By

Şerban George Paul Drugaş

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction I

Abbreviations III

CHAPTER 1. General Ptolemaic Principles 1

1. Notes on the editions of 1

2. Outlines on the Ptolemaic maze and general methodological principles 3

3. A brief description of 20

CHAPTER 2. Ptolemaic and Modern Earth Models. Initial Methodological Framework 23

CHAPTER 3. Ptolemaic Poleis and Places in Dacia and in Adjacent areas. What We Know 31

CHAPTER 4. Establishing Local Working Algorithms 53

1. Preliminary data 53

2. Acceptable formulae (map grids) for the Northern and Dacia 64

CHAPTER 5. Calculating the Coordinates of Some Dacian Poleis from the Established Grid 77

CHAPTER 6. A Synthesis on the Local Ptolemaic Patterns in Dacia 149

CHAPTER 7. SWOT Analysis 159

CHAPTER 8. Limits, Rivers, Tribes and Neighbours of Ptolemaic Dacia 173

Conclusive remarks 197

Bibliography 205

List of Figures 229

List of Tables 231

Index 233

Introduction

The purpose of this volume is to contribute to the cartographic calculations for the poleis which appear in Ptolemy regarding Dacia, in the effort to reach a better representation of Dacia, in general, and of the of Dacia, in particular.1 The calculations done by others and the studies that I am aware of will be included in the volume. As a member of the Balkan History Association, and author of several articles in its Hiperboreea Journal, I was honoured to receive the support to pursue this subject from the Association. The main purpose of this study is not to argue on any historical or archaeological grounds, but rather to estimate positions and do the calculations and only afterwards find possible archaeological matches. Some of the poleis will be taken as references, since they are already clearly established. This is the case of , for instance, for the northern array of the Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia. I consider this study preliminary because the Ptolemaic values need much further attention, more than I can propose here. This book represents a necessary starting point for possible future debates, which will strengthen or, on the contrary, will question some paths opened here. Mapping a region of the Ptolemaic map in modern coordinates is a difficult task. The local patterns can suffer secondary alterations, as already acknowledged by other studies.2 The map of Ptolemy gathers

1 Csaba Szabó, “The Map of in the Recent Studies,” Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 1 (2014): 44-51. 2 A. Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’ Handbook of (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2009). Evangelos Livieratos, Angeliki Tsorlini, and Chryssoula Boutoura, “Coordinate analysis of Ptolemy’s Geographia Europe Tabula X with respect to geographic graticule and point positioning in a Ptolemaic late 15th century map,” e-Perimetron, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring, 2007, 80-91, accessed May 7, 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266242744_Coordinate_analysis_o f_Ptolemy′s_Geographia_Europe_Tabula_X_with_respect_to_geographic_gra ticule_and_point_positioning_in_a_Ptolemaic_late_15_th_century_map. C.

Introduction regional “patches,”3 so we need to approximate a suitable framework for Dacia, and find reasonable solutions. This is what I am trying to do in this study, for Dacia, in conjunction with some relevant neighbouring areas, such as the southern bank of the , and some locations east of Dacia proper. This study will not reject, but invite further discussions. The strongest results in the study include, however, some remarkable matches with the archaological evidences. I thank Mihai Dragnea, the Balkan History Association, and the editors of the Hiperboreea Journal for their guidings and support, which made possible the publication of this book.

The Author

Marx, “On the precision of Ptolemy′s geographic coordinates in his Geographike Hyphegesis,” History of Geo- and Space Sciences 2(1) Copernicus Publications (2011): 29- 37, http://www.hist-geo-space-sci.net/2/29/2011/hgss-2-29-2011.html. Marx, “Rectification of the ancient geographic coordinates in Ptolemy′s Geographike Hyphegesis,” History of Geo- and Space Sciences 3(1) Copernicus Publications (2012): 99-112, http://www.hist-geo-space-sci.net/3/99/2012/hgss-3-99- 2012.pdf. Sorin Forțiu, “The Translation of the Ptolemaic Coordinates into Modern Coordinates. Case Study: ,” presented at the Symposium Culture and Civilisation in the Historical , 21st ed., Section “Arheologie şi istorie veche,” 26.05.2011. Forțiu, “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis, just a classical GIGO?!,” ArheoVest, no. 1, In Memoriam Liviu Măruia, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 7 december, 2013, Vol. II, 617-643, http://arheovest.com/simpozion/arheovest1/38_617_643.pdf. I. Tupikova and K. Geus, The Circumference of the Earth and Ptolemy′s World Map (Dresden & Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2013). 3 J. Lennart Berggren and Alexander Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000). R. Darcy and W. Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland: a modern decoding,” Irish Geography 41(1) (2008): 49-69, doi: 10.1080/00750770801909375, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233191569_Ptolemy's_map_of_Ire land_A_modern_decoding. Abshire Corey et al., “Ptolemy's Britain and Ireland: A New Digital Reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the 2017 International Cartographic Conference, Washington D.C., 2017, accessed 07.03.2019, 2:42 p.m., http://pervokarta.ru/wash.pdf. C. Marx and F. Neitzel. “Deformation analysis and regional adaptation of a historical geodata inventory,” in Entwicklerforum Geoinformationstechnik, Junge Wissenschaftler forschen (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2007), 243-255.

Abreviations

Counties in Countries

AB Alba BG AR Arad HU AG Argeş RO Romania BC Bacău SRB BH Bihor BN Bistriţa-Năsăud BV Braşov BZ Buzău CS Caraş-Severin CJ Cluj CV Covasna DB Dâmboviţa DJ Dolj GR Giurgiu GJ Gorj HR Harghita HD IL Ialomiţa MH Mehedinţi NT Neamţ OT Olt PH Prahova SJ Sălaj SV Suceava TR Teleorman TM Timiş VL Vâlcea VR Vrancea VS Vaslui

CHAPTER ONE

General Ptolemaic Principles

1. Notes on the editions of Ptolemy

Ptolemy’s Geography (Γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις) was written after 150 AD. During the Middle Ages, it was cited mostly by Arab scholars. Around 1295 AD, Maximus Planudes discovered a manuscript of Geography, which was translated into Latin by Jacopo Angeli in 1406. There are two main recensions:

The manuscripts are presumably based on two recensions, the so called Ω and Ξ recension (…). The Ξ recension is bequeathed by only one manuscript (…) which ends in Book V, Chapter 13.1

Stückelberger and his collaborators2 offer information from the Ξ recension, too, which gives valuable alternative coordinates for some places, presumably closer to the original. Manuscript X3 (the only source

1 Marx,“On the precision…,” 31. Citing: A. Stückelberger et al., Ptolemy. The Handbook of Geofgraphy (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2006), 27. Cf. Marx, “Rectification…”. Dalché, 2009. 2 Klaudios Ptolemaios, “Geographia,” in Klaudios Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie, 2 vols., ed. Alfred Stückelberger et al. (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2006). Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’ Handbook of Geography. 3 Claudius Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191 (X), Greek manuscript, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ca. 1300, ff. 128v-169v. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.191, accessed 21.06.2018, 11:04 p.m. Cf. http://www.philosophie.unibe.ch/index_eng.html, last accessed March 09, 2019. Description of Renate Burri, “Übersicht über die griechischen Handschriften der ptolemäischen Geographie,” in Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’ Handbook of Geography (Klaudios Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie) (Ergänzungsband, Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2009), 13: “Konstantinopel, um 1300. Papier ohne Wasserzeichen, 340 x 250 mm, 397 Bl. … f. 128v-169v; Geogr. 1: 1-2 Kolumnen, Geogr. 2-8: 4 Kolumnen. Ptolemaios, Geographie ohne Karten… Einziger reiner Vertreter der Ξ-Recenzion.” Şerban George Paul Drugaş of the Ξ recension), as well as U4 (the main source for the Ω recension) and A5 are mentioned in the Bibliography of this volume with the on- line reference from Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. An exhaustive account of the sources is discussed by different authors in the works of Stückelberger and his collaborators. This includes Renate Burri’s presentation of the Greek manuscripts6, A. Stückelberger and Florian Mittenhuber’s history of the manuscript traditions7, Florian Mittenhuber’s comments on the editions dealing with map plotting,8 and K. Geus’ presentation of the Latin editions.9 The western culture rediscovered Ptolemy′s so called Geographia or Cosmographia in Latin translation:

The Latin translation of Jacobus Angelus was also used in the following Latin editions. Even the very first print of Ptolemy′s Geographike Hyphegesis, published by Angelus Vadius and Barnabas Picardus on November 13, 1475 in Vicenza, used his Latin translation.10

The 1475 edition is mentioned in this volume’s bibliography with a reference to the online sources. Bibliothèque Nationale de France offers, among many others, a printed edition from 1462, the very first known until today.

4 Claudius Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82 (U), Greek manuscript, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ca. 1300, accessed 22.06.2018, 01:47 a.m., https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Urb.gr.82. Description of Renate Burri, Übersicht… in Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’…, 13: “Konstantinopel, um 1300, Pergament, 575 x 418 mm, 111 Bl., 2 Kolumnen. Ptolemaios, Geographie mit Weltkarte in der einfachen Kegelprojektion bach Buch 7 und 26 Länderkarten in Buch 8. Gehörte dem florentinischen Kaufmann und Humanisten Palla Strozzi…, der die Handschrift seinen Söhnen vererbte; später im Besitz des Frederico da Montefeltro, Herzog von Urbino.” 5 Claudius Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus graecus 388, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 14th century, Accessed 22.06.2018, 02:33, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pal.gr.388. 6 R. Burri, Übersicht… in Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’…, 10-21. 7 Stemma-Entwurf in ibid., 21-25. 8 F. Mittenhuber, Karten und Kartenüberlieferung, in ibid., 34 sqq. 9 K. Geus, Lateinischer Ptolemaios, in ibid., 358 sqq. 10 Ibid., 358 (my translation).

2 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Scholars gradually realized the need to search for more sources and critical editions of Ptolemy:

The value of Jacobus’ translation has been estimated very differently. While many praise Jacobus′s scholarly and zest for life, Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, Conrad Gesner, and Willibald Pirckheimer voiced harsh criticism. (…) The criticism of Jacobus’ translation continued to be included in Ptolemy’s editions of 1482 and 1486 (by Nicolaus Germanus), 1507, 1508 (by Marcus Beneventanus and Joannes Cota), 1511 (by Bernardus Sylvanus), 1513 (by Giovanni Pico de la Mirandulla), and of 1522 (by Laurentius Fries). Even before, the editions had tabulae modernae, documenting the increase in geographic information of that time. The first edition with parallel Greek and Latin text (edited by Petrus Montanus)11 appeared in Amsterdam in 1605.

These and other editions are listed in the Bibliography of this study. The sources mentioned are sufficient to define any major aspect pertaining to the research below. The Bibliography also opens the possibility to enlarge the comparison between the sources, if necessary.

2. Outlines on the Ptolemaic maze and general methodological principles

The estimation of the Ptolemaic poleis and other places lead to conclusions which reveal the relative and fragile nature of the Ptolemaic cartographic network, Ptolemy’s map showing distortions even in well- known areas, such as Italy and parts of the Mediterranean Sea.12 This happened, firstly, because Ptolemy based his map on a few places with certain latitude and some local strings of valid distances13 on the

11 Ibid., 358-359 (my translation). 12 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 22. Cf. CARTOGRAPHY. WEB.AUTH.gr, last accessed March 9, 2019, http://cartography.web.auth.gr /Livieratos/fil/Ptolemy_Plus.html. 13 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 16-17.

3 Şerban George Paul Drugaş longitude (e. g., Via Militaris14, Via Egnatia15 etc.). For the distances in straight line between places, he often approximated, reducing the distances reported by travelers through arbitrary algorithms (e. g., reducing by one-third at one stade).16 Following the footsteps of other great cartographers, Ptolemy did not have a sufficient and completely reliable database to include into a system which was, theoretically, correct:

Ptolemy himself would not have claimed that the Geography was original in all these respects [in the astronomical principles he used, my note]. He tells us that the places and the arrangement in his map were mostly taken over from an earlier cartographer, Marinos of Tyre. Again, Ptolemy comprehended fully the superior value of astronomical observations over reported itineraries for determining geographical locations, but in this he was, on his own admission, anticipated by other geographers, notably Hipparchus three centuries earlier. Even so, he was too far ahead of his time in maintaining this principle to be able to follow it in practice, because he possessed reliable astronomical data for only a handful of places.17

The second source for errors is the inaccurate copying of the original information, in several manuscripts. Such errors can be corrected if they are compared to other sources, but even so they can pose difficulty. For instance,

14 TABULA-PEUTINGERIANA.de, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://www.tabula-peutingeriana.de/sources.html?typ=im_dx. Matthew Larnach, All roads lead to Constantinople: Exploring the Via Militaris in the medieval Balkans, 600-1204 (Sidney: The Medieval and Early Modern Centre, University of Sydney, 2016). Forțiu, “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis…,” 625: Singidounon– Tibiskos–Danubios–Trikornion–Ouiminakion. 15 G. Philip Curti, “The Via Egnatia: ′s Traverse Of A Multi-Cultural Marchland,” The Geographical Bulletin 5 (1979): 9-15, https://gammathetaupsilon.org/the-geographical- bulletin/1970s/volume05/article3.pdf. 16 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 17. 17 Ibid., 3.

4 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

From the first screening of the point placements, some obvious misprints in point-coordinates were more than evident, like e.g. Thessaloniki, which in both the Germanus and the Müller lists is given with latitude 49° 20′ instead of 40° 20′.18

The coordinate which could benefit of a reliable determination in the time of Ptolemy was the latitude. Some principles available at that time offered the possibility of a precise calculation, if some facts were known about a certain location. I quote only two of those principles, mentioned by Berggren and Jones:

(1) “the ratios of an upright stick (gnōmōn) to its shadow on the longest and shortest days of the year, as well as in the equinoxes;” (2) “the amount by which the longest day of the year exceeds the equinoctial day (…).”19

The first of these principles was used by Pytheas of Massalia (ca. 330 BC) in his expedition along the Atlantic coast of Europe.20 Ptolemy, following the tradition before him, used the second principle to mark some reference parallels, which were eventually correlated with some very well-known places. Not using parallels with equal degrees to define the klimata (“inclinations,” i. e., strips between two close parallels, sg. klima) is “awkward from a modern perspective.”21 However, Ptolemy and all the cartographers of the ancient tradition used

“The latitudes corresponding to the regular sequence of increments in daylight,” which “are not equally spaced, but become more crowded the further we get from the equator. For this reason Ptolemy uses quarter-hour increments until he reaches the parallel for which the longest day s 15½ hours, and increments of half an hour thereafter until he reaches

18 Livieratos, Tsorlini, and Boutoura, “Coordinate analysis of Ptolemy’s Geographia…,” 83. 19 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 9. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 10.

5 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

the parallel that he believes marks the northern limit of the known world, where the longest day is twenty hours.”22

Posidonius, Marinos, and then Ptolemy defined the major climate zones as: one “torrid” (12° N, 12° S), two “temperate” and two “frigid.”23 The klimata were used to define narrow strips with identical climatic features. Determining the parallel of a known location was possible in the time of Ptolemy. However, obtaining valid geo-astronomical data for a certain location was harder as that location was farther from the cartographer’s point of observation. Ptolemy was not an exception in this respect, but, as mentioned before, he also had a hard time finding such valid data. Thus, sometimes he resorted to a less scientific method. For instance, he used some approximated climatic resemblances between two locations. Using such a principle to ascertain the latitude of a location points to one of the frailties of the Ptolemaic final product:

Ptolemy occasionally makes use of the principle that climate (including) the range of plant and animal life and the appearance of the human inhabitants is dependent on latitude to deduce that localities sharing the same climate must be at approximately the same distance from the equator.24

Hipparchus was, according to Ptolemy, the only one who transmitted the parallels of some known places.25 Ptolemy took most of them from Hipparchus. Since many of the reference places for parallels, drawn on intervals guided by the principle of the increment of the equinoctial day, were taken from areas known by Phoenicians and Greeks, they were also not far from Dacia. Some of these values are significant for the Ptolemaic data on Dacia. These points are, with identical values in Hipparchus: the mouth of the river Borysthenēs (16 h, 48°30′, error 2½°), the mouth of the river Tanais (15½ h, 45°), Byzantion (equally as Massalia 15¼ h, error 2½° for Byzantion), Hellespont (15h, 40°55′), and Rhodes (14½ h, 36°).26 The latitude of Rhodes was traditionally used “as the central east-west

22 Ibid., 9. 23 Ibid., 13. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., 28. 26 Ibid., 10, 29.

6 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia axis of the known world,”27 from which Ptolemy takes the 30° angle for the solstice sunrise / sunset (which is ca. 24° at the equator and larger towards the poles).28 Ptolemy did not use the more accurate value of Hipparchus for Babylon (32°30′N), but rather the Babylonian tradition which gave him 35°N.29 He did not make his own estimation with the gnōmōn for Alexandria, but he followed Hipparchus, with 30°58′ instead of 31°13′N.30 Ptolemy used the principle of time for the longitude, recommending meridians at 5°, at “intervals of a third of an equinoctial hour.”31 Although pointing to a correct principle, calculating the longitude by using this principle leads to an estimation, due to the scarcity of the accurate data:

The only astronomical method available in antiquity for determining the interval in longitude between two places was to establish the difference in equinoctial hours between noon at the places in question by observing the local times of a lunar eclipse in both places.32

Ptolemy used the lunar eclipse that occurred during the battle of Gaugamela near Arbēla, when Alexander the Great defeated Darius III (30 September 331 BC), to calculate a 45°10′ longitude between Carthage and Arbēla. This was, most likely, the only such data used by Ptolemy – which was inaccurate, since between Carthage and Arbēla there are ca. 45° (furthermore, a value in stades closer to reality resulted from the smaller equatorial circumference used by Ptolemy).He used the information from itineraries to approximate longitudes. Thus, the errors in longitude were much greater than those in latitude, although, as we saw, many latitudes were gross approximations, as well.33 The meridian zero was vaguely described by Ptolemy as passing through the Islands of the Blessed, which are most likely located in the Atlantic Ocean, near the coast of Africa. Because of the name of one of

27 Ibid., 15. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 29. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., 11. 32 Ibid., 29. 33 Ibid., 29-30. Tupikova and Geus, The Circumference of the Earth….

7 Şerban George Paul Drugaş the islands (Canaria), it was assumed that they were the Canary Islands.34 However, other studies convincingly showed that both Marinos of Tyre and Claudius Ptolemaeus were aware of the islands of Cape Verde and chose them as the location to establish longitude zero, which is the modern longitude of ca. 25° W.35 While calculating the latitudes was already done accurately in Antiquity by using the length of the shadow of a standard pole (method used by Eratosthenes, 3rd century BC), the longitude only started to be measured in the 18th century.36 Marinos of Tyre and Ptolemy only knew a few accurate latitudes of the places in their maps, and the accurate distances between the poleis mainly within the . The observation that scale differences are due to “Ptolemy′s overestimation of the longitudinal dimension of the Ecumene (180° to the most eastern place in China instead of about 130°)”37 affects the operation of establishing a universal reference for the longitude. The local grids are only roughly correlated to the entire oikoumenē. Eratosthenes estimated that the equator′s circumference would have 250,000 stades (of ca. 185 m), meaning that an equatorial degree would have 700 stades (15% too large).38 Ptolemy reduced the equator′s

34 A. Tsorlini and E. Livieratos, “A digital approach in eliminating the higher order systematic effects in Ptolemy′s Geographia longitude and latitude differences,” in XXIII International Cartographic Conference (Moscow, 2007), accessed 14.05.2018, http://xeee.web.auth.gr/ICA-Heritage/Commission/ Tsorlini_Livieratos_MOSCOW.pdf, 1. Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’…, 240. 35 H. Reichert,“Ptolemaeus,” in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, ed. H. Beck, D. Geuenich, and H. Steuer, Vol. 23, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). D. R. Rawlins,“The Ptolemy Geography′s Secrets,” The International Journal of Scientific History 14 (2008): 573. M. J. Ferrar, The Text of Marinus the Tyrian and Claudius Ptolemy: ”Geographia”, Book 4, chapters 1,6, 7 and 8. The west coast of “Libya” explored, the Zero longitude determined and the East Coast capes located (2009, updated April 2018), accesed 6.05.2018, http://www.cartographyunchained.com/cp4.html. Marx, “Rectification…,” 100: a better ascertained, but still approximated, assumed, zero degree longitude of the Ptolemaic system: “− 25º10' is the modern longitude of Santa Antão, the most western island of the Cape Verde Islands.” 36 Forțiu, “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis…,” 627. 37 Marx, “Rectification…,” 101. 38 Ibid., 20.

8 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia circumference at 180,000 stades, meaning an equatorial degree would have 500 stades (ca. 18% too small).39 Both used an oikoumenē of a quarter of the Earth′s sphere, bordered by a half of the equator and a meridian circle. Ptolemy′s world map was thus plotted from 63°N to 16°S.40 The intrinsic margin of error given by the Ptolemaic coordinates is of 5′, since the smallest subdivision of the degree he used was 1 °.41 However, 12 Ptolemy′s coordinates of exact places on his map are affected by many other inaccuracies, different in origin from one area to another and different for the latitude than for the longitude:

This follows from the independent and different measurement of longitudes (mainly terrestrial) and latitudes (terrestrial; Gnomon; length of the longest day) in the antiquity and Ptolemy′s determination of coordinates from travel reports and itineraries, which only provided distances and no detailed directions, so that the accuracy of a determined position probably differs in longitude and latitude.42

We can determine if the places on Ptolemy′s map were oriented by him according to a good or bad value of the reference latitude, only for clearly identified places. The longitudes are only approximated transpositions from the information of the itineraries. This is also the case for many latitudes. Thus, it is impossible to make a unitary grid for Ptolemy′s locations, disregarding the local patterns. This also makes impossible any “grand calculation,” of a global scale, of the Ptolemaic sites. Christian Marx wrote, in the Introduction of one of his articles, something optimistic and in contradiction to my assumption above, about the impossibility of any “grand calculation” of the Ptolemaic coordinates:

The following investigation is a first statistical analysis of the precision of the Ptolemaic geographic coordinates in terms

39 Ibid., 21. Cf. Sorin Forţiu, in Ptolemaic Context (Brăila: Editura Sfântul Ierarh Nicolae, 2012), 106. 40 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 20-22. 41 Marx,“On the precision…,” 30. Marx, “Rectification…,” 101. 42 Marx,“On the precision…,” 30-31.

9 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

of their resolution. This precision needs to be distinguished from the accuracy in terms of the actual errors (random, systematic, gross), however, the resolution and the size of the random errors are associated.43

Since many of Ptolemy’s places on the map are unidentified with concrete sites, the author could have made his statistical calculations only based on the Ptolemaic data. Thus, he concluded that

The most precise coordinates are to be found in Greece, Macedonia and Italy, followed by the Iberian Peninsula. Less precise are the coordinates in Southeastern and Eastern Europe, followed by the Near East, Central and Western Europe and Africa. In Asia, east of the Caspian Sea the coordinates are the least precise. This arrangement obviously reflects the sphere of control and area influence of the Roman Empire, from which we can assume, that there were more accurate measurements and more geographic information available.44

For the region of Dacia, in the same article, the average resolution is 25 km for the longitude and 22 km for the latitude. For Greece, the average resolution is 16–15 km. For Italy, it ia 17–16 km, while for Germany, 29-26 km.45 This means that, ideally, we should find the unidentified places by using those resolutions, as well as identified places. Inaccuracies can have various and unexpected origins, as Ch. Marx realizes. Thus, working with the concrete values offered by Ptolemy for various known locations, many “disappointments” can appear, which cannot give too much hope for the more obscure ones. The inherent inaccuracies of the Ptolemaic data, due to the variable reliability of the data that Ptolemy obtained in different manners, add to the purely methodological inaccuracies analyzed by Ch. Marx.46 The difficulty for Ptolemy to input enough reliable data in a relatively acceptable cartographic system makes the discrepancy between the sensation of acceptable accuracy given by the scientific principles he uses and many

43 Ibid., 29. 44 Ibid., 36-37. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.

10 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia gross errors even for some well known places, on which his map’s network should rely (see above the example of Alexandria, Byzantion, mouth of R. Borysthenēs etc.; cf. the inaccurate orientation of Italy47). This explains mostly by itself the pertinence of the criticism48 given to “geodetic-statistical analysis,” undertaken by the researchers of the Institut für Geodäsie und Geoinformationstechnik, Technische Universität of Berlin, with results published by Christian Marx and Andreas Kleineberg.49 In a later article, Ch. Marx wrote that

Regardless of which zero meridian is taken into account, there remain large deviations between the converted ancient and the modern longitudes. Also, ancient and modern latitudes often differ considerably. Regarding the identification of places, it is of interest whether the coordinate differences contain systematic components. If so, they can be described by a mathematical function, and the positions of unidentified places can be rectified.50

That article sought the “mathematical function” that would allow the corrections. Indeed, if we possessed such a formula, any Ptolemaic set of coordinates could be immediately transformed in a modern pair of coordinates. However, as expected, the article engages in many statistical analyses, finding no formula or, at least, a system of formulas, which would solve the Ptolemaic puzzle, just like the collective books to which Marx referred.51

47 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 20-22. 48 Forțiu, “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis…” 49 A. Kleineberg et al., and the Thule Island (Germania und die Insel Thule. Die Entschlüsselung von Ptolemaios’ “Atlas der Oikumene.”) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010). A. Kleineberg, C. Marx, and D. Lelgemann, Europe in the Geography of Ptolemy (Europa in der Geographie des Ptolemaios. Die Entschlüsselung des “Atlas der Oikumene”: Zwischen Orkney, Gibraltar und den Dinariden) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2012). Marx, “Rectification…” 50 Marx, “Rectification…,” 100. 51 Marx, “Rectification…,” 100. Kleineberg et al., Germania…. Kleineberg et al., Europe….

11 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Beginning the explanations of the method with Illyricum, Marx shows that

The difference vectors (ΔλΔφ)T are shown in…. They have varying directions and often magnitudes of 2° to 3° in longitude and 1 ° to 1° in latitude. However, there are also 2 vectors which are similar to each other. That indicates systematic errors (distortions).52

The purpose of all the statistic exercises is to determine such systematic errors. They are the basis for finding a pattern of those distortions, at least on relatively restrained areas of the Ptolemaic map. However, all the statistics are based on known locations, and they cannot be used, in any statistical context, to extrapolate patterns that can be used further. The problem is not in finding patterns, but in explaining why they occur as they do in a certain area and in attributing a certain pattern to an unknown area. In the region of the Istrian peninsula, east of Italy, two main patterns can be noticed, one with the vector oriented eastward, and another oriented north-east, with almost the same distance of distortion. Should we like to identify an unknown Ptolemaic place there, we would not know whether we should apply one of the distortion patterns (marked here as 1) or the other (marked here as 2), the combination of their vectors, or none. Considering the arrowhead positions, from North to South, the occurrence of the two patterns is: 1-1-2-2-1-1-2, with the additional observation that a third distortion is not a typical 2-type, since it is slightly displaced towards north-east.53 Marx points out the difference between georeferencing the historical maps in general and the endeavor to find acceptable rectification for the Ptolemaic system, enumerating the problems of the last.54 However, he keeps the confidence that “a promising approach is a combinatorial analysis of the observations.”55 The stage of this procedure would be:

1. Initial solution: analysis of the precision of the coordinate values, determining approximate values for the scales, generating initial subsets of places with similar distortions;

52 Marx, “Rectification…,” 100. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 103. 55 Ibid.

12 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

2. Modified MSS-method: searching for consistent transformation units in the initial subsets; 3. Forward-strategy: searching for the best possible merging of unassigned places with transformation units; 4. Verification of the scales: testing the suppositional scales introduced in step 1 for validity by an adjustment of scales; 5. Merging the transformation units: testing neighboring transformation units for the possibility to merge them; 6. Post processing: visually checking and manually improving of the results.56

In my opinion, such a method is not always enough to identify unknown Ptolemaic locations without the support of some external clues. The systematic errors, when they occur, usually cannot be translated into precise mathematic formulas of which we would be sure to work for any other unknown location in the area. Such an opportunity would be salutary, but, unfortunately, it is not the case. The local patterns are only plausible indications for the identification of a certain unknown Ptolemaic place. Therefore, does Ptolemy’s work have a scientific cartographic worth? Although its insufficient data for that time must be considered, when the coordinates are input or kept correctly, the Ptolemy’s system manages to distribute its poleis and other places at good estimations from one to another, working in restrained areas. Why does it work better on poleis arrays, from the same area or province, or from some proximity? Ptolemy’s latitudes are better than the longitudes, as expected,57 while mainly on longitude, his local maps suffer local displacements. This happens, as explained above, because many of Ptolemy’s data come from itineraries. So, if a major reference point of an east-west itinerary is displaced eastward or westward, it drags a whole net of coordinates with it in the same direction. An example of such “systematic errors” is that the whole Italian peninsula is displaced eastwards (see Fig. 1-1: a map made with Ptolemaic coordinates in one of the earliest known manuscripts).

56 Ibid. 57 Cf. also Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 52.

13 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 1-1. The Map of Italy. Source: Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82 (U).58

58 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82, ff. 0071v- 0072r.

14 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Another observation is that the errors within the intrinsic margins of the Ptolemaic method (5′P/Ptolemaic = ca. 6′/modern, since Ptolemy′s earth is smaller than the real one) can cumulate in the same direction. Thus, if a Ptolemaic place is displaced with only 6′ in a certain direction, a displacement of the next place in an array or in the same area could be added, with a maximum value, in the same direction, and so on. So, even if the Ptolemaic places respect the intrinsic margins of error, the maximum relative distances for two neighboring poleis is of 12′, and not 6′. The use of the Ptolemaic system, as a guide for historians, is, therefore, emerging through the amount of impediments mentioned above, because the author used principles that were scientifically sound, although he had a very hard time obtaining precise data to input in it. This is why Ptolemy must be studied as a cartographic tool, but always corroborated with the precise historical data that we have, to make local adjustments. Since Italy, presented below, gained the odd shape displaced eastward, how does the Ptolemaic system generally represent Dacia, this study’s direct subject? A map from the same source shows that there are some trends of displacements in Dacia, but not aligned in one direction, and depending on the “tensions” induced by the adjacent areas (Fig. 1-2 and 1-3). So, Dacia seems to be enlarged somehow east-west, while the lower Danube enters too much inside Dacia’s territory from the east and in the north-eastern direction.

15 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 1-2. The Map of Dacia. Source: Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82 (U).59

59 Ibid., ff. 0077v-0078r.

16 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 1-3. Dacia and its neighborhood. Source: Ptolemy, 1462.60

Studies that use the modern geodetic method work to map the coordinates of Ptolemy, including Dacia (Fig. 1-4, A and B). Such results, available online, are presented in the two maps below.

60 Claude Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, Reprod., ed. Dominici de Lapis, Bononiae, 1462, accessed 18.06.2018, 5:51 p.m., http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k60294x/f1.image.

17 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 1-4 A. Part of Dacia with Ptolemaic coordinates. Source: the site of Hans van Deukeren (accessed 22.06.2018).61

61 CASEMA.nl, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://members.casema.nl/h.vandeukeren/histotron/056n48sc05.htm.

18 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 1-4 B. Part of Dacia and Inferior with Ptolemaic coordinates. Source: the site of Hans van Deukeren (accessed 22.06.2018).62

62 CASEMA.nl.

19 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The first thing possible is to approximate a local grid or grids as reference and try to identify some chains or series of places that are in agreement with each other. From this, I will continue with the calculation of the relative position of the unknown Ptolemaic locations from the close known ones. The calculation will be done in degrees and in approximated distance units (km). Therefore, the following methods will be observed in the further construction of this study:

(1) Establishing local grids and noticing the differences between them. (2) Calculating local shifts (displacements). (3) Calculating the distance from a reference point. Checking the distances in kilometers is an optional or alternative method, but this study will use the direct results in degrees. (4) Search for suitable archaeological sites in the estimated area. (5) Discussions the plausibility of the estimations.

It should be noted that I use the verb “to estimate” and not “to identify,” because the latter term needs the material confirmation that a certain archaeological site can be correlated with a Ptolemaic location. Some of the Ptolemaic locations in Dacia benefit from identifications, and they will also be subject to analyses relative to each other, to see the local pattern(s) or the erratic distortions they reveal. For the unidentified Ptolemaic locations, the best I can do are estimations and observations on the local context.

3. A brief description of Dacia

The Romans first used the name of Dacia with two purposes: to denominate the kingdom of Burebistas (and afterwards of ), and to define the territory inhabited by the , in general. The Greeks referred to the population of the same land, north of the Danube, by the name Γέται (), and saw them as a part of the larger branch of the . highlighted the fine division between “Getae, those who incline towards the Pontus and the east, and Daci, those who incline in the opposite direction towards Germany and the sources of the Ister.”63 Nevertheless, the two populations were usually considered as

63 Strabo 3.7.13. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, ed. H. L. Jones (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1954), 213.

20 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia one people, as I will also present in this study. The differentiation of the Dacians occurred at the beginning of the Iron Age. The farthermost limits reached by Dacian communities and their davae (fortresses), can be traced from Oder to Rodope, and from the Adriatic Sea to the northwest of the .64 However, the name of Dacia was never used for this large territory, but was restricted to the area dominated by the Dacians. The largest political boundaries of the Dacian kingdom were reached in the time of King Burebistas (1st century BC). The expeditions of Burebistas against the , in the west, and against the Greek colonies, in the east, ensured his reign for a few decades, from the river Danube, between the Czech Republic and , and to the western shore of the Black Sea. This expansion favored new penetrations of Dacian populations in the conquered areas. The kingdom of Decebalus (1st century AD) covered better the core area of the Dacian population, between the rivers Tisa, and Danube.65 The Roman province of Dacia (106-273 AD) included within its borders only a part of the Dacian territory, between the rivers Someş, in the north, Danube, in the south, Olt, in the east, and the Western Carpathians, in the west.66 Many outposts doubled the security of the frontier, from a certain distance beyond it.67

64 Vasile Pârvan, , ed. Radu Florescu (: Editura Meridiane, 1982), 28. 65 Ibid. 66 René Ployer, Marinus Polak, and Ricarda Schmidt, The Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Tematic Study and Proposed World Heritage Nomination Strategy. Advised by Icomos-International and commissioned by the Intergovernmental Committee of the ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire’ World Heritage Site (UK, DE) and the Bratislava Group (Bundesdenkmalamt Österreich | Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen | Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege: Vienna / Nijmegen / Munich, 2017), 42-43. 67 Limestomania.ro, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://limesromania.ro/ro/ articole/situri-arheologice/.

21

CHAPTER TWO

Ptolemaic and Modern Earth Models. Initial Methodological Framework

Before starting any of the above mentioned operations, we should acquire the necessary information about the relations between the coordinates on latitude and longitude, and maybe the distances (in kilometers), both in modern and in Ptolemaic models, then corroborating them. Most of the modern models try to adjust the geoid, while some still follow a spherical approximation. The Ptolemaic model is spherical, while the projection used to obtain the map is the cone or the cylinder. These were the most recommended by Ptolemy and used by those who actually did the plotting operation, in manuscripts and subsequent editions.68 I will start by presenting some useful data from modern models: relations between the coordinate system and the distance (in kilometers), as given in the tables below. One degree of longitude decreases if measured as distance (in kilometers). The equator has the longest circumference of all the parallels. The exact length of the equatorial circumference is ca. 40,075 km. The results depend on how someone interprets the Greek stadia, knowing that Ptolemy was using 180,000 st as the measure of the equator, the whole sphere of the earth being smaller in his work by about 18%.69 Based on this relation, the distance for the Ptolemaic degrees between two points (see Fig. 2-1) is seen as following:

68 Cf. European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation. WGS 84 Implementation Manual, Version 2.4 (Brussels and Munich: EUROCONTROL, Institute of Geodesy and Navigation, University FAF, February 12, 1998), 93-95. 69 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 21. The same reference, given also above, is quoted by Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 51. Forţiu, Ziridava…, 106, found another value, of 16.915%, see above. Şerban George Paul Drugaş

d' = δ + Dd,70 where we have: d = Ptolemy’s parallels (p) or meridians (m); δ = displacement of a region; D = the systemic difference between the Ptolemy’s and the real Earth; and d' = estimates (p', m') of the modern parallels or meridians. The constant D was usually estimated at about 0.82, and its estimation depends on Ptolemy’s length of the equator (180,000 stades) relative to the real Earth. Researchers generally admit that “180,000 is too round to be considered precise.”71 Darcy and Flynn, admitted that

the stade was a measure of distance used by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and, depending on the time and place, varied from about 150 to about 200 meters.72

They corrected D at 0.8165 (I will tag it as ℰ). Forţiu, using the Attic stade, corrected D at ca. 0.83 (I will tag it as ℱ), considering that

for Ptolemy, the Equator had 33296.4 km in length (= 180000 sta x 184.98 m)*. But we know today the equatorial circumference of the Earth is 40075.017 km. Thus, Ptolemy believed the Earth was by 16.915% smaller then it is in reality. *1 sta (Attic stadium) = 184.98 m.73

To obtain the kilometers between two longitudinal or latitudinal coordinates one may use the data for the actual Earth in the area of Dacia, as given in the Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Establishing local corrections and using the mentioned data should give a correct estimation, for a supposingly correct Ptolemaic data. For some of the Ptolemaic coordinates we will need to pay attention to the difference between the recensions, and some will need obvious corrections.

70 Cf. Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 51 use only different annotations. 71 Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…, 21 note 21 apud ibid., 55. 72 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 55. 73 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 106.

24 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 2-1. Modern and Ptolemaic Earth (Original composition)

Darcy and Flynn calibrated the general transformation formula with the displacement by 5° of Ireland and considering Hierro in the Canaries (17° 58′ W)74 as the zero meridian of Ptolemy. As mentioned earlier, Cape Verde could be a better interpretation for it. However, for Dacia, this discussion is of no consequence, but is rather establishing good local references. Therefore, we will need to make different calibrations, in direct relation with the data for Dacia. The length from the equator to one of the poles is 10,000,000 m, because the definition of the meter is based on this length of the meridian. This is the first answer given by Weintrit in an article dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, are there other answers, too? The answer is yes, because the measurements have improved since the meter was defined (the second answer in the same reference), thus now we can use a distance of ca. 10,002 kilometers. And the last answer is that

Frankly speaking, all five answers are correct, and also... completely wrong. First of all we should decide what length unit we will use for the measurement, what model of the Earth will be used for our calculations, and the accuracy of the result we expect. We know already that the Earth is not

74 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 51-52.

25 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

a sphere; therefore our calculations should be a bit more difficult. We will use the ellipsoid of revolution. Early literature uses the term oblate spheroid to describe a sphere squashed at the poles. Modern literature uses the term ellipsoid of revolution although the qualifying words of revolution are usually dropped. An ellipsoid which is not an ellipsoid of revolution is called a tri‐axial ellipsoid. Spheroid and ellipsoid are used interchangeably in this paper. Currently we use to navigate the ellipsoid WGS‐84.75 The WGS‐84 meridional ellipse has an ellipticity = 0.081819191.76

Finally,

Now we can surely state that for the WGS‐84 ellipsoid of revolution the distance from equator to pole is 10,001,965.729 m, which was confirmed by a number of geometric and geodesic calculations presented in the paper.77

The distances on the longitude, for one degree latitude are almost the same, diminishing only a little as we go towards the poles, in the models based on the approximation of the geoid. Darcy and Flynn give a general approximation for the length of one latitude degree, of 111.325 km. I show below (Table 2-2), for comparison, and for the latitudes of Dacia, different calculations, also issued by the great circle system, to which they refer.78 If LD = length of one latitude degree, p1,2 = parallels, m1,2 = meridians, p′ or m′ = estimated parallel or meridian, k = the great circle kilometers, following Darcy and Flynn, we have the following transformation formulae:

(1) On a given parallel, k = LD x cos(p1) x |m1 - m2|.

75 World Geodetic System 1984, in. WGS 84 Implementation Manual, edited by the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation. 76 A. Weintrit,“So, What is Actually the Distance from the Equator to the Pole? Overview of the Meridian Distance Approximations,” TransNav, The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 7(2) (2013): 259-272, http://www.transnav.eu, 250. 77 Ibid., 271. 78 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 52.

26 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

(2) “The great circle kilometer distance, k, between two locations,” k = LD x arccos (sin(p1) x sin (p2 ) + cos(p1) x cos(p2) x cos |m1 - m2|). (3) “The difference in kilometers between the corrected Ptolemy estimates for a particular location and modern coordinates,” k = LD x arccos (sin(p) x sin(p′) + cos(p) + cos(p′) + cos |m - m′|).79

The Great Circle equations are employed on specialized sites, for different modern Earth Models. Thus, along with the first equation above, I will use the results in the tables below for the calculations in this study.

Table 2-1. Distance in km of 1 degree longitude, on various longitudes. Original composition, with data from Great Circle Calculator, by Ed Williams. Available at: http://edwilliams.org/gccalc.htm.

Latitude Earth Models WGS84/NAD83/ Spherical FAI Clarke GRS80 (1′ = 1n mile) sphere (1866)/NAD27 43.50 (43° 80.8761919730115 80.6031153450 80.657464 80.878499793457 30′ 0″ N) 6 7028 88152323 44 43.6667 80.6533812245060 80.3802727418 80.434472 80.655691445763 (43° 40′ N) 5 3538 01926149 52 44 80.2057018555851 79.9325490395 79.986446 80.208016681708 9 6271 42419214 63 44.25 (44° 79.8681489886277 79.5949800407 79.648649 79.870467094328 15′ 0″ N) 5121 80814694 02 44.50 (44° 79.5290659573115 79.2558957048 79.309336 79.531387191587 30′ 0″ N) 3 8368 83309372 75 44.75 (44° 79.1884590809674 78.9153024877 78.968513 79.190783291224 45′ 0″ N) 2386 95957572 68 45 78.8463347095924 78.5732068746 78.626187 78.848661741663 4 4084 67687609 05 45.25 (45° 78.5026992237521 78.2296153787 78.282364 78.505028921917 15′ 0″ N) 9 6227 5028945 56 45.50 (45° 78.1575590344829 77.8845345424 77.937050 78.159891241494 30′ 0″ N) 7 9104 98402243 66 45.75 (45° 77.8109205831911 77.5379709356 77.590253 77.813255140293 45′ 0″ N) 5 406 69501909 75

79 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 51-52.

27 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

46 77.4627903415544 77.1899311573 77.241979 77.465127088507 4 124 23888565 8 46.25 (46° 77.1131748114200 76.8404218336 76.892234 77.115513586521 15′ 0″ N) 4 1021 2467398 31 46.50 (46° 76.762080524703 76.4894496194 76.541025 76.764421164809 30′ 0″ N) 7133 3776891 96 46.75 (46° 76.4095140432830 76.1370211973 76.188359 … 45′ 0″ N) 7 0003 3187045 47 76.0554819589016 75.7831432774 75.834242 4 6531 78449261 47.25 (47° 75.6999908930564 75.4278225973 75.478682 15′ 0″ N) 1 2317 51736798 47.50 (47° 75.3430474968967 75.0710659223 75.121685 30′ 0″ N) 4 7127 28712452 47.75 (47° 74.9846584511169 74.7128800453 74.763257 45′ 0″ N) 7 3024 89090667 48 74.6248304658494 74.3532717855 74.403407 1 6346 1530799 48.25 (48° 74.2635702805554 73.9922479903 74.042139 15′ 0″ N) 7 0615 92510065 48.50 (48° 73.9008846639180 73.6298155331 73.679463 30′ 0″ N) 9 2066 08538577 48.75 (48° 73.5367804137309 73.2659813145 73.315383 45′ 0″ N) 2 1851 53918174 Latitude Krasovsky Bessel (1841) WGS72 43.50 80.8775430150856 80.8664260412 80.876165 (43°30′N) 8 716 41674187 43.6667 80.6547284315080 80.6436398387 80.653354 (43° 40′ N) 2 2937 73406236 44 80.2070413598471 80.1960098474 80.205675 1 0357 49758485 44.25 (44° 79.8694826874622 79.8584942632 79.868122 15′ 0″ N) 1 9071 73065169 44.50 (44° 79.5303938265420 79.5194487284 79.529039 30′ 0″ N) 8 9835 7999522 44.75 (44° 79.1897810965461 79.1788795620 79.188433 45′ 0″ N) 3 7116 02481629 45 78.8476508475997 78.8367931137 78.846308 5 1209 75524084 45.25 (45° 78.5040094603978 78.4931957636 78.502673 15′ 0″ N) 2 8316 37179075

28 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

45.50 (45° 78.1588633461052 78.1480939227 78.157533 30′ 0″ N) 6 074 28550124 45.75 (45° 77.8122189462587 77.8014940318 77.810894 45′ 0″ N) 1 6881 93777863 46 77.4640827326649 77.4534025625 77.462764 6 132 8002991 46.25 (46° 77.1144612073010 77.1038260161 77.113149 15′ 0″ N) 6 4644 37490982 46.50 (46° 76.7633609022124 76.7527709243 76.762055 30′ 0″ N) 1 3236 19352457

Table 2-2. On the same longitude, km of 1 degree latitude. On different Earth Models. Data from Great Circle Calculator, by Ed Williams. Available online at: http://edwilliams.org/gccalc.htm.

Between WGS84/NAD83/ Clarke Inter- Krasovsky degrees GRS80 (1866)/NA national D27 44-45 111.122008262809 111.121010 111.125540 111.123918 19 106244 6108795 3514293 45-46 111.141548474209 111.140767 111.145164 111.143456 31 705672 307587 091643 46-47 111.161082503830 111.160519 111.164781 111.162987 16 118973 820477 650039 47-48 111.180586533905 111.180240 111.184369 111.182489 45 263136 229916 211862 Between Bessel (1841) WGS72 Spherical FAI sphere 44-45 111.109712850770 111.121975 111.119999 111.194926 26 266685 999988 586050 45-46 111.129192306120 111.141515 111.119999 111.194926 19 290067 999988 591872 46-47 111.148665581806 111.161049 111.120000 111.194926 47 131676 000029 597690 47-48 111.168108934184 111.180552 111.119999 111.194926 07 973974 999988 603497

29

CHAPTER THREE

Ptolemaic Poleis and Places in Dacia and in Adjacent Areas. What We Know

Some of the reference places mentioned for Dacia and the neighboring regions are well known, others not as much. Considering what we know must be the first step. Any identification of some poleis in Dacia and in the neighboring areas that could help the identification of the others constitutes main information. This is why I will begin any analysis from the data given below, from various editions of Ptolemy’s Geography, from manuscripts to printed editions. Once I will mention the Greek and Latin parallel names that appeared in various editions of Ptolemy, to simplify, I may work further mainly with only one of the names referred to a particular or place. The chapter for Δακίας ϑέσις / Daciae situs / The arrangement of Dacia (Εὐρώπης πίναξ ϑ′./ Europae tabula nona) in Ptolemy is book 3, chapter 8. He begins by defining the borders:

Dacia is bordered on the north by the European part of Sarmatia, which is from the Carpathian mountain up to the end, where the mentioned inflexion of the river Tyras, is placed, as we said, at 53° 48°30′80; at west, (it is bordered by) the Resettled [Ἰάζυγες οἱ Μετανάσται/ Iazyges Metanastæ], on the river [Τιβίσκον ποταμόν/ T. fluvium]; and at south by a part of the Danube river [ὁ Δανούβιος ποταμόν/ Danubium fluvium], from the mouth

80 Always longitude first, then latitude, in Ptolemy’s manner. The same in the Ξ- recesnion’s mss. X, represented by Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191. Ibid., f. 0321 of the entire codex, f. 0147r: νγ′ μη ℒ ′= 53° 48°30′. Şerban George Paul Drugaş

of the river Tibiscum81 to Axiopolis [Αξιόπολις], from which to its flowing into the sea, the Danube is called Istros [Ἴστρος/ Ister].82

The following section describes the parts of the Dacian Danube:

Which has its arrangement, by parts, as follows: first, the inflexion after the mouth of river Tibiscum to Liba83 [?] [λίβα(ν)/ Africum ???] 47°20′ 44°45′; (the inflexion) next to the mouth of the Rhabon [Ῥαβῶνος], which flows from Dacia 49° 43°30′ (44°30′ X84); (next to) the mouth of the Kia(m)b(r)os [Κιά(μ)β(ρ)ου85] 49°30′ 43°45′86; next to the mouth of the Alouta [Ἀλούτα/ Alouta(m)], which, coming

81 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, ff. 128v- 169v. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.191, accessed 21.06.2018, 11:04 p.m., 0147r: (τίβισκον). 82 Ibid., 0147r (0321). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47 (Dacie situs). Claude Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, Reprod., ed. Hermann Levilapide, 1475, accessed 18.06.2018, 5:41 p.m., http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k587883/f2.image, 102. Claude Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. into Latin by Jacobus Angelus, ed. Hermann Levilapide, Vicenza, 1475, accessed 21.06.2018, 12:45 p.m., https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55010480t/f1.image, 101. Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geographia, Libri octo, Graece et latine ad codicum manu scriptorum fidem, ed. Dr. Frid. Guil. Wilberg (Essendiae: G. D. Baedecker, 1838), accessed 14.05.2018, https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemae00ptol /page/n4, 205. Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geographia, Tomes I-III, ed. C. F. A. Nobbe, Carolus Tauchnitius, Lipsiae, 1843, Vol. 1, accessed 09.05.2018, 5:56 p.m. https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemaei01ptol/page/n6, 177. Claudius Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” text, Greek and Latin, ed. Karl Müller, Collections of University of Michigan (Paris: Alfredo Firmin Didot, 1883), accessed 09.05.2019, 8:09 p.m. https://archive.org/details/ bub_gb_i_JfAAAAMAAJ, 442. 83 The same in Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r: (λίβα). 84 Different in Ξ-recesnion. Ibid., 0147r (X): (μθ′ μδ ℒ ′ = 49° 44°30′). 85 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 178 Κιάμβ(ρ)ου. Ibid., 1838, 206 Κιάβρου Ciabrus. Ibid., 1883, 443: Κιάβρου Ciabrum. 86 Line missing in Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r (X): ἡ τοῦ Κιά(μ)βρου ἐκτροπή μθ ℒ ′ μγ ℒδ′ (cf. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 178).

32 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

from the north, flows through Dacia 50°15′87 44°; the inflexion next to Oescum [Οἶσκον/ Oescum] 51° 44°; and the inflexion next to Axiopolis 54°20′ 45°45′, from which the Danubius is called, as we have said, Istros, until its flowing into the sea. Ιn the east (of Dacia)88, it ends the Istros, (which is Lat., i. e., flows) until the inflexion next to [Δινογέτεια(ν)], whose position is at 53° 46°40′; and also the river Hierasus [Ἱεράσος, -ω/ͅ -um], which, after Dinogetia, pours into the Istros, flowing from north and east, until the mentioned inflexion of the Tyras.89

The description continues with the inhabitants of Dacia:

There are inhabiting Dacia, in the northern(most) region, if we start from the west: the Anarti [Ἄναρτοι], and the Teurisci [Τευρίσκοι], and the Cœstoboci [Κοιστοβῶκοι]; under them, the Predavenses [Πρεδαυήνσιοι], and the Rhatacenses [Ῥατακήνσιοι], and the Caucoenses [Καυκοήνσιοι]; under them, in the same order, (there are) the Biephi [Βίηφοι], and the Buridavenses [Βουριδαυήνσιοι], and the Cotenses [Κοτήνσιοι]; and, under them, the Albocenses [Αλβοκήνσιοι], and the Potulatenses [Ποτουλατήνσιοι], and the [Σήνσιοι]; (and) under them, in the southern(most) region,

87 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r (Ξ / X): (ν δ′ μδ′ = 50°15′ 44° or νδ′ μδ′ = 54° 44°). All the printed editions chose the first reading. However, as it will be seen below, both are wrong. 88 The edition Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” 1883, 443, translates here as following: “ab oriente autem Dacia finitur Istro flumine”. The edition Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 206, gives the following wording: “ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν τῷ τε ἐντεῦϑεν Ἴστρω ͅ ποταμῷ μέχρι τῆς κατὰ Δινογέτειαν πόλιν ἐπιστροφῆς, ἧς ἡ ϑέσις ...”, “ab occasu finitur Istro flumine, qui ibi incipit, usque ad inflexum appud Dinogetiam oppidum, qui positus est…” (the expression ab occasu is wrong, for ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν the translation being ab oriente, as in the ed. 1883, for instance). 89 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 102. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 205-206. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 177-178. Ibid., 1883, 442-444.

33 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

the Saldenses [Σαλδήνσιοι], and the Ciagisi [Κειάγισοι], and the Piephigi [Πιέφιγοι].90

Not all the editions number the sections of chapter 8 (of book 3)91, and among those which do it, there are some differences.92 Following the edition of 1843, the poleis of Dacia begin at 3.8.6. (Πόλεις δὲ εἰσιν…), continuing with 7. from Πετρόδαυα, 8. from Ζιρίδαυα, 9. from Ζουρόβαρα, and 10. from Ζεῦγμα to Σοῦρνον. The poleis (in Table 3-1) are introduced by the phrase: “Πόλεις δὲ εἰσιν ἐν τῇ Δακία ͅ ἐπιφανέστεραι αἵδε˙”93 = “Civitates in dacia notissime sunt,”94 or “Oppida autem in Dacia sunt insigniora haecce.”95 This could be translated as: “The localities of more importance in Dacia are these:”

90 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ibid., 1475, 102. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 206. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 178. Ibid., 1883, 444. 91 Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, no numbering at all. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, no numbering at all. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, not numbering the sections. 92 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1: 1., 2. οὗ μέρους ἡ ϑέσις ἔχει οὕτως˙ (Which has its arrangement by parts as follows:), 3. τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐκτροπὴν Ἀλούτα (next to the mouth of Alouta), 4. ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν τῷ τε ἐντεῦϑεν Ἴστρω ͅ ποταμῷ (Ιn the east (of Dacia), it ends the Istros), 5. Κατέχουσι δὲ τὴν Δακίαν (There are inhabiting Dacia), 6. Πόλεις δὲ εἰσιν ἐν τῇ Δακία ͅ ἐπιφανέστεραι αἵδε˙. Ibid., 1883: 1., 2. next phrase then in ed. 1843: Μετὰ τὴν ἐκτροπὴν Τιβίσκου (the inflexion after the mouth of Tibiscum), 3. Κατέχουσι δὲ τὴν Δακίαν (There are inhabiting Dacia), 4. Πόλεις δὲ εἰσιν ἐν τῇ Δακία ͅ ἐπιφανέστεραι αἵδε˙. 93 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 179. 94 Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. 95 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 444.

34 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Table 3-1. Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia96

Ptolemaic polis Ptol. coord. Modern Modern coordinates Long. Lat. place Long. (E) Lat. (N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (6.) Ῥουκκονιον97/ 47°30′ X 48°10′ Rhoukkonion 46°30′ /Ruc(c)onium 1 2 3 4 5 6 Δοκίδαυα / Δοκιραύα98 47°20′ 48° / Dokidava / Docidava Πορόλισσον99 / 49° 48° Moigrad, 23°09′25″100 47°10′45. Porolisson / Porolissum Măgura 23°09′26.7″/ 4″ Pomăt, SJ 23.157417° 101

96 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r- 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47-48. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 102- 103. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 101-102. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 206-208. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 179-180. Ibid., 1883, 444-451. Stückelberger et al., Ptolemy. The Handbook of Geofgraphy, 313-317. Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’…, 50-55, 162-168. Forţiu, Ziridava…, 54-56. This table and the following one have the same format as the one used in Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20, enlarged to contain all the relevant data for Dacia, including neighboring support reference points. 97 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (ῥουκκόνιον μζ ℒ ′ μη ϛ′). The notation (Ϛ) was changed for or in printed editions, for which I put ℒ ′. It means "half" of a degree, i. e. 30′. The Greek notations for the minutes, actually mean by what should a degree be devided: ϛ′ by 6 (στ / ϛ, a slightly different shape than final ς), i. e. 10′; δ′ by 4, i. e. 15′; γ′ by 3, i. e. 20′; ℒ ′ half, i. e., 30′; ϛ′ by 6, i. e. 10′. And combinations like: ιβ′ by 12, i. e. 5′; γο′ by 3, i. e. 20′, but the result doubled, i. e., 40′; ℒ δ′ = 30 + 15 = 45′ ℒγ′ = 30 + 20 = 50. For instance, the Ptolemaic lat. of Dyrrachium (Δ(ο)υῤῥάχιον, see below) is μ ℒγιβ, therefore 40°55′ (the minutes are: ℒ 30′ + γ 20′ + ιβ 5′). 98 Ibid.: (δοκιραύα μζ γ′ μη′). 99 Ibid.: (πορόλισσον μθ′ μη′). 100 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 101 LIMESTOMANIA.ro, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://limesromania.ro/ro /articole/situri-arheologice/. Most of the modern coordinates are taken by the scholars from PLEIADES.STOA.org, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://pleiades. stoa.org/. This is a very important site, holding a lot of data and using many

35 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

= 47.179278 ° 102 Ἀρκοβαράδα103/ 50°40′ X 48° Ilişua ? IlE barada Arkobarada/ 52° COFIR 47.179278 Ἀρκοβάδαρα/ ° / 47°10′ Arkobadara Τρίφουλον104/ Triphulon 52°15′ 48°15′ Πατρίδαυα105/ Patridava 53° 48°10′ Καρσίδαυα106/ Karsidava 53°20′ 48°15′ (7.) Πετρόδαυα107/ 53°45′ 47°40′ Petrodava Οὐλπιανόν108/ Oulpianon 47°30′ 47°30′ Νάπουκα109/ Napouka 49° 47°40′ Cluj- 23°35′16″110 = 46°46′ = /Napuca Napoca 23.58778° 46.76667° 23°35′ = 113 23.58333° 111 Modern Modern city: city: 23° 37′ 25.086″ 46° 46′ = 23.623635° 16.356″ 112

sources. However, pinpointing the site with Google Earth or using very precise information for Romania from LIMESTOMANIA.ro, I obtained, for instance, this set coordinates given in the second line. 102 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 103 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (ἀρκοβαράδα ν γο′ μη′). 104 Ibid.: (τρίφουλον). 105 Ibid.: (πατριδαύα). 106 Ibid.: (καρσιδαύα). 107 Ibid.: (πετροδαύα). 108 Ibid.: (οὐλπιανόν). 109 Ibid.: (ναπούκα). 110 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 111 One of my estimations with Google Earth. In such cases, I took in consideration archeological sites. 112 LATLONG.net, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://www.latlong.net/. 113 One of my estimations with Google Earth.

