The Topography and the Landscape of Roman Dacia 9781407311173, 9781407340876
In this volume the author presents a full study of the topography and landscape of Roman Dacia (roughly present-day nort
442 31 40MB
English Pages [161] Year 2013
Polecaj historie
Table of contents :
Cover
Copyright
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Preface
Introduction
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER 1. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PERCEPTION AND THEROADS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND DACIA.A GENERAL OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 2. ANCIENT SOURCES CONCERNING THEROADS OF ROMAN DACIA. THE MAIN ARTERIES NORTHOF THE DANUBE
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
FIGURES
Citation preview
BAR S2501 2013
The Topography and the Landscape of Roman Dacia
FODOREAN
Florin Fodorean
THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE LANDSCAPE OF ROMAN DACIA
B A R
BAR International Series 2501 2013
The Topography and the Landscape of Roman Dacia Florin Fodorean
BAR International Series 2501 2013
ISBN 9781407311173 paperback ISBN 9781407340876 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311173 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
BAR
PUBLISHING
This book is dedicated to my son Dan Mihai, to my wife Angela, to my parents Viorica and Gheorghe and to my brother Ioan
Contents List of figures ............................................................................................................................................. iii Preface. Professor Mihai Bărbulescu ........................................................................................................ vi Preface. Professor Kai Brodersen ............................................................................................................. vii Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PERCEPTION AND THE ROADS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND DACIA. A GENERAL OVERVIEW 1. 1. The study of roads. A short state of research .................................................................................... 2 1. 2. The geographical perception of space during Roman times.............................................................. 5 1. 3. The geographical knowledge about Dacia before the roman conquest ............................................ 8 1. 4. The conquest of Dacia. Benefits. Disadvantages .............................................................................. 13 1. 5. The Roman military campaigns in Dacia and the construction of the first roads ............................ 15 CHAPTER 2. ANCIENT SOURCES CONCERNING THE ROADS OF ROMAN DACIA. THE MAIN ARTERIES NORTH OF THE DANUBE 2. 1. The Peutinger map. General issues .................................................................................................. 22 2. 2. Defining ‘map’, ‘geography’ and ‘itineraria’. Roman literary sources ............................................. 29 2. 3. Dacia. The study of roads and the ancient sources. State of research ............................................ 30 2. 4. The milestones ................................................................................................................................. 33 2. 4. 1. Aiton (Cluj County) ......................................................................................................... 34 2. 4. 2. Mera (Cluj County) ......................................................................................................... 34 2. 4. 3. Almaşu (Sălaj County) .................................................................................................... 34 2. 4. 4. Veţel ‐ Micia (Hunedoara County) .................................................................................. 35 2. 4. 5. Lăpuşnicel (Caraş‐Severin County) ................................................................................. 35 2. 4. 6. Băbiciu de Sus (Olt County) .................................................................................................. 36 2. 4. 7. Gostavăţu (Olt County)................................................................................................... 36 2. 4. 8. Copăceni ‐ Racoviţa (Vâlcea County) .............................................................................. 36 2. 4. 9. Sucidava – Celei, Corabia (Olt County) ........................................................................... 36 2. 5. The Roman road along the right bank of the Danube. Tabula Traiana ........................................... 37 2. 6. The main roads of Dacia ................................................................................................................. 37 2. 6. 1. The road Lederata‐Tibiscum ......................................................................................................... 38 2. 6. 2. The second road: Dierna‐Tibiscum‐Porolissum .............................................................. 39 2. 6. 3. The third road: Drubetis‐Romula‐Apula ......................................................................... 43 CHAPTER 3. ELEMENTS OF THE DACIAN LANDSCAPE. ROADS AND RURAL SETTLEMENTS 3. 1. Potaissa and surroundings ............................................................................................................... 45 3. 1. 1. The legionary fortress and the city................................................................................. 45 3. 1. 2. The aqueducts ................................................................................................................ 45 3. 1. 2. 1. The spring ..................................................................................................... 45 3. 1. 2. 2. The modern historiography .......................................................................... 46 3. 1. 2. 3. The aqueduct for the Roman fortress .......................................................... 46 3. 1. 2. 4. The aqueduct for the city ............................................................................. 46 3. 1. 2. 5. Other discoveries ......................................................................................... 47 3. 1. 3. Rural settlements around Potaissa ................................................................................. 47 3. 1. 3. 1. Watchtowers ............................................................................................... 47 3. 1. 3. 2. Potaissa ‐ ‘Valea Sărată’ ............................................................................... 48 3. 1. 3. 3. Potaissa – ‘Poiana Lişca’ ............................................................................... 48 3. 1. 3. 4. Mihai Viteazu ............................................................................................... 48 3. 1. 3. 5. Petreştii De Sus, Petreştii de Jos .................................................................. 49 3. 1. 3. 6. Copăceni ....................................................................................................... 49 3. 1. 3. 7. The settlement from Luncani ....................................................................... 49
i
3. 2. Napoca and surroundings ................................................................................................................ 49 3. 2. 1. Napoca. The Roman city ................................................................................................. 49 3. 2. 2. Rural settlements ........................................................................................................... 50 3. 3. Ilişua (Bistriţa‐Năsăud County) ......................................................................................................... 50 3. 3. 1. The Austrian maps .......................................................................................................... 50 3. 3. 2. Ilişua. The Roman settlement ......................................................................................... 51 3. 4. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (Hunedoara County)................................................................. 52 3. 5. Other roads in Roman Dacia ............................................................................................................. 54 3. 6. Roads, villae rusticae, economy, strategy. Shaping the landscape of Roman Dacia ........................ 57 3. 7. The Roman roads after the abandonment of Dacia ......................................................................... 59 3. 8. Concluding remarks. The roads of Roman Dacia .............................................................................. 59 3. 9. The bridges of Roman Dacia ............................................................................................................ 60 3. 9. 1. The Peutinger map and the bridges ............................................................................... 60 3. 9. 2. The Trajan’s Column ....................................................................................................... 61 3. 9. 3. Austrian maps ................................................................................................................ 61 3. 9. 4. Archaeological researches .............................................................................................. 61 CHAPTER 4. RECREATING THE LANDSCAPE OF ROMAN DACIA USING HISTORICAL 19TH CENTURY CARTOGRAPHY, DIGITAL DATA AND GIS 4. 1. Premises. The topography and the landscape of Roman Dacia ....................................................... 62 4. 2. Modern cartography. Maps used for the identification of the archaeological sites ....................... 63 4. 3. Cartography and archaeological researches in Romania. Unsolved issues ..................................... 63 4. 4. Case study: the defensive system around the Roman fortress from Bologa (Cluj County) ............. 64 4. 5. The Roman imperial road between Potaissa and Napoca ............................................................... 65 4. 6. The Roman fortress from Gherla (Cluj County). Historical maps and digital data ........................... 65 4. 7. The Roman fortress from Hoghiz (Braşov County). Historical maps and digital data ...................... 66 4. 8. The Roman fortress from Râşnov (Braşov County). Historical maps and digital data ..................... 66 4. 9. The Roman fortress from Breţcu (Covasna County). Historical maps and digital data .................... 66 4. 10. The Roman imperial road from Sarmizegetusa to Sântămărie Orlea (Hunedoara County) .......... 66 4. 11. The Roman road between Gelmar and Şibot on Austrian maps.................................................... 67 4. 12. The Roman road from Alba Iulia to Şard and Ighiu ........................................................................ 67 4. 13. The Roman road along the valley of the river Arieş from Potaissa to Alburnus Maior .................. 67 4. 14. ‘Spa’ vignettes in the Peutinger map. Thermal places in Roman Dacia ......................................... 68 4. 14. 1. Germisara ‐ the ‘five stars’ thermal accommodation in Roman Dacia ........................ 68 4. 14. 2. Ad Aquas (Călan) .......................................................................................................... 70 4. 14. 3. Băile Herculane ............................................................................................................ 70 4. 14. 4. Concluding remarks. The thermal settlements and the road system .......................... 71 4. 15. Pierre Lapie, Louis Bonnefont, S. F. W. Hoffmann, the modern cartography and the roads from the Roman Empire and Dacia .................................................................................. 71 4. 15. 1. Premises ....................................................................................................................... 71 4. 15. 2. Roman Dacia in Lapie’s map......................................................................................... 72 4. 15. 3. The first road: ‘Viminatio (al Viminacio) Tiviscum. De Ram à Lugos’ ........................... 72 4. 15. 4. The second road: Faliatis‐Porolissum ........................................................................... 73 4. 15. 5. The third road: Drobeta‐Apulum.................................................................................. 73 4. 15. 6. Sources for Lapie’s maps. “Die Alterthumwissenschaft” of S. F. W. Hoffmann (1835) ........................................................................................................... 74 4. 15. 7. Pierre lapie, Louis Bonnefort, August Treboniu Laurian and Roman Dacia ................. 74 4. 15. 8. Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................... 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 77 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 95
ii
LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Map of the Roman Empire (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 16, map I). Fig. 2. Dacia and the surrounding provinces, with the main Roman roads (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 17, map II). Fig. 3. Roman Dacia under Trajan’s reign (based on E. Nemeth). Fig. 4. Top (a): the Roman fortress at Vărădia ‐ “Chilii” (no. 1 in fig. 5). Bottom (b): the Roman fortress at Vărădia ‐ “Pustă” (no. 2 in fig. 5). Fig. 5. The Roman fortress at Surducu Mare (Caraş‐Severin County). Fig. 6. Sketch of the Roman legionary fortress at Berzovia (based on A. Flutur, Clădirile comandamentului din castrul de legiune traianic de la Berzobis, in Analele Banatului S.N., Arheologie‐Istorie, XIX, 2011, 156, Pl. I). Fig. 7. The northern side of the Roman fortress at Berzovia. Fig. 8. The Roman fortress at Fârliug. Fig. 9. The Roman fortress at Jupa, Roman Tibiscum (Caraş‐Severin County). Fig. 10. The Roman fortress at Zăvoi (Caraş‐Severin County). Fig. 11. The roads of Roman Dacia. Fig. 12. The imperial Roman road from Potaissa to Napoca. Fig. 13. Left: copy of the lost milestone from Aiton (based on I. Winkler, Date noi despre CIL, III, 1627, cea dintâi atestare epigrafică a Potaissei, în Potaissa, 3, 1982, 80‐81). Right: traces of the Roman road between Ceanu Mic and Aiton (photos F. Fodorean, 2001). Fig. 14. The imperial Roman road close to the village of Ceanu Mic (Cluj County). Photos: F. Fodorean, 2002. Fig. 15. The imperial Roman road from Aiton to Cluj‐Napoca. Fig. 16. Top: copy of the milestone from Aiton. Bottom: general view of the village Ceanu Mic with the traces of the Roman road in background. Fig. 17. The infrastructure of the Roman road at the entrance in Ceanu Mic. Photos F. Fodorean, 2005. Fig. 18. The central part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Apulum to Potaissa (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map D6). Fig. 19. The northern part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Napoca to Mera and Şardu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map C6). Fig. 20. Top: the milestone from Mera (Cluj County) (based on C. Daicoviciu, Un nou “miliarium” din Dacia, în AISC I, 2, 1928‐1932, 48‐53). Bottom: Austrian map indicating the location of Mera. Fig. 21. The northern part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Napoca to Mera and Şardu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map C5). Fig. 22. Map of Roman Dacia, showing the location on Micia (today Vețel, Hunedoara County). Fig. 23. The south‐western part of Roman Dacia, depicting the road from Lederata to Sasca Montană (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map F3). Fig. 24. The south‐western part of Roman Dacia, depicting the road from Iablaniţa to Lăpuşnicel and Dalboşeţ (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map F4). Fig. 25. The valley of the river Olt, indicating the location of the villages Băbiciu and Gostavăţu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map G7). Fig. 26. The valley of the river Olt, indicating the location of Racoviţa‐Copăceni (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E7). Fig. 27. The location of Tibiscum, today Jupa (Caraş‐Severin County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E4). Fig. 28. Today’s analogy of the former Danubian road close to Ogradena. Fig. 29. The Peutinger map depicting the territory of Roman Dacia (segm. VI) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 10, 27). Fig. 30. The Peutinger map depicting the territory of Roman Dacia (segm. VII) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 10, 27). Fig. 31. Map of Roman Dacia (based on I. Piso, Fasti provinciae Daciae I, Bonn, 1993, 33). Fig. 32. Fragment of Austrian map showing the location of the former capital of Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. The Roman road is depicted as “Trajans Weg”.
iii
Fig. 33. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Aerial photograph and plan (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐ dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 40 and 95). Fig. 34. The imperial Roman road close to the village Bărăştii Haţegului (Hunedoara County). Fig. 35. The imperial road between Bărăștii Hațegului and Sântămăria‐Orlea (Hunedoara County). Fig. 36. The Hațeg Depression (foto: F. Fodorean, April 2007). Fig. 37. The imperial road identified in the terrain in several points between Sarmizegetusa and Sântămăria‐Orlea (foto: F. Fodorean, April 2007). Fig. 38. The Roman road from Sarmizegetusa to Uroi, indicating the location of Ad Aquas, today Călan (Hunedoara County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E5). Fig. 39. The Roman road from Uroi to Blandiana, indicating the location of Cigmău (Hunedoara County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map D5). Fig. 40. The legionary fortress at Potaissa (based on M. Bărbulescu). Fig. 41. The topography of Potaissa. Fig. 42. The spring of the aqueducts: ‘Izvorul Copăcenilor’ (photo F. Fodorean, 2007). Fig. 43. General view with the location of the spring (photo F. Fodorean, 2007). Fig. 44. Traces of the former Roman stone quarry viewed by I. Téglas at the beginning of the XXth century, close to the spring of the aqueducts (after I. Bajusz, Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések. I/1. Kötet, Kolozsvár, 2005, s.v. Szind – Sânduleşti, 348, 350‐352). Fig. 45. The discovery point of the aqueduct supplying the Roman military fortress at Potaissa. The intersection of the current road Turda‐Petreşti with the road to Sănduleşti. Fig. 46. The discovery of the aqueduct supplying the fortress at Potaissa (winter 2005‐2006). Ceramic pipe. Depth: ‐ 0,80 m (photos M. Pîslaru, S. Nemeti). Fig. 47. Ceramic pipes. The aqueduct supplying the Roman military fortress. Length: 55 cm and 43 cm. External diameter: 16,5 cm. Internal diameter: 12,5 cm (photographs: F. Fodorean). Fig. 48. The aqueducts of Potaissa. Digital elevation model (F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean). Fig. 49. Top: the location of caput aquae. Bottom: the location of the old mill in Copăceni (photographs: F. Fodorean). Fig. 50. The aqueduct supplying the city of Potaissa. General view from Copăceni to caput aquae (photograph F. Fodorean). Fig. 51. Ceramic pipes of different sizes drawn by I. Téglás (after I. Bajusz, Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések. I/1. Kötet, Kolozsvár, 2005, 378, 379). Bottom left: ceramic pipe possible used for the aqueduct of the city. Right: stone block with orifice. Fig. 52. The site ‘Valea Sărată (Salt Valley)’ (photographs F. Fodorean, 2012). Fig. 53. The site Pataklejáró (Mihai Viteazu, Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). Fig. 54. The site ‘Sajkút’ (Mihai Viteazu, Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). Fig. 55. The Roman settlement at Copăceni (Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). Fig. 56. The Roman rural settlement from Luncani (Cluj County). Fig. 57. The location of the fortress at Ilişua. Fig. 58. The topography of Ilişua after K. Torma, Az Alsó‐ilosvai romai állótábor és müemlékei, Erdély‐ Muzeum Egylet, III, Kolozsvár 1864–1865, 58. Fig. 59. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (Hunedoara County) (sketch and photo: F. Fodorean). Fig. 60. The Roman road from Turda to Călăraşi. Left: sketch after I. Téglás, în Archaeologiai Értesitö, 33, 1913, 57. Right: fragment of an Austrian map from the 19th century depicting the same road. Fig. 61. The Roman road from Cluj‐Napoca to Gilău. Sketch and Austrian modern map from the 19th century. Fig. 62. The Roman road from Cluj‐Napoca to Gilău (photos F. Fodorean). Fig. 63. The Roman road from Gherla to Sic (Cluj County). Fig. 64. Villae rusticae in Roman Dacia. Fig. 65. The location of the place‐names from the Peutinger map indicating bridges. Fig. 66. The Trajan’s Column. Scenes depicting Roman bridges (after R. Vulpe, Trajan’s Column, Bucharest, 2000). Fig. 67. Trajan’s bridge over the Danube depicted on the Trajan’s Column (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 9). Fig. 68. Reconstruction of the Trajan’s bridge at Drobeta (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐ dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 8). Fig. 69. The location of the Roman bridge at Potaissa.
iv
Fig. 70. Map from 1956 (scale 1:20.000) indicating: 1. the route of the Roman road from Silivaş‐ Hăşdate‐Gherla‐Băiţa‐Buneşti; 2. the location of the Roman fortress from Gherla (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, ID 335/3172). Fig. 71. The Roman road from Gherla to Băiţa andBuneşti (photo F. Fodorean, 2005). Fig. 72. Map from 1956 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Hoghiz, with the name ‘la Cetate’ (‘to the fortress’). Right, bottom: map from 1955 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the same fortress with the mention ‘Standort des röm. Lagers Pons Vetus’ (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Cuciulata, 1956, ID607/3860, Cuciulata, 1955, ID 1331/3860). Fig. 73. Map from 1957 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Râşnov (Braşov County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Râşnov, ID 646/3956). Fig. 74. Map from 1917 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Breţcu (Covasna County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Breţcu, ID 810/4361). Fig. 75. Map from 1925 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman road from Gialmar to Binţinţi (Hunedoara County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Geoagiul de Jos, ID 170/2760). Fig. 76. The valley of Arieş from Turda to Roşia Montană. Digital elevation model. Fig. 77. Map from 1957 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman road from Buru (Cluj County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Rimetea, ID 250/2966). Fig. 78. The Roman road from Buru (Cluj County) (foto F. Fodorean, July 2003). Fig. 79. The Roman road from Buru (Cluj County). Detail (foto F. Fodorean, July 2003). Fig. 80. The location of the Roman tower in Moldoveneşti (Cluj County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, ID 250/2966, 1957, Rimetea and ID 289/3066, 1953, Bădeni). Fig. 81. General view of the valley of Arieş towards Turda (photo taken from the plateau in Moldoveneşti, where the Roman tower is located). Photo F. Fodorean, 2006. Fig. 82. General view of the valley of Arieş towards Turda and Câmpia Turzii (photo taken from the plateau in Moldoveneşti). Photo F. Fodorean, 2006. Fig. 83. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (photo F. Fodorean, 2003). Fig. 84. The area around Germisara.
v
Preface The road, as the bridge, or the aqueduct, represents an essential symbol of the Roman civilization. Even if this civilization was established later in Dacia – the north‐danubian territory became a Roman province only at the beginning of the second century A.D. – such constructions did not missed from Dacia. It is true that in Dacia one do not knows spectacular roads, as those today visible in Italy or in Gallia. On the other hand, the bridge over the Danube river, between Drobeta (in Dacia) and Pontes (in Moesia), built after Apollodorus of Damascus’ project, remains the most grandiose work of this type in the whole Roman Empire. The mentioning of the Roman roads from Dacia in the medieval documents, then in the historical topographical maps from the XVIIIth century, opened the interest towards terrain observations made by archaeologists in the last third of the XIXth century. In the next century the interest for such researches will grow. On the other hand, because of the changes in the landscape, the Roman roads became every day less visible. Florin Fodorean, lecturer, Ph.D., at Babeş‐Bolyai University in Cluj‐Napoca, focused his researches, from many years, on the topography of Roman Dacia and, in a wider sense, on the reconstruction of the ancient landscape, with all its components. He started these researches with a remarkable Ph.D. thesis about the roads in Roman Dacia, in 2004. Because this subject cannot be treated only for one single province, the author of the book documented himself and framed his research, in 2004 and now, within the large spectrum of the specialized literature. He knows very well the similar works for other Roman provinces. In this book, the author is among the first to introduce, within the current scientific community, researches from the XIXth century (Pierre Lapie, Louis Bonnefont, S. F. W. Hoffmann). Unquestionable, Florin Fodorean is nowadays the best Romanian specialist in the topics which form the object of this book. First, because he uses the entire available documentation, starting with the cartographic sources, either ancient, either modern, from the XVIIIth and XIXth century (his studies on Tabula Peutingeriana, the Geography of Ptolemaios or his studies in which he investigates the information from the modern historical maps are well known). Then, he analyzes the epigraphic data contained in the few Roman milestones discovered in Dacia. He also presents the available data regarding Tabula Traiana and also other epigraphic monuments, for example those discovered within the territory of the settlements with thermal waters. The author used the antique and also the modern toponimy to reconstruct the routes of several roads and to identify the location of certain Roman bridges. The author made interesting observations regarding the relation between the Roman and the modern roads, because, due to geomorphologic features, in many cases the modern roads overlap the Roman roads. He also used for his researches modern methods, such as the digital cartography (for example when he studied the Roman road between Napoca and Gilău). Finally, the author grouped all the information: the terrain researches and the archaeological investigations. Some of these data were collected by other researchers before Florin Fodorean started his activities, but the majority of these data were discovered by the author, as a consequence of many years during which the author literally walked by foot large areas within Dacia Porolissensis and Dacia Superior and discovered new Roman roads, such as the sectors Napoca ‐ Gilău ‐ Bologa, Napoca ‐ Potaissa, the Roman road along the valley of the Mureş river, the road between Războieni and Brâncoveneşti, the road between Sarmizegetusa and Subcetate, the road Gherla ‐ Sic or the road Geoagiu ‐ Cigmău. As member of the archaeological staff who excavates the legionary fortress at Potaissa, the author realized a first, complex investigation regarding the relation between the fortress, the Roman city, the aqueducts which supplied the fortress and the city, and the access towards the rural settlements within the territory of Potaissa. This type of investigation was extended and the author also analyzed the territory of Napoca, the area in the north‐east of the province (Ilişua), and also the areas of south‐eastern Transylvania, within the Hunedoara County. The reconstruction of the antique landscape, based on old maps, together with the current results of the applications using digital cartography and GIS, allows the author not just to reconstruct other roads from Dacia (Cluj, Alba and Hunedoara County), but also to establish the relation between geomorphology, roads and the military fortifications from the north and the east of Dacia, at Gherla, Bologa, Hoghiz, Râşnov and Breţcu, and the relation between roads and villae rusticae. The author also investigates the thermal places of Dacia from Germisara, Băile Herculane and Ad Aquas. We find ourselves in front of a complex book, useful for the Roman archaeology during the imperial period. The specialists from everywhere have now at their disposal the up‐to‐date situation concerning the roads and the landscape of Roman Dacia, a province of the Roman Empire still little known. Professor Mihai Bărbulescu, corresponding member of the Romanian Academy
vi
Preface For long decades in the second half of the 20th century, a study of the topography and landscape of Roman Dacia was difficult, if not impossible, as surveying on the ground, aerial photographs, and maps were considered to be a security risk for the state. But even when studies became possible, international access to them was often hindered: The number of classicists, historians and archaeologists internationally who can easily read publications in Romanian or other eastern European languages is not large, and the book trade not overly active. So when, seven years ago, Florin Fodorean’s substantial study of the „Roads in Roman Dacia“ was published in Cluj‐Napoca, the book, in spite of its English summary, was hardly studied in other parts of Europe. There is, for instance, only one copy of the book in any scholarly library in the UK! So it was time to make Florin Fodorean’s studies more widely available. The author has substantially expanded his research, and presents, in the present volume, a full study of the topography and landscape of Roman Dacia. The author first presents the results of his studies on Roman roads, and a discussion of the Roman geographical perception of Dacia before and after the conquest, which entailed the construction of the first roads. He then continues to discuss the ancient sources concerning the roads of Roman Dacia, using the Tabula Peutingeriana, itineraries and other literary sources as well as the mile‐stones, the archaeological remains, and the Tabula Traiana, to reconstruct the main roads of Roman Dacia. The third chapter widens the topic by discussing roads and rural settlements, focussing on Potaissa and surroundings, and on Napoca and beyond, with an excursus on Roman bridges. These detailed studies allow the author finally to attempt and recreate the landscape of Roman Dacia using historical 19th century cartography, digital data and GIS. It is a great pleasure to congratulate Florin Fodorean on this achievement, and BAR on the publication of this important book, and to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in Bonn, the Erasmus programme, and especially the Fritz Thyssen Foundation in Cologne for supporting his studies in Erfurt/Germany. Universität Erfurt Kai Brodersen
vii
Acknowledgments Great thanks are due to my professor, Mihai Bărbulescu, for all his support and advices. In 1999 I started my Ph.D. studies under his supervision. I became member of the staff who excavates every year the legionary fortress at Potaissa (Cluj County). Since 1995, he constantly supported my activity. I want to thank professor Kai Brodersen, who guided my activity in Erfurt, for one year and two months, as a DAAD and Fritz Thyssen scholar. 13 years ago I studied for three months in Italy, at Catania, as Erasmus/Socrates fellow, MA level, at the University of Messina, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia. My work there was supervised with patience by prof. dr. Lucietta Di Paola and prof. dr. Lietta de Salvo. I express my gratitude to several colleagues, who supported me during these years with bibliography: Lorenzo Quilici (Università degli Studi di Bologna, Dipartimento di Archeologia, Cattedra di Topografia dell’Italia antica); Stefania Quilici Gigli (Seconda Università di Napoli); Raymond Chevallier; Ingemar König (University of Trier); Heinz Herzig; Ekkehard Weber (Institut für Alte Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik Universität Wien); David Kennedy (University of Western Australia, Department of Classics and Ancient History); Ray Laurence (University of Kent, Head of the Classical and Archaeological Studies Section); Benet Salway (University of London, Institute of Classical Studies); Isaac Moreno Gallo – Ingeniero Técnico de Obras Públicas (Ministerio de Fomento, Zaragoza); Pierre Sillières; Frank Vermeulen (Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Belgium); Hubert Chanson (professor in hydraulic engineering and applied fluid mechanics in the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Queensland); Giuseppe Ceraudo (Università del Salento. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali, specialist in aerial photography applied in archaeology); Richard Talbert (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill); Jon Coulston (University of St. Andrews, School of Classics); Anne Kolb (Historisches Seminar, Universität Zürich). I also want to thank my colleagues from the Faculty of Geography, Babeș‐Bolyai University Cluj‐ Napoca, for all their help and support: assistant professor, Ph.D. Ioan Fodorean, assistant professor, Ph. D. candidate, Ciprian Moldovan. I also express my gratitude for Mariana Pîslaru (director, Ph.D., Museum of Turda) and Sorin Nemeti (assistant professor, Ph.D., Babeş‐Bolyai University Cluj‐Napoca, Faculty of History and Philosophy, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology).
Introduction This book is the result of my terrain researches made in the last 12 years.1 In 2004 I finished my Ph.D. and in 2006 I published, in Romanian, the results of this Ph.D. thesis in a book entitled Drumurile din Dacia romană (The Roads of Roman Dacia), Napoca Star Publishing House, Cluj‐Napoca, 2006, 448 p., XV plates, 69 figures in text, 3 tables, 24 x 17 cm format, 16 pages of English summary (433‐448), ISBN 973‐647‐372‐4. One of the reviewers of the book, Dan Matei, observed and wrote in the end of his presentation: ‘The volume also has an extensive English summary, which provides, however, only partially, to foreign specialists, the opportunity to have access to its content’ (D. Matei, review to my book published in Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Arheologie‐Istorie‐Muzeologie (The Journal of the Students Scientific Meetings, Archaeology‐History‐Museology), 12, 2006, Alba Iulia, p. 113‐117). After 2004 I extended my research areas. I studied not only Roman roads, but also the archaeology and topography of Potaissa, rural settlements, bridges, aqueducts, auxiliary fortresses in Dacia Porolissensis; in a word I investigated elements of the landscape of Roman Dacia, discovering new sites, new sectors of Roman roads, new artifacts. As methods, I used, mainly, the researches in the field, the cartographic material from the XVIIIth and XIXth century, the aerial photographs and the digital software (GIS). The present book is structured in four main parts. In the first section I provide information related to the roads of Roman Dacia, insisting on the new discoveries happened since I finished my Ph.D. thesis. The second part of my book is focused on the ancient sources concerning the roads of Roman Dacia. The third part presents several settlements of Roman Dacia, the analysis of their territory, the mapping of these new sites. The fourth part of the book is focused on contributions concerning the modern maps, realized by the Austrian surveyors and map makers. These maps contain a lot of data with direct reference to old, Roman settlements, which were discovered in the terrain and mapped as ruins, Roman roads etc.
1
A section of chapter 1 and another one from chapter 2 are the results of my participation within the project PODSRU, 89/1.5/S/61104. Title: Echo. Communicating in Antiquity. The Case of Roman Dacia. Individual theme of research: Dynamics of a Society: Space, Infrastructure, Travel and Mobility in Roman Dacia. Other parts of the book were developed during my stay in Germany, at the University of Erfurt, in 2010 and 2011, with the generous and kind support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, 1st November – 25 December 2010) and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation (1st January – 31 December 2011).
1
The geographical conception of the Romans, depicted in various road itineraries, highlights the importance of the communication system in the formation of a territorial unit. All the settlements in the Roman Empire emerged and developed in close connection with roads or with other settlements that were close to roads. Roman farms, cities, economic activities related to agriculture have always depended on the transport of persons and goods. From this point of view, the road was a crucial element in developing economic activities, agriculture and urban economy. The romanization of a province was achieved not only by implementing an urban civilization, but also throughout roads. Moreover, the presence of the emperor in each province was felt through inscriptions on milestones, which mention the construction or restoration of roads. The historians have often emphasized the strategic and military importance of roads. In the foreword to the work of Raymond Chevallier, Pierre Lévêque noticed that the road density and the study of the chronological development of road network confirms that in the affirmation of the Roman Empire, roads were used to spread Roman civilization, and they represented a useful tool to spread Roman power.3 The bibliography concerning the road system (articles, studies, monographs, various syntheses) is very large and dispersed. I will mention only several studies and reference works, although some are related directly to the Roman Empire and others are dedicated only to certain provinces. At the beginning of last century Konrad Miller published his monumental work on Tabula Peutingeriana. 4 The author presented the roads of the Roman Empire depicted on the Peutinger map, transferring the information on 317 maps‐sketches. Miller's contribution was decisive.5 He also published another book, less detailed comparing with the first one, but based on the same methodology.6 Subsequently, until the 1960’s, few general preoccupations regarding the roads of the Roman Empire were materialized in books. Regional syntheses were, though, published. In 1960 Hermann Schreiber published a study about the roads from Italy.7 M. P. Charlesworth wrote an interesting synthesis about the commerce routes of the Roman Empire.8 Aspects regarding the construction of the roads and the materials used for this can be consulted in the contributions of R. J. Forbes.9 Significant contributions to the study of road network in the Empire are those of Pierre Fustier. His
CHAPTER 1. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PERCEPTION AND THE ROADS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND DACIA. A GENERAL OVERVIEW 1. 1. The study of roads. A short state of research When we look to a map of a Roman province, which includes the locations of the main cities and rural settlements, the distribution of production sites, military fortifications, the Roman farms etc., we ask ourselves a simple question: which was the overall strategic and economic outlook of the Romans and what meant for a Roman province the communication network? The answer is directly related to the Roman perception of space and time and the accuracy they applied to achieve and maintain their road infrastructure. Not only during Roman times, but in any period, the fate of many settlements and cities was closely linked to the transport system and roads. From the fourth century BC, once the Roman conquests exceeded the borders of Italy, the Romans initiated a huge program specifically designed to build roads in order to ensure close connections of all conquered provinces and to create geographical and political cohesion. The program was continued later alongside with new conquests, and the concept applied by Romans was that each of the territories conquered must be connected to Rome. The Roman emperors saw the road system as a key factor of geographical and political unit. They were somehow influenced by the memory of the Persian Empire, where the royal roads, carefully constructed and monitored, secured over time the hegemony of the Achaemenid dynasty.2 Roman roads became extremely important in the history of the Roman Empire when Rome itself became a true source of civilization, because their existence has facilitated the systematic control of each province. Beginning with milliarium aureum, placed in 20 BC in capite Romani fori, between Rostra and the temple of Saturn, 19 roads started in each of the provinces of the Principate. The implementation of roads developed rapidly. During Domitian Rome already administrated 372 roads (53,000 Roman miles), which belong today to 34 countries. During Trajan’s reign, the Roman road network overpassed 75,000 miles. The road assured the unity of settlements, reducing the distances. It defined clearly the Roman perception of space, by offering to the cities the possibility to interact between them. In this sense, the road represented a mechanism of Roman power. By creating a vast road network, the geographical space was no longer fragmented. The position of Rome, as the center of the entire road system, assured its cultural and politic control over all areas and provinces.
2
3
Chevallier 1972. Miller 1916. 5 Cagnat, Chapot 1917, 41‐47; Grenier 1934. 6 Miller,1916. 7 Schreiber 1960. 8 Charlesworth 1961. 9 Forbes 1964; Forbes 1965. 4
Salama 1951, 97.
2
performed by Helmut Bender.24 Another good synthesis is the one written by Victor W. von Hagen,25 published in several editions. I had access to the Italian one. The author presents the main roads in Africa, Asia, Greece, Dacia, Pannonia, Noricum, Germany, Gaul, Britannia and Hispania. At the end of the book the viae consulares in Italy are described. Unfortunately there are no references about the construction of these roads. The photographs and drawings are very good. In connection with the roads of the Empire I should mention here Gerhard Radke’s book published in 1981.26 Although the author focuses on the presentation of roads in Italy, in the first chapter he discusses in detail the definition and the importance of roads. Another important book is the one published by N. H. H. Sitwell.27 The book has very good maps, with all the main roads represented. In a dense article, Antonio Palma28 analyzes the classification of Ulpianus regarding the roads, discussing the difference between via publica and via privata. The book of Nicolae Lascu about Roman roads and especially about travel in antiquity29 represents an interesting material. The author used a very large amount of ancient sources for the documentation of his work. R. W. Bagshawe30 published a short book about the Roman roads. The author is an amateur, but with great passion made researches focused on the Roman roads from Britain and he discovered circa 500 kilometers of routes. Bagshawe investigates the construction of Roman roads, the cartographic material used in this particular type of research, the Roman roads during the Middle Ages and modern times. An interesting chapter is dedicated to the description, step by step, of the field research concerning the roads. Colin Adams and Ray Laurence31 edited in 2001 a book which groups six important contributions written by Kai Brodersen, Benet Salway, Ray Laurence, Anne Kolb Jon Coulston and Colin Adams. Kai Brodersen32 develops a discussion about the geographical knowledge of the Romans, with solid arguments showing that the Romans were not interested in the concept of ‘scale maps’. For a traveler, an itinerarium pictum or adnotatum was enough for orientation an in order to realize long‐distance travels under optimal conditions. The author also discusses the problem of dating the Tabula Peutingeriana. Benet
monograph is among the few works that analyzes the Roman roads and their use in medieval and modern times.10 Fustier also published three interesting studies on Via Flaminia, Via Aurelia and Via Appia.11 A serious presentation of public roads in the Roman Empire was published by Thomas Pékary.12 He discussed issues regarding the names of public roads, the road construction program, the responsibility for the road construction, the financing of these activities. Pékary's book remains valuable because it is based on the idea that Roman roads were a political tool for the unification of the Empire. Another interesting study is the one published by Wiseman.13 Raymond Chevallier constantly focused his attention of the road network of different provinces of the Roman Empire (especially Gaul14), on the literary sources regarding Roman roads,15 their technical characteristics, the methods of application of aerial photographs to study of the road network,16 the research methodology of Roman roads,17 or travel in the Roman world18. The first edition of his book19 on Roman roads was followed by a second one in 1997.20 The author discusses in detail all the issues related to Roman roads: the origin of roads, their names, the role of toponymy in the research of roads, the ancient roads, the military posts, the classification of roads, the construction, infrastructure, superstructure and main technical characteristics of the transport system. Chevallier also presented the main roads from the most important provinces of the Empire. This book (especially the second, updated edition) represents, still now, in my opinion, a very good synthesis concerning the the roads of the Roman Empire. Gerhard Radke21 and Jaroslav Šašel22 also published interesting studies regarding the Roman roads. Heinz E. Herzig’s study can also be considered today an outstanding one.23 The author discusses about road funding and those who have built and maintained the roads. Very interesting was the debate around the concept of via publica. It should be noted that H. Herzig deals with the roads beginning from Republic and continuing with the period Augustus‐Vespasian. A concise discussion of Roman roads and stations is 10
Fustier 1968. Fustier 1958; Fustier 1960; Fustier 1961. See also Fustier 1963. 12 Pékary 1968. 13 Wiseman 1970. 14 Chevallier 1975; Chevallier 1975 a. 15 Chevallier 1995. 16 Chevallier 1971. 17 Chevallier, Arceduc, Soyer 1962. 18 Chevallier 1988. 19 Chevallier 1972. 20 Chevallier 1997. 21 Radke 1973, 1417 sqq. 22 Šašel 1977, 235‐244. 23 Herzig 1974, 593‐648. 11
24
Bender 1975. Hagen 1978. 26 Radke 1981. 27 Sitwell 1981. 28 Palma 1982, 850‐880. 29 Lascu 1986. 30 Bagshawe 2000. 31 Adams, Laurence 2001; reviewed by Fodorean 2003, 297‐ 302. 32 Brodersen 2001, 7‐21. 25
3
Salway33 tries to clarify the controversial problem of dating the same Peutinger Map. Anne Kolb presents essential data concerning the official transport in the Roman Empire, cursus publicus.34 Jon Coulston analized in detail the scenes of Trajan’s Column related to transport and travel.35 Ray Laurence makes an analysis of the Roman roads from Britain,36 outlining their role in the development of the settlements. Finally, Colin Adams presents a discussion regarding the travel and transport system in Egypt based on ancient sources: papyri and private letters.37 Christian Cloppet published a study concerning the laws and the construction of public roads in the Roman Empire.38 In 1971 Per Colinder published an article about the measuring of roads in antiquity.39 An interesting association between roads and Greek terms is the subject of Phyllis Culham’s study.40 Hugh Davies investigates the design of the Roman roads.41 From the most recent contributions to this subject I mention here the books published by Arnold Esch,42 Greiser Dietmar,43 R. A. Staccioli,44 Maria Stella Busana,45 Dieter Mertens,46 Cornelis van Tilburg,47 Werner Heinz,48, Michael Rathmann,49 Margot Klee,50 Gertraud und Heinz‐Egon Rösch.51 Isaac Moreno Gallo published several books about the roads in Hispania.52 An interesting article is the one written by Pierre Gros.53 Other recent contributions are the studies of I. Moreno Gallo,54 J. R. Morales,55 A. L. Palomino Lázaro and G. M. Gonzales.56 On Roman bridges a recent contribution is the book of Manuel Durán Fuentes.57 Another useful book groups articles presented within a colloquium held in Bonn.58
The Peutinger map was recently investigated by R. Talbert.59 For the first time we have here a complete presentation of the map from its beginning until de last century.60 Bernd Löhberg studied the Antonine itinerary.61 The first volume presents all the data regarding the settlements and distances from Itinerarium Antonini. The second volume presents numerous maps with the information from the ancient documents, the routes and the distances. Since 2000, the Barington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (edited and coordinated by Richard R.J. Talbert) changed definitively the perceptions regarding Roman cartography and Roman roads.62 The atlas represents an indispensable instrument for all the researchers. It contains 99 full‐color maps of the entire Roman world, at a very detailed scale. A huge amount of articles, notes, books, references regarding the roads from certain provinces were published over the years. But a paradox exists: the number of these publications is so big, and is increasing with every year, but the roads from some provinces were not presented until now in a monographic form or in a micro regional volume. In the following lines I will mention some of the most important contributions regarding the roads from several Roman provinces. In 1999 Ray Laurence published a synthesis regarding the Roman roads from Italy.63 The author analyzes the road system in close interaction with the development of the cities. He also discusses the construction of the roads between 312‐44 BC, the politics of road building, the technological changes, and the transport. This book presents rather a cultural vision about roads than a technical one. For the study of Roman roads in Italy decisive contributions were published by Lorenzo Quilici.64 He is the editor of the well known Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica. This journal groups important contributions written by historians and researchers mainly from Italy. Five numbers were dedicated to Roman roads and bridges.65 The Roman roads from Spain were investigated for several years by Pierre Sillières. The results of this research were published in a book in 1990.66
33
Salway 2001, 22‐66. Kolb 2001, 95‐105; see also Kolb 2002, 67‐77. 35 Coulston 2001, 106‐137. 36 Laurence 2001, 67‐94. 37 Adams 2001, 138‐166. 38 Cloppet 1994, 309‐318. 39 Colinder 1971, 19‐22. 40 Culham 1987, 161‐170. 41 Davies 1998, 1‐16. 42 Esch 1997. 43 Dietmar 1997. 44 Staccioli 2003. 45 Bussana 1997. 46 Mertens (ed.) 2008. 47 Tilburg 2007. 48 Heinz 2003. 49 Rathmann 2003. 50 Klee 2010. 51 Rösch, Rösch 2010. 52 See http://www.traianvs.net; Moreno Gallo 2004; Moreno Gallo 2006. 53 Gros 2010, 165‐174. 54 Moreno Gallo 2010, 1‐22; Moreno Gallo 2010 a, 11‐46. 55 Morales 2010, 119‐134. 56 Lázaro, Gonzales 2010, 47‐73. 57 Fuentes 2005. 58 Koschik 2004. 34
59
Talbert 2010. Talbert 2010, 149. 61 Löhberg 2006. 62 Talbert 2000. 63 Laurence 1999. 64 See, for example: Quilici 1991 and Quilici, Quilici 2004. 65 ATTA 1, 1992; ATTA 2, 1993; ATTA 5, 1996; ATTA 11, 2002; ATTA 13, 2004. I express my gratitude for Lorenzo Quilici, who kindly sent me, over these years, all the important numbers of ATTA. 66 Sillières 1990. 60
4
The roads from Gallia were studied by G. Radke,67 L. Fanaud,68 E. Thévenot,69 I. König,70 P. Broise,71 M. Thérèse and G. Raepsaet‐Charlier,72 M. Gayraud,73 D. Brentchaloff and J. Gascou,74 G. Reverdy,75 M. F. Avril,76 G. T. Alexandrowicz and R. Bedon,77 J. M. Desbordes,78 G. Castellvi, J. P. Combs, J. Kotarba and A. Pezin,79 P. Clement and A. Peyre.80 These articles and books are focused on particular sectors of roads, Roman milestones, and ancient documents. Recently, new contributions were published.81 The Roman roads of Britain were first studied by Thomas Codrington, at the beginning of the XXth century.82 The historian gathered all the data available at that moment. His book remained for the next 52 years the only synthesis about the roads in Britain. In 1955 and 1957 Ivan M. Margary published two volumes concerning the same topic.83 An interesting study is also the one published by Ray Laurence.84 The roads of Raetia were studied by Gerold Walser. He initiated, in the 1970’s, a research program concerning the roads, within the series Itinera Romana. The roads from the southern part of Raetia were investigated by Denis van Berchem.85 The roads of Alpes Maritimae, Cottiae, Graiae şi Poeninae are described in the study of Jean Prieur.86 In 1949 G. Pascher published a book about the Roman roads from Pannonia Superior.87 Until now there is no synthesis published about the Roman roads of Pannonia Inferior. But data regarding these roads can be found is the book of András Mócsy 88 and in a study of Tóth Endre.89 Recently a doctoral thesis of András Bödöcs is focused on the Roman road network in Hungary using GIS.90
A special book on the roads of Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior has not been published yet. Among the contributions regarding the roads in this area we notice those written by D. Tsontchev,91 M. Mirković,92 T. Tomowski,93 V. Vladimirov,94 L. Hollenstein,95 T. Gerasimova and L. L. Hollenstein,96 P. Petrović.97 Recently Mitko Madzharov published a book about the Roman roads in Bulgaria.98 The roads from Asia Minor were studied by D. French.99 The communication system of Cilicia was analyzed by Terence Bruce Mitford.100 The roads of Cappadocia were described by Timothy B. Mitford.101 The roads from Egypt are presented by Colin Adams102 and Pau Figueras.103 The communication system from Arabia was investigated by David F. Graf,104 Israel Roll,105 and David Kennedy.106 The roads of North Africa were studied by P. A. Salama107 and J. M. Jaubert.108 The communication system of Sicily was described by G. P. Verbrugghe,109 D. Adameşteanu,110 G. Uggeri111, R. J. A. Wilson112 and Lucietta di Paola.113 The roads of Sardinia were investigated by P. Meloni.114 The roads of Corsica were analyzed by O. Jehasse and F. Nucci.115 1. 2. The geographical perception of space during Roman times Communication is essential for the development of civilizations. In the absence of elements that provide the opportunity to exchange information of any kind, a society becomes self‐ 91
Tsontchev 1959, 154‐170. Mirković 1960, 249‐257. 93 Tomowski 1961, 113‐125. 94 Vladimirov 1963, 33‐34. 95 Hollenstein 1975, 23‐44; Hollenstein 1995, 179‐189. 96 Gerasimova and Hollenstein 1978, 91‐121; Gerasimova and Hollenstein 1989, 45‐58. 97 Petrović 1986, 41‐51. 98 Madzharov 2009. 99 French 1980, 698‐727. 100 Mitford 1980, 1230‐1261. 101 Mitford 1980a, 1170‐1223. 102 Adams 2001, 138‐166. 103 Figueras 1999, 121‐124. 104 Graf 1999, 227‐229. 105 Roll 1999, 109‐113. 106 Kennedy 1995, 221‐227; Kennedy 1996, 257‐262; Kennedy 1997, 71‐93; Kennedy 1998, 56‐65; Kennedy 1998a, 91‐96; Kennedy 1998b, 573‐585. 107 Salama 1951; Salama 1980, 101‐133; Salama 1985, 219‐ 231. 108 Jaubert 1980, 161‐184. 109 Verbrugghe 1976. 110 Adameşteanu 1962, 199‐209; Adameşteanu 1963, 19‐48. 111 Uggeri 1982‐1983, 424‐459. 112 Wilson 1992, 10‐16. 113 Di Paola 1999; Di Paola 1999a, 459‐469. 114 Meloni 1988, 451‐490. 115 Jehasse, Nucci 2000. 92
67
Radke 1964, 299‐318. Fanaud 1966. 69 Thévenot 1969. 70 König 1970. 71 Broise 1974, 89‐110. 72 Thérèse, Raepsaet‐Charlier 1975, 61‐73. 73 Gayraud 1981, 498‐561. 74 Brentchaloff, Gascou 1995, 245‐254. 75 Reverdy 1995. 76 Avril 1996. 77 Alexandrowicz, Bedon 1996. 78 Desbordes 1997. 79 Castellvi, Combs, Kotarba and Pezin 1998. 80 Clement, Peyre 1998. 81 Thiollier‐Alexandrowicz 2000; Gendron 2006; Coulon 2007. 82 Codrington 1903. 83 Margary 1955, 1957. 84 Laurence 2001, 67‐94. 85 Van Berchem 1982. 86 Prieur 1976. 87 Pascher 1949. 88 Mócsy 1974. 89 Endre 1977, 65‐75. 90 Bödöcs 2008, Ph. D. manuscript. I express my gratitude to the author, who kindly put at my disposal the manuscript of the Ph.D. 68
5
contributions of Finley119 or Raepsaet120. However, numerous contributions have overpassed these ideas. Many historians analyzed the history of Roman roads, the routes, the modalities of construction, aspects regarding travel, commerce, literary or juridical sources.121 Some of them even wondered why Dacia entered in the attention of the Romans and why they conquered this territory. In the recent years several new contributions have appeared in this field of research.122 We call ‘exceptions’ those books or those authors which went further with their research and tried to explain, besides providing strictly technical information regarding roads, how Romans travelled, how they saw their geographical space. In 1974, Casson published a book related to travel in the ancient world.123 He points out: ‘This book is the first full‐scale treatment, in any language, of travel in the ancient world’’.124 And he was not exaggerating. His subsequent overview covers a long period of time, from 3000 B.C. to pilgrimages to the Holy Lands. Part two of his book deals with travel in Roman times, with direct reference to all the main topics related to travel. So his book presents a world in continuous movement, not a static one. Another outstanding contribution is that of R. Chevallier on travel in the Roman Empire.125 In recent years, researchers have had the courage to raise new simple questions: What did travel mean in the Roman era? How could one plan it? How was it realized? What were the benefits, the risks and hazards? How did Romans perceive their own geographical space? How did they understand time and distance? How was information spread? How did officials travel? How did ordinary citizens travel? In terms of method, at first glance, one can say that by studying the Roman roads we can understand all the mechanisms which are in relation to this topic. This is a wrong, inadequate and incomplete vision. The road is a means, a physical “object” created by man, which reshaped the landscape. But the road generated other actions. The most important is the alteration in the perception of the geographical space. When you suddenly discover that you can travel easily from point A to point B, that point B “does not seem” so far as you thought. As if today: in term of travelling by plane, your mind switches and one’s perception is that Cluj‐Napoca is only two hours away from Rome, but still New York is a little bit far away from Cluj‐Napoca. Let’s change the
isolated. The Roman Empire, through its general policy, understood this perfectly. Communication is done ‘physically’ using the infrastructure, which provides opportunities for goods and people to travel and organize a territory, but also the access to information, the means of total control. Information means power. This assumption is valid for all periods. To administrate a huge territory, the emperors of Rome understood the need to invest human and financial resources into an idea and to support it strongly: namely, the creation of communication infrastructure. ‘Road building was a political act’, emphasized Ray Laurence in his book regarding the roads of Roman Italy.116 In another chapter he insists on the same idea.117 The whole unity of the Empire relied on the communication system. To construct and maintain such a huge amount of roads, however, was primarily the work of the state, and the state in turn relied on the efforts of legions and soldiers. All the territories conquered and administrated by Romans were filled with exceptional roads. In fact, this represented a crucial key for the maintenance of the unity of the Roman Empire. In order to understand how these mechanisms functioned in such perfect unity, we have to see how Romans view their space, how they understood their geography. Roads are technical ‘means’ that assured the communication within the Roman Empire. This communication involved human resources (travel of officials, of individuals, merchants, soldiers, reasons for travel: personal, business, leisure etc.). Travel means time, planning, routes, stop points, distances, documents (itineraria), inscriptions (milestones). Travel means information or presupposes getting to information, which, as today, was essential in Roman times. In this way Romans created a unified space. If we analyze such things, we can be able to take a closer look to the concepts of the Romans, or, in other words, to the historical truth. In the traditional scholarship opinions (sometimes insufficiently argued) have emerged and spread regarding the following: the perception of space in the Roman Empire, the role of itineraries, the level of the geographical knowledge, the higher costs related to land transport, and the existence of Roman scale maps. Certain historians have imagined the Roman Empire as a space of static communities. In a study regarding travel and geographical knowledge in the Roman Empire published by Kai Brodersen,118 we discover several references to the modern historical tradition that insisted on false and negative aspects related to land transport. These ideas can be observed in the
119
Finley 1973. Raepsaet 1999, 1097‐1106. 121 Schreiber 1960; Charlesworth 1961; Chevallier et alii 1962, 1‐49. 122 Adams 2001, 138‐166; Adams 2007; Talbert 2000; Talbert 2003; Van Tilburg 2006. 123 Casson 1974. 124 Casson 1974, 9. 125 Chevallier 1988. 120
116
Laurence 1999, 39. Laurence 1999, 199: ‘What made a province Roman was the road system [...]. The road was a device of power that produced a distinctly Roman space across Europe and the Mediterranean.‘ 118 Brodersen 2001, 7‐21. 117
6
humankind: the roads. These roads were the key factor for the development of the Empire. One of the best presentations regarding geographical knowledge and the perception of space is Claude Nicolet’s book published in 1991.127 In fact, in the introduction, the author points out: ’The topic of this book is a historical reflection on space’. Nicolet tries to solve some essential questions concerning the perception of space in the Roman world. He started with a pertinent observation: How was this huge space organized and managed, and how did the central power succeed in keeping the Empire safe? It is obvious, and the author affirms, that the Romans had a definite vision of their geographical space. Further on, Nicolet points out that a study of the history of geography must begin by examining how Romans looked at their space. In fact, Nicolet makes an outstanding observation, which is, clearly, related to the subject of his book.128 In 2004, Whittaker wonderfully addressed the same idea in Chapter 4 of his book concerning the Roman frontiers.129 He presented in summary all the fundamental sources regarding space in the Roman world. He concluded that Romans had a horizontal view of their space, so ‘a different visual comprehension of space from ours’. His argument relies on the following: the Peutinger map and other itineraria reflect this tradition, beginning in the first century BC, as the discovery of the Artemidorus papyrus proves.130 What was the level of the geographical knowledge in Roman times? To answer this question, we need to know: 1. Which knowledge did the Romans inherit from the Greeks? Or, more precisely, did they use geographic data? 2. What do the Roman literary sources mention regarding geography? 3. How did Romans apply what knowledge they had? First, to set up and develop a research method, one should have in mind some of the following starting concepts: 1. the classical scholarship related to subject; 2. the concept of “itinerary”, as we see it today and, more important, as it was understood by Romans; 3. the analysis and the interpretation of literary sources regarding travel in the Roman world; 4. the level of the geographical knowledge; 5. understanding how “maps” were created and which were the sources used; 6. sources from the category itineraria picta et adnotata, inscriptions and other
“vehicle”: by car Rome is 2000 km away (maybe 3 days), New York… almost unreachable, if we think this way. The same mental mechanism happened during Roman times. But this is not enough to understand the whole impact of road construction within the Roman world. The roads were indeed important. The last number of Dossiers de l’archéologie (No. 343, January‐February 2011) analyzes Les voies romaines autour de la Méditerranée. Almost 30 years ago, no. 67 of the same journal published contributions concerning the same topic. Why are roads so important? Because they created a new world, a new geographical space, new possibilities for people to travel, to change ideas, information. The road changed the economy, the strategic defense, the landscape. Or, as Sylvie Crogiez‐ Pétrequin and Jean‐Luc Fiches state: “Le rôle du génie militaire dans la construction des routes apparaît particulièrement forte au Proche‐Orient, mais l’armée était aussi mobilisée, dans certaines circonstances, pour la surveillance des routes comme en témoignent les fortins disposes le long des pistes du desert égyptien ou dans la traverse du Djurdjura (Algérie). La représentation du pouvoir impérial à travers les milliaires et les tabellaria, le fonctionnement concret de l’État et le rôle des habitants des provinces dans l’équipement des route, constitue encore de nouvelles perspectives de recherche, au‐delà de la construction et de l’entretien de la route elle‐même, et du repérage de son tracé, qui a lui aussi bénéficie de progrès techniques considérables. L’image de la voie romaine au tracé réctiligne, que la photographie a largement diffusée, suppose de véritables constructions, intègrées souvent dans un aménagement plus large du territoire”.126 In the first chapter of the first book of his work Geographike hyphegesis, Ptolemy states: “The essence of world cartography (geographia) is to show the known world as a single and continuous entity, its nature, and how it is situated, taking account only of the things that are associated with it in its broader, general outlines (such as gulfs, great cities (poleion megalon), the more notable people and rivers and the more noteworthy things of each kind).” (Ptolemy. Geog. 1.1) “…regional cartography (chorographia), as an independent discipline, sets out the individual localities, each one independently and by itself, registering practically everything down to the least thing therein (for example, harbors, towns, districts, branches of principal rivers, and so on)…” (1.1) The Romans were not happy with these distinctions. As a consequence, they created, used and extended the itineraria. Why? The Roman society was an advanced one. Technologically, they invented and used a lot of new things. But, economically and strategically, they implemented, developed and maintain what we can today the key element for the 126
127
Nicolet 1991. Nicolet 1991, 2: ‘In order to set boundaries to their empire and to claim to have reached those that were marked out, the Romans needed a certain perception of geographical space, of its dimensions and of the area they occupied [...]. The objective is to know how the Romans, at a turning point in their history, became aware of this and adapted’. 129 Whittaker 2004, 63‐87. 130 Brodersen 2001, 16‐18. 128
Crogiez‐Pétrequin, Fiches 2011, 3‐4.
7
because he managed to develop a plane projection system with meridians and parallels and the conception that the world is a vast island surrounded by Ocean to all its cardinal points. He left these ideas and after him almost all authors mentioned him. The mechanism is a little odd: mainly, the majority of Latin authors criticized the work of Eratosthenes but they always cited him (see Cicero, Varro, Vitruvius, Pliny, and Mela). Another aspect: by the time of Eratosthenes the ‘horizontal’ vision of the oikumene was already established. Nicolet observes this.133 So, this was the perception of the oikumene in the Hellenistic period.134 The known world was between Hercules’s Columns to India from West to East and between Thule and Meroë from North to South. So, a geographical space twice as wide as it is long. The Romans were not indifferent to this knowledge. Often, as Nicolet observed,135 we are tempted to think that they were, by definition, only conquerors, explorers, specialists in land measurement, and the Greeks were the people that created the science of cartography. It is not at all like that. Every society had its needs. The Roman world needed the access to information to control the territory of Empire. How did they do this? Simply by presenting or representing the geographical knowledge in form of itineraria, either written or drawn.136 They were interested in how one can get from one point to another, which was the distance, the stopping points etc.137 1. 3. The geographical knowledge about Dacia before the roman conquest The regions north of the Danube were basically almost unknown until Trajan conquered Dacia. In the fourth century B.C. Herodotus knew from Thracians that the land north of the Ister (Danube) is occupied by bees. What is funnier is another fact: he didn’t believe this, because he further affirms that in
artifacts related to distances and routes (milestones, tabellaria, the Vicarello goblets, the Amiens skillet or patera, the Dura‐Europos Shield, stadiasmus provinciae Lyciae); 7. comparative study concerning information related to distances, in order to clarify the location of settlements, the average distance between one point to another in different sources; 8. distances and communication in the Roman Empire; 9. the relation between space and time, which reduces a potential travel through space to a list, as the calendar does the same with time; 10. from cursus publicus to private persons: travel in the Roman world; 11. the concept of organizing space (the widespread of towns and settlements according to the itineraria); 12. understanding tradition: from Romans to modern times – comparative analysis of itineraries. This reflects what S. M. Graham highlighted in 2006:131 ‘Most people have a mental image of how places interrelate, how they connect [...]. For the Roman, large‐scale geographical space was sometimes viewed as a list, of what‐comes‐next. Details about the space between places could always be supplied by a knowledgeable local, but the global perception was courtesy of a list, an itinerary. How successful one’s journey was, depended on the quality of the itinerary’. A communis opinio has spread among certain historian regarding this subject. This outlines that Romans were not proficient at making maps. Of course, the Greek tradition was very powerful. Nicolet refers to this and he makes a fine observation: the Greeks gained geographical knowledge in time more by sea than by land, because they were in contact with so many nations, and, practically, they created what we know by the term periplus.132 In the early period, geographical information was what we might call a description of the inhabited world, mixing details regarding people, their customs, their history and often their myths. So, geographic information was mixed with ethnography (see for this Hecateus of Miletus or Herodotus). However this knowledge developed also on scientific and theoretical bases. Of course, if we just mention here that in the fifth century B.C. the Greeks already formulated the hypothesis of a spherical terrestrial globe, we are faced with two possibilities. In the first case, geography means literary description of people and places, in the second case geography is astronomy or mathematics. What better example could we offer here than to mention the name of Anaximander, who is credited with the first map? After that, other important geographers went further with their ‘research’. Eratosthenes had an elliptical vision of the oikumene. His calculations were outstanding. He gave the value of 252,000 stades, which equals 39,690 km the circumference of Earth. He is extremely important in the history of cartography 131 132
133 Nicolet 1991, 61: ‘to Eratosthenes no lands existed farther East than India (except several islands, among them Taprobane – that is, Ceylon; and secondly that is his conception of the world with its overestimated length (though smaller than it is in reality’. 134 Dilke 1985; Dilke 1987, 35‐39; Talbert 2008, 9‐27, an outstanding presentation of the state of research regarding Greek and Roman mapping. For Roman cartography: Dilke 1987a, 201‐211; Dilke 1987b, 212‐233; Dilke 1987c, 234‐257; Dilke 1987d, 258‐275. 135 Nicolet 1991, 66. 136 Brodersen 2001, 18‐19. 137 Aujac 1987, 130‐147; Aujac 1987a, 148‐160; Aujac 1987 b, 161‐176; Brodersen 1995; Brodersen 1996, 29‐43; Brodersen 1997; Brodersen 1999, 2‐4; Brodersen 2001a, 137‐148; Brodersen 2004, 183‐190; Dilke 1971; Talbert 2004, 21‐37; Talbert 2008, 9‐27; Talbert, Brodersen 2004; Talbert, Unger 2008.
