doi: 10.2143/AWE.15.0.3167473 AWE 15 (2016) 213-222

Vicus Nov(iodunum) and Classicorum: On the Origins of the Noviodunum *

Florian Matei-Popescu

Abstract This paper aims to tackle the origins of the municipium Noviodunum, epigraphically attested during the Severan period. To meet this goal some inscriptions are reinterpreted and con- nected with Noviodunum. Two different civilian settlements seem to have developed near the main naval base of the classis Flavia Moesica: one is a vicus Nov(iodunum), a civilian settlement, and the other is the vicus classicorum, the military vicus, attested by several votive altars uncovered at Halmyris. They were, it is assumed, transported from Noviodunum during the Tetrarchic period when the late Roman fort of Halmyris was constructed. It is concluded that, as in the case of the legionary fortresses, two different civilian communities developed in Noviodunum area, a military vicus and a civilian settlement. The latter was the one to receive the municipal grant during the joint reign of and Com- modus, or during ’ reign.

The municipium Noviodunum (, county, ) is recorded by a single inscription, reused in the late Roman fort from :1

[- - -] / [- - -]AV. / [quae]stori / municip(ii) Nov[i]/od(uni).

The inscription dates most likely by early 3rd century, during the Severan period. Thus, the first editor assumed that Noviodunum became a municipium under ­ or Caracalla, based on the analogies with the municipia of ­Troesmis and Durostorum.2 This assumption should now be amended, since the newly discovered fragments of the lex municipii Troesmensis show that the civil ­settlement from Troesmis received the municipal grant during the joint and Commodus.3 It is therefore likely that the civil settlement

* This paper was written in the framework of the Project PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0490: ‘“The Other” in Action. The Barbarisation of and the Romanisation of the World’, financed by the Romanian National Research Council (CNCS-UEFISCDI). I thank Constatin C. Petolescu and Dan Dana for their critical reading of the manuscript and for their corrections and suggestions. 1 Barnea 1988; L’Année épigraphique 1990, 867. See also Suceveanu and Barnea 1993, 167. 2 Barnea 1988, 59. 3 Eck 2013; 2014a–b. 214 F. Matei-Popescu from Durostorum became a municipium at the same time and not during that of Caracalla.4 The exact date is still a matter of controversy, since an altar raised for the good health of the Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and of the municipium Aurelium Durostorum was discovered.5 The absence of the epithets Pius and Felix may indicate that the emperor was Marcus Aurelius and not Caracalla, hence the altar should be dated before AD 177. If so, it is also possible that Troesmis received its municipal grant well before the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.6 During their joint reign it was the only law to be sent to the municipium. In the difficult conditions of the Marcomannic Wars,7 when there was not enough bronze for the military diplomas (they are not attested between AD 168 and 177),8 this is something that could be understood. Nevertheless, until further discoveries are made, we should still take into consideration that the altar from Durostorum was dedicated to Caracalla (the absence of the epithets is not something out of the ordinary), both municipia being founded during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, as the lex municipii Troesmensium seems to prove. These details are not so important for the discussion here. It is nevertheless important to stress that Durostorum and Troesmis became municipia at some time between AD 169 and 180. In my opinion, Noviodunum should be added to the list. This observation raises the question of my paper: which settlement from Novio- dunum, since there seems to have been two, received the municipal grant? 9

Vicus Nov(iodunum) By the end of the 19th century, a votive altar was discovered in the neighbourhood of Babadag. The stone is kept now by the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology

