Ancient Linear Fortifications

A N C I E N T L I N E A R F O R T I F I C AT I O N S
O N T H E L OW E R DA N U B E
MUSEUM OF BRILA
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA
Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube

ANCIENT LINEAR FORTIFICATIONS
ON THE LOWER DANUBE
P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E N AT I O N A L C O L L O Q U I U M
ANCIENT LINEAR FORTIFICATIONS ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE LOWER DANUBE
BRILA, 1416 JUNE 2013
EDITORS:
VALERIU SRBU, COSTIN CROITORU
MEGA PUBLISHING HOUSE CLUJ-NAPOCA 2014

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific
Research, CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.
Editors:
Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru
Review:
Vitalie Brc
Layout:
Petru Ureche
Cover Design:
Costin Croitoru
DTP:
Petru Ureche
The Authors
The authors are responsible for the contents.
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ANCIENT LINEAR
FORTIFICATIONS ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE LOWER DANUBE. National colloquium
(2013 ; Brila)
Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube : Proceedings of the National
Colloquium Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Left Bank of the Lower Danube :
Brila, 1416 june 2013 / ed.: Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2014
Bibliogr.
ISBN 978-606-543-529-2
I. Srbu, Valeriu (ed.)
II. Croitoru, Costin (ed.)
623.1(3)
94(3)
Editura MEGA | www.edituramega.ro

e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro
CONTENTS
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 7
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Flavius Bozu, Ovidiu Bozu

Preventive Archaeological Research on Middle Ground Wave from Gearmata Confine
(Timi County).............................................................................................................................. 9
Richard A. Mason, Lucas C. Mason

Unrecognized Remains of the Western Segment of the Ploscueni-Stoicani Vallum
(Athanarics Wall) East of Ploscueni (Vrancea County, Romania) ............................................ 27
Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru, Stnic Pandrea

The Linear Fortification from ueti, Brila County...................................................................41
Magdalena tefan, Dan tefan

Alternative Explorations of Linear Fortifications Trajans vallum from ueti
(Brila County) ...........................................................................................................................57
NARRATIVE SOURCES
Drago Mndescu
An Almost Forgotten Old Map and the First Mentions of Some Roman Remains
on Alutanus and Transalutanus Limes.........................................................................................77
Ion Dumitrescu
The Troian and Other Roman Monuments on Spechts Map.....................................................85
Costin Croitoru
The Trojan in the Romanian Oral Tradition..............................................................................99
DISCUSSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Eugen S. Teodor
Landscape Restitution and War games: The Gate of Invasions...................................................111
Nicolae Ursulescu, Vasile Cotiug
On the Dating and Use of the Linear Fortification from Southern Moldavia
(Stoicani-Ploscueni) ................................................................................................................143
Mircea Ignat
Earth Vallums Possible Interpretations...................................................................................163
VARIA
Vitalie Brc
Olbia, Tyras, the Roman Empire and the Sarmatians in the Second Half of the 1st
Early 2nd Century AD...............................................................................................................167
Foreword
The ancient linear fortifications on the left-hand side of the lower Danube
drew early on the attention of the learned of the time, as more or less succinct
mentions of them appeared in various travel journals or in one of the first medieval
cartographic works. Moreover, the presence of these monuments generated very
diverse popular interpretations, regarding the fact of common ancestry or the
founding myth, justified ab antique, as the most common names are Trajans vallum/
road, Troianul or Novacs furrow.
Archaeological research has tried to separate the fact from the fiction. Even
though the auxiliary sciences, geophysical methods and the experiments allowed for
much wider possibilities, we are still mostly at the stage of hypotheses regarding the
essentials of the linear fortifications. When these defensive structures were built,
some of them dozens or even hundreds of kilometres long? Who are the builders and
what are the reasons for digging/building them? These are questions that are still
waiting for unequivocal answers.
What is worse is that the geomorphological transformations the urban
works, but mostly the systematic farming works of the past two centuries are
endangering the state or preservation or even the existence on the ground of these
sites. It becomes harder every day to obtain primary data on their exact route, their
dimensions, the presence of a berma or of the ditch/ditches etc.
That is why we aim to hold yearly conferences, followed by publishing the
lectures in volumes dedicated to these monuments, in international languages. We
are considering the fortifications of all types from the lower Danube basin, in order
to have an overview of this phenomenon, but also to try and understand the reasons
for building them. We are planning this because, in the absence of primary resources,
it is the only way to have their ethnic origin and a more exact dating.
At the same time, we are trying to publish articles and studies based on
sources that are as diverse as possible ranging from those connected to the historical
enquiry, oral traditions, toponyms and cartography, and then those regarding written
documents, chronicles, travel journals etc. We are looking at all types of linear
constructions, regardless of the hypotheses of their chronological placement in
antiquity or of the ethnicity of the supposed builders. That is because we start from the
assumption that the historical synthesis can only be the result of the confrontation
between the archaeological thesis and the literary antithesis.
Finally, we are expecting that these conferences would include reports from
the direct archaeological research, in the field, regarding linear fortifications and, of
course, from various inter-disciplinary approaches.
The Editors
Preventive Archaeological Research
on Middle Ground Wave from Gearmata Confine
(Timi County)
Flavius Bozu, Ovidiu Bozu
Museum of the Mountainous Banat, Reia, Romania
bozu.flavius.petru@gmail.com
ovidiu_bozu@yahoo.co.uk
Keywords: preventive archaeological research, earth ramparts, Gearmata, Timi
Abstract: In this article the authors prezented some preventive Rezumat: n acest articol autorii prezint cercetrile
archaeological research conducted on Arad-Timioara arheologice preventive prilejuite de contrucia autostrzii
highway intersected the km. 40+900 40+950. The objective Arad-Timioara (de la km. 40+900 40+950). Obiectivul este
is an wave length of 248.9 km that starts near the Danube un val de pmnt n lungime de 248,9 km. ce pornete din
River County exceeds. Researched area through preventive apropierea Dunrii i depete rul Mure. n zona investigat
excavations, is situated on the plain forms Vinga terminal on prin spturi arheologice cu caracter preventiv, monumentul
a plateau spread relatively sharp slope between two deep se afl situat pe formele terminale ale cmpiei Vinga, pe un
valleys and wide basin belonging Beregsu creek between platou ntins cu pante relativ accentuate, ntre dou vi adnci
village and village Giarmata Corneti at about 1 km west of i largi aparinnd bazinului hidrografic al prului Beregsu,
the railroad Timioara-Lipova. ntre comuna Giarmata i satul Corneti, la aproximativ un
kilometru vest de calea ferat Timoara-Lipova.
The earth ramparts located in the convergence area between Banat Plain and the remaining
hill formations belonging to mountain Banat, bar access from and to the Pannonian pocket located
between Tisza river and the Danube. They provide the image of a Vorlimes-type complex deep
defensive system lying 200 km east the Danube border of the Roman empire, a system known in the
specialty literature as linear fortification (Fig.I)1.
Florin Draovean, Doina Benea and collaborators present, in the volume dedicated to the
rescue archaeological excavations performed within the boundary of Dumbrvia village, nearby
Timioara municipality2, by bringing together most of the bibliography as well as historical and
chronological preliminary considerations, the earth ramparts crossing the Banat Plain. Most recent
studies discussing the Roman ramparts in Banat, within the context of the south-western border of
Roman Dacia, were drawn by Doina Benea and Eduard Nemeth3.
In the rescue archaeologically investigated area, the 248.9 km long rampart starting nearby the
Danube and exceeding Mure river4 lies on the terminal formations of Vinga Plain, on a broad plateau
with relatively steep slopes, between two deep broad valleys belonging to the hydrographical basin
of Beregsu stream, between the Giarmata commune and Corneti village, at ca. 1 km west the
Timoara Lipova railway (Fig.II)5.
1
Napoli 1977 p.304; topographically, the Banat ramparts delimit the plain area from the sub-mountain hills of the Banat massif.
2
Draovean et alii 2004, p.920.
3
Nemeth 2005, p.8289; Benea 1996, p.4769; Benea 2008b, p.2951; Nemeth et alii 2011, p.5881; Benea 2013c,
p. 169178.
4
5
In May 2010, the Museum of the Mountainous Banat, signed a contract for rescue archaeological research with TOMIS
RESEARCH CENTER LTD (Tomis Asocierea Astaldi FCC), whose investment objective was Site 9 the Roman rampart
on the Arad-Timioara highway by km. 40+900.
Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube 926

10 Flavius Bozu, Ovidiu Bozu
The linear fortification crossed by the Arad-Timioara highway from km. 40+900 40+950,
mechanically excavated on a 0.20 mdepth, unearthed the route of a rampart framed by ditches both
eastwards as well as westwards (Fig.III).
The archaeologically investigated surface was divided into three trenches A, B, C portioned by
2 mhigh dividers, where ditches were researched and unfilled on a 46 m.length.
Trench S.I sized 46 2 1.20 m, was plotted and excavated from west to east. It was aimed at
identifying and archaeologically recording all the elements of this linear fortification consisting of
a rampart and four ditches. The northern profile of the trench, except for the ditches, has a simple
stratigraphy where the farming layer is no deeper than 0.200.40 m, followed up to 0.90 mdeep
by a brown-ochre pigmented layer and, to 1.20 mdeep, by a reddish-brown layer of hard and wet
clay. Inside the three trenches A-B-C, rampart ditches were excavated and earth removed by manual
excavation carried out from the centre to the edges and along the edges on north-south axis.
The first ditch, lying eastward the rampart, identified in trench S.I., between squares 37.80
41.40mwas unfilled in all the three trenches on a 45 mlength. The ditch width is not the same on
the entire investigated length, being in trench A 3.60 mwide, 4.00 mwide in trench B. and 4.20 min
trench C.
Dug in V shape, the ditch bottom reached a porous wet yellowish-white limestone layer
(Munsell 2.5Y7.6). its base enlarges on the entire ditch length, having when removed, a ca. 1520 cm
narrow channel appearance.
The ditch depth, measured at the divider level to which add the 20 cm of mechanical earth
removal in trench A is of 2.50 m, in trench B of 2.80 mand in trench C of 2.70 m. Depth differences are
explained by a slight natural sloping of the land from north to south (Fig.IV).
The northern profile of the ditch evidences several filling lenses from bottom to the maximum
opening as follows: between 2m and 2.80 ma ochre-red layer (Munsell 7,5Y 3.4); between 1m
and 2ma ochre-brown layer; between 0.40 m and 1 ma dark grey layer (Munsell 2.5Y 3/2);
between 0.20 m and 0.40 m a greyish-brown layer; and only between meters 38.10 and 42.50,
between 0and 0.20 depth, an ochre-brown lens.
The following archaeological material resulted from the removed earth at various depths of
the ditch: in trench A at 0.65 mdeep, five atypical handmade potshards of semifine brown fabric
(Fig.IX/1); at 0.90 mdeep, four atypical potshards made of red-orange semifine fabric (Fig.IX/2).
In trench B at 0.65 mdeep, a semifine yellowish-brown thin-walled potshard with three grooves;
six semifine brown-orange fabric potshards and a rim fragment, brown-orange, semifine fabric with
rounded rim slightly reverted, below which a profiled groove delimits the short vessel neck (Fig.IX/3).
The second ditch, crossed by trench S.I between meters 26.60 and 31.80 is at 6 mdistance from
the first. Oriented eastwards, with the westward slope joining the rampart is 5.50 mwide in trenchA,
5.20 min trench B and 5.50 min trench C, the ditch depth being of 3.40 m. Dug up to a depth of
2.20 min V-shape, the ditch bottom, touching at this depth a porous yellowish-white limestone layer
(Munsell 2.5Y7.6) is U-shaped (Fig.V).
In the second ditch, trench A, at 0.50 mdeep was discovered a pentagonal-shaped bronze
appliqu, made by stamping, decorated on the edges with short vertical grooves placed as rays
around a laurel crown reading VETERANIS and a central stylised cross framed by a circle. It is a modern
military insignia, with pairs of small orifices set on each of the pentagon sides, attached on a textile
support (Fig.IX/9).
Still from trench A, at 2.60 mdeep come 66 potshards made of a coarse fabric with small stones,
thick walls, black in cracking, brown with secondary burning traces on the outside that belong to a
handmade jar-type vessel, 15.5 cm tall, with a rim diameter of 9.5 cm, maximum diameter of 12 cm,
flat base with 7.5 cm diameter (Fig.IX/67).
The archaeologically recorded earth rampart in trench S.I, between meter 17.90 and 26.40, is
8.50 mwide. It emerges as a 4050 cm thick yellowish clay layer, slightly bulging towards the centre,
between squares 2123 of the trench (Fig.VI).
Preventive Archaeological Research on Middle Ground Wave from Gearmata Confine (Timi County) 11
By the western side of the earth rampart, the raking performed by meters 17.90 and 19.10
revealed along the rampart in all the three trenches, a 1.301.50 mwide well-compacted clay strip
with small stones of limestone origin, suggesting a patrol road. It is linked to another 1.50 mwide
reddish clay strip, delimited by the ends by the print of two postholes suggesting the base of an
enclosure (palisade). Stratigraphically, the earth rampart is composed of the following possible
building elements: a 1.60 mwide and 0.65 mdeep rainwater catchment ditch, a 1.301.50 mwide
patrol road and a 1.50 mwide base of a palisade type enclosure.
The third ditch, trapezoid in shape and even base, 1.60 mwide and 65 cm deep, in all the three
trenches, was excavated by the rampart base, westwards, between squares 16.20 and 17.90 of trench
S.I (Fig.VII).
On the bottom of the ditch in trench C was discovered an iron-made spiked arrowhead, 8.2 cm
long, 1.8 cm wide and 0.3 cm thick (Fig.IX/8).
The fourth rampart ditch on the Arad-Timioara highway, in the surface and northern profile
of trench S.I was delimited between meters 5.40 and 11.30. Lying 4.90 mwest the third ditch and
6.60mfrom the earth rampart, its width over the slopes in trench A is of 5 mand of 4.50 min
trenches B and C. Dug in V shape up to a depth of 2.90 m, the ditch bottom appearing as a narrow
channel, pierced on a 40 cm depth the same porous limestone layer found on the bottom of all
ditches (Fig.VIII).
The ditch profile evidences a number of 4 filling lenses: between 2 m and 2.90 mit is reddish-
brown (Munsell 7,5Y 3.4); between 1.30 m and 2 m ochre-grey (Munsell 10Y 3.3 ); between 0.20m
and 0.80 m and 0.80 m and 1.30 mthe colours of the ditch filling layers are close to light and dark
grey (Munsell 2.5Y 3.2). The stratigraphical dynamics suggests the filling over time of the ditch, with
sloping changes due to drainage occurring in time. In this ditch, trench B, at 1.70 mdeep was found
a whetstone fragment of a brown limestone, preserving on a length of 8.5 cm and 1.22 cm width
(Fig.IX/5).
Archaeological and historical notes

The sector of the earth rampart within the boundary of Gearmata commune on the Arad
Timioara highway lies on the route of the mid rampart or Rampart II, mapped on most topographical
maps starting with the second half of the 19th century. Of the three ramparts in Banat, Rampart II or the
mid rampart is the only archaeologically investigated. Until present, this linear earth fortification was
excavated by cross sections and archaeologically researched within the boundary of four villages in
the following chronological order: in 1966, by the Museum of Arad in cooperation with the Institute
of History and Archaeology of Cluj within the boundary of Covsn village, Arad county6; in 1968,
by the Banat Museum of Timioara within the boundary of Pichia commune, Timi county7; in 2004,
by the Banat Museum of Timioara in cooperation with the West University of Timioara within the
boundary of Dumbrvia village, Timi county8 and in 2010 by the Banatul Montan Museum of Reia
within the boundary of Gearmata commune, Timi county9. The excavators record by archaeological
excavation of the linear earth fortification elements of the mid earth rampart differs from one place
to another however, there are common defensive elements as well.
Covsn, Arad County

At Covsn, the 52 mlong trench excavated by E. Drner and V. Boronean identified in
the placed called La Desan a fortification system composed of 5 ditches with depths between
1.702.50 mand widths between 56.20 mand 4 ramparts of which three inner ramparts were later
improved10. When referring to the research carried out by the two excavators, D. Benea specified
6
Drner and Boronean 1968, p.716.
7
Micle et alii 2011, p.75.
8
9
Bozu and Bozu 2011.
10
Drner and Boronean 1968, p.16; Micle et alii 2011, p.75, Cota et alii 2012, p.13.
there was .a rampart (12.60 mwide by the base) with three U-shaped ditches oriented eastwards,
placed at relatively equal distances, with a 56 mwidth and 1.702.80 mdepth.11. Further on, the
author argued that the earth removed from the three trapezoid ditches was used for defensive
developments intended to hinder access to the ditches so that they are nothing less than the
outwork of the main rampart and by no means other ditched ramparts as the excavators believed12.
Together with ditches 4 and 5 dug in V-shape located one westward, the other eastward the earth
rampart with posthole traces on the ditch bottom, this linear fortification system, is in the authors
view, similar to Antonius Piuss vallum in Britania13.
Pichia, Timi County

In 1968, Florin Medele with the Banat Museum of Timioara mentions at 4 km NV the
commune, a trench was excavated by the outskirts, [where] the ramparts which are quite visible
on the surface [], we established there existed 3 parallel clay and earth ramparts and 4 ditches.
Teacher V.L.Ianoef, author of the site monograph, involving the pupils of the school in Pichia in the
excavations, notes we excavated a transversal section by the Roman ditch by the edge of the forest
of Pichia, where the earth rampart was still almost 2 mhigh, which revealed the building system
consisting of timber, wattle and earth, formed of three successive ramparts and four interposed
parallel ditches14.
Dumbrvia, Timi County

The rescue archaeological research carried out within the boundary of Dumbrvia commune,
at ca. 900 mwest the county road 181 linking Timioara to Lipova and north-east the European Road
92, recorded the elements of the linear earth fortification belonging to the mid rampart or Rampart
II. In the subchapter titled Description of the stratigraphic units15, Florin Draovean, when referring
to the ditches identified in the researched surfaces presents the following data: Locus 13. It is the
ditch located westward the earthen rampart16. Dug in V-shape, wedge ending bottom, its widths
and depths differ in the excavated trenches as follows: in trench S.A it is 5.52 mwide; in trench S.B
5.93m; in trench B2a the ditch is 6.12 mwide, in B2b it is 6.04 mwide and in B2b it is 6.34 m.
The depth, measured from the current surface level is of 2.55 m(in S.A), 2.81 m(in S.B2a), 2.88 m(in
S.B3b), 2.75 m(in S.B4C) and 2.63 m(in S.C)17.
Locus 14 is a ditch oriented westwards, identified in trench B. Its profile is U-shaped, being
8.4 mlong, with a ridge width of 0.65 mand a depth measured from the current surface level of
0.60m. On its bottom was noted a 0.10 mdiameter hole, which might be a posthole. There resulted
no archaeological material and we could not establish the stratigraphical relation between it and
the rampart18. The ditch in Locus 15 located westwards, parallel to the fortification system, is ca.
2 mwide and 0.80 mdeep and has a U-shape profile. On its bottom there were not identified any
postholes or other outlays. It may not be excluded that the ditch might have been built to knock
down several sharpened posts, which might have been constituted a defensive system adjacent to
the others19. Locus 16 is the ditch located eastward the earth rampart. Its ridge width is of 6.60m.
In S.A and 7.05 in S.C. the upper part of the eastern slope was damaged by the military ditch
(locus17). With steep slopes, excavated in V-shape, its depths are in S.A of 3.49 mand 3.39 min
11
Benea 2004, p.17; Benea 2008, p.3738.
12
Benea 2004, p.17; Benea 2008, p.3738.
13
Benea 2008, p.39; Benea 2013, p.173.
14
Micle et alii 2011, p.75.
15
16
17
18
19
S.C. The military ditch was excavated in September 1944 having a ridge width of ca. 5m and
a depth of 2.30 m20.
The earth rampart is located by mid distance between the two defensive ditches ... evidenced
by the presence of a ca.1.8 mwide and ca.0.10 cm thick clay strip, occasionally discontinued, which
represents the rampart base21. Within the above present context, the earth rampart archaeologically
investigated within the boundary of Dumbrvia village has two westward ditches of which one
U-shaped and the other V-shaped and a V-shape ditch eastwards.
Without referring any dating, the author wishes to point out that stratigraphically, it is
impossible to accurately specify distinct construction stages of the fortification system22 .
Regarding the linear fortification system at Dumbrvia, Doina Benea, based on the
stratigraphical notes concerning the filling level of the V-shaped ditches located on either sides of
the earth rampart, argues there are two use stages. In the first stage, on the western side operated
two ditches, and eastward, one ditch. In the second stage, only the ditch on the eastern side facing
the former Roman province of Dacia was in operation23.
Gearmata, Timi County

In terms of the location system of the ditches to the earth rampart, those excavated within the
boundary of Gearmata commune differ from those at Dumbrvia and all the more so than those at
Covsn. Westwards, the first ditch is trapezoid-shaped, has en even bottom and is 1.60 mwide and
65 cm deep. Over the entire researched length, which is 46 mlong, in the ditch bottom appeared no
postholes. On the ditch bottom in trench B was identified a spiked iron arrowhead24. Excavated by
the base of the earth rampart, extending by a 1.301.50 mwide possible patrol road, the ditch was
likely aimed at retaining rainwater. In terms of the building system, with almost identical width and
depth, it is similar to the ditch investigated over a length of 8.5 in locus 14 at Dumbrvia.
At Covsn, the earth rampart has two ditches eastwards, at Dumbrvia one ditch, while at
Gearmata, archaeologically, two ditches were recorded. One, with a very steep slope attached to
the rampart, dug from 2.70 mdeep to 3.40 mdeep in U-shape with even bottom and the second at
6mfrom it, dug in V-shape.
The jar-type vessel discovered near the bottom of ditch two, the whetstone fragment as well
as the few typical potshards may be broadly dated starting with the 3rd century until late in the
6thcentury.
Stratigraphically, the filling lenses in both the two ditches located eastwards the rampart and
that westward, with few thickness differences, without any visible rebuilding, indicate that the earth
rampart was built in a single stage, likely during the 3rd 4th centuries.
It is worth mentioning that at 1 km eastwards the earth rampart, past the Timioara Lipova
railway, the archaeological excavations on the same route of the Arad Timioara highway identified
an inhumation cemetery and several houses dated to the 2nd 3rd centuries25. At 1.5 km west the
rampart, on the high terrace descending steeply to the right bank of Mgheru stream on the
same highway route, were investigated 3 and 4 century houses and also medieval26. The rescue
archaeological research carried out westwards the earth rampart, within the enclosure of the Bronze
Age fortification in the boundary of Corneti village, not far from the Arad Timioara highway
identified a settlement dating to the 2nd 4th centuries27.
20
21
22
23
24
Draovean et alii 2004, p.45, pl. XLV/3, a similar arrowhead was discovered in the 13th century settlement at Dumbrvia.
25
Archaeological research still forthcoming yet mentioned by Grumeza 2012, p.102; Grumeza 2013, p.117.
26
Novel excavations made by a team of archaeologists at Reia led by Dumitru eicu.
27
Rescue archaeological excavations carried out by Alexandru Szentmiklo also in the spring of 2013.
In what the dating of the earth ramparts is concerned, A. Mocsy associates the building of the
earth linear fortifications with the period of emperor Diocletian, S. Soproni placed their construction
during the war of emperor Constantine against the Sarmatians in 322, specifying that this Vorlimes
type fortification loses its defensive role under Valentinianus28 (Fig.XII). In 2003, when referring to
the middle line of the Roman earth defensive system, A. Vaday believed they must have been built
during the 3rd 4th centuries, by the start of Marcus Aureliuss campaigns29.
When comparing the common defensive elements and the two-stage building manner of the
defensive ditches of the earth ramparts at Covsn, Dumbrvia and Gearmata, Doina Benea argues
that in the first stage we are dealing, in south-west Dacia, with a defensive system erected during the
province30, thus chronologically framing to the 2nd 3rd centuries31, while in the 4th century likely, the
rampart system was improved and reused by the Constantinian emperors32.
Bibliography:
Benea, D. 1996. Dacia sud-vestic n secolele IIIIV, (I). Editura de Vest, Timioara.
Benea, D. 2008. Cu privire la grania de sud-vest a Daciei Romane. Stadiul cercetrilor romneti, Apulum, XLV,
p. 2951.
Benea, D. 2013. Istoria Banatului n antichitate. Excelsior Art, Timioara.
Bozu, Fl., Bozu, O. 2011. Cercetarea arheologic preventiv de pe Autostrada Arad Timioara km 40+900
40+950. Punct Valul Roman. Archaeological report presented at the 45th National Session of Archaeological Report, Sibiu.
Cota, R. 2013. Monograa comunei Covsn, Arad.
Drner, E., Boronean, V. 1968. O contribuie cu privire la datarea valurilor de pmnt din vestul rii noastre,
Ziridava, 2, p.718.
Draovean, Fl., Benea, D., Mare, M., Muntean, M., Tnase, D., Crngu, M., Chiu, Fl., Micle, D., Regep-Vlascici, S.,
Szentmiklosi, Al., tefnescu, A., Timoc, C., 2004. Spturile arheologice preventive de la Dumbravia. DN6 varianta
ocolitoare Timioara, km. 549+076 DN 69 km 6+430. Editura Waldpress, Timioara.
Grumeza, L. 2012. Sicrie i amenajri funerare din lemn atestate la sarmaii de pe teritoriul Banatului, Analele
Banatului S. N., Arheologie Istorie, XX, p.97113.
Grumeza, L. 2013. Roman coins in Sarmatian graves from the teritory of Banat (2nd 4th centuries AD). The
barbaricum in the Roman period (2nd4th centuries AD), Analele Banatului S. N., Arheologie Istorie, XXI, p.93104.
Micle, D., Mruia, L., Cntar, A., Trk, M. 2011. Die Erdwlle vom rumnischen Banat im Kontext der
Landschaftsarchologie, p.5881. In: E. Nemeth, F. Fodorean, D. Matei, D. Blaga, Der sdwestliche Limes des rmichen
Dakien Strukturen und Landschaft. Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
Napoli, J. 1977. Recherches sur les fortificactions linaires romaines. cole Franaise de Rome Palaes Farnse.
Nemeth, Ed. 2005. Armata n sud-vestul Daciei romane. Mirton, Timioara.
Vaday, A 2003. The Barbaricum in the roman period. Historical overview, p.265267. In: Hungarian archaeology
at the turn of the millennium (Ed. Zsolt Visy), Budapest.
28
Napoli 1977, p.307.
29
Vaday 2003, p.266.
30
Benea 2004, p.20.
31
Benea 2008, p.46; Benea 2013, p.176.
32
Benea 2008, p.46; Benea 2013, p.176.
2
Fig. I. 1. Satellite image of waves of Banat path;
2. Detail of the excavation site in relation to wave II and wave III (Google Earth satellite images).
2
Fig. II. 1. Valul book novels on a map of 1910;
2. Location of the investigated area in the line of wave II.
3
Fig. III. 1. The course of linear fortification elements of earth scraped surface by hand;
2-3. The section that intersects all elements of fortification, wave and ditches.
3
Fig. IV. 1. Ditch trajectory after scraping the surface;
2. The first wave ditch located to the east of the former province Dacia.
2 3
4
Fig. V. 1. The second moat in front of the wave of earth, facing east towards the former Roman province Dacia;
2. north of the trench profile.
Fig. VI. Roman wave.

Fig. VII. The third trench dug to the west of the wave.
Fig. VIII. Fourth moat on the west side of the veil novel.
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
Fig. IX. 13. sherds found in the first trench;
5. piece cute;
6-7. framentele reconstructed ceramic vessel bowl to jar the second trench;
8. arrowhead;
9. modern military insignia 18th19th century.
Fig. X. 1. Overview of Archaeological investigated area;

2. Aerial photograph of the area.
Fig. XI. 3rd-4th century historical discoveries in Banat.

Unrecognized Remains of the Western Segment
of the Ploscueni-Stoicani Vallum (Athanarics Wall)
East of Ploscueni (Vrancea County, Romania)
Richard A. Mason, Lucas C. Mason

Ukrainian Museum-Archive, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
medtrans-mason@att.net
Keywords: Ploscueni-Stoicani Vallum; Athanarics Wall, Ploscueni
Abstract: The earthwork known as Athanarics Wall was Rezumat: Fortificaia liniar de pmnt cunoscut sub
discovered by Carl Schuchhardt in 1885, who traced its denumirea de valul lui Athanaric a fost introdus n atenia
remains starting on the left bank of the Siret. Over the ensuing cercurilor tiinifice de ctre Carl Schuchhardt n 1885, cel care i-a
130 years, archaeologists have established the course of the urmrit traseul pe teren, ncepnd de pe malul stng al Siretului.
embankment as far as the Prut and, using novel technologies, n cei aproape 130 de ani trecui de la momentul respectiv,
have provided new data regarding the embankment and its arheologii au documentat traseul valului pn pe malul
construction. Only the extreme northwestern segment near Prutului, i, beneficiind de tehnologii moderne, au dobndit
Ploscueni in Vrancea County appears to have escaped the informaii noi cu privire la desfurarea sa n teren i tehnica
attention of archaeologists. In a recent paper, Teodor and de construcie. Doar extremitatea nord-vestic din apropierea
Croitoru, using photographic materials, have published a localitii Ploscueni (judeul Vrancea) par s fi ieit din atenia
more differentiated view of this segment. It was therefore the specialitilor. ntr-un studiu recent, E. S. Teodor i C. Croitoru, pe
objective of this study to use Schuchhardts data as a basis baza interpretrilor ortofotoplanurilor, public unele puncte de
for searching out remains of the embankment in the field vedere mai nuanate relative la acest segment.
between Ploscueni and Toflea, and to test the hypothesis of Aadar, scopul nostru a fost, pornind de la informaiile
Teodor and Croitoru. At 45.1 km on county road 252 (ca. 7km consemnate de Carl Schuchhardt, s cercetm traseul fortificaiei
north of Buciumeni, Galai County), the authors studied a pe teren, n sectorul dintre Ploscueni i Toflea, respectiv acela de
patch of forest along an agricultural trail leading to Toflea for a verifica ipotezele emise de E. S. Teodor i C. Croitoru.
remains of this embankment. During their survey in July 2014, La kilometrul 45.1 al drumului judeean 252 (la aproximativ
the authors established a linear embankment with ditch to apte kilometri nord de Buciumeni, judeul Galai), autorii au
the south extending over a length of 140 meters, and obtained investigat ntr-un plc de pdure urmele valului de-a lungul
initial measurements and photographic documentation (GPS unui drum de ogor spre Toflea. n timpul cercetrii de teren,
coordinates: 4603.863 N, 2716.925 E). Further investigations ntreprinse n luna iulie a anului 2014, a fost documentat
by properly equipped archaeologists conducted at a more fortificaia liniar cu anul spre sud, pe o distan de 140 de
favorable season will be required to establish whether the metri (coordonate GPS: 4603.863 N, 2716.925 E).
remains actually belong to the Ploscueni-Stoicani vallum, Viitoare investigaii ntreprinse ntr-un sezon favorabil, fr
and to appropriately measure and document them. vegetaie, sunt necesare cu aportul arheologilor pentru
a stabili dac segmentul de fortificaie liniar identificat
aparine valului lui Athanaric.
Introduction and Literature Review

During his expedition to eastern Romania in 1885, the German scholar Carl Schuchhardt
(18591943)1 discovered the remains of a linear earthwork embankment extending generally toward
the south and east from the left bank of the Siret near the village of Ploscueni (Vrancea County).
Schuchhardt postulated (but did not physically demonstrate) that the embankment extended to the
Prut, which it reached in the vicinity of the village of Folteti. He thus connected this embankment
Menghin 2007, p.624626.

1

28 Richard A. Mason, Lucas C. Mason
or dyke with another beginning on the left bank of the Prut near the village of Vadul lui Isac, which
extended across what is today southern Moldavia and reached the Black Sea near Tatarpunari in
the southern part of the Ukrainian district of Odessa2. Even in Schuchhardts time, long stretches of
the embankment were almost invisible due to centuries of erosion and agricultural activity. Other
areas of significant height, however, remained and first fell victim to anthropogenic activity in the
context of the general mechanization of agriculture in socialist Romania in the 1960s. Despite being
fully aware of the position of the ditch to the south of the embankment3, Schuchhardt ascribed
this extensive defensive work to the Romans4. This opinion was shared by prominent scholars5 and
remained unchallenged for many years. Only after World War II did the Romanian archaeologist, Radu
Vulpe (who led the excavations at the nearby fortress of Poiana [Piroboridava]), based on his own
investigations, more precisely determine the eastern course of the embankment and established
their terminus at Stoicani (5 km south of Folteti). Not only did Vulpe thus exclude a functional
connection with the southern Moldavian vallum6 but, due to the southern position of the ditch, he
also came to the conclusion that the embankment discovered by Schuchhardt should more likely
be ascribed to the late fourth century pressure on the Ostrogoths by the invading Huns: hence, the
widespread designation Athanarics Wall.
Investigations conducted in the late 1970s by Mihalache Brudiu established the middle
course of the embankment in the vicinity of villages east of Tecuci, which, due to the poor state of
preservation, had escaped detection by Vulpe7.
Given the advances in our understanding of the central and eastern segments of this
embankment, it would appear surprising that its western end should have escaped the attention
of archaeologists. Vulpe reports having located the remains of the embankment described by
Schuchhardt in the vicinity of Toflea; of the last ca. 5 km of the embankment reaching the Siret,
however, he found no trace8. The Romanian archaeologists Eugen S. Teodor and Costin Croitoru,
in a paper published in 2013, are probably correct in their opinion that Schuchhardt was the last
archaeologist to see this section of the embankment9. To date, maps in the scientific literature do not
show this section in detail. Only in 2013 did Teodor and Croitoru, based on their use of photographic
materials, publish a more differentiated picture of the terminal section of the embankment above
Ploscueni including a postulated short section extending from SSW to NNE along the rim of the
plateau west of Toflea10. There is not even a corresponding entry in the Register of Archaeological
Sites of the Romanian Ministry for Culture and the National Heritage11. It was therefore the objective
of this study to use Schuchhardts data as a basis for searching out remains of the embankment in the
field between Ploscueni and Toflea, and to test the hypothesis of Teodor and Croitoru.
Selection of the Survey Area

Following a review of the relevant literature, beginning with Schuchhardts report (see literature
review, above), the authors set their attention on the area between the village of Toflea (Commune
of Brahaeti, Galai County) and Ploscueni (Vrancea County). Because the embankment has
2
Schuchhardt 1885, p. 202232.
3
Schuchhardt 1885, p.203
4
Schuchhardt 1885, p.224225. Schuchhardt does not appear to have doubted the Roman origin of these remains and, in
fact, connects the embankment with a road leading from Porolissum to Tyras (modern Bilhorod Dnistrovskyj) on the strength
of Geogr. Rav., 4.5.
5
Cited from Croitoru 2004, p.107, and Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p.657.
6
This connection was already questioned by Uhlig 1928, p.237.
7
Brudiu 1979, p.151164. In a more recent study, Brudiu ascribes the embankment to the Carpi who, he believed used it to
defend against the Sarmatae (Brudiu 2001, p.257277).
8
Vulpe 1957, p.14.
9
Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p.657, 668.
10
Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p.666.
11
Repetoriul arheologic national (RAN, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp). Corresponding entries exist for many other wall
segments, including Buciumeni and epu.
Unrecognized Remains of the Western Segment of the Ploscueni-Stoicani Vallum (Athanarics Wall) 29
unfortunately been destoryed by anthropogenic/agricultural activities in many places, an area was

sought where remains might be better preserved, as in a forest. Because the available cartographic
and satellite image data12 did not clearly provide evidence for the survival of embankment remains
in this area, we attempted to identify the area studied by Schuchhardt (e.g. the trail from Toflea to
Ploscueni). In order to further establish the survey area, we selected a point, based on Schuchhardts
description, on the left bank of the Siret opposite the mouth of the Trotu, as Schuchhardt stated
he found embankment remains near this point. It can be assumed that the builders of the wall
would have selected a place where the river Siret approaches most closely to the foot of the Toflea
plateau. Today, this point is north of the mouth of the Trotu. Satellite imagery suggests that the bed
of the Siret, or one of its branches, reached even closer to the foot of the plateau and this dry loop
is shown on the Soviet map to still actively carry water in flood times. Based on these observations,
the authors postulated that the embankment followed the rim of the plateau from NNE to SSW and
then left the plateau at approximately the place where today the County Road 252 bends to the SW
as it descends to the Monastery of Sihastru and village of Argea. Based on these considerations, the
authors examined the forested area on the step edge of the plateau for wall remains.
Summary of Schuchhardts Description of the Embankment Remains around Ploscueni

and Toflea
Schuchhardts reports remains the locus classicus and is therefore reviewed in detail. Schuchhardt
states that he first encountered the earthwork at a point about 6 km east of the village of Nicoreti
and from this point followed it northwards on the plateau between the course of the Berheci and
the Siret valley. Schuchhardt states that, from this point, he followed the embankment in a north to
north-northwesterly direction to the eastern edge of the settlement of Vizureti and the village of
Tecucel Sec, from which he followed the embankment further in northerly direction towards Toflea.
Schuchhardt continues13:
No further continuation of the embankment line could be uncovered but it is conceivable
that it turned sharply to the west at this point. The estate manager at Toflea, whom we consulted,
confirmed this assumption, which corresponded to local tradition, and added as proof that on
the way between Toflea and Ploscueni, up on the rim of the bank of the Siret, a good length of
embankment can still be recognized. The plateau, on which we marched the whole day, here
drops precipitously to the Siret, only a half-hours ride upstream finds the slope gentler: ravines lead
down and rounded crests have formed, facilitating the crossing. Above, on the edge of the height,
the embankment continues, mostly destroyed by the road which has taken the same course, but still
often recognizable on its domed form.
According to the 1987 Soviet General Staff Map (L35-067-4; scale: 1:50.000), two trails lead from
the County Road 252 in the direction of Toflea. The first is more southerly and straighter, the other,
more northerly and designated as an agricultural trail. This latter trail, which leaves the County Road
in a NNE direction and ascends, skirting a forested area (the Ploscueni forest), turns more easterly
at the forests eastern end, reaching Toflea from the northwest. Both trails reach the County Road 252
at essentially the same place. Both trails meet the County Road 252 at the head of the small Cucuiei
valley, which the modern road ascends from Buciumeni. Schuchhardts description makes it impossible
to determine which of these two ways he followed from Toflea to Ploscueni. The Soviet map shows
further forest trails leading directly from the plateau to Ploscueni and avoid the long loop followed by
County Road 252 past the monasteries of Oancea and Sihastru, and past the village of Argea.
12
Plan urbanistic general Comuna Buciumeni, Consproiect S.A., Galai (Architect Roxana Gheorghiu) and Plan urbanistic
general Comuna epu, Modulor Proiect s.r.l., Bucureti (December 1997). The authors express their gratitude to the communal
authorities in Buciumeni and expecially to Director Marian uchel of the Commune of epu, who provided them access to
data of the Agenia Naional pentru Cadastru i Publicitate Imobiliar (ANCPI). The topographical data was derived from the
Soviet General Staff Map for the Quadrant L35-067-4 (1987, scale: 1:50.000).
13
Schuchhardt 1885, p.205206.
Description of the Survey Site

Leading north from Buciumeni, County Road 252 leads through the Buciumeni forest reaching
the head of the small Cuciei valley at a distance of approximately 7 km north of its intersection
with Communal Road 73 to Vizureti. Here, at a point approximately 2,100 meters north of kilometer
marker 43 (thus at 45.1 km, kilometer markers 44 and 45 having not been found at the time of the
survey), an agricultural trail used in summer mostly by the bee-keepers, leads NNE from the roadway
in the direction of Toflea. The origin of the agricultural trail lies just before the very sharp left curve in
the County Road toward Argea, about halfway between the monasteries of Buciumeni and Sihastru,
where the road begins its descent from the Toflea plateau into the Siret valley. The place is easily
found on both the satellite image and the corresponding topographical map. At the time of the
survey, rains had damaged the road sufficiently that only large-wheeled vehicles and horse-drawn
wagons could make the ascent.
The authors followed the agricultural trail to the second fence-row, where they entered the
forest. This place is marked with a 2 on the satellite image. As elsewhere in this forest, the vegetation
consists mainly of deciduous trees, mostly oaks and beeches. The age of the trees, with trunk
diameters at 1.50 meter height of rarely more than 20 cm, seems younger, though larger stumps
are encountered intermittently. Here, the authors encountered a ditch 6070 cm deep across from
which a linear embankment was observed that here followed a roughly NE course. The width of the
embankment or dyke stood at 56 meters. Both the embankment and, to a lesser extent, the ditch,
due possibly to the flow of water during rains, are overgrown with young trees. The distance from the
embankment to the edge of the plateau, where the land drops off precipitously to the Siret border,
is estimated here at 2030 meters. The embankment appears to have followed a course parallel
to the edge of the plateau. At the place marked 3 in the satellite image, the embankment turns
somewhat more toward the east. The ditch to its southern side becomes shallower at only 3040 cm,
while the height of the embankment is still 8090 cm. Over the remaining course, beginning at the
place marked 4 in the satellite image, the embankment gradually disappears but gets broader and
appears to split at this point. At this point, the authors concluded the survey and returned to the spot
marked 2.
At attempt to follow the embankment further downhill failed due to the inability to locate
embankment remains. The overall length of the embankment remains studied stands at 140 m.
The elevations range from 198 m.at point 2 to 218 mat point 4. The GPS coordinates for point2
are: 4603.863 N, 2716.925 E. The measurements of length and elevation were performed using
the Dakota 20 GPS unit (Garmin, Olathe/Kansas, USA) with the help of the RO.A.D.2014.20-Software
(Proiectul Romnia Digital, Bucharest, Romania).
Discussion
The modern history of the Ploscueni-Stoicani vallum, widely known as Athanarics Wall, begins
in 1885 with its rediscovery by Carl Schuchhardt. Over the ensuing 130 years since Schuchhardts
investigations, long stretches of the embankment have been identified. Investigations by Vulpe in
the 1950s and by Brudiu in the 1970s have precisely documented its eastern segment to the Prut as
well as its central section around Cudalbi. Recent studies by Teodor and Croitoru have, through the
application of modern technologies, provided further data on the structure of the embankment and
its construction. Only the extreme northwest segment near Ploscueni on the Siret appears to have
escaped the notice of archaeologists. Teodor and Croitoru are probably accurate in their remark that
Schuchhardt is still the only archaeologist who ever saw this sector of the embankment14. Only
with their analysis of photographic materials and, especially, the 3D model did Teodor and Croitoru
offer a more differentiated picture of the terminal section of the embankment above Ploscueni,
postulating a short section of wall leading from SSW to NNE along the edge of the plateau west of
Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p. 657, 668.

14
Toflea15. This is in line with Schuchhardts statement that above, on the edge of the height, the em
bankment continues, mostly destroyed by the road which has taken the same course, but still often
recognizable on its domed form16. It was therefore the objective of this study to use Schuchhardts
data as a basis for searching out remains of the embankment in the field between Ploscueni and
Toflea, and to test the hypothesis of Teodor and Croitoru.
Which of the trails between Toflea and Ploscueni did Schuchhardt follow? This question is
difficult to answer definitively. Whether taking the northerly or southerly route described above, it
is to be assumed that Schuchhardt left the Toflea plateau at the point where the modern County
Road 252 leads down to Argea. If this assumption is correct, it would be logical to deduce that the
embankment, after having skirted the edge of the plateau (as Schuchhardt states) for several hundred
meters, also left the plateau at this point, in order to reach the Siret at its closest possible approach.
The agricultural trail followed by the authors appears in the survey area to continue parallel
to the embankment, while the embankment itself served and apparently continues to serve as
a path. This assumption is supported by the occurrence of sheep dung throughout the survey area.
As can be assumed from the satellite images, the agricultural plowing of the fields, which now stops
at the edge of the agricultural trail, in earlier times had extended into small areas that have now
begun to reforest. In these areas, plowing would likely have gradually degraded the remains of the
embankment. This would explain the absence of recognizable remains below point 2.
In the vicinity of point 4, the embankment appears to become broader, the ditch shallower, and
the embankment gives the appearance of dividing. Here, the remains of the embankment get nearer
to the edge of the plateau. Beyond this point, the remains disappear, so that it cannot be said with
certainty whether the apparent division is not due to the effects of erosion or anthropogenicactivity.
The strength of the data is limited especially by the season in which the survey was conducted.
July is characterized by a maximum in vegetation and foliage.
Further investigations by properly equipped archaeologists conducted at a more favorable
season will be required to establish whether the remains actually belong to the Ploscueni-Stoicani
Vallum, and to appropriately measure and document them.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr. Eugen Teodor for his critical review of the
manuscript and crucial assistance with figures and maps.
Bibliography:
Brudiu, M. 1979. Cercetri arheologice n zona Valului lui Athanaric, Danubius, 89, p.151164.
Brudiu, M. 1995. Alte consideraii referitoare la valul antic zis al lui Athanaric. In: Adevrul omenete posibil
pentru rnduirea binelui. Volum omagial Sever Dumitracu (Ed. L. Cornea et alii). Muzeul rii Criurilor, Oradea.
Croitoru, C. 2004. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de jos (secolele IIV p.Chr.), I, Istros, Galai.
Menghin, W. 2007. Schuchhardt, Carl, p.624626. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie, 23, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.
Napoli, J. 1997. Recherches sur les fortifications linaires romaines, Rome.
Schuchhardt, C. 1885. Wlle und Chauseen im sdlichen und stlichen Dakien, Archologisch-epigraphische
Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, 9, p.202232.
Teodor, E. S., Croitoru, C. 2013. A Method for the Evaluation of the Dykes: Case Study for Athanarics Wall, p.657679.
In: ARHEOVEST I. In Memoriam Liviu Mruia (Eds. A. Stavil, D. Micle, A. Cntar, C. Floca, S. Foriu). JATEPress Kiad, Szeged.
Uhlig, C. 1928. Die Wlle in Bessarabien: ein historisch-geographischer Versuch, Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 19/34.
Vulpe, R. 1957. Le vallum de Moldavie Infrieure et le mur dAthanaric, s-Gravenhage.
Vulpe, R. 1974. Les valla de la Valachie, de la Basse-Moldavie et du Boudjak, p.267276. In: Actes du IXe Congres
international dtudes sur les frontiers romains (Ed. D. M. Pippidi), Bucureti.
Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p.666.

15

16
Fig. 1. Detail of Schuchhardts map of the Dacian limes1.
Fig. 2. Northwestern section of the vallum

according Teodor, Croitoru 2013.
1
Schuchhardt 1885 plate VI. The course of the wall north of the line Matca-Pueni (Valea Mrului)-Bleni was shown to
be incorrect by Vulpe and Brudiu.
Fig. 3. Satellite image of the general survey area. Included is the entire area north of Buciumeni with the course
of the Siret from the mouth of the Trotu in the south (west of Argea) to the large Siret loop west of Ploscueni.
The beginning of the northerly agricultural trail to Toflea is marked with a star (*). 1 = old, usually dry loops of the Siret;
2 = old mouth of the Trotu (Gura Trotu according to 1944 topographic map).
Fig. 4. Conjoined details of Soviet General Staff Maps for the quadrants L35-067-3 and L35-067-4 (1987)
to compliment the satellite imagery (Fig. 3).
For orientation, the detail shows the entire area including the village of Toflea.
Fig. 4a. Detail from Romanian topographic map of Adjud district (1944) showing multiple dry loops of the Siret
approaching the base of the Toflea plateau and outline of study area.
Fig. 5. The Siret loop near Argea.
Fig. 6. Oancea Monastery at the foot of Toflea plateau.

Fig. 7. Left, satellite image of the survey area; right, corresponding detail from the Soviet General Staff Map L35-067-4. The
beginning of the agricultural trail is marked with a star (*). 2 = the lower boundary for detection of embankment remains;
3 = central point of entry to the embankment remains; 4 = upper boundary for the detection of embankment remains.
Fig. 8. View of the Siret valley from point 2.

Fig. 9. Embankment remains at point 2.
Fig. 10. Embankment remains at point 3.

Fig. 11. Embankment

remains at point 3.
Fig. 12. Embankment

remains at point 4.
The Linear Fortification from ueti,
Brila County
Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru, Stnic Pandrea

Museum of Brila, Brila, Romania
valeriu_sirbu@yahoo.co.uk; valeriusirbu@gmail.com
costin_croitoru1@yahoo.com
pandrea1962@gmail.com
Keywords: Linear Fortification, Trajans vallum, ueti, Brila
Abstract: The sites from ueti have relatively recently (re) Rezumat: Siturile de la ueti au (re)intrat relativ recent
appeared in the specialized literature, after the archaeological n literatura de specialitate, odat cu iniierea cercetrilor
research was initiated. Only three points of interested had arheologice. Trei puncte de interes fuseser doar semnalate
been mentioned before, following a surface survey. The year anterior, n urma unor recunoateri de suprafa. n anul 2006
2006 marked the simultaneous start of the research at the au debutat, concomitent, cercetrile din punctele Fortificaie
locations Fortification and Popin. i Popin.
The archaeological research of the linear fortification in ueti Cercetarea arheologic a fortificaiei liniare de la ueti s-a
was necessary for several reasons. Even though it had been impus din mai multe motive. Dei menionat i descris de
mentioned and described by Pamfil Polonic, a topographical inginerul topograf Pamfil Polonic, ntr-un raport din 18 mai
engineer, in a report from 18 May 1899, no systematic 1899, deci acum mai bine de un secol, ea nu a beneficiat de
excavations took place here for more than a century. nici o sptur sistematic.
In the following pages, we will briefly introduce the n cele ce urmeaz vom prezenta, succint, doar cteva din
observations made on the ground, for several reasons. The observaiile din teren, din mai multe motive. Rezultatele finale
final results will be published after we make another section vor fi publicate dup ce vom mai trasa o seciune printr-o zon
through a well-preserved area of the fortification, including bine pstrat a fortificaiei, inclusiv prin anul mic nespat,
the small ditch, which was not excavated, but was identified dar identificat prin msurtori geofizice, i dup obinerea
by geophysical measurements, and after obtaining some unor datri radiocarbon din lemnul recuperat din val.
radiocarbon dating of the wood from the vallum.
The sites from ueti have relatively recently (re)appeared in the specialized literature, after
the archaeological research was initiated. Only three points of interested had been mentioned
before, following a surface survey1. Of these, it was only on the Popin that some surveys had been
performed in the 80s2. The year 2006 marked the simultaneous start of the research at the locations
Fortification and Popin3 (Fig. 1/12).
The archaeological research of the linear fortification in ueti was necessary for several reasons.
Even though it had been mentioned and described by Pamfil Polonic, a topographical engineer, in a
report from 18 May 1899, no systematic excavations took place here for more than a century.
Here is what Pamfil Polonic had to say about the site: One kilometre west of the village, one
large curve of the Buzu is a cut across by a vallum and ditch forming a huge fortress. It encompasses
more than a square kilometre of ground. The eastern side of the fortress is made out of a vallum and
two defensive ditches. (Fig.2/2). Through the vallum, one can see at almost equal distances three
openings, where there may have been the fortress gates. The vallum was built exclusively out of
1
Haruche 1980, p.334335.
2
The surveys were performed by N. Haruche, Fl. Anastasiu, V. Srbu; the results are not published.
3
Srbu et alii 2007, p.364365.

42 Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru, Stnic Pandrea
earth, but you can see on the outside rotten wood that, I think, was placed between the ditch and
the vallum to increase its resistance. The vallum is 2 to 4 meters high and 20 meters wide. The ditch
is 11meters wide and as deep as 2 meters. There is another ditch 16 meters away, which is 7 meters
wide and 10.5 meters deep. The vallum is 902 meters long and is very well known. This is where
several coins were found bearing the effigy of king Sigismund of Poland and the year 1628, from
which we can deduce that this fortress was built at about the same time by Romanians (mss. in B.A.R.,
notebook 10, f. 13).
Because of this, there are various opinions on who built it and when, although the local folklore
calls it Trajans vallum / Trajans ditch.
Throughout time, but particularly in the last century, the fortification experienced a great deal
of destruction, for several reasons (Fig.13).
First of all, the area on the right-hand side of the ueti Grditea road was completely
levelled, and the area on the right-hand side was very soon after that affected by the expansion of
the village cemetery (Fig.2; 3/3).
In order to reach the fertile land on the upper terrace of the Buzu, enclosed by the fortification,
but also to bury irrigation pipes, four access roads were made. Furthermore, the villagers used the
vallum as a loess quarry. On top of all that, the locals dumped garbage near the fortification or on it.
For all these reasons, only small parts of the vallum are not affected by man and can be used to
obtain sufficiently complete information (Fig.3/12).
Systematic archaeological research took place in two stages: the first was in 20062007, when
there were partial excavations of Section S I, and the second was in 20122013, when Section S II and
cassettes A and B were made.
In the year 2013, the archaeological excavations were accompanied by geophysical research4.
In the following pages, we will briefly introduce the observations made on the ground, for
several reasons. The final results will be published after we make another section through a well-
preserved area of the fortification, including the small ditch, which was not excavated, but was
identified by geophysical measurements, and after obtaining some radiocarbon dating of the wood
from the vallum.
Section S1 (20062007) (Fig. 45)

Section S1 (L=20m, W=2m) was only partially excavated, for two reasons: on the one hand,
it emerged that the upper part of the vallum and the half towards the enclosure was destroyed by
a pit5 and, on the other hand, there was little time between the two excavations campaigns6 (Fig.4).
There were excavations in Ditch 1, but only in its upper part, as well as in the vallum, but
only on the outside of the fortification and only in half of it, so the observations are only partial7
(Fig. 3/1,34; 4/1).
Ditch 1, large, was identified between meters M3M9. It was dug in the yellow loess sediment,
so it was dug after removing the vegetal layer at the walking level of that time. Because it was
researched only to a depth of 1.201.50m (starting from the current walking level), there are no
important observations to make, as its filling consists of several sediment layers, which are the results
of slides from the vallum, as well as of garbage dumping (Fig.3/4). It is worth mentioning that the
only find was at the depth of 0.500.60m, from the current excavation level and it consisted of a
slingshot ball made of fired clay, with a diameter of about 3 cm.
4
For details and observations resulted from this research, see the article signed by Dan tefan and Maria-Magdalena tefan
in this volume.
5
This was not visible at first, because of the tall and dense vegetation.
6
The excavations used volunteer students from Association Voltin Brila, and we would like to also use this opportunity to
thank them for the effort in difficult conditions.
7
Srbu et alii 2007, p.364365; Srbu et alii 2008, p.304.
The Linear Fortification from ueti, Brila County 43
The vallum, excavated solely on the outside, namely towards the ditch, between meters
M11M20, and only to a maximum depth of (1.201.50m), was erected in successive layers of
sediments, of various structures and colours, made of compact loess, clean or yellowish-brown
(Fig. 3/4; 5/12).
Between meters M12M16, between the loess and the yellowish-brown layers, at a depth of
0.401.00m, depending on the thickness of the sloping vallum, there were large and medium-sized
river stones, probably put there to support the fortification on the side of the ditch (Fig.4/34; 5/1).
Also on this slope there were areas with rotten woven twigs, probably also meant to stabilize
this part of the vallum. One could notice that these structures consisted of thicker twigs, placed
vertically, with thinner twigs woven around them (Fig.5/3).
The structure of the vallum also had some fragments of rotten wooden beams (Fig.5/4).
The 20122013 campaigns8

Section S2 (L= 25 m, W = 2.40m), Cassettes A (3.90 3 m) and B (4.10 3.90m)
Section S2 cuts across both Ditch 1 and the Vallum, all the way to the bottom, so much more
data was obtained regarding the size, structure and stages of their excavation and construction9
(Fig. 610).
Ditch 1 (Fig.7) was slightly trapezoidal, with a flat bottom and rounded edges, with a depth of
2.85m, a mouth diameter of 2.50m, and a bottom diameter of 1.802.00m. It was excavated in the
loess layer, and it was mostly used for erecting the vallum, but also at the opposite edge, to the south,
in order to create a small obstacle that would prevent it from filling with rainwater or snow. Its filling
consists of thick layers of sediments, resulted from the vallum slides. It is worth mentioning that, at
the bottom of the ditch, in the south-eastern profile, there was a river stone, but not one that had slid
from vallum slope, since there were no stones in that area.
Of course, between the edge of the ditch and the outer foundation of the vallum, there was
a berma, 1.702.00m wide, so that the vallum would not slide and what would slide would not fill
theditch.
The Vallum (Fig.810). The structure and succession of the layers and complexes identified
suggest that there were two main stages of construction and rebuilding for the vallum.
Stage 1. After removing the upper portion of the vegetal layer, a number of pits of various
shapes and sizes were dug along the ditch, longitudinally, at varying distances from one another
(Pits2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, in S2 and Cassette A) (Fig.810). They have different sizes: the depth is 0.40
0.60m and the diameter is 0.601.10m (Fig.10). Loess was placed between them, and their filling
did not have any archaeological material, stones, remains or traces of wood.
After that, a thick layer of loess was placed, clean and compact, most likely removed from the
bottom of the ditch, with the wide margin at the bottom and the peak towards the middle of the
vallum, with a maximum thickness of 0.80m (Fig.8/1, 3; 9/14).
It could be that the purpose of the aforementioned pits was to form, together with the thick
loess layer on top of them, a compact and solid structure for the bottom of the vallum.
On the side of the vallum towards the enclosure, inside and on top of the loess layer, in the
southern edge of the section, one has observed two rows of transversal beams, in an oblique position
and rotten. Remains of rotten beams were also visible in surface A, at various distances from one
another. The best preserved beam was 1.70m long and 0.080.10m thick (Fig.8/34).
Next comes a layer of grey or greyish-brown earth.
Stage 2. At the core of the vallum, also longitudinally and at various distance, but more rare
than those at the bottom of the vallum, there was a row of large pits crossing the earth layers laid
down before, some of them even reaching into the bottom layers; for instance, Pit 7 crosses into Pit 2,
8
In the campaigns of 20122013, the scientific coordinator of the excavations was Ionel Cndea, whom we would like to
thank for ceding the publication rights.
9
Cndea et alii 2013, p.128129; Cndea et alii 2014, p.143.
and Pit 8 crosses into Pit 9 (Fig.8/12; 9/14). The filling of these large pits is made of loess layers or
sediments of various colours. Their filling does not have any archaeological material, stones or traces
of wood either.
Next, depending on the area being excavated, there were two-three successive layers of
brownchestnut and grey-yellow sediments.
All the observations point to a complex and solid structure, currently standing up to a height of
1.752m, excluding the current vegetal layer.
The excavations that took place during the two campaigns, to a length of 25m, crossing Ditch
1 and the vallum, with a width of 9.00m on the vallum, have allowed us, by means of the section
and the two cassettes, to make a number of general, but also detailed, observations regarding the
construction of the linear fortification.
***
The research in the two cassettes, about 300m away from one another, showed some things
that they had in common, but also some that they did not. Namely, whereas the area researched in S1
used river stones and woven twigs to consolidated the slope on the side towards the vallum, S2 did
not have such materials, although the excavations was finished here. Also, whereas S1 had a rather
thick layer of compact loess close to the peak of the vallum, S2 had brown-grey, yellow-chestnut or
yellowish layers. Of course, these differences in the sediments could be accidental, a result of the
place that the earth was brought from.
Both the stratigraphy observations and the geophysical measurements showed that the loess
at the bottom of the ditch, which was clean and compact, was used to consolidate the bottom of the
vallum, both by filling the first line of pits, and by placing a thick layer in the core of the vallum.
Final observations
Why was this fortification erected. Looking at the geography of the area, you can clearly see
that the only nearby crossing of Buzu is currently less than 2km away from the fortification, near
Grditea (Fig.1/1). However, centuries ago, the rivers meanders and swamps were right at the edge
of the terrace enclosed by the fortification structure. Except for this crossing ford of the Buzu River,
we will see, either upstream or downstream, that the banks were a tandem of high bank on one side
and swamp on the other (Fig.1/12).
Therefore, it is obvious that this fortification was mean to oversee a major route for
communication, and therefore trade, between Brila and the Curvature Carpathians. If it played a
strictly military role, then its construction should be associated with a particular event/war, which is
not something that we can say at the moment.
General data on the fortified enclosure

The fortification, over 900m long, was meant to enclose a trapezoidal terrace end, which had
a surface of about 100ha (1km2) (Fig.1/23; 2/1). The edges of the terrace are steep, 810m tall,
because at one point the river basin had included meanders and swamps of the Buzu. Even if it was
very difficult to cross the river and the area, before the earthworks took place, we can assume the
existence of a palisade at the edge of the terrace, currently eroded, so no longer there. No vestiges
or other defence structures could be identified inside the enclosure. The rectangular structure in the
enclosure, close to S2, is recent, because it does not appear on any map or plan prior to 1953 and it is
not mentioned by Pamfil Polonic. Based on the existence of a cement structure at its bottom, as well
as on some information from the locals, we can assume that it was built after the construction of the
farming collective and was used as a garbage ramp.
The size and structure of the fortification

In his report from 1899, Pamfil Polonic mentioned that the fortification was 902m long,
enclosing a surface of 1 km2, that it consisted of a vallum 20m wide and with a preserved height
of 2.004.00m, of a first ditch 11m wide and 2.00m deep, followed by a second ditch 16m away,
which was 7.00m wide an 0.501.00m deep (Fig.2/2). He also mentioned the existence of remains
of rotten wood and of river stones in vallum (Polonic mss. in B.A.R., notebook 10, f. 13).
The observations based on aerial photos, Google satellite images, previous plans and the
topographic map we made in 2008 indicates that, indeed, it was 900930m long, oriented along
the NNESSW axis and that it was meant to enclose only this terrace cape (Fig.1; 2/1). Therefore, the
direct association with Trajans vallum cannot be documented, at this stage of the research.
Currently cut across and strongly affected, the vallum can still be observed on a length of 700m.
It is trapezoidal in section, with a bottom width of 1520m, a peak width of 67m and a height of
2.503.00 m.
Based on all the information collected so far, we can conclude that this fortification included a
900m long vallum, accompanied by two ditches, to the south, and that it enclosed a terrace cape with a
surface of about 1km2, inside which one has not yet found any vestiges or other defensivestructures.
Given all the information resulted from the archaeological research and the size of the
fortification, it appears that those that erected the fortification were capable constructors, with a
good knowledge of this type of fortifications, that significant human and material resources were
necessary and that the reason for erecting it were important.
There are very few archaeological vestiges for this area, relevant to the era that might of
interest to us: a Sarmatian necropolis right next to the crossing ford of the Buzu10, a coin from Justin
I (518527)11 and a Sntana de Mure settlement. We do not know what P. Polonic relies on when he
says that the area contains finds of coins from king Sigismund of Poland, from the year 1628.
We hope that future archaeological research and the results of the analyses on the wood
remains found in the vallum will provide supplementary data for elucidating a number of problems
regarding the dating and the reasons for constructing this impressive linear fortification.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research,
CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.
Bibliography
Cndea, I. 1980. Descoperiri monetare pe teritoriul judeului Brila, sec. XIVXIX, Istros, I, p.375397.
Cndea, I., Croitoru, C., Vernescu, M. 2013. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Val. In: Cronica cercetrilor
arheologice din Romnia. Campania 2012, Iai, 2013, p.128128.
Cndea, I., Croitoru, C., Srbu, V. 2014. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Val. In: Cronica cercetrilor arheo-
logice din Romnia. Campania 2013, Oradea, 2014, p.143.
Croitoru, C. 2004. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos (secolele I IV p.Chr.), I. Istros, Galai.
Croitoru, C., 2010. Cercetrile arheologice de suprafa de la ueti, judeul Brila. Punctul Terasa I, Acta Musei
Tutovensis, V, p. 166181.
Haruche, N. 1980. Preliminarii la repertoriul arheologic al judeului Brila, Istros, I, p.334335.
Haruche, N, Anastasiu, Fl., Srbu, V. 1983. Spturile de salvare de la Grditea, judeul Brila (punct mormntul
Elizei necropol), Istros, IIIII, p.4965.
Pandrea, S., Srbu, V., Stoian, V., Vernescu, M. 20082009, ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Popin. Campa-
nia 2008. In: Cronica cercetrilor arheologice din Romnia. Campania 2008 (= Valachica, 2122), p.215216.
Pandrea, S., Croitoru, C., Vernescu, M. 2013, ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Teras. Campania 2012. In:
Cronica cercetrilor arheologice din Romnia. Campania 2012, Iai, 2013, p.128129.
Srbu, V., Pandrea, S., Stoian, V., Croitoru, C. 2007. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Val. In: Cronica
cercetrilor arheologice din Romnia. Campania 2006, Bucureti, 2007, p.364365.
Srbu, V., Pandrea, S., Stoian, V. 2008. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, Punct: Val. Punct: Popin. In: Cronica
cercetrilor arheologice din Romnia. Campania 2007, Bucureti, 2008, p.304305.
Haruche et alii 1983, p.4965.