36 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

= 46.77121 0° 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 Πατρούισσα115/ 49° 47°20′ 23°52′116 Patrouissa / (, 23°46′22.3″ 46°34′13. Paravissa) = 23.772861° 3″ 117 46.570361 Modern city: ° 119 23° 47′ Modern 49.5816″ city: = 23.797106° 46° 33′ 118 52.8336″ = 46.56467 6° 120 Σαλῖναι121/ Salinai/ 49°15′ 47°10′ Salinæ Πραιτωρία Αὐγούστα122/ 50°30′ 47°30′ Praetoria Augusta X? 47° Σαγγίδαυα123/ Σάνδαυα/ 52°15′Χ 47°15′Χ Sangidava 51°30′ 47°30′

114 LATLONG.net. 115 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (πατρουίσσα). 116 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 117 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 118 LATLONG.net. 119 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 120 LATLONG.net. 121 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (σαλίναι). 122 Ibid.: (πραιτωρία αὐγουϛ[α] ν ℒ μζ ℒ ′ / Ξ). The other recension is: ν ℒ μζ′, 47º lat. / Ω. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 48, the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207, the same. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 179. Ibid., 1883, 447 etc. 123 Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 179 Σάνδαυα. Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (σανγιδαύα νβ δ′ μζ δ′ = 52°15' 47°15').

37 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Ἀγγουστία124 / Angoustia 53°20′X 47°40′Χ Breţcu 26°18′46.3″E 46°03′02. 52°15′ 47°15′ = 26.312861° 9″ 125 = 46.05080 6° 126 Οὐτίδαυα 127 / Outidava 53°20′ X 47°40′ 53°10′ Μαρκόδαυα 128 / 49°30′ 47° Markodava 1 2 3 4 5 6 (8.) Ζιρίδαυα 129 / 49°30′ X 46°20′ Cetăţuie, 23°08′43.82″130 46°01′0.8 Ziridava 45°30′ Ardeu, (Forţiu’s 9″131 Balşa, estimation) (id.) HD Σιγγίδαυα 132 / Singidava 48° 46°20′ 21.923/ 21°55′22.8″

124 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 179 Ἀγγουστία. Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191 (X), ca. 1300, 147r: (ἀνγουστία νγ γ′ μζ γο′/ Ξ = 53°20' 47°40'). The Ω- recension gives these coord. for the following polis, Utidava. 125 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. Cf. Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, MAP.CIMEC.ro, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver /?layer=ran&cod=64103.02. 126 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. Cf. Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, MAP.CIMEC.ro. 127 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (οὐτιδαύα νγ γ′ μζ γο′/ Ξ = 53°20′ 47°40′). Here it solves the confusion: the coordinates are the same as for , which is impossible. This means in Vat. gr. 191 the whole list was displaced with one step backward: Praetoria Augusta either received or has only the lat. of Sangidava, Sangidava received both the coordinates of Angustia, Angustia of Utidava and Utidava remained with its own coordinates. In Ω-recension, Utidava has 53°10'. 128 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (μαρκοδαύα νθ ℒ ′ μζ′/ Ξ = 49°30′ 47°). 129 Ibid.: (ζιριδαύα νθ ℒ ′ μϛ γ′/ Ξ = 49°30′ 46°20′). 130 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 131 Ibid. 132 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (σινγιδαύα μη′ μϛ γ′).

38 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ἄπουλον 133/ Apoulon 49°15′ 46°40′ 23°34′11″134 46°04′03″ Piatra 23°29′07.52″135 136 Craivii, 22.9605°/ 46°12′32. AB 22°57′37.8″ 84″137 Ζερμίζιργα138/ 49°30′ X 46°15′ castrum 23°11′25″139 45°53′38″ Zermizirga/ Γερμίζερα / of Cetatea = 141 Germizirga Urieşilor 23.19027778° = (, other sources) 23°11′25.4″ 45.89388 = 23.190389° 889° 140 45°53′37. 2″ = 45.89366 7° 142 (46° 23°09′42.62″143, 45°56′08. Forţiu) B. 23°12′144FIRM 49″145 Geoagiu : 45°55′12″ 146 Κομίδαυα 147/ Komidava 51°30′ 46°40′ Râşnov, - 45°35′25. BV Râşnov, 89″N castrum

133 Ibid.: (ἄπουλον μθ δ′ μϛ γο′). 134 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (ζερμιζίργα μθ ℒ ′ μϛ δ′). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 48 Germizirga. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207 Ζερμίζιργα. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 179 (or Νερμίσιγα, obviously wrong). Ibid., 1883, 448 Γερμίζερα Germizera. 139 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 140 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 141 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 142 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 143 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20 (that would be 46º P). 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (κομιδαύα να ℒ ′ μϛ γο′).

39 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

25°28′10.21″E Ῥαμίδαυα 148/ 51°50′ 46°30′ Drajna de 26°4′7″E 45°15′5″ Rhamidava Sus, PH N Πίρουμ149 / Piroum 51°15′ 46° Ζουσίδαυα150 / Zusidava 52°40′ 46°15′ Πολόνδα151 / Palo(n)da 53° 47° / Πάλοδα (9.) Ζουρόβαρα152 / 46°40′ X 45°40′ Zourobara 45°40′

148 Ibid.: (ῥαμιδαύα να ℒγ′ μϛ ℒ ′). 149 Ibid.: (πίρουμ). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207 Πιρούμ. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 180 the same. Ibid., 1883, 448 the same. 150 Ibid.: (ζουσιδαύα). 151 Ibid.: (πολόνδα). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207 Παλόδα. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 180 Πάλοδα. Ibid., 1883, 449 Πολόνδα. 152 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (ζουροβάρα μϛ γο′ με γο′), Ξ-reference. And in Ω-reference: Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 48: 45.2/3 45.2/3. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207: με γο′ με γο′/ 45°40′ 45°40′. Ibid., 1883, 449: με γο′ με γο′/ 45°40′ 45°40′. Forţiu (Ziridava… and “Geodetic-Statistic Analysis”) noticed that Ἀρκοβαράδα is the accurate reading, according to mss. X (Vat. gr. 191, 147r, see above), for what was usually called Ἀρκοβαδἀρα. We must mention that since Ἀρκοβαράδα seems to be the correct name, it has in common with Ζουρόβαρα (which knows this form in all the recensions of Ptolemy) the sequence -βαρα, that matches with the South Thracian -para, showing that up north, among the vast majority of the element -, demonstrating that such isoglosses bear not the demonstrative worth in separating Dacian of (South) Thracian, as considered by Vladimir Georgiev, The Thracian Language (, 1957), 3 sqq. Georgiev, The Thracians and their Language, (Sofia: Academy of Sciences, 1977), 184-187. Criticism: I. I. Russu, The Thraco- Dacian Language (Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1967), 34. Also, Ivan Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” VIII, in Namenforschung / Name Studies / Les noms propres. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik / Ап International Handbook of Onomastics / Manuel international d'onomastique, ed. Ernst Eichler et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 820. And Dan Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum (OnomThrac). Répertoire des noms indigenes de , Macédoine orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie (Athènes: De Boccard, Institute of Historical Research / NHRF, Section de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine, «Μελετήματα» 70, 2014), xxiii.

40 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Αἰζίσις153 / Aizisis 46°15′ 45°20′ Ἀργίδαυα154 / Argidava 49°30′ 45°15′ Τίρισκον155 / Tiriskon 48°30′ 45°15′ Σαρμιζεγέϑουσα, 47°50′ 45°15′ Grădiştea 23° 18′ 29.682″ 45° 37′ βασίλειον156 de M.157 = 23.308245° 21.7945″ Sarmizegethousa basileion = 45.62272 07° 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ὕδατα158/ Hydata / 49°30′ 45°40′ (Aquae) Νετίνδαυα159 / 52°45′ 45°30′ Netindava Τία(σ)σον160 / Tia(s)son 52° 45°30′ 10. Ζεῦγμα161 / 47°40′ 44°40′ Τίβισκον162 / Tibiskon 46°40′ 44°50′ Jupa, near 22°11′22.32″E 45°27′58. Caranseb or 94″N eş, 22°11′23.2″E CS 22.189778° E

153 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (αἰζισίς). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 207 Λιζισίς (error: missing the line in A). Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 180 the same. Ibid., 1883, 449 Αἰζισίς correct. 154 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: (ἀργιδαύα μθ ℒ ′ με δ′). 155 Ibid.: (τίρισκον μη ℒ ′ με δ′). 156 Ibid.: (ζαρμιζεγεϑούσα). Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v (0322) (βασιλείον μζ ℒγ′ με δ′). Cf. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 180. 157 ROMANIADEVIS, “Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains in UNESCO World Heritage,” in DACIANS.ROMANIADEVIS.ro, last accessed 16.03.2019, http://dacians.romaniadevis.ro/see-do/cetatile-dacice-din-muntii- orastiei. Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, MAP.CIMEC.ro, last accessed 9.03. 2019, http://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver/?layer=ran&cod=90397.01. 158 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: . 159 Ibid.: . Cf. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 180. 160 Ibid.: (τίασσον). 161 Ibid.: (ζεύγμα μζ γο′ μδ γο′ = 47°40′ 44°40′). 162 Ibid.: (τιβίσκον).

41 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

or 45°27’56. 9′N 45.46580 6° N Δίερνα163 / Dierna, 47°15′ 44°50′ Orşova, Tierna, Zierna, Legio V Macedonica, X castrum Zernes L XIII Gemina, Coh. I 44°30′ 164 22°24′27.52″E 44°44′17. Brittonum milliaria 75″N Ἐκμονία X 165 / 48° 49° X Ekmonia / Ἀκμωνία / 45° Akmonia Δρουβητίς X 166 / 47°45′ 44°30′ 22°40′05.2″ 44°37′29. Droubetis / Δρουφηγίς / 167 = 22.668111° 9″N Drouphegis T. S. MH = 44.62497 2° Φρατέρνα X 168 / 49°30′ 44°30′ Phraterna / Φρατερία / Frateria Ἄρκι(ν)να169 / Arkina 49° 44°50′ X

163 Ibid.: (δίερνα μζ δ′ μδ ℒγ′ = 47°15′ 44°50′). 164 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului (National Institute of Patrimony, CIMEC Team), Roman from Romania, for Google Earth, last accessed 30.09.2018, https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec- places/D3Ybz9oJzwg. Sabin Adrian Luca, Archaeological Discoveries in the Romanian Banat, Series “Bibliotheca septemcastrensis” XIII (Sibiu: “Lucian Blaga” University, Alba Iulia: Altip, 2006), 187. 165 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: (ἐκμονία μη′ μθ′ = 48° 49°). 166 Ibid.: (δρουβητίς μζ ℒδ′ μδ ℒ ′ = 47°45′ 44°30′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 180 Δρουφηγίς. 167 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 168 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: (φρατέρνα μθ ℒ ′ μδ ℒ ′ = 49°30′ 44°30′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 180 Φρατερία. 169 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: (ἀρκίννα μθ′ μδ ℒγ′ = 49° 44°50′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 180.

42 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

44°45′

Πινὀν170 / Pinon 50°30′ 44°40′ Ἀμούτριον171 / 50° 44°45′ Amoutrion Σο(ῦ)ρνον X 172 / 51°30′ 45° So(u)rnon

Starting from the 44 Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia, the following are identified beyond any doubt, through reliable epigraphic or historiographic means: Porolisson, at Moigrad (SJ); Napouka, at Cluj- Napoca (CJ); Patruissa, at Turda (CJ); Angoustia, at Breţcu (CV); Zermizirga, at Geoagiu (HD); Sarmizegethousa basileos, at Grădiştea Muncelului (HD); and Droubetis, at Drobeta Turnu Severin (MH). They can be used as reference points. From the neighboring areas, there are some certian locations on the Danube valley which can play the same role (see Table 3-2). Some of them, which will be used for the estimations in this study, are given in the table below.

Table 3-2. Poleis and places from the neighboring areas

Ptolemaic polis / Ptol. coord. Modern Modern coordinates place Long. Lat. place Long. (E) Lat. (N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ptolemy 3.7.2. Ἰαζύγων μεταναστῶν ϑέσις (Iazygum metanastarum situs) Πάρτισκον 173 45° 46°40′ Szeged (HU) 20°12′15″/20.20 46°15′11″/46.2 Partiskon 417° 5306°

170 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: (πινόν ν ℒ′ μδ γο′ = 50°30′ 44°40′). 171 Ibid.: (ἀμούτριον ν μδ ℒδ′ = 50° 44°45′). 172 Ibid.: (σοῦρνον ν μδ ℒδ′ = 50° 44°45′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 180 Σόρνον. 173 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: πάρτισκον με, μϛ γο. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ibid., 1475, 102. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 205. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 177. Ibid., 1883, 441. Modern coordinates (DMS) from Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20.

43 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

3.9.3. Μυσίας τῆς ἄνω ϑέσις (Mysiæ Superioris situs) 174 Σιγγἰ[ν]δουνον 45°30′ 44°15′X Belgrade 20°27′01″ 44°49′25″ Singidounon 44°30′ (SRB) 175/20.45028° 176/44.82361° Οὐιμινάκιον 46°30′ 44°20′ Stari Kostolac 21.219764° 44.737700 Ouiminakion (SRB) 21°10′/21.16666 44°42′59.99″/4 Viminacium 6°177 4.71° 21°13′32.18″/21. 44°44′13.13″/4 22° 4.7° 3.10.8. Moesia Inferior (Mysiæ Inferioris situs): on the shore of the Black Sea.178 1 2 3 4 5 6 Πτερὸν ἄκρον 56°20′X 46° Pter(n)um promon. 56°15′

174 Singidounon & Viminacium, in Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: σινγίδουνον λεγείων Δ΄ φλαυία με ℒ, μδ δ (the printed edition that reproduces information “λεγείων Δ΄ φλαυία” is ed. 1883!, while others just give the coordinates for ; however, for the latitude, in mss X there is μδ δ, not μδ ℒ, as in other editions), οὐιμινάκιον μϛ ℒ, μδ γ. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 48. Ibid., 1475, 104. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 181. Ibid., 1883, 453 Σινγίδουνον Λεγίων δ΄ Φλαυία με ℒ, μδ ℒ = Singidunum Legio IV Flavia 45°30′, 44°30′. 175 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20. 176 Ibid. 177 Cf. VIMINACIUM.org, last accessed March 9, 2019, http://viminacium.org.rs/en/viminacium/lokalitet/. 178 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: πτέρωτ ἄκρ νϛ γ, μϛ, ἴστρος πόλει νε γο, μϛ, τόμοι νε, με ℒγ, καλλατίς νδ γο, με ℒ, διονισόπολει νδ γο, με δ, τιριστίς ἄκρα νε, με ϛ, ὀδησσός νδ ℒγ, με, πανυσ ποτ ἐκ'ολ νδ ℒδ, μδ ℒγ, μεσημβρια νδ γο, μδ γο. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 (Pternum pr. 56 1/4, 46, Dionisopolis 54 1/3, 43 1/2, Panisu 44 1/2, 44 1/2). Ibid., 1475, 105 (Pterum pr. 56 1/4, 46, Dionysopolis 54 1/3, 45 1/4, Panysi 54 1/2, 44 1/2). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 211-212 (following Ξ-recension!, Pterum pr. 56°20′, 46°, Istrum oppidum 55°40′, 46°, Tomi 55°, 45°50′, Callatis 54°40′, 45°30′, Dionysopolis 54°20′, 45°15′, Tiristis pr. 55°, 45°10′, Odessus 54°50′, 45°, Panysi fluvii ostia 54°30′ [= ed. 1475], 44°45′ [different], Mesembria 54°40′, 44°40′)

44 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ἴστρος πόλις 56°40′X 46° Istria (RO) 28.77337179 44.54725 Istros ciuitas 56°40′ 28°46′24.12″ 44°32′50.1″ Τόμοι 55° 45°50′X Constanţa RO) 28°38′18″ 44°10′24″ Tomi 46°50′ Καλλατἰς 54°40′X 45°30′ Mangalia (RO) 28°35′ 43°49′ Callatis 55°40′ Διονυσόπολις 54°20′ 45°15′X Balcic (BG) 28°10′ 43°25′ Dionysopolis 43°30′ Τιρίστις ἄκρα 55° 45°10′ Tiristis promon. Ὀδησσός 54°50′Χ 45° Varna (BG) 27°55′ 43°13′ Odessus 74°50′ Πανύδου ποτάμου 54°45′ 44°50′ ἐκβολαί Χ Χ Panisu fl. ost. 54°30′ 44°30′ 44°30′ 44°45′ Μεσημβρία 54°40′ 44°40′ Nesebar (BG) 27°44′ 42°39′ Mes(s)embria Moesia Inferior (Μυσίας τῆς κάτω ϑέσις). 3.10.10. Poleis on the Danube valley (Πόλεις δὲ εἰσι παρὰ μὲν τὸν Δανούβιον ποταμὸν αἵδε˙)180 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ῥηγίανον 50° 43°40′ Kozloduy (BG) 23°44′54.808″ 43°46′48.845″ Regianum 181/ / 23.74856° 43.78023° Οἶσκος Τριβαλλῶν 51° 44° Gigen (BG) 24°29′/24.4833 43°42′/43.7° triballorum 3° Colonia Ulpia 43°42′38.731″ Oescus182/24° /43.71076° 27′56.457″/24. 46568°

179 The list of historical monuments in Constanta County, wikipedia.org, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_monumentelor_istorice_din_ jude%C8%9Bul_Constan%C8%9Ba#CT-I-s-A-02681. 180 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 105. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 185. 181 WHC.UNESCO.org, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://whc.unesco.org /en/tentativelists/6126/. 182 Ibid.

45 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Δίακον, Diacum 51°20′ 44°20′ Νοοῦαι 52° 44°40′ Steklen by 25°21′/25.35° 43°37′/43.61 Novae Svistov (BG) Novae183:25°23 667° Nouale vel Nousa ′38.236″/25.4° 43°36′49.690″ / 43.6138° Τριμμάνιον (-άμμ)184 52°20′ 44°50′ Mechka (BG) Trimiammium Trimannium (-mm-) (45°10′) 185 43°42′47″/43. 25°47′53″/25.7 713° 96°

Τιριστὴ πόλις 186 52°40′ 45°10′ Πριστὴ πόλις etc. Tiristopolis etc. Δουδοστόρον (-λ-)187 53°15′ 45°15′ (BG) Durostorum, Dourostolorum legio

183 Ibid. 184 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: τριμάντιον νβ γ, νδ ℒγ. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49, and. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 105: Trimannium long. 45°10′. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185, and Ibid., 1883, 465: Τριμμάνιον (ἢ Τριμάμμιον) νβ γ′, μδ ℒγ′ (long. 44°50′); 185 WHC.UNESCO.org. 186 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: τιριστία πολει. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Tiristopolis. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 105 Tiristipolis. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Πριστὴ πόλις, Priste oppidum. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Τιριστὴ πόλις (ἢ Τιριστίπολις). Ibid., 1883, 465 Πριστὴ πόλις, Prista oppidum. 187 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: δουρόστορον λεγείων α΄ / ἰταλικόν νγ δ, νε δ. From this mss. X, it is clear that λεγείων α΄ ἰταλικόν refers to δουδόστορον, although, in the printed editions, Λεγίων πρώτη Ἰταλική (Legio prima Italica) is a separate phrase, starting a section with the following poleis! (cf. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ibid., 1475, 105, the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 185, and Ibid., 1838, 212). In Ibid., Ibid., 1883, 466, this information is evasive, so it could be interpreted in the light of mss. X.

46 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

3.10.11. (Λεγίων πρώτη Ἰταλική Legio prima Italica.188) Τρομαρίσκα (Τρα-)189 53°30′ 45°30′ Transmarisca 44°02′57.018″ Tromarisca (P-) 190 /44.04917° 26°36′20″/26.6 05° 1 2 3 4 5 6 Σουκιδαύα191 54° 45°40′ Sucidaua (-dava) Ἀξιούπολις192 54°20′ 45°45′ Cernavodă 28.02337193 44.3 Axiopolis (RO) Axium ciuitas Καρσούμ194, Carsum 54°10′ 45°45′ Τροισμίς195 54° 46°20′ 28°11′ 45°8′ Troismis (-oe-) (45°20′) (RO)

188 Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 (Legion, Troismis 54, 45 1/3). Ibid., 1475, 105-106 (Legio, Troismis 54, 46 1/3). 189 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: τρομασίσκα. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Promarisca. Ibid., 1475, 105 Promarisca. Ibid., transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 104 Promarisca. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Τρομαρίσκα, Tromarisca. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Τρομάρισκα. Ibid., 1883, 466 Τραμαρίσκα, Tramarisca. 190 WHC.UNESCO.org. 191 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: σουκιδαύα. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Sucidaua. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 105 Sucidaua. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 104 Sucidaua. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Σουκίδαυα, . Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Σουκίδαυα. Ibid., 1883, 466 Σουκίδαυα, Sucidava. 192 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: ἀξιούπολει. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Axium ciuitas. Ibid., 1475, 105 the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Ἀξιούπολις, Axiopolis. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Ἀξιούπολις. Ibid., 1883, 467 Ἀξιούπολις, Axiopolis. 193 The list of historical monuments in Constanta County, wikipedia.org, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_monumentelor_istorice_din_ jude%C8%9Bul_Constan%C8%9Ba#CT-I-s-A-02681. 194 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: καρσοῦαι (miswritten: for ). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Carsum. Ibid., 1475, 105 the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Καρσούμ, Carsum. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Καρσούμ. Ibid., 1883, 467 Καρσούμ, Carsum. 195 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: τροισμίς νδ, μϛ γ. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49

47 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Δινογετία (-εια)196 53°40′X 46°50′X Garvăn (RO) 28°8′19.64″ 45°22′44.29″ Dinogetia 53°10′ 46°40′ 53° 46°50′ Νουιόδουνον197 54°40′ 46°30′ (RO) 28°29′ 45°16′ Noviod

1 2 3 4 5 6 Νουκράουνον 198 54°30′ 46° Nucraunum

Σιτιόεντα199, 55° 46°30′ Sitioenta

Troismis 54. 45 1/3 (wrong, all other editions give νδ, μϛ γ, as X). Ibid., 1475, 105 Troismis 54. 46 1/3. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Τροισμίς νδ, μϛ γ, 54°, 46°20′. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Τρισμίς (ἢ Τροισμίς) νδ, μϛ γ. Ibid., 1883, 467 Τροισμίς νδ, μϛ γ, Troesmis 54°, 46°20′. Mss. X completes the information with λεγείων ε΄ μακιδονική. This mention reappears in Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, as: Λεγίων ε΄ Μακεδονική, Legio V Macedonica. 196 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: δινογετία νγ γο, μϛ γο. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Dinogetia 53. 46 1/2 1/3. Ibid., 1475, 105 the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Δινογέτεια νγ ϛ, μϛ γο, Dinogetia 53°10′, 46°40′. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Δινογέτεια νγ ϛ, μϛ γο. Ibid., 1883, 467 Δινογέτεια νγ ϛ, μϛ γο, Dinogetia 53°10′, 46°40′. 197 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: νουιόδουνον. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Nuidunum. Ibid., 1475, 106 the same. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 105 the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 Νουϊόδουνον, . Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Νουιόδουνον. Ibid., 1883, 468 Νουιόδουνον, Noviodunum. 198 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v: missing. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49 Nucraunum. Ibid., 1475, 106 the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 212 missing in text, present in notes, variae lectionis Νουκράουνον. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185 Νουκράουνον. Ibid., 1883, 468 absent. 199 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ibid., 1475, 106. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 213. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185. Ibid., 1883, 468.

48 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

3.10.12. Μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ ποταμοῦ πόλεις αἵδε (Intra flu. …200) Δαυσδαύα, Dausdaua 53° 44°40′ Τιβίσκα 55° 46°30′X Tibisca 46°20′ 3.10.13. and 14. Litora autem…201 τοῦ Βορυσϑένους ἐκβ. 57°30′ 48°30′ Boristenis flu. ost. (mouth of Borysthenes) Ἀξιάκου ποτ. ἐκβ. 57° 48° Axiaci flu. ost. Φύσκη πόλις, 56°30′X 47°40′ Physca ciuitas 56°40′ 56° Τύρα ποτ. ἐκβ., 56°40′Χ 47°40′ mouth of the Tyras (Dnister) Tire flu. ost. 56°20′

Ἑρμώνακτος κόμη, 56°15′ 47°30′ Hermonactus villa

Ἁρπισπόλις, Harpiepolis 56°20′X 47°15′ 56°

200 Μεταξὺ…/ Τιβίσκα: Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147r: νε, με ℒ. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49: 55. 46 1/3. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 106, the same. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 213 νε, μϛ γ, 55°, 46°20′. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 185-186, 186 Τίβισκα νε, μϛ δ (!). Ibid., 1883, 468 νε, μϛ γ, 55°, 46°20′. 201 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v… νζ ℒ, μη ℒ, X (for all in &). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49: “Litora autem ab ostio Istri maxime septentrionali usque ad ostia Boristenis fluvii & interiorem ragionem usque ad Hierasum amnem incolunt Arpii sub Tirangentas Sarmatas. Britolangae autem supra peucinos sunt. Ora autem marítima habet descriptionem hanc post Boristenis flu. ost. que ut dictum est: gradus habet 57 1/2 48 ½,” non X (for all in &), Axiaci 37.48 (37 wrong!). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 106: non X (for all in &), Axiaci 57.48. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 213, non X, Physca long. 56°40′. Ibid., 1843, I, 186: “13. Τὴν δὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρκτικωτάτου στόματος τοῦ Ἴστρου παράλιον μέχρι τῶν τοῦ Βορυςϑένους ποταμοῦ ἐκβολῶν καὶ τὴν ἐντὸς χώραν μέχρι τοῦ Ἱεράσου ποταμοῦ κατέχουσιν Ἄρπιοι μὲν ὑπὸ τοὺς Τυραγγέτας Σαρμάτας, Βριτολάγαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοὺς Πευκίνους˙ 14. καὶ ἡ μὲν παράλιος ἔχει περιγραφὴν τοιαύτην˙ μετὰ τὰς τοῦ Βορυσϑένους ἐκβολὰς αἳ ἐπέχουσιν, ὡς εἴρηται, μοίρας... νζ ℒ μη ℒ,” all in & as ed. 1838. Ibid., 1883, 469-470, all in and as Ibid., 1838.

49 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

1 2 3 4 5 6 3.10.15. (“Πόλεις δέ εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ πλεθρᾷ ταύτη ͅ μεσόγειοι, παρὰ μὲν τὸν Ἱέρασον ποταμὀν.”)202 Ζαργίδαυα (X: -αύ-) 54°40′Χ 47°45′ (55°40′) (45°45′) Ταμασίδαυα 54°20′X 47°30′ (55°20′) Πιροβορίδαυα 54°30′ 47° (54°) 3.10.16. Beyond river Hierasos (“Μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ Ἱεράδου ποτάμου.”)203 Νικώνια (-ιον), 56°20′ 48°10′ Niconium Ὀφιοῦσσα, Ophiussa 56° 48° Τύρας πόλις, 56° 47°40′ Tiraspol, 30.35167°/ 46.20083°/ Tyras polis castrum 30°21′6″E 46°12′3″N 3.10.17. (Νῆσοι δὲ παράκεινται τῇ κάτω Μυσία ͅ τῷ εἰρημένω ͅ μέρει τοῦ Πόντου)204 ἥ… Βορυσϑενὶς νῆσος 57°15′ 47°40′ Borysthenes I.? (ἥ τε καλουμένη Βορυσϑενὶς νῆσος) ἡ Λευκὴ νῆσος 57°30′ 46°40′ Leuce I.? (καὶ ἡ Ἀχιλέως,ἡ Λευκὴ νῆσος) Some southern references, in Thrace and Macedonia Abdera205 52°10′ 41°45′ Abdera 24°58′ 40°56′

202 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49, non X, Tamasidava missing. The same in: Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1475, 106. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 213, non X. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 186 non X, but Ταμασίδαυα νδ γ, μζ ℒ. Ibid., 1883, 470 X: Ζαργίδαυα νδ γο, μζ ℒγ, Zargidava 54°40′, 47°45′, Ταμασίδαυα νδ γ, μζ ℒ, Tamasidava 54°20′, 47°30′; Πιροβορίδαυα νδ, μζ, Piroboridava 54°, 47°. 203 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ibid., 1475, 106. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 213. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 186. Ibid., 1883, 471. 204 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 147v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ibid., 1475, 106. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 186. 205 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 148r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49. Ibid., 105. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 214. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 187. Ibid., 1883, 472.

50 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Byzantium206 56° 43°5′ 28°57′ 41° (Const.) Dyrrachium207 45° 40°55′ Durrës 19°27′ 41°19′ Thessalonica (-e)208 49°50′ 40°20′ Thess. 22° 54′ 40°39′

206 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 148r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 49: 56, 43 1/12. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 106: 56, 43 1/12. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 215: 56° 53°5′ (wrong transcription). Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 188: νϛ′ μγ ιβ′. Ibid., 1883, 475: νϛ′ μγ ιβ′ = 56° 43°5′. 207 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 148r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 50: 45, 40 1/2 1/3 1/ 12 (= 40°55′). Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 108: 45, 40 1/2 1/3 1/ 12 (= 40°55′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 218. Ibid., 1843, I, 192. Ibid., 1883, 492 (με′ μ ℒ γ ιβ′). 208 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 148v. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 51: 49 1/2 1/3, 40 1/3 (= 40°20′). Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 108: 49 1/2 1/3, 40 1/3 (= 40°20′). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 220: 49°50′ 40°20′. Ibid., 1843, I, 194: 49°50′ 40°20′. Ibid., 1883, 500 49°50′ 49°20′ (wrong transcription).

51

CHAPTER FOUR

Establishing Local Working Algorithms

1. Preliminary data

This first step addresses to the entire net of the Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia. Previous attempts to “tame” the Ptolemaic data, and convert it into a modern set of coordinates, were mentioned in the previous chapters. For Dacia, such calculations can be found in Forţiu’s studies. Some of the places in Dacia and its surrounding area are known, while others are to be determined. Starting from the beginning of the Ptolemaic text for Dacia, we notice the mouth of the Alouta (the mouth of the river Olt, Romania, 50°15′ 44° P, 24°48′E 43°42′40″N mod.209), the city of Oescus (Gigen, Bulgaria, Moesia Inferior, 51° 44° P, 24°29′E 43°42′N mod.210), Axiopolis (Cernavodă, Romania, 54°20′ 45°45′ P, 28°01′18.43″E 44°19′54.67″N mod.211), and Dinogetia (Garvăn, Romania, 53° 46°40′ P, 28°08′19.79″E 45°22′44.71″N mod.212). The coordinates of Oescus (in its Latin name) / Oiskos (Οἶσκος) are discussed after those of the mouth of the Alouta (Olt), and the longitude of Oescus seems to be greater. In reality, this is in reverse. Even if in the manuscript versions we would read, for the mouth of the Alouta, νδ΄ μδ΄ (54° 44°), instead of ν δ΄ μδ΄ (50°15΄ 44°), this would still be wrong, because those values would place it too far east. I think the correct Ptolemaic longitude for the mouth of the Alouta would be 51°15΄, 15΄ east of Oescus. Thus, if Oescus has about 24°29′E 43°42′N, 24°27′56.457″E 43°42′38.731″N (see Table 4-1), and if we take the data as such, this means that the Ptolemaic longitude 51° should be approximated here as 24°29′. The mouth of Alouta is about 24°48′E

209 Keeping with the Ptolemaic style, I noted everywhere the longitude before the latitude, including for modern coordinates, for an easier comparison. 210 Cf. LATITUDE.to, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://latitude.to/articles-by- country/bg/bulgaria/81881/oescus. 211 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 212 Ibid. Şerban George Paul Drugaş

43°42′40″N. The distance Oescus–Alouta would have, in this case, 19′ mod. long. (ℰ 23′10.24″; ℱ 22′53.49″). The longitude 24°44′E is well in range, at exactly 15′ from Oescus, demonstrating the correction that must be considered for the Ptolemaic longitude: 51°15′ P long. for the mouth of Alouta, if the longitude of Oescus is correct. These two places can even become local references for the local longitudes: 51° P long. = 24°29′E (Oescus) and 51°15′ P long. = 24°44′ P long. (m. Alouta). The next longitude is that of Novae (52° 44°20′ P, 25°21′E 43°37′N, Table 4-1), at 1° P and 52′ mod. from Oescus (ℰ 1°3′24.88″; ℱ 1°2′39.04″, a good match). Other known places mentioned above are Axiopolis, Dinogetia, and the mouth of the Hierasos. Axiopolis (Cernavodă, Romania) is placed at 54°20′ 45°45′ P, 28°01′18.43″E 44°19′54.67″N mod. Comparing it with the longitude of Oescus, it gives a difference of 3°20′ P, 3°32′18.43″ mod. (ℰ 4°18′54.67″; ℱ 4°15′47.51″). For Dinogetia (Garvăn, Romania), there is 53° 46°40′ P, 28°08′19.79″E 45°22′44.71″N mod., meaning a difference of 2° P, ca. 3°40′ mod. from Oescus (ℰ 4°28′17.56″; ℱ 4°25′3.62″). Thus, the Ptolemaic longitude of Dinogetia, relative to either Axiopolis (at east, not west), or Oescus, is wrong (either bad data from the beginning, or an altered record).

*

The mouth of the Tibiskon (Tibiscum Lat.), the inflexion of the Tyras, the dubious Liba, the mouths of the Rhabon and Kia(m)b(r)os remain to be discussed after retrieving a reasonable order from the data on the known places. The mouth of the Tibiskon is placed at 46° 44°15′ P, in both recensions, in the sector of the Yaziges Metanastæ.213 The closest references are Partiskon ( Lat., 45° 46°40′ P, 20°12′15″E 46°15′11″N), Singidounon (Singidunum Lat., 45°30′ 44°30′ P, 20°27′01″E 44°49′25″N), and Ouiminakion (Viminacium Lat., 46°30′ 44°20′ P, 21°13′32.18″E 44°44′13.13″N, see Table 4-1). However, some

213 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r (Ξ / X, same value). Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ibid., 1475, 102. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 101. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 204. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 176. Ibid., 1883, 440.

54 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia miscorrelations between them must be asserted before proceding to the estimation of the mouth of the Tibiskon. Taking Singidunum as a reference, then Viminacium is at 1° P / 46′31.18″ mod. east (0.7753278 ÷ 0.82 (ℰ) = 0.9455217073170732 = 56′43.88″ P', in correlated Ptolemaic degrees to given modern degrees; with the further calculation: ÷ 0.83 (ℱ) = 56′2.87″). Partiscum is at 30′ P / 14′46″ mod. west of Singidunum (0.2461111° ÷ 0.82 (ℰ) = 0.300135487804878 = 0°18′0.49″ P', off by 12′ P; ℱ 17′47.47″). The difference in longitude between Partiscum and Viminacium is: 1°30′ P = 1°1′27.18″ mod. between them (÷ 0.82 (ℰ) = 1°14′56.56″; ℱ 1°14′2.39″). If we take as references Singidunum and Viminacium, then Partiscum’s Ptolemaic longitude is displaced to the west. Using the same reference, the longitude of Partiscum would be better approximated by 45°10′ P. There are 5°30′ P / 4°1′59″ mod. between Singidunum and Oescus (ℰ 4°55′6.1″; ℱ 4°51′32.77″), and 4°30′ P / 3°15′27.82″ mod. between Viminacium and Oescus (ℰ 3°58′22.22″; ℱ 3°55′29.9″). Between Singidunum and Regianum there are 4°30′ P / 3°17′53.08″ mod. (ℰ 4°1′19.37″; ℱ 3°58′24.92″, off by ca. + 30′ P). For the longitude of Axiopolis there is 54°20′ P, 28°01′18.43″E mod., and to Singidunum there is a difference of 8°50′ P, 7°34′17.43″ mod. (ℰ 9°14′0.77″; ℱ 9°7′20.28″). This situation demonstrates again that Ptolemy’s map seems to be made from “patches,” and the data correlate better inside each “patches” or areas then outside them. The calculations below confirm it. This shows it is difficult to map a grid with references from outside a given area. There is also the strong possibility that the patching resets the calibration (ℰ or ℱ), thus making such calculations between larger area useless. The case of the comparisons in longitude between Axiopolis and Singidunum (-17′; ca. + 1°30′ not calibrated), or between Oescus (et aliae) and Singidunum (+ 30′; ca. + 1°20′ not calibrated) could support this theory. The calibration does the job partially between two different areas, because it accounts for the difference between the Ptolemaic and modern model of the Earth, but not for how well the “patches” match together. This is why the calibration gives smaller errors (although this is still not satisfying) and randomly moves towards east or west. We have the longitudinal degrees for some known places along the lower Danube, both Ptolemaic and modern, and this is the best data

55 Şerban George Paul Drugaş stream near Dacia. Starting from this information, we have to correlatate the Ptolemaic meridians with the best estimated modern meridians. Maintaining one place (city) from the data array as a reference for a comparison is mandatory. Therefore, I choose Singidunum, a perfectly determined archaeological site; its longitude of 45°30′ P for 20°27′01″ mod. (almost 20°30′) is also suggestive.

*

Four well known cities, not far from the area to the south, will be analyzed to see if they can serve as external references for the cities along the lower Danube: Abdera (Greece) 52°10′, 41°45′ P, 24°58′E 40°56′N mod.; Byzantium (former Constantinople, now Istanbul, Turkey) 56°, 43°5′ P, 28°57′E 41°N mod.; Dyrrachium (Durrës, Albania) 45°, 40°55′ P, 19°27′E 41°19′N mod.; and Thessalonica (Thessaloniki, Greece) 49°50′, 40°20′ P, 22°54′E 40°39′N mod. Our concern now will be for the longitudes (the coordinate given in the left). Dyrrachium’s Ptolemaic longitude matches that of Partiscum. However, Dyrrachium is at 45′15″ to the west of Partiscum (ℰ 55′10.98″, ℱ 54′31.08″), a considerable displacement, almost of one modern degree. Singidunum is at 30′ P degrees long. of Dyrrachium, and by 1° mod. to the east. This suggests that there is a displacement in longitude of 30′ to the east, of Singidunum from Dyrrachium, of the modern coordinate relative to the Ptolemaic map. Thessaloniki is only 10′ P to the west of Regianum, corresponding with 51′ mod. (ℰ and ℒ about 1°) in the same direction. This implies a ca. 40′ displacement to the east, of Regianum from Thessaloniki’s longitude, of the modern coordinate to the Ptolemaic map. These calculations, meant to assert the displacement of the Ptolemaic map relative to the modern map are carried on in Table 4-2, for which the values in Table 4-1 are taken to consideration.

56 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Table 4-1. Longitudes to be compared: lower Danube, Thrace, Macedonia and Dacia. Legend: abb. = abbreviation, P = Ptolemaic coordinate, mod. = modern coordinate (here longitudes, c1 = first correction of an anomalous P coord., u = value used in Table 4-2).

æ

Alouta

Nov

Gigen

Szeged

Steklen

Oescus

Garvăn

Belgrade

Axiopolis

Kozloduy Dinogetia

m.

Partiscum

Regianum

Cernavodă

S. Kostolac

Viminacium

Singidunum abb. Pa Si Vi Re Oe Al No Ax Di P 45° 45°30′ 46°30′ 50° 51° 50°15′ 52° 54°20′ 53°40′ 51°15′ 53°20′ c1 X c1 mod. 20°12′ 20°27′01 21°13′32 23°44′5 24°29′ u 24°48′ 25°21′ u 28°01′18 28°08′ 15″ ″ ″ 5″ 24°27′56 25°23′38 ″ 20″ ″ ″

Abdera

Byzantium

Dyrrachium

Thessaloniki abb. Dy Th Ab By P 45° 49°50′ 52°10′ 56° mod. 19°27′ 22°54′ 24°58′ 28°57′

ubetis

o

Napouka

Sarmizeg.

Dr

Angoustia

Patrouissa

Porolisson

Zermizirga abb. Dru Sar Por Nap Pat Zer Ang P 47°45′ 47°50′ 49 49 49 49°30′ 53°20′ Ξ X 52°15 Ω mod. 22°40′ 23°18′29 23°09′26 23°35′1 23°46′22 23°11′2 26°18′46 05″ ″ ″ 6″ ″ 5″ ″ ======26.3° 22.668 23.308° 23.1574° 23.587° 23.7728° 23.19° °

57 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The data from Dacia cannot be used in the preliminary comparative analysis for the Balkan data for obvious reasons: (1) Some poleis, which are archaeologically identified, have obviously wrong Ptolemaic longitudes, for the grids of and Macedonia (Sarmizegethousa, Porolisson, Napouka, Patrouissa, and maybe Angoustia); (2) The region of Dacia itself is not as well known as the Balkans, so it would be better to establish, first, acceptable references on the line of the Danube, corroborated with the Balkans. Therefore, the following comparative analyses will help us see some regional patterns in these references, before proceding to actually establishing a local grid, where the Dacian cities in the table above will be again involved, preparing for a better understanding of the data in Dacia.

Table 4-2. Comparison between longitudes. The displacement (δ) of the Ptolemaic map relative to the modern map is the last value of three in a cell. (For the places in the previous table. Ref = reference values)

Ref Pa Si Vi Th Re Oe Al No Ab Ax Di By Dy 0 P 30′P 1°30′ 4°50′P 5°P 6°P 5°15′P 7°P 7°10′P 9°20′P 8°40′ 11°P 45′15 60′ P 3°30′ 4°17′5 5° 5°21′ 5°56′ 5°31′ 8°34′P P 9°30′ ″ -30′ 1°46′ +1°20 ″ +1° -6′ 38″ +1°51′ +2°46′ 8°41′ +1°30′ - 3″ ′ +42′ 6°15′P +1°0 8°20′P -1′ 45′15 - 5°21′ 4′ 8°34′P ″ 16′32 +44′ -14′ ″ Pa 0 30′P 1°30′ 4°50′P 5°P 6°P 6°15′P 7°P 7°10′P 8°20′P 8°40′ 11°P 14′46 P 2°41′4 3°32′ 4°16′ 4°35′ 5°18′ 4°45′ 7°49′P P 8°44′ ″ 1°1′1 ″ +1°27′ +1°4 +1°39′ +1°4 +2°24′ +31′ 7°56′ +2°15′ +15′ 7″ +2°8′ 4′ 1′ +44′ 24″ +29′ Si 0 1°P 4°20′P 4°30′P 5°30′ 5°45′P 6°30′ 6°40′P 7°50′P 8°10′ 10°30′ 46′31 2°24′ 3°18′ P 4°21′ P 4°31′ 7°44′ P P ″ +1°56 +1°12′ 4°02′ +1°24′ 4°54′ +2°09′ +6′ 7°41′ 8°30′ +13′ ′ +1°2 +1°3 +29′ +2°30′ 29″ 8′ 6′ Vi 0 3°20′P 3°30′P 4°30′ 4°45′P 5°30′ 5°40′P 6°50′P 7°10′ 9°30′P 1°40′ 2°31′+ P 3°34′ P 3°44′+ 6°47′ P 7°43′+ +1°39 58′47″ 3°15′ +1°10′ 4°17′ 1°55′3 +2′14″ 6°54′ 1°46′3 ′32″ 2″ 2″

58 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

+1°1 +1°1 +24′ 4′ 2′ 12″ Th 0 10′P 1°10′ 1°25′P 2°10′ 2°20′P 3°30′P 3°50′ 6°10′P 51′ P 1°54′ P 2°04′ 5°07′ P 6°03′ -41′ 1°35′ -29′ 2°27′ +16′ -1°37′ 5°14′ +7′ -25′ -17′ - 1°24′ Re 0 1°P 1°15′P 2°P 2°10′P 3°20′P 3°40′ 6°P 44′ 1°02′ 1°37′ 1°13′ 4°16′ P 5°12′ +16′ +13′ +23′ +53′ -46′23″ 4°23′ +48′ - 43′25 ″ Oe 0 15′P 1°P 1°10′P 2°20′P 2°40′ 5°P 1°02′ 52′ 29′ 3°32′ P 4°28′ -47′ +8′ +41′ -1°12′ 3°39′ +32′ -59′ Al 0 45′P 55′P 2°05′P 2°25′ 4°45′P 33′ 10′ 3°18′ P 4°09′ +12′ +45′ -1°13′ 3°20′ +36′ -55′ No 0 10′P 1°20′P 1°40′ 4°P -23′ 2°40′ P 3°36′ +33′ -1°20′ 2°37′ +24′ -57′ Ab 0 1°10′P 1°30′ 3°40′P 3°03′ P 3°59′ -1°53′ 3°10′ -19′ - 1°40′ Ax 0 20′P 2°40′P 7′ 56′ +13′ +1°44′ Di 0 2°20′P 49′ +1°31′ Ref Pa Si Vi Th Re Oe Al No Ab Ax Di By

The standard deviation (S, a measure of the uniformity of the values) is calculated with the following formula:

59 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

where: n ={1…N-1, N }; MD, average value of the data set D; S2 = variance (how much are the values in D displaced from the average; value 0, equal to the average). For the locations on lower Danube, in Moesia Inferior, in relation to Singidunum, without Axiopolis and Dinogetia, and with the mouth of Alouta, corrected to 51°15′, the statistical data are: MD = 1.41666675, S = 0.144337596. If the values for the mouth of Alouta would not have been corrected, it would have been: MD = 1.16666675, S = 0.465474722, with S related to the whole stream of four places (Regianum, Oescus, m. Alouta, and Novæ). If the same calculation would have been related only to Regianum, Oescus, and Novæ, the results would have been MD = 1.422222333, S = 0.695665611. The results suggest a correction in longitude for the mouth of the Alouta. Since the Ptolemaic system does not offer many options, the replacement of 50°15′ with 51°15′ would give a plausible / acceptable value. The data (excluding m. Alouta) also shows a displacement by about +1,422222333° (DMS 1°25′) of the patch of the Danubian cities in Moesia Inferior (without ), Ptolemaic vs. modern, having Singidunum as an external reference point. The values also show a reset between Dyrrachium and Dinogetia (- 1′), as if there was no displacement between the two patches (or the two series of information that define them), or… it is just a coincidence! The displacement between Dinogetia and Partiscum (+44′) reflects the shift between Partiscum and Dyrrachium, in the opposite direction (-45′15″), with an error of about -1′. The displacement between Dinogetia and Singidunum (+29′) reflects the shift between Singidunum and Dyrrachium (-30′), in the opposite direction, with the same error of about -1′. The reoccurring value, of -1′, indicates that if we considered a longitude of 28°07′E for Dinogetia (an eligible value on the field), we would have a perfect match. If Dyrrachium and Dinogetia had correct references, Partiscum should be corrected at 45°45′P, and Singidunum at 45° and so on. But we should not force a conclusion, since many other results must be considered. For instance, we could not realize the displacements, rather close to each other, of all the southern references relative to Dyrrachium:

60 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Thessaloniki (+1°20′), Abdera (+1°51′), and Byzantium (+1°30′), with MD = 1,494444333, S = 0,251783831. Hoerver, the minor correction of the modern longitude of Dinogetia at 28°07′E could still stand, having a better correlation with any set of data. The displacements above show some consistency with those of the places on the Danube in Moesia Inferior (except Dobruja), relative to Singidunum (discussed above, for which we calculated the average and the standard deviation): Regianum (+1°12′), Oescus (+1°28′), m. Alouta (corrected, +1°24′), and Novae (+1°36′). We see that, although the deviation from the average is larger, the averages are close one to another: 1,494444333 (Dy: Th-Ab-By) and 1.41666675 (Si: Re-Oe-Al-No). A first overall comparison, resulting from the raw data, is presented in Table 4-3 and the resulting Fig. 4-1 and 4-2.

Table 4-3. Decimal values of displacements in Table 4-2. (DyR, PaR… = Ref. values.)

Dy Pa Si Vi Th Re Oe Al No Ab Ax Di By DyR - - - - 0.7 1.333 0.733 1.066 0 -0.5 0.275 0.7 1 1.85 0.233 0.016 1.5 54 33 33 67 6 3 7 2 PaR 0.25 0.483 2.137 1.455 1.733 1.654 1.687 2.404 0.516 0.733 2.262 0 667 33 5 56 33 17 5 17 67 33 5 SiR 0.224 1.933 1.466 0.483 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.15 0.1 2.5 72 33 67 33 ViR 1.658 0.979 1.242 1.175 1.208 1.925 0.037 0.403 1.775 0 89 72 22 56 89 56 22 33 56 ThR - - - - - 0.266 0.116 0 0.683 0.416 0.483 0.283 1.616 -1.4 67 67 3 7 3 3 7 ReR - - 0.266 0.216 0.383 0.883 0 0.773 0.723 0.8 67 67 33 33 1 6 OeR - - 0.133 0.683 0.533 0 0.783 -1.2 0.983 33 33 33 3 3 AlR - - 0 0.2 0.75 1.216 0.916 0.6 7 7

61 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

NoR - 0 0.55 1.333 -0.95 0.4 3 AbR - - - 0 1.883 1.666 0.316 3 7 7 AxR 0.216 1.733 0 67 33 DiR 1.516 0 67 ByR 0

Fig. 4-1. Diagram. Displacements chart for Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Original composition

Some displacements show an off-scale behavior, pointing to the need for further corrections. Some of the displacements will find a solution in the displacement of an entire region. From the obvious patterns of the data arrays, we can identify the following “patches” or connected data:

(a) Partiscum stands alone (and it is the only representative of Iazyges Metanastæ). (b) The four cities on the lower Danube, in Moesia Inferior (except Dobruja): Regianum, Oescus, m. Alouta, and Novae. We notice the erratic behavior of the mouth of the Alouta. I corrected it from 50°15′ to 51°15′ (c1), because its position west of Oescus would be geographically wrong. It still needs to be located somewhere

62 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

between Oescus and Novae, while a better correction is attempted in this study. (c) Thessaloniki and Abdera show a similar displacement, as belonging to the same patch of Thracia, bearing a displacement of 16′ between them. (d) Dyrrachium and Byzantium, from Macedonia, have a similar behavior, compared to the whole of the data, displaced by 1°30′, showing that we should consider not only the difference between Thracia and Macedonia, but also that between west and east. (e) Interestingly enough, Dinogetia shows a reset with the coordinates of Dyrrachium.

We need to know how large are the displacements between some places of a close longitude to each other, because such behavior is given rather by the differences between the local groups (patches) then by the inherent difference between the Ptolemaic and the modern map. This way, for instance, Darcy and Flynn214 estimated that Ireland was off by 5° latitude and 17° longitude. Thus, it is necessary to ask ourselves how do the identified regions (patches) from above (and others in the neighborhood) behave to each other. An almost linear perspective over the displacements, meant to consider only the closest places to each other, is suggestively shown by the chart below, which begins to resemble a map, awaitng for further corrections. The data selected to make the above chart confirms that Partiscum has a peculiar behavior. It might be connected with the general data for Iazyges Metanastæ (such a confirmation is not necessary for the present study). There is also clear the need for a better correction for the mouth of Alouta and for the relation Axiopolis and Dinogetia. The relation between Thessaloniki and Abdera, as belonging to the same area of Macedonia, is within acceptable parameters. The array of Regianum, Oescus, and Novae shows a displacement eastward relative to Thessaloniki and Abdera. A larger displacement appears in the western set Si–Vi/Dy, relative to the eastern group Re–Oe–No/Th–Ab. This last result points to a clivage line somewhere between Moesia Superior and Inferior and between Dalmatia and Macedonia (see Fig. 4-2).

214 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 55.

63 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 4-2. Linear chart for a longitudinal comparison on the Danube line and in the Balkan area

2. Acceptable formulae (map grids) for the northern Balkans and Dacia

Darcy and Flynn calculated the following equations for Ireland, in order to establish a reference grid:215 par' = 4.975 + 0.8165π, mer' = -17.7028 +0.8165μ, with the explanations given above. I altered the symbols, not to be confused with others in this study: par' and mer' are Ptolemaic coordinates (marked here as p or p', actual or estimated), while π and μ are modern values for the paralel or meridian (marked here as d or d', actual or estimated, respectively). Darcy and Flynn took as a longitudinal reference (meridian 0) Hierro in the Canaries (17° 58′ W).216 Other authors also used such a reference in the Canary Islands.217 However, as I have already shown above (ch. II. B.), there are convincing arguments that both Marinos of Tyre and Claudius Ptolemaeus actually used the islands of Cape Verde as the place for the meridian 0, at ca. 25°10′ W.218 There is a large scholarly

215 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 55. 216 Ibid., 51-52. 217 Tsorlini and Livieratos, “A digital approach …,” 1. Stückelberger et al., Claudius Ptolemaeus’…, 240. 218 Reichert,“Ptolemaeus”. Rawlins, “The Ptolemy Geography′s Secrets,” 573. Ferrar, The Text of Marinus…. Marx, “Rectification…,” 100: a better ascertained, but

64 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia debade on this issue. Yet, as already explained in the above sections, it is important how the local grids agree to each other (Ptolemaic and modern), whatever longitudinal reference point is chosen near the African coast of the Atlantic. The “absolute” value used by Darcy and Flynn for the meridian 0 is of -17.917,219 which they adjusted for the needs of Ireland (due to the local displacements) at -17.7028.220 I will not change the original algorithm (δ = -17.917 and ℱ = 0.83 seems a good start for Dacia), but I will also check how the values work, such as -17.7° (reference 25°10′ W) or other close ones (-17.67°). For any chosen algorithm, the correspondent local shifts should be used, if they seem relevant in a particular area, while the original would have a shift zero if the location is not displaced. For Dyrrachium (45° P, 19°27′ mod.), for instance, the resulting values are calculated with -17.7, of: 19.2° (19°12′) D, 19.0425 (19°2′33″) ℰ, 19.65 (19°39′0″) ℱ (where D, ℰ, and ℱ = the three variants for the difference between Ptolemaic and modern Earth, of 0.82, 0.8165 and 0.83, respectively). Calculated with -25° (D), the result is 11.9 (11°54′), too far from the actual value of the meridian. I would move away from the subject to speculate onthe meridian 0 and the framework related to it, but we need to do the pragmatic operation and find an acceptable reference framework for Dacia that could be compared to the neighboring Balkans. For the initiation of the grid (see Table 4-4) I am taking as references the values of Partiscum (Pa), Singidunum (Si), Regianum (Re), Oescus (Oe), and Dinogetia (Di), from the Danubian array. From the middle Balkan array I am taking Dyrrachium (Dy), Thessaloniki (Th), Abdera (Ab), and Byzantium (By). Thus, the situation relative to the possible longitudinal reference point is presented in Table 4-5. From Dacia, I am taking, for comparison Drubetis (Dru), Sarmizegethousa (Sar),

still approximated, assumed, zero degree longitude of the Ptolemaic system: “− 25º10' is the modern longitude of Santa Antao,̃ the most western island of the Cape Verde Islands”. Marx,“The western coast of Africa in Ptolemy′s Geography and the location of his prime meridian,” in History of Geo- and Space Sciences, 7, 2016, 27, 52. 219 Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…,” 52. 220 Ibid., 55.