4 Doruțiu-Boilă 1978 assumed that municipium Aurelium Durostorum received the municipal grant under Caracalla. However it is more likely that Durostorum became municipium at the same time as Troesmis. The core of the municipium should have been the civil settlement (probably the one encountered archaeologically at Ostrov, Călărași county) and not the canabae legionis­ – see contra Boyanov 2010. The canabae seem to be attested by an inscription from AD 209 (ISM IV 110; see also ISM IV 101, which could date from the same year, a dedication for the good health of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, attesting the veterani consistentes huius loci), when the municipium was already founded. On the history and archaeology of early Roman Durostorum, see most recently Ivanov 2012 and Piso 2014 (both with bibliography). 5 ISM IV 94, with comments at Piso 2014, 492. 6 See already Eck 2013, 201, n. 7; Piso 2014, 492, n. 28. 7 Lower suffered during the crisis, being ravaged by the (see Gerov 1980, 259–72). 8 Eck 2012, 46–49. 9 See also Suceveanu and Barnea 1993, 165. Vicus Nov(iodunum) and Vicus Classicorum 215

Fig. 1: MNA L 353. The votive altar set by the cives Romani and veterani of the vicus Nov(iodunum).

(MNA L 353).10 The text is unfortunately very badly damaged, especially in the central part of the inscription. Some part of the text can be read on the stone; for the missing part we have to credit G. Tocilescu, the first editor of the inscription. I give here the text as it is possible to read it today (Fig. 1):

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [s]acrum pro / [sal(ute) I]mp(eratoris) C[aes(aris) / Peli (sic!) c(ives) R(omani) v/et(erani)] vico Nov(ioduno?) / su[b cu]r[a]m (sic!) / [S]il(vio) C[a]s(s)io et P[.]/[.]OCV.VNI[.] / [e]t qu(a)es(tore) Caio A[l]/exandri id[i/b]us Iunis Or[f/a]to et Rufo / co(n)s(ulibus).

The absence of the consistentes formula is curious.11 I prefer here to read straight- forwardly c(ives) R(omani) vet(erani) vico Nov(ioduno), with consistentes implied or simply neglected by mistake. What is however even more curious is that in every

10 Tocilescu 1900, 203, no. 27; CIL III 14448; ISM V 233. 11 T. Mommsen proposed in CIL III 14448 c(ives) R(omani) vet(erani) vico Nov(ioduni consis- tentes), similar to CIL III 6167 = ISM V 157 c(ives) R(omani) Tr[oesmi consist(entes)]. 216 F. Matei-Popescu inscription from the area attesting the veterani and the cives Romani consistentes, the veterans were placed without exception before the cives Romani: veterani et cives Romani consistentes vico.12 I have no explanation for that, since that line of the inscription is completely erased now and the reading cannot be check. The last editor of the inscription, Emilia Doruțiu-Boilă, argued convincingly that the inscription was probably found at Noviodunum, attesting therefore a vicus Nov(iodunum), the civil settlement from Noviodunum.13 In favour of this identifi- cation speaks also its complex organisation, with two magistri and one , atypical for a vici from the central part of the Dobrudja, like for exam- ple.14 The inscription dates from AD 178 (the consuls Sex. Cornelius Scipio Orfitus and D. Velius Rufus).15 The municipium should have been founded therefore after that date. Another votive altar, unfortunately not precisely dated, attests a quinquennalis and two magistri:16

[. . . .]D cu/ra(m) agent(ibus) / Ti. Cl(audio) Valent(e) / q(uin)q(uennale) et Celsio / Celerian(o) et Cl(audio) / [M . . . . mag(istris)].

It seems that it has to be related to the vicus Noviodunum,17 which had, like the civil settlement from Troesmis,18 a quasi-urban organisation. However, since the altar was reused in the late Roman fortification from Noviodunum, one should also take into consideration another origin, perhaps even Troesmis. In AD 176, a sailor, C. Iulius Valentis f. Iulianus, was recruited from Novio- dunum (Novi(o)d(uno) ex Moesia) into the fleet at and discharged in 202.19 It is highly possible that he was also recruited from the civil settlement, the vicus Noviodunum, but the military vicus should not be totally ruled out of the discussion. Speaking of the military vicus, I must stress out that no inscription relating to a possible military vicus of the fort of the Noviodunum, the base of the classis Flavia