10
Cndea 1980, p.375.

11
Fig. 1. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

13. Different maps.

1. on map; 2. on Drawing made by Pamfil Polonic.

12. View of the Wallum from South-East;
3. An Aerial View of the Vallum.
1 3

13. Photos of Section S1;
4. Drawing of Section S1.
3 4

1. Section S1;
2. The Vallum;
3. Structure of the Vallum Twigs;
4. Structure of the Vallum Wooden Beam.
4
14. Section S2 General view.
Fig. 7. ueti. The Linear Fortification. Section S2.

1. Southern Profile;
2. Northern Profile.
3 4

13. Section S2. The Vallum Southern Profile;
4. Structure of the Vallum The Wooden Beam.
2 3

14. Section S2. The Vallum Northern Profile.

12. Section S2 CasA and CasB Drawings of C1, C2, C3 and C4.
Alternative Explorations of Linear Fortifications
Trajans Vallum from ueti (Brila County)
Magdalena tefan, Dan tefan

Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca,
Institute of Archaeology Vasile Prvan, Bucharest, Romania
m_magdalena.stefan@yahoo.com
danstefan00@gmail.com
Keywords: linear fortification, ERT, magnetometry, ancient roads, Buzu Valley, Curved Carpathian area, ford, flood,
past landscapes
Abstract: In a joint project with the Museum of Braila, a set Rezumat: Studiul prezint rezultatele unor investigaii inter-
of non-invasive investigations was undertaken in the eastern disciplinare non-invazive derulate mpreun cu specialiti ai
border of the village ueti, with the purpose of exploring and Muzeului Brilei, n limita estic a satului ueti, n scopul
documenting the linear defensive earthwork located here, explorrii i documentrii fortificaiei liniare Valul lui Traian,
by geodesic, geophysical and remote-sensing methods. The prin mijloace geodezice, geofizice i specifice teledeteciei.
interdisciplinary investigations were made in the final part Cercetrile au avut loc la finalul campaniei de spturi arhe-
of the 2013 archaeological campaign, occasion with which ologice a anului 2013, ocazie cu care s-au realizat i unele
some geophysical and topographical measurements were msurtori n interiorul suprafeelor excavate. Prezentul text
recorded inside the excavated surfaces, as well. The following este bazat n principal pe raportul ce sintetizeaz rezultatele
data represent, mainly, the scientific report of that field survey, cercetrilor non-invazive desfurate atunci, fcnd referiri,
focused on processing and interpreting the topography (large aadar, la procesarea i interpretarea topografiei (la scar
scale and site-scale) and geophysical data, and integrating the larg i la scara sitului), a investigaiilor geofizice i pe inte-
monument in its surrounding environment, either modern/ grarea monumentului n mediul nconjurtor, att modern/
anthropic or projected in the past with the help of historical antropic, ct i proiectat n trecut cu ajutorul resurselor
cartographic sources. cartograficeistorice.
Establishing investigation objectives in the context of known archaeological facts

An earthen embankment elevated 2.53 mabove ground, with an obvious defensive role, lays
in the western vicinity of ueti village, stretching on about 700 m, on a NNE-SSW direction (fig.1).
Its actual width at the base measures between 1520 m. The fortification, despite being preserved
on a considerable height, was strongly affected by modern anthropic interventions. It was cut in four
points, along its route, on the occasion of diggings for irrigation works; it was also altered sometime in
the recent history during the asphalt road construction, in its northern side, sector which was further
used by the local community of the village as a burial place; constructions related to a communist era
farm affected its north-eastern side. Not least, the south-western side of the embankment has been
used as a garbage dump.
The first information recorded about this monument were related, as in other cases concerning
the great earth fortifications of Southern Romania, with the documentation made by Pamfil Polonic1,
the topographer and cartographer active in the last decade of the 19th century in the Romanian field
archaeology. His observations, even if not published, remained a reference for following generations
of archaeologists, many of them struggling to re-identify in the field the structures and landscapes
very much altered during the 20th century. For ueti he mentioned a vallum, 20 mwide and as much
P. Polonic, Cetatea de la ueti i Valul lui Traian, manuscripts in the Romanian Academy Library caiet 10, f. 1314.
1

58 Magdalena tefan, Dan tefan
as 24 mhigh, and two ditches (the first 11 mwide and 2 mdeep; the second, located at 16 mfrom
the first, 7 mwide and 1 m.deep), stretching along 902 m. He also mentioned traces of a palisade and
stones used in the construction of the defensive earthwork.
In 20062, 20073 2012 and 2013, archaeologists from the Museum of Brila cut the fortification
with a trench 362 m. They thus concluded that one ditch, from the two mentioned by Polonic,
is located towards south-east from the embankment, measuring 56 min width in its upper part.
The embankment, built from successive layers of brown soil and loess, was strengthen with river
boulders and various wooden structures, documenting at least two different moments of fitting out
the construction.
One of the objectives of our survey was to complement the archaeological excavations and
identify the second ditch mentioned by Polonic, if any. For this we employed a combination of non-
invasive methods, mainly geophysical, that is magnetometry, electric resistivity tomography (ERT)
and magnetic susceptibility measurements. An important role in the research has been played, also,
by the analysis of various remote-sensing datasets. As in all these recent years, the archaeological
excavation did not succeed in finding chronologically relevant material, it was considered necessary
to supplement the known archaeological elements with alternative data that would help in
explaining certain aspects related to the embankment functionality, like its relation with the
surrounding environment and a better understanding of its inner structure. Other objectives were to
assess the exterior surroundings of the fortification, namely the south-eastern ones, where the ditch
wasidentified.
Multi-scale site approach

The non-invasive investigations were organized in several successive stages of field and lab
activities, with some of the interpretation made during the site expedition, but mainly later, during
the post-processing phase. The order of making an analysis or other is relevant for the general
research strategy focused on efficiency and multi-scale approach of the site, projecting backwards
the site image, from the detail of an archaeological stratigraphic profile, geophysically assessed, layer
by layer, to a larger region, environmental, scenario.
The initial activities in the field were related to establishing the position of the surfaces to be
investigated by magnetic means, their topographic recording4 as of other elements of interest for the
analysis, like the excavation surface and main fortification elements. After the magnetic assessment5,
data was elementary processed and decisions were made regarding the positioning of the profiles
to be measured by ERT6 (fig.3). Detailed elevation recordings were made along these profiles in
order to correlate geophysical data with the relief micro-morphology and obtain correct information
depth. Taking advantage of the open excavation, some magnetic susceptibility measurements7 were
recorded for the archaeological profiles. Back from the field, all the data was processed and integrated
using various cartographic8 maps, digital elevation models9 and aerial images10.
2
Srbu et alii 2007.
3
Srbu et alii 2008.
4
Topographic data was recorded with a reflectorless total station Leica TCR 805 in local coordinates based on a previously
established reference points network. Coordinates for these base stations were established with the help of geodetic class GPS
receivers by post-processing with data coming from additional fix GNSS Romanian stations.
5
Magnetic data was recorded with a dual fluxgate Bartington Grad 6012 gradiometer, able to measure the vertical component
of the terrestrial magnetic field.
6
Electrical resistivity tomography) was employed with the help of a multi-electrode device (with 35 electrodes) and a multi-
channel resistivity-meter (METREL MI3123). The maximum penetration depth of the ERT profiles was 4 m.
7
Susceptibility measurements were recorded using a SM30 ZH Instruments K-meter.
8
Southern Romania Map (Charta 1864, scale 1/57.000), Austrian Map (1/200.000) beginning of the 20th century, Military
Shooting plans (1/20.000) 1950s, Romanian Maps (1/25.000) 1970s.
9
DEM-Europea (30 mresolution), SRTM (90 mresolution).
10
Orthophotos 20052010 available on http://geoportal.ancpi.ro/
Alternative Explorations of Linear Fortifications Trajans vallum from ueti (Brila County) 59
Topographic and landscape analysis

The linear fortification was blocking an elongated extension of the high river-terrace, orientated
on a northwest-southeast direction, measuring 930 min width in the part where it is crossed by
the fortification (fig.3, 4). This elongated extension of the terrace has a trapeze-like shape and was
formed as a result of a fluvial erosion process performed inside some of the meanders of Buzu River:
to the north a meander surrounded by marshes which had become secondary and another, partially
dried in the past, towards south-southwest. Nowadays, the terrace is elevated with a variable height
(612 m) above the neighbouring riverbed. It can be viewed as a natural bridge prolonged in the
Buzu valley, situation which probably explains the presence of a historical passing point in this spot
(fig.5).
Given the morphological details described above we should not consider Valul lui Traian
embankment as segment of a larger linear fortified system, stretching sideways from it. The
investigated embankment corresponds perfectly to the width of the elongated terrace which was,
thus, blocked on its entire extent (Fig.6, 8). It is not excluded, however, that this terrace was in the
past slightly wider than today, if considering the erosion of its banks as it can be deduced from the
reliefs recent evolution between 1850s and present days (fig.6, 9). As all the older maps show, the
rectangular earth structure located towards west, behind the embankment, is a modern construction
which did not exist in 1953.
Nowadays, between Grditea (by the way, meaning a fortified place) and ueti, Buzu river
is making an abrupt turn to south the largest on its entire inferior course existent, at least, in the
last 150 years (as the Charta 1864 shows) fig.9. A multitude of riverbed movements in the past is
attested by traces of paleo-channels visible on satellite and aerial images, as are those more recent,
represented on historical cartographic sources. We cannot know, of course, without additional
analyses, the date of these changes. Nevertheless, despite the difficulty in establishing the exact
environmental correlation between the linear fortification (of unknown date) and a certain riverbed
layout, some elements point to the existence of a route passing over Buzu between ueti and
Grditea: cartographic, toponymyc, archaeological and environmental. All the historic cartographic
sources record the existence of a main road and bridge over Buzu. The 1953 Military Shooting Plan
recorded the name of a lake in the vicinity of the ford as Lacul Podului (the Lake of the Bridge) fig.7,
making reference to an older tradition of using the bridge.
In a small area concentrated in the lowlands spread between the two bridge-heads of Buzu
river a significant set of archaeological discoveries were found on elevated areas of solid ground
(fig.10). These are the Iron Age settlements from ueti Popin11 Basarabi finds and Movila Crestat
Geto-Dacian finds12 and the cemetery with inhumation graves13 excavated in the spot Mormntul
Rozei/Elizei (Elizas grave) right near the modern bridge over Buzu, in an inner canter of a former
meander (with finds belonging to the Middle Bronze Age, 5th4th c. BC and 2nd3rd c. AD). Recent
discoveries identified at 4 km south of ueti traces of Dridu and Sntana de Mure type settlements14.
When mapping all the mounds represented on the three main cartographic resources for
the area (Charta 1864, Military Shooting plans 1953 and Romanian Map 1970s) their alignment to
ancient roads stretched on high terraces appears obvious (fig.12). Even if their chronology is not
clear (anytime between Early Bronze Age to 12th century AD), tumuli can reveal through their spatial
organisation a strategic structuring of prehistoric and ancient landscapes along major passing
routes. Mounds have always been built in the vicinity of settlements, in visible places, to be seen by
both travellers and descendants of the dead, along roads, in clusters and, quite often, in landscapes
already consecrated by the existence of previously built mounds, from older times15.
11
Pandrea et alii 2009.
12
Srbu 1996.
13
Haruche et alii 1983.
14
Croitoru 2010; Cndea and Croitoru 2011.
15
Similar approaches in tefan 2009; Srbu et alii 2013.
In this configuration Grditea reveals itself as an important crossroad. Accordingly, one may
observe that there wasnt a single route to link the Curved Carpathian area with the Danube area,
but a corridor with many paths, though, the ford was a single one, even if inside this ford, the road
could have passed in various epochs on different routes, with a 2.5 km variation, due to dynamics
of the river meanders or even due to differences in perceiving the landscape and its strategic use
by communities living in the past. The landscape configuration to be related with the road blocked
by Valul lui Traian embankment had to be more close to what we can see nowadays, with meanders
blocking the passage from east and west of the trapeze-shaped terrace. This places the embankment
in a different communication and strategic logic than that revealed by the site from Movila Crestat,
which apparently indicates a different route of the road passing over the Buzu through Grditea-
ueti ford.
Not a single mound was found on maps in the huge lowlands flanked by the inferior valleys
of the rivers Siret, Rmnicul Srat and Buzu, on a 25 km radius, a significant indicator that it was
not a very good landscape for travelers or for habitation in general16. This is the lowest sector of
the Romanian Plain, formed on the tectonic fault Vrancea Galai, probably very often flooded.
The oldest cartographic resources represented plentiful moor areas and, even today (fig.12), after
the modern building of many embankments along Buzu and Siret, for regulation purposes, the
European Flood Directive places the entire space in the red flood zone (fig.11). Satellite imagery
(fig.13) testifies for the many variations of the rivers courses in this lowland phenomena partially
preserved in medieval chronicles (as what happened with Siret occupying the valley of Brlad two
times during the 15th century17). We refer to both once-in-a-century floods, but also to seasonal water
growths during spring time. In this context, the ford from ueti is revealed to have been the safest
and, in fact, the first strategic passing point if coming from the Siret-Danube area towards west.
The analysis of the micro-region topography and the order of the Valul lui Traian fortification
elements (embankment, ditch) urges for interpreting the main reason for building it as related to
the need to control and defend/close the route passing over the Buzu River from Danube-Brila-
Galai area towards the Curved Carpathians (Rmnicul Srat and further towards south-eastern
Transylvania). The forces who guarded this fortification intended, after all the appearances, to protect
something which was located on the other bank of Buzu river, at a closer or further distance from the
passing point at Grditea. The embankment was blocking the single possible road, traversing the
moors and meanders of the Buzu river, being an outpost for a bridge head located 4.3 km towards
north. The strategic significance of the general route between Danube and Carpathians, called the
Road of Buzu, the Road of Brila or the Road of the Tatar, is well attested in medieval documents18.
Apparently, the fortification from ueti fits in a large scale military-political will and strategy. The
orientation of the ditch points towards the focal point of this authority elaborating such a strategy,
which should be searched for in the area of the Curved Carpathians, either exterior or interior.
Taking in consideration the significance of this passage route as suggested by the existence
of the linear fortification and its longer use (the archaeological excavation revealed the existence
of several building phases) we should assume the existence of some sort of gate which might
have allowed a controlled use of the road. The micro-morphology of the terrace, as described by
the altimetry profile (fig.3), points that the most favourable sector to be used as road, meaning the
flattest, is the north-eastern one, occupied by the road today, too. It could be a topic for further
investigations, a verification of the area where the modern road intersects the fortification.
Geophysical analysis
As the main objective of our short survey was to assess the exterior of the linear fortification, we
focussed on the area located immediately adjacently to the currently researched trench. Magnetic
16
It is not excluded that some archaeological traces were covered by deposits of flood debris.
17
Paragin 2002, p.27.
18
Bogdan 1905, p.287.
investigations were done on a surface organized in two squares, 4040 meach, located parallel to
the embankment, at 8.7 msouth-east of its base, exactly as a prolongation of the archaeological
excavation (fig. 14, 15, 16). Thus, the total surface investigated by magnetic means measured 3200 sqm,
for which there were recorded 12800 values of the vertical magnetic gradient. The equipment was
programmed to acquire 4 measurements per meter along each profile of 40 m, these profiles being
traversed for the entire surface, at 1 minterval, in zig-zag19.
Regarding the ERT profiles, the first was positioned right in the middle of the surface investigated
by magnetic methods, extending the north-eastern profile of the archaeological excavation in order
to have information either from archaeological or geophysical sources for the entire defensive line
(including the supposed second ditch) (fig.14, fig.19). The second profile (fig.21) was located at
170 mnorth-northeast of the archaeological excavation, crossing the embankment in a less well
preserved sector. Profile 1 measured 35 min length and profile 2 70 m, both with a maximum
penetration depth of 4 m. Electrodes were distanced at 0.5 mfor profile 1 P1 and at 1 m.for profile 2
P2, this meaning that the result of electric data interpolation cannot identify structures measuring
less than 50 cm, respectively 1 m, along the side crossed by the ERT profile. Profile P1 was made in
the configuration dipole-dipole the most suited to ensure the best resolution in horizontal plane
while profile P2 was made in the configuration pole-pole in order to emphasize vertical stratification
along the archaeological layers.
Reading geophysical results

The magnetic investigations identified 5 large anomalies, from which 4 were modern large
scale structures and one was interpreted as ancient (fig.15)
The analysis of the orthophoto (ANCPI 2005) highlights the correspondence of the highly
magnetic anomaly (no. 1) with a large scale linear trace, visible from the air (fig.16, 17). In fact, the
aerial image reveals several such large lines and also some paleo-channels of Buzu river. Comparing
these trails with a map of the irrigation channels (ANCPI TopRO5 fig.17) we can notice their similar
orientation. In the fig.15 we interpreted the long lines as underground irrigation metallic tubes
hence the high magnetic response. The no. 2 anomaly, having a parallel layout with the previously
discussed one, is, as well, an underground metallic tube, but welded from different parts causing
the alternation of highly magnetic, with non-magnetic areas. The same can be said about anomaly5
a metallic tube, buried at approximately 70 cm depth (according to ERT profile 1 conductive
anomaly 4 in fig.20). Magnetic anomaly 5 (fig.15) should be, as well, related to the irrigation system.
The layout of these irrigation pipes, as it is visible from the air, corresponds perfectly with the
interventions/interruptions through the embankment. By looking at the aerial images we note the
emphasizing, on the plateau located east from the embankment, of a differently coloured large area
a difference for which we do not see an obvious geomorphological explanation, for now.
The medium magnetic linear anomaly (no. 3 in fig.15) identified along 59.5 m, on a parallel
route with the embankment, at 26 mfar from its base, represents, very probably, the second ditch
of the defensive system, the one mentioned by Polonic; but located at 20 mfar from the first ditch,
not 16 m, as the topographer recorded. It has a regular, consistent shape and a perfectly aligned
layout with the embankment. This magnetic anomaly has a rather good correspondence in the
2010 ANCPI ortophotoplan. The aerial image reveals that the ditch stretches, at least, till the end
of the embankment, in the southern sector, approximately 80 m.more, following the regular and
parallel-with the embankment design (fig.18). The ERT profile 1 shows that the actual width of the
ditch measures around 4 m.and its depth about 1 m. The topographic profile identifies a very small
depression not more than 40 cm deep on a 5 mwide area see fig.19 for details.
Magnetometry measurements made on parallel profiles, traversed in opposite directions, generate artificial striping of the
19
resulted image, due to differences in the calibration, orientation and position of the two double sensors. However, these side
effects may however be eliminated by subsequent post-processing.
Magnetic anomaly no. 4 (fig.15), located right at the foot of the embankment and at the end
of the agricultural field, is a noisy area. It could be just an area of debris collected during agricultural
works or an area for dumping garbage. It is difficult to be interpreted in archaeological terms.
Regarding the electric profiles, we add that ERT profile 1 highlights, as well, the presence of
two pits in the upper level, located at 7.5 m, respectively 9.5 mfrom the margin of the second ditch
(meters 27.5, 29.5 on ERT1 fig.20). They measure around 0.801.20 min the section crossed by the
profile and about 1 min depth. On the same profile electrical anomaly 1 is shallower depression,
about 60 cm deep and about 1 m.wide. Around the meters 78 of ERT profile 1 a large anomaly
associating a conductive with a resistive result has a significant echo in the results like what happens
with the effect of the metallic pipe (anomaly 4). Its origin is less clear, as it does not have a magnetic
correspondence.
ERT profile 2 (fig.21) reveals the inner structure of the embankment (very similar with the
stratigraphy already known from the archaeological excavation) and the first ditch (about 2.5mdeep,
5 mwide in its upper part). The highly resistive core of the embankment (electric anomaly 1 in fig.21)
shows that the vallum had a consistent structure, at least between the sector researched by excavation
and this profile (so about 170 m) that is a core of very well rammed yellow clay placed in a ditch. We
note also the pit, located on top of the embankment probably for the palisade. Anomalies 4 and 5
may be related to the irrigation system, too.
Conclusions
The short non-invasive survey helped in establishing several details regarding the fortification
structure and also placed it in a larger environmental context. The relief features suggest that the
dyke was not a segment of a larger one, but a specially designed fortification, around 900 mlong,
meant to block one of the main routes, linking the Curved Carpathian area with the Danube, in a
vital point, easily to defend. The agglomeration of archaeological sites from various epochs around
the ford Grditea-ueti is a proof for its use at least since the Middle Bronze Age, even if the exact
configuration of the road passing through the Buzu meanders remains impossible to establish for
each period separately. Of note is the presence in the Bronze Age graves, attributable to a steppe
culture, found at Mormntul Elizei, of ceramic imports from the Monteoru culture20 a typical
development for the Curved Carpathian Area, testifying for interactions between communities in
focal points for communication and transport.
The linear fortification was used for a longer period, heaving at least two construction phases
and was part of a different strategy of using the landscape than that dated in end of the second
Iron Age and exhibited by the dava from Movila Crestat (differences due to changes in the Buzu
riverbed or due to differences in landscape use strategy), being closer to how we use the landscape
nowadays. Understanding the vastness of the lowlands east from Grditea-ueti corridor and the
variability of the hydrographical network, especially revealed by the map of tumuli graves and the
hazard for flood analyses, place the ford in a clearer light.
The survey identified the second ditch of the fortification system (by magnetic, ERT, topographic
and remote-sensing means), which was located at 20 mfar from the first (not 16 mlike Polonic said),
measured 4 min width and around 1 min depth. It had a regular design and stretched, for at least
140 min the southern sector of the fortification. The magnetic plot, even if affected by the presence
of metallic underground irrigation pipes, did not reveal structures in front of the vallum, between
the ditches and 20 mto the south-east far from the second ditch. The ERT profile 1 crossed however
two pits, around 8 mfar to the east from the second ditch not visible on the magnetic map.
Their archaeological significance cannot be established without additional investigations, either
geophysical or archaeological. The results of electrical investigations along profile 2, backed-up very
good the archaeological stratigraphy, confirming the strong loess inner core of the embankment and
presence of the ditch (first ditch).
Haruche et alii 1983, p.63, fig.4/1.

20
Not least, methodologically speaking, the present report emphasizes the need to correlate
and overlap multiple investigation methods in order to understand complex archaeological sites,
geophysics, remote-sensing and landscape archaeology being the most rapid and accessible
methods of assessment.
Bibliography
Bogdan, I. 1905. Documente i regeste privitoare la relaiile rii Romneti cu Braovul i ara Ungureasc n
secolele XVXVI (14151508), I, Bucureti.
Cndea, I., Croitoru, C. 2011. ueti, Comuna ueti, jud. Brila, punctul Terasa I. In: Cronica Cercetrilor
Arheologice. Campania 2010, Sibiu, 2011, p.134, nr. 69.
Croitoru, C. 2010. Cercetrile arheologice de suprafa de la ueti, judeul Brila. Punctul Terasa I, Acta Musei
Tutovensis, 5, p.166181.
Haruche, N, Anastasiu, Fl., Srbu, V. 1983. Spturile de salvare de la Grditea, judeul Brila (punct mormntul
Elizei necropol), Istros, IIIII, p.4965.
Pandrea, S., Srbu, V., Stoian, V., Vernescu, M. 2009. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila. In: Cronica Cercetrilor
Arheologice. Campania 2008, Bucureti, 2009, p.215216.
Paragina, A. 2002. Habitatul medieval la curbura exterioar a Carpailor n secolele X XV. Istros, Brila.
Polonic, P. Cetatea de la ueti i Valul lui Traian, manuscripts in the Romanian Academy Library caiet 10,
f. 1314.
Srbu, V. 1996. Dava getic de la Graditea. Istros, Brila.
Srbu, V., Pandrea, S., Stoian, V., Croitoru, C. 2007. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, punctul Val. In: Cronica
Cercetrilor Arheologice. Campania 2006, Bucureti, 2007, p.364365, nr. 187.
Srbu, V., Pandrea, S., Stoian, V., Croitoru, C. 2008. ueti, com. ueti, jud. Brila, punctul Val. In: Cronica
Cercetrilor Arheologice. Campania 2007, Bucureti, 2008, p.304305, nr. 175.
V. Srbu, V., tefan, M., tefan, D., Jugnaru, G., Bochnak, T. 2013. The Necropolis from Telia-Celic Dere (6th3rdc.BC),
Tulcea County, Romania The Study Case of Tumulus T44, p. 347372. In: Proceedings of the 12th Congress of Thracology,
(Ed.V. Srbu). Istros, Buzu.
tefan, D. 2009. Exploring Second Iron Age Landscapes. Case Study the Necropolis from Zimnicea, Teleorman
County, p. 87206. In: The Necropolises and the Environment (1st mill BC). Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium of
Funerary Archaeology, 20th22nd October, 2009, Buzu (Eds. V. Srbu, D. Ciobanu) (= Mousaios, XIV), Buzu Brila.
Fig. 1. Position of the fortification near ueti village and Buzu river (ANCPI 2010).
Embankment
Ditch 1
Fig. 2. Northern profile (2013 campaign).
excavation Buzu River

Buzu River DN22
Preserved layout of the fortification
Fig. 3. General altimetry profile of the terrace extension blocked by the considered fortification
(using SRTM data thus not taking in consideration the micro-topography of the dyke).
The nowadays road DN 22 passes through the flattest sector of the terrace.
Movila Crestat
Popina
Fig. 4. Digital model of the micro-region relief, with elevation contours at 2 m, generated based on SRTM data
(90 m resolution). On top there were superimposed the topographic layout of the fortification;
with red the area which was investigated by magnetic means.
Buzu
Grditea
Grditea ueti
ueti
Fig. 5. An important passing point over the Valley of Buzu River in the area Grditea;
with light blue modern lakes; SRTM data.
Fig. 6. Overlay of the military map 1/20000 from 1953 with the ANCPI orthophoto from 2005. Variations of the main river
course are visible, as it is the extension of the occupational area of the ueti village. In the area A the military map
points to the existence of active river courses nowadays dried, but visible as dried channels on the ANCPI aerial images.
Fig. 7. Military plans 1/20000 (1950s) overlaid on the DEM (Europea). The hidronym Lacu Podului (the Bridge Lake)
is a proof for a certain tradition of using the area as bridge/passing point.
Fig. 8. The fortification on old maps: up Charta 1864;

down Military plans 1/20000 (1950s) overlaid on the DEM (Europea).
Fig. 9. Changes in the riverbed layout - Meridional Romania Map Charta 1864 (up);
Buzu river with green lines from 1850s superimposed over Google Earth satellite image.
Fig. 10. Map of archaeological sites: 1 Valul lui Traian, 2 Movila Crestat, 3 Popina ueti,
4 Mormntul Rozei/Elizei, 5 Sntana de Mure-Cerneahov and Dridu settlement.
With yellow mounds mapped from historical cartographic sources. SRTM data.
Grditea
ueti
Fig. 11. European Flood Directive; with orange the once in a century hazard zones. http://maps.eea.europa.eu/
Rmnicul Srat
2
Sir
et
zu
Bu
Fig. 12. The distribution map of tumuli (black dots) after Charta 1864, Military Shooting plans (1950s and
Romanian Map 1970s); with red embankments: 1 Valul lui Traian from ueti, 2 Valul lui Traian from Tuluceti;
with spotted green areas represented on Charta 1864 as moors; with light blue modern lakes, including artificial ones.
er
Buzu Riv
Fig. 13. Google Earth satellite image showing dried waters and paleo-channels in the lowlands
between Buzu river and Siret (area of Ariciu).
P2
P1
Fig. 14. The localisation of the geophysical investigated areas, the way of traversing them.
With blue ERT profiles, with red magnetic investigation, with yellow archaeological trench.
4
3
1
6
2
Fig. 15. The result of magnetic data interpolation: anomalies 1, 2 and 5 metallic irrigation tubes,
3 second ditch of the fortification system, 4 area od debris at the margin of the agricultural land,
6 magnetic effect or another structure related with the irrigation system. The represented surface measures 40 c 80 m.
Dark stands for highly magnetic and white for non-magnetic.
Fig. 16. Integrating the magnetic plot with the site plan and aerial image (ANCPI 2005).
Long linear anomalies are visible on the aerial image, corresponding with the magnetic results.
Fig. 17. Layout of irrigation pipes with blue integration of aerial visible traces with mapped system.
Fig. 18. The second ditch of the fortification system visible both on the aerial image (ANCPI 2010) and magnetic plot.
Ditch 2
Ditch 1
a
b pipe
Fig. 19. General structure of the defensive

system seen from north comparison between
topographical (a), electrical (b) and magnetic (c)
results. In c, with yellow arrow the localization
and orientation of the topographic profile. ERT
profile is placed in this figure in spatial relation
with the topographic profile. The two black
arrows point to the limits of the topographic
anomaly of the second ditch a 5m wide
depression 40 cm deep; the red line on the
topographic profile marks the position and
width of the second ditch anomaly according to
the magnetic investigation.
An irrigation pipe (magnetic anomaly
no. 5 is intersected by ERT profile 1 causing a
conductive anomaly (correspondence marked
with blue arrow).
Anomaly 1
Anomaly 2
Anomaly 4
Anomaly 13, 3a
Anomaly 5
Fig. 20. ERT profile 1 seen from north, orientation from WNW to ESE.
Anomaly 2
ditch 1
Anomaly 4
Anomaly 3
Anomaly 1
Anomaly 5
Fig. 21. ERT profile 2 seen from north, orientation from WNW to ESE.
An Almost Forgotten Old Map and the First Mentions
of Some Roman Remains
on Alutanus and Transalutanus Limites
Drago Mndescu
Arge County Museum, Piteti, Romania
dragos_mandescu@yahoo.com
Keywords: old maps, Roman stations, Cmpulung-Jidova, Stolniceni (Roman Buridava), Giovanni Morando Visconti,
map of Transylvania
Abstract: The article presents an old map of Transylvania, Rezumat: Articolul prezint o hart veche a Transilvaniei,
drawn by Giovanni Morando Visconti in 1699 (after the ntocmit de Giovanni Morando Visconti n anul 1699 (dup
moment when this province began to be ruled by the ce aceast provincie a intrat sub autoritatea Imperiului
Habsburgic Empire) and printed in Sibiu (Hermannstadt) Habsburgic) i tiprit la Sibiu (Hermannstadt) cu titlul Mappa
under the title Mappa della Transiluania e Prouintie della Transiluania e Prouintie contigue. Pstrat n Romnia
contigue. There is only one copy of this map in Romania doar ntr-un singur exemplar (la Biblioteca Brukenthal din
(in the Brukenthal Library from Sibiu). Though it is ignored Sibiu) i aproape ignorat de cercettori, aceast hart conine
by the scholars, this map includes some important data i unele date de mare interes pentru arheologia teritoriilor
regarding the archaeology of the neighbouring territories nvecinate Transilvaniei, de la sud de Carpai. Printre aceste
of Transylvania, from the south of the Carpathians. This informaii se regsesc i cele mai vechi atestri cartografice ale
information also includes the oldest cartographic attestations unor importante obiective arheologice de pe cele dou limites
of some important Roman archaeological sites situated on the romane de pe grania de rsrit a Daciei Inferioare: Alutanus
two Roman limites from the eastern border of Dacia Inferior: i Transalutanus.
Alutanus and Transalutanus.
The territorial vicinity with some of the powers of the time has not always represented a
real threat for the Romanian Countries from outside the Carpathians, but it also offered important
advantages. It is the case of the maps drawing, a domain in which both Wallachia and Moldavia, which
only in the late modern times began to have a cartographic production, were favored by the direct
vicinity with Transylvania. Big areas of the territories from outside the Carpathians where drawn on
maps representing the province from the inner Carpathians which was ruled by powerful European
kingdoms or empires.
There is no surprise that some of the most important urban settlements from the south of the
Carpathians, such as Cmpulung, Curtea de Arge, Trgovite and Piteti were drawn for the first time
on maps of Transylvania by some of the most famous cartographers of the time, such as Johannes
Honterus, Sebastian Mnster, Johannes Sambucus, Abraham Ortelius, Gerardus Mercator, Willem
Janszoon Blaeu etc.1. In all the peripheral areas of the maps of Transylvania, with no exceptions,
the northern territories of Wallachia or the western ones of Moldavia, from the proximity of the
mountains, are found.
But not only the important settlements from the southern part of the Carpathians were for
the first time marked on the maps of Transylvania, but also the sites where archaeological vestiges
from the Roman time were found; they were noticed for the first time in the Middle Age and in the
premodern times because of the still impressive ruins.
Ciortan et alii 2004, p.109191; Ortelius 2009; Svoiu 2009; Grf and Tams 2010; Mndescu 2012, p.1617, 2223, 3643.
1

78 Drago Mndescu
For the first time in a cartographic production made inside the country, the archaeological
monuments from the Roman times from Walachia, such as the Roman road along the Olt River which
corresponded to the Limes Alutanus and the bridge built by Apolodor of Damascus to Drobeta or the
bridge of Constantin the Great to Celei (Sucidava) were represented on the map drawn by the High
Steward Constantin Cantacuzino and printed in Padua in 1700. Soon after, in the first years of the
18th century, it was followed by maps which included Roman archaeological vestiges, such as Roman
camps, cities, bridges; these maps were drawn by Guillaume Delisle, Nicolas de Fer and, the most
important, by Johann Christoph Mller and Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli2.
But in the first position, at least chronologically speaking, we found a map printed in Sibiu
(Hermannstadt) in 1699; it was drawn by one of the most important engineer architects of the late
Transylvanian baroque: Giovanni Morando Visconti. The map is called Mappa della Transiluania
e Prouintie contigue (Pl. 1). It was drawn soon after the Treaty from Karlowitz, when, at the end of
the war between the Ottoman and the Austrian Empires, a conflict that lasted a decade and a half
(16831697), the Habsburgs began to rule in Transylvania. The new masters of the province wanted
to know this territory as well as possible; thus, it is easy to explain the detailed manner of the
mapdrawing.
Though it is very important as a historical and cartographic document, Viscontis map is
nowadays almost completely ignored by the Romanian historiography, with a few exceptions3.
Otherwise, probably only one copy is still preserved in Romania, in the town where it was printed
(Brukenthal Library, Manuscripts, inv. no. 912 H). Not the same thing could be said about the
Hungarian historiography; with no exception, the Hungarian scholars recognize the documentary
value of the map4. As an example, when the three centuries from its drawing were celebrated, the
map was edited again in Hungarian5; it is a very useful edition taking into consideration the rarity of
the copies of the first edition.
We have enough biographical data6 to reconstitute the life and the career of Giovanni Morando
Visconti. He was born in 1652 in Curio, Canton of Ticino (today in Switzerland, next to the Italian
border). Like Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, another famous Italian of his time, Visconti was a member
of the Imperial Habsburg Army. Engineer officer, he participated to the siege of Belgrade in 1688,
under the leadership of the princes Maximilian Emanuel von Bavaria and Ludwig von Baden. When
a new Habsburg administration was set in Transylvania, Visconti was detached here in 1691, having
the mission to elaborate a coherent fortification plan of the towns of the new province. In 1693
became military engineer in chief (Oberingineurs) of the Principate7, and due to his new position
he contributed to the new aspect of some important towns of Transylvania: the citadel of Cluj, the
citadel of Sibiu, the bulwark fortress of Alba Iulia represent projects that he elaborated and started8.
In 1717, while he coordinated the Vauban type fortification from Alba Iulia, Morando Visconti was a
victim of the plague epidemics which for three years (until 1720) will be the cause of the death of
100.000 people.
One of his biggest achievements (as a consequence of which he gain the rank of lieutenant
colonel) remains this map of Transylvania (Pl. 1). Mappa della Transiluania e Prouintie contigue
(117,599,5 cm Scale about 1:350.000) is an extremely complex and well documented work, which
includes 1141 localities, as well as 14 plans and vedutas of some cities from Transylvania (Sighioara,
Deva, Gheorghieni, Braov, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Fgra, Bistria, Media, Gherla, Cluj and Sibiu) and
Serbia (Ni, Belgrade and Novi Sad). The field researches, the measurements, the topographic works
2
Mndescu 2012, p.93115.
3
Sabu 2007, p.5760, fig. 14.
4
Szntai 1996, II, p.653; Plihl 2000; Dek 2007; Sabu 2007, p.5760, fig. 14.
5
Visconti 1999.
6
Kovcs and oca 1973.
7
Paldus 1907, p.58.
8
Moisescu 1967, p.188, 191, fig. 13; Anghel 1986; Sabu 2007.
An Almost Forgotten Old Map and the First Mentions of Some Roman Remains on Alutanus and Transalutanus Limites 79
and the preliminary drawings were the results of a team work; the leader of the team of topographers
was Morando Visconti. As it is mentioned at the foot line of the cartouche (Pl. 1/1), the final drawing
of the map was performed by Stephang Welzer from Braov. At the end of the legend9 is mentioned
the name of that one who performed the engraving in the workshop from Sibiu: Johann Conrad
Predtscheider from Nrnberg. The paternity of Welzer in finalizing the map must have been bigger
than Visconti let us know through the unsignifiant notice from the inscription, if we taken into
consideration that a first version of the map was printed in 1696, in Braov10, i.e. the birth town of the
draughtsman, and not in Sibiu, where the headquarter of the military engineer in chief was situated.
Like all maps of Transylvania up to it and after, the Viscontis map contains also references to the
neighboring area to the south of the Carpathians, Wallachia. And some of the information provided
is of the highest importance for archeology, as we show below.
On the map, the north is toward the left and not on the top, and this is an important detail11,
which is explicitly clarified by Visconti himself in a footnote situated under the cartouche (Pl. 1/1). As
a consequence of this unusual orientation, the area of our interest becomes the centre of the map,
where the road through the Carpathians is detailed drawn: from Cmpulung (Campolongo) through
Rucr (Rukari), Bran (Tersburg), Tohan (Thohany), Rnov (Rosnyo) and Cristian (Neistadt) to
Braov (Kronstadt), through Rucr-Bran mountain pass (distinctly marked Passo per Carre).
Right in the middle of the map (f. II.13), in the north of Wallachia, in the vicinity of Transylvania,
in the point of border between ara Brsei (Porzeland) and Wallachia, southern Cmpulung, on
the right bank of a minor and consequently unmentioned water flow (it is certainly Trgului River), a
north-south oriented quadrilateral is dotted line drawn, explicitly marked as the Roman fortification, a
Roman fortified military camp: Castrametatione Romana (Pl. 2/1). Though the map does not mention
any toponymes here, it is obvious that the Roman station from Jidova on limes Transalutanus is
hererepresented.
So, even if it is not mentioned, the Roman station from Jidova appears in historical sources
on the end of the 18th century, and this cartographic document from 1699 ought to be considered
its first mention. Thus, the first mention of the Roman station, considered to be the one that Marsigli
published in 172612, must be moved more than quarter of a century earlier. The paternity changes,
too: Morando Visconti.
In another zone of the map, the one that corresponds to the sector situated to the south
of the Carpathians and of the Olt River (Holdt flu:) there is another important mention for the
archaeological landscape of the Roman times in the East of Oltenia. Above Rmnicu Vlcea (Ribnik),
thus to the south of this locality, taking into consideration the way the map is oriented, a dotted line
rectangle marked a Roman town: Citta Romana (Pl. 2/2).
This rectangle is placed on the right bank of the Olt, between the river, situated to the East,
and the road of Rmnic, situated to the West which partially overlaps the south-western corner of
the ancient settlement. It is the first cartographic attestation after Tabula Peutingeriana (VII, 4), of
the Roman Buridava, whose spectacular vestiges are situated nowadays under the modern village
Stolniceni (Vlcea County).
In the neighbourhood of this unnamed Citta Romana, about which we could for certain say
that it is Buridava (Stolniceni), on Viscontis map some toponymes could be recognized: the Otsu
(Othasu riu), Mnstirea Dintr-un Lemn (Deunlemn), the locality Ruda (Ruda, wrongly placed on
the right part of the Olt), as well as an area where important salt deposits were found (Fod: Salis) to
the West of the Roman settlement from the Olt bank undoubtedly it is about the salt deposits from
the vicinity of the ancient Dacian Buridava (Ocnia), from Ocnele Mari. On the left bank of the Olt the
9
Sabu 2007, fig. 4.
10
Dek 2009.
11
Paldus 1907, p.57; Dek 2007; Sabu 2007, p.62.
12
Marsigli 1726, II, p.69, fig. 39; Tudor 1942, p.229230, fig. 39a; Petolescu and Cioflan 1995, p.18; Mndescu 2008,
p.5556, fig. 4/1.
80 Drago Mndescu
Topolog River (Topolog riu) is represented, but its flowing into the Olt is wrongly located, i.e. much
northern than in reality. On the left bank of the Topolog a locality called Thopolomnik is marked,
but it is difficult to identify it as one of the actual localities.
Visconti marked the Roman vestiges from Stolniceni as a town (Citta) and not as defense
military works (Castrametatione) like he did in the case of the Roman military station from
Cmpulung-Jidova; this detail certifies the fact that at the end of the 17th century the urban civilian
aspect of the ancient ruins of Roman Buridava prevailed over the military one. Probably that then the
Roman station from Stolniceni was as difficult to be identified on location as it is today13. Two centuries
after Visconti, Pamfil Polonic drew the first draft of the plan of this Roman station. Unfortunately, this
document was lost and we did not have the possibility to see it14.
The grandeur of the Roman Buridava, whose ruins impressed not only Visconti at the end of
the 17th century, but also the archaeologists of the 20th century (when the walls of the thermae were
still up to 3 mhigh, some of the rooms still preserved the bright red painted plaster), is due to the
military function that the settlement had. Here functioned between the two Trajans Dacian wars
the headquarter of the province Moesia Inferior, the civil Roman settlement later developing to the
north of the military centre integrated to the Limes Alutanus15 which was also attested even in the
Hunt papyrus16.
How these Roman archaeological monuments south of the Carpathians were included on the
map from 1699? They had been known and studied by the cartographers and geodesists team led
by Visconti? Did Visconti know the inedited Marsiglis drawings and manuscripts that have certainly
made reference to them, and that were carried out probably since 168917? Was it Marsigli himself the
one who gave him these pieces of information, as a consequence of their friendship and common
interests? Did Welzer, the Saxon from Braov, as a person who knew well the neighborhood, play
any role in the highlighting of these Roman monuments on this map? These are questions with no
certain and trenchant answers for the moment.
What is sure is that Morando Visconti and Marsigli knew each other, as long as for a time they were
sent in common mission under the flag of the imperial army. For example in 16891690, to the orders
of the margrave Ludwig von Baden, the two officers will coordinate the construction of a strategic road
on the Serbian bank of the Danube, in the Kazan Gorge area, from Ram to Kladovo18. In the summer
of 1690 they built another road in the Poarevac area. Marsigli and Visconti were closed collaborators
in many cartographical projects, such as Mappa della Servia e Bulgaria elaborated together by them
in 1689; it was the first map of Serbia based on measurements performed in the field19. Because he
was considered the most experimented engineer and cartographer from Habsburgs Transylvania,
Visconti is consulted by Marsigli in the summer of 1700, when the border with the Ottoman Empire in
Banat was drawn20. Marsigli also invited Visconti as a member of the board that was to decide on the
border between Transylvania and Wallachia, after the Treaty of Karlowitz from January 169921. In the
reports that Marsigli wrote for the imperial court during the whole year 1701, Visconti is presented as
an important scientist for the operations of plotting and demarcation of the new borders22.
In conclusion, another data of Viscontis map must be noticed. It is important not only for
Transylvania, but also for the Romanian neighbouring territories situated to the south of the
Carpathians. A detailed study of this cartographic document would certainly show other aspects,
13
Tudor 1978, p.270, fig. 59/12.
14
Tudor 1978, p.270.
15
Tudor 1968, p.367369, fig. 25; Tudor 1978, p.34, 214217, 270, fig. 59/1.
16
Fink 1958, p.104105; Tudor 1968, p.368.
17
Mndescu 2011, p.59.
18
Stoye 1994, p.8184.
19
Tomovic 2006, p.59, fig. 4.
20
Stoye 1994, p.205.
21
Stoye 1994, p.213.
22
Marsili 1986, II, p.397, 486, 497, 510.
including the archaeological ones, which are still unknown both to the public and also to the
specialists. Because its extreme rarity and vulnerability, it is strongly recommended that the map
should be re-edited, eventually in a first Romanian edition.
Acknowledgement
CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0078 (The Archaeological Relevance of Periphery).
The author also thanks Professor Sabin Adrian Luca, director of the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu, and
Professor Constantin Ittu, head of the Brukenthal Library, for the kind permission given to studying
the Viscontis map of Transylvania.
Bibliography
Anghel, Gh. 1986. Despre fortificaia bastionar de la Alba Iulia, Apulum XXIII, p.245258.
Ciortan, I., Radu, M., Penda, O. I. 2004. Descriptio Romaniae. Muzeul Naional al Hrilor i Crii Vechi, Bucureti.
Dek, A. A. 2007. Egy Erdly-trkp keresi rajzoljt, at www.dunamuzeum.hu (27 mrcius 2007).
Dek, A. A. 2009. Die Landkarte wird von der Macht endeckt, at www.dunamuzeum.hu (2 aprilis 2009).
Fink, R. O. 1958. Hunts Pridianum: British Museum Papyrus 2851, Journal of Roman Studies 48, 12, p. 102116.
Grf, L., Tmas, S. 2010. Descriptio Transylvaniae Catalogul expoziiei, 912 aprilie 2010, Muzeul Judeean de Art
Braov. Editura Cova-Print, Sfntu Gheorghe.
Kovcs, A., oca, M. 1973. Arhiteci italieni n Transilvania n cursul secolelor al XVI-lea i al XVII-lea, Studia
Universitatis Babe-Bolyai, Seria Historia XVIII, p.1936.
Marsili, L. F. 1724. Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus, Observationibus geographicis, astronomicis, hydrographicis,
historicis, physicis perlustratus Et in sex Tomos digestus. The Hague & Amsterdam.
Marsili, L. F. 1986. Relazioni dei confini della Croazia e della Transilvania a sua Mest Cesarea (16991701), a cura
di Raffaelo Gherardi, I-II. Modena.
Mndescu, D. 2008. De la Jidova la Jidava i napoi sau despre avatarurile unui microtoponim arheologic,
Argesis. Seria Istorie XVII, p.5368.
Mndescu, D. 2011. Vizita contelui Marsigli la Cmpulung-Jidova. Datare, context, semnificaii, Argesis. Seria
Istorie XX, p.4549.
Mndescu, D. 2012. Ad finibus imperii. Spaiul vechii Dacii n reprezentri cartografice medievale i moderne din
patrimoniul Muzeului Judeean Arge. Editura Ordessos, Piteti.
Moisescu, C. 1967. Documente cartografice din secolul al XVIII-lea privind dezvoltarea sistemului de fortificaii al
oraului Sibiu, Monumente istorice. Studii i lucrri de restaurare 2, p.188194.
Ortelius, A. 2009. Harta Transilvaniei. Editura Dacica, Bucureti.
Paldus, H. 1907. Johan Christoph Mller. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte veterlndischer Kartographie, Mitteilungen
des K. und K. Kriegsarchivs V, p.1122.
Petolescu, C. C., Cioflan, T. 1995. Castrul roman de piatr de la Cmpulung (Pescreasa, jud. Arge). Cercetrile din
anii 19781989, Argesis. Seria Istorie VII, p.1729.
Plihl, K. 2000. G. M. Visconti Erdly trkpe 1699-bl, Cartographica Hungarica VII, p.224.
Sabu, N. 2007. Giovanni Morando Visconti in Transilvania. Intorno a un piano inedito per il Castello di Cluj,
p. 5179. In: Maestri ticinesi in Transilvania tra cinquecento e settcento (Ed. N. Sabu). Cluj-Napoca.
Svoiu, A. 2009. Cmpulungul pe hri ale lui Johannes Honterus i Sebastian Mnster. Editura Ars Docendi,
Bucureti.
Stoye, J. 1994. Marsiglis Europe. 16801730. The life and times of Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, soldier and virtuoso.
Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Szntai, L. 1996. Atlas Hungaricus. Magyarorszg Nyomatott trkpei. 15281850, I-II. Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest.
Tomovi, G. 2006. Kosovo and Metohija on old maps from XV to the XVIII century, p. 4960. In: Kosovo and Metohija
past, present, future (Ed. K. Mihailovi). Paper presented at the International Scholarly Meeting held on the Serbian
Academy of Sciences amd Arts, Belgrade (March 1618, 2006). Belgrade.
Tudor, D. 1942. Oltenia roman. Uniunea Fundaiilor Culturale Regale Seria Istoric, Bucureti.
Tudor, D. 1968. Orae, trguri i sate n Dacia roman. Editura tiinific, Bucureti.
Tudor, D. 1978. Oltenia roman, ediia a IV-a revizuit i adugit. Editura Academiei R. S. R., Bucureti.
Visconti, G. M. 1999. Mappa della Transiluania e Prouintie contigue, Hungarian edition with facsimile (11094cm),
ed. Plihl K. Cartographia Kft., Budapest.
82 Drago Mndescu
2
Fig. 1. Giovanni Morando Visconti, Mappa della Transiluania e Prouintie contigue (Hermannstadt / Sibiu, 1699).
1 Detail showing the cartouche of the map; 2 General view of the map, without the vedutas from the edges.
According to Dak Antal Andrs.
Fig. 2. Giovanni Morando Visconti, Mappa della Transiluania e Prouintie contigue (Hermannstadt / Sibiu, 1699).
1 Detail showing the localization of the Roman station at Campulung-Jidova; 2 Detail showing the localization of Buridava
(Stolniceni) Roman settlement. Photo by the author, courtesy of the Brukenthal Museum & Library, Sibiu.
The Troian and Other Roman Monuments
on Spechts Map
Ion Dumitrescu
Arge County Museum, Piteti, Romania
ion_dumitrescu09@yahoo.com
Keywords: Spechts map, cartography, the Bridge from Drobeta, Sucidava, Troian, limes Transaluanus, Roman fort,
Roman road
Abstract: The study tries to turn to account the data found Rezumat: Prezentul articol aduce n atenie cteva informaii
on the Austrian map drawn by the Colonel Specht regarding relative la monumentele romane aflate pe harta austriac
the archaeological monuments from the Roman era. The desenat de colonelul Specht. Abordarea nu este cu totul
present approach is not something new, in the past few nou, n ultimii ani din ce n ce mai muli arheologi artnduse
years the interest for the archaeological information offered interesai de datele oferite de hrile topografice n ultimii ani.
by the topographical maps is more and more speculated by Harta lui Specht mpreun cu suplimentul su (are trei pri
archaeologists. pstrate la Biblioteca Academiei Romne) ofer informaii
Specht Map and its supplement (it has three parts that are despre: podul de la Drobeta, drumul roman de la Sucidava
preserved in the Romanian Academy Library) give information la Romula i de la Islaz la Romula, respectiv a sectorului
about: the bridge from Drobeta, the Roman roads from dintre Romula i Piatra Olt, valul de pmnt construit la
Sucidava to Romula and from Islaz to Romula, respectively; est de Olt, cunoscut ca Troianul (parte component a
the Roman road sector between Romula and Piatra Olt; limes Transalutanus) i consemnat pe hart Trajanische
the earth wall built to the east of the Olt River, known as Landwehre (Drumul lui Traian). Trei dintre fortificaiile de
Troian (part of limes Transalutanus); on the map the road is pe limes Transalutanus Putineiu, Gresia i Crmpoia sunt
called Trajanische Landwehre (Trajans Road). Three of the de asemenea reprezentate pe hart.
Roman forts from limes Transalutanus Putineiu, Gresia and Att pe hart, ct i n suplimentul su se regsesc informaii
Crmpoia are, also, drawn on the map. relative la: poziionarea monumentelor, aspectul drumurilor
On the map and on its supplement there is also information i felul n care erau construite. n ceea ce privete Troianul ,
about: the monuments locations, the aspect of the roads and harta lui Specht este primul izvor cartografic pe care apare
the materials they were made out of (and sometimes their wide). reprezentat.
Regarding the Troian, Specht Map is the first cartographical
source which point out the route of this earth wall.
In the past few years, the interest of the Romanian researchers for the archaeological information
in the Austrian, Russian and Romanian military maps of the 17th 20th centuries, has considerably
increased. The reason is after 2000, these maps were posted on the internet and consequently it was
easier to access them1.
The importance of these maps for archaeology was highlighted already by the end of the 19th
century. Among the Romanian scholars, Pamfil Polonic, a topographer himself, was the first who took
them into consideration (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, Private Archive P. Polonic, I, mss. 1215). In
the 70s of the 20th century, Ioana Bogdan Ctniciu used Bonne and Lambert projections (maps that
were drawn by the Romanian Military Topographical Board, scale 1:100000 and 1:200000), in order
to identify the forts real locations on the ground, from the limes Transalutanus2. Recently, Eugen S.
Teodor has performed a similar approach, but he limited it to the interpretation of the Romanian
Fodorean et alii 2013, 38; For references to such sites see: Teodor 2013, p.11, notes 1214.
1
Bogdan Ctniciu 1997, p.78.

