Reconstructing Identities in Roman Dacia:

Evidence from Religion

A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of
Yale University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

by
Graziela M. Byros

Dissertation Director: John F. Matthews

May 2011
 2011 by Graziela M. Byros
All rights reserved
 Abstract

Reconstructing Identities in Roman Dacia: Evidence from Religion

Graziela Marieta Byros

2011

Beyond discussing various manifestations of the rich religious life in Roman

Dacia, the purpose of the present study is to reconstruct, to the extent that this is possible,

the diverse types of individual and collective identities, consistently negotiated by Dacian

provincials. I start from the premise that, the very fluidity of concepts of religion in the

Roman world allows it to infiltrate, and at the same time to provide a stage for, the

outward expression of a variety of other facets of the identity of an individual and that of

his or her community, be they cultural, social, economic or political. Understood in this

context, the evidence from religion in Roman Dacia functions as the starting point in

exploring the ways in which the people of this province negotiated these diverse identity

constructs professional and personal, public and private, individual and collective,

civilian and military, male and female, Roman and non-Roman within the larger

context of a new frontier province, and within that of the Roman Empire, in general.

As part of my examination of the religious life of the Dacian province, I have

conducted a corpus study of artifacts from all across Roman Dacia. These artifacts

mention and/or represent nearly 2,200 instances of over 160 individual deities (including

deified abstractions), falling into roughly 25 origin groups. As such, the material gathered

in the corpus could be seen to provide a representative sample of the religious culture

of the Dacian province. The task of undertaking a more rigorously empirical study on the
religious life of Roman Dacia is an imperative realized by the present dissertation and its

reliance on corpus analysis. Such an empirical approach allows for a more accurate and

nuanced interpretation of a large, comprehensive data set, illustrating patterns, trends,

characteristics of, and even motivations for, religious behavior, that would otherwise be

more difficult to detect.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements v-vi

List of Illustrations vii

List of Abbreviations viii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1. Setting the stage: Dacia the land, people and history 28

Roman Dacia: the lay of the land and its natural resources 29
Pre-Roman Dacia: political organization and relations with Rome 35
The mega/lh a)rxh/ of Burebistas 38
Dacorum gens numquam fida: a foedus between Rome and the Dacians? 42
The Dacian Campaigns of Domitian (84-89) 45
Trajans Dacian Wars 50
Redactio in provinciam and the new Roman Dacia 53
Roman Dacia without Dacians? 54
Administration, military organization, and urban foundations in the
new province: a brief overview 68
Conclusion 72

Chapter 2. The gods of Roman Dacia: An overview 73

Greco-Roman and Roman gods 74

Eastern gods 79
Thracian gods 84
Celtic and Germanic gods 85
Egyptian gods 87
North and North-West African gods 89
Gnosticism and magic practices 90
Christianity 92
Other gods 92
A word about the imperial cult 93
Conclusion 95

Chapter 3. Working with the gods: Professional identity, religious devotion

and the economic life of Roman Dacia 96

Professional associations and religious choices 96

The piety of individual professionals and of unofficial groups with similar
professional interests 105
The polyvalent cult of Silvanus in Dacia 113
Conclusion 123

iii
Chapter 4. Living with the gods: Religion in Dacias city life and urban landscape 126

Public religious spaces: large-scale private munificence and the urban

religious landscape 128
Liber Pater in Dacia one cult, two distinct urban contexts: 143
Sarmizegetusa and Apulum I
a) Sarmizegetusa a sacred precinct extra muros 147
b) Apulum I probable location of a Dionysiac association 153
Private urban spaces: gods and myths in the house 163
Conclusion 180

Chapter 5. The gods in the army: Military identity and religion in Roman Dacia 184

Religion in the Roman military context of the second and third centuries A. D.:
constructing categories 189
Individual religious choices among the Dacian provincial military
personnel and veterans 197
Personal concerns, expressed or implied by votive dedications of
soldiers and veterans 206
Private religious euergetism on a larger scale by military personnel and veterans 209
The role of collective religious rites in the army of Dacia 213
Conclusion 217

Conclusion 221

Illustrations 226

Appendix A: The main urban centers of Roman Dacia 235

Appendix B: Corpus of deities of Roman Dacia 243

Appendix C: Roman Dacia and its political historiography 336

Bibliography 342

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my utmost gratitude to my advisor, John Matthews, without whose trust,

patience, encouragement, and supervision, this project would not have materialized. He

was the ideal mentor in allowing me the freedom to explore the problems and ideas that

preoccupied my thinking, while providing valuable insights and advice at key moments.

His suggestions of resources potentially helpful to my study proved invaluable, as did his

generous gift of Daciarelated books. Any mistakes and problems that remain are entirely

of my own doing. It is with great pleasure that I thank my second and third readers

Celia Schultz, for her tireless mentorship, constant encouragement and enthusiastic help

(in more ways than I can possibly enumerate here) over the past few years; and Joseph

Manning, for so kindly stepping in as a reader at the last moment.

I would also like to thank several other members of the Yale Classics Department,

for their advice and help at various stages during my academic development at Yale: Ann

Hanson, Veronika Grimm, Donald Kagan, Egbert Bakker, William Metcalf, and Jay

Fischer. I am also grateful to Judith Goldberg and Kay Claiborn, for their help and

encouragement at a variety of milestones. My gratitude to Yale University and the

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for their generous support of my doctoral studies

cannot be adequately expressed in words.

Very special thanks go to my professors and mentors at Queens College of the

City University of New York, where I completed my undergraduate degree, for their

guidance and enthusiastic support of my academic pursuits: Joel Allen, Ursula

Schoendheim, and John OBrien. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues in the

v
Classics Department at Northwestern University, and particularly to Sara Monoson,

Francesca Tataranni, and Jeannie Ravid, as well as to Linda Koops, for all their help, and

their efforts to make Northwestern feel like home for me, over the past year.

My family has supported me throughout all of this in more ways than I could

possibly count. My mother, Mirela Vlsceanu, through her strength of character, tireless

determination and optimism, has been my role model in life. Without her cheerleading

and constant prodding, I could not have brought this project to a close. I am also deeply

grateful to my parents-in-law, Peter and Caterina Byros, for their generous financial help

and encouragement over the years.

Finally, this project would not have been possible without the tireless and patient

support of my husband and best friend, Vasili: beyond his invaluable help with

conceptual, statistical, editorial, and technical matters, he provided the bright light of

hope and the motivation to carry on, during my darkest moments of self doubt. To him,

above all, I owe my happiness.

vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Map 1: The Roman province of Dacia, p. 227.

Map 2: Dacian fortresses in the Ortie Mountains area, p. 228.

Map 3: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: the city and the northern extra muros area, p. 229.

Map 4: The Apulum conurbation and the camp of Legio XIII Gemina, p. 230.

Plate I: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: temple of the Palmyrean Dii Patrii built by P.

Aelius Theimes (plan), p. 231.

Plate II: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: Temple of Liber Pater (plan and possible

reconstruction), p. 232.

Plate III: Apulum I: Precinct of Liber Pater (construction phases and votive deposit pits),

p. 233.

Plate IV: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: the Ransom of Hector mosaic (drawing),

p. 234.

vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Following is a list of some of the works cited in abbreviated form in the present study and appended

corpus:

AE LAnne pigraphique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1888.

ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Cluj-Napoca: Muzeul Naional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, 1964.

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel
der neueren Forschung. H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974.

BAR British Archaeological Reports. Oxford.

CAH XI Cambridge Ancient History. Volume IX. The Imperial Peace: A.D. 70-192. S. A. Cook et
al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936.

CCCA M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque. 7 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1977-89.

CCID M. Hrig and E. Schwertheim, Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

CCET Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii, 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

CIGD L. Ruscu, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Dacicarum. Debrecen, 2003.

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1863.

CIMRM M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. 2

vols.The Hague: Nijhoff, 1956-1960.

CMRED D. Tudor, Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Equitum Danuviorum. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill,
1969-1976.

IDR Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. 1975.

IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: Reimer, 1973.

IGBulg Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Serdica: Bulgarian Academy of Letters,

1970.

ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892-1916.

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1988.

JRS Journal of Roman Studies. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1911.

PIR E. Groag and A. Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933.

SIG W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd. ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915-24.

ZPE Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn: Habelt, 1967.

viii
Introduction

In 153 AD, during the reign of the emperor Antoninus Pius, five men Ulpius

Secundinus, Marius Valens, Pomponius Haemus, Iulius Carus and Valerius Valens

were making a well-deserved recuperative sojourn at the Dacian thermal springs resort of

Bile Herculane (possibly ancient Ad Mediam), on their return from a long, tiresome, and

no doubt perilous journey between Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, the capital of Dacia, and

Rome, the heart of the Empire. The five men were very likely decuriones of

Sarmizegetusa, and their visit to the Eternal City had been occasioned by the recent

appointment to the consulship of Marcus Sedatius Severianus, formerly the governor of

Dacia, and patronus of its capital city (cf. IDR III/2, 97, 98).1 While taking the waters at

Bile Herculane (probably on their way back to Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa), the

delegation decided to dedicate an altar to the Di et Numina Aquarum, as thanks for their

safe and sound return (incolumes reversi) to their home province, and also, evidently, for

the restorative properties of the thermal waters (IDR III/1, 56): Dis et Numinib(us) /

1
See Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae I (1993: 61-65) and Dessau, PIR1 S 231: 438 for the career of M.
Sedatius Severianus.
Aquarum / Ulp(ius) Secundinus / Marius Valens / Pomponius Haemus / Iul(ius) Carus

Val(erius) Valens / legati Romam ad / consulatum Seve- / riani c(larissimi) v(iri) missi

incolu- / mes reversi ex voto / E A.

This is but one illustration of many from Roman Dacia, revealing the degree to

which religion permeated virtually all aspects of the life of the individual and that of the

community of which he or she was a part. On a basic, strictly religious level, the

dedication to the local Di et numina aquarum illustrates the conceptualization of the

divine elements, manifested in this case more concretely in the ancients awareness of

the divine in nature, amply discussed by ancient writers from Hesiod to Seneca and

Apuleius (Rives 2007: 89ff.).

At the same time, this markedly public expression of religious piety affords the

five dedicants a perfect opportunity to explain the larger context and reason for their

presence at the local hot springs resort. As such, the inscription exemplifies perfectly the

ways in which public gestures of religious piety were often employed by the inhabitants

of Dacia, much as elsewhere throughout the provinces of the Roman Empire of the

second and early third centuries AD that is, as social, political, and economic status

symbols within their larger provincial communities (Rives 2007: 105ff.). In this sense, it

is the very fluidity of the concept of religion in the Roman world, which allows it to

infiltrate, and at the same time to provide a stage for, the outward expression of a

variety of other facets of the identity of an individual and that of his or her community, be

they political, cultural, social, or economic, with the result that, in antiquity religious

action extended to areas that are nowadays not identified as religious at all (Rpke 2007:

6).

2
 The above votive inscription illustrates yet another key characteristic of religious

devotion in the Roman world: Roman religion, whether corporate or individual, was a

matter of public record. In dedicating altars or statues or temples to the right gods, a

worshipper increased his own esteem among his peers (Irby-Massie 1999: 4). It is this

markedly public quality of most Roman religious expression, that allows even for

demonstrations of religious piety stemming from very personal reasons (such as ones

personal health, or the welfare of ones family), to be advertised through votive

inscriptions, to the widest possible audience, represented by ones local and regional

community.

Certainly, the unspoken assumption that the inscription also evinces genuine

personal piety and gratitude on the part of the dedicants for the restorative, healing

benefits of the waters (which, in the ancient mindset, could only be due to divine

presence), should not be underestimated. It is significant, however, that the delegation

chose instead to overtly thank the local gods and spirits of the waters for their safe

return from Rome. This, too, exemplifies perfectly one of the most salient features of

Roman religious practices not only in Dacia, but throughout the Roman world, as noted

by C. Schultz: . . . Roman gods were not the limited specialists they are often considered

to have been, but rather . . . they had influence in many areas of their devotees lives

(Schultz 2007: 108).2

At a socio-political level, the inscriptions text suggests to the ancient viewer who

is accustomed to such forms epigraphic expression that a local government (even one

2
. As Schultz further notes, there is enough evidence [...] to suggest that many of the labels applied to
Roman deities, such as healing god, and womens deity, should be critically reevaluated, and applied
with greater caution, if not discarded altogether (109).

3
situated at the periphery of the Empire) held connections with the highest circles of

power in Rome, and that its members had friends in high places, much as Dion of Prusa

was boasting in his orations (Bekker-Nielsen 2005: 114-116; Rizakis 2007: 321-2). This

practice is certainly not unusual in the context of provincial communities, and its dual

function was clearly articulated by R. Hingley: The relationship between the local

community and the city of Rome and its emperor was a fundamental aspect in the

creation and perpetuation of imperial relations. . . . At the same time, this relationship

projected the authority of the local elite within their own communities, by emphasizing

their relationship with the emperor and the city of Rome (2005: 79-80). In this sense, the

inscription implies that the five delegates (legati), each individually named, were

considered the worthiest men (with perhaps the highest standing in the ordo decurionum

of Dacias only colony to date, and maybe even friends of the former governor and patron

of the city) to represent their city and the Dacian province in Rome, at such a momentous

event.

In addition, an ancient viewer of this votive inscription would likely have inferred

the dedicants high level of economic prosperity, given the expenses such a trip to Rome

would necessarily entail. At the height of local elite euergetism in the Empire, such

expenses would probably have been borne by the delegated individuals themselves. Also,

the very high quality of the marble monument itself adorned with acanthus leaves and

akrotera, and with letters correctly and elegantly carved (IDR III/1, p. 80, Fig. 49) is

meant to communicate the material prosperity of the dedicants whose financial resources

could afford them such a monument.

4
 Above all, the previous example illustrates one of the central characteristics of

religion not only in Roman Dacia, but also, by extension, throughout the Roman Empire:

the pragmatic, or utilitarian (Turcan 1998: 10) character of Roman religious thought

and outward manifestations, one that encompasses and goes beyond Ciceros basic

definitions of pietas and sanctitas, entailing a complex reciprocal relationship between

gods and human worshippers :

Quae porro pietas ei debetur a quo nihil acceperis, aut quid omnino cuius
nullum meritum sit ei deberi potest? est enim pietas iustitia adversum
deos; cum quibus quid potest nobis esse iuris, cum homini nulla cum deo
sit communitas? Sanctitas autem est scientia colendorum deorum; qui
quam ob rem colendi sint non intellego nullo nec accepto ab his nec
sperato bono. (De Natura Deorum I.116)

This polytheistic pratique utilitaire, with its paradoxical combination of conservatism

and capacity for adaptation and accretion so different conceptually from modern

monotheisms is encapsulated by R. Turcan:

Au vrai, il ny eut pas une religion romaine, comme il existe de nos jours
telle ou telle foi monothiste. [] La religion nest pas pour les Romains
une croyance, un sentiment, a fortiori une mystique. Cest une pratique
utilitaire. Les Romains vivent dans la hantise des alas, de ces puissances
occultes qui menacent ou entravent laction humaine, quil sagisse de la
subsistence, du travail quotidian ncessaire la survie, ou de la guerre
quil faut mener contre les voisins pour sauvegarder les rcoltes actuelles
et futures. (Turcan 1998: 10)

La pit romaine a donc volu pour des raisons historiques, mais en

raison meme aussi du souci utilitaire quelle avait de se concilier tous les
dieux, dautres dieux en tout cas que ceux dont lefficience savrait pour
lheure insuffisante. Le polythisme romain est opportuniste et donc
ouvert davance dventuels largissements. Comme les Anglais qui
aiment mieux faire une loi nouvelle que den abolir une ancienne, les
Romains adoptaient dautres dieux sans rien renier du vieux panthon.
(Turcan 1998: 26-27)3

3
A similar idea is expressed by A. Bendlin (1997: 35-68), who argues for religious cultures throughout the
Empire as models or representations of an additive extension of an open system, where choices are made
on the principle of extending, rather than replacing a cultural system. On such a view, a culture at a certain

5
 As I hope to demonstrate over the course of the present study, the religious life of

the inhabitants of Dacia of the second and third centuries allows for just such a

comfortable coexistence of traditional Roman religious conservatism (reflected, for

example, in the countless official votive dedications from the province, to Jupiter

Optimus Maximus, or the invocation of the Capitoline Triad) and very practical desire,

present among all strata of provincial society (civilian and military) to attract the good

will of as many deities as possible, in accordance with the quotidian needs of the

individual or of the community, or even in response to larger regional and Empire-wide

or regional trends and patterns.

The colonization of Roman Dacia as context for the

religious life of the province

The particular development of the diverse religious landscape of Roman Dacia

can only be understood when framed within the context of the intense process of

colonization that took place throughout Dacias life as a province of the Roman Empire

whether this colonization was state-driven, in the very early stages of the province, or

a result of independent initiative.

The end of Trajans second Dacian war in 106 AD marked the demise of the

independent Dacian Kingdom, with its longstanding tradition of (often turbulent)

time would be the result of optimizing a system by the addition of what is communicated as a desirable
option. This does of course mean that we are confronted with an open process, as the individual agents
continue to optimize configurations within the constraints of the system. As a result, one set of alternatives
is chosen at the expense of another, while a third option may forever remain unrealized(53). Cf, also Rives
2007 (182): ... the Graeco-Roman tradition was not a cohesive system of integrated practices and beliefs,
but instead involved overlapping sets of cult practices, myths, iconographic conventions, and philosophical
positions. The norm was thus one of multiple traditions, not one monolithic system to which everyone was
expected to conform. Moreover, the pervasive tendencies toward particularization and generalization
provided a framework within which new traditions could be incorporated almost indefinitely and with
minimum conflict.

6
relations with Rome. Upon its ruins, Trajan created the new imperial province of Dacia,

one of the last territories to be incorporated in the Roman Empire, and the first to be

abandoned 165 years later. Following Trajans return to Rome early in 107, the difficult

task of beginning the creation of an infrastructure where previously none existed, and of

military and administrative organization, was probably handed over to Dacias first

governor of consular rank, perhaps Iulius Sabinus.4 For the next 165 years, as long as

Roman rule officially maintained itself north of the lower Danube, Dacia would be an

integral part of the economic, political, military, and socio-cultural community of the

Roman Empire.

The process of colonization of the newly incorporated province began already

under Trajan (perhaps a reflection of imperial policy to a certain extent). That this

process took place on an extensive scale is suggested by a tantalizing remark of the fourth

century Roman writer Eutropius, in his Breviarium ab urbe condita, regarding Hadrians

alleged intent of abandoning his predecessors conquest (VIII.6.2):

Idem de Dacia facere conatum amici deterruerunt ne multi cives

romani barbaris traderentur propterea quia Traianus victa Dacia
ex toto orbe Romano infinitas eo copias hominum transtulerat ad
agros et urbes colendas. Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris
fuerat exhausta.

Despite inaccuracies (the only official urban foundation attested under Trajan is Colonia

Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa) and possible rhetorical exaggerations, this

4
It was long believed, beginning with A. Stein, Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien (1944: 9-10) based on a
possibly erroneous dating (to 11 August 106) of a military diploma from Porolissum, in Dacia (CIL XVI,
160) that D. Terentius Scaurianus was the first appointed governor of Dacia. In light of the newly-
discovered military diploma from Ranova (Moesia Superior), dated 14 October 109, it was possible to
conclude that in fact Iulius Sabinus preceded Scaurianus as first governor of Dacia between 106 and 109
AD, cf. J. Garbsch, The oldest military diploma for the Province of Dacia, Limes 15 (1991), 281ff; Piso
1993: 10ff.; Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 23.

7
mention by Eutropius finds a parallel in the ample epigraphic and archaeological record

(distributed over little more than a century), at least insofar as the urban agglomerations

of Dacia are concerned.5 Such evidence points to a large body of colonists of diverse

social, economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, whose presence in the province along

with that of the Roman army and provincial administration helped shape the social,

cultural, and economic landscape of Dacia.

But who were the colonists of Dacia? To begin with, the official character of

colonization in Dacia in its early phases may be observed in the foundation (at an

uncertain date, though fairly soon after the end of the Second Dacian War) of Ulpia

Traiana Sarmizegetusa as Roman Dacias first and only colonia deducta, which was

granted ius italicum. Its first, Trajanic colonists appear to have been veterans of various

legions. Some of these became the first decurions of Sarmizegetusa, as did a certain

Firmus (who was honored in a fragmentary inscription from the colony), veteran of Legio

IIII Flavia Felix (stationed in Dacia for about twenty years beginning with 102) (IDR

III/2, 111).

Another group that testifies to the official character of colonization in Dacia is

that of the Illyrian miners who were brought fairly soon after the conquest from Dalmatia

and who settled in large groups in the gold-mining region of western Dacia, in and

around the mining centers of Alburnus Maior and Ampelum. Along with their extensive

expertise in gold-mining, these groups of Dalmatian provincials brought with them to

5
The rural sites of Roman Dacia (villae rusticae, vici, pagi) cannot attest to a similar situation (although
archaeological and to a far lesser extent epigraphic evidence indicates the presence of colonists, as well as
natives on those sites). This is partly because of the relative unreliability of the archaeological evidence
from rural sites, mainly due to problematic methods of collection, interpretation and evaluation of the
collected data, and of recording the exact location of some of these rural sites, cf. Oltean 2004: 144.

8
Dacia the memory of their tribal/regional organization from Dalmatia, as they continued

to label themselves according to their respective Illyrian tribal denominations, such as

Pirustae, Delmatae, Baridustae, Sardeates, etc. That these tribal-like immigrant

communities were fairly cohesive is suggested by the fact that the Pirustae even

established their own vicus Pirustarum in or near Alburnus Maior, while other Illyrian

tribal groups lived in their own castella.6

To these groups of official colonists we may add the permanent, semi-

permanent, or transitory presence in the provincial territory of lower ranking members

(often imperial freedmen or slaves) those of the provincial administration, and of such

state-owned operations as the gold, silver and iron mines, salt-works and stone quarries,

as well as the craftsmen and traders who would have typically accompanied the troops

stationed in a province for any length of time (Macrea 1969: 252).

Other colonists appear to have settled in Dacia as a result of private, rather than

official initiative. Among them were several groups from the eastern part of the Roman

Empire, such as those originating in Galatia and organized in a col(legium) Galatarum,

which dedicated an altar to Hercules invictus at Germisara (IDR III/ 3, 234),7 while a

collegium Pontobithynor(um) is attested by an inscription from Apulum (IDR III/5.1,

153). At Napoca, the male and female members of the Spira Asianorum record their

names in an inscription (CIL III, 870). Publius Aelius Theimes (bearing a typical

6
Cf. M. Macrea, Viaa n Dacia Roman (Life in Roman Dacia) (1969: 252). Macreas monograph,
published posthumously, continues to remain one of the most influential studies on the provincial
civilization in Dacia, unfortunately little-known in scholarly circles outside Romania, since it was never
translated into a west European language; cf. also Volker Wollmann 1996: 165-7.
7
Another inscription from Napoca (CIL III, 860), put up by the Galatae consistentes municipio, testifies to
the presence of a sizable community of Galatians there, as well.

9
Palmyrean cognomen), duumviral(is) at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, commemorated in

an inscription on the building, at his own expense, of a temple to the Dii Patrii Malagbel

et Bebellahamon et Benefal et Manavat (IDR III/2, 18).8 The western part of the Empire

is represented as well: at Sarmizegetusa, Petilia Victorina put up a funerary inscription

for her son, C. Togernius Ingenuus, augustalis at Sarmizegetusa, whose nomen may

suggest a Gallic origin (IDR III/2, 444). Of clear Gallic origin was Macrinus (civi

Trevero), who was commemorated with a funerary plaque by Attius Valens and

Carantius Germanus, also at Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 427).9

The picture emerging even after such a cursory glance at the colonization of the

new province is that of a quickly forming melting pot, in which a diverse body of

immigrants shaped the socio-cultural and economic landscape of Roman Dacia:

landowners, merchants, workers, artisans, slaves and freedmen, priests, Roman officials

and local decurions, soldiers and Roman army veterans, from the Italic peninsula and the

provinces. It is the diverse religious landscape created by these immigrants to Dacia

and particularly the ways in which their religious activities connected to numerous other

facets of their lives, and those of their communities that will form the focus of my

dissertation.

8
Two other inscriptions to the Palmyrean Dii Patrii are attested at Tibiscum, the dedicators apparently
being soldiers from Numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium (IDR III/1, 135, 136).
9
though one may wonder whether the deceased and dedicators were colonists of Sarmizegetusa or simply
passing through when the death of Macrinus (whose complete name is not preserved) occurred.

10
Scholarship on religion in Roman Dacia: a brief overview

It is perhaps surprising that the first and only comprehensive, monograph-length

survey of the religious culture of Roman Dacia comes from an American scholar

Leslie Webber Jones Cults of Roman Dacia, dating back to nearly a century ago (1929).

Although Webber Jones work remains an admirable pioneering effort, understandably,

over the span of nearly a century (during which a considerable number of epigraphic and

archaeological findings have come to light), its findings have become outdated (as its

evidence consists almost exclusively of the epigraphic monuments published in CIL),

while some of its interpretive approaches are rather questionable.10 The gap created by

the absence of a more updated version of a comprehensive study on religious life in

Roman Dacia is instead filled in Romanian scholarship by a variety of works that fall into

several different categories.

The closest approximation to the scope of Webber Jones study in Romanian

scholarship is M. Brbulescus monograph, Interferene Spirituale n Dacia Roman

(Spiritual Interferences in Roman Dacia), from 1984. It is important to point out that the

concept of interferences should not be understood here in its negative sense of

intrusions or disruptions, but rather as a combination of, or points of contact

between, different individual forms of spiritual expression (such as the artistic craft

and architecture; the fine arts and religion; mythology and funerary practices), which the

author explores in detail.

10
For example, Webber Jones considers as instantiations of religious syncretism all cases in which several
deities are mentioned on single epigraphic monument (1929: 249, 258-260).

11
 Another category of works is formed by monographic or article-length studies

focusing either on an individual cult (including corpora of specific cults that include

Dacia), a group of cults with a common geographic or ethnic origin,11 or a specific type

of religious monument or artifact type.12 Yet another group of works where the religious

life of the province is sketched in somewhat general terms is that of synthetic works on

Roman Dacia,13 single city monographs,14 or those specifically on the art of the

11
A. Bodor, Der Liber- und Libera- Kult. Ein Beitrag zur Fortdauer der bodenstndigen Bevlkerung im
rmerzeitlichen Dazien, in Dacia n.s. VII (1963), 211-239; M. Brbulescu, Der Dianakult im rmischen
Dazien, in Dacia XVI (1972), 203-233; Idem, Cultul lui Hercules n Dacia roman (Part I), in ActaMN
XIV (1977), 173-194 and Part II, in ActaMN XV (1978), 219-233; Idem, Personificrile n religia roman
din Dacia. I. Personificarea noiunilor abstracte i a valorilor morale, in AIIA XX (1977), 269-286; Idem,
Africa e Dacia. Gli influssi africani nella religione romana della Dacia, in LAfrica Romana X (1994),
1319-1338; D. Isac, Contribuii la iconografia religioas a Daciei romane. Iuppiter Verospi, in ActaMN
XI (1974), 61-79; M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithraicae I-II
(1956-1960); Idem, Corpus Cultus Iovis Sabazii I-II (1983); Idem, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque
(1989); G. J. F. Kater-Sibbes and M. J. Vermaseren, Apis II: Monuments from outside Egypt (1975); I.
Berciu and C. C. Petolescu, Les cultes orientaux dans la Dacie mridionale (1976); D. Tudor, Corpus
Monumentorum religionis Equitum Danuviorum I-II (1969); A. Popa and I. Berciu, Le culte de Jupiter
Dolichenus dans la Dacie romaine (1978); N. Hampartumian, Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii: Moesia
Inferior (Romanian section) and Dacia (1979); P. F. Dorcey, The Cult of Silvanus (1992); S. Sanie, Cultele
orientale n Dacia roman 1: Cultele siriene i palmirene (1981); A. Bodor, Die griechisch-rmischen
Kulte in der Provinz Dacia und das nachwirken der einheimischen Traditionen, in ANRW II, 18.2 (1989:
1077-1164); A. Schfer, Gtter aus dem Rheingebiet in Dakien und Pannonien, in Spickermann et al.,
(2001: 259-284); Idem, The diffusion of religious belief in Roman Dacia: a case-study of the gods of Asia
Minor, in Hanson and Haynes (2004: 179-188); C. Stoian Symonds, Interfrences artistiques dans les
representations de la desse Hcate dans les provinces romaines du Bas-Danube, in Mihilescu-Brliba
and Bounegru, eds., (2006: 243-257); M.-C. Budischovsky, Tmoignages Isiaques en Dacie (106-271 ap.
J.-C.): Cultes et Romanization, in Bricault et al., eds., Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World (2007:
267-288).
12
M. Gramatopol, Romula et la glyptique du Bas-Danube, in Apulum XI (1973), 177-183; D. Alicu and
E. Nemeti, Roman Lamps from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Oxford, 1977); Al. Popa, Teracote cu
caracter votiv la Apulum, in Apulum XVI (1978), 149-159; D. Alicu et al., Small Finds from Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Cluj-Napoca, 1994); A. Rusu-Pescaru and D. Alicu, Templele romane din Dacia
(I) (Deva: 2000); Gh. Popilian, Centrul coroplastic de la Romula, in Mihilescu-Brliba and Bounegru,
eds. (2006: 409-438).
13
M. Macrea, Viaa n Dacia Roman (1969); D. Tudor, Orae, trguri i sate n Dacia roman
(Bucharest, 1968); Idem, Oltenia roman (1968); I. I. Russu, Die Kulte im rmischen Dakien, in the
catalog of the exhibit Rmer in Rumnien (1969); C. C. Petolescu, Scurt istorie a Daciei romane (1995);
Gudea and Lobscher, Dacia: Eine rmische Provinz zwischen Karpaten und Schwarzem Meer (2006).
14
D. Tudor, Sucidava (1965); Idem, Drobeta (1965); H. Daicoviciu and D. Alicu, Colonia Ulpia Traiana
Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa (1984); M. Brbulescu, Potaissa (1994); D. Benea and P. Bona, Tibiscum
(1994); N. Gudea and W. Schuller, eds., Porolissum (1998).

12
province.15 Lastly, a multitude of articles and notes focus on individual inscriptions or

archaeological finds pertaining to religion in the province, although they often limit

themselves to technical descriptions of the specific artifacts, without attempting to place

them in the larger context of provincial religious life, or in that of similar findings across

the Empire.

Towards an empirical approach to studying manifestations

of religious life in Roman Dacia

As part of my examination of the religious life of the Dacian province, I have

conducted a corpus study of artifacts from all across Roman Dacia (all the major urban

settlements, as well as military camps and their adjacent civilian settlements, rural

settlements, as well as isolated finds): inscriptions, reliefs, large- and small- scale

statuary, temples, mosaics, semi-precious gems and various objects of daily use, spanning

a period of over 150 years (roughly from the creation of the province in the early second

century by Trajan, to the middle of the third century AD). These artifacts mention and/or

represent nearly 2,200 instances of over 160 individual deities (including deified

abstractions), falling into roughly 25 origin groups.16 While the corpus is by no means

exhaustive and in fact can be considered as work in progress I have endeavored,

to the best of my ability, to include all the material from the sources I had access to at the

15
The catalog of the exhibit Rmer in Rumnien (1969) remains an invaluable source for artifacts of
religious life (some of them published for the first time in the catalog); N. Gudea and V. Luccel, Inscripii
i monumente sculpturale n Muzeul de Istorie i Art Zalu (1975); D. Alicu, C. Pop and V. Wollman,
Figured Monuments from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (1979); R. Florescu, The Art of Dacian-Roman
Antiquity (1986); M. Gramatopol, Arta roman n Romnia (2000); the catalog of the exhibit Mitologie i
Iconografie la Apulum (2008).
16
See Appendix B: Corpus of Deities in Roman Dacia, for more detailed statistics.

13
time of its compilation. As such, the material gathered in the corpus could be seen to

provide a representative sample of the religious culture of the Dacian province during

the period in question.

The impetus for undertaking such a corpus study was to provide hard data in a

consolidated form, which was previously lacking in studies that treat religion in Roman

Dacia. Of course, surveys of individual cults or groups of cults satisfy this need, but only

to a limited extent, that is, insofar as those specific cults are concerned. On the other

hand, most works offering a survey of religious life in the province or in its individual

cities do so, most often, by treating the available evidence in very general terms. They

offer only a birds eye view, as it were, of religious culture, or cultures, obtaining in the

province generalized observations which render some of their conclusions conjectural

at best. A partial exception is, yet again, Brbulescus study on the various aspects of

spiritual life in the province (see above), which also provides a rough estimate for the

frequency of the most popular deities in the religious pantheon of the province, along

with possible interpretive approaches for these general statistics, although over twenty-

five years later, it is somewhat outdated (Brbulescu 1984: 179-186).

In light of the state of scholarship outlined above, the task of undertaking a more

rigorously empirical study on the religious life of Roman Dacia is an imperative realized

by the present dissertation and its reliance on corpus analysis. Such an empirical

approach would allow for a more accurate and nuanced interpretation of a large,

comprehensive data set, illustrating patterns, trends, characteristics of, and even

motivations for, religious behavior, that would otherwise be more difficult to detect.

Ultimately, imposing such an interpretive framework upon the collected data can result in

14
a more accurate placement of the religious culture of Roman Dacia of the second and

third centuries within the larger context of provincial and Empire-wide tendencies for this

historical period.

Provincial identities in Roman Dacia

But beyond discussing various manifestations of the rich religious life in Roman

Dacia, the ultimate purpose of the present study is to reconstruct, to the extent that this is

possible, the diverse types of individual and collective identities, which the Dacian

provincials consistently negotiated. In doing so, I start from one of the central premises

outlined above namely, that the very fluidity of concepts of religion in the Roman

world allows it to infiltrate, and at the same time to provide a stage for, the outward

expression of a variety of other facets of the identity of an individual and that of his or

her community, be they cultural, social, or economic or political. Taken in this context,

the evidence from religion in Roman Dacia functions as the starting point in exploring

multiple, and often overlapping identity constructs, which actively operated in the day-to-

day lives of provincials.

This constitutes a new approach to the study of both religion and identity in

Roman Dacia,17 one informed by a number of studies, which illustrate a recently growing

interest in issues of social and cultural identity within the Roman world.18 Significantly,

17
with the partial exception of I. Olteans recent article, Dacian ethnic identity and the Roman the Roman
army (in Hanson 2009: 91-101), which, however, focuses primarily Dacian troops serving in the Roman
army elsewhere throughout the Empire. Cf. below, Chapter 1.
18
J. Metzler et al. eds., Integration in the Early Roman West; H. Mattingly, Being Roman: expressing
identity in a provincial context, in JRA 17 (2004): 5-25; S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity:

15
through examination of various types of evidence from different provincial cultures

from Roman Britain to Roman Syria such studies have challenged the objectivity, and

indeed, the validity of the concept of Romanization, particularly because it imposes the

idea of a Roman-native dichotomy, and of a specific set of ingredients, the combination

of which generates a specifically Roman socio-cultural identity superior to the native one,

however without accounting for variation and change of either native or Roman

socio-cultural identities over time and geographical space.19 Moreover, the very idea that

such a thing as Roman identity even existed under the Empire has come under scrutiny.

Beyond the very strict, legal definition of Roman citizenship which, in any case, loses

its import following Caracallas universal grant of citizenship of 212 Roman

identity is seen as a largely artificial construct with little practical application. In this

sense, R. Hingley has demonstrated that Roman identity was itself an invention of the

classical authors who wrote about the Empire, created for its effect as a colonizing

discourse. It represents an image that has been picked up in modern times to create a

particular focus of study (2005: 92).

The religious evidence advanced here suggests the existence of several identities

in Roman Dacia, and therefore supports these earlier challenges to the notion of an

Constructing identities in the past and present (1997); G. Woolf, Becoming Roman: The Origins of
Provincial Civilization in Gaul (1998); R. Laurence and J. Berry, eds., Cultural Identity in the Roman
Empire (1998); L. Dirven, The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study in Religious Interaction in Roman
Syria (1999); N. Roymans, Ethnic identity and imperial power: the Batavians in the early Roman Empire
(2004); R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, diversity and empire (2005).
19
Cf. G. Woolf, Beyond Romans and Natives, World Archaeology 28.3 (1997), 339-350; G. Woolf,
Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (1998: 4ff.); S. Jones, The Archaeology
of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (1997:128ff.); R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman
Culture: Unity, diversity and empire ( 2005: 14ff.); J. Creighton, Britannia: The creation of a Roman
province ( 2006: 8 ff.), to name a few of the scholars who, in their respective works, have challenged the
validity of the notion of Romanization, but also of post-colonial, revisionist theories of resistance,
acculturation/ self-Romanization of the provincial elites.

16
invariant Roman identity. The traditional model of Romanization, almost

unanimously adopted by Romanian scholars, cannot be applied to Roman Dacias socio-

cultural amalgamation, for reasons that are unique to Dacia:20 from the very beginning of

the province, the visible traces of the natives life in the province are few and far between

(and predominantly of an archaeological nature), while their involvement in the socio-

political and cultural life the province and this, significantly includes any native

contribution to Roman Dacias religious pantheon is, for all intents and purposes,

impossible to detect.21 Therefore, in this respect, comparative analysis of

Roman/native socio-cultural models of interaction and provincial identity

development advanced for other provinces (for example Britain, Gaul, Pannonia,

Germany, etc.) is entirely unhelpful insofar as Roman Dacia is concerned.

Rather, as G. Woolf (1997) has also advocated with reference to Roman Gaul, in

the case of Roman Dacia, too, we must advance beyond Romans and natives, and shift

the focus on trying to understand how and why a number of identity constructs both

individual and collective operated within the socially and culturally diverse Dacian

provincial society. Indeed, as advanced by social identity theorists and as analysis of

relevant evidence from Roman Dacia will confirm we may speak of more than one

operating social identity: a person has not one personal self, but rather several selves

that correspond to widening circles of group membership (Turner et al. 1987). This

allows for the coexistence of several identities for an individual, whereby social

20
See, in this sense, in the present dissertation, Appendix C, Roman Dacian and its Political
historiography, which explains in much more detail than it would be possible in the present
Introduction the complex historical and political motivations behind pushing such an agenda of
Romanization in Dacia.
21
an issue I will discuss at greater length in Chapter 1.

17
identity becomes the individuals self-concept derived from perceived membership in a

group (Hogg and Vaughan 2002). The applicability of this idea of multiple and coexistent

social and (I would also add) cultural identities, which are comfortably negotiated by

Dacian provincials throughout their lives, may be illustrated with a particularly revealing

example from Roman Dacia.

The example is one briefly mentioned above, of Publius Aelius Theimes,

duumviralis at Sarmizegetusa, who constructed, from his personal funds (impendio suo),

a temple with a kitchen, dedicated to the Dii Patrii Malagbel et Bebellahamon et Benefal

et Manavat, in the provincial capital: Diis Patriis / Malagbel et Bebellaha- / mon et

Benefal et Mana- / vat P(ublius) Ael(ius) Theimes IIviral(is) / col(oniae) templum fecit

solo et / impendio suo pro se suisq(ue) / omnibus, ob pietate(m) ipsorum / circa se iussus

ab ipsis fecit/ et culianam subiunxit (IDR III/2, 18).22 Thus, in this religious context,

several of the dedicants socio-cultural identities as understood within the different

social and cultural groups he occupies come to the fore, through his use of a variety of

identity markers: his Palmyrean ethnic identity, as demonstrated by his pious dedication

to a group of Palmyrean dii patrii, but also through his typically Palmyrean cognomen,

Theimes;23 at the same time, his Roman citizen status, as confirmed by his tria nomina. In

this sense, G. Woolf has also pointed out that the role of giving ones name, in the Roman

votive-epigraphic context, serves not only as an assertion of membership, but that it

also might be seen as a more personal act, a public acknowledgement of a personal

22
I will return to this interesting example in Chapter 5, in a different context.
23
In advancing her theory of ethnic identity, S. Jones notes that, the recognition and articulation of
ethnicity varies in different social domains, and with relation with different forms and scales of social
interaction (1997: 129).

18
relationship made between a worshipper and a god, and the inscription of a person into

the divine order (Woolf 1996: 29). At the level of the local group or community, the

dedicant also advertises his membership in the local aristocracy of the provincial capital,

through his attainment of a high civic magistracy, the duumvirate. Of course, at a

cultural-religious level, this particular example is also a good illustration of what J.

Schied has called the double identity of foreign gods: in a Roman context, when

venerated by their fellow citizens, who were also Roman citizens, foreign gods could

receive a cult in the Roman way. As their cultores, they had a double identity (Schied

2001: 217). This double identity manifests itself not only in the particularly Roman

formula of the temple construction plaque, but also in the architecture of the temple itself:

discovered together with its construction plaque at the end of the nineteenth century, the

excavation of the rectangular structure revealed that P. Aelius Theimes had chosen to

build a small Roman-style temple, to house the rites of his native Palmyrean gods (see

Plate I).24

The examples of religious devotion I have discussed thus far are representative

instances of the multivalent idea of community that is also central to my study. In a

newly conquered, unfamiliar territory, in what must have been perceived as a backwater

area on the northern frontier, almost constantly menaced by the threat of invasion from

outside tribes, the creation and perpetuation of a sense of community was a necessity. In

Roman Dacia, as elsewhere throughout the empire, individuals consistently defined

themselves in respect to, and were defined by, the communities or groups they occupied

whether as decurions in a town or in the canabae of a legion; as members in a priestly

24
Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 84-90, Pl. XXVI-XXVII.

19
order or an association (professional or otherwise); or even as members of an ethnic

group, etc. As such, the lives of the colonists of Dacia can only be understood within the

context of the more local communities they formed, from largest to the smallest, but also

within the more global socio-cultural community of the Empire.

The sources of evidence

Apart from Trajans short-lived conquests east of the Euphrates, Dacia was the

last territory to become a Roman province, and the first to be abandoned, after only 165

years of effective Roman rule. Despite this brief span of Roman occupation, the

epigraphic material that survives from this period is truly varied and abundant (well over

2,500 inscriptions), thus making inscriptions the most important source of information for

life in Roman Dacia. The majority of inscriptions are concentrated in and around Roman

Dacias urban sites, as well as around its military camps, and they testify to the presence

in Dacia of a population (of civilian colonists, Roman troops and members of the

administrative apparatus of the province) with a firmly established epigraphic habit. This

ample epigraphic material was collected, organized, and published for the first time in a

systematic fashion (following the geographic-topographic distribution of Roman cities in

Dacia and their territoria) by Theodor Mommsen in CIL III, parts 1 and 2 (1873). In

addition, beginning in 1975, a number of Romanian scholars have been publishing the

ongoing collection Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae (IDR, in three volumes with multiple

parts), which contains the inscriptions published by Mommsen in CIL III, but also many

that have surfaced since 1873, including the small corpus of inscriptions from Dacia

written in Greek. The Greek epigraphic material on the territory of Dacia was also most

20
recently catalogued separately by Ligia Ruscu in the volume Corpus Inscriptionum

Graecarum Dacicarum (CIGD), containing a total of 152 Greek inscriptions found in

Dacia (a few dating from before the Roman conquest).

Within these corpora, a variety of inscriptions with a religious character votive

inscriptions, building inscriptions, votive-religious inscriptions, inscribed mosaic,

inscribed rings, gems (a few of them functioning as amulets inscribed with magic

incantations), and one curse tablet represent the most frequent type of inscription.25

Although most such inscriptions rarely go beyond generic formulations encountered

elsewhere within the Roman Empire, they nonetheless provide invaluable information

concerning the rich religious life of Dacias colonists, but also their complex social ties

and civic involvement, and sometimes connections with, and attachment to, their areas of

origin. Occasionally, inscriptions might go beyond their formulaic, lapidary character, to

offer unique insight into the sensibilities of the dedicator.26

In addition to inscriptions, the archaeology of Roman Dacia provides another

significant source of insight into the religious life of Dacias colonists and their

communities and, therefore, into their identities. The evidence is represented by: larger

scale urban monumental architecture (areae sacrae, temples and temple precincts,

shrines, religious associations headquarters, etc.); votive reliefs (of marble, limestone,

25
In addition to these three main epigraphic corpora, a variety of journals (especially AE and ZPE, but
many others, as well), corpora of various cults, as well as other studies (articles, monographs) have also
provided me with a wealth of valuable epigraphic information on the topic, as reflected in the corpus
(Appendix B).
26
Such is the case of a poetic votive inscription to a local water nymph at Germisara, a resort-town known
for its thermal waters with curative properties: [Hanc ti]bi marmoreo caesam de monte d[icavi]/ regina
undarum Nympha decus nemoru[m]/ vo[to] damnasti perfecto quem prece Bassus/ moenitae propter
moenia Germisarae (IDR III/3, 239).

21
lead) and large- and small-scale statuary and ritual votive pits, from inside such larger-

scale public or semi-private structures; within the realm of private/domestic evidence,

pavement mosaics in urban and suburban villas; small scale statuary (of bronze, marble,

and terracotta); and a variety of objects of household use (lucernae, pottery, protective

amulets and carved gemstones).27

Yet the interpretation of archaeological evidence from religious art and

architecture is often considerably more problematic than that of epigraphic evidence,

particularly when such evidence is not accompanied by any sort of explanatory

epigraphic notice. Certainly, parallels may be sought in similar iconography from other

parts of the empire (and especially neighboring provinces), but any conclusions regarding

social status, ethnicity, profession etc., of the dedicant must err on the side of caution.

The difficulty of placing archaeological evidence in its proper social and cultural context

is compounded when votive offerings and other artifacts, have been removed from their

immediate discovery context without any sort of recording of this context. Related to this,

another difficulty in employing archaeological evidence in support of conclusions on the

life of provincial communities is well summarized by S. Altekamp: But even a sensitive

interpretation of the wider local context would miss parts of the detailed behavioral

patterns and complex attributions of functions and values, compared with an analysis

being allowed to watch living people making their use of the objects (2001: 1).

27
Numerous studies on archaeological material from Roman Dacia (ranging from surveys to specialized
works) have been published, particularly in the post-1989 period, when Romanian archaeological research
was much improved through the use of more advanced techniques, and through the participation in
fieldwork of international teams of archaeologists. The volume recently edited by W. S. Hanson and I. P.
Haynes, Roman Dacia: The Making of a Provincial Society (2004) outlines the latest trends in the
archaeology of Roman Dacia. In addition, in 2000, the Institute for Cultural Memory in Bucharest began an
ambitious project for an online database of archaeological sites and annual reports, which can be accessed
at: http://www.cimec.ro/Resurse/Baze_online.htm.

22
 Lastly, throughout my dissertation, literary evidence, through writings by Greek

and Roman authors on a variety of religious rites and topics, as well as on certain socio-

cultural practices that obtained during the imperial period, has often helped to

contextualize and supplement the evidence coming from epigraphy and archaeology.

Evidence from ancient authors will also be crucial in piecing together a historical

narrative for the existence of the Dacian kingdom and its relations with Rome,

ultimately leading to the Roman conquest of Dacia.

Overview of the dissertation

On the premise that a discussion of complex socio-cultural processes at work in

the operation of various provincial identities cannot take place in a vacuum, the present

study begins by offering a necessarily condensed overview of the history of Dacia pre-

and post-conquest. The first chapter also discusses the geo-political and economic

importance of this territory, and, to conclude, offers a brief overview of the Roman

military, administrative, and civic structures in place after the conquest. One key element

emerges from the discussion, setting Roman Dacia quite apart from other frontier

provinces (Britain, Germany, Pannonia, Moesia, Spain, to name a few): the mysterious

absence of any visible traces for the survival of the native Dacian religion (even through

interpretatio Romana or syncretism, as elsewhere) among the multitude of cults (Roman

and non-Roman), which form the diverse religious landscape of the new province. This

renders any investigation of native Dacian identity in the context of the province

virtually impossible, when considered from a religious angle.

23
 Chapter 2 presents a somewhat general and statistically driven picture of religious

life in the province of Dacia, largely informed by the findings of my corpus study. In

introducing the various cults that form the complex religious landscape of the province, I

follow an organization of deities based on their ethno-geographic origin.

The last three chapters of the dissertation provide an interpretive framework for

these general findings, by examining in more detail different manifestations of religious

life in the province, as they inform, and in turn are informed by, the various identities of

inhabitants of the province: professional and personal, public and private, individual and

collective, civilian and military, male and female, Roman and non-Roman. Understood in

this sense, religion becomes the means for exploring the ways in which the people of

Roman Dacia negotiated these diverse identity constructs, within the larger context of a

new frontier province, and within that of the Roman Empire, in general.

Chapter 3 explores the relationships between professional identity, religious

devotion, and the economic life of the province, since a great deal of our information

about the economic life of the province and particularly about the variety of

professions practiced in Roman Dacia, as well as on professional groups comes,

somewhat surprisingly, from votive inscriptions. The chapter sets out to examine this

evidence, and what it may tell us about the extent to which certain religious choices made

by both individuals and groups are connected to the professions they practiced. Finally, in

respect to deities perceived as protectors of a variety of economic interests, I examine in

some detail the case of the Roman god Silvanus, a polyvalent deity whose popularity in

votive dedications in Roman Dacia is only eclipsed by that of IOM.

24
 Throughout Chapter 4, I explore some of the essential features of the public,

semi-public, and private religious landscape of cities and towns in Roman Dacia. In

doing so, I give particular attention to a number of aspects of this urban religious

landscape, insofar as they may allow us to gain insight into the motivations of individuals

and groups in contributing to the creation of this landscape. I discuss the phenomenon of

religious euergetism on a larger scale as one of the principal factors if not the principal

factor contributing to the enrichment of Roman Dacias public religious architecture: a

variety of individuals, of vastly different juridical conditions, undertook the building or

repair of, or addition to, urban cult locales of a diverse range of deities, and for a variety

of reasons. Also within the urban context of Roman Dacia, I have examined the

archaeological and epigraphic evidence pertaining to two very different types of cult

locale, but both focusing on the worship of the same deity Liber Pater, one of the most

commonly invoked deities in the province, along with IOM and Silvanus: the temple of

Liber Pater in the extra mural area sacra form Sarmizegetusa; and the intra muros

precinct of Liber Pater from Apulum I, integrated within one of the citys insulae, among

private dwellings and workshops. Through close examination of these two distinct sites, I

endeavor to reconstruct the spatial experience of an ancient visitor, as well as ones

religious experience, by close examination of the epigraphic evidence and, in the case

of the Apulum percent, of the movable finds from the site, many of them contained in

favisae, votive deposit pits. Finally, moving away from the public realm of temples and

the semi-private one of urban religious associations, I examine, still in an urban (and

suburban) context, a number of manifestations of religion (and its subsidiary branch,

mythology) in the private realm of Roman Dacias domestic art and architecture. Within

25
this urban domestic realm, I focus on the somewhat more abundant evidence provided by

the small scale statuettes of various deities, which might have been displayed in Dacian

provincial households, on objects of household use (such as lucernae and pottery), as

well as on decorative pavement mosaics discovered in a number of urban and suburban

villas from Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, respectively. In attempting to understand how

such objects and representations might have functioned within the Dacian provincial

house, the literary evidence from Roman authors, as well as parallels with similar

examples from neighboring Pannonia, but also with the domestic architecture and

inventory of Pompeian houses and mosaics in domestic contexts elsewhere throughout

the empire, proved particularly instrumental.

Since Dacia was a military province par excellence, in the final chapter, I turn my

attention to some of the more salient features of the religious life of military personnel of

all ranks, as well as veterans who remained in the province, along with their families,

following discharge. In this military context, I discuss both individual and collective

religious practices, as evinced by both votive dedications and larger-scale acts of

religious euergetism by both military personnel on active duty and veterans. Throughout

the chapter, I assess the possible motivations for a variety of such public demonstrations

of religious devotion, as well as for the presence of numerous coarsely made terracotta

Venus statuettes inside or in the proximity of areas with a high military concentration

form the province. Such motives range from the very personal, to official demonstrations

of loyalty to the Roman state and the ruling emperor. Chapter 5 also briefly discusses the

representation of Roman state gods (such as IOM, the Capitoline Triad and Mars), certain

Eastern, so-called soldier religions (Mithras, Sol Invictus, IOM Dolichenus), as well as

26
of certain Celto-Germanic cults, and of the regional cult of the Danubian Riders, in the

military pantheon of the province. Finally, I also examine the role of the worship of

military Genii of certain units, of military collegia, as well as of certain collective

dedications to specific dii patrii of ethic-based units, in the formation and reinforcement

of a strong sense of comradeship and group identity within various military units

stationed throughout the province.

****************

Ultimately, this dissertation aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the

religious life of the inhabitants of Roman Dacia, with its particular idiosyncrasies, as well

as with those religious features it shares with other frontier provinces and with the larger

religious culture of the Empire during the second and early third centuries A. D. At the

same time, it is also my hope that the present examination of various provincial identity

constructs, insofar as they are reflected in the religious evidence from Dacia, will add to

the growing field of identity studies that focus on the Roman world in general, and on the

Roman provinces, in particular.

27
Chapter 1

Setting the Stage:

Dacia the Land, People, and History

fecisti patriam diversis gentibus unam:

profuit iniustis te dominante capi.
dumque offers victis proprii consortia iuris,
urbem fecisti quod prius orbis erat.
Rutillius Namatianus, De Reditu Suo I.63-66

At the level of Roman Imperial society, and particularly at the provincial level, a

multitude of group and personal identities operate and constantly evolve (Oltean 2009:

92). Yet a discussion of the dynamics of complex socio-cultural processes at work in the

operation of provincial identities cannot take place in a vacuum least of all one

using religion as a parameter for exploring these identities. Rather, in order to better

understand these processes, they must be framed within the geographic and politico-

historical contexts which made a province what it was: in the case of Dacia, a heavily

militarized (with around 100 large and small forts, and on average, two legions and

almost 60 auxiliary units stationed there), heavily colonized (whether on state or

independent initiatives) frontier province. The new Roman Dacia offered, through its

wealth of resources, lucrative economic opportunities, but also constant dangers and

uncertainties, by virtue of its proximity to Barbaricum, an integral part of which it had

been until its conquest by Trajan.

Roman Dacia: the lay of the land and its natural resources

The territory of Romania, roughly encompassing that of Roman Dacia, centers

around the Carpathians, an arch-like mountain range (Matei 1999: 16). The gradual

erosion of the Carpathians has resulted, over time, in the formation of peripheral units of

relief, namely hills gently sloping at the foot of the mountains, both within and around

their arch and alluvial plains, bordered to the south by the Danube, to the west by the

former marshlands of Tisza, and to the east and south-east, by the Dnister and Black Sea,

respectively (Posea 1999: 69).

Though some uncertainty exists as to the exact boundaries of the Roman province

of Dacia, it, like its modern territorial counterpart, had parts of the Carpathians (the

Southern and Western) and the Trasylvanian plateau lying within their arch, as core units,

along with the plains of Oltenia (between the Southern Carpathians and the Danube) and

partially that of Banat (south-west of Transylvania), respectively. With the exception of

the southern border of the province, which was naturally formed by the river Danube,

stretching the length of the province more or less between Lederata and Novae, the other

borders of the province are suggested by a series of regularly occurring Roman military

forts: the eastern boundary seems to have been formed by the Eastern Carpathians,

judging by the numerous auxiliary forts dotting this line; the north-north-western

boundary spanned between the auxiliary fort at Samum, and that at Porolissum.

Scholarly disagreement surrounds the position of Roman Dacias western frontier:

a number of scholars have suggested the river Tisza (between its confluence with the

Mure river and that with the Danube) as the likely Western border of the province, at

29
least during its early, Trajanic period.1 Some scholars (most recently Hanson and Haynes

2004) have suggested based on the extreme paucity of archaeological evidence

documenting any extensive habitation, whether civilian or military that in fact the

Western border could not have stretched far beyond the Roman road and network of

military forts from Lederata to Tibiscum: a more likely possibility, given the similar

pattern of auxiliary forts lining the other borders of Roman Dacia.2 In fact, Ptolemys

map appears to suggest just this: that the border of Roman Dacia, at least in the second

century A. D., was at the river Tibiscus (modern Timi), which runs parallel to the

Lederata-Tibiscum road, while the corridor between the Tibiscus and the Danube,

separating the provinces of Dacia and Panonia Superior, was occupied by the Sarmatian

Iazyges.3

Located on the fringes of Romanitas, Dacia shared its Danubian border with three

other provinces: Pannonia Inferior and Moesia Superior and Inferior. Around it, to the

west, north, and east lay Barbaricum, consisting of an ill-defined and -understood mix

of populations of different ethnicities, degrees of cohesion, and levels of geographical

mobility. Among them, some groups constitute something of a semi-permanent presence

around the eastern, northern and western frontiers of Roman Dacia during the second and

1
Cf. Macrea 1969:3 5, 41, and appended map; Protase 1995: 342-4; C. C. Petolescu 1995: 50, and
appended map; Bichir et al., Map 6 (Dacia: 2nd -3rd centuries), in Bodea et al. 1996: 65-6; Opreanu, in M.
Brbulescu, ed. (1997: 30-38); Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 4; I. Oltean 2007: 2, Fig. 1.1 (Map of Dacia
and the neighbouring provinces).
2
Cf. A. Alfldi (1940), appended map; Soproni, Tabula Imperii Romani L 34 (1968), appended map,
though Soproni somewhat ambiguously suggests a possible extension of the border along the river Marisus
(modern Mure), up to Cenad, a stopover on the road between Apulum to Partiscum, which ran along the
Marisus. However, Soproni represents another part of the border as running almost parallel to the Lederata-
Tibiscum road; Haynes and Hanson 2004: 16-17.
3
Ptolemaeus, Tabula Europae IX, in Geographia Universalis (= Map no. 7 in Bodea et al. 1996).

30
third centuries, and a constant source of problems for the security of the empire: the

Sarmatian Iazyges and Rhoxolani; and the so-called Free Dacians (that is, those

Dacians who were living in the former territory of pre-Roman Dacia which was left

outside of the Trajanic province, as well those possibly displaced following the

conquest), including the better known Costoboci (Jordanes 12.74; Dumitracu 1993: 72-

80, 86-110; Batty 2007: 229-36, 365-8, 374-6; see Map 1).4

Towering over the land, the Carpathian Mountains are a combination of jagged

ridges and flattened high altitude plateaus. The southern branch of the Carpathians

contains the four highest peaks, all rising above 8,200 feet (Matei 1999: 16-17). But this

natural fortress is by no means impregnable: high passes generated by gradual erosion

and a radial network of river valleys form natural routes of communication, which can be

easily controlled, between the outlying plains and the Transylvanian plateau (Bodea et al.

1996: 20-1; Posea 1999: 77-9; Haynes and Hanson 2004: 13). Indeed, the most important

Roman roads connecting the province of Dacia with the rest of the Empire followed the

course of the major rivers crossing its territory: the Alutus (modern Olt), which, coming

from the Transylvanian plateau, bisects the southern Carpathians, and, after crossing the

Oltenia plain, flows into the Danube; the Rhabon (modern Jiu), with its origins in the

southern Carpathathians, flows almost parallel with the Alutus, but further west into the

Danube; and Marisus (modern Mure), which originates in the eastern Carpathians and,

after bisecting the Transylvanian plateau and the Pannonian (or Banat) plain, East to

West, flows into the Pathisus (modern Tisza). Yet another major access route into the

4
Cf. Jordanes, Getica 12.74: Haec Gotia, quam Daciam appellavere maiores, quae nunc, ut diximus,
Gepidia dicitur, tunc ab oriente Aroxolani, ab occasu Iazyges, a septentrione Sarmatae et Basternae, a
meridiae amnis Danubii terminabant. Nam Iazyges ab Aroxolanis Aluta tantum fluvio segregantur.

31
province (spanning the distance between Lederata, on the Danube, and Tibiscum) was

through the so-called Iron Gate of Transylvania, where the battle of Tapae its precise

location still a mystery took place.5

Despite their somewhat unitary, amphitheatre-like aspect, the Carpathians do not

form a single geo-morphological unit, but they are rather a combination of different

structures. As mentioned earlier, only the Western and Southern Carpathians were

integral parts of the Dacian province. Of the two mountain ranges, it was the fragmented,

low-altitude Western one, with its particular mosaic of various rocks, that provided

(and continues to do so) a wealth of different types of ores, as well as stone (Oltean 2007:

28): gold, silver, iron, lead, copper, volcanic and metamorphic rocks, such as tuff,

andesite, basalt and marble, and sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone, all

of which were assiduously exploited during the period of Roman domination.6 The

Southern Carpathians display a less varied geo-morphology, dominated by metamorphic

schists, with few sedimentary deposits, and rich iron deposits in the area of the former

Dacian capital of Sarmizegetusa Regia, which, however, inexplicably ceased to be

exploited under Roman rule (Oltean 2007: 28, 182; Alexandrescu and Nancu in Bodea et

al. 1996: Map 8). The Transylvanian plateau offered particularly rich salt deposits, and

the main centers of salt exploitation during Roman times were Salinae (modern Ocna

Mure) and Potaissa, with other important salt-works at Ocna Sibiului and in the

5
Macrea 1969: appended map (see Map 1); Gh. Niculescu, Map 3 (Romania: General Map) in Bodea et al.
1996; Bichir et al., Map 6 (Dacia: 2nd 3rd centuries) in Bodea et al. 1996; Haynes and Hanson 2004: 13
and Fig. 1.2 (Distribution of Roman forts, roads and main towns in Dacia).
6
Oltean 2007: 28, 38-9; Wollmann 1996: 101-3 for auriferous ores, 232-35 for iron, 257-68 for volcanic,
metamorphic and sedimentary rock deposits; V. Alexandrescu and D. Nancu, Map 8 (Subsoil Resources),
in Bodea et al. 1996.

32
Southern Carpathians, at Ocnele Mari, both settlements along the Roman road connecting

the Alutus river valley with Apulum (Wollmann 1996: 240-42).

Enclosing the Transylvanian plateau, the Carpathians function, to a certain

extent, much like a natural barrier against drastic climatic extremes, while allowing for

the coexistence of different microclimates, though within the temperate-continental range

characteristic of Central and Eastern Europe (Oltean 2007: 31). Coupled with this, the

gradual erosion of the mountain ranges, fragmented by numerous watercourses and

depressions, created a stepped relief (both within and around the Carpathian arch), with

different types of vegetation, corresponding to different levels of elevation (Posea 1999:

71-2). This combination of factors in turn will have allowed for multiple levels of land

use and exploitation of the natural resources. At the highest levels of altitude,

mountaintop alpine meadows could have allowed for ample space for grazing cattle and

sheep. However, as in the case of the Northwest Balkan Peninsula, although transhumant

shepherding was assumed to have always been not just an economic activity, but a

culture-defining way of life on this territory, going back at least two millennia to the pre-

conquest Dacians, no convincing evidence to this effect has been unearthed thus far.7 The

practice of animal husbandry in both pre-conquest and post-conquest Dacia can be

surmised based on the significant quantities of animal bone deposits at various sites

7
Posea (1999: 73) speaks of the Carpathian type transhumance and its spiritual significance in the
transmission of culture, customs and language changes, going back to the ancient Dacians and Romans.
Against such a view, but in reference to the Balkan Peninsula, cf. P. Garnsey 1988: 200: In the Balkan
peninsula also, the early history of transhumant pastoralism is obscure and controversial [] This has not
prevented scholars from surmising that pastoralism, transhumant or semi-nomadic, has been a constant
feature of the Northwest Balkan peninsula throughout history and prehistory; and even that present-day
shepherds are direct descendants of their presumed predecessors in pre-classical Greece; Oltean 2007:
35, 97, 180, expresses similar skepticism in regard to Dacia, based on the lack of convincing archeological
evidence (most importantly animal enclosures) to support the existence of such a way of life.

33
(especially pigs and cattle, but also sheep/goats) sometimes in such quantities as could

be indicative of facilities for processing carcasses as well as by the discovery of

artifacts indicating wool processing (shears and spindles). But the ways in which this

activity was conducted largely remain a mystery (Oltean 2007: 97, 181).

The next three levels of altitude, in descending order, are dominated by evergreen

coniferous forests, beech and oak forests, respectively, which, in Dacian and Roman

times would have covered a far more extensive area, not yet subject to massive

deforestation (Matei 1999: 21; Oltean 2007: 33). Although archaelogical evidence for

timber exploitation is scarce, since no extensive waterlogged sites have been unearthed

on the territory of Dacia (Oltean 2007: 187), nonetheless, extensive excavations

conducted in recent years at Sarmizegetusa by the team tienne-Piso-Diaconescu,

revealed the existence of a timber forum in the earliest phase of the colony, as well as a

combination of wood and stone structures in the early phase of the colonys amphitheatre

(Piso 2005: 439, 443). That timber from the Dacian forests was exploited is also

suggested by the iconographic evidence on the Column of Trajan, where several scenes

depict Roman legionaries felling trees (Scenes 16, 18, and 113), while in another scene

(Scene 131), Roman carpenters are engaged in constructing barges (Rossi 1971: 138-41,

194-5, 202).

The lowlands (river valleys, depressions, as well as the fertile Oltenia plain along

the Danube) provided ample and fertile ground for cultivation of several plant species.

Indeed, a study on plant evidence conducted at Dacian sites revealed the presence of

about forty-five cultivated plant species, including wheat, rye, millet, barley, lentil, pea,

mustard, poppy and rape seeds, domestic apple, garlic, spinach, and perhaps also cabbage

34
and vine (Oltean 2007: 36, 97). Indirect evidence, particularly of cereal cultivation, also

comes from the Column of Trajan, on which a scene (Scene 102) depicts Roman soldiers

harvesting grain crops, perhaps sown by the enemy (Rossi 1971: 189). Additional

evidence for extensive cereal cultivation also comes from the so-called Hunts pridianum

(Pridianum of the Cohors I Hispanorum Veterana), which dates perhaps to 100 A. D.

(thus perhaps no more than one year before the official start of Trajans first Dacian

campaign): it records the dispatch of a detachment across the Danube, to the Oltenia plain

ad annona[m] defendendam.8

Albeit a frontier province, and therefore constantly in the way of conflict, Dacia,

with its temperate climate, wealth of ores (especially gold), stone, salt, timber, and ample

possibilities for agriculture, would have constituted an enticing prospect for a fresh start

for new settlers ex toto orbe Romano.

Pre-Roman Dacia: political organization and relations with Rome

A history of the Dacians may be pieced together not without difficulty, and for the

most part, only insofar as it is tied to that of Rome. The main difficulty lies in the

frustrating paucity, confusion, and incompleteness of the literary evidence regarding

Romes relations not only with the Dacians, but also with other populations of Thracian

origin in the Danubian-Balkan area. This problem is compounded by the fact that, as far

as we can tell, the Dacians, as a cultural group, made almost no use of writing, thus

8
British Museum Papyrus 2851 = Pridianum 63 in R. O. Fink 1971: 225; for discussion of this aspect, cf.
C. R. Whittaker, 1994: 113-114.

35
leaving their material culture (by way of archaeological remains and coins) as sole voice

of a people who has consistently menaced the Roman Empires northern borders from the

late Republic through to the reign of Trajan.9

The Dacians, together with the Getae, formed the northern branch of the Thracian

family. They inhabited the area north of the Haemus Mountains (Stefan 2005: 360).

Strabo leaves no doubt as to the cultural-linguistic similarity between the two peoples,

Dacians and Getae, but at the same time explains why, for several hundred years, the

Getae were the better (or almost exclusively) known branch:

(Rei= de\ di au)tw=n Ma/risoj potamo\j ei)j to\v Davou/iov, w(=|

ta\j paraskeua\j a)neko/mizov oi( (Rwmai=oi ta\j pro\j to\v
po/lemon. kai\ ga\r tou= potamou= ta\ me\n a)/nw kai\ pro\j tai=j
phgai=j me/rh me/xri tw=n kataraktw=n Danou/iov
proshgo/reuon, a(\ ma/lista dia\ tw=n Dakw=n fe/retai, ta\ de\
ka/tw me/xri tou= Po/ntou ta\ para\ tou\j Ge/taj kalou=sin
)/Istron: o(mo/glwttoi dei)si\n oi( Dakoi\ toi=j Ge/taij. para\ me\n
ou)=n toi=j (/Ellhsin oi( Ge/tai gnwri/zontai ma=llon dia\ to\
sunexei=j ta\j metanasta/seij e)f e(ka/tera tou= )/Istrou
poiei=sqai kai\ toi=j Qra|ci\ kai\ toi=j Musoi=j a)namemi=xqai:
(Geography, 7.3.13)10

Indeed, the earliest extant mention of the Dacians in Latin literature comes from

Caesars De Bello Gallico (6.25), although there is evidence for Romes active

involvement in conflicts with various local populations (including the Dacians

9
Precious few exceptions in the way of evidence for the Dacians use of writing have survived, both in
Latin and Greek characters: the variously interpreted Latin inscription DECEBALVS PER SCORILO
stamped four times near the rim of a large scale ceramic vessel of unknown use, discovered in a final,
burned layer (likely from 105-106, based on the discovery of a Trajanic sesterce, issued in 101-102 in the
same burned layer) of a private dwelling at Sarmizegetusa Regia, cf. D. Protase, DECEBALVS PER
SCORILO n lumina vechilor i noilor interpretri, in D. Protase 1995: 41-53; Gudea and Lobscher
2006: 12; the Greek language inscription BACILEWC QIAMARKOY, discovered on a vessel at
Buridava, probably dating back to the time of Augustus, cf. D. Berciu 1981: 156; finally, a few Greek
disparate Greek letters on several blocks of stone from Sarmizegetusa Regia, which some have seen as
originally belonging to Dacian priest lists, cf. Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 12.
10
Dio (67.6.2) makes a similar distinction between Dacians and Getae, while pointing out that certain
Greek authors use the appellation Getae to designate the Dacians. However, at times Dio himself seems
to confuse the two, as in 51.22.6-7.

36
themselves), in the areas south of the lower Danube, through military interventions by a

number of governors of Macedonia, at least as early as Minucius Rufus, after 109 B. C.11

Again, we hear of two later, successive governors of Macedonia, C. Scribonius Curio

(cos. 76 B. C.) and M. Varro Lucullus (cos. 73 B. C.), who extended the Roman sphere of

influence to the area between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, from the territory of

the Moesi (as yet unconquered), to the Greek cities on the shores of the Pontus, formerly

under the hegemony of Mithridates (Syme 1999: 135-6; Lica 2000: 40-2). Although

Curio became the first Roman general to reach the southern banks of the Danube and

behold the woodlands of the Dacians beyond, his achievement stopped short of crossing

the river into Dacian territory.12 In light of these events, it is perhaps no coincidence that

a massive, unprecedented influx of Roman denarii is attested in Dacia, precisely during

the period of Curio and Lucullus governorships, and for a few years thereafter (c. 75 B.

C. to c. 65 B. C.) (Crawford 1977: 117-24; Lockyear 2004: 65-6; 69-70). In conjunction

with the fact that no confrontation with the Dacian tribes is mentioned in the sources for

11
Frontinus, Stratagemata 2.4.3: Minucius Rufus imperator, cum a Scordiscis Dacisque premeretur,
quibus impar erat numero, praemisit fratrem et paucos una equites cum aeneatoribus praecepitque, ut,
cum vidisset contractum proelium, subitus ex diverso se ostenderet iuberetque concinere aeneatores:
<re>sonantibus montium iugis species ingentis multitudinis offusa est hostibus, qua perterriti dedere
terga. Cf. V. Lica 2000: 40. Unfortunately, the brief mention by Frontinus does not allow any insight into
just how close to the borders of Macedonia the joint offensive of the Scordisci and Dacians ventured. Lica
(2000: 40) suggests that, despite the lack of any mention, other similar Roman military actions in retaliation
to Dacian (and probably also Getic) attacks must have taken place prior to 109 B. C. (following the
conquest of Macedonia). However, the terrified reaction of the Dacian and Scordiscan enemy at least in
Frontinus description bespeaks an enemy sufficiently unfamiliar with Roman tactics and military
paraphernalia, to be easily frightened into flight by the mere blare of Roman trumpets.
12
Florus I.39.6: Curio Dacia tenus venit sed tenebras saltuum expavit; cf. Eutropius, I.6.10. Syme (1999:
135-6), aptly comments on the ramifications of Curios undertaking: The march to the Danube was a
spectacular achievement, not to be repeated for fifty years. It had brought him into the territory of the
Moesi, the tribe whose name was later to have so wide an extension. [] The success of Curio enabled the
next proconsul to operate freely in another direction, far beyond the bounds of Macedonia, cooperating in
an imperial design of conquest. [] M. Varro Lucullus fought the Bessi in eastern Thrace, captured their
towns Uscudama (Adrinopole) and Cabyle (Sliven); then, crossing the mountain chain of the Haemus, he
brought the Greek cities of the coast under the hegemony of Rome; cf. also Lica 2000: 40-1.

37
this period, this might suggest that the development of intense commercial activity was

the sole result of Roman presence in the area, once it became clear that the Romans

occupied as they were with Mithridates VI, Spartacuss rebellion, and the Cilician pirates

had absolutely no intention of crossing the Danube.

The mega/lh a)rxh/ of Burebistas

But, to quote Syme, what was won was soon lost, and during, or rather even

before, the Civil Wars the sphere of Roman influence and of Roman control in the

Balkans and Illyricum had shrunk to narrow bounds (Syme 1999: 182). It was likely this

temporary loss of control and influence by Rome in the area, which allowed another

power to rise north of the river that of the Dacian king Burebistas.13 Burebistas

accession is placed by Jordanes (Getica 11.67) during Sullas dictatorship, and therefore

no later than 79 B. C. The new Dacian king succeeded in consolidating his power

internally with the help of the high priest/prophet Decaeneus (or Dicineus) on whom

he bestowed pene regiam potestatem through a combination of rigorous military

training and a programme of moral reforms (including /, sobriety, or abstinence from

drinking), coupled with a newly-instilled religious zeal (Strabo, 7.3.11; Jordanes, 11.67).

The offshoot of the reforms for the Dacian socio-political system seems to have been the

rise to dominance of an aristocratic priestly (and perhaps also warrior) class (Jordanes,

11.71).

With his power consolidated within the Dacian kingdom (which may have taken

well over fifteen years, perhaps even twenty), Burebistas embarked on a campaign of

Two ancient literary sources mention Burebistas directly: Strabo, Geographica 7.3.11, and Jordanes,
13

Getica 11.67, in addition to a Greek language inscription from Dionysopolis (IGBulg, I2, 13 = SIG3, 762).

38
conquest of neighboring territories, in the late sixties B. C.: he suppressed the autonomy

of the Bastarnae, a Celtic enclave in the eastern part of Dacia, who had previously

furnished Mithridates VI with contingents (Syme 1999: 138, 183); towards the west, by

inflicting crushing defeats on two other Celtic tribes, the Boii and Taurisci, he pushed the

boundaries of his kingdom to the Middle Danube, close to the Hercynian (Black) Forest

(Caesar, BG 6.25; cf. Syme 1999: 138). And so, his westward campaign of territorial

annexation generated something of a chain reaction: the Boii, displaced by Burebistas

from their former territories in Pannonia, made their way into Noricum thus

dangerously close to the Roman frontier and attacked the town of Noreia. They then

joined the Helvetii in their migration, and were subsequently defeated by Caesar along

with them (Caesar, BG 1.5; cf. Syme 1999: 138; Stefan 2005: 383). Not long thereafter,

the Dacian monarch began to impinge directly on the Roman sphere of influence south

and south-east of the Danube: Strabo speaks of his unchecked plundering raids into

Thrace, and even as far as Macedonia and Illyria, so much so that he became formidable

(fobero/j) even to the Romans (7.3.11).

Lastly, the Greek cities on the western side of the Pontus (from Apollonia, in the

south, to Olbia, in the north) fell under Burebistas hegemony, after only a brief period of

Roman domination, following Mithridates defeat. It is not entirely clear whether (or to

what extent) this was a voluntary act of defection on the part of the Greek cities (or some

of them) a precedent for such an act exists in the unsuccessful uprising of the west-

Pontic Greek cities (with the aid of the Getae) against Lysimachus, over two hundred

years earlier (Diodorus, 19.73.1-5; cf. Stefan 2005: 366, 382). Under the short-lived

Roman domination, the conditions for such an act were certainly present: from Luculluss

39
harsh military measures and pillage by the Roman occupation troops in retaliation for the

Greek cities support of Mithridates in 72/71 B. C., to the grave abuses of power and

exactions by the next proconsul of Macedonia, C. Antonius Hybrida (cos. 63 with

Cicero), reasons for discontent abounded.14 Hybridas embarrassing defeat by the

Bastarnae near Histria and the subsequent withdrawal of the Roman troops put a

temporary end to the ten-year Roman hegemony in the area.15 This allowed the Dacian

king to extend the boundaries of his mega/lh a)rxh/ (Starbo, 7.3.11), so as to encompass

the west-Pontic Greek cities, either by force, as in the case of Olbia and other cities, or

peacefully, as in the case of Dionysopolis, which seems to have maintained diplomatic

relations with the Dacian kingdom.16

The rising threat posed by Burebistas ever expanding Dacian kingdom did not

fail to make an impression on Caesar, all the more since, during the Civil War, the

Dacian monarch had aligned his interests with those of Pompey whose renown and

influence was likely greater in this part of Europe than that of Caesar (cf. Appian, The

Civil Wars 2.51) as an inscription from Dionysopolis, honoring Akornion, one of the

14
For Luculluss military measures, cf. Eutropius, 6.10: Inde multas supra Pontum positas civitates
adgressus est. Illic Apolloniam evertit, Callatim, Parthenopolim, Tomos, Histrum, Burziaonem cepit; for
Hybridas misconduct, rapacity and military debacles, cf. Cassius Dio, 38.10.1-3; Syme 1999: 137-8.
15
For Hybridas defeat by the Bastarnae near Histria, cf. Dio, 38.10.3: to\ dauto\ tou=to kai\ peri\ tou\j
summa/xouj tou\j e)n th|= Musi/a| poih/saj h(tth/qh pro\j th=| tw=n I)strianw=n po/lei pro\j tw=n
Skuqw=n tw=n Bastarnw=n, e)pibohqhsa/ntwn au)toi=j, kai\ a)pe/dra. Note Dios suggestion that the
Bastarnae were in fact coming to the aid of the Greek cities, implying a possible alliance between them.
That the Bastarnae may not have been acting alone in this instance is suggested in another, later passage in
Dio, recounting how later, in the process of conquering Moesia (29-28 B. C.), Crassus came across the
standards taken by the Bastarnae from Hybrida, in the Getic fortress of Genoucla, on the Danube (51.26.5).
Newly subdued by Burebistas (see above), the Bastarnae may have been doing his bidding in attacking
Hybrida.
16
For the friendly relations between Dionysopolis and the Dacians, cf. IGBulg, I2, 13 = SIG3, 762. For the
conquest of Olbia (also called Borysthenes) and other cities as far as Apollonia, by the Getae, cf. Dio
Chrysostom, Discourse 36.4, and for that of Mesembria, specifically, cf. IGBulg, I2, 323; cf. Stefan 2005:
380-1).

40
city officials, testifies: Akornion, sent as ambassador to the court of Burebistas was

admitted by the Dacian king e)n th=| prw/th| kai\ meg\isth| fili/a| (corresponding to the

formula developed in the titulature of the royal philoi in the Hellenistic monarchies);

subsequently, in 48 B. C., he was dispatched by the Dacian monarch to meet with

Pompey at Heraclea in Lyncestis, on the via Egnatia (IGBulg, I2, 13 = SIG3, 762; cf.

Stefan 2005: 379, 383). In light of this, Caesars plans for a campaign against the Dacians

should be considered more than a fanciful scholarly fantasy, as demonstrated by Syme

and others.17 Indeed, several ancient sources indicate the same thing: that Caesar had

intended to campaign against the Dacians before his projected Parthian expedition, using

Macedonia, where he had already sent young Octavian (at Apollonia), as his base for

operations, which, according to Appian, involved sixteen legions and ten thousand

cavalry (2.110, 3.9).18 But neither Caesar nor Burebistas was to survive to confront each

other: it was while awaiting his uncle at Apollonia that Octavian received news of

Caesars assassination (Appian, The Civil Wars 3.9), while Burebistas likewise fell victim

17
Cf. Syme 1999 (180-1): This being so, Caesars proposed expedition against the Dacians can be
interpreted as a serious enterprise and as part of a comprehensive plan, a necessary prelude to conquest and
annexation in the Balkans and Danube lands: it would not mean the annexation of Dacia itself, but the
repulse of the Dacians over the Danube and the breaking of their power, such as was necessary even later,
when they were less formidable. On the other hand, such an expedition would perhaps be more than a
defensive measure, to safeguard communications through Macedonia while Caesar was far away in the
East, like the campaign of Sulla in 85 B. C.; cf. W. C. McDermott, Caesars projected Dacian-Parthian
Expedition, in Ancient Society 13-14 (1982-1983), 223-231; Stefan 2005: 383-5. Contra, cf. Mcsy (1974:
21), who views Caesars projected Dacian campaign as nothing more than propaganda.
18
Cf. also Strabo, 7.3.5: kai\ dh\ o(/te Burebi/staj h)=rxe tw=n Getw=n, e)f o(/n h)/dh pareskeua/sato
Kai=sar o( Qeo\j strateu/eiv; Velleius Paterculus, 2.59.4: Et patratis bellis civilibus ad
erudiendam liberalibus disciplinis singularis indolem iuvenis Apolloniam eum in studia miserat, mox belli
Getici ac deinde Parthici habiturus commilitonem.; Suetonius, Divus Iulius 44.6: Dacos, qui se in
Pontum et Thraciam effuderant, coercere and Divus Augustus 8. 4: Caesare post receptas
Hispanias expeditionem in Dacos et inde in Parthos destinante, praemissus Apolloniam studiis
vacavit.

41
to internal strife seemingly around the same time, leaving his kingdom to be divided into

several parts by his successors.19

Dacorum gens numquam fida: a foedus between Rome and the Dacians?

Despite the death of Burebistas and the division of his a)rxh\, the Dacian

problem continued during the reign of Augustus and soon thereafter, when a number of

Dacian incursions over the Danube were recorded: in the winter of 10 B. C. Dacians

crossed the frozen Danube for a pillage expedition into Pannonia (Dio, 54.36.2); in 6 A.

D., in the context of the Pannonian and Dalmatian rebellion, taking advantage of the

absence of the governor of Moesia, Caecina Severus whose military presence was

required in Pannonia Dacians and Sarmatians were pillaging Moesia (Dio, 55.30.4);

finally in 12 A. D. and 15 A. D., Ovid mentions the occupation of the fortresses of

Aegissus and Troesmis.20

And yet, the wording carefully chosen by Augustus in his Res Gestae, 30 implies

surely for propagandistic reasons a resounding victory with long-lasting

consequences, specifically the acceptance of Roman rule by the Dacorum gentes.21

However, the bits of information provided by other sources Florus, Strabo, and Horace

regarding this difficult to date victory and the Dacian situation during Augustus

19
Strabo, 7.3.11: o( me\n ou)=n Boirebi/staj e)/fqh kataluqei\j e)panasta/ntwn au)tw||= tinwn, pri\n h)/
(Rwmai/ouj stei=lai stratei/an e)p au)to/v: oi( de\ diadeca/menoi th\n a)rxeh\n ei)j plei/w me/rh
die/sthsan
20
Ovid, Ex Ponto, I. 8. 11 ff.; IV. 9. 75ff.; cf. Syme 1971: 47; Stefan 2005: 390.
21
Res Gestae, 30: Citra quod Dacorum transgressus exercitus meis auspicis victus profilgatusque est, et
postea trans Danuvium ductus exercitus meus Dacorum gentes imperia populi Romani perferre coegit.

42
reign in general, paint a somewhat different picture: with Burebistas former kingdom

divided into four and shortly thereafter five parts (according to Strabos reckoning) ruled

by individual dynasts, the crushing victory mentioned by Augustus, and won on his

behalf by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 14 B. C.), was in reality gained over only one of

several Dacian kings, Cotiso.22 This helps explain why Dacian raids continued throughout

and slightly beyond the reign of Augustus.

