T R A J A N U N D S E I N E S TÄ D T E

Colloquium Cluj-Napoca, 29. September – 2. Oktober 2013

Cluj-Napoca 2014 ■ 205–223

Tropaeum Traiani*

Florian Matei-Popescu
(Bucureşti)

Introduction

N ext to the famous monument celebrating Trajan’s victory over the Dacians and
the other Lower Danubian peoples (in fact a memorial composed of a triumphal
monument, a funerary shrine, which has an inscription with a list of the fallen Roman
soldiers1, unfortunately badly preserved, and a tumulus, probably a mausoleum)2, a Roman
town rose and developed on the Urluiei Valley plateau (fig. 2–3). It was located at an
important crossroad: almost halfway on the road that connects Durostorum, an important
legionary base on the Danube, with Tomis on the western shore of the Black Sea3, and
on the road that leads from Marcianopolis north way to Noviodunum on the Danube.
Also from Tropaeum Traiani one could follow the road to Abrittus and further south to
Nicopolis ad Istrum4 (fig. 2–3).

* I thank Ioan Piso, Dan Dana, Andrei Opaiț and Ovidiu Țentea who read previous versions of this
paper and made valuable comments and suggestions.
1
CIL III 14214 = ILS 9107 = AE 1980, 794 = ISM IV 8; Cichorius 1904, p.  19 – 42. I am not,
nevertheless, at all convinced that the praefectus from Pompeii, with the domicilium in Neapolis, should be
Cornelius Fuscus; see the doubts already expressed by Vulpe 1968, p. 75 – 76, 108 – 109 and Strobel 1984, p.
327 – 328. The same monument was probably recorded by Cassius Dio 68, 8, 2; Vulpe 1968, p. 89 – 91; Speidel
2010, p. 144 – 145.
2
On the Roman monuments from Tropaeum Traiani see Florescu 1965; Vulpe 1968, p. 97 – 116;
Sâmpetru 1969; Sâmpetru 1984; Alexandrescu-Vianu 2006, taking critically into account the older bibliography.
In the interpretation of the tropaeum, I follow Florescu 1965, p. 18 – 20, especially p. 19: “Beendigung des
Krieges mit den Dakern erforderte also die Errichtung eines Tropaeums, um einen vollständigen Sieg zu
feiern, nicht aber ein früheres örtliches Kriegsereignis und das, nachdem einige Friedensjahre vergangen waren”
and Poulter 1986, p. 519: “given the date of the monument, the scenes of warfare and a Roman victory must
surely refer to the conquest of Dacia in general terms, possibly the 2nd Dacian War in particular, not a battle of
local significance”. Being inaugurated in 109 (CIL III 12467 = IDRE II 334 = ISM IV 5; see also IDRE II
335 = ISM IV 6), one can not restrain himself not to observe that it dates from the very same time with the
inauguration of the colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa in Dacia (IDR III/2, 1 = ILD 238; for a short overview
on the state of the research on the Dacian colonia see Ardevan 1998, 42 – 45; Piso 2005, 435 – 457; Petolescu
2011, 85 – 89); see also Petolescu 2014a, p. 83.
3
It is worth to mention here the coins from Tomis which depicts the Tropaeum Traiani, Sâmpetru
1979, which proves a close connection between the two centres.
4
See the milliarium discovered in the area of Zaldapa (Abrit), which is to be dated during Hadrian’s
reign, probably in AD 118, CIL III 14464; Pârvan 1912, p. 17 – 18.
206 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

The place name derives from the monument and its citizens call themselves Traianenses
Tropaeenses5. It shall be the task of this paper to make an outline of the history of the town
from its very beginnings until the end of the third century, when the city was destroyed by
the Gothic invasions. It was, thereafter, reconstructed a fundamentis at the beginning of the
fourth century, as an inscription from AD 317 states (Tropaeensium civitas)6. The history of
the Late Roman town is not taking into consideration here7.

The Origins of the municipium

The first problem to be tackled here is the one of the origins of the city. Although,
numerous inscriptions were discovered on the site, since the end of the 19th century, when the
archaeological excavations began,8 the precise moment when the community from Tropaeum
Traiani was granted the municipal right is still unknown. The very first attestation of a duumvir
goes back to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, when one of them, L. Fufidius Lucianus, was killed
by the Costoboci, during their ravaging expedition on the Roman soil in AD 1709. One should,
therefore, take into consideration the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the joint
rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. From the list we should without any hesitations
exclude Antoninus Pius, who never granted municipal rights to the Roman communities from
the Lower Danube. In the light of the information we have on the lex municipii Troesmensis10,
it seems that Marcus Aurelius was active in this field only in his later years of reign, during
his joint reign with Commodus (177 – 180). In Moesia inferior, two were the cities which
became municipia civium Romanorum under his reign, Troesmis and Durostorum, though in
different conditions. Since the inscription attesting the duumvir is to be dated around 170,
the municipium of Tropaeum Traiani was not probably Marcus Aurelius’ achievement11. Two
emperors still remain into discussion: Trajan, whose name apparently was borne by the city, and
Hadrian, the restless emperor.
Some of the inscriptions discovered at the site could help to solve the issue. Before going
further, I must add that none of them were discovered in their original context, all being
reused in the Late Roman constructions, so it is impossible to make some connections with
the archaeological remains.

5
CIL III 12740 = ISM IV 9; Barnea et alii 1979, p. 17.
6
ILS 8938 = IGLR 170. Starting with the second half of the third century and the beginning of the
fourth century the status distinction between the Roman cities is fading, all being named civitates, Langhammer
1973, p. 22 – 23.
7
See Barnea 1991, p. 199 – 202.
8
For a short summary of the archaeological campaigns see I. Barnea’s introductory chapter from Barnea
et alii 1979, p. 13 – 34. See also the review published by Diaconu 1980.
9
AE 1964, 252 = IDRE II 337 = ISM IV 49; Popescu 1964, p. 192 – 194. The stone was mentioned in
the Gr. Tocilescu’s manuscripts, as being discovered, in 1904, on the via principalis at 27 meters distance from
the eastern gate. He did not publish the inscription. It was rediscovered, in 1960, in the nearby of the one of
the four early Christian basilicae of the city, namely the one that overlapped the former water tank of the city.
10
Eck 2013; Eck 2014.
11
Moreover, the municipium Aurelium Apulense from Dacia that is already in AD 180 attested (CIL III
986 = ILS 3848 = IDR III/5, 20; see also AE 1944, 29 = IDR III/5, 52, attesting the primus IIIIvir municipii)
had a quattuorviral organization (Ardevan 1998, p. 139 – 140; Petolescu 2011, p. 93 – 94), which could prove
that it was founded before Commodus’ accession to power. The two municipia from Moesia Inferior both had
duumviri, which seems to be the rule during Marcus Aurelius and Commodus’ joint reign.
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 207