65 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Porolissum (Por), Napouka (Nap), Patrouissa (Pat), Zermizirga (Zer), and Angoustia (Ang).

Table 4-4. Reference cities on the Danube and in Balkans relative to the longitudinal reference point(s). (Legend: P = Ptolemaic longitude = p = Ptol. degrees; M = modern longitude; d = actual modern degrees; d’ = estimated modern degrees; p’ = estimated Ptol. degrees from the actual modern degrees; Δd = diference between estimated and actual modern degrees; M01 = meridian 0 as δ = -17.7; D, ℰ and ℱ = the three variants for the difference between Ptolemaic and modern Earth). The lower line for each city shows the difference between the estimated and the actual degrees.

P M d’ = δ + Dp; Δd = d’ - d; d = δ + Dp’ → p’ = (d δ = - - δ)/D 17.8 Ptol modern M01: δ = - 17.7 M02: δ = - 17.917 δ = - . 17.6 p’ D = ℰ = ℱ = D = ℰ = ℱ = δ = - (M0 0.82 0.8165 0.83 0.82 0.8165 0.83 17.5 1, D) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dy 45° 19°27′ d’ 19.2 19.0425 19,65 18.983° 18,8255 19,433 19.5 19.45 19°12 19°2′33″ 19°39′ 18°58′5 18°49′31 19°25′5 5 ′ 8.8″ .8″ 8.8″ 19.7 5 p’ 45.3 37,35 Δd -0.25 -0.4075 +0.2 - - - 19.8 45° -15′ -24′27″ +12′ 0.46666 0.624444 0.01666 5 18′ 67 4 67 -28′ -37′28″ -1′ Pa 45° 20°12′ d’ 19.2° 19.0425 19.65 18.983° 18,8255 19,433 19.5 20.2 19°12 19°2′33″ 19°39′ 18°58′5 18°49′31 19°25′5 5 ′ 8.8″ .8″ 8.8″ p’ 46.2 Δd -1° - -0.55 - - - 19 1.160278 -33′ 1.21666 1.374444 0.76666 … -1°9′37″ 7 - 67 46° -1°13′ 1°22′28″ -46′ 13′1 0″ Confirms the Confirms the significant significant displacement westward

66 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

displacement westward Si 45° 20°27′ d’ 19.61 19.45075 20.065 19,393 19,23375 19,848 19.9 30′ 20.45 19°36 19°27′2. 20°3′54 19°23′3 19°14′1. 19°50′5 65 45,5 ′36″ 7″ ″ 4.8″ 5″ 2.8″ p’ 46.5 Δd -0.84 -1° - - - - 24 - 0.38333 1.05694 1.116667 0.56666 … 50′24 33 4 -1°7′ 67 46° ″ -23′ -1°3′25″ -34′ 31′2 7″ Confirms displ. Confirms displacement westward westward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dru 47° 22°40′05 d’ 21.45 21.28787 21.9325 21,238 21,0708721,7155 21,8 45′ .2″ 5 5 21°55′5 21°14′1 5 21°42′5 32 47,7 22,6681 21°27 21°17′16 7″ 6.8″ 21°4′15. 5.8″ 22,0 5 11° ′18″ .35″ 15″ 32 p’ 49.2 39,6325 Δd ------0.95 22,1 294 1.213 1.380278 0.73333 1.43055 1.597222 -57′ 32 … 056 - 33 6 - 49° - 1°22′49″ -44′ - 1°35′50″ 13′4 1°12′ 1°25′50 6″ 47″ ″ Sign. 48.636 Significant disp. W or disp. W … wrong wrong 48°38′1 Ptolemaic longitude. Ptol. 0.6″ Sar 47° 23°18′29 d’ 21.52 21.35591 22.0016 21,3063 21,1389121,7846 50′ .682″ 3330 3945 22°0′6″ 306 3945 639 47.8 23,3082 6 21°21′21 21°18′2 21°8′20. 21°47′4. 333 45° 21°31 .29″ 2.79″ 09″ 79″ 3 ′23.99 ″ p’ 50.0 Δd - - - -2° - - 1… 1.785 1.952222 1.30666 2.169444 1.52361 50° - -1°57′8″ 7 - 1 1°47′ - 2°10′10″ - 6″ 1°18′23. 1°31′25 68″ ″

67 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Sign. disp. W Significant displacement westward Por 49° 23°09′26 d’ 22.48 22.3085 22.97 22,263 22,0915 22,753 22,8 .7″ 22°28 22°18′30 22°58′1 22°15′4 22°5′29. 22°45′1 7 23,1574 ′48″ .6″ 2″ 6.8″ 4″ 0.8″ 23,0 17° 7 p’ 49.8 40,67 Δd - - - - -1° - 23,1 26 0.677 0.848888 0.18722 1.89444 0.40444 7 … 5 9 22 4 44 49° - -50′56″ -11′14″ - -24′16″ 49′3 40′38. 1°53′40 4″ 7″ ″ Nap 49° 23°35′16 d’ 22.48 22.3085 22.97 22,263 22,0915 22,753 ″ 22°28 22°18′30 22°58′1 22°15′4 22°5′29. 22°45′1 23,5877 ′48″ .6″ 2″ 6.8″ 4″ 0.8″ 8° p’ 50.3 Δd - - - -1.325 - - 5… 1.107 1.279278 0.61777 - 1.496389 0.83333 50° 778 - 78 1°19′30 1°29′47″ 33 21′3. - 1°16′45. -37′4″ ″ -50′ 4″ 1°6′2 4″ 8″ Pat 49° 23°46′22 d’ 22.48 22.3085 22.97 22,263 22,0915 22,753 .3″ 22°28 22°18′30 22°58′1 22°15′4 22°5′29. 22°45′1 23,7728 ′48″ .6″ 2″ 6.8″ 4″ 0.8″ 61° p’ 50.5 Δd ------766 1.292 1.464444 0.80277 1.50986 1.683333 1.01986 … 778 - 78 1 -1°41′ 1 50° - 1°27′52″ -48′10″ - - 34′3 1°17′ 1°30′35. 1°1′11.5 6″ 34″ 5″ ″ Zer 49° 23°11′25 d’ 22.89 22.71675 23.385 22.673 22.49975 23.168 23,2 30′ .4″ 22°53 22°43′ 23°23′6 22°40′2 22°29′59 23°10′4. 85 Ξ = ′24″ ″ 2.8″ .1″ 8″ 23,4 49,5 23,1903 85 89° p’ 49.8 41,085 Δd -0.3 - +0.194 - - - 23,5 663 -18′ 0.473611 6111 0.35072 0.9906380.02238 85 … 1 +11′40. 22 9 889 -28′25″ 6″ -21′2.6″ -59′26.3″

68 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

49° - 51′5 1′20.6″ 8″ Th 49° 22°54′ d’ 23.09 22.92087 23.5925 22.878 22.7038723.3755 45′ 22.9 5 5 23°35′3 22°52′4 5 23°22′3 49.7 23°5′ 22°55′15 3″ 0.8″ 22°42′13 1.8″ 5° 42″ .15″ .95″ p’ 49.5 Δd +0.1 +0.0166 +1.692 -0.022 - +0.475 12 95 6667 5 -1′19.2″ 0.196111 5 … +11′4 +1′ +1°41′3 1 +28′31. 49° 2″ 3″ -11′46″ 8″ 30′4 4″ Re 50° 23°44′ d’ 23.3 23.125 23.8 23.083 22.908 23.583 23,7 23,7333 23°18 23°7′30″ 23°48′ 23°4′58. 22°54′28 23°34′5 23.9 3° ′ 8″ .8″ 8.8″ p’ 50.5 41,5 Δd - - +0.066 - -0.842 - 24 28 0.433 0.608333 6667 0.65033 -50′31.2″ 0.15033 … 3333 3 +4′ 33 33 50° -26′ -36′30″ -39′1.2″ -9′1.2″ 31′4 2″ Oe 51° 24°29′ d’ 24.12 23.9415 24.63 23.903 23.7245 24.413 24,4833 24°7′ 23°56′29 24°37′4 23°54′1 23°43′28 24°24′4 3° 12″ .4″ 8″ 0.8″ .2″ 6.8″ p’ 51.4 Δd - - +0.146 - - - 43 0.363 0.541666 6667 0.58033 0.7586660.07033 … 3333 7 +8′48″ 33 7 333 51° - -32′30″ - -45′31.2″ - 26′3 21′48 34′49.2″ 4′13.2″ 5″ ″ Ab 52° 24°58′ d’ 25.07 24.89408 25.5983 24.8596 24.6770825.3813 10′ 24,9666 6669 6055 361 694 6055 361 52,1 7° 4 24°53′38 25°35′5 24°51′3 24°40′37 25°22′5 666 25°4′ .71″ 4.01″ 4.81″ .51″ 2.81″ 7 36.01 ″ p’ 52.0 Δd +0.1 -0.0725 - - - +0.631 325 1 -4′21″ 0.63083 0.10699 0.289580 3361 … +6′3 33 72 6 +37′52. 6″ -37′54″ -6′25.19 -17′22.49 81″

69 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

52° 1′57 ″ Ang 52° 26°18′46 d’ 25,14 24,96212 25,6675 24.928 24.7451225.4505 25,5 1 15 .3″ 5 5 25°40′3 24°55′4 5 25°27′1. 67 Ω 26,3128 25°8′ 24°57′43 ″ 0.8″ 24°44′42 8″ 25.7 52,2 61° 42″ .65″ .45″ 67 5° p’ 53.6 Δd - -1.35 - - - - 25,8 74 1.166 -1°21′ 0.47861 1.38333 1.566667 0.86236 67 … 667 11 3 -1°34′ 11 53° -1°10′ -28′43″ -1°23′ - 40′2 51′44.5″ 7″ Ang 53° 26°18′46 d’ 26,03 25,84666 26,5666 25.8163 25.6296626.3496 26,3 2 20′ .3″ 3330 39 639 306 39 639 56 Ξ 26,3128 6 25°50′47 26°33′5 25°48′5 25°37′46 26°20′5 26,5 53,3 61° 26°1′ .99″ 9.9″ 8.8″ .79″ 8.8″ 56 333 59.99 3° ″ p’ 53.6 Δd - - +0.253 - - +0.033 26,7 74 0.279 0.466666 8889 0.49653 0.683333 3333 669 … 5278 7 +15′14″ 06 3 +2′ 53° - -28′ - -41′ 40′2 16′46. 29′47.51 7″ 3″ ″ Di 53° 28°08′ d’ 26.30 26.11883 26.8433 26.0896 25.9018326.6263 40′ 28,1333 6669 6 361 694 6 361 53.6 3° 4 26°7′7.8 26°50′3 26°5′22. 25°54′6. 26°37′3 666 26°18 1″ 6″ 81″ 61″ 5″ 7 ′24″ p’ 55,8 Δd - -2° -1.29 - - - 9… 1.826 - 0.03466 2.233333 1.50694 55° 667 1°17′24 67 -2°14′ 4 53′3 - ″ -2′3″ - 9″ 1°49′ 1°30′25 36″ ″ By 56° 28°57′ d’ 28.22 28.024 28.78 28.003 27.807 28.563 28,95° 28°13 28°1′26. 28°46′4 28° 27°48′25 28°33′4 ′12″ 4″ 8″ .2″ 6.8″

70 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

p’ 56.8 Δd -0.73 - -0.17 -0.95 - 0.38694 9… - 0.926111 -10′12″ -57′ 1.159722 44 56° 43′48 1 -1°9′35″ -23′13″ 53′2 ″ -55′34″ 5″ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Once a formula is adopted (with the greatest rate of approximation between the two set of coordinates), the next step is to assume the local displacements according to it. The Ptolemaic coordinates that are most probably wrong have a very large displacement in any variant of calculation, or they have a smaller value of their displacement when all the others have a larger one. The first conclusion is that Forţiu’s approximation of the constant that defines the relation between Ptolemy’s and modern Earth’s equatorial circumference requires less ulterior adjustments. This observation is valid for all the locations in Dacia and most of the settlements on the Danube. It might be right to use the Attic stade, after all, when dealing with distances not given in degrees. Dyrrachium and Byzantium have the same behavior function to D, ℰ, ℱ, while Thessaloniki and Abdera are quite the opposite. For Dacia, adopting the above mentioned formula (ℱ = 0.83), the lesser effort to corroborate the local displacement with a general grid is for δ = -17.917 than for others (i. e., of δ = -17.7). The map of Dacia is not made of a unique structure, but of “patches.” Thus, it would be better to respect at least the known coordinates of the few known locations, and see what other observations could be drawn for this map as the study goes further. I am starting from the assumption that, as anywhere else, in Moesia Sup. and Inf., in Thrace or Macedon, at least some close locations must behave the same way, or otherwise the results would be too odd and flagrantly contradicting other sources that give their relative positions (i. e., itineraries like Tabula Peutingeriana). The tendency to respect a certain local pattern could decrease as we go farther from a certain reference point. At this point, latitudes should be considered. As we can see (i. e., in Table 4-5), for the northern poleis there is a displacement in latitude of almost one degree (the value -54′ appears twice), decreasing at -22′ for Zermizirga and reversing for the southern poleis. We need to further

71 Şerban George Paul Drugaş observe the behavior on the longitude of some known locations, function to their different latitudinal layers.

Table 4-5. The behavior of the longitudes in the poleis in Dacia relative to latitudes

Latitude Dif. M-P δ = -17.7 δ = -17.67 δ= -17.917 (lat. shift) Ptol. Modern Δλ Por 48° 47°10′45.4″ = -0.820722° - 0.37672224 -0.4044444 47.179278° (-49′14.6″) 0.1872222 Nap 47°40′ 46°46′ -0.9° (-54′) - - -0.8333333 (46.76…), or 0.6177778 0.05383336 46°46′ 16″ (46.77 ) Ang2 47°40′Χ 46°03′02.9″ = -1.616667° - 0.08533334 0.03333333 46.050806° (-1°37′) 0.4786111 Ang1 47°15′221 46°03′02.9″ = -1.2°(- for 52°15′ P -0.8623611 46.050806° 1°12′) Pat 47°20′ 46°34′13″ -0.9° (-54′) - - -1.019861 (46.57), or 0.8027778 0.23883336 46°33′ 52.8336″ = 46.564676° Zer 46°15′ 45°53′38″ -0.36° (- 0.1946111 0.75855554 - (45.89°), or 22′) 0.02238889 45°53′37″ (45.89); 45°56′08″; 45°55′12″ Sar 45°15′ 45° 37′ +0.36° -1.306667 - -1.523611 21.7945″ = (+22′) 0.74272256 45.6227207° Dru 44°30′ 44°37′29.9″N = +0.125° - - -0.95 44.624972° (+7′30″) 0.7333333 0.16938886

221 Although in the charts I designated 47°40′ to designate Angoustia, the value of 47°15′ is more probable, since Breţcu is not on the same parallel with Napouka, but souther.

72 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 4-3 A. Chart I. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.67. Calculating at this δ would require knowledge on the relative behavior of the local micro-patches

Fig. 4-3 B. Chart II. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.7. Calculating at this δ would require knowledge on the relative behavior of the local micro-patches

73 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 4-3 C. Chart III. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.917. Reading: Angoustia and Zermizirga have a small shift; they would represent normality for Dacia

The only two of the known Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia, among those analyzed above, that behave within normal limits, are Angoustia (Ang 2 for longitude, 53°20′ E P, but its latitude is not admissible, so I only considered the other one, 47°15′ N P) and Zermizirga (cf. Fig. 4-3, A-C). These would be the only two whose locations could have been directly deduced from the raw Ptolemaic data (δ = -17.917 and low shifts). We can only hope that others would have the same correct coordinates. Their behavior at δ = -17.917, the first reference point, adequate to direct deductions of the modern coordinates, means δ should be kept, and not changed for a local reference, unless a better understanding of the local shifts would demand it. The attentive observation of the local behavior is always useful if possible. The explanation of why the most known poleis have the largest shifts might be stand in the information about their deteriorated coordinates due to the speculations of different succesive ancient copists, which intervened to “correct” different aspects, coming from exterior considerations. We should notice that Zermizirga and Angoustia have not shifted values for the Ξ reference value. The Ω reference value is

74 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia shifted in the same manner as for the known locations in central . This means that some unknown locations (at least in the proximity of Angoustia and Zermizirga) might have unshifted values for the Ξ reference, as well. This reveals the succesive layers of editorial interventions in the manuscripts. The tendency from the Ξ reference (the oldest) to the Ω reference (the newest) is to “correct” the values in order to fit the general tendency of a westward shift (in Dacia!), as I named it, meaning that the modern longitude, given from the Ω reference, is displaced to the west from the actual longitude of the corresponding site. The main pattern or grid I will use for the longitudes of the poleis in Dacia will be given by the formula: P x 0.83 - 17.917, where P is the Ptolemaic longitude. It should work well for the better preserved values, as expected from the Ξ reference values. If the Ω reference does not have a different value, this suggests that the “correction” was already operated in the Ξ reference, and a shift must be considered. This shift may be approximated by that of the closest other location on the same latitude.

75

CHAPTER FIVE

Calculating the Coordinates of Some Dacian Poleis from the Established Grid

The first method used by Forţiu for Ziridava was the calculation from a set of reference points (Singidounon for longitude, as identical, and Partiskon for latitude), converting the Ptolemaic degrees into kilometers and then back to modern degrees. He first calculated the modern position that would be given by a set of coordinates, in which he expressed his distrust: 45°30′ / 46°20′ P. The calculation led to two options,222 and finally Ziridava (1) is ca. 45.8 km SW of , Şanţul Mare (Arad County), a location postulated by I. H. Crişan. However, Forţiu concluded that the place given by the first set of coordinates (45°30′ / 46°20′ Ptol.) did not have sufficient archaeological support and it was too far to indicate Pecica as a plausible identification.223 The second set of coordinates led the placement of Ziridava at approximately Ardeu–Balşa (Cetăţuie), , 23°08′43.82″ E and 46°01′0.89″ N.224 We will further employ the same set of Ptolemaic coordinates, 49°30′ (Ξ, or mss. X) long., and 46°20′ lat., based on the framework described in the previous chapter. The calculations give the following raw results:

(1) 49.5 x 0.83 = 41.085; (2) 41.085 - 17.67 = 23.415 = 23°24′54″ DMS (at 16′ difference from Ardeu, but it would need a known local shift for correction), (3) or 41.085 - 17. 7 = 23.385 = 23°23′6″ DMS (15′ difference from Ardeu, but it would need a known local shift for correction), (4) or 41.085 - 17. 917 = 23.168 = 23°10′4.8″ DMS (less than 2′ difference from Ardeu).

222 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 21. 223 Ibid., 22. 224 Ibid. Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The last calculation (giving less than 2′ difference from Ardeu), which matches perfectly the identification of Forţiu with Ardeu– Balşa, shows that no significant displacement would be involved from the standard reference taken in the first place. All the results lead, in any case, to the same general area if the latitude would also match, and it does. The latitude 46°20′ Ptol. is close to 46°15′ of Zermizirga, which has a displacement of -22′. Applying it to the Ptolemaic latitude, the result is 45°58′, off by only 3′. Therefore, two calculations, Forţiu’s and mine, starting from very different references, with different methods (he used a transformation into kilometers), but with transparent and verifiable methods, lead to the same area for Ziridava! Since I did not influence in any way the method to match Foţiu’s calculation, I must confess the honest emotion I felt until it was done. As we saw above, Dacia is not a Burebistas area on the Ptolemaic map. On the contrary, many traps come from data that could be rightfully suspected as wrong even for some well-known locations, as Sarmizegethousa. However, such a positive match gives confidence that we could find some useful patterns to be followed in the endeavor to decipher the Ptolemaic places in Dacia. The fact that Ziridava has correct coordinates might be either pure luck or it might be connected to the fact that its latitude is between Angoustia and Zermizirga, both having best matches among the known poleis. This result might also confirm the hypothesis formulated in the last paragraph of the previous chapter, that the different Ξ reference of many locations might give unshifted values. A very important reference for the northern segment of the Ptolemaic map of Dacia is Porolisson, identified with Porolissum, which was, initially, a Dacian place name, and then a Roman one, in Dacia Porolissensis. The archaeological exploration found Dacian settlements there, two Roman castra, and a municipium. In modern Moigrad, castrum 1 can be found, point Pomăt, 47°10′45.4″ N 23°09′26.7″ E225, while

225 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. General coordinates for Porolissum at PLEIADES.STOA.org, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://pleiades.stoa.org/ places/207361/?searchterm=Porolissum*: 47.1792356202, 23.1569797547 =

78 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia castrum 2 is placed on Dealul Citera, 47°11′01.2″ N 23°10′06.7″ E 226. The Ptolemaic coordinates are 49° long., 48° lat. The longitude of 49° P would be at 22.753 / 22°45′10.8″ E, but the Ω reference value is shifted with different amounts on different klimata (here by 0.4044444° / 24′16″). In a succint description, “Porolissum was a Roman city in Dacia established in A.D. 106. It became the capital of Dacia Porolissensis in A.D. 124.”227 A more detailed description can be read in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites:

POROLISSUM (Moigrad) Sălaj, Romania. The most important military center in NW Dacia, a Roman town with canabae, in a region of hills and valleys, near Moigrad and Jac. The name, of Dacian origin, appears in ancient sources (Ptol. 3.8.6; Tab. Peut.; Rav. Cosm. 4.7). Before the Roman conquest, there was a Dacian settlement on the Citera hill, and on the Măgura hill a Dacian cremation cemetery (1st-2d c.). Porolissum gave the name to Dacia Porolissensis, created by in 124. There was a strong military garrison here in two camps. On Pomet hill is one of the largest camps (226 x 294 m) in Dacia. Built first of earth, it was rebuilt of stone. Inscriptions discovered at the gates testify to the rebuilding of the camp under Caracalla, and to the hasty rebuilding under . The interior wall is 1.5 m thick and has two ditches. At a distance of 700 m NE on Citera hill is another smaller camp (66.65 x 101.10 m) first built of earth and later rebuilt of stone. The gates have squared towers at every corner projecting from the interior wall with trapezoidal towers inside. There is an inner and outer ditch. Stationed at Porolissum were Cohors I Brittonum milliaria Ulpia Torquata pia fidelis civium Romanorum, Cohors V Lingorum, Numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium Sagittariorum civium Romanorum (which later became Ala Palmirenorum Porolissensium) and Cohors I Palmirenorum

47°10'45.2482", 023°09'25.1271" (cf. EARTHPOINT.us, last accessed 9.03. 2019, http://www.earthpoint.us/Convert.aspx). 226 LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 227 PLEIADES.STOA.org.

79 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Porolisensium. The civil settlement, inhabited chiefly by veterans, developed on the S and W terraces of the camp. Porolissum, an important center for trade with the barbarians, was probably a customs station. Entering the province from Porolissum were roads that started from Aquincum and ended at the mouth of the Danube, and there ended here the main thoroughfare that started at the Danube and linked the most important centers of Dacia. Under the town became a municipium. Coins prove that it continued to be inhabitated after the withdrawal of in 271. The town had no stone precincts but was defended from barbarians by consisting of a stone wall alternating with an earth wall and a ditch strengthened by small earth castella and stone towers. Excavations at the civil settlement have revealed the baths, an insula composed of four buildings closely aligned private dwellings, and a temple to Liber Pater. More recent excavations have concentrated on the amphitheater, the palestrae, and the necropolis with incineration tombs and small mausoleums on the Ursoieş hill. The amphitheater, 100 m from the SW corner of the camp on Pomet hill, is on a terrace. Originally built of wood, it was later rebuilt of stone in the year 157 by order of the imperial procurator Tib. Claudius Quintilianus (CIL III, 836). The arena, elliptical in form, has an axis 60 m long. It is bordered by a stone wall, built in opus incertum and plastered on the side facing the arena. At the E gate, which has two rooms on either side, traces of the wooden piers of the first stage of construction have been discovered. Among the finds are four military diplomas, one of which dates from August 11, 106, a time at which Dacia was already a Roman province. Bronze statuettes, an equestrian statue of the emperor Caracalla, inscriptions and sculptural monuments, gems of local cutting, are all to be found at the Museum of History and Art in Zalău and in the History Museum of Transylvania in Cluj.228

228 Marinescu, in Richard Stillwell, William L. MacDonald, and Marian Holland McAlister, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton

80 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Napouka was, at first, a Dacian place name, then a Roman one, in Dacia Superior. The city name appears in many literary and epigraphical sources, and it corresponds to the findings of the Roman municipium, bearing the same name, placed in the area of modern Cluj-Napoca, CJ, RO, ca. 46°46′0″N 23°35′0″E. The Ptolemaic coordinates of Νάπουκα are: 49° long., 47°40′ lat.229 The name Napoca (in Ptolemy, Napuka) might come from PIE *snā- (*(s)neh2-) “to flow, swim; damp,”230 extended as *snap- (Naparis, Tomaschek, Russu; Napoca, Russu).231 Napouka was placed by Ptolemy on the same meridian as Porolissum, at 20 min. (36 km) to the South. This would lead to com. Aghireşu, west of Cluj- Napoca. The same Princeton Encyclopedia gives the following information:

An important Roman town on the river Someş. The mediaeval and modern towns built over the ancient ruins have almost entirely destroyed them. The name, mentioned in ancient sources (Ptol. 3.8.9; Tab.Peut.; Rav.Cosm. 4.7), indicates that Roman Napoca developed on the site of a Dacian settlement. The Roman settlement has been epigraphically attested since the time of (CIL III, 1627). Situated in the middle of a fertile agricultural area and on the main commercial and strategic road which crossed Dacia from S to N, Napoca developed as a commercial and handicrafts center. Hadrian, on the occasion of his visit to

University Press, 1976), s. v., at PERSEUS.TUFTS.edu, last accessed March 09, 2019, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/. Sending to: C. Daicoviciu, “New Information about Dacia” Dacia 7-8 (1937-40): 323-336; M. Macrea et al., “ The Archaeological Yard of Porolissum” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7 (1960): 361- 386. Ibid., 1962, 485-501. 229 Stückelberger et al., Ptolemy. The Handbook of Geofgraphy…, apud Forţiu, Ziridava…, 55. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, apud Vladimir Iliescu, Virgil C. Popescu, and Gheorghe Ştefan, Fontes ad Historiam Dacoromaniae Pertinens, Vol. I, Ab Hesiodo usque ad Itinerarium Antonini (Bucharest: Ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste Române, 1964), 544-545. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 179. 230 Alois Walde and Julius Pokorny, Comparative Dictionary of Indo-European languages, 3 Vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927-1932, rep. 1973), I, 397, II, 692 sqq. Julius Pokorny, The Etymological Dictionary of the Indoeuropean, Band I-III (Bern und München: Francke Verlag, 1959), III, 971-972. 231 Wilhelm Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 1894, 96. Russu, The Thraco-Dacian Language, 113.

81 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Dacia, made it a municipium (CIL III, 1454), and , or made it a colonia (CIL III, 963). After the administrative reform of Hadrian in 124, Napoca became the capital of Dacia Porolissensis. The inhabitants were given the ius Italicum. In the course of modern construction, the topography of the ancient town was clarified. Part of the town inside wall (2.20 m thick) was discovered to the S. The town covered an area of 32 ha and the forum coincides with the present center of the town. Archaeological, epigraphic, and numismatic material discovered over the centuries may be seen at the History Museum of Transylvania in Cluj.232

The verification of the archaeological findings between two known poleis, Porolissum and Napoca, demonstrates that: (1) Ptolemy′s coordinates do not always apply to the archaeological sites we would expect; (2) Ptolemy′s coordinates, however, lead us to the neighborhood of the main site of the actual polis. However, the approximation of Ptolemy′s coordinates does not mean they should be easily dismissed, without calibrating the hypotheses about his poleis taking his cartography to consideration. Cluj-Napoca is a modern city, while Napoca was an important municipium, whose vestiges were found in many sites on the surface of the modern city. So, if we take the westernmost point of the modern city and introduce the margin of error accepted within the Ptolemaic calculations, the distance between the estimation of Napoca function of Porrolissum and the buildings of the muncicipium would be of about 40 km, a little too large, but still not across the map, as maybe in other cases. The closest sites of the right age to the estimation of Napoca function Porolissum (Fig. 5-1 A and 5-1 B) are the Roman settlements of

232 Marinescu, in Stillwell et al., The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, s. v., at PERSEUS.TUFTS.edu. See also: I. Mitrofan, “Contribution to the Knowledge about the City of Napoca” Acta Musei Napocensis 1 (1964): 197-214; D. Tudor, Cities, Townlets and Villages in Roman Dacia (Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1968); M. Macrea, The Roman Life in Dacia (Bucharest, 1969).

82 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Aghireşu, those of Căpranţa,233 Izvoru Crişului, and Ordomanioş (on the road to the castrum limitaneus of Bologa, at the valleys of Nadăş and Criş).234 Some Roman settlements north-west of Cluj-Napoca are at Rădaia and Baciu.

Fig. 5-1 A. Napouka 1 (Google Earth)

Roman Napoca corresponds largely to the historical center of the city of Cluj. It was founded on the imperial road that led to Porolissum, on a rigorous mathematical model, as it

233 RAN.CIMEC.ro: Repertoriul Arheologic Naţional, ed. by Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran= 55482.03. 234 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=58213.02.

83 Şerban George Paul Drugaş proves the military pillar of Aiton (CIL III 1627) which attests that in the year 108 AD was finished the paved road segment from Potaissa to Napoca. During Trajan′s time, Napoca was a strategic center, smaller than the settlement in the time of Hadrian, as it is attested by the three phases with buildings of wood and adobe on the Victor Deleu Str., which lasted until the mid of the , compared to only one phase of wood in Piaţa Unirii. The stone buildings appear at the Central Store only in the end of the 3rd century. The municipium of Hadrian was founded in 118, the same time with the province Dacia Porolissensis and had the form of a square with the side of 500 m. The enclosure wall on the north side was identified in Caragiale Park…. Decumanus Maximus, the main east-west road, corresponds largely to 21 Decembrie Bd., which is even today, the main access road along the Someş valley. Cardo Maximus, the north-south road, went towards the bridge on Someş. It seems it does not correspond to the present Ferdinand Bd., being, thus, placed maybe near the buildings uncovered on V. Deleu Str., just to the east of them. The first Cardo, from the West, was identified in Piaţa Muzeului, and it was paved with huge limestone tiles, and the first Decumanus, from the North, was found under Ferdinand Galleries. The Forum of the city of Napoca was placed in the central area of today (Piaţa Unirii), right on the south of Decumanus Maximus. The houses were built, in the beginning, of wood and adobe, being gradually replaced with those of stone and brick. In Napoca there was also the residence of the governor of Dacia Porolissensis, placed maybe in the neighborhood of the site at the Central Store. The governor of equestrian rank was, from the creation of the province under Hadrian to the administrative reorganization of Marcus Aurelius, not only the financial procurator of the emperor, but also a praeses, military commander of the troops of the province, exercitus Daciae Porolissensis, an army made only from auxiliary troops. The city of Napoca was rised to the rank of colonia with the occasion of the reorganization in 170, becoming Colonia Aurelia Napocensis. The city fell into ruins after the crisis in

84 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

260-270, and within the walls there were found no traces from the end of the 3rd to the 4th century. However, the South-East cemetery (in the area of C. Brâncuşi Bd.) continued to be used in the 4th-5th centuries by the locals, including after the penetration of Christianity. The Roman settlement does not seem to be preceded by a Dacian one, as the recent excavations demonstrate. It seems, however, that the Austrian fort of Cetăţuie destroyed in the beginnings of the 18th century had shown the traces of a Dacian city.235

Fig. 5-1 B. Napouka 3 (Google Earth)

An important site, where the Roman city of Napoca was studied, is placed towards the north-western exit of the modern city (Deleu and

235 Ibid. Cf. Konrad Miller, Itineraria Romana: Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana (Stuttgart: Verlegt von Strecker und Schröder, 1916), 549: “Napoca, it. (Ra, Iss: CIL III 1100. (1627), Napuca (Pt), fruher mun. (Iss: C I L U I 860. 1100. 6254. 7664), spater colonia Aurelia Napoca (ib. 7726, VI 269), colonia Napoca (ib. 862. 1141. 7633. 7657. 7665. 7804. 8075ie teg.); coloniae Sa[rmiz]egetusa et Napu[ce]nsium (ib. 7996), colonia (ib. 858. 865. 867); j. Koloszvar sive Klausenburg. 43 Iss im CIL III 16; dazwischen Macedonica (Ra), Standquartier des 1. Teils der leg. V Maced.; j. Ruine bei Szucsag (8 km von Klausenburg entfernt). Iss: CIL m 852. 7652-7654. 80761. Doch ist vielleicht besser nicht an eine Zwischenstation zu denken, sondern Macedonica ist als Zusatz zu dem vorhergehenden Optatiana oder dem nachfolgenden Napoca aufzufassen und von Ra mißverstanden worden. Allein die leg. V Macedonica hatte, soviel wir wissen, nicht in Napoca, sondern in Patavissa ihr Hauptquartier.”

85 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Caragiale Streets). The site of Cluj-Napoca–Cetăţuie is placed a little more in the same direction (Galilei St.). Patrouissa was Potaissa (Fig. 5-2). The Ptolemaic coordinates of Πατρούισσα are: 49° long., 47°20′ lat.236 The Tabula Peutingeriana (TP 7A2) called it Patavissa: “Segment grid: 7A2 / Onward stretch: • XXIIII (24) Napoca ◦One stretch is drawn as two. ◦River crossing: (river, no. 15H) / Previous stretch: • XII (12) Salinis.”237 The name in Ptolemy, Patrouissa, is only an approximation of Potaissa, but there is no other major city there, at 20 min. (36 km) south of Napoca. This name is a feminine from the PIE *poti-s “owner, host, master, husband,”238 which was very productive in Thraco-Dacian: Dacian anthroponyms Πατας, Παταρος, Πατασιος, Ποτασιος, Potazis (inscr. in Rome), Putina, Putinga,239 a region name in

236 Stückelberger et al., Ptolemy. The Handbook of Geofgraphy, apud Forţiu, Ziridava…, 55. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, apud Iliescu et al., Fontes…, 544- 545. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1843, Vol. 1, 179. 237 Richard J. A. Talbert, “Explore the Peutinger Map,” n.d., Last accessed 9.03.2019, CAMBRIDGE.org, http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert /talbertdatabase/TPPlace1925.html, citing: Barrington Atlas, Potaissa 21 F3; Itineraria Romana (Miller): 549. Tudor, Cities…, 209-221. Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, with Map-by-Map Directory (Princeton and Oxford, 2000), 319, 321 etc. Miller, Itineraria Romana…, 549: “12. Patavissa, Patabissa (Ra), Patruissa, Potaissa (Iss: CIL III 1030. 1627. 7689), Patavissensium vicus (Ulpian), c[ivitas] Pataissa (I: CIL III 1030), mun. S[eptimium] Potaissa (I ib. 7689), col. Napoca et mun. Pot[aissa] (ib. 7804); seit Severus romische Kolonie (Digest.) und Legionslager; c[ol(onia) Pot(aissa)] ( C I L III 7709), Patavisesis ex provincia Dacia (ib. 2086); leg. V Macedonica (I: CIL DI 875. 892. 902. 995; teg. 1630. 8066). Die Legio V Macedonica scheint ubrigens im 2. Jahrhundert in Moesia inferior ihr Lager gehabt zu haben und von Kaiser Severus nach Dazien verpflanzt worden zu sein (CIL III p. 161); j. Thorda. Die Walle eines umfangreichen romischen Lagers sind nordwestlich von der jetzigen Stadt noch sehr deutlich erkennbar. 121 Iss im CIL DI; tegulae der leg. XIII gemina hier gefunden (CIL HI 1629. 16291); nach Brosteanu bei Hadrian zu suchen. In Ajton wurde 1 Meilenstein gefunden aus dem Jahre 109/110: a Potaissa Napocae m. p. 10 (CIL in 1627) (beiderseits 10 mp!).” 238 Walde and Pokorny, Comparative Dictionary of Indo-European languages, II, 77-78. Pokorny, The Etymological Dictionary of the Indoeuropean, III, 842. 239 Russu, Limba traco-dacilor, 115.

86 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Thrace Pa(u)talia240, Potelense, and the politonyms Potula (Geog. Rav. 4.14, between Viminacium and Tibiscum) and Potulata (+ dim. -la + iter. -ta), and the ethnonym Potulatenses.241 The suffix -iss-os,-a is also very common in Dacian (cf. Dimissos, Ergissa, Tyrissa). Patrouissa / Potaissa corresponds with the modern city of Turda (ca. 46°34′12″N 23°46′12″E). The estimation taken from Napoca falls at ca. 15 km NW, in the same manner as it happened with the estimation from Porolissum to Napoca. This confirms one of the conclusions of Forţiu, that, in Ptolemaic coordinates, “There is no connection between the points on the same longitude* (46° 40′) situated at different latitudes*.”242

Fig. 5-2. Patrouissa–Potaissa (Google Earth)

240 Stephanus (Byzantius), “Ethnica,” in The New Stephanus of Byzantium, edited by Margarethe Billerbeck, Christian Zubler, 4 Vols., Vol. IV: Π-Υ, 43.4. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 44, 45 (π. 76). Ibid., 1849, 513. Ibid., 1839, 228. Ibid., 1678, 537 (wrong Pætalia / Παιταλία, put among Παυτ- words). 241 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 63-65 (other explanations). Vasile Pârvan, Getica, ed. Radu Florescu (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1982), 137 (227), 150 (253), 152-153 (259). Anonymi Ravennatis, Cosmographia et Guidonis Geographica (Berlin: M. Pinder & G. Parthey, 1860). 242 Forțiu, “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis…,” 627.

87 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Rhoukkonion has 47°30′ Ξ / 46°30′ Ω P long., 48°10′ P lat. The raw outcome, in the Ξ recension, for the longitude (δ = -17.917) is 21.508 / 21°30′28.8″, and, for the latitude, 47.305° / 47°18′18″ N, about south of Derecske, Hungary. Using the Ξ recension, this might mean a correction would not be necessary. Both Porolisson to the east and Partiskon to the west have westward shifts, by -0.4044444° and -0.7666667°, respectively. If we apply the shift of Porolisson (add its module value), which is most likely, due to the close latitude, this would give for Rhoukkonion the longitude of 21.9124444° / 21°54′44.8″ E. This points to a place west of Diosig, Romania, Bihor County, next to the border with Hungary. There is not enough reason, yet, to discard any of these estimations. Although I will consider some archaeological sites in Romania, close to Diosig, any findings in Hungary, close to Derecske would also need considering. The area including Roşiori, Diosig, and Săcueni benefits of important archaeological findings, some from relevant periods. At Roşiori, besides an Eneolithic settlement, there is also a Middle Bronze Age fortified settlement and a necropolis (at La Sere: Otomani II-III).243 Săcueni includes a Middle Bronze Age settlement (Otomani I-II)244 and findings for other periods. Cherechiu has a Middle Bronze Age fortified settlement (Otomani I-II),245 and another settlement belonging to that era. Tarcea has a fort, a fortified settlement246 and another settlement from the Middle Bronze Age (Otomani). In the area of Sălacea, two fortified settlements were discovered, in the village that gave the name to the Otomani culture, and other settlements from Middle Bronze

243 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, RAN.CIMEC.ro, http://ran.cimec.ro/ sel.asp?descript=rosiori-rosiori-bihor-situl-arheologic-de-la-rosiori-la-sere-cod- sit-ran-29136.01. 244 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=sacueni-oras-sacueni-bihor- asezarea-din-epoca-bronzului-de-la-sacueni-cetatea-boului-cod-sit-ran- 30924.02. 245 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=chesereu-cherechiu-bihor- asezarea-fortificata-de-epoca-bronzului-de-la-chesereu-dealul-episcopului-cod- sit-ran-28512.01. 246 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=tarcea-tarcea-bihor-asezarea- fortificata-din-epoca-bronzului-de-la-tarcea-dealul-mic-cod-sit-ran-31574.01.

88 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Age.247 Şimian has settlements from and Eneolithic, a Bronze Age fortified settlement (at Şilindru),248 a settlement (at Şilindru)249 and a necropolis (at Voivozi) from Hallstatt, as well as other findings (from the Migration period and Middle Ages). Abram has a Roman period settlement (2nd to 3rd centuries AD). Among the current discoveries in the area, the only site that covers better the Dacian is the Dacian settlement of Sălard, Bihor County, 47°12′58″N 22°02′27″E. The commune of Sălard and its dependent villages are also rich in archaeological findings, showing the area was inhabited during the Eneolithic, Late Bronze Age (Baden), La Tène (at Hodoş, Dâmbul Morii: 1st BC to 1st AD, Dacian settlement), and the Middle Ages (10th to 15th centuries AD).250 Diosig presents, besides the Neolithic and the medieval findings, a fortified settlement in the Bronze Age (Otomani II-III).251 The name of Dokidava (in NW Dacia, outside of the Roman province; unidentified with a modern site252) is rightfully questioned by Pârvan and Olteanu, in favor of a name with Daki- as its first part.253 Dokidava (Dakidava) was presumed by Dumitraşcu to be placed at Şimleu Silvaniei, Cetate.254 Its Ptolemaic latitude is that of Porolisson

247 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=otomani-salacea-bihor-asezarea- fortificata-de-epoca-bronzului-de-la-otomani-cetatea-de-pamant-cod-sit-ran- 31002.02. 248 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=silindru-simian-bihor-asezarea- fortificata-din-epoca-bronzului-de-la-silindru-dealul-episcopiei-cod-sit-ran- 31351.01. 249 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=silindru-simian-bihor-asezarea- hallstattiana-de-la-silindru-biserica-greco-catolica-cod-sit-ran-31351.02. 250 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript= hodos-salard-bihor-situl-arheologic-de-la-hodos-dambul-morii-cod-sit-ran- 31039.01. 251 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=diosig-diosig-bihor-asezarea- fortificata-din-epoca-bronzului-de-la-diosig-insula-cetatii-cod-sit-ran-29109.01. 252 PLEIADES.STOA.org, last accessed 9.03. 2019, https://pleiades.stoa.org/ places/211429, Barrington Atlas: Undetermined location (30 BC to AD 300). 253 Pârvan, Getica, 151 (255). Olteanu, Sorin, Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum - Toponyms Section. Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum (in Romanian), archived from the original on 3 January 2011, retrieved 3 January, 2010, accessed 17.04.2016, 4:30 p.m. (Now expired.), http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm, 4. 254 S. Dumitraşcu,“?,” Crisia, I, 1971, 39-46. Dumitraşcu, “The Ethno- Cultural Affiliation of the Hoards from Şimleul Silvaniei and Tăuteni (Tăuteu),”

89 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

(supposing its shift, as for Rhoukkonion, above), and its Ptolemaic longitude is 47°20′ P. It has no Ξ recension value, so the shift of Porolisson must be considered as probable (thus, adding its module value of 0.4044444). This gives the result of 21.7741083° / 21°46′26.79″ E. The latitude of Porolisson is 47°10′45.4″ / 47.179278° N. The coordinates mark a spot south of Nagykereki, Hungary, near the border with Romania (Fig. 5-3).

Fig. 5-3. The estimation of Dokidava (Google Maps)

The closest relevant sites, from the Dacian period, are those inside and near Oradea (Fig. 5-3). Most important neighboring Dacian cities

Analele Universităţii din Oradea, seria Istorie-Arheologie, VIII-IX, Oradea, 1998- 1999, 18. Cf. Horea Pop and Cătălin Borangic, “Bronze Armor Scales Discovered at Şimleu Silvaniei,” Acta Musei Porolissensis, XXXVIII, Zalău, 2016, 257-266.

90 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia were discovered at Clit (AR), Săcălăsăul Nou, and Tăşad (BH), Marca (SJ).255 One in particular, Marca (47°14′03″N 22°33′19″E),256 is placed very close to the parallel of Porolissum, but it is too close to Porolissum (insufficient distance according to Ptolemy′s longitudes). The area of Biharia displays findings from Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements, a Hallstatt fortified settlement (4th to 2nd centuries BC), a Roman fortified settlement, and a fortified settlement from the , with three stages (8th to 10th, 10th to 11th, and 12th to 13th centuries AD).257 Another site of Biharia (Str. Cetăţii-Autostrada Transilvania) has settlements from the Neolithic, Late Hallstatt (Dacian culture), La Tène (Celtic culture), and the Roman period (1st to 4th centuries AD).258 Among the many discoveries in Oradea, those of Sere and Salca present more interest for our investigation. Oradea-Sere has settlements from the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Bronze Ages (Otomani), the Early Hallstatt (Gáva), La Tène (Dacian B2-C2), the Roman (2nd to 3rd centuries AD) and Post-Roman (5th-6th centuries AD) periods, and from the Early Middle Ages (11th to 12th centuries AD).259 At Salca-Pepinieră there are settlements from the Neolithic, Eneolithic, the Bronze Age

255 Sever Dumitraşcu, “The Dacian City of Clit, Arad County” Lucrări Ştiinţifice 4 (B), Oradea (1970): 147-160. Dumitraşcu, “Dacian Fortified Settlements and Cities in the Western Part of the Apuseni Mountains,” Crisia, II, 1972, 121-148. See other references, by the same autor, in Bibliography. 256 Sever Dumitraşcu and Vasile Lucăcel, The Dacian City of Marca (Cluj Napoca, 1974). 257 RAN.CIMEC.ro, ed. by Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=biharia-biharia-bihor-situl-arheologic-de- la-biharia-cetatea-de-pamant-cod-sit-ran-27445.01. 258 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=biharia-biharia-bihor-situl- arheologic-str.-cetatii-autostrada-transilvania-tronson-3-c-km.-59+450- 59+700-cod-sit-ran-27445.04. Sorin Bulzan, in Cronica cercatărilor aheologice din România, campania 2012 (Bucharest: Institutul Național al Patrimoniului, 2013), apud ibid. 259 RAN.CIMEC.ro, ed. by Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=oradea-municipiul-oradea-bihor-situl- arheologic-de-la-oradea-sere-cod-sit-ran-26573.03.

91 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

(Otomani, Igniţa), La Tène and the Daco-Roman periods, as well as from many stages of the Middle Ages.260 Arkobarada (in the Ξ reference; Arkobadara in the Ω reference) is considered to be located in modern Ilişua,261 near Uriu262 (BN), 47°12′33.99736″N, 24°08′24.24755″E (47.20944 N, 24.14007 E). It has the Ptolemaic coordinates 50°40′ (Ξ) or 52° (Ω) long., 48° lat.263 Its latitude is the same as that of Porolisson (47°10′45.4″ / 47.179278° mod., less than 2′ difference). Calculating the longitude from the Ξ reference (at δ = -17.917), the result is 24.1363361° / 24°8′10.81″ E. This results in a perfect match with Ilişua (19.04″ difference in longitude)! The site of Ilişua–Arkobarada (Ξ) should be considered antoher strong reference point in the norhern part of the Ptolemaic map of Dacia, like Ziridava in its center. The hypothesis on the difference between the Ξ and Ω references is again confirmed! It should be noted that the only operation done was to apply the straightforward formula (P x 0.83 - 17.917, P = Ptolemaic longitude) for the Ξ reference value. The latitude has only one value, but it also corresponded. The first part of the name Arkobarada (and of Arkina, Arcidava) is ark-, probably coming from the PIE root *areq- / *h2erk- “to guard, lock, hold back, contain” (cf. Lat. arx “fortress.”)264 The second part, although much etymology was speculated for -badara, should most probably be read -barada, as in the Ξ reference (its original name, as signaled by

260 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=oradea-municipiul-oradea-bihor- situl-arheologic-de-la-oradea-salca-pepiniera-biserica-cod-sit-ran-26573.05. 261 Sorin Nemeti and Mihai Bărbulescu, “Territorium Acrobadarense,” in Ephemeris Napocensis, XVI-XVII, (2006-2007) 2008, 107-118, apud Forţiu, Ziridava…, 54. Cf., also, Tudor, Cities…, 236, the road: Porolissum → Tihău → → Ilişua → SE. 262 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, RAN.CIMEC.ro, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?cod-sit-ran-35303.02. 263 For its mention in Tabula Peutingeriana, see the footnotes for Aiz(is)is. 264 Pârvan, Getica, 151 (256-257). Pokorny, The Etymological Dictionary of the Indoeuropean, I, 65-66. J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo- European Culture (London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997), 270. J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto- Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 270-271.

92 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Forţiu265), and therefore with the same meaning as in Zouro-bara and the city names ended in -para south of Danube. The short form -da from dava is also found in Polonda or Terad(e)a.266 Triph(o)ulon267 has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 52°15′ long., 48°15′ lat. It is located at 15′ north of Porolisson. The first calculation would give a raw result that would not have a (significant) shift, just like Arkobarada. The following coordinates would result: 47.386778 / 47°23′12.4″N, 25.4505° / 25°27′1.8″ E. The outcome is highly interesting, the location being placed N-E of Vatra Dornei, at the northern fringe of Dorna Arini. The archaeological researches in the area are scarce. However, it has no different Ξ value. Thus, applying the correction of 0.4044444, this gives the longitude of 25.8549444° / 25°51′17.8″ E. This indicates a spot east of Vadu Negrilesei (Fig. 5-4 A). Poiana Mărului is situated to its east. After calculating the longitude for Karsidava, below, it was proven that its location might not be as far east as the displacement of Porolisson would take it. This aspect might also be considered for Triphoulon. This would lead to a second estimation:, 0.1254493° westward (a deviation of -0.2789951). It would result in a longitude of 25.7294951° / 25°43′46.18″ E, near Ostra (Fig. 5-4 B). Any relevant archaeological findings in the area would need to be considered.

265 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 54. 266 Georgiev, The Thracians…, 184-185. Ivan Duridanov, The Language of the Thracians, Bulgarische Sammlung Band 5 (Neuried: Hieronymus Verlag, 1985), 125-127. 267 The initial part of the word could be tri- “three.” Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 76, gave the following cognates for the first part: “Tri- bulium in Dalmatia, οἶνος Τριφυλίνος in Italy. ... Τρι-μάννιον on Danube, Roman Τρι-μόντιον, Celtic Τρι-κόρνιον.” He wondered if there was (or not) a Dalmatian or an Italian base for the polis in Dacia. The meaning would be something like “three-folded,” “of three tribes?”

93 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-4 A. The first estimation of Triphoulon (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-4 B. The second estimation for Triphoulon (Google Maps)

94 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 5-5 A. The first estimation of Patridava (Google Maps)

Patridava has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 53° long. and 48°10′ lat. This would place it on the latitude of Rhoukkonion and a little north from the parallel of Porolisson (10′ = 0.1666667° raw; corrected 8′18″ = + 0.138333361, i. e. 47.305° / 47°18′18″ N). The raw longitude would be 26.073° / 26°4′22.8″, which should be corrected (+0,4044444) to 26.4774444 / 26°28′38.8″. This leads to Drăguşeni (SV) (Fig. 5-5 A), west of Broşteni. Considering the shift could be smaller, as it seems for Karsidava, below, this would place a second estimation at 26.3519951 / 26°21′7.18″ E, Târzia (NT) (Fig. 5-5 B).

Fig. 5-5 B. The second estimation of Patridava (Google Maps)

95 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The second estimation indicates an archaeological site of great importance, from the best period for a Ptolemaic location. The most important nearest archeological sites are those of Antoceni (com. Forăşti, to SE), Brusturi, Târzia (to SW), and Preuteşti. Antoceni witnesses many levels of dwelling: Neolithic (Pre-Cucuteni), Eneolithic (Cucuteni A and B), transition to Bronze, Bronze Age (Noua), Halstatt (Gáva, Holihrady, group Grăniceşti), Migration Era (Sântana de Mureş, Cerneahov, 3rd to 6th centuries AD), as well as Early and Late Middle Ages (10th to 13th, to 18th centuries AD).268 Brusturi has an Eneolithic settlement and, in the village Târzia, a Late La Tène tumulary necropolis (3rd to 4th centuries AD).269 Preuteşti has some remains of Eneolithic (Cucuteni AB) and Early Halstatt.270 The name Patridava could recall the name of the god Patrus from Tios, in Bithynia.271 Karsidava has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 53°20′ long. and 48°15′ lat. The latitude is that of Triphoulon, hence about 47.386778 / 47°23′12.4″N. Karsidava has at least the external reference of the maps of the oldest editions of Ptolemy, which all place Karsidava on the west (right) bank of the river . The raw longitude would be 26.3496639° / 26°20′58.79″ E, Vadu Moldovei (SV). However, a correction is needed here, as well. If we apply the longitude of Porolisson (0.4044444), this leads to 26.7541083 E, Sireţel (IS). However, if we consider that the old maps always placed it on the west bank of the Siret, it would suggest Probota (SV), 47.383887 N, 26.628659 E (Fig. 5-6). The difference of 0.1254493 / 7′31.62″ (meaning only a shift of 0.2789951 would apply) might be considered back for Triphoulon and Patridava.

268 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, CRONICA.CIMEC.ro, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=4492 (cf. http://ran. cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=148532.01). 269 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, RAN.CIMEC.ro, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=tarzia-brusturi-neamt-necropola- tumulara-de-la-tarzia-vatra-satului-cod-sit-ran-122016.01. 270 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=149977.01; http://ran.cimec.ro /sel.asp?codran=149977.02. 271 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 19. Pârvan, Getica, 152 (257).

96 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Karsidava is a polytonym that could have been formed from the same root as the Carpathians, the PIE root *(s)ker-(4) “to cut.”272 Pârvan made a correlation with the tribe of Κάρσιοι “plowmen” (along with the anthroponyms Κάρσις, Κάρσας, and some toponyms, like , Certie or Cersie in Tabula Peutingeriana, and Καρσέαι from Asian Mysia; cf. Iran. yaokars “cereal cultivator.”) The same original root can explain all these evolutions.273 Petrodava has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 53°45′ / 53.75° long. and 47°40′ lat. It is a different polis than Patridava, being the easternmost polis among those in the northernmost range. The latitude is lower than Porolisson, on the parallel of Napouka (thus, ca. 46.77° N). The raw longitude for Petrodava is 26.6955 / 26°41′43.8″ E, south of Siliştea (Fig. 5-7 A). Surprisingly, the location would be only 28 km SE of Piatra Neamţ (!), the traditional speculation of the location of Petrodava (based on a rather hazardous bet on the resemblance of names). Piatra Neamţ has a Dacian fortified settlement.274

Fig. 5-6. The estimation for Karsidava (Google Maps)

272 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 46, 84. Walde and Pokorny, Comparative Dictionary of Indo-European languages, I, 422, II, 573 sqq. Pokorny, The Etymological Dictionary of the Indoeuropean, II, 571, III, 938 sqq. Russu, Limba traco- dacilor, 98. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 206. 273 Pârvan, 152 (257-258). 274 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, RAN.CIMEC.ro, http://ran.cimec.ro /sel.asp?codran=120735.01 etc.

97 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

However, the good position of Karsidava near the river Siret and the probable match of Patridava with Târzia encourage me to apply the same formula to the entire group, including Petrodava. This will place it east of the raw longitude. For the sake of the scientific debate, I will present the mapping for all the estimations (including those I do not support) and I will give some archaeological clues from their neighborhood.

Fig. 5-7 A. The first estimation of Petrodava (Google Maps)

The area presents some sites as the following: Costişa, Dealul Stanciului (to E; Neolithic–Pre-Cucuteni III; Eneolithic, Cucuteni AB; Bronze Age, Early and Middle Monteoru Ic2-Ic1, Late Costişa, while the last two have settlements with defense ditch),275 Cucuteni (settlement of Podoleni–Lutărie, NE),276 and the Carpian dwelling of Late La Tène (2nd to 3rd centuries AD) from Podoleni, La Ruine.277 The region abounds in discoveries from many cultures, as well as from the Dacian Late La Tène.

275 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, RAN.CIMEC.ro, http://ran.cimec.ro/ sel.asp?codran=122141.03; http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=122141.01; http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=122141.02. 276 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=123683.03. 277 Ibid., http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=123683.01 (cf. CRONICA.CIMEC.ro, http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=756).

