REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN ISTORIE VECHE ŞI

Transcription

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN
ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE
ReDIVA
THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNAL
OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
II/2014
CLUJ-NAPOCA
2014
3
CONTENTS
STUDIES
Mariana Prociuc, Vlad Codrea
Archaeozoology and palaeontology of the Subpiatră Cave
(Bihor County, Romania)
11
Aurora Peţan
An unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa Regia’s
sacred zone recorded in writings of the 19th century
28
Mátyás Bajusz, Aurora Peţan
Two bronze bracelets with looped and twisted ends from
the notes of Téglás István
41
Csaba Szabó
Discovering the gods in Apulum:
historiography and new perspectives
53
Radu Iustinian Zăgreanu, Claudiu Ionuţ Iov
A Roman funerary stela from Porolissum
83
Alexandra Teodor
The roman defensive system(s) of Tomis. Some issues in
the light of the current knowledge
92
REVIEWS
Todd L. VanPool, Robert D. Leonard, Quantitative
Analysis in Archaeology, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
(Laura-Simona Draşovean)
149
Luca-Paul Pupeză, Veacul întunecat al Daciei,
Cluj-Napoca, 2012. (Raluca-Eliza Bătrînoiu)
153
Ioan Piso, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, Rada Varga, Silvia Mustaţă,
Ligia Ruscu (eds.), Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan
sexagenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca, 2011. (Aurora Peţan)
159
Rada Varga, The Peregrini of Roman Dacia (106-212),
Cluj-Napoca, 2014. (Cosmin Coatu)
167
7
THE ROMAN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS OF TOMIS
Some issues in the light of the current knowledge
Alexandra TEODOR
PhD Candidate, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture
and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: The Roman fortifications of Tomis (today, in the city of
Constanța, Romania) have entered in the attention of our scientific circles
about a century ago, with the discovery of an urban defensive wall segment
and a tower. Though some remarcable discoveries have followed since, no
thorough study integrating all known data regarding the city’s defensive
elements and their topography has been published so far. This paper’s aim
is not to repair this at once, but to sketch some methodological approaches
towards integrating available data, to (re)activate some issues regarding its
general chronological outlines and to draw some further research directions
and possible conclusions that came out of this approach.
Using digital technologies, a large amount of the available data directly
and indirectly regarding the urban defensive systems of Tomis were
integrated. Architectural more or less detailed plans (the archaeological
evidence), textual informations (descriptions) and funerary evidence
(spatial and chronological coordinates) were assembled on the same
topographical support, allowing thus a multilayered analysis. Theoretical
constructions, such as the spatial and temporal relationships between
funerary areas – defensive systems – roads – city gates – streets, starting
from, but also complementary to the archaeological evidence, were used
in order to provide new arguments for some older hypotheses, to debate
others or to emphasize new ones. The main outcomes of this study are a
different perspective – though not entirely new – than the ‘consecrated’
theses concerning the defensive systems (alongside the implicit effects
on reevaluating the city’s urban evolution, not detailed here) and, as an
indirect result, new clues regarding a possible partial continuity of the
Roman urban street network up to our days.
Keywords: Roman fortifications, Tomis, data integration, urban
archaeology, antique urban topography.
ReDIVA II/2014, p. 92-146
The roman defensive systems of Tomis
1. Introduction
Tomis’ antique history1 can be seen through two rather paradoxical
attitudes. On a side, its fame and considerable size2 have determined
a wide scholar’s enthusiasm which at its turn generated a huge
bibliography3. On the another side there’s a large gap in awareness,
knowledge and interest. The first is represented by devoted or
occasional researchers of the antique city, and the second by today’s
most of local officials, citizens and tourists. Between the two sides
there are various attempts to promote history, unfortunately not all
updated or adequate to the current state of knowledge4 (Figs. 1 and 2).
A briefing note for those unfamiliar with the site’s general coordinates:
Tomis was, throughout Antiquity, one of the largest cities on the western coast
of the Black Sea, founded by Greek Milesian colonists sometimes in the 6th
Century BCE; in the Early Roman Era it became at some point the Metropolis
of the Greek cities’ association of the western Pontus Euxinos (the Black
Sea); in the Late Roman era, Tomis was the Capital of the Roman Empire’s
easternmost Danubian border province, Scythia. Today, the former antique
city is overlapped by the modern Constanța’s city center, in the area known
as “Peninsula”; surprisingly or not, the city is still a great commercial hub
on the Sea’s shore. For details on Tomis’ history in a recent historical and
archaeological synthesis, see Buzoianu, Bărbulescu 2012, p. 127-40 (Greek and
Hellenistic), p. 140-78 (Early Roman), p. 178-212 (Late Roman), and p. 213-7
(post Roman), with further literature.
2
Tomis was the largest antique city of Dobruja historical region, reaching
more than the 60-70 ha we can measure today, as the city may have lost
important land parts to the Sea, see Scarlat 1975.
3
See Buzoianu, Bărbulescu 2012, p. 11, note 1 for the most important titles
regarding the city’s history.
4
The most recent and fashionable are the 3D reconstructions, usually
available online, see for example catheofilm.ro (“Reconstrucție 3D – Termele
Romane Tomis” [The Roman Baths], which barely has anything to do with the
archaeological and topographical reality, and “Reconstrucție 3D – Portul Antic
Tomis” [The Roman Harbor]), cerva.ro/tomis/ (see also Popovici et al. 2010)
and cjc.ro. In the last two cases – rather worthy of our attention –, despite their
declared historical and archaeological assistance and their stated objectives
(see ‘About’/‘Echipa’, ‘About’/‘Descriere’ and ‘Obiective’ sections on their
websites), they both reflect too little attention to topographical and/or historical
and archaeological reality. The question one needs to answer is whether we
truly want the public to go from barely knowing anything to falsely knowing
it all, rather than adequately informing them about the real level of knowledge
and understanding. For instance, none of these reconstructions represents one
of the most impressive construction works of Tomis – the water gallery system
(see below, 4.3.2), as an important ‘layer’ of the antique city.
1
93
Alexandra TEODOR
The antique city’s historiography actually has only a few
dedicated thematic monographs5 besides the general ones (see
notes above), and among them even fewer on the antique urban
structures or related (such as necropolises, see below, 2 and 4.1). We
may also say that at least in what concerns the urban topography
issue, quite rarely the authors’ critically deal with already published
and interpreted data6 and, when necessary and possible, offer a new
interpretation7. Furthermore, so far there was apparently no attempt
to integrate available data into an adequate topographical support8,9.
Papuc 2005, a monograph dedicated to the water systems of Tomis (most
of it a synthesis of previous studies on the subject), with an useful historical
and archaeological introduction; Stoian 1962, on epigraphic evidence available
at that time, also with an useful and detailed introduction; Canarache et al.
1963, dealing with the antique sculptures of Tomis, completed recently by other
studies, such as Covacef Z 2011 (though not exclusively on Tomis). See this
small inventory compared the ones of sites under systematic archaeological
research, such as Histria (with its 14th recently published volume in the
dedicated monograph series), to remain only in the Romanian field.
6
Toma 2010, p. 59 (on named here Line E?’s problematic archaeological
argumentation, see also below, 4.2.1.D).
7
Toma 2010, p.64-8, 71-72; Suceveanu 1969, p. 348, 349, 351-2 (both on the
consecrated dating of the so-called Late Roman city walls and of the so-called
“Mosaic Edifice”).
8
By this I mean data integration using dedicated digital technologies. Natalia
Toma (2010) made an attempt by simply vectorizing three very important
old city plans (Toma 2010, p. 58, figs. 1 and 2, 62, fig. 3) and approximately
integrating them into a topographical restitution of the antique city (Toma
2010, p. 62, fig. 3); the result is reliable, but not precise. The only – but large
– issue with the above mentioned integration method is that especially old
plans frequently have proportion and deformation errors compared to the
actual precise topographical or orthophotographic representations (see
comments at Toma 2010, p. 57 and Georgescu 1998, p. 55-6, referring to
general problems related to the topographic archaeological documentation).
This may not mean much when largely discussing urbanistical issues, but it
becomes a crucial problem when discussing topographical relations between
a defensive line’s segments on a detailed scale; this is why the author couldn’t
realize, for instance, the problems related to defensive lines named here A and
B, see below, 4.2.4. Therefore, “dedicated” digital technologies would mean
something more than simply and approximately merging data from different
planimetric representations; it means, however, confronting them with a
reliable topographic support and further operating depending on their fair or
unfair correspondence: either direct vectorization or vectorization preceded
by georeferencing (see for example Polonic’s plan, here at Fig. 5).
9
This study and the precedent one, Teodor 2012, are the result of such
intentions. A more extended file for Tomis’ urban configuration is prepared for
5
94
The bibliography on Tomis’ fortifications10 makes no exception
to the mentioned state of art11. As a matter a fact, a closer look
reveals some issues left unsolved and/or ignored maybe for too
long (see discussions below, especially section 5). It’s a known fact
that in Antiquity, and for a long time after, the fortifications were
one of the urban structure’s main components. It should also be a
known fact that if we fail to understand the urban fortifications’
character and their evolution, we fail to understand the whole city.
This presentation is meant to direct the reader12 towards a refreshed
and hopefully better understanding of the archaeological evidence
regarding the antique city’s fortifications, with a special look on their
topography.
Last but not least, it is to be noted that the antique city’s
overlapping by the modern city of Constanţa is one of the biggest
impediments in documenting its physical configuration; just recently
the greatest opportunity for collecting some more information was
successfully lost13, meaning that for some while – which means until
other large investments will come up in the old city center – we can
only go further in our research with what we already have.
the PhD dissertation regarding late antique urbanism in Scythia, which is to be
defended, hopefully, towards the end of this year. Most of the issues discussed
here will also be presented there, in Romanian, the official language of the
doctoral programme.
10
Cliante 2006; Papuc, Lungu 1998; Georgescu 1998, p. 60 sqq., 78-90, 158-64;
Rădulescu 1995-1996; Rădulescu 1991, p. 23-9; Bănică 1991; Coja 1982, p. 101
and fig. 221; Cheluţă-Georgescu 1977, p. 258-9 and pl. II; Stoian 1954; Canarache
1961, p. 16-21 and fig. 1, Lambrino 1936; Pârvan 1915; Polonic mss., f. 51-62 and
city’s plan; except for the titles where mentioned (not exclusively dedicated to
Tomis’ fortifications), see also plans and pictures which are part of them.
11
See a former experience with Tomis’ fortification systems, Teodor 2012,
p. 4-5 (2.2.2) and fig. 2, with comments regarding different plans representing
the same structures.
12
I mainly address the ones already familiar with the site’s features, but it
could also be an useful look over for those wanting to get familiar to it.
13
Latest infrastructure investments in Constanța’s historical center completely
ignored, against all laws, the archaeological layers’ proper documentation. See a
few opportunities described here (for now only in the local press): gzt.ro-1 2013
and gzt.ro-2 2013.
95
Alexandra TEODOR
2. Methodology and Aims
The study is based on published or other available14 data, without
pretended exhaustivity, and on personal topographic observations
relying both on published planimetric representations and other relevant
localizable data, all mapped on a georeferenced topographic base15.
