Function and symbol: the development of towns in Roman Dacia

Michael Dawson

The modernising trend in the theory of Roman towns, despite the
recent reaffirmation of the parasitic city (Whittaker 1995), is towards the
global identification and definition of economic function. In addition to
the consumer city, three models are currently prominent the Wacher
Leaveau theory of the consumer town which paid for its consumption
through trade; the Hopkins model in which city dwellers paid for consumption in cash, in a modernised economy driven by the need to pay
taxes in coin to Rome; and the archaeologists’ model where a monetised
economy developed through demand created by troops and officials paid
in coin (Whittaker 1995, 110-1l3). To this list may be added the recent
plea for wider inclusion of the social constituents of the ancient city
(Laurence 1994, 133).
As universal models of the economic framework in which urban
growth took place in the early Roman empire, each is limited by its own
terms of reference. The consumer city rests heavily on the written evidence of the upper classes, the Hopkins model on taxation and that of the
archaeologist by the limited quantity of coin found during excavation. TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 163
Lastly the “social” model does not take sufficient account of the economic
basis of social relations.
Despite the weaknesses of these models, each has a valuable contribution in developing theories of provincial urban development in the expanding empire of the first and second centuries AD. In this area one of
the major subsidiary themes is the contribution of native populations to
the development of towns. It has led to the definition of a new town type
in western Europe; known in Britain as the “small town”, in France as the
“vicus”, and in Germany as the “daif” (Whittaker 1995, 110-113). These
types are seen as evidence of developing market economies spurred by
the involvement of indigenous populations. It is no coincidence that in
these provinces considerable emphasis is placed on the Iron-Age trajectory towards “statehood”, the “monetised economy”, and “urbanism”
(Haselgrove 1989, 1). However, a universal interpretation of the
antecedent contribution of pre-Roman populations to Roman urbanism is
complicated by two major factors. The first is that there are significant
regional differences in the form of native urbanisation (Collis 1975, 177),
even within the Rhine/Danube distribution of Celtic oppida, and the second is that Rome’s attitude to urbanisation was pragmatic and varied in
response to local conditions.
Although the stage is set for a re-appraisal of the nature of Roman
colonial urbanism, this must be undertaken within a regional framework
where the factors which separate the origins of provincial cities from
those of further development are clearly expressed In the formation of a
province both aspects are fundamental to understanding the basis of
urban development
THE STUDY AREA
The Roman province of Dacia lay east of Pannonia beyond the Danube
bend. In the first century AD the Iazyges occupied the Hungarian Plain to
the west and to the east the Wallachian Plain was occupied by the
Roxolani, the provincial area between the two equating approximately
with modern Transylvania In Roman Dacia the provincial framework
was based on three elements: the military, which was responsible for the
main roads, the location of forts and veteran settlement; the civil infrastructure, responsible for customs posts, the governors’ residence, and
the means to exploit raw materials; and lastly political factors, such as the
reward of allies, the judgement of the early governors, and the imperial
will. Each had a considerable impact on the urbanisation of the POROLISSUM “‘: ,,’
, . 0
N
OESCUS
IOOl.m
o p.nub<
;:..:.–.
DUROSTORUM
q;
o HISTRIA
)’
cities in Moesia
• Dacian colonia
• lowns
auxiliary forts
J
c.;
C’
‘<”
a..
-…
t:I
en TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 165
new province. The socially embedded tendency of Rome to overawe
through imperial symbolism was also present. While explicit in the
architecture of gateways, tropea, or triumphal arches it is also implicit in
otherwise practical constructions such as the bridge across the Danube at
Turnu Severin or the construction of roads (Purcell 1990, 12-13). These
practical/ symbolic gestures cannot be ignored in the creation of Roman
provincial towns without risking the omission of one of the primary
formative elements in the creation of a provincial structure.
Near contemporary historical sources believed the development of
towns in Dacia was the direct responsibility of the emperor. Cassius Dio
described how at the conclusion of the wars “Dacia became subject to
Rome and Trajan settled cities in it” (Cassius Dio LVIII 14 1-5) and
Eutropius (Breviarum viii2) related how Trajan “removed infinite masses
of men from every part of the Roman empire to cultivate the lands and
inhabit the cities of Dacia”. These statements from the fourth century
cannot be taken at face value, as by this time the actions of the emperor
had become synonymous with the progress of history. In Dacia there is
evidence for direct imperial involvement, through provincial organisation and through legal promotion, and possibly the familiar use of
Hadrianum in the title of Drobeta and Napoca, but there is also evidence
for the influence of commerce.
In all possibly twelve Roman towns were created in Dacia, comprising:
Colonia Dacica Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (!DR ill/2 1).
Municipiurn Aelium Hadrianum Napocensis (OL ill 14465), promoted
colonia under Comrnodus (OL ill 963).
Municipiurn Aelium Hadrianurn Drobetense (IDR IT I), promoted colonia
under Severus (!DR IT 5).
Municipium Aurelium Apulense (elL ill 986) promoted colonia Aureliae
Apulense (elL ill 7773), col. nova Apulensis (elL ill 1176).
Municipiurn Septirniurn Potavissensium (elL ill 7804), promoted colonia
under Severus (U1pian Digest 50 xv 1.9).
Municipiurn Septirnium Apulens (elL ill 1051).
Municipiurn Romulensium (!DR IT 351), promoted Colonia Romulense
(!DR II 357, 324).
Municipiurn Dierna (elL ill 14468).
Colonia Malva (elL XVI 144).
Municipiurn Ampelum (Apulum xx 1982, 120-121).
Municipiurn Septirnii Porolissensis (An. Ep. 1944 nos 52-54).
Municipium Tibiscensium (!DR ill/1132). 166 M.DAWSON
The organisation of the Dacian towns reflected western practice and later
settlement led to the development of a social structure which shows little
evidence of Dacian involvement. Three urban inscriptions attest the possible presence of Dacians: Aurelius Apulenses (Radu 1961, no. 19) from
Apulum, P. Aelius Dacianus (aL III 867) from Napoca and Daciscus
(IDR II 50) at Drobeta, although they may be Roman adoptions from local
place-names. This apparent insularity of Roman urban communities may
have been reinforced by a trend within the uIDan hierarchy towards the
occupation of several offices by one individual (CIL III 1051, 1100, 1209,
7804, 7966, 14468) who could have lived in one place and held office in
another, such as C. Servius Sulpicius Flaccus, decurion of Col Dacica
Sarm, a veteran of XlII GemilUl who was buried in Apulum (CLL ill 1196).
THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN TOWNS
Historically the late-Iron-Age settlement pattern of Dacia is characterised
by hillforts, which suggests it was part of the zone of Celtic oppida on the
northern bank of the middle Danube. The Dacian fonn of the oppida type
of site is different from the other “oppida” forms and typically includes a
defended hilltop or promontory with a D-shaped settlement on a lower
slope. Romanian archaeologists have adopted the tenn dava, a Dacian
suffix meaning place or settlement, and in contemporary reports they are
identified with places cited by Ptolemy as the polis of Dacia (Geographia III
8,3). Possibly contemporary with the dava sites are the stiilUl, upland
locations with evidence of periodic occupation, comparable to the nineteenth-century pastoral refuges from which they take their name.
Recent research suggests Dacia can be sub-divided into ten geographical regions which have distinctive settlement patterns (Bergquist 1989,
152-213), and work in the lowland areas, in particular the larger valleys
such as the has begun to establish the existence of a more varied
pattern.
Of the ten regions, the Luncani Platform is the most radically different
This mountainous area comprises several identifiable ranges where hillforts appear to ring approaches to the centre of the massif. Tilisca,
CapUna, and Cugir seem to form an outer ring around the Orestie
Mountains; whilst Gradistea Muncelului., Costesti, Blidaru, Piatra Rosi,
Virfullui Hulpe and Fetele Albe fonn the core of protected sites. Few of
these sites have been fully published, making interpretation difficult.
Watch towers, walls, and fortified gateways at forts in the Ores tie Valley
are clearly defensive, whilst monumental structures at Gradistea TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 167
Muncelului (Sarmizegetusa Regia) (Glodariu et al. 1988, 105-125) and
Costesti (Glodariu 1983, 97-100) may be religious, perhaps to be identified with the Dacian deity Zalmoxis. At Gradistea and other sites there
are large craft workshops but little evidence of settlement
It is these sites on the Luncani Platform which many consider to be the
“cities” of pre-Roman Dacia (Daicoviciu 1975; Florescu 1985, 9-12).