Graham 2006, 45‐64. Nicolet 1991, 58.
8
Basically, most of the ancient authors use the same topos to describe Dacia. They mention the ‘legendary’ Scythicum frigus,140 the drunkenness of the Barbarians, and their awkward, savage way of life. Publius Ovidius Naso (43 B.C. – 17/18 A.D.), exiled by Augustus to Tomis, do not mentions the Dacians. For him, the name “Dacian” is the same thing as Gaete. His main “themes” are related to the coldness of the weather, the savage of the Barbarians and their strange, wild customs. Of course he exaggerates and he complains a lot:
‘Solus ad egressus missus septemplicis Istri, Parrhasiae gelido virginis axe premor’. “I was sent to live close to the seven mouths of the Ister, Where I suffer from extremely cold weather.”141 Trogus Pompeius (first century B.C.) wrote Historiae Philippicae (44 books). Only several passages survived at Justinus (second century A.D.). He creates the same apocalyptic image regarding the barbarism of the Dacians: ‘Daci quoque soboles Getarum sunt: qui cum Orole rege adversus Bastarnas male pugnassent, ad ultionem segnitiae capture somnum capita ioco pedum ponere iussu Regis[…]’. “The Dacians are part of the Getae nation. During the reign of Oroles, because they didn’t fight well against the Bastarnes, they were forced, from the order of the king, that when they went to sleep, to put their head close to their feet […]”.142 Even a very educated and important geographer as Strabo provides only a general description of Dacia. It is obvious he was never interested in regions which were not included in the Roman Empire. And we can add here another fact: Dacia was not even a part of the areas considered by Strabo “semi‐civilized” – as the Parthian kingdom, India or Arabia Felix – and to whom it was worth to accord some attention. Therefore, Strabo limits himself only to state that north of the Ister one can find “the regions beyond Rhine and Celtic region” (VII, 1, 1): 143 “Now that I have described Iberia and the Celtic and Italian tribes, along with the islands near by, it will be next in order to speak of the remaining parts of Europe, dividing them in the approved manner. The remaining parts are: first, those towards the east, being those which are across the Rhenus and extend as far as the Tanaïs and the mouth of Lake Maeotis, and also all those regions lying between the Adrias and the regions on the left of the Pontic Sea that are shut off by the Ister and extend towards the south as far as Greece and the Propontis; for this river divides very nearly the whole of the aforesaid land into two parts. It is the largest of the European rivers, at the outset flowing towards the south and then turning straight from the west towards the east and the Pontus. It rises in the western limits of Germany, as also near the
138
141
139
142
the territories north of the Danube it is so cold that no bees or no people can live (V, 10).138 Caius Iulius Caesar, in Comentarii de Bello Gallico (VI, 25), shows that he knows nothing about Dacia. His only observation regarding these areas is related to the length of the Hercinyae silvae: ‘Huius Hercyniae silvae, quae supra demonstrata est, latitudo novem dierum iter expedito patet: non enim aliter finiri potest, neque mensuras itinerum noverunt. Oritur ab Helvetiorum et Nemetum et Rauracorum finibus rectaque fluminis Danubi regione pertinet ad fines Dacorum et Anartium; hinc se flectit sinistrorsus diversis ab flumine regionibus multarumque gentium fines propter magnitudinem adtingit; neque quisquam est huius Germaniae, qui se aut adisse ad initium eius silvae dicat, cum dierum iter LX processerit, aut, quo ex loco oriatur, acceperit. Multaque in ea genera ferarum nasci constat, quae reliquis in locis visa non sint; ex quibus quae maxime differant ab ceteris et memoriae prodenda videantur haec sunt’. “The breadth of this Hercynian forest, which has been referred to above, is to a quick traveler, a journey of nine days. For it can not be otherwise computed, nor are they acquainted with the measures of roads. It begins at the frontiers of the Helvetii, Nemetes, and Rauraci, and extends in a right line along the river Danube to the territories of the Daci and the Anartes; it bends thence to the left in a different direction from the river, and owing to its extent touches the confines of many nations; nor is there any person belonging to this part of Germany who says that he either has gone to the extremity of that forest, though he had advanced a journey of sixty days, or has heard in what place it begins. It is certain that many kinds of wild beast are produced in it which have not been seen in other parts; of which the following are such as differ principally from other animals, and appear worthy of being committed to record”.139
Bărbulescu 1999, 33. Popa‐Lisseanu 2006, 15‐16; Caesar, The Gallic War, vol. I, Loeb Classical Library 72, translated by H. J. Edwards. 140 Nemeti 2009, 411‐427.
Ovidius, Tristium II; Popa‐Lisseanu 2006, 30, 46. Popa‐Lisseanu 2006, 70. 143 Strabo, VII, 1, 1 apud Loeb Classical Library edition 182, vol. III, 1924, translated by Horace Leonard Jones.
9
recess of the Adriatic (at a distance from it of about one thousand stadia), and comes to an end at the Pontus not very far from the outlets of the Tyras and the Borysthenes, bending from its easterly course approximately towards the north. Now the parts that are beyond the Rhenus and Celtica are to the north of the Ister; these are the territories of the Galatic and the Germanic tribes, extending as far as the Bastarnians and the Tyregetans and the River Borysthenes. And the territories of all the tribes between this river and the Tanaïs and the mouth of Lake Maeotis extend up into the interior as far as the ocean and are washed by the Pontic Sea. But both the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes, and all tribes of the Celtic or other peoples that are mingled with these, as far as Greece, are to the south of the Ister. But let me first describe the parts outside the Ister, for they are much simpler than those on the other side”. In book VII, 3, 1, he writes: „As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis, the portion which is just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi; then immediately adjoining this is the land of the Getae, which, though narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister on its southern side and on the opposite side along the mountain‐side of the Hercynian Forest (for the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains), afterwards broadens out towards the north as far as the Tyregetae; but I cannot tell the precise boundaries. It is because of men's ignorance of these regions that any heed has been given to those who created the mythical „Rhipaean Mountains” and „Hyperboreans”, and also to all those false statements made by Pytheas the Massalian regarding the country along the ocean, wherein he uses as a screen his scientific knowledge of astronomy and mathematics”. Then, he continues: “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” [...] (VII, 3, 2). ”But there is also another division of the country which has endured from early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae ‐ Getae, those who incline towards the Pontus and the east, and Daci, those who incline in the opposite direction towards Germany and the sources of the Ister. The Daci, I think, were called ’Daï’ in early times; whence the slave names ’Geta’ and ’Daüs’ which prevailed among the Attic people” [...] (VII, 3, 12).
10
Strabo also describes, but very generally the courses of the rivers Marisus (Mureş) and Danubius (Dunărea): ”The Marisus River flows through their country into the Danuvius, on which the Romans used to convey their equipment for war; the ’Danuvius’ I say, for so they used to call the upper part of the river from near its sources on to the cataracts, I mean the part which in the main flows through the country, of the Daci, although they give the name ’Ister’ to the lower part, from the cataracts on to the Pontus, the part which flows past the country of the Getae. The language of the Daci is the same as that of the Getae. Among the Greeks, however, the Getae are better known because the migrations they make to either side of the Ister are continuous, and because they are intermingled with the Thracians and Mysians” [...] (VII, 3, 13). Strabo (ca. 63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) was a respected historian, geographer and philosopher. In his position, he traveled a lot.144 Even so, with all his possibilities of traveling, exploring, reading, even if he had access to information, his descriptions regarding Dacia are very general. As Strabo, the famous Pliny the Elder (23 A.D. ‐ 79 A.D.) has also little knowledge about this territory. I agree with Mattern’s opinion that Pliny was incapable to imagine Dacia as a territory of certain shape and extent, limited by geographical features.145 Even if he worked so hard, he didn’t succeed to offer rich information about all territories. In fact, the name “Dacia” is mentioned only once, at the end of book VI, (39) 219: ’Hactenus antiquorum exacta celebravimus. sequentium diligentissimi quod superest terrarum supra tribus adsignavere segmentis, a Tanai per Maeotim lacum et Sarmatas usque Borysthenen atque ita per Dacos partemque Germaniae, Gallias oceani litora amplexi, quod esset horarum XVI, alterum per Hyperboreos et Britanniam horarum XVII, postremum Scythicum a Ripaeis iugis in Thylen, in quo dies continuarentur, ut diximus, noctesque per vices’. “Thus far we have set forth the results of observations made by the ancients. The remaining part of the earth has been divided, through the careful researches of those of more recent times, by three additional parallels. The first runs from the Tanais
144
He travelled to Egypt and Asia Minor, he sailed up the Nile. Between 44 B.C. and at least 31 B.C. he stayed, studied and wrote in Rome. It seems that in 17 A.D. he returned to Rome and finished his 17‐volume work Geographica (see Dueck 2000). 145 Mattern 1999, 209.
through the Mæotis and the country of the Sarmatæ, as far as the Borysthenes, and so through the Daci and part of Germany, and the Gallic provinces, as far as the shores of the ocean, the longest day being sixteen hours. The second parallel runs through the country of the Hyperborei and the island of Britannia, the longest day being seventeen hours in length. The last of all is the Scythian parallel, which runs from the Riphæan range to Thule, in which, as we have already stated, the year is divided into days and nights alternately, of six months’ duration”.146 The name ‘getae’ is mentioned only twice (IV, 41, 80): “Haemi excelsitas VI passuum subitur. aversa eius et in Histrum devexa Moesi, Getae, Aedi, Scaugdae Clariaeque et sub iis Arraei Sarmatae, quos Areatas vocant, Scythaeque et circa Ponti litora Moriseni Sitonique, Orphei vatis genitores, optinent” (IV, 41). “To reach the summit of Hæmus you have to travel six miles. The sides of it that look in the opposite direction and slope towards the Ister are inhabited by the Mœsi, the Getæ, the Aorsi, the Gaudæ, and the Clariæ; below them, are the Arræi Sarmatæ, also called Arreatæ, the Scythians, and, about the shores of the Euxine, the Moriseni and the Sithonii, the forefathers of the poet Orpheus, dwell”. A short presentation regarding the course of the Danube is provided in book IV, 79: ’Ortus hic in Germania iugis montis Abnouae ex adverso Raurici Galliae oppidi, multis ultra Alpes milibus ac per innumeras lapsus gentes Danuvi nomine, inmenso aquarum auctu et unde primum Illyricum adluit Hister appellatus, LX amnibus receptis, medio ferme eorum numero navigabili, in Pontum vastis sex fluminibus evolvitur’. “This river springs in Germany in the heights of Mount Abnoba, opposite to Rauricum, a town of Gaul, and flows for a course of many miles beyond the Alps and through nations innumerable, under the name of the Danube. Adding immensely to the volume of its waters, at the spot where it first enters Illyricum, it assumes the name of Ister, and, after receiving sixty rivers, nearly one half of which are navigable, rolls into the Euxine by six vast channels”. It is obvious from these passages that Pliny had a vague idea about this lands and that his writing style, in this case and in others, is certainly linear.147 This proves that he tried to inform the reader using
geographic and topographic details, but these are not proper “spatial descriptions”, but rather this is a linear construction of his discourse: “Pliny’s eye for description is that of the traveler who pauses to view the landscape stretching horizontally in front of him”.148 Josephus Flavius (37‐100 A.D.), in Bellum Iudaicum, II, 16, offers also general data regarding the land inhabited by the Thracians and Dacians:149 “The Thracians, who have a land with a width of five days traveling and a length of seven, a land much more harsh than your land (referring to the Jewish lands) and much more fortified and where is so cold, doesn’t they have fear of a Roman garrison of 2000 men?” Dio Chrysostomus150 (ca. 40 A.D. – ca. 120 A.D.) lived the life of a Cynic philosopher, undertaking a journey to the countries in the north and east of the Roman Empire: Thrace, Mysia, Scythia, and the country of the Getae. Unfortunately, the supposed written work concerning the Getae was lost.151 The geography of Dacia remained a mystery until the reign of Domitian. This is, in my opinion, the first moment when the Romans, i.e. the military troops, became aware of the north‐danubian territory. During Domitian, the Dacians, reunited again in a powerful centralized state under the rule of Diurpaneus, the predecessor of Decebalus, threatened again Moesia. The war of Domitian against the Dacians and its political and military consequences were subject of many debates.152 The mismatches between different opinions regard some chronological and geographical issues. This conflict affected also the neighbouring provinces of Dacia, especially Moesia. Cassius Dio (LXVII, 6) writes: “At this time the Romans became involved in a very serious war with the Dacians, whose king was then Decebalus. This man was shrewd in his understanding of warfare and shrewd also in the waging of war; he judged well when to attack and chose the right moment to retreat; he was an expert in ambuscades and a master in pitched battles; and he knew not only how to follow up a victory well, but also how to manage well a defeat. Hence he showed himself a worthy antagonist of the Romans for a long time. I call the people Dacians, the names used by the natives themselves as well as by the Romans, though I am not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not;
148
Whittaker 2004, 68. Popa‐Lisseanu 2006, 221. 150 Or Dion of Prusa or Dio Cocceianus. 151 Bărbulescu 1999, 33. 152 Strobel 1989; Jones 1992; Stefan 2005; Nemeth 2007, 144. 149
146
Pliny, Natural History, vol. II, books 3‐7, Loeb Classical Library 352, 1942, translated by H. Rackham. 147 McQuiggan 2006‐2007, 80‐81.
11
with the Dacians, Domitian focused his attention to the conflict with the Germans. According to Cassius Dio (LVII, 7), the emperor was very angry because the Germans refused to offer military aid for the Romans in the conflict with the Dacians. Domitian wanted to arrive rapidly close to the areas inhabited by the Germans. Obviously, the Roman troops took the shortest route from the Dacian theatre of hostilities.156 One inscription shows that some of them had to march through Dacia157 and then northwards through the Hungarian plain. But Domitian soon left Pannonia for the Rhine, and then he returned back because Romans were defeated. After that he accepted the peace with the Dacians. In Rome he celebrated triumph over the Dacians and the Chatti, but not over the Germans. So, some troops marched though Dacia and maybe this was the first time when the Romans were really in the position to see some of the areas which later will form Trajan’s Dacia. Information regarding the Dacians territories could be gathered also by the merchants. It may be possible that in Dacia Italian merchants were present often between the first century B.C. and the first century A.D., because products brought here by them were discovered. But we do not have other strong arguments to prove this. Anyway I would agree with Mattern’s observation, that merchants were untrustworthy sources. Her examples are suggestive. Caesar, willing to find more information on Britain, asked the merchants about this territory (even if they knew only the part facing Gaul) and “therefore although he called merchants to him from everywhere, he was unable to discover the magnitude of the island, nor which nations inhabited it nor how many, nor what style of war they had nor what customs they used, nor which harbors were suitable for a great number of large ships”.158 Strabo shares the same opinion when complains that the merchants who have been to the Ganges are “private citizens and useless for the history of the places”.159 Between 89 and 101 A.D. the literary sources do not offer other information on the Dacians. Pannonia, though, was affected by the attacks of the Iazyges and the Suebi in 92 A.D. As a synthesis to what I presented here, I will use S. Mattern’s description of this strange, wrong image which the Romans had about the north Danubian territories: “Dacia was a land beyond the Danube, a mighty river, which divided the Romans from the barbarians the way it had divided the king of Persia from the ferocious Scythians, in a half‐mythical
for the Getae of whom I myself know are those that live beyond the Haemus range, along the Ister. Domitian, then, made an expedition against this people, but did not take an active part in the conflict. Instead, he remained in one of the cities of Moesia, indulging in riotous living, as was his wont. For he was not only indolent of body and timorous of spirit, but also most profligate and lewd towards women and boys alike. He therefore sent others to conduct the war and for the most part got the worst of it”.153 In Moesia the Dacians unleashed a devastating attack (avaritia Domitiani metuendes154) in the winter 85/86 A.D. or already in the spring of the summer of 85 A.D. The causes of this attack were discussed several times. It seems that the Dacians were dissatisfied by the Roman’s measure of reducing the subsidies. But other strong reason for the Dacians to attack was their desire to regain the control over the north‐danubian territories supervised by the Romans. The governor of Moesia in that time, C. Oppius Sabinus, was not capable to reject the Dacians’ attack. He was killed in battle. The things went so bad, that Domitian himself came in Moesia and designated Cornelius Fuscus (praefectus praetorio) as chief commander of the Roman army. He succeeded to push the Dacians over the Danube but in 86 A.D. he tried a very bold but reckless action: “Cornelius Fuscus attempted to avenge Sabinus’ death by invading Dacia himself. With his well‐attested impetuosity and, perhaps, a sense of history, he not only crossed the Danube by means of a bridge of boats (Jordanes, Getica 77), but also plunged into Dacia itself ‐ and perished”.155 He penetrated into the Dacians territories, but he was badly defeated at Tapae (the Transylvanian Iron Gates, close to the capital of the Dacian kingdom). Fuscus died here. After that, Domitian came again in Moesia, bringing also here the legio II Adiutrix from Britannia. Another consequence of these episodes was the division of Moesia in two provinces in 86 A.D. Then Tettius Iulianus was designated in 87 A.D. to prepare and execute an expedition in Dacia, which was a success. In 88 A.D. he managed to defeat the Dacians in the same place as his predecessor, at Tapae. Then things went complicated for Domitian. A rebellion of a part of the army from Germania Superior started. On the other hand, the Marcomanni and Quadi attacked the Roman Empire. In this situation, he decided to put end to the conflict with Decebalus. A peace treaty was signed and the Dacian king became rex amicus sociusque populi Romani. After he put end to the conflict 153
Cassius Dio, LXVII, 6, edition used: Loeb Classical Library 176, vol. VIII (books 61‐70), 1925, Harvard University Press, translation by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. 154 Iordanes, Getica, 76. 155 Jones 1992, 141; Tacitus, Agricola, 41.2 writes: ‘tot exercitus amissi temeritate...ducum’ (“so many armies lost through the rashness of their commanders”). This is addressed directed at Fuscus.
156
Mócsy 1974, 84. ILS 9200: […] et bel |lo Marcommannorum Quadorum | Sarmatarum adversus quos expedi | tionem fecit per regnum Decibali [...]. 158 Mattern 1999, 36. 159 Mattern 1999, 36. 157
12
last and the greatest of the imperial fora, covering an area of 185 x 300 m, almost as great as all the others put together. It was built, as the inscription from the basilica Ulpia states, ex manubiis. These statements are based on archaeological and literary evidence. It is difficult to understand why Whittaker’s perceived the annexation of Dacia in totally different terms: “Or, to take another prominent example, much has been made of Trajan’s motives for war and his supposed strategy in annexing Dacia in the early second century AD. Trajan’s aims are ascribed by Roman authors, some of them contemporaries, to revenge or desire for gold and glory, but never elevated to a grand, strategic aim for the defense of the Balkans. The results, if we are meant to believe Trajan had secretly planned some wider, strategic aim behind closed doors, are hardly convincing. Trajan had no time to organize the defense of Dacia before rushing off to Parthia. While the Dacian army tied down some 55–60,000 men by the early third century (one eighth of the Roman army), it still failed to deter the Marcommani invasion of Pannonia in the later second century or the Gothic incursions of the third century, which led to the abandonment of the province. By destroying a stable Dacian kingdom, Trajan created a threat from the now invigorated Sarmatians and Iazyges that continued to plague the Empire for the next two hundred years. If the annexation of Dacia was really strategically determined, why on earth did the province not include a frontier across the Hungarian plain, which would have shortened the defenses of the middle Danube by some 500 km? In fact, the action does not appear to have been based on any geo‐political assessment of the military viability of the annexations. That is what Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, realized, although he could not reverse the decision, according to Dio. It was also what Aurelian must have discovered when he finally abandoned the province in the next century. Hadrian did in fact withdraw from Trajan’s other conquest in Parthia, much to the anger of the military establishment. That may have been due to an intelligent reassessment of ends and means. If so, it was unpopular with the Roman public and reversed by Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. Commodus’ reassessment of Marcus Aurelius’ intentions to annex two provinces north of the Danube may, by some stretch of the imagination, also have been strategic, rather than due to his depravity, as the sources say. If so, the decision was taken against the advice of his military council.”165 I explain some of Whittaker’s misunderstood ideas. Trajan had enough time to prepare the conquest of Dacia: 1. The road along the right bank of the Danube (Fig. 2) was finished in 100 A.D., as Tabula Traiana proves; 2. He used a huge number of soldiers
tale of conquest centuries ago. It was inhabited by a fierce, savage, warlike, barbarous people. In its icy and inhospitable climate it approached the earth’s farthest, uninhabitable regions; it bordered on the frigid, sluggish ocean of the north. It was one of the remote corners of the earth ‐ like Arabia, or India ‐ still not subject to Roman domination. Such was the image that was most likely in Trajan’s mind when he invaded it, proudly subjecting this wild and remote territory to land surveys, taxes, roads, and a Roman colony. Trajan, like Darius, bridged the Danube. No conquest in the imperial period brought any emperor greater glory; none was depicted on monuments so vast; none was commemorated in language so reverent”.160 1. 4. The conquest of Dacia. Benefits. Disadvantages Almost every historian who wrote about the reasons of the conquest of Dacia (Fig. 1) invoked always three: 1. Dacia was conquered because of its gold resources; 2. The second motif was a strategic one: the separation of the masses of Barbarian people, in this case the Sarmatians Iazyges and Roxolanii; 3. Trajan wanted to create a province North of the Danube to avoid further attacks against Moesia Superior. Mihai Bărbulescu argued that “crearea provinciei Dacia a avut, printre altele, rostul “ruperii” maselor de barbari nord‐ dunăreni, separarea celor două grupări de sarmaţi din răsăritul şi vestul provinciei”.161 Bennett outlines that “the distribution of the auxiliary garrisons would seem to reflect more obviously a concern with attack from the two neighbouring Sarmatian tribes”,162 and, in another paragraph: “It was an immense sphere of responsibility, forming a marked extension north of the Lower Danube marches, all of which had to be organized in an acceptable Roman fashion. Scaurianus’ first task, therefore, was to secure the territory from external aggression. The potential threat came from two nomadic Sarmatian tribes of Scythian origin, the Iazyges to the west of the province, and the Roxolani to the east.”163 Dacia was not only profitable for the Romans. Dacia was the gold mine, literally and figuratively. This territory represented the salvation of the Roman Empire. It was the gold and the silver brought from Dacia that relaunched the economy of the Empire. This allowed Trajan “to unleash any suppressed pretensions he may have had as Augustus’ successor as connoisseur and patron of fine architecture”.164 The most impressive achievement was the forum of Trajan, and the basilica, inaugurated on 1 January 112 A.D. Trajan’s forum is the 160
Mattern 1999, 209. Bărbulescu 2001, 74. 162 Bennett 1997, 170. 163 Bennett 1997, 166. 164 Bennett 1997, 150. 161
165
13
Whittaker 2004, 34‐35.
supposed to be rich in gold”.169 It is not sure that the Romans knew about the Dacian gold, located in the Roman period and exploited from Alburnus Maior. In fact, I think they found out about it only after the creation of the new province and the exploration of this new territory. The Dacians had enough gold (as the archaeological discoveries proves), but this gold was mostly obtained from sand. So, maybe after the first or, more possible, after the second military campaign and the annexation of Dacia, that the Romans became aware of the huge potential of this region.170 Conscious or not about the Dacian gold, Trajan didn’t hesitate to use an enormous amount of soldiers in his two military campaigns again Dacia. In expeditio imperatoris prima Trajan relied on nine legions (from a total of 30) available at that time and already stationed along the front. Four legions were in Pannonia (XIII Gemina, XV Apollinaris, I and II Adiutrix), three in Moesia Superior (XIV Gemina Martia Victrix, IV Flavia felix and VII Claudia pia fidelis) and two in Moesia Inferior (V Macedonica at Oescus and I Italica). As for the auxiliary troops, no less than 90 auxiliary regiments were camped along the Ister at this date.171 In expeditio imperatoris secunda Trajan used a bigger army. He even ordered the creation of two new legions, the II Traiana fortis and XXX Ulpia victrix.172 It is probable that for the first and the second campaign the Roman emperor was capable to mobilize around 200.000 soldiers, which is about half of the Roman army from that period. This is the biggest concentration of military forces in the imperial period. I wanted to present this information, because this represents the answer to Whittaker’s question: “Did the Romans follow a strategy of cost–benefit analysis before annexation, as some have maintained?”173 In other words, did Trajan or his staff acted like good economists, calculating the ratio cost‐ benefits, or the costs of the war against the Dacians? For this question, the answer is negative. Neither Strabo nor Pliny the Elder are aware of the resources of Dacia. In other words, this region didn’t have a
from Pannonia and Moesia. The Marcommanic invasion affected not only Dacia, but other important provinces too. The Gothic invasions from the third century, strange, mainly avoided Dacia. The abandonment of the province, in fact, happened not because Dacia was attacked, but on contrary, because it was avoided. Troops from Dacia were dislocated in other provinces, e.g. vexillationes from legio V Macedonica from Potaissa and legio XIII Gemina from Apulum are attested, in the third century, at Poetovio. They were moved here in order to defend the most important land connection between Italy and the Balkans: the road Aquileia – Poetovio ‐ Singidunum. The Dacian kingdom may have been stable inside, but it represented a huge threat for the Roman Empire, for provinces such as Moesia Inferior. One should note that the first military campaign started in March 101 A.D. After one year, the Banat region was already under Roman control. Longinus was designated commander in chief of the military troops left by the Romans in Dacia. In two years, the Romans built the longest bridge ever known, at Drobeta. The second campaign lasted one year (105 A.D. – summer of 106 A.D.). Dacia was conquered: 1. quickly; 2. efficiently. Of course there were strategic dimensions of the Dacian annexation. A frontier across the Hungarian plain, as imagined by Whittaker, does not reflect strategy, but rather misunderstanding of the landscape’s features. Or, the Romans were extremely good in strategy. Why conquer, occupy, administrate and military control marshy areas, such those in the western Banat? From the first moment we look to a map of the Roman Empire, one can immediately notice the strange position of Dacia. Luttwak noticed that in fact, on a map, the new province presents a classic profile of vulnerability.166 It may be possible that Trajan, among the reasons mentioned above, wanted to reach the Northern Ocean, because “it is likely that he shared the prevalent view of a flattened northern Europe; Agrippa had, after all, placed the ocean only 396 miles from the Danube River. The total conquest of eastern Europe must have seemed an attainable goal”.167 The same idea was adopted by Marcus Aurelius. He wanted to create two new provinces: Sarmatia and Marcomannia.168 As we saw above, the Roman conceptions about this area were mainly mythological. And it may be possible that the emperor was motivated to explore and conquer an “exotic, unknown territory, which was also
169
Mattern 1999, 61. It can be possible that this happened only after the annexation of Dacia, and the argument is simple: during the first campaign the Romans didn’t penetrated so deep the Dacian territory. Alburnus Maior (today Roșia Montană) is located in the heart of the Apuseni Mountains. The Romans occupied only the south‐western region, called today Banat. 171 Bennett 1997, 91: “21 alae, or heavy cavalry, 5 of which were double strength; 33 cohortes equitatae, the mixed units of light cavalry and infantry, 9 of double strength; 25 infantry cohortes peditatae, 6 double strength; and 10 regiments of archers, the cohortes sagittariae, 3 of which were part‐ mounted, 1 of double strength; together, they perhaps numbered in all no fewer than 55,000 men”; see also Popescu, Ţentea 2006, 75‐120. 172 Bennett 1997, 101. 173 Whittaker 2004, 35. 170
166
Luttwak 1976, 100. Mattern 1999, 61. 168 Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, 27, 10: ‘triennio bellum postea cum Marcomannis Hermunduris Sarmatis Quadis etiam egit et, si anno uno superfuisset, provincias ex his fecisset’ („For three years thereafter he waged war with the Marcomanni, the Hermunduri, the Sarmatians, and the Quadi, and had he lived a year longer he would have made these regions provinces”). After Loeb Classical Library 139, 1921. Historia Augusta, vol. I, translated by David Magie. 167
14
reputation for wealth. We saw about its reputation: a cold region, with drunken, savage barbarians, with no fertile lands. Mattern reminds us that in his Panegyric, Pliny the Younger noticed that Trajan should expect himself to bring to Rome only barbarian kings in chains.174 He never referred to the richness of Dacia. In the case of Britain, the situation was differently perceived. Strabo believed that Britain is very rich in gold and silver: “Most of the island is flat and overgrown with forests, although many of its districts are hilly. It bears grain, cattle, gold, silver, and iron. These things, accordingly, are exported from the island, as also hides, and slaves, and dogs that are by nature suited to the purposes of the chase”.175 In all, no matter the period, or the region, war is not rentable, unless that territory offered plunder. But too many reasons determined Trajan to put end to Decebalus’ kingdom. I mentioned them above. So, the position of Dacia on a modern map of the Roman Empire is awkward, but the benefits were immense. Besides these, other natural resources were exploited by the Romans in Dacia: the iron, copper and silver from Banat, the marble from Bucova (close to Sarmizegetusa) and Ampoiţa (close to Apulum), the salt extracted from numerous places in Dacia (Ocna Dejului, Jelna, Domneşti, Sic, Cojocna, Pata, Potaissa, Salinae, Mărtiniș, Sânpaul, Ocna Sibiului, Ocnele Mari), the thermal waters from Germisara (today Geoagiu‐Băi) and a great number of stone quarries.176 Another important motive could be the pride, the glory. Trajan wanted to show that Dacia is no longer a tabu subject after the shameless military campaigns of Domitian. That is way he raised against the Dacians a huge army, to be sure that Dacia will became “a solved issue”. Did he gain glory? Yes, he was the opposite of Domitian. Trajan’s victories restored Rome to its superior international status. He defeated the Dacians. But glory came after the gold. Dacia, at that moment, represented the aerarium of the Roman Empire. 174
Mattern 1999, 155. Strabo, Geographia, 4, 5, 2 apud Loeb Classical Library edition 182, vol. III, 1924, translated by Horace Leonard Jones. The same Strabo offers reasons not to conquer more of Britain (Scotland). Breeze 1988, 10: “For although they could have held even Britain, the Romans scorned to do so, because they saw that there was nothing at all to fear from the Britons (for they are not strong enough to cross over and attack us), and that no corresponding advantage was to be gained by taking and holding their country. For it seems that at present more revenue is derived from the duty on their commerce than the tribute could bring in, if we deduct the expense involved in the maintenance of an army for the purpose of guarding the island and collecting the tribute; and the unprofitableness of an occupation would be still greater in the case of the other islands about Britain”. 176 Bărbulescu et alii 2005, map XVII (mineral resources). 175
Having the lesson with Domitian learn, Trajan prepared carefully for the invasion of Dacia. On preparing the conquest of Dacia, Optimus Princeps realized three crucial things: 1. he assured that he could rely on a huge army; 2. he took with him the best military commanders he had at that time, together with other important specialists in logistics and measurement of the land (the mensor Balbus, the architect Apollodorus); 3. he ordered the improvement of the road infrastructure, to easily reach close to the Dacian lands. 1. 5. The Roman military campaigns in Dacia and the construction of the first roads (Fig. 3) On 25 March 101 A.D. Trajan left Rome, travelling overland along the Via Flaminia by way of Ariminum (Rimini) to Viminacium (Kostolac). After one month of travel, the emperor and his staff arrived perhaps in late April to Viminacium, the traditional base for campaigns beyond the Ister. The staff he took with him is impressive.177 Titus Claudius Livianus, praefectus praetorio, accompanied Trajan, together with the Praetorian Guard. Recently returned from the administration of Germania Inferior, Lucius Licinius Sura participated too. Other generals in Trajan’s entourage were Quintus Sosius Senecio, son‐in‐law of Frontinus. Another important persons were: Caius Julius Quadratus Bassus, Cneius Pinarius Pompeius Longinus, governor of Moesia Superior between 93 and 96 A.D., Lucius Julius Ursus Severianus, governor of Pannonia in 99‐100 A.D., Lusius Quietus, commander of the irregular Moorish cavalry, which played a very important role in the surrounding of the Dacian capital. The quartermaster for the campaign was the equestrian Caius Manlius Felix. Together with Trajan was also Publius Aelius Hadrianus, made in that time comes expeditionis Dacicae. We must not forget the mensor Balbus, who was in charge of the measurement of the land and the military operations which required the finding of the right places for the emplacement of the future fortresses. So, Trajan started the campaign possible immediately after his arrival at Viminacium, and because of the weather, the historians think that in May or June he penetrated the Dacian territory. Unfortunately, only fragmentary details survived of the war that followed. In is not my intention here to present in detail this war, of the second one, but to outline the relationship between the lines of advance and the construction of the future roads in Roman Dacia and the creation of the first itineraria. During this first campaign the Roman troops penetrated the territory of Banat using two routes, which became rapidly parts of the Roman imperial road. The first is the road between Lederata (Today 177
15
Bennett 1997, 90.
‘At postquam primum hosticam terram intravimus, statim, Celse, Caesaris nostri opera mensurarum rationem exigere coeperunt. Erant dandi interveniente certo itineris spatio duo rigores ordinati, quibus in tutelam commeandi ingens vallorum adsurgeret molis: hos invento tuo operis decisa ad aciem parte ferramenti usus explicuit. Nam quod ad synopsim pontium pertinet, fluminum latitudines dicere, etiam si hostis infestare voluisset, ex proxima ripa poteramus. Expugnandorum deinde montium altitudines ut sciremus, venerabilis diis ratio monstrabat. Quam ego quasi in omnibus templis adoratam post magnarum rerum experimenta, quibus interveni, religiosius colere coepi, et ad consummandum hunc librum velut ad vota reddenda properavi. Postquam ergo maximus imperator victoria Daciam proxime reseravit, statim ut e septentrionali plaga annua vice transire permisit, ego ad studium meum tamquam ad otium sum reversus, et multa velut scripta foliis et sparsa artis ordini inlaturus recollegi.’ “But as soon as we stepped into the enemy’s land, Celsus, the operations of our emperor started to request the help of measurement sciences. It happened that along a certain sector of the road we needed to draw two straight regular lines, with the help of which we built the huge defense constructions necessary for the defense of routes. Thanks to your invention (the measurement instrument), this allowed the drawing of these (lines) in a big part of Dacia. For example, regarding the design of the bridges, even if the enemy wanted to attack us, we could calculate from our bank, which are the widths of the rivers. All this venerable science, gifted by gods, has showed me how to find out the heights of the mountains which needed to be conquered. After the experience of these great facts, at which we participated, I started to worship it (this science) even more, as it could be worshiped in all the temples, hurrying myself to finish this book, as if I should fulfill certain promises made to the gods. So, after the great emperor soon opened for us Dacia, with his victory, after one year he allowed me to leave this northern region, and I returned to my basic occupation as to a moment of peace, and I gathered together many things, as if they were written and spread on different papers, and I wanted to arrange them in a proper order which is useful for any science”. Balbus established, using geometric methods, the width of the rivers, even if one bank was controlled by enemies. He also mentions that he managed to establish the position of the future military fortresses in Dacia. And the most important thing is his presence in Dacia for a year. Trajan also spent one year in Dacia, after the Roman conquest in 106 A.D. It seems possible that Balbus was in Dacia together with the emperor. This signifies an important
Ram, in Serbia) and Tibiscum (today, Jupa, Caraș‐Severin county). The second one is the road between Dierna (today Orșova, Mehedinți County) and the same Tibiscum. Today we do not have too many sources for the reconstruction of the Dacian wars. Almost all of them are lost. Criton of Heraclea (Titus Statilius Crito), the famous Greek doctor of Trajan, wrote a book entitled Getica, now lost.178 Dio Chrysostmomus also wrote about the Trajan’s period, but his contributions are lost too. The Histories of Tacitus end with Domitian’s reign. Suetonius’s work on the life of the twelve emperors ends also with Domitian’s reign. Historia Augusta starts with Hadrian’s reign. In these conditions the only sources which remained are the Trajan’s Column and the book written by Trajan about the Dacian wars, De Bello Dacico. Trajan’s Column has a big importance, but it is a propagandistic monument, so attempts to locate in the field the scenes from it remained, unfortunately, only pure speculations in the Romanian literature.179 Trajan wrote, as his predecessor Caesar did, a ‘book’ concerning the military campaigns in Dacia: De Bello Dacico. Only one sentence survived: ‘inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus’ (‘from there we advanced to Berzobis, and then to Aizis’). This sentence describes the advancement of the Roman army leaded by Trajan himself on a road constructed during the first military campaign in the Western part of Banat. The most important aspect here is the sentence in itself. It matters that Trajan presented ad modum simpliciter et militariter all the settlements, and maybe the distances between them, in the form of a written itinerarium.180 This knowledge could be easily transformed in an itinerarium pictum. The Roman surveyor Balbus wrote a book on topography and geometry. His text, entitled Expositio et ratio omnium formarum, was dedicated to Celsus, the famous mathematician from Alexandria, Egypt. Unfortunately only a part of his text survived. But the information is essential for one to understand the role played by surveyors in clara expeditionis against the Dacians181:
178
Russu 1972, 111‐127; Petolescu 2007, 144. The apogee of these attempts was the book of Antonescu 1910. See also: Daicoviciu 1959, 317‐319; Daicoviciu, Daicoviciu 1966; Daicoviciu 1972, 278‐335; Miclea, Florescu 1980; Vulpe 1988; Coulston 2001, 106‐137 (he observes: “With regard to the routes taken into Dacia by Trajan’s armies, scholars have advocated every possible line of advance that the unchanging geography of mountains and passes will allow. It is not evident how the sculptors could have been more ‘helpful’ using essentially two‐dimensional conventions and it is doubtful that this was even their intention” (120). 180 Bărbulescu 1999, 34. 181 Text and translation after Crișan, Timoc 2004‐2005, 157‐ 170. 179
16
Ranissto/ ro missus voluntarius ho/ nesta missione a Terent[io Scau]/ riano consulare [exerci]/ tus provinciae nov[ae Mes]/[opotamiae. “Tiberius Claudius Maximus, veteran, took care of setting this up while he was alive. He served as trooper in Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis, was made quaestor equitum, then singularis of the legatus legionis of the same legion, then vexillarius of the of troopers of that unit, received awards from Emperor Domitian for bravery in the Dacian War, was made duplicarius in the Ala II Pannoniorum by the Emperor Trajan and was made explorator in the Dacian War and twice received awards for bravery in the Dacian and the Parthian War and was made decurio in the same ala by him because he had captured Decebalus and bore his head to him in Ranisstorum. He got his honorary discharge as a voluntarius from the consular commander Terentius Scaurianus, of the army of the Provincia Mesopotiamia Nova”. He began his military career as a cavalryman in the legio VII Claudia, where he attained the rank of vexillarius and was decorated for bravery during Domitian’s Dacian campaigns. He then transferred to the auxiliary. This was quite unusually for a Roman citizen. In ala II Pannoniorum he took the rank of duplicarius, and fought in both of Trajan’s Dacian wars in this auxiliary. He became an explorator in the same unit. Bennett supposes that if he joined the auxiliary after a regular term of service in the legion, he must have been not much less than forty‐five years of age at the time he caught up with Decebalus. Ala II Pannoniorum was founded in the first half of the first century A. D., in Pannonia. In the second half of the century we find it in Syria and then in Upper Moesia. Radu Ardevan argues that the transfer of the ala II Pannoniorum in Upper Moesia must have taken place sometime after 88 and before 93 A.D.183 Near Lederata a stamp tile was found with the initials of this ala. This suggests that its fortress should have been located in the proximity. It played a crucial role in the conquest of Dacia. Immediately after the conquest, he was garrisoned at Gherla, in Northern Dacia, where it built a timber‐earth camp. From this stronghold, the troop had to ensure the communications in the region, and the connection between the legion XIII Gemina – located in Apulum ‐ and the Northern frontier. Exploratores were usually cavalrymen forming troops which had as main tasks the recognition of the terrain, the position of the enemy, the establishment of the future routes. They acted almost always as troops, together, unlike the speculatores. The literary sources attest various kinds of auxiliaries in the Roman Empire: exploratores Batavi, Divitienses, Germanici, Nemaningenses, Sciopenses (in Germania),
aspect. Trajan was really very concerned about the rapid administrative and military organization of his newly conquered territory. Two things were always realized by the Romans when they penetrated a foreign territory: they built roads necessary for the advance of the troops and fortresses to accommodate the soldiers from legions and auxiliary troops. So, Balbus and other surveyors (mensores from legions) participated at this huge effort. The soldiers from legions worked hard to accomplish that, as the relief of Trajan’s column show. They cut the forests, built bridges and roads. They penetrated constantly the enemy’s territory, showing the two qualities of the Roman soldiers: labor et disciplina. After 106 A.D. two legions remained in Dacia: legio XIII Gemina at Apulum (today Alba Iulia) and legio IV Flavia Felix at Berzobis (today Berzovia, in Banat). Both of them were strategically placed on the main Roman road of Dacia, and exactly 72 Roman miles south and north of the Dacian capital, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. This shows again that such precise, accurate measurements along roads were made from the beginning of the Roman presence in Dacia. Then these data were grouped into written or painted itineraria, first used by the army. It is logic to assume that Balbus was not the only mensor in Dacia. He was, obviously, the ‘chief‐ engineer’, and from this position he supervised all the works related to the establishment of the routes of the roads and the location of the military fortresses. In their advancement in Dacia, the Romans used, for the recognition of the terrain, cavalry units, the so‐called exploratores. The most famous in this context was Tiberius Claudius Maximus (ca. 65 A.D. – 117 A.D.), the decurion who followed Decebalus sometime after 2 September 106 A.D., after his withdrawal from the Dacian capital. We know his entire career because by chance his tombstone was found at Grammeni, in Macedonia:182 Ti(berius) Claudius / Maximus vet(eranus) / [s(e)] v(ivo) f(aciendum) c(uravit) militavit eque(s) in leg(ione) VII C(laudia) P(ia) F(ideli) fac/ tus qu(a)estor equit(um) / singularis legati le/ gionis eiusdem vexil/ larius equitum item / bello Dacico ob virtu/ te(m) onis donatus ab Im/ p(eratore) Domitiano factus dupli(carius) / a divo Troiano(!) in ala secu(n)d(a) / Pannoniorum a quo et fa(c)/ tus explorator in bello Da/ cico et ob virtute(m) is donis / donatus bello Dacico et / Parthico et ab eode(m) factus / decurio in ala eade(m) quod / cepisset Decebalu(m) et caput / eius pertulisset ei 182
Speidel 1984, 173‐187 (originally in JRS, 60, 1970, 142‐153); Rankov 1990, 165‐175; Campbell 1994, 32‐33 (English translation of the text of the inscription) and plate 1; Popescu, Ţentea 2006, 75‐120 (with English summary: Auxiliary units from Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior at the conquest of Dacia). References: AE 1969/70, 583 = AE 1974, 589 = AE 1985, 721; Petolescu 2000, no. 363.
183
17
Ardevan 2007, 139‐155.
and Northern parts of it are somehow visible, so one can not specify its dimensions.188 But for my demonstration it doesn’t really matter the state of the camp. What matters, though, is the position of this fortress: circa 55 km North‐East from Sarmizegetusa, 55 km South‐West from Apulum and circa 20 km North of Sarmizegetusa Regia, the former Decebalus’ residence and capital. 55 km means 37 Roman miles. This means three days of marching, considering as unity a iustum iter, which is 12 miles. So, from this point the exploratores controlled everything: the Roman imperial road and Sarmizegetusa. They also could easily reach to Apulum or to Ulpia Traiana. In fact, the last one was the most important, since it had no military troops. An important branch was that formed by military surveyors. They are usually named mensores, though this category includes all kind of specialists in measurement. In Dacia three mensores are attested in inscriptions. The first one is mentioned on an inscription found in the amphitheatre from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.189 A mensor is attested at Potaissa, in the legio V Macedonica. His name is Aurelius Castor. He calls himself mens(or) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae) p(iae). The third inscription, discovered in Apulum, attests another mensor, Aurel(ius) Maximilia(nus). He was a soldier of the legion XIII Gemina. Basically, mensores served in many branches of the Roman army, holding prominent posts in them. So, they were used in geographical expeditions and in military campaigns. Balbus, a civilian mensor, was invited by Trajan to take part at the organization of Dacia doubtlessly because he had been the best in his field at that time. Robert K. Sherk wrote in 1974 on this topic. According to his opinion, and to other data, it seems that every legion had mensores.190 Most of the inscriptions which mention them are sepulchral. An interesting case is CIL III, 8312, from Viminacium, where 11 mensores are mentioned. Another particular monument is AE 1904, 72, from Lambaesis, which mention 9 mensores in legio III Augusta, one for each
Bremenienses (in Britannia), and Pomarienses (in Africa). They are also attested in the armies of the Danubian provinces.184 Numerous inscriptions were found in Germania. We might think that Trajan was help in his military campaigns also by his bodyguards, the equites singulares Augusti. They are depicted in many scenes from the Column, advancing on horses, lighted equipped, so with a huge capacity of mobility. A numerus Germanorum (Germanicianorum) Exploratorum is attested in Dacia185 at Orăştioara de Sus, on stamps tiles186 and in a funerary stela dedicated for Iulius Secundus by his heirs.187 The stamps tiles are very simple. They are usually written from right to left. From this amount of material (numerous stamps were found here), we can read for sure NGE. The funerary inscription is very interesting. The text is: D(is) M(anibus) / Iulio Secundo / expl(oratori) stip(endiorum) XXXII / domo Agrip(pinensi) / vix[i]t an(nos) LV / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) The translation is: “To the gods Manes (for the chthonic Gods) / to Iulius Secundus / explorator (scouter), who served for 32 years (in the army) / born in Agrippina (Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium) / he lived for 52 years / the heir (heirs?) took care to dedicate (the funerary monument)”. So, Iulius Secundus, explorator in Dacia, served for 32 years in the Roman army and lived 52. This was a very long military service. Born in Cologne, he participated to the conquest of Dacia, with his auxiliary troop. During the Dacian wars, they build a wood‐timber fortress (rebuilt later in stone) at Orăştioara de Sus. Nowadays, the fortress is destroyed. Only the Western 184
The database Epigraphik‐Datenbank Claus / Slaby EDCS, (http://oracle‐vm.ku‐eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epiergebnis_en) provides, searching the term ’explorator’, 42 examples of inscriptions. In Pannonia Inferior, for example: CIL 03, 03254 (Acumincum / Novi Slankamen: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Tib(erius) Dexter / |(centurio) explora/torum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito); CIL 03, AE 1966, 00303 (Lugio / Dunaszekcso): D(is) M(anibus) / C(aiae) Val(eriae) Alpin(a)e / a(n)norum / VIII hic sit/a est pat(e)r et / mater fili(a)e / ben(e) mer(e)nti / posuerunt / et sibi vivis / Ael(ius) Ressatus / explorat(or) et / Val(eria) Aelias / mater; CIL 03, 03648 (Aquincum): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / M(arcus) Ulpius / Pusinnio |(centurio) ex/ploratorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Pannonia Superior: CIL 03, 04276 = RIU‐03, 00689 (Brigetio / Kornye): Bato Dasentis / filius an(norum) XXV exp/lorator Dases / pater p(osuit) h(ic) s(itus) e(st); RIU‐02, 00424 = AE 1944, 00122 = AE 1960, 00118 (Brigetio / Komarom: ] / et Iunoni reg(inae) / [g]enio explo/[rator]um co(hortis) VII / [Breucorum. 185 For the history of the unit: Speidel 1983, 63‐78. 186 AE 1972, 487 (Apulum / Alba Iulia); AE 1974, 548 (Orăştioara de Sus). 187 AE 1974, 546; IDR III/3, 263. Also Austin, Rankov 1995, 191.
188
Matei 2006, 67, note 123. Alicu, Paki 1985‐1986, 469‐479. On a grid stone placed at the entrance of a room with the acces from the arena the archaeologists could read the inscription LOC(us) MENSO[RIS]. The editors advanced two possible explanations regarding this inscription. The first one outlines that it could be a member of the technical stuff of the arena. The second one, more plausible, is that the inscription reffers to a mensor frumentarius. The inscription discovered at Ulpia Traiana is related, probably, to activities regarding the distribution of alimenta. 190 In the auxiliary units only few mensores are recorded. See also Baatz 1984, 315‐325. Mensores among the auxilia (CIL III 6358), as Michael Spiedel observed, are recorded as mensores frumenti, i.e. supply officers rather than surveyors (Speidel 1987, 143‐144). 189
18
Romans founded in 109 A.D. the first colonia deducta, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, a Roman fortress was built.195 Legio IV Flavia Felix was camped here until the end of the second military campaign, or maybe until the foundation of the new capital in 108‐109 A.D. After that it was moved at Berzobis (today Berzovia, Caraș‐Severin County). The military fortress from Ulpia has big dimensions (540 x 415 m) and a total surface of 22,410 ha. Other marching camps were built along the two main roads from Banat: on the Western road the fortifications from Vărădia (Fig. 4), Surducu Mare (Fig. 5), Berzovia (Fig. 6, Fig. 7), Fârliug (Fig. 8) and Cornuțel; on the Eastern road the fortifications from Dierna (today Orșova, Mehedinți County), Mehadia and Teregova. From the crossing point Tibiscum (Fig. 9) (today Jupa) a sigle road continued along the tight valley of the river Bistra, through the Iron Gates of Transylvania, until it reached Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Between Tibiscum and Ulpia another marching fortress was built at Zăvoi (Fig. 10).196 At the end of the first military campaign, the entire South‐Western part of the future Dacia was under Roman control. Numerous troops from Moesia Superior and Pannonia are attested in this area. The Roman army in Dacia, before the foundation of the province, was under the command of Longinus, who was former governor of Moesia Superior and Pannonia, and, without any doubts, comes Traiani during the first military campaign. The Roman army was in this period, from the juridical and administrative point of view, under the field of competence of the legate of Moesia Superior.197 Between 103 A.D. and 105 A.D. the Romans started to build what it will became the most famous and longest bridge in the whole Empire.198 Trajan’s bridge, built by Apollodorus over the Danube was situated east from the Iron Gates, nearby the present‐ day cities of Drobeta‐Turnu Severin (Romania) and Kladovo (Serbia). The structure had 1,135 meters in length (the Danube is 800 meters‐wide in that area), 15 meters in width, and reached 19 meters in height (measured from the river’s surface). At each end a Roman castrum was built too. The Romans used wooden arches set on twenty masonry pillars that spanned 38‐meters each. The impact of the building of this bridge was immense. Cassius Dio describes it like it was the eight wonder of the world:
cohors. As for the mensores in auxiliae, it seems that they were few. Sherk highlighted that in 1908 only one was known. CIL XIII, 6538 from Mainhardt in Upper Germany mentions a Maximus Dasantis mensor coh. [I?] Asturum. Papyri mention some mensores on duty in the cohors XX Palmyrenorum in the middle of the third century A.D.191 Mensores had a huge importance in the organization of a province. They were designated to choose the lay‐out and measurement of the military fortresses, and the surveys for the construction of roads and frontier limites. Further on, when I will analyze the route of the imperial road in Dacia, I will try to highlight the importance of their decisions in the making‐of of the new conquered province’s landscape. Because, beside the classical approach which emphasizes their role in the planning of the cities, fortresses and so on, these men were absolutely indispensable. They managed to choose the position of the military fortresses or the routes of the new roads. All these actions required careful planning and technical expertise. And, as Sherk observes, they were used not only to give advice about the position of a future fortress, but also for the proper allotment of space. So, if first, before the conquest, information about Dacia were extremely general, now we assist to the first really geographical exploration of the regions situated north of the Danube. This confirms again that Pliny the Elder made an outstanding observation when he wrote that one can not expect to know something about a region where the Roman army was never before. The main role in expanding geographical knowledge was played by the army. If we investigate the explorations and expeditions of the Roman Empire,192 we can see that the Romans did not know anything about the vast area of what is now Russia, or Northern Asia. Susan Mattern has highlighted these aspects: “Huge tracts of Europe and Asia did not exist for them; others were considered wild and barely habitable. The same tendencies are evident in the Roman perception of Africa”. 193 Asia was also perceived in this way, as a vast, endless land, even if the Romans knew a part of India, but they did not know anything about the size and extent of China. At the end of the first military campaign the region of Banat entered under Roman control. The occupation troops were partly from Moesia Superior. The first ‘governor’ was Pompeius Longinus (his full name was Cnaeus Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus).194 A peace treaty was established between the combatants, but none of them respected it. It seems possible, even if this topic generated powerful, contrary opinions, that in the place where the
195
Supporting the idea of a fortress: Diaconescu 2010; Alicu 1980, 23‐28. 196 Nemeth 2005; Nemeth, Fodorean, Matei, Blaga 2011, 56, anf fig. 18, 120, 19, 121, fig. 41, 142. 191 197 Sherk 1974, 546‐551. See also for more general aspects More in Popescu, Țentea 2006, 75‐120. 198 Nicolet 1991, 151‐157. Tudor 1974, 47‐134; O’Connor 1993, 142‐145 (no. T13); 192 Nicolet 1991, 85‐94; Sherk 1974, 534‐562. Galliazzo 1994, 320‐324 (no. 646); Gušić 1996, 259‐261; 193 Mattern 1999, 24‐80. Bancilă, Teodorescu 1998, 401‐409; Vučković, Mihajlović, 194 Piso 1993, 1. Karović 2007, 119‐130.
19
The exploration of the north‐danubian provinces in the period 102‐106 A.D is also attested by a document known as ‘Hunt’s papyrus’,201 dated in September 105 A.D. This is a pridianum202 of the cohors I Hispanorum veterana. A vexillatio of this troop is attested intra provinciam (meaning in Moesia Inferior), at Piroboridava (along the valley of Siret, at Poiana, Galați County) and Buridava (Stolniceni, Vâlcea County). The vexillatio, formed by a centurion, a decurion, twenty‐two horsemen and two pedestrians, was sent in expeditionem: ‘Pirob[o]ridavae in praesidio, Buridavae in vexillatione, trans Danuvium in expeditionem’. In the same text there is a paragraph which informs us about a ‘recognition’ in the terrain made by a group leaded by a centurion: ‘iter exploratum cum Pauliano centurione’. Such military expeditions were sometimes quite dangerous. The same papyrus mentions the murder of a horseman by a robber (‘occisus a latronibus’).203 We have here important information regarding the Roman military explorations. First, the very existence of this document allows us to observe that, in this particular case, a vexillatio from cohors I Hispanorum veterana is attested North of the Danube, but intra provinciam. This clearly proves that in that moment, so before the end of the second war, this region (Oltenia and the South‐East Muntenia) were under Roman control. At the same time, the South‐Western part of Dacia was already controlled by the Romans beginning with 102 A.D. In 106 A.D. Dacia officially became a Roman province. It included Transylvania (without its south‐ western corner), Banat and Western Oltenia. The other territories north of the Danube conquered in 102 A.D. (Eastern Oltenia, Muntenia, South‐Eastern Transylvania and Southern Moldavia) were incorporated to Moesia Inferior. Dacia Augusti provincia was constituted based on an imperial decree (lex provinciae), promulgated by Trajan before his return to Rome.204 This law contained the status, the organization and managerial principles of the province and it established the taxes needed to be paid for the imperial fiscal authorities. It also established the frontiers and the military troops designated to defend the new province. At the beginning, Dacia was an imperial province, led by a legatus Augusti pro praetore, belonging to the senatorial class. In order to be governor of this province, one needed to be a vir consularis, meaning that before this task he held the position of consul in Rome. Two legions remained in Dacia: XIII Gemina at Apulum (today Alba Iulia, Alba
‘Trajan constructed over the Ister a stone bridge for which I cannot sufficiently admire him. Brilliant, indeed, as are his other achievements, yet this surpasses them. For it has twenty piers of squared stone one hundred and fifty feet in height above the foundations and sixty in width, and these, standing at a distance of one hundred and seventy feet from one another, are connected by arches. How, then, could one fail to be astonished at the expenditure made upon them, or at the way in which each of them was placed in a river so deep, in water so full of eddies, and on a bottom so muddy? For it was impossible, of course, to divert the stream anywhere. I have spoken of the width of the river; but the stream is not uniformly so narrow, since it covers in some places twice, and in others thrice as much ground, but the narrowest point and the one in that region best suited to building a bridge has the width named. Yet the very fact that river in its descent is here contracted from a great flood to such a narrow channel, after which it again expands into a greater flood, makes it all the more violent and deep, and this feature must be considered in estimating the difficulty of constructing the bridge. This, too, then, is one of the achievements that show the magnitude of Trajan's designs, though the bridge is of no use to us; for merely the piers are standing, affording no means of crossing, as if they had been erected for the sole purpose of demonstrating that there is nothing which human ingenuity cannot accomplish. Trajan built the bridge because he feared that some time when the Ister was frozen over war might be made upon the Romans on the further side, and he wished to facilitate access to them by this means. Hadrian, on the contrary, was afraid that it might also make it easy for the barbarians, once they had overpowered the guard at the bridge, to cross into Moesia, and so he removed the superstructure’.199 The bridge is important not only as an amazing architectural achievement. It proves something else, related to perception and mentality: the power of the Roman Empire, its immense possibility to conquer everything, the capacity to overlap any physical obstacle. This image was strong and it weighted a lot in the ‘mental’ conflict between the Romans and the Dacians. Building this bridge meant that a natural barrier was conquered. Caesar did the same. He built as wood bridge in 10 days. He could easily cross the Rhine but the impact of his action was huge. The Barbarians understood that the river was not the enemy, but the ally of the Romans. In fact, to quote Braund again, “rivers were a standard feature of writing the military success”.200
201
Vulpe 1960, 337‐357; Fink 1971; Rădulescu, Bărbulescu 1981, 353‐358. 202 Campbell 1994, 110: ‘Pridianum ‐ a yearly record of a unit on 31 December, stating accessions, losses, and those absent on duty’. 203 Bărbulescu 1999, 34. 204 Husar 2002, 24; Protase 2001, 44‐45.
199
Cassius Dio, 68, 13, 1‐6 (Loeb Classical Library 176, 1925, Roman History, volume VIII, Books 61‐70, translated by E. Cary and H. B. Foster). 200 Braund 1996, 47.
20
County), and IV Flavia Felix, at Berzobis (today Berzovia, Caraș‐Severin County). Balbus, the head of surveyors during the Dacian conquest, remained in Dacia together with Trajan an year after 106 A.D. So, he had enough time, together with the mensores and the other surveyor specialists, to measure, explore, and position in the field, with great care, all the elements of the infrastructure: roads, fortresses, surveillance towers etc.205 In the same time, Trajan took care to bring in Dacia colonists from all over the Empire.206 Illyrians from Dalmatia were brought in Alburnus Maior. The economical, social, politic and religious structures were rapidly implemented in Dacia. The main instrument used to do this was a massive colonization. This also explains another aspect: the rapid Romanization process in Dacia. This is proved by epigraphy: around 3000 Latin inscriptions were found in Dacia. It is obvious that in the first years of the province all the necessary things to assure a good integration of Dacia into the Empire structures were made. 205 Contra, with no solid arguments, Whittaker 2004, 34: “Or, to take another prominent example, much has been made of Trajan’s motives for war and his supposed strategy in annexing Dacia in the early second century AD. Trajan’s aims are ascribed by Roman authors, some of them contemporaries, to revenge or desire for gold and glory, but never elevated to a grand, strategic aim for the defence of the Balkans. The results, if we are meant to believe Trajan had secretly planned some wider, strategic aim behind closed doors, are hardly convincing. Trajan had no time to organize the defence of Dacia before rushing off to Parthia.” 206 Eutropius (VIII, 6, 2): ‘Traian, victa Dacia, ex toto orbe Romano infinitas eo copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes colendas’.
