Roman Amphorae Beyond The Frontiers of T PDF

Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum.
The Barbarians around the

Province of Dacia and
Their Relations with
the Roman Empire
ROMANIAN ACADEMY
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA
Series
Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum
Editors
Sorin Cociş
Adrian Ursuţiu
Volume 14
ROMANIAN ACADEMY – INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA
Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum

The Barbarians around the Province
of Dacia and Their Relations
with the Roman Empire
Edited by
Vitalie Bârcă
Mega Publishing House

Cluj‑Napoca
2016
This work was supported by grants of the Ministry of National Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number
PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0210 and the grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS
– UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.
Editor:
Vitalie Bârcă
DTP and cover:

Francisc Baja
Translation into English:

Gabriela Balica
Cover image:
Right-angled knee brooch from Alba Iulia/Apulum © George Bounegru
© The Autors, 2016

The authors are responsible for the contents.
ISBN 978-606-543-755-5
Descrierea CIP este disponibilă la Biblioteca Națională a României.
Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e‑mail: mega@edituramega.ro
Contents
Florian Matei-Popescu, Ovidiu Ţentea

The Eastern Frontier of Dacia. A Gazetteer of the Forts and Units 7
Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu, Cristian Găzdac

Deceiving the Barbarians? A Roman Golden Forgery from a Frontier Marketplace at Porolissum
(Romania) and its Archaeological Context 25
Sorin Cociș, George Bounegru

Again on the Barbarian brooches from Roman Dacia 37
Horațiu Cociș
Linear Fortifications on the North–Western Frontier of Dacia Porolissensis. An Overview 41
Dan Matei
The Dacian groups of population and the abandoned castra in the (former) territory of the province(s)
of Dacia 77
Ioan Carol Opriș, Alexandru Rațiu

Roman customs station from Capidava. Statio for publicum portorii Illyrici in the 2nd century AD and a
hypothetical model for interactions with Barbaricum in the 4th century AD 89
Marius Ardeleanu
Roman imports from north-western Romania. Statistic view and historical notes 111
Robert Gindele
The Barbarian settlement at Tășnad-Sere (Satu Mare County). The rescue excavations of 2015 131
Sorin Bulzan, Cristian-Claudiu Filip

Stamped Pottery discovered in the Roman Settlement from Margine, Bihor County 151
George Dan Hânceanu

Roman Imports in the Settlement of the Free Dacians at Roşiori (Neamţ County) 169
Alexandru Popa
Roman Amphorae beyond the frontiers of the Roman provinces of Dacia and Moesia Inferior 203
Costin Croitoru
On the lamps discovered in the east-Carpathian Barbaricum 243
Vitalie Bârcă
Disc brooches of box/capsule type (Dosenfibel/Kapselfibel) in the Sarmatian environment of the Great
Hungarian Plain. A few notes on their dating and origin 251
Lavinia Grumeza, Adrian Ursuțiu

The Sarmatian Cemetery from Nădlac 3M North 283
Claudia Radu
Anthropological Analyses of the Skeletons Discovered in the Sarmatian Cemetery Nădlac 3 M North 325
Erwin Gáll, Norbert Kapcsos, Theodor Isvoranu, András Iván
From absolutization to relativization: the hoard from Valea-Strâmbă (Hu: Tekerőpatak)-Kápolnaoldal
revisited 331
Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean
Beyond the Roman world. Aspects concerning the geographical knowledge outside the frontiers: the
extreme East and India in the Peutinger map 345
Richard A. Mason
An Amateur Archaeologist at Athanaric’s Wall: James Berry in Tecuci (1917) 353
Roman Amphorae beyond the
frontiers of the Roman provinces
of Dacia and Moesia Inferior
Alexandru Popa
The National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians, Sfântu Gheorghe
alex.popa@mncr.ro
Abstract: The aim of this study is to discuss the current state of research of the
Roman-provincial amphorae discovered in the Barbarian environment in front the
Dacian-Moesian frontier of the Roman Empire. There, we identified 316 finds com-
ing from 203 sites. To these we may also add other 73 refrences that only mention
the “Roman amphorae finds”. Although the archaeological material is numerous,
our knowledge on the typology, dissemination, content of the amphorae or their
area of origin is modest. Moreover, these finds have been discussed in the scholarly
literature within the context of the cultural- (ethnic) identity of the archaeological
sites. This study further proposes an analysis of the Roman-Barbarian relations,
especially of how Roman products (mainly the amphorae carrying wine and oil)
reached the Barbaricum: via trade, as diplomatic gifts or stipends or as payments
made to the Barbarians by the imperial administration.
Keywords: Roman imports, Amphorae, Barbaricum, Dacian-Moesian limes,
Roman-Barbarian trade and contacts
1. Introduction
T he aim of this study is to discuss the state of research of the

Roman-provincial amphorae discovered in archaeological sites in
front the Dacian-Moesian frontier of the Roman Empire that date
to the period of Roman Dacia. We thus proposed to synthesise the knowledge of
the last 100 years of research in the field. As early as the end of the 19th century,
the amphorae research focused on their typology, identification of origin, produc-
tion centres or the spatial and time diffusion of this vessel category. Currently,
the amphorae are one of the most analysed sources of economic history of the
Antiquity.
The amphorae are the main Roman-provincial products reaching the emipre’s
neighbours beyond its frontiers. Therefore, they became an important source
for the study of the relations between the Roman Empire and the neighbouring,
non-Roman populations. The Roman-provincial imports in the Barbaricum (and
implicitly of the amphorae) entail two main study directions:
a. The study of the Roman-Barbarian relations in time and space with the aid
of the so-called Roman-provincial imports. Thus, it is believed that the diffusion
of the Roman-provincial goods reflects the nature and intensity of the economic,
cultural, political and social relations between the Roman Empire and the people
living next to its borders.
b. The Roman-provincial goods may be used in establishing a structure
of relative chronology (and possibly even of absolute chronology) for the archaeological cultures of the
Barbaricum.
One of the basic questions of the research of Roman-provincial products from the Barbaricum is related
to the directions/paths through which these artifacts cross over the borders of the Roman Empire in order to
reach the Barbarian environment: either as war spoils, as products resulted from bilateral trade, as “diplomatic
gifts” or the so-called “peace funding” (“Stillhaltegelder”). Last but not least, they may also include chance
objects reaching the Barbarians as “souvenirs” (“Mitbringsel”). Some of these finds might have served as pro-
totypes for the copies in the local production of the Barbaricum, playing an intermediate function between the
Roman-provincial artifacts and those locally made.
2. Methodological limits of the research

This research is not based on the study of all artifacts in museal collections, but rather represents an assess-
ment of existing bibliography on amphorae finds. We have attempted to bibliographically identify as many as
such finds as possible from the analysed historical-geographical space, of which, in one way or another, there
is available information in relevant publications. Despite our diligence, we may not be entirely certain (or
claim) to have taken into consideration every known/published find at present. Part of the publications and
material housed within museal institutions was not accessible to us or we were unable to incorporate in this
research. Despite all these methodological limitations, we believe that the material processed herein is repre-
sentative, for amphorae finds in the hinterland of the provinces of Moesia Inferior and Dacia.
The research of the amphorae as archaeological source should bear in mind we are dealing with recipi-
ents used for the carriage and possibly storage of products, usually food products. Proper amphorae did not
represent goods travelling from one geographic area to another, but the products/substances inside were of
interest for the ancient peoples. Thus, the content caused the carriage of amphorae from the production region
to that of their discovery and no other reason related to the pottery recipient itself. It is difficult to imagine the
diffusion of the amphorae without their content, which would in fact be illogical and economically groundless.
3. History and current state of research

Up to date, there is no monographic analysis of the amphorae diffusion in the Barbarian environment past
the Dacian-Moesian limes. Several studies were published, limited though to only certain geographical areas or
separate archaeological culture. The works of Emanoil Rikman1, Gheorghe Bichir2, Vasile Grosu3, Silviu Sanie4
or Ion Ioniţă5 are notable. They discuss the material based not on shape or carried content, nor geographically,,
but mainly based on ethnical (and cultural) attribution of the find spot. This “ethnocultural” analysis is spe-
cific to the historiography of the analysed area, further applied to other categories of archaeological materials.
In addition, the typological and chronological grouping of the amphorae was made by the comparison with
amphorae coming from other regions. These are firstly Crimea6, the north of the Black Sea7 or Dobruja8.
One of the first typologies of the Roman period amphorae in our research area was compiled by E. Rikman9.
In his article on the dating of Roman imports from the Chernyakhov culture sites, the author identified in the
area between the Prut and the Dnister six amphora types, which he ordered chronologically and culturally.
For the research herein, the first two categories are of interest. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that E. Rik-
man’s typology may be applied only partially. Thus, the first group included amphorae made of light-coloured
fabric and narrow elongated neck, without further emphasis on other formal peculiarities. For instance, the
specimens at Pervomajsk and Bălţata, ascribed to the same group, are of different proportions and may not
be, in our view, by any means ascribed to one and the same type10. To the second type, E. Rikman ascribed the
light-coloured fabric amphorae and relatively short conical neck11, a type later defined in the scholarly litera-
1
RIKMAN 1972, 85–91.
2
BICHIR 1973, 90–94; BICHIR 1977, 177.
3
GROSU 1990.
4
SANIE 1981.
5
IONIŢĂ 1982, 73–74.
6
ZEEST 1960.
7
SHELOV 1978.
8
SCORPAN 1976; SCORPAN 1977; OPAIŢ 1980; PARASCHIV 2002; PARASCHIV 2006.
9
RIKMAN 1972, 85–91.
10
See RIKMAN 1972, 88, Ris. 1/2–3.
11
RIKMAN 1972, 89–90, Ris. 1/4–5.
204
ture and known under the title “Shelov D” or “Tanais”12. The first amphora type was dated based on parallels to
the 2nd century AD13. The second type was dated based on analogies from the north of the Black Sea to the 3rd
century AD14. In the context of such dating, it is inexplicable why E. Rikman states that both types of amphorae
are found within the same ancient sites, since the Tanais type amphorae do not emerge in synchronous archae-
ological contexts with amphorae of earlier types15.
A catalogue-type publication of the finds in the western part of the former USSR was drafted by Vladislav
Vsevolodovič Kropotkin. In his work on the Roman-provincial imports from Eastern Europe, the author also
discusses amphorae finds. The first selection criterion was, to the author, the colour of the amphorae fabric:
it was either light or orange16. Vessel shapes were discussed according to Iraida Borisovna Zeest’s typology
based on the finds from Bosporan Kingdom17. Vasile Ursachi’s study is of the same type, commented catalogue,
wherein the author briefly presents an entire list of unknown finds or dispersed in various regional studies18.
Gh. Bichir has studied in detail the amphorae finds in archaeological sites attributed to the Free
Dacians in the east19 and south of the Carpathians20, as well as in those of the Sarmatians21. The author
underlines the presence of several types specific to the east- and south-Carpathian territories: 1) vessels
made of light-coloured fabric with narrow, elongated neck; 2) vessels made of orange fabric, conical neck,
inwards thickened rim and ovoid body. To the amphorae category were also ascribed the “Table Pitcher”22
vessels. Except the mention that amphorae in the first type are unknown within the Roman province of
Dacia, Gh. Bichir gives no further explanations or any additional interpreting of the diffusion intensity or
chronology of this category of containers.
The inscribed amphorae were collected, analysed and interpreted by Marius Alexianu23. Thus, the author
inventoried 57 finds of inscribed or stamped amphorae and, mapping the finds, reached the conclusion that
most come from areas close to the Siret24. The large number of finds in the sub-Carpathian area was explained
by the “flourishing state” of the economy of the Free Dacians25. Moreover, M. Alexianu rejects I. Ioniţă’s hypoth-
esis on the connection between these clusters of inscribed amphorae with the early power centres of the Free
Dacians26.
V. Grosu used amphorae finds to establish the “chronology of the Sarmatian antiquities”27 from the inter-
fluve Prut – Dnister as the so-called “chronological marker”. Without discussing descriptions of other authors
for amphorae on his list, the author references only some supposed parallels from the area of the Black Sea.
The author takes and assumes, without checking, all of Shelov’s dating and inevitably makes significant dat-
ing errors of the analysed funerary features28. Thus, Shelov C amphorae are dated exclusively to the 2nd cen-
tury AD, while those of Shelov D type only to the first half of the 3rd century AD. We shall not endeavour here
in a dispute on the chronology of the Sarmatian culture features, as works published meanwhile have already
pointed out the inconsistencies and errors in the book signed by V. Grosu29.
A significant contribution in understanding the role of the amphorae in the historical reconstruction of the
period discussed herein, belongs to Ion Ioniţă30. Notably though, in our view, are the following aspects:
12
SHELOV 1978, 18–19. See also ŠELOV 1986D.B.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur, J.-Y.</author><-
author>Garlan, Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238”
size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d'argile claire des premiers siècles de
notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. Actes du colloque international organisé
par le centre national de la recherche scientifique, l'Université de Rennes II et l'École francaise d'Athènes (Athènes,
10–12 Septembre 1984, 397–398.
13
RIKMAN 1972, 87–89.
14
RIKMAN 1972, 89.
15
BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998, 31.
16
KROPOTKIN 1970, 9–14. See also KROPOTKIN 1967.
17
ZEEST 1960.
18
URSACHI 1978.
19
BICHIR 1973, 91–94.
20
BICHIR 1984, 38–39.
21
BICHIR 1977, 177.
22
See OPAIŢ 2003b, 215.
23
ALEXIANU 1988.
24
ALEXIANU 1988, 106, Fig. 1.
25
ALEXIANU 1988, 115.
26
ALEXIANU 1988, 114.
27
GROSU 1990.
28
For a critical overview of the research method of Grosu – see SIMONENKO 1995b.
29
SIMONENKO 2004; SIMONENKO/MARČENKO/LIMBERIS 2008; BÂRCĂ 2006; BÂRCĂ/SYMONENKO 2009.
30
IONIŢĂ 1982, 73–74.
205
• Amphorae are one of the most numerous categories of archaeological artifacts, deemed to be Roman-pro-
vincial “imports” for the Free Dacians;
• Among the finds one can count more amphorae for oil and less for wine;
• The main trading paths were the large rivers in the region;
• The number of finds within cemeteries is larger than in synchronous settlements, therefore one may
speak of oil use in burial rituals;
• In some cases, the amphorae were used secondarily, as cremation urns;
• Roman traders could travel only up to some larger trading centres in the territory of the Free Dacians;
• The Roman amphorae reach the inland Dacian territory via traders from the Dacian environment;
• Inscribed amphorae clusters may be interpreted as evidence of power centres in the Dacian environment.
The virtue of I. Ioniță’s analysis consists in correlating the amphorae with the significant number of hoards
composed of Roman denarii from the sub-Carpathian area. With the aid of a spatial distribution map of these
finds, the author also evidenced the correlation with cremation grave finds of the Free Dacians. Unfortunately,
I. Ioniţă’s significant results were not taken up or developed by future research.
A view south of the analysed territory, namely in the province of Moesia Inferior, shows a different state of
research. There, over time, an entire series of specialised works discussing in detail the research of amphorae
finds31 was drafted. Notable, for instance, is one of the most recent researches carried out by Dorel Paraschiv32.
The author divided the amphorae from Dobrudja into 17 types, which diffuse chronologically over six cen-
turies. When determining the origin of the amphorae, the author granted too much attention to the spatial
distribution of the finds from Dobruja, thus obtaining a distorted image according to which most finds in the
area came from the local Dobrujan production33. The design of Piotr Dyczek’s work is different34, delimiting 36
amphora types. The author briefly discusses their shape, chemical structure of the fabric, but also the origin
and dating of the recipients in each type. The discussion is completed by a series of images, maps with the
geographical diffusion of the finds and tables with the chemical composition of the fabric35.
Concerning our area of interest, we note the absence of a more clear chronological and typological division
of light-coloured amphorae with elongated, narrow neck36. Furthermore, we should also note that the map
taken up by the author from Kropotkin’s37 publication refers to all amphorae finds from the former USSR and
not only to those made of light-coloured fabric with narrow, elongated neck – as argued by the Dyczek in the
figure’s title38.
Interesting and productive approaches in the research of the amphorae from Roman province of Dacia were
developed based on the material collected from the sites on the northern coast of the Black Sea. The basic work
for a long period of time was Zeest’s monograph, written based on the analysis of the material from Bosporan
Kingdom39. The Roman amphorae in this region were also extensively studied by Dmitrij Borisovič Shelov. The
division of the light-coloured amphorae into six separate types (A-F) suggested by the author, was recognized
and generally accepted in the scholarly literature40. The typology serves until nowadays as a starting point for
many studies of the amphorae in Eastern Europe41.
The knowledge level significantly evolved through the research of Sergej Jur‘evič Vnukov42. The author
inventoried, analysed and interpreted a series of ca. 350 complete amphorae and over 2500 identifiable
31
RĂDULESCU 1976; SCORPAN 1976; SCORPAN 1977; OPAIȚ 1980; OPAIȚ 1996; OPAIȚ 2003b; KUZMANOV/SALKIN 1992; DYCZEK 1999;
DYCZEK 2001.
32
PARASCHIV 2002; PARASCHIV 2006.
33
PARASCHIV 2002, 182.
34
DYCZEK 1999; DYCZEK 2001.
35
For a critical view of Dyczek’s research see reviews OPAIȚ 2003a; OPAIȚ 2004b.
36
See types 28 b-c-d and 29 a – DYCZEK 1999, 174–192.
37
KROPOTKIN/KROPOTKIN 1988, 170, Ris. 1: „Karta nakhodok amfornoj tary rimskogo vremeni v Vostochnoj Evrope”.
38
DYCZEk 1999, 184, Fig. 186: „Występowanie amfor tpu 28 na obszare północnego nadczarnomorza”.
39
ZEEST 1960.
40
SHELOV 1978. See also the reviewed version of the study, published in French – ŠELOV 1986D.B.</style></author></authors><ter-
tiary-authors><author>Empereur, J.-Y.</author><author>Garlan, Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style
face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores
d'argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Gre-
ques. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recherche scientifique, l'Université de Rennes II et
l'École francaise d'Athènes (Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984.
41
The groups of amphorae fragments according to SHELOV’s typology are used in both site studies, like for instance Tanais – ARS-
EN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003, as well as in regional studies, like for instance the lower course of the Dniester – MALJUKEVICH 1991, or even
inter-regional, namely the entire Pontic area – ABADIE-REYNAL 1999.
42
VNUKOV 2003; VNUKOV 2006.
206
amphora rim, foot or handle fragments coming from the sites on the northern coastline of the Black Sea. It is a
fundamental analysis of the amphorae shapes from the north of the Black Sea, which changed the isolationist
perception of the north-Pontic area in the economy system of the Roman Empire of the first centuries of the
Christian era.
The amphorae in the ancient town of Tyras, nearby our research area, were analysed by Tat’jana L. Samo-
jlova43. The scholar succeeded to identify among the materials coming from Tyras, 16 types of Roman-pro-
vincial amphorae, which she grouped into two distinct chronological horizons (the 1st century until mid 3rd
century AD and mid 3rd century until the 4th century AD). These results reflected the state of research of the
site to that moment. Thus, the pottery material was not only very fragmentary, but the archaeological layers
were mixed among eachother.. No notes (or chemical analyses) were made regarding the content carried or
preserved in those recipients.
Making a brief summary of the history and state of the current research, we note that although a large
quantity of amphorae fragments was collected, resulting from archaeological excavations and field walks, our
knowledge on the typology, spatial and time distribution, content carried or stored, as well as the knowledge
on the origin of these containers is very modest. Furthermore, the finds were selected for publication, most
often, based on the cultural- (ethnic) identity of the archaeological sites and not on geographical criteria. The
establishment of possible areas of origin of the amphorae was mainly made based on the mapping of the find
spots. In fact, these maps show the places where the products carried inside the amphorae were consumed and
by no means the area where they were produced or „bottled”.
4. Shapes and types of finds