Nandris (1976), surveying the dava sites and the external influences on
Dacia, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the
development of urbanisation on the western model, whilst Daicoviciu
(1983, 36) considered the dava to be the epitome of the Greek city state.
Bergquist (1989, 226-227) has suggested that the 200km2 of the Luncani
Platform may represent a diffuse urban landscape comprising the dispersed parts of a poly-focal urbanism.
Despite the lack of consensus, the Dacian urban form seems to include
elements that may have originated outside the core area in Celtic traditions (Nandris 1976) and through interaction with Graeco-Roman
civilisation during the first century BC and first century AD (Wilkes
1984). Celtic Europe may have been the greater influence, visible not only
in artefacts (Zirra 1978) but possibly in the adoption of the hill fort and the
use of murus Gallicus in some defences like that of Cotesti-Blidaru. The
Graeco-Roman contribution includes not only the importation of material
culture but, at Gradistea Muncelului, where there are Greek tally marks
in the stone work, foreign craftsmen. The distribution of imported artefacts, including Greek amphorae and bronze vessels from the colonies on
the Black Sea coast, republican and later coinage (Crawford 1980, 51-52)
as well as Samian from the west, demonstrates the range of contacts
between Dacia and the classical world.
Interpretation of the indigenous response to these external forces has
been dominated by perceptions of the Dacian state. Dacia was united
under Burebista in the first century BC and again under Decebalus at the
end of the first century AD and Mocsy has gone so far as to suggest that
the Dacians were “the only barbarian race in Europe that managed from
time to time to establish a stable state” (Mocsy 1974, 94). The orthodox
view of the development of the sites on the Luncani Platform is that a
centralised system, the inner and outer rings of hillforts around the
massif, grew up as the focus of the Dacian state in the first century BC
This imperial modelled Florescu (1985, 10-13) to suggest that the hillforts were administrative centres as well as military and religious foell,
with royal control exercised from Gradistea Muncelului (Sarmizegetusa
Regia). In 1976 Glodariu (1976, 97-102) argued for a market economy in 168 M. DAWSON
the Dacian state which was exploited by Greek and Roman traders,
where artefact assemblages represent not only the development of longdistance trade but the operation of recognised trade routes.
The model of an established and unified Dacian state with a developed
market economy has several weaknesses. The distribution pattern of imported artefacts within Dacia can be seen to concentrate on rivers and
does not focus on the hillforts; instead, it includes sites in areas of difficult terrain where transhipment seems to have occurred. Such sites,
identified from the presence of broken amphorae, are traditionally interpreted as the places where goods were transferred to less fragile barrels
or wineskins (cf. Tolosa, Chalons-sur-Saone in Gaul), but such sites may
also result from controls exercised on territorial boundaries.
The possibility that the Dacians comprised several tribal polities is consistent with Ptolemy who identified fifteen Dacian tribes (Geographia ill
8.3) and with recent research which suggests the fragmentary Dacian
king list does not necessarily indicate a direct line of descent between
Burebista and Decebalus (Bergquist 1989,51).
Such alternative interpretations question the role of the “dava” sites
either as economic nodes within the framework of an established state or
as the origin of centralised distribution (Glodariu 1983, 72). It seems
equally plausible that they served as seasonal assemblies, and market
places for extensive, mobile, pastoral communities. They may also have
been places of refuge where watch towers, defensive ramparts, and walls,
if necessary, could be adapted to a wider system of defence. Instead of
the urban focus of a Dacian state, the hillforts were probably the religiously charged, central places of tribal polities, which in times of stress
were able to come together as a confederation under a single charismatic
leader.
In both the first and second Dacian wars Rome’s only allies had been
the semi-nomadic Iazyges (Wilkes 1984, 73) and in the conduct of the war
by Decebalus – the death of Longinus in captivity, the attempt on Trajan’s
life, the pursuit and death of Decebalus himself and of other tribal leaders – there is little evidence that Rome was prepared for widespread cooperation. Some evidence of the atmosphere prevailing in post-conquest
Dacia seems apparent even in the provincial structure.
The first city, colonia Dadca Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, not only fixed a
small immigrant civil population in the centre of the province, but emphatically moved the focus of urban development away from the Dacian
centres, transferring it to the spinal route of the military road, the via
Traiana Paetesina (CIL IX 2600 = ILS 6523). TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 169
Ulpia Traiana was located in or close to a fortress once occupied by the
legio N FF (Alicu 1980) and closed one of the southern passes to
Sarmizegetusa Regia; with the forts at Micia and Apulum it dominated
approaches to the Luncani massif from the north-west Founded by the
first provincial governor, D. Terentius Scaurianus (!DR III/2 1), the
choice of location indicates the shifting military balance of the post-conquest period, when troops were dispersed to the border areas, rather than
to meet the requirements of a progranune of urbanisation.
Possibly recognising the inhospitable location, Trajan provided a further incentive to immigrant settlement at the colonia with the provision of
ius italicum (Ulpian Digest 50 xv 1.9). Trajan also chose the name
Sarmizegetusa. Until recently seen as a conciliatory gesture by Hadrian,
an inscription found during excavation of the forum has established that
this name was used from an early date (Piso 1994). Linked by Cassius Dio
to the Dacian stronghold, there is no evidence at the colonia for a pre-existing Iron-Age site, and the transposition of the name from the hillfort at
Gradistea Muncelului was intended to marginalise further whatever remained of the political framework prior to invasion.
No more towns were created under Trajan and evidence of Dacian involvement in the early province is limited. Many of the hillforts, like
Capilna (Glodariu and Moga 1989) and Tilisca (Lupu 1989), were abandoned immediately after AD 106. In the rural areas the adoption of
Roman material culture was ultimately extensive, but with no clear
chronological framework, the character of continuity in the post-conquest
period is uncertain (Protase 1980). At some Roman forts, Micia, Orheiul
Bistrita, Bretcu, and Risnov, the recovery of Dacian ceramics within the
defences indicates trade or requisition from surviving Dacian communities.
Within a generation of the conquest Dacia was in revolt There are no
details of the situation but it was sufficiently serious for Hadrian to draw
back from the Wallachian Plain and to consider complete withdrawal
(Birley 1997, 84–85). By the end of AD 119 Dacia had been reformed into
three smaller provinces. Initially a single province with a consular governor (Stein 1944; Macrea 1967) it was now subdivided into Dacia Inferior,
Dacia Superior, and Dacia Porolissensis. Dacia Superior was under the
jurisdiction of a praetorian legate at Apulum and a procurator (Stein
1944, 113) and the two remaining provinces were administered by
procurators alone. Under Aurelius two new provincial names appear,
Dacia Apulensis and Dacia Malvensis, and although territorial changes
may have been involved Dacia remained divided into three procuratorial 170 M. DAWSON
provinces, including Dacia Porolissensis, under a single consular governor of the tres Daciae.
The Hadrianic re-organisation initiated a period of urban promotion.
Still firmly based on the military framework, two municipia were created
close to or based on the extra-mural settlements of forts at Napoca
(modem Cluj) in the north in the Somes valley, (CIL III 14465, 6254, CIL
VITI 3021) and Drobeta (modem Turnu Severin) (IDR II 1) at the northern
end of Apollodorus’ bridge over the Danube. Apart from the date of the
promotions, a single inscription of AD 209-211 links Drobeta with the
procurator Aurelius Heraclitus (!DR II 15), and therefore probably Dacia
Inferior/Malvensis, whilst at Napoca several inscriptions were dedicated
by the procurator of Dacia Porolissensis (eLL III 853, 856, 857, 865, 7659,
7662).
Meanwhile Dacia Superior was probably administered by the praetorian legate who was resident at Apulum, where a large building near
the fortress of the leg XIII Gemina may be the remains of the governor’s
palace (Cserni 1913). The procurator of Dacia Superior, however, may
have been located at Ulpia Traiana, where the palace of the procurator of
Dacia Apulensis has been identified close to the centre of the colonia
(Daicovciu et a1 1983, !DR III/2 294). Initially important as a financial
centre, the large territorium of Ulpia Traiana, stretching across the centre
of the province, may, until the promotion of Apulum to city status, have
equated to Dacia Superior. In the third century the concilium tres Daciae
met at Ulpia Traiana, suggesting that throughout the occupation it
retained a role as provincial centre.
