Arheovest V1

ASOCIAŢIA ARHEO VEST TIMIŞOARA

ARHEOVEST

-IN HONOREM DOINA BENEA-

Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie și Istorie

Timişoara, 25 noiembrie 2017

JATEPress Kiadó Szeged 2017 Editor: Sorin FORȚIU (cu mulțumiri pentru ajutorul punctual acordat lui Andrei STAVILĂ, Cristian OPREAN, Adrian CÎNTAR și Simona REGEP) Coordonator: Dorel MICLE DVD-ROM: Adrian CÎNTAR WEB: Sorin FORȚIU și Claudiu TOMA

Coperta: Alice DUMITRAȘCU Foto copertă: Tudor VREME-MOSER, http://ideatm.ro/wordpress/

Această lucrarea a apărut sub egida:

ISBN 978-963-315-358-1 (Összes/General) ISBN 978-963-315-359-8 (I. kötet/volumul)

Avertisment: Acest volum digital este o imagine cât se poate de fidelă a celui tipărit.

Responsabilitatea pentru conţinutul materialelor revine în totalitate autorilor. DVD-ROMul conține contribuțiile în varianta color precum și imaginile la rezoluția maximă trimisă de autor. A RECENTLY DISCOVERED MAUSOLEUM AND THE ISSUE OF THEIR EXISTENCE AT APULUM

Radu Ota*, Ilie Lascu**, George Valentin Bounegru***

* National Museum of the Union of Alba Iulia; [email protected] ** National Museum of the Union Alba Iulia; [email protected] *** National Museum of the Union Alba Iulia; [email protected]

Rezumat. Studiul face referire la o descoperire făcută în cursul anului 2013, la Alba Iulia, cu ocazia lucrărilor de modernizare a Staţiei de Epurare a Apelor, situată la cca. 350 m vest de municipium Aurelium/colonia Aurelia (descoperirile de epocă romană de pe str. Dacilor). Cu această ocazie a fost cercetat parţial un edificiu de tip mausoleu, în a cărui cameră funerară au fost descoperite două sarcofage de marmură. Edificiul a fost parţial distrus de lucrările înce- pute fără asistenţă arheologică. S-a putut constata că acesta avea în plan dimensiunile de 11,1 × 6,5 m, cu o cameră funerară în centru de 3,3 × 4,5 m. Din punct de vedere arheologic s-a obser- vat un pat de pietriş, care reprezenta fundaţia construcţiei, surprinsă pe profilul vestic, pe o înăl- ţime de 1 m. Sub aceasta a fost descoperită o reţea de gropi de stâlpi care “armau” stratul de pie- triş. Edificiul a suferit mai multe jefuiri, fiind spoliat de calcarul din care era ridicată partea superioară, dar şi de marmura cu care era placat. Elemente de la intrare au fost refolosite la sarcofagul unui mormânt de inhumaţie, descoperit la câţiva metri spre nord. Pe baza analogiilor presupunem că mausoleul descoperit de noi avea o formă rectan- gulară, cu intrarea pe latura de sud, poziţionat la drumul care intra în Apulum prin partea de vest. A fost ridicat pe un teren aflat în proprietatea unei familii cu putere financiară însemnată, pentru a cinsti cum se cuvine memoria unor membri ai acesteia trecuţi în Lumea de Dincolo.

Cuvinte cheie: Apulum, mausoleum, inhumaţie, sarcofage de marmură.

1. Practices stuck in the past... Year by year, the archaeological excavations conducted on the vast territory of the urban centre at Apulum bring to light, beside information regarding the civil and military habitation, also valuable evidence on burial areas. Until not long ago, only two large cemeteries1 were known to exist, however field investigations of the most recent years revealed other three burial areas2. We shall present herein a mausoleum type building uncovered in 2013 during the archaeological investigations prior the construction of a new water treatment station

1 Bounegru, 2011, p. 79-82, Pl. II-III. 2 Paper presented by G. Bounegru in the Session of Scientific Papers Unity, Continuity and Independence in the History of the Romanian People. 98 years from the Great Union, Alba Iulia, 2016.

359 in Alba Iulia Municipality (Pl. 1; 2a). What did exactly happen? The beneficiary of the development works notified the National Museum of the Union in Alba Iulia that two Roman graves had been found (they had proven to be two marble sarcophagi) during the excavations for the construction of the new tanks. The request addressed to the Museum of the Union came when the project area of the upgrade works at the treatment station was excavated to a large extent down to -2 m in depth. Five areas of different sizes had been dug out. The black earth layer had been already removed, excavations being stopped when the yellow sandy layer was reached. The area had been mechanically excavated by a teethed bucket earthmover, whose traces were noticeable on the resulted profiles and grundriss. Of the five areas, only one contained archaeological remains.

Fig. 1. Situation in the field at the arrival of the archaeologists. At our arrival on the site, the works were stopped and measures for the com- mencement of large scale rescue archaeological excavations were taken, since the inves- tigation surface was considerable in size and a few areas remained undamaged3. Briefly, the land lies approximately 350 m west the Roman date finds on street Dacilor (located near the western limit of the Roman town municipium Aurelium Apulense / colonia Aurelia Apulensis), where obviously archaeological remains like suburban villae or new burial areas were likely to emerge. The results of the ensuing 6 months of research are remarkable, there being unveiled the foundations of several buildings that belonged to a villa suburbana and a new burial area4.