21
CHAPTER 2. ANCIENT SOURCES CONCERNING THE ROADS OF ROMAN DACIA. THE MAIN ARTERIES NORTH OF THE DANUBE 2. 1. The Peutinger map. General issues I will start with some general works concerning the Roman itineraries. The bibliography regarding Tabula Peutingeriana is so vast, that I will mention only the books and articles I used in this study. The most important contributions on the Peutinger map remain the books of Miller,207 Levi and Levi,208 Weber,209 Bosio,210 and recently Talbert’s monograph published in 2010.211 To these, a large amount of articles or chapters in books212 discussing various aspects about the history of the map, the dating, its design and character, are useful in understanding the complexity of this document.213 Comparisons with other maps were also made, for example between the Peutinger map and the Madaba Map.214 The map kept today in the National Library of Wien is a copy of another map created during late Roman era. Even this early medieval document was subject of debates regarding its date. Finally, after 123 years passing from Miller’s first publication of the document, Richard Talbert succeeded to solve this debate. He cooperated for that with a specialist in paleography, Martin Steinmann, who concluded: ‘On the basis of the scripts used, there is no cause to dispute the general consensus that our copy of the map was produced in the last quarter of the twelfth century or in the first quarter of the thirteenth. The likeliest match for the map is script of the first quarter of the thirteenth century […]’.215 This is what the researchers name ‘copy/medieval copy’. Dating the original map still remains, in my opinion, an unsolved issue.216 Dozens of attempts were made. The original is a ‘compilation
tardive’,217 was dated in the late third, fourth, fifth century A.D., created in the third century and then completed with other data in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.,218, around 250 A.D.,219 after 260 A.D.,220 during Diocletian’s Tetrarchy (circa 300 A.D.)221, in 365‐366 A.D.,222 in between 402 A.D. and 452 A.D.,223 in 435 A.D.,224 ‘the fourth to fifth centuries’225 or, according to an attempting / speculative, but, unfortunately, not sufficient argued hypothesis, in the early nine century A.D.226 These attempts were based on the content of the map, the presence of certain cities and settlements (Rome, Constantinople, Antiochia227 ‐ personified vignettes; Ravenna, Aquileia, Nicaea, Nicomedia, Tessalonicae, Ancyra? – vignettes type ‘cities surrounded by walls’), the mentioning of landscape details (silva Vosagus: 2A2 ‐ 3, silva Marciana: 2a4 ‐ 3a1), the mentioning / non‐ mentioning of certain roads, the representation / non‐ representation of vignettes type ‘double‐tower’, the signification of special vignettes/draws (Ad Sanctum Petrum, temple of Apollo in Antiochia). Suppositions about the author, place of production, method of creation, dimensions, purpose, role, sources used were also emitted. The document kept today is a roll parchment composed of 11 segments. Miller stated the idea that one left segment is missing, so, accordingly, all the other researchers accepted this hypothesis, with one exception, Talbert, who argued that the original had 14 segments.228 Even the numbering of these segments is uneven. According to Miller’s reconstruction, segment no. 1 is the lost one (representing, according to his opinion, Britain, Western Spain and North‐Western Africa).229 Weber numbers the segments starting with the first conserved.230 Currently, the more accurate division developed by Talbert in his online databases can be used.231 The map was thought to serve as road map,232
207
217
Miller 1887; Miller 1888. A. and M. Levi 1967. 209 Weber 1976. 210 Bosio 1983. 211 Talbert 2010. 212 See especially Whittaker 2004, chapter 4 (Mental maps and frontiers. Seeing like a Roman), 63‐87; or Talbert 2008, 9‐28. 213 Arnaud 1988, 302‐321; Weber 1989, 113‐117; Brodersen 2001, 7‐21; Salway 2001, 22‐66; Allen 2003, 403‐415; Brodersen 2003, 289‐297; Gautier Dalché 2003, 43‐52; Prontera 2003; Gautier Dalché 2004, 71‐84; Talbert 2004, 113‐ 141; Albu 2005, 136‐148; Salway 2005, 119‐135; Talbert 2005, 627‐634; Pazarli, Livieratos, Boutoura 2007, 245‐260; Talbert 2007, 353‐366; Talbert 2007a, 221‐230; Albu 2008, 111‐119; Elliot 2008, 99‐110; Talbert 2008, 149‐156; Talbert 2008a, 9‐ 27; Talbert, Elliott 2008, 199‐218; Pazarli 2009, 101‐116; Fodorean 2011, 9‐19. 214 Weber 1999, 41‐46. 215 Talbert 2010, 83 (ch. 2 ‐ coauthored with Martin Steinmann, entitled The Surviving Copy: The Material Object and Its Paleography). 216 Fodorean 2004, 51‐58.
Chevallier 1997, 53‐56. Levi and Levi 1967. 219 Von Hagen 1978, 14. 220 Manni 1949, 30‐31. 221 Talbert 2010, 136, 153. 222 Miller 1916, XXX. Bosio 1983, agree with this date. 223 Weber 1999. 224 Weber 1989, 113‐117. 225 Salway 2005, 131. 226 Albu 2005, 136‐148; Albu 2008, 111‐119. 227 Leylek 1993, 203‐206. 228 Talbert 2010, 89. 229 Miller 1916, L‐LI. 230 Weber 1976, the maps (1:1 scale). 231 Very useful: http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert; http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map‐a. Even sometimes the name of the settlements or some distances are not perfectly correct, this site is also useful http://omnesviae.org. This site links the reader to Talbert’s database from Cambridge University Press page. Talbert’s database is complete: all the settlements, rivers, networked symbols, islands, mountains, people, regions etc., are separately catalogued, and listed as
208
218
22
of the map”.240 He offers two explanations: 1. the copyist began his work from the left and gradually devoted less effort to it as he proceeded toward the right; 2. the map was simplified in the Eastern part. The explanation regarding lack of data on the map in its Eastern part seems, in my opinion, a reflection not of the copyist’s way of work, but rather of the geographical knowledge of these regions; similarly, Talbert correctly refers to ‘the unfamiliarity of Persia and India as landmasses’.241 The second explanation is, in Talbert’s opinion, the existence of a deadline, which could force the mapmaker to work rapidly in the end, i.e. in the Eastern part of the document. This remains a supposition, which cannot be proved. I believe that lack of information on the original maps used as sources by the mapmaker has led to this situation. The main role in expanding geographical knowledge was played by the army. If one investigates the explorations and expeditions of the Roman Empire,242 one observes that the Romans did not know anything about the vast area of what is now Russia, or Northern Asia. Susan Mattern has highlighted these aspects: “Huge tracts of Europe and Asia did not exist for them; others were considered wild and barely habitable. The same tendencies are evident in the Roman perception of Africa”.243 Asia was also perceived as a vast, endless land, even if the Romans knew a part of India, but they did not anything about the size and extent of China. Talbert also analyzes the design and character of the map.244 All the main aspects relating to the map are classified, presented and described: 1. Fundamentals of the Map’s Design ‐ a. Shape and Scope; b. Landscape Base. 2. Mapmaking Practice ‐ a. Orientation; b. Scale; c. Color; d. Line Work; e. Lettering and Its Placement; f. Numerals. 3. Components of the Map ‐ a. Coastlines; b. Rivers; c. Open Water (including Lakes); d. Islands; e. Mountains; f. Peoples and Regions. 4. Route Network ‐ a. Content and Planning; b. Presentation; c. Pictorial Symbols. 5. The Integration of Cartography and Art. Talbert discusses all the important features of the Tabula in a concise manner. He is the first person who put forward strong arguments for the assumption that the Peutinger map left‐hand end has not only one segment, but more, maybe three. To accept his theory and arguments, we must start from a clear premise: the mapmaker wanted Rome in the centre of his work, i.e. the map had at least partly a propagandistic purpose. Talbert argues that the mapmaker would have put in these three segments a dedication, if the map was produced at the request of an official, and a list of total distances between principal settlements.
reflecting the official transport system (cursus publicus),233 or propaganda map, presenting during Tetrarchy the former glory, power and geographical extent of the Roman Empire.234 The distances written between settlements are correct or sometimes not, the vignettes represent important cities, or mansiones, accommodations along routes.235 The map was ordered by a private, or by an emperor (Septimius Severus,236 Theodosius II)237, stood as a parchment roll in a library, or was displayed on a wall in Diocletian’s palace in Split (Spalatum).238 The author of the original was Castorius, or an anonymous, or a team. The Peutinger map mentions Pompeii, Roman Dacia, Constantinople, and Antiochia, old St. Peter’s church in Rome, regional names such as Francia, Suevia and Allamania. R. Talbert cooperated with Martin Steinmann and demonstrated how Tabula was drawn.239 I agree with the order proposed by him: 1. First, the support was prepared, i.e. the full extent of the parchment base. Then, the map was copied layer by layer; 2. In this stage, river courses were drawn; 3. Next, as Steinmann says, mountains or larger cities were drawn. Special attention was given to the pictorial symbols of the figurative representations of Rome, Constantinople and Antioch and to other six cities, represented with vignettes of the type ‘enclosure walls’: Aquileia, Ravenna, Thessalonica, Nicomedia, Nicaea and Ancyra. 4. At this stage, roads were drawn in red ink. It seems the only logical way to realize the map. Evidently, one first needed a support. Then, as today, the mapmaker needed a ‘skeleton’ to his map. This was made by drawing the forms of relief and the hydrographic network. After that, it would be much easier to draw the roads, the vignettes and to add the final information: distances and name of settlements. We can compare this with the method used by Ptolemy, even if there is a huge difference between Tabula and the maps envisaged by the Greek geographer. First, he drew a grid, representing the parallels and meridians. Then he added the settlements, according to their coordinates. For the mapmaker of Tabula coastlines, rivers, open water, islands and mountains, together with the larger cities, represented ‘the grid’. He did not use any scale for the itinerarium. Therefore, in order to accomplish his task, he needed some guide marks / reference elements. Steinmann writes: “The symbols become more uniform in design, and less elaborate, toward the right
clikable items with provide exactly the part of map in which appear. 232 Most researchers agreed with this. 233 Levi and Levi 1967. 234 Talbert 2010, ch. 5: The Original Map, 133‐157. 235 See recent information at Klee 2010. 236 Levi and levi 1967. 237 Weber 1989, 113‐117. 238 Talbert 2010, 149. 239 Talbert 2010, 73‐85.
240
Talbert 2010, 77. Talbert 2010, 112. 242 Nicolet 1991, 85‐94; Sherk 1974, 534‐562. 243 Mattern 1999, 55. 244 Talbert 2010, 86‐122. 241
23
Roman province (106‐271 A.D). I analyzed the information regarding Dacia included in Tabula and I reached the conclusion that it refers to a very early period, maybe right after the Roman conquest in 106 A.D. There are several clues that can sustain this assumption. First, three roads are marked in Dacia: 1. the imperial road that started from the Danube and reached the Northern part of Dacia. This was the ‘highway’ of Dacia, build rapidly from 102 A.D. to 110 A.D. A Roman milestone was found in Aiton (between Potaissa (today Turda) and Napoca (today Cluj‐ Napoca). It was dated in 108 A.D. It shows that this road was built until here in a short period; 2. the road which connected, in the South, Drobeta (Drobeta Turnu‐Severin) with Romula (Reşca, Olt County); 3. the road along the valley of the river Olt, between Romula and Apulum (Alba Iulia). The last road and the first one were the routes taken by the Roman army during the two military campaigns against the Dacians. Nevertheless, the more important clue to sustain my theory is related to Ptolemy and Tabula Peutingeriana. In the list of the settlements from Dacia, Ptolemy mentions twice Tibiscum, with different coordinates. In Tabula, the same settlement appears also twice, once on the road Lederata – Sarmizegetusa and the second time on the Eastern road Dierna‐ Sarmizegetusa. Therefore, I think Ptolemy used as source an early itinerarium regarding Dacia, in which this particular settlement appeared twice. Talbert also analyzes the issues related to the original map.247 Three important aspects are presented here: authorship and date, sources and purpose. Talbert starts by saying that guessing a name for the author of the map is impossible. Miller’s opinion that Castorius created the map relies only on the fact the Cosmographia of the so‐called Anonymous of Ravenna mentions this name several times. This affirmation should, of course, left aside. Talbert’s opinion that a skilful person, or a team, worked for the accomplishment of this huge task, is hard to sustain. We don not have clear evidence that a team worked for the map. Dating the original remains an open matter. Talbert writes: “While fully acknowledging the absence of sufficient unequivocal indicators, I prefer to regard the production of the original map as a Roman initiative that postdates the organization of Dacia as a province in the early second century and predates Constantine’s sole rule, his confident promotion of Christianity, and his foundation of Constantinople in 324. Within this span of two centuries, the map could be associated with, say, the Emperor Philip’s millennium celebrations at Rome in AD 247 or with Severan rule; but such linkages seem hardly compelling. Rather, in my estimation, the map’s design and presentation match best the preoccupations of
This would have required at least one segment. Beginning with the second segment, the mapmaker could have started with the representations of Hispania, Western Britannia and North‐West Africa. Miller reconstructed the Western part but without including several elements. First, he did not mention the distances. This would also require more space. He drew only the vignettes the type ‘double tower’. Bath symbols are large draws, but he represented only two, in Africa. He did not entirely respect the mapmaker’s principle that roads segments are represented using chicanes that signifies the start of the next stretch. In the first surviving part of the Tabula, the distance between the letters from the word [AQV]ITANIA is 5 cm minimum. The letters AQV are too close in Miller’s reconstruction. The same is available for the word BRITANNIA, inserted by Miller in the missing part. More, he omitted to mark open‐water names, other rivers in Britain beyond the Thames and names for regions and peoples in the Iberian Peninsula. Altogether, these have required more space that only one segment. So, finally, the ‘map’ could have 14 segments with Rome in the center, for propagandistic purposes, but according to me, this propaganda is related to the importance of Rome as ombilicus mundi, the meeting point of all the roads, because this is an itinerarium, and the main elements were here the roads. Talbert also tried to answer the difficult question of what happened with the map from the moment it was produced until ca. 1200, when the surviving copy was made. 245 First, the author prepares the writer for what will be stated in chapter five: “Suffice is to state here my view that the lost original is most likely to have been produced for display in a ruler’s public space during the Tetrarchic period around AD 300”.246 So, in a period of 900 years probably several copies were realized. Then Talbert emphasizes the existence of chronological differences of the map, i.e. the mention of Pompeii (segment 5) and of Dacia (segments 6 and 7). Further, Talbert discusses the route line work, which was a huge task for the mapmaker, because of the numerous settlements and distances included in the map. It seems today clear the work procedure used by the mapmaker. His first task was to gather documentation. However, in this particular action he was not prepared to up‐to‐date it (this required a great level of historical and geographical knowledge), or, maybe, he was not interested in doing this. It was impossible for one person to know, in the fourth or fifth century AD, all these details. Pompeii is included in the map, so the mapmaker used a regional itinerarium from the first century AD. As for Dacia, the mapmaker could use a regional map from the period in which Dacia was a 245
Talbert 2010, ch. 4: Recovery of the Original Map from the Surviving Copy, 123‐132. 246 Talbert 2010, 123.
247
24
Talbert 2010, ch. 5: The Original Map, 133‐157.
Weber that the original map was ordered by Theodosius, so he dated it in AD 435.252 Talbert refers to the mapmaker’s work of documentation: “If his incorporation of the complex network of land routes in particular was original work, as seems credible, he must have needed extensive data that was unlikely to be already available in the required form”.253 The mapmaker used for this written and painted regional itineraries. Talbert also tries to answer to several questions: Subchapter 3 is entitled Context and Purpose (142‐157). Is the Tabula only a map of route network, an itinerarium pictum? How was it displayed? Where and in what form? Had it a practically use, i.e. did anyone use it in a travel? The map was not created to be used in journeys. Nobody needed to visualize the entire Roman world, from Spain to India, because no one travelled on such a huge distance (ca. 8000 kilometers in straight line). On the other hand, as Talbert observed, some of the names displayed in capital letters for regions, people or waters stretch on more than one segment (ca. 60 cm) of the map. Here are some examples: AQVUITANIA (segm. I/at Miller segm. II (the first preserved) and the left part of segm. III); PROVINCIA AFRICA (which spans three and a halt segments). Regarding the moment when this map was produced, and the place where it was exposed, Talbert thinks that the map was created during the Tetrarchy and was set down in Diocletian’s palace from Split (Croatia). The main argument for this theory is that the Tetrarchs wanted to reinforce, to demonstrate “the special importance that they attached to the city of Rome itself”.254 Further, Talbert affirms: “The central placement of Rome on the map asserts the city’s symbolic value in the eyes of the Tetrarchs. So, too, by extension, the symbolic importance of Italy, Rome’s heartland, is promoted by the generous amount of space it occupies on the map, while in reality under the Tetrarchy it, in turn, lost its privileged status and was divided into ‘regions’ (regiones)”.255 The same idea is argued again later (p. 153): “Rome’s importance is upheld, and the unity of the empire’s rule reinforced, by the map’s giving no special proeminence to the new Tetrarchic capitals. Equally, the bewildering proliferation of names for the new array of smaller provincial units is ignored in favor of retaining the fewer, more familiar and more reassuring old names for provinces”.256 Several aspects must be discussed here. If the map was created to fulfill a propagandistic purpose, with Rome at its center, I am not sure that this served
Diocletian’s Tetrarchy (c. 300); these are treated in the discussion of the map’s context and purpose. Granted, the connections identified can be no more than subjective, and hence this dating of the original map deserves to be treated with as much caution as any other”.248 Indeed, it is very difficult to date this map. Talbert’s version may be a solution, but in my opinion, dating the document remains an open issue. Regarding the sources, Talbert notices that the map “does seem to be a highly original creation”,249 and to “derive from the adaptation and mosaicing of an indeterminate number of detailed maps”.250 Normally, the mapmaker would also have used written documents, i.e. itineraria adnotata. Then Talbert continues the argumentation by describing some of the main maps that could be used more or less as sources for the mapmaker’s huge project. Many scholars considered the map of Agrippa, only completed after his death in 12 B.C., and lost, as the main source for Tabula. The earliest uncontroversial evidence for a large scale map existence is a Latin panegyric from 290s, displayed at the rhetorical school named Maeniana at Augustodunum (modern Autun) in Gaul. Talbert presents the Latin text and a good translation. The text refers to a map, but it remains unclear whether it reflected the realities of the Late Empire, and whether it was meant to be shown to the students or to act as a propagandistic document, showing the vast conquers of the Roman emperors. Even the text emphasizes this: ‘Videat praeterea in illis porticibus iuventus et cotidie spectet omnes terras et cuncta maria et quidquid invictissimi pricipes urbium gentium nationum aut pietate restituunt aut virtute devincunt aut terrore devinciunt’.251 It remains open whether this map also showed roads, and whether it continued a Greek or Hellenistic cartographic tradition. This opens an important question: did Romans have a tradition of maps? If so, which are these maps? Does the Papyrus of Artemidorus present roads from Spain? In fact, how many examples of Roman maps we know? A key factor is the material on which these maps were drawn. The papyrus or the parchment can suffer hard damage or can be easily lost in time. Big maps, drawn on stone, as the marble plan of Rome or the Orange cadastre, survived easier. The Tabula Peutingeriana might be one itinerarium from many more others from the same category, created and used by the Romans. Because it seems plausible that such provincial / regional itineraria were among the first tasks realized during the conquest of a province and immediately after this moment. Talbert continues with the presentation of the map commissioned by emperor Theodosius II in 435 at Constantinople and now lost. These verses convinced
252
Weber 1976, 40. Talbert 2010, 139. 254 Talbert 2010, 149. 255 Talbert 2010, 150. 256 Talbert 2010, 153.
248
253
Talbert 2010, 135‐136. 249 Talbert 2010, 136. 250 Talbert 2010, 136. 251 Talbert 2010, 137.
25
Regarding the Peutiunger map, Emily Albu is convinced that the original document was created in the ninth century A.D. She specifies: “The Peutinger map is a map of the inhabited world from Britain to Sri Lanka, drawn c. 1200 C.E. onto a parchment roll nearly seven meters long and 32 to 34 centimeters high. Because it was created from Roman itinerary lists and features some 70,000 Roman miles of Roman roads ‐ with hundreds of Roman sites identified by their Roman names and with mileage between sites marked, mostly in Roman miles ‐ historians of cartography have long assumed it to be a copy of a Roman map. Recently I have suggested, however, that our medieval map had a Carolingian prototype, clearly meant for display and not intended as a road map for ancient travelers. Carolingian rulers had ample motivation for commissioning a map to display their Roman imperial ambitions, while ninth‐century scribes had the expertise and resources necessary for creating an antiquarian work based on Roman itinerary lists.”258 Unfortunately, Albu constructs and sustains her argumentation using an incomplete analyzing method. She notices, for example: “Let us begin with a few words about Roman and early medieval world maps. Specifically, why do we see an explosion of world maps in the early Middle Ages after what appears to be a long dry spell?”259 To argue that the Romans did not create maps, Albu uses the skepticism of Kai Brodersen regarding the existence of a map of Agrippa. But the same Kai Brodersen, discussing the tradition of itineraria in the Roman world, specifically explained the principle according to which the Romans created and used itineraries, not scale maps, using as sources: 1. Ionians coins from the fourth century B.C. with ‘geographical representations’; 2. the so‐called ‘Map of Gaul’, in fact, as Brodersen demonstrated, a possible fake; 3. a mosaic discovered in a third to fourth century A.D. villa in Ammaedara, modern Haidra, in North Africa; 4. the representations of regions in Notitia Dignitatum; 5. the Madaba Map.260 He observes: “To sum up, all five artifacts, which have
to reinforce the unity of the empire. After all, the new reorganization of the empire was a success. Diocletian created the Tetrarchy and Constantine continued the reforms initiated by him. During Constantine, 117 provinces existed in the Roman Empire. The monetary reform (the creation of the gold solidus) was also a success. The Empire was full of soldiers: 500.000 grouped in 60 legions and other auxiliary troops. New cities were founded, the commerce, the circulation of products and people were stimulated, the cursus publicus continued to function. So, after all these achievements, why creating a map which presents realities from a former, though glorious, but still former period? Moreover, why was necessary to include former provinces, as Dacia? Only for propagandistic purposes? Dacia was no longer an ‘issue’ for the Roman emperors. Aurelian solved this problem in AD 271. When he abandoned Dacia, Aurelian took care to create two new provinces with the same name south of the Danube: Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterannea. The reason was simple: he did not want to be perceived by his contemporaries as an emperor who abandoned such an important territory as Dacia. Dating the map remains a problem. If Tabula was created during Tetrarchy, in circa 300 A.D., how we explain the presence of the name Constantinople on it, when we all know that nobody could use this toponym before 330 A.D.? Old St. Peter's Basilica was the fourth‐ century church whose construction was initiated by Constantine between 326 A.D. and 333 A.D. Another question: if the map focused on showing Rome’s importance, why to expose it in Split (Roman Spalatum) and not in Rome? Or in Constantinople? I think further questions appear, but this itinerarium pictum was designated to present, as a main element, the roads of the Roman Empire, and a better date for it seems 435 A.D., as Weber suggested. The problem of context, purpose and date of this map remains an open issue, however, as Talbert states: “Ultimately there can be no proof of the Peutinger map’s context or its purpose; for lack of evidence, both must remain matters of conjecture. Even so, in my estimation the long established view that regards the map as little more than a route diagram for use in making or planning journeys unduly reflects modern preoccupations rather than Roman ones”.257
Database and Commentary (196‐200); Appendix 8: User’s Guide to the Map (A) and Overlaid Layers (201‐202); Appendix 9: User’s Guide to the Outlining of Rivers and Routes on Barrington Atlas Bases (C‐F), with Associated Texts: (a) Antonine Itinerary: Text with Journeys Numbered as on Map E, and (b) Bordeaux Itinerary: Text with Journeys Lettered as on Map F (203‐286). At the end of the book there are notes, bibliography and an index and gazetteer. At http://cambridge.org/us/talbert/index.html a big part of the information from the book: the maps, the plates, and the entire database can be accessed. This database succeeds in reducing once more the distance between archaeology, history and cartography. It is very useful and easy to consult, with all the distances, settlements, physical elements from ancient sources overlaid on current maps 258 Albu 2008, 111. 259 Albu 2008, 111. 260 Brodersen 2001, 7‐21.
257
Talbert 2010, 155‐157. Talbert presents eight appendices, all of them very useful in understanding some issued discussed in the book: Appendix 1. Latin Text Appended to the 1598 Engraving of the Map (173‐174); Appendix 2. English Translation of J. Kastelic, ‘Vodnikova kopija Tabule Peutingeriane’ (trans. Gerald Stone) (175‐178); Appendix 3. Reflections on Vodnik’s Copy of von Scheyb’s Engraving (179‐ 180); Appendix 4. Vodnik’s Latin Summary Heyrenbach’s Essay (National Library of Slovenia, Ljubljana, MS 1443) (181‐188); Appendix 5. Miller’s Reconstruction of the Map‘s Western End (189‐192); Appendix 6. Wyttenbach’s Claim: A Lost Piece of the Map Discovered (193‐195); Appendix 7: User’s Guide to the
26
but rather the differences in the dates of the sources used by the cartographer for each region”.265 O. A. W. Dilke also discussed several times aspects regarding the Roman cartography and about the Peutinger map. Dilke’s contributions are important, but in some points, he exaggerated things, trying hard to prove the mastery of Romans in map making. Even the term ’map’ was not in use in Greek and Roman times. Dilke made another mistake. In his article regarding itineraries and geographical maps in the early and late Roman Empire,266 he notes that in the late Roman Empire the function of a Comes of Formae was as a sort of ‘director’ to a civil map department. Unfortunately, he was wrong, because Comes Formarum is the person in charge of the city of Rome’s aqueducts. Talbert also criticizes some of these ideas.267 Susan Mattern succeeded to offer some interesting ideas related to geographical knowledge in Roman times. In chapter 2, The image of the world, Mattern discussed the role of the army in the creation of itineraries. She develops an interesting theory related to the conquest of Dacia. Romans thought that by doing this, they would get exit to the big Ocean.268 She also analyzes the contribution of the army to the development of cartography. Before that, she refers to one simple aspect: that for Romans geography was ‘a minor subject’. This does not mean that they did not know geography. Caesar or Pliny, Strabo or Varro, all of them have consulted and read the classical Greek works on this subject. Nevertheless, this science was connected, in the most accurate sense, with military campaigns. Strabo hopes that his work will help generals to avoid problems like those in Parthia of Germania. Four centuries later, Vegetius says that a good commander should have with him every time both itineraria picta and adnotata.269 How important was the army in the development of geographical knowledge? Well, Pliny the Elder has the answer. He writes that one cannot know information regarding places were the army has never been. Therefore, itineraries were the documents that resulted from
been adduced by scholars so far as material evidence for a ‘Roman tradition of scale maps’, fail to prove the existence of this tradition, and resorting to the ‘must have been’ variety of logic does not solve the problem of how geographical knowledge was presented”.261 Further, he observes: “There is ample evidence for the use of itineraries, not least in military action”.262 Of these, he mentions: 1. a literary text from Severus Alexander’s period, which specifically states that the dates of itinera were publicly displayed; 2. Itineraries Antonioni; 3. epigraphic lists of settlements and distances, discovered in Allichamps, Autun, Junglinster, and Fedj‐Souioud (Africa); 4. the ‘stadiasmus’ from Patara (Lycia); 5. the text of Vegetius (fourth century A.D.), with direct reference to itineraria picta et adnotata; 6. the fourth century A.D. Vicarello goblets; 7. the vessel from Rudge Coppice, near Froxlield in Wiltshire; 8. the vessel from Amiens – both list stations from Hadrian’s wall; 9. the third‐century A.D. shield from Dura‐Europos. To these, I would add (and, interesting, Emily Albu did too): 10. the lost ‘map’ from Augustodunum (Autun), dated ‘in the waning days of the third century’,263 mentioned by the orator Eumenius; 11. the collection of maps commissioned in 435 A.D. by the emperor Theodosius II. Obviously, these documents seem not enough for Emily Albu to convince her on the tradition of itineraria in the Roman world. The same Kai Brodersen, at the end of his article from 2001, concludes: “…geographical knowledge was organized, and presented, in itineraries. The risks of this method are small (you might admittedly fail to realize that there is more then one city on an island), the gains, however, great: an itinerary allows you to plan travel and transport from A to B successfully, and it is this method, which was adopted throughout antiquity. Simply itineraria adnotata are enough if there is only one route, but if there is a choice of routes to be taken, the ideal is – from the first century BC Artemidorus papyrus to the London Tube diagram – an itinerarium pictum”.264 Salway stated in a study from 2001, and before him Arnaud: “…the cities destroyed by Vesuvius in AD 79 manage to coexist with the Constantinian St Peter’s. […] Also in discord with the fourth‐century features are the inclusion of routes for trans‐Danubian Dacia (VII 3 – VIII 3) and the eastern half of the Agri Decumates (III 5 – IV 1). This variegated nature attempts to date the whole on the basis of the omission, inclusion or highlighting of any particular location a fruitless exercise. Moreover, as Arnaud observed, the chronological variety of the data reflects not the work of layers of subsequent redactors
265
Salway 2001, 44. Dilke 1987c, 234‐257. 267 Talbert 2008, 9‐27. 268 Mattern 1999, 61: ’But the most likely frontier imagined by Trajan when he invaded this territory was the ocean itself. It is likely that he shared the prevalent view of a flattened northern Europe; Agrippa had, after all, placed the ocean only 396 miles from the Danube River. The total conquest of Eastern Europe must have seemed an attainable goal. […] because of the mainly mythological nature of Roman conceptions about the area, it seems probable that the emperor was motivated by notions of reaching the northern ocean and the exciting prospect of exploring and conquering exotic, unknown territory, which was also supposed to be rich in gold’. See also Whittaker 2004, 63‐87. 269 Vegetius, De re militari, 3, 6. 266
261
Brodersen 2001, 12. Brodersen 2001, 12. 263 Albu 2008, 113. 264 Brodersen 2001, 19. 262
27
official records and everyday realities. ‘Tangible’ areas; 10. Models of regional development based on the transport infrastructure in Dacia; 11. Tabula Peutingeriana and the roads from Dacia; 12. Dacia in the strategic road system of the Roman Empire. So, the biggest challenge is how to date such document, with so many different chronological information? It is as today one should attempt to date a map containing cities (random example) spread between XVIIIth century and nowadays, or regions such as the Austro‐Hungarian Empire and current countries. Can we explain the variegated data contained in the document? In 1988, Arnaud noticed this situation.273 To sum up, as Brodersen stated: quot homines docti, tot sententiae.274 Itinerarium Antonini had the same fate and generated, during time, almost the same amount of literature. Arnaud notices: ‘L’Itinéraire d’Antonin ne fait pas exception à la règle: dérivé de la carte d’Agrippa pour les uns, recueil d’itinéraires suivis par les empereurs pour d’autres, instrumente de l’Annone militaire pour d’autres encore, lorsqu’il n’est pas considéré comme une émanation assez direct du pouvoir central’.275 The last contribution on this document belongs to Bernd Löhberg.276 For method, a good study is the book of Hans Bauer about the main roads between Iller and Salsach investigation in close connection with the data provided by Itinerarium Antonini and Tabula Peutingeriana.277 Ray Laurence published an important study in 2001.278 He provided an interesting insight of roads from Roman Britain, comparing data from Ptolemy’s geography and the Antonine Itinerary.
military campaigns. This vision is, obviously, horizontal. Some aspects regarding this topic and with direct reference to Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Antonini are discussed in other numerous contributions.270 A study regarding travel or space in the Roman Empire normally deals with aspects related to the communication infrastructure. The type of investigation we proposed aimed and succeeded to deal with subjects regarding space, travel, infrastructure, mobility. I approached new subjects with new methods. The road infrastructure as a ‘physical,’ ‘technical’ means provided everything for communication. Road building activities are known in the provinces through milestones. In this way, the message of the ‘centre’ (the political imperial message) spread in provinces. As we know, Roman milestones are important not only because their inscriptions helped in planning a trip or the traffic management, but rather because they quickly became a means of imperial propaganda, with great impact. Numerous contributions tried to discuss these aspects.271 As Adams outlined, this kind of research started to be in the attention of scholars.272 From what I presented above, one can understand that the research of roads and communications must be focused on numerous aspects: 1. Planning travel ‐ resources in Roman times: itineraria, milliaria, ‘official’ roads and routes; 2. Organizing communication in the Roman Empire and Dacia ‐ the public transport system (cursus publicus). Routes. Stops. Funding. Staff involved. Travelling under imperial ‘protection’; 3. Soldiers and moving troops. Identities ‘transformed’ or maintained. The concept of “unified space’; 4. Trade and travel. Business travel. Dacian exports to the Empire. Imports. Trade routes. Rome as a model of organization: the grain supply; 5. Types of travel and travel motivations. From “embassies” to private persons; 6. Circulation of products in Roman Empire and Dacia. Internal transport by land and by water. Trade routes. Logistic organization and maintenance of road sections; 7. Dacia and the Roman Empire. Strategic position and integration in the general communication system. Geography, topography and organization of the road network; 8. Economy, settlements and communications. A complementary system; 9. Distances and time. Speed between the
273
Arnaud 1988, 309. Brodersen 2003, 270. I want to remind a similar state of research concerning Agrippa’s map, well described by Brodersen 2003, 269‐270, and Brodersen 2004, 185: ‘[…] scholarship, it is true, has variously describe it: depending on which opinion one follows, it was a globe or a ‘large scale map’, executed as a mosaic, painted in colour, engraved in bronze, or hewn into marble; it was circular, oval, or rectangular, and it measured 6‐10 m in height (on a pediment of 5 m), or 75 m wide, but only 4.5 m high. At the top was east, south, or north, and it resembled the Tabula Peutingeriana, a schematic medieval mappamundi, or an early modern portolan chart – quot homines tot sententiae. ’ 275 Arnaud 1993, 33, with the essential bibliography. The first edition is Cuntz 1929, reproduced with updated bubliography by Gerhard Wirth (Stuttgart, B. G. Teubner, 1990). 276 Löhberg 2006. 277 Bauer 2007. 278 Laurence 2001, 67‐94. 274
270
Calzolari 1996, 369‐520; Campbell 2000; Edson 2008, 219‐ 236; Lozovsky 2008, 169‐188; Kramer 2001, 115‐120; Salway 2004, 43‐96; Syme 1988, 227‐251; Sechi 1990; Susini 1992, 119‐121; Talbert 2007b, 256‐270. 271 Andreau, Virlouvet 2002; André, M.‐Francoise 1993; Camassa, Silvana 1991; Duchêne 2003; Gozbales 2003; Kolb 2000; Mackay 1999, 229‐239; Moatti 2006, 109‐140. 272 Adams 2001, 1: “It is a growing field, built upon much existing scholarship, and new evidence is coming to light which might revolutionize our understanding of how the Romans viewed the world in which they lived and how they traveled in it”.
28
chorography more close to what Romans understood about description of particular people, regions, settlements, customs etc. In fact, this helped them to present information about new conquered provinces. The Roman literary sources do not mention anywhere that the Romans used maps in the sense we used them today. From Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus 45, 2‐3, we find out: „Expeditiones bellicas habuit, de quibus ordine suo edisseram. Primum tamen eius consuetudinem dicam de rebus vel tacendis vel prodendis. Tacebantur secreta bellorum, itinerum autem dies publice proponebantur, ita ut edictum penderet ante menses duos, in quo scriptum esset, „Illa die, illa hora ab urbe sum exiturus et, si di voluerint, in prima mansione mansurus,” deinde per ordinem mansiones, deinde stativae, deinde ubi annona esset accipienda, et id quidem eo usque quamdiu ad fines barbaricos veniretur. Iam enim inde tacebatur, et omnes operam dabant ne dispositionem Romanam barbari scirent. Certum est autem eum numquam id quod proposuerat fefellisse, cum diceret nolle ab aulicis suas vendi dispositiones, quod factum fuerat sub Heliogabalo, cum ab eunuchis omnia venderentur”.281 ”The dates of the itinera were publicly displayed; two months before the event he published an edictum, in which was written: „on that day, at that hour, I shall go forth from the city and, if the gods allow it, I will stay in the first station”, detailing then the stations one after another, then the camps, and then where provisions are to be bad, and all that for as long as one arrived at the barbarians’ borders. From there everything was silenced, and all went without certainty, lest the barbarians would know the plans.” In the panegyric of Eumenius (third century A.D.), we cannot found, anywhere, specifically, the use of the word itinerarium: „Videat praetera in illis porticibus iuventus et cotidie spectet omnes terras et cuncta maria et quidquid invictissimi principes urbium, gentium, nationum aut pietate restituunt aut uirtute devincunt aut terrore devinciunt. Siquidem illic, ut ipse vidisti, credo, instruendae pueritiae causa, quo manifestius oculis discerentur quae difficilius percipiuntur auditu, omnium cum nominibus suis locorum situs, spatia intervalla descripta sunt, quidquid ubique fluminum oritur et conditur, quaecumque se litorum sinus flectunt, qua vel ambitu cingit orbem vel impetu inrumpit oceanus. Ibbi fortisimorum imperatorum pulcherrimae res gestae per diversa regionum argumenta recolantur, dum calentibus semperque venientibus victoriarum nuntiis revisuntur gemina
2. 2. Defining ‘map’, ‘geography’ and ‘itineraria’. Roman literary sources In 61‐63 A.D., during Nero’s reign, a praetorian detachment surveyed the route between Syene and Meroë.279 In book 12.19 Pliny states that after the expedition, a forma Aethiopiae was drawn and it was given (allata) to Nero. In this document (we hardly can name this a map, we should imagine it more as a sketch), showed finally (docuit) to Nero himself, the main information was the distance between Syene to Meroë (996 miles) and the observation that few trees were saw along this route. The same Pliny, in fact a very educated, influent man, a very close amicus of emperor Vespasian, states in his exhaustively researched geographical books from Naturalis Historia that the distance between the Danube and the big ocean (S‐N) is 396 miles (book IV, 80‐81). He affirms that he has this information from the work of Agrippa. And, to continue, the same Pliny implies that one cannot expect to know much about places where the Roman army has never been. Strabo writes that tribes beyond the Elbe River in Germany are unknown because the Romans never advanced that far (7.2.4). To remain with Pliny, and to come closer to what we are interested for this study, he is incapable imagining Dacia as a territory of certain shape and extent, limited by geographical features.280 When we visit Rome, many of us admire those maps hanging on the wall, on the right side of the Via dei Fori Imperiali. These are modern maps, showing the glory of the Roman Empire in different periods of time. Every time I asked myself if the Romans were aware (at least in their minds, as we are today as tourists or people living in the digital mapping era) of their geographical space. Today we admire the power of Rome, its capacity to conquer all the regions around Mare Nostrum, but these are our maps, this is our way of thinking and imagining the geography, not the Roman way of understanding the landscape. For the term ‘map’ in the modern sense we have today hundreds of definitions. Maps are, basically, the result of geographical knowledge. What was the level of the geographical knowledge during Roman times? Did they use the term ‘map’? The Romans considered geography a minor subject. This does not mean that they didn’t know geography. Caesar or Pliny, Strabo or Varro, all of them have consulted and read the classical Greek works on this subject. But this science was connected, in the most accurate sense, with military campaigns. Strabo hopes that his work will help generals to avoid problems like those in Parthia of Germania. Four centuries later, Vegetius says that a good commander should have with him every time both itineraria picta and adnotata. It was 279 280
Nicolet 1991, 86, and note 5, 89; Austin, Rankov 1995, 151. Mattern 1999, 209.
281
29
Brodersen 2001, 12.
persidos flumina et Libyae arva sitientia et convexa Rheni cornua et Nili ora multifida; dumque sibi ad haec singula intuentium animus adfingit aut sub tua, Diocletiane Auguste, clementia Aegyptum furore posito quiescentem aut te, Maximiane invicte, perculsa Maurorum agmina fulminantem aut sub dextera tua, domine Constanti, Bataviam Britanniamque squalidum capus silvis et fluctibus exserentem aut te, Maximiane Caesar, Persicos arcus pharetrasque calcantem. Nunc enim, nunc demum iuvat orbem spectare depictum, cum in illo videmus alienum”. ”Furthermore, in those porticoes let the young people see and contemplate daily every land and all the seas and whatever cities, people, nations that the unconquered rulers either restore by affection, conquer by valour or restrain by fear. Since there are pictured in that place, as I believe you have yourself seen, in order to instruct the youth (so that they might learn more clearly with their eyes what they comprehend less readily by their ears), the sites of all locations with their names, their extent, and the intervening spaces, the sources and terminations of all the rivers, the curves of all the shores, and the Ocean, both where its circuit girds the earth and where its pressure breaks into it. … For now, now at last it is a delight to see a picture of the world, since we see nothing in it that is not ours.”282 The poem composed by Aemilius Probus as a preface to the ‘atlas’ commissioned by Theodosius II in 435 A.D. makes no reference to the word itinerarium: “Hoc opus egregium, quo mundi summa tenetur, aequora quo, montes, fluuii, portus, freta et urbes signantur, cunctis ut sit cognoscere promptum quidquid ubique latet, clemens genus, inclita proles, ac per saecla pius, totus quem uix capit orbis, Theodosius princeps uenerando iussit ab ore confici, ter quinis aperit cum fascibus annum. Supplices hoc famuli, dum scribit pinget et alter, mensibus exiguis ueterum monimenta secuti in melius reparamus opus culpamque priorum tollimus ac totum breuiter comprehendimus orbem. Sed tamen hoc tua nos docuit sapientia, princeps.” “This outstanding work ‐ in which the whole world is included, in which seas, mountains, rivers, harbours, straits and towns, are indicated, so that all might know where any feature lies‐the kind natured, nobly born, and forever pious, emperor Theodosius (whom the whole world scarcely contains) from his reverend mouth ordered to be made, when he opened the year with his fifteenth consulship. We humble servants (as one wrote, the other painted), having followed the work of the ancients, have in a few months prepared an improved work, and have removed the faults of predecessors, to encompass briefly the whole
world: but this your wisdom, emperor, has taught us to do.”283 Instead, Flavius Vegetius Renatus (ca. 400 A.D.) recommends in his work De re militari the use of painted and written itineraries. “Primum itineraria omnium regionum, in quibus bellum geritur, plenissime debet habere perscripta, ita ut locorum intervalla non solum passuum numero sed etiam viarum qualitate perdiscat, conpendie, deverticula montes flumina ad finem descripta consideret, usque eo, ut sollertiores duces itineraria provinciarum, in quibus necessitas gerebatur, non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta habuisse firmentur, ut non solum consilio mentes verum aspectu oculorum viam profecturus eligeret”. ”A commander must have itineraria written out, so that he might learn not only the usual information on distances but also about the condition of the road, and also so that, having had them accurately described, he might take into account shortcuts, branch‐roads, hills, and rivers. So much so, that more ingenious commanders are claimed to have had itineraries of the areas in which their attention was required not so much annotated but even illustrated, so that the road for setting out on might be chosen not only by a mental consideration but truly at a glance of the eyes.”284 Therefore, itineraria is a term used for describing the need of soldiers, generals to have with them this particular type of document. When the sources describe ‘maps’ used for propagandistic purposes, they do not mention the word itinerarium, but, as we saw, opus or orbem spectare depictum. Why should we consider Tabula a map when, in fact, it is an itinerarium pictum? 2. 3. Dacia. The study of roads and the ancient sources. State of research The Romanian historiography with direct reference to the Roman itineraries, i.e. Tabula Peutingeriana and the Antonine itinerary, remained during time tributary to some methodological misconceptions, which lead to unsatisfactory results. In 1938, Emil Panaitescu contributed to the series Quaderni dell’Impero. Le grandi strade del mondo romano, initiated by the Institute of Roman Studies in Rome. In 23 pages about the Roman roads, he didn’t had the space and knowledge to write more that some very general data concerning the route of some roads, the main roads mentioned in Tabula
283 282
284
Text and translation after Salway 2005, 128.
30
Salway 2005, 128. Text and translation after Salway 2001, 31.
of Tabula during the fourth century A.D. The Romanian scholars advanced an opinion concerning the data of the two documents: they were created in the Severian era, like A. and M. Levi thought. After that, it is possible that Itinerarium Antonini was updated in the time of Emperor Diocletian (284 A.D. – 305 A.D.) and Tabula suffered the same process in the time of Theodosius II (408 A.D. – 450 A.D). Peter Hügel is another Romanian scholar who discussed some aspects related to the Peutinger map in his book dedicated to the history of Dacia in the period Traianus Decius ‐ Aurelian.293 The author makes a short review of the opinions concerning the date of the original TP in the Romanian literature. Personally, Hügel does not advance any hypothesis concerning this aspect. Doina Benea seems convinced to accept the general opinion according to which Tabula should be dated, as a whole document, in the fourth or the fifth century A.D., but she tries to prove that for Dacia Tabula reflects a reality from the same period (late Roman period).294 Her arguments are: 1. Dacia was not totally abandoned after the withdrawal of Aurelian, in 271 A.D. The Romans kept a certain military and juridical control in the trans‐Danubian territories; 2. The cities represented with vignettes (Tivisco, Sarmategte, Apula, Napoca and Porolisso) suggest that the main road of Dacia was maintained in use because of economic motifs: to assure the access to the gold mines from the Apuseni Mountains, the salt from Potaissa and the iron resources from Banat; 3. The archaeological discoveries from the South‐Western Dacia attest that some fortifications continued to function in the fourth century A.D., along with rural settlements; 4. The toponyms mentioned in Dacia have a corrupt form, specific for the late Roman period; 5. The reuse of several epigraphic monuments proves that Dacia remained after 275 A.D. under Roman military control. In her book published in 1999, she advances the possibility that the five vignettes corresponding to the mentioned cities attest that these settlements were Christian centers of much bigger importance than the others, not represented with graphical signs. As a conclusion, Doina Benea thinks that the representation of Dacia in the Peutinger map is normal. According to her opinion, the Roman imperial roads remained in function in the fourth century A.D. and for this reason they were represented on Tabula. Does TP reflect, for Dacia, a reality from the fourth century AD or we have to deal with an error of the copyist? Doinea Benea thinks that the answer to this question is related to the absence of the eastern part of the province. This absence reflects, in Benea’s opinion, a de facto situation
Putingeriana and the presentation of the few milestones which were found in Dacia. The first who attempted to date the Peutinger map by discussing different particularities from the province of Dacia reflected on Tabula is Constantin Daicoviciu.285 Starting from the wrong idea that the Eastern part of Roman Dacia is not represented in the Peutinger map, the Romanian scholar dated the document from 251 A.D. to 271 A.D., when this part of Dacia has already been abandoned. The archaeological researches made during the last six decades proved that Dacia was not abandoned nor entirely, nor in certain parts, in the time of Gallienus, but during the time of Aurelian. Therefore, Daicoviciu’s opinion is no longer valuable. Dumitru Tudor issued the hypothesis that Tabula should be dated in 250 A.D.286 Mihail Macrea dated the map in the mid third‐century A.D.287 The scholar thought that the prototype was compiled between 260 A.D. – 270 A.D., using the same totally wrong argument that Eastern Dacia is not represented in Tabula. Andrei Aricescu agreed with Macrea’s opinion and dated the original of the Tabula in same way.288 Investigating the Roman roads in Banat,289 O. Răuţ, O. Bozu and R. Petrovszky agreed with Chevallier’s opinion concerning the period when the Peutinger map was created: in a first phase at the beginning of the third century AD, then some revisions were made in the second phase, during the time of Theodosius II, in the Vth century. Marin Popescu‐Spineni argued that the prototype of Tabula was created in during the imperial era, because of the presence of Dacia and its official roads.290 A short article published by Radu Florescu in 1985 analyzes the Roman roads represented on the Trajan’s Column.291 The study leads, in my opinion, to no conclusions, since the monument is a propagandistic one and any attempt to find correspondents of the scenes in the terrain is useless. Alexandru Suceveanu and Iuliana Barnea discussed the information from Tabula for Dobroudja and they compare it with the information contained in Itinerarium Antonini.292 They concluded that in 10 cases the coincidence regarding the distances between certain settlements in Dobrudja is perfect. In four cases, it seems that Tabula was more close to the reality. In their opinion, these semblances and differences between the two antique sources elude the hypothesis of a revision 285
Daicoviciu 1941, 253‐254; Daicoviciu 1945; Daicoviciu 1964, 737. 286 Tudor 1968, 50. 287 Macrea 1969, 52. 288 Aricescu 1977, 134. 289 Răuţ, Bozu, Petrovszky 1977, 138. 290 Popescu‐Spineni 1978, 80. 291 Florescu 1985, 51‐58. 292 Suceveanu, Barnea 1993, 171.
293
Hügel 2003, 78‐84. Benea 1999, 138‐154; Benea 2000, 117‐123; Benea 2001, 135‐149; Benea 2001a, 285‐300.
294
31
Mithras were found in a mithraeum.296 In these inscriptions is mentioned Flavius Aper, v(ir) e(gregius) and praepositus of the legions V Macedonica and XIII Gemina. The epithet of these legions is Galliena, so it is not a problem to date this headquarter during Gallienus’ reign. In addition, officiales are mentioned. They designate the principales of the officium of the military comandant. A canaliclarius is also mentioned in one of the inscriptions (IDRE II, 269). In the text, the word is in genitive singular (canaliclari), so only one person is designated with this position. The term seems to be derived from canalicula, which designates the object in with the written tools are kept. In all, the movement of these legionary vexillationes from Dacia to Poetovio obviously weakened the central defensive system of Roman Dacia. According to an interesting argument developed by Hügel, within this time (Gallienus), basically in the period 260‐268 A.D., the defense of Dacia was withdrawn along the main road (Porolissum ‐ Napoca ‐ Potaissa ‐ Apulum ‐ Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa) for two reasons: 1. the need of soldiers in other regions (war areas); 2. the lack of attacks against Dacia. Poetovio was the key point along the route connecting Italy with the Balkans. Therefore, it needed troops to defend it.297 To sum up again, Dacia was de iure still a Roman province, but de facto was no longer an issue for Gallienus. That is why Aurelian logically abandoned it, establishing the line of defense along the Moesian Danube as withdrawing the military forces and the Roman administration from Dacia in 271 A.D. This leads to the argument and the conclusion regarding Dacia and Tabula Peutingeriana. It is not recommended, methodologically, to analyze information from Tabula trying to explain some late Roman period military actions. Neither D. Benea, nor the others, did not understood that the Peutinger map, or, to be more precise, its compiler in the firth century A.D., used selective data to fulfill his task. Today, in cartography, this criterion is entitled
meaning Eastern Dacia was no longer under Roman control, because the population belonging to the cultural area Sântana de Mureş‐Cerneahov occupied this territory. These arguments are unfortunately unsustainable in all their aspects. Dacia was no longer an issue for the Roman Empire in the fourth century A.D. We know today even when, de iure, Dacia was still part of the empire, emperor Gallienus masively used Roman military troops to defend the Balkan and the Eastern part of the Empire. The military and strategic context forced him to act like this. In 253 A.D. the reign of P. Licinius Valerianus and P. Licinius Egnatius Gallienus starts. The Roman crisis reaches the apogee. In 254 A.D., the Goths dispel and unleash devastating attacks in the Balkans. They reached Thracia up to Thessalonic. Panic installed in the Balkans, and military fortifications were rapidly restored. However, it was just not enough. In 256 A.D., Dacia stops to issue its own coins. In 257 A.D., the free Dacians attack the province. Galienus received the title Dacicus Maximus. Then, in 257‐258 A.D. the Goths, the Carps and other Barbarians start the attacks using the sea. They destroy cities from the west coast of the Black Sea and head towards Minor Asia. In the same time, military rebellions start in Pannonia in 258‐260 A.D. The soldiers have as leader Ingennus and Regalianus. Emperor Valerianus must deal with the crisis from Orient.295 Nevertheless, in 260 A.D., the Persians defeated him and he was captured. Gallienus remains alone. The so‐called ‚king of Palmyra’ gains power. The Germanic invasions to Rhine and the Danube are catastrophic. Agri Decumates is lost. To sum up: in 260 A.D. the Roman Empire is threatened by three critical situation: 1. the Occident is ‘detached’ from the Empire by the Germanic attack and the usurpations; 2. military rebellions start in Pannonia, leaded by Ingenuus and Regalianus; 3. the Orient seem lost, in the moment when Valerianus was captured. In this situation, Gallienus evaluated perfectly the strategic situation and the consequences of his future actions will leave Dacia outside this strategic measurement. The reason was obvious: put simply, Dacia was all this time ‚detoured’ by Barbarians. They attacked in Moesia, Thracia using Dobroudja as connection. Gallienus, understanding this, decided to move soldiers from Dacia in strategic points. One of these was the road connecting Italy to the Balkan Peninsula. Along it, Poetovio was crucial. Therefore, to avoid further attack along this route, he moved here parts of the two Dacian legions. At Poetovio, in Pannonia Superior, vexillationes from the two legions of Dacia (legio V Macedonica from Potaissa and legio XIII Gemina from Apulum) are attested after the mid‐third century A.D. This fact is epigraphically attested. Five inscriptions dedicated to
295
296
IDRE II, no. 266‐270. No. 266 (AnnÉp 1936, 53): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) | pro sal(ute) d(omini) n(ostri) Gallieni P(ii) F(elicis) | Invicti Aug(usti), Fl(avius) Aper, v(ir) e(gregius), l(ibens) m(erito). No. 267 (AnnÉp 1936, 54): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) | pro sal(ute) officialium Apri prae | positi legg(iorum) V M(acedonicae) et XIII Gem(inae) | Galli(enarum). No. 268 (AnnÉp 1936, 57): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | [legg(ionim) V] M(acedonicae) et XII [I G(eminae)] | [G]allienarum | [Fl(avius)] Aper v(ir) e(gregius) | [pra] epositus. No. 269 (AnnÉp 1936, 56): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) | pro salute | canaliclari | et actariorum | et codicarior(um) | et librariorum | legg(ionum) V M(acedonicae) et XIII G(eminae) | Gallienarum. No. 270 (AnnÉp 1936, 53): D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) | pro salutei | tesserarior(um) | et custod(um) ar | mor(um) legg(ionum) V M(acedonicae) | et XIII Gemin(a)e | Gallienarum. 297 See, for maps, Gudea 1997.
Nemeti, Dana 2001, 239‐257.
32
knowledge about the urban development of the province. In 2004, I published a short analysis concerning the data from Tabula regarding Dacia and I reached the conclusion that the source for the mapmaker was a military map from the early period (Trajan ‐ Hadrian).300 An article published in 2006 by Dumitru Hortopan analysis the roads from Dacia Inferior,301 but the author does not offer new data. He only discusses some issues already known. The map placed at the end of the article is too old to be used. In another article recently published, C. C. Petolescu analyzes the image of Dacia in the antique geographical space. Once again, he advance the same version of dating the document for Dacia, during the reign of Hadrian, based on the fact that this emperor travelled a lot within the Roman Empire, and such maps, like the Peutinger map, were created within this period.302 The same idea is discussed in another study.303 To sup up, beside the article of Diaconescu, all the other articles, books and studies on the Peutinger map failed to produce a reasonable argument to explain the data from the map. 2. 4. The milestones Nine Roman milestones were discovered within the territory of the former Roman Dacia (Fig. 11). These are: 1. the milestone from Aiton (Cluj County), along the main imperial road between Potaissa and Napoca, dated in 108 A.D.; 2. the milestone from Mera (Cluj County), along the main imperial road between Napoca and Optatiana, dated in 165 A.D., during Marcus Aurelius’ reign; 3. the milestone from Almaşu (Sălaj County), along the road which connected Bologa with Sutor, discovered in 1851, now lost, dated in 236 A.D., during Maximinus Thrax; 4. the milestone from Micia (today Veţel, Hunedoara County), along the road parallel with the course of the river Mureş, dated in 251‐253 A.D., during the emperors Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus; 5. the milestone from Lăpuşnicel, in Banat (Caraş‐Severin County), along a secondary road connecting the following settlements: Slatina Nera, Sasca Montană, Dalboşeţ, Bozovici, Prilipăţ and Prigor, dated during Trebonianus Gallus (June 251 – August 253 A.D.) and his associate Volusianus or during the emperors Gallienus (September/October 253 ‐ September 268 A.D.) and his associate, his son Valerianus Junior (255 ‐ end of 257/beginning of 258 A.D.); 6. the milestone from Băbiciu de Sus (Olt
cartographic generalization. The mapmaker was forced by its map support (a parchment roll of 7 m long and 34 cm width) to reduce the quantity of data to include in the map (if he had so many data). Therefore, the absence of Eastern Dacia has absolutely no connection with some kind of action mentioned above (Goths occupation of this territory etc.). Tabula, in fact, do not represents other important roads from Dacia, such as the one connecting Dacia and Pannonia along the Mureş river, which, obviously, was extremely important, both military and economically. Further, Benea’s arguments are wrong. The settlements represented with vignettes are, obviously, as recent historiography proved, accommodations along the main roads. They have nothing to do with Christian centers in the late Roman period. The toponyms have a corrupt form. Yes, this is the truth, but corrupt comparing to what? This is not a criterion. One cannot argue that corrupt forms are specific only for the late Roman period. Ptolemy used also corrupt form, and he compiled his Geographia in the IInd century A.D. to prove that a toponym has a corrupt form you need epigraphic evidence. Since so many settlements from Tabula / or Ptolemy / or the Antonine Itinerary / or the Geographer from Ravenna, do not posses, until now, evidence from epigraphy, further discussion on this issue is, in my opinion, superfluous. A. Diaconescu published an interesting point of view in a consistent article about Dacia under Trajan.298 The method applied by Diaconescu to analyze the data from Tabula is fundamentally correct. He proves, without question, with solid arguments, that the distances mentioned along the Dacian roads reflect a measurement unit used while military advance: iustus iter. This is 12 miles. Going further with his demonstration, Deaconess concludes that the data from Tabula reflects what Romans used to do when they conquered a province: they created itineraries. Moreover, these documents were the sources for the mapmaker of Tabula in the fifth century AD. C. C. Petolescu has a different opinion.299 He thinks that the cities represented with vignettes in Dacia are the most important settlements of the province: 1. Tibiscum ‐ important crossroad in Banat; 2. Sarmizegetusa ‐ the capital of Dacia; 3. Apulum ‐ the headquarter of legio XIII Gemina; 4. Napoca ‐municipium Hadrianum, then Colonia Aurelia and the residence of the procurator Daciae Porolissensis; 5. Porolissum ‐ the key of the Roman defensive system on the Northern frontier, and municipium Septimium. He also uses wrong criteria. As it is already proved, the mapmaker of Tabula used regional itineraria picta as sources to compile the map. It is difficult to imagine that one / or several ‘maps’ of Dacia were created/drawn by persons with such
300
Fodorean 2004, 51‐58. Hortopan 2006, 47‐54. 302 Petolescu 2007a, 274. 303 Petolescu 2007b, 276‐279. 301
298 299
Diaconescu 1997, 13‐52. Petolescu 2000a, 19‐21.
33
2. 4. 2. Mera (Cluj County) A Roman milestone found in 1932308 south of the village of Mera (Fig. 20, Fig. 21) (Cluj County) marks from Napoca until this point 10 miles. The text is: IMP(erator) CAES(ar) [M(arcus) Aurelius] / ANTONI[nus Aug(ustus) Armen(iacus)] / P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) P[ot(estate) XIX Imp(erator) III Co(n)s(ul) III et] / IMP(erator) CAE[s(ar) L(ucius) Aurelius] / VERVS AV[g(ustus) Armen(iacus) Tr(ibunicia) Pot(estate) V Imp(erator) III] / CO(n)S(ul) II FECE[runt a Napoca] / MP [X] / IMP(erator) [Caes(ar) M(arco) / AUR(elio) A[nto] / NINO [Aug(usto)]. This road was probably repaired during Marcus Aurelius and Caracalla’s reign. Fecerunt indicate the construction of the road. When he first published the monument, Daicoviciu noted an interesting detail: he found in that point several anepigraphic stone monuments. This is a solid prove, in my opinion, that this was a point chosen when the Romans made survey measurements. From Napoca to Mera there were exactly 10 Roman miles up to this point. The presence of these unwritten milestones indicates the intention of positioning them along the route of the same road, after other measurements were ready. 2. 4. 3. Almaşu (Sălaj County) The third milestone from Dacia Porolissensis was discovered in 1851 at Almaşu Mare (Sălaj County), along a sector of road between Bologa and Sutoru (Optatiana). The text is: IM[p(erator)] CAESARI (sic) CAIVS IVL(ius) V[erus] [Ma / x]I[mi]NVS P(ius) F(elix) AVG(ustus) PONTIF[ex] / [Maximus] TRIB(unicia) POTESTAT[is] / II IMP(erator) III CO(n)S(ul) PATER PATRIA[e] / ET GAIVS [Iul](ius) V[eru]S M[aximinus] / NOBISSIM[us] (sic) CAES(ar) FIL(io) AVGV[sti] / M(illia Passuum) XVI A R(esc)VL(o) VICO AN(artorum). The most important part of the inscription is the indication from the end of the text: M(illia) P(assuum) a R(esc)VL(o) VICO AN(artorum). This
County), along the road parallel with the valley of the river Olt, dated in 205 A.D., during Septimius Severus’ reign; 7. the milestone from Gostavăţu (Olt County), along the same road, dated during Septimius Severus; 8. the milestone from Praetorium (today Copăceni‐Racoviţa, Vâlcea County), along the same road, dated in 236 A.D., during Maximinus Thrax; 9. the milestone from Sucidava (today Celei, Olt County), discovered in 1913, dated in 328 A.D., during the emperor Constantine the Great. 2. 4. 1. Aiton (Cluj County) Along the main imperial road (Fig. 12), at Aiton (Cluj County), exactly 10 miles (14,785 km) North of Potaissa, a Roman milestone was erected in 108 A.D., during Trajan (Fig. 13). The monument was found in 1758. Now, unfortunately, is lost. The text is:304 IMP(erator) / CAESAR NERVA / TRAIANVS AVG(ustus) / GERM(anicus) DACICVS / PONTIF(ex) MAXIM(us) / (tribunicia) POT(estate) XII CO(n)S(ul) V (sic) / IMP(erator) VI P(ater) P(atriae) FECIT / PER COH(ortem) I FL(avia) VLP(ia) / HISP(anorum) MIL(liaria) C(ivium) R(omanorum) EQ(uitata) / A POTAISSA NAPOCAE / M(illia) P(assuum) X. This piece of evidence has a triple importance: 1. In the formula a Potaissa Napocae we find the first epigraphic evidence of Potaissa and Napoca; 2. This road sector (Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, Fig. 17, Fig. 18, Fig. 19) was built by cohors I Flavia Ulpia Hispanorum milliaria civium Romanorum equitata. This troop is mentioned among the military forces used by Trajan in the war against the Dacians. After fulfilling its mission, it was garrisoned at Orheiul Bistriţei, along the northeastern frontier.305 Because it was equitata, I suspect the use of this cavalry unit for the recognition of the landscape of northern Dacia; 3. This particular case can be added to the list of the military units, which built roads, even if Michael Rathmann proved that little evidence could be found to demonstrate the individual existence of the term via militaris in Roman times.306 At Aiton, a sector of road was excavated. Nowadays it is preserved in the courtyard of the village school, together with a copy of the milestone. In 2005, a sector of this road was found close to the village of Ceanu Mic. Within the territory of the village Aiton, in several points (private gardens of the inhabitants), there were recorded and excavated wall substructures, coins, ceramic fragments, all of them proving the existence of a stopping point along the road, possible a mansio.307
308
Daicoviciu 1928‐1932, 48‐53; Daicoviciu 1970, 224‐230; Fodorean 2002, 55‐95. In the first publication, Daicoviciu notes an interesting detail: he found in that point several anepigraphic stone monuments. This is a solid prove, in my opinion, that this was an exact point where measurements were made and then the milestones were distributed along the road.