Urban defensive structures can be referred to, even though
indirectly, in the most various sources. Therefore, after a briefing on
the generally accepted scenario regarding known fortifications and
their chronology (3, The Consecrated Story), a larger set of relevant
identified data on the issue will be listed (4, Available Data): (4.1) the
known necropolises’ spatial distribution as main topographical
framing for the residential area; (4.2) the archaeological evidence
on (4.2.1) uncertain and (4.2.2) certain fortification lines16 with their
known elements’ typology and construction system, as well as
(4.2.3) topographical issues regarding compatibility to one another;
(4.3) the complementary evidence, comprising (4.3.1) the known
stratigraphic data, (4.3.2) related urban infrastructure and the (4.3.3)
numismatic iconographical evidence. After parsing these, one
might realize that some of the so far conveyed accounts regarding
this antique city’s urban fortifications reveal as overrated, unreliable
hypotheses, constantly propagated through its historiography,
although at some times few voices questioned them, see
(5) Discussions and Hypotheses. (6) Further Research directions, meant
to complement this preliminary study’s directions, will be sketched
before (7) Conclusions.
Pamfil Polonic’s manuscript (Polonic mss.); the extremely useful urbanistical
documentation (PUZ 2012) and the orthophotographic support (ANCPI 2005,
2008).
15
Topographic data was assembled in AutoCAD 2010 (Educational
version) in Stereo 70 (the Romanian standard topographical projection system;
in the area discussed, it has ca. 2.50 declination to the West compared to the
geographical North). All plans were scanned to avoid distortions as much as
possible (except Pârvan 1915, p. 440, fig. 4, photography, but errors are not
substantial compared to the orthophoto, see here Fig. 9a).
16
They’ll be presented as distinct lines (defensive Line A, B, ..., F?) only for
methodological purposes, since their spatial and chronological relations are
exactly the ones being questioned here.
14
96
Besides the archaeological evidence, theoretical concepts will
also be used in the methodological approach. The high relevance of
funerary data17 is underlined here as a possible starting point related
to residential area (fortified or not), but also on two other crucial
and highly connected urban elements: roads/streets and city gates.
Although quite trivial arguments, they’re worth mentioning: (arg. 1)
for the Greek and Roman Eras, generally no burials were allowed
inside city walls18,19; (arg. 2) for the same period, generally, streets
outside cities (roads) were flanked by funerary mounds (by reverse,
it means mounds usually indicate roads)20; (arg. 3, starting from arg.
1 and 2) the limits of the funerary area towards the city indicate the
utmost spot to find the gate on a route track, i. e. the gate can be
found anywhere behind that spot.
All the mentioned elements – roads (Road A, B etc.), funerary/
residential limits (NL1, NL2 etc.), gates (G1, G2 etc.) and street (Street
1A, Street 1B) – will be first pointed out as the above mentioned
theoretical concepts (therefore theoretical points and lines). They
We have to note here that there is no updated monograph on funeral
evidence at Tomis, for any of the Greek or Roman periods; the only existent
monograph on such themes is Bucovală 1967 (Hellenistic period). Most
important for our purposes, there is no updated funeral evidence chart
available; integrating separately charted evidence in various publications and
identifying the spatial location of simply described points, with no cartographic
support, can be really time consuming. Therefore, data presented here is not
pretended to be exhaustive.
18
The known examples of funerary complexes inside the city walls in
the Greek world, although very rare, regard the so-called heroes’ tombs, see
Rykwert 1995, p. 33-7, especially 33 and notes 41-42, 35 and note 57; for the
Late Roman world, at least in Scythia, intra muros burials are only exceptional,
see Soficaru 2011, p. 137-9 with bibliography, 138 Table12, 178-9, Table 17.
19
That is why, when speaking about urban fortification lines, the funerary
evidence is the one we shall call, metaphorically, “the negative evidence”.
Therefore, when we have no archaeological data (“the positive evidence”) on
the fortifications and/or extra muros residential area, and/or their chronology is
doubtful, one of the main data we can rely on is the funerary evidence, because
it indicates the maximum possible spread of the fortifications/residential area
in the correspondent chronological frame; also, no matter how ‘well known’
they both are, it is always useful (and also safer) to confront their chronology.
20
For Tomis, see Bucovală, Pașca 1992, p. 271; for other references, see also
Constantin et al. 2007, p. 263-4 and n. 47.
17
97
Alexandra TEODOR
must not be confused with the real, archaeologically attested
elements (where it is the case), which will be generally approached
afterwards, such as certain defensive lines (Line A, B etc.), certain
gates (Gate 1, Gate 2 etc.), or simply hypothetical defensive lines,
based on different arguments (Line E?, Line F? etc.; Gate 4?, Gate 5? –
all pointed out with ‘?’). The scope of this bionomical system
(theoretical constructions/concepts – real elements) is to provide
hints regarding the possible urban configuration and evolution,
by comparing and integrating the two parts, as we shall see for
instance in section 5.5.
3. The Consecrated Story21 (see Fig. 3)
3.1. It is known that not only the Roman city had its urban
fortification system, but also the Greek one from which it
subsequently developed. Not much is known about it though and the
only reliable hints regarding its localization are given by the funerary
evidence (see below, 4.1). It is generally believed to be placed near
today’s Ovidiu Square. For the record, so far no published archaeological
investigation has documented any Greek fortification in Tomis.
3.2. Concerning the Roman fortifications, the story goes like
this: an Early Roman fortification most probably existed, somewhere
between the Greek (unknown, see above) and the (consecrated) Late
Roman ones; the statement is based on some older funerary evidence
and related hypotheses, somehow “confirmed” by time-to-time
discoveries in the old city center (see also below, 4.2.1.B and C).
To sum up, there is no hard evidence and no archaeological record
regarding this Early Roman precinct.
3.3. Last but not least, there is the so-called Late Roman
fortification. One of its supposed first segments was discovered at
the beginning of the XXth Century and since then many others. We
can count now few curtain segments, two gates with rectangular
bastion towers, one gate with long U-shaped towers, one short
U-shaped tower and at least one rectangular tower. Its first phase
This is only a briefing. For details and references for all data mentioned,
see the next section, 4.
21
98
(named here Line A) is generally dated at the end of the third century
AD, with few important alterations and/or additions – one in the
end of third and first half of the fourth century AD (named here
Line B), and others in the sixth century AD, including a so-called
extension (named here Line C); for all, see below, 4.2.1.D and 4.2.2.
3.4. On a secondary plan, there is a general hesitating position
about the presence of a defensive line on the Sea shore, meaning
whether the city would have had either an open defensive line, or
a closed one.
Thus, the story regarding the antique Tomis ends by concluding
that the city’s evolution reached its peak in the Late Roman era22,
when it played the important role as the capital of Scythia, despite
the barbarian attacks that seriously and repeatedly damaged the city
in this period.
4. Available Data
4.1. Funerary evidence (see plan at Fig. 4)
4.1.A. Only a few Classical and more Hellenistic graves have
been found so far23. Their various density and spatial distribution
allows us some observations. First, one could quite clearly delimitate
the residential area from the funerary one for this period; in this
matter, one thing to know for sure is that the fortified city’s limit
was smaller than the supposed Late Roman one (see also Fig. 3,
Line A, for comparison). Another hint regards two possible roads,
along the areas where the funerary evidence is more dense24:
Zahariade 2006, p. 75; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 92.
CCA 2008 (Mihai Viteazu Street, southern segment); Bucovală 1995, p. 73-74
and pl. I (Mircea cel Bătrân – Decebal Street crossing); Chera-Mărgineanu
1979, p. 250 (Cuza Vodă Street, eastern end), passim; Bucovală 1975, especially
p. 375, 387 (Tomis Bd. – Negru Vodă Street crossing); Bucovală 1968, p. 269-70
and fig. 1; Barbu 1961, p. 204-5 and fig. 1 (Ferdinand Bd. – Tomis Bd. – Negru
Vodă Street crossing area).
24
For brevity, the road’s routes presented here and in the next sections
(see the plan at Fig. 4) were actually correlated to the already known possible
antique routes – Polonic mss., f. 56-8; see also Toma 2010, p. 61-3 (gates),
68-9 (roads) and 58, 62, figs. 1-4. Therefore, we might say the roads traces
22
23
99
Alexandra TEODOR
Road A, towards northwest (supposedly heading to Histria), and
Road B, towards southwest (heading to Callatis), most probably
the main roads25 connecting the city to the proximate territory and
the main regional centers in the Greek Era. Both roads are also
confirmed by later funerary evidence as main routes, meaning they
were probably used quite constantly throughout all Antiquity.
4.1.B. Early Roman funerary evidence dated in 1st-2nd Centuries
CE26 is quite compact in space, but that’s probably due to its relative
scarcity; still, it is very relevant from a topographical point of view,
because its distribution enters deeply in the Peninsula. Threfore,
the southernmost funerary evidence indicates with high probability
the funerary/residential limit (named on the plan NL1) and, by
consequence, the utmost position of the city gate in this phase (G127),
most probably located on Road A’s intersection with the city wall;
this theoretical point is one to remember.
4.1.C. Early roman evidence dated in 2nd-3rd Centuries CE, quite
consistent28, spreads along already existant roads A and B and
didn’t only result from funerary evidence, since their spatial distribution
can be confusing or insufficient sometimes, but rather we relied on funerary
evidence for supporting the roads’ possible dating and evolution. This is why
– but also because general topography implies it –, for instance, Road B doesn’t
have a straight course, as a strictly hypothetical one would have.
25
Related to roads directions leaving out of Tomis, see Georgescu 1998, p.
93; Canarache 1961, p. 20.
26
gzt.ro-1 2013 (first half of the 1st Century CE, next to Hunchiar Mosque);
CCA 2008 (Mihai Viteazu Street, southern segment, 1st Century CE); Georgescu
1998, p. 71 (imprecise, northern area of the Peninsula’s; end of 1st Century CEfirst half of 2nd Century CE; possibly referring to the same funerary evidence
as Rădulescu 1991, see below in this note); Bucovală, Pașca 1988-1989, p. 160
(“La serpentină” area, close to modern Harbor Gate 3, 2nd Century CE);
Bucovală 1968, p. 269-70 and fig. 1, 303 (I.G. Duca Street); Rădulescu 1991, p.
35-6 (south to Gate 3, Mircea cel Bătrân Street – Ibis Hotel area, 2nd Century
CE); Zirra, Alexandrescu 1957, p. 89 (Marc Aureliu Street, 2nd Century CE).
27
Neither this, nor the next ones are to be considered properly gate positions,
for which see below, 5.5.
28
Only the most relevant titles: Băjenaru, Dobrinescu 2008, p. 190, 199,
pl. 1 (George Enescu Street); Bucovală, Pașca 1992, p. 241-2, fig. 1 (I.G. DucaConstantin Brătescu crossing, in the middle-western area); Bucovală and Pașca
1991, p. 185, 186, plan 1 (the southwestern remotest area); Barbu 1961, p. 205,
207 and fig. 1 (largely both southwest and north areas).