3 The archaeological excavation was conducted by: I. Lascu (scientific responsible), G. Bounegru and R. Ota, members of the research team. 4 The yielded archaeological material is numerous and in various restoration or processing stages, with results forthcoming in the next years.

360 2. Let us see what else could be safeguarded… Arriving on site, the team of archaeologists noticed that in the area conven- tionally termed S1 there was a gravel amassment in the middle of which could be distinguished the edges of two marble sarcophagi (termed from west to east, G1 and G2) with the alcove preserved. From nearby, other few marble fragments coming from their casket or lids were collected. After the area was cleaned, inhumations were observed in the grund5. On the western profile, there were distinguished the remains of a limestone sarcophagus, with only one of the short sides surviving, the remaining parts being destroyed by the contemporary excavation (Pl. 9b). Furthermore, in the same excavation unit, orange-red stains were identified in the grund, which have later proven to be kiln remains. There could also be noticed the routes of former walls surviving at our arrival only at the level of the bed plate6. Any stratigraphic relations among the surviving archaeological features were practically impossible to specify. In a first stage, the area was cleaned of the excavated earth and the western profile, on which anthropic traces were seen, was straightened (Pl. 3a–b). The remainder of the structure discussed herein was outlined in the attempt to document as precisely as possible what survived. It was rectangularly flat and sized 11.1 × 6.5 m. Architectonically, the funerary monument was built on a 1 m -high gravel foundation. This foundation is the monument element which we discovered. It survived partially, most being excavated prior our arrival7. We could note on the western profile that it was almost 1 m thick, being to a great extent damaged by a later interference pit (Fig. 2b). The building manner supposed

Fig. 2. Westward view of the mausoleum.

5 In the same excavation unit (area 1) were also identified other 15 graves, of which 12 east, north and north-west from the mausoleum building, graves of later date. 6 Building with bed plate foundations have been identified during the same research also ca. 60 m south the mausoleum. 7 From the information received from the workers on site, they excavated a compact bed plate layer from a rectangular area.

361 firstly a pit excavated in the topsoil. The bottom was lined with a layer of up to 10 cm diameter river stones. On top lay the gravel layer which was the mausoleum foundation. After the removal of the stone layer by the base, the building details of the construction could be identified. In grundriss, on the area edges there were postholes set up in four parallel rows on each side (Pl. 5). These postholes, with a maximum diameter of 10 cm, belonged to a network of posts buried in the ground and which supported the gravel core. The posts were planted in the ground at 0.20–0.25 m distances in-between. The building technique is well known, Vitruvius mentioning it for marshy areas: “If solid ground cannot be come to, and the ground be loose or marshy, the place must be excavated, cleared, and either alder, olive, or oak piles, previously charred, must be driven with a machine, as close to each other as possible, and the intervals, between the piles, filled with ashes. The heaviest foundations may be laid on such a base”8. On top of this gravel core followed a limestone blocks elevation, of which we could document only one slab (foundation) in the north-western corner, destroyed by a looting pit (Fig. 2). In the filling of this pit were discovered also a few broken limestone blocks, with one or two edges levelled. An enclosure (chamber) sized 3.3 × 4.5 m, where the two marble sarcophagi lay, was noticed centrally. It lay at almost equal distances from the east and west sides, 1.5 m, respectively 1.7 m. The positioning from the short sides is by 4 m from the southern side and 2.6 m from that northern. This evidences either an entrance or the monument front on the southern side. According to its form, the sepulchral monument we investigated might have had the shape of a prostyle temple with four column in the front (tetrastyle) and access stairs. The funerary chamber had no floor. Traces of a stone floor could not be found either even below the two sarcophagi, which is surprising giving the sizes of the construction. Other two architectonic fragments survived, namely the pillars of the doorway into the funerary chamber of the mausoleum (Pl. 8). These surfaced in the construction of a later grave, which lay north the mausoleum building. The two pieces (of which one previously broken into two) represented the entrance sides. There are also noticeable the rectangular orifices of an embedded horizontal beam, which was most likely designed to block the doors9. At Hierapolis, several funerary chambers from the northern cemetery have the entrance made of similar blocks of carved stone, like for instance a grave located in the area of the northern Byzantine gate (Pl. 7a). The two fragments have the following sizes: piece 1: L - 2.05 m; l - 0.65 m; h - 0.375 m; hmax - 0.44 m; piece 2: L - 2.05 m; l - 0.59 m; h - 0.32 m; hmax - 0.39 m. Both were despoiled and reused beside bricks in the construction of a sarcophagus casket of a Roman grave (G5) investigated nearby. The monumental sizes of these archi- tectonical fragments evidence a large building, with a height of a few meters. On the southern side, the funerary monument was damaged by an oval-shaped later interference, which has proven to be a hole where marble fragments were turned