The very first, in the chronological order, is a statue base set by the Roman community
of Tropaeum Traiani in Trajan’s honour, probably after his Victoria Parthica12, reused in a Late
Roman building, next to the western gate13 – such statue should have been set in a highly
visible public place, probably in the forum (fig. 4):
[Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) divi Nervae f(ilio)] Ner[vae Tra/iano Op]t(imo) Aug(usto) /
Germ(anico) Dac(ico) Pa[rthic(o) pon(tifici max(imo)]/ [trib(unicia) p]ot(estate) XX, imp(eratori)
XII, co(n)s(uli) VI p(atri) p(atriae) / [Tra]ianenses Tropaeenses / [sub? Q(uinto) R]oscio Murena
Coelio Po[mpe/]io Falcone, leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) [pr(aetore) fecer(unt) vel dedicav(erunt)...] –
AD 116.
This inscription could prove the very existence of a municipium, but could be also used as
a strong argument against such an idea. As a matter of fact the municipium is not mentioned,
which is curious for an official monument like this one. The monument was set by the members
of the community of Tropaeum Traiani: the Traianenses Tropaeenses. B. Galsterer-Kröll argued
that this is a clear sign that the community already possessed municipal right, just like in the
case of: Aurelii Banasitani, Foroiulienses, Lepcitani Septimiani and many others14.
The second inscription that must be brought into discussion is also a statue base, reused
in the construction of a Late Roman basilica that overlapped the former water tank of the
town, now unfortunately lost15:
[P(ro) s(alute) Imp(eratoris)] M(arci) Aur(eli) [et] / G(enio) [m(unicipii] Traiani Tropaei
per  / Qui(ntio) Prisciano et Iul(io) / Marco II viri q(uin)q(uennales), aed(iles) / Crescens et
Sabinus,  / Marcus et Severus q(uaestores), / sc(riba) Valentinus et C S/ [Comm]odo et Byr[o]
co(nsulibus) – AD 181.
It seems that the name of the city was municipium Traianum Tropaeum, being assumed
that it was a Trajanic foundation.16 Nevertheless, the reading of this inscription is not at
12
It is probably worth mentioning here that in the same time the forum of colonia Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa, in Dacia, was constructed, Diaconescu 2006–2007; Piso 2008; AE 2007, 1203. The inscription
from Sarmizegetusa is probably to be dated also in AD 116. In the same year, a tropaeum was erected in the
forum, AE 2003, 1515 = ILD 239 (= IDR III/2, 135); Étienne, Piso, Diaconescu 2004, p. 73; 130, pl. XLIV,
2; 131, note 122; Piso et alii 2006, p. 90; 139 – 140, fig. II/82 – 83; 202, B.1; 217 – 219, no. 4; Diaconescu, Bota
2009, p. 161 – 162; 163, fig. 41/A.
Other Trajan’s honorary inscriptions from AD 116 are to be found at: Dura Europos, Syria (raised by
the III Cyrenaica legion, AE 1933, 225 = AE 1937, 243); Sythopolis, Judaea (set by the city, AE 1999, 1688);
Tyras, Moesia inferior (set by the vexillation of the V Macedonica legion and the governor, AE 1990, 868);
Mactaris, Africa Proconsularis (set by the city and the governor, CIL VIII 11798); Thamugadi, Numidia (set by
the city, CIL III 2356 = ILS 303, the numbers of the tribunicia potestas and of the imperial acclamations are
corrupted, being give as XXIII and XVIII – it could be dated in 116 or in 117); Cures Sabini, Italia, Regio IV
(set probably by the city in 117, imp. XIII, CIL IX 4956); Puteoli, Regio I (set by the cultores Iovis Heliopolitani
Berytenses qui Puteolis consistunt, CIL X 1634 = ILS 300); Musti, Africa Proconsularis (set by a duumvir and a
flamen municipii after a construction and decoration of a porticus and a construction of another porticus and of
a sacrarium in the temples of Ceres and Dis Pater, AE 1968, 599). The list was compiled using Manfed Clauss’
epigraphic database (http://www.manfredclauss.de/)
13
CIL III 12740 = ISM IV 9; Popescu 1964, p. 186; Barnea et alii 1979, p. 17.
14
Galsterer-Kröll 1972, p. 92 – 93; Doruțiu-Boilă 1978, p. 245 – 246.
15
AE 1964, 251 = ISM IV 11; Popescu 1964, 191 – 192; Popescu 2013, p. 131 – 133, no. 2. Nevertheless,
the inscription does not attest that the municipium was called municipium Ulpium Traianum Tropaeum, like
the author states: “Notre inscription constitue le premier document daté qui atteste que Tropaeum était un
municipium, et cela dès l’époque du Trajan; son nom complet était sans doute municipium Ulpium Traianum
Tropaeum” (p. 133).
16
Popescu 2013, p. 143 – 144.
208 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

all sure17. Other inscriptions mentioned only the municipium Tropaeum, without other
specification18.
If it would have been a Trajanic foundation, the missing of Ulpium is unusual. The
name Traianum appeared for instance in Numidia: municipium Ulpium Traianum Augustum
Thubursicu19 – Khamissa, Algeria (but Ulpium is not missing!). To have a municipium
Traianum Tropaeum with other imperial names attached, like for example municipium Aelium
Traianum Tropaeum, would have looked odd. I think, therefore, that we can admit that the
municipium was probably founded by Trajan, but a foundation during Hadrian’ reign can not
be completely ruled out.
Municipium Traianum Tropaeum was not Trajan’s single foundation of this type in the
Lower Danube area. A municipium Ulpianum is attested in the Moesia superior province,
(in the nearby of Gračanica monastery, Lipljan village, Kosovo)20, connected with the
metalla Ulpiana21. It is believed to have become municipium as early as under Trajan, given
its name22. Such early municipalisation is still curious, as, if a conventus civium Romanorum
really existed nearby the mining exploitations in the area, this would have required time until
the community was ready to receive municipal status23. The preponderant gentilicium Ulpius,
as well as the existence of tribe Papiria24 plead though for municipalisation under Trajan,
although municipalisation under Hadrian cannot be entirely excluded25.
Trajan was very active as founder of cities in this part of the Empire in connection with his
military expeditions. At the end of the Dacian war, Oescus (colonia Ulpia Oescus)26 and Ratiaria
(colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria)27 became coloniae civium Romanorum. If for Oescus there is
enough evidence that it was a Roman legionary base (V Macedonica) already from the time of
17
Popescu 2013, p. 144: “Aujourd’hui, nous disposons aussi d’une photo du texte et bien que les lettres du
début du texte sont difficilement lisibles, même effacées, toutefois le nom de municipium Traianum Tropaeum
est clair sur la pierre, ce qui signifie que la paternité du rang de municipe revient à Trajan.”
18
CIL III 12461 = AE 1964, 253 = ISM IV 13: Ordo spl[endi]/dissima (sic!) mun[ic(ipii)] / Trop(aei)
per Tib(erium) Cla[ud(ium)] / Germanu(m) e[t] M(arcum) / Aur(elium) Flaviu(m) d[uu]/mveros, a(e)dil[es] /
Val(erius) Valerianus e[t] / Iul(ius) Quirillus, qu[a]/estores Ulp(ius) Hercu/lanus et Iul(ius) Hercula/[n]us s[cri]ba
Coc[ceius]/ [p]os(uerunt). For the other inscriptions see Popescu 2013, p. 133 – 144, nos. 3 – 12.
19
ILAlg I 1240.
20
Mócsy 1970, p. 75 – 86; Mirković 2007, p. 60 – 62.
21
Mócsy 1970, p. 32 – 33. From metalla Ulpiana a part of the plumbum was sent, which was used in
the construction of the colonia Ulpia Traiana, Piso 2005a, p. 122 – 123; Piso et alii 2006, p. 220 – 222, no. 6a:
Imp(eratoris) Tr(aiani) me(talla) Ulp(iana).
22
AE 1903, 284 = ILJug 1418 (s(anctissimus) ordo munic(ipi) Ulp(ianensium)); AE 1903, 285; AE 1978,
702 = ILJug 527 (dec(urio) municipi(orum) Ulpiani et Aeli Vimina(ci) et Aeliani); CIL III 1685 = IMS IV 69,
IMS IV 70 – 71: r(es) p(ublica) sua Ulp(iana), around 202, when governor of the province was Q. Anicius Faustus
– the inscriptions were all discovered at Remesiana, so that a completion of r(es) p(ublica) sua Ulp(ia Remesiana)
type cannot be excluded; Mócsy 1970, p. 31 – 33; Cîrjan 2010, p. 80.
23
See the doubts expressed by Mócsy 1970, p. 32 – 33: “Aus dem Namen Ulpianum wurde auf
eine traianische Gründung geschlossen, obwohl eine Munizipiumgründung kaum in die deduktive
Urbanisationspolitik Traian passen würde”.
24
Mócsy 1970, p. 83 – 85, Iulii appear in 12 inscriptions, alike the Aelii. For tribe Papiria see AE 1978,
702 = ILJug 527 (P. Licinius P. fil. Pap. Aelianus, dec(urio) municipi(orum) Ulpiani et Aeli Vimina(ci) et Aeliani).
25
Mócsy 1970, p. 33; Piso 2005, p. 500; Piso 2005a, p. 123, underlying, nevertheless, that the presence of
the Papiria tribe is a strong argument for a Trajanic foundation.
26
A short overview of the history and archaeology of Oescus by Ivanov 2012 and Gergana Kabakchieva,
in this volume, p. 181–193.
27
A short overview of the history and archaeology of Ratiaria by Velkov 1980, p. 61 – 83 and Kalin Stoev,
in this volume, p. 167–179.
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 209