100
also slightly suggests one more, heading west, named Road C
– that may have already existed in the previous phase –, but also
another, parallel and west to Road A, named here Road D (for which
archaeological funerary evidence is completed by other sources, see
below, 4.1.E;). We can trace two relevant limits on this funerary
area: NL2, towards north-northwest, and NL3, towards west. It
is notable these limits haven’t changed much afterwards, as the
evidence points out (see the plan and below, 4.1.D). Having this in
consideration, it is highly probable that the space between NL1 (see
above, 4.1.B) and NL2-NL3 was now affected to the city (intra or
extra muros, yet uncertain); we also assume that in these times a new
fortification has been built (see below 4.2.1.C). Therefore, somewhere
behind the intersection of the identified roads and the known limits
of the funerary area, one should find, theoretically, the city gates;
for methodological purposes, the utmost gates’ positions (G2-G5)
are marked on the plan (see also below, section 5.5, which of them
could have actually functioned).
4.1.D. All Late Roman funerary evidence, dated throughout 4th-7th
Centuries CE29 is distributed along the same roads mentioned above.
Also, their limits towards the city are not very different compared
to the 2nd-3rd Centuries’ evidence; from a topographic point of view,
the main difference noted so far is their larger spread between the
existent roads and towards the territory.
4.1.E. The mounds noted by Pamfil Polonic on his city sketches
(Fig. 5), drawed towards the end of the XIXth Century, could be
considered another funerary evidence. Of course, the structures
cannot be accurately dated, but we can assume that they were
originally pagan funerary structures and that they were used until
later times, since they were best visible until recently; a plausible
Only the most relevant titles: Bucovală, Pașca 1992, p. 241-2, fig. 1
(I.G. Duca-Constantin Brătescu crossing, in the middle-western area);
Bucovală, Pașca 1988-1989, p. 123, 124 with map, 160 (with a 4-5th Century
collective grave problematic for its imprecise location, possibly close to the city
walls); Chera-Mărgineanu, Lungu 1983, p. 217, 228-230 and 229, plan (north,
west and southwest areas in the city’s proximity); Chera-Mărgineanu 1979,
p. 247-50 (I.G. Duca-Cuza Vodă crossing and remotest areas); CheluţăGeorgescu 1977, p. passim and pl II (distributed in all directions); Barbu 1961,
p. 205 and fig. 1 (largely eastern shore and proximity).
29
101
Alexandra TEODOR
dating would be, therefore, 2nd-3rd Centuries CE and/or before.
What they clearly indicate – and Polonic also points out – is another
‘main’ road, called here Road D (also indicated by certain funerary
evidence, see above, 4.1.E); it should be, therefore, contemporary
to Road C, or earlier. The utmost position of the possible gate
corresponding to this road is G3, noted on the plan.
4.2. Archaeological evidence
4.2.1. Uncertain defensive lines (see again Fig. 3)
4.2.1.A. There is no archaeological (documented and published)
evidence regarding the Greek and Hellenistic Era’s urban
fortification. It is generally assumed that it was much smaller than
the so-called Late Roman one and its location is now thought to be
somewhere north of today’s Ovidiu Square30. Based on the funerary
evidence, theoretically, its limit could reach further, closer to the
southernmost Hellenistic grave31; still, being given the quite modest
evidence (as quantity), this hypothesis is yet premature.
4.2.1.B. From the very Early Roman period of Tomis (1st Century)
our only direct evidence so far are Ovidius’ statements regarding the
city walls; he mentioned their small length and modest defensive
qualities32. The funerary evidence (see above, 4.1.B) indicates its
narrow layout and withal the possible defensive limit for largely the
same period (about 1st Century-first three qarters of the 2nd Century),
Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91. Recent infrastructure works in the named spot
revealed a large stone structure seemingly to be the Greek precinct, according
to the archaeologist who observed them; unfortunately, archaeological
investigation wasn’t part of the investors’ programme (gzt.ro-1 2013), therefore,
this visual observation can only be taken, at least for a while, as a highly
probable hypothesis. Other indirect clues come from different inscriptions
mentioning city’s guards, basically indicating the same characteristics regarding
the defensive line’s length as being rather short, see Stoian 1954, p. 558; see also
Georgescu 1998, p. 59-65, for known hypotheses and his own, referring to an
area smaller than the one delimited here by funerary evidence, but insufficiently
argued.
31
See also below, 4.2.1.B and notes.
32
Georgescu 1998, p. 69-70; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91. See also Covacef P
1998, p. 261.
30
102
named here Line G?. The hypothesis that this epoch’s defensive line
could have been one and the same with the older Hellenistic/Greek
one has been also stated.33
4.2.1.C. From the later part of the Early Roman period, the
Severan dynasty Era is known as a prosperous one, and scholars
generally believe it had to have been marked by an extension of
the formerly (more) modest town. The largely accepted hypothesis,
although based on scarce arguments (see below, 4.2.1C), is that the
defensive line of this period, named here Line F?, is to be placed
somewhere between the earlier fortification (Line G?, see above,
4.2.1.B) and the so-called Late Roman fortification (defensive lines
A-B-C, see below, 4.2.2). Its southwestern end is considered to be a
defensive element that was never properly documented – therefore
it is uncertainly dated –, named here Tower 5 (see also below, 4.2.2,
where it is associated to a different defensive line, Line D)34. Line F?’s
direction is approximately parallel to the common directions of
defensive lines A and C, crossing the peninsula eastwards compared
to them. For the general line the assumed arguments are grounded
on unpublished archaeological investigations, only briefly described,
without the necessary archaeological documentation attached35. Still,
although ungrounded in our opinion, this hypothesis cannot yet
be completely rejected, until some direct or indirect archaeological
arguments will be prompted.
4.2.1.D. For the Late Roman Era (late 3rd-early 7th Centuries), the
‘consecrated’ story is that defensive Line A (see below, 4.2.2), dated
at the beginning of this epoch and considered to having functioned
Georgescu 1998, p. 71, but see also the section above, with notes.
Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91; it is very likely that this tower was only
considered by the author based on its spatial proximity, which is definitely
not an argument.
35
Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91; Georgescu 1998, p. 74-6, describes a 2.6 thick
two-faced wall with a Hellenistic-like parament; apparently, there is no reason
why this couldn’t be the Hellenistic city wall, since it is also compatible to
the Hellenistic known funerary area. This hypothesis actually circulated for
a while, see Coja 1982, p. 101; Barbu 1961, p. 204. By any means, this would
imply that there was also a narrower city wall for the first part of the Early
Roman Era, also proved by contemporary funerary evidence – a possibility
which maybe should be explored from an historical point of view.
33
34
103
Alexandra TEODOR
throughout all of it, was until the 6th Century closed westwards
by a presumed defensive Line E?, which was then abandoned
and replaced by Line C36 (for which see below, 4.2.2). This Line E?
is figured on most of the city’s plans representing the defensive
system as a rather certain defensive line 37 and its existence is
practically considered as a sure fact, although the hypothesis was
never archaeologically proved ever since its formulation, and its
grounds are rather shaky38.
4.2.1.E. No thorough investigation ever concerned the hypothetical
shore defensive line, therefore references to it are rather hesitating39.
Two possible segments of a defensive line were noticed more than
a century ago close to the shore, on the southern and southeastern
sides of the Peninsula, see Line H?; since no precise topographical
documentation was published for these structures, their location and
orientation were approximated, having as landmarks some buildings
36
Cliante 2006, p. 249-50; Georgescu 1998, p. 163-4; Rădulescu 1995-1996,
p. 86-88; Cheluţă-Georgescu 1977, p. 259 and pl. II; (see also next note).
37
Băjenaru, Dobrinescu 2008, p. 199, pl. 1; Cliante 2006, p. 253, fig. 1; Lungu
2000, plan at page 129, with legend; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 90, fig. 5; CheluţăGeorgescu 1977, p. pl. II. On the other hand, Papuc, Lungu 1998 didn’t seem
to agree, but this is only indicated on the plan (or it is simply an omission),
see p. 202, fig. 1, with legend; similar at Toma 2010, p. 62, fig. 4, ignoring the
hypothetical line.
38
All the references to the city’s extension from the 6th Century quoted
above automatically imply this defensive line’s presence. Its hypothetical
existence was first formulated by Cheluţă-Georgescu 1977, p. 258: “(...) la
35 m sud de această intersecție [Ferdinand Bd.-Mihai Viteazu], a apărut (la
-4,50 [m]) o îngrămădire masivă de blocuri și pietre prăbușite, care făceau
parte dintr-un zid masiv, orientat S.V., spre actualul Muzeu al Marinei (...)”
(basically, the supposed defensive walls’ presence was assumed based on a
“(...) large stack of fallen stones as part of a massive wall oriented southwest,
towards Marine Museum”, approximate translation; see the plan at Fig. 3).
In order to explain both the massive wall’s presence there and the already
known segments of what we call here Line C (see below, 4.2.2), the same author
issued the 6th Century city’s extension hypothesis, see p. 259 and pl. II (and
also above note). These two correlated hypotheses were also propagated in
the more general historical literature, see Zahariade 2006, p. 75. Toma 2010,
p. 59 and 62, fig. 4, rejected Line E?’s theory invoking insufficient arguments,
but didn’t go further, declining the correlated ‘extension’ hypothesis.
39
Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91 and note 29.
104
from the XIXth Century with known location. They most probably
belong to a single defensive system, a continuous line along the high
shore of the Peninsula, possibly as well as Line D (at least from some
point in time, see also below, 4.2.2). Another tower was mentioned
in more recent times, close to the southern segment of Line H?.40
It’s worth mentioning that the same construction system as Gate 1
of Line A (opus quadratum or similar, dry assemblage, see below, 4.2.2)
is attested by older references for the defensive Line H?.41
4.2.2. Certain defensive lines42 (see again Fig. 3)
There are known and archaeologically attested four defensive
lines so far – lines A, B, C and D. Segments of line H? (presented
above, see 4.2.1) have been seen as ruins some time ago and in the
meantime have disappeared completely or were partially preserved
under the modern city.
Line A (see also Fig. 6), closing the city towards northwest,
consists of ca. 225 meters of curtain (ca. 3 meters width43) fitted with
two similar gates (Gate 1 and Gate 2) and one short U-shaped tower
(so-called The Butchers’ Tower, named here Tower 1). Except for the
later element, dated in the 6th century based on epigraphic evidence
(well, at least its reconstruction)44, the defensive line’s consecrated
dating is at the end of the 3rd Century, based exclusively on some
40
Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91 (tower on the shore, at the southern end of
Arhiepiscopiei Street, see the plan at Fig. 3). For the older references, Polonic
mss., f. 53-5 (curtain and two inside towers next to the old Casino, situated on
the same approximate location as today’s Casino, and a curtain with a tower
next to Carol Hotel; see the plan at Fig. 3); Michel 1862, p. 10.
41
Polonic mss., f. 55, Michel 1862, p. 10.
42
This short presentation isn’t meant to completely describe the defensive
elements’ architecture (documentation to be found in the literature quoted
below), but to point out the relevant issues in our discussion.
43
Canarache 1961, p. 19.
44
Rădulescu 1991, p. 23; Pârvan 1915, p. 416 sqq. and 418, fig. 1 (plan), 438,
fig. 3 (elevation). An inscription was found in the tower’s exterior parament,
saying the Butchers’ association funded its building (Pârvan 1915, p. 419-20,
437-9; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 86); still, it could be a rebuilding, but this
now quite difficult to establish since its structures were mostly ‘restaurated’
(Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 83).