By Neros reign, there are some indications that a foedus might have been in force

between Rome and at least some part of the Dacians: in an inscription commemorating

the illustrious career of Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (spanning the reigns of several

emperors, from Nero and Vespasian), extensive mention is made of Silvanus frontier

policies as governor of Moesia (probably sometime during the reign of Nero) (CIL XIV,

3608 = ILS, 986). Among these, the rather ambiguous statement: regibus Bastarnarum

et / Rhoxolanorum filios Dacorum fratrum / captos aut hostibus ereptos remisit suggests

at the very least routine diplomatic activities between allies.23 This brief passage gives

rise to two questions: was Plautius Silvanus already dealing with a sole Dacian king,

22
Strabo 7. 3. 11: kai\ dh\ kai\ nu=n, h(ni/ka e)/pemyen e)p au)tou\j stratei/an o( Sebasto\j Kai=sar,
ei)j pe/nte meri/daj, to/te de\ ei)j te/ssaraj diestw=tej e)tu/gxanon: and 7. 3. 13: au)chqe/ntej d ou)=n
e)pi\ plei=ston oi(/ te Ge/tai oi(/ te Dakoi/, w(/ste kai\ ei)/kosi muria/daj e)kpe/mpein stratei/aj, nu=n
o(/son ei)j te/ttaraj muria/daj sunestalme/noi tugxa/nousi kai\ e)ggu\j me\n h(/kousi tou= u(pakou/ein
(Rwmai/wn: ou)/pw d ei)si\n u(poxei/rioi tele/wj dia\ ta\j e)k tw=n Germanw=n e)lpi/daj, polemi/wn
o)/ntwn toi=j (Rwmai/oij.; Florus 2.28: Daci montibus inhaerent. Inde Cotisonis regis imperio, quotiens
concretus gelu Danuvius iunxerat ripas, decurrere solebant et vicina populari. Visum est Caesari Augusto
gentem aditu difficilem summovere. Misso igitur Lentulo ultra ulteriorem perpulit ripam; citra praesidia
constituta. Sic tum Dacia non victa, sed summota atque dilata est.; Horace, Odes, III.8.18: Occidit Daci
Cotisonis agmen Based on the brief mention of Cotisos defeat by Horace, and considering that Horace
died in 8 B. C., Symes supposition (1971: 47 ff.; 1999: 212 ff.) that the Dacian operations of Lentulus
belong to the period of 6 B. C. 4 A. D., cannot stand. Instead, the suggestion of 9 B. C. (corresponding
Lentulus probable proconsulate), advanced by A. Birley, Symes posthumous editor for Rome and the
Balkans(1999: 212, note 76).
23
Cf. Stefan 2005: 393. Lica (2000: 163), on the other hand, treats the issue of a potential alliance at this
time far more cautiously, deeming the mater at the very least ambiguous.

43
suggesting that the process of re-centralization already firmly in place by the time of

the first Domitianic war had begun? And, was the governor of Moesia returning to the

Dacian king a brother (or brothers, depending on which reading is preferred for the

otherwise incorrect fratrum) as part of a rescue operation from the enemy, meant to

demonstrate Roman goodwill towards a loyal ally? Or was he formerly held as a royal

hostage by the Romans, to ensure the continued preservation of fides on the Dacian (as

well as Rhoxolanian and Bastarnian) side? This may well have been the case, especially

in dealing with a population that was to be later labeled by Tacitus numquam fida (in

the context of events pertaining to the year 69 A. D.) implying a longer history of disloyal

behavior (Tacitus, Histories 3.46).

Indeed, if Josephus allusion to Dacian raids south of the Danube (Bellum

Judaicum 2.369), perhaps in the mid-sixties, seems rather vague, or even inserted for

added rhetorical force, Tacitus account of Dacian movements beyond the Danube

frontier in the context of the power struggle at Rome of 68/69 is decidedly less so. In a

turn of events recalling those which allowed Burebista to expand his power during the

turmoil of the late Republic, now too, after carefully observing the developments at

Rome, the Dacians seized the opportunity offered by the withdrawal of the legions from

Moesia, and stormed the winter quarters of the auxiliary troops, occupying both banks of

the Danube. Only the timely arrival of Mucianus and Fonteius Agrippa with the armies of

the East prevented the loss of Moesia (Histories 3.46).

A decidedly less routine operation mentioned in the same inscription was the

transplant to Moesia of 100, 000 Transdanubians, likely an umbrella term for a number of

different populations, probably also including Dacians. This policy, likely implemented

44
for strategic, as well as economic reasons, was not without precedent in the lower Danube

region: some decades earlier, during the reign of Augustus the same measure was taken

on a similarly massive scale by Aelius Catus (cos. 4 A. D.), who, according to Strabo,

transplanted 50,000 Getae (read Dacians) across the Danube into Thrace (Strabo

7.3.10).24

The Dacian Campaigns of Domitian (84-89)

That a foedus with the Dacian kingdom was in place during the reign of Domitian

one concluded under previous emperors is stated by Jordanes, who also places the

responsibility for breaking the treaty with the Dacians.25 If indeed a treaty had existed

under the Julio-Claudians, it must have certainly been dissolved by the Dacian actions of

68/69, and perhaps drawn up anew by Vespasian. This would have been in keeping with

the characteristic Flavian policy of consolidation rather than conquest (Syme, CAH XI,

1936: 135).

It is therefore not certain why, sometime during the second half of 84, the Dacians

undertook a surprise attack on a scale larger than usual on the province of Moesia.26

Jordanes alludes cryptically to this disastrous Dacian attack being provoked by

24
Aelius Catus may have been prompted to effect a transfer on such a massive scale in retaliation to Dacian
attacks on Moesia during the Pannonian rebellion.
25
Cf. Jordanes, Getica 13.76: Longum namque post intervallum Domitiano imperatore regnante
foedus, quod dudum cum aliis principibus pepigerant, Gothi [= Daci] solventes However, as with the
interpretation of the inscription pertaining to Plautius Silvanus, caution is advisable, particularly when our
only source for the existence of such a treaty is Jordanes, a considerably later historian, and one with rather
peculiar views about the continuity of race and language in Dacia, cf. Syme 1971: 149.
26
Cf. Stefan (2005: 402), who prefers the earlier date of 84 to the traditional one of winter 85/86, based on
certain indications provided by the representation of Dacian arms on two types of coins, issued in the first
few months of 85.

45
Domitians avaritia (13.76: eiusque avaritiam metuentes). Was this surprise

attack provoked by Domitians decision to cut the subsidies with which his predecessors

were buying a precarious peace, if at all? After all, emperors beginning with Augustus

had often preferred the bought peace as the less costly if not more efficient in the

long run alternative to war (Mattern 2002: 159), and a generous financial settlement in

favor of the Dacians played a central role in the peace agreement with Decebalus,

through the peace of 89 (Dio, 67.7.4).27 Or does this cryptic avaritia refer to Domitians

intention on the background of a possible financial crisis to attack Dacia for its

gold reserves, as E. Kstlin has suggested (1910: 29)?28 Possibly, the ambiguous term

refers to an increasingly tightened Roman control in the lower Danube frontier area under

Domitian, as a result of conflicts and movements of local populations (specifically the

Moesian Lygians, and the transdanubian Suebi and Iazyges) which could have been

easily interpreted by sources unfavorable to Domitian as territorial greed, rather than

good common sense (Dio, 67.5.2; cf. K. Strobel 1989: 38). Whatever the case,

Domitians avaritia, as invoked by Jordanes (certainly following a long historiographic

tradition of negative portrayal of the last Flavian emperor), could have only functioned as

a tenuous pretext for an organized Dacian attack on a scale unseen since Burebistas time.

27
Trajan himself later used a similar policy of regular subsidies in respect to the Rhoxolani, if we are to
believe the Historia Augusta (Vita Hadriani 6.8).
28
The recent findings of the French archaeological team conducting rescue excavations in the Alburnus
Maior area have demonstrated that the gold reserves in this area were known to and exploited by the
Dacians starting with the 3rd century B. C. The high quality mining technique found at Alburnus Maior
exhibits a geometrical, trapezoidal calibrating of the works [] a unicum in the Roman world [] most
probably due to a local Dacian-origin tradition, which persisted in the Roman age, cf. Batrice Cauuet,
Head of the French Mission, Ancient Gold Mines of Dacia: Roia Montan District (Apuseni Mountains,
Romania). Report 2002 (National Research Program (Romania)) 64-65, 67.

46
Ultimately, the real causes of this renewed Dacian offensive must remain subject to

conjecture.

Nevertheless, the ancient evidence such as it may be pieced together, not

without difficulty, from the ancient literary as well as archaeological sources points to

political conditions in Dacia at this time that are similar to those existent during

Burebistas kingdom, though on a considerably smaller geographical scale, suggesting

perhaps a renewed desire to reassert Dacian control in the middle and lower Danube area,

in addition to successful efforts of centralization of power within the Dacian territory

itself. In respect to the latter, the archaeological evidence points to Sarmizegetusa Regia

(near modern Grditea Muncelului) as the only possible capital of the Dacian kingdom,

which is situated in the Ortie Mountains (part of the Southern Carpathian chain). This

site had a hilltop construction, possibly dominated by a fortified, Hellenistic-style

basileion,29 surrounded by vast artificial terraces supporting an expansive sanctuary

precinct, grain silos, workshops (including a mint and a glass workshop), all encircled by

outer fortifications with several gates and watchtowers, as well as traces of extramural

habitation (Stefan 2005: 17-111; MacKendrick 1975: 61-66). Furthermore,

Sarmizegetusa was surrounded by a defensive system of smaller hilltop citadels (davae)

fortified with stone walls, at Costesti, Blidaru, Piatra Rosie, Feele Albe, Caplna, Tilica,

Bnia, and perhaps also at Vrful lui Hulpe, as well as, north-most, at Piatra Craivii, a

29
Hellenistic Panticapaeum, in Crimea, has been suggested as one possible model (through its relative
geographical closeness to the Dacian kingdom) for the construction of the Dacian capital based on its
similar terraced structure, cf. Stefan 2005: 111. Other more famous, larger-scale models of terraced (or
theatroeides) construction might have been provided by Halicarnassus, Rhodes, or the acropolis of
Pergamum, cf. P. Gros 1987: 324.

47
fortress which may have guarded the access to the gold mines in the Apuseni Mountains,

northwest of it (Stefan 2005: 113-266; MacKendrick 1975: 66-70; see Map 2).

Regarding the former aspect a possibly renewed desire to reassert Dacian

control in the middle and lower Danube area the literary evidence is less than clear: on

the one hand, both Tacitus (via Orosius) and Jordanes speak of a certain Diurpaneus, or

Dorpaneus (in his quality of rex Dacorum, at the time) as having initiated the conflict on

the Dacian side;30 on the other, Decebalus is the sole protagonist in Cassius Dios version

of the conflict.31 Though Dios account, albeit brief and fragmented, with its memorable

description of Decebalus, is certainly the better known one, the very existence of these

conflicting accounts raises questions not only about the reliability of our literary sources,

but also (or especially) about the political situation within the Dacian kingdom at the time

of the Domitianic conflict. But perhaps the evidence provided by Tacitus/Orosius and

Jordanes on the one hand, and Dio, on the other, is only seemingly conflicting: rather

than choosing to ambiguously conflate Decebalus with Diurpaneus (cf. Gostar 1984: 50;

Lica 2000: 162, 194; Oltean 2007: 50), or to claim, without the support of archeological

evidence, that Diurpaneus was merely one of a number of Dakerfrsten (with his center

30
Orosius, 7(a).10: bellum aduersum Germanos et Dacos per legatos gessit pari reipublicae pernicie, cum
et in urbe ipse senatum populumque laniaret et foris male circumactum exercitum adsidua hostes caede
conficerent. nam quanta fuerint Diurpanei Dacorum regis cum Fusco duce proelia quantaeque
Romanorum clades, longo textu euoluerem, nisi Cornelius Tacitus, qui hanc historiam diligentissime
contexuit, de reticendo interfectorum numero et Sallustium Crispum et alios auctores quamplurimos
sanxisse et se ipsum idem potissimum elegisse dixisset. Cf. Jordanes, 13.76-77: Cui provinciae tunc post
Agrippam Oppius praeerat Savinus, Gothis autem Dorpaneus principatum agebat, quando bello commisso
Gothi, Romanos devictos, Oppii Savini caput abscisum, multa castella et civitates invadentes de parte
imperatoris publice depraedarunt. Qua necessitate suorum Domitianus cum omni virtute sua Illyricum
properavit et totius pene rei publicae militibus ductore Fusco praelato cum lectissimis viris amnem
Danubii consertis navibus ad instar pontis transmeare coegit super exercitum Dorpanei.
31
Dio, 67.6: Me/gistoj de\ dh\ po/lemoj R(wmai/oij to/te pro\j tou\j Dakou\j e)ge/neto, w(=n to/te
Deke/baloj e)basi/leue, deino\j me\n sunei=nai ta\ pole/mia deino\j de\ kai\ pra=cai, e)pelqei=n
eu)/stoxoj a)naxwrh=sai kai/rioj, e)ne/draj texni/thj ma/xhj e)rga/thj, kai\ kalw=j me\n ni/kh|
xreh/sasqai kalw=j de\ kai\ h(=ttan diaqe/sqai ei)dw/j: a)f ou(= dh\ kai\ a)ntagwnisth\j a)cio/maxoj
e)pi\ polu\ toi=j R(wmai/oij e)ge/neto.

48
of power located somewhere outside of the Knigreich of Sarmizegetusa, perhaps in

Wallachia or southern Moldova) (cf. Stroebel 1989: 40ff.), the most viable solution to

this dilemma may lie in accepting the possibility of a royal succession within the Dacian

kingdom from Diurpaneus to Decebalus as having taken place in the midst of the

Domaitianic conflict, with Decebalus (perhaps a younger, more energetic monarch)

concluding the war begun by Diurpaneus.

Only then we might perhaps better understand why Dio, unlike Tacitus before

him, chose to attribute Decebalus alone with the responsibility for all campaigns of the

war (from those resulting in the deaths Oppius Sabinus and subsequently Cornelius

Fuscus, to the final, successful campaign of Tettius Iulianus), through the compelling

answer suggested by Stroebel: Der Hintergrund fr die bei Cassius Dio vorliegende

Quellentradition ist in der Propaganda Trajans whrend der Zeit vor dem 1. Dakerkrieg

zu suchen (Stoebel 1989: 63-4).

The operations of this war and their chronology, to the extent that they can be

reconstructed, have been discussed in detail in specialized literature (Kstlin 1910;

Stroebel 1989; Stefan 2005, etc.). By the estimation of ancient sources hostile to

Domitian, the emperors ultimate victory was from a military, political and economic

point of view a Pyrrhic victory, not only because of the immense losses in manpower,

and death of two commanders (Sabinus and Fuscus), but also because of the terms of the

famed peace treaty, depicted as an affront to Roman pride by both Pliny the Younger and

Dio (no doubt echoing the language used in Trajanic propaganda to justify a renewed

49
conflict).32 But there was more political astuteness in Domitians decision than hostile

sources attribute him: the emperor realized he needed a strong and loyal ally on the

frontier, and one who could be counted on to allow Roman armies to cross its territory in

times of necessity, given his troubles with the Marcomanni,33 as V. Lica has concluded,

as part of a comprehensive analysis of the peace of 89:

At the end of this attempt at a reconstruction, one might put forward the
hypothesis according to which, in 89, a Klientelvertrag, generally
resembling the one imposed on the Aetolians, was imposed on Decebalus.
But, given the new historical circumstances, it contained a new element: a
technical and financial assistance for Decebalus. Still this does not change
the character of the treaty imposed after a deditio by which the
Dacian king has to integrate himself into the Roman political and legal
system as one of the numerous reges socii. (Lica 2000: 190)

Trajans Dacian Wars

Strangely enough, little survives in the way of literary evidence to document

Trajans two Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105-106 (as in fact is the case with the

entire reign of the optimus princeps): among the lost documents that would have been

invaluable in elucidating the course of the wars, and perhaps also their causes the

official ones, at least as well as political and ethnographic/religious information on

Decebalus kingdom, are the emperors own Comentarii, and the Getica of Statilius

Crito, one of Trajans campaign physicians. What does survive is the poorly condensed

account of Dio (68.6-14), perhaps drawing to some extent on Trajans Comentarii,

32
Pliny, Panegyricus 11.2 : Ergo sustulerant animos, et iugum excusserant: nec iam nobiscum de sua
libertate, sed de nostra servitute, certabant: ac ne inducias quidem, nisi aequis conditionibus inibant,
legesque ut acciperent, dabant. Cf. also Dio, 67.7.2-3.
33
As demonstrated by ILS 9200, which mentions that C. Velius Rufus, a praefectus, crossed, at the head of
a vexillatio, to the Marcomannic Quadic and Sarmatian front, per regnum Decebali regis Dacorum.

50
heavily laden as it is with imperial propagandistic overtones (in its justifications for the

war, its glorification of Trajan, coupled with the denigration of Decebalus), and vague

allusions to the impending campaign and its causes in Plinys Panegyric, delivered in 100

A. D., when preparations for war would have likely been underway.

That there was no overt violation of faith by the Dacian side is clearly suggested

by the brief allusions in Plinys discourse (Panegyric, 16). Dio, too, captures Decebalus

surprise at the news of Trajans advance, thus clearly attributing the effective dissolution

of the peace to Trajan.34 Likewise, in discussing Trajans motivations for breeching the

peace and effectively renewing the conflict, Dio in no way hints at any sort of retaliatory

action on the part of Trajan, but rather at avenging Roman pride, hurt as it might have

been by past Dacian hostile behavior, as by the overly generous terms of Domitians

peace of 89. More immediately, Dio invokes the increasing Dacian power and pride (ta/j

te duna/meij au)tw=n au)canome/naj kai\ ta\ fronh/mata)(68.6.2).

In regard to Trajans real motivations in initiating the conflict, increasingly in

recent years scholarly opinion has moved away from the modern historiographic topos

of portraying Trajan as an accomplished general before assuming the throne.35 In light of

34
Dio, 68 6: puqo/menoj de\ o( Deke/baloj th\n o(rmh\n au)tou= e)fobh/qh; Pliny, Panegyric 16: Non
times bella, nec provocas. Magnum est, Imperator Auguste, magnum est stare in Danubii ripa, si transeas,
certum triumphi; nec decertare cupere cum recusantibus: quorum alterum fortitudine, alterum
moderatione efficitur. Nam ut ipse nolis pugnare, moderatio; fortitudo tua praestat, ut neque hostes tui
velint. Accipiet ergo aliquando Capitolium non mimicos currus, nec falsae simulacra victoriae; sed
imperatorem veram ac solidam gloriam reportantem, pacem, tranquillitatem, et tam confessa hostium
obsequia, ut vincendus nemo fuerit. Pulchrius hoc omnibus triumphis. Neque enim unquam, nisi ex
contemptu imperii nostri factum est, ut vinceremus. Quod si quis barbarus rex eo insolentiae furorisque
processerit, ut iram tuam indignationemque mereatur: nae ille, sive interfuso mari, seu fluminibus
immensis, seu praecipiti monte defenditur, omnia haec tam prona, tamque cedentia virtutibus tuis sentiet,
ut subsedisse montes, flumina exaruisse, interceptum mare, illatasque non classes nostras, sed terras ipsas
arbitretur.

F. Millar, in Britannia XIII (1982), 13: the fact that Pliny in his Panegyric can refer to no significant
35

military achievements before his accession surely has some relevance to the Dacian and Parthian wars

51
such revisionist views, and of the somewhat elusive reasons proffered by Dio and Pliny,

the hypothesis advanced by A. S. Stefan would stand on solid ground:

Le penchant marqu du nouvel empereur pour une gloire quil

navait pas pu acqurir, malgr une assez longue carrire militaire,
avant laccession au pouvoir peut expliquer ladoption de la decision
stratgique radicale face un rex amicus qui, tout en restant
apparemment trs respectueux de ses devoirs, nen tait pas moins
un danger potentiel, car trop puissant, trop prs dItalie et encore
mieux arm aprs douze ans daide technique et de subsides
romains. (Stefan 2005: 539)36

The pursuit of military glory aside, it is this combination of factors that would have

provided the new emperor with sufficient iustis et necessariis causis (Augustus, RG

21.4) for breeching the existing treaty and initiating the conflict that would ultimately

lead to the annexation of Dacia to the empire.

As in the case of Domitians wars, a discussion of the chronology and operations

of Trajans two Dacian wars would go beyond the scope of the present chapter,

particularly since they have been treated extensively and almost exhaustively in

specialized literature.37 All such studies have necessarily relied almost exclusively on the

visual account of the wars depicted on Trajans column, as the most detailed document

for the conduct of the war, or as history in pictures, albeit bound by the rules of official,

commemorative art (Rossi 1971: 14) although, as L. Rossi has remarked, the columns

which he led; cf. Strobel, in E. Schallmayer (ed.) 1999: 18ff.; Eck, in G. Clark and T. Rajak (eds.) 2002:
214-15 and notes 13-14.
36
Cf. also Patsch 1937; 52-3; 55; Lica 2000:19.
37
Rossi 1971 and 1981: 69-202; also MacKendrick 1975: 71-106; Strobel 1984 and 1992; Nardoni 1986;
Lepper and Frere 1988; Settis et al. 1988; Stefan 2005: 500-704, to name just a few of the more recent
studies.

52
accuracy as a historical document has been contested by a limited number of scholars.38

In conjunction with Trajans column, the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi, in Moesia

Inferior (modern Dobrogea) dedicated to Mars Ultor (and perhaps commemorating a

possible battle in the area during Trajans first Dacian war) also functions as a source of

sorts, though demonstrating a higher degree of abstraction (through its highly stylized

metopes), than the column intended, as it was, by its very location at the periphery of

the Empire, for a different kind of audience than that at Rome.39

Redactio in provinciam and the new Roman Dacia

Whether Trajan had intended from the very beginning of the conflict to ultimately

transform Dacia into a Roman province, or whether this became his goal only at the

inception of the second Dacian war (105-106), remains very much a matter of scholarly

debate, dependent largely on different interpretations of certain scenes on the column

(particularly scenes 22 and 72), as well as on the parsimonious literary tradition.40

38
Cf. Rossi (1981: 89): Del soggetto concreto del fregio si gi detto e si dir, ma vale la pena di
ricordare che sebbene la maggioranza degli studiosi oggi siano inclini ad accettarne (in misura pi o meno
larga) la fedelt storico-documentaria, come reportage delle guerre daciche, essiste una critica passata e
recente, che tende a sminuire la veridicit delle raffigurazioni, favorendone una valuazione in senso astratto
e ornamentale-tropaico, con semplici trocchi realistici. For opinions challenging the historicity of the
images on the column, cf. Lehmann-Hartleben (1926); H. Daicoviciu (1972).
39
Cf. Rossi (1981: 87): Il monumento era vicinissimo alla estrema frontiera imperiale, e quindi al
conspetto precipuamente di barbari e di peregrini; esso ha pertanto tutti I caracteri dellarte e della
psicologia di una provincia perferica, nella forma (crudezza e ingenuit stilistica) e nella sostanza (verismo
esasperato), nonch un tono alquanto popolaresco e semplicistico nella trattazione iconografica del tema
trionfale; il che, daltronde, ne facilitava limmediata e suggestive comprensione da parte del publico
locale. Cf. also P. MacKendrick 1975: 95-9.
40
Lica (2000: 228): It is generally considered that Trajan from the very beginning wanted to conquer
Dacia and the peace in 102 was a mere compromise, an armistice decided by the emperor before the final
attack. The detailed research into events, into Decebalus requests for an armistice, their acceptance by
Trajan, the Dacian kings personal surrender to the emperor not being deposed and not being
captured show something else to be very probable. Namely, Trajan initially wanted to make Decebalus
strictly a socius and to diminish his kingdom territorialy, part of it (Oltenia and Banat) to become either a

53
Whatever the case, the dramatic suicide of Decebalus, visually immortalized both on the

column (scene 144) and on the funerary monument of Ti. Claudius Maximus, the

captor of Decebalus,41 and briefly mentioned by Dio (68.14.3), broke the remnants of

the desperate Dacian resistance and precipitated the end of the war. By 106, Trajans oft-

voiced wish, as recorded by Ammianus more than two centuries later sic in

provinciarum speciem redactam videam Daciam (24.3.9) was about to become a

reality: from the ashes of Dacia capta, a new territorial entity, Dacia Augusti Provincia,

would rise. Thus began the long and difficult task of creating and consolidating the last

province to be added to the empire.

Roman Dacia without Dacians?

If the previous sections focus on RomanDacian relations during the pre-

conquest period might have seemed excessive, it is nevertheless necessary in

understanding not only the strategic imperative in making Dacia into a Roman province,

but also, and especially, the place of the native Dacians within the new scheme of things.

The Dacians perhaps more than any other people on the northern frontier of the

Empire tended to be more strongly perceived, and at the same time to behave, as a

political and territorial entity (though certainly lacking the anachronistically modern

military district or a client kingdom under other dynasts. It is only because Decebalus did not observe the
provisions of the foedus that Trajan decided to dissolve the Dacian kingdom and change it into a Roman
province. Contra, Stefan (2005: 632): Enfin, lhypothse dune occupation temporaire, juste pour la
priode de contrle du respect des conditions de la paix par un alli nunquam fidus, est totalement dementia
par la construction du pont sur le Danube, en aval des gorges et des cataracts, qui tmoigne de la manire la
plus claire de la volont non seulment dancrer solidement la Msie les territories nouvelement conquis,
mais surtout de bien preparer linvasion finale de la Dacie. For a similar idea, cf. Strobel 1984: 204-5.
41
AE 1969-1970, 583, discussed at length by M. Speidel, in JRS 60 (1970), 142-153.

54
national consciousness, which some scholars have sough to identify42), as seen in the

previous section. When paired with their apparent religious zealotry,43 this could result in

a dangerous combination (Oltean 2009: 92). This symbiotic relationship between state

and religion is summarized by S. Sanie in his recent study of the culture and religion of

the Geto-Dacians:

Regardless of whether immortality was correlated with the initiation into

the cult of the supreme deity [Zalmoxis] which was associated with
bravery, fairness, courage, communal dining, piety, etc. it appears that
the achievement of immortality always incorporated elements which
contributed to the consolidation of the Dacian state. This would explain
the continued support and special place of religious officials of the cult in
the hierarchy of the Geto-Dacian kingdom. (Sanie 1995: 284)

Indeed, as noted earlier in the chapter, high priests endowed with pene regia potestas

(Jordanes, 11.67-73) had occupied a prominent place in the leadership of the Dacian state

beginning with Dekenaios/Dicineus, Burebistas high priest, who was apparently

succeeded if we are to trust Jordanes by Comosicus, about whom Jordanes

comments: Hic etenim et rex illis et pontifex ob suam peritiam habebatur et in summa

42
This so-called Dacianist trend (as opposed to the Daco-Romanist view, mentioned is discussed at
length in Appendix C; cf. also Deletant in Ethnic and Racial Studies 14.1 (1991): 64-86.
43
Herodotus (4.92-96), from whom the most detailed ancient account on the religious beliefs and practices
of the Getae survives (discussed in the context of the expedition of Darius), speaks about the practice of
human sacrifice every fifth year, for the purpose of sending a messenger to Zalmoxis, the supreme god
(4.94). The fact that human sacrifice is absent from mentions by most writers later that Herodotus (Plato,
Pomponius Mela, Strabo, Julian, etc.), as well as from late Iron-Age Geto-Dacian toreutic artifacts,
suggests that perhaps this practice became obsolete, or was replaced by animal sacrifices at some point, as
advanced by Sanie (1995: 192). Cf. Pomponius Mela, 2.17: Una gens Thraces habitant, aliis aliisque
praediti et nominibus et moribus. Quidam feri sunt et paratissimi ad mortem, Getae utique. Id varia opinio
perficit; alii redituras putant animas obeuntium, alii etsi non redeant non extingui tamen, sed ad beatiora
transire, alii emori quidem, sed id melius esse quam vivere. Itaque lugentur apud quosdam puerperia
natique deflentur, funera contra festa sunt, et veluti sacra cantu lusuque celebrantur. Along similar lines,
see Julian, Caesares 28.327C-D. The apparent Dacian belief in the immortality of the soul, with its socio-
political implications, is akin to certain Druidic doctrines from Gaul, as noted by Caesar: [Druides] in
primis hoc volunt persuadere, non interire animas, sed ab aliis post mortem transire ad alios, atque hoc
maxime ad virtutem excitari putant metu mortis neglecto (BG 6.14).

55
iustitia populos iudicabat (11.73).44 Within the new Roman Dacia, such a dangerous

combination would have provided a kernel of continued resistance to Roman rule. This

point could not have been lost on Trajan, just as it had not been lost on Augustus,

Tiberius and Claudius, all of whom had imposed interdictions (albeit unsuccessfully) on

Gallic Druidism (cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25; Pliny, NH 30.13),45 or on Vespasian and

Titus, in destroying Jerusalem and the Temple, the core of Jewish resistance (Josephus,

BJ 6.4; cf. also Rives 2007: 195-6). There is evidence of extensive and apparently

deliberate destruction not only of the Dacian hilltop fortresses (Glodariu 1993: 15), but

also of the cultic sites associated with the political-religious nucleus of the Dacian

kingdom (some, as at Sarmizegetusa Regia, integrated within the fortresses) in the

Ortie Mountains, with some sites exhibiting a thick layer of burning (Babe 2000: 331

ff. and nn. 26-27, with fig. 3 and Appendix 3; Srbu and Florea 2000: 82; Lockyear 2004:

57, 62; Glodariu 2006: 111-119). In this sense, it is significant that following the Roman

44
Jordanes (5.40), apparently citing Dio Chrysostom, also speaks of the aristocratic class of the tarabostes,
probably subsequently called pilleati by the Romans (because of their trademark cap, the pilleus), from
among whom the kings and priests were selected: Unde et pene omnibus barbaris Gothi sapientiores
semper extiterunt Grecisque pene consimiles, ut refert Dio, qui historias eorum annalesque Greco stilo
composuit. Qui dicit primum Tarabosteseos, deinde vocatos Pilleatos hos, qui inter eos generosi extabant,
ex quibus eis et reges et sacerdotes ordinabantur. Strabo (7.3.5) also comments about the cooperation
between the kings of the Getae and the high priests as a means of better controlling the people by instilling
in them the belief that the kings were advised directly by the gods, through the mediation of the high priest:
sumpra/ttein de\ to\n basile/a, o(rw=nta tou\j a)nqrw/pouj prose/xontaj e(autw=| polu\ ple/on h)\
pro/teron, w(j e)kfe/ronti ta\ prosta/gmata kata\ sumboulh\n qew=n. A similar view appears in the
Suda (s.v. deisidaimonia, p. 1234), apparently citing Statilius Critos Getica : kai\ Kri/twn e)n toi=j
Getikoi=j fh=sin; oi( de\ basilei=j tw=n Getw=n a)pa/th| kai\ gohtei/a| deisidaimomoni/an kai\ o(mo/noian
e)nergasa/menoi au)toi=j mega/lwn h)/dh e)fi/entai.
45
On the central role of Druids in Gallic society, cf. Caesar, BG 6.13-14. On the Roman efforts to suppress
druidism in Gaul and Britain, cf. Martin (1991: 218-21); cf. also Webster in Britannia 30 (1999), 1-20;
also Woolf (1998: 222, 230): The destruction of a native religious elite, particularly if the Druids really
had monopolized religious knowledge and had been essential for the performance of some central rituals,
would have been enormously damaging (230). Contra, Creighton, in Britannia 26 (1995), 285-301, who
argues that Druidic power in Britain was already in decline in the generations immediately preceding the
Roman conquest.

56
conquest, the Ortie Mountains area ceases to show any signs of human occupation,

both in terms of settlement and exploitation of resources (Oltean 2007: 223).

There was, too, the dangerous example of the rebellion of the newly conquered

neighboring Pannonians, who, making common cause with the Dalmatians, rose in revolt

under the leadership of tribal chiefs less than a century earlier (Dio, 55.29-34; Velleius

Paterculus, 2.114; Suetonius, Tib. 16-17, 20). In essence, the fate of the conquered

Dacian population seems to bear strong resemblance to the Roman treatment of their

Pannonian neighbors and other rebellious and belligerent populations, summed up by L.

Borhy, in reference to Pannonia:

Il modo, in cui i Romani trattarono la populazione indigena sottomessa,

corrisponde al metodo solitamente utilizzato per domare popoli combattivi
e ribelli, che erano stati sopraffatti con il potere militare. La giovent di
questi popoli ribelli fu in parte reclutata per le truppe ausiliarie e distaccata
in altre province oppure, ancora sotto Tiberio, occasionalmente venduta
comme schiava. Come accadde anche in Gallia, a Bibracte per esempio,
gli abitanti furono costretti ad abbandonare, dopo la conquista, i loro
insediamenti montani, difesi da bastioni, e venerono stanziati nelle
pianure, ad esempio ad Aquincum, per fugare ogni loro possibilit di
ribellione. (Borhy 1995: 72)

Indeed, the archaeological, epigraphic as well as literary evidence appears to confirm, up

to a certain point, that Dacia conforms to a similar pattern of dealing with the conquered

native population. However, as will be seen below, certain characteristics make Dacia a

unique case in this respect.

To begin with, Trajans wars left Dacia demographically exhausted, at least

insofar as the male population was concerned (Ruscu 2004: 78). In this sense, Eutropius

assertion, Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris fuerat exhausta, would seem like an

obvious exaggeration, were it not for corroborating evidence, which appears in in a very

57
unlikely place: a scholia to the Icaromenippos of Lucian of Samosata. The scholiast

paraphrases the following argument from Getica, the work of M. Statilius Crito (Trajans

physician on the Dacian campaigns):

oi( de\ Ge/tai e)/qvoj ba/rbarov kai\ i)sxuro/v, o(/ R(wmai/wn

katecanasta\v kai\ me/xri fo/rou a)pagwnh=j tapeinw=sav
R(wmai/ouj u(po\ Traianou= u(/sterov ou(/twj e)cwloqreu/qh
Dekeba/lw xrw/menon basilei=, w (/ s te to\ pa= n e )/ q noj ei )j
tessara/ k onta peristh= n ai a )/ n draj. w(j i(storei=
Kri/twn e)n toi=j Getikoi=j.46

Evidently, we are dealing with either an exaggeration for effect, or else, more likely, with

a numerical error on the part of the scholiast. But despite the obvious problems with these

two statements as with any kind of numerical data proffered by ancient authors the

underlying message remains the same in both sources: as a consequence of the wars,

Dacia suffered unusually high losses in manpower (Ruscu 2004: 77).

Despite this apparent depletion of manpower, it is nonetheless possible to trace, in

the epigraphic record, the presence of native Dacian auxiliary troops in the Roman

military from Britain to Syria throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries, thus illustrating a

preferred method of Romanization, all the more effective through the removal of males of

military age away from possibly disruptive influences of their native land: Ala I Ulpia

Dacorum, stationed in Cappadocia (CIL VI, 1 333); Cohors I Ulpia Dacorum, stationed

in Syria (CIL XVI, 106; CIL III, 600); Cohors I Aelia Dacorum miliaria, stationed in

Britain, at Amboglanna (CIL XVI, 93 along with numerous other inscriptions official

dedications put up by the unit, the commanders or the tribunes); Cohors II Augusta

46
Scholia in Lucianum, ed. H. Rabe (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), 24.16.

58
Dacorum p(ia) f(idelis) miliaria equitata, at Teutoburgium in Pannonia (CIL III, 10 255);

Cohors II Aurelia Dacorum, also stationed in Pannonia at Poetovio (CIL III, 15 184); and

Cohors Gemina Dacorum, stationed in Moesia Inferior (CIL III, 14, 211), along with a

few other uncertain mentions of possible Dacian auxiliary units (Russu 1980: 28-34).47

The epigraphic evidence suggests the presence of several thousand Dacian troops

throughout the Empire, but certainly nowhere close to the number allegedly proffered by

Crito (via Ioannes Lydus), which, again, is either a rhetorical exaggeration or a copying

error: kai\ a)ndrw=n maximota/twn u(per penth/konta muria/daj su\n toi=j

oploi=j R(wmai/oj ei)sh/gagen, w(j Kri/twn parw\n tw|= pole/mw| diisxuri/ato (De

Magistratibus 2.28). It is noteworthy that the Dacian troops were recruited with their own

traditional weapons the Dacian falx is represented on several inscriptions of the

Cohors I Aelia Dacorum miliaria from Britain, such as CIL VII, 823 and 838 similarly

to other ethnic-based units in the Roman army (Ruscu 2004: 82-3, note76). In reference

to this active military presence of Dacians throughout the Roman army (both at the

individual level and through ethnic contingents), I. Oltean has posited the creation of a

new Dacian ethnic and military identity in the context of the Roman army often by means

of personal names for example, most commonly Decebalus/Decibalus, but also

Dekinais, Zyraxes, Diurpanais thus evoking noble ancestors from the heroic past of

the former Dacian kingdom. Oltean compares this process of forming a new Dacian

military identity to that advanced by N. Roymans in the case of the Batavians in the early

Roman Empire (Oltean 2009: 98-99; Roymans 2004).

47
Cf. also Dana and Popescu, in Dacia n.s. 50 (2006-2007): 195-206.

59
 Further confirming the pattern outlined by Bohry, it is also possible to trace, albeit

to a lesser extent, the presence of Dacian civilians outside of Dacia, and particularly at

Rome, most often as slaves or freedmen, but not only (Russu 1980: 46-56). A particularly

interesting case is presented by a funerary inscription from Rome (CIL VI, 1801),

containing the following information: D(is) M(anibus) / Ziai / Tiati fil(iae) / Dacae

uxori / Piepori regis / Coisstobocensis / Natoporus et / Drilgissa aviae / cariss(imae)

b(ene) m(erenti) fecer(unt). This inscription offers a unique and direct insight to the

relations of the Empire with the Dacians extra provinciam: most likely, queen Zia and her

grandchildren were present at Rome, probably during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in the

context of the events related by Dio at 72.12.1-3 in keeping with a long-standing

Roman policy as hostages ensuring the observance of treaties, in this case by the

Costoboci, a Dacian gens inhabiting the territory immediately north of the province of

Dacia (Lica 2000: Appendix II, 156-7).

Unlike the Dacian elements whose presence can be detected in a number of

inscriptions outside of Dacia and throughout the Roman Empire,48 the native population

left within the new province of Dacia is more difficult, though certainly not impossible to

trace, precisely because of what may appear as a failure to acquire the epigraphic habit,

otherwise so common to colonists of Dacia, as the socially and politically active stratum

48
The reason for this detectable presence outside the boundaries of Dacia, has been ascribed by I. Oltean
(2009: 93), to identity stress, a socio-psychological phenomenon detectable particularly in cases of
social and spatial mobility. Understood in the context immigration, this phenomenon appears to affect,
among others, ethnic identity, in that minorities (particulary immigrants) are under social stress and face
the decision either to go native or to behave conservatively in order to protect specific identity features
that are under threat from acculturation.

60
of the province (Ruscu 2004: 78).49 This absence, along with the literary evidence from

Eutropius and Statilius Crito, has led a number of scholars to posit the possibility of

extermination of the Dacian population within the new province, as a consequence of the

Roman conquest.50 But, apart from the fact that a complete extermination of a native

conquered population was not in keeping with traditional Roman policy when dealing

with such peoples51 be it even consistently belligerent ones there are, nonetheless, a

handful of notable exceptions to this general absence of clearly identifiable natives from

the epigraphic record of the province: one Decebalus Luci, dedicating a gold votive tablet

to the local Nymphs of the thermal springs resort at Germisara (AE 1992, No. 01483?); a

collective funerary inscription to, among others, one Iulius Daciscus at Drobeta (IDR II,

50), put up by his friend, L. Iul(ius) Pae[t(innus)?], augustalis at Drobeta; and one by P.

Aelius Dacicus, decurion and aedile at Napoca, for his son, P. Aelius Traianus (CIL III,

867). Only these, among approximately 3% of anthroponyms of Thraco-Dacian origin in

the epigraphic record of the province can be attributed with somewhat more certainty to

natives of the province. The rest are possibly of South Danubian origin (Ruscu 2004: 78).

And yet, as I. Oltean has recently observed, as inhabitants of their own native land,

Dacians would have had little need of etnika in identifying themselves, as they would not

49
As A. Mcsy has shown for the province of Moesia Superior, it is the socially and politically active
elements of a province that most commonly tend to erect monuments and votive inscriptions (1970: 199-
212).
50
Most notably, A. Alfldy 1940 and 1944. For the political and territorial implications of this and
opposing views for modern ethnic-territorial claims, see Appendix C.
51
with perhaps two notable exceptions, both cited by Dio: the North African Nasamones, whom Domitian
had forbidden to exist, cf. 67.6 (e)fw(=| o( Domitiano\j e)parqei\j ei)=pe pro\j th\v boulh\n o(/ti
Nasamw=naj e)kw/lusa ei)=nai.), and a repeated mention of Marcus Aurelius intention (albeit
unfulfilled) to utterly exterminate the Sarmatian Iazyges (72.13, 16).

61
have been subject to the same kind of identity stress as immigrants and military

personnel in the province, and might have even eventually adopted fully Roman names:

With the adoption of foreign names by natives in colonial environments

not being uncommon, and with most Dacians documented epigraphically
at Rome and with most Dacians documented epigraphically at Rome and
elsewhere in the Empire having fully Romanized names (chiefly as
Aurelii), it is unlikely that natives wit Roman names would be detectable
in inscriptions in Dacia without some additional indication of their
ethnicity by cognomen or ethnikon. But in Dacia itself the natives would
have felt less urgency to make specific declarations of their origin and
ethinc identity than would the immigrants; thus, the absence of a specific
indication of their ethnic identity in the epigraphic record is only natural;
indeed, the opposite might have indicated possible social anxieties as a
reaction to changes in the ethnic structure of the area. (Oltean 2009: 95)

Another argument though speculative in its nature, for obvious lack of

evidence pertains to the levels of Latin (or any) literacy or even knowledge of spoken

Latin in the majority of the native population of the province, which would have very

likely been minimal or nonexistent. Indeed, despite the Roman conquest and the

widespread use of Latin by the administrative apparatus, army personnel and colonists,

many natives would have continued to speak their native language, which unfortunately

left no epigraphic traces whatsoever.52

On the other hand, the presence of Native Dacians can be far more readily

detected in the archaeological record of the province. This underscores a somewhat more

52
Such a situation finds parallels elsewhere in the Empire, even at the very highest levels of provincial
society, among the local elites of certain provinces: for example, while the emperor Septimius Severus, a
native of Lepicis Magna, was said to be fluent in Latin and his native Punic, his sister barely spoke any
Latin, cf. SHA, Sept. Sev. 15.7; Epit. de Caes. 20.8; cf. Harris 1989: 179. Closer to Dacia, in Moesia
Superior, knowledge of Latin seems to have been limited mainly to the social categories which also had the
epicgraphic habit: local elites, military and administrative personnel, cf. Mcsy 1970: 231-232; Harris
1989: 184.

62
complex situation within the dynamics of acculturation at the provincial level. The

prevailing orthodoxy dominating studies of the native Dacian population in Roman Dacia

until fairly recently is encapsulated in M. Macreas views:

Under the new conditions imposed by the conquerors, the mass of

common Dacians was placed in a situation of clear inferiority in relation to
the newcomers. Largely dispossessed of their lands, the Dacians were
compelled to withdraw to the least fertile lands, especially from the east
and the periphery of the province. (Macrea 1969: 259)53

This view continues to retain its validity to some extent, particularly in light of the

haunting final image on the Column of Trajan (Scenes 156-7), a touching one of the

native folk, men burdened with packages, women and children, abandoning their country

in front of and beyond the mountains. They drive their cattle ahead and look back at the

lost motherland, facing with dauntless pride the incoming Roman settlers (Rossi 1971:

212).

But a rather different picture emerges from a number of somewhat better studied

rural sites from central Dacia, which exhibit the presence of traditional (Oltean 2007:

144-5), that is, native Dacian domestic architecture, characterized by semi-sunken, hut-

type dwellings both circular and rectangular, originally probably with compacted hay

rooftops, and storage pits, later turned into waste-disposal pits in some instances, at

Obreja and Vinu de Jos near Apulum, and also at Noslac, Cicu-Slite, Uioara de Jos,

Berghin. These seem to have been superseded in some instances (at Obreja, for example)

though there is disagreement about the occurrence of this process in a later phase of

53
Present authors translation from Romanian: n noile condiii de via impuse de nvingtori, masa
dacilor de rind a fost pus de la nceput ntr-o situaie de net inferioritate fa de noii venii. Deposedai n
bun msur de pmnturile lor, dacii au trebuit s se retrag n inuturile mai puin fertile, mai ales din
estul i de la periferia Daciei.

63
the settlements by surface timber structures with stone bases and tile roofs, built in the

Roman fashion (Oltean 2007: 144-7 and Fig. 5.10-11, 5.17-19).54 Significantly, while

some of the settlements were established in Roman times (at Obreja and Noslac, for

example), others, such as Vinu de Jos, show signs of continued habitation from pre-

Roman times (Oltean 2007: 145). Regarding the importance of Obreja, the most

extensively excavated of these rural settlements (between 1961 and 1973), D. Protase has

the following to say, in response to the orthodox view of socio-economic

marginalization of the natives in Dacia:

Lexistence de cet tablissement sur le territoire appartenant la legion

XIII Gemina et a la ville dApulum constitue un tmoignage pertinent du
fait que la population dace soumise par les Romains na pas habit
seulement les zones retirees, loignes des centres urbains, mais aussi les
regions centrales de la province, occupant des territories ruraux affects
aux villes et aux camps militaries (de legion et auxiliaries), fait qui
comporte une signification historique particulire (Protase 1998: 85)

Despite the presence of traditional, native architecture, as well as some Dacian-

style pottery both hand-made and wheel-made in reduced quantity (approximately

10-15 percent of the total inventory) and the absence of the epigraphic habit, both in the

settlement at Obreja and the cemetery associated with it, most of the artifacts (ceramics,

agricultural tools, a bread oven, luxury items such as personal jewelry, cosmetics and

sandals) are of Roman provenance (Oltean 2004: 155 and 2007: 147). Therefore, far from

regarding the native Dacian population as isolated, or ostracized economically and

culturally, this allows for a more pragmatic view of the process of their acculturation

54
Concerning the chronology of the semi-sunken and surface dwellings in the settlement at Obreja, contra,
cf. D. Protase (1998: 82-3): En tout cas, le materiel archologique mis au jour jusqu present dans les
huttes et les habitats de surface ne semble en aucune sorte reflter les diffrenciations chronologiques
quidiquerait ventuellement une simple superposition, telle que nous lavons mentione.

64
(or Romanization), to be understood in this case as a change in patterns of consumption

at Obreja and at similar native settlements (Woolf 1998: 171; cf. also Oltean 2009: 99).

On the other hand, at Noslac, closer to the northern border of the province, acculturation

seemed to be less pronounced, with no traces of architectural evolution towards Roman-

style surface structures, and Dacian pottery dominating with 55 percent of the total

inventory (Oltean 2007: 147). However, this need not be interpreted as conscious

resistance to the material culture of the conquerors, but could be perceived, again

pragmatically, in terms of the accessibility and cost of Roman goods and construction

materials in a frontier area (by comparison to Obreja, with its proximity to the major

urban center of Apulum). In this sense, the proximity of Noslac to the northern frontier

also meant a proximity to the area immediately beyond the border inhabited by the so-

called free Dacian tribes, which could have made products of Dacian provenance

cheaper and more readily available to the locals. In effect, one may draw similar

conclusions about the attitude of certain segments of the native Dacian population to the

material culture of the conquerors, with those reached by G. Barruol in regard to

segments of the native population of southern Gaul, under Roman rule:

cest en fait de persistence plus que de rsistance quil faut parler.

Pendant prs dun sicle, profitant de la sous-administration du pays et de
la semi-libert laisse par le conqurant, les indigenes par habitude,
plus sans doute que par volont dlibre sont rests fidles aux
traditions locales [] pour des raisons conomiques surtout et donc par
ncessit (Barruol 1976: 405)

Nonetheless, despite the lack of evidence of active resistance to Romanization

post-conquest, there remain two significant facets of provincial life in which the native

Dacian population lacks visible representation, and which set Dacia apart from other

Roman provinces: the all but complete absence of the native elite among the local socio-

65
political and economic elite of the province; and the apparent disappearance, after the

conquest, of any native religious manifestations, at least in their tangible, material form.

In regard to the first aspect I. Ruscu has noted similar patterns of integration of native

communities in most Danubian provinces (Dalmatia, Noricum, Pannonia, Moesia Inferior

and Superior), involving, in a first stage, their organization as civitates peregrinae,

supervised by military praefecti civitatis, but subsequently acquiring a higher degree of

autonomy, through a transfer of administrative supervision to the local, native

aristocracy, the principes civitatis. Over time, as the upper stratum of the native

populations became more Romanized, and the civitates achieved municipal status, so,

too, the former principes gradually became fully absorbed into the Roman social system

as decuriones (Ruscu 2004: 78-80; cf. Wilkes 1977: 732-66; Winkler 1977: 199-200;

Mcsy 1970: 25-29 and 1974: 583-84; Suceveanu and Barnea 1991: 39; Mrozewicz

1984: 387).55 Yet no such civitates could be identified in Dacia (Ardevan 1998: 92-95;

Ruscu 2004: 80; Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 23). The kinds of larger pre-Roman

settlements that could have been candidates for such a transformation those of the

dava type, which were identified as po/leij by Ptolemy (3.8.4, 3.10.8) disappear

following the Roman conquest, as the archaeological evidence shows (Babe 2000: 329,

Fig. 2, Appendix 2; Ruscu 2004: 80). Instead, virtually all of the urban foundations in

Dacia are post-conquest. This suggests the absence, in Roman Dacia, of that upper

stratum of native aristocracy, whom the Romans would have usually entrusted, gradually,

55
On the other hand, as shown by Drinkwater for Gaul, and Millett for Britain, the patterns of emergence
and development for civtates in Gaul and Britain do not often conform to this military zone model,
usually attested in areas of minimal social evolution, or else in areas of intense resistance or demonstrated
disloyalty. Romes approach in Gaul and Britain seems to have been more flexible in arriving at its
preferred constitutional arrangements with the different tribes: those defeated in battle being dealt with
differently from those who had been allies or had surrendered without resistance, cf. M. Millett 1990: 65-
9; cf. also Drinkwater 1983: 131ff.

66
with the task of urban administration (Piso 1995: 70; Ruscu 2004: 81). The reasons for

this apparent absence could be multiple: death during Trajans wars, as well as

enslavement, or recruitment into the Roman army after the conquest, all valid reasons

pointing to the significant depletion in native manpower alluded to by the literary

sources.

As for the other significant aspect in which the native population lacks visible

representation in the new province religious beliefs indigenous pre-Roman

divinities (Zalmoxis, most notably) do not appear in syncretistic manifestations in the

plethora of Dacian provincial divinities from every corner of the Empire, either

epigraphically or archaeologically, as was the case in other provinces (Brbulescu 1984:

208; Srbu and Florea 2000: 82). Given the nature of official Dacian religion and its

dangerously symbiotic relationship with the state,56 in conjunction with the evidence for

deliberate and systematic destruction of the Dacian sanctuary complexes concentrated in

the area of the Ortie Mountains, it is entirely possible that its disappearance following

conquest was due to an interdiction by the Roman state (Ruscu 2004: 81). On the other

hand, the argument has been advanced though admittedly without any conclusive

proof that Dacian divinities could have continued to be worshipped in Roman times

through interpretatio Romana, on the models of unusually high popularity for Mars and

Mercurius in Gaul, or Saturnus in Africa (Brbulescu 1984: 206-7). This hypothesis is

based on the unusual popularity in Roman Dacia (by comparison to other provinces) of

Diana (particularly with the epithet mellifica, unique to the Dacian province), of the

56
Based on the archaeological evidence available, Srbu and Florea (2000: 92) draw a distinction between
the public cults, representing the official religion of the state in the period of the Dacian kingdom from
Burebistas to Decebalus (represented through prominent, public sanctuaries) and the multitude of ancestral
religious, magic and witchcraft practices of the common people (represented through deposits of
anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, vegetal, etc. votives and statuettes).

67
couple Liber-Libera, Silvanus and Hercules,57 but our virtually nonexistent knowledge of

the Dacian divine pantheon if there even was one to speak of, besides Zamolxis

makes this argument very difficult, if not impossible to prove.

Administration, military organization, and urban foundations in the new province:

a brief overview

As seen earlier in the chapter, there is uncertainty as to the extent of the new

province of Dacia at any given time throughout its existence over less than two centuries.

It is however clear that the Romans did not occupy the former territory of the Dacian

kingdom entirely: although, following the wars, Trajan had occupied the entire

Transylvanian plateau along with most of the territory between the Carpathians, the

actual province of Dacia was formed by the Transylvanian plateau (the core of the Dacian

kingdom), along with its main routes of access from the north of the Danube, through

Banat and Western Oltenia, while eastern Oltenia, Muntenia, and South Moldavia were

temporarily incorporated by Trajan into the territory of Lower Moesia (Oltean 2007: 55).

However, the province was re-organized administratively and militarily twice first

under Hadrian, then again under Marcus Aurelius in response to crises affecting the

northern frontier.

Throughout the entire duration of the Roman occupation, Dacia was organized as

an imperial province, due to its strategic, economic and political importance (that is, in

relation to its position in the cursus honorum and as a source of military power) (Oltean

2007: 57). In the initial stage of organization during the reign of Trajan, the province was

Brbulescu 1984: 206-8. Contra, Dorcey 1992: 76-79, for the extraneous origin of the cult of Silvanus in
57

Roman Dacia.

68
under the command of a legatus Augusti propraetore of consular rank; the two legions

stationed in the province XIII Gemina at Apulum and IV Flavia Felix at Berzobis58

were commanded by legati Augusti subordinated to the consular governor and the

emperor, while a financial procurator was in charge of all the finances of the province

(taxation and payments to the military) (Piso 1993: 7-9).

As a result of threats from the Sarmatian Iazyges and Rhoxolani, Hadrian

reorganized the province in 118 and possibly also within the next few years, between 119

and 123, as follows: over this period, there were three new administrative divisions of the

province, first into Dacia Superior and Inferior, followed by a new division north of these

Dacia Porolissensis, first mentioned in a military diploma from 123 (Piso 1993: 30-

34). The three territories were under the command of a legatus Augusti propraetore of

praetorian rank, who was also the commander of the only legion left in Dacia, (XIII

Gemina at Apulum, in Dacia Superior), seconded by one financial procurator with his

seat at Sarmizegetusa (also in Dacia Superior) and two praesidial procurators of

ducenary rank, one each for Dacia Inferior and Dacia Porolissensis (Piso 1993: 38).

Finally, under Marcus Aurelius, during or soon after the Marcommanic Wars, a

new reorganization takes place: similarly to the initial Trajanic organization, the entire

provincial territory is now governed by a legatus Augusti propraetore of consular rank,

who seems to have also fulfilled the function of consularis trium Daciarum, later praeses

or dux trium Daciarum, with his headquarters at Apulum, near the camp of Legio XIII

Gemina; a second legion, V Macedonica (stationed at Potaissa), is added, and the two

58
A third possible legion might have been I Adiutrix, but thus far, neither its precise location, nor
chronology of presence in Dacia (or whether it was present in full or just through vexillations, for that
matter), was established, cf. Piso 1993: 7-8; cf. also Oltean 2007: 56.

69
legions of Dacia were each commanded by legati augusti, subordinated to the governor;

however, a new tripartite administrative division occurred, for reasons that are not

entirely clear: Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Apulensis, and Dacia Malvensis, each with her

own financial procurator of equestrian rank (Piso 1993: 82-85).

The bulk of the troops of Roman Dacia, however, were auxiliary: based on the

epigraphic evidence, no less than 58 units are attested alae and cohorts milliariae,

quingenariae and numeri mostly from the neighboring provinces (specifically Moesia

and Pannonia) but nonetheless with great variety in ethnic origin, thus contributing to the

view of Dacia as a heavily militarized province (Oltean 2007: 56). Evidently, not all these

troops were stationed in Dacia throughout the entire period of the Roman occupation, but

studies of more than one hundred fort sites have not yielded as yet conclusive evidence

regarding the chronology of occupation at these sites. The emerging trend, though, seems

to be that of a progressive decrease in the number of auxiliary troops deployed in the

province, beginning in the second half of the second century, and continuing in the third

century (Oltean 2007: 56-7). In terms of the locations of the auxiliary fort sites, they

seem to be placed generally along the frontiers, approximately 20-30 kilometers apart

(Oltean 2007: 57 and Fig. 6.3).

Hand in hand with the administrative and military organization of Dacia went the

gradual process of urban development, as infinitae copiae ex toto orbe Romano

(Eutropius, 6.2) arrived in the province, for land distributions and urban foundations.

Many of the veterans from the troops stationed for various periods in Dacia proceeded to

plant roots often not far from their units, in thriving canabae legionis and military vici

(Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 23). It is therefore these two groups colonists and

70
veterans that played the key role in the process of urbanization of the new province,

and not, as evidenced above, the indigenous Dacian population. As J. Creighton has

demonstrated in the case of Roman Britain (Creighton 2006: 70-92), the variable

development of towns in Roman Dacia was due in large part to the differing make-up and

extreme diversity of their inhabitants, predominantly colonists and veterans. As in other

parts of the Empire, all of these towns were, at their core, Roman towns, but, as has been

previously observed, Roman is simply an idea, and therefore it was understood

differently by different people, often with contrasting mindsets, and certainly with no

absolute standard Roman civilization against which to measure the development of

ones own provincial community (Woolf 1998: 7; cf. also Creighton 2006: 77-8).

By the middle of the third century, shortly before the official Roman

abandonment of the province (by 271), there were possibly 8 or 9 coloniae and 2 to 5

municipia, although the status of some is entirely uncertain: Sarmizegetusa, Napoca,

Romula, Apulum I (Colonia Aurelia Apulensis), Apulum II (Municipium Septimium

Apulense), Potaissa, Dierna, Ampelum, Porolissum, Tibiscum and Micia (Ardevan 2000:

92-106; Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 24).59 In regard to the urban foundations of Roman

Dacia, an obvious yet difficult to explain fact is that, in most cases, their names (or

sometimes the roots of their names) reflect Dacian toponyms, and yet, as far as can be

seen, these new Roman urban settlements were green field sites, founded neither on the

site, nor even in the proximity of older Dacian settlements, a case in point being

Sarmizegetusa, Roman Dacias first colony (Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 25).

59
See Appendix A for brief descriptions of these urban centers.

71
Conclusion

Over the present chapter, I have provided a necessarily condensed overview of the

history of Dacia and of its inhabitants, pre- and post-conquest; an equally synoptic

discussion of the geo-political and economic importance of this territory (with its

advantages, as well as problems); as well as a brief description of the Roman military,

administrative, and civic structures in place after the conquest. Within this general

framework, it is now time to turn our attention to the central topic of the present inquiry:

provincial identity (or, more accurately identities), investigated from the perspective of

the wealth of evidence on religious practices, which Roman Dacia has to offer. But in

doing so, we must consistently keep in mind one key element, which sets Roman Dacia

quite apart from other frontier provinces (Britain, Germany, Pannonia, Moesia, Spain, to

name a few): the mysterious absence of any visible traces for the survival of the native

Dacian religion (even through interpretatio Romana or syncretism, as elsewhere) among

the multitude of cults (Roman and non-Roman), which form the diverse religious

landscape of the new province. This renders any investigation of native Dacian identity

in the context of the province virtually impossible, when considered from a religious

angle.

72
Chapter 2

The gods of Roman Dacia: an overview

In noting the vast diversity in religious experience within the Dacian province, M.

Brbulescu speaks of religion in Roman Dacia as a more or less cohesive sum of

polytheisms, a mosaic of cults, centered around the human element that is, built

around the needs of the inhabitants of the province.1 But before delving into a discussion

of the possible motivations for the practical religious choices made by the Dacian

provincials and the military of the province (and of how these choices reflect a fine

negotiation of multiple provincial identities), it would be useful to offer an overview of

exactly what the available religious options were, in terms of cults, for the inhabitants

of Roman Dacia, and in what proportion they were represented in the provincial religious

pantheon. In introducing the various cults that form the religious landscape of the Dacian

province, I chose to follow an organization of the cults according to their ethno-

geographic origin.

1
Cf. Brbulescu 1984: 130: o sum de politeisme;179: mozaicul de culte.

73
Greco-Roman and Roman gods

As a group, Greco-Roman and Roman cults (including both major and minor

gods, as well as deified abstractions) are by far the best represented, with almost 70

percent of the entries that comprise the corpus. Of these, the council of the gods (Dii

Consentes) Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Apollo, Mercurius, Mars, Volcanus, Neptune,

Diana, Venus, Vesta, Ceres receives a somewhat uneven representation: as a group,

that is, specifically mentioned as Dii Consentes, they only appear twice. However, taken

individually, least well represented among the Dii Consentes in Dacias pantheon are

Vesta (with no votive dedications at all), Volcanus (with three dedications), and Ceres

and Neptune (each with five dedications).

At the opposite end of the popularity spectrum, Jupiter, the supreme god of the

Greco-Roman pantheon, holds the foremost place in Roman Dacias religious landscape,

with almost 300 entries, or nearly 15 percent of the entire corpus. Most inscriptions (250,

or 12 percent) mention him as I(upiter) O(ptimu)s M(aximus), chief god of the Capitoline

Triad of Rome. But his worshippers also attribute other epithets, some more common

than others: Capitolinus, Conservator, Depulsor, Monitor, Stator, Victor, Summus

exsuperantissimus divinarum humanarumque, rerum rector, factorum arbiter, Victor,

Fulgurator or Fulgator, Custos, Paternus, Domnus, Co(ho)rtalis. In some cases, the

epithets betray the predominantly official character of the cult of the chief Greco-

Roman god in Dacia, particularly since most dedicants (where they are identified) hail

from among the public officials both imperial and municipal and the military of the

province (as the epithet Cohortalis most clearly testifies) (cf. also Brbulescu 1984: 131;

Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 66-67). For them, Jupiter, or IOM, represented the divine

74
manifestation of the authority of the Roman state and of the emperor. In visual

representations (large and small scale statuary, reliefs, carved gems) he is depicted most

commonly in his Fulminans or Tronans stances. But one should by no means conclude

that all dedications to Jupiter or IOM from Dacia have an official character, in the

sense of a close connection with public Roman state religion and/or with the Imperial

cult.2 Often times, the personal nature of such dedications to IOM or Jupiter is betrayed

by the usually terse spelling out of such a motive, most commonly pro salute sua et

suorum. But nowhere are such personal reasons for a dedication to IOM more vividly

manifest than in a third-century inscription to IOM on a votive column, from Apulum,

dedicated by Aurelius Marinus Bassus and Aurelius Castor son of Polydus, evidently two

Roman citizens of Eastern (at least in the case of the first, Syrian) origin. The two narrate

with gusto the deeply religious experience indeed akin to an epiphany of a divine

spirit, or numen which prompted them to offer the votive column dedication (IDR

III/5.1, 136): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Aur(elius) Marinus / Bas(s)us et Au(relius) /

Castor Polyd- /i circum stantes / viderunt numen / aquilae descidis(s)e / monte supra

dracone(m) / res validavit / supstrinxit aquila(m) / hi s(upra) s(cripti) aquila(m) de /

periculo / liberaverunt / v(oto) l(ibentes) m(erito) p(osuerunt). Clearly, for the two

dedicants, the eagle receives symbolic connotations, and is perhaps perceived as the very

embodiment of Jupiter, as the terms numen aquilae, and the specific dedication to IOM

seem to suggest.

Jupiters divine consort, Juno, is not nearly as popular in Dacia as her male

counterpart, but nonetheless relatively well represented, with nearly 40 corpus entries

2
This isssue of categorization of religious pactices is discussed at more length in Chapter 5, in regard to
religious practces obtaining in the Roman army (and veterans) in Dacia.

75
(most often in the company of her divine spouse), in most of them bearing the epithet

Regina, which again testifies to the official character of her worship in the province.

However, through somewhat unusual epithets, she is also occasionally associated with a

more personal devotion, likely harking back to localized versions of the goddess, from

the dedicants specific places of origin: as the Italic Juno Regina Populonia Dea Patriae

she is invoked by C. Caerellius Sabinus, legate of the legion XIII Gemina from Apulum

and his wife Fufidia Politta (IDR III/5.1, 107), while, also at Apulum, Iulius Alexander,

scribe of the legate of the same legion, dedicates an altar to Juno Semlia (IDR III/5.1,

108).3 Along with Juno, Minerva (with 44 corpus entries) often appears in Dacia as

member of the Capitoline Triad, but she is also equally often worshipped alone, with the

epithets Augusta, Sancta, Supera, Victrix, Iovis consiliorum participis, as well as through

her even more numerous visual representations (particularly statuettes and gems). Her

popularity seems to be highest among the ranks of the military in the province. Diana,

with nearly 90 entries (with epithets such as Sancta, Sanctissima, Augusta, Regina,

Conservatrix, Vera et Bona, Invicta, and the unusual Mellifica) and representations and

Venus, with roughly as many (though primarily represented by terracotta and bronze

statuettes), likewise play a significant role in the pantheon of the province.

By comparison with Diana, Apollo, Mercurius, and Mars are less well

represented: Apollo (with 39 entries) rarely receives epithets (Augustus and the unusual

Domesticus), and he tends to be worshipped either alone, or in the company of his divine

sister (and in one instance, that of his mother Latona, as well); Mercurius, better

represented (with over 53 entries) is sometimes given the epithets Gubernator, Augustus,

76
Pater, Consentiens and the unusual Hilaris, and also enjoys considerable popularity in

small-scale statuary representations; Mars (whose epithets include Gradivus, or Pater

Gradivus, Conservator, Augustus, Invictus, Amicus et Consentiens) receives relatively

little attention (with 33 entries), in spite of Dacias status as a heavily military province.

Another group of Greco-Roman deities enjoys immense popularity in Roman

Dacia (for reasons that I will explore in more depth throughout the following sections):

Silvanus, Liber Pater, Aesculapius, and Hercules. Silvanus appears to be the second most

popular deity in Roman Dacia, after IOM, with over 120 votive inscriptions and visual

representations (a few of them in the company of Silvanae). Most often, he receives the

epithet Domesticus, but also, occasionally, Augustus, Silvester, Sanctus, and Aeternus.

Liber Pater (by now long syncretised with the Greek Dionysos, whose merry cortege of

Silenes, Satyrs, Pan, panther, and Bacchantae often accompanies the god in Dacian

reliefs) follows close behind with 111 corpus entries (including at least three temples), in

29 of which he is also accompanied by his divine pair, Libera. But if to Liber we add

representations of the other minor deities commonly associated with the cult of Liber

Pater Pan (17) Silenus (12) and Satyrs (4) then the cult of Liber Pater takes definite

precedence in terms of its prominence in Roman Dacia over that of Silvanus. With over

90 corpus entries (including several temples), Aesculapius, nearly always in the company

of Hygia (and sometimes in that of Telesphorus), also enjoys great popularity in Roman

Dacia. The worship of Hercules (with over 80 corpus entries) seems to be equally

widespread in the province, and particularly among the military, but also as a salutary

deity connected with hot springs. The deified hero most commonly receives such epithets

77
as Invictus and Augustus, and occasionally Conservator, Defensor, Sanctus and

Salutiferus.

The deities of the underworld, Dis Pater, and his consort, Proserpina (who, in one

instance, is worshipped as Core, Dea Praesentissima, cf. I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983: 246,

No.15), sometimes accompanied in reliefs by Mercurius (as psychopompos) and

Hercules, appear in the classical pantheon of the province about a half-dozen times,

with perhaps also a temple at Sarmizegetusa (cf. Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 146).

Hekate, goddess of the occult with manifold attributes, is also represented with 8 or 10

inscriptions and visual representations (most often depicting her as Triformis). Nymphs

(with around 20 corpus entries) occupy a special place in the pantheon of Roman Dacia,

through their association with thermal waters resorts (particularly Germisara). A number

of minor Roman Dii Indigites also make appearances in the province: Priapus,

Vertumnus, Pomona and Ianus, Dea Dia (perhaps), as do a variety of Genii and Lares

(pertaining to diverse aspects of provincial life) and the Penates, in one instance.

Finally, in the area of personifications, not surprisingly, dedications to Nemesis

(with at least five temples and close to 50 dedications and visual representations) and

Fortuna (with one temple and similarly numerous dedications, and occasional visual

representations) followed at a distance by Victoria (often appearing in conjunction with

Mars), are relatively frequent in a military province such as Dacia. However,

paradoxically, many, if not most of the dedicants to these deified abstrations are by

civilians. Their presence in the pantheon of the province along with that of Virtus,

Bonus Eventus, Concordia, Consensus, Spes, Favor, Salus, Roma, Dacia is in most

cases (with some notable exceptions) associated with public demonstrations of loyalty

78
towards the Roman state. Personifications of waters with curative properties (Fontes,

Fontes Calidae, Aquae, Di et Numina Aquarum) enjoy, along with Nymphs, some

measure of popularity in Roman Dacia, as well.

Eastern gods

In the province of Dacia, the popularity of religions originating in the East is, on

the whole, second only to that of Greco-Roman and Roman gods. Among them, not

surprisingly for a military province, the cult of the Iranian hero-god Mithras reigns

supreme, with close to 120 corpus entries (or about 6 percent of the total number of

entries),4 consisting of inscriptions (to Mithras, as well as, in a few cases, to either of the

dadophores, Cautes and Cautopates), numerous reliefs most of them centered on the

Mithraic tauroctony, and only a few on Mithras rock birth and, last but not least,

several Mithraea. Most notably, the Mithraeum at Sarmizegetusa was deemed to be the

largest yet unearthed in the Roman Empire (Vermaseren, CIMRM: No. 2027 and Fig.

531; Clauss 1990: 51; Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 78-79, Abb. 65). Insofar as the

dedicants of inscriptions can be identified (including, that is, their social standing, not just

the name), it appears that the worship of Mithras was somewhat more widespread among

4
Although other authors place the number of Mithras-related inscriptions and monuments anywhere
between 200 (Gudea and Lobscher 2006: 79) and 274 (Vermaseren, CIMRM Nos. 1916-2190), I opted to
err on the side of caution with my more conservative estimate (almost 120), because I included in my
corpus only those inscriptions and monuments that could be identified with absolute certainty as Mithraic.
A considerable number of inscriptions and visual representations catalogued in CIMRM and IDR exist only
in very fragmentary form and their attribution to the Mithraic mysteries seemed to be conjectural, (even if it
were proven to be ultimately correct). Therefore, I have chosen to exclude such artifacts from my corpus.

79
civilians (slaves and freedmen in the imperial administartion of the province or otherwise

orlocal magistrates) than among the military of the province.

Closely related to the cult of Mithras, with whom he is sometimes syncretised, is

that of the Syrian Sol Invictus (encountered in Dacia as Deus Sol Invictus, Deus Sol or

simply Sol).5 However, as a cult in its own right, it seems to be far less popular in Dacia

than Mithraism (with 37 corpus entries a mix of inscriptions, terracotta medallions and

gems). Nonetheless, Roman Dacia appears to have been one of the areas where the cult of

the Unconquered Sun was especially flourishing in the pre-Aurelian period, again among

all levels of the military, but especially the civilian population of the province

(Halsberghe 1972: 39, 47-48).

A number of Syrian gods are worshipped in Dacia in syncretic form, with IOM or

Jupiter: IOM/Jupiter Dolichenus, IOM Heliopolitanus, Jupiter Hierapolitanus, Jupiter

Turmasgades, and the Baal of the Dance, IOM Balmarcodes. Among them, Dolichenus,

the chief god of Commagenian Doliche originally an ancient Hittite storm deity,

Teshub (Speidel 1978: 1; Hrig 1984: 2136-2179) with over 50 corpus entries

(inscriptions, as well as statuary and reliefs) enjoyed great popularity both among the

military and the civilian population, especially in the central and northern part of Dacia

(Dacia Porolissensis and Apulensis). Several priests of his rites dedicate at Apulum and

Ampelum and Porolissum (IDR III/5.1, 221; IDR III/3, 298, 299a; Piso 2005: 475), and

temples to the god are attested epigraphically at Apulum and archaeologically at

5
In the corpus, I have counted all inscriptions mentioning Mithras Sol Invictus or Sol Invictus Mithras
as Mithraic, rather than pertaining to the cult of Sol Invictus, as a cult in its own right, particularly as many
were found in the area of archaeologically attested Mithraea. I have likewise counted as Mithraic those few
dedications to Sol Invictus that were accompanied by a Mithraic relief (usually representing the Mithraic
tauroctony scene).

80
Porolissum, with a high probability for their existence also at Ampelum, Sarmizegetusa

and Samum (Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 135-6, 154-55). One inscription from

Apulum in particular (IDR III/5.1, 222) raises further questions as to the origin of the cult

of Dolichenus: in it Dolichenus is syncretized with Deus Aeternus (see below), with the

added qualification natus ubi ferrum exoritur. Other Syrian gods enter the pantheon of

the province through interpretatio Romana. Such is the case of Atargatis, worshipped

throughout the Empire as Dea Syria, encountered in Dacia in 4 inscriptions (one of them,

IDR III/5.1, 221 where she is worshipped together with IOM Dolichenus

syncretises her with the Punic Caelestis/Tanit and the Micro-Asiatic Magna Mater).

Likewise the Syro-Arabic Aziz, the god of the morning star, is popularly worshipped in

Dacia (as in other Danubian provinces) as Bonus Puer or Bonus Puer Phosphorus, with

over a dozen epigraphic mentions and a temple at Potaissa (CIL III, 875). But syncretistic

tendencies are also present in his case: in one inscription, the dedicant builds a votive

altar to Phoebus Apollo Deus Fortis Parthicus, which in this case must refer to Aziz,

whose name literally means strong or brave in Syriac (Brbulescu 1994: 160, 163;

Turcan 1992: 180).

The Dii Patrii of the Palmyreans Bel, Malagbel (Malakbel), Benefal,

Bebellahamon (Bel Hammon), Manavat (a polyadic female deity perhaps akin to Greco-

Roman Nemesis or Fortuna; cf. Turcan 1992: 172) and Ierhabol (or Iarhibol) also have

their place in Dacias pantheon, predominantly in areas of the province where Palmyrean

troops are stationed, but also where a larger civilian Syro-Palmyrean community

flourished (Sarmizegetusa, Tibiscum, and Porolissum), with two temples at

Sarmizegetusa one built by the duumvir Publius Aelius Theimes, to the Dii Patrii,

81
Malagbel, Bebellahamon, Benefal, and Manavat, (IDR III/2, 18); the other, a templum to

an unknown deity of Palmyrean origin, built by a group of priests of the deity, some

bearing Palmyro-Semitic names (IDR III/2, 20, fragmentary) and one at Porolissum

(to Bel, Deus Patrius, replacing the old temple of Liber Pater, cf. Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu

2000: 74-77).

Among the cults of Eastern origin, the cults of Asia Minor enjoy a considerable

measure of success across a wide demographic of the Dacian provincials. Cybele,

commonly worshipped in inscriptions of Dacia, as elsewhere, as Magna Deum Mater,

appears here predominantly in statuary and reliefs (with close to 20 corpus entries). The

representations of Attis, the consort of the goddess, are mostly found in a funerary

context (and are not a part of the present corpus study). The only non-funerary

representation of Attis discovered to date in Dacia comes from Sucidava, in the form of a

statue of the dying Attis, reclining on a rock (Berciu and Petolescu 1976: No. 9). Another

Anatolian Mother-goddess (cf. Mitchell 1993, Vol. II: 19-20), Mtr Troklimene, appears

in a single Greek-language inscription from Apulum (IDR III/5.1, 256). Sabazius, the

Phrygian god of Thracian origin and orgiastic rites closely related to those of Dionysos

(cf. Orphic Hymn 48, in MacMullen and Lane 1992: 56; Scorpan 1966: 16; Tacheva-

Hitova 1983: 185ff.; Turcan 1992: 313ff.) also finds a place within Dacias provincial

pantheon, usually in syncretic form, as IOM or Jupiter Sabazius, whose symbol is a right

hand, laden with a variety of attributes. Related to the cults of Sabazius and Attis is that

of the Anatolian Moon-god Mn, encountered in Dacia twice (bearing the epithets

Aniketos and Cilvastianus). Members of the Galatian communities of Dacia also bring

their local gods with them, in most cases syncretized with IOM/Zeus (IOM Bussumarius,

82
IOM Tavianus, Zeus Narenos) or Sol (Sol Bussurgius). Other local Micro-Asiatic deities

are likewise commonly assimilated to IOM/Zeus: Zeus Narenos, IOM Cimistenus, Zeus

Sardendenos, IOM Erizenus, Zeus Sittakomikos, and Zeus Surgastos. Despite the near-

fanatical zeal of his followers in Dacias neighboring province of Moesia Inferior (and in

other provinces around the Black Sea and in Asia Minor), the serpent-god Glycon, the

new Asklepios of the Bythinian charlatan Alexander of Abonouteichos (cf. Lucian

10.1) does not seem to have inspired much of a following in Dacia, as the only two

inscriptions dedicated to him in Dacia testify.

Last but not least, two somewhat elusive deities that form the centers of quasi-

monotheistic theologies complete the Eastern pantheon of the province: Deus Aeternus

and Theos Hypsistos. Deus Aeternus, a mysterious god with a complex theology, whose

identity is still unclear (Turcan 1992: 190; Isac, in Apulum IX, 1994: 546ff.), enjoys

considerable popularity in Dacia, with at least 26 corpus entries, all of them votive

inscriptions. While in most cases he appears worshipped in his own right, in a few other

instances he is syncretized with IOM or IOM Dolichenus IOM Aeternus, Deus

Aeternus Commagenorum Dolichenus, IOM Commagenorum Aeternus, IOM?

Dolichenus Deus Aeternus natus ubi ferrum exoritur (see discussion above) and Deus

Aeternus Optimus Maximus and in one instance even with Silvanus (appearing as

Silvanus Deus Aeternus in IDR III/3, 133). In a unique inscription (IDR III/2, 190), he is

even worshipped together with Juno and the Angeli, suggesting strong commonalities

with the theology of Theos Hypsistos, according to which the traditional pagan gods are

merely angels or divine messengers of the supreme god, one who could not be contained

in a name (Mitchell, in Athanassiadi and Frede 1999: 91). By comparison, the cult of

83
Theos Hypsistos is rather less well represented in Dacia than in the Greek-speaking

provinces of the eastern Mediterranean, with 3 Greek-language dedications from

Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 222-224), one of them identifying him with Zeus, and two also

giving him the epithet Epeikoos, both common occurrences in the monotheistic worship

of Theos Hypsistos in Asia, Thrace, and Egypt (Mitchell, in Athanassiadi and Frede 1999:

82-148).

Thracian gods

Given the geographical position of the province, Thracian deities are, not

surprisingly, extremely popular throughout all of Roman Dacia, with nearly 100 corpus

entries (almost 5 percent of the entire corpus), where visual representations (stone reliefs,

lead6 and terracotta plaques, etc.) constitute the main form of expression, with only a

handful of inscriptions. Among them, the cult of the Danubian Rider gods, with its

complex iconography and symbolism, dominates, with 61 representations for Dacia

(Tudor, CMRED II: 52). D. Tudor suggests the lower-Danube basin (Roman Dacia in

particular) as the birthplace of these warrior-gods, sometime in the middle of the second

century A. D. (Tudor, CMRED II: 83).7 Not to be confused with the Danubian Rider gods

(whose iconography and religious symbolism differ significantly, as may be observed

from their brief iconographic descriptions in my corpus study, and who appear

exclusively in visual form), the Thracian Knight (or Thracian Hero) appears in about 35

6
The lead used in Dacia for the production of the lead Danubian Rider plaques (more common in Dacia
Inferior than the central and northern parts of the province) would have in all likelihood originated from the
lead mines of Moesia Superior, cf. A. Mcsy 1970: 37; 1974: 133, 246-7.
7
Contra, A. Mcsy 1974: 254, who considers southern Pannonia and northern Moesia the centre of
distribution of the cult of the Danubian Rider Gods.

84
inscriptions (in a couple of them also bearing the epithet Deus Sanctus) and reliefs,

focused particularly in Southern Dacia (Hampartumian, CCET IV: 24) his area of

origin seems to be south of the Danube (Tudor, CMRED II: 53-4). In one such relief

(Hampartumian, CCET IV: No. 139), the syncretism of the Thracian Knight with Apollo

can be observed clearly, as the horseman-hero carries a lyre (thus in the guise of Apollo

Cytharoedus), in addition to his customary spear. With a single votive relief (with

somewhat unusual iconography) and inscription at Drobeta, Zbelsurdos, the Thracian sky

and lightning god, sycretized here with IOM (IDR II, 20), can also be counted among the

Thracian deities worshipped in Dacia.

Celtic and Germanic gods

Ties of commerce, and especially a substantial military presence of Gallic, British

Pannonian and Germanic troops on the territory of the province, connected Dacia to the

Central and Western European provinces of the Empire. As such, Celtic and Germanic

deities are moderately well represented in the religious pantheon of the province, with

nearly 1 percent of the corpus entries (just under 30). Among them, the cult of the Celtic

goddess Epona, patroness of horses and cavalry, holds the foremost place (with 6 corpus

entries). The goddess sometimes receives the epithets Regina, Sancta, and Augusta.

Most of the Celto-Germanic deities worshipped in Dacia have undergone what R.

tienne calls in reference to the Iberian peninsula le baptme linguistique that is, a

Latinization of their original name (tienne et al., in Pippidi, ed. 1976: 102), often

followed by syncretism with Greco-Roman deities or more direct interpretatio Romana

85
(best observed in Caesars discussion of the gods of the Gauls (BG VI.17-18).8 Such is

the case for many of the Celtic and Germanic deities encountered in Dacia: the

Quadriviae, Gallo-Roman goddesses of the crossroads; Apollo Grannus, a Celtic healer

god, and his divine pair Sirona, a goddess linked to fertility (Green 1986: 161ff.); the

divine Celtic couple Mercurius and Rosmerta, meaning the propitious one, both widely

associated with prosperity in the Gallic provinces and Britain (Green 1986: 37, 95, 97-99

and passim); the Germanic Hercules Magusanus, whose cult was centered in Germania

Inferior, particularly among the Batavians (Roymans 1994: 226ff.; Moitrieux 2002:183),

and Celtic war god Mars Camulus, whose epithet means powerful (Green 1986: 111);

the Campestres, military goddesses of the exercise field, with similar functions as Epona

(Webster 2003: 46-7);9 the Suleviae, Celtic goddesses linked with healing and the sun (cf.

Green 1986: 79-80); the Matronae, Celto-Germanic Mother goddesses, common in

Britain, Gaul, and especially Germany, where they most often occur as a divine triad (cf.

Pascal 1964: 116-123; Raepsaet-Charlier 1993: 31-37) in their one Dacian appearance

from Napoca, they are identified as Gesahenae (Piso, in Potaissa 2, 1980: 125-126),

which denotes a localized variant of the goddesses from the Rheinland ( cf. Schfer 2001:

261);10 the Dominae, probably similar in concept to the Matronae, who receive a fanum at

Apulum, from the painter Mestrius Martinus (IDR III/5.1, 66; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu

8
But see Green 1986: 36ff., for the interesting and complex reverse phenomenon of interpretatio Celtica
of Greco-Roman deities, such as Mars and Mercury, equally at play here. For the conceptual problems
raised by the concept of interpretatio in current scholarly usage, cf. Woolf 1998: 232.
9
In once instance from Sarmizegetusa, the Campestres and Epona are worshipped together (IDR III/2,
205).
10
A number of such examples from Cisalpine Gaul suggest this, for example the Matronae Ucellasicae
Concanauanae, perhaps the goddesses protecting ancient Ocellum, in the Cottian Alps, or the Matronae
Dervonnae, likely protecting the village of Dervio (or Dervo), near Como, cf. Pascal: 1964: 121-122.

86
2000: 141); the Badones Reginae (perhaps Germanic deities),11 who receive the sole

dedication to them known in the Roman world at Apulum, from Sextia Augustina (IDR

III/5.1, 37); and lastly, Jupiter Cernenus, possibly a syncretized version of the Gallic

antlered god Cernunnos, lord of nature, prosperity, and general well-being, perhaps with

Underworld connections, as well (Green 1986: 196-197; Webster 2003: 40; 47-8), is

mentioned in a legal document from Alburnus Maior as patron god of a funerary

association (IDR I, 31).

