tropaeum traiani, from civitas to municipium, a hypothesis

Moesica et christiana studies in honour of Professor alexandru Barnea

Edited by Adriana Panaite, Romeo Cîrjan and Carol Căpiţă

muzeul brăilei “carol i”brăila

editura istros2016

is book has been published by Muzeul Brăilei “Carol I” - Editura IstrosPiaţa Traian nr. 3RO-810153 BrăilaVisit our web site at http://www.muzeulbrailei.ro/index.php?pn=5

Copyright © 2016 by Muzeul Brăilei “Carol I” - Editura Istros and authors. In addition, all artworks and illustrations displayed in this volume are protected by copyright and may not be copied or otherwise reproduced without written permission.Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners of copyright. Errors or omissions will be the responsability of authors.All rights reserved

Graphics and layout: Romeo Cîrjan

Printed and bound at SC Paper Print Invest SA, Şos. Baldovineşti nr. 20, Brăila, RO-6204824, Tel/Fax: +40 0239 610 210

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Omagiu. Barnea, Alexandru Moesica et Christiana : studies in honour of professor Alexandru Barnea / ed.: Adriana Panaite,Romeo Cîrjan, Carol Căpiţă. - Brăila : Editura Istros a Muzeului Brăilei “Carol I”, 2016

ISBN 978-606-654-181-7

I. Panaite, Adriana (ed.)II. Cîrjan, Romeo (ed.)III. Căpiţă, Carol (ed.)

082.2

Professor Alexandru Barnea

Foreword13

Publications list of Prof. Alexandru Barnea15

Tabula gratulatoria23

General abbreviations25

Ad multos annos!alexandru suceveanu †

27

I. VARIA EPIGRAPHICA ET ARCHAEOLOGIcA

1. MOESICA

Divinités attestées dans l’épigraphie du territoire tomitain (Ier-IIIe siècles après -J. C.)Maria Bărbulescu · Livia Buzoianu

33

Three epigraphic monuments from DurostorumPeti Donevski · radu ardevan

47

On the funerary altar of Valerius Firmus, veteran of legio V Macedonica, in Troesmis (ISM V, 196)cristina-Georgeta alexandrescu

57

Diplômes militaires - carrières équestres : le cas de Flavius FlavianusLucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba · iulia Dumitrache

67

Considerations concerning child’s place in the Roman society between the Danube and the Black SeaDan aparaschivei

75

About the Roman Frontier on the Lower Danube under Trajanovidiu Ţentea

85

Image of the castrum of the I Italica on the Column of Trajan: fiction or archaeological reality?Piotr Dyczek

95

The Knidian ware from BulgariaGergana Kabakchieva

111

Graves in Moesia Inferior with strigils as grave-goodsLiana oţa

125

contents

The Terrritory of Callatisnicolae alexandru

139

Obiecte din fier descoperite la Edificiul cu mozaic din Tomis(Iron objects discovered at the mosaic floored building from Tomis)

irina nastasi153

Tropaeum Traiani from civitias the municipium, a hypothesisadriana Panaite

163

Despre cercetările arheologice din cartierul romano-bizantin (sector sud-C1) de la Tropaeum Traiani(About the archaeological research from the Roman-Byzantine district (sector South-C1)

from Tropaeum Traiani)Gabriel talmaţchi · constantin Şova

173

An Early Byzantine Building Next to the Main Gate at Capidavaioan c. opriş · alexandru raţiu

193

Roman amphorae discovered at NiculiţelDorel Paraschiv

219

The deposition of statues from Tomis: Relic of a religious war or sacred abandonment?silviu anghel

233

Apollodoro di Damasco ideatore del piano architettonico del monumento di Tropaeum Traiani?Ipotesi interpretative

anca cezarina Fulger247

Revisiting the Late Antique countrysidealina Muşat streinu

253

The roof tiles found at Açik Suhat - Caraburun (Baia, Tulcea County, Romania). Preliminary results alexandra Dolea

259

Munera in Moesia InferiorMarius-cristian streinu

265

Despre valurile transdobrogene(About the Transdobroudjan valla)

Gheorghe Papuc271

Sur les traces de Pamfil Polonic à Mangaliarobert constantin

277

The municipal law of Troesmis: preliminary remarksromeo cîrjan

289

Les commencements de la flotte mesiqueoctavian Bounegru

301

Further considerations on the votive reliefs of the Thracian HorsemanDiliana Boteva

309

Regăsirea antichităţii pe frontul din Cadrialter:cu Vasile Pârvan pe şantierul arheologic de la Disi-Puda

iulian stelian Boţoghină321

2. DACICA

Immortality, pagan and christianZoe Petre

331

Un Dace dans une inscription de Narbonnaisec. c. Petolescu

339

Manus Dei in the Dacian milieu?silviu sanie

341

Römische Lampen als Votivgaben in Dakien. Mit besonderem Hinblick auf TibiscumDoina Benea

355

A ceramic mould from RomulaBondoc-Popilian

367

Supply and consumption of terra sigillata in Roman Dacia during the Severan dynastyViorica rusu-Bolindeț

379

3. CHRISTIANA

À propos de martyrium de St. Loup de Novae (Svichtov)Georgi atanasov

413

Basilica no. 1 from NovaeM. Čičikova

421

The early christian mosaics in the episcopal basilica of Odessos (late 4th-early 7th c. AD)alexander Minchev

431

Piese creştine descoperite în Dobrogeacristina talmaţchi · Gabriel custurea

445

Vase de tip ploscă descoperite recent în Dobrogea (sec. VI p. Chr.)Florin topoleanu

455

Decretul Ekthesis al împăratului Heraclius (638):contextul emiterii, traducere, comentariu şi receptare

remus Feraru463

4. VARIA

Aspects de la plastique de la culture Gumelniţa:pièces de mobilier et d’autres éléments de ritual

Mirela Vintilă · Marian neagu481

Marginalien zu griechisch beschrifteten Schleudergeschossen (III)alexandru avram

489

The Peutinger map, the Antonine Itinerary and the Roman roadfrom Singidunum to Viminacium

Florin Gheorghe Fodorean495

Ungewöhnliche Grabungsbefundeim Umfeld des spätrömischen Kaiserpalastes Romuliana-Gamzigrad (Ostserbien)