The second provincial re-organisation under Aurelius also seems to
have required the promotion of an appropriate civil centre and the vicus
at Apulum (modem Alba Iulia) became a municipium. Apulum was
located in a bend of the river where two areas of extensive structural evidence, a northern area on higher ground around the legionary
fortress and Partos, on the banks of the are separated by a large
cemetery. Four inscriptions from Partos (Popa 1976,66; CIL III 1008, 1093,
1100, 1214) characterise the lower settlement as the legionary canabae,
probably first established by the legio I Adiutrix before it left for the east
in AD 114 (CIL III 1008). The latest known date for the use of canabae is
4th October 160, on a wax tablet from the Montana (!DR I Tab Cer
VIII 223-226). Promotion of one of the settlements to munic(ipium)
Aur(elium) Ap(ulense) (CIL III 986) is first recorded in AD 180 with a later
promotion to col(oniae) Aur(eliae) Apul(enses) (CIL III 7773). The second
settlement at Apulum was promoted to munidpium, attested on an altar TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 171
dated 23rd May 205 (OL III 1051). The pattern of two legally constituted
communities at the site of the legionary fortress contrasts with the municipalisation of communities on the middle Danube, where Mocsy has
argued the canabae ceased to exist as a separate community (Mocsy 1974,
219). Ultimately a col(onia) nova Apul[en]s(is) was recorded in 250 under
Trajan Decius, possibly the promotion of the remaining municipium but
more likely an indication of renewed status under Decius who was
restitutor Daciarum (CIL III 1176).
The fortress clearly provided a nucleus around which the settlement at
Apulum developed, but the effect of the military may have been muted,
the size of the garrison probably varying considerably as troops (Perring
1991, 38) were posted elsewhere. There were possibly as many as sixty
forts in Dacia (Cataniciu 1981) but few seem to have developed vicus settlements. Micia in the west had a vicus in the territory of Sannizegetusa;
Illisua Gud. Bistrita-Nasaud), in the north-east, had a vicus linked to the
fort by a paved road (OL III 787-793); Gherla (jud. Cluj) near Napoca
may have had an early vicus (OL III 294, 832-834, 6246; XII 539-543); and
in the south, coin evidence alone suggests Acidava (jud Olt) developed a
vicus settlement under Trajan (Tudor 1%8a, 264), as did Hoghiz (jud Olt)
and Sinpaul (CIL III 1659, 8075). At Potaissa, an early vicus was established before the arrival of the V Macedonica and at Napoca there may
have been a vicus west of the municipium. In 167 the transfer of the V
Macedonica to Potaissa ultimately led to the promotion of a civil settlement which had originally been the vicus of an auxiliary fort. The settlement was promoted to a munidpium in the late second century (CIL III
903) and under Severns became a colonia (Ulpian Digest L 15.1.8.9; CIL III
1030).
In the late second century a further promotion occurred at Romula
(modem Resca), close to the river Olt and the only town in the east of the
province. Originating with an auxiliary fort (Vladescu et al. 1974), possibly garrisoned by the numerus Syrorum sagittariorum, Romula was first
attested in the reign of Pius as a civitas (CIL III 1180). It became a municipium under Aurelius (eIL III 753, IDR II 351) and was promoted to
colonia under Severns (IDR II 324). Speidel (1973) has associated Romula
with the creation of the province of Dacia Malvensis (and colonia Malvensis CIL XVI 144), but the late procuratorial inscriptions from Drobeta,
together with the now doubtful claim of Denta in the Banat (IDR III/I
109), as well as the lack of corroborative evidence from the colonia itself
for the use of Malvensis in its titulature, suggests the problem is currently
irreconcilable. 172 M. DAWSON
Romula is the latest promotion that might be linked to provincial reorganisation. Nevertheless, wider imperial policy continued to influence
directly the development of provincial towns. North-west of Apulwn,
Ampelum, south of the Montana, became a munidpium in the late
second century. It was at the centre of a large gold and silver mining
region. lllyrians (IDR III/3 383 ff.) from the mountains of Dalmatia
(Dusanic 1977, 44) had been brought in to work the mines whilst Asiani
and Syrians (Mrozek 1%8) were imported as administrators. Promotion
to munidpia occurred at the same time as Aureus Mons, Aurelianum,
Celeberorum, and Dardanicum mining centres in Upper Moesia (Mocsy
1974, 133, 223), suggesting imperial policy rather than economic development was responsible. In Dacia slow growth may have been due to the
effects of a population dispersed throughout the mountains (IDR I map 2)
and further inhibited by the extensive use of slave labour.
The development of both Ampelum and Apulum may have been
closely related Bullion from the Montana was probably transported
to Aquileia en route to Rome on a journey which began in the mountains.
Apulum was the last great military base before the relatively open country on the route south along the It is likely that Partos was the
assembly point for consignments and their escorts before they left the
province.
On the northern border in the province of Dacia PoroIissensis promotion of Porolissum to munidpium occurred under Severus (An. Ep. 1944,
52-54). Structurally the civil settlement remained small with structural
evidence strung out along roads leading to the fort. There is little evidence that Porolissum either evolved as a centre of trade or owed its existence to a road across barbaricum from Aquincum (Soproni 1980, 213). It
was the military which gave the site its importance. With Micia, Tibiscum, and Slaveni it was one of four auxiliary forts large enough to have
held two regiments and was probably at the centre of a military district
(Cataniciu 1981, 22). Porolissum is unusual in being sited close to the
large hillfort of Magara and whilst little is known of the site its proximity
suggests both political and tactical motives for the position of the Roman
fort After a century of Roman rule it may have remained sufficiently significant not only for Caracalla to visit the site (Fitz 1966) but also to promote an otherwise small Roman settlement to the rank of munidpium.
Tibiscum, south of Ulpia Traiana, may have been an even later promotion, becoming a municipium by the reign of Gallienus (IDR IIIIl 132).
The civil site lies north of the auxiliary fort at the northern end of the
Teregova Keys and may be compared to Porolissum insofar as Tibiscum TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 173
was also the centre of a military district The town comprised two areas
of settlement, a double line of buildings, close to the bridge across the
River TUnis en route to Ulpia Traiana and a much more extensive site on
the north bank. Inscriptions indicate the town was closely related to
Ulpia Traiana, probably a pagus in the colonia’s territorium in the second
century. The smaller settlement may have been the fort fabricum (Benea
and Petrovsky 1987) but the presence of glass, bronze, and gold workings
suggest production on a broader scale than regimental requirents alone.
TRADE AND THE GROWTH OF SMALL TOWNS
Thus far preliminary analysis suggests the origin of the majority of towns
in Dacia lay with imperial policy. Reflecting the political conditions of the
Roman conquest, all the towns were founded near important military
sites but subsequent development suggests other factors gained in importance. The development of the Romano-Dacian landscape and the
evidence of Roman material culture found on Dacian settlement sites
(Protase 1980) suggests a close relationship was established between city
and country. The example of P. Aelius Maximus, a decurion, duumvir
quinquennalis and fUlmen from N apoca, who dedicated an altar and probably owned at a villa at Ciumafaia (jud. Ouj) (CIL III 855, Dolg. II 1911),
suggests the urban rich may have owned and inhabited rural villas. In
the west at Napoca, Apulum and Ulpia Traiana villas are common
(Mitrofan 1973; 1974), but in the hinterland of Romula the identification
of only a single villa has led Lepper and Frere (1988) to suggest that the
area was dominated by imperial estates, which may have inhibited both
urban growth and the development of other villa estates. Little analysis
of these sites has taken place. The size of Romula, 120ha, and the paucity
of building stone in the area, which may have left timber-framed structures undetectable during the prohibition of aerial survey in Romania
before 1989, suggests good potential for further work. In western Dacia
the quality of the mosaic pavements is evidence of the level of classical
culture aspired to by the owners of the villas, while their location on soils
best suited to a mixed farming regime suggests that some of the closer
villas could have acted as suppliers to the towns as centres of exchange.