3.1. Terminology
A multitude of terms are used to denominate various types and forms of ancient containers in the current
research of the Roman-provincial amphorae in our area of interest44. On one hand, very often, place names
are found (from where similar finds come), on the other hand there are also terms coming from person names
(who defined for the first time respective type). There are also the denominations indicating the place sup-
posed as origin of the amphorae, as well as denominations whose etymology is related to the specificity of
the recipient shape. For one and the same form there are occasionally several terms, each of different origin45.
Obviously, we therefore avoided using a certain numbering or denomination of types, while the long-time
solution would likely be the draft of a Conspectus formarum of the Roman-provincial amphorae, similar to that
for terra sigillata46.
As mentioned above, in the archaeology of the Roman period from the north-Pontic basin the amphorae
material was customarily divided based on fabric colour: orange or white (light colour). This division of the
amphorae fragments, at first sight simplistic, was caused by a series of objective and subjective factors, but
especially by the very fragmentary state of most finds. As early as the first half of the 20th century, this classi-
fication became the norm in both the scholarly literature of the former USSR as well as in Western Europe47. In
our research area, Roman-provincial amphorae are made of both orange and white fabrics.
Subsequent to the examination of available publications, we identified 316 finds of complete and frag-
mentary amphorae, coming from 203 sites48. To these we can add another 73 literary notes, mentioning only
“Roman amphorae finds”. Of this mass of finds, based on the form and proportion of the recipients49, the fol-
lowing types were identified:
43
SAMOJLOVA 1978.
44
For a general description of the terms used in the archaeology of the Roman provinces for the name of artifacts discovered generally,
see HINKER 2013, 47–55.
45
See below the terms for the Kapitän II amphorae – Niederbieber, Berenice MR Amphora, Bjelajac XII, Dyczek 18, Keay XII, Kuzmanov
VII, Ostia VI, Peacock-Williams 47, Rădulescu 6, Scopan E, Zeest 79 – for references see DYCZEK 2001, 137–138.
46
ETTLINGER/HEDINGER/HOFFMANN 1990. See also the comments of EIRING/FINKIELSZTEJN/ LAWALL/LUND 2004, 461–462.
47
See SHELOV 1978; 1986; ABADIE-REYNAL 1999; PARASCHIV 2006.
48
Roman amphorae whose production dates to the Republican period were not chosen.
49
As noted, rightfully, by Vnukov, in order to define a type of amphorae it is not enough to describe the form of the recipient, being also
required descriptions of the fabric and production technology (VNUKOV 2003, 19). The current state of the publications underlying our
study allows only appreciations of the form and proportions of the discussed vessels. The other peculiarities remain, until an analysis
of each find, a goal of the future research.
207
3.2. Shelov A2
This form belongs to the group of light-coloured fabric amphorae. The containers in this form are distinguished
by ovoid body and elongated neck, ending in the upper part with a thick everted rim. The handles start on the neck
and end on the vessel shoulders. Distinctive for this form is the relatively wide footring. This peculiarity evidences
a possible typological connection with the “Table Pitcher” amphorae or the Gallic amphorae, whose specificity
is this foot shape50. Occasionally, specimens with grooved neck may be found, copying in fact a twisting. In our
research area only two entirely preserved specimens are known, those found at Porogi51 are known (Fig. 1). We
wish to ascribe to this form also the fragments in the grave at Michajlovka52. Closest analogies come from the dava
type settlements on the Siret, Răcătău53 and Poiana54 (Fig. 2). Other close analogies come from the neighbouring
geographical areas, like the ancient town at Tomis55 or the northern coast of the Black Sea56.
In Shelov’s study, this amphorae form of light, whitish fabric is dated based on some parallels from Tanais
and Akkermen to the period comprised between the second half of the 1st century – first half of the 2nd century
AD57. A similar dating was suggested for the amphorae in barrow 14 at Bagaevski58 or the amphorae in barrow 4
from the cemetery at Sokolovski59. The amphora at Porogi lay in the same funerary feature beside other inven-
tory pieces (brooches, silver cup, “tamga” symbols), so that one may speak of a feature of associated pieces.
Based on this association, Simonenko dated the burial time of the dead at Porogi to the fourth quarter of the
1st century AD60. A similar dating also have the amphorae discovered in the dava settlements at Poiana and
Răcătău61. The southern shore of the Black Sea is deemed as the region of origin of this amphorae type62. Likely,
in these recipients was stored and carried wine.
3.3. Shelov B2
To this type belong the large containers, of whitish fabric, almost conical body ending in a small footring.
The cylindrical neck is elongated and ends in the upper part with a thick everted rim. The handles are profiled
in cross-section. In the upper part they are attached to the neck, much lower below the rim, while in the lower
part they fall onto the vessel’s shoulders, slightly above the maximum body diameter point. In the middle, the
body of the amphorae in this form may have a grooved surface. The maximum height is of approximately 78 cm
and the maximum diameter of ca. 20 cm.
In our research area, to this type belong two complete specimens (Fig. 3/1–2), as well as other fragments
(Fig. 3/3–6). From the point of view of the geographical distribution, it is noticeable that specimens ascribed to
this form of amphorae are found both nearby the large rivers in the area, like the Siret or the Prut, as well as in
further inland territories (Fig. 4).
Similar shaped recipients are found especially in the coastal regions of the Black Sea. Parallels for the
amphorae in the research area come from the Lower Danube63 and Dobruja64, Crimea65 or the north-Pontic coast66.
50
VNUKOV 2004, 412–414, Ris. 6/7.
51
SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991, 27, Ris. 17.
52
SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990a, 37, Ris. 15/3.
53
To the same type were ascribed also a series of fragments coming from the excavation campaigns of 1992–1996. These are the speci-
mens illustrated in CĂPITANU 1997, 21/6, 8. Based on the published illustration, the accuracy of the attribution is not compelling, so this
appreciation remains questionable, at least until the analysis of the find. We ascribed these fragments to type Vnukov C IV A.
54
UNGUREANU 2002.
55
SCORPAN 1976, 161, Pl. I/1, XI/1.
56
ZEEST 1960, 110, 164 Tabl. XXVIIII/65a. It is worth noting that this vessel has a biconical and not ovoid body shape – as defined in
SHELOV’s typology.
57
SHELOV 1978, 18. See also ŠELOV 1986D.B.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur, J.-Y.</author><au-
thor>Garlan, Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238”
10–12 Septembre 1984, 397.
58
RAEV 1986, 52–53.
59
RAEV 1985.
60
SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991, 60–61, 90.
61
For the chronology of the dava type sites on the Siret see more recently BOȚAN 2015, 71–96.
62
VNUKOV 2004, 412–415.
63
SANIE 1981, 153, Pl. 33/2, 6.
64
OPAIȚ 1980, 300, Pl. VI/1.
65
PUZDROVSKIJ/ZAJCEV 2004, 245, Abb. 10/2.
66
SIMONENKO 2004, 170, Ris. 8/61.
208
Shelov assumed these amphorae circulated from the end of the 1st century and first half of the 2nd century AD67.
Approximately the same dating was also suggested for above analogies. The amphorae came from the southern
coast of the Black Sea, likely from Heraclea68. The liquids carried in this type of containers were not established
with certainty. Most likely, it was wine.
Evidence for the diffusion period of Shelov B2 amphorae in our research area may be obtained based on
the inventory components of the grave at Cazaclia (Fig. 5). It includes, beside the Shelov B2 type amphora,
a bronze Eggers 71/72 vessel or „Stangerup/Hagenow”, whose production period begins only with the reign
period of Antoninus Pius69. Simonenko dated the feature at Cazaclia to the 3rd century AD70 subsequent to
the erroneous ascribing of the amphora in the grave to type Zeest 91–9371. The published illustrations of the
amphora at Cazaclia clearly show that its association with Zeest 91–93 type is impossible.
3.4. Shelov C
The type of amphora most often found in our research area appears under this name. They are light-co-
loured fabric recipients, shades varying from pink to yellow. The large quantity of dark-brown mineral parti-
cles, likely pyroxene (?) is notable. The specificity of the form is given by the narrow elongated neck, ending
in the upper part with a thick everted rim. The body is ovoid and ends in the lower part with a foot or rather
a relatively vertical support ring (Fig. 6). To this amphora form are specific the profiled handles bent below a
90 degree angle, which start from up on the neck and are attached to the body in the shoulder area72 (Fig. 7).
This amphora form is spread especially in the Black Sea basin, mainly in the north and north-west areas and
much less on the eastern coast. Except the Pontic regions, this amphora form is very rare73. Its origin is exten-
sively debated in the scholarly literature. Overall, the hypothesis on the origin of these amphorae in the economic
centres on the southern coast of the Black Sea like Heraclea or Sinope74 is generally agreed. Shelov admitted the
possibility of their production in Kos, Rhodos, Bosporus or even Tanais75. The geographical dissemination of this
category of recipients underlay the hypothesis on their north-Pontic or Moesian origin76. The chemical tests per-
formed on the fabric seem to indicate a resemblance with the clay ores in the area of Heraclea Pontica77.
Similarly debatable remains the question of the primary content of these amphorae. Based on most inscrip-
tions on the surface of their walls it is assumed they were made to carry wine78. The find at Schela79 is import-
ant to this effect, namely a completely preserved amphora found in a house floor. The analysis of the remains
preserved on the recipient’s walls led to the hypothesis that olive oil was stored in the amphora at the time
this “closed ensemble”80 was created. We do not know to what extent such tests may be deemed accurate or
relevant for the contemporary research, however it is certain that Brudiu’s hypothesis was forgotten81.
67
SHELOV 1978, 18. See also ŠELOV 1986D.B.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur, J.-Y.</author><au-
thor>Garlan, Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238”
10–12 Septembre 1984, 397.
68
VNUKOV 2004, 413–415.
69
PETROVSZKY 1993.
70
SIMONENKO 1995a, 350.
71
These amphorae include the types described below as SHELOV C and D.
72
As variants of this form we deem the recipients in feature 22 at Petreşti (GLAZOV/KURCHATOV 1989, 5, Ris. 4/2) and grave 2 at Vităneşti
(LEAHU/TROHANI 1979, 134, 138, Fig. 7/4). The amphora at Petreşti is much smaller, barely reaching a height of 30 cm, and is much closer
to the Hellenistic recipients produced in Heraclea. Similarly, the vessel at Vităneşti, is of a smaller height (38 cm) than form SHELOV
C. By its proportions, this container is much reminiscent of the Colcis amphorae in the area east the Black Sea (VNUKOV 2003, 160–194).
73
HAYES 1983, 147, Fig. 21/32. The presence of these amphorae at Athens was excellently documented by Andrei Opaiț (OPAIȚ 2010,
110–111).
74
ABADIE-REYNAL 1999, 256. See also DYCZEK 2001, 213–214.
75
ŠELOV 1986D.B.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur, J.-Y.</author><author>Garlan, Yvon</author></
tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style
face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d'argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></
title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recher-
che scientifique, l'Université de Rennes II et l'École francaise d'Athènes (Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984, 399–400.
76
See for instance BICHIR 1984, 39.
77
DYCZEK 2001, 213–214.
78
For the results of the discussion on this topic see DYCZEK 2001, 219–220.
79
BRUDIU 1976.
80
BRUDIU 1976, 159, note 2.
81
ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006, 46.
209
The spatial distribution of Shelov C amphorae in the analysed territory shows a visible clustering by the
middle course of the Siret (Fig. 8). Most such finds come from contexts datable with certainty to the 3rd cen-
tury AD. The single noted exception comes from the settlement at Poiana82, whose existence ceases prior to
the Roman conquest of Dacia83. This exception may also be due to an error in determining the fragment based
only on the published illustration. Unless the fragment is examined – its ascribing to form Shelov C remains
hypothetical.
Culturally, Shelov C amphorae spread in both contexts of the Sarmatian culture as well as in those of the
“Free Dacians”. In the case of the older find at Goteşti84 or the already mentioned specimen at Poiana85 any
appreciation as to cultural origin of the site remains uncertain. A preliminary statistics of the amphorae, acces-
sible to us from publications, show that ca. 86% come from sites ascribed in the Romanian literature to the
“Free Dacians”.
Shelov C amphorae come from settlements, funerary features and rarely from the so-called “deposits”. Last
but not least, one must mention the singular finds, which may not be related to any clear archaeological con-
text. As resulted from the statistical analysis, the finds within settlements and funerary contexts are approxi-
mately equal in ratio (Fig. 8). The specimens at Holboca86 were interpreted as amphorae deposit, identified in
occasion of farming works, at ca. 70 cm deep from the current surface level, in a point where any inhabitancy
evidence or traces of funerary features are missing87.
Taking a synthetic look at the information on the chronological, geographical and cultural distribution of
Shelov C amphorae, we may note a cluster of the finds on the middle course of the Siret, in features ascribed to
the “Free Dacians” and dated to the 3rd century AD. In the north or south of the researched area, this amphora
type is much less numerous.
3.5. Shelov D
This form defines the relatively small recipients, with short, ovoid body, supported on a small foot, hollow
on the inside. The neck is relatively narrow and ends in the upper part with a profiled rim. In the lower part, it
is conical and turns smoothly, without any special marks, towards the container’s walls. The body surface is
partially decorated/covered with horizontal grooves. The handles profiled on the outside are attached to the
neck, below the rim, in the upper part and on the shoulders, in the lower part88 (Fig. 9). The fabric of these
containers is light-coloured and contains dark-brown mineral particles, likely of pyroxene. The vessels height
is of ca. 40 cm, and the inside volume – of ca. 3–4 litres. Shelov D amphorae are found in Zeest’s typology
under numbers 91–9389. The geographical area of their diffusion is mostly related to the north and north-west
basin of the Black Sea and also to the Lower Danube, being practically unknown outside these areas90. The
relatively high degree of standardisation might be interpreted as evidence for the hypothesis that amphorae in
this type were made by a single production centre91 and not in several – like previously believed92. The origin of
these amphorae in the site at Tanais was denied by Böttger, arguing that in the 3rd century AD, the town was
not a pottery production centre, in general, or of amphorae, in particular93. Other hypotheses on the origin of
this amphora type consider the central territories of the Bosporan Kingdom or the coast line of Dobruja94. The
chemical tests of the fabric seem to indicate a south-Pontic origin95, while in the scholastic literature it was
agreed that Shelov D recipients carried wine96.
A special role in the determination of the chronology of such amphorae had the archaeological excavations
at Tanais. Böttger and Shelov established that, on one hand, most finds in this town come from archaeological
82
VULPE/TEODOR 2003, 725, Fig. 246/3.
83
For a synthesis on the peculiarities of this site see BOȚAN 2015, 82–85.
84
KETRARU/RIKMAN 1960, 11–12, Ris. 3.5.
85
VULPE/TEODOR 2003, 725, Fig. 246.3.
86
SANIE 1968, 347, Fig. 2.1–2.
87
The reason for assigning these finds to the culture of the “Free Dacians” is not clearly presented in the publication. In our view, this is
a historiographic and not an archaeological issue, hence it shall not be discussed here.
88
For a definition of this form see BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998, 28–29.
89
ZEEST 1960, 117–118.
90
DYCZEK 1999, 191, Fig. 196.
91
BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998.
92
ZEEST 1960, 117.
93
94
For a critical view regarding this hypothesis see BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998, 31. See also DYCZEK 2001, 223.
95
BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998, 31, 33 and DYCZEK 2001, 222–223.
96
DYCZEK 2001, 223.
210
ensembles established during the destruction of the town (by mid 3rd century AD); on the other hand, these
amphorae are missing from both earlier ensembles, as well as later one. Consequently, the research at Tanais
allows the dating of this Shelov D type approximately by mid 3rd century AD97. Such conclusions were further
confirmed by subsequent archaeological research conducted in the ancient town98.
The amphorae ascribed to type Shelov D from our research area come both from settlements and funerary
features. Occasionally, these amphorae are singular and chance finds, coming from outside well delimited
archaeological contexts. In a single case it was assumed that the Shelov D type recipients belonged to a hoard,
of which only a single amphora has survived (?!)99. Quantitatively, settlement finds predominate. Geograph-
ically, we note a certain clustering in the northern side of the sub-Carpathains, especially in the area of the
so-called “Troian al Moldovei de Sus”100 (between the Prut and the Siret), as well as in the region near the
Danube (Fig. 10).
Culturally, Shelov D amphorae come from both sites of the Sarmatian culture as well as those ascribed to
the “Free Dacians”. Except those, two specimens are known in sites of the Etulia culture101 as well as in the
settlement at Volshya Balka, whose cultural origin is yet to be clarified102.
In order to explain the chronology of Shelov D amphora finds from our research area, there are only two
so-called “closed” archaeological ensembles: the two inhumation graves from Gradeška103, which allow the
dating of the circulation period of the amphorae approximately by mid 3rd century AD, contemporary to the
damages level of the site at Tanais104.
In conclusion, we may argue that the Shelov D type amphorae form two geographical distribution nuclei:
to the north, in the area of the “Troianul in Moldova de Sus” and to the south, by the Danube mouths. At first
sight, this category of finds seems to be missing from the area on the middle course of the Siret, where we pre-
viously noted a cluster of Shelov C finds!
3.6. Scorpan VII / LRA 2

