to Mursa, lists five settlements, five figures, and a total distance of 132 miles. The twelfth road, from Poetovio to Siscia, lists four settlements, four figures, and a total distance of 100 miles. The thirteenth road, from Savaria to Vindobona, lists three settlements, three figures and a total distance of 88 miles.

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

131

The fourteenth road, listed in the Antonine itinerary as item ab Acinquo Crumero que castra constituta sint, records a total distance of 42 miles. Two mansiones, Cirpi and Solva, and two castra, Ulcisia and Ad Herculem, are listed. But the distances are interesting: 9, 12, 12, 9, all short by comparison to the others from the Antonine itinerary. At Ulcisia (today’s Szentendre, Pest County), a Roman fort (105 × 134 m) was initially built during the Domitian–Trajan period. Ákos Szalay carried out the only significant investigation in the Dunabogdány fort (Cirpi) in 1930. An earth-and-timber castellum was built in the eighties of the first century A. D. and then was rebuilt in stone (124 × 127 m) during the second half of the second century A. D. Ad Herculem castra is a late Roman fort. The fort of Solva (today’s Esztergom-Vár Hill, Komárom-Esztergom County) is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, occ., XXXIII, 24 and 30. Positioned on a high hilltop, 300 × 150 m in size, the fort was garrisoned by cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum from 70 to 89 A. D. In 118–119 A. D., the cohors I Ulpia Pannoniorum milliaria equitata built the stone fort. One of the troops garrisoned there, cohors I Batavorum milliaria, was transferred to Dacia Porolissensis. Thus there are four forts, three of them erected early, positioned at short distances one from the another. This small road section seems to repeat the information for these settlements mentioned along the limes road. If we pay attention, though, to the settlements on the limes roads, from Aquincum the next station is, after 20 miles, A laco Felicis in medio (Piliscsaba, close to Pilisszántó, in Hungary). Then, without any distance given, the next settlement is Crumerum (Nyergesújfalu, Hungary). This illustrates the variegated nature of the compiler’s sources. For the fourteenth road in the Antonine itinerary, he used data from a military itinerary, which clearly provided shorter distances between stations. Twelve miles represent a iustum iter. Finally, the fifteenth road, from Sirmium to Carnuntum, lists 12 settlements, 12 figures and a total distance of 311 miles. According to data recorded in the Antonine itinerary, several key settlements can be identified: Emona, Poetovio, Savaria, Vindobona, Siscia, and Sopianae (Pécs). Among these, Sopianae is by far the most interesting example. Even if, presumably, the town was founded, together with other municipia from Pannonia, during Hadrian’s reign, the city flourished in the late Roman period. According to Z. Visy, the completion of the only known inscription (CIVES SO[pianenses]) that might refer to the town, is uncertain. An interesting fact is that the city is mentioned, besides the inscription discussed above, only in the Antonine itinerary and by Ammianus Marcellinus. Most historians admit that the original of the Peutinger map was a late Roman product. Neither Sopianae nor the roads mentioned in the Antonine itinerary are shown on the Peutinger map, because the information in this document is selective. In the fifth century A. D., the sources of the mapmaker wer local, regional itineraria, first created by the army. To sum up again, for Pannonia the Antonine itinerary mentions 15 roads, a total distance of 3227 miles, 134 settlements, and 126 distance figures. If one takes a closer look at the distances given in the Itinerarium Antonini in Pannonia, out of the 126 distance figures, 80 range between the values of 20 and 30 miles. In percentages, this means 63.492 % (Fig. 8, Fig. 9). The details are provided in the following table (Table 9):

132

Chapter 8

Table 9. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. Dist. Fig. (miles)

R 1

R 2

R 3

R 4

R 5

R 6

R 7

R 8

R 9

R 10

VIII (8)

R 11

R 12

R 13

R 14

R Total 15 1

1

VIIII (9)

2

2

–

10

–

11 XII (12)

1

3

2

13

–

14

–

XV (15)

1

XVI (16)

1

2

1

6

5

–

17 XVIII (18)

5

2

2

2

1

XVIIII (19) XX (20)

9

1

1

1 1

1

7

1

–

21 XXII (22)

2

3

XXIII (23)

1

1

XXIIII (24)

1

4

XXV (25)

1

XXVI (26)

2

1

XXVII (27)

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1 3

1

1

XXXI (31)

1

XXXII (32)

1

2

12

5

15

1

8 2

1 2

1

2

3 1

1

1

XXX (30)

9

1

XXVIII (28) XXVIIII (29)

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

1 1

2

1

3

2

2

1

3

6

2

2

1

XXXIII (33)

3

3

XXXIIII (34)

1

1

1

1

1

6

1

–

35 XXXVI (36)

1

2

1

–

37 XXXVIII (38)

Total (settl.)

1

1

113 Total (miles)

1

1

XL (40) Total

18

1

1 4

3

391 369 630 310 184 164 102 169 135 100 132 100

17

88

18

15

15

23

37

12

14

6

7

5

5

4

4

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

4

12

126

42 311 3227 4

12

134

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

133

Some comparisons of the data should be of interest. In Pannonia the Peutinger map records 89 settlements along four roads while the Antonine itinerary lists 134 settlements along 15 roads. The Peutinger map mentions 82 distance figures, while the Antonine itinerary gives 126 distance figures. On the Peutinger map, 57 distances out of 82 with values ranging from 8 to 16 miles represent 69.512 %. In the Antonine itinerary, only 14 distance figures out of 126 are in between the values of 8 and 16 miles, which represent, in percentages, 11.11 %. Again, on the Peutinger map nine distance figures out of 82 are between the values of 20 and 30 miles, representing, in percentages, 10.97 %. In the Antonine itinerary, 80 distance figures out of 126 are between the values of 20 and 30 miles, representing, in percentages, 63.492 %. On the Peutinger map the distance figures are higher only in five cases, surpassing the value of 30 miles: 33 miles are mentioned three times, in one case it is 37 miles and in another one 43 miles. On the other hand, in the Antonine itinerary, as one can observe from the table above, 22 distance figures are higher in value than 30 miles. In six cases, the distance of 31 miles is listed. One should also note that on the Peutinger map, in Pannonia, this figure is not mentioned at all. The same observation is true for the distance figure of 32 miles: the Antonine itinerary lists it two times, but it is not found on the Peutinger map. The distance figure of 33 miles appears in both documents, three times in each. I have noticed several unusual values: the distance of 36 miles is listed six times in the Antonine itinerary; the distances of 38 miles, 40 miles and finally an absolute strange distance of 113 miles are mentioned one time each. On the Peutinger map the distance of 37 miles is listed once, as well as another unique case of 43 miles. I will now rank the distances from the Antonine itinerary: 18 distance figures of 30 miles; 15 distance figures of 25 miles; 12 distance figures of 24 miles; 9 distance figures of 22 miles; 8 distance figures of 26 miles. One should note that these are the most frequent distances mentioned, and they represent 62 cases out of 126, meaning 49.206 %. On the Peutinger map, there are two distance figures of 30 miles, one distance figure of 25 miles and two distance figures of 22 miles. Therefore, five distances out of 82 are in between 22 and 30 miles on the Peutinger map. This represents 6.097 %. The distance of 20 miles is mentioned seven times in the Antonine itinerary and four times on the Peutinger map. The distance of 19 miles is listed only once in the Antonine itinerary. The distance of 18 miles is depicted seven times on the Peutinger map and nine times in the Antonine itinerary. In the following table (Table 10) I will compare the distances between 8 and 6 miles in both documents: Table 10. Pannonia. The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Comparisons of the values between 8 to 16 miles. Distance figure

TabPeut – number of records

ItAnt – number of records

5 miles

1

–

6 miles

2

–

7 miles

1

–

8 miles

5

1

134 Distance figure

Chapter 8 TabPeut – number of records

ItAnt – number of records

9 miles

7

2

10 miles

12

–

11 miles

5

–

12 miles

6

3

13 miles

8

–

14 miles

7

–

15 miles

1

2

16 miles

6

6

The next table (table 11) lists the other distances of more than 16 miles: Table 11. Pannonia. The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Comparison between the values higher than 16 miles. Distance figure 17 miles 18 miles 19 miles 20 miles 21 miles 22 miles 23 miles 24 miles 25 miles 26 miles 27 miles 28 miles 29 miles 30 miles 31 miles 32 miles 33 miles 34 miles 35 miles 36 miles 37 miles 38 miles 39 miles 40 miles 43 miles 113 miles

TabPeut – number of records – 7 – 4 – 2 – – 1 – – – – 2 – – 3 – – – 1 1 – – 1 –

ItAnt – number of records – 9 1 7 – 9 3 12 15 8 2 4 2 18 6 2 3 6 – 2 – – – 1 – 1

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

135

The distance of 10 miles is recorded twelve times on the Peutinger map and not once in the Antonine itinerary. The average of this ranking amounts to 16 miles. This distance is listed on the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary six times. Further, the balance inclines, as the distances grow, in favour of the Antonine itinerary: Stretches of 18 miles are mentioned seven times on the Peutinger map and nine times in the Antonine itinerary. The distance of 22 miles is mentioned twice on the Peutinger map and nine times in the Antonine itinerary. The distance of 24 miles does not occur in the Peutinger map, but it is listed twelve times in the Antonine itinerary. The distance of 25 miles is mentioned once on the Peutinger map, but it is registered 15 times in the Antonine itinerary. The distances of 26, 27, 28 and 29 miles are not given on the Peutinger map. In total, these distances are mentioned, together, 16 times on the Peutinger map. The extreme is 30 miles, mentioned twice on the Peutinger map and 18 times in the Antonine itinerary. No distances below the value of 8 miles are recorded in the Antonine itinerary along the Pannonian roads. The distances of 17, 21, 35 and 39 miles are mentioned neither on the Peutinger map nor in the Antonine itinerary. The distances of 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 37, 38, 39 miles are not listed in the Antonine itinerary. Summing up, another interesting point should be made here. If we divide the total of the miles recorded in both the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary by the number of settlements along the roads, the result is an average value for one unit, i. e. an average distance figure. For the Peutinger map, dividing 1201 (total miles) by 89 (settlements) results in an average distance of 13.494 miles. Or, if we divide the same figure, 1201 (total miles) by 82 (the number of figures recorded in the Peutinger map for Pannonia), we arrive at an average distance value of 14.646 miles. If we apply the same calculations to the Antonine itinerary and divide 3227 (total miles recorded in the Antonine itinerary for Pannonia) by 134 settlements, we obtain an average distance of 24.082 miles. If we divide the same value of 3227 by 126 (the number of distance figures) the result is an average value of 25.611 miles. Thus we can observe the average distance value on the Peutinger map: 13.494 miles vs. the average distance value in the Antonine itinerary: 24.082, a value twice as big as the one from the Peutinger map. The same is true for 14.646 miles (the Peutinger map) / 25.611 miles (the Antonine itinerary). Once again, these figures and all my calculations support what I try to demonstrate in this book: The Peutinger map relies on early military itineraries, therefore the distances are close to one iustum iter (12 miles). The Antonine itinerary relies on late documents from the fourth century A. D. which relate to the cursus publicus, therefore the distances are much higher, almost double (25 to 30 miles), close to those covered in one normal day using the state transport service. I have also observed, in the case of the Antonine itinerary, a tendency to record approximate figures, such as 20, 25 or 30 miles. I shall conclude this argument with one last observation for Pannonia. Along four roads, the Peutinger map shows 89 settlements, while the Antonine itinerary lists 126 settlements along 15 roads. Many of the settlements listed in the Antonine itinerary are late ones, not mentioned on the Peutinger map. This seems to support my argument that the actual differences between these documents are largely due to their respective sources.

136

Chapter 8

8.3 Dacia on the Peutinger Map I discussed the data for Dacia from the Peutinger map in chapter 6. This province is not listed in the Antonine itinerary. The first road, Lederata-Tibiscum, shows eight settlements and seven distance figures. These are: Lederata – 12 MP; Apus flumen – 12 MP; Arcidava – 12 MP; Centum Putea – 12 MP; Berzobis – 12 MP; Aizis – 3 MP; Caput Bubali – 10 MP; Tivisco (depicted by a vignette). Thus a total distance of 73 Roman miles is recorded. The frequency of the distance figures is: 12 miles – 5 (times); 3–1; 10–1. The data for this section are quite accurate, except for the Azizis-Caput Bubali section, where I have corrected the unusually small distance of 3 miles upwards to 13 miles. This is, in my opinion, a mistake made by the copyist, not by the mapmaker, because this road section was accurately recorded in the first written itineraria. Adding another 10, we arrive at 83 Roman miles for 8 settlements. The average distance obtained amounts to 10.375 miles (83:8). Calculating with the original data, the result is 73 (miles) divided by 8 (settlements), i. e. 9.125 miles. In fact, this calculation should be improved by dividing the entire distance by the number of the segments (stretches). First, based on the original data, 73:7 equals 10.428 miles for one segment. With my correction (13 miles instead of 3) the calculation becomes 83:7, i. e. 11.857 miles for one segment. Along the second road, from Tierva (Dierna) to Porolisso (Porolissum), the Peutinger map records 23 settlements and 22 distance figures. These are: Tierva – 11 MP; Ad Mediam – 14 MP; Pretorio – 9 MP; Ad Pannonios – 9 MP; Gaganis – 11 MP; Masclianis – 14 MP; Tivisco – 14 MP; Agnavie – 8 MP; Ponte Augusti – 15 MP; Sarmategte – 14 MP; Ad Aquas – 13 MP; Petris – 9 MP; Germizera – 9 MP; Blandiana – 8 MP; Apula – 12 MP; Brucla – 12 MP; Salinis – 12 MP; Patavissa – 24 MP; Napoca – 16 MP; Optatiana – 10 MP; Largiana – 17 MP; Cersie – 4 MP; Porolisso. Sarmategte, Apula, Napoca and Porolisso are marked by double-tower vignettes. The total distance along this road, without corrections, is 265 miles. It seems that an entire segment of 12 miles is missing, from Apulum to the north. If we add another 12 miles, we obtain 265 +12 = 277 miles. If we divide the original distance, 265 miles by 23 settlements, we arrive at 11.521, which is the average distance along this road. If we divide 265 miles to the number of segments, i. e. 22, I obtain 12.045 miles, the average distance for one segment. If we use the other figure, 277 miles, dividing it by 24 settlements (adding another one for the missing segment), we arrive at 11.541 miles. In the same way, 277 miles divided by 23 segments (adding the one supposed to be missing), is 12.043 miles. Along this road, we have 1 segment of 4 miles, 1 of 17, 1 of 16, 1 of 24, 3 of 12, 1 of 13, 1 of 15, 2 of 8, 4 of 9, 4 of 14, 2 of 11 miles, and 1 of 10 miles. The highest value is the one between Patavissa and Napoca, quite difficult to cover in one day. But the archaeological discoveries at Aiton (milestone, wall substructions, coins, pottery etc.) indicate there the presence of a mansio along this sector. Along the third road, from Drubetis, via Romula to Apula, the Peutinger map records 17 settlements and 16 distance figures. These are: Drubetis – 36 MP; Amutria – 35 MP; Pelendova – 20 MP; Castris novis – 70 MP; Romula – 13 MP; Acidava – 24 MP; Rusidava – 14 MP; Ponte Aluti – 13 MP; Burridava – 12 MP; Castra tragana – 9 MP; Arutela – 15 MP; Pretorio – 9 MP; Ponte vetere – 44 MP; Stenarum – 12 MP; Cedonie – 24 MP; Acidava – 15 MP; Apula. The total distance is 365 miles. Along this road, the Peutinger

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

137

map registers two unusually high distances: from Castra Nova to Romula 70 miles and from Pons Vetus to Stenarum 44 miles. The other data are accurate. If we divide 365 miles by 17 settlements, we obtain 21.470 miles, the average distance. If we divide 365 miles by 16 segments, we arrive at 22.812 miles, the average distance. As Talbert proposed, the number of 70 miles is unusual high, so I replaced it with 24 miles, measuring the distance between the current settlements of Castranova and Reşca. In the second case, I replaced 44 miles from Pons Vetus to Stenarum with 14 miles, obtaining a total distance of 289 miles. Therefore, 289 miles divided by 17 settlements means 17 miles for an average segment, or 289 divided by 16 means 18.062 miles. It seems that the average distance is longer than that of the other two roads. The Peutinger map mentions a total of 365 miles (539.65 km) but today the distance is only 454 km. With the two corrections, we obtain 289 miles, which is 427 km. Along this section, there is one segment of 36 miles, one of 35, one of 20, three of 24 (including the one corrected between Castris novis and Romula), two of 14 (including the one corrected between Ponte vetere and Stenarum), two of 13, two of 15, two of 12 and two of 9 miles. The average number is higher because there are two segments, one of 36 and one of 35 miles. Two settlements seem to have been in use in Roman times between Drubetis and Amutria (36 miles means three marching days and then a stop). The distance of 35 miles is recorded between Amutria and Pelendava. It is justifiable to assume the existence of two stops along this road. If one adds another seven settlements to the present calculations, the average segment would be 12.565 miles [289 : (17 + at least 7 more settlements, so 24. i. e. 23 segments) (22 on the road presented above)] (Fig. 10, Fig. 11). To sum up, the following table (table 12) contains the distance figures and their frequency: Table 12. Dacia in the Peutinger map. Dist. fig. (miles) III (3)

R1

R2

R3

Total

1

1

IIII (4)

1

1

VIII (8)

2

2

VIIII (9)

4

X (10)

1

XI (11) XII (12)

5

2

6

1

2

2

2

3

2

10

XIII (13)

1

2

3

XIIII (14)

4

1

5

XV (15)

1

2

3

XVI (16)

1

1

XVII (17)

1

1

XX (20) XXIIII (24) XXX (30)

–

1

1

1

2

3

–

–

–

From 8–16 miles: 34 dist. fig. out of 45 = 75.55 %

From 20 to 30 miles: 4 dist. fig. out of 45 = 8.88 %

138 Dist. fig. (miles)

Chapter 8 R1

R2

R3

Total

XXXV (35)

1

1

XXXVI (36)

1

1

XLIIII (44)

1

1

LXX (70)

1

1

7

22

16

45

Total (miles)

73

265

365

703

Total (settl.)

8

23

17

48

Total (dist. fig.)

The distances are: 1 distance figure of 3 miles; 1 of 4 miles; 2 of 8 miles; 6 of 9 miles; 2 of 10 miles; 2 of 11 miles; 10 of 12 miles; 3 of 13 miles; 5 of 14 miles; 3 of 15 miles; 1 of 16 miles; 1 of 17 miles; 1 of 20 miles; 3 of 24 miles; 1 of 35 miles; 1 of 36 miles; 1 of 44 miles; 1 of 70 miles. With the corrected distances, there are 5 distance figures of 14 miles. Adding the distance of 14 miles again between Pons vetus and Caput Stenarum, instead of XLIIII (a copyist’s mistake), there are 6 distance figures of 14 miles; 3 distance figures of 13 miles; 4 with the corrected one from Aizis to Caput Bubali; 3 distance figures of 24 miles; 4 with the corrected one from Casta Nova to Romula.

8.4 Moesia on the Peutinger Map Along the first road, from Sirmium to Viminacium, the Peutinger map depicts: Sirmium (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type, today’s Sremska Mitrovica) – XVIII – Bassianis (Donji Petrovci) – VIII – idiminio – VIIII – Tauruno (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) III – Confluentib(us) – I – Singiduno. Six settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 18 + 8 +9 + 3 + 1, i. e. 39 Roman miles. The second road starts at Singiduno and ends at Viminatio. The settlements and distances are: Singiduno (vignette, ‘double tower’ type, segment grid 6A1) – XIIII – Tricornio – XII – Monte Aureo – XIIII – Margum fl – X – Viminatio (Kostolac, segment grid 6A2, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 50 miles. Five settlements, four distance figures, and two vignettes are recorded. All these distances have values which represent circa one marching day of the Roman army. The frequency of the distances is: 10 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–1; 14–2. The third road is the route along the line of the Danube. The settlements and the distances are: Viminatio – X – Lederata – XIII – Punicum – XI – Vico cuppae – XII – Adnovas – X – Adscrofulas – XV – Faliatis (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – VIII – Gerulatis – VI – Unam – VI – Egeta – IX – Clevora – IX – Ad Aquas – XXIV – Dortico – XXV – Ad Malum – XVI – Ratiaris (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – XII – Remetodia – IV – Almo – IX – Pomodiana – IX – Camistro – VI – Aug(us)tis – XX – Pedonianis – XI – Esco (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – XIV – Vio – IX – Anasamo – XVII – Securispa – XIII – Dimo – XVI – Adnovas (vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – IX – Latro – XVI – Trimamio – XII – Pristis (Ruse) – IX – Tegris (Marten) – XIV – Appiaris (Ryakhovo) – XIII – Trasmarisca – (Tutrakan) – XII – Nigrinianis (Malak

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

139

Preslavets) – XIII – Tegvlicio (Sreburna) – XI – Durostero (Silistra, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 423 miles. 35 figure distances are mentioned, 35 settlements, and five vignettes of the ‘double-tower’ type. The frequency of the distances is: 4 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 6–3; 8–1; 9–7; 10–2; 11–3; 12–4; 13–4; 14–2; 15–1; 16–3; 17–1; 20–1; 24–1; 25–1. Thus, out of 35 distance figures, 27 (i. e. 77.14 %) have values between 8 and 16 miles. The fourth road continues along the line of the Danube and then along the coast of the Black Sea. The settlements and the distances on the Peutinger map are: Durostero – XVIII – Sagadava – XII – Sucidava (Dunăreni?) – XVII – Axiopolis (Cernavodă) – XVIII – Calidava – XVIII – Carsio (Hârșova) – XXV – Bereo – XXI – Troesmis (Turcoaia, vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – VIIII – Arubio – XXVI – Novioduni (Isaccea) – XLI – Salsovia (Mahmudia) – XXIIII – Adstoma – LX – Histropoli (Istria) – XL – Tomis (Constanța, vignette, ‘triple tower’ type). Along this road section, 13 settlements, 13 distance figures, and a total distance of 329 miles are mentioned. Two vignettes are depicted. The frequency of the distances is: 9 (Roman miles) – 1; 12–1; 17–1; 18–3; 21–1; 24–1; 25–1; 26–1; 40–1; 41–1; 60–1. Only two distance figures (9 and 12) have values between 8 to 16 miles. The others are, sometimes, unusually high. The fifth road continues the route of the fourth road, along the coast of the Black Sea. The settlements and the distances are: Tomis – XII – Stratonis – XXII – Callatis (Mangalia) – XXIIII – Trissa (Bŭlgarevo) – XII – Bizone (Kavarna) – XII – Dyosinopoli (XXXII) – Odessos (Varna, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type) – XI – Erite – XVI – Templo Iovis (Obzor, vignette, associated with temples, type B2) – XVI – Messembria – XII – Ancialis (Pomorie, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 169 miles. Along this road, the Peutinger map depicts 10 place-names, and two vignettes of the ‘double-tower’ type, one associated with temples. The frequency of the distances is: 11 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–4; 16–2; 22–1; 24–1; 32–1. The sixth road, running from south to north, connects Ancialis with Durostero. The settlements and distances along it are: Ancialis – XVIII – Cazalet – XVIII – Scatras – XII – Pannisso – XII – Marcianopolis (Devnya) – XLV – Palmatis – XIIII – Durostero. Along this road, a total distance of 119 miles is recorded as well as five settlements and six distances. The frequency of these distances is: 12 (miles) – 2 (times); 14–1; 18–2; 45–1. The seventh road starts from the same Ancialis (a crossroads) and, going from east to west, it reaches Phinipopolis/Philipopolis (Plovdiv). The settlements and the distances are: Ancialis – XII – Aquis calidis (segment 7B4, vignette, thermal baths type, symbol type C30) – L – Cabilis (Kabile) – LII – Berone – XXXVI – Ranilum – XXVII – Phinipopolis (Plovdiv, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). The total distance along this road is 177 miles. Two vignettes are shown, one of the ‘double-tower’ type and the other one associated with thermal places. Five distance figures are given. The frequency of the distances is: 12 (miles) – 1 (time); 27–1; 36–1; 50–1; 52–1. The eighth road starts at Phinipopolis and reaches Marcianopolis. The settlements and the distances are: Phinipopolis – XII – Subradice (Hristo Danovo) – VI – Montemno – VIII – Ad Radices – X – Sostra (Lomets) – Nicopolistro (Nikjup) – CXXX – Marcianopolis (Devnya). The total distance is 166 miles. Six settlements and five distance figures are mentioned. The frequency of these distances is: 6 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 8–1; 10–1; 12–1; 130–1.