304
CIL III 1627. Protase 2008. 306 Rathmann 2003, 40. 307 Blăjan, Cerghi 1978, 21‐27; Fodorean 2006, 133. 305
34
milliarium, dated in 236 A.D., attests the construction, or, eventually, the restoration, during emperor Maximinus Thrax and his son, of a road which connected the locality R[es]cul(um) with a certain vicus An(artorum) on a distance of XVI m(illia passuum). All these information were crucial in establishing that the road started at the military camp from Bologa (Resculum) and, alongside the valley of the river Almaş, passing through the vicus Anartorum, finished at Optatiana (Sutoru). This milestone from Dacia Porolissensis and other monuments of this kind discovered in different provinces (Italia, Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Maritimae, Baetica, Lusitania, Hispania Citerior, Gallia Narbonensis, Aquitania, Gallia Lugdunensis, Germania Superior, Raetia, Cappadocia, Arabia, Africa Proconsularis, Numidia) show an intense preoccupation of Maximinus Thrax for the construction and the restoration of the roads. 2. 4. 4. Veţel ‐ Micia (Hunedoara County) This milestone was discovered in Veţel, Hunedoara County (Fig. 22). The name of the Roman settlement was Micia. The settlement is positioned along the Roman road, which connected Apulum with Micia and Partiscum (Szeged). This epigraphic monument was published in one of the volumes dedicated to the inscriptions of the Roman Dacia.309 The text is: IMP(eratori) C(aesari) CAIO VI/VIO TRABONIA/NO GALLO P(io) F(elici) / AVG(usto) P(atri) [p(atriae)] ET / IMP(eratori) C(aesari) C(aio) VIVIO / AFINIO GALLO / VELDOMINIA/NO [Vo] / LVC (sic) [iano] / AVG(usto) P(atri) P(atriae) / AB A[p(ulo) M(illia) P(assuum)] / XLV. The text of the inscription indicates the distance between Micia and Apulum: XLV M(illia) P(assuum) (66,937 km), which corresponds with the current distance between the actual localities Alba Iulia and Veţel. The monument was correctly dated in 251 – 253 A.D., during the emperors Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus. The inscription represents the proof for a restoration of this road during these two emperors. 2. 4. 5. Lăpuşnicel (Caraş‐Severin County) The second milliarium from Dacia Superior was discovered in Lăpuşnicel (Caraş‐Severin County) (Fig. 23, Fig. 24), along a secondary Roman road in Banat, which connects the following settlements: Slatina Nera, Sasca Montană, Dalboşeţ, Bozovici, Prilipăţ and Prigor. The monument, discovered in situ, was dated by those who have published it after his aspect at the end of the 3rd 309
IDR III/3, 50.
35
century and the beginning of the 4th century A.D., during the emperors Diocletian and Maximianus. The monument was first published in 1977.310 The monument311 was discovered with its face down, buried in soil circa 1 m, in a point known with the toponym ‘Znamăn’ or ‘Piatra Împăratului’. Its dimensions are: 1,92 m in height; 0,32 m in width. The letters have 4 cm in height. In 1977, when the authors published the article, they specified that only the following letters could be written: IANOPPIS. They dated the monument, based only on one useless criterion, its shape, at the end of the third century A.D. and the beginning of the fourth century A.D., during Diocletian and Maximianus’ reigns. In 1979, the monument is rediscussed in another article.312 This time, the information is somehow different from the one published two years earlier. The author specifies that the monument is 1,82 m in height, and 0,32 m in width and it has 5 irregular sides. He actually publishes a photograph and a drawing. Analyzing the text again, O. Bozu read two rows: one with the letters IANOP and another one with the letters MILI. The same author specifies that the inscription was martelated. The unsolved problems are, in this case, the text of the inscription and the date. In the article published in 1977, the authors specified that “because of its shape, the milestone has the same shape as the monuments from Dobroudja erected at the end of the third century A.D. and in the fourth century A.D. and suggests that it was erected during Domitian (sic!) and Maximian, or a letter period” / “după aspect, miliarul se aseamănă cu cele din Dobrogea plantate la finele secolului al III‐lea şi în secolul al IV‐lea şi sugerează ipoteza că este vorba de împăraţii Domiţian (sic !) şi Maximian, dacă nu cumva de o perioadă mai târzie”.313 In my opinion, these arguments are irrelevant. The shape is not a criterion for dating the milestones. Second, Dobroudja and Banat are two different regions, which developed separately, with no common features. Third, since in Banat no other milestones were found, how can one compare one monument with the milestones found in Dobroudja, since there is no typology established for the monuments in Banat? The authors underline that the text was martelated. On the other hand, not only had the emperor Maximian suffered damnatio memoriae. Therefore, I searched for emperors whose names were martelated from inscriptions and who developed activities related to the road infrastructure. The first observation is related to the emperor Maximianus. If 310
Răuţ, Bozu, Petrovszky 1977, 135‐159. Nowadays the milestone is located at the Museum of Reşiţa. 312 Bozu 1979, 199. 313 Răuţ, Bozu, Petrovszky 1977, 148. 311
settlement Gostavăţu (Olt County).316 Only a small fragment survived from this chalk milestone (a fragment with a height of 48 cm and a width of 26 cm). From the whole inscription only several letters from two rows remained. The letters are 10 cm height. The whole monument could have at least 2 m in height (minimum 10 rows, 10 cm the height of the letters, plus the base and the upper part). The text is DIVI […f (illus)]. As in the other case, this milestone was dated also during Septimius Severus’ reign. 2. 4. 8. Copăceni ‐ Racoviţa (Vâlcea County) The third milestone along the valley of Olt was discovered at Praetorium (Copăceni ‐ Racoviţa, Vâlcea County) (Fig. 26). The whole monument survived, but broken in two pieces. The height of the monument is 1,20 m, with a diameter of 40 cm. The letters have 5 cm in height. Comparing with the first the fragmentary milestones mentioned above, the letters are twice smaller. This shows that the first the monuments were bigger, more accurately elaborated. The text is: IM[perator] CAES[ar] / [C Iul(ius) VERV(s)] / M[aximi]NVS / PIVS FE[lix] AVG[ustus] / PON[tifex] MAX[imus] / TRIB[unicia] [Po]T[estate] / II CO[n]S[ul] PROCO[n]S[ul] / PA[ter] PA[triae] ET [C I]VL[ius] VERV[s] / [Maximinus] / NOBILIS[simus] / CAE[sar] III M[illia] P[assuum].317 The publishers of the monument noted that the names of the emperors (rows 2, 3 and 10) seemed to be martelated. The monument was dated in 236 A.D., during Maximinus Thrax’s reign. 2. 4. 9. Sucidava – Celei, Corabia (Olt County) The fourth milestone along the valley of Olt is dated during Constantine the Great, so from a period in which Dacia was no longer part of the Roman Empire. I want to present it here, because the monument proves the concern of this emperor regarding the defense of the empire in this area. In fact, Constantine wanted to secure only the line of the Danube. He did not conquer the southern part of the former Dacia; he only wanted to present future Gothic attacks, focused on the area of the Balkans. Dumitru
the text was martelated, why not the whole name was erased? Therefore, the text was martelated and we can read only several letters: IANOP. I tried to find two associated emperors, one who suffered damnatio memoriae and his name was erased, and the other with a name ended in the dative IANO. This restricts the dating to the third century, because the dative was used only for this period. I found two cases: the emperors Trebonianus Gallus / Volusianus and the emperors Gallienus / Valerianus Iunior. Based on this information, I propose two lectures. The first is: [IMP CAES C VIBIO TREBONIANO] [GALLO P F AUG P P ET IMP CAES] [C VIBIO VOLUS]IANO P [F] [AUG P P] ………..MILI[A P] ? The second lecture is: [IMP CAES P LICINIO GALLIENO] [P F INV AUG P P ET IMP CAES] [P LICINIO VALER]IANO P [F] [AUG]…………….…MILI[A P] ? After a careful examination of the milestone, I reached the conclusion that the monument can be dated during the emperors Trebonianus Gallus (June 251 – August 253 A.D.) and his associate Volusianus or during the emperors Gallienus (September/October 253 – September 268 A.D.) and his associate, his son Valerianus Junior (255 ‐ end of 257/beginning of 258 A.D). 2. 4. 6. Băbiciu de Sus (Olt County) This milestone was found in Băbiciu de Sus (Olt County), in the road sector between Islaz and Romula.314 One a small part of it survived315 (height 47 cm and width 27 cm). In the first line, the letters are 6 cm high. The text is: IM[p(erator)] (Caes) / SEPT(imius) SEV(erus). The milestone was dated during Septimius Severus’ reign, in 205 A.D. It shows that this road was repaired in that period, maybe together with the Roman military fortress from Slăveni. 2. 4. 7. Gostavăţu (Olt County) Circa 5 km north of this point (Fig. 25), another milestone was found on the territory of the current
316
TIR L 35, s.v. Gostavăţ; CIL III, 1421618; IDR II, 494; Tocilescu 1896, 1, 81, no. 12; Christescu 1937, 113; Tudor 1968, 52; Macrea 1969, 153; Vlădescu 1986, 103; Fodorean 2006, 80. The fragment was kept in the National Museum of Antiquities from Bucharest. 317 Translation after IDR II, 229: „For the emperor Caesar C. Iulius Verus Maximinus Pius Felix Augustus, big priest, investted with the second tribunician power, consul, proclamed three times emperor, , proconsul, father of the land, and C. Iulius Verus Maximinus, the most nobile Caesar. Three thousand paces (until the fortress…)”.
314
TIR L 35, s.v. Băbiciul Episcopiei. CIL III 13802; IDR II, 493; Tocilescu 1896, 1, 82; Christescu 1937, 113; Tudor 1968, 52; Macrea 1969, 153; Vlădescu 1986, 103; Fodorean 2006, 80. This fragment was kept in the National Museum of Antiquities from Bucharest. 315
36
Tudor discovered the monument in Sucidava, in 1913.318 This is a chalk cylindrical monument, with the ends broken. The current height of it is 1,60 m, with a diameter of 41 cm. only the left part of the inscription is kept. The letters are 5 cm height. The text is: IMP(eratori) [D(omino)] N(ostro) [Fl(avio) Val(erio) Con] / STANT[ino Aug(usto) et] / C[A]ESS(ari)B(us) NO[stris] (duobus) / M(ille) P(assuum) I. The text of the inscription is written in four rows. Based on the imperial epithets, the monument was dated in 324 A.D. according to the mentioned distance (1 Roman mile), this monument was positioned exactly 1 mile north of the pillar of the bridge build here during the same emperor, between Sucidava and Oescus. The four milestones along the Olt valley show an intense preoccupation of the emperors Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax (and later Constantine) for this strategic road, which connected the line of the Danube with the central part of Dacia, with the crossroad Apulum. This road was projected and used in the two military campaigns of Trajan in Dacia (Fig. 27). 2. 5. The Roman road along the right bank of the Danube. Tabula Traiana The construction of the road on the right bank of the Danube started during the reign of Tiberius. Two inscriptions discovered in the Gornja Klisura, one from Gospodjin Vir and the other one from Boljetin, inform about the planning and construction of this road by two legions: IV Scythica and V Macedonica.319 The inscriptions were dated in 33/34 A.D. Another inscription from Gospodjin Vir, cut in the rock 1,7 m above the Roman road, dates from 46 A.D., during the reign of Claudius (41‐54 A.D.).320 The text mentions the name of Martius Macer as legatus augusti pro praetore and the same two legions involved in the project, IV Scythica and V Macedonica. This road was the axis that assured the connection between the central provinces of the Roman Empire and the eastern areas. It was a limes road, which separated the Romans
from the Barbarians, but also assured the proper movement of the armies along the border. Rufus Festus (fourth century A.D.) noticed: ‘Et limes inter Romnos ac barbaros ab Augusta Vindelicum per Noricum, Pannonias ac Moesiam est constitutus’ (“And a limes between the Romans and the Barbarians from Augusta Vindelicum through Noricum, Pannonia and Moesia was established”) (Breviarum VIII, 1).321 During Trajan, this road was finished and the navigation conditions across the Danube Klisura were improved.322 At Ogradena an inscription cut in rock informs about the works made by the Romans to finish this road in 100 A.D:323 IMP(erator) CAESAR DIVI NERVAE F(ilius) / NERVA TRAIANVS AVG(ustus) GERM(anicus) / PONTIF(ex) MAXIMVS TRIB(unicia) POT(estate) IIII / PATER PATRIAE CO(n)S(ul) III / MONTIBVS EXCISI ANCO(ni)BVS / SVBLAT(i)S VIA(m) F(ecit). From the text and from what we can see today at Ogradena we are aware of the huge effort made to construct this road, above the Danube waters. Large oblique pieces of wood fixed in the rock sustained a wood bridge, a prolongation of the road cut in the rock (Fig. 28). Two legions participated with logistic material and soldiers to this action: legio IIII Flavia Felix and legio VII Claudia.324 2. 6. The main roads of Dacia The reconstruction of the Dacian road system must begin using the data from the Peutinger map.325 321
Mirković 2007, 27. An inscription dated in AD 101 discovered at Karataš attests the efforts for the rehabilitation of the Danube course, in order to make it easily navigable: ob periculum cataractarum derivato flumine tutam Danuvi navigationem fecit (see Nemeth 2007, 148); Šašel 1973, 80‐85; Timoc 2001, 97‐116; AE 1973, 475. 323 CIL III 1699; Petrović 1986, 41; Rossi 1968, 41‐46; Becatti 1982, 566; Le Roux 1998, 73. 324 Petrović 1986, 52: Herculi sacrum / lapidarii qui exieru / nt ancones facien / dos legionis IIII Fl(aviae) / et legionis VII Cl(audiae) vot(um) so[lverunt]; Ti. Claudio Drusi f(ilio) Caesare / Aug(usto) Germanico pontif(ice) max(imo) / trib(unicia) pot(estate) VI imp(eratore) XII p(atre) p(atriae) co(n)s(ule) desig(nato) IIII / Leg(io) IIII Scyth(ica) Leg(io) V Mac(edonica) / montibus excisis [facisque anc]onibus [(s(ub)c(ura)] / Mar(tii) Marci leg(ati) Aug(usti) propr(aetore). 325 Available now in Talbert 2010 with all the former contributions mentioned here. See also Talbert 2004, 113: ‘When colleagues ask what is now engaging my attention after the completion of the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton and Oxford, 2000), and I mention Peutinger’s Roman map, it is clear that they are puzzled. They regard the map as a thoroughly studied document from which little more is unlikely to be learned. Their impression is understandable, but in fact misplaced. 322
318
Tudor 1938, no. 95‐96, 1‐7; Tudor 1958, SE 142; Tudor 1968, 52, 431, 506‐507, SE 188; Tudor 1971, 185‐186; Tudor 1974a, 123‐127; Popescu 1976, 295, no. 278. 319 Ti. Caesare Au[g(usti) F(ilio)] / Augusto Imperato[re] / Pont(ifice) Max(imo) Tr(ibunicia) Pot(estate) XXXV / Leg(io) IIII Scyt(hica) Leg(io) Maced(onica); Šašel 1963; Gabričević 1972, 408; Bošković 1978, 425‐463; Mirković 1996, 27‐40; Mirković 2007, 26‐27. 320 Ti. Claudio Drusi f(ilio) Caesare / Aug(usto) Germanico pontif(ice) max(imo) / trib(unicia) pot(estate) VI imp(eratore) XII p(atre) p(atriae) co(n)s(ule) desig(nato) IIII / Leg(io) IIII Scyth(ica) Leg(io) V Mac(edonica) / montibus excisis [facisque anc]onibus [(s(ub)c(ura)] / Mar(tii) Marci leg(ati) Aug(usti) propr(aetore).
37
In all, three roads are mentioned, 48 settlements and a total distance of 703 Roman miles (1039,385 km). 2. 6. 1. The road Lederata‐Tibiscum The first road is the one between Lederata (today Ram, Serbia) and Tibiscum (Jupa, Romania, Caraș‐Severin County) (Fig. 31). This road was traced on the ground, constructed and used by the Roman armies lead by Trajan in the first military campaign from AD 101. ‘Inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus’ (‘From there we advanced to Berzobis, and then to Aizis’), affirms the emperor in his De Bello Dacico. The location of the Roman settlements depicted in the Peutinger map is, in some points, problematic.327 Ram is positioned on the right bank of the Danube, in Serbia. On the opposite bank another important settlement is Banatska Palanka (Serbia). In this small village, military stamps were found. One of them belongs to a(la) II P(annoniorum). This cavalry troop participated at the wars against the Dacians and then was part of the Roman army in Dacia during Trajan.328 Coh(ors) I Cre(tum) and coh(ors) II Hisp(anorum) are also attested here. Stamps from vexillationes of legio VII Claudia and legio IIII Flavia were found here. These are legions from Moesia Superior. The next station in Tabula is Apus flumen. This can be identified with the river Caraș. If we measure XII miles (17,742 km) from Ram, then Apus fl. will be somewhere close to Orešac (Serbia). The next stations could be (some of them only hypothetically) located as follows: Arcidava (Vărădia or Vršac); Centum Putea (Surducu Mare?), Berzobis (Berzovia); Aizis (Fârliug); Caput Bubali (Cornuțel); Tivisco (Jupa). The distance (73 miles – almost 108 km) is correct if the locations proposed are correct, too. There is, though, a mistake. Between Aizis and Caput Bubali only III miles are written. If there were not only III, but XIII miles, then the distance fits with the current one between Fârliug and Cornuțel. Such mistake could occur when the medieval copyist transposed the information from the original. In that case, on this segment we have a total distance of 83 miles, which means 122,7 kilometers. At Vărădia a Roman fortress was built in the place called “Pustă”. 20 km north of this point, we find the camp from Surducu Mare. The fortress (132 x 128 m) was built of wood and earth. At Berzovia, 20 km North of Surducu Mare, legio IV Flavia Felix was camped in a fortress of 490 x 410 m. The current village overlaps the fortress. The legion was withdrawn from Dacia in Moesia Superior, at Viminacium (Beograd, Serbia) at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. In the other mentioned point stationes could function.
Tabula is an itinerarium pictum, which reflects, in my opinion, the Roman linear perception of space. Dacia is depicted in this document in the segments VI and VII (Fig. 29, Fig. 30).326 Three roads are marked here: Lederata – Tibiscum, Dierna – Tibiscum – Sarmizegetusa – Apulum – Napoca – Porolissum and Drobeta – Romula – Caput Stenarum – Apulum. Sarmizegetusa and Aquae are not connected to any road, albeit after the name of the first locality appears the distance to the next one (XIIII MP). Five settlements are represented with double‐ tower vignettes: Tivisco, Sarmategte, Apula, Napoca and Porolisso. Ad Aquas is represented with a special vignette, corresponding to spas or thermal constructions. The other settlements, villages or mansiones are marked only with their names and the distance between them. The distances and settlements mentioned in Dacia are: 1. Segmentum VI 2: the road between Lederata and Tibiscum (the Western road): Lederata‐XII MP; Apus flumen‐XII MP; Arcidava‐XII MP; Centum Putea‐XII MP; Berzobis‐XII MP; Aizis‐III MP; Caput Bubali‐X MP; Tivisco (depicted with vignette). In all, eight settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 73 Roman miles. 2. Segmenta VI 3 and VII 1: the road between Tierva and Porolisso: Tierva‐XI MP; Ad Mediam‐XIIII MP; Pretorio‐IX MP; Ad Pannonios‐IX MP; Gaganis‐XI MP; Masclianis‐XIIII MP; Tivisco‐XIIII MP; Agnavie‐VIII MP; Ponte Augusti‐XV MP; Sarmategte‐XIIII MP; Ad Aquas‐ XIII MP; Petris‐VIIII MP; Germizera‐VIIII MP; Blandiana‐ VIII MP; Apula‐XII MP; Brucla‐XII MP; Salinis‐XII MP; Potavissa‐XXIIII MP; Napoca‐XVI MP; Optatiana‐X MP; Largiana‐XVII MP; Cersie‐IIII MP; Porolisso. 24 settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 270 MP. 3. Segmenta VI 4, VI 5 şi VII 1: the road between Drubetis and Apulum, via Romula: Drubetis‐XXXVI MP; Amutria‐XXXV MP; Pelendova‐XX; Castris Novis‐LXX MP; Romula‐XIII MP; Acidava‐XXIIII MP; Rusidava‐XIIII MP; Ponte Aluti‐XIII MP; Burridava‐XII MP; Castra Tragana‐ VIIII MP; Arutela‐XV MP; Pretorio‐VIIII MP; Ponte Vetere‐ XLIIII MP; Stenarum‐XII MP; Cedonie‐XXIIII MP; Acidava‐ XV MP; Apula. 17 settlements are mentioned and a total distance of 379 MP.
Rather, the Peutinger map belongs in that deceptive category of ancient texts or monuments so familiar to everyone in our field that a satisfactory edition or presentation is generally assumed to exist, when really there is none”. See my review on Talbert’s book at http://www.plekos.uni‐ muenchen.de/2011/r‐talbert.pdf. An analysis on this topic: Fodorean 2004, 51‐58. 326 I prefer to use Weber’s system, who counted the 11 existing segments. Miller reconstructed the Western part of the map, adding one more segment. Talbert considers the map as a propagandistic document, with Rome in its center, and he developed a theory about the existence not of one, but three segments in the left part of the document, so a total of 14 segments.
327 328
38
Diaconescu 1997, 13‐52. Ardevan 2007, 140.
One scene on the Trajan’s Column329 depicts a conventional representation of a road, like in an itinerarium.330 Trajan was a great military commander. No doubt, that he ordered the construction of this road and the establishment of the camp network as soon as the Roman armies entered in Dacia. It was like Caesar, who insisted in his commentaries on the celeritas (rapidity) of his marches.331 The scene XIII from Trajan’s Column depicts a marching scene. Trajan stands before a zigzag road running upward in raised relief, above two arches.332 Today it is almost impossible to locate in the field all the scenes of the Column. One thing is, though, sure: the artists who realized the Column needed a source, something to help them create the topographical order of the ‘movie’, because like in all Roman itineraries, this topographic order cannot be challenged. Therefore, it seems to me very possible that itineraria realized in these two military campaigns were the source for the artists, together with the lost book written by the emperor. Therefore, it seems likely that elongated itineraria and De Bello Dacico were a conscious source of inspiration for the Trajan’s Column reliefs. The topographic order of the scenes is correct. The scenes start with the crossing of the Danube and then the marching of Roman armies, through Banat. Two boat bridges are presented, which implies that the Roman armies penetrated the Dacian territory using at least two different routes. One is Lederata‐Tibiscum and the other one is Dierna‐Tibiscum. Trajan took the first route, as the only sentence kept from his commentaries shows. Tibiscum was a strategic point, located before the entrance in the narrow corridor of the Bistra valley. After these marching scenes the battle from Tapae is depicted, and then the invasion of the Dacians in Moesia, the journey made by Trajan by boat to the battlefield. After that, the military operations moved again in Banat. The Romans succeeded to approach close to the Dacian capital. In that moment, Dcebalus asked Trajan for a peace treaty. The first war was over. The second military campaign begins with the departure of Trajan from Italy, his travel through the Balkan provinces. Then the inauguration of the bridge from Drobeta is presented, followed again by scenes, which depict the marching of the Roman armies and so on. In the final scenes, the Romans conquer Sarmizegetusa Regia. Decibel leaves the capital, but it is following by the Roman cavalry and commits suicide. Therefore, the
history of these two campaigns and the topographic order of the events are correct. However, one cannot find for every scene correspondences in the field, because the Column is a propagandistic monument, showing the power of the Roman army, its labor and disciplina, in contrast with the Barbarians. For that reason, many of the marching scenes are repeated only to suggest this idea. 2. 6. 2. The second road: Dierna‐Tibiscum‐ Porolissum The other road in Banat (the Eastern road) is the one starting from Tierva (corrupt name, correct is Dierna), today Orșova (Mehedinți County). It intersects the first one at Tibiscum. At Dierna, in this state of research, we cannot be sure if a Roman fortress existed here. The ancient city was definitively destroyed in 1968‐1970, when a lake was projected here, in order to supply the hydropower station The Iron Gates I.333 The next settlement mentioned in Tabula is Ad Mediam. This toponym can indicate a crossroad. The distance from Dierna until here is XI Roman miles. We do not know the location of Ad Mediam. Measuring on digital maps XI miles (16,26 km) we reach exactly a point with two roads: this one, mentioned in Tabula, and another one, which connects the thermal settlement Băile Herculane.334 This is a deverticulum. Băile Herculane is not mentioned in Tabula, but it was very important. Numerous inscriptions were found here, dedicated to Hercules, as the protector of the thermals waters.335 After Ad Mediam, the next station is Praetorium, today Mehadia (Caraş‐Severin County). The distance mentioned in Tabula is 14 Roman miles. A Roman camp was build here. The next station is, after 9 miles, Ad Pannonios (Teregova?). Here also a fortress was built. From here, the next point is Gaganis, 9 miles North of Ad Pannonios. After another 11 miles, it follows Masclianis, and then after 14 miles the road reaches Tivisco. Between Orşova and Jupa today we travel along the same route, and there is a total distance is 97 km. The total distance recorded by Tabula between these settlements is 68 miles (100,5 km). There are two 11 miles segments, two of 14 and two of 9 miles. Tivisco (Tibiscum) appears twice in Tabula, one at the end of the first depicted road (Lederata‐ Tibiscum) and second along the road Dierna‐Tibiscum. In the first case the settlement is depicted with vignette and its position indicate the end of the road, because there is no other line staring from there. The second Tibiscum is depicted as a normal settlement, as part of the whole segment staring from the Danube
329
The scene at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:013_Conrad_Cichoriu s,_Die_Reliefs_der_Traianss%C3%A4ule,_Tafel_XIII.jpg. 330 Le Bohec 1989. 331 Chevallier 1988, 251. 332 ’The Trajan's Column Frieze as a Confluence of Military Geography and Triumphal Painting’, at www.history.appstate. edu/sites/default/files/appalachian.../Stephensen.doc; Koeppel 1980, 301‐306; Strobel 1984, 194; Diaconescu 1997, 29.
333
Nemeth 2005, 39. Fodorean 2006, 236. 335 Pippidi, Russu 1977, 76‐99 (no. 54‐74). 334
39
contained the same double mention of Tibiscum, information transmitted from an earlier document. As I mentioned above, the whole road depicted in Tabula between Dierna and Porolisso has a total length of 270 miles in Tabula. After Tivisco, the next point is Agnavie, today Zăvoi (Caraş‐Severin County). Here a big Roman marching camp was constructed during the wars against the Dacians. TP indicates between Tivisco and Agnavie 14 Roman miles (20,6 km). After another 8 miles, we reach Pons Augusti (today Marga, Caraş‐Severin County). Then, after 15 Roman miles (circa 22 km) we reach the capital of Roman Dacia, Sarmategte (Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa). The settlement is represented with vignette. It was founded by Trajan as a colonia deducta. It is positioned in the Haţeg depression. The Roman road was identified on Austrian (Fig. 32) and current maps and it was investigated in the field on a distance of almost 16 km, from Sarmizegetusa to Sântămărie Orlea.339 The walls of the city enclosed a surface of 24 ha at the beginning and after a while 32,4 ha (Fig. 33). In AD 102 legio IV Flavia Felix build here a provisory fortress of 540 x 415 m (22,410 ha). Immediately before the foundation of the city, the legion moved in Banat, to Berzovia. In this particular area, the Roman surveyors choose, again, the most suitable route for the road. They traced the route to the right side of the Hill of Haţeg, making the road more accessible (Fig. 34, Fig. 35, Fig. 36, Fig. 37). From Sarmizegetusa the next settlement in Tabula is Ad Aquas. There is no line, no road linking these two settlements. The distance between them is XIIII Roman miles. In the terrain, the distance between Sarmizegetusa and Ad Aquas (Uroi?) is ca. 37 kilometers (Fig. 38). This mistake has, in my opinion, several explanations: 1. the copyist forgot to write a X before XIIII. If we add X, which is XXIIII miles (36 km), this fits the distance in the terrain; 2. the copyist forgot a whole segment between these two settlements (distance and place name); 3. the mapmaker had as sources several itineraria. One of these documents stopped at Sarmategte. He inspired from another one starting with Ad Aquas. This explains the lack of the line between those two. Another thing is awkward here. This Ad Aquas was barely known in Roman times. The most curious thing is its representation with the specific vignette. The most known and visited thermal places were Germisara (Geoagiu‐Băi, Hunedoara County) and Ad Mediam (Băile Herculane, Caraş‐Severin County). An explanation can be related to its position along the main imperial road in Dacia. After XIII miles from Ad Aquas we arrive to Petris (Uroi?). This point is located north of the Mureş River. At Petris a crossroad existed in Roman times. In
and ending in the North of the province, at Porolisso (today Zalău, Sălaj County). In the site related to Talbert’s book on Tabula recently (Cambridge University Press),336 everyone can consult a database regarding this amazing itinerarium. When mentioning the toponym Tivisco, the authors affirm: “The same place recurs ‐ marked with a symbol ‐ as the end of the route above to the left. This puzzling duplication seems more likely to have been made by the mapmaker than by a copyist”.337 This is correct, but in is not puzzling. The mapmaker used different sources. Among them, one or maybe several depicted Tibiscum twice. This shows the important of this settlement during the two military campaigns and after the conquest. In the list of the settlements from Dacia, Ptolemy mentions Tibiscum twice, with different coordinates. The geographer from Ravenna makes the same “mistake”, also mentioning Tibiscum twice. First, he presents the settlements placed along the road Dierna‐Tibiscum:338 ‘In quas Dacorum patrias antiquitus plurimas fuisse civitates legimus, ex quibus aliquantas designare volumus, id est Drubetis, Medilas, Pretorich, Panonin, Gazanam, Masclunis, Tibis, qui coniungitur cum civitate Agmonia patrie Missie’. “In this Dacian regions I read that in former times numerous cities existed, of which we will present some of them, like Drubetis, Medilas, Pretorich, Panonin, Gazanam, Masclunis, Tibis, which connects with the city of Agmonia from Moesia”. Then he mentions the other Tibiscum, on the road Lederata‐Tibiscum: ‘em in aliam partem sunt civitates ipsas Datias, id est Tema, Tiviscum, Gubali, Zizis, Bersovia, Arcidaba, Canonia, Potula, Bacaucis”. “Also in other part cities exist even in Dacia, like: Tema, Tiviscum, Gubali, Zizis, Bersovia, Arcidaba, Canonia, Potula, Bacaucis”. The geographer from Ravenna had as source for Dacia an itinerarium, which can be dated after AD 168‐ 170, because along the main road in Dacia the settlement Macedonica is mentioned. This name refers, obviously, to legio V Macedonica, which was present in Dacia from AD 168. Apart from that, he mentions other settlements, unknown to Tabula or Ptolemy, such as Canonia, Potula, Bacaucis. Therefore, the geographer used a document for Dacia dated after AD 168 but which
336
http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase. http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase /TPPlace1737.html. 338 Text and translation after Hügel 2003, 87‐88. 337
339
40
Fodorean 2007, 365‐384.
River (Partiscum, today Szeged, Hungary); 2. the roads along the valleys of Târnava Mare and Tîrnava Mică; 3. the road that reaches the gold district, in Apuseni Mountains, at Alburnus Maior (Roşia Montană). Tabula suggests exactly this crossroad, representing the road that connected Drobeta, via Romula, with Apulum, along the Valley of Alutus River. Obviously, the settlement is represented with vignette. Apulum was the headquarters for the legio XIII Gemina, which stay in Dacia right from the beginning until the end of the province. The city flourished during Marcus Aurelius, when the initial preurban nucleus (in the Southern part of the current city and the former Roman legionary fortress) became municipium. During Commodus it becames colonia Aurelia and beginning with the third century AD it receives ius Italicum. During Trebonianus Gallus it receives the epithet Chrysopolis. The other city developed close to the fortress, on the Cetate Hill, and during Septimius Severus became municipium Septimius Apulense. During Traianus Decius, it reaches the status of colonia. These two cities, together with the military fortress, represented the biggest and the most important settlement in Roman Dacia. With an estimated population of ca. 35.000 inhabitants, Apulum was the most important economic and military settlement in Dacia. The headquarters of the consular governor of Dacia was also here. The commercial traffic developed along the Mureş River, and a harbor was constructed to supply these intense activities. The medieval and modern Vauban citadel now overlaps the fortress of the legio XIII Gemina (440 x 430 m). One aspect though should be mentioned. The porta principalis dextra stands up even now, showing the greatness of the former military camp. The enclosure wall of the fortress was used to support the medieval and modern buildings. Stamps with LEG XIII GEM were found everywhere, covering a vast area, up to the gold district in the North‐West. This shows the strategic importance played by this legion, positioned along the main imperial road and with the capacity to act in different points, especially in the West and North, to protect the gold mines. In fact, an observation should be mentioned here. Legionary fortresses are placed along the limes. In Dacia, we do not have enough knowledge on the line of the Western Roman frontier. West of Apulum and Potaissa (the headquarters of legio V Macedonica), the most important area to defend was the gold district, and, obviously, the frontier. In this particular case, a strategic triangle developed between Apulum, Potaissa and Alburnus Maior. This is another proof of the Roman capacity to organize carefully the territory, to perceive and understand the geography of each particular area. Apulum is followed in Tabula by Brucla (Aiud), Salinis (Ocna Mureş) and Patavissa (Turda, Cluj County) (see Fig. 18). We have here three segments of
fact, we should say, more correct, that the main imperial road coming from Apulum crossed in this point the river Mureş and went further South, heading for Sarmizegetusa and then for Tibiscum. Another road was built along the Mureş River, from East to West, heading for Pannonia Inferior (Partiscum, today Szeged). Petris is followed in Tabula, after VIIII MP, by Germizera (correct name: Germisara, today Geoagiu‐Băi, Hunedoara county). The road follows the Northern, right bank of the Mureş River. The distance in the terrain (ca. 13 km) corresponds with that indicated in the itinerarium, though and observation must be highlighted here. I think that the mapmaker wrote Germigera because this settlement was known, but in fact, the road connects Petris with the military fortress from Cigmău (Fig. 39), positioned 5,5 kilometers south of Geoagiu‐Băi. Germisara is not represented with vignette type “thermal place” because of its position, outside of the imperial road. Unlike Ad Aquas, this spa was constantly visited in the Roman times, mainly because of the quality of the thermal waters, and due to its position, in the centre of the province. Marcus Statius Priscus, governor of Dacia Superior in AD 157 and AD 158, is mentioned here in two votive monuments for the gods and the protectors of the thermal waters.340 The next governor of Dacia Superior (in AD 161), Publius Furius Saturninus, is also mentioned at Germisara in two votive inscriptions.341 The thermal place was also visited by decuriones and quaestores from Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, augustales from Sarmizegetusa, soldiers from the auxiliary troops, a representative of a collegium Galatarum and another of a collegium aurariarum. From Germisara after other VIIII miles (13,3 kilometers) Tabula indicates Blandiana (today also Blandiana, Alba County). The distance in the terrain, though, is 18,9 kilometers. This is another case where the copyist produced a mistake. To fit the information from TP with the terrain measurements, we should add another 3 miles, to obtain XII (17,7 kilometers). Then again, after VIII miles the road reaches Apula (Apulum, today Alba Iulia, Alba County). Once again, we think we have a mistake here. In the terrain the distance is 18,79 km, which is ca. 12,7 Roman miles, so XII Roman miles. Apulum is the most important crossroad in Dacia. From here all the major roads start: 1. the road that connects Dacia with Pannonia along the Mureş 340
IDR III/3, 240, 241. Marcus Statius Priscus began his career as an equestrian officer, receiving a decoration from Hadrian during the Jewish rebellion. He then served as procurator in Southern Gaul before being made a senator and commanding two legions in succession. Priscus was in charge of Dacia as a governor between 157 and 158. He held the consulship in 159. After this, he governed Moesia Superior between 160 and 161 and became governor of Roman Britain immediately afterwards, serving until perhaps as late as the mid 160s. 341 IDR III/3, 232, 236; Piso 1972, 463‐471. This important character is mentioned in Dacia in 7 inscriptions.
41
From Napoca the imperial road345 mentioned in Tabula continues and the next settlement is Optatiana (today Sutor, Sălaj County). The distance recorded in Tabula from Napoca to Optatiana is 16 miles (23,656 km). The distance is today around 51 kilometers, but considering that today the current road has a different tract as the Roman road, our calculations show that around 40 kilometers (26 km) separated in Roman times Napata from Potation. Therefore, it must have been another mistake of the copyist here. Further, after Optatiana the next point is Largiana (today Românaşi, Sălaj County). The distance recorded in Tabula between these two settlements is 10 miles. In the terrain, the same distance is around 17 km, which, basically, almost fits the distance recorded in Tabula (almost 15 km). From Largiana the next point is (after 17 miles) Cersie (today Romita, Sălaj County). However, in the terrain, along the Roman road, the distance is only 5 kilometers (so circa 3 miles). The final point is Porolisso (Porolissum, today Moigrad, Sălaj County). The distance indicated in Tabula is correct. In the terrain, we recorded almost 6 kilometers between Cersie and Porolisso, which fits the distance indicated in Tabula (see Fig. 21). Porolisso is also represented with vignette. Porolissum is the northernmost point in Dacia. It represents the centre of an entire complicated defensive system. Two Roman fortresses were built here, and, as in other cases, a big civilian settlement developed close to these camps. The Roman road is very well preserved today at the entrance in the city. The city became municipium during Septimius Severus’ reign (res publica municipii Septimii Porolissensium).346 It was one of the most important military and commercial settlements in Dacia. Beside the two military fortresses, the last researches proved the existence of a dynamic city. A custom (statio portorii) was archaeologically identified, temples (among them, one dedicated for Iupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus), an aerial aqueduct (the only one like this found, until now, in Dacia), and an amphiteatrum castrense built in wood at the beginning of the province and rebuilt in stone during Antoninus Pius. A large cemetery was also identified. Position on the frontier, Porolissum benefited of numerous military units: cohors V Lingonum, cohors I Brittonum milliaria, cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum, cohors I Hispanorum quingenaria, cohors III Campestris, numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium sagittariorum, together with vexillationes from the legions XIII Gemina, VII Claudia, VII Gemina şi III Gallica. The population was estimated at 20.000 inhabitants.
roads, all of them with the same value, XII Roman miles. It seems that here the copyist forgot to insert a whole segment of 12 miles, since the current distance between Alba Iulia and Potaissa is today 68 km. If we add another 12 miles (a segment), then we will have four of them, meaning 48 miles (70,9 km). Indeed, if we analyze the distance between Apulum and Brucla, we see that this is, in the terrain, 36 kilometers, which is 24 Roman miles. Today we know the route of the Roman road in this area. It exits from Apulum and then it surrounds to the North‐West the hill called Bilag. It connects the currents settlements Şard, Ighiu, Cricău, Tibru and Galda de Jos. Measuring from Apulum to the North‐West, along the route of the Roman road, after 12 miles (18 km) we reach a point close to the settlement from Tibru and Galda de Jos. At Tibru, at ca. 200 m south of the village, in the place called “Rât”, in 1877 the ruins of a building were discovered. Stamp tiles with LEG III GEM were also found, together with inscriptions.342 The historians advanced several opinion regarding this building (fortress, villa rustica). In my opinion, I think here a mansio functioned during the Roman time, close to the main imperial road. Salinis (Salinae, today Ocna Mureş or Războieni‐ Cetate) is another important strategic point. Here the only ala milliaria in the province garrisoned. Its name was ala I Batavorum milliaria. The next point was Potaissa. This was the most important military settlement from the Northern part of Dacia. With an estimated population of 20.000 inhabitants, Potaissa was the headquarters of the legio V Macedonica. Its fortress (573 x 408 m) was positioned on the Cetate Hill, in the Western part of the city (Fig. 40, Fig. 41).343 From Potaissa to Napoca the Peutinger map mentions XXIIII miles (35,484 km). The whole sector between those two settlements was identified in the terrain, surveyed and mapped.344 In this particular sector, the Roman engineers proved again their amazing skills and knowledge in finding the perfect route for the road. They understood perfectly the geomorphology of the terrain and, therefore, the Roman road does not climb the big Feleac Hill, but avoids it. The engineers preferred to choose the simple, better route from Potaissa through the villages of Ceanu Mic, Aiton and Gheorghieni, until the road reached Napoca. It this way, the Roman road is with 4 kilometers longer than the current road, but avoiding the hill to the East, it presented a better, simple route. The Roman road approaches Napoca from southeast and enters the Southern gate of the city. Napoca is represented in Tabula with vignette, too. 342
CIL III 7444 = IDR IDR III/4, 55; CIL III 7745 = IDR III/4, 56; CIL III 7816 = IDR III/4, 58; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, 191, s.v. Tibru. 343 Bărbulescu 1987; Bărbulescu 1994. 344 Winkler, Blăjan, Cerghi 1980, 63‐73; Winkler 1982, 587‐589; Fodorean 2001, 60‐76.
345 346
42
Fodorean, Fodorean 2010, 199‐204. Gudea 1986, 124‐125.
(Sânbotin, Vâlcea county) ‐ XII MP; 6. from Castra Tragana to Arutela (Poiana Bivolari, Vâlcea county)‐ VIIII MP; 7. from Arutela to Pretorio (Copăceni‐ Racoviţa, Vâlcea county) ‐ XV MP; 8. from Pretorio to Ponte Vetere (Câineni, Vâlcea county) ‐VIIII MP; 9. from Ponte Vetere to Stenarum (Boiţa, Sibiu county) ‐ XLIIII MP; 10. from Stenarum to Cedonie (Guşteriţa, Sibiu county) ‐ XII MP; 11. From Cedonie to Acidava (Miercurea Sibiului, Sibiu county) ‐ XXIIII MP; 12. from Acidava to Apula (Alba Iulia, Alba county) ‐ XV MP. Along this road, the most important strategic fortresses were Ponte Vetere (Pons Vetus) and Stenarum (Caput Stenarum). The first is located in the most critical point along the valley of Olt, the entrance in the narrow path, in the mountains. Here, the Romans literally cut the road in the rock, above the river, during Hadrian’s reign. Before this, during Trajan, the army avoided the massive of Cozia, taking another route, east of the valley of Olt. In fact, because of the difficulty of this sector, during the Roman occupation of Dacia, a special military unit, numerus Burgariorum et Veredariorum, guarded this road.349 It was garrisoned in the fortress of Praetorium (Racoviţa‐Copăceni, Vâlcea County). This unit constructed the Roman fortress in AD 138. The waters of Olt River destroyed almost 2/3 of the fortress. This is a general state regarding many fortresses along this river. In antiquity, the course of the river Olt flowed in the Northern part a little bit to the West and in the South to the East. During time, the course changed and now it presents a general tendency of approaching the Western side of the current road. The Roman road was projected and constructed on the highest, right bank of the river Olt. Only in the sector between Sânbotin and Câineni the road was constructed along the left bank. Its total length, from Drubetis to Apulum, indicated in Tabula, is of 365 Roman miles (which would be 539,65 km). The current distance is 454 km. Some mistakes are recorded in Tabula also along this sector. One concerns the distance between Castris novis and Romula, LXX Roman miles, an unusually high value.
2. 6. 3. The third road: Drubetis‐Romula‐Apula
This road starts with Drubetis (Drobeta Turnu Severin, Mehedinţi County). This was another important city in Dacia, in fact, the first Roman settlement of the province. The Roman fortress (137,50 x 123 m) was built in stone. This was the first military camp built in Dacia. It was positioned at the Northern part of Apollodorus’ bridge. Numerous military units were garrisoned here: Cohors I Antiochesium, Cohors I Cretum saggitariorum, III Campestris civium romanorum equitata and I sagittariorum miliaria equitata. The maintaining of the fortress for the whole period (AD 106 – AD 271) and the prosperity of the city contradict an old idea, according to which the bridge was destroyed starting with Hadrian’s reign. The surface of the city approaches to 51 ha and it has a polygonal shape. The civilian settlement appears together with the military fortress, as a vicus militaris. The city became municipium during Hadrian’s reign. The official name of the city was municipium Aelium Hadrianum Drobetense. Then it became colonia during Septimius Severus. Drobeta was an important commercial point. A statio portorii was also in function here. Recently, in December 2010, the amphiteatre was randomly discovered.347 From more than a century, the historians looked for it, but they did not find it. The freeze of the Column indicates such building close to the bridge foot. Exactly in this point, the amphitheatre was found. The next point after Drubetis is Amutria. The distance between them is 36 miles. There are several settlements between these two stations with Roman discoveries. That is why the researchers proposed two routes for the road. 348 The Northern one seems to me more accurate, since Ad Mutrium involves a connection with the current river Motru. The next point (after 35 miles) is Pelendova (close to Craiova, Dolj County), then (after 20 miles) Castris Novis (today Castranova, Dolj County) and after that it comes Romula (today Reşca, Olt County). The road continues to North, following the right bank of the river Olt. The stations mentioned in Tabula are all Roman fortresses. The limes, together with these fortresses, were realized during Hadrian’s reign, but during the two military campaigns, the Olt valley was one of the routes used by the Roman army to get close to the Dacian capital. The stations, distances and their current locations are: 1. from Romula (Reşca) to Acidava (Enoşeşti) ‐ XIII MP; 2. from Acidava to Rusidava (Momoteşti, close to Drăgăşani) ‐ XXIIII MP; 3. from Rusidava to Ponte Aluti (Ioneştii Govorei) ‐ XIIII MP; 4. from Ponte Aluti to Buridava (Stolniceni, Vâlcea county) ‐ XIII MP; 5. from Buridava to Castra Tragana
349
CIL III, 13.795 = ILS 8909 = IDR II, 587: Imp(eratore) Caes(are) divi Trai(ani) Parth(ici) f(ilio) / divi Nerv(ae) nep(ote) Trai(ano) Hadri(ano) / Aug(usto) pont(ifice) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) / XXIII / co(n)s(ule) III p(atre) p(atriae) et imp(eratore) T(ito) / Ael(io) Caes(are) Antoni / no Trai(ani) Aug(usti) f(ilio) divi Trai(ani) / Parth(ici) nep(ote) divi Ner(vae) pronep(ote), tr(ibuni / cia) / pot(estate) / N(umerus) burg(ariorum) et veredario(rum) Daciae Inf(e / rioris) sub / Fl(avio) Constante proc(uratore) Aug(usti). Dated in AD 138. CIL III 13.796 = ILS 9180 = IDR II, 587: Imp(eratore) Caes(are) Tito Aelio Hadriano / Antonino Aug(usto) Pio trib(unicia) potes(tate) III / co(n)s(ule) III / castra n(umerus) burg(ariorum) et vered(ariorum) quod / anguste / tenderet duplicato valli pede et in / positis turribus ampliavit / per Aquilam Fidum proc(uratorem) Aug(usti). Dated in AD 140.
347
http://www.mehedinteanul.ro/component/content /article/1560; http://www.tvr.ro/articol.php?id=92472; http://www.mehedinteanul.ro/actualitate/1707‐cercetri‐de‐ anvergur‐la‐amfiteatrul‐roman‐descoperit‐in‐curtea‐muzeului. 348 Tudor 1968.
43
Talbert describes it as follows: ”The name immediately starts to veer up and away from the route linework, creating the impression that an oversight has required its insertion here; the distance figure LXX, if accurately copied, is inappropriately high”.350 Indeed, if we take a close look at the map, we see that the name of the settlement and the distance seem to be „added”, inserted here, without an individual stretch, creating the impression that somehow it was forgotten. In my opinion, this is the cause for such an error of the distance: the mapmaker did not have clear sources to write the proper distance. Therefore, in this case, it seems to me that this is a mapmaker’s mistake. The correct distance should be rather XXIV (24 miles), because the distance measured on the map is around 34 kilometers. The second mistake appears in the section between Ponte Vetere (Câineni, Vâlcea County) and Stenarum (Boiţa, Sibiu County), 44 miles in Tabula (65 km), when on the terrain the correct distance is 19 kilometers (so a normal sector of 13/14 miles). If we change these, we obtain a whole distance of 269 miles, i.e. 427 kilometers, a value more close to the real one (454 km). Another important issue concerns the fact that south of Romula, the road continues until the Danube River, but this sector is not mentioned in Tabula. 350
http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase /TPPlace1752.html.
44
military equipment findings, inscriptions (around 200), all of them speak about a very dynamic city. The legion, strategically positioned along the main Roman road, 72 miles away from Apulum, controlled and defended the Western frontier of Dacia, and the gold district from Alburnus Maior. 3. 1. 2. The aqueducts The Roman water supply system was so carefully designed and maintained that even today we are astonished by these structures.355 The engineer’s achievements in this domain were so outstanding that Plinius or Vitruvius didn’t hesitate to admire the aqueducts and to write about them. Even after a long period of time, in the modern era, engineers and architects inspired their works from the Roman achievements. The settlements of Roman Dacia were, of course, part of this program. At Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Apulum, Romula, Ampelum, Drobeta, archaeological discoveries and inscriptions provide us important information about the water supply system. An aerial aqueduct from Dacia is attested at Porolissum. Traces of other water pipes and aqueducts are present in at least 86 settlements and 21 military camps in Dacia.356 With an estimated population of 20,000 inhabitants, including the legion V Macedonica, Potaissa benefited of two aqueducts: one for the city and another for the military camp. 3. 1. 2. 1. The spring The spring chosen by the Romans can be located today in the point called “Izvorul Copăcenilor”. It is located in the south‐western part of Copăceni, at the northern limit of Trascăului Mountains, on the right side of the current road Turda ‐ Petreşti. From this point to the military camp the distance is around 5000 m, following the line of the hills. This line begins from the altitude of 525 m at caput aquae (Fig. 42, Fig. 43) and it ends at 375 m altitude, on the hill where the Roman military camp was built. Starting from the same point, another aqueduct was built for the city. Its route is orientated, in the first part, to North‐East, until it reaches the Racilor Rivulet. Further on, the aqueduct follows the course of this rivulet, heading South‐East to the Roman city. Delimited at North by the Racilor Valley, the Trascău Mountains are represented close to Sănduleşti by a narrow strip of Jurassic limestone, extended in
CHAPTER 3. ELEMENTS OF THE DACIAN LANDSCAPE. ROADS AND RURAL SETTLEMENTS 3. 1. Potaissa and surroundings 3. 1. 1. The legionary fortress and the city Potaissa was the most important military settlement from the Northern part of Dacia. With an estimated population of 20.000 inhabitants, Potaissa was the headquarters of the legio V Macedonica. Its fortress (573 x 408 m) was positioned on the Cetate Hill, in the Western part of the city. Initially Potaissa was a vicus. The city existed certainly from the first years of the province. Potaissa is mentioned in the text of the milestone found at Aiton351 and in the Ptolemy’s list. The main moment in the development of this settlement was 168/169 A.D., when, in the context of the Marcommanic wars, legio V Macedonica was transferred here from Troesmis (Moesia Inferior, today Igliţa, Brăila County). As a consequence of this measure, Potaissa developed so rapidly that in 197 A.D. it became municipium Septimium Potaissense. Septimius Severus rewarded the fidelity of the legion during the civil wars. As in the case of Apulum, two urban settlements are known at Potaissa. The first was the vicus, which became municipium during Severus and it is attested with this status also during Caracalla. The other one developed in the proximity of the military fortress. It is documented in Ulpianus (De censibus, in Digestae, L, 15, 1 9) as a colonia with ius Italicum during Severus (Patavissensium vicus, qui a divo Severo ius coloniae impetrativ). Potaissa is the tipical settlement where the military element played an essential role in its development. Two aqueducts supplied with water the city and the military fortress.352 The main imperial road crossed the whole city and went further in North, towards Napoca. The military fortress was connected with a deverticulum (2640 m), which started from the main road in Copăceni (a rural settlement North of Potaissa).353 A Roman bridge was built over the river Arieş, in the Southern part of the city.354 This allowed the road to cross over and continue towards Napoca and Porolisso. Prata legionis extended across a big surface. In North the limit was the Feleac Hill and in South the right bank of the river Arieş. The Western and Eastern limits were established along the courses of some rivulets. Mapping the stamp tiles with LEG V MAC, LVM (and other different forms) was the method to prove the military control of this territory. A large cemetery was positioned along the Roman road, south of the city. Another one existed in the Western part. Temples, a pottery fabrica, hundreds of coins,
355
See Litaudon 2004, 71‐85; Grewe 1986; Grewe 2002; Gallo 2007; Litaudon 2007. Studies on hydraulic on Roman aqueducts were published by H. Chanson: Chanson 2002, 43‐ 57; Chanson 2002a, 3‐12. 356 Băeştean 2007, 89‐144.
351
CIL III 1627. 352 Fodorean 2011a, 95‐108. 353 Fodorean 2006, 148‐150. 354 Fodorean 2011b, 143‐147.