Egyptian gods

Among the Egyptian deities worshipped in Roman Dacia, the most widespread

are Isis (with nearly 25 inscriptions and/or visual representations in the corpus) and

Serapis (with little over 20 corpus entries, mostly inscriptions and statuary), occasionally

encountered as a pair, but more often individually. In some of the Dacian inscriptions, the

goddess receives epithets such as Dea Regina, Dea Placida, Placida Regina, Myrionima,

Frugifera, while Serapis is sometimes named Invictus, Deus Invictus, or Augustus.

Temples to the two deities also existed in the province: a Serapeum (at Sarmizegetusa),

two Isea (at Sarmizegetusa and Micia), and perhaps also another temple at Potaissa

(Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 90, 140, 156). In a few instances carved semiprecious

gems, usually the Egyptian Horus (in his Hellenized version, as the child-god

Harpocrates) also appears together with the divine Egyptian pair. Other Egyptian deities

11
They were identified as Germanic based on Tacitus mention of a Boduhennae locus (Tac., Ann. IV.73),
cf. Piso, the commentator of the IDR III/5 volumes.

87
make brief appearances in the corpus: the sacred bull Apis, and Ammon, in his

Hellenized syncretic version of Jupiter Hammon.

At Potaissa in particular, a votive dedication to Isis Myrionima Isis of a

thousand names is made by two members of a local collegium Isidis, C. Iulius

Martialis, the pater (that is, the leader) of the association, and L. Livius Victorinus, its

quaestor, or treasurer (CIL III, 882). Another votive inscription to Isis and Serapis is put

up by a centurion of Legio V Macedonica (stationed at Potaissa) and his wife (CIL III,

881). Also, an unusually large number of small or larger artifacts related to several

Egyptian deities seems to be concentrated here: statue head of Serapis with modius, a

bronze statuette of Serapis enthroned, a basalt head of Isis, a serpentine statuette of the

goddess, a relief of Apis, small bronze statuettes of Ammon, Harpocrates, and Anubis,

and, most interestingly, perhaps, a bronze standard tip representing a sphynx sitting on a

pedestal (Brbulescu 1994: 164-166). The pedestal is inscribed with an invocation or

acclamation, written in Greek, script, but in the Egyptian language: )Iaw\ )Iaw\ Tiqie\

(Re\- (Armah (CIGD 69). The invocation, Iao, Iao, Tithoes, Re-Harmachis, is

essentially addressed to a single deity the Sun in his different manifestations:

Tithoes, the sphynx-shaped Egyptian solar deity; Re (or Ra), the sun disc; and

Harmachis, the god of the morning sun, or dawn (Brbulescu 1994: 165). We may

imagine that the standard to which this tip originally belonged, would have been carried

during religious processions in festivals such as that in honor of Isis, described by

Appuleius in Metamorphoses 11.6 by the priests of the Egyptian rites. Given the

abundance of such Egyptian religious artifacts at Potaissa, and the existence of a local

collegium Isidis, we may suppose that here, too, as at Apulum and Micia, there will have

88
existed at temple for Isis and the other Egyptian deities, even though it has not yet been

archaeologically attested.

An interesting case of syncretic devotion occurs at Apulum, and involves Greco-

Roman, Egyptian, and Eastern deities: sometime between 173 and 175 A. D. (IDR III/5.1,

319), the governor of the Daciae Tres, Lucius Aemilius Carus, dedicates a votive altar to

two groups of male and female deities: Sarapis-Jupiter-Sol and Isis-Luna-Diana.12 It is

noteworthy that Serapis and Isis occupy the first place in each of the two groups, thus

perhaps suggesting a preference of the dedicant for the Egyptian pair, while also effecting

a reduction of the six deities, through assimilation and identifications, to the essence of

the two Egyptian deities.13 This may well constitute a case of deity worship inherited

in the governors family: over thirty years earlier (in 142-143), at Gerasa, his father, then

governor of Arabia, had dedicated a Greek language inscription to Zeus Helios megas

Serapis significantly, one of the two syncretic groupings later invoked by the son in

Dacia and Isis (SIRIS 690 = RICIS 404/0401) (Budischovsky 2007: 272).

North and North-West African gods

Best represented among the North African deities in Dacia is the Punic goddess

Tanit (with altogether 7 corpus entries, mostly inscriptions), worshipped through

12
For the sycretism of Isis with numerous Greco-Roman (and other) godesses, including Artemis/the Moon
goddess, Hekate Triformis, Proserpina, Aphrodite, Hestia, Ceres and Athena, cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses
11.2; cf. also the Hymn in Honor of Isis, from P. Oxy. 11.1380, transl. by Grenfell and Hunt (in
MacMullen and Lane 1992: 50-53).
13
Brbulescu 1984: 147: reducere a celor ase diviniti, prin asimilare i identificri, la esena celor dou
diviniti egiptene.

89
interpretatio Romana as Caelestis, at Sarmizegetusa (where she has a temple), and at

Apulum. In two instances, she is syncretized with other Eastern female deities, Dea Syria

Magna Caelestis (see above), and Baltis-Caelestis (Baltis being the Romanized form of

Baalath, an epithet of al-Uzza, the Arabic goddess of the star Venus, cf. IDR III/5.1,

38). A unique act of devotion to the Dii Mauri comes from Micia, where a construction

plaque mentions the reconstruction, in 204 A. D., of the temple of the Dii Patrii of the

Numerus Maurorum Micienses: Mauri Mic(ienses) et Iul(ius) Evangelianus praef(ectus)

templum deorum patriorum vetustate conlapsum sua p(ecunia) et opera restituer(unt)

(IDR III/3, 47).

The three dedications to Saturnus from Dacia (from Ampelum, Apulum, and

Potaissa) refer most likely to the African Saturnus the Punico-Berber Baal-Hammon,

that is (Leglay 1966: 62ff) based on the names of two of the dedicants (IDR III/3, 322;

Brbulescu 1994: 166-7; Idem, in LAfrica Romana X: 1327-1335), and known

associations with Numidia of a third from Apulum (IDR III/5.1, 315). In the dedication

from Potaissa, accompanying the bottom half of a statue of the god (depicted in the

manner of Jupiter tronans), he receives the qualifiers Rex, Pater Deorum and is

worshipped together with Latona, functioning here probably also in interpretatio

Romana, as a type of Mother Goddess. In the votive inscription from Apulum, he

receives the epithet Securus, not encountered elsewhere for Saturnus.

Gnosticism and magic practices

Gnostic beliefs, with clear overtones of magic, also have their place within the

diverse religious culture of the province, being fairly well represented particularly

90
through the so-called gemmae abraxeae, popular among members of the Gnostic sect of

the Basilideans. These gems were in all likelihood produced in the glyptic workshops at

Romula, and they tended to represent Abrasax (or Abraxas), a fantastical creature with a

birds head, human torso, and serpent legs, holding a whip and shield (with 6

representations in the corpus). On one such gem (CIGD no.133), it is Hekate, goddess of

magic and occult practices, that is represented, in her triformis aspect and flanked by two

dogs and two altars, while the name A)brasa/c appears carved on the verso. Also

invoked occasionally (on gems, and on two occasions on golden tablets, one of them a

tabella defixionis) are the Hebrew god, under the names I)a/w or A)qwnai (Adonai),14 and

various demons and Hebrew angels: demon immunditiae (cf. IDR III/1, 43, a curse tablet

from Dierna), Azael (who recives the epithet e)/rgew fu/lacon), Abramel, and

Ororeiuth, a female gynecological demon, usually represented through a womb.

Magic-apotropaic amulets have also been discovered on the territory of the

province, particularly the numerous grylloi amulets from Romula (Gramatopol 1974:

30ff.). The magic of numbers is also present: that of the number three, at Orlea (not far

from Sucidava) through a pyramid-shaped brick box containing three small pitchers and

an inscription with a name, and that of number seven, at Sucidava, where seven small

pitchers six in a circle, with a seventh in the middle, turned upside down again in a

brick box (Tudor, Oltenia, 1968: 419).

In one instance accompanied by the acronym AGVLA, standing for the Hebrew religious slogan Aieth
14

Gadol Ue Leolam Adonai, meaning God will be great forever.

91
Christianity

The dating of the early Christian artifacts found on the Dacian territory is rather

more problematic (cf. Gudea and Ghiurco 2002: 54 ff.): the majority of artifacts bearing

Christian symbolism have been dated to the fourth century or later, or else, where some

appear to have been produced during Dacias existence as a province (pottery and other

household objects, for example), they were Christianized later, through incision of

crosses and fish, though their Christianization may well have taken place before the

official Roman withdrawal from the province that is, anytime between the second and

third centuries. The dating of two carved gems (likely objects of import) representing

Christ as the Good Shepherd could only be ascertained through analogy to similar finds

from elsewhere in the Empire to sometime before 313 A. D. (Gudea and Ghiurco 2002:

169-170, nos. 1-2). Therefore, I preferred to err on the side of caution by not including

them in my corpus study.

Other gods

The inclusion of a number of deities within any of the better known and

understood ethno-geographic categories is somewhat more problematic, especially

because they represent the sole known mention of a particular deity, with no known

analogies elsewhere in the Empire: Dardanica, present in one, possibly two inscriptions

from Romula (IDR II, 344-45), a sort of national Illyrian deity, perhaps the

personification of Dardania itself (one such inscription exists in Dalmatia, cf. AE 1952,

no. 192); Maelantonius (AE 1990, 831), Soranus (AE 1990, 832), and Naon (AE 1990,

839) all three deities invoked by dedicants with distinctly Illyrian names, in the

92
Alburnus Maior mining area. However, as this is the only known mention of the three

deities throughout the Empire, and since so little is known about native Illyrian deities in

general, it is impossible to say with certainty whether they represent regional or local

Illyrian gods, or else little-known epithets of Greco-Roman gods. Also, Mars Singilis, an

obviously syncretic deity (who is invoked together with his female pair Minerva,

probably in interpretatio Romana in a votive inscription from Sarmizegetusa), is only

attested in this isolated example from Dacia. Based on the toponymic epithet Singilis, he

might have been a local god of the town of Singilis, in Baetica, worshipped in syncretic

form (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983: 237, No. 4). Also unknown deities are Sar(o)mandus: (IDR

III/4, 92); Obila (IDR III/4, 29, in which she appears in the company of Hercules); and

finally, in two instances from Apulum, Dii Patrii or Paterni of unspecified origin (IDR

III/5.2, 700-701).

A word about the imperial cult

Insofar as the western provinces of the Empire (to which Dacia could be said to

have firmly belonged) are concerned, I consider the imperial cult to be only superficially

a religious phenomenon (Price 1984: 15-16). Based on reviewing the staggering amount

of evidence (mostly epigraphic, but also archaeological) for its manifestations from

Roman Dacia, I must concur entirely with D. Fishwicks conclusions, from his study

outlining the development of provincial ruler worship in the Western Roman Empire:

[V]ery little evidence exists to suggest that one would ever pray to an
emperor, living or dead, or that anyone among the educated classes ever
took the emperor for more than what he was not so much a divinity as a
symbol of divinity, an agent through whom divinity could function.
Genuine piety, expressed in the form of exvotos, seems hardly to be

93
 attested in connection with the ruler cult, for in time of sickness or peril
one turned not to the emperor but to the gods. In consequence emperor
worship must be considered not really worship at all, but homage rendered
in the form of divine honours because that was the highest kind of honor
payable to a deserving mortal. (Fishwick 1978: 1252-1253)15

Insofar as the Dacian evidence seems to fit this pattern quite accurately, I find the

inclusion of this aspect in a study on religion entirely problematic. Therefore, I will limit

my mentions and discussions of it strictly to what I consider as absolutely necessary in

order to help illuminate certain religious choices made either by individuals or groups

within the province military personnel and veterans, for the most part, but also, to a

more limited extent, civilians. The relative uniformity of manifestations of the imperial

cult across the Western provinces of the Empire during the chronological period covered

by the present study (the second century and first half of the third century), as well as the

compulsory element intrinsic in the concept, makes it less useful, strictly from a

religious perspective, as a genuine parameter for gauging issues of individual or group

identity at a provincial level.16

This is not to say that the numerous manifestions of the imperial cult in Roman

Dacia are not deserving of treatment. Indeed, at least three recent studies have discussed

them, though in a somewhat restricted fashion.17 But they should be treated in a separate

study, for example one that might explore issues of provincial identity, through the lens

15
Of course, significant distinctions may be drawn between the manifestations of imperial cult in the
western, predominantly Latin speaking, part of the empire, and those in the eastern, Greek speaking
provinces, where the imperial cult must be placed in the context long standing traditions of ruler-worhip,
rooted in concepts of Hellenistic kingship, and even earlier, in that of Alexander, cf. Price 1984: 21.
17
A. Diaconescu, Chariot statues (quadrigae) for Caracalla in Dacia and related monuments, in
Altekamp and Schfer (2001: 129-159). See also the very brief overview of manifestations of the
Kaiserkult, in the context of a general introductory study on Roman Dacia by Gudea and Lobscher
(2006: 74-75); A. Schfer, Sarmizegetusa als urbanes und regionales Zentrum der Provinz Dakien, in
Cancik, Schfer and Spickermann (2006: 195-244).

94
of the relationship of Dacian provincial elites and the Roman army stationed in the

province with various ruling emperors, a relationship which, for a variety of complex

socio-political and economic reasons, is motivated, not least of all, by mutual interests,

as A. Diaconescu has already pointed out (Diaconescu 2001: 129).

Conclusion

Having now painted a somewhat general and statistically driven picture of the

religious life of the province of Dacia, largely informed by the findings of my corpus

study, in the following chapters I will provide an interpretive framework for these general

findings, by examining in more detail different manifestations of religious life in the

province, as they inform, and in turn are informed by, the various identities of inhabitants

of the province: professional and personal, public and private, individual and collective,

civilian and military, male and female, Roman and non-Roman. Understood in this sense,

religion becomes the means for exploring the ways in which the people of Roman

Dacia negotiated these diverse identity constructs, within the larger context of a new

frontier province, and within that of the Roman Empire, in general.

95
Chapter 3

Working with the Gods:

Professional identity, religious devotion, and
the economic life of Roman Dacia

One of the assets making Dacia so attractive a prospect for Roman conquerors, civilian

settlers, and army veterans alike was the wealth of its natural resources (especially gold

and other metals, salt, stone, timber etc.), and the richness of its soil, both in terms of

farmland and pastures (cf. above, Chapter 1).1 A great deal of our information about the

economic life of the province and particularly about the variety of professions

practiced in Roman Dacia, as well as on professional groups comes, somewhat

surprisingly, from votive inscriptions. The present chapter sets out to examine this

evidence, and what it may tell us about the extent to which certain religious choices made

both by individuals and groups are connected to the professions they practiced.

Professional associations and religious choices

A case where the connection between the religious and economic life of the

province emerges with particular clarity is that of individuals (and, occasionally, groups

1
As for the primary reasons for conquest, the economic one would likely have to be subsumed to military-
strategic rationales, cf. Piso (2005: 249).

96
of individuals), who, in dedicating votive inscriptions to different deities, identify

themselves as belonging to a particular professional group active in the province.

In the past few decades, voluntary associations (collegia) of the Imperial period

be they religious, professional, etchnic, or funerary have enjoyed renewed scholarly

interest,2 particularly as they began to be perceived as the missing link between the

civic elites and the lower classes of the Empire.3 The primacy of their social function

to help foster a sense of group identity and earn a certain degree of standing for their

members by their involvement within the larger local communities4 was noted and

discussed extensively. However, in terms of knowledge of religious practices of such

voluntary associations, it was religious associations that have naturally received the most

attention in recent scholarship.5 Members of these associations were united by their

common worship of a particular deity or deities, irrespective of any differences in their

socio-economic standing. Unlike religious associations, which could count members of

local aristocracies among their ranks,6 professional associations were generally made up

of members of more humble socio-economic, who shared similar professional interests

(fabri, centonarii, utriclarii, etc.). Sometimes, the more prominent of these professional

associations benefitted from the illustrious patronage of members of the local civic elite.

2
following a first wave of works on collegia by the social historians of the nineteenth century:
Mommsen 1843, Liebenam 1890, Waltzing 1895.
3
Cf. Verboven 2009: 159ff. (following Nijf 1997, Tran 2006; Verboven 2007), who posits a new taxonomy
for collegia, based on the various degrees of prestige they enjoyed; see also Liu 2009: 4ff., for an excellent
overview of recent scholarship on collegia; also Ardevan 1998: 271-312.
4
Rostovzeff 1957 (Vol. 2): 171ff.; Ardevan 1998: 277; Verboven 2007: 861ff; Idem 2009: 159ff.
5
Bollman 1998; Egelhaaf-Geiser and Schfer 2002; Slavova 2002.
6
Such as the Dyonisiac association of the Iobbachoi in Athens (SIG3 1109= IG II2 1368), cf. Rives 2001:
134.

97
Oftentimes, these collegia performed certain civic services (for example as voluntary

fire-fighters in their respective cities7), in exchange for certain privileges and exemptions

from the state.8

A number of inscriptions from Dacia provide information regarding patronage for

such professional associations as well as for the internal organization of some of these

collegia and their scholae, or headquarters. Most of our information about local elite

patronage of professional associations pertains primarily to the largest and most

prestigious professional association in Dacia, that of the fabri, from both Sarmizegetusa

and Apulum.9 In terms of the internal organization of professional collegia, which is

sometimes alluded to in inscriptions from Dacia, it may be observed that some of them

have a quasi-military organization, perhaps in order to help better coordinate their civic

duties, such as fire-fighting, and no doubt also due to the large number of members of

such associations, particularly the fabri. It appears that the fabri (and perhaps also the

centonarii) were divided in multiple decuriae (which certainly seems to be the case at

Sarmizegetusa, where the fabri had at least 15 decuriae); and sometimes it is the case that

a member of the municipal elite is patron to only a single decuria of the collegium (IDR

III/2, 10, 13, 254). Among the internal ranks of the fabri, we know, at Sarmizegetusa, of

7
Lafer 2001; Liu 2009: 62.
8
As can be inferred from the 205 A. D. rescript of Septimius Severus and Caracalla towards the association
of centonarii (cloth dealers) of Flavia Solva, in Noricum, and the likely contemporary Dig. L.6.6.12
(Callistratus 1 cogn.), cf. Liu 2009: 57ff.
9
For Sarmizegetusa, cf. IDR III/2, 6, 10, 13, 103, 105, 107, 114, 126, 254, 326, 346, 410; for Apulum, cf.
IDR III/5.1, 6, 18, 164, IDR III/5.2, 440, 443, 444, 446, 486, 599. In two instances from Apulum, we have
one patron for two or more professional associations: thus, Publius Aelius Strenuus, a very prominent
member of the local aristocracy at Ulpia Traiana, Apulum I and Drobeta, of equestrian rank, is patron to
three professional collegia at Apulum: the fabri, centonarii and nautae (IDR III/5.2, 443), while C.
Nummius Certus, also a local aristocrat of equestrian rank and augur atApulum I, is patron of the fabri and
dendrophori the latter perhaps not to be understood as a religious college of devotees of Cybele, but
more likely, in this case, as timber merchants, or perhaps both, cf. I. Piso (IDR III/5.2, 599).

98
decuriones (IDR III/2, 163, 319, 322), praefecti (IDR III/2, 124, 126), and a vexillarius

(IDR III/2, 186). Other, perhaps smaller, professional collegia such as the pomarenses

and the utriclarii (both discussed at more length below) exhibit a quasi-familial

internal organization, with a pater, mater, and filii. On the other hand, such military-style

collegia as the fabri could also present family-like features: for example, at Apulum I,

where the collegium fabrum (or that of the centonarii, for that matter) does not seem to

have been large enough to be divided into decuriae, Fabia Lucilla, daughter of a Roman

knight, mentions, in an inscription honoring her father-in-law, that she was mater of not

one collegium, but two: of the fabri and the centonari (IDR III/5.2, 483).

As for the scholae (that is, the headquarters) of these associations, some evidence

exists as well: we know from building construction plaques that both the fabri and the

centonari had their own respective scholae at Apulum (cf. IDR III/5.2, 425, 444), while

at Sarmizegetusa, the expansive aedes fabrum, built sometime between 182 and 185 AD,

and centrally located in the so-called forum vetus of the colony, was both epigraphically

attested and thoroughly excavated by the tienne-Piso-Diaconescu archaeological team

(Piso 2006: 105-114, Ep. 10, 11). Its central location in the forum, at the heart of the

Dacian provincial capitals public life, suggests the strong official and civic ties of this

collegium. On the other hand, other, smaller professional collegia might have had less

formal meeting places: such seems to be the case with the utriclarii of Sarmizegetusa,

whose headquarters appear to have been located in the temple of Nemesis, in the extra-

mural area, near the colonys amphitheatre.10

10
For the utriclarii and the temple of Nemesis at Sarmizegetusa, see discussion below in the present
chapter, but especially in Chapter 4.

99
 The epigraphic activity of professional associations and their individual members

in Dacia can offer some insight into their religious activities and religious preferences,

despite the fact that the group identity of such smaller-scale . . . communities (cf. Rives

2007: 107) does not usually center around the worship of a particular deity or deities. At

times the connection between the attributes of the deity or deities invoked and the

respective occupation of the dedicant(s) is obvious, others times less so, or not at all. By

far the most widespread professional collegia in the province were those of the fabri,

perhaps because faber was an umbrella term for a number of professions: builders,

carpenters, and metal workers. Their associations are attested with certainty at Drobeta,

Sarmizegetusa, Apulum I and II, and Potaissa (Ardevan 1998: 285ff, Table XLIII). At

Potaissa, the appointees (destinati) of the municipal collegium fabrum dedicate, in 197

A. D., a votive inscription to Volcanus Augustus, for the health of the emperors

Septimius Severus and Caracalla (Brbulescu 1994: 109, 161; Ardevan 1998: 287, R

447). It may be, as M. Brbulescu has advanced, that the fabri in question were

specifically metal workers dedicating to the patron god of their craft.11 While this remains

a distinct possibility, the epithet Augustus borne by the god, along with the fact that the

dedication is made for the health of the ruling emperors, gives the inscription a more

civic (as opposed to economic) slant: if we are to judge from the correspondence of

Pliny the Younger and Trajan, collegia fabri were employed as fire brigades in a number

of cities as early as the reign of Trajan.12 As such, the votive inscription to Volcanus from

11
Cf. Brbulescu 1994 (109): ...dar n cazul de fa, nchinarea fcndu-se lui Volkanus Augustus, credem
c prin fabri trebuie nelei fierarii i metalurgitii.
12
Pliny, Ep. X.33: Cum diversam partem provinciae circumirem, Nicomediae vastissimum incendium
multas privatorum domos et duo publica opera, quamquam via interiacente, Gerusian et Iseon absumpsit.
Est autem latius sparsum, primum violentia venti, deinde inertia hominum quos satis constat otiosos et

100
Potaissa may reflect the collective gratitude of the collegiati for benefits or exemptions

accorded by the emperors to such associations, in exchange for just such fire fighting

services performed for the community.13 Individual members of various collegia fabrum

also actively dedicate to various other deities. In some cases, the professional connection

between dedicants and deity is more transparent, as is the case of dedications by

individuals to the Genius (collegii) fabrum from Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 214 and IDR

III/2, 215, which is even more specifically dedicated to the Genio dec(uriae) XIII

Coll(egii) fabr(um)) and Apulum I (IDR III/5.1, 80, dedicated to the Genius fabrum, by

the magister of the association, Marcus Aurelius Timon, for the welfare of the emperors

again alluding to the connection between professional interest and civic-minded

demonstration of loyalty towards the emperor). In yet other cases, although the dedicant

identifies himself prominently by means of his profession, his act of piety may involve

personal, rather than professional reasons. Such is the case of C. Spedius Velerianus,

immobiles tanti mali spectatores perstitisse; et alioqui nullus usquam in publico sipo, nulla hama, nullum
denique instrumentum ad incendia compescenda. Et haec quidem, ut iam praecepi, parabuntur; tu,
domine, dispice an instituendum putes collegium fabrorum dumtaxat hominum CL. Ego attendam, ne quis
nisi faber recipiatur neve iure concesso in aliud utantur; nec erit difficile custodire tam paucos. And
Trajans response, clearly mindful of the dangerous potential (based on historical precedents) for such
associations (hetairiae) to foment political unrest: Tibi quidem secundum exempla complurium in mentem
venit posse collegium fabrorum apud Nicomedenses constitui. Sed meminerimus provinciam istam et
praecipue eas civitates eius modi factionibus esse vexatas. Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque causa
dederimus iis, qui in idem contracti fuerint, hetaeriae eaeque brevi fient. Satius itaque est comparari ea,
quae ad coercendos ignes auxilio esse possint, admonerique dominos praediorum, ut et ipsi inhibeant ac, si
res poposcerit, accursu populi ad hoc uti. Cf. Liu 2009 : 114, who explains why the skills of the fabri
might have been useful in urban fire-fighting: Presumably fabri were qualified by their physical strength,
by conveniently possesing the tools for fire-fighting, and because ancient fire-fighting often involved
demolition of buildings to block the spread of fire.
13
Such an attitude towards the destructive power of Volkanus and the need to propitiate it may be
gleaned from another votive inscription to Volcanus in Dacia, put up at Sarmizegetusa by C. Sempronius
Urbanus, one of the procurators of Dacia, to Volcanus Mitis, the epithet Mitis possibly suggesting that the
inscription was occasioned of the annual festival of Volcanalia (August 24), cf. I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 236,
No.2. The third votive dedication to Volcanus from Dacia is also associated with the fabri: it was recently
discovered in the newly-excavated aedes fabrum from Sarmizegetusa, as well (Piso 2006: Ep. 31).

101
decurio of the collegium fabrum from Ulpia Traiana, who dedicates to Nemesis Regina,

pro salute sua et suorum omnium (IDR III/2, 319), and similarly, that of the fourth

decuria of the collegium fabrum from the same city, dedicating to the Syrian deity IOM

Dolichenus for the health of two of their members, Marcus Bassius Aquila and Gaius

Gaianus, both very likely Syrians (IDR III/2, 202).14

Like the fabri, other professional collegia leave their mark upon the religious life

of the province, whether through collective dedications, or individual ones by their

members. In most instances, it is exclusively through the religious activity of members or

persons otherwise associated to such professional groups that we may learn of their

existence: for example, the existence at Sarmizegetusa of a professional association of the

lecticarii, the litter bearers, is confirmed only through a dedication to Nemesis Regina by

Cornelius Cornelianus, who identifies himself as defensor lecticariorum (that is, the

associations legal defender in court cases) and his wife, Iulia Bessa (IDR III/2, 314). A

similar situation is that of the collegium pomarensium, known from a votive inscription

on a statue plinth, discovered in 1997 at Sarmizegetusa.15 Based on analogies with such

professional associations as the pomarii of Pompeii (CIL IV, 149, 180, 183), the

fructuarii of Rome (CIL VI, 10275), and the citrarii Neapolitani (CIL VIII 9409) this

collegium, too, might have grouped together fruit producers or dealers (or both). This

unique association, with its family-like organization (a pater Valerius Ianuarius, mater

Flavia Crescentina and filii, that is, regular members) had multiple functions: as a

professional association (with its own protective Genius); as a religious association the

14
Likely the same Gaius Gaianus dedicates, together with Proculus Apollofanes, a votive altar at
Sarmizegetusa, again to IOM Dolichenus. They identify themselves as Suri negotiatores (IDR III/2, 203).
15
Piso 2005: 430.

102
cultores Iovis Optimi Maximi, possibly identified here as elsewhere in Dacia with the

universal deity Deus Aeternus (cf. above, Chapter 2); and possibly even a third function

that of a funerary club (Piso 2005: 432-3). This is certainly not an uncommon

phenomenon: indeed, most groups, no matter what their primary raison dtre, had a

patron deity to whom they would offer regular sacrifices (Rives 2001: 132). Elsewhere

in Roman Dacia, other types of associations likewise had a secondary religious focus: the

collegium Iovis Cerneni, whose legal dissolution is mentioned in one of the waxed tablets

at Alburnus Maior, appears to have functioned primarily as a funerary club, but with a

patron deity (IDR I, 31), while at Napoca, the obviously ethnic-based association of the

Galatae consistentes municipio dedicate to IOM Tavianus, probably the patron deity of

the Anatolian city of Tavia, and perhaps also patron-deity of this ethnic club (CIL III.1,

860).

Athough several individual stone cutters (lapidarii) are attested epigraphically,

the existence of only one collegium lapidariorum in Dacia is a certainty that from

Micia,16 through the votive dedication by one of its members, M. Cocceius Lucius, to

Victoria Augusta the Genius collegii eius (IDR III/3, 141). While dedications to Genii

of the various associations are quite common, as we have seen, that to Victoria Augusta

might seem odd coming from someone not associated with the military, provincial

government, or civic elite, unless we consider that a good part of the business of the

lapidarii would have come from honorific monuments for the emperor and ruling

dynasty: though the chronology of the inscription cannot be ascertained, an imperial

16
R. Ardevan supposes the existence of a similar collegium at Sarmizegetusa, as well (1998: 289), though
an inscription testifying to this has yet to surface.

103
victory in one of the campaigns undertaken by several emperors in the Danube area

would have certainly meant a surge in orders for provincial stone cutters such as those at

Micia.

The rather mysterious utriclarii are also attested in the province due to their

votive dedications. The exact sphere of activity of these professionals apparently

present epigraphically, apart from Dacia, only in southern and southeastern Gaul has

long been a topic of scholarly debate: they were deemed as raft-men engaged in river

trade in southern Gaul (Roug 1959: 285-306), makers of leather bags for the wine trade

(Leglay 1964: 140-152), or actual wine dealers (Kneissl 1981: 169-204), or, most

recently, as workers and investors involved in transportation-related activities (Ardevan

1998: 290-291). It is perhaps of significance that the two inscriptions attesting the

existence of a collegium utriclariorum in Dacia involve dedications to one and the same

deity, though under different names. In the first, a building inscription from

Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/1, 272), Aelius Diogenes, pater of the association and his wife,

Silia Valeria, mater, announce the building of a temple of Nemesis, pro salute sua et

filiorum suorum (that is, the members) and for the association of the utriclarii at large

(collegio utriclariorum).17 This suggests that the temple also served as the meeting

place of the professional association of which Aelius Diogenes (a man of perhaps

freedman origins) was likely the most prominent and affluent member. The second votive

17
The inscription was in fact discovered discovered at Marga what may have been the Roman mansio
and statio portorii of Pons Augusti, on the side of a main Roman road between Tibiscum and Ulpia
Traiana, but it is considered to have been displaced here from the capital, Sarmizegetusa, given its
proximity to Marga, cf. Alicu and Paki 1995: 15; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 65. The hypothesis that the
altar inscription refers to the temple of Nemesis from Sarmizegetusa (attested archaeologically, and
discussed below, in Chapter 4), is also strengthened by the paucity of the archaeological discoveries at
Marga, consisting only of possible traces of an ancient gold mining exploitation and the said inscription
(but no temple-like structures), cf. I.I. Russu, the editor of the IDR III/1.

104
inscription related to the utriclarii (IDR III/4, 215), found at Clugreni (on the

northeastern frontier of the province) was dedicated collectively by the collegium

utriclariorum to Adrastia (another name by which Nemesis-Fortuna was known more

commonly in Asia Minor), in honorem Domus Divinae. Therefore, the evidence of the

two Dacian inscriptions suggests that Nemesis/Adrastia/Fortuna, as protectress of

travelers and merchants, might have been considered the patron-deity of the utriclarii

(Macrea 1969: 157; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 65). Indeed, two of the attributes the

goddess is commonly represented with in iconography, the wheel and ships rudder,

would make her the natural choice for the professionals involved in provincial

transportation of goods, whether on rivers or land routes.

The piety of individual professionals and of unofficial groups

with similar professional interests

Just as the various professional associations of the Dacian province and their

members found ways to express their religious devotion towards particular deities, while

at the same time advertising their position within the socio-economic life of the

province, so too individual professionals and professional groups without a formal

collegium status use similar means for the expression of their piety. However, unlike

votive offerings and dedications by professional groups, which often point to the efforts

of some collegia to stand out, as it were, within the civic life of their respective

municipalities,18 individual professionals and informal professional groups in Dacia, often

18
Witness, for example, the votive activities of the Dacian associations of fabrii and lapidarii, discussed
above.

105
betray through their religious activities (such as they have come down to us) a greater

concern with invoking deities who either govern, in some way, their particular

occupation, or their particular ethnicity (or both, in a few, very specific instances).

However, there are certainly exceptions to this, as some of the examples will

demonstrate.

For instance, among those involved in commercial activities, public officials in

charge of overseeing such activities dedicate, among others, to deities who might be

expected to govern them. Such is the case of the imperial slave Felix (newly promoted to

vilicus at the customs station of Pons Augusti), whose dedication to a string of deities and

personifications of abstract concepts in the important pagus of Micia may include, lastly,

the Genius P(ublici) P(ortorii) et Commercii.19 The specific hierarchy of the deities

19
The lecture of this badly damaged, no longer extant inscription, has been variously disputed (for a
complete bibliography with various lectures, cf. IDR III/3, 102). The editors of the IDR III/3 volume offer
the following reading: I(ovi) O(ptimi) M(aximi) / Terrae Dac(iae) / et Genio P(opuli) R(omani) / et
Commerci / felix caes(aris) n(ostri) s[e(rvus) / vil(icus) stationis Pont(is) Aug(usti) / promot(us) ex
st(atione) Mici(a) / ex vi[kario - ].
However, I would suggest that the reading Genio P(opuli) R(omani) et Commerci might be anomalous, and
that the reading Genio P(ublici) P(ortorii) could better supplant it, based on the available evidence: first,
the existence of one single divine entity embodying and protecting both the Roman People and commerce
two very distinct concepts seems illogical and without epigraphic precedent; and secondly, and most
significantly, owing to the discovery of two votive inscriptions, somewhat similar in their tenor and
content: the first, discovered in 1988 and first published by N. Gudea (Acta MP 12, 1988: 178-179; cf. also
Gudea 1998: 59-63) in the the customs station from Porolissum, was dedicated by the procurator Claudius
Xenophon, through the slave villici Marcion and Pollio, to the emperor Commodus, hailed as restitutori
commerc(iorum) presumably in the wake of the disruptive Marcommanic wars and to the Genio
P(ublici) P(ortorii) Illyrici. The full title of Claudius Xenophon would have been procurator Augusti
publici portorii Illyrici et Daciae tres. This combined office functioned beginning with the emperor
Commodus, up to Philip the Arab (cf. H. G. Pflaum 1974: 30, 41, following Gudea 1998: 62-63). In the
second inscription, discovered at Apulum in 1998, on a statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 702 = AE 1998, 1074),
another servus villicus, Maximianus, dedicates to the Genio P(ublici) P(ortorii) et T(iti) Iul(ii) Sa[t]urnini
conductoris p(ublici) p(ortorii) Illyr(ici). To further emphasize the dedicants affiliation with commercial
activities, a bust of Mercurius is also carved in a semi-circular niche on the statue base. According to I.
Piso, the editor of the IDR III/5 volume, this constitutes the earliest attestation for the bureau of public
customs for Illyricum, the head of which was T. Iulius Saturninus, between 147 and at least 157 (for the
career of T. Iulius Saturninus, cf. Petersen, PIR2 J 548). It should be mentioned that M. Brbulescu (1984:
174) also labels the reading Genius populi Romani et Commerci as an unexpected combination (o
combinaie neateptat), but accepts it as valid nonetheless.

106
invoked in the inscription seems to suggest, through its implied descending order, the

degrees of importance attributed by Felix to the deities and to the deified abstractions that

support his professional ascent within the imperial administration. This hierarchy also

communicates his explicit loyalty to the divine powers responsible for maintaining the

established order: the chief place is accorded to IOM, head of the Capitoline Triad of

Rome, closely associated with the authority of the ruling emperor, who made it possible

for the Roman world and its gods to exist (Van Andringa 2007: 84; cf. also Mihilescu-

Brliba 2004: 100); he is followed on the inscription by Terra Daciae, personification of

the province in which the administrative career of Felix blossomed; last in this string of

deities, the deity governing both the public institution within which the career of Felix

blossomed, and the commercial traffic regulated by this institution (provided the reading

I advanced above is correct).20 Thus, the dedication strikes a balance between the overt

demonstration of loyalty to the ruling emperor to be expected from a member of the

imperial household and of the imperial administration at the provincial level and

personal concern with career advancement. The latter here is clearly subsumed under the

former.

On the other hand, at Sarmizegetusa, Gaius Gaianus and Proculus Apollofanes,

two Syrian merchants (Suri negotiatores), prefer to entrust their well-being (pro salute

sua) not to a deity protecting commercial activities, but rather to one from their native

homeland IOM Dolichenus (IDR III/2, 203), as do two other Suri negotiatores,

Aurelius Alexander and Aurelius Flavus, at Apulum (IDR III/2, 218). Indeed, Gaius

20
A somewhat similar hierarchization of deities and personifications may be observed in an inscription
from Lugo, in Gallicia by, Saturninus, a freedman of Septimius Severus, member of the imperial
administration in Lusitania and Galicia (AE 1985, 494; 1990, 939; discussed by Van Andringa 2007: 83).

107
Gaianus may be the same one (or possibly a relative) from another votive inscription to

IOM Dolichenus, for his health and that of another seemingly Syrian colleague, M.

Bassus Aquila, both members of the fourth decuria of the collegium fabri (IDR III/2, 202,

discussed above).21 Another case of devotion possibly based on ethnic origin is that of the

painter (pictor) Mestrius Martinus, who builds, at Apulum, a fanum for the Dominae

quite likely Celto-Germanic Mother-goddesses related to the Matres or Matronae (cf.

above) pro salute sua et suorum (IDR III/5.1, 66; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 141).

Apart from the fact that the successful practice of his craft in the province affords

Mestrius Martinus such a level of prosperity to be able to build a temple to honor perhaps

Mother-goddesses of his Celtic homeland, the inscription is most significant for several

reasons: it provides a unique mention of a painter for Dacia, and one of the few specific

mentions of artistic professions in the province;22 it provides one of only a few instances

of Celto-Germanic Mother-goddesses in Dacia;23 and, finally, it offers one of only two

attestations for a fanum-type temple in Dacia. Because it is connected with Celto-

Germanic deities, we must presume despite the fact that the actual archaeological

remains of the structure have not been located that it refers specifically to the

Romano-Celtic type of shrine known as fanum, usually consisting of a single room,

21
As in the case of Severan Pannonia, which witnessed a Syrian influx quite apart from that of military
units of Middle-eastern origin (cf. Mcsy 1974: 227-230), the presence of such Syrian merchants in
neighboring Dacia can be attributed to the lure of these new markets of the Empire, with their new wealth
and demand for various goods. Along with such trade goods, the Suri negotiatores brought with them their
native gods, among them IOM Dolichenus.Another major propagator of the Commagenian cult of IOM
Dolichenus in the Danubian provinces is, of course, the Roman army, as discussed below.
22
The handful of epigraphic mentions of artistic professions in Dacia (lapidarius/sculptor, sigillarius,
pictor, plumbarius, architectus) are discussed by M. Brbulescu 1984: 36ff.
23
Celto-Germanic Mother -goddesses the Suleviae Montanae, this time are invoked by yet another
artist-craftsman of Dacia, the lapidarius Titus Iulius, possibly also of Celtic origin (CIL III, 1601); cf.
Brbulescu 1984: 38-39).

108
the cella, round, square or octagonal in plan, often surrounded by a gallery and a sacred

enclosure (Woolf 1998: 235).. The only archaeologically attested instance of this type of

fanum in Dacia) is one of the smaller edifices from the sacred precinct of Aesculapius

and Hygia at Sarmizegetusa (Daicoviciu and Alicu 1984: 117-118; Fig. 46, Building A).

We might ascribe to professional interests a Greek language votive inscription

from Apulum, where a group of saw workers (oi( pri/stai) dedicates an altar to Athena, at

the bidding of the goddess (kata\ e)pitagh\n a)ne/qhkan) (IDR III/5.1, 262). It is certainly

not difficult to see a connection between saw workers and Athena, the godess presiding

over a variety of crafts. But perhaps nowhere is the correlation between professional life

and religious choices more evident than in the case of the Dacian provincials of Illyrian

origin, who lived in the mining enclaves in and around Alburnus Maior, often in vici and

castella organized around distinct Illyrian tribal units (vicus Pirustarum, kastellum

Baridustarum, kastellani Ansi, Maniatae, Sardiatae/Sardiatenses, Delmatae etc.).24 The

discovery in 1983 of a sanctuary in the heart of a forest in the mountainous area of

Alburnus Maior (on the Hbdad-Brdoaia plateau)25 brought to light a number of votive

inscriptions: some dedicants bear distinctly Illyrian names (such as Dasas and Dazurius,

24
Cf. IDR I, 36, 39 (TabCer VI, IX); Wollmann, in AIIACN 27 (1985-1986): 263-265; AE 1990, no. 842;
IDR III/3, 388, 418, 345 the latter from the other important Dacian mining center, Ampelum (an
interesting funerary inscription of T. Aurelius Aper, Delmata Princeps adsignatus ex municipio Splono)
which gives valuable clues as to how the colonization of this area with Illyrian miners may have taken
place through adsignatio.
25
The site was variously interpreted as follows: as a lucus by its first excavator, V. Wollmann, in Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie i Arheologie Cluj-Napoca XXVII (1985-1986): 253-295, as well as by R. Ciobanu
1999: 211-12; as a lucus or fanum later by Wollmann himself (1996: 202); as an area sacra by subsequent
excavators, in Coci et al. 2003:155, 163-65, fig.5-7; finally, based on the analogy with the plan of a
number of other sanctuaries discovered in the Alburnus Maior area, built with wooden walls, on a stone
foundation (specifically T 1, 2 and 3 from Valea Nanului), I. Piso (2004: 301), advances the hypothesis that
the votive altars on the Hbdad-Brdoaia plateau had been part of a sanctuary, and not a lucus, fanum or
area sacra.

109
who identify themselves as belonging to the Maniates, Implaius, Batonianus, Iuli(a)

Beuc(?i), Ael(ius) Scen(?us) Ba(?tonis) fil(ius),26 while others, in a few instances,

collectively identify themselves as K(astellani) Ansi. Overall, their dedications appear to

reflect, as S. Duani has advanced, certain common features, which, based on

abundant and specific evidence from both Illyricum and Dacia, permit us to speak of the

miners religion as a phenomenon in itself, the essential motivations and characteristics

of which have been summed up as follows:

The diggers of ores as well as the smelters of metals were exposed to both
exceptional difficulties and exceptional dangers, which generated specific
fears; such fears deeply influenced the religious emotions intra fines
metallorum (let us note that miners passed for notoriously superstitious
people in all epochs). Ethnic differences did not influence the essence of
the miners pantheons homogeneity. So we meet there deities whose local
competence was more or less the same, although they bore names of
different origins (Latin, Greek, native, Oriental). According to the
character of their connections to the miners activities/needs, they can be
classified into three main groups: the deities of nature (e.g. Liber,
Silvanus, Diana, Ceres), the underworld (e.g. Dis Pater, Terra Mater,
Orcia, Aerecura), and the patrons of the work in galleries and the
metalurgical officinae (e.g. Hercules, Vulcanus, Neptune). (Duani 2004:
264)27

In the sanctuary at Hbdad-Brdoaia, the miners work environment may explain

dedications to deities of nature such as Silvanus (AE 1990, no. 848), Diana (AE 1990,

26
Names that appear to belong to one of three specific Illyrian areas of onomastic practice the central
Dalmatian or Dalmato-Pannonic one, where such names appear with great frequency, cf. Piso 2004: 274,
290, following Katii 1963: 255ff; 1964/2: 23ff; 1976: 179ff; 1980: 111, who includes in the central
Dalmatia or Dalmato-Pannonic area also the mining areas of modern day Bosnia, with ancient Bistue and
Domavia.
27
Based on the Dacian evidence from Alburnus Maior, one might add a fourth category of deities possibly
favored by miners that of solar deities, perhaps invoked in hopes of a safe daily return from the dark
and perillous underworld of the mines to the light-filled world above. Two dedications to Apollo have
survived from Alburnus Maior: one by Plator son of Panes (Plator Panentis), for the castellani, although he
does not name the specific castellum (IDR III/3, 383); the other, to Apollo Augustus by Panes son of
N[o]s(es?) (Panes N[o]setis) (IDR III/3, 384). Based on their names, both dedicants are evidently Illyrian
immigrants of peregrine condition, and very likely, both are miners.

110
no. 836), and the Nymphs (AE 1990, no. 846),28 as well as Liber Pater (AE 1990, no.

833); the deities of the underworld are likewise represented here, through dedications to

Terra Mater (AE 1990, no. 844), and the seldom encountered goddess Aerecura (AE

1990, no. 841), elsewhere invoked as consort of Dis Pater, as well as an equivalent of

Terra Mater, and, based on her name, likely associated with the underground wealth of

ores (Wollmann 1996: 211).29 Two of a total of five dedications to Neptune attested for

Dacia likewise come from this sanctuary (AE 1990, nos. 830, 845). Dedications to the

god presiding over the element of water may seem strange in a mountainous woodland

area such as that of Alburnus Maior. However, water played a crucial role in gold oar

extraction, but at the same time posed significant danger to miners lives and livelihood,

as its eroding action, or worse, flooding, could cause, at the very best the slowing down

of mining work,30 and, at the very worst, the collapse of galleries (Wollmann 1996: 116-

7, 205; Piso 2004: 296-97). Therefore, mollifying Neptunes potentially destructive

powers was a necessity for miners.31

28
Also see below, for the prevalence of the cult of Silvanus and related nature deities in Roman Dacia.
29
Cf. CIL III, 4395, from Carnuntum: D(iti) P(atri) et Aera Cura; CIL VIII, 5524, from Numidia, Terrae
Matri Aere Curae; CIL IV, 142; V, 725. A mysteriousmasuline deity, Deus Arecurius is invoked in one
instance in Britain, at Coriosopium (Corbridge) (RIB 1123; Irby-Massie 1999: 301, No. 539), but no
connection with Aerecura has been made in his case.
30
That the flooding of mining galleries was indeed a constant problem is proved by a mining work contract
between a conductor and a hired miner found on one of the wax tablets from Alburnus Maior (Tab. Cer.
XI, IDR I, 41), in which one of the terms of the contract states [Si laborem] fluor inpedierit, pro rata
c[o]nputare de[bebit c]onduc[tor.] Water drainage canals, as well as remnants of a mechanical water
pumping turbine-wheel system have also been unearthed in the galleries at Alburnus Maior (cf. Wollmann
1996: 116-117).
31
In light of this reality, I see no reason to alternately explain the worship of Neptune in this mining area,
as Wollmann has suggested (1996: 205), through an interpretatio Romana of Bindus, a regional Illyrian
god worshipped in the territory of the Iapodes, whose shrine, with several inscriptions (some of the clearly
syncretizing Bindus with Greco-Roman Neptune, through the dedication Bindo Neptuno sacrum) was
discovered at the source of the river Privilice, near Biha (cf. Stipevi 1977: 194).

111
 More puzzling (at least at first sight) in the context of the mining environment is

the dedication to Ianus Geminus (AE 1990, no. 842), also from the Hbdad-Brdoaia

sanctuary. Interestingly enough, the only two dedications to the ancestral Italic god Ianus

in Dacia come from the Alburnus Maior (IDR III/3, 389, AE 1990, no. 842). Both have

Illyrian dedicants in the first, at least one of the two dedicants, who bears the Illyran

name Beus(as) Plato(ris?), and in the second, where the collective dedicant is the

k(astellum) Ansis and in both Ianus receives the epithet Geminus (Ianus of the double

gate), which is traditionally associated in Roman religion with the undertaking of a war

and with the conclusion of peace by the Roman People.32 But, in the context of the

miners pantheon, Ianus, dieu du passage (Turcan 1992: 35 and passim), may have

come to signify the connection, literally the passageway, between the underworld of

the mines and the world above ground. Another possible explanation for the presence of

Ianus in the Alburnus Maior dedications may come from his association with living

water (complementary to Vesta, associated with living fire), and also with the bright sky

(cf. Orr 1978: 1562). These additional associations of Ianus with water, which, as we

have seen, played both a constructive and potentially destructive role in mining, and with

the sky, which miners might have prayed to see at the end of each work day could

contribute to a more nuanced explanation of why Illyrian miners from Dacia would

worship a mysterious ancestral Italic deity. Both Dalmatia and Noricum are provinces

32
Verg., Aen. 7. 607-615: sunt geminae Belli portae (sic nomine dicunt)religione sacrae et saeui
formidine Martis;centum aerei claudunt uectes aeternaque ferrirobora, nec custos absistit limine Ianus.
has, ubi certa sedet patribus sententia pugnae, ipse Quirinali trabea cinctuque Gabinoinsignis reserat
stridentia limina consul, ipse uocat pugnas; sequitur tum cetera pubes,aereaque adsensu conspirant
cornua rauco.; cf. also Suet., Nero 13.4: Ob quae imperator consalutatus, laurea in Capitolium lata,
Ianum geminum clausit, tamquam nullo residuo bello. Plut., Numa 20.1:
, .

112
with a longstanding mining tradition; that both also boast a fair number of votive

inscriptions to Ianus33 may be a good indication that the ancestral Italic god had been

incorporated, by virtue of his attributes, into the miners complex, and sometimes

mysterious system of religious beliefs and superstitions, irrespective of their ethnic

origins.

The polyvalent cult of Silvanus in Dacia

Gold mining was not the only lucrative economic prospect attracting colonists to

Dacia. Farming and animal husbandry were practiced here on a relatively extensive scale

as well, as testified by the discovery of villas (only 24 identified with certainty through

excavation or aerial reconnaissance, and 111 possible villas)34 and other homesteads, vici

and pagi (adding up to roughly 402 rural sites identified and/or excavated to date), to

which we may add numerous types of farming implements and significant quantities of

animal bones (cf. Oltean 2007: 119-150, 179-181). Given that agriculture was the

backbone of the economy of the province, the predilection of its inhabitants for certain

deities representing folk or agrestic cults should come as no surprise. Among these,

chief are the cults of the archaic Roman god Silvanus, a deity whose place in Roman

religion has been profoundly misunderstood, as well as underestimated (Dorcey 1992:

33
Dalmatia (CIL III, 2881, 2969, 3030, 3158, 10072, 13201); Noricum (CIL III, 5092), in contrast to the
Italian peninsula, where, paradoxically, only one votive inscription has surfaced, at Asisium (CIL XI,
53747), cf. Wollmann 1996: 209-210.
34
By comparison to neighboring Pannonia, for example, where hundreds of villas of different types were
excavated or identified through survey, however spanning a much longer period (from the first century A.
D. to as late as the last few decades of the fourth century A. D.), given the much longer existence of the
Pannonian territories within the boundaries of the Empire, cf. E. B. Thomas, Die Rmische Villen in
Pannonien (Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 1964), 355ff; Eadem, in Lengyel and Radan (eds.) 1980: 275ff. I
am grateful to professor John Matthews for bringing E. B. Thomas work to my attention.

113
6) and that of Liber Pater (to which I will return below, in an examination of its urban

context).

As demonstrated by P. F. Dorcey in his landmark study of the cult of Silvanus, the

number of dedications to Silvanus in Dacia is surpassed only by those in Rome (242-251)

and Pannonia Superior (164-170).35 But while Dorcey places the number of dedications to

Silvanus in Dacia at 94-100, the results of the present corpus study, as discussed above,

place the number of such dedications to 120 (a distant second to IOM). Contrary to what

might be expected, the cults distribution has little to do with the degree of Romanization

of a province: for example, Silvanus is far more popular in Dacia, the last province to be

added to the Empire, than in the highly Romanized Gauls,36 Britannia,37 or Baetica

(Dorcey 1992: 80).

Although he is originally considered a countryside fertility god, protector of

agriculture, animal husbandry, and of course forests and their bounty (as his name

suggests), at the height of the Empire, paradoxically, it is cities that become foci of this

35
Cf. Dorcey 1992: Appendix II, 154-178. The popularity of the Silvanus cult in the Pannonias prompts A.
Mcsy to see Silvanus as a renamed native Pannonian deity, although he also has to admit that the
Pannonian Silvanus shows no traits of character that are not attested in the Italian cult of Silvanus also, cf.
Mcsy 1974: 250-2. Contra, G. Alfldy1994: 36. Given the great popularity of Silvanus not only in
Pannonia (particularly northern Pannonia), but also in Dacia, and especially at Rome, I would suggest that
Silvanus was no more a native Pannonian deity in Roman guise than Liber Pater was a native Dacian god in
Roman guise an argument advanced by Domaszewski over a century ago: Liber ist der rmische Name
fr den Hauptgott der Daker. In keiner Provinz ist der cult des Liber und Libera so weit verbreitet als
Dacien (1895: 54). Frequency alone cannot be considered as decisive proof of the nativeness of any
particular deity, especially where no pre-Roman traces of worship can be identified. In this sense, Mcsys
qualification of the fading of local, native peculiarities of the culture in favour of a standardized,
colourless Roman attitude, as sudden (1974: 250-251), should make any conclusion on the nativeness
of Silvanus, or on his possibly embodying, in a metaphorical sense, the province of Pannonia all the
more doubtful.
36
Only in southern Gallia Narbonensis is Silvanus somewhat more popular, sometimes being equated with
the mysterious Celtic Mallet God, cf. Martin 1991: 177; Dorcey 1992: 56ff.

In Britannia Silvanus is almost exclusively worshipped by the Roman military, and mostly along
37

Hadrians Wall, cf. Martin 1991: 176-7 ; Dorcey 1992: 54; Irby-Massie 1999, passim.

114
gods worship (Dorcey 1992: 6, 138ff.). This particularity of the cult is confirmed in

Dacia, as well, through the many inscriptions and reliefs discovered in the following

urban agglomerations (notably, almost exclusively concentrated in Dacia Superior and

Porolissensis): Apulum (with 32 corpus entries); Micia (19); 12 entries from

Sarmizegetusa, where, for a while at least, the god receives a shrine of his own in the

western cubiculum of the temple of Liber Pater (Alicu et al. 1979: 18; Daicoviciu and

Alicu 1984: 114; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 56; see Map 3); Potaissa (11); Alburnus

Maior (9), Napoca (7), Ampelum (7), Porolissum (3). But in keeping with a pattern

evinced throughout the Empire, Silvanus had no temples of his own.38 Most often, his

worshipers invoke him with the epithet Domesticus (which peculiar to the Dacia and

Pannonia). This suggests a connection of the god with the household writ large, its

protection, prosperity, and its activities, economic or otherwise.39 As such, he takes his

place among the private, family cults (Mcsy 1974: 251-2; Dorcey 1992: 24, 29),

although the particular reasons for his veneration are rarely offered where inscriptions are

38
The so-called Temple of Silvanus - also known as edifice EM 19, an extra muros building tucked
between a glass workshop and the so-called Great Temple of a yet unidentified deity, immediately north
of the city walls (see Map 3) was identified as such by D. Alicu et al. (1979) solely based on the
discovery, within its perimeter, of the votive relief, with inscription, of Silvanus flanked by nine Silvanae
(Alicu et al., 1979: 18-19 and no.110, Pl.XXVI.110 = IDR III/2, 333). Following this initial identification,
the edifice continued to be unquestioningly labeled as such in several subsequent works (H. Daicoviciu and
D. Alicu 1984: 127-129 and Map of Sarmizegetusa; C. Pop, in Frei-Stolba and Herzig (eds.) 1993: 114; A.
Rusu-Pescaru and D. Alicu 2000: 58; and Gudea and Lobscher 2006: Abb. 24, p. 26). Barring the
discovery in situ of an actual temple construction plaque and/or of more substantial cultic images of
Silvanus, this relief alone, bearing the fragmentary inscription [M(arcus) ? Au]r(elius) Valens de(curio)
col(oniae) ex [v]oto posuit, cannot possibly stand as proof that the building was in fact a temple dedicated
to Silvanus. Moreover, temples and even shrines to Silvanus are an otherwise rare occurrence throughout
the Empire, with the exception of Rome (cf. Dorcey 1992: 90-92, with detailed discussion of this issue).
39
That, at the height of the Empire, Silvanus was considered a patron of various urban economic activities
is evinced by the discovery at Ostia, in 1870, of the so-called Sacello del Silvano, with a beautiful mural
painting of the god, dating likely to the Severan period, in room within a bakery, cf. ample discussion by J.
T. Bakker (1994:134-167). In this particular case, Bakker suggests that Silvanus perhaps replaced Vesta,
the protective deity of the bakers, likely harking back to his agricultural roots and in connection to the
annona (1994:166).

115
concerned. One of several exceptions to this for Dacia is a dedication to Silvanus

Domesticus at Sarmizegetusa, by the decurion Iulius Victorianus (or Victorinus), pro

salute Aeliae A[nto]niae co[niug(is)] (IDR III/2, 332), confirming the growing tendency

to consider this god originally associated with the rural landscape and woodlands

as a protector of the family and household, when invoked in the urban medium.40 In fact,

Silvanus is invoked as Domesticus in 66 of the inscriptions dedicated to him, accounting

for just over half of my corpus entries for the god. As a possible explanation for this

preference, Dorcey suggests that Silvanus was perceived as protector of the household in

these neighboring frontier provinces where the home (domus) was vulnerable to attack,

or thought to be so (Dorcey 1992: 29). That this could have well been the case is

confirmed by the devastating Marcommanic and Quadic attacks on Dacia in the late 160s

through 170, which affected the capital and its surrounding countryside considerably,

along with the gold mining area of the province (H. Daicoviciu and Alicu 1984: 33).

In cases where the social condition of the dedicant could be identified with some

(or complete) certainty, the demographic distribution of the dedicants to Silvanus is as

follows: city and/or religious officials (13); military (10, of which one was a legate of a

legion); slaves (possibly 7); freedmen (2); workers (possibly 3, perhaps groups of miners

from Alburnus Maior, cf. above); women (1). For the majority of the inscriptions,

although the dedicant identifies himself by name, it is impossible to ascertain his social

status or occupation. Additionally, in a smaller number of cases the dedicant is entirely

anonymous. However, in drawing conclusions regarding the social condition of

40
Cf. also IDR III/3, 221 (Germisara), where a father, perhaps of Celtic origin, dedicates to the Silvanae,
Silvanus and the Campestres, for the health of his son: pro <pro> sal(ute) Boceni Fronto pater (posuit?);
and also IDR III/5.1, 323, 338, 344, 349 and IDR III/5.2, 710, for similar situations invoking Silvanus
protection for the dedicant and/or his family.

116
worshipers of Silvanus in Dacia, great caution should be exercised (cf. also Dorcey 1992:

132). It is notable here that the largest numbers of clearly identified Silvanus devotees

come from city and/or religious officials, on the one hand, and the military of the

province, on the other. But it would be dangerous to consider them as entirely

representative of the social status of worshipers of Silvanus in the province. They merely

represent the social classes to which the epigraphic habit was most accessible, both from

an economic point of view, as well as from the perspective of literacy. The fact that most

dedicants do not identify their social status in all likelihood suggests more humble

origins, confirming to some extent the scholarly conception of Silvanus as a god of the

humble folk, at least in a social, if not economic sense.41 Also quite notable is the near

absence of women among the dedicants of insriptions to Silvanus in Dacia: Aurelia

Valentina alone dedicates to Silvanus Domesticus at Micia (IDR III/3, 121). But in spite

of mentions by ancient authors regarding the prohibition on women from participation in

certain rites of Silvanus, Dorcey cites 46 inscriptions with female dedicants throughout

the empire (about 4 percent of his Silvanus inscriptions corpus).42 The likely explanation

for this situation could again be lack of money, illiteracy or social conditioning

(Dorcey 1992: 128; also MacMullen 1981: 117).43 Certainly, such nominal interdictions

41
Cf. Wissova 1902: 76ff; Weber Jones 1929: 258ff.; Bodor in ANRW II, 18.2, 1989: 1077-1164; Dorcey
1992: 113, 133-4.
42
Cato the Elder, De Agri Cultura 83: Votum pro bubus, uti valeant, sic facito. Marti Silvano in silva
interdius in capita singula boum votum facito. Farris L. III et lardi P. IIII S et pulpae P. IIII S, visi S. III, id
in unum vas liceto coicere, et vinum item in unum vas liceto coicere. Eam rem divinam vel servus vel liber
licebit faciat. Ubi res divina facta erit, statim ibidem consumito. Mulier ad eam rem divinam ne adsit neve
videat quo modo fiat; Juvenal 6.447:. nam quae docta nimis cupit et facunda uideri / crure tenus medio
tunicas succingere debet, / caedere Siluano porcum, quadrante lauari. Juvenal means this ironically, of
course, since he refers to specific activities only men performed.
43
But unlike the availability of financial means, literacy (or even semi-literacy) was not a sine qua non
condition for commissioning an epigraph: in discussing the custom of inscribing epitaphs on tombstones as

117
on female participation in specific male cults were contradicted by the epigraphic

evidence not only in Dacia, but elsewhere in the Roman world as well.44

Evidently, the same motivations might have prohibited many inhabitants of the

Dacian countryside those who would have had a vested interest in the role of Silvanus

as a fertility god, such as simple farmers or more humble farm slaves from dedicating

epigraphs to the god. Instead, they might have customarily preferred more ephemeral

forms of worship that are characteristic of the countryside, a lucus of the god (cf. Vergil,

Aeneid VIII. 597-602; Plautus, Aulularia 674-75), or a simple wooden statue or shrine on

their farmland or inside the household, where they could bring offerings from their crops

or perform sacrifices in his honor. There are, of course, exceptions to this, most notably

the votive altar to Silvanus Domesticus from the villa rustica at Ciumfaia (in the Napoca

territorium), one among six altars put up to various Greco-Roman deities (Apollo,

Fortuna Conservatrix, Minerva, Juno Regina, Mercurius) by the owner of the villa, the

veteran (ex centurione) Aelius Iulius (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973: 133ff; Pop in Baumann

1998: 191). Aelius Iulius proud military background (reflected in some of the

dedications to gods of the official pantheon, often favored by soldiers and public

a way of both memorializing the deceased and of maintaining or claiming social respectability for the
living family members, W. H. Harris notes that, most epitaphs were inscribed by skilled masons, who in
many cases probably contributed to the formulation of the text, and this leads inevitably to the conclusion
that an epitaph is far from guaranteeing that the deceased or even his or her survivors were themselves
wholly literate (1989: 222); cf. also L. Curchin, who advances that orthographic errors within inscriptions
(or lack therof) measure not so much the level of literacy of the dedicants, as that of the lapidarii
comissioned to inscribe them (AJP 116.3 1995: 466ff.). Given the generally formulaic nature of most
votive inscriptions, this observation can be easily extended to such inscriptions, as well. In this, I follow W.
V. Harris definition of what constitutes a literate versus an illiterate person: a literate person is one who
can write a simple message with comprehension, an illiterate a person who is unable to do so, cf. W. V.
Harris, Literacy and Epigraphy I, in ZPE 52 (1983), 88.

For a discussion of womens de facto participation inother cults with similar nominal interdictions, as
44

well as for womens paricipation in what are perceived to be predominantly masculine cults in Roman
Dacia and elsewhere, see Chapter 4.

118
officials, cf. above) combines here with his concern for the welfare and prosperity of his

estate, in his current capacity as a somewhat wealthy landowner, as reflected by the

dedication to Silvanus Domesticus. That Silvanus remains, at the core, a deity protecting

agrarian and generally agrestic pursuits is likewise clearly suggested by the iconography

of the god in Dacia, where Silvanus is customarily represented on reliefs dressed in a

humble tunic topped with a cloak or pelt, wearing a cap or wreath on his head, usually

holding as his attributes a falx and pedum, and surrounded by one or two domestic

animals (a dog, and sometimes a kid) and sometimes flanked by trees, symbolizing the

forest (see relevant corpus descriptions in the Iconography column).

By extension, the god also appears as a protector of those involved in the

exploitation of the natural resources of the earth, as suggested by a number of Dacian

inscriptions: for example, at Micia, the freedman Publius Aelius Euphorus appropriately

dedicates an altar to Silvanus Domesticus for the health of his patron, Publius Aelius

Marcus, conductor pascui et salinarum (IDR III/3, 119); a few dedications come from

areas with stone quarries, such as Sntmria de Piatr (IDR III/3, 23), Cristur (IDR III/3,

28) and Bejan (IDR III/3, 39);45 and several inscriptions from the gold mining areas of

Alburnus Maior (IDR III/3, 402-408) and Ampelum, the latter being the administrative

center of the Dacian goldmining region (IDR III/3, 324-329).

Silvanus also appears in the company of other deities, in a few inscriptions and in

reliefs from the province. In a few instances, the god is represented and/or mentioned

together with his female companions (or attendants), the Silvanae. It is not entirely clear

The gods association with stone quarries and stone cutting is also to be seen in Aquitania, and perhaps in
45

Raetia, Noricum, and Hispania, cf. Dorcey1992: 59, 62-63.

119
what role the Silvanae play in the cult of Silvanus: Latin literature only mentions Nymphs

as companions to Silvanus or Silvani (cf. Vergil, Georgics 2.493ff.; Ovid, Met. 1.192-93;

Lucan, De Bel. Civ. 3.403). Again, as in the case of Silvanus, the Silvanae are most

frequently worshipped in the two Pannonias (with two thirds of the total number of

inscriptions) (Mcsy 1974: 251; Dorcey 1992: 43), and in Dacia. Three votive reliefs

from Sarmizegetusa (the first also with accompanying inscription) present Silvanus in the

company of a group of Silvanae (nine in the one fully extant relief), fully and modestly

attired and holding small wreaths in their hands, all grouped in single file at the left side

of Silvanus.46 In another inscription, Silvanus is worshipped in the company of Silvanae

and Campestres (IDR III/3, 221), perhaps suggesting the association of the dedicant, or

that of his son, or both, with the military milieu of the province. A similar pairing of

Silvanae and Celtic deities, Quadriviae, this time, occurs in Britannia (AE 1964, 175) and

especially at Carnuntum, in Pannonia Superior (CIL III, 4441, 13475, 13497, 14089, cf.

Birley, ZPE 57, 1984: 230).

A natural pairing is that of Silvanus and Diana, both likely worshipped together in

Dacia in their capacity as deities protective of the woodlands. In fact in one such

inscription from Apulum, where the two appear together, Silvanus receives the epithet

Silvestris (IDR III/5.1, 349), while in a relief from Sarmizegetusa, each is represented

with their characteristic attributes: Diana as huntress, with quiver and bow and Silvanus

with his falx and pedum (Rmer in Rumnien 1969: 223, F134). The association of the

two deities is not uncommon elsewhere in the Empire: for example, in an inscription

found in Zrich, the pair Diana-Silvanus is worshipped by a group of ursarii, bear-

46
IDR III/2, 333; Alicu et al. 1979, no.111, Pl.XXVI.111; Alicu et al. 1979, no.113, Pl.XXVI.113 (see
Iconography column in Corpus, Appendix B).

120
keepers (ILS 3267, cf. Rives 2007: 124), clearly as joint protectors of activities relating to

the woodlands, as well as at Opaii near Glamo (in the territory of ancient Dalmatia, in

a relief of the pair (Stipevi 1977: 165, 194).

Another votive pairing in Dacia is that of Silvanus Domesticus with Mercurius,

protector of commerce, roads, and travelers in general. In this sense, the pairing of

Silvanus with Mercurius in Dacia may have had similar functions for dedicants as that of

the Silvanae and Quadriviae, goddesses protecting crossroads and travelers from

neighboring Pannonia Superior (cf. above): namely, to govern economic undertakings of

a commercial nature, or else to watch over travelers through dangerous territories, or

both. Not surprisingly, the two inscriptions from Dacia that mention these two deities

together come from the pagus of Micia (which also happens to be the town with the

second highest number of dedications to Silvanus, after Apulum cf. above), an important

commercial node on the road (in addition to being one of the largest military centers of

Roman Dacia), with a statio portorii (cf. IDR III/3, 102) and perhaps also a commercial

port on the Marisus River.

An interesting association is also that of Silvanus and Hercules, another

polyvalent deity: conqueror and explorer par excellence, his role in softening the

hardness of rocks (alluded to by Martial) also makes him an ideal patron of stoneworks.47

He appears twice in the company of Silvanus in Dacia: once in the Roman stone quarries

from Bejan (directly south of Germisara), by T. Aurelius Arimo, an immunis in a

vexillatio of Legio XIII Gemina, probably detached in the area for work in the stone

47
Cf. Martial 9.43.1: Hic dura sedens porrecto saxa leone mitigat. Dedications to Hercules Saxanus are
frequent in stone quarries on the Rhine, cf. Dorcey 1992: 62, n.73; Derks 1998: 96 for Hercules Saxanus in
stotone quarries in Gaul.

121
quarries (IDR III/3, 39); and once at Apulum, in a votive dedication by Iulius Gaianus

(decurion at Sarmizegetusa) that also includes Terra Mater in the company of Silvanus

Domesticus and Hercules (IDR III/5.1, 345).

The above examples offer a mere glimpse into the extent of the popularity and

multivalence of the folk god Silvanus, a divinity appealing to a variety of socio-

economic classes of Roman Dacia. However, as the results of the present corpus study

show, the geographical distribution of the cults popularity within the province is

extremely uneven: significantly, only two inscriptions to the god originate in Dacia

Inferior (IDR III/1, 83, 146), suggesting the relative unpopularity of Silvanus with the

inhabitants of the area stretching between the southern Carpathians and the Danube. It is

perhaps not coincidental that the bulk of the devotees of Silvanus appear to be

concentrated in the central and northern parts of the province, Dacia Superior and

Porolissensis, both areas with strong economic and particularly military ties with

neighboring Pannonia, where the cults existence is documented starting with the first

century A. D. (Mcsy 1974: 95-6).48 It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that the

Pannonian influence is responsible for the popularity of Silvanus in the northern and

48
Despite an apparent spike in epigraphic evidence for the cult in the late second-early third century A. D.,
prompting Mcsy to place the floruit of the cult in Pannonia during the Severan period. Contra, Dorcey
(1992), whose argument compellingly challenges that advanced by Mcsy: The bulk of the evidence dates
to the time of Septimius Severus, whom some [Fitz; Mcsy] see as the promoter of Silvanus as the official
symbol of Pannonia, the first province to recognize him as emperor. Nonetheless, it is dangerous to assume
the gods wider popularity under the Severans. The number of Latin inscriptions from Pannonia and, for
that matter, from the empire in general increases markedly from the first to the second century, reaches a
height in the period of the Severi, and tapers off drastically thereafter. The epigraphic corpus for Silvanus
follows this general pattern to a tee. In Pannonia the dearth of votives dating before Septimius Severus can
be explained by the destruction caused by the Marcomannic Wars in the reign of Marcus Aurelius in which
the cities of Aquincum, Brigetio and Carnuntum, the main centers of Silvanus cult, were completely
destroyed. Thus, the floruit of the cult may not necessarily be under Septimius Severus. If the myth of
Silvanus relatively late introduction into Pannonia is removed, we can better appreciate the gods
resistance to syncretism and the continuity of his worship on the Danube from Augustan times. (74). On
the chronological evolution of the epigraphic habit in the Empire, see R. MacMullen, in AJP 103.3
(1982): 233-246.

122
central areas of the Dacian province;49 while the gods relative unimportance in Moesia

might likewise be a significant factor in his virtual absence from the pantheon of the

Dacian provincial inhabitants immediately north of the Danube (cf. also Dorcey 1992: 75,

78).

Conclusion

A great deal of our information about the economy of the province comes,

somewhat surprisingly, from votive inscriptions. As the evidence suggests, the choices of

votaries in dedicating to a particular deity (or deities) were sometimes informed by

economic interests, specific occupations, or adherence to certain professional groups.

Even where such a connection cannot clearly be inferred, their votive dedications provide

valuable information on the economic structures in place throughout the province, and

the roles of both individuals and groups within them. In this sense, professional identity

becomes a vehicle for individuals and groups to create a sense of self in relation to others

(that is, other individuals and groups). The fact that some Dacian provincials insisted on

drawing attention to their profession, or else their membership (or the status of leader) in

a professional collegium most prestigiously, the fabri also suggests an alternate

means of self-representation for both individuals and groups with shared professional

interests: alternate, that is, to the way in which the civic elites of the province advertised

their positions in local governments, priesthoods, military accomplishments, etc. For

49
For Gudea and Lobscher, however, this remains an open question, though the authors lean towards its
import via Pannonia and also Dalmatia: Umstritten ist die Frage, ob der Silvanus-Kult der dakischen
Provinzen nach 106 n. Chr. Von Einwanderen direct aus Italien mitgebracht wurde, oder dies ist
wahrscheinlicher eine Vermittlung ber Dalmatien und Pannonien erfolgte, wo er sich ebenfalls
auerordlicher Beliebtheit erfreute (2006: 71).

123
many of these professionals fabri, utriclarii, pomarii, stone cutters, saw workers,

merchants, etc. votive inscriptions invoking one or another deity would have

constituted the best way, or the only way, to advertise the valuable services they

provided to their local communities, and to the provincial community in general, while at

the same time demonstrating their piety toward a deity, or their loyalty towards the

emperor and Roman state, or both simultaneously. In addition, since the more limited

economic resources of some of these professionals would have barred their access to

civic magistracies (such as membership in decurional councils), membership in

professional associations (and the religious and civic duties sometimes entailed by such

membership) would have provided an acceptable substitute.

One exception to this need for self-advertisement might be the unique case of

the Illyrian miners living in small settlements organized around distinct Illyrian tribal

units, in the vicinity of the imperial gold mines from Alburnus Maior. While the Illyrian

miners did not feel the need, like other professional groups, to expressly advertise their

professional identity, their choices of deities worshipped certainly not native Illyrian

deities demonstrate most clearly the existence of a professional pantheon, made up

of certain deities consistently favored by a particular professional group, by virtue of their

attributes and perceived patronage of this group.

Finally, in respect to deities perceived as protectors of a variety of economic

interests, I examined in some detail the case of the Roman god Silvanus, a polyvalent

deity whose popularity in votive dedications in Roman Dacia is only eclipsed by that of

IOM. As the inscriptions and votive reliefs depicting the god suggest, his areas of

patronage sometimes in associations with other gods cover a broad range of

124
professions and economic interests, from farming to commerce and stone quarrying. But

he is most prevalent in Dacia (as in neighboring Pannonia) as Silvanus Domesticus

that is, as protector of the welfare and prosperity of the family, household and its

economic activities, in urban, rural, as well as military contexts, and among all social

strata.

125
Chapter 4

Living with the gods:

Religion in Dacias city life and urban landscape

In his Vie Quotidienne a Pompi, while discussing religious culture surrounding the

urban dweller of Pompeii, R. tienne observes:

Rien nest plus quotidien que la religion. Le Pompien, comme tout

homme de lAntiquit, est environn de sacr; dans sa maison, autant que
dans la rue, dans une crmonie prive ou dans une manifestation
publique, il ne peut chapper la presence des dieux quil adore et dont il
rappelle volontiers lexistence dans le dcor dune pice, dans
lornementation dune faade. (tienne 1966: 235)

From an archaeological standpoint, far less has survived in Roman Dacia to help create as

vivid a picture of its urban daily life and landscape by comparison to Pompeii, a city

frozen in time, as it were, by the destructive eruption of Mount Vesuvius. What has been

unearthed does nonetheless suggest that urban settlements in Romes last and most short-

lived province did try, as best they could, to portray themselves, in the words of Aulus

Gellius, quasi effigies parvae simulacraeque of the Empires capital (NA 16.13.9),

despite the fact that none of them ever received Latin rights, although an impressive five

out of eleven Dacian cities received the ius Italicum, according to Ulpian (Dig. L.15.1.8-

126
9; cf. Piso 2005: 504). The form that these provincial urban centers took varies from case

to case, and it has been most thoroughly researched in the case of Dacias provincial

capital, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, the new provinces first urban foundation, and

possibly the only one that represented, in its early statges, the official innitiative of the

Roman state and of the emperor (Daicoviciu and Alicu 1984; Piso 2006). But in general,

at the provincial level, the form of the city was not centrally enforced by the Roman

administration. In many cases, it is likely to have been willingly adopted by local elites,

as it provided a wealth of new ways by which to extend and communicate status and

identity within the local, provincial and imperial context (Hingley 2005: 82).

Ultimately, insofar as this can be observed, the development of each of the urban

centers of Dacia appears to have been as diverse as the consistency of their population

was, a feature reflecting, in a sense, the mix of traditional and cosmopolitan elements

present in the capital of the Empire itself. Perhaps nowhere is the mix of traditionalism

and cosmopolitanism that so characterizes Rome more evident than in the religious

landscape, both public and private, of these frontier mini-Romes. Over the course of

this chapter, I will explore some of the essential features of this diverse urban religious

landscape; and, in the process, I will also carefully consider the possible motivations,

which compelled individuals to contribute to the creation of this landscape, whether

public (such as temples or shrines), quasi-public (such as the headquarters of religious

associations), or private (such as urban and suburban dwellings).

127
Public religious spaces: large-scale private munificence and the urban religious
landscape
The public religious buildings in cities and towns in Roman Dacia evolved, over a

century and a half, along with the urban landscape itself, often as a result of private

munificence largely driven by the competitive system (DAmbra 1998: 91). Within this

system, the wealthy competed with one another in lavishing their economic resources on

amenities for public use, often in order to gain political or social capital in their

respective communities. This was the driving force behind civic development in so many

of the cities of the Roman Empire. In this sense, P. Veyne has distinguished between two

types of euergetism, both ultimately benefitting a larger community be it an

association, a city, etc. but each undertaken for very different reasons:

Tantt les vergsies taient offertes par les notables en dehors de toute
obligation dfinie (cest que nous appellerons lvergtisme libre), tantt
elles taient offertes loccasion de leur lection un honneur public,
une magistrature ou fonction municipales; dans ce deuxime cas, nous
parlerons dvergtisme ob honorem; et cet vergtisme-l tait
moralement ou mme lgalement obligatoire. (Veyne 1976: 20-21)

No less than in any other Roman province, the urban centers of Dacia, be they

small or large, with official status or without, abound in examples of the active

involvement of affluent private individuals, from a wide range of social backgrounds, in

building, adding to, or renovating religious edifices for public use. Only in the provincial

capital of Sarmizegetusa, for example, of twenty-one epigraphically attested buildings,

improvement or repair projects undertaken by private individuals for public benefit, at

128
least ten involve buildings with religious functions, both within the city walls,50 and in the

free form area sacra (frei gestaltetes religises Areal) (Schfer 2006: 203),

extending north, north-west, and south-west of the city walls.51 Insofar as this is apparent

in the inscriptions commemorating them, the majority (if not all) of the acts of larger

scale religious euergetim discussed in the present section constitute cases of vergtisme

libre. Moreover, the undertaking of a construction project with explicitely religious

functions was not only (or not always) motivated by ones active participation in the

well-established civic competitive system, but also, and quite often, by reasons of a

more personal nature. Such reasons might have entailed the dedicants direct relationship

with the deities involved, or with ones health and/or the welfare of ones immediate

family; likewise, such acts of religious munificence were sometimes intended to benefit a

smaller group with which the dedicant shared a strong affinity (such as ones professional

collegium, ethnic group, or fellow devotees to a particular deity), within the larger urban

community.

As regards the latter motive, the construction a solo of the temple of the goddess

Nemesis in the area sacra north of the city walls of Sarmizegetusa was funded by Aelius

Diogenes and his wife Silia Valeria, the pater and mater, respectively, of the collegium

utriclariorum, and would have likely served as headquarters for this professional

50
IDR III/2, 2, 4, 5, 13 and Piso 2006: Ep. 10-11, attesting aedifices located within the so-called forum
vetus, extensively excavated by the archaeological team led by R. tienne, I. Piso and A. Diaconescu, with
the results published, in a first monographic installment, in Piso 2006.
51
templum Caelestis Virgo (IDR III/2, 17), also identified archeologically; templum Diis Patriis, Malagbel
et Bebellahamon et Benefal et Manavat (IDR III/2, 18), also identified archeologically; templum Deae
Reginae (= Isis?) (IDR III/2, 19); templum Deae Nemesi (IDR III/1, 272); templum to unknown deity of
Palmyrean origin built by a group of priests of the deity (IDR III/2, 20); templum Dianae (IDR III/2, 198);
temple of Liber Pater (IDR III/2, 11), also identified archeologically.

129
association (IDR III/1, 272; see Map 3).52 But beyond serving as the meeting place of this

smaller professional community (whose possible connections to Nemesis were explored

earlier), its strategic placement immediately south of the eastern gate of the colonys

amphitheatre (just north of the city walls) serves a larger purpose, by drawing in large

numbers of visitors from among the urban population of superstitious spectacle goers,53

and, of course, the gladiators who provided one type of spectacle and earn[ed] their

living by confronting death, as Nemesis, goddess of destiny, was their chief patroness

(Turcan 1992: 219), in addition to other categories whose livelihood was connected to

amphitheatre spectacles.54 In addition, as amphitheatres were often used for the execution

of criminals, the presence of a temple of the goddess of divine retribution in its

immediate vicinity would seem fitting (Mason 2001: 144). Indeed, for these reasons, the

location of a temple or shrine of Nemesis in immediate vicinity of an amphitheatre is

quite common, and other cities throughout the provinces of the Empire exhibit a similar

placement.55 Thus, the building inscription would also remind those frequenting the

The temple was first excavated in the nineteenth century and abusively restored in 1965, to the point of
52

making its original plan and phases of construction extremely difficult to reconstruct, cf. Piso 2005: 444.
53
Much like modern superstitious sports fans, ancient gladiatorial spectacle and horse race fans were pray
to beliefs in the power of defixiones, curses intended to immobilize hence the literal meaning of the
word defixio hated competitors, cf. Turcan 1992: 219.
54
Cf. Turcan 1992: 219: Les gladiateurs, qui gagnent leur vie en affrontant la mort, prient certes Mars,
Hercules ou Diane, mais vouent un culte singulier Nmsis, desse du destin. Indeed, a votive
inscription found in the excavation of the amphitheatre at Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 315) may suggest just
such a type of devotion, perhaps from one gladiator on behalf of another, his frater, perhaps to be
understood here more as brother in arms, than literally: Hilarus pro Al[exand]ro fratre Deae Nem[esi]
[que]m periculo liberavit. Another category whose fortunes were tied to amphitheatres and the spectacles
they provided, and thus, by extension, to Nemesis, is the pecuarius, or animal provider for shows. A votive
(also depicting a pair of the listening ears of the deity) from one such pecuarius, C. Valerius Maximus was
also found in the ruins of the Sarmizegetusa amphitheatre (IDR III/2, 321).
55
For example, also in Dacia, the small shrine to Nemesis near the amphitheatre in the important northern
frontier town of Porolissum (Matei and Gudea 1998: 104; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 58-61); in
neighboring Pannonia, at Aquincum (Mcsy 1974: 162) and Scarbantia (Flep, in Lengyel and Radan

130
temple of the generosity of Aelius Diogenes and his wife, and would advertise the

prominence of the utriclarii in the socio-economic life of Dacia. As for the socio-

economic status of Aelius Diogenes himself, I have discussed the mysterious nature of

the trade of the utriclarii in a previous chapter. In terms of his juridical condition, he

appears to be either newly enfranchised under the emperor Hadrian, or else perhaps the

son of someone (possibly a freedman) enfranchised under Hadrian, or else a freedman

himself, though he does not state it56 impossible to know, since the inscription cannot

be dated precisely, although the two construction phases of the temple of Nemesis

suggest a terminus ante quem no later than the reign of Antoninus Pius (Rusu-Pescaru

and Alicu 2000: 65). But despite his obvious wealth surely accumulated by plying the

trade of the utriclarii Aelius Diogenes does not appear to have achieved any civic

magistracy at Sarmizegetusa, or else he would certainly not have missed the opportunity

to advertise it, as was customary in the formulation of epigraphs. Even less can be

inferred about his wife, Silia Valeria, other than to point out her notable involvement, at

the side of her husband, in the leadership of this familial-style professional association,

like the pomarenses discussed in the previous chapter.

