Romans in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, 1st century BC–5th century AD: Case Studies in Archaeology, Epigraphy and History 9781407316116, 9781407345178

Citation preview

________ Eric C. De Sena is a professor of Roman archaeology, with research and teaching experience in Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. Since 2004, he has conducted projects related to the Roman provinces in southeastern Europe, including co-direction of the Porolissum Forum Project and a study of the imperial palace in Serdica. Calin Timoc is a senior archaeologist with the Muzeul Național al Banatului; before this he served as associate professor of Roman archaeology at West University in Timişoara. He has directed and participated in many excavations of Roman sites in Romania, most importantly Timis. Contributors: Oleg Alexandrov, Cătălin Balaci, Mariana Balaci Crînguș, Alexandru Berzovan, Cătălin Borangic, Bogdan Condurățeanu, Eric C. De Sena, Kamen D. Dimitrov, Tomasz Dziurdzik, Snežana Golubović, Olivera Ilić, Emil Jęczmienowski, Ioana Mureşan, Lucian-Mircea Mureşan, Calin Timoc, Agnieszka Tomas

BAR  S2882  2017   DE SENA AND TIMOC (Eds)   ROMANS IN THE MIDDLE AND LOWER DANUBE VALLEY

This volume contains 11 articles that spring from the conference ‘Bridging the Danube: Roman Occupation and Interaction in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, 1st–5th c. AD’ (Timişoara, 2014). The papers present current research by East European scholars at sites such as Novae, Viminacium and Drobeta. The volume is, in part, intended to stimulate awareness amongst western scholars of the importance of the provinces of Moesia, Dacia and Thracia in the history of the Roman Empire and the research potential in the region. Topics include the effect of the Romans on native settlements and defensive systems, the integration of modern technology and historical maps in archaeological surveys, the food supply of the Roman army, Roman defensive systems, funerary practices, demographic issues concerning Roman soldiers and settlers in the Danubian provinces, and imperial portraiture.

Romans in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, 1st century BC–5th century AD Case Studies in Archaeology, Epigraphy and History Edited by

Eric C. De Sena Calin Timoc

BAR International Series 2882 B A R

2017

Romans in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, 1st century BC–5th century AD Case Studies in Archaeology, Epigraphy and History

Edited by

Eric C. De Sena Calin Timoc

BAR International Series 2882 2017

Published in by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Romans in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, 1 st century BC–5th century AD © The editors and contributors severally Remains of Trajanic bridge at Kostol, Serbia (photo E.C. De Sena). The Authors’ moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407316116 paperback ISBN 9781407345178 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407316116 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

Contents Introduction Eric C. De Sena and Calin Timoc

1

Adaptations to the Dacian Defensive System in the Danube Valley, first c. BC – first c. AD Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic

3

Pre-Roman Settlements in the Hinterland of Novae (Moesia): A Reassessment of the Displacement of the Conquered Tribes by the Romans Agnieszka Tomas

13

The Role of the Equites Dalmatae in the Late Roman Defensive System in the Danube Valley Tomasz Dziurdzik

23

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior Olivera Ilić

33

The Use of Amphorae in Burials at Viminacium Snežana Golubović

45

Roman Funerary Law on the Lower Danube: Theory and Practice Ioana Mureşan and Lucian-Mircea Mureşan

53

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube: Reconsidering a Nineteenth Century Source in the Light of Modern Cartography and Satellite Imagery Bogdan Condurățeanu

61

The Ethnic Origin of Roman Soldiers in Lower Moesia: Occupation or Integration? Oleg Alexandrov

83

Social and Family Relationships in Roman Drobeta: Demographic Interpretations of Funerary Monuments Mariana Balaci Crînguș and Cătălin Balaci

91

Roman Fortifications along the Former Upper Moesian Limes AD 270-378 Emil Jęczmienowski

97

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae (Lower Moesia, Moesia II) in Historical Context Kamen D. Dimitrov

107

iii

INTRODUCTION Eric C. De Sena* and Calin Timoc** (*Transylvania Alive Association for Cultural Heritage, **Muzeul Național al Banatului) The mighty Danube River flows from its headwaters near the German/Swiss border, through Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania, touching also the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. In addition to its many smaller tributaries, the Danube is fed by the Drava River at Osijek, the Sava River at Belgrade, the Tisza River at Novi Slankamen, and the Olt River at Turnu Margurele. The Danube represents both a hindrance and a passageway and has hosted permanent human settlements by at least the seventh millennium BC. While it served, for the most part, as a cultural boundary, there was considerable interaction amongst the cultures that inhabited the Danube’s banks.

programs of restoration and preservation have been implemented. Still, the scientific importance of the region is not adequately recognised beyond the borders of Southeastern Europe. And, due to the agendas of national schools of archaeology as well as linguistic barriers, there has been little interchange amongst scholars of the region. This volume springs from the conference “Bridging the Danube: Roman Occupation and Interaction in the Middle and Lower Danube Valley, first – fifth centuries AD,” organised by the editors and sponsored by the Universitatea de Vest Timişoara and the American Research Center in Sofia (Timişoara, April 2014). The conference was intended to gather scholars working on aspects of the Roman period at sites along the Danube River in Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria to discuss and compare their research methods and results. The two-day conference attracted nearly 50 scholars from six countries. Although it was not our direct intention, we celebrated two senior scholars, Prof. Doina Benea (West University of Timişoara) and Prof. Tadeusz Sarnowski (University of Warsaw) who have dedicated their careers to the study of the region.

By the reign of Augustus, the Danube represented the border between the Roman Empire and Barbaricum. Fortresses and outposts were established on the south bank of the river and along the Black Sea coast under Augustus and his Julio-Claudian and Flavian successors. By the middle of the first century AD, the major military centres of the middle and lower sections of the Danube valley were fully operational: Singidonum, Viminacium, Rataria, Oescus, Novae, Durostorum, and Noviodunum. For nearly 170 years, Rome controlled territory to the north of the Danube, Dacia. There was frequent warfare in the region, but also lengthy periods of friendly interaction between the Romans and their neighbours. With legionary and auxiliary troops, natives and colonists, the region was ‘Romanised’ and also an ethnic and cultural melting pot.

The participants were invited to submit articles for a peerreviewed volume for BAR-IS. The papers underwent an initial, internal review and proofreading process. Authors were asked to make modifications. When the papers were resubmitted, drafts were sent to the editors of BAR-IS who asked four external reviewers to consider the volume. Based upon the BAR reviews and other considerations, authors were asked to make further changes. The reviewers also suggested we alter the title of the volume in order to better reflect the nature of the papers, many of which did not specifically discuss Roman occupation and interaction in the region. The volume, therefore, presents case studies in current research in the middle and lower Danube valley.

Cities in the regions adjacent to the Danube underwent radical changes in the late Roman period. Fortification walls were reinforced and re-configured to defend against both internal and external threats. Christian basilicas replaced pagan foundations. The Empire was strong because of the military and civilian presence in the region, but the Danube valley also represented the springboard of decline. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of Goths crossed the river ca. AD 376 as a result of the ravaging of their lands by the Huns; two years later an emperor was killed in battle against these hostile refugees. The Huns, themselves breached the Roman lines of defence in the late fourth and fifth centuries. Alaric, whose family may have been among the Gothic refugees, formed an army that raided the Balkans and ultimately sacked Rome in AD 410 (the first invasion of Rome by a foreign army in 800 years).

Readers will be interested not only in the results of the studies, but in the kinds of questions being asked and methods being employed. We hope that the volume may lead to more coordinated studies of the region and collaborations between the scholars represented here as well as by readers who may be enticed to redirect their research interests. The papers are organised in a roughly chronologicalthematic manner, beginning with two articles that address late Iron Age Dacians and Thracians in the light of the Roman advance into the middle and lower Danube valley. The article by Berzovan and Borangic investigates changes in defensive systems and weaponry adopted by the natives of Dacia in response to their increasing conflicts with Rome. Tomas’s article assesses native

Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian scholars have been studying Roman sites in the middle and lower Danube valley for more than a century. Foreign scholars from Poland, the U.K., the USA, and a small number of other countries have also taken an interest in the vast history of the region. Sites, such as Viminacium, Novae, Rataria, and Durostorum have been well-excavated and important

1

Eric C. De Sena and Calin Timoc settlements in the region surrounding Novae in order to determine the extent to which the Romans may have evacuated newly conquered territory. Also concerning shifts in military strategies, the article presented by Dziurdzik demonstrates the increased employment of cavalry in the middle and lower Danube region; in this paper, the author discusses the origin of the formation’s denomination ‘Dalmatian’.

Finally, in the only art historical contribution, Dimitrov presents a brief catalogue of imperial portraiture from the Bulgarian-Polish excavations at Novae and discusses the historical implications, such as visits to the region by emperors. The editors want to thank Universitatea de Vest Timişoara and the ARCS for hosting the conference. Generous funding was provided to the ARCS by the America for Bulgaria Foundation. Special thanks to Patrick Bracken, Dessislava Taliokova, and Lenko Lenkov of the ABF and to former ARCS Librarians Boyana Boyanova and Elitsa Popova. The conference would not have been possible without the involvement of the students from the ARHEOVEST Association, led by Lorena Vlad, and the members of the Center for History and Archaeology Studies Constantin Daicoviciu. Special thanks to Sorin Fortiu, who was at the helm at all stages of the conference preparation. We are very grateful to the publishers at British Archaeological Reports as well to Artur Blazejewski, Robert Wanner, Daniel Weiss, and Michael Werner for their support and advice. Finally, we are very grateful to the Serbian Archaeological Instutute, the Archaeological Instutute of the Adama Mickiewicna University in Poznan, Prof. P. Dyczek, Dr. R. Milcheva, Prof. T. Sarnowski, and Prof. M. Zahariade for their permission to use images from their publications.

Two papers spring from research conducted at Viminacium. A paper by Ilić concerns food supply in the middle Danube region and provides a small catalogue of architectural features in the region identified as having stored foodstuffs. The primary focus of Golubović’s article is on the reuse of amphorae in graves at Viminacium; a secondary focus concerns the origin of amphorae to the site. Continuing within the realm of death, the article by Mureşan and Mureşan investigates the question of Roman funerary law and the degree to which laws were adhered to in the lower Danube region. In the only article with a focus on technology, Condurățeanu demonstrates how nineteenth century descriptive surveys in the lower Danube region and state of the art technology can be merged in order to better understand historical topography. Two papers consider epigraphy in order to pursue avenues of research pertaining to demography. In his paper, Alexandrov examines funerary inscriptions in order to clarify the origin of soldiers stationed in Moesia Inferior; an important section of the article addresses methodology. In the article by Balaci Crînguș and Balaci, the authors consider epigraphic monuments from Drobeta and its environs in order to discuss families and family relations.

The editors hope that scientific cooperation continues to bring specialists from both sides and the great lengths of the Danube together. There is clearly a need for dialogue between the various national schools that work in the region as well as an injection of foreign interest in order to gain a broader and deeper knowledge of the cultures, including the Romans, which inhabited the Danube valley.

Jęczmienowski indicates modifications in the construction of fortresses and garrisons in Upper Moesia during the Late Roman period.

2

ADAPTATIONS TO THE DACIAN DEFENSIVE SYSTEM IN THE DANUBE VALLEY, FIRST C. BC – FIRST C. AD Alexandru Berzovan* and Cătălin Borangic** (*Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, **Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology)

Abstract: This paper examines the citadels and weaponry of the Dacians during the period of hostile contact with the Romans. In the first section, the authors discuss four Dacian fortresses along the Danube gorge, demonstrating that the Dacians adapted their citadels as a direct result of skirmishes and, ultimately, the dire threat of invasion by the Romans. Traditional earthworks were still employed in the first century AD; however, there was an increased construction of stone fortification walls. It is suggested that the Dacians relied more upon semi-professional soldiers at this time and bolstered their use of curved swords and daggers for hand-to-hand combat. Finally, the authors state that under Cotiso and Decibal, there was a network of defence in lower Dacia akin to that of the Romans, which impeded a full Roman invasion until the time of Trajan.

supplemented with linear defences4 like in other areas of “Barbarian” Late Iron Age Europe,5 depending on the geographic and economic conditions, from one area to another.

I. Introduction. The development of the Dacian Kingdom in the Transylvanian area would not have been possible without the favourable combination of the military and political infrastructure that existed on the middle and lower Danube during the second century BC and the exceptional military capacities of certain warlords. The existing social structures during this period were dominated by numerous warrior clans, characterised by a strong identity and ideology but also by a certain degree of martial ferocity. The result of all these evolutions was the appearance of the pan-Dacian religious and political centre of Sarmizegetusa Regia, as well as the build-up of a series of impressive strongholds and fortresses from which these warlords secured and projected their power and authority.

A special interest zone for understanding the said phenomena is the Danube gorge, as it was here that the armies of Rome and those of the Dacian kings were in direct and permanent contact for over a century, separated only by the great European river (Fig. 1). This paper presents an overview of the four existing citidels located on the gorge (Fig. 2) as well as descriptions of the life and weaponry of the warriors that defended them. II. Overview of Dacian fortresses in the middle Danube valley. During the Iron Age, the Danube Gorge represented a contact area between various ethno-cultural entities. During the middle and late second century BC, a number of forts and settlements were erected on the northern bank of the gorge. It was a period when the power of the Balkan Celts had slowly faded into obscurity; only their late offspring, the Scordisci, located on the southwestern banks of the gorge, remained strong, but slowly declined due to internecine conflict with the Thracian Triballi to the east, and with the Dacians to the north.

Overcoming the internal crisis after the establishment of the Principate, the Roman Empire managed to occupy the shores of the Black Sea1 and afterwards, the entire right bank of Danube, as part of an Imperial policy. Thus, the Danube became, after lengthy efforts, an important natural obstacle between the Roman world and the “Barbarians”. The dissatisfaction of the latter was obvious, and thus, the new frontier was attacked with frenzy by local tribal factions, either alone or in larger coalitions with other “barbarians”, as well as by the Dacian Kingdom. These clashes took place on both banks of the river and are well documented by ancient writers.2

The obscure political and military history of this "dark period" of Ancient Dacia,6 characterised by the appearance of new warriors and elites with new identities, does not permit us to discern who the initial builders of these forts were. They must have been part of the broader phenomenon that happened on both sides of the Danube, which led to the emergence of new military elites with a distinct ideology.7 Later on, in the middle of the first

The need for an efficient response to the new military and political challenges brought on by the ever-increasing Roman threat, had determined the consolidation of existing fortifications, as well as the creation of a veritable defensive network meant to protect the, heretofore, fluctuating borders of the Dacian kingdom. Existing forts, previously built by rival warlords, had come to be integrated into larger systems3 and sometimes 1 Petolescu 2010, 79-88. 2 Res Gestae Divi Augusti (V, 30); Florus (II, 26-29); Cassius Dio (LI, 23-27); Suetonius (Augustus, XXI); Tacit (Historia, III, 46, 2-3); Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, 4,3, 90-5). 3 Borangic, Berzovan 2014, 133.

4 Borangic, Berzovan 2014, 90-5; Berzovan 2013, 161-83. 5 Borangic, Berzovan 2014, 90-1. 6 Sîrbu, Florea 1997, 91; Pupeză 2012. 7 Rustoiu 2002, 33-40; Rustoiu 2008, 142-53.

3

Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic composed of crushed stone and clay. It apparently also had, on the outside, a series of support beams stuck into the ground. This phase corresponds to the T2 keep that has a stone base and a story probably made of brick13 (Fig. 3).

century BC, during the reign of king Burebista, these fortresses were integrated within the Dacian Kingdom. From west to east, the first fortress is that of Socol "Palanački Breg". It is located on one of the last western peaks of the Almăjului Mountains, thus, having a strategic position that offered a good view to the west and south and allowing the fortress to control the approach into the Danube gorge. Its proximity to the Banat Plain and the lower course of the Nera provided abundant farmland. Scholars are unsure as to the extent to which the location was important for ancient trade routes. The presence of stone architecture and the discovery of coins inside its control zone, as well as the surrounding areas, constitutes evidence of the strength and prosperity of the inhabitants of this fortress during the period of the Dacian Kingdom. The chronology of the finds suggests that the fortress was active until the late first century AD.8

The last phase is dated to the first century AD and marks the peak of the fortification’s development.14 During this time, time the T1 keep was built on the northwest plateau, which, considering its position, acted as a curtain wall tower. Divici - "Grad" has the most extensive visibility range of all the analysed fortifications, controlling access to the Danube for a distance of approximately 25 km. It has a good view of the plains that climb the slopes of the Almăjului Mountains, but also of the right bank of the river. Its location is represented by an area of expansion of the canyon where the Danube waters could be crossed with relative safety. Moreover, during the winter there is a tendency for ice bridges to form in this area. Merchant caravans and roaming bands of warriors, once on the south bank, could head to the wide valley of the river Pek, from where they could easily reach one of the most important trade and military routes of its time, the Morava Valley. To the east, wide valleys offered sufficient farm land, while the proximity of the mountains offered plentiful wood and stone, which were used to build the fortification in its second and third phases of existence. Fishing and hunting were additional sources of food.15

The Divici - "Grad" fort is situated on the Danube gorge, between kilometres 1065 and 1066 of the river, on the last peaks of the Almăjului Mountains. It occupies a triangular plateau with an area of 7000 square meters and is surrounded on three sides by steep slopes. The site is only accessible by means of a narrow path on the northern side, which, in ancient times, was barred by two defence ditches, with openings of six and ten meters respectively, separated by what seems to have been an earthen wall. In the immediate vicinity of the fort, on a series of artificial terraces on the eastern slopes of the promontory, numerous signs of habitation have been observed. At the base, on the bank of the Danube, a contemporary civilian settlement existed. This was submerged with the building of the Iron Gates dam.9

Attributes, such as monumental stone architecture, keeps with stories made of plastered brick present in two overlapping chronological phases of fortification (first century BC to first century AD), the hierarchy of habitat in a "fortified acropolis" and a number of adjacent civilian settlements and, not least, the ability to change the natural environment by massive terracing, suggest an ideology of design and expression of power that is found in the Dacian fortresses in Transylvania. The analogies do not stop there. The presence of painted pottery, imported goods acquired by robbery or trade, and some true luxury items16 attest to a level and a way of living comparable to that of the area of the capital of the Dacian kingdom. The myriad of hoards and stray finds from the area of Divici - Moldova Noua Coronini is further evidence of the prosperity of the territory. Besides the warrior nobles and their related bands, the permanently inhabited fortress housed skilled craftsmen, judging by specific items discovered, including a cast pewter spoon, a file, a jeweller’s chisel and anvil, and a mould for cast rings.17 Other finds, such as clay spindle whorls, bronze mirrors, and household objects reveal an interesting picture of the lives of the women of the settlement.

A series of fortification elements, consisting of three successive earth walls, were observed on the peak northwest of the site.10 Liviu Măruia pointed out the existence of major linear fortifications meant to bar access to the west of the Almăjului Mountains.11 This scholar claimed they date to the Dacian period based upon similarities with those found in the Șureanu Mountains.12 Archaeological excavations at "Grad", 1985-1998, identified three separate phases of the fortifications, which seem to be linked to three phases of habitation. During the first phase, dated between the late second and the first half of the first centuries BC, the plateau was defended by a simple rampart with a palisade. The second, and much better understood, phase is dated to the period between the first century BC and early first century AD, when the fort suffered significant damage. During this period, the slopes of the early earthen wall were removed by the addition of large amounts of compacted clay. This yielded a terrace with a stone wall on top. The wall consists of roughly hewn stone blocks, bound with clay, and with a wall filling

Less known, due to the presence of an overlying medieval stone fortress, the fortification of Coronini/Pescari - "La

8 Rustoiu 2006-2007, 22-3. 9 Gumăet.al. 1987, 201; Gumăet.al. 1995, 402. 10 Gumăet.al. 1995, 402. 11 Săcărin et.al. 2013, 59. 12 Teodor et.al. 2013, 1-98.

13 Gumă et.al. 1995, 403, 406. 14 Gumă et.al. 1995, 403; Rustoiu 2006-2007, 18. 15 Săcărin et.al. 2013, 67-9. 16 Gumă et.al. 1995, 403-04; Rustoiu 2006-2007, 19-20. 17 Gumă et.al. 1995, 410.

4

Adaptations to the Dacian Defensive System in the Danube Valley weapons: Quo Paeones arma rotatu, quo Macetae sua gaessa citent, quo turbine contum sauromates falcemque Getesar cumque Gelonus tenderet et flexae Balearicus actor habenae [...] (Statius, Achilleis, II, verses 131-134 of the II part). M. Cornelius Fronto, an important orator and lawyer, also speaks of this terrible sword, which the Dacians used to oppose Roman expansion: [...] in bellum profectus est cum cognitis militibus hostem Parthum contemnentibus, saggitarum ictus post ingentia Dacorum falcibus in lata volnera despicatui habentibus (Fronto, Principia Historiae).

Culă" holds a special strategic position, as it is located at the beginning of one of the narrow areas of the Danube Gorge. It provides excellent visibility to the northeast, with the fortification of Divici - "Grad" in its line of sight, but does not have a good angle of view to the east. Its role seems to have been similar to that of Divici. One of the fords used for crossing the Danube was located in this area during Middle Ages; it was probably used and known in Antiquity as well.18 Lacking, as far as we know, elements of stone architecture,19 it appears to have played a secondary role to the much more powerful fortress of Divici. The last phase seems to be in the late first century AD.

Both kinds of weapons were discovered inside the T1 keep and were probably lost during the final moments of the siege. The first, a falx dacica of the "curved gladius" type III, registered as A2B3 (Fig. 4) is a sword with a medium sized blade.23 The weapon probably belonged to an infantryman as the average length of this sword would have been an impediment to a rider. Instead, it was used in close combat. The pronounced curvature and tip gave it the advantage of high penetration power; it may even have been able to penetrate light armour. Due to its specific shape, the whole force of penetration was concentrated in the tip; thus, it was not suitable for stabbing. The maximum effectiveness was achieved by slashing and shearing, making it especially dangerous even if the enemy was protected by armour, shield and helmet. Potential injuries (penetrating blows, cuts, or splits) depended largely upon striking power, the experience of the wielder, the angle of incidence, as well as the portion of the body affected. In the case of high amplitude hits, another factor was the inertia force conferred by the weight of the weapon and arm,24 aggravated by the action of tearing.

Located in a broader area on a small hillock, the fortress of the Stenca Liubcova has more restricted visibility, having no other fortified point in its line of sight. The main role of this fortress was probably to control access from the south bank of the river, in an area predisposed to the formation of ice bridges. The finds inside the fortress20 revealed a fairly prosperous centre, defended, during the second Dacian phase, by a wall with a stone and earth filling. The fort seems to have been destroyed and abandoned in the early first century AD.21 Despite discoveries of coins and signs of cave dwellings farther downstream, no Dacian fortresses are known. It is likely that the apparent void is due to a lack of research in the region. The analysis of geomorphologic features, however, may provide other explanations. The valley narrows significantly and there are large variations in height. Before the construction of the dam, navigation in this area was problematic and crossing the river with large armies was out of the question.

The other curved weapon is represented by a solid pruning knife (Fig. 5/1), found in the same context. The piece is made of iron, hot forged, and strongly curved at the tip like a beak. The edge is on the inside and there are a gloving tube and rivet hole. It was mounted on a large wooden shaft, judging by the sleeve size. Given its specific shape, it is assumed that those who wielded them acted as support troops in other units.

III. Dacian adaptations in weaponry and warfare. Living on the border had multiple advantages and disadvantages for the warrior nobles that resided here. Indeed, there was always the prospect for good trade, but there was also the danger of war and plunder. In case of a large-scale military conflict, the nobles residing on the Gorge were among the first to receive the brunt of the enemy attack. Professional core soldiers supplemented by mercenaries and contingents of semi-professional warriors must have been present in significant numbers in these forts.

No less effective than actual swords, these pruning knives were a tactical solution used by both professional warriors, and especially ordinary fighters. Attached to a shaft made of strong wood, whose optimal length is between 1 and 1.5 m, these weapons could produce disarmament, serious head injuries by direct hits, or fatal cuts to the legs or neck area (see Fig. 5/2,3). The long handle allowed a fight at a safe distance from the short swords of legionnaires and by applying two-handed strikes with the sickle, this ordinary tool was transformed into a terrible, extremely efficient weapon. No less effective were shorter tailed war hooks handled in tandem with a shield. Relatively inexpensive, the manufacturing time of such a war hook has been estimated at 3 hours. Pruning knives must have been highly prized and

Two archaeological finds coming from the fortress of Divici – "Grad"22 offer an interesting glimpse into the tactics and weaponry used by the ancient Dacian warriors. Caught in a turbulent and bellicose relationship with Rome, the warrior tribes of the northern Balkans developed specific weapons and tactics meant to counter the superiority of the otherwise impenetrable Roman Legion. The most feared were the curved weapons, as the Roman writers attest. For example, P. Papinius Statius, Latin poet and protégée of Emperor Domitian remarks about the sinister fame of these curved 18 Rustoiu 2006-2007, 20. 19 Rustoiu 2006-2007, 20. 20 Gumă 1977, 69-104. 21 Rustoiu 2006-2007, 20-21.

22 For an extensive discussion, see Săcărin et.al. 2013. 23 Borangic 2013, 125-28 (with the bibliography of the subject). 24 Borangic 2007-2008, 55-7.

5

Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic sensibly smaller than it was during Burebistaʼs rule, but not less aggressive. Although King Decebal is credited with having rebuilt the kingdom, most likely the premises of this reunification are older, and initiated by his predecessor, King Duras, or even by Scorilo. Contact with the Roman army led to an increasing amount of material wealth as well as military and political experience, allowing the Dacian elites to re-organize society in every aspect. This would be even clearer during the Dacian wars of Emperor Domitian.

their number was great enough for them to be portrayed in Roman art and amongst archaeological finds. The spread and frequent discovery of pruning knives, dated especially between the first century BC and first century AD, across the entire area of Dacian influence, and their use, even occasionally, as weapons, allows the inclusion of this category of artefacts among those Dacorum falcibus mentioned by Cornelius Fronto.25 IV. Consolidation of the Dacian Kingdom. The death of King Burebista (44 BC) was a major setback to the strength of Dacia. Strabo (Geography, VII, 3, 11) tells us that the great dominion of the Dacians was split into several parts, initially four, and later, in Augustus's time, five. The Greek geographer also reports that “such divisions are temporary and they change now one way, now in another,” observing the strong tensions in the north Danubian territory. In this area Dacian diadokhoi divided, on criteria that we cannot reconstruct today, the great Kingdom of Burebista. The main beneficiaries of the inheritance seem to have been the kings who ruled the faction resident in Sarmizegetusa, the Dacian capital, but other chiefs are also mentioned, often without the possibility of locating them very precisely.

King Decebal's military successes represented increased political leverage, internally assuring him the ability to take over the throne and eliminate any opposition, as well as the opportunity to receive important subsidies and importation of skilled workers, including Roman military instructors. Externally, the victories, or rather military results, allowed him to become a negotiation partner, arrogant enough to deal with the Emperor through intermediaries. Although within a possibly older context, but only now clearly visible, there were several structural changes in Dacian society. First of all, we can observe a specialisation of the Dacian armies. The frequent campaigns, contacts, as well as battle experiences with the Romans, allowed the emergence of an intermediate social category, located between the high Dacian aristocracy and the common people.

According to Iordanes, Burebista's descendant on the throne from Sarmizegetusa was the high priest Deceneu who either cumulated the royal and sacerdotal attributes, or remained as the head of the Dacian clergy. This was followed by another cleric, Comosicus (Iordanes, Getica, XII, 73).

This social class, named comatii (shaggy), was recruited from free, relatively wealthy rural people who were able to sustain their participation in military expeditions. They became dependent upon the royal authority, which used them to balance the power of the aristocracy. Their main function was military, without being necessarily exclusive. The agglomeration of civilian settlements and the traces of numerous workshops - especially metallurgical - from the proximity of the capital, demonstrates the status of residents, which could not all be great nobles or simple peasants.

These two characters, beyond all historiographic disputes concerning their exact position or period, reveal an important aspect, namely the quality of the pan-Dacian religious centre of Sarmizegetusa. The great architectural efforts in the Orăștie Mountains, opened under Burebista's reign, continued, especially for the temples, implacably influencing the religious mentality of the Dacian warrior elites. The restoration of the kingdom, a political act attributed to King Decebal, is evidence of political maturity that involved complex socio-cultural concepts, which most probably gravitated around the role of the religious structures in the Orăştie Mountains and the clergy that officiated rituals here.

Their property and status gave them the right to wear weapons along with military obligations, fundamentally distinguishing them from common people. Even though the aristocracy's military role remains a clear feature, many comatii can be seen in the scenes on Trajan's Column as part of the military troops, coordinated by the King. The existence of this royal counsel is also confirmed by literary sources (Criton, Getica; Suidas Lexicon). Among the visible changes, during this period, are evolutions of military equipment, weapons, war and siege machines, strategies, and tactics.

Almost invariably, the Dacian dynasts that followed them, until Decebal, appear in the written sources as holding military positions and claiming the Roman Empire to be main enemy. The increasingly oppressive presence of the Empire in the northern region of the Balkan Peninsula allowed rare times of lull, the Dacians often organizing incursions across the Danube, and the Roman legions responding with their implacable advance towards the river and the increasingly apparent isolation of the Dacians.

These military, political and social developments had two important outcomes: the first is represented by the relations with the Empire; the second is related to the political and military capacity of the Sarmizegetusa kings. The complex of fortresses and linear fortifications in the

Against this constant danger, the kings rebuilt Dacian unity from Sarmizegetusa, of course on a different level, 25 Borangic 2010, 20.

6

Adaptations to the Dacian Defensive System in the Danube Valley Archaeological evidence for the fortification of Divici "Grad" fully illustrates the dramatic confrontations. The northwest side of the fortification wall was destroyed, whilst arrowheads and Roman catapult projectiles were discovered in the debris and burned layer behind the defence. Fragments of loricas quamata were discovered in the same place.29 Regarding the weapons discussed above, it seems natural to believe that they were lost by defenders who took refuge in the tower as a last resistance.

Orăştie Mountains, the temples and sanctuaries of stone and wood, and the numerous proto-industrial craftsmen's workshops are obvious expressions of the power the Dacians had in the core of their kingdom. Obviously, this force was strongly projected to the periphery of the kingdom, especially on the Danube line where the main enemy resided. In this context, the Dacian Kingdom was for a long time a dangerous opponent of the Empire, and a further reason for the conquering wars, initiated by Emperor Trajan.26

A coin from Trajan’s time, dated to AD 112-117 and discovered in the topsoil during archaeological excavations, is no longer bound to the existence of the fort. Its presence may indicate, however, a discreet surveillance of this point by the Romans during a time when the kingdom and the old centres of authority were still alive in the consciousness of the locals.

No doubt part of a single system, termed "Limes dacicus" by A. Rustoiu,27 the fortifications around the Danube Gorge shared relatively similar chronological phases, linked to a number of well-documented historical events. As stated in the introductory part of the paper, the turn of the first century AD is characterised by a series of increasingly violent confrontations between the Dacians and the Romans. Historical sources from the period mention the armies of the Dacian king Cotiso who descended from the mountains and crossed the frozen Danube to raid south of the river. Faced by these challenges, Augustus responded promptly by sending Lentulus to the area. This brought peace to the region, whereby the Dacians were driven out and several Roman garrisons were established on the southern bank of the river. We associate the destruction that happened at the beginning of the first century AD to all fortifications on the Gorge, to this historical event.

V. Conclusion. Located at the meeting point of two worlds, Dacian warriors on the Danube Gorge built solid fortifications, integrated into a coherent system, which aimed at controlling access to key crossing points along the Danube. Consolidating power through trade, but also through plunder, they found themselves at the forefront of the advance of Roman armies towards the Danube. They managed to resist until the era of the great Dacian-Roman confrontation. In this context, curved weapons discovered in the ruins of the Dacian fortress Divici, an important border fort, throws a bright light on the importance of these border strongholds. It is likely that the garrison stationed here in the first century AD, related to the power centre from Șureanu Mountains, was composed of elite soldiers. This hypothesis is suggested by the kind of weapons found here, the type of fortification tower, and the geographical position.

Enthusiastic, following this successful military action, the poet Horace speaks of the destruction of Cotiso’s army. More realistic, the Roman historian Aenneus L. Florus says that the Dacians "have not been defeated, but were repulsed and scattered",28 which is fully confirmed by archaeological research showing a restoration of fortifications in the area. The very rugged topography, clearly favouring the defenders, and the closeness to the powerful Transylvanian nucleus of the Dacian kingdom (less than a three-day trip on the mountain roads that start at the mouth of the Cerna river, across the Țarcu-Godeanu massif), would have caused serious logistical and military problems for the Romans, if they had wanted to start pacification and resettlement operations like those conducted against the tribal factions of the Wallachian Plain. This may explain why the area fared well compared to other areas along the Danube. The decisive confrontation between the Dacians and Romans in this region was postponed until the time of the great wars during the reigns of emperors Domitian and Trajan. Whether these fortifications were neutralised during the wars of Domitian or during the first Dacian war, they seem to have ended violently, having been stormed by the Roman legions.

The hypothesis that the residents of these forts were professional soldiers is strengthened by their presence on the reliefs of Trajan’s Column, in scenes depicting the first Dacian-Roman clashes that took place in the Danubian area. Thus, two Dacian comati appear in scene XXIV, who attack the Roman soldiers with characteristic Roman short swords (Fig. 6). These gladii were effective only in compact units that acted in a disciplined manner. This confirms the sayings of Dio Cassius regarding the significant presence of specialised military personnel in the army of Decebal.30 It is logical to suppose that the first Dacian groups that opposed the Roman forces were the warriors residing in the fortresses of the Danube Gorge, whose experience in the lengthy conflicts and clashes against Rome could not have been ignored.31 The presence in the first line of these professional warriors, hardened in battles fought throughout the Balkans and their presence in these border forts, helped to slow down the Roman

26 Borangic 2017, mss. 27 Rustoiu 2006-2007, 24; Ștefan 2005, 262-63. 28 Daicoviciu 1965, 107-10.

29 Rustoiu, 2006-2007, 20. 30 Dio Cassius, Roman History, LXVII, 7, 4; LXVIII, 8, 5-6. 31 Criton, Getica, 4,2.

7

Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic advance towards the interior of the Dacian Kingdom; thus, giving time to further fortify its central part.

(Raportpreliminar).” Cercetări de arheologieîn aria nordtracă 1 (1995): 401-26. Petolescu C.C. Dacia. Un mileniu de istorie. București (2010).

REFERENCES Pupeză, P. Veacul întunecat al Daciei. Cluj-Napoca (2012).

Berzovan A., “Considerations on Troianul in Țara Zarandului.” Ziridava 27 (2013): 161-83.

Rustoiu A. Războinici și artizani de prestigiu în Dacia preromană. Cluj-Napoca (2002).

Borangic C., “Falxdacica. II. Tentativă de reconstituire (Falxdacica. II. An Attempt of Reconstitution).” NEMVS II-III (2007-2008): 3-6, 44-62.

Rustoiu A., “Înlegătură cu datarea fortificației de la Divici (jud. Caraș-Severin).” Ephemeris Napocensis XVI-XVII (2006-2007): 17-30

Borangic C., “Câteva observaţii privind cosoarele în lumea dacică (A few notes regarding the Dacian pruning knife).” NEMVS 9-10 (2010): 10-21.

Rustoiu A. Războinici și societate în aria celtică transilvăneană. Studii pe marginea mormântului cu coif de la Ciumești. Cluj-Napoca (2008).

Borangic C., “Observații asupra unei variante de falx dacica.” Acta Museii Porolissensis XXXV (2013): 123-35.

Săcărin C., A. Berzovan, C. Borangic, “A fort at the edge of the Empire. Observations enabled by the discovery of two curved weapons at the Dacian fortress of Divici.” Annales d`Universite Valahia Târgoviște. Section d`Archaeologie et d`Histoire XV,1 (2013): 55-75.

Borangic C. and Berzovan A., “Concepte despre cetatea dacică, I.” Acta Centri Lucusiensis 2B (2014): 82-143. Daicoviciu H., “Cosonsau Napocensis II (1965): 107-10.

Cotiso?”

Acta

Musei

Sîrbu V. and G. Florea. Imaginar și imagine în Dacia preromană. Brăila (1997).

Gumă M., “Cercetări arheologice pe Stenca Liubcovei (jud. Caraş-Severin).” Banatica IV (1977): 69-104.

Ștefan S. Les guerres dacique du Domitienet du Trajan: architecture militaire, topographie, images et histoire. Roma (2005).

Gumă M., S.A. Luca, C. Săcărin, “Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice efectuate în cetatea dacică de la Divici întreanii 1985-1987.” Banatica IX (1987): 199238.

Teodor E.S., A. Pețan, A. Berzovan, “Cercetări perieghetice pe platforma Luncani. II. Ponorici și Chiciura.” ESTuar II (2013): 1-98.

Gumă M., A. Rustoiu, C. Săcărin, “Șantierul arheologic Divici. Cercetările din anii 1995-1996

8

Adaptations to the Dacian Defensive System in the Danube Valley FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Dacia with the area of discussion.

Figure 2. Line of Dacian fortresses in the Danube gorge.

9

Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic

Figure 3. Plan of Divici-Grad.

Figure 4. Dacian sica from the T1 keep.

10

Adaptations to the Dacian Defensive System in the Danube Valley

Figure 5. 1. Dacian sica with socket from the Danube gorge; 2. & 3. The use in battle of a sica, modern re-enactment.

11

Alexandru Berzovan and Cătălin Borangic

Figure 6. Scene XXIV from Column of Trajan: the battle of Tapae with Dacian warriors using straight swords (photo courtesy of E.C. De Sena).

12

PRE-ROMAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE HINTERLAND OF NOVAE (MOESIA): A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE CONQUERED TRIBES BY THE ROMANS Agnieszka Tomas (Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw)

Abstract. The question of pre-Roman settlement in the central region of the lower Danube valley remains unresolved. The quantity of hand-formed pottery discovered in first century AD layers of the legionary camp at Novae is intriguing, since local settlements in the area between the Osum and Yantra rivers are not well attested. According to coin finds, preRoman settlements appear to have collapsed in the 80s BC. Pottery made in the local tradition and discovered in the layers and pits dating as late as the Flavian period may indicate that small-scale displacements of people living on the northern bank of the Danube were also possible near Novae. ‘[...] ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem apellant.’ [Tac., Agr. XXX] between the Osum and Yantra river basins deserves more attention, as these lands would later become the hinterland of the legionary fortress. The latest publications of Hellenistic and Roman Republican coin finds, as well as hand-made pottery unearthed in the earliest layers of the fortress, have renewed discussion of the local settlement and the origin of the name Novae.4

I. Introduction. The Lower Moesian legionary fortress at Novae is located midway between the mouths of two tributaries of the Danube, the Osum and Yantra rivers (Fig. 1). It is at this point that the Danube is at the southernmost bend of its course, with a width of 1.6 km near Svishtov and 2.1 km near Novae. The legionary camp is situated on a steep escarpment on the southern bank of the Danube. On the northern side are lowlands with raised areas to the east of the town of Zimnicea. The land between the lower Osum and Yantra river basins, as well as the islands and, probably, a stretch of land on the other side of the Danube, were controlled by the legion based at Novae.

It has been suggested that an Iron Age settlement existed at the place or in the vicinity of Novae at the moment of the Roman conquest. According to D. Dimitrov and M. Chichikova, who excavated the eastern part of the fortress at Novae, the settlement occupied the whole area to the east of the fortress. T. Sarnowski turned his attention to the high ground on the left side of the Dermendere River, the small tributary of the Danube flowing along the eastern side of Novae.5 Bulgarian archaeologist S. Stefanov, long-time director of the local museum in Svishtov, and later E. Gencheva, the head of the Bulgarian Archaeological Expedition at Novae, presumed that such a settlement may have been located on the hills to the south of the camp.6 The unresolved question is whether the settlement still existed at the time when the Romans were conquering the region along the lower Danube and whether it could have become a part of the canabae.7

During the period preceding the Roman conquest, the region was occupied by the northern Thracians and neighboured the territories of the Greek Pontic cities. The Osum river basin appears to have been under the influence, or even control, of the Moesian Triballi, related to the La Tène culture.1 As indicated by the growing number of finds dated to the late third to first c. BC, the lands adjacent to the Yantra, and further east to the Rousenski Lom river, as well as the Rositsa river basin, where the Romans later founded the city of Nicopolis, were controlled by the Celts or tribes under their influence.2 The specific geographic position of the land between the Yantra and Osum, where the Moesian and Thracian peoples lived alongside each other, is well defined thanks to a series of boundary stones set by the Romans in AD 136. The stones were erected in order to divide the tribal territories of Moesos and Thraces, probably along the lower course of the Yantra and its left tributary, the Eliya.3 With the increasing amount of new archaeological and numismatic evidence, the issue of preRoman settlement and the Roman conquest of the lands

II. Pre-Roman settlements near Novae. If we take a broader look at pre-Roman finds in the Osum, Yantra, and Rositsa river basins, we find important tribal groups to the west of the Osum, in the Iskur and Vit river basins, with the most important tribal centre at Oescus and dense settlement patterns in its fertile hinterland.8 Although some scholars have claimed that the centres lying closer to the

1 Plin. Nat. hist. III.XXVI (149): Moesi, Thraces Pontoque contermini Scythae; see also Woźniak 1976, 382; Tomas 2009; Theodossiev 2000, 10–11, 72, map II, 85-92; 98-100 and Paunov 2013, 93. 2 Paunov 2013, 186-90. 3 Tomas 2009, 31; Tomas 2016, 108-13. 4 Sarnowski 2007 (with important bibliography concerning this subject); Chichikova 2013. On coin finds see Paunov, Prokopov 2013, esp. 91; Dimitrov 2013; Paunov 2015; I am deeply indebted to Dr. Evgeni Paunov for consultations and his help on the early coin finds from Moesia and northern Thrace.

5 Chichikova 2013, 241; cf. Sarnowski 1986. Recently T. Sarnowski points to the left slope of the Dermendere only, not the eastern side of the fortress, which was, according to him, most probably established on virgin ground; see Sarnowski 2007, 18-19 and footnote 27; Sarnowski et al. 2012, 35–37. 6 Stefanov 1955, 53; Gencheva 2002, 59. 7 Chichikova 2013, 239. 8 Papazoglu 1978, 65; Poulter 1990, 144.

13

Agnieszka Tomas Roman sites in the hinterland of the camp, only three were examined by means of excavation: Sturmen on Yantra and Morava to the south of Novae have been published.21 No detailed examination of the pre-Roman finds has been undertaken.