Claudius, or even earlier in the time of Tiberius28, for Ratiaria the evidence is still inconclusive.
Nevertheless, since there are no clear traces of the legio IIII Flavia Felix at Singidunum or
Viminacium in Domitianic period, one might easy imagine that Ratiaria could have been
the base of this legion before the Dacian war. If a third legion, namely II Adiutrix, should
have been based in Upper Moesia in pre-Trajanic time, as R. Syme assumed29, is still a matter
of discussion. Although, that do not change the point here, which is that Ratiaria probably
was a legionary base before the Dacian war. After the war, the two legions were moved: V
Macedonica to Troesmis, in Dobroudja, and IIII Flavia Felix to Dacia. The former legionary
bases became coloniae, where veterans, many of them decorated war heroes, were settled. We
must nevertheless mention that the setting of the legions in the area of Ratiaria and Oescus is
connected with the very existence in the time of Claudius of a praefectura civitatium Moesiae
et Treballiae30. From Ptolemy we thereafter find out that the civitas Moesorum was Ratiaria
and civitas Treballorum was Oescus31. The founding of the colonies by Trajan is therefore the
closing of a process which had began with sixty years earlier.
This could not have been the case of Tropaeum Traiani. No legion is known to have
been based there in pre-Trajanic period and no native civitas is previously attested. The site
became important during and after the erection of the monument. In order, to double mark
the importance of the area for his glorious achievement, Trajan founded a municipium. Since
no legionary veterans were settled, perhaps only few auxiliary veterans, the settlement became
only a municipium and not colonia. It seems that at least in the Lower Danube area (and not
only, see for example Poetovio, former fortress of the XIII Gemina legion32), the founda-
tions of coloniae were strictly connected with the existence of former legionary bases (with
the possible exception of colonia Ulpia Traiana Dacica Sarmizegetusa)33. Such an observation
could explain why Tropaeum Traiani was only founded as municipium and to understand why
Ratiaria and Oescus became coloniae.
The municipium Traianum Tropaeum was therefore likely a Trajanic foundation, although
a Hadrianic one can not be completely ruled out. The strongest argument in the favour of a
Hadrianic foundation is the duumviral organization of the city, which in the Lower Danube
area could mark this type of foundations34. Nevertheless, since not many municipia are known
from Trajan’s period, one can not also exclude a possible duumviral organization also in his time,
like it seems to be the case of the municipium Ulpium Traianum Augustum Thubursicu 35.

28
Gerov 1980, p. 1 – 20; Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 31; Ivanov 2012, p. 3 – 4.
29
Syme 1928, p. 48 – 49. He thought that legionary bases of Upper Moesia were: Singidunum –
II Adiutrix, Viminacium – VII Claudia and Ratiaria ­– IIII Flavia Felix.
30
CIL V 1838 = ILS 1349; Dobson 1978, p. 190, no. 55; Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 36 – 37; Faoro 2011,
p. 90 – 91 and 135 – 136.
31
Ptolemy III, 9, 3 (Ῥαιτιαρία Μυσῶν, κολωνία); III, 10, 5 (Οἶσκος Τριβαλλῶν – Falileyev 2006, p. 58 – 59
and 72 – 73); Gerov 1988, p. 18 – 19.
32
Mráv 2000. See also in this volume Marjeta Šašel Kos’ contribution, p. 139–148.
33
Piso 2005, p. 435 – 441; Étienne, Piso, Diaconescu 2004, p. 86–91, with the arguments against the
assumption that the wooden structures, overlapped by the first stone structures of the forum vetus, belonged
to the headquarters of a legionary fortress, like it was assumed by some scholars (see Petolescu 2011, p. 86–88,
with the bibliography).
34
Ardevan 1984; Petolescu 2007, p. 169. Nevertheless, doubts had been already expressed regarding
the relevance of the attestattion of the duumviri or quattuorviri to establish different type of organization, or
different chronological moments, Vittinghoff 1994, p. 164.
35
CIL VIII 17164 = ILAlg I 1294; CIL VIII 4874 = ILS 2116 = ILAlg I 1223; ILAlg I 1352 = AE
1917/1918, 36.
210 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

Together with other foundations in the area, but of Greek type, Nicopolis ad Istrum36
and Marcianopolis37 (Serdica, Pautalia and Augusta Traiana were former Thracian centres,
being only reorganized by Trajan as poleis of Greek type; Augusta Traiana was even called
in the inscriptions: ἡ Τραιανέων πόλις, a perfect Greek equivalent of the Traianenses from
Tropaeum Traiani), this municipium was one of the first steps towards the municipalisation of
the Lower Moesia province. All the cited examples were part of the same strategy, all being in
the same time located at important crossroads. The difference is given only by the core people
who were settled: Greek speaking populations of different origins in the case of Nicopolis ad
Istrum and Marcianopolis, and cives Romani in the case of municipium Traianum Tropaeum.
The unique case of municipium Tropaeum must therefore highlighted, since it was, for about
fifty years, the only municipium civium Romanorum in the Eastern and North-Eastern part of
the Moesia inferior province. The two other municipia civium Romanorum were, as I already
mentioned, founded by Marcus Aurelius, during his joint reign with Commodus.

Archaeology

According to the archaeologists, the enclosed surface of the Early Roman town was
relatively small (250 × 150 m – 3, 75 ha38), very similar to an auxiliary fort. This opinion has
already been challenged by the architect M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, following her observation
of the existence of the southern gate and the south-western part of the precinct also in the
early phase and the need to have the water tank of the city intra and not extra muros39.
There is no possibility to precisely date the moment of the construction of the town’s
precinct. The archaeologists argued in the favour of an earlier date, namely Trajan’s period
(N II). They thought to have been able to highlight a second phase of the precinct (N III),
which was dated in the reign of Septimius Severus40, based on a coin recovered from that
level and the U-shape towers of the eastern41 and southern42 gates. In their opinion, the new
phase overlapped an earlier phase, destroyed by the fire. The destruction was connected with
the Costoboci’s invasion from AD 17043.
I must, nevertheless, point out that the archaeological observations regarding the early
Roman levels were made only based upon small scale excavations in relatively narrow trial
trenches44. I think that one must take into consideration the possible construction of the
stone precinct after the Costoboci’s destruction45 and not before – the archaeological excava-
tions from the water tank proof that it was constructed only after 17046. The previous precinct,
36
Gerov 1988, p. 118 – 122. See also in this volume the contribution published by Dilyana Boteva, p. 195–204.
37
For a short historical and archaeological overview of Marcianopolis see Gerov 1980, p. 289 – 312 and
Gerov 1988, p. 124 – 127.
38
Bogdan-Cătăniciu in Barnea et alii 1979, p. 53.
39
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981, p. 278 – 281 and 283 – 286.
40
Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992, p. 196.
41
Bogdan-Cătăniciu in Barnea et alii 1979, p. 51; Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981, p. 277 – 278. A so called
“inner tower”, in fact the gate itself, belonging to this Severan phase was also discovered.
42
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981, p. 278 – 281.
43
I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/tropaeum/cetatea/index.html, p. 4, consulted
on 3rd of October 2014.
44
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981, p. 271: “Toutefois, nous tenons encore à souligner que, en raison du
caractère restreint des fouilles, nous considérons nos observations comme à un stade préliminaire”.
45
For this invasion see Popescu 1964, p. 194 – 199; Gerov 1980, p. 259 – 272 and 369 – 373; Scheidel 1990.
46
Barnea 1977, p. 228.
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 211