140

Chapter 8

The ninth road connects Sostra to Esco (Gigen). The settlements and the distances are: Sostra – XIII – Melta – X – Dorionibus – XI – Storgosia – VII – Adputea – Esco (Gigen, vignette, ‘double tower’ type). Four settlements, four distance figures and 41 miles are recorded. The frequency of these distances is: 7 (Roman miles) – 1 (time) – 10–1; 11–1; 13–1. The tenth road connects Viminacium to Naissus. The settlements and the distances are: Viminatio – Municipio – X – Iovis Pago – XII – Idimo – XVI – Horrea Magi – XVII – Presidio Dasmini – XV – Presidio Pompei – XII – Gramrianis – XIII – Naisso (vignette, ‘double tower’ type). The total distance is 113 miles. Eight settlements and eight distance figures are recorded. The frequency of these distances is: 10 (Roman miles) – 1 (time); 12–2; 13–1; 15– 1; 16–1; 17–1; 18–1. Of these, five distance figures are between the values of 8 and 16 miles. The eleventh road connects Naissus to Ratiaris. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XXVII – Timaco Maiori – X – Timaco Minori – XXVII – Conbustica – XXVII – Ratiaris (Vidin, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). A total distance of 91 miles, four settlements, and one vignette are shown. The twelfth road connects Naissus to Phinipopolis. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XXIIII – Romesiana (Bela Palanka) – XXV – Turribus (Pirot) – XXIIII – Meldiis – XXVIII – Sertica (Sofia, vignette, ‘double tower’ type) – XX – Sarto – XVIII – Egirca – XIIII – Zyrmis – XXIIII – Phinipopolis (Plovdiv, vignette of the ‘double-tower’ type). A total distance of 177 miles is recorded, as are eight settlements and eight distance figures, together with two vignettes. The frequency of these distances is: 14 (Roman miles) – 1; 18–1; 20–1; 24–3; 25–1; 28–1. The thirteenth road connects Naissus to Gabuleo. The settlements and distances are: Naisso – XIIII – Adherculem (Zitorada, vignette type B29, associated with this toponym) – Hammeo (Prokuplje) – XX – Adfines – XX – Vindenis – XIX – Viciano (Ulpiana) – XXV – Theranda – XXX – Gabuleo. A total distance of 134 miles, seven settlements and seven distance figures are mentioned. The fourteenth road connects Naisso to Scuiris. The settlements and the distances are: Naisso – XIIII – Adherculem (vignette) – VI – Hammeo – Scuiris (Scupis) – XX. A total distance of 20 miles is recorded. All the data concerning the distances from the Peutinger map in Moesia are presented in the following table (Table 13): Table 13. Moesia on the Peutinger map. Dist. fig. (miles) I (1) III (3) IIII (4) V (5) VI (6) VII (7) VIII (8) VIIII (9) X (10)

R 1

R 2

R 3

R 4

R 5

R 6

R 7

R 8

R 9

R 10

R 11

R 12

R 13

R 14

1 1 1 3

1

1 7 2

1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

Total 1 1 1 – 6 1 3 9 7

141

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries Dist. fig. (miles) XI (11) XII (12) XIII (13) XIIII (14) XV (15) XVI (16) XVII (17) XVIII (18) XVIIII (19) XX (20) XXI (21) XXII (22) XXIII (23) XXIIII (24) XXV (25) XXVI (26) XXVII (27) XXVIII (28) XXVIIII (29) XXX (30) XXXI (31) XXXII (32) XXXIII (33) XXXIIII (34) 35 XXXVI (36) 37 XXXVIII (38) XL (40) XL (41) XL (45) XL (50) XL (52) XLI (60) 130 Total (dist. fig.) Total (miles) Total (settl.)

R 1

R 2

R 3 1 2

R 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 1

1

R 5 1

R 6 1 4

R 7

R 8

R 9

R 10

R 11

R 13

R 14

1

1 1

7

2

91 177 134

20

2048

2

119

2 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2

1

1

1

1

1

1 2

3 1

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

3 1 1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 5 39 6

4

35

13

10

6

5

1 5

50 423 329 169 119 177 166 5

35

13

10

6

5

6

4

8

41 113 4

8

Total 5 16 6 8 2 6 3 8 1 4 1 1 – 6 4 1 4 1 – 1 – 1 – – – 1 – – 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 116

1 2 1

1 3

R 12

4

4

8

8

7

142

Chapter 8

Here are some statistics based on the data from the table. From the total of 116 distance figures, 62 have values ranging from 8 to 16 miles. This represents 53.448 %. If we also include the distance figures 17 and 18, we obtain a total of 73 distances out of 116 between the values of 8 to 18 miles, representing 62.931 %. 23 distance figures have values ranging between 20 and 30 miles, representing 19.827 %. 10 distance figures out of 116 have values between 31 and 130, representing 8.62 %. Another 10 distance figures have values from 1 to 7 miles. A total number of 2048 miles is recorded in Moesia. If we divide this figure by the number of settlements (119), we obtain 17.21 miles, the average distance (Fig. 12, Fig. 13).

8.5 Moesia in the Antonine Itinerary Along the first road, from Sirmium to Singidunum, the Antonine itinerary lists four settlements, three distance figures, and a total distance of 74 miles: 131,4 131,5 131,6 132,1

Sirmi civitas Bassianis civitas Tauruno classis Singiduno castra

26 18 30

Compared to this, from Sirmium to Singidunum, the Itinerarium Burdigalense lists 50 miles. Along the second road, from Singidunum to Viminacium, the same document lists 6 settlements, 5 distances, and a total distance of 52 miles: 132,1 132,2 132,3 132,4 133,1 133,2 133,3

Singiduno castra Aureo Monte Ab Aureo Monte Vinceia Margo et leg. m. p. VIII inde Euminacio Viminacio

4 miles 24 miles 6 miles 8 miles 10 miles

Along the third road, from Viminacium to Durostorum, the Antonine itinerary lists 26 settlements, 26 distance figures, and 386 miles: 217,7 218,1 218,2 218,3 218,4 219,1 219,2

Cuppe Novas Talia Egeta Aquis Dortico Bononia

24 24 12 21 16 10 17

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries 219,3 219,4 220,1 220,2 220,3 220,4 220,5 221,1 221,2 221,3 221,4 222,1 222,2 222,3 222,4 222,5 223,1 223,2 223,3 223,4

Ratiaria leg. XIIII GG. Almo Cebro / Cebrus Augustis Variana Valeriana Oesco leg. V Mac. Uto Securisca Dimo Novas leg. I Ital. Scaidava Trimmamio Sexantapristis Tigra Appiaria Transmariscam Candidiana Teclicio Dorostoro leg. XI Cl.

143

18 18 18 18 12 12 12 14 12 12 16 18 7 12 9 13 16 13 12

Along the fourth road, from Durostorum to Tomis, the Antonine itinerary lists 18 settlements, 17 distance figures, and a total distance of 276 miles: 223,4 224,1 224,2 224,3 224,4 224,5 225,1 225,2 225,3 225,4 225,5 226,1 226,2 226,3 226,4 226,5 227,1 227,2 227,3

Dorostoro leg. XI CI. Sucidava Axiupoli Capidava Carso Cio Biroe Trosmis leg. I Iovia Scytica Arrubio Diniguttia Novioduno leg. II Herculea Aegiso Salsovia Salmorude Vale Domitiana Ad Salices Historio Tomos

12 18 12 18 18 10 14 18 9 9 20 24 17 9 17 26 25

The fifth road, between Tomis and Ancialis, is a continuation of the fourth road. The Antonine itinerary lists 8 settlements, 7 distance figures, and a total distance of 176 miles:

144 227,3 227,4 228,1 228,2 228,3 228,4 229,1 229,2

Chapter 8 Tomos Callacis Timogitia Dionisopoli Odisso Marcianopoli Scatris Ancialis

36 30 18 24 24 18 26

Table 14 contains all data regarding the roads listed in Moesia in the Antonine itinerary: Table 14. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Dist. fig. (miles)

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

Total

IIII (4)

1

1

VI (6)

1

1

VII (7)

1

1

VIII (8)

1

1

VIIII (9)

1

3

4

1

1

3

XII (12)

8

2

10

XIII (13)

2

XIIII (14)

1

XVI (16)

3

XVII (17)

1

2

5

4

X (10)

XVIII (18)

1

1

XX (20)

2 3 3 2

1

1

XXIIII (24)

1

2

XXV (25)

1

2

1

XXX (30)

1

1

XXXVI (36)

6 1

1

XXVI (26)

12 1

1

XXI (21)

Total (dist. fig.)

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

3

5

26

17

7

58

Total (miles)

74

52

386

276

176

964

Total (settl.)

4

6

26

18

8

62

Out of 58 distance figures, 25 (43.10 %) have values ranging from 8 to 16 miles. This is a particular case for the Antonine itinerary. Eight distance figures of 12 miles can be found along the third road, and two along the fourth road, which are, in fact, stretches of the same Roman road along the Danube, reaching the final destination at Tomis. This road was projected and constructed by the Roman army. That is why the ancient sources re-

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

145

cord distances of 12 miles in 10 cases. The Antonine itinerary used military documents for the mapping of this particular road. 14 distance figures out of 58 (24.13 %) have values ranging beween 20 to 30 miles. Six of these amount to 24 miles. The distance figure of 18 miles is represented 12 times. A total number of 964 miles is recorded for Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. If we divide this figure by the number of settlements (62), we obtain an average of 15.548 miles (Fig. 14, Fig. 15).

8.6 The Danubian Provinces on the Peutinger Map For Pannonia, the Peutinger map records 89 settlements, 82 distance figures, 15 double-tower vignettes, two thermal-place type vignettes, and a total distance of 1201 miles. Out of 82 figures, 57 are between 8 and 16 miles. This is, in percentages, 69.512 %. The average distance, calculated by dividing the total figure of miles by the total number of settlements, is 13.494 miles. The most frequent distance figure is 10 miles, mentioned twelve times on the Peutinger map for Pannonia. For Dacia, the Peutinger map mentions 48 settlements, 45 distance figures, five double-tower vignettes and one representing a thermal place, and a total distance of 703 miles. Out of 45 figures, 34 are between 8 and 16 miles. This means, in percentages, 75.55 %. Only four distance figures range between the values of 20 and 30 miles, representing 8.88 %. The average distance, calculated by dividing the total figure of miles by the total number of settlements, is 703:48 = 14.645 miles. The most frequent distance figure in Dacia is 12 miles, mentioned ten times. For Moesia, the Peutinger map mentions 14 roads, a total of 2048 miles, 119 settlements, 116 distance figures, 17 double-tower vignettes and two vignettes representing thermal places. Out of 116 figures, 62 are between the values of 8 and 16 miles, representing 53.448 %. 23 distance figures range in value between 20 and 30 miles, representing 19.827 %. The average distance, calculated by dividing the total figure of miles by the total number of settlements, is 2048 : 116 = 17.655 miles. The most frequent distance figure in Moesia, depicted on the Peutinger map, is 12 miles, recorded 16 times. Once again, I will provide some statistics. For Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia the Peutinger map lists a total distance of 3952 miles, a total number of 256 settlements, a total number of 243 distance figures, 37 double-tower vignettes, and five vignettes representing thermal places. 153 distance figures out of 243 have between 8 to 16 miles in value, representing 62.962 %. The average distance, calculated by dividing the total figure of miles by the total number of settlements, is 3952 : 256 = 15.437 miles. The most frequent distances recorded in all the provinces are: 12 miles – recorded in 32 cases; 9 miles – recorded in 22 cases; 10 miles – recorded in 21 cases; 14 miles – recorded in 20 cases; 13 miles – recorded in 17 cases; 16 miles – recorded in 13 cases; 11 miles – recorded in 12 cases; 8 miles – recorded in 10 cases (Fig. 16). One exception should be noticed. The distance figure of 18 miles is recorded in 15 cases: 7 in Pannonia and 8 in Moesia. The distance figure of 18 miles was left intentionally outside any calculations. But, if we apply an average coefficient, we will start from the most frequent distance figure, 12 miles, and include the values +/-6 from this position. In this case, we shall include, starting from 12 (miles), the values 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 6 miles,

146

Chapter 8

and, on the other hand, the values of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 miles. If we apply this system, we obtain, in total, for all the three provinces, 182 distance figures with values from 6 to 18 miles, representing 74.897 %. 36 distance figures have values from 20 to 30 miles, representing 14.814 %. 18 distance figures are higher than 30, representing 22.222 %. Six distance figures have values from 1 to 5 miles, representing 2.469 %. All these data are presented in the following table (Table 15): Table 15. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia on the Peutinger map. Dist. Fig. (miles) I (1) III (3) IIII (4) V (5) VI (6) VII (7) VIII (8) VIIII (9) X (10) XI (11) XII (12) XIII (13) XIIII (14) XV (15) XVI (16) XVII (17) XVIII (18) XVIIII (19) XX (20) XXI (21) XXII (22) XXIII (23) XXIIII (24) XXV (25) XXVI (26) XXVII (27) XXVIII (28) XXVIIII (29) XXX (30) XXXI (31) XXXII (32) XXXIII (33)

Pannonia

Dacia

1 2 1 5 7 12 5 6 8 7 1 6 – 7 – 4 – 2 – – 1 – – – – 2 – – 3

Moesia 1 1 – – – 2 9 2 2 10 3 5 3 1 1 – – 1 – – – 3 – – – – – – – – –

Total 1 1 1 – 6 1 3 9 7 5 16 6 8 2 6 3 8 1 4 1 1 – 6 4 1 4 1 – 1 – 1 –

1 2 2 1 8 2 10 22 21 12 32 17 20 6 13 4 15 1 9 1 3 – 9 5 1 4 1 – 3 – 1 3

147

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries Dist. Fig. (miles) XXXIIII (34) XXXV (35) XXXVI (36) XXXVII (37) XXXVIII (38) XXXVIIII (39) XL (40) XLI (41) XLII (42) XLIII (43) XLIIII (44) XLV (45) L (50) LII (52) LX (60) LXX (70) CXXX (130) Total (dist. fig.) Total (miles) Total (settl.)

Pannonia

Dacia – – – 1 – – – – – 1 – – – – – – – 82 1201 89

Moesia – 1 1 – – – – – – – 1 – – – – 1 45 703 48

Total – – 1 – – – 1 1 – – – 1 1 1 1 – 1 116 2048 119

– 1 2 1 – – 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 243 3952 256

8.7 The Danubian Provinces in the Antonine Itinerary For Pannonia, the Antonine itinerary lists 15 roads, a total distance of 3227 miles, 134 settlements, and 126 distance figures. Out of 126 distance figures mentioned, 80 have values from 20 miles to 30 miles. In percentages, this means 63.492 % of the distance figures are between these values. The average distance is 3227 : 134 = 24.082 miles. For Moesia, the same document lists five roads, a total distance of 964 miles, 62 settlements, and 58 distance figures. 25 distance figures out of 58 (43.10 %) have values from 8 to 16 miles. 14 distance figures out of 58 (24.13 %) have values ranging between 20 and 30 miles. Six of these measure 24 miles. The distance figure of 18 miles is represented 12 times. A total of 964 miles is recorded for Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. If we divide this figure by the number of settlements (62), we obtain 15.548 miles, the average distance. In total, the Antonine itinerary lists in Pannonia and Moesia 184 distance figures, 4191 miles, and 196 settlements. The average distance, based on these values, is 4191 : 196 = 21.382 miles. The most frequent distances recorded in all the provinces in the Antonine itinerary are: 18 miles – recorded in 21 cases; 30 miles – recorded in 20 cases; 24 miles – recorded in 18 cases; 25 miles – recorded in 16 cases; 12 miles – recorded in 13 cases; 26 miles – recorded in 11 cases; 22 miles – recorded in 9 cases; 16 miles – recorded in 9 cases; 20 miles – recorded in 8 cases (Fig. 17).

148

Chapter 8

The distance figure of 18 miles is recorded in 21 cases: 9 in Pannonia and 12 in Moesia. If we apply an average coefficient, we will start from the most frequent distance figure beside 18 miles in the Antonine itinerary, which is 30 miles. We will include the values +/-6 from this position. In this case, we shall include, starting from 30 (miles), the values 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, and 24 miles, and, on the other hand, the values of 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 miles. If we apply this system, we obtain, in total, for all three provinces, 53 distance figures with values from 24 to 29 miles, 20 distance figures with values from 31 to 36 miles. These 53 + 20 + other 20 distance figures of 30 miles will be 93 distance figures out of 184 with values from 24 to 36 miles, representing 50.543 % (Table 16). Table 16. Pannonia and Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Dist. fig. (miles) IIII (4) V (5) VI (6) VII (7) VIII (8) VIIII (9) X (10) XI (11) XII (12) XIII (13) XIIII (14) XV (15) XVI (16) XVII (17) XVIII (18) XVIIII (19) XX (20) XXI (21) XXII (22) XXIII (23) XXIIII (24) XXV (25) XXVI (26) XXVII (27) XXVIII (28) XXVIIII (29) XXX (30) XXXI (31) XXXII (32) XXXIII (33) XXXIIII (34)

Pannonia

Moesia – – – – 1 2 – – 3 – – 2 6 – 9 1 7 – 9 3 12 15 8 2 4 2 18 6 2 3 6

Total 1 – 1 1 1 4 3 – 10 2 2 – 3 3 12 – 1 1 – – 6 1 3 – – – 2 – – – –

1 – 1 1 2 6 3 – 13 2 2 2 9 2 21 1 8 1 9 3 18 16 11 2 4 2 20 6 2 3 6

149

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries Dist. fig. (miles) XXXV (35) XXXVI (36) XXXVII (37) XXXVIII (38) XXXVIIII (39) XL (40) CXIII (113) Total (dist. fig.) Total (miles) Total (settl.)

Pannonia

Moesia – 2 – 1 – 1 1 126 3227 134

Total – 3 – 1 – 1 1 184 4191 196

– 1 – – – – – 58 964 62

8.8 Comparisons between the Peutinger Map and the Antonine Itinerary The average distance in the Antonine itinerary is 21.382 miles. On the Peutinger map, the average distance calculated for all three provinces is 3952 : 256 = 15.437 miles. In the Antonine itinerary, 94 distance figures out of 184 have values from 20 to 30 miles, representing 51.086 %. On the Peutinger map, 36 distance figures have values from 20 to 30 miles, representing 14.814 %. In the Antonine itinerary, 65 distance figures have values from 6 to 18 miles, representing 35.326 %. On the Peutinger map, 182 distance figures out of 243 have values ranging between 6 and 18 miles, representing 74.897 %. In the Antonine itinerary, 23 distance figures out of 184 have values greater than 30 miles, representing 12.5 %. On the Peutinger map, 18 distance figures have values higher than 30, representing 22.222 %. In the Antonine itinerary, one distance figure is smaller than 6 miles, representing 0.543 %. On the Peutinger map, six distance figures have values from 1 to 5 miles, representing 2.469 % (Fig. 18). The following table (Table 17) provides some data for comparisons: Table 17. Final comparison between the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Features

The Peutinger map No.

Distance figures from 8 to 16 miles Distance figures from 20 to 30 miles Distance figures below the value 8

The Antonine itinerary

%

No.

%

153 of 243

69.962

39 out of 184

21.195

36 of 243

14.814

94 out of 184

51.086 0.543

6 of 243

2.469

1 out of 184

Distance figures higher than 30

18 of 243

22.222

23 out of 184

12.5

18 miles

15 of 243

6.172

21 out of 184

11.413

Total distance miles

3952

4191

Total settlements

256

196

Total distance figures

243

184

15.437 miles

21.382 miles

Average distance

150

Chapter 8

8.9 Roman ‘Maps’: itineraria picta, itineraria adnotata, formae. Archaeological Discoveries and Literary Sources What was the level of the geographical knowledge in Roman times? How did the Romans perceive and represent their space? How was geographical knowledge spread? Were the Peutinger map or the Antonine itinerary rare, spectacular, unusual documents, or were itineraries used more widely in the Roman world than we imagine? The answer to these questions should improve our understanding regarding the geography and the representation of space in the Roman times. How many artifacts connected to ancient geography and Roman itineraries have been discovered by archaeology up to the present? Not a lot, as the following list suggests: 1. the famous Forma Urbis Romae, the only scale map surving from Roman times, dating from Septimius Severus’ reign;1 2. the Vicarello goblets, also known as Vases Apollinaires, from the fourth century A. D.;2 3. the third century A. D. shield from Dura Europos;3 4. the Amiens Patera, listing stations along Hadrian’s Wall;4 5. the Rudge Cup, discovered in 1725 at Rudge, near Froxfield, in Wiltshire, also listing stations along Hadrian’s Wall;5 6. the so-called ‘stadiasmus provincae Lyciae’;6 7. epigraphical lists of settlements and distances, discovered in Allichamps, Autun, Junglinster, and Fedj-Souioud (Africa).7 Thus another question rises: Is this sample large enough, for a territory as huge as the Roman Empire, to justify general assumptions about the frequent use of itineraries by the Romans? No, we might say. But we must not forget about the milestones recording the distance between settlements along the Roman roads, which were set mile after mile, at least along the main arteries. A minimum of 6000 Roman milestones has been discovered so far. Basically, their function and message was similar to those of itineraries. What was important for the traveler was the distance between places, e. g. a Potaissa Napocae MP X.8 The same formula, the same conception is shown in the Peutinger map, in the Antonine itinerary, as well as in other documents mentioned above. The Romans were interested in a simple aspect: How many miles are there between settlement A and settlement B? Therefore, they created itineraries, in the form of lists (itineraria adnotata) or drawings (itineraria picta). This concept was so common that even on small artifacts like the Rudge Cup or the Amiens Patera, which were actually souvenirs, the general idea was to pass on information about settlements (or forts) and distances. This was totally unlike the practice of the Greeks, who perceived geography as a science. It is difficult to specify exactly when this concept appeared in the Roman world. Therefore, another question is still waiting for an answer: Did the Romans have a tradition of making itineraries? The Artemidorus Papyrus suggest that this was the case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Carettoni, Colini, Cozza, Gatti (eds) 1960. Online: http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/. CIL 11, 3281–3284; Schmidt 2011, 71–86. Rebuffat 1986, 85–105; Arnaud 1988a, 151–161; Arnaud 1989, 373–389; Arnaud 1989a, 9–29. Breeze (ed.) 2012. Brodersen 2001, 14. Șahin 1994, 130–135. Brodersen 2001, 14. CIL 3, 1627, milestone from Aiton, Cluj County, Romania (the former province of Dacia).

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

151

The outstanding, fascinating, uncommon, artistic drawings of fantastic animals of the Artemidorus papyrus are in sharp contrast to the extremely simple and schematic representation of several settlements, depicted by vignettes, and roads of Hispania. The document was dated, according to the latest studies, to the first century A. D.9 What about the literary sources? Do they offer enough information to support the assumption that geographical representations of the known world were widely spread in Roman times? In A. D. 61–63, during Nero’s reign, a praetorian detachment surveyed the route between Syene and Meroë.10 In book 12.19 of his Naturalis Historia Pliny stated that after the expedition, a forma Aethiopiae was drawn and it was presented (allata) to Nero. In this document (one can hardly call it a map, we should imagine it more as a sketch), shown finally (docuit) to Nero himself, the main information was the distance between Syene and Meroë (996 miles) and the observation that few trees were seen along this route. Pliny also stated that the distance between the Danube and the big ocean was 396 miles (NH 4, 80–81), a piece of information that he had gleaned from the work of Agrippa. Pliny continued with the remark that we should not expect to have too much information about places where the Roman army had never been. In the same vein, Strabo mentioned that some tribes beyond the river Elbe in Germany were unknown because the Romans had never penetrated that far into this territory (7.2.4). Pliny was incapable of imagining what the territory of Dacia looked like.11 The term ‘map’ in the modern sense has been defined in hundreds of ways. Maps basically are the product of geographical knowledge. What was the level of geographical knowledge in Roman times? Did the Romans use the term ‘map’? They treated geography as a minor subject. This does not mean that they did not know geography. Caesar, Pliny, Strabo, Varro – all of them consulted and read the classical Greek works on this subject. But this science was connected, in the strictest sense, to military campaigns. Vegetius said that a good commander should have with him both itineraria picta and itineraria adnotata at all times. Chorography was closer to what the Romans understood as the description of particular peoples, regions, settlements, customs etc. In fact, this helped them to present information on newly conquered provinces. There is no mention in Roman literary sources that the Romans used maps in the sense we employ them today. From Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus 45,2–3, we learn that: The dates of the itinera were publicly displayed; two months before the event he published an edictum, in which was written: ”on that day, at that hour, I shall go forth from the city and, if the gods allow it, I will stay in the first station”, detailing then the stations one after another, then the camps, and then where provisions are to be bad, and all that for as long as one arrived at the barbarians’ borders. From there everything was silenced, and all went without certainty, lest the barbarians would know the plans.12

9 10 11 12

Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis 2008. Nicolet 1991, 86, and note 5, 89; Whittaker 1994, 80–81; Austin, Rankov 1995, 151. Mattern 1999, 209. Brodersen 2001, 12.