Current theory in Romania lays considerable weight on the unseen
economic r6le of the Dacians, yet in the published record there is barely
any evidence of spontaneous economic growth. The absence of architectural influence, urban epigraphy, and of native centres suggests the
indigenous contribution lay elsewhere. In addition to the fort viei few 174 M.DAWSON
small towns have been recognised in the province apart from the spas at
Aquae (modem Calan), Baile Herculane, and Gennisara. Nevertheless,
settlements that equate to the western concept of a small town do seem to
exist. Near Apulum, occupies over lOha and has an extensive
pottery (Mitro fan 1990); Apahida east of Napoca between the colonia and
the fort at Gherla is also known for its extensive Roman remains (Tudor
1%8b, 230). The growth of small towns indicates the potential in Dacia
for identifying the beginnings of a more open market economy and highlights the r6le trade and manufacture may have played in the development of the economy.
Epigraphy attests trading on a wide scale. Aurelius Aquila dec(urio)
Patavise(n)sis negotiator ex provincia Dacia (CIL III 2086) is known from
Salona, Dalmatia, and several customs points were established as part of
the provincial framework. At Drobeta evidence for a statio portoris dates
from the early third century, when between 209 and 221 two serous vilficus serving under A Heraclitus proc(uratoris) Aug{ustorum} raised an
inscription on a Tabularium (IDR II 15); Dierna (modem Orsova) was a
statio portoris during the second century (IDR III/I 60) and at Romula a
customs post (aL III 7729) was established close to the eastern frontier
(Maxfield 1987). The forts of Micia (IDR III/3 102), Bologa (Resculum)
(aL 924-925), and possibly Boita (Caput Stenarum) (Tudor 1968, 372)
also provided the ports of entry to the province.
In the towns the archaeological evidence for imported goods is poor.
At Sarmizegetusa lead-glazed pottery (Alicu and Soroceanu 1982), lamps,
Samian, and mortaria (Paki 1984; Alicu 1974/5) are the only published
imported artefacts.
At Drobeta commerce with the south brought lamps from Modena
until Aurelius’ reign (Tudor 1968a, 91) and others stamped Octavius were
imported from northern Italy in a distribution which included Romula
and Racari. Two fragments of Greek stamped amphora (IDR II 131; Popilian 1976, 41), a type found on the Black Sea, at SUcidava and Romula
suggest an eastward trend, while excavations in the fort and the civilian
area produced sherds of terra sigillata (Popilian 1973), one stamped QS(P)
from Adony, Pannonia, dated to Domitian and Nerva (Tudor 1%8a, 80).
and a second, in the strada Lenin, from the late second/early third
centuries from Pfaffenhofen, Raetia (Davidescu 1980, 114).
At Dierna, the position of the town had considerable potential for development as a major port of entry. Located at the bottom of the
Teregova Keys, it regulated trade between Moesia Superior and Dacia
Yet the earliest evidence for the status of Dierna is an altar found at TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 175
Apulum (CIL III 14468) establishing that it was a municipium by the reign
of Severus. An assertion by Ulpian (Digest L 15.1.8–9) that “in Dacian
Zernensium colonia a divo traiano deducta iurisi italica est” contradicts the
Apulum inscription, suggesting Ulpian may be mistaken about the origin
of Dierna (Lepper and Frere 1988). Nevertheless, the city may have
achieved colonia status and ius italicum by the end of the second century.
Excavation (lDR III/I fig. 31) suggests only low levels of trade in the second century. At the Lycee Stephan Plavat, two buildings (Bodor and
Winkler 1979, 141-142) produced a pottery assemblage which included
thirty fragments of terra sigillata, the majority from the second half of the
second century and third century, from Noricum, Germania, and Westemdorf. From the 1967 excavations Samian pottery – Rheinzabem
(Dragondorff 37) and Conbertus III (Popilian 1977) – indicate the continued western trend of imports during the reign of Pius and Aurelius.
At Romula, like Drobeta and Dierna, the second-century ceramics
trade was predominantly with the west, with terra sigillata from Italy,
south, central, and eastern Gaul, Rheinzabern, Westerndorf, Pfaffenhofen, and Pannonia
In the archaeological model trade is closely linked to manufacture and
this is sustained by inscriptions from Apulum, where the Collegium
Fabrum et Dendr%rum (CIL III 1217), and the Collegior Fabr Centonar et
Nautar Conduc Pascui Salinar (CIL III 1209) are known.
At Apulum collegia are attested on several inscriptions (ClL III 975, 984,
1043, 1051, 1082, 1083, 1174, 1207-1209, 1212, 1217) and at Ulpia Traiana
twenty-seven inscriptions refer to the Collegium labrum (Ardevan 1978).
At Ulpia Traiana excavation has produced evidence of brick and tile
manufacture beyond the walls and quarrying (Alicu, Pop, and Wollman
1979,1-10) some distance away, though both on a scale sufficient only to
support construction within the colonia. Pottery kilns are few in number
(Dawson 1992), while glass production (Daicoviciu et al. 1983) and
sculpture in the temple area of the city (Alicu, Pop, and Catanas 1976)
may have served local demand. From Apulum terra sigillata (Isac et al.
1979, 228–229) made in urban kilns was distributed to Potaissa, Porolissum, Dierna, and Drobeta during the second century, and from the late
second century a medallion applique ware, also from Apulum, is known
at Drobeta, Dierna, Tibiscum, Micia, Romula, and Lacousteni. Mortaria
made at Apulum (Baluta 1977) and stamped Theotimus reached Romula,
Sucidava, and Nicopolis ad Istrum in Moesia In contrast to this urban
distribution, local sculpture (Protase 1959) was distributed to Porolissum,
the fort vici at Gherla and Gilau, and a rural site at Cristesti de in 176 M. DAWSON
a pattern suggestive of military patronage (Christescu 1929, 36-39). At
Potaissa, pottery was produced (Mitrofan 1969, 517; Catinas 1982, 40-51)
in urban kilns and some stone carving (Bujor 1968) is evident from excavation.
At Tibiscum the production of beads similar to those found in Sarmatian graves in south-eastern Hungary led Benea (1983, 115) to suggest
they were manufactured for thrade with the Iazyges (ef. Tacitus Annals II
62) until the Marcommanic wars, when the trade ceased by decree of
Marcus Aurelius (Cassius Dio LXXII 11 3).
At Napoca a centre of provincial sculpture may have developed
(Tonna 1880; Pop 1%8) and there is recent evidence of a large brooch
workshop in the north of the city (Cocis 1994).
In the southern cities the evidence of local manufacture is as slight as
that in the north. At Dierna small-scale glass production took place during the second and third centuries (Stoicovicii 1978).
At Romula manufacturing seems to have focused on a local villa site
north of the town, where production may have begun in the mid-second
century with a Samian derivative (Popilian 1976, 225), followed later by a
specialist pottery producing wares imitating metal vessels (Petolescu
1981) as well as vessels with serpentine and Mercury reliefs (Popilian and
Bordea 1973). A second local industry to develop may have been the
manufacture of intaglios (Tudor 1967), of which over 180 have been
found with representations of classical deities, animals, and birds. The
stones, which include jasper, the agates, and carnelian, are all found in
the Carpathian mountains and the Banat and evidence of cutting and polishing has been found at Romula. The pre-eminence of republican themes
in the decoration of intaglios led Grommatopol to suggest a second-century date for the beginning of production, which lasted until the midthird century (GramatopoI1973).
By the end of the second century, therefore, evidence that urban development included both trade and manufacturing also suggests that these
factors contributed at different levels. Manufacture in the towns served
local and occasionally provincial markets. Trade networks extended
much wider but were restricted to lUXUry imports, while the export of
goods focused on raw materials, gold, and silver. The operation of this
system may have been far from static and was influenced by both local
and regional factors. At Apulum the extensive development of the civil
settlement indicates there were Significant differences between it and the
other towns of Dacia. At Drobeta, on a difficult stretch of the Danube
(Cassius Dio 13.4; Marsigli 1726), there was initially access for wheeled TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 177
traffic from Moesia but its relative status may have changed rapidly
when Hadrian removed the bridge’s superstructure to prevent its use by
the barbarians (Cassius Dio LXVIII 13, 4-5). Later ceramic evidence suggests trade was predominantly riveIborne.