8 Vitruvius, III, 4, 2. 9 Adam, 1984, p. 321, fig. 680.

362 into lime. In fact, other three lime holes, similar, have been discovered during the same campaign a few meters eastwards. Other two circular holes with a diameter of 1.3 m also cut the gravel layer, deepening in the sandy-yellow soil (Pl. 4). The sarcophagi inside are of Greco-Oriental type10 due to the gable lid type (operculum), which should have been provided with acroteria in the corners and train- gular pediment. Unfortunately, we succeeded to recover only the upper side of a lid. Sarcophagi of the type, with monoblock carved alcove were broadly diffused in the Roman world and Dacia as well11. Both sarcophagi have one of the long faces carefully worked, with profiled edges. In the funerary chamber, they lay one beside the other, practically back-to-back, each with the profiled side to the exterior (Pl. 6b). In terms of alignment on the short sides, sarcophagus no. 1 was positioned by 0.60 m northwards. It has the following sizes: L - 2.38 m; l - 1.15 m; h - 1.04 m. Inside, the skeleton of an adult was identified deranged (Pl. 6a). The upper edge was profiled to prevent pushing the lid sideways. On the short sides, there are orifices for lid attachment. Sarcophagus no. 2 is sized as follows: L - 2.32 m; l - 1.15 m; h - 0.85 m. It has the same lid attachment mechanism like the previous. Data above show that both arcae had almost equal sizes. There is though a sig- nificant difference in height (0.19 m). Most likely, this difference survived also in total height, or was even increased by the unequal sizes of the two lids. In both sarcophagi, the lid was attached to the alcove, on the two short sides, with iron elements bound with lead. Furthermore, the upper edges still preserve mortar traces which bound (sealed) the two sarcophagi parts12. The research of the adjacent area, lying westward the building herein, as well as of the hole where the sarcophagi were placed, yielded numerous marble fragments of diverse profiles and sizes. They have one of the faces well finished, while the back side is levelled. Many preserve on the back side traces of the mortar for their attachment. These are plating fragments of both the walls of the structure and those of the burial chamber (Pl. 9a). Most likely, some (Pl. 9a/1-2) are cornice profiles or doorway frames. The monument suffered a series of damages, which we identified in the rescue excavation. The first despoliation likely occurred after there were no other family descendants/heirs to care for it. The sarcophagi were broken, and the grave goods (very likely, valuable grave goods) were stolen. The skeletons survived partially and anato- mically. The sarcophagus in grave 1 has on the short southern side a break in the shape of a hollowing. Such interferences are frequent in Roman cemeteries, where a series of graves were looted as early as Antiquity. The wall was broken in the area of the lid attachment orifice, so the grave goods were stolen through the resulted hole. Inside the sarcophagi were found river stones (especially in G2), tile fragments and earth, indicative of looting even after the monument became a ruin and the lid broken. Once

10 Ţeposu-Marinescu, 1972, p. 216; Gramatopol, 2000, p. 203. 11 Ota, 2008, with references. 12 During the same campaign, a limestone sarcophagus which had the two parts bound with mortar was discovered in another trench.

363 in ruin, it was used as quarry, its purpose being that of reuse of the marble plates, any possible sculptural decorations or upper side limestone blocks. Inside the burial chamber we discovered ash by the southern boundary, the edges of sarcophagus 1 exhibiting strong fire traces. Still from there come melted lead pieces from the attachment of the lids. In order to be more easily broken, the stone was strongly heated, then suddenly cooled with cold water. The northern edge of the same sarcophagus showed fire traces as well, the sarcophagus being grimed. Possibly this is why, beside the contemporary mechanical interference, the sarcophagus casket edge is so heavily damaged. The lime holes identified around plead for the use of the marble remains, of the broken plates as raw material for lime making. At a certain point in time, during the 3rd century, the land became the property of another owner, who levelled the area and built nearby a building, most likely a house, which were fortunate enough to partially investigate. 3. What is a mausoleum? Starting from men’s natural desire to leave something after death, to convey a certain image of oneself to posterity, in the culture of various populations funerary monuments were built to honour the memory of the local leaders or the community notables. Some monuments started to be built during their lifetime, however most, after death, being erected by descendants or heirs. The term of mausoleum entered the literature starting from the building built by king/satrap Mausolos of Caria (377–353 BC) in Halicarnassus. Mausolos started the construction of a grandiose funerary monument, of an amazing beauty, in perpetuation of his memory and his spouse Artemisa (who continued its construction), catalogued as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Deemed the last great monument of the Greek classical art13, it was composed of a monumental base which contained the burial chamber, on top of which lay a Ionic temple with 36 columns, and above, a 24-stepped pyramid, supporting a quadriga with the statues of Mausolos and his spouse Artemisa. The original project suffered a few changes, Artemisa wishing that on the quadriga, which was supposed to be uppermost part of the monument, she and her brother would be rendered in the posture of a princely couple. Artemisa dies two years after the death of her husband, in 351 BC, yet the construction of the monument continues, it being completed in 335 BC. The funerary monument was designed by architects Satyros and Pyteos (Pitios), while the reliefs decorating the sculpted friezes, by the greatest masters of the time: Skopas, Leochares, Timotheos and Bryaxis14. The mausoleum is a large funerary construction, designed upon a well-defined architectural plan, circular, resembling a barrow, or rectangular, in the shape of a house or temple, with an underground level where the burial chamber lay and one or several upper levels, usually decorated with statues or reliefs15. The archaeological excavations conducted within the territory of the former Roman province of Dacia revealed two impressive funerary constructions in terms of