152

Chapter 8

The third-century A. D. panegyric of Eumenius includes no specific use of the word itinerarium: Furthermore, in those porticoes let the young people see and contemplate daily every land and all the seas and whatever cities, people, nations that the unconquered rulers either restore by affection, conquer by valour or restrain by fear. Since there are pictured in that place, as I believe you have yourself seen, in order to instruct the youth (so that they might learn more clearly with their eyes what they comprehend less readily by their ears), the sites of all locations with their names, their extent, and the intervening spaces, the sources and terminations of all the rivers, the curves of all the shores, and the Ocean, both where its circuit girds the earth and where its pressure breaks into it. … For now, now at last it is a delight to see a picture of the world, since we see nothing in it that is not ours.13

The poem composed by Aemilius Probus as a preface to the ‘atlas’ commissioned by Theodosius II in 435 A. D. makes no reference to the word itinerarium: This outstanding work – in which the whole world is included, in which seas, mountains, rivers, harbours, straits and towns, are indicated, so that all might know where any feature lies-the kind natured, nobly born, and forever pious, emperor Theodosius (whom the whole world scarcely contains) from his reverend mouth ordered to be made, when he opened the year with his fifteenth consulship. We humble servants (as one wrote, the other painted), having followed the work of the ancients, have in a few months prepared an improved work, and have removed the faults of predecessors, to encompass briefly the whole world: but this your wisdom, emperor, has taught us to do.14

Instead, Flavius Vegetius Renatus (ca. 400 A. D.) recommended the use of depicted and written itineraries in his work De re militari: A commander must have itineraria written out, so that he might learn not only the usual information on distances but also about the condition of the road, and also so that, having had them accurately described, he might take into account shortcuts, branch-roads, hills, and rivers. So much so, that more ingenious commanders are claimed to have had itineraries of the areas in which their attention was required not so much annotated but even illustrated, so that the road for setting out on might be chosen not only by a mental consideration but truly at a glance of the eyes. 15

Therefore, itineraria was a term used to describe the need of soldiers or generals, to have this particular type of document at hand, at least during military campaigns. When the sources describe ‘maps’ used for propagandistic purposes, they do not mention the word itinerarium, but, as previously indicated, phrases such as opus or orbem spectare depictum. Why should one consider tabula a map when, in fact, it was an itinerarium pictum?

13 14 15

Text and translation after Salway 2005, 128. Salway 2005, 128. Text and translation after Salway 2001, 31.

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

153

8.10 The Antonine Itinerary and cursus publicus Is there a connection between the Roman state transport (cursus publicus) and the Antonine itinerary? In my opinion, the higher values of distances from the Antonine itinerary reflect the fact that the compiler of this document used, as sources, data from the imperial state archive, i. e. lists of settlements and distances belonging to the official routes used in the fourth century A. D. In the following, I will try to demonstate my theory with examples. The public transportation system known as cursus publicus was mentioned in literary sources starting in the fourth century A. D. This is related to an important aspect regarding this service: It was in the fourth century A. D. that, along with the administrative reorganization of the Roman Empire, the cursus publicus reached its apogee. Still, it was initiated and developed during Augustus’ reign.16 Cursus publicus gradually developed until the late third century A. D., reaching its peak in the fourth century. Altay Coskun noticed that in the period from Septimius Severus to the reign of Constantine, owing to the numerous administrative and military changes, the system needed a strong reform. This actually took place during Diocletian’s reign, when cursus publicus was divided into the cursus velox and the cursus clavularis. The first focused on rapid transport, while the second was used to carry heavy materials.17 Constantine the Great has radically changed the functioning of cursus publicus, by extending the privilege of use to bishops invited by him to synods.18 This action may be regarded as a mistake. Later on, during the reign of Constantius II (337–361 A. D.), this frequent use of the state post by bishops who had been invited to travel from one council to another exhausted a lot of financial resources of the state’s treasury. Even Ammianus Marcellinus complained about such abuse. Theodosius I (379–395 A. D.) restricted the use of the cursus publicus. He succeeded in initiating a series of laws, later published in 438 A. D. in the Code of Theodosius II. According to Codex Theodosianus, the state post was reorganized. Only persons in the service of the state were allowed to use it. The laws in the Codex make reference also to the administration of the imperial post. They state, for example, how many horses (veredi), mules and oxen (paraveredi) should be kept in the mansiones and stationes. An evectio, a travel permit, was needed in order to travel. This document contained, as compulsory elements: 1. the name of the emperor; 2. the expiry date; 3. the name of the province governor; 4. the names of the travelers; 5. their social status (dignitas); 6. the issue date of the permit; 7. the period in which the permit could be used. Finally, a travel permit should mention the stations and distances of the itineraries covered by the travelers. These laws were necessary in a world that had completely changed as compared to earlier times, when rules were strictly applied. In Epistula 10,45, Pliny asked Trajan if out-of-date permits (diplomata) could still be used. The emperor answered that he would send new diplomata before the valid ones ran out. What about the distances? The ancient sources tend to register only exceptional cases.19 But, in the sixth century A. D., Procopius, referring to an earlier period, wrote: 16 17 18 19

Daremberg, Saglio 1877–1919, tome 2 (C), 1645, s. v. cursus publicus; Kolb 2000, 49–53; Kolb 2001, 95; Di Paola 1999, 21. Coskun 2002, 2. Dvorník 1974, 123. Ramsay 1925, 60–74; Elliot 1955, 76–80; Hunter 1913, 73–97.

154

Chapter 8 The earlier Emperors […], had established a rapid service of public couriers throughout their dominion according to the following system. As a day’s journey for an active man they fixed eight ‘stages,’ or sometimes fewer, but as a general rule not less than five.20

A. M. Ramsey specified that by studying the Jerusalem itinerary one can discover that these mansiones were about 25 miles apart. He provided two examples: 1. The route from Bethlehem to Alexandria amounted to 400 Roman miles (16 mansiones). 2. Between Edessa and Jerusalem (via Antioch) there were 625 miles (25 mansiones). Recently, András Bödőcs rediscussed these questions and concluded that, depending on the terrain and the average daily time used for travelling (8 hours), the limits would be between 25 and 30 miles per day.21 At the end of her book on cursus publicus, Anne Kolb has provided some interesting data concerning the speed and distances covered using different means of transportation. For example, the data showed that from Rome to Capua, in 320 B. C., one covered 124 Roman miles (182 km) on foot in three days. This equals 41 miles per day, or 60 kilometers.22 Cicero noticed that walking from Corfinium to Brundisium, in 49 B. C., in 17 days, 310 Roman miles (465 kilometers) were covered, i. e. 18 miles per day (27 kilometers). Vegetius recorded that in the fourth century A. D. the normal distance covered in one day on foot was of 20 or 24 miles (30 or 37 kilometers).23 Using other means of transportation, from Rome to Brundisium, in 37 B. C., Horatius mentioned 363 Roman miles (534 kilometers) for a period of 15 days, resulting in an average distance of 24 miles per day (36 kilometers). Cicero recorded that from Beneventum to Venusia, in 51 B. C., four days were needed for 77 miles (113 kilometers) – i. e. an average distance of 19 miles (28 kilometers) per day. From Venusia to Tarentum, Cicero recorded in 51 B. C. that a distance of 96 miles (141 kilometers) was managed in four days, thus an average distance of 24 miles (35 kilometers) every day.24 Using means of transport that changed on the way, Cicero reported, as Anne Kolb mentions, for the travel from Rome to Ameria, in 81 B. C., 56 miles (82 kilometers) in 10 hours, thus an average distance of 56 miles per day. In the first century B. C. Suetonius referred a record of 120 miles in one day. The distance from Rome to Obulco is mentioned in two ancient sources. Suetonius wrote that in December 46 B. C. 1700 miles (2499 kilometers) were covered in 24 days, i. e. an average distance of 73 miles (107 kilometers) per day. Obviously, this information refers to Caesar’s travel that year, related to the battle of Munda (17 March 45 B. C.). Strabo recorded that the same distance was managed in 27 days, i. e. an average of 63 miles (93 kilometers) per day. Plutarch mentioned that for the journey from Rome to Geneva, in 58 B. C., eight days were needed for travelling 800 miles (1176 kilometers), equalling an average distance of 100 miles (147 kilometers) per day.25 An-

20 21 22 23 24 25

Procopius, Secret history 30. Bödőcs 2008a. Kolb 2000, 310. Kolb 2000, 310. Kolb 2000, 312. Kolb 2000, 313.

The Peutinger Map and the Military Itineraries

155

other record has been passed down for 238 A. D., when according to Lactantius Maximinus Thrax covered 160 miles (235 kilometers) in one day.26 From these examples, one can conclude that the average distance travelled in one day was between 25 and 30 miles; in some cases it was more. Bödőcs observed that the values 20, 25 or 30 miles are repeated in Pannonia especially for the unknown, inner territory of the province. He also noticed that the repetition of these values is regular.27 He then developed an interesting argument, using GIS. Based on a principle called ‘hiking form’, first formulated by Waldo Tobler, one can cover 5 km per hour over plain territory. Then Bödőcs compared the areas around Aquincum and Brigetio, concluding that one could cover 25 miles in 7 hours, but west of Aquincum, on hilly terrain, 25 miles took 9 hours, which is 30 miles over plain territory.28 To cover 30 miles on hilly areas, between 11 to 12 hours were needed.

26 27 28

Kolb 2000, 314. Bödőcs 2008a, 3. Bödőcs 2008a, 6.

Conclusions

In this study I analyzed and compared the distances registered in two of the most important documents on travelling in the Roman world: the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. For comparison, I needed data from other ancient sources: the Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the Cosmographia of the Anonymous from Ravenna. To provide new insights with the focus on the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary, I applied a new combination of methods: I compared the distances; I discussed some important ancient literary sources; and I made use of the data provided by milestones. To date, only nine milestones have been discovered in Dacia,1 whereas 338 milestones are known in Pannonia so far,2 while within the territory of Bulgaria 180 milestones have been discovered.3 For locating the ancient settlements, essential to this methodological approach, I used information from special works with direct reference to Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia, and data from The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World.4 I decided to discuss these three provinces – Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia –, because they share some common features. At the beginning of the fourth chapter, I collected and presented numerous opinions regarding the methodological approaches used in dating the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. These attempts represent the result of some general analyses. Some historians failed to take into account that the information offered by these itineraria differs in many ways, mainly due to their sources and chronology. This is why I felt that the data contained in the Peutinger map needed to be analyzed in detail, separately, province by province, because its compilers used regional itineraria for the provinces. The same goes for the Antonine itinerary. There is no other way to explain the representation, within the same document, of such variegated places as Pompeii, Dacia or St. Peter’s church in Rome.5 Some fundamental unsolved aspects regarding the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary concern: 1. their dating; 2. the sources used by those who created these two documents; 3. their connection to other documents. In my opinion, the crucial problem is not the general dating of these two itineraries, but the detailed analysis of the information given for every province, with the purpose of obtaining individual clues for dating 1 2 3 4 5

Fodorean 2006, chapter 2, 63–82. Kiss 2007. Madzharov 2009, 58. Talbert 2000. Salway 2001, 44 for Tabula Peutingeriana; Arnaud 1993, 34–35 for Itinerarium Antonini.

Conclusions

157

every region. Attempting to find new methodological solutions, I decided to compare the distances between the settlements, analyzing all the information to be found both on the Peutinger map and in the Antonine itinerary. Furthermore, I compared the distances between the settlements with the values listed in both of these itineraries. I applied this method only where I was able to identify the current modern location of the ancient toponyms. This way I was able to compare the distances from the cartographic documents with the distances measured along the former Roman roads. In order to reach results as close to reality as possible, I then extended the range of my comparison to data from epigraphic sources (milestones) and literary texts. In an article published in 2001 to which I referred in other parts of my book, Ray Laurence analyzed several aspects of the geography of Roman Britain, based on ancient sources, including the Antonine itinerary.6 Presenting the structure and the information of the Antonine itinerary with reference to Britain, Laurence noted: ‘A key question is whether the structure of the itineraries for Britain reveals a geography that is distinct from the itineraries of other parts of the Roman Empire. When compared to the data for Italy, there is no significant difference between these itineraries in the range of miles between each stage, or the average spacing of places along routes’.7 Further on, he compared the distances provided by the Antonine itinerary for two regions: Britain and Italy. A total number of 163 distances is recorded for Italy in the Antonine itinerary and 160 distances are recorded for Britain. Based on these comparisons, the author observed that the average distance between the Italian settlements varies between 16 and 20 miles. For Britain, the average distance ranges from 11 and 15 miles. Laurence explained these differences by applying the criterion of road construction. In his opinion, in Britain, because of a lower quality of the Roman roads, the stopping points were located much closer to each other than in Italy, where the surface of the roads was of better quality.8 A more detailed breakdown of these figures produces the following results: According to Figure 4.16 in Laurence’s book,9 in Italy, out of a total of 163 distances listed in the Antonine itinerary, 46 vary between 16 and 20 miles and 52 distance figures range from 21 and 25 miles. Therefore, there is a total number of 98 out of 163 distance figures with values between 16 and 25 miles. According to the same chart, 27 distances in Italy range between 11 and 15 miles. In comparison, 65 distance figures for Britain range between 11 and 15 miles. Also, still in Britain, the Antonine itinerary lists 31 distance figures with values from 16 to 20 miles and 25 distance figures with values from 21 to 25 miles. Therefore, in Britain, the Antonine itinerary lists 56 distance figures with values from 16 to 25 miles, out of a total number of 160 distances. In order to compare these values with those from Pannonia and Moesia, I will also include in these calculations the distance figures from Italy and Britain higher than 25 miles. In Italy, 12 distance figures, and in Britain 9 distance figures vary between 26 and 30 miles. Therefore, statistics prove that: 1. In Italy, the Antonine itinerary registers 110 distances, out of a total of 163, with values between 16 and 30 miles; 2. In Britain, the Antonine itinerary records 65 out of 160 distances ranging in value between 16 and 30 miles. On the other hand, 1. in Italy, the Antonine itinerary 6 7 8 9

Laurence 2001, 67–94. Laurence 2001, 81. Laurence 2001, 82. Laurence 2001, 83.

158

Conclusions

mentions 27 distance figures between 11 and 15 miles; 2. in Britain, the Antonine itinerary mentions 67 distance figures between 11 and 15 miles. Ray Laurence concluded that for Britain, a province at the periphery of the Roman Empire, the distances listed in the Antonine itinerary are shorter than the distances stated for Italy, a province at the center of the Empire. This implies that the network of stopping points along the roads of Roman Britain was denser than in Italy. Laurence explains this by arguing that the roads of Britain were not paved, in contrast to the high-quality, well-paved roads of Roman Italy, which permitted greater speed and longer distances per day.10 He concluded that because of the unpaved roads, travelling in Britain was far more difficult: This is manifested by the greater number of stopping points in Britain, and, implicitly, by the smaller distance figures in the Antonine itinerary. If these conclusions were entirely correct, they could be transferred to other provinces. As a matter of fact, Laurence undertook comparisons with other provinces: Britannia – Gallia, Britannia – Hispania, and Britannia – Asia. In Gaul, according to Figure 4.17 in Laurence’s book,11 33 distance figures vary between 11 and 15 miles. Also, 39 distance figures range from 16 to 20 miles, 20 distance figures from 21 to 25 miles and 3 distance figures from 26 to 30 miles. In total, according to the same charts, I counted 134 distance figures for Gaul. This resulted in the the following data (the comparison in Laurence’s charts is with Britannia): 1. In Britain, the Antonine itinerary mentions 65 distance figures with values from 16 to 30 miles, out of a total of 160 distances; 2. In Gaul, the Antonine itinerary lists 62 distances with values from 16 to 30 miles, out of a total of 134 distances. On the other hand, 1. in Britain, the same document lists 67 distance figures ranging from 11 to 15 miles; 2. in Gaul, the Antonine itinerary lists 33 distance figures between 11 and 15 miles. As a consequence, observing the differences in the values of the distances in Gaul and Britain, Ray Laurence noted that in Britain their majority range between 11 and 15 miles, so the distances are smaller if compared to those from Gaul. He also noted that the values of the distances in Gaul are rather close to those stated for Italy. Therefore, Laurence reached the conclusion that the values of the distances stated for the provinces located in the center of the Roman Empire are higher than the values of the distances in the peripheral provinces, such as Spain or Asia.12 In Spain, according to Figure 4.18 in Laurence’s book,13 35 distance figures range between 11 and 15 miles. Another 60 distance figures vary from 16 to 20 miles, 62 distance figures have values from 21 to 25 miles and 25 of them are between 26 and 30 miles. In total, based on the same chart, I counted 230 distance figures listed in Spain in the Antonine itinerary. This generated the following results (the chart describes the comparison with Britannia): 1. In Britannia, the Antonine itinerary registers 65 distances between the values of 16 and 30 miles, out of a total of 160 distances. 2. In Spain, the same document records 147 distances between the values of 16 and 30 miles, out of a total of 230 distances. This means, in percentages, that 63.91 % of the distances from Spain range between 16 and 30 10 11 12 13

Laurence 2001, 82. Laurence 2001, 84. Laurence 2001, 82. Laurence 2001, 85.

159

Conclusions

miles. One can also add to these calculations the distances higher than 30 miles. There are 16 distance figures between the value of 31 and 35 miles, 10 distance figures between 36 and 40 miles and 12 distance figures with values above 40 miles. There is a total of 38 distance figures with values higher than 30 miles. Recalculating, I observed that 185 out of 230 distances figures range in value between 16 and over 40 miles. This means, in percentages, 80.43 %. 3. In Italy, the Antonine itinerary mentions 110 out of a total of 163 distance figures between the values of 16 and 30 miles. Here, I added Italy again, since Laurence also untertook comparisons with Italy. On the other hand, 1. in Britannia, the Antonine itinerary records 67 distance figures with values from 11 to 15 miles; 2. in Spain, it registers 35 distance figures with values from 11 to 15 miles; 3. in Italy, it mentions 27 distances with values from 11 to 15 miles. In Asia, according to Figure 4.19 in Laurence’s book,14 23 distance figures have values from 11 to 15 miles. Another 54 distances show values between 16 and 20 miles. 70 distance figures range in value between 21 and 25 miles and 39 distances between 26 and 30 miles. In total, according to the same chart, I counted 212 distances for Asia. Thus I obtained, again, the following data (the comparison is also made with Britannia): 1. In Britannia, the Antonine itinerary contains 65 distance figures with values from 16 to 30 miles, out of a total of 160 distances. 2. In Asia, the same document records 163 distance figures with values between 16 and 30 miles, out of a total of 212 distances. This means, in percentages, that 76.88 % of the distances from Asia are distances with values from 16 to 30 miles. To these calculations, the distances higher than 30 miles can be added, represented in the chart. There are 10 distance figures with values from 31 to 35 miles and 9 distance figures with values from 36 to 40 miles. The result is a total of 19 distance figures with values from 31 to 40 miles. This means, in percentages, 85.84 %. 3. In Italy, the Antonine itinerary mentions 110 distance figures with values between 16 and 30 miles, out of a total of 163 distances. Again, I have added Italy here. On the other hand, 1. in Britannia, the Antonine itinerary mentions 67 distance figures with values from 11 to 15 miles; 2. in Asia, it records 23 distance figures with values from 11 to 15 miles; 3. in Italy, it registers 27 distances with values from 11 to 15 miles. At the end of his analysis, Ray Laurence noted that for Spain and Asia the distance figures have values close to those from Italy.15 The following table systematizes all data presented above (Table 18): Table 18. Comparison between the values recorded in the Antonine itinerary in Britannia, Italia, Gallia, Hispania, Asia, Pannonia and Moesia. Distance values ItAnt

Britannia Italia

Gallia Hispania Asia

Pannonia Moesia

0–10 miles

22

14

34

10

7

11–15 miles

67

27

33

35

16–20 miles

31

46

39

60

21–25 miles

25

52

20

26–30 miles

9

12

3

14 15

Laurence 2001, 86. Laurence 2001, 82, 87.

3

11

23

5

14

54

23

19

62

70

39

8

25

39

34

5

160 Distance values ItAnt

Conclusions Britannia Italia

Gallia Hispania Asia

Pannonia Moesia

31–35 miles

4

9

5

16

10

17

-

36–40 miles

2

3

-

10

9

4

1

+ 40 miles

-

-

-

12

-

1

-

Total values 16–30 miles

65

110

62

147

163

96

32

Total values 16/+ 40 miles

71

122

67

185

182

118

33

160

163

134

230

212

126

58

TOTAL DISTANCES

The table below (Table 19) presents the distances calculated in percentages: Table 19. Comparison between the values recorded in the Antonine itinerary in Britannia, Italia, Gallia, Hispania, Asia, Pannonia and Moesia. Values presented in percentages. Values distances ItAnt

Britannia Italia

Gallia

13.75 %

11–15 miles

41.87 % 16.56 % 24.62 %

15.21 % 10.84 %

3.96 % 24.13 %

Total values 16–30 miles

40.62 % 67.48 % 46.26 %

63.91 % 76.88 %

76.19 % 55.17 %

Total values 16/+ 40 miles

44.37 % 74.84 % 50.00 %

80.43 % 85.84 %

93.65 % 56.89 %

160

163

134

4.34 %

230

3.30 %

Pannonia Moesia

0–10 miles

TOTAL DISTANCES

8.58 % 25.37 %

Hispania Asia

212

2.38 % 18.96 %

126

58

I compared several provinces just to observe, as accurately as possible, the frequency of the distance figures in different geographical areas. Pannonia and Moesia are two provinces not located in the center of the Roman Empire. According to Laurence’s theory, based on his examples, in the provinces located at the center of the Roman Empire (Italy, Gaul), the distances between the stopping points along the Roman roads were greater than in the peripheral provinces (Britannia, Spain, Asia). Once again, I cite Laurence’s explanation for this fact: The roads in Italy or in Gaul were much better constructed and actually paved, in contrast to the roads in other Roman provinces, such as Britannia. If the roads were better constructed, travelling was faster and mansiones were located at greater distances from each other in the center of the Empire. According to Laurence’s theory, this means that in Pannonia or Moesia the situation of the distances should be similar to that in Britain: more frequent distances with smaller values (from 11 to 15 miles) and less frequent distances with higher values (from 16 to 30 miles). The reality is, however, the exact opposite of this historical construction. In my opinion, the greater distances cannot be explained by the better quality of the roads. The reason for the distances with smaller values is not related to the quality of the roads. The distances reflect the marching stages of the Roman army during the military campaigns. The above table, which states the frequency of the distance values in percentages, disproves Ray Laurence’s theory. Generally, in the Antonine itinerary, almost all the distances stated for the provinces show higher values. This aspect can be observed by analyzing the distance figures with values from 16 to 30 miles: 1. in Asia, 76.88 % (163 distances out of 212); 2. in Pannonia, 76.19 % (96 distances out of 126); 3. in Italy, 67.48 %; 4. in Spain, 63.91 % (147 distances out of 230); 5. in Moesia, 55.17 % (32 distances out of 58); 6. in Gaul, 46.26 % (62 distances out of 134); in Britannia, 40.62 % (65 distances

Conclusions

161

out of 160). At the same time, one should also analyze the distance figures with values from 16 to over 40 miles: 1. in Pannonia, 93.65 % (118 distances out of 126); 2. in Asia, 85.84 % (182 distances out of 212); 3. in Spain, 80.43 % (185 distances out of 230); 4. in Italy, 74.84 % (122 distances out of 163); 5. in Moesia, 56.89 % (33 distances out of 58); 6. in Gaul, 50.00 % (67 distances out of 134); 7. in Britain, 44.37 % (71 distances out of 160). These statistics prove that, within the same document (the Antonine itinerary), the distances with smaller values, from 11 to 15 miles, are far less frequent: 1. in Britannia, 41.87 % (67 distances out of 160); 2. in Gaul, 24.62 % (33 distances out of 134); 3. in Moesia, 24.13 % (14 distances out of 58); 4. in Italy, 16.56 % (27 distances out of 163); 5. in Spain, 15.21 % (35 distances out of 230); 6. in Asia, 10.84 % (23 distances out of 212); in Pannonia, 3.96 % (5 distances out of 126). I have arranged all these distances according to their frequency. In total, it may be observed that within the seven provinces mentioned above, 675 distances out of 1083 range between the values of 16 and 30 miles. Also, based on the same values listed in the table above, it may be noted that in the same provinces, 778 distances out of 1083 vary between the value of 16 and +40 miles. The example of Pannonia is very instructive. Here one encounters the extremes of the distance figures. As I have already mentioned, five distances out of 126 (i. e. 3.96 %), have small values of 11 to 15 miles. In the same province, 118 distances out of 126 (i. e. 93.65 %) have values higher than 16 miles (16/+40 miles). Beside these values, all the other data indicate that in the Antonine itinerary the values of the distances are much higher. It should also be kept in mind that the Peutinger map records 89 settlements, 82 distance figures, 15 vignettes of the ‘double-tower’ type and a total distance of 1201 miles for Pannonia. Out of 82 distances, 57 have values between 8 and 16 miles. This means, in percentages, 69.512 %. These figures refer to the same province and the same roads, but it is obvious that the two documents – the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary – present different distances. This leads me to the conclusion that they had different sources. Based on the examples discussed above, I am tempted to believe that the Peutinger map was compiled using early itineraria picta, created by the army, as sources. Therefore, I suggest that the short distances registered by the Peutinger map reflect the marching stages of the Roman army (Fig. 19). In other words, the Peutinger map had better, far more accurate sources: road descriptions, distances recorded in ancient literary sources, lists of settlements including the distances between them, formae, military itineraria (depicted or written), maybe even formulae provinciarum etc. In my opinion, the Peutinger map was not a propaganda document. This outstanding work reflects a crucial moment in the evolution of Roman cartography. It was in the fifth century A. D., probably during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II, that it was compiled in order to assemble, in a ‘map’, all the geographical knowledge of the Roman Empire available at that time. This document may have accompanied, as an appended itinerary, one of the two geographical works written in 435 A. D.: Divisio orbis terrarum and Demensuratio provinciarum.16 However, I do not think that Agrippa’s map was the source of an itinerary created during Caracalla’s reign, as Weber proposed.17 16 17

Weber 1976, 22. Weber 1976, 23.