Osum, at Lovech and Aleksandrovo, ceased to exist in the mid third century BC,9 a number of late Hellenistic coin hoards have been unearthed close to this area. Pre-Roman graves and Hellenistic finds have been recorded to the south of the village Boutovo in the middle Osum, as well as near Pavlikeni, where a Bronze and early Iron Age site and a Hellenistic coin hoard were identified.10 The most important observation, however, concerns Roman Republican coin hoards, which have been discovered, primarily, to the west of Osum.11 We should add to the aforementioned map of fortified settlements a hoard discovered on the southern bank of the Danube to the west of the present village of Belene (known as Hisarluka), now partly destroyed by the river.12 The remains of stone foundations visible in the past certainly pertained to the Roman period,13 although some pre-Roman pottery sherds, two La Tène knives, and an iron spearhead attest to the preRoman habitation.14 Graves dated to the second and first century BC have been unearthed within the area of Belene, to the south of the Roman fort of Dimum.15 In the immediate vicinity, scholars have discovered sites to the east of Belene and on the Island of Belene dated broadly to the Iron Age.16

The model of pre-Roman settlements envisioned a central fortified settlement (oppidum) surrounded by a network of open satellite settlements. This was likely the case until the turn of the first century BC.22 The largest oppidum on the Yantra is a site to the north of Byala, where the remains of defensive walls and earth ramparts are still visible.23 A dense network of pre-Roman settlements was recorded in the vicinity.24 The excavated fortified settlement near the village of Sturmen on the Yantra revealed that the late Iron Age phase ended around the middle of the third c. BC with no traces of a later settlement.25 Significant sites of that type on the Yantra and satellite settlements around them, dated to the fifth to third c. BC, have been recorded near Koprivets.26 In the lower Yantra another fortified preRoman site (Kalebair) was located to the east of the village Novgrad, to the west of the river’s outlet, with a large settlement occupying as much as 25 hectares.27 Handmade pottery and Hellenistic amphorae, as well as a coin hoard of 110 imitation tetradrachms, were discovered there.28 Numerous sites have been recorded on both sides of the Yantra’s outlet, but their chronology has only been broadly defined to the Iron Age.29

Although few traces of settlements are known in the Rositsa valley,17 archaeological research indicates that these lands were not empty. The warrior’s grave discovered near Lesicheri18 and finds from the vicinity of Asenovtsi and Byala-Cherkva belonged to people of the so-called Padea-Panagjurski Kolonii group formed under the strong influence of the La Tène culture.19

To the east of the Yantra, Hellenistic coin finds are not so frequent, but many Celtic coins have been recovered. Celtic imitations were struck to the east of the Yantra, and coin hoards containing them are concentrated along the river and eastwards, around Rousse. Numismatists suggest that these finds probably date no later than the early first c. BC.30

A program of extensive settlement surveys conducted by the German-Bulgarian research project on a broad area between the Late Roman fort of Iatrus and Novae20 resulted in a map of the late Iron Age settlements in the lower Yantra river basin (Fig. 2). The map shows three fortified centres described as ‘proto-urban’ and a dense network of open settlements. The chronology of these sites, however, is broad, embracing seven centuries (seventh c. BC – early first c. AD). This situation results from the fact that the state of research in this area is poor and a detailed chronology of certain sites remains uncertain. Of the few excavated pre-

A closer view of late Iron Age settlements in the area that would later become the hinterland of Novae yields additional information, yet the picture remains incomplete. Quite important was a fortified settlement near Zimnicea, located on the northern bank of the Danube.31 It was abandoned no later than the beginning of the first c. AD.32

9 Domaradzki 1982, 44f.; Alexandrescu 1983, fig. 1; Totevski 1994. 10 Boutovo: Soultov 1977; Sultov 1983, 26; Gerasimov 1966, 247-52 (coins); Pavlikeni: Soultov 1977; Gerasimov 1946, 237 (Hellenistic hoard). 11 Paunov, Prokopov 2013, 91-92. 12 Mitova-Dzhonova 1979, 32, no. 47, fig. 6.6; Mitova-Dzhonova 1985, 276ff. 13 Shkorpil 1905, 460, tab. XCIX, h,1: irregular plan of 150-170 100 m (i.e., ca 1.5 ha). 14 Stefanov 1928-29, 320 (pre-Roman finds), Bunov 1994, 46 (single countermarked coins of Augustus and a coin hoard dated to the reign of Tiberius). 15 Avdev 1981, 25; Bunov1994; Dimitrov 2013, 725. 16 Hensel et al. 1965, 239-40; Mitova-Dzhonova 1994, 47f.; Avdev 1981, 25. 17 It seems that larger pre-Roman settlements did not exist in the place where later the Romans founded the town of Nicopolis ad Haemum (ad Istrum), some 40 km to the south of Novae; see Poulter 1995, 8–10, 22. 18 Museum in Svishtov, inv. no. 1142-46; cf. Stefanov 1939, 321; Tacheva-Hitova 1978, 336. 19 Woźniak 1976, 390. 20 Conrad 2006.

21 Hensel et al. 1965, 241–57, 262; Hensel et al. 1980. Тhe exact chronology of the site has not been established. 22 Domaradzki 1982, 44f. 23 Stefanov 1956, 13–14, no. 4, fig. 52.3, 6 and 7; Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, 231, nr 8; Dremsizova-Nelchinova, Ivanov 1983, 31, nr 39, fig. 12; Conrad, Stanchev 2002, fig. 3; Conrad 2006, 312, fig. 4 (pre-Roman only). Unfortunately, the site was severely disturbed after the WWII by stone quarrying. 24 Dymaczewska, Dymaczewski, Hilczerówna 1966, 275-77, fig. 2; Conrad 2006, 313, fig. 4. 25 Hensel et al. 1980, 19ff. 26 Milchev, Draganov 1992. 27 Stefanov 1956, 11–12, no. 2, fig. 1a, в, 3; 46, no. 4; Dimova 1959; Gerasimov 1962, 227; Dremsizova-Nelchinova, Ivanov 1983, 51–52, nos. 119, 120, fig. 43; Conrad, Stanchev 2002, 675, fig. 2, 3; Conrad 2006, figs. 8, 10. 28 Dimitrov 2013, 724. 29 Conrad 2006, figs. 8, 10. 30 Paunov 2013, 186-90; Paunov, Prokopov 2013, esp. 114. 31 Alexandrescu 1980. 32 Vulpe 1960, 318; Alexandrescu 1980, 100.

14

Pre-Roman Settlements in the Hinterland of Novae heavily worn pieces, which may have been used until Trajan’s reform in AD 107; hence, the layer dates to the second c. AD.45 The third hoard, dating to the end of the first c. BC, consists of forty silver coins registered in the local museum inventory with no information on whether they belong to a real hoard and, if so, whether it was complete.46 Most of the single coin finds are either silver issues dated to the fourth-third c. BC, or tetradrachms (mainly of ‘Thasian type’) commissioned by the Romans between the second half of the second century and the 80s BC. The latest coin from Zimnicea, issued under Tiberius (AD 22/3(?)–30),47 should be related to Roman military activities. The first c. BC in this region is characterised by a distinct decline in the coin supply and coin use.48 Moreover, the land around and to the south of Novae between the lower Yantra, lower Osum and lower Rositsa represent a blank spot on the map of Late Hellenistic and Republican coin hoards.49

Other settlements existed in the basin of the middle Olt and lower Vedea rivers and in the vicinity of Lake Suhaia, the majority of which were abandoned before the end of the third century. Only a small number of sites still existed in the first c. BC.33 Denser settlement patterns in the first c. AD have been observed beyond the line of the Olt River, on the Romanian Plain.34 There was another fortified centre with smaller settlements at its foot on the Kaleto Hill in Svishtov.35 The site was examined in the 1960s by Bulgarian and Polish archaeologists who unearthed some pre-Roman pottery and weapons.36 According to some scholars, the materials may be dated to the fifth to first c. BC, while others date them to the early Iron Age.37 Repeated verification surveys on the site of Ostrite Mogili (a presumed Roman vicus), located some 3 km to the east of Novae, have not brought unequivocal results confirming pre-Roman settlement there. Some Hellenistic coins and a few local pottery sherds have been found in the area, however.38 Additional sites have been identified farther to the south of Novae, near the village of Morava, Bulgarsko Slivovo, and also possibly to the north of Petokladentsi.39 All of them, however, are dated to the broad period of the Late Iron Age, or even generally to the Iron Age.

Significant attention has been paid to the local hand-made pottery, which is treated as evidence of continuous indigenous settlement at Novae and its environs in the first c. AD.50 Problematically, however, the forms and technology of local hand-made pottery remained virtually unchanged over the course of several centuries. At Novae such pottery is found in Flavian contexts, including large pits in the centre of the legionary fortress and the early layers near the northern defensive walls;51 on the northern side of the Danube it was manufactured in the second and third centuries;52 at Nicopolis it has been discovered in layers dated to AD 100–130,53 but was produced at local manufacturing centres in the second and early third centuries.54 Laboratory analysis conducted on one sample from Novae indicates that the clay had ‘regional’ rather than ‘local’ features; thus, at least some of the hand-made pottery may have been manufactured outside of Novae.55 Sherds present in Flavian contexts were distributed over the large area of the camp and its surroundings. They do not vary much in form and were frequently found in association with first c. AD Roman finds. Their presence, thus, may be evidence of forced provisioning activities.

The earliest dated finds from the place which later held the Roman garrison at Novae are three burials and pottery from the Late Bronze Age.40 Iron Age finds, mainly fibulae and weapons, from the period between the eighth/seventh and third c. BC, were discovered in mixed layers.41 To this we can add one cremation urn burial dated to the fourththird c. BC.42 The silver coin hoards unearthed in the camp and its surroundings include a homogeneous group of Hellenistic coins dated to the end of the second or beginning of the first c. BC and two or three coin hoards containing Roman Republican denarii.43 The denarii of Mark Antony were still in use under Claudius, so they cannot be treated as a good chronological indicator.44 In addition, the first Roman hoard contained bronze coins issued by Nero; therefore, it cannot be related to the local pre-Roman settlement. The second hoard contained

III. Effects of Roman presence in the region. When we compare the number of settlements in the lower Yantra

33 Preda 1986, 81, fig. 1; Stefan 2009, 190. 34 Turcu 1978, 166, cf. 169 and fig. 1. 35 Stefanov 1958, 341-47, 353-55, fig. 11; Donevski 1991; Conrad, Stanchev 2002, 674, figs. 2–4. 36 Vulov 1962, 14; Hensel et al.1965, 262; Chichikova 2013, 242 (about unpublished excavations by T. Mirchev in 1966). 37 Chichikova 2013, 242; cf. Hensel et al. 1965, 273, 278 et fig. 32. 38 Hensel et al. 1965, 285–87; Dimitrov 2013. During the field surveys conducted by the Polish expeditions in 1979, 2000 and 2013 no preRoman remains were found; see Tomas 2006, 119-20; Tomas 2014. The vessel fragments made according to the local tradition are found but they may be dated to the pre-Roman period as well as the times of the Roman domination. 39 Hensel et al. 1965, 241-57 (Morava); Conrad, Stanchev 2002, fig. 2, 3; Conrad 2006, figs. 8, 10, 11 and unpublished materials in the local library (Bulgarsko Slivovo); Museum in Svishtov, inv. no. 1037, 1622 (Petokladentsi, unpublished). 40 Stefanov 1955, 50; Chichikova 2013. 41 Chichikova 2013, 234; cf. Dimitrov et al. 1967, 100, cat. no. 52, fig. 27ж ; Stefanov 1955, 50-53.

42 Chichikova 2013, 238 et fig. 22. No burials dated to the end of the first millennium BC have been published so far, although some ‘Thracian burials with pre-Roman coins discovered to the south and south-west from Novae’ were mentioned by S. Stefanov; cf. Sarnowski 2007, 18; Stefanov 1955, 53. 43 Dimitrov 2013, period D1, nos. I–IV and VI, period D2, nos. XIII, XIV and XVI. 44 Paunov 2015, 151. 45 Dimitrov 2013, 730, 765. 46 Dimitrov 2013, 728. 47 Dimitrov 2013, 744; cf. 718. 48 The observation is confirmed by E. Paunov; cf. Dimitrov 2013, the catalogue. 49 Paunov 2013, Fig. 5.2. 50 Sarnowski 1986; Sarnowski 2007, 18−19; Chichikova 2013. 51 Chichikova 2013, 228−234 and unpublished materials. 52 Popilian 1976. 53 Falkner 1999: 120, cat. nos. 3, 8, fig. 9.1; Tomas 2015. 54 Sultov 1984; Sultov 1985, 87-88. These observations concern also southern Dacia; see Popilian 1976. 55 Daszkiewicz, Bobryk, Schneider 2006.

15

Agnieszka Tomas Dacians, Getae, and Thracians and the fact that they lived on both sides of the river. Strabo, a contemporary of Cato’s displacements, informs us that the Getae and Moesians spoke the same language and lived on both sides of the Danube.66 Cassius Dio also states that the Dacians lived on both sides of the Ister and are called Moesians or Dacians, depending upon where they settled. They are either a branch of the Getae or Thracians belonging to the Dacian race.67

river basin during the six centuries of the late Iron Age (seventh c. BC to early first c. AD) with the number of settlements dated to the six centuries of Roman domination (first to late sixth c. AD), it appears that the latter are twice as numerous.56 According to the archaeological record of the period fifth to third c. BC, the area under investigation may have had a denser population than the period preceding the Roman conquest.57 A few fortified settlements functioning in the period of so-called ‘urbanisation of Thrace’, fourth to second c. BC, almost ceased to exist at the turn of the first c. BC.58 The land between the Osum and Yantra valleys must have been a cultural and political ‘buffer’ zone between the territories controlled by the tribes living west and east of these rivers,59 but were also used as trade routes.

In contrast to the Moesian part of Dobruja, where Latin and Greek sounding toponyms prevailed,68 the toponyms in the rural hinterland of Nicopolis were primarily Thracian. This should indicate a certain continuity of settlement, while archaeology seems to contradict this.69 The transdanubians displaced as a result of Aelius Catus’ actions may have been moved to the area of the future civitas Moesiae et Treballiae,70 including the easternmost outskirts of the lands controlled by these tribes. However, more displacements may have taken place in various places along the Danube.

In the first c. BC, the Moesian territory and the Black Sea coast experienced destructive military action. During the conflict with Mithridates, M. Terentius Varro Lucullus invaded the Pontic colonies (72–71 BC).60 At the same time, the Romans conducted their military activity in the west, reaching the Timok river in 73 BC.61 Most probably in the late 50s BC, the Dacian king Burebista led a campaign against the Scordisci62 and may have passed through the region. Both historical sources and the distribution of finds suggest that these lands were populated in the first c. BC by natives who were of no importance for the Romans.

If the second wave of mass deportations during Nero’s reign was indeed connected to the increased control of the river,71 then it must have embraced the area between the Vedea and Ialomiţa rivers. It appears that the settlement voids in the lower Vedea, Argeş, and Ialomiţa from the first and second c. AD may be proof of the displacements to the south, and of the repelling of the Geto-Dacians (the Militari-Chilia culture) to the north.72 However, the basic reason for this operation, as the elogium informs, was to provide tribute (ad praestanda tributa) collected on the southern side of the Danube.

The presence of the Romans on the southern bank of the Danube ushered in changes in the settlement network. The ancient sources inform us of two mass displacements carried out by the army. The first took place ca. AD 10 and was directed by Aelius Catus;63 the second was supervised by Ti. Plautius Silvanus, the governor of Moesia in AD 60–67.64 Although the numbers of resettled people provided by the Romans seem to be exaggerated, the fact that the events took place has not been repudiated by scholars. The first action appears to have concerned either western or central Moesia, and the second one, Dobruja.65 The displaced peoples are described in sources as transdanubiani, which does not refer to any ethnicity. The cause may have been related to the ethnic closeness of the

It is believed that the displacements were meant to increase the population of some regions of later Moesia,73 while the reasons for mass deportations from the northern banks varied, depended upon the situation on the two sides. The actions focusing on the creation of no-man’s-land zones (agri vacuos) on the barbarian side of the river took place in the Rhineland and middle Danube.74 The policy of conquest involved creating tensions between related tribes (e.g., in the case of the followers of Vannius displaced to

56 Conrad 2006, 313, fig. 2 (the ratio is 178:352). 57 Stefanov 1956, 39-45, 47; cf. Velkov 1964, 22. 58 Domaradzki1982, 44f. 59 Spiridonov 1977, 230; Kolendo 1998; Gerov 1980, 20; cf. different point of view on the role of the discussed lands during the Bronze and Iron Age by Stanev, Iltcheva, Tchotchev, Pissarev 1991. 60 Florus, Epit. I 39.6. 61 Bellum Dardanicum and G. Scribonius Curio; Danov 1979, 115. 62 Papazoglu 1978, 332-36. 63 Strabo VII 3.10: [...] Aelius Catus transplanted from the country on the far side of the Ister into Thrace fifty thousand persons from among the Getae, a tribe with the same tongue as the Thracians. And they live there in Thrace now and are called ‘Moesi’.Trans. by H.L. Jones. 64 CIL XIV 3608 = ILS 986: [...] Moesiae / in qua plura quam centum mill(ia) / ex numero transdanuvianor(um) / ad praestanda tributa cum coniugib(us) / ac liberis et principibus aut regibussuis / transduxit; see Halkin 1934, 121-61; Pippidi 1955, 355-83; Zawadzki 1975, 59-73; Mrozewicz 1994, 14-23. 65 See Vulpe 1960, 317 who refers to the concept of V. Pȃrvan on the displacements to the lands between the Iskur, Vit, Osum, and Yantra rivers; Mrozewicz 1987, 117-18; about the subject also see Mrozewicz 1999, 10305.

66 Strabo VII.3.2: Now the Greeks used to suppose that the Getae were Thracians; and the Getae lived on either side the Ister, as did also the Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi. Transl. by H.L. Jones. 67 Cass. Dio LV 22.6-7. 68 E.g. vicus Quintionis (AÉ 1919, 13); vicus Secundini (AÉ 1924, 148); vicus Narcisiani (AÉ 1957, 337 = 1963, 166). 69 Poulter 1995, 8-10, points on the lack of archaeological evidence and little research of Iron Age settlement which must be taken into account. 70 According to I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu these were the tribes living in the Argeş river basin; Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1983, 81. 71 Sarnowski 2006. 72 Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1981, 31; Bichir 1984, 123, Pl.I/2. The southernmost sites are necropolises; the majory of the Militari-Chilia sites are dated to the second century. 73 Mrozewicz 1987, 121. 74 Tac. Ann. XIII 54.1: eoque Frisii iuventutem saltibus aut paludibus, imbellem aetatem per lacus admovere ripae agrosque vacuos et militum usui sepositos insedere; Cass. Dio LXXII 3.2; 15; 16.1. Dio suggested that it was a zone of five to ten miles (8-16 km); see Potter 1992; Austin, Rankov 1995, 180.

16

Pre-Roman Settlements in the Hinterland of Novae Pannonia75) and the acquisition of recruits of the same or related nationality, who knew well the enemy’s weak points, even though such recruits may have been prone to betrayal or desertion. The Romans were aware of the cultural similarities of the tribes inhabiting the two banks of the Danube. The voids may have been created both to form buffer zones,76 continually patrolled zones,77 creation of fields and meadows for military purposes (prata), or for the need of controlling the limitations on trade with the Barbarians.78 The reasons for the creation or maintenance of empty lands along the border zone had a complex set of reasons, including security and control of the land and river routes for transporting supplies for the army.

It is possible that the displacements of native populations were more numerous than we are aware, although possibly smaller in number of resettled peoples, and included strips of land along the river banks. The inhabitants of sparse settlements on both sides of the Danube must have faced forced displacement on the southern bank or to the north, but also from naturally defendable sites to the lowlands.86 The unsolved question is where they were made to settle down. They may have been merged with the population of new canabae or vici, or they may have been dispersed into the hinterland. From the Roman point of view, it would have been more beneficial to place the natives into the countryside. The integration of the settlers inhabiting canabae with the natives was a slow process, which must certainly have led to tensions.87 The large quantity of amphorae in the aforementioned Flavian pits unearthed at Novae confirm that the provisions for the army were organised on a large scale and favoured Italic and provincial traders.88 The archaeological evidence seems to indicate that the lands chosen by the Romans for the legionary fortress at Novae was largely empty by the turn of the millennium, and became ready as in the famous words of Calgus, for pax Romana and for lucrative business potential.

On the Roman side of the border, the Romans may have both purposefully ‘filled’ and maintained the existing voids. Some spaces may have been rearranged in order to become friendly for the Graeco-Roman settlers and traders following the army, as well as those retiring from the military units. The need for providing a taxable source of income and recruits could have been another reason for mass deportations.79 The sudden settlement boom in southern Dobruja in the second c. AD may have been the result of another action of that type, unknown from the written sources.80 The displacements over the lower Danube are attested during the times of the Late Roman Empire, as well.81 The reasons and arrangement of settlements may have been different in various places within the border zone.

ABBREVIATIONS

The rearrangement of the native population included the creation of new administrative units. The larger tribal groups of importance (Moesi, Triballi) were organised as civitates under a military prefect.82 The smaller groups were assigned to artificial administrative units with toponymic names given probably by the Romans.83 Among them, Dimum, a tribal centre, was described as having been inhabited by the Δειμήνσιοι (Dimenses?) mentioned by Ptolemy.84 These administrative units must have been defined for effective taxation.85 No such tribal civitas or centre is mentioned with reference to Novae. It is, thus, possible that before the final placement of the legion between the Osum and Yantra, the land was ‘prepared’ for this purpose.

AÉ L`Année Épigraphique ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Th. Mommsen (ed.) GSUIFF Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet Istorikofilologicheski fakultet IAI Izvestiya na Arheologicheskiya Institut IBAI Izvestiya na Bulgarski Arheologicheski Institut IGBulg II Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. II, Inscriptiones inter Danuvium et Haemum repertae, G. Mihailov (ed.), Sofija 1958. ILS Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, vols. I–III, Berlin 1892–1916. ANCIENT SOURCES

IV. Conclusions. The place where Novae was later founded was undoubtedly settled during the Bronze and Iron Ages, but most probably emptied or abandoned by the 80s BC. The surrounding lands were, thus, desolate prior the Roman conquest and must have been kept empty and rearranged, by the Romans for future military installations. Still, the question remains: where and by whom was the Thracian pottery discovered in the Flavian contexts in Novae made?

Cassius Dio, Roman History, with an English Translation by H.B. Foster and E. Cary, London–New York (1914). Florus: Epitome of Roman History, translated by E.S. Forster, Cambridge (Mass.)–London (1929). Herodotus, with an English translation by A.D. Godley, in four volumes, London–New York (1928).

75 Mócsy 1974, 40-41; Mrozewicz 1987, 117. 76 Mrozewicz 1987, 122. 77 Austin, Rankov 1995, 180. 78 Potter 1997, 270-71. 79 Poulter 1990, 145. 80 Torbatov 1997. 81 During the reign of Probus and Diocletian, Bastarnae to the south of the Danube; SHA, Probus 18.

82 CIL V 1838 = ILS, 1349. 83 Papazoglu 1978, 435-36; Gerov 1980, 84. 84 Ptol. III 10.10. He mentions also Οἰτήνσιοι (Utenses?), Ὀβυλήνσιοι (Oboulenses), and Πιαρήνσιοι (Piarenses?). 85 Poulter 1990, 145. 86 von Petrikovits 1977, 94-96. 87 Cf. the situation on the Rhine frontier: Verboven 2007, 298. 88 Fulford 1992, 296.

17

Agnieszka Tomas Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, in three volumes, ed. C.F.A. Nobbe, Leipzig (1843).

Conrad, S. and D. Stanchev, “Archaeological survey on the Roman frontier on the lower Danube between Novae and Sexaginta Prista. Preliminary report (1997–2000).” in Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), vol. II, J. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema, B. Hoffmann (eds.). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (2002): 673-81.

The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. With an English translation by D. Magie, Ph.D. In three volumes, London– New York (1922-1930). Strabo, The Geography, with An English Translation by H.L. Jones, W. Heinemann, in eight volumes, London–Cambridge (Mass.) (1917-1967).

Danov, Hr., “Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan.” ANRW II/7.1 (1979): 21-185.

Tacitus. The Annals, with An English Translation by J. Jackson in four volumes, London (1962).

Alexandrescu, P., “Le groupe des trésors thraces du Nord des Balkans, I.” Dacia 27 (1983): 45-66.

Daszkiewicz, M., E. Bobryk, G. Schneider, “Some Aspects of Composition, Technology and Functional Properties of Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery from Novae (Bulgaria).” In Stolovaya i kuhonnaya keramika III – VI vekov iz Nov (Severna Bolgariya) / Stołowa i kuchenna ceramika III – VI wieku z Novae (północna Bułgaria), E. Klenina (ed.). Poznań: Novae. Studies and Materials, II (2006): 189-211.

Austin, N.J.E. and N.B. Rankov. Exploratio: military and political intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the battle of Adrianople. London (1995).

Dimitrov, D.P., M. Chichikova, A. Dimitrova, V. Naydenova, “Аrheologicheski Raskopki v vostochnom sektore Nove prez 1965 g.” IAI 30 (1967): 75-100.

Avdev, С., “Monetnite nahodki ot Bulgariya namereni v perioda 1823–1900 (po arhivni i literatourni danni).” Noumizmatika 15/2 (1981): 24-40.

Dimitrov, K., “Antichni moneti ot rajona na Nove (Miziya), secheni predi osnovaneto na rimskiya voenen lager (5 v. Pr. Hr. – 41 g. Sl. Hr.).” Sbornik v pamet na akademik D.P. Dimitrov. Sofia (2013): 712-66.

REFERENCES Alexandrescu, P., “La nécropole géte de Zimnicea.” Dacia 24 (1980): 19-126.

Bichir, G. Geto-Dacii din Muntenia în epoca romană. Bucureşti (1984).

Dimova, V., “Kolektnivna nahodka na moneti ot I i II makedonska oblast.” Аrheologiya (Sofia) 1/1-2 (1959): 81-84.

Biernacka-Lubańska, M. The Roman and Early Byzantine Fortifications of Lower Moesia and Northern Thrace. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków (1982).

Domaradzki, M., “Trakijskite ukrepitelni suoruzheniya IV–II v. pr. n.e.” Poselishten zhivot v Trakiya (simpoziyum), 14–17 Sept., Yambol. Yambol (1982): 4465.

Bogdan-Cătăniciu, I. Evolution of the System of Defence Works in Roman Dacia. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 116 (1981).

Donevski, P., “Raskopki na srednovekovnata krepost „Kaleto” v Svishtov.” Arheologicheski Otkritiya i Raskopki prez 1990 g. Lovech (1991): 96.

Bogdan-Cătăniciu, I., “Die Klientel-Bevölkerung in Muntenien (1. – 3. Jh. u.Z.).” Acta Musei Napocensis 20 (1983): 67-84.

Dremsizova-Nelchinova, C. and D. Ivanov. Аrheologicheski pametnici v Rousenski okrug. Rouse (1983).

Bunov, P. “Poselishten zhivot v zemite po dolnoto porechiye na rekite Iskur, Vit i Osum prez II–III v. (pomonetnidanni).” Izvestiyana Muzejteot Severo-zapadnata Bulgariya 22 (1994): 43-64.

Dymaczewska, U., A. Dymaczewski, Z. Hilczerówna, “Wyniki badań wykopaliskowych na grodzisku w Styrmen, okr. Ruse (Bułgaria) w latach 1961–1964.” Slavia Antiqua 13 (1966): 271-315.

Chichikova, M. “Trakijskata kultura v rajona na Nove.” Sbornik v pamet na akademik D.P. Dimitrov. Sofia (2013): 227-46.

Falkner, R.K., “The Pottery.” In Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman to Early Byzantine City. The Pottery and Glass, A. Poulter (ed.) with contibutions by R.K. Falkner, J.D. Shepherd. London (1999): 55-296.

Conrad, S., “Archaeological Survey on the Lower Danube: Results and Perspectives.” In Surveying the Greek Chora. The Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective. International Conference, Sandbjerg, Denmark (31 August – 3 September 2003). Aarhus: Black Sea Studies IV (2006): 309-31.

Fulford, M., “Territorial Expansion and the Roman Empire.” World Archaeology 23/3 (1992): 294-305.

18

Pre-Roman Settlements in the Hinterland of Novae Gencheva, E. Purviyat voenen lager v Novae provinciya Miziya (Severna Bulgariya). Sofia–Warszawa (2002).

Papazoglu, F. The Central Balkan Tribes in Preroman Times. Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisce and Moesians. Amsterdam (1978).

Gerasimov, T., “Kolektivni nahodki na moneti prez poslednite godini.” IAI 15 (1946): 235-44.

Paunov, E. From Koine to Romanitas: The Numismatic Evidence for Roman Expansion and Settlement in Bulgaria in Antiquity (Moesia and Thrace, ca 146 BC – AD 98/117. PhD Diss. under supervision of Dr. P. Guest, FSA, Cardiff University (2013).

Gerasimov, T., “Monetni sukrovishta namereni v Bulgariya prez 1958 i 1959 g.” IAI 25 (1962): 225-27. Gerasimov, T., “Monetni sukrovishta namereni v Bulgariya prez 1965 g.” IAI 29 (1966): 211-16.

Paunov, E., “Early Roman Coins from Novae. Patterns and Observations.” Novensia 25 (2015): 145-76.

Gerov, B. Zemlevladeneto v rimska Trakiya i Miziya I– IIIv. [= GSUIFF 72/2 (1977)], Sofia (1980).

Paunov, E. and I. Prokopov. An Inventory of Roman Republican Coin Hoards and Coins from Bulgaria. Milano (2002).

Halkin, L., “Tiberius Plautius Aelianus, légat de Mésie sous Néron.” Antiquite Classique 3 (1934): 121-61.

Paunov, E. and I. Prokopov, “Actium and the ‘Legionary’ Coinage of Mark Antony. Historical, Economic and Monetary Consequences in Thrace (the Coin Evidence).” in Numismatic history and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity (Proceedings of the first International conference, Ioannina, 3–7 October 2007). KEPMA, vol. III, Athens (2013): 107-29.

Hensel, W. A. Dymaczewski, Z. Hilczerówna, T. Wiślański, “Materiały z badań archeologicznych w Bułgarii w 1961 r.” Slavia Antiqua 12 (1965): 235-87. Hensel, W. et al. (eds.). Styrmen nad Jantrą (Bułgaria). Badania archeologiczne w latach 1961–1964 i 1967– 1968. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków (1980).

von Petrikovits, H., “Kleinstädte und nichtstädtische Siedlungen im Nordwesten des römischen Reiches.” In Das Dorf der Eisenzeit und des frühen Mittelalters, [= Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. Folge, 101], H. Jankuhn (ed.). Gottingen (1977): 86-135.

Kolendo, J., “Claude et l’annexion de la Thrace.” In Claude de Lyon empereur romain. Actes du Colloque Paris–Nancy–Lyon. Novembre 1992, Y. Burnand, Y. Le Bohec, J.-P. Martin (eds.). Paris (1998): 321-30. Milchev, A. and G. Draganov, “Arheologicheski ostanki v rajona na s. Koprivets, Rousensko.” Arheologiya (Sofia) 34/1 (1992): 36-41.

Pippidi, D.M., “Plautius Aelianus şi frontiera Dunării de Jos in secolul I al erei noastre.” Studii şi Cercetari de Istorie Veche 6 (1955): 355-83.

Mitova-Dzhonova, D. Аrheologicheski pametnici v Plevenski okrug. Sofia (1979).

Popilian, G., “Traditions autochtones dans le céramique provincionale romaine de la Dacie méridionale.” In Thraco-Dacica. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie (Bucarest, 4–10 septembre 1976) C. Preda, Al. Vulpe, C. Poghirc (eds.). Bucureşti (1976): 279-86.

Mitova-Dzhonova, D., “Lokalizatsiya na antichnite kreposti ot tsentralnata chast na Dunavskata ravnina.” GSUIFF 77/2 (1985): 276-85. Mitova-Dzhonova, D., “Dimum und regio Dimensis.” In Limes, G.C. Susini (ed.). Bologna: Studi di Storia 5 (1994): 47-65.

Potter, D., “Empty Areas and Roman Frontier Policy.” The American Journal of Philology 113/2 (1997): 269-74. Poulter, A.G., “Frontier People Beyond and Behind the limes; the Impact of the Native Population upon the Lower Danubian Frontier.” In Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum, vol. I. Vienna (1990): 217-25.

Mócsy, A. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. London–Boston (1974). Mrozewicz, L., “Przesiedlenia ludnościowe na rzymską stronę Renu i Dunaju w okresie wczesnego cesarstwa (do wojen markomańskich).” Eos 75 (1987): 107-28.

Poulter, A.G., “Introduction. Summary and Conclusions.” Nicopolis ad Istrum. A Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine City. Excavations 1985–1992, in A.G. Poulter (ed.) with contributions by T. Blagg, K. Butcher, J. Reynolds, P. Strange and T. Sturge. London (1995): 1-51.

Mrozewicz, L. Exempla prosopographica. Poznań: Studia Moesiaca 1 (1994): 14-23. Mrozewicz, L., “Prosopographia Moesiaca, II: Sex. Aelius Catus.” Eos 86/1 (1999): 103-05.

Preda, C. Geto-Dacii din bazinul Oltului inferior. Dava de la Sprincenata. Bucureşti (1986).

19

Agnieszka Tomas Sarnowski, T., “Ti. Plautius Silvanus, Tauric Chersonesus and classis Moesica.” Dacia 50 (2006): 89-92.

Theodossiev, N. North-Western Thrace from the Fifth to the First Centuries B.C. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 859 (2000).

Sarnowski, T. with a contribution by D. Dragoev, “The Name of Novae.” Archeologia (Warsaw) 58 (2007): 15-23.

Tomas, A., “Municipium Novensium? Report on the Field Survey at Ostrite Mogili, Veliko Turnovo District.” Światowit 47/A (2006): 115-28.

Sarnowski, T. et al. Novae. An Archaeological Guide to A Roman Legionary Fortress and Early Byzantine Town on The Lower Danube (Bulgaria). Warszawa (2012).

Tomas, A., “Inter Moesos et Thraces. A Contribution to the Studies on the Rural Hinterland of Novae in Lower Moesia.” Archeologia (Warsaw) 57 (2009): 31-47.

Spiridonov, T., “La marche d’Alexandre le Grand en Thrace antique et les tribus entre Stara Planina et le Danube.” Thracia 4 (1977): 225-33.

Tomas, A., “Non-Destructive Investigations in the Extramural Area of Novae (Lower Moesia) in 2013.” Światowit 52/A (2013): 197-206.

Stanev, P. V. Ilceva, M. Cocev, A. Pisarev, “La culture matérielle des tribus thraces entre les rivières de Yantra et d’Ossam et leurs relations avec la Thrace.” In La culture urbaine des Balkans, XVe–XIXe siècle. Recueil d’études du Colloque. Belgrade, 5 janvier 1990. Belgrade (1991): 88-92.

Torbatov, S., “The Getae in the Southern Dobrudja in the Period of Roman Domination: Archaeological Aspects.” In Actes du 2e symposium international des études thraciennes ‘Thrace ancienne’, vol. II. Komotini (1997): 507-14.

Stefan, M.-M., “Exploring second Iron Age Landscapes: the necropolis from Zimnicea, Teleorman county.” In The Necropolises and the Environment (first mill. BC). Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology Buzău – Romania, 2–4 October 2009, V. Sȋrbu, D. Ciobanu (eds.). Buzău–Braila: Mousaios 14 (2009): 190.

Totevski, T., “Trakite po gornoto techeniye na reka Osum prez I hil. pr. Hr.” In III Mezhdunaroden Simpozijum Kabile 17–21 maj 1993, Yambol. Poselishten zhivot v drewna Trakiya. Yambol (1994): 94-100. Turcu, M., “Da la densité de l’habitation géto-dace dans la plaine romaine (répertoire des stations et des découvertes funéraires).” Dacia 22 (1978): 155-71.

Soultov B., “Pavlikenskiyat kraj prez antichnostta.” In Sbornik Pavlikeni i Pavlikenskiyat kraj, Sofia (1977): 1162.

Velkov, V., “Zur Frage der Sklaverei auf der Balkanhalbinsel während der Antike.” Études Balkaniques, I, Sofia (1964): 125–38 (reprinted in Geschichte und Kultur Thrakiens und Mösiens. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Amsterdam 1988, 113-25).

Soultov B. Ceramic Production on the Territory of Nicopolis ad Istrum, [= GSUIFF 76/2 (1983)]. Sofia (1983).

Verboven, K.S., “Good for Business. The Roman Army and the Emergence of a ‘Business Class’ in the Northwestern Provinces of the Roman Empire (first century BCE – third century CE).” In The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476), L. de Blois, E. Lo Cascio (eds.). Leiden – Boston (2007): 295-314.

Stefanov, S., “Аntichni pametnitsi ot svishtovsko.” IBAI 5 (1928-1929): 320-25. Stefanov, S., “Grobna nahodka ot Lesicheri.” IBAI 13 (1939): 320-22. Stefanov, S., “Predrimski pametnitsi ot Nove.” In Sbornik Gavril Katsarov, II [= IBAI 19]. Sofia (1955): 49-54.

Vulov, V., “Razkopki na Kaleto v gr. Svishtov.” Arheologiya (Sofia) 4/4 (1962): 7-15.

Stefanov, S. Starinite po dolniya basejn na Yantra. Sofia (1956).

Vulpe, R., “Les Gètes de la rive gauche du Bas-Danube et les Romains.” Dacia 4 (1960): 309-32.

Stefanov, S., “Prinos kum starata istoriya na Svishtov do sredata na XVII vek.” In Sto godini narodno chitalishte Svishtov 1856 g. – 1956 g. Jubilen sbornik. Svishtov (1958): 337-65.

Woźniak, Z., “Die östliche Randzone der Latènekultur.” Germania 54/2 (1976): 382-402. Zawadzki, T., “La légation de Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus en Mésie et la politique frumentaire de Néron.” La Parola del Passato. Rivista di Studi Antichi 30 (1975): 59–73.

Shkorpil, K., “Nekotorye iz dorog vostochnoy Bolgarii.” Izvestiya Rossiyskoj Imperatorskoj Akademii v Konstantinopole 10 (1905): 443-502. Tacheva-Hitova, M., “Au sujet d’épées celtiques trouvées en Bulgarie.” In Studia in honorem V. Beševliev, V. Georgiev et al. (eds.). Sofia (1978): 325-34.

20

Pre-Roman Settlements in the Hinterland of Novae FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the lower Danube valley with tribes living on the southern side of the river (by A. Tomas)

Figure 2. Sites of the late Iron Age (late seventh – early first c. AD) in the lower Yantra river basin (after S. Conrad 2006. All reasonable efforts were made to contact the copyright holder.)

21

Agnieszka Tomas

Figure 3. Sites and finds from the late Iron Age in the lower Yantra and Osum river basins compared to the early Roman settlement and places where boundary stones from AD 136 with the formula inter Moesos et Thraces were discovered (by A. Tomas)

22

THE ROLE OF THE EQUITES DALMATAE IN THE LATE ROMAN DEFENSIVE SYSTEM IN THE DANUBE VALLEY Tomasz Dziurdzik (Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw)

Abstract: This article analyses the functions performed by a cavalry formation, the equites Dalmatae, within the late Roman military forces of the Danubian region. Scarce historical sources and the iconographic evidence of decorated gravestones are used to reconstruct the original armament and character of the corps, allowing scholars to classify it as a light, close combat (spear) or short-range (javelin) specialised cavalry. It is noted that during the fourth century the units belonging to this formation probably began to use other weapons, most likely the bow, to adapt to the tactics of the enemies encountered on the Danubian border. Next, the deployment of units is reconstructed thanks to evidence from Notitia Dignitatum, confirmed also by inscriptions and tile stamps. The patterns of deployment show the strategic importance of the equites Dalmatae on the Danubian border. As reconstructed, their role was not only to counter the wartime threat posed by enemy horsemen, but also to facilitate the everyday working of the frontier through patrols, scouting and communication. The conclusion is that the formation was vital for the whole defensive system of the region.

fighting style of this kind of cavalry has been noted,1 but, so far, no studies have dealt with this question in detail.

I. Introduction. The importance of the equites Dalmatae among the late Roman military formations is apparent merely from the large number of entries (48) in the Notitia Dignitatum. However, the crucial role of this cavalry formation in the defence of some regions of the Empire is evident, especially when we consider the Danubian border. The respective sections of Notitia Dignitatum (ND Occ. XXXII; Occ. XXXIII; Occ. XXXIV; Or. XLI; Or. XLII) mention the corps 34 times. These numbers place the equites Dalmatae as the second most numerous formation of the late Roman army, second only to the legionary infantry, the mainstay of the Roman army. The concentration of this particular cavalry corps in the sections of the ND dedicated to the forces on the middle Danube is unprecedented. Some entries indicate that the equites Dalmatae were present in most of the forts. In the province of Valeria one can find whole chains of neighbouring posts garrisoned by this formation. Obviously, these high numbers also meant important responsibilities within the defensive system of the region. To fully reconstruct the role played by the units of the equites Dalmatae on the Danubian frontier, one must consider the armament and character of the formation, which, in turn, imply its strengths and possible roles. An analysis of the posts garrisoned by the units and their strategic importance will then follow, providing an overview of the probable responsibilities they were expected to fulfil within the Roman defence system along the Danube.

Only a scant number of sources provide information about the origin of the formation, as it appeared during the most obscure era in the development of the Roman Imperial army, the crisis of the third century. Especially important is the fact that no direct link has been found with any of the units from the time of the Principate. The equites Dalmatae were one of the cavalry formations raised by Gallienus when he reigned alone, AD 260-268, as was first suggested by Ritterling.2 Ritterling's theory of the creation of a cavalry reserve army at this time has been challenged and today is commonly viewed as based more on early twentieth century principles of strategy than on the ancient sources. In recent scholarly debate the concentration of several cavalry formations in northern Italy by Gallienus is interpreted rather in terms of countering the threat from the Germanic war bands pillaging the regions north of the Alps and also that posed by the Gallic Empire or in connection with the relative ease of provisioning masses of soldiers and horses in a rich, agricultural region.3 Although the idea that a centrally located, strategic cavalry reserve was created has been rejected, the reign of that emperor is still viewed as the time which saw the introduction of several elements that will distinguish the late Roman cavalry organisation from the earlier model. Among the new formations that probably originate from this moment were the equites Dalmatae.