13 Faure, 1988, p. 160. 14 Chiţulescu, Chiţulescu, 1969, p. 139-145, fig. 70, 71a-71b; Chamoux, 1985, p. 83; Lévêque, 1987, p. 91-92; Carlier, 1998, p. 258. 15 Barbu, 1982, p. 477; Ginouvès, 1998, p. 64-65.

364 structure and size: the so-called “mausoleum of the Aurelii” in the western cemetery of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in fact a 21 m-diameter barrow16 and the circular monument (still a barrow) from Alburnus Maior, with the internal diameter of 7.5 m and that external of 9 m17. Both are stone-built and in the shape of barrows18. Likely, a series of sculptural funerary monuments were parts of mausoleum type constructions. For instance, funerary sphinxes were crowning elements for both grand monuments as well as mausoleum type buildings. It was also hypothesised that some pilasters had been used in mausoleum type monuments19, however we believe that their simple presence is no sufficient argument to this effect. 4. Parallels within the Empire Famous mausolea are especially preserved in Rome and belong to the imperial family, patricians or rich entrepreneurs. These are the circular mausolea of Augustus, Caecilia Metella and Hadrian20. Identified parallels frame to the type of grave in the form of a rectangular temple, established by Jocelyn Mary Catherine TONYNBEE in a work published in 197121. A mausoleum in Centocelle, a place nearby Rome, had the shape of a prostyle tetrastyle temple and belonged to Q. Haterius Tychicus, an entrepreneur of whom it is known to have lived under Domitian22. Other possible analogies are the monuments at Sarsina, belonging to Aulus Murcius Obulaccus, respectively Asfionius Rufus; that at Haidra, in Tunisia; Termessos, in Pisidia; or the construction at Fabara, in Hispania Tarraconen- sis23. Such mausolea, occasionally brick-made, are those in the cemetery at Isola Sacra, Ostia, and Vatican, yet also of Annia Regillia, spouse to Herodes Atticus24. Rectangu- lar mausolea are widely spread in Africa Proconsularis and Syria25. An almost identical mausoleum as layout and which contained at least one marble sarcophagus (robbed, alike most mausolea), was researched at Welwyn, Hertfordshire, in Britannia26. Other two mausolea are found at Buthrotum, in Epirus, rectangular, with front portico, in the shape of a prostyle temple, which, by their structure, are part of those built within the

16 Daicoviciu, Floca, 1937, p. 1-23; Floca, 1941, p. 55-60, Fig. 35, 37; Diaconescu, 2004, p. 302, Fig. 157. 17 Simion et alii, 2004, p. 41-45, Pl. 24-28, 34; Diaconescu, 2004, p. 304, Fig. 159. Carmen CIONGRADI frames them in the class “Tumulusgräber” (Ciongradi, 2007, p. 100-101, Taf. 17. 18 In other views too, they are funerary enclosures or circular monuments - Ţeposu-Marinescu, 1982, p. 36; Bărbulescu, 2003, p. 87-88; Stănescu, 2003, p. 101; Simion et alii, 2004; Ţentea, 2009, p. 33. 19 Bărbulescu, 1976, p. 267-268, 272, fig. 1a-b. 20 Toynbee, 1971, p. 154, Fig. 14, Pl. 49-50; Davies, 1977, p. 18; Diaconescu, 2004, p. 298, 300, Fig. 153, 155; Barbu, 1982, p. 477. They are in fact barrow graves of considerable sizes. 21 Toynbee, 1971, p. 130-132. 22 Toynbee, 1971, p. 132; Gramatopol, 1982, p. 478, Fig. 328. 23 Toynbee, 1971, p. 130-131. 24 Diaconescu, 2004, p. 286, Fig. 148-149. R. Ginouvès deems those at Isola Sacra, house-graves, and that belonging to Annia Regillia, a temple-grave. See: Ginouvès, 1998, p. 64, Pl. 31/5-6. 25 Barbu, 1982, p. 477. 26 Rook et alii, 1984, p. 143-150, fig. 1-2.