162

Conclusions

Formulae provinciarum. Military itineraries. Regional ‘maps’ Documents of the Roman army: itineraria picta et adnotata, formae.

Theodosius II. 435 A.D.? Divisio orbis terrarum. Demensuratio provinciarum. Tabula Peutingeriana.

TabPeut: not a propaganda map.

Cursus publicus. Evectiones. Itineraries, routes.

Itinerarium Antonini. IVth century A.D.

Not an itinerarium of an emperor.

The Cosmography from Ravenna.

Fig. 19. The sources of the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. A proposal. It might be possible that the Antonine itinerary was compiled from several sources and for an administrative purpose. The person or persons who compiled the document melted together different categories of sources: probably lists of settlements and the distances recorded in the imperial archives of the public transportation system (cursus publicus), itineraries recorded on travel permits (evectiones), and, extremely rarely, data from military itineraries. Although it is apparent that the provinces were listed according to a certain order, the order of the itineraries within a province does not follow any noticeable criteria. In Pannonia as well as in Moesia, but also in Britannia, the listing of the itineraries (of the roads) seems chaotic. Some itineraries are doubled, others are presented from south to north and then, along the same road, from north to south. As I have already pointed out in the previous chapters, in numerous cases the distances recorded in the Antonine itinerary do not match those measured on digital maps along the former Roman roads. Even the comparison and the analysis of the same roads, as it was undertaken for the frontier road in Pannonia, lead to the final conclusion that the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary had different sources. Another point should also be mentioned: The designation that historiography has used over decades for the latter document, ‘the itinerary of Antoninus’, is not quite correct. P. Arnaud has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Antonine itinerary was compiled during the Tetrarchy.18 It has nothing to do with Caracalla, as D. Van Berchem believed in 1973.19 Therefore, it seems possible to connect the Antonine itinerary to the reorganization of the cursus publicus in the fourth century A. D. The comparison of the distances and the settlements recorded in the most important documents of ancient geography encourages me to propose that their compilers used 18 19

Arnaud 1993, 45. Van Berchem 1974, 301–308.

Conclusions

163

different sources. I certainly hope that, in the future, I will be able to apply this method to other provinces as well, in order to identify new elements that may support the dating of the regional itineraries that were used as sources for the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Eventually, this should contribute to a better understanding of the functions, content and significance of these amazing cartographic documents from the Roman era.

Bibliography and References

Absil 2000: M. Absil, Legio I Italica, in Yann Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (Actes du congrès international de Lyon, 17–19 septembre 1998), Lyon 2000, 228–238. Albu 2005: E. Albu, Imperial Geography and the Medieval Peutinger Map, in Imago Mundi 57, 2005, 136–148. Albu 2008: E. Albu, Rethinking the Peutinger Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden 2008, 111–119. Alicu, Paki 1985–1986: D. Alicu, A. Paki, O inscripţie inedită din amfiteatrul roman de la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in Acta Musei Napocensis 22–23, 1985–1986, 469–479. Allen 2003: T. J. Allen, Roman Healing Spas in Italy: The Peutinger Map Revisited, in Athenaeum 91, 2003, 403–415. Antonescu 1910: T. Antonescu, Columna Traiană studiată din punct de vedere arheologic, geografic și artistic, Iași 1910. Ardevan 2007: R. Ardevan, The Ala II Pannoniorum in Dacia, in Apulum 44, 2007, 139–155. Aricescu 1977: A. Aricescu, Armata în Dobrogea romană, Bucharest 1977. Arnaud 1988: P. Arnaud, L’origine, la date de rédaction et la difussion de l’archetype de la Table de Peutinger, in Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1988, 302–321. Arnaud 1988a: P. Arnaud, Observations sur l’original du fragment de carte du pseudo-bouclier de Doura-Europos, in Revue des études anciennes 90, 1–2, Paris, 1988, 151–161. Arnaud 1989: P. Arnaud, Une deuxième lecture du bouclier de Doura-Europos, in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 133, 2, 1989, 373–389. Arnaud 1989a: P. Arnaud, Pouvoir des mots et limites de la cartographie dans la géographie grecque et romaine, in Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 15, 1989, 9–29. Arnaud 1993: P. Arnaud, L’Itinéraire d’Antonin: un témoin de la literature itinéraire du Bas-Empire, in Geographia Antiqua II, 1993, 33–49. Austin, Rankov 1995: N. J. E. Austin, N. B. Rankov, Exploratio: Military and political intelligence in the Roman world from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople, Routledge, London and New York 1995. Baatz 1984: D. Baatz, Quellen zur Bauplanung römischer Militärlager, Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike, in Diskussionen zur archäologischen Bauforschung, 4, 1984, 315–325. Bavant 1984: B. Bavant, La ville dans le nord de l’Illyricum (Pannonie, Mésie I, Dacie et Dardanie), in Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin. Actes du colloque de Rome (12–14 mai 1982), Rome 1984, 245–288 (Publications de l’École française de Rome, 77). Băncilă, Teodorescu 1998: R. Băncilă, D. Teodorescu, Die römischen Brücken am unteren Lauf der Donau, in K. Zilch, G. Albrecht, A. Swaczyna et al. (eds), Entwurf, Bau und Unterhaltung von Brücken im Donauraum, 3. Internationale Donaubrückenkonferenz, 29–30 October, Regensburg 1998, 401–409. Bărbulescu 1987: M. Bărbulescu, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Legiunea V Macedonica și castrul de la Potaissa, Cluj-Napoca 1987.

Bibliography and References

165

Bărbulescu 1991: M. Bărbulescu, Das römische Lager von Potaissa (Rumänien), in Antike Welt 22, I, 1991, 22–30. Bărbulescu 1994: M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa. Studiu monografic, Turda 1994. Bărbulescu 1997: M. Bărbulescu, Das Legionslager von Potaissa (Turda). Castrul legionar de la Potaissa (Turda). (Führer zu den archäologischen Denkmälern aus Dacia Porolissensis, 7), Zalău 1997. Bărbulescu 1999: M. Bărbulescu, Traian și descoperirea Daciei, in D. Protase, D. Brudașcu (eds), Napoca. 1880 de ani de la începutul vieții urbane, Cluj-Napoca 1999, 32–38. Bărbulescu 2001: M. Bărbulescu, Istoria politică, in D. Protase, Al. Suceveanu (coord.), Istoria Românilor, vol. II: Daco-romani, romanici, alogeni, Bucharest 2001, 73–98. Bărbulescu et alii 2005: M. Bărbulescu, C. Bărbulescu, I. Fodorean, F. Fodorean, A. Husar, C. Mihăilă, E. Nemeth, I. Nemeti, S. Nemeti, M. Pîslaru, M. Sălăşan, V. Zotic, Atlas-dicționar al Daciei romane, Cluj-Napoca 2005. Barkóczi, Mócsy 1972: L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 1. Savaria, Scarbantia und die Limes-Strecke ad Flexum–Arrabona, Budapest 1972. Barkóczi, Mócsy 1976: L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 2. Salla, Mogentiana, Mursella, Brigetio, Budapest 1976. Barkóczi, Soproni 1981: L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 3. Brigetio (Fortsetzung) und die Limesstrecke am Donauknie, Budapest–Bonn 1981. Bauer 2007: H. Bauer, Die römischen Fernstraßen zwischen Iller und Salzach nach dem Itinerarium Antonini und der Tabula Peutingeriana. Neue Forschungsergebnisse zu den Routenführungen, München 2007. Becatti 1982: G. Becatti, La Colonna Traiana, espressione somma del rilievo storico romano, in ANRW II, 12, 1, 1982, 536–578. Bender, Wolff 1994: H. Bender, H. Wolff (eds), Ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in den Rhein-Donau-Provinzen des Römischen Reiches, Espelkamp 1994. Benea 1983: D. Benea, Din istoria militară a Moesiei Superior şi a Daciei. Legiunea a VII-a Claudia şi legiunea a IIII-a Flavia, Cluj-Napoca 1983. Benea 1999: D. Benea, Dacia sud-vestică în secolele III–IV. Interferenţe spirituale, Timişoara 1999. Benea 2000: D. Benea, On the Praetorium Toponyms in Roman Dacia, in Daker und Römer am Anfang des 2 Jh. N. Chr. Im norden der Donau (Daci şi romani la începutul secolului al II-lea d. Hr. la nordul Dunării), Timişoara 2000, 117–123. Benea 2001: D. Benea, Dacia pe Tabula Peutingeriana, in D. Benea (ed.), In memoriam Dumitru Tudor, Timişoara 2001, 135–149. Benea 2001a: D. Benea, Câteva observaţii privind aşezările din Dacia amintite pe Tabula Peutingeriana, in Studia archaeologica et historica Nicolao Gudea dicata. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 60 de ani, Zalău 2001, 285–300. Bennett 1997: J. Bennett, Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, Bloomington, London-New York 1997. Van Berchem 1974: D. van Berchem, Les itinéraires de Caracalla et l’itinéraire Antonin, in Actes du IX Congrès international d’études sur les frontières romaines, Mamaia, 1972, Bucharest 1974, 301–308. Bíró 1974: M. Bíró, Roman villas in Pannonia, in Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 26, 1974, 23–57. Bíró, Molnár, Salat, Teichner 2006: S. Bíró, A. Molnár, Ch. Salat, F. Teichner, Geophysical investigations on the territory of Mursella (Geofizikai kutatások Mursella területén). http:// uni-Heidelberg.academia.edu/FelixTeichner/Papers/701302/Geophysical_Investigation_on_ the_territory_of_Mursella_Pannonia_. Blăjan, Cerghi 1977: M. Blăjan, T. Cerghi, Cercetări arheologice la Aiton, Cluj-Napoca și Răchițele, in Sargetia 13, 1977, 131–147. Blăjan, Cerghi 1978: M. Blăjan, T. Cerghi, Descoperiri romane şi postromane la Aiton (jud. Cluj), in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări 1, 1978, 21–27.

166

Bibliography and References

Bödőcs 2008: A. Bödőcs, A Római kori úthálózat térinformatikai vizsgálata a mai Magyarország területén (A study of the Roman road network in Hungary using GIS). Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Miklós Szabó. Budapest 2008. Bödőcs 2008a: A. Bödőcs, r. calc. Itinerarium Antonini. Raster based GIS survey on Pannonian data of Itinerarium Antonini, in the proceedings of the 12th CCA (Computer Assisted Assessment) Conference, Budapest, 2–6 April 2008. Online at: http://elte.academia.edu/Andr%C3 %A1sB%C3 %B6d%C3 %B5cs/Papers/1544504/_r.calc.ItinerariumAntonini_._Raster_Based_GIS_ Survey_on_Pannonian_Mileage_Data_of_Itinerarium_Antonini_r.calc.ItinerariumAntonini_ Raster_Based_GIS_Survey_on_Pannonian_Mileage_Data_of_Itinerarium_Antonini (accessed: 08/09.2012, 16:42). Bojović 1996: D. Bojović, Le camp de la légion IV Flavia à Singidunum, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Beograd 1996, 53–68. Borhy, Sosztarits 1996–1997: L. Borhy, O. Sosztarits, Dii Itinerarii: Itunus und Ituna – unbekannte Götter der Römer aus Savaria/Szombathely, in Savaria 23, 3, 1996–1997, 115–127. Bosio 1983: L. Bosio, La Tabula Peutingeriana: una descrizione pittorica del mondo antico, Rimini Maggioli 1983. Bošković 1978: D. Bošković, Aperçu sommaire sur les recherches archéologiques du Limes romain et paléobyzantin des Portes de Fer, in Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Antiquité, 90, 1, 1978, 425–463. Braund 1996: D. Braund, River frontiers in the environmental psychology of the Roman world, in D. L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East, series Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary series number 18, Oxford 1996, 43–47. Breeze 1988: D. J. Breeze, Why did the Romans failed to conquer Britain?, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 118, 1988, 3–22. Breeze (ed.) 2012: D. Breeze (ed.), The first souvenirs: enamelled vessels from Hadrian’s Wall, Carlisle (Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society), 2012. Brodersen 2001: K. Brodersen, The presentation of the geographical knowledge for travel and transport in the Roman world: itineraria non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (eds), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, London-New York, 7–21. Brodersen 2003: K. Brodersen, Die Tabula Peutingeriana: Gehalt und Gestalt einer ‘alten Karte’ und ihrer antiken Vorlagen, in D. Unverhau (ed.), Geschichtsdeutung auf alten Karten: Archäologie und Geschichte, Wiesbaden (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 101) 2003, 289–297. Burger, Fülep 1984: Sz. Burger, F. Fülep, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 4. Das Gebiet zwischen der Drau und der Limesstrecke Lussonium–Altinum, Budapest–Bonn 1984. Burghardt 1979: A. F. Burghardt, The origin of the road and city network of Roman Pannonia, in Journal of Historical Geography 5, 1, 1979, 1–20. Burns 2003: T. S. Burns, Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B. C.-A. D. 400, Johns Hopkins University Press 2003. Campbell 1994: B. Campbell, The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook, Routledge, London – New York 1994. Cambell 2004: B. Cambell (ed.), Greek and Roman military writers. Selected readings, London – New York 2004. Campbell 2006: D. B. Campbell, Roman Legionary Fortresses 27 BC – AD 378, Oxford 2006. Carettoni, Colini, Cozza, Gatti 1960: G. Carettoni, A. Colini, L. Cozza, G. Gatti (eds), La pianta marmorea di Roma antica. Forma urbis Romae, Rome, 1960. Chevallier 1988: R. Chevallier, Voyages et déplacements dans l’Empire romain, Paris 1988. Chevallier 1997: R. Chevallier, Les voies romaines, IInd edition, Paris 1997. Conrad 2006: S. Conrad, Archaeological Survey on the Lower Danube: Results and Perspectives, in P. G. Bilde, V. F. Stolba (eds), Surveying the Greek Chora: The Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective. Black Sea Studies, 4, Denmark, Aarhus University Press 2006, 309–331.

Bibliography and References

167

Coskun 2002: A. Coskun, review to Anne Kolb, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. Berlin, Akademie Verlag (Klio. Beitraege zur Alten Geschichte, Beihefte, Neue Folge, 2), 2000. Pp. 380. ISBN 3-05-003584-6, online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-03-14.html. Coulston 2001: J. Coulston, Transport and travel on the Column of Trajan, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (eds), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge, London – New York 2001, 106–137. Crișan et alii 1992: I. H. Crișan, M. Bărbulescu, E. Chirilă, V. Vasiliev, I. Winkler, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Cluj, Cluj-Napoca 1992. Crișan, Timoc 2004–2005: D. S. Crișan, C. Timoc, Inginerii împăratului Traian (I). Mensorul Balbus (Die Ingerniuere Kaisers Trajan (I). Balbus der Mensor), in Analele Banatului 12–13, 2004– 2005, 157–170. Cserményi, Tóth 1979–1980: V. Cserményi, E. Tóth, Eine römische Straßenstation und Straßenstrecke zwischen Salla und Arrabona, in Savaria 1–14, 1979–1980, 171–201. Cserményi, Tóth 1982: V. Cserményi, E. Tóth, Der Abschnitt der Bernsteinstraße in Ungarn, in Savaria 16, 1982, 238–290. Cuntz 1929: O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana I: Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense, Leipzig 1929. Daicoviciu 1928–1932: C. Daicoviciu, Un nou “miliarium” din Dacia, in Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice I, 2, 1928–1932, 48–53. Daicoviciu 1941: C. Daicoviciu, Problema continuităţii în Dacia (Die Kontinuitätsfrage in Dazien), in AISC III, (1936–1940), 1941, 253–254. Daicoviciu 1945: C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie dans l’antiquité, Bucharest 1945. Daicoviciu 1959: H. Daicoviciu, Osservazioni intorno alla Collona Traiana, in Dacia N. S. 3, 1959, 317–319. Daicoviciu 1964: C. Daicoviciu, Harta lui Peutinger, in Izvoare privind istoria României, I, Bucharest 1964, 737. Daicoviciu 1972: H. Daicoviciu, Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romană, Cluj-Napoca 1972, 278–335. Daicoviciu, Daicoviciu 1966: C. Daicoviciu, H. Daicoviciu, Columna lui Traian, Bucharest 1966. Daremberg, Saglio 1877–1916: C. V. Daremberg, E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, Paris, Hachette, 1877–1919. Diaconescu 1997: Al. Diaconescu, Dacia under Trajan. Some observations on Roman tactics and strategy, in ActaMN 34, I, 1997, 13–52. Dimitrijević 1996: D. Dimitrijević, Die Häfen der Classis Flavia Pannonica des Donausektors von Bassianae (Taurunum – Cusum), in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Belgrade 1996, 143–157. Di Paola 1999: L. Di Paola, Viaggi, trasporti e institutioni. Studi sul cursus publicus, Di. Sc. A. M., Messina 1999. Donevski 1991: P. Donevski, Durostorum, Municipium Aurelium und das Lager der Legio XI Claudia, in V. A. Maxfield, M. J. Dobson (eds), Roman frontier studies 1989, proceedings of the XVth international congress of Roman frontier studies, Exeter 1991, 277–280. Dragojević-Josifovska 1982: B. Dragojević-Josifovska, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. VI. Scupi et la région de Kumanovo (Centre d’études épigraphiques et numismatiques de la Faculté de philosophie de l’’Université de Beograde), Belgrade 1982. Dueck 2000: D. Dueck, Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome, New York 2000. Duval, Popović 1977: N. Duval, V. Popović, Recherches archéologiques Franco-Yugoslav à Sirmium (1973–1975). Vol. VII. Horrea et thermes aux abords du rempart sud, Belgrade 1977. Duval, Ochsenschlager, Popović 1982: N. Duval, L. Ochsenschlager, V. Popović, Recherches archéologiques en Syrmie, vol. IV, Belgrade 1982. Dvorník 1974: F. Dvorník, Origins of Intelligence Services: the Ancient Near East, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the Arab Muslim Empires, the Mongol Empire, China, Moscovy, New Brunswick 1974.

168

Bibliography and References

Elliot 1955: C. W. J. Elliot, New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, in Phoenix 9, 1955, 76–80. Elliot 2008: T. Elliot, Constructing a Digital Edition for the Peutinger Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden 2008, 99–110. Fellmann 2000: R. Fellmann, Die 11. Legion Claudia Pia Fidelis, in Yann Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (Actes du congrès international de Lyon, 17–19 septembre 1998), Lyon 2000, 127–131. Fink 1971: R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Cleveland 1971. Fitz 1962: J. Fitz, A military history of Pannonia from the Marcomannic wars to the death of Alexander Severus, in Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 14, 1962, 25–112. Fitz 1989: J. Fitz, Recherches sur la Pannonie 1980–1986, in Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 41, 1989, 533–558. Fitz 1991: J. Fitz, Neue Ergebnisse in der Limesforschung des Donaugebiets, in V. A. Maxfield, M. J. Dawson (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, Exeter 1991, 219–224. Fitz 1991a: J. Fitz, Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 5. Intercisa, Budapest – Bonn 1991. Fitz 1993–1995: J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Römerzeit I–IV, Budapest 1993–1995. Fitz 2003: J. Fitz, Historical outline of the Roman period, in Z. Visy, M. Nagy (eds), Hungarian Archaeology at the turn of the millennium, Budapest 2003, 205–260. Florescu 1985: R. Florescu, Drumurile lui Traian la sud de Carpaţi în războaiele dacice. O nouă interpretare a imaginilor Columnei lui Traian, in Drobeta 6, 1985, 51–58. Fodorean 2002: F. Fodorean, The Roman road Gilău-Bologa. The sector between Căpuşu Mare-Izvoru Crişului, in Revista Bistriţei 16, 2002, 97–102. Fodorean 2002a: F. Fodorean, Izvoare epigrafice privind drumurile din Dacia romană, in Revista Bistriţei 16, 2002, 55–95. Fodorean 2004: F. Fodorean, Tabula Peutingeriana and the province of Dacia, in ActaMN 39–40, 1, 2002–2003 (2004), 51–58. Fodorean 2005: F. Fodorean, Hărţile militare austriece şi antichităţile romane. Studiu cartografic, in C. Muşeţeanu, M. Bărbulescu, D. Benea (eds), Corona laurea. Studii în onoarea Luciei Ţeposu Marinescu, Bucharest 2005, 185–201. Fodorean 2006: F. Fodorean, Drumurile din Dacia romană, Cluj-Napoca 2006. Fodorean 2006a: F. Fodorean, Austrian military maps and Roman roads. A cartographic study, in C. Gaiu, C. Găzdac (eds), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase, Bistriţa – Cluj-Napoca 2006, 997–1010. Fodorean 2007: F. Fodorean, Drumul roman imperial Sarmizegetusa – Subcetate. Studiu topografic şi arheologic, in S. Nemeti, F. Fodorean, E. Nemeth, S. Cociş, I. Nemeti, M. Pîslaru, Dacia Felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata, Cluj-Napoca 2007, 365–384. Fodorean 2010: F. Fodorean, Landscapes of Roman Dacia. Ilişua, in M. V. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Bâltâc, V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, V. Bottez (eds), Antiquitas Istro-Pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca 2010, 93–102. Fodorean 2011: review to R. J. A. Talbert: Rome’s World. The Peutinger map reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010. 376 pages, 33 b/w, illus., 1 table. ISBN: 978-0-52176480-3, în Plekos 13, 2011, 9–19. http://www.plekos.uni-muenchen.de/2011/r-talbert.pdf. Fodorean 2011a: F. Fodorean, The aqueducts of Potaissa, in Frontinus-Schriftenreihe 28, 2011, 95– 108. Fodorean 2011b: F. Fodorean, The Bridges of Roman Dacia, in Archäologie der Brücken. Vorgeschichte. Antike. Mittelalter. Neuzeit. Bayerische Gesellschaft für Unterwasserarchäologie (Herausgeber), Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg 2011, 143–147. Fodorean 2011c: F. Fodorean, Roman fortresses and roads on Habsburgic and Austro-Hungarian maps, in H. Pop, I. Bejinariu, S. Băcueţ-Crişan, D. Băcueţ-Crişan (eds), Identităţi culturale

Bibliography and References

169

locale şi regionale în context european. Studii de arheologie şi antropologie istorică. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei. Bibliotheca Musei Porolissensis XIII, Cluj-Napoca, 469–478. Fodorean 2011d: F. Fodorean, Landscapes of Roman Dacia. Potaissa, in I. Piso, V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, R. Varga, S. Mustaţă, E. Beu-Dachin, L. Ruscu (eds), Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan sexagenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca 2011, 121–133. Fodorean 2011e: F. Fodorean, Mapping the Orbis Terrarum: the Peutinger Map, the Antonine Itinerary and the Cartographic Tradition of the Fourth and Fifth Century A. D., in Ephemeris Napocensis 21, 2011, 51–62. Fodorean 2012: F. Fodorean, Ricostruendo il paesaggio romano. La strada imperiale di Dacia nella parte nord della provincia, in G. Ceraudo (ed.), Archeologia Aerea. Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica 6, 2012, 113–118. Fodorean 2012a: F. Fodorean, Die Straßen des römischen Dakiens. Forschungsstand, neue Entdeckungen und Perspektiven der Forschung, in Gymnasium. Zeitschrift für Kultur der Antike und Humanistische Bildung 119, 2012, 255–279. Fodorean, Fodorean 2010: F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, The Roman imperial road in the sector Sutoru-Porolissum. Topographic and cartographic study, in Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Geographia LV, 1, 2010, 199–204. Fülöp 1978: G. Fülöp, Forschungsbericht über das römische Straßennetz bei Gorsium, in Alba Regia 16, 1978, 281–285. Gabler 1989: D. Gabler, The Roman Fort at Ács–Vaspuszta (Hungary) on the Danubian Limes, BAR International Series 531, London 1989. Gabler 1991: D. Gabler, Römische Straßenstation in der Gemarkung von Sárvár, in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1991, 39–84. Gabler 1997: D. Gabler, Early Roman occupation in the Pannonia Danube Bend, in W. Groenman-van Waateringe, B. L. van Beek, W. J. H. Willems, S. L.Wynia (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1995, Oxford 1997, 85–92. Gabler 1999: D. Gabler, The Flavian limes in the Danube Bend (Eastern Pannonia), in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1999, 75–86. Gabler, Szőny, Tomka 1990: D. Gabler, E. Szőny, P. Tomka, The settlement history of Győr (Arrabona) in the Roman period and in the Middle Ages, in L. Gerevich (ed.), Towns in medieval Hungary, Budapest 1990, 9–25. Gabričević 1972: M. Gabričević, Straßenbau in der Donja Klisura des Eisernen Tores im Licht der neuentdeckten Inschrift, in Acta Archaeologica 23, Ljubljana 1972, 408. Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis 2008: C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis, Il papiro di Artemidoro (con la collaborazione di G. Adornato, A. C. Cassio, A. Soldati), Milano, 2008. Galliazzo 1994: V. Galliazzo, I ponti romani. Catalogo generale, vol. 2, Treviso, 1994. Gautier Dalché 2003: P. Gautier Dalché, La trasmissione medievale e rinascimentale della Tabula Peutingeriana, in F. Prontera (ed.), Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo, Florence 2003, 43–52. Gautier Dalché 2004: P. Gautier Dalché, Du nouveau sur la transmission et la découverte de la Tabula Peutingeriana: La ‘Cosmographia vetustissima’ de Pellegrino Prisciani (+ 1518), in Geographia Antiqua 13, 2004, 71–84. Gerov 1975: B. Gerov, Marcianopolis im Lichte der historischen Angaben und der archäologischen, epigraphischen und numismatischen Materialien und Forschungen, in Studia Balcanica. Recherches de géographie historique 10, 1975, 49–72. Gömöry 1999: J. Gömöry, Landscapes and monuments along the Amber Road, Sopron 1999. Graf 1936: A. Graf, Übersicht der antiken Geographie von Pannonien. Dissertationes Pannonicae I 5, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Budapest 1936. Gudea 1986: N. Gudea, Res publica municipii Septimii Porolissum, Bucharest 1986. Gudea 1997: N. Gudea, Der Dakische Limes. Materialien zu seiner Geschichte, Mainz 1997.