45
the peak of Sând, (759 m).357 The drainage network created here an interesting, particular landscape. The Racilor Valley forms here the Gorge of Tureni. The water from this spring has qualities and properties which make it good even nowadays. The discovery and use of such springs in Roman period is described by Vitruvius.358 3. 1. 2. 2. The modern historiography In 1810 Moise Nicoară noticed, at Copăceni, the traces of the aqueduct. The indication regarding the spring is extremely general: “I climbed up close by the channel, on a hill”.359 Few years later, M. J. Ackner and J. F. Neigebaur mentioned the traces of the same aqueduct.360 At the end of the XIXth century, Orbán Balázs presented in a book the antiquities from Turda.361 In a subchapter about aqueducts, he noticed the position of the spring, the qualities of the water, the approximate route of the aqueduct and the possible existence of an aqueduct for the Roman camp placed on Zânelor Hill: “From here, at a distance of one mile in the hill above Copăceni, close by the road which goes to the mountain (“Drumul Mocanilor”), there is a corridor of stone, where a rich spring called Şipotul (Cişmeaua) de Piatră (Kőcsorgó) is placed, with a rivulet of water thick as an arm, cold as ice, which flows in a sort of stone basin. The Romans collected it from the beginning. They stole it from its riverbed, forced it to enter in the pipes of the aqueduct and guided it to the Roman camp and the city of Potaissa”. Interesting information and drawings about the aqueducts are present in the notices of I. Téglás.362 The presentation of the archaeological discoveries in from Sănduleşti begins with a geographical description of the region. There are several drawings of the limestone massive in the place called Vágottkő, close by the spring (Fig. 44). 3. 1. 2. 3. The aqueduct for the Roman fortress 70 m South‐West of the road Turda‐Petreşti and 40 m south of the road to Sănduleşti (Fig. 45), in the autumn of 2007, during the excavation of a trench for a gas pipe, there were discovered fragments from the aqueduct which supplied the Roman military camp, at a depth of – 0,80 m. Two years earlier, in the winter 2005‐ 2006, when the works for the construction of the highway Braşov‐Borş started, another water pipe was discovered, at the same depth, almost in the same place as the other one (Fig. 46), 130 m North‐East of the highway and 30 m South to the road to Sănduleşti.363
The pipe was found in one piece: 60 cm length, external diameter 16,5 cm, internal diameter 12,5 cm (Fig. 47). Three decades ago, in 1978, west to the military fortress, close by the porta decumana, other pipes from the same aqueduct were discovered.364 These are identical in diameter, only the lengths are different (43 cm, 55 cm). The same aqueduct was identified in the gardens from the Western side of the village Copăceni.365 This point is located south of the current road between Petreşti and Turda, on the right side of it (keeping the same direction mentioned above). To sum up, these recent archaeological discoveries combined with older information allow establishing the route of this aqueduct. It starts from Izvorul Copăcenilor (525 m) and, after 500 m, it passes on the right side of the road between Petreşti and Turda (520 m), keeping the same direction (South‐ East). Close to the road to Sănduleşti (453 m), it was discovered in two points. Further on, keeping the same direction, it ends at the entrance in the Roman military fortress (375 m) (Fig. 48).366 The aqueduct could assure a maximum discharge of 15 liters/second. This means 54.000 liters of water in an hour and 1.296.000 liters in a day. It means that every soldier benefited of around 216 liters of water every day. But, of course, the major quantity of water was used for the thermal buildings situated in praetentura dextra. There is, though, a problem in understanding how the Roman engineers did maintained a constant flow rate on such conditions, with such a slope. In order to understand these aspects, one should know the ancient flow rates, which is extremely difficult. It is the case of Potaissa, we can assume, based on other examples, that close to the spring the Roman engineers built a stone basin (caput aquae), which collected the water of the spring. In order to ensure a constant flow rate for the aqueduct, they could use a simple solution: to provide this basin with overflows and calculate its position for a flow rate of 15 l/sec. The aqueduct has a total length of 5000 m and a pipe has 50 cm in length. So, basic calculations show that at least 10.000 ceramic pipes were necessary to complete the aqueduct. We suppose that it was built by the soldiers from legio V Macedonica after their arrival at Potaissa, in AD 168. 3. 1. 2. 4. The aqueduct for the city Starting from the same point, Izvorul Copăcenilor, an aqueduct supplied with water the city of Potaissa. Its traces have been noticed several times, beginning from the XIXth century, in the gardens of the
357
Pop 2007, 45. Vitruvius 1964, 337‐338. 359 Bărbulescu 1980, 285. 360 Bărbulescu 1994, 68. 361 Balázs 1889, 51‐53. 362 Bajusz 2005, 348, 350‐352. 363 I express my gratitude for dr. Sorin Nemeti and dr. Mariana Pîslaru for their help. 358
364
Bărbulescu 1994, 68. Fodorean 2006, 332. 366 Terrain investigations carried out on February 29, 2008. 365
46
inhabitants from Copăceni, in the Western side of the village, by I. Téglás. Investigations made in 1977‐1978 had as result the identification of the aqueduct in five points, on a distance of 2,1 kilometers, on the right side of the valley of Copăceni, beginning from the old mill situated in the North‐Western part of the village to the former farm from Turda Nouă (Fig. 49, Fig. 50). The traces of the aqueduct disappear at the entrance in the modern city of Turda. In 1986 Gh. Lazarovici identified the aqueduct on a distance of 7‐8 m, in a point situated 600 m west of the entrance in Turda. The pipes have 39 cm in length, the sides thick of 3,8 cm and the diameter is 25,5 cm. So, between the old mill from Copăceni to the entrance in the Roman city the aqueduct had a length of almost 4000 m. The height difference is 36 m (386 m – the old mill, 350 m the city of Turda). So there is a slope of 9 m at every kilometer (less than 1%), almost according with the values provided by the Romans (Vitruvius recommended a slope of 5 m at every kilometer and Palladius 9,7 m). The average length of one ceramic pipe is 39 cm. The total length of the aqueduct is almost 5000 m. So, at least 12,800 pipes were used to complete the aqueduct. It is difficult to tell when this aqueduct was built. Potaissa developed rapidly after the arrival of the legion. So this aqueduct could be realized in the same period with the aqueduct for the military camp. Assuming a 25 cm diameter pipe, the calculations show a maximum flow rate of about 50 liters / second. This means 180,000 liters in an hour and 4,320,000 liters in a day for a population estimated at 15,000 inhabitants. The result is maximum 288 liters for every citizen of Potaissa. 3. 1. 2. 5. Other discoveries It is difficult to establish, today, how the Romans distributed the water within the city of Potaissa. Several discoveries of pipes show, though, that this system was in use. All these discoveries are concentrated in the Roman city, in a zone with many traces of buildings. Along the valley of Sănduleşti, which separates the hill called ‘Cetate’ from the other one called ‘Zânelor’, Téglás noticed and drew a stone block (70 x 65 x 35 cm), with an orifice in the middle with the diameter of 40 cm (Fig. 51). He noticed that it belonged to an aqueduct. Ceramic pipes were discovered on Bălcescu Street, South‐East from Cetate hill. A water pipe was identified on Cheii Street, in 1964, when the road to Aiud was constructed. The ceramic pipes have a length of 26,5 cm and a diameter of 10 cm. In the point called Furdulăşeni (‘Forduló‐mál’), close to the South‐ Eastern corner of the Roman fortress, another water pipe is known. Traces of another water pipe were observed in Piaţa Romană, close to the former beer factory. In 1952‐1953 other ceramic pipes were discovered when the construction of the General School no. 3 began. The pipes have 40.5 cm in length and a
diameter of 10 cm. It is possible that an aqueduct was in function along the Pardei Valley.367 So, recent archaeological discoveries, combined with older information and data, allow creating an image about the Roman water supply system of the fortress and the city of Potaissa. Two aqueducts were constructed: one supplying the fortress, with a maximum discharge of 15 liters/sec. and another one supplying the city, with a maximum discharge of 50 liters/sec. The spring provided a significant quantity of water for the camp and the city: around 5,600,000 liters of water every day (5,600 m3). 3. 1. 3. Rural settlements around Potaissa Because of the rapid development of Potaissa after the arrival of the legio V Macedonica in 68 A.D., around the city we are able today to map and register a substantial number of rural settlements. I will present and describe here several of these settlements: Potaissa – “Valea Sărată”, Potaissa – “Poiana Lişca”, Mihai Viteazu, Cheia, Corneşti, Moldoveneşti, Petreştii de Sus, Petreştii de Mijloc, Petreştii de Jos, Copăceni, Ceanu Mic, Aiton, Rediu, Vâlcele, Mărtineşti, Bogata, Călăraşi, Viişoara, Bolduţ, Ceanu Mare. These settlements can be grouped in several categories: 1. the first two, Potaissa – “Valea Sărată”, and Potaissa – “Poiana Lişca” are positioned within the current territory of Turda, relatively close to the former ancient city; 2. the settlements from Mihai Viteazu, Cheia, Corneşti, and Moldoveneşti form the second group. These settlements developed close to the vicinity of the Roman road which connected Potaissa with Alburnus Maior along the valley of the river Arieş; 3. north of this road and west of the legionary fortress, three settlements form the third group: Petreştii de Sus, Petreştii de Mijloc, Petreştii de Jos; 4. the fourth group is formed by the settlements aligned along the main imperial Roman road: Copăceni, Ceanu Mic, Aiton, together with other settlements close to this road: Rediu, Vâlcele, and Mărtineşti; 5. the fifth group, formed of the settlements from Bogata and Călăraşi, positioned along the main imperial road, south of Potaissa; 6. the sixth group, consisting of the settlements from Viişoara, Bolduţ and Ceanu Mare. 3. 1. 3. 1. Watchtowers Recently we were able to identify, based on archaeological data, information from modern manuscripts and aerial photographs, three watchtowers, all of them positioned west of the legionary fortress from Potaissa.368 367
Bărbulescu 1994, 72‐80. I would like to thank M. Pîslaru for some of the information. 368
47
3. 1. 3. 2. Potaissa ‐ ‘Valea Sărată’ This is relatively a newly discovered settlement.371 It is situated approximately 4 kilometers north‐east of Turda. An abundant ceramic material is spread at the surface of the terrain, both prehistoric and from Roman times. The ceramic can be observed on a surface of ca. 100 x 70 m. Stones, mortar and bricks were also found (Fig. 52). In order to establish the nature and the full chronology of the site, further research needs to be done. 3. 1. 3. 3. Potaissa – ‘Poiana Lişca’ A rural settlement was identified in the place called Lişca, 8 km South‐East of Potaissa.372 Surface examination documented the abundance of stones, bricks, pottery, coins and small finds from military equipment. 3. 1. 3. 4. Mihai Viteazu The archaeological repertory of Cluj County mentions at Mihai Viteazu several settlements. Two are particularly interesting, because these are new discoveries. In the place called Pataklejáró (meaning ‘descent towards the river’) or Lejáró (‘descent’) fragment of prehistoric and Roman pottery were found (Fig. 53). The river is the valley called Bădeni, which flows from South, crosses the village and finally flows into the Arieș (Aranyos) River. In the archaeological repository of Cluj County these points are erroneously marked north of the village. This point is situated south of the village. The terrain investigation had as result the discovery of a very important rural settlement.373 At the surface of the terrain fragments of ceramic, stones, and tiles were found. In the point entitled “Sajkút” recently there were found traces of Roman buildings (Fig. 54). This settlement is described by Téglás István. In 1899 he writes about the discovery, here, of some walls belonging to a Roman building. Then, in 1910, he visits this spot and notes the presence of bricks. The settlement is situated ca. 200 meters west of the current road which heads south of Turda towards Alba Iulia. A field walking realized in 2012 had as consequence the discovery, at the surface of the terrain, of Roman ceramic fragments, and prehistoric tools.
The first one, the northernmost, is recorded in the manuscripts of Téglás István.369 Téglás describes the ruins of this tower: “January, 1911. West of the fortress, in the area of the Cetate Hill, close to the Sind rivulet, on the land of dr. Szentkirályi Lajos, close to the pit called Ördöngös, a watch tower was found (specula). Because it caused problems for the agricultural works, in January 1911 the walls were excavated and the stones were transported from there. I saw the walls of the foundation, 96 cm above the terrain, and I could make a drawing. The walls were constructed using chalk from Sănduleşti, without mortar. Big tiles were also found. They also found there a millstone. If for the foundation the Romans used stone, if seems possible that the walls were from wood, and the roof was of tiles. To fix the wooden beams, they cut into the walls deep holes, of 42 cm. the distance between these holes is 1,46 cm. The diameter of the tower was 11,56 cm. The walls were thick of 0,92 cm. From the tower walls, a part of 2,5 m is missing”. The tower is positioned circa 1050 meters west of the south‐western corner of the legionary fortress. The second tower is positioned approximately 880 meters south (in straight line) of the first one and it was discovered during the preventive archaeological excavations caused by the construction of the Transylvanian highway, in 2006 (11 September – 29 September, km 14 + 500). A section of 9 x 7 m, oriented N‐S, with the maximum depth of ‐2,25 m was excavated. The tower is located in the northern part, close to a small road heading west, towards Sănduleşti. The stone foundation of the tower was discovered. The dimensions of the tower, on the inside, are (S‐N 2,90 m, close to 10 pedes), and E‐V 3,60 m. The shape is rectangular, with the long sides orientated east‐west and the short sides orientated north‐south. The foundation is preserved on a total height of 2 meters. The thickness of the walls is about 0,5 m. The third tower is located on the hill called Șuia (“Suja‐domb”). This hill is located north of the Arieș (Aranyos) River, and south‐east of the hill entitled Nagytündér. The Şuia hill is positioned south of the Fairies hill, and they are separated by the river called Pardei. The tower is described by the same Téglás István: “1906. towards north‐west of Turda, at Suia, along the road heading towards Cheile Turzii, in 1906, at the end of a trench, the foundations of a Roman building were discovered. A large quantity of bricks and tiles was also found. Probably it was a Roman farm, but it could also be the foundation of a Roman watch tower, because it has a circular shape. The people travelling towards Meszko (Mischiu) observed that circular shape in the terrain.”370
371
Rădeanu, Fodorean 2010, 331. Nemeti 2004, 89‐100. 373 Terrain investigations during the spring of 2012 with my colleague Sorin Nemeti. 372
369 370
Bajusz 2005, 545‐546. Bajusz 2005, 779.
48
provides a short description of the archaeological sites identified within the territory of Luncani: „On 26th of March 1906 I was guided by Pal Balint. I saw the Roman settlement from Luncani. That surface is positioned on the northern side of the land of the count Kémeny (currently this terrain belongs to Mrs. Hischmaier), on the field, in the triangle made by the two big water springs of the rivulet Tyukeria. The remains of the settlements are spread on a surface of circa 0,5 kilometers in length. I saw a lot of Roman bricks and tiles and ceramic fragments. These are spread here and there on the field” (Fig. 56). The analysis of the maps from the first, the second and the third military surveys lead to the observation that Téglás copied his data using these maps. 994 m south east from the current road DN 15 (measured on digital maps and using a straight line, perpendicular on DN 15), 963 m south from the southern corner of the village of Luna, and 1369 m WNW of the corner of the former ‚CAP’ (agricultural complex before 1989 – Cooperativa Agricolă de Producție), I located the Roman site. 3. 2. Napoca and surroundings 3. 2. 1. Napoca. The Roman city The city flourished during Hadrian, when became municipium Aelium Hadrianum Napocensium. The city was surrounded with a wall in opus quadratum, which enclosed a total surface of 32,5 ha. Napoca had an average population of 15.000 inhabitants. During Marcus Aurelius’ reign the city became colonia Aurelia Napoca. Septimius Severus rewarded the city with ius Italicum. The Roman city is almost totally covered now by the medieval one. Even so, we are now able to know the position of the Roman forum, right in the center of the Unirii Square and under the St. Michael church. A big cemetery existed along the Roman road, south of the city. Because of the ius Italicum, numerous landowners positioned their villae rusticae in the nearby vicinity of the city. This was a pretty good business; they didn’t pay the land taxes and they had a good opportunity to distribute their products in the big city. Napoca was also the headquarters of the procurator Augusti of Dacia Porolissensis, who was in charge of the army and responsible with the laws, finances and the administration of this province. Napoca was also a very important crossroad. A route started from here and headed west, up to the military camp from Gilău.378 This route continued along the valley of Someşul Mic, following the right bank of the river, until it reached another military camp, in today’s Gherla.
3. 1. 3. 5. Petreştii De Sus, Petreştii de Jos Circa 350 m north‐west of the entrance in the village of Petreştii de Sus, close to the road heading towards Borzeşti, traces of a former rural settlement were found.374 The traces consist of fragments of ceramic from Roman times, bricks, and substructures. In the village of Petreştii de Jos other traces of a former settlement were discovered north of the village, close to the current road.375 3. 1. 3. 6. Copăceni The village of Copăceni, located circa 6 kilometers North‐West from Potaissa was known as locations of a rural Roman settlement. Traces of an aqueduct which supplied the water to Potaissa, Roman stamped bricks of the legion V Macedonica and the Roman road which connected the military fortress with the main imperial road, were located around the village.376 Archaeological finds lying on the Northern part of the village were observed, spread across an area ca. 100m x 50m (Fig. 55). The field walking around the area noticed the presence of Roman pottery, block stones and mortar. No other visible structures on the ground were documented. 3. 1. 3. 7. The settlement from Luncani The village of Luncani is positioned in the lower basin of the Arieș River, 19 kilometers south‐east of Turda (Roman Potaissa). The settlement belongs, administratively, to the village of Luna. The large valley of Arieș (much larger in the western part comparing to the eastern one) permitted, during Roman times until the modern period, activities related to the cultivation of a fertile land. The name of the settlement during modern times was Grind (Aranyosgerend in Hungarian, or Gerend). On the Austrian maps belonging to the first military survey, the settlement is mentioned as Gerend. The archaeological repertory of Cluj County presents some general archaeological finds discovered within the territory of the settlement. Very important is to stress one fact: some monuments and other artifacts were collected in Luncani in the XIXth century by József Kémeny, in his castle. The Roman road was identified within the territory of the village, but this indication is useless. A decisive contribution in the understating and location of the archaeological discoveries in and around Potaissa had István Téglás (1853‐1915).377 Téglás 374
Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, Vasiliev, Winkler 1992, s.v. Petreştii de Sus, no. 6, 310. 375 Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, Vasiliev, Winkler 1992, s.v. Petreştii de Jos, no. 3, 308. 376 Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, Vasiliev, Winkler 1992, s.v. Copăceni, 159‐161. 377 Bajusz 2005, 30.
378
49
Fodorean 2002a, 97‐102.
landscapes looked,383 in order to understand landform history and dynamics, and explain, by combining field observation and physical experiment, how this landscape was transformed.384 Regarding the landscape, it is clear that in changed a lot comparing to the Roman era. So, former sectors of Roman roads, military fortresses etc. are difficult to identify today in the terrain. Old maps, like those made by Austrians, show us terrain details which are hard to observe or inexistent on the current maps. The information can be stocked today in digital form and used for various research projects. Between 1763 and 1787 all the territories of the Habsburgic Monarchy were surveyed and mapped. This is known with the official name “The First Military Survey”. The results of this activity are quite spectacular: 3589 hand‐drawn coloured map sheets, measuring approximately 61 x 42 cm, in a scale of 1:28.800. For Transylvania, 280 sheets were drawn.385 This survey was followed by a second one, “The Second Military Survey (Francis’)”, from 1806 ‐ 1869. Emperor Francis II ordered this operation. The purpose was to correct the old maps, now that the Austrian Empire (Kaiserstaat Österreich) was created in 1804. The maps were more accurate, in the same scale (1:28.800).386 The survey of Transylvania was carried out between 1860 and 1872.387 After the creation of the Austro‐Hungarian Monarchy (1867) it was initiated the third military survey.388 This action was carried out in a short period of time (1869 ‐ 1887). The progresses in topography, cartography and geodesy are reflected in the quality of the maps created (1:25.000 and 1:75.000 scale).389 In 1896 the fourth survey started,
3. 2. 2. Rural settlements Some 8 km to the northwest of Napoca, on the hill “Pustfalău”, a Roman farm was signalled.379 According to the short notice published at the time, traces of Roman stoned‐walls and of an aqueduct were visible on the ground in early `70. Another villa rustica was archaeologically investigates on the opposite side of the valley, on the hill Tulgheş. It is surrounded by a wall which encloses several buildings and a bath complex.380 The third Roman farm, located circa 5 km north of Napoca, on the Lomb hill, was discovered in 2008, during the rescue excavation requested by an entrepreneurial project.381 The villa, 50 m wide by 40 m in length, partially destroyed by successive landslides, had 5, possibly 6 large rooms divided by stone‐walled foundations. It is worth mentioning that traces of the building were not visible on orthophotographs before excavation, as the area was largely covered by pasture. 3. 3. Ilişua (Bistriţa‐Năsăud County) 3. 3. 1. The Austrian maps Austrian maps are, today, an outstanding source of research for historians, archaeologists or geographers. The investigation and analysis of these maps and the identification of elements that changed the historical landscape are present in our attention for quite a time.382 The elements that compose this landscape, such as courses of rivers, settlements, hills, buildings, roads, stone bridges, appear on these maps. By studying them, we can extract a lot of information regarding the important changes from the last 200 years. The importance of these maps is crucial. The three topographic surveys realized in the 18th and 19th century marked a huge step in the development of cartography. It is interesting to see also the general context that determined the rulers of the Habsburgic Empire to map all the territories. The great advantage for archaeologist is related to the content of these maps: the Austrian surveyors and cartographers were very interested in representing the most accurate version of the represented territory, including the Roman antiquities. They marked on these maps former Roman roads, military fortresses, bridges, settlements. In all, these changes, gradually realized, changed the landscape. The man himself made this, together with the forces of nature. We, as archaeologists, together with the geographers, seek to understand how
383
Herz, Garrison 1998; Aston 2002; Holliday 2004; Johnson 2007; Wescott, Brandon 2000; Weathley, Gillings 2002; Mehrer, Wescott 2006. 384 Mac 1987, 566‐578; Irimuş 1997, 245‐248; Irimuş 1998; Irimuş 2006. 385 DVD The First Military Survey/Die Erste Militärische Aufnahme, www.arcanum.hu, published in October 2006. From a number of almost 3.400 maps resulted from this survey, 968 map sheets were published, containing 23.000 names of 9.974 settlements. DVD Die Josephinische Aufnahme. Siebenbürgen und das Banat von Temes, Transylvania and Temes, published in April 2005 and the DVD Die Josephinische Aufnahm. Das Königtum Ungarn/the Hungarian Monarchy, published in October 2004. 386 DVD The Second Military Survey/Die Zweite Militärische Aufnahme (Georeferenced), www.arcanum.hu. The DVD contains 1.111 map sheets and 25.000 names of 11.044 settlements. It was published in October 2006. See also the DVD Military Surveying: Kingdom of Hungary and Temes/Die zweite militärische Vermessung: Königreichs Ungarn und Banat von Temes, published in December 2005. 387 Timár et alii 2007, 83; Timár et alii 2008, 127. 388 Molnár, Timár 2009, 116. 389 DVD The Third Military Survey 1869 ‐ 1887: Ungarn, Siebenbürgen, Kroatien‐Slawonien/Die dritte militärische Aufnahme der Österreichisch‐Ungarischen Monarchie, 1:25.000 (Georeferenced), www.arcanum.hu, published in
379
Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, Vasiliev, Winkler 1992, s.v. Chinteni, 106. 380 Alicu et alii 1995, 619‐633. 381 Cociş, Fodorean, Ursuţiu, Bârcă 2011, 565‐574. 382 Fodorean 2005, 185‐201; Fodorean 2006a, 997‐1010.
50
with a map which presents the area between three settlements: 1. in the Western part Fel‐Ör (Uriu de Susu, today Uriu); 2. in the Northern part Alsó–Jllosva (Ilişua); 3. in the Southern part Csicsó–Keresztur (Cristeştii Ciceului). It is a triangle between these three settlements, crossed in the middle by the river Ilişua. All the major Roman discoveries are positioned in the Eastern part of the river Ilişua (its left bank). The distance between the river Someşul Mare (North) and the settlement of Ilişua is about 2.2 kilometres. In this area K. Torma described in his study the presence of numerous Roman ruins. The traces of the Roman fortress were mentioned early, in 1831, when K. Torma excavated it in several points. He discovered inscriptions and other materials. Then in 1847 J. F. Neigebaur described again this site. Between 1858 and 1862 the same K. Torma made archaeological investigations again (Fig. 58). We know, until now, the approximate position of several buildings: 1. the Roman fortress (182.2 × 181.5 m); 2. in the Eastern part of the fortress: a temple (?), marked by the discovery of five inscriptions; 3. in the North‐Eastern part of the fortress, in the higher point, called Măgura Hill, K. Torma mentioned a Roman building (a watch tower?); 4. baths, positioned at North‐West and South to the fortress; 5. the Roman road, with a total length between Uriu and the fortress of around 2.3 kilometers; 6. the Roman cemetery, positioned on the right bank of the river Ilişua, along the road; 7. another road, from the Southern gate of the camp to the settlement of Cristeştii Ciceului; 8. South of the settlement of Ilişua, between the left bank of the river and the base of the hill “Măgura”, K. Torma made researches and discovered a quadrangular construction and inscriptions. On the map from the second military survey the position of the fortress is marked. The Roman road is marked on Torma’s map on a distance of around 1.5 kilometres, starting from Uriu until the valley of Ilişua. Of course, funerary inscriptions, tombs, other monuments (sarcophagi, funerary lions, coins, bricks and ceramics) were discovered along this road. The road appears on the currents 1:25.000 map as a secondary one. Further on, from the valley of Ilişua until the fortress the road is marked by K. Torma with interrupted points, meaning, maybe, that this sector of almost 1 kilometer was little visible on the terrain at that time. This road has a general orientation West‐East, positioned North of the river Someşul Mare. Another sector of road is mentioned by K. Torma starting south of the fortress until the settlement of Cristeştii Ciceului. This one has a length of around 2 kilometers. The maps of the third military survey are more accurate. The survey of this region was realized in 1872. The map of this region shows the same area around Ilişua. This time the Roman fortress is marked with the toponym Römer‐Schanze.
but it was suspended nineteen years later, in 1915, due to the World War I. 3. 3. 2. Ilişua. The Roman settlement The Roman fortress from Ilişua (Fig. 57) is positioned 22 km North‐East from Dej, at the base of the hill called “Măgura” or “Cetate”, circa 500 m south of the center of the village, on the left bank of the valley Ilişua. In the triangle formed in the Western part by the village Uriu, in the North by Ilişua and in the Southern part by Cristeştii Ciceului, numerous discoveries were mentioned during time. The majority of them are present to the West of the river Ilişua. The Roman fortress is positioned south to the valley of Ilişua. From this point there is a good visibility to South and West. The Roman fortress was known in the second half of the 19th century. K. Torma published a study related to this important strategic point on the Northern frontier of Dacia.390 The fortification was after that in the attention of the specialists all the time. In 1997 the first general presentation of the fortress and the civilian settlement was published.391 The modern cartography helps us to understand better the position of the fortress and the civilian settlement. The maps from the first military survey of Transylvania (1763 ‐ 1785) show us in the area around Ilişua some details. First, the course of the river Ilişua changed radically in the period between this first topographic survey (1763 ‐ 1785) and today. Few elements are represented on this map: the roads, the rivers and the settlements, with no other information regarding the relief. This last one is marked by hachure. Numerous details are presents on the maps from the second military survey (1806 ‐ 1869), based on the first network of horizontal control points (triangulation). The Second Military Survey is considered much more accurate, as it is based on a geodetic and surveying foundation of good quality. The projection of the second survey was Cassini, but was not precisely applied. This is a transverse cylindrical projection, tangent and therefore equidistant along the central meridian. In our case, we can observe that the ruins of the Roman fortress were clearly visible at that time. For that, the position of the fortress is marked exactly on the map. This information is almost contemporary with the researches made by K. Torma, who published his study about Ilişua in 1864 ‐ 1865. The study is illustrated March 2007, which contains 1.333 map sheets of the full territory (1:25.000 scale georeferenced map sheets of the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and Slavonia); see also the DVD with the 1:75 000 scale maps, The Third Military Survey 1869 ‐ 1887: Österreichisch ‐ Ungarischen Monarchie, 1:75.000 (Georeferenced), which contains 752 map sheets of the full territory and 40.000 settlement names. This DVD was also published in March 2007. 390 Torma 1864‐1865, passim. 391 Protase, Gaiu, Marinescu 1997, 27‐110.
51
On the other hand, between the military fortress from Cigmău and the watering place there is no evidence of a Roman road. More, the ancient locality Germisara is not represented with the specific vignette for thermal buildings, as we see in the other case, at Ad Aquas, today Călan (Hunedoara County), along the Roman road that crosses the province of Dacia from South to North. My explanation is that, although Germisara was well known in the Roman epoch for its thermal waters, as we can see from the arrangements of a complex piscine’s system, archaeologically investigated,394 its position, outside of the imperial road, made unnecessary the representation of the specific symbol for thermal waters. The absence on Tabula Peutingeriana of such Roman roads as that between Geoagiu and Cigmău should not amaze us, since on the antique itinerarium don’t appear other roads, much more important in Dacia. One example is the road Apulum‐Micia‐Partiscum, alongside the Mureş Valley (a section of this Roman road is epigraphically attested by the Roman milestone discovered at Micia). I don’t criticize here the usefulness of Tabula Peutingeriana; it was proved many times the importance of this Roman itinerarium in establishing the road network in Roman Dacia. This section of Roman road, between Cigmău and Geoagiu‐Băi, is not present on TP because the main highway passes only through Germisara from Cigmău and not through the thermal settlement. In the Geography of Ptolemy, Germisara is mentioned in the list of the most important cities in Dacia.395 On the map made by I. B. Cătăniciu Germisara is situated along the Roman road Tibiscum – Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa – Hidata (Aquae) – Germisara – Apulum – Marcodava – Salinae – Potaissa – Napoca – Porolissum.396 In his Cosmographia (A description of the world), the Anonymus Geographicus from Ravenna enumerated the localities inside of Dacia from North to South. In the Roman road section Apulum – Sarmizegetusa – Acmonia is placed also Germisara: “Also, over the Danubium river, there are the cities of Moesia Inferior, as: ”Porolissos, Certie, Largiana, Optatiana, Macedonica, Napoca, Patabissa, Salinis, Brutia, Apulon, Sacidaba, Cedonia, Caput Stenarum, Betere, Aluti, Romulas. Also, close by Cedonia, there is a city named Burticum, Blandiana, Germigera, Petris, Aquas, Sarmazege, Augmonia, Augusti.“397 Therefore, the cartographic and geographic antique sources do not provide information about a Roman road. The first mention about the presence of a military fortress at Cigmău dates from 1844 and
Ilişua represents an important settlement on the Northern part of Dacia. The Roman Arcobadara392 developed around the fortress, built here rapidly after the conquest by soldiers from legio XIII Gemina. The settlement is positioned on the left bank of the river Ilişua. This river changed its course quite a lot in the last 200 years, as the maps prove. Of course, a bridge was built over this river, but its traces are no longer visible. In all, we have another outstanding example of how Austrian surveyors manage to register all the details of the terrain, including the position of the fortress. 3. 4. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (Hunedoara County) During the summer of 2001 I investigated a plot of land in the Geoagiu‐Băi area (Hunedoara County), in order to identify a Roman road that was never mentioned before in the archaeological literature. The investigation area covered the area between the Geoagiu Valley, in the East, the village of Geoagiu in the South and the locality Geoagiu‐Băi.393 This area was known in the Roman era by the name of Germisara. Archaeologically and topographically, the Roman city and the Roman fortress are positioned within the territory of the current village of Geoagiu, in the East, and Cigmău in the West. So, one can distinguish two points situated on the northern, right bank of Mureş, close to the main military road that connected Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa with Apulum. One of these cities, which had benefited by the thermal waters, had a civilian and bathing character. This place is situated north of Geoagiu. The other place, which appeared a little later, had a military character and included the Roman fortress from Cigmău and the civilian settlement (vicus militaris). Under the name Germisara, during the Roman times, one can separate three places: 1. the Roman fortress from Cigmău, situated on the “Turiac” plateau, at “Pogradie” point; 2. the civilian settlement (vicus militaris), placed between Cigmău and Geoagiu; 3. the watering place, situated 5 km north of the Roman fortress. In this investigated geographical space, placed South‐West of the bathing place, I have been able to identify a section of the Roman road which connected Geoagiu‐Băi with Cigmău. This road assured the connection with the main road Apulum‐Micia‐Partiscum (Szeged). The cartographic and geographic antique sources mention only the name of the ancient locality Germisara. Tabula Peutingeriana places Germisera on the imperial Roman road Sarmizegetusa‐Apulum, between Petris (Uroiu) and Blandiana (Vinţu de Jos), at IX m(illia) p(assuum) away from both of these localities.
394
Pescaru, Pescaru 1995‐1996, 325‐339. Ptolemeu III 9, 4, Γερμιγερα (Germizera). 396 Cătăniciu 1987‐1988, 151 and fig. 1, 161. 397 GeogrRavenn, IV, 7, Germigera.
392
395
Nemeti, Bărbulescu 2007, 107‐118; Nemeti, Bărbulescu 2010, 446‐455; Nemeti 2010, 395‐433. 393 Velcea, Savu 1982, 216.
52
Aquae, Tabula does not represent it with the characteristic symbol (a house with large courtyard), because the Roman road did not pass through the watering place; the road touches only the fortress and the settlement from Cigmău. The watering place was positioned a little more in interior, at Geoagiu”.402 The archaeological repertory of the Hunedoara County mentions the military fortress, the civilian settlement and the watering place.403 There is no mention about the existence of a Roman road. So, although during the last few decades numerous archaeological researches (the watering place from Germisara, the civilian settlement, the Roman cemetery and the military camp) were made, they never mentioned the presence of a Roman road in this archaeological area. The research of the Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi began at the place where is the crossing point between the current road that goes to the present thermal place, and other graveled road, that climbs up the leisurely slope of the Geoagiu plateau. The distance measured from the entrance in Geoagiu‐ Băi to the point where appears clearly, at the surface, the Roman road, is 4,5 km (Fig. 59). My hypothesis is that the contemporary road is, from its beginning, the Roman road, because I have been able to observe the agger of the Roman road. The most interesting observations concern the Roman road superstructure. The technique of building the superior pavement, by fitting many several stone blocks of different size, to create a good travel surface, was always used in the case of the main roads. So, technically speaking, this road is a via silica strata. The paving of Roman roads with polygonal blocks was designated to the important roads. This technique required a particular technology of extracting the stone from the quarries and the transport of this material of construction. In our case, close by the Roman road functioned a quarry of travertine, which was exploited in the Roman period. The organization of paving the major roads of Rome was on a larger scale in the second century AD. The importance, in the Roman era, of these paved roads, is demonstrated by the classification made by Ulpianus in the second century AD. Technically, this author distinguishes between three types of roads. In the first place are the roads paved with stone blocks (viae silicae stratae), followed by the roads paved with gravel (viae glareae stratae); the last are the roads that have at the surface a simple level of gravel settled and leveled (viae terrenae). The role of this Roman road was to connect the Roman military fortress from Cigmău where was located the auxiliary troop Numerus Singularium Peditum Britannicorum, with the watering place,
belongs to András Fodor. Important observations were made by J. F. Neigebaur, who appreciated that between the villages Cigmău and Geoagiu the Roman civilian settlement was positioned. M. J. Ackner, A. Ipolyi and C. Gooss assumed Neigebaur’s opinion.398 But, unfortunately, there are no references regarding the presence of a Roman road here, in this region. V. Christescu did not mention anything, even as supposition, about the existence of a Roman road between the thermal place from Germisara and the imperial road, which traversed the whole province. It is mentioned just the route of the road along the valley of the river Mureş, together with the settlements, listed from West to East.399 The two studies written by Emil Panaitescu and dedicated to the road network in Roman Dacia are, unfortunately, extremely poor in information and with a general character. So, it appears logical that such Roman road as this one, between Germisara and Cigmău, do not appear on the road maps made by the Romanian historian. On these so called “maps” are represented, in the area that interests us, just two Roman roads, which began from the main road crossing point of Dacia, Apulum: a road to Alburnus Maior and other road to Micia. In 1956 Nicolae Gostar has published an article dedicated to the inscriptions and monuments from Germisara.400 This study has two parts: the first part is a discussion on some new inscriptions; the second part is dedicated to the military fortress and the civilian settlement from Germisara. The author debates upon the problem of the antique settlement. He concludes that the name of Germisara had covered in the Roman era the watering place and also the military fortress from Cigmău, positioned 5 km south. Anyway, there is no mention about a Roman road between the military fortress and the civilian settlement. In 1968 I. I. Russu has published the most important Roman epigraphic discoveries from the archaeological area of Hunedoara County.401 The author analyzes a number of inscriptions and presents a map of the area Ulpia Traiana – Aquae – Micia – Germisara – Ampelum. Neither him does not include the possibility of a presence of a Roman road. The 1968’s study of D. Tudor is not different, from our standpoint, from the other studies described here. When he presents the Roman settlement from Germisara, the historian does not deny the existence of a Roman road between the watering place and the military fortress from Cigmău, but he no other details are provided: “Although in the time of the Roman Empire Germisara was one of the most important watering places in Dacia, much more important than 398
Gostar 1956, 87‐88. Christescu 1929, 103; Christescu 1937, 109. 400 Gostar 1956, 57‐99. 401 Russu 1968, 87‐107; Russu 1970, 517‐528. 399
402 403
53
Tudor 1968, 130. Luca 2005a, 72‐73.
situated 5 km north of the fortress. So, it was an access road (deverticulum) to the thermal baths and a ramification from the main road Sarmizegetusa – Apulum. The thermal place from Germisara was visited very often in the Roman era because of the qualities of the thermal waters. The auxiliary troop had as mission to defend and protect the main road that connected Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and Micia with Apulum. Generally, this troop assured the safety of the whole place. The discovery of this new Roman road make us to think that the troop located at Cigmău had as mission to defend and protect also this access road to the thermal baths. At Cigmău we find also vexillationes from legio VII Claudia and the archaeological evidence confirm that. So, the military fortress and the civilian settlement were connected to the main highway Apulum‐Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa by the road between Cigmău and Geoagiu‐Băi. The archaeological evidence discovered in the thermal place proves the massive participation of these troops at the construction of the baths. Between these complex arrangements we notice a piscine in the rock, with the diameter of 7,59 m. In this context, one can suppose that the Roman road was built by the same military troop from Cigmău. The Roman road was built at the same time with the presence of the auxiliary troop of Brittans in the military fortress. The troop is registered in Moesia Superior in 106‐107 A.D.; from here, it participated at the campaigns against Dacia. After 106 A.D., the troop is present in the new created province. In 157 A.D. the auxiliary troop is present in Dacia Superior. I. I. Russu thinks that in the second half of the second century A.D., the troop changed his name, becoming Numerus Singulariorum Britannicorum. Even if we can’t establish for sure if the troop was present from the first year of occupation at Cigmău, the Roman military camp was already built in the first half of the second century A.D. At this point, we can suppose that the Roman road was built in the same period. In this way, at the beginning of the second century A.D., the Roman road from Geoagiu offered the best conditions of access to the thermal place. It was a ramification from the main highway Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa‐Apulum. We can also suppose that this road was in function even after 271 A.D. So, this road that functioned in all the period in which Dacia was a Roman province and after the withdrawal of Aurelian. As in other cases, the course of this Roman road was evidently planned with skill, and laid out with a complete grasp of the general features of the zone to be passed through. It results that, during the construction of this road, as it happened in other cases, the Roman engineers have turn to the best account all the advantages offered by the configuration of the terrain. This road represents, practically, the ramification from the main road Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa‐Apulum to the watering place from Geoagiu‐Băi. So, the Roman road is a
via vicinalis, meaning a road that lead to a settlement. On the other side, the same Roman road is a via publica, because it was used by all the people who traveled in this area. From the technical standpoint, the Roman road is a via silica strata. The Roman road functioned in the whole Roman period. The proof is the presence, in the military camp from Cigmău, of the auxiliary troop of Brittans, together with vexillationes from legio XIII Gemina, which participated to the construction, the arrangement and the maintenance of the Roman road. 3. 5. Other roads in Roman Dacia The investigation of the roads from Roman Dacia can be divided in five periods: 1. The XVI‐XIX centuries, which is the period when the first information on Roman roads, in certain medieval and modern documents, was published; 2. From the half of the XIXth century until the years 1930‐1935 of the last century, when there were “discovered” step by step some of the main roads from Dacia, especially in South‐West, in Banat;404 3. The period between 1925/1935‐1950, when there were published the first synthesis on the Roman roads from Dacia, but with a very general character;405 4. The period between the Second World War until de 70’, when it began the systematic research of the Roman roads, especially in Oltenia; 5. The period from 1975 until nowadays, when several articles which presented the routes, the infrastructure and the superstructure of the main roman roads from Dacia were published.406 404
Torma 1864; Torma 1880; Torma 1880a, 101‐117; Gooss 1874; Balázs 1863‐1871; Stefulescu 1893, 340‐342; Halavats 1896, 12‐14; Finály 1902, 380‐383; Tocilescu 1900, 118‐119; Pârvan 1906, 20‐28; Dumitrescu 1911, 107‐110; Téglás 1913, 57‐58; Marţian 1920; Pârvan 1923, 29, 46, 48, 115, 128, 140; Pârvan 1926, 109‐110. 405 Simu 1924, 15‐18; Cucu 1929, 45‐52; Pănuca 1930, 43‐44; Christescu 1929, 96‐110; Panaitescu 1936, 3‐14; Christescu 1937, 104‐114; Panaitescu 1938. 406 Ferenczi 1974, 111‐127; Tănase 1980, 289‐294; Tănase 1995, 79‐104; Pădureanu 1982, 67‐74; Wollmann 1996, 70‐ 71; Gudea 1996, 99‐125; Mitrofan 1997, 613‐619; Mitrofan 1997a, 717‐723; Baltag 2000, 111‐113; Blăjan, Theiss 2000, 215‐260; Blăjan, Theiss 2000a, 85‐122; Fodorean 2002b, 15‐ 32; Fodorean 2002c, 613‐631; Nemeti, Nemeti, Fodorean 2003, 69‐75; Fodorean 2003a, 155‐177; Fodorean 2003b, 59‐ 80; Fodorean 2003c, 323‐330; Fodorean 2003d, 55‐68; Fodorean 2003e, 7‐20; Fodorean 2004a, 523‐530; Fodorean 2004b, 63‐69; Fodorean 2004c, 71‐87; Fodorean 2005a, 153‐ 163; Fodorean 2005b, 331‐446; Fodorean, Fodorean 2005, 111‐122; Fodorean 2006b, 165‐344; Fodorean 2006c, 135‐ 152; Nemeth, Fodorean, Matei, Blaga 2011a, 329‐350; Fodorean 2010, 49‐66; Fodorean 2010b, 93‐102; Fodorean 2011c, 51‐62; Fodorean 2011d, 430‐445; Pătraşcu, Fodorean, Fodorean 2011, 57‐64; Fodorean, Pătraşcu, Fodorean 2012 (forthcoming); Fodorean 2012, 255‐279; Fodorean 2012a (forthcoming); Fodorean 2012b, 145‐152; Fodorean 2012c, 81‐132; Fodorean, Fodorean 2010a, 81‐88; Fodorean, Fodorean 2012, 175‐180; Fodorean, Fodorean,
54
denomination was given in the medieval age to the Roman roads, which had a paved surface, different from that of the medieval roads, which were mudded in the rainy seasons. “The old men road” (“drumul batrânilor”) is another toponym found in Dacia. It refers to the the Roman road in the sector between Dej and Căşeiu, investigated in the terrain for the first time in 1930 by Emil Panaitescu. The Roman road was still in use during the 60’ of the last century. ”The ancient road” (“drumul vechi”) is the name is mentioned in the popular tradition for the Roman road in the proximity of the Roman military camp from Bumbeşti. During the medieval ages, the presence of a Roman road is suggested by the toponym “salt road” or “stone road”. The salt was always an important product, exported during the Roman era and, of course, during the entire medieval period. With this toponym we know today at least two former Roman roads, which assured, in the Roman era, the connection with Pannonia Inferior: the military main road Napoca‐Porolissum and the Roman road alongside the valley of Mureş. The presence of former Roman milestones is suggested by toponyms as „the stone of the Emperor”, „the stone of punishment”, and “the written stone”. The location of former Roman milestones is indicated by denominations as „the emperor’s chair”, „the emperor’s pillar”, „at the pillar”, „at the chair”, „the judgement stone”. These hypothesis are confirmed by the discovery, in Banat, of a Roman milestone close by the village of Lăpuşnicel, in a place called „Znamăn” or „the emperor’s stone”. An interesting road is the one identified on the terrain between Cluj and Gilău. During the autumn of 2000 and the spring of 2001, I investigated a plot of land, in order to identify the roman road between Cluj‐ Napoca and Gilău (Fig. 61). The starting point of the research was the short description made by the Romanian researcher Mihail Macrea in his book about the life in Roman Dacia. The results of these investigations on the whole are the following. The Roman road is situated on the right side of the actual road between Cluj‐Napoca and Gilău. The Roman engineers built the Roman road by taking account the local geomorphologic, geological and hydrological conditions for high‐secured road traffic. On its length of 8 km from the starting point of our research and up to the auxiliary Roman fortress in Gilău, the medium slope in of 1˚. The infrastructure of the ancient road has two successive layers: 1. a gravel bed, brought from the valley of Someşul Mic; 2. a limestone layer (slabs of minor size) (Fig. 62). The Roman road Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Bologa belongs to the category of the so‐called secondary roads. It had first a strategic role, to assure the connection
Starting from the classifications made by the Roman jurists and from the data that we have regarding Dacia, I divided the roads into three categories: I. Roads of major importance, main highways (first of all military roads, inside and along the frontier of the province, which assured the mobility of the Roman military units; commercial roads, which assured the functionality of the export and import of different products); II. Secondary roads (the roads which connected the main roads, different settlements, Roman farms, rural settlements, or roads which gained during time the status of economical roads, which connected to the main road system the quarries of stone, the salt exploitations and the gold mines); III. Roads of little importance (ramifications ‐ deverticulae which shortened the distance between different points, constructed, in many cases, by the owners of Roman farms in order to gain access to the major market centres). The toponimy provides information about the presence of Roman roads. In Dacia there are several interesting toponyms. The most frequest is “Trajan’s road” („drumul lui Traian”), with versions like “Trajan’s path”, Trojan’s path” or “Emperor’s road”. The most frequent denominations of this kind are related especially to the route of the imperial Roman road Drobeta – Tibiscum – Apulum – Napoca – Porolissum. As the Via Alutana and other secondary roads, this Roman road is named by the local inhabitants “Trajan’s road” or “Trajan’s path”. With the same name is known the Roman road at the entrance in the locality of Turda. Moise Nicoară, who travelled in this region, observed this road in 1810. He was extremely glad when he saw the tracks of the Roman road. He names this road „Trajan’s road”.407 A draw of the zone Călăraşi –Turda made by Téglás presents the route of the imperial Roman road, in the sector between the valley of Arieş and the intersection with the current road to Unirea (Fig. 60).408 With the same toponym can be identified the imperial Roman road in the sectors Sarmizegetusa – Germisara – Blandiana409 and Sarmizegetusa – Ostrov. Another toponym is “the Stone road” (“drumul pietros”), or “the stone path”, which defines the type of construction.410 In some medieval documents the toponym “the dry road” can be found. This Moldovan 2013 (forthcoming); Fodorean 2013 (forthcoming); Fodorean 2013b (forthcoming); Fodorean 2013c (forthcoming); Fodorean 2013d (forthcoming); Fodorean 2013e (forthcoming); Irimuş, Fodorean, Petrea, Fodorean 2011, 23‐ 28; Fodorean, Irimuş, Fodorean, Moldovan 2011, 361‐373; Irimuş, Fodorean, Petrea, Rus, Cocean, Pop 2009, 39‐48; Fodorean, Fodorean 2008, 103‐112; Irimuş, Petrea, Surdeanu, Fodorean, Pop 2009, 493‐505. 407 Bărbulescu 1980, 283. 408 Téglás 1913, 58. 409 Blăjan, Theiss, Preda 1994, 171. 410 Macrea, Protase 1959, 446; Moga, Ciugudean 1995, 95‐ 96, s.v. Galda de Jos.
55
between the Roman city Napoca and the auxiliary camps from Gilău and Bologa. This road was marked on different maps showing Roman Dacia as an uncertain road (TIR L 34 and the map published in the first volume of IDR). At the end of his study published in 1864, Torma Károly did not represent this road, but only the imperial road between Potaissa and Napoca. The Roman road starts from Napoca and then has a direction towards West, to the auxiliary fortress from Gilău and from here to the western frontier of Dacia Porolissensis, to the military fortress from Bologa. From this point of view, Napoca can be considered an important crossroad, after the main crossroad from Dacia, Apulum. We know that through the gates of the ancient city Napoca entered several roads. Through the Southern gate entered the main military road Potaissa‐ Napoca (along the route Copăceni – Tureni – Ceanu Mic – Aiton ‐ Gheorghieni). The same road continues through Baciu, Mera and Şardu and then reaches Porolissum. Through the Eastern gate entered the road that connected the military fortress from Samum (Căşeiu) with Napoca, along a route alongside the valley of Someşul Mic, crossing by the following actual villages and towns (from North to South): Buneşti, Băiţa, Silivaş, Iclozel, Jucu de Sus and Apahida. Another road investigated in the terrain is the sector from Gilău to Izvoru Crişului. During the summer of 2001 I investigated an area in the Izvoru Crişului region, in order to clarify the route of the Roman road between Gilău and Bologa. Some remains of this road were observed in a point situated 1,5 km North from the actual locality Izvoru Crişului. Close by the end of the village, on the current road to Huedin, a current road leads to the right, at the mentioned point. The investigations had as result the discovery of a sector of the Roman road. The route of the ancient road was followed on a distance of almost 700 meters, in the area describes before, placed 1,5 km North of the actual village Izvoru Crişului. There are two groups of Roman roads close to Potaissa: 1. the main roads, which are: a. the imperial Roman road between Războieni‐Cetate and Napoca; b. the road on the inferior valley of the river Arieş; 3. the road on the valley of Mureş; 2. several natural paths, which are: a. the path that connected the settlements placed alongside the river Valea Largă; b. the path that connected the settlements placed alongside the valley of the river called Pârâul de Câmpie; c. the path that connected the settlements placed alongside the river Iara. The Roman road that connected the localities Gherla and Sic (Cluj County) is very interesting (Fig. 63). The reconstruction of the Roman route is based on three categories of sources: 1. modern cartographic resources (an Austrian map from 1882, another one from the beginning of the last century); 2. information from the archaeological repertory of Cluj County, where are mentioned several points with Roman discoveries in this
area; 3. data obtained by analyzing the main geomorphologic characteristics of the territory crossed by the Roman road. On an Austrian map from 1882 it is represented a road on the right bank of the river Someş, between the localities Szamos Ujvar (Gherla) and Szek (Sic). From here, the road continues to South, heading to Klausenburg (Cluj‐Napoca). Another Austrian map from the beginning of the last century confirms this hypothesis. On this map the whole route of the Roman road is represented. On the same map it is also represented the Roman fortress from Gherla, situated on the right bank of the valley of the river Someşul Mic, South‐West of the current city. The Roman fortress and the civilian settlement are placed in an area that corresponding to a triangle, between the valley of the river Someşul Mic, the so‐called “Canalul Morii” and the current road Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Gherla. On the Austrian map, the road is marked with two parallel lines, one continued and another interrupted. In these conditions, the route of the Roman road between the settlements Gherla and Sic can be established. The road begins from the West gate of the Roman fortress and, after 400 m on the direction NV‐SE, it arrives to the current road. From this point, keeping the same direction, after another 200 m the road changes its direction. It goes then another 550 m, until it reaches a current road. Here it makes a curve and then changes its direction again to SE. After another 500 m, the road reaches Valea Sărată. This entire sector goes at the base of the Gherla Hill. From Valea Sărată, the road follows the course of the river on the direction NE‐SE, on a distance of another 3000 m. It follows then a large curve with a radius of 130 degrees, and after that the Roman way changes again its course, following the line of the level curves, to SSE, on a distance of almost another 1000 m, north from the “Lacul Ştiucilor”. In this point the Roman road crosses over a current road. From here the route of the Roman road is practically marked by the points with Roman discoveries belonging to the area of the village. With a total length of almost 9,5 km, calculated between the Roman camp from Gherla and the South‐West of the village Sic, the Roman road has eight long alignments: two sectors of 3000 m, one of 1500 m, two of 500 m each, one sector of almost 400 m and another one of 200 m. Interesting data are related to the infrastructure, superstructure and the technical characteristics of the Roman roads from Dacia Porolissensis. I offer ten examples (Aiton‐Gheorghieni, Piaţa Cipariu – Cluj‐Napoca, Baciu‐Mera‐Şardu, Zimbor, Sânmihaiu Almaşului, Porolissum, Cluj‐Napoca – Gilău, Iclozel‐Silivaş, Căşeiu‐Dej, Dej‐Ilişua) of Roman roads, in order to observe how these roads were built. The most important idea related to the construction of the Roman roads of Dacia Porolissensis is that the infrastructure and the superstructure of the roads is different from one region to another. Although the 56
ancient juridical sources of the Roman period describe the theoretical principles related with the construction of Roman roads, in practice all those things were conditioned by the nature of soil and the geological conditions, which represented everywhere the main parameters in the art of building roads. The Roman road between Potaissa and Porolissum was a road built by the army for the army needs of communication. The other Roman roads (between Cluj‐Napoca‐Gilău, Cluj‐Napoca‐ Dej, Dej‐Căşeiu and Dej‐Ilişua), were built for the needs of the army and also for the needs of civilians. In Dacia Superior, I analyzed the following sectors of Roman roads: Războieni‐Cetate – Bogata, Apulum‐Brucla, at the West of the Ighiu village (Alba county), Apulum‐Brucla, 2 km South of Aiud, Sarmizegetusa‐Ostrov, Lederata‐Tibiscum, at Bocşa Română, Tibiscum‐Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, between the localities Iaz and Obreja, Dierna‐Tibiscum, in the point “Rovină”, on the valley of Timiş, Slatina Nera‐Prigor, at Lăpuşnicel, at the point called “Cetate”, Micia‐Partiscum, at Simeria (Hunedoara county), Geoagiu‐Cigmău, Călugăreni and, the last sector, at Micăsasa. From the analysis of all these sectors these are the main observations concerning their infrastructure: 1. the Roman engineers followed no hard‐and‐fast rule, but made their roads according to the situation and to the materials available, and perhaps in a different manner at different times; 2. the number of the levels, which compose the infrastructure of the Roman roads, is different from a sector of road to another and also from a point to another of the same sector of road. 3. 6. Roads, villae rusticae, economy, strategy. Shaping the landscape of Roman Dacia Economically speaking, the role of the roads was major. For example, all the Roman farms needed to be connected to the road system, in order to be profitable. One of the major factors that contributed to the development of the agriculture in Roman Dacia is relied to the existence and the functioning, on the territory of the province, of numerous villae rusticae, some of them very important as constructions. Even if, at a certain point, the attention of the Romanian scholars was concentrated especially in the investigation of the urban civilization of Roman Dacia (which, actually, is quite normal, considering that the civilization of Dacia was urban), there were, during time, many researchers and archaeologists who manifested quite an interest concerning the Roman villas. As a consequence of this fact, today we know almost 70 agricultural farms on the territory of Dacia. Some scholars think that this number is close to one hundred. In the Romanian archeological literature there are many studies and articles with direct reference to the Roman villas in Dacia, to the spread of these Roman farms, their typology and their importance and role played in the development of the agriculture in
the province from the North of the Danube. Unfortunately, few of them approach the investigation of the Roman roads that connected these farms. Evidently, in the Roman era were in function numerous secondary roads that assured the connection between these farms with the main commercial centers of Dacia. The study of these problems revels, practically, which were the main economical routes on the territory of the province. Because it was the most common form of agricultural production, the villa rustica represented an economic unity with production designated to the internal market and also for the export. In order to assure the profit of their unities, the owners of these villas placed them in the most fertile areas of Dacia: the Valley of Mureş and the south of Oltenia. The Roman villas were spread not only in these geographical areas, but also in other regions, which were colonized from the beginning of the province, as the territory around Napoca, the zone from the South of Apulum, the zone close by the northern limes and the Banat. In Eastern Dacia, with the exception of the Roman farm from Inlăceni, there are not known until now other villas. So, the most important five areas where we find the majority of the Roman villas from Dacia are: 1. the area close to the North‐Western limes; 2. the basin of the river Someşul Mic; 3. the Valley of Mureş; 4. Banat; 5. Southern Oltenia (Fig. 64). It is quite clear that the products obtained from the exploitation of the land were designated to the internal markets from the main cities of Dacia. If we see the problem from this point of view, it is obvious that in order to be profitable, a villa needed to be connected to the main road system of the province. Speaking in terms of the development of Roman agriculture, the location of a villa close to a major artery of communication was extremely important. When this option was not possible, the solution was the building of a road, in order to connect the villa to the major transport routes. There are two Roman farms positioned close by the north‐western frontier. The first is placed at Bobâlna (Cluj County) and it had the possibility of connection with the Roman road in the sector Dej‐ Căşeiu. The distance between the location of this villa and the road is of almost six kilometers. A via vicinalis between this villa and the main Roman road was probably in function in the Roman era. This way, the owner of the villa had the possibility to go to the closest city (in this case Porolissum) in order to sell his products. The second villa is located in Gârbou (Sălaj County), close to the road alongside the valley of Almaş. This Roman road assured the connection with the Roman military camp from Tihău. From the villa to this road there are almost six kilometers. There are 15 villas placed close to the valley of the river Someşul Mic. The Roman farms from 57
Dezmir, Sânnicoară, Apahida (Tarcea Mică) and Gherla are placed alongside the secondary Roman road Cluj ‐ Apahida ‐ Jucu de Sus ‐ Bonţida ‐ Iclozel ‐ Silivaş ‐ Băiţa ‐ Buneşti ‐ Gherla ‐ Dej. This road is archaeologically known in the sectors Iclozel‐Silivaş and Băiţa‐Buneşti. The Roman farm from Ciumăfaia is placed North‐West of the village, at 13 kilometers from the road alongside the river Someşul Mic, on the valley of Chidea, in the point “Păluta”. The owner of this villa, known from the inscriptions, is Publius Aelius Maximus. He lived in Napoca but he administrated in the same time his villa. The Roman villa from Chinteni is located close to the same Roman road Cluj‐Dej. The Roman farm is placed 10 km North‐West from this road. The access to the markets from Napoca was, in this case, easy. The Roman villas from Baciu, Suceagu and Viştea are spread alongside or close to the imperial Roman road Napoca‐ Porolissum. Another region with Roman farms is the area close by the same imperial Roman road, in the sector Tureni‐Aiton. These villas are those from Miceşti, Mărtineşti, Vâlcele and Aiton. All of them had in the Roman era great opportunities for connection with the main road of the province. The Roman farm from Izvoru Crişului is placed along the secondary road Napoca‐ Gilău‐Bologa. The majority of the Roman farms located along the Valley of Mureş are close to the Roman road. This road is also known from the Tabula Peutingeriana and connects the settlements Turda, Războieni‐Cetate, Aiud and Alba Iulia. From this point, the main road continues to South, until it reaches the capital of Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Another Roman road goes from Apulum, alongside the inferior course of the river Mureş, passes through Deva and Veţel and then reaches Szeged, in Pannonia Inferior. Here are, listed from North‐East to South‐ West, the Roman farms located along the valley of Mureş: Călăraşi, Gligoreşti, Ciugudu de Sus, Aiud, Ciumbrud, Cricău, Straja, Răhău, Şibot and Deva. Two Roman farms benefited of particular locations, those from Miercurea Sibiului and Apoldu de Sus‐Levejoare. They were both placed in the Depression of Apold, a small geographical unit belonging to the Secaşului Plateau. This region, traversed by the river Apold, had always a strong agricultural function. The land is very fertile and for this reason we find here these villas. They also have an ideal position in direct relation to the communication system of central Dacia. These two Roman farms are positioned along the main commercial and strategic road alongside the valley of Olt: Romula ‐ Caput Stenarum ‐ Apulum. This is the third road illustrated in Tabula Peutingeriana. This road assured, in the Roman era, the connection between the South and the center of Dacia. It was constructed in the first years after the conquest of Dacia. Another group of villae rusticae is concentrated close by the main Roman road of Dacia in
the sector Apulum ‐ Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: Strei and Sântămăria ‐ Orlea. Close by the city of Hunedoara it is attested a Roman farm at Mănerău. Another Roman farm was discovered at Orăştioara de Sus. Along the Roman road via Bumbeşti‐Vâlcan Pass we find the villa rustica from Hobiţa. All these Roman farms were placed relatively close by the capital of Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. In Banat, until now, we are able to locate four Roman farms, at Ramna, Brebu, Apadia and Caransebeş. In this region the land is fertile and suitable for agricultural activities. Another villa in Banat is the one from Dalboşeţ, located along a secondary Roman road. The Roman farms are concentrated, from the point of view of the quality of the terrain, in the most fertile zones of Dacia. This is quite normal, because the owners knew the importance of the terrain in order to achieve a good production. From the other point of view, if we look at the map with the repartition of the Roman farms in Dacia we can clearly see that the majority of them are spread alongside the main Roman roads of Dacia. Several of them are located close by the main artery of communication Tibiscum‐Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa‐ Apulum‐Potaissa‐Napoca‐Porolissum: Ramna, Brebu, Apadia, Caransebeş, Sântămăria‐Orlea, Strei, Mănerău, Şibot, Răhău, Straja, Cricău, Ciumbrud, Aiud, Ciugudu de Sus, Gligoreşti, Călăraşi, Aiton, Miceşti, Vâlcele, Baciu, Suceagu and Viştea. Alongside the Roman roads Sucidava‐ Romula and Islaz‐Romula we find another big group of villas, those from Orlea, Celei I and II, Vişina Veche, Brastavăţu, Grădinele, Vlădila I and II, Deveselu, Caracal, Vădastra and Urzica (between Sucidava and Romula) and Tia Mare, Cilieni, Rusăneşti, Brezuica, Slăveni and Fărcaşele (between Islaz and Romula). The other Roman farms are located close to secondary roads (deverticulae). These roads are, generally, from the point of view of the infrastructure, viae glareae stratae. Therefore, numerous farms have a proper position in direct rapport with the communication system of the province. This situation is due to the excellent organization of the Roman road system in Dacia. The main and secondary roads are equally spread in the territory, in order to assure good connections. The spatial integration of Dacia by the second and third century A.D. had a number of important implications for the nature of trade and the economy of the province. 3. 7. The Roman roads after the abandonment of Dacia There is a strong relation between ancient and modern roads, especially in areas like the former Dacia, where almost no medieval roads were built. 58
Therefore, to discover former roads, one should consult the modern maps, where some of the modern viae vicinales might be former Roman roads. Or, as Raymond Chevallier noticed, the map of the Roman roads exists, virtually, on the modern maps. So, can one establish a relationship between the routes of the Roman roads and the routes of the actual roads? And if we really can discuss the equation Roman roads – modern roads, what are the arguments? In Roman Dacia there are numerous cases of sectors from different Roman roads, overlapped by the current roads. I defined two main categories: 1. Roman roads that today are partly overlapped by modern roads; 2. Roman roads, which were used successfully from the Roman era until the present time, without, any change regarding their infrastructure and superstructure. In the first category I grouped five sectors of Roman roads, all of them belonging to the imperial road: 1. the sector from the entrance in the city of Cluj‐ Napoca; 2. the sector between Cluj‐Napoca and Aiton; 3. the sector between Aiton and Tureni; 4. the sector between Tureni and the entrance in Turda Nouă; 5. the Roman road between Turda – Bogata – Călăraşi – Războieni‐Cetate. In these sectors, my observations on the terrain have shown that the Roman roads were very bad preserved. In some points I was not able to identify this road at the surface of the terrain. Between Turda and Tureni, the actual European road 15 overlaps on long distances the Roman road; this situation remains the same between the localities Tureni and Gheorghieni, where the Roman road is overlapped in many points by the current road. So, from Turda to Cluj‐Napoca, via Aiton, the Roman road is located parallel or overlapped by the modern roads. The explanation is of geomorphologic and topographical nature: the Roman engineers have chosen the best alternative to build the route of this Roman road, in order to avoid the difficult areas, with small slopes and curves with large radius. This alternative was accepted and of course adopted by the engineers from the modern period, when they have built the actual roads. In the second category I have included those sectors of Roman roads used until now: 1. the Roman imperial road in the sector Baciu ‐ Şardu; 2. the sector between the localities Iclozel and Silivaş, where the remains of the Roman road remained clearly at the surface on the main street of the village; 3. the sector between Băiţa and Buneşti, with a length of almost six kilometres; this road is used even today; 4. the sector between Dej and Căşeiu, still in use in the years ’60 of the last century; 5. the Roman road alongside the valley of Mureş, in the sector Aţintiş – Cecălaca, which passes through the middle of the first village mentioned; 6. the Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi, outstanding preserved and used until nowadays; 7. the sector of the Roman road between Sarmizegetusa and Ostrov. All these roads were used during the Middle Age until the modern period. How can one explain that? The answer is quite
simple and also logical, if we think at the fact that after the Roman occupation we do not know other major works concerning the road infrastructure. It is possible that some of these Roman roads were repaired in a certain moment, but the majority were used successfully until the modern era, when new roads were built. The first conclusive observation is that the relief and the hidrography conditioned the placement within the geographical space of the roads. The Middle Age is a period when no major roads were built north of the Danube, within the territory corresponding to the former Roman Dacia. From this point of view, there is an advantage to study the roads of Dacia, because we have the possibility to identify easier some sector of Roman roads, by using cartographic instruments. As a conclusion, the methodology of the research of the Roman roads must be extended, by using other different sciences and also by analysing the cartographic documentation (the old military Austrian maps made for the territory of Transylvania and the current topographical maps). 3. 8. Concluding remarks. The roads of Roman Dacia The antique sources (cartographic, epigraphic and geographic sources) offer important information regarding the roads from Roman Dacia. As I emphasized, Tabula Peutingeriana mentions the main roads. The Roman milestones are few, comparing with other provinces, but important in establishing the chronology of the Roman roads. The Geography of Ptolemy indicates only the important routes in Dacia. The Trajan’s Column represents a source that must be used with extremely precaution. The medieval and modern sources were also very helpful for us. In Dacia Porolissensis the following roads are identified in the terrain: 1. Potaissa‐Napoca; 2. Napoca‐Şardu; 3. Sutoru‐Porolissum; 4. the ramification of the imperial Roman road to the military legionary fortress from Potaissa (today Turda, Cluj County); 5. the road Turda‐Războieni. After terrain researches, I identified, described and mapped the following Roman roads: 1. the ramification Gheorghieni‐Dezmir‐Someşeni; 2. the Roman road Turda ‐ Mihai Viteazu ‐ Corneşti ‐ Moldoveneşti ‐ Buru ‐ Sălciua ‐ Baia de Arieş ‐ Bistra ‐ Roşia Montană; 3. the Roman road Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Someşeni ‐ Apahida ‐ Jucu ‐ Bonţida ‐ Iclozel ‐ Iclod ‐ Silivaş ‐ Băiţa ‐ Buneşti – Gherla ‐ Dej, identified in the terrain in the sectors Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Someşeni ‐ Apahida ‐ Jucu ‐ Bonţida, Iclozel ‐ Silivaş, Băiţa ‐ Buneşti, Buneşti ‐ Gherla ‐ Dej; 4. the Roman road Gherla ‐ Sic; 5. the Roman road Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Floreşti ‐ Gilău; 6. the Roman road Gilău ‐ Izvoru Crişului ‐ Bologa; 7. the Roman road alongside the valley of the river Mureş in the sector Iernut‐ Cipău; 8. the Roman road Turda ‐ Buru ‐ Iara ‐ 59
Băişoara; 9. the road Turda ‐ Luna ‐ Luncani ‐ Gligoreşti; 10. the Roman road alongside the river Valea Largă; 11. the Roman road alongside the river Pârâul de Câmpie; 12. the Roman road Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Apahida ‐ Căianu ‐ Sărmaşu ‐ Glodeni; 13. the road Bologa ‐ Almaşu Mare ‐ Sutoru; 14. the road Bologa ‐ Buciumi ‐ Românaşi; 15. the Roman frontier road: Tihău ‐ Ileanda ‐ Căşeiu; 16. the road Dej ‐ Ilişua ‐ Orheiu Bistriţei ‐ Brâncoveneşti; 17. the Roman road alongside the valley of Mureş: Brâncoveneşti ‐ Cristeşti ‐ Războieni‐Cetate. In Dacia Superior the following roads were identified in the terrain: 1. Lederata‐Tibiscum; 2. Dierna‐ Tibiscum; 3. Lederata ‐ Dalboşeţ ‐ Lăpuşnicel ‐ Petnic – Mehadia; 4. Surduc‐Ramna; 5. Vărădia ‐ Dognecea ‐ Bocşa Română; 6. the Roman imperial road Tibiscum ‐ Ulpia Traiana – Apulum; 7. the Roman imperial road in the sector Apulum ‐ Brucla – Salinae; 8. Cigmău‐ Germisara; 9. Apulum ‐ Micia – Partiscum; 10. Apulum ‐ Ampelum ‐ Alburnus Maior; 11. the road along the valley of the river Târnava Mică: Apulum‐Obreja‐Târnăveni‐ Sărăţeni; 12. the Roman road along the valley of the river Târnava Mare: Apulum‐Obreja‐Micăsasa‐ Sighişoara‐Odorhei; 13. the Roman road Apulum ‐ Sacidava ‐ Caput Stenarum; 14. the Roman road that connected the legionary fortresses located along the Eastern frontier of the province: Călugăreni ‐ Sărăţeni ‐ Inlăceni ‐ Odorhei ‐ Sânpaul ‐ Olteni ‐ Breţcu; 15. the Roman road Caput Stenarum‐Cincşor‐Feldioara‐Hoghiz‐ Olteni‐Angustia. In Dacia Inferior, based on available data, I was able to identify, describe and map the road along the valley of Olt, Via Alutana, from Sucidava to Caput Stenarum and the road Drobeta‐Bumbeşti‐Pasul Vâlcan‐ Ulpia Traiana. In the province Dacia Porolissensis the Romans built four main roads, which have a total lenght of circa 120 kilometers (circa 80 Roman miles), and 15 secondary roads, with a total lenght of circa 700 kilometers (circa 475 Roman miles). So, the Roman have built in this province approximately 555 miles of roads. After I analyzed the roads from Dacia Superior, I reached the following conclusions. The Romans have built nine main roads, with a total lenght of circa 1220 kilometers and 24 secondary roads with a total lenght of circa 1200 kilometri. So, the Roman have built in this province approximately 2420 kilometers (circa 1636 miles) of roads. After I analyzed the roads from Dacia Superior, I reached the following conclusions. The Romans have built three main roads, with a total lenght of 650 kilometers (439 miles) and three secondary roads, with a total lenght of 530 kilometers (358 miles). So, the Roman have built in this province approximately 1180 kilometers (798 miles) of roads. As a conclusion, I can appreciate that the total length of the roads in Dacia is approximately 4420 kilometers (2989 Roman miles). Of course, other sectors of roads were destroyed during time, and today they can only be reconstructed based on cartographic or other
sources. Anyway, I think that a figure more closet o the former reality is 3500 miles of roads build in the former province of Dacia. 3. 9. The bridges of Roman Dacia Today we know data concerning these bridges from several categories of documents: 1. antic cartographic sources, as Tabula Peutingeriana, which mentions three place names with direct reference to bridges: Pons Augusti, Pons Aluti, Pons Vetus; 2. the scenes from the Trajan’s Column; 3. modern cartographic sources, especially Austrian military maps; 4. archaeological researches and terrain observations. The location of the Roman bridges in Dacia can be approximated also if one knows exactly the routes of the roads and the elements of the landscape (rivers, rivulets). My presentation will describe the bridges from Dacia, based on archaeological and historical research. 3. 9. 1. The Peutinger map and the bridges There are circa 30 place names on Tabula Peutingeriana with direct reference to bridges: Ponte Abei (I 2), Adriani (V 5), Aeli, Aeni, Aerarium, Aluti (VII 5), aufidi (VI 5), Ponte Augusti (VII 5), Aurioli, Campano, drusi, Dubris, longo, Pontem, Ponte Mansuetina, Nartiae (I 2), Nerviae, Saravi, Sarvix, Scaldis (II 3), Secies, sociorum, sonti (IV 5), Tiluri, Ucasi, vetere (VIII 1), Ulcae, Zita Municipium, ad Duos Pontes, Pontes Tessenios, Pontiae insulae, Pontibus, Pontici. Three settlements with reference to bridges are mentioned in Dacia (Fig. 65). Pons Aluti (today Ioneştii Govorei, Olt County) is positioned along the road called Via Alutana, an important, strategic route, which connected the regions from South with those inside the Carpathian Mountains. The road is depicted in the Peutinger map. The distance between Rusidava (today Momoteşti) and Ponte Aluti is XIIII MP (20,699 km). The Roman road was identified on the right bank of the river Olt. It connected the Roman military fortresses placed from South to North, along the limes. The place name Pons Aluti probably refers to a bridge built by Romans to overpass one of the affluent of the river Olt, possible the river called Guguianca or the valley called Miclişoaia. Pons Vetus (today Câineni, Vâlcea County) is located along the same road, in a strategic point. Today there are two settlements here: Câinenii Mari, on the right bank of the river Olt, and Câinenii Mici, on the left bank. The Roman road and the military fortress are positioned on the right bank. This point represents the beginning of the narrow valley of Olt. Until the XXth century, a custom house functioned here, because of its position, between two historical provinces: Muntenia and Transylvania. Pons Vetus probably refers to another Roman bridge, over the 60
valley called Căpuş. The position of the military camp from Sutoru and the route of the Roman road imply here the presence of a bridge. The city of Napoca, positioned in the valley of Someş, is relatively little known, because is it overlapped by the medieval and current city. Even with this situation, some elements can be reconstructed. The Roman bridge should be located close to the current bridge over the river Someş. At Potaissa, we do not posses visible remains of the Roman bridge. We know, from written documents of the XIXth century, that this bridge was positioned close to the mill called ‘Bethlen’. This construction is situated on the right bank of the river Arieş, circa 275 m South‐West of the current bridge over Arieş, close to the confluence of the Sănduleşti valley with Arieş (Fig. 69). The Roman bridge was mentioned in 1833 by J. Ercsey, who found construction materials used for the bridge in the Arieş valley. In 1882 the ruins of one pillar from the right bank of the river were visible, and on the left side were visible wood structures. In this point the width of the river is around 60 m. 42 stone blocks were dragged out of the Arieş valley and used at different building in the town. The remains of the Roman bridge from Dej were reported for the first time in the literature by Iuliu Marţian in 1920.412 He observed the traces of the pillars in the valley of the river Someş. In another book, the same Marţian offers new data.413 The most accurate description of the bridge was made by George Mânzatu.414 He published a plan of the bridge, at scale 1:1000, with the exact place of the bridge. The position of the bridge is also confirmed by the route of the Roman road. The remains of the bridge from Gherla were mentioned at the beginning of the XIXth century when the modern bridge was built. With this occasion, stone blocks used by local people as construction material were discovered. One exact cartographic observation was made by J. Ornstein, with the position of the Roman military camp from here. At Gligoreşti, the position of the bridge can only be supposed because of the route of the Roman road. Archaeological excavations were made here, but with no results. The village of Gligoreşti is rich in Roman traces. A statio functioned here. Many other bridges existed in Dacia. Unfortunately, today we can only estimate their number, according to the routes of the Roman roads.