12 Avram 2007, 104–09, nos. 1–34, the epigraphic supplement. 13 See however contra Bărbulescu 2001, 93–94 and 179. 14 ISM V 62–64; Bărbulescu 2001, 108–09 and 186–87, part of the territorium Capidavense. 15 Degrassi 1952, 49. 16 ISM V 268. 17 Vulpe (1953, 575–76) rightly assumes that, just like in the case of Troesmis, this quinquennalis was in fact the censor of the community, being elected every five years apart from the magistri. 18 For the two civil settlements around the legionary fortress of Troesmis, see Vulpe 1953; Doruțiu-Boilă 1972; Vulpe 1976, 290–92; Avram 2007, 93–96. The canabae legionis V Macedonicae and the vicus or Troesmensium (former centre of a Thracian strategy, see Ex Pont. 4. 9. 79–80) are together attested in AD 159/160: [q(uin)q(uennalis) c]anab(ensium) et dec(urio) Troesm(ensium) (Vulpe 1953, 562–68, no. 2 = L’Année épigraphique 1960, 337 = ISM V 158; see Vulpe’s comments at Vulpe 1953, 568–79). 19 L’Année épigraphique 2001, 2161 = Pferdehirt 2004, no. 45. Vicus Nov(iodunum) and Vicus Classicorum 217

Moesica, was discovered in the vicinity of Noviodunum. But some epigraphic infor- mation discovered not far from Noviodunum, at Halmyris (nowadays Murighiol, ),20 can be brought into discussion here.

Vicus classicorum During the archaeological excavations in the late Roman fort of Halmyris, up to ten votive altars, many of them badly damaged, were uncovered.21 They were all used in the walls of one of the two towers of the northern gate of the fort.22 The almost identical texts attest the cives Romani consistentes vico classicorum, the votive altars being raised for Iuppiter Optimus Maximus through the care of one magister.23 The first editors assumed that this vicus classicorum should be related to the statio classis from Halmyris.24 It was consequently assumed that the fort of Halmyris was garrisoned, besides an unattested auxiliary unit, by a detachment of the fleet, which had its main base at Noviodunum. The altars are preserved in Tulcea Museum and in the National Museum of Military History, Bucharest, where I had the chance to study them. I give bellow the text of the best preserved altars, with some minor corrections of the readings:

Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 110, no. 2; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 987; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 29–30, no. 6: [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / c(ives) R(omani) c(onsistentes) vico] / classicor[um] / cura agentem (sic!) / Paparione St[r]/atonis magistr(o) / [e]t Collumela (sic!) d[e] / suo posuit

20 On the identification of the fort of Murighiol with ancient Halmyris and on the different forms of its name, see Suceveanu and Zahariade 1987; 2003. 21 Suceveanu et al. 1987; 2003. 22 Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 986–90; Zahariade and Alexan- drescu 2011, 17 (‘[i]t is highly obvious that the series of the votive altars had been reused to build the late 3rd century structure of the interior area of the N gate; they were walled in on each side of the internal entrance. Most of them were found facing down, evidence that they were set with the written face to the interior and then covered with plaster’) and 29–38, nos. 6–15. See also Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 28–29, no. 5 (= L’Année épigraphique 1988, 992 = 1989, 640 = 2003, 1550), an altar dedicated to Hercules by a “Bauvexillation”: Herculi / / leg(ionis) I Itali(cae) / et leg(ionis) XI C(laudiae) p(iae) f(idelis), dated following the abbreviation LEG XI CPF during ’s reign. I have already expressed my doubts about this dating (Matei-Popescu 2010, 137) and there is no cer- tainty that the altar was ever set at Halmyris, or it comes from other area of the north-eastern part of Lower Moesia. For the archaeological and architecture details of the northern gate, see Zahariade 2003; Mărgineanu Cârstoiu and Apostol 2015, 60–71. 23 Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986; Bărbulescu 2001, 70; Avram 2007, 96–97 and 105–06, nos. 8–13. 24 Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 118; Suceveanu 2003, 98–99; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 36–38. See also Bărbulescu 2001, 163; Bâltâc 2011, 94–95. 218 F. Matei-Popescu