Freedmen and slaves of the imperial household serving in Dacias administrative

apparatus stand out through substantial contributions to Dacias urban religious

architecture, as do some private freedmen, especially those who had risen through the

1980: 43); at Salona, in Dalmatia (Rinaldi Tufi 1989: 51); in Britannia, at Chester, where, significantly,
access to the Nemesis shrine was gained through the arena, suggesting that it was primarily intended for
use by those actually engaged in contests, rather than the audience (Mason 2001: 143-144), to name just
a few.
56
L. Ross Taylor has argued that often, the absence of any indication of juridical status betrays a libertus
who ommits any mention of his enfrenchisement in order to avoid a sense of inferiority by comparison with
freeborn citizens, cf. Ross Taylor, in AJP 82 (1961): 117-118. This could possibly be the case of Aelius
Diogenes, as well.

131
socio-economic ranks, to attain the office of Augustalis, priest of the cult of Augustus in

their respective cities (and which represented the apex of a private freedmans career).

This comes in support of an already noted pattern within the Roman society of the

imperial period: the de iure humble status of slaves and freedmen within the Roman

social hierarchy one reinforced through negative stereotypes popularized by elite

Roman authors often stands in marked contrast with their wealth and unofficial

influence in the highest circles of power at the provincial and imperial level, which

placed them in a de facto position of socio-economic privilege unattainable by the

majority of the freeborn, and put them on the fast track of upwards social mobility.57

Imperial freedmen and slaves in particular are representatives of the emperor in

the province, and, in this capacity, their acts of public munificence may be seen as public

expressions of their position and power, in the sense that such acts demonstrate their

ability to rise above their humble juridical condition, through the position of authority

conferred by posts in the imperial administration of a province (Mihilescu-Brliba 2004:

78). Such is the case of the imperial slave Nemesianus, secretary (librarius), in the staff

of the financial procurator of Dacia Apulensis, probably under Septimius Severus, who

builds a temple to Caelestis Virgo Augusta at Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 17). The cult of

the goddess Caelestis, the Punic sky goddess Tanit, reached its peak popularity

throughout the Empire especially in Dacia, Britannia, Gaul, Germany, and of course,

Rome (Cadotte 2007: 64) during the reign of the Severan dynasty.58 The Carthaginian

57
Cf. Weaver 1974: 121-140; Millar 1977: 69ff; Lewis and Reinhold 1990 (Vol. II): 167-68; Saller 2001:
110.
58
But the cult of Caelestis continued to be popular in its home city, Carthage, well into later antiquity, if we
are to judge by the desription Augustine offers of the goddesss strangely dichotomous both orgiastic
and virginal rites (City of God 2.26).

132
goddess was among the Romanized North-African deities favored by the Severan

house, such as Liber-Shadrapha, Hercules-Melquart, and Aesculapius-Eshmun. Indeed,

just as Septimius Severus is often depicted on the coins of the period as Jupiter-Serapis

and his sons, Caracalla and Geta as Hercules and Liber (both patron deities of Lepcis

Magna), so too, the empress Julia Domna was occasionally associated with Dea

Caelestis, sometimes sycretized in votive inscriptions with Iuno Regina, suggesting a

deliberate and unmistakable correspondence between divine and imperial hierarchies,

or what R. Turcan has labeled as juxtapositions iconographiques.59 In this context, the

decision of the imperial slave (Caesaris nostri servus) Nemesianus to build a temple to

Dea Caelestis in the capital of the province may be interpreted as a public demonstration

of loyalty from a member of the imperial household to one of the deities favored by the

imperial house and therefore, by extension, as a demonstration of loyalty to the imperial

house itself. In support of this conclusion come two other votive dedications to Dea

Caestis (of a total of six attested in Dacia), likewise by slaves of the imperial household

employed in Dacias provincial adminstration, both born at Rome within the imperial

household: one from Sarmizegetusa by Liberalis, Aug(usti) nostri verna, adiutor tabularii

(IDR III/2, 192), and another at Apulum, by Marcianus, Auggg. nnn. verna, librarius

59
Fishwick 1978: 1243; Turcan 1978: 1025. Cf. also J. Vogt 1943: 360ff; A. M. McCann, The Portraits of
Septimius Severus, A. D. 193-211, Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome 30 (1968). Specifically for Julia Domna
assimilated to Dea Caelestis, cf. RIB 1791, a votive inscription by M. Caecilius Donatianus, from Carvoran,
in northern Britain, cf. Henig 2004: 226; A. von Domaszewski 1895: 74 and 1909: 148; A. M. McCann
1968: 56-7; Brbulescu 1992: 1320-1323. Contra, I. Mundle 1961: 228-237, who argues rather
unpersuasively that Julia Domna had no special association with Dea Caelestis, and that the cult of the
goddess was in fact introduced to Rome by Elagabalus; also to some extent Levick (2007: 133-5), who
argues that there is no evidence to indicate the involvment of the imperial family in actively promoting the
cult, but that this association represented the innitiative of individuals trying to express loyalty in ways that
came most naturally to them, in a familiar religious language.
For a comprehensive discussion of the evolution and manifold associations of the cult of Caelestis/Tanit in
general, see Cadotte 2007: 64-111.

133
(IDR III/5.1, 40), the latter votive datable within the period 198-211, when Septimius

Severus ruled jointly with his sons (Brbulescu 1992: 1320-1).

Private freedmen likewise seize the opportunity to advertise their socio-economic

prominence in Dacias urban centers. However, their reasons for undertaking acts of

public euergetism even those of a releigious type may be perceived as having, at

their core, different motivations from those of imperial slaves and freedmen: the sums

spent by private freedmen for public projects are also likely intended to attenuate, to

some extent, the stigma associated with their servile origins.60 At Apulum I, C. Atilius

Eutyches, Augustalis of the colony (and therefore of freedman origin), builds an exedra

measuring 30 feet long and 25 feet wide to the temple of IOM Bussumarius, offering a

personal reason for his act of religious euergetism, summed up in the characteristically

lapidary and formulaic statement, so often encountered in votive inscriptions: pro salute

sua suorumque omnium (IDR III/5.1, 206). The fact that Bussumarius (sycretized like

numerous other eastern deities with IOM) is of Celto-Galatian origin suggests a likely

Galatian ethnic origin for C. Atilius Eutyches, as for the two other dedicants invoking this

deity.61 At Micia (a town which had grown around an important auxiliary camp, but never

formally received municipal status, remaining within the territorium of Sarmizegetusa),

Publius Aelius Euphorus, freedman of the conductor pascui et salinarum Publius Aelius

Marcus (whom we have previously seen dedicating to Silvanus Domesticus, cf. Section

60
Demougin 1996: 51; cf. also Mihilescu-Brliba 2004: 78.
61
The god Bussumarius is also known from two other votive inscriptions from Apulum, one in which he is
invoked simply as deus Bussumarius by Sentius, son of Alexander (Sentius Alexandri) (IDR III/5.1, 39),
and another where he is syncretized with IOM by Atpatinius, son of Rufus (Atpatinius Rufi) (IDR III/5.1,
113). Unlike the Augustalis C. Atilius Eutyches, the names of the two other dedicants indicate their
respective peregrine origins, therefore dating the two votive inscriptions before Caracallas universal
citizenship grant of 212.

134
4.3) builds a temple to Deus Invictus a common epithet of Sol-Mithras for his and

his familys health (pro salute sua et suorum) (IDR III/3, 49).62 Another freedman and

Augustalis at Apulum II, this time (therefore after 197), P. Aelius Syrus, builds, together

with his wife, Valeria Severa, and daughter, Aelia Syra, a thirty-foot long portico for the

temple of Aesculapius and Hygia (IDR III/5.1, 7).

While Eutyches, a freedman of the emperor and adiutor tabularii from Ampelum

does not provide any specific (or general, for that matter) reason for undertaking the

building of a temple for Aesculapius and Hygia, the gods of medicine (IDR III/3, 280),

the reasons for religious munifice are perhaps nowhere more personal than in the case of

salutary cults, which attracted numerous devotees, most often in the hope of curing their

own or their family members ailments, or simply maintaining their health (Debord 1982:

27; Brbulescu 1984: 170). In such cases, the vow of an offering (be it on a small scale,

such as a simple votive, or large scale, such as a building) by the dedicant is often the

result of a more personal form of communication between dedicant and deity, whereby

appearances of gods in dreams emphasize this personal component (Rpke 2007: 165).

Such is evidently the case with C. Iulius Frontonianus, veteran (ex beneficiario

consularis) of the legion V Macedonica (stationed at Potaissa) and subsequently decurion

at Apulum I (Colonia Apulensis). Sometime at the end of the second or beginning of the

third century, he undertakes the building of a bridge which he dedicates, pro se et suis to

the divine triad Apollo-Diana-Leto, as well as to ceterisque dis deabusque huiusque loci

salutaribus. He also mentions that he did so ex imperio numinis (IDR III/5.1, 36). The

62
The same generic, all-encompasing reason is likewise given by Statorius [...]anus, decurion and flamen
of Apulum II (therefore after 197), for building a temple to Mithras there, from his own funds (pecunia mea
feci) (IDR III/5.2, 709).

135
limestone construction plaque bears the high-relief busts of of the three main deities

invoked, with their attributes: Apollo, flanked by Latona and Diana. That Apollo is

invoked here is not surprising in the least, since he was traditionally regarded as a healing

god, well before the Romans embraced the Greek cult of Asklepios, Apollos son (Turcan

1998: 160). Before becoming decurion at Apulum, Iulius Frontonianus had experienced

serious health problems specifically the loss of his eyesight as an altar or statue

base inscription from Apulum testifies (IDR III/5.1, 21). In it, Frontonianus, together with

his wife, Carteia Maxima, and his daughter, Iulia Frontina, expresses thanks for regaining

his eyesight (redditis sibi luminibus) to Aesculapius and Hygia, as well as, again to

ceterisque dis deabusque huiusque loci salutaribus. As he recounts, the decision to

dedicate comes ex viso, that is, following a dream (reminding of the similar formulation

of his later inscription, so ex imperio numinis), thus perhaps suggesting that, in trying to

cure his opthalmologic condition, Frontonianus might have gone to the process of

incubatio within the confines of the Asklepieion from Apulum, a method commonly used

for the purpose of diagnosis and cure at healing shrines elsewhere in the Empire,63

including at Sarmizegetusa, as the abundant votive deposits of lucernae discovered in the

the precinct of Aesculapius and Hygia there indicate (Alicu and Paki 1977; H. Daicoviciu

and Alicu 1984: 190; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 40-41) .

The health of a family member is also the reason for which another member of

Roman Dacias urban aristocracy, belonging to the prominent family of the Cominii, M.

Cominius Quintus, knight with public horse, quinquennalis and pontifex of

63
Cf. Diodorus V.62ff. for incubatio at the healing sanctuary of the obscure deity Hemithea from Kastabos,
in Anatolia; but perhaps the most famous and detailed first hand account of healing through incubatio, at
the famous Asklepieion from Pergamum, comes from the Greek orator Aelius Aristides, in his Hieroi logoi;
cf. also Debord 1982: 37-38; Turcan 1998: 160-161; Rpke 2007: 165-166.

136
Sarmizegetusa, builds a temple to Dea Regina, together with his wife, Antonia Valentina

(IDR III/2, 19). The family member in question, Claudia Valentina, is clearly related to

Cominiuss wife, probably as her mother (according to the inscriptions commentators),

and the fact that she alone is the direct beneficiary of this act of religious munificence

as opposed to the more generic dedication pro salute sua et suorum suggests a

specific concern (perhaps failng health) on the part of her daughter and son-in-law (if that

indeed was their family relationship). As to the identity of Dea Regina, it remains

something of a mystery: of the feminine deities who receive the epithet regina in Dacias

epigraphic record, Juno takes the lead by far (with 23 corpus entries), followed at some

distance by Nemesis (with 9 corpus entries), Diana (with 6 corpus entries), Epona (with 2

corpus entries), and Isis (with one corpus entry).64 The only other dedication specifically

to Dea Regina from Dacia (IDR III/2, 309), which was likewise discovered at

Sarmizegetusa by the freedwoman Aelia Primitiva, for the health of her patron, Aelius

Metrodorus does not help elucidate this mystery. But rather than any one of these

individual goddesses, Dea Regina might have equally been an amalgamation of several

female deities.

While I have noted cases of women (Silia Valeria, Antonia Valentina) who built

temples on Nemesis and Dea Regina, respectively in association with their

husbands, Dacia also offers examples (albeit extremely limited in number) of women of

property (Fantham et al. 1994: 332) who contributed to the enrichment of the religious

architectural landscape in their respective urban communities, independently of husbands

64
Therefore, the suggestion of the commentators of the inscription in the IDR III/2 volume that Dea Regina
must have been either Isis or Nemesis, and less likely Juno (IDR III/2, 19, p. 45) are partially contradicted
by the statistics, at least insofar as Juno is concerned.

137
or other male family members. The scale of their benefactions is somewhat comparable

to that of other wealthy women from urban communities of the Empire with longer

established municipal elites, except that it seems to be focused almost exclusively on the

funding of religious architecture, that is, as opposed to the funding of public works, a

form of civic euergetism generally favored by men, but also practiced by female

members of local elites from other areas of the empire.65 Only two acts of large-scale

religious munificence on the part of Dacian provincial women can thus far be cited as

65
A feature also noted by C. Schultz in respect to large-scale benefactions by upper class Roman republican
women (2006: 60). A lone exception stands out from Roman Dacia: a fairly modest act of civic liberalitas
by Lucia Iulia, wife of C. Cervonius Sabinus (lawyer, quinquennalis at Sarmizegetusa and decurion of
Apulum I during its municipial phase and patron of the collegium fabrum of both these cities during the
reign of Marcus Aurelius). His wife distributes free oil to the populace at all the public baths from Apulum
I, in order to commemorate the erection, in a public place, of an honorific statue to her husband, by his
friend Sextus Sentinas Maximus (IDR III/5.2, 446). This modest civic benefaction pales in comparison to,
for example, that of Eumachia, priestess and prominent citizen of Pompeii in the decade preceding its
destruction, who funded the construction of an imposing and lavishly adorned public building in the Forum
of Pompeii (CIL X, 810); or those of Caelia Macrina from Tarracina, who, in the second century A. D.,
bequeathed funds for the construction of a public building and its decoration and upkeep, as well as for an
alimentary fund for 200 boys and girls (CIL X, 6328), and similarly, of the benefactress at Hispallis in
southern Spain, who provides an alimentary scheme to feed 100 free-born boys and 75 free-born girls(CIL
VIII, 22904); or of Modia Quintia from Africa Proconsularis, who, in the second or third century A. D.,
funds the lavish adornment of a portico (presumably of a temple) in honor of her election to the priesthood,
and in addition builds an aqueduct for her city (CIL VIII, 23888); Plancia Magna of Perge in Asia Minor,
who held important civic and religious positions in her native city, including an eponymous magistracy and
priesthood of Artemis and of the imperial cult, and who constructed a lavishly decorated gate for the city;
and finally, Aurelia Leite (wife of the foremost citizen of Paros in 300 A.D.), who, according to an
honorific inscription put up by the citizens of Paros, served and quite unusually for a woman as
gymnasiarch and, in this capacity, renovated the citys dilapidated gymnasium (Pleket 31.G); cf. Lefkowitz
and Fant 1992, Nos. 195, 196, 199, 200; Boatwright 1991: 249-72; Rives 2001: 136. But, given the
generally more limited economic resources of women, smaller acts of public liberalitas of a more
philantropic nature, similar to that performed by Lucia Iulia in Dacia such as distributions of small
sums of money or food to the citizens of various municipalities, or alimentary schemes for groups of boys
and girls were not uncommon either, some of the examples discussed by S. M. Marengo in a study on
public honors accorded to women in the central-Adriatic area of Italy between the end of the first and
middle of the third century A.D. (2005: 241-257). See also the numerous (16) examples of female
euergetism either direct or through testamentary disposition, and both religious and civic discussed
by P. Basso (2005: 352-371) for the Verona-Aquileia area of the Italic peninsula, and dated roughly
between the first century B. C. and early third century A. D., and therefore spanning over a period nearly
twice as long as Dacias existence as a province. For epigraphic evidence of private benefactersses
instituting alimentary schemes for boys and girs in their native towns, cf. G. Woolf in PBSR 58 (1990):
208-9, 214.

138
evidence so far, and both center around Mother Goddess type cults:66 at Micia, the

construction of a temple for Isis sometime at the turn of the second and third centuries A.

D., owes to the collective generosity of possibly three women, only one of which can be

identified with some certainty (due to the fragmentary state of the altar inscription), as

D[o]mitia [Va]renii [Pud]entis, very likely the wife of T. Varenius Pudens, praefectus

cohortis (probably of the cohort II Flavia Commagenorum, stationed at Micia), and one

of the most distinguished citizens (of equestrian rank) of the province under the Severans

(IDR III/3, 48; cf. also Brancato 2006: 363; Budischovsky 2007: 277).67 At Drobeta, Iulia

Maximilla, following a vow, builds, ex suo, a portico, presumably for the local temple of

Magna Deum Mater, which has not yet been identified archaeologically (IDR II, 26; cf.

also Berciu and Petolescu 1976: 3). If we can safely assume provided that the

inscription was accurately reconstructed that Domitia was a wealthy married woman,

66
However, it should not be assumed that womens religious involvement in Roman Dacia, as elsewhere in
the Roman world, fits neatly into the stereotypical gender roles traditionally assigned by scholars no
doubt under the influence of ancient writers, such as the satirist Juvenal, who targets women and their
allegedly excessive devotion to the rites of Magna Mater, Isis, Judaism, etc. (Satires 6) a point
articulated, with a variety of examples from both the republican and the imperial periods by C. Schultz
(2006: 51): While inscriptions demonstrate the popularity of certain stereotypically feminine cults among
women worshippers, they also provide a great deal of evidence to suggest that the religious activities of
women extended beyond these cults to the worship of gods not thought of as womens deities, such as
Jupiter, and Hercules; cf. also Schultz 2006: 51ff., 169 (n.13), and 61-69 (specifically on the active
participation of women in the cult of Hercules at Rome, which was nominally restricted). Even cults with
an overwhelmingly male, and often military, following did not remain impervious to the participation of
women: in the late 4th century A. D., for example, Aconia Fabia Paulina, wife of the the illustrious pagan
senator Vettius Agorius Praetextatus was tauroboliata, like her husband, that is, innitiated into the
mysteries of Mithras (CIL VI, 1780, 2145). For Roman Dacia, besides Aurelia Valentinas dedication to
Silvanus Domesticus (IDR III/3, 121, discussed in Chapter 3), there are other instances of women
dedicating to deities perceived as governing typically masculine (public) concerns (cf. Schultz 2006: 93)
(though not specifically excluding women from their rites): at Sucidava, Apollonia dedicates to the
breastplated god (Turcan 1997: 159) IOM Dolichenus at the side of her husband Probus, centurion in an
unspecified legion (Popa and Berciu 1978: no. 38), a unique case in Dacia of a woman dedicating to
IOMD, and one of roughly thirty cases of womens dedications to this very popular military deity,
throughout the Empire. In Dacias extant epigraphic record, the number of votives dedicated by women
alone to IOM (IDR III/5.1, 154, 158) is almost equal to those for Magna Mater (IDR II, 26, 27; IDR III/5.1,
255). Hercules, too, appears in a dedication on a votive altar by Iulia Maximina, at Apulum (IDR III/5, 92).
67
No less than three honorific inscriptions list his many career attainments, both in the military and civic
life of the province (IDR III/2, 128, 129, 130).

139
wife of a prominent military commander and leading citizens of the province, we only

possess this much knowledge about her, and only owing to the well-publicized career of

her illustrious husband. On the other hand, the juridical condition or any details about the

life of Iulia Maximilla remain a mystery, save for the fact that she must have been a

Roman citizen, perhaps of Italic origin, but not necessarily so. The use of the standard

phrase ex suo and the cost associated with the building of a portico clearly advertises the

fact that she had fairly substantial independent means to finance such an undertaking, but

not much else, especially whether she was married or sui iuris.68 If the latter, she would

certainly not have needed a guardian to manage her wealth, since by the time of Ulpian

and thus roughly around the time the inscription must have been produced sui iuris

women no longer needed guardians in charge of their financial affairs.69

Overall, the meagerness of evidence concerning religious (or civic, for that

matter) euergetism by women in Dacia would seem to corroborate a general trend within

the province: the presence of women in Roman Dacias civic and religious life that is,

independent of their husbands and other male family members is in itself quite

limited, at least insofar as its reflection in the extant epigraphic record is concerned. In

support of this, a statistical study on the epigraphic presence of women in Roman Dacia,

recently conducted by N. G. Brancato (2006: 349-368) reveals that, within the category

68
According to the calculations of R. Duncan-Jones, the lowest possible cost for building a porticus in Italy
during the Empire, would have been 4000 sesterces (1982: 161).
69
Fraschetti 2001: 8. Of course, as Fraschetti rightly points out, any conclusions drawn regarding degree of
autonomy Roman women enjoyed at any given point are highly subjective and depend on the kind of
sources that scholars consult in order to tease out information: literary evidence (poets, historians, etc.)
would often paint a picture in which Roman women at least those of the upper crust of Roman society
were relatively autonomous, and that they skirted rules and flouted traditions in a thousand ways...;
law codes (from the Twelve Tables to the Theodosian Codex) on the other hand, suggest that women were
undeniably subject to the authority of their fathers, brothers and husbands (2001: 9).

140
of tituli sacri, which provides the most abundant source of inscriptions for Dacia,

women appear as dedicants in only 80 (7.3 percent) out of a total of 1100 situations. Of

these, women appear alone as dedicants (without husbands, children, parents or brothers,

etc.) in only 34 inscriptions (3.2 percent of the total).

Significantly, just about half (39 inscriptions) of the total of 80 inscriptions with

women dedicants from Roman Dacia come solely from the Apulum conurbation, which

is also the source for nearly half (16) of the votive inscriptions dedicated by women alone

(Brancato 2006: 354-355). This last detail should not come as a surprise: by the late

second and early third century A. D., when the epigraphic habit reached its peak across

the whole Empire (Woolf 1996: 22), and which coincided with a so-called golden age

for Dacia specifically, Apulum had become not only the seat of the governor of the

Daciae Tres, but also the largest conurbation north of the Danube (Haynes 2005: 40),

with its neighboring colonia Aurelia and municipium Septimium, as well as the canabae

legionis of the XIII Gemina legion. This high population concentration in the Apulum

area is also reflected in the overall number of votive inscriptions originating in the area:

383, that is, nearly 35 percent of the total number of votive inscriptions for Roman Dacia

included in the Brancato study (Brancato 2006: 355).70 As the de facto capital of Roman

Dacia (since it was the seat of the provincial governor), from a demographic standpoint,

Apulum would have provided both the largest number of individuals and groups

including women (many of whom would have been associated through family ties to the

imperial administration, the military and local magistrates) willing and financially able

70
The data for the study comes from CIL III, AE 1902-2001 and IDR (Brancato 2006: 353).

141
to participate in the epigraphic culture, and, at the same time, the largest urban audience

for epigraphic displays of various kinds, including religious ones.71

Of course, using epigraphic evidence as the sole yardstick for gauging the

religious involvement of any particular social group is fraught with problems, and we

should certainly not assume that the female religious experience (Schultz 2006: 47) in

Dacia, as elsewhere throughout the Roman world, was limited to epigraphically marked

monuments. Commissioning even so much as a small epigraphic monument (be it votive,

funerary or honorific) let alone a larger scale construction project involves certain

financial considerations (Schultz 2006: 49). Related to such considerations, C. Schultz

observes that womens lower financial status meant their dedications were inscribed on

less expensive, perishable materials (2006: 168, endnote no. 8).72 Their diminished

presence in the religious-epigraphic record of Roman Dacia should by no means prompt

the conclusion that the women of the province were less involved in its religious life than

the men. It would not require a stretch of the imagination to suppose that some proportion

of the hundreds of anepigraphic religious artifacts catalogued in my corpus belonged to

or were offered as votives by women. But attempting to decipher what exactly this

proportion might be a highly speculative and subjective endeavor transcends the

scope of the present study.

71
Even a simple count of the total number of inscriptions recorded IDR would make the Apulum
conurbation the epigraphic capital of Dacia, with 724 inscriptions (not including instrumentum).
Sarmizegetusa, the de iure capital of the province, comes in a somewhat distant second, with 538
inscriptions in IDR (again, not including instrumentum).
72
The observation pertains more specifically to the republican period, but could certainly retain its validity
for the imperial period, as well. For inscriptions on perishable materials in a religious context, cf. Beard
1991: 42-43, following Schultz 2006: 168, note 8.

142
Liber Pater in Dacia one cult, two distinct urban contexts:
Sarmizegetusa and Apulum I

Originally an ancestral Italic god associated with nature, vegetation, wine, and

agricultural fertility, Liber Pater was celebrated by the Romans through the great festival

of the Liberalia (March 17th), a day of sacrifices to the god, general merriment, games,

and banquets, celebrating not only the arrival of spring, but also, through the assumption

of the toga virilis by teenage Roman boys, their ritual passage into manhood (cf. Ovid,

Fasti III. 771-88), and the beginning of a new civic year (Scheid 2003: 50-51). As he

became syncretized to the Greek (albeit with clear Thraco-Phrygian roots) Bacchus-

Dionysus, his cult and mysteries accumulated, over centuries, layer upon layer of

symbolic value, which appealed increasingly to devotees and mystery initiates: he

became gradually associated less and less with wild, orgiastic Dionysiac rites, and

increasingly (in addition to the traditional theatrical performances whose patron god he

was), in his capacity as a saviour-god, with more peaceful, if often mysterious rites of

purification and fertility, as well as of death and rebirth (Henig 1984: 175). The

popularity, during the middle to late imperial period, of Dionysiac themes on sarcophagi,

funerary and domestic textiles and domestic mosaics, suggests such a shift (cf. Scorpan

1963: 14; Henig 1984: 175; Elsner 1998: 110-111,150-151; Ramage and Ramage 2000:

254-255; Seipel 2006: 224-225, No. 99).

In trying to account for the prominence of the cult of Liber Pater in Roman Dacia

overall, roughly comparable to that of the other folk cult of Silvanus the question

of the origin and route of dissemination of the cult in Dacia is essentially identical to that

noted earlier for the cult of Silvanus. While this question may never be answered with

any measure of certainty, it is worth noting that, as in the case of the cult of Silvanus,

143
Liber Pater related artifacts, votive inscriptions, and his three attested cult locales (at

Sarmizegetusa, Apulum, and Porolissum73) are concentrated in Dacia Superior and

Porolissensis, and particularly, as the corpus findings show, in the urban centers of Ulpia

Traiana (27), Apulum (22) and Potaissa (19).74 As noted above in reference to the cult of

Silvanus, these areas of Dacia more or less border Pannonia, where a flourishing cult of

Liber Pater and Libera has been associated with the extensive practice of viticulture since

the first century A. D. (cf. Thomas 1980: 181). Again as in the case of the cult of

Silvanus, only a handful of instances of worship can be detected in the territories between

the southern Carpathians and Danube (approximately Dacia Inferior/Malvensis), and

those mostly concentrated at Drobeta (7).

73
The small apse temple of Liber Pater of Porolissum (10.5 x 9 meters and dated to around 108-110 A. D.,
based on the coin finds on the site) was unearthed in 1939-1940 and 1977-1979 in a terraced area north of
the ancient town, and attested as such by the discovery on the site of several Liber -related artifacts: a
votive inscription to the god by one Titus Flavius Valentinianus, beneficiarius consularis), a Liber Pater
votive relief fragment, and, in one of the ritual deposit pits (favissae) around the temple, a beautiful
example of type of krater known as snake vessel decorated with snake bodies in relief circling the
vessel and serving as handles and three distinct Dionysiac relief vignettes surrounded by grape clusters: one
with the pair Liber-Libera/Ariadne, one with Pan, and one with Silenus (see Corpus entry). The temples
brief existence came to an end around 160-170 A. D., when it was destroyed and its walls razed to ground,
to be replaced by a larger temple of Bel (itself destroyed by a fire and rebuilt on the occasion of Caracallas
visit of the province, cf. Gudea and Luccel 1975, No.7, and subsequently replaced by a Christian basilica,
which appears to have functioned from end of the third century to that of the fourth), cf. Matei and Gudea
in Gudea and Schuller, eds, 1998: 73-92, Abb. V.B. 2-15; Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 50-51, 74-77, Pl.
XXII. For an ample discussion of snake vessels and their connection to the cult of Liber, but also to
other cults (Mithras, Sabazius, Aesculapius and Hygia), see Collins-Clinton 1977: 30ff, with extensive
bibliography on the problem of snake vessels. Fragments of snake vessels have also recently been
discovered at the shrine of Liber Pater from Apulum (cf. below). For the importance of favissae for our
understanding of practices at cultic sites, again see discussion of shrine of Liber Pater at Apulum, below.
74
At Potaissa, while no temple or shrine for Liber Pater has been unearthed or even mentioned in an
epigraph to date, the apparent popularity of the cult here may, in all likelihood be associated with two
distinct factors: as in the case of Apulum, the extensive military presence in the area (Legio V Macedonica
was stationed at Potaissa beginning in 170 A. D.); and, perhaps more importantly, the practice of
viticulture, as proved by the discovery unique in Dacia of a small winery, equipped with a cella
vinaria (containing an iron falx vineatica and a large quantity of pottery, including pitchers, an amphora
and several dolia) and a calcatorium (grape crushing basin, where the wooden torcularium or wine press,
might have also been installed) in use in the third century, in the hilly suburban area immediately outside of
Potaissa, where viticulture seems to have been practiced as late as the Middle Ages, cf. Ctina and
Brbulescu (Acta MN XVI, 1979): 101-126; Brbulescu 1987: 42; Brbulescu 1994: 80, 123-124, Figs.
18.7, 26, 27.

144
 The popularity of the cult in Roman Dacia convinced A. von Domaszewski, over

a century ago, that Liber Pater must have been the Roman name of the chief god of the

native Dacians.75 However, the eminent historian would have been hard pressed to find

any elements pointing to a possible Dacian origin in the iconography of the Liber-Pater

cult in Roman Dacia, which is, despite its often vernacular style (DAmbra 1998: 88),

Dionysiac through and through, as he himself has to admit.76 Indeed, in Roman Dacia, in

cases where Liber reliefs and statuary groups are better preserved, a number of them tend

to fall in two distinct iconographic categories, however both unquestionably depicting

scenes from Greco-Roman Dionysos-Bacchus-Liber mythology: the so-called

Sarmizegetusa type featuring the pair Liber-Libera at the center, often accompanied by

a panther and a merry cortege consisting of Pan, Silenus, and, space permitting, satyrs,

fauns, and maenads;77 and the so-called Potaissa type where Liber holds in one hand a

75
A hypothesis reiterated most recently, albeit timidly and without any further elaboration on possible
sources of evidence, by Gudea and Lobscher (2007): Neben der Vermittlung durch Kolonisten, Beamte
und v. a. durch das rmische Heer konnte der Kult an ltere dakische Traditionen anknpfen, in die
ihrerseits bereits der Dionysos-Kult eingegangen war (72). Contra, Schfer and Diaconescu 1997 (211),
referring specifically to the sanctuary of Liber Pater from Apulum: Im Sinne einer interpretatio Romana
ist anhand der Weihegaben kein Akkulturationsproze von einheimischen mit rmischen
Gottesvorstellungen nachweisbar. For a discussion of what little was transmitted about the particular
religion of the Dacians, see Chapter 1.
76
Cf. Domaszewski 1895: 54: die Reliefs lassen erkennen, dass eigentmliche Vorstellungen mit dem
gewohnten Bilde des griechischen Dionysus verschmolzen waren.
77
Similar Bacchic iconography (mostly dating to the second and third centuries A. D.), featuring the
Bacchus-Dionysus at the center of reliefs (however sans his Roman counterpart, Libera), offering wine
from the patera to the panther, and sometimes surrounded by a variety of acolytes was also popular in the
neighboring Greek-speaking province of Moesia Inferior. Here, in true Dionysiac fashion, the place of
Libera is sometimes taken on reliefs by the occasional dancing maenad, cf. C. Scorpan: 1963: No. 1, No. 2,
No. 3, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 11; I. Stoian (ed.), Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae II,
No. 107 (73), where, in addition to his customary thiasos, Dionysos is also flanked on either side by two
shield-bearing, dancing curetes.

145
snake, above his head, while he leans with the other arm on the shoulders of Ampelus,

sometimes accompanied by other participants from the Dionysiac thiasos.78

By using a combination of archaeological and epigraphic data, I will examine,

over the course of the present section, the two rather different urban contexts within the

province Sarmizegetusa and Apulum in which the cult of Liber Pater appears to

have flourished most, in an attempt to better understand, in practical terms, how and

where the cult functioned within the urban landscape (both profane and sacred) of these

cities, and, to the extent that this is possible, to try to gauge the possible roles it played

within the respective local communities, and for their individual inhabitants. This

approach is informed by a growing scholarly trend in the archaeological study of ancient

urban landscapes public and private, as well as sacred and profane demonstrating

increased efforts to understand the Roman townscape not so much through the prism of

architectural history, but rather . . . as a concrete instance of an inhabited space, in

which the public buildings, squares, streets, and monuments, together with dwellings,

cemeteries, and their decorative art, represent one key way in which the inhabitants could

express who they were, and one that not only shapes the inhabitants, but is shaped by

them (Zanker 1998: 3; for similar approaches, cf. DAmbra 1998: 60ff, as well as

Bakker 1994: 168ff). More recently, in the religious realm, this approach was well

exemplified by U. Egelhaaf-Gaisers study of 3 religious sites in and around Augustan

Rome, focusing on the pragmatics of cult sites and cult images, in both an everyday

environment and the celebration of rituals, and with particular attention given to

78
The two types were first labeled as such by I. Bodor 1963: 236-38, based on that place in Dacia where
each type was first discovered, and have been in use ever since.

146
structure, function and perception of Roman cult sites and their integration into a

profane environment, as well as several forms of religious architecture and

monumentalization (Egelhaaf-Geiser in Rpke, ed. 2007: 205ff). As in the Egelhaaf-

Geiser study, the two Dacian urban manifestations of the cult of Liber Pater I have

chosen to focus on demonstrate a diversity of shape and spatial structure (Egelfaaf-

Geiser 2007: 205), while sharing a relatively similar chronological time frame, in the

second and early third century A. D.

a) Sarmizegetusa a sacred precinct extra muros

Located in the public area north of the city, the walled temple-precinct of Liber

Pater (building EM 14, excavated in 1973-1975 by H. Daicoviciu and D. Alicu) is

situated approximately 300 meters northeast of the amphitheatre, within the so-called

area sacra (see Map 3). The edifice, of rectangular shape and occupying roughly 510

square meters, is oriented North-South (thus not respecting the ideal West-East Vitruvian

temple orientation, cf. Vitr. 4.5.1; Egelhaaf-Geiser 2007: 207). However, it is clear that

the original builders chose this particular north-south orientation with a view to

enhancing the spatial experience (Egelhaaf-Gaiser 2007: 209) of temple visitors, in

keeping with another Vitruvian principle of ideal temple orientation (Vitr. 4.5.2;

Egelhaaf-Geiser 2007: 209): particularly as the precinct is constructed on a gentle north-

south slope, it would have offered visitors standing in front of the building a panoramic

view of the city, its north wall, a decumanus running parallel to it, and other buildings in

the northern extra mural public area. Upon reaching the building the visitor would have

accessed its interior through a roofed vestibulum jutting out of the southern precinct wall,

147
and whose terracotta tile roof was supported by two Corynthian columns (see Plate II).

Proceeding further, the visitor would have found himself within an interior courtyard

surrounded on three sides (south, east, and west) by colonnaded porticoes adorned with

sandstone Corynthian columns. At the center of the courtyard, he would have been facing

an altar (no longer extant, but whose excavated square footprint measures approximately

1 square meter). Since Roman temples were meant to be seen from the outside, where

the sacrifices were held on altars in front of the temple or on its steps (cf. DAmbra

1998: 67), it is here, in the open air, that the cult officials conducted the sacrificial

ceremonies, in full view of the audience of worshippers gathered in the courtyard and

surrounding porticoes. Advancing past the altar, the visitor would have climbed the three

steps leading to the tetrastyle pronaos (whose roof was supported by four marble

Corynthian columns) of the temple-proper, standing atop a podium, and through it would

have accessed the cella, which would have housed the cultic statue (or statuary group) of

Liber Pater, although no trace of it has survived. The cella is flanked by two cubicula, to

the east and west, respectively, which would have been accessed through the east and

west porticoes, respectively.79

79
I have endeavored to reconstruct a somewhat coherent spatial experience of an ancient visitor of the
temple by using a combination of descriptions of the archaeological space given by several scholars: Alicu
et al. (1979), H. Daicoviciu and Alicu (1984), Alicu and Paki (1995), Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu (2000), I.
Piso (2003). While the general description (overall shape, dimensions, etc.) is similar in most scholarly
accounts, there is also some confusing and occasionally conflicting information in the various descriptions
of the temple, which I tried to iron out to the best of my ability, based on the actual plans accompanying
the descriptions. For example, the first excavators, H. Daicoviciu and D. Alicu (1984), 114-115, mention
the existence, behind the cella, of another cubiculum, also mentioned by Alicu et al. (1979), 16 and later
again by Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu (2000), 56-7, who additionally label this supposed central cubiculum as
an opisthdomos. However, I am inclined to believe that in fact such a room did not exist, particularly as
none of the plans of the temple shows an additional cubiculum behind the cella. Rather, its mention might
be the result of a possible error of architectural terminology: specifically, what is repeatedly referred to as
the cella is in fact the pronaos preceding it, and what is referred to as the cubiculum behind the cella, or the
opisthodomos, is in fact the cella. That some such confusion might have been at play in the description of
the temple is also suggested by the fact Alicu et al. (1979), 16, list the main architectural components of the

148
 In her study on Augustan religious architecture, Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser rightly

remarked that movable finds provide an indispensable reality check on the ideal

images of complex locations reconstructed from the architecture, its dcor, and stylistic

observations (2007: 211). Unfortunately, in the case of the temple of Liber Pater from

Sarmizegetusa, while the spatial experience of an ancient visitor of the site can be

somewhat well reconstructed, much of the precinct has been extensively quarried for

stone, in addition to suffering extensive damage from agricultural works in the modern

period and, no doubt, from looting, thus rendering a paltry amount of movable finds

(unlike the in gods sacred precinct at Apulum, discussed below) which might give us

more insight into how the temple and its cult functioned.

Fortunately, a number of votive reliefs and inscriptions (and at least one votive

statuary group) do allow us to gain some understanding though necessarily incomplete

of some of the ways in which the temple precinct functioned and who some of the

devotees of Liber at Sarmizegetusa were, in addition to insights into its history. Monetary

finds in the archaeological layers, as well as the use of specific construction materials

place the beginnings of the temple precinct sometime between the reigns of Trajan and

Hadrian (Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 58). The main construction materials used in this

first phase are limestone and particularly sandstone, which seems to have been first used

temple as follows: vestibulum, pronaos, naos, cella and three cubicula. However, what was known as
naos to the Greeks, was labeled a cella by Romans. Moreover, the succinct description of the main
architectural components of the temple by I. Piso (2003), also appears to distinctly confirm the absence of
an opisthdomos behind the cella: Il [the temple] mesure 25,5x20,4 m et se compose dun vestibulum,
dune cour borde sur trios cts de portiques, dun pronaos au quatre colonnes corinthiennes, dune cella
flanque de deux cubicula (444-5) A fairly accurate 3D computer model of the temple can be viewed at
http://reconstituiri.ro/2009/templul-lui-liber-pater-de-la-ulpia-traiana/. A 3D birds-eye-view of
Sarmizegetusa and its extra mural areas is also provided by the same site, at
http://reconstituiri.ro/2009/reconstituire-a-forului-roman-de-la-ulpia-traiana-colonia-dacia-Sarmizegetusa/

149
under Hadrian for the construction of town buildings, and it likely originated, like the

defensive walls of the city-proper, from the nearby quarry at Peteana.80

A second construction phase is confirmed epigraphically by an inscription on a

beautifully ornate marble construction plaque, found inside the temple precinct, near the

southern wall, which states the following: Libero Patri aug(usto) sac(rum)/ L(ucius)

Apul(eius) Marcus dec(urio) quaes(tor)/ porticus cum cubiculis a vi/ hostium exustos

pecunia/ sua ob scribatum restituit/ permittente ordine (IDR III/2, 11).81 The inscription

offers valuable insight not only into the construction phases of the temple, but also into

the history and civic life of the colony: as mentioned earlier, the only known enemy

attack that ravaged the extra muros area of the colony was that of the Marcommani, or,

more likely their allies, the Sarmatian Iazyges, in 170 A. D. (cf. also IDR III/2, 76,

commemorating the emperor Marcus Aurelius for saving the colony ancipiti periculo).

Therefore, the temple of Liber Pater, along with other public and private buildings (which

likewise shows extensive traces of burning, following a second construction phase, cf. H.

Daicoviciu and Alicu 1984: 33), was likely looted and certainly burned (exustos) during

the attack. The name of the city councilor and quaestor, Lucius Apuleius Marcus, is not

known from other inscriptions.82 As Daicoviciu and Piso demonstrate with extensive

evidence (H. Daicoviciu and Piso 2003: 62-64), the office to which L. Apuleius Marcus

80
For a discussion of the exploitation and use of limestone (used by the first, military masons) and
sandstone (used by the colony under Hadrian and thereafter) in buildings of the colony, cf. A. Diaconescu,
The towns of Roman dacia: an overview of recent research, in Hanson and Haynes 2004: 91.
81
Discussed at length by H. Daicoviciu and I. Piso in Sarmizegetusa et les guerres marcomannes, in Piso
2005: 61-66.
82
The tria nomina of the dedicant are somewhat unorthodox, in that uses in place of a cognomen the
praenomen Marcus. A possible explanation offered by the editors is that he may have been at origin the son
of a slave or a provincial peregrinus, who continues to use, after receiving the citizenship, the name
Marcus, by which he was probably known before receiving his citizenship.

150
was appointed could not have been, in this case in which the dedicant also clearly

states his quaestorship simply that of a humble secretary, or scribe, but rather that of

head of the chancery, a function held by one of the two chosen quaestors.83 In light of this

explanation, the expenses which L. Apuleius Marcus incurs by reconstructing parts of the

temple precinct may be associated with the munera to which all public officials were

bound for the benefit of their community (H. Daicoviciu and Piso 2005: 64). The

phrasing ordine permittente in the last line of the inscription may disguise the existence

of a decretum decurionum and as such, it could offer an alternative to the usual

phrasing, ex decreto decurionum which legally bound L. Apuleius Marcus to his

promise to undertake this project for the benefit of the community (H. Daicoviciu and

Piso 2005: 6484).85 Thus, unlike larger-scale religious benefactions I have discussed

throughout the previous section most of which appear to be instances of what P.

Veyne has called vergtisme libre L. Apuleius Marcus case seems to be one of

euergetism ob honorem, morally, and likely even legally obligatory (Veyne 1976: 20-21).

83
Par scribatus nous comprenons dans linscription de Sarmizegetusa la fonction de chef de chancellerie.
L. Apuleius Marcus a remplac le nom de la magistrature [quaestura] soit par une de ses fonctions, soit,
plus probablement, par le domaine de comptence attribu. On peut, donc, supposer quil se trouvait la
tte de la chancellerie, tandis que lautre questeur dirigeait laerarium. Nous ne croyons pas que les
domaines de comptence aient t nettement dlimits, car un des plus importants actes conservs dans le
tabularium taient les livres de comptes, en troite dpendence de laerarium. Cf. Daicoviciu and Piso
2005: 63.
84
Cf. CIL VIII, 1824: sicut apud acta pollicitus est; Justinian, Digest L.12.3, 12.6, 12.9.
85
The archaeological excavations undertaken in 1973-1975 confirm this rebuilding process to some extent:
in this second construction phase, the walls of the cubicula were re-plastered, the cella had a new tile floor,
the columns of the pronaos were now made of marble, while those of the main entry to the precinct, the
vestibulum, were now built of limestone. However, in spite of the statements of the inscription, that
porticus was also repaired, the archaeological evidence does not seem to confirm this: as in the previous
construction phase, the stylobate and columns of the porticoes flanking the inner yard were still made of
sandstone. Perhaps what L. Apuleius Marcus rebuilt was the terracotta tile roof of the porticus, as Rusu-
Pescaru and Alicu (2000: 56-7) suggest.

151
 It is beginning in this second phase that the western cubiculum adjacent to the

cella appears to have also functioned as a shrine of sorts for the worship of Silvanus and

his female companions, the Silvanae: at least two (possibly more) fragmentary votive

marble reliefs of the god accompanied in one instance by nine Silvanae, and in the other

by two, in addition to an altar, were discovered ther (Alicu et al. 1979: 18 and Nos. 111

and 113, Pl. XXVI). An eroded marble votive relief depicting Diana the huntress was

also found elsewhere in the temple precinct of Liber (Alicu et al. 1979: No. 20, Pl. VI), as

was a fragment of a marble relief depicting Pan (Alicu et al. 1979: No. 76, Pl. XIX). That

Silvanus, Diana, and Pan should also have been worshipped in the precinct of Liber Pater

is not surprising in the least, given that all three were, like Liber, what we might broadly

label as agrestic deities, whose divine patronage covered interrelated economic areas,

with Pan also appearing in some reliefs as an acolyte of Liber (cf. above).86

Little has survived to indicate who the worshippers of Liber were at

Sarmizegetusa. Apart from L. Apuleius Marcus, who rebuilt parts of the temple, Claudius

Anicetus (IDR III/2, 251), Titus Flavius Aper (IDR III/2, 253), and Flavius (?) Graecinus

(IDR III/2, 254) can be identified with some certainty. All three were members of the

Dacian provincial elite most active epigraphically (apart from the military and the

imperial officials): thus, the evidently wealthy freedman Titus Claudius Anicetus appears

to have been, sometime during the reign of Severus Alexander, augustalis at both

86
However, it does not necessarily follow from this that a temple dedicated to several other gods was part
of the precinct, as D. Alicu and A. Paki (1995: 29) conclude. It was not at all uncommon for other deities to
receive votives and dedications within the temple specifically designated for one deity: for example, at
Sarmizegetusa, votive statuettes of Hercules and of Venus were discovered in the precinct of Aesculapius
and Hygia, located in the vicinity of the precinct of Liber Pater (see corpus study for details), while at the
late Antique sanctuary of Dionysus from Cosa, in Italy, images or attributes of Hercules, Venus and
Minerva and Hekate Triformis were likewise discovered, cf. J. Collins-Clinton 1977: 36-38.

152
Sarmizegetusa where he also dedicated a votive altar to the Celto-Roman crossroad

goddesses, the Quadriviae and Apulum (specifically, Colonia Aurelia Apulensis),

where he rebuilt a temple to IOM and Juno Regina (IDR III/5.1, 191); Titus Flavius Aper,

who dedicates a statuary group of Liber and Libera, identifies himself as scribe of the

colony (scriba coloniae) in three other inscriptions in the colony a votive to the

Palmyrean god Malagbel (IDR III/2, 264), one to IOM (IDR III/2, 187), and a funerary

altar for his young wife, Valeria Cara (IDR III/2, 457); and finally, Flavius (?) Graecius,

patron of the fourth (?) decuria probably of the Collegium Fabrum of Sarmizegetusa,

dedicates to Liber Pater and Libera.87 A number of other relief fragments at least two

of them iconographically identifiable as the Potaissa type and one Sarmizegetusa

type (Alicu et al. 1979: Nos. 62, 63, and No. 67, respectively) have also surfaced

during the excavations of the temple, but unfortunately none preserved the identities of

the dedicants.

b) Apulum I probable location of a Dionysiac association

In 1989, archaeological excavations conducted by A. Diaconescu in order to

establish the boundaries of Colonia Aurelia Apulensis (Apulum I) unearthed an exquisite

marble statue of Liber Pater, broken in 36 fragments (see Map 4). By the time the

excavations on the site ceased in 1992, Diaconescu had discovered two more statues of

87
What exactly he dedicates, remains a mystery, barring the discovery of the bottom left part of the
inscription, which thus far, in its fragmentary state, has been tentatively reconstructed as follows by the
commentators: Libero Patri/ [e]t Liberae sacr(um)/ [?Fla]v[ius] Graecinus/ [pat]ronus/ [?DE]CHII/
[coll(egii) fab]rum/ [ ?templu]m/ . The commentators do admit that the reading
templum in line 7 is entirely problematic (cu totul problematic). Therefore, simply based on the
information available, Flavius (?) Graecinus cannot be attributed with building the temple of Liber Pater, as
Alicu et al. (1979), 16 have rather hastily suggested.

153
the god, images of several other deities, as well as numerous inscriptions, plaques, and

pottery linked to the cult. Beginning in 1998, the Apulum Project was initiated and

excavations at the site resumed (under the joint international leadership of A. Diaconescu,

I. Haynes and A. Schfer) with the goal of revealing the layout of what by now was

assumed to be a sanctuary of Liber Pater and also, beyond this, of placing the site into

context, both within the city as a whole, and within the wider landscape (Haynes 2005:

40; cf. also Schfer and Diaconescu 1997; Diaconescu, Schfer and Haynes 2001;

Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006).

Unlike its counterpart at Sarmizegetusa, the gods sanctuary from Apulum is

located within the city walls, specifically in the Northwest quarter of the city, and is

integrated in what may have possibly been insula block (Diaconescu, Schfer and Haynes

2001).88 The area integrated both cultic activity (perhaps even a temple quarter, on the

model of Roman Trier),89 and industrial activity, specifically pottery workshops

(immediately west of the sanctuary, and predating it90), which appear to have produced

both cultic and conventional pottery (Haynes 2005: 44). The probable construction

phases on the site have been reconstructed as follows: at some point during the latter part

of the second century, after the town (by now with the status of colonia) expanded

westward, an imposing building was constructed, with a brick paved courtyard; west of

part of an as-of-yet hypothetical system of insulae of the Roman colony, cf. Schfer, Diaconescu and
88

Haynes 2006: 185.

89
This possibility was suggested by the recent discovery, at the end of the 2004 excavation season, of a
Mithraeum adjacent to the shrine of Liber Pater (north of it, specifiacally), cf. Raport de Cercetare
Arheologic 2004 (Archaeological Report of 2004), by Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes, which can be
accessed at the following URL: http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=3055; Haynes 2005:
44-5.
90
Cf. Raport de Cercetare Arheologic 2001 (Apulum Project Archaeological Report 2001), which can
be accessed at the following URL: http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=1230.

154
this there was a garden (measuring 33.5 meters east to west), where traces of light wood

structures on brick bases were found, as well as two fountains, no deeper than 2 meters.

Significantly, the analysis of a column soil sample from the garden revealed a grape seed.

This, in addition to the discovery of dolia at the same level, prompted the excavators to

cautiously suggest the possibility that this first level garden was in fact a vineyard.91 If

this indeed had been the case, the placement of a Liber Pater sanctuary over a part of the

garden in the next construction phase would seem all the more appropriate.

In the next phase (dated roughly to the late second or early third century, cf.

Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 185; Diaconescu, Haynes and Schfer in Schfer

2007: 169) a structure surrounded by a stone temenos wall (occupying roughly 50 x 50

meters) the sanctuary was constructed (Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 185,

190 and 197, Abb. 4 .1-2 and 5), with a layout that does not resemble in the least that of a

traditional temple, as the one from Sarmizegetusa (see Plate III). At its heart was a large,

rectangular hall (1), oriented east to west, with a vestibulum at its eastern end (2), which

would have been accessed from a gravel courtyard (5) (off a decumanus); just north of

this courtyard was another, square room (6) with an oven (11) possibly a kitchen,

which connected to a wide passageway (7), containing four favissae, or ritual pits (A, B,

C, D); adjacent to this corridor are two more rooms (8-9), with (8), the larger of the two,

perhaps functioning as a chapel, or cult room, where statue pediments (without the

statues) were found attached to the walls, along with a u-shaped stone foundation (10) of

a possible altar or offering table; behind the central hall, at its western end, were located

91
Ibid., a hypothesis much more cautiously advanced in Diaconescu, Schfer and Haynes 2001: 118.

155
the pottery workshops (T) (Haynes 2005: 40-44; Schfer, Diaconescu, and Haynes 2006:

185; Diaconescu, Haynes and Schfer in Schfer 2007: 168-169; see Plate III).

Votive inscriptions, reliefs, plaques, and altars or statue bases (some discovered at

the site of the shrine) reveal the identities of some of the worshippers of the god at

Apulum. Not surprisingly, considering the presence of Legio XIII Gemina and its camp

north of the city, four of nine dedicants of votive inscriptions (where the dedicant also

identifies his social position) to Liber Pater, Liber and Libera, or Pan, found at Apulum

are active soldiers of various ranks: the Italic Lucius Calvisius (from Falerio), primus

pilus in Legio XIII Gemina, who dedicates a statue to Liber, for the health of the emperor

Commodus92 (IDR III/5.1, 235); Aurelius Renatus, soldier in Legio XIII Gemina (IDR

III/5.1, 236); Caius Maximius Iulianus, optio praetorii from Legio V Macedonica,

stationed at Potaissa (IDR III/5.1, 243); and Iulius, beneficiarius consularis, who

dedicates, at the sanctuary of Liber, an aedicula-shaped plaque to Pan (IDR III/5.1, 244).

Also, there are two veterans who dedicate inscriptions: Publius Aelius Fronto, former

beneficiarius consularis, who dedicates to Liber together with his wife, Aelia Frontonia93

(IDR III/5.1, 233) and Claudius Atteius Celer, veteran of Legio XIII Gemina, and also

decurio canabensium, possibly during the early third century (IDR III/5.1, 240). Of the

three civilians who also mention their social standing, Tiberius Claudius Rufus is decurio

92
whose name, as I. Piso, the commentator, noted, was erased (as a result of damnatio memoriae), but then
subsequently re-carved (probably under Septimius Severus).
93
who, as the commentator has suggested (following Schallmayer et al. 1990: No. 513), may have been,
based on her name, her husbands freedwoman. Based on internal evidence (the title cos. borne by the
governor), the inscription has the terminus post quem of 168 A. D. However, there is no way of knowing
the terminus ante quem of the inscription. If this were dated before Septimius Severus who, as J. B.
Campbell has shown (JRS 68, 1978: 153-166), first granted the troops the right to contract a legal marriage
it would pose some interesting legal questions. But, of course, the marriage may have well taken place
after the soldiers discharge, which would have posed no legal problems, even before Septimius Severus.

156
coloniae and flamen municipii Apulensis (IDR III/5.1, 238);94 Claudius Heraclides simply

identfies himself as decurion (IDR III/5.1, 239); finally and most interesting of all,

insofar as the cult of Liber Pater at Apulum is concerned on a fragmentary votive

plaque dedicated to Liber Pater and Libera, M. Aurelius Comatius Super identifies

himself simply as priest (antistes), possibly of the sanctuary of Liber from Apulum,

sometime during the reign of Caracalla or shortly thereafter (IDR III/5.1, 241).

Elsewhere, the same M. Aurelius Comatius Super who was also a decurion at Apulum

(cf. IDR III/5.1, 242, 349) dedicates to Diana Mellifica (IDR III/5.1, 62) and to

Silvanus Silvestris and Diana (IDR III/5.1, 349), not surprisingly, given the agrestic

connections among the three deities, also seen at Sarmizegetusa (cf. above). Also

pertaining to the epigraphically prolific family of the Comatii comes a dedicatory

building inscription (IDR III/5.1, 242), which may also shed light on the architectural

annexes of the sanctuary provided that we consider M. Aurelius Comatius Super as

antistes of the Liber Pater precinct. If this is indeed the case, the inscription also

demonstrates the active involvement of M. Aurelius Comatius Super (and of his family

his wife, son, and daughter-in-law) in the cult of Liber Pater at Apulum, not only as a

priest of the god, but also as a benefactor, actively involved in the expansion of the gods

precinct here, to include a cryptoporticus, dining hall, and exedra: Pro salute [sua ?et

suorum] / M(arcus) Aur(eliu)s Comat(ius) Super de[c(urio) antis(tes) M(arcus) /

Comat(ius) Exuperatus Petr[o]nia / Celerina mater Herennia Euresis eius / filiorum

Superiani Exsuperanti- / ani Superstitis Superes cryptam / cum porticibus et apparatori- /

94
Therefore, the inscription must be dated to after 197, when both the Municipium Septimium Apulense
(Apulum II) and the Colonia Aurelia Apulensis (Apulum I) coexisted (see Chapter I), forming the largest
Roman conurbation north of the Danube (Haynes 2005: 40); cf also Diaconescu and Piso in Frei 1993:
72.

157
o et exedra pec(unia) sua fec(erunt) l(ibenter). Although the plaque does not indicate the

cult locale to which the family made these additions, given M. Aurelius Comatius

Supers identification as antistes in the votive inscription to Liber Pater and Libera

mentioned above, I. Piso, the commentator, considers it as referring to annexes to the

temple of Liber Pater.

However, since no construction plaque (one specifically attesting the building of a

temple to Liber Pater, that is) has yet to be unearthed, it is the sheer quantity of votives

pertaining to the cult of Liber that has prompted researchers to conclude that he must

have been the Hauptgott of the precinct (Schfer and Diaconescu 1997: 205; Schfer,

Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 186): besides votive reliefs and inscriptions, two marble

statuettes and two small statuary groups representing the god three of them possible

Microasiatic, or Aegean import pieces, based on petrographic analysis, and one of local

Bucova marble have also been unearthed in the central hall (4). But other deities found

a home in the wine gods sanctuary as well. A marble votive statuette representing the

Thracian Knight bears a Greek language inscription, although the names of the father and

son dedicants are Latin (perhaps post-Constitutio Antoniniana, judging by their nomen,

Aurelius): Au)((rh/lioj) Takito/urnouj ke\ Au()(rh/lioj) / Taki/touj ui(o/j (IDR III/5.1,

370; cf. also Schfer, Diaconescu, and Haynes 2006: 186), while the Danubian Riders

appear on a badly eroded votive lead plaque, which may (if the reconstruction is correct)

bear a collective dedication possibly by the ?Coh(ors) [I] s(agittariorum)

Tibisc(?ensium) (IDR III/5.1, 371; cf. also Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 186).

Although the association of the Thracian Knight and that of the Danubian Riders (deities

with military associations, much like Mithras) with the cult of Liber Pater may seem

158
unusual and indeed the two instances cited above are unique in Dacia in fact it is

not, at least insofar as the Thracian Knight is concerned: three reliefs from Moesia

Inferior (one from Tomis and two from Callatis) clearly associate the Thracian Knight

with Bacchic either directly as companion of Bacchus, or indirectly, in Bacchic

iconography (Scorpan 1966: 19 and Nos. 1, 4, 5). Numerous terracotta votive statuettes

have also been unearthed, with Venus being the most popular figure (40 statuettes) not

surprisingly, given the military presence in the area (Haynes 2005: 42), followed at a

distance by Telesphorus (the personification of convalescence), and the pair Aesculapius

and Hygia.

In contrast to the temple of Liber at Sarmizegetusa, where the relative scarcity of

movable finds leaves the reconstruction of the religious experience (whether individual

or collective) rather lacunary, the wealth and diversity of such finds associated with the

Apulum site (the majority of them discovered in the ritual deposit pits known as

favisae)95 in addition to the non-temple-like, multi-room spatial layout of the precinct

and its location within the city96 provided an invaluable reality check, which

ultimately convinced archaeologists that the site functioned not only as a shrine, but also,

and perhaps primarily, as the likely headquarters of a Bacchium or Dionysiac association

(thiasos) (see Plate III).97 The rich archaeological inventory of the favisae of the Apulum

95
For a discussion the problematic terminology for such ritual votive deposit pits, cf. Schultz 2006: 96-97.
96
similar in layout to the near-contemporary Bacchium from Athens, but also to the temple precinct of
Liber and Libera from the canabae legionis at Carnuntum, cf. Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 190,
Abb. 13; Rives 2007: 124.
97
Schfer and Diaconescu 1997: 214-216; Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 190; Diaconescu,
Haynes and Schfer in Schfer 2007: 168-171. The importance carefully studying favissae, currently
defined as repositories into which cult material is deposited at the end of its working life, has been
articulated by I. Haynes in his description of the recently initiated Favissae Project, investigating ritual
deposits throughout the Roman Empire, under the auspices of the Arts and Humanities Research Council:

159
Liber Pater sanctuary-cum-religious association offers valuable insight into praktizierte

Religion (Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006) not only at the site itself, but also, by

extension, at other similar cultic sites throughout the Empire.98 While it is not my purpose

here to engage in a detailed description of the contents of the Apulum favisae and the

very specific, seemingly ritualized way in which they were disposed of,99 a brief

overview will suffice in order to give a sense of the types of activities that might have

taken place at the sanctuary, involving, on the one hand, the collective practices of a

Kultgemeinschaft and, on the other, individuelle Kultpraktiken (Schfer, Diaconescu,

and Haynes 2006: 188-189).

The presence of animal bones (especially young animals lambs and piglets)100

in the favisae, the existence of the kitchen-like room (6), the mention of a dining hall

Study of favissae also contributes to our understanding of past societies in two important ways. First, it
expands our knowledge of the processes of cultural transformation that affected the provinces of the
empire. Precisely because favissae articulate so many different assumptions about what constitutes
appropriate behaviour, they reflect more profound cultural exchange than many of the more commonly
cited indicators. Furthermore, studying these notions contributes more generally to the archaeology of
cult, an important field within which the initial promise of early theoretical development by scholars such
as Carver and Renfrew has remained sadly underdeveloped. In particular, favissae illustrate how current
theoretical perceptions of the boundaries between sacred and profane require far reaching reappraisal.
(http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hca/staff/haynes/favissae.htm/#team)
98
As A. Schfer has argued (2007: 160-179), Dionysiac associations, were a profoundly urban
phenomenon, characteristic especially of the Greek-speaking, eastern part of the Empire: Dionysiac
associations appear to have functioned at Ephesos, Melos, Pergamon, Athens, and closer to Dacia, at Tomis
and Callatis, to name just a few urban centers where such associations flourished. Cf. also Scherrer (ed.)
2000 (2nd ed.): 111-112 for Ephesus; Avram 2002 (in Egelhaaf-Geiser and Schfer, eds.): 69-80 for
Kallatis; for Tomis, cf. I. Stoian (ed.), Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae II, Nos. 107 (73)
and the epigrammatic 120 (5), with ample commentary by the editor.
99
Such an in-depth discussion is offered in Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006, Fiedler and Hpken
2004 (the latter focusing exclusively on the numerous turibula found at the site), Hpken 2004 and Fiedler
2005 respectively, and, to a lesser extent in Haynes 2005 and Diaconescu, Haynes and Schfer in Schfer
2007. It will also constitute a significant and far more detailed part of a forthcoming monograph on the site,
cf. I. Haynes (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hca/staff/haynes/favissae.htm/#team).
100
According to the data produced by A. Gudea and I. Papucs study, The mammalian fauna from the
temple of Liber Pater in Apulum I. Elements of axial and apendicular skeleton (1999-2000), in Apulum
38/1 (2001), 209-234.

160
(apparatorium, cf. IDR III/5.1, 242), along with the presence of countless fragments of

tableware (bowls, good quality imitation terra sigilatta platters, and plates, some of

glass), drinkware (tumblers and kantharoi), and cookware with traces of soot (pots, pans,

and lids) (Fiedler 2005: 102ff, Abb. 6-10), all suggest that communal banquets took place

at the site, perhaps associated with festivals such as the early spring Liberalia).101 Indeed,

such banquets for the members of religious associations were a regular occurrence and

played a crucial role in helping to foster a sense of fellowship and group identity

(Rives 2007: 125-127). What these celebratory gatherings might have looked like is

suggested by the inscribed statutes of the Iobakkhoi, a Dionysiac association from

Athens, in 170 A. D. (SIG3 1109 = IG21368). A visual depiction of such a gathering also

exists in an honorific relief (to a priestess of Cybele and Apollo) that was put up in

northern Turkey by the members of a thiasos: the relief represents a sacrifice scene, and,

in the lower register, the male and female members of the association banqueting, while

being attended by musicians and servants in charge of food and drinks (Rives 2007: 125-

7, Fig. 4.4).

But the relief from Turkey also clearly speaks to the close connection between

sacrifice and feasting that was typical of the Greco-Roman tradition. Every meal shared

by the members of an association, except in Judaean and Christian groups, also involved

an offering to the gods, whether a full animal sacrifice or a simple libation (Rives 2007:

127; similarly, Rpke 2001: 144ff. on Opfer-Bankette). At Apulum, finds from the

favisae bones of sacrificial animals, as well as hundreds of cultic vessels of different

Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 188-190; cf. also Diaconescu, Haynes and Schfer 2007: 170-
101

171.

161
types (turibula, CAM 306s and so-called snake vessels),102 many of them deliberately

smashed after their deposition into pits (Haynes 2005: 42) imply just such a

connection between communal feasting and sacrifice and, generally, cultic ritual, as do

other scattered discoveries from the precinct: a terracotta mold for liba (ritual cakes), as

well as a satyr mask and a terracotta mask making mold. Such masks might have been

used as wall decoration, tied to a string, but also, possibly, in Sakralspielen, both

practices attested at the meeting locale of the Athenian Iobakkhoi.103

As for individual cult practices, they too are amply reflected not only in the

votive statuettes and inscriptions discussed above, but also in the variety of small votive

finds deposited, for the most part, in the favisae of the precinct: childrens toys (such as

small carts), several empty miniature money boxes, hair pins, and gems (Hpken 2004:

252, Abb. 22, 24; Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 189). Such votive offerings

might have been accompanied by dedicants prayers for health and prosperity, a

prosperous year, or a long and pleasant life, prayers that were traditional in Orphic hymns

(Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 189). If indeed the Liber Pater precinct from

Apulum functioned as the headquarters of a religious association, this would not be at all

uncommon for Roman Dacia. In fact, four other religious associations at least two of

them with other, non-religious fuctions are attested epigraphically in the province: a

102
Turibula, footed vessels of various sizes, were customarily used, as their name implies, as incense
burners, but may also have been used at Apulum as lamps, as well as for libations; CAM 306 is the name
given by British archaeologists (after the site where they were first discovered Camulondunum) to a
type of coarsely made, conical bowls used for offerings; for the so-called snake vessels, see footnote ??
above (cf. Apulum Project Archaeological Report 2004; Haynes 2005: 42; Schfer, Diaconescu and
Haynes 2006: 188; Fiedler and Hpken 2004: 510-516; Diaconescu, Haynes and Schfer in Schfer 2007:
170).
103
Cf. Schfer and Diaconescu 1997: 210-211; Schfer 2002: 187, 192-193 (on the the layout and
functionality of rooms in the Athenian Bacchic association of the Iobacchoi); Apulum Project
Archaeological Report 2004; Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 188.

162
collegium Isidis, at Potaissa (discussed in Chapter 2) (CIL III, 882); the cultores Herculi

at Micia, whose magistri, Lucilius Felix and Domitius Herculanus, dedicate an altar to

Hercules Augustus (IDR III/3, 73); the collegium Pomarensium, who also styled

themseleves as cultores Iovis Optimi Maximi, at Sarmizegetusa (discussed in Chapter 3);

and finally the collegium Iovis Cerneni, which seems to have also functioned as a mutual-

aid funerary club, as attested in its legal act of dissolution, preserved on one of the waxed

tablets from Alburnus Maior (IDR I, 31). It may therefore be said that these collegia, as

well as the possible Dyonisiac association from Apulum and indeed most types of

associations attested in Roman Dacia represent a profoundly urban phenomenon, as

A. Schfer has argued specifically for Dyonisiac associations throughout the Empire.104

Understood in the context of the larger urban communities of the province, like other

collegia (professional, ethinc, etc.), such religious asociations as those of Liber Pater,

Isis, Hercules, or IOM would have fostered a strong sense of group identity and

exclusiveness among their members, united, as they were, by their bond of devotion to a

particular deity. In practical terms, this sense of exclusiveness would have been

consistently reinforced through the members partaking in communal dining and

sacrifice, as well as other collective ritual activities conducted by such religious groups.

Private urban spaces: gods and myths in the house

While a number of villas rusticae and other smaller rural homesteads along

with evidence for religious activities in a rural context have attracted some interest

from archaeologists and historians (no doubt in part because of their easier accessibility),

104
Schfer 2007: 160-179: ein stdtisches Phnomen der rmischen Kaiserzeit.

163
unfortunately the urban and suburban domestic architecture of Roman Dacia has yet to be

explored in a more consistent and systematic way. Within an urban context, the

archaeological focus has, for the most part, centered on the public and quasi-public areas

of Dacian cities and towns (fora, headquarters of the provincial and local governments,

amphitheatres, temples, shrines, worksops, etc.). Only two exceptions ought to be

mentioned here: N. Brangas brief description, within his larger study of urbanism in

Roman Dacia, of a prosperous suburban villa-cum-tegulae workshop from the extra

muros artisans quarters north of Romula (built in the second century and destroyed in the

Carpic raids of the third century) a villa of Italo-Roman type, with hexastyle atrium

with impluvium, surrounded by smaller rooms and two alae, and equipped with a

hypocaustum below (Branga 1980: 68-69); and, more recently, D. Tamba and A.V.

Mateis presentation of the archaeological excavations of a multi-room including a

culina, cubiculum, and hypocaustum extra muros dwelling from Porolissum (in the

immediate vicinity of the road leading to the porta principalis dextra of the military

camp), which revealed three construction/expansion phases through the fourth century

(Tamba and Matei 1998: 64-70; Abb. V.A.1- V.A.9). The more in-depth archaeological

exploration of these sub-urban sites was, no doubt, possible also because they are not

located directly under modern urban developments, as is the case with Apulum, Potaissa

or Napoca, along with several other urban centers from Roman Dacia.

Therefore, the manifold ways in which religion must have been present in the

dwellings of urban and suburban residents remain, in large part, a matter of speculation,

164
supported by scant evidence.105 The problem is compounded by the fact that very often,

artifacts with religious iconography, which could have ostensibly come from domestic

contexts (though not necessarily), such as small-scale bronze representations of a variety

of deities (including several Lares figurines), terracotta statuettes, lucernae, or even

larger-scale, decoartive statuary, did not have their original place of discovery accurately

recorded, but usually only the general urban settlement area.106 Many, too, have

dissapeared from museums and private collections over time, leaving behind only vague

descriptions, at best, while others, such as the floor mosaics discovered in private

dwellings from Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, respectively, have been destroyed following

their innitial discovery, but fortunately not after drawings (often incomplete and of poor

quality) and somewhat detailed descriptions were produced (Ciobanu 1995: 231). Given

this situation, it comes as no surprise that any kind of studies discussing at greater length

the manifestations of domestic religion in Roman Dacia and generally the presence of

the gods in a domestic context within the province are lacking.107 In many ways, this

105
For example, the only religious artifact identified in the private dwelling excavated at Porolissum was a
small earthware plate with an incized Christogram, which has been dated, based on analogous evidence, to
the fourth century, corresponding to the last construction phase of the aedifice, therefore going beyond
Dacias existence as a Roman province, cf. Tamba and Matei 1998: 70.
106
Cf. also eposu-Marinescu and Pop (2003), specifically in regard to the anthropomorphic bronze
statuettes from Roman Dacia. Cf. also M. Henig (1984: 170), for a very similar situation of small-scale
bronzes from Roman Britain, where many of them must have come from domestic contexts, but few were
recorded as such at the time of discovery.
107
Partial exceptions to this might be the English-language article Anthropomorphic bronze statuettes
from Dacia by L. eposu-Marinescu and C. Pop (2003) on the small-scale bronze statuary of Roman
Dacia (accessible at
http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/Arheologie/Statuete_bronz/StatueteENG/CuvantInainte/CuvantInaintei.htm),
which provides a very useful descriptive catalog of small-scale bronze statuary from Roman Dacia (as well
as possible forgeries), and suggests that some of the material catalogued in the study could have ostensibly
come from a domestic context, and not just votive offerings and votive deposits in temples and shrines;
also, two other works C. L. Blu, Le sanctuaire des divinites Lares dApulum, in Apulum 38/1
(2001), 193-198 and D. Benea and P. Bona, Tibiscum 1994: 66-7 posit the recent discovery of two
lararia at Apulum and Tibiscum, respectively, but the evidence they present is far too fragmentary and

165
research vacuum mirrors, at the provincial level, the limited evidence and, by extension,

archaeological research and scholarship on domestic religious practices and presence of

the gods in the Roman house, in general.108

But, apart from the frustrating lack of a substantial body of evidence on the

presence of religion in the Roman domestic habitat, another significant challenge for any

scholar attempting to tackle the topic comes from the very fluidity of the concept of

Roman religion, and its permeation of so many aspects of an individuals and a

communitys existence, down to even the most mundane concerns and activities of daily

life. At the private, domestic level, this fluidity is exemplified by the overall absence

with notable exceptions, of course, such as the household Lares, or guardian household

spirits, and Genius or procreative life-force of the family (Schultz 2006: 124) of a

distinct separation between sacred and secular objects, and decoration (Kaufmann-

Heinimann 2007: 201). Indeed, with the above mentioned exception of the

representations (be they pictorial or small-scale statuary) of Lares and the Genius, which

are religious objects par excellence, most other visual representations and objects in the

house, across different artistic media, consist of different layers of meaning which often

deteriorated to allow the formulation of any definitive conclusions regarding the nature of these
discoveries; and finally I. Berciu, in Apulum 6 (1961), 151-169 and R. Ciobanu in Apulum 37 (1995), 231-
246, provide valuable analyses of the four no longer extant mosaics discovered in a domestic context at
Sarmizegetusa and Apulum.
108
A problem discussed by C. Schultz (2006: 121-122 and 192, nn. 2 and 3), who also reconstructs a vivid
picture of what Roman domestic rituals might have consisted of (with special attention to the role and
responsibilities of the women of the household in to these private rites) (Chapter 4, 121-137). A few other
studies stand out through their valuable general discussions of Roman domestic religion: D. G. Orr (1978:
1557-1591), who gives special attention to the household shrines of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other
Campanian locations; A. Kaufmann-Heinimann (2007: 188-201), who examines manifestations of religion
in the house across a variety of artistic media; for specific provinces: discussions by E. B. Thomas of
lararia in Pannonia (1964: 231-2; 282; 287; 329-333; Laren und Lararien aus Pannonien, Antike Welt 6,
1975: 29-40 and 1980:182-3); for Roman Britain, G. C. Boons paper, Some Romano-British Shrines and
their Inhabitants, in Hartley and Watcher (eds.) 1983: 33-55 and M. Henigs chapter-long discussion of
Religion and Superstition in the Home and in Daily Life, as part of a larger study on religion in the
province (1984: 168-188).

166
cannot be neatly separated (Kaufmann-Heinimann 2007: 201).109 This fluidity of

meaning and function could manifest itself not only within the boundaries of the private

domain of the household, but also between the private and public (or quasi-public)

spheres of religious experience. For example, a statuette of a deity, or a household

terracotta lamp adorned with the image of a deity or mythological scene after adorning

its owners house or, in the case of lucernae, serving the very practical function of

providing illumination may have made its way inside a deitys temple or sanctuary, as

a votive offering by its owner; and from there, once the quantity of such votive offerings

became too cumbersome to keep on display, they went into the precincts favisae or

votive deposit pits (discussed in more depth below, in reference to the cult of Liber Pater

at Apulum).

But to return to the evidence for religion in a private context specifically in

Roman Dacia: simply because domestic architecture has been little explored here, and

evidence which might have originated from the urban and suburban residences of

provincials is for the most part ill-documented, one should not conclude that the gods

were less present in the households of Roman Dacia than they were anywhere else in the

Empire. Indeed, nine examples of Lares have surfaced here, in the form of bronze

statuettes, representing variations on the dancing Lar type (holding an uplifted rhyton

109
M. Henigs discussion of domestic religion in Roman Britain illustrates this issue at provincial level,
particularly in the authors attempts to distinguish between representations of deities, which had strictly
religious purposes, and those which had a purely aesthetic value (1984: 170). Cf. also eposu-Marinescu
and Pop (2003). Although attempts to separate objects statuettes in particular into such categories can
be deemed subjectictive at best and dangerous at worst, there is nonetheless something to be said about its
logic: certainly the exquisite artistry of such bronze statuettes discovered in Dacia as the Jupiter of Potaissa,
the Lar Angusticlavus of Sucidava, the Silvanus (?) of Apulum or Mercury statuettes of Romula, cannot be
compared (if use aesthetic value as the main criterion) with the numerous, mass produced terracotta
statuettes of Venus, most with coarse, barely distinguishable features, so frequently encountered in military
camps throughout the province (to which I will return in more detail in the following chapter, on religion in
the army of Dacia).

167
in one hand, and a patera or situla in the other), the most common type discovered in

Campanian lararia (Orr 1978: 1568-1569). Detailed artistic analysis and individual

discussion of eight of these Lar statuettes, as well as general commentary, is amply

provided by the eposu-Marinescu and Pop study, who classify the representations in

two distinct iconographic types: the more common dancing youth Lar, with elegant

dancing movement, hair in locks, and wreathed (nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72); and a rarer type,

the dancing child Lar, which chubby face and body, and a tuft of hair (cirrus) atop the

head (nos. 73, 74, 75 and a fragment of such a child-Lar from Potaissa; cf. Brbulescu

1994: 157, Pl. XVI.1, but omitted by eposu-Marinescu and Pop ).110 As the exact

discovery context of only two of the statuettes was noted (one in the horreum of the

military camp form Micia, the other from a structure considered to be a villa rustica in

the Sarmizegetusa territorium), the rest of which three come from generally-identified

urban settings (no. 68, from Sucidava, no. 74, from Romula, and no. 75, from

Sarmizegetusa) could have conceivably come from a variety of contexts, not just

domestic (that is, as Lares familiares), such as compita shrines, that is, located at

crossroads,111 or at the boundaries between properties (Orr 1978: 1565-6; Schultz 2006:

124). In addition, Lares Viales guardians of the roads and wayfarers and Lares

Militares protectors of the common soldiery are invoked in votive inscriptions

110
The section on Lares statuettes is accessible at:
http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/Arheologie/Statuete_bronz/StatueteENG/Catalog/DivRomane/Masculine/Lar
.htm
111
Within an urban context, beginning with Augustus, the Lares compitales became associated with the
imperial cult and the Genius of the emperor, as Lares Augusti, part of neighborhood shrines tended by
vicomagistri or ministri, cf. Hano 1978: 2333-81; Zanker 1987: 132-40; Galinski 1996: 300-12 and 2007 in
Rpke (ed.) 207: 71-82.

168
from Dacia (IDR III/2, 206; IDR III/5.1, 299) (Orr 1978: 1566).112 Evidence of the other

companion of the household Lares, the family Genius, may also to be found in Dacia, in

the bronze statuette from Sarmizegetusa of a Genius with ephebe features and hair locks

down to the shoulders, semi-nude, and covered in folding drapery from the waist down.

He holds a cornucopia in his left hand.113

If we were to attempt to reconstruct the location of such statuettes in their possible

domestic settings, it might be possible to do so by drawing analogies with the household

shrines discovered in the neighboring province of Pannonia, considering that the two

provinces exhibit other consistent similarities in religious tastes.114 For example, niche-

type shrines in the walls of houses might have provided a display for the group of

statuettes, as well as other objects and offerings around which domestic rites were

focused.115 Such niche shrines were discovered in a second century urban villa from

112
This presence of the Lares, deities commonly associated with the protection of the household, otside of
it, is not in the least surprising: as D. Orr observes, it should be remembered that the Lares were not
limited to precise spheres of influence or certain clearly defined functions. The nature of tutelary religious
forces is that they protect and watch and not define their powers (1978: 1564).
113
L. eposu-Marinescu and C. Pop tentatively suggest, without explaining, that this might be a
representation of the Genius Populi Romani
(http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/Arheologie/Statuete_bronz/StatueteENG/Catalog/DivRomane/Masculine/G
eniusPR.htm). However, this Genius statuette from Dacia presents striking iconographic similarities with
two others, one of marble and the other of bronze, were discovered at Carnuntum, in Pannonia, and taken
as representing manifestations of household ritual there, cf. Orr 1978: 1588.

Particularly for Silvanus Domesticus and Silvanae, Liber Pater, Diana, IOM Dolichenus and the
114

Danubian Rider gods. For the frequency of these deties in Pannonia, cf. Thomas 1980: 180-180-81, 186,
189-90.
115
The niche -type shrine is one of the three main types of household shrined classified by G. K. Boyce in
his Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14 (Rome: 1937): 10.
Such household shrines were, of course, not only popular at Pompeii, but also at Herculaneum and other
locations throughout Campania, and provide, alongside other categories of household shrines (aedicula,
wall painting shrine, and the less common detached sacellum -type, as well as portable shrines) the best
typological templates for household shrines throughout the entire Roman world (cf. Orr 1978: 1576ff.),
wherever the Roman army, followed by Roman colonists, went even as far as remote frontier provinces
such as Pannonia (as discussed above) and Britain, where a few such niche or alcove -type domestic shrines

169
Budapest (with a bronze statuette of Hercules discovered near it) and from Nemesvmos-

Balcapuszta (Thomas 1964: 105, 231-32). As for other possible inhabitants of such

household shrines, again, neighboring Pannonia may offer some answers: in the

Hungarian village of Nagydm, a bronze vessel containing several bronze objects

some of the finest unearthed in Pannonia was discovered in the shrine of a villa from a

Roman settlement. The contents of the bronze vessel a statuette of Apollo holding a

patera and one of a Lar Angusticlavus holding a cornucopia, three fine lucernae, and a

small bronze jug decorated with a small vignette of a child-Amor riding a lion suggest

the deliberately concealed contents of a houshold lararium (Thomas 1980: 181-182 and

Pl. XXVI-XXVIII). Another cach containing, among other objects, two bronze statuettes

(of Jupiter, nude, of the Fulminans type, and an enthroned goddess with modius on her

head, holding a patera and cornucopia, perhaps a personification of Concordia Augusta,

or more likely Fortuna116) was found on the side of a Roman road near the Hungarian

village of Tamsi (Thomas 1980: 182-83 and Pl. XXIX-XXXIII).

Through analogy, we may imagine such statuettes of bronze, marble, or, more

modestly, of terracotta, adorning domestic shrines throughout Roman Dacia, along with

other objects of domestic use, such as lucernae and vessels (as observed in the contents

were discovered at Housesteads, Dorchester and Silchester, cf. Boon 1983: 38 and Pl. V; Henig, in Todd
(ed.) 2004: 238 and Fig. 12.13, depicting a lead miniature portable niche shrine, with a statuette of
Minerva, from Dorchester.
116
Although E. B. Thomas specifically argues for identifying this statuette with Concordia Augusta, and
more specifically, with the empress Domitilla (wife of Vespasian) personifying Concordia (1980:182-3),
Fortuna representations in a domestic religious context were very common elswere in the Roman world,
some presenting very similar poses and attributes as the statuette from Pannonia: for example, Fortuna
appears as one of the most common deities painted in lararia from Pompeii (cf. Orr 1978: 1580), while at
least seven examples of such Fortuna statuettes were discovered in a domestic context in Roman Britain,
including an enthroned stone statuette of the goddess holding a cornucopia (very similar in its iconography
to the Pannonian bronze model), in a town house from Cirencester (cf. Henig 1984: 172). A bronze stauette
Fortuna with cornucopia was also discovered in Dacia, at Romula, cf. Tudor, Oltenia..: 386, Pl.106.2.

170
of the lararium from Nagydm).117 Among the numerous statuettes of deities discovered

in the province, and representing a variety of Roman and non-Roman deities Jupiter,

Mars, Apollo, Mercury, Liber Pater, Hercules, Silvanus, Pan, Silenus, Satyr, Priapus,

Amor, Bonus Eventus, Serapis, Mithras, IOM Dolichenus, the Thracian Knight, Venus,

Diana, Minerva, Hygia, Ceres, Libera, Victoria, Fortuna, Nemesis, Magna Mater, Isis,

Apis, etc. certainly some must have functioned as objects of worship within the

households of Dacian provincials, often in an urban context, based on the documentation

of the general circumstances of these artifacts discovery.