A third factor in assessing the commercial basis of the Roman cities is
that of immigration. Trade not only created income for an existing population but attracted further settlement Prim (us) Ael(ius) Ion (icus)
neg(otiator) (IDR II 47) and L. Samognatius [Tier/tius Trever (lDR II 22)
made it explicit that the attraction of second-century Drobeta was trade,
and in some cases it is possible to make specific links between immigrant
groups such as the coll(egii) Ponto-Bithynor(um) (ATRE 1904, XIII 129-130)
and economic activity.
Immigration was common to all the Roman towns, with Illyrians,
Celts, Gennans, Thracians, Syrians, Asiani, Iranians, Egyptians, and
North Africans known from inscriptions, in addition to those whose tria
nominia or Latin nomenclature gives no further clue to their origin.
Archaeological evidence, such as burial in brick sarcophagi, suggests settlers from Italy, whilst bustum graves from Romula point to settlers from
Pannonia (Babes 1970, 196,205).
Amongst the immigrants the largest identifiable group are those from
Asia Minor (Petolescu 1978; Popa 1983) and Syria (Russu 1969). Many of
the eastern settlers originated with one of the twelve eastern regiments in
Dacia, although a small group of dedications were made by officials like
Aelius Apollinarius, who dedicated an altar in Greek to Zeus Hypsistos
(IDR III/2 222).
Immigrants particularly from the caravan cities such as Palmyra or the
littoral cities of Asia Minor might be expected to have dominated trading
communities. At Ulpia Traiana several traders are known and these include two Syrian negoliatores (IDR 111/2 203) but many other groups
engaged in trade, including two a ugusta lis (IDR III/2 319, 409).
At Porolissum, in the third century the Palmyrene garrison (Cataniciu
1981, 22 n. 181) seems to have attracted civil settlers like Hamasaeus
Alapatha (CIL XVI 68) and at Apulum there were civilians from Amasia
(aL III 971), Aspendos (elL III 14491), Epiphania (An. Ep. 1947, 23),
Tarium (CIL III 1503), Asioi (CIL III 7802) and Pergamum, (Arch. Ert.
1912,405; Petolescu 1978).
Crude comparison between the epigraphic evidence of collegia and
immigration with the archaeological evidence for production and trade
suggests a missing factor in the economies of towns. This may be because
the rag trade, salt and timber referred to on the Apulum inscriptions and 178 M.DAWSON
Strabo’s description of hides, slaves, and wool as the Balkan tribes’
trading stock at Aquileia are difficult to identify in the current
archaeological record. Nevertheless, the level of immigration and the
level of trade indicates the support needed by the towns and the probable
emphasis on raw materials that there may have been in Dacia’s trading
networks.
STUCTURAL EXPANSION AND THE GROWTH OF IDENTITY
Evidence of structural development in the cities is patchy. Ulpia Traiana,
Napoca. possibly Apulum and Tibiscum were planned cities with characteristic gridded layouts. The polymorphic cities at Romula and Drobeta
betray their origins as fort vici while Porolissum may never have grown
beyond ribbon development There is no published infonnation on
Dierna or Ampelum.
At Sarmizegetusa the granaries, the forum, the baths, amphitheatre
and water supply, the aedes of the imperial cult, and possibly the temple
of Aesculapius and Hygeia and Liber Pater were complete by the middle
of the second century, by which time the city had begun to spread beyond its rectangular defences. Sarmizegetusa has no firmly dated building inscriptions from the reign of Septimius Severus (ef. Daicoviciu 1966,
156-157 on IDR III/2 266, 319) and a house dated to Severus is based on
coin evidence for which the context was not recorded (Daicoviciu 1924,
232 n. 22).
At Apulum the water supply had been completed by 158 (CIL III 1061).
In the third century the governor recorded (aL III 1174) a serni-official
foundation of the collegium centonariorum in 204 and further building is
attested (aL III 14215, 975, 976 (gate), 1212). Further south at Drobeta a
tabularium was built during the reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla,
and Geta (IDR II 15). At Romula, a Severan or third-century building
excavated by Polonic and Tocilescu was only dated to this period as a
period of prosperity seemed the most appropriate context for such a
building (Tudor 1968c).
Eastern immigration had considerable impact on the cities through the
construction of major buildings. At Ulpia Traiana five out of eight
temples were dedicated to eastern deities: Aesculapius and Hygeia,
Malagbel (elL III 7954), Bel Hammon, and Jupiter Dolichenus, while cults
like Jupiter Sol Invictus Deus Genitor (Mithras) continued to be associated with a significant number of eastern veterans (Toth 1978). At
Drobeta there are temples to Isis, Jupiter Dolichenus, and Matri D(eum) TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 179
M(agnae) (IDR II 26, 27). At Apulum there is more of a balance between
the traditional imperial deities, with temples to Jupiter Optimus
Maximus, Mithras Apollo, and the Capitoline Triad as well as to the eastern cults Aesculapius and Hygeia, Dolichenus, and Iaribolos (OL III
1108).
The immigrant groups may have retained their identities for several
generations. In Napoca the Galatae consistentes were represented by an inscription dedicated to the well being of Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius, Caesar (RE IV 1932, col. 2524-2526), whilst at the vicus of
Germisara the collegium Galatarum indicates the continuing presence of
Asian craftsmen or traders (OL III 1394) in the third century. By the
middle of the third century the distinction between immigrant groups
may have begun to erode. At Napoca the album collegii of the cult of
Dionysius comprised 42 individuals, with Roman, Greek, Thracian, and
Asian names (CIL III 870) on an inscription dating to AD 235.
Military influence in the cities was widespread. A close relationship
was maintained between some towns and their garrison. At Tibiscum the
eastern garrison accounted for the appearance of veteran settlers like
Sbarsemia (ACMIT 1929, 315) and Goddes (CIL III 8000). Apulum attracted veterans from its own garrison and other regiments such as the
coh I Alpinorum (CIL II 1183; CIL III 987, 1077). In the early third century
votive objects associated with Sabasius at Apulum, Potaissa, and Tibiscum may even indicate Severan settlement of loyal Thracian troops
(Macrea 1961) and at Ulpia Traiana family traditions of service in the XIII
legion maintained the military connection with Apulum (Piso in IDR
III/2 243, 245, 337, 366, 440).
Drobeta too was a popular location for both auxiliary and legionary
settlement P. Ad(io) Diophanto vet(eranus) coh V Gal(lorum) (!DR II 46)
was buried in Drobeta even though his regiment was probably at
Pojejana Uud. Caras-Severin) (!DR I 3; IDR III/I 11, 23) and veterans of
the Jegio V Macedonica, buried at Drobeta, may have travelled from
Troesmis to settle in Dacia before their legion moved to Potaissa (IDR II
40, 47). The tradition continued into the late second century when a veteran from the legio V Macedonica and the wife of another settled in
Drobeta after the legion had transferred to Potaissa (IDR II 39, 67). In
Romula there were veterans from the legio XlII Gemina and the numerus
Syrorum (!DR II 330, 350, 352). Veteran settlers often seem to have
assumed positions of urban responsibility. The veteran Aelius Valentinus
was a priest at the temple to Dolichenus in Apulum (CIL III 7760) and
similar cases are known from Napoca (eIL III 854,7657). 180 M. DAWSON
THE IMPACT OF WAR
From the late 160s historical events beyond the provincial borders had an
increasing effect on the towns and a series of late-second and third-century wars, invasions, and revolts are closely interwoven with the evidence of urban growth. Few of the towns were walled. Ulpia Traiana had
been enclosed in the second century, initially by a turf rampart and later
by ashlar walls (Alieu 1980). At Drobeta and Napoca, the date of walling
is unknown, while Porolissum and Potaissa may never have been enclosed Recent excavation at Apulum suggests walling of the lower settlement at Partos has at least three phases (Diaconescu and Piso 1993).
Only at Romula, where walls were erected under Philip the Arab, is the
date known with certainty (IDR II 325-328).