Gerda von Bülow505

Alexander the Great in the Persian legends: from Alexander of Macedon to Sikandar.The circulation of mythical topoi between the Greek Alexander romance and Firdousi’s Shah-Nameh

Dan tudor ionescu523

II. STUDIA HISTORICA

Despre vultur ca prevestitor și însoțitor al deminității de împărat în Imperiul roman și cel bizantin tudor teoteoi

537

Considerations regarding the Venetian chronicleascribed to Marco and its copy from the 16th century

Șerban Marin 545

Tiran şi tiranie la cumpăna secolelor XVI şi XVIITyrant and tyranny at the turn of the centuries XVI and XVII

cristian antim Bobicescu 559

Statul medieval balcanic: model pentru statul modern î n literatura politicăa secolului al XIX-lea. Cazul bulgar

elena siupiur571

Autour des palais de la Banque Nationale de la Roumanie:l’histoire d’une partie de Bucarest

sabina Mariţiu581

Stat şi armată în sud-estul european: România şi Bulgaria la 1914Daniel cain

601

Unirea Transilvaniei şi ecourile sale în presa din Româniacristina Gudin

613

File din istoria românilor din Albania în anii 1925-1926constantin iordan

623

A chronology of Romania's relations with Western countries 1971–1980constantin Moraru

633

III. NUMISMATICS

Discovered treasures, lost treasures, regained treasures...Virgil Mihailescu Bîrliba

643

The Gold Coins with the Effigy of King Ferdinand IDan ilie

649

Eine unbekannte Bergwerksmarkeerwin schaeffer

655

IV. MISCELLANEA

To cause “to make divine” through smoke: ancient Egyptian incense and perfume.An inter- and transdisciplinary re-evaluation

of aromatic biotic materials used by the ancient Egyptiansrenata tatomir

665

Miscellanea pentru o nouă ediţie a memorialelor lui Vasile PârvanLiviu Franga

679

Three Monuments of Roman Art Illustrated on Romanian Postage Stampscristian andrei scăiceanu

693

Social perceptions on history and archaeology in Romanian society - an exploratory study alexandra Zbuchea · Monica Bira

713

List of contributors737

TROPAEUM TRAIANI, FROM CIVITAS TO MUNICIPIUM,

A HYPOTHESIS

Adriana PANAITE

On the highest plateau from the Southern Dobrudja, near Adamclisi there is a unique complexformed of three monuments a funerary altar, a tumulus and a triumphal monument. In the immediatevicinity there are the ruins of Tropaeum Traiani, a city developed and directly related to these monuments.

First time researched and published by Grigore Tocilescu, together with Georg Niemann andOtto Bendorf1, these monuments drew attention of many researchers who have issued differentopinions about the time of their building.

Among the three of them, only the dating of the triumphal monument does not raise anyquestions. According to the dedicatory inscription it was inaugurated in 109 AD2.

Information gathered from the fragmentary preserved inscription of the military altar3 provide us nodata about the emperor, the military commander of the troops or any other valuable data, so it cannot bedetermined when exactly it was raised. is has led some researchers to attribute it, along with the tumulus,to another period. More precisely, the rise of it is placed under Domitian, assuming that the missing nameof the military commander is Cornelius Fuscus, Prefect of the Praetorian Guard in that time4.

Inside the tumulus, four concentric walls were discovered and in the middle of them the remainsof a square building – actually a mausoleum - were identified5.

Tocilescu thought that the monument was built under Trajan, aer the Dacian wars6. AdolfFurtwängler considered it to have been erected in 29-28 BC, aer the victory of L. Licinius Crassus onGetae and Bastarnae; but later on, he adjusted his interpretation in the sense that the monument wasrestored by emperor Trajan, who puts also the dedication. Assigning to Trajan the triumphalmonument, requiring however a restoration under Constantine the Great, Conrad Cichorius thoughtthat the other two monuments were constructed by Domitian to commemorate Cornelius Fuscus, theofficers and soldiers who died in battle with the Dacians. Moreover, Cihorius did not exclude the ideaof the tumulus as a construction of “heroon” type. Wilhelm Jänecke thought that the monument wasinitially a tower, a stand-alone monument, built aer the victory of L. Licinius Crassus to which, in his

1 Tocilescu, Bendorf, Niemann 1895.2 It was long time considered that the inscription was adedication to Mars (Marti Ultori), but in fact this is aninvocation Mars Ultor (!), Petolescu 2014, 137. Thediscovery of a similar inscription in the city allowed thecompletion of the last two lines of the present inscription,and issuing the hypothesis that the trophy would have hadtwo similar inscriptions. Em. Doruţiu Boilă (Doruţiu-Boilă, 1965, 209-214) and Nicolae Gostar (Gostar 1969,120-125) considered that the trophy had originally twoidentical inscriptions, arranged symmetrically on twoopposite sides of the hexagon on which is the trophy itself;later Doruţiu-Boilă has changed her opinion (Doruţiu-

Boilă 1987 (1988), 45-56). The Triumphal Monument isconsidered to be built in honor of the Romans’ victory overDecebalus during confrontations in the First Dacian War;but still, there are different opinions according to which itwas constructed after the final victory over the Daciansand their allies and the transformation of Dacia into aRoman province. See Poulter 1986, 519 and recently Matei-Popescu 2014, 205 footnote 2.3 CIL III, 14214. Very likely a reference to this monumentappears in Cassius Dio 68,8,2. Vulpe 1968, 89-91; Gostar2008. 4 Petolescu 2014, 115-116, 141. Sâmpetru 1984, 145-160.5 Poulter 1987, 524-525. Sâmpetru 1984, 161-187.

MOESICA ET CHRISTIANA | Studies in Honour of Professor Alexandru BarneaEdited by Adriana Panaite, Romeo Cîrjan and Carol Căpiţă

Muzeul Brăilei “Carol I” - Editura Istros | Brăila | 2016 | pp. 163-172ISBN 978-606-654-181-7

ADRIANA PANAITE164

opinion, under the emperor Trajan was added the cylindrical drum. Nicolae Iorga considered, relyingon a passage from emistios (Orationes) that was raised during the reign of Valens. Radu Vulpe andTeohari Antonescu considered that the three monuments were built between 102 and 109 AD7.

e resumption of archaeological investigations at the monuments, occasioned by the restorationof the triumphal monument, gave to Mihai Sâmpetru the opportunity of both making new stratigraphicobservations and analyzing the archaeological material resulting from these new excavations. eresults were gathered in the second volume of the monographic series Tropaeum Traiani8.