2

86 Ion Dumitrescu
maps under Lambert-Choleskyprojection system (Planuri Directoare de Tragere) and of the Austrian
military map from 1910 and of Krauss-Guger projections3.
Florin Fodorean used a series of Austrian maps from the 18th the 19th centuries for the map-
drawing of some sectors of Roman roads from Banat and Transylvania, in his book on the roads in the
Roman Dacia. For southern part of the Dacian provinces, the author had no access to such sources4.
The presence of some archaeological monuments on the Austrian military maps from the 18th
and the 19th centuries is mainly due to their character. There are topographical maps, some of them
having a small scale, whose drawing was performed consequently to the field measurements. But,
the maps were not accurate because the authors had not used the triangulation system. Then, some
monuments, such as the earth walls, could have represented hallmarks for the army. They have had
this role since the Middle Ages, when the Romanian and Moldavian boyars used them as borders
for their estates5. They were also used as roads for the army. Colonel Specht shows, when he speaks
about the status of the roads from the village Belitori (today Troianul village, Teleorman County), that
the Troian (Tajanische Landwehr) was a well constructed road (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss.
germ. 1, partea a II-a, f. 134135).
The Roman roads, the only ones made out of stone existing in the Middle Ages and in the
modern times in the Romanian Countries, called the attention of the military cartographers also for
strategically reasons. They were also as borders because they were slightly higher than the road level.
They were mentioned in documents as drum de piatr stone road6.
Some ancient fortifications had been found on military maps of the 18th the 19th centuries
due to their position, that was speculated by the Austrian and Russian armies. Very often, inside
some fortress or forts, or in their proximities, the two armies established their camps. Specht himself
gives such examples that show the area where the fort (which the colonel considered a Roman fort)
from Glmele had been situated, was also used by Russians in 1779 for the establishment of a camp
(Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 1, partea a II-a, f. 124v125r; H 1003, pl. 33). He also indicates
the existence of another Russian camp at Slveni it was fortified with an earth wall; it sheltered three
infantry battalions and 10 canons (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f.358359). Pamfil
Polonic indicates a Russian camp from 1812 in the vicinity of the Roman fort from Flmnda7.
Finally, it must be said that the archaeological monuments drawn on the maps from the 17th
18th centuries are those frequently mentioned by the foreign travelers who had passed through
the Romanian Countries, i.e.: the Roman road from The Olt Valley, the bridge from Drobeta, and the
bridge and the fortress from Celei, Valul Galailor8.
3
Teodor 2013, p.11.
4
Fodorean 2006.
5
A repertoire of the documents from Moldova and Walachia that refers to the Troian can be found to: Croitoru 2007,
p.8395. The first mention of a Troian can be found in a document from Mircea cel Btrn times (Petolescu 2007, p.72,
note 39). Regarding to the Troian, there is a very interesting document issued during the reign of Neagoe Basarab, on the
23-th of July 1512/1513. The document stated that the border of the villages Comaca and Ghiurghev and Prislop is where
both the Troiane join, in a point that it met the border between the Srbii village and the Rui burg(DRH, B, II, p.105, doc.
105). This name, Troiane, seems to refer to the two earth walls, Brazda lui Novac de sud and the Troian, that join to the
North of the village Bneasa. As an argument can be considered the fact that very close to the ex railway station Traian, in the
North of which the two walls join, was situated Mgura Srbului, a toponymous that must be connected to the existence of a
Srbi village. The village there was to the South-West of Roiorii de Vede. This crossroad was observed by Pamfil Polonic in a
detailed manner (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. rom. 5137, f. 263).
6
Dumitrescu 1911 p.109110; Tudor 1958, p.46.
7
Teodor 2013, p.19, pl. 4.
8
References to: the ruins of the bridge from Drobeta, the bridge and the fort from Celei, Via Traiani sau Drumul lui
Traian, at Romula (Antim) done by Friedrich Schwanz (Friedrich Schwanz, Descrierea Olteniei, in Cltori strini,
vol.IX, p.50, 64, 7071); brief information about the bridge from Drobeta, the road dug in stone by the Romans along the
Olt Valley ascribed to Trajan, also gives Karl von Tige (Karl von Tige, Raport despre Oltenia, in Cltori strini, vol. IX,
p.155156); about the same road there are mentions at Mihail Schendos (Mihail Schendos, Apologia, in Cltori strini,
vol. IX, p.8688) and at Neofit Cretanul (Neofit Cretanul, Cltoria dinti a mitropolitului Neofit, in Cltori strini ,
vol.IX, p.341). Regarding the vallum from Galai, Filip Orlik writes that I went for curiosity to a half of a mile from Galai,
to Trajans ditch, to see the antiquities( Filip Orlik, Jurnal, in Cltori strini, vol. IX, p.142).
The Troian and Other Roman Monuments on Spechts Map 87
Excepting the earth wall of Galai (valul Galailor or Tuluceti-Traian wall), which was situated in
Moldavia, and the bridge from Celei, the other archaeological monuments, which were mentioned
by the foreign travelers, had been also mentioned by Specht.
There are not known biographical data about Specht, but only to his work: Militirische Carte der
Kleinen oder sterreichische und grossen Walachei, welche beide Zusammen aus 394 Section bestehen,
und wehrend dem Waffenstillstand zweischen der K.K. und der trchischen Armee von Monat September
1790 bis Ende Mai 1791 durch den General-quartiermeister-staab unter de Direcion des Obristen Specht
geometrisch aufgenommen und in das reine ausgezeichnet worden.
Spechts map represents the first topographical approach for Walachia. Approaches for a
topographic map of Walachia were also done by the Russian army; the Russian soldiers conducted
by the General Friedrich Wilhelm von Bauer did some measurements in 1769. The project has never
been fully carried out.
The title suggests that Colonel Spechts map was drawn during the armistice between the
Austrian and Ottoman armies, from September 1790 to May 1791. During this lapse of time the
measurements were performed for drawing the map. The Turks did not allow the Austrians to perform
ordnance survey in Brila Raya9.
The way of representing the planimetry details shows that Colonel Spechts map follows the
usual patterns of the Austrian cartography of that time. As on the Map of the Seven Districts of Moldavia
by Captain Hora von Otzellowitz 1790 (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, H 455) and Josephinische
Landesaufnahme (17631785)10, on Spechts map, also, the relief is represented with different colors.
The level curves are suggested through hachure, the dwellings from villages are colored in red, while
the gardens and the yards of the dwellings are colored in green. The roads network, the fountains
and the crosses were also represented on this map. On Spechts map, the destroyed or disappeared
villages are marked with a green spot and a fountain next to it (Fig. 1)11. Another common feature of
these three Austrian maps is their rather small scale. Spechts Map: about 1:57000.
The map has a supplement consisting of three volumes: the first volume entitled Militrische
Beschreibung der kleinen Walachay von der Section No. 2 bis 125, includes the explanations for the
plates 135. The second volume entitled Militrische Beschreibung der Grossen Wallachay von der
Section No. 126 bis 261, explains the plates from 36 to 71. Finally, the third volume entitled: Militrische
Beschreibung der Grossen Wallachay von der Section No. 262 bis 394, explains the plates from 71 to 110
(These three manuscripts are found in the Romanian Academy Library).
The map and Spechts volumes give some information about ruins and the bridge from
Drobeta, the fortress from Celei, the Roman road from Sucidava to Romula, the Roman road from
Islaz to Romula, the route of the earth wall situated in the East of the Olt River Troian, and about
some Roman forts of the Transalutanus limes.
Comparing the information about the archaeological monuments included in these volumes
and the plates of the maps, three situations can be remarked: 1. monuments about which we have
information only from the supplement of the map (in the text volumes); 2. monuments represented
only on the map, without any note about them in the text; 3. monuments which are represented on
the map and also have information about them in the text.
In the first category, there are included the Roman-Byzantine fortress from Celei and the Roman
roads from Sucidava to Romula, and the Roman road from Islaz to Romula. The second category
includes the Roman forts from Crmpoia and Gresia, while the third category includes the bridge
from Drobeta and the earth wall situated in the East of the Olt River the Troian. Regarding to the
latest one, it must be said that in the volume of texts its route is mentioned in only one village of
those which it crossed.
9
Popescu-Spineni 1978, p.188.
10
Available: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridicarea_topografic%C4%83_iozefin%C4%83, consultat la 12.05.2013.
11
Nstase and Osaci-Costache 2005, p.2021.
88 Ion Dumitrescu
On the fourth plate, at Drobeta and on the Serbian bank of the Danube, at Kostol, Specht
represents the pillars of the bridge constructed by the emperor Traian. On the Romanian bank, at
the west of the pillar of the bridge, it is mentioned Severiner Thurn, while on the Serbian bank it is
mentioned Rudera der Rmer Brcke (the ruins of the Roman Bridge) (Biblioteca Academiei Romne,
H. 1003, pl. 4).
In the text volume, Specht includes in the explanation of the fourth plate, regarding to the
village Brezina, that this village was situated at a quarter of hour distance from the Roman bridge. The
Severiner Thurn was situated between the Roman bridge and Schela Cladovei (Biblioteca Academiei
Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 5455).
No ruins are mentioned at Celei (whose name is corrupted: Cselu) on the map; whereas, when
the plate no. 34 is explained, in the column about the constructions situated on the territory of
this village, he mentioned the existence of the ruins of a Roman fort (Rudera einen Rmer Schlsser)
(Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 363364). Some information on the Roman road from
Sucidava to Romula is included in the explanations of the plates 33, 34, and 37. Specht mentioned
that the Roman road (Rmer Strasse) began at Celei (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3,
f. 363364); going further, on the Roman road, the Vdastra village was mentioned (Biblioteca
Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 361362), while in the point of the village Cruovu he emphasized
that it was situated in the vicinity of the so-called Roman road sogennate Rmer Strasse (Biblioteca
Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 361362).
Specht remarked that the Roman road from Sucidava and the one from Islaz met each other in
Romula, specifying that in the point of the village Reca: beside other roads, here there is the socalled
Roman road, which beyond the bridge splits in two parts one road to Farkas (Frcaele village, Olt
County) and the other one to Cselu (Celei, Corabia town, Olt County), situated on the bank of Danube
River (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 352353). Dumitru Tudor confirms Spechts
observation12.
Regarding to the route of the Roman road from Sucidava to Romula, based on some Romanian
military maps, Dumitru Tudor states that this road join with other one from Viina Veche and Viina
Nou and going further to the East of village Cruovu13, not through the village, as Specht had
already remarked. Only regarding to the Vdastra village, situated to the West of the Roman road,
Specht might have made a mistake, as the road passed distantly from the East side of the village.
The Viina Veche and Viina Nou villages are not present on Spechts Map (Biblioteca Academiei
Romne, H. 1003, pl. 33).
The Austrian Colonel mentioned the existence of the Roman road in the following villages,
situated between Romula and Islaz: Stoieneti, Slveni, Gostavu, Moldoveni, and Islaz. He noted
down that at Stoieneti, the Roman road was situated on the hill and it was preserved in a good
condition (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 358359). On Slveni and Gostavu
villages, he mentioned that both of them were situated on the Roman road (Biblioteca Academiei
Romne, mss. germ. 3, f. 358159).
He made a similar remark regarding to Moldoveni village, saying that it was situated on a slope
and on the Roman road (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 1, second part, f. 135136). He
also remarked that the Roman road was also called Traianische Landwehr (Drumul lui Traian). The same
mention appeared in the explanations on village Islaz, where he underlined: here the so called Roman
road (Rmer Strasse) or Traians Road (Traianische Landwehr) ends (Biblioteca Academiei Romne,
mss. germ. 1, partea a II-a, f. 135136). The two roads are mentioned under the same name on the
Romanian military maps drawn at the beginning of the 20th century14.
12
Tudor 1978, p.49.
13
Tudor 1978, p.49.
14
Planul director de tragere, plate Corabia, 3436, available on: http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/preview-pt-zoomify.php?mapId=434,
accessed on 04.03.2013.
Regarding to the sector of road between Islaz and Scrioara (Olt County), Dumitru Tudor
specifies that in the 20th century it was entirely destroyed by the water of the Olt River15. From
Spechts accounts, it results that at the end of the 18th century the route of the road could have been
seen from Islaz to Slveni.
At north of Romula (Reca), Specht mentioned two villages, Piatra and Ungureni, crossed by
the Roman road. The Austrian Colonel referred here not only to the road itself, but also to the way it
was constructed and to its breadth. Thus, in the points of the two villages, in the column about roads
Specht underlined: the roads are all good, especially the main road constructed in the Roman time of
gravel, stone, and debris; the breath is three fathom wide (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 3,
f. 338339). An Austrian fathom was 1,896 m16, meaning that the Roman road was 5,68 m.breadth.
The observation is in concordance with the one of Dumitru Tudors. In 1964, he excavated
the Roman road at Slveni, between the Roman fort and the military baths. Here, the road was
5,60mwide; it came out at a depth of 20 cm and it was 50 cm thick17. Dumitru Tudor also noticed
that the main Roman roads from Oltenia were 5,60 mto 6 mwide18.
At the East of the Olt River, in the Glmele village (nowadays part of the Sprncenata village, Olt
County), on the map and in the text, Specht mentioned the existence of a Roman fort. A rectangular
enclosure is represented on the map; next to it, it is written Rmer Schanz (Biblioteca Academiei
Romne, H. 1003, pl.43). In the explanation of plate 43, in the point of the hamlet Glmele, in the
column about the hills, Specht wrote that it was situated on a hill, where the Russians had built a
camp, too (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. germ. 1, partea a II-a, f. 123124) (Fig. 2).
The point indicated by Specht is known as Cetate; it is also represented on Carol Popp de
Szathmarys map, Charta Romniei Meridionale (Fig. 3) (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, H. CXXII,
column VI, series 9). But the Austrian Colonel was wrong when he considered that Glmele fort was
built by the Romans. It is true the fortification is surrounded by an earth wall, like the two Roman forts
from Gresia (Teleorman County) and Crmpoia (Olt County), situated at the East of Olt River, on the
limes Transalutanus. In fact, the fort indicated by Specht is the well known Dacian fortification (dava)
from Sprncenata, researched by Constantin Preda19.
Also at the East of Olt River, Specht represented the earth wall known as Troian, a part of the
limes Transalutanus.
A red line, thicker that those representing the roads, marks the Troian. It is marked in plates
42, 43 and 44 as Trajanische Landwehre Drumul lui Traian (pl. 4, a-c) (Biblioteca Academiei Romne,
H1003, pl. 4344). It is represented as a continuous wall; Turnu Mgurele is its southern end and
Gresia (Teleorman County) the northern one.
The southern end of the wall was wrongly represented at Turnu Mgurele. Specht probably
considered the road from Turnu to Putineiu as the route of the wall. This thing could be observed
if Spechts map is confronted to Josef Schedas one from 1855, General Karte des sterreichischen
Kaiserstaates (see Fig. 5 a-b), the first map where the route of the Troian is correctly drawn20.
The part from the north of the village Putineiu to Gresia is relatively correctly drawn; only in the
sector between Putineiu and Roiorii de Vede some deviations can be noticed. At the north of this
town the wall follows a rectilinear route, this fact being conformable to the reality on location (for
comparison see: Bogdan Ctniciu 1997, pl. 4751).
As we described sooner, we have one piece of information only regarding to the route of Troian
wall, in supplements map. It is marked at Belitori village (today Troianul village, Teleorman County).
When Specht talks about the structure of the roads, he noted: one hour and a half distant from here
15
Tudor 1978, p.48.
16
Stoicescu 1971, p.45.
17
Tudor 1978, p.4849.
18
Tudor 1978, p.45.
19
Preda 1986, p.1330.
20
Available on: http://imagebase.ubvu.vu.nl/cdm/ref/collection/krt/id/2064, accessed on 1. 03. 2014.
90 Ion Dumitrescu
the so-called Trajanische Landwehre is found, which is a bump and a well constructed road; it comes
from beyond Ruivede and goes toward Turnul (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. ger. 1, partea a II-a,
f. 124125). Pamfil Polonic also described it frequently as an elevation (Biblioteca Academiei Romne,
mss. rom. 5137, f. 260).
Among the Roman forts of the Transalutanus limes, Specht identified as such only two: Gresia
and Crmpoia. These two forts are represented as Vauban type fortifications; next to them it is written
Rmer Schanz. This term is also used on the Josephinian Map, in order to name the Roman forts (see
the Rnov Roman fort drawn on the respective map)21.
Both Roman forts are relatively correctly placed by Specht. The one from Gresia is represented
in the area where the Vedea River turns toward the West, while the one from Crmpoia is represented
next to the North-East of the village, being delimited toward the East by the slope that represents
the border between the Vedea River meadow and the plateau; the fact fits to the field reality (fig.6).
A third Roman fort, with no specification in its point, is the one from Putineiu. It is represented
next to the south of the village, beyond the wall, in front of a Russian camp; here is written Rus
redoute. The Roman fort is represented as a knoll (Fig. 7)
An interesting situation is noticed by Specht at Gresia, more precisely at the North of Mldieni,
because the village Gresia is not marked on the map. Here, the wall changes direction, turning toward
the East and it stops in the vicinity of the Roman Fort, at its South (Fig. 8).
In 1900, when Pamfil Polonic went along the entire route of the Troian, the wall was still visible
at Gresia, thus that he could follow it. After he went along the route of the wall through Scrioatea
forest, Polonic shows that, at the end of the forest, to the north of the village, the wall goes toward
the edge of the rivan (slope), comes down cutting obliquely the slope, being visible as a red line toward
the village Ciocu, it goes in the county road, it goes under it for about one hundred meters, it comes out at
the East and goes in the yard of Petre Chiinu. Then it goes out through ploughings, between the villages
Ciocu and Gresia, to the East of Gresia, and it finishes at a dead end branch of the Vedea River (Biblioteca
Academiei Romne, mss. rom. 5137, f. 262, 264). From here, Polonic states the Roman fort from Gresia
was situated at about 400 footsteps to the West (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. rom. 5137,
f.262). The villages Ciocu and Gresia are not represented on the Spechts map. Though, it could be
noticed, that to the North of the village Scrioatea, the wall followed a parallel direction with the
edge of the slope, represented as hachure on Spechts map, and this is concordant to what Pamfil
Polonic describes. Unfortunately, from Pamfil Polonics text does not result whether the wall changes
the route toward the Vedea River flow, as Specht suggested.
Between Gresia and Crmpoia, where the second Roman fort is represented, the route of
the wall does not appear anymore. Neither Pamfil Polonic saw it here, highlighting that: from here
on (he refers to the Roman Fort from Gresia), as the wall is damaged in the water of the Vedea River,
despite all the researches performed in the neighbouring villages no trace of the wall was found. When
the inhabitants where asked about the Troian, they answered that it could not be found anymore, because
it goes only from Cocina lui Maia Purcra (this name is given to the Roman fort from Gresia) to the
Danube. This legend is so well known that in the mind of the people does not try to believe differently, and
they say that it is impossible that another Troian wall that goes to the mountain could to exist. Thus, I have
researched through the villages Popeti, Cucuiei, Dideti, and only at Vleni they heard that at Crmpoia
or Ghioaca there is a rectangular fortification made out of earth (Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss.
rom. 5137, f. 262).
The fact that on Spechts map, at north of Gresia, between this fort and that from Crmpoia,
Troian was no more marked, proves that at the end of the 18th century, when the map was drawn,
in that area there was not any earth wall. Or, maybe, some evidence of its existence could not be
observed by the Austrian soldiers22.
21
Available on: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Josephinische_Landaufnahme _pg273. jpg, accessed
on 03.03.2014.
22
Ioana Bogdan Ctnicius point of view is that behind the Vedea River never existed an earth wall Bogdan Ctniciu 1997, p.80.
Bibliography
Books
Bogdan Ctnciu, I. 1997. Muntenia n sistemul defensiv al Imperiului Roman sec. IIII p.Chr., Editura Muzeului
Judeean Teleorman, Alexandria.
Croitoru, C. 2007. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos. Vol. II: Terminologie relativ, Editura Istros,
Brila.
Fodorean, Fl. 2006. Drumurile n Dacia roman, Editura Napoca Star, Cluj-Napoca.
Nstase, A., Osaci-Costache, G. 2005. Topografie i cartografie, ediia a II-a, Editura Fundaia Romnia de Mine,
Bucureti.
Petolescu, C., C. 2007. Contribuii la istoria Daciei romane, I, Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti.
Popescu-Spineni, M. 1978. Romnia n izvoare geografice i cartografice. Din antichitate pn n pragul veacului
nostru, Editura tiinific i Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Preda, C. 1986. Geto-dacii din bazinul Oltului Inferior: Dava de la Sprncenata, Editura Academiei Romne,
Bucureti.
Stoicescu, N. 1971. Cum msurau strmoii. Metrologia medieval pe teritoriul Romniei, Editura tiinific,
Bucureti.
Teodor, E., S. 2013. Uriaul invizibil: Limes Transalutanus. O reevaluare la sud de rul Arge, Editura Cetatea de
Scaun, Trgovite.
Tudor, D. 1958. The Oltenia roman, ediia a II-a, Editura tiinific, Bucureti.
Tudor, D. 1978. The Oltenia roman, ediia a IV-a, Bucureti.
Studies and articles in the reviews

Dumitrescu, Al., T. 1911. Tradiii i mrturii documentare despre drumul roman de la Reca la Celei, Buletinul
Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice, IV, p.109110.
Fodorean, Fl., Fodorean, I., Moldovan, C. 2013. Recreating the landscape of the former Roman Dacia using
modern 19th century carthography, digital data and GIS, in e-Perimetron, vol. 8, no. 1, p.3755.
Abbreviations
Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. Rom. = Biblioteca Academiei Romne, Colecia manuscrise romneti
(Romanian Academy Library, Romanian manuscripts collection).
Biblioteca Academiei Romne, mss. Rom. = Biblioteca Academiei Romne Colecia manuscrise germane
(Romanian Academy Library, German manuscripts collection).
Cltori strini despre rile romne, vol. IX, ngrijit de Holban, M., Alexandrescu-Dresca Bulgaru, M.M.,
Ceronovodeanu, P., Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti 1997.
DRH = Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. ara Romneasc, vol. II, ngrijit de tefnescu, t. i Diaconescu, O.,
Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucureti, 1972.
92 Ion Dumitrescu
Fig. 1. Image of a deserted village, according to Spechts map.
Fig. 2. Glmele fortress, according to Spechts map.

Fig. 3. Glmele fortress, according to Spechts map.
Fig. 4a. The route of Troian wall, according to Spechts map.

94 Ion Dumitrescu
Fig. 4b. The route of Troian wall, according to Spechts map.

Fig. 4c. The route of Troian wall, according to Spechts map.

96 Ion Dumitrescu
Fig. 5a. The route of Troian wall on Spechts map.
Fig. 5b. The route of Troian wall on Szathmarys map.

Fig. 6. Roman fort at Crmpoia, according to Spechts map.
Fig. 7. Russian and roman forts at Putineiu village, according to Spechts map.
98 Ion Dumitrescu
Fig. 8. Roman fort and the route of Troian wall at Gresia village, according to Spechts map.
The Trojan in the Romanian Oral Tradition
Costin Croitoru
Museum of Brila, Brila, Romania
costin_croitoru1@yahoo.com
Keywords: Trojan, Trajans dike, Trajans wall, Romanian Oral Tradition
Abstract: In this article the autor analised the oral tradition, Rezumat: n acest articol autorul discut diverse surse orale n
in which both forms of traian-traianul and troian-troianul care apar ambele forme traian traianul i respectiv troian
show up. The situation is even included in the most important troianul. Situaia este surprins i n cea mai important
synthesis dedicated to the Romanian toponymy. sintez dedicat toponimiei romneti.
Troian is nothing else than the popular form of the name Troian nu este altceva dect forma popular a numelui
Traian, an expression of the perpetuation in the collective Traian, nu att ca expresie a perpeturii, n memoria colectiv,
memory not so much of his public-works activities in the a perenitii activitilor sale edilitare, ct a valurilor antice
collective memory, but of the ancient earth waves. Eloquent de pmnt. Elocvente sunt n acest caz denumirile de anul
in this respect are the names of Traians ditch, Traians lui Traian, drumul lui Traian sau valul lui Traian, pe care
road or Traians vallum, which the peasants would give to locuitorii din mediul rural le ddeau valurilor de pmnt.
the earth waves. It is also here that we draw attention to the Tot aici, se atrage atenia asupra contaminrii lui Traian
contamination of Traian with Dews Emperor if, while on the cu Domnul de Rou, dac pe de o parte pe drumul lui
one hand on Traians road came Dews Emperor towards Traian mergea Domnul de Rou spre Caracal, de partea
Caracal, on the other, Traian the Brave came with his ancestors cealalt, Traian Viteazul a venit cu strmoii notri pe drumul
on the road of the Dews Emperor. Illuminating is also a mpratului de Rou. Explicit este i o legend dedicat
legend dedicated to the same character, which concludes that aceluiai personaj, care se ncheie cu concluzia: lui i zice
he is called Dews Emperor because he melted and his road Domnul de rou, fiindc s-a topit, i drumul lui se vede i astzi
is seen to this day from the Danube to the mountains, next to de la Dunre pn la munte, pe lng Olt este vorba despre
the Olt a reference to the linear construction that is part of construcia liniar cuprins n ansamblul defensiv al Oltului,
the defensive set of the Olt, called among the common people numit n limbaj popular drumul lui Traian sau Troian.
the road of Traian or the road of Troian.
The research of constancies and of the cultural heritage is a topic whose study belongs to
the field of history, but the nature of such an approach compels the historian to analyse it in an
interdisciplinary way1. Divine or mythical creatures, beliefs or ritual scenarios survive along the
centuries, being transmitted for generations, or reappear after centuries of oblivion. The understanding
of such phenomena falls equally into the fields of ethnology and history2.
It is generally accepted in the academic milieu that trojan3 is nothing else than the popular
form of Trajan, explained as an expression of the perpetuation, within the collective memory, of the
persistence of the Roman emperors engineering works4. Aqua Traiana5, Portus Traiani6, Via Traiana7,
1
Several of these hypothesis were detailed in my previous papers: Croitoru 2005, p.1742; Croitoru 2007, passim.
2
Throughout this translation, I have used the form trojan for the Romanian term troian, following the same linguist
pattern that exists in relation to the English and Romanian names of the Roman emperor: Trajan and Traian.
3
Nemeti 2003, p.160.
4
For example, Constantine VII, De adiministrando imperio, XL mentioned the traces of Trajans bridge at the edge of
Turkey (sic!), cf. Nistor 1942, 483. Towards the end of the 10th century sources refer to a reproduction of Trajans column in
the West, cf. Bitay 1937, p.1011; Armbruster 1993, p.2829, note 2.
5
CIL, VI, 904; 1260.
6
CIL, XIV, 90. See also Horster 2001, p.272, no. Ia 11,6.
7
ILS, 5866.

100 Costin Croitoru
Anaglypha Traiani8, Columna Traiani (centenaria)9, Equus Traiani10 are just a few of the names, if we
only mention those from Italy, that remind of his constructive projects. This activity is to be equally
found in other provinces. In Africa, for example, we have mentions of Colonia Marciana Traiana11, in
Arabia of Via nova Traiana, between Bostra and Aila12, in Egypt Traianus was the name of a large canal
which regulated the course of the Nile13, in Thrace Traianopolis was founded on the site of the former
city of Doriscus14, etc.
Dacia, conquered in two wars (which can be summed up as such: expeditio I Traianus de Dacis
triumphavit and respectively expeditio II Universa Dacia Devicta est), undoubtedly remains one of his
most important accomplishments, and even the Roman first urban activities in the area are related to
his name. The Romans erected here a commemorative monument Tropaeum Traiani15, the name of
the provincial capital was Ulpia Traiana16, in fact the first urban settlement in the province of Dacia17,
and Castra Traiana as a fortification related to an actual presence of the emperor in the area18. It is
also worth mentioning that his first portrait, done during his lifetime, also comes from the province
whose name was added to his title Dacicus19.
However, trojan mainly refers to the name given to the ancient earth walls and roads on the
territory north of the Lower Danube20.
Clear references in this case are the names Trajans dike or Trajans wall which peasants gave
to these earth walls21. In comparison, the earth walls from the Tisza plain, called Romer schanzen,
were in the popular belief, as their name suggests, constructed by the Romans22, just as at Jibert
(Braov County) the toponym the Dacian road (= Dakische Weg)23 says everything about the
popular beliefs related to the ethnic origin of this linear construction.
As suggestive is the attempt to explain the meaning of the term trojan in an Austrian
document dating from 1783: eine alte kaum noch kennbahre Schantze24. This reality is confirmed by
testimonies from the late 19th century (four decades ago large dikes could be seen, now nothing can
be seen any longer, as the inhabitants filled in the dikes25) or from the first half of the 20th century:
trojans, in their ensemble of wall and dike, still appear today as historical monuments even as
large field accidents [...] although the action of the physical agents tends to erase the wall and to fill
in the dike, and the population use them as roads, on very large portions, or even as arable land26.
If at the end of the 19th century Pamfil Polonic had seen in Botoani a wall that started from the
village of Manoleasa-Prut and went to the south-west across the localities of Zahoreni and Hneti27,
about a century later the research conducted by the members of a team that intended to draft the
8
Seston 1927, p.154183 (= Seston 1980, p.185214).
9
CIL, VI, 960 (= ILS, 294 = LAnne pigraphique, 1991, 70). Vulpe 1988; Pensabene 1989, p.27214.
10
Zanker 1970, p.499544; Gramatopol 1984, p.210211.
11
CIL, VIII, 17842 (= ILS, 6841). See also Romanelli 1976, p.317321.
12
ILS, 5834.
13
Ptolemeu, Geografia, 4, 5, 54.
14
Leo Grammaticus, Cronografia, 67, in FHDR, II, p.647; Constantin Porfirogenetul, Despre provincii, 47, 1, 4857, in FHDR,
II, p.671.
15
CIL, III, 14214 (= ILS, 9107); Florescu 1959 (= Florescu 1965); Smpetru 1984; Rdulescu 1988.
16
CIL, III, 1443 (= IDR, III/2, 1 = LAnne pigraphique, 1972, 465); Daicoviciu and Alicu 1984; Alicu 1997; Gzdac and
Coci2004.
17
Ardevan 1998, p. 4245, 7481, 135139, 188189.
18
Patsch 1937, p.75.
19
Gramatopol 1982, p.166173.
20
Croitoru 2007, p.57140.
21
Iordan 1963, p.311.
22
Bals 1963, p.309336; Horedt 1965, p.727.
23
Costea 2004, p.48, no. 70.
24
Cf. Olinescu 1886, p.6869. The same document at Dimitrie 1923, p.161165.
25
Tomiuc 1893, passim.
26
Nstase 1937, p.155.
27
Polonic, mss. on B.A.R., 22/940, I, notebook 16, no. 23; Tocilescu, mss. on B.A.R., 5139, 3032.
The Trojan in the Romanian Oral Tradition 101
archaeological repertoire of Botoani County did not identify this linear construction, so that the
initial mention remains unconfirmed28; the same situation occurred in Iai County where the old
dike mentioned at Tarnia29 is no longer present30, whereas Trajans walls from Gropnia, Coarnele
Caprei and Zbereni not only are no longer visible, but also the topomyms that preserved their name
disappeared31; also unconfirmed32 is the Trajans wall that crossed the Pruth River through the
commune of Victoria, then the Sireth River through Preueti to be finally lost at Lespezi on the
Stolniceni peak33.
The initial meaning, old and regional, of trojan (that of grazing field or plain), recorded by
the Dictionary of the Romanian Language34 is to be related to the erasure of the traces of these linear
constructions, especially in plain areas where agricultural works have levelled the soil surface.
In 17461747 Neofit of Crete, a high Orthodox prelate (the metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia
during the period 17381753) visited the Romanian monasteries and left a detailed account of his
canonical voyage. The Greek hierarch noticed the persistence of the memory of the ancient past, and
often noted in his diary: tradition has it that or the inhabitants say that about the constructive
programme of Emperor Trajan35.
Moreover, in different areas of Moldavia and Wallachia Trajan was considered the founder
of villages36. In the rural areas there was the belief that those villages were very old, dating from
the times of the giants, of the dwarfs, of the Jews or of the Tartars, or that they are related to
famouscharacters.
Foundation legends reflect the reality of the initial kinship37. Most of them, relative to the
foundation of rural habitats, elucidate the question of the primordial beginnings by direct lineage
from one or several common ancestors, their founding fathers. In Muntenia, the prototype of the
founder is represented by Trajan or Negru Voda38, and in Moldavia all villages wanted to descend
from the ancestors rewarded for heroism by Stephen [the Great]39. But these basic folk names
regarding the foundation of villages practically define the theme of the donative origin of the
village and respectively the theme of the foundation of the village in wilderness (of the founding
hero). It seems that such realities represent more than a historical memory; the donative origin of
the village satisfies the needs of the popular affective memory40
Without totally rejecting this hypothesis, in fact plausible, we ask ourselves if we are not in front
of a conscious act, universally present during the Middle Age and not only then of legitimising
the present through the past41? For example in 1714 Nicolae Mavrocordat ordered the percalab
of Orhei to analyse the conflict for the possession of several estates between the leadership of the
Golia monastery and Gavril Prul. Researching the estate boundaries the percalab found them in
a document from Ion-Vod, but moreover they were confirmed by several old men42! It is stated
about Tismana monastery that it had estates since the foundation of Wallachia, first of all from
28
Punescu et alii, 1976, p.52, no. IV.1.M.
29
Polonic, mss. on B.A.R., 22/940, III, notebook 3, 17.
30
Chirica and Tanasachi 1984, p.120, no. XXI.8.A.
31
Zagoritz 1938, p.3233.
32
Chirica and Tanasachi 1984, 86, 161, no. XIV.4, XXXI.7.A, XVII.12.A.
33
Zagoritz 1938, p.3233; Christescu 1937, p.164; Tocilescu, mss. at B.A.R., 5139, 80; Chirica and Tanasachi 1984, 213,
no.XL.7.J.
34
Dicionarul limbii romne. ncepnd cu litera M, VI, Bucureti, 19651968, s.v. troian.
35
Journal edited by Ghenadie Enceanu, in Biserica Ortodox Romn, II, 18751876, p.314327, 632640, 737744; III,
18761877, p.622, 175183; XIV, 18901891, p.718724. See also Nsturel 1969, p.328334.
36
Moisin 1999, p.123.
37
Cosma 2000, p.241.
38
For some legends about Negru Vod as a founder, see Coatu 1990, p.32, 73, 8688.
39
Iorga 1966, p.247.
40
Cosma 2000, p.250.
41
Brezeanu 1996, p.16.
42
Sava 1942, p.7172.
102 Costin Croitoru
Negrul Voda43! In the same context of the legitimisation by recourse to the past we can also mention
the argument of the inhabitants from the village of oprliga iganului, well convinced in 1614 that
they had the estates since the days of former princes from afar, since the creation of the world44!
Ab antiquo is thus the reason used in a justifying context, in various situations, from simple
property documents to the origin or ethnic appurtenance of characters, constructions, etc.
Emperor Trajan is considered the founder of villages in many localities from the counties of
Dolj, Gorj, Ialomia, Vlcea, Brila, Iai, etc. Here are some examples in this regard:
At Borleti (Dolj County) there is the belief that Trajan was a great hero that had a horse with
hooves as big as a head, shoed with silver horseshoes, who came from Rome jumping with his horse
over the Danube the hooves can even now be seen over the Danube45.
At Bordei Verde (Brila County) it is considered that Trajan came with a large army and defeated
the giants, and his soldiers remained here and we are their descendents46.
Drajna de Sus (Prahova County) would have been founded exactly by Trajans Roman soldiers,
whom the emperor would have told: I have taken land, I give you land, go each of you and choose
the place you like in this country, taking possession both from the good land and from the bad land,
as much as each of you is able to encircle in a day47.
The same popular hypothesis is to found in a version of the Romanian Pluguor (Little Plough)
a revelation of Romanity and a testimony of the Latin conscience48: From Emperor Trajan / And
since the village was founded / Since then this carol has remained .
It is significant to see the mention of the legendary figure of Dacias conqueror in texts
consecrated to agricultural works, as it also appears in the Pluguor a Roman type of carol49, under
the form Trajan or Trojan50, not as an emperor, but as a wealthy peasant Mr Trajan, raised to
valorise his agricultural estates. The entire procedure is then reminded, from ploughing and seeding,
and from harvesting and thrashing to the grounding of the grain and the baking of the bread. His
implacable relation to Dacia (Dochia or Dochiana), which in several carols is mentioned as his wife, is
a clear proof that we deal with one and the same character51.
For example, in a newspaper article from 184052 it is mentioned that at the Bees Institute there
was edited the second series of paintings from Moldavias history and traditions, by Gh. Asachi: 1)
Alexander the Goods painting; 2) Goddess Dochia and Trajan [], having in the background the
Ceahlu Mountains53.
As interesting is the account of an anonymous Turkish secretary, well familiarised with the
Romanian Principalities54. He noticed in 1740 that Eflack was at the beginnings a single country,
whose territory was colonised by Trajan Krali with 30,000 agricultural colonists (sic!).
His image is often confounded with that of the legendary Negru Vod; thus the donations by
which the villages were founded would have been made by Emperor Trajan and Negru Vod. The
latters origin is extremely explicit: Negru Vod came from Rome with his soldiers55! Of course we
43
DIR, B, III, p.303, no. doc. 351.
44
DIR, B, XVII, II, p.332333, no. doc. 259.
45
Toa 1986, p.340.
46
Ibidem.
47
Coatu 1990, p.77.
48
Grecu 1995, p.5758.
49
Giuglea 1948, p.103.
50
Moisin 1999, p.104.
51
Popinceanu 1971, p.8081.
52
Albina Romneasc, XI, 1940, p.6566; Curierul Rumnesc, XI, 1940, p.82. See also Prospectu pentru publicaia a opt
tablouri din istoria Moldovei, in Albina Romneasc, XI, 1940, p.8586; Curierul Rumnesc, XI, 1940, p.121; Foae pentru
minte, inima shi literatura, III, 1940, p.158159.
53
Asachi 1940, p.16 and 16.
54
Karadja 1933, p.263274. The same text is translated in Russian by Guboglu 1964, p.131161. After Armbruster 1993,
p.258, note 74 this was the first Turkish source about the Latinity of the Romanians.
55
Toa 1986, p.340341.
have to remind here the literary tradition related to this question: when the time of the years from
Adam was 6798, Radu vod Negrul, who had his throne at Fgra from the fathers and grandfathers
of the Romanians, who had come from Rome during the days of Trajan, Romes emperor56.
This anthroponym also appears in the collocation the Trojan way / Trajans way, explained by
a referent from Teleorman by its synonymy with the slaves way 57. In fact, if about the slaves way /
road it is said that the Romanians were enslaved by the Turks and when they escaped they did not
know which way to use. They saw this white belt in the sky and this is why they call it the slaves road /
way58, about the road / way of trojan / of rajan / of Trajan it was believed that the slaves from Rome
that came back to Dacia, only during at night, were brought on this trojan59; on it he brought the
slaves from his country to another country where he granted them land60; Trajan brought along this
road the land slaves61; on it Trajans slaves carried straws62. Regarding the field organisation of the
road / way, a referent from Tecuci ironically mentioned that it is called the Trojan, but it is not known
where it starts from and where it goes to63.
Trojan is recognised as the term that defines, mainly in the rural area, an earth wall, road
or access way. However, the rural tradition has a whole series of meanings, extremely varied and
sometimes completely unexpected, the polysemy denoting in this case that this term is part of
the main lexical fund of the Romanian language64. The explanation of the term given by Romanian
dictionaries is somehow unitary:
DEX65: TROIN1, plural troiene. 1. Large heap of snow brought by the wind and gathered as
walls or dunes; drifts. By generalisation mound, bulk. 2. Primitive earthwork made by the ancient
peoples, consisting of a long earth dyke, with a defence dyke. [Pronunciation: tro-ian] Probably
from the Slavic trojan.
NODEX66 mentions, besides the initial form, a secondary, popular meaning (2), considering the
sense of construction as old (3): TROIN 1 ~iene 1. Thick layer of snow gathered by the wind and
disposed in the form of a wall; drift. 2. Popular A collection of objects thrown into chaos; bulk. ~ of
leaves. 3. Old Primitive earthwork, made up of an earthen wall with a defence dyke / From Troian,
proper noun.
DOR67 also records its family of words: TROIN, adjective masculine, (character) noun,
masculine, plural troieni; noun, feminine, troian, plural troiene.
The most complete acceptance of the term is to be found in DLR68, where Trojan is recorded
with the following meanings:
1) primitive earthwork made by the ancient peoples, consisting of a long earth wall, with a
defence dyke;
2) (often followed by determinations introduced by the preposition of) large quantity of
snow brought by the wind and gathered in layers or in dunes; drift, (regional) snow; (complementary,
we also add here the meaning of long haps of sand on a plain69);
3) (old and regional) grazing land, field;
56
Popescu 1963, p.34.
57
Densuianu questionnaire answers, on B.A.R., mss. 4557, p.592.
58
Ibidem, mss. 4559, p.228.
59
60
61
62
63
64
Graur 1954, p.23.
65
Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne2, Bucureti, 1998, p.1115, s.v. troin; the same explanation in Dicionarul limbii
romne moderne, Bucureti, 1958, p.883, s.v. troin.
66
Noul dicionar explicativ al limbii romne, Bucureti, 2002, s.v. troin.
67
Dicionar ortografic al limbii romne, Bucureti, 2002, s.v. troin.
68
Dicionarul limbii romne. ncepnd cu litera M, Bucureti, 19651968, s.v. troian.
69
Porucic 1931, p.29.
104 Costin Croitoru
4) (old and regional) street, alley, footway made by animals, a trace left by a sledge or cart
wheels70 or by a running water, a seam model in a winding pattern;
5) (regional; also in the compound form the trojan of the sky) the Milky Way71;
Besides these meanings, diverse linguistic researches also recorded the following acceptances
of the term:
1) narrow footway through the straw or place through which the water runs72;
2) part, corner; I go to the trojan (= I go to the village margin)73;
3) street, alley (with the diminutive troienel)74;
4) short and narrow road, which leads to the grazing land; place where there is a grn
(=aplace where the trees were cut down, so as to allow passage) and where one could pass through;
narrow road, limited by fences, which leads to the fallow ground75; in Transylvania it would also
have had the meaning of grazing land76;
5) free place, inclined, at the crossroads of several alleys; empty lot the hypothesis is based
on the names of two empty lots (!?); it is also noted that the trojan from the middle of Cstu village
also has a small inclination77;
6) the name of the place were dead people are buried78;
7) as an adjective: ugly, hideous79; who stands in senselessness; stricken by illness; atypical,
sad (also here see the form trojnic sleep with the meaning of deep sleep80.
The primary meaning is probably closest to the acceptance which trojan had at the populations
that came in contact with the Roman world; that of wall or road, that is a filiform construction81. As
interesting is the loss or more precisely the transformation of form suffered by this term. On the one
side medieval documents record a tendency of replacement. In these sources trojan is synonymous
with wall. The term border is used with the same acceptance. Later, the trojans are mentioned by
a synonymic series (ditches, Turkish walls82, etc.).
On the other side, if in its first form trojan meant a positive construction, an elevated place
(wall, road, hill, dune, street, alley, cemetery, etc.), later it also came to name deepened works and
low places (grazing land, plain, traces left by animals or carts, a furrow made by the rain, etc., and
even an insignificant brook83). The only relation which we can find in this research stage between
the two meanings of the word trojan (which we called positive and negative in relation to their
material form) is the following one: for the positive constructions, given their rigid consistency, they
were and in certain cases still are used as access ways84 (a proof that in time the trojan got to mean
a street, footway, etc) especially for carts / carriages. Their use in the rainy season should have left
traces on their top part, wherefrom the relation of sense (traces left by carts, animals, draining water,
etc.). In the case of the other positive constructions the roads, besides the explanation above: we
also have to mention the practice of providing them from their very construction with draining
ditches which in time rain water deepened even more. It is interesting to mention that the Romans
classified the roads also with the explicit purpose of directing the traffic in relation to the structure
70
This meaning is well met at the Romanians from former Yugoslavia; Giuglea, Homorodean 1963, p.74.
71
Also see Bogrea 1971, p.81.
72
Vrcol 1910, p.101; Candrea 19351936, passim. See Ionescu 1894, p.364: Troian (= valley in Dolhasca village, hay place).
73
Costin 1926, p.206.
74
Costin 1934, p.197.
75
Ru, Ioni 1976, p.4445; Ioni 1982, p.184.
76
Noica 1967, passim.
77
Homorodean 1980, p.54, 198; Homorodean 1982, p.97105.
78
Mulea 1986, p.214.
79
Viciu 19061907, p.144.
80
Popescu-Sireteanu 1997, p.137.
81
Cucu 1929, p.42.
82
Timouk f.a., p.3036.
83
Ionescu 1894, p.364.
84
Bacinschi 2005, p.11, 15.
of the trojan in actus and via. The difference between an actus and a via was related to the way in
which their superstructure was built, as a via supported the weight of vehicles with heavy loads. An
actus that had a weaker surface from a qualitative point of view did not allow the same loads, and it
was forbidden to carry stone or wood on these roads85.
Regarding the meaning of part, corner, I go to the trojan (=I go to the village margin) recorded
in the Banat86, we believe that this also refers to the primary meaning of access way; as it is known
that generally the Romanian village had developed on the margin of a road, the indication at the
road = at the trojan refers mainly to a place at the edge of a village. Even today in the countryside the
indication that refers to the room placed at the margin of a house is the room from the road / way.
The old and regional meaning of the term trojan is misleading in its significance of grazing
land or plain, recorded by the Dictionary of the Romanian Language. Concretely, the place names,
oikonyms (what the Germans call Siedlungsnamen) represent linguistic proofs of the social evolution
simultaneously with the increase of human settlements the number of oikonyms also increases;
however, in a reverse meaning the disappearance of a human settlement is not compulsory
synonymous with the disappearance of its name87. Thus we tend to relate this variant with the
disappearance of the linear construction initially referred to with this term, after the natural or
artificial activities / modification made in time on that grazing land or field. In the absence of the
linear construction the trojan toponym, perpetuated in the popular memory, came to refer only to
that place, i.e. the grazing land or plain. In a newspaper from 1843 an article refers to the consecration
of the church called Trojan, subordinated to Horezu monastery, with the mention that the church
was close to the county capital [Rmnicu-Vlcea]88, where a trojan often marked the limit of several
agricultural estates.
See with the same meaning the toponym Brazd which came to refer to a forest in Olt County
because Brazda lui Novac crosses through it89. The same name referred to a pond on the boundary
of Blndeti estate from Iai County and to a heap close to Viziru village, in Brila County90. Clear for
this case is the answer of teacher I. Bncil who, referring to the vestiges which he knew concluded
resignedly: now all these signs are diffused91.
A similar reality is confirmed by a testimony recorded at the end of the 19th century: four
decades ago large dykes could be seen, now nothing can be seen any longer, as the inhabitants
filled in the dykes92; as relevant are the difficulties of identifying the eastern end of Northern Brazda
lui Novac, placed symptomatically to the south of western and eastern Moldavia, that is between
the bend of the Carpathians and the Dniester River93 (?). From the very beginning we relate this
uncertainty to the fact that in Buzu-Brila area the wall crosses the Brgan plain, where intensive
agriculture was employed, so that the traces of the Brazda could have had disappeared between
these researches94. In the same context we also mention: at Cudalbi the site Grla Traianu95 (Trajan
Brook) and Lacul Troianului (Lake of Trojan) between Corod and Matca96, both in Galai County.
These disagreements in toponymy should not surprise us, as they are rather frequent. For
example, in the case of the toponymy of a mountain village, the Mill Hill site (unsupported in the
85
Fodorean 2004, p.6369.
86
Costin 1926, p.206.
87
Fril 1987, p.99.
88
Vestitorul Romnesc, VII, 1843, supplement at no. 29, 12.
89
Lahovari 1902, p.598599.
90
Ibidem.
91
Odobescu archaeological questionnaire answers, mss. 224 Botoani County, at B.A.R.
92
Tomiuc 1893a.
93
Barnea 1997, p.162; Barnea 1997a, 34: ... jusquau sud de la Moldavie Occidentale et Orientale (entre larc des Carpates et
la rivire de Dniester-Tyras).
94
Croitoru 2000, p.314.
95
Brudiu 1998, p.212.
96
Vulpe 1950, p.170.
106 Costin Croitoru
field by any material element with which to be related or with another logical explanation to justify
its name) intrigues the editor, who suggestively calls this information note: the Mill Hill without
amill97.
The meaning of a place where dead people are buried refers to an elevated place. The village
treasure98 cannot be deposited on a higher ground, away from the course of waters. This practical
explanation cannot be detached from the old custom of the tumular burials or the archaic conception
of axis mundi. See also for example the situation from Noviodunum (Isaccea, Tulcea County), not at all
a singular one, where an earthen wall of the citadel is pierced by the pits of medieval graves99.
The secondary meaning of narrow way limited by fences refers undoubtedly to the practice
of providing the wall or way with a palisade not only for protection, but also in order to stabilise it in
the rainy season, to fix it so as not to slip or to be used when it crosses a soft area, where there was
a danger of falling (as it is attested in the case of Athanarics Wall100 and of the linear construction
from the Transalutanus limes101).
Concerning the oral tradition, in different sources there are both forms of trajan-trajanul and
trojan-trojanul. The situation is mentioned in the most important work devoted to the Romanian
toponymy102: we have then Troianul or Traianul, hill, and Troianul, historical place, both in Vlcea,
Troian and Hliza-Troian (Galai), Troiana [Ialomia, one of the few feminine forms which I have
identified in available sources].
About the Troina / Troiana variant we cannot say too many things. The only feminine forms
which we know103 are those attested in the counties of Constana, Ialomia and Galai. The correct
form of the toponyms attested in southern Moldavia seems to be confirmed by its presence in
a manuscript from Pamfil Polonic104, without excluding here the possibility that he knew the
topographical map of Moldavia (The topographical map of Moldavia, done in 1893, at the scale
1:50.000, Foaia Galai).
Thus trojan is nothing else then the popular form of the name of Trajan, not so much as an
expression of the perpetuation, within the collective memory, of the persistence of his engineering
works, but of the ancient earth walls105. Clear in this case are the names of Trajans dyke, Trajans
road or Trajans wall, which inhabitants from the countryside gave to these earth walls106. The same
popular tradition found its expression in the representation of Emperor Trajan on an oven tile in late
17th century Wallachia107.
We also mention the contamination of Trajan with the Dew Prince; if on the one side on
Trajans road the Dew Prince went towards Caracal108, on the other side Trajan the Brave came with
our ancestors on the road of the Dew Emperor109. As explicit is the legend of the same character,
which concluded that he is called the Dew Prince, as he melted and his road is visible even today
97
Ioni 1968, p.3.
98
Dumistrcel 2001, p.274.
99
Baumann, Mnucu-Adameteanu 2001, p.108110.
100
Brudiu 1979, p.153.
101
Croitoru 2005, p.175.
102
Iordan 1963, p.310.
103
The same form seems to be confirmed in Bucovina. See Grmad 1996, passim. See also: Legio II Troiana (CIL, III, 6594;
6605; 2029; XIII, 6883; XIV, 3626) and Papiria Troiana (CIL, III, 6761). A certain Traiana (CIL, VI, 2382, 1) is immortalized
even at Rome. Troina is an uninhabited island in Constana County (Dnescu 1897, p.337338), and a customs office in
front of Fetesci village, Ialomia County (Frunzescu 1872, p.492). Finally, some territorial transactions mention Troinas sons
(DIR, veacul XVII, vol. III, (16111615), Bucureti, 1954, p.24, doc. 39).
104
Polonic, Valul lui Traian de la Galai, mss. on B.A.R., notebook 6, 4.
105
See Bertoni 1941, p.209: ma calea Troianului o calea lui Troian (Traian devessere una sostituzione colta) significa
anche per il popolo romeno di alcune province la via lattea.
106
Iordan 1963, p.311.
107
Sltineanu 1938, p.5657.
108
Densuianu questionnaire answers, on B.A.R., mss. 4547, 316.
109
from the Danube to the mountains, close to Olt110 i.e. the linear construction contained in the
defensive ensemble of the Olt River, popularly called Trajans road or Trojan.
We have presented how the most recent dictionary of the Romanian language defined111, in
its first acceptance, the form of Trojan [large heap of snow brought by the wind and gathered
as walls or dunes; drift], as well as in a secondary one [primitive earthwork made by the ancient
peoples, consisting of a long earth dyke, with a defence dyke]. We question if it is not possible that
by the association of earth walls with snow walls generated by snow drifts, by the so called drifting
of the snow, the notion of trojan suffered a translation process112. This eventual perpetuation of
the meaning of trojan can be thus present also as a proof of the continuity of the Daco-Romanian
population after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia113.
Regarding the transformation from a to o, that is the passage from the form of Traianus
to Troianus, we should not look for a very complex explanation. Both variants were used from the
ancient times. Different inscriptions recall the anthroponym in the form Troianus114. Their place of
discovery (without having the pretention of mentioning them all) practically covers the entire Roman
Empire115 [Egypt (3), Galatia (1), Macedonia (1), Dalmatia (1), Pannonia (1), Noricum (4), Italia (6),
Hispania (2), Germania (5) and Britannia (3)], so that it cannot represent a mistake of the lapicide or a
marginal, local form. Chronologically, this version is attested from the times of Trajan116, and as proven
by the stamps discovered at Ostila, it circulated in parallel with the official form117. Known epigraphic
mentions go back to the times of Decius118, but the form Troianus continued to be recorded even later
during the medieval period, a proof of its persistence and use.
Acknowledgements
CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.
Bibliography
Alicu, D. 1997. Ulpia Traiana Satmizegetusa. Amfiteatrul, I, Cluj-Napoca.
Ardevan, R. 1998. Viaa municipal n Dacia roman, Editura Mirton, Timioara.
Armbruster, A. 1993. Romanitatea romnilor. Istoria unei idei, Editura Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Asachi Gh. 1940. Dochia i Traian dupre zicerile populare a Romnilor, Tableaux de lhistoire moldave (Iai), p.16.
Bacinschi, V. 2005. Pe valul mpratului Traian, Editura Zoloti Lytavry, Cernui.
Bals, V. 1963. Die Erdwlle der Ungarischen Tiefebene, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae,
XV, 14, p. 309336.
Barnea, Al. 1997. Valuri de pmnt de la Nistru la Tisa, p. 162165. In: Timpul istoriei. (I) Memorie i patrimoniu (in
honorem emeritae Ligiae Brzu), Universitatea Bucureti Facultatea de Istorie, Centrul de Istorie Comparat a Societii
Antice, Bucureti.
Barnea, Al. 1997a. Voies de communication au Bas-Danube aux IVeVIe sicle aprs J.C., tudes byzantines et
postbyzantines, III, Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti, p.2931.
Baumann, V., H., Mnucu-Adameteanu, Gh. 2001 Isaccea, jud. Tulcea [Noviodunum], in Cronica Cercetrilor
Arheologice din Romnia Campania 2000, Bucureti, p.108110.
Bertoni, G. 1941, Archivum romanicum: nuova rivista di filologia romanza, Firenze.
Bitay, A. 1937. Columna Traiana inspirnd un monument al artei germane medievale de pe la anul 1000, Revista
Istoric, XXIII, p.1011.
110
Candrea, Densuianu 1908, p.29.
111
Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne, p.1115.
112
Vulpe 1974, p.267, note 1.
113
Donat 1978, passim.
114
Speidel 1970, p.146, note 50 (= Speidel 1970, p.111115); Vulpe 1925, p.155, note 3; Vulpe 1974, p.267, note 1; Petolescu
1983, p.143145 (= Petolescu 1994, p.723729).
115
Croitoru 2007, p.122133.
116
CIL, XV, p.313.
117
Steinby 1978, no. 307.
118
CIL, III, 5752; VII, 1163.
108 Costin Croitoru
Bogrea, V. 1971. Pagini istorico-filologice, (ed. ngrijit studiu introductiv i indici de M. Borcil, I. Mrii), Cluj.
Brezeanu, S. 1996. Tradiie i memorie istoric n evul mediu romnesc, p. 1524. In Miscellanea in honorem Radu
Manolescu (Eds.: Z. Petre, S. Brezeanu), Editura Universitii, Bucureti.
Brudiu, M. 1979. Cercetri arheologice n zona valului lui Athanaric, Danubius, VIIIIX, p.151164.
Brudiu, M. 1998. Drumul roman prin Moldova de Jos ntre intuiie i realitile arheologice, Pontica, p.209215.
Candrea, I., A. 19351936. Onomastica romn cu privire special la onomastica Olteniei, Bucureti.
Candrea, I., A., Densuianu, O. 1908. Domnul de Rou [Din popor]. Cum griete i simte ranul romn, Bucureti.
Chirica, V., Tanasachi, M. 1984. Repertoriul arheologic al judeului Iai, III, Iai.
Christescu, V. 1937. Istoria militar a Daciei romane, Bucureti.
Coatu, N. 1990. Legende populare romneti, Edtura Sport-Turism, Bucureti.
Cosma, E. 2000. Ideea de ntemeiere n cultura popular romneasc, Presa Universitar Clujean, Cluj-Napoca.
Costea, Fl. 2004. Repertoriul arheologic al judeului Braov, Editura C2 design, Braov.
Costin, L. 1926. Graiul bnean, I, Timioara.
Costin, L. 1934. Graiul bnean, II, Turnu Severin.
Croitoru, C. 2000. Cteva consideraii cu privire la traseul i cronologia Brazdei lui Novac de Nord, Istros, X,
p. 313324.
Croitoru, C. 2005. Troianul n unele surse relative la spaiul glean. Consideraii generale, p. 1724. In Perspective
asupra istoriei locale n viziunea tinerilor cercettori. Pagini de istorie glean, (I), Lucrrile Colocviului tiinific, Galai,
19mai 2005 (Eds.: t. Stanciu, C. Croitoru), Editura Istros, Galai, p.1742.
Croitoru, C. 2007. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos. Terminologia relativ, II, Editura Istros, Brila.
Cucu, A. 1929. Drumurile romane din Banat, Analele Banatului, II, 2.
Daicoviciu, H., Alicu, D. 1984. Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucureti.
Dnescu, G. 1897. Dicionarul geografic, statistic, economic i istoric al judeului Constana, Bucureti.
Dimitrie, D. 1923. Mnstirea Sucevia cu anexe de documente ale Suceviei i Schitului celui Mare, Bucureti.
Donat, I. 1978. Troianul, Luceafrul, XXI, no. 11 (829), 18 martie.
Dumistrcel, S. 2001. Dicionar de expresii romneti, Institutul European, Iai, 2001.
Florescu, F., B. 1959. Monumentul de la Adamklissi, Bucureti, 1959 (= Idem, Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi,
Editura Academiei, Bucureti-Bonn, 1965).
Fodorean, Fl. 2004. Propunere pentru o clasificare a drumurilor din Dacia roman, Historia (Studia Universitatis
Petru Maior), 4, p.6369.
Fril, V. 1987. Lexicologie i toponimie romneasc, Timioara.
Frunzescu, D. 1872. Dicionaru topograficu i statisticu alu Romniei, Bucureci.
Gzdac, G., Coci, S. 2004. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, I, Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
Giuglea, G. 1948. Valori latine n expresie romneasc, Dacoromania, XI.
Giuglea, G., Homorodean, M. 1963. Correspondances italo-roumaines. lments prromains, latins et vieux
germaniques, Atti e Memorie del VII Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche (Firenze).
Gramatopol, M. 1982. Ultimul portret antum al lui Traian, in Idem, Art i arheologie dacic i roman, Editura
Sport-Turism, Bucureti, 166173.
Gramatopol, M. 1984. Arta imperial a epocii lui Traian, Editura Meridiane, Bucureti.
Graur, Al. 1954. ncercare asupra fondului principal lexical al limbii romne, Editura Academiei, Bucureti.
Grmad, I. 1996. Toponimia minor a Bucovionei, (ed. Ion Popescu Sireteanu), I, Editura Anima, Bucureti.
Grecu, V., V. 1995. Romanitate unitate, n tradiia popular, Studii i Comunicri de Etnologie, IX.
Guboglu, M. 1964. Turekii istocinik 1740 g. o Valachii, Moldavii i Ukraine, in Fontes Orientales ad historiam
popularum Europae meridie-orientalis atque centralis pertinente, Moscova, p.131161.
Homorodean, M. 1980. Despre toponimul Troian, Studii de Onomastic, III, p.97105.
Homorodean, M. 1982. Vechea vatr a Sarmizegetusei n lumina toponimiei, Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca.
Horedt, K. 1965. Cu privire la problema valurilor de pmnt din Banat i Criana, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie
Veche, 16, no. 4, p.725730.
Horster, M. 2001. Bauinschriften rmischer Kaiser. Untersuchungen zur Inschriftenpraxis und Bauttigkeit in
Stdten des westlichen Imperium Romanum in der Zeit des Prinzipats, Stuttgart.
Ionescu, S. 1894. Dicionar geografic al judeului Suceava, Bucureti.
Ioni, I. 1968. Din istoria i civilizaia dacilor liberi de la est de Carpai. Dacii din spaiul est-carpatic n secolele
IIIVe.n., Editura Jumimea, Iai.
Ioni, V. 1982. Nume de locuri din Banat, Editura Facla, Timioara.
Iordan, I. 1963. Toponimia romneasc, Editura Academiei, Bucureti.
Iorga, I. 1966. Istoria lui tefan cel Mare, Bucureti.
Karadja, M., C. 1933. Principatele Romne vzute de un funcionar turc din veacul al XVIII-lea, Arhivele Olteniei, XII,
p. 263274.
Lahovari, G., I. 1902. Marele dicionar geografic al Romniei, V, Bucureti.
Moisin, A. 1999. Continuitatea i romanizarea dacilor din epoca roman (sinteza noilor cercetri), Editura Didactic
i Pedagogic, Bucureti.
Mulea, I. 1986. George Piti, folclorist i etnograf, Bucureti.