170

Bibliography and References

Gudea 2001: N. Gudea, Die Nordgrenze der römischen Provinz Obermoesien. Materialien zu ihrer Geschichte (86–275 n.Chr.), Mainz 2001. Gudea 2007: N. Gudea, Note de arheologie creștină. 4. Descoperirile creștine timpurii de la Gârla Mare (jud. Mehedinți), in Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai. Theologia Catholica (series historia ecclesiastica) 52, 2007, 31–40. Gušić 1996: S. Gušić, Traian’s Bridge. A contribution towards its reconstruction, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 2, 1996, Belgrade, 259–261. Hajnóczi 1995: G. Hajnóczi, La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano. Atti del convegno internazionale ‘La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano’. Accademia d’Ungheria e l’Istituto Austriaco di Cultura (Roma, 13–16 gennaio 1994), Rome 1995. Hajnóczi, Mezős, Nagy, Visy 1998: G. Hajnóczi, T. Mezős, M. Nagy, Zs. Visy (eds), Pannonia Hungarica antiqua. Itinerarium Hungaricum 1, Budapest 1998. Halaváts 1896: G. Halaváts, A Lederata-Tibiscumi római út, in Archaeologiai Ërtesitő 16, 1896, 4. Halaváts 1910: G. Halaváts, Hol is volt a lederata-tibiscumi hadiút Ahihis állomás, in Archaeologiai Ërtesitő 30, 1910, 270–271. Harl 1979: O. Harl, Vindobona. Das römische Wien, Wien – Hamburg 1979. Harley, Woodward 1987: J. B. Harley, D. Woodward, The History of cartography. Volume one. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, Chicago – London 1987. Hoddinott 1975: R. F. Hoddinott, Bulgaria in antiquity, New York 1975. Hortopan 2006: D. Hortopan, Consideraţii privind reţeaua rutieră romană din Dacia meridională în secolele II–III p. Chr., in Drobeta 16, 2006, 47–54. Horvat 1999: J. Horvat, Roman provincial archaeology in Slovenia following the year 1965: settlement and small finds, in Arheološki vestnik 50, 1999, 215–257. Hügel 2003: P. Hügel, Ultimele decenii ale stăpânirii romane în Dacia (Traianus Decius-Aurelian), Cluj-Napoca 2003. Hunter 1913: L. W. Hunter, Cicero’s Journey to his Province of Cilicia in 51 B. C., in Journal of Roman Studies 3, 1913, 73–97. Ivanov 1997: R. Ivanov, Das römische Verteidigungssystem an der unteren Donau zwischen Dorticum und Durostorum (Bulgarien) von Augustus bis Maurikios, in Ber. RGK 78, 1997, 467–640. Isaac 1990: B. Isaac, The Limits of the Empire. The Roman Army in the East, Oxford 1990. Isaac 1996: B. Isaac, Eusebius and the Geography of Roman Provinces, in D. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary series, 18, Ann Arbor, MI, 1996), 153–167. Jagenteufel 1958: A. Jagenteufel, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis Diokletian, Wien 1958. Jobst 1983: W. Jobst, Provinzhauptstadt Carnuntum. Österreichs größte archäologische Landschaft, Österreichischer Bundesverlag, Wien 1983. Jones 1992: B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian, Routledge, London – New York 1992. Jovanović 1996: D. Jovanović, Topography of Aquae – Prahovo, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Belgrade 1996, 263–264. Jovanović 1996a: A. Jovanović, The problem of the location of Lederata, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Belgrade 1996, 69–71. Karavas 2003: J. Karavas, Patterns in the distribution of Roman troops and fortifications on the lower Danube (1st – 2nd century AD), in Z. Visy (ed.), Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, University of Pécs, 2005, 189–199.

Bibliography and References

171

Keppie 1983: L. J. F. Keppie, Roman inscriptions from Scotland: some additions and corrections to RIB I, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 113, 1983, 391–404. Kérdö 1998: K. Kérdö, Die Erforschung des claudischen Auxiliarkastells und seiner Umgebung in Budapest – Víziváros als typisches Beispiel der stadt-archäologischen Forschung, in M. Németh (ed.), The Roman Town in a Modern City. Aquincum nostrum 2, Budapest 1998, 246–258. Kiss, Sosztarits 1996–1997: P. Kiss, O. Sosztarits, Ein besonderer Meilenstein aus Savaria, in Savaria 23, 3, 1996–1997, 101–113. Kiss 2007: P. Kiss, Historical and topographical questions concerning milestone erection in the province of Pannonia, Budapest 2007. Ph.D. manuscript. Klee 2010: M. Klee, Lebensadern des Imperiums. Straßen im Römischen Weltreich, Stuttgart 2010. Koeppel 1980: G. Koeppel, A military itinerarium on the Column of Trajan: scene L, in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologisches Institute, Römische Abteilungen, 87, 1980, 301–306. Kolb 2000: A. Kolb, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich, Berlin 2000. Kolb 2001: A. Kolb, Transport and communication in the Roman state: the cursus publicus, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (eds), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, London – New York 2001, 95–105. Láng 2003: T. Láng, Római kori útrészletek az aquincumi polgárváros municipális territóriumán (az úgynevezett Testvérhegyi villa környezete). (Roman period road segments in the municipal territory of the Aquincum Civil Town (the environs of the so-called Testvérhegy villa), in Aquincumi Füzetek 9, 2003, 95–110. Láng 2005: T. Láng, New data concerning the diagonal road between Aquincum and Brigetio, in Z. Visy (ed.), Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIX International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, Pécs, University of Pécs, 2005, 657–666. Laurence 2001: R. Laurence, The creation of geography. An interpretation of Roman Britain, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, London – New York, Routledge, 2001, 67–94. Le Bohec 1989: Y. Le Bohec, L’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Paris 1989. Le Bohec, Wolff 2000: Y. Le Bohec, C. Wolff, Legiones Moesiae Superioris, in Yann Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (Actes du congrès international de Lyon, 17–19 septembre 1998), Lyon 2000, 239–245. Lengyel, Radan 1980: A. Lengyel, G. T. B. Radan (eds), The archaeology of Roman Pannonia, Budapest 1980. Le Roux 1998: P. Le Roux, Le Haut-Empire romain en Occident d’Auguste aux Sévères: 31 av. J.-C.235 apr. J.-C., Paris 1998. Levi A. and M.: A. Levi, M. Levi, Itineraria picta. Contributo allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana, Rome 1967. Leylek 1993: H. Leylek, La vignetta di Antiochia e la datazione della Tabula Peutingeriana, in Journal of Ancient Topography 3, 1993, 203–206. Lisičar 1978: P. Lisičar, Tabula Peutingeriana i rimski itinerari. Pregled i primjedbe (The Tabula Peutingeriana and Roman itineraries. Survey and remarks), in Materijali 17, 1978, 9–19 (English summary, 15–19). Löhberg 2006: B. Löhberg, Das ‘Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti’. Ein kaiserzeitliches Straßenverzeichnis des Römischen Reiches. Überlieferung, Strecken, Kommentare, Karten, Berlin 2006 (2 vol.). Lőrincz, Visy 1987: B. Lőrincz, Zs. Visy, Die Hilfstruppen der Provinz Pannonia superior unter Trajan, in Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 39, 3–4, 1987, 337–345. Luttwak 1976: E. Luttwak, The grand strategy of the Roman Empire from the first century A. D. to the third, Baltimore 1976. Macrea 1969: M. Macrea, Viaţa în Dacia romană, Bucharest 1969. Madzharov 2009: M. Madzharov, Roman roads in Bulgaria. Contribution to the development of Roman road system in the provinces of Moesia and Thrace, Veliko Tarnovo 2009.

172

Bibliography and References

Manils, Pascual 2005: J. C. Manils, H. G. Pascual, Un fanum en Turgalium, in Faventia 27/2, 2005, 7–16. Manni 1949: E. Manni, L’impero di Gallieno, Rome 1949. Matei 2006: D. Matei, Trupe fără castre, castre fără trupe în Dacia, in Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice Studențesti, Arheologie – Istorie – Muzeologie (Alba-Iulia, Universitatea 1 Decembrie 1918), 12, 2006, 55–70. Mattern 1999: S. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate, University of California, 1999. McQuiggan 2006–2007: R. McQuiggan, Roman Geography and Spatial Perception in the Republic, in Hirundo. The McGill Journal of Classical Studies, V, 2006–2007, 77–98. Miclea, Florescu 1980: I. Miclea, R. Florescu, Decebal şi Traian, Bucharest 1980. Miller 1887: K. Miller, Die Weltkarte des Castorius genannt die Peutingerische Tafel, Ravensburg 1887. Miller 1888: K. Miller, Die Peutingerische Tafel, Ravensburg 1888 (extended edition 1916; then the editions from 1929 and 1962 – all published in Stuttgart). Miller 1916: K. Miller, Itineraria romana. Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana dargestellt, Stuttgart 1916. Milner 1993: N. P. Milner, Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science, Liverpool University Press, 1993. Milošević 1988: P. Milošević, O traci puta Sirmium-Fossis I Sirmium-Bononia / Sur le trace de la route Sirmium-Fossis et Sirmium-Bononia, in Starinar 39, 1988, 117–23. Mirković, Dušanić 1976: M. Mirković, S. Dušanić, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. I. Singidunum et le Nord-Ouest de la province, Belgrade 1976. Mirković 1977: M. Mirković, Zum Problem der Militärgeschichte Obermöesiens im 1. Jahrhundert, in Živa antika 27, 1977, 171–178. Mirković 1986: M. Mirković, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. II. Viminacium et Margum, Belgrade 1986. Mirković 1994: M. Mirković, Beneficiarii consulari in Sirmium, in Chiron 24, 1994, 345–404. Mirković 1996: M. Mirković, The Iron Gates (Djerdap) and the Roman Policy on the Moesian Limes A. D. 33–117, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Belgrade 1996, 27–40. Mirković 2002: M. Mirković, Deserted Forts – The Moesian Limes after the Conquest of Dacia, in Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), BAR, International Series 1084 (II), 2002, 757–763. Mirković 2003: M. Mirković, Römer an der mittleren Donau. Römische Straßen und Festungen von Singidunum bis Aquae, Belgrade 2003. Mirković 2007: M. Mirković, Moesia Superior: Eine Provinz an der Mittleren Donau (Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie. Sonderbände der antiken Welt), Mainz, 2007. Mitova-Džonova 1986: D. Mitova-Džonova, Stationen und Stützpunkte der römischen Kriegsund Händelsflotte am Unterdonaulimes, in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III: 13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983 Vorträge (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 20), Stuttgart 1986, 504–509. Mócsy 1955: A. Mócsy, A százhalombattai-dunafüredi római tábor és település, in Archaeologiai Ërtesitő 82, 1955, 59–69. Mócsy 1962: A. Mócsy, Pannonia, in RE suppl. IX, 1962, 515–776. Mócsy 1965: A. Mócsy, Savaria utcarendszerének rekonstrukciójához, in Archaeologiai Ërtesitő 92, 1965, 27–36. Mócsy 1970: A. Mócsy, Straßennetz, in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in der römischen Provinz Moesia Superior, Amsterdam 1970. Mócsy 1974: A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London – Boston 1974.

Bibliography and References

173

Moga, Ciugudean 1995: V. Moga, H. Ciugudean (eds), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Alba, Alba Iulia 1995. Molnár, Komoróczi, Székely 2006: G. Molnár, Z. Komoróczi, B. Székely, Reconstructing Roman road network in Pannonia using anaglyph technology of rectified archive aerial photographs, online at: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/09788/EGU06-J-09788.pdf. Moţu 1990–1991: I. Moţu, Aşezarea rurală romană de la Aiton (jud. Cluj), in ActaMP 14–15, 1990– 1991, 175–219. Mrozewicz 1993: L. Mrozewicz, Prosopographia moesiaca I: Valerius O[…]tianus, in ZPE 95, 1993, 221–225. Nagy 2003: M. Nagy, The towns of Pannonia. The early development of Pannonian towns, in Z. Visy, M. Nagy (eds), Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium, Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, Teleki László Foundation, Budapest 2003, 221–223. Nemeth 2005: E. Nemeth, Armata în sud-vestul Daciei romane / Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dakien, Timişoara 2005. Nemeth 2007: E. Nemeth, Politische und militärische Beziehungen zwischen Pannonien und Dakien in der Römerzeit (Relaţii politice şi militare între Pannonia şi Dacia în epoca romană), Cluj-Napoca 2007. Nemeth, Fodorean, Matei, Blaga 2011: E. Nemeth, F. Fodorean, D. Matei, D. Blaga, Der südwestliche limes des römischen Dakien. Strukturen und Landschaft (Speculum Antiquitatis 1), Cluj-Napoca 2011. Nemeti 2009: S. Nemeti, Scythicum frigus. Repères  pour une histoire du climat au Bas-Danube (Ier siècle apr. J.-C.), in Société et climats dans l’Empire romain. Pour une perspective historique et systémique de la gestion des resources en eau dans l’Empire romain, Napoli 2009, 411–427. Nemeti, Dana 2001: S. Nemeti, D. Dana, La Dacie dans les Res Gestae Divi Saporis, in Acta Musei Napocensis 38, 1, 2001, 239–257. Neumann 1980: A. Neumann, Vindobona. Die römische Vergangenheit Wiens. Geschichte. Erforschung. Funde, Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., Viena-Köln-Graz 1980. Nicolet 1991: C. Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1991. O’Connor 1993: C. O’Connor, Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, 1993. Panaite 2004: A. Panaite, The system of Roman roads in Moesia Inferior, in Ephemeris Dacoromana. Annuario dell’Accademia din Romania, serie nouva, XII, fascicolo 2, 2004, 41–92. Panaite 2006: A. Panaite, Drumuri romane din teritoriul oraşului Tropaeum Traiani, in SCIVA 57, 1–4, 2006, 57–70. Paulovics 1938: I. Paulovics, Il limes romano in Ungheria, in Quaderni dell’Impero. Il limes romano IV, Rome 1938. Pavkovicz 1994: M. F. Pavkovicz, Singulares legati legionis: guards of a legionary legate or a provincial governor?, in ZPE 103, 1994, 223–228. Pavlović 1980: S. E. Pavlović, Sirmium XII – Recherches archéologiques en Syrmie. Les nécropoles romaines et médiévales de mačvanska Mitrovica, Belgrade 1980. Pazarli 2009: M. Pazarli, Mediterranean islands in Tabula Peutingeriana, in e-Perimetron, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009, 101–116 (www.e-perimetron.org). Pazarli, Livieratos, Boutoura 2007: M. Pazarli, E. Livieratos, C. Boutoura, Road network of Crete in Tabula Peutingeriana, in e-Perimetron, vol. 2, no. 4, 2007, 245–260 (www.e-perimetron. org). Petolescu 2000: C. C. Petolescu, Inscriptions de la Dacie romaine. Inscriptions externes concernant l’histoire de la Dacie (Ier-IIIème siècles). II. Zones du CIL III et du CIL VIII, Bucharest 2000. Petolescu 2000a: C. C. Petolescu, Dacia şi Imperiul Roman. De la Burebista până la sfârşitul antichităţii, Bucharest 2000.

174

Bibliography and References

Petolescu 2007: C. C. Petolescu, C. Statilius Crito, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Bucharest 2007, 143–146. Petolescu 2007a: C. C. Petolescu, Imaginea Daciei în spaţiul geografic antic, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Bucharest 2007, 268–276. Petolescu 2007b: C. C. Petolescu, Dacia în Tabula Peutingeriana, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Bucharest 2007, 276–279. Petolescu, Popescu 2006: C. C. Petolescu, F. M. Popescu, The Presence of the Roman Army from Moesia Inferior to the North of the Danube and the Making of the Dacia Inferior province, in I. Piso (ed.), Die Römischen Provinzen. Begriff und Gruendung (Colloquium Cluj-Napoca 28. September – 1. Oktober 2006), Cluj-Napoca, 357–367. Petrović 1979: P. Petrović, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. IV. Naissus. Remesiana. Horreum Margi (Centre d’études épigraphiques et numismatiques de la Faculté de philosophie de l’Université de Beograde), Belgrade 1979. Petrovič 1986: P. Petrovič, La voie romaine des Ports de Fer, in Starinar 37, 1986, 41–47. Petrović 1995: P. Petrović, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. III/2. Timacum Minus et la valée du Timok (Centre d’études épigraphiques et numismatiques de la Faculté de philosophie de l’Université de Beograde), Belgrade 1995. Petrović 1996: P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 2, Belgrade 1996. Petrović 2007: V. P. Petrović, Pre-Roman and Roman Dardania. Historical and Geographical Considerations, in Balcanica 37, 2007, 7–24. Petrović 2007a: V. Petrović, Dardanie dans les itinéraires romaines: les villes et les agglomérations, Belgrade 2007. Petrović 2008: V. Petrović, The Roman road Naissus-Lissus: the shortest connection between Rome and the Danubian Limes, in Archaeologia Bulgarica 12, 1, 2008, 31–40. Petrović, Vasić 1996: P. Petrović, M. Vasić, The Roman frontier in Upper Moesia: archaeological investigations in the Iron Gate area – main results, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 2, Belgrade 1996, 15–26. Petrović, Filipović 2007: V. P. Petrović, V. Filipović, Newly-discovered Traces of the Roman Naissus– Ratiaria Road and the Problem of Locating Two Timacum Stations, in Balcanica 38, 2007, 29–43. Petrović, Filipović 2008: V. P. Petrović, V. Filipović, Locating the Timacum Maius Station on the Roman Road Lissus–Naissus–Ratiaria: New Archaeological Research, in Balcanica 39, 2008, 47–58. Petrović, Filipović 2010: V. P. Petrović, V. Filipović, The Roman Station Timacum Maius (?). Evidence of Urbanization and Communications, in Balcanica 40, 2010, 25–30. Pinder, Parthey 1860: M. Pinder, G. Parthey (eds), Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia et guidonis geographica, Berolini 1860. Pippidi, Russu 1977: D. M. Pippidi, I I. Russu, Inscripţiile Daciei romane (IDR), III/1 (Dacia Superior. Zona de sud-vest. Teritoriul dintre Dunăre, Tisa şi Mureş), Bucharest 1977. Piso 1972: I. Piso, Publius Furius Saturninus, in ActaMN 9, 1972, 463–471. Piso 1993: I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae I. Die senatorischen Amtsträger, Bonn 1993. Piso 2005: I. Piso, Les légions dans la province de Dacie, in An der Nordgrenze des Römischen Reiches. Ausgewählte Studien (1972–2003), Stuttgart 2005, 401–428. Póczy 1980: K. Póczy, Pannonian cities, in A. Lengyel, G. T. B. Radan (eds), The archaeology of Roman Pannonia, Budapest 1980, 239–274. Popa-Lisseanu 2006: G. Popa-Lisseanu, Dacia în autorii clasici, Bucharest 2006. Popescu 1976: E. Popescu, Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine din secolele IV–XIII descoperite în România, Bucharest 1976. Popescu-Spineni 1978: M. Popescu-Spineni, România în izvoarele geografice şi cartografice, Bucharest 1978. Popescu, Ţentea 2006: F. M. Popescu, O. Ţentea, Participarea trupelor auxiliare din Moesia Superior şi Moesia Inferior la cucerirea Daciei, in E. S. Teodor, O. Ţentea (eds), Dacia Augusti Pro-

Bibliography and References

175

vincia. Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat în 13–14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucharest 2006, 75–120. Popović 1984: P. Popović, Brza Palanka-Egeta. Izvestajo arheološkim istraživanjima u 1980. godini (antika) / Rapport sur les recherches archéologiques en 1980 (antiquité), in V. Kondić (ed.), Djerdapske Sveske / Cahiers des Portes de Fer 2, 153–66, Belgrade 1984. Popović, Bošković 1971: V. Popović, D. Bošković, Archaeological investigations in Syrmian Pannonia, vol. I, Belgrade 1971. Popović, Ochsenschlager 1971: V. Popović, L. Ochsenschlager, Archaeological investigations in Syrmian Pannonia, vol. II, Belgrade 1971. Popović, Ochsenschlager 1973: V. Popović, L. Ochsenschlager, Archaeological investigations in Syrmian Pannonia, vol. III, Belgrade 1973. Prontera 2003: F. Prontera (ed.), Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo, Florence 2003. Protase 2001: D. Protase (ed.), Istoria Românilor, vol. II, Bucharest 2001. Protase 2008: D. Protase, Castrul roman de la Orheiul Bistriţei. Das Römische Kastell von Orheiu Bistriţei, Cluj-Napoca 2008. Rădulescu, Bărbulescu 1981: A. Rădulescu, M. Bărbulescu, De nouveau sur les légats de Trajan en Mésie Inférieure entre 103 et 108 de n.è., in Dacia N. S. 25, 1981, 353–358. Ramsay 1925: A. W. Ramsay, The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, in Journal of Roman Studies 15, 1925, 60–74. Rankov 1990: N. B. Rankov, Singulares legati legionis: a problem in the interpretation of the Ti. Claudius Maximus inscription from Philippi, in ZPE 80, 1990, 165–175. Rathmann 2003: M. Rathmann, Untersuchungen zu den Reichsstraβen in den westlichen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2003. Rathmann 2013: M. Rathmann, The Tabula Peutingeriana in the mirror of ancient cartography. Aspects of a reappraisal, in K. Geus, M. Rathmann (eds), Vermessung der Oikumene. Topoi. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World (edited by Excellence Cluster Topoi) , vol. 14, Berlin – Boston 2013, 203–222. Răuţ, Bozu, Petrovszky 1977: O. Răuţ, O. Bozu, R. Petrovszky, Drumurile romane în Banat, in Banatica 4, 1977, 135–159. Rebuffat 1986: R. Rebuffat, Le bouclier de Doura, in Syria 63, 1–2, Paris, 1986, 85–105. Roska 1915: M. Roska, Rόmaikori villa Ajton (Kolozs vm.) határában, in Dolgozatok 6, 1915, 48–50. Rossi 1968: L. Rossi, The Representation on Trajan’s Column of Trajan’s Rock-cut Road in Upper Moesia, in The Antiquaries Journal 68, 1968, 41–46. Russu 1972: I. I. Russu, Getica lui Statilius Crito, in Studii Clasice 14, 1972, 111–127. Salway 2001: B. Salway, Travel, itineraria and tabellaria, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (eds), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, London – New York, Routledge, 2001, 22–66. Salway 2005: B. Salway, The Nature and Genesis of the Peutinger Map, in Imago Mundi 57, 2005, 119–135. Salway 2007: B. Salway, The perception and description of space in Roman itineraries, in M. Rathmann (ed.), Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, Mainz 2007, 181–266. Šašel 1963: J. Šašel, Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt, Situla 5, Ljubljana 1963. Šašel 1973: J. Šašel, Trajan’s Canal at the Iron Gate, in The Journal of Roman Studies 6, 1973, 80–85. Schmidt 2011: M. G. Schmidt, A Gadibus Romam. Myth and reality of an ancient route, in Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54, 2, 2011, 71–86. Seeck 1962: O. Seeck (ed.), Notitia Dignitatum accedunt notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et latercula provinciarum, Frankfurt am Main 1962. Sherk 1974: R. K. Sherk, Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps, in ANRW II, 1, 1974, 534–562.