According to Sâmpetru, all three monuments are contemporary. Plans of altar and tumulus wereexecuted in detail and those monuments erected in the next year aer the victory; the triumphalmonument was built a little later, on a location early chosen, according to the project, elaborated fromthe beginning for all three monuments, in 102 AD9.

e monuments, designed by the architect Apollodorus of Damascus compose a unitarycommemorative assembly, because there is an indisputable geometric relationship between them, themonuments’ centers forming an isosceles triangle, whose top is the center of the military altar10.

Overall architectural representation of the triumphal monument reveals - according to Sâmpetru,a conception of Hellenistic tradition. Other elements that reinforce this assertion are provided by thetechnical details of making the monument, but also certain representations that seem to come offfrom the Greek-Oriental world11.

e archaeological materials from the excavations at the monument, especially ceramics, dateback to the beginning of the II century AD, which is another argument for the general chronology,established on the epigraphic evidence contained in the dedicatory inscription12.

e stratigraphic observations during excavations at tumulus and triumphal monument revealedthat the tumulus’ construction level is marked by massive debris from carving limestone. Instead, thislevel is totally missing at the triumphal monument, located no more than 80 meters away13.

e same author believes however, that between the altar and the triumphal monument thereare some differences. ey start with the building material14 and continue further not only in termsof construction time and proper execution, but also in the stylistic differences between the decorationof the altar and that of the triumphal monument15.

In a comprehensive article dedicated to Adamclisi commemorative assembly, Maria Alexandrescu-Vianu16 contradicts much of the conclusions drawn by Michael Sâmpetru. e researcher considers thatthe triumphal monument has nothing in common with the Hellenistic tradition, both in terms of formand decoration, as well as of the designer. Rejecting the idea that Apollodor of Damascus would be theproject designer, the author argues that the round shape monument belongs to Augustus' era preciselybecause of this form; a second argument is the decoration, because the decorative elements – simpleand that is why oen used – are of Flavian tradition. Maria Alexandrescu-Vianu emphasizes thepropagandistic character of the triumphal monument, drawing attention to the ambiguous nature ofthe trophy itself, because the armor suggests not only the cult-statue of Mars Ultor, whose prototypewas created during the reign of Augustus, but also the representation of the emperor. Trajan alone - notbeing associated with the army - invokes Mars, the protector god of it (!), but in the proper trophy he is

6 Tocilescu, Bendorf, Niemann 1895, 23.7 Presentation of the hypotheses regarding the dating of themonument from the older literature is based on Sâmpetru1984, 27-35, in particular 32, 34-35 (with earlier bibliography).8 Sâmpetru 1984.9 Sâmpetru 1984, 18.10 Sâmpetru 1984, 19, 147-149.11 Sâmpetru 1984, 46, 54, 59.12 Sâmpetru 1984, 43-44.13 Sâmpetru 1984, 176-177.

14 Sâmpetru 1984, 171, 177, 182. Analysis on the limestoneused to raise the monument were made by geologist MirceaChriac, see Bobu Florescu, 1959, 128-135. e stone used inthe construction of the altar and tumulus comes from thequarries of Văleni and Cetatea, and that for the monumentfrom Deleni quarries.15 Sâmpetru 1984, 145, 155, 166, 176-177.16 Alexandrescu Vianu 1995-96, 154-187. e same ideaswere resumed later in another article, Alexandrescu-Vianu2006, 207-234.

TROPAEUM TRAIANI, FROM CIVITAS TO MUNICIPIUM, A HYPOTHESIS 165

actually unites himself with the divinity in a common image17. According to the same author, themonuments are not necessarily contemporary. ey form however an area of triumphal character, tohonor the heroic cult, because, as we know, at the beginning of the imperial era the monuments aregrouped together on ideological and propaganda criteria18. e monument is the expression of the officialart and is primarily addressed to a military milieu19.

For a long time, in the scientific literature was maintained the idea that all three monuments arecontemporary and built aer the Moesian diversion of Decebalus. Newer studies opened again thediscussion, Constantin Petolescu being one of those who is supporting the separate raising of them,first the tumulus and the altar, and later the triumphal monument20. His strong argument is thatCornelius Fuscus is buried in the tumulus21, to which are added those based on the latest interpretationsof the altar. It was noted that the altar is facing East, which opposes to the unique design in achievingof this monumental complex22. e fact that only the altar and the tumulus are located on the sameaxis orientated East-West shows that the monument, standing outside it was actually added later.

In the immediate vicinity will appear the settlement Tropaeum Traiani, taking benefit from anoutstanding strategic position, at the crossroads of the central road, crossing Dobrudja fromNoviodunum, in the North down to Zaldapa and Marcianopolis with the routes East-West-orientedconnecting Durostorum, on the Danube with Tomis and Callatis, on the Black Sea Coast23.

e first major excavations in the settlement, named aer the triumphal monument were alsomade by Gr. Tocilescu. ey took place in 12 campaigns in the years 1891-1893, 1895-1897 and 1904-1909. With the exception of a report and a communication, including a part of the discoveredinscriptions, Tocilescu did not published any report on the excavations in the city24. Based on theepigraphical study he established the ancient name of the settlement25.

With the resumption of systematic research in 1968, extensive archaeological excavations becamepossible. e main late roman monuments were investigated along with the street system, while earlierlevels were studied by trial trenches26.