But, as mentioned earlier, we must remember that, within the Roman house, a

statuette could be of value as a work of art . . . and as a cult object (Kaufmann-

Heinimann 2007: 200). Indeed, we know from mentions by Roman authors that wealthy

Romans of the imperial period collected and used such statuettes (as well as larger

sculptural works) of different materials in artistic displays in their houses, intended to be

admired by guests for their aesthetic value and often illustrious pedigree, while also

serving as conversation pieces at dinner parties: in Silvae 1.3. 47-50 and 2.2.63-68,

Statius mentions the exquisite private collections of sculptures of various sizes and

materials of Manilius Vopiscus and Pollius Felix, which the poet had the opportunity to

admire upon visiting their respective villas, while in Silvae 4.6, at a dinner party hosted

by his patron Novius Vindex, he is shown a bronze statuette of Hercules Epitrapezios

117
I have been able to add to my corpus a few examples of lucernae and and vessels decorated with images
of deities (Luna, Sol, Liber Pater, Silenus on lamps, and Diana and Silenus on vessels) all discovered in
general urban contexts (Romula, Drobeta, Ulpia Traiana Sramizegetusa, Potaissa, Porolissum) objects
which might have had a utilitarian household role or a religious one, either in a domestic setting or as
votive offerings in temples (I have mentioned earlier lucernae used as votive offerings in the precinct of
Aesculapius and Hygia from Sarmizegetusa). See corpus in Appendix B for the individual entries with
bibliographic reference and iconographic description for each.

171
literally Hercules-atop-the-table, suggesting how this small masterpiece was to be

displayed made by Lysippus, and previously said to have been owned by Alexander,

Hannibal, and Sulla, and now in the private posession of the poets distinguished patron,

an avid art conoisseur and collector. The sight of he same statuette of Hercules

Epitrapezios at the house of Novius Vindex is also the topic of two epigrams by Statius

contemporary, Martial (9.43, 44). It is certainly possible that well-to-do Dacian

provincials, just like the Pompeians of the 1st century A. D., would have tried to emulate

the artistic tastes of the very wealthy in the decoration of their urban houses or suburban

villas, according to their means (cf. Zanker 1998: 193). The artistry of a few of the small

bronze (or marble) statuettes discovered in Dacia (likely fine items of import), would

have made the good candidates for prominent display in the residential spaces of

provicials, to be admired by visititors and members of the households alike. The above-

mentioned case of Novius Vindex is particularly edifying in this sense: it is clear that

Vindex enjoyed prominently displaying his Hercules Epitrapezios less as an object of

religious reverence, and more for its aesthetic value and, no doubt, also for its illustrious

pedigree. Such motivations would have allowed for a fine statuette to function as a

powerful signifier for the wealth and culture of its owner.

Yet another medium of artistic expression one attested with certainty in a

private, residential context in Roman Dacia is that of decorative pavement mosaics.

Like movable domestic objects (some examples of which I discussed above), the

presence of this medium of artistic expression within a domestic context testifies both to

the desire for conspicuous display of wealth and culture by the owners of a house, and to

the omnipresence of religion (in a manner of speaking, through its mythological

172
components) in the Roman house. During the later Empire, mosaic came to rival mural

painting as the favored large-scale, two-dimensional medium of artistic expression for

illustrating a variety of subjects, including mythological/religious themes, very similar, in

fact, to the themes and subjects of wall paintings (Kaufmann-Heinimann 2007: 190).

Mosaic seems to have reached a peak of artistic sophistication during the third and fourth

centuries, as illustrated by the fine examples from villas in Sicily, North Africa, Syria,

Gaul and Hispania (Kaufmann-Heinimann 2007: 190-191; Demarolle 1998: 135). Lesser

known, but equally fine examples have also been unearthed from both residential and

public spaces in Pannonia, Moesia Inferior, and Britain.118 Thematic and stylistic

similarities among mosaics from geographically distant areas of the Empire suggest the

existence of pattern books, out of which a customer would choose what appealed to his

taste. Such pattern books dated back to Hellenistic times, and were widely used by artists

throughout the Empire.119

Four mosaics were discovered in Dacia, all in domestic contexts (three at

Sarmizegetusa, discovered in the early nineteenth century, and one at Apulum,

discovered in 1950), but unfortunately, unlike for the neighboring province of Pannonia,

118
For the few examples exclusively from domestic settings in Pannonia (at Aquincum, Carnuntum and in a
few of villas, most notably at Parndorf and Balca): cf. Thomas 1964: 378; 1980: 311-312 and Pl. XV,
XVIII, XLVII; Mcsy 1974: 237 and Pl. 18b, 28a, b; examples from fourth century Romano-British public
and domestic architecture (urban and rural) abound, cf. Henig 1984: 174-179 and Ling in Britannia 28
(1997): 259-295 and in Britannia 38 (2007): 63-91, which specifically deals with inscriptions on Romano-
British mosaics ; two examples of polichrome mosaic pavement from public settings come from Moesia
Inferior: the mosaics from the public baths at Histria, dated to the Severan period and the 2000 sq. meter
mosaic from the agora above the shops/ storerooms and dockyards at Tomis, dated to the fourth century,
cf. Canarache 1968.

Cf. Thomas 1980: 311; Ciobanu in Apulum 32 (1995): 238, 246; Demarolle 1998: 138; Zanker 1998:
119

191.

173
none of them are extant, with only drawings and descriptions of them having survived.120

The first two mosaics were discovered in 1823, in a wealthy suburban villa, whose plan

was never published, and the mosaics were destroyed soon after the discovery, without

any information about their placement, stratigraphy, etc. ever being recorded. The two

polychrome mosaics appear to be companion pieces from a thematic point of view, in

that they each depict a myth from the Trojan cycle: the Iliad episode of the Ransom of

Hector (Achilles seated, with Priam supplicating at his feet, in the presence of Hermes

and Automedon), a mosaic perhaps suited for a triclinium, based on its dimensions and

on analogies with domestic mosaics elsewhere (see Plate IV); and a slightly smaller

square piece, representing the Judgment of Paris Paris seated and flanked by

Hermes, with the three goddesses, Aphrodite, Hera and Athena standing, facing him

an episode only alluded to in the Iliad, but recounted in the lost epic poem Kypria, the

oldest poem reconting the early years of the Trojan War. While Homeric episodes

(including that of the Ransom of Hector) in general were quite popular both in pictural,

mosaic, and relief reprentations across the Empire,121 the only mosaic reprsentation of the

Ransom of Hector discovered to date comes from Dacia.122 On the other hand, two

other mosaic representations of the Judgment of Paris are known (one in the triclinium

For a full presentation of the circumstances of each discovery, and complete bibliography, and stylistic
120

analysis of each of the mosaics see R. Ciobanu in Apulum 32 (1995): 231-246.

121
See, for example, the complete list of such pictorial represenations in the houses of Pompeii, cf. tienne
1977: 348.
122
From a compositional point of view, its closest parallells come in the form of two examples very distant
from one another, both chronologically and geographically: the painting from the west wing of the
cryptoporticus from the House of the Cryptoporticus (I, 6, 2), dated to 40-30 B. C.; and that from the east
wall of the painted tomb from Tyre, dated to the beginning of the second century A. D., cf. Ciobanu in
Apulum 32 (1995): 238.

174
of the House of the Atrium from Antioch, and the other from the thermae at Cherchel, in

Algeria) (Ciobanu 1995: 235).

The other mosaic from Sarmizegetusa, the so-called Mosaic of the Amores and

Victories, was discoverd in 1832 in a house situated intra muros, but between the two

lines of fortification of the city (the first, built around 110-120, and the second, at the

start of the third century). The particular layout and decorative structure of the mosaic

two rectangular fields facing one another suggests its placement in a biclinium. The

original excavator of the mosaic, J. Ackner, suggested that the two central panels of the

mosaic (surrounded by the two winged Victory representations and panels with little

Amor images), which were already largely destroyed at the time of discovery, might have

represented Venus and the Three Graces, respectively, but it is impossible to establish

this based on his lacunary drawing. Thematically, representations of winged Victories

and Amores are far too common in painting, mosaic, and relief to be able to draw any

analogies (Ciobanu 1995: 240-1).

Finally, the so-called Mosaic of the Winds, discovered in 1950 at Apulum I,

likewise belonged to a villa located intra muros. In each of the four corners of the central

composition, there were four masculine portraits, of which only the Latin captions for

two survived: Zephe(iros) and Eur(os). Based on thematic analogies with mosaic from

villas at Ivailovgrad (Moesia Inferior) and Tourmont (in Gaul), R. Ciobanu suggests that

the four winds in the Apulum mosaic might have been compositionally associated with

the four seasons (Ciobanu 1995: 241-5).

In terms of the role of such artistic representations in a domestic context, the

mosaics from Sarmizegetusa and Apulum cannot be seen to have an instructive

175
function, as M. Brbulescu has argued (1984: 98), at least not in the sense intended by the

Romanian scholar: By contemplating sculptures, mosaics and perhaps paintings, the

child born in the Trajanic province learned to distinguish the gods and heroes, and

familiarized his eyes with the attributes specific to each.123 Certainly, such

familiarization would occur as a corollary of consistent visual exposure to such works of

art, which would have likely surrounded the urban dweller, from a very young age.

Moreover, the moral and religious underpinnings of the Trojan myths singled out for

depiction here are undeniable, thus providing valuable didactic material for children and

adults alike, and, one might add, good conversation topics.124 Indeed, one of the

intellectual trends that mark the late second and third centuries A. D. the period which

our domestic mosaics could be roughly ascribed to is represented by a renewed

interest (both archaeological and literary) in the characters, myths, events, and narrative

traditions surrounding the Trojan War, perhaps because they were perceived, along with

Hercules, Dionysus, and Alexander, as symbols of the unity of classical culture, in an

Empire which by this point had absorbed so many diverse customs, cultural traditions,

and identities, both individual and collective (Potter 2004: 184-196).

But education in the basic sense of the word, of imparting instruction, would

likely not have been the primary intention of these mosaics. Were this the case, it would

have been a rather costly way to go about educating ones children: the technical skill and

123
Present authors translation from Romanian: Din contemplarea sculpturilor, a mozaicurilor, poate a
picturilor, copilul nscut n provincia traian nva s deosebeasc zeii i eroii, i familirariza ochii cu
atributele specifice fiecruia.
124
For the use, in the domestic mosaics from Roman Britain, of mythological themes to illustrate moral
points, such as piety, the victory of Good over Evil, the power of fate, etc., cf. Henig 1984: 175. For
political and moral themes in the frescoes of Pompeii, cf. tienne 1977: 349.

176
high degree of advance planning required in laying out mosaic pavement, and ultimately

their durability (by comparison to wall paintings, for example) necessarily made them

quite expensive (cf. Thomas 1980: 311; Henig 1984: 175). Rather, such mosaics are

indeed instructive, but primarily in terms of what they communicate about the ways in

which the well-to-do provincial owners of the villas who commisioned them chose to

represent themselves to the outside world. As R. Ciobanu has shown through analogies

elsewhere in the Empire, the iconographic themes of the Dacian mosaics make them

likely candidates for placement within the public spaces of the house (les espaces de

rception) triclinium, biclinium, exedra, etc. (1995: 232-33). It is in such spaces that

the owners of the house would have received and entertained guests, and the mosaics and

other works of art possibly displayed (much like Vindex Hercules Epitrapezios

statuette) would have given both the hosts and the guests welcome opportunities for

conversation, interpretation, and generally for display of ones knowledge about a variety

of topics, such as mythology, religion, philosophy, art, education or the pleasures of

otium.125 By choosing such subjects for prominent display, the owners of the villas were

communicating to visitors not only the obvious fact of their prosperity, but and

perhaps more importantly the fact that they were conversant, so to speak, in the

common language which unified the Greco-Roman world, that of humanitas and paideia,

with everything that these concepts imply. This is also suggested by the use of the Greek

language in the captions from the Ransom of Hector mosaic, especially since the use of

125
In this sense, one may conjure up the image of Trimalchio Petronius caricature of a wealthy, but
uneducated freedman type and his amusing attempts at displaying to his guests his knowledge about
subjects such as mythology, history and the origin of Corinthian bronze-ware at his dinner party (Satyricon
6.39, 7.48, 8.49) Cf. also Ciobanu in Apulum 32 (1995): 232, 246; Zanker 1998: 191; Kaufmann-
Heinimann 2007: 190-91.

177
Greek (particularly in a predominantly Latin-speaking province) would constitute a mark

of culture (Ciobanu 1995: 138-39). It is interesting to notice, however, as M. Brbulescu

has pointed out, that in the Ransom of Hector mosaic, it is only the human characters of

the scene (Achilles, Priam, Automedon) that receive captions, whereas the sole divine

character, Hermes, does not. This is likely because, unlike the humans in the scene, the

god Hermes/Mercury would be immediately recognizable to viewers through his

attributes, the winged petasos and caduceus, which even those not familiar with the

Homeric myths would be able to identify, by virtue of constant exposure to such divine

images, numerous examples of which were foud in Dacia.126

Members of a new civic elite, in a relatively new Roman province, located on the

fringes of what the Romans considered the civilized world, and constantly in the path

of destructive raids from Barbaricum, the likely owners of the houses where the

mosaics were discoverd would have been part of the category of nouveaux riches,127

who accumulated their wealth, over the course of one or two generations, through the

lucrative economic opportunities the new province had to offer (such as gold mining,

commerce, agriculture). As such, we may attribute the owners of the mosaic villas with

less lofty, and far more prosaic reasons for their choices of domestic art display, perhaps

126
Cf. Brbulescu 1984: 99. Indeed, Pausanias suggests, rather matter-of-factly, the commonness of this
practice, in his description of the mythological vignettes on the ancient ark (la/rnac) of Cypselus, from the
temple of Hera at Olympia: tw=n de\ e)pi\ th=| la/rnaki e)pigra/mmata e)/pesti toij plei/osi, gra/mmasi
toi=j a)rxai/oij gegramme/na... (Pausanias 5.17.6). But when he comes to describing the particular
vignette on the ark depicting Herakles shooting the hydra, with Athena standing beside him, Pausanias
notes that: a(/te de\ tou= (Hrakle/ouj o)/vtoj ou)k a)gnw/stou tou= te a)/qlou xa/rin kai\ e)pi\ tw|=
sxh/mati, to\ o)/voma ou)k e)/stin e)p au)tw=| gegramme/von (Pausanias 5.17.11) cf. Brbulescu 1984: 98-
99.
127
Cf. Ciobanu in Apulum 32 (1995): 246. Indeed, many of the members of civic elite families of Dacia
were, as the epigraphic evidence suggests, descendants of discharged army veterans formerly stationed in
the province, or of slaves and freedmen.

178
similar to those P. Zanker ascribes to inhabitants of the abundantly frescoed houses of

Pompeii, in the first century A. D.: The aim was to demonstrate that one had arrived,

that one could afford the very best or at least a picture of it (1998: 200). Simply

basing our evaluation on such domestic displays of wealth and culture, we may extend

the conclusions drawn by P. Zanker about the inhabitants of Pompaian houses of the late

first century A. D. to the well-to-do provincial inhabitants of the Dacian urban and

suburban villas of the second and third century A. D., where the mosaics originated:

[One could not] conclude from the architecture and painting that the last
inhabitants were imbued with religious piety and a deep appreciation for
Greek education and culture. On the contrary, the late houses must be seen
as evidence of the materialistic values that dominated Roman society in
the early Empire.128 (Zanker 1998: 200)

This is not to say that a genuine desire for education in, and appreciation for the

common cultural heritage of the Greco-Roman world was absent in Dacia, and that the

visual use of such mythological themes was strictly connected with a superficially

consumeristic desire of keeping up with the Joneses (or in our case, with the Aelii of

Napoca, the Varenii or Opelii, or the Cominii of Sarmizegetusa, to name a few of the

most epigraphically visible and wealthy families of Roman Dacia, who consitently

occupied the highest civic magistracies in Dacias main urban centers). Proof that such

128
P. Zankers somewhat cynical assessment itself very much a product of its own contemporary world,
so marred by conspicuous consumption and desire for display thereof comes as an implicit counter-
argument to R. tiennes earlier conclusion that, based on the number of lararia, statues and paintings
found in Pompeian domestic settings, Pompeii must have been une ville pieuse (tienne 1977: 279-80).
Evidently, Pompeii was likely no more or no less pious a city than any other in the Roman world, where
numerous lararia, sculptures and frescoes must have originally existed in domestic settings, as well. But,
unlike Pompeii and Herculaneum, none of the other cities had the good fortune to be frozen in time, so to
speak trapped, along with some of their inhabitants, under thick layers of molten lava and volcanic ash
thus preserving a uniquelly intact picture of urban life down to its most minute manifestations, in a way
in which other cities throughout the Empire which continued to evolve and change, rise and fall more
gradually and under a variety of circumstances could not.

179
learning might have existed, or that it was encouraged in Dacia, comes from the remnants

of a Greek hexameter line scribbled in crude brick paste, before the brick was fired,

perhaps remnants of a school childrens exercise: Tou= Trw[i]kou= pole/mou kaq

(/Omh[ron....129

Conclusion

Throughout the course of the present chapter, I explored some of the essential

features of the public, semi-public, and private religious landscape of cities in Roman

Dacia. In doing so, I have given particular attention to a number of aspects of this urban

religious landscape, insofar as they can allow us to gain insight into the motivations of

individuals and groups in contributing to the creation of this landscape.

Thus, religious euergetism on a larger scale is one of the principal factors if not

the principal factor contributing to the enrichment of Roman Dacias public religious

architecture. A variety of individuals, of vastly different juridical conditions, undertook

the building or repair of, or addition to, urban cult locales of a diverse range of deities,

and for a variety of reasons: purely as gestures of religious piety towards a deity, for the

welfare of oneself and ones family, or for that of the emperor, or sometimes, to benefit

an association that one was a founding member of (such as was the case of Aelius

Diogenes and his wife, the pater and mater of the utriclari). Women, too, are involved as

religious benefactors, but only in a limited number of documented instances. However

this (along with the epigraphic underrepresentation of women) need not be taken as a sign

129
IDR II, 390, with bibliography. Cf. also Brbulescu 1984: 97; Ciobanu in Apulum 32 (1995): 239.

180
that the women of Roman Dacia were somewhat less involved in religious activities in

the province. Overall, whatever the stated reasons for a benefactors act of religious

generosity, we should not underestimate the power of such acts to communicate, or

advertise, the prominence of the benefactor within his or her larger community: through

such acts of public beneficence, members of the civic elites might have reasserted their

privileged status, while fulfilling their duties as elected officials in their respective

communities; imperial freedmen and slaves demonstrated their position of authority in

the province, as administrative representatives of the emperor, in spite of their humble

juridical status; for private freedmen, such grand gestures might have been intended to

attenuate, to some extent, the stigma associated to their servile origins; while for women

of property, acts of religious euergetism undertaken without other family members would

have constituted an assertion of their financial independence.

Also within the urban context of Roman Dacia, I have examined the

archaeological and epigraphic evidence pertaining to two very different types of cult

locale, but both focusing on the worship of the same deity Liber Pater, one of the most

commonly invoked deities in the province, along with IOM and Silvanus: the temple of

Liber Pater in the extra mural area sacra form Sarmizegetusa; and the intra muros

precinct of Liber Pater from Apulum I, integrated within one of the citys insulae, among

private dwellings and workshops. Throughout the close examination of these two distinct

sites, I endeavored to reconstruct the spatial experience of an ancient visitor, as well as

ones religious experience, by close examination of the epigraphic evidence and, in the

case of the Apulum precent, of the movable finds from the site, many of them

contained in favisae, votive deposit pits. Both cult locales indicate the worship by

181
frequenters of a diverse range of other gods, in addition to Liber. But while Libers extra

muros precinct at Sarmizegetusa appears to have functioned only as a temple, at Apulum,

the particular functionality of the rooms in the precinct, along with specific epigraphic

evidence and abundant traces of dishware and animal bones in the favisae suggest that the

Apulum precinct might have also operated, as elsewhere in the Empire, as the

headquarters of a religious association of Liber Pater. In Roman Dacia, such religious

associations as the supposed one for Liber Pater, and others (of Isis, Hercules, or IOM,

for example), would have constituted distinctly urban phenomena, which contributed,

in a variety of ways (primarily through ritual banquets for members, and collective

sacrifices and other rites), to fostering a strong sense of group identity and exclusiveness

among their members.

Finally, moving away from the public realm of temples and the semi-private one

of urban religious associations, I examined, still in an urban (and suburban) context, a

number of manifestations of religion (and its subsidiary branch, mythology) in the private

realm of Roman Dacias domestic art and architecture. But this examination was

rendered somewhat more difficult by the paucity and poor recording practices of

archaeological evidence potentially connected to the domestic milieu of the province,

along with a certain lack of interest, on the part of Romanian archaeological teams, in the

more systematic research of domestic archaeological contexts. Also the issue is further

complicated by the overall lack of distinct separation with some exceptions, notably

the Lares and Genii statuettes customarily displayed in Roman household lararia

between secular and sacred objects and representations in the house. Within this urban

domestic realm, I focused on the somewat more abundant evidence provided by the small

182
scale statuettes of various deities, which might have been displayed in Dacian provincial

households, on objects of household use (such as lucernae and pottery), as well as on

decorative pavement mosaics discovered in a number of urban and suburban villas from

Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, respectively. The examination of literary evidence from

Roman authors, of evidence of lararia and their contents from neighboring Pannonia, of

the domestic architecture and inventory of Pompeian houses, as well as of mosaics from

domestic contexts elsewhere throughout the empire, proved particularly instrumental in

attempting to understand how such objects and representations might have functioned

within the Dacian provincial house. Thus, I conclude that some objects particularly

several fine sculptural representations of domestic Lares and Genii might have

fullfilled a strictly religious function, being displayed and worshipped inside household

shrines, as protectors of the family and household. However, others (perhaps fine

stauettes of deities other than the Lares and Genii, or mythologically-themed mosaics),

insofar as they may have occupied the public spaces of the house, would have also

served as powerful outward signifiers for the local elite owners material wealth and

likewise for their fluency with core Graceo-Roman cultural traditions a message the

new urban socio-economic elites of Roman Dacia, a backwater frontier province,

would have been all too eager to convey.

183
Chapter 5

The gods in the army:

Military identity and religion in Roman Dacia

Over the course of the previous two chapters, I have examined the manifold ways in

which religion permeated the lives of Roman Dacias inhabitants, with an almost

exclusive focus on the civilian population of the province, at all levels of provincial

society. But, as I. Piso has emphasized, one must keep in mind that Dacia was very much

a military province conquered, maintained and abandoned primarily for military

reasons and that, for the most part, the impetus for the urbanization of this newly

conquered territory came from the Roman army stationed there (Piso 2005: 503).1 Indeed,

only in the case of two urban centers, Napoca (raised to the rank of municipium by

Hadrian, and to that of colonia by Marcus Aurelius or Commodus), and Ampelum

(whose development owed exclusively to its proximity to the imperial gold mines), was

the military presence minimal. The rest of the urban foundations of the province owed in

some way to the presence of the army: in the case of Sarmizegetusa, the first city of the

1
See the brief overview in Chapter 1, for the disposition of legionary and auxiliary troops stationed in the
province.

184
province, and its only colonia deducta, the founding colonists were veterans of the

Roman troops which had participated in the Dacian wars, whose origins were, for the

most part, the Italic peninsula, as well as the Romanized provinces of Gallia Narbonensis

and Spain; all the other urban foundations with official status Romula, Drobeta,

Dierna, Tibiscum, Apulum I and II, Potaissa, and Porolissum as well as some of the

urbanized centers, which may or may not have attained municipal status (such as the

pagus of Micia) began their life as vici and canabae in the vicinity of legionary and

auxiliary camps (Piso 2005: 502-503) This, of course, is a common enough situation in

the Roman West, as testifed by significant urban settlements, some of which continue to

flourish today Belgrade, Bonn, Budapest, Cologne, Mainz, Regensburg, Strasbourg,

Vienna, Len, and York which evolved from or around military camps.2 But the

proportion of urban development directly associated with military presence, by

comparison to that occuring independently of the army, appears to be greater in Dacia

than in other provinces, where native civitates also played a key role in urban

development.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the Roman army, its upper command, soldiers

and veterans, played a crucial role in the socio-cultural, political, and economic

development of the Dacian province, comparable to that played by the military presence

in other frontier provinces (such as Britain, Germany, Pannonia and Moesia, Syria or

2
Cf. Ando in Erdkamp (ed.) 2007: 372; Jones in Todd (ed.) 2004: 166. J. Creighton offers a rather cynical
assesment of one such type of military -originated urban settlement, the veteran coloniae: Glorified
notions of veteran coloniae being examples of civilisation should probably be discarded in favour of the
rather inglorious idea that these places were basically cheap convenient dumping grounds for unwanted
veterans by the state, or at least that is how these settlements began their existence. (2006: 109)

185
Egypt).3 For Dacia, this is perhaps due in part to its particular situation, specifically the

noticeable absence of a local, native aristocracy post-conquest (an issue discussed at

length in Chapter 1) an aristocracy which would have traditionally shared with the

Roman government in the administration of the new province and its economic resources,

as was the case, for the most part, in other provinces.4 This apparent void in native

leadership at the local level essentially allowed the army, through its discharged veterans

who received land and settled in the province (and even on occasion, through its soldiers

still on active duty) to aquire a greater than usual amount that is, strictly by

comparison to other neighboring provinces of economic and socio-political and power

at the local level. 5 Veterans played an active role as mediators between the civilian and

military elements in the military provinces, as some veterans would continue their

civilian existence, together with their families, in the settlement nearest to their former

service unit, thus in proximity to their former commarades (Stoll 2007: 464; cf. also

Wesch-Klein 2007: 447). Indeed, in Roman Dacia, epigraphic evidence for veterans

and sometimes even for soldiers still on active duty rising to a successful civic career

after their retirement, is quite abundant. In some cases, the pride of their privileged

3
For this situation in Dacia, cf. Macrea 1969; Branga 1986; Ardevan in Eos 77 (1989): 81-90; an entire
volume of international conference proceedings is dedicated to Army and urban development in the
Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire (H. Cugudean and V. Moga, eds., 2000) for Pannonia and Upper
Moesia, cf. Mcsy 1974; for Noricum, cf. Alfldy 1974; for Germany, cf. Okun 1989; for the Rhine and
Danube provinces in general (Germania Inferior and Superior, Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia Superior and
Inferior, Moesia Superior and Inferior, Dacia), cf. Mrozewicz in Eos 77 (1989): 64-80; for Britain, cf. Irby-
Massie 1999 and Davies 2004 (in Todd): 91-113; for Syria, cf. Pollard in Kennedy (ed.) 1996: 211-227; for
Egypt, cf. Alston 1995.
4
along the model famously posited by Brunt, in Pippidi (ed.) 1974: 161-174.
5
In his study on veterans and colonists of Italic origin in Dacia, N. Branga documents based on the
epigraphic data available at the time the study was conducted 74 veterans settled in canabae and pagi in
proximity to military units, 64 veterans in municipia and coloniae, and 15 from villas rusticae, vici and
pagi inermes (1986: 131, Fig. 20).

186
double status as veterans of the Roman army, and as high magistrates in their civilian

settlements transpires quite blatantly in their inscriptions. Perhaps nowhere is this

pride of accomplishment more evident than in a votive dedication from Apulum, roughly

datable fairly soon after the creation of the province (117-138 A. D.): L. Silius Maximus,

veteran of Legio I Adiutrix, proudly states that he was the very first mayor of the

canabae legionis (magistrans primus in canabis). It is in this capacity that he dedicates,

together with his son and daughter, Silia Ianuaria and Silius Firminus, the votive

inscription to Fortuna Augusta and the Genius canabensium (IDR III/5.1, 74).

This is not to say that the presence of veterans within municipal ordines

decurionum (or other local magistracies) is a situation unique to Roman Dacia. It is in

fact well attested in Italy, as well as throughout the provinces of the Empire.6 But the

frequency of this occurence in Dacia (insofar as it is documentd in the epigraphic record

of the province) makes the Trajanic province somewhat unusual in this respect.7 For

example, a statistical study conducted by R. Ardevan in 1989 (and whose data was also

used by L. Mrozewicz) reveals that, for the the early third century (within which the

majority, though not all, of the evidence is concentrated), 27 veterans (mostly legionary)

were members of municipal ordines decurionum in Dacia (13 at Sarmizegetusa, 7 at

Napoca, and 7 in other cities); 5 veterans appears as magistri of the well urbanized pagus

of Micia, in the territorium of Sarmizegetusa; in addition, 10 members of the already

6
Cf. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy in the First Century A. D., in PBSR 52
(1984): 77-114; cf. Mrozewicz in Eos 77 (1989): 64-80 for this occurence in the Rhine and Danube
provinces in general; cf. Ando 2007: 373, for this issue in general.
7
Certainly, some veterans will have also chosen to return to their homelands after discharge, rather than
remain in their former province of service. Such is the case of T. Valerius Marcianus, veteran (former
beneficiarius consularis) of Legio V Macedonica (relocated from Troesmis, in Moesia Inferior, to Potaissa
under Marcus Aurelius), who was born in the canabae legionis at Troesmis, returns home (reversus at lares
suos) after his discharge from service in Dacia, in 170 A. D. (CIL III, 7505), cf. Brbulescu 1987: 83.

187
established Dacian provincial aristocracy, members of the ordo equester, occupied a

variety of civic magistracies at Sarmizegetusa, Apulum, Napoca, and Potaissa, following

high-ranking military positions in the province.8 Although the 27 army veterans attested

as decurions in the province represent a mere 10 percent of the total number of municipal

decurions attested in Dacia (274), they constitute almost 43 percent of the total number of

attested veteran-decurions in the provinces along the Rhine-Danube line as a whole (the

two Germanies, Pannonias and Moesias, Raetia and Noricum).9

But, beyond the role of veterans in provincial municipalities, the overall

symbiotic relationship between the army and the civilian population in a military

province (such as Dacia was) is aptly summed up by J. Davies, strictly in reference to the

situation in Roman Wales. Yet, based on the evidence available, its applicability can be

extended to all such military provinces on the fringes of the Empire, including and

especially Roman Dacia:

[T]here existed a long-standing and fruitful inter-relationship, amounting

to a symbiosis, between military personnel and civilians at large,
particularly in respect of those whose livelihood was dependent upon the
army. [...] In some respects that impact was enduring, the requirements of
supplying the garrison being paramount. [...] The impact on the
agricultural regime must therefore have been considerable, almost
certainly involving bringing new land under cultivation [...]
The economic impact of the army is also manifest in other ways, for
example, in respect of industrial processes and the marketing of consumer
goods. [...] As a consumer, the army attracted a vast range of commodities
to its bases, and none so prominent as ceramics, which as both a container

8
Cf. Ardevan 1989: 83-89, Tables 1-5.
9
Only Moesia Inferior (with 13 attested veteran-decurions) and Moesia Superior (with 9 attested veteran-
decurions) come somewhat closer (though not quite) to the numbers for Dacia, cf. Mrozewicz 1989: 67. Cf.
also Ardevan, who emphasizes the significance, from a socio-political standpoint, of achieving membership
in a local ordo decurionum not only for the few veterans involved (for most of whom it would have
represented the crowning achievement of their life), but, in the longer term, in providing opportunities for
further social advancement for the next generations of their families (1989: 90).

188
 and a good represents the durable remains of a much more extensive trade
in other commodities. [...]
Nowhere is the military impact more graphically displayed than upon the
settlement pattern. Dependants merchants, craftsmen, the unofficial
wives and children of serving soldiers, and increasingly veterans
formed an almost invariable adjunct to a military establishment. These
extramural settlements, canabae in a legionary and a vicus in an auxiliary
context, housed folk who earned a living by virtue of the spending power
of the soldiers. (Davies 2004: 108-109)10

Given these circumstances, which apply equally well to Dacia as to the northern British

example reffered to by Davies, the impact of the military presence not only on the

economic and socio-political development of Roman Dacia, but also on the religious life

of the province, should not be underestimated.

Religion in the Roman military context of the second and third centuries A. D.:
constructing categories

In approaching the subject of religion in the Roman army, scholars often find it

useful to employ some form of categorization, usually dichotomous in nature, to describe

the collection of religious practices obtaining in the Roman army across the Empire in

general, or in specific provinces. For example, J. Helgeland (1978: 1471-1505) discusses

the topic broadly in terms of official Roman army religion and unofficial army

religion, distinctions which also appear to correspond to the public/private division; J.

10
Numerous examples of military families come from Dacia, as well, as demonstrated especially by
funerary inscriptions for various members of such families of soldiers still in service. For example, at
Ampelum, a funerary inscription to a soldier of the Numerus Maurorum Hispanorum, Aelius [ ],
coniugi pientssimo, is dedicated by his wife, Aelia Victorina (IDR III/3, 339), while at Potaissa, where
Legio V Macedonica was stationed, a funerary monument to M. Statius Priscianus, an eight-year-old boy,
is put up by his father (pater), M. Statius Priscianus, a primus pilus (CIL III.1, 910). Both these
inscriptions are most likely dated to the reign of Septimius Severus or thereafter, when marriage for
soldiers still serving which had been tacitly condoned by previous emperors, for some time, but not legal
was officially legalized.

189
Rpke (1990: 165-98), followed by A. Bendlin (1997: 44-45), advances the somewhat

similar categories of religio castrensis and religio militum; Beard, North, and Price

(1998, vol. I: 324-328) distinguish between private religious worship of individual

soldiers and the official cycle of ceremonies carried out by (or on behalf of) a military

unit as a whole, as a Roman institution, while, in her landmark study on military

religion in Roman Britain, G. L. Irby-Massie (1999) posits three principal distinctions

Roman state religion, Eastern cults, and Celtic religions, horned warriors and

Greco-Roman heroes. Finally, O. Stoll (2007: 451-476) effects a somewhat broader

separation between official army religion and cults specific to the military and private

cults in the religion of the Roman army.

The common denominator for all the above categorizations seems to be the clear

existence and practice by the Roman armies all across the Empire of an official or

traditional Roman state religion. This is most clearly exemplified by the so-called

Feriale Duranum, a copy of the Roman military calendar of festivals (dated to about 223-

227 A.D., therefore within the reign of Severus Alexander), discovered in the archives of

Cohors XX Palmyrenorum stationed at Dura-Europos, in Syria.11 It lists, by date, the

years military festivals, specific sacrifices for the Roman deities with public festivals

celebrated at Rome IOM and the Capitoline Triad, Mars, Vesta, Neptune, Roma,

Victoria, Salus and for the respective cults of the reigning emperor and of deified

emperors and imperial women. What emerges clearly from this document is that the only

religious observances prescribed in the document were those that traditionally took place

in the city of Rome, with no mention whatsoever of any non-Roman cults, Syrian or other

11
Fink 1971: 422-429, with bibliography; Helgeland 1978: 1481-1488, with bibliography.

190
(Mithras, Jupiter Dolichenus, or Sol Invictus, most notably all otherwise widely

attested within the Roman army of the second and third centuries) (Helgeland 1978:

1481). The conservative nature of the religious practices prescribed in this document

clearly conveys the idea that, no matter how near or distant from Rome, every Roman

fort was regarded as an image of Rome in microcosm and the same customs were

observed, as though preserved in aspic, from one end of the Empire to the other (Henig

2004: 225).

But a question naturally arising from this evidence pertains to whether the Roman

army was indeed, by the second and third centuries A. D., as conservative an institution

from a religious point of view, as the Feriale Duranum seems to indicate. Were other

cults, of non-Roman origin, but with a sizeable military following (both at individual and

collective level), such as those of IOM Dolichenus, Mithras, or Sol Invictus, not part of

official or at the very least quasi-official Roman military religion, by this point in

time? Epigraphic, as well as iconographic/archaeological evidence from all corners of the

Empire where the Roman army was stationed, including Dacia, tells a different story.

Most tellingly, in visual depictions, IOM Dolichenus wears the baldric, sword, cuirass,

and tunic of the emperor.12 That the worship of these Eastern deities, as well as of others,

of various origins13 indeed, almost as diverse as the ethnic consistency of the army

12
MacMullen 1981: 81. Like his Roman syncretized equivalent, IOM, he also wields a thunderbolt.
However, unlike Roman IOM, IOM Dolichenus also displays, in his iconography, symbols of his Eastern-
ness, by wearing the Phrygian cap and standing atop a bull, a symbol of his power over the forces of nature,
cf. Irby-Massie 1999: 65. Both these symbols, the Phrygian cap and the bull dominated by the god, are also
prominently associeted with the iconography of Mithras, as well.
13
For example Epona, the Campestres, Hercules Magusanus or Mars Camulus, Celto-Germanic deities
often encountered particularly in a military environment in the Western provinces of the Empire, including
Dacia, as I have mentioned in Chapter 2 (see Appendix B Corpus for specific bibliographic references on
each of these inscriptions); cf. Henig 1984: 89 and Irby-Massie 1999 for Britain.

191
itself in this period gained at the very least a quasi-official character within individual

army units is illustrated most tellingly from another document, this time visual in nature,

which originates, ironically, also from Dura-Europos. It is a wall painting from the

Temple of Bel at Dura, which depicts the military tribune Iulius Terentius, and his

Palmyrene cohort, offering sacrifice (assisted by the priest Themes Mocimi) to a

Palmyrean triad of male deities, and to the two enthroned Fortunae of Palmyra and Dura.

The three Baals are dressed in full Roman military garb.14 It must have been such

localized, but increasingly widespread precedents, evinced epigraphically, if not

iconographically, elsewhere in the Empire throughout the second and early third centuries

(including Dacia, as will be seen below), which ultimately allowed the emperor Aurelian

to comfortably place the Syrian Sol Invictus among the official state gods, or for

Constantine to do even more for the exclusive Galilean Christ (Speidel 1978: 64-65).

In light of such evidence, the somewhat rigid divisions implied by such

dichotomous categorizations as official and unofficial, which also often carry within

them the connotations of public and private, should perhaps be reassessed, to a

certain extent, as M. Henig has suggested already over a quarter of a century ago, when

discussing religion in the army in Roman Britain:

In theory at least, only such religious expression thought appropriate to a

Roman community belonged inside the walls [of a military camp]; temples
of Jupiter Dolichenus, Antenociticus or Coventina were built outside and
their cults were excluded from the camp. In practice this isolation had
little importance and far too much ink has been spilled by scholars in
constructing a rigid demarcation between official and non-official cults in
the army. Just as the towns might accorda major placeto deities other than

14
MacMullen 1981: 80-81; Henig 1984: 89. The Palmyrean triad depicted, or the so-called Triad of Bel
is formed by the gods Bel, Aglibol and Iarhibol. For its complex origins and multiple divine associations,
and for a comprehensive discussion of the evolution of Palmyrene religious identity at Dura-Europos, both
before and after the towns incorporation into the Roman Empire, cf. L. Dirven 1999.

192
 Jupiter and Minerva, or even to gods with native epithets (even if more in
the Eastern than the Western provinces) so do we find commanders of
units sacrificing to a host of deities both privately on their own behalfand
that of their families, and also for their units. (Henig 1984: 88-89)

Therefore, in discussing some of the principal aspects of military religion in

Roman Dacia something that, to my knowledge, has not yet been attempted, at least

not in any kind of unitary form15 I prefer to group my examples within the more

neutral individual and collective categories, a form of categorization which has also

operated in my discussion of various facets of religion throughout earlier chapters,

whether explicitly (as in Chapter 3) or implicitly (as in Chapter 4). In a sense, this

separation, while itself imperfect, mirrors some of the fundamental divisions operating

within various identity constructs, including those pertaining to ones religious identity

that is, if such a thing as a religious identity may be said to have existed in the

profoundly diverse and complex system of beliefs, practices, ideologies, and myths that

formed religion writ large, throughout the Roman Empire, during the time of Principate.

These labels are ambiguous enough and broad enough to allow for such dichotomous

and loaded, one might add concepts as official and unnoficial, public (or

organized state religion) and private, religio castrensis and religio militum,

15
Although studies have indeed been published, which discuss among other aspects, the religious presence
of individual military units stationed in Dacia, or thosediscussing of a particular cult or group or cults, and
which also note the presnece of military devotees. In some studies, the main operating parameter is that of
the ethnic identity of such units (specifically applicable to alae, cohortes and numeri, where ethnic origin
seemed to be the main operating criterion of co-optation), or, in the case of legions, for example (which, as
a whole, were not necessarily recruited from among a specific ethnic group but, by the second and third
centuries, recruited soldiers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, not just Italic), the religious activity of
individual military personnel within them. Cf. Tudor, CMRED II (1976); cf. Berciu and Petolescu: 1976;
Popa and Berciu 1978; Sanie 1981; Moga 1985; Husar in Frei-Stolba and Herzig (eds.) 1995: 131-144;
Schmidt Heinrich in Ciugudean and Moga (eds.) 2000: 293-308; Schfer in Cancik and Rpke (eds.) 2001:
259-284.

193
traditional and Eastern, etc., to coexist comfortably within either of these two broad,

umbrella categories of individual and collective.

In this sense, two examples from the military context of Dacia though

additional analogous examples can be found not only in here, but in other provinces, as

well strike me as particularly useful in illuminating the problematic nature of too

rigidly applying such categorizations as official/unofficial or private/public to religious

practices within the Roman army of the empire. The first, individual example, is one I

have already brought up in passing in the previous chapter, when enumerating votive

dedications by military personnel and veterans in the precinct of Liber Pater from

Apulum: the Italic Lucius Calvisius (from Falerio), primus pilus in Legio XIII Gemina,

who dedicates a statue to Liber, for the health (pro salute) of the emperor Commodus,

whose name, as I. Piso, the commentator, noted, was erased (as a result of damnatio

memoriae), but then subsequently re-carved (probably under Septimius Severus, who

rehabilitated Commodus memory for his own political/dynastic reasons) (IDR III/5.1,

235). The second, collective example, represents a temple rebuilding project from

Porolissum, and dates to the reign of Caracalla, and it might be particularly useful in this

case to reproduce it in full, simply to illustrate its official-ness: Pro salute

[I]mp(eratoris) M(arci) Aur[elii] / Antonini Aug(usti) Pii Fel(icis) deo / patrio Belo

n(umerus) Pal(myrenorum) sagit(tariorum) tem/plum vi ignis consumptum / pecunia sua

restituer(unt) dedi/cant[e] [[C(aio) ]] I[[ul(io) Sept(imio) Casti]]no / co(n)s(ulari) III

Daci[ar(um) M(arco)?] Ulpio Victore / proc(uratore) Aug(usti) provi[nc(iae)

Porol(issensis) cura agen/te T(ito) Fl(avio) Saturn[ino (centurione) le]g(ionis) V

194
Mac(edonicae) p(iae) c(onstantis) (AE 1977, 666).16 Taken together, these dedications

one by an individual soldier, and the other by an entire ethnic army contingent, with

the participation (direct or indirect) of the highest dignitaries of the provincial

government demonstrate that individual does not neccesarily imply private

(understood in the sense of private or personal concerns), just as collective does

not necessarily entail official, if we are meant to understand official in the strict

sense of official cycle of ceremonies as prescribed in the Feriale Duranum. The gods

invoked in either dedication Liber Pater and the Syro-Palmyrean Bel are not

technically official gods of the Roman state or of the Roman army as an institution

representing Rome in the provinces. But they are both invoked the former, with the

votive offering of a staue, the latter, on a much grander scale, and clearly using official

protocol, with a temple dedication for the health (pro salute) of the respective reigning

emperor, thereby being clearly and directly employed, despite their unofficial

character, in the service of the public or official loyalty cult of the living emperor,

the very embodiment of the Roman state writ large.

I have occasionally noted, throughout Chapters 3 and 4, several cases of veterans,

soldiers on active duty, and in one instance, the wife of a cohort prefect from Micia

(Domitia, wife of T. Varenius Pudens) who, in both urban and rural contexts, make

votive dedications (to Silvanus Domesticus and Liber Pater, respectively) or else engage

in religious euergetism on a larger scale. These examples represent only a tiny fraction of

the intense religious activity of the military stationed within the province, as well as that

of those veterans and their families, who continued their life and who decided to remain

16
Cf. also I. Piso, ZPE 40 (1980): 277ff.

195
and plant roots in the province where they were last deployed. As with the civilians at all

the levels of Dacian provincial society, the range of military dedications is vast, indeed

too vast to allow one to capture all its nuances within a single chapter, and one could

truly only do it justice as G. L. Irby-Massie had done for the military religion in

Roman Britain through a monograph dedicated entirely to this topic. But I will try to

sketch out, throughout the following two sections organized along the general lines of

individual and collective criteria I advanced above what I felt were some of the

most prominent features of the military religious activity in the province, and amply

illustrate them with examples. In terms of the nature of the evidence which fueled most of

these examples, epigraphy plays by far the most important role, because of its obvious

ability to communicate information, even in very terse form, not just about the deities

invoked, but also about the identity of dedicants and, on occasion, even about their

motivations in making such dedications. These dedications range from small votive

inscriptions to acts of religious euergetism on a larger scale, the latter making the military

(at all levels, not just the highest ranking officers) a genuine competitor to the civilian

elites of the province when it comes to such acts of religious munificence. Indeed, the

epigraphic prominence of the military in the province should not come as a surprise:

throughout the Empire, it is this category, along with the members of the civilian local

elites, for whom the epigraphic habit comes most naturally, no doubt in part because of

issues of literacy, but also other reasons having to do with self-representation. Only in

two cases, having to do with particular deities, does epigraphic evidence not figure

prominently: first, the numerous statuettes (80, but likely more not recorded in my

corpus) of Venus, many of them discovered within military camps, and whose potential

196
role I will also discuss below; second, the iconographically complex reliefs depicting the

Danubian Rider gods (who appear in 61 reliefs from Dacia), evidence of whose worship

has been found inside several military camps from Dacia.

Individual religious choices among the Dacian provincial

military personnel and veterans

Strictly speaking in terms of gods of the Roman State (as listed by the Feriale

Duranum), Jupiter (with various epithets, as discussed in Chapter 2), and specifically

Jupiter Optimus Maximus (IOM), reigns supreme in terms of sheer number of

dedications both in the military and the civilian segments of the province well over

300, with over 250 specifically for IOM catalogued in my corpus study as indeed all

across provincial societies of the Empire. This is because, at Rome, as across the Empire,

IOM, the king of gods and men, was regarded as connected to the imperium of Rome and

to the welfare of the Roman state, and thus also came to be closely associated with the

emperors themselves, and with the imperial cult (Irby-Massie 1999: 55). Special

sacrifices and votive dedications to him (and for the Capitoline Triad of Rome, as well as

Mars and Victoria) would have been usually offered, as the Feriale Duranum prescribes,

at the start of the New Year, in January, along with the nuncupatio votorum for the living

emperor. Numerous such votive dedications by individual military personnel of all ranks

(milites, immunes, beneficiarii, centurions, praefects of cohorts, and legates of legions),

as well as veterans, have survived from Dacia.17 On the other hand, IOM, Juno Regina,

17
For example, IDR II, 18; IDR III/1, 138;IDR III/2, 239, 245,248; IDR III/3, 237, 310; IDR III/4, 275, 277,
280-282; IDR III/5.1, 112, 124, 133-135, 138, 139 (which C. Caerellius Sabinus, the legate of Legio XIII

197
and Minerva the Capitoline Triad of Rome are present in only two military

inscriptions, both from Apulum: one one by L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, the legate of

Legio XIII Gemina, future governor of Moesia Inferior in 224, together with his wife and

three children (IDR III/5.1, 195); and another by a centurion of Legio V Macedonica, Q.

Cornelius Silvanus (IDR III/5.1, 197). An interesting dedication to IOM comes from

Porolissum, and it is a Roman citizen of Palmyrean origin, P. Aelius Malachu, who

identifies himself as flamen quinquennalis Municipii Septimii Porolissensis et sacerdos

dei numeri palmyrenorum Porolissensium (Schmidt Heinrich 2000: 302). We have

already encountered this numerus, through their collective contribution to rebuilding the

temple of Bel at Porolissum. It is not entirely clear whether P. Aelius Malachu (whose

civic-religious function at Porolissum is clearly spelled out), is also part of this numerus

in a military capacity, and not just as its sacerdos. In the example from Dura-Europos,

that of Themes Mocimi from Cohors XX Palmyrenorum, this was indeed the case: in

addition to appearing in the fresco from the temple of Bel at Dura, Themes Mocimi also

appears in the troops duty roster (MacMullen 1981: 81). Based on this analogy, the case

of P. Aelius Malachu from Porolissum, sacerdos of Palmyrean contingent, might be a

similar one, though, of course, this is not entirely clear (Schmidt Heinrich 2000: 302).18

Gemina between 183-185, dedicates together with his wife, Fufidia Polita), 140-143, 145, 146, 148, 152,
163, 165, 166, 173, 177, 178, 180.
18
Contra, I. Piso 2005: 476-77, who cites two other similar examples from Dacia: one (discussed in the
following section, on collective dedications) comes again from Porolissum, where three decurions of
Porolissum (one of whom is a veteran of Cohors III Campestris, stationed there) build a temple to IOM
Dolichenus, and also identify themselves as sacerdotes dei et cohortis; the other inscription, from Apulum,
is by Flavius Barhadadi, sacerdos Iovis Dolicheni ad legionem supra scriptam, that is Legio XIII Gemina
(IDR III/5.1, 221). Piso argues that the three priests of IOM Dolichenus from Porolissum must have been
affiliated to the temple (also archaeologically identified) located in the vicus near the military camp, and
that Flavius Barhadadi was priest of a temple of Jupiter Dolichenus in the canabae of the legion, not priest
of the legion.

198
 So-called military deities be they Roman or imported from either East or

West are likewise popular choices among individual (and collective, to some extent)

worshippers. We find in Dacia evidence of two groups of explicitly military (as signaled

by their epithets), and distinctly Roman, deities, worshipped in a military context: the

Lares Militares and the Genii Militares. These are two interesting categories of deities,

not entirely well understood, and all the more fascinating because of the evolution of

their functions within the Roman religious system: they began as ancestral tutelary deities

of the Roman house and family (as discussed in the previous chapter, in an urban

context); from its place in the private, family cult, the Genius, as protective spirit, also

came to be associated with a place (Genius loci), or with wider groups of people (the

Genius Populi Romani, most famously, but also of other localities or corporations);

beginning with Augustus, both Lares and Genii came to be closely associated with the

person of the living emperor, and thus with the imperial cult, by receiving the epithet

Augusti; finally, the military Lares and Genii are worshipped only in the army itself.19

The Lares Militares appear in a single dedication in Dacia, from Apulum, by P.

Catius Sabinus, tribunus militum of Legio XIII Gemina, and, ten or more years later, by

future governor of Noricum between 206 -209. The inscription is particularly interesting,

not in the least because it is dedicated to a string of no less than twelve Roman and

Greco-Roman deities and deified abstractions: Dis Penatibus, Laribus militaribus, Lari

viali, Neptuno, Saluti, Fortunae reduci, Aesculapio, Dianae, Apollini, Herculi, Spei,

Favori (IDR III/5.1, 299). Two of these Neptune and Salus figure prominently

19
Cf. Speidel and Dimitrova-Mileva 1978: 1542-1555i; Irby-Massie 1999: 26-28; Stoll in Erdkamp (ed.)
2007: 462.

199
among the state deities requiring official sacrifices in the Feriale Duranum. Based on the

list of deities invoked, I. Piso, the inscriptions commentator, suggests that Legio XIII

Gemina (or one of its vexillations) participated either in the civil wars of 193-197 or in

the Parthian war of 198-199. If this is the case, the inscription might have been dedicated

in thanks for Catius Sabinus safe return from either one of these military conflicts (hence

the presence of votum libens soluit, at the closing of the inscription).

On the other hand, millitary Genii are invoked in a number of dedications by

individual military personnel. The types of military Genii invoked in the provice may be

divided in two sub-categories (of a total of four advanced by M. Speidel and A.

Dimitrova-Mileva) (Speidel and Dimitrova-Mileva 1978: 1544-1551). In the first sub-

category, Genii of military units and divisions, we encounter in the epigraphic record

of Dacia the following: two instances of the Genius Legionis XIII Geminae (IDR III/5.1,

43, 82); two different Genii centuriae one of a centuria of Legio V Macedonica from

Potaissa (CIL III, 7672), and the other of a centuria fro Legio XIII Gemina, at Apulum

(IDR III/5.1, 79); the Genius cohortis II Flaviae Commagenorum, one of several

auxiliary units stationed at Micia (IDR III/3, 111); and finally the Genius Numeri

Maurorum Hisp(anorum?), a unit stationed in an undeterined location probably not too

far from Ampelum (IDR III/2, 302).

In the second sub-category, Genii of military installations, Dacia offers two

examples: a dedication to the Genius praetorii, that is, the Genius of the headquarters of

Legio XIII Gemina, made by the legions legate (IDR III/5.1, 84); and to a Genius

armamentarii, by a custos armorum from Legio V Macedonica at Potaissa, which in fact

is only one of two such dedications to a Genius armamentarii known in the Empire (cf.

200
Brbulescu 1987: 148; 1994: 162).20 The existence of such Genii, particularly those of

specific military units and divisions in the army, would have contributed significantly,

from a religous standpoint, to a sense of comradeship and boosting the soldiers

morale, and ultimately to forging a cohesive group identity for each individual military

unit or division, so essential in all aspects of military life, in peace and especially in

wartime (Stoll 2007: 462).

Much has been made of the oriental cults of IOM/Jupiter Dolichenus and

Mithras (often syncretized with Sol Invictus) as military cults, especially popular in

military circles throughout the Empire during the second and third centuries A. D. 21 This

impression likely emerged because the main instrument of their East-West diffusion does

indeed appear to be the Roman army: first, through non-Eastern units stationed for a time

or else campaigning in the eastern provinces, and then relocated to the western ones, thus

bringing along with them these newly-aquired religious devotions; second, and to a lesser

extent, through units recruited from the East who brought with them their dii patrii.22

However, the abundant epigraphic and archaeological evidence available on these deities,

not only from Roman Dacia, but also from other provinces of the Empire (particularly the

western ones) and Rome, seems to point to a somewhat different conclusion: it is clear

20
The only other known one comes from Novae, on the southern bank of the Danube, in the neighboring
province of Moesia Inferior, where Legio I Italica was stationed starting from 70 A.D, until the time of the
Notitia Dignitatum, cf. Speidel and Dimitrova-Mileva 1978: 1551.
21
Cf. Domaszewski 1895: 60; Cumont, Jupiter Dolichenus, in RE 5 (19030: 1276; Hegeland 1978: 1497-
1498; Speidel 1978 (for IOM Dolichenus), 1980 (for Mithras).
22
Cf. Selem 1980: 76-77, 247 (specifically for the spread of Mithraism and of the Dolichenian cult to
Pannonia); Schwertheim in Vermaseren (ed.) 1981: 195-199; Stoll in Erdkamp (ed.) 2007: 468.

201
that these deities were popular with the Roman military.23 The present study, informed by

corpus analysis, also confirms this for Dacia. However, and most importantly, they were

equally, if not more popular among a variety of (mostly male) segments of the civilian

population, such as slaves, freedmen, provincial administrative personnel and members

of local elites, etc. In this sense, O. Stoll has observed that, examination of the adherents

to the so-called soldier religions show that less than 20 percent of Mithras worshippers

and less than 40 percent of those of Dolichenus are military men. . . . We are looking at

cultic community characterized by joint cultic practice of civilians and military

personnel (Stoll 2007: 469). Dacia conforms fairly closely to these estimates, as studies

(specifically monument corpora for these deities) have already extensively shown,

thereby making redundant a more detailed discussion here.24

But we may also speak, to some extent, of a reverse transfer, West to East, that

is, in certain religious preferences of the military personnel in Dacia, a phenomenon that

is overall far more limited geographically across the Empire than East to West transfers,

as O. Stoll has noted (2007: 469). Strictly in the military context of Dacia, this type of

transfer is exemplified by the presence of a few Celto-Germanic deities. Thus, all three

dedications to the syncretic Hercules Magusanus (a Batavian deity popular particularly

from Germania Inferior, as protector of soldiery) known for Dacia come exclusively from

23
Indeed, as some of his iconographic depictions suggest, Jupiter Dolichenus was clearly portrayed as a
god of victory, as he stands atop a bull, in full Roman armor.
24
Cf. Berciu and Petolescu 1976: 8-12, 14-19 (for the Mithras and Dolichenus cults in the south-western
part of Roman Dacia); Popa and Berciu 1978 (for the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus in Dacia); Sanie 1981: 36-
91, 123-139 (for Jupiter Dolichenus and Sol/Sol Invictus in Dacia). In fact, in the case of Sol Invictus,
sometimes syncretized with Mithras, G. Halsberghe (1972: 39, 47-48) singles out Dacia, and Apulum
especially, as a particularly prominent example of the very high popularity of the cult of Sol Invictus
among civilian segments of the provincial population, specifically workmen, slaves and coloni, and not
just among soldiers and very highly ranking officers.

202
the military milieu: at Apulum, he is simply worshiped as Deus Magusanus by Aurelius

Marius, an optio signiferorum (IDR III/5.1, 247); from the castrum at Gherla comes a

dedication to Hercules Magusanus by Aurelius Tato, stator alae II Pannoniorum - the

dedicants name suggests either an Illyrian or West-Celtic origin (AE 1977, 504); another

Hercules Magusanus inscription in which the god is even further syncretized with

Mithras/Sol, as Deus Invictus Hercules Magusanus is dedicated by P. Aelius

Maximus, a militiis and one of the leading citizens of the province, at his villa rustica

from Ciumfaia, in the Napoca territorium.25 The same P. Aelius Maximus also

dedicates, at Napoca, a votive inscription to the Gesahenae, likely representing a local

variant of the Celto-Germanic Mother godesses, the Matronae.26 Therefore, given his

preference for Germanic deities, it is entirely possible that P. Aelius Maximus might have

fulfilled his military service militia equestra on the Rhine, where he became a devotee of

these Germanic deities (Husar 1995: 140; Schfer 2001: 261).27 Epona and the

Campestres, Celto-Germanic equestrian godesses protecting horses and the cavalry, also

appear in the military milieu of Dacia: soon after the incorporation of the province (112-

117), at Sarmizegetusa, M. Calvetius Viator, centurio Legionis IIII Flaviae Felicis,

exercitator equitum singulariorum C. Avidi Nigrini legati augusti pro praetore, therefore

25
Mitrofan, ActaMN 10 (1973): 133ff.
26
Piso in Potaissa 2 (1980): 125-126.
27
P. Aelius Maximus was originally from Dacia, the son of the veteran (ex centurione) Aelius Maximus,
who had dedicated the first six altars on the Aelii family property at Ciumfaia (to Apollo, Fortuna, Juno,
Mercurius, Minerva and Silvanus Domesticus, respectively), cf. Mitrofan, ActaMN 10 (1973): 133ff. The
son went on to have a successful military career, as mentioned, but also to become one of the leading
citizens of the province, as suggested by the dedication to the Gesahenae, where he lists his illustrious
military civilian career in the province, probably during the early third century: IIvir quinquenalis et flamen
coloniae Napocensis, a militiis, sacerdos Arae Augusti nostri, coronatus Daciarum III, decurio coloniae [--
-]s. Cf. also Piso, in Potaissa 2 (1980): 125-126; Brbulescu 1984: 153-154.

203
instructor of the governors cavalry guard, dedicates a votive altar to the Eponae and

Campestres (IDR III/2, 205); an inscription to Epona Augusta for the health of the

emperors Gallus and Volusianus (therefore to be dated between 251 and 253) is put up, in

the praetorium of the Dacian governor from Apulum, by Aurelius Marcus, vir egregius,

agens vice praesidis, who, according to I. Piso, the commentator, would have likely also

exercised, within certain limits, the military command of the province.28

Both I. Haynes and G. L. Irby-Massie have argued for the importance of studying

not only the so-called unifying aspects of religion in the Roman army throughout the

empire, but also the impact of indigenous cults (local or regional) and local religious

customs on the religious experience of soldiers stationed in a particular province.29 While,

based on the evidence available to date, it is not possible to identify any indigenous

Dacian influences, not only upon military religion, but on the religious life of the Dacian

province, in general and possible reasons for this were discussed in Chapter 1 it is

nonetheless possible to identify archaeological and epigraphic evidence for a regional

cult specific to Dacia, Pannonia, and Moesia: that of the Danubian Riders and not to be

confused with the Thracian Knight or Hero, whose area of distribution is far wider. The

corpus of monuments of the Danubian Rider gods has been collected, and their complex

iconography akin, in its symbolic complexity, to Mithraic iconography30 was

28
Cf. also Husar in Frei-Stolba and Herzig (eds.) 1995: 139. One other dedication to Epona from a military
context is a collective one, and as such is presented in the following section, on collective military
dedications in Dacia.
29
Haynes, in Cancik and Rpke (eds.) 1997: 113-126, discusses archaeological evidence of such local
influences in Germania Inferior and Northern Britain; Irby-Massie 1999: 98-157, also does so extensively
for military religion in Britain, in general.
30
On the similarities and possible connections between Mithraic iconography and that of the Danubian
Rider gods, cf. Campbell 1968: 331-334.

204
extensively discussed by D. Tudor.31 The Danubian Rider gods were exclusively

represented either as a single rider, or as a pair of riders flanking a goddess in

complex, usually tri-level anepigraphic reliefs, often made of lead, but also of terracotta

and marble. Significantly, the majority (88 percent) of the 232 reliefs discovered until

1975 originate from Pannonia Inferior (47) and Superior (25), Dacia Superior (36) and

Inferior (24), and Moesia Superior (24) and Inferior (34), with only sporadic discoveries

in other provinces, predominantly western.32 Overall, inadequate descriptions (for

example, found in Roman ruins) of the precise discovery circumstances of most of

these monuments make it extremely difficult to pinpoint patterns of distribution of the

cult (beyoud the obvious geographical ones, that is), among civilians and military

personnel. Of the total number of monuments, a specifically military context of discovery

has been recorded for all of ten monuments. Of these, six originate from auxiliary camps

in Dacia (CMRED No. 8, from Porolissum; 21, from Hoghiz on the Alutus River valley;

32 and 206, from Drobeta; 200, from Tibiscum; 208, from Sucidava).33 In fact, Tudor

further suggests Roman Dacia (perhaps sometime during the Antonine period) as the

likely birthplace of the Danubian Rider cult, based on the fact that most of the earliest

monuments (those depicting a single rider, as opposed to a pair or more), come from

Roman Dacia.34

31
Tudor, CMRED I (1969) and CMRED II (1976).
32
Ibid., 1976: 52.
33
The other three come from Pannonia Inferior (CMRED No. 118), Moesia Inferior (CMRED No. 209),
and Moesia Superior (CMRED No. 65, specifically from a military necropolis).
34
Ibid., 1976: 80-81.

205
Personal concerns, expressed or implied by votive dedications
of soldiers and veterans

It is not often that we can get a glimpse of a dedicants motives in offering a

votive to a deity or group or deities, especially when these motives are personal in nature.

When we do, specifically in epigraphic votives, the formulaic and terse pro salute sua et

suorum, and on occasion, ex viso or ex iussu dei usually represent the full extent of a

dedicants explanations. Things are no different for votive inscriptions by military

personnel. It is only very seldom that we are allowed a glimpse into the soldiers or

veterans personal concerns, those motivating them to turn for help to and to express

gratitude for the aid given by specific deities. I have already cited, in the previous

chapter, the case of the legionary veteran and decurion C. Iulius Frontonianus, whose loss

of sight caused him and his family to turn for help to Aesculapius and Hygia (and

presumably to the priest-doctors of the salutary deities precinct from Apulum) (IDR

III/5.1, 21). Two other individual epigraphic votives from the Dacian military milieu

reveal the possible personal motives of dedicants: the fist, dated to 186, comes from the

hot springs resort at Germisara. The dedicant, P. Aelius Marcellinus, signifer et quaestor

Numeri Brittonum (stationed in the nearby castrum at Cigmu), expresses his gratitude

(votum solvit libens merito) to the Nymphis Sanctissimis the patron deities of the

areas hot springs, invoked in numerous other inscriptions from the resort and offers

as motive mortis periculo liberatus (IDR III/3, 243). The particular location of the

inscription in the hot springs complex, as well as the particular deities invoked, both

indicate that the periculum mortis must have been some life-threatening illness, from

which Aelius Marcellinus was healed by taking the curative waters at the resort. The

second inscription, dating to the reign of Severus Alexander, from Samum (or Samus), is

206
dedicated by Scantius Lucius, beneficiarius consulari, agens curam stationis, to Nemesis,

a deity often invoked by soldiers. In terse and cryptic language, he offers the following

motive: multis insidiis numinibus liberatus (AE 1957, 328). Given the presence of the fort

(or statio) at Samum on the northern frontier of Dacia (bordering the territorries of the so-

called free Dacians) the numerous insidiae he mentions may well be referring to

attacks or ambushes from border populations.

Personal concerns may also be reflected in the presence, in very large quantities,

of Venus statuettes usually cheap, coarsely made terracotta representations of the nude

goddess (and far fewer bronze or marble examples) either inside military castra (for

example at Drobeta, Cumidava, Micia, Gherla, Gilu, Bumbeti, Bucium, Iliua,

Slveni), or else in urban areas which also had a high concentration of Roman troops,

such as Apulum, Potaissa, and Romula.35 Indeed, Venus appears to be by far the most

common choice of deity for small-scale statuary representations in Dacia, as reflected in

tens of such reprsentations from the corpus (119 Venus statuettes), which still do not

represent the total number of such statuetes discovered in the province. The great

frequency of such terracotta Venus representations from Dacia finds parallels in Gaul, as

well as in Pannonia.36 C. C. Petolescu has suggested, as a possible explanation for the

high concentration of Venus terracottas in the military milieu of the province, reasons,

which are not difficult to suppose: soldiers would have enjoyed receiveing such

35
The numerous Venus terracotta statuettes from Romula and Potaissa would have most likely been
produced locally, along with a variety of other statuettes and pottery, in workshops attested
archaeologically in both cities, cf. Brbulescu 1994: 109-115, for Potaissa; Popilian 2006: 409-437, (In
Studia Historiae et Religionis...) for Romula; for Apulum, cf. Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 189.
36
Cf. Woolf 1998: 227, for Gaul; Bnis, in Lengyel and Radan (eds.) 1980: 368 for Pannonia.

207
statuettes, being attracted by the aesthetic qualities embodied by the goddess.37 He also

advances hypotheses related to the official aspect of the cult of Venus, that is as Venus

Genetrix, ancestor of the gens Iulia and patroness of emperors in general.38 However, the

aesthetic value of such coarse (some almost shapeless) and mass-produced

representations is questionable thus rendering them hardly capable of inciting the

erotic imagination of soldiers as is any role they could have played in the official state

cult (evidence for which we have in a few inscriptions from Dacia, invoking Venus

Genetrix and Venus Augusta) (Brbulescu 1984: 103). Instead, M. Brbulescu posits a far

more likely explanation for this phenomenon: these statuettes would have functioned

more in a talismanic capacity, as good-luck charms of sorts, in matters of love, and

perhaps even as protectors of male prowess, and generally fertility and life. In this

capacity, they would function less in the realm of religion per se, and more in that of

magic (Brbulescu 1984: 103). But it is not excluded that they could have also functioned

as humble votive offerings in temples, for these very same reasons: the discovery of

fragments of three such statuettes of Venus among votive deposits in the precinct of

Aesculapius and Hygia from Sarmizegetusa, and over 40 such statuettes in the precinct of

Liber Pater from Apulum, appears to point to just such functions Alicu et al. 1979: Nos.

128-130; Schfer, Diaconescu and Haynes 2006: 189).

37
Present authors translation from Petolescu in Apulum 11 (1973): 760: motive care nu sunt greu de
presupus; frumosul ntruchipat de zei.
38
Ibid., 760.

208
Private religious euergetism on a larger scale by
military personnel and veterans

When performed by military personnel at all levels, as well as by army veterans,

acts of religious euergetism (be they the construction of a temple or shrine, or other

architectural additions to religious monuments, or else the active military involvement in

the repair of delapidated religious structures) would have also contributed to

strengthening, at the local level, the connection between the military and the civilian

population, in addition to constituting demonstrations of personal religious devotion.

Such religious benefactions created a sense that soldiers and veterans were an active

component of their larger local communities, not simply through their contribution to the

local economy, but through their religious and civic involvement in the community, as

well. Coming from military personnel, particularly those of lower ranks of the military

hierarchy, such costly acts of private munificence also suggest the far superior economic

position of even common soldiers, by comparison to the large majority of free-born

Dacian provincials.39 In terms of motivations for such acts, insofar as they are expressed,

a fair balance obtains between personal reasons (most commonly of the ex iussu or ex

viso-type, but others, as well) and official reasons usually dedications for the

welfare of the emperor and members of the imperial family, or in one case, also for that

of the Dacian governor. It is significant to note as I have also done above that,

despite official motivations usually involving public demonstrations of loyalty to the

emperor of Roman state, oftentimes, the deities whose cult locales constitute the focus of

39
In the second century, a common miles received, in addition to bonuses, an annual stipendium of 300-500
denarii. By comparison, a free -born miner working in the Dacian gold mines from Alburnus Maior hired
himself out for a period of five months, for a salary of 70 denarii, according to his contract, preserved on
one of the wax tablets from Alburnus Maior (IDR I, 40). Another wax tablet indicates that, in 160 A.D., a
legionary soldier from Legio XIII Gemina purchased a slave girl for the price of 420 denarii (IDR I, 38).
Cf. Brbulescu 1987: 82.

209
such acts of euergetism are decidedly unofficial (for example, IOM Dolichenus, Bonus

Puer Aziz, Deus Sol Ierhabol, or Magna Deum Mater).

In the previous chapter I have already mentioned the case of the legionary veteran

and Apulum I decurion, C. Iulius Frontonianus, who built a bridge for Apollo, Leto,

Diana, ceterisque dis deabus huiusque lucis salutaris, indicating concerns regarding his

health (IDR III/5.1, 36). Another interesting case is that of P. Aelius Theimes, also amply

discussed earlier (see Introduction): he is the duumviralis from Sarmizegetusa, who built

a temple to the Palmyrean dii patrii, Mala(la)gbel, Be(bel)ahamon, Benefal and Manavat

(IDR III/2, 18; see Plate I). But P. Aelius Theimes also represents one of a numerous

veteran success stories illustrated epigraphically in Dacia: from his epitaph, we learn

that he was also a veteran, ex centurione, of Cohors I Vindelicorum (stationed at

Tibiscum), and that he lived to the ripe old age of 89 (IDR III/2, 369). We may recall,

from the dedicatory inscription to his temple, that P. Aelius Theimes also added a kitchen

to the temple building (culina subiunxit). This offers some intersesting insights into the

practice of the rites of the Palmyrean dii patrii at Sarmizegetusa: as in the case of the

Liber Pater precinct at Apulum, this culina may have been used for the possible

preparation of communal banquets in which the Palmyrean religious community of

Sarmizegetusa might have participated on ritual occasions. Another interesting and

unique element in P. Aelius Theimes dedication is the particular way in which h the

reason for the construction of the temple: pro se suisque omnibus, ob pietatem iposrum

circa se iussus ab ipsis fecit essentially amounting to an elaborate verbal

circumlocution for the standard ex iussu dei/deorom formula.

210
 Other examples of religious munificence prompted ex viso or ex iussu dei include:

that of the beneficiarius Terentius Marcianus, who repairs the temple of Nemesis from

the praetorium of the Dacian governor at Apulum, ex viso (IDR III/5.1, 295); and that of

C. Iulius Lysias, centurion in Legio XIII Gemina Severiana, who builds a portico to the

temple of Apollo Augustus at Apulum, iussu numinis eius (IDR III/5.1, 32). As I

emphasized in the previous chapter, such dedications intimate a heightened sense of

personal communication between devotee and the deity invoked. Even more interesting

are those euergetic dedications that hint at a devotees perception of relationships

between apparently disparate deities. For example, at Apulum, Ulpius Proculinus,

speculator in Legio XIII Gemina Gordiana, restores, from the foundations, a fountain for

the complex Eastern deity Deus Aeternus, ex iussu dei Apollinis (IDR III/5.1, 31).40

It terms of acts of religious munificence with a distinctly official bent, that is, at

least publicly intended to safeguard the welfare of the reigning emperor(s) and imperial

families, higher-ranking military officers, as well as veterans, appear as somewhat more

involved than the lower-ranking soldiers, not in the least because their more advanced

station whether in military or civilian life, in the case of some veterans would have

placed them in the public eye far more often than was the case for common soldier. Thus,

Donatus, praefect of Legio V Macedonica completes (templum inceptum perfecit) the

temple of Aziz-Puer Bonus at Potaissa, for the welfare of the emperors Valerian and

Gallienus, and that of Caesar Valerian and Cornelia Salonina Augusta. This represents

one of the few acts of large-scale benefaction still attested in the Dacian province at this

40
Similarly, the legionary veteran Veturius Marcianus dedicates a votive altar to IOM Dolichenus, ex
praecepto numinis Aesculapii somno monitus (IDR III/5.1, 220).

211
late date (255-258), in troubled times for the Empire in general, and only fifteen short

years away from the official Roman abandonment of the province. The details of the

temples original construction are unknown, but the fact that a high ranking military

officer had to intervene in completing its construction a situation not otherwise

recorded in the epigraphy of the province may come as a confirmation of a growing

trend in the Empire at large, after the Severan golden age: local elites were increasingly

less willing and able to incur the growing expenses entailed by public service in their

respective communities, as rising costs of maintaining the army and ever-expanding

imperial administration gave rise to an additional burden of increased taxation.41

At Tibiscum, Septimius Diomedes, tribune of the Cohors I Vindelicorum

Miliariae Equitatae Civium Romanorum, restores the temple of Apollo (vetustate

conlapsum) at the end of the second century, dedicating it to the welfare of the emperor

Septimius Severus and that of his two sons, then still Caesars.42 At Apulum, T. Flavius

Longinus, veteran (ex decurione) from the Ala II Pannoniorum served in no less than

three ordines decurionum (that of Sarmizegetusa, that of municipium Napociensis, as

well as that of the canabae of the Legion XIII Gemina). Sometime during the middle of

the second century, he dedicated (together with his wife and three children) some sort of

larger scale monument to Magna Deum Mater it is not specified exactly what that was,

but it is nonetheless implied by the mentions pecunia sua fecerunt and l(oco) d(ato)

d(ecurionum) d(ecreto). The family built this monument or edifice for the welfare of the

emperor (pro salute Augusti) (IDR III/5.1, 253).

41
Abbott and Johnson 1926 (reprinted 1968): 101-107; 191-194; cf. also Mihilescu-Brliba 2004: 77-78.
42
Piso and Rogozea, in ZPE 58 (1985): 211-215; cf. also Rusu-Pescaru and Alicu 2000: 171, No. 8.

212
 The lower military ranks of the province are also represented in such official

dedications, though to a lesser extent. For example, again at Apulum, M. Ulpius

Mucianus, a soldier (miles) of Legio XIII Gemina, builds, at his own expense, a solo, a

horulogiarium templum that is, a temple equipped with a horologium, a timepiece of

some kind. The temple was for IOM and Juno Regina, for the welfare of the emperor

Caracalla and his mother, Julia Augusta (IDR III/5.1, 193). It is worth noting that in this

case alone, which comes not from a high-ranking military official or a veteran prominent

in the civic life of the province, but from a common legionary soldier, we can most

clearly observe the connection between the worship of the official Roman state gods and

the imperial cult.

The role of collective religious rites in the army of Dacia

For the most part, collective dedications by military peronnel and veterans in

Dacia replicate the same patterns of individual dedications, though with fewer instances

attested throughout the province. The purpose of collective military dedications to a deity

would have been, firstly, to help forge the esprit de corps of specific military units or

divisions, or of military clubs, in very similar ways to the presence of Genii for specific

military units and divisions, as discussed in the previous section. Secondly and this

applies strictly to those dedications with official character such dedications would

have helped reinforce the spirit of loyalty of the soldiers and their officers towards the

emperor, the Roman state, and the official representatives of the Roman government in a

province.

213
 As seen in the preceding sections of this chapter, the worship of gods from ones

original homeland be they eastern or western was an important aspect of religion in

Roman Dacia in that it preserved a sense of ethnic-religious identity for the dedicant.

This is no less important for larger groups of military personnel (be they entire units or

smaller divisions within units), in that worhip of such dii patrii helps reinforce the strong

sense of ethnic group identity, all the more essential in a place so distant from their

homelands (Stoll 2007: 470) In this regard, there is the example of the Numerus

Palmyrenorum Sagittariorum (already cited above), who pooled their personal resources

together to restore the temple of the great Palmyrean deus patrius, Bel. But other

examples can be cited, as well, although they only amount to simple votive dedications:

Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum dedicates an altar to Jupiter Turmazgades (a Syro-

Commagenian Baal syncretized, as was often the case, with the supreme god of the

Greco-Roman pantheon) at Micia, where it was stationed (IDR III/3, 138). Also at Micia,

a construction plaque mentions the reconstruction, in 204 A. D., of the temple of the

North-African Dii Patrii of the Numerus Maurorum Micienses: Mauri Mic(ienses) et

Iul(ius) Evangelianus praef(ectus) templum deorum patriorum vetustate conlapsum sua

p(ecunia) et opera restituer(unt) (IDR III/3, 47). Epona, the Celto-Germanic goddess of

horses and cavalry, is also collectively worshipped probably both in her capacity as

dea patria and as protectress of the cavalry by the Ala Tungrorum Frontoniana,

stationed at Iliua (CIL III, 788). At the level of unit divisions, at Romula, through

Proculus, princeps and Gaius, optio, the equites of an unspecified military unit, put up a

votive altar to Placida Regina, who, based on the epithet Placida, might have referred to

Isis or equally to Hekate. Considering that the two auxiliary units known to have been

214
garrisoned at Romula Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum, perhaps Equitata, and

Numerus Surorum Sagittariorum were of Eastern origin, a dedication to an Eastern

goddess, (though not necessarily a dea patria), should not surprise.

Yet another form of military group identification emerges in a religious context in

Dacia that of the military collegium, as attested by a votive relief representing the

Thracian Hero, which mentions a collegium duplicariorum, on whose behalf Iulius

Marinus offers the votive (IDR II, 505). This military club was formed of soldiers who

had distinguished themselves through miltary exploits, and as a consequence, were

rewarded with double stipendium. The inscribed votive relief was discovered inside the

armamentarium of the military camp from Slveni, on the Alutus River valley,

immediately north of Sucidava. The worship of the Thracian Knight inside this castrum

may be connected with the presence here of a cavalry unit, the Ala I Hispanorum. We

also encounter, at the legionary camp in Potaissa, a collective dedication to a Genius

scholarum, by the beneficiarii under the legate Octavius Iulianus (CIL III, 876). Often,

non-commissioned officers, such as the beneficiarii, speculatores, optiones, etc.,

maintained collegia or scholae where they met, among other things, for religious

purposes (Speidel and Dimitrova-Mileva 1978: 1548).

Collective military dedications to official deities of the Roman state most often

closely connected to the imperial cult are quite frequent throughout the province. A

particularly large number of collective votive altar dedications to IOM comes from

various auxiliary units and their commanders stationed at Micia, as well as from the

veteran magistri and Roman citizens of the nearby pagus Miciensis (IDR III/3, 76-84).

Such votive dedications would have been customary during the annual January military

215
ceremony of sacrifice, when Jupiter and the other deities were invoked to protect the

emperor and the Roman state during the following year.43 One such dedication to IOM

from Micia (IDR III/3, 77) is made for the health of Septimius Severus and his sons, by

six or seven such auxiliary units stationed in the camp. IOM is also collectively invoked

at Apulum, in the praetorium of the governor of Dacia, for his welfare (IDR III/5.1, 137).

Also from Apulum come two collective dedications to IOM separately, and to the

Capitoline Tridad, by veterans of Legio XIII Gemina.

The quintessential military deity of Rome, Mars, is also invoked in collective

dedications from Dacia: as Mars Gradivus, by the Cohors I Sagitariorum milliaria

Gordiana, at Drobeta (IDR II, 23), as well as by the Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum

(IDR III/3, 108), at Micia, where he is also worshipped simply as Mars by the Ala I

Bosporanorum.44 IOM and Mars Augustus are worshipped together at Apulum, by a

group of soldiers transferred to Legio XIII Gemina, who dedicate the inscription for the

welfare of the governor of the province (IDR III/5.1, 245).

But as seen above, unofficial or non-Roman deities, too, were commonly

invoked for the welfare of the reigning emperor. Such is also the case for a temple to

IOM Dolichenus built at Porolissum, for the welfare and safety of the emperor Gordian

and that of the Cohors III Campestris, by three priests of the god and of the said cohort,

one of whom was also a veteran. The temple was discovered in 2001, not far from the

Roman auxilliary camp (Piso 2005: 467-486).

43
Cf. Henig 1984: 89, who discusses such attestations for Britain.
44
Mars Invictus Pater Gradivus is one of several Roman state deities invoked in a preserved fragment of an
inscribed nuncupatio votorum from Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/2, 241).

216
Conclusion

As one of the Empires heavily militarized frontier provinces, Dacia shares a

number of features with other such provinces (Britain, Germany, Pannonia, Moesia, etc.),

most notably the symbiotic socio-economic relationship between the army stationed in

the province and its civilian population, as well as the role of the army as a factor in

accelerating the process of provincial urbanization. But, as the epigraphic evidence

suggests, the military presence seems to have impacted the development of Dacia to a

greater extent than that of other comparable provinces, not in the least because of the

notable absence, at the incipient stages of provincial formation, of a native elite, which in

other provinces (Britain, Gaul, Germany, Pannonia, etc.) often collaborated with the

Roman government in the task of provincial administration at local or regional level.

Given this situation, I suggested that in Dacia, it was the army primarily through its

honorably discharged veterans settled with land in the province that stepped in to fill

this void, at least in the early stages. In this sense, Dacia has the highest numbers of

veterans advancing to positions of local leadership (as magistrates and decurions) in the

civilian settlements of the province, by comparison to all other provinces along the

Danube line. It is therefore no surprise that the military presence through army

personnel and high-ranking officers and their families, as well as through veterans settled

in the province with their families has made a significant contribution to the religious

life of the province.

Throughout this final chapter, I have considered some of the more salient features

of the military religious activity in the province, such as they could be extrapolated

primarily from the epigraphic record of the province, but also, to some extent, from

217
certain types of archaeological evidence (votive statuettes and reliefs). In approaching

this substantial body of evidence, I chose to organize it within more neutral umbrella

categories of individual and collective, rather than trying to fit it within rigid

dichotomies such as official/unofficial, public/private, etc. which, insofar as

they pertain to the military religion of the second and third centuries A. D., are not

always as clear-cut in practice, as they are in theoretical models of military religion.

While I do not discount such categories throughout my discussion on the contrary,

they form an integral part of it I tried to approach them more cautiously, and point out

cases where a blurring of boundaries between official and unofficial, or public and

private took place.

In terms of individual military religious practice, in its various manifestations

throughout the province, perhaps the most salient feature is the worship of the gods of

the Roman state (as listed in the Feriale Duranum), and specifically IOM (and to a far

lesser extent the Capitoline Triad), by all levels of military personnel, as well as by

veterans. In a military context, such dedications, many of them likely offered annually in

the context of the New Year sacrifices as prescribed to the Roman army in Feriale

Duranum, would have been tantamount to demonstrations of loyalty to the Roman state,

the ruling emperor, and the imperial family. At both individual and collective levels, I

also discussed the role that the worship of a variety of military Genii particularly those

of specific military units played in boosting the soldiers morale and ultimately in

forging a sense of comradeship and esprit de corps within individual army units or their

divisions. I also noted the unusual popularity, particularly in the military milieu of the

province, of a decidedly non-military deity Venus, present in large quantities, in the

218
form of small, coarsely made terracotta votive statuettes, either directly inside military

camps, or else, in civilian settlements in immediate proximity to large military

concentrations. As has been suggested, such statuettes may have functioned, for their

votaries, in an almost talismanic capacity, perhaps as protectors of male prowess, and

generally of fertility and life. This may also help explain the presence of such statuettes

of Venus in votive deposits at Apulum and Sarmizegetusa.

I also briefly examined the influence of certain Eastern cults the so-called

soldier religions of IOM Dolichens, Mithras, and Sol Invictus upon the religious

pantheon of the province, concluding that, though certainly popular among the military of

the province, the number of civilian adherents of these cults is in fact greater than that of

military ones, a pattern confirmed elsewhere throughout the Roman Empire. Conversely,

I also examined the impact of Western cults specifically the presence of certain Celto-

Germanic deities in the military pantheon of the province. Significantly, oftentimes, both

eastern and Western deities were worshipped individually and especially collectively,

among the military (and also veterans) of the Dacian province in their capacity as Dii

Patrii, thus contributing to the reinforcement of a strong sense of group identity within

ethnic-based auxiliary units of the army.