98 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

The area of Podoleni–Costişa is rich in such findings, and it would be in agreement with a decreased shift westward. The second estimation (26.6955 + shift 0.2789951) has the longitude 26.9744951° / 26°58′28.18″ E, pointing to Rocna (NT), between Spiridoneşti and Bătrâneşti (Fig. 5-7 B-C). Petrodava is traditionally placed on the right (west) bank of the river Siret, which is not far to the west, and it would target the area of Filipeşti (BC), between Cârligi and Corneşti, south of Onişcani, about 26°53′20″ E (Fig. 5-7 D). Contrary to Petrae (between Sarmizegethousa and ), Petrodava would not have had a Latin origin, but it should be correlated to the Macedonean Petra of Maedica, with an autochthonous origin.278

Fig. 5-7 B. The second estimation for Petrodava (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-7 C. The second estimation for Petrodava, zoom out (Google Maps)

Oulpianon has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 47°30′ E and 47°30′ N. The latitude is by 10′ to the south of the parallel of Napouka (i. e.,

278 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 64. Pârvan, 152 (258).

99 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

46.631666639° / 46°37′54″ N). The longitude is that of Rhoukkonion Ξ (47°30′ Ξ / 46°30′ Ω P long), but it has no distinct Ξ value itself. Thus, a shift should be applied, most probably as that of Napouka (-0,8333333). This gives 22.3413333° / 22°20′28.8″E, 3 km SW of Beiuş, between Finiş and Tărcaia, Bihor County (Fig. 5-8).

Fig. 5-7 D. The second estimation for Petrodava corrected, west bank of Siret (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-8. The estimation of Oulpianon (Google Maps)

100 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 5-9 A. The estimation of Salinai (Google Maps)

Salinai has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 49°15′ E and 47°10′ N, 15′ east and 10′ south of Patrousissa (Patavissa, Potaissa, Turda, 49° E 47°20′ N P, 23°46′22.3″ / 23.772861° E, 46°34′13.3″ / 46.570361° N). This gives the result 22.9605° / 22°57′37.8″ for the longitude. The latitude of 47°10′ N is only by 10′ P south of the parallel of Turda (0.1666 x 0.83 = 0.138333361), giving 46.432027639° / 46°25′55.3″ N. The raw result is highly interesting, since it is on the southern fringe of Albac, just near the Monastery of Albac, to the west, but it is not plausible, since 49°15′ E should be east of Turda. This means that it goes along with Turda, and we should apply the shift of Patrouissa, which is of -1.019861° (at δ = - 17.917). This would mean this value (in module) should be added to that obtained in the first calculation, in order to obtain the actual longitude, as we did for Patrouissa. The result is 23.980361° / 23°58'49.3″. The coordinates 23.980361 E 46.432027639 N mark a place east of Gura Arieşului. This points to a place in the middle of the distance between Ocna Mureş and Luduş, only 300 m east from the mouth of the river Arieş, on the right (north) bank of river Mureş (see Fig. 5-9 A). This location is highly plausible. It is surrounded by salines that were exploited from the Antiquity, some of them in operation today. K. Müller thought that Salinai was Ocna Mureş. Either this location or Gura Arieşului is equally plausible as a match for the date of the Tabula Peutingeriana.

101 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

There are two relevant paragraphs in Schütte, showing the scholarly opinions developed on the Ptolemaic location of Salinai, compared to the data in the Tabula Peutingeriana about Salinis (i. e., Salinai, Salinae):

- “The Ptolemaic map of Dacia contains two towns of the first class, viz. Zarmizegethusa and Salinai. Both are used as points of astronomic observation and on the map decorated with three towers; Zarmizegethusa is besides distinguished by the adjective royal. (…) Salinai must have been an important saltern. It belongs to the very limited class of civil Roman establishments, appearing on the Ptolemaic map. The class has only two other representatives, viz. Hydata and Pirum (…); and Salinai is the only establishment of industrial character.”279 - “Salinai Ae = Salinis Tabula. A Roman saltern. Point of astronomic observation, Ptol. Vignette with towers, Ptol. (The Athos Atlas has a vignette of the second class only, with 5 battlements). According to C. Müller…, Salinai was situated at Felvincz which means saltern in Hungarian. Here an inscription of the 5th Macedonian legion has been found. Others prefer the localisation near Thorda which also possesses a saltern.”280

Fortunately, we benefit from the data of the Tabula Peutingeriana. The order of the roads in the Tabula is, as follows:

Besides this great work Trajan constructed roads (the great agents for civilization): these were three in number, and were connected with the Via Trajana, which ran along the S. side of the Danube, partly cut in the rock and partly supported on wooden beams. The road which lay most to the W. quitted Viminacium,–or, more properly, the fortress on the opposite side of the river, Uj-Palanka,–and took a NE. direction up to Tiviscum (Temesvar). On this road the Peutingerian Table gives the following stations:–Arcidava,

279 Gudmund Schütte, Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes (Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Geographical Society, 1872, rep. 1917), 83. 280 Ibid., 94. Cites: C. Müller, I, 447.

102 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Centum Puteae, Bersovia, Azizis, Caput Bubali, Tiviscum. The middle road, quitting Orsova, followed the valley of the Czerna, closely hemmed in by its wooded hills, to ; and, pursuing the same course as the modern road, proceeded along the banks of the Temes, then crossed the narrow gorge where the Romans are said to have had literally an iron gate, which gave its name to the place. Its direction then turned towards the E., along the vale, or rather plain, of Hátzeg, over Hunyad and the level before Várhely, and the hill of Deva, and there fell into the beautiful valley of the Maros, taking the route which, should Transylvania ever attain to a higher civilisation, will form the future great commercial road to unite the winegrowing districts of its well-watered volcanic slopes with the stream of the Danube. Still proceeding in a NE. direction along the Maros, it passed Karlsburg, Thorda, Maros Vasarheli, and so on to the frontier of . Again, taking the guidance of the Peutingerian Table, the following stations lie on this road:, Tierna, Ad Mediam (Mehadia,, with the baths of Hercules, which were known to the Romans as early as the times of Hadrian, and were in high repute for their medicinal virtues), Praetorium, Ad Pannonios, Gaganae, Masclianae, Tiviscum, Agnavae, Pons Augusti, Sarmizegethusa, Ad Aquas, Germizera, Blandiana, Apula, Brucla, Salinae, Patavissa, Napoca, Optatiana, , Cersie, Parolissum. The third road, which lay towards the E., left the neighbourhood of Scala Gladova,–probably crossing Trajan's Bridge,, passed along the valley of the Alouta (Alt), and, mounting the Rothenthurm pass, descended upon Karlsburg, where it fell in with the other road. The following are the stations up to Apula,, the mining capital of the Romans in Dacia, the seat of the Collegium Aurariorum, and the residence of the procurator or chief officer of the mines:, Drubetis, Amutria, Pelendova, Castra Nova, , , , Pons Aluti, Burridava, Castra Trajana, , Praetorium, Pons Vetus Stenarum, Cedonie, Acidava, Apula.

Ptolemy (3.8) added the names of the following places which are not to be found on the great ,

103 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

between the Tysia and the Alouta, in the direction from N. to S.:, Rucconium (Ῥουκκόνιον), Docidava (Δοκιδαύα), Ulpianum (Οὐλπιανόν), Ziridava (Ζιρίδαυα), Zurobara (Ζουρόβαρα), Lizizis (Λιζιζίς) [wrong reading of Αἰζισίς / Aizisis, my note], Zeugma (Ζεῦγμα), Acmonia (Ἀκμωνία), Phrateria (Φρατερία). Then E. of the Alouta, in the direction from S to N.:, Arcinna (Ἄρκιν(ν)α), Pinum (Πινόν), Sornum (Σόρνον), Tiasum (Τίασον), Nentidava (Νεντίδαυα), Pirum (Πιρούμ), Hydata (Ὕδατα), Tiriscum (Τίρισκον), Marcodava (Μαρκόδαυα), Comidava (Κομίδαυα), Rhamidava (Ῥαμίδαυα), Zusidava (Ζουσίδαυα), Paloda (Πάλοδα), Angustia (Ἀγγουστία), Praetoria Augusta (Πραιτωρία Αὐγούστα), Sandava (Σάνδαυα), Utidava (Οὐτίδαυα), Petrodava (Πετρόδαυα), (Καρσίδαυα), Patridava (Πατρίδαυα), Triphulum (Τρίφυλον), Arcobadara (Ἀρκοβάδαρα).281

This information from the Peutingerian Table will also be used in the last chapter in order to create a more complete image of Dacia. Miller, the editor of the Peutingerian Table, estimated Salinae at Felvincz, now Unirea, near Ocna Mureş.282 Barrington Atlas283 and the

281 William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, ed. William Smith, Walton and Maberly, Ivy Lane, John Murray, London, 1854, 44 (at PERSEUS.TUFTS.edu). 282 Miller, Itineraria Romana…, 549: “12. Salinis, it. (Ra), Salinae (Pt); leg. XIII gemina (teg.: CIL III 80641r-u), ala Bata[vorum] [miliaria] (ib. 80742); j. Felvincz a bei Maros-Ujvar (Iss: CIL III 933 . 62867. 7711); große Salzwerke, erst 1791 wieder entdeckt. Fruher wurde Salinis allgemein fur̈ Thorda gehalten; cf. Iss: CIL III 933—939. 7708 bis 7712; teg. der leg. V Macedonica in Felvincz (CIL III 1630b) und der leg. XIII gemina gefunden (CIL III 80641r-u). Ostlich liegt Szekely-Foldvar,̈ wo nach Kulnigg ein ausgedehntes romisches Lager.” The author is cited either C. Miller, or K. Müller. Cf. Richard J. A. Talbert, “Explore the Peutinger Map,” http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase /TPPlace1924.html: “Segment grid: 7A2 / Onward stretch: • XII (12) Patavissa / Previous stretch: • XII (12) Brvcla / References •BAtlas Salinae 21 F3 •ItMiller 549.” 283 Talbert, Barrington Atlas…, 321.

104 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia website Pleiades give the coordinates of 46°23′19.2516″ N 23°51′50.7924″ E, defining a place in Ocna Mureş.284 Tabula Peutingeriana has, for the road that passes through Salinai, the indications mentioned in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Tabula Peutingeriana, the road from Apulum to Porolissum.285

Stations milia Müller’s notes Obs. passuum MP Ptolemy Modern Apula Karlsburg Alba Iulia Brucla 12 ad Nagy- (?) Enyed Salinis 12 Σαλῖναι ad Felvincz Vinţu de Jos (?) Patavissa 12 Πατρούισσα Thordo Turda Napoca 24 Νάπουκα Kolosvar Cluj-Napoca Optatiana 16 Magyar- Gârbău Gorbo Largiana 15 Zutor Sutor Cersiæ 17 Καρσίδαυα ? Romlot dubious Porolisso 4 Πορόλισσον Mojgrad Moigrad

The corrections to some of Müller’s assumptions (i. e., Largiana is at Românaşi, Optatiana at Sutor286) does not concern the present investigation, only for Salinai. The distance between Salinis and Patavissa is of 12 MP = 11.5 ~ 12.49 MP = 17 ~ 19 km.287 There are 23 km between the estimated coordinates of Salinai and those of Patrouissa-Potaissa, which confirms the validity of the spot estimated for Salinai. Actually, the coordinates of Patrouissa- Potaissa represent only one of the possible choices given by the archaeological findings. Thus, the straight-line distance approximates admirably the Peutingerian Table’s millage (Fig. 5-9 B).

284 PLEIADES.STOA.org. 285 The notes of K. Müller from: Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 445. 286 LIMESTOMANIA.ro 287 Forţiu, Ziridava…, 56.

105 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-9 B. The distance between Salinai and Patrouissa–Potaissa (Google Earth)

Praetoria Augusta (in Dacia Sup. / Apulensis, Pliny Πραιτωρία Αὐγούστα 50°30′ long., 47°30′ Ξ or 47° Ω lat. P) has a similar name, but a different location than Praetorium–Mehadia.288 Praetoria Augusta was assumed by some authors to be the castrum discovered east of Inlăceni (HR, Fig. 5-10).289 The latitude of Praetoria Augusta is by 10′ north of Patrouissa–Turda, meaning 46.708694361° / 46°42′31.3″ N (Ξ), or 46.293694278° / 46°17′37.3″ (Ω). The longitude (δ = -17.917, ℱ = 0.83) has the raw result 23.998°, which is 24° E. If the displacement of Patrouissa is required (as

288 M. Macrea, N. Gudea, and I. Moţu, Praetorium: Castrul si asezarea Romana de la Mehadia / The Roman fort at Mehadia and its civil settlement (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1993). Cf. Benea and Simona Regep, “Some observations regarding the presence of COHORS III DELMATARUM MILLIARIA EQUITATA in Dacia,” ArheoVest, No. III, 2015, 973-984. 289 CIMEC.ro, ed. by Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, last accessed March 9, 2019, http://cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RAR-Index/sel.asp?jud=Harghita &campsel=2&Lang=EN&nr=1&nrSel=1&IDRap=1556#Lk1556 (cf. RAN.CIMEC.ro, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=inlaceni-atid- harghita-castrul-roman-de-la-inlaceni-cetate-cod-sit-ran-83829.01).

106 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia it most probably seems to be), the final result adds 1.019861°, giving 25.019861 / 25°1′11.5″. The castrum of Inlăceni has 46°25′42.5″N and 25°7′06.1″E.290 The longitudes have a perfect match (less then 6′ difference, and we know that a few minutes might indicate just a different site of the same archaeological formation, as a castrum). The latitude matches with that of Patrouissa, to be compared with 47°20′ N P, 46.432027639° / 46°25′55.3″ N mod. Most probably, the original was 47°20′ P, and the Ξ reference kept it closer, but not identically. I believe that, originally, the Ptolemaic coordinates for Praetoria Augusta actually indicated the castrum of Inlăceni, the mentioned correction to the preserved latitude being required.

Fig. 5-10. Praetoria Augusta–Inlăceni (Google Maps)

San(gi)dava has the following Ptolemaic coordinates: 52°15′ (Ξ) or 51°30′ (Ω) long., and 47°15′ (Ξ) or 47°30′ (Ω) lat. The longitude of the Ξ recension (52°15′) is that of Triphoulon, but it might have a different shift, with a raw result of 25.4505° / 25°27′1.8″ E. The Ξ recension latitude (47°15′) is the “corrected” one (Ω) of Angoustia (Breţcu, 46°03′02.9″ / 46.050806°). The Ω recension latitude (47°30′) is that of Oulpianon 46.631666639° / 46°37′54″. The calculation for 51°30′ P long. (Ω) gives 24.828° / 24°49′40.8″. This gives us two options: Sangidava Ω 24.828° / 24°49′40.8″ E, with 46.631666639° / 46°37′54″ N (Hodoşa, east of Iclod, Mureş County, Fig. 5-11 A), but needing a shift correction as other Ω values, and Sangidava Ξ 25.4505° / 25°27′1.8″ E, with 46°03′02.9″ / 46.050806° N (NE of Racoş, Braşov County, Fig. 5-11 B). However, since the Ω value must

290 LIMESTOMANIA.ro.

107 Şerban George Paul Drugaş always be corrected from the raw result, a correction of 1.4775 would bring the location again at Racoş. Such a correction is very close to that of Sarmizegethousa, thus being very a plausible figure. Thus, I believe both sets of coordinates indicate an area east of Racoş (Augustin? 46.050806 N 25.5505 E, near the river Olt, BV). Sangidava was correlated by Tomaschek with some Phrygian names (Σάγγας, Σαγγίας, and Σαγγάριος,291 all from the PIE root *kā̂ k̆ -2, nasalised *kank̂ - “branch”292).

Fig. 5-11 A. Sangidava Ω, Hodoşa, Mureş County (Google Maps)

Angoustia has two sets of values, from both the Ω and the Ξ references. The Ω reference of Angoustia has a shift of -0.8623611, while we observe an important discrepancy between the latitudes: -1.616667° (-1°37′) shift in Ξ recension and -1.2° (-1°12′) shift in Ω recension from the actual latitude of Breţcu. Such differences are “normal” for all the locations in Dacia (see Table 5-1). The Ω recension wished to correct the impossible situation that Angoustia was placed on the same parallel as Napouka (!) and dragged Angoustia to the south, where “it belonged.” We do not know what references were used for this correction, but it is incorrect: it does not give the correct parallel (which would not be expected, because most of the parallels in northern Dacia are shifted to the north), and it does not fit within the “normal” latitudinal shifts of

291 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 78. 292 Pokorny, II, 523.

108 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Dacia (ca. -49′ at Porolissum, -54′ at Napouka and Patrouissa, -22′ at Zermizirga, and gaining reverse orientation towards south, +22′ at Sarmizegethousa, +7′30″ at Drubetis).

Fig. 5-11 B. Sangidava Ξ, Racoş, Braşov County (Google Maps)

It would be hard to know if the corrector was “right” and Angoustia should be at about 20′ P north of Breţcu, or Angoustia is Breţcu and the corrector had a reference wrong. I believe this matter needs a lot of further careful analysis. However it is with Angoustia, the problem remains, meaning it is more than probable that such an operation was not performed for the eastern neighbors of Angoustia, from the series starting with Triphoulon. Southern latitudes should be considered for all of these. Karsidava has 48°15′ P. We need to work with the discrepancy of Napouka, Patrouissa, of -0.9° (-54′), in order to maintain a correct relation for the region. The Ptolemaic* latitude of Breţcu would be ~ 46°55′ P*. I think that a perfect match between the Ξ reference value of Angoustia and the longitude of Breţcu is not a mere coincidence (see the data in chapters IV and V) and, therefore, the “corrector” of the Ω recension, although had good intentions, he nevertheless also had bad data for the correction of the latitude. Outidava has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 53°20′ (Ξ) or 53°10′ (Ω) long. and 47°40′ lat. The latitude is that of Napouka (46.77° N), but it would rather represent the latitude of Angoustia, behaving as if the “corrector” of the Ω recension for Angoustia would not have done the

109 Şerban George Paul Drugaş same operation for Outidava, as neither for the group Komidava– Polonda (see below). It would give the latitude of ca. 46°03′ / 46.050806° N. We have here a Ξ recension value for the longitude, and the same source worked perfectly for Angoustia, Breţcu. It would give a longitude of 26.3496639′ + 0.03333333 (the little shift of Angoustia) = 26.38299723 / 26°22′58.79″ E. This would place Outidava near Oituz (in Covasna, and not Bacău County!), by the river with the same name. It would mean that the speculation of Al. Vulpe about the etymological link between the two names, Outidava and Oituz,293 was not vane, after all, even if he thought Outidava was the Dacian city of Tiseşti294 near Târgu Ocna. Marelena and Radu Puşcarciuc presumed that Outidava is on the longitude of Angoustia, but they ended up much eastwards, because (I believe) they introduce references too far away, such as Byzantium – this is also why many of their other deductions have large displacements which are thus not certain to have functioned inside Dacia. Thus, they thought the speculations of A. Vulpe about Outidava (based on utus = river) linking it to Tiseşti had no basis in reality.295 I would argue that Vulpe’s assumption was somehow hazardous, although the same straightforward formula that matched the longitude of Angoustia with Breţcu, Arkobarada with Ilişua, Praetoria Augusta with Inlăceni, and Ziridava with Forţiu’s calculation, put Outidava near Oituz, by the river with the same name (Fig. 5-12). The formula is, again (only where the Ξ recension has a different value for the longitude than the Ω recension!): “P x 0.83 - 17.917” (P = Ptolemaic longitude). I added the shift of Angoustia (for the Ξ recension longitude!), in order to maintain the relative distance. Without this correction, the location would have been just a little to the west (which I find less probable). Tomaschek

293 Alexandru Vulpe, “Ptolemy and the Ancient Geography of Moldavia,” Studii clasice, VI, 1964, 233-246, apud Marelena Puşcarciuc and Radu Puşcarciuc, “Seeking Utidava,” Part I, Munte şi flori, 2011, © Copyright 2011 Munte şi flori, accessed 13.01.2018, http://www.muntesiflori.ro/utidava/. Cf. also V. Frăţilă, “ Gustav Weigand and the Balkan Onomastics,” Revue des études sud-est européenes, Tome XIX, No. 1 (Jan.-March), 1981, 154. 294 Anton Niţu and Mihai Zămoşteanu, “ The Survey in the Getian City of Tiseşti,” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, No. VI (Bucharest: Ed. Academiei R.P.R., 1959), apud Puşcarciuc and Puşcarciuc, “Seeking Utidava,” Part II, Munte şi flori, 2011, © Copyright 2011 Munte şi flori, http://www.muntesiflori.ro/utidava-2/. 295 Puşcarciuc and Puşcarciuc, “Seeking Utidava,” Part II.

110 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia wrote about Outidava: “am Oberlauf des Alutas, Ptol. vgl. den Fluss Οὖτος,”296 which seemes justified.

Fig. 5-12. The estimation of Outidava (Google Maps)

Markodava (Ξ) and Ziridava have the same longitude, of 49°30′ P, which gives the following result (P x 0.83 - 17.917, P = Ptolemaic longitude): 23.168° / 23°10′4.8″. The latitude of Markodava (47° P) is with 10′ P south of Salinai, giving 46.293694278 / 46°17′37.3″ N. By using the different Ξ value, the displacement of the central and western poleis does not apply. The results indicate a place SE of Roşia Montană, near Poiana, Alba County (see Fig. 5-13). Using the Ξ value we would expect to get a good longitude through direct calculation (P x 0.83 - 17.917). Russu oscillated between two explanations for the toponym Δρασιμαρκα and the polytonym Μαρκοδαυα. The PIE root *marko- “horse” could explain these anthroponyms and toponyms, as well as other realted ones.297 Duridanov connected the radical mark-, encountered in Thraco-Dacian, with the concept of “morass,”298 which

296 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 57. 297 Russu, 111. Cf. Pokorny, 700. 298 Ivan Duridanov, Thraco-Dacian Studies, First Part (Sofia: Verlag der Bulgarische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1969), 46, 90.

111 Şerban George Paul Drugaş would be expressed through PIE *merk-1/merĝ-/merək-/merəĝ-.299 Georgiev presented the Celtic radical *mark(h)- “horse” as used in Thraco-Dacian.300 He compared Μαρκόδαυα with the Celtic Marko- durum “Horse’s Fortress (or City).”301

Fig. 5-13. The estimation of Markodava (Google Maps)

Apoulon has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 49°15′ long. and 46°40′ lat. For such a meridian, a shift westward is to be expected, as for all poleis in central Transylvania. Its raw longitude transformed from the Ptolemaic longitude is 22.9605° / 22°57′37.8″. The latitude (20′ N of Ziridava) would give ca. 46°14′ mod. The closest shift to the north is that of Patrouissa (-1.019861), while to the south, the shifts of Angoustia and Zermizirga are almost zero. Even if Apoulon belongs to the central poleis, with shifts westward, we cannot imagine that its location is completely detatched from the two mentioned on the south. Thus, an average would give us the best imaginable shift for Apoulon, although we cannot have a certain reference at this point. It would mean -0.5099305 ~ -0.51. This would imply the correction 22.9605 + 0.51 = 23.4705°/ 23°28'13.8″. Since the name Apoulon is connected to Apulum, modern Alba Iulia, we have the following useful data for this location: Alba Iulia 23°34′11″ E, 46°04′03″,

299 Pokorny, 739. 300 Georgiev, The Thracians…, 101. 301 Ibid., 184.

112 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Piatra Craivii, 23°29′07.52″ E, 46°12′32.84″ N. As we can see, the best match is with Piatra Craivii (AB). The Dacian name of Apoulon comes from a very old Indo-European root, *h2ep- “fasten, join, strength,”302 extended with -l, in *h2ep-el- (called *apelo- by Russu,303 and in Pokorny, without employing the laryngeal theory’s results in the Indo-European studies). The people inhabiting the region of Apoulon were called Apulli. This root formed some interesting cognates that strengthen the idea of a close relationship between Dacian and Illyrian in the Illyrian personal name Apullus, the Messapic people name Apulli, and the city of Apullia.304 Other cognates would be the Italic personal names Aplo, Aplus, and the Greek god Ἀπόλλων.305 Singidava has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 48° long. and 46°20′ lat. This is west of the “axis” of Porolissum, Napouka, and Patrouissa (49° P), with no different value for longitude in the Ξ recension, which means a shift westward is most certainly applicable. For the latitude, I believe the shift of Apoulon (46°40′ lat. P; shift 27′27.16″ / 0.4575444°) would be the best to maintain the relative distance in the region. This leads to: 21.923 + 0.51 = 22.433 / 22°25′58.8″ E; 46.33333 - 0.4575444 = 45.8757856 / 45°52′32.83″ N, near Ohaba, Hunedoara County (see Fig. 5-14). The name of Singidava seems to have come from the tribe of Singi, who took it, in its migrations, to Singidunum (Belgrade), Singone on Morava, and the city of Singos in the Chalicidice Peninsula. It has an Iranian correspondent ethnonym, Singiae (Pliny 7.20(23).74), “just like the Dacian Saci, Napai, and even Daci and Getae.”306

302 Walde and Pokorny, I, 176. Pokorny, I, 52. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 64, 116. Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction…, 180. 303 Pokorny, I, 52. Russu, 90-91. 304 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 301, 378-379. 305 Russu, 90-91. Martin Bernal, Black Athena, I, The fabrication of 1787-1987 (London: Free Association Books, New Brunswick. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 67-69, speculated that Apollo, Artemis and Kadmos were loan words in Greek from the Semitic languages. However, this would not be possible for the Dacian, Illyrian-Messapic and Italic examples of Apo(u)l(l)o(n). 306 Pârvan, 153 (260).

113 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-14. The estimation of Singidava (Google Maps)

The name of Zermizirga is also known as Γερμίζερα or Germisara. The name is composed of two terms, and “For the spirit of the language is to be noted the preposition of the adjective to the noun, contrary to the Latin.”307 For the Dacian language, “There is no clear example for *gh, but *gwh appears as g (with delabialization) in the place-name Germisara, so called on account of the local hot springs (consisting of *gwherm(i)-: Gk. ϑερμός, Skt. gharmah́ ̣ 'glow, heat', Arm. jerm̌ 'warm', and *sorā: Skt. sarah́ ̣ 'liquid'.”308 Other Thraco-Dacian occurrences are: Dacian Germas, Γερμανη, Γερματζα, Stelugermme /-germane, Thracian Germetitha,

307 Pârvan, 153 (260). Cf. Şerban George Paul Drugaş, “The Name of and Its Significance in the Dacian Language and Religion” Hiperboreea Journal 3(2) (2016) ISSN 2284–5666. http://hiperboreeajournal.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/12/DRUGAS.pdf, 69-71. 308 E. C. Polomé,“Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian),” in The Cambridge ancient history, Vol. 3, Part 1, “The of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C.,” ed. John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, E. Sollberger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 886. See also, Walde and Pokorny, I, 687. Pokorny, II, 493-495. Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 88. Paul Kretschmer, Introduction to the history of the Greek language (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1896), 203. Russu, 108. Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 834.

114 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia and Phrygian Γερμη.309 The second term is formed from *ser-1 “liquid, to flow.”310 The group of the five poleis after Zermizirga has very eastern Ptolemaic longitudes: Komidava, Rhamidava, Pirum, Zusidava, and Polonda. The raw results are placing the group somewhere in the SE of Transylvania, which could be conceived for Komidava and maybe Rhamidava, but not for Polonda, and maybe neither for the others. However, within the poleis in the group, there is no difference between the values of the Ξ and of the Ω references, which means that a displacement eastward is most likely, synchronized with the local pattern. The group has to be moved southward, besides its obvious shift to the east. Polonda appears on the maps of the old editions of Ptolemy somewhere west of Siret, to the south, which is not surprising, as Table 4-5 already show that there are various displacements on the latitude for different klimata. In central Transylvania, we benefitted of some known locations to help reveal the local patterns. The only close reference is Angoustia and we saw its peculiar behavior regarding its latitude. The difference between the Ξ reference value (considered the “original” for many longitudes) and the actual latitude of Breţcu could reveal a local behavior to be applied on the group of the five poleis. The Thraco-Dacian names Polonda, , as well as Paladeina, from the Thracian inscriptions with Παλαδεινηνω (Θεῷ, Ἥρωι), are usually derived from *pel-1 “full, to fill, to pour, city,” with an extension, *peled- “(to) bath; wet, to flow.”311 The primary meaning of the root is “plenitude, a lot,” from which “a lot of water” and “a lot of people,” thus also “army, castle, city,” while the verb expresses “to flood,” both “with water” and “with people.” Getting closer to the meaning of the Thraco- Dacian polytonyms might get some help from the extensions given by Pokorny, and the way each follow a certain meaning, from the section A to D, and F. Section A is for the simple root, pel- “to pour, fill,” giving Gk. *peĺ -nu-mi “I am pouring out” (Arm. helum) etc. We could add here the Thracian Παλλήνη, daughter of Sithonos, wife of Kleitos, after which

309 Russu, 108. 310 Pokorny, III, 909-910. 311 Walde and Pokorny, II, 63-66. Pokorny, III, 798-801. Pârvan, 153-154 (261). Russu, 114, 115. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 207-208.

115 Şerban George Paul Drugaş a city was named. 312 Section B is for the same, unchanged root, but giving the meaning “castle, city,” while C has words for “swamp.” The section D is for the meaning “to fill, full” (Gk. πίμπλημι, πλῆθος, Lat. pleō). Paladeina (“pool, bath?”) could, most probably, have come from E *pel- ed-, with general meanings of “wet, moisture, pool” (Gk. πλάδος n. “moisture, rot,” πλαδαρός “damp,” πλαδάω, -ᾆν “be wet,” Latv. peldêtiês etc. “to bathe,” and some interesting developments connected to “swimming,” and therefore also “flying,” in OHG fledirōn, NHG flattern, OHG fledar-mūs “bat,” Latv. peldêt “swim,” peldêtiês “to bathe,” pledinât “to beat with the wings,” and pledins “butterfly”). However, Polonda and Pelendava, would rather come from the extended root G *pelem- “bustle, turmoil,” as also “of an army,” therefore “fortress” in our case, the place where the army gathers (cf. Gk. πελεμίζω “swing, shake,” pass. “tremble,” πόλεμος, πτόλεμος “battle, war,” OHG felm “scare,” Lat. palpor, -āri, palpitō, Alb. palun “fluttering, trembling,” and “maple” etc.)313 The Ptolemaic Komidava is identified with the Roman castrum Cumidava, in Râşnov (BV).314 The location of the castrum is 45°35′25.89″N and 25°28′10.21″E.315 Its latitude is with 1°5′34″ (- 1.092778°) south from the Ptolemaic coordinate (46°40′). This shows the same behavior as Angoustia regarding the latitude, but the displacement on this coordinate is smaller. (The shift between the Ptolemaic and the modern value of the latitude is that between 47°40′ P Ξ and 46°03′ of Breţcu = 1°38′.) The longitude of Komidava (25.4695°) is shifted with 0.6415° (38′29.4″) from the Ptolemaic value (51°30′, raw mod. 24.828°). The root *kem-1 “to press, squeeze,” has the derivation *komo-, which led to the formation of the Thraco-Dacian words Komi-dava, Como-sicus ( Getica 11 “Dacorum rex et pontifex,”) Di-comes, Κομο-σαρύη (or Καμα-, bosporan woman), and Κομί-σαος (inscr.).316 The root would

312 Stephanus, “Ethnica,” Vol. IV, 10, 11 π. 5. Ibid., 1849, 497. Ibid., 1839, 221. Ibid., 1678, 521. Also in: Hegesippos Palleniaka and Theagenes, Makedonika, as cited in ibid., 2016, 11. 313 All the examples, for the sections with root extensions, from Pokorny, III, 798-801. 314 SITES.GOOGLE.com, last accessed 9.03.2019, https://sites.google.com /site/cumidavaonouaabordare/castrul-roman-cumidava. 315 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania, accessed 05.09.2018. 316 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 46, 49.

116 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia indicate “lump, protuberance,” but connecting it to Skr. Kama-deva, the god of love, the meaning could also admit the alternative “reaching out, lust.”317 The shift on the latitude of Komidava (1.092778°) could serve better to find the latitude for Polonda (53° long. 47° lat. P). Starting from 47° P of Polonda, this gives 45.907222° / 45°54′26″ N. Applying the shift of Komidava (0.6415°) on longitude (to 26.073° raw transformation), it would give 26.7145 / 26°42′52.2″ E, Bârseşti, near Natural Park Putna (VR). However, I believe the location could be closer to the river Siret, to the east. This would happen if the shift applied were that of Angoustia (Ω, 0.8623611), or even that of Sarmizegethousa (1.523611). Applying the shift of Angoustia, the longitude would be 26.9353611 / 26°56′7.3″ E, in Burca, east of Vidra. If its own shift would be around 1°, the location should be sought between Burca and the river Siret. The shift of Sarmizegethousa would take the location beyond the Siret (27.596611 E, near Corod). I think a location on the west bank of the Siret, between Haret and Siretu, west of Modruzeni and east of Panciu (ca. 27.2° / 27°12′ E, the shift would be of 1.127°, closer to an average between that of Sarmizegethousa and Angoustia), would be the most eligible one, or, otherwise said, the same kind of correction would be neccesary as for Karsidava, from a location to the east of river Siret to its west bank (Fig. 5-15).

Fig. 5-15. The estination of Polonda (Google Maps)

R(h)amidava (Ptolemy: 51°50′ long., 46°30′ lat.) is known, from archaeological researches, to correspond to the castrum of Drajna de Sus (45°15′5″N 26°4′7″E). Trajan’s army did not only have one way of access to Sarmizegethousa, but all of the following three: Strei = Lederata to

317 Ibid. Pârvan, 149 (253).

117 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Tapae, Olt = to , and Transylvanian Olt = Ramidava / Piroboridava to Angustia. Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum is known from the military diplomas of 92, 97, 105, 111, 129/130, 140, and 146 AD.318 Before 101 AD it stationed in Moesia Inferior, and in 101- 102 AD it took part to the . It was, most probably, an equitata and sagittaria auxiliary to the legions I Italica, V Macedonica and, mostly, to XI Claudia, and a vanguard of the army that penetrated on the Olt valley, led by Laberius Maximus, the governor of Moesia Inferior. In the spring of the year 101 AD, Laberius and his army attacked, advancing in the valleys Olt, Mureş, and Strei.319 A stamped tegula from Caput Stenarum (Boiţa) made C. Schuster to argue that Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum stationed as far as that point, north of , during the first Dacian war (101-102 AD), and some of its centuriae participated to the construction of the castellum - castrum there, between the two wars (102-105 AD).320 The stamp on the tegula found at Caput Stenarum (Boiţa), reading “COHI” has, indeed, clear similarities with some stamp types at Drajna de Sus (a large first C, containing the following O), where the larger part of the Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum stationed between the two Dacian Wars and a few years after the second war.321 The main base of the Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum of Ramidava, Drajna de Sus, was also a very important fort for the troops of Laberius Maximus, between the two Dacian Wars. The territory east of Olt, and even the south of Moldavia was annexed to Moesia Inferior after the first Dacian War, and it appears that the outposts of this province were on the Transylvanian Olt. The location of Drajna de Sus is shifted on the latitude by 1°14′55″ (- 1.248611°, a match for the Ω value of Angustia!) and on the longitude by -0.9639461. It could be easily accepted that Rhamidava has a larger displacement than Komidava on the longitude. The location of Drajna

318 Ovidiu Ţentea and Florian Matei-Popescu, “Alae et cohortes Daciae et Moesiae. A review and updating of J. Spaul’s Ala and Cohors,” in Acta Musei Napocensis, 39-40 (1) (Cluj-Napoca: Ministerul Culturii şi Cultelor, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie al Transilvaniei, 2004), 279. 319 Cristian Schuster, “The Castle of Caput Stenarum and Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum,” Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sebesiensis 5 (2013): 242, 244 etc. 320 Ibid., 237-253. 321 Ibid., 239, 245.

118 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia de Sus, as recommended by the archaeological data, is acceptable, and could be considered a possible estimation of Rhamidava.

Fig. 5-16. Rhamidava–Drajna de Sus (Google Maps)

Piroum (Ptolemy: 51°15′ long., 46° lat.; raw 24.6205 long. mod.) would have, through the same algorithm as Komidava, the following coordinates: 46 - 1.092778 = 44.907222 / 44°54′26″ N; 24.6205 + 0.6415 = 25.262° / 25°15′43.2″ E. Thus it would be near Potocelu, west of Târgovişte (Fig. 5-17). However, with the more probable shift of Angoustia on the longitude (-0.8623611), Piroum would be in the approximate location of Târgovişte (Ulmi): 24.6205 + 0.8623611 = 25.4828611° / 25°28′58.3″ E.

Fig. 5-17. The estimation of Piroum (Google Maps)

119 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

If the name Piroum was autochthonous, then it could have had a similar origin with the first part of Piroboridava, in PIE *peuō̯ r- / pūr̆ - “fire.”322 Zousidava (Ptolemy: 52°40′, long. 46°15′ lat.; raw 25.7963361 long. mod.) would have, through the same algorithm as Komidava, the following corrdinates: 46.25 - 1.092778 = 45.157222 / 45°9′26″ N; 25.7963361 + 0.6415 = 26.4378361° / 26°26′16.21″ E. Therefore it is located between Lapoş and Pietricica, Prahova County, near Buzău County. With the shift of Angoustia (Ω), however, its longitude would be 25.7963361 + 0.8623611 = 26.6586972° / 26°39′31.31″. It would be in Sărata-Monteoru, a place which defines a Bronze culture. But I believe the search for the location could imply the entire area to the east (Fig. 5- 18), up to Buzău (as in the case of Polonda, considering a possible a larger shift than that of Angoustia). The origin of the first part of Zousidava (as that of Sousoudava) was identified by Tomaschek in *geuŝ - “to taste, to enjoy.”323

Fig. 5-18. The estimation of Zousidava (Google Maps)

A new series starts with Zourobara (Ptolemy: 46°40′ Ξ, 45°40′ Ω long., 45°40′ lat.), back to the west, and on a southern latitude. It has a different Ξ recension value than the Ω recension value, for the longitude. This gives a longitude of 20.7633361 / 20°45′48.01″ E. It is on a latitude close to Sarmizegethousa (45°15′ P, 45°37′21.7945″ mod.), with a shift in

322 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 21. 323 Ibid., 44, 78. Pârvan, 149 (253).

120 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia close relation to it (shift 22′21.7945″), meaning that 45°40′ P could be approximated at 46°02′21.7945″ / 46.03939° N mod. This points to Sânpetru Mare, east of Sânicolau Mare (TM, Fig. 5-19). Interestingly enough, it is not far from Cenad, where the medieval monastery of was located, close to several important archaeological sites (i. e., Periam defines a culture of the Middle Bronze Age, Periam-Pecica). Considering a smaller shift on latitude (which is highly conceivable), the area between Morisena-Cenad, Nădlac, and the river Mureş, would become the estimation for Zourobara, which could be enlarged to the area of Cenad–Nădlac–Periam–Sânicolau Mare.

Fig. 5-19. The estimation of Zourobara (Google Maps)

Tomaschek connected Ζούρας etc. (hence Zourobara) to “water,” as in Germi-sera, therefore *ser-1.324 According to Georgiev, all the Thraco- Dacian anthroponyms containing s/zo(u)r- came from *keû -1 “to swell”325 (cf. Old Ind. śūrá - “strong, hero,” Avest. sūra- “strong, powerful,” Gk. κύριος). This would apply to Δι-συρος, Δι-σορρας, Δει-σορας, Ζι-συρας (cf. Διο-κρέων), Σουρε-γεθης (< śūrē-ge(n)thi- < kūrā̂ -ghwen-t(i)-) etc.326 However, this might not apply to hydronyms and toponyms, as Zourobara. Russu, following the principle that the words starting in z- in Dacian would have come rather from a g-̂ Indo-European root (then k-̂ , giving s-), proposed the Indo-European root *geû - “to advance, hurry”

324 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 98. Pokorny, III, 909-910. 325 Pokorny, II, 592-594. 326 Georgiev, The Thracians…, 94-95.

121 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

(cf. Av. zavah- “force,” zavar “physical power”) or *ĝuer̭ - “to light” for the Dacian anthroponyms like Ζουρης, Ζουραζεις, Ζυραξης, Zurozis, Aidezyres, Zuraturmenis. Among Russu’s alternatives, his first variant would be more probable, since the second could rather have given names in zb-, like Zbeltiurdos.327 Aiz(is)is is a Dacian place name, in Dacia Superior, a Dacian city, and then a Roman castrum, between Bersovia (Berzobis) and . The following locations were proposed: Dealul Ruieni–Fârliug,328 in Caraș- Severin County, or Ezeriş, in Timiş County (the last one by A. D. Xenopol). The place is mentioned in Priscian 6.13 and Tabula Peutingeriana329. Ptolemy gives the coordinates of 46°15′ long. and 45°20′ lat. for Αἰζισίς. Fârliug has a Roman castrum thought to represent Aizisis, at 45°29′33.0″ N and 21°51′21.9″ E. The name comes from PIE *haeg-̂ s/- oś (masc./fem.)330 (Tomaschek, = Russu *aig-̂ ), thus resultin gin *aiz-, aiziś “she-goat,” ?*aizoś “he-goat.” Related toponyms are: Αἰζική in Thrace (Αἰζική Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F 173, St. B. α.118 “Αἰζική˙ Θράκεςͅ μέρος.” Thracian region331), and Αἰζάνη (in Phrygia).332 The Gk. αἴξ “she- goat” and the Arm. ayc id are among the cognates of the Thraco-Dacian words.333 Heritage: Alb. edh “kid.”334 Rom. ied “goat′s young” is

327 Russu, 127, 130. Pokorny, II, 399, 479. 328 Cf. LIMESTOMANIA.ro. 329 William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, 744. 330 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 299. Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction…, 135, 141, 179. Pokorny, I, 6-7, 13. 331 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. I: A-Γ, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 43.1., 2006, 86, 87. Ibid., 1849, 46. Ibid., 1839, 21. Ibid., 1678, 39. 332 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 53. Russu, 90: “, localitate în Dacia (Banat), Priscian VI, 13 (Grammatici latini, ed. Hertz, II, p. 205 «Traianus in I Dacicorum: inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus»; Ptol., III, 8, 4); Αἰζική, regiune în Tracia St. B.; Αἰζάνη, în Frigia, Rad. *aig’, „capră” (WP, I, p. 8; Tomaschek, Thr., II, 2, p. 53)”. Katičič, 1976, 139: “αἰζ- in Αἰζική, the name of a part of Thrace : IE *aig-̂ ; cf. Gr. αἶξ ‘goat’.” Ibid., 149-150: “Αἰζις, Azisis (a Dacian toponym) : IE *aig'- ‘goat’ (cf. Gr. αἶξ ‘goat’).” 333 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 299. 334 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 299. Vladimir Orel, A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000), 12: Early Proto-Albanian EPA *aidza ‘goat’.

122 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia considered to come from the Lat. haedus. However, we should notice its closeness to Thraco-Dacian and Albanian. The raw result for the longitude is 20.4705. If we consider that the local tendency is represented by the shift of Sarmizegethousa (the only known in its series, so the best reference, if the local structure is maintained), and that there is no different Ξ reference value for the longitude, we should add 1.523611, giving 21.994111 / 21°59′38.8″ E (8′27″ difference to Fârliug’s meridian!). The latitude is by 5′ P north of Sarmizegethousa, thus, applying its shift of 22′21.7945″, this results in 45°42′21.7945″ / 45.70605° N. This is east of Lugoj (AR) and, most interesting, east of a village named Hezeriş (see Fig. 5-20 A-B). It is not the one that Xenopol had in his mind for the etymological reason, Ezeriş, south of Fârliug. However, the place where the mapping ended, Hezeriş, near Lugoj, has a lot of phonetic resemblance!

Fig. 5-20 A. The estlimation of Aizis (Google Maps)

Argidava (49°30′ long., 45°15′ lat. P) would be east of the meridian of Porolisson, Napouka, and Patrouissa, following a south-eastern pattern. (Otherwise we should place it somewhere in the Făgăraş Mountains, which is not plausible.) Using the shift of Sarmizegethousa for the longitude, it results in 23.168 (raw) + 1.523611 = 24.691611° E. The location is near Optaşi-Măgura, Olt County, next to Argeş County (Fig. 5-21, less probable). A more plausible option for Argidava will be discussed in tandem with Tiriskon, below.

123 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-20 B. The estlimation of Aiz(is)is, zoom out (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-21. The first estimation of Argidava, not probable (Google Maps)

Argidava might have a similar origin with Argeadae, the Macedonian tribe which gave the royal dynasty.335

335 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. I, 1893, 31. Ibid., Vol. II, Part 1, Glossen aller Art und Götternamen, 1893, 4. , Histories, in four volumes, Vol. IV (Books VIII and IX), translated by A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library

124 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 5-22 A. The raw results for Tiriskon, yet unfit to decide its modern coordinates (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-22 B. The first estimation of Tiriskon, less probable (Google Maps)

Tiriskon (48°30′ long. 45°15′ lat. P) would be east of Sarmizegethousa, parallel to it. If I follow its pattern, it results in 45° 37′ 21.7945″ / 45.6227207° N and, for the longitude: 22.338 (raw) + 1.523611 = 23.861611 E. It would be near Păltiniş, but the raw results from the Ω recension rarely give a credible site (however, see Fig. 5-22 A). Following the pattern of Argidava, the location moves, on the same meridian, to the south: 44.6085 / 44°36′30.6″ N (i. e., 44.6085° N

(Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1969), 141. Richard A. Billows, Before and after Alexander (New York, London: The Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc.), 2018, 17. Cf. Pokorny, I, 64, *areg- “to lock,” with “Old Ind. argala-ḥ, argalā bolt, Maced. ἄργελλα bathing hut, … Alb. ragál f. hut; Cimmer. ἄργιλλα (*arg-el-iā̯ ).”

125 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

23.861611° E), between Înfrăţirea and Sălişte, Gorj County (Fig. 5-22 B, still not probable). The name Tiriskon could have come from the Indo-European root *ter-5 “over, end, terminus” (thus “destination, station” etc.), as suggested by Tomaschek for other Dacian words beginning this way.336 Oraviţa, with a Roman castrum, is argued to be the location for Argidava. The old maps (cf. codex U) put Argidava on the same meridian as Ziridava, Zermizirga and Hydata. This meridian is located at approximately 23.168 / 23°10′4.8″ (less by 1′ or 2′ for Zermizirga, Geoagiu Băi and Ziridava, Ardeu), identical with the raw result for Argidava. This would be valid if the Ω reference value for the longitude would shift as a Ξ reference value, meaning the original would have been kept in the Ω reference. Argidava would then be about: 23.168 / 23°10′4.8″ E, 44.6085 / 44°36′30.6″ N, near Strehaia, but no way near Oraviţa, much more to the west. For Tiriskon, if I consider the raw longitude in the same way, it would place the location somewhere south of the Danube, south of Orşova. Tiriskon was always a tandem with Argidava, in the spirit of the old maps just mentioned. I do not believe in such displacements, but rather in the estimations above, roughly on the parallel 44.6085 / 44°36′30.6″ N, about 24.691611° E and even more, for Argidava, and about 23.861611° E and even more for Tiriskon, meaning rather eastward locations for both. The old maps always placed Tiriskon and Argidava in the Romanian Plain, and not at the of the Danube. Maybe Arcidava, Oraviţa, is just another dava, as many paronymes made some scholars write about duplicates,337 although Pârvan contradicted such a view and found arguments for many valid locations, even when they had resembling names.338 He mentioned that Tiriskon was such a duplicate in Tibiskon, in Banat.339 He placed Argidava at Vărădia, more to the west of Oraviţa,340 and wondered if it were identical to Bourebistas’ Argedabon.341

336 Tomaschek, The Old Thracians, Vol. II, Part 2, 90. Pokorny, III, 1075-1076. 337 Schütte, Ptolemy's maps…. Miller, Itineraria Romana…. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883. 338 Pârvan, 135 (221) sqq., 147 (246-247) etc. 339 Ibid, 155 (261). 340 Ibid. 154 (261). 341 Ibid., 155 (261).

126 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

If we needed to move Tiriskon and Argidava eastward, as we did for the initially calculated longitude of Polonda, this would result in a latitude of 44.6085 / 44°36′30.6″ N for both, about 24.9° E for Argidava (between Costeşti and Buzoieşti, south of Piteşti), and about 24° E for Tiriskon (east of Bălceşti). If the same post-correction is operated as for Netindava (about 10′), Tiasson and Akmonia, the latitude would be more to the north, at about 44.775° / 44°46′30″ N, pointing to Fârtăţeşti, north of Măciuca, for Tiriskon, and to Dâmbovnic-Bradu, south of Piteşti, for Argidava (see Fig. 5-22 C).

Fig. 5-22 C. The second estimation for Tiriskon and Argidava (Google Maps)

Hydata has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 49°30′ long. and 45°40′ lat. P. The scholarly consensus tended to identify it with Aquae (Ad Aquas), which is the modern Călan (45°44′10″ N, 23° E).342 Princeton Encyclopedia has the following information on it:

AQUAE (Călan) Hunedoara, Romania. An important civil settlement and health resort on a terrace of the river Strei NW of the present town. The name appears as Hydata in

342 ENCICLOPEDIAROMANIEI.ro, accessed 06.09.2018, http:// enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Ad_Aquas. Given bibliography: Constantin Preda (coord.), The Encyclopedia of Romania’s Archaeology and Old History, Vol. 1 (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1994). See also: TABULA- PEUTINGERIANA.de.

127 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Ptolemy (3.8.4). The site, called pagus Aquensis, belonged to the territory of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and was ruled by a praefectus, who was at the same time the decurion of Sarmizegetusa. All that remains is a basin at a water source, and traces of the imperial road to Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. The camp traces are uncertain. The neighboring quarry was used in antiquity. Among important inscriptions discovered was one from A.D. 161, in honor of the governor P. Furius Saturninus (CIL III, 1412), and tiles and bricks bearing the seals of Legio XIII Gemina.343

There is a castrum in Hunedoara (45°44′56.30″N 22°53′17.93″E), also taken in consideration by Romanian archaeologists.344 There is another Aquae in Romania, at Cioroiul Nou (DJ), but it would not match at all the Tabula Peutingeriana itinerary. However, about it, the quoted encyclopedia says:

AQUAE (Cioroiul Nou) Dolj, Romania. A statio in Dacia inferior, near the sources of the river Apa Cioroiului. It comprised a civil agglomeration covering ca. 20 ha, a quadrilateral citadel (130 x 235 m) in the center, and a necropolis at its S end. The earth citadel was built by the local population after the invasion of the Carpes in 245-247. The name of this place appears in the votive inscription of a certain Germanus speculator leg. VII Claudiae, dedicated to genio stationis Aquensium; and a dedication to Hercules: pro sal. Aquensium made by M. Opellius Maximus, dec. Montanensium. It was probably a fiscal customs statio, and was located in the center of a vast, fertile plain. The archaeological excavations uncovered a villa rustica, public baths, a temple, pottery ovens, and foundations of houses. The coins discovered go from Trajan to Heraclius. The temple, having a naos, a pronaos, and a vestibulum, covered an area of 6.6 by 17.8 m and was very likely consecrated to

343 Stillwell et al., 75. Given bibliography: Christescu, V. Economic Life of the Roman Dacia (Piteşti, 1929), 102, Tudor, Cities…, 115-19. At: PERSEUS.TUFTS.edu, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.0 4.0006%3Aentry%3Daquae-2 (accessed 06.09.2018). 344 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania.

128 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Hercules. In a ditch, buried as membra disiecta, were 37 fragments of statues (Minerva, Mercurius, Bacchus, Hekate, Apollo, Venus, Matres, Iupiter, Aion, etc.). They are from a ritual burial performed after the destruction of the Carpes. (At present, these remains are preserved with other pieces of the same type in the Museum of .) The statio Aquensis was also an administrative center of an important agricultural area divided among several large landowners, such as C. Ant. Iulianus, M. Cassius Herculanus.345

Comparing Hydata (49°30′ long., 45°40′ lat. P) with Călan (45°44′10″ N, 23° E) and with the castrum in the city of Hunedoara (45°44′56.30″N 22°53′17.93″E), there is only a ca. 4′ displacement on latitude, in each case. This is conceivable, if we notice that Zermizirga (46°15′ P), has a shift of -0.36° (-22′) and Sarmizegethousa (45°15′ P) has +0.36° (+22′). Then, Hydata (Aquae) could be near the parallel where the two opposite tendencies annul each other. The raw longitude would be 23.168 / 23°10′4.8″ (that of Ziridava and Zermizirga), but we do not have here a Ξ reference value different than the Ω reference value. The raw value is ca. 10′ to the east of Călan-Băi. V. Pârvan commented on Hydata (Aquae) as following:

Known. On the road from Sarmizegethusa to Apulum, near today’s Călan. Wrongly localized by Ptolemaeus, too far east. Natural mineral spring, known of course before the Romans, and mentioned as a curiosity even from the time of the wars in the respective comments, as a reference point.346

The Roman castrum may be placed in Hunedoara, but I believe the original name and place corresponds to Călan-Băi, the mineral spring. Sarmizegethousa basileion or Regia (47°50′ long., 45°15′ lat. P) is the well known capital city of Decebalus, located at Grădiştea de Munte (23° 18′ 29.682″ / 23.308245° E, 45° 37′ 21.7945″ / 45.6227207° N). Its shift on the longitude (-1.523611) is expected to approximate the displacement of many southern poleis, in some cases with post-correction,

345 Stillwell et al., 75. Given bibliography: D. Tudor, “The Archaeological Excavations from Cioroiul Nou” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 8 (1962): 547-554, other works of D. Tudor in Bibliography, and TIR, L.34, 1969, 47. 346 Pârvan, 155 (263).

129 Şerban George Paul Drugaş as already encountered above. The difference on latitude between the Ptolemaic and the modern value (+22′ 21.7945″ / ~ +0.36°) also proves to be useful in maintaining the local relations between the poleis around. The name of the old Dacian capital has an appealing explanation in Tomaschek. He saw the name as being composed of s(/z)armi- + - zegethousa. The first part was compared to Skr. harmya ́ “herd, house, family” and Arm. zerm(i)- “family, progeny.” The second part, -ζέγετε, would reproduce the Skr. gâ -́ gat “mobile, lively, animated world, human being,” coming from *ĝhē-1 “to go, drive” (cf. Lith. getis). The root *kerdhô - / *kerdheĥ a- “herd, series, troop,”347 for the first part, would need to be considered within the Thraco-Dacian phonology, without -dh, and taking an -m. As a past participle with reduplication, the second part could induce to the whole word the meaning of “community (troops?) relocated.”348 Netindava (52°45′ long. 45°30′ lat. P) should be placed somewhere in the east of the Romanian Plain, as it was written by Pârvan:

Ptolemaeus seemed to have placed it right in the east of today’s , near the course of the river Ialomiţa.349

He did not think that Netindava could be located at Piscul Crăsanilor (La Tène station) and Tiason at Tinosul.350 I. I. Russu correlated Netindava to the Indo-European *sna-t-, *snət- “to flow, humidity.”351 After the laryngeal theory in Indo-European studies, the root was written as *(s)neh2- (with an s-mobile).352 The raw latitude and longitude (25.8655° E) result in an improbable location, in the Ciucaş Mountains. Using the shift of Sarmizegethousa on the longitude (25.8655 + 1.523611 = 27.389111° E / 27°23′20.8″), and that of Komidava on the latitude (45.5

347 Pokorny, II, 579. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 268. 348 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 77. Pokorny, I, 418-419, for ĝhē-1. Id., 349 Pârvan, 155 (263). 350 Ibid. 351 Russu, 113. Citing: Walde and Pokorny, II, 602-603. See Pokorny, III, 971- 972. 352 Joshua T. Katz,“The ‘Swimming Duck’ in Greek and Hittite,” in Indo- European Perspectives, ed. J. H. W. Penney (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 195-198. Cf. Şerban George Paul Drugaş, “Etymological Note about Romanian Raţă–Albanian Rosë” Hiperboreea Journal 5(1) (2018): 69 ISSN 2284– 5666, https://hiperboreeajournal.com/2018-2/.

130 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

- 1.092778 = 44.407222° / 44°24′26″ N), the calculation leads to a place near Drajna Nouă (CL). I believe the location would rather have a smaller shift on latitude, as that of the area of Slobozia (IL, 44°34′14.2″N 27°22′44.1″E), (cf. ca. 44°34′ N / 44.56667°, Fig. 5-23).