This form105 may be ascribed a single fragment, coming from the settlement at Mătăsaru106. Such attribution
is based on the very specific form of the upper part: funnel-shaped mouth, thick profiled inverted rim, biconi-
cal neck, massive handles. The fabric colour oscillates between red and brown-red. The form is well spread in
areas neighbouring that herein, especially in the north of the Black Sea, Dobruja and by the Lower Danube.
Single specimens are found at Ostia, Athens and Crete or in other centres of the Mediterranean world107. Based
on this broad geographical distribution, Scorpan deemed Histria as the production area of the amphorae, from
where were later exported in the Mediterranean world108. Meanwhile, the archaeological research has identi-
fied also other regions where LRA 2 recipients appear in large quantities. Eloquent examples are the sites in
Crimea. For instance, only from the cemetery at „Sevastopol’skij / Sovchoz 10” come 80 amphorae109. Similar
specimens seem to come from the Roman auxiliary fort at Breţcu110 or the settlement with a glass vessels pro-
duction workshop from Komarovo (on the middle course of the Dniester)111.
Oil is the product which seems to have been carried, respectively stored, in such amphorae112. Based on
some dippinti at Novae and Romula, Dyczek also discusses the garrum as product that might have been trans-
ported in these clay containers113.
The pottery fragment from Mătăsaru comes from the settlement, hence, it may be framed chronologically,
97
98
ARSEN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003, 261.
99
The find place at Pângrați (DYCZEK 2001, 223).
100
For the description of the site and research references see PĂUNESCU 1978, 512 as well as IONIŢĂ 1982, 114 and note 151.
101
For Etulia culture see especially GUDKOVA 1999, 271–304.
102
PALAMARCHUK 1982.
103
GUDKOVA/REDINA 1999, Fig. 2–3.
104
The situation of feature “Pivnița 7” in the 1999 campaign, where 188 amphorae of the type associated with coins struck during AD
211–238 may serve as an example – ARSEN’EVA/BÖTTGER 2000, 512, Anm. 15.
105
SCORPAN 1977, 274–276, Fig. 10. For the multitude of terms for this form see DYCZEK 2001, 173–176. See also OPAIȚ 2004a, 295–296.
106
BICHIR 1984, 39 154, Pl. XXXV.11.
107
DYCZEK 2001, 183–185.
108
SCORPAN 1977, 275–276, Fig. 11.
109
STRŽELECKIJ/VYSOTSKAJA/RYŽOVA/ŽESTKOVA 2005, 55.
110
GUDEA 1980, 307–308, Fig. 38.
111
SMISHKO 1964, 75, Tabl. II.6. See also the illustration published by KROPOTKIN 1970, 169, Ris. 32/7.
112
OPAIȚ 2004a, 297.
113
DYCZEK 2001, 192.
211
yet with great reserves. Bichir proposed the dating of the so-called level III1 – from where said fragment comes
– to the 2nd century AD subsequent to the discovery of some denarii, but also based on the stratigraphic divi-
sion of level III into two separate layers (first and second)114. Nevertheless, we may not ignore the fact these
denarii were in circulation for long periods of time, the 3rd century AD included, Bichir’s dating being thus
inacceptable. On the other hand, at Novae115, in Dobruja116 or in the north of the Black Sea117, these amphorae
date approximately by mid 3rd century AD. To this period would frame, in our view, also the fragment at
Mătăsaru.
3.7. “Table Pitcher”

This type of containers is distinguished by a biconical body and hollow foot. The maximum body diameter
is reached in the vessel’s shoulder area. None of the 24 specimens of the type identified in the researched area
has the mouth or rim118 preserved. Nevertheless, the form may be defined by analogies. The term of “Table
Pitcher” was introduced in the scientific circulation by Opaiţ to define certain single-handled larger vessels119.
The liquids’ volume carried in these recipients might have reached ca. 9 litres120. Containers of the type may
be divided into two groups based on the present or absent marked groove on the shoulders (Fig. 11). Both sub-
types are found in the Roman-provincial environment, in ensembles dated from the end of the 2nd century –
first half of the 3rd century AD. Nonetheless, Opaiţ believes that they might have appeared as early as the 1st
century AD, while others might have been also used in the 4th century AD121. As mentioned by even Bichir122,
these “Table Pitcher” broadly spread by the Lower Danube and in Dobruja, being though also found in many
other regions in the Black Sea basin123.
In the investigated area, “Table Pitcher” containers cluster on the middle course of the Siret (Fig. 12), with
the distinguished sites at Văleni-„La Moară”124 and Homiceni125, with 11 respectively 6 identified specimens. A
geographical separation upon the site type (settlement, cemetery/grave) is unnoticeable. A single find (Shi-
rokoe, the cemetery at “Alkaliya”)126 comes from a grave ascribed to the Sarmatian culture. The rest of the finds
come from sites ascribed to the “Free Dacians”. According to Opaiţ, “Table Pitcher” recipients originate in the
coastal areas of the Black Sea, dominated by the Greek culture127. There, such pitcher-amphorae were filled,
most likely, with wine and went off towards their consumers on the middle course of the Siret.
3.8. “Table amphora”