river called Valea Urii. The road was built in the first years after the conquest of Dacia, or maybe during the two military campaigns. Pons Augusti (today Marga, Caraş‐Severin County) is positioned alongside the valley of Bistra, close to Sarmizegetusa. In the vicinity of this point, at Zăvoi, the Romans built a marching fortress during the Dacian wars. From here, the Roman imperial road was identified in the terrain and on the Austrian military maps from the XIXth century. The bridge was built, probably, over a Southern affluent of Bistra, close to the current village Marga. In fact, here, in the medieval period, this bridge functioned and it is mentioned in a document from September 9, 1439, signed by the Hungarian king, Albert of Habsburg: pontem in via Vaskapu versus Karansebes.411 3. 9. 2. The Trajan’s Column Bridges are quite numerously depicted and most of wooden‐framed construction (Fig. 66). Many of these scenes where bridges appear are impossible to locate in the field nowadays. Another aspect is the repetition of such scenes, because of the propagandistic character of the monument. Trajan's bridge (Fig. 67) was the first bridge built over the lower Danube. It was projected by Apollodorus and constructed East from the Iron Gates, close to Drobeta‐Turnu Severin. The structure was 1,135 meters in length (the Danube is 800 meters‐wide in that area), 15 meters in width, and reached 19 meters in height (measured from the river's surface) (Fig. 68). It was built in a short period of time (between AD 103 and AD105). 3. 9. 3. Austrian maps There is important information on these documents concerning the Roman settlements or roads or bridges. An interesting example is offered by a map at the scale 1:75.000. Close to the fortress from Hoghiz it is written „Standort des Römerburg Pons Vetus“. The fortress is located on the left bank of the river Olt. The Roman road was constructed on the right bank. So the Romans built here a bridge to connect the fortress with the road. 3. 9. 4. Archaeological researches During the summer of 2008 archaeological excavations made in the military vicus from Porolissum had as results, among others, the discovery of a Roman bridge pillar, built over the river called “Citera”. The bridge was built on the route of the main imperial Roman road. A supposed Roman bridge can be located at Sutoru (Optatiana?). Here the Roman road which goes alongside Almaşului valley had to cross over the
412
Marţian 1920, 17. Marţian 1921, 25. 414 Mânzatu 1926. 413
411
Rusu 1996, 249‐252.
61
because the landscape was ‘untouched’ and these elements were more visible comparing to nowadays. The geographical space was free of highways, or big cities. In fact, the density of modern roads, settlements and other infrastructure elements was smaller. The economic development of the last 50 years dramatically changed this landscape. Sometimes, this economic ‘interests’ leaded to the destruction of the archaeological patrimony. The Romanian archaeologists and historians made efforts to know the topography of Roman Dacia. They use classical methods, i.e. fieldwalkings and excavations, in a period of ‘romantic archeology’, when there were no economic pressures, no ‘deadlines’, no preventive archaeology. During the 1950’s, a project started in Romania, focusing on the creation of the National Archaeological Repertory. A big problem occurred during this period. Because of the communist regime, the topographical maps published by the Military Topographical Direction (Direcţia Topografică Militară) were strictly considered secret. The aerial photographs had the same status. Or, to produce topographic studies and landscape analysis, one need, first, maps, otherwise it is impossible to realize achieve this task. After the 1990’s, this situation changed, but slowly. The first archaeological repertory published was the one for the Cluj County (1992).417 This work established a pattern for the future publications of this kind. The modern settlements were alphabetically described, starting with the earliest discoveries (prehistory) and continuing chronologically, to Roman times and post roman discoveries. Almost every description was completed with ‘maps’, which, in fact, were hand copies of portions from topographical maps, including only the surfaces close to every settlement described. After 1992, other repertories were published: Alba,418 Mureș,419 Covasna,420 Arad,421 Harghita,422 Sibiu,423 Brașov,424 Caraș‐Severin,425 Hunedoara,426 and Sălaj,427 but unfortunately, methodologically nothing changed.
CHAPTER 4. RECREATING THE LANDSCAPE OF ROMAN DACIA USING HISTORICAL 19TH CENTURY CARTOGRAPHY, DIGITAL DATA AND GIS 4. 1. Premises. The topography and the landscape of Roman Dacia In the last 22 years, the attempts of the central institutions to create, use and update a national database with all the archaeological sites of Roman Dacia have failed. All these data are available online.415 The reasons of the failure mentioned above are: 1. most of the archaeological data used were actually copied for older sources (the archaeological repertories of several counties); 2. the databases contain only extremely general information about each site. This leads to another problem: the location of a large number of these sites is a hard task, because of the inexact topographic data provided; 3. the lack of new methods to discover, evaluate and map new archaeological sites (the study of older maps, the use of aerial archaeology). Compared to other programs developed in Europe (we would like to mention the National Mapping Program developed in Great Britain, with excellent results416), the attempts made in Romania are, until now, useless, in lack of the use of new methods. One of these methods is the analysis of each archaeological region, the creation of a real GIS database, the mapping of the sites using digital methods. In this chapter I will use digital data, former maps from the 18th and 19th century, archaeological information, and aerial vertical photographs, to reconstruct several elements of the landscape of the former province Roman Dacia, including fortresses, roads and watch‐towers. In the XIXth century there were major improvements in mapping within Europe. They took three forms. First, the publication of cadastral maps, made for taxation of administrative purposes, was a big step. The second major development was the growing importance of large‐scale military surveys. The third form is the representation, within these maps, of elements which formed the Roman landscape. Anyone who studied the modern cartography noticed an ’appetite’ to map all the terrain details, including elements of the topography of the former Roman provinces: roads, settlements, bridges, milestones, legionary or auxiliary fortresses, stationes, mansiones, thermae, villae rusticae, aqueducts etc. This ‘appetite’ or this abundance of such details in the 19th century maps has a logical explanation. Mapping former Roman landscape elements was easier in the 19th century,
417
Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, Vasiliev, Winkler 1992. Moga, Ciugudean 1995. 419 Lazăr 1995. 420 Cavruc 1998. 421 Hügel 1999. 422 Cavruc 2000. 423 Luca, Pinter, Georgescu 2003. Also available online at http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/bibliotheca/repsibiu/ cuprins.htm. 424 Costea 1996. 425 Luca 2004; Luca 2004a; Luca 2005; Luca 2006. 426 Luca 2005a (available online at: http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/bibliotheca/xvi/reper toriu%20arheologic%20hunedoara%20mic.pdf); Luca 2005b (available online at: http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii /bibliotheca/chunedoara/cuprins.htm). 427 Luca, Gudea 2010. Available at: http://www.brukenthalmuseum.ro/pdf/Biblioteca_Brukenth al/XLV/BBXLV.pdf. 418
415
See at http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie.html (e‐Patrimoniu. Institutul de memorie culturală, cIMeC.ro). 416 http://www.english‐ heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes‐and‐ areas/national‐mapping‐programme.
62
4. 3. Cartography and archaeological researches in Romania. Unsolved issues The online databases presenting the archaeological sites from Romania (http://ran.cimec.ro/) record 13852 sites. Of these, 2551 sites belong to the Roman period. Nowadays, of all sites, circa 90 per cent of reported sites, included in this online database, and in the regional gazetteers (archaeological repertories) are just indicated by finds: artefacts (mainly ceramic fragments) or building materials scattered on the ground surface. Nowadays, we are dealing with a terrible situation concerning these sites: 1. a lack of a real, comprehensive, cartographic digital database, where all the archaeological sites should be mapped; 2. a lack regarding the use of aerial archaeology to reconstruct the elements of the landscape of Roman Dacia; 3. detailed investigations in the terrain, supported by detailed cartographic analysis concerning archaeological sites. The Romanian archaeologists and historians made great efforts, during time, to know the topography of Roman Dacia. Until recently, they used classical methods, i.e. fieldwalkings and excavations, in a period of ‘romantic archaeology’, when there were no economic pressures, no ‘deadlines’, no preventive archaeology. But nowadays, when large infrastructure projects (highways, commercial or residential centres) began all over the country, preventive archaeology is the only solution to protect, save and capitalize the archaeological patrimony. So, massive infrastructure projects, combined with the law regarding the planning, have requested maximum efforts from archaeologists, but, unfortunately, the documentation regarding the archaeological sites remain, in big parts, at the level of the years ’70. This represents, in my opinion, a huge lack in the Romanian scientific community. We are dealing with a terrible situation. The European Convention for the protection of the archaeological patrimony from La Valetta (adopted at La Valetta on 16th of January 1992 and ratified by Romania by the law no.150 from 24 July 1997) asks, at the beginning, the following: “…it is important to institute, where they do not yet exist, appropriate administrative and scientific supervision procedures…”. In 2000, the government adopted the GO 43/2000 concerning the protection of the archaeological repository. But in applying these
So, when preventive archaeology started to be practiced in Romania (from 2000’s until now), the archaeologists realized that they don’t have many instruments of work, no maps presenting uniformly the discoveries from a certain area, from a certain period, no micro‐regional topographic studies. 4. 2. Modern cartography. Maps used for the identification of the archaeological sites After the end of the Seven Years’ War against Prussia (1756–1763), a cartographical registration of the Habsburgic Monarchy’s crown lands was commissioned by the empress Maria Theresa. The surveying lasted for twenty‐three years (1763–1787) and resulted in 3589 hand‐drawn coloured map sheets. After the foundation of the Austrian Empire (Kaiserstaat Österreich) in 1804, the 2nd survey of 1806–1869 was based on the first network of horizontal control points (triangulation). The entire area of the Austro‐Hungarian Monarchy was mapped during the 3rd survey, in only eighteen years (1869–1887). Especially the second and the third military survey are masterpieces. They are outstanding in quality regarding its data content, drawing features and aesthetic appearance. The archaeologists understood their importance and after the publication of these maps they started to use them to reconstruct the landscape of some former Roman provinces. So far, the following DVDs were published:428 1. The First Military Surveying. Transylvania and Temes (April 2005); 2. The First Military Survey: Königreich Ungarn – Georeferenced version. It contains 3400 colorful, handmade, 1:28.800 scale map sheets, and 23000 names of 9974 settlements with sophisticated search engine (October 2004); 3. Second Military Survey of Hungarian Kingdom and Temes (December 2005); 4. The Second Military Surveying: Kingdom of Hungary and Temes ‐ Georeferenced version (December 2005); 5. First & second military survey of Transylvania. This DVD contains the Transylvanian sheets of the first and second military surveys of the Habsburg Empire (November 2007); 6. The Third Military Survey 1869‐1887: Ungarn, Siebenbürgen, Kroatien‐Slawonien, 1:25.000 (March 2007); 7. The Third Military Survey 1869‐1887: Österreichisch‐Ungarischen Monarchie, 1:75.000 (March 2007). A very valuable cartographic source for the identification of former elements of the Roman landscape is the group of military maps realized at the beginning of the last century. These are officially named ‘directory plans’ (‘Planuri directoare de tragere’). These maps contain old toponyms, points, places of former Roman fortresses, or traces of former Roman roads.429
regarding these maps. So far, within their project entitled ‘eHarta’ (http://earth.unibuc.ro/articole/eHarta), they scanned and digitized 1425 map sheets, from a total of 1700 (covering the whole territory of Romania). These maps can be downloaded for free at: http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php. In this section, the authors offer a total number of 2341 map sheets.
428
See additional data at: http://www.arcanum.hu/english/kiadvanyaink/terkep/. 429 Vasile Crăciunescu, Ioan Rus, Ştefan Constantinescu, Ionuţ Ovejanu initiated in 2010 and finished in 2011 a project
63
to show how Roman fortresses, watch‐towers, or Roman roads, were projected and positioned in the most suitable areas. The fortress from Bologa is positioned in the eastern part of the village, 200 m south of the current road Bologa‐Huedin, and 300 m east of the valley called Hențu. The fortress431 is located in the triangle formed by the valley of the river Hențu with the valley of Crișul Repede. The camp is a rectangle with the dimensions 205 x 121 m. The Roman engineers choose strategic positions for a series of watch towers positioned along a 66 kilometers line, above the Meseș Mountains. These towers were able to visually communicate with the fortresses positioned in the valleys of the river Agrij and Almaș: Bologa, Buciumi, Românași, Romita, and Porolissum. In this particular case, the fortress from Bologa communicates with several towers, positioned in the highest points around it. The fortress is positioned in the visual range of the tower from Măgura Bologa. This tower also communicates with another one, discovered of the hill called ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’ (altitude 760,2 m). The tower from the last mentioned point visually communicates with other 8 towers, all of them raised on the highest hills. Our analysis using Global Mapper (‘Shed Analysis’) started from archaeological data, which confirm the existence of a tower on the hill ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’.432 We can see that from this point one could have visual contact with all the other towers. The northernmost one is positioned on the hill ‘Dealu Grebenului’ (‘Vărfu Grebeni’, altitude 970,0 m). The distance between this tower and the one from ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’ is, in straight line, of 6732,5 meters. All this visual camp is covered from south to north, from ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’. From this point one could also communicate with the tower positioned 1547 meters south, on the hill ‘Măgura Bologa’. And, to sum up, the
legislative measures, the sites needed to be properly known and mapped. During the 1950’s, a project started in Romania, focusing on the creation of the National Archaeological Repertory. Soon after this moment, due to lack of cooperation between specialists, the project was partially abandoned. After the 1990’s, this situation changed, but very slowly. The first archaeological repertory published was the one for the Cluj County (1992). This work established a pattern for the future publications of this kind. The modern settlements were alphabetically described, started with the earliest discoveries (prehistory) and continuing chronologically, to Roman times and post roman discoveries. The topographic indications and the maps are, in many cases, almost useless. The indications in text, in many cases, are formulated like this: “…in that part of the village…”, “…on the territory of the settlement X…” or “…. South, North, East or West of this point/road/terrace/river etc.” The maps published in these repertories are extremely general, sometimes with no scale, difficult to read. Another problem is related to the information contained in the List of the Historical Monuments (Lista Monumentelor Istorice / LMI). This list can be consulted online.430 In many cases, archaeological structures found at the ground surface, mainly consisting in ceramic fragments, are categorized and registered as sites belonging to the category A (sites with national importance). All the records have individual codes (random example: CJ‐I‐m‐A‐07180.01). ‘m’ refers to monuments, ‘I’ refers to the category Archaeology. ‘A’ represents the first group of monuments, of national and universal value. ‘B’ represents the second category: monuments representative for the local cultural patrimony. This classification is based on the law 422/ 18th July 2001 regarding the protection of the historical monuments and the government ordinances no. 2682/2003 (regarding the approval of methodological regulations for the classification and the register of the historical monuments, and of the List of the historical monuments) and 562/2003 (elaborated by the Ministry of Transportation, regarding the technical regulation focused on the regional plans). In order to update, and maintain an accurate database, continuous terrain investigations must be realized, because otherwise sites which no longer exist (destroyed by agricultural works, for example) are registered in the lists. 4. 4. Case study: the defensive system around the Roman fortress from Bologa (Cluj County) Because of its terrain and its particular position, Dacia is packed with examples of what we call the adaptation of the constructions to the general conditions of the terrain. My examples will provide data 430
431
See Gudea 1997, Gudea 1997a and Gudea 1997b, 39‐42. I used for all our case studies: 1. Software ‐ Global Mapper 12; 2. Digital elevation data (SRTM – Shuttle Radar Topography Mission), Romania, resolution ‐ 45 m. I overlapped the topographic maps, 1:25 000 scale, covering the whole territory of Romania. Further, to provide information for our goal, I use the commands ‚map texture’ and ‚shed analysis’. I digitized, for each case, the position of former Roman fortresses, or roads. I also used, to work with accuracy, all information available from older maps, especially those realized by the Austrian cartographers, to identify and to maps these former elements of the Roman landscape. I would like to thank my colleague Ciprian Moldovan, from the Faculty of Geography Cluj‐Napoca, Babeş‐Bolyai University, Department of Regional Geography and Territorial Planning, who helped met o produce these maps. SOme of this data were presented in 19‐20 April 2012., in Barcelona, at the international conference entitled Digital approaches to cartographic heritage, organized by the ICA Commision on Digital Technologies in Cartographic Heritage and the Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya. 432
http://arhiva.cultura.ro/Files/GenericFiles/LMI‐2010.pdf.
64
fortress is visible from ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’ and ‘Măgura Bologa’. So, using all these data, I reached an important conclusion. The fortress from Bologa communicated with the towers from ‘Vârfu Ţiclu’ and ‘Măgura Bologa’. The last mentioned tower had visual contact with other 9 towers, all positioned north of these two, all on high hills. 4. 5. The Roman imperial road between Potaissa and Napoca In 106 A.D. Dacia became Roman province. Before the conquest, during the two military campaigns in 101‐102 A.D. and 105‐106 A.D., the Roman engineers, leaded by Balbus, succeeded to project and to start the construction of the first Dacian ‘highway’: the road starting from the Danube, towards the Banat region, including two branches ‐ the Western road, from Lederata to Tibiscum, and the Eastern road, from Dierna to Tibiscum. In fact, these two branches were the two lines used by the Roman army to penetrate the Dacian territory. Connecting together at Tibiscum, the road continued along the valley of the river Bistra, in the narrow corridor also known with the name ‘the Iron Gates of Transylvania’, until it reached the future capital of Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. From here, the road continued to North, towards Apulum, Potaissa, Napoca, ending at Porolissum, the northernmost point of the Dacian province. From south to north, the road has a total length of circa 450 kilometers. The construction started in 101‐102 A.D. and probably ended around 110 A.D. We know this from an interesting discovery of the 18th century. In 1758, at Aiton (Cluj County) a Roman milestone was discovered, with an inscription informing that this road was constructed during Trajan. According to the inscription, the road was built in 108 A.D. Probably soon, in the next two years, the Romans succeeded to finalize the construction of the most important road in Dacia. Between Potaissa and Napoca this road was extensively identified in the terrain and mapped with accuracy. The total length in this sector is 36 kilometers, i.e. 24 Roman miles. The slope is small. The general direction is from south‐east to north‐west. In several points, close to the area of the current village Ceanu Mic, the road was recently the object of some preventive archaeological researches. What is more important, as our shed analysis demonstrate, is the position of the legionary fortress from Potaissa433 (Turda, Cluj County), in relation to this road and the other one from south, heading towards Războieni‐ Cetate. Choosing the location for one big legionary fortress as the one from Potaissa (23,37 ha) was not an easy task. The only one big plateau in this area was/is
the hill called ‘Cetate’ (altitude 375 m), positioned west of the current city. This place was also close to a stone quarry (from here up to north, to the quarry from Sănduleşti, the distance, in straight line, is circa 5,5 kilometers). Another important aspect was related to the water source for the camp and the ancient city. This source was identified and used by the Romans close to the stone quarry. The plateau provides a slight slope: towards north‐west, where porta decumana was built, the terrain is a little higher comparing to the east. From the north‐eastern corner of the fortress one could easily visually observe the Roman road up to the top of the hill called ‘Dealul Dăbăgăului’. Our shed analysis demonstrates that towards north, there was visibility up to Aiton, and in south, all the valley of Arieş was visible, almost to the point when this river flows into the Mureş River. Once again, using digital data, combined, obviously, with archaeological information, we can demonstrate the powerful preoccupation of the Roman engineers to carefully occupy the geographical space, and to create strategic and economic advantages using this space. 4. 6. The Roman fortress from Gherla (Cluj County). Historical maps and digital data Locating Roman fortresses on modern maps is a topic which entered into my attention from many years now. The method I use is simple. The landscape changed dramatically in the last 100 years or more. The Austrian surveyors, and the cartographers, in order to accomplish their task, i.e. mapping the territory of the Habsburgic and later the Austro‐ Hungarian Empire, recorded almost every detail in the terrain. The results? Several former Roman fortresses were marked and described in these maps. I will start our examples with the Roman military fortress from Gherla (Cluj County). The fortress is positioned on the right bank of the river Someșul Mic,434 in a triangle formed by the river, the so‐called Canalul Morii (the Mill‐Chanel) and the national road E 15 Cluj‐Napoca – Dej. In the maps from the third military survey, as well as in the military maps created at the beginning of the 20th century, the place of the fortress is clearly marked as a rectangle (Fig. 70). Beside the fortress, the maps also show the route of the modern secondary road coming from south via Iclozel – Silivaș ‐ Hășdate. This is, in fact, the former Roman road, maintained and used until nowadays as a secondary road. After reaching the fortress, the road crossed the river (the traces of a bridge were not found) and continued via Băița and Bunești to north, to Dej (Fig. 71). The position of this fortress is strategic. As the fortress from Bologa, or Sutor (Sălaj County), or Cășeiu, or Cincșor, the fortress
433
For this: Bărbulescu 1987; Bărbulescu 1994; Bărbulescu 1997.
434
65
Protase, Gudea, Ardevan 2008.
4. 9. The Roman fortress from Breţcu (Covasna County). Historical maps and digital data
was erected close to the valley of the river, to block possible attacks coming from North along this line. 4. 7. The Roman fortress from Hoghiz (Braşov County). Historical maps and digital data Another interesting example is offered by the fortress from Hoghiz.435 The fortress was discovered in 1949. Since then, no systematic archaeological excavations were made there, only several small surveys. The directory plans published in 1953 do not specifically mentions the toponym ‘Roman fortress’, but another important word: ‘la Cetate’ (Fig. 72). Always, this toponym indicates a fortress. The Roman fortress is positioned on the left, southern bank of the river Olt, circa 1055 m south‐east of the center of the village Ungra, 1796 m west of the southern entrance in the village of Hoghiz, and 3652 m north from the church from the village Cuciulata. The plateau where the fortress was built is delimited by the level curve of 460 meters, and the maximum altitude here is 470 m. On the military Austrian maps from the third survey, the fortress is marked as a rectangle in the same spot, and with a supplementary, essential remark, in German: ‘Standort der Römer Lagers Pons Vetus’ (the third military survey). The same drawing and toponym is present in the maps from the second military survey. In the maps from the first military survey (1763‐1785), a rectangle symbolizing the fortress is drawn, and within this rectangle it is specified: ‘Altes Schloss. Rudera’. 4. 8. The Roman fortress from Râşnov (Braşov County). Historical maps and digital data The same Austrian military maps mark clearly the position of the Roman fortress from Râşnov,436 ancient Cumidava. On the maps from the first military survey (1763‐1785) the fortress is marked as a rectangle, with the toponym ’Schantz’. On the maps from the second military survey the same point is marked as a rectangle, in an area named ’Ober der Erdenburg’. On the maps from the third military survey the fortress is also marked as a rectangle, and a toponym is present: ’Erdenburg’, close to the value of the altitude ‐ 610 m (Fig. 73). The fortress from Râşnov is positioned between three settlements, along the valley of the river Bârsa, on the eastern, right bank of the river. The fortress is erected at 2001 meters in straight line north west from the farm from Râşnov, 2643 meters west of the southern exit from the city of Cristian and exactly at 2273 meters south‐east of the church from Vulcan (1512 meters south‐east of the 90º curve made by the road which enters in the settlement of Vulcan from South).
435 436
Another fortress marked on the Austrian military maps is the easternmost fortress in Roman Dacia: Brețcu437 (Covasna County), ancient Angustia. The fortress is positioned exactly 692 meters north‐ east of the catholic church from the village, 3464 meters north of the geodesic point marked on the current maps at Chirilău (east of the village of Mărtănuș, on the hill called ‘Dealul Măgurii’) and 6349 meters west‐south west of the entrance in the village of Oituz (Fig. 74). On the maps from the first military survey the fortress is marked as a rectangle, with the toponym ‘Alte Schantz’. On the maps from the second military survey the same place is marked also as a rectangle, without any other indications. The same situation can be found on the maps from the third military survey. On the plans from the beginning of the 20th century (1917), the same Roman fortress is also marked, as a rectangle. The currents maps do not provide anymore this type of indications. The fortress (positioned at 46º02′59.06ʺ N and 26º18′30.26ʺ E, altitude 607 meters) had a perfect strategic position, blocking the entrance into the province from East, from the Oituz Pass. 4. 10. The Roman imperial road from Sarmizegetusa to Sântămărie Orlea (Hunedoara County) In 2005 and 2006 I conducted terrain investigations, combined with the collection of archaeological data and the study of modern maps. As a consequence, I managed to identify and clarify the route of the imperial road between Sarmizegetusa and Subcetate.438 I first analyzed the ancient and medieval sources concerning this road. The most interesting documents are the modern Austrian military maps, which show the route of the imperial road between Sarmizegetusa (Várhelÿe vulgo Gradistÿa) and Subcetate (Szup Csetatÿe), through (from SW to NE) Ostrovul Mare (Nagÿ Ostro), Unciuc (Uncsukfalva), Sânpetru (Szent Peterfalva), Săcel (Szatsal), Bărăştii Haţegului (Baresd) and Sântămăria‐Orlea (Szt. Maria / Orliá Bóldógfalva). The road is marked with a red line in two sectors: 1. from the North‐Eastern corner of Sarmizegetusa to the North of the village Ostrovul Mare, on a distance of 6,5 km, with the indication „Landstrasse aus Banath nach Szaszváros"; 2. from Unciuc to Subcetate, on a distance of 11 km, with the indication „Trajaner Weg". I identified the structure of the Roman road in several points: between Bărăştii Haţegului and Subcetate, at the entrance in Bărăştii Haţegului, 437
Protase 2003, 125‐134. Gudea, Pop 1971.
438
66
Gudea 1980, 255‐365; Vlădescu 1986, 83‐85. Fodorean 2007, 365‐384.
general orientation from South‐West to North‐East. In some points the Roman engineers built bridges over several water courses, as river Râuşor, Odovajniţa, Râul Mare, Valea Mare, the valley of Sibişel and at the confluence of the river Râul Mare with Strei. 4. 11. The Roman road between Gelmar and Şibot on Austrian maps This is a secondary road, positioned in the central part of Transylvania, south of the river Mureş. Between Gelmar and the village of Aurel Vlaicu a former Roman road is marked on the maps from the first topographic survey. The road had a general direction from West to East and is mentioned on a distance of around 5 kilometers. Between Gelmar (Gÿalmár) and Bentzent (today Aurel Vlaicu) the road is mark with the name „Drum Trajan”. After that, between Bentzent and Siboth it is marked with the name „Alter Römer Weeg”. We observed that on the currents maps this sector of road is marked as a county road. On the maps from the second and third military survey the road appears, but only with his route, without the toponym mentioned above (Fig. 75). Another place where is mentioned a possible former Roman road is North of Tărtăria, as we can see on the first topographic survey. The indications offered by these maps can provide a clue regarding the route of the Roman road along the valley of Mureş. 4. 12. The Roman road from Alba Iulia to Şard and Ighiu An interesting situation can be observed in the case of the Roman imperial road which from Apulum connected the settlements from Şard, Cricău and Galda de Jos. This route could be the former Roman road. It is marked on the maps from all the three surveys. The road has a general direction, in its first part, to North‐West. Close to Şard a ramification goes along the valley of the river Ampoi to the settlements Ampelum and Alburnus Maior. From Şard the road continues and then arrives at Galda de Jos. This was the most plausible variant of road, because in front of Alba Iulia, in the Northern part, the Bilag Hill blocks partially the access. So the Romans decided to construct the road by avoiding this natural obstacle. 4. 13. The Roman road along the valley of the river Arieş from Potaissa to Alburnus Maior The Roman road along the valley is one of the most interesting sectors of roads in Dacia. It is mentioned in numerous archaeological studies as a key road which connected one of the most important military settlements in Dacia, Potaissa, with Alburnus Maior (Fig. 76, Fig. 77, Fig. 78, Fig. 79). Together with
between Săcel and Sânpetru and then close by the church from Unciuc. In this point, but also in those mentioned above, the structure of the Roman road could be easily observed at the surface of the terrain. It is formed by a layer of stones extracted by the Romans from the valleys placed closed by the route of the road. Along the route of the imperial Roman road, several rural settlements are attested in Sântămăria Orlea, Săcel, Sânpetru, Cârneşti, Ostrovul Mare and Haţeg. Recently, a Roman construction was identified in Ostrovul Mic.439 The construction seems to be a villa rustica. Archaeological investigations were carried out in 2009 and 2010 and the results were published. The editors specified that “clădirea se situa în territorium‐ul Coloniei Dacica Sarmizegetusa, la cca. 5 km E de capitală şi la aproximativ 1 km S de drumul imperial, vizibil pe câteva porţiuni şi denumit de localnici “drumul lui Traian”440 (“the building is positioned within the territorium of Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa, circa 5 kilometers east of the former capital and approximately 1 kilometer south of the imperial road, still visible on several sectors and denominated by the local inhabitants Trajan’s road”). On the orthophotographs I studied I saw traces of the former Roman building. The place is positioned, in fact, exactly at 3.65 kilometers east of the Roman amphitheatre from Ulpian, and exactly 3.404 km east of the north‐eastern corner of the former Roman city. The Roman road can be easily observed on the vertical aerial photographs and it is marked on all the maps with the denomination “Trajan’s road”. I identified this road on Austrian maps and on modern maps published in 1940, 1954 and 1958. I also observed that several plans and topographic maps of the modern settlement of Sarmizegetusa (Austrian map with the scale 1:28.800, topographic map at the scale 1:25.000, and another modern map at the scale 1:5000) clearly show some roads with the direction from West to East (decumani). The road placed at North is the imperial Roman road. The final point where I identified the route of the road is close by modern road to Clopotiva. Here the Roman road can be observed at the surface of the terrain. Recently, my colleagues F. Marcu, G. Cupcea and Al. Diaconescu identified close to Sarmizegetusa the former traces of centuriatio.441 Between Sarmizegetusa and Subcetate the Roman road has a length of almost 19,5 km. Its route was identified in the field in the following sectors: 1. from the North‐Eastern corner of Sarmizegetusa to the river Râuşor (1 km); 2. from the river Râuşor to the modern road to Clopotiva (250 m); 3. between the road to Clopotiva and Ostrovul Mare (3 km); 4. from the church of Unciuc to Subcetate (10 km). The route has a 439
Băeştean, Tutilă 2010, 173‐183. Băeştean, Tutilă 2010, 174. 441 Marcu, Cupcea 2011, 543‐560; Diaconescu 2010, 133‐162. 440
67
sophisticated constructions, built to remarkably fine tolerances, and of a technological standard that had a gradient (for example, at the Pont du Gard) of only 34 cm per km, descending only 17 m vertically in its entire length of 50 km (31 miles). If this would not been enough, the Romans also were conscious about the advantages offered by the thermal waters. Using these hot springs, they built baths in Britannia (Bath and Buxton), in Gallia (Aix and Vichy), in Germania (Wiesbaden, Aachen), or in Pannonia Inferior (Aquincum).443 Some of these locations rapidly became important centers for recreational and social activities in Roman communities. Libraries, lecture halls, gymnasiums, and formal gardens became part of some bath complexes. In addition, the Romans used the hot thermal waters to relieve their suffering from diseases. The Roman bath included a far more complex ritual than a simple immersion. ‘Were the baths, then, and their concomitant aqueducts, a luxury?’ This question of Trevor444 finds its answer easily: it depends what we understand today as ‘luxury’ and what Romans did understood. In an advance civilization like the Roman Empire was, bath was not considered a luxury. 4. 14. 1. Germisara ‐ the ‘five stars’ thermal accommodation in Roman Dacia The area between Geoagiu Valley, in the East, the village of Geoagiu in the South and the locality Geoagiu‐Băi was named in the Roman era Germisara.445 The toponym is of Dacian origin. Archaeologically and topographically, the Roman city and the Roman fortress were extended on the territory of the current village of Geoagiu, in the East, and Cigmău in the West. So, we can distinguish two points situated on the northern, right bank of Mureş, close to the main military road that connected Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa with Apulum. One of these, which took advantage of the thermal waters, had a civilian character. This place is situated north of Geoagiu. The other, which developed a little later, had a military character and included the Roman fortress from Cigmău and the civilian settlement (vicus militaris). We can say that under the name of Germisara three areas have functioned in the Roman era: 1. the Roman camp from Cigmău, situated on the “Turiac” plateau, at “Pogradie” point; 2. the civilian settlement (vicus militaris), placed between Cigmău and Geoagiu; 3. the thermal settlement, approximately positioned 5 km north of the Roman fortress (Fig. 83, Fig. 84).446
the road along the valley of Ampoi these routes create a strategic triangle between Potaissa, Apulum and Alburnus Maior. It appears on a sector close to Buru on the maps from the first survey. The Roman discoveries along the valley of Arieş are concentrated close to Potaissa. From the point when the valley of Arieş enters in the Transylvanian Depression we have three settlements with important discoveries: Mihai Viteazu, Cheia and Moldoveneşti. It is possible that the road, until the point when enters in the mountains, have been supervised by military points with towers located on hills with good visibility, such as one called „Cetatea Babei”, positioned between the villages of Cheia and Corneşti. Another possible point with a tower can be located on the hill “Dealul Cetăţii”, exactly in the point where the early medieval fortress was constructed (Fig. 80, Fig. 81, Fig. 82). From this point one could control all the valley of Arieş until Turda and Câmpia Turzii, with an outstanding visibility. The three settlements, Mihai Viteazu, Cheia and Moldoveneşti, concentrate almost all the discoveries from this area. For example, in Mihai Viteazu we know about the discovery of epigraphic monuments with votive and funerary character. We must outline that all these monuments were discovered in secondary position. Although we have this situation, we must say that here a rural settlement functioned in the Roman era. In the village of Cheia, positioned on the same road, there were discovered numerous materials and this is an important indication for another rural settlement. From Moldoveneşti we know a big number of epigraphic and sculptural monuments. Many of these are very bad preserved, only in small pieces. As in the other case, these were found in secondary position, but other discoveries are a clue for saying that here a rural settlement functioned in the Roman era. Along the middle course of the river Arieş we can’t identify points with certain Roman presence, many of them being related with antiqur gold exploitations. 4. 14. ‘Spa’ vignettes in the Peutinger map. Thermal places in Roman Dacia It is hard today for us to understand, in an era in which we make online reservations, fly by plain, ’see’ using Google earth places we have never been, or schedule our time carefully, how other civilizations developed their perception concerning free time and the possibility to benefit of natural resources. But we would be surprised to see that, besides our technological means, Roman world was conscious about these things, too. The passion of the Romans for waters is famous.442 It was transformed in exquisite, outstanding works of art. These were the aqueducts. Hundreds were built all over the Roman Empire. They were extremely
443
Yegül 2009. Trevor 2002, 6. 445 See, for a short presentation, IDR III/3, 211‐13. 446 Pescaru, Pescaru 2001, 439‐452; Wollmann 1968, 109‐ 120. 444
442
Blackman, Trevor 2001; Deman 2005; Landels 2000; Trevor 2002.
68
visited the thermal settlement, since two inscriptions with his name mentioned were found here.453 In IDR III/3, 232 Saturninus dedicates this votive altar to the health gods, obviously after a pleasant voyage here at Germisara, and an efficient thermal treatment, as one who entirely benefited of the healing powers of the thermal waters. Beside these two important persons, governors of Dacia Superior, monuments mention other people who visited this place and dedicated inscriptions. One of these monuments is IDR III/3, no. 233.454 This votive altar, raised for the health of the three emperors (Septimius Severus, Aurelius Antoninus ‐ Caracalla and Septimius Geta) was placed here from the order of the governor of the three Dacian provinces, Lucius Octavius Iulianus around 200‐ 201 A.D. The person designated to fulfill this order was the commander of the auxiliary unit of cavalry Ala Asturum. Aurelius Crhestus, a Roman citizen with Roman gentilicium (Aurelius) and a Greek cognomen, also dedicated an inscription for the health gods.455 The members of the collegium Galatarum (citizens who came in Dacia from Asia Minor) dedicate an inscription pro salute imperatoris to Hercules Invictus.456 The members of collegium Aurariarum, with their representing person, Lucius Calpurnius, dedicate another inscription to Jupiter, also pro salute imperatoris.457 An officer (centurio) from legio V Macedonica dedicates an altar to Jupiter.458 All these examples show that Germisara was intensively visited. Maybe the most interesting example to sustain what we already highlighted above is the inscription IDR III/3, 243. This is a votive altar identified by the middle of the XVIth century in Orăştie, where the text was copied by M. Singler. The dedicant, a signifer from the military trooped garrisoned in
Tabula Peutingeriana places Germigera along the imperial Roman road Sarmizegetusa ‐ Apulum, between Petris (Uroiu) and Blandiana (Vinţu de Jos), at IX m(illia) p(assuum) away from both of these settlements. Between the military fortress from Cigmău and the thermal settlement a Roman road was identified and investigated in 2002‐2003.447 As I noticed above, Germisara is not represented in Tabula with the specific vignette for thermal buildings. Instead, Ad Aquas (today Călan, Hunedoara County) is depicted with the specific vignette. The explanation relies on the fact that Germisara was famous as thermal settlement in Roman Dacia, but its position, north to the main road Sarmizegetusa ‐ Apulum, determined the mapmaker, using the same principle of selecting the information, not to represent it with vignette. The remains of the Roman spa are visible today. They are situated west of the current thermal complex. The Romans were extremely pragmatic. This is the reason why here they literally excavated the travertine promontory and created an outstanding, open air, system of basins, on a circular surface of circa 90‐95 m. During time, beside this, numerous other artifacts were discovered: 1. a temple dedicated to Nymphae448; 2. statues representing the divinities of health protection (Aescupalius and Hygia, Hercules); 3. seven gold votive plates found in the nimphaeum;449 4. a marble statue representing Diana; 5. small finds, mainly coins. Beside these, we are aware of the importance of this place if we analyze the Roman inscriptions found here. These are published in IDR III/3, no. 230‐247 (votive inscriptions). Some of them were raised by very important persons involved in the administration of Dacia Superior. Marcus Statius Priscus,450 governor of Dacia Superior in 157 ‐ 158 A.D., is mentioned at Germisara in two votive monuments for the gods and the protectors of the thermal waters.451 He began his career as an equestrian officer, receiving a decoration from Hadrian during the Jewish rebellion. He then served as procurator in Southern Gaul before being made a senator and commanding two legions in succession. Priscus was in charge of Dacia as a governor between 157 and 158 A.D. He held the consulship in 159 A.D. After this, he governed Moesia Superior in 160 – 161 A.D. and became governor of Roman Britain immediately afterwards, serving until perhaps as late as the mid 160s. Publius Furius Saturninus452 was also the governor of Dacia Superior in 160 A.D. He may have
453
IDR III/3, 232; IDR III/3, 236. Votive altar, fragmentary kept (broken in the right side), the camp of inscription is deteriorated in the center by a ‘circle’ shape, obviously a modern intervention made by a person who wanted to use the monument for a purpose. Its dimensions are: 100 x 52 x 46, with letters of 4 cm height. The monument was discovered in a point situated north of Geoagiu Băi, on the left side of the Geoagiu valley. It was kept for a while in the medieval castle Kuun, where it was identified and copied by A. Fodor. Text: Fortuna[e] / pro salute / aug(ustorum) n(ostrorum) (trium] / L(ucius) Octavius I[u] / lianus co(n)s(ularis) II[I] / Dac(iarum) fieri iussit / instante … L Ge‐ (?) / M A N T [p]rae[f(ecto) a]lae / Astu[rum_ _ _ _ _ ] B. Translation: ‘To (the goddess) Fortuna, for the health of our three augusti, Lucius Octavius Iulianus, consular of the three Dacia, ordered for this (monument), it took care for (this monument) Aelius Geminus (?), praefectus alae Asturum _ _ _ _’. 455 IDR III/3, 231. 456 IDR III/3, 234. 457 IDR III/3, 235. 458 IDR III/3, 237. 454
447
Fodorean, Ursuţ 2001, 203‐220; Fodorean 2006, 257‐265. On the cult of Nymphae in Roman Dacia: Ghinescu 1998, 123‐144. 449 Pescaru 1988‐1991, 664‐666. 450 On this character: Urloiu 2010, 65‐66. 451 IDR III/3, 240, 241; Rusu 1988‐1991, 653‐656; Rusu, Pescaru 1996, 33. 452 Piso 1972, 463‐471. 448
69
Most of the new buildings carry the imprint of an impressive Austrian Baroque style. The thermal settlement is visited by important people: emperor Josef II, Emperor Francis I, Emperor Franz Josef. In 1852, Herculane was considered the most beautiful thermal settlement of Europe. Numerous inscriptions are dedicated to Hercules, which was the protector of the thermal waters.462 One of the most interesting inscriptions found in Băile Herculane is a votive altar of marble, 73 x 37 x 30 cm. The base and the upper part have an elegant, symmetric shape. This monument stood a while actually built in the wall of the bridge over the Cerna River, within the thermal settlement.463 This is an outstanding example with direct reference to the healing powers of the thermal waters from Băile Herculane. After a long infirmitas, a husband raises here an altar for the gods of health, specifically mentioning the she was cured ‘through the power of the thermal waters’. That Băile Herculane was intensively visited during Roman times is no longer a new fact. This is proved by the inscriptions.464 Numerous soldiers are mentioned. For example, IDR III/1, 54, is a votive altar, of marble, discovered in the XVIIIth century in Băile Herculane and during the same century transported at Vienna. The dedicant Marcus Aurelius Veteranus was praefectus in the legion XIII Gemina from Apulum. He came here to benefit of the qualities of the thermal waters. Another interesting inscription is a votive altar, discovered in 1736.465 As recognition at the end of their long journey from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa to Rome, the delegates, who formed the provincial embassy of Dacia, erected at Băile Herculane this altar. They travelled to Rome to participate to the ceremony of installation of Marcus Sedatius Severianus in his consulship. Before that, he was the legatus legionis of the legio V Macedonica at Troesmis. After his mission in Apulum ended, when he return to Rome (in 153 A.D.) the Dacian delegates go to Rome. Returning back in the province, they erected this monument as an expression of gratitude because they returned safe home.
Cigmău, close to Germisara, raises the monument because he escape the danger of death maybe after he benefited of the qualities of the thermal waters. The inscription dated from 186 A.D. 4. 14. 2. Ad Aquas (Călan) This settlement is represented in Tabula Peutingeriana with vignette. Călan is positioned on the left bank of the Strei River, at the altitude of 230 m. The thermal water resources are positioned circa 2 kilometers north of the current city. (Fig. 3) During Roman times, the same point was positioned exactly along the main imperial road of the province. The settlement had the status of pagus, as the inscriptions prove (pagus Aquensis). Archaeologically, today we can still visit the Roman basin, directly cut in the rock.459 It encloses a total perimeter of circa 94 m (length of 14,2 m, width of 7,2 m and a depth of 4 m). The water source is still active today. The water of these sources has an average temperature of 23° ‐ 24°. Epigraphically, we know that this settlement was also intensively visited in the Roman era. Six inscriptions are published in IDR III/3 (no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Among those who came here, we mention Quintus Decius Vindex, financial procurator of Dacia Superior. He erected a monument for Fortunae Augustae.460 Another important character who visited Ad Aquae was Caius Iulius Marcianus, decurion in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and also member in the administrative staff of pagus Aquensis. 4. 14. 3. Băile Herculane The third point on the map of Roman Dacia with thermal waters is Băile Herculane.461 During Roman times it was also intensively visited. The name of the settlement also appears in the work of the Anonymous of Ravenna (Medilas). The Roman ruins were discovered during the XVIII century. During the Habsburgic and Austro‐Hungarian Empire the name of the settlement was Herkulesbad / Herkulesfürdő. The discoveries consist of water pipes, basins, public and private buildings, sanctuaries, altars with inscriptions dedicated to the gods of the health, statues of divinities and votive reliefs, funerary inscriptions, reliefs and funerary monuments, sarcophagi, stamped tiles of several military troops (legio VII Claudia, XIII Gemina, IV Flavia Felix), coins. Roman Ad Mediam was a totally different settlement, separated from the military fortress from today’s Mehadia, where cohors III Delmatarum was garrisoned. Only from 1817 the settlement received an official name. In 1736 begins the reconstruction and the modernization of the ‘baths’.
462
19 inscriptions published in IDR III/1 (no. 54 to 68). IDR III/1, no. 55. 464 Numerous monuments are dedicated for Hercules: IDR III/1, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68. 465 IDR III/1, 56: Text: Dis et Numinib(us) / Aquarum / Ulp(ius) Secundinus / Marius Valens / Pomponius Haemus / Iul(ius) Carus Val(erius) Valens / legati Romam ad / consulatum Seve / riani c(larissimi) v(iri) missi incolu / mes reversi ex voto / E A. Translation: ‘To the gods and to the holy powers of waters, Ulpius Secundinus, Marius Valens, Pomponius Haemus, Iulius Carus, Valerius Valens, delegates send to Rome to the consulship of Severianus, clarissimus vir, returned (home, in Dacia), safe, released the vow freely, as is deserved’. 463
459
Rusu, Pescaru 1996, 23‐24. IDR III/3, 7. 461 Bozu, Micli 2005, 123‐42. 460
70
4. 14. 4. Concluding remarks. The thermal settlements and the road system Germisara, Ad Aquas and Ad Mediam represent three important Roman thermal settlements from Dacia. It is obvious, from what I presented above, that all three were intensively visited. These points of attractions offered for the inhabitants the opportunity, the chance for healing, but they also were perceived as touristic settlements. These ‘resorts’ offered what the Romans borrowed from Greeks: the concept of leisure as a state of mind. They all were connected to the road infrastructure of roads. Germisara was positioned 7 kilometers north of the main roads of Dacia and connected with another road, well preserved even nowadays. Ad Mediam was positioned 5 kilometers east of the road which connected Dierna (today Orşova, Mehedinţi County). The toponym itself indicates a settlement positioned close to the middle part of this road. Ad Aquas (Călan, Hunedoara County) was located along the main road of Roman Dacia, which connected the Danube line with the northern parts of Dacia, via Lederata – Tibiscum – Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa – Apulum – Potaissa – Napoca – Porolissum. This road was the ‘highway’ of Roman Dacia. It was built during the two military campaigns of Trajan in Dacia and finished immediately after the conquest. A Roman milestone discovered at Aiton (between Potaissa – today Turda, Cluj County, and Napoca, today Cluj‐Napoca, Cluj County) dated in 108 A.D., during Trajan, demonstrates that the Romans succeeded to built this road up to the northern parts of the province. Using the infrastructure, and all the facilities created, including a rapid colonization of the new province (Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, 8, 6: Traianus victa Dacia ex toto urbe Romano infinitas copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes colendas), people of all social statuses (soldiers, functionaries of the states) started to travel, to communicate, to benefit of all the advantages of the new province. The society of Roman Dacia (as well as of the whole Roman Empire) became very dynamic. These three thermal settlements were very attractive, as the archaeological finds and inscriptions inform us. Communication, as an essential element for any civilization, was done ‘physically’ by infrastructure, which provided opportunities for goods and people to travel and organize a territory. Communication also meant the possibility for people to travel, to interact, to exchange information. My examples, together with others already known from other provinces, are strong evidences to contradict with solid arguments the old concepts spread in the historiography, according the which the Roman Empire was a space of static communities. On contrary, we discover, step by step, the huge resources of the Roman Empire and how people interacted with themselves and with the landscape.
4. 15. Pierre Lapie, Louis Bonnefont, S. F. W. Hoffmann, the modern cartography and the roads from the Roman Empire and Dacia 4. 15. 1. Premises Cartography developed fast in the last decades, becoming an important part of historians’ work. In 2005, Matthew H. Edney made an excellent observation: ’The study of the history of cartography underwent substantial changes in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1960 it was little more than a branch of map librarianship and connoisseurship, an antiquarian backwater with relatively limited academic significance. Yet today, after a dramatic ‘paradigm shift’ in the 1980s, the history of cartography is a widely respected field of study in the Anglophone world. Scholars across the humanities and social sciences increasingly find the study of maps to be intellectually challenging and the interdisciplinary insights their study generates to be academically rewarding. The most obvious components of this intellectual revolution were J. B. Harley and David Woodward’s massive History of Cartography (Harley and Woodward, 1987‐2007) and Harley’s own polemical and pyrotechnical essays (most reprinted in Harley, 2001).’466 In the Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Anthony R. Birley, Richard Talbert published an article about a map which, as the author affirms, skipped the attention of the historians.467 In fact, it is a set of nine maps, at a scale of approximately 1:3,400,000, illustrating, according to a modern representation, the Roman world. The geographical space represented starts from the Antonine Wall and Britain in the left side and ends to Hierasycaminos on the border between Egypt and Nubia. The maps are part of a two volume project, commissioned by Agricol Fortia d’Urban (1756‐1843).468 The book, entitled Recueil des Itinéraires Anciens comprenant l’Itinéraire d’Antonin, la Table de Peutinger et un choix des périples grecs, avec dix cartes dressées par M. le Colonel Lapie, was published only posthumously in 1845 by the Imprimerie Royale, Paris.469 The maps were created by one of the most famous French cartographer of the XIXth century, Pierre M. Lapie (1799‐1850). The maps present the routes from three ancient sources: Tabula 466
Edney 2005, 14‐29. Talbert 2008, 149‐156. 468 The full name of this character is Agricole Joseph François Xavier Pierre Esprit Simon Paul Antoine Fortia d’Urban. Remarcably, he published many other contributions. At http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001957916 some of his works are mentioned. 469 It can be consulted online, entirely, at http://books.google.com/books?id=yi4VAAAAQAAJ&printse c=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepag e&q&f=false. 467
71
Peutingeriana, Itinerarium Antonini and Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum. The cartographer also provided lists (in four columns) of the routes in each of these sources, with distances, in Roman numerals and the Arabic‐numeral equivalent. The maps created by Pierre Lapie were assembled in a separate volume. They form, according to Talbert’s description, a 3 x 3 set, numbered from 1 to 9 in horizontal sequence. Every map is 51.5 cm wide and 37.5 cm width. Assembled, they form a 150 cm wide by 109 cm cartographic document. The title of the map is written on sheet 1, in the left upper corner: ORBIS ROMANUS AD ILLUSTRANDA ITINERARIA ANTONINI BURDIGALENSE TABULAM PEUTINGERIANAM PERIPLOS ITINERARIA MARITIMA DELINEATUS A. P. LAPIE GEOGRAPHO IN COMITATU REGIO MILITARI CHILIARCHA IN ADMINISTRAT REC BELLIC COLL TOPOGRAPH PRAEFECTO LUTETIAE A M DCCC XXXIIII. On sheet 8, bottom right, the cartographer represented eight styles in which the route linework is drawn in the map. Unfortunately, these lines are very hard to differentiate. They are so thin. The eight types of lines correspond to the following categories of roads: 1. a thick line – roads mentioned in Itinerarium Antonini, Burdigalense and Tabula Peutingeriana; 2. two equal parallel lines – roads mentioned in Itinerarium Antonini and Tabula Peutingeriana; 3. two parallel lines, the one up thinner than the other one – routes mentioned in Itinerarium Antonini; 4. the reverse situation from no. 3 – roads mentioned in Tabula; 5, 6, 7, 8 – four different styles on pointed lines representing the routes mentioned in Itinerarium Burdigalense and Itinerarium Antonini (5), Itinerarium Burdigalense (6), Itinerarium Burdigalense and Tabula Peutingeriana (7) and Viae Romanae, de quibus silent scriptores veteres (8). Mountain ranges are shown by hachuring. Only the ancient names of the settlements are marked. 4. 15. 2. Roman Dacia in Lapie’s map The former Roman province is represented in four sheets: the bottom right of sheet 2, the bottom left of sheet 3, the right upper part of sheet 5 and the left upper part of sheet 6. The province is located between the parallels of 43° and 49° (Northern latitude) and the meridians of 19° and 24° (Eastern longitude). The only element of terrain represented in the map is the Carpathian mountains, named in the map Alpes Bastarnicae sive Carpathus Mons. The main river network is provided: Danuvius Fl., Ordessus sive Ardeiscus F. (Argeş River), Aluta F. (Olt River), Tibiscus F. (Timiş River), Marisia F. (Mureş River) and Parthiscus sive Thysia F. (Tisa River). The settlements provided in the map as well as in the list are, most of all, mentioned in Tabula Peutingeriana. They are grouped in three itineraries, mentioned at pages 248‐249. According to Lapie’s list, these are: A. The first itinerary, numbered CXIII in Lapie’s
text, starts with Viminacium and ends with Tibiscum; B. The second one, numbered CXIV, starts with Faliatis/Taliatis and ends with Porolisso; C. The third route (CXV) starts with Drubetis and ends with Apula. In fact, these are the routes mentioned in Tabula Peutingeriana. As a matter of fact, in the preface it is stated: “Nous livrons enfin au public cette collection des Itinéraires anciens commence, il y a près de quinze annèes, sous les auspices et aux frais de M. le marquis de Fortia. […] Les cartes, jointes au volume que nous plaçons sous les yeux des savants, exigeait d’ailleurs un soin tout particulier. Dressées par M. le colonel Lapie, elles devaient être mises en rapport avec le texte, et représenter toutes les positions, toutes les localités, toutes les dénominations géographiques contenues dans l’Itinéraire d’Antonin, dans la Table de Peutinger et dans les Périples grecs”.470 4. 15. 3. The first road: ‘Viminatio (al Viminacio) Tiviscum. De Ram à Lugos’ The first route mentioned in the text is the one between Viminacium and Tibiscum. Lapie mentions the settlements and distances exactly like they are mentioned in Tabula Peutingeriana. The table where the distances are recorded has four columns: 1. the first with the antique name of the settlement and its modern correspondent; 2. the second and third column, gathered together under the title ‘Distances marquées dans le Table’ present the distance from Tabula written in Roman numerals and their Arabic‐ numeral equivalent; 3. the fourth column presents the ‘distances mesurées par M. Lapie’, also expressed in Roman miles, but with Arabic‐numerals equivalent. The distances and settlements included in the first route are (I will mention the distances mentioned in the column 2, because those measured by Lapie are based, often, on wrong correspondences for the Roman settlements): 1. Lederata (Weiskirchen) – X; 2. Apo Fl. (Karach, riv.) – XII; 3. Arcidava (Gross Kakova) – XII; 4. Centum Putea (Szardok) – XII; 5. Bersovia (Boksan) – XII; 6. Azizis (‘près Szocsan’) – XII; 7. Caput Bubali (‘leg. Caput Bubale. Source de la M. Bogoniez’) – III; 8. Tivisco (al. Tibisco), ’A l’E. de Prisaka’ – X. He mentions 8 settlements and a total distance of 83 Roman miles. On the map, the route is represented as a zig‐ zag line, starting from Viminacium. Up to Arcidava the road line is represented close to the river Apo fl. Tibiscum is written with bigger letters comparing to the others. The other settlements written in this way are, in Dacia, Ulpia Trajana Sarmizegethusa, Apulum, Napoca and Paralissum (Porolissum). These are the settlements mentioned in Tabula with vignettes.