105
Alexandra TEODOR
coins found in curtains’ emplecton, all dated between the times
of Aurelianus (270-275) and Probus (276-282)45. Although at first
opinions were more reserved, admitting a simple reconstruction
dated in these emperors’ times or later46, quite unexplainable most
of later opinions focused exclusively on considering this period as
the definite time of construction47 (see also below, 4.2.3).
Line A, Gate 1 (also named, improperly, West Gate; see Fig. 9a,
left). The most relevant documentation for its architecture is
Teodor Bănică’s study48 – with details (construction techniques,
at least) which, by obvious analogy, can be largely considered
also for Gate 2; unfortunately, this study was largely ignored in
the further literature49, although it points out some very relevant
architectural discrepancies that most probably indicate some larger
chronological gaps between Line A and Line B (see below) than
generally considered50. To sum up, the two gates’ towers have a
clearly distinct architecture than all rest of the towers found (and
more properly documented) at Tomis so far. They were probably not
towers, technically speaking, but bastions, named here TB1 and TB2
for Gate 1, respectively TB3 and TB4 for Gate 2; their dimensions are
quite similar, the fronts measuring 5 up to 6 meters, and their sides
ca. 2.8-3.5 meters. Distances between bastion-towers measure ca.
5.3 meters for Gate 1 and ca. 4.5 meters for Gate 2. They were built in
opus quadratum, with no lime, most probably using metal clamps for
assembling51. Walls’ thickness was small, of only one stone block,
Cliante 2006, p. 249-50; Rădulescu 1991, p. 28; Georgescu 1998, p. 77-79,
89, 162; Bănică 1991, p. 62 (though not convinced, see also the final phrase at
p. 65; Canarache 1961, p. 16-7; Barbu 1961, p. 204.
46
Canarache 1961, p. 16-7.
47
With only few exceptions see Suceveanu 1969, p. 348 sqq. and, largely
based on the first, Toma 2010, passim.
48
Bănică 1991.
49
Not mentioned by Rădulescu 1995-1996 (a synthesis study on the city’s
fortifications issue); Papuc, Lungu 1998; Cliante 2006 and Toma 2010.
50
Same kind of observations personally documented and stated by Toma
2010, p. 60.
51
According to Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 213, this system is typical for
the period between 2nd century-middle of the 3rd Century in Moesia Inferior
(from which Tomis was part of at that time) and Thracia; see more details for the
construction characteristics of the urban fortification of the period at p. 212-214.
45
106
of which length could have reached 1.5 meters. The towers were
most probably filled with earth, since no emplecton was found on
spot, at the discovery time. The exterior facing of the towers and the
connected curtains still preserved a special treatment (embossment)
of the stone blocks which clearly suggests that the material was
specially prepared for this construction. On site analysis is now
partially compromised by subsequent ‘restoration’ works, therefore
Bănică’s study, based on unpublished documentation prepared
before the ‘restoration’, is very important.
Line A, Tower 1 (The Butchers’ Tower; see Fig. 9a, right). It is an
U-shaped tower, measuring 7.5 meters wide and 9 meters length
(both exterior); the walls’ thickness is about 2.5 meters. The walls
were built in opus implectum faced with opus incertum – larger stone
on the outside, small stone on the inside.52
Line A, Tower 253 (east to Tower 1, west to Gate 3; see again Fig. 6),
rectangular plan, temporarily came to light in the 1960’s, but it
was never properly published. Its only (somehow) detailed and
precise topographical representation was to be found in some recent
urbanism documentation for the city center; the tower’s localization
seems to correspond to the one indicated by Canarache. For all
possibilities, this tower must have been – at least for some while –
a part of the defensive Line A, as all plans that take it into account
also seem to indicate. Only approximate dimensions are known for
this projecting rectangular tower, of about 8 meters exterior depth,
10 meters length (front) and ca. 3 meters walls’ thickness54. Compared
to TB1-4, it is most probably a true tower and not a (filled) bastion
Pârvan 1915, especially p. 416-7 and 439-41; 418, fig. 1, 438, fig. 3, 440, fig. 4.
Canarache 1961, p. 20; PUZ 2012. The tower is represented on various
plans (approximately) mapping the city walls at Zahariade 2006, p. 68, fig.
27 and 71, fig. 29, Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 253, fig. 1; Chera-Mărgineanu,
Lungu 1983, p. 229, pl. 3; Coja 1982, p. fig. 221; Cheluţă-Georgescu 1977,
p. pl. 2; Bucovală 1968, p. 270, fig. 1; Barbu 1961, p. fig. 1 (where the tower was
misplaced); Canarache 1961, p. pl. 1. Curiously, at some authors, the tower was
not represented after Gate 3 was rediscovered and its location and orientation
were better determined (1998), see Papuc, Lungu 1998, p. 202, fig. 1 (although
its presence was known and discussed, see p. 207); Cliante 2006, p. 253, fig. 1;
Băjenaru, Dobrinescu 2008, p. 199, pl. 1.
54
According to PUZ 2012 documentation.
52
53
107
Alexandra TEODOR
tower, therefore its construction date could be later than the gates’
1 and 2.
From Line B (see also Fig. 7) it was yet uncovered and published
only a gate ensemble (Gate 3), containing two elongated U-shaped
towers (named here Tower 3 and Tower 4, see Fig. 9b) flanking the
gate and the adjoining curtains55. It is to note that the gate’s baseline’
direction is practically one and the same with the modern Street
Dragoş Vodă’s axis56, and also quite different to Line A’s direction
(see below, 4.2.3). The U-shaped towers are one of the biggest known
of this type in Scythia – if not the biggest57. They measure about 11.2
x 16.8 meters (T3), respectively ca. 11 x 16,4 (T4), with wall thickness
at foundation level of about 3.7-4 meters, but probably about 3
meters at the elevation level58. An interesting functional detail is to
be mentioned: on the western wall of the Tower 3, a poterna was left
open in the masonry. This is rather usual, but what is intriguing
is its orientation, which is not – as it would have been easiest –
perpendicular to the wall’s direction, but oblique, with a ca. 300
declination, therefore being rather a very long and tight tunnel
(about 6.7 m long, 1.6 m wide). Based on material evidence, but also
on architectural analogies, the gate was also dated at the end of the
3rd Century – the beginning of the 4th Century59, about the same as
the generally accepted dating for Line A (!); at least two (probably
partial) reconstructions of the gate are also archaeologically attested.
55
CCA 2000; Papuc, Lungu 1998, especially p. 204-7 and 202-3, figs. 1-2, 205,
fig. 3 (second discovery and documentation); Lambrino 1936, with figs. 1-2
(first discovery and documentation).
56
A detail also observed by the archaeologists, see Papuc, Lungu 1998, p. 205.
57
By any rate, comparative to the eastern gate at Tropaeum Traiani, see
Bogdan Cătăniciu 1979, p. 49, fig. 25. It is to notice that these long U-shaped
towers are usually to be found, at least in Scythia, in gates’ configuration
(typically two towers flanking the proper gate), whereas single U-shaped
towers are usually smaller (see above, Line A, Tower 1) – observed here, but also
at Tropaeum Traiani (eastern and western gates), Zaldapa (northeastern gate),
Carsium (North Gate) – all rather large fortifications. Still, this observation
needs to be checked more thoroughly.
58
According to Lambrino’s plan, 1936, fig. 2.
59
See especially the most recent dating in CCA 2000. Still, from a typological
point of view, it could be dated up to the second half of the IV Century, mainly
in the Constatinian period, see also Papuc, Lungu 1998.
108
The gate is very badly preserved, especially its northern tower
(Tower 4) of which the foundation was only partially found, at its
rounded end. This is generally believed to be the cause of more
recent damages, but there is also another possible interpretation,
suggested by a picture of the Tower 3 at the date of its first
archaeological uncovering60 (see Fig. 10). Its degradation is very
‘neat’, not indicating at all a natural process of decay or a ‘blind’,
random damaging in the later times caused by new constructions
built above; the aspect of the ruin actually indicates a systematically
dismantling of the tower – and possibly, of the whole gate61. This
action could have happened most likely in Antiquity62, in a time
when important infrastructure works were still affordable.
Line C63 was uncovered on many shorter segments distributed
on two large adjoining directions: first, as an extension of Line A on
ca. 365 meters, and second connecting the first and closing the city
westward, spanning on ca. 330 m (at least what’s left today); it ended
with the harbor’s dams, entering into the Sea. No tower has been yet
properly documented on Line C or is visible today. Older references
mention two possible towers on the western side’s northern half64
(Gate 4?, pointed on the plan with high probability) and a group of
three rectangular towers towards the southern end of the line, in the
modern Harbor’s Gate 3 area65 (Gate 5?, pointed on the plan with
Lambrino 1936, fig. 1.
The same thing results from the authors’ observations: “Turnul a păstrat
pe întreaga sa întindere primul rând de blocuri deasupra temeliei, iar în partea
sa rotundă a păstrat și cel de al doilea rând.”, Lambrino 1936, p. 914 (in free
translation, only the first row of elevation blocks have been found on the sides
of the tower, and two rows for the rounded side).
62
Lambrino 1936, p. 916 mentions more coins found inside the southern
tower of the gate, of which the latest was from Justin (probably the first, not
mentioned, 518-527), but the author also agrees that the stratigraphic context
had been compromised by the further site’s use.
63
For all section referring Line C, see Cliante 2006, especially 251-2 and
plan; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 86; Canarache 1967, p. 75, 94, 101-2; Rădulescu
1966, p. 82 and fig. 1; Canarache 1961, p. 20-1 and pl. I; Polonic mss., f. 55, 62.
64
Canarache 1961, p. 20; Polonic mss., f. 55; see also Toma 2010, p. 61 and 62,
fig. 4.
65
Canarache 1967, p. 101; see also Toma 2010, p. 61 and 62, fig. 4, and PUZ
2012, where presumably one of these towers is represented.
60
61
109
Alexandra TEODOR
high probability). This defensive line is considered to date in the 6th
Century, as an extension of the city in the good days of Anastasius
(491-518) and (up to a moment) Justinianus (527-565), although the
grounds for this chronological framing aren’t conclusive at all66.
The presence of two gates on defensive Line C’s western side, at
approximately small distance one to another (less than 200 meters,
but similar to the one between Gates 1 and 2 on defensive Line A), with
implicitly two roads heading the same direction (Callatis), parallel to
the shore, could seem unjustified. However, the site’s topography also
has to be considered: the presumed Gate 4 is located at the upper level
of the Peninsula, whereas Gate 5 is located at the Sea’s level, which
is much lower (ca. 20 meters)67. Therefore, it is natural that, at least
after the high cliff was terraced, a street at the harbor’s level to have
also been set up, if not actually earlier, after the commercial port was
established. If the street was already very important and used with
intensity at the time Line C was built, as one might expect, then it is
quite explainable why the ‘lower’ gate (Gate 5) was built. On the other
hand, presumably the rest of the city, located on the high Peninsula,
also had to be served by a connection to the extra muros area (the
‘upper’ Gate 4?), where one of the main necropolises lied along the
(‘upper’) road heading to Callatis (Road B). This is exactly the situation
described by Polonic, through his city plan68.
The architectural documentation available for defensive line C
is very scarce69; at least for the published material, archaeological
evidence for Line C was only textually described and roughly
marked on a general city plan. Therefore, we only know that its
foundation segments are ca. 2.7-2.8 meters wide and were built from
stone blocked with lime mortar mixed with sand and crushed shells.