The single vessel of the type comes from Ciocani128. It is orange-red and its surviving height is of 24.5 cm129
(Fig. 13). Its form and proportions allow us to ascribe it to type 1 of “Table amphora” defined by Opaiţ130. Ampho-
rae of this type have cylindrical neck and thick everted rim. Handles are attached in the upper part, below the
mouth, and in the lower part – onto the shoulders. The ovoid body is supported by a footring. Opaiţ assumes
this form emerged especially under the influences of the Gallic amphorae131, however does not exclude the
possibility it copies similar metal and glass vessels132.
The recipient from Ciocani comes from an inhumation grave. Based on grave structure, we may agree with
the conclusion of the author of the first publication concerning the dating of the feature to the 2nd – 3rd
114
BICHIR 1984, 86–94.
115
DYCZEK 2001, 193.
116
OPAIȚ 1984, 311–312. See also OPAIȚ 2004a, 295.
117
OPAIȚ 2004a, 295–296.
118
IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988, 173–174.
119
OPAIȚ 2003b.
120
OPAIȚ 2003b, 218.
121
OPAIȚ 2003b, 215 with additional literature.
122
BICHIR 1973, 91.
123
For a geographical distribution of this type see OPAIȚ 2003b, 215 notes 2–7.
124
IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988 – graves 184, 202, 203, 372, 382, 420, 423, 433, 468, 478, 555.
125
PETRIȘOR 1986, 101–102. See also ALEXIANU 1988, 107 no. 7.14.
126
SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990b, 12, Ris. 6/9.
127
OPAIȚ 2003b, 218.
128
Perieni commune, Vaslui county.
129
PALADE 1978–1979, 253, Fig. 6/15.
130
OPAIȚ 2003b, 216.
131
For examples see PEACOCK/WILLIAMS 1986, 142–150, Class 27–31.
132
OPAIȚ 2003b, 216.
212
centuries AD133. The dating of a similar specimen from Histria as early as the 1st century AD seems uncon-
firmed, especially since from respective ensemble also came a fine red fabric bowl, small, whose dating so
early is uncertain134. A good dating alternative is provided by an analogy from Athens, where the production
of these recipients is dated by Robinson to the end of the 2nd century AD. From the form point of view, “Table
amphora” resembles the “Carpic”- 3rd century amphorae, differentiating from the Roman ones only by their
grey fabric135.
3.9. Kapitän II
This amphorae type was originally defined by Franz Oelmann by type 77 Niederbieber136. Over the course
of the research, the terms Berenice MR Amphora, Bjelajac XII, Dyczek 18, Keay XII, Kuzmanov VII, Ostia VI,
Peacock-Williams 47, Rădulescu 6, Scopan E, Zeest 79 etc.137 were also used.
Form “Kapitän II” is defined by a conical neck, with a commonly grooved surface. Over-heightened han-
dles start from below the rim. The almost cylindrical foot, with a slightly grooved surface is also specific. Recip-
ients of the type are made of brownish-red fabric.
In the area under analysis, this type of containers is represented by a fragment (foot) from Coloneş-
ti-Mărunţei138 and another fragment coming from the cemetery at Čauš in the Bugeac area139. In Dyczek’s syn-
thesis we found the information according to which a similar amphora would have been discovered also at
Poiana140. When checked, Dyczek’s reference141 shows that all amphorae presented there come from Barboşi
and by no means from Poiana! Neither the monograph of the site at Poiana contains any specimen of this
amphora type142. We could not confirm the presence of Kapitän II amphorae143 fragments in also other cases
reported by Dyczek, like for instance Drăguşeni144. The archaeological monograph of Drăguşeni contains
indeed the illustration of an amphora foot, with a grooved surface, however, in our view, it cannot be identi-
fied as belonging to a Kapitän II type recipient145. Checking the information collected by Dyczek for our area
of study pointed out further errors, like for instance, the find at Coloneşti-Mărunţei presented under the name
of Mătăsaru146.
In the Roman-provincial environment, this type of amphorae is much spread, Dacia being one of the prov-
inces with relatively many finds147. Most come from features dating to the 3rd century AD, although specimens
datable either as early as the second half of the 2nd century AD or by early 4th century AD148 are known.
The origin area of Kapitän II amphorae was identified with Moesia Inferior, Asia Minor or even Syria149 or
the Aegean Islands basin150. Likely, these recipients were used to carry/store wine151.
3.10. Pruteni type

We ascribed to this type a few amphorae specimens identified in the eponymous settlement152. The ampho-
rae are made of red fabric and are relatively large: height of ca. 1 m and diameter of ca. 50 cm. The cylindrical
133
PALADE 1978–1979, 258.
134
ALEXANDRESCU 1966, 221–222, 553, Pl. 101.XXX.1.2.
135
For this form of vessels see BICHIR 1973, 80–81.
136
OELMANN 1914, 65, Abb. 47/1.
137
For references on the research evolution history of this amphorae type see for instance DYCZEK 2001, 137–138.
138
BICHIR 1984, Pl. XXV/11.
139
The cemetery at Čauš is near the place at Novosel’skoe, Rajon Reni, Oblas’ Odessa. The vessel is mentioned as belonging to type Zeest
79, originating in Grave 1 Barrow 5 (SIMONENKO 2003, 53).
140
DYCZEK 2001, 143.
141
The author references SANIE 1981, 136, 152, 153, Fig. 32/5 and 33/1.
142
VULPE/TEODOR 2003, 94–95.
143
See CRÎȘMARU 1977; CRÎȘMARU 1981.
144
Botoșani county.
145
CRÎȘMARU 1977, Fig. 88/8.
146
DYCZEK 2001, 143 and Fig. 75. The same error also appears in the Polish version of the book (DYCZEK 1999, 112). To confirm the infor-
mation see BICHIR 1984, 146, Pl. XXV/11.
147
ARDEȚ 2006. See also NEGRU/BĂDESCU/AVRAM 2003.
148
An overall view of the distribution and dating of this amphorae form gives MACKENSEN 1999, 402–403.
149
For an overall view of these views see DYCZEK 1999, 111.
150
OPAIȚ 2004a, 298–299.
151
OPAIȚ 2004a, 299. See also DYCZEK 2001, 143.
152
Pruteni, Ungheni district, R. of Moldova. For the research at Pruteni (VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004, 46–47. See also TELNOV/
VORNIC/BUBULICI 2003.
213
neck ends in the upper part with an inwards thickened rim and a profiled groove (to attach the lid). Handles
are massive yet short, starting from the neck and supported onto the shoulders. The amphora base ends in a
small cylindrical foot (Fig. 14).
An identical parallel for the containers at Petreni could not be found. Similar proportions and sizes are
found with recipients in form Zeest 85 discovered in the Bosporan Kingdom area153 or in type Dyczek 36154. The
purpose of these amphorae is unclear: on one hand, it is argued they likely stored retailed goods, like cereals
or flour155, on the other hand, it is assumed they were used for wine or olive oil156. However, based on container
sizes, Dyczek’s hypothesis should rather be dismissed, all the more so since olive cultivation in the Bosporan
Kingdom for the export of olive oil is not recorded during the Roman period. The geo-political situation in the
area did not favour either the export of the farming products from the Bosporan Kingdom to the east-Medi-
terranean world, as supposed by Dyczek157. A more plausible interpreting of the use of these amphorae was
expressed by A. Opaiţ158. Based on the material in Dobruja, the scholar interprets these amphorae as being
used to store and carry fish by-products159.
The excavations conducted in the settlement at Pruteni dated this amphorae type to the 3rd century AD160,
which broadly corresponds with the dating of the Zeest 85161 amphorae too.
Interestingly, it is reported that among the amphorae found at Pruteni, one was discovered inside the pot-
tery firing kiln no. 4162. This find has led to the idea of a “local” production at Pruteni, while this amphorae type
should be regarded as a duplicate or local copy of Roman amphorae163. Furthermore, the excavators presented
the quality differences of the fabric and degreasers used at Pruteni comparative to “proper”164 Roman ampho-
rae. This hypothesis too generates a series of questions:
• In the current state of research, red-fired amphorae dating to the 3rd century AD are still a less known
phenomenon. Our knowledge on the typology of the amphorae forms in this chronological segment relies
mostly on the study of small fragments and not complete or restorable containers;
• According to our observations, not all Roman period amphorae were made of high quality fabric. The
term of “Roman amphorae” occasionally conceals that of “Roman-provincial” amphorae, differentiating
among each other in both form and quality; therefore, we do not agree that a poor quality Roman-provincial
product is necessarily indicative of its local production/copy in the Barbaricum;
• There are certain Roman period kilns where large amphorae were used as supporting posts of the pottery
firing kiln dome or to anchor the containers intended for firing – namely, they were secondarily used and were
not the results of a local pottery production165.
If the research team led by Vlad Vornic is right (namely that the Pruteni amphorae are locally made), their
content is worth a separate discussion. Starting from the premise that the amphorae are nothing but recipients
for merchandise, there should be a reason why they were produced in the area by the middle course of the Prut.
Based on their shape, we may agree with Opaiţ’s conclusion above that originally, this form might have been
used for the transport and storage of salted fish. However, in this current state of the research, it is impossible
to say if large fish quantities were processed by the middle course of the Prut, later filled in broad mouth lidded
amphorae.
The explanation that the Pruteni amphorae were occasionally produced for the domestic use of the settle-
ment there and the area nearby, seems at least, currently, less supported by arguments. Likely, further research
of the landscape, flora and fauna history in the Pruteni area would bring additional information for the under-
standing of this topic. Until then, the issue of a local amphorae production at Pruteni remains, in our view,
still open.
153
ZEEST 1960, 116, 171, Tabl. XXXV/85.
154
DYCZEK 2001, 250–253.
155
156
DYCZEK 2001, 252.
157
DYCZEK 1999, 211–212, Fig. 28–29.
158
OPAIȚ/BAUMANN 2006.
159
See also OPAIȚ 2007.
160
VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004, 46–47.
161
ZEEST 1960, 116.
162
VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI/CIOBANU 2007, 52–56.
163
VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004, 46–47.
164
How difficult is to differentiate among local copies and “import” amphorae is shown by Ulrike Ehmig’s work, who argues that an
amphora copy may be identified only where vessels were examined fragment by fragment (EHMIG 2003, 159, Anm. 569).
165
See for instance the comments HINKER 2013, 160 with additional literature.
214
3.11. Typologically unidentified amphorae
Over the course of our investigation we recorded a series of amphorae fragments whose typological order-
ing is impossible based only on publications. These are finds from both settlements and cemeteries. A rela-
tively large number of finds are also worth mentioning, of which it is known only the fact they are “Roman
amphorae”. They were generally dated to the 2nd – 3rd centuries AD, while their mapping indicates a cluster-
ing of the finds west the Prut and their lack in the territory between the Dniester and the Prut. The overlapping
distribution limits of this category of archaeological artifacts with the current political borders of Romania
makes us believe we should look for the causes of such spatial distribution in the history of the archaeological
research on both banks of the Prut. Indeed, a more detailed analysis of the circumstances has showed the
following: the chance Roman amphorae finds in the current territory of Romania (in the research area) were
ascribed, according to the standards of the historical-ethnical periodization, to the “Free Dacians” and dated
to the existence period of the Roman province of Dacia166. In the Republic of Moldova, especially during the
former USSR, the chance finds of Roman amphorae were ascribed almost exclusively only to the existence
period of the Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture, whose flourishing phase dates mainly only after the
abandonment of Dacia by the Romans167. This is why, based only on publications, in our view, an accurate
methodical comparison between the two research sub-regions is impossible. The problem resolution requires
the extension of the studied chronological period so to include each information on Roman amphorae and not
only those from the existence period of Roman Dacia (Fig. 15).
4. The content carried

With the recent research, it has been increasingly clear that amphorae themselves were not the Roman-pro-
vincial product circulating, as they were only recipients used to carry (and occasionally store) products168. The
Roman amphorae in the investigated area were especially used to transport wine. Secondarily, they were also
used to store and carry other products as well, like for instance oil, as evidenced by the tests performed at
Schela, Galaţi county. No other similar tests or results are known until now. Dyczek’s hypothesis that all Sco-
pan VII amphorae were used to carry oil and garrum seems unlikely169. Furthermore, we appreciate less likely
the statements of some of our colleagues that similar amphorae carried different types of goods. Commonly,
an amphorae form was reserved for a single product type, as are circumstances from other well studied areas
of the empire170. The find of those dippinti might record an exception rather than the rule itself, otherwise all
amphorae should have been marked in the same manner!
In conclusion, most often we are dealing with amphorae carrying liquid goods. The Pruteni amphorae are
exceptions, being used for the transport of other goods, like fish or cereals.
5. The use and re-use of the amphorae in the Barbaricum