176

Bibliography and References

Soproni 1978: S. Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendre, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest 1978. Speidel 1983: M. P. Speidel, Exploratores. Mobile elit units of Roman Germany, in Epigraphische Studien 13, 1983, 63–78. Speidel 1984: M. P. Speidel, The captor of Decebalus, in M. P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies I. Mavors I, Amsterdam 1984, 173–187. Speidel 1987: M. P. Speidel, A building inscription from the fort of numerus Germanicianorum at Orăştioara de Sus in Upper Dacia, in Apulum 24, 1987, 143–144. Stângă 2005: I. Stângă, Villa rustica de la Gârla Mare, județul Mehedinți, Craiova 2005. Stefan 2005: A. S. Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: architecture militaire, topographie, images et histoire, Rome 2005. Stoia 1976: A. Stoia, Les fouilles archaeologiques en Roumanie (1975), in Dacia N. S., 20, 1976, 273–286. Stoye 1994: J. Stoye, Marsigli’s Europe, 1680–1730: the life and times of Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, soldier and virtuoso, Yale University Press, 1994. Strobel 1984: K. Strobel, Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans: Studien zur Geschichte des mittleren und unteren Donauraumes in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Antiquitas, ser. 1, fasc. 33), Bonn 1984. Strobel 1989: K. Strobel, Die Donaukriege Domitians, Bonn 1989. Strobel 2000: K. Strobel, Zur Geschichte der Legiones V (Macedonica) und VII (Claudia pia fidelis) in der frühen Kaiserzeit und zur Stellung der Provinz Galatia in der augusteischen Heeresgeschichte, in Yann Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (Actes du congrès international de Lyon, 17–19 septembre 1998), Lyon 2000, 515–528. Strobel 2007: K. Strobel, Strategy and Army Structure between Septimius Severus and Constantine the Great, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A companion to the Roman army, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 267–285. Suceveanu, Barnea 1993: Al. Suceveanu, I. Barnea, Contributions à l’histoire des villes romaines de la Dobroudja, in Dacia N. S. 37, 1993, 159–179. Szirmai 1986: K. Szirmai, Das Straßennetz des Legionslagers von Aquincum im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert, in C. Unz (ed.), Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms 3, Stuttgart 1986, 426–428. Şahin 1994: S. Şahin, Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus Provinciae Lyciae in Patara, in Lykia 1, 1994, 130–135. Talbert 2000: R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton University Press, 2000. Talbert 2004: R. J. A. Talbert, Cartography and Taste in Peutinger’s Roman Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, K. Brodersen (eds), Space in the Roman World: Its Perception and Presentation, Münster 2004, 113–141. Talbert 2005: R. J. A. Talbert, Rome’s Marble Plan and Peutinger’s Map: Continuity in Cartographic Design, in F. Beutler, W. Hameter (eds), Festschrift Ekkehard Weber (Althistorisch-Epigraphische Studien 5), Wien 2005, 627–634. Talbert 2007: R. J. A. Talbert, Konrad Miller, Roman Cartography, and the Lost Western End of the Peutinger Map, in U. Fellmeth et al. (eds), Historische Geographie der Alten Welt: Grundlagen, Erträge, Perspektiven: Festgabe für Eckart Olshausen aus Anlass seiner Emeritierung, Hildesheim 2007, 353–366. Talbert 2007a: R. J. A. Talbert, Peutinger’s Roman Map: The Physical Landscape Framework, in M. Rathmann (ed.), Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, Mainz 2007, 221–230. Talbert 2008: R. J. A. Talbert, A Forgotten Masterpiece of Cartography for Roman Historians: Pierre Lapie’s Orbis Romanus ad Illustranda Itineraria (1845), in H. M. Schellenberg et al. (eds), A Roman Miscellany: Essays in Honour of Anthony R. Birley on His Seventieth Birthday, Gdansk 2008, 149–156. Talbert 2008a: R. J. A. Talbert, Greek and Roman Mapping: Twenty-First Century Perspectives, in

Bibliography and References

177

R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden 2008, 9–27. Talbert 2010: R. J. A. Talbert, Rome’s World: the Peutinger Map Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, 2010. Talbert, Elliot 2008: R. J. A. Talbert, T. Elliot, New Windows on the Peutinger Map of the Roman World, in A. K. Knowles (ed.), Placing history: how maps, spatial data, and GIS are changing historical scholarship, Redlands, CA, 2008, 199–218. Thomas 1964: E. Thomas, Römische Villen in Pannonien: Beiträge zur römischen Siedlungsgeschichte, Budapest 1964. Timár et alii 2007: G. Timár, G. Molnár, Z. Imecs, C. Păunescu, Datum and projection parameters for the Transylvanian sheets of the 2nd and 3rd military surveys, in Geographia Technica 2/1, 2007, Cluj-Napoca 2007, 83–88. Timár et alii 2008: G. Timár, B. Kovács, Zs. Bartos-Elekes, C. Păunescu, The Dealul Sibiului base point of the Transylvanian surveys, in Geographia Technica 3/1, Cluj-Napoca 2008, 127– 139. Timoc 2001: C. Timoc, Despre dirijarea navigaţiei fluviale în zona Porţilor de Fier ale Dunării în epoca romană, în D. Benea (ed.), In memoriam Dumitru Tudor, Timişoara 2001, 97–116. Tocilescu 1896: Gr. Tocilescu, Neue Inschriften aus Rümanien, in Archaeologish – Epigrapshiche Milleilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn, Wien, 19, 1896. Todorov 1937: Y. Todorov, Le grandi strade romane in Bulgaria, Istituto di Studi Romani, Rome 1937. Torbatov 2000: S. Torbatov, The Roman road Durostorum – Marcianopolis, in Archaeologia Bulgarica, 4, 1, 2000, 59–72. Tóth 1971: E. Tóth, A savariai insularendszer rekonstrukciója, in Archaeologiai Értesítő 98, 1971, 143–169. Tóth 1975: E. Tóth, Pannonia római útvonalainak a kutatása, in Somogyi Közlemények 2, 1975, 275–278. Tóth 1977: E. Tóth, A Savaria-Bassiana útszakasz, in Archaeologiai Értesítő 104, 1977, 65–77. Tóth 1980: : E. Tóth, Silvanus Viator, in Alba Regia 18, 1980, 91–103. Tóth 1986: E. Tóth, Zur Urbanisierung Pannoniens. Municipium Volgum, in Folia Archeologica 37, 1968, 163–181. Tóth 2003: E. Tóth, Zur Frage der Stadt ‘Mogetiana’, in Á. Szabó, E. Tóth (eds), Pannonica provincialia et archaeologia: [studia sollemnia auctorum Hungarorum Eugenio Fitz octogenario dedicata], Budapest 2003, 307–330. Tóth 2004: E. Tóth, Római utak Pannoniában, in Ókor 3/1, 2004, 43–48. Tóth 2005: E. Tóth, Római utak a Dunántúlon, in Műemlékvédelem 49, 1, 2005, 1–8. Tóth 2006: E. Tóth, Itineraria Pannonica. Római utak a Dunántúlon, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest 2006. Tudor 1938: D. Tudor, Un ‘miliarium’ de la Constantin cel Mare, descoperit în Dacia, in Arhivele Olteniei, XVII, 1938, no. 95–96, 1–7. Tudor 1958: D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, IInd edition, Bucharest 1958. Tudor 1968: D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, IIIrd edition, Bucharest 1968. Tudor 1971: D. Tudor, Podurile romane de la Dunărea de Jos, Bucharest 1971. Tudor 1974: : D. Tudor, Sucidava, Craiova 1974. Velkov 1977: V. Velkov, Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late Antiquity (studies and materials), Amsterdam 1977. Visy 1971: Zs. Visy, Angaben zur Geschichte der ungarischen Tiefebene im augusteischen Zeitalter, in Neuere Ergebnisse der Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung der Mitteldonauländischen Tiefebene. Archäologische Konferenz, Szeged, 1969, Szeged 1971. Visy 1978: Zs. Visy, Intercisa – ein römisches Grenzkastell am pannonischen Limes, in Das Altertum.

178

Bibliography and References

Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Bd. 24, Berlin 1978, 106–111. Visy, Lörincz 1980: Zs. Visy, B. Lörincz, Die Baugeschichte des Auxiliarkastells von Intercisa, in Roman Frontier Studies 1979. Papers presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Oxford 1980, 681–701. Visy 1981: Zs. Visy, Pannonische Limesstrecken in Ungarn auf Luftaufnahmen, in Antike Welt 126, 1981, 39–52. Visy 1984: Zs. Visy, Thermae maiores Biriciana. Weißenburg in Bayern. Ausgrabung – Konservierung – Restaurierung, Budapest 1984. Visy, Lörincz, Szabó 1986: Zs. Visy, B. Lörincz, K. Szabó, Neue Forschungen im Auxiliarkastell von Intercisa, in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 13. Internationalen Limeskongresses, Aalen 1983, Stuttgart 1986, 362–368. Visy 1987: Zs. Visy, Der pannonische Limes in Ungarn, Stuttgart 1987. Visy 1997: Zs. Visy, Die Wagendarstellungen der Pannonischen Grabsteine, Pécs 1997. Visy 1997a: Zs. Visy, Stand und Entwicklung der archäologischen Luftprospektion in der DDR, der Tschechoslowakei und Ungarn in den Jahren 1945 bis 1990, in Történelmünk madártávlatból. A légirégészet Közép-Európában, Dresden 1997, 23–28. Visy 2003: Zs. Visy, The Roman army in Pannonia. An archaeological guide of the Ripa Pannonica, Teleki László Foundation, 2003. Visy 2003a: Zs. Visy, The ripa Pannonica in Hungary, Budapest 2003. Visy, Nagy 2003: Z. Visy, M. Nagy (eds), Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium, Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, Teleki László Foundation, Budapest 2003, especially chapter 8, The Roman period, 203–261. Visy 2004: Zs. Visy, Zur Frage der antiken Kenntnisse über die Donau und die Hercynia silva, in Ad fontes! – Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Wien 2004. Visy 2005: Zs. Visy, Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, Universität Pécs, Pécs 2005. Vlădescu 1986: Cristian M. Vlădescu, Fortificaţiile romane din Dacia Inferior, Craiova 1986. Von Hagen 1978: V. W. Von Hagen, Le grande strade di Roma nel mondo, Rome 1978. Vučković, Mihajlović, Karović 2007: D. Vučković, D. Mihajlović, G. Karović, Trajan’s Bridge on the Danube. The current results of underwater archaeological research, in Istros 14, 2007, 119–130. Vulpe 1960: R. Vulpe, Muntenia şi Moldova de jos în timpul lui Traian, în lumina unei noi lecturi a papirusului Hunt, in Studii Clasice II, 1960, 337–357. Vulpe 1988: R. Vulpe, Columna lui Traian. Monument al etnogenezei românilor, Bucharest 1988. Weber 1976: E. Weber, Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324 (with separate Kommentar volume), Graz 1976. Weber 1989: E. Weber, Zur Datierung der Tabula Peutingeriana, in H. Herzig, R. Frei-Stobla (eds.), Labor omnibus unus. Festschrift für Gerold Walser, Stuttgart 1989, 113–117. Weber 1999: E. Weber, The Tabula Peutingeriana and the Madaba Map, in http//www.christusrex.org/ www1/ofm/mad/articles/WeberPeutingeriana.html (the article was first published in: The Madaba Map Centenary 1897–1997, Jerusalem 1999, 41–46). Whately 2005: C. Whately, The Movement and Emplacement of the Legions and Auxiliary units of the Roman Army in Moesia from 29 BC to AD 235. Open Access Dissertations and Theses. Paper 5600. http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/5600 Whittaker 1994: Ch. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study, Baltimore – London 1994. Whittaker 2004: Ch. Whittaker, Rome and its frontiers: the dynamics of Empire, Routledge, London-New York 2004. Wilkes 1996: J. J. Wilkes, Map 21 Dacia-Moesia, at http://mail.nysoclib.org/Barrington_Atlas/ BATL021_.pdf (part of the Map-by-map directory to accompany Barrington Atlas of the Greek

List of Figures

179

and Roman World, edited by Richard J. A. Talbert, also available at http://press.princeton. edu/B_ATLAS/B_ATLAS.PDF). Wilkes 2000: J. J. Wilkes, Roman legions and their fortresses in the Danube lands (first to third centuries AD) (chapter 9), in Richard J. Brewer (ed.), Roman fortresses and their legions, Cromwell Press, London 2000, 101–120. Wilkes 2005: J. J. Wilkes, The Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey, in Journal of Roman Studies 95, 2005, 124–225. Winkler 1982: I. Winkler, Drumul roman Napoca-Potaissa. II, in Acta Musei Napocensis 19, 1982, 587–589. Winkler 1982a: I. Winkler, Date noi despre CIL III, 1627, cea dintâi atestare epigrafică a Potaissei, in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări 3, 1982, 80–84. Winkler, Blăjan, Cerghi 1980: I. Winkler, M. Blăjan, T. Cerghi, Drumul roman Napoca-Potaissa. I, in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări 2, 1980, 63–73.

Zavadzki 1964: T. Zavadzki, Emporium Piretensium. Contribution à la géographie historique des provinces de Thrace et de Mésie Inférieure, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 88, 1964, 531–538. Zsidi 1995: P. Zsidi, Aquincum – the capital of Pannonia Inferior: topography of the Civil Town, in Gy. Hajnóczy (ed.), Atti del Convegno internazionale ‘La Pannonia et l’Imperio romano’, Roma 13–16 Gennaio 1994, Milano 1995, 213–220.

List of Figures Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19

Dacia in the Peutinger map. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. Moesia in the Peutinger map. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances in percents. Dacia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances. Dacia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents. Moesia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances. Moesia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances in percents. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Peutinger map. Pannonia and Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Final statistic. The values of the distances, in percents, for all the three provinces. The sources of the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. A proposal.

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19

Pannonia. The limes road Taurunum – Cetium. Comparative values in the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Dacia. The settlements and distances along the road Lederata – Tibiscum in the Peutinger map. Dacia. The settlements and distances along the road Dierna – Porolissum in the Peutinger map. Dacia. The settlements and distances along the road Drobeta – Apulum in the Peutinger map. Moesia. The Roman road between Singidunum and Viminacium. Comparative values in the Peutinger map, in the Antonine itinerary and in the Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum. Moesia. The roman road between Viminacium and Durostorum. Comparative values in the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. The Roman road between Tomis and Ancialis. Comparative values in the Peutinger map and in the Antonine itinerary. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. Pannonia. The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Comparison between values from 8 to 16 miles. Pannonia. The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Comparison between the values higher than 17 miles. Dacia in the Peutinger map. Moesia in the Peutinger map. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Peutinger map. Pannonia and Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. Final comparisons between the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Comparison between the values from the Antonine itinerary in Britannia, Italia, Gallia, Spania, Asia, Pannonia and Moesia. Comparison between the values from the Antonine itinerary in Britannia, Italia, Gallia, Spania, Asia, Pannonia and Moesia. Values expressed in percentages.

Figures

Fig. 1. Dacia in the Peutinger map.

182

Figures

Fig. 2. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary.

Figures

Fig. 3. Pannonia in the Peutinger map.

183

Fig. 4. Moesia in the Peutinger map.

184 Figures

Fig. 5. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary.

Figures

185

186

Figures

Fig. 6. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances.

Fig. 7. Pannonia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents.

Figures

187

Fig. 8. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances.

Fig. 9. Pannonia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances in percents.

188

Figures

Fig. 10. Dacia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances.

Fig. 11. Dacia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents.

Figures

Fig. 12. Moesia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances.

Fig. 13. Moesia in the Peutinger map. The frequency of the distances in percents.

189

190

Figures

Fig. 14. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances.

Fig. 15. Moesia in the Antonine itinerary. The frequency of the distances in percents.

Figures

Fig. 16. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Peutinger map.

Fig. 17. Pannonia and Moesia in the Antonine itinerary.

191

192

Figures

Fig. 18. Final statistic. The values of the distances, in percents, for all the three provinces.

General index A Aegyptus 44 Africa 31, 42, 44, 150 ager Singidonensis 105 ala Gallorum Atectorigiana 39 Hispanorum 39 I Asturum 39 I Augusta Ituraeorum 56 I Batavorum milliaria 89 I Bosporanorum 69 I Britannica civium Romanorum 56 I civium Romanorum 56 I Claudia Gallorum Capitoniana 39 I Claudia Nova 39 I Pannoniorum 39 I Thracum veterana sagittaria 56 I Tungrorum Frontoniana 56 I Ulpia contariorum milliaria 58 I Vespasiana Dardanorum 39 II Asturum 56 II P(annoniorum) 112 II Pannoniorum 31, 39, 112, 164 III Thracum sagittaria 69 Allamania 43 Alpes Bastarnice 94 Amantines 102 Amaxobii Sarmate 94 Amber Road 20 f., 169 amphiteatrum castrense 91 Apollo 42 Apuseni Mountains 49, 88 aqueduct 45, 89, 91, 168 Asia 158–161, 180 Asia Minor 49 augustales 88 auxilia ascarii 55 Auxilium Mariensium 118 B Balkan Peninsula 37 f., 50 Banat 25, 27, 29 f., 34 f., 39, 49, 51, 85, 95, 110, 175 Barrington Atlas 64, 69, 74, 112, 120, 156, 176, 178 Bastarni 17, 59, 94 f. Bistra (river) 34

Bithynia 44 Black Sea 11, 13, 37, 49, 119, 121, 139, 166 bridge(s) 9, 25, 28, 30, 34 f., 45, 89, 94, 101, 103, 168, 170, 173, 178 Britain 24, 26 f., 39, 42, 157 f., 160 f., 166, 171 Britannia 23, 31, 158–162, 180 Bulgaria 13, 15, 37, 39, 52, 114 f., 117, 119, 122, 156, 170 f., 177 C canaliclarius 50 Cappadocia 44 Carps 49 castellum 55, 58, 69, 104, 115 f., 131 Chatti 24 civitas(tes) 103, 112, 116 civitas Sirmiensis et Amantinorum 102 classis Flavia Pannonica 55, 104, 167 cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum 91, 131 I Augusta Nerviana Pacensis milliaria Brittonum 39 I Bracaraugustanorum equitata 39 I Britannica milliaria c. R. 39 I Brittonum milliaria 39, 91 I Creta sagittariorum 39 I Cre(tum) 84, 112 I Cretum sagittariorum 112 I Flavia Commagenorum 39 I Flavia Hispanorum milliaria 39 I Flavia Ulpia Hispanorum milliaria civium Romanorum equitata 90 I Hemesenorum 56 I Hispanorum equitata veterana 39 I Hispanorum p. f. 39 I Hispanorum quingenaria 91 I Hispanorum veterana 13, 35 I Montanorum c. R. 39 I Pannoniorum veterana p. f. 39 I Thracum c. R. 39 I Tyriorum sagittariorum 39 I Vindelicorum milliaria c. R. p. f. 39 Ubiorum 39 II Augusta Nerviana pacensis Brittonum milliaria 39 II Aurelia Dardanorum Antoniniana 55

194

General index

II Brittonum / Britannorum milliaria c. R. p. f. 39 II Flavia Bessorum 39 II Flavia Comamgenorum sagittariorum equitata 39 II Flavia Numidarum 39 II Gallorum 39 II Gallorum Macedonica 39 II Hispanorum (scutata Cyrenaica) 39 II Hispanorum scutata Cyrenaica equitata 112 II Thracum veterana equitata 39 III Campestris (milliaria) c. R. 39 III Gallorum 39 IV Cypria c. R. 39 V Callaecorum 69 V Gallorum 39 V Lingonum 91 V Hispanorum 108, 113 VIII Raetorum c. R. 39 XX Palmyrenorum 33 collegium Aurariarum 88 fab(rum) Odiavensi(e)/(ium) 69 Galatarum 88 colonia 21, 39, 88 f., 92, 104 colonia Aurelia 51, 88, 90 Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium 32 colonia deducta 87 Colonia Iulia Augusta Diensis 73 colonia Singidunum 105 colonia Sirmium 102 Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa 87 Colonia Ulpia Traiana Poetovio 46 comes expeditionis Dacicae 28 comes Traiani 34 Corsicae 44 Cuneus equitum Constantinianorum 118 Dalmatarum 108, 112 f., 116, 118 Dalmatarum Divitensium 118 Dalmatarum Fortensium 116, 118 scutariorum 118 stablesianorum 118 cursus clavularis 153 cursus publicus 11, 43, 72 f., 125, 135, 153 f., 162, 167, 171 Cyrenaica 39, 44, 112

D Daci Petoporiani 95 Dacia 9–11, 13–15, 18, 20–27, 29–39, 41, 43, 46, 48–51, 57, 60, 72 f., 83–92, 94–97, 99 f., 109, 112 f., 136 f., 145–147, 150 f., 156, 164 f., 167–181, 188, 191 Dacia Augusti Provincia 9, 35, 174 Dacia Inferior 14, 51, 174, 178 Dacia Porolissensis 13 f., 131, 165 Dacia Superior 14, 87 f., 174 Daciae Ripensis 118 Dacians 13, 17–20, 22–24, 26–27, 29, 34, 37–39, 49, 59, 72 f., 84, 87, 90, 94 f., 101 Dagae 95 Dalmatia 18 f., 36–38, 44, 64, 73, 79, 101, 170 Danube 11, 13, 15, 17–28, 33–35, 37–39, 41, 44–46, 50 f., 58, 60, 68 f., 73, 84, 86, 93 f., 96, 101, 103–105, 107, 109–112, 115, 119 f., 138 f., 144, 151, 166 f., 169 f., 172–174, 178 f. Danubius 13, 22, 37, 44 Dobrudja 13, 37, 49 f. Drava (river) 10, 19, 21, 45, 53, 60, 63, 70, 80, 125, 128 Drinus (river) 13, 37 diplomata 153 E engineers (Roman) 68, 89, 106 equites Dalmatatae 55 promote 55, 69 singulares Augusti 32 evectio(nes) 153, 162 exercitus Pannonicus 55 exploratores 30–32, 176 F fines Pannoniae et Misiae 105 f., 110 fort(s) 21, 28, 30, 33, 36, 44, 47, 53, 56, 58, 68, 69, 73, 76, 84, 86, 87, 90–92, 98, 101, 108, 112, 116, 128, 131, 150, 169, 172, 176 fortification(s) 34, 40, 44 f., 49, 104 f., 107, 110, 112, 116, 170 fortlet(s) 46 fortress(es) 31 f., 34, 38, 44 f., 55 f., 68 f., 72, 76, 84–86, 88–91, 93, 101 f., 104–113, 115 f., 130, 166, 168, 179 Francia 43

General index G Gaete 95 Galatia 44, 176 Gallia 44, 158–160, 180 geography 15, 23, 33, 37 f., 47, 55, 150 f., 157, 162, 164, 166 f., 170–173, 175 Germania Superior 23 Germans 23, 24 Gornja Klisura 27 Goths 49 f., 95 H Habsburg Empire 45 Hercules Invictus 88 Hispania 44, 151, 158–160 Hungary 21, 45, 56 f., 63–65, 67, 69, 74–78, 80–82, 88, 131, 166, 169–171, 178 I Iazyges (Sarmatians) 20, 24 f., 38 intra provinciam 13, 35 Iron Gates 23, 34, 52, 85, 172 Iron Gates of Transylvania 34 Istros 39 Italia 44, 79, 159 f., 180 Italy 18, 20, 24 f., 48, 50, 61, 72, 74, 157–161, 164 itineraria adnotata 11, 106, 150 f. itineraria picta 11, 72 f., 150 f., 161, 171 itineraria picta et adnotata 109, 162 itinerary 51, 58, 85, 117, 120, 131, 161 Italia 44, 79, 159 f., 180 ius Italicum 88–90 iustum iter 32, 51, 96, 111, 131, 135 J Joseph II (emperor) 45 Jupiter 88 L legatus Augusti pro praetore 27, 35 legio(nes) (participating in the conquest of Dacia) I Italica 26 I and II Adiutrix 26 II Traiana fortis 26 IIII Flavia felix 26 V Macedonica 26 VII Claudia pia fidelis 26 XIII Gemina 26 XIV Gemina Martia Victrix 26 XV Apollinaris 26 XXX Ulpia victrix 26

195

legio I Adiutrix 21, 68 I Italica 39, 164 II Adiutrix 23, 40 III Augusta 33 IIII Flavia Felix 28, 30, 38, 84, 101, 106 f., 109 V Macedonica 13, 25, 33, 38 f., 50, 86, 89 VII Claudia 28, 31, 38, 55, 84, 104, 107, 109, 112 f., 116 VII Claudia pia fidelis 31 XIII Gemina 25, 30, 31, 38, 46, 50 f., 88. XV Apollinaris 20 f. lex provinciae 35 limes Alutanus 73 Lupiones Sarmate 94 M Macedonia 13, 18, 31, 37 f., 101 Madaba Map 41, 178 mansio(nes) 43, 50, 71–73, 81, 83, 89 f., 106, 128, 131, 136, 153 f., 160 map(s) 9–11, 25, 27, 41–43, 45, 48, 50, 53 f., 57, 61, 64, 67 f., 71, 74, 76 f., 83, 85–87, 93, 97 f., 100, 102–105, 109, 112 f., 115, 120 f., 150–152, 161 f., 168, 175, 177 f. map-by-map directory 108 f., 112, 178 mapmaker 49–51, 53, 86 f., 96, 131, 136 Marcomanni 20, 23 Marcomannia 26 Marcomannic wars 13, 38, 89, 168 Mauretania 44 mensor frumentarius 33 mensor(es) 9, 27–30, 32 f., 36, 167 mensores frumenti 33 milliarium 76 Mithras 50 Moesia 9, 11, 13–15, 19–21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 37–39, 41, 44, 46, 50–52, 86, 101, 107, 111–113, 116, 122, 138, 140, 142, 144–149, 156 f., 159–162, 171 f., 174 f., 178–180, 184 f., 189–191 Moesia Inferior 13 f., 25 f., 31, 35, 37–39, 51, 89, 95, 116, 120, 173 f. Moesia Superior 13 f., 24, 26, 28, 31, 34, 37–40, 51, 55, 84 f., 101, 108 f., 112, 172, 174 Moldavia 35, 94 municipium 21, 38, 69, 76 f., 88 f., 91, 103 f., 109 municipium Aelium Hadrianum Drobetense 92 Aelium Hadrianum Napocensium 90 Sallensium 76