Closely to one wall fragment a large stone block was found, isolated,
probably fallen; supposedly, it was part of the defensive wall, but
See references and comments above, at section 4.2.1.D, and below, at 5.3.
Toma 2010, p. 62, fig. 4, see level curves; Canarache 1961, p. 21 (ca. 20
meters height of the Peninsula), but also the picture at fig. 9, taken before 1904,
representing the southwestern shore with the impressive ruins.
68
Polonic mss., plan, see here at Fig. 5 and also at Toma 2010, p. 62, fig. 4.
69
Basically it relies mostly on details provided by Cliante 2006, p. especially
p. 250-2.
66
67
110
one can’t know, in the light of current evidence, if it was used there
for the first time or if it was a spolia.
Line D70 (see also Fig. 8), marked by Tower 5 and the adjacent
curtains, is on sight at least since the end of the XIXth Century,
although it was never studied (?) and/or published; it may have
been also mentioned by Polonic in his notes. According to RAN
(“Repertoriul Arheologic Naţional”/“the National Archaeological
Record of Romania”), the tower dates in the Late Roman era, but
there’s actually nothing sure in this matter (no relevant bibliography
or other documentation provided); the record was probably based
on Vasile Canarache’s estimation. Unrelated to this, some authors
actually believed this tower to have represented the southwestern
end of the Early Roman defensive line crossing the Peninsula, which
is highly unlikely (see also above, 4.2.1.C, Line F?). What only seems
to be certain after the few more recent representations we could
analyze71 is that the tower may be attached to a defensive line parallel
to the shore, meant to protect the city from the very highly plausible
attacks coming from the sea (see also 4.3.1); also, most likely, it was
an interior tower (as Polonic also mentions for other areas on the Sea
shore, see above, 4.2.1.E), a detail that would highly recommend its
dating in the Early Roman period72. It was most probably reused
afterwards for an indefinable time.
4.2.3. Topographical issues (see Figs. 6, 7 and 9b)
The most bothering issue is the spatial relation between defensive
lines A and B73. In fact, it isn’t actually known74 and this generated
For all section referring Line D, see RAN, search by ‘City/Town/Village’,
then ‘Constanța’, site no. 60428.31; Canarache 1967, p. 75, 86; Canarache 1961,
p. 22; Polonic mss., f. 55: „În partea de sud și est[,] adică pe malul marei[,] se
văde urmele unui zid de apărare de 2 m gros.” (“In the southern and eastern
parts, meaning on the Sea shore, a defensive walls’ traces can be seen, having
about 2 m thickness”, free translation).
71
Orthophoto ANCPI 2008, PUZ 2012; on site analysis would surely be
necessary; unfortunately, it wasn’t possible at the time the study is written.
72
Lander 1984, p. 167-8, 232; Biernacka-Lubańska 1982, p. 200, 210.
73
Already mentioned before, see Teodor 2012, p. 7 (3.1.2) and fig. 5, but
undetailed at the time.
74
CCA 2000; Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 89.
70
111
Alexandra TEODOR
the premise for ignoring the real possibilities for them to connect
and also for promoting some most likely impossible ones. Older
representations of the general defensive system included Tower
2 and its direction is approximately a prolongation of Line A’s
direction; this is named here Line A, Variant 1. Of course, it was
at the time, by any rate, the most obvious solution. More recently
(i. e., after Gate 3/Line B was (re)discovered, in 1998), the most
frequent representation is a line connecting the curtain east of Tower
1 with the curtain west of Tower 3 (named here Line A, Variant 2).
But this latter option has at least two major flaws: (1) it is simply
invented, since no archaeological evidence of the smallest defensive
wall segment exists on its course and it is neither the prolongation
of Line A, nor of Line B, therefore it’s orientation, length and
starting points are absolutely random; (2) quite inexplicably, it
completely ignores Tower 2, which surely exists (see above, 4.2.2).
Unfortunately, this completely ungrounded hypothesis has further
on become a sort of certainty in the site’s literature, never contested
and also generating the most unexpected representations and
interpretations75.
Why was Variant 1 excluded? Well, it has never been explained,
but a simple glimpse on the detailed and georeferenced plan
indicates that it’s trace indifferently intersected Tower 4; this must
have been really difficult to be offered an interpretation, having in
consideration that the consecrated construction dating for defensive
lines A and B are rather... the same. Furthermore, Line A Variant 1
not only ‘virtually’ intersected Tower 4, but – coincidence or not –,
precisely on the intersection area between the two lines, Tower 4 is
completely dismantled, including foundations. Truthfully, that is
difficult to explain.
A single plan representing both Tower 2 and Gate 3 was found so far. The
PUZ 2012 authors proposed a whole new interpretation. Unfortunately, their
variant is a connection between the two defensive lines that intersects at the
exit point of the poterna, which was most probably misinterpreted. One also
has to note that the Gate 3 to be found at Cliante 2006, p. 253, fig. 1 is misplaced
by ca. 50 meters southeast, therefore generating a whole different trace of the
defensive line than all previously published versions.
75
112
4.3. Complementary evidence
4.3.1. The stratigraphy as evidence of repeated destructions
Unfortunately, from various reasons there is no stratigraphic data
directly connected to the already discovered defensive elements.
There were so far, in ca. 100 years of archaeological research in
Tomis, only very few archaeological contexts to provide reliable
stratigraphical data, all associated with residential areas, of which the
most relevant is to be presented here. There were two close areas with
consistent stratigraphy – Cathedral’s Park (CP) and 23 Arhiepiscopiei
Street (23A), and another further away – 7 Sulmona Street (7S)76 (see
again Fig. 3). Overall, more (possible) destructive fires were noticed:
(1) in the second half of the VIth Century BCE (CP, level N-XI?; 23A),
possibly also in the Vth Century BCE (23A, level N2); (2) at some point
towards the end (?) of the 4th Century BCE (CP, level N-VIII; 23A,
level N3); (3) on the level dated largely in the 1st-2nd Centuries CE
(CP, level N-V)77; (4) towards the end of the 3rd Century CE (CP, level
N-IV); (5?) a possible fire in the first half of the 4th Century CE (CP,
level N-III); (6) towards or at the end of the same century (CP, level
N-II); (7) and powerful fire at the middle of the 5th Century CE (CP,
level N-I2; 23A); (8) in the first half of the 6th Century (7S, N278).
4.3.2. Related known urban infrastructure and architecture (see again
Fig. 3)
A key-point to many issues about the antique city’s topograohy
would be a more reliable dating of the water gallery systems (watertanks)79 of Tomis. The theoretical variants for its general dating are
CCA 2001; Rădulescu, Scorpan 1975, p. 11 sqq. (Cathedral’s Park); Bucovală
1998, p. 181-4 (7 Sulmona Street), where only Late Roman layers were documented.
77
See also Suceveanu 1969, p. 349.
78
This level, N2, wasn’t dated (Bucovală 1998, p. 181-2), but the next one
(later, N3) was considered to represent the second half of the 6th Century –
beginning of the next, see Bucovală 1998, p. 182-4. Nothing special is recorded
for the oldest one, N1, and no chronological framing is directly suggested
except being Late Roman.
79
Largely on this issue, Papuc 2005, especially p. 70-80 (presentation) and
p. 95-8 (conclusions, dating in the Early Roman Era); for a few comments on
this, see Teodor 2012, p. 3-4 (2.2.1) and figs. 1, 5-6 (3.1.1) and figs. 3-4.
76
113
Alexandra TEODOR
the Nerva-Antonine (96-192) and Severan (193-235) dynasties, or
later – but less likely, see also below, 5.3 –, under Diocletian and/
or Constantinus I and followers (284-361), since it was an extremly
sophisticated and expensive investment. More than a dozen
terminals (shafts) of this system were documented and few others
are supposedly part of the same infrastructure project. One could
presume that at least at its conception time this water-system had
a close circuit, therefore no shaft should have been left outside the
city walls, for security reasons. Few of the remotest known shafts
are located at ca. 20 meters southeast of Gate 1 (P18) and presumably
another (P17?)80, closely south of the large basilica located outside the
hypothetical defensive Line E? – which was supposed to close the city
until the 6th Century... Also, outside Line E? is another shaft (P20),
located close to one of the (presumed) western gates81, Gate 5. If the
last two (P17? and P20) were truly part of the gallery system – and
there are many chances for them to be, since another segment of the
gallery is located in the same area, near the shore82 –, then it would
be a strong argument against the city walls’ western expansion
scenario in the last century of the Roman city’s existence. Withal, if
the water gallery system’s construction dating turns out to be in the
Severan times83, then we’d have another strong argument to consider
both defensive Line A and Line C much earlier than generally are
now – and largely contemporary to it. Another argument for this
hypothesis is the building also found above the gallery documented
close to presumable Gate 5 and to shaft P20, that was dated, based
on its general architecture and decoration, at the end of 2nd Centurybeginning of the 3rd Century84.
Presumably, because it wasn’t mentioned whether it was an isolated
shaft (i. e. reaching some natural groundwater level, which can’t be excluded)
or a part of the Roman gallery system, see Rădulescu 1966, p. 53-54 and fig. 29;
this ‘detail’ seemed quite certain for P18, which clearly communicated with
the galleries (Papuc 2005, p. 94).
81
Polonic mss., f. 64.
82
Polonic mss., f. 64, but also documented by Tafrali 1930, p. 52-3 and figs.
at pages 52-4.
83
As Papuc also suggests (2005, 97).
84
Toma 2010, p. 63-8; this building seems to be part of the south and
southwestern high cliff’s systematization into terraces, as well as the so-called
Mosaic Edifice. See also Canarache 1961, p. 21-22.
80
114
4.3.3. Numismatic iconographical data (see Fig. 11)
Quite rarely is this primary source taken into account when
discussing architectural issues at Tomis85, although there are rather
many such representations on the local coins minted in the Roman
era86. Unfortunately, the coin minting stopped with the end of
Philip the Arab’s reign (249), therefore the only possible ‘evidence’
we could benefit from resumes to the Early Roman times. From
our perspective, there can be pointed out at least two coin series
having represented a gate (maybe the same?) with two rectangular
(?) flanking towers: one is dated in the time of Geta (210-2), and
another in the time of Severus Alexander (222-35)87 (see Fig. 11, top).
At any rate, these iconographical representations must have had an
historical ground, either a simple repair work (?) of some already
existing defensive structures, either a new constructive work – more
likely a whole defensive line rather than a simple gate –, one that
would require imperial support. No further allegations will be made
here, since our purpose was only to highlight, once more, these
iconographical representations as potential arguments in the larger
and complex scenario of the urban defensive system’s chronology
and topographical evolution.
85
For the defensive system, this issue was brought up by Vasile Canarache
(1961, p. 16 and fig. 3); still, the example presented proved not to be a gate,
but more likely a triumphal arch, see also Preda 1968, p. 232, no. 57 and 236,
no. 61 and here, Fig. 11, bottom. Other coins’ reverse representations were
later used by Suceveanu in his own arguing for an earlier dating of the city’s
precinct (here, Line A), see Suceveanu 1969, p. 348 and note54. Another use of
numismatic iconographical argument (among others) related to a temple in
Tomis, at Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu 2011, p. 59 and note 29.
86
City gates: Covacef Z 1980, p. 267 and pl. VIII.1; Preda 1968, p. 232, no.