The main questions to be asked are as follows: in what context were the amphorae discovered? In what
context were they used? As noted from (Fig. 16), ca. 40% of the studied amphorae come from archaeological
contexts of funerary nature. In one of the cremation graves from Bărboasa, the lower part of an amphora was
used as cinerary urn171. Except that, amphorae also appear as funerary inventory, for instance: Pervomaisc/
Pervomajsk172 or Porogi173, where they associate with other pieces. A strict position of the amphorae within
the inhumation graves could not be determined. Some specimens were discovered in the feet or pelvis area,
others, on the contrary, lay outside the proper grave, namely the filling of the gravepit or even in the barrow
mantle. In these cases, the amphorae must be interpreted not as funerary inventory objects, but as remains of
the funerary feats/banquets occurring after the burial.
The spatial distribution of the amphorae in funerary contexts evidences a large number of finds within
166
URSACHI 1978.
167
RIKMAN 1975.
168
See Ulrike Ehmig’s analysis on the possibility of the amphorae production and distribution only as containers and not as recip-
ients indispensable for the movement of other goods. The author excludes the production and sale of empty/contentless amphorae
(EHMIG 2007, 69–74).
169
DYCZEK 1999, 151–152.
170
SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BEGER/PAUNIER 1999, 79.
171
CĂPITANU 1975, 84, Fig. 9.1–2.
172
RIKMAN/HYNKU 1970.
173
SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991, 27, Ris. 17.
215
inhumation grave by the lower course of the Dniester and the Danube, as well as in cremation graves from the
sub-Carpathian area (Fig. 17). Chronologically, we record only four cases where Roman amphorae come from
graves dated to the end of the 1st century – early 2nd century AD, however, for the period of the 3rd century
AD, we identified 109 such finds174.
Finds from settlements represent ca. 46% of all amphorae specimens inventoried herein. These recipients
mainly cluster in the sub-Carpathian area, where they were likely used to carry the wine brought from the prov-
inces of the Roman Empire. Their absence from other regions of the investigated area, like the Lower Danube
or the steppes of the Bugeac, is explained by the lack of permanent inhabitancy documented archaeologically.
The mapping of the finds points to a most definitely subjective image, due to the evolution of our knowledge
on the population north of the Lower Danube during the existence period of Roman Dacia.
6. Amphorae origin and production places

The amphorae production is one of the main research sources of the ancient economy history. Produc-
tion was organised in the area of the agricultural production centres as well as in coastal areas or by naviga-
ble rivers175. For most amphorae types discovered in the researched area, one may argue for an origin on the
south-Pontic coast (especially in the case of light-coloured fabric amphorae, with brownish-dark pyroxene
particles as degreasers that may be associated with the amphorae producers from Heraclea or Sinope). The
“Table Pitcher” type seems to have the same Pontic origins, while the “Table amphora” may be interpreted as
influence of the Italic or possible Gallic traditions. The Aegean origin of Kapitän II amphorae is accepted in the
scholarly literature.
In this literature, we identified an attempt to define the origin area of the amphorae based on maps with the
spatial distribution of the finds. This way of identifying the origin of an artifact type seems yet to us erroneous.
We believe, as mentioned also by Martin-Kilcher regarding the Roman amphorae from Switzerland that no
map of finds indicates where precisely the amphorae were produced, but where the products they carried were
sold176. The existence of supposedly transfer centres of the products from large containers into the amphorae
– alike those known or supposed in the provinces from the west of the Roman Empire177 – could not be, for the
time being, supported by arguments.
The amphorae finds from Pruteni, on the middle course of the Prut, may be an exception. The amphorae
in this site, published as coming from within the pottery firing kilns, are not direct evidence of their firing in
such kilns or of a local amphorae production. Personally, we do not exclude the possibility these recipients of
relatively large size had been used to support the kiln walls or dome. The chemical analysis of the amphorae
fabric from Pruteni and the comparison of the results with the chemical matrix of the fabric of which the local
pottery was made could clarify this research issue.
7. The dating of the amphorae production

Compared to other groups of archaeological artifacts, amphorae cannot be dated with certainty in the
considered area, firstly because of the methodological differences underlying such “chronologies”: some refer
to the time when the object was made, others regard its circulation period and last, but not least, many of
the relevant works deal with the time when the artifact was placed into the ground. Determining the time of
the amphorae production (alike the coins or written documents) is for the time being impossible. As they are
products made of hard material, we may not determine with certainty either for how long the amphora was
“circulating”, namely in use. The only way to determine (indirectly) the chronology of artifacts like the ampho-
rae is the dating based on their find in closed ensembles. For the amphorae analysed herein, such approach
was possible only in a few cases. Nonetheless, it is possible to take as reference the dating of closed ensembles
outside the investigated territory. An example to this effect is the ancient town at Tanais, where in the cellars
destroyed by mid 3rd century AD also emerge small Shelov D amphorae178.
Overall, the Roman-provincial amphorae from the investigated area may be divided into two groups,
unequal in size. The first group is composed of amphorae coming from ensembles by the end of the 1st century
and early/first half of the 2nd century AD, while the second includes amphorae from the end of the 2nd century
174
Except these, 45 finds from funerary contexts could not be identified chronologically.
175
SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999, 79. See also HINKER 2013, 161–177.
176
SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999, 79.
177
For comments and additional literature on the topic see EHMIG 2003, 159, Anm. 574.
178
216
– first half of the 3rd century AD. The amphorae in the second group count for more than three quarters of the
total, while those early barely reach the value of 3%179.
The homogeneity of the series of amphorae finds dated especially to the period of the 3rd century AD
prooves, in our view, the organised delivery of the products supplied in amphorae. These are mainly wine
deliveries, carried in light-coloured fabric amphorae with elongated narrow neck, known in the literature as
Shelov C and Shelov D. To a smaller extent we may speak of this phenomenon in the case of the single-handled
containers, which we presented as “Table Pitcher”. The other types of recipients are found in a much smaller
quantity and reached the Barbaricum according to other “rules” of the economy. In their case we may not
speak of organised supply.
The delivery of goods in amphorae from the Roman-provincial environment to the Barbaricum was not
continuous, but pulsatile. In the current state of the research, the cause of such impulses cannot be supported
by solid arguments. Either changes in the taste of the prospective “importers” or changes related to the pro-
duction process in the origin area of the goods, or any other causes – we noted that amphorae from the period
after mid 3rd century AD are lacking from the investigated area.
Returning to Shelov C and D type of finds, we noted these recipient types have not only a different “chronol-
ogy”, but also a different spatial distribution. Thus, based on the mapping of this type of amphorae finds, we
found that type Shelov C is much more numerous in the area by the middle course of the Siret, while Shelov D
type cluster northward, especially in the area of northern rampart known under the name of “Troianul Mold-
ovei de Sus”. As these amphorae types have a different dating at Tanais, it is very likely that the same phenom-
enon takes place in the researched area we are dealing with, namely these two types of amphorae are not con-
current in the same closed archaeological features. The different distribution of these two types of amphorae
(both geographical and chronological) makes us believe they reached in different periods populations from
different geographical areas.
8. Entry means into the Barbaricum

In the research history of the relations between the Romans and their neighbours east the Carpathians, the
directions and paths that the Roman goods entered the Barbaricum were of special interest. The nature of such
inflows is also conditioned by a chronological dimension. Thus, we note that in the period of the 1st century –
early 2nd century AD, Roman amphorae diffuse along the large rivers, while in the subsequent period they reach
regions farther than the previous communication routes. The quasi-linear diffusion of the amphorae along the
communication lines represents a spatial distribution pattern for other categories of Roman finds from the first
period mentioned above. It is also specific to other regions of the European Barbaricum180. Nevertheless, there
are other access paths to the Barbarian environment in front the Dacian-Moesian frontier, which do not coincide
either with the navigable rivers or other natural communication routes. These are the connections in the sub-Car-
pathian areas, established no later than the early 3rd century AD, which seem to be punctually oriented to certain
micro-areas. In order to reach them it was necessary to exchange rivers (oriented in the investigated area mainly
on a north-south direction) with certain roads, which “financially” led to considerably increased transport costs181.
In terms of the land transport routes, it is not difficult to make the connection with the so-called earth ramparts:
most are oriented almost perpendicularly on the rivers’ direction, practically crossing the territory between the
Dniester, the Prut and the Siret. Even though in the field they have no structure associative with that of a road, the
mapping of the Roman amphorae finds (alike of other categories of Roman-provincial goods) does not account for
their border role, but vice-versa: the finds cluster on both sides of some of these “linear fortifications”182.
Another entry path/form of the Roman-provincial amphorae is represented by the ancient equivalent of
today’s “small border traffic”183. We may assume that in the areas just nearby the Roman border or around the
ancient centres similar to Tyras, the population had much more easier access to Roman-provincial goods than
believed insofar. This communication path between the empire and the Barbaricum is also documented by the
written sources, like for instance Ovid184.
179
To these also add the amphorae for which a dating could not be established, not even approximately.
180
See for comparisons DOBESCH 2005, 46 or KREKOVIČ 1996.
181
The costs correlation of the goods transport by sea: river: land is assessed at 1:5:28 – GREENE 1986, 40. See also SALDERN 2004, 641
(with reference to the transport of glass containers/products).
182
From this point of view, either the mentioned “linear fortifications” are not chronologically related to the Roman period or cannot be
regarded only as simple linear earth fortifications.
183
To define this type of Roman-Barbarian relation types in Central Europe see WOLTERS 1995, 116.
184
Although the information in Ovid is with at least a few generations earlier than the period discussed herein, they are, in our view,
217
Thus, we may note three entry directions of the Roman-provincial amphorae in the researched area:
a) The roads along the navigable rivers, oriented north-south;
b) The land roads connecting it with farther inland areas;
c) The so-called “small border traffic” in areas where direct communication between the Romans and the
non-Roman population nearby the borders was possible.
Within the same context, the connection between the investigated area in the Barbaricum and the
province of Dacia is interesting. At first sight, because of the difficult accessibility from the province of
Dacia, the inflow of goods to this province seems to have been very timid, or possibly – less extensively
investigated185. Another explanation is the marked military nature itself of the east of Dacia – without
towns and crafting centres, without a network of villae with their important role in the agricultural pro-
duction, with no important underground ores186. Under such circumstances, we agree that not the diffi-
cult communication routes are the cause of communication deficiencies with the province on the other
side of the Carpathians, but rather the lack of potential of the province of Dacia to “export” goods to the
Barbaricum.
9. Means to cross the border

In the introduction we listed a series of manners in which the scholarly literature perceives the “crossing”
of the amphorae carrying Roman-provincial products past the borders of the Roman Empire towards the
Barbaricum. We mentioned trade or war spoils, “diplomatic gifts” or “peace funds” and “souvenirs”. In some
cases, we may speak of these goods production in the non-roman territory, yet identification of these means
through the study of the discovered artifacts is a relatively difficult task. A detailed description of the find con-
ditions, of the technological peculiarities applied in the making of a Roman amphora or the accurate mapping
of all resembling finds say nothing specific on how such objects crossed the border of the Roman Empire187.
They may be though deduced based on logical markers, relying on data from ancient written sources or even
those ethnographic. To ease the understanding of the discussed issues, the means may be grouped in some
of economic nature (a) and others of political character (b). Below, we shall analyse in detail two of the entry
means of the amphorae in the Barbaricum: the trade and stipends/subsidies or “rates” for services, usually
military.
9.1. Trade
Over time, in the scholarly literature were issued many views on how to interpret the way that the
Roman-provincial goods, in general, and the amphorae, in particular, reached the populations outside the
Roman borders. One of the most spread hypotheses regards the “commercial” nature of the phenomenon.
Thus, in many reference works188, the Roman amphorae for wine or oil discovered east of the Carpathians and
north-west the Black Sea, were deemed commercial products. “The economic connections” would thus be
the main cause for the diffusion of the “Roman imports” in the Barbaricum from Eastern and South-Eastern
Europe, a process broken, according to Kropotkin, only by the invasion of the Huns189. The same author men-
tions the pillage raids of the Sarmatians in the Roman Empire, without yet making any connection between the
distribution of the Roman-provincial artifacts and such military-political events. In Romania, this economic
issue was approached, for instance, by Ioan Glodariu. It was presented in the doctoral thesis titled „Relații
comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană”190 (“Dacia’s Trade Relations with the Hellenistic and
Roman worlds”). The author asks and answers a series of questions related to Dacians’ trade with the Romans:
what kind of goods did both sides trade? Who were the traders? Which communication routes were accessi-
ble? When and how the Roman-provincial “originals” were replaced by local copies? To this study, Glodariu’s
results are secondary, as they either refer to territories inside the Carpathian Arch or to periods prior the estab-
lishment of Dacia as Roman province. Nevertheless, his work is representative for the Romanian historical and
representative for the “small border traffic” by the Lower Danube and the north-west of the Black Sea. For how reliable this information
is see for instance PODOSINOV 1987.
185
OPREANU 1998, 130. On the role of the Eastern Carpathians in Dacia’s relations with the area east the Eastern Carpathians see IONIȚĂ
2004 and also REICHERT/UDOLPH/IONIȚĂ 2000.
186
For these details see the theme maps in the dictionary-atlas of Roman Dacia (BĂRBULESCU 2005).
187
BECK/BULITTA/STEUER/WILSON/DÜWEL 1999, 505.
188
KROPOTKIN 1967; IONIȚĂ 1982, 73–74, 77; SANIE 1981, 72–74.
189
KROPOTKIN 1967, 106.
190
GLODARIU 1974, 180–300.
218
archaeological school and aids us even today in understanding how to approach the issue of Rome’s relations
with its neighbours north of the Lower Danube.
By trade one understands “the exchange of goods/merchandise within a single group or between different
social groups”191. We may define /identify several trade forms for the research area discussed herein. Firstly,
the regional trade192, based on the “small border traffic/trade”193. As noted above, it is based on the Roman
markets’ (and implicitly of the goods) accessibility to the retail buyers, as well as to the non-Roman traders
coming from beyond the frontiers194. We may assume that in this “small frontier trade” might have served the
Roman points at Barboşi195, Galaţi196, Orlovka197 or even the centres on the right bank of the lower course of the
Danube, also relatively accessible to the Barbarians. About the role of these trading places nearby the limes,
we find information from written source especially in cases when access was prohibited by the Roman author-
ities198. This hypothesis is confirmed especially by the information in Tacitus on the access of the Hermuduri
to the Roman markets199. For reasons mentioned above, mainly because the difficult access over the Eastern
Carpathians, we believe that such a “small border trade” was not possible in the forts on the eastern limes of
Roman Dacia200. As result of such regional trade201, border areas could be ensured with various categories of
merchandise, including those cheap, of mass production. We believe that among these wine and oil could have
also been found, carried in small amphorae.
Nevertheless, we may not exclude the fact that above points by the Lower Danube, as places where regional
fairs took place, might have been also – beside the large ports like Tyras or Olbia – centres where goods were
re-packaged/ports of trade 202, already part of the large distance trade203. We may suppose that southern origin
goods reached these points by sea and then by rivers204. In the current state of research, there are no arguments
or at least credible indications on the transfer activities of the goods in these points, for instance, from large
barrels to amphorae or other smaller containers. From there, the Roman-provincial goods should have contin-
ued their path to the destinations in the Barbaricum via the smaller rivers and / or later by land205. We may not
theorize on the origin of the traders crossing these commercial paths together with the Roman goods – they
might have come from the populations in the Barbaricum, however there are no arguments to exclude those
from within the empire as potential traders. We mention that, for Germania magna, the involvement of the
Roman traders was accepted by the researchers for the area just nearby the limes206.
A question still mostly unanswered in the analysis of Roman “imports” from the Barbaricum is that of
the products sold in exchange for wine or oil, sent by the Romans north the Danube or over the Eastern Car-
pathians. Kropotkin mentions slaves, cattle, hides or furs, or even amber, however without supporting his
hypothesis with arguments207. Glodariu discusses the issue of the reciprocal trade appealing to three well-
known products of Dacia: gold, salt and grains. These are fully recorded in Dacia208, while the Greek or Roman
traders’ interest for these products of Dacia is also well documented by the written sources209. Regarding the
191
KÖHLER 1985.
192
H. von Petrikovits used the term of “Regionalhandel”/”regional trade” to define the trade from a region, which was served by a single
settlement-fair (PETRIKOVITS 1985, 319).
193
For this trade form in and with Germania Magna see WOLTERS 1995, 102.
194
For a comparison with the circumstances in Germania Magna see KUNOW 1989, 67. Another view for the archaeological identification
of this trade form belongs to STJERNQUIST 1985, 71–72.
195
POPA 2001, 107–108.
196
ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006.
197
POPA 2001, 108–109.
198
See for such examples WOLTERS/ERDRICH/VOß 2003, 139.
199
Tacitus, Germ. 41.1.
200
We hope that future research on the eastern limes of Roman Dacia would bring further information also on the relations of this prov-
ince with the territories east the Carpathians. See for instance POPA/BORDI 2016 for the fortification at Comolău.
201
We mention that Godłowski gave this trade only a local role/character (GODŁOWSKI 1985, 363). On our view, it is though an explana-
tion model for the spatial diffusion of the Roman-provincial goods discovered in a more spread area from the Barbaricum.
202
KÖHLER 1985, 46.
203
For the role of these ports of trade in the establishment of the trade within the Roman Empire see for instance PETRIKOVITS 1985,
314–315.
204
SALDERN 2004, 641.
205
See in this context R. Stupperich’s critical view on the identification of trading routes based only on the spatial diffusion of Roman
“import” finds (STUPPERICH 1995, 64).
206
KUNOW 1989, 67. In the scholarly literature there are also views agreeing with the presence of the “foreign” traders (meaning, Roman)
in the territories of the Germanic tribes TAUSEND/STANGL/TAUSEND 2009, 185–186.
207
KROPOTKIN 1967, 113–114.
208
For metal and salt extraction see WOLLMANN 1996, 240–250, 405–418.
209
GLODARIU 1974, 105–109.
219
Roman coins (mainly in silver) discovered in impressive quantities in the investigated area, the scholarly lit-
erature does not admit the possibility they had been used as exchange units in the Romans’ trade with their
neighbours north the Lower Danube.
Summing up the information on the trade of amphorae for Roman-provincial goods like wine or fish prod-
ucts, we note there is definite evidence on such a “crossing” manner of the Roman Empire borders, information
being difficult to obtain based on the currently available archaeological sources.
9.2. Stipends, subsidies, pays for military services