470
72
Urban 1845.
4. 15. 4. The second road: Faliatis‐Porolissum This route is registered with no. CXIV. The settlements and distances mentioned by Lapie are: 1. Tierva (al. Tierna). Alt Orsova – XX; 2. Ad Mediam. Mehadia – XI (corrected by Lapie with 15); 3. Pretorio. Kornia – XIII; 4. Ad Pannonios (al. Ad Pannonias), ’Près Raska’ – IX; 5. Gaganis. Szadova – IX; 6. Masclianis. Korpa – XI (corrected by Lapie with 15); 7. Tivisco (al. Tibisco), ‘A l’Est de Prizalca’ – XIIII; 8. Agnaviae (al. Agnavae), ‘Au Nord de Cserescha‐Birztra’ – XIIII; 9. Ponte Augusti. Bauezar – VIII; 10. Sarmategte (al. Sarmizegethusa Colonia). Varhely – XV; 11. Ad Aquas. Oklos – XIIII; 12. Petris. Piski – XIII; 13. Germizera. Gyalmar – VIIII; 14. Blandiana, ‘A l’ouest de Mühlenbach’ – VIIII; 15. Apula (al. ad Apulum Colonia). Karlsburg – VIII; 16. Brucla. Dreikirchen – XII; 17. Marcodava. Miriszlo (this is not mentioned in Tabula, only in Ptolemy’s Geography. Though, Lapie records the distance of XII miles); 18. Salinis (al. Salino). Thorenburg – XII; 19. Patavissa (al. Patavissum). Pata ‐ XII; 20. Napoca (Colonia). Gyerla ou Szamosujvar – XXIIII; 21. Optatiana. Kapjan – XVI; 22. Largiana (al. Cargiana). N. Honda – XV; 23. Cersiae. Berkess – XVII; 24. Porolisso (al. Parolisso). Nagy Banja – IIII (according to Lapie’s measurements, 9 miles). The distances mentioned are according to those from Tabula, with the same statement, that he started to record them mentioning first the distance between Faliatis and Dierna. Some observations must be highlighted here. First, the modern correspondents of the major part of the settlement are totally wrong. But, in fact, this was the level of the knowledge regarding the Roman settlements in the XIXth century. For example, Salinis is located at Thorenburg (modern Turda, Cluj County), because here a salt exploitation developed in this period. Salinis is in fact today’s settlement Războieni‐ Cetate / Ocna Mureş, where also salt resources are recorded. Then, a more interesting example is that of Potaissa, located at Pata. The explanation is the similarity of toponyms. But the location is totally wrong. Pata is today a small village in Cluj County. Potaissa is the modern Turda. At Potaissa legio V Macedonica was garrisoned during Marcus Aurelius’ reign.471 Very striking is the location of Napoca (modern Cluj‐Napoca), a city which was known very well all the medieval and modern period. In the map, Napoca is indeed positioned where Gherla is today. Why is Gherla/Szamosujvar considered the modern correspondent for Napoca? Maybe because here a Roman military fortress was known in the XIXth century. It was recorded in the Austro‐Hungarian maps from the second and third military survey. Porolissum is located at Nagy Banja (Baia Mare!, outside Roman Dacia). An interesting situation is related to the mentioning of the toponym Marcodava. This is not
mentioned in Tabula, put it is among the settlements mentioned in the Ptolemy’s Geography.472 In the maps from the XIXth century, this settlement regularly appears north of Apulum. Unfortunately, a modern correspondent for it can not be confirmed now. 4. 15. 5. The third road: Drobeta‐Apulum This road starts from Drobeta and ends at Apulum. The settlements and distances mentioned in Lapie’s list are: 1. Drubetis. Rogova – XXI; 2. Amutria (al. Amutrium), ‘Prés de Cstatye’ – XXXVI; 3. Pelendova. Tchegartcha – XXXV; 4. Castris Novis. Craiova – XX; 5. Romula, ‘Tourna, en face de Nikopol’ – LXX; 6. Acidava, ‘Prés de Saede’‐ XIII; 7. Rusidava. Draganest – XXIIII; 8. Ponte Aluti (al. Alutae), ‘Pont sur l’Alouta à l’Hipotest’ – XIIII; 9. Burridava, ‘Près de Pletchoi’ – XIII; 10. Castra Tragana (al. Trajana). Voitest – XII; 11. Arutela. Broundeni – VIIII; 12. Pretorio. Babeni – XV; 13. Ponte vetere, ‘Au sud de Rîmnik’ – VIIII; 14. Stenarum, ‘Talmacs, au N. de Rothenthurn’ – XLIIII; 15. Cedoniae. Hermannstadt – XII; 16. Acidava. Koncza – XXIIII; 17. Apula (al. Apulum Colonia). Karlsburg. In the map, the line of the road between Drobeta and Acidava is strange represented, because of the wrong location of the ancient settlements. Thus, Romula is positioned close to the Danube, while in reality it corresponds with the modern settlement of Reşca (Olt County). The location of the other settlements is also very general. What is striking is the case of the settlement Stenarum. Lapie’s location is correct. The current name of the village is Tălmaciu, north of the settlement from Turnu Roşu. In this case the cartographer knew exactly the location, while this settlement was an important crossing point in all the periods between Oltenia and Transylvania. Three mistakes appear in the map. First, in Banat, Lapie represents two rivers: Apo fl., in the West, and Apus fl., in the East. In reality, we know only one river with this name, also mentioned in Tabula as Apo fl. Tibiscum is correctly positioned in Banat, But Lapie mentions another settlement, Tiriscum, somewhere West of Apulum! The same mistake appears in Ptolemy’s Geography, where there are recorded two settlements with the same name and different geographical coordinates. Then, Tapae is indicated close to Aquincum, while this settlement must be located along the Bistra valley, in the narrow corridor created by this river connecting Banat with Southern Transylvania. Besides the settlements mentioned in Tabula, others which appear in the map are toponyms taken from Ptolemy’s Geography. In the western part of the 472
471
Nemeti, Bărbulescu 2006 ‐ 2007, 107‐118; Nemeti, Bărbulescu 2010, 446‐455.
Bărbulescu 1987; Bărbulescu 1991, 22‐30; Bărbulescu 1994.
73
province, also west of the Vallum Romanorum, the cartographer represented Docirana (Docidava at Ptolemy). In the Eastern part, corresponding today with Moldavia, he mentioned other four settlements, taken from Ptolemy’s list: Comidava (Cumidava in Ptolemy), Ziridava (positioned along the river Ararus sive Hierasus F. – modern Siret river), again Docirana (Docidava) and Petrodava. Inside the province, Rhatacensii are mentioned and the settlements Rhuconium and Utidava. In the North, other two toponyms are indicated: Bormanum and Uscenum. All these data appear on sheet (map) 2. On maps two and three Lapie indicated the name BACPETOP (map 2) ORIANI (map 3), so Bacpetoporiani, which are the Daci Petoporiani mentioned in Tabula.473 Then, south of these, also on map 3, Dagae? is indicated.474 On map 5, other names from Ptolemy appear: BURREDEENSII (Buridavenses), POTULATENSSI (Potulatenses), PIEPHIGI. Another aspect which deserves noted is the name of Germizera in the map: Zerni Zerga, a perfect example to understand how easy the toponyms became corrupt. The most interesting case is the settlement Vardaeorum Caput, positioned in the western part, between the meridians of 19° and 20° and right up to the parallel of 47°. 4. 15. 6. Sources for Lapie’s maps. “Die Alterthumwissenschaft” of S. F. W. Hoffmann (1835) In 1835, in Leipzig, at the “Verlag der J.C. Hinrichs schen Buchhandlund” S. F. W. Hoffmann published a manual entitled “Die Alterthumswissenschaft. Ein Lehr‐ und Handbuch für Schüler höherer Gymnasialclassen und für Studirende”. A description of Dacia is provided at page 212: „ F. DACIA. 1) Umfang. Die Bewohner hiessen Daci, und wurden von den Griechen den Getae beigezählt. Früher wurden sie Δαοι gennant. Als römische Provinz theilte man Dacia ein in: Dacia Ripensis, in: Dacia Alpensis, und in: Dacia Mediterranea. Es grentze nördlich an die: Carpates Montes, bis zur Wendung des Tyras gegen den Hierasus, der dann bis zu seinem Einfluss in den Danubius die östliche Grenze bildet; südlich wird es von dem Danubius begrenzt, der Ister hier gennant wird; westlich bestimmt die Grenze der Tibiscus, oder Tysia‐ Fluss.‐2) Gebirge waren die: Carpates M. Oder: Alpes Bastarnicae.‐3) Flüsse: Danubius oder: Ister, in den sich ergiessen: Tisianus oder: Tysia oder: Pathisus oder: Parthiscus oder: Tibiscus, der die: Grissia und Marisia aufnimmt; Apus; Giffil oder Gilpit oder Rhabon oder Sargetia; Aluta oder Alvata; Tausis; Naparis; Hierasus oder: Gerasus. – 4) Völkerschaften waren: Anarti oder: Anartes (Caes. B. G. IV. 25); Teurisci; Cistoboci; Prendavesii; Rhatacensii; Cacoensii; Biephi; Burideensii;
Cotensii; Albocensii; Potulatensii; Sinsii; Saldensii; Ciasigi; Piephigi. – Städte in Dacia waren, nach der westlichsten oder ersten: Ad Pontes, Apus, Arcidava, Centum Pudea, Bersovia oder Berzobis, Azizis, Caput Bubali, Tibiscum; nach der zweiten: Tierna (Colonia Zernensium), Ad Mediam, Praetorium, Ad Pannonias, Gagana, Mascliana. Hier endigte diese Strasse in der Vereinigung mit der ersten, und führte dann zu den nördlichen Orten: Agnava, Pons Augusti, Agmonia, Sarmizegethusa Regia (Sarmategte, Sarmizegethusa, Zermizegethusa, Colonia Ulpia Trajana Augusta) war die älteste und feste Hauptst. des Landes, und Aufenthaltsort des Königs Decebalus, die auch Trajanus zur Hauptst. der Provinz erhob, worauf sie durch öffentliche prächtige Gebäude verschönert ward. Die andere Residenzst des Decebalus hiess: Sargetia Regia, am Sargetia – Fl. Von Sarmigethusa gelangte man nach: Germizera, Petra, Ad Aquas, Blandiana, Apulum (oder Apula, Auch Alba Julia Colonia). Die dritte östlichste Strasse nahm die zweite auf, und führte eine einzige Strasse durch Siebenbürgen über Brucla, Marcodava, Salinum, Patavissum, Napuca Colonia, Optatiana, Cargiana, Cersia, Parolissum (Paralissum Colonia, und: Civitas Paralissentium). Zwischen dem Fluss Tysia und der westlichsten Strasse lagen von Süden genen Norden: Doricava, Ulpianum, Vardaeorum Caput, Rucconium. Zwischen eben dieser Strasse und dem Hierasus‐Fl. Lagen in derselben Richtung: Arcina, Tiriscum, Sornum, Pinum, Utidava, Tiasum, Pirum, Patridava, Nentidava, Zusidava, Ziridava, Augustia. An der Strasse zwischen Pontes und Nicopolis am Danubius lagen: Drubetis, (p. 213), Amutrium, Castra Nova, Pelendova, Phrateria. Zwischen dem Hierasus und Poras, wobin sich die Daci, nachdem Trajanus ihr Land erobert hatte, unter dem Namen: Tyrangetae zurückgezogen, lagen von Süden gegen Norden; Piroboridava, Zarigadava, Rhamidava, Triphulum (vielleicht Jassiorum Dacorum Municipium), Comidava. In der Solitudo Getarum, bin zur Vereinigung des Poras mit dem Ister, lagen: Transmarisca oder Trasmarisca, oder auch: Tρομάρισχα, Peristhlaba, und Tamasidava“. This text, practically, provides all the information contained in Lapie’s map, even more. Some of the settlements mentioned here are parts of the work of the Anonymous geographer from Ravenna. Others are taken from the Ptolemy’s Geography and some of the settlements from Tabula Peutingeriana. 4. 15. 7. Pierre lapie, Louis Bonnefort, August Treboniu Laurian and Roman Dacia In 1868, in Paris, a geographical atlas was published by the publishing house E. Donnaud. The complete title of the atlas is: ‘Atlante Geograficu după L. Bonnefont, Professor la Lyceulu Bonaparte. Membru allu Societăței Geografice din Parisu, etc. Adaptatu
473
See http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase /TPPlace3076.html. 474 http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase /TPPlace3089.html.
74
The map has no scale. It provides the main river network, Roman settlements, and the main roads. The terrain is represented by hachure. All the main rivers are marked. The roads and the toponyms are the most important for our analysis and comparison. The first road, starting from West, is the road Lederata‐ Tibiscum, with the intermediate stops known from Tabula: Arcidava, Centum Putea, Bersobis, Azizis, Caput Bubali. Close to this road, more exact, almost overlapped, the Roman valla from Banat are marked. The second road starts from Dierna, as usual (also written Tierna), and continues to north, reaching Ad Mediam, Praetorio, Ad Pannonios, Gaganis, Masclianis, and, again, Tiviscum. Once again, Tibiscum appears twice. Once, as caput viae of the western road, spelled ‘Tibiscum’. Then, as a normal stop, as in the Peutinger map, along the second, eastern road, spelled as ‘Tiviscum (Tiriscum)’. This is the same, old, so repeated mistake, taken from Tabula by Ptolemy479 and then used, I would say, generalised, from antiquity until the modern era. The first Dacian itineraries were created during the two military campaigns of Trajan (101 A.D. – 106 A.D.).480 Then, continuing to north, the main imperial road is marked, with the following settlements: Agnaviae, Pons Augusti, Sarmizegethus Metropolis Daciae (Ζαρμιζεγέθουσα βασίλειον), Ad Aquas, Petris, Germizera (Zermizerga!), Blandiana, Apulum Col. Ulp., Brucla, Marcodava, Salinae, Batavissa, Napoca Col. Ulp., Optatiana, Largiana, Cersiae, and Porolissum. The topographic order of the settlements is correct, if we compare it with the Peutinger Map. Though, as in Lapie’s map, Marcodava is mentioned again, in the same location, between Brucla and Salinae. Using the river network as a ’grid’, the cartographer made almost the same errors as Lapie did. Agnaviae and Pons Augusti are located not in their right place, along the Bistra valley. Then, Salinae is located where Potaissa should be. Potaissa (spelled in this map Batavissa) is somewhere close to the modern village Tureni (Cluj County). Napoca is marked where Gherla should be. To the end of the road, as Lapie did, the last four settlements, Optatiana, Largiana, Cersiae and Porolissum are
pentru scolele române din ordinea M. S. Carolu I, Domnulu Româniloru, și adaussu de A. Tr. Laurianu, Decanu allu Facultăței de Litere din Bucureșci, etc.’ The title, written in a Romanian language according to the customs and orthography used in the XIXth century, can be translated this way: ’Geographical Atlas after L. Bonnefont, professor at the Bonaparte Highschool. Member of the Geographical Society in Paris etc. Adapted for the Romanian Schools from the command and commisioned by his majesty Carol I, the king of the Romanians, and added (completed) by August Treboniu Laurian, dean of the Faculty of Letters in Bucharest etc.’ So, the atlas is the work of the French cartographer Louis Bonnefont,475 and it was commisioned by the king of Romania, Carol I. The work was adapted for the Romanian schools by August Trebobiu Laurian.476 The map we want to present and describe presents the territory of Roman Dacia. Its full title, marked in the right upper corner, is: Dacia romana a Traiano Aug. Usquead Aureliani Aug. Tempus secundum A. Tr. Lauriani Tabulam Ab Lud; Bonnefort descripta. The map is located between the meridians of 39° and 48° (Eastern longitude) and the parallels of 43° and 49° (Northern latitude). The values of the meridians are high. The territory of modern Romania is located between the meridians of 20°15'E and 29°41'E and the parallels of 43°37'N and 48°15'N.477 The values of the meridians are measured starting from the Ferro meridian (Canare Islands). This meridian was until 1884 used as the null meridian in the German and Austro‐ Hungarian cartography. It was then replaced by the meridian of Paris and then with that from Greenwich.478 475
Bonnefont is the author of many other atlases. We mention here two of them: Bonnefont 1885; Bonnefont 1890. 476 A. T. Laurian (his real name was Augustin Trifan) was one of the most famous philologist, historian, publicist and politic character of the XIXth century in Transylvania. He was born in 17 July 1810 in a small village called Fofeldea (Sibiu county). He died on 25 February, in Bucharest. He was one of the leaders of the 1848 revolution. He was on of the co‐founders of the Romanian Academy (2 June 1867), general secretary and president of the Romanian Academical Society and president of its Literary Section (1867‐1876). He studied physics, mathematics and astronomy at the University of Wien and in Göttingen. He was known also for his didactic activities (writing and editing school manuals). See Teiuşan, Netea 1970; Roşu 2006, 197‐204. 477 That is why Roman Dacia is represented in Tabula Imperii Romani in the sections L 34, 35. 478 Forstner 2005 (online as pdf at ub.unibw‐muenchen.de). The meridian took its name from the most western island from the Canaries, El Hierro. Starting from Antiquity, this was used as the zero meridian. Ptolemy measured the longitudes from it towards East. It was used like this all the medieval and modern period, since it offered only positive longitudes for the territories of Europe. On 1 July 1634 the king of France, Ludovic XIII, decided, after a meeting with specialists in astronomy and mathematics, that this meridian should be used as the zero meridian for all the maps. It is positioned exactly at 17° 39′ 46″ West of Greenwich and at 20º West of
the Paris meridian. In 1724 the French astronomer Louis Feuillée made measurement in the Canary Islands and calculated that the meridian is positioned exactly at 20° 23′ 9″ west from the Paris meridian. In 1884, in October, in Washington, an International Meridian Conference was held. Here, it was decided that all the measurements of longitudes must start from Greenwich. France opposed to this measure and only in 1911 adopted it. In the same way, in the German and Austro‐Hungarian cartography, the old fundamental meridian continued to be used, until the beginning of the XXth century. 479 Nemeti 2006, 271‐288. 480 Fodorean 2011, 9‐19.
75
the Middle Ages.’ To continue the idea, this phenomenon continued until the Modern era. Lapie’s maps from the book of Fortia, rediscovered and capitalized by Richard Talbert, represent a valuable source for the study of the Roman roads. The manual published by S. F. W. Hoffmann in 1835 uses the same information. The map from the atlas published in 1868 includes, as we saw, almost the same data. Of course, many improvements can be made regarding the location of the antique settlements. But, as it is written in the Préface: "M. le colonel Lapie, qui a été chargé seul de la synonymie moderne, a rempli cette tâche délicate avec une patience admirable et avec un rare talent de combinaison. Il ne faut cependant pas considérer son travail comme le dernier mot de la science. Si l'on réfléchit aux difficultés d'une pareille entreprise, à la contradiction des renseignements fournis par les auteurs anciens et modernes, on conviendra qu'il était bien difficile, sinon impossible, de ne pas commettre plusieurs erreurs, et de rencontrer toujours juste dans la combinaison des noms et des mesures. Loin donc de reprocher à M. Lapie les imperfections que la critique et le temps feront découvrir, on devra lui savoir gré d'avoir formé un vaste tableau de géographie comparée, où chacun pourra facilement consigner les découvertes qui s'effectueront, à l'avenir, dans le domaine des sciences géographiques. Telle a été la tâche de M. Lapie; la nôtre était de nous appliquer de préférence à l'étude du texte, afin de l'amener à la plus grande correction possible.”
located, practically, outside the territory of the province. An interesting detail is the mentioning of Ala Frontoniana, almost exactly where is should be, in modern Ilişua (Bistriţa Năsăud), the Roman Arcobadara. In deed, at Ilişua was garrisoned ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana. The intellectuals from that period knew the existence of a Roman military fortress here. It was first signalled in the second half of the XIXth century by Karol Torma.481 The third road marked in the map starts from Drobeta and ends at Apulum Col. Once again, the topographic order of the settlement is correct, but there is a mixture of toponyms taken from Tabula and Ptolemy. Romula is totally wrong positioned south of the Carpathian Mountains. This road should have a route along the Olt valley, while in this map two roads are indicated. All the stations from the ancient sources are marked along the second, eastern road, and because of that all of them are positioned entirely wrong. The road heads towards the south‐eastern part of Transylvania and then along the valley of Târnava Mare ends at Apulum. And the last observation: Transylvania, Banat, Crişana and Maramureş form all together, according to this map, the province of Dacia Superior. In the South and East, Oltenia, Muntenia and the entire Moldavia form Dacia Inferior. In reality, three provinces were attested (including Dacia Porolissensis) starting with Hadrian’s reign. These provinces included only Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia. 4. 15. 8. Concluding remarks To sum up, we have analysed four sources: 1. Pierre Lapie’s map (1845); 2. the text concerning Dacia from the manual published by S. F. W. Hoffmann in 1835; 3. the map from the atlas realized by Louis Bonnefont, completed by August Treboniu Laurian and published in 1868; 4. the Peutinger map. As we saw, all these modern sources contain, in general, the same geographical data. They were collected, copied and used like this the whole modern period, after the recapitalization of the Peutinger map and Ptolemy’s Geography in the Middle Ages. This state of facts remained unchanged until the beginning of the XXth century, when the researchers and historians stated to investigate on scientific bases the geography of Roman Dacia. This mechanism was well described in 1999 by Evelyn Edson: ‘Since the Roman Empire did not disappear all at once, but dwindled and declined unevenly from place to place, even then continuing its existence for another millennium in Constantinople, it is likely that, whatever world maps the Romans made, some must have survived to influence the mapmakers of 481
Torma 1864‐1865, 10‐67; Protase, Gaiu, Marinescu 1996‐ 1997, 27‐110.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES Adams 2001 C. Adams, “There and back again”: getting around in Roman Egypt, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001, 138‐166. Adams 2007 C. Adams, Land Transport in Roman Egypt. A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province, Oxford (Oxford University Press), 2007. Adameşteanu 1962 D. Adameşteanu, Note su alcune vie siceliote di penetrazione, in Kokalos 8, 1962, 199‐209. Adameşteanu 1963 D. Adameşteanu, Note di topografia siceliota, in Kokalos 9, 1963, 19‐48. Adams, Laurence 2001 C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001. Albu 2005 E. Albu, Imperial Geography and the Medieval Peutinger Map, in Imago Mundi 57, 2005, 136‐148. Albu 2008 E. Albu, Rethinking the Peutinger Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden, 2008, 111‐119. Alexandrowicz, G. T. Alexandrowicz, R. Bedon, Itineraires romains en France, d' après la Table de Bedon 1996 Peutinger et l'Itineraire Antonin, Dijon, Faton, 1996. Alicu 1980 D. Alicu, Le camp legionaire de Sarmizegetusa’ in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări, II, 1980, 23‐ 28. Alicu, Paki 1985‐1986 D. Alicu, A. Paki, O inscripţie inedită din amfiteatrul roman de la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in Acta Musei Napocensis 22‐23, 1985‐1986, 469‐479. Alicu et alii 1995 D. Alicu, Cercetări arheologice la Cluj‐Napoca. Villa rustica din valea Chintăului. Campania 1988, in Acta Musei Napocensis 32/1, 1995, 619‐633. Allen 2003 T. J. Allen, Roman Healing Spas in Italy: The Peutinger Map Revisited, in Athenaeum 91, 2003, 403‐415. André, M.‐Francoise 1993 J.‐M. André, B. Marie‐Francoise (eds.), Voyager dans l’antiquité. Paris, Fayard, 1993. Andreau, Virlouvet 2002 J. Andreau, C. Virlouvet (eds.), L'information et la mer dans le monde antique, Collection de l'Ecole francaise de Rome, 297, Rome, 2002. Antonescu 1910 T. Antonescu, Columna Traiană studiată din punct de vedere archeologic, geografic și artistic, Iași, 1910. Ardevan 2007 R. Ardevan, The Ala II Pannoniorum in Dacia, in Apulum 44, 2007, 139‐155. Aricescu 1977 A. Aricescu, Armata în Dobrogea romană, Bucharest, 1977. Arnaud 1988 P. Arnaud, L’origine, la date de rédaction et la difussion de l’archetype de la Table de Peutinger, in Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1988, 302‐321. Arnaud 1993 P. Arnaud, L’Itinéraire d’Antonin: un témoin de la literature itinéraire du Bas‐Empire, in Geographia Antiqua II, 1993, 33‐49. Aston 2002 M. Aston, Interpreting the landscape. Landscape archaeology and local history, London ‐ New York, 2002. ATTA 1, 1992 Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica 1 (ed. by L. Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli): Tecnica stradale romana (Atti dell’Incontro di studio Bologna 1991), Rome, 1992. ATTA 2, 1993 Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica 2 (ed. by L. Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli): Strade romane, percorsi e infrastrutture, Rome, 1993. ATTA 5, 1996 Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica 5 (ed. by L. Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli): Strade romane, ponti e viadotti, Rome, 1996. ATTA 11, 2002 Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica 11 (ed. by L. Quilici e S. Quilici Gigli): La Via Appia. Iniziative e interventi per la conoscenza e la valorizzazione da Roma a Capua, Rome, 2002. ATTA 13, 2004 Atlante Tematico di Topografia Antica 13 (ed. by L. Quilici e Stefania Quilici Gigli): Viabilità e insediamenti nell’Italia antica, Roma, 2004. Aujac 1987 G. Aujac, The Foundation of Theoretical Cartography in Archaic and Classical Greece, in B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 130‐147. Aujac 1987a G. Aujac, The Growth of an Empirical Cartography in Hellenistic Greece, in B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 148‐160.
77
Aujac 1987b
G. Aujac, Greek Cartography in the Early Roman World, in B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 161‐176. Austin, Rankov 1995 N. J. E. Austin, N. B. Rankov, Exploratio: Military and political intelligence in the Roman world from the Second Punic War to the battle of Adrianople, Routledge, London and New York, 1995. M. F. Avril, Itineraires d’Hannibal en Gaule, Paris (éditions de Paris‐Max Chaleil), 1996. Avril 1996 Baatz 1984 D. Baatz, Quellen zur Bauplanung römischer Militärlager, Bauplanung unde Bautheorie der Antike’ in Disskussionen zur archäologischen Bauforschung, 4, 1984, 315‐325. Bagshawe 2000 R. W. Bagshawe, Roman Roads, Shire Publications, 2000. I. Bajusz, Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések. I/1. Kötet, Kolozsvár, 2005. Bajusz 2005 Balázs 1863‐1871 O. Balázs, A szekelyföld leilasa Töttenelmi Regeszety termeszetraiz os ne pismer szentpontbal, I‐IV, Budapest, 1863‐1871. Balázs 1889 O. Balázs, Torda város és környéke, Budapest, 1889, ch. XI: Apeducte romane în Turda, 51‐ 53. Baltag 2000 Gh. Baltag, Sighişoara înainte de Sighişoara, Bucharest, 2000. Bauer 2007 H. Bauer, Die römischen Fernstraßen zwischen Iller und Salzach nach dem Itinerarium Antonini und der Tabula Peutingeriana. Neue Forschungsergebnisse zu den Routenführungen, München, 2007. Băeştean 2007 G. Băeştean, Aprovizionarea cu apă în Dacia romană, Cluj‐Napoca, 2007, 89‐144. Băeştean, Tutilă 2010 G. Băeştean, O. Tutilă, Construcţia de tip villa de la Ostrovu Mic, în Sargetia 37 (I, New Series), 2010, 173‐183. Băncilă, Teodorescu 1998 R. Băncilă, D. Teodorescu, Die römischen Brücken am unteren Lauf der Donau’ in K. Zilch, G. Albrecht, A. Swaczyna et al. (ed.), Entwurf, Bau und Unterhaltung von Brücken im Donauraum, 3. Internationale Donaubrückenkonferenz, 29‐30 October, Regensburg, 1998, 401‐409. Bărbulescu 1980 M. Bărbulescu, Evoluţia cercetărilor privind Potaissa romană, in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări, 2, 1980, 283‐296. Bărbulescu 1987 M. Bărbulescu, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Legiunea V Macedonica și castrul de la Potaissa, Cluj‐Napoca, 1987. Bărbulescu 1991 M. Bărbulescu, Das römische Lager von Potaissa (Rumänien), in Antike Welt 22, I, 1991, 22‐ 30. Bărbulescu 1994 M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa. Studiu monografic, Turda, 1994. Bărbulescu 1997 M. Bărbulescu, Das Legionslager von Potaissa (Turda). Castrul legionar de la Potaissa (Turda). (Führer zu den archäologischen Denkmälern aus Dacia Porolissensis, 7), Zalău, 1997. Bărbulescu 1999 M. Bărbulescu, Traian și descoperirea Daciei, in Napoca. 1880 de ani de la începutul vieții urbane, ed. by D. Protase and D. Brudașcu, Cluj‐Napoca, 1999, 32‐38. Bărbulescu 2001 M. Bărbulescu, Istoria politică, in Istoria Românilor, vol. II: Daco‐romani, romanici, alogeni, coord. by D. Protase and Al. Suceveanu, Bucharest, 2001, 73‐98. Bărbulescu et alii 2005 M. Bărbulescu, C. Bărbulescu, I. Fodorean, F. Fodorean, A. Husar, C. Mihăilă, E. Nemeth, I. Nemeti, S. Nemeti, M. Pîslaru, M. Sălăşan, V. Zotic, Atlas‐dicționar al Daciei romane (Dictionary‐Atlas of Roman Dacia), Cluj‐Napoca, 2005. Becatti 1982 G. Becatti, La Colonna Traiana, espressione somma del rilievo storico romano, in ANRW II, 12, 1, 1982, 536‐578. Bender 1975 H. Bender, Römische Straßen und Straßenstationen, Stuttgart, 1975. Benea 1999 D. Benea, Dacia sud‐vestică în secolele III‐IV. Interferenţe spirituale, Timişoara, 1999. Benea 2000 D. Benea, On the Praetorium Toponyms in Roman Dacia, in Daker und Römer am anfang des 2 Jh. N. Chr. Im norden der Donau (Daci şi romani la începutul secolului al II‐lea d. Hr. la nordul Dunării), Timişoara, 2000, 117‐123. Benea 2001 D. Benea, Dacia pe Tabula Peutingeriana, in D. Benea (ed.), In memoriam Dumitru Tudor, Timişoara, 2001, p. 135‐149. Benea 2001a D. Benea, Câteva observaţii privind aşezările din Dacia amintite pe Tabula Peutingeriana, in Studia archaeologica et historica Nicolao Gudea dicata. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 60 de ani, Zalău, 2001, 285‐300. Blackman, Trevor 2001 D. R. Blackman, A. H. Trevor, Frontinus' Legacy: Essays on Frontinus' De aquis urbis Romae, Univ. of Michigan Press, 2001.
78
Blăjan, Cerghi 1978
M. Blăjan, T. Cerghi, Descoperiri romane şi postromane la Aiton (jud. Cluj), in Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări 1, 1978, 21‐27. Blăjan, Theiss 2000 M. Blăjan, W. Theiss, Beiträge zur rekonstruktion des strassennetzes von Apulum, in Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire (proceedings of the International Symposium, Alba Iulia, 8th‐10th October 1999) (edited by H. Ciugudean and V. Moga), Alba Iulia, 2000, 215‐260. Blăjan, Theiss 2000a M. Blăjan, W. Theiss, Contribuţii la reconstituirea tramei stradale din Apulum, in Marisia 26, 2000, 85‐122. Blăjan, Theiss, Preda 1994 M. Blăjan, W. Theiss, P. V. Preda, Studiul geologic, arheologic şi tehnic al “Drumului lui Traian”. Tronsonul Războieni‐Bogata (Turda), in Apulum 31, 1994, 167‐198. Bödöcs 2008 A. Bödöcs, A study of the Roman road network in Hungary using GIS, Ph.D. manuscript, 2008. Bonnefont 1885 L. Bonnefont, Atlas de Géographie historique et contemporaine à l'usage des lycées, collèges et pensions. Classe de Rhétorique (fourth edition), 1885; Bonnefont 1890 L. Bonnefont, Atlas universel de géographie physique, historique & contemporaine à l'usage des lycées, collèges et écoles, Paris, Lanée/Ch. Fouraut & Fils, 1890. Braund 1996 D. Braund, River frontiers in the environmental psychology of the Roman world’ in The Roman Army in the East (ed. by David L. Kennedy), in the series Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary series number 18, Oxford, 1996, 43‐47. Brentchaloff, D. Brentchaloff, J. Gascou, Milliaires des cités de Vence, Castellane, Fréjus, in Zeitschrift Gascou 1995 für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109, 1995, 245‐254. Bennett 1997 J. Bennett, Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, Bloomington, London/New York, Routledge, 1997. Bosio 1983 L. Bosio, La Tabula Peutingeriana: una descrizione pittorica del mondo antico, Rimini Maggioli, 1983. Bošković 1978 D. Bošković, Aperçu sommaire sur les recherches archéologiques du Limes romain et paléobyzantin des Portes de Fer, in Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Antiquité, 90, 1, 1978, 425‐463. Bozu 1979 O. Bozu, Cercetările arheologice din punctul “Cetate”, comuna Lăpuşnicel (judeţul Caraş‐ Severin), in Banatica 5, 1979, 197‐199. Bozu, Micli 2005 O. Bozu, V. Micli, Edificii publice si amenajări termale romane pe un plan al staţiunii Băile Herculane din 1774, in Patrimonium Banaticum 4, 2005, 123‐142. Breeze 1988 D. J. Breeze, Why did the Romans failed to conquer Britain?, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 118, 1988, 3‐22. Brodersen 1995 K. Brodersen, Terra Cognita. Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung. Spudasmata 59. Zürich ‐ New York, 1995 (second ed. 2003). Brodersen 1996 K. Brodersen, Principia geographiae: Antike Texte im Fruehen Erdkunde‐Unterricht, Anregung 42, 1996, 29‐43. Brodersen 1997 K. Brodersen, Artemidoros 3, in Der Neue Pauly II, Stuttgart, 1997, 50. Brodersen 1999 K. Brodersen, Mapping the Ancient World, in Ad Familiares: Journal of the Friends of Classics 17, Autumn 1999, 2‐4. Brodersen 2001 K. Brodersen, The presentation of the geographical knowledge for travel and transport in the Roman world: itineraria non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001, 7‐21. Brodersen 2001a K. Brodersen, Neue Entdeckungen zu antiken Karten, in Gymnasium 108, 2001, 137‐148. Brodersen 2003 K. Brodersen, Die Tabula Peutingeriana: Gehalt und Gestalt einem ’alten Karte’ und ihrer antiken Vorlagen, in D. Unverhau (ed.), Geschichtsdeutung auf alten Karten: Archäologie und Geschichte, Wiesbaden (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 101) 2003, 289‐297. Brodersen 2004 Kai Brodersen, Mapping (in) the ancient world, in Journal of Roman Studies 94, 2004, 183‐ 190. Broise 1974 P. Broise, Gèneve et son territoire dans l’Antiquité‐de la conquête romaine à l’occupation burgonde, in Latomus 129, 1974, 89‐110. M. S. Busana (ed.), Via per montes excisa: strade in galleria e passaggi sotterranei nell'Italia Bussana 1997 romana, Rome, 1997. Cagnat, Chapot 1917 R. Cagnat, V. Chapot, Manuel d’archéologie romaine, I, Paris, 1917, 41‐47.
79
Calzolari 1996
M. Calzolari, Introduzione allo studio della rete stradale dell’ Italia Romana: L’Itinerarium Antonini, in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche), Memorie Ser. IX vol. VII fasc. 4, 1996, 369‐520. Camassa, Silvana 1991 G. Camassa, F. Silvana, Idea e realtà del viaggio: il viaggio nel mondo antico, Genova, 1991. Campbell 1994 B. Campbell, The Roman Army, 31 BC‐AD 337: A Sourcebook, Routledge, London and New York, 1994. Campbell 2000 B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 2000). Casson 1974 L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World, Toronto 1974. Castellvi, Combs, G. Castellvi, J. P. Combs, J. Kotarba, A. Pezin, Les Voies romaines du Rhône à l'Ebre: Via Kotarba, Pezin 1998 Domitia et Via Augusta, Paris, DAF, 1998). Cavruc 1998 V. Cavruc, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Covasna (Monografii Arheologice I), Sfântu Gheorghe, 1998. Cavruc 2000 V. Cavruc (ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Harghita (Monografii Arheologice II), Sfântu Gheorghe, 2000. Cătăniciu 1987‐1988 I. B. Cătăniciu, Ptolemeu şi provincia Dacia, in ActaMN 24‐25, 1987‐1988, 145‐162. Chanson 2002 H. Chanson, Some Aspects of the Hydraulic Design of Roman Aqueducts, in La Houille Blanche, No. 6/7, 2002, 43‐57 (available at http://traianus.rediris.es). Chanson 2002a H. Chanson, An experimental study of Roman dropshaft hydraulics, in Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 40, No. 1, 2002, 3‐12. Charlesworth 1961 M. P. Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce in the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1961. Chevallier 1971 R. Chevallier, La photographie aérienne, Paris, 1971. Chevallier 1972 R. Chevallier, Les voies romaines, Paris, 1972. Chevallier 1975 R. Chevallier, Gallia Narbonensis. Bilan de vingt‐cinq ans de recherches historiques et archéologiques, in ANRW II, 3, 1975, 716‐718. Chevallier 1975a R. Chevallier, Idem, Gallia Lugdunensis. Bilan de 25 ans de recherches historiques et archéologiques, in ANRW II, 3, 1975, p. 874‐884. Chevallier 1988 R. Chevallier, Voyages et déplacements dans l’Empire Romain, Paris, 1988. Chevallier 1995 R. Chevallier, Les textes littéraires latins et grecs concernant la voirie romaine, în Rivista di Topografia Antica (Journal of Ancient Topography), 5, 1995, 7‐30. Chevallier 1997 R. Chevallier, Les voies romaines, 2nd edition, Paris 1997. Chevallier, Arceduc, R. Chevallier, A. Clos‐Arceduc, J. Soyer, Essai de reconstitution du réseau routier gallo‐ Soyer 1962 romain: caractères et méthode, in Revue Archéologique 1, 1962, 1‐49. Christescu 1929 V. Christescu, Istoria economică a Daciei romane, Bucharest, 1929. Christescu 1937 V. Christescu, Istoria militară a Daciei romane, Bucharest, 1937. P. Clement, A. Peyre, La voie Domitienne, 2nd edition, Montpellier, 1998. Clement, Peyre 1998 Cloppet 1994 C. Cloppet, Le droit et l'aménagement des voies publiques sous l'Empire romain, in Ktèma 19, 1994, 309‐318. Cociş, Fodorean, Ursuţiu, S. Cociş, F. Fodorean, A. Ursuţiu, V. Bârcă, Identităţi culturale locale şi regionale în context Bârcă 2011 european. Studii de arheologie şi antropologie istorică. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei (Bibliotheca Musei Porolissensis XIII), 2011, 565‐574. Codrington 1903 Th. Codrington, Roman Roads in Britain, London, 1903. Colinder 1971 P. Collinder, On the Measuring of Roads in Antiquity, in Actes de XIIe Congres internationale d' Histoire des Sciences, Paris, 1971, VII, 19‐22. Costea 1996 F. Costea (ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Braşov, Braşov, 1996. Coulon 2007 G. Coulon, Les voies romaines en Gaules, Paris, 2007. Coulston 2001 J. Coulston, Transport and travel on the Column of Trajan, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001, 106‐ 137. Crişan, Bărbulescu, Chirilă, I. H. Crişan, M. Bărbulescu, E. Chirilă, V. Vasiliev, I. Winkler, Repertoriul arheologic al Vasiliev, Winkler 1992 judeţului Cluj, Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis V, Cluj‐Napoca, 1992. Crișan, Timoc 2004‐2005 D. S. Crișan, C. Timoc, Inginerii împăratului Traian (I). Mensorul Balbus (Die Ingerniuere Kaisers Trajan (I). Balbus der Mensor), in Analele Banatului 12‐13, 2004‐2005, 157‐170. Crogiez‐Pétrequin, S. Crogiez‐Pétrequin, J.‐L. Fiches, Les voies romaines autour de la Méditerranée, in Dossiers Fiches 2011 d’archéologie, no. 343, January‐February 2011, 2‐5. Cucu 1929 A. Cucu, Drumurile romane în Banat, in Analele Banatului I, 1929, 45‐52. Culham 1987 P. Culham, Roman Roads, Greek Terms. Translation, Transliteration and Transfer, in Glotta 65, 1987, 161‐170. 80
Cuntz 1929 Daicoviciu 1928‐1932 Daicoviciu 1941 Daicoviciu 1945 Daicoviciu 1964 Daicoviciu 1959 Daicoviciu 1970 Daicoviciu 1972 Daicoviciu, Daicoviciu 1966 Davies 1998 Deman 2005 Diaconescu 1997 Diaconescu 2010 Dilke 1971 Dilke 1985 Dilke 1987
Dilke 1987a
Dilke 1987b
Dilke 1987c
Dilke 1987d
Di Paola 1999 Di Paola 1999a
Desbordes 1997 Diaconescu 2010 Dietmar 1997 Duchêne 2003 Dueck 2000 Dumitrescu 1911
O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana I: Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense, Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1929. C. Daicoviciu, Un nou ”miliarium” din Dacia, in Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice I, 2, 1928‐1932, 48‐53. C. Daicoviciu, Problema continuităţii în Dacia (Die Kontinuitätsfrage in Dazien), în AISC, III, (1936‐1940), 1941, 253‐254. C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie dans l’antiquité, Bucharest, 1945. C. Daicoviciu, Harta lui Peutinger, in Izvoare privind istoria României, I, Bucharest, 1964, 737. H. Daicoviciu, Osservazioni intorno alla Collona Traiana’ in Dacia N.S. 3, 1959, 317‐319. C. Daicoviciu, Un nou “miliarium” din Dacia, in Dacica. Studii şi articole privind istoria veche a pământului românesc, Cluj‐Napoca, 1970, 224‐230. H. Daicoviciu, Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romană, Cluj‐Napoca, 1972, 278‐335. C. Daicoviciu, H. Daicoviciu, Columna lui Traian, Bucharest, 1966. Hugh E. H. Davies, Designing Roman Roads, in Britannia 29, 1998, 1‐16. E. B. Deman, The Building of the Roman Aqueducts, Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, 2005. Al. Diaconescu, Dacia under Trajan. Some observations on Roman tactics and strategy, in ActaMN 34, I, 1997, 13‐52. Al. Diaconescu, Urme ale centuriaţiei la Sarmizegetusa şi în teritoriul său (I), în Sargetia 37 (I, New Series) 2010, 133‐162. O. A. W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors: an Introduction to the Agrimensores, Newton Abbot, David and Charles, 1971. O. A. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps, London, 1985. O. A. W. Dilke, The Culmination of Greek Cartography in Ptolemy, in B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 177‐ 200. O. A. W. Dilke, Maps in the Service of State: Roman Cartography to the End of the Augustan era, in J. B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 201‐211. O. A. W. Dilke, Roman Large Scale Mapping in the Early Empire, in B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 212‐233. O. A. W. Dilke, Itineraries and Geograhical Maps in the Early and Late Roman Empires, in J. B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 234‐257. O. A. W. Dilke, Cartography in the Byzantine Empire, in J. B. Harley, D. Woodward (ed.), The History of Cartography. Vol. I. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987, 258‐275. Lucietta di Paola, Viaggi, trasporti e istituzioni. Studi sul cursus publicus, Di. Sc. A. M., Messina, 1999. Lucietta di Paola, Le vie di comunicazione, in Origine e incontre di culture nell’antichità. Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Stato degli studi e prospettive di ricerca (Pelorias 4), Di. Sc. A. M., a cura di M. Barra Bagnasco, E. De Miro, A. Pinzone, 1999, 459‐469. J. M. Desbordes, Voies romaines en Limousin, Limoges, 1997. Al. Diaconescu, Forurile Sarmizegetusei. O plimbare imaginară prin centrul politico‐ administrativ al micii Rome de la poalele Retezatului, Mega Publishing House, 2010. D. Greiser, Große historische Straßen: Von der Via Appia bis zur Avus, Frankfurt am Main, Insel, 1997. H. Duchêne, Voyageurs et antiquité classique, Dijon, 2003. D. Dueck, Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome, New York, 2000. Al. T. Dumitrescu, Tradiţii şi mărturii documentare despre drumul roman de la Reşca la Celei, in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (BCMI) IV, 1911, 107‐110. 81
Edney 2005
Edson 2008
Elliot 2008
Endre 1977 Esch 1997 Fanaud 1966 Ferenczi 1974
Figueras 1999
Fink 1971 Finály 1902 Finley 1973 Florescu 1985 Fodorean 2001 Fodorean 2002 Fodorean 2002a Fodorean 2002b Fodorean 2002c Fodorean 2003
Fodorean 2003a Fodorean 2003b
Fodorean 2003c
Fodorean 2003d Fodorean 2003e Fodorean 2004 Fodorean 2004a
M. H. Edney, ’Putting “Cartography” into the History of Cartography: Arthur H. Robinson, David Woodward, and the Creation of a Discipline, in Cartographic Perspectives 51, 2005, 14‐29. E. Edson, Maps in Context: Isidore, Orosius, and the Medieval Image of the World, in R. Talbert, R. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh perspectives, new methods (series Technology and Change in History, vol. 10), Leiden, Boston, 2008, 219‐ 236. T. Elliot, Constructing a Digital Edition for the Peutinger Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden, 2008, 99‐110. T. Endre, A Savaria‐Bassiana útszakasz, in Archaeologiai Értesitö, 104, 1977, 65‐75. A. Esch, Römische Straßen in ihrer Landschaft, Mainz. L. Fanaud, Voies romaines et vieux chemins en Bourbonnais, 2nd ed., Moulins, 1966. I. Ferenczi, Opinii vechi şi noi în legătură cu drumurile între Dacia, Pannonia şi Moesia Superior prin „barbaricum”, in Tibiscus 3, 1974, 111‐127. P. Figueras, The Road Linking Palestine and Egypt along the Sinai Coast, in The Madaba Map Centenary 1897‐ 1997: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/articles/FiguerasSinai.html, Ierusalim, 1999, 121‐124. R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Cleveland, 1971. G. Finály, Római út keresztmetszete, in Archaeologiai Értesítő 22, 1902, 380‐383. M. Finley, The Ancient Economy, London, 1973. R. Florescu, Drumurile lui Traian la sud de Carpaţi în războaiele dacice. O nouă interpretare a imaginilor Columnei lui Traian, in Drobeta 6, 1985, 51‐58. F. Fodorean, Observaţii în legătură cu infrastructura şi suprastructura drumurilor romane din Dacia Porolissensis, in Revista Bistriţei 15, 2001, 60‐76. F. Fodorean, Izvoare epigrafice privind drumurile din Dacia romană, in Revista Bistriţei 16, 2002, 55‐95. F. Fodorean, The Roman road Gilău‐Bologa. The sector between Căpuşu Mare‐Izvoru Crişului, in Revista Bistriţei 16, 2002, 97‐102. F. Fodorean, Importanţa utilizării materialului cartografic în cadrul cercetării drumurilor romane, in Studia Universitatis Petru Maior. Historia, Târgu Mureş 2, 2002, 15‐32. F. Fodorean, Precizări privind metodologia de cercetare a drumurilor romane, in Analele Banatului 9, 2002, 613‐631. Review: Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, edited by Colin Adams and Ray Laurence, Routledge Ed., London and New York, 2001, pp. X + 202, 48 figures, ISBN 0‐415‐ 23034‐9, in Acta Musei Napocensis 39‐40/1, Cluj‐Napoca, 297‐302. F. Fodorean, Infrastructura, suprastructura şi principalele caracteristici tehnice ale drumurilor romane din Dacia Superior, in Apulum 40, 2003, 155‐177. F. Fodorean, Aplicaţii ale geomorfologiei şi cartografiei digitale în cercetarea drumurilor romane: tronsonul Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Gilău, in Cum scriem istoria? Apelul la ştiinţe şi dezvoltările metodologice contemporane. Actele simpozionului „Tinerii Istorici”, ediţia a IV‐a, Alba Iulia, 28‐30 noiembrie 2002 (Applications of geomorphology and digital cartopgraphy in the research of Roman roads: the route Cluj‐Napoca – Gilău. How we write history? The call for sciences and contemporary methodological developments. The symposium “Young Historians”, IVth edition, Alba Iulia, 28‐30 of Nov. 2002), Alba Iulia, 2003, 59‐80. F. Fodorean, Contribuţii la reconstituirea reţelei rutiere din Dacia romană. Rolul şi importanţa toponimiei în cercetarea drumurilor antice, in Revista Bistriţei 17, 2003, 323‐ 330. F. Fodorean, Evoluţia cercetărilor privind drumurile din Dacia romană, in Revista Bistriţei 17, 2003, 55‐68. F. Fodorean, Provincia Dacia în Geographia lui Claudius Ptolemaios, in Studia Universitatis Petru Maior. Historia 3, 2003, 7‐20. F. Fodorean, Tabula Peutingeriana and the province of Dacia, in ActaMN 39‐40, 1, 2002‐ 2003 (2004), 51‐58. F. Fodorean, Road‐repairs in the Danubian provinces during military anarchy (A.D. 235‐271), in Orbis Antiquus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (ed. by L. Ruscu, C. Ciongradi, R. Ardevan, C. Roman, C. Găzdac), Cluj‐Napoca, 2004, 523‐530.
82
Fodorean 2004b Fodorean 2004c Fodorean 2005
Fodorean 2005a
Fodorean 2005b Fodorean 2006 Fodorean 2006a
Fodorean 2006b Fodorean 2006c
Fodorean 2007
Fodorean 2010
Fodorean 2010b
Fodorean 2011
Fodorean 2011a
Fodorean 2011b
Fodorean 2011c
Fodorean 2011d
Fodorean 2012
Fodorean 2012a
F. Fodorean, Propunere pentru o clasificare a drumurilor din Dacia romană, in Revista Bistriţei 18, 2004, 63‐69. F. Fodorean, Drumul roman de pe valea Mureşului între localităţile Brâncoveneşti şi Războieni‐Cetate. Studiu topografic şi arheologic, in Revista Bistriţei 18, 2004, 71‐87. F. Fodorean, Hărţile militare austriece şi antichităţile romane. Studiu cartografic, in C. Muşeţeanu, M. Bărbulescu, D. Benea (eds.), Corona laurea. Studii în onoarea Luciei Ţeposu Marinescu, Bucharest, 2005, 185 ‐ 201. F. Fodorean, La relazione fra le strade romane e le strade moderne in Romania. Sovrapposizioni e convergenze, in Orizzonti. Rassegna di archeologia 6 (ed. by L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli), 2005, 153‐163. F. Fodorean, Le strade della Dacia romana (I), in Quaderni Catanesi di studi antichi e medievali, N.S. 3, 2005, 331‐446. F. Fodorean, Drumurile din Dacia romană, Cluj‐Napoca, 2006. F. Fodorean, Austrian military maps and Roman roads. A cartographic study, in C. Gaiu, C. Găzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase, Bistriţa, Cluj‐Napoca, 2006, 997 ‐ 1010. F. Fodorean, Le strade della Dacia romana (II), in Quaderni Catanesi di studi antichi e medievali, N.S. 4‐5, 2006, 165‐344. F. Fodorean, Viae militares în timpul lui Traian, in Dacia Augusti Provincia. Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat în 13‐14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, ed. by E. Teodor and O. Ţentea, Bucharest, 2006, 135‐152. F. Fodorean, Drumul roman imperial Sarmizegetusa ‐ Subcetate. Studiu topografic şi arheologic, in Dacia Felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata (ed. by S. Nemeti, F. Fodorean, E. Nemeth, S. Cociş, I. Nemeti, M. Pîslaru), Cluj‐Napoca, 2007, 365‐384. F. Fodorean, Dynamics of a society: geography, space, infrastructure, travel and mobility in Roman Dacia. State of research and perspectives, in Transylvanian Review XIX, Suppl. 5, 2010, 49‐66. F. Fodorean, Landscapes of Roman Dacia. Ilișua, in Antiquitas Istro‐Pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Alexandru Suceveanu (edited by M. V. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Bâltâc, V. R. Bolindeț, V. Bottez), Mega Publishing House, Cluj‐ Napoca, 2010, 93‐102. review to Richard J.A. Talbert: Rome's World. The Peutinger map reconsidered. In association with Tom Elliott, assisted by Nora Harris, Gannon Hubbard, David O'Brien, and Grahan Sheperd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010. 376 pages, 33 b/w, illus., 1 table. $ 50.00. US $ 90.00. ISBN: 978‐0‐521‐76480‐3, in Plekos 13, 2011, 9‐19 http://www.plekos.uni‐muenchen.de/2011/r‐talbert.pdf. F. Fodorean, The aqueducts of Potaissa, in Frontinus‐Schriftenreihe (Internationale Gesellschaft für Wasser und Energie zur Förderung der Wissenschaft, Forschung und Bildung auf dem Gebiet der Geschichte der Rohrleitungs‐, Energie‐ und Wassertechnik sowie der rohrleitungstechnischen Fachausbildung), 28, 2011, 95‐108. F. Fodorean, The Bridges of Roman Dacia, in Archäologie der Brücken. Vorgeschichte. Antike. Mittelalter. Neuzeit (Archaeology of Bridges. Prehistory. Antiquity. Middle Ages. Modern Era). Bayerische Gesellschaft für Unterwasserarchäologie (Herausgeber), in Verbindung mit dem Bayerischen landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Verlag Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg, 2011, 143‐147. F. Fodorean, Mapping the Orbis Terrarum: the Peutinger Map, the Antonine Itinerary and the Cartographic Tradition of the Fourth and Fifth Century A.D., in Ephemeris Napocensis 21, 2011, 51‐62. F. Fodorean, Roman fortresses and roads on Habsburgic and Austro‐Hungarian maps, in Identităţi culturale locale şi regionale în context european. Studii de arheologie şi antropologie istorică. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei (Bibliotheca Musei Porolissensis XIII), 430‐445. F. Fodorean, Die Strassen des Römischen Dakiens. Forschungsstand, neue Entdeckungen und Perspektiven der Forschung, in Gymnasium. Zeitschrift für Kultur der Antike und Humanistische Bildung 119, 2012, 255‐279. F. Fodorean, Tourism or health necessities? „Spa” vignettes in Tabula Peutingeriana. Travelling Ad Aquas: thermal water resources in Roman Dacia, in Ephemeris Napocensis 22, 2012 (forthcoming). 83
Fodorean 2012b
F. Fodorean, Roads, Fortresses, Settlements and Landscape. The Archaeological Patrimony and the Twenty First Century, in Studia Universitatis Babes‐Bolyai. Geographia, LVII 2/2012, 145‐152. Fodorean 2012c F. Fodorean, Communicating in antiquity. Itineraries, geographical space, travel and infrastructure in Roman Dacia, in Ephemeris Dacoromana (Rome) 14, 2012, 81‐132. Fodorean 2013 F. Fodorean, Roman Potaissa and its surroundings. A view from above, in the volume dedicated to: AARG (Aerial Archaeology Research Group) Conference, 2012, Budapest, Hungary, 13th – 15th September, 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean 2013b F. Fodorean, Ricostruendo il paesaggio romano. La strada imperiale di Dacia nella parte Nord della provincia, in Archeologia Aerea. Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica V (editor Giusseppe Ceraudo), 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean 2013c F. Fodorean, Ab Histro ad Oceanum...through Roman Dacia. Military explorations, cartography, geographical knowledge, perception of space and development of road infrastructure, in a dedicated volume, Peter Lang Publishing House, 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean 2013d F. Fodorean, Landscapes of Roman Dacia. Potaissa, in Optimae merito. Studia in honorem Magistri Radu Ardevan (ed. Ioan Piso, Viorica Rusu‐Bolindeţ, Rada Varga, Gelu Florea, Eugenia Beu‐Dachin, Silvia Mustaţă), 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean 2013e F. Fodorean, Pierre Lapie, Louis Bonnefont, S. F. W. Hoffmann and Roman Dacia, in Transylvanian Review, 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean, Fodorean 2005 F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, Drumul roman Gherla‐Sic. Studiu geomorfologic, arheologic şi topografic, in Studia Universitatis Babeş‐Bolyai. Geographia 50/1, 111‐122. Fodorean, Fodorean 2008 F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, Valorificarea turistică a unor obiective arheologice din Transilvania, in Lucrările congresului anual al Societăţii de Geografie din România, Cluj‐ Napoca, 1‐2 iunie 2007. Geografia în contextul dezvoltării europene contemporane. Turismul şi dezvoltarea durabilă (The tourist’s revaluation of some archaeological objectives from Transylvania), Cluj‐Napoca, 2008, 103‐112. Fodorean, Fodorean 2010 F. Fodorean, Ioan Fodorean, The Roman imperial road in the sector Sutoru‐Porolissum. Topographic and cartographic study, in Studia Universitatis Babes‐Bolyai. Geographia, LV, 1, 2010, 199‐204. Fodorean, F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, Topography, digital cartography and GIS in archaeology. Debates Fodorean 2010a on research methods and perspectives, in Transylvanian Review XIX, Suppl. 5, 2010, 81‐88. Fodorean, Fodorean 2012 F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, The Roman Road Network. The Capitalization of an Outstanding Patrimony, in Studia Universitatis Babes‐Bolyai. Geographia, LVII 1/2012, 175‐180. Fodorean, Fodorean, F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, C. Moldovan, Recreating the landscape of the former Roman Moldovan 2013 Dacia using modern 19th century cartography, digital data and GIS, in e‐Perimetron. International web journal on sciences and technologies affined to history of cartography and maps, 2013 (forthcoming). Fodorean, Irimuş, F. Fodorean, I. A. Irimus, I. Fodorean, C. Moldovan, Culoarul Somesului Mic între Cluj‐ Fodorean, Moldovan 2011 Napoca şi Dej în epoca romană. Valorificarea peisajului arheologic, in Geography in the context of contemporary development, the conference held between 4th ‐ 6th June, 2009, Zalău, 2011, 361‐373. Fodorean, Pătraşcu, F. Fodorean, Cr. Pătrașcu, I. Fodorean, Patrimony, archaeology, tourism: patterns for rural Fodorean 2012 sustainable tourism, in Journal of Settlement and Spatial Planning 2012 (forthcoming). Fodorean, Ursuţ 2001 F. Fodorean, D. Ursuţ, The via silica strata Geoagiu‐Băi – Cigmău. Archaeological, geo‐ topographic and technical study, in Acta Musei Napocensis 38, 1, 2001, 203‐220. Forbes 1964 R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, I, Leiden, 1964. Forbes 1965 R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, II, Leiden, 1965. Forstner 2005 G. Forstner, Längenfehler und Ausgangsmeridiane in alten Landkarten und Positionstabellen. Disseration, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Fakultät für Bauingenieur‐ und Vermessungswesen, Studiengang Geodäsie und Geoinformation, Neubiberg 2005 (online as pdf at ub.unibw‐muenchen.de). French 1980 D. French, The Roman Road System of Asia Minor, în ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 698‐727. Fuentes 2005 M. D. Fuentes, La construcción de puentes romanos en Hispania, 2nd edition, Santiago de Compostela, 2005. Fustier 1958 P. Fustier, Notes sur la constitution des voies romaines en Italie. I. Via Flaminia, in Revue des Études Anciennes 60, 1958, 81‐86.
