Rome and the Black Sea Region
115 pages

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Rome and the Black Sea Region , livre ebook

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
115 pages

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus


In 89 BC, Roman legionaries intervened in the Black Sea region to curb the ambitions of Mithridates VI of Pontos. Over the next two centuries, the Roman presence on the Black Sea coast was slowly, but steadily increased. This volume deals with the Roman impact on the indigenous population in the Black Sea region and touches on the theme of romanisation of that area. Nine different contributors discuss several aspects of Roman identity and the cultural interaction - one article even compares the situation to the American presence in Iraq - though at the same time, it also looks at the resistance to the Roman Empire and the Roman problems of creating peace in the region after the colonisation. Romanisation and becoming Roman in a Greek world is a very popular field of discussion about which a lot has already been written. This book, however, encircles three important themes - the domination, the romanisation and the resistance. It covers two different sides of the Roman presence in the area and shows both the perspective of a Roman just arrived, Pliny the Younger, and a native seeing the Romans coming, the historian Memnon of Herakleia. Furthermore it describes how multi-identity cultures manage to live together because becoming Roman not necessarily means becoming less Greek (or less Gaulish, less Scythian, less Bosporan, etc.). The diversity of the different chapters in this book creates reflection on the cultural change in the traditionalist, yet cosmopolitan environment that was the Roman Black Sea Region.



Publié par
Date de parution 01 septembre 2006
Nombre de lectures 0
EAN13 9788771246902
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 2 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0075€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.


Edited by T nnes Bekker-Nielsen
Domination, Romanisation, Resistance
Figures and Tables

Jakob Munk H jte:
From Kingdom to Province
Fig. 1 . Satellite image of the Sinop Promontory
Fig. 2 . The number and size of loci in different areas of the Sinop Promontory in the Hellenistic (top) and Roman (bottom) periods (from Doonan 2004, 156-157)
Fig. 3 . Grave stele for Iulia Galatia erected by Antiochos in the year 174 of the local era (AD 171/72), now in Amasya Museum (author s photo)
Fig. 4 . Ethnic composition of the names in the dated inscriptions from Amaseia (based on French 1996)
Table 1. Chronological distribution of the dated inscriptions from Amaseia (based on French 1996)
Table 2. Chronological distribution of the dated inscriptions from Amastris (based on Marek 1993, 157-187)
Table 3. Chronological distribution of the inscriptions from inner Paphlagonia: Neoklaudiopolis, Hadrianopolis, Pompeiopolis, and Germanikopolis (based on Leschhorn 1993, 481-484)
Liviu Petculescu:
The Roman Army as a Factor of Romanisation
Fig. 1 . The Roman Dobrudja (first-third centuries AD), after B rbulescu 2001 with modifications
Fig. 2 . The roads of Roman Dobrudja (second-fourth centuries AD), after B rbulescu 2001
Jesper Majbom Madsen:
Intellectual Resistance to Roman Hegemony and its Representativity
Fig. 1 . The sarcophagus of G. Cassius Chrestus in Nikaia (author s photo)
Fig. 2 . The Rascanii family from Apameia. Bursa Museum (author s photo)
Thomas Corsten:
The R le and Status of the Indigenous Population in Bithynia
Fig. 1 . Map of Roman Bithynia
Anne Marie Carstens:
Cultural Contact and Cultural Change
Fig. 1 . Alabaster vase from the Maussolleion excavations (British Museum, ANE 132114)
Fig. 2 . Cylinder seal from Tomb 813 at Sardis (Dusinberre 1997, fig. 3)
Fig. 3 . Daskyleion bullae depicting a bear hunt (Kaptan 1996, Pl. 26:7)
J rgen Christian Meyer:
What have the Romans done for us?
Fig. 1 . Tetradrachm of the Bar Kokhba revolt, AD 133/4 (University of Aarhus)
Fig. 2 . Antoninianus of Zenobia, AD 271-272 ( Copyright Andreas Pangerl, )
T nnes Bekker-Nielsen