Another way by which Roman-provincial amphorae might have reached the Barbaricum are by way of
subsidies paid by the empire to groups of populations outside empire borders. In the scholarly literature,
subsidies are deemed only of the foreign policy tools of the Roman Empire in its relations with various groups
and groupings of Barbarian peoples. The written sources of the Antiquity record these subsidies awarded to
the Barbarians. Gordon divided the Roman pays to the neighbours by the empire borders into three main cat-
egories: 1) to buy alliance and active military help; 2) to buy immunity from attack; 3) to create division among
the enemies210.
Subsidies are pays that may be related to takeover by the Barbarians of certain military obligations or
the border defence211. Another form of payments might also be related to the “peace upkeep” and restrain
from raiding the empire212. Last but not least, one should mention also the payments that Roman authorities
made for mercenary services. On one hand, these might have been a sort of individual payments subsequent
to the completion of a mission, comparable to praemium militum in the Roman army213. However, this form
of individual mercenary services with individuals from the Barbarian environment around the provinces of
Moesia Inferior and Dacia is not yet supported directly by either of the known sources214. Much more plausible
seems Bemmann’s hypothesis that entire mercenary units were employed215, while the pay for their military
services would have been rested with the leaders of each unit216. Neither this category of pays is documented
historically or archaeologically in the area under examination herein, especially since these territories were no
source for raising Roman auxiliary troops217.
10. Instead of conclusion