l. 4: M(arco), all the editors; l. 6: T(itus), all editors – however, it seems that there is no place for praenomina in this inscription, since the magister gives his name in the peregrine manner; moreover in l. 4 there is no space between agente and m, like it is the case between cura and agentem Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 112, no. 5; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 989; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 30–31, no. 7: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / cives Rom(ani) / consistent(es) / [vic]o classi(corum) / [c]uram ag(ente) / Sosio / Sosi m[ag(istro)] Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 110, no.1; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 986; L’Année épigraphique 2003, 1550; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 31, no. 8: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / c(ives) R(omani) c(onsistentes) / vic(o) class(icorum) cu/ram ag(ente) P(ublio) Pom/peio mag(istro) / Severo et / Herenniano / co(n)s(ulibus) – AD 17125 Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 111, no. 3 + 122, no. 6; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 988 and 990; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 31–32, no. 9 (both fragments): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / c(ives) R(omani) c(onsistentes) / vic(o) [c]lass(icorum) c(uram) / ag(ente) M[ar]cio / Victor[i mag(istro)] / Sever[o et] / [- - - co(n)s(ulibus)] ll. 4–6: ag(ente) M[ar]cio (?) [….mag(istro)] / Victor[ino et] / Sever[o co(n)s(ulibus), dating therefore the inscription in AD 200 (Ti. Severus Proculus and C. Aufidius Victorinus)26 – however, in the inscriptions Severus is always on the first place, I consider therefore VICTOR being part of the cognomen of the magister; Severus could have been a consul, who is impossible to be identified, given the high numbers of the consuls named Severi in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD Suceveanu and Zahariade 1986, 111, no. 4 + 113, no. 7; L’Année épigraphique 1988, 991; L’Année épigraphique 2003, 1550; Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 32–33, no. 10 (both fragments): [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo] / [c(ives) R(omani)] c(onsistentes) / vi[c(o)] clas(sicorum) / [cura(m)] ag(ente) Fl(avio) / Vale[r]io ma[g(istro)] / C[o]mm[odo] / [e]t Laet[erano] co(n) s(ulibus) ll. 6–7: C[o]mm[odo] / [e]t Lael(iano) co(n)s(ulibus), Zahariade, Alexandrescu 2011 taking into consideration the consuls of AD 209, L. Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus and Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus,27 with a mistake Laelianus for Lollianus – however, the consuls are always given as Pompeiano et Avito cos. (see, for example, ISM IV 110, Durostorum); I propose instead the consuls of AD 154, L. Aurelius Commodus and T. Sextius Lateranus,28 with a small mistake Laeteranus for Lateranus

25 Degrassi 1952, 48. 26 Degrassi 1952, 200. 27 Degrassi 1952, 58. 28 Degrassi 1952, 43. Vicus Nov(iodunum) and Vicus Classicorum 219

The Moesian fleet, classis Flavia Moesica, had its main base at Noviodunum, starting with the reign of Trajan. There is sufficient evidence to back up this assumption and here is neither the space nor the place to recall them all.29 Inscriptions and brick- or tile stamps are to be found also in other forts along the Lower .30 Surpris- ingly enough, no such material is to be found precisely at Halmyris. There is thus no direct proof that Halmyris ever was an important naval base (statio classis) on the Lower Danube during the early Roman period. Moreover, Halmyris appeared on Roman itineraries starting only with Itinerarium Antonini, whose final version was compiled during the Tetrarchic period,31 which is further indirect proof that during the early Roman period it was not an important naval base on the Danube. Taking into account the name and the fact that the altars were reused in the late Roman fort, built during the reigns of Aurelian and Probus and the Tetrarchic period,32 one should take into consideration that they originated from another place.33 Giving the name of the vicus and the geographical closeness to Halmyris, I assume that they probably were transported from Noviodunum, the main naval base of the province. The vicus classicorum could have been in my opinion the mili- tary vicus of the classis Flavia Moesica, developed in the direct proximity of the fort.34 It is therefore highly likely that around the important naval base of Noviodunum two different settlements developed: a civilian vicus, called simply vicus Nov(iodunum), and the military vicus, called vicus classicorum. This is similar with the case of the