In the later second century the Marcomannic wars may have been a
watershed in the development of the province but specific evidence of
structural damage to the towns is rare. There is little evidence from rural
areas to gauge of the impact of these wars (Tudor 1957, 31-41), although
the pattern of coin hoarding (Mitrea 1954, 483) has been interpreted to
suggest incursions along two routes, from Moldavia and the Banat
(Mitrea 1936, 275), but this remains contentious (Guest 1993,27).
Several forts have destruction horizons dated to the Marcommanic
wars; both Micia and Tibiscum were destroyed. At the fort of Sinpaul a
coin hoard with a tenninus post quem of 167 was found inserted into the
earth rampart (Protase 1969) although there was no other evidence of
damage. At Porolissum, the Citera site was destroyed. Sarmizegetusa
may have been the worst affected city at this time with destruction to the
temple of Liber Pater (IDR III/2 11) and a house (EM23) beyond the
walls. An inscription (IDR III/2 76) records rebuilding in the late second
century. At EM23, there may have been a lull between destruction and
rebuilding. Napoca also has a destruction horizon but this is undated
(Mitrofan 1964, 89).
The settlement of 12,000 free Dacians in the province under Commodus (Cassius Dio LXXII 13) might indicate the extent to which Dacia
had suffered depopulation during the wars, although an outbreak of
plague may have been responsible (Tudor 1968b, 321; SHA vita Commodi
23.8) despite exaggeration of the disease’s impact in the fourth and fifth
centuries (Gilliam 1961). Peace lasted until 184 or 185 (Fitz 1962, 856),
when honours were gained by the two legions, the V Macedonica pia fidelis
(PWRE 12 1925, 1307) and XIII Gemina, possibly for putting down a
rebellion when in “Dacia the provincials rejected his rule” (SHA vita
Commodi 13.5.6). TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 181
Dacia represented an important military concentration during the civil
war of the early third century. Geta, Caracalla’s brother, was successively
governor of Lower Moesia and Dacia and several officers from the
province were promoted to high rank (Birley 1988, 109 ff.). Historical
sources are ambivalent about the real effect of the Severan period
(Cassius Dio LXXVII 16 1-4). Herodian describes the destruction of those
who came “from the east for supporting Niger, those from the west for
their ties with Albinus. All who were prominent at that time in the senate
or who were richer and more noble in the provinces were destroyed
ruthlessly” (Herodian ill 8.5.8).
Severus was concerned with civil settlement, particularly in the
Balkans (IGR I 766), and Tudor (1964) has proposed a Severan renaissance in Dacia. Several towns were promoted: municipium Septimium
Apulense; municipium Septimium Potaissa; municipium Septimuim Porolissensis (An. Ep. 1944, 52-54) and some encouragement is implicit in
Cassius Dio’s description of Severus, who “restored a very large number
of buildings and inscribed on them his own name, just as if he had
erected them in the first place from his own private funds. He also spent
a great deal uselessly [sic] repairing other buildings and in constructing
new ones” (Dio LXXVII 16 1-4). But out of 53 building inscriptions
known from the province only nine can be ascribed to the Severan
dynasty (Tudor 1964, 297) and Severus’ victorious return from the east in
202 may provide the context where city promotion and the adoption of
the emperor’s gentilicia (Birley 1988, 143 n. 28) was a reward for earlier
support
CONCLUSION
This survey of the development of Roman towns in Dacia has sought to
examine the evidence which underpins current theory of town development The result is the identification of regional differences between
Dacia and other provinces.
Geography and the aftennath of the conquest played a formidable role
in the establishment of the road system on which the Roman towns were
founded. Away from the Dacian centres the route was at the core of the
Roman infrastructure and resulted in the isolation of the Dacian centres
from the provincial system.
The development of Roman urbanisation in Dacia originated with the
towns providing nodal points within the provincial framework from
which the province was administered. In contrast to the western 182 M. DAWSON
provinces and the Upper Danube, tribal centres were not established and
subsequent uman growth may not have been greatly influenced by
earlier indigenous trends.
Ulpia Traiana followed an established pattern by providing a military
reserve and a platform for Roman civilisation but was located according
to military principles and some distance away from the Dacian core. The
symbolism implicit in the creation of the first city at Ulpia Traiana was
influential and it created a tension between the colonia and the military
centre at Apulum This was expressed through the separate residence of
the procurator at Ulpia Traiana and the provincial governor, the praetorian legate of the XlII Gemina, at Apulum Later, at the end of the second
century the praetorian legate of the three Dacias continued to reside at
Apulum whilst the council of the tres Daciae meet at Ulpia Traiana.
Despite the functional tension the inhabitants of Ulpia Traiana maintained a close relationship with Apulum, providing officers for the legion
and later members of the cities’ hierarchy, including shared magistracies.
In the 120s the provincial re-organisation required new centres. These
were founded at Napoca and Drobeta, the choice of fort sites reflecting
the military framework of the province and the background of trouble
with the Iazyges and Roxolani against which the Hadrianic reshaping
took place. Later, during the reforms of Aurelius, the military remained
influential with Apulum and, possibly, Romula promoted as provincial
centres.
In contrast to the earlier periods, the civil war provided a political
context for the promotions of the Severan era In Dacia, Geta’s governorship was probably important to the widespread promotions which are
probably political rewards similar to those in Pannonia rather than a response to uman growth (Mocsy 1974, 225). Porolissum may be the exception, where the small settlement was promoted either by Severus or to
commemorate a visit by Caracalla (Fitz 1%6, 205-206) or as a symbol of
resolve at the extremity of the province to provide further encouragement to settlers.
In both the second and third centuries the domestic economies of individual cities can be outlined only in the broadest terms. All except
Apulum were modest in size. All were located in open landscapes, which
today are rich farmland and there is evidence of rural landownership by
the urban hierarchy. The income of the cities derived from several
sources but food production could have been undertaken from within the
cities.
During the early period of development the urban economies were TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA 183
driven by troops, officials, and veterans whose income was drawn either
from outside the province, derived from confiscation, or from imperial
service. From the beginning the towns exercised a strong pull, which was
especially forceful in the provincial centres where the judicial and financial functions of the governor and procurators required the presence of
those subject to their adjudication.
The provincial framework provided the basis for the formal establishment of new Roman trading patterns. Drobeta, Romula, and Dierna were
established as customs posts and became major urban centres. All were
Roman creations where trade developed with neighbouring provinces;
none had Dacian antecedents.
Trade, based on the cities, developed through several networks. Longdistance exploitation of high value goods, locally produced essentials
traded in the cities, and specialist items traded between the centres. A
long-distance trade in Roman lUXUry goods, such as lamps, Samian, oil,
and wine, developed along the Danube. At the major centres mercantile
populations grew from the conquest onwards; some originated as veterans, others were drawn by imperial encouragement or commerce. But
neither the scale of trade nor the level of manufacture in the cities suggests that they derived a major proportion of their income from these
sources.
The lack of Dacian evidence from the towns suggests the creation of
Roman cities and their increasing success may have alienated the indigenous population (Hamer 1990). The phenomena of shared urban offices
and extensive immigration indicates the level of support the new provincial towns required. The creation of new Roman trade networks cut
across earlier Dacian patterns of trade with Celtic Europe and the southeast, drawing trade towards the west In the rural areas the reorientation
of earlier patterns may have led to the growth of small “towns”, with
even greater emphasis on regional trading networks based on commodities only recently beginning to appear in archaeological reports.