Nstase, Gh. 1937. Valurile lui Traian din Basarabia dup C. Uhlig, Buletinul Societii Regale Romne de
Geografie, LV (1936).
Nsturel, S., P. 1969. Le journal des visites canoniques du mtropolite de Hongrovalachie Nophhyte le Crtois,
Actele (Pepragmena) Philologikos Syllogos O. Hrisostomos, Atena, 4, p.328334.
Nemeti, I. 2003. Probleme de metod privind studiul mitologiei populare. In Cum scriem istoria? Apelul la tiine i
dezvoltrile metodologice contemporane, (Eds.: R. Mrza, L. Stanciu), Alba Iulia.
Nistor, I. 1942. Ungurii n Dacia Carpatin, Analele Academiei Romne. Memoriile Seciunii Istorice, III, XXIV.
Noica, C. 1967. Rostire filozofic romneasc troienire, Cronica, II, 50 (79), 16 decembrie 1967.
Olinescu, D. 1886. Acte de demarcaiune ale mnstirii bucovinene Sucevia de pe anul 1783 i 1784, Buletinul
Societii de Geografie Romn, VII, p.6869.
Patsch, C. 1937. Der Kampf um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan, Viena Leipzig.
Punescu, A., adurschi, P., Chirica, V. 1976. Repertoriul arheologic al judeului Botoani, III, Bucureti.
Pensabene, P. 1989. Foro Traiano. Contributi per una ricostruzione storica e architettonica, Archeologia Classica, 41.
Petolescu, C. C. 1983. Varia Daco-Romana. III. Troianus n epigrafia latin, Thraco-Dacica, IV, no 1 2
(=C.C.Petolescu, Troianus dans lpigraphie latine. Onomastique romaine et volution tymologique. In LAfrique, la Gaule,
la Religion lpoque romaine. Mlanges la mmoire de Marcel Le Glay, (Collection Latomus, vol. 226), Bruxelles, 1994,
723729).
Popescu, R. 1963. Istoriile domnilor rii Romneti, (introducere i ediie critic de C. Grecescu), Bucureti.
Popescu-Sireteanu, I. 1997. Memoria limbii romne, Editura Bucovina, Iai.
Popinceanu, I. 1971. Limba religioas i limba superstiiilor la romni, Bun Vestire, X, no. 1.
Porucic, T. 1931. Lexiconul termenilor entopici din limba romn, Bucureti.
Rdulescu, A. 1988. Tropaeum Traiani. Monumentul i cetatea, Bucureti.
Ru, O., Ioni, V. 1976. Studii i cercetri de istorie i toponimie, Reia.
Romanelli, P. 1976. Larco di Traiano a Timgad: una ipotesi, p. 317321. In Mlanges dhistoire ancienne et
darchologie offerts Paul Collart, Lausanne.
Sava, A., V. 1942. Documente moldoveneti privitoare la Romnii de peste Nistru (15741821), Moldova Nou, VI,
no. 13.
Smpetru, M. 1984 Tropaeum Traiani. II. Monumente romane, Bucureti.
Seston, W. 1927. Les anaglypha Traiani du Forum Romain et la politique dHadrien en 118, Mlanges darchologie
et dhistoire. cole franaise de Rome, XLIV, p.154183 (= Idem, Scripta varia, Roma, 1980, p.185214).
Sltineanu, B. 1938. Plci de ceramic romneasc din sec. al XVII-lea, Revista Istoric Romn, VIII.
Speidel, M. P. 1970. The Captor of Decebalus. A new Inscription from Philippi, Journal of Roman Studies, LX,
p.142153 (= M. P. Speidel, Ranisstorum, ultimul punct de sprijin al lui Decebal, Acta Musei Napocensis, VII, 1970, p.511515).
Steinby, M. 1978. Lateres Signati Ostienses, Roma.
Timouk, O. f.a. ntlnire cu legenda, Ujgorod.
Tomiuc, V. 1893. Istoria satului Miliui i ruinele descoperite ale locuinei ispravnicului, Gazeta Bucovinei
(Cernui), III, no. 4.
Toa, I. 1986. Contribuii la studiul aezrilor rurale romneti, Crisia, XVI.
Viciu, Al. 19061907. Glosar de cuvinte dialectale din graiul viu al poporului romn din Ardeal, Analele Academiei
Romne, II, no. 29.
Vrcol, V. 1910. Graiul din Vlcea, Bucureti.
Vulpe, R. 1925. Gli Illiri dellItalia Imperiale Romana, Ephemeris Dacoromana, III.
Vulpe, R. 1950. Despre valul din Moldova de Jos i ,,zidul lui Athanaric, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche, II, no.1,
p. 163174.
Vulpe, R. 1974. Les Valla de la Valachie, de la Basse-Moldavie et du Boudjak, p. 267276. In Actes du IXe Congrs
International dtudes sur les Frontires Romaines, Mamaia, 613 septembre, 1972, Bucureti Kln Wien.
Vulpe, R. 1988. Columna lui Traian. Monument al etnogenezei romnilor, Bucureti.
Zagoritz, C. 1938. Valurile din Panonia, Dacia i Peninsula Balcanic, Biblioteca publicaiilor de tot felul (Ploieti),
2, 15 septembrie.
Zanker, P. 1970. Das Traiansforum in Rom, Arcologischer Anzeiger (Berlin), no. 4, p.499544.
Abbreviations
CIL = Corpus Inscriptiorum Latinarum, Berlin.
DIR = Documente privind istoria Romniei, Bucureti.
FHDR = Izvoare privind istoria Romniei Fontes ad historiam Dacoromanae pertinentes, Bucureti, I (1964);
Izvoarele istoriei Romniei Fontes historiae Dacoromanae, II (1970).
IDR, Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae Inscripiile Daciei romane, II. Oltenia i Muntenia, Bucureti, 1977.
ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, Berlin, I 1892, II 1902, III 1916.
Landscape Restitution and War Games:
The Gate of Invasions
Eugen S. Teodor
National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest, Romania
esteo60@yahoo.co.uk
Keywords: GIS, Cartography, Toponymy, Ford, Communication Corridor
Abstract: This study is grounded in the desire for a better Rezumat: Studiul este motivat de dorina de a nelege mai
understanding of the strategic value of the vallum between bine valoarea strategic a troianului de la Traian-Tuluceti
the villages Traian and Tuluceti (near Galai), beyond the (lng Galai), dincolo de truismul cap de pod. Actualul peisaj
commonplace bridge head. The current landscape by the de la Siretul inferior este drastic alterat de desecrile i lucrrile
Lower Siret river has been severely altered by the drainage de drenaj realizate n special dup jumtatea secolului XX;
works performed especially after mid 19th century; obviously, este clar c pentru a explica rolul strategic al zonei singura
in order to explain the strategic role of the area the only barier natural care controleaz circulaia ntre nordul Mrii
natural barrier controlling communication between the north Negre i bazinul Dunrii inferioare este necesar s apelm la
of the Black Sea and the Lower Danube basin it is necessary documentaie cartografic mai veche, dar i la un set de date
to resort to older mapping records, but also to a set of historical istorice care exced epoca roman.
data exceeding the Roman period. Privind un model teren (DEM) devine evident c principala
When looking at a terrain model (DEM), it becomes clear that problem strategic n zon nu era att rul, ct ntinsele
the main strategic issue of the area is in fact not the river, but mlatini, n special cele de la malul drept al Siretului. Pentru
rather the large moors, especially those on the right bank of a nelege logica circulaiei n zon, sunt aduse n sprijin
Siret river. Facts related to the construction of the access roads fapte legate de construcia cilor de comunicaii, n epoc
during the Modern times, the battles and armies positioning modern, btlii i poziionri ale armatelor n cele dou
between the Two World Wars, but also issues concerning rzboaie mondiale, dar i probleme legate de grania istoric
the historical border of Moldova with ara Romneasc a Moldovei cu ara Romneasc. Ca material de suport sunt
are presented in order to understand the logics of the aduse i fapte arheologice, precum distribuia tumulilor n
communication in the area. The factual support also includes zon, dar i argumente legate de chiar istoria roman n
archaeological evidence, like the distribution of the barrows in Cmpia Romn, precum distribuia forturilor i culoarele cele
the area, but also arguments related to the Roman history of mai probabile de legtur ntre ele.
the Romanian Plain, as well as the distribution of the forts and Cartografia nu este de ajutor mai jos de secolul al XIX-
the most likely connection roads in-between. lea, motiv pentru care sunt inventariate toponimele de pe
Maps prior the 19th century are not helpful, reason for which cele dou maluri ale Siretului inferior, n sperana relevrii
are inventoried the toponyms on the two banks of the Lower coridoarelor strategice mai vechi. n fine, un jurnal de rzboi
Siret River, trying to identify the older strategic corridors. Lastly, de la finalul veacului VI este adus n atenie, pentru a developa
a war journal by the end of the 6th century is brought into elementele descriptive ale naturii nc slbatice de la finalul
attention, in order to present the descriptive elements of the antichitii.
still wild nature by the end of the Antiquity. Concluzionnd, dei au putut fi surprinse patru sau cinci
In conclusion, although we identified four or five fords on the vaduri pe cursul inferior al Siretului, doar dou par s fi jucat
Lower Siret river course, only two seem to have played a key un rol cheie n istorie: vadul Galaiului i vadul Focaniului.
role in history: the Galai and Focani fords. The latter had the Cel din urm avea dezavantajul unui drum lung i dificil,
disadvantage of a long and difficult access road, also losing ct i pierderea beneficiului surprizei. Prin prisma acestor
the benefit of surprise. As per such conclusions, the control of concluzii, controlul vadului de la Galai aducea romanilor nu
the embankment at Galai provided the Romans not only with doar capacitatea de ripost pe malul opus al Dunrii, ci i un
the ability to fight back on the opposite Danube bank, but also control efectiv chiar dac indirect al tuturor micrilor spre
an effective control even though indirect, of all movements to i dinspre Muntenia rsritean, contribuind la securizarea
and from eastern Muntenia, thus contributing to the security ntregii zone a Dunrii de Jos.
of the entire area by the Lower Danube.

112 Eugen S. Teodor
The goal
There is a historical problem that always puzzled me: the Roman vallum developed northwest
of the modern city Galai, near the mouth of Siret River. The embankment, about 23 km long,
connects the Lower Siret and Lower Prut, making an arch of approximately 80o. Built at some 10 km
(in the closest point) from the Roman outpost from Tirighina-Barboi, the military substantiation of
the embankment is not so clear as expected, because no forts were revealed behind it, no turrets
and no obvious military roads are known1 so far. This military obstacle, still measuring 5 mheight in
its southern part2, is too far from the closest garrison to be effectively defended, but also much too
short to protect the vital military way heading northwest, reaching Poiana the most impressive
archaeological site from southern Moldavia , then Trotu Valley and Oituz Pass, near the easternmost
fort in Dacia, Brecu; overall, it is a 200 km journey.
The northern limit of the vallum, in the village Tuluceti, near Prut, can be easier understood
being the northern limit of the (former) lake Brate (see fig. 1) protecting the defensive line
from a side attack. The western limit, near the village Traian (Romanian form for Trajanus), is still to
beexplained.
The area between the last major bent of the Danube, at the city of Galai, and the so-called
Curvature Mountains (Vrancea County) is usually coined as The Gate of Invasions, especially in the
Romanian literature3. The distance between Danube and the mountains foothills is about 80 km,
Figure 1. Fortified lines at the Lower Siret. Comparison between the Roman Vallum (garnet) and late 19th century (green).
Legend: black diamonds Roman forts; dots present day localities; modern bridges across Siret: black railway;
red road bridge. There are only rendered some major streams. Stereo 70 projection with Geographical coordinates
(for each of the next) at 0.3o. Colours for the altimetric scale are chosen for a detailed profile of the lowlands.
1
Such major infringements from the general rules of a Roman linear defence made Jole Napoli (Napoli 1997, p.15) consider
the dyke near Galai as work with an obscure morphology and of uncertain origin; nevertheless, in other sections of her
book she admits that it is a Roman defensive work (Napoli 1997, p.81, 105, 359361). The same observation was made by
Pamfil Polonic, over one century ago (archive of the Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest, file 3, envelop IV, notebook 1, p.43
g, not published, not dated), concluding that it should be a barbarian construction; he changed his mind also, because later he
left a drawing of a Roman gate of this earthwork.
2
Field research in May 2013, with Costin Croitoru.
3
Lupu 2013, p.587, as the last occurrence, even in a soft expression (commercial gate).
Landscape Restitution and War Games: The Gate of Invasions 113
apparently too large for a gate. Although there are countless instances in which the Gates strategic
value is stressed, there is no published study that I know of to actually explain it. Although an
archaeologist and not a strategist, I will try to better understand the military value of the positions
held at the Lower Siret.
Methodology and means

The last 60 years brought many changes in the Romanian Plains landscape, south of the Lower
Siret. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that the area between Brila and Focani is rather low, also being
intersected by many Siret Rivers tributaries, therefore with a great potential for a marshy environment.
I will deal with this starting hypothesis making use of any available argument, among which are some
situations that occurred in the relatively recent World Wars, the lines of communications in modern
times, and also to the areas toponyms as an historical witness of some disappeared anthropic or
natural features. The argumentation also made use of the prehistoric landscape landmarks location,
tumuli, the archaeological records, or the antique accounts regarding military conflicts in the area. All
these will serve the same goal: to better understand the Lower Siret areas natural setting in remote
times, as a compulsory step to explain the Roman embankment.
As expected, such a research project would be abnormally difficult without some computing
facilities such as a GIS application. Within this environment I will make use of several classes of
documentation, briefly listed further.
A first class is made of maps: military maps from the late nineteenth to the late twentieth century4
and other historical maps, if available, as the ones published by Carol Popp de Szathmry5, two
communication maps from the second half of the nineteenth century6, and some other cartographic
resources of different values (rather low) which will be mentioned at the due time.
A second class of documentation is made by orthophotos. There are now available at least two
sets of data for both Romanian products, 1:50007, and external data, as Google Earth or Bing Maps8.
A third class of data is represented by products generally known as Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
The older American SRTM9, despite its low resolution for Europe (90 m), is still useful for rendering
the 3D terrain on a large surface of land with no supplementary time consuming operations. The
brand new European DEM (EU-DEM), released in October 201310, is far better as resolution (25 m),
but the genuine files have to be further processed, which makes their use rather slow; EU-DEM is
nevertheless useful when it comes to better understanding a micro-region, as the hinterland of some
major archaeological sites.
A fourth class of imported data are vectors for various elements, such as the administrative
boundaries, roads and railroads11, streams, and so on. In addition to the already available imported
data, a lot of manually vectorization work has been done in order to complete the picture.
4
The Third Austrian Survey (referred further as Third Austrian, 1:200,000; developed between 1870 and 1910; see http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category: 3rd_Military_Mapping_Survey_of_Austria-Hungary); the maps known as Planurile
Directoare de Tragere (referred further as PDT) which are, technically speaking, plans (1:20,000), made between 1917 and
1960, see http://earth.unibuc.ro/harti/; military maps from 1980s (1:25,000; referred further as DTM, acronym for Direcia
Topografic Militar, the publisher of the set of maps, made officially available for research due to a recent agreement between
the Defence Ministry and Culture Ministry, recorded as the protocol no. 4096, from 13 sept. 2013).
5
Published in 1864, scale 1:57,600, http://www.charta1864.ro/charta.html, rectified; for a historical background of the map,
see http://www.charta1864.ro/essay.html.
6
Charta telegrafo-postal, Romnia, 1865 (http://earth.unibuc.ro/download/harta-telegrafo-postala-1865); Harta cilor
de comunicaie, 1897 (http://earth.unibuc.ro/download/atlasul-cailor-de-comunicatii-1897).
7
See http://geoportal.ancpi.ro/geoportal/viewer/index.html or http://civil3design.wordpress.com/tag/imagery/.
8
Accessed by the usual means or through the OS software Terra Incognita, which allows downloading referenced imagery
(http://www.zubak.sk/TerraIncognita/).
9
Acronym for Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (http://srtm.usgs.gov/mission.php), Endeavour space shuttle, 2000, with
post-processing (http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1).
10
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eu-dem.
11
Most of them downloaded from the Geospatial portal (http://earth.unibuc.ro/).
114 Eugen S. Teodor
Recent history
I will analyse here some facts of the modern times which can be helpful in our understanding
of the strategic value held by the Gate of Invasions.
Looking at the orthophotos inside the area closed by the Roman dyke Traian-Tuluceti, one
will notice a 17 km defensive line connecting the villages from endreni on Siret and Costi (or
Costea) near Prut River, immediately west and north of Galai city. The military works have been
done between 1888 and 1891 by the Romanian Headquarter of the Army, as a preventive measure
against a possible Russian invasion12. The artillery positions, developed on two or three lines, were
not limited on the bridgehead from Galai, but they were also carried out in other two key positions:
one was the socalled Nmoloasa bridgehead on the left bank of Siret, beyond the bridge from
Nneti13; another fortified area was the one around the town Focani, on the opposite (left bank)
of Siret, or, more precisely, at a distance of 7.5 km west of it. The river and the marshes surrounding
it were deliberately left to the enemy, expected at the exit from the bogs14. These are the defensive
works known in the Romanian historiography as The Line Focani-Nmoloasa-Galai; in fact, there
is no line; there are three fortified positions, as they were actually three access points, which could
block any attempt to break the defence. This is an important analogy for understanding the Roman
defence in the same area.
The defensive line was not helpful in the First World War because the enemy happened to be
another: the Central Powers, advancing from the opposite direction. Romania joined the war in the
summer of 1916 and was defeated both in the Meridional Carpathians and the Lower Danube. As
a result, the Romanian army left the capital, Bucharest, in the hands of the enemies, for a refuge
in Moldavia. The next campaign, in the summer of 1917, brought fearful battles in south-western
Moldavia, on a line connecting the Lower Siret, at the mouth of Putna River, to the springs of Oituz
River, in the mountains (Kiriescu 1989, vol. 2, esp. 40189).
Two interesting facts are to be stressed here: this line of fire, where hundreds of thousands died
in the First WW, was drawn in almost the same position as the western part (Focani-Nmoloasa)
of the defensive line built almost twenty years before, but with the places switched. Obviously, the
standing line chosen twice by the Romanian Headquarters, after a thorough consideration of the
possibilities, had some relevant strategic properties. That time, the option was right, because the
German offensive was stopped there.
The second observation is that this red line of positions successfully held by both parts is almost
the same as the line which separated, for centuries, the mediaeval states of Wallachia, in south, and
Moldavia, in north. The line connecting Putna River and the last part of the stream of Siret is considered
by the Romanian historiography as a natural border for each of the Romanian early states15. Such
analysis, made for mediaeval history, is relevant for defining geopolitics at the Lower Danube.
In the Romanian history there is a third circumstance that brings up the line Focani-
Nmoloasa-Galai: the Second WW. Romania entered in the war in June 1941, aiming to regain the
Eastern Moldavia, known also as Bessarabia, occupied by the Soviet Union one year before. When
the fate of the war became relatively clear for almost everyone, the Commander in chief, Marshal Ion
Antonescu, decided to reinforce the line Focani-Nmoloasa-Galai, hoping to protect the Capital at
12
Russia and Romania were allies in the anti-Ottoman war from 18771878, but at the end they were very close to engage
a fight, the Romanian Capital being occupied by the Russian army, and the Romanian army regrouped in the western part of
the country (Whitman 1899, p.306317). The quarrel was at the moment solved by the peace treaty from Berlin (1878), but
the adversity rested, as well as the fear. The border resulted from the peace treaty was along Prut River and the final course of
the Danube, on the northern branch of Delta Chilia (Kilia) (Whitman 1899, p.323).
13
Damean 2004, p.218219. At the time when the bridgehead Nmoloasa was planned, no bridge was linking the two banks,
but it was planned a permanent one, Nneti-Lungoci (built very much later), another two being intended for the case of war,
one in Fundeni and one in Nmoloasa (Damean 2004, p.232).
14
The places where the defensive line is interrupted (at the fig. 1) are not usable for military purposes.
15
Lupu 2013, esp. 571, for a border following the line of Putna River (if not Trotu!), in the beginnings (fourteenth c.), moved
southern on the line of Milcov River (a few kilometres south of Focani) by military force, in the time of Stephan the Great.
least for six months (Axworthy et al. 1995, 313). If the plan was right or wrong we will never know;
the Moldavian front (Iai-Chiinu) was crushed by the Soviet Army in August 20, 1944, and three
days later the Marshal was arrested by King Michael, for opposing the end of the war against the
Allies. As a result, the Red Army passed the fortified line without a fight.
I resumed all these facts, generally well known, just because they were never told together,
although the comparison is interesting. I will add here some other facts, related to the history of the
communication lines between the southern and eastern Romania; they are good hints about the
places where the engineers thought it would be a good place to make a bridge over Siret.
Near Galai there are, in our days, three bridges connecting the cities in the area, Brila, south
of Siret, and Galai, north of it: the easternmost, a road bridge east of Balta16 Ctua, only 700 m.away
from the mouth of the river; a railway bridge at Barboi, near the Roman fort from Tirighina; another
road bridge could be found at the eastern end of the village endreni, seven km away from the
river mouth. The first one mentioned is recent, but the others seem older. The railway connecting
Bucharest and Galai, through Brboi, was finished in 187217 and is depicted on the maps from the
late nineteenth century, known as the Communications Map (Brila County, 1897). The same map
shows that the road bridge from endreni (with the old name, Serdaru) was planned for construction.
Being one of the earlier projects meant for the heavy traffic between the banks of Siret River, we
have to consider the interval between the two bridges from Barboi and endreni as having natural
conditions for a ford. Interesting to note, the defensive line built in the late nineteenth century is
closing 2 km west of the intended bridge. Just intended, because the PDT (sheet 5255, Galai, 1941)
is not depicting it, and probably it remained just an intention until late, in the second part of the
twentieth century.
The next bridge upstream is made between the villages Nneti (on the right side) and Lungoci
(on the left side of the river), 43 km away from the Sirets mouth, as the crow flies. The bridge is depicted
on the Communications Map from 1897, although on a secondary road, probably of local relevance18.
Another small bridge is suggested by a toponym, at some four km upstream, as Podu Clian (The
Bridge Cliani), although the bridge itself is not shown. A third bridge could have existed, in the same
area, four km downstream Nneti, near the village Nmoloasa, following both unverified Internet
accounts and the Third Austrian Survey, where the graphic is not that clear as expected. Obviously,
the area around Nneti is one in which military manoeuvres between the banks of the Siret River are
possible19. In what could eventually concern an older history, west of Nneti village there are dead
arms of Siret River (?), suggesting that the place was located, originally, on the Moldavian bank20.
16
Balt is a fen, a moor or a puddle, being either a small lake, either a bog with clear water spots.
17
Information retrieved on http://romaniaforum.info/board95-istoria-history-of-romania-and-the-republic-of-moldova/
board433-transporturile-in-romania-transports-in-romania/board666 - 1838-present-day-romanian-rail-network-
eisenbahnnetze-in-rum%C3%A4nien-retea-cai-ferate-in-romania/1346-1872-calea-ferata-bucuresti-ploesci-braila-barbosi-
galati-barbosi-tecuci-marasesti-adjud-bacau-roman-si-tecuci-barlad/.
18
The bridge was built around 1900 by the Ministry of Defence, as witnessed by Marele Dicionar Geografic, vol. IV, s.v. Lungociul.
19
On the Moldavian bank of Siret, in this position, PDT maps (following the First WW) are depicting a strong (double line)
artillery position, figured in the same manner as the works near Galai and closing a circle about 3.5 km radius; this is what
is known as the Nmoloasa fortified area, from the defensive line Focani-Nmoloasa-Galai (see Damean 2004; Marele
Dicionar Geografic, vol. IV, 450, s.v. Nmoloasa). These bridge heads on the Moldavian bank, Galai and Nmoloasa, were
meant to allow Romanian forces to counterattack behind the enemys lines. This strategy means also a usable bridge between
the banks, as well as reasonable communication lines reaching the front line. This is also a strong recommendation that the
environment although a marshy land downstream the mouth of Putna River was proper (or adjusted) for military actions.
20
As also suggested by Stoicescu 1974, p.584 (see Schitul din Poiana Fundul Nnetilor). See also the Szathmry map (1864),
where the village Nneti is not represented as being on the territory of Wallachia. The village Nmoloasa was the most
southeastern locality of the former county Putna (acc. an administrative map from 1930, downloaded from Geospatial portal,
http://earth.unibuc.ro/download/romania-limitele-administrative-ale-jude-elor-interbelice-1930) as a shape file, supported also
by the information provided by Marele Dicionar Geografic, vol. IV, s.v. Nmoloasa), which implies that Putna confluence was
19 km downstream from the present location. The fact is confirmed by the information that the confluence was, around 1900,
west of Lungoci village, at half way (see Marele Dicionar Geografic, vol. IV, s.v. Lungociu; see also the Third Austrian Survey).
116 Eugen S. Teodor
Even so, the possibility of passing the river, in this place, seems even older; two km northwest the
village, on the other side of the bogs made by the dead river arms, there is a toponym called Vadu
Raiului (Heavens Ford) on the Romanian map from 1864 (Szathmry).
The third bridge over Siret is built in Suraia, located 60 km away from the mouth of Siret, and
15 km east of the Focani city. A railway line was projected and approved in 1910, in order to connect
Furei a town in northern part of the Romanian Plain (or Brgan) and Tecuci, a small town on the
left part of Siret River. The construction of the line began in the first years of the First World War (when
Romania was still neutral), but at the time of the ravaging war in southern Moldavia the bridge was
not finished21. Nevertheless, the German troops tried, in August 1917, to take advantage from the
opportunity offered by the terrain, making a tentative of passing the river, 5 km south of this point
(Crjan 2013, 168).
Yet the bridge which caused the heaviest battle in that war is another 19 km NNW, in the Cosmeti
village, located seven km east of a vital communication node, Mreti, linking northern Moldavia
to southern Romania and central Moldavia. The combat, known in historiography as the Battle from
Mreti, was developed south of the town, and had at the stake mainly the bridge. The Germans
were stopped only about one kilometre before the bridge (Kiriescu 1989, vol. 2, esp.104126); else,
the war would have been over the very next day.
Looking at the modern bridges connecting the banks of Siret River and at some military facts
from the recent wars, we got a list of places which, plausible, are the strategic keys for passing the
river in a way or another. Resuming, they are located in Barboi, Nneti, Suraia and Cosmeti.
Toponymic evidence at the Lower Siret

A study of the toponyms from the area, even not a systematic one, could bring a layer
of information otherwise very difficult to achieve22: the mediaeval story of the landscape and
environment. Actual toponyms seem born in the Middle Ages, or at least most of them. I am presenting
the main factual data in a table (o. 1), beginning with the mouth of Siret River and going upstream,
to the confluence of Trotu River.
One could easily notice that almost all the table is relating to toponyms from the right bank
of Siret River. The reason is simple: the strong asymmetry of the two banks. The left (northern) bank
is actually a high terrace (20 mor more), relatively steep and difficult, and the landscape variations
in time are fewer. A notable exception is made by the area from the Lower Brlad, which is very
low and marshy23. By contrast, the terrain profile on the right side of the Lower Siret is flat, having
altitudes at the limit of the main stream (or even smaller), on a considerable length in the side:
9.3km near the mouth; 8.6 km in the right side of Buzu mouth; 9.7 km in the left side of Buzu;
about 7 km near Nmoloasa (on the right side of Rmnicu Srat River); 9 km at the mouth of Putna;
8.9 km near Focani city. Anywhere downstream Focani, Siret meadows width is between 12 and
14 km, therefore the river could pass in times in any position of this interval, but mainly somewhere
at the right or more to the south than it does today24. Some of the toponyms from Table 1 were
suspected to be formed on the opposite side of the river (Chiciul Moldovei, Vadu Prisaca, Vadu lui
Miron, Grla Brlzet).25262728293031323334353637
21
The railway was dismantled by Germans and carried out, for other war necessities. The bridge and the railway line were
finished much later, in 1949 (Iliescu 2013, p.344345).
22
The mediaeval documents of the Romanian Countries are scattered in many dozens of massive books, and until today
no database is available, although some Romanian scholars already understood the need for a more public source (very
few libraries from Romania have indeed all the books with those documents), as for instance http://www.george-damian.ro/
ganduri-pentru-o-wikipedia-medievala-a-romanilor-4659.html.
23
One of the most likely etymologies proposed for Brlad is a Serbian world, brlaga (with similar words in other Slavic
languages), and meaning the puddle where the pigs are wallowing (Moldovanu 1987, p.296).
24
The same things could be said about Danube, downstream Durostorum, respectively a deviation of the older course to the
left. Possibly similar phenomena could be observed for other streams in the area, like Buzu or Ialomia.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Figure 2. Toponyms at the Lower Siret.

Legend: red dots toponyms; black dots present day settlements.
Geographical coordinates with grid for each 0.15o. For elevations see Fig. 1. See also Fig. 3.
Table 1. Toponyms at the Lower Siret

1
25 26
original meaning dist. bank source comments
The Postal Small village near a bridge (another riverbed, southward
Pota 4.1 R Szathmry
Service of the present day Barboi bridge) a border line post
the Small Siret A dead arm of Siret (the former main riverbed?), 2.5 km
Sereelu 6.2 R Szathmry
(diminutive) south of the present course
People of the
Vdeni 8.0 R 3rd Austrian Vodeani at Szathmry, with possible other meaning
Ford
Village on the route of the future road to endreni
Pietroii The Large Rocks 10.0 R Szathmry
(possible old road/bridge?)
Chiciul The Moldavian Surrounded by The Old Siret, a proof that the actual
11.3 R PDT
Moldovei Islet course of the river is pushed northward
Vameul
The Custom Village near Siret, to be connected to Vdeni (east) or
(Brila 17.8 R 3rd Austrian
Man with Crciuna (west)?
County)
Village, 7 km south of Siret, at the ridge between the
Muchea The Ridge 18.3 R 3rd Austrian
bog and the higher plain
The Free Land27 Village west of Vameul (see above), probably the older
Slobozia
of the Custom 21.2 R Szathmry location, and, separately, a toponym, near Buzus
Vameului
Man mouth
Cetatea Crciuna Croitoru
21.2 L 15th century border fortress
Crciuna Fortress 2013
25
Distance to the mouth of Siret River, as the crow flies, km.
26
Left (L) or Right (R).
27
A state driven colonisation free of some taxes.
118 Eugen S. Teodor

Cetuia The Fortlet
At the left side of the confluence; not recorded in the
de la Gura from the Mouth 23.0 R Szathmry
National List of the Monuments (LMI)28
Buzului of Buzu River
A descriptive term for the environment, naming a dead
Bulhacul The Fen 23.2 R PDT arm of Siret, south of the actual riverbed; another fen
encircles the Mxineni Monastery.
Podul The Turks Toponym on a dead arm of Siret (south). Related with
24.6 R PDT
Turcului Bridge the position defended by Cetatea Crciuna (see above)?
Village in a bent of Siret River. The name can be
Corbul29 The Raven 28.0 R Szathmry
associated with a military lookout30, in a border area.
Balta31 A descriptive term for the environment south of the
The Cattail Fen 30.6 R PDT
Ppurica village Corbu.
anul
Ravens Ditch 31.6 R Szathmry A possible military work.
Corbului
Balta A descriptive term for the environment south of the
Stinky Puddle 32.0 R PDT
Puturosul village Corbu.
Abnormal (there is no geological rock around or near
Puul Pietrei Rocks Fountain 33.2 R Szathmry
surface). Old bridge foot?
Vame
Village, to be connected with the toponyms from the
(Galai Custom man 28.6 L 3rd Austrian
other bank (see the next positions)
County)
Vadu The Stronghold
32.7 R PDT Toponym standing across Siret, facing the village Vame
Prisaca32 Ford
Vadu lui Toponym located 1.4 km north of Vadu Prisaca (names
Mirons Ford 33.2 R PDT
Miron of different ages for the same thing?)
Small Brlad
Grla Odd! Brlad River empties in Siret 11 km upstream, as a
Brook 35.0 R PDT
Brlzet LEFT tributary33
(diminutive)
28
On the opposite bank of Buzu are recorded a village and a necropolis (1617th centuries), today in the territory of Voineti
village (BR-I-s-B-02060). Two km north of Cetuia de la Gura Buzului is located Mxineni Monastery (BR-II-m-A-02136),
built in 1637 (see also below). A military pendant of the Crciuna fortress from above should date in the 15th century. The real
position of the Crciuna fortress is under debate (Lupu 2013, p.571577), but the toponym Crciuna (a dead arm of the river
having this name, near the fortress) was present on PDT decades before the archaeological research conducted in the area by
Lucian Chiescu, in 19661967.
29
A pendant village with the same name has existed on the opposite bank of Siret (Lupu 2013, p.575), suggesting an active
relationship between the communities from the both parts of the river.
30
Unlike the present public mentality, in which the raven is demonised, the old Europeans saw in the raven the wisdom,
memory and prophecy, as the sacred bird of Odhinn (Vertemont 2000, s.v. corb). In the Romanian culture the mythological
figure is not so clear, but one can recall that it is the bird connected with the legend of Huniads, and could be eventually
recognised in the mediaeval seals of Wallachia. In Romanian fairy tales, it is the bird which gives the water of life, assisting
heroes against telluric forces, hence having a military contribution.
31
I had difficulties translating balt; it is the Slavic (if not autochthonous) correlative of the Latin originated word lac (lake,
from lacus). Although the two words are pretty much synonyms, in the spoken language lac is sometimes a larger and
deeper accumulation (usually with clear water). I preferred thus fen, suggesting a wet environment with water vegetation,
typical for floodable areas.
32
Prisaca means, in Romanian, an apiary. As a toponym, it is standing for a stronghold almost without exception, due to
the metaphor of the bees defending their home. A second meaning of the word is a cut forest, suggesting further a timber
stronghold, as those usually made in the Early Middle Ages. In this case along the mediaeval border , it is almost certainly
a stronghold.
33
The brook is running south of Vadu Prisaca and Vadu lui Miron, which could possibly mean that they were located,
originally, on the left bank of the Siret River. Such a supposition is strengthen by a fact from nearby: at the middle of the 20th
century, one km south of the village Nmoloasa there was a village named Grleti (The Brooks) having two hamlets, named
Moldoveni (Moldavians) and Munteni (Muntenians), separated by a brook (La Jidnie, or the Jews (Brook)). The pairs of
villages split in Moldoveni and Munteni were usual along the border (Lupu 2013, 580, including Grleti in thelist).

Small Siret Located south of Grla Brlzet, proposing thus a
Grla
Brook 35.7 R PDT normal position, with Brlzet coming from the left, but
Sireelul
(diminutive) all placed southward34
Wetlands 3.2 km south of Siret, near Nmoloasa. Dead
Liteav The Wet Land 36.7 R DTM
arms of Siret (Putna??) nearby, southwest
The Muddy
Nmoloasa 39.1 R 3rd Austrian Village on the right side of Siret River
(Land)
2.8 km west of the bridge from Nneti; the mid-19th
Vadu Raiului Heavens Ford 46.1 R Szathmry century map is drawing a rivulet (named Leica) heading
south-est35
Vadu Roca Red Hairs Ford 51.8 R 3rd Austrian Village between Siret and Putna River
Toponym located 2.6 km SW of Siret and 2 km NE of
Grind36 Sandy Islet 55.6 R PDT
Putna River, describing the access route to Vadu Roca
Balta din Sus Upper Puddle 57.5 R PDT Located west of Grind and closing it between waters
Toponym west of the village Borlu, on the right bank
n Balt In the Puddle 56.5 R PDT
of Putna River
On the Sandy Toponym west of the previous (isolated land between
Pe Grind 57.8 R PDT
Islet waters)
The Walls Toponym at the springs of the Leica (Putna Veche)
Balta Ziduri 56.7 R PDT
Puddle rivulet; no historical monument is recorded in the area
Toponym vest of Suraia village and bridge, between
Rovina Roie The Red Swamp 60.6 R PDT
Putna and Siret
Former village, today a district of the Bilieti village,
Sasu The Saxon 63.7 R PDT
between Putna and Siret.
Podu
Zamfiras Bridge 66.5 R DTM Toponym on Putna River, west of Focani city
Zamfirei
Podu The Bridge of Toponym in the middle of nowhere, 2.6 km west of

68.1 R DTM
Sireel37 the Small Siret Putna River
Suspect toponym (in the area there is a road, but only of

Drumul Mare The Main Road 70.7 R DTM local importance), near the main bent of Putna (heading
south from here)
Strjescu The Guardian 73.7 R DTM Village on the right bank of Siret
The Former Channel in the eastern side of the town Mreti, and
Siretul Vechi 80.4 R DTM
Siret 3.9 km westward from the current course of Siret.
34
There are theories proposing a completely different course of the Lower Brlad River, even as a direct tributary of Danube
(Bogdan 2004, passim; Costchescu, vol. II, 340, doc. no. 88 from 15 July 1448). Nevertheless, the actual course of Geru River
(left tributary), flowing parallel to Siret River for about 25 km, in the same meadow, is a proof that the former Brlad course
could have existed as far as Traian village, at the western end of the Roman Embankment. Such a situation could finally explain
better why the meadow developed by the Lower Siret is so wide.
35
And emptying in the final course of Rmnic River, flowing parallel with Siret River for six km. Today, in the same position
near Vadu Raiului and Maluri village (River banks) is located Putna Veche rivulet (Old Putna), heading northeast, not
southeast. This ford (of the Heaven) seems to be a passage over Leica/ Putna Veche and not over Siret (?), suggesting a road
coming from Focani for the ford in Nneti (not figured on the map from 1864).
36
Typically a grind is a sandy islet between two arms of a river. In this case, it could be an isolated land between Siret, Putna
and Balta din Sus (see further).
37
Sireel seems systematically applied for dead arms of Siret, as near Vdeni (see the first rows of the table). There are many
unsolved discussions about the old courses of all the streams in the area, including Putna and Milcov, the general assumption
being that theyve changed a lot (Lupu 2013). On the opposite (left) bank of Putna, about 3 km ENE, there are many bents
of the former course of Siret, 5.7 km westward from its current course (see especially DTM). This toponym seems to me a
witness of an older course of the same river, formerly much closer to the city of Focani (located only 4.6 km westward from
Podu Sireel) than expected. Such major changes in the areas main geographical features could explain why the debate about
the former border between Moldavia and Wallachia is so difficult.
120 Eugen S. Teodor
The toponymic inventory is suggesting more than four fords, adding to those in the previous
section of the paper: Slobozia Vameului (probably connected to Crciuna Fort and its pendant
at the mouth of Buzu); Podul Turcului (possibly related also to the Turkish campaigns against
the Moldavian fort); the village Corbul and its pendant in Moldavia; the position marked by the
close related Vadu Prisaca and Vadu Miron, on one side, and their pendant on Moldavia (the
village Vame), on the other; Vadu Roca, in the angle made by Siret and the Lower Putna, possibly
connected to a road descending from the mountains (see below). We will need further analytic
means to understand if those late mediaeval passing points may have been used also in some
more remote times.
The toponymic evidence between the Lower Putna and Siret revealed an interesting situation.
The toponym Drumul Mare (The Main Road) does not fit in the current or recent geography,
because no relevant road is to be found in the area; we can, at most, suspect a former main road.
At about eight km further SE, another intriguing name occurs: a village named Sasu (The Saxon).
We dont know any Saxon colonization in the area; moreover, looking at the casual use of the
ethnic names, they do not address foreigners, but people (speaking the same language) coming
from another country38, in this case colonists originated in the Saxon part of Transylvania (Braov,
or Kronstadt, for instance). These two names, together, are suggesting an important road coming
from the mountains39. This road was probably ending at Vadu Roca (but possibly much lower,
seebelow).
To the difficult and large wetland we have to add the long segments where the meadow hosts
two or more almost parallel streams; it is the case of Brlad, running in the past40 just a few km north
of Siret River, for a length of at least 35 km (as the crow flies). Exactly from todays confluence of
Brlad, on the opposite bank, one finds the confluence of Putna; its course, before the mouth, is
also parallel with Siret, for another 25 km41. South of the Putna mouth, there are others several small
rivers, tributaries of Siret, flowing slowly and lazy, on a plain completely flat: Putna Veche (or Leica),
apparently also parallel to Siret in the past, but also Rmnicul Srat and Buzu.
The geological drillings made in the area, in Suraia and Clmui, showed alluvial deposits
100 mthick (Marincea et al. 2013); this is why I considered abnormal some toponyms suggesting
large stones or rocks, which are possible clues of some old, historical buildings, with stone obviously
brought from another place.
Of course, the toponymical evidence reflects a late mediaeval or modern age status. We could
use now a term of comparison for another age.
The mounds statement

The place of the funeral mounds in shaping the landscape, giving to some past social groups
an identity strongly related to the land, is a common place on which I wont develop theories42. For
the Roman age the relevant urban centres location is better controlled by us, as well as the roads
38
For instance, Ungureanu (The Hungarian) is a Romanian name, mainly distributed outside the former Hungary (including
Transylvania), acc. http://nume.ottomotor.ro/en.
39
Although dealing with the mediaeval roads in a section of his paper and defining the two main axes of the commercial
routes as north-south (Lemberg-Silistra) and west-east (Braov-Brila), Emil Lupu (2013, p.587589) has avoided explaining
the second. The usual routes from Braov to Brila (Buzu in south and Trotu in north), frequently invoked by the Romanian
historiography, dont seem to explain the critical importance of the old county Putna, the only subject of war between mediaeval
states of Moldova and ara Romneasc. The route through Putna Valley could be a cassus beli, controlling the trade between
Braov the main commercial centre in Transylvania and Brila the main Danubes harbour. But this is yet a thing to
prove, because no modern routes cross the mountains in Putna springs area. Forest roads coming from the both sides of the
mountain reach very close to each other, at 1.2 km, near Ostog Peak (1495 min height).
40
Its course is retaken when the waters are high (Marincea et alii 2013, p.13).
41
And, very likely, another 20 km, as long as the village Nmoloasa was, in the past, ascribed to the Putna County, thus being
part of the mediaeval Moldavia.
42
See yet Georganas 2002, Topoleanu et alii 2008, Bourgeois 2013.
Figure 3. Toponyms at the Middle-Lower Siret. See also Fig. 2 (the same Legend).
connecting them, therefore the relationship between the roads near important centres and tumuli
appears extremely obvious43. Such a thing could be easily extrapolated for the Prehistoric age, as we
shall see later on.
The map from the Figure 4 was made collecting mounds recorded by maps with a relatively
detailed scale, like DTM (1:25,000) or PDT (1:20,000), yet adding some observations on orthophotos,
in a not very systematic way and not reaching more than 10% of the sum. The resulted map has no
ambition of exhaustivity, being the result of only a couple of days work44, but I have no doubt that it
is expressive enough.
The mounds distribution from the studied territory is obviously uneven, making clusters and
suggesting certain communication lines. Next, I will try to present the main prehistoric routes which
can be inferred, based on the present record.
[1] The first route connects Rmnicu Srat Rivers middle course to the Danubes left bank,
having the west end at Rmnicu Srat city and the east end at Gropeni village (73 km). The mid way
43
As in Green 1965. As well known, many funerary inscriptions were addressed to the travellers, being thus located on the
roads (e.g. IGLR, 17, 19, 21, 31, 37, 44, etc.).
44
There are no catalogues of mounds published for the area (Brila, Buzu and Vrancea counties), except for Galai County
(Brudiu 2003; Croitoru 2013). The huge work made by Brudiu, completed on a cartographic support entirely manufactured,
is very difficult to use and some mounds are impossible to be re-identified; anyway, the mounds network showed in the fig. 4
is denser than the one published by Brudiu.
122 Eugen S. Teodor
Figure 4. Mounds in the area of the Lower Siret.

Legend: blue spots mounds; black some of the present localities; red relevant toponyms.
Geographical coordinates with grid for each 0.3o.
between these ends passes around ueti village, on Buzu River a critical detail, as we shall see.
West of Buzu, the main road is to be found between Boidu rivulet, in the north, and Buzoel (the
Small Buzu), in the south; some of the mounds are strung also along the southern bank of Buzoel.
South of Rmnicu Srat are also developing some secondary routes, heading as well to Buzu
River; one, noted 1a on the fig. 4, has the azimuth southeast, heading to Jirlu lake and Filipeti
village; the other, noted 1b, is oriented towards southwest, heading the city of Buzu.
[2] A second main route is descending along Ianca Valley, which is the one of the lowest
places from the Romanian Plain, with altitudes about 3 mon the bank of the lake from the inferior
course, which is less than the Danubes before Galai. Although the springs from the upper valley are
not permanent and the aridity in the area is considerable, the lowest places from the Ianca Valley
were filled with water at least some 6070 years ago. Ianca Valley is the main natural obstacle for
the communications between Danube and Buzu. The southern end of this second route was not
searched, the data being collected only north of C. Gabrielescu village. The main stream of the route
heading north, reaching the Lower Siret, is located east of the Ianca Valley, but many mounds are
to be found west of it. Generally, the clusters of mounds east of Buzu River are less organized than
those located west of it.
[3] A third prehistoric route leaves Rmnicu Srat heading NE until Ttranu village (26
km). On a relatively wide space north of Ttranu, there isnt any observable mound, specifically
12 km to NNE and 16 km to NNW. Therefore, this third route could have developed towards
the Lower Putna, around Borlu village, or in the direction of a larger cluster located around
Focani city. Still, the mentioned absence is rather strange and made me pay more attention
to the gap. Between Rmnicu Srat and Rmna rivulets, I found some toponyms that require
consideration: two places named identical, La Movil (At the Mound), although no mounds are
marked on the maps or visible on orthophotos; the toponym Movila lui Iordache (Iordaches
Mound), also without a visible mound; a fourth toponym is of completely different kind: its name
is La Moar (At The Mill), although no valley, small or big, can be seen closer than 1.8 km. This
last fact suggested me that the area was affected, relatively recent, by significant environmental
changes, like major floods and alluvial deposits, able to obscure a former river, or even to
completely bury some mounds.
[4] A fourth prehistoric route descends from the mountains, on the both sides of Putna River.
The southern branch joins the large cluster around Focani; the northern branch, coming from the
left bank of Putna, reaches the banks of Siret River near the toponym Drumul Mare (see the previous
section and the fig. 3) and then disappears. Taking in consideration the position of the toponyms
Drumu Mare and Sasu, I reached the supposition of a ford at Vadu Roca, at least for Middle Age.
For the prehistoric ages, by contrast, things look rather different; in the place where the mounds are
disappearing, on the western bank of Siret, we find a village named Movileni (Folks of the Mounds) on
the opposite bank, although the mounds in the area are rather scarce. On the eastern bank, another
route develops north, along Brlad River.
Coming back on Buzu River, near ueti village, we will note here a communication hub: a
route is heading NNW, reaching also Ttranu village45 and joining the third route; another shortcut
is heading ENE, reaching Muchea (The Edge) village and joining the second route. This last one is less
sharply defined as a certain route, being more diffuse; it could be more than one route, or a reshaped
route through ages.
[5] The most interesting pattern of mounds distribution occurs near Brila (fig. 5): two
relatively regular rows of mounds are stretching along 18.7 km, from the Lower Buzu to the
proximity of the Danube. The westernmost mound is only 340 maway from Buzu River, a strong
hint that this segment of the river course did not vary much in the last 3000 years or so, at least
on this segment. The easternmost mound is located at the edge of Baldovineti, which is, today,
an industrial periphery of Brila city; there are good reasons to believe that the original rows of
mounds were stretching out another 7 km, to the Danube, but they were overlapped through the
extension of the city. The northern row is composed by mounds distributed at relatively equal
distances, around 250 m. The southern row has greater distances between the mounds, about
330340 m. The pattern is disturbed, here and there, by other mounds, but those ought to be
later, thus not a part of the initial project. The distance between the two rows is also relatively
constant, about 180190 m(with minimum values around 160 mand maximum values about 220
m, but look rather like accidents). Surprisingly, maybe, the rows of mounds are not disposed on
the dominant height, respectively on the relatively high terrace from south (altitudes between 20
and 26 m), but on the meadow, marking probably the limit of the floodable area, in Prehistory. At
the northern limit of Baldovineti and Brila, I was able to spot on the orthophotos the marks of a
large river, dead long time ago; all the meadow, up to Sirets course, is full of bents left by former
rivulets and channels (fig. 5, only the most important displayed), but it is a big one, at least 60 m.in
45
The Tartar Man. This ethnic name, which could be connected with the real history, here, at the Lower Siret, in an
area frequently menaced by the Tartars, is already proved to be connected with a legendary history, in which the Tartar
(the peasants most fearful enemy in the Middle Ages) is located in Roman forts, as in the case of Limes Transalutanus
(Teodor 2013, p.46, 48, 49, 75, etc.), or in the case of the mountain passage in the north of Prahova County (see further).
Interesting to note, furthermore, a mound from the intersection area, near Pietroiu village, is named, also, Ttarul.
Another Tartar (Mormntul Ttarului The Tartars grave) is located on the opposite bank of Siret, near the Roman
vallum (see fig. 5).
124 Eugen S. Teodor
Figure 5. Patterns of the mounds. Detail in the area of the Lower Siret, between Danube and Rmnicul Srat.
Legend: blue dots mounds; red dots toponyms; hatches and capitals localities; dark red line Roman dyke;
blue dotted lines former arms of streams. Fens between Brila and Siret are now drained.
Geographical coordinates (grid for 0.1o).
width46. Its mouth at Danube is suggested by PDT as a delta with four distributaries (not visible
today on orthophotos), but its course upstream Baldovineti (noted as Bsca Mic) had already
completely disappeared 60 years ago, when the map was done (sheet no. 5254, Vdeni, 1955). I can
presume, therefore, that the old course of that large river was, more or less, parallel with the rows
of mounds; this would also explain why that particular design of the pattern: although apparently
carefully planned, it is not following neither a ridge (like the line of the terrace), nor a geometrical
design (like a straight line).
This large river cannot be other than the former Siret, 9 km south of the actual course. Therefore,
the old hypothesis that the river Brlad emptied directly into Danube becomes credible. Note at the
figure 5 that the course of water emptied in Siret, near the village Traian, is named Brldel (the small
Brlad), although it is, in fact, the continuation of Geru Rivulet47.
What is that arrangement of mounds? Does it designate a road, marking the limits of the
usable land for travel? If we remember that the area is a low and wet, such landmarks could be really
useful, to prevent travellers to end in the swamp. On the other hand, we saw that the raw from the
north is made of denser monuments, and that could be a different kind of sign into the landscape,
sending a message to the voyagers from the boats: this is a land defended by living and dead!
Anyhow, if the pattern of mounds is indicates a route, it should drive somewhere, but apparently
it does not; just apparently. The mounds configuration described is repeating almost identical 10 km
northwest, from a point east of Corbu village and Ppurica fen, for another segment of 7 km, up to
For comparison, the riverbed of Siret measures 8090 m.