if any47, could have been only made of turf and timber easy to be destroyed. This could also
explain also the large remains of charcoal discovered in the first level. Just like in the case of
the Greek cities on the western Black Sea coast and other cities from Thrace48 (Callatis: the
construction of a new precinct is epigraphically attested for AD 17249; probably Mesambria;50
Philippopolis: the construction of a new precinct is epigraphically attested, unfortunately the
date is not sure: 167 – 168 or 172 AD;51 Serdica: the construction of a new precinct epigraph-
ically attested during Marcus Aurelius and Commodus’ joint reign, 176 – 180 AD52), the
town’s stone precinct was, in my opinion, constructed only after AD 170.
Although the archaeologists also emphasized that the Early Roman town probably
overlapped a previous native settlement (a possible civitas – the archaeological level (N I)
was to be dated in first century BC – first century AD and it was supposed that it was
destroyed by a fire)53, they failed in bringing enough evidence54. In fact, the need of having
previous native settlement everywhere the Romans settled was unfortunately a “must have” of
the Romanian communist historiography, which distorted the archaeological and historical
investigations55. The results of the small scale excavations on the plateau situated next to the
eastern gate of the city are also inconclusive regarding a possible native settlement in the area
of Tropaeum Traiani before or during the Roman age56. The closest peregrines communities
(civitates), epigraphically attested, are to be found at Cetatea, few kilometres South-East
from Adamclisi, but in a later period. A territorial dispute between the Dacians and the
civitas Ausdecensium was solved by a tribunus cohortis I Cilicum in 179 AD, when Helvius
Pertinax was governor of the province57. I must conclude, therefore, that the epigraphic and
archaeological evidence of possible native settlements before Trajan, regardless of the ethnic
origin, are missing completely. I am not saying that this zone was virtually deserted before
47
See the doubts already expressed by Diaconu 1980, p. 388, with whom I totally agree: “Sans doute,
I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu et Al. Barnea ne sont pas arrivés à la conclusion  la plus juste parce qu’a un certain moment
ils ont pris comme point de départ l’idée préconçue, mais que rien n’atteste jusqu’ici, que l’établissement de
Tropaeum Traiani a bénéficie d’un mur d’enceinte dès le IIe siècle de n. ère (comme si tous les municipia de
l’Empire Romain avaient été entoures de murailles protectrices dès le début)”.
48
Gerov 1980, p. 267 – 270; Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 212 – 213: Augusta Traiana, Serdica, Pautalia;
all were situated along the main roads which were leading to Byzantium and to Asia Minor.
49
AE 1937, 246 = ISM III 97. See also three other inscriptions directed connected with the construction
of the precinct, ISM III 98 – 100.
50
Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 213.
51
IGB III/1, 878; Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 34; 253, no. 123; Topalilov 2012, p. 203, 213 – 214.
52
IGB IV 1902; Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 34 – 35; 256, no. 150.
53
Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992, p. 193; I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/tropaeum/
cetatea/index.html, p. 5, consulted on the 3rd of October 2014. Recently followed by Cîrjan 2010, p. 87 – 89, but
who argues that the civitas received ius Latii, see below the entire discussion.
54
Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992, p. 193, admitted that the archaeologists were unable to discern the exact
level.
55
See for instance Bărbulescu 2001, p. 119 and 192, where the assumption that the Roman municipium
overlapped a native settlement is taken for granted.
56
Bogdan-Cătăniciu, Barnea in Barnea et alii 1979, p. 179 – 180; Irimia 1980, p. 78; 100 – 101, no. 11;
105, no. 18; Cîrjan 2010, p. 86. M. Irimia emphasized the road that connected from the Hellenistic period the
Greek city of Callatis with the Danube (pre-Roman archaeological discoveries in the area of Tropaeum Traiani
are reported at Cetatea, Zorile, Dobromiru din Vale, Hațeg and Adamclisi). This is not at all a proof that a
strong native settlement, a centre of a civitas, is to be found beneath the Roman settlement, since no physical
remains of dwellings or other constructed structures were uncovered.
57
CIL III 144372 = AE 1957, 333 = IPD4 843 = IDRE II 338; Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 202 – 203, with
the older literature.
212 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

Trajan, but it still needs to be more investigated through the means of modern landscape
surveying techniques, which for the Roman Dobroudja – with little exceptions (the case of
Noviodunum Archaeological Project58, Salsovia59, or the new investigations in the Troesmis
area60) – are rare. The epigraphic attestations of many Thracian origin peoples in the later
inscriptions, most of them from the third century, proves that such communities are to be
found in the area of the city, but if they lived there before Trajan or, like in the possible case
of civitas Ausdecensium, they were also colonized, remains an open question.
Other archaeologists assumed that the town could have overlapped a Roman military
camp or fort. Although the epigraphic evidence for the Roman military presence in the area
is not missing, as we are going to see, there are no physical remains of the possible marching
camps which must have existed in the time of the war. If, thereafter, an auxiliary fort was
settled in the area it is impossible to tell yet.

History

If the community of Tropaem Traiani was in charge with the protection and looking
after the monument and the memorial it is not known, but one might think that it was one of
the reasons to found a municipium here61. One must not forget that Tropaeum Traiani was an
official monument (“Staatsdenkmal”) of the imperial propaganda62. Such communities next
to victory’s trophies are located also at Tropaeum Augusti (La Turbie) and Tropaeum Drusi
in the Taunus Mountains, but which never became municipia63.
Tropaeum Traiani was a municipium civium Romanorum, having, according to inscrip-
tions, a duumviral organization, with duumviri64 and two aediles65, which were aid by two
quaestores66. Ordo decurionum is directly by two inscriptions attested67. The assertion that the
municipium possessed in fact ius Latii68 must be rejected without any hesitation. It is based on
the cited inscription from 181, that fully attests the name of the city, and on an inscription
discovered at Rasova, originated probably from Tropaeum Traiani, where a Castus duumvi-
ralis appears69. Some of the persons from both inscriptions lack indeed the tria nomina, but in
the epigraphic habit of the city this is not something out of the ordinary. For instance in one
58
Lockyear et alii 2005 – 2006.
59
Topoleanu, Bogdan, Haynes 2012.
60
Alexandrescu, Gugl 2014; Alexandrescu, Gugl 2014a.
61
In the above cited passage from Cassius Dio, 68, 8, 2, it states that annual ceremonies must be carried
on at the shrine; see also Vulpe 1968, p. 90, who believed that the municipium was founded by Trajan in order
to commemorate the military victories from there; and Alexandrescu-Vianu 2006, p. 229, who argued that: “il
s’agit d’une zone à caractère triumphal et destinée à la celebration du culte héroïque”.
62
Alexandrescu-Vianu 2006, p. 231.
63
Ptolemy II, 11, 13 (Τρόπαια Δρούσου) and III, 1, 2 (Τρόπαια Σεβαστοῦ).
64
Ardevan 1998, p. 131; Aparaschivei 2003, p. 333 – 337. On their attributions see Langhammer 1973,
p. 62 – 149.
65
On their attributions see Langhammer 1973, p. 149 – 156.
66
On their attributions see Langhammer 1973, p. 157 – 161.
67
CIL III 142142 = ISM IV 12; CIL III 12461 (= 7484) = ILS 7183 = Popescu 1964, p. 201 (= AE 1964,
253) = ISM IV 13. On the attribution of ordo decurionum see Langhammer 1973, p. 188 – 236.
68
Suceveanu 1977, p. 73; Cîrjan 2004; Cîrjan 2010, p. 87 – 89 and Cîrjan 2010a, p. 124 – 125.
69
Popescu 1964, p. 191 – 192 = AE 1964, 251 = 2004, 1270; AE 1963, 75 = ISM IV 214. Cîrjan 2004;
Cîrjan 2010, p. 87 – 89 and Cîrjan 2010a, p. 124 – 125 argues that the duumviralis, aediles and quaestores were in
fact peregrini, but in the epigraphic habit of the area there were many Roman citizens who render their names
in this way, see bellow.
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 213