Fig. 5-23. The estination of Netindava (Google Maps)

Tiasson (52° long. 45°30′ lat. P) could be on the same latitude as Netindava (cf. ca. 44°34′ / 44.56667° N), because they should be taken as a tandem. For its longitude, I believe there are two possibilities: (1) 25.243 (raw) + 1.523611 = 26.766611 / 26°45′59.8″ E, east of Arţari (CL), but in Ialomiţa County; and (2) with the shift of Angoustia (Ω), 25.243 (raw) + 0.8623611 = 26.1053611 / 26°6′19.3″, in Otopeni, north of Bucharest (see Fig. 5-24). Using the shift of Sarmizegethousa, or just a slightly smaller one, as for Polonda, the location around Arţari or Otopeni (IF) would be conceivable for Tiasson, as a location around Slobozia would be Netindava. Using the shift of Angoustia for Netindava, the result would be a longitude of 26.7278611° / 26°43′40.3″ E (44.56667 N, 26.7278611 E), close to that of the first location of Tiasson, east of Arţari, west of Balaciu. Pârvan correlated the name Tiasson with Tios (+ suf. -son, as Bergison), on the Bithynian coast of the Black Sea, east of Heraclea Pontica,353 maybe coming from the Indo-European root *tā(i)-, tə(i)-, tī-̆ “to melt”

353 Pârvan, 155 (264-265).

131 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

(cf. “Balt. with ž-formant, Lith. tižùš slippery, tyžtù, tìžti getting slippery.”)354

Fig. 5-24. The estimation of Tiasson and Netindava (Google Maps)

The Ptolemaic coordinates would place Zeugma (47°40′ long. 44°40′ lat. P) approximately in the area of Dierna and Droubetis. Its name indicates a bridge. Certain old scholarly opinion connected it to the river Rhabon:

Zeugma, Ptolemy; a town of Dacia, the appellation indicates a bridge, below the confluence of the Seigetia and Rhabo. Now Clausenburg, in the west of Transylvania.355 (The final assessement is an incorrectconclusion, of course.)

G. Schütte wrote that

Ptolemy has another Greek translation on Dacian ground, viz. Zeugma, i. e. Bridge = Pons Trajani. It is the important military bridge built by the Emperor Trajanus near the Iron Gate.356

354 Pokorny, III, 1053-1054. 355 Alexander MacBean, A Dictionary of Ancient Geography (London, 1773), 629. 356 Schütte, Ptolemy's maps…, 84.

132 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Without a Ξ reference value different from the Ω reference value for the latitude, analyzing only the Ω reference, it would seem that Zeugma (47°40′ long. 44°40′ lat. P) was located between Dierna (47°15′ long. 44°30′ Ω lat. P) and Droubetis (47°45′ long. 44°30′ lat. P, see below), north of Dierna, which is not possible. A calculation using the displacement of Droubetis on longitude (which is closer), results in 47.66667 x 0.83 -17.917 = 21.646361, and adding 0.952611, the result is 22.598972 E. On latitude, Dierna is at 44°44′17.75″ / 44.73826° N, while Droubetis is at 44°37′29.9″ / 44.624972° N. As we saw even for Dierna (Orşova) and Droubetis (Drobeta), except the Ξ reference value for Dierna, the Ω reference (the only available for Zeugma) was potentially dubious and hard to be corelated to the real latitude. Thus, the correction for Zeugma would be to place it on the northern bank of the Danube. If we map Zeugma with the coordinates available, it would result in 44.7633053361° N and 22.598972° E (44°45′47.9″N 22°35′56.3″E), but dragging it on the Danube (at about 44°38′ N), it would place it somewhere near Droubetis, to the west, as the relative longitude would require (cf. Fig. 5-25 A). It would be more plausible not to follow the (singular) shift of Droubetis at all. Then, with the shift of Sarmizegethousa, its longitude would be 21.646361 + 1.523611 = 23.169972° / 23°10′11.9″ E. Using the same pattern (of Dierna–Sarmizegethousa) for the latitude, it would result in approximately 45° ~ 45°2′ / 45.03333° N. This points to a place slightly west of Târgu Jiu. If Zeugma were indeed connected to the river Rhabon, this location might be a good approximation. And even if it were be an “important military bridge built by the Emperor Trajanus near the Iron Gate” (Schütte, above), this location is not so far from the Iron Gates of the Danube, and a strategical point for the Roman army, connecting the Iron Gates with Dacia Malvensis. Thus, I would rather pick this second estimation for this Ptolemaic location in Dacia. With this location, if the bridge would have been really on the Jiu river, the Ptolemaic coordinates might indicate a place south of Târgu Jiu, maybe at Iaşi-Gorj, or even in the center of Târgu Jiu (Fig. 5-25 B). The name Dierna (with its variants: Tierna, Ζερνης) seems to root from the Indo-European *der-4 “to cut, split, skin,” with the extension - n “precipice” (recalling the defile of the Danube?).357

357 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 71. Russu, 102. Pokorny, I, 206-211.

133 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-25 A. The first estimation of Zeugma (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-25 B. The second estimation of Zeugma (Google Maps)

Tibiskon (46°40′ long., 44°50′ lat. P) was identified with the castrum in Jupa,358 near Caransebeş. The name originates from the river Τιβίσκος

358 LIMESTOMANIA.ro.

134 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

(Timiş), which derived from the Proto-Indo-European *tāi- / təi- “to melt,” with the extension -bh, from which its cognates also originated: Lat. Tiberis, Gk. τῖφος etc.359 Tibiskon would have its Ptolemaic latitude between those of Dierna (see below) and Sarmizegethousa, with a clearly western longitude (20.816361 + 1.523611 = 22.339972° / 22°20′23.9″ E). The latitude, following the same pattern of Sarmizegethousa and Zourobara, would be 45°12′21.7945″ / 45.20605°. This location is placed SE of Jupa (the castrum has the coordinates: 45°27′58.94″N 22°11′22.32″E or 45°27'56.9′N 22°11′23.2″E / 45.465806° N, 22.189778° E). This means that the shift on the latitude of Tibiskon does not synchronize with Sarmizegethousa and the shift on the longitude is smaller (see Fig. 5-26). The castrum of Jupa has a shift of +38′ on the latitude (+0.6333333°), and a shift of -1.373417° on the longitude. The longitudinal deviation, although different than that of Sarmizegethousa, could be justified. However, the situation on the latitude is peculiar.

Fig. 5-26. Tibiskon and its Ptolemaic estimation (Google Maps)

359 Pokorny, III, 1053. Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 832 (citing: Georgiev, 1961, 90).

135 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

If we add Dierna and Droubetis to Sarmizegethousa, and the experience given by the calculation for the five poleis after Komidava, this should clarify the behavior of the poleis in the southern array. Dierna (47°15′ long., 44°50′ Ξ or 44°30′ Ω lat. P) has a 22.40764 - 21.3005 (raw) = 1.10714 displacement on longitude. Droubetis (47°45′ long. 44°30′ lat. P) has 22.668111 - 21.7155 (raw) = 0.952611 displacement on longitude. These displacements are smaller than that of Sarmizegethousa (1.523611) and they could define better the behavior of the souternmost poleis. The different Ξ reference value for the latitude for Dierna suggests it might be on a latitude north of Droubetis, which in reality is true: Dierna is at 44°44′17.75″ / 44.73826° N, while Droubetis is at 44°37′29.9″ / 44.624972° N. The shift on the latitude is, for the Ξ reference value for Dierna, 44.83333 - 44.73826 = 0.09507°, which is insignificant, showing again that usually the Ξ reference value better approximates the correct coordinate, as proved so many times for the longitude, and here for the latitude. The shift for the Ω reference value for Dierna is 44.83333 - 44.5 = 0.33333° / 20′. The modern value is larger than the Ω reference value, just like in the case of Sarmizegethousa, but here by 20′ instead of 22′. Therefore, the shift decreased, both on longitude and on latitude, but it remained in the same general patern and with close values to Sarmizegethousa. Droubetis has a shift on latitude of 44.624972 - 44.5 = 0.124972 / 7′30″, in the same direction. I called the shift “negative”on the latitude of all the poleis north of Sarmizegethousa, because the Ptolemaic latitude was greater than the modern one. The direction is reversed (thus “positive”) in the case of Sarmizegethousa, but decreases in value towards the south, for other poleis. The displacement of Sarmizegethousa on the longitude has the greater value, compared to the close values of Dierna and Droubetis (even smaller). The name Droubetis could have originated in the Indo-European root *der-4 “to cut, split, skin,” (as Dierna), but with the extension -bh, according to Tomaschek,360 or in the Indo-European root *dru-/ *dōrŭ -/ *drū- “tree, wood,”361 as implied by Georgiev and Duridanov, who gave the connection with Rom. druete, and Alb. drutë pl. “wood.”362

360 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 71. Pokorny, I, 206-211. 361 Pokorny, I, 214-217. 362 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 833.

136 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ekmonia or Akmonia (48° long., 49° Ξ or 45° Ω lat. P) has a Ξ latitude which is too large to be considered as raw value, as in the case of Angoustia. Its Ω reference values would place it close to Sarmizegethousa (47°50′ long. 45°15′ lat. P). Transformed on its pattern, the coordinates of Akmonia would be: 21.923 + 1.523611 = 23.446611° / 23°26′47.8″ E; 45° + 22′21.7945″ = 45°22′21.7945″ N / 45.37272° N. Tibiskon, Zourobara and Akmonia could constitude a group that, following the pattern of Sarmizegethousa, would need further correction towards north-west, but with different values. This pattern could explain the shift of Tibiskon. Zourobara would then be placed approximately in the area of Morisena–Cenad, and Akmonia approximately in the area of Petroşani (see Fig. 5-27). The radicals of the two names, akmo- and petro- , have the same meaning, “stone,”363 one in Dacian and one in Latin. Maybe the same pattern should be considered for some south-eastern poleis, for which I already pleaded for a northward displacement from the calculated result, as in the case of Netindava and Tiasson. This would strenghten the placement of Netindava somewhere west of Slobozia (IL) and that of Tiasson approximately in the area of Otopeni.

Fig. 5-27. The estimation of Akmonia (Google Maps)

363 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 55: connected with an Ἀκμονία in Phrygia and Phr. akmen- “stone.” Cf. Russu, 89.

137 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Phraterna or Phrateria364 (49°30′ long. 44°30′ lat. P) has the same relative latitude as Droubetis (44°37′29.9″ / 44.624972° N), and I think we may keep this reference. If we claculate its longitude with the pattern of Sarmizegethousa, it would result in 24.691611° / 24°41′29.8″ E, Coloneşti (OT, see Fig. 5-28: approximantely in the area of the first estimation of Argidava, because of their similar longitudes).

Fig. 5-28. The estimation of Phraterna (Google Maps)

Arkina (49° long. 44°50′ Ξ or 44°45′ Ω lat. P) has the same Ξ reference value for the latitude as Dierna, and a close Ω reference value. Approximating its shift on the longitude with that of Sarmizegethousa (1.523611, as for Zeugma and many other southern poleis), it results in 22.753° / 22°45′10.8″E. Considering the Ξ reference value for the latitude (44°50′ / 44.83333° N), this would point to Dâlbociţa, near Mehedinţi County, but the Ω value is more eloquent in this case, as in the case of the value for Amoutrion. Amoutrion (50° long. 44°45′ lat. P) has the same Ω reference value as Arkina. Using the same pattern, it results in 44°50′ / 44.83333° N. If Arkina has the Ptolemaic longitude 49°, the value of 50° for Amoutrion

364 Although it presents a Latin name, the IE root *bhreh́ ater gave all the IE words for “brother,” only the Latin fratēr and the Greek φρήτηρ being the exception, with f-, all the others starting with b(h)-. Thus, the Dacian word could not be far from such a form. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 84.

138 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia is simply incorrect, taking it somewhere east of Piteşti. The parallel estimated for Arkina intersects the river north of Motru city. If Arkina was rather in the area Ilovăţ–Racova (or somewhere west of it?!), then Amoutrion was in the area of Motru city (GJ, 44°48′13″N 22°58′15″E, Fig. 5-29).365 The longitudes of Arkina and Amoutrion are incorrect. If we conseider the difference of 44°, then Arkina would be at 21°58′15″E, but I do not have enough data for it, internal or external, to consider a constructive discussion. Duridanov clearly connected the etymology of the Ptolemaic Amoutrion with Motru:

Ἀμούτριον (Ptol.), Amutria (Таb. Peut.), Stadt in Dakien аm heutigen Bach Motru, aus *Ad-mutr(i)оm aus idg. *ad- (zu, bei, аm) + FlN *Mutr(i)os (-а) -zu idg. *mutro- Sumpf (s. оbеn Μώτρεσες).366

Amoutrion, compared to Mōtrees, has a similar construction as Rhabon,367 (river Jiul, in Dacia, to which Motrul is tributary), compared to Arabon (in Superior), or Samus (in Dacia), compared to Asamus (in Moesia) etc.368 Tabula Peutingeriana mentioned Amutria with the following information on distances: from Pelendova to Amutria 35 MP (milia passuum), and from Amutria to Drubetis 36 MP.369 Müller made modern

365 Cf. Frăţilă, “Gustav Weigand…,” 156. 366 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 834. Cf. Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 54. 367 PIE *rebh- “to move, to play”. Russu, 116, 117. Walde and Pokorny, II, 370- 371, nr. 1. Pokorny, III, 853. Dimităr Decev, Description of the Thracian Language (Sofia, 1952), 77, 99. Thracian occurrences: Rabocentus (Cic. in Pisonem 84 “Rabocentum, Bessicae gentis principem secure percussisti”, apud Russu, loc. cit.), Raebucentus, Ρηβουκενϑος, Ρηβουλας. Also Bithynian region Rebantia, and river name Rhēbaś / Ῥήβας, -αντος (at Bosporus; Arr., Scyl., Apoll., Rhod. etc., Stephanus, “Ethnica,” Vol. IV, 118, 119 ρ. 22, ibid., 1849, 544, ibid., 1839, 242, ibid., 1678, 574). Russu, 116: Rebantia, wrong Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 96, OInd. rēvant- 'rich'. Cf. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 91. Sorin Paliga, Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian (Bucharest: Ed. Evenimentul, 2006), 138. 368 Pârvan, 136 (225). 369 Müller, in Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 447.

139 Şerban George Paul Drugaş estimations of some Ptolemaic poleis improbable. He proposed Ptol. Πόλονδα or Τίασον for Pelendova (unlikely), but also Ptol. Ἀμούτριον (now Motru) for Amutria, and Ptol. Δρουβητίς (Turnu-Severin) for Drubetis.370 The last two are accurate, but now we know that Pelendova or Pelendava would be a different settlement than Polonda, and some archaeological vestiges and a castrum put Pelendava in the modern city of Craiova and its neighborhood (Cârligei, com. Bucovăţ, 44°17′1″N, 23°44′49″E).371 A standard Roman mile (MP) was 1.472 km. It was composed of 8 stadia (1 stadium = ca. 185 m). Sometimes, in modern times, a Roman mile is approximated to 1.48 km. However, the value of the stadium varied, and with it the Roman mile used by an author could differ from another:

This was the stadion or stadium, a unit used widely in the Hellenistic world, but which existed in several versions. It has been estimated that these varied in length from 149 m to 298 m, but agreement has not been reached on the specific length of the unit employed by Eratosthenes.372

E. Gulbekian strives, in the quoted article, to find such a value, but for the purpose of this study it is sufficient to retain that Ptolemy and Tabula Peutingeriana used a great variety of sources, from the previous itineraries. Thus, even if they liked to use the standard of Eratosthenes, many of their sources did not proceed in the same way. There are ca. 80 km in straight line between Craiova and Motru, and about 29.40 km between Motru and Drobeta. With 1 MP (mille passus) = 1.472 km, and using directly the values of the Tabula, mentioned above, there should be about 51.52 km between Craiova and Motru, and about 52.992 km between Motru and Drobeta Turnu Severin. We should note the great range of values which could have been involved.

370 Ibid. 371 Ministerul Culturii, “The List of the Historical Monuments 2015 – Dolj County,” Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, Nr. 113 bis, 15.II. 2016, http://patrimoniu.gov.ro/images/lmi-2015/LMI-DJ.pdf, Nr. crt. 29 (351), 1313, 1356. 372 Edward Gulbekian, “The Origin and Value of the Stadion Unit used by Eratosthenes in the Third Century B. C.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 37(4) (1987): 359-363, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00417008, 359.

140 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

However, it is important to highlight that the relative position between Drobeta and Motru, is compatible with the ancient road from Droubetis to Amutria / Amoutrion. This offers us a good external evidence (besides the etymological one) to place Amoutrion in the proximity of Motru. If we try to place Arkina with one degree to the west, this would lead lead to about 22°E, too much to the west of Dierna, Orşova (47°15′ long. P, 22°24′27.5″E). This suggests that Arkina does not inherit the same error for the longitude as Amoutrion. Taking the same latitude for Arkina, its longitude must be calculated separately. The raw result for the longitude is 22.753. The displacement of Dierna (- 1.10714°) could be applied, as well as that of Sarmizegethousa (- 1.523611°), which was used for many other poleis in the southern region of Dacia, or the average presented by Tibiskon (-1.373417°). Any such displacement would place Arkina east of Amoutrion, Motru, which is not acceptable, meaning that the proposed methods do not apply. Arkina must be estimated somewhere west of Motru, on its parallel, about half the distance between the meridian of Motru and that of Dierna, but more calculation is needed.

Fig. 5-29. The estimation of Arkina and Amoutrion (Google Maps)

Pinon (50°30′ long., 44°40′ lat. P) has a longitude placing it in the eastern part of Dacia, while its latitude is the same as that of Zeugma (about 45° mod. N), comparable with Arkina, Amoutrion, Phraterna and Dierna, Droubetis (all in Ω reference documents), in the west, but lower

141 Şerban George Paul Drugaş than Tiasson and Netindava (44°34′ / 44.56667° N ? for 45°30′ lat. P) if we take the reference in the east. Approximating its shift on longitude with that of Sarmizegethousa, as I did for most of the southern poleis, this would result in 23.998 + 1.523611 = 25.521611° E. As an eastern city, using the pattern of Netindava and Tiasson (which corroborates with Tibiskon, Jupa, in the west), the latitude could be lower. However, its Ptolemaic value cannot alow a shift of ca. 1° to the south. If we look at Droubetis, with its low shift to the north (7′30″), this would not work either to make an agreement with the south-eastern poleis. Many poleis in Transylvania have shifts of -22′ or -54′. Maybe a 44° N would better approximate the latitude of Pinon. It would be placed east of Alexandria, but if the shift on longitude would be smaller, as I suspected for Netindava, Tiasson and other southern poleis, too, the location would be moved to the west. Praetoria Augusta, on the same meridian as Pinon, was calculated with the shift of Patrouissa (1.019861), making a perfect match with Inlăceni. Following this pattern on the longitude, we obtain 23.998 + 1.019861 = 25.017861, Troianul (TR). But I think a larger area should be considered: Roşiori de Vede–Peretu–Troianul (see Fig. 5-30). At Peretu, a famous Getian helmet of the 4th century BC was found, now in the National Museum of Romanian History.373 The name Pinon does not refer to the Latin pinum “pine tree,” but it rather came from a drink (beer).374 Sournon (51°30′ long. 45° lat. P) would be even further east than Pinon. Its latitude would place it at 30′ lat. P south of Tiasson, Netindava. Applying the same pattern as for Pinon, regarding the longitude along with Patrouissa, Praetoria Augusta, Netindava and Tiasson, its longitude would be 24.828 + 1.019861 = 25.847861° / 25°50′52.3″ E, 44°20′ / 44.33333° N, near Drăgănescu (GR, Fig. 5-31). The name Sournon could have originate from *sū-ro- “sour, bitter” (cf. Lith. sūraś salty, Latv. sũrs,

373 E. Moscalu,“ The Thraco-Getian Princiary Grave from Peretu, in Romania,” Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 70 (1989) 1990: 129-190. MNIR.ro, last accessed March 9, 2019, http://mnir.ro/. 374 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 18. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 21: “πῖνον–κρίθινος οἴνος (Aristot. ad Athen.)” See also: “liquor made from barley, beer, Arist. Fr.106, cj. in Atti della reale Accad. di Archeologia di Napoli 11.41 (Gortyn, iv B. C.),” at PERSEUS.TUFTS.edu (Accessed 06.01.2019). Alternative meaning: Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 64: “something weaven,” a “damp place.”

142 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Lith. sūriś m. cheese, Old Pruss. suris id.),375 or from the same root as Σουρεγέθης, thus maybe *keû -1 “to swell, be strong.”376

Fig. 5-30. The estimation of Pinon (Google Maps)

Fig. 5-31. The estimation of Sournon (Google Maps)

375 Pokorny, III, 1039. 376 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 49. Pokorny, III, 592-594.

143 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

In Moesia Inferior, the settlements on the shore of the Black Sea, including Histria, Tomis (Constanţa), Callatis (Mangalia), Dionysopolis (Balcic), Odessus (Varna), and Mesembria (Nesebar), are all well known, so they will not be subject to the present investigation. The same observation is applicable for the locations on the southern bank of the lower Danube, which were considered in this study only as much as they could be used as reference points for the locations in Dacia. I will comment only to some of the eastern locations, east of Dacia proper and belonging somewhat to Moesia Inferior, while the Roman authority dominated the region. Some of these locations are better known, like the mouth of the river Borysthenes (57°30′ long. 48°30′ lat. P), the mouth of the river Tyras (56°40′ Ξ or 56°20′ Ω long. 47°40′ lat. P), and Tyras polis (56° long. 47°40′ lat. P, 30.35167° / 30°21′6″E, 46.20083° / 46°12′3″N). The Island of Borysthenes (57°15′ long. 47°40′ lat. P) could be Berezan Island (31.41 / 31°24′36″ E, 46.6 / 46°36′ N). The difference between the modern longitude of Tyras polis and the Ptolemaic raw coordinate (28.563 / 28°33′46.8″) is of 1.78867, larger than for Sarmizegethousa (1.523611), which is the largest shift in Dacia. The difference between the latitudes is about 1°28′, larger than anything encountered in Dacia. The Island of Borysthenes has an even larger difference in longitude (1.8095; raw Ptolemaic transformation 29.6005°), if this were the location, after all. The difference in latitude would be about 1°. Taking the raw longitude transformation from the Ξ reference of the mouth of Tyras (29.1163361° / 29°7′ E) and the modern latitude of Tyras polis (46.2° N), the resulting location would be in the middle between and Dnister rivers. The Ξ reference value for the longitude does not give, by raw transformation, the modern longitude, using the formula for Dacia proper. The shift is of about 1.3836639° / ~ 1°23′ (considering 30°30′ E the longitude of the mouth of Tyras). Neither does the Ptolemaic Ω reference of the longitude of the mouth of Tyras correspond with the longitude of Tyras polis, but they do correspond on latitude. The Ω reference tries to adjust the local relative distances, but 20′ on longitude is still too much. The mouth of the river Tyras is, actually to the SE of Tyras polis, at the end of the lagoon. A maximum of 10′ difference in longitude (and about 5′ in latitude) could be considered, but not more. Hermonactus villa (Ἑρμώνακτος κόμη: 56°15′ long. 47°30′ lat. P) would have been by 5′ to the west and by 10′ to the south, in Ptolemaic

144 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia degrees (comparing the Ω reference values, since Ξ and Ω reference cannot be compared to each other), from the mouth of the Tyras. It would place it somewhere on the shore of the Black Sea, around Serghieşti, Kosivka. Harpiepolis (Ἁρπιεπόλις: 56°20′ Ξ or 56° Ω long. 47°15′ lat. P) has a Ω reference longitude identical to that of Tyras polis. Its longitude is by 20′ P smaller than that of the mouth of river Tyras , both in the Ξ and Ω reference documents. This strenghtens the idea that, within the Ptolemaic sytem, Harpiepolis is considered to be on the meridian of the Tyras polis. However, we should remember that Porolisson, Napouka and Patrouissa are also considered as such too, which have different modern longitudes, behaving differently, each on its latitude (klima, a latitudinal strip). The latitude is smaller by 25′ P than that of both Tyras polis and the mouth of the Tyras. The location could be, on the shore of the Black Sea, around Kosivka, if we maintain the longitude, but may be rather close to Prymorske. The following are three locations with explicit Dacian names, near “Hierasos,” but Ptolemy merges Hierasos (Siret) and Porata / Pyretos (Prut). Patridava and Karsidava were on the west bank of Hierasos (Siret). Zargidava (Ζαργίδαυα, Ξ: -αύ-: 54°40′ Ξ or 55°40′ Ω long., 47°45′ or 45°45′ both Ω lat. P), Tamasidava (Ταμασίδαυα: 54°20′ Ξ or 55°20′ Ω long., 47°30′ lat. P), and Piroboridava (Πιροβορίδαυα: 54°30′ or 54° both Ω long., 47° lat. P) are explicitly connected by Ptolemy to “Hierasos.” The second Ω value of the latitude of Zargidava is a trial to set the actual coordinate. It could help only if it had indeed approximated the modern latitude, which would place Zargidava south of the latitude of Vadul lui Isac (45.766966° / 45°46′ N, 28.171984° / 28°10′19″E), the place from where continued the wall around Galaţi, to the east, and then the strenghtened these defensive systems.377 The raw transformation of the Ξ value for the longitude of Zargidava gives 27.4563361° / 27°27′22.81″ E. The displacement of the raw transformation of the Ω value for the longitude (28.2863361) would be (if the Ξ gives the accurate modern coordinate) 0.83°, but in the opposite direction than the general trend. Its latitude, however, would be

377 Costin Croitoru, “Roman Defensive System in the South of Moldavia. Contributions on the Knowledge of the Turf Walls” in Acta terrae septencastrensis (Sibiu: Editura Economică, 2002), 111.

145 Şerban George Paul Drugaş much to the south of Polonda (53° long. 47° lat. P), meaning that the second Ω value for the latitude does not indicate the real latitude. Polonda, with 47° lat. P, would be on the same parallel as Piroboridava. We do not know if the displacement on latitude of this group would completely synchronize with Polonda (and, thus, with Angoustia), but we must presume a relative local agreement still functions. The group around the river Tyras polis has a displacement on latitude of about 1°28′. The shift on the latitude of Komidava (also used for Polonda) is of 1.092778 / 1°5′34″. If the shift of Piroboridava were be larger than this, for a better agreement with Tyras polis, we could consider an average of about 1°10′ ~ 1°15′ (the eastern locations, around the mouth of Borysthenes, suggest even smaller differences on latitude). The approximated latitude for Polonda was 45°54′26″ N. We might consider about 45°45′ ~ 45°50′ N for Piroboridava, a value that would be well in agreement with both the eastern and the western closest Ptolemaic locations. Tamasidava would have 46°15′ ~ 46°20′ N and Zargidava 46°30′ ~ 46°35′ N. With the biggest latitude, if the Ξ value’s raw transformation for the longitude would give the modern value, the location of Zargidava would be between Obârşenii Lingurari and Drăxeni (VS). For the mouth of Tyras, the Ξ value did not give the modern value using the formula for Dacia proper, and it is best to presume the same pattern for Zargidava. Thus, we might need to consider a longitude of about 27.4563361 + 1.3836639 = 28.84° / 28°50′24″. The coordinates 46.58333 N 28.84 E would put Zargidava east of Ecaterninovca, Cimişia district, Rep. of . Tamasidava (ca. 20′ P to the west, ca. 28.5 E, 46.33333° / 46°20′ N) would be located east of Vişinovca, Cantemir district, Rep. of Moldova. Piroboridava (10′ P west of Tamasidava, in the middle between Tamasidava and Zargidava, ca. 28.67 E / 28°40′12″; 45.83333° / 45°50′ N), east of Chirilovca, Rep. of Moldova. Zargidava could have had its first part originating in the Indo- European *ĝher-4 “to enclose.”378 Tamasidava is a name formed from the Indo-European *tem(ə)- “dark” (cf. Lat. tenebrae, temere, Lith. tamsà “darkness,” tamsùs “dark”).379 The first part of Piroboridava was identified

378 Cf. Russu, 128, for Zerdo-. Pokorny, I, 442-443. Cf. Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, with other explanations. 379 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 74. Pokorny, III, 1063-1064.

146 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia by Tomaschek as the Dacian root pur / pyr “fire,” with a similar origin as Greek πῦρ, in PIE *peuō̯ r / pūr̆ “fire.”380 The other two parts are similar with Buridava (see below). Some of the calculations above need better information to input, while others give a precise agreement with the identification of the sites from external sources. The locations which are already known and some plausible results offer a good start for mapping Ptolemaic Dacia within modern coordinates. Thus, the map below (Fig. 5-32) should be considered as a beginning for further discussions, although not as a final construction. The calculations above were all thoroughly considered, but in some cases the Ptolemaic data and / or some logical decisions I made based on them need further analysis.

380 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 21.

147 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 5-32. A preliminary mapping of Ptolemaic Dacia in modern coordinates (MapCreator 3 Free Edition)

148

CHAPTER SIX

A Synthesis of the Local Ptolemaic Patterns in Dacia

Analysing the deviations of the coordinates, some patterns arose, which need outlining. In order to do so, I will present some tables and charts to increase the intuitive and logical capacity to identify such patterns. First, Table 7-1 only presents the deviations on longitude and latitude, cleared of other information in Table 6-1. It is true that many shifts / deviations were taken from a neighboring polis, to ascertain the position of the studied polis. However, we should notice that some cases confirm the justification of this practice. Such is the case of the group in Moldova (Triphulon, Patridava, Karsidava, and Petrodava), where the conserved pattern ensured a most plausible location for Karsidava and Petrodava on the west bank of the river Siret. Employing the pattern of Napouka, Oulpianon ended inside a very probable area, the Depression of Beiuş. Salinai received a plausible position, east of Ocna Mureş, around Gura Arieşului, using the pattern of its neighbor, Patrouissa. Similarly, Praetoria Augusta matched perfectly with the archaeological findings of Inlăceni. Following the behavior of Sarmizegethousa, we set a perfect match between the Ξ and Ω sources for Sangidava. Angoustia has a good approximation for its longitude after taking Napouka as a reference point, and the direct calculation for the Ξ reference confirmed once more its position at Breţcu. Apoulon is perfectly matched with Piatra Craivii after deciding to employ the average of the shifts of Patrouissa and Zermizirga and the shift of the latter on latitude. Hydata has an acceptable match with Călan (somewhat to the east regarding the longitude) after applying the pattern of Sarmizegethousa. The same shift was used successfully once more, at least for Zeugma and Ekmonia. Taking only the latitudes in consideration, the repeating patterns are even more obvious. For instance, Napouka, Patrouissa and Praetoria have solid archaeological grounds. Nothing could force them to have exactly the same rate of their shift on latitude, except the accuracy of the Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Ptolemaic data, which preserves the corelation between the poleis of the same region. There are many other such cases shown in Table 6-1, not counting the situations of complete dependency, but only those when external evidence corroborates with a repeated Ptolemaic pattern. All these cases show that in a certain region a local pattern tends to be preserved, in order to maintain the relative harmony of the system. This is why, after presenting the general situation as it comes from the list of Ptolemy in Table 6-1 and Fig. 6-2, I will group the items starting from the values and trying to correlate simlilar behaviors with certain regions of Dacia.

Table 6-1. Deviation of coordinates

Polis Long. Lat. Polis Long. Lat. Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Rhoukkonion 0 -0.82072 Rhamidava - -1.24861 0.96395 Dokidava -0.40444 -0.82072 Piroum - -1.09278 0.86236 Porolisson -0.40444 -0.82072 Zousidava - -1.09278 0.86236 Arkobarada 0.005278 0 Polonda -1.127 -1.09278 Ξ Triphulon -0.279 -0.82072 Zourobara 0 0.36 Ξ Patridava -0.279 -0.82072 Aizisis - 0.36 1.52361 Karsidava -0.279 -0.82072 Argidava - 0 1.52361 Petrodava -0.279 -0.82072 Tiriskon - 0 1.52361 Oulpianon -0.83333 -0.9 Sarmiz. - 0.36 1.52361 Napouka -0.83333 -0.9 Hydata - 0 1.52361 Patrouissa -1.01986 -0.9 Netindava - -0.93 1.52361 Salinai -1.01986 -0.9 Tiasson - -0.93 1.52361 Praetoria -1.01986 -0.9 Zeugma - 0.36 1.52361

150 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Sangidava Ξ 0 0 Tibiskon - 0.633333 1.37342 Sangidava -1.52361 0.36 Dierna Ξ - 0 LAT 1.10714 Angoustia Ξ 0.0333 -1.61666 Ekmonia - 0.36 1.52361 Angoustia -0.86236 -1.2 Droubetis - 0.125 0.95261 Outidava Ξ 0.0333 -1.61666 Phraterna - 0.36 1.52361 Markodava Ξ 0 -0.9 Arkina 0 0 Ziridava Ξ 0.0333 -0.36 Pinoum - 0.36 1.52361 Singidava -0.51 -0.457 Amoutrion 0.61217 0 Apoulon -0.51 -0.457 Sournon - 0.36 1.52361 Zermizirga Ξ -0.02239 -0.36 Komidava -0.6415 -1.09278

151 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 6-1 A. Chart 1 of the coordinate deviations for the poleis of Dacia

Fig. 6-1 B. Chart 2 of the coordinate deviations for the poleis of Dacia

152 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Fig. 6-2. Groups with similar patterns among the poleis of Dacia. Similar colours indicate similar behavior (Original creation, with Map Creator 3 Free)

153 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 6-3 A. Patterns for the longitudinal shift for the Ω values in Dacia. Ξ values are more likely to give direct validestimations (Original creation, with Map Creator 3 Free).

Fig. 6-3 B. Patterns for the latitudinal shift for the Ω values in Dacia (Original creation, with Map Creator 3 Free)

154 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Table 6-2. Groups of longitudinal shift

Long. Long. Polis Lat. Dev. Polis Lat. Dev. Dev. Dev. Amoutrion 0.61217 0

Arkina 0 0 Droubetis -0.95261 0.125 Angoustia Ξ 0 -1.61666 Rhamidava -0.96395 -1.24861

group) Outidava Ξ 0 -1.61666 Patrouissa -1.01986 -0.9

Ziridava Ξ 0 -0.36 Salinai -1.01986 -0.9 Arkobarada Ξ 0 0 Praetoria -1.01986 -0.9

(Patrouissa

Rhoukkonion 0 -0.82072 C Dierna -1.10714 0 Sangidava Ξ 0 0 Polonda -1.127 -1.09278

REFERENCE - Ξ Markodava Ξ 0 -0.9 Tibiskon -1.37342 0.6333 Zourobara Ξ 0 0.36 Sangidava -1.52361 0.36 Zermizirga Ξ 0 -0.36 Aizisis -1.52361 0.36 Triphulon -0.279 -0.82072 Argidava -1.52361 0

Patridava -0.279 -0.82072 Tiriskon -1.52361 0

NE

group)

Karsidava -0.279 -0.82072 Sarmiz. -1.52361 0.36 Petrodava -0.279 -0.82072 Hydata -1.52361 0

Dokidava -0.40444 -0.82072 Netindava -1.52361 -0.93

NW Porolisson -0.40444 -0.82072 Tiasson -1.52361 -0.93

Singidava -0.51 -0.457 Zeugma -1.52361 0.36

Ap.

Apoulon -0.51 -0.457 S (Sarmizegethousa Ekmonia -1.52361 0.36

-

C Komidava -0.6415 -1.09278 Phraterna -1.52361 0.36

gr.) Oulpianon -0.83333 -0.9 Pinoum -1.52361 0.36 Napouka -0.83333 -0.9 Sournon -1.52361 0.36 Angoustia -0.86236 -1.2

E (Napouka Piroum -0.86236 -1.09278

- C Zousidava -0.86236 -1.09278

155 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

In order to obtain a means for the longitudinal shift, I exclude Amoutrion and Arkina, whose behaviors do not match any pattern, Komidava (too independent in the group of Napouka), and also the Ξ- Reference group. I include two others, the mouth of Alouta and that of Rhabon, in the group of Patrouissa (their situation is discussed in chapter 7). The arithmetical means is then -1.034885135. The geometric means, which would be more relevant, is - 0.910442791. Of course, regarding the longitude, as well as the latitude, an unknown Ptolemaic place is still better approximated if taking into account the local behavior than the general means for Dacia.

Table 6-3. Groups of latitudinal shift

Long. Long. Lat. Polis Lat. Dev. Polis Dev. Dev. Dev.

Angoustia Ξ 0.0333 -1.61666 Apoulon -0.51 -0.457 Outidava Ξ 0.0333 -1.61666 Singidava -0.51 -0.457 Rhamidava -0.96395 -1.24861 Ziridava Ξ 0.0333 -0.36

Apoulon Angoustia Angoustia -0.86236 -1.2 Zermizirga Ξ -0.02239 -0.36

Komidava -0.6415 -1.09278 Arkobarada Ξ 0.005278 0 Piroum -0.86236 -1.09278 Sangidava Ξ 0 0 Zusidava -0.86236 -1.09278 Argidava -1.52361 0

Eroare!

Komidava Marcaj în nedefinit. Polondadocument -1.127 -1.09278 Tiriskon -1.52361 0

Netindava -1.52361 -0.93 Zero Hydata -1.52361 0 Tiasson -1.52361 -0.93 Dierna Ξ LAT -1.10714 0

Oulpianon -0.83333 -0.9 Arkina 0 0

gr. Napouka -0.83333 -0.9 Amoutrion 0.61217 0 Patrouissa -1.01986 -0.9 Droubetis -0.95261 0.125

Napouka Salinai -1.01986 -0.9 Sangidava -1.52361 0.36 Praetoria -1.01986 -0.9 Zourobara Ξ 0 0.36 Markodava Ξ 0 -0.9 Aizisis -1.52361 0.36

Rhoukkonion 0 -0.82072 Sarmiz. -1.52361 0.36 Dokidava -0.40444 -0.82072 Zeugma -1.52361 0.36

Porolisson -0.40444 -0.82072 Sarmizegethousa Ekmonia -1.52361 0.36

Porolisson Triphoulon -0.279 -0.82072 Phraterna -1.52361 0.36

156 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Patridava -0.279 -0.82072 Pinoum -1.52361 0.36 Karsidava -0.279 -0.82072 Sournon -1.52361 0.36 Petrodava -0.279 -0.82072 Tibiskon -1.37342 0.633

The geometric means of the latitudinal shift is about -0.48… However, besides Tibiskon and Droubetis, with independent values, there are three large groups: with negative values, with zero values, and with positive values. The positive group of Sarmizegethousa (see Fig. 7- 3) are located in the center-southwest region (Tiriskon and Argidava have, actually, recalculated zero values). The group of value zero is colored grey on the map (Fig. 7-3) and it is placed in the extreme southwest. Therefore, another geometric means could be even more relevant, calculated only for all the negative values, which is: - 0.856876902.

157

CHAPTER SEVEN

SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis is usually conducted for pragmatic reasons, for instance to assess the internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats, either for a company, or for any other social system or group.381 However, in some situations, such a method can be applied on theoretical investigations as this one, in order to give the author an objective diagnosis of the work.382 This study obtained several perfect matches with some (expected) archaeological sites. Thus, it would be significant for Ptolemaic studies if such occurrences could be increased. This phenomenon must be studied as a strong point of the method applied, while the reverse, the lack of more such matches, represents a weakness. My attention will be focused mainly on the 44 Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia. The connection between the perfect or good matches of the Ptolemaic calculations with the archaeological reality and the Ξ reference have already been observed. This is why this particular instance was marked in Table 7-1, under the title “Ξ other,” which actually refers to the source factor as described in the above sections: the use of the Ξ reference when its value differs from the Ω reference. The same column can signal other information, such as the identification of a castrum (castr.) of other archaeological evidence (arch.). Analysing the results in the section above, it is important to know how much they match with some external (i. e., archaeological) information or how much they deviate from the expected site (bold).

381 Tanya Sammut-Bonnici and David Galea, “SWOT analysis,” in Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, ed. Cary L Cooper. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2014. Neil Ritson, Strategic Management (Ventus Publishing ApS, 2008), 44. 382 Emet Gürel and Merba Tat, “SWOT analysis: a theoretical review,” The Journal of International Social Research 10(51) (2017): 1003, ISSN 1307-9581, http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt10/sayi51_pdf/6iksisat_kamu_isletme /gurel_emet.pdf, http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832. Şerban George Paul Drugaş

These results and the comparison are presented Table 7-1. Where there were no previous expectations, a narrative text, covering some columns, offers a short explanation of the situation.

Table 7-1. Comparison between results and expectations. The colour code follows the explanation. The same code in Fig. 6-1.

Ptole- Ptol. coord. Ξ Site Modern Deviation Obs. maic other coordinates polis Long. Lat. Long. Lat. Long. Lat. (E) (N) (E) (N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rhoukko- 47°30′ 48°10′ Ξ Der- Derecske (HU), Dev.: - Reasonable nion X ecske Diosig (RO). 0 Ξ 0.8207 level of 46°30′ (HU) 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Por. Dokidava 47°20′ 48° Bihari Nagykereki - - Reasonable a (HU), 0.4044 0.8207 level of BH Biharia (RO). 44° 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Dev.: Por. Por. Porolisson 49° 48° castr. Moi- 23°09′2 47°10′ - - Given by grad, 6.7″/23. 45.4″/ 0.4044 0.8207 archaeol. Pomăt 157417° 47.179 4° 22 evidence. , SJ 278° Strong.3+ Arko- 50°40′ 48° Ξ Ilişua 24°08′2 47°12′ Ξ Ξ Arch. and barada X castr. BN 4.2″ 34″ +19″ +1′49 Ptol. calc. 52° (Dev.: = ″ = Strongest.4+ Por.) 0.0052 +0.03 777° 027° Triphulon 52°15′ 48°15′ Ostra - - Reasonable SV 0.2789 0.8207 level of 95° 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Por. Patridava 53° 48°10′ Târzia W river - - Reasonable NT Moldova. 0.2789 0.8207 level of 95° 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Por.

160 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Karsidava 53°20′ 48°15′ Probo W river Siret - - Reasonable ta 0.2789 0.8207 level of SV 95° 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Por. Petrodava 53°45′ 47°40′ Cor- W river Siret - - Reasonable neşti 0.2789 0.8207 level of BC 95° 22 certainty.1+ Dev.: Por. Oulpianon 47°30′ 47°30′ Tărcai Near Beiuş - -0.9° Reasonable a BH 0.8333 Dev.: level of 3° Nap. certainty.1+ Dev.: Nap. Napouka 49° 47°40′ castr. Cluj- 23°35′1 46°46′ - -0.9° Given by arch. Napo 6″ = = 0.8333 archaeol. ca 23.5878 46.76 33° evidence. ° 67° Strong.3+ Patrouissa 49° 47°20′ castr. Turd 23°46′2 46°34′ - -0.9° Given by arch. a 2.3″ 13.3″ 1.0198 archaeol. CJ =23.77 46.57° 61° evidence. 2° Strong.3+ Salinai 49°15′ 47°10′ Gura 23.98° 46.432 - -0.9° Ptol. and Arieş. ° 1.0198 Dev.: other inf. 6° Pat. (TP). Dev.: Middle.2+ Pat. Praetoria 50°30′ 47°30′ Ξ lat. Inlă- 25°07′0 46°25′ Ω Ω/Ξ Arch. and Augusta X? arch. ceni 6.1″ 55.3″ +5′54. +12.8 Ptol. calc. 47° HR 6″ ″ Strongest.4+ Dev.: Dev.: Pat. Pat. Sangidava 52°15′ 47°15′ Ξ and Racoş, 25.5505 46.050 Ξ 0; Ω Ξ 0; Ω Ptol. Ξ and Ω Χ Χ Ω BV 806 dev of dev of match. 51°30′ 47°30′ Sar.: Sar.: Strong.3+ - +0.36° 1.4775 Angousti 53°20′ 47°40′ Ξ Breţc 26°18′4 46°03′ Ξ+0.0 Ξ- Arch. and a X Χ castr. u 6″ 333° 1.6166 Ptol. calc. 52°15′ 47°15′ CV ° Strongest.4+

161 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

=26.313 = Ω - Ω - ° 46.05 0.8623 1.2° 08° 6° Outidava 53°20′ 47°40′ Ξ Oituz Near river Ξ - Ptol. and X CV Oituz. +0.03 1.6166 other inf. 53°10′ 33° 6° (etym) Dev.:ADev.: match.2+ ng. Ang. Markodava 49°30′ 47° Ξ Poian SE of Roşia Dev.: -0.9° Ptol. Ξ good X a Montană 0 Ξ Dev.: chance. AB Sal. Middle.2+ Ziridava 49°30′ 46°20′ Ξ Ardeu 23°08′4 46°01′ Ξ +2′ Ω -3′ Arch. and X arch. 383 3.8″ Dev.: = = - Ptol. calc. 45°30′ HD 10′4.8″ Zer. +0.03 0.05° Strongest.4+ 33° Singidava 48° 46°20′ Ohab 21°55′2 45°52′ Dev.: Dev.: Ptol. Ω good a AB 2.8″ 32.8″ Apo. Zir. / chance. Apo. Reason.1+ Apoulon 49°15′ 46°40′ castr. Piatra 23°29′ 46°12′ Ω - Dev. Arch. and arch. Craivii Ptol.: 32.8″ 0.51 from Ptol. calc. AB 23°28' Dev. site: Strongest.4+ avPat- from irrel. Zer site: Dev.: 53.72″ Zer. Zermizir 49°30′ 46°15′ Ξ Geoag 23°11′2 45°53′ - -0.36° Arch. and ga X castr. iu Cet. 5″ 38″ 0.0223 Ptol. calc. Ur. 88 Strongest.4+ Komidava 51°30′ 46°40′ castr. Râşno 25°28′ 45°35′ - - Given by v 10.2″ 25.8″ 0.6415 1.0927 archaeol. BV ° 8° evidence. Strong.3+ Rhamidava 51°50′ 46°30′ castr. Drajn 26°4′7″ 45°15′ - - Given by a de 5″ 0.9639 1.2486 archaeol. Sus 4° 1° evidence. VR Match: Strong.3+ Ang. Piroum 51°15′ 46° Târgo 25°28′ 44°54′ - - Ptol. Ω good -vişte 58.3″ 26″ 0.8623 1.0927 chance. DB 6° 8° Reason.1+

383 Coordinates from: Forţiu, Ziridava…, 20.

162 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Dev.: Dev.: Ang. Kom. Zousidava 52°40′ 46°15′ Sărata Between S. M. - - Reasonable - and Buzău 0.8623 1.0927 level of Mont. 6° 8° certainty.1+ BZ Dev.:ADev.: ng. Kom. ca.-1° Buzău 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Polonda 53° 47° Haret W bank river - - Ptol. and VN Siret. (As old 1.127° 1.0927 other inf. Ptol. maps avr.Sar 8° (map). indicated) -Ang Dev.: Middle.2+ Kom. Zourobara 46°40′ 45°40′ Ξ Sânpe 20°45′4 Dev.: +0.36° Ptol. Ξ good X tru 8″ 0 Ξ Dev.: chance. 45°40′ Mare Ξ: Sar. Middle.2+ TM reliable Aizisis 46°15′ 45°20′ Hezer Not Ezeriş, but - +0.36° Ptol. Ω and iş Hezeriş! 1.5236 Dev.: other (etym., E Match 11° Sar. arch.) inf. Lugoj meridian of Dev.: Middle.2+ AR Fârliug Sar. (castrum). Argidava 49°30′ 45°15′ Piteşti After -1.732 - Weak, gresit ? correction: 0.475° uncharact.0 AG Curtea de Dev.: 0 Recalc.: Argeş, AG. Sar. reason.1+ Tiriskon 48°30′ 45°15′ Fârtăţ After -1.732 - Weak, eşti correction: 0.475° uncharact.0 VL ? Rugetu, AG. Dev.: 0 Recalc.: Sar. reason.1+ Sarmi- 47°50′ 45°15′ arch. Grădi 23°18′ 45°37′ - +0.36° Given by zegethousa ştea 29.7″ 21.8″ 1.5236 archaeol. de M. = 23.3° =45.6 11° evidence. HD 2272° Strong.3+ Hydata 49°30′ 45°40′ castr. Călan 23° 45°44′ Ω Ω Arch. and HD Dev.: 10″ Dev. Dev. Ptol. calc. Sar. Dev.: site: site: Strongest.4+ 0

163 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

+10′ +5′ irrel. irrel.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Netindava 52°45′ 45°30′ Slobo E Arţari: with - -0.93° Reasonable zia dev. long. Ang. 1.5236 Dev.: level of IL -0.8623611°. ° aprox. certainty.1+ Dev.: Nap. Sar. Tia(s)son 52° 45°30′ E Otopeni: with - -0.93° Reasonable Arţari dev. long. Ang. 1.5236 Dev.: level of ? -0.8623611°. ° ca. certainty.1+ Otope Dev.: Nap. ni Sar. Zeugma 47°40′ 44°40′ Iaşi S of Târgu Jiu. - +0.36° Reasonable Gorj 1.5236 Dev.: level of GJ ° Sar. certainty.1+ Dev.: Sar. Tibiskon 46°40′ 44°50′ castr. Jupa 22°11′2 45°27′ - +0.633Arch.Ptol. CS 3″ 58.9″ 1.3734 3° Strong.3+ ° Dierna 47°15′ 44°50′ Ξ lat. Orşov 22°24′ 44°44′ - Ξ Arch. Partially X castr. a 27.5″ 17.7″ 1.1071 +0.09 Ptol. match. 44°30′ MH 4° 507° Strongest.4+ Corro irrelev b. Tib. ant Ekmonia 48° 49° X Ξ lat. Petroş Dacian ekmo- - +0.36° Ptol. + other 45° ani and Lat. petro- - 1.5236 Dev.: (etym) inf. HD same meaning! ° Sar. Middle.2+ Dev.: Sar. Droubetis 47°45′ 44°30′ castr. Drobe 22°40′ 44°37′ - +0.125Given by ta 29.9″ 0.9526 ° arch. MH 1° Uncha evidence. ract. Strong.3+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Phraterna 49°30′ 44°30′ Colon - +0.36° Reasonable eşti 1.5236 Dev.: level of OT 1° Sar. certainty.1+ Dev.: Sar.

164 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Arkina 49° 44°50′ Ξ lat. W raw 44°48′ - +0.053Weak, WRO X Motru 22.753 13″ 1.5236 611° uncharact..0 NG 44°45′ 1° irr., cf. Dier. Racov If raw long. is 0 Recalc.: a kept! reason.1+ Pinon 50°30′ 44°40′ Troia- Interest. - +0.36° Reasonable nul Dacian 1.5236 Dev.: level of TR findings at 1° Sar. certainty.1+ Peretu, nearby. Dev.: Sar. Amoutrion 50° 44°45′ Motru raw 44°48′ +0.612+0.053Ptol. and WRO GJ 23.583 13″ 17° 611° other inf. NG 22°58′1 irr., cf. (etym., 5″ Dier. map).2+ Sournon 51°30′ 45° Drăgă - +0.36° Reasonable -nescu 1.5236 Dev.: level of GR 1° Sar. certainty.1+ Dev.: Sar.

Of the 44 Dacian poleis:  4 (Arkobarada, Praetoria Augusta, Ziridava, and Apoulon) match perfectly on both coordinates (of which 2 using Ξ values for longitudes);  5 (adding Hydata to the previous 4) match well on both coordinates;  1 is a perfect match only on its latitude (Dierna);  2 match perfectly only on longitude (Zermizirga and Angoustia);  This gives an overall of 8 good matches between Ptolemaic values and archaeological information.

However, this is not the only criterion on which the estimation for a Ptolemaic polis could gain support. The situations when Ptolemy’s data have a perfect or good match with archaeology are very rare, not only for Dacia, but also for better known regions. Regarding the longitudes, the fact that only the Ξ reference guarantees a perfect match, without applying a shift / deviation, is a strong point for the Ξ recension, but only when it shows different values from the Ω recension. Latitudes, however, can be estimated relatively well,

165 Şerban George Paul Drugaş using the Ω recension and a polis on the same or close latitude, which is a strong point in determining this coordinate. Latitudes are easier calculated than longitudes, which is why a good match for the longitude is a very important step in reconstructing the Ptolemaic puzzle of Dacia’s poleis. The fact that the use of the Ω recension for longitudes needs considering a shift, which can only be approximated by that of a known close-by polis, is a weakness for the method. Sometimes this weakness can be compensated by additional information. For instance, some poleis benefit from good archaeological information, which helped us establish the behavior of some Ω values for the longitude. 13 poleis (a little over a quarter of all the 44) are in this situation: Porolisson (Moigrad), Napouka (Cluj-Napoca), Patrouissa (Turda), Praetoria Augusta (Inlăceni), Apoulon (Alba Iulia, Piatra Craivii), Zermizirga (Geoagiu Băi / Cetatea Urieşilor), Komidava (Râşnov), Rhamidava (Drajna de Sus), Sarmizegethousa (Grădiştea de Munte), Hydata (Călan), Tibiskon (Jupa), Dierna (Orşova), and Droubetis (Drobeta). Among these, we can consider that the following four have good matches between a direct calculation within the Ptolemaic framework and the archaeological site: Praetoria Augusta (Inlăceni), Apoulon (Piatra Craivii), Zermizirga (Geoagiu Băi / Cetatea Urieşilor), and Hydata (Călan). However, a second array of three must be added, consisting of: Arkobarada (Ilişua), Angoustia (Breţcu), and Ziridava (Ardeu). These last three have a perfect match between the results of the Ptolemaic calculations and a site still in dispute among archaeologists. All the above 7 poleis have perfect or good matches of a direct Ptolemaic calculation with some expected but disputed archaeological sites (for the last one the expectation was caused by Forţiu’s calculation384). However, the fact that only 4 (or even 7) have perfect matches between the sites and the directly calculated positions is an obvious weakness of the Ptolemaic calculations. The 13 poleis above are not in need for a Ptolemaic estimation, since they are best supported by archaeology. Thus, the fact that four of them received confirmation from the calculations strengthens the connection between the Ptolemaic system and the archaeological uncontroversial findings. The other poleis do not have this kind of confirmation, although this does not automatically indicate that their data are incorrect, but rather that they

384 Ibid., 20.

166 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia are usually Ω values, which need external confirmation for their shift, which is not always available. To the 7 good matches counted above, we could add Dierna, which combines the archaeological evidence with a partial direct support from the Ptolemaic data, thus making 8 poleis with the highest degree of certainty for their estimation (4+, marked red in Table 7-1 and Fig. 7-1). To the other 8 poleis, which rely only on archaeology for their direct support, I assigned the following degree: 3+, marked orange. These can be considered certain for the scientific knowledge regarding the Ptolemaic information in Dacia, although further discussions on the shifts associated with the Ω values of the 8 poleis remain on the second place (3+) and will continue to be fruitful for a better calibration of the local patterns. All of the above 16 poleis can ofer solid reference points for the local shifts or deviations, while they are also important for approximating other poleis using Ω values – this being another strong point in reconstructing the Ptolemaic puzzle. Furthermore, other poleis will be added to the 8 ones which now stand on the second place (3+), as it will be seen further on. In order to extend a clear comparison between the two situations, the strongest and the second strongest positions regarding the degree of certainty in the estimation of a Ptolemaic polis in Dacia, I will briefly discuss two cases. A fortunate case in this sense is that of Praetoria Augusta (4+). Using the deviation of Patrouissa for its Ω values, the calculation led to the castrum of Inlăceni (dev. of only +5′54.6″ lat., Ξ +12.8″ long.), which is the expected archaeological site. This is a strong point for the method, showing also an opportunity: using the Ω values we can approximate the position of a new polis, based on the closest known one, providing that we have good input information. Another similar case is that of Sangidava, except this time no archaeological reference was available, which placed it on the second place (3+). However, starting from the Ξ reference values, we gain an area north of Racoş (BV). Using the Ω values and applying a shift correction close to that of Sarmizegethoussa, plausible for that area, we gain again the same area north of Racoş. This is a case when two sources point to the same area, thus a strong point for the method, but also an opportunity, because when the Ω values are supplied with good reference points, a good approximation of a new polis can be expected. In other

167 Şerban George Paul Drugaş cases, the second position regarding the certainty of estimation (3+) was ensured by the strong evidence given by archaeology. For Sangidava, which was not counted among the 16 poleis above, the opposite was observed: the lack of archaeological evidence was strongly compensated by a good match within the Ptolemaic system. This is the reason why it should be included among the poleis of the second place (3+), thus counting 9 poleis. Other poleis need to be added to the 17 poleis counted so far, based on different layers of certainty. Salinai, because it benefits from the information in the Tabula Peutingeriana, although not connected with clear archaeological evidence, we can be confident its place is somewhere between Ocna Mureş and Gura Arieşului, where my estimation led. This is why I assigned a middle level of certainty for the estimation of this polis (2+). A certain etymological support for Outidava, a good chance given by the calculation for Markodava, the correlation with the old Ptolemaic maps for Polonda (placed on the west bank of Siret), arguments given by archaeology and etymology for Aizisis, good Ptolemaic calculation and some etymological fortune for Ekmonia (Dac. ekmo-, Lat. petro-), as well as some external information for Amoutrion (Tabula Peutingeriana and etymology), all make the mentioned poleis “candidates” for a good degree of confidance, which is why I marked them 2+ / yellow, as in the case of Salinai. Unless clear archaeological discovery will give a solution, some of the Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia have no certian external information for their identification. There are 22 poleis in this situation, meaning half of 44: Rhoukkonion, Dokidava, Triphulon, Patridava, Karsidava, Petrodava, Oulpianon, Sangidava, Outidava, Markodava, Piroum, Zousidava, Palonda, Zourobara, Ekmonia, Argidava, Netindava, Tia(s)son, Phraterna, Arkina, Pinon, and Sournon. This is, of course, a weakness and a threat to this kind of research. However, certain metadata of the present survey (which can be any time completed with others) points to: (1) some interesting connections which can be made between the estimated position of these poleis and some archaeological findings; (2) relevant relative position inside the Ptolemaic system. Many of the poleis mentioned received estimations which should be sought in the approximative area pointed by our results. They received the label “reasonable level of certainty.1+” in Table 7-1, being marked in green. Among them, Sangidava had a perfect match between the

168 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia information of the two sources, the Ξ and Ω recensions. This increased the certainty of this estimation, even if there is no archaeological evidence to support it, being labeled in Table 7-1 as “Ptol. Ξ and Ω match. Strong.3+.”