46
It is quite often to have a little stream with different names along its course, two or three being usual. I noticed this fact for
47
different parts of the country, but it is extremely frequent in Dobrogea (Dobroudja), affecting mainly the intermittent streams.
The variation is not only in space, but also in time (could have different names on different maps). The variation is also greater
where the ethnic composition is complex, with many borrows.
the mouth of Rmnicu Srat (see again the fig. 5). South and southeast of Corbu village, one can see
another 4 km of mounds organized in a row (or two?), but the area seems more (recently) damaged
than others48. The mounds rows trajectory borders the southern part of a large rivers dead arm (Siret,
of course), noted in PDT La Jidnie (see also the fig. 5) suggesting that Sirets bent between the
villages Nmoloasa and Corbu did not exist in the Prehistory.
A particular feature of the mounds between Corbu village and Rmnicu Srat River is a third row
of mounds, about one kilometre to the south. The parallelism between the first two rows, from north,
and the third row, from south, is obvious only for geometric criteria, but not as functionality and
symbolism as well. On one hand, it could hardly be ascribed to some disappeared natural features,
but on the other hand the design was not quite a plain job for a prehistoric society, thus it had to have
been meaningful This second, wider corridor, with rows of mounds at about one kilometre away,
can be recognised further west, on the Lower Putna, 18 km northwest of Rmnicul Srat mouth, then
probably north of Focani, another 16 km to the northwest, and once again near Suraia River, other
10 km to the north (see fig. 4).
Hence we have two corridors limited by mounds organised in parallel rows: one with rows
positioned about 200 mapart, and one with rows positioned about one km (or more) from each
other. The first is stretching from Brila to the Lower Rmnicu Srat, and the second is stretching out
from Buzu River to the Suraia River49; between Buzu and Rmnic both are present Obviously,
this is a prehistoric road, even if comparing it with the mediaeval road descending Putna Valley and
heading the ford from Vdeni50.
This is a transit route along the low lands from the right bank of Siret, with no southern
ramifications between Rmnicu Srat and Buzu. Although there is a significant cluster of mounds on
the opposite, left bank of Siret, along Suhu River, it is unlikely to have existed a usable ford between
Nmoloasa and Corbu, and not because it was impossible, but because it was useless, at least for the
people from Suhu Valley
[6] Looking on the opposite side of Siret, a sixth route is following the high terrace of Prut,
northward (see fig. 4). West of it, a huge area, closing 211 square km, is completely devoid of mounds,
but also of any recorded archaeological site51. Although the hydrographical network seems dense,
there isnt any permanent stream in the area a situation that, pretty sure, did not change much in
the last five or six millennia. The first permanent stream westward is Suhu, which is the limit of this
little desert.
[7] Looking from the perspective of the mounds distribution, the main artery of the southern
Moldavia is the course of the river Geru (the seventh main route in my count and in the fig. 4). The best
density is recorded on the lower course (30 km long). Following to the north, after a 10km nomansland,
a new cluster is revealed, on the upper left bank of the river. Two secondary branches of this route are
diverting northeast, heading the middle Prut, somewhere upstream of the Chineja embouchure.
An interesting observation is that this seventh route, although the main one north of Siret, has
probably no counterparty on the southern bank of Siret, as already mentioned.
[8] The eighth route is also heading north, along Brlad River, which is the main stream in
southern Moldavia. Unlike Geru River, the first 18 km are devoid of mounds, although there are
48
Or just too difficult. The communication corridor is strangled there by Sirets riverbed, in the north, and by two large lakes/
fens, to the south (Mxineni and Ppurica).
49
The gap between the Lower Rmnicu Srat and Lower Putna (14 km long without mounds) is interesting, recalling the
situation reported above, with the gap between Rmnicul Srat and Rmna, where the mounds survived only in toponymy.
In fact, this is the same area between Rmnic, Rmna and Putna a large territory where the mounds mark a completely
default (282 km2). I suspect a strong alteration of the landscape, but in the absence of a County Record of the archaeological
sites (for Vrancea County) one cannot draw a definite conclusion.
50
The road is figured in the Szathmry map (1864), being almost identical with the prehistoric route between Focani and
Galai. The only differences seem to depend on the variations of the Siret River, mainly on its lower course, near Galai.
51
Croitoru 2013, the sections for the communes Slobozia Conachi (east), Pechea (east), Smrdan (north and centre), Tuluceti
(west). Interesting to know in the same area there is no village of our time.
126 Eugen S. Teodor
plenty of archaeological sites, of all ages, inside this area52. The main cluster of mounds is recorded
around Tecuci town, which is also the northern limit of my investigation. This route seems to have a
connection with the fourth route (descending the mountains along Putna River), or even with the
third route, coming from the middle course of Rmnicu Srat. The main ford between those routes,
in north, would probably be to the village Movileni.
To resume this section: mounds evidence has revealed certain routes of the prehistoric53
societies from the Lower Siret area. There are many fords, as the toponymic evidence unveiled;
relevant passage ways from the Moldavian Plateau to the Romanian Plain are yet only two: at the
mouth of Siret River, near the city of Galai, and somewhere east of Focani; they are the strategic
doors of the great Gate of Invasions.
A bridgehead two directions

When evaluating the strategic weight of the bridgehead west of the modern city Galai, one has
to give its chronological limits in order to get a historical frame. The Roman embankment closing the
Lower Siret and Lower Prut, 23 km long, is almost unexplored, thus we cannot give it a secured age54;
we have to rely almost entirely on the diggings made on the high terrace from Barboi-Tirighina55 and
around. First Roman military objective was a castellum on the promontory rising over the confluence
of Siret River (today!), built over a Dacian dava (which left a three metres anthropic layer acc. Ioni
2007, 7677), most likely in the years of the war Trajanus raged against Decebalus, in the early second
century CE. The outcomes of the Marcomanic wars, as the dispatching of the Legio V Macedonica from
the Lower Danube (Troesmis) to Dacia Porolissensis (Turda), and the devastating invasion of Costoboci
(170)56, imposed certain measures to prevent further damages. On the heights from Tirighina-Barboi
was built a large castrum (Sanie 2001, 376), with uncertain dimensions, but huge57, deserted before
270, when the area was recycled as a necropolis. A new Roman outpost was built, on the same hill, in
the time of the emperor Constantinus the Great, but no more than a large polygonal tower; dissipated
Roman artefacts or burials for the fourth century are also known, but no other military context have
been unveiled so far. Archaeological records for the adjacent areas, like the civil settlement from
Tirighina-Barboi, the military58 or civil settlements from Galai, eastward, and erbeti, westward, as
well as the overview of the numismatic evidence59, support the idea that the main military facilities
are limited for the interval 101270, with a short and small scale comeback in the second quarter of
the fourth century.
52
The repertory of the archaeological sites depending on the county of Galai (Croitoru 2013) has been digitised within the
GIS file that this paper is mostly based on.
53
Some of the mounds, especially those near Galai, could (or effectively are) ascribed to the Roman culture, but no later than
the first part of the fourth century.
54
The more or less by chance discoveries suggesting yet the second and some of the third century; there are just a few
artefacts which could suggest the date. In the embankment from the area of the village Traian was found a denarius minted by
Marcus Aurelius (Croitoru 2013, p.5354, A2), but it is generally admitted that the dyke dates from Hadrianus (Sanie 2001,
p.382); there are also other artefacts of interest (like a small plate representing the Thracian Hero (Sanie 2001, section 59.3,
note 1027), but the conditions of discovery are not safe; in the archaeological collection of the school from Tuluceti there are
some dozens of artefacts which are surely Roman, but also their provenance is not completely safe. On the other hand, there
are epigraphs discovered only a few km behind the vallum, at endreni, which prove an administrative settlement of Roman
type (quinquennalis and ordo curialium Sanie 2001, p.380; ISM V, p.295296), leaving no doubt for the Roman nature of
the embankment.
55
Although the results are not symmetrical with the efforts made (diggings mainly between 19591979), as previously
suggested (Ioni 2007, p.7576).
56
Ioni 2001, p.451.
57
350150 m(Croitoru 2013, p.92; see the plan in Sanie 2010, p.377, fig. 36 b, although without a scale), much over the
expected range of a Roman outpost, in the late second century.
58
For which a small earth and timber fort is also known, also for the second century (entea, Cleiu, 2006).
59
Croitoru 2013, p.94 for the civil settlement from Tirighina; 9597 for the numismatic evidence in Tirighina and closely
around; 181182 for chance discoveries in Galai; 154155 for the evidence in erbeti.
The previous section revealed at least one of the motives the Roman had to protect in the
bridgehead of the Lower Danube: to block one of the doors of invasions the ford near the mouth
of Siret. We still need to explain what was the protected area south of Siret, or, more specific, what
interests were protected. In an area limited west of Prahova Valley, south of Ialomia River, east of
Danube and north of Buzu River, there are several Roman forts (acc. TIR): Piua Petrei (Oraul de Floci),
Filipeti, Pietroasele, Gherghia, Trgor, Mlieti, Drajna de Sus. This list is made by very different
cases; I will try here only a very brief overview, beginning with the clearest.
The fort from Drajna de Sus, having in just a few years a timber and earth phase, and a stone
precinct (190185 m, acc. Zahariade, Lichiardopol, 2006, 130), was built in the first year of campaign
against Decebalus kingdom and deserted in 117, at the death of the conqueror which brought
a new emperor, Hadrianus, and also a completely different concept of the Empires borders. At the
end of the war, in 106, the territories which were not a former Dacian kingdoms land, but its allies,
our days Muntenia and southern Moldavia, were attached to the province of Moesia Inferior; when
Hadrianus came into power, almost all these new conquered lands from eastern Dacia were left in the
benefit of eastern Sarmatians, as part of a peace treaty60.
The geographical position of the fort from Drajna de Sus leaves no doubt about its strategic
meaning. The fort is placed on a tributary of Teleajen River, named also Drajna; on the springs of
the same river there is a Bulgarian fort from the Early Middle Ages, at Slon (Ciuperc 2010); up, on
the crest of the mountain, at 1325 m.altitude, stands a mediaeval fortress, Tabla Buii (Cptn et
al. 2008), marking the former border between Wallachia and Transylvania. All these figure out what
is known as the Buzu route of the Middle Ages, used until late, in the 18th century, as the main
passage way between the pass Rucr-Bran61, in west, and the pass Oituz, in east. All three were used
by Romans, both in war and peace conditions.
The fort from Mlieti was made in the same circumstances and time, on the same valley
(Teleajen), 20 km southward, i.e. a day of march for the infantry. It has 180 x 150 m, as showed by the
first topographical survey (Zagori 1940, 7) and has a single construction phase murus caespiticius
as resulted from the first archaeological investigation (Florescu, Bujor, 1955). The site suffered
severe anthropic interventions in 1970s and 1980s, including some inconclusive rescue diggings
(V.Teodorescu and D. Lichiardopol). The systematic research was recently resumed (entea et al.
2012), having as the main result the unveiling of a large and surprisingly well preserved Roman
bath, placed northwest of the fort (entea et al. 2013).
The Roman road could continue another 2324 km south, to Trgor, on the rivulet Leaota,
near the main river Prahova. The Roman fort was not found, but large Roman baths were investigated
(over 70%), and that is usually associated with a fort. Furthermore, the typology of the tegular stamps
from Drajna de Sus and Trgor is tight related, presenting a type of stamp of Legio XI Claudia found
only in northern Muntenia, in Drajna, Trgor and Voineti (Zahariade, Lichiardopol, 2006, 124).
All the three stations of the Roman army from the beginning of the second century, Drajna
de Sus, Mlieti and Trgorul Vechi, had been claimed to mark a strategic route connecting the
legionary base from Durostorum to the mountain pass from Tabla Buii (Zahariade, Lichiardopol,
2006, 122, fig. 1). There are two problems related to this hypothesis: first the azimuth, which is 137.4o
60
Except the bridgehead from the Lower Siret, as well as a strip of land north of Danube Delta, behind the vallum from the
southern Bessarabia (Ioni 1982, p.3044, Sanie 2001, p.382388; see also Gostar 1967).
61
Although other passing points are often mentioned (as Buzu Valley, acc. Zahariade and Lichiardopol 2006, p.121, note 2),
this difficult road over the top of the mountain was, for a very long time, the only known route for passing the Carpathians,
between Bran and Oituz. As already proved by a thorough mapping of the archaeological evidence from the middle and upper
Buzu Valley (Constantin and Constantin 2010, p.4243), the upper valley of Buzu has no trace of anthropic activities until
late in modern times (except Bronze Age, but with no continuity). The confusion was made due to the mediaeval name of the
road (Drumul Buzului The Buzu Route), easy to misunderstand as the way along the Buzu Valley (a main route in our
times). In fact, the way over the top of the mountain passes, for some kilometres, near the springs of Buzu, giving thus the
name of the route. For the route via Tabla Buii in Middle Ages: Cantacuzino 2001, 176. The Pass Bratocea, invoked also by
Zahariade and Lichiardopol, was also opened as late as the 19th century (Ciuperc 2010, p.625).
128 Eugen S. Teodor
Figure 6. Roman communication lines departing from the Lower Siret area.
Legend: black diamonds Roman forts (selection); yellow diamonds Middle Ages fortresses (selection);
white diamonds other landmarks; black lines Athanaric Wall; dark red line the Roman dyke Traian-Tuluceti;
red dotted lines restitution of the Roman communications. Coordinates grid for 0.5o.
for someone leaving Mlieti and heading Durostorum, and 199.9o for heading Trgor, supposing
thus a considerable detour; the expected route would follow the course of Teleajen River down to its
mouth. Second the absence of any kind of hint about this route south of Prahova River, for more
than 110 km as the crow flies. The hypothesis shouldnt be dismissed anyway. Near the confluence of
Prahova and Teleajen one should find another Roman fort, mentioned long time ago, near the village
Gherghia62, but probably not seen by anybody since Grigore Tocilescu. I probably found it on aerial
image, near the course of Prahova, on its right side, near it and aligned63. It is located about 28 km (on
62
TIR L35, 43, is annotating it with a question mark, the monument not being properly documented. The station is missing
from the route proposed by Zahariade and Lichiardopol, passing about 10 km westward.
63
I made a reconnaissance visit on the site, on 21st of March 2014, accompanied by Alin Frnculeasa from the territorial
museum (Prahova). Briefly, the place is strongly flooded, in a young and dense forest. We were able to locate only the south-
eastern side of the supposed fort, where the top of the embankment is still visible, about 210 m.long. The south-western side
is completely overlapped by another embankment, taller and possibly of other age, prolonged in the both sides of the supposed
Roman camp, which could be a dyke for the protection of the land against the floods (although does not make much sense;
a natural terrace, 100 m.southward, is giving the necessary protection). The north-western side seems completely covered by
silts. From the north-eastern side parallel with Prahova River we could see only a short fragment, about 20 m.long, near
the supposed corner from north. In a first estimation, the fort would be about 3.6 ha, nearly square but not regular. The banks
of the river are high (about 5 m), steep and slippery, thus not a good place for crossing the water, unless a bridge present. The
older maps (as the Third Austrian and the PDT) are suggesting strong changes of the riverbed, the older course making there a
the path) away from Trgor, and about 40 km away from Mlieti. The first distance is in the range of
a normal day walk (2030 km)64, but the second is too long and would imply an intermediary station.
If the position of the fort from Gherghia will be confirmed by the future research, than the
hypothesis sketched by Zahariade and Lichiardopol about a route heading Durostorum, via Mostitea
Valley, could be further investigated. Anyway, this is not the only possible hypothesis, and not the only
route between the main Roman forces, garrisoned on the Danube line, and the pass from TablaBuii.
In the same area from the northern Muntenia, there is another (problematic) Roman fort, at
Pietroasele65. The fortress is located in the very middle of the modern village, being possible only a
limited research in the field; nevertheless, there were established some basic data, like the dimensions
(154124 m, thus 1.9 ha) and the width of the stone walls about three metres, which qualifies it as a
fourth century Roman stronghold (Diaconu 1976). About 400 m.east of the fort has been investigated
a Roman bath enclosed in a precinct (2927 m, Constantinescu et al. 2012, plate). Notably, the fort
and the bathrooms from Pietroasele are the only Roman buildings located so far from the Danube
(over 100 km), in the fourth century, and rises difficult historical problems; also notable is that the
style of construction quite lavish! and the materials are, undoubtedly, Roman. But the reason for
which I am interested, here, is the fact that from the thermae have been recovered a great quantity
of stamped tiles (Constantinescu et al. 2013), all belonging to Legio XI Claudia, military unit having
the permanent garrison in Durostorum. These are, of course, spolia taken from the area, very probably
from a second century fort, possibly located in the same place as the one of the fourth century. What
can we say now is only that the dimensions reported for the fourth century castrum are in the same
range although smaller with the Roman camps from the second century, in the same area (Drajna
3.5 ha; Mlieti 2.7 ha; Gherghia 3.6 ha?; Pietroasele 1.9 ha) and, even unusual after three
centuries, it is not impossible to admit a rebuilding of the fortress on the same building footprint.
The supposed and very likely fort from the early second century has been connected,
probably correct (Zahariade, Lichiardopol, 2006, 128), with the Dacian fortified sanctuary from
Pietroasele Gruiul Drii, one of a kind outside the range of Carpathian Mountains, almost surely a
key point in the control of the plain from the Lower Danube and a political headquarter outside the
kingdom of Decebalus. This fortified Dacian sanctuary was in use until the war of Trajanus, as the long
lasting archaeological diggings proved (Dupoi, Srbu, 2001, 70; Matei 2011, 5). Crushing the sacred
places of the Dacians was obviously a priority of the Romans, trying and succeeding to suppress
a theocratic society, first of all the priests and their holly places. The location is a special one, anyway,
giving the greatest treasure ever discovered in Europe, buried in the mid fifth century. Obviously,
Pietroasele was, for centuries, in the middle of; we have only to guess what.
Located about 50 km NE of Gherghia, or about two days of march, the fort of Pietroasele is
almost as far as Drajna, looking from Durostorum. From this point, one should look also eastward. In
that direction, more than 60 km further, on the same right side of Buzu River, has been reported, long
time ago, a large Roman fort, near the village Filipeti (TIR L35). The fort has not been seen from a very
long time, and, for the moment, its exact location is still unclear. Moreover, the size (500340m, or
17 ha) is far outside of all we know about the troops fighting in the wars from 101106, and I presume
bent, and passing close to the eastern corner of the fort. The opposite bank of the river is low and floodable (acc. orthophotos),
being intersected by numerous traces of former arms of the river (Prahova? Teleajen?), thus unlikely to support a Roman road.
These observations sketch up the conclusion that the Roman road would rather follow the longer way through Trgor, than
the shorter coming directly from Mlieti, the conditions being improper. On the other hand, the Szathmry map (1864) is
presenting a surprising picture: the fort was located on the... opposite bank of Prahova River, in a peninsula almost closed by
waters. The long embankment from southwest would be, than, a dyke protecting the fort from floods! The actual configuration
of the place cannot exclude the hypothesis.
64
Fodorean 2006, p.47.
65
Pietroasa de Jos, the singular form, in TIR L35, following probably Al. Odobescu (Le Trsor de Ptrosa, 1889), because
PDT (no. 4551, Srata Monteoru, 1943) used the plural form Petroasele de Jos, as well as the Third Austrian Survey, dated
latest in 1910; the singular form is present only on very old sources, as Szathmry Map (1864 Petrosa de Josu). Today it is
Pietroasele (the plural form), Buzu County.
130 Eugen S. Teodor
that it is a marching camp from the first century CE66. What is really interesting in the very short note
from TIR, is the detail of some Roman ruins, one km west of the camp.
Another large camp in eastern Muntenia has been long time claimed at Piua Petrei, a village
near the mouth of Ialomia. Although not seen for more than a century and never measured, it is still
popping up in some history books, from time to time, like a ghost (as Mititelu 1957; Bondoc 2009, 86).
Mentioned en passant by TIR L35 as an association of a brick fort of square shape, and some monetary
deposits67 (association which doesnt mean almost anything at the Danubes bank, near a ford), it
is also the discovery place of a much discussed inscription (CIL, III, 7493) dedicated by a signifer of
Numerus Surorum sagittariorum (garrisoned in Romula, on Olt River, 280 km westward!). The place of
discovery is yet not sure, nor is the reading su(ri) sa(gittari) (Tudor 1978, 339340); even if they could
be sure, its date in the late second century, or, more likely, the early third century (Aricescu 1977, 69),
would make the inscription not interesting for the strategic routes from the early second century.
Furthermore, the locations of the complementary discoveries are quite far from the supposed
location of the fort: Luciu (where was found a famous bronze lamp of fourth of fifth century) is more
than 11 km northwest; Gura Ialomiei (Ialomia Mouth, where the monetary hoards would have
been allegedly found) is also 8 km west-northwest.
I do not suggest that a Roman fortress was never there; I only argue that the documentation
is very poor. More than a decade ago, I paid a visit to the confluence of Ialomia; there is absolutely
nothing to see on the field. All the left bank of Borcea (the name of the western arm of Danube, between
Durostorum and Carsium) is covered with two or three metres of silt, all that above the archaeological
remains of the tenth century! In the position of the supposed Roman fort from Piua Petrei68, near the
confluence, I saw, in the waters of the Danube, a certain quantity of bricks, a construction material
used, in this place, exclusively by Romans. In the map made by Szathmry (1864), Ialomia was not
emptied near the village Piua Petrei, but much northern, north the village Gura Ialomiei69, Ialomia
and Danube streaming parallel at least 12 km, all the way to the ford Vadu Oii (Sheeps Ford). If the
antique configuration was similar, then the position of the Roman fort was not on the land, but on
a long and narrow strip, island-like created between them; a perfect position for a fortress, I should
say Some bents of a dead river (labelled by DTM Lacul Baba Moart The Lake of the Dead Crone),
northwest of our days confluence, show more other possibilities but similar, leaving only one side
of the fort not protected by waters.
The real problem with the fort from Piua Petrei is the distance to the next known Roman fortified
place, more than 60 km to Filipeti, and nothing known between them. Moreover, the economic
route heading Pietroasele (112 km) is not reaching Buzu River, being expected a route on the right
side of Clmui River (fig. 6, see Ulmu). In addition to all these issues, the fort from Filipeti has also
a completely different chronology, at least grounded on the present state of art.
66
The usual dimensions of the roman camps in the wars from the early second century is between three and seven hectares. The
only analogy in the area for the camp from Filipeti, so far, is the fort known as Dichiseni; the name, used by Polonic in its notes,
is deceiving, because a village with this name exists, on the Danube bank; as a consequence, TIR L35 reports it on Danube, which
is false. The camp was retrieved on orthophotos, recently, by an enthusiastic amateur, Bogdan Condureanu, and it is complying
the sketch (500300 m, acc. Manuscrise Pamfil Polonic XV, Plicul XV, fila 149) and description (mapa 3, Plic VIII, Manuscrise
Pamfil Polonic, G. Ceti din Brgan, p.10, all from the archive of the Archaeological Institute from Bucharest). I cannot
communicate here the location, the site being legally unprotected, but its location hasnt, obviously, any possible connection with
the route proposed by Zahariade and Lichiardopol. A connection with the camp from Filipeti ispossible.
67
A first monetary treasure, composed of 186 denarii minted between Vitelius and Commodus, thus a second century hoard,
and a second deposit, made of 46 siliquae from Valentinianus and Valens, possibly to be connected with the campaign made
by Valens at the Lower Danube (Mititelu 1957, p.134136). The author was not able to find out the place of discovery for any of
those hoards, thus their provenance from Gura Ialomiei is just a guess (Mititelu 1957, p.33).
68
Village deserted in 1976, as a consequence of a catastrophic flood.
69
The villages location in 1864 and in the recent years is not the same. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the village
was located on the Danubes bank, north of the village Giurgeni of our days (absent in 1864); today, the village Gura Ialomiei
(where the numismatic deposits were found) was relocated 9 km south-west towards the interior, in the former place of the
village Prlita. On PDT map (no. 5147, Gura Ialomiei, 1955) the village was already relocated.
A very interesting clue about the way in which the cluster of the Roman forts from central-
northern Muntenia (Drajna, Mlieti, Pietroasele) would be linked to the main line of the Roman
defence, in the early second century, came from some recent research made by the colleagues from
Brila. The place is mentioned in Polonics notes (Croitoru 2007, 81), also appears in PDT (no. 4953,
Bile, 1953), with the obsessive name of Valul lui Traian (also known from many other parts of the
country). It is a short dyke, less than one km, visible on the orthophotos, closing a great bent of Buzu
River and connecting the present day bent from the north of ueti village with a dead arm of the
river, in the south. Immediately west of the embankment there is a larger fort, almost square, about
1.2 ha, with the sides directly connected to the dyke70; a square fortlet, about 48 m.on each side,
can be seen in the southern end of the dyke, but about 40 metres behind the main embankment.
Nearby, a lighter track suggests a road breaking the main vallum71.
Looking back at the Figure 4, we remember that ueti72 is the most important intersection of
the prehistoric routes, where the tracks numbered 1 (Rmnic-Danube), 2a (ueti-Ttranu) and 2 b
(ueti-Muchea) are joining. Blocking such an important ford of the Buzu Valley has the meaning of
controlling, in fact, all the circulation across north-western Muntenia. In a similar manner, a southern
branch of route 1 has the ending, near Buzu River, around the Lake Jirlu; on the opposite side of the
river one can find the camp from Filipeti and, possibly, a later Roman military settlement, near the
railway station from Furei. Apparently, the camp was made near the former course of Buzu River,
named on the maps Buzoel73. The map from the fig. 6 renders not only the old course of Buzu, but
also accidents, like a distributary of Buzu emptying in Clmui River, either a large swamp south
and east of Buzu city. The passing points through the river seem scarce. The next cluster of mounds
(fig. 4) is located on the left hand of Buzu River, near the city of Buzu, where one finds a mediaeval
toponym, suggesting a passing point, named Vadul Paei (Pashas Ford)74.
Surprising or not, the defence prepared by the headquarters of the Romanian army, in the late
nineteenth century, and the Roman defwence at the Lower Siret area, in the second century, seem
kindred, at least in their general terms. They were meant to design a response against an enemy
coming from the north; they used a bridgehead in the area of the confluence Siret-Danube, enabling
a strike in the back of the enemy; they used the course of the Lower Siret and Lower Putna as a natural
defence; the left wing of defence was drawn back behind the huge marshes from the confluence
Brlad-Siret. As a difference, the Romans did not protect the corridor of circulation Buzu-Rmnic-
Focani on its northern end, but on the southern end, blocking the fords from ueti and Filipeti,
but, strangely, leaving open the gate at Vadu Paei, near the modern city of Buzu. It looks like an
error, but actually it is a trap. A barbarian band passing Buzu river near the hills (fig. 6) finds itself
caught between the bogs along Valea Srat (The Salty Valley, to southeast, 45 km long as the crow
flies, down to the river Ialomia), the Roman fort near the hills, Pietroasele, in north, and three Roman
forts standing in west (Gherghia, Trgor, Mlieti).
The difference is that the Roman defensive line Tirighina-ueti-Filipeti-Pietroasele was also
a transportation line, continued with Mlieti-Drajna-Tabla Buii-Boroneu, providing supplies for the
70
Reminding the forts along the Hadrian Wall; see Crow, Mason, 2009, esp. 102 (Housesteads), 105 (Great Chesters), 109
(Birdoswald).
71
See, in this volume, the field report made by Srbu, Croitoru, Pandrea 2014, for details regarding the linear defence.
72
The orthography of the locality is debatable. The older sources (Szathmry, Third Austrian, PDT) are spelling Sueti, but
the more recent (DTM, SIRUTA 2014) use ueti; SIRUTA is the official codification of the localities in Romania. As a general
rule, I follow the orthography up to date, because the old forms (or names) are many and there is no rational way to pick up
one in particular.
73
In the Romanian toponymy a diminutive (like Buzoel, the Small Buzu) commonly addresses a tributary; this is not the
case here, where the diminutives for Buzu or Siret are almost always older riverbeds, left without water, thus smaller. I found
at least five different Buzoel, all over the middle and lower course of Buzu, giving the impression to be a kind of common
name, like the water (when not the missing water). Nevertheless, there is also a normal Buzoel a tributary of Buzu (see
fig. 4, between ueti and Rmnicu Srat).
74
No relevant discoveries are known in the area (personal communication, Sebastian Matei). In this situation, the fort from
Pietroasele becomes even more important.
132 Eugen S. Teodor
troops from the eastern frontier of (Roman) Dacia. This line was long (about 300 km) and difficult, crossing
the mountains at over 1300 maltitude. On this route, about half of the stations are still unknown; there
is a missing station before ueti, one or two before Pietroasele, one after it, and finally one before and
one after Tabla Buii. This system apparently worked for the reign of Trajanus, but was dismantled as a
result of the peace treaty between Hadrianus and the Sarmatians (Oprean 1998, 62; Birley 2000, 134).
We dont know, but we can guess that the barbarians previously pressing from the middle Moldavia
were relocated in the large plain of Brgan, on the both sides of the river Ialomia75; the troops from
the old route left their forts, being relocated, and the border of Dacia Province was established on the
Lower Olt. The supply line was moved in southern Moldavia, having as the main landmarks the great
settlement from Poiana (Piroboridava?), the river Trotu and the river Oituz, reaching the most eastern
border of Dacia in the pass Oituz, near the fort Brecu. The new line was much shorter with about a
third but also less safe, crossing large territories that were nominally in Barbaricum.
The main Roman settlements behind the Roman dyke Traian-Tuluceti are almost all
concentrated along Siret and Prut (Croitoru 2013), standing on high terraces (about 30 m), with steep
slopes descending in low, floodable meadows. At the mouth of those little streams half of them
intermittent there are water accumulations, a road along the Siret River being unlikely. Between
Brlad and Danube there are five such lakes or large fens of which only one, Suhu, has mounds
inside the meadow. The Roman settlements around the lake Mlina which is inside the Roman area
enclosed by the embankment are suggesting a circulation around the lake, making the distance
from Tirighina to erbeti and Traian double as it seems. There is only one proved gate through the
Roman dyke and its located about the half way, west of the village Cimele (former Fntnele, both
basically meaning The Fountains). Polonic left some notes and a drawing showing a gate between
two towers, in a place named Portia (The Small Gate), the only documents accessible today, because
the site is in our days under a military unit76 What truly matters in this analysis at large scale is the
direction of the Roman road: northwest. From this point, there are extremely few clues about the
route from southern Moldavia, via Trotu River. The next station, relatively safe, is in the west side of
the town Tecuci, where one can find four spots with discoveries of Roman age. The distance between
Portia and the west edge of Tecuci is 53 km, as the crow flies; therefore, one needs an intermediary
station at the half way, probably around the village Costache Negri. One can imagine also a southern
route, because the only Roman artefacts reported inside this large territory, between the Roman
vallum and the Lower Brlad, are two discoveries in the southern part of the village Umbrreti-Deal
(fig. 6). Easy to note, the route through Costache Negri is more or less parallel with the so-called
Athanarics Wall (Teodor, Croitoru, 2013); this is true, also, north of Tecuci, because the presumptive
road to Poiana is also parallel to the northern dyke. No matter who made the dyke between Ploscueni
and Stoicani, the Athanarics Wall expresses the limits of the Roman corridor inside Barbaricum.
Leaving Tecuci, there are two theoretical ways to reach Oituz Pass; one is going left and
ascending through the Putna Valley, as well as the prehistoric corridor no. 4; the other way, on the
right, is going north, in Poiana, then ascending the Trotu Valley, and finally the Oituz Valley. Both
paths have about the same length and difficulty, but all arguments play now for the northern one.
First of all, Poiana (Piroboridava?77). The history of this settlement seems deeply connected with the
75
The distribution of the Sarmatian cemeteries, almost exclusively on the right part of the Buzu River (Ioni 1982, fig.18),
suggests that the Middle Siret was in the hands of Carpi, which did not allow Sarmatians to pass; in this situation, the circulation
of the Sarmatians from Moldavia to the Romanian Plain was made exclusively through the Roman bridgehead from Tirighina-
Barboi.
76
A transcription of the text left by Polonic about the Small Gate is available at Croitoru 2007, p.79. Due to an almost absurd
coincidence, the former Roman gate through the Roman embankment became, in our days, the gate of a military unit!
Despite this obvious bad luck for archaeological aims, Costin Croitoru is actually trying to get an endorsement for some
research in the area.
77
This is the best known name for that very important archaeological site from southern Moldavia; in fact the most
important. There is relevant literature using this name (from Vulpe 1950 to Vulpe, Teodor, 2003), Piroboridava, but more
recently the identification was contested (Sanie 2001, p.374).
road linking the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains, even before the Roman conquest. The Getic
dava was founded in the fourth century BCE, revealing many early imports from the Mediterranean
world (Vulpe 1950), and in the sites area have been found no less than six hoards of Republican
denarii (Croitoru 2013). The place was also inhabited under the Roman Age, at least in the second
century. To give just an example for the outstanding connection with the Roman world, only in the
collection of the Museum from Tecuci have been identified 184 Pontic sigillata (Popescu 2009). The
most recent coin from that level dates from the time of Marcus Aurelius78, the settlement seeming to
be one of the casualties in the Marcomanic wars, probably as a direct consequence of the Costoboci
invasion, in 170 (Matei-Popescu 2010, 277).
A route along the valleys Trotu and Oituz is also suggested by four monetary hoards ended
with coins minted by Hadrianus and Antoninus Pius, in Trotu basin (Ioni 1982, fig. 20); the evidence
for the next period is limited at one hoard, for each Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and Septimius
Severus (idem, figs. 2122).
An alternative route, much southern, was that reaching the mountain along the Putna Valley,
as I already mentioned; there isnt yet any prove that Romans ever used it. As long as the southern
Moldavia became restless and unsecure (mainly after the first invasion of Carpi, in 214, acc. Bichir
1973, 179), a long route inside the Barbarian world was unlikely after the end of the settlement from
Poiana. In this situation, of course, the only route left for supplying the Roman garrisons from the
eastern frontier of Dacia was along the Olt Valley; a very long run, more than 450 km Although never
tried before, I would suggest a causal relationship between the end of the route from the southern
Moldavia and the construction of Limes Transalutanus79, in western Muntenia. The chronology of the
last, not solved, at least for the first phase, is sometime at the threshold of the second and the third
centuries (Napoli 1997, 5253; Croitoru 2004, 69). The main goal of Limes Transalutanus, in my advice,
was not to push the border east of Olt, but to shorten the communication line between Danube and
the eastern Transylvania; the new route was almost a hundred km shorter than the Olt Valley.
Instead conclusions for this section, I have an adagio. The Thracian origin of the name Buzu was
understood by Wilhelm Tomaschek in the late 19th century (Prvan 1923, 12), even if proposing probably
a wrong etymology (a reconstructed root *bhu to bend); probably wrong, but still interesting (Buzu
is a slow river, with many bents). For a native Romanian, the association with buz (lip) is maybe the
first thing coming in mind (Papahagi 1923, 344), although the anatomic reference is not the only one
possible. There is a secondary sense of the word, that is a limit, the margin, as in buza prpastiei (the
brink or, ad litteram, the edge of the abyss). The ambiguity of the word is considerably, as shown by
the descriptive terminology of a pot, which is basically an anthropological one: picior (foot), pntec
(belly), umr (shoulder), gt (neck), but also buz which has to be translated yet as a rim (the limit,
the edge), and not as a lip, because the anthropological correlative is difficult.
As we already saw, the river Buzu was, for a time, the limit of the Roman interests in the Romanian
Plain, not only between the years 101118, but also afterwards, when the eastern Sarmatians were
admitted south of Siret, for the rich pastures. Probably that limit of interest was still active in the
time of Constantinus the Great, as proved by the fortress of the fourth century at Pietroasele; a limit
of influence, thus a sort of limitibus. The interesting thing is the next: if the hypothesis explaining
Buzu deriving from buz, as a margin, or limit, is right, consequently would make from Buzu a
translation in the local language (Dacian? so late?) of the Latin limitibus? Such a linguistic construction
in Romanian language can be illustrated by Marginea Sibiului, lit. The Edge (of the hinterland) of
(the city) Sibiu, using this time a word of a Latin extraction (margo, marginis, acc. DEX 1998).
In this case, is the name Buzu of a Roman Age? Quite probably not, and one should consider
another limit for a previous age. It is yet a very tempting parallelism of words, defining in a local
78
Ruling between 161180; Croitoru 2013, p.129, A.7. I was not able to find a certain end date of the settlement, other than
the end of the second century CE (Vulpe, Teodor, 2003, p.15).
79
Teodor 2013. See also Bogdan Ctniciu 1981; Napoli 1997, p.12, 322334.
134 Eugen S. Teodor
language and in the mirror, the meaning of Latin limitibus: the edge of the Roman influence, as a
double sight of the unofficial but rather compulsive border.
A war diary from the late sixth century

The most detailed description of the landscape north of Danube is due to Theophylact
Simocatta80, which wrote in the early seventh century, probably between 610 and 628 (Whitby,
Whitby, 1986, xiii-xvi), following a military diary of the campaign. His account is about the last but
glorious offensive of the Byzantines north of the Danube, in 590s, relating in the following excerpts
historical facts from 593 (Curta 2001, 102), after centuries of defence behind the limes line.
Because the terms of the description are relevant, I will quote here a part of the text (Histories,
VI, 89, after the defeat of Ardagastus, on the left bank of the Danube):
(8.9) The commander Priscus ordered men to move ahead on reconnaissance. On the second day he
did not detect enemy in the area; therefore he commanded Alexander to march at dawn into the region
beyond the river Helibacia81. (10) And so Alexander crossed the adjacent river and encountered Sclavenes.
But the barbarians, on beholding enemies in sight, made their escape to the nearby marshes and the
savage woodland82, while the Romans tried to catch them. (11) But when they reached the mire, they fell
into overwhelming difficulty, and the whole contingent would have perished if Alexander had not quickly
extricated the Romans from the swamp. (12) And so the brigadier Alexander encircled the place and tried to
consign the barbarians to fire, but the flame languished and grew feeble because of the damp conditions,
and Alexanders attack was inglorious.(13) Now there was with the barbarians a Gepid, who had once long
before been of the Christian religion. This man deserted to the Romans and also pointed out the means of
entry. And so the Romans gained control of the entrances and overcame the barbarians. ()
(9. 1) But the Gepid described everything and revealed events in detail, saying that the prisoners were
subjects of Musocius, who was called rex in the barbarian tongue, that this Musocius was encamped thirty
parasangs away83, () (2) He advised the Romans to make a sudden attack and to catch the barbarian
by the surprise of their onslaught. () (4) Then Priscus joyfully accepted the proposal and, () he sent
him to beguile the barbarian. (5) Therefore the Gepid came to Musocius, and asked to be provided by
him with a number of canoes, so that he could ferry across those involved in Ardagastus misfortunes.
(6) And so Musocius, regarding as a godsend the plan woven against him by deceit, provided canoes
so that the Gepid could save Ardagastus followers. Then, taking a total of one hundred and fifty skiffs
and thirty oarsmen, he came to the other side of the river which the natives call Paspirius.() (8) Then
the general marshalled two hundred men and gave them to the brigadier Alexander. When the Romans
had come near the river Paspirius, the Gepid placed Alexander in hiding. () (10) In the third watch he
moved away a short distance, came to the hiding-place, and led Alexander out of the ambush. And so he
directed the Romans to the river Paspirius, exchanged signals, and came to the barbarians. Then, since the
barbarians were still consorting with sleep, the Gepid gave Alexander the signal by means of Avar songs.
(11) Alexander attacked the barbarians and provided the mortal penalty for sleep. When he had gained
control of the skiffs, he dispatched messengers to the general to increase the impetus of the attack. (12)
Priscus took three thousand men, divided them between the skiffs, and crossed the river Paspirius. Next,
80
See also the account of the Avaric invasion from 57879 (Menander Protector, Historia, 4748), far shorter.
81
Its precise location is unknown, but it is probable that Priscus was still operating fairly close to Dorostolon, so that Helibacia
would be one of the tributaries on the north bank of the Danube (note of the editors, Whitby and Whitby).
82
De Boor suggested swampy, as a possible emendation (note of the editors, Whitby and Whitby).
83
About 112 miles (note of the editors, Whitby and Whitby). Such a long distance seems excluded by the very means of the
text. For a distance of 166 km one need at least six days as a pedestrian (the pedestrian troops had a vital intervention in the
final fight), travelling on roads, not on a large bog... The military actions come quickly, without any long marches mentioned.
The contradiction could be probably somehow solved admitting that the first discussion between the deserter Gepid and
Priscus happened in a completely other place than the action, and that the diary missed the march. Florin Curta (Curta 2001,
p.57) notes that the use of the word parasang is rather bombastic and hardly could be ascribed to his military source (the
so-called War Diary), supposing than Simocatta was replacing miles with parasang, aiming a more fashionable text; this
would turn the distance (30 miles) in something more realistic.
in the middle of the night, they provided the introduction to their attack. Now the barbarian was drunk
and debilitated by liquor, since on that day there had been a funeral celebration for his departed brother
in accordance with their custom. (13) And so great panic ensued; then the barbarian was taken captive,
while the Romans revelled in a night of bloodshed.
In the previous section (History, 7. 17) Simocatta has told the story of the first clashes, north of
Danube, somewhere close to Durostorum, which is the last locality mentioned (VI, 6.5). The fight with
Sclaveni led by Ardagastus developed in a landscape with a flooded forest, the enemy being defeated
and the leader having escaped by swimming across the large river, a fact more likely to happen
downstream Durostorum (Dorostolon in text), where large islands lay between the Danubes arms
islands never controlled by the Romans. After this victory and a quarrel between the commander and
its army, having on the stake the partition of the booty, the next military event is the crossing of the
river Helibacia, after a two days march, probably northward. The river was passed without incidents,
with no need for boats of pontoons84. There is a large consensus about the fact that Helibacia would
be Ialomia from our time85.
The first part of the text transcribed above (Hist., VI, 8.912) is characteristic for nature of the
area north of Helibacia. I would like to stress here the landscape terminology: escape to the marshes,
swampy woodland, damp conditions, the entries (as the secret path to reach safe places into the
marshes). The dramatic nature of the events make me think that probably hunting Sclaveni meant
also crossing Buzu River, because the left bank of the stream is unusual low and moist. The paths
across this land, as resulted from the study of the distribution of the prehistoric mounds, are tight,
narrow, suggesting that the land suitable for travel is very limited; in this area, a foreign troop could
never find the exit without a local guide.
The next section of the text (VI.9), although long, has just only a few things of interest for the
landscape restitution; one of them is the time when the Gepid deserter joined the Roman troops.
He is for the first time mentioned when aiding Alexander to find out the exit from the marshy trap;
but he ought to have been there for a while, in order to be helpful at the right time. The moment is
important, because the indication about the distance to the camp of the king Musocius was given
that time, when the plan was done. Simocatta said 30 parasangs, which is impossible, thus I will
follow Curtas emendation 30 miles. Very likely, he fled from the Sclaveni band at the first clashes,
north of the line of Helibacia. A distance of 45 km south of Siret River is somewhere north of Clmui
River and east of Buzu River. A third thing already noticed (Curta 2001, 102) is that the next river,
Paspirius, was wide, and one need a boat to reach the other bank, not only for the needs of an army,
but also for some local fugitives. Not noticed so far, at least I am aware, is the disproportion between
the number of canoes (or skiffs, 150) and the number of oarsmen, asked to Musokius (30); this means
not only that the river was crossed, but also that the way was downstream, because each oarsman had
to drive 5 skiffs. The consequence is that Musocius camp was somewhere upstream from the point
where the Romans reached Paspirius; upstream, but not far, because the capacity of transportation
84
In another episode connected to Helibacia, in the next year (Hist., VII, 5.9), the Romans used boats to pass the same (?)
river. The recorded differences between the minimum and maximum debit of the Ialomia River, in the warm season, are as
big as 1 to 800 (sic! Acc. Cetean 2009, p.14); therefore, one may or may not need a boat to cross the river.
85
Haralambie Mihescu (the Romanian editor and translator) 1985, 128, 24; Whitby, Whitby 1986, p.171; Curta 2001, p.101,
note 86, with other three similar opinions; the same position, from a linguistic approach Moldovanu 1987, p.302, with a
long list of references of the same kind. He is also citing a different opinion, of C. Diculescu, linking Helibacia by a German
reconstructed *Helisbach (the river of the fortress Helis), which is a little backwards (because usually a fortress is named after
a river, and not vice versa), but still interesting. I myself made some time ago a different choice (Teodor 2003, 1220), observing
that the actions led by Priscus and Petrus, in separate campaigns, although heading Helibacia, seem to have developed in different
parts of the Southern Romania. The homophony of rivers located in different places but in the same region is usual in the
Southern Romania (as Clmui, Buzoel or Burdea, all of minimum three different items). Therefore, I still believe that there isnt
any guarantee in the equation Helibacia = Ialomia. One of the rivers named Clmui is located closely northward Ialomia,
and reading here Clmui for Helibacia does not change much the events. I dont believe that the Romans from the sixth
century had reliable geographical knowledge about the land that today is called the Romanian Plain; thus, confusions could have
occurred, either in the military diary followed by Simocatta, or in the transcription of the account into the historical work.
136 Eugen S. Teodor
for 150 skiffs couldnt match the space needed for 3000 mounted soldiers and their horses86; they
must have been ferried in several tranches From this moment, each question turns into a problem.
The vanguard sent to take the bridgehead a kind of river port (a lake near the river?), large enough
to harbour 150 large skiffs comprises only 200 troops (how did they manage to row them upstream,
and with how many skiffs?); the all operation, from ferrying the vanguard to crossing all 3000 men
from cavalry took only several hours (from the third watch sometimes in the afternoon to the
middle of the night; is that possible?). The operation was probably continued the next day, because
the situation was finally saved by the infantry commanded by Gentzon (Hist., VI, 9.15). Obviously, our
source (either the military diary or the chronicle) is obliterating some critical details.
An interesting fact is that the Roman army did not meet any settlement or civilians87, although
the campaign lasted about ten days or more, crossing all the eastern side of the Romanian Plain. This
is compliant to the hypothesis about the place where the events took place and the archaeological
record, the settlements from the sixth century being completely absent in the area (Teodor 2005,
207, 226). Where lived those Sclaveni, anyway?
First thing coming in our mind, of course, is the great cemetery from Srata Monteoru, which
is located on Buzu River; in fact pretty far. From the mouth of Buzu River to the great necropolis
of Proto-Slavic age (second half of the sixth century the first quarter of the seventh century) there
are 92 km, as the crow flies, and more than 110 km on the path. Giving the place where the main
confrontation took place, on the northern bank of Paspirius River and the high probability of the
equivalence Paspirius Siret, we should look for the archaeological evidence in the southern Moldavia.
I followed the evidence published by Dan G. Teodor (1997), for the counties south of Moldavia (south
of Galai and Vrancea counties), extracting in the Table 2 the discoveries dated for the threshold of
the sixth and seventh centuries.
This archaeological evidence was mapped in the fig. 7, in order to stress out some particular
facts. First of all, there isnt any sign of a sedentary life on the left bank of Siret, the first artefact
being some isolated pottery, located in Scnteieti, 30 km north of the river. Second, the only cluster
of villages88 is located at the foothills, mainly near Rmna Rivulet, quite far and protected by the
actions of the Roman army; therefore, the main source of manpower for the king Musocius has to be
searched far in the north, or in the west. Third, there is an outstanding split of the settlements area
and the hoards area (or even isolated coins), a fact previously observed only for Muntenia (Teodor
2005, 226); this is intriguing but surely tells something about the function of the money in the late
sixth century, which is no longer an economic one, but a sign of military prestige (most of them are
the result of plunders in the Balkan Peninsula). I cannot miss the observation that those military
badges of the late sixth centurys warriors are pointing out even by fortune! the strategic corridors
along Siret River: near the village Vame89, in a position close to that of the camp of Musocius; the
86
The transportation capacity of a light liburna (a war ship used by Romans on large rivers) was 62 sailors and 60 infantry
(Bounegru and Zahariade, 1996, p.55). When it comes to cavalry the useful capacity is about a third. The length of a liburna
was 21 m, and the width three metres. A large canoe couldnt be much longer than 1012 m, and no wider than one metre;
the capacity of transportation was a third of a liburna, at the best. Even supposing that the Romans left the horses on the other
bank of the river (doubtfully, while risky), 150 skiffs could carry only about 1500 men at once. There are known such canoes in
Romanian archaeology (for instance one at the Museum in Ploieti, found in Palanca, at the confluence Prahova-Teleajen, very
near to the fort from Gherghia; 10 mlong, acc. Schuster and Morintz 2006, p.35), but their chronology is not scientifically
assessed. The biggest canoe discovered in Romania is 13.20 mlong, about 1 min width, and was found in Berindan (Satu Mare
County), buried 7 mbelow the present level (thus old enough; Lichiardopol 2008, p.156), on the lower Some River (similar
as strength and debit with Siret). An interesting fact connected to their dimensions is that they prove that the water stream
was stronger than today, because they couldnt be used now on the same rivers, being far too large; the example of Teleajen is
relevant in this respect, its riverbed not being wider than 10 min present days (Lichiardopol 2008, p.155).
87
As happened in other circumstances (as Theoph. Sim., Hist., VIII, 3.1112). Musocius himself was feasting in a camp, not
in a settlement, but north of Siret.
88
The development of villages clusters is typical for the sixth century anywhere in Muntenia (Dolinescu-Ferche 1984, p.123)
or Moldavia (Teodor 1997, p.181, map 2).
89
See also the toponymy section of the paper.
Table 2. Archaeological sites and discoveries from Southern Moldavia at the threshold of the sixth and seventh centuries.
no.90 list91 type of discovery

107 Scnteieti (late) sixth century pottery
123 Cudalbi monetary hoard (copper coins minted by Anastasius and Justinus I)
124 Movileni monetary hoard (copper coins minted by Tiberius II Constantin and Mauricius92)
127 Vame chance discovery (copper mint from Justinus II and Sophia (568-579)
136 Dragosloveni isolated half-buried cottage
137 Cndeti93 house holds and some cremation burials (inside a Bronze Age necropolis)
138 Oreavu isolated half-buried cottage in a settlement from the fourth century
139 Coroteni 3 half-buried cottages with piere ovens
140 Palanca94 3 half-buried cottages with piere ovens

pottery shards (a full shape) in the eastern neibourhood Stamatineti (today Bahna),
151 Focani
discovered in the area of an old church (Stamatineti)
161 Putna two coins minted by Justinus II
165 Salcia isolated coin minted by Phocas
166 Suraia isolated coin, badly preserved, undetermined (Byzantine, VIVII c.)
168 ifeti isolated coin, badly preserved, undetermined (Byzantine, VIVII c.)
9091929394
corridor from Suraia-Movileni, which seems a very old strategic path for admission from Moldavia
to Muntenia95; last but not least, two largely dated coins in the middle course of Putna Valley a
possible re-enactment of an old, prehistoric, route over the mountains96.
Resuming here some gains offered by the analysis of Simocattas account, I would say that it
does not bring news, but confirms a set of useful data. First of all, the territory south of the Lower Siret
was dominated by huge marshes, restricting the circulation only on some paths, with entrances and
exits well known only by locals, in an ever changing landscape. Second, it clears a certain sense of
the word ford (vad, in Romanian) as a strategic corridor with usable head-bridges on the both sides
of a large river, as Siret. Third, it stresses out a fact not enough studied: the naval forces and capacities
90
Number on the map from Teodor 1997, p.181 (map 2).
91
The list from Teodor 1997, p.180.
92
Dimian, in Studii i Cercetri Numismatice, 1, 1957 (ended with coins minted in 599600, thus after this war); there is a
trend of re-evaluating the closing time of the hoard in the time of Heraclius (Gh. Poenaru-Bordea and R. Ocheanu, in Studii
i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie, 1980 (3), p.395, n. 49, apud Chiriac 2013, p.138), raising a question, yet: did not
emigrate Sclaveni south of Danube, as late as the second decade of the seventh century? The hypothesis of Poenaru-Bordea
& Ocheanu was not taken very seriously, as long as a top numismatist as Oberlnder-Trnoveanu (2002, section 36 of the
electronic version) gave the Movileti hoard as ending at the year 600. Moreover, the hoards structure has nothing in common
with the one of the small change documented so far from the isolated discoveries in Muntenia and Moldavia, being gathered
south of Danube (idem), probably plundered and brought in Barbaricum. Was there something left to rob south of the Danube
in the second decade of the seventh century?
93
Cndeti from the Vrancea County (not to be confused with the one from Buzu County, researched in 1960s by Victor
Teodorescu, see Teodorescu 2009, esp. 537617 a posthumously published study about field archaeology in late 50s and
early 60s, comprising the only known report for the settlement from Cndeti, Buzu County, as well as early research in
Budureasca Valley), important as least of being the eponym site of the culture Ipoteti-Cndeti.
94
As already mentioned, Palanca means a log stronghold (not identified).
95
See also the section of the Prehistoric mounds, in this paper.
96
Never considered previously by the Romanian archaeology and historiography, stucked in the idea of the Roman route via
Trotu and Oituz rivers.
138 Eugen S. Teodor
Figure 7. Archaeological evidence at the Lower Siret area, for the late sixth century (cf. Teodor 1997).
Legend: green square settlements; brown squares pottery (chance discoveries); red dots monetary hoards;
pink dots isolated coins. Geographical coordinates grid for 0.2o.
(for instance transportation) were a major warfare facility, not only for the Romans, but also for the
Barbarians, as illustrated by the siege of Constantinopolis in 626.
The factual data told by the historians and the archaeological evidence seem complementary
and supportive, figuring out a split world within Barbaricum: one of the warriors, camped in the area
of the fords (the strategic corridors), and one of the civilian settlements, keeping a fearful distance of
the others.
Final remarks
I used for this study a wide range of data, in order to better understand a historical puzzle:
the Roman dyke from Traian to Tuluceti, between the Lower Siret and the Lower Prut. The recent
history the late 19th century and the world wars from the first half of the 20th century made clear
one fact: a strategic defensive line is not exactly a line; the defensive line Focani-Nmoloasa-
Galai was actually made by three fortified positions, wide each of 14, 7 and 13 km, leaving between
undefended gaps of 23 and 28 km. The morale is plain: in a strategic line, only some places are
really important, which are the communication corridors; the rest are just naturally defended wings.
Looking now at the modern bridges position over Siret, they are grouped within the sensitive
spots of the military fortified line: three serving the ford from Galai, one near Nmoloasa (in the village
Neni), and other two, Suraia and Cosmeti (or Mreti), defining the strategic gate nearFocani.
The study of the toponyms conserving mediaeval and modern realities did not bring major
news. A major ford is suggested south of Galai, near the mouth of Siret; another major passing
corridor is east of Focani, where fearful battles have raged in the First World War. Some changes
could be suggested for the middle ford, from Nmoloasa; here, the toponyms indicate that an old
communication way developed east and downstream of Nmoloasa, between Vadu Prisaca from
the right bank and Vame village from the left bank. A fourth supplementary ford seems to have
appeared left of Buzu Rivers mouth, where one finds toponyms like Podu Turcului (Turks Bridge)
and Cetuia Gura Buzului (The Fortress from the Buzus Mouth); on the opposite bank of the river
stands another mediaeval fortress, possibly the one known as Crciuna. Two fortresses, face to face,
assisted by a bridge, make together a strategic corridor. But how old was that?...
Mediaeval and modern state of art is still the result of centuries of exploring the nature around,
dealing with that nature, and changing it, bit by bit, creating new opportunities, like the ford from
Podu Turcului. The study of the prehistoric mounds had the aim to correct a too recent picture, thus
giving us the main path of movement and communications in some more remote times. Resuming,
there are only two convergent places where the paths south of the river meet those coming from
north: one is, again, between Galai and Brila; the other is, again, the ford east of Focani.
It is now far more clear at least for myself the outstanding importance of the bridgehead
commanded by the Roman fort from Tirighina hill, closed inside a vallum, much wider; it controlled
the main ford of the Siret River, near its mouth, and the shortest way when coming from the north
Pontic Steppes, heading Carsium or Durostorum; the main three fords of the Danube, upstream
Galai Tirighina-Dinogetia, Carsium and Durostorum , were in fact secured this way97. As long as
the Romans kept the defensive line along Buzu River, closing the fords from ueti and Filipeti, all
the Romanian Plain was secured, and any serious attack against the main garrisons from the Lower
Danube would have lost the surprise long before the siege.
This solid defence at the Lower Danube didnt last. In 118 Hadrianus gave up all the positions
inside the Romanian Plain in order to gain the peace with the Sarmatians; very interesting, the only
gate open was still that from Tirighina, all the Barbarians inside the plain being a sort of captives of
the Romans, easy to control. The Roman communication line shifted from the Romanian Plain to the
corridor Tirighina-Poiana-Trotu-Oituz for another half a century.
A picturesque story is told by a historian from the Late Antiquity, four centuries later. It is the
only antique description we have for the area from the Lower Siret, confirming the worst expectations:
a marshy, tricky land, where the foreign armies have to fight first with the heinous nature. The
archaeological record for the area is happily completing the picture. The lands from the final course
of the rivers Ialomia (Helibacia) and Siret (Paspirius) became a general battle field, probably older98,
deprived of settlements. We can find, at the line of duty, only some warriors or at least their money
at the strategic fords. The villages are far away, safely separated by the strategic affairs by about 50
km of wetlands. By comparison, the sixth centurys cluster of villages around the city of Bucharest, as
well as that located along Vedea River99, in western Muntenia, are an indirect proof that the strategic
corridors did not affect the central and western Muntenia.
Of course, such a research project, running issues from the Prehistory to the Second WW,
would be preferable to be dealt by a research team than by one archaeologist. Unfortunately, such
a complex team cannot be gathered when one misses something capital: the research funding...
Therefore, probably lacking the patience, I dared to do the job all by myself, taking all risks. May the
future funded projects correct this initiatives unavoidable defaults.
97
The fourth main ford, from Noviodunum, was controlled by the pendant fortress from Aliobrix (TIR L 35).
98
The campaigns from the early fourth decade of the same century (Curta 2001, p.76, about the general Chilbudius)
happened probably in the same area.
99
Dolinescu-Ferche 1984; Teodor 2005, p.220.
140 Eugen S. Teodor
Bibliography
DEX Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne, Bucureti: Ed. Academiei, 1998.
IGLR Emilian Popescu, Inscripii greceti i latine din secolele IVXIII descoperite pe teritoriul Romniei, Bucureti:
Ed. Academiei, 1976.
ISM V Emilia Doruiu-Boil, Inscripiile din Scythia Minor. Vol. 5: Capidava, Troesmis, Noviodunum, Bucureti:
Ed.Academiei, 1980.
Marele Dicionar Geografic al Romniei, George I. Lahovari (coord.), vol. IV, Bucureti: Societatea Geografic
Romn, 1901.
Mihescu, H., 1985 Teofilact Simocata istorie bizantin. Domnia mpratului Mauricius, Bucureti: Ed.Academiei.
TIR L35 Tabula Imperii Romani. Romula-Durostorum-Tomis. L 35 Bucarest, Ion I. Russu (coord.), Bucarest:
Acadmie.
Whitby, M., Withby, M. 1986. A History of Theophylact Simocatta. An English Translation with Introductions and
Notes, Michael and Mary Whitby (eds.), Oxford University Press.
Axworthy, M., Scafe, C.I., Crciunoiu, C. 1995. Third axis, fourth ally: Romanian armed forces in the European war,
19411945, Arms and Armour, London.
Bichir, G. 1973. Cultura carpic, Ed. Academiei, Bucureti.
Birley, A. R. 2000. Hadrian to Antonines. I. The Accession of Hadrian, 132135. In A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey,
D.Rathbone (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History, sec. ed., volume XI The High Empire, AD 170192, Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Bogdan, N., A. 2004. Oraul Iai, Tehnopress, Iai.
Bogdan Ctniciu, I. 1981. Evolution of the system of defence works in Roman Dacia, B.A.R. Intl. s. 116, Oxford.
Bondoc, D. 2009. The Roman Rule to the north of the Lower Danube diring the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
period, Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
Bounegru, O., Zahariade, M. 1996. Les Forces Navales du Bas Danube et de la Mer Noire au Ier-VIe sicles, Oxbow
Books, Oxford.
Bourgeois, Q. 2013. Monuments on the Horizon: The formation of the Barrow Landscape throughout the 3rd and 2nd
Millenium BC, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Brudiu, M. 2003. Lumea de sub tumulii Moldovei: de la indo-europeni la turanicii trzii; mrturii arheologice,
Printech, Bucureti.
Cantacuzino, G., I. 2001. Ceti medievale din ara Romneasc n secolele XIIIXVI, Ed. Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Cpn, D., Teodor, E. S., Ioni, A., Ciuperc, B., Bdescu, A. 2008. Cetatea de la TablaBuii (com. Cerau,
jud.Prahova campaniile arheologice 19951996, 1998, Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice (S.N.), 4, p.157182.
Cetean, V. 2009. Studii sedimentologice i petrografice n cursul mijlociu al rului Ialomia evaluri hidrodinamice
i economice, PhD thesis, Bucharest University.
Chiriac, C. 2013. Civilizaia bizantin i societatea din regiunile extracarpatice ale Romniei n secolele VIVIII,
Istros, Brila.
Ciuperc, B. 2010. Cteva observaii cu privire la poziia i rolul fortificaiilor de la Slon, judeul Prahova, p.619634.
In H. Pop, et al. (eds.), Identiti culturale locale i regionale n context european. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei, Mega,
Porolissum, Cluj-Napoca.
Crjan, M. 2013. Fortificaiile militare romneti n contextul btliilor de la Mrti, Mreti i Oituz, Cronica
Vrancei, 15, p.161176.
Constantin, M., Constantin, C. P. 2010. Relaia dintre mediul natural i comunitile din arealul Carpailor de
Curbur. Interpretri asupra zonei Vii Buzului, p.3543. In H. Pop et alii (eds.), Identiti culturale locale i regionale n
context european. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei, Mega, Porolissum, Cluj-Napoca.
Constantinescu, E. M., Sticu, G. I., Dinu, C. C. 2012. Pietroasele, com. Pietroasele, jud. Buzu. Punct: castrul roman
trziu, Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice, Campania 2011, Bucureti.
Constantinescu, E. M., Sticu, G. I., Dinu, C. C. 2013. Raport de cercetare arheologic, Pietroasele, jud. Buzu, punct
Edificiul cu hipocaust, Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice, campania 2012, Bucureti.
Costchescu, M. 1932. Documente moldoveneti nainte de tefan cel Mare, 2 vol. Viaa romneasc, Iai.
Croitoru, C., 2004. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos (secolele IIV p.Chr.) (I), Istros, Brila.
Croitoru, C. 2007. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos (II). Terminologie relativ, Istros, Brila.
Croitoru, C. 2013. Galai. Repertoriul descoperirilor Arheologice i Numismatice. Muzeul de Istorie, Galai.
Crow, J., Mason, D. J. P. 2009. Forts and their Extramural Settlements, p.63107. In Matthew F.A. Symonds, David
J.P. Mason (eds.), Frontiers of the Knowledge. A Research Framework for Hadrians Wall, part of the Frontiers of the Roman
Empire World Heritage Site, Durham County Council and Durham University, Durham.
Damean, S. L. 2004. Fortificarea zonei Focani-Nmoloasa-Galai la sfritul secolului al XIX-lea, p. 213250. In
M.Crstea, S. D. Damean, D. Liciu (eds.), Istorie i societate, Mica Valahie, Bucureti.
Diaconu, G. 1976. Castrul de la Pietroasa, p. 10631069. In A. Odobescu, Tezaurul de la Pietroasa, Opere vol. IV,
Ed.Academiei, Bucureti.
Dolinescu-Ferche, S. 1984. La culture Ipoteti-Cndeti. La situation en Valachie, Dacia (N.S.), 28, 12, p.117147.
Dupoi, V., Srbu, V. 2001. Pietroasele Gruiul Drii. Incinta fortificat, Alpha, Buzu.
Florescu, G., Bujor, E. 1955. Spturile arheologice de la Mlieti, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche, 6, no. 12,
p. 272279.
Fodorean, F. 2006. Drumurile n Dacia traian, Napoca Star, ClujNapoca.
Georganas, I. 2002. Constructing Identities in Early Iron Age Thessaly: the Case of the Halos Tumuli, Oxford Journal
of Archaeology, 21 (3), p.289298.
Gostar, N. 1967. Aliobrix, Latomus, 26, 4, p.987995.
Green, W. 1965. A Romano-Celtic Temple at Bourton Grounds, Buckinghamshire, Records of Buckinghamshire, 17,
p. 356366.
Iliescu, I. 2013. Calea ferat Tecuci-Furei. Mrturii documentare, Cronica Vrancei, 15, p.341350.
Ioni, I. 1982. Din istoria i civilizaia dacilor liberi. Dacii din spaiul est-carpatic n secolele IIIV e.n., Junimea, Iai.
Ioni, I. 2001. Relaiile dacilor liberi cu romanii, sarmaii i cu germanii, p.449456. In D. Protase, A. Suceveanu
(coord.), Istoria romnilor, vol. II, Daco-romani, romanici, alogeni, Editura Academiei, Bucureti.
Ioni, I. 2007. Barboi-Tirighina aprs dix-sept dcennies depuis lapparition de la monographie de Sulescu, Istros,
14, p. 7180.
Kiriescu, C. 1989. Istoria Rzboiului pentru ntregirea Romniei, third ed., (first ed. 1927), Ed. tiinific i
Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Lichiardopol, D. f.a. Monoxila de la Palanca-Rfov, jud. Prahova, Yearbook of the History and Archaeology,
Museum Prahova, Studies and Researches, new series, IIIIV, p.153157.
Lupu, E. 2013. Drum, ora i hotar ntre ara Moldovei i ara Romneasc, p.569598. In F. Curta, B.P. Maleon
(eds.), The Steppe Lands and the World beyond them, Universitatea Al. I. Cuza, Iai.
Marincea, . et alii. 2013. Punct de vedere preliminar privind situaia deosebit semnalat n zona Izvoarele
jud.Galai, Institutul Geologic al Romniei; public document.
Matei, S. 2011. Ceramica daco-getic din nord-estul Munteniei, PhD thesis (abstract), Universitatea Bucureti.
Matei-Popescu, F. 2010. The Roman Army in Moesia Inferior, Conphys, Bucharest.
Mititelu, I. 1957. Dou tezaure de monede imperiale romane gsite la Gura Ialomiei, Studii i Cercetri
Numismatice, 1, p.133148.
Moldovanu, D. 1987. Hidronime romneti de origine slav: Brladul, Ialomia, Jijia, Anuar de Lingvistic i Istorie
Literar, 31, 19861987, p. 291312.
Moldovanu, D. 2008. Hidronime de origine veche turcic n sudul Moldovei, Anuar de Lingvistic i Istorie Literar,
4748, 20072008, p. 928.
Napoli, J. 1997. Recherches sur le fortification linaire romaines, cole Franaise, Rome.
Oberlnder-Trnoveanu, E. 2002. La monnaie byzantine des VIe-VIIIe sicles au-del de la frontier du Bas-Danube,
Histoire & mesure, 17 (34), p. 155196.
Oprean, C. H. 1998. Criza militar i politic de la Dunrea de Jos din anii 117119 p.Chr. Urmri asupra relaiilor
dintre Dacia i lumea barbar, Ephemeris Napocensis, 8, p.6180.
Papahagi, P. 1923. Buzu, Analele Dobrogei, IV, no. 3, p.337344.
Prvan, V. 1923. Consideraiuni asupra unor nume de ruri daco-scitice, Cultura naional, Bucureti.
Popescu, M. C. 2009. Pontic sigillata discovered in the Dacian settlemetn of Poiana, Nicoreti commune, Galai
County, p.1746. In O. entea, I. C. Opri (eds.), Near and Beyond the Roman Frontier, Proceedings of the Colloqium held in
Trgovite, 1617 Oct. 2008, Conphys, Bucureti-Rmnicu Vlcea:.
Sanie, S. 2001. Moesia nord-dunrean i nord-pontic, p.373398. In D. Protase, Al. Suceveanu (coord.), Istoria
romnilor, vol. 2 Daco-romani, romanici, alogeni, Ed. Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Srbu, V., Croitoru, C., Pandrea, S. 2014. The Linear Fortification from ueti, Brila County. In V. Srbu, C. Croitoru,
V. Brc (eds.), Linear Fortifications on The Lower Danube (1st Millenium A.D.). Proceedings of the National Colloquium Ancient
Linear Fortifications on the Left Bank of the Lower Danube, Brila, 1416 iunie 2013, Mega, Cluj, 2014.
Schuster, C., Morintz, A. 2006. Ambarcaiuni i navigaie n preistorie, Cetatea de Scaun, Trgovite.
Stoicescu, N. 1974. Repertoriul bibliografic al localitilor i monumentelor medievale din Moldova, Direcia
Patrimoniului Cultural Naional, Bucureti.
Teodor, E. S. 2013. Uriaul Invizibil: Limes Transalutanus. O reevaluare la sud de Arge, Cetatea de Scaun, Trgovite.
Teodor, E. S., Croitoru, C. 2013. A Method for the evaluation of the dykes. Case study for Athanarics Wall,
p.657679. In Andrei Stavil et alii (eds.), In Memoriam Liviu Mruia, Interdisciplinaritate n Arheologie i Istorie, Timioara,
7 decembrie 2013, vol. II, Szeged.
Teodorescu, V. 2009. Studii i cercetri arheologice n Muntenia, Muzeul Judeean de Istorie i Arheologie Prahova,
Ploieti.
142 Eugen S. Teodor
Topoleanu, F., Jugnaru, G., Micu, C., Ailinci, S., Mihai, F., Stnic, A., Costea, I. 2008. Inventarierea siturilor
arheologice din judeul Tulcea. Studiu de caz: mormintele tumulare, Ex Ponto, Tulcea.
entea, O., Cleiu, S. 2006. Fortificaia i necropola roman de la Galai, cartier Dunrea. Raport arheologic,
Cercetri Arheologice, 13, p. 3988.
entea, O., Raiu, A., Frnculeasa, A., Preda, B. 2012. Castrul Mlieti, sat Sfrleanca, com. Dumbrveti,
jud.Prahova, Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice, campania 2011, Bucureti.
entea, O., Raiu, A., Frnculeasa, A., Preda, B. 2013. Castrul i bile romane de la Mlieti, Sfrleanca,
com.Dumbrveti, jud. Prahova, Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice, campania 2012, Bucureti, p.117118.
Tudor, D. 1978. Oltenia roman, ed. IV, Ed. Academiei, Bucureti.
Vertemont, J. 2000. Dicionar al mitologiilor indo-europene (Dictionnaire des mythologies indo-europenes, 1997),
Armacord, Timioara.
Vulpe, R. 1950. Evoluia aezrilor omeneti n Moldova de Jos. Raport sumar despre activitatea antierului
arheologic Poiana-Tecuci, 1949, Studii i Articole de Istorie Veche, 1, p. 4752.
Vulpe, R., Teodor, S. 2003. Piroboridava Aezarea geto-dacic de la Poiana, Institutul Romn de Tracologie,
Bucureti.
Whitman, S. 1899. Reminencences of the King of Roumania, Harper Brothers, New York, London.
Zagori, C. 1940. Castrul roman de la Mlieti i cetatea dac de la Valea Humei din judeul Prahova, Progresul
tipografic, Ploieti.
Zahariade, M., Lichiardopol, D. 2006. Componena i structura armatei romane n nordul Munteniei, ntre anii
101107, p.121133. In E.S. Teodor, O. entea (eds), Dacia Augusti Provincia, Cetatea de Scaun, Bucureti.
On the Dating and Use of the Linear Fortifications
from Southern Moldavia
(Stoicani-Ploscueni)
Nicolae Ursulescu, Vasile Cotiug