inscription a centurion of the XI Claudia legion gives his name in a peregrine manner, but
he was of course a Roman citizen70. Moreover in the official inscriptions of the third century,
when it is supposed that all the peregrines were already Roman citizens, the tria nomina
system is only randomly used, like in one inscription from AD 23871. From the legal point of
view, it would have been also impossible to have a municipium civium Latinorum since there
is no native civitas attested in the area72. It is, in my opinion, clear that the odd idea of having
a municipium of Latin right at Tropaeum Traiani was another attempt to argue the very
existence of a native civitas.
A still controversial problem is the presence of the active Roman army personnel in the
territory of the city. A tribunus militum legionis XI Claudiae, M. Stabius M. f. Fab. Colonus,
domo Luca, set an altar to several deities in AD 15773. Annius Saturninus, centurion of the
same legion, set up a dedication for Marcus Aurelius in 161 AD74. Iulius Favor, centurion of
the same legion set a small dedication.75 Q. Lucilius Piscinus, centurio legionis I Italicae, erected
a dedication for Sol Invictus, in honorem domus divinae76. The wife and children of C. Iulius
C. f. Valens (centurio) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae) dom(o) Amasia set his tombstone at Tropaeum
Traiani (Adamclisi) by mid 2nd century77. A legionary detachment composed of soldiers of
I Italica legion and V Macedonica legion is attested in the time of Marcus Aurelius.78 It was
connected with the Costoboci’s menace from 170/171, but no direct proof comes out from
the text of the inscription. In fact the reading is still controversial: for instance, it is not at all

70
Conrad 2004, no. 274 = AE 2004, 1272 = ISM IV 67: D(is) M(anibus) / A[tt]icus CECITIAS /
vix(it) an(nos) LXX et SAR/BIS Celsi marita eius / vix(it) ann(os) LX bene mere/ntibus patri / et matri Castus /
Attici c(enturio) leg(ionis) et Mar/cus et Caelsus(!) mil(es) leg(ionis) XI / Cl(audiae) et Vale(n)s fratres / posuerunt;
Matei‑Popescu 2010, p. 148.
71
CIL III 142142 = ISM IV 12: Pro sal(ute) [Imp(eratoris) M(arci) Ant(onii) Gor]/diani [Pii Felic(is)
Aug(usti)] / mu[n(icipium) Tro]p(aeum) p[er] / M(arcum) Ulp(ium)… [et…P]isc[inum] / IIvir(os) et M(arcum)
Ulp(ium) Ant(oninum) et C(aium) / Iul(ium) Messium aed(iles) et / Iulii Marcus et Mar/cus f(ilius) [quaestores] ? et
scrib(as) Respec/tum et Gaium. Pio / et Proculo co(n)s(ulibus).
72
All the municipia civium Latinorum attested are former civitates, whose citizens gradually become the
Roman citizenship, Langhammer 1973, p. 15 – 16 and 26.
73
CIL III 142141 = ISM IV 21: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo), Her(culi) in[victo], / Cer(eri), Lib(ero) patr(i) /
pro sal(ute) imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) / T(iti) Ael(ii) Hadr(iani) Ant(onini) Aug(usti) Pi(i) / et Aur(elii) C(a)es(aris)
liber(orum)que eo(rum) / T(ito) Vitrasio Pollioni / leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) / M(arcus) Stabius M(arci)
f(ilius) / Fab(ia tribu) Colonus (domo) Luca, / trib(unus) mil(itum) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae), / d(onum) d(edit);
Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 135 and 146.
74
CIL III 7483 = ISM IV 31: Deo / Invicto / pro salu(te) / Imp(eratoris) M(arci) Ant(onini) / Veri, Annius
/ Saturninus, / 7 (centurio) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae), / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito); Matei-Popescu 2010,
p. 147.
75
AE 1972, 522 = ISM IV 27: Apol(lini) s[…?] / Iul(ius) Favor, / (centurio) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae), /
sac(…?) pro se et suis / ex v(oto) fec(it); Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 150.
76
CIL III 12468 = ISM IV 33: In hon(orem) D(omus) D(ivinae) / Soli Invicto / sacrum / Q(uintus) Lucilius
/ Piscinus, (centurio) / leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito); Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 82–83 and
105.
77
CIL III 1421410 = Conrad 2004, p. 197, no. 265 = ISM IV 55: D(is) M(anibus) / C(aius) Iul(ius) C(ai)
fil(ius)Va/lens, (centurio) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae) / dom(o) Amasia / vix(it) an(nis) L mil(itavit) / an(nis) XXX.
Valer(ia) / Frontina / [c]oniugi et / [I]ul(ia) Hadriana / C(aius) Iul(ius) Iulianus / C(aius) Iul(ius) Valentinus / fili
patri / pientissimo / posuerunt; Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 62.
78
CIL III 14433 = ISM IV 26; Saxer 1967, p. 41 – 42, no. 72: Nept(uno) Aug(usto) sac(rum) / vexil(latio)
leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) / Ṃ(oesicae ?) et V Ma(cedonicae) Ḍ(acicae ?) Trop/a[e]i (agens) sub curam / Eptidi Modesti /
(centurionis) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae) et / Valeri Clementis / (centurionis) leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) / v(otum) s(olvit)
l(ibens) m(erito); Matei-Popescu 2010, p. 82 and 106.
214 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