50; triumphal arches: Preda 1968, p. 232, no. 57 and 236, no. 61; temples (most
of the architectural representations): wildwinds.com/moushmov/tomis. A
synthesis on this subject (architectural representations on coins), for Dobruja,
would be extremely useful.
87
For the Geta coin, the published image has a very bad quality, see Covacef
Z 1980, p. 267 and pl. VIII.1, therefore no comparison was possible; for Severus
Alexander coin, see Preda 1968, p. 232, no. 50, reproduced here at Fig. 11, top.
115
Alexandra TEODOR
5. Discussions and Hypotheses
(see again Fig. 3, 6-10)
5.1. Defensive Line A. As seen above, in section 4.1, although the
Early Roman necropolis’ limits are rather unclear – especially because
not few are the cases when the graves are dated on a large span, say
1-2nd or 2nd-3rd Centuries (a ‘detail’ which at some point can be crucial),
but also because not all funerary evidence are thoroughly mapped
when published88 –, still apparently no contemporary funerary
discovery seems to cross (towards the city) the southern and western
limits marked in Fig. 4 for the 2nd-3rd Centuries necropolis (NL2 and
NL3)89. This allows us to consider that defensive Line A theoretically
could have been contemporary to the 2nd-3rd Centuries necropolis.
Besides the ‘consecrated hypothesis’ regarding defensive
Line A’s construction date (see above, 3), there is also another
– largely disregarded –, that dates it much earlier than usually
considered, i. e. towards the beginning of the 2nd Century90. It
relied on the funerary evidence at that time91, on the numismatic
representations (see also above, 4.3, notes) and generally on the
grounds of the city’s great development in the Early Roman
times, seen through – among others – the rich epigraphic
evidence and its status as Metropolis of the Western Black Sea
Greek cities’ community. The whole hypothesis was later easily
dismissed after the discovery of a funerary area dated most
probably in the first half of the 2nd Century, located inside Line A92,
It is only a general observation made on the brief process of mapping the
most relevant funerary evidence; an inventory of such cases wasn’t intended,
though.
89
The same observation at Suceveanu 1969, p. 348.
90
Suceveanu 1969, p. 349. It wasn’t rejected by Georgescu 1998, p. 89 and
notes 62-5, still the ‘consecrated’ one was preferred, see p. 78-9. It was admitted
by Toma 2010, p. 72 passim, though suggesting a later date, in second half of
the 2nd Century.
91
Barbu 1961 and Bucovală 1966, see Suceveanu 1969, p. 348, n. 53. Still,
the 2nd Century cremation grave found on Marc Aureliu Street, published by
Zirra, Alexandrescu 1957, p. 89 was ignored by all quoted sources.
92
In the sector south of Gate 3, where a large (episcopal?) basilica was
found, partially overlapping an amphitheater, see Rădulescu 1991, p. 28
88
116
and the discovery of some coins dated in the last quarter of the 3rd
Century in the emplecton of Line A’s curtain walls – ignoring, as
previously mentioned, the possibility that they could simply indicate
a reconstruction. However, besides the funerary evidence mentioned
above, that so far allows an earlier dating than the consecrated one,
the details regarding the constructions found in the presumed Gate
5 area are key points in this issue. The marble finished building on
the coast line, near the named gate, was dated towards the end of the
2nd Century – first part of the 3rd Century; together with the so-called
Mosaic Edifice ensemble, these constructions point out the high cliffs’
unitary systematization (at least) along the whole southwestern
shore. Both buildings were constructed above the sophisticated
water gallery system having terminals (shafts) spread all over the
surface closed by defensive Line A. Last, but not least, Line A gates’
(1 and 2) typology and construction system speak broadly of an
earlier defensive work than the ones an imperial army would have
built at the end of the 3rd Century. We consider all these are strong
arguments for the earlier dating of Line A than usually considered,
except not at the beginning of the 2nd Century, but rather towards the
end of the 2nd Century – first part of the 3rd Century. Its construction
may have been necessary as an effect of the general development
from the Severan dynasty’s period, that followed the Costoboces’
devastating invasion from 170 (presumably to also have affected our
city and implicitly the city wall, see 4.3.1, no. 3); therefore, it is likely
that a larger defensive line was needed at these times.
5.2. Defensive Line B. We’ve seen that Line B strongly indicates a
different topographical approach (including a different orientation)
of the defensive walls compared to Line A, and also a different
military architecture. The fact that Line B’ direction is practicaly
overlapped by a modern street is also worth of giving a thought,
afterall Ferdinand Bulevard’s topography is, for most of its
northeastern course (and implicitly the southwestern), nothing but
(for Suceveanu’s hypothesis rejection and graves’ dating), 29-34 and fig. 4-6
(basilica), 30, 35 (amphitheater). See a possibly more refined graves’ dating
(end of first Century, first half of the 2nd Century ) at Georgescu 1998, p. 71 and
also p. 60 for the spatial references used there – if the author refers to the same
funerary area, which is uncertain.
117
Alexandra TEODOR
a sequel of the defensive Line A’ presence93. On the other hand, there
is no doubt that Line B was built sometimes at the end of 3rd-first half
of 4th Century, therefore (according to our chronological perspective)
almost a century after Line A was probably built. Line B’s Gate 3
seems to have functioned for some long time, but ultimately it has
probably been dismantled, most likely still during Antiquity (see
above, section 4.2.2). Supposedly in the 6th Century, Tower 1 was (re)
built on Line A, a fact that actually proves their functioning in this
period – also attested by the two Christian basilicas behind Line C.
This leaves us with one big question and also few others correlated,
at this point all rather difficult to answer:
Q1.Was Line B part of a different defensive system than Line A?
If the answer is yes,
Q1.A. What generated the city’s defensive line reduction?
Q1.B. What was Line B’ course and where did it close?
Q1.C. What happened to Line A when Line B was built and
while it functioned?
Q1.D. Why later was Line B dismantled (if it truly was) and
what generated the city’s (new) expansion?
If the answer is no,
Q1.E How could Tower 2’s presence be explained in relation
to Gate 3? Could they have actually functioned together
from a military (defensive) point of view?
Q1.F Subsequently, from an architectural and topographical
point of view, how was their joint resolved?
No one can offer a final answer to any of these questions in
the current state of knowledge, but only hypotheses meant to be
defended or dismissed, later on.
Gate 3 is a reflection of the late 3 rd-4 th Century defensive
architecture; undoubtedly, it was an imperial construction, meant to
protect the new provincial Capital and to highly represent imperial
power, probably being the biggest gate of its type in Scythia. Why
Ferdinand Bd. and the parallel street north to it (with houses between
them) overlap what probably used to be the ditches area in front of the city
walls or even a street/road parallel to it, see Polonic’s plan at Fig. 5. For the
antique heritage in the modern city’s street network, see also below, 5.5.
93
118
the imperial authorities would have chosen a different defensive
line than previous – if they did (Q1.A)? The only explanation we
could offer at this point is that it could have been preferred a shorter,
straight line (Q1.B: ca. 700 meters on Line B’s direction, most plausible
to be found on today’s Dragoş Vodă Street, see also below, 5.5),
but better defended, compared to a longer, multiple braked one
(ca. 1100 meters on Line C-Line A’s traces), and weaker in front of
the potential enemies. Also, from a technical point of view, it could
have probably been preferred a new construction (a fundamentis),
rather than a complicated adaptation of new military architecture
to older one. To sum up, it could have been a pragmatic option. If
this actually happened, then the space between Line B and Lines A
and C (?) could have remained residential, since no funeral evidence
was found for the Late Roman Era (Q1.C); probably Lines A and C
weren’t even destroyed.
Further on, why the 6th Century authorities would have given up
on Line B (since Gate 3 was dismantled) and have returned to Lines
A and C (since Tower 1 was now (re)built) (Q1.D)? Besides a possible
destruction of the city at the middle of the 5th Century (see below),
other causes should be identified in order to justify the presumed
enlarged area.
As for the possible construction and reconstruction occasions
(again, reffering to Q1.A and D), we’ve seen there were
archaeologically attested no less than six, maybe eight, serious
distructions during the whole Antiquity, at least in some parts of
the city (see 4.3.1). Although the few points where these destructions
are attested94 are not necessarily relevant for all city, they are – for
now – the only physical evidence to count on. Three (or maybe four)
destructions occured most probably after the Line A was built and
no less than two (or maybe three) occured most probably after Line B
was built (therefore, one clear destruction between their presumed
construction time, in our view). It is therefore a possibility that the
premises for Line B were due to the fire dated towards the end of 3rd
Century (idem, no. 4), which could have altered Line A. Most likely
at the time of the destruction attested in the 6th Century (idem, no. 8)
See also gzt.ro-3 2013 for indications regarding a possibly general fire
destruction in the Late Roman Era.
94
119
Alexandra TEODOR
Line A and C were functional, therefore this leaves us with the most
plausible Line B’s destruction caused by the violent attacks in the
middle of the 5th Century (idem, no. 7). Given its neat appearance,
it was probably dismantled during the massive construction works
associated with Anastasius and Justinianus’ reigns, when apparently
efforts were concentrated on reconstructing or simply repairing the
defensive Lines A and C and also of the nearby large basilicas.
Regarding the question Q1.E, other authors have already
expressed their opinions tending towards a negative answer95; we
couldn’t find any arguments in the opposed direction. Question Q1.F
could only be answered based on more precise topographical data
and, ideally, by some more consistent archaeological evidence.
5.3. Defensive Line C. Apparently, defensive Line E? which was
considered to have closed Line A westwards has no archaeological
ground. Furthermore, Line E?’s hypothetical direction is largely
incompatible, from a topographic point of view, with the water
gallery network it would probably cross over at the lower levels,
also leaving outside P18 (highly probable a gallery systems’ shaft).
There is also another basic topographical incompatibility to be noted:
the ca. 20 meters level difference between the high shore and the sea
level are supposed to be cut by the city wall on an angle of ca. 500,
which is highly unlikely at least from a constructive point of view.
It is important to note that if this defensive line never existed, then
we’ll have to answer to the question:
Q2. Where did the city walls close on the western side before the
6th Century?
Well, no other defensive walls than Line C’s segments are yet
uncovered in this direction... On the other hand, the only few
available architectural details regarding Line C (the apparent high
Papuc, Lungu 1998, p. 207, though the situation was most probably
ambiguously understood; the author quotes the same source (Canarache 1961,
p. 20) referring at – presumably – two different towers: the one east to Tower
1, that is Tower 2, as argument to consider Gate 3 contemporary to Line A; and
another (?) tower, at ca. 100 meters northwest (actually, west) to Gate 3, considered
incompatible with it (names according to our conventions); but Canarache 1961,
p. 20 only mentions one tower alone in this area, and that is our Tower 2.
95
120
quality mortar, for example) also point out towards an earlier dating
than 6th Century; furthermore, no funerary evidence known so far
crossed this defensive line later than 1st-2nd Centuries. Therefore,
one can count already enough arguments to at least hypothetically
consider Line C contemporary and, basically, one and the same with
Line A.