84
Fustier 1960 Fustier 1961 Fustier 1963 Fustier 1968 Gabričević 1972 Galliazzo 1994 Gallo 2007
Gautier Dalché 2003
Gautier Dalché 2004
Gayraud 1981 Gendron 2006 Gerasimova and Hollenstein 1978 Gerasimova and Hollenstein 1989 Ghinescu 1998 Gooss 1874 Gostar 1956 Gozalbes 2003 Graf 1999 Graham 2006 Grenier 1934 Grewe 1986 Grewe 2002 Gros 2010
Gudea 1980 Gudea 1986 Gudea 1996
Gudea 1997 Gudea, Pop 1971 Gušić 1996
Hagen 1978 Halavats 1896 Heinz 2003 Herz, Garrison 1998
P. Fustier, Notes sur la constitution des voies romaines en Italie. II. Via Appia, in Revue des Études Anciennes 62, 1960, 95‐99. P. Fustier, Notes sur la constitution des voies romaines en Italie. III. Via Aurelia et son prolongement en Gaule Narbonnaise, in Revue des Études Anciennes 63, 1961, 276‐291. P. Fustier, Étude technique sur un texte de l’empereur Julien relatif à la constitution des voies romaines, in Revue des Études Anciennes 65, 1963, 114‐121. P. Fustier, La route. Voies antiques. Chemins anciens. Chaussées modernes, Paris, 1968. M. Gabričević, Strassenbau in der Donja Klisura des Eisernen Tores im Licht der neuentdeckten Inschrift, in Acta Archaeologica XXIII, Ljubljana, 1972, 408. V. Galliazzo, I ponti romani. Catalogo generale, vol. 2, Treviso, 1994. I. M. GALLO, Libratio aquarum. L’art romain de distribuer l’eau, first published in Catalogo de la Exposición: AQUARIA. Agua, territorio y paisajes en Aragón. Zaragoza, 2007 (available at http://traianus.rediris.es). P. Gautier Dalché, La trasmissione medievale e rinascimentale della Tabula Peutingeriana, in Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo (ed. by F. Prontera), Florence, Leo S. Olschki, 43‐52. P. Gautier Dalché, Du nouveau sur la transmission et la découverte de la Tabula Peutingeriana: La 'Çosmographia vetustissima' de Pellegrino Prisciani (+ 1518), in Geographia Antiqua 13, 2004, 71‐84. M. Gayraud, Narbonne antique des origines à la fin du IIIème siècle, Paris 1981, 498‐561. S. Gendron, La toponymie des voies romaines et médiévales, Paris, 2006. V. T. Gerasimova, L. Hollenstein, Neue Meilensteine aus Bulgarien, in Epigraphica 40, 1978, 91‐121. V. T. Gerasimova, L. Hollenstein, Drei unpublizierte Meilensteine aus Bulgarien, in Festschrift für Gerold Walser, Wiesbaden, 1989, 45‐58. I. Ghinescu, Cultul nimfelor în Dacia romană, in Ephemeris Napocensis 8, 1998, 123‐144. C. Gooss, Studien zur Geographie und Geschichte des trajanischen Dacien, Hermannstadt, 1874. N. Gostar, Inscripţii romane din judeţul Hunedoara. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea regiunii Hunedoara, în Sargetia, 3, 1956, 57‐99. C. E. Gozalbes, Viajes y viajeros en el mundo antiguo. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla‐La Mancha. D. F. Graf, Roman Roads East of the Jordan, in The Madaba Map Centenary 1897‐1997, http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/articles/GrafRoads.html, Ierusalim, 1999, 227‐229. Sh. M. Graham, Networks, Agent‐Based Modeling, and the Antonine Itineraries’, in The Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19, 1, 2006, 45‐64. A. Grenier, Manuel d’archéologie gallo‐romaine, II. L’archéologie du sol, 1. Les routes, Paris, 1934. K. Grewe, Atlas der römischen Wasserleitungen nach Köln, Köln, 1986. K. Grewe, Historische Tunnelbauten im Rheinland. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland 14, Köln, 2002. P. Gros, Les grands travaux comme signe de la puissance de Rome sur les hommes et sur la nature: l’exemple des routes, in Las técnicas y la construcciones de la Ingeniería Romana. V Congreso de las Obras Públicas Romanas, 2010, 165‐174 (http: //www.traianvs.net). N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Breţcu, in Acta Musei Porolissensis 4, 1980, 255‐365. N. Gudea, Res publica municipii Septimii Porolissum, Bucharest, 1986. N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex daco‐roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. II. Vama romană. Monografie arheologică. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea sistemului vamal din provinciile dacice, Cluj‐Napoca, 1996. N. Gudea, Der Dakische Limes. Materialen zu seiner Geschichte, Mainz, 1997. N. Gudea, I. Pop, Das Römerlager von Rîşnov‐Rosenau. Cumidava, Braşov, 1971. S. Gušić, Traian's Bridge. A contribution towards its reconstruction, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 2, 1996, Belgrade, 259‐261. V. von Hagen, Le grandi strade di Roma nel mondo, Roma, 1978. G. Halavats, A Lederata‐Tibiscum út, în Archaeologiai Értesítő 16, 1896, 12‐14. W. Heinz, Reisewege der Antike. Unterwegs im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart, 2003. N. Herz, E. G. Garisson, Geological methods for archaeology, Oxford ‐ New York, 1998. 85
Herzig 1974
H. E. Herzig, Probleme des römischen Straßenwesens: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Recht, in ANRW II, 1, 1974, 593‐648. Hollenstein 1975 L. Hollenstein, Zu den Meilensteinen der römischen Provinzen Thracia und Moesia Inferior, in Studia Balcanica 10, 1975, 23‐44. Hollenstein 1995 L. Hollenstein, Neue Meilensteininschriften aus Bulgarien, in Festschrift für Hans Lieb, 1995, 179‐189. Holliday 2004 V. Holliday, Soils in archaeological research, Oxford ‐ New York, 2004. Hortopan 2006 D. Hortopan, Consideraţii privind reţeaua rutieră romană din Dacia meridională în secolele II‐III p. Chr., in Drobeta 16, 2006, 47‐54. A. Husar, Din istoria Daciei romane. I. Structuri de civilizație, Cluj‐Napoca, 2002. Husar 2002 Hügel 1999 P. Hügel (ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al Mureşului Inferior. Judeţul Arad (Bibliotheca historica et archaeological Banatica), Timişoara, 1999. Hügel 2003 P. Hügel, Ultimele decenii ale stăpânirii romane în Dacia (Traianus Decius‐Aurelian), Cluj‐ Napoca, 2003. Irimuş 1997 I. A. Irimuş, La corrélation des glissements de terrain avec les types de dômes périphériques dans le Bassin de Transylvanie, in Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria 19, Torino 1997, 245‐248. Irimuş 1998 I. A. Irimuş, Relieful pe domuri şi cute diapire din Depresiunea Transilvaniei, Cluj‐Napoca, 1998. Irimuş 2006 I. A. Irimuş, Hazarde şi riscuri asociate proceselor geomorfologice în aria cutelor diapire din Depresiunea Transilvaniei, Cluj‐Napoca, 2006. Irimuş, Petrea, Surdeanu, I. A. Irimuş, D. Petrea, V. Surdeanu, F. Fodorean, O. Pop, La reconstruction des paleopaysages transylvains à partir des routes et des camps romaines de Dacia Fodorean, Pop 2009 Porolissensis, in Ol’Man River. Geo‐archaeological aspects of rivers and river plains, Ghent, 2009, 493‐505. Irimuş, Fodorean, Petrea, I. A. Irimus, F. Fodorean, D. Petrea, I. Fodorean, Porolissum geosite. Morphology, Fodorean 2011 archaeology and topography, in Studia UBB. Geographia, 56, 1, 2011, 23‐28. Irimuş, Fodorean, Petrea, I. A. Irimuş, F. Fodorean, D. Petrea, I. Rus, P. Cocean, O. Pop, Role of the relief in the Rus, Cocean, Pop 2009 projection of roads and in the arrangement of the Roman military camps in Dacia Porolissensis, in Studia Universitatis Babeş‐Bolyai. Geographia LIV, 2, 2009, 39‐48. Jaubert 1980 J. M. Jaubert, Bornes milliaires de Numidie, in Antiquités africaines 16, 1980, 161‐184. Jehasse, Nucci 2000 O. Jehasse, F. Nucci, Les voies romaines de Corse, Labiana / Idim de L’Université de Corse, 2000: http://www.univ‐corse.fr/labiana/documents/voies_romaines.PDF. Johnson 2007 M. Johnson, Ideas of landscape, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2007. Jones 1992 B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian, Routledge, London and New York, 1992. Kennedy 1995 D. Kennedy, The Via Nova Traiana in Northern Jordan: a cultural resource under threat, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39, 1995, 221‐227. Kennedy 1996 D. Kennedy, New milestones from northern Jordan: 1992‐1995, in ZPE 113, 1996, 257‐262. Kennedy 1997 D. Kennedy, Roman Roads and Routes in North‐east Jordan, in Levant 29, 1997, 71‐93. Kennedy 1998 D. Kennedy, La Jordanie antique vue dans le ciel, in Archéologia 346, 1998, 56‐65. Kennedy 1998a D. Kennedy, Aerial Archaeology in Jordan, in Levant 30, 1998, 91‐96. Kennedy 1998b D. Kennedy, Gharandal Survey 1997: Air photo interpretation and ground verification, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 1998, 573‐585. Klee 2010 M. Klee, Lebensadern des Imperiums. Straßen im Römischen Weltreich, Stuttgart 2010. Koeppel 1980 G. Koeppel, A military itinerarium on the Column of Trajan: scene L, in Milleilungen des Deutschen Archaeologisches Institute, Römische Abteilungen, 87, 1980, 301‐306. Kolb 2000 A. Kolb, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. Berlin, 2000. Kolb 2001 A. Kolb, Transport and communication in the Roman state: the cursus publicus, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001, 95‐105. Kolb 2002 A. Kolb, Impact and Interaction of State Transport in the Roman Empire, in The Transformation of the economic life under the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the second workshop of the International network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. ‐ A.D. 476), Nottingham, July 4 – 7, 2001, ed. by L. de Blois, J. Rich, Amsterdam, 2002. König 1970 I. König, Die Meilensteine der Gallia Narbonensis. Studien zum Straßenwesen der Provincia Narbonensis, Bern 1970. Koschik 2004 H. Koschik (ed.), Alle Wege führen nach Rom. Internationales Römerstraßenkolloquium Bonn. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland Band 16. Eine Veröffentlichung 86
Kramer 2001 Landels 2000 Lascu 1986 Laurence 1999
Laurence 2001
Le Bohec 1989 Le Roux 1998 Levi A. and M. 1967 Leylek 1993 Lozovski 2008
Litaudon 2004
Litaudon 2007 Luca 2004 Luca 2004a Luca 2005 Luca 2005a Luca 2005b Luca 2006 Luca, Gudea 2010 Luca, Pinter, Georgescu 2003 Luttwak 1976 Lázaro, Gonzales 2010
Lazăr 1995 Löhberg 2006
Mac 1987 Mackay 1999 Macrea, Protase 1959
des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland, Rheinisches Amt für Bodendenkmalpflege, Bonn, 2004. B. Kramer, The earliest known map of Spain (?) and the Geography of Artemidorus of Ephesus on papyrus, Imago Mundi 53, 2001, 115‐120. G. J. Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World, University of California Press, 2000. N. Lascu, Călători şi exploratori în antichitate, Bucureşti, 1986. R. Laurence, The Roads of Roman Italy. Mobility and Cultural Change, Routledge Ed., London‐New York, 1999. R. Laurence, The creation of geography: an interpretation of Roman Britain, in C. Adams, R. Laurence (ed.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Routledge Ed., London ‐ New York, 2001, 67‐94. Y. Le Bohec, L’armée romaine sous le Haut‐Empire, Paris, 1989 P. Le Roux, Le Haut‐Empire romain en Occident d’Auguste aux Sévères: 31 av. J.‐C.‐235 apr. J.‐C., Paris, 1998. A. Levi, M. Levi, Itineraria picta. Contributo allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana, Rome, 1967. H. Leylek, La vignetta di Antiochia e la datazione della Tabula Peutingeriana, in Journal of Ancient Topography III, 1993, 203‐206. N. Lozovsky, Maps and Panegyrics: Roman Geo‐Ethnographical Rhetoric in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, in R. Talbert, R. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh perspectives, new methods (series Technology and Change in History, vol. 10), Leiden, Boston, 2008, 169‐188. J. Cl. Litaudon, Les aqueducs antiques conduire l’eau (aquae ductus), in Elementos de Ingenería Romana. Congreso europeo Las Obras Públicas Romanas, Tarragona, 3‐6 noviembre 2004, 71‐85. J. Cl. LITAUDON, Dictionnaire hydraulique, 2007 (http://traianus.rediris.es). S. A. Luca, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Caraş‐Severin (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 6), Sibiu, 2004. S. A. Luca, Arheologie şi istorie (I). Descoperiri din judeţul Caraş‐Severin (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis), Sibiu, 2004. S. A. Luca, Arheologie şi istorie (II). Descoperiri din Banat (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 10), Sibiu, 2005. S. A. Luca, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Hunedoara (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis XIV), Alba Iulia, 2005. S. A. Luca, Arheologie şi istorie (III). Descoperiri din judeţul Hunedoara (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis XI), Sibiu, 2005. S. A. Luca, Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul românesc. Repertoriu (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis XVIII), Sibiu, 2006. S. A. Luca, N. Gudea, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Sălaj (Bibliotheca Brukenthal XLV), Sibiu, 2010. S. A. Luca, Z. K. Pinter, A. Georgescu, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Sibiu (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis III), Sibiu, 2003. E. Luttwak, The grand strategy of the Roman Empire from the first century A.D. to the third, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1976. A. L. P. Lázaro, M. G. M. Gonzales, Tratamiento arqueológico de las vías romanas, in Las técnicas y la construcciones de la Ingeniería Romana. V Congreso de las Obras Públicas Romanas, 2010, 47‐73 (http: //www.traianvs.net). V. Lazăr, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Mureş, Târgu Mureş, 1995. B. Löhberg, Das Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti: ein kaiserzeitliches Straßenverzeichnis des Römischen Reiches; Überlieferung, Strecken, Kommentare, Karten, vol. 1 and 2, Berlin, Frank & Timme, 2006. I. Mac, Geografia României III. Câmpia Transilvaniei, Bucharest, 1987, 566‐578. C. S. Mackay, Expressions of motion to set goals in the colloquial Latin of the Empire, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphic 126, 1999, 229‐239. M. Macrea, D. Protase, Şantierul arheologic Alba Iulia şi împrejurimile lui, in Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 5, 1959, 442‐448.
87
Madzharov 2009 Macrea 1969 Manni 1949 Marcu, Cupcea 2011
Margary 1955, 1957 Marţian 1920 Marţian 1921 Mânzatu 1926 Matei 2006
Mattern 1999 McQuiggan 2006‐2007 Mehrer, Wescott 2006 Meloni 1988 Mertens 2008
Miclea, Florescu 1980 Miller 1887 Miller 1888 Miller 1916 Mirković 1960 Mirković 1996
Mirković 2007 Mitford 1980 Mitford 1980a Mitrofan 1997 Mitrofan 1997a Moatti 2006 Moreno Gallo 2004 Galliazzo 1994 Moreno Gallo 2006 Mócsy 1974 Moga, Ciugudean 1995 Molnár, Timár 2009
M. Madzharov, Roman roads in Bulgaria. Contribution to the development of Roman road system in the provinces of Moesia and Thrace, Veliko Tarnovo, 2009. M. Macrea, Viaţa în Dacia romană, Bucharest, 1969. E. Manni, L’impero di Gallieno, Rome, 1949. F. Marcu, G. Cupcea, The topography of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa and the first centuriation in Dacia, in Archäologishes Korespondenzblatt 41, 4, 2011, 543‐560. I. D. Margary, Roman Roads in Britain, I, London, 1955; II, London, 1957. I. Marţian, Repertoriu arheologic pentru Ardeal, Bistriţa, 1920. I. Marţian, Urme ale războaielor dintre romani şi daci, Cluj‐Napoca, 1921. G. Mânzatu, Monografia oraşului Dej, Bistriţa, 1926. D. Matei, Trupe fără castre, castre fără trupe în Dacia, in Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice Studențesti, Arheologie ‐ Istorie ‐ Muzeologie (Alba‐Iulia, Universitatea 1 Decembrie 1918), 12, 2006, 55‐70. S. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate, University of California, 1999. R. McQuiggan, Roman Geography and Spatial Perception in the Republic, in Hirundo. The McGill Journal of Classical Studies, V, 2006‐2007, 77‐98. M. Mehrer, K. Wescott (eds.), GIS and Archaeological Site Location Modeling, London ‐ New York, 2006. P. Meloni, La provincia romana di Sardegna, 1. I secoli I‐III, in ANRW II, 11/1, 1988, 451‐ 490. D. Mertens (ed.), Stadtverkehr in der antiken Welt: Internationales Kolloquium zur 175‐ Jahrfeier des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Rom, 21. bis 23. April 2004, Publication Wiesbaden, 2008. I. Miclea, R. Florescu, Decebal şi Traian, Bucharest, 1980. K. Miller, Die Weltkarte des Castorius gennant die Peutingerische Tafel, Ravensburg, 1887. K. Miller, Die Peutingerische Tafel, Ravensburg, 1888 (expanded edition 1916; reissued 1929 and 1962 – all from Stuttgart). K. Miller, Itineraria romana. Römische reisewege an der hand der Tabula Peutingeriana dargestellt, Stuttgart, 1916. M. Mirković, The Roman Road Naissus‐Scupi and the Stages Ad Fines, in Ziva Antica 10, 1960, 249‐257. M. Mirković, The Iron Gates (Djerdap) and the Roman Policy on the Moesian Limes A.D. 33‐ 117, in P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Belgrad (publisher: Archaeological Institute), 1996, 27‐40. M. Mirković, Moesia Superior: Eine Provinz An Der Mittleren Donau (Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie. Sonderbände der antiken Welt), Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 2007. T. B. Mitford, Roman Rough Cilicia, in ANRW II, 7, 2, 1980, 1230‐1261. T. B. Mitford, Cappadocia and Armenia Minor: Historical Setting of the Limes, in ANRW II, 7, 2, 1980, 1170‐1223. I. Mitrofan, Concernant la structure des voies romaines en Dacie, in ActaMN 34, 1, 1997, 613‐ 619. I. Mitrofan, Cercetări arheologice în aşezarea romană de la Micăsasa (jud. Sibiu) (campania 1995), in ActaMN 34, 1, 1997, 717‐723. C. Moatti, Translation, Migration, and Communication in the Roman Empire: Three Aspects of Movement in History, in Classical Antiquity 25, 1, April 2006, 109‐140. I. Moreno Gallo (ed.), Elementos de ingeniería romana. Congreso Europeo „Las Obras Públicas Romanas”, 3‐6 noviembre 2004, Tarragona, 2004. V. Galliazzo, I ponti romani. Catalogo generale, vol. 2, Treviso, 1994. I. Moreno Gallo, Vías Romanas. Ingeniería y técnica constructiva, Monterreina, 2006. A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London‐Boston, 1974. V. Moga, H. Ciugudean (eds.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Alba, Alba Iulia, 1995. G. Molnár, G. Timár, Mosaicking of the 1:75 000 sheets of the third military survey of the Habsburgic Empire, in Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 44/1, Budapest, 2009, 115‐ 120.
88
Morales 2010
J. R. Morales, Las vías romanas en la erudición moderna. Reivindicación de Nicolás Bergier, in Las técnicas y la construcciones de la Ingeniería Romana. V Congreso de las Obras Públicas Romanas, 2010, 119‐134 (http: //www.traianvs.net). Moreno Gallo 2010 I. Moreno Gallo, Vías romanas e infraestructuras modernas, in I Congreso Internacional de Carreteras, Cultura y Territorio. CICCP de Galicia. La Coruña, 3, 4 y 5 de Marzo de 2010, 1‐22 (http: //www.traianvs.net). Moreno Gallo 2010 a I. Moreno Gallo, Vías romanas. Las huellas de la ingeniería perdida, in Las técnicas y la construcciones de la Ingeniería Romana. V Congreso de las Obras Públicas Romanas, 2010, 11‐46 (http: //www.traianvs.net). Nemeth 2005 E. Nemeth, Armata în sud‐vestul Daciei romane / Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dakien, Timişoara, 2005. Nemeth 2007 E. Nemeth, Politische und militärische Beziehungen zwischen Pannonien und Dakien in der Römerzeit (Relaţii politice şi militare între Pannonia şi Dacia în epoca romană), Cluj‐Napoca, 2007. Nemeth, Fodorean, E. Nemeth, F. Fodorean, D. Matei, D. Blaga, Der südwestliche limes des römischen Matei, Blaga 2011 Dakien. Strukturen und Landschaft (Speculum Antiquitatis 1), Cluj‐Napoca, 2011. Nemeth, Fodorean, E. Nemeth, F. Fodorean, D. Matei, D. Blaga, Kastelle und Landschaft an der Südwestgrenze Matei, Blaga 2011a des römischen Dakien, in Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 62, 2011, 329‐350. Nemeti 2004 S. Nemeti, Piese romane de bronz din Dacia, in Revista Bistriţei XVIII, 2004, 89‐100. Nemeti 2006 S. Nemeti, Dacia... in formam provinciae redacta, in Eugen S. Teodor, Ovidiu Ţentea (ed.), Dacia Augusti Provincia. Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat în 13‐14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucharest, 2006, 271‐288 Nemeti 2009 S. Nemeti, Scythicum frigus. Repères pour une histoire du climat au Bas‐Danube (Ier siècle apr. J.‐C.), in Société et climats dans l’Empire romain. Pour une perspective historique et systémique de la gestion des resources en eau dans l’Empire romain, Napoli, 2009, 411‐427. Nemeti, Bărbulescu S. Nemeti, M. Bărbulescu, Territorium Arcobadarense, in Ephemeris Napocensis 16‐17, 2006‐2007 2006‐2007, 107‐118. Nemeti, Bărbulescu 2010 S. Nemeti, M. Bărbulescu, Arcobadara, in Latomus 69, 2010, 446‐455. Nemeti, Dana 2001 S. Nemeti, D. Dana, La Dacie dans les Res Gestae Divi Saporis, in Acta Musei Napocensis 38, 1, 2001, 239‐257. Nemeti, Nemeti, S. Nemeti, I. Nemeti, F. Fodorean, Territorium Potaissae, in Revista Bistriţei 17, 2003, 69‐75. Fodorean 2003 Nicolet 1991 C. Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1991. O’Connor 1993 C. O’Connor, Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, 1993. C. Pătraşcu, F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean, Tourism and Archaeology: Back to Origins, in Journal Pătraşcu, Fodorean, Fodorean 2011 of Settlements and Spatial Planning, vol. 2, no. 1 (2011), 57‐64. Palma 1982 A. Palma, Le strade romane nelle dottrine giuridiche e gromatiche dell’età del principato, in ANRW II, 14, 1982. Panaitescu 1936 E. Panaitescu, Provincia şi Imperiul. Extras din volumul omagial pentru fraţii Alexandru şi Ion I. Lapedatu, Bucharest, 1936, 3‐14. Panaitescu 1938 E. Panaitescu, Le grandi strade romane in Romania, in the collection Quaderni dell’Impero. Le grandi strade del mondo romano. X, Rome, 1938. Pascher 1949 G. Pascher, Römische Siedlungen und Straßen im Limesgebiet zwischen Enns und Leitha, Wien, 1949 (Der Römische Limes in Österreich, Heft XIX). Pazarli 2009 M. Pazarli, Mediterranean islands in Tabula Peutingeriana, in e‐Perimetron, vol. 4, No. 2, 2009, 101 ‐ 116 (www.e‐perimetron.org). Pazarli, Livieratos, M. Pazarli, E. Livieratos, C. Boutoura, Road network of Crete Boutoura 2007 in Tabula Peutingeriana, in e‐Perimetron, vol. 2, No. 4, 2007, 245 ‐ 260 (www.e‐ perimetron.org). Pădureanu 1982 E. Pădureanu, O contribuţie la problema drumului roman pe cursul mijlociu al Mureşului, in Ziridava 14, 1982, 67‐74. Pănuca 1930 E. Pănuca, Apărarea Banatului în timpurile cele mai vechi până la primul război mondial, in Analele Banatului 3, fasc. 4, 1930, 41‐48. Pârvan 1906 V. Pârvan, Câteva cuvinte cu privire la organizaţia provinciei Dacia traiană, Bucharest, 1906. Pârvan 1923 V. Pârvan, Începuturile vieţii romane la gurile Dunării, Bucharest, 1923. Pârvan 1926 V. Pârvan, Getica. O protoistorie a Daciei, Bucharest, 1926. 89
Pescaru 1988‐1991 Pescaru, Pescaru 1995‐1996 Pescaru, Pescaru 2001
Petolescu 2000 Petolescu 2000a Petolescu 2007 Petolescu 2007a Petolescu 2007b Petrović 1986 Pippidi, Russu 1977
Piso 1972 Piso 1993 Pop 2007 Popa‐Lisseanu 2006 Popescu 1976 Popescu‐Spineni 1978 Popescu, Ţentea 2006
Prieur 1976 Prontera 2003 Protase 2001 Protase 2003
Protase 2008 Protase, Gaiu, Marinescu 1996‐1997 Protase, Gudea, Ardevan 2008 Quilici 1991 Quilici, Quilici 2004 Pékary 1968 Radke 1964 Radke 1973 Radke 1981 Raepsaet 1999
E. Pescaru, Încă o plăcuţă votivă din aur descoperită la Germisara (Geoagiu‐Băi), in Sargetia 21‐24, 1988‐1991, 664‐666. E. Pescaru, A. R. Pescaru, Faze şi etape de amenajare ale complexului termal Germisara (Geoagiu‐Băi, judeţul Hunedoara), in Sargetia XXVI/1, 1995‐1996, 325‐339. A. R. Pescaru, E. Pescaru, Complexul termal roman Germisara. Faze şi etape de amenajare, in Studii de istorie antică. Omagiu profesorului Ioan Glodariu, Cluj‐Napoca ‐ Deva, 2001, 439‐452. C.C. Petolescu, Inscriptions de la Dacie romaine. Inscriptions externes concernant l’histoire de la Dacie (Ier‐IIIème siècles). II. Zones du CIL III et du CIL VIII, Bucharest, 2000. C. C. Petolescu, Dacia şi Imperiul Roman. De la Burebista până la sfârşitul antichităţii, Bucharest, 2000. C. C. Petolescu, C. Statilius Crito, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Ed. Academiei, Bucharest, 2007, 143 ‐ 146. C. C. Petolescu, Imaginea Daciei în spaţiul geografic antic, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Ed. Academiei, Bucharest, 2007, 268 ‐ 276. C. C. Petolescu, Dacia în Tabula Peutingeriana, in Contribuţii la istoria Daciei romane. I, Ed. Academiei, Bucharest, 2007, 276 ‐ 279. P. Petrović, La voie romaine dans les Portes de Fer, in Starinar 37, Belgrad 1986, 41‐51. D. M. Pippidi, I I. Russu, Inscripţiile Daciei romane (IDR), III/1 (Dacia Superior. Zona de sud‐ vest. Teritoriul dintre Dunăre, Tisa şi Mureş) (Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae, volumen III, 1. Dacia Superior. Pars occidentalis. Agger inter Danuvium, Pathisum et Marisiam), Bucharest, 1977. I. Piso, Publius Furius Saturninus, in Acta Musei Napocensis 9, 1972, 463‐471. I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae I. Die senatorischen Amtsträger, Bonn, 1993. Gr. P. Pop, Judeţul Cluj, Bucharest, 2007. G. Popa‐Lisseanu, Dacia în autorii clasici, Bucharest, 2006. E. Popescu, Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine din secolele IV‐XIII descoperite în România, Bucharest, 1976. M. Popescu‐Spineni, România în izvoarele geografice şi cartografice, Bucharest, 1978. F. M. Popescu, O. Ţentea, Participarea trupelor auxiliare din Moesia Superior şi Moesia Inferior la cucerirea Daciei, in E. S. Teodor, O. Ţentea (eds.), Dacia Augusti Provincia. Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat în 13‐14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, 2006, 75‐120. J. Prieur, L’histoire des régions alpestres (Alpes Maritimes, Cottiennes, Graies et Pennines) sous le haut‐empire romain (Ier – IIIe siècle après J. C.), in ANRW II, 5, 1976, 630‐643. F. Prontera (ed.), Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo, Florence, 2003. D. Protase, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, Bucharest, 2001. D. Protase, Descoperiri și date inedite privind castrul roman de la Hoghiz (Découvertes et dates inédites concernant le castre romain de Hoghiz, in Studia Historica et Theologica. Omagiu Profesorului Emilian Popescu, Iași, 125‐134. D. Protase, Castrul roman de la Orheiul Bistriţei. Das Römische Kastell von Orheiu Bistriţei (Romanian‐German text), Cluj‐Napoca, 2008. D. Protase, C. Gaiu, Gh. Marinescu, Castrul roman şi aşezarea civilă de la Ilişua (jud. Bistriţa Năsăud), in Revista Bistriţei 10‐11, 1996‐1997, 27‐110. D. Protase, N. Gudea, R. Ardevan, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane. Castrul roman de interior de la Gherla. Aus der Militärgeschichte des römischen Dakien. Das römische Binnenkastell von Gherla, Timişoara, 2008. L. Quilici, Le strade. Viabilità tra Roma e Lazio, Rome, 1991. L. Quilici, S. Quilici Gigli, Introduzione alla topografia antica, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2004. Th. Pékary, Untersuchungen zu den römischen Reichsstrassen, Bonn, 1968. G. Radke, Römische Strassen in der Gallia Cisalpina und der Narbonensis, in Klio 42, 1964 299‐318. G. Radke, Viae publicae romanae, in Real‐Encyclopädie der Altertumswissenschaft, Supplement XIII (A. Druckenmüller, München), Stuttgart, 1973, 1417 sqq. G. Radke, Viae publicae romanae, Bologna, 1981. G. Raepsaet, Landtransport, in Der Neue Pauly VI, 1097‐1106.
90
Rankov 1990
N. B. Rankov, Singulares legati legionis: a problem in the interpretation of the Ti. Claudius Maximus inscription from Philippi, in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 80, 1990, 165‐175. M. Rathmann, Untersuchungen zu den Reichsstraßen in den westlichen Provinzen des Rathmann 2003 Imperium Romanum (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbϋcher. Landschaftsverband Rheinland. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn und verein von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande), Band 55, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2003. Rădeanu, Fodorean 2010 V. Rădeanu, F. Fodorean, Archaeological structures in Dacia identified on aerial photographs, in Archeologia Aerea (100 anni di archeologia aerea in Italia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Roma, 15‐15 Aprile 2009, a cura di Giuseppe Ceraudo) 4‐5, 2010‐2011, 329‐ 332. Rădulescu, Bărbulescu A. Rădulescu, M. Bărbulescu, De nouveau sur les légats de Trajan en Mésie Inférieure entre 1981 103 et 108 de n.è., in Dacia N.S. 25, 1981, 353‐358. Răuţ, Bozu, O. Răuţ, O. Bozu, R. Petrovszky, Drumurile romane în Banat, in Banatica 4, 1977, 135‐159. Petrovszky 1977 Reverdy 1995 G. Reverdy, Histoire des routes de France, Paris 1995. Roll 1999 I. Roll, The Roads in Roman‐Byzantine Palestina and Arabia, in The Madaba Map Centenary 1897‐1997, //198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/articles/RollRoads.html, Ierusalim, 1999, 109‐ 113. Rossi 1968 L. Rossi, The Representation on Trajan’s Column of Trajan’s Rock‐cut Road in Upper Moesia, in The Antiquaries Journal 68, 1968, 41‐46. Roşu 2006 T. Roşu, Diploma de doctorat a lui August Treboniu Laurian. O revizuire sumativă, in Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, 10/I, 2006, 197‐204. G. Rösch, H. E. Rösch, Römerstraßen zwischen Mosel und Rhein. Unterwegs zu sehenswerten Rösch, Rösch 2010 Römerfunden, Mainz 2010. Rusu 1988‐1991 A. Rusu, Marcus Statius Priscus la Germisara, in Sargetia 21‐24, 1988‐1991, 653‐656. Rusu 1996 A. A. Rusu, Pons Augusti nel medioevo, in M. Porumb (ed.), Omaggio a Dinu Adameşteanu, Cluj‐Napoca, 1996, 249–252. Rusu, Pescaru 1996 A. Rusu, E. Pescaru, Călan Băi ‐ Aquae, jud. Hunedoara, in Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice ‐ campania 1995, Bucharest, 1996, 23‐24. Russu 1972 I. I. Russu, Getica lui Statilius Crito, in Studii Clasice 14, 1972, 111‐127. I. I. Russu, Inscripţii romane din judeţul Hunedoara, in Sargetia 5, 1968, 87‐107. Russu 1968 Russu 1970 I. I. Russu, Note epigrafice, in Acta MN 7, 1970, 517‐528. Salama 1951 P. A. Salama, Les voies romaines de l’Afrique du Nord, Alger, 1951. Salama 1980 P. A. Salama, Les voies romaines de Sitifis à Igilgili. Un exemple de politique routière approfondie, in Antiquités africaines 16, 1980, 101‐133. Salama 1985 P. A. Salama, L’apport des inscriptions routières à l’histoire politique de l’Afrique Romaine, in L’Africa Romana. Atti del III convegno di studio Sassari, 13‐15 dicembre 1985, 219‐231. Salway 2001 B. Salway, Travel, itineraria and tabellaria, in Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, (C. Adams, R. Laurence ed.), London/New York, Routledge, 2001, 22‐66. Salway 2004 B. Salway, Sea and river travel in the Roman itinerary literature, in R. Talbert, K. Brodersen (eds.), Space in the Roman World: its Perception and Presentation, Münster (LIT, 2004), 43‐ 96. Salway 2005 B. Salway, The Nature and Genesis of the Peutinger Map, in Imago Mundi 57, 2005, 119‐ 135. Šašel 1963 J. Šašel, Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt, Situla 5, Ljubljana, 1963. Šašel 1973 J. Šašel, Trajan’s Canal at the Iron Gate, in The Journal of Roman Studies 6, 1973, 80‐85. Šašel 1977 J. Šašel, Viae militares, in Limes X. Studien zu den militar grenzen, Xanten, 1977, 235‐244. Sechi 1990 M. Sechi, La costruzione della scienza geografica nei pensatori dell’antichità classica (Memorie della Società Geografica Italiana 44). Rome, 1990. Sherk 1974 R. K. Sherk, Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps’ in ANRW II, 1, 1974, 534‐ 562. Sillières 1990 P. Sillières, Les voies de communication de l’Hispanie méridionale, Paris, 1990. Simu 1924 T. Simu, Drumuri şi cetăţi romane în Banat, Lugoj, 1924. Schreiber 1960 H. Schreiber, Le vie della civiltà, Rome, 1960. Sitwell 1981 N. H. H. Sitwell, Roman Roads of Europe, London, 1981.
91
Speidel 1983
M. P. Speidel, Exploratores. Mobile elit units of Roman Germany, in Epigraphische Studien 13, 1983, 63‐78. Speidel 1984 M. P. Speidel, The captor of Decebalus, in M. P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies I. Mavors I, Amsterdam, 1984, 173‐187. Speidel 1987 M. P. Speidel, A building inscription from the fort of numerus Germanicianorum at Orăştioara de Sus in Upper Dacia, in Apulum 24, 1987, 143‐144. Staccioli 2003 R. A. Staccioli, The Roads of the Romans, Los Angeles, 2003. Stefan 2005 A. S. Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: architecture militaire, topographie, images et histoire, Rome, 2005. Stefulescu 1983 Al. Stefulescu, Un drum roman descoperit în Gorj, in Revista Nouă, no. 1, year IV, Bucharest, 1893, 340‐342. Strobel 1984 K. Strobel, Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans: Studien zur Geschichte des mittleren und unteren Donauraumes in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Antiquitas, ser. 1, fasc. 33), Bonn, 1984. Strobel 1989 K. Strobel, Die Donaukriege Domitian, Bonn, 1989. Suceveanu, Barnea 1993 Al. Suceveanu, Iuliana Barnea, Contributions à l’histoire des villes romaines de la Dobroudja, in Dacia N.S. 37, 1993, 159‐179. Susini 1992 G. Susini, Per una clasificazione delle iscrizioni itinerarie, in L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli (eds.) Tecnica stradale romana. ATTA 1, 1992, 119‐121. Syme 1988 R. Syme, Military geography at Rome, Classical Antiquity 7, 1988, 227‐251. Talbert 2000 R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (with Map‐by‐Map Directory on CD‐ROM), Princeton University Press, 2000. Talbert 2003 R. J. A. Talbert, Atlas of Classical History, Routledge, London and New York, 2003. Talbert 2004 R. J. A. Talbert, Cartography and Taste in Peutinger’s Roman Map, in R. J. A. Talbert, K. Brodersen (eds.), Space in the Roman World: its Perception and Presentation, Münster, 2004, 113‐141. Talbert 2005 R. J. A. Talbert, Rome’s Marble Plan and Peutinger’s Map: Continuity in Cartographic Design, in F. Beutler, W. Hameter (eds.), Festschrift Ekkehard Weber, Althistorisch‐Epigraphische Studien 5, Vienna, 2005, 627‐634. Talbert 2007 R. J. A. Talbert, Konrad Miller, Roman Cartography, and the Lost Western End of the Peutinger Map, in U. Fellmeth et al. (eds.), Historische Geographie der Alten Welt: Grundlagen, Erträge, Perspektiven, Festschrift Olshausen, Hildesheim, 2007, 353‐366. Talbert 2007a R. J. A. Talbert, Peutinger’s Roman Map: The Physical Landscape Framework, in M. Rathmann (ed.), Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, Mainz, 2007, 221‐230. Talbert 2007b R. Talbert, Author, Audience and the Roman Empire in the Antonine Itinerary, in Herrschen und Verwalten. Der Alltag der Römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit (herausgegeben von Rudolf Haensch und Johannes Heinrichs), 2007, 256‐270. R. J. A. Talbert, A Forgotten Masterpiece of Cartography for Roman Historians: Pierre Lapie’s Talbert 2008 Orbis Romanus ad Illustranda Itineraria (1845), in H. M. Schellenberg et al. (eds.), A Roman Miscellany: Essays in Honour of Anthony R. Birley on His Seventieth Birthday, Gdansk, 2008, 149‐156. Talbert 2008a R. J. A. Talbert, Greek and Roman Mapping: Twenty‐First Century Perspectives, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden, 2008, 9‐27. Talbert 2010 R. J. A. Talbert, Rome’s World: the Peutinger map reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, 2010. Talbert, Brodersen 2004 R. Talbert, K. Brodersen (ed.), Space in the Roman World: Its Perception and Presentation. Münster, 2004. Talbert, Elliot 2008 R. J. A. Talbert, T. Elliot, New Windows on the Peutinger Map of the Roman World, in A. K. Knowles (ed.), Placing history: how maps, spatial data, and GIS are changing historical scholarship, Redlands, CA, 2008, 199‐218. Talbert, Unger 2008 R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (ed.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh perspectives, new methods (the series Technology and Change in History, volume 10), Leiden, Boston, 2008. Tănase 1980 M. Tănase, L’homme et la route en Europe occidentale au Moyen Age et aux temps modernes. Centre culturel de l’abbaye de Flaran. Deuxiemès journées internationales d’histoire, 20‐22 septembre 1980, Auch, 1980, 289‐294. 92
Tănase 1995 Téglás 1913 Teiuşan, Netea 1970 Thérèse, Raepsaet ‐Charlier 1975 Thévenot 1969 Thiollier, Alexandrowicz 2000 Tilburg 2007 Timár et alii 2007
Timár et alii 2008 Timoc 2001 TIR L 35 Tocilescu 1896 Tocilescu 1900 Tomowski 1961 Torma 1864 Torma 1864‐1865 Torma 1880 Torma 1880a Trevor 2002 Tsontchev 1959 Tudor 1938 Tudor 1958 Tudor 1968 Tudor 1971 Tudor 1974 Tudor 1974a Uggeri 1982‐1983 Urban 1845
Urloiu 2010
Van Berchem 1982 Van Tilburg 2006 Velcea, Savu 1982 Verbrugghe 1976 Vitruvius 1964 Vladimirov 1963
M. Tănase, Contribuţie la studiul evoluţiei drumurilor în Transilvania. Continuitate şi substituiri în partea meridională, in Historia Urbana 1‐2, 1995, 79‐104. I. Téglás, A Liskakúti romai telepröl, in Archaeologiai Értesítő 33, 1913, 58‐60. I. P. Teiuşan, V. Netea, August Treboniu Laurian, Bucharest, 1970. M. Thérèse, G. Raepsaet‐Charlier, Gallia Belgica et Germania Inferior. Vingt‐cinq années de recherches historiques et archéologiques, in ANRW II, 4, 1975, 61‐73. E. Thévenot, E., Les voies romaines de la cité des Éduens, Bruxelles 1969. G. Thiollier‐Alexandrowicz, Itinéraires romains en France, Ed. Faton, 2000. C. R. van Tilburg, Traffic and congestion in the Roman Empire, London ‐ New York, Routledge, 2007. G. Timár, G. Molnár, Z. Imecs, C. Păunescu, Datum and projection parameters for the Transylvanian sheets of the 2nd and 3rd military surveys, in Geographia Technica 1, Cluj‐ Napoca, 2007, 83‐88. G. Timár, B. Kovács, Zs. Bartos‐Elekes, C. Păunescu, The Dealul Sibiului base point of the Transylvanian surveys, in Geographia Technica 1, Cluj‐Napoca, 2008, 127‐139. C. Timoc, Despre dirijarea navigaţiei fluviale în zona Porţilor de fier ale Dunării în epoca romană, in In memoriam Dumitru Tudor, Timişoara 2001, 97‐116. Tabula Imperii Romani L 35, Romula–Durostorum–Tomis, Bucharest, 1969. Grigore Tocilescu, Neue Inschriften aus Rümanien, in Archaeologish ‐ Epigrapshiche Milleilungen aus Österreich‐Ungarn, Wien, 19, 1896. Gr. Tocilescu, Fouilles et recherches archéologiques en Roumanie, Bucharest, 1900. T. Tomowski, Beitrag zu einer Rekonstruktion der Strecke Scupi‐Stobi auf der Tabula Peutingeriana, in Ziva Antica 11, 1961, 113‐125. K. Torma, Adalék észak‐nyugati Dacia föld‐és helyiratához, Pest, 1864. K. Torma, Az Alsó‐ilosvai romai állótábor és müemlékei, in Erdély‐Muzeum Egylet, III, Kolozsvár 1864‐1865, 10‐67. K. Torma, Idem, A limes dacicus felsö része, Budapest, 1880. K. Torma, Adalékok Dácia föld és helyiratához, in Archaeologiai Értesítő 14, 1880, 101‐117. H. A. Trevor, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, Duckworth Archaeology, 2005. D. Tsontchev, La voie romaine Philippopolis ‐ Sub Radice, in Latomus 18, 1959, 154‐170. D. Tudor, Un “miliarium” de la Constantin cel Mare, descoperit în Dacia, in Arhivele Olteniei, XVII, 1938, no. 95‐96, 1‐7. D. Tudor 1958, Oltenia romană, 2nd ed., Bucharest, 1958. D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, IIIrd ed., Bucharest, 1968. D. Tudor, Podurile romane de la Dunărea de Jos, Bucharest, 1971. D. Tudor, Le pont de Trajan à Drobeta‐Turnu Severin’ in Les ponts romains du Bas‐Danube, Bucharest, 1974. D. Tudor, Sucidava, Craiova, 1974. G. Uggeri, La viabilità romana in Sicilia con particolare riguardo al III e IV secolo, in Kokalos 28‐29, 1982‐1983, 424‐459. A. Fortia d’Urban, Recueil des Itinéraires Anciens comprenant l’Itinéraire d’Antonin, la Table de Peutinger et un choix des périples grecs, avec dix cartes dressées par M. le Colonel Lapie, Paris, Imprimerie Royale, 1845. R. Urloiu, Cavaleri promovaţi în ordinal senatorial în secolul Antoninilor, in Analele Universităţii Creştine Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucureşti, Seria Istorie ‐ Serie nouă, 1/1, 2010, 53‐ 78. D. van Berchem, Les routes et l’histoire. Etudes sur les Helvètes et leurs voisins dans l’Empire Romain, Geneva, 1982. C. van Tilburg, Traffic and Congestion in the Roman Empire, Routledge, London and New York, 2006. V. Velcea, Al. Savu, Geografia Carpaţilor şi a Subcarpaţilor româneşti, Bucharest, 1982 G. P. Verbrugghe, Sicilia, series Itinera romana. Beiträge zur Strassengeschichte des Römischen Reiches, Band II, Bern, 1976. Vitruvius, Despre arhitectură, Bucharest, 1964 (translated in Romanian by G. M. Cantacuzino, T.Conta and G. Ionescu). V. Vladimirov, Nouvelles données sur la voie romaine Oescus‐Serdica au IVe siècle, in Archeologija 6, 1963, 33‐34. 93
Vlădescu 1986 Von Hagen 1978 Vučković, Mihajlović, Karović 2007 Vulpe 1960
Cristian M. Vlădescu, Fortificaţiile romane din Dacia Inferior, Craiova, 1986. V. W. Von Hagen, Le grande strade di Roma nel mondo, Rome, 1978. D. Vučković, D. Mihajlović, G. Karović, Trajan's Bridge on the Danube. The current results of underwater archaeological research, in Istros 14, 2007, 119‐130. R. Vulpe, Muntenia şi Moldova de jos în timpul lui Traian, în lumina unei noi lecturi a papirusului Hunt, in Studii Clasice II, 1960, 337‐357. Vulpe 1988 R. Vulpe, Columna lui Traian. Monument al etnogenezei românilor, Bucharest, 1988. Weathley, Gillings 2002 D. Weathley, M. Gilings, Spatial Technology and Archaeology. The Archaeological Applications of GIS, London ‐ New York, 2002. Weber 1976 E. Weber, Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324 (with separate Kommentar volume), Graz, 1976. Weber 1989 E. Weber, Zur Datierung der Tabula Peutingeriana, in Labor omnibus unus. Festschrift für Gerold Walser (edited by H. Herzig and R. Frei‐Stobla), Stuttgart 1989, 113‐117. Weber 1999 E. Weber, The Tabula Peutingeriana and the Madaba Map, in http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/articles/WeberPeutingeriana.html (the article was first published in: The Madaba Map Centenary 1897‐1997, Jerusalem 1999, 41‐46). Wescott, Brandon 2000 K. Wescott, R. J. Brandon (eds.), Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists. A Predictive Modeling Toolkit, London, 2000. Whittaker 2004 Ch. Whittaker, Rome and its frontiers: the dynamics of Empire, Routledge, London‐New York, 2004. Wilson 1992 R. J. A. Wilson, Sicily under the Roman Empire. The Archaeology of a Roman Province: 36 BC – AD 535, London, 1992. Winkler 1982 I. Winkler, Drumul roman Napoca‐Potaissa. II, in Acta Musei Napocensis 19, 1982, 587‐589. Winkler, Blăjan, I. Winkler, M. Blăjan, T. Cerghi, Drumul roman Napoca‐Potaissa. I, in Potaissa. Studii şi Cerghi 1980 comunicări 2, 1980, 63‐73. Wiseman 1970 T. P. Wiseman, Roman Republican Road‐Building, in Papers of British School at Rome 38, 1970, p. 122‐152. Wollmann 1968 V. Wollmann, Monumente sculpturale din Germisara, in Sargetia 5, 1968, 109‐120. Wollmann 1996 V. Wollmann, Mineritul metalifer, extragerea sării şi carierele de piatră din Dacia romană. Der Erzbergbau, die Salzgewinnung und die Steinbrüche im Römischen Dakien, Cluj‐Napoca, 1996. Yegül 2009 F. Yegül, Bathing in the Roman World, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
94
Fig. 1. Map of the Roman Empire (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 16, map I).
Fig. 2. Dacia and the surrounding provinces, with the main Roman roads (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 17, map II). 95
Fig. 3. Roman Dacia under Trajan’s reign (based on E. Nemeth). Fig. 4. Top (a): the Roman fortress at Vărădia ‐ “Chilii” (no. 1 in fig. 5). Bottom (b): the Roman fortress at Vărădia ‐ “Pustă” (no. 2 in fig. 5). 96
Fig. 5. The Roman fortress at Surducu Mare (Caraş‐Severin County). Fig. 6. Sketch of the Roman legionary fortress at Berzovia (based on A. Flutur, Clădirile comandamentului din castrul de legiune traianic de la Berzobis, in Analele Banatului S.N., Arheologie‐Istorie, XIX, 2011, 156, Pl. I). 97
Fig. 7. The northern side of the Roman fortress at Berzovia. Fig. 8. The Roman fortress at Fârliug. Fig. 9. The Roman fortress at Jupa, Roman Tibiscum (Caraş‐Severin County). 98
Fig. 10. The Roman fortress at Zăvoi (Caraş‐Severin County). Fig. 11. The roads of Roman Dacia. 99
Fig. 12. The imperial Roman road from Potaissa to Napoca. Fig. 13. Left: copy of the lost milestone from Aiton (based on I. Winkler, Date noi despre CIL, III, 1627, cea dintâi atestare epigrafică a Potaissei, în Potaissa, 3, 1982, 80‐81). Right: traces of the Roman road between Ceanu Mic and Aiton (photos F. Fodorean, 2001). 100
Fig. 14. The imperial Roman road close to the village of Ceanu Mic (Cluj County). Photos: F. Fodorean, 2002. 101
Fig. 15. The imperial Roman road from Aiton to Cluj‐Napoca. 102
Fig. 16. Top: copy of the milestone from Aiton. Bottom: general view of the village Ceanu Mic with the traces of the Roman road in background. 103
Fig. 17. The infrastructure of the Roman road at the entrance in Ceanu Mic. Photos F. Fodorean, 2005. 104
Fig. 18. The central part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Apulum to Potaissa (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map D6). 105
Fig. 19. The northern part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Napoca to Mera and Şardu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map C6). 106
Fig. 20. Top: the milestone from Mera (Cluj County) (based on C. Daicoviciu, Un nou “miliarium” din Dacia, în AISC I, 2, 1928‐1932, 48‐53). Bottom: Austrian map indicating the location of Mera. 107
Fig. 21. The northern part of Roman Dacia, depicting the Roman road from Napoca to Mera and Şardu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map C5). 108
Fig. 22. Map of Roman Dacia, showing the location on Micia (today Vețel, Hunedoara County). 109
Fig. 23. The south‐western part of Roman Dacia, depicting the road from Lederata to Sasca Montană (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map F3). 110
Fig. 24. The south‐western part of Roman Dacia, depicting the road from Iablaniţa to Lăpuşnicel and Dalboşeţ (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map F4). 111
Fig. 25. The valley of the river Olt, indicating the location of the villages Băbiciu and Gostavăţu (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map G7). 112
Fig. 26. The valley of the river Olt, indicating the location of Racoviţa‐Copăceni (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E7). 113
Fig. 27. The location of Tibiscum, today Jupa (Caraş‐Severin County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E4). 114
Fig. 28. Today’s analogy of the former Danubian road close to Ogradena. Fig. 29. The Peutinger map depicting the territory of Roman Dacia (segm. VI) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 10, 27). Fig. 30. The Peutinger map depicting the territory of Roman Dacia (segm. VII) (after M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 10, 27). 115
Fig. 31. Map of Roman Dacia (based on I. Piso, Fasti provinciae Daciae I, Bonn, 1993, 33). Fig. 32. Fragment of Austrian map showing the location of the former capital of Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. The Roman road is depicted as “Trajans Weg”. 116
Fig 33. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Aerial photograph and plan (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, 40 and 95). Fig. 34. The imperial Roman road close to the village Bărăştii Haţegului (Hunedoara County). 117
Fig. 35. The imperial road between Bărăștii Hațegului and Sântămăria‐Orlea (Hunedoara County). Fig. 36. The Hațeg Depression (foto: F. Fodorean, April 2007). 118
Fig. 37. The imperial road identified in the terrain in several points between Sarmizegetusa and Sântămăria‐Orlea (foto: F. Fodorean, April 2007). 119
Fig. 38. The Roman road from Sarmizegetusa to Uroi, indicating the location of Ad Aquas, today Călan (Hunedoara County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map E5). 120
Fig. 39. The Roman road from Uroi to Blandiana, indicating the location of Cigmău (Hunedoara County) (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, map D5). 121
Fig. 40. The legionary fortress at Potaissa (based on M. Bărbulescu). 122
Fig. 41. The topography of Potaissa. 123
Fig. 42. The spring of the aqueducts: ‘Izvorul Copăcenilor’ (photo F. Fodorean, 2007). Fig. 43. General view with the location of the spring (photo F. Fodorean, 2007). 124
Fig. 44. Traces of the former Roman stone quarry viewed by I. Téglas at the beginning of the XXth century, close to the spring of the aqueducts (after I. Bajusz, Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések. I/1. Kötet, Kolozsvár, 2005, s.v. Szind – Sânduleşti, 348, 350‐352). Fig. 45. The discovery point of the aqueduct supplying the Roman military fortress at Potaissa. The intersection of the current road Turda‐Petreşti with the road to Sănduleşti. 125
Fig. 46. The discovery of the aqueduct supplying the fortress at Potaissa (winter 2005‐2006). Ceramic pipe. Depth: ‐ 0,80 m (photos M. Pîslaru, S. Nemeti). Fig. 47. Ceramic pipes. The aqueduct supplying the Roman military fortress. Length: 55 cm and 43 cm. External diameter: 16,5 cm. Internal diameter: 12,5 cm (photographs: F. Fodorean). 126
Fig. 48. The aqueducts of Potaissa. Digital elevation model (F. Fodorean, I. Fodorean). Fig. 49. Top: the location of caput aquae. Bottom: the location of the old mill in Copăceni (photographs: F. Fodorean). 127
Fig. 50. The aqueduct supplying the city of Potaissa. General view from Copăceni to caput aquae (photograph F. Fodorean). Fig. 51. Ceramic pipes of different sizes drawn by I. Téglás (after I. Bajusz, Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések. I/1. Kötet, Kolozsvár, 2005, 378, 379). Bottom left: ceramic pipe possible used for the aqueduct of the city. Right: stone block with orifice. 128
Fig. 52. The site ‘Valea Sărată (Salt Valley)’ (photographs F. Fodorean, 2012). 129
Fig. 53. The site Pataklejáró (Mihai Viteazu, Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). Fig. 54. The site ‘Sajkút’ (Mihai Viteazu, Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). 130
Fig. 55. The Roman settlement at Copăceni (Cluj County) (photo F. Fodorean). Fig. 56. The Roman rural settlement from Luncani (Cluj County). Fig. 57. The location of the fortress at Ilişua. 131
Fig. 58. The topography of Ilişua after K. Torma, Az Alsó‐ilosvai romai állótábor és müemlékei, Erdély‐Muzeum Egylet, III, Kolozsvár 1864–1865, 58. Fig. 59. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (Hunedoara County) (sketch and photo: F. Fodorean). 132
Fig. 60. The Roman road from Turda to Călăraşi. Left: sketch after I. Téglás, în Archaeologiai Értesitö, 33, 1913, 57. Right: fragment of an Austrian map from the 19th century depicting the same road. Fig. 61. The Roman road from Cluj‐Napoca to Gilău. Sketch and Austrian modern map from the 19th century. 133
Fig. 62. The Roman road from Cluj‐Napoca to Gilău (photos F. Fodorean). 134
Fig. 63. The Roman road from Gherla to Sic (Cluj County). Fig. 64. Villae rusticae in Roman Dacia. 135
Fig. 65. The location of the place‐names from the Peutinger map indicating bridges. Fig. 66. The Trajan’s Column. Scenes depicting Roman bridges (after R. Vulpe, Trajan’s Column, Bucharest, 2000). 136
Fig. 67. Trajan’s bridge over the Danube depicted on the Trajan’s Column (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 9). Fig. 68. Reconstruction of the Trajan’s bridge at Drobeta (based on M. Bărbulescu et alii, Atlas‐dicţionar al Daciei romane, Cluj‐Napoca, 2005, fig. 8). Fig. 69. The location of the Roman bridge at Potaissa. 137
Fig. 70. Map from 1956 (scale 1:20.000) indicating: 1. the route of the Roman road from Silivaş‐Hăşdate‐Gherla‐Băiţa‐Buneşti; 2. the location of the Roman fortress from Gherla (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, ID 335/3172). 138
Fig. 71. The Roman road from Gherla to Băiţa andBuneşti (photo F. Fodorean, 2005). 139
Fig. 72. Map from 1956 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Hoghiz, with the name ‘la Cetate’ (‘to the fortress’). Right, bottom: map from 1955 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the same fortress with the mention ‘Standort des röm. Lagers Pons Vetus’ (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Cuciulata, 1956, ID607/3860, Cuciulata, 1955, ID 1331/3860). 140
Fig. 73. Map from 1957 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Râşnov (Braşov County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Râşnov, ID 646/3956). Fig. 74. Map from 1917 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman fortress from Breţcu (Covasna County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Breţcu, ID 810/4361). 141
Fig. 75. Map from 1925 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman road from Gialmar to Binţinţi (Hunedoara County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Geoagiul de Jos, ID 170/2760). Fig. 76. The valley of Arieş from Turda to Roşia Montană. Digital elevation model. 142
Fig. 77. Map from 1957 (scale 1:20.000) indicating the location of the Roman road from Buru (Cluj County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, Rimetea, ID 250/2966). Fig. 78. The Roman road from Buru (Cluj County) (foto F. Fodorean, July 2003). 143
Fig. 79. The Roman road from Buru (Cluj County). Detail (foto F. Fodorean, July 2003). Fig. 80. The location of the Roman tower in Moldoveneşti (Cluj County) (based on http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/download‐planuri‐tragere.php, ID 250/2966, 1957, Rimetea and ID 289/3066, 1953, Bădeni). 144
Fig. 81. General view of the valley of Arieş towards Turda (photo taken from the plateau in Moldoveneşti, where the Roman tower is located). Photo F. Fodorean, 2006. Fig. 82. General view of the valley of Arieş towards Turda and Câmpia Turzii (photo taken from the plateau in Moldoveneşti). Photo F. Fodorean, 2006. 145
Fig. 83. The Roman road from Geoagiu‐Băi (photo F. Fodorean, 2003). 146
Fig. 84. The area around Germisara.
147