clear that the abbreviations M and D, if these letters are indeed to be read there (nowadays
the stone, kept in the National Museum for the History of Romania, is very bad preserved,
especially in its upper part), after the name of the legions, should be understood as M(oesica)
and D(acica). Moreover is not at all clear, why the name of the V Macedonica legion is abbre-
viated differently in the lines 3 (MA) and 6 (MAC), while the name of the I Italica legion is
abbreviated in the same manner in the lines 2 and 8 (ITAL).
To these, a Roman military diploma from 111 – 11279 and several gravestones, which
mostly attests retired soldiers, must also be mentioned80. With the exception of the legionary
detachment dated to AD 170/171, the other serving military personnel seems not to have
been part of a Roman military base. They were just passing by the area on their way to Tomis
or Durostorum. Otherwise, we must envisage a legionary detachment based in or next to the
city, which would have been difficult to explain and understand. If there would have been any
unrest, a detachment could arrive from Durostorum in about two days, being therefore no
need for a permanent military presence.
However so many active soldiers, among them centurions and one tribune could let us
think that sometime military detachments could be based in the area, but on which purpose?
The Tropaeum Traiani is the only Roman municipium in the area for about 50 – 60 years;
there are no traces of higher Roman provincial administration to be sited there. The governor
sited either in Tomis81, or in Durostorum, as I. Piso recently assumed82. From this point of
view it seems that the municipium is rather unimportant and the military presence remains
a mystery, in the context of the Lower Moesia military organization. All the military units,
legions, auxiliary units and the fleet, are to be found along the Danube, with three excep-
tions: Montana, regio Montanensium, a very important mining district83, the passes from the
Haemus Mountains which were guarded by the auxilia and Tomis, probably the siege of the
governor but also the most important sea harbour. To these exceptions we may add Tropaeum
Traiani, but without having a good explanation on it.
It is now time to see who were the members of the community from Tropaeum Traiani.
As a general observation we can take into consideration a very heterogenic community,
composed of cives Romani (veterani included, also from Trajanic period – a military diploma
from 111 – 112 and an inscription of former auxiliary soldier from Siscia, C. Artorius
Saturninus84) and peregrines of different origins. The cives Romani are also very heterogenic
group, probably of different origins, with different gentilicia: Ulpii (7), Aelii (9); Iulii (19),
Flavii (4), Aurelii  (4), Valerii (3), Claudii (3), Aemilii (4). Among them, the only senator
whose origins are in Moesia inferior, or directly attested as having tracts of land in the area:
L(a)elius Marcianus appeared in an inscription erected by his vilicus of an Oriental origin, at
Urluia, few kilometres north-west of the city85. The relative high number of Iulii should not
be taken absolutely, but it could probably shed some light on the origins of the city. Peoples
79
CIL XVI 58 = ISM IV 3.
80
CIL III 142149 = Conrad 2004, p. 197, no. 264 = ISM IV 47; Conrad 2004, p. 199 – 200, no. 274 =
ISM IV 67; ISM IV 61; ISM IV 71.
81
Haensch 1997, p. 333 – 334; 713 – 724.
82
Piso 2014.
83
Velkov 1980, p. 85 – 101; Gerov 1988, p. 101 – 107.
84
CIL142149 = ISM IV 47: D(is) M(anibus) / [C(aius) ?] Art(orius) Sa/tur(ninus) Sisc(ia) / ex d(ecurione)
vet(eranus) / c(o)ho(rtis) I Lus(itanorum) / vix(it) an(nos) XLV / mil(itavit) an(nos) XXV / h(ic) s(itus) e(st).
C(aius) Arto(rius) / et Roscia / Satur(nina) et / Art(orius) Satur(ninus) / f(ilii) p(atri) p(ientissimo) posuer(unt).
85
CIL III 12463 = ISM IV 34: Eroni / Inv(icto) / Iaehetav / vilicus L(a)eli Marci/ani c(larissimi) v(iri)
s(ervus) e / visu c(um) sues / pos(uit).
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 215

colonized, or simple settled, from various part of the Roman world, which already posses the
Roman citizenship.
Among the peregrines many Thracians are attested, but also many who came from a
Greek speaking milieu. The Greek speaking community of Tropaeum Traiani is epigraphi-
cally attested. It seems that it has no connection with the Greek cities of the western Pontus.
Our limited information suggests that they came probably from Bithynia86, a traditional
reservoir of colonization for Moesia inferior, if we are to take into consideration the case of
Nicopolis ad Istrum. They were settled in different villages, conducted by magistri. One of
them is epigraphically attested, Protogenes87. At the beginning of the fourth century it was
the civitas itself that set altars to Hera Basilissa88 and to Poseidon89, in Greek, for the discovery
of new water sources. The water shortage seems to have been a problem in the area of the
Roman Dobroudja – the altar erected by Protogenes was in fact dedicated to Zeus Ombrimos
(Zeus who brings the rain), also attested at Histria. This proves how important was the Greek
speaking community for the city development, especially in the third century and thereafter,
as the sequence ordo splendissima also shows, which is by no means a mistake but an influence
of the Greek language – ἡ λαμπρότατη βουλή.
The length of the territorium is not precisely known, since there are not so many inscrip-
tions discovered and we lack the large scale archaeological surveys90 (fig. 1). Part of the city
territory should have been the stone quarries from Deleni and the settlements from Abrud,
Șipote, Urluia and Zorile, where good water sources are located91. In the south-west, the
territory reached the area of Cetatea, where the inscription attesting the civitas Audecensium
and their territorial dispute with the Daci was discovered92. In the south, the limits should
have been in the area of Dumbrăveni, where an inscription attesting Ti. Claudius Mucasius
was discovered93. Since he is already known from other two inscriptions coming from the
territory of Tomis, it is possible that his tracts of land stretch out upon this area, too94. In the
86
ISM IV 46: Βειθυνὶς γενεὴ μὲν / ἐμοί, Μοίραις δέ τοι ὄχθ[ος] / // Χρύσε νῦν κεῖμαι [τύμ]/βον ἔχουσα
κενόν // τεσσαρακονταέτη[ς ἐν / ἁ]λεῖ βίοτον [προλιποῦσα?]. “Ma naissance (est) bithynienne, mais mon
tombeau (appartient) certes aux Moires. Moi, Chrysè, gis maintenant, ayant une tombe vide, puisque j’ai quitté
la vie sur mer, âgée de quarante ans” (translated by Al. Avram).
87
ISM IV 18: Ἀγαθῆι τύχῃ˙ / Δὶ Ὀμβρίμῳ ὑπὲ/ρ σωτηρίας καὶ νεί/κης τῶν κυρίων Αὐτο/κρατόρων
[[Μαξιμίνου Σεβ(αστοῦ) / καὶ [Μαξί]μο[υ] ]] Κα(ίσαρος) Πρω/τογένης μαγίστρατος / ἀνέθηκα τὸ ἱερὸν / ἐκ
τῶν ἰδίων.
88
IGLR 171= ISM IV 24: Ἥρῃ βασι/λίσσῃ ὑ/πὲρ τῆς εὑ/ρήσεως τοῦ / ὕδατος ἡ πό/λις Τροπει/σίων
εὐχῆς / χάριν.
89
ISM IV 25: Πο vac. σειδά/ωνι Κυανο/χέτῃ ἡ πό/λις Τροπε/ισίων ὑπὲρ / τῆς εὑρέσεως / [τοῦ ὕδατος ...].
90
Only some small scale archaeological surveys have been carried out http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.
asp?k=4680&d=Adamclisi-Constanta-Abrud-Adamclisi-Zorile-Ispanaru-Sipote – 2010, consulted on the 3rd
of October 2014.
91
Linda Ellis has conducted a five years (2005 – 2010) hydro archaeological surveying program, http://
cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=3285, consulted on the 3rd of October 2014. A publication is forthcoming. See
also Ellis 2011.
92
IDRE II 338 = ISM IV 82: Termin(i) pos(iti) / t(erritorii) c(ivitatis) Ausdec(ensium) adve/r(sus) Dac(os)
secun(dum) c(ivitatis) / act(a). C(aius) Vexarus t(erminavit) vel f(ecit) / opus. H(inc) excessent / Dac(i). Term(ini)
t(erritorii) c(ivitatis) obli/[g(ati) sint. M[es]sal(la) P[i]/[e?]ror term(inos) pos(uit) t(erritorii) / iussu Helv(i)
Per/ tinacis co(n)s(ularis) n(ostri) per / Anternium An/[to]ninum trib(unum)/ coh(ortis) Cilic(um).
93
ISM IV 84; Bâltâc 2011, p. 109; 268, no. 2, argued that the southern limit of the territorium should
have been the Dobrici area, based only on one inscription, discovered at Rositza, which attests a princeps,
Antonius Zinenis (CIL III 7470 = 14210). There is, nevertheless, no clear indication that this person was
somehow connected with municipium Tropaeum, as already Bărbulescu 2001, p. 193, pointed out.
94
ISM II 128, 227.
216 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

south-east, the border with the Tomitan territory should have been in the area of Conacu,
where a Latin inscription was discovered95. In the west, the limits are to be found in the area
of Ioan Corvin, where some inscriptions came to light (the Greek inscription mentioning
the woman from Bithynia and a Latin funerary inscription attesting almost an entire family,
colonized in the area)96. The north-west limits should have been in the area of the settlement
from Floriile, where an inscription mentioning a princeps was found. That means that a native
community should have been located there97. It seems, therefore that city enjoyed a large
territory, which was bordered in the east by the territories of the Greek cities and in the west
by the limits of the Roman forts from the Danube. If a clear border seems to be found in the
south, where a civitas is attested, we do not know how far the territory stretched to the north.