In 89 BC, Roman legionaries intervened in the Black Sea region to curb the ambitions of Mithridates VI of Pontos. Over the next two centuries, the Roman presence on the Black Sea coast was slowly, but steadily increased. The annexation of Pontus and Bithynia as a Roman province (63 BC), the transformation of the Bosporan Kingdom into a client power (42 BC) and the establishment of Roman garrisons in the Crimea (AD 64) mark stages in this protracted process. The campaigns of Trajan in Dacia and Armenia (AD 105-114) represent the last great effort of Rome to bring the Pontic area under her sway, and the Periplus of Arrian (AD 130) a stock-taking of Roman domination at its greatest extent, when Rome controlled, directly or indirectly, more than two-thirds of the Black Sea shoreline. Unlike the Mediterranean, the Black Sea never became a Roman lake. Even at the height of Roman power, political control was enforced through a variety of mechanisms, from outright annexation to alliances with native rulers, the details of which have not always found their way into the historical record.
The range of different political and diplomatic instruments used by Rome in the Pontic region reflect her underlying reluctance to undertake a permanent annexation by military means. With large numbers of regular soldiers already committed to the defence of the Rhine, the Danube and Syria, Rome had no need for yet another frontier in the Pontos, nor a limes in the Caucasus. They also, however, reflect the variety of political, geographical and demographical realities that faced Rome on her first encounters with the Black Sea region - where the nomads of the north Pontic steppe zone and the mountain pastoralists of Anatolia coexisted with the Greek-speaking citizens of the coastal cities, ancient Milesian colonies whose inhabitants took pride in their urbanity and civic heritage.
The advent of Rome brought immediate and tangible changes in local power relations, taxation, local administration, to take a few examples. Over time, it entailed innumerable minor and major changes that were not limited to the sphere of economy and politics, nor to the districts under Roman rule. The new order of things came to permeate social life, religion, lifestyle, architecture, language and patterns of consumption.
At least since the time of Theodor Mommsen, Romanisierung or Romanisation has been used as a convenient catch-all term to describe these changes. Though the term has remained in use for over a century, its content and implications have changed. The historiography of Roman expansion and its consequences offer striking proof of Benedotte Croce s dictum that in the last analysis all history is contemporary history . In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Roman expansion in Italy was viewed as a natural historical progress analogous to the formation of modern European nation-states; Roman expansion outside Italy as the natural domination of a higher race analogous to the formation of the European overseas empires; and Romanisation as the natural attraction of a higher form of life (Rostovtzeff 1927). For Roman , read Russian, Dutch, British or French; for barbarian , read Algerian, Indian, Indonesian, Cossack or African.
To most thinkers of the early twentieth century, even the more profound ones, imperialism was if not justified, at least compensated by the advantages in terms of law, order, morals and religion imposed by the new masters on their willing or unwilling subjects. Continued European domination under mandated colonial administration, not self-government, was the League of Nations gift to the liberated territories of the vanquished German and Ottoman Empires. The former subjects of the Austrian Empire, on the other hand, were allowed to govern themselves; but then of course they were Europeans.
As with European expansion, the justification of Roman expansion was rarely called into question, and Romanisation was seen to justify Roman dominance or at the very least, as a beneficial spin-off effect of Roman expansion. In the graphic formulation of Francis Haverfield, the Roman empire was an oasis of peace and order; outside its borders roared the wild chaos of barbarism (Haverfield 1924).
The comfortable assumptions on which European imperialism was based were already called into question during the inter-war period and definitely shattered by World War II. The breakup of the colonial empires had begun during the war, gained momentum in the 1950s and was largely complete by the mid-sixties. This did not, however, translate into a reappraisal of Roman imperialism. On the contrary, Rostovtzeff s Rome , firmly rooted in the ideological perceptions of pre-1914 Russian liberalism, was still being reprinted and translated in the 1960 s. To solve this seeming paradox, it needs to be remembered that in its early post-war phase, decolonisation was largely imposed on the European powers by the two new superpowers, both strongly anti-colonialist (though for very different reasons). What eventually made the intellectual establishment of western Europe turn its back on colonialism, however, was the rise of local resistance movements from the mid-1950s onwards, often led by an educated and Europeanised elite who could no longer be dismissed as barbarians .
At the same time, the success of the colonial resistance movements inspired a new interest in the historical sociology of resistance and revolution. The case for the existence of hitherto-overlooked movements of social revolt in history was forcefully made by Eric Hobsbawm s Bandits (1971) with the claim that those whom history has recorded as brigands, bandits, robbers and vandals were motivated by a wider social or political agenda. Whatever the merits of Hobsbawm s thesis, it kindled an interest in resistance to Rome and Romanisation. The sixth International Congress of Classical Studies (Pippidi (ed.) 1974) was entirely devoted to the theme of Assimilation and resistance to Graeco-Roman culture and was followed by Stephen Dyson s study of native revolt patterns in Gaul (1975) and Marcel B nabou s monograph on resistance in Roman Africa (1976). As the 1970s gave way to the 1980s, however, a declining interest in ancient resistance movements could be observed. A Crocean reflection of the changing political climate, or merely a general sense of surfeit and tedium after so many words had been expended on the subject?
The postwar phenomenon of global cultural Americanisation also brought the realisation that a dominant power might impose changes in culture, language, lifestyle and patterns of consumption even without the formal political and economic control framework that had characterised the colonial era. Within the study of Roman history, this new insight translated into a dialectical analysis of the relationship between domination and Romanisation and the rediscovery that Romanisation could be an instrument of dominance rather than a consequence.
The study of Romanisation in its Mommsenian sense (as a process of linguistic and institutional assimilation) thus gave way to a concept of Romanisation closer to that of Francis Haverfield (whose classic The Romanisation of Roman Britain was republished in 1979). On the other hand, the new generation of researchers rejected Haverfield s optimistic dualism of Romanity and barbarism as emphatically as they rejected Mommsen s vision of an empire unified by common norms, laws and institutions. In the postmodern world of cultural relativism, there is no place for the notion of higher and lower cultures, and the worn-out idea of cultural diffusion has given way to concepts such as ethnic strategy, identity choice or cultural bricolage . The individual - to paraphrase Appius Claudius Caecus - is the maker of his own identity.
Romanisation remains a controversial and much debated concept. In the last decade, many researchers have felt that the whole notion of Romanisation is burdened down by so many imperialist connotations that it should be discarded. Instead of Romanisation , we now talk of Kulturwandel unter Roms Einfluss (Haffner and Schnurbein 1996), Becoming Roman (Woolf 1994; 1998), cultural interaction (Creighton and Wilson (ed.) 1999), italicisation (Lomas 2000, 165) or Creolizing the Roman Provinces (Webster 2001). Others concede that Romanisation could be allowed to stand as a term, as long as some fundamental preconceptions about the processes it purports to describe are altered (Alcock in Hoff and Rotroff (ed.) 1997). Romanisation has become the R-word of ancient history, banned from polite academic conversation.
As the twenty-first century dawns, it is being argued that the moral deficit of British imperialism was compensated by its modernising influence on the subject peoples (Ferguson 2002). It remains to be seen if this view will gain acceptance among contemporary historians, whether there will be a Crocean trickle-down effect on the perception of ancient imperialism and Romanisation, and whether the R-word will once more become a buzzword.
Romanisation and the Black Sea region
The fifth international conference of the Centre for Black Sea studies was dedicated to the impact of Rome on the Black Sea Region. In this volume, nine of the papers presented at the conference are published, but like any conference volume, the present book fails to do justice to the inspired discussions after the papers, in the intervals, at dinner and over drinks.
In the opening paper, From kingdom to province , Jakob Munk H jte traces the strange political metamorphosis of Pontos as it is revealed in the patterns and practices of everyday life. Within two generations, Pontos went from a late Hellenistic kingdom ruled by a warlord with expansionist, indeed imperial ambitions to a peaceful provincial backwater ruled by the ex-magistrates of late republican Rome. Swords were turned into ploughshares and the Pontic hammer became an anvil. What visible effects did this have locally? H jte traces the evolution of three aspects of daily life: settlement patterns, calendar systems and the development of the epigraphic habit - the last is a topic that is taken up by several other contributors.
The imposition of Roman rule is also at the centre of the chapter by Liviu Petculescu, examining in detail not only how the Roman army achieved and maintained control over Scythia Minor, but the cultural and economic consequences, first and foremost in the sphere of urbanism, that followed. Militarised and Latinised, the military zone of Scythia Minor provides an instructive contrast not only with de-militarised and un-Latinised Pontos but with the Greek cities on the coast of Scythia Minor, which were far less affected by the advent of Rome.
With the contributions by Daniela Dueck, Thomas Corsten and Jesper Majbom Madsen, we move back to Asia and into the cultural sphere of Pontic Hellenism. The Roman province of Bithynia et Pontus is particular interesting for the study of Roman influence and Greek reactions. The cultural complexity of this composite province offers a rare possibility to compare the response to Roman hegemony in different societies with different cultural patterns. An important question is whether there are significant differences between the ways in which people in the Greek colonies, in the Hellenistic city-states and in the communities colonized by Rome reacted to the Roman presence. For instance, were the residents of the ancient Greek colonies more reluctant to live and identify themselves as Romans than citizens of the communities that were founded in the Hellenistic or Roman periods? From the preserved fragments of his history, Dueck brings the historian Memnon of Herakleia to life before our eyes and shows how, despite living in a vast Empire divided between Greek and Roman, Memnon is first and foremost Pontic and Herakleian in his outlook. For all the cosmopolitism of a world empire, parochialism was still a powerful force.
More literary figures make their appearance in the following chapter by Jesper Majbom Madsen. Was the literary revival of the first and early second century known as the Second Sophistic a reaction against the spread of Roman influence in Greece and Asia Minor (Swain 1996; Goldhill (ed.) 2001) or an attempt on the part of the Hellenised elite to demarcate themselves from their social inferiors? Madsen takes a two-stage approach to the problem. In the first half of his paper, he critically examines the case for the second Sophistic as an example of cultural resistance, and in the second part, he uses epigraphic behaviour to diagnose the cultural preferences of the literate middle and upper classes. As we have already seen in H jte s paper, names are important; to name something is to appropriate it. The voluntary acceptance of Roman names by the Greek elite implies that they had been appropriated by the dominant Roman culture. Abandoning a perfectly good Greek name in favour of a Roman or Latinised one was a serious matter, and though well received by the Romans, it could earn the disapproval and derision of one s peers - Apollonios is credited with the witty remark that it is a disgrace to have a person s name without also having his countenance ( Letters , 72). While intellectuals such as Plutarch or Dion viewed the spread of Roman mores with some scepticism, the onomastic evidence indicates that their sentiments were hardly representative of the provincial elite as a whole.
Thomas Corsten addresses the same source material as Madsen, but with a different point of departure and a different interpretation. To Corsten, the transition from Greek to Latin names in the Bithynian inscriptions does not reflect the enfranchisment of the elite and the adoption of Roman names by Bithynians, but a wholesale replacement of the old Thraco-Bithynian gentry by a new class of Roman entrepreneurial landowners. The idea that Romanisation was carried into the conquered provinces by a class of immigr kulaks has respectable antecedents; it was central to the analysis of the western provinces by Rostovtzeff (1926/1957) but rejected by Hatt (1959). It addresses complex issues concerning the social structure and ethnic differentiation of provincial society, a subject that would merit a conference or a volume of its own.
While the preceding contributors have seen the Roman Black Sea from an indigenous perspective, Greg Woolf and T nnes Bekker-Nielsen try to view Bithynia et Pontus through the eyes of a Roman recently arrived, Pliny the younger. Woolf strongly warns us against the perils of treating Pliny s correspondence as a slice of Roman gubernatorial life. Pliny shows us his province and the Roman Black Sea region as he wants us to see it, and himself as he would like to appear to our eyes. Bekker-Nielsen is less concerned with what meets the eye, or what Pliny wants to meet our eyes; instead he searches for the invisible factors of local politics, rooted in the twilight world of back-room deals, rumour-mongering and pasquinades.
Conceptualising cultural interaction as a process between cultural traditions that are themselves developing and changing introduces an extra dimension into the model and reveals the limitations of the classical theories of Romanisation. It also leads to the realisation that cultural change is rarely a zero-sum process: becoming more Roman does not necessarily mean becoming less Greek (or less Gaulish, less Scythian, less Bosporan, etc.). The last two contributions in the volume, by Anne Marie Carstens and J rgen Christian Meyer, both deal with such (in Meyer s phrase) multi-identity cultures . Modern populist-xenophobic politicians see cultural diversity as a threat to the stability of society, but the analyses of Carstens and Meyer indicate that the social resilience of Achaemenid and Roman structures of dominance owed much to their cultural diversity and the readiness of the dominant population to accept and even adopt the mores of their subjects when the situation called for it; the ability to have several identities (Meyer) and the possibility of creative negotiation (Carstens).
Reading through this volume, the reader will find diversity, multiple cultural identities and occasional disagreement. It is hoped that it will provide food for creative reflection on cultural change in the traditionalist and parochial, yet dynamic and cosmopolitan environment that was the Roman Black Sea region.
University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg September 2006 T nnes Bekker-Nielsen
From Kingdom to Province: Reshaping Pontos after the Fall of Mithridates VI
Jakob Munk H jte