196

General index

Septimium Potaissense 89 Septimium Apulense 88 mutatio(nes) 106 N Noricum 21, 28, 44, 48, 62 Numidia 44 numerus Burgariorum et Veredariorum 92 Germanorum (Germanicianorum) Exploratorum 32 Palmyrenorum Porolissensium sagittariorum 91 O Oltenia 35, 95, 177 Optimus Princeps 27, 165 Opus 152 orbem spectare depictum 152 P Palaestina 44 palatium 81 paraveredi 153 Parthian Empire 38, 39 Pannonia 9–11, 13–15, 17–21, 24–26, 28, 31, 34, 37–39, 41, 44, 46 f., 49 f., 53, 56, 58 f., 61–64, 66–74, 76 f., 88, 102 f., 125, 128, 130–135, 145–149, 155–157, 159–162, 165 f., 168–175, 177–180, 182 f., 186 f., 191 Pannonia Inferior 13 f., 21, 39, 69, 102, 179 Pannonia Secunda 102 Pannonia Superior 13 f., 21, 25, 32, 50, 171 pedites singulares Britanniciani 39 Piti 95 Pontus Euxinus 13, 37 praefectus classis Histricae 118 classis Ratianensis 118 legionis Quartae Flaviae Singiduno 105 legionis quintae Macedonicae 118 legionis tertiaedecimae geminae 118 praetorio 23, 28 praetorio voluptati tantum deservientia 72 praetorium 72 f., 165 pridianum 13, 35 propaganda 18, 43, 59, 85, 98, 161 f. Q Quadi 20, 23

R Raetia 44 Rhine 24, 105 road(s) passim Roman Empire 20–23, 25–27, 31, 34, 37, 43, 46, 49, 74, 94, 150, 153, 157 f., 160 f., 166 f., 171–173, 175, 178 Romania 13, 34, 37, 84, 95, 114, 119, 122, 173, 174 route(s) passim S Sântana de Mureş-Cerneahov (cultural area) 49 Sardinia 44 Sarmatia 26. Sarmatians 13, 19–21, 24–26, 95 Sava (river) 10, 17–19, 21, 37 f., 53, 59 f., 70, 72–74, 79 f., 101, 103, 105, 125 f., 128, 130 Serbia 13, 21, 29, 34, 37 f., 54 f., 62, 64, 66, 70, 84 f., 96, 101–105, 107, 109 f., 112 f., 115 f. Siciliae 44, 81 silva Marciana 42 silva Vosagus 42 Siret (river) 13, 35 Sirmians 102 speculatores 31 stabula 73 statio cataractarum 116 statio portorii 91 statio(nes) 73, 153 Suevia 43 surveyor(s) 29 f., 32 f., 36, 45, 87, 105 Syria 31, 44 T tabula 152 tabul(arius) et vil(icus) stat(ionis) Confluent(ium) 105 Tetrarchy 42 f., 56, 78, 130, 162 Thessalonica 49. Thracia 38, 44, 49 f. Trajan’s Column 10, 15, 29 f., 48, 84 f., 175 trans Danuvium in expeditionem 9, 35 Transylvania 35, 95 Tripolitania 44 Tropaeum Traiani 51, 173 V Venadisarmatae 94 Venedi 95 veredi 153 vexillationes 25, 40, 50, 84, 91, 112

Index of ancient persons Via Flaminia 28 via militaris 90 vicus 69, 81, 89, 115 vignette(s) 42 f., 49–51, 53–55, 57, 59–61, 63 f., 66, 70–72, 83, 86–88, 90 f., 96–98, 102, 104–107, 109, 111 f., 114, 119, 121, 123 f., 126–128, 136, 138–140, 145, 151, 161

197

villa rustica 89, 115, 176 vir consularis 35 W Walachia 35

Index of ancient persons (the imperial names are written in capital letters) A ANTONINVS PIVS (Titus Fulvus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius) 91 Apollodorus 9, 27, 34 AVGVSTVS (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) 13, 17–22, 37 f., 59, 72 f., 101, 153, 170 Aurel(ius) Maximilia(nus) 33 AVRELIAN (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 39, 48–50, 103, 170 Aurelius Castor 33

Demetrios of Callatis 94 DIOCLETIAN (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus) 42 f., 49, 56, 102 f., 153 DOMITIAN (Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus) 13, 23 f., 27, 29, 31, 37, 39, 58, 101–103, 131, 170

B Balbus 9, 27–30, 33, 36, 167

F Flavius Aper 50 Frontinus 28 Furius Saturninus, Publius 88, 174

C Calpurnius, Lucius 88 CARACALLA (Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus) 21, 56, 68, 89, 103, 161 f., 165 Cassius Dio 17–20, 23 f., 39 Castorius 43, 172 Celsus 29 f. CLAVDIUS GOTHICVS (Marcus Aurelius Valerius Claudius) 103 Claudius Livianus, Titus 28 Claudius Maximus, Tiberius 30 f. Cornelius Lentulus, Cn. 19 COMMODVS (Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus) 88 CONSTANTINE the Great (Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus) 94, 153, 176 CONSTANTIVS II (Flavius Julius Constantius) 153 Cornelius Fuscus 23 D Decebalus 23, 31 f., 39, 176 DECIVS (see Traianus Decius)

E ELAGABALVS (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) 56

G GALERIVS (Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus) 103 GALLIENVS (Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus) 48–50 GETA (Publius Septimius Geta) 56 H HADRIAN (Publius Aelius Hadrianus) 13, 28 f., 38 f., 51, 58, 76 f., 85, 90–92, 103, 109, 131 I Ingenuus 49, 103 J JVLIVS CAESAR, GAIVS 22 Julius Quadratus Bassus, Gaius 28 Julius Secundus 32 Julius Ursus Severianus, Lucius 28

198

Index of ancient settlements

L Licinius 103 Licinius Crassus, Marcus 101 Licinius Sura, Lucius 28 Longinus (Cnaeus Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus) 34 Lusius Quietus 28 M MARCVS AVRELIVS (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) 26, 68, 88, 90, 103, 107 Maroboduus 19 Martius Macer 27 Maximianus 56 MAXIMINVS THRAX (Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus) 56, 80, 94, 103, 155 Maximus 56 Maximus Dasantis 33 N NERO (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus) 151 O Otacilia Severa 56 P PHILIPPVS ARABS (Marcus Julius Philippus) 56 PROBVS (Marcus Aurelius Probus) 103 Procopius 153

R Regalianus 49 S Scribonius Curio, Gaius 38, 101 SEPTIMIVS SEVERVS (Lucius Septimius Severus) 43, 56, 88–93, 107, 116, 150, 153, 176 Sosius Senecio, Quintus 28 Statius Priscus, Marcus 87 T Tettius Iulianus 23, 38 THEODOSIVS I (Flavius Theodosius) 153 THEODOSIVS II (Flavius Theodosius Iunior) 43, 48 f., 152 f., 161 TRAIANVS DECIVS (Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Traianus Decius) 56, 88, 170 TRAJAN (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus) 9, 13, 21 f., 24–30, 32–36, 38 f., 46, 51, 56 f., 60, 68 f., 73, 77, 84 f., 87, 90, 92, 95 f., 102 f., 109, 131, 153, 165, 167, 171, 175 f., 178 V VALENTINIAN I (Flavius Valentinianus) 69 Valerianus (Publius Licinius Valerianus) 50 Valerius Messala Messalinus, M. 19 VESPASIAN (Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasiānus) 21, 46, 56, 58

Index of ancient settlements The names of the ancient settlements are mentioned exactly in the form in which they appear in the ancient sources (Tabula Peutingeriana – TabPeut, Itinerarium Antonini – ItAnt, the Ravenna Cosmography – Rav, Notitia Dignitatum – NotDign) A A laco Felicis in medio (ItAnt) 65, 67 f., 81, 131 Ab Aureo Monte Vinceia (ItAnt) 109, 111, 142 Aceruone (TabPeut) 59, 126 Acidava (TabPeut) 84, 92, 99 f., 136 Aciminci (ItAnt) 64, 66, 69 Acinquo (ItAnt) 10, 77 f., 81, 131 Acunum (TabPeut) 54, 56, 64, 66, 69, 126 Ad Aquas (TabPeut) 83, 87, 94, 111, 113, 115, 117, 136, 138 Ad ficum (TabPeut) 72

Ad Flexum (TabPeut) 53 f., 66, 68, 125, 165 Ad Herculem castra (ItAnt) 81, 131 Ad Labores (TabPeut) 53 f., 56, 66 f., 68, 125, 127 Ad Labores Pont Ulcae (Cibalae) (TabPeut) 60 f., 63 f. Ad Malum (TabPeut) 111, 114–117, 138 Ad Mediam (TabPeut) 83, 85–87, 136 Ad Mures et Ad Statuas in medio (ItAnt) 58, 67, 69 Ad Novas et Aureo monte (ItAnt) 66, 69 Ad Pannonios (TabPeut) 72 f., 83, 86, 97, 136

Index of ancient settlements Ad Pretorium (TabPeut) 59, 71 f., 74, 126 Ad Radices (TabPeut) 123, 139 Ad Salices (ItAnt) 119, 143 Ad Sanctum Petrum (TabPeut) 42 Ad Statuas in medio (ItAnt) 58, 65, 67, 69 Adbasante (TabPeut) 59, 71, 126 Adconfluentes (TabPeut) 105 Adfines (TabPeut) 59, 124, 126, 140 Adherculem (TabPeut) 124, 140 Admedia (TabPeut) 72 f., 97 Adnovas (TabPeut) 111, 113 f., 117, 138 Adpretorum (TabPeut) 71 Adprotoriu (TabPeut) 10, 59 f., 70 f., 126 Adpublicanos (TabPeut) 60, 127 Adputea (TabPeut) 123, 140 Adrante (TabPeut) 60, 127 Adrante mansio (ItAnt) 61 Adscrofulas (TabPeut) 111, 113, 117, 138 Adstoma (TabPeut) 119, 139 Advicesimum (TabPeut) 57 f., 126 Aecas (TabPeut) 72 Aegiso (ItAnt) 119, 143 Aequinoctio (TabPeut) 53 f., 56, 64, 66, 68, 125 Aequinoctio et Ala Nova in medio (ItAnt) 68 Agnavie (TabPeut) 83, 87, 97, 136 Aizis (TabPeut) 29, 83 f., 96, 136, 138 Alburnus Maior 26, 36, 88 Alexandria (in Egypt) 29, 61, 154 Alicario (ItAnt) 74 f. Alisca ad latus (ItAnt) 65, 67, 69 Almo (TabPeut, ItAnt, NotDign) 111, 114, 118, 138, 143 Altaripa (TabPeut) 53 f., 66 f., 125 Altino in medio (ItAnt) 65, 67, 69 Amutria (TabPeut) 84, 92, 98 f., 136 f. Anasamo (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Ancialis (TabPeut) 11, 121–123, 139, 143 f., 180 Ancyra (TabPeut) 42 Annamantia (TabPeut) 53 f., 56, 65–67, 125 Annamatia in medio (ItAnt) 65, 67 Antiana/Antianis/Antianae (TabPeut, ItAnt) 53 f., 63–67, 82, 125 Antioch (TabPeut) 42 f., 154 Appiaris (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Apula (TabPeut) 10, 49, 83 f., 88, 91 f., 94, 97–100, 136 Apus flumen (TabPeut) 83 f., 96, 136 Aqua viva (TabPeut, ItAnt) 60, 62, 80, 127 Aquileia (TabPeut) 10, 17 f., 25, 42, 46, 59, 72, 106, 130 Aquileia civitas (ItAnt) 61 Aquinco/Aquincum (TabPeut) 10, 53–55, 66–68, 76 f., 81, 125

199

Aquinquo leg. II adiut. (ItAnt) 65, 67 f. Aquis (ItAnt) 74 f., 113, 115, 117, 142 Aquis Balissis (ItAnt) 79 Aquis calidis (TabPeut) 123, 139 Arabona (ItAnt) 65, 67 Arcidava (TabPeut) 83 f., 96, 136 Ariminum (TabPeut) 28, 81 Arlape (ItAnt) 63, 65 Arpos (TabPeut) 72 Arrabo fl. (TabPeut) 53 f., 57, 66 f., 125 Arrabona/Arrabone (TabPeut, ItAnt) 21, 47, 57 f., 65, 74–76, 82, 126, 130, 165, 167, 169 Arrubio (ItAnt) 119, 143 Arubio (TabPeut) 119, 139 Arutela (TabPeut) 72 f., 84, 92, 99, 136 Aug(us)tis (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Aureo Monte (ItAnt) 81, 109–111, 142 Axiopolis (TabPeut) 119 f., 139 Axiupoli (ItAnt) 119, 143 Azao in medio/Azaum (ItAnt) 65, 67–69 B Bacaucis (Rav) 86 f. Bassianis (TabPeut) 59 f., 102–104, 106 f., 127, 138 Bassianis civitas (ItAnt) 62, 102, 104, 142 Berebis (TabPeut) 60, 62, 127 Bereo (TabPeut) 119, 139 Berone (TabPeut) 123, 139 Berzobis (TabPeut) 29 f., 35, 38, 83 f., 96, 136 Biroe (ItAnt) 119, 143 Bittio (TabPeut) 54, 56, 66, 126 Bizone (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Blandiana (TabPeut) 83, 88, 97, 136 Bolentio (TabPeut) 60, 127 Bononia/Malata (ItAnt, NotDign) 65 f., 69, 114–118, 142, 172 Botivo (TabPeut) 60, 127 Bregetione (ItAnt) 10, 58, 76, 78 Bregetione leg. I adiut. (ItAnt) 65, 67 f. Brigantio (TabPeut) 53–55, 57, 66–68, 125 Brigetio 21, 39, 44–46, 55, 57 f., 65, 67 f., 76, 78 f., 130, 155, 165, 171 Brucla (TabPeut) 83, 88 f., 94, 97 f., 136 Burgenis (TabPeut) 54, 56, 66, 126 Buridava (TabPeut) 13, 35, 92, 99 C Cabilis (TabPeut) 123, 139 Caesariana (ItAnt) 77 Caleia civitas (ItAnt) 61 Calidava (TabPeut) 119, 139 Callacis (ItAnt) 122, 144

200

Index of ancient settlements

Callatis (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Camistro (TabPeut) 111, 114, 117, 138 Campona in medio (ItAnt) 65, 67, 69 Canonia (Rav) 86 f. Cansilena (TabPeut) 60 f., 127 Capidava (ItAnt) 119 f., 143 Caput Bubali (TabPeut) 83 f., 96, 136, 138 Carnunto (TabPeut) 10, 53–55, 57, 64, 66, 74 f., 82, 125 f. Carnunto leg. XIIII Gemina Germanica (ItAnt) 68 Carsio (TabPeut) 119, 139 Carso (ItAnt) 119, 143 Castra tragana (TabPeut) 84, 92, 99, 136 Castris novis (TabPeut) 84, 92 f., 98 f., 136 f. Cazalet (TabPeut) 123, 139 Cedonie (TabPeut) 84, 92, 136 Celeia (TabPeut) 60, 127 Centum Putea (TabPeut) 83 f., 96, 136 Cersie (TabPeut) 83, 91, 136 Cetio (ItAnt) 10, 62–65, 68, 81, 130 Cibalas civitas (ItAnt) 62 Cibalis (TabPeut, ItAnt, Rav) 64, 70 f., 82 Cimbrianis (ItAnt) 82 Cio (ItAnt) 119, 143 Cirpi mansio (ItAnt) 81 Cirtisa (ItAnt) 70 Citium (TabPeut) 10, 53 f., 64, 66, 68, 125 Civalis (ItAnt) 63 f., 82 Clevora (TabPeut) 111, 113, 117, 138 Comagenis (TabPeut, ItAnt) 63–65, 68 f. Conbustica (TabPeut) 124, 140 Confluentes (TabPeut) 105 f. Confluentib(us) (TabPeut) 102, 105, 138 Constantinople 42 f. Cornaco (ItAnt) 54, 65 f., 125 Crispiana (ItAnt) 58, 82 Crucio (TabPeut) 59, 70, 126 Crumero/Crumerum (ItAnt) 10, 65, 67–69, 81, 131 Cucci (ItAnt) 65 f. Cuccio (TabPeut) 54, 66, 125 Cusi/Cusum (ItAnt) 65 f., 69 D Dautonia/Andautonia (ItAnt) 80 Dierna 10, 29, 34, 73, 83, 85–87, 95, 97, 136, 180 Dimo (TabPeut, ItAnt) 111, 114, 117, 138, 143 Diniguttia (ItAnt) 119, 143 Dionisopoli (ItAnt) 122, 144 Donatianis (TabPeut) 53 f., 66–68, 125 Dorionibus (TabPeut) 123, 140

Dorostoro leg. XI CI. (ItAnt) 119, 143 Dortico (TabPeut, ItAnt, NotDign) 111, 114 f., 117 f., 138, 142 Drinum fl. (TabPeut) 59, 71, 126 Drobeta 9, 25, 34, 83, 88, 95, 99, 118, 180 Drubetis (TabPeut, Rav) 10, 84, 91–93, 98 f., 136 f. Durostero (TabPeut) 11, 111 f., 114 f., 119–121, 123, 139 Durostorum 39, 52, 113, 119 f., 142 f., 167, 170, 177, 180 Dyosinopoli (TabPeut) 121, 139 E Egeta (TabPeut, ItAnt, Rav) 108, 111, 113, 116 f., 138, 142, 175 Egirca (TabPeut) 124, 140 Emona (TabPeut) 10, 17, 20, 46, 53, 59 f., 62, 70 f., 81, 125–128, 130 f. Erite (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Esco (TabPeut) 11, 111, 114, 117, 123, 138, 140 F Faliatis (TabPeut) 111, 113, 117, 138 Flexo (ItAnt) 58, 65, 68, 82 Floriana (ItAnt) 77 f. Fluvio Frigido (ItAnt) 61 Fortiana (ItAnt) 78 G Gabuleo (TabPeut) 11, 124, 140 Gaganis (TabPeut) 83, 86, 97, 136 Gardellaca (TabPeut) 53 f., 66–69, 125 Germizera (TabPeut) 83, 87, 97, 136 Gerulata in medio (ItAnt) 65, 68 Gerulatis (TabPeut) 53 f., 66, 68, 111, 113, 117, 125, 138 Gorsio sive Hercule (ItAnt) 78 Gramrianis (TabPeut) 124, 140 H Halicano (ItAnt) 75 Hammeo (TabPeut) 124, 140 Hemona (ItAnt) 10, 70, 79, 81 Hennoma civitas (ItAnt) 10, 61 Herculia (ItAnt) 78 Historio (ItAnt) 119, 143 Histropoli (TabPeut) 119, 139 Horrea Magi (TabPeut) 124, 140 I Iasulonibus (ItAnt) 78 idiminio (TabPeut) 59 f., 102, 104, 127, 138

Index of ancient settlements Idimo (TabPeut) 124, 140 In medio Curta (ItAnt) 74 f. Incero (ItAnt) 79 Incero sed mansio Augusti in Pretorio est (ItAnt) 10, 70–72, 74, 79 inde Euminacio (ItAnt) 109–111, 142 Intercisa (ItAnt) 44, 56 f., 65, 67, 69, 168, 177 f. Iovallio (TabPeut) 60, 127 Iovia (TabPeut, ItAnt) 60, 78 f., 127 Iovia hic Sinistra (ItAnt) 62 Iovis Pago (TabPeut) 124, 140 L Largiana (TabPeut) 83, 91, 94, 98, 136 Latro (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Lauriaco (ItAnt) 63 f., 82 Lauriaco leg. III. (ItAnt) 65 Lederata (TabPeut) 10, 29, 31, 45, 57, 60, 73, 83, 84, 86, 95 f., 108, 111–113, 117, 136, 138, 170, 179 Lentulis (ItAnt) 62 Lepavist (TabPeut) 53 f., 66–69, 125 Leucono (TabPeut, ItAnt) 70 f. Limusa (ItAnt) 63 f. Loco Felicis (ItAnt) 63, 65 Longatico mansio (ItAnt) 61 Lugduno (TabPeut) 72 Lugio 45, 58 Lugione (TabPeut, ItAnt) 53 f., 65–67, 95, 125 Luntulis (TabPeut) 60, 127 Lusiene (TabPeut) 53 f., 66 f., 125 Lusomana (TabPeut) 53 f., 66, 68 f., 125 Lussunio (ItAnt) 65, 67 M Manneianis (ItAnt) 70 f., 74 Marcianopoli/Marcianopolis (ItAnt, TabPeut) 11, 122 f., 139, 144, 169, 177 Margo et leg. m. p. VIII (ItAnt) 111 Margum fl. (TabPeut) 107, 109, 111, 138 Marinianis (TabPeut, ItAnt) 60, 62, 127 Marsonie (TabPeut) 59, 71, 126 Masclianis (TabPeut) 83, 86, 97, 136 Matilone (TabPeut) 72 Matrica (ItAnt) 65, 67, 69 Meldiis (TabPeut) 124, 140 Melta (TabPeut, Rav) 112, 116–118, 123, 140 Messembria (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Mestrianis (ItAnt) 77 Milatis (TabPeut) 54, 56, 66, 68, 125 Mogentianis (ItAnt) 77 Mogetiana (ItAnt) 63 f., 177 Monte Aureo (TabPeut) 107 f., 110 f., 138

201

Montemno (TabPeut) 123, 139 Municipio (TabPeut) 124, 140 Mursa (ItAnt) 10, 44 f., 53, 60, 62–66, 71, 79, 82, 104, 125, 127, 130 Mursa civitas (ItAnt) 62 Mursa maior (TabPeut) 10, 56, 60, 63 f., 127 Mursa minor (TabPeut) 60, 63 f., 127 Mursella (ItAnt) 58, 76 f., 130, 165 Muteno (ItAnt) 63 f., 80 N Naisso (TabPeut) 11, 124, 140 Naissus 11, 37, 52, 124, 140, 174 Napoca (TabPeut) 49, 51, 83, 89–91, 94, 97 f., 136, 179 Nicaea (TabPeut) 42 Nicomedia (TabPeut) 42, 61, 113, 119, 123 Nicopolistro (TabPeut) 123, 139 Nigrinianis (TabPeut, Rav) 111, 114, 117, 138 Novae 39, 103, 108, 117 Novioduni (TabPeut) 59, 119, 126, 139 Novioduno (ItAnt) 70 Novioduno leg. II Herculea (ItAnt) 119, 143 O Odessos (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Odisso (ItAnt) 122, 144 Optatiana (TabPeut) 83, 90 f., 94, 98, 136 Osonibus (ItAnt) 77 P Palmatis (TabPeut) 123, 139 Pannisso (TabPeut) 123, 139 Partiscum 88, 95 Patavione civitas (ItAnt) 62 Pedonianis (TabPeut) 111, 114, 117, 138 Pelendova (TabPeut) 84, 92, 99, 136 Petavione 10, 53, 57, 60, 62, 64, 74 f., 125–127 Petris (TabPeut) 83, 87, 97, 136 Phinipopolis (TabPeut) 11, 123 f., 139 f. Picentino (ItAnt) 70 f. Piretis (TabPeut) 60, 127 Piroboridava 13, 35 Poetovio 17, 20, 25, 46, 50, 58, 70 f., 74, 103, 105, 128, 130 f. Poetovione (ItAnt) 10, 74 f. Pomodiana (TabPeut) 111, 114, 117, 138 Pompeii 43, 156 Ponte Aluti (TabPeut) 84, 92, 99, 136 Ponte Augusti (TabPeut) 83, 97, 136 Ponte Mansuetiana (ItAnt) 82 Ponte Sociorum (ItAnt) 78 Ponte vetere (TabPeut) 72 f., 84, 92 f., 98 f., 136 f.