II. Characterisation of the equites Dalmatae. An examination of the role played by the equites Dalmatae in the defence of the Danubian region must begin with a consideration of the character and armament of the formation, factors obviously affecting and limiting its possible duties. The importance of establishing the

The name of the formation, literally meaning “horse-riding Dalmatians”, is believed by some scholars to denote an ethnic character of the original corps organised by Gallienus.4 If that were indeed the case, we could expect the formation to follow local traditions of both armament and tactics, similar, for example, to the famous North

* I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Tadeusz Sarnowski for turning my attention to the topic of equites Dalmatae and his guidance during my studies. 1 Speidel 1975, 226, n. 86b.

2 Ritterling 1903. 3 Southern 2001, 88-9. 4 Southern 2001, 89.

23

Tomasz Dziurdzik African formation, the equites Mauri,5 with their distinct equipment and horses.6 However, the name should probably be seen as a reflection of the fact that the first unit was organised in the province of Dalmatia rather than because it was composed of Dalmatians. This mostly mountainous region without developed traditions of horsemanship was unsuitable for mass conscription of cavalrymen, as demonstrated by the composition of units created there during the Principate.7 Those forces were strongly dominated by infantrymen, with only a few of the cohorts being equitatae, a small cavalry contingent. Moreover, an analysis of the possible origins of soldiers known from epigraphic sources, reconstructed mostly based on the origin and frequency of use of the names they carried, shows no trace of an ethnic composition of the equites Dalmatae formation.8 It is illustrative that the only member of the corps whose origin has been clearly identified in his grave inscription (CIL III 7415 = AE 2006, 1256 = HD 042886)9 came from Ambianum, modern-day Amiens in northern France, and had nothing to do with the region mentioned in the name of his formation.10 Most of the soldiers seem to have been recruited in the regions where their units were active.

replaced by stamps of officers, regional commanders, provincial armies, or only the name of the place where tiles were manufactured.14 This means that the link between pieces of military equipment found in forts and garrisons is always disputable. The most important issue, however, is that there are almost no examples of finds of equipment that can be directly linked to any particular late Roman unit through epigraphic evidence. Probably, the only such case is the find from Deurne in the Netherlands, where among several items of equipment a helmet bearing an inscription STABLESIA VI was found, attesting that the armament belonged to a member of a unit under the reconstructed name of vexillation comitatensis stablesiana VI.15 In order to gain further insights, we must turn to the scant literary and iconographic sources available. The earliest moment in history to which the formation can be traced, is during a conspiracy against Gallienus. According to Zosimus and the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, the emperor was killed during the siege of Mediolanum by Cecropius or Ceronius (Zosimus, Historia nova I, XL, 23; SHA, Vita Gallieni XIV, 4-9). He is described as a dux Dalmatarum. This vague, descriptive title that had nothing to do with Roman military hierarchy of that time, probably indicates a commanding officer of the formation. Moreover, the word used to denote the weapon used in the assassination in one of the accounts (SHA, Vita Galieni XIV, 9), telum, is equally indistinct and definitely not a part of military terminology. We can assume that a shafted weapon, probably a spear or less likely a javelin, was meant.16 The importance of this information is diminished by the ownership of that weapon. Since it was used by an officer, it gives little clue as to the armament of rank-andfile soldiers. A further problem lies in the term telum itself, as it is too vague to allow for certain identification. It has been sometimes used to denote other types of weapons, including missiles, or even as a collective term for all offensive weaponry.17

Therefore, one must reject the idea of an ethnic cavalry formation with a traditional, regional manner of fighting. The difficult situation of the Empire at that time and the limited resources the emperor had at his disposal did not allow for any radical and far-reaching reforms.11 His creation of the discussed formation was probably a result of a reorganisation of existing structures, similar to other types of cavalry raised at that time. In terms of equipment we can assume that members of the newly created corps were armed exactly like soldiers in earlier formations. It is likely that most of them were, in fact, experienced soldiers assigned to new units rather than raw recruits. They probably also used the mounts they already possessed, since not only acquisition, but also training of a large number of cavalry horses would be problematic.12 Unfortunately, an analysis of the armament of the equites Dalmatae cannot be facilitated by the analysis of archaeological evidence, as there are no finds of military equipment that are clearly linked to any of the units. In the case of the late Roman military, it is, in most cases, far more problematic to assign particular units to archaeological sites and cultural layers than in the period of the Principate. This is because the late Roman period has not been a primary subject of research,13 and there are also fewer epigraphic monuments. A change in the stamping of tiles used by the military makes any attempt at research even more difficult. During the course of the fourth century, stamps mentioning unit names were

The few written sources at our disposal suggest that the equites Dalmatae were a kind of light cavalry. The accounts related to the hostilities under Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian mention the corps again and include it among the elite elements of the army (SHA, Vita Claudii XI, 9; Zosimus, Historia nova I, XLIII, 2 and I, LII, 3). They are part of a cavalry force, together with some lightly armed units, which employed hit-and-run tactics against the armoured Palmyrenian horsemen. It is doubtful whether such details drawn from literary sources can always be considered to be accurate. One should bear in mind not only the general issues concerning the reliability of sources, especially those belonging to the literary genre of the lives of emperors (vitae), but also the fact that most

5 Speidel 1975; Speidel 1993. 6 Hyland 1990, 112. 7 Alföldy 1962; Wilkes 2000. 8 Dziurdzik, forthcoming. 9 For the sake of simplicity inscriptions and tile stamps are mentioned only by the numbers of inter-regional corpora and Internet databases. Further concordances are available in the respective databases cited. 10 More on this highly interesting gravestone: Dumont 1892, 313-14; Hoffmann 1969, 322; Speidel 2000, 479-82; Woods 2006. Its decoration

and inscription (CIL III 7415 = AE 2006, 1256 = HD 042886) are important evidence in the discussion about late Roman standards. 11 Southern 2001, 80-3. 12 Hyland 1990, 116. 13 Southern, Dixon 1996, 3. 14 Sarnowski 1985, 121. 15 Klumbach 1973, 73-5; Junkelmann 1992, Abb. 149. 16 Bishop, Coulston 1993, 69. 17 Ernout, Meillet 2001, telum, 679.

24

The Equites Dalmatae in the Late Roman Danube Valley can expect that some kind of headgear was used, but this could have taken the form of a pileus Pannonicus, a felt or leather cap very popular among late Roman soldiers, rather than a metal helmet. The only element of defensive armament that is certain are round, small to medium-sized shields, quite often represented on the decorated gravestones of the soldiers. One can also find similar shields in the miniatures of the medieval copies of Notitia Dignitatum. Late Roman sources show that although round shields were popular among horsemen, other shapes were used as well.22 The infantry, on the other hand, used mostly oval shields, completely absent from the illustrations in the Notitia Dignitatum. Therefore, the fact that all shields are drawn as round can have much more to do with the fact that the medieval illustrators were using compasses as opposed to depicting the precise shapes used by the army.23 The only units of the equites Dalmatae that have their shield designs represented are two units belonging to the field army stationed in Gaul (ND Occ. VI, 13-14). The differences between the two mean that there was no common design, nor any general, unifying elements for the whole formation. However, one should not view the evidence of those illustrations as entirely credible. There are several issues with the accuracy of designs, beginning with several mistakes in the names of the units, for example the same name being repeated.24 It has been noted that motifs represented on the shields near the beginning of the document are much more elaborate than those near the end of the lists.25 This is a strong argument for the theory that at least some, and possibly all of the designs were rather a creation of the medieval artist's somewhat limited imagination than true copies of late antique originals.

late Roman authors only rarely provided accurate details concerning the military. For example, even Ammianus Marcellinus, with his first-hand military knowledge and experience,18 only sporadically mentions the names of units or their armament. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that he made no mention of the equites Dalmatae. Since the literary accounts fail to provide trustworthy details of the armament of the equites Dalmatae, the evidence of decorated gravestones seems to be of much higher importance for our argument, even though they also should be considered with some caution. It has been noted that the representations of Roman cavalrymen often follow established iconographic patterns, at the cost of an accurate portrayal of the deceased soldier.19 Further important aspects to consider involve, for example, the substantial number of re-used gravestones from the Principate among those bearing inscriptions commemorating late Roman soldiers.20 Their decoration obviously cannot be used as evidence for reconstructing fourth century equipment. Also, the number and quality of the representations, known so far, leaves much to be desired. In most cases, we cannot draw any strong conclusions. The situation is made even more problematic by the fact that some of the gravestones have been lost since their discovery, and are known only from old photographs of not always satisfactory quality.21 However, even bearing in mind the methodological limitations mentioned above, we are still able to conclude that the equites Dalmatae probably used spears or javelins as their main offensive weapon. As this matches the scant evidence from literary sources, this reconstruction seems quite plausible. Although they can only be identified on gravestones in some cases and, even then, with uncertainty, we can assume that swords were also used, perhaps mostly as a side weapon. Of special importance is the fact that not a single representation of a bow or arrows can be found, suggesting probable specialisation in hand-to-hand or closerange combat. However, most of the decorated gravestones belong to NCOs, which means that we cannot be sure if ordinary soldiers were also armed in the same way. We are unable to determine whether the equites Dalmatae used armour. This detail is lacking on the decorated gravestones, many of them showing the cavalrymen in the most common manner for the soldiers of the age, wearing a cloak. Their military status is, therefore, more hinted at than shown, in contrast to the gravestones of the Principate, which often show full military garb and equipment, either being worn or sometimes presented next to the image of the deceased person. We can only guess that the light character of the formation suggested by the available evidence should go together with only light or even no armour. Similarly, we have no information about the possible use of helmets by the equites Dalmatae. We

The existing evidence, although limited, allows us to presume that the equites Dalmatae were what we might call a non-specialised type of light cavalry. However, it is highly probable that some units underwent later changes and diversification of armament. Late Roman and early Byzantine sources suggest that cavalry units began to include both mounted archers and close combat specialists, armed with different weapons and armour, as was standard in the age in which Maurice's military handbook was written (Maurice, Strategikon III, 3). Such a situation has been suggested in units based in Egypt, where evidence from papyri provides many details unavailable in other regions of the Empire. It has been noted that among nonspecialised units of cavalry (of the ala type) belonging to the provincial forces stationed in this region some cavalrymen were called catafractarii, meaning armoured horsemen.26 They stood higher in the hierarchy than the rank-and-file, and the grade replaced those of sesquiplicarii and duplicarii,27 namely soldiers receiving one-and-a-half and double standard pay.28 Those soldiers were not only expected to fight in the front rank,29 but were

18 Southern, Dixon 1996, 2. 19 Dixon, Southern 1997, 15; 21-2. 20 For example, the gravestone of a Dalmatian horseman from Budapest (UEL 10559). 21 For example, the three important stelae from Makresh in northwestern Bulgaria; Danoff 1939. 22 Dixon, Southern 1997, 48.

23 Grigg 1983, 133. 24 Hoffmann 1969, 14; 163. 25 Grigg 1983, 135-36. 26 Zuckerman 1994, 201. 27 Rea 1984, 79-88. 28 von Domaszewski, Dobson 1967, 1-68. 29 Speidel 2000, 475-78.

25

Tomasz Dziurdzik better able to afford their costly equipment,30 since their horses were probably also armoured. Such innovation increased the fighting capabilities of the unit without the need for re-organisation or additional financial costs. Unfortunately, we have no sources to prove that similar developments were introduced in other parts of the Empire. Such diversification of weapons within the late Roman cavalry seems probable,31 especially in the units stationed on the borders. The units were tasked not only with sporadic wartime duties during major campaigns, but also with daily patrolling routines in the frontier zone, including maintaining communication, safeguarding provision routes, controlling trans-border traffic and commerce, as well as engaging enemies best defined as bands of brigands. Such a wide range of responsibilities not only involved varied conditions, but also required tactical flexibility, which a body of identically armed troops would find extremely difficult to provide.

5996) probably comes from this period, its date based upon the dedication made to Mars and the formula for the wellbeing of two Emperors and two Caesars.34 The reform was to become a basis of a system that would last throughout the fourth century, although the status and dislocation of some units underwent subsequent changes. For example, an otherwise unattested unit of equites Dalmatae Aquesiani set up an inscription in AD 311-313 in the region of modern Prutting, in southern Germany (CIL III 5565 = CIL III 11771 = ILS 664 = HD 034878 = UEL 4800). During that time, it operated in the region of the upper Danube as a field army unit. Its name, similar to that of many late Roman border units,35 suggests that it probably used to be garrisoned in one of the many cities bearing the name Aquae. Therefore, it almost certainly was a former border unit transferred to the field army.36 Since the sources available to help with the reconstruction of the changes in late Roman dislocation of troops are limited, the Notitia Dignitatum must be examined.37 This document, together with the few epigraphic sources available, allow us to trace some of the developments in the deployment of equites Dalmatae in the Danubian provinces. The post-Constantinian units of the equites Dalmatae listed in the Notitia Dignitatum belonged to three distinct types of late Roman cavalry organisation and were divided between different classes of armies. In the field armies, one can find six vexillationes, cavalry units of high status. Two classes of units stationed in the ripeness are important for our considerations: the more privileged cunei and the more numerous equites. One can find both types in the lists written for the region of the western Danube valley. Only the cunei were assigned to the provinces belonging to the eastern part of the Empire. This is the result of an extensive re-organisation of forces stationed in this area during Constantine's reforms. It has been suggested that the units from the lower Danubian region were used during the conflicts between Constantine and Licinius (probably by the latter) to create a series of numbered vexillationes equitum Dalmatarum,38 of which the equites Tertio-, Quinto-, Sexto-, Octavo- and Nonodalmatae are mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum (ND Or. V, 36; Or. V, 37; Or. VI, 37; Or. VII, 27; Occ. VI, 56 = Occ. VII, 174). The fact that we cannot link any epigraphic evidence to the units missing from the lists in that document, equites Primo-, Secundo-, Quarto- and Septimodalmatae, suggests that they ceased to exist soon after they were formed.39 After Constantine emerged victorious, he used the newly created unit class of cunei to reconstruct the cavalry forces assigned to the lower

We can expect that some changes took place with respect to what had originally been the uniform armament of the equites Dalmatae. The units stationed in different frontier zones had to adjust to the conditions of service and, probably most importantly, to the character of the local enemies. On the Danubian frontier, these included several populations with different tactics and equipment. This region included some areas ideal for the massed use of cavalry and was also often threatened by neighbouring groups known for their horsemenship, such as the Goths and the Sarmatians. The Sarmatians, in particular, excelled in mounted warfare with extensive use of archery, a tactic well suited to a steppe setting and very dangerous to the Roman military.32 We can quite safely assume that any cavalry unit garrisoned in such conditions and tasked with supervising a border threatened by such opponents must have begun to introduce bows among the equipment of its members. Lack of adjustment to local conditions and dangerous enemy tactics would have left a unit of equites Dalmatae armed only with spears or javelins unable to perform most of the tasks a border unit was expected to cope with. III. Equites Dalmatae in the Danube region. Considering the history of the presence and organisation of equites Dalmatae in the Danubian region, it was during the reforms of Diocletian that the corps ceased to function within the forces accompanying the emperor and began to permanently garrison the area under consideration. Probably before AD 298 it was divided into several independent units, assigned to provincial armies and stationed along the borders.33 The first inscription mentioning the formation in the Danubian area, form Pilismarót in Hungary (AE 1990, 822 = HD 024861 = UEL 30 Zuckerman 1994, 201; on the ownership of weapons in the late Roman army see Woods 1993. 31 Nicasie 1998, 197. 32 Soproni 1978, 9-10 33 Scharf 2001, 186. 34 Soproni 1989, nr 4. 35 Hoffmann 1969, 257. 36 Scharf 2001, 187. 37 On the varied opinions on the value of this document as a source for reconstructing the deployment of units see among others van Berchem

1955, Jones 1964 vol. III, 347-80; Hoffmann 1969; Sarnowski 1985; Zahariade 1988; Mann 1991; Coello 1996, 42-9; Kulikowski 2000. Most specialists on the Danubian frontier are of the opinion that lists concerning this frontier are among the most accurate in the entire document, at least up to the beginning of fifth century when several units were withdrawn from Pannonia. 38 Scharf 2001, 188-89; 193. 39 Scharf 2001, 193.

26

The Equites Dalmatae in the Late Roman Danube Valley of several late Roman forts point to considerably lower numbers. Units of horsemen are now most commonly assumed to have consisted of about 300-350 men. And, perhaps there had never been an intention of providing them with uniform manpower.41 This revised estimated strength of equites Dalmatae in the Danubian provinces, about 10,000 soldiers, still leaves us with a formidable force. Furthermore, the acceptance of smaller cavalry unit sizes also leads to the reduction in the total numbers for late Roman armies. Although it changes the proportions more in favour of infantry, still the equites Dalmatae remain a great part of the available fighting strength and retain their vital importance for the safety of the whole region.

Danubian provinces and also granted this new, enhanced status to several units in other regions. The information provided by tile stamps and grave inscriptions is consistent with several entries in Notitia Dignitatum. It is very interesting to note that, beginning with the post-Constantine period, all epigraphic sources about the equites Dalmatae come either from places listed as garrisoned by this formation in Notitia Dignitatum or mention their name and/or the name of their fort. This proves that the document is indeed a valuable piece of evidence for any reconstruction of the role of the corps in the Danubian provinces. Therefore, the following reconstruction of the strategic responsibilities of the equites Dalmatae in the time of the Notitia Dignitatum can be viewed as mostly relevant to the situation beginning with Constantine's reforms, and also accurate with respect to the fourth century. Possible further discoveries of inscriptions or tile stamps may change our knowledge about the deployment of a specific unit in a particular historical moment, but not the general picture. Unfortunately, we have little knowledge of the fate of the equites Dalmatae after the Notitia Dignitatum was compiled at the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. In this area, the units belonging to this formation probably ceased to function as coherent and efficient military formations, and disappeared completely in the fifth century.

The bases used by this corps on the Danubian frontier are concentrated in a way that is unparalleled in the late Roman army, showing that they must have played a crucial role in the defence of those sectors (see Map 1). This is most obvious in the province of Valeria. This area was well suited to cavalry operations and was threatened by enemies relying on mounted warfare, for example, the Sarmatians. It also faced a flat area on the other side of the Danube, facilitating the offensive use of Roman cavalry. These conditions resulted in the dislocation of exceptionally large numbers of horsemen.42 If traditional numbers are to be accepted, they made up 59.5% of the soldiers.43 Among the 22 mounted units posted in the province, 11 belonged to the formation under consideration in this article (ND Occ. XXXIII). Several of them were garrisoned in neighbouring forts, bringing under their responsibility whole sectors of the border. This clearly shows that they were held in high esteem by the military authorities, as this area was difficult to defend and also possessed the highest strategic value. Control over this region was vital, not only for the defence of the Danubian and Northern Balkan provinces, but was also important for the safety of Italy. The fact that so many units of equites Dalmatae were placed on this potential invasion route might point to their reliability in the eyes of the military command. It might also have been connected with the open, flat buffer zone on the left bank, where the Sarmatians sometimes relied on Roman military aid against tribes migrating from the north and east.44

Any attempt to reconstruct the number of soldiers in the late Roman armies on the Danube shows that the equites Dalmatae made up a significant part of those forces. Traditional calculations give both the cunei and the equites units a strength of 500.40 Although such numbers were proposed in the time of Theodore Mommsen, they are still held as credible by some researchers. As they were based mostly on an educated guess, they should not be used to count precise numbers, but can still be used to provide a general reconstruction of the approximate ratios, and remain useful for regional and temporal comparisons. Such numbers would mean that there were about 16,000 horsemen belonging to the formation under consideration in the Danubian provinces (see Table 1). They amounted to more than 20% of the soldiers in the area from Noricum to Dacia ripensis. Not a single other formation of cavalry can be compared with this enormous number. It is important to note that no units of equites Dalmatae are attested in the Notitia Dignitatum as forming a part of the forces garrisoned in the provinces Scythia minor and Moesia secunda. However, when considering the whole Danubian border (except for the Raetian provinces), they still made up more than 15% of total manpower, and over one-third of the cavalry.

The equites Dalmatae are also mentioned as garrisons in other key parts of the Danube region. Several units were present in the region of Carnuntum and Vindobona, in the joint command of Noricum ripense and Pannonia prima (ND Occ. XXXIV). They protected these important cities, as well as the part of the frontier that bordered the Roman side, in the broad, flat areas that were well connected to several other inland regions in the Balkans and with Italy. Further west, the prospective invaders could have pillaged the Raetian provinces, but the proximity of the Alps, not to mention the late Roman defences in the passes, would have hindered any further movements towards the outlying areas of the Empire. Due to its important role within the

These traditional calculations are what we might call the maximum possible values for strength of the late Roman army. Recent research shows that such numbers, if they are indeed correct, can only have been nominal, especially when considering the cavalry. Egyptian papyri and the size 40 Mommsen 1889, 262; Jones 1964, 59-60. 41 Junkelmann 1991, 81; Coello 1996, 44; Nicasie 1998, 74. 42 Soproni 1978, 9-10.

43 Treadgold 2011, 68-9. 44 Soproni 1978, 158.

27

Tomasz Dziurdzik headquarters of a river fleet detachment. In total, 18 out of 34 forts garrisoned by Dalmatian horsemen were shared with other forces, underlining the importance of cooperation between different branches of the military not only at the stage of armies and campaigns, but also at a local level.

trans-Carpathian routes connecting central and northern Europe with the Danube, and also with Aquileia and the rest of Italy further south, this region was under constant pressure from the Germanic neighbours. The corps also garrisoned forts located immediately west and east of the Iron Gate in Moesia prima and Dacia ripensis (ND Or. XLI; Or. XLII). In both of these vital areas they secured the regions that were better suited for cavalry operations, from the perspective of the invading enemies and the Roman army's own offensive actions. The left bank of the river in the Banat and Oltenia regions provided good opportunities for successful employment of cavalry. We can assume that the equites Dalmatae had an important role to fill in those areas, one of watching over the immediate forefront of the main defences. This role seems all the more probable since some Dalmatian horsemen were permanently present at the left bank of the Danube, in Drobeta, one of the key late Roman forts. The unit was part of a combined garrison consisting also of infantry. Its name, cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Divitensium was, however, mentioned both in Drobeta and Dorticum (ND Or. XLII, 16; Or. XLII, 14). Opinion varies whether the two parts were independent units of equal status or one was a detachment of the other.

Turning to the duties performed by the formation, it is important to note that the equites Dalmatae were deployed along vital sections of the border, which points to the fact that they were highly valued. They were expected to be able to counter the threat posed by enemy horsemen threatening those key areas. During larger military operations, they were probably merged with other units, both frontier and those from the field armies, to provide massed cavalry formations. The most important role played by this cavalry formation was, in the present author’s opinion, crucial for the quotidian operation of the defensive system. The Dalmatian horsemen were the eyes and ears of the infantry, fleet, and heavier units of cavalry garrisoned together with them, providing the reconnaissance and patrols essential for maintaining control of the borderlands. These duties were probably performed on both sides of the Danube, as the permanent presence of one unit on the left bank at Drobeta strongly suggests. They also facilitated communication systems, linking the neighbouring forts as couriers. The aforementioned tile stamps of the unit from Varinia, and those of a unit from Aureus Mons, modernday Seone in Serbia (found in Viminacium, Kostolac, AE 1903, 297 = HD 031491; in an unknown findspot in the vicinity of Smederevo, AE 1904, 93 = HD 033255; and in Rakovac46) point to the participation of some units of equites Dalmatae in military building actions. However, it is impossible to tell whether they actually took part in those activities, or just supplied the materials. A comparison of the number of known stamps and their distribution with those made by other branches of the late Roman army suggests that this was a duty only sporadically performed by the equites Dalmatae. Their role as scouts, messengers, and patrols provides an explanation for the very limited evidence of their participation in building activities, as this was probably the duty of the infantry units brigaded together with them.

Zahariade proposed a reconstruction of the strength of the cavalry stationed in Drobeta as 290-300 men.45 To this he added 240-250 infantrymen of auxilium primorum Daciscorum, the second unit known to have garrisoned this fort (ND Or. XLII, 24). His suggestion was based on the size and division of the rooms found during the excavations, but we remain unsure which part of the fort was used by each formation. Moreover, we can only guess how many soldiers were allocated to the rooms and what use the large spaces had where no traces of barracks were found. Although the exact size of the cavalry detachment in Drobeta remains uncertain, it must have been quite limited, especially due to the fact that the restricted space available within the fortifications had to be divided between two units. The late Roman garrison must have relied on the close co-operation between the foot and mounted components than on sheer numbers. Tile stamps of a unit of Dalmatian horsemen stationed in Varinia, today's Harlets in Bulgaria, (AE 1939, 93 = HD 022569 and AE 1950, 75c = HD 021724) have been found in another important trans-Danubian fort, Sucidava (Celeiu near Corabia in Romania), again showing that their activity was not limited to the Roman side of the river.

IV. Conclusion. The role played by the equites Dalmatae on the Danubian border should be viewed as part of a combined military approach of close and constant cooperation between cavalry and infantry, each having its own specific areas of responsibility. As the formation was the most numerous branch of late Roman cavalry in this region, they should be viewed as the key factor in the defence systems of several crucial border provinces during the whole period.

The deployment of the equites Dalmatae together with an infantry unit was quite common. Altogether 12 such cases are listed in the sections of the Notitia Dignitatum concerning the Danubian provinces. In eight forts, the garrison also included a detachment of a legion. In six forts, equites Dalmatae were stationed with auxilia. In several places, the units were deployed together with more than one formation. In some cases, such concentrations of troops in a single fort also included other cavalry or the

45 Zahariade 1997, 167-82.

46 Dušanić 1988.

28

The Equites Dalmatae in the Late Roman Danube Valley Dušanić, M., “Rimske opeke sa žigom sa panonskog limesa (odsek Cuccium – Taurunum).” Starinar 29 (1988): 85-97.

ANCIENT SOURCES, EPIGRAPHIC CORPORA AND DATABASES AE

L’Année Épigraphique

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Mommsen et al. (eds.), Berolini 1866 cont.

Dziurdzik, T., “The Relation of Equites Dalmatae of the Late Roman Army to Dalmatia.” In Illyrica Antiqua 2 - in honorem D. Rendić-Miočević. Zagreb (forthcoming).

Theodor edh-

Ernout, A. and A. Meillet. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: C. Klincksieck (2001).

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, vol. I-III, Hermann Dessau (ed.), Berolini 1892-1916

Grigg, R., “Inconsistency and Lassitude: The Shield Emblems of the Notitia Dignitatum.” JRS 73 (1983):13242.

HD Epigraphische Datenbank www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de

Heidelberg,

ND Or. Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis

Hoffmann, D. Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, Vol.I-II. Düsseldorf: RheinlandVerlag (1969).

ND Occ. Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Occidentis SHA

Scriptores Historiae Augustae

Hyland, A. Equus: The Horse in the Roman World. London: Batsford (1990).

UEL UbiEratLupa – Römische Steindenkmäler, ubierat-lupa.org

Jones, A.H.M. The Later Roman Empire 284-602: a Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, Vol. I-IV. Oxford: Blackwell (1964).

REFERENCES

Junkelmann, M. Die Reiter Roms. Teil II: der militärische Einsatz. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern (1991).

Alföldy, G., “Die Auxiliartruppen der Provinz Dalmatien.” ActaArchHung 14 (1962): 259-96.

Junkelmann, M. Die Reiter Roms. Teil III: Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern (1992).

van Berchem, D., “On Some Chapters of the Notitia Dignitatum Relating to the Defense of Gaul and Britain.” AJP 76/2 (1955): 138-47.

Klumbach, H. Spä trö mische Gardehelme. München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (1973).

Bishop M.C. and J.C.N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. London: Batsford (1993).

Kulikowski, M., “The Notitia Dignitatum as an Historical Source.” Historia 49 (2000): 358-77.

Coello, T. Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 645 (1996).

Mann J.C., “The Notitia Dignitatum - Dating and Survival.” Britannia 22 (1991): 215-19. Mommsen, Th., “Das römische Militärwesen seit Diocletian.” In Historische Schriften. Dritter Band. Berlin: Weidmann (1889): 206-83.

Danoff, Ch.M., “Lateinische Inschriften aus Nordwest bulgarien.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien. Beiblatt 31 (19381939): 99-120.

Nicasie, M.J. Twilight of Empire. The Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben (1998).

Dixon, K.R. and P. Southern. The Roman Cavalry: from the First to the Third Century AD. London: Batsford (1997).

Rea, J.R., “A Cavalryman's Career, A.D.384(?)-401.” ZPE 56 (1984): 79-88.

von Domaszewski, A. and B. Dobson. Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. Einfü hrung, Berichtigungen und Nachträ ge von Brian Dobson. Köln: Böhlau (1967).

Ritterling, E., “Zum römischen Heerwesen des ausgehenden dritten Jahrhunderts.” In Beiträ ge zur alten Geschichte und griechisch-rö mischen Alterthumskunde. Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigstem Geburtstage. Berlin: Weidmann (1903) 345-49.

Dumont, A., “Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la Thrace.” In Mélanges d’archéologie et d’épigraphie, Th. Homolle (ed.), (1892): 307-581.

29

Tomasz Dziurdzik Sarnowski, T., “Die legio I Italica und der untere Donauabschnitt der Notitia Dignitatum.” Germania 63 (1985): 107-27.

Speidel M.P., “Who Fought in the Front?” In Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift für Eric Birley, G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, W. Eck (eds.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner (2000): 473-82.

Sarnowski, T., “Danubian Provinces.” In The Encyclopedia of the Roman Army, vol. 1, Y. Le Bohec (ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell (2015): 279-89.

Treadgold, W. Bizancjum i jego armia 284-1081. Translated by M. Grabska-Ryńska. Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo Templum (2011). (originally published as Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081, Stanford University Press (1995))

Scharf, R., “Equites Dalmatae und cunei Dalmatarum in der Spätantike.” ZPE 135 (2001):185-93.

Wilkes, J.J., “Army and Society in Roman Dalmatia.” In Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschriftfür Eric Birley, G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, W. Eck (eds.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner (2000): 32742.

Soproni, S. Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendre: das Verteidigungssystem der Provinz Valeria im 4. Jahrhundert. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (1978). Soproni, S., “Militärinschriften aus dem 4. Jh. im Donauknie.” ActaArchHung 41 (Festschrift Mócsy) (1989): 103-18.

Woods, D., “The Ownership and Disposal of Military Equipment in the Late Roman Army.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 4 (1993): 55-65.

Southern, P. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London-New York: Routledge (2001).

Woods, D., “Flavius Felix and the “Signum” of the Numerus Divitiensium.” ZPE 156 (2006): 242-44.

Southern, P. and K.R. Dixon. The Late Roman Army. New Haven: Yale University Press (1996).

Zahariade, M. Moesia Secunda, Scythia şi Notitia Dignitatum. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România (1988).

Speidel, M.P., “The Rise of Ethnic Units in the Roman Imperial Army.” In Politische Geschichte. Provinzen und Randvölker: Allgemeines; Britannien, Hispanien, Gallien (=ANRW II/3), H. Temporini (ed.). Berlin-New York: de Gruyter (1975) 202-31.

Zahariade, M., “The late Roman Drobeta. I. The cruciform building and the fort garrison in the fourth century A.D.” Acta Musei Napocensis 34,1 (1997): 167–82. Zuckerman, C., “Le camp de Ψωβθιϛ/Sosteos et les catafractarii.” ZPE 100 (1994): 199-202.

Speidel, M.P., “Mauri Equites. The Tactics of Light Cavalry in Mauretania.” AntAfr 29 (1993): 121-26.

30

The Equites Dalmatae in the Late Roman Danube Valley Table 1. The strength of the equites Dalmatae and its relation to the total forces in the Danubian provinces according to traditional calculations (cavalry units of 500).

Region

Strength of the army

Cavalry units

horsemen

Equites Dalmatae units

horsemen

Pannonia prima et Noricum ripense

15 000

14 equites +2 cunei

8000 (53,3%)

5 equites +1 cuneus

3000 (20%)

Valeria

18 500

17 equites +5 cunei

11,000 (59,5%)

10 equites +1 cuneus

5500 (29,7%)

Pannonia secunda et Savia

16 000

9000 (56,2%)

7 equites +1 cuneus

4000 (25%)

Moesia prima

12 500

11 equites +6 cunei +1 ala 8 cunei

4000 (32%)

3 cunei

1500 (12%)

Dacia ripensis

11 000

8 cunei

4000 (36,4%)

4 cunei

2000 (18%)

Total for the provinces where equites Dalmatae were present

73 000

42 equites + 29 cunei + 1 ala

36,000 (49,3%)

22 equites + 10 cunei

16,000 (21,9%)

Total for all Danubian provinces (without Raetian provinces

93 000

42 equites + 43 cunei + 1 ala

43,000 (46,2%)

22 equites + 10 cunei

16,000 (17,2%)

31

Tomasz Dziurdzik

Map 1. The garrisons of equites Dalmatae in the Danubian provinces as evidenced by the Notitia Dignitatum. Numbers correspond to the entries in the lists; letter c marks the forts of cunei as opposed to the equites-type units (after Sarnowski 2015, used with permision of T. Sarnowski).

32

FOOD STORAGE ALONG THE DANUBE IN MOESIA SUPERIOR Olivera Ilić (Serbian Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade)

Abstract: This paper concerns the storage of food supplies for Roman troops stationed along the middle Danube valley. In addition to a small number of large supply centres, in which foodstuffs were stored for further distribution, forts along the Danubian limes also had their own buildings intended for storing food for a certain period of time. The nature of the supply system used by the Roman army and the method of collecting supplies within the larger supply centres indicate that the quantity of grain produced in Moesia Superior was not sufficient for all the inhabitants and soldiers stationed in its territory. An overview of amphora evidence indicates that additional goods were obtained from the neighbouring provinces.

number of soldiers stationed in the camps, the quantity of food in storage should have been somewhat greater than the needs of each soldier. It was, therefore, necessary to build larger storage buildings in different locations. Granaries existed in all legionary camps that supported smaller forts along the limes. Such legionary camps were located at Singidunum (IV Flavia) and Viminacium (VII Claudia). The question of river ports on these locations arises as well. Geophysical surveys at Viminacium have resulted in an abundance of data about the position of buildings and barracks inside the legionary camps; however, archaeological work at the site has not specifically identified any building as a granary.

I. Introduction. Questions pertaining to the food supply of the province of Moesia Superior are largely unanswered. This is primarily due to a scholarly focus on military features and imperial palaces. The recent development of research facilities within the Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade and at the site of Viminacium have facilitated the efforts of scholars to investigate aspects of daily life. While we still require investigations into the source of foodstuffs, enough work has been conducted in the East European provinces of the Roman Empire to suggest that soldiers and natives relied primarily upon local and regional sources of food. For example, unlike the situation at Mediterranean sites, where long-distance supply routes are well known, most amphorae identified at fortresses along the Danubian limes of Moesia Superior originate from sites linked to the Danube,1 including Singidnum, Viminacium, Novae (Čezava), Saldum, Smorna (Boljetin), Campsa (Ravna), Taliata (V. Gradac) Transdierna (Tekija), Diana (Karataš), and Pontes (Kostol) (Map 1). Therefore, even the pottery record is a good indicator of regional catchment zones.

Porečka Reka. Buildings discovered at the mouth of the Porečka Reka offer some information regarding the question of supply along the limes. The site is situated in a convenient position, in the vicinity of one of the largest camps along the Danubian limes, Taliata (Veliki Gradac), where soldiers were stationed permanently through the early Byzantine period. At the same time, Porečka Reka represented an important crossroads on this part of the limes. There was a road which led east, past Miroč and a station called Gerulata (indicated on the Tabula Peutingeriana), to Egeta; the road then connected to the lower Danube valley around the cataracts of the Iron Gates (Tab. Peut. segm. VI) (Map 1). Another road led south to the Timok valley. This is the presumed border between the two Late Antique provinces of Moesia Prima and Dacia Ripensis.3

Even if we can discuss the importance of regional sources for the supply of food for soldiers and natives in the middle and lower Danube valley, not enough research has been conducted with regard to agricultural production. Very few villas have been identified and none have been studied in depth. One aspect of the food supply at Roman military installations that we can approach relates to storage. This paper summarizes evidence of horrea discovered in or near fortresses and garrisons along the Danubian limes of Moesia Superior.

The mouth of the Porečka Reka was blocked by means of a stone wall, while on the right bank of the river there were two rectangular towers (Fig. 1). The most interesting features are two buildings of approximately the same size. Building A was constructed of brick and stone with no inner walls, and had a broad entrance facing the south. Building B was built of stone with two pillars inside; it was filled in with a large amount of debris, including bricks bearing traces of burning. Fragments of large ceramic

II. Food storage centres. The quantity of food that required storage depended upon the number of soldiers stationed within a camp, but also upon the nature and durability of the food being stored. According to some authors, the number of soldiers stationed along the Danubian limes between Čezava (Novae) and Karataš (Diana) was 2000-3000.2 Even with this relatively small 1 Bjelajac 1996. 2 Petrović 1981, 54.

3 Mirković 1981, 93.

33

Olivera Ilić vessels used for transporting and storing food, pithoi and amphorae, were also found.

large number of amphora fragments and animal bones, especially of cattle.11

Inside this complex, a quadriburgium was erected near the wall which closes the river valley. There were two entrances, a wide one on the south side and a narrow one on the north side, facing the Danube. Few archaeological finds were discovered within the fortress, except for a large number of roof tiles next to the eastern wall and a small number of amphorae fragments.4

Archaeological research undertaken in the 1980s suggests that the Roman structures were built along the border of the terrace from Konopište to Kurvingrad. According to the evidence, the storehouses or barracks were constructed over an extensive area during the last few years of the first or early second centuries, close to the time of the construction of Trajan’s bridge.

Buildings A and B can be dated to the first half of the fourth century, demonstrated by coins of Constantine, Constantius, Valens and Valentinianus.5 Such a conclusion is also supported by the fact that there are no earlier or later building phases.

Horreum Margi (near Paraćin). Located some 100 km south of the Danube river, Horreum Margi represented an important point for gathering and distributing food, primarily grain. The site is located at an important junction, which provided access to major centres within the province, as well as to the fortresses along the limes. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Horreum Margi played a strong role in supplying the troops stationed along the Danube limes of Moesia Superior. On the other hand, it is certain that in or near military camps, there were storage buildings, primarily for the stockage of grain, but also for other foodstuffs intended for the soldiers.

The fortress was probably built during Diocletian’s great building campaign intended to consolidate the limes throughout the Empire.6 The function of the fortress appears to have been abandoned by the second half of the fourth century, as a bath complex was built over the southern wall and tower.7 Although the date of the bath’s construction is not certain, it is possible to determine its period of destruction. A small coin hoard was discovered in a soot layer of the thermae with the earliest of the coins dating to AD 378.8 This date can be considered as a terminus ante quem.

III. Food storage at fortresses. Apart from the major supply centres, in which food was kept for further distribution, forts along the limes required their own buildings intended for food storage. According to Tacitus, the horreum of each camp was constructed in such a way as to hold a year’s supply for the soldiers stationed there.12 This would amount to 365,000 kg per year for 1000 soldiers, if we consider the estimates of Garnsey and Saller.13 Such quantities were advisable in the event of the often hostile conditions or the suspension of transportation along the Roman limes. Several storage facilities, horrea militaris, were discovered along the Danubian limes of Moesia Superior within fortifications of various sizes: in Sapaja near Ram, Čezava (Novae), Boljetin (Smorna), Veliki Gradac (Taliata). Smaller forts did not have enough space for such buildings.

Kurvingrad and Konopište. Two other sites are considered to have served as logistical centres in the Danubian region of Moesia Superior, Kurvingrad and Konopište near Kostol (Pontes). There is very little archaeological data for these sites. At Konopište, 3 km upstream from the ruins of Trajan’s bridge and the Pontes castrum, the foundations of unusual rectangular buildings were discovered. In the eastern part of the excavated area, a small building was discovered (Fig. 2). Another one was explored to the west that was divided into five rooms. Both buildings were constructed of stone and mortar. A small number of archaeological finds, fragments of amphorae and other forms characteristic of the end of the first and second centuries AD were found within these buildings (Fig. 3), as well as a well preserved sestertius of Nerva minted in AD 97 that provided chronological information.9

Sapaja near Ram. Sapaja, the river island located between the present day Ram on the right bank of the Danube, no longer exists. The objects discovered at this site belong to the period between the early Roman Empire and the Middle Ages (Fig. 4).14 In front of the western wall of later fortifications, at a distance of 15.2 m, there was a small, rectangular horreum, measuring 9.7 x 5.6 m, constructed of stone and mortar. The only finds inside this

The site of Kurvingrad, now under water, was located one kilometer downstream from Konopište.10 Most of the investigated area consisted of building complexes used to store food. This presumption is based on the discovery of a

4 Since the western wall could not be detected and since there was no archaeological material or cultural layers, it was presumed that the river destroyed most of the fort. 5 Petrović 1981, 57. 6 One should also mention Diocletian's travels along the Iron Gates in 294, from Singidunum to Ratiaria and further on down the Danube. The building activity was confirmed by numerous inscriptions discovered in forts along the lower Danube valley, erected in the period from AD 298 to 299. 7 Field surveys of the site began in 1962 and a systematic excavation took place between 1967 and 1970. The excavation was conducted by D. Vučković-Todorović.

8 Petrović 1984, 288. 9 Popović 1996, 103. 10 Archaeological investigations are managed by: P. Popović, M. Vukmanović, N. Radojčić, L. Trbuhović. 11 Trbuhović 1986, 61. 12 Tacitus, Agricola. 13 Garnsey and Saller 1987, 108. 14 Archaeological excavations in a small-scale on the island began in 1966. Systematic excavations were entrusted to the Institute of Archaeology SASA in 1967 in collaboration with National Museum in Vršac and lasted until 1970 under the direction of Prof. Jovan Kovačević.

34

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior century. The earliest of three horrea discovered near the north gate of the fort (building C) also corresponds to this date (Fig. 8). Investigations of the oldest storage buildings were not fully carried out, therefore, only the east wall, with a length of 21 m and six well-preserved pillars are known. The wall consists of stone and mortar and has been dated on the basis of Roman pottery, Dacian pottery, and coins from the first century AD.20

granary were the bases of two small ceramic bowls of Roman and Sarmatian production.15 Within the section of the Danubian limes in the province of Moesia Superior, the most similar analogy to this facility is an almost identical structure in the castrum of Boljetin, although it is larger and has eight rooms. Lj. Zotović, who investigated the site, dated the horreum to the first century AD.16 It is assumed that the warehouse in Sapaja was built just a few decades later and was in use well into the third century. Following the conquest of Dacia, the Danube no longer represented the frontier, although troops remained in most of the fortifications along the river. Ram still served as a crossing point over the Danube, but no new fort was constructed on the island. The only new constructions were a small speculum and a horreum. The situation changed after Dacia was abandoned in AD 271 and the island of Sapaja regained its strategic importance.