After the final collapse of the Pontic forces and the flight of Mithridates VI in 66 BC, Pompey was faced with the problem of reorganizing the former dominion of Mithridates. This was no easy task since much of the territory, particularly the interior of Asia Minor, differed significantly in respect to its organisation and infrastructure from most of the other areas incorporated into the provincial system in the Greek East. Only along the coast could the Roman administration build on already existing polis structures. As a result, Pompey only joined a manageable portion of the western part of the Asian domains of Mithridates with Bithynia to form the new province, and the rest he parcelled out to client kings. The difficulty of this operation is attested by the fact that nearly a century and a half would pass before the remaining part of Pontos was brought under direct Roman control. Some of the cities founded by Pompey to create a continuum of urban territories later dwindled and disappeared under the rule of the local dynasts who had been installed by Caesar and Marcus Antonius, and who showed little interest in supporting an urban culture; these cities had to be refounded later.
The long and very complex historical process of transforming the territory of the Pontic Kingdom into the Roman provinces of Bithynia and Pontos, Galatia and Cappadocia in their more or less final form in the later first century AD has been treated thoroughly by Syme, Magie, Jones, Mitchell, Marek and others, and will only be dealt with in passing. 1
Instead, I intend to look more closely at some of the archaeologically visible changes that occur during the Roman period on a somewhat smaller scale. First, I will undertake an examination of settlement patterns - made possible thanks to two recent survey projects - then investigate the use of eras and the reckoning of time, and finally look at what dated inscriptions can reveal about the chronology of changes in epigraphic habits and the use of personal names in northern Asia Minor, changes which may all be associated with the effects of Romanisation.
Settlement patterns
We know relatively little about how the Mithridatid kingdom was organized. It seems clear that apart from the coastal strip, the level of urbanisation was low in Pontos; at least there was nothing like the Greek polis , neither in physical appearance nor in the sense of an administrative unit. The royal residence of Amaseia may be an exception since the needs of the court would have attracted a whole range of specialised labour. 2 The temple states of Komana Pontike, Zela, and Ameria also supported quite large populations, but whether the temple slaves and the devotees lived around the precinct or were scattered throughout the territory remains uncertain. The account of Strabon (12.3.36-37) suggests that some form of urban structure did exist around the temples. Eupatoria, founded by Mithridates VI in Phanaroia, may have been a first attempt by the kings to encourage the formation of cities in the interior. 3 Symptomatically, he destroyed the city himself after it had sided with the Romans during the Third Mithridatic War.
Central to the royal control of the land was a large number of castles scattered over the whole territory. 4 Many of these served as treasuries of the king, but the commander (φρούραρχος) of the castle may equally well have served as governor of the surrounding district (έπαρχὶα). This system of control has analogies throughout eastern Asia Minor, and also seems to have been exported to the northern Black Sea area after Mithridates gained control of the Bosporan Kingdom. 5 Pompey destroyed most of the castles, supposedly because they could become refuges for robbers and brigands, in reality probably because in the hands of disloyal local dynasts, they could be a threat to Roman control.
The administrative units in Pontos seem to have been quite small. We know from the inscriptions in the sanctuary of Zeus Stratios that the territory of Amaseia was divided into at least twelve districts, only five of which are mentioned by Strabon. 6 By the second century AD, when the inscriptions were erected, these districts had long ceased to have any administrative function, but their names lingered on. Almost all the districts have indigenous names ending in - or - , probably with roots going back to the Bronze Age, and the same is true for the villages or hamlets mentioned. 7 On account of the inscriptions, D. French suggests that there may have been as many as 500 villages in the territory of Amaseia, 8 which of course brings to mind the district northwest of Amaseia called Chiliok mon , the valley of a thousand villages . Contrary to most names of districts, this carries a Greek name, but it could of course be a Greek translation of an earlier, indigenous name. All this suggests a densely populated rural landscape in the valleys of the interior during the pre-Roman period. Supposedly it was from all these scattered villages that the inhabitants of the Roman foundations were drawn.
There are, however, reasons for not accepting this interpretation of pre- Roman decentralisation contra Roman urbanisation too readily. Over the past few years, our knowledge about settlement patterns and land-use in central northern Asia Minor has increased significantly, mainly due to two international survey projects carried out in Paphlagonia in the late 1990s. Many other, less intensive surveys have been carried out in Pontos by local archaeologists.

Fig. 1. Satellite image of the Sinop Promontory.
The Sinop Survey
During the late 1990s, the Sinop Regional Archaeological Project intensively surveyed 350 selected tracts on the Sinop promontory and located 170 archaeological sites or loci (Fig. 1). The preliminary publications of the survey have demonstrated that until about the time when Sinope became the capitol of the Pontic kingdom, habitation was scarce on the Sinop promontory, and the city s primary lines of communication went via the sea. 9 The site density in most areas is very low in the archaic and classical periods, with a slight rise during the Hellenistic period, but the real change in the settlement pattern only occurs under the Empire. Exceptions are the smaller promontory Boz Tepe (which, due to its geographical position, had always been closely linked to the city) and the area around Armene west of Sinop, where Xenophon and the Ten Thousand made landfall on their westward journey by sea along the coast. The director of the project, Owen Doonan, concludes that in contrast to the earlier periods, Roman settlement tended to be extensive, specialized and connected . 10 The change is particularly noticeable in the Demirci Valley to the south of the city and the Karasu Valley to the north (Fig. 2), which saw the growth of an extensive olive production and the production of amphorae in the second century AD. 11 Smaller hamlets, probably relying heavily on marine resources, also began to dot the coastline during this period, and suburban elite settlements such as the possible villa site at Kiraztepe were established. 12