Even so, the archaeological investigations made so far, give little information about the earlyroman city. Dated in this era levels were identified in trial trenches in the vicinity of the Eastern Gateor inside the city, where the site configuration was suitable for them.

e established stratigraphy near the Eastern Gate area comprises the following levels: N I – levelwith mixed materials: Getae and Romans, but also a significant amount of ash, charcoal and iron slag– found within the city and in the Tower No 1, but missing out of the city, where there seems to beintentionally removed; the large amount of ash and charcoal indicates that this level ends with apowerful fire; N II – the level is marked near the city wall by a level of mortar and rubble stone about10-15 cm thick and spread to the interior for a distance of about 8 m; because at this level there werefunctioning berma and fossa the researchers agree that this is the level when was built the firstdefensive stonewall from Tropaeum Traiani; above this level is another one of yellow earth mixedwith ash and charcoal, rich in early roman pottery; the defensive wall had at this stage two phases ofconstruction, and ends, like the previous one, by a fire; N III – rich in ceramics discoveries; berma atthis level is raised up above a level of ashes and leveling earth, and on it was discovered a coin fromSeptimius Severus; this level also ends with a fire, whose traces were identified inside the city27.

17 Trajan is not a god but is similar to a god: dis dis simillimusprinceps – Plinius the Younger 1,1; 1,3.18 Alexandrescu-Vianu 1995-1996, 166.19 Alexandrescu-Vianu 1995-1996, 172.20 Petolescu 2014, 137-141.21 Against this opinion see Vulpe 1968, 75-76, 108-109.22 Doruţiu-Boilă 1961, 361.23 Panaite 2006, 57-70; Panaite 2011.24 For a summary of their results, based on manuscripts kept

at the Romanian Academy see Barnea et alii, 1979, 17-24.25 e most important is CIL III 12740, where are mentionedTraianenses Tropaeenses the inhabitants of the city (seebelow). Tocilescu, Bendorf, Niemann 1895, 27.26 For the results of the archeological investigation between1968-1977 see Barnea et alii 1979. For subsequent years seeannual reports published in CCA on the Internet, website:www.cimec.ro/aheologie.27 Barnea et alli 1979, 35. CCA 2005, Sector B (s.v. Adamclisi).

ADRIANA PANAITE166

In the archaeological excavation along the defensive wall, namely between Western andSouthern gates, these levels have not been identified28. It therefore follows that, during the earlyRoman period there is at Tropaeum Traiani a narrower dwelling area than the late roman one,attested by the reconstruction of the fortification at the end of the III century AD and the beginningof the next one29.

e early city wall coincides with the later one only next to the Eastern Gate. It has twodistinctive construction phases which are marked in the general stratigraphy of the settlement bythe levels N II and N III30.

Based on the analysis of an aerial photography from 1969, Ioana Bogdan Cătăniciu considersthat early Roman fortification had a regular quadrilateral surface with dimensions of 250x150 m,covering only the Northeastern part of the late roman city31.

With the exception of the trial tranches made near the Eastern Gate, where the early defensivewall was identified on a relatively small section, other trail tranches in the city, along the presumedroute of it, in order to verify its existence, did not brought satisfactory results. is type of fortificationis specific to early military as well as civilian settlements. I. Barnea was of opinion that next to anauxiliary unit fort arose a vicus that later became the city of Tropaeum Traiani. is hypothesis cannotbe supported as long as a long-term and constant presence of a military detachment cannot be verifiedhere, at least until the IIIrd century AD32. Without rejecting categorically this hypothesis the authorsof research were rather for the civilian nature of settlement.

e vicinity of the monuments, the name of the settlement, but especially the indication of theresidents Traianenses Tropaeenses33 in an inscription, have led many researchers to consider that thesettlement, even since the foundation during Trajan, received the status of municipium34, to whichwas related the defensive stonewall mentioned above35.

In a recent article, Emilian Popescu, resuming the inscriptions that mentions the city name,demonstrates the existence of municipium from the time of Trajan. e city however, has to be calledmunicipium Traianum Tropaeum or even municipium Ulpium Traianum Tropaeum. According tohim, the well-known formula - Tropaeum Traiani, was actually an invention belonging to Gr. Tocilescuand E. Bormann36.

Among those who supported the existence of the municipium since Trajan is Alexandru Barnea.In an article published in 2006 he said: "the city of Tropaeum Traiani was founded as a roman oneand started to bear since then the name of the Triumphal Monument"37. Participating at thearchaeological excavations in Tropaeum Traiani since 1968, Alexandru Barnea added in the samearticle, an observation that was however slightly overlooked in the scientific literature: "our researchdemonstrates among other things that the level dated in the time of Trajan was preceded by anotherone, also a Roman one"38 and then added, "precisely the corroboration of these sources with theextremely rare situation in the region, of changing the name of a settlement then restored, from alocal place name to one of imperial prestige, then more entitles us to understand as a necessity, feltthen by the Romans, of granting the status of municipium to this reborn city"39.

28 Papuc 1973, 122; Papuc 1974, 325, 335; Barnea et alii 1979,64-77.29 IGLR 170.30 Barnea et alii 1979, 48.31 Barnea et alii 1979, 53. Bogdan Cătăniciu 1992, 193-198.32 Barnea 1977, 62; Barnea et alii 1979, 227.33 CIL III, 12740. Initially Bormann (cited by Popescu 2013,p. 130, note 18) and then Galsterer-Kröll, 1972, 77, 92, 98,considered this formula that designates all the inhabitants ofthe settlement as an adjective and etnicon and as aconsequence the settlement received the status of municipium

from Trajan. For comments to B. Galsterer-Kröll’s affirmationon Tropaeum Traiani see Cîrjan 2010, 84-86.34 Popescu 2013, 127-144 (with previous bibliography).35 Barnea et alii 1979, 62; Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992, 193-198.36 Popescu 2013,127-144. In an older article the sameresearcher (Popescu, 1964, 185-203) argued that grantingthe municipal status to the settlement was during MarcusAurelius and its legal status before that was that of civitas.37 Barnea 2006, 413.38 Barnea 2006, 413.39 Barnea 2006, 414.