202

Index of ancient settlements

Populos (TabPeut) 60, 127 Porolisso (TabPeut) 49, 83, 86 f., 91, 94, 97 f., 136 Potaissa 13, 25, 27, 33, 38 f., 49 f., 88–90, 150, 164 f., 168 f., 179 Patavissa (TabPeut) 83, 88, 94, 97 f., 136 Potula (Rav) 86 f. Praetorio/Praetorium Latovicorum (ItAnt) 59 f., 70, 126 Praetorium (TabPeut) 71, 86, 92 f., 165 Presidio Dasmini (TabPeut) 124, 140 Presidio Pompei (TabPeut) 124, 140 Pretoriu Agrippine (TabPeut) 72 Pretorium Laverianum Nuceri(a)e Apul(a)e 71 f. Pristis (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Punicum (TabPeut, Rav) 111–113, 116 f., 138 Putea niga (TabPeut) 72 Pyrri (ItAnt) 80 Q Quadrata (TabPeut) 59, 70, 126 Quadratis in medio (ItAnt) 58, 65, 68 f. Quadrato (ItAnt) 70 R Ragandone (TabPeut) 60, 62, 127 Ragundone (ItAnt) 62 Ranilum (TabPeut) 123, 139 Ratiaris (TabPeut, Rav) 11, 111, 113 f., 116 f., 124, 138, 140 Ravenna (TabPeut) 42 Remetodia (TabPeut) 111, 114, 117, 138 Remista 60, 127 Ripa alta (ItAnt) 65, 67 Ritti in medio (ItAnt) 64, 66 Rome 20, 24, 28, 35, 42 f., 46, 98, 128, 154, 156, 164, 166–168, 171 f., 174, 176–178 Romesiana (TabPeut) 124, 140 Romula (TabPeut) 10, 59, 70, 83 f., 88, 91–93, 98 f., 126, 136–138 Rusidava (TabPeut) 84, 92, 99, 136 S Sabaria/Sabarie (TabPeut, ItAnt) 10, 58, 63 f., 74, 75–77, 80 Sagadava (TabPeut) 119 f., 139 Saldis (TabPeut) 59, 71, 126 Salinis (TabPeut) 83, 88 f., 94, 98, 136 Salle (ItAnt) 75 Salmorude (ItAnt) 119, 143 Salsovia (TabPeut, ItAnt) 119, 121, 139, 143 Sarmategte (TabPeut) 49, 83, 87, 97, 136

Sarmizegetusa 27, 32, 51, 83, 87 f., 168 Sarmizegetusa Regia 32 Sarto (TabPeut) 124, 140 Savaria (ItAnt) 46, 57 f., 63 f., 74–77, 128, 130 f., 165 f., 171 f., 177 Savo Fl. (TabPeut) 60, 127 Scarabantia (ItAnt) 47, 57, 63 f., 74 f., 80 Scarabantio (TabPeut) 57, 64, 75, 126 Scardona 73 Scatras (TabPeut) 123, 139 Scatris (ItAnt) 122, 144 Scuiris (TabPeut) 11, 124, 140 Scytica (ItAnt) 119 f., 143 Securispa (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Seronis (TabPeut) 60, 127 Sertica (TabPeut) 124, 140 Servitio (TabPeut) 74 Servttio (TabPeut) 59, 71, 126 Silicenis (ItAnt) 63 Singiduno castra (ItAnt) 10, 61 f., 102, 105, 109, 142 Singidunum 11, 17, 25, 38, 62, 101–107, 111, 130, 142, 166, 172, 180 Sirmi (ItAnt) 10, 63, 70 f., 79, 82 Sirmi civitas (ItAnt) 62, 102, 142 Sirmium (TabPeut) 10 f., 17, 19, 38, 53, 55, 58–60, 63 f., 70–72, 81 f., 101–104, 106 f., 111, 125–127, 130 f., 138, 142, 167, 172 f. Sirota (ItAnt) 62 Sirotis (TabPeut) 60, 127 Siscia (TabPeut, ItAnt, Pliny) 10, 17 f., 20, 37, 59 f., 70–72, 74, 79–81, 104, 126, 130 f. Solva mansio (ItAnt) 81 Sonista (TabPeut) 60, 127 Sopianis (ItAnt) 82 Sostra (TabPeut) 11, 123, 139, 140 Spalatum 43 Stailuco (TabPeut) 53 f., 66, 68, 125 Stenarum (TabPeut) 84, 92 f., 98 f., 136 f. Storgosia (TabPeut) 123, 140 Stratonis (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Stravianis (ItAnt) 79 Subradice (TabPeut) 123, 139 Sucidava (TabPeut, ItAnt) 94, 119 f., 139, 143, 177 Suppianis (ItAnt) 63 f., 82 T Tapae 23 Tauruno (TabPeut) 10, 53 f., 59 f., 64, 66, 81, 102, 104–106, 125–127, 130, 138 Tauruno classis (ItAnt) 55, 62, 102, 104 f. Tegris (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138

Index of ancient sources Tegvlicio (TabPeut) 111, 114, 139 Templo Iovis (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Tessalonicae (TabPeut) 42 Teutiburgio (ItAnt) 65 f. Theranda (TabPeut) 124, 140 Tibiscum 10, 29, 34, 45, 51, 57, 60, 73, 83, 84–87, 95 f., 136, 179 Tierva (TabPeut) 83, 85, 97, 136 Timaco Maiori (TabPeut) 124, 140 Timaco Minori (TabPeut) 124, 140 Timogitia (ItAnt) 122, 144 Tittoburgo (TabPeut) 54, 56, 66, 125 Tivisco (TabPeut) 49, 83 f., 86 f., 94, 96 f., 136 Tomis (TabPeut) 11, 22, 119–122, 139, 143 f., 180 Tomos (ItAnt) 119, 122, 143 f. Trasmarisca (TabPeut) 111, 138 Triciana (ItAnt) 82 Tricornio (TabPeut, NotDign) 107 f., 110 f., 138 Trimamio (TabPeut) 111, 114, 138 Trissa (TabPeut) 121 f., 139 Troesmis (TabPeut) 38 f., 89, 119 f., 139 Trosmis leg. I Iovia (ItAnt) 119, 143 Turribus (TabPeut) 124, 140 U Ulcisia castra (ItAnt) 81 Ulmo (TabPeut) 57, 63 f., 70, 75, 82, 126, 130 Ulmos (ItAnt) 10, 62 f., 70 f., 82 Ulmos vicus (ItAnt) 62 Ulmospaneta (TabPeut) 60, 63, 127 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa 30, 33 f., 95, 97, 164

203

Unam (TabPeut) 111, 113, 117, 138 Urbate (TabPeut) 59, 71, 74, 126 V Valco (ItAnt) 63 f. Vale Domitiana (ItAnt) 119, 143 Valle Cariniana (ItAnt) 78 Varianis (TabPeut, ItAnt) 70 f., 74, 79 Vereis (ItAnt) 62 Vetus Salinas in medio (ItAnt) 56, 65, 67 Vetusallo (TabPeut) 53 f., 66 f., 125 Viciano (TabPeut) 124, 140 Vico cuppae (TabPeut, Rav) 111, 113, 116, 117, 138 villagai (TabPeut) 53 f., 56, 64, 66, 68, 125 Viminacio (ItAnt, NotDign) 109–111, 142 Viminacium 11, 28, 33, 38, 85, 94 f., 101, 103 f., 107–109, 111–113, 117, 119, 124, 138, 140, 142, 172, 180 Viminatio (TabPeut) 11, 107, 109, 111–113, 115, 124, 138, 140 Vindenis (TabPeut) 124, 140 Vindobona (ItAnt) 10, 47, 53–56, 58, 63–66, 68, 74, 80, 125, 130 f., 170, 173 Vindobona leg. X Gem. (ItAnt) 65, 68 Vindomona (ItAnt) 63, 64 Vio (TabPeut) 111, 114, 117, 119, 138 Z Zyrmis (TabPeut) 124, 140

Index of ancient sources A Aemilius Probus 152 Agrippa 18, 25, 151, 161 Amiens Patera 150 Annaeus Florus 19 Anonymous (from Ravenna) 14, 64, 86 f., 105 f., 108, 111, 156 Anonymus Ravennas 15 Antonine itinerary 9–11, 14, 43 f., 46 f., 49, 51, 55–57, 61–66, 68–72, 74–79, 81, 101 f., 104–106, 108–113, 115–123, 125, 130–136, 142–145, 147–150, 153, 156–163, 169, 179 f., 182, 185, 187, 190 f. Appian 17, 59, 72 Arrian 18, 85 Artemidorus Papyrus 150 f.

B Bordeaux (itinerary) 14, 71, 106 f., 109 f., 112 C Codex Theodosianus 153 Cosmography (from Ravenna) 14 f., 86, 105 f., 108, 116–118, 162 Criton of Heraclea (Titus Statilius Crito) 29 D De bello Dacico 10, 29, 84, 96 De re military 152 Demensuratio provinciarum 161 f. Demetrios of Callatis 94 Dio Chrysostomus 29

204

Index of ancient sources

Divisio orbis terrarum 161 f. Dura Europos (shield) 108, 150 E Eumenius 152 F Flavius Josephus 85 forma Aethiopiae 151 Forma Urbis Romae 150, 166 formae 11, 150, 161 f. formulae provinciarum 161 f. G Geographia (of Ptolemy) 105 Geography (of Ptolemy) 87 Gesta Hungarorum 44 H Historia Augusta 29, 151 Hunt Papyrus 9, 35 I Itinerarium Antonini 7, 43, 47, 49, 57, 66–68, 79, 131, 156, 162, 165 f. Itinerarium Burdigalense 104–106, 108, 111, 142, 156, 180

117–122, 125–128, 130 f., 133–140, 145 f., 149 f., 156 f., 161–164, 168 f., 175–177, 179–181, 183 f., 186, 188 f., 191 Pliny the Elder 23, 26, 33, 38 Pliny the Younger 26 Pompeius Trogus 22, 94 Procopius 153 Publius Ovidius Naso 22 R Ravenna (Anonymous, the geographer of) 14 f., 64, 75, 86 f., 105 f., 108, 111 f., 116–119, 156, 162, 174 Rudge Cup 150 Rufus Festus 27 S stadiasmus provincae Lyciae 150, Strabo 17, 19, 22–24, 26 f., 59, 72, 95, 151, 154, 167 Suetonius 19, 29, 154 T Tabula Peutingeriana 7, 10, 43, 53, 66–68, 75, 83, 162, 165 f., 168 f., 171–175, 178 Tabula Traiana 9, 25, 27 Tacitus 20, 29

M milestone(s) 14, 45, 47, 51, 56, 58, 76 f., 79 f., 89, 90, 93 f., 107, 128, 136, 150, 156 f., 171

U Ulpianus 89

N Naturalis Historia 151 Notitia Dignitatum 14, 55, 58, 69, 105, 108 f., 111–113, 118 f., 131, 156, 175

V Vegetius (Flavius Vegetius Renatus) 85, 151 f., 154, 172 Vicarello goblets 150

P Peutinger map 9–11, 14 f., 41, 47–51, 53, 56–60, 62–66, 68–75, 77–79, 83–99, 101–115,

Index of modern authors

205

Index of modern authors A Alföldi, Andreas 45 Ardevan, Radu 31, 112, 164 Aricescu, Andrei 48, 164 Arnaud, Pascal 43, 61, 78, 81, 162, 164 B Barnea, Iuliana 49 Bauer, Hans 43, 165 Benea, Doina 49, 51, 108–110, 165 Bödőcs, András 15, 47, 77–79, 154 f., 166 Bosio, Luciano 41, 166 Bozu, Ovidiu 48, 175 Burghardt, Andrew 46, 166 C Conrad, Sven 51, 166 Coskun, Altay 153, 167 D Daicoviciu, Constantin 48, 167 Diaconescu, Alexandru 51, 88, 167 Donevski, P. 52, 167 Dragojević-Josifovska, B. 52, 167 F Finály, Gábor 45 Florescu, Radu 48, 168, 172 G Graf, András 46, 169 Gudea, Nicolae 32, 116, 169 f. H Halaváts, Gyula 45, 170 Hortopan, Dumitru 51, 170 Hügel, Peter 48, 170 K Kelemen, Márta 69 Kiss, Péter 14 f., 47, 77, 107, 171 Koeppel, Gerhard 85, 171 Kolb, Anne 154, 171 L Laurence, Ray 43, 157–160, 171 Lengyel, Alfonz 47, 171 Levi, Annalina and Mario 41, 171 Löhberg, Bernd 43, 110, 115, 171 Luttwak, Edward 25, 171 M Macrea, Mihail 48, 171

Madzharov, Mitko 52, 115, 171 Marsigli, Luigi Ferdinando 44, 176 Mattern, Susan 23, 172 Miller, Konrad 41 f., 112, 172 Mirković, Miroslava 52, 109, 172 Mitova-Džonova, D. 52, 172 Mócsy, András 14, 18, 20, 46, 52, 59, 102, 165, 168, 172 N Nemeth, Eduard 19, 59, 173 P Panaite, Adriana 51, 173 Paulovics, István 45, 173 Petolescu, Constantin 51, 173 f. Petrović, Petar 52, 174 Petrovszky, Richard 48, 175 Popescu-Spineni, Marin 48, 174 R Radan, George 47, 171 Ramsey, A.M. 154 Rathmann, Michael 15, 90, 175 Răuţ, Octavian 48, 175 Rómer, Flóris 45 S Salway, Benet 43, 175 Sanader, Mirjana 55 Schönwisner, István 45 Sherk, Robert 33, 175 Soproni, Sándor 46, 165, 175 Steinmann, Martin 42 Suceveanu, Alexandru 49, 176 Szalágyi (Salagius), István 45 T Talbert, Richard 15, 41 f., 56–58, 60, 71, 86, 112, 137, 176 f. Torma, Károly 45 Tóth, Endre 47, 76–78, 167, 177 Tudor, Dumitru 48, 177 V Visy, Zsolt 15, 47, 56, 131, 171, 177 f. W Weber, Ekkehard 41 f., 161, 178 Whittaker, Charles 24 f., 178 Wilkes, J. J. 52, 102, 115 f., 178, 179

206

Index of modern settlements

Index of modern settlements A Adony (Hu) 65, 78 Aiton (Ro) 89 f., 136, 165, 173 Aiud (Ro) 88, 98 Ajdovščina (Slo) 61 Alba Iulia (Ro) 30, 35, 88, 92, 97, 100 Almásfüzitö (Hu) 65, 67, 69 Ampoiţa (Ro) 27 Archer (Bg) 114 Árpás-Kisárpás (Hu) 76

B Băbiciu de Sus (Ro) 93 Baden (Au) 74 Băile Herculane (Ro) 27, 73, 86 f., 97 Bakonyszentlászló (Hu) 82 Balcik (Bg) 122 Banatska Palanka (Se) 84, 112 Banostor (Se) 65 f. Baracska (Hu) 78 Baracspuszta (Hu) 65, 67 Beled (Hu) 76 Beleg (Hu) 63 Belene (Bg) 114 Beograd/Belgrade (Se) 17, 38, 62, 94, 102, 105, 107, 109 Berzovia (Ro) 30, 34 f., 38, 84, 96 Bicske (Hu) 67, 69 Blandiana (Ro) 83, 88, 97, 136 Boiţa (Ro) 92 f., 99 Boljetin (Se) 27, 108 Bosanska Gradišk (Bosnia) 74 Bosman (Se) 113 Bratina (Cr) 70 Brnjica-Gradac (Se) 113, 116 Brza Palanka (Se) 108, 113, 116, 175 Bucova (Ro) 27 Budapest (Hu) 55, 58, 65, 67 f., 77 f., 171 Bŭlgarevo (Bg) 121, 139 Buzet (Cr) 70 C Câineni (Ro) 73, 92 f., 99 Călan (Ro) 97 Castranova (Ro) 92, 99, 137 Ceanu Mic (Ro) 89 f. Celje (Slo) 61 Cherkovitsa (Bg) 114 Cluj-Napoca (Ro) 98, 165 Cojocna (Ro) 27 Concópatak (Hu) 65, 67

Constanţa (Ro) 119, 122, 139 Copăceni-Racoviţa (Ro) 92, 99 Cornuțel (Ro) 34, 84, 96 Cricău (Ro) 89 Csakvar (Hu) 77 f. D Dalj (Cr) 65 f. Daruvar (Cr) 70, 79 Dolni Bliznyak (Bg) 122 Dolni Vadin (Bg) 114 Dombovar (Hu) 78, 82 Domneşti (Ro) 27 Donji Andrijevci (Cr) 70 Donji Miholjac (Cr) 62 Donji Milanovac (Se) 108, 113, 116 Donji Petrovci (Se) 62, 102 f., 107, 138 Drnovo (Slo) 70 Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Ro) 34 Dunabogdány (Hu) 81, 131 Dunakőmlőd (Hu) 65, 67 Dunăreni (Ro) 114, 119 f., 139 Dunaszekcső (Hu) 65, 67 Dunaújváros (Hu) 56, 65, 67 E Edinburgh (GB) 39 Eisenstadt (Au) 63, 80 Enoşeşti (Ro) 92, 99 Eszék/Osijek (Cr) 45 Esztergom (Hu) 69, 81, 131, 175 F Fârliug (Ro) 34, 84, 96 Fehervarcsurgo (Hu) 77 Fenekpuszta (Hu) 63 Fischamend (Au) 65, 68 G Galda de Jos (Ro) 89 Gârliciu (Ro) 119 f. Garvăn (Ro) 119 f. Geoagiu-Băi (Ro) 27, 87 Gheorghieni (Ro) 89 Gherla (Ro) 31, 90, 112 Gigen (Bg) 114, 123, 140 Glasgow (GB) 39 Golubac (Se) 108, 113 Gorni Tsibar (Bg) 114 Gospodjin Vir (Se) 27 Gostavăţu (Ro) 93

Index of modern settlements Gradac (Cr) 62, 79, 108 Guşteriţa (Ro) 92, 100 Győr (Hu) 21, 58, 65, 67, 76, 82, 169 H Hârlets (Bg) 114 Hârşova (Ro) 119 f., 139 Heténypuszta (Hu) 78 Hinog (Ro) 119 f. I Ighiu (Ro) 89 Igliţa/Turcoaia (Ro) 38, 89, 119 f. Ilok (Cr) 65 f. Ioneştii Govorei (Ro) 92, 99 Isaccea (Ro) 119, 121, 139 Istria (Ro) 119, 121, 139 J Jelkovečka (Cr) 80 Jelna (Ro) 27 Jupa (Ro) 29, 34, 84, 86, 96 f. K Kavarna (Bg) 121 f., 139 Kladovo (Se) 34, 108 Komárom-Szőny (Hu) 21, 55 Komin (Cr) 80 Kostolac (Se) 28, 38, 94, 101, 107, 109, 113, 138 Kölked (Hu) 65, 67 Körmend (Hu) 57, 74 f. Kraku Krčag (Se) 113 Kutina (Cr) 70, 79 L Lébény (Hu) 65, 68 Leskovo (Bg) 114 Ljubljana (Slo) 70 Ljubljana/Laibach (Slo) 61 Logatec/Oberloitsch (Slo) 61 Lom (Bg) 114 Lorch/Enns (Au) 63 Ludbreg (Cro) 62 M Mahmudia (Ro) 119, 121, 139 Mainhardt (Ger) 33 Maluk Preslavets (Bg) 114 Mangalia (Ro) 121 f., 139 Marga (Ro) 87, 97 Martensko Kale (Bg) 114 Martin (Slo) 74 f. Măcin (Ro) 119 f.

Mărtiniș 27 Mechka (Bg) 114 Mehadia (Ro) 34, 86, 97 Ménfõcsanak 58, 76 Mera (Ro) 91 Miercurea Sibiului (Ro) 92, 100 Mihajlovac (Se) 113 Miloševo (Se) 113, 115 Miroč (Se) 113 Moigrad (Ro) 91, 98 Momoteşti (Ro) 92, 99 Morichida (Hu) 76 Mórichida-Dombiföldek (Hu) 76 Mosonmagyaróvár (Hu) 65, 68, 82 Murighiol (Ro) 119 N Nagyszokoly (Hu) 78 Nagytétény (Hu) 65, 67 Nesebur (Bg) 122 Niš (Se) 37 Nyergesújfalu (Hu) 65, 67, 131 O Obzor (Bg) 121, 139 Ocna Dejului (Ro) 27 Ocna Mureş (Ro) 88 f. Ocna Sibiului (Ro) 27 Ocnele Mari (Ro) 27 Ogradena (Ro) 28 Orašac (Cro) 62 Orăştioara de Sus (Ro) 32, 176 Orheiu Bistriţei (Ro) 90, 175 Ormoz (Slo) 74 Orsoja (Bg) 114 Orșova (Ro) 29, 34, 85 f., 97 Osijek (Cr) 45, 62–67, 79, 82 Ostffyasszonyfa (Hu) 76 Ozora (Hu) 78 P Papkeszi (Hu) 82 Pápóc (Hu) 76 Pata (Ro) 27 Pécs (Hu) 63, 79, 82, 131, 170 Petrijanek (Cr) 80 Petronell (Au) 55, 57, 65, 68, 75, 82 Petrovaradin (Se) 54, 65 f. Piatra Frecăţei (Ro) 119 f. Piliscsaba (Hu) 65, 67, 131 Pilismarót (Hu) 81 Pöchlarn (Au) 63, 65 Podgajci (Cr) 62

207

208

Index of modern settlements

Poiana (Ro) 13, 35 Poiana Bivolari (Ro) 73, 92, 99 Pomorie (Bg) 121, 139 Popovac (Cr) 63, 65, 67, 82 Pristava/Trebnje (Slo) 70 Ptuj (Slo) 46, 57, 62, 74 f. R Rábaszentandrás (Hu) 76 Ram (Se) 29, 84, 96, 112 f. Războieni-Cetate (Ro) 89, 98 Reka Devjna (Bg) 122 Reşca (Ro) 92, 99, 137 Rimini (It) 28 Ritopek (Se) 107 f., 110 Românaşi (Ro) 91, 98 Romita (Ro) 91, 98 Ruse (Bg) 111, 114, 138 Rusovce (Slo) 65, 68 Ryahovo (Bg) 114 S Ságvár (Hu) 82 Sânbotin (Ro) 92 f., 99 Sânpaul (Ro) 27 Sárvár (Hu) 58, 76 f., 169 Ščitarjevo (Cr) 80 Sela (Cr) 80 Sic (Ro) 27 Silistra (Bg) 39, 112, 114, 120, 139 Sisak (Cr) 17, 70 f., 80 Skradin (Cr) 73 Slankamen (Se) 64, 66 Sopron (Hu) 57, 63, 74 f., 80 Sotin (Cr) 55 Split (Cr) 43 Spodnje Grušovje (Slo) 62 Srbac (Bosnia) 74 Sremska Mitrovica (Se) 38, 62, 70 f., 101–103, 138 St. Pölten (Au) 63–65, 68 Stanevo (Bg) 114 Stara Palanka (Se) 112 Stolniceni (Ro) 13, 35, 92, 99 Strbinci/Dakovo (Cr) 70 Sudzuluk (Bg) 122 Surducu Mare (Ro) 34, 84, 96 Surduk (Se) 64, 66 Sutor (Ro) 90, 94, 98 Suvaja (Bosnia) 74 Svishtov (Bg) 39, 114 Százhalombatta (Hu) 65, 67 Szeged (Hu) 88 Szekszárd (Hu) 65, 67, 78

Szentendre (Hu) 81, 131, 175 Szentkirályszabadja (Hu) 77 Szigetvár (Hu) 63 Szombathely (Hu) 57, 63, 74–77, 166 Szőny-Komarom (Hu) 65, 67 f., 76, 78 f. Ş Şard (Ro) 89 T Tác (Hu) 78 Tekič (Cr) 79 Teregova (Ro) 34, 86, 97 Tibru (Ro) 89, 98 Tokod (Hu) 69 Tolna (Hu) 65, 67 Topalu (Ro) 119 Tovarnik (Cr) 62 f., 70, 82 Trojane (Slo) 61 Tulcea (Ro) 119, 121 Tulln (Au) 63, 65, 68 Turda (Ro) 13, 38 f., 88, 98, 165 Tutrukan (Bg) 114 Tüskevár (Hu) 63, 77 U Url/Wallsee (Au) 63, 65 Uroi (Ro) 87, 97 Utum (Bg) 114, 117 V Vadin (Bg) 114 Vărădia (Ro) 34, 84, 96 Várdomb (Hu) 65, 67 Varna (Bg) 121 f., 139 Vásárosfalu (Hu) 76 Veliko Gradište (Se) 112 f. Veliko Orašje (Se) 109 Veržej (Slo) 57 Vetovo (Cr) 70, 74 Vetren (Bg) 114 Vidin (Bg) 114–116, 124, 140 Vienna (Au) 21, 41 f., 55 Vinkovci (Cro) 60, 62–64, 70, 82, 127 Vrâv (Bg) 114 f. Vukovar (Cr) 65 f. Vőrősmart Z Zala/Zalalövő (Hu) 76 Zalaszentgrót (Hu) 77 Zăvoi (Ro) 34, 87, 97 Zemun (Se) 55, 62, 64, 66, 102, 104

The Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary represent two of the most important documents on travelling in the Roman world. With a focus on the three provinces Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia, FlorinGheorghe Fodorean analyzes and compares the distances registered in these documents of ancient geography. By including data from other ancient sources – the Itinerarium Burdigalense, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the Cosmographia of the Anonymous from Ravenna – and by applying a new com-

bination of methods, the author provides new insights into the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary. Fodorean discusses some important ancient literary sources, uses the data provided by milestones and compares the distances between the settlements recorded in the two documents. This new methodological approach leads him to the conclusion that the compilers of these most important documents of ancient geography used different sources.

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag

ISBN 978-3-515-11262-8