Fig. 2. The number and size of loci in different areas of the Sinop Promontory in the Hellenistic (top) and Roman (bottom) periods (from Doonan 2004, 156-157).
The Paphlagonia Survey
Likewise in the late 1990s, a British team carried out a somewhat more extensive survey of the towns of Hadrianopolis and Antoninopolis in the interior of Paphlagonia. 13 Their conclusion about the development of the settlement pattern was similar to that of the Sinop peninsula survey: During the Roman period, settlement in southern Paphlagonia takes on new dimensions. For the first time we start to see widespread settlement across almost the entire landscape and the first appearance of a truly distinct hierarchy of settlement, ranging from large town to small hamlet with associated cemetery , and further: A notable component of the Roman settlement pattern is the prevalence of small sites . 14 Precise dates are not given for specific sites, but coins and inscriptions of the third century AD are mentioned. In all, thirtyone loci occupied in the Roman period were identified. Only seven of these loci (23%) also contained material from the Hellenistic period. Moreover, in no instances does occupation terminate during the Hellenistic period. The complete site continuity from the Hellenistic to the Roman period indicates that in the later period, inhabitants spread over the landscape from already existing sites.
The reports from both surveys point to the peaceful situation during the Roman imperial period as the primary reason for the characteristically dispersed settlement pattern, which was not matched until modern times.
Other surveys
Several surveys have been carried out further eastward in Pontos by Turkish archaeologists. Projects initiated by M. and N. szait cover the districts of Amasya, Samsun and Ordu, and another group has been working in the areas around Tokat. In Paphlagonia, a team has been working in the area around Kasamonu. 15 However, none of these surveys follow as systematic an approach as that mentioned above, nor are they as intensive. In addition, most of the projects focus predominantly on periods earlier or later than the Hellenistic and Roman era. What can be glimpsed from the many preliminary reports boils down to a generally wider distribution of sites in the Roman period. The evidence will not at present support broader conclusions because of the preliminary nature of many of the publications, and because the Hellenistic period was shorter than the Roman period - which is often taken to include the Byzantine period as well - and also because in extensive surveys Roman remains may be more readily recognizable than Hellenistic ones.
The sum of available evidence creates an impression of a Roman landscape that, contrary to what might be expected, did not concentrate settlement in the urban centres that were the focus of the Roman administration, but rather distributed the population across the countryside in a variety of settlement types. This development under Roman rule is quite different from that of the province of Achaea, by far the most thoroughly investigated area, where the Classical and early Hellenistic periods appear exceptionally active, characterized by the presence of numerous, dispersed, small sites . By comparison, with few exceptions the Roman landscape of Achaea appears empty . 16 However, Achaea was probably not representative of the Empire in this respect, and developments in northern Asia Minor are parallelled elsewhere. This raises a question about the demographic potential of Pontos during the Hellenistic period. Where did Mithridates obtain soldiers for his campaigns against Rome if there were no large urban centres and little dispersed settlement?
Defining time - the use of calendar systems in northern Asia Minor
Space was altered as new settlement patterns changed the landscape and the administrative infrastructure was shaped along new lines when the land was parcelled out among newly created cities. Time, or rather the reckoning of time, changed as well.
Prior to the Roman conquest, the dominant system for reckoning years in northern Asia Minor was according to the Bithyno-Pontic era, counting the years from the accession of King Zipoites of Bithynia in 297/96 BC. 17 The earliest evidence for its use are coins struck in 149/48 BC, the year Nikomedes II became king after the murder of his father Prusias. Earlier Bithynian coins carry no indication of date, and it is possible that the calendar was in fact invented on this occasion. In 96 BC or shortly before, Mithridates VI began to strike coins in precious metals, and with the exception of a very small number of undated coins they are from the beginning dated according to the Bithyno-Pontic era, which must have been adopted in Pontos in the early part of his reign. 18 His forefathers, on the other hand, had used the Seleucid era. Mithridates motives for adopting another state s era are a mystery, as this would normally indicate a subordinate position. Furthermore, relations with Bithynia were not very amicable at the time, at best rather competitive. Only in the joint invasion of Paphlagonia in 108 BC did the two kings cooperate, and this event marks the most likely time for the changeover. 19
With the Roman conquest, the Bithyno-Pontic era ceased to be used in Asia Minor, but continued to be used in the Bosporan Kingdom at least until the end of the fifth century AD. The era was certainly employed in inscriptions in the Hellenistic period, as evidenced by inscriptions from the Northern Black Sea area, 20 but to my knowledge no dated inscriptions have turned up in either Bithynia or Pontos, where so far it is only known from coins. It has generally been assumed that the Bithyno-Pontic era was abandoned because it was associated with kingship, but against this speaks the fact that the Seleucid era remained the predominant calendar system in the East until the Arab invasion, and continued to be used sporadically in Asia Minor well into the imperial period. 21 Furthermore, the Bithyno-Pontic era was not particularly associated with Pontos and Mithridates VI, the enemy of Rome, since it had only been introduced in Pontos a generation prior to his succession; and the Romans in general seemed disinterested in imposing new calendars in the conquered territories. Changing the calendar system was therefore a very conscious choice of connecting oneself to Rome, and the initiative undoubtedly came from local authorities. Had it been in the interest of the Roman administration to regulate the reckoning of time this could easily have been brought about at any time by implementing a common provincial era, a familiar phenomenon in other provinces. For the administration of the province, it could not have been practical to encounter at least six different calendar systems when travelling the relatively short distance from Herakleia to Polemonion. Many cities chose the year of the city s inclusion in the Roman province of Bithynia and Pontus as the starting point for their new era (or in Galatia in the case of the inner parts of Paphlagonia and Pontos).