29 Matei-Popescu 2010, 246–50. 30 Matei-Popescu 2010, 249–50. 31 Itinerarium Antonini 226, 4: Salmorude, between Salsovia and Vallis Domitiana. The place name seems to appear also on the Scutum Durae-Europi 14: ΟΛΥΜΥΡΥΑ = Ὁλυμυρία, which is also to be dated around AD 240 (however, the place name is missing from the standard publications on this shield: Cumont 1925; Rebuffat 1986, 86–87; and Arnaud 1989, 378). Romanian historiography has followed Mititelu’s 1943 reading, who saw that Ὁλυμυρία was written with smaller letters between Τομέα and Ἴστρος ποτ(άμος). Nevertheless, it is curious how the other quoted scholars, who had studied the original kept in Paris, were unable to see the details presumed to have been seen by Mititelu. I therefore suggest that one should ignore Mititelu’s very problematic reading and trust the reading proposed by scholars who have seen and studied the original document (see the doubts already expressed by Hălmagi 2015). For the ancient sources attesting the toponym, see Zahariade and ­Alexandrescu 2011, 1–13, texts and commentaries. 32 Zahariade 1997 = L’Année épigraphique 1995, 1345 = L’Année épigraphique 1997, 1318; ­Zahariade and Alexandrescu 2011, 21–26, nos. 1–3 33 I recall here the notorious case of the two altars coming from regio Histriae, which were reused in the late Roman fort of Cius (Gârliciu, Constanța County), built in AD 369 (ISM V 123–124), or that of a funerary inscription composed of three conjoint fragments, two found at Cius, reused in the late Roman fort, and the other at Troesmis (ISM V 117; Bărbulescu 2001, 98–99). 34 For the archaeological topography of the Noviodunum area, see Ștefan 1973. See also Lockyear et al. 2005–06 and the Noviodunum project site: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/ noviodunum (consulted, 30 June 2015). 220 F. Matei-Popescu two legionary fortresses from Durostorum and Troesmis,35 but also with the case of some auxiliary forts (almost sure Montana, Abrittus and ).36

Municipium Noviodunum As I already mentioned, the municipium Noviodunum is directly attested only in the Severan period. The analogy with Troesmis and Durostorum let us assume that the community of Noviodunum received a municipal grant between AD 169 and 180, or under the sole reign of Commodus. In my opinion, it was the civil settlement, the vicus Noviodunum, that received the grant. The military vicus of the fleet con- tinued to be in place after the foundation of the municipium for as long as the fort of the fleet still functioned, although there is no direct proof. For the province of Moesia Inferior, the example provided by the situation of Noviodunum, together with the partial information regarding other centres (Mon- tana, Abritus and Capidava), permit to argue that the existence of two communities, a military vicus and a civil community, in the nearby of military fortifications are not the necessarily specific to legionary fortresses only.37

Bibliography

Abbreviations CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin). ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae selectae (Berlin 1892–1916). ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. IV E. Popescu, Tropaeum–Durostorum–Axiopolis (Bucharest/Paris 2015). V E. Doruțiu-Boilă, Capidava–Troesmis–Noviodunuhm (Bucharest 1980).