365 empire starting with the Flavians until mid 3rd century AD27. Another example is that at Gasr Doga (60 km south-west the African metropolis Leptis Magna), in Tripolitania - Africa Proconsularis, rectangular, built on four levels28. In Libya, in the cemetery north of Ghirza, still preserve funerary constructions which are similar in layout with those discovered at Apulum. A good parallel may be the monument of Marchius Nasif and Marchia Mathlich. This monument, rectangular in shape, is of late date, by early 4th century AD (Pl. 7b)29. Still a late find, by early 4th century AD, is the mausoleum from Šarkamen, built to the memory of Maximinus Daia’s mother30. This mausoleum, called by the excavators “Structure B” survived as a rectangular core of stone bound with mortar, having in the middle the circular tomb, descending below the foundation level, similar to our find. Even though looted, part of the richly furnishing could be archaeologically recovered. A large funerary construction, which might have fulfilled the function of a mausoleum according to its layout, yet especially by the massive foundations, was discovered in NW Gallia, at Vâton. It had three chambers, built in different period of times, of a few years. They each contained a grave, one of a female in wooden coffin and two males, placed in limestone sarcophagi. The total space of the entire sepulchral monument is of 29 m2, while the thickest walls, of which only the foundation survived, were 1.56 m31. 5. The workshop making the sarcophagi The answer to the question regarding the workshop that produced the sarcophagi is no easy matter, entirely satisfactory. We chose to connect the available information concerning the local production of marble artefacts in Dacia. Based on appearance, the marble comes from the quarries at Bucova, exploited in Roman times. Tests per- formed on a series of pieces from Roman Dacia have proven that 65 of them, both sculptural and epigraphic were carved in marble coming from above quarry, exploited as early as Trajan, while the craftsmen were most likely recruited from Asia Minor. This was the sculptural school of microasian craftsmen from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, who finished their products near the quarry at Bucova32. It was most likely there where the two sarcophagi of the mausoleum discussed herein were made, based on the craftsmanship in rendering the framing profiles. Of the same marble seem to come also the profiled fragments described above. 6. Who owned this mausoleum? As regards the dead for whom the funerary monument was erected, the lack of any inscription leaves space for only speculation. From Apulum are known to come a few families whose wealth would allow them to commission such edifice.

27 Gilkes et alii, 2013, p. 165-176, Fig. 9.3, 9.18. 28 Bigi et alii, 2009, p. 27-28, fig. 1. 29 See: http://www.livius.org/pictures/libya/ghirza/ghirza-northern-necropolis/. 30 Tomović, 2005, p. 19-35. 31 Hincker et alii, 2012, p. 118-120, 124-125, 134, 137-138, 145, Fig. 5, 9-10, 14, 19-20, 24-27. 32 Müller et alii, 1997, p. 432, 449-450; Diaconescu, 2004, p. 428-431.

366 The family of the Publii Aelii especially stands out, as between late 2nd – first two decades of the 3rd century AD distinguished itself by holding many public offices over of at least three generations33. Another well known family, in particular at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, where its members hold several public offices34, is recorded at Apulum by T. Varenius Sabinianus, who was buried there, beside his sister35. Would the Varenii or one of its offshoot own a mausoleum at Apulum, since its members distinguished themselves especially in the municipal life of the town at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa? These questions may not be given very accurate or pertinent explanations. 7. An older find... In 1961, on Încoronării blvd. (former 6 Martie), at no. 3, during the construction of a house, the archaeologists of the Museum in Alba Iulia, under the supervision of Ion BERCIU, recovered two sarcophagi, one of brick, domed, covered in painted plaster, and the other, of stone. The latter had an internal length of 45 cm, a size much too small to accommodate even the body of a neonatus. We believe we are dealing with a cist, which might have contained the cremation remains of the dead, as well as the funerary inventory deposited. Both, provided with libation devices perforated in the lid, lay in a burial chamber sized 3.35 × 2.80 m, paved with bricks36. Did these graves belong to a mausoleum? It is true, the excavators did not pub- lish any plan or more conclusive photos taken during the excavations, however they provide a few information that could be helpful in deciphering as much as possible from the essence of this find. A 1.06 m - thick “debris layer” that “descends” down to 1.71 m in depth37 is mentioned. It is not excluded that this “debris” surrounding the graves was in fact the foundations of the construction or the rubble resulted from the burial chamber walls. It is certain that from there were recovered a fragmentary column shaft surviving on a height of 1 m, and a funerary lion head38. If the lion guarded the funerary enclosure, the column might have belonged to a mausoleum. Unfortunately, the editors were interested more in the sarcophagi features than the archaeological con- text, so our analysis remains only a supposition. 8. What do inscriptions say? A series of epitaphs that may make us think of extant mausolea or large funerary constructions are published as originating from Apulum. We chose to mention a few, collected and scientifically interpreted by Professor Ioan PISO, who assumed that part might have belonged to such mausolea. In 1622 an inscribed marble sarcophagus was discovered in a place nearby the Mureş river interflow with the Ampoi, later sent to Vienna (where it never reached as the boat sunk near Szeged). The text reports on an important dignitary of Ulpia Traiana

33 Ardevan, 1998, p. 213-214. 34 Ardevan, 1998, p. 197. 35 IDR, III/5, 596. 36 Berciu, Wolski, 1971, p. 375-376. 37 Berciu, Wolski, 1971, p. 375-376. 38 Berciu, Wolski, 1971, p. 377.