Like most of the fortifications near the Iron Gate limes, after the conquest of Dacia, the fortification at Taliata lost its significance as a defensive point on the border. Archaeological evidence indicates, however, that life continued in the camp during the second century, leading to the assumption that the castrum functioned as a supply center with storehouses at this time. In the third century, after the abandonment of Dacia, there was a renewal of the fort. At this time, a new granary was built (Building D), whose dimensions are 18.8 x 12.85 m. Constructed on top of its predecessor, building D was built of stone and fragmented brick bonded with mortar. The new granary was likely of a single story whose interior space was divided into two longitudinal sectors; the thickness of the partitioning wall is 0.85 m. Several grindstones were found in the area and have been associated with the horreum.

Čezava (Novae). The castrum at Čezava (Novae) is located 18 km downstream from the modern-day town of Golubac. Systematic excavations began in the 1960s17 and allowed researchers to discern several phases of construction.18 In addition to fortification walls, the principia, and barracks, archaeologists revealed a square horreum in the area to the west of the principia (Fig. 5). Inside this building were three rows of pillars, which divided the space within the granary. Based on associated finds of ceramics, fibulae, coins, and other archaeological indicators, the horreum corresponds to the late second and first half of the third centuries (Fig. 6).

Another structure serving the same purpose is building F. This structure had a porch facing the street and has been dated to the period of the early Byzantine fortress in the sixth century.

Boljetin (Smorna). The castrum at Boljetin (Smorna) is located between the fortresses at Novae and Taliata, and was one of the largest along this part of the Danubian limes. A small rectangular horreum, measuring 11.7 x 4.8 m was discovered in the northeastern area of the castrum (Fig. 7). The horreum was constructed upon an older cultural layer consisting of stone and mortar. The walls were plastered inside, while the floor consisted of pebbles from the river over which mortar had been poured. It was partitioned on the inside with eight walls. A small number of archaeological finds, mostly fragments of pithoi, were found within these buildings. Due to the small number of fragments, it is uncertain whether the grain was stored in pithoi or was deposited directly within the spaces between the partitions. This horreum has been dated to the Flavian phase as is the aforementioned horreum in Sapaja near Ram.19

This complex of grain storage units was built along the north gate of the fort. The excavations did not reveal traces of a stone threshold adjusted for horse-drawn carriages. This may indicate the possibity of a river port in the area, as the main land access was most likely on the west side. IV. Conclusions. The complex system of food supply to the Roman army in the forts along the Danube limes in the province of Moesia Superior, later Moesia Prima, was conducted via land and river throughout the Roman period. Unfortunately, suspected river ports and stations are poorly documented. In addition to the large supply centers, in which food supplies were stored for further distribution, e.g., at Porečka Reka, the forts along the Danubian limes also had buildings intended for storing food for the soldiers. The supply system used by the Roman army and the method of collecting supplies within the larger supply centers indicate that the quantity of grain produced in the province of Moesia Superior was not sufficient for all the inhabitants and soldiers stationed in its territory. This shortfall was satisfied by imports from the neighbouring provinces, such as Moesia Inferior and Dacia, as well as occasionally from more distant parts of the Roman Empire.

Veliki Gradac (Taliata). The Taliata fort is located at the crossing point between the upper and lower Iron Gate gorge, not far from the mouth of Porečka Reka. The fort played an important role in the defence of the province of Moesia Superior, helping to prevent incursions from Dacia. The earliest fortification dates from the second half of the first

15 Dimitrijević 1984, 35. 16 Zotović 1984, 217. 17 Systematic excavations were entrusted to the Military Museum of Belgrade in 1965 and lasted until 1970.

18 Vasić 1984, 91-122. 19 Zotović 1984, 217-19. 20 Popović 1984, 278-79.

35

Olivera Ilić Popović P., “Konopište – Roman Architecural Complex.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology (1996): 101-04.

REFERENCES Bjelajac Lj. Amfore gornjomezijskog Beograd: Arheološki Institut (1996).

Podunavlja.

Dimitrijević, D., “Sapaja, rimsko i srednjovekovno utvrđenje, na ostrvu kod Stare Palanke.” Starinar XXXIIIXXXIV (1984): 29-62.

Popović, V., “Donji Milanovac – Veliki Gradac (Taliata), rimsko i ranovizantijsko utvrđenje.” Starinar XXXIIIXXXIV (1984): 265-82.

Garnsey, P. and R. Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. London (1987).

Tacitus, Agricola.

Mirković M., “Centralne balkanske oblasti u doba poznog Carstva.” In Istorija Srpskog naroda. Tom I. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga (1981): 89-105.

Trbuhović L., “Kurvingrad – compte – rendu des fouilles.” In Cahiers des Portes de FerIII. Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology, National Museum, Faculty of Philosophy (1986): 59-70.

Petrović, P., “O snabdevanju rimskih trupa na đerdapskom limesu.” Starinar XXXI (1981): 53-64.

Vasić, M., “Čezava – Castrum Novae.” Starinar XXXIIIXXXIV (1984): 91-122.

Petrović, P., “Porečka reka, sabrini centar za snabdevanje rimskih trupa u Đerdapu.” Starinar XXXIII-XXXIV (1984): 285-92.

Zotović, Lj., “Boljetin (Smorna), rimski i ranvizantijski logor.” Starinar XXXIII-XXXIV (1984): 211-26.

36

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior FIGURES

Map 1. Sites along the Danube limes in Moesia Superior.

37

Olivera Ilić

Figure 1. The mouth of Porečka Reka. Situation plan with quadriburgium and buildings A and B.

Figure 2. Konopište. Storehouses or barracks.

38

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior

Figure 3. Konopište. Pottery finds.

Figure 4. Sapaja near Ram. Plan of fortification with horreum outside the rampart of the castrum.

39

Olivera Ilić

Figure 5. Čezava (Novae). Plan of the castrum with horreum.

40

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior

Figure 6. Čezava (Novae). Archaeological finds from Tower V.

41

Olivera Ilić

Figure 7. Boljetin (Smorna). Plan of the castrum with horreum.

42

Food Storage along the Danube in Moesia Superior

Figure 8. Veliki Gradac (Taliata). Plan of the castrum with horreum, (three phases).

43

THE USE OF AMPHORAE IN BURIALS AT VIMINACIUM Snežana Golubović (Serbian Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade)

Abstract: This paper examines a small number of graves from Viminacium whereby amphorae were utilised in some manner. The use of amphorae in burial contexts has been noted throughout the Roman world and, therefore, is not unique to the middle Danube region. In most cases, amphora sherds were utilised in addition to or as a substitute for brick in covering graves; the use of whole or halved amphorae is less common. Part of this study involves a succinct characterisation of the amphora types.

mythological scenes or scenes from everyday life. There are numerous graves with built constructions, including the very special painted tombs from the fourth century.4 On this point, a fresco depicting a young woman represents the peak of late Roman painting art in Central Europe. Graves from the time of the great migrations have also been excavated.5

I. Introduction. Viminacium is best known for the legionary fortress, a large bath complex, an amphitheatre, and a series of elite tombs, including one associated with Hostilian, the son of emperor Decius. Among the major projects conducted at the site in the recent decades was the excavation of the southern cemetery in the area of the power plant, which yielded more than 13,000 Roman period graves.1 Beginning in 2003, excavations in the eastern necropolis have provided remarkable new discoveries that complemented various avenues of research.

II. The use of amphorae in Roman graves. Considering the large number of graves at Viminacium, burials that made use of amphorae are not significant numerically, but due to their peculiar use. Whole amphorae or pieces of amphorae were used in several ways in the funerary context. As for burials, the use of amphorae in the cemeteries of Viminacium can be divided into four categories:

As is known from the written sources, Viminacium was the capital of the province of Moesia Superior and, later, Moesia Prima. It served as the permanent camp of the VII Claudia Pia Fidelis legion. Based on the most recent archaeological evidence, it appears that the military camp was established in the first decades of the first century AD. A civil settlement was established beside the military one, as noted in epigraphic sources. Its traces have been confirmed archaeologically to the west of the camp. Over the course of 500 years, the cemeteries developed beside the camp and city.

  

From 1977 to 1997 the necropolises to the south and west of Viminacium were excavated.2 The oldest graves belong to a Celtic necropolis, testifying that the tribe of Scordisci represented the earliest inhabitants of this area.3 The greatest number of burials belongs to the period between the end of the first and the fourth centuries, the period of Roman domination. The Roman cemetery contained both cremations and inhumations with more than 30,000 artefacts that have been interpreted as personal belongings of the deceased, including rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, dress accessories (e.g., fibulae, belt chains), and knives. The most common finds are ceramic wares, such as bowls, pots, beakers, and cups, ceramic lamps, and bronze coins. Cremation burials represent around 31% of all graves; inhumation graves often contained more than one individual. Tombstones and sarcophagi of the wealthier burials were often decorated in relief with



items of grave furniture which is the most frequent usage, but not the subject of this article; fragments of amphorae used as covering tiles above inhumed skeletal remains; amphorae fragments used as cinerary containers for cremation burials or fragments used to cover the ashes in graves with burnt sides; amphorae fragments used as a building material for the construction of graves.

Regarding the use of amphorae in inhumation burials, the Romans exploited such vessels for new-borns or very small children,6 as in the case of a grave at Više Grobalja7 where a new-born was buried with glass balsamaria, millefiori pearl, and a miniature key on a chain. Rarely were amphorae used for the burial of adults – in one case, an adult male8 (Više Grobalja) was covered with half an amphora. Both graves are dated to the second century AD. By comparison, at Late Antique Butua in Illyricum, for example, eight graves of both adults and children wherein of one or two larger amphorae cut axially were found at the periphery of the necropolis and date to the first half of the third century and later.9

1 Zotović, and Jordović 1990; Korać, and Golubović 2009. 2 Zotović 1986, 41-60. 3 Jovanović 1984, 63-93; Jovanović 1985, 13-8. 4 Korać 2007; Korać 1993, 107-22 5 Zotović 1981, 95-145; Ivanišević, Kazanski, Mastykova 2006.

6 Carroll, 2011, 99-120. 7 Zotović, and Jordović 1990, 68, pl. XXXV. 8 Zotović, and Jordović 1990, 56, pl. II. 9 Marković 2012, 116.

45

Snežana Golubović most common types of amphora in the early and middle periods of the Roman Empire. This was due to the largescale production of olive oil in Spain, which began in the first century and progressively developed through the third century. This type of amphora was widely distributed in the western parts of the Empire, while in the Danubian area of Upper Moesia (Fig. 3) they are rare. Until now, only a single example with a maker’s mark on the handle, SCALENSIA, has been identified at Viminacium, from a deposit dated to the first century.15

At Viminacium, a cemetery used for child inhumation burials saw the use of amphorae of the Western Mediterranean type III, the so-called Forlimpopoli amphora (Fig. 1), whose presumed origin is in northeast Italy.10 They were particularly common in the middle and late second century, and, based upon the coating of resin on the inner surface, we are aware they were used for the transportation of wine.11 Forlimpopoli amphorae are well known in Pannonia, Dacia (Popilian), and Moesia (Pontes, Diana, Singidunum, Viminacium, and Transdierna), especially in cemeteries, although they have been also found at settlements.

A cremation grave explored in 2005 at the eastern cemetery of Kod Koraba (Fig. 4) contained quite a rich collection of funeral goods that has been dated to the second century (coin of Faustina Elder). Specifically, the Mala Kopašnica–Sase type of cremation grave represents the most common kind of burial in the cemeteries of Viminacium as well as in the territories of southeastern Pannonia, Upper Moesia, and parts of Dacia, Thracia, and eastern Dalmatia between the first and third centuries AD.16 Although the type is well known chronologically and typologically, there is some confusion with the term that defines them. In fact, several terms are used: cremations without urns,17 Mala Kopašnica–Sase type (after the eponymous sites),18 and grave pits with burning or stepped graves.19 They were in the form of simple grave pits, usually of rectangular shape with rounded corners, which were often filled with earth, forming small mounds.

The Romans often used another type of amphorae, again from the western part of the Empire, for cremation burials. Western Mediterranean amphorae type I (Dressel 6B; Lamboglia 2; Baldacci III, Peacock, Williams 8) were used in cases noted in the southern necropolises of Viminacium, Više Grobalja and Pećine. Some examples bear maker’s stamps impressed on the rim. They were made of a welllevigated, red clay that usually had a yellowish slip on the surface. Dressel form 6 has been sub-divided into several types of amphorae, but the most widely accepted division is between types 6A and 6B.12 Amphora fragments found in the graves at Viminacium belong only to the type Dressel 6B. The origin of these amphorae was Istria, and recent studies have revealed several additional centres in northern Italy. The assumed contents, based on a small number of tituli picti, are oil and wine.

The inner level of the Kod Koraba grave was covered with fragments of a Western Mediterranean VIII amphora. In other parts of the Viminacium cemeteries, some of the simple pits were sealed with bricks that were placed horizontally or formed a gabled roof. More complex graves sometimes had a construction on the second level whereby the inner level may have been paved with several rows of brick bonded with mud. The analysis of all the graves of the Mala Kopašnica–Sase type shows that the variant with multiple levels and an internal construction appeared chronologically early and remained in use along with all the other types and variants of this grave type.20

Judging by the stratigraphic data revealed by archaeologists at Singidunum and Viminacium, most amphorae of this type were transported into Moesia Superior in the last quarter of the first century and the first decades of the second century (Fig. 2). This means that, according to previous findings, the regular importation into the regions of Moesia Superior, along the Danube, began and lasted through this period. It can be concluded, according to the published findings, that the Danube was a part of Moesia Superior’s eastern boundary of the distribution of Dressel 6 amphorae, since these amphorae are rarely found in Lower Moesia and Dacia.13

III. Amphora fragments as building material. Until now we have been dealing with burials beneath amphorae or their fragments. Only in one case were amphora sherds used as building material. In 2003, during excavations at the easternmost part of the necropolis of Viminacium, known as Pirivoj, a cremation grave of type Mala Kopašnica–Sase II with three levels was explored (Fig. 5). Over the first level was a structure built of stone, plaster, and green schist that was preserved only in the northwest corner. The sides of the first level were burnt in order to obtain an intense red colour and has dimensions of 2.9 x 2.1 x 0.5 m. The sides of the second level were burnt to obtain a gray colour and built of brick and fragments,

A grave excavated at the southern necropolis of Više Grobalja14 contained a bowl serving the function of an urn that was covered by the upper half of an amphora. The bowl contained most of the washed, cremated bones. Below the bowl were other cremated bones in a layer of ash. Above the amphora was a bronze knee fibula dated to second century. It is interesting that the cremated bones belonged to two people, an adult male and a child of 10-12 years, whose remains were mixed inside and below the bowl. Western Mediterranean amphora type VIII (Dressel 20; Peacock, Williams 25: Ostia I, Beltran V) was one of the 10 Hayes 1983, 145. 11 Bjelajac 1996, 23. 12 Buchi, 1974/75, 431-33. 13 Bjelajac 1996, 13. 14 Korać, Golubović 2009, 58-9. 15 Bjelajac 1996, 33.

16 Jovanović 2000, 209. 17 Srejović, 1965, 63. 18 Garašanin, 1968, 6. 19 Getov, 1999, 1. 20 Korać, Golubović 2009, 522.

46

The Use of Amphorae in Burials at Viminacium building material are currently recorded only at Viminacium. Considering the nature of the grave inventory and the funeral ritual itself, we assume that the graves belong to the wealthier population of Viminacium.

mainly amphorae, bonded with mortar. The first and second levels were completely full of rubble: mortar, brick, green schist, and fragments of amphorae. This situation was the consequence of a modern robbery. Seven tiles bear the inscription LEGVIICL, and the rim of an amphora bears a stamp with the name of the producer. It is assumed that the first and second levels were completely filled with architectural debris originating from the upper areas.

REFERENCES Bjelajac, Lj. Amfore gornjomezijskog Podunavlja. Beograd: Arheološki institut Beograd (1996).

The third level was covered with a sterile layer of yellow earth, 5-7 cm thick. Its dimensions are 1.4 x 0.6 x 0.3 m., while the sides were burnt to obtain a gray colour. The whole interior was filled with ashes, charcoal, and burnt and cracked small pieces of human bone. Inside were a few walnuts, in the eastern part, and iron nails. Two artefacts were found in the rubble that filled the second level. One was a bronze pendant, a bulla, very often found in child graves with an apotropaic function. At Viminacium, they were used in the period between the first and fourth centuries. In the northeast corner of the grave, at the bottom, was a bronze buckle. Generally, bronze and silver buckles, a common part of male costume, whether of civilians or soldiers, were quite often found in graves. Just like the bronze pendant, the buckles are also dated to the period between the first and fourth centuries.21

Buchi, E. “Commerci delle anfore “istriane.” Aquil Nost XLV-XLVI (1974/75): 431-43. Carroll, M., “Infant death and burial in Roman Italy.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 24 (2011): 99-120. Garašanin, M., “Razmatranja o nekropolama Mala Kopašnica-Sase.” Godišnjak Centraza balkanološka ispitivanja VI – 4 (1968), Sarajevo: 5-35. Гетов, Л., “Погребални обичаии гробнисъ оръженияу Tракитепрез римската епоха (I–IV).” Археология XII/1 (1999), София: 1–9. Hayes, J.W., “The Villa Dionysos Excavation, Knossos: The Pottery.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 78 (1983): 97-169.

In addition to its form, the unique feature of this grave is the presence of amphora fragments in the construction of the wall-sides. It is a type of Western Mediterranean amphora.22 All three rim fragments are impressed with the stamp TF TALANI in a rectangular frame. The stamp TF TALANI, presented in our samples, is usually from Moesia Superior and was represented by several variants. An analogy is found in only one example from Sirmium.

Ivanišević, V., M. Kazanski, A. Mastykova. Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations. Paris (2006). Jovanović, A., “Romanisation and ethnic elements in burial practice in the southern part of Pannonia Inferior and Moesia Superior.” In Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, J. Pearce (ed.). Oxford: Oxbow Books (2000): 204-21.

IV. Conclusions. The secondary use of amphorae as burial containers may have had a religious significance, representing the wine or oil necessary by the deceased in the afterlife; however, the primary purpose of amphorae in burials was practical. Amphorae protected the grave furniture, especially where fragile glass vessels or mirrors were placed and it prevented soil from being thrown directly onto the cremated remains and any accompanying vessels.23 Since there are, in fact, just a few cases of amphorae burials compared to the total number of graves, the symbolic meaning still escapes us.

Jovanović, B., “Les sépultures de la nécropole celtique de Pećine près de Kostolac (Serbie du nord).” Études Celtiques XXI (1984): 63-93. Jovanović, B., “Nekropola na Pećinama i starije gvozdeno doba Podunavlja.” Starinar XXXVI (1985): 13-18. Korać, M., “Late Roman Tomb with Frescoes from Viminacium.” Starinar XLII (1991): 107-22.

The burial of children in amphorae was quite common within the Roman Empire24 during the period between the first century BC and the beginning of the third century, especially in North Africa.25 Such burials occur in the Danubian provinces, but not so frequently.26 The burials of adults covered with amphorae or amphora fragments were quite rare, and burials in graves of the type Mala Kopašnica-Sase in which amphora fragments appeared as

Korać, M. Slikarstvo Viminacijuma. Beograd (2007). Korać, M. and S. Golubović. Viminacium, Više Grobalja 2. Beograd: Arheološki institut Beograd (2009).

21 Sagadin, 1979, 305. 22 Bjelajac, 1996, 13. 23 Philpott 1991, 25.

24 Carrol, 2011, 99-120. 25 Stevens, 2013. 26 Popilian, Bondoc,2012, 17.

47

Snežana Golubović Marković, Č. AntičkacBudva – Nekropole (istraživanja 1980-1981). Podgorica: Matica Crnogorska (2012).

Stevens S.T., “Stages of Infancy in Roman Amphora Burial.” In Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, J. Evans Grubbs and T. Parkin (eds.). Oxford (2013).

Philpott, R. Burial Practices in Roman Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 219 (1991).

Зотовић, Љ., “Некропола из времена сеобе народа са уже територије Виминација.” Старинар 31 (1981): 95– 145.

Popilian, Gh, and D. Bondoc. The Roman and Late Roman Cemetery of Sucidava-Celei. The Excavations from 19691983, Craiova (2012).

Зотовић, Љ., “Јужне некрополе Виминација и погребни обреди.” Viminacivm 1, Пожаревац (1986): 41-60.

Sagadin, M., “Antične pasnespone in garniture v Sloveniji.” Arheološki Vestnik 30 (1979), Ljubljana: 294– 338.

Зотовић, Љ., Ч. Јордовић. Viminacivm I, некропола Више Гробаља. Београд: Археолошки институт Београд (1990).

Срејовић, Д., “Римске некропол ераногцарствау Југославији.” Старинар XIII–XIV/1962–63 (1965): 49– 85.

48

The Use of Amphorae in Burials at Viminacium FIGURES

Figure 1. Distribution of Western Mediterranean amphorae Type III in Moesia Superior (Bjelajac 1996, 23 used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

Figure 2. Distribution of Western Mediterranean amphorae Type I in Moesia Superior (Bjelajac 1996, 14 used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

49

Snežana Golubović

Figure 3. Distribution of Western Mediterranean amphorae Type VIII in Moesia Superior (Bjelajac 1996, 34 used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

Figure 4. Grave with cremation G1-66 - the site Kod Koraba.

50

The Use of Amphorae in Burials at Viminacium

Figure 5. Grave with cremation G1-32 with three levels - the site Pirivoj.

51

ROMAN FUNERARY LAW ON THE LOWER DANUBE: THEORY AND PRACTICE Ioana Mureșan and Lucian-Mircea Mureșan ("Gavrilă Simion" Eco-Museum Research Institute Tulcea) Abstract. In the ancient Roman world, every aspect of life and death was regulated by means of law. This included funerary practices, such as funerary plot ownership and the right to raise a sepulchral monument. By studying the ancient legal sources, one can understand, in theory, the regulations governing funerary behaviour at particular moments in history. On the other hand, by analysing funerary epigraphy discovered in the provinces along the Lower Danube valley, one can observe how theory was applied, which legal regulations are reflected in the epitaphs, and the reason why law needed to be reiterated by individuals through personal actions. Issues such as tomb violations, defining the funerary plot, establishing heirs and their responsibilities to be carried out after the testator’s death will be discussed using both literary sources and Roman epigraphy. All these efforts are made to reflect how Roman society developed in provincial territory, such as the Lower Danube provinces, a region characterised by a permanent contact between the West and the East.

sought to adapt the principles of their predecessors to their own society. Throughout its evolution, Roman law holds a distinct place in history as being complex in its simplicity and concise in its complexity. Moreover, every citizen relied upon the state’s legal system for his own physical preservation and to safeguard his property from any form of violence or theft.

I. Introduction. Ancient Roman culture has left an indelible mark on the evolution of contemporary human society, in both the public and private realms. This Roman heritage can be observed not only in architecture or modern political systems of government, but also in art, science, and education. Even in mundane aspects of modern life, there are traces of ancient ways that may be taken for granted. This includes the regulation of most actions of everyday life and death through the letter of the law.

The focus of this paper concerns the intersection of these two aspects of Roman life and what the modern term of Roman funerary law implies. The phrase “modern term” is used here as a direct result of the fact that the Roman legal system was not divided into the same categories and fields as its modern descendants, and there was no distinct category of funerary law. However, before establishing where in the ancient Roman legal system funerary law should be placed, we must first discuss what exactly this legal system was based upon.2

Caring for the dead is a practice as old as the human race itself. The vast scope of cultural frameworks regarding funerary practices attests to one of the most common and emotional human events, namely one’s earthly demise. The preoccupation with what happens to one’s essence and memory after death, both in the spiritual world and inside the community of survivors, has proven to be one of our most common concerns, regardless of time and place. Hence, the Romans went to great efforts to ensure the safe passage to the afterlife by undertaking specific funerary rites and rituals. Moreover, regardless of social and financial status, efforts were made to preserve one’s memory after death,1 by placing often lavish funerary monuments or by means of repetitive actions, such as celebrating the dead with sacrifices in certain holidays of the Roman year.

II. Background to Roman funerary law. The XII Tables were inspired by the Athenian ancient legal system;3 however, Roman law greatly evolved by the second century AD, when its sources were well defined, as listed in the elementary legal textbook composed by the jurist Gaius, Institutes:4 laws of the Roman people (leges), enactments of the plebeians (plebiscita), resolutions of the senate (senatus consulta), constitutions of the emperors, the edicts of those with the right to issue them (consuls, praetors, aediles and provincial governors), and the responses of jurists.5 On the same principle, the compilers of Justinian’s sixth century Corpus Iuris Civilis decided to add to its Digestae the words of the second century jurist Sextus Pomponius; thus, demonstrating that the sources of Roman law remained the same even after centuries passed:

Another Roman legacy that remains with us today is the ever-present legal system that regulates society, bringing order where chaos could easily govern. With some exceptions, almost all European societies have at the root of their legal systems the principles of Roman law. Inspired by the intricacies of Greek law, the Romans 1 In this regard, see among others Toynbee 1971, Davies 1999, Hopkings 1983, Hope / Marshall 2000, Hope 2003, Hope 2007, Carroll 2006, Carroll / Rempel 2011, Rebillard 2009. 2 Further on the matter of Roman law sources, see Robinson 1997 3 For a fuller discussion regarding funerary law and the Law of the XII Tables in Crețulescu / Mureșan 2014, 865-66. See also a thorough analysis on the legal categories of persons and property in the XII Tables in Watson 1975.

4 Gai. Inst.I, 1.2: Constant autem iura populi Romani ex legibus, plebiscitis, senatus consultis, constitutionibus principum, edictis eorum, qui ius edicendi habent, responsis prudentium; “Roman law consists of statutes, plebiscites, senatus consults, constitutions of the emperors, edicts of magistrates authorised to issue them, and opinions of jurists” (Poste 1904, 1). 5 Humfress 2013, 75.

53

Ioana Mureșan and Lucian-Mircea Mureșan priesthood, and offices of state. Private law is tripartite, being derived from principles of jus naturalis, jus gentium, or jus civile.”11 In other words, religious affairs belong to the rulings of the divine gods, while public affairs belong to the body of citizens.12

“Thus, in our state either it is laid down by the law, that is by statute; or there is our own jus civile, which is grounded without formal writing in nothing more than interpretations by learned jurists; or there are statutory actions-at-law, which govern forms of process; or there is plebiscite law which is settled without the advice and consent of the senate; or there is a magisterial edict, whence honorary law derives; or there is a senatus consultum which is brought in without statutory authority solely on the decision of the senate; or there us an imperial enactment (constitution), the principle being that what the emperor himself has decided is to be observed as having statutory force.”6

Legal sources from the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero to the treatises of jurists from the second and third centuries AD, culminating with the Codex Justiniani have proven that throughout the centuries there is a difficulty in theorising law and religion, both subjected to the evolution of political, social and cultural change. The situation at the time of Cicero clearly differed from the legal system of the third century and even more from the one preserved in the sixth century, even though the Corpus Iuris Civilis is based on its early predecessors more than other legal corpora before it, such as Codex Theodosianus. Nevertheless, Cicero’s words that the funerary rights are associated with both pontifical and civil law prove to be timeless.13

The complexity of the Roman legal system is also evident in its application throughout the Roman Empire. Ongoing debates regarding the universality of Roman law question whether a single system applied to all inhabitants of the Roman world. A thorough analysis of this situation reveals that it was based upon what kind of legal status a person held. Depending upon their status of full Roman citizenship, diminished citizenship, slaves, or aliens, people had the freedom to employ the legal system which served their purpose, be it local or imperial law, ius gentium or local Greek city laws, especially in cases regarding private law.7 Official Roman sources maintained that the empire should be governed according to the universal law of Rome and its emperors. However, the central government did not control the lives of its subjects in the sphere of law, nor attempt to do so. In other words, there was a discrepancy between legal theory and actual practice. To properly analyse the practical aspect of law there is a need to go from bottom to top.8 This is where epigraphic and literary evidence come into their own and provide a shape to Roman law in a specific time and place.

The difficulty of separating civil and religious law14 pertaining to funerary practice comes from the ambiguous nature of the tomb, since its elements were subjected to both commercial and pontifical law.15 This is due to the use of two very different terms to identify Roman tombs in the legal texts of the time, namely the sepulchrum and the monumentum. The concepts are easily explained by Ulpian,16 whose words are also in the Digests of Justinian: sepulchrum “is a place where a man’s body or bones have been interred,”17, while monumentum “is something which exists to preserve a memory.”18 A ground property would be considered as a place of burial only if it did not have a purpose for the living, such as farm plots,19 or public places.20 A feature was considered a sepulchrum only after the burial was consecrated by interring the deceased’s remains and the proper religious rituals were performed, as Cicero pointed out: “Yet their places of burial do not really become graves until the proper rites are performed and the pig is slain. And the expression which has now come to be used in regard to all who are buried, namely, that they are ‘laid in the earth’, was then confined to those cases where earth was cast upon the bodies and covered them. The existence of this custom is confirmed by the rules of the pontiffs. For until turf is cast upon the bones, the place where a body is cremated does not have a sacred character;

In dealing with death and its aftermath, Romans had to take into account the relation between everyday life and law, which represented the meeting place of a number of concepts such as the Roman family and society, the dichotomy of sacred and secular law, the law and custom, and so on.9 It also raises one of the oddest puzzles in Roman law, where do we place funerary law inside the Roman legal system? Justinian’s Digests10 provide some insights: “There are two branches of legal study: public and private law. Public law is that which respects the establishment of the Roman commonwealth, private that which respects individuals’ interests, some matters being of public and others of private interests. Public law covers religious affairs, the 6 Watson 1985, 1.2.2.12. 7 Humfress 2013, 79-82. See also Crook 1967, 18-35 8 Humfress 2013, 92-4. 9 Crook 1967, 133. 10 For a literary rather that a legal perspective, see Scott 1932. 11 Dig. I, 1, 1, 2 (Watson 1985). Huius studii duae sunt positiones, publicum et privatum. publicum ius est quod ad statum rei romanae spectat, privatum quod ad singulorum utilitatem: sunt enim quaedam publice utilia, quaedam privatim. publicum ius in sacris, in sacerdotibus, in magistratibus constitit. privatum ius tripertitum est: collectum etenim est ex naturalibus praeceptis aut gentium aut civilibus 12 Ando and Rüpke 2006, 8.

13 Cic. Leg., II, 45-47. For an English translation see Keyes 1928. 14 Concerning religion and other aspects of Roman law, see TellegenCouperus 2012, Thomas 1999 and Thomas 2004, Ando / Rüpke 2006 and Rebillard 2014 for late antiquity. 15 Concerning this aspect see also de Visscher 1963, 42-82, Crook 1967, 133-138, Thomas 2004, 40-77, Kaser 1978, 15-92. 16 Ulp. Ed. 25. 17 Watson 1985, 11.7.2.5. 18 Watson, 1985, 11.7.2.6. 19 Plato apud. Cic. Leg. II, 67. 20 Regarding the clash between urban necropolises and public places in Rome see Bodel 2014.

54

Roman Funerary Law on the Lower Danube If there are human remains associated with the funerary monument, the status of a locus religiosus that is earned by the sepulchrum is extended to the monumentum, and is protected by religious law. Otherwise, if the sacred objects, the human bones, are removed, the monument returns to the profane, becoming purus, a non-religious object, subjected to commercial law. The status of res religiosae ensured a tomb’s inviolability, inalienability and immunity from seizing.32

but after the turf is cast, [the burial is considered accomplished, and the spot is called a grave].” 21 On the other hand, “the deified Hadrian said in a rescript that a funerary monument [monumentum] is something built as a monument, that is, as a protection for the place where the body is interred.”22 Moreover, Florentius noted that “in general, a monument is something left as a memorial for posterity; if a corpse or remains are placed in it, it becomes a tomb; otherwise, it is a memorial monument, which the Greeks call a cenotaph.”23 In addition, if there is only the monument and no tomb, it can be sold by any party; and if we are dealing with a cenotaph, the sale must be stated in the will, so it too can be sold. The two emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, through a rescript, state that this kind of structure is not religious24.

These were the regulations regarding the legal status of funerary plots and tombs. Nevertheless, this did not hinder tomb owners to extend the rules of inalienability granted by the religious function of the sepulchre to the surrounding area, considered in the eyes of the law loci puri. One method was to inscribe the exact surface of the funerary plot in the final part of the inscription carved on visible monuments. A popular practice in great Roman urban areas,33 it was best reflected in necropolises across Italy, where funerary monuments belonging to one family often occupied an enclosed plot. Plots marked by enclosures or just stone pillars placed in corners, stretched in one or two rows on both sides of main roads, sometimes for miles, as in the cases of ancient Aquileia, along the Via Appia in Rome, or along the Via dei sepolcri, in Pompeii.34

As the legal texts show, especially noting the terms used, we can easily discern that in addition to the duality of the tomb (monumentum/sepulchrum) we also have the opposition between locus religiosus and locus purus in reference to the burial site.25 Gaius in his Institutions clearly specifies that “subjects of divine right are things sacred and things religious.”26 and also that “a religious thing becomes so by private will, when an individual buries a dead body in his own ground, provided the burial is his proper business.”27 Thus, performing the proper religious rites28 in addition to the actual interment of the deceased’s remains transforms the burial place into a locus religiosus, under the protection of religious law. On the other hand, Ulpian offers a concise definition of a locus purus, stating that “an «ordinary» place means one which is not sacred nor holy nor religious, but appears to be free from all such designations.”29 Thus, the religious character of the tomb is given by the physical presence of the deceased’s remains that occupies it, defining its funerary function; any action having a bearing on its sepulchral character is strictly forbidden by law.30

Enclosing the funerary lot is not to be seen as just an aesthetic effort, but also a measure to preserve, for perpetuity, the original size of the funerary property. The monuments that protected the remains were not to be sold by law, nor were they inherited by descendants to do with them as they pleased,35 in as much by inscribing the exact measures of the plot on the funerary slab, it can be interpreted as an additional effort to ensure the integrity of the property after death, all for the sole purpose of protecting one’s memory.

Nevertheless, it must be stated that only the portion of the plot where the body was interred was considered religious, as stated Ulpianus: “Celsus, however, says not all of the place chosen for burial becomes religious, but only as much of it as covers the body.”31

III. Cases from the lower Danube. In the study of Roman funerary law and practices, an interesting region is that comprising the provinces on the lower Danube River, one of the meeting points of Latin and Greek culture and between Rome and Barbaricum. This area bears witness to the scope of central imperial law as it was applied, or sometimes evaded in the border provinces on the lower

21 Cic. Leg. II, 57; Keyes 1928, 441-43. 22 Watson 1985, 11.7.37.1: Monumentum autem sepulchri id esse divus hadrianus rescripsit, quod monumenti, id est causa muniendi eius loci factum sit, in quo corpus impositum sit. 23 Watson 1985, 11.7.42: Monumentum generaliter res est memoriae causa in posterum prodita: in qua si corpus vel reliquiae inferantur, fiet sepulchrum, si vero nihil eorum inferatur, erit monumentum memoriae causa factum, quod graeci kenotafion appellant. 24 Ulp. Dig. XI, 7, 6, 1: Si adhuc monumentum purum est, poterit quis hoc et vendere et donare. si cenotaphium fit, posse hoc venire dicendum est: nec enim esse hoc religiosum divi fratres rescripserunt. (“If a tomb is still ordinary ground, it can be sold or given away. If a cenotaph is built, one should rule that it can be sold; for a rescript of the deified brothers says that a cenotaph is not religious.”, Watson 1985, 11.7.6.1). 25 See also Thomas 2004, 46 and 69, Crook 1967, 133-34, de Visscher 1963, 43-63, Ando / Rüpke 2006, 8-11. 26 Poste 1904, 122; Cai. Inst. II, 3: Divini iuris sunt veluti res sacrae et religiosae.

27 Poste 1904, 122; Cai. Inst. II, 6: Religiosum vero nostra voluntate facimus mortuum inferentes in locum nostrum, si modo eius mortui funus ad nos pertineat. 28 See note 20. 29 Watson 1985, 11.7.2.4: Purus autem locus dicitur, qui neque sacer neque sanctus est neque religiosus, sed ab omnibus huiusmodi nominibus vacare videtur. 30 de Visscher 1967, 70. 31 Watson 1985, 11.7.2.5: Celsus autem ait: non totus qui sepulturae destinatus est, locus religiosus fit, sed quatenus corpus humatum est. 32 Thomas 2004, 45. See also Cod.Iust. III, 4, 9, Dig. XLV, 1, 83, 5, Dig. VIII, 4, 4. Dig. XLI, 2, 31, 1 and de Visscher 1867, 65-73 regarding the discussion on the relative inalienability of the tomb. 33 For a topography of tombs in provincial territory see Pearce 2011. 34 Toynbee 1971, 73-4. 35 Thus the usage of the formula H(oc) M(onumentum) H(eredem) N(on) S(equetur) at the end of funerary inscriptions, see also Creţulescu / Mureşan 2014.

55

Ioana Mureșan and Lucian-Mircea Mureșan hereditary ones (where the right of burial was passed on to designated heirs regardless of extant or non-existent family connections), at least in Rome and Italy.39 Moreover, the dangers that threatened these family sepulchres were the burial of a foreign body inside the tomb and hereditary cession. Thus, the original tomb owners found ways to prevent these threats by either employing pecuniary warnings (funerary fines) for unwanted secondary burials or specific epigraphic formulas that prevent hereditary cession, a practice that was a favourite of jurisprudence practice.40

Danube, by studying epigraphic evidence in the context of legal texts in use at that particular time. Epigraphic formulae specifying, in feet, the length of a property on its front side, parallel with the road (in fronte), and its depth, the distance perpendicular to the front side (in agro, retro),36 is rarely encountered on the lower Danube, while such examples do occur in Upper and Lower Moesia. At Viminacium, we have the funerary monument dedicated to a centurion of the VII legion, originally from Carthage. It was erected by his sisters and heirs and specifies the surface assigned for his tomb: ---] [--]noci(?)/[---]usto ex / [---] Carthag(iniensi) / [|(centurioni) leg(ionis) VII] C(laudiae) p(iae) f(idelis) pro / [---]R(?)O I[-- so]rores / heredes [o]ptimo piis/simo amantissimo fra/tri fecerunt [p]ius vix(it) an(nos) LXV / |(centurio) mil(itavit) an(nos) XXXV h(ic) s(itus) e(st) ex his agris / monimento ex[c]epti sunt in fro(nte) / p(edes) XX introitus [p(edes)] XX et iter.37

We rarely encounter the formula H.M.H.N.S. on funerary monuments belonging to military personnel on the lower Danubian limes. In Upper Moesia, a funerary stela from Heraclea Lyncestis was raised for Caius Cornelius Magnus, an ex imunnis and beneficiarius in the VII legion, with a military career followed by a civil one as decurio and IIvir coloniae Scupinorum: C(aio) Cornelio C(ai) f(ilio) Fa/bia Magno Be/ryto vixit annis LXXV / militavit annis XXI in / leg(ione) VII C(laudia) p(ia) f(ideli) beneficiari/us et inmunis dec(urio) et / IIvir col(oniae) Scupinorum / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / Publicia Secunda uxor / ex testamento f(aciendum) c(uravit) / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur).41

At Novae, the funerary stela belonging to a veteran of the I Italian legion, Severus, notes the exact measurements of the plot where the tomb was built. There is also a clause prohibiting heirs from using the monument: --] / [---] C(ai) / f(ilius) Papiria Se/verus Oesc(i) / vet(eranus) leg(ionis) I Ita(licae) / et Marciae / Marcellae / coniugi f(ecit) / h(oc) m(onumentum) p(ositum) in f(ronte) p(edes) LXXX / in agr(o) p(edes) LXXX h(eredem) / n(on) s(equetur).38

Also at Timacum Minus, we have the funerary stela of Caius Iulius Herculianus, a veteran of the same legio VII Claudia, bearing the inscription: D(is) M(anibus) / C(aius) Iulius Her/culanus vet(eranus) / leg(ionis) VII Cl(audiae) p(iae) f(idelis) / se vivo posuit / et Antoniae Vi/biae con(iugi) b(ene) m(erenti) / vix(it) an(nos) L / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur).42

A good example of how theory was applied concerns the fact that the monument was subject to commercial law when not associated with human remains. This bears the risk that the tomb being sold or destroyed in some manner by the survivors of the deceased. In order to avoid this type of action special formulas were applied, usually at the end of the epitaphs, to prevent the estrangement of the funerary monument, such as the hoc monumentum heredem non sequitur formular from Novae. Literally meaning that the monument will not follow the heirs, the formula is meant to limit the actions of the survivors concerning the attributes and function of the funerary monument, and to ensure that it will continue to keep the memory of the original owner alive. This reflects the need to reiterate a known principle of funerary law in order to protect sepulchral property.

Again from Novae, the funerary stela of Severus, a veteran of the I Italian legion, born at another military centre, Oescus, mentions the exact surface of the funerary plot: --] / [---] C(ai) / f(ilius) Papiria Se/verus Oesc(i) / vet(eranus) leg(ionis) I Ita(licae) / et Marciae / Marcellae / coniugi f(ecit) / h(oc) m(onumentum) p(ositum) in f(ronte) p(edes) LXXX / in agr(o) p(edes) LXXX h(eredem) / n(on) s(equetur).43 From Troesmis is a funerary altar of Titus Rascanius Fortunatus, a medicus, who probably served the V Macedonian legion, which bears the formula H.M.H.N.S.: [Dis M]an(i)bus / [T(itus) Ras]canius / [For]tunatus / [Poll]ia Faventia / [medic]us an(norum) L h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / [cui mo]n(u)mentum / [Rasca]nia Phoebe et / [T(itus) Rascan]ius Eutychu(s) / [hered]es f(aciendum) c(uraverunt) h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur).44

This epigraphic formula, recorded in inscriptions starting in the second century AD, mainly focuses on family tombs, where the right of burial is passed on to household members, freeborn persons or freedmen and women bearing the family name, or slaves born inside the household, regardless of their status as designated heirs. Surprisingly, family tombs tended to outnumber the

In Dacia Superior, we encounter the formula on two funerary monuments belonging to the civilian population

36 Toynbee, 1971, 75. 37 IMS II, 104; EDH, nr. HD029709 38 Conrad 2004, 235-236, nr. 408, pl. 122, 3; EDH, nr. HD025152. 39 de Visscher 1963, 101. 40 de Visscher 1963, 102.

41 IMS VI, 45, here mentioned to be in the territory of ancient Scupi, even though it was found in a village in the territory of Bitola, Macedonia (ancient Heraclea Lyncestis); EDH, nr. HD032818. 42 IMS III/2, 32; EDH, nr. HD032965. 43 ILBulg, nr. 306; EDH, nr. HD025152. 44 IscM V, nr. 193; EDH, nr. HD043216.