TROPAEUM TRAIANI, FROM CIVITAS TO MUNICIPIUM, A HYPOTHESIS 167

Pârvan had the same opinion: "e settlement at the crossroads was transformed into a civilsettlement, and the new center of Roman civilization lying deep inside the province right of theDanube, was named aer the triumphal monument, Tropaeum Traiani. So I think this is the way thecity of Tropaeum was born: in close contact with the entire system of civilization of the Getae countrybetween Haemus and the Danube, and not as an annex near the monument, this being constructedonly aer the war. e city is undoubtedly older then the trophy: it is a Dacian center, where it washeaded before the war, as a preparation to the attack, Trajan’s way to the North, and just as UlpiaTraiana (Sarmizegetusa) and Ulpia Hadrianopolis (Orest), was surnamed Tropaeum Traiani. In anycase, already in 116 AD we see Traianenses Tropaeenses making a dedication to Trajan - of course astatue, in their capacity as a civil settlement - vicus - composed of settlers (veterans) and indigenous(....)”40. Referring to the juridical status of the settlement the same author wrote: "Given thepreciousness with which the Romans give municipal law, and on the other hand, the significance ofthe vici and their possibility of a beautiful development even if more restricted by their constitution,I suppose that neither Trajan gave nor the inhabitants needed from the beginning, the title and thestatus of municipium”41. If, according to Pârvan the municipalization of Tropaeum Traiani was muchlater42, there are currently contradicting opinions, placing it not in the time of Trajan, as it is generallyaccepted, but in the time of Hadrian43.

e much disputed controversy of the legal status of the settlement has benefited in recent yearsby the introduction in this debate of the ius Latii. For the first time the theory that Tropaeum Traianipassed through the intermediate stage of ius Latii was launched by Al. Suceveanu44. R. Cirjan devotesa special study to this topic45 and in another inquiry is trying to identify those communities benefitingof ius Latii throughout the area of Danubian provinces46. In the absence of clear arguments that wouldhave come only from the discovery of municipal law, this assumption remains only a supposition. Ifthe onomastic study47 is not conclusive, one can discuss this intermediate phase, at least as a mean ofattracting local elites to the Roman values in the Romanization process48.

e existence of a Roman level before Trajan makes us think to a stable Geto-Roman settlement,which would be linked with NI from the general stratigraphy of the city, dated between centuries IBC - I AD. Characteristics of the archaeological material prove the coexistence of Latène and Geto-Dacian traditions with Greek and Roman influences. e population use more imported merchandise,especially specific Roman goods, which is a proof of attracting the native population within the Romancivilization. e level ends with a fire destruction of the settlement, probably as a result of Bastarnae,Dacians and Roxolans attacks, probably in the years 85-86 AD49, in the context of frequentconfrontations in the area. e rebuilt settlement may be related with two monuments on the hill,where we assume that the altar was the first one, followed by the tumulus. e discovery in thetumulus’s mantle of architectural pieces, whole or fragmentary, some of them for funerary purposes,represents an indirect evidence for the existence of the settlement. It proves that in the workshop werecarved architectural pieces not only for the commemorative monuments, but also for the Roman

40 Pârvan 1911, 3 (our translation from Romanian language).41 Pârvan 1911, 3, footnote 12 (our translation from Romanianlanguage).42 Pârvan 1911, 11 (during Septimus Severus or Caracalla).43 For a municipalization at Hadrian see recentlyAparaschivei 2010, 119-123 and Matei-Popescu 2014, 208-209, bringing as the main argument the duumvirorganization, following an observation which belongs to C.C. Petolescu (Petolescu 2007, 169). It is important to notethat the duumvir organization has no connection to anyphase of the municipalization process, see Kremer 2006, 160sqq. and Gascou 1972. For the municipal institutions duringimperial period see Langhammer 1973. For the municipal

institutions of Tropaeum Traiani see Aparaschivei 2003,327-340, Aparaschivei 2006, 327-348.44 Suceveanu 1977, 73.45 Cîrjan 2004, 51-59.46 Cîrjan 2010; Cîrjan 2010a, 121-130.47 Following this type of analysis Matei Popescu 2014, 212-213, rejects this hypothesis without any hesitasion.48 See Aparaschivei 2010, passim and Aparaschivei 2010a, 131-138 for the possibility of applying ius Latii in Moesia Inferior.49 Barnea et alli 1979, 60. e authors of research have notsufficient arguments to support this dating; another momentwhen the settlement could be destroyed is during theconfrontations with Trajan, in 101-102 AD.

ADRIANA PANAITE168

settlement and necropolis in the nearby. ere is no other building or any ancient necropolis besidesof three well-known monuments on the plateau50. erefore, one can say that at the turn of thecenturies I BC - I AD there is a Roman settlement within the province of Moesia Inferior, about whoseorganization and legal status one cannot say much, being more hypothesis than certain information.

e discovered pieces of stone are a clear indication for a settlement that continues its existencein the same place. Moreover, there is no discontinuity between the archaeological material discoveredin the levels NI and NII51. e first defensive wall built and dated in the N II level had two distinctphases. According to researchers, the second phase of construction occurs due to a very difficultmoment, accompanied by a great fire and dated in the late second century, aer the Costobocidevastation in 170 AD52.

According to different opinions, the settlement that develops at the beginning of the II century ADwould have been either a vicus53 or a civitas54. No matter what would that be one can only assume thatit was the same as in the first phase of existence. Without having a clear answer, one can only observethat other cities in the Balkan Peninsula who obtain the imperial surname from Trajan remain at thestatus of civitas stipendiaria, while Tropaeum Traiani will accede to the status of municipium55. In thesame cities first defensive stonewalls are constructed aer the devastating attacks of the Costoboci56.

e results of archaeological research during the recent years in Nicopolis ad Istrum57 allow us tolaunch new hypotheses about the evolution of the settlement from Tropaeum Traiani. Excavations inthe Agora have identified the oldest pre-Trajan level represented by a layer of charcoal and ash fromtimber construction. e archaeological materials from this level are represented by ceramics, a glassfragment dating from the end of the I century AD –beginning of the II century AD, two fibulae datedto the first half of II century AD and some coins from Claudius, Vespasian Titus, Domitian and Trajan.e possibilities of interpreting that level, were taking into account either an earlier raciansettlement on which the Roman city then appears58, or a timber fort active for a short period of timeand built during the military confrontations from the end of I century AD and early II century AD.e hypothesis of an indigenous settlement - supported by Tačeva59 was rejected by the archaeologistsand their interpretation goes towards the idea of a camp60 that had been destroyed, during the fightingin either 85-86 AD or little later in 101-102 AD.

e first identified archaeological level in Tropaeum Traiani ends with a powerful fire producedas in the case of Nicopolis ad Istrum, in either in 85-86 AD or 101-102 AD. If it would have been atimber fort or a settlement with timber defensive walls it is hard to say. But the similarities betweenthe two situations allow us to return to the older supposition made by Ion Barnea, according to whichnear an auxiliary unit fort appear a military vicus later transformed into the city of Tropaeum. esupposed form of the fortification is specific for the early settlements both military as well as civilian.If the military camp was not there then one can look for it in the surrounding area. On the territory61