35 Vittinghoff 1968. 36 At Montana, castrenses and cives Montanenses are both recorded by the middle of the 3rd century (CIL III 12376, inscription dated to AD 256: [burgum constitui iussit] un[de latrunculos o]bservare[nt pro]pter tutela[m ca]stre(n)sium et [ci]vium Montanensium; Vulpe 1976, 294–96). At Abrittus, a ter- ritorium Abritanorum is attested (L’Année épigraphique 1985, 765), which is different from the military vicus attested as: veterani et c(ives) R(omani) et consistentes Abrito ad ca[st(ellum)] (L’Année épigraphique 1957, 97 – see also CIL V 942 = ILS 2670: natus in Mensi(a) inf(eriore) castello Abritanor(um)). Similar is the case of Capidava: in the nearby of Ulmetum an altar attesting a quinquennalis territorii Capida- vensis was discovered (CIL III 12491 = ILS 7181 = ISM V 77), which, in my opinion, could not have anything to do with military vicus in the nearby of the Capidava fort, but with a civilian settlement which possessed also a territorium. 37 For the specific case of Moesia inferior, see Mócsy 1992, 134: ‘Es könnte daher angenommen werden, daß es in Moesia Inferior, in einer Provinz, die riesige Ackerländer hatte, überhaupt keine militärischen Territorien gab, sondern auf den großen Territorien, die anfänglich eine Spezialform der civitas peregrina gebildet hatten, jede Niederlassung von römischen Bürgern die gleiche korporative Form hatte, ungeachtet dessen, ob diese Niederlassung bei einem Lager oder bei einem rein zivilen Ort entstad, wobei die Größenunterschiede einfach darauf zurückgehen, daß die größeren Niederlas- sungen dieser Art naturgemäß bei den Legionslagern enstanden waren.’ Vicus Nov(iodunum) and Vicus Classicorum 221

Arnaud, P. 1989: ‘Une deuxième lecture du “bouclier” de Doura-Europos’. CRAI 133.2, 373–89. Avram, A. 2007: ‘Les cives Romani consistentes de Scythie mineure: état de la question’. In Compa- tangelo-Soussignan, R. and Schwentzel, C.-G. (eds.), Étrangers dans la cité romaine (Rennes), 91–109. Bâltâc, A. 2011: Lumea rurală în provinciile Moesia inferior și (secolele I–III p. Chr.) (Bucharest). Bărbulescu, M. 2001: Viața rurală în Dobrogea romană (sec. I–III p.Chr.) (Constanța). Barnea, A. 1988: ‘Municipium Noviodunum. Nouvelle données épigraphiques’. n.s. 32.1–2, 53–60. Boyanov, I. 2010: ‘Municipium Aurelium Durostorum or vicus Gavidina’. Archaeologia Bulgarica 14.2, 53–59. Cumont, F. 1925: ‘Fragment de bouclier portant une liste d’étapes’. Syria 6.1, 1–15. Degrassi, A. 1952: I fasti consolari dell’Impero Romano. Dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo (Rome). Doruțiu-Boilă, E. 1972: ‘ legionis V Macedonicae und municipium Troesmense’. Dacia n.s. 16, 133–44. —. 1978: ‘Über den Zeitpunkt der Verleihung des Munizipalrechts in ’. Dacia n.s. 22, 245–47. Eck, W. 2012: Bürokratie und Politik in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Administrative Routine und politische Reflexe in Bürgerrechtskonstitutionen der römischen Kaiser (Wiesbaden). —. 2013: ‘La loi municipale de Troesmis: données juridiques et politiques d’une inscription récem- ment découverte’. Revue historique de droit français et étranger 91.2, 199–213. —. 2014a: ‘Das Leben römisch gestalten. Ein Stadtgesetz für das Municipium Troesmis aus den Jahren 177–180 n. Chr.’. In de Klejn, G. and Benoist, S. (eds.), Integration in the Roman World (Leiden/Boston), 75–88. —. 2014b: ‘Der Stolz des municipium Troesmensium – das Stadtgesetz’. In Eck, W. and Funke, P. (eds.), Öffentlichkeit – Monument – Text: Akten XIV Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Grecae et Latinae (Berlin/Boston), 708–10. Gerov, B. 1980: Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien. Gesammelte Aufsätzen (Amsterdam). Hălmagi, D. 2015: ‘Notes on the Dura Europos Map’. Revista Centrului de Istorie Comparată a Societăților Antice n.s. 1, 41–51. Ivanov, R. 2012: ‘Durostorum: castra, canabae, municipium, vici’. In Ivanov, R. (ed.), Roman Cities in Bulgaria (Sofia), 45–108. Lockyear, K., Sly, T. and Popescu, A. 2005–06: ‘The Noviodunum Archaeological Project 2000– 2004: Results and Conclusions from the Pilot Seasons’. Peuce n.s. 3–4, 121–58. Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, M. and Apostol V. 2015: ‘La fortification d’Halmyris. Étude architecturale des portes ouest et nord’. Caiete Arhitectură, Restaurare, Arheologie/ARA Reports 6, 37–78. Matei-Popescu, F. 2010: The Roman Army in Moesia inferior (Bucharest). Mititelu, I. 1943: ‘Itineraria Romana. Le bouclier de Dura-Europos’. Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române 37 (91), 78–91. Mócsy, A. 1992: Pannonien und das römische Heer. Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Stuttgart). Pferdehirt, B. 2004: Römische Militärdiplome und Entlassungsurkunden in der Sammlung des Römisch- Germanischen Zentralmuseums (Mainz). Piso, I. 2014: ‘Le siège du gouverneur de Mésie inférieure’. In Cojocaru, V., Coșkun, A. and Dana, M. (eds.), Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Cluj-Napoca), 489–504. Rebuffat, R. 1986: ‘Le bouclier de Doura’. Syria 63.1, 85–105. Ștefan, A.-S. 1973: ‘Noviodunum. Studiu de foto-interpretare arheologică’. Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice 42.1, 3–14. Suceveanu, A. 2003: ‘Elemente de organizare administrativă’. In Suceveanu et al. 2003, 97–101. Suceveanu, A. and Barnea, I. 1993: ‘Contributions à l’histoire des villes de la Dobroudja’. Dacia n.s. 37, 159–79. 222 F. Matei-Popescu