The impact of native Dacian religious beliefs is virtually undetectable, not only

within the military pantheon of the province, but also in the diverse religious pantheon of

the Dacian province, in general. However, the Danubian Rider gods are an example of a

cult that is both local or regional, being popular in Pannonia and Moesia: most of the

votive reliefs dedicated to these deities that were discovered in a military context come

from Roman Dacia, more so than in Pannonia and Moesia.

219
 In assessing the possible motivations for both small-scale votive dedications, and

larger-scale acts of religious euergetism undertaken by the military and veterans of the

province, reasons of a personal nature (ex viso, ex iussu numini, pro salute sua et

suorum, etc.) seem to dominate such acts coming from lower-ranking individual soldiers,

while official demonstrations of loyalty to the ruling emperor and imperial house often

appear to motivate such acts on the part of higher-ranking military officers, veterans, and

entire military units. There are, however, some notable exceptions to this pattern, and I

have discussed them throughout the chapter as appropriate. It is important to note that,

when coming from military personnel, army units, and veterans, larger-scale acts of

religious euergetism would have also contributed, at a local level, to strengthening the

symbiosis between the military and local civilian communities, and to the sense that

soldiers and veterans as individuals and as groups were active members of the

larger local communities.

220
Conclusion

A few years ago, I embarked upon a dissertation project that planned to explore,

generally, socio-cultural issues of colonization in Roman Dacia, which was partly

motivated by the desire to better understand (in more depth than the superficial

knowledge I had before) a large component of my cultural heritage as a native

Romanian, and partly by my own formative experiences as an immigrant to a new, and in

some ways strange and different land: the United States. All this reminded me of the

words of a late nineteenth-century immigrant to the United States. Though his name now

escapes me, his words, immortalized on the exhibit walls of the Ellis Island Museum, are

vividly imprinted in my memory and I am roughly reproducing them here: Before I

came to this country, I had heard that the American roads were paved with gold. When I

arrived here, I quickly realized that not only were the roads not paved with gold, but that

they were not paved at all, and further, that I was expected to pave them.

I thus began to wonder what it must have felt like for immigrants, soldiers, and

veterans ex toto orbe Romano to set foot, for the first time, inside a strange new frontier

land, which although rich in new economic opportunities (not the least of which was,

ironically, the lucrative exploitation of gold in the new Imperial Mines) offered none,

or very few of the structures of civilization familiar from their respective homelands

throughout the Roman world: cities and towns with fora, curiae, temples, baths, theatres

and amphitheatres, shops and workshops, apartment blocks, urban and suburban villas,

221
statues of gods, goddesses, emperors and members of the civic elites, graffiti and

inscriptions of various types at every turn; or, in a rural context, villas, homesteads, vici,

pagi or castella; and, of course, the famous Roman roads the lifelines of the Empire. It

was they (the soldiers of the Roman army, its veterans and civilian colonists), who, like

the late-nineteenth-century immigrant passing through Ellis Island, had to build them,

virtually ex nihilo: what existed there before the Dacian mountaintop fortresses (which

had been razed and burned to the ground after the war anyway) or the native Dacian

villages with their semi-sunken huts were not what they had been accustomed, or even

willing to embrace, for a variety of strategic and practical considerations. Dacia would

have been, for many, the farthest they had ever traveled from their families, friends, or

their respective larger or smaller urban or rural communities of their native homelands in

the Empire.

It had to have been a profoundly novel, alienating, and, perhaps, at times, quite

frightening experience, not unlike that of new immigrants to the America of the

seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, or that of the American pioneers to the

American West. Indeed, some of the evidence I examined throughout the course of this

study (as well as some I have not), seems to point to this: witness, for example, the entire

extra muros area around the provincial capital, Sarmizegetusa, with its temples,

amphitheatre, villas and workshops, being looted and burned to the ground around 168-

170, when the invading Marcommani reached the walls of the city; or the many private

legal documents inscribed on waxed wooden tablets, being hastily hidden by someone in

the mining galleries of Alburnus Maior, on the same occasion of the Marcommanic

invasion of the province; or, finally, the pious gratitude shown to the goddess Nemesis by

222
Scantius Lucius, a soldier stationed at Samus, a fort on the northern border with the free

Dacian tribes, for saving him from multis insidiis (AE 1957, 328).

In this new and unfamiliar environment, the creation of communities (from the

smallest, such as collegia, to the very largest, the cities) and structures of civilization

familiar from elsewhere in the Empire, as well as of familiar patterns of interaction

(social, cultural, economic, and political), would have been imperative for the very

survival of the new province and that of its inhabitants. In so many ways, the religious

evidence I examined throughout the course of this study reflects this re-creation of the

familiar by the members of this new, frontier provincial society: for example, the

creation of numerous associations (professional, ethnic, religious, military, etc.), all

intended to foster, through a variety of means, a strong sense of group identity among

their members; the dedications individual and collective to dii patrii of distant

homelands, to gods of a professional pantheon, or to protective genii of various groups

and communities; the perpetuation of a long-standing Graeco-Roman tradition of

religious euergetism, both by the civilian, and by the military population of the province,

men and women, free or slaves, ultimately enriching the religious-architectural landscape

of their local communities with monumental and semi-monumental structures common

elsewhere in the empire; the countless dedications, by the military of the Province, the

civilian elites and members of the imperial administration, to the Roman State gods

(most notably IOM), often undertaken for the welfare of the Roman emperor, his family

and the state; or the public ritual of nuncupatio votorum, undertaken for similar reasons;

religious practices encountered in ritual archaeology elsewhere throughout the Empire,

such as the creation of votive deposit pits, or favisae, within sacred precincts; finally, at

223
the domestic level, the worship of the household Lares and other deities, as well as the

familiar use of socio-cultural and economic status symbols in the decoration of the

public spaces of urban and suburban villas, such as mosaics with famous Graceo-

Roman mythological themes, etc.

It is in such ways, and many others, that these newcomers to Roman Dacia, with

their diverse ethnic, social, economic and cultural backgrounds, contributed to the

formation of the cosmopolitan religious culture of the province, yet one that any

inhabitant of the Roman world of the second and third centuries would have immediately

recognized as familiar.

Yet in other ways, the newcomers interactions with this strange and unfamiliar

land, and with its particular set of geopolitical circumstances, in turn shaped some of their

religious practices and preferences, and therefore the religious identity of Roman

Dacia. For example, none of the native Dacians deities made their way into the post-

conquest Dacian provincial pantheon, whether in their original form, or through the

process of interpretatio Romana. There is no Dacian equivalent of a Sulis Minerva, a

Hercules Magusanus, or an Apollo Grannus. There are other features of religious life

peculiar to Roman Dacia and to some extent, also to neighboring Pannonia

specifically, an unusually strong preference (by comparison to other provinces) for the

worship of agrestic gods, such as Silvanus, Liber Pater, and Diana. This should come

as no surprise, given the untamed landscape of the province, which was slowly but

surely brought to heel by the assiduous efforts of the Roman army and civilian colonists.

In this sense, the numerous dedications to Silvanus Domesticus, from both civilians and

soldiers of the province a feature shared only with Pannonia suggest a heightened

224
concern on the part of the new inhabitants of this frontier province, for the welfare and

prosperity of their families and households. This is also not surprising, given the

uncertainties and dangers that beset the lives of settlers, their families and the

communities they formed, in this new frontier land, the last to be incorporated within

Roman provincial boundaries, and the first to be abandoned.

In the end, I hope to have contributed to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of

the complex interactions and processes of identity negotiation, at work in the formation

of Roman Dacias religious landscape, one that moves beyond traditional

Roman/native dichotomies. Future investigations would need to take the study of

provincial identities in Roman Dacia further, perhaps using evidence from other aspects

of provincial life, such as funerary practices (from epitaphs and the rich material

inventory of provincial necropoleis), different epigraphic and archaeological expressions

of civic and everyday life in the province, or the architecture of the province (public and

private, urban and rural). The present study has set one path, by demonstrating that, in

some respects, the religious landscape of the province was as unique as Dacia itself, yet

in other ways, it bore a familiar resemblance to the religious cultures of other provinces

throughout the Roman world and, not least, to that of Rome itself.

225
Illustrations

226
MAP 1: The Roman province of Dacia (from M. Macrea 1969).

227
MAP 2: Dacian fortresses in the Ortie Mountains area (from P. MacKendrick 1975:
Map 3.4, p. 54).

228
MAP 3: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: the city and the northern extra muros area
(from N. Gudea and T. Lobscher 2006: Abb. 24, p. 26).

229
MAP 4: The Apulum conurbation and the camp of Legio XIII Gemina
(from N. Gudea and T. Lobscher 2006: Abb. 25, p. 27).

230
PLATE I: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: temple of the Palmyrean Dii Patrii built by P.
Aelius Theimes (plan) (from A. Rusu-Pescaru and D. Alicu 2000:
Pl. xxvii, p. 87).

231
Plate II: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: Temple of Liber Pater (plan and possible
reconstruction) (from A. Rusu-Pescaru and D. Alicu 2000: Pl. xv, p. 55).

232
PLATE III: Apulum I: Precinct of Liber Pater: construction phases and votive deposit
pits (from A. Schfer, A. Diaconescu, and I. Haynes 2006: 197).

233
PLATE IV: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: the Ransom of Hector mosaic (drawing)
(from L. Ruscu 2003: TAB XXI, Nr. 113).

234
APPENDIX A

The main urban centers of Roman Dacia1

1) Sarmizegetusa

Sarmizegetusa was the sole colony founded during Trajans reign (in 108, as its

founding inscription, CIL III, 1442 = IDR III/2, 1, shows), through deductio, by veterans.

Its full official name was Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, and it

was accorded the ius Italicum. Located in the lowlands, some 30 kilometers west of the

Sarmizegetusa Regia, the former capital of the Dacian kingdom, the colony was founded

at the crossing of two main roman road with access to the Danube, on a "green field" site.

The city was organized along the two main axes, the cardo maximus (north-south)

and the decumanus maximus (east -west). The streets and insulae blocks were organized

in a grid pattern, following the two main axes. The city was walled. Outside of the walls,

were located an amphitheatre with a seating capacity of about 5,000, temples, villas, an

industrial area, and two necropoleis.

The first forum (the forum vetus or Forum of Trajan), built by Legio IIII Flavia

Felix, was located at the heart of the colony, at the crossing of the two main arteries, and

contained, among other public buildings, the aedes Augustalium, tabernae, covered

porticoes, a basilica iudiciaria and tribunalia, one of which contained a prison in its

basement. A temple to Fortuna Augusta, whose cult was tied to that of the emperors, and

1
With the exception of the description of Sarmizegetusa, for which the information comes from Piso 2005:
435-457, the information for all other towns and cities presented in this appendix comes from Ardevan
1998: 28-78.

235
the aedes fabrum were also built there during the period of prosperity following the

Marcommanic wars.

The so-called forum novum, which contained the Capitolium of the colony, was

built around 153, on the former place of a Hadrianic macellum. The praetorium of the

financial procurator of Dacia Apulensis was located within the city walls, near the north

gate. It is bordered by two horrea and an area sacra, where several procurators of Dacia

Apulensis dedicated numerous marble votive monuments to a variety of deities.

Sarmizegetusa was also the seat of the Concilium III Daciarum, whose principal

obligation was to celebrate the imperial cult on behalf of all the communities of the

province.

During the first half of the third century, when the colony also receives the epithet

Metropolis in inscriptions, it is estimated that its intra-mural population of about 13, 000

inhabitants, while the total population of the city, its immediate extra muros areas and

that of its territorium might have reached 40, 000 inhabitants. After the official Roman

withdrawal in 271, all evidence of municipal life in colony ceases. However, traces of

habitation in the area (including the fortification of the amphitheatre), continue

uninterruptedly until the fifth century.

2) Apulum I and II

An interesting and unique case is that of Apulum, now the largest archaeological

site of Roman Dacia, and one of the largest in the Empire, encompassing the legionary

camp of Legio XIII Gemina with its adjacent canabae, the praetorium of the governor of

the three Dacias, and two distinct cities. Altogether, they formed the largest conurbation

236
north of the Danube. Recent archaeological discoveries and epigraphic evidence have

shown that the first of these two cities, colonia Aurelia Apulensis (conventionally labeled

Apulum I), located on the banks of the Marisus River, was founded through colonization,

and that it was initially part of the territorium of Trajans colony, Sarmizegetusa, and

therefore, probably a pagus of the colony. The settlements upgrade to municipal rank

(municipium Aurelium Apulense) in or before 180 is due, in all likelihood, to Marcus

Aurelius and its promotion to Colonia Aurelia, to Commodus. At the start of the third

century, the city also benefitted from ius Italicum. Under Trebonianus Gallus, the colonia

received the epithet Chrysopolis, as well, no doubt because of the involvement of its elite

citizens in gold mining -related activities in the nearby Apuseni Mountains, but perhaps

also suggesting its emulation for and rivalry with Sarmizegetusa, which had received the

appellation of Metropolis perhaps around the time of Severus Alexander.

The second city, Municipium Septimium Apulense (conventionally named

Apulum II), was a creation of Septimius Severus, and was located very clearly on

territory administered by the army, but not developed, as it was initially thought, from the

canabae legionis (which in fact appear to have continued their existence north of the

legionary camp, even after the foundation of Apulum II). The creation of this new

municipal center was likely part of a more general measure by the emperor Septimius

Severus, one intended to reward the loyalty of the legions from Dacia, which had

supported him in his struggle for the throne. However, the visibly smaller number of

inscriptions found at Apulum II (by comparison to Apulum I), indicates a more modest,

somewhat less prosperous urban community, on a similar scale with Napoca and Drobeta.

237
3) Romula

Very little information exists to date on Romula, since the epigraphic material has

surfaced in very small quantities here, and the archaeological excavation of the site has

been quite limited and sporadic indeed, most reports have yet to be published. The

town appears to have been founded in place of a former Dacian settlement, which was

dislocated following the Roman conquest. Two military units were stationed at Romula

for a longer time period: Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum and Numerus Surorum

Sagittariorum. At some point, the town received municipal status, probably under

Hadrian. By 248, the city had become a fully fortified colonia.

4) Drobeta

Drobeta was the first Roman settlement from Dacia, developed as a military vicus

in the vicinity the Roman military castrum and of the bridge over the Danube built by

Apollodorus of Damascus during the Dacian wars. Although the bridge was dismantled

by Hadrian, the castrum and the prosperous civilian settlement continued to function

through the duration of the province. The original vicus appears to have displaced an

earlier Dacian settlement. However, as in the case of Romula, little is known about the

development of the civilian settlement, due to minimal archaeological excavations. The

vicus was raised to municipal rank by Hadrian (Municipium Publium Aelium Hadrianum

Drobetense), and to that of colonia by Septimius Severus.

238
5) Dierna

Even less is known about Dierna, a town on the Danube, slightly upstream from

Drobeta. Most of the information about the town comes from a limited number of

inscriptions. The site was flooded by the building of the hydroelectric power plant from

the Iron Gates. As a result, extensive rescue excavations were conducted in 1966-1969,

resulting in significant archaeological discoveries. However, as with many other sites

from Roman Dacia, most of the results were never published. Although, as with many

Dacian provincial settlements, the name of the town is Dacian, nothing is known of any

Dacian habitation of the site in pre-Roman times. Dierna appears in very early third

century inscriptions as a municipium, though without any imperial epithet. It may have

advanced to the rank of colonia, with ius Italicum, towards the end of the reign of

Septimius Severus, though this is not at all certain.

6) Tibiscum

The town of Tibiscum appears to have developed independently of the military

vicus from the same area, on the right bank of the river Tibiscus (modern Timi). Unlike

the site of the military camp and its adjacent vicus, the actual site of the expansive Roman

town was only recently discovered, and archaeological research is underway. The town

was likely part of the territorium of Sarmizegetusa for most of its existence: inscriptions

mentioning a municipium Tibiscense, without an imperial epithet, date only from the

early third century, probably during the reign of Septimius Severus. tibiscum probably

never became a colonia.

239
7) Ampelum

Ampelum is probably the least known town of Roman Dacia. Because of its

proximity to the imperial gold mines, the settlement was the seat of the procuratores

aurarium, and of the administrative apparatus of the gold mines. Although the town

developed over an area of 3 kilometers, and ruins of monumental structures were noted,

virtually the entire site was destroyed in 1985, by the construction of a Nnon-ferrous

metals processing plant. several members of the municipal aristocracy of Sarmizegetusa

left inscriptions here early on in the development of the province, which suggests that

they may have had economic interests here, probably tied to the area's gold mining.

Therefore, Ampelum may have initially been a pagus of Sarmizegetusa. After the

foundation of Municipium aurelium Apulense (Apulum I), Ampelum may have become

part of its territorium. Ampelum may have become a municipium (perhaps under

Septimius Severus), as an inscription from Apulum may suggest.

8) Potaissa

Potaissa was founded during the first years of the province, but it was not until

169, when Legio V Macedonica was permanently stationed in the castrum north of the

town (during the Marcommanic wars), that Potaissa's development was truly accelerated.

Indeed, the existence of the town was tightly bound to the presence of the legion in its

vicinity. Unfortunately, the ruins of the ancient town, which cover an area of roughly

three kilometers, are located directly below the modern town of Turda. Therefore,

excavations were minimal, and as such, it is very little known. Potaissa became a

240
municipium under Septimius Severus, and not long thereafter (also during the same

emperor's reign), a colonia with ius Italicum.

9) Napoca

Napoca existed with certainty during the reign of Trajan, though no traces of pre-

Roman habitation have been located to date. The early, immediately after the conquest,

traces of habitation consist of wooden dwellings, and mixed Roman and Dacian pottery,

as well as Noric-Pannonian type three-footed pots, suggesting an early settlement of

Roman colonists. The ancient fortified city is entirely covered by the modern city of Cluj-

Napoca, and in fact, its forum was located below was located at the very center of the

modern city. Therefore, archaeological research has been limited and minimally

published. The military presence near Napoca was insignficant. The town receives

municipal rank from Hadrian, and subsequently becomes a colonia under Marcus

Aurelius or Commodus. It receives the ius Italicum from Septimius Severus.

10) Porolissum

Porolissum developed as a military vicus in immediate proximity to an important

frontier auxilliary castrum and a Roman customs station. A Dacian settlement with the

same name existed there before the conquest, not on the exact site of the Roman town,

but rather on a nearby hill. After the Roman conquest, this settlement ceases to exist, and

it is likely that at least some of its native inhabitants joined the new vicus near the Roman

camp. Though the castrum and customs station have been well investigated, the

excavation of the civilian settlement and its surroundings has been undertaken more

241
intensely only in recent years. Thus far, the extra-mural area has received more attention:

a few of temples (and a later Christian basilica), an amphitheatre, two necropoleis and a

suburban dwelling have been unearthed. Porolissum received the municipal rank from

Septimius Severus, though it never became a colonia.

11) Micia

Micia developed as an important pagus in the immediate vicinity of a very large

auxilliary castrum, with a nearby amphitheatre and baths complex. While most ongoing

archaeological research is primarily focused on the military camp and amphitheatre,

nonetheless a few temples and other larger structures have been located in the area, along

with an "industrial" quarter, two sizeable necropoleis along with rich epigraphic

inventory. The pagus was governed by two magistri, veterans from the auxilliary units

stationed there. It is not clear if this pagus was technically within the territorium of

Sarmizegetusa, just as it is not known whether it ever reached municipal rank, despite the

clear presence of urban structures in the area.

242
APPENDIX B

Corpus of Deities from Roman Dacia

In the table which follows on pp. 244335 below, the several categories pertaining to

each deity (Type/Epithet, Artifact Category, Greek, Iconography, Place of

Discovery, and Origin) are distributed on two pages, due to page-layout constraints.

Each deity entry has been numbered in order to facilitate reference.

Also, because too many variables were involved (such as several deities mentioned in a

single inscription, etc.), I have not arranged the deities in any particular order. Rather, I

entered them in the corpus in the order in which I came accross them.

In the Artifact Category column, I have also entered appropriate bibliographic

information for each particular artifact. In the Greek column, I have entered GR for

those few inscriptions in Greek, where applicable. In the Place of Discovery column,

the ancient place names from Roman Dacia are written in bold letters. I tried to specify

the precise discovery context, where it was available.

243
 NO. DEITY TYPE / EPITHET ARTIFACT CATEGORY GREEK
1 Abrasax jasper gem (IDR II, 317) GR
2 Abrasax agate gem (IDR II, 492)
3 Abrasax & jasper gem (IDR II, 661) GR
4 Iao
5 Aesculapius & inscription on votive plaque (IDR II, 182)
6 Hygia
7 Aesculapius marble statue fragm (Tudor, Oltenia, p.383)
8 Hygia statuette fragm. + inscription (IDR II, 143)
9 Adonai & golden tabella dexionis (IDR III/1, 43) GR
10 Theoi & Hypsistoi
11 Demon immunditiae
12 Adonai golden tablet inside child's tomb (IDR III/1, 42) GR
13 Apis bronze statuette (Kater-Sibbes&Vermaseren, Apis II, no.366)
14 Apollo & relief + inscription (IDR II, 193)
15 Hercules &
16 Diana Regina
17 Diana & relief + inscription (IDR II, 333)
18 Apollo marble statuette fragm. (Gramatopol, 2000, 262)
19 Atargatis (=Dea Syria) inscription on statuette plinth (IDR II, 346)
20 Thracian Knight ? Deus Sanctus relief + inscription (IDR II, 25)
21 Thracian Knight relief + inscription (IDR II, 132)
22 Thracian Knight relief + inscription (IDR II, 199)
23 Thracian Knight relief + inscription (IDR II, 200)

244
24 Thracian Knight relief + inscription (IDR II, 505)
25 Thracian Knight Deus Sanctus relief + inscription (IDR II, 632)
26 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 31)
27 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 32)
28 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 205)
29 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 206)
30 Danubian Rider votive relief fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 33)
31 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 34)
32 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 35)
33 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 36)
34 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 37)
35 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 38)
36 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 39)
37 Danubian Rider votive relief fragm. (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 207)
38 Danubian Rider terracotta mold fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 40)
39 Danubian Riders terracotta plaque fr. vessel? (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 41)
40 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 42)
41 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 208)
42 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 43)
43 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque roundel (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 43)
44 Ceres inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 196)
45 Ceres terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.187)
46 Dea Dardanica? relief + inscription (IDR II, 344)
47 Dea Dardanica? relief + inscription (IDR II, 345)
 NO. ICONOGRAPHY PLACE OF DISCOVERY ORIGIN
1 being w. bird head, man's body, snake legs; seven-rayed star Sucidava Gnostic
2 being w. bird head, man snake body, w. whip, shield Romula Gnostic
3 being w. bird's head and snake body, w.whip, shield; seven-rayed stars Romula Gnostic
4 Romula Gnostic
5 Sucidava Greco-Roman
6 Sucidava Greco-Roman
7 ? Romula Greco-Roman
8 altar with snake Aquae? Greco-Roman
9 Dierna Gnostic
10 Dierna Gnostic
11 Dierna Gnostic
12 Dierna (necropolis) Gnostic
13 Apis w. right foreleg raised, head turned to the right Dierna Egyptian
14 Sucidava Greco-Roman
15 Sucidava Greco-Roman
16 Sucidava Greco-Roman
17 Romula Greco-Roman
18 head of Apollo w. paint traces Aquae? (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
19 Romula Syrian
20 horse & rider fragment Drobeta Thracian
21 tunic, chlamys, Phrygian cap,rhyton/cornucopia?, trampled semi-human anguiped Drobeta Thracian
22 tunic, chlamys, horse, dog, hunted animal, acolyte, 2 female gures Sucidava Thracian
23 horse & rider fragment Sucidava Thracian

245
24 tunic, chlamys, horse, altar with priest sacricing Sl!veni (castrum, Alutus river valley) Thracian
25 horseman fragm. S!pata de Jos (castrum along the limes transalutanus) Thracian
26 3 levels?: 2 horsemen trampling men, anking goddess, etc. Drobeta Thracian
27 3 levels?: 2 horsemen trampling men, anking goddess, etc. Drobeta (inside castrum) Thracian
28 roundel: 2 horsemen anking goddess, table w. sh, etc. Drobeta Thracian
29 bust of Sol, snake; horseman, goddess; mensa Delphica Drobeta Thracian
30 horseman?; goddess w. right hand over mouth (Nemesis) Romula Thracian
31 3 levels: Sol, Luna; horsemen anking goddess, etc. Romula Thracian
32 3 levels: Sol, Luna; horsemen anking goddess, etc. Romula Thracian
33 3 levels: Sol, Luna; horsemen anking goddess, etc. Romula Thracian
34 3 levels: Sol, Luna; horsemen anking goddess, etc. Romula Thracian
35 3 levels?: fragm. of horseman trampling man; snake, etc. Romula Thracian
36 3 levels?: 2 horsemen anking goddesss, etc. Romula Thracian
37 man being trampled by horse; Nemesis, attendants Romula Thracian
38 fragm. of horseman trampling man; 3 altars, sh Sucidava Thracian
39 3 levels: Sol, Luna; 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Sucidava Thracian
40 4 levels: Sol, Luna; 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Sucidava Thracian
41 3 levels: Sol, Luna; 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Sucidava Thracian
42 4 levels: Sol, Luna; 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Orlea (near Sucidava) Thracian
43 3 levels: Sol, 2 men prostrate on ground, cantharos, etc. Orlea (near Sucidava) Thracian
44 Sucidava Greco-Roman
45 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
46 ? Romula Illyrian?
47 ? Romula Illyrian?
 48 Isis Dea Placida inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 198)
49 Isis/Hekate? Triformis type; Domna Placida relief + inscription (IDR II, 144)
50 Isis Placida Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 338)
51 Isis bronze bust (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no. 10)
52 Isis terracotta statuette fragm. (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.11)
53 Serapis bronze statuette fragm. (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.13)
54 Serapis statuette head (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.14)
55 Serapis bronze bust (Gramatopol, 2000, p.165)
56 Serapis & votive plaque fragm. (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.15)
57 Harpocrates &
58 Isis
59 Isis & jasper gem (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no. 16)
60 Serapis
61 Diana terracotta vessel fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.415, no.26, Pl.VI.26)
62 Diana bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.383)
63 Diana bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.383)
64 Diana? relief + inscription (IDR II, 194)
65 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 22)
66 Diana Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 158)
67 Diana? Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 195)
68 Diana Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 332)
69 Diana & Sanctissma inscription on votive plaque(IDR II, 141)
70 Mercurius & Gubernator
71 Genius stationis

246
72 Genius ordinis municipii inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 21)
73 Hercules statuary group + inscription (IDR II, 142)
74 Hercules votive relief (Tudor, Oltenia, p.389)
75 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 334)
76 Hercules relief + inscription (IDR II, 335)
77 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 642)
78 Hercules votive relief fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia:389)
79 Hercules bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia: 389; 384, Fig. 105/5)
80 Hercules statue fragment (Tudor, Sucidava, p. 54-5; Pl. X.1)
81 Hercules terracotta medallion fragm.(Popilian, 2006, p.416, no.29)
82 Jupiter deorum princeps inscription on votive plaque(IDR II, 19)
83 Jupiter Cohortalis inscr. on votive altar (IDR II, 21 verso)
84 Jupiter Domnus relief + inscription (IDR II, 192)
85 IOM Zbelsurdos relief + inscr. fragm. (IDR II, 20)
86 Jupiter Dolichenus? marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Drobeta, Fig. 6; p.20)
87 Jupiter Fulminans type marble statuette fragm. (Tudor, Drobeta, Fig. 29)
88 Jupiter Tronans type bronze statuette fragm. (Gramatopol, 2000, p.163)
89 Jupiter bronze statuette fragm. (Gramatopol, 2000, p.164)
90 Jupiter statue fragm. (Gramatopol, 2000, p.254)
91 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 18)
92 Juno Regina
93 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 17)
94 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 201)
95 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 308)
 48 Romula Egyptian
49 Aquae? Egyptian
50 Romula Egyptian
51 I. w. hair tied w. lotus, crescent moon & sm. horns; Isis knot Drobeta Egyptian
52 Isis w. crescent crown, veil, cape tied w. Isis knot Romula Egyptian
53 S. w. modius (of Bryaxis type, fr. Serapeum at Alexandria) Romula Egyptian
54 Serapis w. modius headdress Sucidava Egyptian
55 ? Drobeta Egyptian
56 fragm. of I.& S. w. sceptre; child H. w. lotus, cornucopia, etc. Sucidava Egyptian
57 Sucidava Egyptian
58 Sucidava Egyptian
59 I. w. horned headdress & S. w. modius (r. prole busts) Romula Egyptian
60 Romula Egyptian
61 bust of D. holding bow & pulling arrow from quiver on back Romula Greco-Roman
62 bust of D., w. quiver full of arrows on back Romula Greco-Roman
63 ? Romula Greco-Roman
64 2 running dogs Sucidava Greco-Roman
65 Drobeta Greco-Roman
66 Aquae? Greco-Roman
67 Sucidava Greco-Roman
68 Romula Greco-Roman
69 Aquae? Greco-Roman
70 Aquae? Greco-Roman
71 Aquae? Roman

247
72 Drobeta (inside castrum) Roman
73 fragments of: club, lion skin, ox head Aquae? Greco-Roman
74 H. ghting the Nemean lion, w. club set aside Aquae? Greco-Roman
75 fragments of: club, lion skin, ox head Romula Greco-Roman
76 fragments of: lion skin on left shoulder Romula? Greco-Roman
77 Unknown Greco-Roman
78 H., about to strike Cacus w. club, next to ox in manger Grla Mare (on Danube, between Drobeta and Ratiaria) Greco-Roman
79 H. in repose stance, w. club and lion skin Sucidava Greco-Roman
80 bearded H. statue head Sucidava Greco-Roman
81 H. leaning on club, w. skins of Nem. lion & Ceryneian hind Romula Greco-Roman
82 Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
83 Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
84 draped bust, scepter in right hand Sucidava Greco-Roman
85 J. wreathed, enthroned, w. orb & sceptre; busts of Luna & Sol; eagle Drobeta Thracian
86 bearded head of J. w. Phrygian cap Drobeta Micro-Asiatic
87 J., semi-nude, standing w. thunderbolt in l. hand Drobeta Greco-Roman
88 J. enthroned, w. thunderbolt Drobeta Greco-Roman
89 J. w. arms raised at head level, w. thunderbolt & chlamys Dierna Greco-Roman
90 J. standing, w. eagle at feet Dierna Greco-Roman
91 Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
92 Drobeta Greco-Roman
93 Drobeta Greco-Roman
94 Sucidava Micro-Asiatic
95 Sucidava Greco-Roman
 96 IOM Defensor et Tutator inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 329)
97 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 330)
98 IOM inscription on votive altar? (IDR II, 331)
99 Liber Pater & terracotta relief mold (Tudor, Sucidava, p. 42, Fig. 5.1; p.46)
100 Pan
101 Liber Pater & votive relief fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
102 Silenus
103 Liber Pater & votive relief fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
104 Faunus
105 Liber Pater votive relief (Tudor, Drobeta, p.19)
106 Liber Pater votive relief (Tudor, Drobeta, p.19)
107 Liber Pater votive relief (Tudor, Drobeta, p.19)
108 Liber Pater votive relief (Tudor, Drobeta, p.19)
109 Liber Pater marble statuette fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, Pl. 59.1; p.376)
110 Liber Pater marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
111 Pan marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
112 Pan marble statuette fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
113 Pan bronze statue fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.376)
114 Hekate mold for terracotta relief (Tudor, Sucidava, p. 54)
115 Nymphae? lead mirror frame (Tudor, Sucidava, p. 48)
116 Pomona? bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.400)
117 Priapus bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia..., p.400)
118 Priapus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.416, no.33, Pl.VII.33)
119 Priapus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.416, no.34, Pl.VII.34)

248
120 Silenus earthware vessel (Gramatopol, 2000, p.196)
121 Magna Deum Mater inscriptionon votive plaque (IDR II, 26)
122 Magna Deum Mater inscription on votive plaque(IDR II, 27)
123 Magna Deum Mater? statuette fragm. + inscription (IDR II, 146)
124 Magna Deum Mater statue head (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.3)
125 Magna Deum Mater statuette + inscr. fragm. (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.4)
126 Magna Deum Mater? terracotta statuette (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.7)
127 Fortuna? terracotta statuette head (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no.5)
128 Fortuna bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p. 386; Pl.106.2)
129 Fortuna marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, Pl.107.1; p.385)
130 Fortuna Annonaria type marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.385)
131 Attis? statue fragm. (Berciu & Petolescu, 1976, no. 9)
132 Mars Gradivus inscription on altar (IDR II, 23)
133 Mars br. statuette fragm. (Tudor, Oltenia, p.395; Fig. 105.1 a-b)
134 Mars bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.395)
135 Mars bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.395)
136 Mercurius relief + inscription (IDR II, 24)
137 Mercurius bronze statuette fragm. (Florescu 1986, p.130, Fig. 73)
138 Mercurius glazed terracotta appliqu (Gramatopol 2000, p.195)
139 Minerva bronze statuette (Gramatopol 2000, p.170)
140 Minerva marble statuette (Gramatopo, 2000, p.262)
141 Minerva bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.395)
142 Minerva bronze statuette (Tudor, Oltenia, p.396)
143 Minerva terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.415, no.28)
 96 Romula Greco-Roman
97 Romula Greco-Roman
98 Romula Greco-Roman
99 Liber nude, w. thyrsos; Pan leaning on tree Sucidava Greco-Roman
100 Sucidava Greco-Roman
101 L. pouring wine fr. kantharos into the mouth of panther; Silenus Drobeta Greco-Roman
102 Drobeta Greco-Roman
103 L. w thyrsos receiving a fawn from a young Faunus Drobeta Greco-Roman
104 Drobeta Greco-Roman
105 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
106 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
107 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
108 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
109 head of L. w. grape clusters over ears Aquae? Greco-Roman
110 fragm. of L. w. thyrsos Romula Greco-Roman
111 Pan riding panther w. leash Romula Greco-Roman
112 head of Pan, w. pointy ears, horns, beard Drobeta Greco-Roman
113 fragm. of Pan's goat leg Romula Greco-Roman
114 ? Sucidava Greco-Roman
115 ? Sucidava Greco-Roman
116 P. enthroned, w. lap lled of owers & fruit Romula Roman
117 Priapus w. lap lled w. fruit & vegetables, on top of phallus Sucidava Greco-Roman
118 Priapus w. lap lled w. fruit & vegetables, on top of phallus Romula Roman
119 Priapus w. lap lled w. fruit & vegetables, on top of phallus Romula Roman

249
120 Silenus crowned w. ivy Romula Greco-Roman
121 Drobeta Micro-Asiatic
122 Drobeta Micro-Asiatic
123 Cybele enthroned; lion to the right Aquae? Micro-Asiatic
124 large scale head of goddess w. mural crown Romula Micro-Asiatic
125 fragm. of Cybele enthroned, lions Romula Micro-Asiatic
126 goddess w. crown, enthroned Aquae? Micro-Asiatic?
127 goddess head w. veil and mural crown (?) fragm. Romula Micro-Asiatic?
128 F. w. turreted crown & cornucopia Romula Greco-Roman
129 fragm. of head of F. w. mural crown Romula Greco-Roman
130 F. w. wheat stalks bunch in her arms Romula Greco-Roman
131 death of Attis, nude, seated on rock (?) Sucidava Micro-Asiatic
132 Drobeta Greco-Roman
133 Mars, nude, w. very high plumed helmet Orlea (near Sucidava) Greco-Roman
134 ? Romula Greco-Roman
135 ? Sucidava Greco-Roman
136 Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
137 nude M. w. wings atop head, w. chlamys on l. arm Romula Greco-Roman
138 ? Romula Greco-Roman
139 ? Drobeta Greco-Roman
140 M. w. Medusa brestplate, shield & spear Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
141 ? Romula Greco-Roman
142 ? R!cari (castrum on River Rhabon) Greco-Roman
143 head of of Minerva, w. plummed helmet Romula Greco-Roman
 144 Mithras Mithraeum (Ruscu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.81)
145 Mithras Mithraeum (Ruscu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.78-79)
146 Mithras Sol Invictus? relief + inscription (IDR II, 133)
147 Mithras bronze statuette fragm. (Tudor, Drobeta, p.19; Fig. 4)
148 Mithras? Sol Invictus? inscription on votive plaque(IDR II, 9)
149 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 145)
150 Mithras Sol? Invictus relief + inscription (IDR II, 176)
151 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on altar (IDR II, 341)
152 Mithras Sanctus Sol Invictus inscription on votive plaque (IDR II, 343)
153 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on altar (IDR II, 508)
154 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 635)
155 Muse jasper gem mounted on ring (IDR II, 486)
156 Sol inscription on altar (IDR II, 509/ 510)
157 Sol Deus Invictus statuary group fragm. + inscription (IDR II, 202)
158 Sol Deus Invictus relief + inscription (IDR II, 342)
159 Sol terracotta medallion (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 1)
160 Sol terracotta medallion (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 2)
161 Sol terracotta medallion (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 3)
162 Sol carnelian gem (Sanie, 1981, p. 135, no. 5)
163 Sol gem (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 6)
164 Sol jasper gem (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 7)
165 Sol terracotta lamp mold (Popilian, 2006, p.417, no.35, Pl.VII.35)
166 Sol terracotta lamp (Popilian, 2006, p.417, no.36, Pl.VII.36)
167 Nemesis temple (Ruscu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.131-132)

250
168 Nemesis dedicatory temple inscription (IDR II, 190)
169 Nemesis inscription on altar (IDR II, 197)
170 Nemesis Victrix inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 336)
171 Nemesis relief + inscription (IDR II, 643)
172 Nymphae inscription on votive altar (IDR II, 337)
173 Turmasgades relief + inscription (IDR II, 340)
174 Turmasgades? votive relief fragm. (Sanie, 1981, p. 101-102)
175 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.1, Pl.I.1)
176 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.2, Pl.I.2)
177 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.3, Pl. I.3)
178 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.4, Pl.I.4)
179 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.5, Pl.I.5)
180 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.411, no.6, Pl.I.6)
181 Venus terracotta stauette (Popilian, 2006, p.412, no.7, Pl.II.7)
182 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.412, no.8, Pl.II.8)
183 Venus terracotta stauette mold fr. (Popilian, 2006, p.412, no.9, Pl.II.9)
184 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.412, no.10, Pl.III/10)
185 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.412, no.11, Pl.III.11)
186 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.413, no.12, Pl.III.13)
187 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.413, no.13, Pl.III.13)
188 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.413, no.14, Pl.IV.14)
189 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.413, no.15, Pl.IV.15)
190 Venus Anadyomene (?) type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.413, no.16, Pl.IV.16)
191 Venus Pudica type terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.414, no.17, Pl.IV.17)
 144 Sl!veni (castrum, Alutus River valley) Iranian
145 Romula Iranian
146 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Drobeta Iranian
147 M. w. dagger in r. hand & l. foot atop head of killed bull Drobeta Iranian
148 Drobeta (inside castrum) Iranian
149 Aquae? Iranian
150 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Bumbe"ti (rural settlement & castrum on the River Rhabon) Iranian
151 Romula Iranian
152 Romula Iranian
153 Sl!veni (castrum, Alutus River valley) Iranian
154 Sn#e"ti (near limes transalutanus fortications) Iranian
155 wreathed muse leaning on column, holding mask and parazonium (?) Romula Greco-Roman
156 Sl!veni (castrum, Alutus river valley) Syrian
157 ? Sucidava Syrian
158 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Romula Iranian
159 Sol in quadriga Tibiscum Syrian
160 Sol in quadriga Romula Syrian
161 Sol in quadriga Locusteni (near Romula) Syrian
162 Sol in quadriga Romula Syrian
163 Sol in quadriga Romula Syrian
164 Sol in quadriga Dierna Syrian
165 bust of Sol w. radiate crown Romula Syrian
166 bust of Sol w. radiate crown (from no. 35 mold ?) Romula Syrian
167 Sucidava Greco-Roman

251
168 Sucidava Greco-Roman
169 Sucidava Greco-Roman
170 Romula Greco-Roman
171 balance, volumen Unknown Greco-Roman
172 Romula Greco-Roman
173 open-winged eagle carying a fawn in its claws Romula Syrian
174 eagle fragment? Romula Syrian
175 nude torso of V. w. one hand on breast, w. armlet & bracelet Romula Greco-Roman
176 nude torso of V., w. armlets Romula Greco-Roman
177 nude torso & legs of V., w. armlets Romula Greco-Roman
178 nude torso of V. w. pendant around neck Romula Greco-Roman
179 nude torso & legs of V. Romula Greco-Roman
180 nude torso of V. Romula Greco-Roman
181 semi-nude V., covering her breasts w. 1 hand Romula Greco-Roman
182 head of V. w. veil, diadem Romula Greco-Roman
183 Romula Greco-Roman
184 semi-nude V., covering breast w. hand, w. barcelets & armlets Romula Greco-Roman
185 nude V. Romula Greco-Roman
186 semi-nude V., covering breast w. hand, w. barcelets & armlets Romula Greco-Roman
187 semi-nude V., covering her breasts w. 1 hand Romula Greco-Roman
188 V. covered w. palla, which she pulls over her head Romula Greco-Roman
189 V. covered w. palla, which she pulls over her head; pendant Romula Greco-Roman
190 V. nude, anked by 2 Erotes/children, w. palla behind Romula Greco-Roman
191 torso of V. nude, w. veil Romula Greco-Roman
 192 Venus terracotta stauette mold (Popilian, 2006, p.414, no.20, Pl.V.20)
193 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.414, no.21, Pl.V.21)
194 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.414, no.22, Pl.V.22)
195 Venus terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.415, no.23, Pl.V.23)
196 Venus? terracotta stauette fragm. (Popilian, 2006, p.415, no.24)
197 Venus marble statue fragm. (Tudor, Drobeta, Fig. 31)
198 Venus terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.184; Fig. 55)
199 Venus Anadyomene type terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.184)
200 Venus marble plaque ? (Tudor, Oltenia, p.401)
201 Venus & terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.184)
202 Amor
203 Venus & terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.184)
204 Amor
205 Venus & marble plaque (Tududor, Oltenia, p.374)
206 Amor
207 Venus & marble plaque (Tududor, Oltenia, p.374)
208 Amor
209 Venus & marble plaque (Tududor, Oltenia, p.400-401)
210 Amor
211 Victoria bronze statuette fragm. (Tudor, Drobeta, Fig. 30)
212 Victoria marble statuette fragment (Gramatopol, 2000, p.263)
213 Aesculapius & Diis Magnis et Bonis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 54)
214 Hygia
215 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 55)

252
216 Hygia
217 Apollo & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/1, 127)
218 Diana
219 Di et Numina Aquarum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 56)
220 Hercules & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 67)
221 Genius loci &
222 Fontes Calidae
223 Mithrass relief + inscription (IDR III/1, 13)
224 Mithrass relief + inscription (IDR III/1, 12)
225 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 25)
226 Hercules Conservator inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 57)
227 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 58)
228 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 59)
229 Hercules Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 60)
230 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 61)
231 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 62)
232 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 63)
233 Hercules Salutiferus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 64)
234 Hercules Sanctus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 65)
235 Hercules Sanctus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 66)
236 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 133)
237 Apollo temple (Ruscu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.42-49)
238 Apollo construction plaque (Piso & Rogozea, ZPE 58, 1985, pp.211-218)
239 Apollo Conservator Maximus Sanctissimus votive plaque (Piso & Rogozea, ZPE 58, 1985, pp.211-218)
 192 mold for nude V., arranging a hair curl w. one hand Romula Greco-Roman
193 back of V. w. billowy garnment Romula Greco-Roman
194 bust fragm. of V. w. billowy garnment Romula Greco-Roman
195 right hip of V. w. garnment folds Romula Greco-Roman
196 torso of V. (?) Romula Greco-Roman
197 torso & legs of semi-nude V. Drobeta Greco-Roman
198 V. covered w. palla, which she pulls over her head Drobeta Greco-Roman
199 ? Sucidava Greco-Roman
200 V. clutching a dove above her chest Romula Greco-Roman
201 Venus & Amor on back of dolphin Romula Greco-Roman
202 Romula Greco-Roman
203 Venus w. sm. Amor at her feet Sucidava Greco-Roman
204 Sucidava Greco-Roman
205 Amor holding mirror up to Venus Romula Greco-Roman
206 Romula Greco-Roman
207 Amor holding mirror up to Venus Bumbe"ti (rural settlement & castrum on the River Rhabon) Greco-Roman
208 Bumbe"ti (rural settlement & castrum on the River Rhabon) Greco-Roman
209 V. coming out of her bath, anked by 2 Erotes Bumbe"ti (rural settlement & castrum on the River Rhabon) Greco-Roman
210 Bumbe"ti (rural settlement & castrum on the River Rhabon) Greco-Roman
211 winged V. w. palm branch in l. hand Drobeta Greco-Roman
212 torso of V. in movement toward r. Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
213 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
214 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
215 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman

253
216 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
217 Caransebe" (near Tibiscum) Greco-Roman
218 Caransebe" (near Tibiscum) Greco-Roman
219 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
220 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
221 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
222 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
223 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Iranian
224 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Iranian
225 2 horsemen trampling men, anking goddess; table w. sh, etc. Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Thracian
226 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
227 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
228 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
229 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
230 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
231 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
232 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
233 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
234 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
235 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
236 Tibiscum Syro-Iranian?
237 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
238 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
239 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
 240 Bel deus Palmyrenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 134)
241 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 138)
242 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 139)
243 IOM Conservator inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 138a)
244 Jupiter Sabazius bronze votive right hand (Vermaseren, CCIS I, no. 57)
245 Jupiter bronze votive plaque (Gramatopol, 2000, p.164)
246 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 22)
247 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 23)
248 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 24)
249 Danubian Rider votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 200)
250 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 201)
251 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 202)
252 Danubian Rider votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 203)
253 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED II, no. 204)
254 Dea Dia? inscription on bronze donarium (IDR III/1, 29)
255 Nemesis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 272)
256 Demon golden tabella dexionis (IDR III/1, 43)
257 Ierhabol Deus Soli inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 137)
258 Mithrass Deus Invictus relief + inscription (IDR III/1, 14)
259 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 141)
260 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 10)
261 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 78)
262 Dii Patrii (Palmyrenorum) inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 135)
263 Hercules & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 68)

254
264 Venus
265 Iao Adonai inscription on golden tablet (IDR III/1, 42) GR
266 Isis Patrona statuette with inscription (IDR III/1, 69)
267 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 109)
268 Juno & Regina
269 Minerva &
270 Terra Mater
271 IOM inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/1, 35)
272 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 79)
273 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 80)
274 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 11)
275 Malagbel inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/1, 142)
276 Malagbel inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/1, 143)
277 Mars Conservator inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 271)
278 Mars Augustus inscription on votive column (IDR III/1, 144)
279 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/1, 15)
280 Mithras Invictus relief + inscription (IDR III/1, 53a)
281 Sol Invictus N? Mithrass inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 145)
282 Sol terracotta medallion (Sanie, 1981, p.135)
283 Silvanus? inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/1, 83)
284 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/1, 146)
285 Adonai A(ieth) G(adol) U(e) L(eolam) A(donai) gem on silver ring (Gudea & Ghiurco 2002, 174, B.c.4)
286 IOM Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 185)
287 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 186)
 240 Tibiscum Palmyrean
241 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
242 Tibiscum Micro-Asiatic
243 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
244 hand w. pine cone; winged caduceus; frog; hammer etc. Tibiscum Micro-Asiatic
245 J. standing, w. thunderbolt, scepter, eagle; framed by naiskos Tibiscum? Greco-Roman
246 3 levels?: Sol; woman w. patera, horseman, goddess, etc. Tibiscum Thracian
247 3 levels?: 2 horsemen trampling men; goddess; etc Tibiscum Thracian
248 2 levels?: right horseman; ram; attendants; crater Tibiscum Thracian
249 3 levels: 5 busts; horseman spering man; goddess; attendant, etc. Tibiscum (inside castrum) Thracian
250 3 levels?: horsema trampling man; goddess; attendant etc. Tibiscum Thracian
251 3 levels?: Luna; horseman; goddesses; attendants, etc. Tibiscum Thracian
252 3 levels: horseman trampling man, goddess, attendants, etc. Tibiscum Thracian
253 3 levels: 2 horsemen and 2 snakes anking goddess, etc. Tibiscum Thracian
254 donarium mentioning sacricial female lamb Gornea (along Danube line, north of Novae) Roman?
255 Marga (Pons Augusti?) Greco-Roman
256 Dierna Gnostic
257 Tibiscum Palmyrean
258 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Iranian
259 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
260 Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Greco-Roman
261 Praetorium Greco-Roman
262 Tibiscum Palmyrean
263 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman

255
264 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
265 Dierna Gnostic
266 crescent moon-like leaf headdress; twined snakes B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Egyptian
267 Denta (in Banat, W of Berzobis) Greco-Roman
268 Denta (in Banat, W of Berzobis) Greco-Roman
269 Denta (in Banat, W of Berzobis) Greco-Roman
270 Denta (in Banat, W of Berzobis) Greco-Roman
271 Dierna Greco-Roman
272 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
273 B!ile Herculane (Ad Mediam?) Greco-Roman
274 Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Micro-Asiatic
275 Tibiscum Palmyrean
276 Tibiscum Palmyrean
277 Voislova (castrum, Pons Augusti?) Greco-Roman
278 Tibiscum Greco-Roman
279 Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Iranian
280 Mithraic tauroctony Dierna? Iranian
281 Tibiscum Iranian
282 Sol in quadriga Tibiscum Syrian
283 Praetorium Roman
284 Tibiscum Roman
285 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Judeo-Christian?
286 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
287 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
 288 IOM Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 187)
289 Deus Aeternus inscription (IDR III/2, 188)
290 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 189)
291 Deus Aeternus inscription (IDR III/2, 190)
292 Apollo Grannus & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 191)
293 Sirona
294 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 246)
295 Juno &
296 Minerva &
297 Dii Consentes &
298 Salus &
299 Fortuna & Redux
300 Apollo &
301 Diana & Victrix
302 Nemesis &
303 Hercules &
304 Sol & Invictus
305 Aesculapius &
306 Hygia &
307 Dii Deaeque Immortales
308 Aesculapius & temple complex (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.32-42)
309 Hygia
310 Aesculapius & statue fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 152)
311 Hygia

256
312 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 153)
313 Hygia
314 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 154)
315 Hygia
316 Aesculapius & Augusti inscription (IDR III/2, 155)
317 Hygia Augusti
318 Aesculapius & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 156)
319 Hygia
320 Asklepios & Theoi Philanthropoi inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 157) GR
321 Hygia
322 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 158)
323 Hygia
324 Aesculapius Numen Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 159)
325 Aesculapius & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 160)
326 Hygia
327 Asclepius & inscription (IDR III/2, 161)
328 Hygia
329 Aesculapius & inscription (IDR III/2, 162)
330 Hygia
331 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 163)
332 Hygia
333 Aesculapius & Pergamenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 164)
334 Hygia
335 Aesculapius & Augusti inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 165)
 288 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
289 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
290 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
291 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
292 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
293 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
294 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
295 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
296 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
297 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
298 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
299 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
300 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
301 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
302 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
303 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
304 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
305 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
306 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
307 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
308 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
309 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
310 Hygia statuette only Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
311 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

257
312 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
313 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
314 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
315 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
316 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
317 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
318 fragments of: Aesculapius w. staff & snake; Hygia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
319 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
320 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
321 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
322 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
323 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
324 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
325 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
326 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
327 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
328 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
329 pair of ears of listeninng deities Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
330 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
331 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
332 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
333 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
334 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
335 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
 336 Hygia Augusti
337 Aesculapius & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 166)
338 Hygia
339 Aesculapius? & inscription (IDR III/2, 167)
340 Hygia
341 Aesculapius & votive column (IDR III/2. 168)
342 Hygia?
343 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 169)
344 Hygia
345 Aesculapius relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 170)
346 Hygia
347 Aesculapius Augustus inscription (IDR III/2, 171)
348 Aesculapius Augustus inscription (IDR III/2, 172)
349 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 173)
350 Hygia
351 Aesculapius & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 174)
352 Hygia
353 Aesculapius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 175)
354 Aesculapius Augustus inscription (IDR III/2, 176)
355 Aesculapius & inscription (IDR III/2, 177)
356 Hygia
357 Fontes & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 183)
358 Aesculapius &
359 Hygia

258
360 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive plaque (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 245, No.12)
361 Salus
362 Aesculapius marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 8; Pl. II.8)
363 Aesculapius marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 9; Pl. II.9)
364 Aesculapius marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 10; Pl. II.10)
365 Aesculapius votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 11; Pl. I.11)
366 Hygia? marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 12)
367 Hygia marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 13; Pl.III.13)
368 Hygia marble statuary fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 14)
369 Hygia? marble statuary fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 15, Pl.III.15)
370 Telesphorus votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 16)
371 Hygia votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 17)
372 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu 1984, p.181)
373 Salus &
374 Epione &
375 Venus ubique
376 Neptunus &
377 Salacia &
378 Cupidines &
379 Fontes &
380 Aquae?
381 Deus Aeternus & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 190)
382 Juno &
383 Angeli
 336 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
337 Aesculapius & Hygia; staff, snakes; patera; Eros Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
338 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
339 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
340 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
341 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
342 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
343 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
344 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
345 fragments of: Aesculapius, small Telesphorus Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
346 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
347 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
348 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
349 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
350 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
351 fragment of lion? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
352 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
353 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
354 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
355 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
356 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
357 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
358 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
359 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

259
360 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
361 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
362 fragm. of Aesculapius partly dressed in himation Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
363 fragm. of Aesculapius partly dressed in himation Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
364 head of Aesculapius Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
365 fragm. Of Aesculapius in himation Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
366 Hygia (?) dressed in double chiton Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
367 H. holding a snake; sm. Telesphorus w. volumen or casket Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
368 r. hand of Hygia holding snake Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
369 hand of Hygia (?) holding papyrus scroll (?) Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
370 ? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
371 Hygia w. child Euamerion Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
372 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
373 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
374 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
375 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
376 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
377 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
378 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
379 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
380 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
381 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
382 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
383 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Judeo-Christian?
 384 Apollo? temple (Rusu-Pescariu & Alicu 2000, pp.126-127)
385 Apollo Sanctus inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 245, No.10)
386 Apollo Grannus & inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 236, No.3)
387 Sirona
388 Apollo Grannus Aei kai pantahou epeikoos inscription on votive altar (CIGD, 109) GR
389 Apollo & Numini Praesentissimi inscr. on votive altar or statue plinth (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 247, No. 16)
390 Aziz Bonus Puer
391 Apollo? marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al. 1979, no. 18; Pl.IV.18)
392 Genius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu & Pop 2003: No. 76)
393 Caelestis temple (Rusu-Pescariu & Alicu, 2000, pp.140-141)
394 Caelestis VVirgo Augusta dedicatory temple inscription (IDR III/2, 17)
395 Caelestis inscr. on votive altar (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu 1984, p.172, Fig. 74)
396 Caelestis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 192)
397 Cautopates statue fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 193)
398 Concordia ordinis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 195)
399 Diana Augusta inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 196)
400 Diana Augusta inscription on statue plinth (IDR III/2, 197)
401 Diana Sancta inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 245, No.11)
402 Diana votive relief (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 20; Pl. VI.20)
403 Diana votive relief fragm.(Alicu et al., 1979, no. 21; Pl. VI.21)
404 Diana statuary group fragm.(Alicu et al., 1979, no. 23; Pl. VI.23)
405 Diana marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 24)
406 Diana br. statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 26; Pl.CXII.26)
407 Diana bronze statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 26; Pl.CXII.26)

260
408 Dis Pater & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 199)
409 Proserpina &
410 Ceres (?) &
411 Mercurius
412 Dis Pater & relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 200)
413 Proserpina
414 Core Dea Praesentissima inscr. on vot. altar or statue plinth (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 246, No. 15)
415 IOM Dolichenus statuary group fragm.+ inscription (IDR III/2, 201)
416 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 202)
417 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 203)
418 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive column (IDR III/2, 204)
419 Jupiter Dolichenus? votive relief fragm. (Hrig & Schwertheim, CCID, 167)
420 Jupiter Turmasgades? votive relief (Hrig & Schwertheim, CCID, 166)
421 Jupiter Turmasgades? votive relief (Hrig & Schwertheim, CCID, 168)
422 Epona & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 205)
423 Campestres
424 Fortuna & Redux inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 206)
425 Lar Vialis &
426 Roma Aeterna
427 Fortuna inscription on votive column (IDR III/2, 207)
428 Fortuna inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 208)
429 Fortuna Daciarum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 209)
430 Fortuna Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 210)
431 Fortuna Augusta inscr. on votive altar or statue plinth (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 239, No. 6)
 384 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
385 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
386 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
387 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
388 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
389 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
390 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Arabo-Syrian
391 torso & thighs of male deity w. quiver on back; head of python Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
392 semi-nude ephebe, w. cornucopia, wais covered in folding drapery Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
393 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Punic
394 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Caelestis) Punic
395 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Punic
396 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Punic
397 standing youth holding an object (?) under left arm Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Iranian
398 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
399 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
400 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
401 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
402 D. hunting, w. bow, pulling arrow fr. her quiver Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
403 fragm. of D. hunting, w. bow in l. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
404 fragm. of: D. hunting, 2 dogs, tree trunk (?) at her l. foot Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
405 fragments of: Diana, quiver Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
406 D. pulling out arrow from quiver on her back Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
407 D. hunting (bow, arrow, quiver missing) Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

261
408 seated group: Dis, Proserpina, Ceres (?); M. standing; Cerberus Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
409 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
410 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
411 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
412 . Complex Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
413 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
414 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
415 fragments of human feet on back of striding bull Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
416 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
417 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
418 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
419 J.D. (?) in military attire Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
420 eagle gripping an ibex (?) head in its claws Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
421 fragments of eagle Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
422 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
423 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
424 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
425 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
426 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
427 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
428 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
429 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
430 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
431 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
 432 Fortuna Praenestina Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 211)
433 Fortuna votive relief (IDR III/2, 212)
434 Fortuna? votive relief (IDR III/2, 213)
435 Genius collegii fabrum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 214)
436 Genius decuriae XIII colegii fabrum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 215)
437 Genius Domus Divinae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 216)
438 Genius Daciarum inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 217)
439 Genius Libertorum et Servorum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 218)
440 Genius ordinis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 219)
441 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu and C. Pop 2003: No. 73)
442 Lar bronze statuette fragm. ($eposu-Marinescu and C. Pop 2003: No. 75)
443 Hekate inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 220)
444 Hekate Triformis type votive relief (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 30; Pl. VII.30)
445 Hekate Triformis type votive relief (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 31; Pl. VII.31)
446 Hekate Triformis type votive relief (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 32; Pl. VII.32)
447 Hekate Triformis type marble statue (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 33; Pl. VIII.33)
448 Hercules Augustus inscription on statue plinth (IDR III/2, 221)
449 Hercules Augustus inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 235, Nr.1)
450 Hercules frieze(?) fragmts. (Alicu et al., 1979, nos. 36-37, Pl.IX-X.36f.)
451 Hercules "Mastai" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 38, Pl.X.38)
452 Hercules "Mastai" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 39)
453 Hercules "Mastai" type marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 40, Pl.X.40a)
454 Hercules bronze statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 41, Pl.CXV.41)
455 Jupiter & Fulminans type votive relief (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 42)

262
456 Hercules
457 Hercules & vot. plaque (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 43, Pl.X.43)
458 Mercurius
459 Zeus Hypsistos, Epeikoos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 222) GR
460 Theos Hypsistos, Epeikoos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 223) GR
461 Theos Hypsistos inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 224) GR
462 Dii Immortales inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 225)
463 Zeus & Theon Panton Kratountos inscription on votive altar (CIGD, 110 = IDR III/2, 68) GR
464 Serapis
465 Serapis Serapeum (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.90-92)
466 Serapis Invictus Deus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 331)
467 Serapis marble statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 256, Pl.XLI.256)
468 Serapis Invictus inscr. on votive altar (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu, 1984, p.179)
469 Serapis Invictus inscr. on votive altar (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu, 1984, p.179)
470 Serapis & Invictus inscr. on votive plaque (I. Piso, ZPE 120, 1998, 255, Nr. 1 = IDR III/2, 227)
471 Isis Frugifera
472 Isis? Iseum? (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.90-92)
473 Dea Regina dedicatory temple inscription (IDR III/2, 19)
474 Isis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 228)
475 Isis inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 229)
476 Isis marble statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 254, Pl.XLI.254)
477 Isis bronze statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 255, Pl.CXX.255)
478 Juno Regina inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 230)
479 Juno Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 231)
 432 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
433 woman seated on throne, with cornucopia in left hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
434 fragm. of woman standing with cornucopia in left hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
435 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
436 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
437 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
438 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
439 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
440 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
441 chubby child Lar with tunic and hair tuft atop head, holds rhyton Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (villa rustica?) Roman
442 chubby child Lar with tunic and hair tuft atop head Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
443 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
444 frontal view of H. w. knife in r. hand and whip in l. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
445 each gure w. kalathos & 1 torch upwards and 1 downwards Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
446 central g. w. torch in either hand; side gs. w. knife & torch Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
447 central g. w. torch; side gs. w. whips Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
448 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
449 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
450 fragments of various labors of Hercules Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (First Forum) Greco-Roman
451 H. standing, w. Nemean lion's skin on l. arm & club in r. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
452 H. standing, w. Nemean lion's skin on l. arm & club in r. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
453 H. standing, w. Nemean lion's skin on l. arm & club in r. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
454 H. dressed in Nemean lion's skin, w. club on r. shoulder Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
455 J. w. thunderbolt & H. w. stag Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

263
456 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
457 H. w. lion's skin & club; M. w. chlamys, caduceus & purse Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
458 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
459 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
460 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
461 frgment of ears of the listening deity Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
462 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
463 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Serapeum) Greco-Roman
464 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Serapeum) Egyptian
465 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
466 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
467 bust of S. w. curly hair & beard, wearing draped garment Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
468 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
469 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
470 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Serapeum) Egyptian
471 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Serapeum) Egyptian
472 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
473 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Dea Regina) Egyptian?
474 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
475 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
476 bust of Isis w. velamen & chiton, w. polos atop head Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
477 I. w. diadem & polos, holding sistrum Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Egyptian
478 pair of ears of the listening deity Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
479 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
 480 Juno & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 232)
481 Fortuna
482 Juno Regina? inscription on statue plinth (IDR III/2, 233)
483 Juno Sospita? bust (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 45)
484 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 234)
485 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 234a)
486 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 235)
487 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 236)
488 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 237)
489 IOM statuary group fragm.+ inscription (IDR III/2, 239)
490 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 240)
491 IOM & votorum carmen fragment(IDR III/2, 241)
492 Juno & Regina
493 Minerva &
494 Salus & Publica PRQ
495 Mars Invictus, Pater Gradivus
496 IOM Heliopolitanus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 243)
497 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 244)
498 Juno & Regina
499 Minerva &
500 Dii Omnes Immortales
501 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 245)
502 Mars Augustus
503 Jupiter & Dii Magni inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 247)

264
504 Neptunus
505 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 248)
506 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 249)
507 Jupiter Tronans type marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.47, Pl.XIII.47)
508 Jupiter Tronans type marble statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 49, Pl.XIII.49)
509 Jupiter limestone statue fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.50, Pl.XII.50)
510 Jupiter marble statue (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 53)
511 Jupiter Tronans type marble statue (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 54)
512 Liber Pater temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.52-58)
513 Liber & "Sarmizegetusa" type relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 250)
514 Libera &
515 Silenus &
516 Pan
517 Liber Pater & relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/2, 251)
518 Libera? &
519 Silenus?
520 Liber Pater Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 252)
521 Liber Pater & statuary group fragm.+ inscription (IDR III/2, 253)
522 Libera
523 Liber Pater & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 254)
524 Libera
525 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 255)
526 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 258)
527 Liber Pater inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 259)
 480 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
481 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
482 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
483 female bust w. horns (?) atop head Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman?
484 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
485 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
486 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
487 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
488 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
489 fragments of Jupiter's feet; eagle Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
490 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
491 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
492 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
493 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
494 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
495 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
496 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
497 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
498 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
499 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
500 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
501 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
502 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
503 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

265
504 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
505 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
506 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
507 torso of J., enthroned, partly dressed in chlamys; eagle's head Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
508 torso of J., enthroned, partly dressed in chlamys; eagle's head Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
509 J.'s leg and eagle at right Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
510 eagle w. thunderbolt in its claws Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
511 ? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
512 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
513 L. w. nebris, pouring wine fr. kantharos; panther; Libera Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
514 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
515 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
516 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
517 Liber recklining (?), Libera (?) & Silenus (?) standing Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
518 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
519 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
520 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
521 Liber ; Libera pouring wine from kantharos; panther Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
522 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
523 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
524 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
525 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
526 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
527 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
 528 Liber Pater & "Sarmizegetusa" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 56, Pl.XIV.56)
529 Libera
530 Silenus &
531 Pan
532 Liber Pater & "Sarmizegetusa" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 57)
533 Libera &
534 Satyr &
535 Pan
536 Liber Pater & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 58, Pl.XVI.58)
537 Libera
538 Liber Pater votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 60, Pl.XV.60)
539 Liber Pater "Potaissa" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 62, Pl.XVI.62)
540 Liber Pater "Potaissa" type votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 63, Pl.XVI.63)
541 Liber Pater? votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 64, Pl.XVI.64)
542 Liber Pater? votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 65, Pl.XVI.65)
543 Liber Pater votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 66, Pl.XVI.66)
544 Liber Pater (?) & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 67, Pl.XVII.67)
545 Libera
546 Liber Pater (?) & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 68)
547 Libera
548 Liber Pater & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 69, Pl.XVII.69)
549 Libera?
550 Liber Pater (?) & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 70, Pl.XVII.70)
551 Libera?

266
552 Liber Pater marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.72, Pl.XIII.72)
553 Liber Pater marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.73, Pl.XIII.73)
554 Liber Pater statuary group fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.74, Pl.XIX.74)
555 Liber Pater (?)& votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 75, Pl.XIX.75)
556 Silenus
557 Liber Pater? terracotta lamp (Alicu & Neme", 1977, no.190, Pl.XXIV.1)
558 Pan votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 76, Pl.XIX.76)
559 Pan bronze appliqu (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 77, Pl.CXV.77)
560 Magna Deum Mater marble statue fragm. (Vermaseren, CCCA VI, no. 482)
561 Magna Deum Mater? marble statue fragm. (Vermaseren, CCCA VI, no. 483)
562 Magna Deum Mater? bronze statuette (Vermaseren, CCCA VI, no. 484)
563 Palmyrean Gods temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.84-90)
564 Malagbel & Dii Patrii dedicatory temple inscription (IDR III/2, 18)
565 Bebellahamon &
566 Benefal &
567 Manavat
568 Malagbel temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.77-78)
569 Malagbel Deus Sanctus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 262)
570 Mala(la)gbel inscr. on small votive column (IDR III/2, 263)
571 Malgbel inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 264)
572 Malagbel Deus Soli inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 265)
573 Mars Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 266)
574 Mars Singilis & inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 237, No.4)
575 Minerva
 528 Complex Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
529 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
530 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
531 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
532 Complex Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
533 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
534 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
535 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
536 Liber & Libera; panther lying down, looking at Liber Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
537 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
538 fragments of Liber and panther Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
539 L. holding snake; Ampelos; acolyte w. rhyton in tree; satyr Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
540 fragm. of L. holding snake Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
541 hand of Bacchic g. holding thyrsos Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
542 torso of g. dressed partly in nebris Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
543 fragments of nude male g. & hand holding thyrsos Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
544 fragm. of Libera wearing corymbus and holding thyrsos Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
545 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
546 fragments of hand w. thyrsos & folds of dress Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
547 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
548 fragment of r. hand w. thyrsos & cluster of grapes Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
549 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
550 fragment of l. hand w. thyrsos & oral motifs Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (First Forum) Greco-Roman
551 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (First Forum) Greco-Roman

267
552 torso and legs of Liber, nude, w. nebris Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
553 head of Liber wearing corymbus Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
554 fragments of Liber; panther; kantharos on tree trunk Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
555 Silenus riding panther; acolyte w. animal on shoulders Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (First Forum) Greco-Roman
556 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (First Forum) Greco-Roman
557 Liber (?) nude, pouring wine in the mouth of a panther (?) Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
558 head & bust of Pan Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
559 bearded, nude Pan w. horns & goat's legs Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
560 Cybele enthroned; lion to her right Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
561 female head w. long hair, wearing polos Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
562 ? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
563 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
564 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of the Palmyrean gods) Palmyrean
565 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of the Palmyrean gods) Palmyrean
566 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of the Palmyrean gods) Punic?
567 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of the Palmyrean gods) Palmyrean
568 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
569 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
570 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
571 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
572 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Palmyrean
573 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
574 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Hispanic
575 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
 576 Mars votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 79, Pl.XX.79)
577 Mars gilded bronze appliqu (Alicu et al., 1979, no.81, Pl.CXVI.81)
578 Mars gilded bronze appliqu (Alicu et al., 1979, no.82, Pl.CXVI.82)
579 Men Cilvastianus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 267)
580 Mercurius Augustus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 268)
581 Mercurius Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 269)
582 Mercurius mozaic (IDR III/2, 62)
583 Juno & mozaic (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu, 1984, Fig. II.1)
584 Minerva &
585 Venus &
586 Mercurius
587 Mercurius votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 82, Pl.XX.82)
588 Minerva Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 270)
589 Minerva Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 271)
590 Minerva Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 272)
591 Minerva votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 86, Pl.XXI.86)
592 Minerva bonze statuette (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 87)
593 Minerva br. chariot appliqu (Alicu et al., 1979, no.88, Pl.CXVII.88)
594 Mithras Mithraeum (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.81-84)
595 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 273)
596 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 274)
597 Mithras relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 275)
598 Mithras Sol Invictus relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 276)
599 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 277)

268
600 Mithras relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 278)
601 Mithras Sol Invictus relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 279)
602 Sol Invictus inscription ( IDR III/2, 280)
603 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 282)
604 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 283)
605 Mithras Deus Invictus relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 284)
606 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 285)
607 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 286)
608 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 287)
609 Mithras relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/2, 289)
610 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 290)
611 Mithras Sol Invictus relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 291)
612 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 292)
613 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 294)
614 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 296)
615 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 297)
616 Mithras Sol Invictus small votive column (IDR III/2, 299)
617 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 300)
618 Mithras inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 305)
619 Mithras votive relief (IDR III/2, 306)
620 Jupiter Sol Invictus deus genitor rupe natus relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 306a)
621 Mithras Nabarzes Deus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 307)
622 Mithras? votive column (IDR III/2, 281)
623 Mithras? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 288)
 576 beardless M. w. high plumed helmet, lorica & spear in r. hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
577 beardless M. w. high plumed helmet, lorica & shield Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
578 beardless M. w. high plumed helmet, lorica & shield Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa? Greco-Roman
579 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Micro-Asiatic
580 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
581 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
582 Iliad scene: Priam kneeling before Achiles; Hermes, Automedon Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
583 "Judgement of Paris" scene: 3 goddesses and Hermes Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
584 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
585 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
586 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
587 M. wearing chlamys & petasos, w. caduceus & purse Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
588 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
589 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
590 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
591 M. wearing chiton w. apoptygma & helm, w. spear & shield; owl Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
592 ? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
593 M. w. high plumed Attic helmet & lorica w. Medusa image Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
594 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Iranian
595 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Iranian
596 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
597 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
598 fragments of: Mithras riding bull; cautopates Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
599 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian

269
600 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
601 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
602 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Syrian
603 fragment of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
604 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
605 fragment of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
606 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
607 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
608 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
609 lower register of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
610 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
611 fragments of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
612 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
613 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
614 fragments of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
615 fragments of multi-level Mithraic relief Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
616 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
617 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
618 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
619 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
620 Mithraic tauroctony Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
621 bull; bull's head; crow Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
622 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
623 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
 624 Mithras? votive column (IDR III/2, 293)
625 Mithras? relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 295)
626 Mithras? inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 301)
627 Mithras? inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 302)
628 Mithras? votive tablet (IDR III/2, 303)
629 Mithras? inscription on votive altar? (IDR III/2, 304)
630 Nemesis temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.51-65)
631 Nemesis Regina relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 308)
632 Dea Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 309)
633 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 310)
634 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 311)
635 Nemesis Augusta inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 312)
636 Nemesis Regina statuary group fragm. +inscription (IDR III/2, 313)
637 Nemesis Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 314)
638 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 315)
639 Nemesis? fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 316)
640 Nemesis statuary group fragm. +inscription (IDR III/2, 318)
641 Nemesis Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 319)
642 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 320)
643 Nemesis Regina inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 321)
644 Nemesis Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 322)
645 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 323)
646 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 324)
647 Nemesis? Augusta? fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 325)

270
648 Nemesis fragments of inscription (IDR III/2, 326 )
649 Nemesis inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 327)
650 Nemesis votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 95)
651 Nemesis votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 96)
652 Nemesis votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 97)
653 Nemesis? votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no. 104)
654 Nemesis inscr. on votive altar (Ciongradi, 2006, pp.269-75)
655 Nymphae East Nymphaeum (Piso 2006: 122-124 and Figs. II/71-72)
656 Nymphae West Nymphaeum (Piso 2006: 122-124)
657 Nymph statue (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.74)
658 Quadriviae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 330)
659 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 332)
660 Silvanus & fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 333)
661 Silvanae
662 Silvanus & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.110, Pl.XXVI.111)
663 Silvanae
664 Silvanus & votive relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.113, Pl.XXVI.113)
665 Silvanae
666 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 334)
667 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 335)
668 Silvanus? fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 336)
669 Silvanus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/2, 337)
670 Silvanus vot. relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.114, Pl.XXVII.114)
671 Silvanus vot. relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.115, Pl.XXVIII.115)
 624 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
625 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
626 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
627 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
628 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
629 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Mithraeum) Iranian
630 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
631 man anked by grifn and altar, scales overhead Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
632 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
633 4-spoked wheel of Nemesis Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
634 4-spoked wheel of Nemesis Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
635 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis?) Greco-Roman
636 Nemesis anked by wheel and grifn Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
637 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
638 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
639 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
640 fragment of Nemesis anked by wheel Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
641 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
642 man sacricing on altar; faced by grifn with wheel Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
643 ears of the listening goddess? Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
644 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
645 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
646 fragment of Nemesis holding scales in right hand Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
647 fragm. of Nemesis (?) holding meta Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman

271
648 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Greco-Roman
649 trident Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (near Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
650 5-spoked wheel of Nemesis Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
651 wheel of Nemesis Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
652 wheel of Nemesis Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
653 fragm. of Nemesis (?) holding meta Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Nemesis) Greco-Roman
654 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
655 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
656 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
657 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa? Greco-Roman
658 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Celtic
659 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
660 S. wearing wreath, w. pedum & the 9 Silvanae w. wreaths Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
661 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
662 fragments of 9 Silvanae holding small wreaths Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Roman
663 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Roman
664 S. holding pedum & falx vineatica; 2 Silvanae; dog, etc. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Roman
665 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Roman
666 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
667 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
668 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Amphitheatre) Roman
669 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
670 S. w. hook & pedum; dog at right Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
671 S. wearing cap & mantle, w. pedum; tree Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
 672 Silvanus vot. relief fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.113, Pl.XXVII.116)
673 Terra Mater? inscription on votive altar? (IDR III/2, 335)
674 Thracian Knight relief + inscription (IDR III/2, 339)
675 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no.15)
676 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no.16)
677 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no.17)
678 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no.18)
679 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no.19)
680 Venus marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.119, Pl.XXIX.119)
681 Venus marble statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.120, Pl.XXIX.120)
682 Venus br. statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.121, Pl.CXVIII-CXIX)
683 Venus br. statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.122, Pl.CXVII.122)
684 Venus br. statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.123, Pl.CXVII.123)
685 Venus & terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.124, Pl.CXXXIV.124)
686 Amor
687 Venus terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.125, Pl.CXXXIV.125)
688 Venus Pudica type terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.126, Pl.CXXXIV.126)
689 Venus terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.127, Pl.CXXXV.127)
690 Venus terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.128)
691 Venus terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.129, Pl.CXXXV.129)
692 Venus terracotta statuette fragm. (Alicu et al., 1979, no.130, Pl.CXXXV.130)
693 Victoria Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/2, 340)
694 Victoria mozaic (H. Daicoviciu & Alicu, 1984, p.66, Fig. 18)
695 Volcanus Mitis inscr. on votive altar (I. Piso, ZPE 50, 1983, 236, No.2)

272
696 Liber Pater statue head (Tudor, Ora!e..., Pl. 20)
697 Fortuna Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 7)
698 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 8)
699 Hercules statuary group fragm. + inscr. (Tudor, Ora"e..., Pl. 19)
700 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 9)
701 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 10)
702 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 15)
703 IOM Appeninus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 17)
704 IOM Depulsor inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 18)
705 Mars inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 19)
706 Daphne? statue head (IDR III/3, p. 38)
707 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 23)
708 Silvanus? Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 28)
709 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 29)
710 Juno inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 30)
711 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 31)
712 Nemesis Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 32)
713 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 33)
714 Venus Pudica type bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.169)
715 Hercules & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 39)
716 Silvanus
717 Isis temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.140)
718 Isis inscription on votive/temple altar (IDR III/3, 48)
719 Sol? Invictus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.139)
 672 S. wearing cap, tunic & mantle; dog Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
673 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
674 horse & rider with spear; dog; snake; woman; acolyte Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
675 Luna, snakes; horseman, goddess, attendants, etc. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
676 Luna, snake; horseman, 2 goddess, attendants, etc. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
677 horseman trampling man, facing 2 goddesses Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
678 3 levels: goddess seated on throne; 2 horsemen galloping toward each other, etc. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
679 3 levels?: 2 horsemen & 2 snakes anking goddess Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
680 head of V. w. semi-circular diadem Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
681 head of V. w. elaborate hairdo Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
682 nude V. w. elaborate hairdo & semi-circular diadem Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
683 semi-nude V., w. palla, armlet & semi-circular diadem Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
684 nude V., w. circular diadem Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
685 semi-nude V., w. bracelet; sm. Amor at r. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
686 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
687 torso of semi-nude V. w. crescent shaped pendant Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
688 nude V. w. semi-circular diadem & velamen Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
689 semi-nude V., w. palla knotted in front Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
690 head of V. w. semi-circular diadem Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
691 bust fragm. of semi-nude V. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
692 nude torso of V. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aesc.&Hygia Temple Complex) Greco-Roman
693 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
694 winged V. w. wreath & palm branch Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa or Apulum Greco-Roman
695 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

273
696 Aquae? Greco-Roman
697 Aquae? Greco-Roman
698 Aquae? Greco-Roman
699 fragm. of: feet of H., bull's head, lion mane Aquae? Greco-Roman
700 Aquae? Greco-Roman
701 Aquae? Greco-Roman
702 Sncrai (near Aquae?) Micro-Asiatic
703 Valea Sngeorgiului (near Aquae?) Italic
704 Valea Sngeorgiului (near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
705 Valea Sngeorgiului (near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
706 Snt!m!ria de Piatr! (village and stone quarry, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
707 Snt!m!ria de Piatr! (village and stone quarry, near Aquae?) Roman
708 Cristur (probable rural settlement, near Aquae?) Roman
709 Pe"ti"u Mare (likely rural settlement, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
710 Pe"ti"u Mic (rural settlement, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
711 Pe"ti"u Mic (rural settlement, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
712 Pe"ti"u Mic (rural settlement, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
713 Valea Nandrului (probable Rom. rural settlement, near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
714 ? Bucium (castrum near Aquae?) Greco-Roman
715 Bejan (andesite quarry and settlement, near Micia) Greco-Roman
716 Bejan (andesite quarry and settlement, near Micia) Roman
717 Micia Egyptian
718 Micia (Temple of Isis) Egyptian
719 Micia Syrian
 720 Sol? Deus Invictus inscription on votive/temple altar (IDR III/3, 49)
721 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 63)
722 Diana? Aeterna? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 64)
723 Diana Sancta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 65)
724 Dii Patrii (Maurorum) temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.92-94)
725 Dii Patrii (Maurorum) construction plaque (IDR III/3, 47)
726 IOM Dolichenus Commagenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 66)
727 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 67)
728 Fortuna Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 68)
729 Genius Pagi Miciae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 69)
730 Genius Miciae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 70)
731 Genius Miciae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 71)
732 Harpocrates jasper gem (Gudea & Ghiurco 2002, 165, B.a.2.1)
733 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 72)
734 Hercules Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 73)
735 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 74)
736 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 76)
737 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 77)
738 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 78)
739 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 79)
740 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 80)
741 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 81)
742 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 82)
743 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 83)

274
744 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 84)
745 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 85)
746 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 86)
747 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 87)
748 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 88)
749 IOM inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 89)
750 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 90)
751 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 91)
752 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 92)
753 IOM inscription on staue plinth? (IDR III/3, 93)
754 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 94)
755 Juno Regina
756 IOM Heliopolitanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 95)
757 IOM Heliopolitanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 96)
758 Jupiter Hierapolitanus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.77)
759 Jupiter Hierapolitanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 97)
760 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 102)
761 Terra Daciae &
762 Genius P(ublici) P(ortorii)? & Commerci
763 Liber Pater & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 103)
764 Libera?
765 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 104)
766 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 105)
767 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 106)
 720 Micia (Temple of Sol Invictus?) Syrian
721 Micia Greco-Roman
722 Micia Greco-Roman
723 Micia Greco-Roman
724 Micia North-Western African
725 Micia North-Western African
726 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Micro-Asiatic/Syrian
727 Micia (at Ara Miciae) Micro-Asiatic
728 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
729 Micia Roman
730 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Roman
731 patera and pitcher Micia Roman
732 child H. crouched on lotus ower, w. bonnet & whip Micia Egyptian
733 Micia Greco-Roman
734 Micia Greco-Roman
735 Micia Greco-Roman
736 Micia Greco-Roman
737 Micia Greco-Roman
738 Micia Greco-Roman
739 Micia Greco-Roman
740 Micia Greco-Roman
741 Micia Greco-Roman
742 Micia Greco-Roman
743 Micia Greco-Roman

275
744 Micia Greco-Roman
745 Micia Greco-Roman
746 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
747 Micia Greco-Roman
748 Micia Greco-Roman
749 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
750 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
751 Micia Greco-Roman
752 Micia Greco-Roman
753 Micia Greco-Roman
754 Micia Greco-Roman
755 Micia Greco-Roman
756 Micia Syrian
757 Micia Syrian
758 Micia Syrian
759 Micia (Temple of Jupiter Hierapolitanus) Syrian
760 Micia Greco-Roman
761 Micia Roman
762 Micia Roman
763 Micia Greco-Roman
764 Micia Greco-Roman
765 Micia Greco-Roman
766 Micia Greco-Roman
767 Micia Greco-Roman
 768 Mars inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 107)
769 Mars Gradivus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 108)
770 Mercurius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 109)
771 Mercurius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 110)
772 Minerva Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 111)
773 Minerva Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 112)
774 Mithras statuary group fragm. +inscription (IDR III/3, 113)
775 Nemesis fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/3, 114)
776 Nymphae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 115)
777 Pluto inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 116)
778 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 117)
779 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 118)
780 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 119)
781 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 120)
782 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 121)
783 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 122)
784 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 123)
785 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 124)
786 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 125)
787 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 126)
788 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 127)
789 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 128)
790 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 129)
791 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 130)

276
792 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 131)
793 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 132)
794 Silvanus Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 133)
795 Silvanus & Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 134)
796 Mercurius
797 Silvanus & Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 135)
798 Mercurius
799 Dea Syria (=Atargatis) inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 136)
800 Terra Mater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 137)
801 Jupiter Turmasgades inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 138)
802 Genius Turmasgades inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 139)
803 Venus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 140)
804 Venus Pudica type bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.169)
805 Victoria & Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 141)
806 Genius collegii (lapidariorum)
807 Thracian Knight fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/3, 143)
808 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 209)
809 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 210)
810 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 215)
811 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/3, 216)
812 Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 217)
813 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 218)
814 Dii Patroni inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 219)
815 Silvanae & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 220)
 768 Micia Greco-Roman
769 Micia Greco-Roman
770 Micia Greco-Roman
771 Micia Greco-Roman
772 Micia (inside auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
773 Micia Greco-Roman
774 Micia Iranian
775 man kneeling with hands tied behind his back Micia Greco-Roman
776 Micia Greco-Roman
777 Micia Greco-Roman
778 Micia Roman
779 Micia Roman
780 Micia Roman
781 Micia (inside auxiliary castrum) Roman
782 Micia Roman
783 Micia Roman
784 Micia Roman
785 Micia Roman
786 Micia (near auxiliary castrum) Roman
787 Micia Roman
788 Micia Roman
789 Micia (Amphitheatre, eastern gate) Roman
790 Micia Roman
791 Micia Roman

277
792 Micia Roman
793 Micia Roman
794 Micia Roman
795 Micia Roman
796 Micia Greco-Roman
797 Micia Roman
798 Micia Greco-Roman
799 Micia Syrian
800 Micia Roman
801 Micia Syrian
802 Micia Syrian
803 Micia Greco-Roman
804 ? Micia Greco-Roman
805 Micia? Greco-Roman
806 Micia? Roman
807 galloping horse & rider with chlamys and spear Micia Thracian
808 Petris? (settlement and stone quarry, near Germisara) Greco-Roman
809 Petris? (settlement and stone quarry, near Germisara) Roman
810 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Syro-Iranian?
811 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Syro-Iranian?
812 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Syrian
813 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
814 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) ?
815 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Roman
 816 Silvanus &
817 Campestres
818 Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 221)
819 Aesculapius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 230)
820 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 231)
821 Hygia
822 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 232)
823 Hygia
824 Aesculapius & votive relief? (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73)
825 Hygia
826 Diana marble statue (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.67; g.18)
827 Diana Sancta votive inscription (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73)
828 Diana gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
829 Hygia gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
830 Nymphae? gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
831 Nymphae? gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
832 Nymphae? gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
833 Nymphae? gold vot. plaque (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73; g.29)
834 Fortuna inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 233)
835 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 234)
836 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 235)
837 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 236)
838 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 237)
839 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 238)

278
840 Libera Mater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 238)
841 Nymphae Nymphaeum (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.65-74)
842 Nympha inscription on votive altar? (IDR III/3, 239)
843 Nymphae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 240)
844 Nymphae Augustae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 241)
845 Nymphae Salutiferae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 242)
846 Nymphae Sanctissimae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 243)
847 Nymphae & Sanctae, Augustae votive inscription (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.73)
848 Diana & Sancta
849 Fons Vestra?
850 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 262)
851 Apollo Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 275)
852 Victoria Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 276)
853 Aesculapius temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.123)
854 Aesculapius construction plaque (IDR III/3, 280)
855 Hygia?
856 Aesculapius? & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 280a)
857 Hygia?
858 IOM inscription on cultic altar (IDR III/3, 282)
859 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 286)
860 Hygia inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 286)
861 Aesculapius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 287)
862 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 288)
863 IOM Aeternus Conservator inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 289)
 816 Germisara A (canabae of auxiliary castrum) Roman
817 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Celtic
818 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Syrian
819 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
820 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
821 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
822 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
823 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
824 ? Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
825 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
826 D. reaching for arrow inside quiver on back; hound at her feet Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
827 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
828 leaf-shaped, w. D. the huntress within aedicula + inscription Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
829 leaf-shaped, w. Hygia within aedicula + inscription Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
830 leaf-shaped, w. sm. inscription only Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
831 leaf-shaped, w. sm. inscription only Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
832 leaf-shaped, w. sm. inscription only Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
833 leaf-shaped, w. sm. inscription only Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
834 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
835 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
836 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
837 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
838 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
839 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman

279
840 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
841 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
842 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
843 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
844 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
845 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
846 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
847 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
848 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
849 Germisara B (hot springs resort) Greco-Roman
850 Or!"tioara de Sus (aux. castrum near Coste"ti Dacian fortress) Greco-Roman
851 Sub Cununi (possible settlement 9 km from Sarmizeg. Regia) Greco-Roman
852 Sub Cununi (possible settlement 9 km from Sarmizeg. Regia) Greco-Roman
853 Ampelum Greco-Roman
854 Ampelum (Temple of Aesculapius and Hygia?) Greco-Roman
855 Ampelum Greco-Roman
856 Ampelum (Temple of Aesculapius and Hygia?) Greco-Roman
857 Ampelum (Temple of Aesculapius and Hygia?) Greco-Roman
858 Ampelum Greco-Roman
859 Ampelum Greco-Roman
860 Ampelum Greco-Roman
861 Ampelum Greco-Roman
862 Ampelum Syro-Iranian?
863 Ampelum Syro-Iranian?
 864 Apollo? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 290)
865 Castores Augusti inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 291)
866 Ceres Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 292)
867 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 293)
868 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 294)
869 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 295)
870 Deus Aeternus Commagenorum Dolichenus inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 296)
871 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 297)
872 IOM Commagenorum Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 298)
873 IOM Dolichenus Deus Commagenorum inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 299)
874 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 299a)
875 Domnus & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 300)
876 Domna
877 Fortuna Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 301)
878 Fortuna & Redux inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 302)
879 Genius Numeri Maurorum Hisp.
880 Fortuna Salutaris inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 303)
881 Fortuna inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 304)
882 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 305)
883 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 306)
884 IOM? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 307)
885 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 308-9)
886 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 310)
887 IOM? inscription on votive column (IDR III/3, 311)

280
888 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 312)
889 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 313)
890 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 314)
891 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 315)
892 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 316)
893 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 317)
894 Dii Consentes
895 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 318)
896 Juno & Regina
897 Minerva
898 Liber Pater & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 319)
899 Libera
900 Nemesis Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 320)
901 Dii Paterni inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 321)
902 Saturnus? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 322)
903 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 323)
904 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 324)
905 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 325)
906 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 326)
907 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 327)
908 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 328)
909 Silvanus Silvester? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 329)
910 Terra Mater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 330-1)
911 Isis? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 332)
 864 Ampelum Greco-Roman
865 Ampelum Greco-Roman
866 Ampelum Greco-Roman
867 Ampelum Greco-Roman
868 Ampelum Greco-Roman
869 Ampelum Syrian
870 Ampelum Syro-Iranian?
871 Ampelum Syrian
872 Ampelum Syro-Iranian?
873 Ampelum Syrian
874 Ampelum Syrian
875 Ampelum Greco-Roman?
876 Ampelum Greco-Roman?
877 Ampelum Greco-Roman
878 Ampelum Greco-Roman
879 Ampelum Greco-Roman
880 Ampelum Greco-Roman
881 Ampelum Greco-Roman
882 Ampelum Greco-Roman
883 Ampelum Greco-Roman
884 Ampelum Greco-Roman
885 Ampelum Greco-Roman
886 Ampelum Greco-Roman
887 Ampelum Greco-Roman

281
888 Ampelum Greco-Roman
889 Ampelum Greco-Roman
890 Ampelum Greco-Roman
891 Ampelum Greco-Roman
892 Ampelum Greco-Roman
893 Ampelum Greco-Roman
894 Ampelum Roman
895 Ampelum Greco-Roman
896 Ampelum Greco-Roman
897 Ampelum Greco-Roman
898 Ampelum Greco-Roman
899 Ampelum Greco-Roman
900 Ampelum Greco-Roman
901 Ampelum Greco-Roman
902 Ampelum Greco-Roman
903 Ampelum Roman
904 Ampelum Roman
905 Ampelum Roman
906 Ampelum Roman
907 Ampelum Roman
908 Ampelum Roman
909 Ampelum Roman
910 Ampelum Roman
911 Ampelum Egyptian
 912 Victoria Commodi inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 334)
913 Asclepius inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 382)
914 Apollo inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 383)
915 Apollo Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 384)
916 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 385)
917 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 386)
918 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 387)
919 Genius Collegi K(astelli?) Baridustarum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 388)
920 Ianus Geminus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 389)
921 Jupiter Cernenus wooden tablet legal docum. (IDR I, 31)
922 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 390)
923 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 391)
924 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 392)
925 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 393)
926 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 394)
927 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 395)
928 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 396)
929 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 397)
930 Zeus Narenos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 398) GR
931 Zeus Narenos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 399) GR
932 Zeus Sardendenos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 400) GR
933 Zeus Sittakomikos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 409) GR
934 Serapis & inscription on votive medallion (IDR III/3, 401) GR
935 Theoi Pantes

282
936 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 402)
937 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 403)
938 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 404)
939 Silvanus Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 405)
940 Silvanus Silvester inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 405a)
941 Silvanus Silvester inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 406)
942 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 407)
943 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/3, 408)
944 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 4)
945 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 17)
946 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 18)
947 Obila & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 29)
948 Hercules
949 Sol Invictus deus genitor (rupe natus?) inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 30)
950 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 32)
951 IOM Narenos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 41)
952 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 45)
953 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 46) GR
954 Diana relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/4, 55)
955 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 56)
956 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 57)
957 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 60)
958 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 61)
959 Mithras relief + inscription (IDR III/4, 63)
 912 Ampelum Greco-Roman
913 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
914 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
915 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
916 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
917 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
918 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
919 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
920 Alburnus Maior Roman
921 Alburnus Maior Celtic
922 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
923 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
924 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
925 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
926 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
927 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
928 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
929 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
930 Alburnus Maior Celto-Galatian?
931 Alburnus Maior Celto-Galatian?
932 Alburnus Maior Micro-Asiatic
933 Alburnus Maior Micro-Asiatic/Iranian?
934 Alburnus Maior Egyptian
935 Alburnus Maior ?