50 Sâmpetru 1984, 178-180 and footnote 24.51 Barnea et alli 1979, 61.52 CIL III, 1421412: Daizus Comozoi interfectus a Castabocis.Popescu 1964, 192-200: Lucius Fufidius Lucianus deceptus aCastabocos; Barnea et alii 1979, 62 and footnote 59 (on thesame page). See also Suceveanu, Rădulescu 2001, 299 for thede distructions made by Costoboci.53 Pârvan 1911, 3; Mrozewicz 1982, 50-51, 65.54 Suceveanu 1977, 82; Vulpe 2013, 290.55 Nicopolis ad Istrum: Greek city organized aer the modelof cities from race and Asia Minor, the official language wasGreek. Legal status was of civitas stipendiaria. For a briefhistory of the town see Poulter 1995; Slokoska et alii, 2002,83-104; Ivanov 2012, 109-155; Aparaschivei 2010, 127-132.Marcianopolis: organized as a Greek city; in Greek

inscriptions Marcianopolis and its territory are called polisand in the Latin civitas; in only one inscription found in Romeis mentioned regio Marcianopolitana. For a brief history of thetown see Angelov, 2002, 105-122; Aparaschivei 2010, 124-127.56 Callatis (ISM III 97); Philippopolis (IGB III-1, 878);Serdica (IGB IV, 1902); Nicopolis ad Istrum (Slokoska et alii2002, 91). Cf. Gerov 1977.57 Vladkova 2002, 30-31.58 Vladkova 2002, 31-32.59 Tačeva 2000, 35.60 Vladkova 2002, 31-32; Poulter 1995, 10; Paunov, Topalilov2013.61 On the territory and the areas with archaeological findingssee: Barbulescu, 2001, 119-126; Bâltâc, 2011, 108-109, 143,147, 151, 154, 180, 267; Panaite 2006, 57-70; Panaite 2011.

TROPAEUM TRAIANI, FROM CIVITAS TO MUNICIPIUM, A HYPOTHESIS 169

depending on the Roman city, there are attested in the older scientific literature, but unfortunatelynever verified, information about few fortifications. If the fortress from Cetatea62 seems out of thequestion, those in Ion Corvin63, Cobadin64, Lespezi65 at a distance not exceeding 15 km could be thepoint where an auxiliary unit could be quartered.

Going forward with the parallel between the two cities, one might wonder what the relationshipbetween the Roman town and the earlier settlement is. According to the existing opinion in thespecialized literature the city is overlapping the earlier settlement. As we have already seen, there isno clear evidence yet. In addition, the results of archaeological research carried out several years onthe hill opposite the Eastern gate, where the density of the archaeological material gathered earlierin field surveys indicate a possible settlement, have provided however important but inconclusiveresults66. Older investigation in the area provides us supplementary data that would help to identifythe Getic settlement (settlements)67 in this area. It is important to point here that the Roman roadfrom Durostorum to Tomis follows a route previously known as an entering way for the importedgoods to the interior of the province68. Moreover, the Getic fortified settlements in the Bugeac-Ostrovarea, on the Danube, could represent the nucleus of a power center placed not far from Adamclisi,to which the settlement could depend on69.

Based on the archaeologists’ information the first defensive stonewall in Tropaeum Traiani wasbuilt immediately aer the Dacian wars. In their opinion this was strongly connected with grantingthe municipal status. Arguments in favor of this dating are not solid, so we can assume that that itwas later built, aer 170 AD70, as happens in other cities from the Balkan Peninsula, includingNicopolis ad Istrum.

Based on the above data we can outline the next phases of development for the settlement nearthe triumphal monument: NI corresponds to either a settlement - which had the legal status of civitasor a fort; this level ends with a fire in the context of confrontations with the Romans, at the end of theI century BC and the beginning of I century AD; this settlement could be connected with the altarand the tumulus on the hill nearby. NII coincides with the granting of status of municipium by Trajanand erasing of the triumphal monument, inaugurated in 109, passing perhaps through the

62 Civitas Ausdecensium CIL III, 144372, considered to be acivitas stipendiaria. Matei-Popescu 2010, 202-203 (withprevious bibliography); Rada et alii, 1988, 203: earthfortification with ramparts and ditch.63 TIR L 35, 47 (s.v. Ion Corvin); Panaite 2006, 63.64 Crăciun 2008, 363. On satellite images appear to the east-northeast of the village an almost rectangular square shapestructure with double fortification. Typologically, thefortification could be either a funeral Iron Age site withpalisade structure or a Roman camp.65 Rectangular fortification 120x75 m, with double system ofditches and ramparts: Rada et alii 1988, 203; Crăciun 2008, 363.66 For excavations and results see reports for the years 1993-2006 in CCA (www.cimec.ro/arheologie Chronicle ofArchaeological Researches).67 Recent research from Novae and the surrounding area haveidentified several settlement nuclei belonging to the nativepopulation. ey are situated just a short distance one of eachother. According to researchers, the legion camp does notoverlap any of them. Excavations in the area known as thefortress Novae II demonstrated that it is placed on a cemeterybelonging to the native population, dated before the arrival ofthe Romans. e archeologists believe that there are noarguments in favor of that area would have been a civitas, thesettlements from here belonging to the important center of

Oescus. is was included, along with Ratiaria, in the time ofClaudius in praefectura civitatium Moesiae et Treballiae (CILV, 1838). Ptolemy mentions civitas Oescus Treballorum (III10, 5). See Sarnowski, 2007, 15-22 especially 18-19. For thefield research in Novae see Tomas, 2006, 115-128; Conrad,2006, 309-331.68 Add the information about settlements and necropolis inthe area, see Irimia, 1983, 77-79 and passim; Irimia 1980,78. Roman road linking Callatis with Durostorum willfollow the same route: Panaite 2006, 57-70; Panaite 2011;Crăciun 2008, 363.69 Irimia 2007, 137-225, especially 140-141 şi 145-153.70 e results of the excavations in the Basilica C(Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1977, 235-250) seem to challenge thisassumption because the city water tank has to be inside andnot outside the city. Aer its dismantling, inside was builtBasilica C, aer the year 170 AD (Barnea 1977, 228; Barnea1977a, 261). It shall be added to this early dating the opinionof architect Monica Mărgineanu Cârstoiu who believes thatthere are elements near the Western and Southern Gates tosupport the idea of the early defensive stonewall on the sameroute with the later one (Mărgineanu Cârstoiu 1981, 278-281 283 -286). Recently, Matei Popescu 2014, 210-211considers that the stone fortification was built in 170 AD.