Arheoinvest Platform, Department of History, Al. I. Cuza University, Iai, Romania
n.ursulescu@gmail.com
vasicot@uaic.ro
Keywords: Southern Moldavia, linear fortification, chronology, stages of use
Abstract: The authors present the stages of the investigation Rezumat: n studiul de fa autorii prezint stadiul cercetrii
of the linear fortification from southern Moldavia, stretching fortificaiei liniare din sudul Moldovei ce se ntinde ntre
from the Pruth River to the Siret River (StoicaniPloscueni), as rurile Prut i Siret (Stoicani-Ploscueni), precum i principalele
well as the opinions expressed on the dating and the historical ipoteze relative la ncadrarea cronologic, respectiv contextul
context of the erection of this ancient monument: the Roman istoric ce a stat la baza ridicrii acestui monument: n timpul
rule (C. Schuchhardt, C. Croitoru); Athanarics Goths against i cu concursul administraiei romane (C. Schuchhardt,
the invading Huns (R. Vulpe); the Carpi of Moldavia against C.Croitoru), n contextul invaziei hunilor mpotriva goilor
the Romans (I. Ioni) or against the Sarmatians settled in lui Athanaric (R. Vulpe), de ctre carpi mpotriva romanilor
Muntenia (M. Brudiu). Compared with other Roman walls, (I.Ioni) sau mpotriva sarmailor din Muntenia (M. Brudiu).
the fortification from southern Moldavia has the ditch to the Comparativ cu alte fortificaii romane ansamblul din sudul
south of the wall, and displays a rudimentary and non-uniform Moldovei are anul la sud de val i un aspect rudimentar,
character along the approximately 100 km it runs a reason neuniform de-a lungul celor aproximativ 100 de kilometri
for which the authors consider that a Roman origin of the motive pentru care originea roman nu poate fi susinut.
monument cannot be upheld. After analysing the historical Dup analiza propriu-zis a contextului istoric, autorii
context, the authors consider that the fortification was raised consider c fortificaia a fost ridicat din iniiativa regelui
from the initiative of the Dacian king Decebalus, in order to halt Decebal, n ncercarea de a opri nnaintarea roman dup ce
the Roman northward advance, after the latter established Muntenia i sudul Moldovei actuale fuseser cucerite. Sunt
control over the present-day Muntenia and southern Moldavia. propuse trei etape de utilizare: (a) perioada dacic (pn la
Three stages in the use of this fortification are proposed: (a) the cucerire); (b) perioada roman cnd anul a fost acoperit i
Dacian period (up to the conquest of Dacia); (b) the Roman valul utilizat pentru observarea teritoriilor nordice (rmase n
period, when the ditch is covered and the wall is used for afara granielor romane); (c) perioada post-roman n care
watching the lands to the north (left outside the province of anul a fost respat parial, avnd dimensiuni mai reduse
Dacia); and (c) a post-Roman period, during which the ditch is decat cel iniial. Cercetrile efectuate n anul 2013 la Bleni
partially re-dug, with smaller dimensions than the initial one. (judeul Galai) s-au soldat cu o serie de informaii relative la
The excavations conducted in 2013 at Bleni (Galai County) construcie, la structura sa, la etapele de utilizare i istoricul
provided a series of data on the construction of the structure, acestui monument.
the stages of its use, and the history of thismonument.
Earth walls (or linear fortifications, as they have also been called, using a term that encompasses
the adjacent ditches that increase the defensive value of these imposing constructions), have always
captured the attention, owing to the understanding of the scale of the works required for their
construction. They entered the collective consciousness, being registered in the folklore, or were put
to practical use, serving as landmarks for establishing land ownership. In the absence of complex
and broad scientific investigations, the works dedicated to them1 followed on the footsteps of folk
For a comprehensive review see Croitoru 2007.

1

144 Nicolae Ursulescu, Vasile Cotiug
tradition and considered them of Roman origin or inspiration (particularly because of the terms
Traian or Troian used most often to designate them in vernacular, harking back to the name of the
Roman emperor Trajan), with little attention given to the actual building features.
On the territory of Moldavia alone, at least nine such defensive systems have been identified
(Fig.1), five of which in the southern part, and four in the northern part of the region2.
From the five walls from southern Moldavia, the one stretching from Stoicani (Galai County)
and Ploscueni (Vrancea County) gave rise to the most numerous controversies, since, unlike the rest
which had ditches to the north of the wall and abided, generally, to the Roman construction norms
its ditch is to the south, and the construction system is uneven and more rudimentary3.
This monument grabbed our attention on the occasion of the documentation stage of an
archaeological discharge intervention for a wind park planned in the commune of Bleni (Galai
County); the course of the wall (as it was established from previous investigations4) run across this
area too (Fig.3). The field observation of the remains of the fortification, as well as the results of the
sondages dug in FebruaryMarch 2013, transversal on the course of the ditch and the adjacent wall
from the area where the wind turbines are set to be built5, provided us with a series of new data that
demand a re-discussion of the issues concerning this puzzling fortification line. From among the
numerous issues raised by this monument, we aim to discuss particularly the controversial aspects
concerning the dating and the history of the structure, and only tangentially touch upon other
aspects to the degree to which they can reveal the factors behind the raising, use and reclaiming of
the structure, as well as the historical context in which these events occurred.
From the onset, we specify that almost all of those who treated this fortification, in the absence
of ample archaeological excavations, focused particularly on the initial moment of the wall. Yet, as
our recent excavations have revealed without a doubt, the respective fortification had at least two
distinct periods of use, separated from the temporal point of view by a significant hiatus.
With respect to the essential issue of its dating, a definite answer cannot be given at this
moment; several opinions have been issued in this respect so far, hereby briefly presented.
1. Even though the presence of the wall was mentioned in medieval sources and various
writings6, the first scientific description of its route was made only as late as 1885 by the German
archaeologist Carl Schuchhardt (18591943), the future director of the Berlin Museum of Ethnography
and Prehistory, who, during the beginning of his career, was professor/tutor of the two sons of
Prince Alexandru Bibescu (the son of the former ruling Prince Gheorghe Bibescu), married to Elena,
daughter of Manolache Costache-Epureanu (former prime-minister of Romania). The princely family
lived between 1884 and 1885 in Epureni (in the southern part of modern-day Vaslui County), where
the Costache-Epureanu mansion was located. Attracted by the impressive walls found in southern
Romania, in Dobrudja and in southern Bessarabia, the German archaeologist partially traced on the
ground (during the limited spare time offered by the school breaks) their routes, completing the
entire course using information collected from local denizens and scholarly works7. About the wall
from southern Moldavia (unknown at that moment in the dedicated literature) he learnt from the
Brlad prefect, who reported that near his estate in Nicoreti one can easily see this fortification,
called by the locals Troian8. Proceeding from Nicoreti, he first followed the fortification westward
up to Ploscueni (on the Siret River), considering that beyond the Siret the very course of the tributary
Trotu constituted a limes, up to the Oituz Pass through which south-eastern Transylvania a region
2
Ignat 1985, p.108, 113; Ioni 1982, p.1859 and fig. 3; Brudiu 1995, p.229, fig. 1.
3
Vulpe 1950, p.166; Vulpe 1957, p.1617; Vulpe 2013, p.350.
4
Brudiu 1979, fig. 1.
5
The results of these sondages, as well as the interdisciplinary studies conducted on this occasion by a team from the
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iai (coordinated by Vasile Cotiug, PhD), will be the topic of a separate study, on account
of the multitude of details that require comprehensive presentation, in order to understand the history of this monument.
6
See references to it in Vulpe 1950, p.164; Vulpe 1957, p.23; Vulpe, 2013, p.341; Croitoru 2004, p.2728; Vulpe 2007.
7
Schuchhardt 1885.
8
Schuchhardt 1885, p.202; Schuchhardt 1944, p.99.
On the Dating and Use of the Linear Fortifications from Southern Moldavia (Stoicani-Ploscueni) 145
included in the Roman province of Dacia was reached. From Nicoreti eastwards, he followed on
the ground the fortification only up to the northern outskirts of Matca village (a little to the east
from the Brlad River), and from there he reconstructed the course hypothetically, on the basis of
the information provided by local inhabitants, as well as on the belief that the wall went straight to
the Pruth, where, in the area of the village of Folteti, crossed the river and continued, in southern
Bessarabia, as the Roman wall between the localities of Vadul lui Isac and Tatarbunar (Figs. 1 and
2). This perfect continuity of the course, reconstructed on the map, alongside the supposition that
the putative Roman road linking Transylvania to Dinogetia on the Lower Danube run alongside the
wall, determined Schuchhardt to similarly consider that the section of the fortification between the
Siret and the Pruth was undoubtedly also of Roman origin9, despite his own ascertainment that the
ditch was placed to the south of the wall, that is to say exactly contrary to what was the case with
other Roman walls10. Seeking to explain this anomaly, he proposed an analogy with the smaller wall
from Dobrudja, likewise with a southern ditch, even if the dating of this wall too was not certain11.
After investigating other Moldavian walls (located outside the areas controlled by the Romans),
Schuchhardt observed, nonetheless, that there must have been walls that were not raised from
Roman initiatives, as known from several barbarian areas, admitting, therefore, that the Dacians too
could have built such defensive systems12. It is noteworthy that in the areas where the fortification
was most visible, the total width of the wall and adjacent ditch reached ca. 34 meters13.
In the absence of other field investigations, Schuchhardts dating went largely unchallenged
up to the 1950s, even though the incongruity in the southern placement of the ditch with respect
to the wall was noticed by some researchers14. Furthermore, the last mentioned author considered
that the wall from southern Moldavia was distinct from the Roman ones, and that it dated from the
pre-Roman era15.
2. Between 1948 and 1951, as part of the Poiana excavation campaign, Prof. Radu Vulpe
restarted the field investigation of the wall, following both the western (where he confirmed the
course established by Schuchhardt, despite the fact that several portions were not visible anymore),
as well as the eastern end, where he corrected the error, since the wall did not begin from Folteti,
but from 6 km to the south, from Stoicani, corresponding to the former northern tip of the Brate
Lake. Vulpe was unable to follow the wall on the ground it its central sector, between the localities
of Cuca and Cudalbi. Through the new investigations of the eastern sector, the supposed link with
the wall from southern Bessarabia was proved inexistent16. Relying on a passage from Ammianus
Marcellinuss account (XXXI, 3, 7) of the Goths retreat from the invading Huns in 375376, Radu Vulpe
considered, on plausible grounds, that this wall was raised from the order of Athanaric, king of the
Therving Goths, as a defence against the Huns, who unexpectedly invaded the lands controlled by
Goths. After crossing the Dniester, the Huns followed the route through the Budjak steppe and, after
reaching southern Moldavia, were forced to stop in face of the wall (with its southern ditch) erected
in haste by Athanarics men.
The most controversial aspect from Vulpes argumentation seems to be the one concerning
Ammianuss assertion that the respective murus stretched along, or even across, Taifal territory
(Taifalorum terras praestringens). From other information provided by Ammianus (XVII, 13, 1920), it
can be drawn that the Taifal land was found near Serbia, thence somewhere in the Banat or the Oltenia
regions, from where they marched, as allies of the Romans, against the Limigantes Sarmatians. On
9
10
11
12
13
Schuchhardt 1885, p.203 and fig. 13, 5.
14
Fabricius 1926, column 647; Uhlig 1928, p.223.
15
Uhlig 1928, p.237.
16
Vulpe 1950, p.173; Vulpe 1957, p.2, 13; Vulpe 2013, p.340, 347.
the basis of this piece of information, C. Schuchhardt17 considered that the wall erected by Athanaric
is the same as the one from Oltenia and Muntenia known as Brazda lui Novac a hypothesis which
R. Vulpe18 rejects on the grounds that the Roman historian only intended to present an approximate
image of the tribes occupying the territory of the former province of Dacia19. As several modern
scholars have underlined, it is either the case that Ammianuss digression on the Taifali is erroneous,
or that the attribution of the wall from southern Moldavia to Athanaric is contentious. Still, even the
identification of Athanarics wall with the Brazda lui Novac wall fails to accommodate the rugged
terrain mentioned by the Roman historian.
R. Vulpe also conducted the first archaeological excavation through the wall-ditch system
(Fig.6), delegating in this respect a member of the team working in Poiana, the student M. Mihalacu.
The digging, carried out in the Prisaca-Cincu forest (in the place called igneti, at 6km east of
Nicoreti, provided a series of details regarding the construction system, which were different from
the Roman rules and regulations on erecting defensive walls20. However, some of the stratigraphic
data, published later in the monograph work on the wall21, received, for good reasons, some criticism
from M. Brudiu22. Even if he noticed the existence of two fill layers in the ditch, R. Vulpe considered
the upper one as a deposit of vegetal soil.
3. New field investigations on the route of the wall were conducted by Mihalache Brudiu,
particularly of the eastern stretch (between Cuca and Cudalbi), which was investigated only hastily
by R. Vulpe23. Besides a series of topographical brief reports (confirmed in 2013 by satellite imagery:
Fig.35), M. Brudiu also excavated three sondages/embankments (in the points: ScnteietiLa
Cruce; Rediu where the wall meets the Suhurlui creek; McieniBranite /the tumulus from edge
of the Bleni commune), by which he cut through the wall and the adjacent ditch, thus obtaining
details on the fortifications construction method24. Thus, in the first case, the author ascertained
the presence of burnings and traces of carbonised wood, about which he presumed as possibly
originating from a watch post located where a valley intersected the wall. Similarly, in front of the
ditch there were several deep pits, which would have served as traps25. The traces of the palisade
could be investigated at Mcieni (Fig.7); it comprised a row of stakes (placed at 1m from each other)
located at ca. 6.50m from the edge of the ditch, meant to support the wall26. Noteworthy is that on
the profile published by the excavator, multiple filling layers are visible in the ditch, which, in our
opinion, can be connected to the restoration of the ditch.
Also of interest is the remark by geographer Victor Sficlea that the line of the wall separates
precisely the plateau areas from the plain ones to the south27.
M. Brudiu conclusions on the route of the fortification were largely agreed by I. T. Dragomir,
who brought, in his turn, a series of amendments regarding this course28.
4. A distinctive point of view on the moment of the construction of the wall was expressed
by the Iai-based researcher Ion Ioni, who regarded the information of the Roman historian
Ammianus Marcellinus as not corresponding to the geographical realities from southern Moldavia,
nor with the historical situation from this area at the end of the 4th century AD29. As working
17
18
Vulpe 1957, p.36, 5152; Vulpe 2013, p.363, 371372.
19
Vulpe 1957, p.52; Vulpe 2013, p.371.
20
Vulpe 1950, p.168, 172173; Dragomir 1996b, p.630.
21
Vulpe 1957, p.1213 and fig. 2; Vulpe 2013, p.351, fig. 2.
22
Brudiu, 2001, p.259, 263.
23
Brudiu 1979; Brudiu 1995; Brudiu 2001.
24
Brudiu 1979, p.153154; Brudiu 1987, p.1011; Brudiu 2001, p.261265; Brudiu 2003, p.6263, 120.
25
Brudiu 1979, p.153154.
26
Brudiu 1995, p.233234; Brudiu 2001, p.261263 and fig. 3.
27
Brudiu 2001, p.266267 and fig. 2.
28
Dragomir 1996a, p.394395; Dragomir 1996b, p 630631 and fig. 1.
29
Ioni 1982, p.5358.
alternative, Ioni suggested that Athanaric built his fortifications in the central-northern part of
Moldavia, a more remote location from the Huns advancing from the Dniester to southern Moldavia.
In what concerns the wall from southern Moldavia, he opined it was built by the Carpi during their
peak of political-military power the first half of the 3rd century in order to protect their territory
from a Roman invasion30. His hypothesis was accepted by some scholars, and received with caution
by others31.
5. The dating hypothesis of Ion Ioni was accepted partially by M. Brudiu, with the remark that
the wall was built by the Carpi not against the Romans, but the Sarmatians, who, driven westwards
from the Pontic steppe by the Goths at the end of the 2nd century beginning of the 3rd century,
settled in great numbers the Wallachian Plain and constituted a threat to the Carpi32. For Brudiu,
nonetheless, only comprehensive and clear archaeological evidence can clarify the question of the
walls dating and ethnic affiliation of its builders.
6. During the last decade, the young researcher Costin Croitoru tacked, again, the issue of the
linear fortifications from the Lower Danube. His analysis, conducted with competence and scientific
rigour, was concerned not only with the historical junctures that demanded the building of the walls33,
but also with the theoretical aspects of the walls terminology and functionality34. With respect to the
wall between Ploscueni and Stoicani, the cited author considers it aprioristically Roman (as revealed
by the very title of his book: 2004; 2007), proposing, however, a new dating and a novel explanation
for its use in stages. He holds that the wall was built during the reign of Hadrian (117119) to protect
the territory from southern Moldavia, which was under Roman control, from the incursions of the
Sarmatians, who penetrated in large numbers into the Wallachian Plain during the troublesome
events occurring in Dacia after Trajans death. Starting from the stratigraphic observations of Radu
Vulpes sondage from the Prisaca forest, Croitoru suggests two stages of use for the wall, with the
second coming similarly from Roman initiative, this time during the 4rd century, when the ditch was
already filled and only the wall was used for watching, eventually with wooden towers erected on its
ridge in order to look over the lands to the North35.
***
From the discussion above, we can discern three major opinions regarding the political factor
that decided the building of the wall:
a. the Roman Empire (C. Schuchhardt), with C. Croitorus amendments concerning the building
timeframe during the early years of Hadrians rule, and the eventual use stage during the 4th century;
b. the Free Dacians from Moldavia, during the Carpis hegemony over the area, with two
presumed distinct datings and uses:
- either the first half of the 3rd century, against Roman attacks (I. Ioni);
- either the end of the 2nd centurythe beginning of the 3rd century, against the Sarmatians
from Muntenia (M. Brudiu);
c. Athanarics Goths, in 375376, as defence against the Huns (R. Vulpe).
Worthy of mention is also the German geographer C. Uhligs opinion on a pre-Roman dating of
the wall, without advancing a hypothesis on the builder.
From these hypotheses, the one according to which the wall was raised to protect against
Sarmatian incursions seems less plausible, since such a large-scale fortification work was ineffective
against a population that not only settled Muntenia, but also entered in several migratory waves in
practically all areas of Moldavia found to the west of the Prut, using the accessible fords of this river.
30
Ioni 1982, p.4559.
31
Bichir 1984, p.197; Croitoru 2004, p.108110.
32
Brudiu 2001, p.272277.
33
Croitoru 2002, p.114117; Croitoru 2004, p.109110.
34
Croitoru 2007.
35
Croitoru 2004, p.111113.
Accordingly, we consider that such an extensive structure, facing southwards, was irrelevant as long
as the presumed enemy was already found in large numbers behind this defensive line!
***
Analysing the previous propositions, alongside the data available on this fortification system,
we draw the following conclusions:
Firstly, this fortification system is dissociated on the ground from any of the other two Roman
walls nearby (the wall between the settlements of Traian and Tuluceti in front of the castrum from
Barboi; the wall between Vadul lui Isac and Tatarbunar/Lake Sasc in southern Bessarabia), raised to
defend more efficiently the strategic area from the mouths of the Danube (Fig.1), which determines
us to believe that when the wall between Stoicani and Ploscueni was constructed, there were no
other similar structures in this area. Conversely, if the wall that starts at Stoicani was built after or at
the same time with the one that runs across southern Bessarabia, then it should have, logically, make
junction in the area of the Pruth River, as theoretically assumed by Carl Schuchhardt. Still, if the wall
between the Siret and the Pruth was built at a time when the wall from southern Bessarabia already
existed, then it would mean that the initiative for the erection of the wall from southern Moldavia
came from a group that deliberately sought to not adjoin the Roman wall from the other side of the
Pruth a hypothesis which seems less plausible and harder to explain, since the area was under strict
Roman control.
Therefore, considering as more plausible the dating of the StoicaniPloscueni wall before the
building of the Roman walls meant to protect the bridgeheads of Moesia Inferior on the left bank of
the Danube, we are left with the only political, economic and military power of the area, predating the
Roman rule, that was capable of erect this extensive fortification complex, spanning ca. 100km, for
the construction of which 1.5 million cubic metres of earth were dug up36. We are referring, obviously,
to the Dacian state during the rule of Decebalus37, engaged in an open military conflict with the
Roman Empire, and making use of all means to stop the Roman expansion.
As part of Decebaluss strategic plans, a particular attention was played by the eastern regions of
Dacia, as evidenced also by the fact that this area was the starting point of the great counteroffensive
on the Lower Danube during the winter of 101102, relying to a large extent on contingents drawn
from eastern Dacia, including Sarmatian cataphract cavalry and Germanic warriors, as revealed by
the battle scenes immortalized on Trajans column and the Tropaeum Traiani38.
After the successful campaign of the Roman governor of Moesia in 5767 AD, Tiberius Plautius
Silvanus Aelianus, and the transfer of 100.000 Transdanubians to the south of the Danube, thereby
creating a buffer zone between Moesia and Dacia39, Decebalus, who took power after this ominous
event, found it necessary to strengthen the defensive capacity of his realm against other future Roman
attempts to invade. Among these measures we can imagine the establishing of limites, following a
model already employed by the Romans at some of the borders of their empire40. The building of a
limes became technically possible in Dacia too under the rule of Decebalus, who received numerous
Roman deserters, including construction specialists, and even official envoys sent by Domitian
following the stipulations of the 89 AD peace treaty (Dio LXVII, 7, 1; LXVIII, 8, 3; LXVIII, 10, 3).
The wall from southern Moldavia, with a south-facing ditch, can indicate exactly this effort
of the Dacian king to stop the Roman advance from the direction of Moesia. It is notable that the
36
Because of the numerous deviations from a straight course, the length of the wall was estimated differently by various
authors; from this, the contradictory values for the quantity of excavated earth. Since the width and depth of the ditch vary
significantly from one area to another, any estimation of the volume of earth excavated is only an approximation.
37
This hypothesis was first advanced in the presentation delivered at the scientific session of the Bukovina Museum in
Suceava, on November 24th, 2012.
38
Vulpe 1964; Daicoviciu 1972; Gostar 2008.
39
Pippidi 1967, p.287328.
40
Romes example of defending the borders using limites was borrowed by other populations from the Barbaricum, particularly
by the Germanic (Vulpe 2013, p.351353).
important davae from Barboi and from Poiana on the Siret River were left outside the area defended
by the wall; this suggests that the wall was built at a moment when the two important Dacian
fortified settlements had already fallen under Roman control41, just like other davae from Muntenia,
integrated into the buffer zone established by Silvanus Aelianus. This also explain the sudden turn
to the NNV of the wall after it crosses the Brlad River, leaving the fortress from Poiana at the 3km to
the South (Figs. 2 and 5).
The fortifications construction method suggests that there was a unitary conception only
with respect to the walls course, with the clear separation of the hilly areas of the Moldavian Plateau
from the flatlands of the Lower Siret Plain42. With respect to the actual construction manner, the
structure presents differences from one sector to the other, both in terms of the width, shape and
depth of the ditch, as well as in terms of the building methods, as revealed by the data obtained
from the four stratigraphic sections cut through the wall and the ditch before 2013 (one by Radu
Vulpe and three by M. Brudiu)43. This reality clearly speaks, in our opinion, against attributing
the structure between Stoicani and Ploscueni to the Roman authority44, since all the Roman
constructions of this kind, including those found in the area, have a unitary construction technique.
On the contrary, it is exactly this lack of unity with respect to the digging of the ditch and the
erection of the wall, which allows to consider that the fortification line was traced at the initiative
of a central authority (namely, the Dacian kingdom), but the task of the actual construction of
each sector befell on the communities from eastern Dacia, probably led by local nobles (Dacians,
Germanics, Sarmatians), who respected the general plan, but adapted it to the local possibilities
(labour force, raw materials, tools).
Such fortification lines, constructed during the Dacian state, have also been recorded in
other parts of Dacia, even if they are not as long as the wall from southern Moldavia. It suffices to
mention the two well-known walls from Cioclovina and Ponorici, which restricts the access from the
South towards the area of the fortresses from the Ortie Mountains45, as well as the wall from the
Transylvanian Iron Gates ancient Tapae46, or some of the earth walls from the western part of Dacia,
such as the one from the area of the Criul Alb River, between Comneti-Iercoeni47, probably raised
against the Iazyges from the Tisza Plain, who were Roman allies during the Dacian Wars.
Most certainly, after the conquest of the whole of Dacia by Trajan, the ditch of the wall between
the Prut and the Siret was filled, but the wall was preserved, receiving an obvious strategic role,
41
It is highly relevant that, at Poiana, most of the coins discovered stop during the rule Nero, with only six other pieces from
Vespasian (Mihilescu-Brliba 1980, p.6263). Similarly, from southern Moldavia come seven coin treasures (Barboi, Galai
County; Fitioneti, Mnstioara and Odobeti-Vrancea County; Pnceti, Trgu Ocna and Scurta-Bacu County), ending
with the age of Augustus-Tiberius (Mihilescu-Brliba 1980, p.45).
42
Brudiu 2001, p.274 and fig. 2.
43
The sondage made by R. Vulpe in 1949 in the Prisaca Forrest, within the territory of the epu village (6km to the East from
Nicoreti) revealed that the earth taken out of the ditch was not randomly thrown away, but that a clay core was modelled first
(to provide the wall with consistency), and then the wall was raised with black earth (Vulpe 1957, p.1213 and fig. 2).
In the sondage cut by M. Brudiu in the site of La Cruce, on the territory of the Scnteieti commune (towards the eastern
edge of the fortification), in front of the ditch (2.80m wide and 2.30m deep), there were found the traces of frustoconical pits,
deep as the ditch, which were interpreted as traps for attackers. In the filling of the ditch there were rich traces of fire from a
wooden construction (Brudiu 1979, p.153154), considered either as observation tower, either palisade.
In the sondage dug in 1983 on the territory of the village of Mcieni (Corni commune), bordering on the Bleni commune,
it was observed that behind the ditch (here with a depth of 4 m, preserving consistent remains of charcoal and ash), where
the wall was located, there was a row of pits from the stakes of a palisade, of which it is stated that was meant to reinforce the
structure of the wall, as well as to increase the defensive value of the construction (Brudiu 1995, p.233234; Brudiu 2001,
p.261263 and fig. 3).
44
The same conclusion was reached recently by E. S. Teodor and C. Croitoru (2013), employing an archaeometric research
method, by comparison with fortifications clearly dated to the Roman period.
45
Glodariu 1994, p.302; Glodariu 2000; Tatu and Moraru 1983; Moraru and Tatu 1985; Moraru and Tatu 1993; Teodor, Pean
and Berzovan 2013.
46
Tatu 1983.
47
Dumitracu 1969, p.490 and fig. 13: similar to the ditch of the wall from southern Moldavia; Berzovan 2013.
particularly after the reorganization of the province of Dacia under Hadrian, when Moldavia was left
outside the borders of the Empire.
The diggings conducted at Bleni in 2013, even though they did not capture the wall in elevation
(as a consequence of the levelling done in 197080 by agricultural and land amelioration works),
offered nonetheless several stratigraphic clues, from which it can be drawn that a part of the wall,
from the South, was cut probably in order to fill the ditch. This created, along the wall, an area ca. 6m
wide, which allowed the building of a road protected by the wall. At the same time, the remaining
wall could have served, eventually, as platform for the erection of observation strongholds towards
the northern areas occupied by the Free Dacians, thus becoming a Roman limes, with the possibility
of now being connected to the one from southern Bessarabia. Also, its course could efficiently
protect the road that connected the area of the Danube mouths (starting from the important civilian
and military settlement from Barboi) with eastern Transylvania, following the Trotu Valley, then the
Oituz Valley, up to the castrum from Brecu/Angustia48. In this context, it is possible that the Romans
made certain restorations of the wall, possibly captured in the section cut by M. Brudiu at Mcieni,
or even in that of Radu Vulpe from the Prisaca Forrest considered by C. Croitoru49 as belonging to a
possible Roman reappearance in the area during the 4th century.
After the dissolution of the Roman control of the area, the great fortification line gradually lost
its height, becoming flatter as time passed, and particularly after the intensive agricultural works
of the last century. Evidence in this respect is also provided by the data on the field recognition of
the fortification, which became increasingly rare, taking as guideline the first mentions, followed
by those of Schuchhardt from the end of the 19th century, then those from the second half of the
20thcentury (R. Vulpe, M. Brudiu, I.T. Dragomir), and, lastly, the current situation. In many cases the
very toponyms referencing the wall have disappeared, and the local inhabitants have no recollection
of the existence of the wall. As such, there are now entire areas where, along tens of kilometres, there
are no visible traces on the surface (such as at Bleni). In these conditions, it is necessary to employ
modern detection methods (magnetometry, satellite imagery, and so forth) for reconstructing the
course and describing the fortifications composing elements.
***
The equipment available to the Arheoinvest Platform from the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University
of Iai made it possible to reconstruct the route of the ditch and the wall in the areas that subsequently
housed the wind turbines from Bleni, on the Bltei, Zgancea and Valea Rea hills, for a distance of
3.4km, along an approximate NV-SE direction (Fig.3). Similarly, it was possible to reconstruct, almost
entirely, the route of the linear fortification between Stoicani and Ploscueni, using satellite imagery
(Figs. 4 and 5).
The excavation from FebruaryMarch 2013 at Bleni, of the ancient defensive ditch adjacent
to the wall, revealed that the ditch displayed two clear digging and filling stages. On the basis of
this observation, we consider that the linear fortification from southern Moldavia had three main
usestages:
1. The first is that of the digging of the ditch (with widths between 6 and 8.5m and depths
between 2.80 and 3.50m), as well as the simultaneous raising of the northern wall, using the earth
dug from the ditch.
Because the wall disappeared following agricultural works, few clear stratigraphic data are
available on it. Attempting, nonetheless, a reconstruction of the wall on the basis of these scant data,
the first sustainable conclusion is the existence of a palisade, as well as an inner reinforcement of
poles and stakes, meant to prevent a landslip. The wall was 810 m in width, and started at ca. 1.5m
from the edge of the ditch, thus forming a berm. The central area of the former wall still displays a
Prvan 1913, p.119120; Brudiu 1998.

48
C. Croitoru, 2004, p.111.

49
certain bulging, of ca. 1015cm from the level of the ground to the N and S. In the central part of the
wall, at approx. 55.5m from the northern edge of the ditch, there were the traces of a ditch, 0.80m
wide, at the bottom of which the palisades stakes were implanted (at ca. 0.200.30m). The stakes
pits were 0.400.50m in diameter, and were place at interval of ca. 1m (counting from the centre of
the pits). The space between the stakes was probably covered by wattle work.
Two more-or-less parallel rows of pits (with diameters of 3035cm and ca. 0.75m apart?) were
observed behind the palisade, at ca. 1.20m to the North. The two rows probably originate from the
walls sustaining poles.
A similar inner reinforcement was also done to the South, but in this case the rows are not as
visible as in the first case, with the exception of two parallel rows at the southern extremity of the
wall, where stakes were probably lodged in order to delimit the edge of the wall, in front of the berm.
2. We believe that the second stage of use should be placed during the period of the Roman
province of Dacia, after the conclusion of the Dacian Wars. Probably during the reign of Hadrian,
when the borders of the newly conquered territory were better organised, the old wall became an
observation line, this time of the northern lands. It is possible that during this time the gap between
Stoicani and Vadul lui Isac (where the wall of southern Bessarabia, up to Lake Conduc/Sasic, started)
was closed.
Most likely, at this moment took place the forced filling of a major portion of the southern ditch,
which, not only that it was now useless, it actually hindered the access to the wall and alongside it. It
is possible that the filling was made to a certain extent with material cut from the wall itself, thereby
creating a road platform running E to W the traditional road from Barboi to Transylvania, which
crossed over the Brlad and the Siret rivers, and continued along the Trotu and Oituz valleys, all the
way over the Carpathians to Brecu/Angustia.
3. The third use stage of the fortification is marked by the cutting of a new ditch, inside the
previous one, this time with a smaller depth of only ca. 2 m. The reconstruction was, quite obviously,
due to a political-military force based north of the wall, which sought to protect against a southern
threat. We have, at the moment of speaking, no clue for a chronological placement or the initiator of
the work. It could be, after all, even Athanaric, as assumed by Radu Vulpe on the basis of the passage
from Ammianus Marcellinus (XXXI, 3, 7), but, for the time being, archaeological evidence is lacking.
Unfortunately, during our investigations we were unable to extend to much our digging in the area
behind the wall (which could preserve traces from the camps of the builders), since it extended
beyond the area set for rescue archaeological intervention.
We consider as almost certain that this reconstruction work focused primarily on the ditch,
while the wall was left as it was, save for the implicit heightening with the earth from the digging. This
concentrated effort only towards the ditch greatly reduced the execution time and the construction
effort. If it is indeed true that Athanaric sought deliverance behind this fortification, then the use
of previous, already existing structures, it is possible that in such a short time the wall was almost
ready when the Huns arrived. We also stress the fact that the new ditch was dug exactly inside the old
one, which suggests that at that moment the bed of the older ditch was still visible.
On the basis of the data available at the moment, we proposed this reconstruction of the history
of the linear fortification from southern Moldavia a monument that, as a result of the action of time and
particularly of human activity, is nearing complete destruction. Fortunately, using satellite imagery,
we can still reconstruct its former course. The cultural-chronological setting of the important ancient
monument from southern Moldavia can be done only through extensive archaeological excavations,
not limited to the narrow perimeter of the fortification, but also of the adjoining area to the north,
with the aim of unearthing the traces left by the builders of this impressive defensivestructure.
Bibliography
Berzovan, Al. 2013. Considerations on Troianul in ara Zarandului, Ziridava, 27, p.161182.
Bichir, Gh. 1984. Recenzie la: I. Ioni, Din istoria si civilizatia dacilor liberi. Dacii din spaiul est carpatic n secolele
IIIV e.n., Thraco-Dacica, V, p. 194202.
Brudiu, M. 1979. Cercetri arheologice n zona valului lui Athanaric, Danubius, 89, p. 151162.
Brudiu, M. 1987. Date noi privind nceputul epocii bronzului n sud-estul Moldovei, Thraco-Dacica, VIIII, p. 1015.
Brudiu, M. 1995. Cercetri privind valurile antice din sudul Moldovei, p.227236. In S. Dumitracu, V. Moga,
A.Chiriac, S. ipo (eds.) Din istoria Europei romane. Omagiu lui D. Protase. Universitatea din Oradea Muzeul rii Criurilor,
Oradea.
Brudiu, M. 1998. Drumul roman prin Moldova de Jos ntre intuiie i realiti arheologice, Pontica, XXXI, p.209216.
Brudiu, M. 2001. Alte consideraii referitoare la valul zis al lui Atanaric, p.257277. In L. Cornea, M. Drecin,
B.tefnescu, A. Chiriac, I. Crian (Eds.), Adevrul omenete posibil pentru rnduirea binelui. Omagiu profesorului Sever
Dumitracu. Universitatea din Oradea Muzeul rii Criurilor, Oradea.
Brudiu, M. 2003. Lumea de sub tumuli de la indo-europeni la turanici trzii. Mrturii arheologice. Editura Printech,
Bucureti.
Croitoru, C. 2002. Sudul Moldovei n cadrul sistemului defensiv roman. Contribuii la cunoaterea valurilor de
pmnt, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, I, p.107120.
Croitoru, C. 2004. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos (secolele IIV p.Chr.), I. Editura Istros, Galai.
Croitoru, C. 2007. Fortificaii liniare romane n stnga Dunrii de Jos (II). Terminologie relativ. Editura Istros, Brila.
Daicoviciu, H. 1972. Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea roman. Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca.
Dragomir, I. T. 1967. Le dpt de lge du bronze tardif de Bleni, Roumanie. Inventaria Archaeologica, 4, R18,
Bucureti.
Dragomir, I. T. 1996a. Vestigii ale culturii i civilizaiei geto-dacice i daco-romane n regiunea de sud a Moldovei,
Danubius, XVI, p.381399.
Dragomir I. T. 1996b. Fortificaiile antice de pe teritoriul Moldovei de Jos, Danubius, XVI, p.629631, fig. 1.
Dumitracu, S. 1969. Contribuii la cunoaterea graniei de vest a Daciei romane, Acta Musei Napocensis, VI,
p. 483491.
Fabricius, E. 1926. Limes. In: Real-Encyclopdie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, XIII, 1, Halbband 25,
Berlin.
Glodariu, I. 1994. Cioclovina, p.302. In C. Preda (ed.), Enciclopedia arheologiei i istoriei vechi a Romniei, I. Editura
Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Glodariu, I. 2000. La zone de Sarmizegetusa Regia et les guerres de Trajan, Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VII,
p. 107121.
Gostar, N. 2008. Marele monument funerar roman de la Adamclisi. Studiu epigrafic. Casa Editorial Demiurg, Iai.
Ignat, M. 1985. Contribuii la cunoaterea valurilor de pmnt din spaiul est-carpatic. Valul din Bucovina, Suceava,
1112 (19841985), p. 101117.
Ioni, I. 1982. Din istoria i civilizaia dacilor liberi. Dacii din spaiul est-carpatic n secolele IIIV e.n. Editura
Junimea, Iai.
Mihilescu-Brliba, V. 1980. La monnaie romaine chez les Daces orientaux, Editura Academiei, Bucureti.
Moraru, V., Tatu, H. 1985. O nou fortificaie dacic n zona Ponorici, judeul Hunedoara, Sargetia, 1819
(19841985), p. 109112.
Moraru, V., Tatu, H. 1993. Posibile fortificaii dacice din val de piatr i pmnt la Pui i Federi (jud. Hunedoara), Acta
Musei Napocensis, 2630 (19891993, 1), p. 263268.
Prvan, V. 1913. Castrul de la Poiana i drumul roman prin Moldova de Jos, Analele Academiei Romne, Memoriile
Seciunii Istorice, s. II, t. XXXVI, p.93142.
Pippidi, D. M. 1967. Tiberius Plautius Aelianus i frontiera Dunrii-de-Jos n sec. I e.n., p.287328. In: D. M. Pippidi,
Contribuii la istoria veche a Romniei. Editura tiinific, Bucureti.
Schuchhardt, C. 1885. Wlle und Chausseen im sdlichen und stlichen Dacien, Archaeologisch-epigraphische
Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, IX, p.202232.
Schuchhardt, C. 1944. Aus Leben und Arbeit, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
Tatu, H. 1983. Fortificaii la Porile de Fier ale Transilvaniei, Sargetia, 1617 (19821983), p. 165170.
Tatu, H., Moraru, V. 1983. Dispozitivul defensiv dacic de la Ponoriciu (jud. Hunedoara), Sargetia, 1617 (19821983),
p. 151164.
Teodor, E. S., Croitoru, C. 2013. A Method for the Evaluation of the Dykes. Case Sudy for Athanarics Wall, p. 657679.
In A. Stavil, D. Micle, A. Cntar, C. Floca, S. Foru (eds.), Arheovest I In memoriam Liviu Mruia Interdisciplinaritate n
Arheologie i Istorie, Timioara, 7 decembrie 2013. JATEPress Kiad, Szeged.
Teodor, E. S., Pean, A., Berzovan, Al. 2013a. Cercetri perieghetice pe platforma Luncani. I. Trsa i Poiana Omului,
ESTuar, 1, p.134.
Teodor, E. S., Pean, A., Berzovan, A. 2013b. Cercetri perieghetice pe platforma Luncani. II. Ponorici i Chiciura,
ESTuar, 2, p.198.
Uhlig, C. 1928. Die Wlle in Bessarabien, besonders die sogenannten Traianswlle, Prhistorische Zeitschrift, 19,
1928, p. 185249.
Vulpe, R. 1950. Despre valul din Moldova de jos i zidul lui Atanarih, Studii i cercetri de istorie veche, I, 2,
p. 163174.
Vulpe, R. 1952. Valul din Moldova de Jos, Studii i cercetri de istorie veche, III, p.218220.
Vulpe, R. 1957. Le vallum de la Moldavie Infrieure et le mur dAthanaric, Editura Mouton & Co., La Haye / Haag/
The Hague.
Vulpe, R. 1964. Dion Cassius et la campagne de Trajan en Msie Infrieure, Studii clasice, VI, p.205232.
Vulpe, R. 2013. Valul Moldovei de Jos i zidul lui Athanaric, p.340374. In R. Vulpe, Studii privind protoistoria
Daciei. Editura Academiei, Bucureti.
Fig. 1. The earth walls between the Carpathians and the Dniester
(after Ioni 1982, fig. 3; Ignat 1985, p. 108, fig. 12).
Fig. 2. The route of the wall from southern Moldavia,

established by C. Schuchhardt and R. Vulpe (after Brudiu, 1979, fig. 1B).
Fig. 3. The route of the fortification in the area of the Bleni settlement, established by M. Brudiu and from satellite
(Google Earth) imagery; the red points represent the locations of the wind turbines.
Fig. 4. The route of the wall in southern Moldavia (between Stoicani and Cudalbi),
established by M. Brudiu (1979, fig. 1A; Croitoru 2004, p. 194, pl. XVII)
Fig. 5. The general route of the StoicaniPloscueni fortification,

established through satellite (Google Earth) imagery.
Fig. 6. The section cut in 1949 through the wall and ditch in the Prisaca-Cincu forest (after Vulpe 1957, fig. 2).
Fig. 7. Section cut in 1983 through the fortification at Mcieni, Corni commune
(after Brudiu 1987, p. 1011; 2001, p. 262, fig. 3).
Fig. 8. View of the wall preserved in a forest to the north of Matca.
Fig. 9. Bleni-Valea Rea, 2013. The western profile of section XI, with the two digging phases of the defensive ditch.
Fig. 10. Bleni-Valea Rea, 2013. The western profile of section XI-extension,
between 6 m and 9 m, with the traces of a palisade pole.
Fig. 11. Bleni-Valea Rea, 2013. Section XI-extension:

traces of stakes captured in the plan and profile.
Fig. 12. Bleni-Valea Rea, 2013. Section XI-extension: pole pit, with charcoal remains
Earth Vallums Possible Interpretations
Mircea Ignat
tefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
mirceaignat@yahoo.fr
Keywords: limes, Trajans vallum, Roman Empire, linear fortifications
Abstract: As an anthropic form of topography (various types Rezumat: Dintre formele de relief antropice (diferite tipuri de
of fortifications, tumuli etc.), the earth vallums, accompanied fortificaii, tumuli etc.), valurile de pmnt nsoite de anuri
by ditches, greatly impressed the common people throughout adiacente au impresionat profund, de-a lungul secolelor,
the centuries and challenged the historians and archaeologists oamenii de rnd i au provocat istoricii i arheologii la o
to research them intensely. This situation has been and asidu investigare a lor. Acest fapt a fost i este determinat de
continues to be certified by the many fortifications that criss- mulimea fortificaiilor care strbat pe trasee diferite mai tot
cross almost the entire European continent, along various continentul european. Cele mai cunoscute sunt fortificaiile
routes. The most famous are the fortifications that are part of care fac parte din amplul sistem al limes-ului roman. Dar sunt
the vast system of the Roman limes. But there are also linear i alte fortificaii lineare care nu aparin lumii romane. Sunt
fortifications that are not part of the Roman world. They are construcii barbare despre care, n unele situaii, avem cteva
Barbarian constructions, and for some of them we have data date n izvoarele scrise. Despre multe altele, ndeosebi cele din
from written sources. As for the rest, particularly in the East- spaiul est-european, se ateapt nc de la cercetrile viitoare
European region, we are relying on future research to shed ca s le deslueasc menirea, s le precizeze constructorii, ca
light on what they mean, who built them and, consequently, atare i datarea lor.
when they were built.
As an anthropic form of topography (various types of fortifications, tumuli etc.), the earth
vallums, accompanied by ditches, greatly impressed the common people throughout the centuries
and challenged the historians and archaeologists to research them intensely. This situation has been
and continues to be certified by the many fortifications that criss-cross almost the entire European
continent, along various routes. The most famous are the fortifications that are part of the vast system
of the Roman limes. But there are also linear fortifications that are not part of the Roman world. They
are Barbarian constructions, and for some of them we have data from written sources. As for the rest,
particularly in the East-European region, we are relying on future research to shed light on what they
mean, who built them and, consequently, when they were built.
The model of barbarian fortifications in Europe is to be sought only in the Roman world1. That
is to say, these European fortifications are either Roman (and continued by the Byzantine ones) or
made by peoples under the influence of the Empire. We must not ignore the fact that, many centuries
later, peoples that had nothing to do with Rome imitate such constructions. One can assume that
they had direct visual contact with the old monuments (at a time when they were better preserved).
We must not rule out the possibility of the persistence of vague collective memories that convince
the leaders of those peoples about the efficiency of these constructions in regard to surprise attacks.
Although the barbarian world borrowed the idea of making these long fortifications from the
Romans, what they built is radically different from the original, not just because they are technically
1
In pre-Roman Europe, we can read about the Schythian ditch mentioned by Herodotus (Histories IV, III; XX; XXVII),
which crossed the Kerch Peninsula. There are also ditches in the Oriental world see, for instance, the one between Antipatris
and Ioppe, in Judea (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, A, XIII, XV, 1). These were certainly not prototypes for the
vallums that were are discussing here.