3 Strongest 8 (4+) Strong 16 9 (3+) Middle 8 (2+)

Fig. 7-1. Levels of certainty for the estimation of the Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia

*

Argidava, Tiriskon and Arkina need further investigation, as the weakest, uncharaceristic and most inconclusive estimations. Regarding Argidava and Tiriskon, the decision to follow the shift of Polonda on its longitude was exaggerated. I shoud have maintained the shift of Sarmizegethousa, which suited well all the poleis in the southern region of Dacia. As for Tiriskon, it is in obvious tandem with Argidava, thus inheriting a similar behavior. This operation would restore the following values for the longitudes: 23.168 (raw) + 1.523611 = 24.691611° E / 24°41′29.8″ for Argidava, and 22.338 (raw) + 1.523611 = 23.861611 E for Tiriskon. The Ptolemaic latitude of both these poleis is 45°15′. A null shift on the latitude would bring them to the north of Câmpia Română (45°15′ N). A positive shift could not be considered, while a negative one must be smaller than -0.475°, which is uncharacteristic and not followed by any of the well ascertained poleis. The following value is -0.36°, that of Zermizirga, belonging to a group in southern Transylvania. The result would be 44.89° = 44°53′24″ N. With these coordinates, Argidava should be sought NW of Piteşti (AG), and with the shift zero on latitude, north of Curtea de Argeş (Oeştii Pământeni, AG).

169 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Hydata had a shift zero on the latitude (Călan, slightly positive, +4′), which was explained through its position, between Zermizirga (45°15′ P), with a shift of -0.36° (-22′) and Sarmizegethousa (45°15′ P), with +0.36° (+22′). I believe that Argidava and Tiriskon are in the same situation here, inside an inflection / rupture area of the Ptolemaic map of Dacia. This is why their position was so difficult to estimate, without help from archaeology and seemingly not fitting with the shift on the latitude of any polis around. We might conceive a slightly negative shift. A value of -6′50″ would place Argidava in Curtea de Argeş (45°8′21″ N, 24°40′45″ E). There would be very little difference to the east (less than 1′), smaller than in the case of Călan (!). I am more satisfied by this result than by that obtained in Chapter 5. Following the same pattern, Tiriskon should be sought somewhere on the following coordinates: 45°8′21″ N, 23.861611° / 23°51′41.8″ E, west of Horezu, at Rugetu, Slătioara (VL). These corrected results, presented in Fig. 7-2, increase the degree of reliability of these estimations. I marked the correction back in Table 7-1, in green colour.

Fig. 7-2. Corrected estimations of Argidava and Tiriskon (Google Maps)

Arkina is in obvious tandem with Amoutrion, on the same latitude in Ω references. However, the difference of 1° between them is incorrect, meaning that the Ptolemaic values for the longitude are incorrect. Tabula Peutingeriana, combined with historical and etymological arguments, approximately place Amoutrion on modern Motru, on the river with the same name. Applying the shift on the longitude of Amoutrion (+0.61217) to Arkina (a value that needs to be substracted from the raw

170 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ptolemaic value, of 22.753°), I gained a result which was too far west, beyond the meridians of Droubetis and Dierna. This proves that the shift of Amoutrion is unique and uncharacteristic, therefore coming from an erroneous Ptolemaic input value. If we apply the shift of Sarmizegethousa, the most common in the southern region of Dacia, Arkina would pass beyond Amoutrion’s meridian to the east. This is, again, an unacceptable situation for the local harmony of the relative positions. Maintaining the raw result for Arkina’s longitude seems the only logical action at our disposal for now. This puts Arkina at 22.753° / 22°45′10.8″E, 44°48′13″N, in Racova, com. Ilovăţ (MH). It is a location shown in Fig 5-29 with great doubts. Other option would be to consider a small negative (westward) shift, which would put Arkina east of this location, but still reasonably far from west Amoutrion. Such a location is best obtained at the above mentioned location, where the maximum westward position from Amoutrion does not pass west of Droubetis’ meridian. Thus, the recalculation increased the probability for an already found result, a situation marked green in Table 7-1. The map presented above (Fig. 7-2) points to the position of Racova. Following these recalculations, we might consider that the reliability of the three weak estimations grew with one degree, mostly for Argidava (and Tiriskon), and still less for Arkina.

171

CHAPTER EIGHT

Limits, Rivers, Tribes and Neighbors of Ptolemaic Dacia

Ptolemy’s description of Dacia begins with its limits, rivers and tribes. The text of Ptolemy 3.8 (presented in Chapter 5) marked the limits of Dacia closer to the borders of the Roman province, although the spread of the Dacians was much wider. V. Pârvan showed that ancient authors, from Caesar, to Strabo, and Pliny, considered the border of Dacia in the west at the river Marisos, which now forms the border between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.385 G. Schütte and V. Pârvan considered that there were significant Dacian populations near the river and even Oder. In that area, Setidava (Ptolemy: Σετιδάυα, Posen?) and Sousoudava (Ptolemy, Ω: Σουσουδάτα, Ξ: Σουσουδάνα Schütte, Σουσουδάυα Schütte and Pârvan) would have been Dacian poleis.386 The information I have already presented on the etymology of some places in Dacia has a secondary role to the main preoccupation in this work. Therefore, while I would not like to take sides in this matter, this kind of data could prove to have some explanatory value, especially if the specialists can provide accurate meanings for certain forms used by Dacians. Setidava (cf. Σήτη, Σεῖτι, Σιτᾶς, Σιτάλκης), mentioned above, could have had, as Tomaschek suggested, its first element formed from the Proto-Indo-European *keî -1 “to lie down” (cf. Old Ind. śḗtē, Gk. κεῖται).387 The name Sousoudava could have the same origin as Zousidava (see above in Chapter 5). The Dacian tribe Arsietai (cf. Ἄρσα, Ἄρσαζα, Ἄρσενα), who dwelled the poleis Arsenion and Arsekvia (cf. Berso-via, Salso-via) was situated on Vistula, south of the Dacian tribe of the transmontani and the

385 Pârvan, 136-137 (225-226). 386 Schütte, Ptolemy's maps…, 100, 111, 113. Pârvan, 135 (221-222). 387 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 41, 43. Pokorny, II, 539-540 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Celtic Anartophracti.388 South of Arsietai, Ptolemy (3.5.8.) mentioned other Dacian tribes, from north to south: Saboci (Σαβῶκοι, resembles Co(i)s(s)toboci), Piengitae (Πιενγῖται, Pie-getae, cf. Pie-phigi, see below, Pie- porus,), and Biessi, near the (Βίεσσοι, cf. Biephi, i. e. Biesi).389 The first element of the name Saboci differs from Costoboci. If the first sequence is the same as that suggested by Russu for Sabadios, then it came from the Proto-Indo-European *s(u)ḙ - “refl. pron., self” (cf. O Ind. svá-, Gk. σφέ, Lat. sibī, sē etc.).390 The tribal name of the Phrygian Saboí / Σάβοι391 could have had a similar beginning. The tribe of Racatriae (Ῥακατρίαι) founded the cities of Singone (cf. Singidava in Dacia, Singos on Sithonia I., Singidunum in Pann. Inf., < Thrac. singi-, Dacian tribe name) and Racatae (Ῥακάται), 392 both on the Danube’s northern bank, in Slovakia (cf. Lith. rãktas “key” and rakìnti “closed” < PIE *areq- / *h2erk- “to guard, lock.”)393 Well outside the original area of the Dacian tribe , the polis Carpis (Ptolemy 2.11.3, 2.15.3, 3.7.1: Κάρπις) is north of Budapest and the river Carpis (Κάρπις), mentioned in tandem with Alpis (Ἄλπις, Herodotus 4.49).394 Additionally, we might consider the river Arabon (cf. Rhabon, Jiul, see Amoutrion, ch. 5), in Pannonia Superior,395 to have a Dacian origin. The tribe of Colaetiani (Ptolemy 2.14.2: Κολαιτιανοί; Colapiani on river Colapis, in Plinius; < Thrac. cola-; cf. Co(e)(la)letae in Haemus and Rhodope, Ptolemy 3.11.6, Celegeri), with the poleis Sala and Curta (< Thrac.

388 Tomaschek, Vol. I, 106. Ibid., Vol. II, Part 2, 54. Schütte, 111-112. Pârvan, 135 (222). Constantin C. Giurescu and Dinu C. Giurescu, The History of the (Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1974), 31. For Arsietai and all the alike names, IE *ere-s-2 “to flow.” Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 833 (cf. Old Ind. aŕ satị , Hitt. arš), see Hierasos, Alouta (Aruta, -ela). 389 Pârvan, 135 (223). Giurescu and Giurescu, The History of the Romanians, 31. 390 Russu, 118. Pokorny, III, 882-884. 391 Stephanus, “Ethnica,” Vol. IV, 130, 131, σ. 4. Ibid., 1849, 549. Ibid., 1839, 244. Ibid., 1678, 580. 392 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 80. Schütte, Ptolemy's maps…, III. Pârvan, 135- 137 (224-225, 228), 149 (252). 393 Pârvan, 151 (256-257). Pokorny, I, 65-66. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 270. Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction…, 270-271. 394 Pârvan, 136 (225). Giurescu and Giurescu, The History of the Romanians, 31. 395 Pârvan, 136 (225).

174 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia corta-; cf. Κουρτουξουρα) was a Dacian tribe in Pannonia Superior. Tomaschek proposed two possible Indo-European roots for the Thraco- Dacian co(i)la-, which are found in Pokorny's dictionary as: *keû -1 “hollow” or *kʷel-1 “to move, turn, inhabit, graze.”396 If Colaetiani in Pannonia and Co(e)(la)letae in Haemus would originate from the second root, which is most probable (giving k-, not s-, as the first root), they would mean “wanderor,” corresponding very well to migratory or pastoralist people (cf. Old Ind. cárati, calati “moves, wanders, grazes, drives”397). Other poleis in the same region seem to have a similar Dacian origin. This is the case of Hertobalos (Χερτόβαλος) and Gerulata (Itin. Rom.; < Thrac. geru- + dim. -la + iter. -ta, as in Potulata), at the mouth of the river Arabon. It seems that the following two poleis also had a Dacian origin: Berbis, in Pannonia Inferior (Ptolemy 2.15.4: Βερβίς, on Drava; Berebis in TP, Berevis in Itin. Rom.; < Thrac. bere- + suf. -bis / -vis, as in Berzobis?) and Saldis (Σαλδίς / Σάλδη, on Sava; cf. Saldae, Σάλδη and Saldenses, see below, in Dacia; the Thracian poleis Σαλδοκέλη, named after the god Σαλδοκεληνός Heros or Asklepios, Σαλδοβύσσα, and Σάλδη).398 The Dacian personal name Gerula (Γερυλλιων, Gerulo)399 has the same origin as “Gerulata, a town of the , Pannonia, on the Danube, bet. Carnuntum (14) and Ad Flexum. Karlburg, or Oroswar.”400 Beyond the Carpathians, Ptolemy (3.5.10 Müller) mentioned the Dacian Carpi, called Καρπιανοί (Carpiani),401 and placed them between Peucini and Bastarni, between the rivers Hierasos (Siret) and Pyretos /

396 Tomaschek, Vol. I, 86. For *keû -1, Pokorny, Indogermanisches…, II, 592-594. Id., 593: “κοῖλος hollow (κοϝιλος = Alb. thelë),” cited by Tomaschek, Vol. 1, 86. For *kʷel-1, Pokorny, II, 639-640. 397 Pokorny, II, 639. 398 Tomaschek, Vol. I, 85-87. Ibid., Vol. II, Part 2, 53, 58-59, 65, 78, 85-87. Pârvan, 137 (227-228). 399 Russu, 108. For Gerula, he gives also the alternative PIE *ger- “to be awake,” but maybe the alternative, *guher̯ - “to raise the voice; to praise, honor, glorify; to thank,” with l-extension, would work better for an anthroponym, and it is also present with b-extension in Dacian names. Cf. Walde & Pokorny, I, 686 sq. Pokorny, II, 478. Russu, 1969, 108. 400 William Hazlitt, A Dictionary of Ancient Geography, Sacred and Prophane (London: The Classical Gazetteer, Whittaker and Co., 1851), 163. 401 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 430. Giurescu and Giurescu, The History of the Romanians, 31.

175 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Porata (Prut), in Sarmatia Europaea.402 They were called Καλλιπίδαι by Herodotus (4.17), Καρπίδαι by Pseudo-Scymnus, Καρπό-Δακαι, and again also Ἅρπιοι, by Ptolemy (3.10.7 Müller), in Moesia Inferior, beyond the (north of) Danube.403 Their name was often interpreted as the tribe dwelling next to the Carpathian Montains.404 The root for these words would be *(s)ker-(4) “to cut.”405 Ptolemy also referred to the Carpathian Mountains, e. g., at the beginning of the description of Dacia: “Ἡ Δακία ... τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ Καρπάτου ὄρους... / Carpate monte…”406 Other Thraco- Dacian words might have had the same origin, such as: Carbilesi, Carbiletae, vicus Carbrinus, Scoroba (all with extension -bh, *(s)kerbh-407), the

402 Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 430. 403 Pârvan, 32 (41). Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1883, 469. Herodotus, Histories, in four volumes, Vol. II (Books III-IV), translated by A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1928), 216. 404 Except Russu, 98-99, who also proposed, but hesitating, the alternative *kar- “to praise” for Carpi and Corpili. Cf. Tomaschek, Vol. I, 69: Corpili, south of Danube. 405 Walde and Pokorny, I, 422, II, 573 sqq. Pokorny, II, 571, III, 938 sqq. Russu, 98. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 206. 406 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, f. 0147r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, f. 47. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 102. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 205-206. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 177-178. Ibid., 1883, 442. 407 Walde and Pokorny, II, 582. Pokorny, II, 943. Tomaschek, Vol. I, 72. G. G. Mateescu, “The Thracians in the Inscriptions of Rome,” Ephemeris Dacoromana, Annuario della Scuola Romena di Roma, Libreria di Scienze e Lettere, Roma, I, 1923, 155. Russu, 97. See Lat. scorbis “cavity, grave,” Rom. scorbură. From the same root, developed in Thraco-Dacian, some words were inherited in modern languages, such as: Alb. karpe,̈ karme ̈ (*karp-m-) “rock,” kjëth “scissors” (*kertō), Rom. a scărmăna “to scratch the wool in order to separate the fibers,” Rom. grapă “harrow,” Alb. grep, grëpë “fishing rod, hook,” Rom. greblă “rake,” Alb. grambëlë, Rom. rânză = Alb. rëndës “cattle stomach” (= Lith. skrañdis id.), Alb. hirrë f. “whey” (*sker-nā, the h in harr). Rom. a zgâria “to scratch,” Alb. sh-kjer “tear (out),” harr (*skor-n-) “cut out, weed,” tsharɛ “spoil, devastate, separate,” tshartës “executioner,” korr, kuarr (*kēr-n-ō) “cut off, harvest,” Rom. cârpă “rag” (loan?, or in reverse), Bg. kărpa, Srb. krpa, Alb. shko-zë “European beech.” Cf. Paliga, Etymological Lexicon…. Orel, A concise…. Russu, loc. cit. Pokorny, II, 943.

176 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Thracian king Κερσοβλεπτης408 (and thus, possibly also Karsidava!409), and ἅρπη (harpḗ ) “knife, war sickle.”410 The name of the Thracian city Μίλκωρος / Milkoros411 and the island Κάρπαϑος412 seems to have belonged to the same word family. The name of Harpiepolis, mentioned at the end of Chapter. 5, is connected with that of the Dacian Carpi. Dwelling the hills east of the Carpathians, the Carpi developed “an evolved form of the Dacian La Tène, with Sarmatian influences, especially at the periphery…, in plain areas.”413 The name (the same name as king Decebalus’ father), carved on a pot, in their area, strengthens the idea they had a Dacian origin. During Rome’s occupationin the north of the Danube, the Carpians launched attacks against Dacia and Moesia Inferior (238, 242, and 247 AD), including after the military retreat of Aurelian (until 381 AD) against the provinces south of the inferior course of the Danube.414 However, Ptolemaic Dacia begins in the west with what he calls the river Τιβίσκος, which is actually the river Tisa:

Tisa is incorrectly named Τιβίσκος (Tibiscus), instead of Pathissus or Tisia (cf. Müller, p. 441), but its name is almost precisely given by the city on Tisa, Παρτίσκον (Partiscon).415

408 Russu, 95: + PIE *ueḽ - “to want, wish, hope”, resulting “who has firm hope / faith.” 409 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 46: “Κάρπις ὁ Θράξͅ , Arr. An. 4,13,4 …, Söldner in Athen, Ortsnamen Καρσι-δαύα, Ὀνό-καρσις, und bospor. Κάρζεις, Καρζόαζος.” Ibid., 84. 410 Yannis Stoyas, “Two peculiar Thracian coin issues: ΔΑΝΤΗΛΗΤΩΝ and ΜΕΛΣΑ,” HPAKΛEOYΣ ΣΩTHPOΣ ΘAΣIΩN, edited by Evgeni Paunov, Svetoslava Filipova, Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov (Tirnovo: ResearchGate, 2012), 149-150. 411 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III: Κ-Ο, 43.3., 2014, 322, 323 (μ. 186; also citing Theopomp, Philippika, FGrHist 115 F 152). Ibid., 1849, 453. Ibid., 1839, 200. Ibid., 1678, 467. 412 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III, 2014, 44-45 (κ. 96). 413 Mihai Bărbulescu et al., The (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1998), 94. 414 Ibid., 94-95. 415 Pârvan, 157 (267-268).

177 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Tibiskon, a polis of Dacia, was a name which stemmed from the name of the river Τιβίσκος (Rom. Timiş, see inChapter 5). The northern border of Dacia with Sarmatia Europaea is given by the Ukrainian Carpathians. Its eastern border with the same region is the river Hierasos (Siret), and the southern one is the Danube, “from the mouth of the river Tibiscum [Τιβίσκον ποταμόν] to Axiopolis [Αξιόπολις].”416 The name Hierasos (Ἱεράσος) came from the Indo-European root *ere- s-2 / *h1ers- “to flow.”417 Other occurrences of this root in Thraco- Dacian are found in the river names of Orosines (in Astica, Pliny 4.45),418 Miliare (in western Dacia, Jordanes Getica 113),419 and, as considered by Russu, in personal names such as Ρασκος (App. Rom. 4.87), Rascupolis, -

416 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. 417 Pokorny, I, 336-337. Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 832. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 206-207. 418 Russu, 114. 419 Cf. Russu, 112. The first part of Miliare (Millare?) comes from *mel-6 “in color names, esp. of dark, impure, dirty color tones; dirt”. Walde and Pokorny, II, 293 sq. Pokorny, II, 720-721. The root also occurs in Μίλκωρος (the second root is that of Carpates, Theopomp Philippika, FGrHist 115 F 152, Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III, 2014, 322, 323 μ. 186, id., 1849, 453, id., 1839, 200, id., 1678, 467), the Thracian city Meldia (NW mod. Sofia). Of *mel-6 (+ -d- ?) there is the personal and then city name Melsas / Μελσας, also occurring on coins, and “rare silver obols (facing helmet wheel with the legend ΜΕΣ )”, written with the solar symbol of the swastika, from which Stoyas (“Two peculiar Thracian coin issues…,” 161-162, 164) thinks it originally come Μεσαμβρία / Μεσημβρία (Herodotus 7.108.2, Stephanus μ. 153). The second part of Miliare is -rē; giving actually “Dark / Black River,” see the ancient name of Volga, Ρᾆ, practically the same as -rē, maybe /rḗi/.̯ The question put by Russu, if it could be Crişul Negru has great merits, on the basis of its location and its meaning. Crişul Negru would be a pleonasm, but, of course, the old meaning of kriš “black, dark (gray)” (see below the explanation for Criş) was lost, tending to be almost a generalized name for "river" in the region, since three main branches that converge in one bear the name, as well as many other minor water flows. Miliare is, actually, a synonym to Crisia! Did it designate at first Crişul Negru? Very possible, since its corridor was a main rout from the ancient Roman province to Pannonian plain. Only later Crişul Repede became the main route from the inner Transylvania to Crişana (*Crisiana) region and then to Budapest. However, the second term in Thracian Μιλλαρεκα might come from “*reĝ-: Lat. rigāre `to water, irrigate.” Pokorny, III, 857. Cf. Bg. reka “river, stream.”

178 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia poris (App. Rom. 4.103,136, Cass. Dio 47.25.2,48.3, 55.30.6, Caes. Bell. civ. 3.4.4, Fluor. 4.2.5, Lucan. 5.54, Tac., Vell. Paterc., Suet.), Ραισκουπορις, Raescuporis, Rescuporis, Rescentus, Rescuturme, Ρησκουτορμη Ραισκουτουρμη (inscriptions); Ρησος (“legendary Thracian king,” Russu420); SThr. PN Rescynthos (Nicandrus, inscriptions).421 The name Seretos, “maybe the middle course of the river” Hierasos, came from the Indo-European root ser-1.422 The name of the Danube, as given by Ptolemy, is Ἴστρος. The name Istros originates in the Proto-Indo-European root *eis- / *ois- / *ḫeuis̯ -423, *h1eis-424 “to move quickly, to flow.”425 The same root can be found in Oescus (Οἶσκος, river Iskăr, from which the city Οἶσκον, Gigen), Uscudama,426 and the Thracian city Ismaros (< Ismaris /-os bay).427. With the extension -ter-os (*h2etro-428/ *ētro-429), the root is present in Istros itself (“the Thraco-Getian name of the Danube ... from the basis *is(t)ro-s,”430) and in Athrys (tributary to Istros, Herodotus IV.149) = Ieterus (Pliny 3.149) = Iatrus (Jord. Get. 18), now Iantra, and the river Athyras, near Byzantion.431 The Slav bьstro- (with a similar formation), formed the Romanian Bistriţa (water, then city). Many (but not all) such river names replaced the original Latin form, Repede,-a “fast (stream).” Interestingly enough, an important river kept its original Latin name, well outside the

420 D. Decev, The Thracian Language Remains (Vienna: R. M. Rohrer, 1957), 389- 397. Russu, 117, wrong: Tomaschek, 1894, 28 *reg-̂ , cf. Raizd- ibid., Vol. II, Part 1, 53. 421 Walde and Pokorny, I, 140. Pokorny, I, 336-337. Russu, 112, 114, 116-117. 422 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 832. Pokorny, III, 909-910. 423 ACADEMIAPRISCA.org, last accessed March 9, 2019, https:// academiaprisca.org/indoeuropean.html. 424 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 506. 425 Walde and Pokorny, I, 106-107. Pokorny, I, 299-301. Kretschmer, in Glotta, XI, 1921, 280, apud Russu, 109 (Istros), 113 (Oescus). Cf. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 82: Istros, Danubius, Dunăre. 426 Cf. Pokorny, I, 238 (*dhē-2, see davá ). 427 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. II: Δ-Ι, 43.2., 2011, 294, 295 ι. 103: Ἴσμαρος and Ἰσμαρίς. Ibid., 1849, 338. Ibid., 1839, 149. Ibid., 1678, 336. 428 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 194. 429 Pokorny, I, 345. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 194. 430 Russu, 109. 431 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 92. Russu, 91.

179 Şerban George Paul Drugaş borders of the Roman province: Crişul Repede, with the first name clearly Dacian, belonging to the group of rivers which all flow into the same river, Crisia (Rom. Criş). In its purely Dacian (reconstructed) name, Crişul Repede could have contained one of the words (o)Istros or Oiskos, or their root. The mouth of “Τιβίσκος” is placed by Ptolemy at 46° (long.) 44°15′ (lat.), while the Ξ and Ω references coincide.432 This would mean that the mouth of Tisa in the Danube (20°17′ E, 45°08′ N) has an insignificant displacement on the longitude (raw result 20.263° = 20°15′), and a displacement of 53′ on the latitude (comparable with Patrouissa: 54′). The point where the Carpathians join the inflexion of Tyras has the Ptolemaic coordinates of 53° 48°30′ in both references (see Chapters 3 and 4). A longitude of 53° would correspond to about 26.073°, if the Ξ reference value is accurate, which would indicate the area between Balamutca and Teiul Verde (Zelena Lipa), (48°32′ north of the modern latitude for these villages!). This way, the inflexion would belong to Pyretos / Porata not to Tyras! One of the alternatives given by Tomaschek for the name Tyras (along with some Τυρό-διζα ἡ Περινθίων Herodotus 7.25) was “tower, fortress” from *tuer̯ -2 “take, grasp,” while others could be constructed from *tēu- “strong,” with the extension -r,433 or rather *ter-4 “to cross, transgress, stay etc.”434 (an appealing explanation as it is rich in thematic forms produced by the original ablaut). The river names of Pyretos (Dacian) and Porata (Scythian) were rooted in the Indo-European *per-1 “spray.”435 Both references place Liba (Λίβα/-ν) at 47°20′ 44°45′ P. If the Ξ reference value is accurate, its longitude would be 21.37° = 21°22′12″ E, which would be the exact point where Nera river flows into the Danube, and where Danube enters modern Romania, east of Banatska Palanka in Serbia and west of Socodol in Romania. The mouth of the river Caraş flowing into the Danube is located just 4′ west, west of Banatska Palanka.

432 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 204. Ibid., 1883, 440. 433 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 75, 98. Pokorny, III, 1101 for tuer̯ -2. Id., 1083 for tēu-r-. 434 Pokorny, III, 1074-1075. 435 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 95. Pokorny, III, 809-810.

180 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

The mouth of the river Rhabon (Ῥαβῶνος) is placed by Ptolemy at 49° 43°30′ (44°30′ in Ξ-recesnion), that of the Kia(m)b(r)os (Κιά(μ)β(ρ)ου)436 at 49°30′ 43°45′, and that of the Alouta (Ἀλούτα) at 50°15′ 44° (see Chapter 4). Ptolemy said Rhabon and Alouta flow from or through Dacia, indicating a long distance, crossing a part of Dacia. Even the slight difference in Ptolemy’s expressions, used for these rivers, was accurate: the Rhabon “flows from Dacia,” the Alouta “coming from the north, flows through Dacia,” while for the Kia(m)b(r)os he had no description. This means that the Alouta is much longer than the Rhabon, because the Alouta comes from the north (i. e., from the northern parts of Dacia), but the Rhabon also crosses a part of Dacia. This corresponds exactly to the situation of the Olt (Alouta) and the Jiu (Rhabon). Kia(m)b(r)os is a shorter intermediate river, difficult to identify. The name Al(o)uta (var. Arouta, cf. Arutela, for the river Lotru, and the castrum, not far south from the junction of the Lotru with the Olt) could have originated in the Indo-European *er-3 (“to move,” with ext. *erei- / *h1rei- “to flow,” *ereu- / *h1reu- “fast,” cf. Old Ind. árvan-, Av. aurva-, aurvant-, Old Sax. aru, Old Eng. earu, and see also the related *ere-s-2 / *h1ers-, for Hierasos, above).437 Duridanov showed that the Indo- European root *er-3 was the base for the Dacian Arine and Ara (from *ara), and they were cognates for Alouta the Lith. ale’̇ ti “flooded by water” and the Latv. aluots͂ “spring.”438 S. Paliga argued that the last explanation was tempting, but also offered a possible explanation through the Pre- Indo-European root *AL-.439 The position of the mouth of Alouta was already discussed, relative to Oescus (Οἶσκος). The raw longitude that resulted is 23.7905° = 23°47′25.8″ E, instead of the actual 24°48′30″ E, showing a displacement of approximately -1°, compatible with the displacements of many Dacian poleis , especially with the group of Patrouissa (see Table 7-2).

436 Tomaschek, Vol. I, 51. Cf. Pokorny, III, 918: *(s)kamb- / (s)kemb-. 437 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 1894, 92. Pokorny, I, 326-332, 336-337. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 206-207, 388. 438 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 831. 439 Sorin Paliga, “ The Hidronyms and the Thracian Dialects, as Predescessors of the ,” Dacoromania, new series, III, IV (Cluj-Napoca, 1999), 70. Paliga, Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora (Bucharest: Fundaţia Evenimentul, 2007), 180.

181 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The actual latitude of the mouth of the Rhabon is 43°48′ N, closer to the Ω value, of 43°30′ P (18′ shift), than to the Ξ reference value (as we also saw in other situations in Dacia). Its longitude, 49° P would give a raw value of 22.753° = 22°45′10.8″, as in the case of the line Porolisson– Napouka–Patrouissa, in Transylvania. The real longitude is 23°48′40″, meaning a displacement of 1°3′30″ (-1.058333°), also comparable with the group of Patrouissa. While the mouth of the Rhabon and that of the Alouta are placed at 1°15′ from one another, both with a ca. -1° displacement, the mouth of Kia(m)b(r)os is placed by Ptolemy at 30′ east of the mouth of Rhabon and 45′ west of the mouth of Alouta. This would mean about 24°3′30″ or 24°18′40″ E. The first location is south of Sărata, east of Bechet. The second is south of Gura Padinii. There is a creek exatcly in the middle of these points, beginning east of Dăbuleni, crossing the border between the Dolj and Olt counties, and flowing into the Danube, in Olt County, east of a ramification of the Danube. It would be difficult to know if Ptolemy considered this particular waterflow in this case.

*

The name of the Dacians first appeared in Greek forms as Δᾶος, 440 Δᾆοι, Δάους - Davus,441 and then in Latin as Dacus. Pokorny saw the similarity between dacus and the Phrygian daos “wolf,”442 from the Oroto.Indo-European root *dhau- “to choke, strangulate, squeeze, press.”443 Tomaschek and Russu, however, considered the root *dhā-k- (cf. Lat. faciō), coming from *dhē-2 “to put, place” (ultimately connected

440 Menander (343-292 BC), Γεωργός (fragm. Agricultorul), in Iliescu et al., Fontes…, 132-133. Herondas (3rd cent. BC), Ζηλότρος (Geloasa, V, 67-68), in ibid., 146-147. 441 Strabo 3.7.12-13. Strabo, Geographica, ed. A. Meineke (Leipzig: Teubner, 1877), 417-418. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo (London: George Bell & Sons, 1903), 417-418. Ibid., ed. H. L. Jones (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1954). See other descriptions at: Herodotus 5.6. Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. II: Δ-Ι, 43.2., 2011, 6, 7 δ. 7. Ibid., 1849, 216. Ibid., 1839, 97. Ibid., 1678, 219. Cf. Xenopol, The History of the Romanians (Bucharest: Cartea Românească), 1925, I, 44. 442 Pokorny, I, 235. 443 Walde and Pokorny, I, 823. Pokorny, I, 235.

182 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia with *dhebh- “proper, to arrange”).444 Georgiev returned to Pokorny’s proposal and gave some phonological explanations: “Dc. Δᾶος, Dāvus = Phr. δάος wolf,”445 and “Δᾶοι (Δακοί, Δᾶκαι, Δάκαι, Δάκες)... Indo- European *dhāw̆ -ko-s wolf, produced by *dhāwo-s wolf.”446 Duridanov followed the same direction, showing that the formation of the later Dacus from Da(u)os̭ , with the suffix -ko, was similar to that of the name Graeci from Γραῖοι.447 The root *dhau- has a powerful explanatory quality, both through its cognates and for the symbolism of the wolf with a serpent tail, the flag of the Dacians. The root *dhau- easily allows extensions from -k to the velar fricative resonant -γ (as the sound in NGk. γάλα or Spanish delgado). The Greek iota subscript in Δᾆοι could signal such a possibility. The Latin interpretation Dacus,-i contains the Latin letter C, an ambiguous notation, marking more than one sound, like the velar voiceless k (as in Cicero, actually pronounced /kikeró /), the velar voiced g (as in Gaius, CAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR read as /gáius̯ iu̯ liuś káisar̯ /, the horizontal line for a separate letter G only appearing in the Middle Ages), or the sound ʧ / č (also in the Middle Ages). The example of the Gk. θώς / θω(ϝ)ός, given by Pokorny (cf. also OCS davljǫ etc.), shows this ambiguity in Greek, with the old digamma (ϝ) standing for the original sound, hard to be represented and integrated in the classical sound and alphabetic system. Clearly, the ancient notations in Greek and Latin, especially for the foreign languages (but for their own words, too!) sometimes could have given only an approximation of the original sounds. Following the example above, the evolution from a Thraco-Dacian *dau-̯ os,-i to a gutturalization (*dáγuos̯ ) is clear, and the Latin writing catches it and marks it with the letter C, standing for almost any guttural sound, except the rounded voiceless

444 Walde and Pokorny, I, 826-829, nr. 2. Pokorny, I, 235-239. Tomaschek, Vol. I, 101, 1894, II, 2, 29. Russu, 100. 445 Georgiev, The Thracians…, 45. 446 Ibidem, 46. Also, ibidem, 209. 447 Durodanov, 1995, 835 (citing Kretschmer, Introduction…, 214 for Graeci, Γραῖοι).

183 Şerban George Paul Drugaş plosive Q (ku).̯ A foreign ambiguous sound, which sometimes sounded guttural, was marked with C, thus resulting in the Latin form dacus, -i.448 The root developed in a variation of intermediary sounds such as: (Ø) in Δᾶος, Phryg. δάος, Thrac. Κανδάων, Gk. θώς, (i)̭ in Δᾆοι, (u)̯ in Thrac. Δαύνιον τεῖχος, Δάους, Gk. Zεὺς Θαύλιος, Lydian Κανδαύλης, Lat. Faunus = Gk. θαῦνον = Illyr. Daunus, Δαύνιοι, Daunia, Goth. af-dauiþs; and (v) in Gk. Davus (for Dacian), Av. dvaidī etc., Illyr. Candavia, Davus.449 Many evolutions led to dog and wolf. Κανδάων was the Thracian god of war, translated as “dog strangler.” We should note that “words for 'dog' in some IE stocks may also indicate the 'wolf',”450 though in a context where the dog was not today’s cute pet, but an animal trained to hunt and fight. Therefore, a fight with such strong and trained dogs was seen as a supreme proof of physical excellence. Thus, Κανδάων must have been a herculean god. The enigmatic etymology of the Eng. dog could take on an excellent explanation if it were connected to the Thr.-Phr. dāγos "wild beast, wolf.” For instance,

Old English docga, a late, rare word, used in at least one Middle English source in reference to a powerful breed of canine. The word forced out Old English hund (the general Germanic and Indo-European word, from root from PIE root *kwon-) by 16c. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (French dogue 16c., Danish dogge,

448 Cf. Frances E. Lord, The Roman Pronunciation of Latin (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1894). Michael A.. Covington, Latin Pronunciation Demystified (University of Georgia, 2010). 449 Pokorny, I, 235: “Av. dvaidī … we press, Phr. δάος · . . . ὑπο Φρυγῶν λύκος Hes. (of which the people’s name Δᾆοι, Dā-ci), Lyd. Καν-δαύλης (κυν-άγχης dog strangler), see Καν-δάων, name of the Thr. god of war, Illyr. PN city Can-davia; dhauno-s wolf as shrike in Lat. THN Faunus (as Gk. θαῦνον · θηρίον Hes.) = Illyr. Daunus (of which PPN Δαύνιοι, resident of Apul. region Daunia; see Thr. Δαύνιον τεῖχος); Gk. Zεὺς Θαύλιος from shrike' (Thessal.; see at Fick KZ. 44, 339), with ablaut Gk. θώς, θω(ϝ)ός jackal (from shrike); Goth. af-dauiþs `ἐσκυλμένος, plagued; OCS davljǫ, daviti choke, Russ. davítь `press, squeeze, choke, crush, dávka hustle.” 450 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 168.

184 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

German Dogge 16c.), but the origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.451

The other name of the Dacians, Γέται (Getae), could have stemmed from the Indo-European *gueṱ - “to speak.”452 The different understandings between those who spoke a particular language and those who did not often formed ethnonyms. Among the most important tribes south of the Danube, the tribe could have originated their name in the Indo-European *mūs,453 meaning “mouse” (and other rodents), but also “muscle” (cf. also the Asian Mysioi). Many authors considered their dialect closer to that of the Dacians than the Thracian dialects south of them. For the , a Thracian tribe, many solutions were proposed, of which I would retain one of four mentioned by Russu: the Indo-European *uesṷ - “good, wealth(y).”454

*

Ptolemy recorded a number of 15 tribes in Dacia, and arranged them in arrays. Each array contained a number of tribes, from West to East, and the arrays were presented from North to South, as he organized the poleis, too. Other tribes and populations in Dacia were mentioned by different authors, but the following analysis is based on Ptolemy’s list. The tribes in Dacia are, according to Ptolemy, distributed on five arrays, each of three tribes: 455

(1) Anarti [Ἄναρτοι], Teurisci [Τευρίσκοι], Cœstoboci [Κοιστοβῶκοι]; (2) Predavenses [Πρεδαυήνσιοι], Rhatacenses [Ῥατακήνσιοι], Caucoenses [Καυκοήνσιοι];

451 ETYMONLINE.com, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://www.etymonline .com/word/dog. 452 Russu, 108, citing Walde and Pokorny, 672. 453 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 835. Cf. Pokorny, III, 752-753. 454 Russu, 94. 455 Ptolemaeus, “Geographia,” in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191, 0147r. Ptolémée, Cosmographiae, 1462, 47. Ibid., 1475, 102. Ptolémée, Cosmographia, transl. by Jacobus Angelus, 1475, 101. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, 1838, 206. Ibid., 1843, vol. 1, 178. Ibid., 1883, 444.

185 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

(3) Biephi [Βίηφοι], Buridavenses [Βουριδαυήνσιοι], Cotenses [Κοτήνσιοι], (4) Albocenses [Αλβοκήνσιοι], Potulatenses [Ποτουλατήνσιοι], Senses [Σήνσιοι]; (5) Saldenses [Σαλδήνσιοι], C(e)iagisi [Κειάγισοι], Piephigi [Πιέφιγοι].

I will discuss them further mainly in their Latin transcription. The Anarti and Teurisci were placed in the northwestern corner of the Ptolemaic Dacia, in the area between the rivers Tisa and Someş. They are not considered of Dacian stock. The Anarti were a Celtic tribe, populating the easternmost regions of Slovakia, western Ukraine, northeastern Hungary and the northwestern corner of Romania. According to Pârvan and other authors, they were assimilated by the Dacians,456 while a Dacian tribe with a close name, Anartophractoi (also mentioned by Ptolemy), which may have been related to them, populated the southeast of , near the river Vistula.457 Pârvan thought the polis of Rhoukkonion might have belonged to the Anarti.458 He also reasoned that the name of Dokidava (Dakidava) would underline the important presence of the Dacians in an Anartian land, as an outpost (like Dakibyza in Bithynia), therefore resulting in a mixed population.459 The Teurisci, related with the of the eastern Alps,460 inhabited a region to the west of the Anarti, and also had a Celtic origin, but they combined themselves with Dacian tribes, as the Coistoboci and Carpi.461 The Coistoboci dominated northern Dacia, also inhabiting north of this Ptolemaic region (from the east of Vistula to the norhern Basarabia, Coistoboci transmontani, Marinos of Tyr).462 The word Κοιστοβῶκοι “(those who are) truly (apparently, significantly) shining (glorious)” is composed

456 Pârvan, 57 (93), 135 (222-223), 151 (256). Ioana A. Oltean, Dacia: Landscape, Colonization and Romanization (Routledge, 2007), 47. 457 Pârvan, 135 (222-223). Marek Olędzki, “La Tène culture in the upper Basin,” in Ethnographisch-archaologische Zeitschrift, Jahrgang 41, Berlin, 2000. 458 Pârvan, 151 (256). 459 Ibid., 151 (256), 378 (671). 460 Ibid., 175 (298). 461 Ibid., 142 (238-239). 462 Ibid., 137 (221-222), 142 (238).

186 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia of two Dacian terms. The term, ko(i)sto-, originated in the Proto-Indo- European *kuek̭ -̂ / *kuok̭ -̂ “to show, to see, to appear,”463 which gave the following cognates: OInd. kāçate “appears, shines,” Av. čašte “to teach,”464 τέκμωρ (< *kuek̭ -̂ m(ō)r-?) “sign, characteristic,” and OCS kažǫ “show, remind.”465 It occurs in Dacian Costoboci (with suff -t)466, and as Cos- in Cosingis (queen of Bithynians467), “Κοσιγγας, chieftain in Thrace Polyaen. VII 22, Cosenis in Histria... (Valerio Cosenis), Αστικοσης in Phillipi..., maybe Κοσων on the money from Dacia (1st cent. BC), ...Κοσις..., Μουκάκενϑος Δαικωσου...,”468 the Thracian village Κοσσαία,469 and the Bithynian mountain Κοσσός.470 The second term, bok-os, comes from Proto-Indo-European *bhā-1 / bhō- / bhǝ- “to shine, light, glow”471 (Sa- bok-oi could mean “self-resplendent,” see above). It appears in Dacian anthroponyms such as Bibastoś , Βωσκειλας, -ου (bō-sk-eilaś “shining, noble,” adj. from pres. theme, with suffix -l-), Bosis, and maybe Burebistas (Βυρεβίστας,472 Βοιρεβίστας,473 or Proto-Indo-European *ueis̭ -1 “to

463 Walde and Pokorny, I, 510-511. Pokorny, II, 638-639. Russu, 99. 464 Russu, loc. cit. 465 Pokorny, II, 638-639. 466 Russu, loc. cit.: Κοστοβοκων, Κοιστοβωκοι, Costoboci, Costobocae, Coisstobocensis, Castabocas, Castabocos. Cf. Pausanias X.34.5 “τὸ Κοστοβωκων ληστικόν,” Ptolemy III.5.9, 8.3 Κοιστοβωοι, Cass. Dio LXXII.12.1, Hist. Augusta Marcus Aur. 22.1 Costoboci, Amm. Marc. XXII.8.42 Costobocae, Suidas s. v.; inscriptions: CIL VIII.14667 Costoboci, CIL 1801 = ILS 854 Coisstobocensis, CIL III.14214.12 = ILS 8501 a Costobocis, CIL VI.31956 = ILS 1327 adversus Costobocas, “St. clas” VI 1964, 193 a Costobocos. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum, Vol. II, Loeb Classics 315, ed. By John C. Rolfe (Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 2000), Liber XII, 8.42, 236, 237. 467 Pliny, Natural History, Vol. III, Loeb Classics 353, ed. H. Rackham (Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1967), Liber VIII.144, 100, 101. 468 Russu, loc. cit. 469 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III, 2014, 104, 105 (κ. 184). Ibid., 1849, 378. Ibid., 1839, 167. Ibid., 1678, 380. 470 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III, 2014, 104, 105 (κ. 185, citing also Demosthenes Bithyniaca FGrHist 699 F 7 = fr. 8 Powell). Ibid., 1849, 378. Ibid., 1839, 167. Ibid., 1678, 380. 471 Pokorny I, 104-105. Walde and Pokorny, II, 122. Russu, 96. 472 Strabo, The Geography, 1954, 186-187, 7.3.5. 473 Ibid., 210-211, 7.3.11-12.

187 Şerban George Paul Drugaş sprout,” as in Aulubeistas, Ditybistos474), as well as in some ethnonyms like Costoboci, Κοστοβωκων, Κοιστοβωκοι, Costobocae, Coisstobocensis etc., and tarabostes (“noble man,”)475 and the Thracian politonym Βίβαστος.476 The area of the Co(i)stoboci might have reached the south of Porolisson and Arkobarada before the Roman conquest. They were the most important free Dacian tribe, known for their pillages (together with the German Bastarni) that reached Minor and Thracia, as well as for their participation in the war of Marcus Aurelius with the Marcomani and their allies.477 They maintained a client kingdom, with two kings known by their name, Pieporus (known from the funeral inscription CIL VI 1801, in Rome, as rex Coisstobocensis, married with the Dacian Zia) and Petoporianus (in Tabula Peutingeriana).478 Tomaschek and Pârvan interpreted Predavenses, after the Ξ reference, as Piedavenses, which would have belonged to the same semantic group as Pie-phigoi and Pie-getae.479 Pre- or Pie-davenses would have been be placed south of the river Criş. The name Crisia (Grisia in Jordanes, Getica 113) came from *ker-6 (/k-̂ ) “dark colour, dirt, gray” > *kers-.480 Κρῆσσα (in Paphlagonia) and Κρήσιον (in Cyprus) are closely related, both with an ablaut zero.481 The name Criş is well spread in Romania, for the rivers Criş, Crişul Repede, Crişul Negru, Crişul Alb, Criştior, maybe even Gersa (tributary to the river Someşul Mare, on its northern / right bank, near Năsăud), the village Crişeni, and the personal name Crişan etc.

474 Russu, 94-95. Rejected: Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 15, *bhus-, Decev, The Thracian Language Remains, 70, *bheid-to-. Cf. Pokorny, 1133. 475 Russu, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 124. 476 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. I, 2006, 346, 347 (β. 91). Ibid., 1849, 168. Ibid., 1839, 75. Ibid., 1678, 166. 477 Pârvan, 143 (240-241). 478 Tomaschek, Vol. I, 108. CIL VI 1801, apud Pârvan, 143 (241). Bărbulescu et al., Istoria României, 94. 479 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 1, 65. Pârvan, 154 (254). 480 Walde and Pokorny, I, 428-429. Pokorny, II, 573-574. Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 100. Russu, 100 (for Crisia). Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 831: IE *k(w)r(̥ ə)sos, cf. Old Ind. krs̥ ṇ ạ -́ h ̣ “black.” 481 Stephanus,“Ethnica,” Vol. III, 2014, 120, 121 κ. 214, 215. Ibid., 1849, 383. Ibid., 1839, 169. Ibid., 1678, 385.

188 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

The Ratacenses or Rhatacensioi seemed to have dwelled in the central plateau of Transylvania.482 Two northern tribes remind of them and might have resulted from their expansion: Racatriae and Racatae (see above). According to Pârvan, the latter two would have kept an unaltered form, unlike Ratacenses. The original form would have had a similar root as the first part of Arkobarada (a polis in their area, see the explanation in Chapter 5), coming from the Proto-Indo-European *areq- / *h2erk- “to guard, lock, hold back, contain” (cf. Lat. arceō “shut in, keep at a distance, prevent”, arx “stronghold, fortress,” arca “chest, container,” and Lith. rakintì “lock with a key” etc.).483 The second and third roads of the Tabula Peutingeriana were intersected on the land of the Ratacenses. The second road, coming from the territory of the Albocensi (-es), from Tierna (Dierna) etc., reached Sarmizegethusa, Ad Aquas (Hydata), and Germizera. From there, it went to Blandiana (also Geog. Rav. 4.7, at today Blandiana? 45°59′11″N 23°21′43″E), Apula (Apoulon), Brucla (Aiud, 46°18′44″N 23°43′45″E), Salinae, Patavissa, Napoca, Optatiana (Sutoru, Sălaj, 46°59′22″N 23°14′34″E), Largiana (Românaşi, Sălaj, 47°06′N 23°10′31″E), Cersie (near Porolissum, at south, Stâna?484), ending at Parolissum (Porolisson, -um).485 The castrum Samum (Căşeiu, 47°11′10.40″N 23°50′15.50″E) was further to the north, which was a border fortress, with its name coming from the nearby river, Samus. According to Tomaschek, this name could have come from *kem̂ (ə)-4 “tired, quiet” (cf. Skr. çam and Gk. κάμνω),486 while if the Indo-European root would have started with *s-, it could have been *seu-1 “liquid, juice” (cf. Old Ind. sṓma- = Av. hauma, and Lat. sūgō, sūcus).487 S. Paliga gave a

482 Pârvan, 148 (249). 483 Pârvan, 151 (256-257). Pokorny, I, 65-66. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 270. Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction…, 270-271. 484 P. Broşteanu, “The Worldmap (Orbis pictus) of the castra, or the so called Tabula Peutingeriana,” Transilvania, Year XXII, No. 6, Sibiu, 15 iunie 1891, 172: 25.2 km from Largiana, 5.9 km from Cersie to Porolissum. Pârvan, 158 (271): “6 km SE of Porolissum.” Cersiae, same root as Karsidava? 485 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 486 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 98. Pokorny, II, 557. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 588. 487 Pokorny, III, 912-913. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 495-496.

189 Şerban George Paul Drugaş possible Pre-Indo-European explanation for this hydronym, from the root *S-M- “high / deep.”488 Duridanov saw the connection between Brucla and the Latvian Brukla, coming from brukle “cranberry.”489 The root seems to be that of the Lat. fraga (cf. fragola), which is treated by Mallory and Adams as *?sroh́ ags “berry” (cf. Gk. ῥώξ “grape, berry.”)490 With the uncertainty regarding the first sound, and recalling that the Latin sound f- usually came from an Indo-European bh- (cf. *fagus < *bhehagoś 491, a significant resemblance in construction!), the root for “berry” could rather be written as *bhroh́ ags. Tomaschek noticed, for the suffix, the similar formation with Genucla (Dio Cassius 51.26).492 The third road of the Tabula Peutingeriana came from the south, and reached Pons Vetus, i. e. Caput Stenarum (Boiţa, Sibiu County, 45°38′8.77″N 24°15′57.64″E, Lat. “the end of the straits,”) which was a different place than the castrum Stenarum of Sighişoara (46°14′21.95″N 24°45′7.57″E).493 The road passed then towards north, through Cedonie (supposedly near Sibiu, 45°48′N 24°11′E), to Acidava (different from that in the south, for which see the Saldenses, below), and then to Apula (Apoulon). The name of the Caucoenses (who inhabited the central and south ranges of the Eastern Carpathians, on both their western and eastern sides, in the south-east of Transylvania and central-western Moldova) resemble the name of Caucaland, mentioned by Ammianus (31.4.3) while writing about a retreat of the Goths provoked by the .494 The Dacia’s Caucoenses made a semantic pair with Caucones in Bithynia (mentioned by Ptolemy, too).495 The name Caucoenses (resembling with Caucasus, occurring not only as the name of the range between Europe

488 Paliga, “Hidronimia…,” 69. Paliga, Etymologica…, 180. Ravennatis, Cosmographia…. 489 Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 833. 490 Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 63. 491 Ibid., 58. 492 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 287-288: root *gen-? Actually, it would be *gʷhen- 2(ə)- “to hit” (Pokorny, II, 491-493), as in genton “meat, venison,” and maybe better fitted for -gentus “hunter” in Russu, 107-108. Other option: knee? 493 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 494 Pârvan, 148 (249). 495 Ibid., 141 (235), 148 (249).

190 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia and Asia) may contain the Indo-European root *keu-k- “to bend,” which led to words like the Toch. A koc “high,” the Toch. B kauc “high,” and the Lith. kaūkaras “high ground, hill.”496 The Biephi are interpreted by Pârvan as Biesi (with a Latin source, where he read f instead of s), and identical with Biessi of Slovakia (Ptolemy 3.5.8), while the entire Dacian group Piedavensi–Biesi– Buridavensi was repeated, in his opinion, by the group Piegetae–Biessi– Buri, in a similar geographic arrangement, maybe due to a migration provoked by the Cimmerians or Scythians.497 In Dacia, the Biephi or Biesi seem to have inhabited the lower course of the river Mureş (Maris), or to the south of it. The name Maris498 came from *mōri- “body of water” (cf. Lat. mare, -is etc.).499 A similar ancient name belonged to Morava, where Pârvan demonstrated that the ancient authors placed the border of Dacia.500 The city of the Buridavensi, Buridava, was mentioned in the Tabula Peutingeriana. They seem to have inhabited both sides of the Southern Carpathians, southern Transylvania, as well as nothern Muntenia.501 Based on archaeological findings, Buridava is placed at Ocnele Mari (45°4′46″N, 24°17′ 15.38″E).502 Its name contains the element bor-. Tomaschek saw it coming from *bheu- / bhū- “to be, grow,” and therefore Buridava as “the city of the wealthy / rich.”503 Russu explained it as “precipice, mouth, slot,” being also present in Piroboridava and Bora mons, and coming from the Proto-Indo-European root *bher-3 “to split.”504

496 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 90-91. Pokorny, II, 589. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 62. 497 Pârvan, 150 (254-255). 498 Maris in Herodotus, Marisos in Strabo, Marisia in Jordanes. 499 Walde; Pokorny, II, 1927, 234 sq. Pokorny, III, 748. Russu, 111. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 206. Duridanov, “Thracian and Dacian Names,” 832. Paliga, “The Hidronyms…,” 67. 500 Pârvan, 136 (225). 501 Pârvan, 147 (249). 502 PATRIMONIU.GOV.ro, last accessed 9.03.2019, http://patrimoniu.gov.ro/ images/lmi-2015/LMI-VL.pdf. 503 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 17. Pokorny, I, 146-150. 504 Russu, 95. Pokorny, I, 133-135.

191 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

The third road of the Tabula Peutingeriana passed through Buridava, from the south (see Potulatenses, below), reaching Castra Trajana at Dăeşti, Vâlcea, 45°12′33″N 24°22′38″E. It also reached Arutela (Păuşa, Vâlcea County, 45°16′ 36.49″N, 24°18′44.16″ E) in the north, followed by Praetorium (Copăceni, 45°29′N 24°18′E), and then by Pons Stenarum (see Ratacenses).505 Pârvan repeatedly mentioned in his Getica that the Anarti, Teurisci and Cotensi (= Cotini?, from Boemia, Hungary and Silezia) had a Celtic origin, but were placed by Ptolemy in Dacia. All the other twelve tribes, mentioned by Ptolemy within the limits of Dacia, as he delimited this region, had no foreign, but Dacian names and origin.506 According to Pârvan, a polis of the Cotensi, which appeared in Ptolemy, was Rhamidava. In his opinion, the name of the city had a Celtic origin, as Ramae on Hebrus. The origin of Komidava (see it in Chapter 5) would be, on the contrary, Thraco-Dacian, with a Thracian root como-, as in Skr. Kama, and used by the Getians and in the Cimmerian Bosporus, in names like Como- sicus and Di-comes.507 Besides the twelve Dacian tribes in Ptolemaic Dacia, there were many others, which spread outside the region, from the rivers Vistula to Sava and in Dalmatia to Moesia Superior and Inferior, and beyond the rivers Siret and Prut. The Albocensi seem to have inhabited the south of Banat, with the Ptolemaic poleis of Aizisis and Tibiskon in their range. The place name Alboca (from *h4elbhoś “white,”)508 in Banat, supports their existence. Other names with similar origin would be Albona, in the Istria Peninsula, and Alburnus in Dacia.509 The territory of the Albocensi (-es) was crossed by the first two roads of the Tabula Peutingeriana. The first road went from Arcidava (Vărădia, 45°05′01″N 21°32′38″E) to Centum Puteae (or Putei, Surducu Mare, 45°16′24″N 21°35′57″E),

505 All: Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 506 Pârvan, 142 (238), 148 (249-250), 378 (670). 507 Pârvan, 149 (253). 508 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 545: “geformt mit Napoca … Basis alb-, vgl. Transalba, zw. Dierna und Drobeta.” Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 114: the form of the root employing the laryngeal theory. 509 Schütte, 96, 92. Pârvan, 137-138 (228), 149 (252).