56

Roman Funerary Law on the Lower Danube matters, where the sums to be paid and courses of action were settled by the local authorities in accordance with tomb owners.

of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: D(is) M(anibus) // Aureliae Victoriae / incomparabili feminae / Fortunatus Aug(usti) lib(ertus) / adiut(or) tabular(ii) / coniugi karissimae / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur)45 and D(is) M(anibus) / C(ai) Iul(i) C(ai) f(ili) Rufi dom(o) Vimin(acio) ann(orum) XX Iul(ia) / Gemellina fratri pientissimo et / M(arco) Aurel(io) M(arci) f(ilio) Maximo mens(ium) VIII / Aurel(ius) Helico et Iul(ia) Gemellin(a) parentes / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur).46

There are two interesting cases of bilingual epitaphs from Lower Moesia. The first is a funerary slab from Tomis, erected while still alive by Valerius Valens, a veteran of the Moesian fleet, for himself and his wife. The two epitaphs are not identical; the one in Greek bears an additional formula forbidding the violation of the sepulchre by either illegal secondary burial or ploughing, under the penalty of paying a fine of unknown value: D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Valens vet(eranus) [classis] / Fl(aviae) Moesie(!) me[moriam feci vi]/vo meo mi et [dulcissi]/me(!) co(n)iugi m[eae ---] // [τὴν γλυκυ]τάτην σύνβιον· [ὃς ἂν] / [ἄλλο]ν τιν’ ἀντέθῃ νε[κρὸν] / [ἢ πολ]ήσει ίν τῷ φίσκῷ δ(ηνάρια) [— —].55

Nonetheless, the best way to protect a tomb, and by extension its monument, involved applying the jurisdiction of laws concerning tomb violations.47 In his Opinions, the jurist Julius Paulus, in the section referring to tombs and mourning, defines and explains in conformity with the laws that were effective at the time what was considered to be violatio sepulchri: the profanation of a sepulchre, removing any object from its interior,48 breaking and opening the tomb with the purpose of interring a foreign corpse in it,49 and the violations of the remains already interred, by stripping and exposing them to the rays of the sun.50 Moreover, any damage to a funerary monument by erasing the inscription, overturning statuary elements, or removing constructive parts are also considered to be violations of the sepulchre.51

The second example is a funerary slab from Odessos, made by Malius Secundus, a beneficiarius consularis, for his wife, Antistia Firmina. What is interesting is the fact that the Greek part of the epitaph is not a translation of the Latin one, as seen in the previous case, but is a text forbidding the destruction of the monument under penalty of paying a fine to the authorities of Odessos: [D(is) M(anibus)] / et memoriae Antistiae Firmi/ne co(n)iugi rarissime quae vixit / mecum ann(os) XXIII Malius Secundus / b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) maritus fcit me poni // εἴ τις ἐν τούτῳ τῷ ἡρῴῳ ὅπου κεῖτε / ἡ προγεγραμμένη θελήσι ἄλλον / ἕτερον θεῖναι δώσι τῷ ταμίῳ |(δηνάρια) βφʹ / καὶ τῇ Ὀδησσειτῶν πόλι |(δηνάρια) βφʹ.56

The penalties imposed upon those guilty of violatio sepulchri, clearly defined in the work of Julius Paulus, included exile to an island for those of high rank (honestiores), and forced labour in mines for men of lower ranks (humiliores).52 On the other hand, Ulpianus, referring to a rescript belonging to emperor Severus, adds capital punishment for those guilty of tomb violation, while armed (brigands), as opposed to those who plunder unarmed (simple theft). In the latter case the maximum penalty was work in the mines: “Governors are accustomed to proceed more severely against those who despoil dead bodies, especially if they go armed; for if they commit the offence armed like robbers, they are punished capitally, as the Divine Severus provided in a Rescript; but if they commit it unarmed, any penalty can be inflicted up to sentence to the mines.”53

These cases represent an attempt to limit the possibility of monument violation by writing the pecuniary punishment in the language spoken by the majority of the population living in these two Greek cities, even if the owners of the monuments were Latin. The funerary message was meant to be seen and understood by the community in which the family lived but also by the everyday passer-by. An example indicating that people sometimes did not follow the law to the letter, lies outside the boundaries of the Danubian provinces, in Thessaloniki. Several locally produced sarcophagi bear evidence that the original epitaph had been erased by a second owner in order for his own funerary inscription to be carved. One example is a now fragmented sarcophagus that was bought by a wife for her deceased husband dating from the first half of the third century AD.57 It was to be used by the family and

Nevertheless, these sentences of penal nature were not the only course of action against violatio sepulchri. Macer clearly states that a pecuniary action against those guilty of tomb profanation is allowed,54 as a direct result of the large scope of the civil law that converges into pontifical 45 IDR III/2, nr. 396 = EDH nr. HD047409. 46 IDR III/2, nr. 418 = EDH nr. HD047500. 47 Concerning this issue see also de Visscher 1963, 101-15, Rebillard 2009, 58-80, Thomas 2004, 57-69, Creaghan 1951, and also Mureșan / Mureșan 2015 and Sassu / Radulova 2014 for a lengthier discussion. 48 Paulus, Sent. I, 21, 5: Qui sepulchrum violaverint aut de sepulchro aliquid sustulerint, pro personarum qualitate aut in metallum dantur aut in insulam deportantur. 49 Paulus, Sent. I, 21, 6: Qui sepulchrum alienum effregerit vel aperuerit eoque mortuum suum alienumve intulerit, sepulchrum violasse videtur. 50 Paulus, Sent. I, 21, 4: Qui corpus perpetuae sepulturae traditum vel ad tempus alicui loco commendatum nudaverit et solis radiis ostenderit, piaculum committit: atque ideo, si honestior sit, in insulam, si humilior in metallum dari solet.

51 Paulus, Sent. I, 21, 8: Qui monumento inscriptos titulos eraserit vel statuam everterit vel quid ex eodem traxerit, lapidem columnamve sustulerit, sepulchrum violasse videtur. 52 See note 47. 53 Scott 1932, D47.12.3.7: Adversus eos, qui cadavera spoliant, praesides severius intervenire, maxime si manu armata adgrediantur, ut, si armati more latronum id egerint, etiam capite plectantur, ut divus Severus rescripsit, si sine armis, usque ad poenam metalli procedunt. 54 Dig. XLVII, 12, 9. 55 IscM II, 199; EDH nr. HD044380. 56 CIL III, 144581; EDH, nr. HD044401 57 SEG 24, 1969, nr. 569, Nigdelis 2006, 387-90, nr. 11, pl. 94.

57

Ioana Mureșan and Lucian-Mircea Mureșan to protect it. This would have left it a res nullius (an object without owner), which could be again put on the market for sale.65 A second theory involves the possibility of a transfer of ius sepulchri, the right of interment granted by the original owner to anyone he chooses.66 A third, more drastic and maybe improbable, theory implies that both the original and secondary owner did not follow the law and that these epigraphic threats were in fact empty and employed just to highlight the value of the monument.67

threatened perpetrators with legal action (ὔϕέξεί). Interestingly, the last line of the original epitaph was not properly chiselled away and was also a threat for those who dared to open the sarcophagus, obliging him to pay a sum to “the most holy”.58 As is evident from this example, the funerary monument was purchased; therefore, one question arises: was it possible to sell or purchase a funerary plot that was already consecrated? Again, the ancient legal texts provide us with the answer. The law forbade the commercial transfer of sacred or religious places;59 on the other hand, if the funerary function was kept, sale/purchase was permitted, as stipulated by Pomponius: “It is our practice to hold that the owners of land, in which they have set apart places of burial, have the right of access to the sepulchres, even after they have sold the land. For it is provided by the laws relating to the sale of real property that a right of way is reserved to sepulchres situated thereon, as well as the right to approach and surround them for the purpose of conducting funeral ceremonies.”60

IV. Conclusions. These literary and epigraphic examples insinuate that there is always a conflict between theory and practice, between the written law, applicable throughout the entire Roman world, and the actions of people, who rely on their own customs first. The imperial rescripts stand proof, themselves, as an example for the need to solve a local dispute or reiterate to further emphasize a certain aspect of the law. The lower Danube offers examples where local law and customs intersect and, on occasions, clash with the general imperial law, resulting in a different applicability of theory in practice. And furthermore, the issues discussed here are another example that fuels the complexity not only of the law but also of the actions made by man to ensure that his memory will forever survive his generation.

This situation is also mentioned by the jurist Julius Paulus in his Opinions (I, 21, 7), stating that: “When land is sold, consecrated ground does not pass to the purchaser, nor does he acquire the right to inter bodies therein.”61 Religious places were not subjected to commercial law, actions against illegal purchases of loca religiosa under the false pretence of being “ordinary” were granted by the authorities.62 On the other hand, if we were to deal only with the monuments, which were still loca pura, they could be sold or bequeathed. In fact, even though the tombs are inalienable by law, there are an impressive number of inscriptions in the Roman world recording cessions, acquisitions, and donations of whole or parts of funerary monuments. By this we understand that these kinds of purchases and cessions were not uncommon.63 Nevertheless, some of these may refer to the sale or bequeath of the loca pura inside the tomb, the parts without burials at the time of purchase (for example, columbaria niches). However, if the ground was already consecrated, there was no purchase per se (characteristic of ius commercii), but a transfer of right of burial (ius sepuchri), which does not change the funerary function of the tomb64. The sarcophagus fragment from Thessalonika can be interpreted in three ways. The first theory is that the original owners were either not alive anymore or moved to another city, so the tomb was left behind without anyone 58 Original epitaph, now hammered out: [τι]ς∙ ἕτερος / το[λμήση άνΰ]ξε ! δώσ[ει], ίερωτά[τω], Nigdelis 2006, 387. 59 Dig. XVIII, 1, 6: Sed Celsus filius ait hominem liberum scientem te emere non posse nec cuiuscumque rei si scias alienationem esse: ut sacra et religiosa loca aut quorum commercium non sit, ut publica, quae non in pecunia populi, sed in publico usu habeatur, ut est Campus Martius.(“However, the younger Celsus says that you cannot wittingly buy a freeman or anything, the alienation of which you know to be forbidden; for instance, sacred or religious land or land excluded from private dealings such as those public lands which are not in the public purse but are for public use, such as the Field of Mars.” Watson 1985, 18.1.6). 60 Scott 1932, D.47.12.5: Utimur eo iure, ut dominis fundorum, in quibus sepulchra fecerint, etiam post venditos fundos adeundorum sepulchrorum sit ius. Legibus namque praediorum vendundorum cavetur, ut ad

sepulchra, quae in fundis sunt, item eius aditus ambitus funeri faciendi sit. 61 Scott 1932, Paul.I.21.7. 62 Ulp. Dig. XI, 78, 1: Si locus religiosus pro puro venisse dicetur, praetor in factum actionem in eum dat ei ad quem ea res pertinent. (“If a religious place is alleged to have been sold as though it was ordinary, the praetor grants the person concerned an action in factum against the seller”, Watson 1985, 11.7.8.1). 63 deVisscher 1963, 66. 64 See a further discussion in de Visscher 1963, 67-70. 65 Crook 1967, 133. 66 See note 62. 67 See also the interesting case of funerary monument reuse at Rome in Cupello / Hughes 2010.

58

Roman Funerary Law on the Lower Danube Hope, V.M. Death in Ancient Rome. A sourcebook. London, New York (2007).

REFERENCES Ando, C. and J. Rüpke (eds.). Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome. Stuttgart (2006).

Hopkins, K. Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Sociological Studies in Roman History 2 (1983).

Bodel, J., “Life and death of ancient Roman cemeteries: Living with the dead in imperial Rome.” In Reconstruction and the Historic City: Rome and Abroad – an interdisciplinary approach, C. Häuber, F. X. Schütz, G. M. Winder (eds.). München: Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeographie 6 (2014): 177-95.

Humfress, C., “Laws’ Empire: Roman Universalism and Legal Practice.” In New Frontiers. Law and Society in the Roman World, P. J. du Plessis (ed.). Edinburgh (2013): 73101. Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. București (1975-).

Carroll, M. Spirits of the Dead. Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe. Oxford (2006).

Gerov, B. Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae. Serdicae (1989).

Carroll, M. and J. Rempel, eds. Living through the dead. Burial and commemoration in the Classical world. Oxford (2011).

Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. Bucureşti (1980-).

Conrad, S. Die Grabstelen aus Moesia inferior. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie. Leipzig (2004).

Kaser, M., “Zum römischen Grabrecht.” In Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtgeschichte. Romanistiche Abteilung 95 (1978): 15-92.

Creachan, J.S. Violatio Sepulcri: An Epigraphical Study. PhD diss. Princeton University (1951), 2 vol.

Keyes, C.W. Cicero: De re Publica (On the Republic), De Legibus (On the Laws). Leob Classical Library 213 (1928).

Crețulescu, I. and L.M. Mureșan, “Defining the Sepulchral Lot on Roman Funerary Monuments – Considerations on Applying Roman Law in Archaeology Based on an Ancient Sources Study.” In Arheovest II2. In Honorem Gheorghe Lazarovici, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie, Timişoara 6 decembrie 2014. Szeged (2014): 863-73.

Mureșan, I. and L.M. Mureșan, “Between Monument and Sepulcher – Some Aspects Regarding the Legal Status of Sarcophagi in Roman Law.” Tibiscum, S.N. Istorie – Arheologie 5 (2015): 303-11. Nigdelis, P. Επιγραφικά Θεσσαλονίκεια. Συμβολή στην πολιτική και κοινωνική ιστορία της Αρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης. Thessaloniki (2006).

Crook, J.A. Law and Life in Rome, 90 B.C. – A.D. 212. Ithaca, New York (1967).

Pearce, J., “Marking the dead. Tombs and topography in the Roman provinces.” In Living through the dead. Burial and commemoration in the Classical world, M. Carroll and J. Rempel (eds.). Oxford (2011): 134-58.

Cupello, K.E. and L.A. Hughes. “Reuse, the Roman Funerary Monument and the Rabirii: Violation of Memory or Commemoration of Past and Present?” Censura, riscrittura, restauro. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, serie 5, 2/1 (2010): 3-23.

Poste, E. Gai Institutiones or Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius. Oxford (1904, fourth edition).

Davies, J. Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London, New York (1999).

Rebillard, É. The Care of the Dead in Late Antiquity (trans. E. Trapnell Rawlings, J. Routier-Pucci). Cornell (2009).

de Visscher, F. Le droit de tombeaux romanis. Milano (1963).

Rebillard, É. Transformations of Religious Practices in Late Antiquity. Ashgate: Augustan Studies 45.2 (2014).

Epigraphische Datenbank (uniheidelberg.de/institute/sonst/adw/edh)

Heidelberg

Robinson, O.F. The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians. Routledge (1997).

Hope, V.M. and E. Marshall (eds.). Death and Disease in the Ancient City. London, New York (2000).

Sassu, R. and L. Radulova, “Миланският едикт и практиките за защита oт violatio sepulcri в Балканските провинции.” Юридическо списание на НБУ 1 (2014): 64-72.

Hope, V.M., “Remembering Rome. Memory, funerary monuments and the Roman Soldier.” In Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies, H. Williams (ed.). New York (2003): 113-40.

Scott, S.P. The Civil Law. Including The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian, and The Constitutions of Leo, 17 vol. Cincinnati (1932).

59

Ioana Mureșan and Lucian-Mircea Mureșan Supplementum epigraphicum graecum, 1923-1971 (1979)

Persons and Things, A. Pottage and M. Mundi (eds.). Cambridge (2004): 44-77.

Tellegen-Couperus, O. (ed.). Law and Religion in the Roman Republic. Leiden, Bristol (2012).

Toynbee, J.M.C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore (1971).

Thomas, Y., “Corpus aut ossa aut cineres: la chose religieuse et le commerce.” Micrologus 7 (1999): 73-112.

Watson, A. Rome of the XII Tables: Persons and Property. Princeton (1975).

Thomas, Y., “Res Religiosae: On the Categories of Religion and Commerce in Roman Law.” In Law, Anthropology and the Constitution of the Social Making of

Watson, A. The Digest of Justinian, 4 vol. Philadelphia (1985).

60

ROMAN FORTRESSES AND SITES ALONG THE LOWER DANUBE: RECONSIDERING A NINETEENTH CENTURY SOURCE IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN CARTOGRAPHY AND SATELLITE IMAGERY Bogdan Condurățeanu (Romania Digitala Project) Abstract. This paper demonstrates how the nineteenth surveys of Pamfil Polonic in the Danube Valley are still relevant to modern scholars who focus on ancient and medieval topography. The mission of Romania Digitala is to provide scholars and cartographic enthusiasts digital maps and plans of historical sites within the territory of Romania. Presented here is a catalogue of Polonic’s descriptions of 30 Roman sites situated along the lower Danube valley with some commentary. We also provide samples of how Romania Digitala has utilised Polonic’s work in order to generate the most accurate maps possible.

engineer and a cartographer should be recognised. In order to increase his knowledge of the historical past of this region, he took meticulous notes, reconciled the maps with the terrain, and recorded information he received from the local inhabitants.2

I. Introduction. Historical Topography is a branch of Landscape Archaeology that encompasses all the activities that deal with the discovery, mapping, classification, inventory and reconstitution of historical and archaeological sites. Historical topographers make use of a wide array of data sources, historical references, old maps, and historical and actual aerial imagery with the purpose of finding and mapping, with GPS accuracy, known, or potentially interesting sites, from an archaeological or historical point of view. Scholars do not merely plot sites in a catalogue, as is common in archaeological repertoires; sites are assigned precise positioning, orientation, and layout using GIS tools. The geo-spatial dimension of every site is, therefore, essential from the point of view of Topographical History, as it uses a universal reference, geodetical coordinates, as opposed to all other relative references used in the past.

The document accessed for this study is from the IAB archive.3 The text was transcribed in Romanian using the original terminology and place names. The information was then verified and cross-referenced for cartographic evidence and, translated into English using modern place names. The study of Polonic’s manuscripts is part of a larger personal project, ongoing for 4 years, to identify all the fortifications from the Neolithic period through WWII.4 We have used the same GIS environment, GlobalMapper v15.2 software and subsequent updates, and the usual georeferencing techniques used in placing topographic information. All the findings, and many others (place names, road infrastructure, mound limits, bodies of water, etc.), were then published into the quarterly editions of the Digital Atlas of Romania so that anyone interested in pursuing field research activities has a chance to do so using a compatible Garmin device.5

The purpose of this paper is to assess the potential of the unpublished manuscripts of a virtually unknown Romanian topographer, Pamphil Polonic, in order to find and/or confirm archaeological points of interest along the banks of the Danube River, with an emphasis on the Roman period. II. Background. Pamfil Polonic is a reliable and accurate source of information from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He covered a wide territory on foot and his plans and descriptions led to major advances, such as the identification of the position and form of the legionary castrum at “Dichiseni”, or the discovery of the smaller castra at Cetate and Gârcovu.1 Many of his findings and drawings have been utilised by scholars of the Roman period.

The RO.A.D. navigation map for Romania has become, through the years, a de facto repository of all topographic knowledge, regarding not only the Roman world, but all other eras as well, organically integrated into the existing landscape, relief and transport infrastructure, making it easy for anyone eager to get acquainted with it to search for it, find it and navigate to it using modern technology. From the cartographic sources used in deciphering the manuscript, the most important are: the 1791 Specht map of Wallachia;6 the 1864 Szathmary map of Meridional

Polonic remains in the history of our archaeology as one of the great specialists in archaeological cartography. As a pioneer in this field, his noble efforts as a topographical 1 Condurăţeanu 2013, 58-60. 2 Adaptation and translation into English from Păunescu 2001-2003. 3 Mapa 3, Plic VIII, D. Cetăţile şi locuirile istorice pe malul stâng al Dunării.

4 Condurăţeanu 2013a. 5 https://www.rqa.ro/produs.php?id=442&subcat_id=39&cat_id=19. 6 Specht 1791.

61

Bogdan Condurățeanu Romania7; the artillery firing plan8 1:20.000, the years 1950 and the military maps 1:25.000 from Military Topographic Direction, the years 1970-1980. All coordinates presented in the footnotes of this article, which were initially taken from historical plans, were reconfirmed and re-placed on precise aerial ortho-photo plans.

through some of them would have poured into the Black Sea. Both banks differ from a geological standpoint, as Romania’s banks are green and sometimes forested, as it is deposited land from alluvions while the right bank is stony made up from tertiary formations. The Danube has a length of 921 km through Romania. It enters through the gorges of the Iron Gates at Vârciorova passes by Turnu Severin and right by the eye of Hinova, hitting the Stârmena hills, it turns south; at the bend lies the Corbilor Island. Reaching the southern extremity of the hills that block its course it takes again towards the east carrying with itself the sand dug out from the Stârmena hills which it deposits especially on the Romanian lowlands. (ms pp. 2-5)

III. Topographic Commentary. Presented here is a characterisation of Polonic's work, followed by several examples where we have utilised his survey information and images in our digital reconstructions. Like all nineteenth and early twentieth century topographers, Polonic described the places, features and people he encountered with an air of romanticism. His manuscript begins with a poetic narrative about the Danube River: “Throughout many years I searched the left bank of the Danube and discovered that during all ages there were close relationships between the two banks, because I found almost all the time across the Danube and in front of older cities and fortresses on the right bank other newer cities and fortresses on the left bank” (ms p. 1).

In describing archaeological features, the topographer does his best to interpret the ancient architecture: “We also find the remains of two stone bridges, one built by emperor Trajan at Turnu Severin (Drubetae) and another one at Celei, probably made by emperor Constantine the Great during the war to re-conquer Trajan Dacia” (ms. p. 1). Some of his observations can be used by modern scholars in order to explain why settlements or economic activities thrived or failed in certain stretches of the Danube valley: “wind blows it over the plain covering large territories with heaps and mounds of sand far inland (from Dolj up to Băileşti) causing great damage to the agriculture – and we find these flying sands near the Danube up to the western border of the Romanaţi county9 – but especially Dolj county until the mouth of the Jiu suffers a great deal because of them; nowadays they are beginning to disappear thanks to acacia forestations made by the state and the large Owners. From Verciorova10 up until the Serbian village Sip the Danube is shepherded on both sides by the high ranges of the Carpathians and the Balkans and for a length of 5km has some powerful vortexes called „Gherdafuri”: the water flows with foams through submerged stones boiling under the banks, rolling and jumping over boulders. And only when it reaches Gura Văii it starts making large waves and begins to settle down. Because of this, navigation through here is very dangerous especially when the water levels drop. In order to facilitate communication, the Austrians built by the Serbian bank, a navigation channel but it has a large slope downhill which makes it difficult to use” (ms. pp. 5-6).

“The forts and batteries of the Turks, Russians and Romanians that waged war here. Today the Romanian bank is a merry garden - you can see herds of oxen and sheep herding through the [undecipherable] grass of Danube’s lowlands and in its swamps and lakes fishermen in their boats fishing undisturbed. You cannot believe when some old folk tells you what it was a few years ago: the Turks were coming even in peace times and they were stealing your cattle from the meadows and sometimes preyed on the villages, especially during large celebrations and were kidnapping girls and children which they sold at slave markets in Constantinopolis - so that even today you can scare people by shouting ‘the Turks are coming’, because they have been left with this fright ever since” (ms p. 2). Polonic’s manuscript provides basic topographic information of the surveyed areas: “If we look at the map we can see Danube entering through the Iron Gates into Romania and dividing the Carpathians from the Balkans – as it makes a large curve south digging its course in the terrace of Bulgaria and then taking a turn at Silistra and winding under the stony banks of Dobrudja to the north – then hitting the hills of Moldavia at Galaţi it turns right to the east and leaving behind a Delta it flows into the Black Sea. The Danube receives in Romania powerful rivers that come with high velocity into it and make it find a course in the southern side. From Bulgaria come little rivers and from Dobrudja it receives almost no running water as we find here only the mouths of dry valleys which bring water only during rainfalls, but instead here the Danube carved at almost each valley mouth wide lakes that extend deep inside the countryside, which have led many to believe that

What makes Polonic’s accounts particularly interesting for contemporary scholars is the wealth of information regarding the traces of human settlements and fortifications. Polonic’s plans contain, in most cases, firsthand information of the sites and, in some cases, the only testimony we have to try and reconstitute the position and appearance of respective monuments. This is the case of the Castrametatio (ms. pp. 8-9) from Schela Cladovei, which was obliterated in order to construct factory

7 Bartos Elekes et al. 2014. 8 Crăciunescu et al. 2011. 9 Modern Olt county.

10 Verciorova is in fact the old locality Vârciorova, lost nowadays, covered by the waters of the Danube (PDT plans 2346 and 2347). Not to be mistaken for the existing Vârciorova, in Caraş-Severin county.

62

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube 2. Horeva La Cetate [RO]. At 1 ½ km south of Vârciorova up the hill by the Danube at a place called La Cetate16 there are foundations [ms. p. 7] of a wall and traces of a stone fortress on a surface of 40:50 m, situated on a hill peak in the woods there are visible to the east and west the remains of the surrounding ditch. Through the rubble I found bricks which would indicate this was a Roman fortress.17

buildings during the communist regime and from which only a very small portion of the western wall and fossa has survived. In the case of the Roman castrum at Drobeta (ms. p. 10), Polonic’s plan is important evidence for the presence and position of the eastern and northeastern inner towers of the second century AD and the fourth century AD southeastern corner bastion and eastern bastion of the Porta Principalis Sinistra.

3. Transdiana quadriburgium [RO] [ms. p. 8] Insula Banului. On the western side of the island, and the highest, are the ruins of a Roman stone castrum18 where the towers from the corners and the surrounding walls still have a height of 1.50-2 m. From the northeastern tower there is a drainage pipe which may have been used as a window for shooting arrows in defence of the fortress; somewhat more to the south there is a deep ditch preserved for sheltering the soldiers, and 20 m to the south the island is cut in half by a 10 m deep ditch.

When it comes to the late Roman Municipium of Drubetis, (ms. pp. 10-14), Polonic’s plan can also be used in order to identify the position of two round towers, in the backyards of the properties situated, respectively, at 7 and 10 Independenţei st. The Roman castrum at Izvoarele, Mehedinţi county, (ms. p. 24), has never been investigated, although it is a national heritage monument, code MH-I-m-B-10079.03. Where the Romanian official authorities have only a pin in the middle of the settlement,11 Polonic’s plan establishes the areas of interest for potential archaeological investigations. The spring in front of the western castrum wall that gave the city name and made the position particularly interesting for the Roman strategists is now covered.

4. Castrum Zanes [RO]. At Cladova there are the ruins of the Roman castrum Zanes.19 5. Castrum at Schela Cladovei [RO]. East of the village Schela Cladovei on the Romanian bank, at the cattle fair (from Turnu Severin), there is a huge earth castrum,20 perhaps a Roman legionary castrum [ms. p. 9] It has a rectangular shape and is surrounded by a vallum and ditch – even today the vallum has a height of 1–2 m and a width of 10–15 m; the ditch is not very deep but is distinguishable along its whole length; on the southern side are two gates, the northern and the southern sides both measure 650 steps and the other sides measure 575 steps each. Inside, in the northwestern corner, the Turnu Severin Cattle Market has been built. Here, on this occasion, near the middle of the market, the massive walls of a building have been found, perhaps the foundations of the Praetorium have been found. This castrum is mentioned in Marsigli’s21 book with the name of Castrametatio.

Finally, we have Polonic’s reconstruction sketch of the late Roman Bridge over the Danube between Sucidava, on the left bank, and Oescus, on the right bank, built by Emperor Constantine the Great. Polonic worked at Celei from 16 June until 5 August 1898.12 The sketch he produced is important, because unlike the sequels published by Tudor13 and Toropu,14 the bridge extends all the way to the city of Oescus, on Bulgarian soil. Polonic’s plan describes its majestic trajectory, spanning 4.22 km over the Danube’s open waters and lowlands, bridging the high terraces of modern days cities of Corabia from Romania and Gigen from Bulgaria, a powerful and enduring statement of Roman might and engineering know how.

6. Drobeta [RO]. [ms. p. 10] To the east and near the city of Turnu Severin there are the remains of a Roman castrum22 and around it the ruins of the ancient city Drubetae. To the western side of the castrum are two pillars of Trajan’s bridge – and across the Danube in Serbia the last foot of the bridge is easily distinguished. During the excavations in the castrum, some investigative ditches were made in the direction of the bridge. Archaeologists

IV. Topographic Catalogue. 1. Ducis Pratum? [SRB] Near the Sip village on the Serbian bank are the ruins of the Roman castrum Zerna.15

11 http://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver/?layer=ran&cod=112058.01 12 Tudor 1971, 166. 13 Tudor 1971, 159, fig. 42. The emplacement of the Roman bridge at Celei. 14 Toropu 1976, 25, fig. 9. Sucidava, the Roman bridge over the Danube. 15 Ducis Pratum?, Gudea 2001, p. 74, 16. 16 See Figure 5.1. 17 N44.70261 E22.50149 An interesting account of this unknown, presumably Roman fortification – at least according to Pamfil Polonic – comes from Dimitrescu - 1882, 165: “Further downstream from Vârciorova, at about 3 kilometers, where the Danube gorges begin, on the right hand side of Slătinicului-Mare valley an almost piramidally shaped mountain is situated, on its pinnacle a plateau of about half a hectare. This place is carved in many directions by ditches, in which remains of stone masonries can be found and seems like a chateau was here. This place is named by the nearby inhabitants the Horeva Fortress. Some of the old people call it the fortress of Chorbat; other of Ion Corvin.

Because the place is difficult to reach, the place is very little known, even in the neighborhood. Nearby, up the valley of Slătinic, on the left hand side opens a hilltop with a wide space with a very good position for placing a stronghold. This is called Taberile, a sort of synonim of Lagările. That mountain with the castle ruins dominates all the Danube Valley upstream and downstream for a distance of about 10 km and the whole Slătinicului valley. The place called Taberile is said to have served of encampment to armies when that castle was at its peak. The traces of masonry still visible make us believe that that castle of fortress was from Corvin’s time, from when he built the fortress from Ada-Kaleh island .” 18 N44.66079 E22.54709, See Figure 6.1, Transdiana, Bondoc 2009, 60. 18; 183, 6. 19 Gudea 2001, 78, 18. 20 N44.62296 E22.62666 . Gudea 2001, 81, 19. 21 Marsigli 1726, tom. I, 23 & Sectio XIV; tom. 2, 21, fig. XXX & Tab. 8. 22 N44.62485 E22.66812 Drobeta, Gudea 2001, 81, 20.

63

Bogdan Condurățeanu and had a length of 260 o = 468 m. Near this edge two round towers are drawn, the northwestern side, a little curved towards the interior had 40 o + 40 o or 80 o = 140 m; from this side, one can still find a section of the vallum of 40 m long in the Câmpul Moşilor. The vallum has a height of about 2 m [ms. p. 15] and the ditch before it is about 1-1.5 m deep.

identified, below the bank, another bridge pillar which, judging by its shape [ms. p. 11] supported the gate of the bridge23 and the 6 m tall bridge foot by the Danube on the western side. The side facing the flow of water, has a triangular shape called ice breaker, which shows that this pillar actually stood in the water. The uppermost part of the pillars is dressed in a mantle of large carved stones; and the topmost part standing above the water level is constructed using small stones and bricks, some of them with the XI Claudia Felix’s stamp (LEG. XI CL.F). Up on the edge of the plateau, east of the Roman bridge is the stone castrum; it has a square shape and its southwestern corner is cut by a deep ditch which was made later and where [ms. p. 12] the remains of a round tower were found,24 which I believe was built long after the castrum was demolished, as a sort of fortress or bridge head made perhaps by emperor Justinian to enforce his rule over both banks of the Danube.

We still have on Marsigli’s map a fifth side, the eastern side, with a length of 100 o = 180 m. This one ends in the drawing at the beginning of a ravine, which can only be the mouth of the râpa Abatorului, at Craiova’s Barrier. Also from Marsigli’s drawing we can see a road exiting from the fortress and splitting into two roads, one eastbound through the beginning of the ravine and another through the northern side leading to northwest. I searched for the traces of this vallum through the inhabitants’ backyards and I could only find a small section situated in Câmpul Moşilor which I mentioned before.

Our castrum is built with vallums and ditches and on the vallum there is a massive wall on which the defence towers are situated; at the middle of each side there is a gate; I discovered internal towers as well as external towers; the internal ones are from an older era, maybe from the time of Hadrian, Trajan’s heir, and the external ones, judging from the coins found in them, [ms. p. 13] I believe dates back to Constantine the Great because I also found this kind of fortification system with external towers at Adamclisi where an inscription regarding the rebuilding of the fortress was found at one of the gates.

7. Pontes Castrum [SRB]. [ms. p. 19] On the other bank, in Serbia, east of the last pillar of Trajan’s Bridge27 lie the ruins of the Pontes castrum.28 8. Bistriţa village site [RO]. South of Bistriţa village Roman bricks can be found. 9. Quadriburgium at Hinova [RO]. Before entering Hinova village we find north of the road up on a small hill the remains of a Roman stone castrum; the vallum and surrounding ditch are well distinguished.29 [ms. p. 20]

In the fortress, there are many coins of even later times which show that this fortress was under Roman rule for a long time. The northern and southern sides of the fortress have a length of 108 m, the other sides have 118m.

10. Two Roman fortresses at Corbova [SRB]. Right across on the Serbian bank there are two Roman fortresses, one north and another one south of the Corbova hill.30

In the interior of the castrum there are foundations of houses in the shape of a cross; from gate to gate and underneath them I found foundations of other older and larger buildings, especially in the middle of the fortress; through the southern gate we unearthed huge columns which show that there was a large building, perhaps the temple that is sometimes shown on Trajan’s coins.

11. Castrum at Batoţi [RO]. By the Picket No. 27, 3 km west of Batoţi we find the remains of a Roman stone castrum31 of which only the southeastern corner has survived; the other parts having been eaten away by the water. 12. Two Roman fortresses at Valjuga [SRB]. [ms. p. 21] Right across the Danube, to the right and left of the Serbian village of Vaiuga,32 are two Roman fortresses.

[ms. p. 14] Around the castrum, in the backyards and gardens of the inhabitants of the eastern side of Turnu Severin, there are foundations of Roman buildings. According to Marsigli, who visited this fortress before the new city was established, when there was a plain field, the surrounding vallum of the Drubetae25 city was well distinguishable. Based on the plan,26 he determined the city had the shape of a pentagon; the western side started at 100 o = 180 m west of the fortress at the Danube bank

13. Crivina [RO]. In Crivina there are many Roman coins on the edge of the Danube. The inhabitants also mention the remains of an old stone road. [ms. p. 22] Maybe there was a Roman village.

23 N44.62397 E22.66709. 24 N44.62429 E22.66757 . Rusu 2005, 517, nr. 55. 25 Drobeta/Theodora?, Bondoc 2009, 62, 19; 184, 7. 26 Marsigli 1726, tom. 2, Tab. 10, fig. XXXIII (see fig. 14). 27 Bondoc 2009, 142. 28 Gudea 2001, 79, 18.a. 29 N44.54592 E22.77088 (See Figure 17). Bondoc 2009, 68, 22 . http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?lang=EN&descript=hinova-hanovamehedinti-castrul-roman-de-la-hinova-cod-sit-ran-112085.01

30 See Figure 18. 31 N44.53111 E22.64995 . Gudea 2001, 86, 21a. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?lang=EN&descript=tismana-deveselmehedinti-situl-arheologic-de-la-tismana-cod-sit-ran-111541.01 32 Vajuga/Valjuga. Only one fortification is indexed at Gudea 2001, 85, 21, the fortification from the right (east). So there must be another one to the west of Valjuga ... waiting to be found and/or indexed. Or maybe he is referring to the roman fortress from Milutinovac (Gudea 2001, 86, 22), which lies west of Valjuga.

64

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube 14. Roman fortress at Ljubicevac [SRB]. Across the Danube in Serbia, by the village Bordeiu,33 are the ruins of a Roman fortress.

24. Possible Roman ruins at Gruia [RO]. From Izvoarele to Calafat I did not visit the Danube’s bank, but I heard that by Gruia

15. Egelae [SRB]. Near the Serbian village Bârza–Palanca are the features of the Roman town Egelae34 at the peak of the Danube’s bend.

25. Roman? fortress at Cetate [RO]. and by the city Cetate48 are what appear to be Roman ruins. 26. Roman town at Dorticum [BG]. In Bulgaria, we have by the village of Racoviţa the ruins of the Roman town Dorlicum.

16. Castrum at Izvoru Frumos [RO]. 3 km north of Izvoru Frumos are the remains of a Roman fortress.35 17. Clevova [SRB]. [ms. p. 23] 4 km south of Izvoru Frumos36 lies the Island Ostrovul mare, which has a length of 14 km and on which a village with the same name is situated. Right across this village there are, by the Mihailovăţ37 village, the ruins of the Roman city Clevova.38

27. Roman fortresses at Vrav [BG]. There are two Roman fortresses near Vîrf.49 28. Roman fortress at Florentiana [BG]. By the village of Florentin is the Roman fortress Florentiana50 [ms. p. 25] 29. Roman town of Bononia [BG]. and by Vidin they say the ruins of the Roman town Bononia51 are to be found.

18. Quadriburgium at Ostrovu Mare [RO]. On the island, which is not subject to flooding, there are many mounds from Roman or prehistoric times. In the southern part of the island lie, inside a grove, the remains of a Roman building39 and some newer ditches where a Russian battery40 was situated.

30. Earthen castrum at Desa-Castraviţa [RO]. It is situated on the Danube’s bank, 500 m east of the Arcer Picket. This fortress, called Castraviţa,52 has a rectangular shape but has been eroded by the waters; on the northern side only 80 m is preserved; on the western side only 90 m is preserved; and, on the eastern side 20 m. The vallum has been flattened with a height of up to 30 cm. [ms. p. 27] The fortress’s ditch has a depth of 1 m and is 10 m wide. On the Danube’s bank and inside the fortress are Roman shards, burned material, and bricks.

19. Roman town at Aquae [SRB]. Right across in Serbia, near the village Praova,41 are the sizable and wellpreserved ruins of the Roman town of Ad Aquas.42 20. Castrum? At Negotin [SRB]. Farther south of this village, at Negotin43 are the remains of a fortress

31. Roman town of Ratiaria [BG]. Right across the Danube is the Bulgarian town Arcer Palanca53 where the ruins of the Roman town Ratiaria54 are located.

21. Castrum? at Srbovo [SRB]. and [ms. p. 24] near the village of Sârbovlah,44 are the remains of a Roman castrum.

32. Stone castrum at Desa-La Ruptură [RO]. 600m to the west and beyond the Picket, many Roman bricks and shards can be seen emerging from the bank for a width of 200 m from which we can deduce that there was a Roman castrum. Roman coins of Hadrian, Geta, and a consular one from M. Atilius filius having on its back Romae Dioscurae were found here. From here up to Bistreţ, for a length of 50 kilometres I could not find any trace of a fortress or historical place.

22. Castra at Radujevac [SRB]. And by the Danube’s bank near the village of Ravuievăţ,45 across from the Romanian village Gruia, there are two Roman castra.46 23. Castrum at Izvoarele [RO]. North of the Romanian village Izvoarele lies a Roman stone castrum.47 Immediately beneath the fortress an abundant spring emerged with such strength, it was able to power a twostone watermill.

33. Fortress at Bistreţ [RO]. [ms. p. 28] The stone fortress at Bistreţ is situated to the south of the village at a distance 33 Across the Danube from Crivina on the right bank lie the cities of Velesnica, on the North, and Ljubicevac, on the South. Right in front of Ljubicevac lies the Ostrovo Island, which appears under the name “Insula Bordeiu” on the Szathmary Col I Ser. 7 map, so it would be safe to assume that Polonic is referring to Ljubicevac under that name of Bordeiu. West of this settlement a place called Glameja appears on the PDT2344 map, which is the probable location of this fortress. 34 Egeta, Gudea 2001, 87, 23. 35 Around N44.45927 E22.46670 . Bondoc 2009, 71, 24. 36 English translation of the locality name is “The Beautiful Spring”. 37 Mihajlovac. 38 Clevora?, Gudea 2001, 89,24. 39 Around N44.30333 E22.58388 (See Figure 21). The Roman building is actually a roman quadriburgium (Bondoc 2009, 185, 8). 40 N44.30317 E22.59042 (See Figure 22). 41 Prahovo.

42 Aquae, Gudea 2001, 89, 25. 43 Most likely the castra from Radujevac (Gudea 2001, 90, 25.a). 44 Srbovo? 45 Radujevac. 46 Gudea 2001, 90, 25a. 47 N44.31427 E22.65823 (see fig. 24 and 25). (Bondoc 2009, 73, 26). 48 Condurăţeanu 2013, 56. 49 Vrav, Dorticum, Gudea 2001, 91, 26. 50 Gudea 2001, 92, 28a. 51 Gudea 2001, 92, 29. 52 N43.82103 E22.96404; Gudea 2001, 94, 30a. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=desa-desa-dolj-situl-arheologic-dela-desa--castravita--cod-sit-ran-72043.01 53 The fortification is depicted in Specht pg. 08 map. 54 Gudea 2001, 93, 30.

65

Bogdan Condurățeanu of 10 km, near the pichet No. 51 (Cetatea).55 From it only the northern side and the northeastern corner are conserved; the other sides have been destroyed by the Danube. In the bank, one can see the remains of the surrounding wall which is 2 m thick. The northern side has a length of 180 m, and the eastern side is preserved only for 16 m. The surface where the castrum is built is 5 m higher than the surrounding field, where Picket is located and the km 716 mileage pole. This castrum was surrounded by two more vallums and defence ditches. From here the Picket soldiers gathered and continue to gather Roman coins.

a Roman castle62 and a foot from the bridge63 of Constantine the Great, called the Brass bridge.64 39. Roman town of Oescus [BG]. 2 km north of Ghighiu, or Ghighen as the Bulgarians call it, are the well-preserved ruins of Oescus65 a Roman city on a rectangular hill, 1 km wide, in the swamps, at about half the distance from the village and the Danube. [ms. p. 36] I have visited this town and found the remains of large Roman buildings over the whole surface of the terrain. The Bulgarians continuously dig out stones with beautiful inscriptions. At the Mayor’s office, I found a beautiful statue of a Roman with toga; there were also two caryatids of rare beauty thrown by the road.