164 Mircea Ignat
modest, but also because the vallums were no longer accompanied by other types of fortifications,
such as castra, castellan, burgi and speculae. Moreover, the barbarian vallums do not have behind them
the via militaris or the berma2, as all the annexes are to be found only in the case of Romanfortifications.
Constructions of this type require the existence of central, well-structured authorities, with the
capacity and an adequate demographic potential to undertake such efforts. The reward was a certain
peace of mind for the constructors. The vallums were not defended by permanent garrisons, but they
were probably monitored carefully, so they often prevented the intrusion of small, isolated groups
of nomads. In case of a major offensive, the vallum would delay the surprise attack from the steppe
riders, who were always accompanied by chariots and herds.
Such works, gigantic for that time, are credible when compared, for instance, to the intention
of building a canal, on which one could sail, between the Main and the Danube Fossa Carolina3.
Charlemagne was able to mobilize 8.000 people for 20 weeks, but the geological conditions
prevented him from completing this work, whose traces are visible to this day. We can also mention
various estimations of the labour required by other such works, e.g. the vallum of Athanaric 4. In all
these cases, we can only conclude that considerable efforts were required.
However, of the many European vallums, some of them have famous constructors. In the
former province of Britannia is the vallum built by king Offa II (757796), also known as Offas Dyke,
against the Anglo-Saxons, which is 250km long, more than all the Roman vallums in Britannia
combined5. Without going into details, we will also mention that, in the 8th century, in the north
of what is presentday Germany, the pagan Danish erected a vallum against the expansion of the
Christian Franks. To the east, in the Tisa basin, we have known for quite a while about a vast defensive
system, starting at the curve in the Danube, crossing the Tisa basin and going to the south, where
it re-encounters the Danube. This fortification system is not just one line, but three rows of vallums
oriented towards the east. One of them is attested in writing as early as the 9th century, so it has an
ante quem dating. Further to the east, the foreign travellers reported that the Kiev Russians defended
their territory by long ditches against the horse-riding peoples from the north-Pontic steppes. This
brief list shows that the European vallums had different constructors.
We aim to also reveal a few things about the Moldavian area, where it is fit to discuss the
situation north of the Dniestr. When seen as a whole, this territory really stands out, because of the
many vallums that cross it.
The vallums in northern Bucovina6 (today, the Cernui Ukraine region), Galicia and western
Podolia have been known to the Polish humanists, travellers and diplomats from as early as the
17th century7. At the end of the 19th century, J. Jung mentioned the vallum in western Podolia as
being Roman, a mistake caused by the thinking that such a work could only be Roman8. T. Sulimirski,
writing about a vallum left of the Dniestr and arching wide to the Zbru river, with the ditch
oriented southwest, mentioned only that there are no more Transylvanian bronze items east of this
fortification9. Another vallum, to the west of the aforementioned one, between the mouths of the
2
An exception is the vallum between Manoleasa and Dngeni, also known as the Troian of the Upper Moldova, which has
a berma. Systematic investigations have revealed the existence of an extra vallum, drawing a perfectly straight line, meant to
defend the place where the main vallum reached the right-hand bank of the Prut River. One has even emphasized a Roman
influence in its design (adurschi 1982, p. 321334).
3
Brown 2002, p. 257.
4
Vulpe 1957, p. 49; Brudiu 2001, p. 264265.
5
Trevelyan 1975, p. 68; Nicolescu 1999, p. 77, 81, 123 (where it is described).
6
Timouk f.a., p. 3036. This is a popular science work, where the vallums are called troian, but we must mention that in
the area of Hotin, they are called Turkish vallum. It also must be said that the Romanian population from here was displaced
by creating the raia of Hotin, and the old name was lost. Unfortunately, we do not have an explicit map of these monuments
in northern Bucovina.
7
An ample presentation of these notes in Armbruster 1972, p. 15, 105, 107108, 169, 223224.
8
Jung 1881, p. 345346. He is followed by Kaindl 1896, p. 22.
9
Sulimirski 1936, p. 120. This is an interesting observation, as the vallum is where the highlands end and the forest steppe
begins, thus involuntarily marking the border of the Gva- Holihrady culture.
Earth Vallums Possible Interpretations 165
Fig. 1. Galician and north Bessarabian vallums (after Bogdan Tomenuk).
Zbru river and the upper Siret, with a similar orientation, draws a straight line, but one that has a
90o bend. In northern Basarabia, between the Prut and the Dniestr, south of Hotin, there are other
five vallum segments, with small intervals between them, probably with a similar orientation, to the
south-east10 (Fig. 1).
Looking at this set of fortifications from the eastern-Carpathian area, with orientations
to the south-east (the northern ones), to the south (the vallum of Athanaric) or to the north (the
Manoleasa-Dngeni vallum), we realise that they had different constructors and were the result of
various political-military situations. This is not unusual. Most of the vallums in Europe belong to
distinct periods, spread throughout the entire first millennium. In our opinion, neither those from
the Moldavian area, nor those from the Galician region, must be forcefully dated to the first centuries,
as some have tried to do11.
In the absence of thorough, interdisciplinary research, including archaeological surveys12, and
of aerial reconnaissance, the routes of the fortifications remain unclear. A major deficiency is the lack
of archaeological maps suggesting who might have been the defenders behind the vallum or the
potential enemies in front of them. Finally, the research of the vallums must have an international
nature, as they almost always go across borders. At present, with these documentation deficiencies,
the interpretations will always be speculations, regardless of how subtle or attractive they may be.
10
There is little that we know about these vallums. We are reproducing a map made by Tomenuk 2008, p. 18, fig. 4.2. The
author investigates the horoditele (some of them are Halstatt) and the roads between them. He also charts the vallums, but
without analysing them. Despite all its imperfections, this is the only acceptable map at our disposal.
11
What is also shaky is the opinion of Timouk f.a., p. 3535, who attributes to Athanaric a vallum from northern Bucovina
(the obsession with the text of Ammianus Marcellinus), but stresses that the king and other warring parties (Alatheus, Saphrax
etc.) were part of the proto-Slavic people (?!)
12
We draw attention, to that end, to the repeated interdisciplinary studies and persistent field research of Brudiu 2001,
p. 257277, regarding the so-called Athanaric vallum.
166 Mircea Ignat
There is one more thing worth emphasizing: all of the fortification lines in the eastern-Carpathian
area, even those from Galicia, are called Trajans vallum, which explains the popular local name of
troian13. Please be aware that the multiple meanings of the word could lead to toponyms that are not
connected to the fortification lines in question14. In any case, the Troian toponym could be stressing
that the idea of erecting vallums in the Carpathian-Danubian space has its origins in the Roman
world, even if some of them were constructed many centuries after the withdrawal of the Romans
across the Danube. To that end, we could say that only a Romanic population could have preserved
and diffused this toponym. We should recall that in Galicia there were places with ius Valachium. The
name of Troian, clearly originating from the name of the conqueror of Dacia, attested by many ancient
epigraphic sources15, turned into a toponym and then spread throughout the CarpathianDanubian
space, which is strong evidence of the Dacian-Roman continuity.
Bibliography
Armbruster, A. 1972. Romanitatea romnilor. Istoria unei idei. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania,
Bucureti.
Brown, P., Neumann, H. 2002. ntemeierea cretinismului occidental. Polirom, Iai.
Brudiu, M. 2001. Alte consideraii referitoare la valul antic zis a lui Athanaric, p. 264265. In: Adevrul omenete
posibil pentru rnduirea binelui. Volum omagial Sever Dumitracu (Ed. L. Cornea et alii). Muzeul rii Criurilor, Oradea.
Ignat, M. 19841985. Contribuii la cunoaterea valurilor de pmnt din spaiul est-carpatic. Valul din Bucovina,
Suceava, XIXII, p. 101117.
Jung, J. 1881. Die romanischen Landschaften des Roemischen Reich. Wagnerschen Universitats-Buchhandlung,
Innsbruck.
Kaindl, R. F. 1896. Geschichte der Bukowina, 1. Abschnitt, Cernui.
Nicolescu, A. 1999. Istoria civilizaiei britanice, I. Institutul European, Iai.
Noica, C. 1967. Rostire filozofic romneasc troienire, Cronica, II, nr. 50 (79) 16.12.1967.
Petolescu, C. C. 1983. Varia Daco-Romana. III. Troianus n epigrafia latin, Thraco-Dacica, IV/12, p. 143145.
Sulimirski, T. 1936. Scytowie na zachodniem Podolu. Nakadem Lwowskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego, Liov.
adurschi, P. 1982. Troianul Moldovei de Sus, Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice, Tulcea, p. 321334.
Timouk, B. O. f.a., ntlnire cu legenda, Ujgorod, f.a.
Tomenuk, B. 2008. Arheologiya gorodi Galikoj zemli. Galicko Bukovinske Pricarpattya. Materiali doslidjen
19762006, Ivano-Frankovsk.
Trevelyan, G. M. 1975. Istoria ilustrat a Angliei. Editura Stiintifica, Bucureti.
Vulpe, R. 1957. Le vallum de Moldavie Infrieure et le mur dAthanaric, s-Gravenhage.
13
See the learned essay of Noica 1967.
14
Our attempt to retrace the route of a vallum solely based on the medieval document attestations, without identifying it in
the field, is still a hypothetical enterprise Ignat 19841985, p. 101117. The study cited has a an ample biography regarding
the historiography of the issue and its philological problems, which is why we did not dwell on it again in this study.
15
Petolescu 1983, p. 143145. We should stress that even the word , from the Russian and Ukrainian languages, has a
Romanic origin.
Olbia, Tyras, the Roman Empire and the Sarmatians
in the Second Half of the 1st Early 2nd Century AD
Vitalie Brc
Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca, Romania
vitalie_barca@yahoo.com
Keywords: the Sarmatians, the Aorsi, the Alani, the Siraces, Pharzoios, Inismeos, the Roman Empire, Olbia, Tyras
Abstract: This study, though not exhaustively, aims at Rezumat: Studiul de fa, fr a avea pretenii de exhaustivi
restoring the political and military circumstances in the tate, ncearc pe baza surselor, literare, epigrafice, numisma
north-west Pontic area during the 1st century CE early 2nd tice i arheologice reconstituirea situaiei politicomilitare din
century CE based on literary, epigraphic, numismatic and spaiul nord-vest pontic n sec. I p. Chr. nceputul sec. IIp.Chr.,
archaeological sources as well as at analysing aspects related ct i o analiz a aspectelor legate de relaiile Imperiului Ro
to the relations of the Roman Empire and the Greek cities man cu oraele greceti din nord-vestul Mrii Negre i tribu
north-west the Black Sea with the Sarmatian tribes in the rile sarmatice din aceast regiune n intervalul chronologic
region during above chronological frame. menionat.
The issue of Roman Empire relations with the Sarmatians and the Greek cities in the north-west
Pontic area over the 1st early 2nd century CE was the focus and endeavour of scholars dealing with
this region. Such interest is fully justified if we consider that a series of events leading to substantial
changes to the geo-political situation in the region occurred then, impacting the entire region north
the Lower Danube in the period in question.
Romes intent to constantly expand its territories in order to set its borders on natural barriers
like the Danube, the Rhine or the Euphrates required a long time for completion. In the end though,
due to its political, military, economic or security interests for its territories and citizens, the Roman
Empire exceeded these limits for increased consolidation and security. To that effect, the region north
the Lower Danube is eloquently indicative.
Starting with Octavianus Augustus, who succeeded to effectively control the Lower Danube line
and the west-Pontic coast, Roman goals in the north Balkan area were conditioned by the evolution
of political relations in the region and the larger Circum-pontic area. During the first decades of the
1stcentury CE, the fulfilment of one of these goals was required by the insecurity of the political
regime in the vassal Odrysian kingdom. Following overt succession conflicts among the Odrysian
dynasts, the death of Rhoemetalces I (in 12 CE) opened the path to a series of confrontations between
his successors, Cotys and Rhaiscuporis1, which would conclude with the division of the kingdom2.
Such circumstances would be soon exploited by the Roman Empire by the establishment of the
province of Thracia3.
Events subsequent Tiberiuss reign were directly linked to the Pontic policy which Rome carried
out by mid 1st century CE. After precisely under Augustus, the Bosphoran kingdom entered the
Roman influence sphere4, which allowed Claudius to intervene in 4445 CE by legate A. Didius Gallus
1
Tacitus, Annales, II, 64, 2.
2
Suceveanu 1977, p.1920.
3
Eusebios, Chronicon, 180 d.
4
Gajdukevich 1971, p.331.

168 Vitalie Brc
in the succession conflict between Cotys and Mithridates5, Neros rule was important in the Roman
expansion process to the north of the Black Sea6. Neros main objective was to control the entire
Circum-pontic coast7, where the most important commercial route linking the Pontic basin with
India and China lay8. This project would be largely developed, with great efforts by Vespasian9 and
entirely completed by Trajan.
The many events converged to revitalised political and economic life in the Greek cities
northwest the Black Sea, which makes us believe that once with the end of the 1st century BCE
early 1st century CE a new period of economic, social and political development of the Greek cities
on the north-west coast of the Black Sea began, substantially different compared to the Hellenistic
period. The revival of life in the ancient centres of the north and west of the Black Sea corresponds
chronologically with active Roman policy in the region. Starting with the 1st century CE, Rome
becomes the single economic, political and military power able to defend the Greek population
in the region and ensure both the cities security and stability of the general political and military
situation, which was of chief importance for stable economic development.
By the end of the 1st century BCE early 1st century CE, both Olbia and Tyras grew increasingly
interested in extending their political and economic relations with the Roman Empire that might
guarantee their security, thus unsurprisingly triggering higher prosperity and economic growth.
Moreover, Romes actions under the first emperors indicate gradual incorporation of both Olbia and
Tyra10 in Roman orbit11.
In Olbias case12, available data are rather scarce for the 1st century CE. Among, epigraphic
monuments rank first and although few, they substantially contribute in elucidating aspects of this
Greek city history over the 1st century CE.
By early 1st century CE, a porticus was erected to honour Augustus and Tiberius13, and some
of the city citizens close relations with Rome are recorded14. Once with the 1st century CE, Roman
culture elements increasingly diffuse in Olbia and links with Italian centres, wherefrom a series of
products originate, develop15. Dadagoss mission with the authorities of Moesia in order to support
city rights takes place in the same century, thus evidencing that Olbia was politically dependent on
Rome16. Lastly, information in the inscription from Mangup, which we shall discuss below, recording
that Olbia sought Roman aid and protection by entering an alliance (symmachia)17, confirms the
above. Evidence of a Roman garrison at Olbia, present sometime between 7095 CE includes the
inscriptions on a few small column bases, placed by M. Aemilius Severianus18, centurion of I Italica.
It is also possible that Roman soldiers at Olbia, even though few, are recorded by the coin mirror
5
Tacitus, Annales, XII, XV; Cf. Speidel and French 1985, 97102; Zubar 1988, p.1927; Zubar 1994, p.1923.
6
Cf. Josephus Flavius, De bello Iudaico, II, 366; see also Dyakov 1941, p.87; Belin de Baller 1972, p.168176; Zubar 1994,
p. 2629.
7
Cf. Suetonius, Nero, 19, 2; Tacitus, Historiae, I, 6.
8
Plinius VI, 17, 52.
9
Cf. Halfmann 1986, p.3950.
10
For the incorporation of Tyras in Romes area of influence as well as the discussion regarding its relations with the Roman
Empire in the 1st century CE see Brc 1999, p.369382; Brc 2004, p.834842.
11
In the second half of the 1st C BCE, Chersonesos entered Romes area of interest (Zubar 1987, p.118129; Zubar 1994,
p.13 sqq.). This led to significant changes in the social, economic, political and cultural development of the city. With Roman
support, Chersonesos managed to stay independent from Bosporan kings.
12
For the first centuries CE, the history of Olbia may be understood only in close connection with that of the regions of the
north and west coast of the Black Sea.
13
IOSPE I2, 181.
14
IOSPE I2, 79.
15
Krapivina 1993, p.144.
16
Vinogradov 1990, p.29 and note 2; Cf. Nadpisi 1968, p.4446, no. 42.
17
Cf. Sidorenko 1988, p.8687; Vinogradov 1994, p.166169.
18
Vinogradov 1990, p.29. These inscriptions were also deemed private, and the presence of M. Aemilius Severianus at Olbia
is related to the Roman administration sending sent him there to discuss a series of aspects related to the defence alliance
between Olbia and the Sarmatians (Zubar 1994a, p.220221).
Olbia, Tyras, the Roman Empire and the Sarmatians in the Second Half of the 1st Early 2nd century AD 169
dated under Nero or his successors19 and the bone tessera reading NERN20. Last but not least, it is
noteworthy that beginning with mid 1st century CE, Olbias economic life stabilises, as proven by
the re-issue of city coins21, intense relations with south Pontic and Asia Minor centres and intensified
economic activities within the city.
For Tyras, located by the mouths of the same name river, available data are also rather few for
the 1st century CE. Amongst, a series of coins22 are significant. Although few, some types, which
nowadays are represented by only one coin, they play an important role for a better understanding
of the situation in this Greek city and its relations with the Roman Empire.
We wish to mention the coin with the portrait of a man with long hair and legend TYRANN
on the obverse and a laurel wreath incorporating legend IERA/C CYNK/HTO/Y23 on the reverse,
indicative of an important event for Tyras, where the Roman authority played an important role,
furthermore confirming that the city was integrated in Roman sphere24. We believe this issue must
be related to the event under Nero25, when the city adopts the new calendar (CE 57)26. Concerning
the year when Tyras switched over to the new calendar, we must specify it should be deemed rather
a moment of greater propinquity to Rome, which did not coincide with the year of its inclusion within
the borders of Moesia27.
Bronze coins are also of special interest for the history of Tyras in the 1st century CE and they
exhibit on the obverse the portrait of a man with a laurel wreath on the head, facing left, and legend
KAICAPOC CEBACTOY and an eagle facing right in three quarters and legend TYPANN on the
reverse28. Certain scholars believed these coins should be dated to Severus Alexander rule29 or that
their obverse displays either emperor Augustus30 or Vespasian31. Subsequent a more careful analysis
of the portrait, it was concluded it depicted in fact emperor Claudius I32.
A group of coins that includes three denominations displaying on the obverse the emperors
head with laurel wreath, facing right and legend KAICAP DOMETIANOC33 is extremely relevant for
the issue of the relations between Tyras and the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE. Regarding
the representation on the obverse, although different on the three denominations, the name of the
issuing city lacks on none. Regarding their overstrike, it is worth mentioning that they underwent this
process in order to have their lost value restored and bring them back in circulation. Such overstrike
might have attempted to assimilate old coins to new ones. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that these
19
Gertsiger 1986, p.123127.
20
Peters 1986, p.86, pl. XVIII; Rusyaeva 1992, p.156.
21
Karyshkovskij 1988, p.108; see also Anokhin 1989, p.59 sqq.
22
For the analysis of these coins and existent views see Brc 1999, p.369382; Brc 2000, p.277294; Brc 2004, p.834842.
23
Kotsievskij 1982, p.120, pl. IX/5; Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, fig. 28/7; Brc 1999, p.371, 373374; Brc 2004,
p. 834835.
24
Cf. Brc 1999, p.373374; Brc 2004, p.834835.
25
Brc 1999, p.374; Brc 2004, p.835.
26
IOSPE I2, 2, 4; CIL III, 781; Cf. Pippidi 1967, p.322 sqq., with entire bibliography on the issue; Karyshkovskij and Klejman
1985, p. 9092.
27
The switch to the new calendar accounts, according to certain scholars, for the city inclusion in Roman possession
(Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.92).
28
Burachkov 1884, pl. XII/79; Yurgevich 1889, pl. II/110; Minns 1913, 664, pl. I/15; Karyshkovskij and Kotsievskij 1979, p.93,
no. 2224, fig. 1/6; Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.88, fig. 28/89; Brc 1999, p.371372, 374375, fig. 2/3; Brc 2004,
p.835837, fig. 2/3.
29
Burachkov 1884, p.93; Yurgevich 1889, p.12.
30
Minns 1913, 664; Zograf 1951, p.114; Kazamanova 1969, p.109.
31
Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.8889; Son 1993, p.30.
32
Brc 1999, 374375; Brc 2004, 836837. For bronze coins under Claudius I see Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, 86,
fig. 29/13; Brc 1999, 370371, fig. 2/12.
33
Zograf 1951, p.120, pl. XXVIII/2022; Zograf 1957, p.77, no. 44, pl. IV/4; p.79, no. 47, pl. IV/6; Karyshkovskij and
Klejman 1985, fig. 28/1012; Anokhin 1989, p.98, no. 484486; for recent finds see Bulatovich 1989, p.83, 86, no. 3339;
Brc 1999, p.372, 375, fig. 2/46; Brc 2004, p.837838, fig. 2/46. For Roman coins issued by Flavian emperors found at
Tyras see Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.110111 with complete bibliography.
170 Vitalie Brc
coins were overstruck most likely either under Nerva-Trajan, when the city did not issue its own coins,
such lack being supplied by overstruck coins issued under Domitian, or after Trajan, when the city
restarts to issue its own coin, the overstrike being a guarantee that previous issues were valid.
It is certain though that these coins issued at Tyras with the emperors portrait and name
indicate that the city was by the end of the 1st century CE under Roman influence either as ally or as
civitas libera et immunis or stipendiaria, although concrete evidence on its status is missing34.
Given the general circumstances in the region and the firm and pragmatic Roman policy in this
area starting with Vespasian it is not excluded that, although for lack of certain proof, Roman troops
appeared episodically in Tyras beginning with this emperor rule and until the start of the 2nd century
CE, when their presence is recorded by epigraphic, coin and archaeological sources35.
Based on the coins in circulation at Tyras in the 1st century CE and the general situation in the
region, one may argue that Tyras relations with Rome did not limit in this period only to Romanophile
feelings of certain circles in the city36. Even more, given a series of factors (general situation in the
region in the 1st century CE; the fact that the Greek cities in the region were incorporated latest by
early 1st century CE in Roman area of influence; the strategic position of Tyras; the discussed coins;
the newly adopted calendar; the firm and pragmatic policy of the Romans in the region), we may
conclude that Tyras, as early as the start of the 1st century CE was incorporated in Romes area of
influence from then on providing for Roman interests in the region, beside the other cities in the area.
***
Regarding the tribes of nomad Sarmatians, they left visible traces in the history of Antiquity
in general and the north and north-west Pontic area in particular37. In the last centuries BCE the first
centuries CE, they subdued the entire region between the Ural Mountains and the Lower Danube
and, starting with mid 1st century CE, they occupied including the territory between the Danube and
Tisza, becoming a power of the ancient European world. For several centuries, they were the main
ethnic and political power both in the north Pontic area and by the Lower and Mid Danube. They also
played an important role in the historical growth of the territories they controlled and influenced the
evolution, faith and development of various peoples.
The Sarmatian westward movement impacted, in various time frames, both clashes and
relations with various Barbarian populations. Beside them, among the constant neighbours of the
Sarmatians in the north and north-west of the Black Sea also counted the Greek cities of Tyras, Olbia
and Chersonesos as well as the Bosporan kingdom. The westward movement of the Sarmatians led
to inevitable collisions with the Roman Empire and for a long period, they were ones of the most
considerable enemies of the empire.
34
For causes of status change of a Greek city as well as for confirming previous statuses see Jacques and Scheid 1990,
p.225230; Millar 1992, p.398415. Saprykin 1997, p.54 argues that Tiberius Plautius Silvanus recognized the free city status
for Olbia and Tyras and guaranteed their right for , boundary sizes/land, Roman protection and taxation
system. It is not excluded that under Vespasian the city status diminished, similarly to other west Pontic cities and not only.
Cf. Suetonius, Vespasian, 8; Cassius Dio LXIII, 14, 12; Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, p.3946, 55.
35
P. O. Karyshkovskij and I. B. Klejman argue that first Roman detachments appeared at Tyras in the third quarter of the
1stc.CE (Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.98). For the view on the date when Roman troops emerged in the region, either
under Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus or in the period immediately after, see Nicorescu 1937, p.221222; Gajdukevich
1971, p.339340; Shelov 1981, p.5354 with complete bibliography; see Karyshkovskij 1971, p.154155, with complete
supporting bibliography; Pippidi 1967, p.324, does not exclude, when discussing the Hunt papyrus, the possibility that Roman
military troops emerged prior the 2nd century CE. See what present Roman troops mean for the status of Greek cities Jacques
and Scheid 1990, p.225230; Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, p.3955.
36
Brc 1999, p.375; Brc 2004, p.838.
37
For the Sarmatians in the north and north-west Pontic area see Simonenko 1992, p.148162; Simonenko 1997, p.389407;
Simonenko 1999; Simonenko 2004, p.134173; Simonenko 2008; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991; Symonenko 1999; Symonenko
1999a, p.106118; Skripkin 1996, p.160168; Skripkin 2001, p.1540; Shchukin 1989, p.7084; Shchukin 1989a, p.3155;
Dzygovskyj 1993, Dzygovskyj 2000; Yacenko 1993, p.8388; Vinogradov 1994, p.151170; Brc 1997, p.935979; Brc
2006; Brc and Symonenko 2009.
The Sarmatians interdependence with various populations in the vast space they occupied is
noticeable in mutual political, economic and cultural relations. Over time, the Sarmatians left their print
on these populations material and spiritual culture, reacting in turn, to the local peoples and especially
Greek and Roman worlds influences. Moreover, subsequent direct contacts with the Greek cities, the
Bosporan kingdom and the Roman Empire, the Sarmatian funerary goods substantially improved. In
addition, the archaeological material, and in certain cases, the anthropological, literary and epigraphic
materials account for the complexity of ethnic processes in the regions where they spread. Last but
not least, it is noteworthy that the study of ethnic and cultural processes in the regions the Sarmatians
entered and settled over time, is impossible without clarifying their historical role.
In the 1st and first half of the 2nd century CE the flourishing period of the Sarmatian culture
archaeological finds on the entire inhabited territory evidence a substantial demographic growth
and economic and social development of the Sarmatian tribes.
The Sarmatian settlement of the north-west Pontic area corresponds to the extension of Roman
borders up to the Lower Danube. Such proximity ensured the Roman world with a considerable
neighbour and enemy, who made its presence fully felt over the first centuries CE.
By early mid 1st century CE, when new Sarmatian waves enter the north and north-west Pontic
region, new elements of funerary rites and rituals specific to Sarmatian groups coming from east of
Don38 emerge. The distribution of Sarmatian vestiges in the north-west Pontic and Lower Danube
region39, as well as between the Danube and Tisza40, accounts for both the movement direction as
well as their settlement there. Such archaeological facts are also confirmed by literary and epigraphic
sources reporting on the constant Sarmatian danger and their involvement in a series of political and
military events over the entire 1st century CE and the start of the following one41. Last but not least, we
should mention that ancient authors (Seneca42, Lucan43, Flavius Josephus44, Valerius Flaccus45, Martial46,
Tacitus47, Suetonius48, etc.) emphasize that in the 1st century CE, the Sarmatian tribes moved westwards.
For the 1st century CE, the movement of the Sarmatian tribes is best noted in Pliny the Elders
Naturalis Historia49 mentioning among the newcomers to the north of the Black sea the Aorsi50, the
38
Cf. Brc 2006; Brc 2013; Brc and Symonenko 2009.
39
See for Sarmatian vestiges of the 1st century start of the 2nd century CE Brc 2006.
40
For early Iazyges vestiges in the area see Prducz 1941; Mochi 1954; Vaday 1984; Vaday 1989; Vaday 1989a; Knegyi 1984;
Tari 1994; Istvnovits and Kulcsr 2006.
41
Cf. to this end Brc 2006, p.244262; Brc 2006b, p.328; Brc 2013; Brc and Symonenko 2009, p.348364.
42
Seneca, Quaestiones Naturales, Praefatio, apud FHDP I, 368; Seneca, Thyestes, 629630, apud FHDP I, p.370.
43
Lucanus, Scholia Varia, VIII, 223, apud Latyshev 1949a, p.334; one of the paragraphs of his work Pharsalia mentions the
livelong warriors Alani by the Caspian Gates (Lucanus, Pharsalia, VIII, 215225, apud Latyshev 1949a, p.324325).
44
Josephus Flavius, De bello Iudaico, VII, 4, 3, VII, 7, 4.
45
Valerius Flaccus VI, 4047, apud Latyshev 1949a, p.344.
46
Martialis, Epigrame, VII, 30, 2, 6, apud Latyshev 1949a, p. 352355.
47
Tacitus, Annales, XII, 2930; Tacitus, Historiae I, 79, III, 5, 1; Tacitus, Germania, 1, 1; 43; Tacitus, Agricola, 41.
48
Suetonius, Domitianus, 2, 2; 6, 1.
49
Plinius IV, 80.
50
Archaeologically, Aorsi vestiges are related to the early Sarmatian culture. Written sources establish them including in the mid
Sarmatian period. This indicates that part of the graves must have been of Aorsi origin, which part though, is not clear today. Most
likely, vestiges belonging to the Aorsi datable to the 1st century CE have no stable defining peculiarities. It is not excluded that one
of the causes of this situation was the emergence of the Alani and co-habitancy and contacts with them, which could not occur
precisely prior their settlement in the territories inhabited by the Aorsi. In addition, it is possible that part of the Aorsi settled west the
Don prior the Romano-Bosporan conflict of CE 4549 (Skripkin 1990, p.216; Brc and Symonenko 2009, p.354, note74).
Lastly, it is not excluded that the Aorsi overtook rather quickly customs and tastes specific to the Alani (Raev 1985, p.131),
which would explain why they are impossible to identify archaeologically. Most likely, in the start period of the Alani presence in the
steppes inhabited by the Aorsi emerged also the name of Alanorsi (the ethnonym alanorsi represents according to A. S. Skripkin,
the interdependence in the start period of the Alani arrival (Skripkin 1990, p.216) or the fusion of part of Aorsi with the
Alani newcomers according to K. F. Smirnov (Smirnov 1954, p.204), as in the case of other peoples (Skripkin 1990, p.217),
later reported by Ptolemy (Ptolemaeus, Geographia, VI, 14, 910, 13). It is certain that regardless any explanation to the matter,
identification of Arosi remains by excellence dated to the 1st century CE is difficult.
172 Vitalie Brc
races51 and the Alani52, who were the main cause of the westward movement of the Sarmatians.
Thus, based on ancient written sources one may note that in the second half of the 1st century
early 2nd century CE, north-Pontic territories were inhabited by the Sarmatian Roxolanii, Aorsi53 and
Siraces, to whom adds a very powerful military group of Alani54. Information from written sources on
the Alani in the north and north-west Pontic regions is also confirmed by archaeological finds. For
instance, among early aristocratic Alanic graves in the north-Pontic area count in our view, those at
Kovalevka (Sokolova Mogila)55, Troyany56, Kozyrka57, Vesnyanoe58, Hruca59, Mocra (T 2 G 2)60, Mihajlovka
(T 3 G 3)61, Porogi62 etc.63. Moreover, both subsequent correlation of archaeological data with those
literary one may note that this information distinguishes among two movement waves of the Aorsi and
Alani towards the west, one simultaneous, when they moved independently from one another and the
51
Plinius IV, 83. This Sarmatian tribe inhabited according to ancient sources (Strabo XI, 5, 7; Pomponius Mela, De chorographia,
I, 114) the steppes in the Kuban region and north Caucasus, where their remains are well known due to archaeological digs
over time (Cf. Marchenko 1996). Siraces archaeological finds are rather expressive, their essential feature being the latitudinal
orientation of the dead (westward mainly). Graves with the dead oriented westward or eastward are extremely rare in the north-
Pontic area over all stages of the Sarmatian culture. Moreover, they do not even seem to be typical Siraces. Sarmatian elements
in the Kuban region are present in certain early hoards and deposits between Don and Prut (Cf. Redina and Simonenko
2002, p.7896; Brc 2002b, p.215230; Brc 2004a, p.3563; Brc 2006, p.6164; Brc 2006a, p.4749; Brc and
Symonenko 2009, p.9598). They were buried most likely by Siraces mercenaries in the army of Mithridates Eupator, who
for a period of time of the 1st century BCE was north the Black Sea. Regarding the north-Pontic Siraces mentioned by Pliny,
we wish to mention that currently, there are no known graves that may be assignable with certainty to them. This indicates
that either Pliny the Elders account is erroneous or that once settled north the Black Sea, the Siraces lost their specific traits.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that good part of the Siraces remained in their previous inhabitancy areas. Archaeological
finds (Cf. Zhdanovskij and Marchenko 1988, p.4256; Arkheologiya SSSR 1989, p.249251; Marchenko 1996), and their few
mentions in epigraphic sources of the 1st 2nd c. stand proof (KBN, no. 142, 1237).
52
Pliny IV, 80. Following the analysis of literary sources, it was concluded that the Alani emerged in the north-Pontic steppes
between CE 5065, coming from steppes past the Caspian Sea (Machinskij 1974, p.127, 132). Moreover, it is believed that the
rich Sarmatian graves with rich goods formed of eastern items from Eastern Europe steppes emerged in close connection to
changes occurring by the start of the 1st c. CE (Skripkin 1990, p.214). These new elements in the funerary ritual and material
culture serve, according to A. S. Skripkin, to distinguish the mid Sarmatian culture, which was basically Alanic. The time gap
between the beginning of the mid Sarmatian culture (early 1st century CE) and first mentions on the Alani (start of the second
half of the 1st century CE) is explained by the usual hiatus between their arrival to Eastern Europe steppes and their record by
classical authors as well as by the impossibility to pinpoint the years when the Alani are found in the area west Volga (Skripkin
1990, p.214215). It is certain though that the political centre of the new Sarmatian tribes union led by the Alani was for a long
time upon Lower Don, where the most significant part of the aristocratic graves clusters (Cf. Skripkin 1990, p.215. On these
graves see Raev 1986; Bespalyj 1992, p.175191; Prokhorova and Guguev 1992, p.142161; Mordvintseva and Sergatskov
1995, p.114124.). A group of Alani though, as per both classical authors reports and archaeological finds, entered the north
and north-west Pontic area as well and remained there beside other Sarmatian tribes. It is also true that the arrival of the Alani
in Eastern Europe steppes led to the gradual submission of the other Sarmatian tribes, which the clear account of Ammianus
Marcellinus seems to confirm, reporting that the Alani gradually incorporated under their name peoples whom they met and wore
down (Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI, 2, 13).
53
Still Pliny the Elder mentions the Aorsi also in the Caspian Sea region (Plinius VI, 48), in the same region where Strabo
mentioned them (Strabo XI, 5, 8), also later reported by Ptolemy (Ptolemaeus, Geographia, VI, 14, 910, 13). The same Ptolemy
reports that European Sarmatia is inhabited by the Roxolani, the Hamaxobii, the Aorsi and the Alani (Ptolemaeus, Geographia,
III, 5, 710, apud FHDP I, 538541).
54
Cf. Brc 2013.
55
Kovpanenko 1986, p.6672, 127, fig. 7073; Simonenko 2008, p.7475, pl. 103111.
56
Grosu 1990, 61; Simonenko 2008, 71, pl. 8587.
57
Symonenko 1999a, p.106118.
58
Simonenko 1997, p.389407; Simonenko 2008, p.7374, pl. 100102.
59
Grosu 1986, p.258261; Grosu 1990, p.53, fig. 16d; Brc 2006, p.319320, fig. 65.
60
Shcherbakova and Kashuba 1993; Kashuba, Kurchatov and Shcherbakova 20012002, p.200213, 226242, fig. 89, 1117; Brc
2006, p. 331334, fig. 7981.
61
Subbotin and Dzigovskij 1990a, p.1921, fig. 15/1016, 16/19; Grosu 1990, p.92; Dzygovskyj 1993, p.7475, 201, fig. 33,
36/45, 37/2, 6, 8, 38, 43/16; Brc 2006, p.329330, fig. 7577; Simonenko 2008, p.76, pl. 118119.
62
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991; Brc 2006, 348353, pl. 97111; Simonenko 2008, p.79, pl. 131133.
63
For the feature analysis of the Sarmatian remains between Don and Prut see Brc and Symonenko 2009.
other when we are dealing with a Alano-Aorsian group64. It is not excluded that kings Pharzoios and
Inismeos65, for whom Olbia struck golden and silver coins with their names66, were either included in
this group or were even leading it.
It is certain that in current state of knowledge, we may argue that most graves with obvious
eastern traits67 in the north and north-west Pontic area, dated to the chronological interval between
mid 1st early 2nd century CE, are Alanic68. Furthermore, it is without a doubt that Chinese origin69
and central Asian70 items emerged in the Sarmatian environment, including the Sarmatians in the
north and north-west Pontic mainly once with the arrivals of the Alani, who used these types of
artifacts long before reaching there.
***
An important source referencing the Sarmatians in the north-west Pontic area and supplying a
series of precious information on the Roman and Barbarian relations is the marble plate attached to
the Plautinii mausoleum at Ponte Lucano, near Tibur71. This impressive inscription dated to 7479 CE,
reviews Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus activity as legate of Moesia between 57/60 67 CE72.
One of his first actions referred to the relocation to the right Danube bank of 100.000
transdanubians (r. 913). Vasile Prvan argued: They all are nomads, as they are relocated not as
defeated army, but as a migrating people, each tribe with all their own, children and women and
respective chieftains. The scholar adds they are a mix Barstarnae-Sarmatian-Getae population
from north the Danube mouths73.
Some authors consider the transdanubians as those Roxolani, Bastarnae and Dacians pushed
from the east by the Sarmatians74, others believe they were seeking refuge from the Sarmatian
pressure from the east75 or that they included all peoples able to pay in order to get installed within
the empire borders76 or that it was intended to create a security space by displacing the population
from Muntenia plain77. This last statement has no grounds given that on the boundary between the
64
Simonenko 1999, p.316; Brc and Symonenko 2009, p.352. S. A. Yacenko argues that within this nomad group, part were
Alani, who joined the Aorsi aristocracy, thus reaching for a short while the north of the Black Sea (Yacenko 1993a, p.86).
65
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.7475; Simonenko 1992, p.158 sqq.; Simonenko 1999, p.316; Brc and Symonenko 2009,
p.352.
66
Cf. Karyshkovskyj 1971, p.7984; Karyshkovskij 1982, p.6682; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.628; Karyshkovskij 1988, 108115,
119; Anokhin 1989, p.5870.
67
One of their specific features is the very rich grave goods that include eastern origin items (animal- style jewellery
paralleled in the Bactrian art, parade weaponry, mirrors, including Chinese mirrors, precious metal wares, bronze cauldrons
with zoomorphic handles etc.) (Cf. Brc and Symonenko 2009). Among the Alani specific elements count the tumuli graves,
large-sized rectangular pits with the dead placed along the walls or the square pits with the dead placed crosswise are deemed,
based on sound archaeological arguments, of Alani origin (Skripkin 1990, p.184185, 218219; Skripkin 1996, p.165166;
Simonenko 1999, p.128). Niche graves and part of the burials in common rectangular pits largely spread during the entire
Sarmatian history might have also belonged to the Alani (see to this end Raev 1989, p.116117; Skripkin 1990, p.207209,
217218). Last but not least, tamga-type signs were mainly disseminated by the Alani, who were the most significant
contributors to their distribution in Eastern Europe steppes.
68
It is possible, as previously mentioned, that certain graves with central Asian origin items are Aorsi, reaching the members
of this Sarmatian group following contacts and trade exchanges (Cf. Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.70 sqq.; Simonenko 1992,
p.161; Vinogradov 1994, p.161 nota 64, 164 note 69).
69
For finds of Chinese and central Asian origin items in the north-Pontic environment see Simonenko 2003, p.4565.
70
For all innovating elements of central Asian origin in the Sarmatian environment see Yacenko 1993, p.6072.
71
CIL XIV, 3608.
72
Prvan 1926, p.103; Stein 1940, p.2831; Condurachi 1958, p.119130; Pippidi 1967, p.287301; Suceveanu 1971, p.112120;
Suceveanu 1977, p.2022; Vogel-Weidemann 1982, p.407; Conole and Milns 1983, p.186; Gostar and Lica 1984, p.4449;
Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.91; Zubar 1988, p.20; Zubar 1994, p.2627; Leschhorn 1993, p.76.
73
Prvan 1926, p.104, note 1 (Translated from Romanian by Gabriela Safta).
74
Patsch 1932, p.165. Same view in Daicoviciu 1960, 290291; Bogdan-Ctniciu 1997, p.2829.
75
Shchukin 1989, p.79; Shchukin 1989a, p.44.
76
Conole and Milns 1983, p.186.
77
Pippidi 1967, p.305 sqq. Same view in Bogdan-Ctniciu 1997, p.28. Em. Condurachi argued that the transdanubians were
Getae and that Aelianus proceeded, alike Aelius Catus, to a partial evacuation of the Getae territory (Condurachi 1958, p.125).
174 Vitalie Brc
1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, archaeologically, inhabitation ceases in almost all Getae
settlements in the area. It is certain that this action was justified for economic and tax reasons, as
resulting from row 11 of the Tiburtine inscription, recording that the empire received them as tax
payers: ad praestanda tributa. The results are recorded in rows 2526 inferring that Aelianus was the
first who, by sending massive grain transports from this province, eased supplies to Rome: primus ex
ea provincia magno tritici modo annonam p(opuli) R(omani) adlevavit78.
Another significant accomplishment was the repression of Sarmatian aggressive intentions
(motus orientem Sarmatarum, (r. 13)), however no further details are given, being only specified that the
operation was successful when part of the Moesian army was dispatched to support the expedition to
Armenia: (...) quamvis parte(m) magna(m) exercitus / ad expeditionem in Armeniam misisset (r. 1415)79.
The expedition against the riders of the steppes must have occurred in the summer-fall of CE 6280. An
argument to this effect is the fact that one the V Macedonica of the three legions from the Moesian
army was garrisoned for many months in the East on the mission to reinforce the army engaged in the
conflict with the Parthians81. All these measures amplified Romes prestige. The immediate result of the
action is rendered in the following rows of the inscription, reading that Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus
brought kings, until then unknown or enemies to the Roman people, to the Danube bank which
he defended (in ripam quam tuebatur) and made them bow to Roman standards; he returned the
Bastarnae and Roxolani kings their hostage sons or recaptured from their enemies, and the
Dacian king, his brothers; from some of them, he took hostages instead82.
V. Prvan noted that the military operations theatre was in Bessarabia and at most in eastern
Moldova and that Aelianuss actions were oriented to the north-east83. The scholar also observed that
these were less likely proper fights, rather a show of force carried on the left bank of Lower Danube84.
C. Patschs view is different, believing that the Roxolani, Bastarnae and Dacians were attacked by the
Sarmatians coming from the east, who took hostages and forced them to associate85. The same author
argued that Aelianus defeated the invaders, freeing the prisoners alluded within the inscription, thus
causing the downfall of the alliance system86. Additionally, D. M. Pippidi believed that motum orientem
Sarmatarum compressit refers to the Roman repression of a threat compromising Moesian borders87.
The same author stated that nothing proves that the attack of the Sarmatians from the East targeted
firstly the Bastarnae and the Dacians, and therefore believed that the Sarmatae implies the Roxolani88.
Within the context of the Roman policy of the period, we wish to underline certain details of major
importance for the discussion herein. It is noteworthy that Aelianus entire action was directed against
those Sarmatians who were not at all ones and the same with the Roxolani89. We believe that the use of
the term Sarmatians wishes to emphasize the fact they were other Sarmatian peoples than the Roxolani.
Some researchers consider those Sarmatians with aggressive intentions as the Iazyges allied with the
Aorsi, or only the Aorsi90, and others deem them Urgi or Iazyges, who raided the Ciscarpathian region91.
78
Pippidi 1967, 309, IDRE I, 113.
79
CIL XIV, 3608 = IDRE I, 113; Prvan 1926, p.103; Pippidi 1967, p.311.
80
Pippidi 1967, p.311; Suceveanu 1977, p.21; Shchukin 1989, p.80; Vinogradov 1994, p.166. Different views regarding the
action against the Sarmatians belong to N. Gostar and V. Lica, who believe it was taken in 66 or 67 CE (Gostar and Lica 1984,
p. 4950).
81
Pippidi 1967, 311. For the history of V Macedonica see Matei-Popescu 2010, 35 sqq. with complete bibliography.
82
Prvan 1926, p.103 (Translated from Romanian by Gabriela Safta). See also Pippidi 1967, p.312; Gostar 1979, p.129136.
83
Prvan 1926, p.103.
84
Prvan 1926, p.103.
85
Patsch 1932, p.165.
86
Patsch 1932, p.165.
87
Pippidi 1967, p.313.
88
89
The view that the Sarmatians were not the same with the Roxolani is also supported by Conole and Milns 1983, p.187; Brc
1997, p.963.
90
Conole and Milns 1983, p.187.
91
Vinogradov 1994, p.168.
Another view assumes they were the Siraces92 or the Alani93. Following the analysis of the Tiburtine
inscription, M. B. hchukin concluded that the aggressive Sarmatians were the subjects of Pharzoios,
and their uprising meant the establishment of this kingdom with an obvious anti-Roman orientation94.
The same author argues there were two coalitions: the Romans supported by the Bastarnae, Dacians
and Roxolani, while the war was waged against the Sarmatians and the Scythians95. The author does not
precisely identify the ethnical origin of Pharzoioss Sarmatians, stating they could have been both Alani
and Siraces96. It is certain that the inscription clearly specifies that Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus
brought kings, until then unknown to us or enemies of the Roman people to the Danube bank97. Or,
information in classical authors reports and archaeological finds evidence that those unknown could
not have been the Roxolani for the simple fact they inhabited as early as the first half of the 1st century
CE areas close to Roman borders. Moreover, since the king of the Roxolani was returned his sons,
they might have had a special relation with the Romans and were not those rising against them. The
Sarmatians Aorsi and Siraces were familiar to the Romans, either as allies or as enemies, as well. Based
on the Sarmatian tribes westward movement, classical authors accounts and archaeological finds we
believe that the unknown kings and those aggressive Sarmatians who were repressed are most likely
the Alani.
Regarding the means which Aelianus enforced in order to fulfil his mission, it is believed
(D.M.Pippidi) they were military, however diplomatic negotiations consequent which the Barbarian
kings entered in good relations with the Romans may not be excluded98. The kings submission to
Roman flags is interpreted99 as the loyalty of older or novel clients; henceforth, a previous treaty must
have been earlier entered with the Romans, under which they were supported to have their brothers
and sons returned from their enemies, most likely, those unknown enemies who were brought to the
Danube bank100. They are probably returned because they were included in the amicitia or societates
system. The common phrase was that of amicus et socius populi Romani, in fact used in various variants
with the same meaning101.
It is also possible that Aelianus forbade the kings to approach Roman borders and requested the
payment of damages. However, the inscription does not include information on such terms. Yet, the
inscription records the hostages, who among other, were meant to guarantee the payment of damages
and confirmed that the Barbarians understood the closed agreements102. Anyhow, hostage taking from
within kings or tribe chieftains families is one of the most recorded clauses imposed by the Romans to
the Barbarians103. They guaranteed loyalty to the empire and compliance with Roman terms. In our case,
the hostages who the Romans took came most likely from those unknown enemies, relocated to the
Danube bank in order to bow to Roman standards.
Lines 2122 of the Tiburtine inscription, reading that per quem pacem provinciae et confirmavit
et protulit104 imply that all these events occurred close to province borders, in the Lower Danube area.
92
Rusyaeva 1989, p.192; Rusyaeva 1995, p.2436; Vinogradov 1994, p.168.
93
Patsch 1940, p.165; Yatsenko 1993a, p.83; Skripkin 1996, p.168; Brc 2002, p.108; Brc 2002a, p.62; Brc 2006,
p.256257; Lysenko 2002, p.111112.
94
Shchukin 1989a, p.45.
95
Shchukin 1989, p.80; Shchukin 1989a, p.45.
96
Shchukin 1992, p.120121; Shchukin 1995, p.177. We also expressed this view (Brc 1997, p.974), and recently
A.V.Simonenko (Simonenko 1999, p.316).
97
Prvan 1926, p.103.
98
Pippidi 1967, p.313314.
99
Bogdan-Ctniciu 1997, p.28.
100
Petolescu 1995, 24; Brc 1997, p.963.
101
Cf. Braund 1984, p.45; Opreanu 1994, p.202203. For imperial diplomacy tools regarding the Barbarians see Opreanu
1998, p. 2026.
102
Lica 1996, p.127 with bibliography.
103
Cf. Lica 1989, p.40 sqq.; Lica 1996, p.127128.
104
V. Prvan translated: thus he established peace within the province and enlarged its boundaries (Prvan 1926, p.103)
(Translated from the Romanian by Gabriela Safta).
176 Vitalie Brc
The extension of province borders is out of question. It is believed they refer to either the extension of
peace105 or a temporary pacification of neighbouring lands106. We believe that the expression above
mirrors the Roman policy of broadening the invisible borders of the empire107, in fact the conclusion and
explanation of the actions recorded by the inscription108.
The Moesian governor actions also supported Chersonesos, under siege by the Scythians, forcing
the Scythian king to raise the siege (lines 2425)109.
The information in the inscription furthermore confirms the infiltration of new Sarmatian tribes
north-west the Black Sea, also noted by ancient literary sources.
***
Another significant epigraphic source for the history of the Sarmatians in the north-Pontic area
that confirms certain information in the Tibur eulogy is the inscription fragment discovered in 1984
at Mangup (Crimea)110. Subsequent to the analysis of the inscription text, Ju. G. Vinogradov concluded
it originates from Olbia111. The first rows of the inscription restored by the above author read that an
Olbian his name is unknown, as the inscription is fragmentary when large part of wheat was
destroyed by draught crossed the enemy country and obtained food, thus saving the people from
famine. The following information within the inscription is of interest for us. We find that he carried
out a diplomatic mission with the governors of Moesia (Sabinus) and Aelianus, great men, worthy
of utmost appreciation for their generosity and that part of his demands were fulfilled, obtaining
once more food for the city112. Precisely then, when in Moesia on diplomatic mission, the events
(theSarmatians movement/uprising(?)) and war occurred. He informed the governor he was aware of
the hardship, who sent in support a detachment of auxiliaries113.
The next preserved rows of the inscription read that the same individual was on a diplomatic mission
to Umabios and other great kings of Aorsia114. It is worth mentioning that Umabios was followed by the
name of another king or kings, however since the inscription is fragmentary, their names are unknown.
Nonetheless, a series of scholars (those who consider them Aorsi)115 do not exclude that beside Umabios,
the names of the great kings of Aorsia included those of Pharzoios and Inismeos116. Subsequent to the
inscription analysis, Yu. G. Vinogradov fairly concluded that the troubling events and war were ones and
the same with the repression of the Sarmatians aggressive intentions in CE 62, reported by the Tiburtine
eulogy117. Based on the inscription, the same author reached the conclusion that Aorsia must have lain
close to Lower Danube and Moesia, and its kings were the protectors of Olbia and vassals to Rome, which
explains, according to the author, the diplomatic mission of the Olbians to the great kings of Aorsia,
pleading for military aid against other barbarians, most likely the Sarmatians, threatening the city118. It
is certain that it is currently hard to be categorical about the information provided by this inscription
due to its fragmentary state, reached conclusions posing a series of questions and raising doubts119. The
105
Stein 1940, p.30; Vinogradov 1994, p.166.
106
107
Cf. Klose 1934, p.124; Daicoviciu 1960, p.292; Suceveanu 1971, p.113; Bogdan-Ctniciu 1997, p.28.
108
See for the Roman frontier concept Opreanu 1998, p.1420 with complete bibliography.
109
In connection with views on this action of Aelianus see Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.91; Zubar 1988, p.1927;
Zubar, Kostromicheva 1990, p.8386; Zubar 1994, p.2629.
110
Sidorenko 1988, p.8687; Vinogradov 1990, p.32, note 3; Vinogradov 1994, p.166169, notes 91, 93, 95.
111
Vinogradov 1994, p.166167, notes 89, 90.
112
Vinogradov 1994, p.167, notes 91, 92.
113
Vinogradov 1994, p.167, notes 93, 94, 95. The military aid was most likely granted in virtue of an alliance (symmachia) closed
or already in place between Olbia and the Roman Empire.
114
Vinogradov 1994, p.167168 and note 96.
115
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.74, 75; Simonenko 1992, p.158 sqq.; Vinogradov 1994, p.167169; Zubar 1994a, p.218222.
116
Vinogradov 1994, p.168169; Simonenko 1999, p.304, 317.
117
Vinogradov 1994, p.167 and note 94.
118
Vinogradov 1994, p. 167168.
119
Cf. Shchukin 1995, p.175179; Brc 1997, p.973974.
inscription text relays that territories surrounding the city were unstable, however such circumstances
should not have been in place if Olbia had been in the policy sphere of Aorsian kings. Furthermore,
if the kings were indeed the protectors of the city, then their obligation must have lied in protecting
and defending the city and not an expected diplomatic mission, whose goal was a request for help.
In addition, it is equally uncertain that the monument text included among the names of the Aorsian
kings also those of Pharzoios and Insimeos. The only acceptable fact is that a relation between Pharzoios
and the kings of Aorsia was possible. Moreover, it is also uncertain, as argued by Yu. G. Vinogradov, that
Aorsia was located on a territory different that close to Lower Danube and Moesia. Although we do not
disagree that the Aorsian country might have lain close to the Danube and Moesia, we wish to mention
that inscriptions provide no clue on the place where Umabios lived and the geographical position of
Aorsian territory. This territory might have been located either somewhere north-west the Black Sea or
in the region left the Dnieper, near the Sea of Azov and Don.
Therefore, the information in this epigraphic monument provides the opportunity to regard
slightly different the issues of the relations between Olbia and the Roman Empire in the second half of
the 1st century CE and the Sarmatians role in the history of Olbia in the same period. Additionally, the
inscription furthermore confirms the important role of the Moesian governor Tiberius Plautius Silvanus
Aelianus in the history of the Greek cities on the north and north-west coast of the Black Sea under
Nero and provides additional evidence that in the period, new Sarmatian tribes entered and settled the
north and north-west Pontic area, destabilising the region. Historical realities and archaeological data
indicate that in the second half of the 1st early 2nd century CE, both Olbia and Tyras were surrounded
by the Sarmatians120, with whom both cities established a series of relations. The Sarmatian presence
in territories around Olbia is confirmed for the end of the 1st century CE also by Dion Chrysostomos
report121, who visited the city in CE 95122.
Thus we learn that the city was under the constant attack of the Barbarian tribes and that the
Sarmatians and Scythians lived nearby. When speaking about Kallistratos, an Olbia inhabitant, Dion
reports he was a skilled warrior, valiant and that the slew many Sarmatians, taking some hostages.
The author also reports that when gathering to listen to his speech, the Olbiopolites were almost all
in arms123. Although there were periodical tense situations, the Olbians attempted to establish peace
relations with the Sarmatians, and not only. Evidence to the fact is the information from epigraphic
sources, even though dating to the 2nd c. CE, recording that the Olbiopolites sent not once messengers
to the Scythians and Sarmatians, very likely to prevent attacks over the city124.
The fact that the Sarmatians and the Olbians had close relations is evidenced by the prosopographic
fund where Iranian-Sarmatian names increase starting with the third quarter of the 1st century CE125,
furthermore accounting for political, military and other nature relations between the Olbians and the
Sarmatians. It is also noteworthy that the material culture of the city includes a series of elements that
must be related to the Sarmatian world. They do not indicate though, as well observed126, that we are
dealing with the sarmatisation of Olbia, but rather with relations and contact between the Olbians and
the Sarmatians. In fact, judging after Dion Chrysostomoss reports, who granted special attention to the
relations between Olbia and the populations in the area, one may note that the author mentions neither
the city submission to the Sarmatians nor their presence within the city127. Nothing is said about any
120
For the Sarmatians in the north and north-west Pontic area see Kovpanenko 1986; Kostenko 1983; Kostenko 1986; Kostenko
1993; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991; Simonenko 1997, p.389407; Simonenko 1999; Simonenko 2001; Simonenko 2004, p.134173;
Simonenko 2008; Symonenko 1999a; Dzygovskyj 1993; Dzygovskyj 2000; Grosu 1990; Brc 2006; Brc and Symonenko 2009.
121
Dionis Chrysostomi, XXXVI.
122
Vinogradov 1989, p.264.
123
Dionis Chrysostomi, Orationes, XXXVI, 78.
124
Latyshev 1887, 190; IOSPE I2, no. 39, 51, 54.
125
Karyshkovskij 1982, p.74; Vinogradov 1994, p.169.
126
Krapivina 1994, 126127 with bibliography.
127
We should not however exclude the possibility that over time, an insignificant Sarmatian presence at Olbia existed, however its
role did not carry any importance in the city life.
178 Vitalie Brc
ethnical difference within the city. In fact, anthropological studies carried out in the Olbian cemetery
showed that the anthropologically, the inhabitants are a Pontic variant of the Mediterranean race, who is
significantly different from the Sarmatian anthropological type128.
Beside information from this inscription, the golden and silver coins struck by Olbia for the Sarmatian
kings Pharzoios and Inismeos129 play a complementary and important role for the reconstruction of
Olbian history in the second half of the 1st century CE. The golden coins for Pharzoios were grosso modo
struck by the end of the 50ies end of 70ies CE, while the silver ones for Inismeos were issued by
the end of the 70ies start of the 80ies CE130. Therefore, the start of the golden coins is under Nero.
The golden coins portray Pharzoios and bear the inscription AIE AZOIO on the obverse
and display the eagle with a tamga in claws, letters O and the archon monogram on the reverse. The
silver coins portray the king, bear the tamga and the inscription AIE INENIME or AIE
INICME on the obverse, and on the reverse the head of Apollo or the city goddess, a bow, dolphin,
the archon monogram and the circular inscription OBIOOEITEN131. The city and archon names
indicate that they were struck on the part of the citizen community at Olbia and that traditional polis
authorities were still in function. Hence, as previously argued132 we may conclude that the city did not
submit to Pharzoios and Inismeos.
Regarding the origin of kings Pharzoios and Inismeos, various scholars consider them Aorsi133,
Siraces134, Alani135 or both Alani and Aorsi or Siraces136. According to the distribution area of above coins,
it was concluded that Pharzoios and Inismeos were the leaders of a Sarmatian group in the north-west
Pontic area137 bordered by Dnieper and Dniester138. However, given the historical and archaeological
facts in the region, we believe that kings Pharzoios and Inismeos did not control the entire north-west
Pontic territory from west the Dnieper and did not subdue all Sarmatian groups there. It is though
certain that relations were established between the Sarmatians led by Pharzoios and Inismeos and the
rest of the Sarmatian groups in the north-Pontic region. Based on the resemblance of tamga signs on
Pharzoios and Inismeos coins and the fact they were struck for both kings by the Olbian mint, it may be
concluded that the two were kin, Inismeos being most likely Pharzoioss successor139.
There are also various views concerning the relations between the Sarmatians of Pharzoios
and Inismeos with Olbia and the Roman Empire. M. B. Shchukin argues these kings established their
authority over the city140, which struck the golden coins as an anti-Roman political act, thus assuming
128
Cf. Krapivina 1993, p.143, 146; Krapivina 1994, p.123127
129
Originally, the kings were deemed either kings of the Late Scythians, on whom Olbia depended by the end of the 1st century
CE. This view comes from A. S. Uvarov and B. V. Kene (apud Karyshkovskij 1982, p.76), later developed by M. I. Rostovtsev, who
argued that Olbia was the subject of the Late Scythians (Rostovtsev 1918, p.155160). In the second half of the 20th century,
the view that Pharzoios and Inismeos were Scythian kings was also supported by other scholars (Zograf 1951, p.138; Rozanova
1956, p.206207; Raevskij 1973, p.117119; Vysotskaya 1979, p.197. Following a detailed analysis, P. J. Karyshkovskij concluded
that Pharzoios and Inismeos were Sarmatian kings (Karyshkovskyj 1962, p.102121; Karyshkovskij 1982). This view was later
supported by D.B.Shelov (Shelov 1975, p.127) and M. B. Shchukin (Shchukin 1982, p.35), and today is accepted by most scholars.
130
Cf. Karyshkovskij 1971, p.7984; Karyshkovskij 1982, p.6682; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.628; Karyshkovskij 1988,
p. 108115, 119; Anokhin 1989, p. 5870.
131
Cf. Karyshkovskij 1982, p.6682; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.628; Anokhin 1989, p.6470.
132
Karyshkovskij 1982, p.7576; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.23; Anokhin 1989, p.66; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.86.
133
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.74, 75; Simonenko 1992, p.158 sqq.; Krapivina 1993, p.146147; Vinogradov 1994,
p.167169; Zubar 1994a, p.218222; Yacenko 2001, p.4849.
134
Rusyaeva 1989, p.192193; Rusyaeva 1995, p.2436.
135
A. S. Skripkin argues that kings Pharzoios and Inismeos were of Alan origin (Skripkin 1996, 160168).
136
Shchukin 1992, p.120121; Shchukin 1995, p.177; Brc 1997, p.974; Symonenko 1999a, p.316; Brc and Symonenko
2009, p.352.
137
Cf. Karyshkovskij 1982, p.76, 79; Karyshkovskij 1988, p.108115; see also Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.7075.
138
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.7075; Simonenko 1992, p.151 sqq.; Symonenko 1999a, p.316; Vinogradov 1994, p.168,
note98; Brc 1997, p.966 sqq.; Brc 2006, p.258 sqq.
139
Cf. Karyshkovskij 1971, p.83; Anokhin 1989, p.70; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.6869. A. V. Simonenko does not
exclude that Inismeos might have been Pharzoioss son.
140
Shchukin 1982, p.36, 37; Shchukin 1989a, p.4445. See also Shchukin 1994, p.212218; for bibliographical references arguing
that Olbia was conquered and subdued by force by king Pharzoios see Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.23 note 29.
independence from Rome141. Since the archon monograms and city name, which as mentioned above,
record that traditional Olbian leadership structures were preserved, A. V. Simonenko considers that
relations between the Sarmatians of Pharzoios and Olbia took the form of a formal union142, while
Pharzoios and Olbia policies were anti-Roman143. This does not mean, as mentioned above144, that the
city effectively submitted to Pharzoios and Inismeos, especially since there is no further evidence on
a forced occupation of Olbia and direct submission of the city by these Sarmatian kings145. Another
view argues they exercised a protectorate over Olbia146, thus ensuring its security, like Scythian kings
did a few centuries earlier147 and that the Sarmatians of Pharzoios were rather the subjects of Rome148,
while the protection alliance between Olbia and Aorsi leaders was closed with the active involvement
of the Moesian administration149. V. V. Krapivina maintained that Olbia and Pharzoioss Sarmatians were
Rome allies, however as separate, unrelated parties150. The same author argues that Pharzoios used the
city mint to strike golden coins with Roman approval given his achievements151. V. V. Krapivina does
not exclude the possibility that the Romans displaced the Aorsi closer to the Danube border in order
to reinforce it and that they placed the defence of Olbia was placed with the Aorsi of Pharzoios152.
Without insisting on the golden coins issue struck by the Roman Empire and the Greek cities outside
and within the empire153 it is noteworthy that the view according to which Olbia struck golden and silver
coins for king Fazoios in disobedience and defiance of Rome has no grounds, especially since Rome
did not prohibit golden and silver coin issues outside the empire. Moreover, there is no certain data
that Pharzoios was king of the Aorsi, relocated, as per some scholars, by the Romans in the north-
west of the Black Sea. There is no definite evidence that Pharzoios was a subject of Rome either. In
addition, the view arguing that the Romans had given Pharzoios the right to strike golden coins
following his support of Rome is groundless as well. It is only certain that Pharzoios was king of the
Sarmatians in the north-west of the Black Sea, who were in close vicinity to Olbia. Furthermore, there
is no information, except for the coins, that would supply data on the relation of Olbia with Pharzoios and
Inismeos or the relation of the two kings groups with other Sarmatian groups in the north and north-
west of the Black Sea. Based on existent information one thing is certain, that the Roxolani had a special
relation with Rome, which is obvious in the Tiburtine eulogy that clearly states that the Bastarnae and
Roxolani kings were returned their sons who they took prisoners or retrieved from their enemies.
Given the difficult circumstances in the area following the arrival of new, unknown and
violent Sarmatian tribes, events might have evolved differently. Olbia, surrounded by Barbarians,
systematically under attack, facing an even larger threat, appealed to king Pharzoios (who was
141
Shchukin 1982, p.36; Shchukin 1989, p.80.
142
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.86.
143
Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.86. For this view see also Karyshkovskij 1982, p.7375; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.2324;
Shchukin 1982, p.3637; Shchukin 1989, p.80; Shchukin 1989a, p.4445.
144
Karyshkovskij 1982, p.7576; Karyshkovskij 1982a, p.23; Anokhin 1989, p.66; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.86.
145
Cf. Krapivina 1993, p.145146.
146
Vinogradov 1994, p.168; Brc 1997, p.972973. V. M. Zubar considers it is too soon to speak for this period of a
Sarmatian protectorate over Olbia and that in the establishment of contacts between the Sarmatians and Olbia in the 60ies CE,
an important role was played by the Roman provincial administration and the Moesian governor Tiberius Plautius Silvanus
himself (Zubar 1994a, p.219).
147
Vinogradov 1994, p.168. For the Scythian protectorate over Greek cities see Vinogradov 1989, p.231250.
148
Vinogradov 1994, p.168; Zubar 1994a, p.219.
149
Zubar 1994a, p.219220. The result of these measures was, according to the author, the closure of a defence alliance
between Pharzoios and Olbia to ensure the city security.
150
151
Krapivina 1993, p.146. It is considered that Pharzoioss accomplishments for which he received the right to strike golden
coins include the Sarmatian involvement on Roman side in the Romano-Bosporan conflict of CE 4549 (Krapivina 1993,
p.147), although it is known that the Aorsi, who participated in this conflict on Romes side were led by king Eunones
(Cf.Tacitus, Annales, XII, 1521).
152
153
Cf. to this effect Barca 1997, p.970972.
180 Vitalie Brc
the leader of a powerful union in the area), to ensure protection and support the city defence. In
exchange, the city struck golden coins, which served to pay the king and his army. It is not excluded
that these Sarmatians had also certain economic facilities in their relation with Olbia.
Regarding Pharzoios and Inismeos coin portraits, calling them , it is possible that this
was a specific way that Greek cities obtained favours. However, this might also have been the kings
condition. In their case, it is certain that the coins served as payment means for the city protection and
account for a temporary political situation. The struck coins were propaganda means and were used for
economic purposes, not for the recognition of any official authority of Pharzoios.
Given the archaeological facts and above ancient authors accounts reporting that starting with
mid 1st century CE, new Sarmatian tribes emerge in the north and north-west Pontic area, one may
note that the Sarmatian groups moving to the west (Roxolani, Aorsi, Siraces and Alani) were found in
the discovery area of both Pharzoios and Inismeos coins and the objects exhibiting the tamga sign
specific to these kings154. In fact, in the current state of knowledge, there is little information in order
to establish Pharzoios and Inismeos origin within a certain Sarmatian tribe, however it is certain they
played an important role in history of this city in the second half of the 1st century CE.
Today, it is hard to say for how long this alliance for the protection of Olbia lasted, yet it is
most obvious that in CE 95, when Dion Chrysostomos visited the city, it was no longer operational.
Evidence comes from Dion, who mentions nothing on any alliance in place at that date between Olbia
and the Sarmatians in the region, rather the opposite, says that Olbia was under constant Sarmatian
and Scythian attacks, rejected exclusively by their own forces155. Although stressful situations were
periodical, the Olbians attempted to establish peace relations with both the Sarmatians and the Late
Scythians as shown by epigraphic sources, which although dated to the 2nd century CE, record that the
Olbiopolites send on various occasions envoys to the Scythians and Sarmatians, most likely, to prevent
further attacks156. The same Dion Chrysostomos says that, by the end of the 1st century CE, the Olbians
were hostile to the Romans157, which was due, to a certain extent, to the lack of active Roman support of
Olbia in the period when the city was under constant barbarian attack. According to all available data, it
is most obvious that by the end of the 1st century CE, no Roman military detachment was displaced at
Olbia to ensure support if needed, this situation being also valid for Tyras and Chersonesos158.
Roman administration actions in the third quarter of the 1st century CE evidence it was most
likely then when the most ample attempt to support Greek cities from the north and north-west of
the Black Sea occurred, due, to a large extent, to increasing danger from various nomad groups from
the steppes area. Nonetheless, the Roman Empire did not succeed to either eliminate the Sarmatian
danger coming from north and north-west of the Black Sea or ensure constant security to these cities,
which were often compelled to deal with them by themselves or appeal to Bosporan or Barbarian
kings. As we shall see below, this was the result of both instability within the empire as well as the
engagement of Roman troops by Lower Danube in various military conflicts, including the control
of Danube borders being weakened. Thus, in the winter of CE 67/68 the Sarmatian Roxolani crossed
the Danube and massacred two Roman cohorts, while in the following winter, taking advantage of the
civil war in Rome upon Neros death, the Sarmatian Roxolani, amounting to 9000 riders, plundered
Moesia159. By chance, this happened precisely when the just returned III Gallica from the East, joined the
Moesian troops under the command of M. Aponius Saturninus and defeated the invaders160.
154
Cf. Shchukin 1982, p.36; Shchukin 1989a, 43; Karyshkovskij 1982; Simonenko and Lobaj 1991, p.6275; Simonenko 1992,
161.
155
Dionis Chrysostomi, XXXVI.
156
Latyshev 1887, 190; IOSPE I2, no. 39, 51, 54. Judging after Dion reports, mentioning that the city was in the end conquered
by the Getae, one may argue that the Olbians succeeded this.
157
Dionis Chrysostomi, Orationes, XXXIV, 17.
158
Under emperors Nerva and Trajan, both Olbia, Tyras and Chersonesos did not strike coins (Cf. Anokhin 1989, p.7172, 99).
159
Tacitus, Historiae, I, 79.
160
Tacitus, Historiae, I, 79.
In CE 69, subsequent the defeat of the Sarmatian Roxolani who invaded Moesia, governor
M.Aponius Saturninus and the Moesian army were summoned to Italy to support Vespasians forces
fighting against Vitellius161.
In the fall of 69, after many decades, the Dacians also broke silence and taking advantage of the
situation within the empire, invaded Moesia, assaulting the winter camps of the auxiliary cohorts and
cavalry, thus seizing both Danube banks162. It is possible that Sarmatian groups were also involved in
this invasion. In the winter of CE 6970, the Sarmatians attacked once more Moesia, Fonteius Agrippa,
the governor himself being killed. He was replaced by Rubrius Gallus, who succeeded in great effort
to end the war and restore order163.
Subsequent the end of the civil war in Rome by the victory of Vespasian and the surfaced
organisational hindrances in the security by the Lower Danube, the Danubian limes defence
system was reorganised. Thereby, Moesia would be provided with an army composed of four
legions164. Under the Flavians still, the Danubian fleet classis Flavia Moesica165 would be set up and
first auxiliaries would be dispatched to Dobroudja166. Still during the Flavian emperors reign, the
Pannonian army was moved to the Danubian border167. Political and diplomatic relations between
the Romans and the Barbarians by Lower and Mid Danube, among whom also the Sarmatians,
were most likely regulated in this period. Taken measures were followed by a period of peace by
the Danube border of the empire. This period lasted until CE 85, when the Dacians attacked Moesia
and inflicted heavy losses to the Romans.168. These Dacian violent attacks over Moesia proved that
the security space policy was ineffective and that the military reinforcement of the Danube right
bank was deficient169. Changes subsequent Domitians administrative and military reorganisation
of the Moesian defence front by the Lower Danube, the military campaign against Decebaluss
kingdom and the political and military circumstances by Mid Danube finally led to the closure in
CE 89 of a treaty between the empire and the Dacian kingdom170 under which Decebalus became
rex amicus populi Romani171.
In these conflicts between the Romans and Dacians, the Sarmatians did not get involved. There
are no records on conflicts between the Sarmatians in the north and north-west of the Black Sea and
the Romans for subsequent years either. Most likely, these Sarmatians had closed treaties with the
empire and received subsidies. Only the Sarmatian Iazyges, inhabiting the northern part of the region
between the Danube and Tisza fought the Romans by the end of the 80ies and start of the 90ies CE172.
Due to the swift response of the Roman army led by Domitian, circumstances improved and the Iazyges
were defeated in the same year173. It is certain that wars under Domitian with the Barbarian populations
by Mid and Lower Danube were the most dangerous and powerful conflicts of the Roman Empire with
the neighbouring peoples to that point174. Last but not least, the many troops dispatched starting with
Domitian to Pannonia and Moesia as well as Trajans journey along Mid and Lower Danube in the winter
161
Tacitus, Historiae, III, 5, 1.
162
Tacitus, Historiae, III, 46, 2.
163
Josephus Flavius, De bello Iudaico, VII, 4, 3.
164
Cf. Aricescu 1977, p.3245.
165
Cf. for classis Flavia Moesica Matei-Popescu 2010, p.245 sqq.
166
Suceveanu 1977, p.2223; Strobel 1989, p.11 sqq. On the Roman auxilia in Moesia Inferior see Matei-Popescu 20012002;
Matei-Popescu 2010, p.167244.
167
Cf. Mcsy 1974, p.80 sqq.
168
The seriousness of the situation is emphasized by Tacitus, who argues that fortresses and even the province control were
endangered (Tacitus, Agricola, 41).
169
Opreanu 1998, p.35.
170
Cassius Dio LXVII, 7, 24.
171
Cf. Opreanu 1998, p.35 with complete bibliography.
172
Cassius Dio LXVII, 5, 2; Suetonius, Domitianus, 6, 1. Cf. Mcsy 1974, p.8485; Strobel 1989, p.100.
173
Suetonius, Domitianus, 6, 1. The Roman Empire fought another war against the Marcomanni and Quadi in CE 97, under Nerva
and it was victorious (Cf. Strobel 1989, p.104 sqq.).
174
Strobel 1989, p.111.
182 Vitalie Brc
of CE 98/99175, aimed especially at inspecting troops and forts and initiating forts and connection roads
construction176, account for Romes increasing concern for this region by the end of the 1st century CE.
Ten years after the events of 92 involving the Iazyges, the Sarmatian Roxolani, inhabitants of
the north and north-west Pontic steppes took part in the first Daco-Roman war as allies of the first.
Several scenes on the Column of Trajan177 and the inscription from Adamclisi (Tropaeum Traiani) record
the Sarmatians [devicto exerc]itu D[acorum et Sarmata]rum178. The Dacian and Roxolani attack over
Roman garrisons in Moesia Inferior took place in the winter of CE 101102. The invasion of the anti-
Roman coalition ended in disaster, as they were defeated by Roman forces led by Trajan himself179.
Following the invasion and fights in Moesia, Callidromus was taken hostage. We find from a letter of
Pliny the Younger to Trajan180 that he was slave to Laberius Maximus, governor of Moesia Inferior in
CE101102. Callidromus was taken hostage by Susagus and brought to Decebalus, who sent him back
as gift to Pacorus, king of the Parthians. The emissaries who gave Callidromus away to the Parthian
king travelled a long road, most likely, by north the Black Sea, through territories inhabited by the
Sarmatian Roxolani, Aorsi, Siraces and Alani, who definitely sided with Decebalus. Regarding Susagus,
he was most likely a Sarmatian chieftain181, whose name was well too known to the emperor, therefore
the rank mention was no longer necessary.
The Sarmatian Roxolani did not participate in the confrontations of the second Daco-Roman
war. It is not excluded that this was due to an agreement with the Roman Empire concluded around
the second war182, of which we only know that stipendium was paid to the Roxolani183. This policy
of the Roman diplomacy aimed at ensuring their neutrality, so the Roxolani did not get involved
in the military clashes of the second Daco-Roman war. The result of these diplomatic actions was
that attacks of the Sarmatians in the north-west of the Black Sea over Roman possessions by Lower
Danube ceased until Trajans death.
In the aftermath of the Daco-Roman wars by early 2nd century CE and the transformation of
Dacia into Roman province, Roman control over territories in the north and north-west of the Black Sea
also intensifies. It is then when Roman coinage regularly enters Olbia184 and Tyras185 and the influence of
Roman western provinces over the economy of both cities deepens, as proven by increased numbers of
Roman provincial products both at Olbia and Tyras. Starting with Hadrians rule, Tyras strikes again its
own coins, with the emperor portrait, name and title on the obverse and the city name and various
representations on the reverse186. Furthermore, Roman names spread both at Olbia and Tyras under
the rule of the same emperor187. Sometime between CE 106111, a detachment of foot soldiers
175
Patsch 1937, p.57; Strobel 1984, p.159160.
176
Strobel 1984, p.159 sqq.
177
Cichorius 1896, scenes XXXIXXXII, XXXVII.
178
Petolescu 1991, p.54, note 265; Petolescu 1995a, p.224.
179
Petolescu 1991, p.6466; Petolescu 1995a, p.223226.
180
Plinius Minor, Ad Traianum epistolae, 74, 1 apud FHDP I, p.478; for a complete analysis of this letter see Tudor 1956, 1930.
181
Tudor 1956, p.21 sqq.; Brc 2006, p.261; Brc and Symonenko 2009, p.364.
182
Opreanu 1994, p.207.
183
Historia Augusta, Hadrianus, 6, 68.
184
Karyshkovskij 1965, p.5157; Karyshkovskij 1986, p.26. The largest amount of Roman coins from Olbia date under
Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus and Caracalla. In fact, in the last third of the 2nd century CE, coinage circulation at Olbia
is similar to that in Roman provincial cities (Karyshkovskij 1988, p.124).
185
Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.110112.
186
Zograf 1957, p.3435; Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.110 sqq.; Anokhin 1989, p.99101; for Roman imperial
coins at Tyras Cf. Karyshkovskij and Kotsievskij 1979, p.8898; Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.110112, fig. 36, 38;
Bulatovich 1989, p.83 sqq. At Olbia, the restoration of own coinage dates only from the start of Marcus Aureliuss reign
(Cf.Karyshkovskij 1986, p.2633; Anokhin 1989, p.7274).
187
Cf. Latyshev 1887, p.193194; Savostina 1977, p.133136; IOSPE I2, no. 2, 4; Nicorescu 1944; Karyshkovskij 1959, p.116,
no. 5; Karyshkovskij and Klejman 1985, p.112113 with complete bibliography; Son 1993, p.8586. For the prosopography
of Tyras in the first centuries CE see Son 1993, p.81 sqq., and for Roman names in the onomatology of Greek cities in the
north of the Black Sea see Savostina 1977, p.129146. Given close relations between Rome and Tyras in the 1st C CE and the
Roman names at Chersonesos and Olbia in the 1st C CE, we may not exclude, even for the lack of epigraphic monuments,
Roman names in the city prosopography in the 1st C CE.
armed with tall shields188 was dispatched at Olbia in order to defend the city and its surroundings. At
Tyras, an inscription of CE 116/117 dedicated to emperor Trajan and placed in the name of governor
Quintus Pompeius Falco records construction works performed by the vexillation of V Macedonica led
by centurion Marcus Ennius Illadianius189. Another inscription dedicated to centurion Titus Trebius
Fronto is also linked to legion V Macedonica190. The presence of a detachment from the same legion
is also known from other inscriptions and tile stamps191. A legionary centurion originating in Ancyra
places an inscription to emperor Antoninus Pius and Aurelius Verus Caesar192. Among the many tile
stamps, one stands out as it records a formation formed of I Italica, V Macedonica and XI Claudia, as
well as auxiliaries, under the command of a centurion of I Italica193. At Olbia, the constant presence of
a Roman military detachment made up of soldiers of legions I Italica, V Macedonica and XI Claudia is
recorded only from mid 2nd century CE194. The strategic importance of these fortresses for the empire
also results from the attention that Roman authorities paid them in the 2nd century and the start of
the following century195. Without further discussing this part of the cities history, we wish to mention
that beginning with the 2nd century CE, Tyras and Olbia, together with the other north Pontic Greek
cities played an important role in the defensive system of the Roman Empire196.
Regarding the Sarmatians in the north-west Pontic area we should also mention that short
while after Trajans death, the Roxolani rebelled. Thus a paragraph in Historia Augusta accounts
that when hearing of the incursions of the Sarmatians and Roxolani, he sent the armies ahead and
set out for Moesia. When the king of the Roxolani complained of the diminution of his subsidy, he
investigated his case and made peace with him197. The paragraph is unclear on whether the Roxolani
attacked Moesia Inferior or not198. The fact they complained about reduced stipends, could mean
in fact, as noticed199, they feared that the new emperor would not preserve Trajans policy in what
they were concerned. Confronted with these circumstances, Hadrian came to Moesia Inferior
where he seemingly negotiated with the Roxolani the new terms of their relations200. It is certain
that Hadrian succeeded in making the Roxolani king amicus populi Romani201. Most likely, P. Aelius
Rasparaganus rex Roxolanorum202 was the individual with whom Hadrian negotiated the relation of
amicitia 203. This results rather clear from the inscriptions at Pola recording P. Aelius Rasparaganus rex
Roxolanorum204 and his son P. Aelius Peregrinus who erects tombstones, while alive, for him and Attiae
Procilliae daughter of Quintus, for the freedwomen and their successors205. As well noted, the Roman
citizenship granted by Hadrian to the Roxolani king and son is one of the greatest awards which a
188
Cf. IOSPE I2, no. 687; Vinogradov 1990, p.2931.
189
Nicorescu, 1944, p.501510; Karyshkovskij, 1959, p.116117; Sarnowski, 1989, p.7172.
190
Nicorescu 1937, p.219; Karyshkovskij, 1959, p.117 sq., no.7; Sarnowski, 1989, p.72.
191
Sarnowski, 1989, p.7275; Son 1993, p.3135.
192
Son 1986, p.6068; Sarnowski, 1989, p.73.
193
Sarnowski, 1989, p.73; Son 1993, p.3334.
194
IOSPE, I2, no. 236, 237, 322; Yajlenko 1985, p.89; Yajlenko 1987, p.7377.
195
For Tyras, this is clear from the inscription that comprises in fact two Latin letters of emperor Septimius Severus addressed
to the inhabitants of Tyras, and the other to Heraclitus, procurator of the Illyrian customs, stating that this fortress shall be
exempted of taxes on goods. The inscription end transcribes the letter of 17 February 201 of Ovinius Tertullus, governor of
Moesia Inferior (IOSPE, I2, no. 4; CIL, III, 781). The inscription also mentions M. Antonius Hiberus (governor of Moesia
Inferior in 138139 CE), for privileges awarded to this fortress.
196
Evidence to this end may include the mark of Tyras as fortified point together with Olbia and Chersonesos on the shield
at Dura-Europos.
197
Historia Augusta, Hadrianus, 6, 68.
198
Analysing literary sources, C. C. Petolescu rejects a Sarmatian Roxolani attack (Petolescu 1993, p.161162).
199
Opreanu 1998, p.52.
200
The main lever of these negotiations was, according to C. Opreanu, stipendium (Opreanu 1994, p.207).
201
Opreanu 1994, p.207; Opreanu 1998, p.53.
202
CIL V, 32.
203
Russu 1973, p.47, note 41; Vaday 1977, p.2731; Opreanu 1994, p.207; Opreanu 1998, p.53; Opreanu 1998a, p.62.
204
CIL V, 32.
205
CIL V, 33.
184 Vitalie Brc
rex amicus could obtain for services to the Roman Empire206. It is unknown how long this treaty
between the Roxolani and the Roman Empire lasted, however one may argue that events most likely
occurred in the winter/spring of CE 118207. King and sons presence within the empire is indicative of
the fact they were at some point exiled from their country by a rival anti-Roman group208, seemingly
by the start of Antoninus Piuss reign209. A direct consequence of the events by the Lower Danube is
the abandonment of south Moldova and Muntenia, part of Moesia Inferior and the establishment
of the south-eastern border of Dacia on Olt river. Subsequent the 117118 events, however in the
virtue of the treaty closed with the Roxolani, the Sarmatians were most likely allowed to settle these
territories210. The relocation and settlement of Sarmatian groups in Muntenia plain was well controlled
by the Romans. Current archaeological finds seem to confirm this was no massive settlement, at least
until the Marcomannic wars.
Following a careful analysis of historical facts, we may argue that the Sarmatians in the
northwest Pontic area were under the careful surveillance of Rome, as evidenced by both Roman
policies and actions in the region as well as its military presence in a series of places there. It is certain
that following the conflicts of 117119, the Sarmatians were once more included in the previously
existent Roman alliance system, which ensured the Roman world by Mid and Lower Danube a period
of 50 years of order and peace. Nevertheless, it is certain that over the entire 2nd century CE, the
Sarmatians were still a major danger for the Roman Empire. They were in fact among the Barbarian
peoples who conspired and attacked the empire under Marcus Aurelius211, in one of the greatest
military conflict waged by the Roman Empire during the first two centuries CE.
Acknowledgements
This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme
for Human Resources Development 20072013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under
the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 entitled Social sciences and humanities in the context
of global development development and implementation of postdoctoral research and by a grant
of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS UEFISCDI, project number
PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.
Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinus Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, vol. I-III, Translated by John C. Rolfe, Loeb
Classical Library, 19351940.
Cassius Dio Dio Cassius, Roman History, vol. I-IX, Translated by Earnest Cary, on the basis of the version
ofHerbert Baldwin, Loeb Classical Library, 19141927.
Dionis Chrysostomi Dionis Chrysostomi, Orationes, post Ludovicum Dindorfium, II, Edidit Guy de Bud, 1919.
Historia Augusta Historia Augusta, vol. I-III, Translated by David Magie, Loeb Classical Library, 19211932.
Josephus Flavius, De bello Iudaico Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, Books VVII, Translated by
H.St.J.Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library, 1971.
Lucan Lucain, La guerre civile (La Pharsale), I-II, Texte tabli et traduit par A. Bourgery et M. Ponchont. Les
Belles Lettres, Paris, 19261929.
Plinius Pliny, Natural History, vol. IIX, Translated by H. Rackhman, Loeb Classical Library, 1961.
Seneca Seneca, Naturales quaestiones, Books 17, Translated by Thomas H. Corcoran, Loeb Classical Library,
19711972.
206
Braund 1984, p.39; Opreanu 1998, p.53; Opreanu 1998a, p.62.
207
C. Opreanu argues that Hadrian reached the Lower Danube in the spring of CE 118 (Opreanu 1998, p.52), while K.Strobel
and Dan Ruscu place his arrival there by the end of CE 117 (Strobel 1986, p.957; Ruscu 2003, p.90).
208
Wilkes 1983, note 108; Opreanu 1994, p.207; Opreanu 1998a, p.63.
209
Petolescu 2010, p.307.
210
On the views on the start date of the Sarmatian infiltration in the Muntenia field see Bichir 1977, p.191; Bichir 1996,
p.304; Harhoiu 1993, p.4650; Niculescu 2003, p.184186; Bogdan-Ctniciu 1997, p.140, 142; Diaconu 1980, p.284; Oa
1999, p.887; Oa 2007, p.51; Babe 1999, p.234 sqq.; Opreanu 1998, p.6364; Opreanu 1998a, p.7374; Srbu and Brc
1999, p.9394; Srbu and Brc 2000, p.258261; Brc 2002, p.110111; Brc 2002a, p.6465; Brc 2013a.
211
Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius, 22, 1.
Strabo Strabo, Geography, vol. I-VIII, Translated by Horace Leonard Jones, Loeb Classical Library, 19171932.
Suetonius Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, vol. I-II, Translated by J. C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library, 1959.
Tacitus Agricola Tacitus, Agricola. Germania. Dialogus, Translated by M. Hutton, W. Peterson, Loeb Classical
Library, 1914.
Tacitus Germania Tacitus, Agricola. Germania. Dialogus, Translated by M. Hutton, W. Peterson, Loeb Classical
Library, 1914.
Tacitus Annales Tacitus, Histories, Books IVV, Translated by Clifford H. Moore, Annals, Books IIII, Translated
by John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library, 1931.
Tacitus Annales Tacitus, Annals, Books IVVI, XIXII, Translated by John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library, 1937.
Tacitus Historiae Tacitus, Histories, Books IIII, Translated by Clifford H. Moore, Loeb Classical Library, 1925.
Tacitus Historiae Tacitus, Histories, Books IVV, Translated by Clifford H. Moore, Annals, Books IIII, Translated
by John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library, 1931.
***
Anokhin, V. A. 1989. Monety antichnyh gorodov Severo-Zapodnogo Prichernomorya. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.
Arkheologiya SSSR 1989. Arkheologiya SSSR, Stepi evropejskoj chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Nauka,
Moskva.
Aricescu, A. 1977. Armata n Dobrogea roman. Editura Militar, Bucureti.
Babe, M. 1999. Ein Tamga-zeichen aus der dakischen Siedlung von Ocnia (Buridava), p.223239. In:
Transsilvanica, Archologische Untersuchungen zur ltern Geschichte des sdstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift fr
Kurt Horedt (Eds. N. Boroffka, T. Soroceanu). Internationale Archologie. Studia honoraria Band 7. Leidorf, Rahden.
Brc, V. 1997. Considerations Concerning the Political History of Sarmatians in the North-West of Black Sea
in the First century A.D. / Consideraii privind istoria politic a sarmailor din nord-vestul Mrii Negre n secolul I d. Ch.,
p.935979. In: Rmer und Barbaren an den Grenzen des rmischen Daciens (Ed. N. Gudea), (= Acta Musei Poprolissensis,
XXI), Zalu.
Brc, V. 1999. Considrations concernant les monnaies du Ier sicle av. j. Chr. Tyras, Thraco-Dacica, XX, 12,
p. 369282.
Brc, V. 2002. Das Eindringen der Sarmaten an der unteren und mittleren Donau und ihre Beziehungen zu
den Geto-Daker (1. Jh. v. Chr. 1. Jh. n. Chr.), p.103150. In: Interregionale und kulturelle Beziehungen im Karpatenraum
(2.Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr.) (Eds. A. Rustoiu, A. Ursuiu). Nereamia Napocae, Cluj-Napoca.
Brc, V. 2002a. Ptrunderea sarmailor la Dunrea de Jos i de Mijloc i relaiile cu geto-dacii (sec. I a. Chr.
sec.I p.Chr.), Ephemeris Napocensis, XII, p.4597.
Brc, V. 2002b. Einige Betrachtungen Betreffend das Fundkomplex von Bubueci (Fundumstnde,
Forschungsgeschichte, Datierung und ethnische Zuschreibung), Thraco-Dacica, XXII, 12, p.215230.
Brc, V. 2004. The coins in the city of Tyras and the Roman authority in the region in the 1st Century A.D.,
p.834842. In: Orbis Antiqvus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Eds. Ligia Ruscu, Carmen Ciongradi, R. Ardevan,
C.Roman, C. Gzdac). Nereamia Napocae, Cluj-Napoca.
Brc, V. 2004a. Cteva observaii cu privire la tezaurele i depozitele sarmatice timpurii (sec. II-I a. chr.) din
spaiul dintre Don i Prut, p.3563. In: Studia Historica et Arhaeologica. In Honorem Magistrae Doina Benea (Eds. Mariana
Crngu, Simona Regep-Vlascici, Atalia tefnescu). Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitas Timisiensis VI.
Eurostampa, Timioara.
Brc, V. 2006. Istorie i civilizaie. Sarmaii n spaiul est-carpatic (sec. I a. Chr. nceputul sec. II p.Chr.).
Argonaut, Cluj-Napoca.
Brc, V. 2006a. Nomazi ai stepelor. Sarmaii timpurii n spaiul nord-pontic (sec. III a. Chr.). Argonaut,
ClujNapoca.
Brc, V. 2006b. Sarmaii aliaii dacilor n rzboaiele contra Romei, p.328. In: Dacia Augusti Provincia. Crearea
Provinciei (Eds. E. S. Teodor, O. entea). Cetatea de Scaun, Bucureti.
Brc, V. 2013. Nomads of the steppes by the Danube frontier of the Roman Empire in the 1st C CE. Historical
sketch and chronological remarks, Dacia, LVII, 2013, p.99125.
Brc, V. 2013a. The Items in the Sarmatian Grave at Lehliu (Clrai County) and its Dating Issue, Ephemeris
Napocensis, XXIII, p.243260.
Brc, V., Symonenko, O. 2009. Clreii stepelor. Sarmaii n spaiul nord-pontic. Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
Belin de Baller, E. 1972. Olbia. Cit antique de littoral nord de la Mer Noire. Brill, Leiden.
Bespalyj, E. I. 1992. Kurgan sarmatskogo vremeni u g. Azova, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1, p.175191.
Bichir, Gh. 1977. Les Sarmates au Bas-Danube, Dacia, N. S. XXI, p.167198.
Bichir, Gh. 1996. Date noi cu privire la ptrunderea sarmailor n teritoriul geto-dacic (II), Studii i Cercetri de
Istorie veche i Arheologie, 47, 3, p.297312.
Bogdan-Ctniciu, I. 1997. Muntenia n sistemul defensiv al Imperiului Roman sec. IIII d. Chr. Muzeul Judetean
Teleorman, Alexandria.
Braund, D. 1984. Rome and the Friendly King. The Character of the Client Kingship. Croom Helm, London
Canberra.
186 Vitalie Brc
Bujskih, S. B. 1991. Fortifikatsii Olvijskogo gosudarstva (pervye veka n . e.). Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Burachkov, P. O. 1884. Obshchij katalog monet prinadlezhashchim ellinskim koloniyam sushestvovavshim v
drevnosti na Severnom beregu Chernogo morya. Odessa, Odessa.
CIL XIV. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. XIV. Inscriptiones Latii veteris Latinae (Ed. Dessau). Berlin, 1887.
Condurachi, Em. 1958. Tib. Plautius Aelianus i strmutarea transdanubienilor n Moesia, Studii i Cercetri de
Istorie veche, IX, 1, p.119130.
Conole, P. C., Milns, R. D. 1983. Neronian Frontier Policy in the Balkans: The Career of Ti.Plautius Silvanus,
Historia, XXXII, p.183200.
Crian, I. H. 1977. Burebista i epoca sa. Editura stiintific si enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Daicoviciu, C. 1960. In: Istoria Romniei. Editura Academiei R.P.R., Bucureti.
Diaconu, Gh. 1980. Roxolani sau alani la Dunrea de Jos, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie veche i Arheologie, 31, 2,
p. 275285.
Dyakov, V. N. 1941. Okupatsiya Tavriki Rimom v I v. n. e., Vestnik drevnej istorii, 1, p.8797.
Dzygovskyj, O. M. 1993. Sarmaty na zakhodi stepovogo Prychornomorya naprykintsi I st. do n. e.- pershij
polovyni IV st. n. e.. Kyiv.
Dzygovskyj, O. M. 2000. Kultura sarmativ Pivnichno-Zahidnogo Prichornomorya. Germes, Odesa.
Gaidukevich, V. F. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich, Akademie-Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert, Berlin-Amsterdam.
Gertsiger, D. S. 1986. Antichnaya torevtika. Gosudarstvennyj Ermitazh, Leningrad.
Gostar, N. 1979. Dacorum fraturm n isncripia lui Tib.Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (CIL XIV, 4126 = I.L.S. 986 = Inscr.
Italiae, IV, 12, 125), Pontica, XII, p.129137.
Gostar, N., Lica, V. 1984. Societatea geto-dacic de la Burebista la Decebal. Junimea, Iai.
Grosu, V. I. 1986. Sarmatskoe pogrebenie v Podnestrove, Sovetskaya Arheologiya, 1, p.258261.
Grosu, V. I. 1990. Khronologiya pamyatnikov sarmatskoj kultury Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurechya.
tiina, Kishinev.
Gudea, N., Zahariade, M. 1997. The Fortifications of Lower Moesia (A. D. 86275). Hakkert, Amsterdam.
Halfmann, H. 1985. Die Alanen und die Rmische ostpolitik unter Vespasian, Epigraphica Anatolica, 8, p.3950.
Harhoiu, R. 1993, Tezaurul de la Buzu 1941, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie veche i Arheologie, 44, 1, p.4151.
IDRE I. Petolescu, C. C. 1986. Inscriptions de la Dacie romaine. Inscriptions externes concernant l`histoire de la
Dacie (Ier IIIe sicles) I. L`Italie et les provinces occidentales. Editura Enciclopedica, Bucureti.
IOSPE I2. Latyschev, B. 1916. Inscriptiones antiquae orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae.
Petropoli.
Istvnovits, E., Kulcsr, V. 2006. Az els szarmatk az Alfldn (Gondolatok a Krpt-medencei jazig foglalsrl),
Jsa Andrs Mzeum vknyve, XLVIII, p.203237.
FHDP I. Fontes ad historiam Dacoromaniae pertinentes / Izvoare privind Istoria Romniei, I. Editura Academiei
R.P.R., Bucureti, 1964.
Jacques, F., Scheid, J. 1990. Rome et lintegration de lEmpire 44 av. J-C 260 ap. J-C, I. Presses universitaires de
France, Paris.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1959. Nadpisi Tiry, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 4, p.111126.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1971. Iz istorii Tiry v III vv. n. e., Materialy po arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomorya, 7,
p. 149158.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1982. O monetakh tsarya Farzoya, p. 66
82. In: Arheologicheskie pamyatniki
SeveroZapodnogo Prichernomorya (Ed. G. A. Dzis-Rajko). Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1982a. Olviya i Rim, p.628 In: Pmayatniki rimskogo i srednevekovogo vremeni v
SeveroZapodnom Prichernomore (Ed. A. V. Gudkova). Naukova duka, Kiev.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1988. Monety Olvii. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Karyshkovskij, P. O., Klejman, I. B. 1985. Drevnij gorod Tira. Naukova duka, Kiev.
Karyshkovskij, P. O., Kotsievskij, A. S. 1979. Antichnye monety iz raskopok Tiry, p.8898. In: Antichnaya Tira i
srednevekovyj Belgorod (Ed. P. O. Karyshkovskij). Naukova duka, Kiev.
Karyshkovskyj, P. J. 1962. Z istorii greko-skifskikh vidnosin u Pivnichno-Zahidnomu Prichornomori (Pro monety
tsariv Farzoya ta Inensimeya, karbovani v Olvii), Arheologichni pamyatki URSR, XI, p.102121.
Karyshkovskyj, P. J. 1971. Sribni monety pislyagetskoj Olvii, Arkheologiya (Kyiv), 4, p.7984.
Kashuba, M. T., Kurchatov, S. I., Shcherbakova, T. A. 20012002. Kochevniki na zapodnoj granitse Velikoj stepi
(po materialam kurganov u s. Mokra), Stratum plus, 4, p.180252.
Kazamanova, L. N. 1969. Vvedenie v antichnuyu numizmatiku. Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, Moskva.
KBN. Korpus Bosporskih nadpisej (Ed. V. V. Struve). Nauka, Moskva-Leningrad, 1965.
Klose, J. 1934. Roms Klientel-Randstaaten am Rhein und am der Donau. Beitrge zu ihrer Geschichte und
rechtlichen Stellung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. M. H. Marcus, Breslau.
Kovpanenko, G. T. 1986. Sarmatskoe pogrebenie I v. n. e. na Yuzhnom Buge. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Kotsievskij, A. S. 1982. Neskolko neizdanyh monet Tiry iz chastnyh sobranij, p.117125. In: Numizmatika
antichnogo Prichernomorya (Ed. V. L. Yanin). Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Kozenkova, V. I. 1980. Kompleks sarmatskogo vremeni iz stanitsy Novotitarovskoj (Krasnodarskij kraj), p.7291.
In: Severnyj Kavkaz v drevnosti i v srednie veka (Ed. V. I. Markovin). Nauka, Moskva.
Khegyi, M. 1984. Kora szarmata aranyleletes ni srok az Alfldn, Debreceni Dei Mzeum vknyve (1982),
p. 267355.
Krapivina, V. V. 1993. Olvija. Materialnaya kultura IIV vv. n. e. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Krapivina, V. V. 1994. Pro etnichnyj sklad naselennya Olvii v pershi stolittya novoi ery, Arheologija (Kyiv), 2,
p. 123129.
Latyshev, V. V. 1987. Issledovannie ob istorij i gosudarstvennom stroe goroda Olvij. Sankt-Petersburg.
Latyshev, V. V. 1949. Izvestiya drevnikh pisatelej o Skifij i Kavkaze, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 1, p.185293.
Latyshev, V. V. 1949a. Izvestiya drevnikh pisatelej o Skifij i Kavkaze, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2, 1949, 271356.
Leschhorn, W. 1993. Antike ren, F. Steiner, Stuttgart.
Lica, V. 1989. Die dakischen Geisel im Rmischen Reich, Studii Clasice, XXVI, p.3544.
Lica, V. 1996. Relaiile Imperiului cu dacii n timpul Flavienilor, Ephemeris Napocensis, VI, 1996, 113121.
Lysenko, N. N. 2002. Alanskii pokhod Nerona, Nizhnevolzhskij arkheologicheskij vestnik, 5, p.95116.
Machinskij, D. A. 1974. Nekotorye problemy etnogeografij Vostochnoevropejskih stepej vo II v. do n. e. I v.n.e.,
Arkheologicheskij sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 16, p.122132.
Marchenko, I. I. 1996. Siraki Kubani (po materialam kurgannykh pogrebenij Nizhnej Kubani). Kubanskij
gosudarstvennyj universitet, Krasnodar.
Matei-Popescu, Fl. 20012002. Trupele auxiliare romane din Moesia Inferior, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie veche
i Arheologie, 5253, p. 173242.
Matei-Popescu, Fl. 2010, The Roman Army in Moesia Inferior. Conphys, Bucureti.
Mcsy A. 1974. Pannonia und Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire.
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London-Boston.
Mochi A. 1954. K voprosu o periodizatsii rannesarmatskoj epokhi, Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, IV, p.115128.
Mordvintseva, V. I., Sergatskov, I. V. 1995. Bogatoe sarmatskoe pogrebenie u stantsii Berdiya, RA, 4, p.114124.
Millar, F. 1992. The Emperor in the Roman Word. Duckworth, London.
Minns, E. H. 1913. Scythians and Greeks. University Press, Cambridge, 1913.
Nadpisi 1968. Nadpisi Olvii (19171965) (Eds. T. N. Knipovich, E. I. Levi). Nauka, Leningrad.
Nicorescu, P. 1937. Garnizoana roman n sudul Basarabiei, Analele Academiei Romne. Memoriile Seciunii
Istorice, ser. III, XIX, p.217239.
Nicorescu, P. 1944. O inscripie a mpratului Traian gsit la Cetatea Alb, Analele Academiei Romne.
Memoriile Seciunii Istorice, ser. III, XXVI, p.501510.
Niculescu, Gh. 2003. Die sarmatische Kultur im Zusammenhang der kaiserzeitlichen archologischen Funde
aus Muntenien unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Funde von Trgor, p.177205. In: Kontakt-Kooperation-
Konflikt. Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim).
Internationales Kolloquium des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars der Philipps-Universitt Marburg, 12.16. Februar 1998.
Wachholtz, Neumster.
Opreanu, C. 1994. Neamurile barbare de la frontierele Daciei romane i relaiile politico diplomatice cu
Imperiul, Ephemeris Napocensis, IV, p.193220.
Opreanu, C. H. 1998. Dacia roman i barbaricum. Mirton, Timioara.
Opreanu, C. 1998a. Criza militar i politic de la Dunrea de Jos din anii 117119 p.Ch. Urmri asupra relaiilor
dintre Dacia i lumea barbar, Ephemeris Napocensis, VIII, p.6180.
Oa, L. 1999. Relations between the Roman Empire and Sarmatians on the Lower Danubian limes, p.885894.
In: Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Ed. N. Gudea). Porolissum, Zalu.
Oa, L. 2007. Sarmaii din Muntenia i Imperiul roman, Analele Banatului, S. N., Arheologie Istorie, XV, p.5155.
Patsch, C. 1932. Beitrge zur Vlkerunde von Sdosteuropa, V/1. Hlder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien.
Patsch, C. 1937. Der Kampf um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan. Beitrge zur Vlkerunde von
Sdosteuropa, V/2. Hlder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, 1937.
Prvan, V. 1926. Getica. O proistorie a Daciei. Bucureti.
Peters, B. G. 1986: Kostoreznoe delo v antichnyh gosudarstvakh Severnogo Prichernomorya. Nauka, Moskva.
Petolescu, C. C. 1991. Decebal, regele dacilor. Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti.
Petolescu, C. C. 1993. Varia Daco-Romana (XVII). Dacia la nceputul domniei lui Antoninus Pius, Thraco-Dacica,
XIV, 12, p. 159162.
Petolescu, C. C. 1995. Scurt istorie a Daciei Romane. Editura didactic i pedagogic, Bucureti.
Petolescu, C. C. 1995a. La victoire de Trajan en Msie Infrieure, Thraco-Dacica, XVI, 12, p.223226.
Petolescu, C. C. 2010. Dacia un mileniu de istorie. Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti, 2010.
Pippidi, D. M. 1967. Tiberius Plautius Aelianus i frontiera Dunrii de jos n sec. I e. n., p.287328. In: Contribuii
la istoria veche a Romniei. Editura tiinific, Bucureti.
Prohorova, T. A., Guguev, V. K. 1992. Bogatoe sarmatskoe pogrebenie v kurgane 10 Kobyakovskogo mogilnika,
Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1, p.142161.
188 Vitalie Brc
Raev, B. A. 1985. Knyazheskie pogrebeniya sarmatskogo vremeni v g. Novocherkasske. In: Arheologicheskie