367 Sarmizegetusa (flamen and decurion) and colonia Aurelia Apulensis (decurion), T(itus) Varen(ius) Sabinianus and his sister Varenia Probina, placed in this sarcophagus by their relatives39. The find in 1908 of three fragmentary marble plates in the same spot40, namely the Sârb vineyard, on the current street Viilor, shows we are dealing with epitaphs dedicated to some members of the same family of the Domitii, namely a (Domitius) Eufras, augustales in municipium Septimium Apulense, who placed a monument to his spouse Gellia Vita41, and another figure, Domitius Nic[…], who hold an office in the same town42. I. Piso believes these inscriptions belonged to a mausoleum owned by this fam- ily43. The funerary construction overlooked the imperial road that linked colonia Aurelia Apulensis to the fortress and the civil settlement around it. It was thusly positioned so to be visible, and the memory of the dead properly honoured. In July 1972, when the blocks of flats B5 was built on the Platoul Romanilor, west the fortress of legio XIII Gemina, a few funerary monuments were recovered, without yet any archaeological investigations. They include a funerary monument base with the mask of the dead in relief framed by two lions, an eadicula wall decorated in relief with the image of two male figures dressed in a short tunic, an inscription frag- ment of which have survived only a few letters44, and a complete epitaph dedicated to Iulia Serena by nephew G(aius) Bellicius Quintianus. The excavators assumed these monuments might have belonged to a mausoleum45, but later, I. Piso argued it was one dedicated to the Bellicii46. No other funerary monuments or any possible burial area are known from this find spot. Lying at sizeable distance from the Roman finds that belonged to the second town at Apulum, it is obvious we are dealing with a funerary structure on the private property of the Bellicii, likely even near a road which, exiting by porta decumana, crossed the civil settlement. The monument types discovered in this case plead rather for a funerary enclosure where several family members were buried than a mausoleum type construction. 9. Conclusions It is certain that, in the current state of research, we are dealing with the single mausoleum discovered insofar in Dacia. Customarily, given the development of a large

39 CIL, III, 1198; ILS, 8113; Floca, 1941, p. 6-8, no. 2; Ardevan, 1998, p. 236; Gramatopol, 2000, p. 206; IDR, III/5, 596. 40 IDR, III/5, 525, 534, 638. 41 IDR, III/5, 534. 42 IDR, III/5, 525. 43 IDR, III/5, p. 400. 44 Popa, Pavel, 1975, p. 113-116, no. 3, fig. 3. I. Piso attempts to complete the text and assumes it is an epitaph mentioning another two members of the Bellicii, namely Caius Bellicius Quin- tianus and one Valens/Valentina. See: IDR, III/5, 508, pl. III, 42. 45 Popa, Pavel, 1975, no. 4, p. 113-118, fig. 4; IDR, III/5, 546, pl. III, 42. 46 IDR, III/5, 508.

368 number of towns and afferent municipal aristocracy, such sepulchral monuments must have been built in the province47. Epigraphic evidence (the funerary ensemble of Iulia Serena, the epitaphs of the Bellicii and Domitii) shows we are dealing with more complex funerary monuments that might have belonged to a mausoleum, but also to a funerary enclosure. The chamber investigated by I. Berciu, from where the two sarcophagi were retrieved, might have belonged to a barrow monument, without excluding the existence of a mausoleum. Furthermore, it is difficult to establish a more restricted chronological framing of the monument, yet stratigraphy evidences it was prior to the building on top, which we dated after mid 3rd century AD based on a denarius from Valerianus issued in 253 AD. In addition, the sarcophagi show high craftsmanship, which by the profiled frame elements, highly crafted, point to the workshop of microasian craftsmen from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, seated nearby the quarry at Bucova. The period of maximum artistic quality was under the Antonines48. Thus, we believe that the mausoleum here was built after AD 150, until no later than Commodus. It is known that most grand funerary monuments overlooked roads in order to emphasize the importance of the memory of the dead as notable in the local or even provincial community. However, starting with Trajan, another fashion spreads among the members of the aristocracy, who no longer wish to expose their mausolea “in plain sight”, alongside the large roads, but chose to build them in their private domains in the towns’ vicinity, near a villa suburbana49. Hypothesising, the wealthy family to whom the mausoleum here belonged to, might have proceeded in this manner, by building their sepulchral monument on a land located approximately 350 m west the supposed enclosure of colonia Aurelia Apulensis. Currently, the two marble sarcophagi are the only surviving in Dacia. Another marble sarcophagus discovered at Apulum is missing due to unknown circumstances50.

47 A broad analysis is found in the work of Alexandru DIACONESCU from 2004. Thus, the find at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa of large inscribed funerary plates, used by the entrance into the mausolea or their arcosolia, made the Cluj-based professor to conclude there existed also other mausoleum type constructions, at least in the colonia founded by Trajan. See: IDR, III/2, 366, 371, 379, 393, 416; Diaconescu, 2004, p. 289-292. 48 Diaconescu, 2004, p. 430-431. 49 Diaconescu, 2004, p. 286-287. 50 CIL, III, 1198; IDR, III/5, 596.

369

Plate 1. Location of the find.

370 a a

b b

Plate 2. Position of the find compared to Colonia Aurelia Apulensis (a); situation on site identified by the archaeologists (b).