As early as emperor Augustus’s rule, the foreign policy of the Roman Empire was dominated by actions of
territorial displacement of populations with which Rome entered in conflict. At least until mid 1st century AD,
the historical and epigraphic sources speak of many such actions carried out also by the Lower Danube, during
which many Transdanubians were displaced from their permanent living places218. Starting with Domitian’s
reign, the political circumstances change in the region, together with the means of the Roman foreign policy.
Military conflicts become the main way to resolve any disputes. Nevertheless, under Domitian also appears the
first information on the Roman diplomacy’s attempts to replace military force with that of the money219. Subse-
quent to the Romans’ wars against the Dacians, this policy was, seemingly, continued by Hadrian towards the
mid of the following century, payments to the Barbarian populations becoming a routine which did not only
repeat yearly, but brought the imperial treasury to deadlocks, out of which recovery was commonly explained
by the gradual devaluation of the money/currency in which pays were likely made.
In this context, we believe plausible the hypothesis according to which some subsidies and stipends
addressed to the Barbarians north the Lower Danube were paid in products, for instance wine (carried in
210
GORDON 1949, 60.
211
WOLTERS 1991, 116.
212
The term used in the Germanic environment is “Stillhaltegelder”. For details see WOLTERS 1991, 120–121.
213
For details and previous references see for instance SCHNEIDER/STOLL 2002.
214
Here would have intervened especially issues regarding the export of arms, with which this category of veteran-mercenaries must
have been confronted. For this topic see NICOLAY 2009, 266–269.
215
A view from the standpoint of the written sources on the phenomenon of these military groups /units of the Antiquity see TIMPE 2009.
For an archaeological view – see STEUER 2009.
216
BEMMANN 2003, 64–65.
217
See for instance ZAHARIADE 2009.
218
Ensuring the borders is not the only goal of these actions. Integration of the individuals displaced south the Danube also meant the
reinforcement of the economic, demographic and fiscal potential of the newly populated areas with “Transdanubians” – see KEHNE
2009, 132.
219
See for instance Cassius Dio LXVIII, 6.
220
amphorae!)220. Thus may be explained those deliveries, relatively numerous/massive of wine amphorae com-
ing from the southern coast of the Black Sea, which we suggested especially based on Shelov C and D ampho-
rae. As shown above, these container finds evidence an different spatial and chronological diffusion.
When presenting the historiography of the issues related to the research of Roman amphorae, we under-
lined the role of Ion Ioniţă’s work in terms of the relations between Roman denarii hoard clusters and those of
Roman-provincial amphorae. Denarii are usually regarded as the expression of subsidies and stipends paid by
the imperial purse regularly or occasionally to Superioris Barbari. The amassment of Roman denarii hoards,
massively present in some micro-area of the sub-Carpathian region (and generally in Eastern and northern
Europe), may be interpreted as evidence of extant local structures/power centres of the peoples in the Barbari-
cum 221. In these circumstances, we may assume that once with the diminished currency reserves of the imperial
purse and the ever growing financial deficit, the payment of subsidies and stipends to the populations in the
Barbaricum might have also included in-kind products, like for instance wine. In this way, the naturalization
of the Roman economy and the transition to direct exchanges might have affected/influence the foreign policy
and the relations with the peoples north the Lower Danube.
Translated by Gabriela Balica
Acknowledgments
This paper represents the improved version of the correspondent chapter in my Habilitation Thesis, which I
presented at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn in 2013. The further development of the anal-
ysis of previously collected materials, as well as their interpretation within the frame of the relationships of
romans with their neighbours north of the Lower Danube was supported by a grant of the Romanian National
Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE–2014–4–2563.
References
ABADIE-REYNAL 1999
C. ABADIE-REYNAL, Les amphores romaines en Mer Noire (1.er–4.e s.). In Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce
des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire (Aix-en-Provence 1999), 255–264.
ALEXANDRESCU 1966
P. ALEXANDRESCU, Necropola tumulară. Săpături 1955–1961. In E. Condurachi (ed.), Histria II (București 1966),
134–294.
ALEXIANU 1988
M. ALEXIANU, Răspândirea amforelor cu inscripţii în teritoriul dacic liber din estul României. Arheologia Moldovei
XII, 1988, 105–116.
ARDEȚ 2006
A. ARDEȚ, Amfore de tip Kapitän II în Dacia romană. In D. Bondoc (ed.), In Honorem Gheorghe Popilian (Craiova
2006) 48–54.
ARSEN’EVA/BÖTTGER 2000
T. M. ARSEN’EVA /B. BÖTTGER, Griechen am Don. Die Grabungen in Tanais 1999, Eurasia Antiqua 6, 2000, 487–528.
ARSEN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003
T. M. ARSEN’EVA/J. FORNASIER, 10 Jahre Ausgrabungen in Tanis, Eurasia Antiqua 9, 2003, 237–279.
BĂRBULESCU 2005
M. BĂRBULESCU (ed.), Atlas-Dicţionar al Daciei Romane. Publicaţiile Institutului de Studii Clasice 6 (Cluj-Napoca
2005).
BÂRCĂ 2006
V. BÂRCĂ, Istorie şi civilizaţie. Sarmaţii în spaţiul est-carpatic (sec. I a. Chr. – începutul sec. II p. Chr.) (Cluj-Napoca
2006).
BÂRCĂ /SYMONENKO 2009
V. BÂRCĂ /O. V. SYMONENKO, Călăreţii stepelor. Sarmaţii în spaţiul Nord-Pontic (Cluj-Napoca 2009).
BECK/BULITTA/STEUER/WILSON/DÜWEL 1999
H. BECK/B. BULITTA/H. STEUER/D. M. WILSON/K. DÜWEL, Handel. In Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertum-
skunde, 13 (Berlin – New York 1999). 497–593.
220
Similar interpreting of the Heraclea amphorae from the 4th century AD discovered in the sites of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov
culture was proposed by MAGOMEDOV 2006.
221
IONIȚĂ 1982, 79–80.
221
BEMMANN 2003
J. BEMMANN, Romanisierte Barbaren oder erfolgreiche Plünderer? Anmerkungen zur Intensität, Form und Dauer
des provinzialrömischen Einflusses auf Mitteldeutschland während des jüngeren Römischen Kaiserzeit und der
Völkerwanderungszeit. In A. Bursche, R. Ciołek (eds.), Antyk i barbarzyńcy: księga dedykowana Profesorowi Jer-
zemu Kolendo w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin (Warszawa 2003), 53–108.
BICHIR 1973
G. BICHIR, Cultura Carpică. Biblioteca de arheologie 20 (Bucureşti 1973).
BICHIR 1977
G. BICHIR, Les sarmates au Bas-Danube, Dacia N.S. XXI, 1977, 167–197.
BICHIR 1984
G. BICHIR, Geto-dacii din Muntenia în epoca romană. Biblioteca de arheologie 43 (Bucureşti 1984).
BOȚAN 2015
S.-P. BOȚAN, Vase de sticlă în spaţiul dintre Carpaţi şi Prut (secolele II a.Chr. – II p.Chr.). Pontica et Mediterranea IV
(Cluj-Napoca 2015).
BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998
B. BÖTTGER/D. B. ŠELOV, Dipinti na amforakh iz Tanaisa / Amphorendipindi aus Tanais. Pontus Septentrionalis 1
(Moskva 1998).
BRUDIU 1976
M. BRUDIU, O amforă cu ulei de măsline din sec. II-III e.n. descoperită la Schela, jud. Galaţi, Muzeul Naţional III,
1976, 159–163.
CĂPITANU 1975
V. CĂPITANU, Necropola daco-carpică de incineraţie din secolul al III-lea de la Gălăneşti-Bărboasa, comuna
Onceşti, judeţul Bacău, Carpica VII, 1975, 63–91.
CĂPITANU 1997
V. CĂPITANU, Săpăturile arheologice în Dava de la Răcătău-Tamasidava, intre anii 1992–1996, Carpica XXVI/1, 1997,
50–118.
CRÎȘMARU 1977
A. CRÎȘMARU, Drăguşeni. Contribuţii la o monografie arheologică (Botoşani 1977).
CRÎȘMARU 1981
A. CRÎȘMARU, Descoperiri sarmatice pe valea Podrigei, judeţul Botoşani, Hierasus IV, 1981, 83–90.
DOBESCH 2005
G. DOBESCH, Wassergrenzen und Wasserwege aus urgeschichtlicher und römischer Sicht. In C. v. Carnap-Born-
heim/H. Friesinger (eds.), Wasserwege: Lebenader – Trennungslinien. 15. Internationales Symposion Grundprob-
leme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum. Schriften des Archäologischen Landesmuse-
ums. Ergänzungsreihe (Neumünster 2005) 11–70.
DYCZEK 1999
P. DYCZEK, Amfory rzymskie z obszaru dolnego Dunaju. Dystrybucja amphor i transportowanych w nich produktów w
1.–3. w. po Chr. (Warszawa 1999).
DYCZEK 2001
P. DYCZEK, Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube. Typology (Warszawa 2001).
EHMIG 2003
U. EHMIG, Die römischen Amphoren aus Mainz. Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 4 (Möhnesee 2003).
EHMIG 2007
U. EHMIG, Die römischen Amphoren im Umland von Mainz. Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 5 (Wiesbaden
2007).
EIRING/FINKIELSZTEJN/LAWALL/LUND 2004
J. EIRING/G. FINKIELSZTEJN/M. L. LAWALL/J. LUND, Concluding remarks. In J. Eiring, J. Lund (eds.), Transport
amphorae and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the international colloquium at the Danish Institute at
Athens, september 26–29, 2002. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5 (Aarhus 2004), 459–466.
ETTLINGER/HEDINGER/HOFFMANN 1990
E. ETTLINGER/B. HEDINGER/B. HOFFMANN, Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae (Bonn
1990).
GLAZOV/KURCHATOV 1989
V. P. GLAZOV/S. I. KURCHATOV, Otchet ob archeologicheskich issledovaniyakh sarmatskogo i chernyachovskogo
mogil’nikov bliz s. Petreshty, Ungenskogo rayona MSSR v 1988 godu (Kishinev 1989).
GLODARIU 1974
I. GLODARIU, Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană (Cluj-Napoca 1974).
GODŁOWSKI 1985
K. GODŁOWSKI, Der römische Handel in die Germania libera aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen. In K. Düwel,
H. Jahnkuhn, H. Siems (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in
Mitteleuropa. 1. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der
222
Antike. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 3. Folge
143 (Göttingen 1985), 337–366.
GORDON 1949
C. D. GORDON, Subsidies in Roman Imperial Defence, Phoenix 3/2, 1949, 60–69.
GREENE 1986
K. GREENE, The archaeology of the Roman economy (London 1986).
GROSU 1990
V. GROSU, Khronologiya pamyatnikov sarmatskoj kul’tury Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya (Kishinev 1990).
GUDEA 1980
N. GUDEA, Castrul roman de la Breţcu. Încercare de monografie, Acta Musei Porolissensis IV, 1980, 255–365.
GUDKOVA 1999
A. V. GUDKOVA, 1.–4. vv. v Severo-Zapadnom Pričernomor’e (Kul’tura osedlogo naseleniya), Stratum Plus 4, 1999,
235–406.
GUDKOVA/REDINA 1999
A. V. GUDKOVA/E. F. REDINA, Sarmatskij mogil’nik Gradeshka v nizov’yakh Dunaya, Drevnosti Stepnogo Pricherno-
mor’ya i Kryma 7, 1999, 177–193.
HAYES 1983
J. W. HAYES, The villa Dionysos Excavation, Knossos: the Pottery, The Annual of the British School at Athens 78, 1983,
97–169.
HINKER 2013
C. HINKER, Ausgewählte Typologien provinzialrömischer Kleinfunde. Eine theoretische und praktische Einführung.
Beiträge zur Archäologie (Wien 2013).
IONIȚĂ 1982
I. IONIȚĂ, Din istoria şi civilizaţia dacilor liberi (Iaşi 1982).
IONIȚĂ 2004
I. IONIȚĂ, Masivul Carpatic – un reper geografic de rezonanţă în istoria Europei (mileniul I d.Hr.). Karpatenge-
birge – ein bedeutendes geographisches Merkzeichen in der Geschichte Europas (I. Jahrtausend n.Chr.). In Mariana
Crînguş, Simona Regep-Vlascici, Atalia Ştefănescu (eds.), Studia Historica et Arhaeologica. In Honorem Magistrae
Doina Benea (= Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis 6) (Timişoara 2004), 217–229.
IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988
I. IONIȚĂ /V. URSACHI, Văleni. O mare necropolă a dacilor liberi (Iaşi 1988).
KEHNE 2009
P. KEHNE, Zur Phänomenologie, Typologie und völkerrechtlichen Grundlage internationaler Massendeportationen
in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 26,
2009, 75–138.
KETRARU/RIKMAN 1960
N. A. KETRARU/E. A. RIKMAN, Novye dannye o pamyatnikakh pervykh vekov nashej ery na territorii Moldavii,
Izvestiya Moldavskogo filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR 4 (70), (Kishinev1960), 3–20.
KÖHLER 1985
U. KÖHLER, Formen des Handels in ethnologischer Sicht. In K. Düwel, H. Jahnkuhn, H. Siems (eds.), Untersuchun-
gen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. 1. Methodische Grundlagen und
Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike (Göttingen 1985),13–55.
KREKOVIČ 1996
E. KREKOVIČ, Römische Lampen im Freien Germanien und in Osteuropa, Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta 33,
1996, 141–144.
KROPOTKIN 1967
V. V. KROPOTKIN, Ekonomicheskie svyazi Vostochnoj Evropy v I tysjacheletii nashej ėry (Moskva 1967).
KROPOTKIN 1970
V. V. KROPOTKIN, Rimskie importnye izdeliya v Vostochnoj Evrope. Arkheologiya SSR. Svod arkheologicheskikh
istochnikov D1–27 (Moskva 1970).
KROPOTKIN/KROPOTKIN 1988
V. V. KROPOTKIN/A. V. KROPOTKIN, Severnaya granitsa rasprostraneniya amfor rimskogo vremeni v Vostochnoj
Evrope. In V. V. Kropotkin (ed.), Mogil‘niki Chernyachovskoj kul‘tury (Moskva 1988), 168–184.
KUNOW 1989
J. KUNOW, Kontaktströme zwischen dem Imperium Romanum und der Germania libera, Münstersche Beiträge zur
Antiken Handelsgeschichte 8/1, 1989, 56–72.
KUZMANOV/SALKIN 1992
G. KUZMANOV/A. SALKIN, Antični amfori ot akvatorijata na Černomorskoto krajbrežie na Južna Dobrudža, Izvestija
na Narodnija Muzej Varna 28 (43), 1992, 27–61.
LEAHU/TROHANI 1979
V. LEAHU/G. TROHANI, Săpăturile arheologice de la Vităneşti, jud. Teleorman, Cercetări arheologice 3, 1979, 127–141.
223
MACKENSEN 1999
M. MACKENSEN, Ostmediterrane und nordafrikanische Amphoren aus Regensburg, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblät-
ter 64, 1999, 399–407.
MAGOMEDOV 2006
B. V. MAGOMEDOV, Rimskie amfory v Chernyachovskoj kul‘ture, Goty i Rim (Kiev 2006), 52–59.
MALJUKEVICH 1991
A. E. MALJUKEVICH, O torgovykh kontaktakh Nizhnego Podnestrov‘ya v pervye veka n.e. In A. V. Gudkova (ed.),
Severo-Zapadnoe Prichernomor‘e – Kontaknaya zona drevnikh kul‘tur (Kiev 1991), 71–82.
NEGRU/BĂDESCU/AVRAM 2003
M. NEGRU/A. BĂDESCU/R. AVRAM, Kapitän II Amphorae in Roman Dacia, Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta
38, 2003, 209–214.
NICOLAY 2009
J. A. W. NICOLAY, Bürger Roms. Germanische Heimkehrer aus dem römischen Militärdienst. In 2000 Jahre Varuss-
chlacht. Konflikt (Stuttgart 2009) 258–269.
OELMANN 1914
F. OELMANN, Die Keramik des Kastells Niederbieber. Materialien zur Römisch-Germanischen Keramik 1 (Frankfurt
am Main 1914).
OPAIȚ 1980
A. OPAIȚ, Consideraţii preliminare asupra amforelor romane şi romano-bizantine din Dobrogea, Peuce VIII, 1980,
291–326.
OPAIȚ 1984
A. OPAIȚ, Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der zwei Amphoratypen, Peuce IX, 1984, 311–326.
OPAIȚ 1996
A. OPAIȚ, Aspecte ale vieţii economice din provincia Scythia (secolele IV-VI p.Ch.). Producţia ceramicii locale şi de
import. Bibliotheca Thracologica 16 (Bucureşti 1996).
OPAIȚ 2003a
A. OPAIȚ, Rez. zu: “Dyczek, P., Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube. Typology
(Warszawa 2001)”, Archeologia 54, 2003, 90–92.
OPAIȚ 2003b
A. OPAIȚ, ‘Table’ amphora versus ‘Table’ pitcher in the Roman Dobrudja, Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta 38,
2003b, 215–218.
OPAIȚ 2004a
A. OPAIȚ, The Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae in the Province of Scythia. In J. Eiring, J. Lund (eds.), Transport
OPAIȚ 2004b
A. OPAIȚ, Rez. zu: “Dyczek, P., Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube. Typology
(Warszawa 2001)”, Arheologia Moldovei XXVII, 2004, 330–334.
OPAIȚ 2007
A. OPAIȚ, A Weighty Matter: Pontic Fish Amphorae. In V. Gabrielsen, J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity.
Regional and Interregional Economic exchanges (Aarhus 2007), 101–121.
OPAIȚ 2010
A. OPAIȚ, Pontic wine in the Athenian market. In D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, K. Kousoulakou (eds.), Proceedings of the