283
936 Alburnus Maior Roman
937 Alburnus Maior Roman
938 Alburnus Maior Roman
939 Alburnus Maior Roman
940 Alburnus Maior Roman
941 Alburnus Maior Roman
942 Alburnus Maior Roman
943 Alburnus Maior Roman
944 Reciu (rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
945 Apoldu de Jos (vicus, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
946 Sebe" (rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Roman
947 %pring (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Hispanic?
948 %pring (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
949 Do"tat? (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Iranian
950 Daia Romna (rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
951 Berghin (rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Celto-Galatian?
952 Ampoi#a (large rural settlement and quarry, Apulum territ.) Greco-Roman
953 Ampoi#a (large rural settlement and quarry, Apulum territ.) Greco-Roman
954 Diana in knee-length tunic; rabit Tibru (probable villa rustica, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
955 Tibru (probable villa rustica, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
956 Tibru (probable villa rustica, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
957 Benic (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
958 Benic (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
959 Mithraic tauroctony Lopadea Nou! (Apulum territorium) Iranian
 960 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 67)
961 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (CIL III, 13770)
962 Terra Mater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 67)
963 Mithras Mithraeum (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.78-80)
964 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 70)
965 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 71)
966 Mithras vot. relief fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 2013)
967 Mithras vot. relief fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 2014)
968 Mithras vot. relief fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 2015)
969 Apollo? temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.126)
970 Apollo relief + inscription (IDR III/4, 72)
971 Apollo construction plaque(IDR III/4, 73)
972 Liber Pater? statuary group fragm. +inscription (IDR III/4, 74)
973 IOM Dolichenus Commagenorum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 86)
974 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 87)
975 Apollo statuette head
976 Saromandus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 92)
977 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 101)
978 Mithras relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/4, 131)
979 Mars Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 135)
980 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 190)
981 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 191)
982 Juno & Regina
983 Minerva

284
984 Apollo Sanctus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 207)
985 Adrastia ( =Nemesis) inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 215)
986 Aesculapius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 233)
987 Hygia
988 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no.21)
989 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 234)
990 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 247)
991 Juno Regina
992 Sol Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 248)
993 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 271)
994 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 272)
995 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 273)
996 Diana Regina inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 274)
997 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 275)
998 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 276)
999 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 277)
1000 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 278)
1001 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 279)
1002 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 280)
1003 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 281)
1004 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 282)
1005 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 283)
1006 Liber Pater inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 284)
1007 Mars inscription on votive altar (IDR III/4, 285)
 960 Salinae Greco-Roman
961 Salinae Roman
962 Salinae Roman
963 Decea (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Iranian
964 Decea (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Iranian
965 Decea (large rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Iranian
966 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony Cinc"or (castrum of Coh. II Fl. Bessorum, Alutus R. valley) Iranian
967 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony ? Cinc"or (castrum of Coh. II Fl. Bessorum, Alutus R. valley) Iranian
968 fragment of Mithraic tauroctony ? Cinc"or (castrum of Coh. II Fl. Bessorum, Alutus R. valley) Iranian
969 R!zboieni-Cetate (settlement and aux. castrum, Apulum terr.) Greco-Roman
970 Apollo nude; lyre; plectrum; bow and quiver R!zboieni-Cetate (settlement and aux. castrum, Apulum terr.) Greco-Roman
971 R!zboieni-Cetate (settlement and aux. castrum, Apulum terr.) Greco-Roman
972 feet of Liber Pater; fragments of panther? R!zboieni-Cetate (settlement and aux. castrum, Apulum terr.) Greco-Roman
973 S!c!date (rural settlement near Caput Stenarum) Syrian
974 S!c!date (rural settlement near Caput Stenarum) Iranian
975 Ocna Sibiului (rural settlem. & salt works, near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
976 Mic!sasa (large settlem. and pottery workshops, Apulum territ.) ?
977 Snmicl!u" (rural settlement, Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
978 Mithraic tauroctony Ozd (rural settlement, near Salinae) Iranian
979 Criste"ti (rural settlem. and pottery workshops, near Potaissa) Greco-Roman
980 Sighi"oara (civilian settlement and castrum, E of Salinae) Syro-Iranian?
981 Sighi"oara (civilian settlement and castrum, E of Salinae) Greco-Roman
982 Sighi"oara (civilian settlement and castrum, E of Salinae) Greco-Roman
983 Sighi"oara (civilian settlement and castrum, E of Salinae) Greco-Roman

285
984 S!r!#eni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
985 C!lug!reni (civ. settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
986 Hoghiz (civ. settlement and aux. castrum along Alutus River) Greco-Roman
987 Hoghiz (civ. settlement and aux. castrum along Alutus River) Greco-Roman
988 2 horsemen anking goddess; table w. sh Hoghiz (inside aux. castrum along Alutus River) Thracian
989 Hoghiz (civ. settlement and aux. castrum along Alutus River) Greco-Roman
990 Snpaul (civ. settlem.; salt works; aux. castrum on E frontier) Greco-Roman
991 Snpaul (civ. settlem.; salt works; aux. castrum on E frontier) Greco-Roman
992 Snpaul (civ. settlem.; salt works; aux. castrum on E frontier) Syrian
993 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
994 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
995 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
996 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
997 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
998 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
999 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1000 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1001 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1002 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1003 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1004 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1005 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1006 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
1007 Inl!ceni (civilian settlement and aux. castrum on N-E frontier) Greco-Roman
 1008 Venus Pudica type bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.169)
1009 Venus terracotta statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.185)
1010 Aesculapius temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.123-125)
1011 Aesculapius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 1)
1012 Aesculapius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 2)
1013 Asclepius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 3)
1014 Hygia
1015 Aesculapius & inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 4)
1016 Hygia
1017 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 5)
1018 Hygia
1019 Aesculapius & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 6)
1020 Hygia
1021 Aesculapius & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 7)
1022 Hygia
1023 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 8)
1024 Hygia
1025 Aesculapius & relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 9)
1026 Hygia
1027 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 10)
1028 Hygia
1029 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 11)
1030 Hygia
1031 Asclepius & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 12)

286
1032 Hygia
1033 Aesculapius & inscription (IDR/5.1, 13)
1034 Hygia
1035 Aesculapius & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 14)
1036 Hygia
1037 Asclepius & Theoi Epeikooi inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 15) GR
1038 Hygia
1039 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 16)
1040 Hygia
1041 Aesculapius & relief + inscription fragment (IDR III/5.1, 17)
1042 Hygia
1043 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 18)
1044 Hygia
1045 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 19)
1046 Hygia
1047 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 20)
1048 Hygia &
1049 Apollo &
1050 Diana
1051 Aesculapius & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 21)
1052 Hygia &
1053 Dii Deaeque Ceteri Salutares huiusque loci
1054 Deus Aeternus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.132-134)
1055 Deus Aeternus? inscr. on capital-statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 22)
 1008 ? Cumidava Greco-Roman
1009 V. semi-nude Cumidava Greco-Roman
1010 Apulum Greco-Roman
1011 Apulum Greco-Roman
1012 Apulum Greco-Roman
1013 Apulum Greco-Roman
1014 Apulum Greco-Roman
1015 Apulum Greco-Roman
1016 Apulum Greco-Roman
1017 Apulum Greco-Roman
1018 Apulum Greco-Roman
1019 Apulum Greco-Roman
1020 Apulum Greco-Roman
1021 Apulum Greco-Roman
1022 Apulum Greco-Roman
1023 Apulum Greco-Roman
1024 Apulum Greco-Roman
1025 Aesculapius anked by Hygia, Epione & Telesphorus, etc. Apulum Greco-Roman
1026 Apulum Greco-Roman
1027 Apulum Greco-Roman
1028 Apulum Greco-Roman
1029 Apulum Greco-Roman
1030 Apulum Greco-Roman
1031 Apulum Greco-Roman

287
1032 Apulum Greco-Roman
1033 Apulum Greco-Roman
1034 Apulum Greco-Roman
1035 Apulum Greco-Roman
1036 Apulum Greco-Roman
1037 Apulum Greco-Roman
1038 Apulum Greco-Roman
1039 Apulum Greco-Roman
1040 Apulum Greco-Roman
1041 imploring hands Apulum Greco-Roman
1042 Apulum Greco-Roman
1043 Apulum Greco-Roman
1044 Apulum Greco-Roman
1045 Apulum Greco-Roman
1046 Apulum Greco-Roman
1047 Apulum Greco-Roman
1048 Apulum Greco-Roman
1049 Apulum Greco-Roman
1050 Apulum Greco-Roman
1051 Apulum Greco-Roman
1052 Apulum Greco-Roman
1053 Apulum Greco-Roman
1054 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1055 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
 1056 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 23)
1057 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 24)
1058 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 25)
1059 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 26)
1060 Deus Aeternus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 27)
1061 Deus Aeternus Optimus Maximus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 28)
1062 Deus Aeternus Sanctissimus Pientissimus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 29)
1063 Apollo inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 30)
1064 Apollo & inscription on statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 31)
1065 Deus Aeternus
1066 Apollo Augustus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 32)
1067 Apollo Praestantissimus relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 33)
1068 Apollo Salutaris inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 34)
1069 Apollo & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 35)
1070 Diana
1071 Apollo & construction plaque (IDR III/5.1, 36)
1072 Diana &
1073 Latona &
1074 Dii Deaeque Ceteri Salutares huiusque loci
1075 Badones Reginae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 37)
1076 Caelestis (= Tanit) Baltis (= Ba'alath) inscription on architrave (IDR III/5.1, 38)
1077 Busumarius inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 39)
1078 Caelestis (= Tanit) inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 40)
1079 Caelestis (= Tanit) Augusta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 41)

288
1080 Cautes inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 42)
1081 Daciae Tres & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 43)
1082 Genius Leg. XIII Geminae
1083 Deae Cunctae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 44)
1084 Dii Deaeque inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 45)
1085 Dii Deaeque Daciarum & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 46)
1086 Terra Mater?
1087 Diana inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 48)
1088 Diana inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 49)
1089 Diana inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 50)
1090 Artemis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 51) GR
1091 Diana inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 52)
1092 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 53)
1093 Diana votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 54)
1094 Diana votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 55)
1095 Diana inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 56) GR
1096 Diana votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 57)
1097 Diana Augusta votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 58)
1098 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 59)
1099 Diana Augusta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 60)
1100 Diana Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 61)
1101 Diana Mellica inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 62)
1102 Diana Regina inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 63)
1103 Diana fragment of relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 64)
 1056 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1057 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1058 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1059 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1060 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1061 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1062 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1063 Apulum Greco-Roman
1064 Apulum Greco-Roman
1065 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1066 Apulum Greco-Roman
1067 Apollo w. lyre, plectrum; anked by grifn & crow Apulum Greco-Roman
1068 Apulum Greco-Roman
1069 Apulum Greco-Roman
1070 Apulum Greco-Roman
1071 Busts of: Apollo w. lyre, Diana w. bow, Leto Apulum Greco-Roman
1072 Apulum Greco-Roman
1073 Apulum Greco-Roman
1074 Apulum Greco-Roman
1075 Apulum Germanic?
1076 Apulum Punic
1077 Apulum Celto-Galatian?
1078 Apulum Punic
1079 Apulum Punic

289
1080 Apulum Iranian
1081 Apulum Roman
1082 Apulum Roman
1083 Apulum Greco-Roman
1084 Apulum Greco-Roman
1085 Apulum Greco-Roman
1086 Apulum Roman
1087 Apulum Greco-Roman
1088 Apulum Greco-Roman
1089 Apulum Greco-Roman
1090 Apulum Greco-Roman
1091 Apulum Greco-Roman
1092 Apulum Greco-Roman
1093 Apulum Greco-Roman
1094 Apulum Greco-Roman
1095 Apulum Greco-Roman
1096 Apulum Greco-Roman
1097 Apulum Greco-Roman
1098 Apulum Greco-Roman
1099 Apulum Greco-Roman
1100 Apulum Greco-Roman
1101 Apulum Greco-Roman
1102 Apulum Greco-Roman
1103 fragments of Diana in short tunic, w. quiver and dog Apulum Greco-Roman
 1104 Diana votive relief (Tudor, Ora!e..., Pl. 7)
1105 Dominus Aeternus? inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 65)
1106 Dominae building inscription for fanum (IDR III/5.1, 66)
1107 Epona Augusta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 68)
1108 Epona? Regina inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 69)
1109 Epona Sancta? Regina inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 70)
1110 Epona Sancta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 71)
1111 Fortuna temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.127)
1112 Fortuna Augusta votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 72)
1113 Fortuna Augusta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 73)
1114 Fortuna & Augusta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 74)
1115 Genius canabensium
1116 Fortuna Bona Domestica votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 75)
1117 Fortuna Publica inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 76)
1118 Fortuna Redux inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 77)
1119 Fortuna Supera Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 78)
1120 Genius centuriae inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 79)
1121 Genius fabrum inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 80)
1122 Genius nautarum? votive relief + inscription? (Tudor, Ora"e..., Pl. 4)
1123 Genius Imperatori Gordiani inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 81)
1124 Genius Leg. XIII Geminae inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 82)
1125 Genius loci & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 83)
1126 Fortuna Magna
1127 Genius praetorii inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 84)

290
1128 Glycon inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 85)
1129 Glycon inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 86)
1130 Hercules votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 87)
1131 Hercules inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 88)
1132 Hercules inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 89)
1133 Hercules inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 90)
1134 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 91)
1135 Hercules inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 92)
1136 Hercules Augustus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 93)
1137 Hercules Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 94)
1138 Hercules Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 95)
1139 Hercules Conservator votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 96)
1140 Hercules Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 97)
1141 Hercules Defensor inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 98)
1142 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 99)
1143 Hercules Invictus inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 100)
1144 Hercules votive statue + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 101)
1145 Hierhibol inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 102)
1146 Hieriebol Deus Soli inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 103)
1147 Isis Myrionima inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 104)
1148 Juno inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 105)
1149 Juno Regina inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 106)
1150 Juno Populonia Regina, Dea Patria inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 107)
1151 Juno Semplia votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 108)
 1104 Diana w. short tunic, bow & arrow; stag at side Apulum Greco-Roman
1105 Apulum Syro-Iranian?
1106 Apulum Celtic?
1107 Apulum Celtic
1108 Apulum Celtic
1109 Apulum Celtic
1110 Apulum Celtic
1111 Apulum Greco-Roman
1112 Apulum Greco-Roman
1113 Apulum Greco-Roman
1114 Apulum Greco-Roman
1115 Apulum Roman
1116 Apulum Greco-Roman
1117 Apulum Greco-Roman
1118 Apulum Greco-Roman
1119 Apulum Greco-Roman
1120 Apulum Roman
1121 Apulum Roman
1122 Genius w. cornucopia, sacricing on altar; boat at side? Apulum Roman
1123 Apulum Roman
1124 Apulum Roman
1125 Apulum Roman
1126 Apulum Greco-Roman
1127 Apulum Roman

291
1128 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1129 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1130 Apulum Greco-Roman
1131 Apulum Greco-Roman
1132 Apulum Greco-Roman
1133 Apulum Greco-Roman
1134 Apulum Greco-Roman
1135 Apulum Greco-Roman
1136 Apulum Greco-Roman
1137 Apulum Greco-Roman
1138 Apulum Greco-Roman
1139 Apulum Greco-Roman
1140 Apulum Greco-Roman
1141 Apulum Greco-Roman
1142 Apulum Greco-Roman
1143 Apulum Greco-Roman
1144 Hercules' club Apulum Greco-Roman
1145 Apulum Palmyrean
1146 Apulum Palmyrean
1147 Apulum Egyptian
1148 Apulum Greco-Roman
1149 Apulum Greco-Roman
1150 Apulum Italic
1151 Apulum Thracian?
 1152 Jupiter Depulsor inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 109)
1153 Jupiter Depulsor inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 110)
1154 Jupiter Maximus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 111)
1155 Jupiter Monitor, Conservator votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 112)
1156 Jupiter Optimus Bussumarus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 113)
1157 Jupiter Tronans type marble statue fragm. (Florescu, 1986, p. 106, Fig.55)
1158 IOM temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.127-130)
1159 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 114)
1160 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 115)
1161 IOM inscr. on pyramid-shaped pedestal (IDR III/5.1, 116)
1162 IOM inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 117)
1163 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 118)
1164 IOM inscr. on votive monument fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 119)
1165 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 120)
1166 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 121)
1167 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 122)
1168 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 123)
1169 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 124)
1170 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 125)
1171 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 126)
1172 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 127)
1173 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 128)
1174 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 129)
1175 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 130)

292
1176 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 131)
1177 IOM inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 132)
1178 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 133)
1179 IOM inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 134)
1180 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 135)
1181 IOM inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 136)
1182 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 137)
1183 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 138)
1184 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 139)
1185 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 140)
1186 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 141)
1187 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 142)
1188 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 143)
1189 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 144)
1190 IOM inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 145)
1191 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 146)
1192 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 147)
1193 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 148)
1194 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 149)
1195 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 150)
1196 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 151)
1197 IOM votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 152)
1198 IOM inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 153)
1199 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 154)
 1152 Apulum Greco-Roman
1153 Apulum Greco-Roman
1154 Apulum Greco-Roman
1155 Apulum Greco-Roman
1156 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1157 J., semi-nude, enthroned, w. eagle at his feet Apulum Greco-Roman
1158 Apulum Greco-Roman
1159 Apulum Greco-Roman
1160 Apulum Greco-Roman
1161 bull's head Apulum Greco-Roman
1162 Apulum Greco-Roman
1163 Apulum Greco-Roman
1164 Apulum Greco-Roman
1165 Apulum Greco-Roman
1166 Apulum Greco-Roman
1167 Apulum Greco-Roman
1168 Apulum Greco-Roman
1169 Apulum Greco-Roman
1170 Apulum Greco-Roman
1171 Apulum Greco-Roman
1172 Apulum Greco-Roman
1173 Apulum Greco-Roman
1174 Apulum Greco-Roman
1175 Apulum Greco-Roman

293
1176 Apulum Greco-Roman
1177 Apulum Greco-Roman
1178 Apulum Greco-Roman
1179 Apulum Greco-Roman
1180 Apulum Greco-Roman
1181 Apulum Greco-Roman
1182 Apulum Greco-Roman
1183 Apulum Greco-Roman
1184 Apulum Greco-Roman
1185 Apulum Greco-Roman
1186 Apulum Greco-Roman
1187 Apulum Greco-Roman
1188 Apulum Greco-Roman
1189 Apulum Greco-Roman
1190 Apulum Greco-Roman
1191 Apulum Greco-Roman
1192 Apulum Greco-Roman
1193 Apulum Greco-Roman
1194 Apulum Greco-Roman
1195 Apulum Greco-Roman
1196 Apulum Greco-Roman
1197 Apulum Greco-Roman
1198 Apulum Greco-Roman
1199 Apulum Greco-Roman
 1200 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 155)
1201 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 156)
1202 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 157)
1203 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 158)
1204 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 159)
1205 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 160)
1206 IOM inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 161)
1207 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 162)
1208 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 163)
1209 IOM inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 164)
1210 IOM Fulminans type votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 165)
1211 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 166)
1212 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 167)
1213 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 168)
1214 IOM votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 169)
1215 IOM inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 170)
1216 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 171)
1217 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 172)
1218 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 173)
1219 IOM inscr. on votive altar/column (IDR III/5.1, 174)
1220 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 175)
1221 IOM votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 176)
1222 IOM votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 177)
1223 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 178)

294
1224 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 179)
1225 IOM inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 180)
1226 IOM & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 181)
1227 Dii Ceteri
1228 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 182)
1229 Dii Deaeque Ceteri
1230 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 183)
1231 Dii Deaeque Ceteri Immortales
1232 IOM & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 184)
1233 Dii Deaeque & Ceteri Immortales
1234 Dacia
1235 IOM & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 185
1236 Consensus Deorum Dearumque
1237 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 186)
1238 Dii Deaeque
1239 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 187)
1240 Dii Deaeque Paterni
1241 IOM & inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 188)
1242 Juno
1243 IOM & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 189)
1244 Juno Regina
1245 IOM & statuary group fragm. +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 190)
1246 Juno Regina
1247 IOM & inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 191)
 1200 Apulum Greco-Roman
1201 Apulum Greco-Roman
1202 Apulum Greco-Roman
1203 Apulum Greco-Roman
1204 Apulum Greco-Roman
1205 Apulum Greco-Roman
1206 Apulum Greco-Roman
1207 Apulum Greco-Roman
1208 Apulum Greco-Roman
1209 Apulum Greco-Roman
1210 Jupiter w. thunder bolts in left hand, w. eagle at right Apulum Greco-Roman
1211 Apulum Greco-Roman
1212 Apulum Greco-Roman
1213 Apulum Greco-Roman
1214 Apulum Greco-Roman
1215 Apulum Greco-Roman
1216 Apulum Greco-Roman
1217 Apulum Greco-Roman
1218 Apulum Greco-Roman
1219 Apulum Greco-Roman
1220 Apulum Greco-Roman
1221 Apulum Greco-Roman
1222 Apulum Greco-Roman
1223 Apulum Greco-Roman

295
1224 Apulum Greco-Roman
1225 Apulum Greco-Roman
1226 Apulum Greco-Roman
1227 Apulum Greco-Roman
1228 Apulum Greco-Roman
1229 Apulum Greco-Roman
1230 Apulum Greco-Roman
1231 Apulum Greco-Roman
1232 Apulum Greco-Roman
1233 Apulum Greco-Roman
1234 Apulum Roman
1235 Apulum Greco-Roman
1236 Apulum Greco-Roman
1237 Apulum Greco-Roman
1238 Apulum Greco-Roman
1239 Apulum Greco-Roman
1240 Apulum Greco-Roman
1241 Apulum Greco-Roman
1242 Apulum Greco-Roman
1243 Apulum Greco-Roman
1244 Apulum Greco-Roman
1245 fragm. of: Juno, Jupiter, eagle between them Apulum Greco-Roman
1246 Apulum Greco-Roman
1247 Apulum Greco-Roman
 1248 Juno Regina
1249 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 192)
1250 Juno Regina
1251 IOM & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 193)
1252 Juno Regina
1253 IOM & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 194)
1254 Juno &
1255 Genius loci
1256 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 195)
1257 Juno & Regina
1258 Minerva
1259 IOM? & votive inscription fragment (IDR III/5.1, 196)
1260 Juno? & Regina?
1261 Minerva
1262 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 197)
1263 Juno & Regina
1264 Minerva
1265 IOM & inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 198)
1266 Juno & Regina
1267 Minerva
1268 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 199)
1269 Juno &
1270 Minerva &
1271 Aesculapius Dominus

296
1272 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 200)
1273 Liber Pater &
1274 Mercurius Pater
1275 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 201)
1276 Mars
1277 IOM & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 202)
1278 Dei Penates
1279 IOM Aeternus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 203)
1280 IOM Aeternus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 204)
1281 IOM? Aeternus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 205)
1282 IOM Bussumarius exedra (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.142)
1283 IOM Bussumarius inscription on construction plaque (IDR III/5.1, 206)
1284 IOM & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 207)
1285 Sol Bussurgius
1286 IOM Cimistenus inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 208)
1287 IOM Cimistenus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 209)
1288 IOM Conservator inscr. on votive column plinth (IDR III/5.1, 210)
1289 IOM Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 211)
1290 IOM Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 212)
1291 IOM Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 213)
1292 IOM Custos? inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 214)
1293 IOM & Custos inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 215)
1294 Juno &
1295 Minerva &
 1248 Apulum Greco-Roman
1249 Apulum Greco-Roman
1250 Apulum Greco-Roman
1251 Apulum Greco-Roman
1252 Apulum Greco-Roman
1253 Apulum Greco-Roman
1254 Apulum Greco-Roman
1255 Apulum Roman
1256 Apulum Greco-Roman
1257 Apulum Greco-Roman
1258 Apulum Greco-Roman
1259 Apulum Greco-Roman
1260 Apulum Greco-Roman
1261 Apulum Greco-Roman
1262 Apulum Greco-Roman
1263 Apulum Greco-Roman
1264 Apulum Greco-Roman
1265 Apulum Greco-Roman
1266 Apulum Greco-Roman
1267 Apulum Greco-Roman
1268 Apulum Greco-Roman
1269 Apulum Greco-Roman
1270 Apulum Greco-Roman
1271 Apulum Greco-Roman

297
1272 Apulum Greco-Roman
1273 Apulum Greco-Roman
1274 Apulum Greco-Roman
1275 Apulum Greco-Roman
1276 Apulum Greco-Roman
1277 Apulum Greco-Roman
1278 Apulum Roman
1279 Apulum Greco-Roman
1280 Apulum Greco-Roman
1281 Apulum Greco-Roman
1282 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1283 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1284 Apulum Greco-Roman
1285 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1286 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1287 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1288 Apulum Greco-Roman
1289 Apulum Greco-Roman
1290 Apulum Greco-Roman
1291 Apulum Greco-Roman
1292 Apulum Greco-Roman
1293 Apulum Greco-Roman
1294 Apulum Greco-Roman
1295 Apulum Greco-Roman
 1296 Dii Deaeque Ceteri
1297 IOM Divus Fulguralis inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 216)
1298 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 217)
1299 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 218)
1300 IOM Dolichenus inscr. on votive plaque/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 219)
1301 IOM Dolichenus & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 220)
1302 Aesculapius
1303 IOM Dolichenus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.135-136)
1304 IOM Dolichenus & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 221)
1305 Dea Syria Magna Caelestis
1306 IOM? Dolichenus Deus Aeternus & natus ubi ferrum exoritur inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 222)
1307 Juno? & Regina?
1308 Natura? &
1309 Bonus Eventus
1310 IOM? Dolichenus? Deus Commagenus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 223)
1311 IOM inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 224)
1312 IOM Sabazius inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 225)
1313 IOM Stator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 226)
1314 IOM Tavianus? inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 227)
1315 IOM Tavianus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 228)
1316 Zeus Sardendenos inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 229) GR
1317 Jupiter Stator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 230)
1318 Jupiter Summus Exsuperantissimus . . . inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 231)
1319 Jupiter & Victor inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 232)

298
1320 Jupiter Depulsor
1321 Liber Pater shrine (Haynes, CWA 10, 2005: pp. 38-45)
1322 Liber Pater statue (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.50)
1323 Liber Pater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 233)
1324 Liber Pater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 234)
1325 Liber Pater inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 235)
1326 Liber Pater inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 236)
1327 Liber Pater votive statue fragm. +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 237)
1328 Liber Pater votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 238)
1329 Liber Pater votive statue fragm. +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 239)
1330 Liber Pater & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 240)
1331 Libera
1332 Liber Pater & inscription on votive plaque fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 241)
1333 Libera
1334 Liber Pater & inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 242)
1335 Libera
1336 Liber Pater & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 243)
1337 Libera
1338 Pan relief + inscr. on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 244)
1339 Liber Pater? votive relief fragm. + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 245)
1340 Luna Lucifera inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 246)
1341 Magusanus votive statue fragm. +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 247)
1342 Mars & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 248)
1343 Victoria
 1296 Apulum Greco-Roman
1297 Apulum Greco-Roman
1298 Apulum Syrian
1299 Apulum Syrian
1300 Apulum Syrian
1301 Apulum Syrian
1302 Apulum Greco-Roman
1303 Apulum Syrian
1304 Apulum Syrian
1305 Apulum Micro-Asiatic/Syrian/Punic
1306 Apulum Syrian
1307 Apulum Greco-Roman
1308 Apulum Roman
1309 Apulum Roman
1310 Apulum Syrian
1311 Apulum Greco-Roman
1312 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1313 Apulum Greco-Roman
1314 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1315 Apulum Celto-Galatian
1316 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1317 Apulum Greco-Roman
1318 Apulum Greco-Roman
1319 Apulum Greco-Roman

299
1320 Apulum Greco-Roman
1321 Apulum Greco-Roman
1322 Apulum Greco-Roman
1323 Apulum Greco-Roman
1324 Apulum Greco-Roman
1325 Apulum Greco-Roman
1326 Apulum Greco-Roman
1327 Liber Pater wearing nebris; panther w. grape cluster Apulum Greco-Roman
1328 Apulum Greco-Roman
1329 fragm. of: Liber; snake; panther; acolyte (?); tree trunk Apulum Greco-Roman
1330 Apulum Greco-Roman
1331 Apulum Greco-Roman
1332 Apulum Greco-Roman
1333 Apulum Greco-Roman
1334 Apulum Greco-Roman
1335 Apulum Greco-Roman
1336 Apulum Greco-Roman
1337 Apulum Greco-Roman
1338 Pan holding: patera over altar; pedum w. ute suspended Apulum Greco-Roman
1339 fragments of Liber; panther? Apulum Greco-Roman
1340 Apulum Syrian?
1341 fragm. of eagle's claws on globe w. 2 crossing bands Apulum Germanic
1342 Apulum Greco-Roman
1343 Apulum Greco-Roman
 1344 Mars & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 249)
1345 Victoria
1346 Mars Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 250)
1347 Mars & Pater Conservator inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 251)
1348 Victoria Bona
1349 Magna Deum Mater inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 252)
1350 Magna Deum Mater inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 253)
1351 Magna Deum Mater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 254)
1352 Magna Deum Mater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 255)
1353 Meter Troklimene inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 256) GR
1354 Mercurius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 257)
1355 Mercurius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 258)
1356 Minerva inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 259)
1357 Minerva Iovis consiliorum participis inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 260)
1358 Minerva inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 261)
1359 Athena inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 262) GR
1360 Minerva Augusta inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 263)
1361 Minerva Sancta inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 264)
1362 Minerva Supera inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 265)
1363 Minerva Victrix inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 266)
1364 Mithras Mithraeum (Haynes, CWA 10, 2005: 40, 44-45)
1365 Mithras votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 267) GR
1366 Mithras inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 268)
1367 Mithras Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 269)

300
1368 Mithras Deus Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 270)
1369 Mithras Deus Invictus votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 271)
1370 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 272)
1371 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 273)
1372 Mithras Deus Invictus votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 274)
1373 Mithras Invictus inscription on votive plaque (IDR III/5.1, 275)
1374 Mithras Invictus votive stele (IDR III/5.1, 276)
1375 Mithras Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 277)
1376 Mithras Sol Invictus votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 274)
1377 Mithras Sol inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 279)
1378 Mithras Sol Invictus votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 280)
1379 Mithras Sol Invictus inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 281)
1380 Mithras Sol Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 282)
1381 Mithras Sol Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 283)
1382 Mithras Sol? Invictus votive statue fragm. +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 284)
1383 Mithras Sol Invictus votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 285)
1384 Mithras Sol? Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 286)
1385 Mithras? Deus Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 287)
1386 Mithras? Numen Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 288)
1387 Mithras votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 290)
1388 Mithras votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 291)
1389 Mithras? inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 292)
1390 Mithras votive relief fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1938)
1391 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1972)
 1344 Apulum Greco-Roman
1345 Apulum Greco-Roman
1346 Apulum Greco-Roman
1347 Apulum Greco-Roman
1348 Apulum Greco-Roman
1349 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1350 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1351 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1352 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1353 Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1354 Apulum Greco-Roman
1355 Apulum Greco-Roman
1356 Apulum Greco-Roman
1357 Apulum Greco-Roman
1358 Apulum Greco-Roman
1359 Apulum Greco-Roman
1360 Apulum Greco-Roman
1361 Apulum Greco-Roman
1362 Apulum Greco-Roman
1363 Apulum Greco-Roman
1364 Apulum Iranian
1365 Mithraic tauroctony Apulum Iranian
1366 Apulum Iranian
1367 Apulum Iranian

301
1368 Apulum Iranian
1369 tri-level relief w. central Mithraic tauroctony Apulum Iranian
1370 Apulum Iranian
1371 Apulum Iranian
1372 Mithraic tauroctony Apulum Iranian
1373 Apulum Iranian
1374 bust of Mithras w. Phrygian cap and mantle Apulum Iranian
1375 Apulum Iranian
1376 relief fragm. w. central Mithraic tauroctony? Apulum Iranian
1377 Apulum Iranian
1378 tri-level relief w. central Mithraic tauroctony Apulum Iranian
1379 Apulum Iranian
1380 Apulum Iranian
1381 Apulum Iranian
1382 Mithraic tauroctony fragment Apulum Iranian
1383 Mithraic tauroctony Apulum Iranian
1384 Apulum Iranian
1385 Apulum Iranian
1386 Apulum Iranian
1387 Mithraic tauroctony fragment Apulum Iranian
1388 Mithraic tauroctony fragment Apulum Iranian
1389 Apulum Iranian
1390 fragments of Mithraic tauroctony Apulum? Iranian
1391 Mithraic vignettes around central Mithr. tauroctony Apulum? Iranian
 1392 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1973)
1393 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1974)
1394 Mithras rel. on statue plinth (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1985)
1395 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1986)
1396 Mithras Petrogenitus type statue fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1991)
1397 Mithras Petrogenitus type statue fragm. (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1994)
1398 Nemesis temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.130)
1399 Nemesis inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 293)
1400 Nemesis sive Fortuna inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 294)
1401 Nemesis inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 295)
1402 Nemesis Exaudientissima votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 296)
1403 Nemesis Regina votive statue +inscription (IDR III/5.1, 297)
1404 Nemesis limestone statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, 263)
1405 Nymphae Novae inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 298)
1406 Dei Penates & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 299)
1407 Lares Militares &
1408 Lares Viales &
1409 Neptunus &
1410 Salus &
1411 Fortuna & Redux
1412 Aesculapius &
1413 Diana &
1414 Apollo &
1415 Hercules &

302
1416 Spes &
1417 Favor
1418 Aziz Bonus Puer Phosphorus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 300)
1419 Aziz Bonus Puer inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 301)
1420 Aziz Bonus Puer inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 302)
1421 Aziz Bonus Puer Phosphorus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 303)
1422 Aziz Bonus Puer Phosphorus votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 304)
1423 Aziz Bonus Puer Phosphorus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 305)
1424 Aziz B. P. Phosphorus Apollo Pythius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 306)
1425 Aziz B. P. Phosphorus Apollo Pythius inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 307)
1426 Priapus Pantheus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 308)
1427 Quadriviae inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 309)
1428 Quadriviae inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 310)
1429 Quadriviae inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 311)
1430 Saturnus Securus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 314)
1431 Serapis votive inscription fragment (IDR III/5.1, 315)
1432 Serapis votive inscription fragment (IDR III/5.1, 316)
1433 Serapis Augustus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 317)
1434 Serapis & inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 318)
1435 Isis
1436 Serapis & inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 319)
1437 Jupiter &
1438 Sol &
1439 Isis &
 1392 Mithraic tauroctony Apulum? Iranian
1393 Mithraic vignettes around central Mithr. tauroctony Apulum? Iranian
1394 M. riding bull, holds upturned torch; wheat stem below Apulum? Iranian
1395 bust of Sol w. radiate crown; Mithras (?) Apulum? Iranian
1396 M. being born fr. rock encircled by snake Apulum? Iranian
1397 M. nude, being born fr. rock encircled by snake Apulum? Iranian
1398 Apulum Greco-Roman
1399 Apulum Greco-Roman
1400 Apulum Greco-Roman
1401 Apulum Greco-Roman
1402 Nemesis holding meta and scales Apulum Greco-Roman
1403 Nemesis holding meta Apulum Greco-Roman
1404 ? Apulum Greco-Roman
1405 Apulum Greco-Roman
1406 Apulum Roman
1407 Apulum Roman
1408 Apulum Roman
1409 Apulum Greco-Roman
1410 Apulum Greco-Roman
1411 Apulum Greco-Roman
1412 Apulum Greco-Roman
1413 Apulum Greco-Roman
1414 Apulum Greco-Roman
1415 Apulum Greco-Roman

303
1416 Apulum Greco-Roman
1417 Apulum Greco-Roman
1418 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1419 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1420 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1421 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1422 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1423 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1424 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1425 Apulum Arabo-Syrian
1426 Apulum Roman
1427 Apulum Celtic
1428 Apulum Celtic
1429 Apulum Celtic
1430 Apulum North African
1431 Apulum Egyptian
1432 Apulum Egyptian
1433 Apulum Egyptian
1434 Apulum Egyptian
1435 Apulum Egyptian
1436 Apulum Egyptian
1437 Apulum Greco-Roman
1438 Apulum Syrian
1439 Apulum Egyptian
 1440 Luna &
1441 Diana
1442 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 320)
1443 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 321)
1444 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 322)
1445 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 323)
1446 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 324)
1447 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 325)
1448 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 326)
1449 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 327)
1450 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 328)
1451 Silvanus votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 329)
1452 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 330)
1453 Silvanus Augustus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 331)
1454 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 332)
1455 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 333)
1456 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 334)
1457 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 335)
1458 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 336)
1459 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 337)
1460 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 338)
1461 Silvanus Domesticus inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 339)
1462 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 340)
1463 Silvanus ? Domesticus ? inscription on votive plaque fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 341)

304
1464 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 342)
1465 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 343)
1466 Silvanus & Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 344)
1467 Terra Mater &
1468 Hercules
1469 Silvanus Sanctus inscription on votive column (IDR III/5.1, 345)
1470 Silvanus Sanctus votive inscription (IDR III/5.1, 346)
1471 Silvanus Silvester inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 347)
1472 Silvanus Silvester votive relief + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 348)
1473 Silvanus & Silvester inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 349)
1474 Diana
1475 Sol Invictus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.139)
1476 Sol inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 350)
1477 Sol inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 351)
1478 Sol Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 352)
1479 Helios Aniketos GR
1480 Sol Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 353)
1481 Sol Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 354)
1482 Helios Aniketos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.1, 355) GR
1483 Sol? Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 356)
1484 Sol? Invictus votive statue +inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 357)
1485 Sol votive bronze statuette + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 358)
1486 Sol Invictus votive statue plinth (CIL III, 14475)
1487 Suleviae inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 359)
 1440 Apulum Syrian?
1441 Apulum Greco-Roman
1442 Apulum Roman
1443 Apulum Roman
1444 Apulum Roman
1445 Apulum Roman
1446 Apulum Roman
1447 Apulum Roman
1448 Apulum Roman
1449 Apulum Roman
1450 Apulum Roman
1451 fragm. of: small deity coming out of thyrsos; Pan head Apulum Roman
1452 Apulum Roman
1453 Apulum Roman
1454 Apulum Roman
1455 Apulum Roman
1456 Apulum Roman
1457 Apulum Roman
1458 Apulum Roman
1459 Apulum Roman
1460 Apulum Roman
1461 Apulum Roman
1462 Apulum Roman
1463 Apulum Roman

305
1464 Apulum Roman
1465 Apulum Roman
1466 Apulum Roman
1467 Apulum Roman
1468 Apulum Greco-Roman
1469 Apulum Roman
1470 Apulum Roman
1471 Apulum Roman
1472 Silvanus w. a falx and 2 sticks; anked by dog & 2 trees Apulum Roman
1473 Apulum Roman
1474 Apulum Greco-Roman
1475 Apulum Syrian
1476 Apulum Syrian
1477 Apulum Syrian
1478 Apulum Syrian
1479 Apulum Syrian
1480 Apulum Syrian
1481 Apulum Syrian
1482 Apulum Syrian
1483 Apulum Syrian
1484 left foot of Sol? Apulum Syrian
1485 Sol, nude, w. radiate crown Apulum Syrian
1486 Apulum? Syrian
1487 Apulum Celtic
 1488 Terra Mater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 360)
1489 Terra Mater inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 361)
1490 Venus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 362)
1491 Venus Augusta inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 363)
1492 Venus Victrix inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 364)
1493 Victoria Antonini Augusti inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 365)
1494 Victoria Augusta inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 366)
1495 Virtus Romana inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 367)
1496 Virtus & Romana inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 368)
1497 Genius Imperatoris Gordiani inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.1, 369)
1498 Thracian Knight votive statuette fragm. + inscription (IDR III/5.1, 370)
1499 Danubian Riders votive relief + inscr. on lead plaque (IDR III/5.1, 371)
1500 Danubian Rider votive relief (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 1)
1501 Danubian Rider votive plaque(Tudor, CMRED I, no. 2)
1502 Danubian Riders votive plaque(Tudor, CMRED I, no. 3)
1503 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 4)
1504 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 5)
1505 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 6)
1506 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 7)
1507 Baalshamin votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 372)
1508 Silenus votive relief + inscription fragm. (IDR III/5.1, 373)
1509 Zepheros & mozaic fragm. (IDR III/5.2, 698)
1510 Euros
1511 Apollo Domesticus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 699)

306
1512 Dii Paterni inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 700)
1513 Dii Patrii inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 701)
1514 Genius P(ublici) P(ortorii) & inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 702)
1515 Mercurius
1516 IOM inscription on votive statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 703)
1517 IOM Custos? inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 704)
1518 Jupiter Fulgurator inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.2, 705)
1519 Zeus Surgastos inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.2, 706) GR
1520 Mars inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 707)
1521 Mercurius Hilaris inscription on votive altar (IDR III/5.2, 708)
1522 Mithras Deus Invictus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 709)
1523 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar/statue plinth (IDR III/5.2, 710)
1524 Victoria? & crustulum mold fragment (IDR III/6, 424)
1525 Mars?
1526 Isis carnelian gem w. later Chr. inscr. (IDR III/6, 426)
1527 Asklepios & votive inscription (CIL III, 786) GR
1528 Hygia
1529 Apollo votive inscription (CIL III, 787)
1530 Epona votive inscription (CIL III, 788)
1531 Fortuna Redux votive inscription (CIL III, 789)
1532 Fortuna Redux votive inscription (CIL III, 790)
1533 Genius Sanctus scolae decurionum votive inscription (CIL III, 7626)
1534 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 791)
1535 Liber Pater & votive inscription (CIL 3.1, 792)
 1488 Apulum Roman
1489 Apulum Roman
1490 Apulum Greco-Roman
1491 Apulum Greco-Roman
1492 Apulum Greco-Roman
1493 Apulum Greco-Roman
1494 Apulum Greco-Roman
1495 Apulum Roman
1496 Apulum Roman
1497 Apulum Roman
1498 fragm. of knight on horseback, holding shield; dog Apulum Thracian
1499 horsemen anking godess; below: sh, etc Apulum Thracian
1500 bearded horseman, trampling man, & facing 2 godesses Apulum Thracian
1501 bearded horseman, trampling man, & facing godess; sh Apulum Thracian
1502 tri-level roundel: 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Apulum Thracian
1503 goddess facing table w. sh, anked by 2 horsemen, etc. Apulum Thracian
1504 goddess facing table w. sh, anked by 2 horsemen, etc. Apulum Thracian
1505 tri-level relief: Sol, Luna; 2 horsemen anking goddess, etc. Apulum Thracian
1506 Sol; Luna; goddess aned by 2 serpents & 2 horsemen Apulum Thracian
1507 enthroned god w. kalathos(?) within aedicula Apulum Syrian
1508 Silenus riding a donkey, holding a vase Apulum Greco-Roman
1509 2 human gures (out of original 4), each w. captioning Apulum Greco-Roman
1510 Apulum Greco-Roman
1511 Apulum Greco-Roman

307
1512 Apulum ?
1513 Apulum ?
1514 small bust of Mercurius w. winged hat in niche on l. side of plinth Apulum Roman
1515 Apulum Greco-Roman
1516 Apulum Greco-Roman
1517 Apulum Greco-Roman
1518 Apulum Greco-Roman
1519 Apulum Greco-Roman
1520 Apulum Greco-Roman
1521 Apulum Greco-Roman
1522 Apulum Iranian
1523 Apulum Roman
1524 goddess w. diadem; bearded warrior in full gear; head of bearded young man Apulum Greco-Roman
1525
1526 Isis w. chiton and diadem w. long ribbon, stepping on snake Apulum Egyptian
1527 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1528 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1529 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1530 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Celtic
1531 Ili"ua (baths) Greco-Roman
1532 Ili"ua (baths) Greco-Roman
1533 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Roman
1534 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1535 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
 1536 Libera
1537 Mars votive inscription (CIL III, 793)
1538 Nemesis votive inscription (CIL III, 794)
1539 Juno relief (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 265)
1540 IOM Dolichenus bronze statuette (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 21)
1541 Libera bronze statuette (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 266)
1542 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (CIL III, 7628)
1543 Sol terracotta medallion (Sanie, 1981, p.135, no. 4)
1544 Venus Anadyomene type bronze statuette (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 266)
1545 Jupiter Fulgator votive inscription (CIL III, 821)
1546 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 822)
1547 IOM votive inscription (AE 1957, no. 226)
1548 IOM Dolichenus votive inscription (AE 1957, no. 227)
1549 IOM votive inscription (Russu, Activ. Muz. II, 1956, p.131, no.9)
1550 IOM & votive inscription (CIL III, 823)
1551 Dii Deaeque Omnes
1552 IOM & votive inscription (CIL III, 824)
1553 Dii Deaeque Ceteri
1554 Nemesis temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.130-131)
1555 Nemesis votive inscription (CIL III, 825)
1556 Nemesis votive inscription (CIL III, 826)
1557 Nemesis Regina votive inscription (CIL III, 827)
1558 Nemesis Dea votive inscription (AE 1957, no. 328)
1559 Silvanus votive inscription (AE 1913, no. 54)

308
1560 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 844)
1561 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 845)
1562 Aesculapius & votive inscription (CIL III, 14468 = 7149)
1563 Hygia
1564 Apollo votive inscription (AE 1939, no. 246)
1565 Aziz Puer Bonus votive inscr. (Mitrofan, ActaMN I, 1964, p.207)
1566 Ceres Augusta votive inscr. (CIL III, 36* = Russu, AMN I, 1964, p. 477, no. 1)
1567 Dea Syria votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 226)
1568 Diana Conservatrix votive inscription (JAI V, 1902, Beibl. P. 49, no. 4)
1569 Fortuna Augusta votive inscription (CIL III, 853 = 7657)
1570 Fortuna Augusta votive inscription (CIL III, 854)
1571 Hercules votive inscription (CIL III, 6253)
1572 Hercules "Mastai" type limestone statue (Gramatopol, 2000, 255)
1573 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 855)
1574 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 856)
1575 IOM Tavianus votive inscription (CIL III, 857)
1576 IOM Erizenus votive inscription (CIL III, 858)
1577 IOM Dolichenus votive inscription (CIL III, 7659)
1578 IOM Dolichenus votive inscription (CIL III, 7660)
1579 IOM votive inscription (JAI V, 1902, Beibl. P. 97, no. 2)
1580 IOM votive inscription (JAI V, 1902, Beibl. P. 97, no. 4)
1581 IOM votive inscription (Dolgozatok VII, 1916, p.79)
1582 Liber Pater votive inscription (Kzlemnyek I, 1941, p. 111)
1583 Magna Deum Mater votive inscription (CIL III, 1100)
 1536 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1537 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1538 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1539 ? Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1540 J.D. in military garb, w. phrygian cap and crown Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Syrian
1541 ? Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Roman
1542 Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Roman
1543 Sol in quadriga Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Syrian
1544 ? Ili"ua (civ. settl & castrum of Ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana) Greco-Roman
1545 Samum (castrum of Coh. I Britannica miliariensis civium Romanorum) Greco-Roman
1546 Samum Greco-Roman
1547 Samum Greco-Roman
1548 Samum Greco-Roman
1549 Samum Syrian
1550 Samum Greco-Roman
1551 Samum Greco-Roman
1552 Samum Greco-Roman
1553 Samum Greco-Roman
1554 Samum Greco-Roman
1555 Samum Greco-Roman
1556 Samum Greco-Roman
1557 Samum Greco-Roman
1558 Samum Greco-Roman
1559 Negrile"ti (watch tower, near Samum) Roman

309
1560 Optatiana Greco-Roman
1561 Optatiana Greco-Roman
1562 Napoca Greco-Roman
1563 Napoca Greco-Roman
1564 Napoca Greco-Roman
1565 Napoca Arabo-Syrian
1566 Napoca Greco-Roman
1567 Napoca Syrian
1568 Napoca or Potaissa Greco-Roman
1569 Napoca Greco-Roman
1570 Napoca Greco-Roman
1571 Napoca Greco-Roman
1572 H. holding apples of the Hesperides Napoca Greco-Roman
1573 Napoca Greco-Roman
1574 Napoca Greco-Roman
1575 Napoca Celto-Galatian
1576 Napoca Micro-Asiatic?
1577 Napoca Syrian
1578 Napoca Syrian
1579 Napoca Greco-Roman
1580 Napoca Greco-Roman
1581 Napoca Greco-Roman
1582 Napoca Greco-Roman
1583 Napoca Micro-Asiatic
 1584 Gesahenae votive inscr. (Piso, Potaissa 2, 1980: 125-126)
1585 Mithras inscr. on votive altar (CIL III, 14466)
1586 Liber Pater inscr. on vot. altar (Rmer in Rumnien 1969: 111, C7)
1587 Mercurius votive inscription (CIL III, 861)
1588 Nemesis Regina votive inscription (CIL III, 7633)
1589 Silvanus Silvester votive inscription (AE 1933, no. 20)
1590 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1934, no. 15)
1591 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1956, no. 268)
1592 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1967, no. 387)
1593 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1976, no. 575)
1594 Silvanus votive inscription (AE 1976, no. 576)
1595 Sol Invictus votive inscription (CIL III, 7662)
1596 Venus Victrix votive inscription (CIL III, 7663 = 864)
1597 Silvanus Domesticus ? votive inscription (CIL III, 7661 = 863)
1598 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 224)
1599 Asclepius inscription on votive altar (CIL III, 7655))
1600 Aziz Bonus Puer votive inscription (CIL III, 7652)
1601 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 227)
1602 Apollo incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1603 Fortuna Conservatrix incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1604 Juno Regina incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1605 Mercurius incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1606 Minerva incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1607 Silvanus Domesticus incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)

310
1608 Hercules Magusanus incription on votive altar (Mitrofan, ActaMN X, 1973, 133ff.)
1609 Silvanus Silvester inscr. on votive altar (Macrea, AISC I.1, 1928, p. 105)
1610 Silvanus inscription on votive altar (CIL III, 7637 = 6247)
1611 Hygia bronze statuette (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 237)
1612 Mars bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.166)
1613 Minerva bronze plaque (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 237)
1614 Mithras inscr. on votive altar (CIL III, 5540 = 12540)
1615 Hercules Sanctus votive inscription (CIL III, 832)
1616 Magna Deum Mater limestone statue fragment (Vermaseren, CCCA VI, no. 494)
1617 Mars bronze plaque (Russu, AISC IV, 1941-43, p. 212)
1618 Jupiter Capitolinus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 221)
1619 Jupiter Capitolinus votive inscription (CIL III, 12540)
1620 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze statuette (Hrig & Schwertheim, CCID, 139)
1621 Dii Deaeque Omnes (in honorem nocturnorum) votive inscription (CIL III, 12539)
1622 Hercules Magusanus votive inscr. (Macrea, AISC V, p. 232ff.)
1623 Silvanus votive inscription (CIL III, 6247 = 7637)
1624 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 223)
1625 Venus Anadyomene type bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.169)
1626 Jupiter votive relief + inscr. fragm. (Tudor, Ora"e..., p. 239)
1627 Liber Pater votive inscr. (Macrea, AISC I.1, 1928, p. 109, no. 1)
1628 Diana Vera et Bona votive inscr. (Macrea, AISC I.1, 1928, p. 110, no. 2)
1629 Dis Pater & votive inscription (CIL III, 7656)
1630 Venus Pudica type bronze statuette fragm. (Florescu, 1986, p.131, Fig. 75)
1631 Aesculapius & vot. relief + inscr. (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 154; Pl. XIII.5)
 1584 Napoca Celtic
1585 Napoca Iranian
1586 Napoca Greco-Roman
1587 Napoca Greco-Roman
1588 Napoca Greco-Roman
1589 Napoca Roman
1590 Napoca Roman
1591 Napoca Roman
1592 Napoca Roman
1593 Napoca Roman
1594 Napoca Roman
1595 Napoca Syrian
1596 Napoca Greco-Roman
1597 Dezmir (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Roman
1598 Vi"tea (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Roman
1599 Suceagu (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1600 Suceagu (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Arabo-Syrian
1601 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Roman
1602 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1603 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1604 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1605 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1606 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1607 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Roman

311
1608 Cium!faia (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Germanic
1609 M!cica"ul de Sus (possible villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Roman
1610 Sic (saltworks and vicus, Napoca terrritorium) Roman
1611 ? Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1612 bearded M. in armor over tunic, w. crested helmet & gladius Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1613 head of Minerva Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1614 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Iranian
1615 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1616 Cybele enthroned, holding patera over sm. altar; lion fragm. Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Micro-Asiatic
1617 head of Mars Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1618 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Roman
1619 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Roman
1620 J.D. in military garb, w. phrygian cap, w. gladius & spear Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Syrian
1621 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1622 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Germanic
1623 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Roman
1624 Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Roman
1625 ? Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1626 Jupiter w. lightning bolt and scepter; bull at side H!"date (villa rustica, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1627 Mera (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1628 Mera (Roman rural settlement, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1629 Apahida (Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1630 V., nude, w. semi-circular diadem Gil!u (castrum, Napoca territorium) Greco-Roman
1631 H. next to A. w. staff w.coiled serpent; sm. Telesphorus Potaissa Greco-Roman
 1632 Hygia
1633 Hygia gem ? (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1634 )/Apis votive relief + inscription (CIGD, 68) GR
1635 Phoebus Apollo Deus Fortis Parthicus (= Aziz) inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160; 163)
1636 Aziz temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.134-135)
1637 Aziz Bonus Puer Conservator dedicatory temple inscription (CIL III, 875)
1638 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 9)
1639 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 10)
1640 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 11)
1641 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 12)
1642 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 13)
1643 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 14)
1644 Diana Invicta votive inscription (CIL III, 7670)
1645 Diana votive inscription (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1646 Diana votive relief (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1647 Domnus & votive inscription (CIL III, 7671)
1648 Domna
1649 Fortuna votive inscription (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 162)
1650 Fortuna votive relief (B!rbulescu, 1994: 162)
1651 Genius scholarum votive inscription (CIL III, 876)
1652 Genius centuriae votive inscription (CIL III, 7672)
1653 Genius armamentarii votive inscription (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 162)
1654 Harmachis Iao, Iao, Tithie, Re Harmae cultic bronze standard tip (CIGD, 69) GR
1655 Hercules Invictus votive inscription (CIL III, 877)

312
1656 Hercules Invictus votive inscription (CIL III, 878)
1657 Hercules Invictus votive inscription (CIL III, 7681)
1658 Hercules Invictus votive inscr. (Russu, AISC III, 1936-40, p. 325-30, g. 8)
1659 Hercules votive inscr. (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 56, note 28)
1660 Hercules vot. relief + inscr. (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 56, note 28)
1661 Hercules inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 50, no.3)
1662 Hercules votive relief (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 154)
1663 Hercules votive relief (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1664 Hercules limestone statue (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1665 Hercules limestone statue (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1666 Hercules limestone statue (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1667 Hercules votive bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1668 Hercules votive bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1669 Hercules votive bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1670 Isis & votive inscription (CIL III, 881)
1671 Serapis
1672 Isis Myrionima inscription on votive altar (CIL III, 882)
1673 Serapis bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 164)
1674 Serapis limestone statue fragment (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 164)
1675 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 883)
1676 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 884)
1677 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 885)
1678 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 886)
1679 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 887)
 1632 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1633 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1634 Apis bull Potaissa Egyptian
1635 Potaissa Arabo-Syrian
1636 Potaissa Arabo-Syrian
1637 Potaissa (Temple of Aziz) Arabo-Syrian
1638 3 levels: Sol, Luna, snakes; horseman facing 2 goddesses, etc. Potaissa Thracian
1639 3 levels: Sol, snakes; horseman facing 2 goddesses, etc. Potaissa Thracian
1640 3 levels: Sol, Luna, snakes; 2 horsemen anking goddess Potaissa Thracian
1641 2 horsemen anking table w. sh, attendants, etc. Potaissa Thracian
1642 roundel: 2 horsemen anking table w. sh, attendants, etc. Potaissa Thracian
1643 roundel: horseman trampling man; attendants? Potaissa Thracian
1644 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1645 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1646 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1647 Potaissa Greco-Roman?
1648 Potaissa Greco-Roman?
1649 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1650 ? Potaissa (inside castrum of Legio V Macedonica) Greco-Roman
1651 Potaissa Roman
1652 Potaissa Roman
1653 Potaissa Roman
1654 Sphinx w. long hair, hooked cross on chest, standing on pedestal; man's mask near paws Potaissa Egyptian
1655 Potaissa Greco-Roman

313
1656 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1657 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1658 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1659 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1660 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1661 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1662 H. w. lion skin on l. arm & club in r. hand Potaissa Greco-Roman
1663 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1664 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1665 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1666 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1667 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1668 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1669 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1670 Potaissa Egyptian
1671 Potaissa Egyptian
1672 Potaissa Egyptian
1673 S. enthroned, w. kalathos & scepter; Cerberus at his side Potaissa Egyptian
1674 head of Serapis Potaissa Egyptian
1675 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1676 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1677 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1678 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1679 Potaissa Greco-Roman
 1680 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 888)
1681 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 889)
1682 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 890)
1683 IOM votive inscription (CIL III, 891)
1684 IOM inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 49, no.1)
1685 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1686 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1687 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1688 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1689 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1690 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1691 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1692 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1693 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1694 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1695 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1696 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1697 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1698 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1699 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1700 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1701 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1702 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1703 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)

314
1704 IOM inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1705 IOM Capitolinus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1706 IOM Fulgurator inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1707 IOM Patrius inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 160)
1708 IOM & inscr. on votive altar (CIL III, 7681)
1709 Hercules &
1710 Liber
1711 Mercurius Augustus inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 50, no.2)
1712 Mercurius votive bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 156; Pl. XV.2)
1713 Mercurius votive bronze statuette fragm. (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 156)
1714 Mercurius votive bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1715 Mercurius inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1716 Terra Mater inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu & C!tina", 1993: 50, no.4)
1717 IOM & inscr. on vot. altar (B!rbulescu & C!tina" 1993: 52, no.5)
1718 Dii Hospiti huiusce loci
1719 IOM & votive inscription (CIL III, 892)
1720 Dii Deaeque &
1721 Genius loci
1722 IOM & votive inscription (CIL III, 893)
1723 Juno
1724 IOM Conservator inscr. on vot. altar (C. Daicoviciu, AISC I.2, 1928-32, p.61, no. Ia)
1725 Liber Pater & Conservatores inscr. on vot. altar (C. Daicoviciu, AISC I.2, 1928-32, p.61, no. Ib)
1726 Libera
1727 IOM inscr. on vot. altar (Russu, AISC III, 1936-40, p.324-25)
 1680 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1681 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1682 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1683 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1684 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1685 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1686 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1687 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1688 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1689 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1690 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1691 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1692 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1693 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1694 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1695 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1696 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1697 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1698 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1699 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1700 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1701 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1702 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1703 Potaissa Greco-Roman

315
1704 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1705 Potaissa Roman
1706 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1707 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1708 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1709 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1710 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1711 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1712 M. w. winged hat & object fragments in hands Potaissa Greco-Roman
1713 M. seated w. winged sandals Potaissa Greco-Roman
1714 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1715 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1716 Potaissa Roman
1717 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1718 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1719 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1720 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1721 Potaissa Roman
1722 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1723 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1724 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1725 Potaissa Roman
1726 Potaissa Roman
1727 Potaissa Greco-Roman
 1728 IOM Paternus votive inscription (CIL III, 894)
1729 IOM Stator, Depulsor votive inscription (CIL III, 895)
1730 IOM Balmarcodes & votive inscription (CIL III, 7680)
1731 Juno
1732 IOM Dolichenus votive inscription (JAI V, 1902, Beibl. col. 105, no.1
1733 Jupiter Hammon votive inscription (Klio XI, 1911, p. 502)
1734 Jupiter Sabazius inscription on votive altar (CCIS II, 19)
1735 Jupiter Fulminans type vot. bronze statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994: 157; Pl. XIV.1)
1736 Jupiter Fulminans type vot. bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 160)
1737 Lar bronze statuette fragm. (B!rbulescu 1994: 157; Pl. XVI.1)
1738 Liber Pater votive inscription (CIL III, 896)
1739 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1740 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1741 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1742 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1743 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1744 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1745 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1746 Liber Pater votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1747 Liber Pater & votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1748 Libera
1749 Liber Pater & votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1750 Libera
1751 Liber Pater & votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)

316
1752 Libera
1753 Liber Pater & votive inscription (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1754 Libera
1755 Liber Pater "Potaissa" type relief (Domaszewski, 1895: .54 & Taf. III, Fig. 4)
1756 Liber Pater & "Sarmizegetusa" type votive relief (B!rbulescu 1994: 154; Pl. XIII.6)
1757 Libera &
1758 Pan &
1759 Silenus
1760 Liber Pater vot. bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 157; Pl. XVI.2)
1761 Mars Pater, Conservator votive inscription (CIL III, 1600)
1762 Mars vot. bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 157; Pl. XIV.3)
1763 Mars Amicus et Consentiens votive inscription (CIL III, 897)
1764 Mercurius Consentiens votive inscription (CIL III, 898)
1765 Men Aniketos inscription on votive altar (CIGD, 67) GR
1766 Minerva bronze votive statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 160)
1767 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1920)
1768 Mithras votive relief + inscription (CIL III, 899)
1769 Mithras votive relief + inscription (CIL III, 900)
1770 Mithras votive relief + inscription (CIL III, 901)
1771 Mithras votive inscription (CIL III, 6255)
1772 Mithras votive inscription (CIL III, 7685)
1773 Mithras votive inscription (CIL III, 7686)
1774 Mithras votive inscription (CIL III, 7687)
1775 Mithras votive inscription (CIL III, 7688)
 1728 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1729 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1730 Potaissa Syrian
1731 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1732 Potaissa Syrian
1733 Potaissa Egyptian
1734 Potaissa Micro-Asiatic
1735 J. w. wreath & chlamys; base encrusted w. silver & copper Potaissa (inside principia of castrum of Legio V Macedonica) Greco-Roman
1736 J. nude, w. wreath, holds thunderbolt Potaissa (inside principia of castrum of Legio V Macedonica) Greco-Roman
1737 head of child Lar w. tuft atop head, chubby face, thick lips Potaissa Roman
1738 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1739 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1740 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1741 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1742 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1743 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1744 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1745 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1746 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1747 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1748 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1749 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1750 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1751 Potaissa Greco-Roman

317
1752 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1753 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1754 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1755 L. holding snake; Ampelos, etc. Potaissa Greco-Roman
1756 Liber w. nebris & thyrsos, Libera, panther, Pan, Silenus, satyr Potaissa Greco-Roman
1757 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1758 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1759 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1760 L. nude, w. grapevine wreath, chlamys & sandals Potaissa Greco-Roman
1761 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1762 M. nude, w. crested Corynthian helmet, missing spear; on pedestal Potaissa Greco-Roman
1763 Potaissa? Greco-Roman
1764 Potaissa? Greco-Roman
1765 Potaissa Micro-Asiatic
1766 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1767 Mithraic vignettes around central Mithr. tauroctony Potaissa Iranian
1768 Mithraic tauroctony Potaissa Iranian
1769 Mithraic tauroctony Potaissa Iranian
1770 Mithraic tauroctony Potaissa Iranian
1771 Potaissa Iranian
1772 Potaissa Iranian
1773 Potaissa Iranian
1774 Potaissa Iranian
1775 Potaissa Iranian
 1776 Mithras votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 233)
1777 Mithras inscription on votive altar (AE 1960, no. 227)
1778 Nemesis votive inscription (CIL III, 902)
1779 Two Nemeseis inscription on cultic/votive (?) altar (CIGD, 73)
1780 Priapus statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1781 Priapus statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161)
1782 Saturnus & Rex Pater deorum inscription on statue plinth (B!rbulescu 1994: 166-7)
1783 Latona
1784 Silenus terracotta statuette fragm.(B!rbulescu 1994: Pl.VI.5)
1785 Silenus bronze furniture leg (?) (B!rbulescu 1994: 138, 140; Pl.X.3)
1786 Silenus bronze lamp (CIL III, 12545)
1787 Silvanus votive inscription (CIL III, 903)
1788 Silvanus votive inscription (AE 1912, no. 72)
1789 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1944, no. 41)
1790 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 234)
1791 Silvanus votive inscription (AE 1971, no. 363)
1792 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1974, no. 550)
1793 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1794 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1795 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1796 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1797 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1798 Silvanus Domesticus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1799 Silvanus votive relief (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)

318
1800 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1801 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1802 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1803 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1804 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1805 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1806 Venus votive marble statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1807 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1808 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1809 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1810 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1811 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1812 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1813 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1814 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1815 Venus votive terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 161)
1816 Vertumnus? bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 157; Pl. XVI.3)
1817 Victoria stone statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 162)
1818 Victoria gem (B!rbulescu 1994: 162)
1819 Volcanus Augustus inscr. on votive altar (B!rbulescu 1994: 109, 161)
1820 Jupiter Fulminator? inscr. on votive altar (I. Tgls, AE 33, 1913, p.57ff.)
1821 Diana Augusta votive inscription (CIL III, 940)
1822 IOM & votive inscription (CIL III, 942)
1823 Dii Ceteri Consentes
 1776 Potaissa Iranian
1777 Potaissa Iranian
1778 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1779 Potaissa or Napoca Greco-Roman
1780 ? Potaissa Roman
1781 ? Potaissa Roman
1782 Potaissa North African
1783 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1784 S. bearded, semi-nude Potaissa Greco-Roman
1785 ornate piece w. nude Silenus torso base over bird's claw-foot Potaissa Greco-Roman
1786 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1787 Potaissa? Roman
1788 Potaissa Roman
1789 Potaissa Roman
1790 Potaissa Roman
1791 Potaissa? Roman
1792 Potaissa Roman
1793 Potaissa Roman
1794 Potaissa Roman
1795 Potaissa Roman
1796 Potaissa Roman
1797 Potaissa Roman
1798 Potaissa Roman
1799 ? Potaissa Roman

319
1800 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1801 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1802 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1803 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1804 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1805 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1806 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1807 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1808 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1809 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1810 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1811 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1812 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1813 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1814 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1815 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1816 V. w. fruit & leaf wreath & fruit (?) in l. hand Potaissa Greco-Roman
1817 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1818 ? Potaissa Greco-Roman
1819 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1820 Vii"oara (Roman rurar settlem., Potaissa territorium) Greco-Roman
1821 Brucla Greco-Roman
1822 Brucla Greco-Roman
1823 Brucla Greco-Roman
 1824 Mithras relief on vot. altar (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1930)
1825 Mithras Invictus inscr. on votive statue plinth (CIL III, 12547)
1826 Mithras Invictus inscr. on votive altar (CIL III, 12547)
1827 Mithras Invictus votive inscription (AE 1912, no. 307)
1828 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 20)
1829 Apollo inscr. on votive altar (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no. 9)
1830 Dolichenus votive relief + inscription (CIGD, 63) GR
1831 Abrasax magic jasper gem (CIGD, 65)
1832 Bel temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.74-77)
1833 Bel Deus Patrius construction plaque (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, No.7)
1834 Fortuna Augusta votive inscription (AE 1944, no. 47)
1835 Dea Syria votive inscription (AE 1944, no. 50)
1836 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 219)
1837 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1971, no. 387)
1838 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (AE 1979, no. 487)
1839 Aesculapius & votive inscription (AE 1960, no. 220)
1840 Hygia
1841 Aesculapius & votive relief fragm.+inscr. (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no.156)
1842 Hygia
1843 Fortuna gem in bronze ring (Gudea & Schuller, 1998, p. 29; Abb.III.3)
1844 Jupiter statuette? (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 257, note 4)
1845 IOM Dolichenus temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.136)
1846 IOM Dolichenus inscr. on votive altar (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, p.136)
1847 Liber Pater temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.50- 52)

320
1848 Liber Pater & votive relief fragm. (Gudea & Schuller, eds. 1998, p.76-77)
1849 Pan
1850 Liber Pater inscr. on votive altar (Gudea & Schuller, eds. 1998, p.76)
1851 Liber Pater & "snake vessel" (Gudea & Schuller, 1998, p.77-82; Abb.V.B.5-7)
1852 Libera &
1853 Pan &
1854 Silenus
1855 Liber Pater votive relief fragm. (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no.158)
1856 Liber Pater votive relief fragm. (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no.158a)
1857 Mithras Mithraeum (Gudea & Schuller, 1998, p.37)
1858 Mercurius statuette? (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 257, note 4)
1859 Pan statuette? (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 257, note 4)
1860 Apollo statuette? (Tudor, Ora!e..., p. 257, note 4)
1861 Nemesis temple (Rusu-Pescaru & Alicu, 2000, pp.58-61)
1862 Nemesis construction plaque (Bajusz, ActaMP 16, 1992, p.174, g.17
1863 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 8)
1864 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no.151)
1865 IOM Dolichenus votive inscription (CIL III, 7645)
1866 Diana gem (Tudor, Ora!e..., p.253)
1867 Silvanus Domesticus votive inscription (CIL III, 6248)
1868 Nymphae Augustae inscr. on votive altar (Gudea & Luc!cel, 1975, no. 9)
1869 Mithras votive relief (Vermaseren, CIMRM II, no. 1919)
1870 Hekate & Triformis type magic jasper gem (CIGD, 133)
1871 Abrasax
 1824 birth of M. from rock surrounded by snake Brucla Iranian
1825 Brucla Iranian
1826 Brucla Iranian
1827 Brucla Iranian
1828 2 horsemen anking goddess; table w. sh, etc. Brucla Thracian
1829 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1830 IOMD standing on back of bull Porolissum (Temple of IOM Dolichenus) Syrian
1831 being w. bird head, man's body, snake legs, w. whip and shield; 3 stars Porolissum Gnostic
1832 Porolissum Palmyrean
1833 Porolissum (Temple of Bel, formerly of Liber Pater) Palmyrean
1834 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1835 Porolissum Syrian
1836 Porolissum Roman
1837 Porolissum Roman
1838 Porolissum Roman
1839 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1840 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1841 A. & H. each holding a vessel; sm. Telesphorus bet. them Porolissum Greco-Roman
1842 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1843 Fortuna w. cornucopia in l. hand Porolissum Greco-Roman
1844 ? Porolissum Greco-Roman
1845 Porolissum Syrian
1846 Porolissum Syrian
1847 Porolissum Greco-Roman

321
1848 L. standing, nude, holdining vine, miniature Pan propped on it Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1849 Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1850 Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1851 snakes decoration; 3 vignettes: Liber & Libera, Pan; Silenus Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1852 Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1853 Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1854 Porolissum (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
1855 L. nude, leaning on vine (?), sm. human gure holding vine(?) Porolissum Greco-Roman
1856 head of L. w. wreath w. grape clusters on sides of head Porolissum? Greco-Roman
1857 Porolissum (underground, inside castrum) Iranian
1858 ? Porolissum Greco-Roman
1859 ? Porolissum Greco-Roman
1860 ? Porolissum Greco-Roman
1861 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1862 Porolissum Greco-Roman
1863 fragments of: horseman; bust of Sol? Porolissum (north of castrum) Thracian
1864 2- level relief: Sol & Luna busts; horseman facing goddess, table Porolissum Thracian
1865 Buciumi (castrum and civilian settlem., Porolissum territ.) Syrian
1866 ? Buciumi (castrum and civilian settlem., Porolissum territ.) Greco-Roman
1867 Tih!u (castrum and civilian settlem., Porolissum territ.) Greco-Roman
1868 Tih!u (castrum and civilian settlem., Porolissum territ.) Greco-Roman
1869 Mithr. tauroct. w. scorpion, snake, dog; Phosphorus? Dragu (between Samum and Optatiana) Iranian
1870 Hekate Triformis anked by dogs and 2 altars Unknown Greco-Roman
1871 Unknown Gnostic
 1872 Abramel & magic opal gem (CIGD, 135) GR
1873 Chnubis
1874 Iao magic carnelian gem (CIGD, 137) GR
1875 Diana/ Hekate? carnelian gem (CIGD, 141)
1876 Amor carnelian gem (CIGD, 142)
1877 Roma amethyst gem (CIGD, 143)
1878 Harpocrates glass paste gem (CIGD, 145)
1879 Jupiter agate gem (CIGD, 146)
1880 Azael Ergeo Fulaxon magic (?) jasper gem (CIGD, 147) GR
1881 Ororeiuth magic gynecological magnetite gem (CIGD, 148) GR
1882 Jupiter Dolichenus marble statuette fragm. (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 1)
1883 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze votive hand (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 14)
1884 Jupiter Dolichenus votive inscription fragm. (CIL III, 7630)
1885 IOM Dolichenus inscription on votive altar (AE 1957, no. 327)
1886 IOM Dolichenus incr. on votive altar (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 17)
1887 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze statuette fragm. (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 18)
1888 Jupiter Dolichenus votive inscription ((Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 19)
1889 Jupiter Dolichenus marble statue head (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 20)
1890 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze statuette (Hrig & Schwertheim, CCID, 136)
1891 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze plaque fragm. (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 28)
1892 Jupiter Dolichenus bronze plaque fragm. (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 30)
1893 Jupiter Dolichenus incr. on votive altar (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 31)
1894 Jupiter Dolichenus votive relief (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 34)
1895 Jupiter Dolichenus votive relief (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 35)

322
1896 Jupiter Dolichenus Commagenus incr. on votive altar (Popa & Berciu, 1978, no. 37)
1897 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 137)
1898 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 138)
1899 Thracian Knight Apollo Cytharoedus type votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 139)
1900 Thracian Knight votive relief fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 140)
1901 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 141)
1902 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 143)
1903 Thracian Knight votive stele fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 144)
1904 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 146)
1905 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 147)
1906 Thracian Knight marble statuette fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 149)
1907 Thracian Knight votive marble plate (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 151)
1908 Thracian Knight votive marble plate (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 152)
1909 Thracian Knight marble statuette fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no.153)
1910 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 154)
1911 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 155)
1912 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 157)
1913 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 158)
1914 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 159)
1915 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 160)
1916 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 161)
1917 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 164)
1918 Thracian Knight marble statuette fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no.165)
1919 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 166)
 1872 Unknown Gnostic
1873 "ZZZ" symbol of snake-god Chnubis Unknown Gnostic
1874 sow with 2 nursing piglets Unknown Gnostic
1875 Ephesian Diana or Hekate w. 2 stags at her feet Unknown Greco-Roman
1876 winged Cupid holding a buttery over a lit torch Unknown Greco-Roman
1877 bust of Rome w. crested helmet Unknown Roman
1878 child H. on lotus ower, w. whip, between 2 eagles (?) Unknown Egyptian
1879 bust of Jupiter, wreathed, atop bull; star at left Unknown Greco-Roman
1880 scorpion; 2 stars Unknown Gnostic
1881 womb (?) w. key under it Unknown Gnostic
1882 J.D. in military garb, w. phrygian cap and sword Am!r!"tii de Jos (near Sucidava) Syrian
1883 hand holding an orb (w. Victory atop?) bet. Index and thumb C!tunele de Sus (near Drobeta) Syrian
1884 Samum Syrian
1885 Samum Syrian
1886 Samum Syrian
1887 J.D. in military garb & phrygian cap, w. lightning bolt Desa (castrum and civilian settlement across fr. Ratiaria) Syrian
1888 Domne"ti (N-E frontier) Syrian
1889 large scale head of J.D. w. phrygian cap Drobeta Syrian
1890 ? Porolissum Syrian
1891 multi-level triangular scene: eagle; Sol & Luna fragm. Potaissa Syrian
1892 J.D. in military garb, standing on bull, facing altar R!cari (castrum near Pelendava) Syrian
1893 Romita (Certiae?, bet. Porolissum and Optatiana) Syrian
1894 J.D. in military garb, atop bull, w. torch (?) & bipennis; eagle Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian
1895 eagle and Victory Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syrian