192 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Bersovia (otherwise named Berzobis, 45°25′59″N 21°36′54″E510), Azizis, Caput Bubali (Păltiniş, 45°23′N 22°04′E), and Tiviscum (Tibiskon).511 The name Bersovia (called Berzobis by Trajan, Priscian 6.4, cf. the modern name of the river Bârzava) came from the Dacian root bers- “birch,” formed from the Proto-Indo-European *bherəĝ- “to shine, white.”512 The second road started in Tierna (Dierna) and passed through Ad Mediam (Mehadia, 44°54′N 22°22′E), through Praetorium (near Mehadia), Ad Pannonios (Teregova 45°10′07″N 22°18′25″E), Gaganae (?),513 Masclianae (?),514 Tiviscum (Tibiskon), Agnav(i)ae (Găvoi, Caraş-Severin, 45°31′30″N 22°24′20″E), Pons Augusti (Voislova, 45°31′N 22°27′E), and arriving at Sarmizegethusa, Ad Aquas (Hydata), and Germizera (Zermizirga). The last three were also well known from Ptolemy, and they would rather have belonged to the former land of the Ratacense.515 The Potulatenses (see the explanations for the name of Patrouissa / Potaissa, in Chapter 5) inhabited and western Muntenia, south of Buridavenses.516 Potula (Geog. Rav.) or Potulata was their capital.517 Pons Aluti was in their territory, at Ioneşti, Vâlcea 44°52′N 24°13′E.518 The Ptolemaic polis Pharaterna seems to have been located on their land. The S(i)enses dwelled in the hills and the plains of southern Moldova, and the northeast of the plain of Bărăgan.519 Their name (with its first part similar to that of the Sialetae, in Rhodope, and to vicus Siamaus)

510 Dumitru Protase, “The Castrum of the Legion IIII Flavia from . The Archaeological Excavations of 1965-1968,” Analele Banatului, New Series, XVIII, Mega, Cluj-Napoca, 2010, 33-62. 511 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 512 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 59. Pokorny, I, 139-140. 513 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 87. Pokorny, II, 467-469. Cf. id. 469 Lith. gaivùs “lively.” Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 23. Gaganae was connected by Tomaschek with Arm. gazan “wild animal,” which would come from the (IE w root *gʷei-̯ 3 ~ *g iḙ h́ 3ui̭ om̭ ?). 514 There is a similar castrum in Africa, south of Carthagina. Cf. R. P. Delattre, Memories from the Old Church of Africa (Lyon: Mougin-Rusand, 1894), 8 sqq. 515 Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 516 Pârvan, 148 (249). 517 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 65. 518 All at: Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului, Roman castra from Romania. 519 Pârvan, 148 (249).

193 Şerban George Paul Drugaş was rooted in sia-,520 from the Proto-Indo-European *keî -1 “to lie down” (cf. Gk. κεῖται).521 The Saldenses inhabited the south-western part of Dacia, south of the Potulatenses, with their capital polis at Saldae (Σάλδη).522 The name is related to Saldis (Σαλδίς / Σάλδη), on the river Sava, in Pannonia Inferior, as well as with some poleis and places in Thracia: Σάλδη, Saldaecaputenus, Σαλδοβύσση, Σαλδοκέλη (for the god Σαλδοκεκηνός Heros or Asklepios) etc.,523 maybe all stemming from the Indo-European root *ĝhel-1 “gold.”524 Five stations of the Tabula Peutingeriana (on its third road) were located in the area of Saldenses, coming from Drubetis and Amutria (Amoutrion). One was Pelendova (or Pelendava), a Dacian city, then a Roman castrum, in the south of Dacia Inferior, on the river Rhabon (Jiu), established through archaeological discoveries at Point Pelendava, modern Bucovăţ, former village Cârligei, near Craiova, Dolj County, 44°17′1″N, 23°44′49″E.525 Castra Nova was placed at Puţuri, Dolj, 44°07′N 24°E. Malva (colonia Maluense, from which Dacia Malvensis), renamed Romula, was placed at Reşca (44°10′N, 24° 24′E). Acidava was placed at Enoşeşti (44°22′41″N 24°15′53″E). Rusidava was at Drăgăşani, Vâlcea, 44°39′N 24°15′E. From here, the road passed to Pons Aluti (see Potulatenses), and then into the land of the Buridavensi, at Buridava. Three of the five places had clear Dacian names and origins: Pelendova, Malva, and Acidava. The name of

520 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 80. Pârvan, 140 (234), 376 (667). 521 Pokorny, II, 539-540. 522 Pârvan, 163 (281), 137 (228), 149 (252). 523 Russu, 119. Pârvan, 137 (228). Georgiev, The Thracians…, 31. 524 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 77, 79, along with Zaldapa. Georgiev, The Thracians…, 31, 92 etc. Cf. Pokorny, II, 429, where also: “thrak. ζηλτα Gold (?), phryg. ζέλκια λάχανα Hes.; phryg. γλουρός · χρυσός und γλούρεα · χρύσεα Hes. (aus gr. χλωρός …); alb. dhelpërë, dhelpnë, dhelbun(e) Fuchs, eigentl. der Gelbe.” Russu, 119 recommends rather *sal- “salt” or *kel̂ -1 “warm” (Pokorny, II, 551- 552), but the association with *ĝhel-1 “gold” is strong, as shown by others. An entire dialogue on this subject between Russu (citing: Georgiev, 1960, 41) and Georgiev (citing: Russu, 1977, 31). Georgiev (loc. cit.) seems to demonstrate the connection with the meaning “gold” for Saldaecaputenus (Glava Paneža, also Sb. Zlatna Paneža, golden spring). 525 See the explanations on the name in Chapter 5, when citing TP for Salinai, and discussing Polonda and Amoutrion.

194 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Pelendova (or Pelendava) was discussed in Chapter 5. The name Malva came from the Proto-Indo-European root *mel- “to come up, protrude,” which also gave Alb. = Rom. mal(u) “hill, mountain, river bank”.526 Tomaschek thought that the first element of the name Acidava came from the Proto-Indo-European root *okʷ- / *h3okw- “eye.”527 The Ceiagisi inhabited the Danube meadow, south of the Potulatenses.528 Their name (as Κίος, at the mouth of Ascanius in Mysia, which gave the ethnonym Κιανοί, Cius or Cium on the Danube, and the anthroponym Κίασος or Κίερος) could have originated in the root *kʷei- 2 “to pile, stow, gather.”529 The Ptolemaic poleis which seem to have been placed on their territory were Pinon and Sournon (see their probable etymologies in Chapter 5). The Piephigoi dwelled in the south of Buridavenses, between the rivers Argeş and Ialomiţa.530 The first part of the name Piephigi (as Piegetae, Pieporus etc.) could have meant “bad, enemy,” but rather, in the context of an ethnonym, we might consider another explanation through the root “alien, stranger, outsider > from the outside, from a remote range.”531 The origin of the Dacian pie- / bie- seems to have been the Proto-Indo- European root *pē(i)-, pī- “to harm, scold, put to shame”532 (cf. also *per- 2 “to go over.”533) The poleis Tiasson and Netindava would fall in their area (their probable etymologies were discussed in Chapter 5).

526 Russu, 110. Pokorny, II, 721-722. 527 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 55: cf. Lith. akis. Pokorny, III, 775-777. Mallory and Adams, Encyclopedia…, 17,47, 188,505, 222, 525, 592. 528 Pârvan, 148 (249). 529 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 85. Pârvan, 159 (273). Pokorny, II, 637-638. 530 Pârvan, 148 (249). 531 Tomaschek, Vol. II, Part 2, 65. Pârvan, 150 (254). 532 Pokorny, III, 792-793. 533 Ibid., 810-816.

195 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Fig. 8-1. Ancient Dacia, according to Ptolemy, Peutingerian Table and related sources (Original composition with MapCreator 3 Free)

196

CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

Many other studies,534 including this one, show that Ptolemy’s map is made from “patches” relative to each other. The largest ones are the Ptolemaic regions themselves (Great Britain, Germany, Iazyges Metanastæ, Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferior, Thracia, Macedonia, Dacia etc.), and the smaller ones are made by local groups with similar behavior (which gives a “systematic error,” as highlighted by Kleineberg and his collaborators).535 This characteristic recommends, first of all, the recognition of small patterns in order to build the “grand scheme” of a region. Even so, such a reconstruction might look different from one author to another (although they use the same data) due to the references each of them prefers. This is the reason why this study considered a larger number of initial references, comparing them to each other. Some Ptoemaic coordinates must be corrected, such as the function of the behavior of the local area, usually approximated by a known reference point. While trying to establish local working algorithms, this study started with an analysis of the locations on the southern bank of the Danube and the Balkan Peninsula because of the better general knowledge available on them. I thus reached the partial conclusion that the tendency from the Ξ reference (the oldest) to the Ω reference (the newest) is to “correct” the values in order to fit the general tendency of a westward shift, as I named it, meaning that the modern longitude given from the Ω reference is displaced to the west from the actual longitude of the corresponding site. The main pattern or grid I used for the longitudes of the poleis in Dacia is given by the following formula: P x 0.83 - 17.917, where P is the Ptolemaic longitude. It works better for the better preserved values, such as mostly for some Ξ reference values. In case it does not have a different value, it means that the “correction” was already operated in the Ξ reference, and a shift must be considered. This shift

534 Cf. Berggren and Jones, Ptolemy′s Geography…. Darcy and Flynn, “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland…” 535 Kleineberg et al., Germania…. Kleineberg et al., Europe…. Şerban George Paul Drugaş may be approximated by that of the closest location on the same longitude. The latitudes are generally treated on klimata (latitudinal strips) and by observing the local possible patterns. The prediction worked perfectly for the longitudes of Ziridava (matched with Ardeu, predicted by Forţiu,536 by his own method; with a less than 2′ difference from Ardeu on longitude, 3′ difference on latitude), Arkobarada (with Ilişua; less then 6′ difference on longitude, 10′ difference on latitude). Praetoria Augusta (with Inlăceni), Angoustia (with Breţcu). Except for Angoustia, all the mentioned locations also have a good or perfect match for the latitude (relative to a known reference). The calculations for Hydata result in a location at 10′ to the east and 5′ to the south of Călan-Băi (Aquae). This, I believe, are the strongest results of the transformation from the Ptolemaic coordinates obtained from direct calculation. This applies to the Ξ reference (the oldest), when it is different from Ω, while the Ω reference (the newest) value for the longitude needs to be “corrected” to fit the general tendency of a westward shift, as I named it, meaning that the modern longitude given from the Ω reference is displaced to the west from the actual longitude of the corresponding site. The best method is to apply the shift of a reference point (known location) on the same latitude or on a close-by latitude. Applying the pattern of Porolisson to Karsidava, placed it near river Siret, but on the east bank (Probota). A small correction dragged it on the west bank, and an identical pattern should be used, I believe, for Triphoulon (Ostra, Suceava County), Patridava (Târzia, Neamţ County) and Petrodava (Siliştea, ca. 25 km SE of Piatra Neamţ). Sarmizegethousa seems to approximate the behavior of many south and south-western poleis, while Porolisson and Napouka seem to do the same for several poleis in their north-west and west. Thus, Rhoukkonion would fall about south of Derecske (Hungary), Dokidava south of Nagykereki, Hungary, near the border with Romania, not far from Biharia and Oradea. If their shift on longitude were smaller than that of Porolisson, some locations a little to the east could be conceived for them. This way, Oulpianon gives an interesting location, only 3 km SW of Beiuş, Bihor County. Tibiskon, Zourobara and Akmonia could constitute a group that, following the pattern of Sarmizegethousa, would need a further

536 Forțiu, Sorin. “The Translation…”

198 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia correction towards (north-)west, but with different values. This pattern is proved by Tibiskon. This way, Zourobara would be about the area of Morisena–Cenad, and Akmonia about the area of Petroşani. Maybe the same pattern should be considered for some south-eastern poleis, in which cases I already pleaded for a northward displacement from the calculated result, such as in case of Netindava and Tiasson. This would strenghten the placement of Netindava somewhere west of Slobozia– Ialomiţa County and of Tiasson about the area of Otopeni. It would also allow placing Argidava south of Piteşti and Tiriskon near Fârtăţeşti (not somewhat to the south). Hydata is by 10′ east of Călan, but the latitude is closer to the modern one (a small shift as seen for Zermizirga). Along with Tibiskon, Nentidava, Tiasson, but also Praetoria Augusta, a shift on longitude as that of Patrouissa would give more credible locations for Pinon (Troianul–Peretu, Teleorman County) and Sournon (Drăgănescu, Giurgiu County). The “misfit” Ω reference latitude of Angoustia could rather point to a local pattern, very probable for some south-western locations, placing Polonda not far from the mouth of river Siret. Taking Komidava (Râşnov) and Rhamidava as a tandem, would place the last one near (east of) Buşteni. Applying for Apoulon the average between two opposite tendencies on longitude, of Patrouissa to the north, and of Angoustia and Zermizirga (almost zero) to the south, a perfect match with Piatra Craivii is obtained. Using the shift on the longitude of Patrouissa, Salinai would fall in a place east of Gura Arieşului, at about half the distance between Ocna Mureş and Luduş, thus maintaining a good match with the data in Tabula Peutingeriana (12 MP = 11.5 ~ 12.49 MP = 17 ~ 19 km between Salinis and Patavissa; 23 km between the estimated coordinates of Salinai and those of Patrouissa–Potaissa). If Salinai were closer to Ocna Mureş, as K. Müller approximated it, there would be a better match for the Tabula Peutingeriana data. The shift on latitude for the Ξ reference value for Dierna is insignificant, showing again that usually the Ξ reference value better approximates the correct coordinate, as proven so many times for longitude, and in this case for latitude. Other calculations result in the following locations: Sangidava is somewhere at Racoş or Augustin (Braşov County), Outidava is near Oituz (on the river Oituz , which would reignite the supposition of Al.

199 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Vulpe about the etymology of the name), Markodava is south-east of Roşia Montană, Singidava is near Ohaba (Hunedoara County), and Phraterna is at Coloneşti (Olt County). Zeugma could be either on the Danube, between Dierna and Droubetis, or rather (not considering for it the behavior of Droubetis, which is odd enough) south of Târgu-Jiu. The Ptolemaic location of Tibiskon seems to be on the south-east of Jupa (around Armeniş), where the known castrum is placed. This means that the behavior on the latitude of Tibiskon does not synchronize with Sarmizegethousa and the shift on the longitude is smaller (as it might be for other poleis, too, like Polonda, Netindava–Slobozia and Tiasson–Arţari / Otopeni?). The calculations for Aizis do not correspond to the castrum of Fârliug, but rather to a location east of Lugoj, named Hezeriş, not Ezeriş, Pârvan’s choice for etymological reasons (south of Fârliug). It is curious that two such names appear in the area of Aizisis, both with such close phonetism. Using the pattern of Sarmizegethousa, Akmonia is placed in the area of Petroşani (and, curious enough, the root of the two toponyms means “stone,” one in Dacian, the other in Latin). If we take Arkina and Amoutrion as a tandem, the latter was placed in the area of Motru, while Arkina to the west (around Ilovăţ–Racova if we disregard the longitudinal discrepancy, or to the west of them). The longitudes of both poleis are incorrect, but Arkina is one of the locations in Dacia with the weakest Ptolemaic data, doubled by no external information. Pinon could be located in the area of Troianul–Roşiori de Vede– Peretu, in Teleorman County. Peretu is the place of a famous finding, of a Dacian helmet from the 4th century BC. Sournon would, then, be located near Drăgănescu, south-east of Bucharest. This is also a weak link in the Ptolemaic series for Dacia. Beyond Dacia proper, to the east, there are some locations of interest, whose study of coordinates might prove useful for the surroundings of Dacia. A known location, Tyras polis, shows a larger shift on longitude than Sarmizegethousa. Hermonactus villa and Harpiepolis seem to follow the shore of the Black Sea to the south-west. Zargidava, Tamasidava and Piroboridava have, most likely, a similar shift to those of Tyras polis and of the mouth of the Tyras. I revealed some estimated locations for them in the Republic of Moldova: Zargidava east of

200 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ecaterninovca (Cimişia district), Tamasidava, east of Vişinovca (Cantemir district), and Piroboridava, east of Chirilovca. The purpose of this study was not to claim immutable verdicts, but to gain the best possible information from the mathematical pattern given by the Ptolemaic set of coordinates for Dacia and to incite further discussions. However, I believe mathematics worked best for the locations which were obtained through direct calculation, using the basic formula mentioned above. The Ξ reference value is more susceptible to give such results. The Ptolemaic data rarely allows such a luxury, even for better known areas than Dacia. The use of the local pattern, especially dealing with Ω reference values, was also confirmed in some important cases. I believe that the Ω documents try to reestablish local harmony after a series of “correctors” done on the original information, which was better preserved by the Ξ document (Mss. X). Nevertheless, this was either not always possible or the original sometimes contained mistakes (as revealed by the Ξ reference latitudes of Angoustia and Akmonia).

*

The SWOT analysis done on the primary results showed that 8 poleis of the 44 had the strongest reliability (Arkobarada–Ilişua, Praetoria Augusta–Inlăceni, Angoustia–Breţcu, Ziridava–Ardeu, Apoulon–Piatra Craivii, Zermizirga–Geoagiu, Hydata–Călan, Dierna–Orşova), 9 had strong reliability (Porolisson–Moigrad, Napouka–Cluj-Napoca, Patrouissa–Turda, Sangidava–Racoş, Komidava–Râşnov, Rhamidava– Drajna de Sus, Sarmizegethousa–Grădiştea de Munte, Tibiskon–Jupa, Droubetis–Drobeta Turnu Severin), 8 had middle reliability (Salinai, Outidava, Markodava, Polonda, Zourobara, Aizisis, Ekmonia, Amoutrion), 16 had reasonable reliability, while 3 poleis had weak reliability. The strongest positions were ensured not only by exceptional or good archaeological data, but mostly by a perfect or good Ptolemaic match in combination with archaeologicalor other information. The strong positions were those of the poleis with good archaeological evidence, although the Ptolemaic data alone could not locate them with precision. An exception in this case was that of Sangidava, which shows a perfect match between the Ptolemaic values taken from the Ξ and the Ω reference, although without archaeological confirmation.

201 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Thus 16 poleis from the first two positions (maybe except Sangidava, as it may be rejected by further studies) can be considered as reference points for further investigations. The third (middle) position contains poleis whose calculated position might be relatively certain. Salinai is found somewhere close to Gura Arieşului, not far from Ocna Mureş. The calculations from the Tabula Peutingeriana offer a good prediction on this evaluation. Outidava was somewhere east of Angoustia, on the river Oituz, thus maybe near Oituz of Covasna County. Markodava could have been approximately in the south-eastern region of Roşia Montană. Polonda has a good estimation on the west bank of Siret, not far from the point it flows into the river Prut. Zourobara could very probably have been located south of the river Mureş, approximately on the point where it leaves Romania. Aizisis was located not at Ezeriş, neither at the position of the castrum of Fârliug, but, in the same region, at Hezeriş, east of Lugoj. Ekmonia has a common semiology with Petroşani, the modern place where it ended its location. Amoutrion, as an exception in this group, has a strong support from scholarly knowledge placing it in the approximate position of Motru, although the Ptolemaic estimation of its position clearly indicates an error in Ptolemy’s records for this polis. The last group of poleis, still considered reasonably estimated, is the most numerous (16), as could be expected. Their position suggests that it is still very probable that their estimation ended in their actual general area. Karsidava and Petrodava have a good probability to be placed on the west bank of the river Siret, at the relative latitudes to Porolisson and Napouka as they were considered. Since a common behavior in the longitude of these two poleis can be observed, if we apply this pattern to Triphulon and Patridava, they should have a good estimation, too. Oulpianon has good chances for a good estimation because it respects the relative behavior that could be applied in the area, and because the result has a good match with the estimation in the maps of the old editions of Ptolemy. Rhoukkonion and Dokidava should reflect, with respect to Oulpianon, the same relation as the one known between Porolisson and Napouka. This proportion is reflected in my estimation. If the values for Singidava respect the relative harmony of the region, they lead to Ohaba. Netindava has a good estimation approximately in the middle of Ialomiţa (and in accordance with the old maps), and Tiasson, its tandem, somewhere northwest of Bucharest. Zousidava was

202 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia placed in a region with an important historical importance, on the hills just outside the curvature of the Carpathians, between Sărata Monteoru and Buzău. Zeugma has a good estimation on the river Jiul, considering that its name points to a “bridge,” across a river, and on an important route. Piroum, Phraterna, Pinon and Sournon aésp have good locations between Olt and Argeş, also considering the old maps. Relative to this group, the location of Piroum on Ialomiţa, near Târgovişte, seems reasonable. The correlation Piroum-Târgovişte-river Ialomiţa with Zousidava-Buzău-river Buzău strengthens the position of these two poleis.

*

Following the SWOT analysis, I recalculated the weakest positions of Arkina, Tiriskon and Argidava. It resulted that last two poleis seem to have better positions at Horezu and Curtea de Argeş, respectively. Arkina has an incorrect value for longitude, which does not corroborate with any of the surrounding poleis. Its only chance for location is a relative estimation between Droubetis and Amoutrion, on the latitude of Amoutrion, which was meant to be in tandem with it.

*

Gathering al the available data and eliminating the one which is unreliable, the geometric means for the longitudinal shift in Dacia (without the Ξ reference values which usually give direct estimations) is -0.910442791, while for the negative shifts for the latitudes it is - 0,845637367. However, using local behavior (local patterns or shifts) should always give superior outcome than the general means.

*

Adding information on the limits, rivers and tribes of Dacia, as described by Ptolemy or other authors, we can build a map containing all the relevant data for that historical period. The roads of Tabula Peutingerianacan properly complete such a map.

203

Bibliography

Editions of Ptolemy Names of the author in different languages in alphabetical order. Works in chronological order.

Ptolemaeus, Claudius. “Geographia.” In Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82 (U). Greek manuscript. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ca. 1300. Accessed 22.06.2018, 01:47 a.m., https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Urb.gr.82. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. “Geographia.” In Codex Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 191 (X). Greek manuscript. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ca. 1300ff 128v- 169v. Accessed 21.06.2018, 11:04 p.m., https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.191. Last accessed March 09, 2019, http://www.philosophie.unibe.ch/index_eng.html. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. “Geographia.” In Codex Vaticanus Palatinus graecus 388. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 14th century. Accessed 22.06.2018, 02:33, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pal.gr.388. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographia. Latin. Edited by Willibald Pirckheimer, Michael Servetus, Albrecht Durer.̈ 1541. Accessed 09.05.2018, 9:04 p.m https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemae00ptola/page/n8.) Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographia. Basiliae, 1559. Accessed 14.05.2018, 2:02 p.m. https://ia800206.us.archive.org/13/items/bub_gb_E8ct_r9fINkC/bub_g b_E8ct_r9fINkC.pdf. (Description: Eis tēn Tetrabiblon tou Ptolemaiou exēgētēs anōnymos. In Claudii Ptolemaei Quadripartitum enarrator ignoti nominis, quem tamen Proclum fuisse quidam existimant, ...Porphyrii philosophi introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum. Praeterea Hermetis philosophi… Usage Public Domain Mark 1.0. Digitizing sponsor Google. Book from the collections of National Central Library of Rome. Language Latin. Google-id E8ct_r9fINkC. Pages 332. Source http://books.google.com/books?id=E8ct_r9fINkC&hl=&sourc e=gbs_api.) Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographia. Libri octo. Graece et latine ad codicum manu scriptorum fidem. Edited by Dr. Frid. Guil. Wilberg. Essendiae: G. D. Baedecker, 1838. Accessed 14.05.2018, 2:18 p.m. https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemae00ptol/page/n4. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographia. Tomes I-III. C. F. A. Nobbe, Carolus Tauchnitius Lipsiae, 1843. Vol. 1, Accessed 09.05.2018, 5:56 p.m. https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemaei01ptol/page/n6. Vol. 2, Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Accessed 09.05.2018, 5:53 p.m. https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemaei02ptol/page/n6. Vol. 3, Accessed 09.05.2018, 5:51 p.m. https://archive.org/details/claudiiptolemaei03ptol/page/n6. Republished, 1845. Ptolemaeus, Claudius. Geographia. (Κλαυδιος Πτολειαιος, Γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις.) Ancient Greek text. Greek and Latin. Edited by Karl Müller. Collections of University of Michigan. Paris: Alfredo Firmin Didot, 1883. Accessed 09.05.2019, 8:09 p.m. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_i_JfAAAAMAAJ. Republished, 1901. Ptolemaios, Klaudios. “Geographia.” In Klaudios Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie. 1. Teilband: Einleitung und Buch 1-4. 2. Teilband: Buch 5-8 und Indices. Edited by Alfred Stückelberger, Gerd Grasshoff, Florian Mittenhuber, Renate Burri, Klaus Geus, Gerhard Winkler, Susanne Ziegler, Judith Hindermann, Lutz Koch, and Kurt Keller Alfred Stückelberger. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2006. Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographiae. Reprod. Edited by Dominici de Lapis. Bononiae, 1462. Accessed 18.06.2018, 5:51 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k60294x/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: Latin. Format: 1 microfilm, 35 mm. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection Italian books before 1601. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007. Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographiae. Reprod. Edited by Hermann Levilapide. 1475. Accessed 18.06.2018, 5:41 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k587883/f2.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Format: 1 microfilm, 35 mm. Collection: Italian books before 1601; 101.7. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection Italian books before 1601. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007. Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographia. Translated into Latin by Jacobus Angelus. Edited by Hermann Levilapide. Vicenza, 1475. Accessed 21.06.2018, 12:45 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55010480t/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Format: In-fol. Hain-Copinger, *13536. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-9146 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 03/01/2017. Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographia. Translated into Latin by Manuel Chrysoloras, Jacobus Angelus. Edited by Dominici de Lapis. Bologna, 1477. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:49 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550004419/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source:

206 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Bibliothèque nationale de France, GEDD-1001. Date de mise en ligne: 12/03/2012. Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographia. Translated into Latin by Manuel Chrysoloras, Jacobus Angelus, Domizio Calderino. Edited by Domitius Calderinus, A. Buckinck. Rome, 1478. Accessed 18.06.2018, 5:55 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550059571/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 27/08/2012. Ptolémée, Claude. “Cosmographie libri octo.” In De locis ac mirabilibus mundi et primo de tribus orbis partibus, transl. into Latin by Manuel Chrysoloras, Jacobus Angelus, edited by Nicolaus Germanus, Leonardus Hol, Ulm, 1482. Accessed 11.01.2018, 3:56 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55005954p/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 27/08/2012. Ptolémée, Claude. “Cosmographia.” In De locis ac mirabilibus mundi et primo de tribus orbis partibus, transl. into Latin by Manuel Chrysoloras, Jacobus Angelus, edited by Nicolaus Germanus, J. de Albano, Ulm, 1486. Accessed 18.06.2018, 5:27 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550059609/f1.image. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-1004 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 19/09/2012. Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In De locis ac mirabilibus mundi et primo de tribus orbis partibus, edited by Nicolaus Germanus, P. de Turre, Rome, 1490. Accessed 18.06.2018, 10:01 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55007150j/f1.image. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD- 1006 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 31/07/2013. Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Liber quadripartiti Ptholemei, edited by Bonetus Locatellus, Venice, 1493. Accessed 21.06.2018, 2:56 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k596584/f2.image. (In the same Codex: Ejusdem, Centiloquium, Hermetis, Centiloquium Hermetis, reprod., Epistola dedicatoria Hieronymi Salii Faventini. Auteurs: Ptolémée, Claude, Hermès Trismégiste–auteur prétendu, Battanī, Muḥammad ibn Ğābir al– auteur prétendu, Yahyạ̄ ibn Abī Manṣūr, Sahl ibn Bišr, Masha Allah. Contributeur: Salio, Girolamo, préfacier. Type: monographie imprimée. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation– Collection Italian books before 1601. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Recueil de traités en sciences, Hebrew manuscript, edited by Abraham Hispano filio Haijae et al., 15th-16th

207 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

centuries. Accessed 18.06.2018, 7:47 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9064384x/f1.image. (Auteurs: Abraham, Hispano filio Haijae, Elie de Montalto, 15…-1616, Abraham ibn ʿEzraʼ, 1089?-1164, Jacob ben Makir, Ptolémée, Claude, 0100?-0170?, Ibn al Zarqāla, Ibrāhīm ibn Yaḥyā al-Naqqāš. Format: papier très endommagé en queue de manuscrit, traces de mouillure et corrosion de l′encre. Traces de consolidation des cahiers. Lignes de chaînettes larges et visibles. Filigrane pleine page en forme de paire de ciseaux. 171 f. Pas de gardes en tête. 2 f. de garde papier en queue. …Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Hébreu 1047. Notice du catalogue: http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc8826n. Date de mise en ligne: 27/08/2012.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In In hoc opere haec continentur Geographiae…, edited by Marco da Benevento, Giovanni Cotta, Rome, 1508. Accessed 21.06.2018, 1:04 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55006577p/f11.image. (Long title: “In hoc opere haec continentur Geographiae Cl. Ptolemaei a plurimis viris utriusque linguae doctiss. emendata et cum archetypo graeco ab ipsis collata. Schemata cum demonstrationibus suis correcta a Marco Beneventano,...” Anno Virginei partus M.D.VIII. Rome. Dédicataire Robert Guibé. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-1007 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 14/02/2013.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Liber geographiae, cum tabulis et universali figura et cum additione locorum quae a recentioribus reperta sunt diligenti cura emendatus et impressus, transl. into Latin by J. Angelus, notes by B. Sylvanus Eboliensis, edited by Jacobum Pentium de Leucho, Venice, 1511. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:27 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550065784/f1.image. (Anno Domini M.D.XI., die XX mensis martii Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-1008 RES. Notice du catalogue: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb311570906. Date de mise en ligne: 10/12/2012.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In In hoc opere haec continentur nova translatio primi libri geographiae Cl. Ptolemaei: quae quidem translatio verbum: habet e verbo feliciter expressum..., transl. into Latin by Johannes Werner, edited by Ioannes Stuchs, Nürenberg, 1514. Accessed 21.06.2018, 2:50 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011084f/f13.image. (Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-9147 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 17/01/2018.)

208 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ptolémée, Claude. Cosmographia. Translated into Latin by Jacobus Angelus. Edited by Gand et Bruges. 1485. Cf. Ibid., Val-de-Loire, 1501-1515. Accessed 18.06.2018, 5:05 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b60007804. (Contributeurs: Charles X, Johannes de Krieckenborch, copiste. Ancien possesseurs: Louis de Bruges, seigneur de La Gruthuyse, Jean de La Gruthuyse, Louis XII, Librairie royale de Blois, Bibliothèque royale de Fontainebleau. Type: manuscrit. Langue: latin. Format: Gand et Bruges, 1485, Val-de-Loire, XVIe siècle, avant 1515. Ecriture gothique flamande, main de Johannes de Krieckenborch. …titre doré au dos CLAUDII PTOLEMÆI COSMOGRAPHI… Description: Lieu de copie: Gand. Bruges. Val-de- Loire. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 4804. Note: “Ouvrage géographique en 8 livres. Le livre 1 contient une introduction générale et des instructions sur les cartes, les livres 2 à 7 donnent une liste des lieux du monde habité en les situant en longitude et en latitude, le livre 8 présente un regroupement par régions. - Trad. en arabe, début IXe s.; trad. du grec en latin, vers 1406.” Date de mise en ligne: 10/11/2010.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Translated into Latin by Willibald Pirckheimer, Johannes Regiomontanus. Edited by Johannes Grieningerus, Iohannis Koberger. Strasbourg, 1525. Accessed 09.05.2018, 8:36 p.m. https://archive.org/details/gri_33125008286581/page/n4. (John Boyd Thacher Collection, Library of Congress, DLC, 1525. Text printed in double columns; 49 of the 50 maps are numbered, printed on double leaves, and many have text on recto of initial leaf and some also have text on verso of final leaf; the final map is unnumbered and has no text. The maps, except for the “Quinta Asie Tabula” are from the same blocks as the 1522 edition.) Ptolémée, Claude. Almagestum, seu Magnae constructionis mathematicae opus plane divinum. Latina donatum lingua. Pref. André de Trébizonde. Transl. By Georges de Trébizonde, Johannes Regiomontanus. Edited by Luca Gaurico. Venice, 1496-1528. Accessed 14.05.2018, 11:14 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011080n/f7.image. (Anno salutis M.D.XXVIII labente. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Comprend: Epytoma Joannis de Monte Regio in Almagestum Ptolomei. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-8568 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 22/10/2017. Also at: https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Introductio geographica, edited by Petrus Apianus et al., Ingolstadt, 1532-1533. Accessed 21.06.2018, 1:23 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011077c/f15.image. (Description: “Petri Apiani in doctissimas Verneri Annotationes,

209 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

co[n]tinens plenum intellectum & iudicium omnis operationis, quae per sinus & chordas in Geographia confici potest, adiuncto Radio astronomico cum quadrante novo Meteoroscopii loco longe utilissimo…” Auteurs: Petrus Apianus, 1495-1551, Albrecht Dürer, 1471-1528, Georgios Amiroutzis, Johannes Regiomontanus, 1436-1476, Johannes Werner, 1468- 1528, Claude Ptolémée, 0100?-0170?. Contributeur: Chrétien Wechel, 1495-1554, traducteur. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Comprend: Albertus Durerus... versus e Germanica lingua in latinam, Pictoribus, Fabris aerariis ac lignariis, lapicidis, statuariis, libella / Albertus Durerus. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-8345-8346 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 22/10/2017.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by Froben. Basileae, 1533. Accessed 14.05.2018, 11:28 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011085w/f9.image. (Complete title: Κλαυδιου Ρτολεμαιου Αλεξανδρεως / Claudii Ptolemaei Alexandrini Philosophi cum primis eruditi, Γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις / De Geographia libri octo summa cum vigilantia excusi. Contributeur: Érasme, 1469-1536, dédicateur. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: grec ancien. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-9148 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 22/10/2017. Also Peri tēs geōgraphias biblia oktō, meta pasēs acribeias entypōthenta, at: https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographicae enarrationis libri octo. Reprod. Translated into Latin by Willibald Pirckheimer. Edited by Michel Servet, M. and G. Trechsel. Lyon, 1535. Accessed 21.06.2018, 4:13 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k525105/f2.image. (Description: “ex Bilibaldi Pirckeymheri tralatione...; a Michaële Villanovano iam primum recogniti.” Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Collection: French books before 1601; 69.2. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection French books. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007. Also: Ptolomeo, Claudio; Latin 1535; Trechsel, Melchior; Trechsel, Gaspard, at https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In: (ed.) Geographia universalis, vetus et nova, complectens, transl. by Willibald Pirckheimer, cartography by Sebastian Münster, contr. Christoph Froschauer, Joachim Vadian, Basel, 1534-1540. Accessed 15.05.2018, 00:37 a.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011076x/f1.image. (Description: “Claudii Ptolemaei Alexandrini enarrationis libros VIII, quorum primus nova translatione Pirckheimheri…” Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Comprend: Epitome trium terrae partium, Asiae, Africae, et Europae compendiarum locorum descriptionem continens / Per Joachimum

210 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Vadianum Medicum. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-9150-9151 (RES). Date de mise en ligne: 19/09/2017. Also at: https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Transl. by Jan Van Bronkhorst. Edited by Johannes Ruremundanus. Köln, 1540. Accessed 21.06.2018, 1:12 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55011086b/f13.image. (Long title: “Cl. Ptolemaei Alexandrini Philosophi et Mathematici praestantissimi libri VIII de Geographia è Graeco traducti. Ioannis Noviomagi opera.” Auteur adapté. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF-9149 (RES). Date de mise en ligne: 22/10/2017.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In: Fastorum lib. VI., Cl. Ptolemaei Inerrantium stellarum significationes: quod cum fastorum argumento maxime congruere viderentur, in gratiam studiosorum praefiximus; Tristium lib. V; De Ponto lib. IIII, reprod., transl. into Latin by Nicolò Leonico Tomeo, edited by Seb. Gryphium, Lyon, 1547. Accessed 21.06.2018, 4:30 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k53027r/f4.image. (Type: monographie imprimée. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Collection: French books before 1601. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection French books. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Commentary by Georges de Trébizonde. Edited by Nicolaus Pruknerus, 1550. Accessed 18.06.2018, 7:18 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b73003939. (Reliure de: Guidonis Bonati,... de Astronomia tractatus X... Adjectus est Cl. Ptolemaei liber fructus, cum commentariis Georgii Trapezuntii. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Format: 2 tomes en 1 vol. in-fol. Comprend: Liber fructus; Liber fructus, cum commentatiis Georgii Trapezuntii. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Réserve des livres rares, RES-V-304. Date de mise en ligne: 19/03/2013.) Ptolémée, ClaudeMagnam compositionem, quam Almagestum vocant, libri tredecim. Transl. by Joannes Regiomontanus, Georg von Peurbach. Edited by Johann Vom Berg, Ulrich Neuber. Nürenberg, 1550. Accessed 21.06.2018, 5:50 p.m. https://ia801608.us.archive.org/6/items/ARes75308/ARes75308.pdf. (Public Domain. Fondo Antiguo, Libros del Siglo XVI, Astronomía, Matemáticas. Publisher Noribergae: apud Ioannem Montanum [et] Vlricum Neuberum. Collection Biblioteca Universitaria de Sevilla. Contributor Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla. Language Latin. / conscripti a Ioanne Regiomontano…; Fol. Una edición anterior fue publicada en Venecia, 1496, con el tít.: Epytoma Ioan[n]is de Mo[n]te Regio in

211 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Almagestu[m] Ptolomei. Ptolemy, fl. Siglo 2o. Almagest. Alemania Núremberg.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Transl. into Latin by Plato Tiburtinus, Nicolaus Pruckner. Edited by J. Hervagius. Basel, 1551. Accessed 21.06.2018, 12:59 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7300392w/f1.image. (Reliure de: Julii Firmici Materni junioris, Astronomicōn libri VIII, per Nicolaum Prucknerum... Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Réserve des livres rares, RES-V-186. Date de mise en ligne: 19/03/2013.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Transl. into Latin by Willibald Pirckheimer. 1552. Accessed 15.05.2018, 00:16 a.m. https://archive.org/. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_ZSclbF3P1pMC. (Description: Claudii Ptolemaei Alexandrini, Philosophi ac Mathematici… Libri VIII, partim à Bilibaldo Pirckheymero translati ac comentario illustrati, partim etiam Graecorum antiquissimorum. Language Latin. Public Domain. Note f. 4: MDLII. Note f. 5: “Henry, par la grace de dieu roy de france…”) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Fastorum lib. VI. Quibus Cl. Ptolemaei Inerrantium stellarum significationes: quod cum fastorum argumento maxime congruere viderentur, in gratiam studiosorum praefiximus; Tristium lib. V; De Ponto lib. IIII, reprod., transl. into Latin by Nicolò Leonico Tomeo, edited by S. Gryphium, Lyon, 1554. Accessed 21.06.2018, 4:05 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k53319z/f2.image. (Type: monographie imprimée. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Description: “Les fastes (latin). 1554”. Collection: French books before 1601; 217.3. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection French books. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Transl. into Latin by Giuseppe Moletti, Willibald Pirckheimer. Edited by Vincentium Valgrisium. Venice, 1562. Accessed 21.06.2018, 4:44 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k58781p/f2.image. (Long title: Cl. Ptolemaei Alexandrini: olim a Bilibaldo Pirckheimherio traslata, at nunc multis codocibus graecis colata, pluribusque in locis ad pristinam veritatem redacta a Josepho Moletio mathematico - reprod. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Collection: Italian books before 1601; 100.4. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection Italian books before 1601. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007. Also: 1562, Italian, Moleti, Giuseppe, 1531-1588, editor; Pirckheimer, Willibald, 1470-1530, translator; Valgrisi, Vincenzo, active 1540-1572, printer. At: https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by Gerard Mercator, Godefridus Kempensis. Köln, 1578. Accessed 21.06.2018, 12:34 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550061273/f1.image. (Long title:

212 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Tabulae geographicae Cl. Ptolemaei ad mentem autoris restitutae & emendatae. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Format: 1 atlas: 27 cartes; 42 cm. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-601 (RES). Date de mise en ligne: 16/10/2012.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by Gerard Mercator, Godefridus Kempensis. Köln, 1584. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:36 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55006582v/f1.image. (Long title:: Cl. Ptolemaei Alexandrini Geographiae libri octo, recogniti iam et diligenter emendati cum tabulis geographicis ad mentem auctoris restitutis ac emendatis... Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-1017 (RES). Date de mise en ligne: 31/12/2012. Also at https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by Gerard Mercator, Godefridus Kempensis. Köln, 1584-1595. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:57 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55006575s/f7.image. (Long title: Cl. Ptolemaei Alexandrini Geographiae libri octo recogniti iam et diligenter emendati cum tabulis geographicis ad mentem auctoris restitutis ac emendatis... Type: monographie imprimée. Comprend: Atlas sive Cosmographicae meditationes de fabrica mundi et fabricati figura; Atlantis pars altera. Geographia nova totius mundi, authore Gerardo Mercatore. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD 1019-1021 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 23/01/2013. Contains maps. Also: edition 1596, at https://archive.org/.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by Girolamo Porro, Giovanni Antonio Magini, Peter Keschedt, Johann Jansson. Köln: Petrus Keschedt, 1597. Accessed 14.05.2018, 5:30 p.m. https://ia600604.us.archive.org/13/items/ARes56416MC/ARes56416MC .pdf. (Format: Atlas. Containing 2 parts: Ptolemaei Typus; Vniversi orbis descriptio. Geographiae vniuersae tum veteris, tum nouae absolutissimum opus, duobus voluminibus distinctum: In quorum priore habentur Cl. Ptolemaei pelusiensis geographicae enarrationis Libri octo... Material cartográfico. Usage Public Domain Mark 1.0. Topics Fondo Antiguo, Libros del Siglo XVI, Geografía. Expo Guadalquivir. Publisher In celeberrima Agrippinensium Colonia: excudebat Petrus Keschedt: Apud Ioannem Iansonium. Collection Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla. Language Latin… “Geographiae Cl. Ptolomaei pars secunda, continens praeter antiquas ipsius Ptol. Recentiores etiam tabulas, quae vniuersae terrae facie[m] nostro aeuo cognita[m] exhibent a Hieronymo Porro Pat. incisas. Vnà cum ipsarum tabularum uberrimis expositionibus, quibus singulae orbis prouinciae, regiones, imperia, regna, ducatus, et alia dominia describuntur, authore Io. Antonio Magino Patauino... mathematico. In

213 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

celeberrima Agrippinensium Colonia excudebat Petrus Keschedt”. Pages 59. Year 1597.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Transl. into Italian by Leonardo Cernoti. Giovanni Antonio Magini. Venice: Gio. Battista & Giorgio Galignani fratelli, 1598. Accessed 21.06.2018, 4:36 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k58792b/f1.image. (Long title: Geografia cioe descrittione universale della terra: partita in due volumi... Reprod. di Cl. Tolomeo; nuovamente con singolare studio rincontrati, & corretti dall′eccellentissino sig. Gio. Ant. Magini,...; dal latino nell′italiano tradotta dal R. D. Leonardo Cernoti,... Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: italien. Format: 1 microfilm; 35 mm. Collection: Italian books before 1601; 101.11. Droits: conditions spécifiques d′utilisation - Collection Italian books before 1601. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Translated into Italian by Girolamo Ruscelli. Venice: Gioseppe Rosaccio, 1599. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:42 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55010187t/f5.image. (Long title: Geografia di Claudio Tolomeo Alessandrino. Tradotta di greco nell′ idioma volgare italiano da Girolamo Ruscelli; et hora nuovamente ampliata da Gioseffo Rosaccio,... con varie annotationi... et una Geografia universale del medesimo, separata da quella di Tolomeo,... et una breve Descrittione di tutta la terra, distinta in quattro libri... Appresso gli heredi di Melchior Sessa. Date d′édition: 1598-1599. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: italien. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE FF- 3432 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 29/08/2016.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Claudii Ptolemaei, Geographiae libri octo, graeco-latini, latine primum recogniti et emendati, cum tabulis geographicis ad mentem auctoris restitutis per Gerardum Mercatorem…, edited by Gerard Mercator; Abraham Ortelius, Frankfurt, J. Hondius, Cornelio Nicolai, Amsterdam, 1605-1609. Accessed 18.06.2018, 10:05 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550065839/f5.image. (Long title: Claudii Ptolemaei, Geographiae libri octo, graeco-latini, latine primum recogniti et emendati, cum tabulis geographicis ad mentem auctoris restitutis per Gerardum Mercatorem, jam vero ad graeca et latina exemplaria a Petro Montano iterum recogniti et pluribus locis castigati. Adjecta insuper ab eodem nomina recentiora et aequipollentia ex variis auctoribus... collecta... Cum D. Heinsii, P. Bertii, M. Isselt, B. Furmirii carminibus. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD 1022-1023 (RES). Date de mise en ligne: 21/02/2013.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In: Theatri Geographiae…, edited by Pierre Bertius et al., Amsterdam: J. Hondius, 1618-1619. Accessed 18.06.2018, 8:05 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5037937/f21.image.

214 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

(Long title: Theatri Geographiae veteris tomus prior, in quo Cl. Ptol. Alexandrini geographiae libri VIII graece et latine,... opera P. Bertii (cum Gerardi Mercatoris Rupelmundani in tabulas Ptolemaicas a se delineatas annotationibus). Theatri Geographiae veteris tomus posterior, in quo Itinerarium Antonini imperatoris... provinciarum Romanarum libellus, civitates provinciarum gallicarum, Itinerarium a Burdigala Hierosolymam usque, Tabula Peutingeriana, cum notis Marci Velseri ad Tabulae ejus partem, Parergi Orteliani Tabulae aliquot. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Comprend: Geographiae libri VIII… Parergi... tabulae aliquot; Tabula Peutingeriana, cum notis Marci Velseri ad Tabulae ejus partem. Editeurs: Pierre Bertius, Abraham Ortelius, Konrad Peutinger, Gerard Mercator, Marcus Welser. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Philosophie, histoire, sciences de l′homme, G-420. Notice du catalogue: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb30097020j. Date de mise en ligne: 29/10/2008.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Tractatus de judicandi facultate et animi principatu…, edited by S. Cramoisy et al., Paris, 1663. Accessed 21.06.2018, 12:51 p.m. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k650263/f2.image. (Long title: Tractatus de judicandi facultate et animi principatu. Accesserunt de illius patria et astronomiae sedibus Olympiodori et Theodori Meliteniotae testimonia, et inscriptio Canobi ab ipso consecrata, repertorum ab eo in astronomia summa capita continens, ex regia bibliotheca nunc primum in lucem edidit, latine reddidit et commentariis illustravit Ismael Bullialdus. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: grec ancient. Eds. S. Mabre-Cramoisy, Ismaël Boulliau, Théodore Méliténiote. Comprend: Prooemium in astronomiam. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Philosophie, histoire, sciences de l′homme, R-1717. Date de mise en ligne: 15/10/2007.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Edited by R. and J. Wetstenios, and G. Smith. Amsterdam, 1730. Accessed 18.06.2018, 9:13 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550071495/f15.image, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550071510/f9.image. (Long title: Orbis antiqui tabulae geographicae secundum Cl. Ptolemaeum, cum indice... omnium locorum... nomina indicante. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: latin. Droits: domaine public. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE DD-1026 RES. Date de mise en ligne: 31/07/2013.) Ptolémée, Claude. “Geographia.” In Composition mathématique de Claude Ptolémée, 2 vols., translated into French by Nicolas B. Halma, annotated by Jean- Baptiste Delambre, Paris: H. Grand, 1813. Second edition, 1816. Accessed 18.06.2018, 8:41 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62056165/f15.image, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6205670z/f15.image,

215 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k39729/f1.image. (Long title: Composition mathématique de Claude Ptolémée. Traduite pour la première fois du grec en français sur les manuscrits originaux de la Bibliothèque impériale de Paris, par M. Halma et suivie des notes de M. Delambre. Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: français. Description: Almageste (français-grec ancien). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Littérature et art, V-7617. Notice d′ensemble: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb339898440. Date de mise en ligne: 16/10/2012.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Translated into French by Nicolas B. Halma. Edited by Christian Ludwig Ideler, Franz Xaver von Zach. Paris: A. Bobée, 1819. Accessed 18.06.2018, 8:34 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k647630/f3.item. (Long title: Table chronologique des règnes, prolongée jusqu′à la prise de Constantinople par les Turcs. Apparition des fixes, de C. Ptolémée, Théon, etc., et introduction de Géminus aux phénomènes célestes. Traduites du grec en français sur les manuscrits de la bibliothèque du Roi. Suivies des recherches historiques sur les observations astronomiques des Anciens, traduites de l′allemand de M. Ideler,... Par M. l′abbé Halma. Auteurs: Ptolémée, Géminos… Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: français. Notice d′ensemble: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb30571444n. Droits: domaine public. Sorce: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Date de mise en ligne: 10/10/2009.) Ptolémée, Claude. Geographia. Translated into French by Nicolas B. Halma. Paris: Eberhart, 1828. Accessed 18.06.2018, 8:44 p.m. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6521564x/f13.image. (Long title: Traité de géographie de Claude Ptolémée, traduit pour la première fois du grec en français... (avec un Mémoire sur la mesure des longueurs et des surfaces chez les anciens, et particulièrement sur le stade, traduit de l′allemand de M. Ideler). Type: monographie imprimée. Langue: français. Languages: Greek and French. Books I and VII. Maps. Ed. M. l′abbé Halma. Impr. Eberhart, Paris, 1828. Droits: domaine public.) And the new edition (facsimile): Jean Peyroux, Paris, 1989. Ptolémée, Claude. Géographie de Ptolémée. Reproduction photolithographique du Manuscrit Grec du Monastère de Vatopédi au Mont Athos. Exécutée d′apres les clichés obtenus sous la direction de M. Pierre de Séwastianoff, et précédé. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1867. Digitalisierungsdatum 2007-08-22. Accessed 18.06.2018, 6:17 p.m. https://gdz.sub.uni- goettingen.de/id/PPN538214201. Ptolemy. “Almagest.” In Syntaxis mathematica, edited by Johan Ludvig Heiberg et al., Lipsiae: Teubner, 1898-1903. Accessed 09.05.2018, 7:46 p.m. https://archive.org/details/syntaxismathema00ptolgoog/page/n4. (Vols. I-II. Vol. I. Parts 1-2: Syntaxis mathematica, edidit J. L. Heiberg, 1898-1903.

216 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Vol. II: Opera astronomica minora, edidit J. L. Heiberg, 1907. Vol. III, Parts 1- 2, 1. Apotelesmatica: edidit F. Boll et Æ. Boer, 1940. Part 2: Peri kriterioū kai hegemonikoū . De iudicandi facultate et animi principatu, edidit Fr. Lammert. Karpos. Pseudo-Ptolemaei, Fructus sive Centiloquium, edidit Æ. Boer. Eds. Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Franz Boll, Ae Boer, Friedrich Lammert. 1898- 1940.) Editio altera correctior, 1961. Tolomeo. Tavola dell’universale descrittione del mondo. In Geografia cioe Descrittione Universale della Terra..., translated into Italian by Leonardo Cernoti, Giovanni Antonio Magini, Leonardo Cernoti, edited by Giovanni Battista Galignani, Giorgio Galignani, Venice, 1597. Last accessed March 9, 2019, 10:01 p.m. http://www.rare-atlases.com/atlases/16th-century- atlases/1597-ptolemy-s-geographia-by-giovanni-antonio-magini. (Size: 4to, 30.5 x 22.0 cm. Colour: uncoloured. Illustrations: 2 engraved title vignettes, 1 full page and 63 half page copper engraved maps, several woodcuts in text. Collation: 2, 62, 21, 1, 14; 212, 30 leaves. Cover: 18th century Italian vellum binding, richly gilt on spine. References: Shirley, R. W.: Maps in the Atlases of the British Library: T.PTOL-12b; Shirley, R. W.: The Mapping of the World, No. 193, 194, 195, 196; Burden, P.D.: The Mapping of North America No. 93. Also at: http://www.rare- atlases.com/atlases/16th-century-atlases/1597-ptolemy-s-geographia-by- giovanni-antonio-magini?atlas=1597-ptolemy-s-geographia-by-giovanni- antonio- magini&map=1597_ptolemaeus_magini_064&view=zoomall&atlasid=7&t mpl=component.)

Books and articles

Bărbulescu, Mihai, Dennis Deletant, Keith Hitchins, Şerban Papacostea, Pompiliu Teodor. The History of Romania. (Istoria României.) Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1998. Bâca, Ioan et al. “Geographical Aspects Regarding the Roman Limes in the County of Bistrița-Năsăud (Romania). Case Study: The Someș Limes (Spermezeu-Perișor-Zagra-Salva-Năsăud Section).” Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Seria Geografie 26(2) (2016): 250-260. Article no. 262115-716. http://istgeorelint.uoradea.ro/Reviste/Anale/anale.htm. Bejinariu, Ioan. “Strategy and prestige. The control of the access through the pass of Marca (Barcău valley) during Prehistory and Antiquity.” (“Strategie şi prestigiu. Controlul accesului prin trecătoarea de la Marca (valea Barcăului) în decursul preistoriei şi antichităţii”). In ArheoVest, Memoriam Liviu Măruia, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 7 decembrie 2013, Vol. II, 461-472. (Cf.: Andrei Stavilă et al. (eds.). Vol. I:

217 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Arheologie. Vol. II: Metode interdisciplinare și Istorie. Szeged: JATE Press Kiadó, 2013). Berggren, J. Lennart, and Alexander Jones. Ptolemy′s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena, I, The fabrication of Ancient Greece 1787-1987. London: Free Association Books, New Brunswick. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Benea, Doina, and Simona Regep. “Some observations regarding the presence of COHORS III DELMATARUM MILLIARIA EQUITATA in Dacia.” (“Câteva observații privind prezența lui COHORS III DELMATARUM MILLIARIA EQUITATA în Dacia.”) ArheoVest, No. III, 2015. (Cf: Simpozion ArheoVest, 3rd ed., In Memoriam Florin Medeleț, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie și Istorie, Timișoara, 28 noiembrie 2015. Vol. 1: Arheologie. Vol. 2: Metode Interdisciplinare și Istorie. Timișoara: Asociația "ArheoVest". Szeged: JATE Press Kiadó, 2015.) Billows, Richard A. Before and after Alexander. New York, London: Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers, 2018.Broşteanu, P. “The Worldmap (Orbis pictus) of the castra, or the so called Tabula Peutingeriana.” (“Charta lumii (Orbis pictus) de castoriu, seu aşa numita Tabula Peutingeriana”). Transilvania 22 (6) (1891): 161-173. Buzilă, Aurel. “On the Geto-Dacian handmade ceramics from Bâtca Doamnei, Piatra Neamţ” (“Despre ceramica daco-getică lucrata cu mâna de la Bâtca Doamnei, Piatra Neamţ”). In Memoria Antiquitatis 2 (1970): 237-250. Christescu, V. Economic Life of the Roman Dacia. (Viaţa economică a Daciei romane.) Piteşti, 1929. Covington, Michael A.. Latin Pronunciation Demystified. University of Georgia, 2010. Corey, Abshire et al. “Ptolemy's Britain and Ireland: A New Digital Reconstruction.” In Proceedings of the 2017 International Cartographic Conference, Washington D.C., 2017. Accessed 07.03.2019, 2:42 p.m. http://pervokarta.ru/wash.pdf. Croitoru, Costin. “Roman Defensive System in the South of Moldavia. Contributions on the Knowledge of the Turf Walls” (“Sudul Moldovei în cadrul sistemului defensiv roman. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea valurilor de pământ”). In Acta terrae septencastrensis. Sibiu: Editura Economică, 2002. Curti, G. Philip. “The Via Egnatia: Rome′s Traverse Of A Multi-Cultural Marchland.” The Geographical Bulletin 5 (1979): 9-15. https://gammathetaupsilon.org/the-geographical- bulletin/1970s/volume05/article3.pdf. Daicoviciu, C. “New Information about Dacia” (“Neue Mitteilungen aus Dazien”). Dacia 7-8 (1937-40): 323-336.