5.4. Defensive line towards the Sea. It is highly probable that the
wall segments named here D and H were part of the same defensive
line, i. e. the one that surrounded the (upper) city, towards the Sea. In
this area the defensive line most likely didn’t change much. We can’t
precisely date them in the current light of knowledge, but one can
assume, being known their fortification elements’ typology (interior
rectangular towers) and construction system (opus quadratum, dry
assemblage), that they are likely to having been built in the Early
Roman times (possibly contemporary to Line A and probably C),
eventually at some parts (the southern ones) superimposing older
fortifications (maybe Greek).
On the other hand, one could easily observe that all the up
mentioned segments (D and H) are located on the high level of the
Peninsula, therefore leaving the warehouses and the rich buildings
above them outside the presumed city wall, exposed to possible
attacks from the Sea96. If the early dating hypotheses (Severan age)
of Lines A and C, and also of the shore buildings turn to be right, a
question that needs to be answered is:
Q3. What was the spatial relation between them, or how did they
function together, without altering their main purposes?97
Still, these buildings on the shore probably weren’t completely
exposed to the Sea. Besides the antique traces of a dam observed
by Polonic as a prolongation of Line C towards the Sea, there may
96
To note that Cathedral’s Park sector is almost 1 km away from the closest
known gate of the city (Gate 3 or ‘The Main Gate’, see Fig. 3), but only 100-200
meters away from the Sea; the Sulmona Street sector is ca. 400 meters away
from the same Gate 3, but also much closer to the sea (see Fig. 3). This means
that either most of the city was destroyed, either it was attacked (also) by the
Sea – if the fire was the result of an attack. See also 4.3.1.
97
See also Rădulescu 1995-1996, p. 91-2.
121
Alexandra TEODOR
be relevant the (only) underwater investigations carried so far and
published some time ago by Constantin Scarlat98. They both point
out that the southern shore was most probably screened by a dam
closing an artificial harbor. Judging by the spatial relation between
the dam seen by Polonic and Line C, it is likely that they were part
of the same project.
5.5. The gates and the presumable street network (see Fig. 12)
Theoretically, as already mentioned, necropolises’ limit lines
towards the city would mark the remotest possible position of the
contemporary defensive line and implicitly the gates’ remotest
possible location. As mentioned before (for all, see above, 4.1), there
were identified three such possibly relevant limits: NL1, delimiting
the 1-2nd Centuries funerary area – eventually also the Greek one –,
and NL2-NL3, delimiting the 2 nd-3 rd Centuries funerary area
northwards and westwards – most probably also the Late Roman
funerary limits. Behind those limits (i. e. towards the city), along
the hypothetical road lines were marked the remotest theoretical gate
locations: G1, for the first part of the Early Roman Era (also Greek?),
along Road A; for the second part of the Early Roman era, G2 along
Road A, G3 along Road D, and G4 along Road C.
Quite closely to G3 we find the real Gate 1 (ca. 60 meters), and very
close to G4 the real Gate 2; still, it’s not so much the small distance
that’s relevant, but the presence of the real gates on these road lines
that, according to funeral evidence, date back to the 2nd-3rd Centuries
or maybe earlier. True, it’s difficult to say which was first – the gate
or the road connecting it to the territory? So we may assume that the
roads were already used when the city fortified area grew, and city
gates were placed along them; therefore, the actual (largely) terminus
post quem is the above mentioned time interval, and not the coins
found in the wall of defensive Line A.
It’s not completely excluded for a third gate to correspond to
point G2 on Line A, at its intersection to Road A, since the last was
probably the oldest and most important road connecting the city to
its territory.
Scarlat 1975, p. 257-72 and fig. 8; see also comments at Teodor 2012, p. 3-4
(2.2.1) and fig. 1, also 5-6 (3.1.1) and figs. 3-4.
98
122
Defensive Line B’s Gate 3 is located at about 70 meters eastwards
from the theoretical limit (G2) marked on Road A, and the gate’s axis
is at about 50-60 meters northeastwards to the road’s hypothetical
axis, therefore it is possible for them to actually have overlapped
in reality, meaning the road’s axis could have passed through Gate
3; still, that is not necessary, since Gate 3’s street/road could have
been a simple variant to Road A. In this matter, we’ve found some
indirect clues in the following hypothesis: that in the northern half
of the antique city many road/street variants (parallels) existed back
then quite approximately as they also exist today, in the modern city.
This hypothesis resulted from comparing relations between antique
related elements (both theoretical and real) with the actual street
network.
An interesting relationship was observed between the
already known gates (gates 1-5) and the theoretical ones without
correspondent (G1, G2). It is to be expected that when the city
developed, say from the defensive Line G? to the defensive Line A,
the old theoretical city gate (G1) was disposed; still, its place must
have been quite an important spot, firstly because it was located in
a very tight area of the Peninsula (presumably somewhere on the
northwestern line of the Ovidiu Square). Therefore, we can assume
it could have been the starting point to the street network tracing
of the city’s new area, connecting it with the new gates. Two, but
maybe three or even four new gates opened through the new city
walls (Line A and presumably Line C); therefore, most probably the
old gate’s spot (G1) was connected to the new gates through streets,
as they were before connected through roads. Let’s see how these
streets could have lined up.
We’ve connected theoretical point G1 to the known real gates
(1, 2 and 3) and to the theoretical gate point, G2, since it has no real
correspondent known so far; there resulted four hypothetical streets
(from west to east, named by the correspondent road): Street 1C (G1Gate 1); Street 1D (G1-Gate 2); Street 1A (G1-G2); Street 1E (G1-Gate 3).
We have yet no archaeological evidence to sustain these street paths,
but there’s something else that may count. If we take a look at the
123
Alexandra TEODOR
up mentioned street paths overlapped on today’s street network, we
may notice the following99:
- Street 1C is closely parallel to Traian Street (its southeastern end),
at about 10-12 meters north; they run parallel for about 280100
meters starting from Ovidiu Square’s northwestern line, after
which our hypothetical street runs free for about 460 meters;
- Street 1D is practically coincidental to Tomis Bd. for about 370
meters starting from Ovidiu Square’s northwestern line and is
doubled by other urban features for about another 100 meters,
then runs free for another 200 meters;
- Street 1A is possible to approximate to Ecaterina Varga Street’s
course, although the latter follows a slightly broken line; it
doesn’t start from Ovidiu Square, but about 200 meters north
from it. Still, our hypothetical street runs along today’s street
for all of its course, measuring up to ca. 440 meters, until it
meets Ferdinand Bd. (i. e. approximately the line of the former
defensive Line A);
- Finally, Street 1E has no correspondent in the present street
network; still, if there’s something to learn from the previous
three correspondences, then we could assume that G1 may
have been connected to Gate 3 through a hypothetical street
following roughly today’s Mircea cel Bătrân Street.
Apparently, this would mean that in the northern half of the
antique city, what is now a (major) street may as well have been in
the Roman times. Therefore, if the defensive Line B is now roughly
overlapped by Dragoş Vodă Street101, it’s course may as well have
been a street in the 6th Century – an argument that enforces the
assumption of Gate 3’s dismantling in Antiquity102.
Basically similar (empirical) observations related to the antique street
network, at Georgescu 1998, p. 92-3.
100
All distances are measured in straight lines.
101
See also Toma 2010, p. 58 and 62, figs. 2 and 3 for plans representing old
medieval city’s street network, containing also this street.
102
A partially similar case is known at Histria, where during the Late Roman
period a part of the former Hellenistic southern and northern defensive lines
(initially reused) were transformed into streets after the city walls’ extension in
both directions, see Domăneanţu, Sion 1982, p. 379-84 (phases A and B).
99
124
Related to Gates’ 4 and 5 connections to the intra muros street
network, the site’s topography doesn’t leave many options. Starting
from Gate 4 there probably was a street having similar direction to
Traian Street (its middle-eastern course), towards the center and
probably intersecting Street 1C; we’ve called it here Street 1B. From
Gate 5, most likely the harbor’s street had a similar trace to our days’
Portului Street; we’ve called it here Street 1B’103.
The established relationship between the hypothetical antique
street network and the modern one for the area analyzed is, if not
surprising, at least encouraging to the idea that these streets’ baseline
topography didn’t change much from Antiquity. If the assumption is
true, then we could consider having also a theoretical confirmation
for the Early Roman gate to be found somewhere close to the
theoretical one, G1 – one of the starting points in our investigation
regarding the street network.
5.6. The Roman agora? (see again Fig. 12)
Continuing last point’s hypothesis, if the former (theoretical) gate
location G1 was at the time when defensive Line A was built (and
ever since) the intersection of three, maybe four streets, it must have
been quite an important site of the enlarged city (as it is today, see
the plan). Its formerly assumed importance and potential role as an
agora104, being given the special location in the tightest area of the
Peninsula and the near presence of the so-called Mosaic Edifice (in
fact, most probably a civil basilica), later also possibly a Christian
basilica on the opposite side of the square105, is now reinforced by
the arguments regarding the street network concentrating in this
area (see above, 5.5).
103
Obviously, this implies a correspondent Road 1B’, parallel and south to
Road 1B, both heading to Callatis; it was not represented on Figure 4 because
it wasn’t determined or supported by funerary evidence – at least, not in the
city walls’ proximity.
104
Toma 2010, p. 69-70; Canarache 1966, p. 3-4. It doesn’t mean this was
also the Greek agora. If the defensive line in that period really was around Line
G?, it is less likely because their proximity, therefore it should be searched
somewhere in the southern half of the Peninsula.
105
Lungu 2000, p. 69-70; see here on plan at Fig. 3, point 10.
125
Alexandra TEODOR
Lastly, it is important to note here two other details that may be
connected to this place – as mentioned, possibly the city’s agora. First,
is that recently a solar clock was discovered in the Ovidiu Square
area106, also underlining the spot’s high public importance in the
city’s life (assuming its discovery location was close to the place
where it was originally installed). Second, there is a very interesting
numismatic evidence – also rather ignored by authors concerned by
urban Tomis – representing a monument that only now can be given
a potential location: a coin series dated in the time of Maximinus
Thrax (235-8), representing most likely a triumphal arch with three
openings. Most likely, its impact would have been best achieved
by locating it at the agora’s main entrance(s) coming from the city’s
gates, somewhere at the intersection of the upmentioned streets, in
the present Ovidiu Square area.
6. Further Research and Good Practice
Instead of systematicaly pointing out research directions for each
of the raised issues here, which are somehow implicit (most of them
require archaeological verification), I prefer listing only the large,
general directions for this site.
6.1. A precise topographic digital documentation of all unearthed
ruins of the antique city and all the ones that will be uncovered in
the future must be made107. The lack of a precise topographic support
may be one of the main causes for all faulty associations between
the known defensive elements. All the above mentioned hypotheses
should also be checked108 after the precise topographic data will be
collected.
gzt.ro-3 2013.
Such an archaeological documentation should exist, indifferent to the
site’s status as a systematically or rescue investigated archaeological site.
Moreover, this documentations’ existence publicly (online, for free use) would
be very useful for both research and protecting the modern city’s archaeological
heritage.
108
Most of the key elements discussed here – Line A and B walls’ location
and orientation – were mapped as precise as possible given the available data
– published plans for gates 1 and 3 and Tower 1, overlapped on georeferenced
good quality orthophoto. Still, undoubtedly our topographic data must be
106
107
126
6.2. A thorough digital layered integration of all known (both
published and yet unpublished) topographical data regarding the
antique (eventualy medieval and modern) city must be done in order
to enable one to customly analyze different urban aspects of the
city, starting from the defensive systems, infrastructure (terraces,
water systems, drainage etc.), ending with the smallest residential
complexes. All these elements are intimely connected one to another,
therefore the whole relational system must be understood in order
to get ‘the big picture’ related to the city’s evolution. Where specific
topographic data (drawn) isn’t available, all textual references
should be mapped as precise as possible.