371 a

Plate 3. Western profile (a); detail during the excavation (b).

372

Plate 4. Plan of the building.

373

Plate 5. Postholes traces.

374 a

Plate 6. Sarcophagus 1 (a, c); sarcophagus 2; profiled side (b).

375 a

Plate 7. Hierapolis; mausoleum by the northern town gate (a); mausoleum of Marchius Nasif and Marchia Mathlich at Ghirza (b).

376

Plate 8. Entrance frame.

377 a

Plate 9. (a) Marble fragments from the funerary building; (b) Western profile of area 1.

378 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, 1989 Jean-Pierre ADAM, La construction romaine. Matériaux et techniques, ed. A. et J. Picard, IIè édition, Paris, 1989, 360 pg., ISBN 2-7084-0381-8. Ardevan, 1998 Radu ARDEVAN, Viaţa municipală în Dacia Romană, Ed. Mirton, Timişoara, 1998, 624 pg., ISBN 973-578-436-X. Barbu, 1982 Vasile BARBU, mausoleul, In: Dumitru TUDOR (ed), Enciclopedia civilizaţiei romane, Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, București, 1982, 830 pg.; pp. 477-478. Bărbulescu, Mihai BĂRBULESCU, Pilastrul cu divinităţi din Napoca şi unele aspec- 1976 te ale arhitecturii sepulcrale în Dacia, In: Anuarul Institutului de istorie şi arheologie, XIX, 1976, pp. 267-274. Bărbulescu, Mihai BĂRBULESCU, Interferenţe spirituale în Dacia romană, Ed. 2003 Tribuna, Cluj-Napoca, 2003 (Ed. a II-a, rev. și adăugită), 326 pg., ISBN 973858938X. Berciu, Ion BERCIU, Wanda WOLSKI, Un nou tip de mormânt descoperit la Wolski, 1971 Apulum şi problema sarcofagelor cu boltă din Imperiul Roman, In: Apulum, IX, 1971, pp. 375-433. Bigi et alii, Francesca BIGI, Ginette DI VITA-EVRARD, Sergio FONTANA, Gian- 2009 luca SCHINGO, The Mausoleum of Gasr Doga, In: Libyan Studies, 40, 2009, pp. 25-46. Bounegru, George BOUNEGRU, Roman cemeteries from Apulum. Demarcation 2011 and chronology, In: Ioan PISO, Viorica RUSU-BOLINDEŢ, Rada VARGA, Silvia MUSTAŢĂ, Eugenia BEU-DACHIN, Ligia RUSCU (ed), Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan sexagenario dedicata, Ed. Mega Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2011, 494 pg., ISBN 978-606-543-1 96-6; pp. 79-88. Carlier, 1998 Pierre CARLIER, Secolul al IV-lea grec până la moartea lui Alexandru: Istoria Greciei antice, vol. 3, Annales, Universitas, Ed. Teora, București, 1998, 320 pg., ISBN 973-601-407-X. Chamoux, François CHAMOUX, Civilizaţia greacă în epocile arhaică şi clasică, II, 1985 Ed. Meridiane, București, 1985, 180 pg. Chiţulescu, Georgeta CHIŢULESCU, Traian CHIŢULESCU, Şapte monumente Chiţulescu, celebre ale antichităţii. ,,Cele şapte minuni”, Arhitectura de-a lungul 1969 veacurilor, Ed. Tehnică, Bucureşti, 1969, 222 pg. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. Ciongradi, Carmen CIONGRADI, Grabmonument und sozialer Status in Ober- 2007 dakien, Mega Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2007, 516 pg., ISBN 978-973-7867-85. Daicoviciu, Constantin DAICOVICIU, Monumente inedite din Dacia, In: Anuarul 1928-1932 Institutului de Studii Clasice, I, 1928-1932, pp. 112-126. Daicoviciu, Constantin DAICOVICIU, Octavian FLOCA, Mausoleul Aureliilor de Floca, 1937 la Sarmizegetusa, In: Sargetia, I, 1937, pp. 1-23. Daicoviciu et Hadrian DAICOVICIU, Dorin ALICU, Emil NEMEŞ, Ioan PISO, C-tin alii, 1974-1975 POP, Adriana RUSU, Principalele rezultate ale săpăturilor din 1973- 1974 la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa şi semnificaţia lor, In: Sargetia, XI-XII, 1974-1975, pp. 225-231.