218 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Dana, Dan, Onomasticon Thracicum (OnomThrac). Répertoire des noms indigenes de Thrace, Macédoine orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie. Athènes: De Boccard, Institute of Historical Research / NHRF, Section de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine, «Μελετήματα» 70, 2014. Darcy, R., and W. Flynn. “Ptolemy′s map of Ireland: a modern decoding.” In Irish Geography 41(1) (2008): 49-69. DOI: 10.1080/00750770801909375. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233191569_Ptolemy's_map_of _Ireland_A_modern_decoding. Decev, Dimităr. Description of the Thracian Language. (Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache.) Sofia, 1952. _____. The Thracian Language Remains (Die thrakischen Sprachreste). Vienna: R. M. Rohrer, 1957. Delattre, R. P. Memories from the Old Church of Africa. (Souvenirs de l’ancienne église d’Afrique.) Lyon: Mougin-Rusand, 1894. Drugaş, Şerban George Paul. “The Name of Zalmoxis and Its Significance in the Dacian Language and Religion.” Hiperboreea Journal 3(2) (2016): 69-71. http://hiperboreeajournal.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/DRUGAS.pdf. _____. “Etymological Note about Romanian Raţă–Albanian Rosë.” Hiperboreea Journal 5(1) (2018): 69-71. https://hiperboreeajournal.com/2018-2/. Dumitraşcu, Sever. “The Dacian City of Clit, Arad County.” (“Cetăţuia dacică de la Clit, j. Arad”). In Lucrări Ştiinţifice 4(B) Oradea (1970): 147-160. _____. “Dacidava?” Crisia 1 (1971): 39-46. _____. “Dacian Fortified Settlements and Cities in the Western Part of the Apuseni Mountains.” (“Aşezări fortificate şi cetăţui dacice în partea de vest a Munţilor Apuseni”). Crisia 2 (1972): 121-148. _____. The Hoard of Tăuteni-Bihor (Tezaurul de la Tăuteni-Bihor). Oradea, 1973. _____. “Dacian fortifications in Crişana.” Thraco- 1 (1976): 259-264. _____. Biharea. The Archaeological Excavations of 1973-1980. (Biharea. Săpăturile arheologice din anii 1973-1980). Oradea, 1994. _____. “The Ethno-Cultural Affiliation of the Hoards from Şimleul Silvaniei and Tăuteni (Tăuteu)” (“Atribuirea etno-culturală a tezaurelor de la Şimleul Silvaniei şi Tăuteni (Tăuteu)”). Analele Universităţii din Oradea, series Istorie- Arheologie, VIII-IX, Oradea, 1998-1999. Dumitraşcu, Sever, and Vasile Lucăcel. The Dacian City of Marca. (Cetatea dacică de la Marca). Cluj Napoca, 1974. Duridanov, Ivan. Thraco-Dacian Studies. First Part (Trakisch-dakische Studien, Erster Teil, Die trakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen). Sofia: Verlag der Bulgarische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1969. _____. The Language of the Thracians. (Die Sprache der Thraker) “Die erste Ausgabe erschien in bulgarischer Sprache unter dem Titel ‘Ezikăt na trakite’.” Bulgarische Sammlung. Band 5. Neuried: Hieronymus Verlag, 1985.

219 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

_____. “Thracian and Dacian Names” (“Thrakische und dakische Namen.” VIII: Historische Entwicklung der Namen.) In Namenforschung / Name Studies / Les noms propres. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik / Ап International Handbook of Onomastics / Manuel international d'onomastique, ed. Ernst Eichler et al. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, ed. WGS 84 Implementation Manual. Version 2.4. Brussels and Munich: EUROCONTROL, Institute of Geodesy and Navigation (IfEN), University FAF, February 12, 1998. Ferrar, M. J. The Text of Marinus the Tyrian and Claudius Ptolemy: “Geographia”, Book 4, chapters 1,6, 7 and 8. The west coast of “Libya” explored, the Zero longitude determined and the East Coast capes located. 2009. Updated April 2018. Accesed May 6, 2018. http://www.cartographyunchained.com/cp4.html. Forțiu, Sorin. “The Translation of the Ptolemaic Coordinates into Modern Coordinates. Case Study: Zurobara” (“Translaţia coordonatelor ptolemeice în coordinate moderne. Studiu de caz Zurobara”). Presented at the Symposium Cultură şi civilizaţie în Banatul istoric. 21st ed. Section Arheologie şi istorie veche. 26.05.2011. _____. Ziridava in Ptolemaic Context (Ziridava în context ptolemeic). Brăila: Editura Sfântul Ierarh Nicolae, 2012. _____. “Geodetic-Statistical Analysis, just a classical GIGO?!” (“Geodetic- Statistical Analysis, doar un clasic GIGO?!”). ArheoVest 1, In Memoriam Liviu Măruia, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie şi Istorie, Timişoara, 7 december, 2013, Vol. II, 617-643. http://arheovest.com/simpozion/arheovest1/38_617_643.pdf. Frăţilă, V. “Gustav Weigand and the Balkan Onomastics” (“Gustav Weigand und die Balkanonomastik”). Revue des études sud-est européenes 19(1) (1981): 147-168. Gautier Dalché, Patrick. The Geography of Ptolemy in the West (4th-15th centuries) (La Géographie de Ptolémée en occident (IVe–XVIe siècle)) Brepols, 2009. Georgiev, Vladimir. The Thracian Language (Trakiiskiat ezik. La langue thrace) Sofia, 1957. _____. The Thracians and their language. (Георгиев, Владимир И. Траките и техният език.) Sofia: Academy of Sciences, 1977. Giurescu, Constantin C., and Dinu C. Giurescu. The History of the Romanians (Istoria Românilor). Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1974. Gulbekian, Edward. “The Origin and Value of the Stadion Unit used by Eratosthenes in the Third Century B. C.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 37(4) (1987): 359-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00417008. Gostar, Nicolae. “The Dacian Cities of Moldova and the Roman Conquest at the Lower Danube” (“Cetăţile dacice din Moldova şi cucerirea romană la nordul Dunării de Jos”). Apulum 5 (1965): 137-147.

220 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

_____. The Dacian Cities of Moldova (Cetăţile dacice din Moldova). Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1968. _____. “The Dacian City of Bâtca Doamnei” (“Cetatea dacică de la Bâtca Doamnei”). Omagiu lui P.Panaitescu Iaşi cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 de ani. Bucharest, 1975. Gürel, Emet, and Merba Tat. “SWOT analysis: a theoretical review.” The Journal of International Social Research 10(51) (2017): 994-1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832. http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt10/sayi51_pdf/6iksisat_kamu_islet me/gurel_emet.pdf. Hazlitt, William. A Dictionary of Ancient Geography, Sacred and Prophane. London: The Classical Gazetteer, Whittaker and Co., 1851. Herodotus. Histories. In four volumes. Translated by A. D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1928-1969. Vol. I (Books I and II), 1975. Vol. II (Books III-IV), 1928. Vol. III (Books V-VII), 1938. Vol. IV (Books VIII and IX), 1969. Iliescu, Vladimir, Virgil C. Popescu, and Gheorghe Ştefan (eds.). Fontes ad Historiam Dacoromaniae Pertinens. Vol. I: Ab Hesiodo usque ad Itinerarium Antonini. Bucharest: Ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste Române, 1964. Katz, Joshua T. “The ‘Swimming Duck’ in Greek and Hittite.” In Indo- European Perspectives, 195-216, ed. J. H. W. Penney. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Kleineberg, A. et al. Germania and the Thule Island (Germania und die Insel Thule. Die Entschlüsselung von Ptolemaios’ “Atlas der Oikumene”). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010. Kleineberg, A., C. Marx, D. Lelgemann. Europe in the Geography of Ptolemy. (Europa in der Geographie des Ptolemaios. Die Entschlüsselung des “Atlas der Oikumene”: Zwischen Orkney, Gibraltar und den Dinariden). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2012. Kretschmer, Paul. Introduction to the history of the Greek language (Einleitung in die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1896. Larnach, Matthew. All roads lead to Constantinople: Exploring the Via Militaris in the medieval Balkans, 600-1204. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, 2016. Livieratos, Evangelos, Angeliki Tsorlini, and Chryssoula Boutoura. “Coordinate analysis of Ptolemy’s Geographia Europe Tabula X with respect to geographic graticule and point positioning in a Ptolemaic late 15th century map.” e-Perimetron 2(2) (2007): 80-91. Accessed May 7, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266242744_Coordinate_analysi s_of_Ptolemy′s_Geographia_Europe_Tabula_X_with_respect_to_geograp

221 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

hic_graticule_and_point_positioning_in_a_Ptolemaic_late_15_th_century_ map. Lord, Frances E. The Roman Pronunciation of Latin. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1894. Luca, Sabin Adrian. Archaeological Discoveries in the Romanian Banat (Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul românesc–repertorio) Series “Bibliotheca septemcastrensis,” XIII. Sibiu: University “Lucian Blaga.” Alba Iulia: Altip, 2006. MacBean, Alexander. A Dictionary of Ancient Geography. London, 1773. Macrea, M. The Roman Life in Dacia (Viaţa romană in Dacia). Bucharest, 1969. Macrea, M. et al. “The Archaeological Yard of Porolissum” (“Şantierul arheologic Porolissum”). Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7 (1960): 361-386. Also, 1962, 485-501. Macrea, M., N. Gudea, and I. Moţu. Praetorium: Castrul si asezarea Romana de la Mehadia (The Roman fort at Mehadia and its civil settlement). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1993. Marcellinus, Ammianus. Rerum gestarum. Vol. 2, Loeb Classics 315, ed. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, (1948) 2000. Mitrofan, I. “Contribution to the Knowledge about the City of Napoca” (“Contributii la cunoaşterea oraşului Napoca”). Acta Musei Napocensis 1 (1964): 197-214. Mallory, J. P., and Douglas Q. Adams. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997. _____. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Marx, C. “On the precision of Ptolemy′s geographic coordinates in his Geographike Hyphegesis.” History of Geo- and Space Sciences 2(1) Copernicus Publications (2011): 29-37. http://www.hist-geo-space- sci.net/2/29/2011/hgss-2-29-2011.html. _____. “Rectification of the ancient geographic coordinates in Ptolemy′s Geographike Hyphegesis.” History of Geo- and Space Sciences 3(1) Copernicus Publications (2012): 99-112. http://www.hist-geo-space- sci.net/3/99/2012/hgss-3-99-2012.pdf. _____. “The western coast of Africa in Ptolemy′s Geography and the location of his prime meridian.” History of Geo- and Space Sciences 7 (2016): 27-52. Marx, C., and F. Neitzel. “Deformation analysis and regional adaptation of a historical geodata inventory” (“Deformationsanalyse und regionale Anpassung eines historischen Geodatenbestandes”). Entwicklerforum Geoinformationstechnik. Junge Wissenschaftler forschen. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2007. Marx, Christian, and Andreas Kleineberg. The Geography of Ptolemy (Die Geographie des Ptolemaios. Geographike Hyphegesis, Buch 3: Europa zwischen Newa, Don und Mittelmeer). Berlin: Verlagsgruppe Holtzbrinck (epubli GmbH), 2012.

222 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Mateescu, G. G. “The Thracians in the Inscriptions of Rome” (“I Traci nelle epigrafi di Roma”). Ephemeris Dacoromana, Annuario della Scuola Romena di Roma, Libreria di Scienze e Lettere, Roma, I (1923): 57-290. Mihăilescu-Bîrliba, Virgil. “New Researches at Bâtca Doamnei - near Piatra Neamţ, Neamţ County” (“Noi cercetări arheologice la Bâtca Doamnei - de lângă Piatra Neamţ, judeţul Neamţ”). DDIA (1984): 21-25. Miller, Konrad. Itineraria Romana: Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana. Stuttgart: Verlegt von Strecker und Schröder, 1916. Ministerul Culturii, ed. “The List of the Historical Monuments of 2015 – Dolj County” (“Lista monumentelor istorice 2015 - Județul Dolj”). In Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No. 113 bis, 15.II. 2016. http://patrimoniu.gov.ro/images/lmi-2015/LMI-DJ.pdf. Moscalu, E. “The Thraco-Getian Princiary Grave from Peretu, in Romania” (“Das thrako-getische Fürstengrab von Peretu in Rumänien”). Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 70 (1989, 1990): 129-190. Nemeti, Sorin, and Mihai Bărbulescu. “Territorium Acrobadarense.” Ephemeris Napocensis 16-17 (2006-2007): 107-118. Niţu, Anton, Mihai Zămoşteanu. “The Survey in the Getian City of Tiseşt.” (“Sondajul în cetăţuia getică de la Tiseşti (r. Tg. Ocna, reg. Bacău)”). In Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 6. Bucharest: Ed. Academiei R.P.R., 1959. Olędzki, Marek. “La Tène culture in the upper Tisza Basin.” In Ethnographisch- archaologische Zeitschrift, Jahrgang 41, Berlin, 2000. Oltean, Ioana A. Dacia: Landscape, Colonization and Romanization. Routledge, 2007. Olteanu, Sorin. Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum - Toponyms Section. Linguae Thraco- Daco-Moesorum (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 3 January 2011. Retrieved 3 January, 2010. Accessed 17.04.2016, 4:30 p.m. (Now expired.) http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm. Orel, Vladimir. A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000. Paliga, Sorin. “The Hidronyms and the Thracian Dialects, as Predescessors of the Romanian Language” (“Hidronimia şi dialectele trace, ca precursoare ale limbii române”). Dacoromania, new series, III, IV, Cluj-Napoca (1998, 1999), 67-73. _____. Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian. Bucharest: Ed. Evenimentul, 2006. _____. Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora. Bucharest: Fundaţia Evenimentul, 2007. Pârvan, Vasile. Getica. Edited by Radu Florescu. Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1982. Princeps edition: Bucharest: Cultura Naţională, 1926. (Pages of the princeps edition are quoted in parantheses.) Pliny. Natural History, 3 Vols. Vol. II, III, Loeb Classics 352, 353, ed. H. Rackham. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1961, 1967.

223 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Ployer, René, Marinus Polak, and Ricarda Schmidt, The Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Tematic Study and Proposed World Heritage Nomination Strategy. Advised by Icomos-International and commissioned by the Intergovernmental Committee of the ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire’ World Heritage Site (UK, DE) and the Bratislava Group. Bundesdenkmalamt Österreich | Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen | Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege: Vienna / Nijmegen / Munich, 2017. Preda, Constantin (ed). The Encyclopedia of Romania’s Archaeology and Old History. (Enciclopedia arheologiei şi istoriei vechi a României). Vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1994. Pokorny, Julius. The Etymological Dictionary of the Indoeuropean (Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch). Band I-III. Bern und München: Francke Verlag, 1959. Polomé, E. C. “Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian).” In The Cambridge ancient history. Vol. 3. Part 1, “The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C,” ed. John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, E. Sollberger. Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pop, Horea, Cătălin Borangic. “Bronze Armor Scales Discovered at Şimleu Silvaniei” (“Solzi de armură din bronz descoperiţi la Şimleu Silvaniei”). Acta Musei Porolissensis Zalău 38 (2016): 257-266. Protase, Dumitru. “The Castrum of the Legion IIII Flavia from Berzovia. The Archaeological Excavations of 1965-1968” (“Castrul legiunii IIII Flavia de la Berzovia. Săpăturile arheologice din anii 1965-1968”). Analele Banatului, new series 18. Mega: Cluj-Napoca, 2010. Puşcarciuc, Marelena, Radu Puşcarciuc. “Seeking Utidava.” Part I. (“În căutarea Utidavei (pe Dealul Chichilău–Târgu Ocna)!”) Munte şi flori, 2011. © Copyright 2011 Munte şi flori. Accessed 13.01.2018. http://www.muntesiflori.ro/utidava/. _____. “Seeking Utidava.” Part II. “În căutarea Utidavei (episodul 2)”. Munte şi flori, 2011. © Copyright 2011 Munte şi flori, http://www.muntesiflori.ro/utidava-2/. _____. “Uti…dava, … nu e dava !” Munte şi flori, 2011. © Copyright 2011 Munte şi flori. Accessed 13.01.2018. http://www.muntesiflori.ro/utidava-3/. Raidel, Georg Martin. Commentatio criticoliteraria de Claudii Ptolemæi geographia, eiusque codicibus tam manuscriptis quam typis expressis conscripta a Georgio Martino Raidelio v.d.m. Latin text. Public Domain. Book from the collections of National Library of Naples. Google-id rrjgUNeVZD4C. Pages 117. 1737. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=rrjgUNeVZD4C&hl=& amp;source=gbs_api.

224 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

Ravennatis, Anonymi. Cosmographia et Guidonis Geographica. Berlin: M. Pinder & G. Parthey, 1860. Rawlins, D. R. “The Ptolemy Geography′s Secrets.” The International Journal of Scientific History 14 (2008). Reichert, H. “Ptolemaeus.” Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, ed. H. Beck, D. Geuenich, and H. Steuer, Vol. 23, 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Ritson, Neil. Strategic Management. Frederiksberg: Ventus Publishing ApS, 2008. Russu, I. I. The Thraco-Dacian Language. (Limba traco-dacilor.) Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1967. Republished: Editura Dacica, Bucharest, 2009. Sammut-Bonnici, Tanya, David Galea. “SWOT analysis.” In Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, ed. Cary L Cooper. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, 2014. Săgeată, Radu, and Marcela Săgeată. “Tradiţii şi permanenţe daco-romane în sistemul de aşezări umane românesc.” Geopolitica, Year IV, 18(2) (2006): 67-80. Shcheglov, D. “Ptolemy′s system of seven climata and Eratosthenes′ Geography.” Geographia Antiqua 13 (2004): 21, 37. Schuster, Cristian. “The Castle of Caput Stenarum and Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum” (“Castelul de la Caput Stenarum şi Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum”) Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sebesiensis 5 (2013): 237-253. Schütte, Gudmund. Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Geographical Society, 1872. Republished, 1917. Sfrengeu, Florin. “Archaeologist and Professor Sever Dumitraşcu at the Age of 75. Aspects on His Scientific Activity.” Crisia Oradea XLII (2012): 191-196. Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Ilustrated by numerous engravings on wood. Ed. William Smith, Walton and Maberly, Ivy Lane, John Murray. London, 1854. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/. Stillwell, Richard, William L. MacDonald, Marian Holland McAlister. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1976. Stephanus, Byzantius. De urbius. Amsterdam: Thomas de Pinedo Lusitanus, Jacobi de Longe, 1678. _____. Ethnicon. Lipsiae: Antonius Westermann, 1839. _____. Ethnicorum. Berolini: Augusti Meinekii, 1849. _____. “Ethnica.” In The New Stephanus of Byzantium, ed. Margarethe Billerbeck, Christian Zubler. Vols. I-IV. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Vol. I: A-Γ, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 43.1. 2006. Vol. II: Δ-Ι, 43.2., 2011. Vol. III: Κ-Ο, 43.3., 2014. Vol. IV: Π-Υ, 43.4., 2016. Stoyas, Yannis. “Two peculiar Thracian coin issues: ΔΑΝΤΗΛΗΤΩΝ and ΜΕΛΣΑ.” In Evgeni Paunov and Svetoslava Filipova (eds.), HPAKΛEOYΣ ΣΩTHPOΣ ΘAΣIΩN, Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov, TIRNOVI. MMXII, 2012.

225 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Svetoslava Filipova, Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov. Veliko Tirnovo: Faber, 2012. Strabo. Geographica. A. Meineke (ed.). Leipzig: Teubner, 1877. _____. The Geography of Strabo. Literally translated, with notes, in three volumes. London: George Bell & Sons, 1903. _____. The Geography of Strabo. H. L. Jones (ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1954. Stückelberger, A. et al. Ptolemy. The Handbook of Geofgraphy (Ptolemaios. Handbuch der Geographie). Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2006. Stückelberger, A. et al. Claudius Ptolemaeus’ Handbook of Geography (Klaudios Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie). Ergänzungsband, Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2009. Szabó, Csaba. “The Map of Roman Dacia in the Recent Studies.” Journal of Ancient History and Archeology 1 (2014): 44-51. Talbert, R. J. A. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, with Map-by-Map Directory. Princeton and Oxford, 2000. _____. “Explore the Peutinger Map.” Last accessed March 09, 2019. CAMBRIDGE.org, http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/talbertdatabase/. Tomaschek, Wilhelm. The Old Thracians. (Die alten Thraker: Ein ethnologische Untersuchung.) Vols. I-II. Vol. I, Uebersicht der Stämme, 1893. Vol. II, Die Sprachreste. Part 1, Glossen aller Art und Götternamen, 1893. Vol. II, Part 2, Personen und Ortsnamen, 1894. Neudruck der Ausgaben, 1893-1894. Repub.: Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1975. Tsorlini, A., and E. Livieratos. “A digital approach in eliminating the higher order systematic effects in Ptolemy′s Geographia longitude and latitude differences.” In XXIII International Cartographic Conference, Moscow, 2007. Accessed 14.05.2018. http://xeee.web.auth.gr/ICA- Heritage/Commission/Tsorlini_Livieratos_MOSCOW.pdf. Tudor, D. “The Archaeological Excavations from Cioroiul Nou” (“Săpăturile arheologice de la Cioroiul Nou”). Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 8 (1962): 547-554. _____. “The Temple and the Roman Statues from Cioroiul Nou” (“Templul şi statuetele romane de la Cioroiul Nou”). Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu-Iaşi, 1965, 109-115. Tudor, D. “Aquae in Dacia Inferior” (“Aquae en Dacie inféieure”). Latomus 25(4) (1966): 847-854. _____. “The Archaeological Site of Cioroiul Nou” (“Şantierul arheologic Cioroiul Nou”). Apulum 6 (1967): 593-605. _____. Cities, Townlets and Villages in Roman Dacia (Oraşe, tîrguri şi sate în Dacia Romană / Villes, bourgs et villages en Dacie romaine). Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1968.

226 Mapping Ptolemaic Dacia

_____. Roman Oltenia. (Oltenia romană.) 3d ed. Bucharest, 1968. Tupikova, I., K. Geus. The Circumference of the Earth and Ptolemy′s World Map. Dresden & Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2013. Ţentea, Ovidiu, and Florian Matei-Popescu. “Alae et cohortes Daciae et Moesiae. A review and updating of J. Spaul’s Ala and Cohors.” In Acta Musei Napocensis, 39-40 (1) (Cluj-Napoca: Ministerul Culturii şi Cultelor, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie al Transilvaniei, 2002-2003/ 2004), 259-296. Vulpe, Alexandru. “Ptolemy and the Ancient Geography of Moldavia.” Studii clasice 6 (1964): 233-246. _____. “The Davae and their Masters” (“Dave şi stăpânii lor. Petrodava”) Magazin istoric, Year XIII, 9(150) (1979): 24-27. Walde, Alois, and Julius Pokorny. Comparative Dictionary of Indo-European languages. (Vergleichendes Wörterbuch Der Indogermanischen Sprachen.) Vols. I-III. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927-1932. Republished, 1973. Weintrit, A.. “So, What is Actually the Distance from the Equator to the Pole? Overview of the Meridian Distance Approximations.” TransNav, The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 7(2) (2013): 259-272. http://www.transnav.eu. Xenopol, A. D.. The History of the Romanians (Istoria Românilor), 1925. 5 volumes, 3rd ed. I. Vlădescu (ed.). Bucharest: Cartea Românească. Id., 1st ed., 1893, 2nd ed., C. Sfetea, 1913-1914.

Websites

Academiaprisca. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://academiaprisca.org/indoeuropean.html. Alpinclubbrasov. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://alpinclubbrasov.ro/linkuri/harti/Neamtului-Stanisoarei.jpg. Anceientportsantique. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/ancientmaps/. Carpati. Maps of the Carpathian Mountains. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://www.carpati.org/. Cartography.Web.Auth. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://cartography.web.auth.gr/Livieratos/fil/Ptolemy_Plus.html. Casema. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://members.casema.nl/h.vandeukeren/histotron/ptol_index.htm. Earthpoint. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://www.earthpoint.us/Convert.aspx. Edwilliams. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://edwilliams.org/gccalc.htm. Enciclopediaromaniei.ro. Accessed 06.09.2018. http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Ad_Aquas.

227 Şerban George Paul Drugaş

Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului (National Institute of Patrimony, CIMEC Team). CIMEC. Last accessed March 9, 2019. http://cimec.ro/. –––. Cronica.Cimec.ro Last accessed March 9, 2019. http://cronica.cimec.ro/. –––. Map.Cimec.ro. Last accessed March 9, 2019. http://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver/?layer=ran&cod=64103.02. http://map.cimec.ro/Mapserver/?layer=ran&cod=90397.01. –––. Ran.Cimec.ro: Repertoriul Arheologic Naţional (National Archaeological Repertory). Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://ran.cimec.ro/. –––. Roman castra from Romania, For Google Earth. Last accessed September 30, 2018. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec- places/D3Ybz9oJzwg. Latitude. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://latitude.to/articles-by- country/. Latlong. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://www.latlong.net/. Limestomania.ro, last accessed March 9, 2019, https://limesromania.ro/ro/articole/situri-arheologice/. MNIR. National History Museum of Romania. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://mnir.ro/. Mss.Vatlib. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://www.mss.vatlib.it/gui/scan/link.jsp. Penelope.Uchicago. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Te xts/Ptolemy/3/8*.html. Perseus. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/. Pleiades.Stoa. Last accessed March 09, 2019. http://pleiades.stoa.org/. Rapidtables. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/degrees-to-degrees- minutes-seconds.html. https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/degrees-minutes-seconds- to-degrees.html. Romaniadevis. “Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains in UNESCO World Heritage.” In DACIANS.ROMANIADEVIS.ro, last accessed March 16, 2019, http://dacians.romaniadevis.ro/see-do/cetatile-dacice-din-muntii- orastiei. Sites.Google. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://sites.google.com/. Tabula-Peutingeriana. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://www.tabula- peutingeriana.de/index.html?cont=start. TIR. Tabula Imperii Romani. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://tir- for.iec.cat/. WHC.UNESCO. Last accessed March 09, 2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6126/.

228 List of Figures

Fig. 1-1. The Map of Italy. Fig. 1-2. The Map of Dacia. Fig. 1-3. Dacia and its neighborhood. Fig. 1-4 A. Part of Dacia with Ptolemaic coordinates. Fig. 1-4 B. Part of Dacia and Moesia Inferior with Ptolemaic coordinates. Fig. 2-1. Modern and Ptolemaic Earth. Fig. 4-1. Diagram. Displacements chart for Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Fig. 4-2. Linear chart for a longitudinal comparison on the Danube line and in the Balkan area. Fig. 4-3 A. Chart I. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.67. Fig. 4-3 B. Chart II. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.7. Fig. 4-3 C. Chart III. Displacement (in degrees) relative to δ = -17.917. Fig. 5-1 A. Napouka 1. Fig. 5-2. Patrouissa–Potaissa. Fig. 5-3. The estimation of Dokidava. Fig. 5-4 A. The first estimation of Triphoulon. Fig. 5-4 B. The second estimation for Triphoulon. Fig. 5-5 A. The first estimation of Patridava. Fig. 5-5 B. The second estimation of Patridava. Fig. 5-6. The estimation for Karsidava. Fig. 5-7 A. The first estimation of Petrodava. Fig. 5-7 B. The second estimation for Petrodava. Fig. 5-7 C. The second estimation for Petrodava, zoom out. Fig. 5-7 D. The second estimation for Petrodava corrected, west bank of Siret. Fig. 5-8. The estimation of Oulpianon. Fig. 5-9 A. The estimation of Salinai. Fig. 5-9 B. The distance between Salinai and Patrouissa–Potaissa. Fig. 5-10. Praetoria Augusta–Inlăceni. Fig. 5-11 A. Sangidava Ω, Hodoşa, Mureş County. Fig. 5-11 B. Sangidava Ξ, Racoş, Braşov County. Fig. 5-12. The estimation of Outidava. Fig. 5-13. The estimation of Markodava. Fig. 5-14. The estimation of Singidava. Fig. 5-15. The estimation of Polonda. Fig. 5-16. Rhamidava–Drajna de Sus. Fig. 5-17. The estimation of Piroum. Fig. 5-18. The estimation of Zousidava. Fig. 5-19. The estimation of Zourobara. List of Figures

Fig. 5-20 A. The estimation of Aizis. Fig. 5-20 B. The estimation of Aiz(is)is, zoom out. Fig. 5-21. The first estimation of Argidava, not probable. Fig. 5-22 A. The raw results for Tiriskon, yet unfit to decide its modern coordinates. Fig. 5-22 B. The first estimation of Tiriskon, less probable. Fig. 5-22 C. The second estimation for Tiriskon and Argidava. Fig. 5-23. The estimation of Netindava. Fig. 5-24. The estimation of Tiasson and Netindava. Fig. 5-25 A. The first estimation of Zeugma. Fig. 5-25 B. The second estimation of Zeugma. Fig. 5-26. Tibiskon and its Ptolemaic estimation. Fig. 5-27. The estimation of Akmonia. Fig. 5-28. The estimation of Phraterna. Fig. 5-29. The estimation of Arkina and Amoutrion. Fig. 5-30. The estimation of Pinon. Fig. 5-31. The estimation of Sournon. Fig. 5-32. A preliminary plot of the Ptolemaic Dacia in modern coordinates. Fig. 6-1 A. Chart 1 of the coordinate deviations for the poleis of Dacia. Fig. 6-1 B. Chart 2 of the coordinate deviations for the poleis of Dacia. Fig. 6-2. Groups with similar patterns among the poleis of Dacia. Fig. 6-3 A. Patterns for the longitudinal shift for the Ω values in Dacia. Fig. 6-3 B. Patterns for the latitudinal shift for the Ω values in Dacia. Fig. 7-1. Levels of certainty for the estimation of the Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia. Fig. 7-2. Corrected estimations of Argidava and Tiriskon. Fig. 8-1. Ancient Dacia, according to Ptolemy, Peutingerian Table and related sources.

230

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Distance in km of 1 degree longitude, on various longitudes. Table 2-2. On the same longitude, km of 1 degree latitude. Table 3-1. Ptolemaic poleis in Dacia. Table 3-2. Poleis and places from the neighboring areas. Table 4-1. Longitudes to be compared: lower Danube, Thrace, Macedonia and Dacia. Table 4-2. Comparison between longitudes. Table 4-3. Decimal values of displacements in Table 4-2. Table 4-4. Reference cities on the Danube and in Balkans relative to the longitudinal reference point(s). Table 4-5. The behavior of poleis’ longitudes in Dacia relative to latitudes. Table 5-1. Tabula Peutingeriana, the road from Apulum to Porolissum. Table 6-1. Coordinates deviation. Table 6-2. Groups of longitudinal shift. Table 6-3. Groups of latitudinal shift. Table 7-1. Comparison between results and expectations.

Index

of Places, Peoples, Languages and Geographic Names

A Angoustia 38, 43, 57, 58, 66, 72, 74, 75, 78, 107-110, 112, 115-117, 119, 120, Abdera 50, 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 71 131, 137, 146, 149, 151, 155, 156, Abram 89 165, 166, 198, 199, 201, 202 Acidava 103, 190, 194, 195 Angoustia 104, 118 Ad Aquas 103, 127, 189, 193 Antoceni 96 Ad Flexum 175 Apoulon (Apulum) 39, 99, 105, 112, Ad Mediam 103, 193 113, 129, 149, 151, 155, 156, 162, Ad Pannonios 103, 193 165, 166, 189, 190, 199 Africa 7, 10, 65, 193 Apullia 113 Africum 32 Aquae 41, 127-129, 198 Aghireşu 81, 83 Arabon river 139, 174, 175 Agnavae 103, 193 Arad County (AR) 77, 91, 123, 163 Aiud 105, 189 Arbēla 7 Aizis(is) 41, 104, 122, 123, 150, 155, Arcidava 92, 102, 126, 192 156, 163, 168, 192, 200-202 Ardeu 38, 77, 78, 126, 162, 166, 198 Akmonia (Ekmonia) 42, 127, 137, 149, Argeadae 124 151, 155, 156, 164, 168, 198-201 Argedabon 126 Alba County (AB) 39, 96, 111, 113, 162 Argeş County 123, 163, 169, 170 Alba Iulia 39, 105, 112, 166 Argeş river 195, 203 Albanian (Alb.) and other cognates 116, Argidava 41, 123-127, 138, 150, 155- 122, 123, 125, 136, 175, 176, 195 157, 163, 168-171, 199, 203 Alboca 192 Arieş river 101, 161 Albocenses 33, 186 Arine 181 Albocenses 189, 192 Arkina 42, 92, 138, 139, 141, 151, 155, Albona 192 156, 165, 168-171, 200, 203 Alburnus 192 Arkobarada (-badara) 36, 92, 93, 110, Alexandria 7, 11, 142 150, 155, 156, 160, 165, 166, 188, Alouta river 32, 53, 54, 57, 60-63, 103, 189, 198, 201 104, 156, 174, 181, 182 Armeniş 200 Alpis 174 Arpii (Carpi) 49 Amoutrion 43, 138, 139, 141, 151, 155, Arsekvia 173 156, 165, 168, 170, 171, 174, 194, Arsenion 173 200-203 Arsietai 173, 174 Amutria 103, 139-141, 194 Arţari 131, 164 Anarti 33, 185, 186, 192 Arutela river 103, 174, 181, 192 Anartophracti 174 Asamus 139 Index

Ascanius 195 Borysthenes river 6, 11, 49, 50, 144, 146 Asian Mysia (Mysoi) 97, 185 Braşov County (BV) 39, 107-109, 116, Asklepios 175, 194 161, 162, 167, 199 Athrys (Ietreus, Iatrus) river 179 Breţcu 38, 43, 72, 107-110, 115, 116, Atlantic 5, 7, 65 149, 161, 166, 198 Axiaci 49 Britolangae 49 Axiopolis 32, 33, 47, 53-55, 57, 60, Broşteni 95 63, 178 Brucla 103, 105, 189, 190 Brusturi 96 B Bucharest 131, 200, 202 Bucovăţ 140, 194 Babylon 7 Bulgaria (BG) 45, 46, 53 Bacău County 110, 223 Burca 117 Baciu 83 Burebistas 20, 21, 78, 126, 187 Balamutca 180 Buridava 118, 147, 191, 192, 194 Bălceşti 127 Buridavenses 33, 186, 191, 193-195 Balcic 45, 144 Buşteni 199 Balkan 58, 64, 65, 110, 114, 197, Buzău 163, 203 220, 224 Buzău County (BZ) 120, 163 Balşa 38 Buzău river 120, 163, 203 Baltìc 132 Byzantium (Byzantion) 6, 11, 56, 57, 61, Banat 126, 192 63, 65, 71, 87, 110, 179 Banatska Palanka 180 Bârzava river 193 C Beiuş 100, 149, 161, 198 Belgrade 44, 57, 113 Călan 127, 129, 149, 163, 166, 170, 198, Berbis 175 199 Berezan Island 144 Callatis 45, 144 Bergison 131 Câmpia Română 169 Bersovia (Berzovia, Berzobis) 103, Canaries 8, 25, 64 122, 173, 175, 193, 224 Candavia 184 Biephi (Biessi, Biesi) 33, 174, 186, 191 Cantemir district 146, 201 Biharia 91, 160, 198 Cape Verde 8, 25, 64, 65 Bihor County (BH) 88, 89, 91, 100, Caput Bubali 103, 193 160, 161, 198 Caput Stenarum 118, 190 Bithynian (Bithynia) 40, 96, 131, 139, Caransebeş 41, 134 186, 187, 190 Caraş river 180 Black Sea 21, 44, 131, 144, 145, 200 Caraş-Severin County (CS) 41, 164, 193 Blandiana 103, 189 Carbilesi (Carbiletae, Carbinus) 176 Boemia 192 Cârligei 140, 194 Boiţa 118, 190 Cârligi 99 Bologa 83 Carnuntum 175 Borysthenes Island 50, 144

234 Index

Carpathians (Mountains) 21, 31, 97, Costoboci (-ae) 173, 174, 187, 188 174-178, 180, 190, 191, 203 Cotenses (-i) 33, 186, 192 Carpi (Carpians) 98, 174, 175, 177, 186 Cotini 192 Carpis 174 Covasna County (CV) 110, 161, 202 Carsidava 104 Craiova 129, 140, 194 Carsium 97 Crişeni 188 Carsum 47 Crisia (Grisia, Criş) river 180, 188 Carthage 7 Cucuteni 96, 98 Căşeiu 189 Curta 174 Castra Trajana 103, 192 Curtea de Argeş 163, 169, 170, 203 Caucaland 190 Caucasus 190 D Caucoenses 33, 185, 190 Daci (Dacians) 20, 21, 113, 173, 182, Cedonie 103, 190 183, 185, 186 Ceiagisi (Ciagisi) 34, 195 Dacia 6, 10, 15-21, 24-26, 31-34, 43, 53, Celegeri 174 56-58, 64, 65, 72, 74, 75, 78-82, 84, Celtic 91, 93, 112, 174, 186, 192 89, 92, 102, 104, 106, 108-110, 122, Celts 21 128, 132, 139, 141, 144, 146-150, Cenad 121 152-154, 156, 159, 166-171, 173- Centum Puteae 103, 192 178, 181, 182, 186, 187, 190-192, Cernavodă 47, 53, 54, 57 194, 196, 197, 200, 201 Cerneahov 96 Dacian 21, 32, 58, 77-79, 81, 85-87, 89- Cersiae (Certie) 97, 103, 105, 189 91, 97, 98, 110, 113, 114, 118, 121, China 8 122, 126, 130, 132, 137, 138, 145, Chirilovca 146, 201 147, 164, 165, 173-175, 177, 178, Cimişia district 146, 201 180, 181, 184, 186-188, 191-195, 200 Cimmerian Bosporus 192 Dacia Porolissensis 78, 79, 82, 84 Citera 79 Dâmbovnic-Bradu 127 Ciucaş Mountains 130 Danube river 15, 20, 21, 31-33, 43, 45, Clit 91 55-58, 60-62, 64-66, 71, 80, 93, 102, Cluj County (CJ) 36, 43, 81-83, 105, 103, 126, 133, 144, 174-180, 182, 118, 161, 166, 181, 193, 223, 185, 195, 197, 200 224, 227 Dausdaua 49 Cluj-Napoca 36, 43, 80-83, 86, 91, Dealul Ruieni 122 105, 118, 161, 166, 181, 193 Dealul Stanciului 98 Coelaletae 175 Derecske 88, 160, 198 Colaetiani 174, 175 Deva 103 Coloneşti 138, 200 Diacum 46 Constanţa 45, 144 Dierna 42, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 141, Copăceni 192 151, 155, 156, 164-167, 171, 189, Corneşti 99, 161 192, 193, 199-201 Costişa 98 Dimissos 87

235 Index

Dinogetia 33, 48, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, Galaţi 145 63, 65 Gârbău 105 Dionysopolis 44, 45, 144 Gáva 91, 96 Diosig 88, 89, 160 Găvoi 193 Dnister 49, 144 Genucla 190 Dobruja 60-62 Geoagiu 39, 43, 126, 166 Dokidava 35, 89, 90, 150, 155, 156, Germane 114 160, 168, 186, 198, 202 Germas 114 Dolj County (DJ) 128, 182, 194 Germetitha 114 Dorna Arini 93 Germisara 39, 103, 114, 121, 189, 193 Drăgănescu 142, 199, 200 Gersa river 188 Drăgăşani 194 Gerulata 175 Drăguşeni 95 Getae (Getians) 20, 113, 185, 192 Drajna de Sus 40, 117, 118, 166 Getian 142 Drajna Nouă 131 Gigen 45, 53, 57, 179 Drava 175 Giurgiu County (GR) 142, 165, 199 Drăxeni 146 Gorj County (GJ) 126, 139, 164, 165 Drobeta 42, 43, 133, 140, 141, 166, 192 Goths 145, 190 Droubetis (Drubetis) 42, 43, 57, 65, Grădiştea de Munte 41, 43, 129, 163, 103, 109, 132, 133, 136, 138-142, 166 151, 155-157, 164, 166, 171, 194, Greece 10, 56 200, 201, 203 Greek 3, 21, 23, 31, 32, 35, 86, 113, Dyrrachium 35, 56, 57, 60, 63, 65, 71 132, 138, 147, 182, 183 Greeks 6, 20, 24 E Gura Arieşului 101, 149, 161, 168, 199, 202 Ecaterninovca 146, 201 Egyptians 24 H Equator 5-9, 23-26 Ergissa 87 Haret 117, 163 Europe 5, 10, 190 Harpiepolis 49, 145, 177, 200 Ezeriş 122, 123, 163, 200, 202 Haţeg (Hátszeg) 103 Hellespont 6 F Heraclea Pontica 131 Hermonactus 49, 144, 200 Fârliug 122, 123, 163, 200, 202 Hertobalos 175 Fârtăţeşti 127, 163, 199 Hezeriş 123, 163, 200, 202 Filipeşti 99 Hierasos (Hierasus) river 33, 50, 54, 145, Finiş 100 174, 175, 178, 179, 181 Horezu 170, 203 G Hunedoara (Hunyad) 103 Gaganae 103, 193 Hunedoara County (HD) 38, 43, 77, 113, 127-129, 162-164, 200

236 Index

Hungary (HU) 43, 88, 90, 160, 186, Karsidava 36, 93, 95-98, 109, 117, 145, 192, 198 149, 150, 155, 157, 161, 168, 177, Huns 190 189, 198, 202 Hydata 41, 102, 104, 126, 127, 129, Komidava (Cumidava) 39, 115-120, 149, 150, 155, 156, 163, 165, 166, 130, 136, 146, 151, 155, 156, 162, 170, 189, 193, 198, 199, 201 166, 192, 199 Kosivka 145 I Kozloduy 45, 57

Ialomiţa County (IL) 131, 137, 164 L Ialomiţa river 130, 195, 202, 203 Iantra 179 Lapoş 120 Iaşi County (IS) 96 Largiana 103, 105, 189 Iaşi-Gorj 133, 164 La Tène 89, 91, 92, 96, 98, 130, 177 Iazyges 31, 43, 62, 63, 197 Latin 1-3, 31, 53, 99, 114, 137, 142, 179, Iberian 10 182-184, 186, 190, 191, 200 (IF) 131 Liba 54, 180 Ilişua 36, 92, 110, 160, 166, 198 Lithuanian 130, 132, 142, 143, 146, 174, Illyrian 113, 114, 184, 224 176, 181, 189, 191, 193, 195 Illyricum 12 Lotru river 181 Ilovăţ 139, 171, 200 Luduş 101, 199 Indo-European 113, 121, 126, 130, 131, 133, 136, 146, 175, 178-185, M 189-191, 194 Inlăceni 106, 107, 110, 142, 149, 161, Macedonia 10, 50, 57, 58, 63, 197 166, 167, 198 Macedonian 102, 124 Iron Gates 126, 133 Măciuca 127 Ismaris 179 Maedica 99 Ismaros 179 Mangalia 45, 144 Istanbul 51, 56 Marca 91, 217 Istria (Romania) 45 Maris river 191 Istria Peninsula 12, 192 Markodava 38, 111, 112, 151, 155, 156, Istros 32-34, 45, 49, 179, 180 162, 168, 200-202 Italy 3, 10, 12, 14, 15 Markodurum 112 Izvoru Crişului 83 Masclianae 103, 193 Massalia 5, 6 J Mechka 46 Mediterranean 3 Jupa 41, 134, 135, 142, 164, 166, 200 Mehadia 103, 106, 193 Mehedinţi County (MH) 42, 43, 138, K 164, 171 Mesembria 144 Karlsburg 103, 105, 175 Messapic 113

237 Index

Miliare 178 Oescus (Oiskos) 45, 53-55, 57, 60-63, Moesi 185 65, 179, 181 Moesia 19, 44, 45, 53, 60-63, 71, 86, Oescus (Oiskos) river 33, 53, 180 118, 139, 144, 176, 177, 192, 197 Oeştii Pământeni 169 Moigrad 35, 43, 78, 79, 105, 166 Ohaba 113, 162, 200, 202 Moldova (in Romania) 149, 190, 193 Oituz 110, 162, 199, 202 Moldova (Republic of) 146, 200, 221 Oituz river 162, 199, 202 Moldova river 160 Old Indic 121, 125, 139, 173-175, 181, Morisena (Cenad) 121, 137, 199 187-189 Motru 139-141, 165, 170, 200, 202 Olt County 138, 200 Motru river 139 Onişcani 99 Mureş (Maris, Maros) river 103, 118, Ophiussa 50 121, 191, 202 Optaşi-Măgura 123 Mureş County (MS) 107, 108 Optatiana 85, 103, 105, 189 Oradea 90, 91, 198, 217 N Oraviţa 126 Ordomanioş 83 Nadăş river 83 Orosines river 178 Nădlac 121 Oroswar 175 Nagykereki 90, 160, 198 Orşova 42, 103, 126, 133, 141, 166 Napai 113 Ostra 93, 160, 198 Napouka (Napoca) 36, 43, 57, 58, 66, Otomani 88, 89, 91, 92 72, 81-87, 97, 99, 100, 103, 105, Otopeni 131, 137, 164, 199, 200 108, 109, 113, 123, 145, 149, 150, Ouiminakion (Viminacium) 44, 54 155, 156, 161, 166, 189, 198, 201, Oulpianon 36, 99, 100, 107, 149, 150, 202 155, 156, 161, 168, 198, 202 Năsăud 188 Outidava 38, 109-111, 151, 155, 156, Neamţ County (NT) 95, 99, 160, 198 162, 168, 199, 201, 202 Nera river 180 Netindava (Nentidava) 41, 104, 127, P 130-132, 137, 142, 150, 155, 156, 164, 168, 195, 199, 200, 202 Paladeina 115, 116 Niconium 50 Păltiniş 125, 193 Novae 46, 54, 57, 60-63 Panisu (Panysos) 44, 45 Noviodunum 48 Pannonia 139, 174, 175, 194 Nucraunum 48 Pannonian 178 Partiskon (Partiscum) 43, 54-57, 60, 62, O 63, 65, 77, 88, 177 Pathissus (Tisia) river 177 Obârşenii Lingurari 146 Patridava 36, 95-98, 104, 145, 149, 150, Ocna Mureş 101, 104, 105, 149, 168, 155, 157, 160, 168, 198, 202 199, 202 Patrouissa (Patavissa, Potaissa) 37, 43, Odessus 44, 45, 144 57, 58, 66, 84-87, 101, 103-107, 109,

238 Index

112, 113, 123, 142, 145, 149, 150, Pons Stenarum 192 155, 156, 161, 166, 167, 180-182, Pons Trajani 132 189, 193, 199, 201 Pons Vetus 190 Păuşa 192 Pontus 20 Pecica 77, 121 Porolisson 35, 43, 57, 58, 66, 78-83, 87- Pelendava (Pelendova) 103, 115, 116, 93, 95-97, 105, 109, 113, 123, 145, 139, 140, 194, 195 150, 155, 156, 160, 166, 182, 188, Peretu 142, 165, 200, 223 189, 198, 201, 202 Periam 121 Potelense 87 Petra 99 Potocelu 119 Petrodava 36, 97-100, 104, 149, 150, Potula 87, 193 155, 157, 161, 168, 198, 202 Potulata 87, 175, 193 Petroşani 137, 199, 200, 202 Potulatenses 33, 87, 186, 192-195 Phraterna (Phrateria, Frateria) 42, 104, Praetoria Augusta 37, 38, 104, 106, 107, 138, 141, 151, 155, 156, 164, 168, 110, 142, 149, 150, 155, 156, 161, 193, 200, 203 165-167, 198, 199, 201 Phrygia 122, 137 Praetorium 103, 192, 193 Phrygian 108, 115, 174, 182, 184, 194 Prahova County (PH) 40, 120 Piatra Craivii 39, 113, 149, 162, 166, Predavenses 33, 185, 188 199, 201 Pre-Indo-European 181, 190 Piatra Neamţ 97 Preuteşti 96 Piedavenses 188, 191 Probota 96, 161, 198 Piegetae (Piengitae) 174, 188, 191, 195 Proto-Indo-European 135, 173, 174, Piephigi 34, 174, 186, 188, 195 179, 187, 189, 191, 193-195 Pietricica 120 Prut river 144, 145, 176, 192, 202 Pinon (Pinum, Pinoum) 43, 104, 141- Prymorske 145 143, 151, 155, 157, 165, 168, 195, Pternum (Pterum) 44 199, 200, 203 Pyretos (Porata) 145, 175, 176, 180 Piroum (Pirum) 40, 102, 104, 115, 119, 120, 150, 155, 156, 162, 168, 203 R Piscul Crăsanilor 130 Piteşti 127, 128, 139, 163, 169, 199, 218 Racatae 174, 189 Podoleni 98, 99 Racatriae 174, 189 Poiana 111, 162 Racoş 107-109, 161, 167, 199 Poiana Mărului 93 Racova 139, 200 Poiana Mărului 93 Racova 165, 171 Poland 186 Rădaia 83 Polonda 93, 115-117, 120, 127, 131, Râşnov 39, 116, 166, 199 140, 146, 150, 155, 156, 163, 168, Regianum 45, 55-57, 60-63, 65 169, 194, 199-202 Reşca 194 Pons Aluti 193, 194 Rhabon 32, 54, 132, 133, 139, 156, 174, Pons Augusti 103, 193 181, 182, 194

239 Index

Rhamidava 40, 104, 115, 118, 119, 150, Salinai (Salinae) 37, 101-106, 111, 149, 155, 156, 162, 166, 192, 199, 201 150, 155, 156, 161, 168, 189, 194, Rhatacenses 33, 185, 189 199, 201, 202 Rhodes 6 Sălişte 126 Rhodope 174, 193 Salsovia 173 Rhoukkonion (Rucconium) 35, 88, 90, Samum 92, 189 95, 100, 104, 150, 155, 156, 160, Samus river 139, 189 168, 186, 198, 202 Sangidava (Sandava) 107 Rocna 99 Sangidava (Sandava) 37, 38, 104, 107- Roman 8, 10, 21, 42, 53, 78-83, 85, 86, 109, 149, 151, 155, 156, 161, 167, 89, 91, 93, 102-104, 116, 122, 126, 168, 199, 201, 202 129, 133, 140, 144, 173, 178, 180, Sânicolau Mare 121 188, 194 Sânpetru Mare 121, 163 Românaşi 105, 189 Sântana de Mureş 96 Romania 36, 53, 54, 79, 88, 90, 127, Şanţul Mare 77 128, 180, 186, 188, 198, 202 Sărata 182 Rome 4, 86, 176, 177, 188, 205, 207, Sărata-Monteoru 120, 163, 203 208, 218, 223 Sarmatia 31, 176, 178 Romula (Malva) 103, 194 Sarmatian 177 Roşia Montană 111, 162, 200, 202 Sarmizegethousa 41, 43, 57, 58, 65, Roşiori 88 78, 99, 103, 108, 109, 117, 120, 123, Roşiori de Vede 142 125, 128-131, 133, 135-138, 141, Rothenthurm pass 103 142, 144, 149, 150, 155-157, 163, Rugetu 163, 170 166, 167, 169-171, 189, 193, 198, Rusidava 103, 194 200, 201 Sava 175, 192, 194 S Scala Gladova 103 Scoroba 176 Sabokoi (Saboci) 174, 187 Serbia 44, 180 Săcălăsăul Nou 91 Seretos river 179 Saci 113 Serghieşti 145 Săcueni 88 Setidava 173 Sala 174 Sialetae 193 Sălacea 88 Siamaus 193 Sălaj County (SJ) 35, 43, 79, 91, 160, Sibiu 190 189 Sibiu County 190 Sălard 89 Sienses (Senses) 33, 186, 193 Salca 91 Sighişoara 190 Saldae 175, 194 Silezia 192 Saldaecaputenus 194 Şilindru 89 Saldenses 34, 175, 186, 190, 194 Siliştea 97, 198 Saldis 175, 194 Şimian 89

240 Index

Şimleu Silvaniei 89 Târgu Ocna 110 Singi 113, 174 Târzia 95, 96, 98, 160, 198 Singiae 113 Tăşad 91 Singidava 38, 113, 114, 151, 155, 156, Taurisci 186 162, 174, 200, 202 Tăuteni 89, 219 Singidunum (Singidounon) 4, 44, 54- Tăuteu 89, 219 57, 60, 61, 65, 77, 113, 174 Teiul Verde (Zelena Lipa) 180 Sireţel 96 Teleorman County (TR) 142, 165, 199, Siret river 96, 98-100, 115, 117, 145, 200 149, 161, 163, 168, 175, 178, 192, Teradea (Terada) 93 198, 199, 202 Teurisci 33, 185, 186, 192 Siretu 117 Thessaloniki 5, 51, 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 71 Sitioenta 48 Thrace (Thracia) 40, 50, 57, 58, 63, 71, Slătioara 170 87, 122, 187, 188, 194, 197, 219, 220 Slobozia 131, 137, 199 Thracian 40, 114, 115, 122, 135, 136, Slovakia 21, 173, 174, 186, 191 139, 174, 175, 177-179, 181, 184, Someşul Mare river 188 185, 187, 188, 190-192, 219, 220, Sournon 104, 142, 143, 151, 155, 223-225 157, 165, 168, 195, 199, 200, 203 Thracians 20, 40, 81, 87, 93, 96, 97, 99, Sousoudava 120, 173 108, 111, 112, 114-116, 120-122, Stâna 189 124, 126, 139, 142, 176, 179, 183, Stari Kostolac 44, 57 191, 194, 219, 220, 223, 226 Stelugermme 114 Thraco-Dacian 40, 81, 86, 111, 112, Strehaia 126 114-116, 121-123, 130, 175, 176, Strei river 118 178, 183, 192, 219, 225 Suceava County (SV) 95, 96, 160, 161, Tiasson (Tiasum) 104, 127, 130-132, 198 137, 142, 150, 155, 156, 195, 199, Sucidava 47 200, 202 Surducu Mare 192 Tibiscus river 177 Sutoru (Sutor) 105, 189 Tibiskon (Tibiscum, Tiviscum) 31, 32, Szeged 43, 57 34, 41, 49, 54, 55, 87, 102, 103, 126, 134, 135, 137, 141, 142, 151, 155, T 157, 164, 166, 178, 192, 193, 198- 201 Tamasidava 50, 145, 146, 200, 201 Tierna 42, 103, 133, 189, 193 Tanais 6 Timiş County (TM) 121, 122, 163 Tapae 118, 122 Timişoara (Temesvar) 102, 217, 220 Tărcaia 100, 161 Timiş river 135, 178 Tarcea 88 Tinosul 130 Târgovişte 119, 162, 203 Tios 96, 131 Târgu Jiu 133, 164, 200 Tiristipolis (Tiristopolis) 46 Târgu Mureş (Maros Vasarheli, Tiristis 44, 45 Vasarhely) 103

241 Index

Tiriskon (Tiriscum) 41, 104, 123, 125- Vatra Dornei 93 127, 150, 155-157, 163, 169-171, Via Egnatia 4, 218 199, 203 Via Militaris 4 Tisa (Tisza) river 21, 177, 180, 186, 223 Via Trajana 102 Tiseşti 110 Vinţu de Jos (Felvincz) 105 Tisia river 177 Vişinovca 146, 201 Tomis 44, 45, 144 Vistula 173, 186, 192 Transmarisca (Tromarisca) 47 Voivozi 89 Transylvania 75, 80, 82, 103, 112, 115, Vrancea County (VR) 117, 162 132, 142, 169, 178, 182, 189-191 Trimiammium (Trimannium) 46 Z Triphoulon (Triphulum) 36, 93, 94, 96, 104, 107, 109, 149, 150, 155, Zalău 80, 90, 224 156, 160, 168, 198, 202 Zarmizegethusa (Sarmizegetusa) 102 Troesmis (Troismis) 47, 48 Zermizirga 39, 43, 57, 66, 71, 74, 75, 78, Troianul 142, 199, 200 109, 112, 114, 115, 126, 129, 149, Turcoaia 47 151, 155, 156, 165, 166, 169, 170, Turda 37, 43, 87, 101, 105, 161, 166 193, 199, 201 Turkey 56 Zeugma 41, 104, 132-134, 138, 141, Tyras polis (Tiraspol) 50, 144-146, 200 149, 150, 155, 156, 164, 200, 203 Tyras river 31, 33, 49, 54, 144-146, 180 Ziridava 9, 23, 24, 35-40, 43, 44, 77, 78, Tyrissa 87 81, 86, 92, 93, 104, 105, 110-112, 126, 129, 151, 155, 156, 162, 165, U 166, 198, 201, 220 Zlatna 194 Uj-Palanka 102 Zourobara (Zurobara) 40, 93, 104, 120, Ukraine 180, 186 121, 135, 137, 150, 155, 156, 163, Ulmi 119 168, 198, 199, 201, 202, 220 Ulpianum 104 Zousidava (Zusidava) 40, 104, 115, 120, Unirea 104 150, 155, 156, 163, 168, 173, 202, Uscudama 179 203

V

Vadul lui Isac 145 Vadu Moldovei 96 Vadu Moldovei 96 Vadu Negrilesei 93 Vâlcea County 192-194 Vărădia 126, 192 Várhely (Grădiştea de Munte) 103 Varna 45, 144 Vaslui County (VS) 146

242