Conclusions

To conclude, after this short overview, it seems that municipium Traianum Tropaeum was
in fact founded by Trajan (although, as I already underlined, Hadrian can not be completely
ruled out), in order to double mark the importance of his military achievements in the area.
It was a relatively middle size town, comparing with other cities from the Lower Danube,
but which strongly developed, especially in the Severan age, after its destruction due to the
Costoboci invasion from AD 170/171. It was run by duumviri, helped by two aediles and
two quaestores. The ordo decurionum is attested, but also some decurions. The population came
from various part of the Roman world, as we can see also from the names of the above cited
decurions from Asia Minor (Amasia, Bithynia), but also from the west (an auxiliary veteran
from Siscia). Regardless of the epigraphic evidence, from the archaeological point of view the
early Roman town is practically unknown. The research of its territorium, with the exception
of the water sources and the water supply system, is also unsatisfactory for the understanding
of this important community from the Lower Danube.

Bibliography
Alexandrescu-Vianu 2006 = M. Alexandrescu-Vianu, La propagande impériale aux frontières de l’Empire
Romain. Tropaeum Traiani, Dacia, N. S. 50, p. 207 – 234.
Alexandrescu, Gugl 2014 = C. G. Alexandrescu, C. Gugl, Die Römer an der unteren Donau, Acta
Carnuntina. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft der Freunde Carnuntums 4/1, p. 50 – 57.
Alexandrescu, Gugl 2014a = C. G. Alexandrescu, C. Gugl, Troesmis și romanii la Dunărea de Jos. Proiectul
Troesmis 2010 – 2013, Peuce. Studii și cercetări de istorie și arheologie, S. N. 12, p. 289 – 306.
Aparaschivei 2003 = D. Aparaschivei, L’institution de duumvirat en Dobroudja romaine. Troesmis et
Tropaeum Traiani, Studia antiqua et archaeologica 9, p. 327 – 340.
Ardevan 1984 = R. Ardevan, Duumvirat et quttuorvirat dans la Dacie romaine, AMN 21, p. 95 – 110.
Ardevan 1998 = R. Ardevan, Viața municipală în Dacia romană, Timișoara.
Barnea 1977 = I. Barnea, La basilique citerne de Tropaeum Traiani à la lumière des dernières fouilles
archéologiques, Dacia, N. S. 21, p. 221 – 233.
Barnea et alii 1979 = I. Barnea (ed.), Al. Barnea, I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu,
Gh. Papuc, Tropaeum Traiani. I. Cetatea, Bucharest (Biblioteca de Arheologie 35).

95
CIL III 7530 = ISM IV 85: [Her]oni Dom[ino] / [Iu]lius Seve[rus] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)].
96
ISM IV 46; CIL III 7482 = ISM IV 51: D(is) M(anibus) / Cl(audiae) Bonitae / vixit an(nis) XIX
Iul(ius) Vitalis / pater et Cl(audius) / Arbusculus et Iul(ius) Iucun/dus fr(atres) et Cl(audia) / Placida / sor(or) / b(ene)
m(erenti) p(osuerunt).
97
CIL III 7481 = ISM IV 66: [vi]x(it) an(nis) LXXX / [. . ]IN princeps / [.] L eius bene / merenti posu/it
uxor Zude/citulp.
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 217

Barnea 1991 = Al. Barnea, La Dobroudja aux IVe – VIIe siècles n.è., in Al. Suceveanu, Al. Barnea, La
Dobroudja romaine, Bucharest, p. 154 – 295.
Bărbulescu 2001 = M. Bărbulescu, Viața rurală în Dobrogea romană (sec. I-III p. Chr.), Constanța
(Bibliotheca Tomitana 3).
Bâltâc 2011 = A. Bâltâc, Lumea rurală în provinciile Moesia inferior și Thracia (secolele I-III p. Chr.),
Bucharest (Muzeul Național de Istorie a României. Monografii 7).
Biernacka-Lubańska 1982 = M. Biernacka-Lubańska, The Roman and Early-Byzantine Fortifications of
Lower Moesia and Northern Thrace, Wrocław – Warsaw – Kraków – Gdańsk – Łodź (Bibliotheca antiqua 17).
Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1992 = I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, Poarta de est la Tropaeum Traiani, Ephemeris Napocensis
2, p. 193 – 206.
Cichorius 1904 = C. Cichorius, Die römischen Denkmäler in der Dobrudscha. Ein Erklärungsversuch, Berlin.
Cîrjan 2004 = R. Cîrjan, Tropaeum Traiani: un municipe de droit latin en Mésie Inférieure, Ephemeris
Dacoromana 12 (S. N. 1), p. 51 – 59.
Cîrjan 2010 = R. Cîrjan, Statute citadine privilegiate în provinciile dunărene ale Imperiului Roman
(sec. I-III p. Chr.), Cluj-Napoca (Bibliotheca Ephemeris Napocensis 7).
Cîrjan 2010a = R. Cîrjan, Droit romain et droit latin dans les cités danubiennes de l’Empire Romain (Ier – IIIe
siècles): remarques méthodologiques, in M. V. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Bâltâc, V. Rusu-Bolindeț, V. Bottez (eds.),
Antiquitas Istro-Pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca,
p. 121 – 130.
Conrad 2004 = S. Conrad, Die Grabstelen aus Moesia inferior: Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Typologie und
Ikonographie , Leipzig.
Diaconescu 2006–2007 = Al. Diaconescu, Inscripția monumentală de la intrarea în forul traianic al
Sarmizegetusei. O reconsiderare, EN 16–17, p. 95–106.
Diaconescu, Bota 2009 = Al. Diaconescu, E. Bota, Le forum de Trajan à Sarmizegetusa. Architecture et
sculpture, Cluj-Napoca (Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 29).
Diaconu 1980 = P. Diaconu, Review of I. Barnea (ed.), Al. Barnea, I. Bogdan-Cătăniciu, M. Mărgineanu-
Cârstoiu, Gh. Papuc, Tropaeum Traiani. I. Cetatea, Bucharest (Biblioteca de Arheologie 35), Dacia, N. S. 24,
p. 386 – 391.
Dobson 1978 = B. Dobson, Die Primipilares: Entwicklung und Bedeutung, Lauf­bahnen und Persönlichkeiten
eines römischen Offiziersranges, Bonn (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 37).
Doruțiu-Boilă 1978 = Em. Doruțiu-Boilă, Über den Zeitpunkt der Verleihung des Munizipalrechts in Scythia
minor, Dacia, N. S. 22, p. 245 – 247.
Eck 2013 = W. Eck, La loi municipale de Troesmis: donées juridiques et politiques d’une inscription récemment
découverte, Revue historique de droit français et étranger 91/2, p. 199 – 213.
Eck 2014 = W. Eck, Das Leben römisch gestalten. Ein Stadtgesetz für das municipium Troesmis aus den
Jahren 177 – 180 n. Chr. , in G. de Kleijn, St. Benoist (ed.), Integration in Rome and in the Roman World.
Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Lille – June 23 – 25, 2011),
Leiden-Boston, p. 75 – 88.
Ellis 2011 = L. Ellis, Elusive Places: A Chorological Approach to Identity and Territory in the Scythia Minor
(Second – Seventh Centuries), in R. W. Mathisen, D. Shanzer (eds.), Romans, Barbarians and the Transformations
of the Roman World, Farnham – Burlington, p. 241 – 252.
Étienne, Piso, Diaconescu 2004 = R. Étienne, I. Piso, Al. Diaconescu, Les fouilles du forum vetus de
Sarmizegetusa. Raport général, AMN 39–40/I, 2002 – 2003 (2004), p. 59–154.
Falileyev 2007 = A. I. Falileyev, Place-names of the Eastern Balkans in Ptolemy’s Geography. Critical-
bibliographical Investigations, Munich (in Russian).
Faoro 2011 = D. Faoro, Praefectus, procurator, praeses. Genesi delle cariche presidiali equestri nell’Alto Imperio
Romano, Milano (Studi Udinesi sul Mondo Antico).
Florescu 1961 = F. B. Florescu, Monumentul de la Adamklissi. Tropaeum Traiani, Bucharest (second
edition), Bucharest.
Florescu 1965 = F. B. Florescu, Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi. Tropaeum Traiani, Bucharest–Bonn.
Galsterer-Kröll 1972 = B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Städte des Imperiums
Romanum, Epigraphische Studien 9, p. 44 – 145.
Gerov 1980 = B. Gerov, Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien. Gesammelte
Aufsätze, Amsterdam.
218 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