34. Roman harbor at Bistreţ [RO]. [ms. p. 29] 200 m west of the fortress, on the Danube bank, is a Roman construction measuring 19 x 11 m, which is near a massive wall 4.4 m thick, offset 4.6 m from the building that it is linked to. Villagers say that there was a bridge over the Danube and that the wall is from a bridge pillar.56

40. Castrum at Gârcov [RO].66 At the Picket by the swamp near the village, there are the traces of a Roman earthen castrum of rectangular shape. The vallums and ditches are a bit hard to distinguish, but judging from their width one can see this is an ancient fortification.

35. Earth castrum at Bistreţ [RO]. 180 m east of the stone castrum is a large earthen fortress.57 It has a rectangular shape but the side along the Danube is missing, torn by the waters. It is surrounded by tall vallums and two ditches. The length of the western side is 180 m; the northern side 440 m; and the eastern side 260m. In the northeastern corner, a wide entrance represents the fortress gate. Inside and outside of the fortress there are many holes in the ground. [ms. p. 30] I believe they are the huts of the soldiers who built this fortress. Coins issued by C(aius) Mantius rev. Roma figora, C(aius) Cfucius? Pompeius rev. Quadriga, Pulcher, Hadrian, Valentinianus, Licinius, Traianus Decius, Dioclecianus, and Constantinus were found here.

41. Castrum at Islaz-Verdea [RO]. [ms. p. 37] 3 km west of the village, at the Verdea Picket on the high bank by the swamp there is an earthen castrum.67 It has a rectangular shape and is surrounded by 3 vallums and defence ditches, which are well distinguished in the field. The Picket is situated here, right in the middle of the castrum – the soldiers found many Roman coins. This castrum is separated through the middle, from north to south, with a vallum into two gates, perhaps half was for the infantry and the other half for the Roman cavalry. 42. Fortress of Islaz-Racoviţa [RO].68 In Racoviţa village we find, at the place of an old Romanian cemetery a rectangular structure which, according to the inhabitants, is surrounded by walls. From the bricks, I consider it to be a Roman construction.69 [ms. p. 39]

36. Roman town at Cebrus [BG]. Right across the Danube from this fortress is the town of Cibar Palancan, situated on the left bank of the Cibar river, which was previously called Cebrus.58 This tributary divided Moesia Inferior from Moesia Superior.

43. Roman town of Asamum [BG]. Right across in Bulgaria the Osma river flows into the Danube where, east of its mouth, lie the ruins of the ancient city Asamum,70 noted on the Austrian major staff maps under the name of Asem Kalesi.

37. Roman town of Augustae [BG]. [ms. p. 32] Near the Bulgarian town of Rahova, across the Danube from Bechet and at the mouth of the river Ogost, are the ruins of the Roman town Augustae.59 38. Sucidava and Celei [RO].60 [ms. p. 35] At Celei are the ruins of a Roman city61 and by the swamp the ruins of

44. Tower at Turnu Măgurele [RO]. South of the village in the vineyards by the Danube lie the ruins of a stone construction called Turnu,71 after which the city Turnu Măgurele was named. It is said that in old times it was a large city and later on, under Turkish rule, it was the capital of the Teleorman province. Perhaps this was the capital of

55N43.82153 E23.53871 (see fig. 31.2) http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?lang=EN&descript=bistret-bistret-doljcetatea-romana-tarzie-de-la-bistret-cod-sit-ran-70904.01 56 N43.82263 E23.53545 it is more likely a harbor installation rather than part of a bridge (see fig. 31.1). 57 N43.81959 E23.54502 (see fig. 30 and 31.3). 58 Gudea 2005, 411, I.2. 59 Gudea 2005, p. 411, I.5. 60 Celei is now a suburb of the town of Corabia. 61 N43.76826 E24.45642 Sykibida/Sucidava (Bondoc 2009, 186, 9). 62 N43.76433 E24.45905 Bondoc 2009, 186, 9. 63 N43.76342 E24.45701. 64 Bondoc 2009, 142, VII.3.

65 Gudea 2005, 413, I.9. 66 Condurăţeanu 2013, 58. 67 N43.71191 E24.74181 It is the castrum from Islaz-Verdea, Gudea 1997, 82, 66. 68 Racoviţa is an old settlement, now included in the Islaz village, Teleorman county. 69 N43.73328 E24.75743 It is the castrum from Islaz-Racoviţă, Gudea 1997, 82, 67. 70 Gudea 2005, 417, II.11. 71 N43.71932 E24.86152 Well known medieval fortress. Appears also on Specht pg. 44 map. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=turnumagurele-municipiul-turnu-magurele-teleorman-cetatea-medievalaturnu-de-laturnu-magurele-cod-sit-ran-151692.01&Lang=EN

66

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube the Small Nicopole city which played an important part in the wars between the Romanians and the Turks. Inscribed stones and Roman bricks have been found in the vineyards. From here, General Mavros brought many stones [ms. p. 40] with inscriptions to the Museum in Bucharest, but which originate from Nicopole across the Danube.

Tocilescu [ms. p. 51] told me that Roman bricks were found here and were sent to the Museum, but I could not find even a bit of brick. Perhaps the brick was sent over from another village, perhaps from the village Petroşani82 from Prahova county where there is word that a large fortress can be found.

45. Limes Trans Alutanus [RO]. 9 km east of Turnu Măgurele and east of the Flămânda72 village starts the Roman vallum (Limes Alutanus73) called by the inhabitants Troianul.74 / see its detailed description in the Trojan from Teleorman/ and which goes from here through Ruşi de Vede,75 Piteşti, Câmpulung and the Bran pass into Transylvania.

49. Fortress at Pietroşani-Reca Mică [RO]. To the west, near the village Pietroşani, is a large ditch, 1-2 m deep, that crosses the road from north to south and which is called Reca mica. The inhabitants tell us that there was a fortress as well, but the other ditches were covered through ploughing and house building. 50. Fortress at Sacidava [BG]. Across from Pietroşani, near the Batin village in Bulgaria, there is [ms. p. 52] a Roman fortress called by the inhabitants the Fortress of Trajan.83

46. Vallum at Brazda lui Novac de Sud [RO]. The plateau in the south of the Teleorman county is covered by a multitude of large mounds (some of which have heights of up to 30 m) and so dense [ms. p. 43] like in no other part of Romania. One can also find the Trojan which leads from Flămânda to Roşiori de Vede, then Brazda lui Novac,76 which begins at Viespeşti77 and leads through Alexandria. To the east and south of Alexandria is another Roman vallum. There are also many Roman and prehistoric fortresses from which we deduce that important events took place around here.

51. Daphne-Spanţov [RO]. The terrain on which the village is situated is not subject to flooding and being the closest point to the Danube (2 km) is, besides Zimnicea, the best place to cross over to Bulgaria. [ms. p. 62] Judging by the remains found here and from the naturally favourable position for a passage, I believe this was the location of the Roman city Daphne.84 Many Roman coins and shards of large pottery have been found here; I also got from the notary V. Enăşoaie a large whole jar (1/2 m tall) with a pointy bottom and two handles, one of which bears a Greek stamp.

47. The Roman city of Dimus [BG].78 [ms. p. 45] It is situated across Viişoara in Bulgaria, near the Belina79 village. 48. The fortress at Petroşani-Reca Mare [RO].80 The inhabitants recount that in this fortress called Reca Mare,81 sat a Jidov and that across the Danube sat another giant. They shared a maize sieve, passing it between themselves by stretching their arm over the Danube. This is how the fortress received the [ms. p. 50] name of Reca, which is the Slavonic for hand.

52. Roman? fortress at Ciocăneşti [RO]. 4 km to the south of the village on the grindul Comorei85 are the remains of a stone fortress86 [ms. p. 69] which I reckon to be 80 paces long by 40 paces wide. It was dug out by the inhabitants only the western side of the fortress, which has a length of 106 paces; on the southern side is a wall with a length of 40 paces. The corners of the fortress are rectangular with walls 2 m thick. Judging by the mortar, one can see it is a very old construction. The inhabitants recount that near the wall very hard bricks and roof tiles have been found. No excavations were made through the interior of the fortress. Placing a fortress here is explicable by the fact that between Spanţov and this point, there is nowhere in the marshes an easier way to pass.

The fortress is on the rapids bank in the vineyards 1 km west of the village. It has a square shape – the westernmost side has a length of 8 m and it set in a small valley instead of a ditch; the north side has a length of 160 m and has before the vallum a ditch 1 m deep; the eastern side is 80 m long; the southern side is not known, perhaps eroded away by the water. Inside the fortress, one can see, in the collapsed shore, holes for grain like people do even today in the villages. In the vallum there are rough stones which were brought here on purpose because there are no such stones available in the region. I could not find any evidence that this fortress is Roman; I believe it is prehistoric. Mr.

53. Roman town of Tegulicium [BG]. Moreover, across the Danube, in Bulgaria near the village Vecena (Vetrena87), are the ruins of a Roman town.

72 Actual name is Poiana, Iordan et al. 1974, 139. 73 It is actually Limes TransAlutanus, not Limes Alutanus. 74 “The Trojan”. 75 Actual name is Roşiori de Vede. 76 That is actually Brazda lui Novac de Sud – the southern vallum -, to differentiate it from Brazda lui Novac de Nord – the northern one. 77 Village incorporated nowadays in Sprâncenata, Olt county, Iordan et al. - 1974, 269. 78 Dimus or Dimum, Gudea 2005, 417, II.13. 79 Belene. 80 The correct name is Pietroşani.

81 Gudea 2005, 426, II. 17. 82 The correct name is also Pietroşani. The village Pietroşani from Prahova county is actually 6.3 km away from the large Getic stronghold of Tinosu, BUT the testimony about roman bricks being discovered at Pietroşani is from Bolliac, during his exploration from 1845 (Georgescu et al. 2005, 32). 83 Sacidava, Gudea 2005, 427, II. 18. 84 Bondoc 2009, 187, 10. 85 N44.16250 E27.09480 (see fig. 59). 86 N44.16736 E27.10708 whiter spots are visible here on aerial imagery 87 Correct Vetren, Tegulicium, Gudea 2005, 433, II.29.

67

Bogdan Condurățeanu 54. Castrum? At Piua Petrei [RO]. [ms. p. 80] The inhabitants told me that there used to be a stone fortress known as Cetăţuia between Gura Ialomiţei and the Danube,88 but in the year 1897 it was destroyed by the currents of the water; no sign of it remains. From what I heard from the inhabitants this fortress was Roman.89 About 2 km west of the Piua Petrii village, one can see a dead, winding affluent of the Ialomiţa river called Baba Moartă.90 On the left bank are the remains of an old Romanian town called Cetatea de Floci or Floaca because fleece was gathered here and loaded onto ships. [ms. p. 81] Others call it the Fleet’s Fortress because this was an important navigation station on the Danube; it is said that this fortress was built by Mihai Bravul.91 The terrain on which the remains of the city are found is a lot higher than the Danube’s pond. In 1897, when the level of the Danube rose like never before, this place was not flooded, demonstrating how well the place was chosen for laying a city.

REFERENCES Bartos-Elekes, Z., G. Timár, Z. Imecs, Z. Magyari-Sáska. Fligely’s Topographic Mapping of Walachia (1855– 1859), Szathmári’s Map of Southern Romania (1864), its Geo-referencing and Publishing on Web (2011–2014). http://www.charta1864.ro/essay.html Bondoc, D. Roman rule to the North of the Danube during the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House (2009). Bondoc, D. Podul Roman de la Dolni Vadin (Bulgaria)Grojdibodu (România). Craiova (2014). Condurăţeanu, B., “Sigiliul Romei în România Recompunerea oglinzii sparte a Crăiesei Zăpezii. Un studiu topografic într-o abordare multidisciplinară cu ecouri într-un hartă de navigaţie GPS a României.” CICCRE II/1, Timişoara, JATEPress Kiadó, Szeged (2013): 32-64.

55. Brazda at Tufeşti [RO]. [ms. pg. 86] Seeing on the 1:58.000 Austrian General Staff map that 5 km west of the Ciacâru (Tufeşti) village a Mound Brazda is noted, I reckoned this must have been the location of Brazda of Novac.92 I had searched for it as far as Ploieşti and even farther eastwards, but I could find no trace of it. Because of this I conducted thorough research, but I did not note anything else than the fact that the place situated near the “mov. Săpata”93 situated north of the Viziru village94 was called “La Brazdă”95 – and the inhabitants knew nothing about Brazda of Novac.

Condurăţeanu, B., “Paşi în direcţia implementării unui repertoriu topografic digital al fortificaţiilor din neolitic şi până la sfârşitul celui de-al doilea război mondial din România. Elemente tehnice (date, tehnici şi strategii), provocările, soluţiile şi rezultatele abordării din Atlasul Digital al României v5.40.” Arheovest I, Asociaţia Arheo Vest, 7 dec. 2013, Timişoara, JATEPress Kiadó, Szeged (2013): 545-67. Crăciunescu, V., I. Rus, S. Constantinescu, I. Ovejanu, Z. Bartos-Elekes. Planurile Directoare de Tragere. http://earth.unibuc.ro/download/planurile-directoare-detragere (2011).

IV. Conclusions. Interpreting Pamfil Polonic’s manuscripts prove to be a challenging enterprise, yet the results exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. At well-known sites, Polonic’s information has been confirmed through systematic research and the wealth of the new archaeological and historical information is quite impressive. He, provided new site information for the archaeological repertoires of the Romanian counties of Mehadinţi, Dolj, Olt, Teleorman, Giurgiu, Călăraşi, Ialomiţa, and Braila as well as potentially interesting sites in Serbia and Bulgaria.

Dimitrescu, V., “Note asupra monumentelor, ruinelor şi locurilor însemnate istorice din judeţul Mehedinţi.” RIAF, vol. I, fasc. I (1882): 162-77. Georgescu, N., M. Marcu, D. Rizea. Cezar Bolliac: Excursiuni Arheologice, Bucureşti, Floare Albastră (2005): 224.

We will continue our investigation of Polonic’s manuscripts in the coming years using modern GIS & GPS technologies, together with old historical maps with the certainty that its contemporary interpretation would lead to significant progress in the field.

Gudea, N. Der Dakische Limes. Materialien zu Seiner Geschichte. Mainz: Romisch Germanisches Zentrallmuseum (1997).

88 The only fortification that matches this description is the one depicted as Russian Schanze in the Specht map (see fig. 70.2). His description must not be taken literally, most of the fortification he saw were either Turkish or Russian. Or we could give him the benefit of a doubt and consider an older fortress reused by the Russians. Probable coordinates around N44.70002 E27.84977. 89 Gudea 2005, 446, III.38a. 90 Engl. “the Dead Old Woman”. 91 His birthpkace.

92 Actually the Northern Brazda of Novac/Brazda lui Novac de Nord 93 I could not find any mound with this name in that part. „Movila Săpată“ means the „Dugout Mound“, many of them were dug out by treasure seekers, so it is a fairly common name. 94 It is actually in the southern outskirts of the village Lanurile. 95 N45.03654 E27.74045 (see Fig. 30) Polonic’s account is important because it puts an end to the speculations of the existence of a Roman Limes along the lower Siret valley.

Gudea, N. Die Nordgrenze der Romischen Provinz Obermoesien. Materialien Zu Ihrer Geschichte (86-275 n.Chr.). Mainz: Romisch Germanisches Zentrallmuseum (2001).

68

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube Gudea, N. Der untermoesische Donaulimes und die verteidigung der Moesichen Nord-und Westkuste der Schwarzen Meeres. Limes et Litus Moesiae Inferioris (86275 n. Chr.). Mainz: Romisch Germanisches Zentrallmuseum (2005).

CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES Specht, C. (1791), Militäirische Carte der Kleinen oder Oesterreichi-schen und grossen Wallachei; diese Carte ist in den halben Massstab der wiener Zoll zu 2000 Schrit in 108 Biaettern Zusammengesetzt. Masstab von 10.000 Schritten, 1791

Iordan, I., P. Gâştescu, D.I. Oancea. Indicatorul localităţilor din România. Bucureşti (1974).

PDT2442 Geography Military Institute - Map “Isvoarele” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: Romanian part after the 1:20,000 lay of 1912. Jugoslavian part after Austrian map. Scale: 1:75,000., ed. 2, Year of Print: 1932

Iuga, V.G., “Un om vrednic: Pamfil Polonic.” Natura XXXI, Nr. 6, Bucureşti (1942): 224-27. Marsigli, L.F. Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus, Tome 1: In tres partes digestus geographicam, astronomicam, hydrographicam; Tome 2: De antiquitatibus Romanorum ad ripas Danubii; Tome 3: De mineralibus circa Danubium effossis; Tome 4: De piscibus in aquis Danubii viventibus; Tome 5: De avibus circa aquas Danubii vagantibus, et ipsarum nidis; Tome 6: De fontibus Danubii. Observationes anatomicae. De Aquis Danubii et Tibisci. Catalogus plantarum. Observationes habitae cum barometris et thermometris. De Insecti (1726).

PDT2936 Army Geographic Service - Map “Balta Stejarul” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: Reproduced in the country after the 1:20,000 lay from 1911, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1939 PDT2937 Institutul Geografic al Armatei - Map “Cîrna” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: Reedited in 1957 with 1952 conventional signs after the Lambert Projection Map, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1957

Mateescu, C.N. Pamfil Polonic (1858 - 1944). Drobeta I (1978): 198-99.

PDT4035 Army Geographic Service - Map “Pietroşani” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: In the country after the lay of 1899; over the Danube: Reproduced after the Bulgarian map 1:126,000, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1930

Mehedinţeanu, C., “Plan general al ansamblului Kostol/Drobeta, traseul podului, castrele Pontes şi Drobeta (autor ing. C. Mehedinţeanu 1998).” In DACIA AVGVSTI PROVINCIA. Crearea Provinciei, S. Eugen et al. (eds.). Bucureşti (2006): 260-61.

PDT4640 Army Geographic Service - Map “Spaţov” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1929

Păunescu, A. Fondul de manuscrise Pamfil Polonic, http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/ArhivaDigitala/4Pamfil%20Polonic/PamfilPolonic.htm (20012003).

PDT4741 Geography Military Institute - Map “Vărăşti” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1939

Rusu, A.A. Castelarea Carpatică. Cluj-Napoca (2005).

PDT4841 Military Topographic Direction - Map “Rasa” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1956

Scafeş, C.I, H.V. Şerbănescu, C.M. Andone. Armata română în războiul de Independenţă 1877-1878. Bucureşti (2002).

PDT5147 Geography Military Institute - Map “Gura Ialomiţei” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1939

Şerbănescu, D. and B. Şandric. “Tell-uri eneolitice în regiunea Valea Mostiştei.” Archaeological Debates 2: Survey in archaeology, often a neglected science. Giurgiu (2012): 104-50.

PDT5148 Army Geographic Service - Map “Mihai Bravu” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1917

Ştrempel, G. Catalogul Manuscriselor Româneşti, vol. IV. Bucureşti (1992). Toropu, O. Românitatea tîrzie şi străromânii în Dacia Traiană sud Carpatică (sec III-XI). Craiova: Ed. Scrisul Românesc (1976).

PDT5247 Military Topographic Direction- Map “Hîrşova” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: the lay from Wallachian part 1898 (Dobrudja part 1883, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1955)

Tudor, D. Oltenia Romană. ed. a III-a revizuită şi adăugită, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România (1968).

PDT5248 Army Geographic Service - Map “Br. Vâlciul” Scale: 1:20,000, Source: unknown, ed. 1, Year of Print: 1928

Tudor, D. Podurile romane de la Dunărea de Jos. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România (1971).

69

Bogdan Condurățeanu FIGURES

Map 1. Roman fortresses and sites from Polonic’s account (by B. Condurăţeanu)

70

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 1. Polonic’s Castrametatio Schela Cladovei plan (black) (after Tudor 1968, 184, fig. 45.4), georeferenced over the 2003 orthophotoplan.

Figure 2. Polonic’s plan (gray) (after Polonic, varia mss., 21) georeferenced using 33 triangulation points, superimposed on Mehedinţeanu plan (red) (after Mehedinţeanu 2006, verso, Detaliu Drobeta). Polonic text reads: “The Roman castrum DRVBETAE by Trajan’s bridge at Turnu Severin.” Basilica on Polonic top right corner = bottom left corner on Mehedinţeanu plan.

71

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 3. Polonic’s plan (magenta) for Roman Municipium of Drubetis (after Tudor 1968, 184, fig. 45.1) georeferenced over 2003 orthophoto plan.

Figure 4. Polonic’s plan of Roman castrum of Izvoarele, Mehedinţi county (indigo) (after Tudor 1968, 290, fig. 77.4), georeferenced over 2003 orthophotoplan.

72

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 5. Polonic’s reconstruction sketch (indigo) of Sucidava-Oescus bridge (after Polonic, varia mss., 69), georeferenced over Google Maps 2017 imagery.

Figure 6. 1. Presumed position of Horeva fortress; 2. Presumed position of Taberile placename (N44.70046 E22.51008) - possible earth fortifications - DTM L-34-117-D-d and L-34-118-C-c maps.

73

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 7. 1. Transdiana Roman fortress at Ostrovu Gol/Insula Banului; 2. Position of presumed Roman guard tower on Specht pg. 04 map.

Figure 8. Turnu Severin medieval fortress detailed plan, as seen by Polonic (Polonic, varia mss. 24). Text reads “The medieval Fortress (Severus’ tower) from the public garden of Turnu Severin.”

74

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 9. Trajan's Bridge Feet. Detailed plan drawn by Pamfil Polonic (Polonic, varia mss. 30). Text reads “Trajan’s Bridge from Turnu Severin.”

Figure 10. Early layout (after Tudor 1968, 279, fig. 69.4) of Hinova quadriburgium.

75

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 11. Position of Roman quadriburgium at Ostrovu Mare island on PDT2442 map.

Figure 12. “Ruine Decebal”/“Decebal Ruins” of Aquae on PDT2442 map.

Figure 13. Location of Desa Roman Castrum – ”Castreveţi“ on Szathmary Col. II Ser. 10 map.

76

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 14. Earth castrum at Bistreţ -“Cetatea“ on PDT2936 and PDT2937 maps; ditch of castrum visible at K716.

Figure 15. Situation plan at Bistreţ (Tudor 1968, 281, fig. 70). 1. harbor installation. 2. stone fortress. 3. earth fortress.

Figure 16. Cebrus/“Zibru“ fortification on Specht pg. 16 map. 1 Cebrus/Zibru ; 2. interesting placename „Letini“ (Latins) on left bank where Bistreţ castrum is located.

77

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 17. Sucidava Roman city charted by Polonic (Polonic, varia mss., 67). Text reads “The Roman city at Celei, Malva or Sucidava? (actually Sucidava, not Malva). Ruins of Roman bridge over Danube (probably of Constantine). Plan layed by P. Polonic.

Figure 18. Sucidava Roman fortress layered by Polonic (Polonic, varia mss., 68).

78

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 19. (upper side) Roman bridge gate (N43.76342 E24.45701) at Celei. (lower side) Situation plan of Roman bridge across Danube, from Sucidava to Oescus layered by Polonic.

Figure 20. Inscription from Oescus. Text reads: “Stone with inscription copied by me on the ruins of the ancient Roman city OESCVS.” (Polonic, varia mss., 71).

79

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 21. Location of two castra at Islaz. 1. Racoviţă (in northern cemetery); 2. Verdea (at Pichettu N. 96) on Szathmary Col. VI Ser. 10 map.

Figure 22. Plan 66-67, pg. 83, from Gudea-1997 superimposed on 2003 ortophotoplan. 1 = the correct position (and 1’ = the incorrect position) of Islaz-Racoviţa castrum; 2. the correct position (and 2’ = the incorrect position) of the IslazVerdea castrum.

Figure 23. Actual layout of the two castra from Islaz in the RO.A.D.2014.44 map, PC version.

80

Roman Fortresses and Sites along the Lower Danube

Figure 24. Limes Transalutanus at Flămânda on Szathmary Col. VI Ser. 10 and Col. VII Ser. 10 maps. Roman castrum is situated at Pichettu N. 102.

Figure 25. Flămânda castrum (Gudea 1997, 70, 47.) after Polonic (Polonic, varia mss., 63). Text reads: “The Ruins of the Russian camp from 1812.”

Figure 26. Location of Roman castrum? from Pietroşani-Reca Mare – on PDT4035 map.

81

Bogdan Condurățeanu

Figure 27. 1. Grădiştea from Tatina; 2. Possible rectangular fortress in PDT4640 map north of Spanţov.

Figure 28. Roman? Fortress? at Ciocăneşti-Grindul Comori (“Treasures Sandbar”) on PDT4741 and PDT4841 maps.

Figure 29. Floci city ruins; 2. Russian fortification; 3, 4, 5. Russian outposts on Specht pg. 107 map. Large church, of Monastery, at crossroads and smaller church 300 m to west with Baba Moartă streamlet that once flowed between them. Along same road, at Rudi Kl[oster]. Gedileez (Rom. “Schitul Ghidiliţi”) point, is location of church at Piatra Înaltă (Engl. the Tall Cross). Southernmost church on map is Flămânda monastery.

82

THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF ROMAN SOLDIERS IN LOWER MOESIA: OCCUPATION OR INTEGRATION? Oleg Alexandrov (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology)

Abstract: In the initial phase of Roman authority in Moesia/Moesia Inferior, the process of Romanisation was slow and limited, primarily affecting military camps and nearby villages along the lower Danube. An analysis of epigraphic monuments from the period before the Dacian wars indicates that most legionary troops were of Italic origin. Even the soldiers recruited from Asia Minor and Macedonia were descendants of Italic settlers and, therefore, heralds of Roman culture. Thracians were excluded from the process of Romanisation. Their names do not appear on votive and funerary monuments in the province between the first and early second centuries. This is reasonably explained by the fact that Thracians served in the army away from their native lands. After the foundation of the province of Dacia, the region of the lower Danube was pacified for a long time. The limes was stable and the legions established permanent camps. After Hadrian, auxiliaries, and later on legionaries, stationed in the province were recruited from among the local population; thus, Romanisation started to affect the Thracian population. The period of the Severan Dynasty represented the culmination of the process, lasting from the second half of second century to the middle of third century. The study of the monuments and the epigraphic data confirms that beginning with the reign of Hadrian most Roman troops stationed in Lower Moesia were of local Thracian origin.

I. Introduction. This paper deals with the problem of the ethnic origin of Roman soldiers stationed in the province of Lower Moesia. The impetus of the study is that whereas scholars have made great progress in studying aspects of Roman military history, such as the architecture and layout of the military camps, the structure and hierarchy of the military units and ranks, or defensive and offensive weapons, the people in the army have been largely neglected. The lack of attention to individual soldiers is especially apparent within scholarship pertaining to the territory of modern-day Bulgaria, once an important breadbasket of the empire. Soldiers were the most essential part of the complex military system of the Roman Empire. The design, development, and operation of every part of this sophisticated system was possible because of the knowledge, skills, and efforts of the soldiers and individuals related to the army.

In the last 20 years an increasing number of scholars has focused greater attention to individuals, and not only to the large-scale history and systems of ancient Rome. This paradigm applies to Roman soldiers. For example, we now know that the clothes of ordinary soldiers were not always the same, even when they served in the same military unit; weapons, were often damaged and repaired. The extreme conditions suffered by soldiers left their bodies scarred, broken, and mutilated. Many soldiers lived their lives without noses, ears, or limbs. There must also have been horrific odours associated with the troops despite a relatively high degree of hygiene: the smell of garlic, garum, and foot-wrappings, to name a few. This picture describes only a small part of the relatively calm peacetime life, but we must also take into account other factors such as heavy battles, ending with a large number of victims and raging epidemics; the lack of food; and even quarrels between the soldiers, desertions, and revolts. Before we discuss the opposite extreme in the construction of its image, it is noted that military service indeed attracted many men. The professional army, created in the first century BC, was recruited on a voluntary basis with some exceptions.

Our knowledge of Roman soldiers is so poor that our idea of them is still quite abstract and notional. The popular vision consists of lines of troops dressed in the same manner with red tunics and sandals and equipped with a scutum, lorica, pilum, and gladius. This was hardly the case and is based, in part, upon images presented to us by modern mass culture, which is, in turn, based upon imperial propaganda developed nearly two thousand years ago. The manner in which soldiers are portrayed on the column of Trajan, the column of Marcus Aurelius, and numerous triumphal arches was concocted by the State in order to present a coherent concept of Roman soldiers: courageous, loyal, well-equipped, and well-trained men who imposed Roman culture over the barbarian world. This image has been only slightly modified by modern scholars, even if the source of propaganda, the Empire itself, no longer exists.

Achieving an impartial, critical, and scientific characterisation of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who served under the standards of the Roman army is a difficult goal: how they lived, what they ate, how they spent their free time, as well as where they were born, what they believed, and what language they spoke. Among the many questions, the ethnic structure of the Roman army is a matter that has long vexed Roman historians. There are appraisals in other parts of the former

83

Oleg Alexandrov Roman world,1 but this has not been a key issue in Bulgaria regarding the province of Moesia Inferior.2 Most Bulgarian publications on this subject present only a general characterisation, based on hypotheses and assumptions without a summary of evidence from the monuments. In other cases, some historical data, obtained primarily from epigraphic monuments, have been integrated with the assumptions, leading to incorrect conclusions. This paper attempts to provide a satisfactory answer to the problems related to the ethnicity of Roman soldiers in the province of Moesia Inferior.

In a previous study devoted to the ethnic and social origin of soldiers, the author analysed and summarised data from a significant number of epigraphic monuments.3 This study shows that the votive monuments of Moesia Inferior number more than 200 and cover all sections of the military hierarchy, while gravestones number more than 170. This sample group is representative, but does not provide absolute certainty. For this reason, the main goal set out here focuses upon the origin of Roman soldiers between the first and early fourth centuries. In order to indicate the gradual process of converting the occupation into integration, only onomastic data from gravestones of soldiers from legio I Italica are considered (Table 1).

II. Methodological considerations. Ideally, in order to achieve a more accurate view of the ethnicity of Roman soldiers, epigraphic evidence should be considered in the light of historical and archaeological sources. However, as there are no concrete and specific historical sources about the province under investigation, more general information is considered concerning the processes involved in the recruitment of soldiers in the Empire. For example, in the first century military service was no longer preferred by people living in the Italian peninsula. From the work of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Vegetius and other ancient authors, we are aware that the auxiliary troops consisted of soldiers who did not have Roman citizenship. Some would say that these authors, excluding Tacitus, knew that the principle of local recruitment was introduced after the rule of Hadrian. This is because the legions and the auxiliary troops were located in permanent camps in the border provinces and, therefore, the local recruitment of soldiers presented fewer difficulties in the organisation and employment of the military forces.

Gravestones may sometimes reveal the origin of the soldier based upon the text of the epitaph. In other cases, the origin may be assumed, with good certainty, on the basis of all the data. However, in most instances, the inscriptions only yield the name of the deceased or his relatives, which makes it difficult to determine the origin of the soldier himself. From all this follows that any conclusions about the ethnic and social composition of the military in the province, and, hence, the composition of the Roman army, in general, can only be hypothetical. This study, therefore, does not claim to give a single answer to this complex problem. The gravestones do show tendencies in the changes of the ethnic composition of Roman soldiers, and, at the same time, set certain chronological benchmarks. III. Commentary on epigraphic examples. Legio I Italica was established at the end of Nero’s reign, prior to the march on the Caspian gates (Suet., Nero, 19)4, in AD 66 or 67. Because the legion took the side of Vitellius during the Civil War, Vespasian sent it, as a punishment, to Novae in Moesia, which at that time was the northeastern-most province. Thereafter, the legion played an important role in the military and cultural history of the province.

This notion solves some of the problems set out in the introduction of this article. But even the ability to reject or confirm a process known from the historical sources by an examination of archaeological evidence is sufficient. The author of this paper does not question local recruitment as a fact, but this does not entirely answer the questions related to the ethnicity of the military. As shown below, the principle of local recruitment is established well enough by the monuments of the province, but the problem of ethnicity still remains because it is difficult to determine for sure whether a "local" soldier had Italic origins (a successor of the first settlers on this lands), or was a descendant of Romanised peregrines settled early to the north of Haemus, a representative of the strongly Hellenised Balkan population, or a man of Thracian origin. It is assumed here that "local" recruitment is not based on ethnicity, but intends an origin from a given territory.

Several dozen gravestones of soldiers from this legion are known. Half of them were discovered in Novae; the others are known from other parts of the province, especially in the west where the military unit was active. A terminus post quem for these monuments is the time that legio I Italica was placed in its permanent camp, the late 60s AD. Broad chronological phases into which the gravestones are dated (last quarter of the first century to the fourth century) are based upon the epigraphic data. An important feature of this group of monuments is that the birthplace of the deceased soldier is often noted in the epitaph, particularly on the earlier monuments.

Considering the fact that the limited historical sources provide only general information, this study is based entirely upon epigraphic monuments. The monuments which reveal information regarding the ethnic and social background of soldiers are gravestones, votive inscriptions, and lists of names.

One of the earliest gravestones of a soldier from legio I Italica who died at Novae is that of C. Aurelius C.f. Vegetus (#1).5 The soldier descended from the Galeria tribe in the city of Clunia (Colonia Clunia Sulpicia) located in Hispania Tarraconensis. He served in cohors V Asturum before he was transferred to the legio I Italica. He

1 Ştefănescu 2005, 505-10. 2 Todorov 1928; Gerov 1949, 3-91; 1950/52, 17-121; 1952/53, 307-415; Boyanov 2008.

3 Alexandrov 2013. 4 Иванов 1999, 90-1. 5 AE 1999:1333; AE 2001:1735; AE 2002:1246; GMI 377.

84

The Ethnic Origin of Roman Soldiers in Lower Moesia the province of Epirus Vetus, incorporated for some time in the territory of Macedonia, where there was a tribe named Sergia.

died at the age of 40 after 23 years of service in the army (i.e., shortly before his retirement). Another early inscription refers to M. Fonteius Clemens, also a common soldier (miles) in the legion (#2).6 He served in the elite first century of the first cohort, which was commanded by a primus pilus, as indicated in the inscription. He came from the Aniensis tribe in Ariminus (Rimini), a Roman colony with civil rights located on the Italic peninsula, Region VIII. From the same city came another soldier about whom we have information from his gravestone, found in Oescus– Q. Falcius Q.f. Constans (#16).7

Troops came from strongly Romanised cities as well as from the areas of Asia Minor and the Eastern provinces. From Ancyra in Galatia came C. Iulius Magnus a veteran of legio I Italica (#6).14 The monument was discovered near Novae and dates to the early second century. The inscription on the gravestone does not provide much information, but is a good example of a soldier with a pattern name, the origin of which cannot be clarified.15

The gravestone of C. Bruttius C. f. Goutus (#3)8 dates to the last quarter of the first century. The veteran, who lived to the impressive age of 80 years, was buried by his successor C. Vibes Therapo (the name is eastern), who was not his direct descendant, but a friend (amicus). The veteran himself had a Celtic name, Goutus, and came from the Claudia tribe in Virunum (municipium Claudium Virunum), the capital city of Noricum. The city, founded during the reign of Claudius, had Roman civil rights and was an important source of legionaries from the province. Also from province of Noricum, but from Celeia, came the common soldier C. Valerius C. f. Birbilo (#8).9 The gravestone of this soldier, who died at the age of 36 and served in the army 16 years, was erected by his brother, probably also a soldier in that legion.

A gravestone of C. Crispinus C.f. Firmus, (#19)16 also dates to around the middle of the second century. The monument was found near Sucidava on the left bank of the Danube, across from Oescus, but probably came from the colony. The veteran was from the Claudia tribe in Aspendos, located in the Roman province of Lycia et Pamphylia in Asia Minor. The legio I Italica also comprised soldiers with African origins. Q. Scantillus Marcus, a common soldier (#7),17 was buried in the middle of the second century near Novae. His father commissioned the gravestone, which contained the distinctive name Africanus, revealing his origin. Also from the province of Africa proconsularis came L. Antonius L.f. Felix (#33).18 He was born in the capital city of the province, Carthago, and served as a centurion consecutively in three legions, the last of which was legio I Italica. He was buried by his wife and children near Troesmis, where he appears to have settled after his service. This probably happened after the withdrawal of legio V Macedonica and establishment of Troesmis as a municipium. An African origin can also be assumed for the former bearer (ex imaginifero legionis I Italicae), L. Cornelius Fronto (#11),19 whose son, Mampsalachanus, had a typical Punic name.

Western origin can be assumed for the soldier P. Valerius Germanus based on the typical cognomen. He commissioned the gravestone of his prematurely deceased comrade C. Valerius C.f. Longinus (miles) (#4).10 C. Valerius Longinus, himself, came from a Fabia tribe in Heraclea. The gravestone of C. Iulius Longinus11 does not specify which Heraclea the veteran came from. The deceased soldier from legio I Italica probably came from the Fabia tribe and settled in Heraclea Lyncestis, Macedonia, which was a source of recruits for a long time.

In some inscriptions, the local origin of the soldier is indicated. From Moesia Inferior was [---] C.f. Severus (#9),20 who came from the Papiria tribe in Oescus. His wife was also a Roman citizen and is assumed to have been from Oescus or Novae.

On the other hand, the veteran P. Pompeius P.f. Magnus (#25)12 certainly came from the Roman province of Macedonia. His name (Pompeius Magnus) is Italic, but he was born in Stobi (municipium Stobensium). The city had Roman civil rights and was the capital of Macedonia Salutaris. The gravestone of this veteran was found near the village of Nedan where he had settled with his family.

From the same Papiria tribe in Oescus was C. Valerius C.f. Valentianus (#17).21 Belonging to the equestrian order, his army career started directly from the rank of centurio. By the end of his service, he achieved the positions of primus pilus in legio I Italica and praefectus in legio I Adiutrix located in Brigetio, Pannonia Inferior. His son, who commissioned the gravestone, after his position of eques

From another Balkan province came Tib. Claudius Tib. f. Niger (#27).13 This veteran was from Nicopolis. Although the monument was discovered near Nicopolis ad Istrum, the inscription mentions Actia Nicopolis, the main town in 6 AE 1999:1332; GMI 402. 7 CIL 3 12352; AE 1891:82; ILBulg 60; GMI 455. 8 AE 1939:0121; AE 2006:1203; ILBulg 307; IGLN 79; GMI 404. 9 ILBulg 329; IGLN 85; GMI 405. 10 CIL 3 7471; ILBulg 301; IGLN 86. 11 AE 1960:128; ILBulg 55; GMI 433. 12 CIL 3 12409; ILBulg 431. 13 CIL 3 6144; ILBulg 376; GMI 334. 14 AE 1932:52; AE 1966:353; AE 2006:1203; ILBulg 304; IGLN 83; GMI 383.

15 The birthplace, especially in later inscriptions, is rarely specified while the pattern name may lead to speculation. 16 CIL 3 14491; ILBulg 59; GMI 456. 17 AE 1987:863; AE 2006:1203; IGLN 84; GMI 392. 18 CIL 3 6185; ISM V 176. 19 ILBulg 302; IGLN 80; GMI 384; AE 2006:1203. 20 AE 1932:51; ILBulg 306; IGLN 89; GMI 408. 21 AE 1957:294; ILBulg 17.

85

Oleg Alexandrov Thracian name Mucianus is also found in the inscription on the gravestone from Iatrus (#28).36 The soldier died shortly before reaching retirement age and was probably buried near the military camp, where he served. It is assumed that the vexillatio of legio I Italica was located here in the second and third centuries, but the early camp has not yet been discovered. The gravestone of a soldier who had the same name (#29)37 was found near the military camp Trimammium. Deceased at the beginning of his service, soldier Aurelius Mucianus was learning to be a technician, discerns mensorem, in legio I Italica.

Romanus, held the high positions of a duumviralis and pontifex in the colony. There is only one gravestone attesting to a soldier from the Black Sea region. This belongs to Aelius Victor, found in Histria (#34).22 The soldier was a former beneficiaries consularis, which explains, in some way, his location in such a remote area of the province compared to the position of the legion. Moreover, the brother of the deceased soldier Aelius Severianus was a decurio in municipium Aurelium Durostorum. In general, the number of the veterans settled in cities other than those near military camps is low because the urban origin of soldiers from these cities is insignificant and they needed a higher financial capacity to settle there.

All of these soldiers had nomen gentilicium of the Emperor from whom they received Roman civil rights, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. They kept their own names, e.g. the case of Mucianus, as a cognomen.

Among the other gravestones of soldiers from legio I Italica, there is no direct evidence of their origin. We can only make assumptions based on the onomastic data revealed in the inscription. In the second century, names with an Italic origin dominated, although in most cases they belonged to soldiers primarily from the Balkan and Anatolian provinces: the milites Donatus and L. Attius Maximus (#5),23 C. Annius Fuscus, cornice (#13),24 C. Valerius Rufus, veteranus (#18),25 C. Valerius Severus – miles (#23)26 and his wife Volumnia), Cornelius Magnus, librarius (#24).27 The brothers, Antonius Florus, beneficiaries consularis, and Antonius Florianus, optio, were likely descendants of earlier Romanised Peregrines (#31).28

There were other soldiers with typical names of Thracian origin. The gravestone from Svalenik, near ancient Sexaginta Prista, belonged to P. Aurelius Sirus (#30).38 Upon the gravestone from Novae, dated to the time of Alexander Severus (222–235), the names of Flavius Decebalus and his successor Aurelius Ianuarius are mentioned, both veterans (#14).39 The cognomen of the veteran has Dacian origins. A gravestone belonging to another M. Aurelius is also from Novae. His cognomen is not preserved on the fragmented slab (#15).40 The monument dates to the first half of the third century, after the Constitutio Antoniniana. All of these monuments present solid evidence of the strong presence of Thracians in army based in Moesia Inferior. This process began in the middle of the second century, but was more intense beginning in the Severan period.

The higher social positions of Flavius Carantinus, a centurio with a cavalry rank (#10),29 and C. Ersidius, a centurio (#20),30 seem obvious. Even in these cases, despite their Italic names, their origin is not certain. The centurion Tauriscus has a rare name which could be Celtic, but could also be Greek (#12).31

IV. Conclusion. It is obvious that gravestones provide valuable data about the origin of soldiers. On the other hand, the monuments set stable benchmarks and indicate the tendencies in the changes of the ethnic and social composition of the Roman army in Moesia Inferior. In some respects, however, the information is limited, especially in the case of gravestones of soldiers from other parts of the province (Figs. 4-5). Only a small number of gravestones provide specific information about the origin of the soldiers. In other instances, the determination of origin is a matter of interpretation. This applies to most of the soldiers who had Italic names and, in most cases their actual origin could not be ascertained. Nevertheless, the information derived from the gravestones allows the author to highlight the integration processes of the local Thracian population.