Fig. 3. Grave stele for Iulia Galatia erected by Antiochos in the year 174 of the local era (AD 171/72), now in Amasya Museum (author s photo).
For some reason, however, no one seems to have used the initial creation of the province of Bithynia and Pontus in 63 BC, nor is there any solid evidence for the often proposed Pompeian era. Instead, the Lucullan era starting in 70/69 BC was chosen in Amastris and Abonouteichos. Amisos deviates from the rest in that this city seems to have used its grant of freedom in the year 32/31 BC as the starting point. 22 The long use of the Seleucid and the Bithyno-Pontic calendars in Asia Minor may explain the unusual popularity of calendars with years numbered in succession as opposed to eponymous magistrates or the year of reign of the emperor.
It is one thing to calculate out the year from which a particular era was reckoned, quite another to figure out when the era was actually introduced. In a few instances the two events are definitely contemporary. In Amastris, for example, coins were struck in year one of the Lucullan era, 23 but often we find a considerable gap between the starting point of the era and our earliest evidence for its use. Along the coast, the gaps generally tend to be short; inland, on the other hand, it is a question of centuries rather than decades: Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis, 115 years; Pompeiopolis, 174 years; Kaisareia/ Hadrianopolis, 170 years; Gangra/Germanikopolis, 198 years - all according to the Paphlagonian era starting 6/5 BC. 24 The proposition that this era was already used in the famous oath of the Paphlagonians to Augustus is false. 25 The number three in the text does not refer to the local era but rather to the third year of the 12th consulship of Augustus. That the two different readings in fact yield the same date, 3/2 BC, is a mere coincidence. The oath s close connection with the emperor can further be seen in the date chosen, the 6th of March, the anniversary of Augustus elevation as pontifex maximus , and the use of νωνών Μαρτὶων transliterated from Latin further suggests a nonnative dating system.
The question is whether the era was actually introduced at a later date or whether it appears so due to the insufficiency of our sources. It is quite possible that a city could maintain and employ a calendar system that was never revealed in any of the sources available to us, as these comprise only coins and monumental inscriptions on stone. I would suggest, however, that the introduction of eras related to the city s incorporation into the Roman empire was part of a larger package that included new settlement patterns, the introduction of local coinage, new social structures, and new means of self-expression, both individually and for communities as a whole, the latter primarily visible through what has become known as the epigraphic habit . All these markers seem to coincide more or less chronologically - at a much later date than the creation of the province. The correlation between coinage and inscriptions is of particular interest, as these contain our most precisely datable evidence and can therefore provide a clue to the date of this transformation.
The epigraphic habit
The epigraphic habit, or the use of inscriptions in public and private contexts, was a fundamental feature of participation in the Graeco-Roman cultural sphere. Judged by this parameter, northern Asia Minor, apart from the coastal cities, was by no means Hellenized under the Pontic kings, as hardly any inscriptions exist from the Hellenistic period. The epigraphic habit was closely associated with the Greek language, and the use of Greek seems very restricted and a rather late phenomenon outside the old Greek colonies - with the exception of coin legends. Several literary sources remark on the linguistic talents of Mithridates VI and relate that the king spoke all the tongues and dialects of his domain: twenty languages or more. 26
Since a surprisingly large proportion of inscriptions in northern Asia Minor can be dated accurately, we can determine with some degree of certainty when the epigraphic habit was introduced. Naturally, caution should be taken when drawing conclusions from epigraphic sources. The preserved epigraphic monuments are by no means an unbiased selection of what once existed. Most importantly, we essentially only possess inscriptions written on stone. In northern Asia Minor, hard limestone was in scarce supply; on the other hand, metal was abundant, and inscriptions on bronze may have been more common than we can perceive today. Painted inscriptions on wooden panels may also have existed in an area rich in wood and Sinopean red dye. 27 This leads to the question of survival rates. In Herakleia Pontike, for example, only about seventy or eighty inscriptions have been preserved, and the earliest may well be a base for a statue of Claudius. By this time the city had been among the major cities in the Black Sea for nearly 600 years, and no one would hesitate to place it within the Greek cultural sphere. The destruction of the city by Cotta in 70 BC, the extensive reuse of inscribed stones as building material, and the destructive forces of modern town planning are the standard explanations given for the small number of preserved inscriptions. 28 At the sites chosen for investigation here, however, the inscriptions do not seem to have been subject to such radical selection during the Roman period and probably represent a fairly random sample.
Table 1. Chronological distribution of the dated inscriptions from Amaseia (based on French 1996). Decade Number of inscriptions AD 50-59 0 60-69 0 70-79 0 80-89 0 90-99 3 100-109 1 110-119 0 120-129 3 130-139 5 140-149 6 150-159 5 160-169 13 170-179 13 180-189 3 190-199 9 200-209 6 210-219 4 220-229 0 230-239 3 240-249 2 250-259 4 260-269 0 270-279 0 280-289 0 - 370-379 1 Total 81
By far the best sample of dated inscriptions derives from the territory of Amaseia, the former capital of the Pontic Kingdom, and was collected by David French. Although the corpus still awaits publication, the published lists of dated inscriptions provide us with an adequate impression of the material. The latest count shows 443 inscriptions: 6 Hellenistic, 350 Roman, and 87 Byzantine - figures that strongly testify to the scarcity of Hellenistic material. Among the Roman inscriptions, 278 relate to funerary monuments, and of these 84, or 30%, can be dated according to the local era. 29
We have no idea as to what caused people to include or omit the year in the epitaphs of their relatives. It does not seem to be a question of chronology. A study of the limited material published with photographs or drawings in Studia Pontica 30 on the basis of letter forms suggests that there is no overall discrepancy between the chronological distribution of the dated and undated inscriptions. The monuments likewise appear to be a representative sample with regard to quality. I think that we can safely take the dated inscriptions as indicative of the whole corpus.
The earliest definite evidence of the use of the local era in Amaseia is provided by three coin issues during the Flavian period. 31 Slightly later, we find the earliest epigraphic use of the era on a sarcophagus dated to 97/98 AD, and from then on, the number of inscriptions increases until the 160s and 170s, after which a decrease sets in (Table 1). The high figures in the late 160s and 170s can possibly be interpreted as an increased mortality rate due to the Antonine Plague, followed by a reduced number of deaths and perhaps economic stagnation in the 180s AD. 32 The Gothic and Sassanian invasions in the 250s and 260s brought an end to the use of local calendars, or at least to our knowledge of them. It may be of significance that local coinages ceased at the same time. The very sporadic use of the Amaseian era and other eras in northern Asia Minor in the late fourth, the fifth and even sixth centuries AD reveals that the memory of the era was somehow kept alive in media not preserved for posterity or was reinvented during late antiquity.
One area where the dated inscriptions offer promising evidence concerns the changes in the use of personal names: When did people begin to use Roman names and how common do they become, how long did indigenous and Persian names persist, can we detect gender related practices etc. The list of questions raised by these changes is long, and to answer them adequately would require a very thorough study; here I will restrict myself to one aspect: the introduction of Latin names. In this respect the evidence from Amaseia is a bit disappointing because the transition from Greek and indigenous names to the mixture of Greek, Latin and mixed names that can be observed in the second and third centuries must have taken place before our record of inscriptions begins (Fig. 4). The earliest inscriptions already have a majority of Latin names. Indigenous and Persian names that were relatively common at the time of Mithridates VI, judging from a study of names of officials and officers, 33 had largely disappeared.
Table 2. Chronological distribution of the dated inscriptions from Amastris (based on Marek 1993, 157-187). Decade Number of inscriptions AD 50-59 1 60-69 1 70-79 0 80-89 1 90-99 1 100-109 2 110-119 2 120-129 1 130-139 2 140-149 2 150-159 2 160-169 1 170-179 1 180-189 2 190-199 1 200-209 4 210-219 0 220-229 0 230-239 1 240-249 0 250-259 1 260-269 0 270-279 0 280-289 0 Total 26
Amastris and Inner Paphlagonia
A smaller sample of twenty-six dated inscriptions from Amastris shows a somewhat different pattern (Table 2). 34 Here the earliest inscription dates from 50/51 AD, i.e., half a century earlier than in Amaseia. It is, however, no less than 121 years after the introduction of the Lucullan era; and as mentioned above, Amastris is in fact one of the few places where we have certain evidence of the use of the calendar immediately after its introduction. The end of the use of the calendar likewise coincides with the invasions in the 250s and 260s AD. Between these end points, the inscriptions are distributed more evenly than in Amaseia, with only a slight increase in the first half of the second century. The concentration of four inscriptions under Septimius Severus is probably coincidental. With regard to the ethnic character of the names, we see a clear development away from purely Greek names over time. In the three earliest inscriptions of the first century AD, all names are of Greek or Iranian inspiration. During the first half of the second century, Greek names still dominate but Latin names or Latin tria nomina with a Greek cognomen begin to appear; after the middle of the century only a single Greek name appears. In two instances, a father with a Greek name gave his children Latin names. 35 This could be a sign of the times or of the upward mobility of the persons that appear in the epigraphic record.

Fig. 4. Ethnic composition of the names in the dated inscriptions from Amaseia (based on French 1996).
The last examples I shall present here concern the cities of Pompeiopolis, Neoklaudiopolis and Hadrianopolis in inner Paphlagonia. Apart from two inscriptions from Neoklaudiopolis from the 120s, dated inscriptions only begin in the 160s (Table 3), yet end around 260, with one late example from the 280s. 36 The small size of the sample and the scattered distribution does not permit a detailed statistical analysis of the development in the use of names. Suffice to say that at least some non-Greek, non-Latin names still occur among the inscriptions.
Table 3. Chronological distribution of the inscriptions from inner Paphlagonia: Neoklaudiopolis, Hadrianopolis, Pompeiopolis, and Germanikopolis (based on Leschhorn 1993, 481-484). Decade Number of inscriptions AD 50-59 0 60-69 0 70-79 0 80-89 0 90-99 0 100-109 0 110-119 0 120-129 2 130-139 0 140-149 0 150-159 0 160-169 4 170-179 2 180-189 1 190-199 6 200-209 1 210-219 3 220-229 1 230-239 2 240-249 3 250-259 4 260-269 2 270-279 0 280-289 1 Total 32
Keeping in mind the danger of overinterpretation, I think that the three examples given here can be taken as evidence of how the custom of erecting inscribed monuments (particularly of a funerary nature) to commemorate oneself and one s family spread among a wider section of the population. It began on the coast in the first century AD and then slowly penetrated the hinterland before the mid-second century. In most cities it coincides with the introduction of local coinage, the more common use of Latin names, the construction of public buildings, and probably other, less clearly dated phenomena such as changed land-use and settlement patterns. It is difficult to say whether these changes were perceived as Romanisation by the local population, but they were certainly a product of the favourable conditions offered by the Pax Romana .
1 Magie 1950; Jones 1971; Marek 1993; Mitchell 1993; Syme 1995.
2 Strabon 12.3.39.
3 Syme 1995, 115.
4 Mitchell 1993, 84. Olshausen Biller 1984 (map) for location.
5 Saprykin Maslennikov 1996, 1-14.
6 French 1996b, 78.
7 Dalaison 2002, 261-276.
8 French 1996, 82. Appian ( Mithr . 65) furthermore relates that Murena captured 400 villages belonging to Mithridates.
9 Doonan 2004.
10 Doonan 2004, 47.
11 Doonan 2004, 103; 111-112.
12 Doonan 2004, 47.
13 Matthews, Pollard Ramage 1998.
14 Matthews, Pollard Ramage 1998, 203.
15 zdogan, Marro Tibet 1999; zsait 2002; 2003; zsait zsait 2002; D nmez 1999 - to mention a few. In her new book on the Pontic kingdom, Erciyas (2006, 53-62) offers a summary of all the surveys conducted in Pontos.
16 Alcock 1993, 48.
17 For the beginning of the era, see Perl 1968, 299-330.
18 Callata 1997, 8-9 33-36.
19 Leschhorn 1993, 83-86. McGing 1986, 66. Justinus 37.4.3.
20 An inscription from Phanagoreia dated to the year 210 (88/87 BC) published by Vinogradov W rrle (1992, 159-170), and another newly found inscription from Olbia dated to the year 220 (78/77 BC) published by Krapivina Diatroptov 2005, 167-180.
21 Leschhorn 1993, 418.
22 Leschhorn 1993, 106-115.
23 Waddington, Reinach Babelon 1925, 176, no. 19.
24 For the earliest occurrence of the era in the different cities, see Leschhorn 1993, 481-484.
25 Anderson, Cumont Gr goire 1910, no. 66.
26 Pliny ( NH 7.24; 25.3) reports that it was a well-known fact that Mithridates spoke twenty-two languages and never required the service of an interpreter. Gellius (17.17) offers the figure of twenty-five, and Aurelius Victor ( De vir illustr. 76.1) claims that he spoke fifty languages.
27 For inscriptions on wood in the Roman period, see Eck 1998, 203-217.
28 IK 47, p. 1-2.
29 French 1996, 86-87.
30 Anderson, Cumont Gr goire 1910, 109-187.
31 Burnett, Amandry Carradice 1999, 236-238. The legend on a Julio-Claudian coin formerly read as [ ] (year 41) turns out to read E I . Basila served as legate of Galatia sometime during the first decades of the first century AD.
32 For more examples of the impact of the Antonine Plague, see Duncan-Jones 1992, 108-136.
33 Olshausen 1974, 153-170.
34 Marek 1993, 157-187.
35 Marek 1993, 170, no. 48; 184, no. 104.
36 See Marek 1993, 135-155; 187-210, for the inscriptions from Pompeiopolis and Hadrianopolis. See Anderson, Cumont Gr goire 1910, 46-108, for the inscriptions from Neoklaudiopolis. In Hadrianopolis, two statue bases for Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, respectively, testify to the fact that inscriptions were erected before the practice of dating the inscriptions was introduced in epitaphs.
The Roman Army as a Factor of Romanisation in the North- Eastern Part of Moesia Inferior
Liviu Petculescu