ADRIANA PANAITE170

intermediary status of ius Latii. e stone fortification will be built aer the invasion of the Costoboci,in the late II century AD. e city will recover and reach the maximum period of development (whichcorresponds to the N III) during the Severian dynasty, when once again the fortification will berepaired. e first barbarian attacks do not avoid the settlement. Towards the end of the III centuryAD, the fortification will be entirely restored and the city will start a new phase of development whichis not the subject of the present investigation71.

BiBliography

angelov 2002 a. angelov, Marcianopolis, in rimski i rannovizantijskite gradove v Bâlgarija, roman and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria (ed. r. ivanov), vol. i, Sofia, 105-122.

alexandrescu-Vianu 2006 M. alexandrescu-Vianu, la propagande impériale aux frontières de l’Empire romain. Tropaeum Traiani, Dacia N.S. 50, 207-234.

alexandrescu-Vianu 1995-1996 M. alexandrescu-Vianu, Tropaeum Traiani. l'ensemble commémoratif d'adamclisi, il Mar Nero, ii, 145-187.

aparaschivei 2010 D. aparaschivei, oraşele romane de la Dunărea inferioară, iaşi.aparaschivei 2010a D. aparaschivei, Quelques rèflexions concernant l'applicabilité du droit

latin dans les cités de la province Mésie inférieure, in: M. V. angelescu, i. achim, a. Bâltâc, V. rusu-Bolindeţ, V. Bottez (eds.), antiquitas istro-pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca, 131-138.

aparaschivei 2006 D. aparaschivei, Municipium Tropaeum Traiani. instituţii şi elite, in honoremSilvii Sanie. Studia historiae et religionis Daco-romanae (l. Mihăilescu Bârliba, octavian Bounegru eds.), Bucureşti, 327-348.

aparaschivei 2003 D. aparaschivei, l’institution de duumvirat en Dobroudja romaine. Troesmis et Tropaeum Traiani, Studia antiqua et archaeologica 9, 327 – 340.

Barnea 1977 i. Barnea, la basilique citerne de Tropaeum Traiani à la lumière des dernières fouilles archéologiques, Dacia N.S. 21, 221 – 233.

Barnea 1977a i. Barnea, Cetatea Tropaeum în lumina ultimelor săpături arheologice, pontica 10, 261-273.

Barnea et alii 1979 i. Barnea (ed.), al. Barnea, i. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, gh. papuc, Tropaeum Traiani. i. Cetatea, Bucureşti.

Barnea 2006 Despre Tropaeum Traiani. oraşul antic, în Dacia augusti provincia, 411-415.Barnea 1991 al. Barnea, la Dobroudja aux iVe-Viie siècles n.è., in: al. Suceveanu,

al. Barnea, la Dobroudja romaine, Bucarest, 154-295.Bărbulescu 2001 M. Bărbulescu, Viaţa rurală în Dobrogea romană (sec. i-iii p. Chr.), Constanţa.Bâltâc 2011 a. Bâltâc, lumea rurală în provinciile Moesia inferior şi racia (secolele

i-iii p. Chr.), Bucureşti.Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992 i. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, poarta de est la Tropaeum Traiani, EphemNapoc 2,

193-206.Cîrjan 2004 r. Cîrjan, Tropaeum Traiani: un municipe de droit latin en Mésie inférieure,

EphemDac 12, 51-59.Cîrjan 2010 r. Cîrjan, Statute citadine privilegiate în provinciile dunărene ale

imperiului roman (sec. i-iii p. Chr.), Cluj-Napoca.Cîrjan 2010a r. Cîrjan, Droit romain et droit latin dans les cités danubiennes de l’Empire

romain (ier-iiie siècles): remarques méthodologiques, in: M. V. angelescu, i. achim, a. Bâltâc, V. rusu-Bolindeţ, V. Bottez (eds.), antiquitas istro-pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca, 121-130.

71 For the history of the late roman city see Vulpe 1968passim; Barnea 1991, 199-202 and passim.

TROPAEUM TRAIANI, FROM CIVITAS TO MUNICIPIUM, A HYPOTHESIS 171

Conrad 2006 S. Conrad, archaeological Survey on the lower Danube: results and perspectives, Surveying the greek Chora. e Black Sea region in a Comparative perspective. international conference, Sandbjerg, Denmark (31 august – 3 September 2003), 309-331.

Crăciun 2008 C. Crăciun, Structuri antice descoperite prin fotointerpretarea imaginilor aeriene, pontica 41, 357-392.

Doruţiu-Boilă 1961 E. D. Boilă, Some observations on the military funeral altar of adamclisi, Dacia N.S. 5, 345-363.

Doruţiu Boilă 1965 Em. Doruţiu-Boilă, Un fragment necunoscut din inscripţia trofeului de la adamclisi, StCl Vii, 209-214.

Doruţiu-Boilă 1978 Em. Doruţiu-Boilă, Über den Zeitpunkt der Verleihung des Munizipalrechts in Scythia minor, Dacia N.S. 22, 245-247.

Doruţiu Boilă 1987 (1988) Em. Doruţiu-Boilă, Despre inscripţia votivă a monumentului triumfal de la adamclisi, StCl 25, 45-56.