In most cases, behind the standard names were soldiers with low social status and local origin. For example, the wife of C. Iulius Valens, an optio, had a typical Greek name (#21)32 as did Valerius Valens, an ex beneficiario, and Valerius Valentinus Val.f., a decurio, probably father and son (#22),33 and Valerius Valens, miles (#32).34 The wife of the latter was named Nene. In other cases, the onomastic data are clear and it is easy to assume the ethnicity of the soldiers. This applies, especially, to soldiers of local origin who had typical Thracian names. The gravestone from Nedan (#26)35 records two individuals with military careers who had Thracian names: M. Aurelius Mucianus, veteranus ex beneficiario legatilegionis; Aurelius Dizza, veteranus. The 22 AE 1984:799. 23 CIL 3 6232; AE 1966:354; AE 1969/70:565; AE 2006:1203; ILBulg 311; IGLN 87; GMI 403. 24 AE 1999:1334; GMI 380. 25 CIL 3 12354; ILBulg 130; GMI 430. 26 CIL 3 12398=14207; ILBulg 249; GMI 479. 27 ILBulg 354; GMI 331. 28 CIL 3 1421419; ISM V 41 29 AE 1999:1335; GMI 393. 30 ILBulg 170.

31 CIL 3 12366; ILBulg 310; ILGN 88. 32 CIL 3 13731; ILBulg 234. 33 ILBulg 236; GMI 472. 34 AE 1991:1385; GMI 215. 35 CIL 3 12408; ILBulg 430. 36 ILBulg 338; GMI 418. 37 AE 2004:1258; GMI 368. 38 AE 1954:34; AE 1955:67; GMI 366. 39 IGLN 82; GMI 395. 40 IGLN 77.

86

The Ethnic Origin of Roman Soldiers in Lower Moesia In the first century, most soldiers had western origins, while some came specifically from the Italic peninsula (Fig. 1). At the end of the first and beginning of the second century, soldiers from the Italic peninsula were no longer present in the army, while those from Gaul, Spain, North Africa and Germany continued to dominate. We observe that in the first century there was a significant presence of soldiers from Macedonia or other areas with old Romanisation. In the second half of the first century recruits from Asia Minor and the Eastern provinces of the Empire started to penetrate. This process continued to the first half of the second century.

REFERENCES Année épigrapfique (AE). Alexandrov, O. Ethnic and Social Composition of the Roman Army Veliko Tarnovo (2013). Boyanov, I. Roman Veterans in Lower Moesia and Thrace (first-third c. A.D.). Sofia: Avalon (2008). Conrad, S. Die Grabstelen aus Moesia Inferior (GMI). Leipzig: Casa Libri (2004).

At the beginning of the second century there were many soldiers with local origin in the army. This process increased over time and during the period between the end of the second and the first half of the third century the soldiers with local origin became a dominant part of the military in Moesia Inferior army. Again, the term “local" refers to soldiers who were born in the province. In many cases, they were descendants of veterans who created their families in this region, or descendants of earlier Romanised populations which arrived in the province in the first or second century from the Balkan and Anatolian provinces of the Empire. The ethnic Thracian element began in the auxiliary troops in the second half of the second century, and in all the legions in the end of the century (Fig. 2).

Gerov, B., “La romanisation entre le Danube et les Balkans (première partie – d`Auguste à Hadrien).” Annuaire de l`Université de Sofia, Faculté Historico-Philologique 45 (1949): 3-91. Gerov, B., “La romanisation entre le Danube et les Balkans (deuxième partie – d`Hadrien à Constantin le Grand, 1).” Annuaire de l`Université de Sofia, Faculté des Lettres 47 (1950/52): 17-121. Gerov, B., “La romanisation entre le Danube et les Balkans (deuxième partie – d`Hadrien à Constantin le Grand, 2).” Annuaire de l`Université de Sofia, Faculté des Lettres 48 (1952/53): 307-415.

During the Severan dynasty and the following decades, soldiers of Thracian origin entered extensively in the troops stationed in Moesia Inferior. At the end of the second and the whole third century, people with Italic and Eastern (Greek origin) names, who were probably descendants of deeply Romanised and Hellenised populations in the province, continued to be present in the army. The gravestones from the province leave open the question of the proportion between the local Thracian and the local nonThracian population in the army (Fig. 3).

Gerov, B. Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae (ILBulg). Sofia (1989). Kolendo, J. and V. Božilova Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de Novae (Mésie Inférieure). Bordeaux (1997). Ivanov, R. The defence system along the lower Danube between Dorticum and Durostorum from Augustus to Mauricius. Sofia (1999).

At the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century, the Thracian names kept in the third century as a cognomen began to disappear from inscriptions. This illustrates the deep processes of Romanisation among the Thracian population, which gradually led to their involvement in the political, economic and cultural life of the Empire. At the same time, Gothic names appeared on the gravestones, illustrating the impending changes in the ethnic composition of the lower Danubian provinces. The penetration of Germanic elements in the army continued throughout the fourth century, resulting in a very different ethnic composition of the army by the end of the century.

Mommsen, T. (ed.). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Voluminis Tertii (CIL 3). Inscriptiones Asiae, Provinciarum Europae Graecarum, Illyrici Latinae. Berlin (1873). Ştefănescu. A., “The Religion of the Soldiers from the Auxiliary Camps in Dacia Superior.” Limes 19 (2005): 505-10. Todorov, Y. The Pagan Cults in Moesia Inferior Sofia (1928).

87

Oleg Alexandrov Table 1. Gravestones of soldiers from legio I Italica.

№

Location

Name

Position

Origin

Province

1

Novae

C. Aurelius C. f. Vegetus

miles

Clunia

Hispania Tarraconensis

2 3

Novae Novae

M. Fonteius Clemens C. Bruttius C. f. Goutus

miles veteranus

Ariminus Virunum

Italia, Regio VIII Noricum

4

Novae

C. Valerius C. f. Longinus P. Valerius Germanus

miles miles?

Heraclea -

? Germania?

5

Novae

6

Novae

[---] Donatus L. Attius Maximus C. Iulius Magnus

miles miles veteranus

Ancyra

Galatia

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Novae Novae Novae Novae Novae Novae Novae

14

Novae

Q. Scantillus Marcus C. Valerius C. f. Birbilo [---] C. f. Severus T. Flavius Carantinus L. Cornelius Fronto Tauriscus C. Annius Fuscus Flavius Decebalus Aurelius Ianuarius

miles? miles veteranus centurio ex imaginifero ex centurione cornicen veteranus veteranus

Celeia Oescus -

Africa? Noricum Moesia Inferior Dacia? -

15

Novae

M. Aurelius

librarius

-

-

16

Oescus

Q. Falcius Q. f. Constans

veteranus

Ariminus

Italia, Regio VIII

17

Oescus

C. Valerius C. f. Valentianus

primus pilus

Oescus

Moesia Inferior

18 19

Utus Sucidava

C. Valerius Rufus C. Crispinus C. f. Firmus

veteranus veteranus

Aspendus

Lycia et Pamphylia

20

Chomakovtsi

C. Ersidius?

centurio

-

-

21

Osenets

22

Valchitran

23 24 25

Slatina Strahilovo Nedan

C. Iulius Valens Valerius Valens Valerius Valentinus Val. f. C. Valerius Severus Cornelius Magnus P. Pompeius P. f. Magnus

optio ex beneficiario decurio miles librarius veteranus

Stobi

Macedonia

26

Nedan

M. Aurelius Mucianus Aurelius Dizza

ex bf. leg. legionis veteranus

-

Moesia Inferior? Moesia Inferior?

Tib. Claudius Tib. f. Niger

veteranus

Nicopolis

Epirus

Aurelius Mucianus Aurelius Mucianus

miles discensmensorem

-

Moesia Inferior? Moesia Inferior?

miles? bf. cos. optio miles centurio

Сarthago

Moesia Inferior? Africa proconsularis

bf. cos.

-

-

29

GornaOryah ovitsa Iatrus Trimammium

30

Svalenik

31

Capidava

32 33

Halmyris Troesmis

P. Aurelius Sirus Antonius Florus Antonius Florianus Valerius Valens L. Antonius L. f. Felix

34

Histria

Aelius Victor

27 28

88

The Ethnic Origin of Roman Soldiers in Lower Moesia FIGURES

Figure 1. Origin of soldiers from legio I Italica (first century).

Figure 2. Origin of soldiers from legio I Italica (second century).

89

Oleg Alexandrov

Figure 3. Origin of soldiers from legio I Italica according to their names (third century).

Figure 4. Origin of soldiers, serving in a cohortes, located in Moesia Inferior, according to their names.

Figure 5. Origin of soldiers (mentioned in the inscriptions), serving in a cohortes, located in Moesia Inferior.

90

SOCIAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN ROMAN DROBETA: DEMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONS OF FUNERARY MONUMENTS Mariana Balaci Crînguş* and Cătălin Balaci** (*West University of Timișoara, **Ethnography Museum Timișoara)

Abstract: Roman epigraphic monuments found at Drobeta provide us with a considerable amount of information about family life and the relations between spouses and between parents and children, as well as about social status, juridical life, and ethnic backgrounds. This study examines a sample of funerary inscriptions from Drobeta in order to achieve a better understanding of the Roman population in this region.

I. Introduction. Only in the last 15 years have archaeologists and historians working in Southeastern Europe begun to focus more attention to aspects of the Roman period that are not strictly linked to the army. A wealth of archaeological materials, including inscriptions, have been unearthed in the last century as scholars seek to identify fortresses and other elements of the Roman defensive system. A growing number of researchers are now focusing their attention upon the archaeological materials in order to elucidate questions related to Roman society and the economy in the provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Moesia, and Thracia.

Drobeta was very attractive in its time for the aristocracy and other economic elites. A port2 was established with a customs office immediately after the Roman conquest which greatly contributed to the rapid economic development of the town.3 Due to Drobeta’s military and commercial importance, the population consisted of a mix of soldiers and civilians; it was the location of one of the most populous veteran settlements in the region. In the second century, the town enjoyed a boom in agriculture, but the primary economic function of the city involved manufacturing and commerce. III. Epigraphic evidence of family relations. The most numerous class of inscriptions found at Drobeta are funerary (31) of which 14 refer to men, 11 refer to women, 3 refer to both men and women and 3 refer to children

This paper focuses upon epigraphic monuments from Roman Drobeta and applies methods used in contemporary demography and sociology, such as social archaeology and social mobility studies. Epigraphic data is particularly useful because we can surmise family ties, social and ethnic realities, and even glimpses of economic life in this Roman town.

Most of the men who appear on inscriptions as deceased or as votive dedicators are veterans or soldiers, usually at the base of the military hierarchy (e.g., miles, centurio, beneficiaries tribune, beneficiaries consularis). The inscriptions referring to veterans or soldiers mention a small number of military units. Legio V Macedonica is mentioned in 7 inscriptions and from 13 known beneficiarii consularii two died in Drobeta, C. Iulius Melcidianus (in his case we can also observe the phenomenon of inter-provincial mobility)4 and M. Antius Herculanus.5 The only known stratores from this legion is M. Valerius Alexander who was probably still in service at the moment of the dedication.6 Mentioned twice is Legio IIII Flavia and Cohors III Campestris, while each of the following is mentioned once: Legio VII Claudia, Ala Claudia nova miscellanea, Cohors V Gallorum.

II. Background of Drobeta. Situated to the south of the Iron Gates, Drobeta was the only town of Dacia that was economically connected with the Roman Empire before the establishment of the Roman province. Drobeta became a municipium by Hadrian’s time and a colonia in the late second century. It remained under Roman control after 271 when the rest of the province was abandoned. The first modern accounts of the ancient town of Drobeta were made by Fernando Marsigli, a Hapsburg commissioner, charged with the description of Banat. He is the first modern source that describes the famous bridge constructed by Apollodorus of Damascus and the fortification in a report to Vienna.1 In recent years, scholars have revealed many features of the Roman city, whose population is estimated to have been 25-40,000 at its height in the Severan period.

Because R. Ardevan studied and described the civilian magistrates from Drobeta, the evidence presented in his work Municipal Life in Dacia will not be analysed here and only his conclusions are considered. At Drobeta, there is evidence of three duumviri,7 three flamines (one for the municipium and two for the colonia),8 and eight decurions

1

Marsigli 1744, 12-15, fig. 25-30. Davidescu 1980, 77-78. 3 Stîngă 1998, 20-21. 4 Bîrliba, Dumitrache, Piftor 2010, 98-9. 5 IDR II, 41, 57; Cupcea 2012, 251.

6 IDR II, 38; Cupcea 2012, 251. 7 IDR II, 21: Cn. Aemilianus...nus, C. Iul. Sabinus, T. Ael. Aemilianus. 8 IDR II, 50,52: T. Ael. Aemilianus, C. Iul. Naesius Sabinus, L. Iul. Bassinus.

2

91

Mariana Balaci Crînguş and Cătălin Balaci (three from the second century and five from the third century).9 An interesting case of wording is recorded in the inscription of M. Arrius Saturninus decurio in municipii Hadriani Drobetensium who lived 16 years.10 The Decurion function was primarily a personal position that was awarded based upon the person’s wealth, connections, or even the prestige of the individual amongst the inhabitants of the town.11 Membership in the Decurion body represented public recognition of the status into the community and public recognition of the person’s abilities and qualities; it was not a hereditary right.12

Women are more rarely represented in these sources, usually occurring as mothers, spouses, or daughters. Two particular cases are beyond this generalisation. Iulia Maximila is mentioned twice, once for an act of evergetism and once as part of a religious cult. The inscription mentions Iulia Maximila in association with the restoration of the vestibule of the temple of Cybele. Abbucia Claudiana was also related to the cult of Cybele. We can assume that the third inscription mentioned by Dumitru Tudor, only partially preserved, in which several women are mentioned is, in fact, of a religious college probably related to the cult of Cybele. The cult of Cybele was known in the ancient world to have been an urban cult due to the fact that the celebration of the goddess implies large sums of money, usually paid by the followers.19 This is the reason why wealthy women were involved in the organisation of the celebration in the first place. Although priestesses of the cult of Cybele are not attested in Drobeta, scholars assume that the cult of this goddess was celebrated based upon the inscription. It must be noted that this cult collegia may be a funerary one and the supposition of D. Tudor has to be confirmed.20

In the town of Drobeta three Augustans13 probably connected with commercial and craft activities are attested:14 M. Minicius Symphorus August of the Drobeta Municipium is the first in chronological order; the second is Iulius Paev…enus, husband of Iulia Kalligenia, still in the municipal era; and, the last, doubtful one due to the fact that the town is never mentioned, is M. Lucius(?) Marinus whose name appears on an altar dedicated to Jupiter Montano.15 These men were partly responsible for the development of Roman economic structures in the new province.

We can distinguish ethnic groups in Drobeta using epigraphic monuments. Two thirds of all names are of Greek-Oriental origin,21 suggesting that there was a population movement from this part of the empire. The second most common name origin is Illyrian,22 closely matched by natives of Pannonia and Noricum;23 followed by Italic,24 Celtic,25 Semitic,26 and one Traco-Dacian27 (Fig. 1).

Also connected with commercial activities are Primus Aelius Ionicus, a merchant,16 and Lucius Samognatius from Treverus.17 The origin of the latter implies that he was connected to the well-known supply of the limes activities, a privilege of the inhabitants of ancient Treverus.18 The presence of inhabitants from Treverus in Dacia, who are also mentioned in Tibiscum, Ulpia Traiana and Apulum, may imply the existence of a merchant corporation from Treverus represented by those individuals who proudly mention their origin. This may not have been their primary business due to the fact of their well-known social status of merchant.

The gentilic analysis of the names included on inscriptions from Drobeta found that 4 gentilicii names are present here: fifteen Aelii, fifteen Iulii, five Valerii and two Aurelii. The latter, numbering 92 cases, represents 4% of the total28 (Fig. 2).

Three patrons of Drobeta also occur in inscriptions: C. Iulius Sabinus, Sextus Cornelius Clemens and T. Aelius Aelianus.

Some inscriptions mention the birth places of residents. For example, Valentina was born in Sirmium, C. Iul. Ianuarius was from Colonia Victrix (Britannia), and Laudicae Syra was from Philadelphia.

All social categories are mentioned on epigraphic inscriptions, including slaves (Eutyches, Philetus), liberti (C. Titius Epipodius, Aelius Helzipon, Aelia Eutychia, Ael. Primitivus), peregrines (Diogenes Moschi, Ulcudius Baedari) and Roman citizens (C. Iul. Ianuarius, C. Iul. Sabinus).

Epigraphic sources are full of information about family life and kinship relations. In this manner, we can see the relations between spouses and between children and their

9 Ardevan 1998, tabel XX: L. Quesidius Praesens (AD 118-138), M. Arrius Saturninus (second century), L. Iulius Bassus (second century), P. Ael. Strenuus (early third century), Aur. Longinus (third century), P. Claudius Iulius (third century), Clodius Septimius (third century). 10 IDR II, 49. 11 Ardevan 1998, 173. 12 Ardevan 1998, 172. 13 M. Minicius Symphorus, Iulius Paev.... 14 Galleno Franco 1997, 26. 15 Ardevan 1998, table XLII, R 508. 16 IDR II, 47. 17 IDR II, 22. 18 Charleswoeth 1976, 174, 178. 19 Carbo Garcia 2012, 246. 20 IDR II, 77; Tudor 1965, passim.

21 M. Valerius Alexander, Asclepia Chrona, Asclepius Asclepiades, Antonia Calliste, Strato, M. Minicius Symphorus, Diogenes Moschi, P. Ael. Diophantus, Epipodius, Aelia Eutychia, Eutyches, Ael. Helpizon, Laudicae Syra, Primus Ael. Ionicus, Kallingenia, Philetus, Iulia Philumene, Phoebus, Aurelia Calliroe, Aelia Amnis, Aurelius Heraclitus. 22 Liccaius Vinentis, Linda Severus, Senecius Surus and Ulcudius Baedari. 23 Sabina Lambrionis, Flavia Valentina born in Sirmium, C. Iul. Sabinus, C. Iul. Naesus Sabinus. 24 Iulia Maximilia, Abuccia Claudiana, Lupus. 25 Valerius Vivibius and L. Samognatius, from Treverus. 26 P. Ael. Iada and Cn. Aemilianus. 27 C. Iul. Melcidianus. 28 Dragostin 2012, 231.

92

Social and Family Relationships in Roman Drobeta parents. We can also observe social and juridical aspects of family life.

dedicated to an infant, two for three-year-old children and one for a seven-year-old. The oldest people referred to are a seventy-year-old woman and an eighty-six-year-old man. The rest of the deceased were middle aged.

Funerary inscriptions are useful in observing social, juridical and personal aspects of family life. For instance, at Drobeta there are six monuments dedicated to men from women, four of which are from the wife.29 The other two mention an heiress, so it is probably the case of concubines who inherited from the men: a dedication for Liccaius Vinentis from Linda Severus, heiress, and an inscription for P. Ael. Diophantus from his daughter and Aelia Eutychia, liberta and heiress. We are aware of seven dedications to wives from their husbands at Drobeta.30 The most unusual is for Iulia Philumene from Philetus, the slave of Iulius Rufinus, which probably refers to a marriage between a slave and a liberta. The most common term used in such inscriptions is coniugi, whereas only one inscription refers to a woman as uxor.

IV. Conclusion. The social structure of a community, composed of collectives, social classes, categories and social groups, may provide useful data regarding the status and the level of integration/absorption of a settlement into a province and into the empire.34 The membership of an individual to a social and professional category is observed by grouping individuals according to their occupation, their level of training, their common activities, the position within their main activities, as well as their position within local government hierarchies.35 Socio-anthropological social stratification is defined by the multitude of structured inequalities existing in groups of humans. The analysis of epigraphic monuments from Drobeta allows us to draw conclusions about the social-cultural relations in this Roman town. The conclusions may also be extrapolated in order to understand the whole province.

A happy marriage was that between Flavia Valentina and Maecius Domitius. This inscription remembers coniugi carissimae et pientissimae et dignissimae ob principium castitatis.31 Another peculiar monument is dedicated from a husband to the memory of his wife and their two lost friends, suggesting that the friends in this case were assimilated with family.32 In monuments dedicated to children, the parents always mention the age, suggesting that grief was harder to endure.

First, we can observe the relation of family affection and conjugal care between the spouses. For instance, the inscriptions on these funerary monuments primarily indicate the grief associated with the loss of the deceased and also express gratitude towards them, especially in the case of inheritors. Also interesting is that the sentiments of friendship were almost as strong as the family ties.

In one inscription, the dedicator wanted to emphasize his patronage, so he mentions that he, Asclepius Asclepiades, dedicated the monument to the memory of his wife Asclepia Chrona.33

Second, we gain insights into that aspect of Roman civil law regarding inheritance. The mention of heirs or inheritance is very common on funerary monuments. Since monuments in the province of Roman Dacia are of mostly of soldiers/veterans, rather than individuals from other social categories, it is common that inheritors are peers and not family members. This situation is, of course, noted at Drobeta.36

Another aspect of family is that of inheritance. Sometimes testaments are mentioned, as in case of a monument dedicated by Lascia to her parents and her children. Here, she mentions that the monument was paid from her own fortune and she begs her unnamed successor not to bury anybody else in her father’s grave. All inheritance successors mention the quality of heres, namely the nature of the relation with the deceased. We must conclude that it was an obligation for an inheritance successor to dedicate a funerary monument for the inherited.

Third, the inscriptions confirm that Drobeta represented an important Danubian port and commercial centre composed primarily of Greek or East Mediterranean individuals.

The age of the deceased was often recorded. Very few children are named in Drobeta: three inscriptions are

Fourth, we can observe some of the roles of women in public life, particularly their involvement in the cult of Cybele. This evergetism and the involvement in the community life can be observed at Drobeta on epigraphic monuments. We can distinguish at Drobeta some wealthy women with ample financial means who were involved in erecting, repairing and maintaining public buildings. The yearly celebration of the goddess Cybele represented the primary public religious event to include women. This cult was closely related to the Greek/Eastern community, whose presence in the province of Dacia was made

29M. Valerius Alexander from his wife Ulpia Marciana; for Valerius Victorinus from his son-in-law and his wife Aurelia Calliroe; for C. Iulius Melcidianus from Ulpia Marcelina; for Liccaius Vinentis from Linda Severus, heiress; for P. Ael. Diophantus from his daughter Aelia Eutychia, libert and heiress; for Primus Ael. Ionicus from wife (uxor) Iulia Priscila and his son. 30 For Flavia Valentina from Maecius Domitius; for Valeria Gemina from P. Ael. Papirianus; for Asclepia Chrona from Asclepius

Asclepiades; for Iulia Kallingenia from Iulius Paet….; for Antonia Callista from Diogenes Moschi; for Iulia Philumene from Philetus. 31 IDR II, 36. 32 IDR II, 50. 33 IDR II, 48. 34 Zamfir, Vlăsceanu 1998, 612-13. 35 Zamfir, Vlăsceanu 1998, 87. 36 Ștefănescu Onițiu 2011, 375.

Another interesting aspect on four monuments is the position of the traditional Hic Situ Est not as final exclamation, but in the middle of the text, followed by the name of the dedicator and his connection with the deceased. Three from Drobeta are dedicated to women, Valeria Gemia, Asclepia Chrona, Iulia Philumene, and one to a man, P. Aelius Diophantus.

93

Mariana Balaci Crînguş and Cătălin Balaci possible by the economic relations of the province and the position of the settlement.

Charlesworth, M.P. Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. Chicago (1976, second ed.).

One final notion worth mentioning is the fact that funerary monuments generally contained more personal information than other types of inscriptions. This type of monument provides important proof of profound social relations between the members of the community and between comrades in arms. By analysing funerary monuments, we can say, without any doubt, that some of them were the result of affection and devotion between the deceased and his/her heirs or the inheritors, an important insight in the life of Drobeta’s community members.

Cupcea, G., “Officium consularis. The evidence of Dacia.” Transylvanian Review XXI, suppl.3 (2012): 243-54. Dragostin, R., Les gentilices italiques en Dacie romaine, SAA XVIII (2012): 213-44. Gallego Franco, H., “Integracion onomastica y social de los seviri y augustales en las provincias romanas del Alto y Medio Danubio.” Memorias de Historia Antigua XVIII (1997): 23-57. Leveau, Ph., “Villas et aristocraties municipals dans les cites d’Arles, de Glanum, d’Aix et de Marseille.” In Paysages ruraux et territoires dans les cités de l’Occident romain, J.-L. Fiches, R. Plana-Mallart, V. Revilla Calvo (eds.). Barcelona (2013).

REFERENCES Ardevan, R. Viața municipală în Dacia romană. Timișoara (1998).

Pippidi, D.M., I.I. Russu, G. Florescu, C.C. Petolescu (eds). IDR II, Inscripțiile Daciei Romane (Oltenia și Muntenia). București (1977).

Mihăilescu Bîrliba L., I. Dumitrache, V. Piftor, “La mobilité locale en Dacie romaine selon les sources épigraphique: Dacie Inférieure.” Stud. Hist. Antig 28 (2010): 95-108.

Tudor, D. Drobeta. București (1965).

Carbo Garcia, J.R., “Women and “oriental” cult in Roman Dacia.” SAA, XVIII (2012): 245-79.

Zamfir, C. and L. Vlăsceanu. Dicționar de sociologie. București (1998).

94

Social and Family Relationships in Roman Drobeta FIGURES

Figure 1. Ethnic groups by name.

Figure 2. Gentilicii that appear on epigraphic monuments from Drobeta.

95

ROMAN FORTIFICATIONS ALONG THE FORMER UPPER MOESIAN LIMES AD 270-378 Emil Jęczmienowski (University of Warsaw)

Abstract: This paper presents a systematic overview, based upon historical and archaeological sources, of the building activity on the sites of fortifications along the former Upper Moesian limes during the period AD 270-378, after the border of the Roman Empire was re-established. This period is characterised by the continuity of the forms of fortifications and represents the transformation of the border into its new shape. The paper presents the relationships between the forms of the existing, renovated, and newly constructed fortifications. A special emphasis is placed on the topography as well as the character of the fortifications and their components. Based upon a variety of sources and premises, it is possible, in some cases, to determine the approximate numerical strength of the garrisons.

II. Fortifications. During the period in question, most of the larger, older fortifications still functioned. The border was strengthened, however, with numerous new fortifications. Some places re-gained the garrisons that had been abandoned as a result of the conquest of Dacia. An example of this is at Ratiaria5 where legio XIII Gemina was moved from Apulum.6

I. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is to systematically present data acquired from various sources regarding the fortifications situated along the former Upper Moesian limes (Fig. 1), their topography, forms, components, and garrisons. The analysis of the fortifications of this area and a comparison with the installations from the time of Principate demonstrate what happened to the northern borderland of the previous, inner province.

The fortifications along this section of the Roman frontier can be divided into two main groups: the larger ones built during the Principate, and the newly erected, mostly smaller, fortifications. The primary building technique used throughout this period was opus mixtum. The difference in size was the result of the different military doctrines adopted over time. Initially, larger fortresses were manned with troops which, in case of danger, moved from their quarters to face invaders in the field. Beginning with the Tetrarchy important changes in the defensive architecture took place. From this point on, most fortifications were small, and it became common to construct strong fortlets, designed to resist sieges, as well as freestanding towers.

During the period AD 270-378 the province of Moesia Superior no longer existed, its northern part having been divided into Moesia Prima, to the west, and Dacia Ripensis, to the east.1 The border between them was near modern-day Donji Milanovac, in the middle of the Iron Gate gorge. The course of the Upper Moesian Danube is varied and includes the middle and the lower sections of the river. The first one ends near modern-day Golubac in Serbia. In this section, the river flows across a flat area. Further east, between Golubac and Drobeta-Turnu Severin there is a gorge of the Danube, termed the Iron Gate, which separates the sections of the middle and the lower Danube. The gorge is about 130 km long and the water flows rapidly between its steep banks.2 Further east, near Drobeta, the river widens and the banks of the river are much gentler. The flow of the Danube slows down as it enters the wide Wallachian Plain.

III. Early Fortifications. It is generally assumed that the early fortifications were erected in flat areas, near the mouths of rivers.7 Settings of this kind allowed a combination of strategic value with an area where large units could manoeuvre.8 This was a vital prerequisite during the Principate.

The period under investigation represents a transformation of the limes into its new form, a result of the crisis of the third century. After the Roman withdrawal from Dacia in ca. AD 270 the border was once again moved to the line of the Danube.3 The plan of the fortifications remained the same during this period; however, the limes practically ceased to function after AD 378, when the Balkan area was devastated by the wars against the Goths.4

The forms of the earlier and larger fortifications were highly unified throughout the Empire. The ideal fortress was rectangular with rounded corners, resembling the shape of a playing card. The length ratio of the short and long sides was approximately 2:3. The area of the old legionary fortresses was over 15 ha,9 while the area of the old Upper Moesian limes auxiliary forts was mostly between 1.5 and 2 ha.10 Of course, the older fortifications were renovated and adjusted to the new requirements; therefore, the interval and gate towers

1 Mócsy 1974, 273-74. 2 Mócsy 1974, 45. 3 Mócsy 1974, 211. 4 Mócsy 1974, 341-46. 5 Dinchev 2002, 27.

6 Bishop 2013, 130. 7 Gudea 2001, 47-95. 8 Gudea 2001, 33. 9 Jęczmienowski 2013, 36. 10 Jęczmienowski 2013, 38.

97

Emil Jęczmienowski enclosure wall, as in Mihajlovac-Blato (Fig. 4:1) where the wall measured about 36x40 m.18

were renovated. New towers protruded from the curtain walls and their plans were round, squared, fan-shaped or U-shaped (Fig. 2). Initially, towers were built on the inner side of the wall and were rectangular in outline. Starting from the second century they were gradually moved to the outer side of the walls. This process is well observed with the example of the fort in Diana (Fig. 2:1a-c). The larger fortifications originally had four gates, but many of the gates were closed, especially in the late period. Once again, this can be observed with the fort in Diana. Moreover, the curtain walls of this period were often broader as a result of the trend to strengthen the fortifications. For example, the new walls of Čezava (Novae) were built directly next to the older ones, and in some places, they completely absorbed the earlier structures.11

An atypical tower was erected in Pesača near Veliko Gradište. Initially, a freestanding tower was erected, in the middle of the third century, with dimensions of 7.5×7.5 m.19 By the end of the century, it was included within a larger enclosure, measuring 36.4×34 m.20 These walls enclosed what appears to have been a household courtyard.21 As far as the chronology of these newly erected fortifications is concerned, it is assumed they were built during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, while most, but not all, of the freestanding towers were erected at the time of Valens. The burgi in Donja Butorka, Ljubičevac, and Mora Vagei (Fig. 4:5,8,6) were erected near the turn of the fourth century. They seem to represent the genesis of the later towers, especially Mora Vagei and Ljubičevac where the pillars were found in the middle. Several reasons have been proposed as to why there are differences between the building activity at the time of Diocletian and Constantine and later, under Valens and Valentinian. Perhaps it was the result of military doctrine and was a natural consequence of Diocletian’s and Constantine’s reforms. The reasons may also have been far more complicated, resulting from many factors: economic and strategic, or perhaps the potential of the enemy was incorrectly estimated. Perhaps, rather than a real reinforcement, it was just a form of propaganda aimed at scaring the enemies.

IV. Newly Erected Fortifications. The newly erected fortifications are found in less accessible places. Locations near river mouths and relatively flat areas were preferred, but there are also cases when places of a more defensive character were chosen. For example, fort II in Egeta (Fig. 3:1) was built near the mouth of a stream, on a hill that dominated the surroundings and had steep slopes on three sides.12 Many of these military installations were quadriburgium type fortlets built on a square plan (Table 1), without rounded corners and with an inner space measuring about 0.3 ha.13 These fortlets were defended by the outer towers located at the corners. As can be seen on the plans (Fig. 3) the form of the towers varied, the most typical being square. Rhomboidal and round examples were also constructed. The quadriburgia generally had one gate defended by a single, centrally located tower. The thickness of the curtain wall was usually about 2 m; however, in the places where a ramp (ascensus) was added, or simply the wall was thickened, the total thickness may have been over 3 m, like in Transdierna.14

It is worth mentioning that although most of the new fortifications were small, larger ones were also built. For example, the fort on the island of Sapaja was erected in the early fourth century.22 Its ground plan was very similar to that of the quadriburgia; however, it was 2-3 times larger than a typical fortlet with an area of about 0.86 ha.23 A second interesting case is the fourth century city of Bononia. Its dimensions are similar to the dimensions of legionary fortresses dated to the times of the Principate with an area was about 20 ha.24

The fortlet in Smorna (Fig. 3:3) allows us to observe changes in the fortifications. One half of this fort preserves its original first century form with rounded corners, while the corners of the other half, erected at the time of Gallienus or Aurelian, are angular.15 There were probably no towers at the corners of the earlier phase, while in the later phase they were added on the interior, rather than on the exterior, as was typical.16

V. Garrisons. The identification of garrisons from the period in question is more challenging than the earlier ones. The main source is the Notitia Dignitatum, which provides only fragmentary data about the limes garrisons, mostly because it omits smaller fortifications. The units mentioned by Notitia Dignitatum are:

The second kind of novel fortification features were freestanding towers (Table 2), whose plans were highly unified. Most towers were square burgi measuring about 20×20 m,17 with thick walls of about 2-3 m and often with four pillars in the middle. The form of the pillars varied, some were square, while others were L-shaped or similar to a quadrant. Sometimes the tower was surrounded by an



11 Vasić 1984, 101. 12 Petrović 1984c, 157. 13 Jęczmienowski 2013, 42. 14 Cermanović-Kuzmanović 2004, plan 4. 15 Zotović 1984, 219-25. 16 Zotović 1984, 220. 17 Jęczmienowski 2013, 47.

in Singidunum legio IV Flavia (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 30)

18 Tomović 1986, 413-14. 19 Minić 1984, 171. 20 Minić 1984, 171. 21 Minić 1984, 173. 22 Dimitrijević 1984, 55. 23 Dimitrijević 1984, 36. 24 Ivanov 2003, 22.

98

Roman Fortifications along the Former Upper Moesian Limes                     

sufficient to man both the walls of the quadriburgia and the enclosure walls of the burgi.

in Tricornium cuneus equitum sagittariorum, auxiliaries Tricornienses and auxilium Aureo montanorum (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 14, 22, 28) in Aureus Mons cuneus equitum Dalmatarum (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 15) in Castra Augusto flaviensia (Kovin?) unknown unit of milites (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 32-33) in Margum auxilium Margense and classis Stradensis et Germanensis (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 24, 39) in Viminacium cuneus equitum promotorum and classis Histrica (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 38) in Pincum cuneus equitum Dalmatarum (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 18) in Lederata cuneus equitum sagittariorum and milites Vincentiensum (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 17, 36) in Cuppae cuneus equitum Dalmatarum, auxilium Cuppense and legio VII Claudia (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 19, 25, 31) in Novae auxiliaries Novenses and milites exploratores (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 23, 34) in Gratiana (Saldum?) auxilium Gratianense (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 26) in Smorna milites exploratores (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 37) in Taliata auxilium Taliatense and milites exploratores (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 27, 35) in Translucus (Hajdučka Vodnica?) auxilium Claustrinorum (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 27) in Dierna legio XIII Gemina (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 37) in Transdierna milites exploratores (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 29) in Drobeta cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Divitensium and auxilium primorum Daciscorum (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 16, 24) in Pontes legio XIII Gemina (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 35) in Egeta cuneus equitum sagittariorum, Legio XIII Gemina, classis Histrica (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 20, 34, 42) in Dorticum cuneus equitum Divitensium (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 14) in Bononia cuneus equitum Dalmatarum Fortensium (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 13) in Ratiaria legio XIII Gemina (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 38)

VI. Conclusions. The changes in the defensive architecture and location of the units along the limes arose from several premises. Of course, the most important was the reform of the Roman army, which resulted in moving the main burden of defence from the units deployed along the limes to the mobile army stationed in the interior of the province. The task of the forces along the limes was to withstand until the arrival of reinforcements. This differed from the strategy of the Principate whereby large units met their enemy in the field in order to prevent the siege of their bases, which, in fact, were garrisons, not strongholds. This old strategy turned out to be to be ineffective in the less stable times of the third century, when many units were moved from their bases to the other fronts of the Empire, leaving the border highly vulnerable. Smaller units of border troops (riparienses or limitanei) located in the lesser, but well-fortified, strongholds were better adjusted for the new kind of task. This solution is clearly visible in the cases of the freestanding towers and fortlets (quadriburgia), which could have been manned by 8-50 men. Such strongholds were not only smaller and better fortified but, in comparison to their predecessors, also found in less accessible places of a more defensive character. Old fortifications were still used as well, especially the larger legionary fortresses and auxiliary forts; however, they were adjusted to the new requirements. They were renovated with protruding towers of various shapes and broader and taller walls, while some of the gates were closed. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that the strengthening of the fortifications was a response to the increasing siege skills of the Barbarians. Finally, the strongly fortified and, when possible, impenetrable border was important to control trade with the Barbarians and other cross-border moves.

ABBREVIATION Not. Dign. = Notitia dignitatum; accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et laterculi provinciarum, edited by O. Seeck, Berlin 1876.

In the cases of the other sites, only the numerical strength of the garrisons can be estimated. In the case of the quadriburgia, M. Gichon concluded that the garrisons of fortlets with dimensions of about 50×50 m had several dozen men, probably 50,25 while Korać came to the conclusion that the garrisons of the most popular burgi, measuring about 20x20 m, probably had about 20 soldiers.26 Mihajlovac-Blato, a burgus surrounded by an enclosure wall measuring ca. 40x36 m,27 seems to have been manned by 32-40 soldiers.28 These numbers were

REFERENCES Băjenaru C. Minor Fortifications in the Balkan-Danubian Area from Diocletian to Justinian. Cluj-Napoca (2010). Bishop M.C. Handbook to Roman Legionary Fortresses. Barnsley (2013).

25 Gichon 1989, 121-42. 26 Korać 1996, 107.

27 Tomović 1986, 413-14. 28 Jęczmienowski 2013, 51.

99

Emil Jęczmienowski Bojović D., “Le camp de la légion IV Flavia à Singidunum.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Beograd (1996): 53-68.

Jovanović A., “The Problem of the Location of Lederata.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Beograd (1996): 69-72.

Cermanović-Kuzmanović A., “Rimsko utvrđenje kod Kladova.” Starinar Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXVIII–XXIX (1977-78) (1979): 127-34.

Jovanović A., M. Korać, “Ušće Slatinske reke – ranovizantijski kastel.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer II (1984): 191-96.

Cermanović-Kuzmanović A., “Tekija (Transdierna), neka razmatranja.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 337-43.

Jovanović A., M. Korać., Đ. Janković, “L'embouchure de la rivière Slatinska reka.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer III (1986): 378-401.

Cermanović-Kuzmanović A. Tekija. Beograd (2004).

Kondić J., “The Earliest Fortifications of Diana.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Beograd (1996): 81-87.

Cermanović-Kuzmanović A., S. Stanković. “Borđej.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer II (1984): 217-21.

Kondić V., “Ravna (Campsa) rimsko i ranovizantijsko utvrđenje.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 233-53.

Cermanović-Kuzmanović A., S. Stanković, “La forteresse antique Mora Vagei près de Mihajlovac, Fouilles de 1981.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer III (1986): 451-66.

Korać M., “Late Roman and Early Byzantine Fort of Ljubičevac.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Beograd (1996): 105-09.

Davidescu M. Cetatea romană de la Hinova, București (1989).

Ładomirski A., “Problem lokalizacji i konstrukcji rzymskich mostów pontonowych na Dolnym Dunaju.” Antiquitas. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 6 (1978): 53-78.

Dinchev V., “Ratiaria.” In Roman and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria, vol. 1, R. Ivanov (ed.). Sofia (2002): 13-31. Dimitrijević D., “Sapaja, rimsko i srednjovekovno utvrđenje na ostrvu kod Stare Palanke.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982–1983) (1984): 29-59.

Minić D., “Pesača, antičko utvrđenje i srednjovekovna nekropola.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 171-75.

Gabričević M., “Rtkovo–Glamija I – une forteresse de la basse époque, fouilles de 1980–1982.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer III (1986): 71-7.

Mócsy A. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: a History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. London (1974).

Gichon M., “Estimating the Strength of Quadriburgia Garrisons, exemplified by En Boqeq in the Negev.” In The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire, D. French, C. S. Lightfoot (eds.) (1989): 121-42.

Petrović P., “Zidinac, kasnoantički speculum.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII– XXXIV (1982-83) (1984a): 127-28. Petrović P., “Porečka reka, sabirni centar za snabdevanje rimskih trupa u Đerdapu.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984b): 285–92.

Gudea N., “Die Nordgrenze der römischen Provinz Obermoesien. Materialien zu ihrer Geschichte (86–275 n. Chr.).” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 48 (2001): 1-118.

Petrović P., “Egeta. Izveštaj o arheološkim istraživanjima u 1980 godini (Antika).” Cahiers des Portes de Fer II (1984c): 153-67.

Ivanov M., “Bononia.” In Roman and Early Byzantine Settlements in Bulgaria, vol. 2, R. Ivanov (ed.). Sofia (2003): 13-31.

Popović Lj., “Malo i Veliko Golubinje, rimsko vizantijsko nalazište.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982–1983) (1984): 297-99.

Jęczmienowski E., “The Fortifications of the Upper Moesian Limes.Topography, Forms, Garrison Sizes.” Światowit. Rocznik Instytutu Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego X (LI)/A (2012): 31-58.

Sarnowski T., “Die Anfänge der spätrömischen Militärorganisation des unteren Donauraumes.” Der römische Limes in Österreich 36/2 (1990): 855-61.

Jovanović A., “Hajdučka Vodenica, kasnoantičko i ranovizantijsko utvrđenje.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 319-31.

Srejović D., “Lepenski Vir, rimska kula.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 197-99.

100

Roman Fortifications along the Former Upper Moesian Limes Toma-Demian N., “Un lot de monede romane târzii din bronz descoperit la Dalboşeţ, judeţul Caraş-Severin.” Analele Banatului - serie nouă VII-VIII (1999-2000): 47389.

Vasić M., “Čezava –castrum Novae.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982–1983) (1984): 91-122. Zotović Lj., “Boljetin (Smorna), rimski i ranovizantijski logor.” Starinar. Organ Archeološkog Društva u Beogradu XXXIII–XXXIV (1982-83) (1984): 211-25.

Tomović M., “Mihajlovac-Blato.Une forteresse de la basse antiquité.” Cahiers des Portes de Fer III (1986): 401-31. Tomović M., “Ravna – the Roman and Early Byzantine Fortification.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, P. Petrović (ed.). Beograd (1996): 73-80.