From antiquity, the territory between the Danube and the Black Sea known today as Dobrudja represented a geopolitical unity. Reflecting this fact, at the beginning of the Late Empire the Romans organized a province, Scythia Minor , whose borders almost correspond with those of Dobrudja. In the present study I will leave aside the southern extremity of Dobrudja and deal only with the main part of the region, the 15,485 sq km lying within the modern state of Romania.
The Roman army entered Scythia Minor for the first time as early as 72-71 BC, during the war against Mithridates when M. Terentius Varro Lucullus, proconsul of Macedonia, conquered the Greek towns of the coast. 1 Yet, ten years later, the army of another governor of Macedonia, C. Antonius Hybrida, was destroyed by mutinous allies near Histria and the Roman control of the region was lost for about three decades. Not until the end of the civil wars did Rome have another army available to fight in this remote area. In 29-28 BC, M. Licinius Crassus, the Macedonian governor of the time, campaigned successfully in Dobrudja but the Romans annexed only the Greek towns of Histria, Tomis and Callatis, giving the rest of the country to the Thracian client kingdom. However, the praefectus in charge of the Greek cities also kept a military control of the Danube line.
When Claudius suppressed the Thracian state in AD 46, its part south of the Balkan mountains was organized into the province of Thracia, while the territory between the Balkans and the Danube was added to the province of Moesia but does not seem to have been garrisoned permanently for nearly a quarter of a century. 2 Anyway, only after the reorganization of the Moesian limes by Vespasian - implying also the establishment of the classis Flavia Moesica - are the first Roman auxiliary military units stationed in Dobrudja attested. 3 Even later, after the division of Moesia and creation of the two new provinces of Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior by Domitian, and the occupation of Dacia by Trajan following the ardous wars of AD 101-102 and 105-106, the limes on the Lower Danube acquired its definite shape which remained basically unaltered until the end of the Principate. Thus the Danubian frontier between Viminacium and Novae, heavily manned to resist the Dacian attacks, was abandoned and some of the military units previously quartered upstream from Novae were sent north of the Danube into the new province of Dacia and the part of the kingdom of Decebalus annexed to Moesia Inferior. The remaining units that were available to be quartered elsewhere were transferred eastward by Trajan to guard the Danube s right bank as far as the river delta (Fig.1).
Now, at last, the legions were settled in Dobrudja: legio XI Claudia at Durostorum immediately beyond the present-day Romanian border and legio V Macedonica at Troesmis. Moreover, from the first half of the second century AD the garrison of Dobrudja certainly included the following auxiliary units: ala I Vespasiana Dardanorum at Arrubium, ala II Hispanorum et Aravacorum at Carsium, cohors I Cilicum milliaria sagittariorum at Sacidava, cohors I Germanorum at Capidava, cohors I Lusitanorum Cyrenaica at Cius and until AD 144 at the latest, cohors II Mattiacorum at Dinogetia and Barbo i. However, since on the limes between Durostorum and Dinogetia there were at least two other auxiliary forts at Sucidava and Carsium, it is probable that the number of auxiliary units permanently settled in Dobrudja was larger than attested so far. Besides, the northern sector of the frontier including the forts at Dinogetia, Noviodunum, Aegissus, Halmyris and the bridgeheads from Barbo i and Aliobrix, was perhaps manned exclusively by classis Flavia Moesica after the removal of the cohors II Mattiacorum .
So from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius the garrison of Dobrudja consisted of c. 6000 soldiers from legio V Macedonica , 3,500-4,500 auxiliary cavalry and infantry, the bulk of the classis Flavia Moesica - whose number is hard to estimate, yet I believe could at least be of 2,000 sailors and soldiers - and probably small vexillations of legio XI Claudia ; that is, a total amount of c. 12-13,000 troops.
After the transfer of legio V Macedonica to Dacia in AD 167-170, on its former sector of the limes one could meet detachments from legio I Italica based at Novae, sometimes in association with those of legio XI Claudia , but one couldn t know if they were stationed here permanently or only temporarily. After the Marcomannic Wars the garrison strength of the north-eastern part of Moesia Inferior dropped to c. 8,000 troops and this number seems to have been maintained without major changes during the third century AD.
The relatively limited strength of the Roman army in Dobrudja during the Principate was determined by the characteristics of its borders. In itself, the Lower Danube represented a difficult obstacle, and beyond the river bed proper there were plenty of marshes and lakes. Westward of Dobrudja the river divided itself creating two huge marshes known today under the names of Ialomi a bog and Br ila bog ; northward, there are numerous lakes, and further northeast the Danube Delta. Accordingly, in this region the Danube has only few fords at: Durostorum, Carsium, Dinogetia and Noviodunum. Of course, during the hard winter frost the river could be crossed on ice in many places and in fact in the past the Dacians had often taken advantage of this situation.