323
1896 S!c!date (rural settlement near Caput Stenarum) Syrian
1897 horseman w. spear & shield; dog attacking boar; veiled woman; attendant Apulum Thracian
1898 horseman; dog chasing hare; altar Apulum Thracian
1899 fragm of horseman w. spear and lyre Apulum Thracian
1900 bottom fragm. of horseman and horse Apulum Thracian
1901 head & torso of knight; attendant behind Sucidava Thracian
1902 horseman; altar; snake rising at right Sucidava Thracian
1903 2 horsemen facing each other;below: head of horseman & spear Sucidava Thracian
1904 horseman; hound attacking boar; standing gure (?) Drobeta Thracian
1905 hind leg of horse; dog Drobeta Thracian
1906 leg of horseman; horse Drobeta Thracian
1907 horseman w. hunted animal in hand; 2 dogs beneath horse Pojejana (castrum along Danube line, bet. Drobeta & Dierna) Thracian
1908 bearded horseman holding patera, facing altar Potelu-Ostrov (along Danube line, upstream from Sucidava) Thracian
1909 legs of horseman; lion attacking horned animal R!zboieni-Cetate (settlement and aux. castrum, Apulum terr.) Thracian
1910 fragm. of chlamys & horse; snake entwined on tree Romula Thracian
1911 fragm. of horseman & horse, woman; lion lying Romula Thracian
1912 horse & horseman with spear; dog; snake; woman; attendant Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
1913 horse & horseman with spear; dog; snake; woman; attendant Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
1914 horse & horseman with spear; dog; snake; woman; attendant Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
1915 horse & horseman with spear; dog; snake; woman; attendant Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
1916 hoorseman holding reins in his hands Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Thracian
1917 horseman holding hare (?); dog biting running boar Potaissa Thracian
1918 fragm. of horseman holding reins Potaissa Thracian
1919 fragm. of horseman & horse Potaissa Thracian
 1920 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 170)
1921 Thracian Knight votive plaque (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 171)
1922 Thracian Knight votive plaque fragm. (Hampartumian, CCET IV, 1979, no. 172)
1923 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 26)
1924 Danubian Riders votive plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 27)
1925 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 28)
1926 Danubian Rider votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 29)
1927 Danubian Riders votive lead plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 30)
1928 Danubian Rider votive bronze plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 45)
1929 Danubian Rider votive bronze plaque (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 46)
1930 Danubian Riders votive plaque fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 47)
1931 Danubian Riders votive lead roundel (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 48)
1932 Danubian Riders votive relief fragm. (Tudor, CMRED I, no. 49)
1933 Luna terracotta lamp (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 154, E 91)
1934 Victoria gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 177, E 232)
1935 Sol jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 177, E 233)
1936 Liber Pater carnelian gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 177, E 235)
1937 Athena? glass paste gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 178, E 237)
1938 Diana carnelian gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 178, E 238)
1939 Jupiter Tronans type carnelian gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 178, E 239)
1940 Abrasax jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 178, E 241)
1941 Fortuna jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 189, E 324)
1942 Minerva jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 189, E 327)
1943 Victoria jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 189, E 328)

324
1944 Sol jasper gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 190, E 330)
1945 Genius onyx gem (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 190, E 331)
1946 Jupiter bronze appliqu (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p. 193, F 7)
1947 Jupiter Fulminans type bronze vot. statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.193, F8)
1948 Jupiter Tronans type statue fragment (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.193, F 9)
1949 Minerva bronze statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.194, F13)
1950 Minerva br. horse equip. fragm. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.121, C54)
1951 Jupiter & votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.194, F 14)
1952 Mercurius
1953 Apollo bronze vot. statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.194, F15)
1954 Mercurius bronze vot. statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.195, F16)
1955 Venus Pudica type terracotta statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.196, F20)
1956 Venus Pudica type terracotta statuette (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 161; Pl. VI.3)
1957 Venus Pudica type br. vot. statuette (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.196, F21, Taf.1)
1958 Venus Anadyomene type br. vot. statuette (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.196, F22, Taf.22)
1959 Venus bronze vot. statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.196, F23)
1960 Dis Pater & statuary group fragm. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.197, F26)
1961 Proserpina &
1962 Hercules &
1963 Mercurius
1964 Dis Pater & votive relief + inscr.(Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.197, F27)
1965 Proserpina
1966 Hercules bronze vot. statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.197, F28)
1967 Hercules statue fragment (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.198, F28)
 1920 horseman w. spear; dog atacking boar Unknown Thracian
1921 horseman w. spear; dog atacking boar Unknown Thracian
1922 horseman w. spear Unknown Thracian
1923 roundel: horseman trampling man, altar?, etc. Unknown (Dacia Superior) Thracian
1924 roundel: 2 horsemen anking goddess, table w. sh, etc. Unknown (Dacia Superior) Thracian
1925 3 levels: 2 horsemen trampling men, anking goddess, etc. Unknown (Dacia Superior) Thracian
1926 3 levels: horseman trampling man; 2 goddesses, attendants, etc. Unknown (Dacia Superior) Thracian
1927 3 levels: 2 horsemen anking goddess, attendants, etc. Unknown (Dacia Superior) Thracian
1928 horseman holding rhiton & galloping toward goddess, etc. Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Thracian
1929 horseman trampling man & facing goddess, etc. Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Thracian
1930 2 levels: 2 horsemen anking goddess, table w. sh, etc. Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Thracian
1931 3 levels: Sol, Luna; goddess anked by horsemen, etc. Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Thracian
1932 fragm. of: horseman carrying draco standard, goddess, etc. Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Thracian
1933 bust of Luna Drobeta Greco-Roman
1934 winged Victory, anked by crown and olive branch Apulum Greco-Roman
1935 Sol, nude, w. radiate crown, holding whip in r. hand Apulum Syrian
1936 L. crowned, bearded, w. kantharos in r. and thyrsos in l. hand Porolissum Greco-Roman
1937 goddess w. helmet, w. spear in r. & ship rudder in l. hand Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1938 D. w. torch & pedum, steering 1 of 2 bulls towards cart Micia Greco-Roman
1939 J. enthroned, w. scepter in l. & lightning bolt in r. hand Micia Greco-Roman
1940 being w. bird head, man's body and snake legs; cornucopia behind Micia Gnostic
1941 F. w. cornucopia in r. hand and olive branch in l. hand Romula Greco-Roman
1942 M. w. spear, shield and patera Romula Greco-Roman
1943 V. w. wreath in l. & spear in r. hand; trophy in front of her Romula Greco-Roman

325
1944 S. in quadriga w. radiate crown and whip, w. Sol & Luna busts at sides Romula Syrian
1945 Genius w. grain ears in l. & grape cluster in r. hand Romula Roman
1946 bust of J., bearded, w. oakleaf crown Unknown (Transylvania) Greco-Roman
1947 J. nude, w. oakleaf crown, w. lightning bolt in r. hand Potaissa Greco-Roman
1948 J. enthroned; eagle at right Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1949 Minerva helmeted, w. Medusa breastplate Porolissum Greco-Roman
1950 bust of helmeted Minerva anked by 2 lion protomes Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1951 J. w. scepter & patera over sm. altar; eagle; M. w. petasos, caduceus & purse Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1952 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1953 A., nude, w. laurel wreath llet, qiver on shoulder & bow in hand Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1954 fragm.: Mecurius nude, w. winged hat, chlamys & purse Romula Greco-Roman
1955 Venus w. diadem & armlet, w. mirror (?) in r. hand Potaissa Greco-Roman
1956 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1957 Venus w. curly hair, diadem, armlets Potaissa Greco-Roman
1958 Venus nude, w. radiate crown & armlet Drobeta Greco-Roman
1959 fragm.: V. at her toilet -type (toiletry objects broken off) Drobeta Greco-Roman
1960 D. & P. enthroned, anked by H. & M., respectively; snake below. Apulum Greco-Roman
1961 Apulum Greco-Roman
1962 Apulum Greco-Roman
1963 Apulum Greco-Roman
1964 D. w. hammer, P. w. basket (?), both enthroned; Cerberus Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Dis Pater & Proserpina) Greco-Roman
1965 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Dis Pater & Proserpina) Greco-Roman
1966 fragm. of H. nude, bearded Romula Greco-Roman
1967 torso of H. w. lion skin, club, apples of the Hesperides Sucidava Greco-Roman
 1968 Lar Angusticlavius bronze statuette (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.199, F35, Taf.3)
1969 Hekate Triformis type statue fragm.(Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.200, F40, Taf.59)
1970 Magna Deum Mater votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.202, F48)
1971 Magna Deum Mater votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.203, F53)
1972 Fortuna? statue fragment (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.204, F55)
1973 Dioskuros votive plaque (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.206, F66)
1974 Aesculapius & votive relief fragm.(Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.215, F102)
1975 Hygia
1976 Liber Pater & stauary group fragm. (B!rbulescu, 1994, p. 155; Pl. XIII.1-2)
1977 Libera
1978 Liber Pater bronze statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.217, F107, Taf.22)
1979 Satyr bronze statuette (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.217, F110)
1980 Liber Pater "Potaissa" type stat. group fr. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.219, F115, Taf.61)
1981 Liber Pater (?) & "Sarmizegetusa" type vot. plaque fragm.(Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.220, F118)
1982 Libera
1983 Pan votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.221, F122)
1984 Satyr terracotta head fragm. (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.221, F124)
1985 Diana bronze statuette fragm. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.221, F126)
1986 Diana gilded bronze statuette fragm. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.222, F127. Taf.7)
1987 Minerva statue fragm. (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.222, F128)
1988 Diana votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.222, F131)
1989 Diana votive plaque (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.223, F132, Taf.44)
1990 Diana votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.223, F133)
1991 Diana & votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.223, F134)

326
1992 Silvanus
1993 Diana marble statuette fragm. (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.223, F135)
1994 Diana votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.223, F136)
1995 Diana vot. altar w. relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.224, F137)
1996 Silvanus votive relief (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.224, F139)
1997 Jupiter "Zeus of Otricoli" type statue fragm. (Rmer in Rumnien, 1969, p.225, F143)
1998 Liber Pater bronze lamp (Rmer in Rum., 1969, p.273, G211, Taf.14)
1999 Bonus Eventus bronze statuette (Gramatopol, 2000, p.167)
2000 Liber Pater Augustus temple construction plaque (IDR III/2, 11)
2001 Mithras & Invictus inscr. on votive altar (Daicoviciu & Alicu 1984: 181)
2002 Mars & Camulus
2003 Mercurius &
2004 Rosmerta
2005 Maelantonius inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 263-5, No.5)
2006 Liber Pater inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 267-8, No.7)
2007 Minerva inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 269-70, No.10)
2008 Diana inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 270-1, No.11)
2009 Ianus Geminus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 278-9, No.18)
2010 Genius Sardiate(nsium) inscr. on votive altar (Alburnus Maior I, 2003: 294A)
2011 Mercurius Augustus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 261-3, No. 3)
2012 Neptunus Augustus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 205; Pl. XLVI/2 )
2013 Neptunus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 205; Pl. XLVI/3 )
2014 Silvanus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1986: 284-5, No.24)
2015 Naon inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 205; Pl. XLVI/1 )
 1968 dancing L. in short tunic, w. goat-head rhyton and patera Sucidava Roman
1969 H. w. chiton w. multi-level relief w. H. cult scenes Salinae? Greco-Roman
1970 head of goddess w. kalathos Apulum Micro-Asiatic
1971 Cybele enthroned, w. patera in r. hand, anked by 2 lions Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Micro-Asiatic
1972 head of goddess w. kalathos or mural crown Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Micro-Asiatic
1973 D. on horseback, w. cornucopia in r. hand Apulum Greco-Roman
1974 A. w. papyrus roll and staff w. snake; H; Telesphorus & Euamerion Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1975 Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1976 heads of L. & Libera adorned w. grape clusters, vine, owers Potaissa Greco-Roman
1977 Potaissa Greco-Roman
1978 B. nude, w. vine & grapes wreeath, nebris and boots Drobeta Greco-Roman
1979 dancing, nude Satyr, w. fringed chlamys & hair w. 3 knots Gherla (civilian settlem. and castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
1980 L. w. nebris, leaning on Ampelos; maenad w. cista mistica (?), etc. Apulum Greco-Roman
1981 Libera w. chiton & nebris; Pan, satyr, faun, etc. Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1982 Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1983 dancing Pan, w. pedum in l. & patera in r. hand; tree behind Apulum Greco-Roman
1984 Satyr w. horns Porolissum Greco-Roman
1985 D. w. short tunic & boots, w. quiver fr. which she pulls an arrow Potaissa Greco-Roman
1986 D. w. hair tied up in loose knot, w. billowing, long dress Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1987 torso of M. copy after 4th cent. BC original Orlea (near Sucidava) Greco-Roman
1988 D. hunting, streching bow, anked by 2 hounds; stag & boar behind Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1989 D. hunting, w. bow & arrow; hare & sm. human g. at her feet Sibiu (near Caput Stenarum) Greco-Roman
1990 D. hunting, w. bow, arrow, quiver; hound & hare at her feet Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1991 D. w. quiver& bow; S. w. pedum & falx vineatica; kid & dog Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

327
1992 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
1993 D. hunting, w. short chiton & himation; anked by 2 hounds Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
1994 D. hunting w. bow & quiver; hound sitting up; sm. hare Aiud (near Salinae) Greco-Roman
1995 D. hunting, w. short tunic, bow, followed by hound Apulum Greco-Roman
1996 S. among trees, w. tunic & pelt, holding vine & pedum; dog (?) Napoca Roman
1997 head of Jupiter Unknown (Dacia Inferior) Greco-Roman
1998 head of Liber w. vine & grape clusters over forehead Porolissum? Greco-Roman
1999 B. E. nude w. ower calyx in l. hand Unknown (Transylvania) Roman
2000 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Temple of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2001 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Praetorium Procuratoris) Iranian
2002 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Praetorium Procuratoris) Celtic
2003 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Praetorium Procuratoris) Celtic
2004 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Praetorium Procuratoris) Celtic
2005 Alburnus Maior Illyrian?
2006 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2007 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2008 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2009 Alburnus Maior Roman
2010 Alburnus Maior Roman
2011 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2012 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2013 Alburnus Maior Greco-Roman
2014 Alburnus Maior Roman
2015 Alburnus Maior Illyrian?
 2016 Aerecura? inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 211; Pl. XCIV/4 )
2017 Terra Mater inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 210; Pl. XCIV/3 )
2018 Soranus inscr. on votive altar (Wollman 1996: 21; Pl. XCIV/3 )
2019 Suleviae Montanae votive inscr. (CIL III, 1601)
2020 IOM & Numen Aeternus votive inscr. on statue plinth (Piso 2005: 429-434)
2021 Genius collegii Pomarensium
2022 Salus & Imperatoris [Commodi] votive inscription (Gudea 1998: 60)
2023 Victoria & Imperatoris [Commodi]
2024 Genius P(ublici) P(ortorii) Illyrici
2025 Amor? bronze statuette fragm. (Alicu et al. 1979, no. 275; Pl.CXXII.275)
2026 Amor? bronze statuette fragm. (Alicu et al. 1979, no. 276; Pl.CXXIII.276)
2027 Centaur bronze statuette fragm. (Alicu et al. 1979, no. 273; Pl.CXXI.273)
2028 Amor? marble relief fragm. (Alicu et al. 1979, no. 274); Pl. XLVI.274)
2029 Danubian Rider marble relief (Branga 1986: 228-232, Fig. 73)
2030 Nymphae East Nymphaeum construction plaque (Piso 2006: Ep. 25 )
2031 Nymphae West Nymphaeum construction plaque (Piso 2006: Ep. 26)
2032 Mithras colossal statue head (B!rbulescu 1987: Pl. I)
2033 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2034 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2035 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2036 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2037 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2038 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2039 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)

328
2040 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2041 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2042 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2043 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2044 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2045 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2046 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2047 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2048 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2049 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2050 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2051 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2052 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2053 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2054 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2055 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2056 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2057 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2058 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2059 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2060 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2061 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2062 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2063 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
 2016 Alburnus Maior Roman
2017 Alburnus Maior Roman
2018 Alburnus Maior Illyrian?
2019 Unknown (Dacia) Celtic
2020 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Syro-Iranian?
2021 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Roman
2022 Porolissum Roman
2023 Porolissum Roman
2024 Porolissum Roman
2025 nude, winged child with hair tuft on top of head; possibly torches(?) in hands Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2026 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2027 body of centaur, heads and limbs missing Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2028 child head with curly short hair and right wing Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
2029 3 levels: Sol & Luna busts; horseman trampling man, goddess, acolytes, etc. Sacidava (mansio on the Apulum-Romula road, 34 km fr. Apulum) Thracian
2030 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
2031 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
2032 head of Mithras, with shoulder-length ondulated hair Potaissa (gate of Legio V Macedonica castrum) Iranian
2033 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2034 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2035 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2036 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2037 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2038 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2039 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman

329
2040 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2041 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2042 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2043 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2044 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2045 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2046 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2047 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2048 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2049 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2050 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2051 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2052 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2053 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2054 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2055 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2056 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2057 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2058 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2059 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2060 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2061 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2062 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2063 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
 2064 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2065 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2066 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2067 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2068 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2069 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2070 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2071 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2072 Venus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2073 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2074 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2075 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2076 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2077 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2078 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2079 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2080 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2081 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2082 Telesphorus terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2083 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2084 Hygia
2085 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2086 Hygia
2087 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)

330
2088 Hygia
2089 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2090 Hygia
2091 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2092 Hygia
2093 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2094 Hygia
2095 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2096 Hygia
2097 Aesculapius & terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2098 Hygia
2099 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2100 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2101 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2102 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2103 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2104 Liber Pater terracotta statuette (Schfer et al 2006: 189, n. 82)
2105 Isis basalt statue head (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166)
2106 Isis serpentine statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166)
2107 Harpocrates bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166)
2108 Ammon bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166)
2109 Apis vot. relief w. inscr. (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166) GR
2110 Anubis bronze statuette (B!rbulescu 1994: 164-166)
2111 Concordia ordinis inscr. on votive statue plinth (Piso 2006: Ep. 18)
 2064 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2065 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2066 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2067 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2068 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2069 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2070 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2071 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2072 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2073 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2074 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2075 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2076 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2077 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2078 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2079 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2080 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2081 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2082 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2083 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2084 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2085 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2086 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2087 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman

331
2088 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2089 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2090 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2091 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2092 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2093 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2094 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2095 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2096 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2097 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2098 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2099 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2100 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2101 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2102 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2103 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2104 Apulum (precinct of Liber Pater) Greco-Roman
2105 Potaissa Egyptian
2106 snake circling the body of Isis Potaissa Egyptian
2107 child H. with nger covering his mouth Potaissa Egyptian
2108 ram's head on a man's body; holds a club Potaissa Egyptian
2109 Apis bull Potaissa Egyptian
2110 jackal head on man's body; bid on his chest; other symbols Potaissa Egyptian
2111 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Roman
 2112 Mercurius Augustus inscr. on vot. altar or statue plinth (Piso 2006: Ep. 27-28)
2113 Volcanus inscr. on votive plaque (Piso 2006: Ep. 31)
2114 Jupiter Fulminans type bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 5)
2115 Jupiter Fulminans type bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 3)
2116 Lar Angusticlavius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 68)
2117 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 70)
2118 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 71)
2119 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 72)
2120 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 73)
2121 Lar bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 74)
2122 Mars bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 6)
2123 Mars bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 7)
2124 Mars bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 11)
2125 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 16)
2126 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 17)
2127 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 18)
2128 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 19)
2129 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 20)
2130 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 21)
2131 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 22)
2132 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 24)
2133 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 25)
2134 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 26)
2135 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 27)

332
2136 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 28)
2137 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 29)
2138 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 30)
2139 Mercurius -Thot bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 31)
2140 Mercurius -Thot bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 32)
2141 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 33)
2142 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 34)
2143 Mercurius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 35)
2144 Hercules bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 65)
2145 Hercules bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 67)
2146 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 50)
2147 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 51)
2148 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 52)
2149 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 53)
2150 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 54)
2151 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 55)
2152 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 56)
2153 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 57)
2154 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 58)
2155 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 59)
2156 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 60)
2157 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 61)
2158 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 62)
2159 Amor bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 63)
 2112 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Forum vetus) Greco-Roman
2113 Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Aedes fabrum) Greco-Roman
2114 J. nude Salcia (near Drobeta) Greco-Roman
2115 J. nude, w. oakleaf crown, w. thunderbolt in hand; on pedestal Potaissa Greco-Roman
2116 "Dancing Lar"; patera and rhyton lost Transylvania ? Roman
2117 "Dancing Lar"; patera in l. hand; rhyton lost Orlea (near Sucidava) Roman
2118 "Dancing Lar"; patera and rhyton lost Br!deni (N-E of Caput Stenarum) Roman
2119 "Dancing Lar"; rhyton in r. hand Micia (inside horreum of auxiliary castrum) Roman
2120 chubby child L. w. hair tuft atop head; rhyton in r. hand Deva (inside villa rustica, near Germisara) Roman
2121 chubby child L. w. hair tuft atop head; rhyton in r. hand Romula Roman
2122 M. nude with crested helmet Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
2123 M. nude with crested helmet, on pedestal Porolissum (terrace of the temples) Greco-Roman
2124 bearded M., w. tunic, cuirass, greaves; missing spear Romna"i (= Largiana, castrum bet. Porolissum & Optatiana) Greco-Roman
2125 M. nude, w. wings atop his head; oversized hands Napoca Greco-Roman
2126 M. nude, w. wings atop his head Romula Greco-Roman
2127 M. nude, w. wings atop his head, holds bag in r. hand Sucidava Greco-Roman
2128 M. nude, w. wings atop his head, holds bag in r. hand Transylvania Greco-Roman
2129 M. nude, w. winged petasos Apulum Greco-Roman
2130 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle; holds bag & caduceus Drobeta Greco-Roman
2131 M. nude, w. wings atop his head, holds bag in r. hand Drobeta Greco-Roman
2132 M. nude, w. petasos, mantle and low boots Romula Greco-Roman
2133 M. nude, w. winged petasos; mantle over shoulder Romula Greco-Roman
2134 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle; holds bag Potaissa Greco-Roman
2135 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle; holds bag Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman

333
2136 M. nude, w. wings and diadem atop head; mantle over shoulder Boto"e"ti-Paia (near Drobeta) Greco-Roman
2137 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle; holds bag Dacia (Unknown) Greco-Roman
2138 M. nude, w. petasos; holds caduceus in l. hand Sucidava Greco-Roman
2139 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle; holds bag Tibiscum Greco-Roman/Egyptian
2140 M. nude, w. petasos and lotus leaf atop head; mantle; holds bag Drobeta Greco-Roman/Egyptian
2141 M. nude, w. petasos and lotus leaf atop head; holds bag & caduceus; small ram near l. leg Sucidava Greco-Roman
2142 M. nude, w. wings and hair knot atop his head, holds bag; mantle held with bula Gherla (inside castrum of Ala II Pannoniorum) Greco-Roman
2143 M. nude, w. winged petasos, mantle and low boots Sarmizegetusa Regia Greco-Roman
2144 H. nude, bearded, leaning on his club, w. lion skin R!cari (castrum on Rhabon River) Greco-Roman
2145 H. nude, beardless, w. lion skin covering his head & shoulders Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2146 A. as winged, plump child; holds bow and 3 apples Romula Greco-Roman
2147 A. as winged, plump child; holds torch and patera w. offerings Micia Greco-Roman
2148 A. as plump child; holds torch and patera Tibiscum Greco-Roman
2149 A. as winged, plump child; holds torch (?) and rhyton (?) Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2150 A. as winged, plump child; holds torch and patera Porolissum Greco-Roman
2151 winged A. w. excessively large hands Strem# (Apulum territorium) Greco-Roman
2152 A. as winged, plump child; holds torch and rhyton (?) Valea Lupului Greco-Roman
2153 winged Amor Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Greco-Roman
2154 winged Amor Aquae Greco-Roman
2155 winged, Amor; holds bow across chest Gornea Greco-Roman
2156 winged, Amor; holds apple in l. hand Romula Greco-Roman
2157 winged, Amor; holds mirror in l. hand Romula Greco-Roman
2158 Amor w. raised r. arm, l. arm hanging C!tunele de Motru (near Drobeta) Greco-Roman
2159 A. as winged, plump child, w. llet atop head; wears boxer gloves Micia (inside auxiliary castrum) Greco-Roman
 2160 Silvanus? bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 46)
2161 Priapus Pantheus bronze herm-statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 48)
2162 Priapus bronze herm-statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 49)
2163 Liber Pater bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 39
2164 Liber Pater bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 40)
2165 Liber Pater bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 41)
2166 Apollo bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 12)
2167 Apollo bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 14)
2168 Apollo bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 15)
2169 Pan bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 42)
2170 Pan bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 43)
2171 Genius bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 77)
2172 Satyr bronze statuette ($eposu-Marinescu&Pop, CIMEC, 2001: no. 45)

334
 2160 S. bearded, nude, w. leaf crown atop head; nebris Apulum Roman
2161 P. Pantheus w. kalanthos atop head; holds erect phallus in hands Micia (inside auxiliary castrum) Roman
2162 P. w. horned and crowned head; w. drapery above oversized phallus Devesel (Dacia Inferior) Roman
2163 L. w. vine crown and grape clusters; nebris across torso Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
2164 L. nude, w. curly, long hair; holds kantharos in r. hand Drobeta (inside castrum) Greco-Roman
2165 L. nude, w. curly hair & grape clusters; w. nebris Romula Greco-Roman
2166 A. nude, w. curly hair tied w. llet; holds plectrum; quiver on back Gherla Greco-Roman
2167 A. w. drapery covering lower body Romula Greco-Roman
2168 archaic kouros -style Apollo, w. llet around head Transylvania Greco-Roman
2169 P. w. nude torso, horns atop head; holds a panpipe in r. hand Grla Mare (villa rustica) Greco-Roman
2170 P. w. nude torso, horns atop head; holds a wind musical instrument Apulum Greco-Roman
2171 winged, nude young man; obects held in hands lost Potaissa Roman
2172 Satyr in movement, wearing nebris across chest Porolissum Greco-Roman

335
APPENDIX C

Roman Dacia and its political historiography1

As it stands, modern historiography on the Dacian province, primarily represented by

Romanian scholars, has tended to view the socio-cultural development of Roman Dacia

almost strictly in terms of a Roman -Dacian dichotomy, concerning itself mainly with

demonstrating the high level of Romanization of the natives, and the harmonious

blending of the two elements, Dacian and Roman, once the native resistance had been

annihilated. This view is perhaps best encapsulated in the work of Mihail Macrea, one of

the leading scholars on Roman Dacia:

A superior spiritual culture, which develops especially in cities,

accompanies and completes the burgeoning Roman provincial civilization.
The system of administrative organization, of leadership in cities and rural
settlements, of organization of public and private economic exploitation,
juridical rules, traditions and customs of every kind, beliefs and
superstitions, all impart a new aspect upon life in Dacia. Within a short
time Dacia rises to the level of civilization and culture of the neighboring
provinces and of other regions of the empire. Dacia becomes a province of
Roman culture, language, civilization and life. [] In the third century C.
E. the population of Dacia had become a Daco-Roman population,
encompassing both the Roman element and the autochtonous Dacian
element. And this process of amalgamation of the authochtonous Dacians
with the Roman colonists, of formation of the Daco-Roman population, of
a Romanitas that also incorporates within it the autochtonous, Dacian
element, is, without a doubt, the most significant result, with long-term
consequences, of the period of Roman rule in Dacia. (Macrea 1978: 60-
62)2

1
This section is intended to serve as supplementary frame of reference for those readers who are less
familiar (or unfamiliar) with the historiography of Roman Dacia in general, and with its sometimes political
and nationalistic underpinnings.
2
Present authors translation from Macrea, Introducere inedit la Viaa n Dacia Roman (Unpublished
introduction to Life in Roman Dacia) in Macrea 1978: 60-62: O cultur spiritual superioar, care se
dezvolt mai ales la orae, nsoete i completeaz nfloritoarea civilizaie provincial roman. Sistemul de
organizare administrativ, de conducere a oraelor i satelor, de organizare a exploatrilor economice,
private i publice, regulile juridice, tradiiile i obiceiurile de to felul, credinele i superstiiile, dau toate un

336
This approach to the study of provincial civilization is certainly not unique to the

historiography of Dacia. Indeed, building upon Francis Haverfields influential work at

the turn of the century, it has dominated views on Roman expansion and cultural

influence in the West for the better part of the twentieth century.

Haverfields Romanization of Roman Britain, first published in 1906, was very

much a product of its time and cultural environment Britain was at the height of its

colonial power, and the notion of his countrys civilizing mission permeates the

historians work: Our civilization seems firmly set in many lands; our task is rather to

spread it further and develop its good qualities rather than to defend its life. Likewise,

his use of the concept of Romanization is predicated on the idea that there existed a

definite and coherent culture of Rome, a sort of unified cultural package formed of

specific components, that were ready to be imparted upon those populations (specifically

in the West), that were not yet civilized, yet were racially capable of accepting her

culture:

The lands which the legions sheltered were not merely blessed with quiet.
They were also given a civilization, and that civilization had time to take
strong root. Roman speech and manners were diffused; the political
franchise was extended; city life was established; the provincial
populations were assimilated in an orderly and coherent culture. A large
part of the world became Romanized. (Haverfield 1923: 11-13)

aspect nou vieii n Dacia. n scurt timp Dacia se ridic la nivelul de civilaie i cultur al provinciilor
vecine i al celorlalte inuturi ale imperiului. Dacia devine o provincie de cultur, de limb, de civilizaie i
de via roman. [] n sec. III e.n. populaia din Dacia a devenit o populaie daco-roman, cuprinznd att
elementul roman ct i cel autohton dacic. Iar acest process de contopire a autohtonilor daci cu colonitii
romani, de formare a populaiei daco-romane, a unei romaniti care nglobeaz n ea i elementul autohton,
dacic, este fr ndoial rezultatul cel mai nsemnat, cu urmri de cea mai lung durat, al epocii stpnirii
romane n Dacia. Similar views to Macreas have been espoused, among others, by M. Brbulescu (1984:
7ff.) and D. Protase (1997: 247-254).

337
 While the debt which Romanian scholarship on Roman Dacia owes to

Haverfields (and his predecessors) colonial approach to Roman imperialism and

provincial civilization is evident, there is yet another dimension which informed (and to a

great extent still does) the views of Romanian scholars on the subject a political-

nationalistic one, which requires some explanation, though its complexities cannot be

treated in any detail here. Understanding the political and cultural climate in which

certain trends in Romanian historiography of Dacia emerged is key to understanding

these trends.

Following World War II, Romania found itself within the Soviet sphere of

influence, and a new generation of Moscow-trained Romanian Communist Party leaders

took control over the government of Romania, under direct supervision from Moscow. In

line with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, this control was tightly exercised not only over

government and economy, but also over all aspects of cultural production, and especially

historiography, since the Marxist-Leninist theory of history (known as dialectical or

historical materialism) argued that a correct understanding of the past is essential to

correctly foreseeing the direction of historical development and to determining policies

for the future. (Verdery 1991: 215-216) In the almost fifty-year period following World

War II, the results of applying this doctrine upon Romanian historiographical writing are

summarized by Nikita Khrushchevs remark: Historians are dangerous people. They are

capable of upsetting everything. They must be directed. (Verdery 1991: 216)

Given the geographical location of the territory of modern Romania at the

confluence of many cultural, political, economic and territorial interests over time, the

historiography of Dacia (roughly the modern territory of Romania) provided particularly

338
fertile ground for exercising Party control. More specifically, it could be conveniently

manipulated to support claims of ethnic continuity, or at the very least population

continuity on its territory over the past two thousand years, with significant implications

for Romanian "national identity," as well as for the size of the Romanian state and its

relations with its neighbors, particularly the USSR and Hungary (Ellis 1998: 225; Haynes

and Hanson 2004: 27).3

In this sense, the Daco-Romanist view discussed above, as supported by, among

others, Macrea, Brbulescu and Protase, was (and continues to be) essentially used to

support claims of ethnic (as opposed to population), linguistic and cultural continuity in

the former territory of Dacia following the Roman withdrawal (finalized under Aurelian,

around 271), down to the present day. Specifically, the Romanian people has been

viewed as the literal and symbolic heir of the two harmoniously blended ethnic groups,

Dacians and Romans, often ignoring (or downplaying) the ethnic diversity entailed by the

Roman element, and only partially (if at all) acknowledging the cultural and demographic

impact of the various migratory populations (such as the Goths, Slavs and Hungarians, to

name only the most important) that have crossed or settled permanently in this territory

3
The results of this policy of government-level control of historiography can be clearly witnessed in a
passage from M. Macreas introduction to his monograph, Viaa n Dacia Roman (Life in Roman Dacia)
(1969: 15), paying lip service to Marxist-Leninist historical materialism: A new intensification of the
activity of practical research and of study and interpretation of problems in the history of Roman Dacia
took place in the last two decades, in the years of the popular democracy and of socialism in our country.
Its results meant [] the interpretation of the whole historical development during the Roman period in
Dacia in the spirit and through the lens of the superior concept of historical materialism, which we consider
to have been the most significant change produced in the historiography of Roman Dacia, as well as in
Romanian historiography in general (present authors translation): O nou intensificare a activitii de
cercetare practic i de studiere i interpretare a problemelor istoriei Daciei romane a avut loc n ultimele
dou decenii, n anii democraiei populare i ai socialismului din ara noastr. Rezultatele ei au nsemnat
[] interpretarea ntregii dezvoltri istorice din epoca roman n Dacia in spiritul i prin prisma concepiei
superioare a materialismului istoric, ceea ce considerm a fi schimbarea cea mai de seam produs n
istoriografia Daciei romane, i n istoriografia romneasc in general.

339
between the fourth and tenth centuries AD.4 This idea often tended to be couched in

metaphorical language by Romanian scholars M. Macrea talked about a Romanitas

that formed such deep roots in Dacia that they [i.e. these roots] could no longer be

extirpated,5 while, more recently, D. Protase couched his views in even stronger

nationalistic terms:

The Romanian people, as heir to the entire eastern Romanitas, was

constituted through a process which began with the assimilation into
Romanitas of the native Daco-Moesic population and, generally speaking,
came to a close, in its first form, at the beginning of the eighth century,
consolidating and crystallizing itself until the ninth- tenth centuries, when
the term vlah is first attested. Having as fundamental ethnic components
the Dacians (as vigorous stem) and the Romans (as beneficent graft), and
as a later added element the Slavs, the ethno-genesis of the Romanians
presents an almost perfect parallelism with that of other Romanic peoples
from the West (Protase 1997: 251)6

It is only in more recent years, following the 1989 revolution, that scholarly focus

has to some extent shifted towards examining in more detail the role which the intensive

process of colonization played in the socio-cultural development of Roman Dacia. This

shift is reflected in smaller scale, descriptive studies focusing on individual ethnic groups

4
For the diametrically opposing view likely also motivated by modern political concerns concerning
the complete extermination of the Dacian population as a result of the Roman conquest, see Chapter 1.
5
Present authors translation from M. Macrea 1969 (29): Romanitatea a prins n Dacia rdcini att de
adnci, nct ele nu au mai putut fi extirpate. In his monograph, Macrea does dedicate a few pages (251-6)
to discussing the Roman colonization in Dacia, acknowledging the diverse ethnic and socio-economic
backgrounds of the colonists, but predictably gives far more attention to discussing the Dacians under
Roman rule (256-269).
6
Present authors translation from D. Protse 1997 (251): Poporul romn, ca motenitor al ntregii
romaniti orientale, s-a constituit de-a lungul unui process care a nceput o dat cu asimilarea la romanitate
a populaiei btinae daco-moesice i, n linii mari, s-a ncheiat, n prima sa form, la nceputul sec. VIII,
consolidndu-se i cristalizndu-se pn n sec. IX-X, cnd este atestat termenul de vlah. Avndu-I drept
componente entice fundamentalepe daci (ca trunchi viguros) i pe romani (ca altoi binefctor) i ca
element adugat tardiv pe slavi, etnogeneza romnilor prezint un paralelism aproape perfect cu a
celorlalte popoare romanice din Occident The term vlah is a Slavic-derived term from the Germanic
Valah or Valach, used to disignate the Romance language speaking peoples of South-Eastern Europe:
Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians.

340
whose presence in Roman Dacia can be traced in the body of epigraphic evidence and, to

a lesser degree, in that of archaeological evidence.7 However, given their scope, such

studies, though much needed, can only offer a somewhat fragmented look at the

complexities of the colonizing process and its consequences. The same may be said about

more general studies predominantly intended to familiarize western scholarly audiences

with aspects of colonization pertaining to individual cities or regions of Roman Dacia.8 A

notable exception is the latest monograph on Roman Dacia, Dacia, eine Rmischen

Provinz zwischen Karpaten und Schwartzem Meer, co-authored by N. Gudea and T.

Lobscher, who dedicate a chapter (Die Bevlkerung der Dakischen Provinzen) of

their study to the colonist and native population of Roman Dacia, albeit offering a

schematic overview intended to meet the requirements of an introductory study (2006:

57-63).

7
For examle, R. Ciobanu, Les illyriens et la Dacie romaine, Apulum 36 (1999), 199-214; A. Husar,
Celts and Germans in Dacia. Celto-Germanic cultural elements in the Trajanic province in Frei-Stolba
and Herzig (eds.) 1995:131-144; A. Rusu, Les Illyriens en Dacie, in Frei-Stolba and Herzig (eds.) 1995:
145-156, to name a few.
8
M. Brbulescu, La colonization Potaissa et ses effets sur le dveloppement de la ville in Frei-Stolba
and Herzig (eds.) 1995: 119-130; C. Pop, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: colons, religions, lieux de culte
in Frei-Stolba and Herzig (eds.)1995: 107-118; I. Piso, Die soziale und ethnische Zusammensetzung der
Bevlkerung in Sarmizegetusa and Apulum in W. Eck (ed.) 1993: 315-338; D. Alicu and A. Paki, Town-
planning and Population in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (1995: 82-6).

341
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbot, F. F. and A. C. Johnson. 1968. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. New York: Russel
& Russel.

Aldhouse-Green, M. 1986. The Gods of the Celts. Gloucester: A. Sutton.

Alfldy, A. 1940. Daci e Romani in Transilvania. Biblioteca della Mattia Corvino Nro. 9. Budapest:
Tipografia Franklin.

. 1944. Zu den Schiksalen Siebenbrgen im Altertum. Budapest: Ostmittleleuropische

Bibliothek.

Alfldy, G. 1974. Noricum. Translated by A. Birley. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

. 1995. La Pannonia e lImpero romano. In La Pannonia e lImpero Romano. Atti del convegno
internazionale La Pannonia e lImpero Romano. Accademia dUngheria e lIstituto Austriaco
di Cultura (Roma, 1316 gennaio 1994), edited by G. Hajnczi, 25-40. Milano: Electa.

Alicu, D. and S. Neme. 1977. Roman Lamps from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. BAR Supplementary
Series, 18. Oxford: BAR.

., C. Pop, and V. Wollmann. 1979. Figured Monuments from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. BAR
International Series 55. Oxford: BAR.

_______. et al. 1994. Small Finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Cluj-Napoca: National History
Museum of Transylvania.

_______. and A. Paki. 1995. Town-planning and Population in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. BAR
International Series 605. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Alston, R. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. London: Routledge.

Altekamp, S. 2001. The spread of monumental architecture and the romanization of Britain. In The
Impact of Rome on Settlement. BAR International Series 921, edited by S. Altekamp and A.
Schfer, 1-18. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ando, C. 2007. The Army and the Urban Elite: A Competition for Power. In A Companion to the Roman
Army, edited by P. Erdkamp, 359-378. Oxford: Blackwell.

Andringa, W. Van. 2007. Religious integration of the cities in the empire in the second century AD: the
creation of a common religious language. In A companion to Roman religion, edited by J. Rpke,
83-95. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ardevan, R. 1989. Veteranen und stdtlische Dekurionen im rmischen Dakien. Eos 77.1: 81-90.

_________. 1998. Viaa Municipal in Dacia Roman. Timioara: Editura Mirton.

Avram. A. 2002. Der dionysiche thiasos in Kallatis: Organisation, Reprsentation, Funktion. In Religise
vereine in der rmischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung,
edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schfer, 69-80. Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

342
Babe, M. 2000. Devictis Dacis: la conqute trajane vue par larchologie. In Civilisation greque et
cultures antiques priphriques. Hommage P. Alexandrescu, edited by A. Avram and M. Babe,
323-338. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedic.

Bakker, J. T. 1994. Living and working with the gods: studies of evidence for private religion and its
material environment in the city of Ostia (100-500 AD). Amsterdam: J. G. Gieben.

Blu, C. L. 2001. Sanctuarul zeilor Lares de la Apulum. Apulum 36.1: 193-198.

Brbulescu, M. 1972. Der Dianakult im rmischen Dazien. Dacia 16: 203-233.

____________. 1977. Cultul lui Hercules n Dacia roman. Partea I. ActaMN 14: 173-194.

____________. 1977. Personificrile n religia roman din Dacia. I. Personificarea noiunilor abstracte i a
valorilor morale. in AIIA 20: 269-286.

. 1978. Cultul lui Hercules n Dacia roman. Partea II. ActaMN 15: 219-233.

____________. 1984. Interferene Spirituale n Dacia Roman. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.

____________. 1987. Din Istoria Militar a Daciei Romane: Legiunea V Macedonica i Castrul de la
Potaissa. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.

. and A. Ctina. 1993. les inscriptions dun temple de Potaissa. La politique dilitaire
dans les provinces de lEmpire romain. Actes du Ier colloque roumano-suisse. Deva 1991, edited
by D. Alicu and H. Boegli, 49-57. Cluj-Napoca: Muse dHistoire de la Transylvanie.

. 1994. Potaissa: Studiu Monografic. Turda: Muzeul de Istorie Turda.

. 1994. Africa e Dacia. Gli influssi africani nella religione romana della Dacia. In LAfrica
Romana. Atti del X convegno di studio. Oristano, 11-13 dicembre 1992, edited by A. Mastino and
P. Ruggeri, 1319-1338. Sassari: Editrice Archivio Fotografico Sardo.

___________. 1995. La colonization Potaissa et ses effts sur le dveloppement de la ville. In La

politique dilitaire dans les provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J. -C. Actes
du IIe colloque roumano-suisse. Berne, 12-19 septembre 1993, edited by R. Frei-Stolba and H. E.
Herzig, 119-130. Berne: Peter Lang.

. 1998. Cultes et croyances dans le milieu rural en Dacie. In La politique dilitaire dans les
provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIIe colloque roumano-
suisse. La vie rurale dans les provinces romaines: vici et villae (Tulcea, 8-15 octobre 1995),
edited by V. H. Baumann, 197-206. Tulcea: Brastar Print.

Barruol, G. 1976. La rsistence de substrats prromains en Gaule mridionale. In Assimilation et

Rsistance la Culture Grco-Romaine dans le Monde Ancien. Travaux du VIe Congrs
International dEtudes Classiques (Madrid, Septembre 1974), edited by D. M. Pippidi, 389-405.
Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

Basso, P. 2005. I monumenti delle donne. Spunti di riflessione sullevergetismo feminile nella decima
regio. In Donna e Vita Cittadina nella Documentazione Epigrafica. Atti del II Seminario sulla
condizione femminile nella documentazione epigrafica. Verona, 25-27 marzo 2004, edited by A.
Buonopane and F. Cenerini, 353-372. Faenza: Fratelli Lega Editori.

Batty, R. 2007. Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian realm in antiquity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

343
Beard, M., J. North and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Volume I. A History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2006. Local politics in an imperial context. In Rome and the Black Sea region:
domination, Romanisation, resistance (Proceedings of an international conference, University of
Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, January 23-26, 2005), edited by T. Bekker Nielsen, 109-117.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Belayche, N. 2001. Les cultes syriens dans les Germanies (et les Gaules voisines). In Religise vereine in
der rmischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung, edited by U.
Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schfer, 285-316. Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

Bendlin, A. 1997. Periphereal Centres Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman
Empire. In Rmische Reichreligion und Provinzialreligion, edited by H. Cancik and J. Rpke,
35-70. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Benea, D. and P. Bona. 1994. Tibisscum. Bucharest: Editura Museion.

Berciu, D. 1981. Buridava dacic. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia.

Berciu, I. and C. C. Petolescu. 1976. Les Cultes Orientaux dans la Dacie Mridionale. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Birley, E. 1984. A Centurion of Legio VI Victrix and his Wife. ZPE 57: 230-232.

Bodea, C. et al., eds. 1996. Romnia: Atlas Istorico-Geografic. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romne.

Bodor, A. 1963. Der Liber- und Libera- Kult. Ein Beitrag zur Fortdauer der bodenstndigen Bevlkerung
im rmerzeitlichen Dazien. Dacia n.s. 7: 211-239.

_______. 1989. Die griechisch-rmischen Kulte in der Provinz Dacia und das nachwirken der
einheimischen Traditionen, in ANRW 2.18.2: 1077-1164.

Bnis, E. 1980. Pottery. In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by A. Lengyel and G. T. B.
Radan, 357-380. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Boon, G. C. 1983. Some Romano-British Domestic Shrines and their Inhabitants. In Rome and her
Northern Provinces. Papers presented to Sheppard Frere in honour of his retirement from Chair
of the Archaeology of Roman Empire, University of Oxford, 1983, edited by B. Hartley and J.
Wacher, 33-55. Gloucester: Allan Sutton.

Borhy, L. 1995. Romani e Pannonia. Aspetti dellacculturazione in una provincia di frontiera. In La

Pannonia e lImpero Romano. Atti del convegno internazionale La Pannonia e lImpero
Romano. Accademia dUngheria e lIstituto Austriaco di Cultura (Roma, 1316 gennaio 1994),
edited by G. Hajnczi, 71-82. Milano: Electa.

Boyce, G. K. 1937. Corpus of lararia of Pompeii. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14: 3-112.

Brancato, N. G. Mulieres Daciae Romanae (le donne della Dacia sulla base della documentazione
epigrafica). In Studia Historiae et Religionis daco-Romanae in honorem Silvii Sanie, edited by L.
Mihilescu-Brliba and O. Bounegru, 349-368. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romne.

Branga, N. 1980. Urbanismul Daciei Romane. Timioara: Editura Facla.

________. 1986. Italicii i Veteranii din Dacia. Timioara: Editura Facla.

344
Brunt, P. A. 1976. The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire. In Assimilation
et Rsistance la Culture Grco-Romaine dans le Monde Ancien. Travaux du VIe Congrs
International dEtudes Classiques (Madrid, Septembre 1974), edited by D. M. Pippidi, 161-174.
Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

Budischovsky, M.-C. 2007. Tmoignages isiaques en Dacie (106-271 ap. J. C.): Cultes et Romanisation.
In Nile into Tiber. Egypt into the Roman World. Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference
of Isis studies, faculty of Archaeology, Leide University, May 11-14 2005, edited by L. Bricault,
M. J. Versluys and P. G.P. Meyboom, 289-328. Leiden: Brill.

Cadotte, A. 2007. Linterpretatio romana en Afrique de Nord sous le Haut-Empire. Leiden: Brill.

Campbell, L. A. 1968. Mithraic Iconography and Ideology. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Canarache, V. 1967. The Mosaic-Floored Edifice of Tomi. Constana: Muzeul Regional de Arheologie
Dobrogea.

Cauuet, B. et al. 2002. Ancient Gold Mines of Dacia. Roia Montan District (Apuseni Mountains,
Romania). Report 2002. National Research Program (Romania).

Ciobanu, R. 1995. Mosaques de la Dacie Romaine: Commentaires Iconographiques. Apulum 32: 231-
246.

. 1999. Les illyriens et la Dacie romaine. Apulum 36: 199-214.

_________., ed. 2008. Mitologie i Iconografie la Apulum. Catalog de Expoziie. Alba Iulia: Editura Altip.

Clauss, M. 1990. Mithras: Kult und Mysterien. Mnchen: Beck.

Coci, S. et al. 2003. Alburnus Maior I. Bucharest: CIMEC.

Collins-Clinton, J. 1977. A Late Antique Shrine of Liber pater at Cosa. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Crawford, M. H. 1977. Republican denarii in Romania: the suppression of piracy and the slave-trade.
JRS 67: 117-24.

Creighton, J. 1995. Visions of Power. Imagery and Symbols in Late Iron Age Britain. Britannia 26: 285-
301.

. 2006. Britannia: The creation of a Roman Province. London: Routledge.

Curchin, L. 1995. Literacy in the Roman Provinces: Qualitative and Quantitative Data from Central
Spain. AJP 116.3: 461-476.

Daicoviciu, H. 1972. Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea roman. Cluj: Dacia.

. and D. Alicu. 1984. Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa. Bucharest:
Editura Sport Turism.

DAmbra, E. 1998. Art and Identity in the Roman World. London: Calmann and King.

Dana, D. and F. M. Popescu. 2007. Le recrutement des Daces dans lrme romaine sous lempereur
Trajan. Dacia n.s. 50: 195-206.

Davies, J. 2004. Soldier and Civilian in Wales. In A Companion to Roman Britain, edited by M. Todd,
91-113. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

345
Debord, P. 1982. Aspects Sociaux et conomiques de la Vie Religieuse dans lAnatolie Grco-Romaine.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Deletant. D. 1991. Rewriting the past: trends in contemporary Romanian historiography. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 14.1: 64-86.

Demarolle, J. M. 1998. Socits et cultures dans lEmpire romain de 192 325 aprs J. C. Paris:
Ellipses.

Demougin, S. 1996: 51 De lvergtisme en Italie. In Splendidissima civitas: tudes dhistoireromaine en

hommage Franois Jaques, edited by A. Chastagnol et al., 49-56. Paris: Publications de la
Sorbonne.

Derks, T. 1998. Gods, Temples and Ritual Practices: The Transformation of Ideas and Values in Roman
Gaul. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Diaconescu, A., I. Haynes, and A. Schfer. 2001. The Apulum project. Summary report of the 1998 and
1999 seasons. In The Impact of Rome on Settlement. BAR International Series 921, edited by S.
Altekamp and A. Schfer, 115-128. Oxford: Archaeopress.

_________________________________. 2001. Raport de cercetare arheologic. Apulum: Sanctuarul lui

Liber Pater. http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=1230.

____________. 2001. Chariot statues (quadrigae) for Caracalla in Dacia and related monuments. In The
Impact of Rome on Settlement. BAR International Series 921, edited by S. Altekamp and A.
Schfer, 129-159. Oxford: Archaeopress.

____________. 2004. The towns of Roman Dacia: an overview of recent archaeological research. In
Roman Dacia: the Making of a Provincial Society. JRA Supplementary Series Number 56, edited
by I. P. Hanson and W. S. Haynes, 87-142. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman
Archaeology.

____________, I. Haynes and A. Schfer. 2004. Raport de cercetare arheologic. Sanctuarul lui Liber
Pater [Apulum]. http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=3055.

Dirven, L. 1999. The Palmyremes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria.
Leiden: Brill.
Domaszewski, A. von. 1895. Religion des rmischen Heeres. Trier: F. Lintz.

Doppelfeld, O. et al. 1969. Rmer in Rumnien: Ausstellung des Rmisch-Germanischen Museums Kln
und des Historischen Museums Cluj. Kunsthalle Kln. 12. Februar bis 18. Mai 1969. Kln:
Greven & Bechtold.

Dorcey, P. F. 1992. The Cult of Silvanus: A Study in Roman Folk Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Drinkwater, J. F. 1983. Roman Gaul: The three provinces, 58 BC AD 260. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Dumitracu, S. 1993. Dacia Apusean: teritoriul dacilor liberi din vestul i nord-vestul Romniei n
vremea Daciei romane. Oradea: Editura Cogito.

Duncan-Jones, R. 1982. The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies. Volume 2. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

346
Duani, S. 2004. Roman mining in Illyricum: historical aspects. In DallAdriatico al Danubio:
LIllirico nellet greca e romana. Atti del convegno internazionale Cividale del Friuli, 25-27
settembre 2003, edited by G. Urso, 247-270. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

Eck, W. 2002. An Emperor is made: Senatorial Politics and Trajans Adoption by Nerva in 97. In
Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World. Essays in Honor of Miriam Griffin, edited by
G. Clark and T. Rajak, 211-226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. and A. Schfer, eds. 2002. Religise vereine in der rmischen Antike: Untersuchungen
zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung. Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

. 2007. Roman cult sites: a pragmatic approach. In A companion to Roman religion,

edited by J. Rpke, 205-221. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ellis, L. 1998. Terra Deserta: Population, Politics and the [de]Colonization of Dacia. World
Archaeology 30.2: 220-237.

Elsner, J. 1998. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100-450. New
York: Oxford University Press.

tienne, R. et al. 1976. Les dimensions sociales de la Romanisation dans la Pninsule ibrique des origins
la fin de lempire. In Assimilation et Rsistance la Culture Grco-Romaine dans le Monde
Ancien. Travaux du VIe Congrs International dEtudes Classiques (Madrid, Septembre 1974),
edited by D. M. Pippidi, 95-107. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

_________. 1966. La Vie quotidienne Pompi. Paris: Librairie Hachette.

Fantham, E. et al. 1994. Women in the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fiedler, K. and C. Hpken. 2004. Wein oder Weihrauch? Turibula aus Apulum. In Orbis Antiquus:
Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis, edited by L. Ruscu et al., 510-516. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia
Napocae Press.

________. 2004. Die Funde aus Keramik und Glas aus einem Liber Pater-Bezirk in Apulum Ein erster
berblick. In Roman Mithraism. The Evidence of the Small Finds, edited by M. Martens and G.
de Boe. Brssel: Peeters.

Fink, R. O. 1971. Roman Military Records on Papyrus. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press.

Fishwick, D. 1978. The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire.
ANRW 2.16.2: 1201-1253.

Florescu, R. 1986. The Art of Dacian-Roman Antiquity. Bucharest: Editura Meridiane.

Fraschetti, A. 2001. Introduction. In Roman Women, edited by A. Fraschetti, 1-22. Translated by L.

Lappin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galinsky, K. 1996. Augustan culture: an interpretive introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

. 2007. Continuity and Change: religion in the Augustan semi-century. In A companion to

Roman religion, edited by J. Rpke, 71-82. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Garbsch, J. G. 1991. The oldest military Diploma for the Province of Dacia. In Roman frontier studies
1989: proceedings of the XVth International congress of Roman frontier studies, edited by V. A.
Maxfield and M. J. Dobson, 281-284. Exeter: Univ. of Exeter.

347
Garnsey, P. 1988. Mountain Economies in Southern Europe. In Pastoral Economies in Classical
Antiquity. Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume No. 14, edited by C. R.
Whittaker, 166-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glodariu, I. 2006. The destruction of sanctuaries in Sarmizegetusa Regia. In Studia Historiae et

Religionis daco-Romanae in honorem Silvii Sanie, edited by L. Mihilescu-Brliba and O.
Bounegru, 113-126. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romne.

Gostar, N. and V. Lica. 1984. Societatea geto-dacic de la Burebista la Decebal. Iai: Junimea.

Gramatopol, M. 1973. Romula et la glyptique du Bas-Danube. in Apulum 11: 177-183.

____________. 2000. Arta Roman in Romnia. Bucharest: Editura Meridiane.

Gros, P. 1987. La fonction symbolique des edifices thtraux dans le paysage urbain de la Rome
augustene. In LUrbs. Espace urbain et histoire. Iers. av. J.-C. IIIe s. ap. J.-C. Actes du
colloque international de Rome (8-12 mai 1985) (Coll. De l. F. R., 98), 319-346. Rome: cole
Franaise de Rome.

Gudea, A. and I. Papuc. 2001. The mammalian fauna from the temple of Liber Pater in Apulum I.
Elements of axial and apendicular skeleton (1999-2000). Apulum 38/1: 209-234.

Gudea, N. and V. Luccel. 1975. Inscripii i monumente sculpturale n Muzeul de Istorie i Art Zalu.
Zalu: Muzeul de Istorie i Art.

. 1998. Die Bevlkerung der dakisch-rmischen Stadt Porolissum. In Porolissum: Ausschnitte

aus dem Leben einer dakisch-rmischen Grenzsiedlung aus dem Nordwesten der Provinz Dacia
Porolissensis, edited by N. Gudea and W. Schuller. Translated from Romanian by K. Schmidts
and W. Schuller, 111-127. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert.

. and I. Ghiurco. 2002. Din Istoria Cretinismului la Romni: Marturii Arheologice. Cluj-Napoca:
Napoca Star.

. and T. Lobscher. 2006. Dacia: Eine rmische Provinz zwischen Karpaten und Schwarzem
Meer. Meinz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Halsberghe, G. H. 1972. The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hampartumian, N. 1979. Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii, IV: Moesia Inferior (Romanian Section) and
Dacia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hano, M. 1986. A lorigine du culte imperial: les autels des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les themes
iconographiques et leur signification. ANRW 2.16.3: 2333-2377.

Harris, W. V. 1983. Literacy and Epigraphy I. ZPE 52: 87-111.

. 1989. Acient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Haverfield, F. 1923. The Romanization of Roman Britain. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Haynes, I. P. 1997. Religion in the Roman Army: Unifying aspects and regional trends. In Rmische
Reichreligion und Provinzialreligion, edited by H. Cancik and J. Rpke, 113-128. Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck.

348
. and W. S. Hanson. 2004. An introduction to Roman Dacia. In Roman Dacia: the Making of
a Provincial Society. JRA Supplementary Series Number 56, edited by I. P. Hanson and W. S.
Haynes, 3-31. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

. 2005. Apulum: the shrine of Liber Pater. Current World Archaeology 10: 38-45.

Helgeland, J. 1978. Roman Army Religion. ANRW 2.16.2: 1470-1505.

Henig, M. 1984. Religion in Roman Britain. New York: St. Martins Press.

. 2004. Roman Religion and Roman Culture in Britain. In A Companion to Roman Britain,
edited by M. Todd, 220-241. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Hingley, R. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, diversity and empire. New York: Routledge.

Hogg, M. A. and G. M. Vaughan. 2002. Social Psychology (3rd edition). London: Prentice Hall.

Hrig, M. 1984. Jupiter Dolichenus. ANRW 2.17.4: 2136-2179.

. and E. Schwertheim. 1987. Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Husar, A. 1995. Celts and Germans in Dacia. Celto-Germanic ethnico-cultural elements in the Trajanic
province. In La politique dilitaire dans les provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles
aprs J.- C. Actes du IIe colloque roumano-suisse. Berne, 12-19 septembre 1993, edited by R.
Frei-Stolba and H. E. Herzig, 131-144. Berne: Peter Lang.

Irby-Massie, G. L. 1999. Military Religion in Roman Britain. Leiden: Brill.

Isac, D. 1994. Deus Aeternus n provincia Dacia. Apulum 9: 553-546.

Jones, M. J. 2004. Cities and Urban Life. In A Companion to Roman Britain, edited by M. Todd, 162-
192. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and present. London:
Routledge.

Kater-Sibbes, G. J. F. and M. J. Vermaseren. 1975. Apis II. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 2007. Religion in the house. In A companion to Roman religion, edited by J.

Rpke, 188-201. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kneissl, P. 1981. Die utricularii. Ihre Rolle im gallo-rmischen Transportwesen und Weinhandel. BJ
181: 169-204.

Kstlin, E. 1910. Die Donaukriege Domitians. Tbingen: J. J. Heckenhauer.

Laurence, R. 1998. Introduction. In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by R. Laurence and J
Berry, 1-10. London: Routledge, 1998.

Lefkowitz, M. R. and M. Fant. 1992. Womens Life in Greece & Rome. A source book in translation.
Second Edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leglay, M. 1964. Autour des corporations dAlba. BSAF: 140-152.

________. 1966. Saturne Africain. Monuments, II. Paris: Ed. Du CNSR.

349
Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1926. Die Traianssule, 2 vols. Berlin: W. de Gruyter & Co.

Lepper, F. A. and S. S. Frere. 1988. Trajans Column: A new edition of the Cichorius plates. Gloucester: A.
Sutton.

Levick, B. 2007. Julia Domna: Syrian Empress. London: Routledge.

Lewis, N. and M. Reinhold, eds. 1990. Roman Civilization. Selected readings. Volume II: The Empire.
Third Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lica, V. 2000. The Coming of Rome in the Dacian World. Konstanz: UVK Universittsverlag Konstanz
GmbH.

Ling, R. 1997. Mosaics of Roman Britain: Discoveries and Research since 1945. Britannia 28: 259-295.

. 2007. "Inscriptions on Romano-British Mosaic and Wall-Paintings. Britannia 38: 63-91.

Liu, J. 2009. Collegia centonariorum: the guilds of textile dealers in the Roman world. Leiden: Brill.

Lockyear, K. 2004. The Late Iron Age background to Roman Dacia. In Roman Dacia: the Making of a
Provincial Society. JRA Supplementary Series Number 56, edited by I. P. Hanson and W. S.
Haynes, 33-74. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Macrea, M. 1969. Viaa n Dacia Roman. Bucharest: Editura tiinific.

_________. 1978. De la Burebista la Dacia Postroman, edited by Mihai Brbulescu. Cluj-Napoca:

Editura Dacia.

MacKendrick, P. 1975. The Dacian Stones Speak. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

MacMullen, R. 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.

. 1982. The epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire, AJP 103.3: 233-246.

___________. And E. N. Lane, eds. 1992. Paganism and Christianity 100 425 C.E. A sourcebook.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Marengo, S. M. 2005. Onori pubblici per signore in area centroadriatica. In Donna e Vita Cittadina nella
Documentazione Epigrafica. Atti del II Seminario sulla condizione femminile nella
documentazione epigrafica. Verona, 25-27 marzo 2004, edited by A. Buonopane and F. Cenerini,
241-258. Faenza: Fratelli Lega Editori.

Martin, J.-P. 1991. Socit et Religions dans les Provinces Romaines dEurope Centrale et Occidentale (31
avant J.-C. 235 aprs J.-C.). Paris: Sedes.

Mason, D. 2001. Roman Chester: City of the Eagles. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd.

Matei, A. V. and N. Gudea. 1998. ber die rmische Stadt. Der Libertempel. In Porolissum: Ausschnitte
aus dem Leben einer dakisch-rmischen Grenzsiedlung aus dem Nordwesten der Provinz Dacia
Porolissensis, edited by N. Gudea and W. Schuller. Translated from Romanian by K. Schmidts
and W. Schuller, 71-92. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert.

Matei. H. C. 1999. Romania, an encyclopaedic survey, translated by G. Dolgu and I. Ieronim. Bucharest:
Editura Meronia.

350
Mattern, S. P. 1999. Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

McCann, A. M. 1968. The Prtraits of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). Memoirs of the American
Academy in Rome 30: 4-222.

McDermott, W. C. 1983. Caesars projected Dacian-Parthian Expedition. Ancient Society 13-14: 223-
231.

Mihilescu-Brliba, L. 2004. Sclavi i liberi imperiali n provinciile romane din Illyricum (Dalmatia,
Pannonia, Dacia i Moesia). Iai: Editura Universitii Alexandru Ioan Cuza.

Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC AD 337). Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.

. 1982. Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 B.C. to A.D. 378. Britannia 13: 1-23.

Millett, M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: An essay in archaeological interpretation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor. Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

. 1999. The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, jews and Christians. In Pagan
Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edited by. P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede, 81-148. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Mitrofan, I. 1973. Villae rusticae in Dacia Superioar (I). ActaMN 10: 127-150.

Mcsy, A. 1970. Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der rmischen Provinz Moesia Superior. Amsterdam:
Adolf. M. Hakkert Verlag.

________. 1974. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman
Empire. Translation edited by S. Frere. London: Routledge.

Moitrieux, G and H. Lavagne. Hercules in Gallia: recherches sur la personnalit et le culte dun dieu
romain en Gaule. Paris: ditions de Boccard.

Mrozewicz, L. 1989. Die Veteranen in den Munizipalrten an Rhein und Donau zur hohen Keiserzeit (I.-
III. Jh.). Eos 77.1: 65-80.

Mundle, I. 1961. Dea Caelestis in der Religionspolitik des Septimius Severus und der Julia Domna.
Historia 10.2: 228-237.

Nardoni, D. 1986. La Colonna Ulpia Traiana. Roma: Edizioni Italiane di Letteratura e Scienze.

Nijf, O. van. 1997. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam: J. C.
Gieben.

Okun, M. L. 1989. The early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area: Assimilation and Acculturation on
a Roman Frontier. BAR International Series 547. Oxford: BAR.

Oltean, I. 2007. Roman Dacia: Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation. London: Routledge.

_______. 2009. Dacian ethnic identity and the Roman army. In The Army and Frontiers of Rome. Papers
offered to David J. Breeze on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday and his retirement from

351
 Historic Scotland. JRA Supplementary Series Number 74, edited by W. S. Hanson. Portsmouth,
Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Orr, D. G. 1978. Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of the Household Shrines. ANRW 2.16.2:
1558-1591.

Paki, A. 1995. La colonization de la Dacie romaine. In La politique dilitaire dans les provinces de
lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIe colloque roumano-suisse. Berne,
12-19 septembre 1993, edited by R. Frei-Stolba and H. E. Herzig, 19-38. Berne: Peter Lang.

Pascal, C. B. 1964. The Cults of Cisalpine Gaul. Collection Latomus 75. Bruxelles-Berchem: Latomus.

Patsch, C. 1937. Beitrge zur Vkerkunde von Sdosteuropa V.2. Wien-Leipzig: Hlder-Pichler-Tempesky
A.G.

Petolescu, C. C. 1973. O statuet a zeiei Venus descoperit la Romula. Apulum 11:757-762

. 1995. Scurt Istorie a Daciei Romane. Bucharest: Editura Didactic i Pedagogic.

Piso, I. 1980. Epigraphica XI: Inschriften aus Napoca, in Potaissa 2: 125-126.

______. 1983. Inschriften von Prokuratoren Prokuratoren aus Sarmizegetusa. (I) ZPE 50: 233-251.

. 1993. Fasti Provinciae Daciae I: Die senatorischen Armstrger. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Hambelt
GmbH.

______. 1993. Die soziale und ethnische Zusammensetzung der Bevlkerung in Sarmizegetusa and
Apulum. In Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte: Studien zur Methodik und
Erkenntnismglichkeit der kaiserlichen Prosopographie. Kolloquium Kln 24. 26. November
1991, edited by W. Eck, 315-338. Kln: Blhau.

______. 2001. Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Volume III/5: Apulum Daciae Superioris. Paris: Diffusion
de Boccard.

______. 2004. Gli Illiri ad Alburnus Maior. In DallAdriatico al Danubio: LIllirico nellet greca e
romana. Atti del convegno internazionale Cividale del Friuli, 25-27 settembre 2003, edited by G.
Urso, 271-307. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

______. and H. Daicoviciu. 2005. Sarmizegetusa et les guerres marcomannes. In An der Nordgrenze des
Rmischen Reiches: Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 61-66. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag.

______. 2005. Zum Kultus der Dea Caelestis. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen Reiches:
Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 203-208. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 2005. Les legions dans la province de Dacie. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen Reiches:
Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 401-429. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 2005. I pomarenses di Sarmizegetusa. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen Reiches:

Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 429-434. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 2005. Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa. Brve presentation et tat de
recherch. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen Reiches: Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by
I. Piso, 435-458. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

352
______. 2005. Studia Porolissensia (I). Le temple dolichnien. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen
Reiches: Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 467-486. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 2005. Lurbanisation des provinces danubiennes. In An der Nordgrenze des Rmischen Reiches:
Ausgewhalte Studien (1972-2003) by I. Piso, 487-506. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 2006. Le forum vetus de Sarmizegetusa I. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romne.

Pollard, N. 1996. The Roman army as total institution in the Near East?: Dura-Europos as a case study.
In The Roman Army in the East, edited by D. L. Kennedy, 211-227.

Pop, C. 1995. Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa: colons, religions, lieux de culte. In La politique dilitaire
dans les provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIe colloque
roumano-suisse. Berne, 12-19 septembre 1993, edited by R. Frei-Stolba and H. E. Herzig, 107-
118. Berne: Peter Lang.

. 1998. Vita spirituale nellambiente rurale della Dacia Superiore. In La politique dilitaire dans les
provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIIe colloque roumano-
suisse. La vie rurale dans les provinces romaines: vici et villae (Tulcea, 8-15 octobre 1995),
edited by V. H. Baumann, 189-196. Tulcea: Brastar Print.

Popa, A. and I. Berciu. 1978. Le Culte de Jupiter Dolichenus dans la Dacie Romaine. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

. 1978. Teracote cu caracter votiv la Apulum. Apulum 16: 149-159.

Popilian, G. 2006. Centrul coroplastic de la Romula. In Studia Historiae et Religionis daco-Romanae in

honorem Silvii Sanie, edited by L. Mihilescu-Brliba and O. Bounegru, 409-438. Bucharest:
Editura Academiei Romne.

Posea, G. 1999. Romnia: geografie i geopolitic. Bucharest: Editura Fundaiei Romnia de Mine.

Potter, D. 2004. The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180 395. London: Routledge.

Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Protase, D. 1995. Lanthroponomastique thraco-dace et lorigine ethnique des porteurs dans les
inscriptions de la dacie romaine. Quelques observations. In La politique dilitaire dans les
provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIe colloque roumano-
suisse. Berne, 12-19 septembre 1993, edited by R. Frei-Stolba and H. E. Herzig, 157-166. Berne:
Peter Lang.

. 1995. DECEBALVS PER SCORILO n lumina vechilor i noilor interpretri. In Orizonturi

Daco-Romane, by D. Protase, 41-54. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Carpatica.

. 1995. Frontierele provinciei Dacia n timpul mpratului Traian. In Orizonturi Daco-Romane,

by D. Protase, 340-346. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Carpatica.

________. 1997. Consideraii privind etnogeneza romnilor n lumina vechilor i noilor cerecetari. In
Civilizaia Roman n Dacia, edited by M. Brbulescu, 247-254. Cluj-Napoca: Fundaia Cultural
Romn.

. 1998. Un village daco-romain des IIe IVe sicles Obreja en Transylvanie. In La politique
dilitaire dans les provinces de lEmpire romain IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIIe
colloque roumano-suisse. La vie rurale dans les provinces romaines: vici et villae (Tulcea, 8-15
octobre 1995), edited by V. H. Baumann, 79-100. Tulcea: Brastar Print.

353
Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum. Leipzig: Teubner.

Raepsaet Charlier. M. T. 1993. Diis Deabusque Sacrum. Formulaire votif et datation dans les Trois
Gaules et les Deux Germanies. Paris: ditions de Boccard.

Ramage, N. H. and A. Ramage. 2001. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall Inc.

Rinaldi Tufi, S. 1989. Dalmazia. Roma: Edizioni Latium.

Rives, J. 2001. Civic and religious life. In Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient history from inscriptions, edited
by J. Bodel, 118-136. London: Routledge.

. 2007. Religion in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rizakis, A. 2007. Urban elites in the Roman East: enhancing regional positions and social superiority. In
A companion to Roman religion, edited by J. Rpke, 317-330. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ross Taylor, L. 1961.Freedmen and Freeborn in the Epitaphs of the Imperial Rome. AJP 82.2: 113-132.

Rossi, L. 1971. Trajans Column and the Dacian Wars. Translated by J. M. C. Toynbee. London: Thames
and Hudson.

. 1981. Rotocalchi di Pietra: Segni e disegni dei tempi sui monumenti trionfali dellImpero
Romano. Milano: Jaca Book.

Roug, J. 1959. Utricularii. CH 4: 285-306.

Roymans, N. and T. Derks. 1994. De Tempel van Empel: een Hercules-heiligdom in het woongebiet van de
Bataven. Hertogebosch: Stichting Brabantse.

__________. 2004. Ethnic identity and imperial power. The Batavians in the early Roman Empire.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Rpke, J. 1990. Domi militiae: die religise Konstruction des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag.

_______. 2007. Religion of the Romans. Translated and edited by R. Gordon. Cambridge: Polity.

Rusu-Pescaru, A. and D. Alicu. 2000. Templele Romane din Dacia (I). Deva: Acta Musei Devensis.

Ruscu, D. 2004. The supposed extermination of the Dacians: the literary tradition. In Roman Dacia: the
Making of a Provincial Society. JRA Supplementary Series Number 56, edited by I. P. Hanson and
W. S. Haynes, 75-85. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Ruscu, L. 2003. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Dacicarum . Hungarian Polis Studies 10. Debrecen.

Russu, I. I., et al. 1975-1988. Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Volumes I III/4. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Repubicii Socialiste Romnia.

_________. 1980. Daco-Geii n Imperiul Roman (n Afara Provinciei Dacia Traiana). Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia.

354
Rusu, A. 1995. Les Illyriens en Dacie. In La politique dilitaire dans les provinces de lEmpire romain
IIme IVme sicles aprs J.-C. Actes du IIe colloque roumano-suisse. Berne, 12-19 septembre
1993, edited by R. Frei-Stolba and H. E. Herzig, 145-156. Berne: Peter Lang.

Saller, R. 2001. The family and society. In Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient history from inscriptions,
edited by J. Bodel, 95-117. London: Routledge.

Sanie, S. 1981. Cultele orientale n Dacia roman 1: Cultele siriene i palmirene. Bucharest: Editura
tiinific i Enciclopedic.

. 1995. Din Istoria Culturii i Religiei Geto-Dacice. Iai: Editura Universitii Al. I. Cuza.

Schfer, A., and A. Diaconescu. 1997. Das Liber-Pater-Heiligtum von Apulum (Dakien). In
Rmische Reichreligion und Provinzialreligion, edited by H. Cancik and J. Rpke, 195-
215. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.

. 2001. Gtter aus dem Rheingebiet in Dakien und Pannonien. In Religion in den germanischen
Provinzen Roms, edited by W. Spickermann, H. Cancik and J. Rpke, 259-284. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck.

. 2002. Raumnutzung und Raumwahrnehmung im Vereinslokal der Iobakhen von Athen. In

Religise vereine in der rmischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und
Raumordnung, edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schfer, 173-220. Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

________. 2004. The diffusion of religious belief in Roman Dacia: a case study of the gods of Asia
Minor. In Roman Dacia: the Making of a Provincial Society. JRA Supplementary Series Number
56, edited by I. P. Hanson and W. S. Haynes, 179-188. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of
Roman Archaeology.

________. 2006. Sarmizegetusa als urbanes und regionales Zentrum der Provinz Dakien. In Zentralitt
und Religion, edited by H. Cancik, A. Schfer and W. Spickermann, 195-244. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck.

, A. Diaconescu and I. Haynes. 2006. Praktizierte Religion im Liber Pater-Heiligtum von

Apulum: Ein Vorbericht. Hephaistos 24: 183-200.

. 2007. Dionysiche Gruppen als ein stdtisches Phnomen der rmischen Kaiserzeit. In
Gruppenreligionen im rmischen Reich: Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, edited by
J. Rpke, 161-180. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Scheid, J. 2003. An introduction to Roman religion, translated by J. Loyd. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

_______. 2005. pigraphie ou Identit Religieuse ou lArt de la Traduction. In Le Monde Romain

Travers lpigraphie: Mthodes et Pratiques. Actes du XXIVe Colloque international de Lille (8-
10 novembre 2001), edited by J. Desmulliez and C. Het-Van Cauwenberghe, 217-244.
Villeneuve dAscq: Universit Charles-de-Gaulle Lille III.

Scherrer, P., ed. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Revised edition. English translation by L. Bier and G. M.
Luxon. Ege Yayinlari.

Schmidt Heidenreich, C. 2000.Hirarchie et structure des unites palmyrniennes de larmee romaine de

Dacie. In Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire
(Proceedings of the International Symposium, Alba Iulia, 8th 10th October 1999), edited by H.
Ciugudean and V. Moga, 293-308. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Naional al Unirii Alba Iulia.

355
Schultz, C. 2006. Womens Religious Activity in the Roman Republic. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press.

Schwertheim, E. 1981. Iuppiter Dolichenus. In Die Orientalischen Religionen im Rmerreich, edited by

M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Scorpan, C. 1966. Reprezentri Bacchice. Constana: Muzeul de Arheologie Dobrogea.

Seipel, W., ed. 2006. A Brief Guide to the Kunstistorisches Museum. Volume 4. Masterpieces in the
Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Milano: Skira.

Selem, P. 1980. Les Religions Orientales dans la Pannonie Romaine: Partie en Yougoslavie. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.

Settis, S. et al. 1988. La Colonna Traiana. Torino: G. Einaudi.

Srbu, V. and G. Florea. 2000. Gto-Daces: Iconographie et Imaginaire.Translated from Romanian by L.

Srbu. Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Studii Transilvane. Fundaia Cultural Romn.

Soproni, S., ed., 1968. Tabula Imperii Romani: Aquincum Sarmizegetusa Sirmium. Amsterdam: Verlag
Adolf M. Hakkert.

Speidel, M. 1970. The captor of Decebalus: a new inscription from Philippi. JRS 60: 142-153.

________. 1978. The Religion of Iuppiter Dolichenus in the Roman Army. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

and A. Dimitrova-Mileva. 1978. The Cult of the Genii in the Roman Army and a New Military
Deity. ANRW 2.16.2: 1542-1555.

Stefan, A. S. 2005. Les Guerres Daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: Architecture Militaire, Topographie,
Images et Histoire. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome.

Stipevi, A. 1977. The Illyrians: History and Culture, translated by S. uli Burton. Park Ridge, NJ:
Noyes Press.

Stoian, I., ed. Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae II. Bucharest: Editura Republicii
Socialiste Romnia.

Stoian Symonds, C. 2006. Interfrences artistiques dans les representations de la desse Hcate dans les
provinces romaines du Bas-Danube. In Studia Historiae et Religionis daco-Romanae in honorem
Silvii Sanie, edited by L. Mihilescu-Brliba and O. Bounegru, 243-257. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Romne.

Stoll, O. 2007. The Religions of the Armies. In A Companion to the Roman Army, edited by P. Erdkamp,
451-476. Oxford: Blackwell.

Strobel, K. 1984. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriege Trajans. Bonn: Antiquitas.

. 1989. Die Donaukriege Domitians. Bonn: Habelt.

. 1999. Traianus optimus princeps: Reichs- und Grenzpolitik als innenpolitische Dimension
seiner Herrschaft. In Traian in Germanien, Traian im Reich: Bericht des dritten
Saalburgkolloquiums, edited by E. Schallmayer, 17-29. Bad Homburg v. d. H.: Saalburgmuseum.

Suceveanu, A. and A. Barnea. 1991. La Dobrudja romaine. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedic.

356
Syme, R. 1936. Flavian wars and frontiers. CAH 11: 158-187.

_______. 1971. Lentulus and the Origin of Moesia. In Danubian Papers, by R. Syme, 53-71. Bucharest:
A.I. E. S. E. E.

. 1999. Macedonia and Dardania, 80 33 B. C. In The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the
Balkans, 80 B. C. A. D. 14, by R. Syme. Edited by A. Birley, 129-150. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press.

. 1999. Caesars Designs on Dacia and Parthia, In The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the
Balkans, 80 B. C. A. D. 14, by R. Syme. Edited by A. Birley, 174-192. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Tacheva-Hitova, M. 1983. Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th Century BC 4th Century AD).
Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Tamba, D. and A. V. Matei. 1998. ber die rmische Stadt. Eine rmische Wohnung von Porolissum. In
Porolissum: Ausschnitte aus dem Leben einer dakisch-rmischen Grenzsiedlung aus dem
Nordwesten der Provinz Dacia Porolissensis, edited by N. Gudea and W. Schuller. Translated
from Romanian by K. Schmidts and W. Schuller, 64-70. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert.

eposu-Marinescu, L. and C. Pop. 2001. Anthropomorphic Bronze Statuettes from Dacia.

http://www.cimec.ro/arheologie/statuete_bronz/StatueteENG/.

Thomas, E. B. 1964. Rmische Villen in Pannonien. Beitrge zur pannonischen Siedlungsgeschichte.

Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad.

. 1975. Laren und Lararien aus Pannonien, Antike Welt 6: 29-40.

__________. 1980. Religion. In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by A. Lengyel and G. T. B.
Radan, 177-206. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

__________. 1980. Villa settlements. In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by A. Lengyel and
G. T. B. Radan, 275-322. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

__________. 1980. Arts and crafts. In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by A. Lengyel and
G. T. B. Radan, 349-380. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Tran, N. 2006. Les members des associations romaines: le rang social des collegiate en Italie et en Gaules,
sous le Haut-Empire. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome.

Tudor, D. 1965. Drobeta. Bucharest: Meridiane.

. 1966. Sucidava. Bucharest: Meridiane.

________. 1968a. Orae, Trguri i Sate in Dacia Roman. Bucharest: Editura tiinific.

. 1968b. Oltenia Roman. Bucharest: Editura tiinific.

________. 1969. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Equitum Danuviorum. I. The Monuments. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.

________. 1976. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Equitum Danuviorum. II. The Analysis and
Interpretation of the Monuments. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Turcan, R. 1978. Le culte imperial au IIIe sicle. ANRW 2.16.2: 996-1083.

357
. 1992. Les Cultes Orientaux dans le Monde Romain. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

________. 1998. Rome et ses dieux. Paris: Hachette Littratures.

Turner, J. C. et al. 1987. Rediscovering the social group. Oxford: Blackwell.

Verboven, C. 2007. The associative order, status and ethos of Roman businessmen in the Late Republic
and Early Empire. Atheneum 195: 861-893.

. 2009. Magistrates, patrons and benefactors of collegia: status buiding and Romanisation in
the Spanish, Gallic and German Provinces. In Transforming historical landscapes in the ancient
empires (Proceedings of the first workshop Area of Research in Studies from Antiquity, Barcelona
2007) BAR International Series 1986, edited by I. B. Antela-Bernrdez and T. aco del Hoyo,
159-167. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges.

Verdery, K. 1991. National Ideology Under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceauescus
Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Vermaseren, M. J. 1960. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae I-II. Hagae

Comitis: Nijhoff.

______________. 1983. Corpus Cultus Iovis Sabazii I-II. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

______________. 1989. Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque VI. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Veyne, P. 1976. Le Pain et le Cirque: Sociologie historique dun pluralisme politique. Paris: ditions du
Seuil.

Weaver, P. R. C. 1972. Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the emperors freedmen and slaves.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Webber Jones, L. 1929. Cults of Roman Dacia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Webster, J. 1999. At the End of the World: Druidic and Other Revitalization Movements in Post-Conquest
Gaul and Britain. Britannia 30: 1-20.

________. 1993. Art as resistance and negotiation. In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, edited by
S. A. Scott and J. Webster, 24-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wesch-Klein, G. 2007. Recruits and Veterans. In A Companion to the Roman Army, edited by P.
Erdkamp, 435-450. Oxford: Blackwell.

Whittaker, C. R. 1994. Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Wilkes. J. J. 1969. Dalmatia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wollmann, V. 1986. Un lucus la Alburnus Maior. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie i Arheologie Cluj-
Napoca 27: 253-295.

. 1996. Mineritul Metalifer, Extragerea Srii i Carierele de Piatr in Dacia Roman (Der
Erzbergbau, die Salzgewinnung und die Steinbrche im Rmischen Dakien). Bibliotheca Musei
Napocensis XIII. Cluj-Napoca: Ministerul Culturii.

Woolf, G. 1996. Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire. JRS 86:
22-39.

358
. 1997. Beyond Romans and Natives. World Archaeology 28.3: 339-350.

_______. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Zanker, P. 1998. Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Translated by D. Lucas Schneider. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

359