101

Emil Jęczmienowski Table 1. Fortlet

FORTLET Ram (Lederata) Gornea Boljetin (Smorna) Ravna (Campsa) Mouth of Porečka river Tekija (Transdierna) Orșova (Dierna) Hinova Brza Palanka (Egeta?) Fort no. II

DATING AND TYPE Late third / early fourth c. quadriburgium Late third / early fourth c. quadriburgium first – sixth c.

SIZE

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MEN ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

41.5×41.5 m; 0.17 ha (Băjenaru 2010, 95-96)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

ca. 50×60 m; 0.3 ha (Gudea 2001, 69)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

Late third / early fourth c. quadriburgium Late third c. quadriburgium

42×40 m; 0.17 ha (inner – 34×35,5 m; 0.12 ha) (V. Kondić 1984b, 235) 60×60 m; 0.36 ha (Petrović 1984b, 286)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

second half third c.: Vex. leg. VII Cl.; Late fourth c.: Mil. expl. (Not. Dign. Or. XLI 37) ?

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

Late third / early fourth c. quadriburgium Late third / early fourth c. quadriburgium Early fourth c. quadriburgium fourth c.

32×25 m; 0.08 ha (CermanovićKuzmanović 1984, 338) ca. 35×35 m; 0,12 ha (Băjenaru 2010, 109-10)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

Late fourth c.: Mil. expl. (Not. Dign. Or. XLII 29)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

45,85×39,80; 0.18 ha (Davidescu 1989, 13) 84×33 m; 0.28 ha (Petrović 1984c, 157)

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

ca. 50 (M. Gichon)

?

ca. 50×50 m; 0.25 ha (Jovanović 1996, 70)

102

GARRISON

Roman Fortifications along the Former Upper Moesian Limes Table 2. Freestanding towers TOWER Zidinac Veliko Golubinje

DATING AND INFORMATION third/fourth c.; tower in the NE corner of the enclosure wall fourth – sixth c.

SIZE ca. 6×5.5 m and 17.5×17.5 m; 306 m2 (Petrović 1984a, 127) ca. 8.5×8.5 m; 72 m2 (Lj. Popović 1984, 297) 12.5×11.8 m; 147 m2 (Jovanović 1984, 319) 19.5×19 m; 360 m2 (Cermanović-Kuzmanović 1979, 129) 18.5×18.5 m; 342 m2 (Gabričević 1986, 74)

Hajdučka Vodnica Donja Butorka near Kladovo

second half fourth c. – first half fifth c. AD 295

Rtkovo-GlamijaI

second half fourth c.

Ljubičevac

late third c.

19.8×19.8 m; 392 m2 (Korać 1996, 106)

Mouth of the Slatinska river

second half fourth c.

MihajlovacBlato

second half fourth c.; tower with enclosure wall

MihajlovacMora Vagei

Late third c.

Borđej

second half fourth c.; tower

19×18.4 m; 351 m2 (Jovanović, Korać, Janković 1986, 380) 19.32×19.54 m and ca. 36×40 m?; 377 and 1440 m2 (Tomović 1986, 413-14) 18.5×18.5 m; 342 m2 (Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Stanković 1986, 456) 19.6×19.6 m and; 384 m2 (Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Stanković 1984, 217)

103

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MEN 8–16 (1–2 contubernia) 8 (1 contuberium) 8–16 (1–2 contubernia) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać) 32–40 (4–5 contubernia) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać) 16–24 (2–3 contubernia) (20 men, according to M. Korać)

Emil Jęczmienowski FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the former Upper Moesian limes between AD 270-378: 1 – Island of Sapaja (fort); 2 – Lederata (fortlet); 3 – Gornea (fortlet); 4 – Zidinac (tower); 5 – Pesača (tower); 6 – Smorna (fortlet); 7 – Campsa (fortlet); 8 Mouth of the Porečka river (fortlet); 9 – Veliko Golubinje (tower); 10 – Hajdučka Vodenica (tower); 11 – Transdierna (fortlet); 12 – Dierna (fortlet); 13 – Donja Butorka (tower); 14 – Rtkovo-Glamija I (tower); 15 – Hinova (fortlet); 16 Ljubičevac (tower); 17 – Egeta fort no. 2 (fortlet); 18 - Mouth of the Slatinska river (tower); 19 – Mihajlovac-Blato (tower); 20 – Mora Vagei (tower); 21 – Borđej (tower) (E. Jęczmienowski, based on Mócsy 1974, fig. 60, used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

104

Roman Fortifications along the Former Upper Moesian Limes

Figure 2. Auxiliary forts. Plans (a – certain course of walls; b – supposed course of walls): 1a – Karataš (Diana) – first c. AD; 1b – Karataš (Diana) – early fourth c. AD; 1c - Karataš (Diana) – late fourth c. AD; 2 – Brnjica-Gradac at the mouth of the river Čezava (Novae) - early fourth c. AD; 3 – Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Drobeta) - early fourth c. AD (E. Jęczmienowski, based on: 1 (a, b, c) – J. Kondić 1996, fig. 1; 2 – Vasić 1984, fig. 8; 3 – Zahariade 1997, fig 1, used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology and M. Zahariade).

Figure 3. Fortlets. Plans (a – certain course of walls; b – supposed course of walls): 1 – Brza Palanka, Fort No. II (Egeta) - fourth c. AD; 2 – Tekija (Transdierna) - late third/early fourth c. AD; 3 – Boljetin (Smorna) - ca. AD 270; 4 – Ravna (Campsa) - late third/early fourth c. AD. (E. Jęczmienowski, based on: 1 – Petrović 1984c, fig. 142; 2 – Cermanović-Kuzmanović 2004, plan 4; 3 – Zotović 1984, fig. 2; 4 – V. Kondić 1984b, fig. 2 used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

105

Emil Jęczmienowski

Figure 4. Freestanding towers. Plans (a – certain course of walls; b – supposed course of walls): 1 – Mihajlovac-Blato second half fourth c.; 2 – Rtkovo-Glamija I - second half fourth c.; 3 – Mouth of the Slatinska river - second half fourth c.; 4 – Borđej - second half fourth c.; 5 – Donja Butorka – AD 295; 6 – Mora Vagei (later tower) - late third c.; 7 – Zidinac third/fourth c.; 8 – Ljubičevac - late third c.; 9 – Hajdučka Vodenica - second half fourth c.; 10 – Pesača - mid third c. (enclosure wall - late third c.) (E. Jęczmienowski, based on: 1 – Tomović 1986, fig. 1; 2 – Gabričević 1986, plan I; 3 – Jovanović, Korać, Janković 1986, fig. 7; 4 – Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Stanković 1984, fig. 208; 5 – CermanovićKuzmanović 1979, fig. 1; 6 – Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Stanković 1986, fig. 1; 5 – Petrović 1984a, fig. 1; 4 – Korać 1996, fig. 3; 6 –Jovanović 1984, fig. 1; 7 – Minić 1984, fig. 1 used with permission of Serbian Institute of Archaeology).

106

IMPERIAL AND OFFICIAL PORTRAITURE IN NOVAE (LOWER MOESIA, MOESIA II) IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Kamen D. Dimitrov (University of Sofia) Abstract: This article presents portraits of emperors, imperial family members, and imperial officials recovered through excavations at Novae from the reign of Hadrian through the reign of Theodosius II. Portraits and associated dedications are in the form of stone and bronze statuary as well as coins. The author describes and discusses the portraiture from Novae in the context of similar portraits from Lower Moesia.

these cities and its place in the local civic religion. Found in Novae, they should be regarded as carriers of eastern Greek traditions to the militaries in Novae.

I. Introduction. The ancient site of Novae, 4 km east of Svishtov, Bulgaria, was founded as a Roman legionary fortress of the lower-Danubian limes by Claudius (ca. AD 45), in the proximity of older Thracian settlements. Between AD 69 and the mid fifth c. AD legio I Italica was stationed there. After ca. AD 270 (under Aurelian?) and until the 610s the fortress developed into a Late Roman and early Byzantine city. Since 1960 Novae has been regularly explored by Bulgarian and Polish archaeologists from the National Archaeological Institute at BAS-Sofia, the Museum of History – Veliko Tarnovo, the University of Warsaw, and the Adam-Mickiewicz University in Poznan. The fortifications, the headquarters building (the Principia) of Legio I Italica, the Thermae legionis, the Episcopal complex, the Valetudinarium, the Scamnun tribunorum and a large villa extra muros west of Novae have been excavated and thoroughly studied.1

The statues and the dedications from Novae should be inevitably compared to those found at other sites in Lower Moesia, especially from Nicopolis ad Istrum. Situated some 40 km southwest of Novae, Nicopolis was founded and named by Trajan in commemoration of his victory in the Dacian wars. The city was accorded the constitution of a Greek city, just like Marcianopolis, the other Trajanic foundation in Moesia inferior. The city sheltered a large number of settlers from the Roman east and blossomed between the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Gordian III. The city belonged to the Greek-influenced province of Thrace, until ca. AD 193/94, and then to lower Moesia, a province housing Roman legions and military traditions.5 Following the Greek practice strictly, the emperor’s and the related Capitoline triad’s cults in Nicopolis were organised and supervised by the civic authorities, the boule and the demos.6 The economic and cultural impact of Nicopolis on the neighbouring city of Novae has been underlined several times,7 including the relationship in religion.8 A comparative approach to the evidence from both cites opens the route to examine the veneration of the emperors within a relatively limited territory where Roman military and Greek civic traditions met. Of greatest interest, of course, is the particular historical background of their coexistence.

II. Presentation and discussion. The material considered in this paper was excavated in Novae and can be classified in three groups: a) fragments of portrait statues and reliefs of emperors and high officials in limestone, marble and bronze; b) dedications to emperors, some of them incised on statue bases or altars of stone; and, c) bronze coins. Most of the statues were erected on the principia in a “Gallerie der vergoettlichten Kaiser”. Five of them were later demolished in damnatio memoriae and found in the eastern aerarium. The marble head of Caracalla was discovered in the aedes of the fortress.2 Imperial dedications by veterans of legio I Italica were identified as well.3 The portrait statues found in Novae certainly refer to the Emperor Cult as the most essential element in the ideology of the Roman army.4 The coins from Novae should be examined in addition to the statues and the dedications. These unusual coins of higher value than the regular issues were struck by the cities in the Roman Empire on special occasions, such as the emperor’s visit, and presented to militaries and civilians of high rank who have contributed somehow to the imperial achievements. Struck in Byzia, Cyzicus, Smyrna and Pergamon the medals contribute to better understand the Emperor Cult in

1. HADRIAN (AD 117-138) 1.1. Novae: 1.1.1 (Fig. 1). Bronze coin from Smyrna, Ionia, struck posthumously for Antinoos, AD 130-138: Obv.: ANTINOOC HPΩC Head of Antinoos, bare, l. Rev.: ПОΛ МΩN АN ΘHK CMYPNAIOC Ram stg. r., r. caduceus.9 Unpublished.

1

6

2

7

Dyczek 2008. Sarnowski 1982; 2005; Press, Sarnowski 1990, 231-35. 3 Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 65-66, 73-74, Nos 35, 43. 4 Goceva 1994, 101-02; Alexandrov 2012, 274-75. 5 Mihailov 1963; Vulpe 1963.

Goceva 2002, 83. Biernacki 2008, 25; Димитров 2011, 150. 8 Tsarov 1995. 9 As BMC No 340; SNG Cop. No 1367.

107

Kamen D. Dimitrov standing r., with staff with coiled snake. Found in the valetudinarium, in the south portico.18 Exact parallel: SNG XII/ 1 No 1333. The title AY (TOKPATOP) on the obverse indicates a striking for Commodus as August not preceding AD 180.

1.1.2. Dedication to Hadrian by veterans of legio I Italica, incised on a stone altar. Found on the principia.10 1.1.3. Dedication to Hadrian. Found in the northeast corner of the fortress.11

2.1.5. Dedication to Marcus Aurelius, on a base for statue erected by legio I Italica, AD 164-165.

1.2. Nicopolis ad Istrum and lower Moesia: 1.2.1. Dedication to Hadrian, AD 136. Found in Nicopolis ad Istrum.12

2.1.6. Dedication to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, AD 176-180.19

1.2.2. Marble head of Hadrian, eastern workshop with Greek traditions, AD 130-140. Found in Almus (Lom).13

2.2. Nicopolis ad Istrum and lower Moesia: 2.2.1. Dedication to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Faustina II.20

The name of Hadrian is associated with large building works in Lower Moesia. He visited the province in AD 124-125. The marble head comes from its west border, dedicated ca. AD 136 near Almus.14 After the death of Antinoos in AD 130, the emperor’s favourite was proclaimed by Hadrian as heros in a Greek way. The deceased youth was widely celebrated by striking coins and erecting statues, altars and whole cities.15 The cities in the Roman provinces embraced the cult of the youth, no doubt connecting it to the cult of Hadrian himself. The coin from Novae is a good example of how the heroization of Antinoos was propagated among the Roman militaries.

2.2.2. Dedication to Marcus Aurelius and Faustina II.21 2.2.3-5. Dedications to Lucius Verus.22 2.2.6. Dedication to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.23 2.2.7. Dedication to Commodus.24 2.2.8. Dedication to Crispina entitled dea, AD 180.25

2. THE ANTONINI (AD 138-192)

2.2.9. Dedication to the Capitoline triad, dated as 2.2.6.26

2.1. Novae:

All found in Nicopolis ad Istrum.27

2.1.1 Fragmented bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180).

2.2.10. Marble head of Faustina II, Anatolian style, AD 149. Found in Odessos.28

2.1.2 Fragmented bronze statue of Lucius Verus (AD 161169).

2.2.11. Marble head of Faustina II, AD 161. Found in Durostorum.29

Both found on the principia, in the eastern aerarium.16

The coin from Cyzicus portrays Kore Soteira as Faustina II. The empress obviously was considered to be the goddess-saviour of the city. This local cult can be compared to the one of mater kastrorum, of eastern origin. This represents the first time in the history of Roman religion that such an association was made, accorded to Faustina II and, later to Julia Domna.30 Another case of an Antonine empress, identified with a goddess (dea Crispina on 2.2.8) comes from Nicopolis. The eastern influence on the city, then belonging to the Greek orientated province of Thrace, was certainly reinforced by Anatolian settlers.

2.1.3 (Fig. 2). Bronze coin from Cyzicus, Mysia for Faustina II, AD 156-175: Obv.: KOPH CΩTEIPA KYZIKHNΩN Bust of Kore with the portrait features of Faustina draped, laureate, with necklace, r. Rev.: NEOKO/ KYZIKHNΩN Ship r., two standards on the prow, Triton on the stern.17 Unpublished. 2.1.4 (Fig. 3). Bronze coin from Pergamon, Mysia for Commodus, AD 180-192: Obv.: AY KAI M AY PH KOMOΔOC Bust of Commodus draped, cuirassed, r. Rev.: ПI CTPA ΔIO ΔΩPOY / ПEPГАМНNΩ N/ NEΩKO Hygeia standing r., with snake, facing Asklepios 10

20

11

21

Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 65-66, No 35. Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 64-65, No 34. 12 IG Bulg. II No 601; Goceva 2002, 81. 13 Milceva 2005, 43-45, No 20, Taf. 21; Milceva 2012, 161, fig. 9-10. 14 Milceva 2005, 44. 15 Kankelfitz 1974, 119. 16 Press and Sarnowski 1990, 235. 17 Cf BMC Nos 175-77. 18 Ciolek, Dyczek 2011, 68 No 71: AD 177-192, SNG Cop. 492-93; BMC 301. 19 Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 67-70, Nos 37-38.

IG Bulg. II No 606. IG Bulg. II No 605. 22 IG Bulg. II Nos 607, 608, 610. 23 IG Bulg. II No 609. 24 IG Bulg. II No 615. 25 IG Bulg. II No 613. 26 IG Bulg. II No 664. 27 Goceva 2002, 81-82. 28 Милчева 2008, 18, No 3. 29 Милчева 2008, 18, No 4; Milcheva 2012, 162 fig. 13. 30 See below, referring to la déesse militaire (Mrozevicz 1979, 120 -21).

108

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae 3.1.7. Dedication to Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, on a stone altar, AD 198- 209.41

The joint rule of M. Aurelius and L. Verus featured great efforts to fortify Moesia Inferior and Thrace.31 A peak of building activity is attested at Novae under A. Pius ca AD 140-150.32 The statues erected on the principia probably point to the continuation of construction in the AD 160’s. In AD 170-171 M. Aurelius, now sole ruler, had to face the challenge of the Marcomannic wars and the devastating incursions of the Costoboci. Legio I Italica certainly took part in his campaigns and honoured the victorious emperor.33 As Faustina accompanied her husband while operating in Thrace, the striking and distribution of coins in the places visited is to be expected. The Novae piece probably testifies to troop mobility from Thrace to Moesia, which certainly occurred at this time.

3.1.8. Dedication to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta, Julia Domna, Plautianus and Plautilla, on a stone base for statue, AD 202-205. Found in the scamnum tribunorum.42 3.1.9. Dedication to Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, on a stone base for statue or big altar (Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 72-73, No 42). 3.1.10. Dedication on a limestone base to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta and Julia Domna entitled Matris Augusti et Caesaris et kastrorum, by a primus pilus of legio I Italica, AD 15. 5. 208. Originally erected on the principia, in the courtyard.43

3. THE SEVERI (AD 193-235) 3.1. Novae:

3.1.11. Dedication to Septimius Severus or Caracalla, AD 206-210 or 212-215. Found on the principia, in the eastern aerarium.44

3.1.1 (Fig. 4). Votive stele of local limestone with Latin inscription, mentioning a donation of a consecranus Iovianorum. The relief represents the Capitoline triad: Jupiter with the portrait features of Septimius Severus, Juno and Minerva, AD 205-211. Found in the valetudinarium.34

3.1.12. Dedication on a base of local limestone (from Hotnitza) to Mars Victor of legio I Italica antoninianae, pro salute Elagabal (AD 218-222), by a primus pilus of legio I Italica of Thracian name. Found on the principia, in the courtyard.45

3.1.2 (Fig. 5). Marble head of Caracalla from a statue with armour in half-natural size in Roman “capital” style.35 It has been dated to AD 213-21536 or precisely to AD 214.37 Found in the aedes of the principia.

3.1.13. Dedication on a base of local limestone (from Hotnitza) to Jupiter depulsor, pro salute Severus Alexander (AD 5. 10. 227), by a primus pilus of legio I Italica Severianae.46

3.1.3. Fragmented bronze statue of Caracalla. 3.1.4. Fragmented bronze statue of Geta. 3.1.5. Fragmented bronze statue of Severus Alexander. Found on the principia, in the eastern aerarium.38

3.2. Nicopolis ad Istrum and lower Moesia:

3.1.6 (Fig. 6). Fragmented bronze portrait statue of legatus legionis representing an old man in heroic nudity. If correctly interpreted by J. Kolendo, the “senatorial” inscription on the stone base legatus legionis I Italicae Ale (xandrinae?) would refer to the reign of Severus Alexander, AD 222, 226 or 229.39 However, the style of the statue points to the time of Pupienus (AD 238).40 The dilemma of the dating is still waiting for a definite solution. Found in the villa extra muros west of Novae, probably the residence of the legatus legionis.

3.2.1-3. Dedications to Septimius Severus, AD 202-205 (entitled deotatos) AD 209, referring to a statue for Caracalla and AD 209-211.47

31

42

3.2.4-5. Dedications to Caracalla, AD 198 and 212, entitled deotatos.48 3.2.6-8. Dedications to Geta.49 3.2.9-16. Dedications to Julia Domna.50

Mihailov 1963, 126. Dimitrov 2013. 33 Absil 2000, 230. 34 Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 27-30, No 12. 35 Sarnowski 1982. 36 Press and Sarnowski 1990, 234. 37 Milceva 2005; Milcheva 2012, 165 fig. 31-32. 38 Press, Sarnowski 1990, 235. 39 Bozilova et al. 1992, 80-84, No 47 with ref. 40 Cicikova 1987, 22; Milcheva 2012, 169 fig. 40. 41 Bozilova et al. 1992, 71-72, No 40.

Bozilova et al. 1992, 72, No 41. Bozilova et al. 1992, 54-58, No 28. 44 Bozilova et al. 1992, 70-71, No 39. 45 Bozilova et al. 1992, 41-45, No 18. 46 Bozilova et al. 1992, 30-36, No 13. 47 IG Bulg. 620, 624, 628. 48 IG Bulg. 616, 632. 49 IG Bulg. 617, 622, 627. 50 IG Bulg. 618 (entitled dea), 619, 623, 626, 631, 633, 634 (dedicated by the archierei of the city), 640 (dea).

32

43

109

Kamen D. Dimitrov All found in Nicopolis ad Istrum.51

would well correspond to the statue of the legatus legionis (3.1.6) with a possible date of AD 229. However, if stylistically closer to the time of Pupienus (AD 238), it may have post-dated a later campaign of Severus Alexander in AD 233 when the lower Danube region suffered another Barbaric invasion and legio I Italica was put in action again.62

3.2.17. Limestone statue of Septimius Severus, eastern style, possibly from a local workshop, AD 195-205. Found in Durostorum.52 Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Julia Domna were honoured as deities in Nicopolis ad Istrum. On the coins of Serdica, Domna was assimilated with the city-goddess53 similar to Faustina II at Cyzicus, see above. The portraiture on the relief (3.1.1.) indicates that the consecrani Iovianorum in Novae accepted the association of Severus with Jupiter. The inscription on 3.1.10, again from Novae, honours Julia Domna as mother (=goddess) of the fortresses and the cities. Both in the legionary fortress of Novae and in the cities of Nicopolis and Serdica, the Severi were accorded a divine status, expressed by means of portraiture and titles and the adoption of earlier traditions of the Antonini. They were promoted by the military or by the civic authorities, respectively. The eastern origin of the dynasty no doubt influenced the divine aspect of veneration,54 rooted far back in Hellenistic times. Once imposed in the Greek-oriented cities of Thrace, this ideology evidently radiated to the military centres in lower Moesia. On the other hand, the real policy of the Severans provided another essential source for its spread. The early Severans held a remarkable place in the history of Moesia Inferior and Thrace. In AD 193-7 legio I Italica fought for Septimius Severus against Niger in Byzantion and against Cl. Albinus in Gallia.55 In AD 214 it operated in Northern Dobrudja against the Carps, when Caracalla had to give up his march to the east and to remain in Balkan territory to meet the barbarian threat. The legion won strong appreciation from the Severan dynasty, implied in the title Severiana.56 A new building program was launched in the early third century under Severus and Caracalla who visited Novae and Nicopolis ad Istrum several times.57 Both the thermae legionis and the valetudinarium in Novae were rebuilt.58 The measures of Severus to stimulate the emporii in AD 202, the integration of Marcianopolis, and, particularly, the proximity of the prospering Nicopolis ad Istrum no doubt ensured the success of the Severan building program.59 The precise dating of the marble statue of Caracalla in AD 213- 215 perfectly matches the time of the campaign in Dobrudja and may have been influenced by some victory of legio I Italica over the Carps.60

4. MAXIMINUS THRAX (AD 235-238) 4.1 (Fig. 7). Fragmented marble head of a portrait statue of Maximinus Thrax in cuirass and paludament, probably of eastern origin. A marble plaque bearing the name of legio I Italica Maximiniana was fixed to the statue base, but was later destroyed as a sign of damnation memoriae. Found in Novae, the valetudinarium.63 Born in Thrace, Maximinus certainly was popular in the neighbouring province of Moesia Inferior. A detachment of legio I Italica operated in AD 238 at Viminacium.64 The portrait statue from the military hospital, abandoned in AD 23865 may refer to some victory of that campaign. The credit was usually ascribed to the emperor as chief commander of the army. The destruction of the statue may have occurred soon after Gordian III was proclaimed emperor. 5. GORDIAN III (AD 238-244) 5.1. Novae: 5.1.1 (Fig. 8). Fragmented bronze portrait statue of legatus legionis I Italicae Gordianae as a cuirassed young man. The senatorial inscription on the stone base offers a detailed cursus honorum of the person. Dated to the reign of Gordian III, AD 238-244. Found in the villa extra muros west of Novae.66 5.2. Nicopolis ad Istrum and lower Moesia: 5.2.1. Bronze statue of Gordian III, probably a local production. Dated to AD 238-239 or 240. Found in the vicinity of Nicopolis ad Istrum, probably belonging to one of the two statues dressed on the Nicopolis agora.67 5. 2. 2-4. Dedications to Gordian III, AD 238-244.68 Found in Nicopolis ad Istrum.

The dedication to Jupiter depulsor (=depulsor of enemies), 3.1.13, representing a unique case for Lower Moesia, suggests that by AD 227 the situation in that area was très tendue because of some Barbarian danger.61 The text 51

61

52

62

Ботева 1997, 169-208; Goceva 2002, 82-83; Иванов 2002, 85. Милчева 2008, 18-19, No 5; Milcheva 2012, 164-165 fig. 28-29, 55. 53 Юрукова 1978. 54 Cf. Goceva 2002, 82. 55 Mihailov 1963, 114 -115; Absil 2000, 230. 56 Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 35; Absil 2000, 230. 57 Ботева 1997, 334. 58 Dimitrov 2013 with ref.; Dyczek 2012, 23. 59 Mihailov 1963, 120–26. 60 Cf. Absil 2000, 230.

Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 32. Gerov 1980, 376 -77. Dyczek 2011, 25 with ref.; Милчева 2008, 19, No 7; Milcheva 2012, 169 fig. 41 with ref. 64 Absil 2000, 230. 65 Dyczek 2011, 25. 66 Cicikova, Bozilova 1990; Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 7679, No 46. 67 Vassilev 2002; Milcheva 2005, 60-63 No 30 Taf. 31. 68 IG Bulg. 641, 642, 644; Goceva 2002, 83. 63

110

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae Demeter, Isis, and Harpokrates, the son of Isis and Osiris. This iconographic scheme represents Philippus as sharing the position of the four deities as unconditional master of the world, nature, fecundity and the underworld.

5.2.5. Fragmented bronze statue of Gordian III, probably a local production. Dated to AD 238-241. Found in the emporium of Sostra.69 5.2.6. Fragmented statue of Gordian III with radiate head as Sol invictus. Found in Durostorum.70

In AD 245 Philippus defeated the Carps in a war which devastated the lands near Istrus.78 After the victory, the emperor set out to Byzantion via Perinthos.79 This is an indication that the final clash with the Carps took place probably in South Thrace80 and that the Carps penetrated far south of the Danubian border81 or at least in Moesia Inferior.82

Both the statue of the legatus legionis I Italicae gordianae from Novae (5.1.1.) and the veneration of the same emperor as Sol invictus in Durostorum (5.2.6.), the supreme deity of the Roman legions, symbolizing the idea of their invincibility, inevitably point to the military activities in Lower Moesia. Under the rule of Maximus (Pupienus) and Balbinus the Carps waged a war with the Moesians. The city of Histria was destroyed in AD 238.71 Other scholars have noted that Durostorum suffered badly by invasions of Sarmatians, Carps, and Goths in AD 23839 and 242.72 The "Moesians" were actually the "population and the legions" in Moesia Inferior. In AD 239-240 the Carps, who had been invading Moesia for two or three years, were driven back by the provincial governor M. T. Menophilus.73 The date of the statue from Durostorum roughly fits to these years. From 242 the barbarians began to cross the Istrus at its narrowest section, near the fortress of Novae.74 In the summer of the same year,75 Gordian III passed through Moesia in a campaign against the Persians. His army was enormous and he brought much gold. All the enemies residing in Thrace were annihilated and driven away.76 Statues and dedications of the emperor in Nicopolis and of the legatus of his legionis I Italicae (named Gordianae) in Novae, a unit which no doubt had a major role in clearing the area, may well commemorate these glorious deeds of the Roman army with the emperor ahead.

Troop movements from the south to the north either in AD 245-24783 or during the later campaigns against the Goths in AD 248-24984 are, thus, attested by the coins under consideration. 7. CARINUS (AD 283) 7.1 (Fig. 10). Marble head of Carinus. Found in Novae, the glass atelier in the civil structure which succeeded the valetudinarium in Sector IV.85 The head testifies that a cult and partisans of Carus’ dynasty no doubt existed at Novae. Carus himself was proclaimed emperor by the lower Danube legions. The break of the coin supply both to the thermae legionis in Sector X-P and to the villa extra muros by Novae ca. AD 283 may be due to the civil war between Carinus and Diocles (Diocletian) who was then seeking the throne.86 8. THEODOSIUS II (AD 402-450) 8.1-3 (Figs. 11-12). Three statues of Theodosius II, now missing, are attested by the dedications on three stone bases by primipilarii of legio I Italica (AD 430-432). Found in Novae, on the principia.87

6. PHILIP I THE ARAB (AD 244-249) 6.1.1 (Fig. 9). Two bronze coins from Byzia: Obv. AVT K M IOVΛ ФIΛIППOC AVГ Bust of Philippus r., draped, in cuirass decorated with eagle with spread wings, aegis over the left shoulder. Rev. BIZVHNΩN Hades-Sarapis enthroned, facing, holding sceptre over Cerberus. Left: Demeter standing with long flaming torch by small Kynoskephalos, r.: Isis standing, with sistrum and cornucopia, between her and Hades-small Harpokrates with cornucopia. 42 mm 38. 50g. Both found in Novae.77

In AD 421-422 “Hunni Thraciam vastaverunt”.88 Led by king Rua in AD 421/2, the Huns broke into Illyricum and Thrace through the pass of Succi (modern Ihtiman) and even threatened Constantinople.89 As attested by several coin hoards and destroyed sites, Hun detachments most probably caused trouble in the area between Sucidava, Dimum, Novae, and Iatrus. They diverted from the main direction of the incursion and pillaged the lower Danube.90 After AD 422, the Huns were placated by means of a treaty and an annual tax in gold. A period of rest for Moesia Secunda was secured. This act was certainly connected

On the coins, the emperor is associated with the most important Greek and Eastern divinities: Hades-Sarapis, 69

80

Василев 2003, 183-184; Милчева 2008, 20. Милчева 2008, 20, No 10; Milcheva 2012, 167. 71 Hist. Aug. Max. et Balb., 16, 3; ЛИБИ, 58 note 6; Dexipp. 1; ГИБИ, 3. 72 Иванов 1999, 110. 73 Геров 1952, 28. 74 Генчева 2003, 63. 75 RIC 4/3, 11. 76 Hist. Aug. Gord. 26, 3; ЛИБИ, 57; Геров 1952, 28. 77 Jurukova 1981, 72 No 136/1. 78 Zosim. I. 20; Zon. XII. 19; Gerov 1963, 132. 79 Ioan. Ant. 59; Jurukova 1981, 13.

according to Jurukova in 247. Cambr. Anc. Hist. 1939, 90; Mitrea 1955, 1- 12. 82 Геров 1952, 28; Dimitrov 2005, 80 -81; contra Gerov 1963, 132; 1980, 380. 83 Jurukova 1981, 19, 42. 84 Cf. Dimitrov 2005, 82. 85 Dyczek 2001, 99; 2011, 29. 86 Димитров 2008a; Dimitrov 2013. 87 Sarnowski 2005. 88 Marc.Com.Chron. 422. 3= ЛИБИ 1, 309; Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 76 89 Croke 1977, 365-67. 90 Димитров 2008b; 2009, 348-49.

70

81

111

Kamen D. Dimitrov Генчева, Е., “Готското присъствие в Нове (достижения и проблеми).” in Готите и старогерманското културно- историческо присъствие по българските земи, Милев, P. (ed.). Балканмедия: София (2003): 6368.

with the restoration of the infrastructure in the diocese of Thrace, indicated by the imperial propaganda as credit of Theodosius. If so, the primipilarii from Novae, who supplied the garrison from the areas of the Aegean and the Propontis,91 had a good reason to express their warm feelings to the emperor for making revived the traffic from the south.

Геров, Б., “Романизмът между Дунава и Балкана от Хадриана до Константин Велики. ІІ. 1.” ГСУ ФИФ ХLVІІ, 1950/1- 1951/2 (1952): 17-122.

ABBREVIATIONS ГИБИ = Гръцки извори за българската история 1 (=Извори за българската история 1). София (1954).

Димитров, K., “Към въпроса за развитието на комплекса extra muros (сектор VІІІ A) на Нове в Долна (Втора) Мизия.” In Phosphorion. Studia in honorem Mariae Cicikova. София (2008a): 429-51.

ЛИБИ = Латински извори за българската история т. І. София (1958).

Димитров, K., "Късноримско монетно съкровище от епископската резиденция в Нове." In Югоизточна Европа през античността VІ в. пр. Хр.-началото на VІІ в. сл. Хр. Studia in honorem Aleksandrae DimitrovaMilcheva. София (2008b): 512-23.

BMC= Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, vol. 14 (Mysia), vol. 15 (Ionia). London (1892). Cambridge Ancient History XII (1939).

Димитров, K., “Монетна циркулация в Нове (Мизия ІІ) през 378-612 г.: статистика и историческа интирпретация.” In Сборник в памет на професор Велизар Велков. В. Търново (2009): 346-65.

IG Bulg.= Mihailov, G. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. II. Serdicae, (1958). RIC = The Roman Imperial Coinage, vols 4/ 1- 3. London (1949).

Димитров, K., “Антични и ранновизантийски монети от сектор ХІ (principia) в Нове (Долна и Втора) Мизия.” In Varia Thracica. Studia in honorem Mariae Cicikova. София (2011): 140-216.

SNG Cop. = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. (Bosporus-Bithynia); (Ionia). Copenhagen (1944).

Иванов, И. Отбранителната система на Долния Дунав от Август до Маврикий. Coфия (1999).

SNG XII/1 = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum.

Mилчева, Р. Римска портретна пластика в провинция Долна Мизия (I- началото на IVв.). Автореферат на дисертация: София (2008).

ANCIENT SOURCES Dexippus. EX XPONIKH IΣTOPIA

Юрукова, Й., "Юлия Домна-градска богиня на Сердика." София, 11 (1978): 6-8

Historia Augusti (Max., Balb., Gord.). Ioannis Antiocheni. Excerpta de isidiis.

Absil, М., "Legio I Italica." In Les légions de Rome sous l’Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17-19 septembre 1998) (=Collection du Centre Romaines et Gallo-Romaine Nouvelles série No 20). Lyon (2000): 22738.

Marcellinus Comitеs. Chronicon = ЛИБИ, 308-318. Zonaras Zosimus. Hist. nova.

Alexandrov, O., “Roman Army Religion in the Province of Lower Moesia.” In The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st-6th C. AD), L. Vagalinski, N. Sharankov, S. Torbatov (eds.). Sofia (2012): 271-88.

REFERENCES Ботева, Д. Долна Мизия и Тракия в римската имперска система (193-217/8 г. сл. Хр.). Университетско издателство “Св. Кл. Охридски, София (1997).

Biernacki, A. B., “Acknowledgements; Chapter I. The Large Legionary Bath in Novae in the Light of Archeological Research.” in The Coin Hoard from the Thermae Legionis and the Monetary Circulation in Novae 330-348 AD, Biernacki, A.B. and K.D. Dimitrov (eds.)

Василев, B., “Работилници за императорски и монументални бронзови статуи в Тракия и Мизия.” Studia archaeologica Suppl. 1 (=ГСУ Специалност „ Археология” 1 1994) (2003): 181-89.

91

Sarnowski 2004, 67; 2005, 228-29.

112

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae (=A. B. Biernacki (ed.) Novae. Studies and Materials, III. Poznan-Sevastopol (2008): 9-13, 17-31.

Goceva, Zl., “Il culto imperial a Novae.” In Limes, G. Susini (ed.) (=Studia di storia 5). Bologna (1994): 101-05.

Bozilova, V., J. Kolendo, L. Mrozewich. Inscriptions latines de Novae. (= Universytet im. Adama Mickievicza w Poznaniu. Seria Archeologia Nr 37) (1992).

Goceva, Zl., “Kaiserkult in Nicopolis ad Istrum.” In The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference Veliko Turnovo 26- 30 July 2000. Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House: Sofia (2002): 81-84.

Cicikova, M., “Su un edificio con peristilio extra muros di Novae.” Ratiarensia, 3-4 (1987): 185-92. Cicikova, M., V. Bozilova, “Carrière senatoriale d’un magistrat de Novae (milieu du III e s.).” In Studia in honorem Borisi Gerov. София (1990a): 44-50.

Ivanov, R., “Ehreninschriften aus Nicopolis ad Istrum (Regirungszeit der Severen).” The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference Veliko Turnovo 26- 30 July 2000. Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House: Sofia (2002): 85.

Cicikova, M., V. Bozilova, “Nouvelle inscription d`un sénateur anonyme découverte à Novae (Mésiе Inférieure).” Mélanges de l`Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité, 102.2 (1990b): 611-19.

Jurukova, J. Die Muenzpraegung von Byzie. Akademie Verlag Berlin (1981). Kankelfitz, R. Katalog roemischer Muenzen, Band I. Muenchen (1974).

Ciolek, R. and P. Dyczek, “Catalogue.” In Novae. Legionary Fortress and Late Antique Town 2. Coins from Sector IV, Dyczek, P. (ed). Warsaw (2011): 49-233.

Klose, D. Die Muenzpraegung von Smyrna in der roemischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin (1987).

Croke, B., “Evidence for the Hun Invasion of Thrace in A. D. 422.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 18.4 (1977): 347-67.

Maenchen-Helfen, O. The World of the Huns. Berkeley/ Los Angeles/ London (1973).

Dimitrov, K., “Novae and the Barbaric Incursions in 238251.” Orpheus. Journal of Indo-European and Thracian Studies 15 (2005): 79-98.

Mihailov, G., “Septimius Severus in Moesia Inferior and Thrace.” Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana. Studia Historica et Philologica. Serdicae (1963): 113-26.

Dimitrov, K., “The thermae legionis in Novae (Lower Moesia and Moesia Secunda): numismatic evidence and historical probabilities.” Studia Classica Serdicensia vol. II. (2013).

Milcheva, R. Roemische Portraits im Archaeologischen Nationalmuseum Sofia (= St. Angelova, D. Kreikenbom, D. Roessler (eds). Antike Skulptur in Bulgarien I). Beier & Beran: Langenweissbach (2005).

Dyczek, P., “Novae-Western sector (section IV), 19971999.” Archeologia LI, 2000, Warsawa (2001): 89-103.

Milcheva, R., “Roman Portrait Sculpture from the Lower Danube Moesian Limes.” In The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st-6th C. AD), L. Vagalinski, N. Sharankov, S. Torbatov (eds.). Sofia (2012): 159-94.

Dyczek, P., “Archaeological Excavations at Novae. A History of Research with Special Considerations of Sector IV (Legionary Baths, valetudinarium, Late Architecture).” In Novae. Legionary Fortress and Late Antique Town. Vol. 1, T. Derda, P. Dyczek, J. Kolendo (eds). Warsaw (2008): 31-70.

Mitrea, B. L’ incursion des Carps en Dacie sous le régne de Philippe l’Arabe à la lumière des decouvertes de trésors de monnaies. Bucarest (1955). Mrozevicz, L., “Une inscription latine en l’honneur de Septime Sévère et de sa famille, nouvellement découverte à Novae.” Archeologia 38, 1977. Warsawa (1979): 117 24.

Dyczek, P., “Settlements and architectural changes in sector IV.” In Novae. Legionary Fortress and Late Antique Town, Vol. 2. Coins from Sector IV, P. Dyczek (ed). Warsaw (2011): 1- 44.

Press, L., Sarnowski, T., “Novae. Roemisches Legionslager und fruehbyzantinische Stadt an den unteren Donau.” Antike Welt 4 (1990): 225-43.

Gerov, B., “Die gotische Invasion in Moesien und Thrakien unter Decius.” Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana. Studia Historica et Philologica. Serdicae (1963): 127-46.

Sarnowski, T., “Les effigies impériales dans les forteresses militaires romaines. A propos d' une découverte récente de Novae.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin, Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 31 (1982): 273-75.

Gerov, B., “Einfaelle der Nordvoelker in den Ostbalkan Raum im Lichte Muenzschatzfunde (Das 2. und 3. Jh).” Beitraege zur Geschichte der romischen Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien. Bd. I-II, Hakkert: Amsterdam (1980).

113

Kamen D. Dimitrov Sarnowski, T., “Novae-Western Sector (Principia), 20002002.” Archeologia 54, 2003. Warsawa (2004): 65-75. Sarnowski, T., “Drei spaetkaiserzeitliche Statuenbasen aus Novae in Niedermoesien.” Roemische Staedte und Festungen an der Donau. Akten der regionalen Konferenz, Beograd (16-19 October 2003). (Beograd (2005): 223-30. Tsarov, Iv., “Sacral Inscription from Nicopolis ad Istrum by Priests from Novae.” Novaensia 8 (1995): 7-13. Vassilev, V., “Datierung und Herstellungsort des Bronzekopfes Gordian III aus Nicopolis ad Istrum.” The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference Veliko Turnovo 26- 30 July 2000. Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House: Sofia (2002): 121-22. .

114

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae FIGURES

Figure 1. Coin of Antinoos, from Novae (1.1.1)

Figure 2. Coin of Faustina II, from Novae (2.1.3)

Figure 3. Coin of Commodus, from Novae (2.1.4)

115

Kamen D. Dimitrov

Figure 4. Limestone stele with Septimius Severus within Capitoline Triad, from Novae (3.1.1) (after Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 27-30, No 1. All reasonable efforts were made to contact the copyright holder.)

Figure 5. Marble head of Caracalla, from Novae (3.1.2) (after Milcheva 2012, 165 fig. 31-32 used with permission of R. Milcheva)

116

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae

Figure 6. Fragmented bronze portrait statue from Severan period, from Novae (3.1.6) (after Milcheva 2012, 169 fig. 40 used with permission of R. Milcheva)

Figure 7. Statue fragment of Maximinus Thrax, from Novae (4.1) (after Milcheva 2012, 169 fig. 41 used with permission of R. Milcheva)

117

Kamen D. Dimitrov

Figure 8. Statue fragment of Gordian III, from Novae (5.1.1) (after Bozilova, Kolendo, Mrozewicz 1992, 76-79, No 46. All reasonable efforts were made to contact the copyright holder.)

Figure 9. Bronze coin of Philp the Arab, from Novae (6.1.1) (after Jurukova 1981, 72 No 136/1. All reasonable efforts were made to contact the copyright holder.)

118

Imperial and Official Portraiture in Novae

Figure 10. Marble head of Carinus, from Novae (7.1) (after Dyczek 2001, 99 used with permission of P. Dyczek)

119

Kamen D. Dimitrov

Figure 11. Dedications to Theodosius II on statue bases, from Novae (8.1-3) (after Sarnowski 2005, 228-29 used with permission of T. Sarnowski)

Figure 12. Dedications to Theodosius II on statue bases, from Novae (8.1-3) (after Sarnowski 2005, 228-29 used with permission of T. Sarnowski)

120