Fig. 1. The Roman Dobrudja (first-third centuries AD), after B rbulescu 2001 with modifications.
It is clear that the Romans did not need too many troops to control the fords and the traffic on the Danube; indeed, that is all they did, following the principle of linear frontier defence which was the norm during the first three centuries AD. As for the seashore, there is no straightforward evidence that the Romans considered it as a real limes to be defended until the Gothic attacks of the third century. Consequently, all military units of this part of Moesia Inferior were stationed along the Danube.
The reorganization of the limes Moesiae Inferioris by Trajan accomplished the division of Dobrudja in three different parts: the bank of the Danube, the interior and the littoral. Each of these zones not only represented a geographical unit but at the same time developed administrative features and even ethnic characteristics.
As the Danube s bank was a frontier area, it was organized as a military district and became the more Romanised region of Dobrudja. On public land the army erected castra where the military units were quartered, and nearby civilian settlements arose which were organized in Roman fashion as canabae or vici .
The origin of the soldiers making up these military units was widely different but during their service even those less romanised soldiers assimilated Roman civilization, including the Latin language.
Among the 16 military men of legio V Macedonica , most of those giving their origo in inscriptions found in Dobrudja came from the Orient: Ankyra ( ISM V, 155; 135; 174; 183), Amastris ( ISM V, 184; 186), Nikaia ( ISM V, 196), Hemesa ( ISM V, 178), Laodikeia ( ISM V, 179), Nikopolis ( ISM V, 158). 4 Besides, two others hailed from Oescus ( ISM V, 188) and castris ( ISM V, 160) respectively, and the c. 300 veterans discharged in AD 134 had true citizen names including rare Italic ones, yet very few with Greek cognomina ( ISM V, 137). Irrespective of their origin, however, the legionaries and veterans from Troesmis erected only Latin inscriptions.
All the auxiliary units settled in Dobrudja except cohors I Cilicum were initially raised from European tribes, yet the bulk of the manpower of the fleet seems to have been drawn from the Orient. Since, with the passage of time, vacancies within these units were filled by recruitment within the region where they were quartered, they eventually lost some - if not most - national features. So they became typical Roman military units except that according to regulations, until the Constitutio Antoniniana in AD 212, they consisted of peregrines. Reflecting the progressive levelling process between citizen and peregrine soldiers, the inscriptions found so far in the auxiliary forts are similar in content to those of the legionaries, and likewise written in Latin.
The army was followed by the soldiers families and a lot of people who earned their lives by meeting the demands of military men: artisans, merchants, prostitutes. Thus, alongside every fort on the Danube bank civilian settlements soon appeared, two of which developed into towns with Roman status.
At Troesmis, in the vicinity of the fortress of legio V Macedonica the canabae legionis and another civilian settlement ( vicus ? civitas ?) are attested. 5 The canabae ( ISM V, 154; 141) were under the jurisdiction of the legatus legionis but had their own council named curia ( ISM V, 155) and magistrates: magistri ( ISM V, 154; 156 ), quinquennalis ( ISM V, 155; 158 ), aediles ( ISM V, 156). Here lived veterani et cives Romani. On the other site ruled by a council termed ordo Troesmensium ( ISM V, 143-145) and two magistri ( ISM V, 157), only cives Romani Troesmi consistentes dwelled. After the transfer of the legion in AD 167 to Potaissa in Dacia, Marcus Aurelius 6 or an emperor of the Severan dynasty 7 promoted one of the Troesmis settlements to municipal status. The municipium had an ordo municipii Troesmensium ( ISM V, 150; 152; 153; 165) and the usual magistrates and priests of a Roman town: duumviri ( ISM V, 151; 163 et al.), quinquennales ( ISM V, 148; 165), aediles ( ISM V,148), quaestores ( ISM V, 148; 149), flamen , ( ISM V, 163), pontifices ( ISM V, 148), augures ( ISM V, 166; 180). Nevertheless, I believe that the two sacerdotes provinciae ( ISM V, 151; 194) known so far at Troesmis, certainly prove the importance of the town in providing priests of the imperial cult of the province, but do not necessarily prove that the provincial assembly met here.
At Noviodunum, located approximately at mid-distance between Novae and Crimea, that is, at the center of the sector of the naval frontier patrolled by the classis Flavia Moesica , was most likely the residence of the praefectus classis ( ISM V, 281) and accordingly the main statio of the fleet. The extensive civilian settlement, probably a vicus , was administratered by a quinquennalis and two magistri ( ISM V, 268). Sometimes later, perhaps around AD 200, Noviodunum was promoted to the rank of municipium . 8
Near the other auxiliary forts, civilian settlements of lower profile are attested. At Sacidava the site of the civilian settlement is not yet identified, but numerous inscriptions were found in the wall of the fort, set up by veterans who dwelled somewhere around. 9 Six km north of Sacidava, in the neighborhood of the modern village of Rasova, a horreum of the military type was excavated. 10 Since among the bricks used for this building some bear the stamps Leg . V Ma ., Leg . XI Cl.P.F . and Leg . I Ital ., it is certain that this was another settlement linked with military activity during the first half of the second century AD. Downstream of Rasova, Axiopolis would seem by its name to have been a civitas of old Greek origin, without a military link, and in fact Ptolemaios mentions it among other poleis (Ptol. Geogr . 3.10.5).
The civilian site of Capidava is still not located, though some tumuli of the cemetery extending around the fort have been excavated. 11 Nevertheless, an inscription informs us of a territorium Capidavensis ruled by a quinquennalis ( ISM V, 77) that is, organized to reproduce, on a reduced scale, the municipal administration. At Cius a vicus Verg [ ob ] rittiani led by a magister who was veteranus legionis V Macedonicae ( ISM V, 115) is attested. Unfortunately one cannot determine whether this was the proper civilian settlement of the followers of cohors I Lusitanorum , or merely a village inside the area subject to the jurisdiction of this military unit. Aegissus, originally a native fort, was garrisoned by the Romans quite early, during the first century AD ( ISM V, 286). One inscription that probably should be dated to the second century AD mentions a territorium A [ eg ( yssensis )] with an ordo decurionum , indicating a pseudo-municipal administration as for the territory of Capidava. 12 Further southeast, at Murighiol, quite probably the antique Halmyris, beside the fort manned by the fleet a vicus classicorum sprang up, administratered by a magister and inhabited by cives Romani who in this instance, were obviously veterans of the fleet. 13
At the end of this quick survey of the state of the Danubian frontier zone, some general remarks are required. As expected, the names of the sites of the forts and the civilian settlements related to them were overwhelmingly of pre-Roman origin, mostly Geto-Dacian. In the southern part of the frontier, there was a concentration of place-names ending in dava , characteristic of the Geto-Dacian hill-forts, indicating that the Roman army on its arrival in this region found a lot of local tribes dwelling in fortified sites according to their traditional habits. In the limes area, however, there is evidence only for a few, very small native sites surviving until the middle of the second century AD 14 and for some Dacian individuals, who were in any case connected with the Roman army ( IDRE II, 332; 336; 338). On the other hand, all over the frontier region there was a compact, cosmopolitan population depending upon the soldiers, sharing the Roman civilization, speaking solely Latin (at least in official circumstances) and living in communities of varying Roman legal status, among which two of the three Roman towns of Dobrudja stood out. As mentioned above, the only exception to this rule seems to have been represented by Axiopolis - apparently a civil site without any military connection, probably founded by Greek-speaking people though so far the site has produced Latin inscriptions exclusively. 15 Even in the cemeteries at Capidava and Noviodunum, the only ones on the limes excavated to some extent, only graves of specific Roman provincial types were found including a few funeral assemblages containing military equipment, which was normal considering that some of the deceased were auxiliary soldiers. 16
On the seashore the old Greek city-states of Callatis, Tomis, Histria were already established. Another much smaller Greek town was probably Argamum, mentioned in the horotesia of Histria ( ISM I, 67-68) and located at Capul Dolojman, but the shortage of evidence prevents any further comments on it.
During the first-third centuries AD, the three major Greek towns of the Dobrudja were civitates peregrinae , i.e. self-governing communities without Roman status. Since the foedus between Rome and Callatis that has been partly preserved attests that the latter was a civitas foederata ( ISM III, 1), for the other two cities one has also to consider every alternative status: civitates stipendiariae or civitates liberae et immunes . Nevertheless, the specific juridical status of each city-state was not of paramount importance as in practice the differences between distinct categories of civitates peregrinae had already begun to fade away from the first century AD. 17
In Callatis, all the inscriptions set by individual inhabitants are in Greek except one Latin dedication to Trajan and cives Romani consistentes Callatis led by a quinquennalis perpetuus ( ISM III, 83). According to the epigraphic evidence, at Tomis and Histria the population still spoke predominantly Greek, but in each of them one encountered a tribe of the Romans ( ISM II, 256; I, 142). A considerable part of these Roman citizens, some of them Latin speakers, were veterans. And in both these towns are attested a lot of Latin speaking soldiers on duty or buried in the place of their residence or origin. As Tomis was the largest coastal Greek city of Moesia Inferior, it is no surprise that it produced a far larger number of army-related persons than Histria. 18 It may be concluded that among the three Greek city-states of Dobrudja, Callatis best preserved its heritage and was at the same time free of any significant Roman military presence. The special situation of Callatis could derive from its privileged juridical status, from a traditional behavior characteristic of the Dorian colonists or even from its lack of importance to the Romans due to its reduced size and/or remote location. Given the meagre surviving evidence it is impossible to be more specific on this issue.
The inner part of Dobrudja was predominantly a rural area divided into the territories of the military settlements and Roman towns along the Danube frontier and of the Greek cities on the Black Sea shore (Fig. 1). It was only in the extreme south of this zone that Tropaeum Traiani developed, the third town of Dobrudja with Roman status. The Roman settlement near the Adamklissi tropaeum sprang up contemporarily with/or immediately after the inauguration of the monument in AD 109, as attested by a dedication to the emperor by Traianenses Tropaeenses in AD 116/117 ( CIL III, 12470). Several mixed vexillations were composed of soldiers from both legions I Italica and V Macedonica ( CIL III, 14214 3 ; CIL III, 14433) among which the largest, 1500 troops strong, probably worked on the construction of the monument and possibly also the settlement. 19 Later, during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, officers of legio XI Claudia offered dedications at Adamklissi which, together with other undated inscriptions set up by soldiers, prove a continual military activity on the spot ( CIL III, 7483; 14214 1 ; 14214 6 ). Sometimes before AD 170, Tropaeum Traiani was promoted to municipal status (IDRE II, 337). The town had an ordo decurionum municipii Tropaei ( CIL III, 7484 = 12461; III, 14214 4 ) and the usual series of municipal magistrates and priests: duumviri ( CIL III, 14214 2 ; 14214 6 et al.), duumviri quinquennales ( CIL III, 14437 = 12462), aediles , quaestores , sacerdotes . 20
In the remaining inner part of Dobrudja, one met only rural administrative units, most of them of Roman type: vici and villae rusticae . So, according to recent statistics of all the settlements of the Dobrudja, except the towns, 26 + 2(?) vici are attested, compared with 4 +6(?) komai and 2 pyrgoi + 2 turres (one turned into a vicus ). 21 In addition, there are at least 68 villae rusticae , 27 cemeteries and 74 isolated graves. 22
The vici had the standard Roman organization, i.e. they were led by one or usually two annually elected magistri , and when of larger size they also had a quaestor . Characteristically, most of them had Roman names: Quinctionis ( ISM I, 324-341), Secundini ( ISM I, 342-349), Casiani ( ISM I, 369-370), Celeris ( ISM I, 351-352), Clementianenses ( ISM II, 134; 136; 191), Narcissiani ( ISM II, 133), Nov ( ISM V, 233), Petra ( ISM V, 240), Ulmetum ( ISM V, 62; 63; 69), Tres Protomae ( ISM II, 53), Sc[apt]ia ( ISM II, 137), I Urb ( CIL III, 14441), Urbin 23 , Rami ( ISM V, 117). Even more significant is the presence of veterani et cives Romani consistentes in the vici : Quinctionis, Nov , Bad 24 , V ( CIL III, 14442), stro ( ISM I, 138). In addition, the site of vicus classicorum obviously settled by veterans of the fleet, but where there are only cives Romani attested proves that one has to consider the presence of the veterans also in other settlements or at least in the sites producing evidence for Roman citizens as the vici : Secundini, I Urb , Turris Muca ( ISM II, 141) and Ulmetum.
The vici settled by veterani et cives Romani , are known mostly in regio Histriae , which is partly due to the existence of better evidence for the rural sites of this area. However it is hard to see the concentration of all the inscriptions specifying veteran communities in the northern part of Dobrudja as purely casual. Therefore it results in one having to consider this region as having been extensively populated by the Roman administration, partly with veterans. An additional proof of the systematic politics of colonization of this area is that in vici Quinctionis and Ulmetum there were, besides the Roman citizens, also attested Bessi consistentes . And if Lai consistentes from vici Secundini and Turris Muca were in fact, like the Bessi, other Thracian colonists and not simply laoi , it means that in this part of Moesia Inferior it was common for people of different origins and social status to settle in the same vicus . The reason for using such a procedure consisted probably in the limited number of men available for colonization during the short period of time assigned by the Roman authorities for the development of the land.
A completely different situation is to be found in the territory of Callatis where neither communities of Roman citizens nor even rural settlements of Roman type were known except perhaps Amlaidina, if its designation as vicus in a single, funerary Latin, inscription was correct ( ISM III, 237). So one can infer that the peculiarity of the proper town of Callatis succeeded in keeping its traditional Greek character all over its rural territory.
Everywhere in the Empire the Romans built roads in order to facilitate the military traffic and the running of the imperial post cursus publicus . Hence it must not have been pure chance that the series of milestones known so far in Dobrudja begins in Trajan s reign when the number of troops quartered in the region dramatically increased and the limes was thoroughly refurbished by the erection of several new fortifications along the Danube.
Determined by the natural conditions, the network system completed by Trajan consisted of three main roads, one along the seashore, another along the Danube bank and the third running from south to the north through the middle of the land, linked together by secondary transversal roads (Fig. 2). Built by the soldiers for meeting the demands of the army and the state administration, the roads were naturally used also for the transportation of civil goods and persons and greatly promoted the economic development of the country to which they came. So it is no surprise that all the settlements of some importance were placed on the main roads, especially where they crossed with other roads. However the impact of the famous Roman roads on the local population was not always positive. On the contrary, we know about the complaints of the people from Laikos Pyrgos and Chora Dagei in regio Histriae , who asked the governors of Moesia Inferior in AD 137-141 and 160 respectively, to be spared from the abuses they were subjected to by the cursus publicus administration, otherwise they were on the point of leaving their villages and moving away from the roads ( ISM I, 378). Anyway, as proved by the milestones and some of the beneficiarii inscriptions, the network system of Dobrudja was constantly maintained in good condition and guarded by the army, even during the terrible crisis of the third century AD, and was entirely restored during the Tetrarchy and House of Constantine.