Gerov 1988 = B. Gerov, Landownership in Roman Thracia and Moesia (1st – 3rd century), translated by
Vessela Zhelyaskova, Amsterdam.
Haensch 1997 = R. Haensch, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der
römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz am Rhein (Kölner Forschungen 7).
Irimia 1980 = M. Irimia, Date noi privind așezările getice din Dobrogea în a doua epocă a fierului, Pontica
13, p. 66 – 118.
Ivanov 2012 = R. Ivanov, Colonia Ulpia Oescensium, in R. Ivanov (ed.), The Roman Cities in Bulgaria, Sofia,
p. 1 – 43 (Corpus of Ancient and Medieval Settlements in Modern Bulgaria 1).
Langhammer 1973 = W. Langhammer, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus Municipales
und der Decuriones in die Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen
des spätantiken Zwangsstaates (2.–4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit), Wiesbaden.
Matei-Popescu 2010 = Fl. Matei-Popescu, The Roman Army in Moesia Inferior, Bucharest (Centre for
Roman Military Studies 7).
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1977 = M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, Problèmes d’architecture concernant la citerne
romaine et la basilique chrétienne de Tropaeum Traiani, Dacia, N. S. 21, p. 235 – 250.
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1981 = M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, Remarques sur les fortifications de Tropaeum
Traiani, Dacia, N. S. 25, 1981, p. 271 – 288.
Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 1983 = M. Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, Plans de villes romaines en Moesie inferieure,
Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike, Berlin, p. 296 – 314.
Mirković 2007 = M. Mirković, Moesia Superior. Eine Provinz an der mittleren Donau, Mainz am Rhein.
Mócsy 1970 = A. Mócsy, Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der römischen Provinz Moesia Superior, Budapest.
Mráv 2000 = Z. Mráv, Building inscription of Trajan from Poetovio. A preliminary report, in G. Németh,
P. Forisek (eds.), Epigraphica I. Studies on Epigraphy, Debrecen, p. 77 – 94 (Hungarian Polis Studies 6).
Pârvan 1912 = V. Pârvan, Cetatea Tropaeum. Considerații istorice, Bucharest.
Petolescu 2007 = C. C. Petolescu, Contribuții la istoria Daciei romane, Bucharest.
Petolescu 2011 = C. C. Petolescu, Villes de la Dacie romaine, Dacia, N. S. 55, p. 83 – 109.
Petolescu 2014 = C. C. Petolescu, Dacia, un mileniu de istorie, Bucharest (second edition).
Petolescu 2014a = C. C. Petolescu, Tropaeum, complexul comemorativ de la Adamclisi  și orașul roman,
Academica. Revistă editată de Academia Română 25/6 – 7, p. 77 – 84.
Piso 2005 = I. Piso, An der Nordgrenze des römischen Reiches. Ausgewählte Studien (1972 – 2003), Stuttgart
(HABES 41).
Piso 2005a = I. Piso, La Mésie Supérieure et les débuts de Sarmizegetusa, in M. Mirković (ed.), Römische
Städte und Festung an der Donau. Akten der regionalen Konferenz organisiert von Alexander von Humboldt-
Stiftung, Beograd, 16 – 19 Oktober 2003, Belgrade, p. 119 – 124.
Piso 2008 = I. Piso, L’inscription monumentale de l’entrée dans le Forum Vetus de Sarmizegetusa, AMN
43 – 44 /I, p. 151 – 161.
Piso 2014 = I. Piso, Le siège du gouverneur de Mésie inférieure, in V. Cojocaru, A. Coșkun, M. Dana (eds.),
Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Cluj-Napoca,
2014 (Pontica et Mediterranea 3), p. 489 – 504.
Piso et alii 2006 = I. Piso et alii, Le forum vetus de Sarmizegetusa, Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa 1,
Bucharest.
Popescu 1964 = Em. Popescu, Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt Tropaeum Traiani, StCl 6,
p. 185 – 203.
Popescu 2013 = Em. Popescu, Municipium Tropaeum, Dacia, N. S. 57, p. 127 – 144.
Poulter 1986 = A. G. Poulter, The Lower Moesian Limes and the Dacians Wars of Trajan, in Studien zu den
Militärgrenzen Roms III. 13. Internationaler Limeskongreß. Aalen 1983. Vorträge, Stuttgart, p. 519 – 528.
Saxer 1967 = R. Saxer, Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis
Diokletian, Cologne – Graz (Epigraphische Studien 1).
Sâmpetru 1969 = M. Sâmpetru, Betrachtungen über das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi im Lichte der
archäologischen Ausgrabungen, Dacia, N. S. 13, p. 475 – 500.
Sâmpetru 1979 = M. Sâmpetru, Trofeul lui Traian de la Adamclisi pe monedele orașului Tomis, SCIVA 30/3,
p. 367 – 375.
Sâmpetru 1984 = M. Sâmpetru, Tropaeum Traiani II. Monumentele romane, Bucharest (Biblioteca de
arheologie 45).
 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 219

Scheidel 1990 = W. Scheidel, Probleme der Datierung des Costoboceneinfalls im Balkanraum unter Marcus
Aurelius, Historia 39/4, p. 493 – 498.
Speidel 2010 = M. A. Speidel, Pro patria mori… La doctrine du patriotisme romaine dans l’armée impériale,
CCG 21, p. 139 – 154.
Strobel 1984 = K. Strobel, Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. Studien zur Geschichte des mittleren
und unteren Donauraumes in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, Bonn (Antiquitas. Reihe 1. Abhandlungen zur Alten
Geschichte 33).
Suceveanu 1977 = Al. Suceveanu, Viața economică în Dobrogea romană (secolele I-III e. n.), Bucharest
(Biblioteca de Arheologie 28).
Syme 1928 = R. Syme, Rhine and Danube Legions under Domitian, JRS 18, p. 41 – 55.
Topalilov 2012 = I. Topalilov, Das römische Philippopolis. B. 1. Topografie, Städtebau und Architektur, Sofia.
Topoleanu, Bogdan, Haynes 2012 = F. Topoleanu, D. Bogdan, I. Haynes, Salsovia: Chronological
Landmarks, Peuce, S. N. 10, p. 101 – 144.
Velkov 1980 = V. Velkov, Roman Cities in Bulgaria. Collected Studies, Amsterdam.
Vittinghoff 1994 = F. Vittinghoff, Civitas Romana. Stadt und politisch-soziale Integration im Imperium
Romanum der Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart.
Vulpe 1968 = R. Vulpe, Perioada Principatului (sec. I-III), in R. Vulpe, I. Barnea, Din istoria Dobrogei.
II. Romanii la Dunărea de Jos, Bucharest, p. 13 – 365.
220 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

Fig. 1. The Map of the Adamclisi region (after Florescu 1961).

 Tropaeum Traiani ■ 221

Fig. 2. Tropaeum Traiani: the Roman municipium and the Roman Monuments
(drawing by Iuliana Barnea, after Petolescu 2014, p. 406, fig. 18).
222 ■ Florian Matei-Popescu

Fig. 3. Aerial View of the Roman municipium of Tropaeum Traiani

(after Barnea et alii 1979).
Fig. 4. The Inscription from AD 116 (The Adamclisi Museum, photo by I. Piso; photomontage by Fl. Matei-Popescu).
Tropaeum Traiani
■
223