The structural evidence of urban growth and the varied character of
hinterland development indicates the influence of regional factors. On a
provincial level the rebuilding at Ulpia Traiana in the 170s contrasts with
the older coloniae: Oaudian Savania, Flavian Siscia, Scupi, and Poetovio
on the Lower Danube, which during the reign of Antoninus Pius may
have begun to decline (Wilkes 1984, 518). The Dacian cities, too, contrast
with those of Lower Moesia where military control of large territoria may
have limited the size of urban territoria (Poulter 1983, 118) and this may
be a factor at Romula The core-periphery effect of inclusion within the 184 M. DAWSON
Roman empire may have been felt most significantly at Apulum, where
epigraphic evidence indicates the use of the river as a route to the
Danube. Although not on the provincial boundary, it acted as a port of
entry and as a transhipment point for consignments descending from the
mining area of Montana and Ampelurn. Here, inclusion within the
Roman empire can be seen to have concentrated development in a
specific area
tntimateIy the Roman towns of Dacia may be seen as part of the mechanism of provincial government Their isolation from the indigenous
population, insular self government, reliance on immigration, the military, and their locations remained important factors throughout their
development Town growth certainly occurred but at present it is impossible to say whether they developed urban characteristics which transcended their role as provincial centres. The relationship between physical development and titular promotion has not been established. Promotion is ascribed to political and imperial factors while the evidence for the
physical form of the cities is largely monumental. At least two were
planned, Ulpia Traiana and Napoca, and others may be added: Dierna,
Apulum, and Tibiscum. Two more, Drobeta and Porolissum, retained the
sprawling characteristics of fort vici. There is little evidence at present for
the development of extensive trading networks that were not part of the
imperial system and which might have supported urban growth based
on commerce, although some trade certainly did occur. Nevertheless, the
towns clustered around Apulum on a reduced scale seem superficially to
mirror the development of towns on the amber route from Aquileia
through Vindobona and Carnuntum, where the route may have been a
major causative factor in the growth of Poetovio, Savaria, and Scarbantia.
In the Severan period the functional aspect of the Roman cities was
maintained but political promotion emphasised the continuing symbolic
role of the cities as part of the imperial estate. Promotion was a means of
rewarding political support and reinforcing ties with the Severan
dynasty. The latest acts of urban support were firmly allied to imperial
action. The restitution of Apulurn, the promotion of Tibiscum by Gallienus, and the walling of Romula by Philip the Arab all took place in the
context of third-century wars, each act was as functional and symbolic in
the restoration of Dacia as the promotion of provincial centres had been
in the creation of Dacia in the second century. TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA
ABBREVIATIONS
ACMIT – Anuarul Comisiei monimentelor istorice, sectia pentru Transilvania,
Cluj, I-IV, 1926-38.
AE – Archaeologisch Ertesiw, Budapest.
AMN – Acta Musei Napocensis, ClUj, I, 1964.
An. Ep. – Annee epigraphique, in Revue Archeologique.
ATRE – Als6fehennegyei Tortenelmi, Regeszeti es Tenneszettudomanyi Tarsulat
EvkOnyve, I, 1881.
Doig. – Dolgozatok – Travaux de la section numismatique et archeologique
de Musee National de Transylvanie, Cluj, 1910-1919.
IDR -lnscriptiile Daciei Romane, Bucharest
Materiale – Materiale si cercetiirii archeologie.
PWRE – Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real Encyelopadie der elassichen Altertumswissenschaft.
SCIV – Studii si cercetarii de istorie veche.
SCN – Studii si cercetarii numismatice
CLASSICAL SOURCES
Cassius Dio. Historia. Loeb/Heinemann 1927.
Eutropius. Breviarum. Translated by H. W. Bird. Liverpool University Press.
Ptolemy. Geographia. Translated by K. Muller (Claudii Ptolemais Geegraphia recognavit et instruuxit Carolus Mullerus). Vol. I part 1. Paris:
AF Didot 1883.
Herodian. Histories. Loeb/Heinemann 1969.
Scriptories Historiae Augusta. Translated by D. Magie. Loeb/Heinemann
(1932).
Ulpian. Digest.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alicu, D. 1974-75. Materiale cerarnice de la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa I.
Sargetia XI-Xill.
Alicu, D. 1980. Le camp legionnaire de Sarmizegatusa. Potaissa 2, 3-28.
Alicu, D., D. Pop, and V. Catanas 1976. Ateliere de pictrarie la Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetusa. AMN XXill, 125-139.
Alicu, D., D. Pop, V. Wollman 1979. Figured Monuments from Sannizegetusa.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (S55).
Alicu, D., and A. Soroceanu 1982. Cerarnica cu glazura plombifera de la
Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Potaissa 3, 51-65.
185 186 M. DAWSON
Ardevan, R. 1978. Le college des fabres. AMN XV, 167-172.
Babes, M. 1970. Zu den beslattungensarten im nordlichen Flachgraberfeld
von Romula. Ein Beitrag zur Grabtypologie de Romischen Daziens.
Dacia n. s. 14, 167-206.
Baluta, C. L. 1977. Sigillata mortariorum apulensia. Apulum XV, 243-257.
Benea, D. 1983. Cercetarile archeologice de la Tibiscum Materiale si Cercetari
Archeologice XV, 306–323.
Benea, D. and R. Petrovsky 1987. Werkstatten zur Metallverarbeitung in
Tibiscum im 2 und 3 Jahrundert n. Chr. Germania 65 (1987),226–239.
Bergquist, A. K. 1989. The emergence of a pre-Roman state in Dacia: the
archaeological and historical sources for Transylvania 800BC-106AD.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge.
Birley, A. R. 1988. The African Emperor Septimus Severus. London: Batsford.
Birley, A. R. 1997. Hadrian the Restless Emperor. London: Routledge.
Bodor, D. and I. Winkler 1979. Un atelier de artisanat la Dierna (Orsova).
AMN XVI, 141-155.
Bujor, E. 1968. Monumente arheologice de la Potaissa Apulum VI, 202-228.
Catinas, A. 1982. Ceramica stampilata. de la Potaissa Potaissa 3, 40-51.
Cataniciu, I B. 1981. Evolution of the System of Defence in Roman Dacia.
Oxford: British Archaeologica1 Reports (International Series 116).
Christescu, V. 1929. Viata economica a Daciei romane. Bucharest
Cocis, S. 1994. Un atelier pour la fabrication des fibules a Napoca. In Symposion International Civilisations Europeennes dans l’antichite Classique.
Cluj.
Collis, ]. 1975. Oppida: Earliest Towns North of the Alps. Sheffield: Sheffield
University Press.
Crawford, M. H. 1980. Imitation of Roman Republican Denarii. Dacia SCN
Vll,51-52.
Csemi, A. 1913. Jelentes a colonia Apulensis teruleten. 1911-12 evgzett
azatasokrol. Muzeum’ es kenyrtri Ertesito VI (1913), 257-283.
Daiconescu, A. and I. Piso 1993. Apulum. In D. Alicu and H. Boegli (eds),
Politique Edilitare dans les provinces de [’empire Roman. Cluj-Napoca.
Daicoviciu, C. 1924. Foullies et recherches a Sarmizegetusa. I-er compterendu. Dacia I-II, 224-263.
Daicoviciu, C. 1966. Severus Alexandre si provincia Dacia. AMN ill,
153-171.
Daicoviciu, H. 1975. Fenomenul urban antic in Romania. Apulum XIII,
85-94.
Daicoviciu, H. 1983. Dacians and Romans in Trajan’s province. In S. Pascu
(ed.), Relations between the Autochthonous Populations and the Migratory TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA
Populations on the Territory of Romania. Bucharest Bibliotheca Historica
Romaniae.
Daicoviciu, H., D. Alicu, and I. Piso 1983. Sapaturile de la Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa. Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice 1983 (Bucharest).
Davidescu, M. 1980. Drobeta in seeolele 1-VII e.n. Craiova.
Dawson, M. 1992. The Roman towns of Dacia. Unpublished MPhil thesis,
Nottingham.
Dusanic, S. 1977. Aspects of Roman mining in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior. ANRW 2.6, 52-94.
Fitz, J. 1962. A military history of Pannonia from the Marcomann Wars to
the death of Alexander Severus (180-235). Acta Arch. Hungarica XIII,
25-112.
Fitz, J. 1966. When was Caracalla in Pannonia and Dacia? Acta Arch. Hungarica XVll, 202-205.
Florescu, R. 1985. L’urbanisation de la Dade romaine. Rev. Rom. d ‘Hist.
XXN,7-27.
Frere, S. S. 1985. Civic pride: a factor in town planning. In F. Grew and B.
Hobley (eds), Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western
Empire. London: Council of British Archaeology.
Garbsch, J. G. 1989. The oldest military diploma for the province of Dacia.
In V. Mansfield and M. J. Dobson (eds) , Roman Frontier Studies. Exeter.
Gilliam, G. F. 1961. The plague under Marcus Aurelius. American Journal of
Philology 73, 225-251.
Glodariu, L 1976. Dacian Trade with the Roman and Helen is tic World. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports (suppl. 8).