Fig. 2. The roads of Roman Dobrudja (second-fourth centuries AD), after B rbulescu 2001.
Due to the shortage of manpower in the provincial administration, the Roman authorities resorted to the army, which supplied the necessary substitutes, who had the great advantage of not demanding additional expenses. 25 If the procedure of giving soldiers administrative tasks appeared as early as the beginning of the Principate, it developed gradually until the end of the third century AD according to the strengthening of the imperial power and the decreasing of the prerogatives of the self-governing provincial communities. Not surprisingly, this process is to be found also in Dobrudja where, apart from the presence of a lot of beneficiarii , some of them acting as a police force, the direct involvement of the army is attested in the regulation of boundary disputes. Thus, in AD 177-178 landmarks were put in by the tribunus cohortis I Cilicum between civitas Ausdecensium and a Dacian community (IDRE II, 338); in AD 198-202 by the commander-in-chief of the Moesian fleet, praefectus classis , between the villa of Messia Pudentilla and vicani Buteridavenses ( ISM I, 359-360); and in AD 229, inside the territory of Capidava by one legionary centurion ( ISM V, 8; 57-58). It seems obvious that the use of the army for marking the controversial limits of communal and private estates, or of the individual plots, was due both to its capacity of imposing the observance of the dispositions taken in the name of the governors and to the technical expertise on making measurements of the land.
At the end of this survey it is worth emphasizing the main aspects of the impact of the Roman army on the local societies in the northeastern part of Moesia Inferior. From the beginning of the second century AD the presence of nearly 15,000 troops together with their followers in a small rather scarcely populated region, except for the seashore with its three Greek towns, profoundly influenced the subsequent development of the country. As all the military units were quartered along the Danube frontier, this part of Dobrudja was completely Romanised. Nevertheless the role of the army extended far beyond its forts and the civil settlements developed near them in the inner part of the region, where numerous rural settlements organized in Roman manner are attested. Even in the territories of the Greek towns of Histria and Tomis there are numerous vici settled at least partially by veterani et cives Romani , led by magistri and using Latin. And, significantly, if in the old Greek colonies of Histria, Tomis and Callatis the population still predominantly spoke Greek, one met in each of them a conventus c. R . or a tribe of the Romans. A large part of these Roman citizens were veterans and Latin speakers.
In conclusion, with the exception of the Greek towns, which kept their traditions despite the strong influence of the Roman civilization, the rest of the territory of Dobrudja was thoroughly Romanised during the Early Empire, especially as a result of the presence of a considerable number of troops.
1 For the Roman military activity until the inclusion of Dobrudja in the province of Moesia see Vulpe 1968, 13-48; Suceveanu 1991, 23-26 with bibliography.

  • Accueil Accueil
  • Univers Univers
  • Ebooks Ebooks
  • Livres audio Livres audio
  • Presse Presse
  • BD BD
  • Documents Documents