Suceveanu, A. and Zahariade, M. 1986: ‘Un nouveau vicus sur le territoire de la Dobroudja romaine’. Dacia n.s. 30, 109–20. —. 1987: ‘Du nom antique de la cité romaine et romaine tardive d’Independența (dép. Tulcea)’. Dacia n.s. 31, 87–96. Suceveanu, A., Zahariade, M., Opaiț, A., Opaiț, C. and Topoleanu, F. 1987: ‘Early and Late Roman Fortification at Independența, Tulcea County’. Dacia n.s. 31, 97–106. Suceveanu, A., Zahariade, M., Topoleanu, F. and Poenaru-Bordea, G. 2003: Halmyris, I: Monografie arheologică (Cluj-Napoca). Tocilescu, G. 1900: Fouilles et recherches archéologiques en Roumanie (Bucharest). Vittinghoff, F. 1968: ‘Die Bedeutung der Legionslager für die Entstehung der römischen Städte an der Donau und in Dakien’. In Claus, M., Haarnagel, W. and Raddatz, K. (eds.), Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Neumünster), 132–42 (= Civitas Romana. Stadt und politisch- soziale Integration im Romanum der Kaiserzeit [Stuttgart 1994], 89–105). Vulpe, R. 1953: ‘Canabenses și Troesmenses. Două inscripții inedite din Troesmis’. Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 4.3–4, 557–82. —. 1976: ‘Colonies et municipes de la Mésie inférieure’. In Vulpe, R., Studia thracologica (Bucharest), 289–314. Zahariade, M. 1997: ‘The Halmyris Tetrarchic Inscription’. ZPE 119, 228–36. —. 2003: ‘Poarta de Nord’. In Suceveanu et al. 2003, 43–64. Zahariade, M. and Alexandrescu, C.-G. 2011: Greek and Inscriptions from Halmyris. Inscriptions on stone, signa, and instrumenta found between 1981 and 2010 (Oxford).

Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology Henri Coandă Street no. 11, Sector 1 Bucharest 010667 Romania [email protected]