Glodariu, I. 1983. Architeetura dacilor. Bucharest.
Glodariu, I., E. Iaroslavschi, and A. Rusu 1988. Cetati si asezari Dacice in
munh’j Orastiei. Bucharest.
Glodariu, I. and V. Moga 1989. Cetatea dacica de la Capilna. Bucharest.
Gramatopol, M. 1973. Romula et la glyptique du Bas Danube. Apulum,
177-183.
Guest, P. 1993. The use and abuse of numismatice evidence in southeast
Europe. Proceedings of the Institute of Archaeology 4 (March), 25-36.
Hamer, M. 1990. New Towns in the New World. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hase1grove, C. 1989. The later Iron Age in Southern Britain and beyond. In
M. Todd (ed.), Research on Roman Britain 1960-89. London: Britannia
(Monograph 11).
lsac, D., M. Rusu, and C. Baluta 1979. Descoperiri de terra sigillata la
Apulum. Apulum XVll, 228-229.
187 188 M. DAWSON
Laurence, R. 1994. Roman Pompeii: space and society. London: Routledge.
Lengyel, A. and G. T. B. Radan 1980. The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia.
Budapest: Academy Kaido.
Lepper, F. and S. S. Frere 1988. Trajan’s Column. Gloucester: A. Sutton.
Lupu, N. 1989. Tilisca, Asezarile arheologice de pe Catanas. Bucharest Editura
Stiintifica si Encyc1opedica.
Macrea, M. 1961. Cultul lui Sabazius la Apulum si in Dacia. Apulum N,
6:Hl4.
Macrea, M. 1967. L’organisation de la province de Dacie. Dacia Xl
de Marsigli, 1. F. 1726. Description du Danube, vols I-VI. Hague.
Maxfield, V. 1987. The frontiers: mainland Europe. In 1. Wacher (ed.), The
Roman World. London.
Mitrea, B. 1936. Monetele si parasirea Daciei AISC ill.
Mitrea, B. 1954. Contributii numismatice la cunoasterea problemei Iuptei
impotriva stapinirii romane in Dacia. seN V no. 5-4.
Mitrofan, 1 1964. Contributii la cunoastra orasului N apoca. AMN I.
Mitrofan, I. 1969. Descoperiri archeologice in Cluj si imprejurimi. AMN II,
657-666.
Mitrofan, L 1973. ViIlae rusticae in Dacia Superioara I. AMN X, 127-151.
Mitrofan, L 1974. VilJae rusticae in Dacia Superioara II.AMN XI, 41-59.
Mitrofan, I. 1990. Les rescherches archeologiques de l’etablissement romain
de Dacia n. s. XXXIV, 129-138.
Mocsy, A. 1974. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. London.: Routledge, Kegan
Paul.
Mrozek, S. 1968. Aspects seriaux et administrative due mines d’or romaines
de Dacie. Apulum VII, 307-326.
Nandris, J. 1976. The Dacian Iron Age: a comment in a European contex. In
Mitscha-Marheim et aI., Festschrift fUr Richard Pittioni zum siebziegsten
Geburtstag, 723-736. Vienna: Archaeologia Austriaca (Beiheft 13) (2
vols).
Paki, A. 1984. Doua fragmente cerarnice stampilate de la Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa. AMN XXI, 477-479.
Perring, D. 1991. Roman London. London: Seaby.
Petolescu, C. C. 1978. Les colon d’Asie Mineure dans la Dacie romaine.
Dacia n. s. XXII, 213- 218.
Petolescu, C C. 1981. Un tipar pentru vase cu figuri in relief de Ia Romula.
AMN XVIII, 469-473.
Piso, I. 1994. L’inscrition de fondation de Sarmizegetusa. In Symposion
International Civilisations Europeennes dans l’antichite CIassique. Cluj.
Poczy, K. 1980. Pannonian cities. In A. Lengyel and G. T. B. Radan (eds), TOWNS IN ROMAN DACIA
The Archaeology of Pannonia, 239-269. Budapest Academy Kaido.
Pop, C. 1968. Monumente sculpturale romane din Napoca. AMN V,
479–489.
Popa, A. 1976. Evolutia istorica a celor doua orase romane de la Apulum.
Apulum XIV, 64-71.
Popa, A. 1983. Citeva consideratii referitoare Ie divinitatile egiptene si
microsiatice in epigrafia Daciei romane. Apulum XXI, 71–80.
Popilian, G. 1973. La ceramique sigillee d’importation decouverte en
Oltenie. Dacia n. s., 179-226.
Popilian, G. 1976. Un quartier artisanal a Romula. Dacia n. s. XX, 221-250.
Popilian, G. 1977. Nouvelles decouvertes de sigilles d’importation en Dacie.
Dacia n. s. XXI, 343-350.
Popilian, G. and P. Bordea 1973. Date noi privind cultele de la RomulaMalva in lumina vaselor cu figuri in relief. SCN 24 no. 2, 238-257.
Poulter, A. G. 1983. Town and country in Moesia Inferior. In Poulter (ed.),
Ancient Bulgaria, 74-118. Nottingham: University of Nottingham (2
vols).
Poulter, A. G. 1988. Nicopolis Ad Istrum, Bulgaria: an interim report on the
excavations 1985-87. Antiquaries Journal LXVIII, 69-89.
Protase, D. 1959. Santierul arheologic Alba Iulia. Materiale VI, 397–400.
Protase, D. 1969. Tezaural monetar roman de la Tibod (Transilvania). AMN
VI, 512.
Protase, D. 1980. Autohtonii in Dacia. Bucharest
Purcell, N. 1990. The creation of a provincial landscape. In T. Blagg and M.
Millet (eds), The Early Roman Empire in the West. Oxford: Oxbow.
Radu, D. 1961. Materiale epigraphica din Muzeul regional Alba Iulia.
Apulum IV, 97-118.
Russu, l I. 1969. Elemente syriene in Dacia carpatica si rolullor in colonizarea si Romanizarea Provinciei AMN VI, 167-186.
Soproni, S. 1980. Roads. In A. Lengyel and G. T. B. Radan (eds), The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, 207-214. Budapest Academy Kaido.
Soultov, B. 1976. Ancient Pottery Centres in Moesia Inferior. Sofia: Sofia Press.
Speidel, M. 1973. Numerus Syrorum Malvensium: the transfer of a Dacian
army to Mauretania and its implications. Dacia 17, 169-177.
Stein, A. 1944. Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien. Budapest
Stoicovicii, E. 1978. Atelier de sticla rubin la Dierna (Orsova). AMN XV.
Syme, R. 1988. Journeys of Hadrian. ZPE 73.
Torma, C. 1880. Limes Dacias. ClUj.
Toth, I. 1970. The cult of Iuppiter Sol Invictus deus genitor in Dacia. Acta
Classica Scient. Univ. Debrecen no. 80, 101.
189 190 M.DAWSON
Toth, I. 1978. Porolissum, das Castellum in Moigrad, Ausgraben von A Radnotj
1943. Budapest.
Tudor, D. 1957. Raseoale si atacuri “barbare” in Dacia romana. Craiova.
Tudor, D. 1964. Les constructions publiques de la Dacie romaine d’apres les
inscriptions Latomus xxm 2, 271-301.
Tudor, D. 1967. Pietre gravate de laRomula. Apu/um VI.
Tudor, D. 1968a. Gltenia romana. Bucharest (3rd edition).
Tudor, D. 1968b. Grase, tirguri si sate in Dacia romana. Bucharest.
Tudor, D. 196& Romula. Bucharest.
Vladescu, Cr. M. and Gh. Poenaru Bordea 1974. Le complex de fortifications de Romula dans Ie cadre du systeme defensif du limes Alutanus.
In XI Internationalen Limes Kongress. Budapest: Academy Kaido.
Whittaker, C. R. 1995. Do theories of the ancient city matter. In T. J. Cornell
and H. K. Lomas (eds1 Urban Society in Roman Italy, 1-20. London:
University College London Press.
Wilkes, ].]. 1984. Romans, Dacians and Sannatians. In Hartley and Wacher
(eds), Rome and her Northern Provinces. London: A. Sutton.
Zirra, V. 1978. The decorated Celtic pottery of Transylvania.