Florescu 1959 F. B. Florescu, Monumentul de la adamklissi. Tropaeum Traiani, Bucureşti.galsterer-Kröll 1972 B. galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Städte des

imperiums romanum, Epigraphische Studien. Sammelband 9, 44-145.gascou 1972 J. gascou, la politique municipale de l'Empire romain en afrique

proconsulaire de Trajan à Septime-Sćvère, rome.gerov 1977 B. gerov, Die Einfälle der Nordvölker in den ostabalkanraum im lichte

der Münzschatzfunde. i. Das ii. und iii. Jahrhundert (101-284), in: aNrW ii.6, 110-181.

gostar 2008 N. gostar, Marele monument funerar roman de la adamclisi, iaşi.gostar 1969 N. gostar, les inscriptions votives du monument troimfal d'adamclisi,

latomus 1, 120-125.irimia 1980 M. irimia, Date noi privind aşezările getice din Dobrogea în a doua epocă

a fierului, pontica 13, 66-118.irimia 1983 M. irimia, Date noi privind necropolele din Dobrogea în a doua epocă a

fierului, pontica 16, 69-149.irimia 2007 M. irimia, Consideraţii privind aşezările getice din Dobrogea şi problema

existenţei unor emporia în zona Dunării inferioare, pontica 40, 137-225.ivanov 2012 r. ivanov, Nicopolis ad haemum/Nicopolis ad istrum, e roman Cities

in Bulgaria (ed. r. ivanov), Sofia, 109-155.Kremer 2006 D. Kremer, ius latinum. le concept de droit latin sous la république et

l'Empire. romanité et modernité du droit, paris.langhammer 1973 W. langhammer, Die rechtliche uns soziale Stellung der Magistratus

Municipales und der Decuriones in die Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates (2.-4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit), Wiesbaden.

Matei-popescu 2010 Fl. Matei-popescu, e roman army in Moesia inferior, Bucharest.Matei-popescu 2014 F. Matei-popescu, Tropaeum Traiani, Trajan und seine Städte. Colloquium

Cluj Napoca (29. September - 2. oktober 2013), Cluj-Napoca, 205-223. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1977 M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, problèmes d’architecture concernant la citerne

romaine et la basilique chrétienne de Tropaeum Traiani, Dacia N.S. 21, 235-250.

Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981 M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, remarques sur les fortifications de Tropaeum Traiani, Dacia N.S. 25, 1981, 271-288.

Mrozewicz 1982 l. Mrozewicz, rozwój ustroju municypalnego i postępy romanizacji w Mezji Dolnej, poznań.

panaite 2006 a. panaite, Drumuri romane din teritoriul oraşului Tropaeum Traiani, StCercistorV 57, 2006, 1-4, 57-70.

panaite 2011 Drumurile romane în Moesia inferior (teză de doctorat), Universitatea din Bucureşti, (mss).

ADRIANA PANAITE172

papuc 1973 gh. papuc, Nouvelles donnees sur i'editication de la cite Tropaeum Traiani,pontica 6, 117- 128

papuc 1974 gh. papuc, Câteva consideraţii privind construirea zidului de incintă al cetăţii Tropaeum Traiani, pontica 7, 325-337.

paunov, Topalilov 2013 E. paunov, i. Topailov, Nicopolis before Nicopolis ad istrum: what has been there? poster presented at the Fih Black Sea antiquities Congress, Belgrade, 17-21 September 2013. e presentation is available on the internet – www.academia.edu/ Evgeni paunov (acceded 12 January 2015).

pârvan 1911 V. pârvan, Cetatea Tropaeum, BCMi iV, 1-16 şi 163-193, Bucureşti.petolescu 2014 C. C. petolescu, Dacia, un mileniu de istorie2, Bucureşti.petolescu 2007 C. C. petolescu, Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane, Bucureşti.popescu 1964 Em. popescu, Epigraphische Beiträge zur geschichte der Stadt Tropaeum

Traiani, StCl Vi, 185-203.popescu 2013 Em. popescu, Municipium Tropaeum, Dacia N.S. 57, 127-144.poulter 1986 a. g. poulter, e lower Moesian limes and the Dacians Wars of Trajan,

in limes 13 aalen, 519-528.poulter 1995 a. poulter, Nicopolis ad istrum. a roman, late roman and Early Byzantine

City. Excavations 1985-1992, london.rada et alii 1988 M. rada, N. Cochină, gh. Corcodel, M. iuga, aşezări antice dobrogene

identificate cu ajutorul fotografiilor aeriene, TD 9, 197-205.Sarnowski 2007 T. Sarnowski, e name of Novae in lower Moesia. With a contribution

by Deyan Dragoev, archeologiaWarsz 58, 15-22.Sâmpetru 1984 M. Sâmpetru, Tropaeum Traiani ii. Monumentele romane, Bucureşti.Slokoska et alii 2002 l. Slokoska, p. Vladkova, i. Tzarov, St. Bojadjiev, p. ivanov, Nicopolis ad

istrum, în rimski i rannovizantijskite gradove v Bâlgarija (roman and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria). Studies in memory of prof. Teofil ivanov, vol. i, Sofia, 83-105.

Suceveanu 1977 al. Suceveanu, Viaţa economică în Dobrogea romană (secolele i-iii e. n.), Bucureşti.

Suceveanu, rădulescu 2001 al. Suceveanu, a. rădulescu, Dobrogea în secolele ii-iii. istoria politică, în: istoria românilor (ed. al. Suceveanu, D. protase), vol. ii, 291-306

Tačeva 2000 M. Tačeva, Vlast i sotsium, Sofia.Tocilescu, Bendorf, Niemann 1895 gr. Tocilescu, o. Bendorf, g. Niemann, Monumentul de la adamklissi,

Viena-Bucureşti 1895.Tomas 2006 a. Tomas, Municipium Novensium? report on the field survey at ostrite

Mogili, Veliko Turnovo District (pl. 121-132), Światowit Vi (XlVii), Fasc. a, 115-128.

Vladkova 2002 p. Vladkova, e earliest Nicopolis ad istrum, e roman and late roman City, e international Conference Veliko Turnovo 26-30 July 2000, Sofia, 30-35.

Vulpe 1968 r. Vulpe, perioada principatului (sec. i-iii), in r. Vulpe, i. Barnea, Din istoria Dobrogei. ii. romanii la Dunărea de Jos, Bucharest, 13-365.

Vulpe 2013 r. Vulpe, Colonii şi municipii din Moesia inferioară, Studii privind protoistoria Daciei, Bucureşti, 272-298 (= r. Vulpe, Colonies et municipes de la Mésie inférieure, Studia racologica, Bucureşti, 1976, 289-314).