pamyatniki Evropejskoj chasti RSFSR, Moskva, 1985, p.126132.
Raev, B. A. 1986. Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin, BAR, Int. Ser., 278, Oxford, 1986.
Raev, B. A. 1989. Alany v evpopeijskikh stepyah: vostok-zapad, p.116117. In: Skifiya i Bospor. Arkheologicheskie
materialy k konferentsii pamyati akademika M. I. Rostovtseva (M. Yu. Vakhtina). Krasnoe znamya, Novocherkassk.
Raevskij, D. S. 1973. K istorii greko-skifskih otnoshenij (II v. do n. e. II v. n. e.), Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2, p.110120.
Redina, E. F., Simonenko, A. V. 2002. Klad kontsa III v. do n. e. iz Veseloj Doliny v krugu analogichnyh drevnostej
Vostochnoj Evropy, Materialy i issledovanya po arkheologii Kubani, II, p.7896.
Rostovcev, M. I. 1918. Ellinstvo i iranstvo na yuge Rossij. Ogni, Petrograd.
Rozanova, N. P. 1956. Monety tsarya Fardzoya. Materialy i issledovanya po arkheologii, 50. Izdatelstvo Akadenii
Nauk SSSR, Moskva.
Rusyaeva, A. S. 1989. Do istorii vzaimovidnosyn Olvii z sarmatamy, p.192193. In Problemy istorii ta arkheologii
davnogo naselennya Ukrainy, Naukova dumka, Kyiv.
Rusyaeva, A. S. 1992. Religiya i kulty antichnoj Olvii. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Rusyaeva, A. S. 1995. Olvijsko-sarmatski vidnosyny u drugij polovyni I st. n. e., Arkheologiya (Kiyv), 4, p.2436.
Ruscu, D. 2003. Provincia Dacia n istoriografia antic. Nereamia Napocae, Cluj-Napoca.
Saprykin, S. Yu. 1997. Tira i frakijskie Tsari, Arkheologiya (Kyiv), 4, p.4657.
Sarnowski, T. 1989. Das Rmische Heer im Norden des Schwarzen Meers, Arheologia, XXXVIII (1987), p.6198.
Savostina, E. A. 1977. Rimskie imena v onomastike Severnogo Prichernomorya, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 4,
p. 129146.
Sidorenko, V. A. 1988. Fragment dekreta rannerimskogo vremeni iz raskopok iz pod Mangupom, p.8687. In:
Problemy antichnoj kultury: Tezisy dokladov krymskoj nauchnoj konferentsii, 1, Simferopol.
Simonenko, A. V. 1992. Farzoj i Inismej Aorsy ili alany, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 3, p.148162.
Simonenko, A. V. 1997. Eine sarmatische Bestattung vom Sdlichen Bug, Eurasia Antiqua, 3, 1997, 389407.
Simonenko, A. V. 1999. Sarmaty Severnogo Prichernomorya. Khronologiya, periodizatsiya i etno-politicheskaya
istoriya. Disertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni doktora istoricheskih nauk (mss.). Kiev.
Simonenko, A. V. 2003. Kitajskie i tsentralnoaziatskie elementy v sarmatskoj kulture Severnogo Prichernomorya,
Nizhnevolzhskij arkheologicheskij vestnik, 6, 2003, 4565.
Simonenko, A. V. 2004. Khronologiya i periodizatsiya sarmatskikh pamyatnikov Severnogo Prichernomorya,
p.134173. In: Sarmatskie kultury Evrazii: Problemy regionalnoj khronologii (Ed. B. A. Raev). Krasnodar.
Simonenko, A. 2008. Rmische Importe in sarmatischen Denkmlern des nrdlichen Schwarzmeergebietes,
p.194, Pl. 1168. In: A. Simonenko, I. I. Marenko, Natalja Ju. Limberis Rmishe Importe in sarmatischen und maiotischen
Grbern zwischen Unterer Donau und Kuban. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.
Simonenko, A. V., Lobaj, B. I. 1991. Sarmaty Severo-Zapodnogo Prichernomorya v I v. n. e. (pogrebenie znati u
s. Porogi). Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Srbu, V., Brc, V. 1999. Daci i sarmai n zona est-carpatic (sec. I a. Ch. I p.Ch.), Istros, IX, p.8998.
Srbu, V., Brc, V. 2000. Vzaimootnosheniya mezhdu dakami i sarmatami v Vostochno-Karpatskom regione i na
Nizhnem Dunae (I v. do n. e. I v. n. e.), Starozhitnosti stepovogo Prichornomorya i Krymu, VIII, p.243263.
Symonenko, O. V. 1999. Sarmaty Pivnichnogo Prychornomorya. Khronologiya, periodyzatsiya ta etnopolitychna
istoriya. Avtoreferat dysertatsii na zdobuttya stupenya doktora istorychnykh nauk. Kiev.
Symonenko, O. V. 1999a. Sarmatske pokhovannyja na terytorii Olvijskoj derzhavy, Arkheologiya (Kyiv), 1,
p. 106118.
Skripkin, A. S. 1990. Aziatskaya Sarmatiya. Problemy khronologii i e istoricheskij aspekt. Izdatelstvo
Saratovskogo universiteta, Saratov.
Skripkin, A. S. 1996. K voprosu etnicheskoj istorii sarmatov pervykh vekov nashej ery, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 1,
p. 160168.
Skripkin, A. S. 2001. O vremeni poyavleniya alanov v Vostochnoj Evrope i ikh proiskhozhdenii (istoriograficheskij
ocherk), Istoriko-arkheologicheskij almanah, 7, p.1540.
Son, N. 1986. Novaya latinskaya nadpis iz Tiry, Vestnik drevnej istorii, 4, p.6068.
Son, N. 1993. Tira rimskogo vremeni. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Speidel, M., French, D. H. 1985. Bithynian Troops in the Kingdom of the Bosporus, Epigraphica Anatolica, 6,
p. 97102.
Stein, A. 1940. Die Legaten von Moesia / Moesia helytartoi (Dissertationes Pannonicae, I, 11). Budapest.
Strobel, K. 1984. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. Studien zur Geschichte des mittleren und
unteren Donauraumes in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 1984.
Strobel, K. 1986. Die Jahre 117 bis 119 n. Chr., eine Krisenphase der rmischen Herrschaft an der mittleren
und unteren Donau, p.905967. In: Studien zur Alten Geschichte. Festschrift S. Lauffer (Eds. H. Kalcyk, Brigitte Gullath,
A.Graeber), Roma.
Strobel, K. 1989. Die Donaukriege Domitianus. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 1989.
Subbotin, L. V., Dzigovskij, A. N. 1990. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Dunajskogo mezhdurechya, I. Kurgannye

mogilniki Alkaliya i Hadzhider II. Kiev.
Subbotin, L. V., Dzigovskij, A. N. 1990a. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Dunajskogo mezhdurechya, II. Kurgannye
mogilniki Divizijskij i Belolesskij. Kiev.
Subbotin, L. V., Dzigovskij, A. N. 1990b. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Dunajskogo mezhdurechya, III. Kurgannye
mogilniki Vasilevskij i Kubej. Kiev.
Suceveanu, Al. 1971. n legtur cu data de anexare a Dobrogei de ctre romani, Pontica, IV, p.105123.
Suceveanu, Al. 1977. Viaa economic n Dobrogea roman secolele IIII e. n. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucureti.
Suceveanu, Al. 1979. Din nou despre cariera lui Marcus Arruntius Claudianus, Studii i Cercetri de Istorie veche
i Arheologie, 30, 1, p.4761.
Suceveanu, Al. 1991. M. Arruntius Claudianus et lannexion romaine de la Dobroudja, Ancient Society, 22,
p. 255276.
Suceveanu, Al., Barnea, Al. 1991. La Dobroudja romaine. Editura Enciclopedic, Bucureti.
Shcherbakova, T. A., Kashuba, M. T. 1993. Sarmato-alanskie drevnosti (Kurgannye zakhoroneniya bliz s. Mokra).
Tiraspol.
Shchukin, M. B. 1982. Tsarstvo Farzoya. Epizod iz istorii Severnogo Prichernomorya, Soobshcheniya
Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, XLVII, p.3538.
Shchukin, M. B. 1989. Sarmaty na zemlyah k zapodu ot Dnepra i nekotorye sobytiya I v. v tsentralnoj i vostochnoj
Evrope, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1, p.7084.
Shchukin, M. B. 1989a. Na zapadnyh granitsah Sarmatii, p.3155. In: Kochenviki evraziskij stepei i antichnyj mir
(Ed. B. A. Raev). Krasnoe znamya, Novocherkassk.
Shchukin, M. B. 1994. Na rubezhe er. Farn, Sankt-Petersburg.
Shchukin, M. B. 1995 Dve repliki: O Farzoe i nadpisi iz Mangupa, o tsarstve Artavasde i pogrebenii v Kosike,
Vestnik drevnej istorii, 4, p.175179.
Shelov, D. B. 1975. Severnoe Prichernomore 2000 let nazad. Nauka, Moskva.
Shelov, D. B. 1981. Rimlyani v Severnom Prichernomore vo II v . n. e., Vestnik drevnej istorii, 4, p.5262.
Tari, E. 1994. Korai szarmata sr jszilvson, p.259261. In: A k-kortl a kzpkorig. Von der Steinzeit bis zum
Mittelalter, Tanulmnyok Trogmayer Ott 60. szletsnapjra (Ed. Lrinczy Gbor). Szeged.
Tudor, D. 1956. Peregrinrile sclavului Callidromus, Studii i articole de istorie, I, p.1930.
Vaday, A. 1977. Rasparaganus rex Roxolanorum, Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 7, p.2731.
Vaday, A. 1984. Das Graberfeld der Jazyges Metanastae in Mezcst-Hrcsgs, Mitteilungen des
Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1213, 19821983 p.167188.
Vaday, A. 1989. Die sarmatischen Denkmler des Komitats Szolnok (Antaeus, 1718, 19881989). Budapest.
Vaday, A. 1989a. Sarmatisches Mnnergrab mit Goldfund aus Dunaharaszti, Folia Archaeologica, XL, p.129136.
Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1989. Politicheskaya istoriya Olviiskogo polisa VIII vv. do n. e. Istoriko-epigraficheskoe
issledovani). Nauka, Moskva, 1989.
Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1990. Olvija i Trayan, p.2732. In: Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovie. Problemy
istochnikovedeniya. Chteniya pamyati V.T. Pashuto. Moskva.
Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1994. Ocherki voenno-politicheskoj istorii sarmatov v I v. n. e., Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2,
p. 151170.
Vogel-Weidemann, U. 1982. Die Statthalter von Afrika und Asia in den Jahren 1468 n. Chr.: Eine Untersuchung
zum Verhltnis Princeps und Senat (Antiquitas. Reihe 1, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte). Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.
Vysotskaya, T. N. 1979. Neapol stolitsa gosudarstva pozdnikh skifov. Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Wilkes, J. J. 1983. Romans, Dacians and Sramatians in the First and Early Second Centuries, p.255289. In: Rome
and Her Northern Provincies (Eds. B. Hartley, J. Wacher). Alan Sutton, Oxford, 1983.
Yajlenko, V. P. 1985. Vzaimootnosheniya Olvii i Rima po epigraficheskim dannym, p.8890. In: Problemy
issledovaniya Olvii. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenij seminara. Parutino.
Yajlenko, V. P. 1987. Materialy k Korpusu lapidarnyh nadpisej Olvii, p.4105. In: Issledovaniya po epigrafike i
yazykam drevnej Anatolii, Kipra i antichnogo Severnogo Prichernomorya. Moskva.
Yatsenko, S. A. 1993. Alanskaya problema i tsentralnoaziatskie elementy v kulture kochevnikov Sarmatii
rubezha III vv. n. e., Peterburgskij arkheologicheskij vestnik, 3, p.6072.
Yatsenko, S. A. 1993a: Alany v Vostochnoj Evrope v seredine I seredine IV vv. n. e. (Localizatsiya i politicheskaya
istoria), Peterburgskij arkheologicheskij vestnik, 6, p.8388.
Yatsenko, S. A. 2001. Znaki tamgi iranoyazychnyh narodov drevnosti i rannego srednevekovya. Vostochnaya
literatura RAN, Moskva.
Yurgevich, V. N. 1889. Monety goroda Tiry khranyashchiesya v muzee Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i
drevnostej, Zapiski Odeskogo Obshchestva Istorii i Drevnostej, XV, p.112.
Zhdanovskij, A. M., Marchenko, I. I. 1988. Sarmaty v Prikubane, p.4256. In: Problemy sarmatskoj arkheologii i
istorii. Tezisy dokladov. Azov.

Ancient Linear Fortifications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Linear Fortifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A N C I E N T L I N E A R F O R T I F I C AT I O N S

Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube

MEGA PUBLISHING HOUSE CLUJ-NAPOCA 2014

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

Editura MEGA | www.edituramega.ro

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Flavius Bozu, Ovidiu Bozu

Richard A. Mason, Lucas C. Mason

Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru, Stnic Pandrea

Magdalena tefan, Dan tefan

DISCUSSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Keywords: preventive archaeological research, earth ramparts, Gearmata, Timi

Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube 926

Archaeological and historical notes

Covsn, Arad County

Pichia, Timi County

Dumbrvia, Timi County

Gearmata, Timi County

Fig. VI. Roman wave.

Fig. X. 1. Overview of Archaeological investigated area;

Fig. XI. 3rd-4th century historical discoveries in Banat.

Richard A. Mason, Lucas C. Mason

Keywords: Ploscueni-Stoicani Vallum; Athanarics Wall, Ploscueni

Introduction and Literature Review

Menghin 2007, p.624626.

Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube 2740

Selection of the Survey Area

unfortunately been destoryed by anthropogenic/agricultural activities in many places, an area was

Summary of Schuchhardts Description of the Embankment Remains around Ploscueni

Description of the Survey Site

Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p. 657, 668.

Teodor and Croitoru 2013, p.666.

Schuchhardt 1885, p.206.

Fig. 1. Detail of Schuchhardts map of the Dacian limes1.

Fig. 2. Northwestern section of the vallum

Fig. 5. The Siret loop near Argea.

Fig. 6. Oancea Monastery at the foot of Toflea plateau.

Fig. 8. View of the Siret valley from point 2.

Fig. 9. Embankment remains at point 2.

Fig. 10. Embankment remains at point 3.

Fig. 11. Embankment

Fig. 12. Embankment

Valeriu Srbu, Costin Croitoru, Stnic Pandrea

Keywords: Linear Fortification, Trajans vallum, ueti, Brila

Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube 4156

Section S1 (20062007) (Fig. 45)

The 20122013 campaigns8

General data on the fortified enclosure

The size and structure of the fortification

Haruche et alii 1983, p.4965.

Cndea 1980, p.375.

Fig. 1. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 2. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 3. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 4. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 5. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 7. ueti. The Linear Fortification. Section S2.

Fig. 8. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 9. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Fig. 10. ueti. The Linear Fortification.

Magdalena tefan, Dan tefan

Establishing investigation objectives in the context of known archaeological facts

Ancient Linear Fortifications on the Lower Danube 5776

Multi-scale site approach