Symposium: Late Antique Ceramics from Greece (3rd–7th c.c.), Thessaloniki, November 12th–16th 2006 (Thessalon-
iki 2010), 108–130.
OPAIȚ/BAUMANN 2006
A. OPAIȚ /V. H. BAUMANN, Consideraţii privind posibilitatea industrializării peştelui în Dobrogea antică. In
M. Mănucu-Adameşteanu (ed.), A la recherche d›une colonie. Actes du Colloque International: 40 ans de recherche
archéologique a Orgame/Argamum. Bucarest-Tulcea-Jurilovca, 3–5 octobre 2005, Orgame/Argamum Supl. 1
(Bucarest 2006), 393–400.
OPREANU 1998
C. OPREANU, Dacia romană şi Barbaricum. Bibliotheca historica et archaeologica Banatica 17 (Timişoara 1998).
PALADE 1978–1979
V. PALADE, Descoperiri sarmatice din secolele 2.–3., în sud-estul colinelor Tutovei, Cercetări Istorice 9–10, 1978–
1979, 247–259.
PALAMARCHUK 1982
S. V. PALAMARCHUK, Poselenie pervych vekov nashej ery Volch’ya Balka. In A. V. Gudkova (ed.), Pamyatniki
rimskogo i srednevekovogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e (Kiev 1982), 125–131.
PARASCHIV 2002
D. PARASCHIV, Amfore pontice romane şi romano-bizantine în zona Dunării de Jos, Arheologia Moldovei XXV, 2002,
165–207.
224
PARASCHIV 2006
D. PARASCHIV, Amfore romane şi romano-bizantine în zona Dunării de Jos: (sec. I – VII p. Chr.) (Iaşi 2006).
PĂUNESCU 1978
A. PĂUNESCU, Contribuţii privind realităţile din nordul Moldovei în secolul al 4-lea e.n. în lumina cercetărilor de la
Ripiceni, Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 29/4, 1978, 505–515.
PEACOCK/WILLIAMS 1986
D. P. S. PEACOCK/D. F. WILLIAMS, Amphorae and the Roman economy. An introductory guide (London – New York
1986).
PETRIKOVITS 1985
H. v. PETRIKOVITS, Römischer Handel am Rhein und an der oberen und mittleren Donau. In K. Düwel, H. Jahnkuhn,
H. Siems (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. 1.
Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike. Abhandlun-
gen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 3. Folge 143 (Göttingen 1985),
299–336.
PETRIȘOR 1986
E. PETRIȘOR, Aşezarea carpică de la Homiceni, jud. Neamţ, Memoria Antiquitatis XV-XVII, 1986, 99–114.
PETROVSZKY 1993
R. PETROVSZKY, Studien zu römischen Bronzengefäßen mit Meisterstempeln. Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der
Römischen Provinzen 1 (Buch am Erlbach 1993).
PODOSINOV 1987
A. PODOSINOV, Ovids Dichtung als Quelle für die Geschichte des Schwarzmeergebiets. Xenia. Konstanzer Althis-
torische Vorträge und Forschungen 19 (Konstanz 1987).
POPA 2001
A. POPA, Romains ou Barbares? Architecture en pierre dans le barbaricum à l’époque romaine tardive (sur le matériel
archéologique du Nord-Ouest du Pont Euxin) (Chişinău 2001).
POPA /BORDI 2016
A. POPA /Z. L. BORDI, Studii asupra graniţelor romane din Dacia. Fortificaţia de la Comolău. Studii şi cercetări asu-
pra frontierelor Imperiului Roman de pe teritoriul României 1 (Cluj-Napoca 2016).
PUZDROVSKIJ/ZAJCEV 2004
A. E. PUZDROVSKIJ/J. P. ZAJCEV, Prunkbestattungen des 1. Jhs. n.Chr. in der Nekropole Ust‘-Al‘ma, Krim, Eurasia
Antiqua 10, 2004, 229–267.
RĂDULESCU 1976
A. RĂDULESCU, Amfore romane şi romano-bizantine din Scythia Minor, Pontica IX, 1976, 99–114.
RAEV 1985
B. A. RAEV (ed.), Katalog archeologicheskich kollektsij. Sokolovskij kurgannyj mogil‘nik (Novocherkask 1985).
RAEV 1986
B. A. RAEV, Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin. B.A.R. International Series 278 (Oxford 1986).
H. REICHERT/UDOLPH/IONIȚĂ 2000
H. REICHERT/J. UDOLPH/I. IONIȚĂ, Karpaten, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 16 (Berlin – New York
2000) 317–322.
RIKMAN 1972
E. A. RIKMAN, Vopros datirovki importnych veshchej v pamyatnikakh plemen chernyakhovskoj kul‘tury Dnestro-
vsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech‘ya, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4, 1972, 84–101.
RIKMAN 1975
E. A. RIKMAN, Pamyatniki sarmatov i plemen chernyakhovskoj kul‘tury. Arheologicheskaya karta Moldavii 5
(Kishinev 1975).
RIKMAN/HYNKU 1970
E. A. RIKMAN/I. G. HYNKU, Pogrebenie 2. v. n.e. u s. Pervomajsk (Moldaviya). In: Drevnie slavyane i ikh sosedi (=
Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 176) (Moskva 1970) 35–37.
SALDERN 2004
A. v. SALDERN, Antikes Glas. Handbuch der Archäologie (München 2004).
SAMOJLOVA 1978
T. L. SAMOJLOVA, Osnovnye tipy amfor 1.–4. vv. n.e. iz Tiry, Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya Severo-Zapadnogo
Prichernomor‘ya (Kiev 1978), 254–266.
SANIE 1981
S. SANIE, Civilizaţia romană la est de Carpaţi şi romanitatea de pe teritoriul Moldovei. Secolele II î.e.n. – III e.n. (Iaşi
1981).
SANIE 1968
S. SANIE, Două mici depozite de amfore romane descoperite în Moldova, Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arhe-
ologie 19/2, 1968, 345–350.
225
SCHNEIDER/STOLL 2002
H. SCHNEIDER/O. STOLL, Veteranen. In H. Cancik, H. Schneider, M. Landfester (eds.), Der Neue Pauly, 12/2 (Stutt-
gart 2002), 141–145.
SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999
C. SCHUCANY/S. MARTIN-KILCHER/L. BERGER/D. PAUNIER (eds.), Römische Keramik in der Schweiz. Céramique
romaine en Suisse. Antiqua 31 (Basel 1999).
SCORPAN 1976
C. SCORPAN, Origini şi linii evolutive în ceramica romano-bizantină (sec. IV-VII) din spaţiul Mediteranean şi Pontic,
Pontica IX, 1976, 155–185.
SCORPAN 1977
C. SCORPAN, Contribution a la connaissance de certains types céramiques romano-byzantins (IV-e-VII-e siecle)
dans l’espace Istro-Pontique, Dacia N.S. XXI, 1977, 269–297.
ŠELOV 1978
D. B. ŠELOV, Uzkogorlye svetloglinyanye amfory pervykh vekov nashej ery. Klassifikatsiya i khronologiya, Kratkie
Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii (Moskva) 156, 1978, 16–21.
SIMONENKO 1995a
A. V. SIMONENKO, Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the North Pontic region, Studia Archaeologica. A Móra
Ferek Muzeum Evkönyve 1, 1995, 345–375.
SIMONENKO 1995b
A. V. SIMONENKO, Rezension zu: “Grosu, V., Khronologiya pamyatnikov sarmatskoj kul’tury Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo
mezhdurech’ya. Kishinev 1990”, Eurasia Antiqua 1, 1995, 329–334.
SIMONENKO 2003
A. V. SIMONENKO, Glas and Faience Vessels from Sarmatian Graves of the Ukraine, Journal of Glas Studies 45, 2003,
41–57.
SIMONENKO 2004
A. V. SIMONENKO, Khronologiya i periodizatsiya sarmatskikh pamyatnikov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. In Sar-
matskie kul’tury Evrazii: problemy regional’noj khronologii. (Krasnodar 2004), 134–173.
SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991
A. V. SIMONENKO/B. I. LOBAJ, Sarmaty Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya v I v. n.e (Pogrebeniya znati u s. Porogi)
(Kiev 1991).
SIMONENKO/MARČENKO/LIMBERIS 2008
A. V. SIMONENKO/I. I. MARČENKO/N. J. LIMBERIS, Römische Importe in sarmatischen und maiotischen Gräbern
zwischen Unterer Donau und Kuban. Archäologie in Eurasien 25 (Mainz 2008).
SMISHKO 1964
M. J. SMISHKO, Poselennya III-IV st. n. e. z slidami sklyanogo virobnictva bilya s. Komariv Chernivets‘koj oblasti,
Materialy i Doslidzennya z Arkheologii Prykarpattya i Volyni 5, 1964, 67–80.
STEUER 2009
H. STEUER, Archäologie der Gefolgschaft. In: 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Konflikt. (Stuttgart 2009) 309–318.
STJERNQUIST 1985
B. STJERNQUIST, Methodische Überlegungen zum Nachweis von Handel aufgrund archäologischer Quellen. In
K. Düwel, H. Jahnkuhn, H. Siems (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen
Zeit in Mitteleuropa. 1. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in
der Antike (Göttingen 1985), 56–83.
STRZHELECKIJ/VYSOTSKAYA/RYZHOVA/ZHESTKOVA 2005
S. F. STRZHELECKIJ/T. N. VYSOTSKAYA/L. A. RYZHOVA/G. I. ZHESTKOVA, Naselenie okrugi Khersonesa v pervoj
polovine I tysyacheletiya novoj ery (Po materialam neklropolya „Sovchoz Nr. 10“), Stratum Plus 4, 2003–2004
(2005), 27–277.
STUPPERICH 1995
R. STUPPERICH, Bemerkungen zum römischen Import im sogenannten Freien Germanien. In: G. Franzius (ed.),
Aspekte römisch-germanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Vortragsreihe zur Sonderausstellung
“Kalkriese-Römer im Osnabrücker Land”, 1993 in Osnabrück. Quellen und Scheifttum zur Kulturgeschichte des
Wiehengebiergsraumes B 1 (Espelkamp 1995), 45–98.
SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990a
L. V. SUBBOTIN/A. N. DZIGOVSKIJ, Kurgannye mogil‘niki Divizijskij i Belolesskij. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Duna-
jskogo mezhdurech‘ya 2 (Kiev 1990).
SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990b
L. V. SUBBOTIN/A. N. DZIGOVSKIJ, Kurgannye mogil‘nki Alkaliya i Khadzhider 2. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Dunays-
kogo mezhdurech‘ya 1 (Kiev 1990).
ŠELOV 1986
D. B. ŠELOV, Les amphores d’argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire. In J.Y Emperor, Y. Gar-
lan, Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la
226
recherche scientifique, l’Université de Rennes II et l’École francaise d’Athènes (Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984).
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément XIII (Paris 1986), 395–400.
TAUSEND/STANGL/TAUSEND,2009
K. TAUSEND/G. STANGL/S. TAUSEND, Im Inneren Germaniens: Beziehungen zwischen den germanischen Stämmen
vom 1. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 2. Jh. n. Chr. Geographica historica (Stuttgart 2009).
TELNOV/VORNIC/BUBULICI 2003
N. P. TELNOV/V. VORNIC/V. G. BUBULICI, Ceramica din aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Pruteni, Tyragetia XII, 2003,
63–79.
ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006
O. ȚENTEA/S. CLEȘIU, Fortificaţia şi necropola romană de la Galaţi, cartier “Dunărea”. Raport arheologic, Cercetări
arheologice XIII, 2006, 39–88.
TIMPE 2009
D. TIMPE, Germanische Gefolgschaften in den antiken Berichten. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Konflikt (Stuttgart
2009) 294–300.
UNGUREANU 2002
C. UNGUREANU, Descoperiri de amfore la Poiana, jud. Galaţi (campania din 1968), Cercetări Istorice 18–20, 2002,
105–137.
URSACHI 1978
V. URSACHI, Elemente şi influenţe romane la est de Carpaţi în secolele II-III e.n., Hierasus 1, 1978, 147–185.
VNUKOV 2003
S. J. VNUKOV, Prichernomorskie amfory I v. do n.e. – II v. n.e. (morfoloigiya) (Moskva 2003).
VNUKOV 2004
S. J. VNUKOV, Pan-Roman amphora types produced in the Black Sea region. In J. Eiring/J. Lund (eds.), Transport
VNUKOV 2006
S. J. VNUKOV, Prichernomorskie amfory I vek do n.e. – II vek n.e. 2. Petrografiya, khronologiya, problemy torgovli
(Sankt-Peterburg 2006).
VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI/CIOBANU 2007
V. VORNIC /N. P. TELNOV/V. BUBULICI/L. CIOBANU, Pruteni. Un centru de olărie dacic din epoca romană (cerce-
tările din 2001 şi 2003). Biblioteca de arheologie (Chişinău 2007).
VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004
V. VORNIC/N. TELNOV/V. BUBULICI, Noi descoperiri arheologice în aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Pruteni, Tyragetia
XIII, 2004, 41–48.
VULPE/TEODOR 2003
R. VULPE/S. TEODOR, Piroboridava. Aşezarea Geto-Dacica de la Poiana. Bibliotheca Thracologica 39 (Bucureşti
2003).
WOLLMANN 1996
V. WOLLMANN, Mineritul metalifer, extragerea sării şi carierele de piatră in Dacia romană. Der Erzbergbau, die
Salzgewinnung und die Steinbrüche im römischen Dakien. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 13 (Bucureşti 1996).
WOLTERS 1991
R. WOLTERS, Der Waren- und Dienstleistungsaustausch zwischen dem Römischen Reich und dem Freien Ger-
manien in der Zeit des Prinzipats. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Teil 2. Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsges-
chichte 10/1, 1991, 78–132.
WOLTERS 1995
R. WOLTERS, Römische Funde in der Germania magna und das Problem römisch-germanischer Handelsbeziehun-
gen in der Zeit des Prinzipats. In G. Franzius (ed.), Aspekte römisch-germanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kai-
serzeit. Vortragsreihe zur Sonderausstellung „Kalkriese-Römer im Osnabrücker Land“, 1993 in Osnabrück. Quellen
und Scheifttum zur Kulturgeschichte des Wiehengebiergsraumes B 1 (Espelkamp 1995) 99–117.
WOLTERS/ERDRICH/ VOß 2003
R. WOLTERS/M. ERDRICH/H.-U. VOß, Römischer Import. In Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (Berlin
– New York 2003), 138–158.
ZAHARIADE 2009
M. ZAHARIADE, The thracians in the Roman Imperial Army: from the first to the third centuries A.D. The Center for
Roman Military Studies 2 (Cluj-Napoca 2009).
ZEEST 1960
I. B. ZEEST, Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (= Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 83) (Moskva 1960).
227
Fig. 1. Amphorae Shelov A2.
Fig. 2. Spatial
distribution of
Shelov A2 amphorae.
1. Funerary find.
2. Settlement.
228
Fig. 3. Amphorae Shelov B2. 1. Cazaclia. 2. Palanca. 3. Mihălăşeni. 4–6. Vetrişoaia.
229
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of Shelov B2 amphorae. 1. Amphorae find, 2. Roman fort; 3 – Roman frontiers line
230
Fig. 5. Layout of the grave at Cazaclia and its main inventory pieces.
231
Fig. 6. Amphorae Shelov C. 1. Scheia. 2. Cândeşti. 3. Ipoteşti. 4. Jijia. 5. Săbăoani. 6. Tămăşeni. 7. Moldoveni-
Gabăra. 8. Buimăceni-Albeşti. 9. Olăneşti. 10 Corpaci. 11. Pervomajsk. 12. Buimăceni-Albeşti.
232
Fig. 7. Amphorae Shelov C. 1–2. Iaşi. 3–4. Holboca. 5. Udeni. 6. Bucov. 7. Petreşti.
8–9. Poiana Dulceşti. 10. Goteşti. 11. Botoşani. 12. Homiceni.
233
Fig. 8. Spatial distribution of Shelov C amphorae. A -deposit. B – funerary
find. C – find in settlement. D – find of unknown character.
234
Fig. 9. Amphorae Shelov D. 1–2. Stînca. 3. Mătăsaru. 4. Etulia. 5. Cucorăni. 6. Epureni. 7. Botoşani. 8–9. Ursoaia.
235
Fig. 10. Spatial distribution of Shelov D amphorae. A – deposit. B –
funerary context. C – find in settlement. D – single find.
236
Fig. 11. Table Pitcher recipients. Parallels: 1. Sarichioi. 2. Histria. 3. Bel’bek. Finds from the excavated area: 4.
Shirokoe. 5–8. Homiceni. 9. Gâdinţi. 10. Dumbrava. 11. Moldoveni-Gabăra. 12. Butnăreşti. 13–14. Văleni. 15. Tomai.
237
Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of Table Pitcher recipients.
238
Fig. 13. Table amphora from Ciocani.
239
Fig. 14. The large amphora from Pruteni and its geographical location.
240
Fig. 15. Chance finds of Roman amphorae. 1. Amphora find, 2. Roman fort; 3 – Roman frontiers line
241
Fig. 16. Find conditions of Roman amphorae.
A – settlement, B – deposit, C – unknown conditions, D – funerary find.
Fig. 17. Amphorae finds in funerary contexts. 1. Period of the end of the 1st century – early 2nd century AD;
2. First half of the 3rd century AD; 3 – unknown dating; 4 – Roman fort; 5 – Roman frontiers line.
242

Roman Amphorae Beyond The Frontiers of T PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Roman Amphorae Beyond The Frontiers of T PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum.

The Barbarians around the

Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum

Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum

Mega Publishing House

DTP and cover:

Translation into English:

© The Autors, 2016

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

Florian Matei-Popescu, Ovidiu Ţentea

Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu, Cristian Găzdac

Sorin Cociș, George Bounegru

Ioan Carol Opriș, Alexandru Rațiu

Sorin Bulzan, Cristian-Claudiu Filip

George Dan Hânceanu

Lavinia Grumeza, Adrian Ursuțiu

T he aim of this study is to discuss the state of research of the

2. Methodological limits of the research

3. History and current state of research

4. Shapes and types of finds

3.6. Scorpan VII / LRA 2

3.7. “Table Pitcher”

3.8. “Table amphora”

3.10. Pruteni type

4. The content carried

5. The use and re-use of the amphorae in the Barbaricum

6. Amphorae origin and production places

7. The dating of the amphorae production

8. Entry means into the Barbaricum

9. Means to cross the border

9.2. Stipends, subsidies, pays for military services

10. Instead of conclusion

Translated by Gabriela Balica

You might also like