379 Davies, 1977 Glenys DAVIES, Burial in Italy up to Augustus, Richard REECE (ed), Burial in the Roman World, CBA Research Report, no. 22, London, 1977, vi + 66 pg., ISBN 0 900312 47 5; pp. 13-19. Diaconescu, Alexandru DIACONESCU, Statuaria majoră în Dacia Romană, 1, Cluj- 2004 Napoca, 2004 (CD, electronic edition), 470 pg. Faure, 1988 Élie FAURE, Istoria artei. Arta antică, Ed. Meridiane, București, 1988, 212 pg. Floca, 1941 Octavian FLOCA, Sistemele de înmormântare din Dacia superioară romană, In: Sargetia, II, 1941, pp. 1-116. Gilkes et alii, Oliver J. GILKES, Valbona HYSA, Dhimitër ÇONDI (with a contri- 2013 bution by Inge Lyse HANSEN), Two Roman Mausolea on the Vrina Plain, In: Inge Lyse HANSEN, Richard HODGES, Sarah LEPPARD (eds), Butrint 4. The Archaeology and Histories of an Ionian Town, Oxbow Books, Oxford and Oakville, 2013, 250 pg., ISBN 978-1-8421 7-462-3; pp. 165-181. Ginouvès, René GINOUVÈS, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque 1998 et romaine, Tome III: Espaces arhitecturaux, bâtiments et ensembles, École Française d’Athènes, École Française de Rome, Athènes-Rome, 1998, 358 pg., ISBN 2-7283-0529-3. Gramatopol, Mihai GRAMATOPOL, “mausoleul Hateriilor”, In: Dumitru TUDOR 1982 (ed) Enciclopedia civilizaţiei romane, Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, București, 1982, 830 pg.; p. 478. Gramatopol, Mihai GRAMATOPOL, Arta romană în România, Curente și sinteze, 2000 62, Ed. Meridiane, București, 2000, 352 pg., ISBN 973-33-0409-3. Hincker et alii, Vincent HINCKER, Guillaume MARIE, Cécile NIEL, Aurélien PIOLOT, 2012 Armelle ALDUC-LE BAGOUSSE, Vanessa BRUNET, Anne BOC- QUET-LIÉNARD, Une nécropole aristocratique rurale des IIe-IIIe s. À Vâton (Falaise, Calvados) dans la cité des Viducasses, In: Nécropoles et sociétés: cinq ensembles funéraires des provinces de Gaulle (Ier-Ve siècle apr. J.-C.), Gallia, Tome 69, Fascicule 1, Paris, 2012, 346 pg. ISBN 978-2-271-0 7563-5; pp. 115-165. IDR Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae, Bucureşti-Paris, 1975–2001. ILS Inscriptiones latinae selectae, Berlin. Lévêque, 1987 Pierre LÉVÊQUE, Aventura greacă, II, Ed. Meridiane, București, 1987, 476 pg. Müller et alii, Harald MÜLLER, Bernd SCHWAIGHOFER, Marcel BENEA, Ioan 1997 PISO, Alexandru DIACONESCU, Provenance of Marble Objects from the Roman Province of Dacia, In: Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien (JÖAI), 66, 1997, pp. 431-454. Ota, 2008 Radu OTA, Sarcofagele romane din piatră descoperite la Apulum, In: Pontica, 41, 2008, pp. 209-218. Popa, Pavel, Alexandru POPA, Viorica PAVEL, Ansamblul funerar al Iuliei Serena 1975 de la Apulum, In: Apulum, XIII, 1975, pp. 113-120. Rook et alii, Tony ROOK, Susan WALKER, C. B. DENSTON, A Roman Mausoleum 1984 and Associated Marble Sarcophagus and Burials from Welwyn, Hert- fordshire, In: Britannia, 15, 1984, pp. 143-162.

380 Simion et alii, Mihaela SIMION, Virgil APOSTOL, Decebal VLEJA, Monumentul 2005 funerar circular / The Circular Funeral Monument, Alburnus Maior, II, Ed. Daim, Bucureşti, 2005, 192 pg., ISBN 973-85887-9-0. Stănescu, 2003 Alexandru STĂNESCU, Monumentul funerar: text şi imagine, In: Mihai BĂRBULESCU (ed), Funeraria dacoromana. Arheologia funerară a Daciei romane, Ed. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca, 2003, 530 pg., ISBN 9736101673; pp. 107-123. Tomović, 2005 Miodrag TOMOVIĆ, The memorial complex. Structure B, In: Ivana POPOVIĆ (ed), Šarkamen, A tetrarchic imperial Palace, Archaeological Institute, Ed. Altanova, Beograd, 2005, 182 pg., ISBN 8680093440; pp. 19-36. Toynbee, 1971 Jocelyn Mary Catherine TONYNBEE, Death and Burial in the Roman World, Ed. The Camelot Press Ltd., London-Southampton, 1971, 304 pg. Ţentea, 2009 Ovidiu ŢENTEA, Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa: un ghid, Ed. Media- mira, Deva, 2009 (ediția a II-a), 58 pg., ISBN 978-973-713-261-1. Ţeposu- Lucia ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU, Despre originea unor tipuri de monu- Marinescu, mente funerare din Dacia Superior, In: Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche, 1972 23, 2, 1972, pp. 215-223. Ţeposu- Lucia ŢEPOSU-MARINESCU, Funerary Monuments in Dacia Supe- Marinescu, rior and Dacia Porolissensis, BAR International Series, 128, 1982, 244 1982 pg., ISBN 0860541584. Vitruvius VITRUVIU, Despre arhitectură, Traducere de: †G. M. CANTACU- ZINO, Traian COSTA și Grigore IONESCU, Scriitori greci și latini, V, Ed. Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, București, 1964, 484 pg.

381