6.3. Having the above points satisfyingly checked, further
interpretations and deductions have to be made in order to better
understand all the integrated data, ideally in a digital multilayered
environment109. A thorough hypotheses’ evidence must be kept, in
order to be easily revisited, as in a programmers pipeline: ‘if-thenelse’ (briefly illustrated above, see 5.2), as complex at it may be.
6.4. Whenever possible, if adequate, surface investigations
(largely, geophisycal in this case) should be made in order to
systematically filling the puzzle. Also, any archaeological rescue
mission in the Peninsula should use the (presumable) data gathered
in order to conceive a project-based research task meant to squize all
possible information one could list for the offered spot. The antique
city actually can reveal itself, with one condition: really wanting to
see it and using all available tools and tehniques for this purpose.
Only after these points will be more or less covered, we’ll be
entitled to say that Tomis’ remains are properly documented and
investigated for the XXIst Century. Furthermore, any responsible
digital reconstruction of the antique city or its elements should be
connected to the above listed points and its details ‘proportional’ to
the acquired knowledge. Last, but no least, no restoration project
confronted to another data set, ideally georeferenced digital topographic
measurements, in order for its accuracy to be improved.
109
The software market is very generous, therefore the main condition in
any such project should be the data set’s interoperability (meaning especially
georeferenced and vector data), indifferent to one’s working environment. For
our project’s details, see above, section 2 and notes.
127
Alexandra TEODOR
should begin before the detailed archaeological, topographical,
architectural and related documentation is done, as it had
unfortunately happend for defensive Line A’s uncovered elements.
7. Conclusions
Although some of them uncovered for a long time now – and
others more recently –, the defensive elements of Tomis don’t seem to
have been precisely documented and, therefore, were most probably
often misinterpreted. This insight was meant to reopen some ignored
hypotheses and to open new ones regarding the defensive elements’
topography and roughly their chronology, and to confront them to
the consecrated ones. Both the study’s approach and its presentation
followed the same methodological steps, seeking and underlining
connections between funerary evidence – possible roads – known/
possible defensive lines and gates – possible street network.
One of the main conclusions is that the so-called Late Roman
defensive line’s construction date is most likely earlier than
generaly considered (here, Line A). As previously noticed already,
it could date with high probability in the Severan era, as well as
the terracing along the southwestern shore, best documented at
the so-called Mosaic Edifice, but also other infrastructure works,
such as the water gallery system extended throughout whole its
intra muros area. Compared to the recent and similar chronological
allegations mentioned, here were assembled some suplimentary
arguments for its earlier dating (for instance, the gates’s typology
and the construction details published by Bănică, basically ignored
previously, as well as their correspondence to the segments on the
Sea shore). Few ‘details’ left undiscussed were also pointed out. First,
it is the so-called 6th Century city wall extension (here, Line C), which
most likely is one and the same with the here supposed Severan
defensive line (Line A). Second, the questionable topographical
relation of the latter with the so-called Main Gate (here, Gate 3), an
undisputable Tetrarchic or Constantinian military construction.
Third, the highly plausible Gate 3’s dismantling during Antiquity
and, therefore, the hypothetical complications deriving from this.
128
Another conclusion is that the city most probaby did have – at
least for some while – city walls towards the Sea, on the high level
of the Peninsula, therefore being protected by a closed defensive
line configuration; by its typology and construction system it is
to be dated the latest in the Early Roman period. What has to be
established is for how long did the shore defensive walls function
and what was their spatial and chronological relation to the buildings
on the shore. Also, it seems quite clear, as previosuly stated, that
the Roman city had an artificial harbor; we might add that it was
probably part of the same project as the city walls (Lines A and C)
and the terracing system along the shore.
If we sum up, the inventory of elements which could be assigned
to the Severan period (the artificial harbor, the most extended city
walls, the water gallery system, the high shore’s terracing and the
corresponding public buildings and warehouses) leads us to the
conclusion that this period was, at least from a constructive point
of view, the peak of this city’s development. Therefore, by its
configuration and infrastructure, Tomis is an authentic Early Roman
city, later on more or less modified, mostly at the built stock level
and mainly by the emergence of the Christian official architectural
program.
One last conclusion regards the antique main street network;
though its possible configuration has been previously empirically
inferred, here its (hypothetical) confirmation was an indirect result
to the methodological deductions followed. It seems that, despite the
already noticed fact that in the southern Peninsula the street network
most probably changed in the modern times110, in the northern area
of the antique city the main street network may have actually been
extremely well conserved up to our days; this observation was
probably the main input of the methodological approach.
Teodor 2012, p. 7-8 (3.1.3) and figs. 6-7; Coja 1982, fig. 221. A different
opinion at Toma 2010, p. 72 and 62, fig. 4.
110
129
Figure 1. (Left) Presentation panel next to the northern gate (Gate 2, here), in September 2013, saying: “Tomis city’s
fortifications, with two gates [sic!] and more defense towers. The western gate [Gate 1, here, but not the one pictured] is
flanked by two towers and still preserves the stepping area and its framework. Through it, the connection with southern
littoral cities was made. / The northern gate [the one pictured], 2.5 meters wide. It connected Tomis to the regions’ northern
and inside territories.” Actually, the visitor would really need to have good orientation skills in order to realize which of the
gates one enters. (Right) Entrance to the northern gate, rebuilt similarly to the western one – for which more archaeological
data was available (see text, 4.2.2); its height is neither slightly completing the ruins, neither offering the realistic
reconstructed volume, but it’s just perfect for children’s play.
Alexandra TEODOR
130
Figure 2. Virtual reconstructions (VR) of the city’s defensive system: (VR1, left) cerva.ro/tomis/; (VR2, right) cjc.ro (screenshots).
Both VR ignore Tower 2 (see the text, 4.2.2). In VR1-top, the harbor has no protection (dams) and the high shore’s (sic!) terraces
are only represented for the so-called Mosaic Edifice, leaving the rest of the shore area green; besides the fortification lines that
generally respect the known defensive elements, the urbanistical restitution (VR1-middle and bottom) is pure imagination,
without streets and each building having its own orientation (!). VR2 is more ‘fair’ (not representing the unknown), but is faulty at
least for Line C’s representation (top: no apparent angle between northern and western sides, see also Fig. 3).
131
Figure 3. Tomis. Defensive elements (archaeologically attested and hypothetical) and places mentioned in the text.
For references see the text, section 4.
Alexandra TEODOR
132
Figure 4. Funerary evidence (4th Century BCE – 7th Century CE), late 19th Century visible (funerary?) mounds (apud
Polonic mss., see Fig. 5); possible road axes indicated by the funerary evidence’ distribution; and possible gate locations
on the route roads considering necropolises’ known limits. For references see the text, section 4.1.
133
Figure 5. Pamfil Polonic’s plan (Polonic mss.): (a, left) georeferenced, overlapped with the present topographical plan,
see legend and scale attached; (b, top-right) the original, no precise scale, to be compared to a. The georeferencing process
implied some specific ‘deformations’ of the original plan, best visible at the plan’s borders (straight for the original,
‘deformed’ for the georeferenced one).
Alexandra TEODOR
134
Figure 6. Defensive Line A on orthophoto (ANCPI 2005). For references see the text, 4.2.2.
135
Figure 7. Defensive Line B on orthophoto (ANCPI 2005) and possible connections to Line A. For references see the text, 4.2.2.
Alexandra TEODOR
136
Figure 8. Defensive Line D on orthophoto (ANCPI 2008) (left) and detail (right). For references see the text, 4.2.2.
137
Figure 9a. Architectural details overlapped on orthophoto (ANCPI 2008), Line A. Detailed plans for Gate 1 (left, Bănică
1991, 64, fig. 9) and Tower 1 (right, Pârvan 1915, 440, fig. 4). For further references see the text, 4.2.2.
Alexandra TEODOR
138
Figure 9b. Architectural details overlapped on orthophoto (ANCPI 2008), Line B. Plans for Gate 3: yellow, Lambrino 1936,
p. 913, fig. 2; magenta, Papuc, Lungu 1998, p. 203, fig. 2. For further references see the text, 4.2.2.
139
140
(RIGHT) Figure 11. Architecture represented on coins minted in Tomis: top, city gate (apud Preda 1968, p. 234, no. 50);
bottom: triumphal arch – left, unidentified (apud Canarache 1961, p. 16, fig. 3); right, from Maximinus Thrax (235-8)
(apud Preda 1968, p. 234, no. 57a). See also the text, 4.3.3 and 5.6.
(LEFT) Figure 10. The southwestern tower of Gate 3 (Tower 3) at the first discovery, in the 1930’s
(Lambrino 1936, fig. 1); to be noticed the neat aspect of the ruin, most probably the result of the walls’ systematical
dismantling. See also the text, 4.2.2.
Alexandra TEODOR
Figure 12. Presumed Roman street network’s axes, as resulted from the study,
and their spatial relation with the present street network; see the text, 5.5.
141
Alexandra TEODOR
Bibliography
Vasile Barbu, Considération chronologiques basées sur les
données fournies par les inventaires funéraires des nécropoles
tomitaines, Studii Clasice, 3, 1961, p. 203-25.
Băjenaru,
Constantin Băjenaru, Cătălin Dobrinescu, Săpături de
Dobrinescu
salvare în necropola romană a Tomisului, Pontica, 41, 2008,
2008
p. 189-99.
Bănică 1991
Teodor Bănică, Tomis: Poarta nr. 1 a incintei fortificate,
Revista Monumentelor Istorice, 2, 1991, p. 62-65.
BiernackaMałgorzata Biernacka-Lubańska, The Roman and EarlyLubańska 1982 Byzantine fortifications of Lower Moesia and Northern
Thrace, Wrocław, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1982.
Bogdan
Ioana Bogdan Cătăniciu, Incinta. Structura, datare, istorie,
Cătăniciu 1979 in Ion Barnea et al. (ed), Tropaeum Traiani I. Cetatea,
Bucureşti, Editura Academiei R. S. R., 1979, p. 47-63.
Bucovală 1967 Mihai Bucovală, Necropole elenistice la Tomis, Constanţa,
Muzeul Regional de Arheologie Dobrogea, 1967.
Bucovală 1968 Mihai Bucovală, Noi morminte de epocă romană timpurie la
Tomis, Pontica, 1, 1968, p. 269-306.
Bucovală 1975 Mihai Bucovală, Un alt mormînt din epoca elenistică la
Tomis, Pontica, 8, 1975, p. 375-88.
Bucovală 1995 Mihai Bucovală, Un alt mormânt elenistic descoperit la
Tomis, Pontica, 28-29, 1995-1996, p. 73-82.
Bucovală 1998 Mihai Bucovală, Raport preliminar privind cercetările
arheologice cu caracter de salvare din Constanţa, strada
Sulmonei nr. 7, Pontica, 31, 1998, p. 171-200.
Bucovală, Pașca Mihai Bucovală, Cecilia Paşca, Descoperiri recente în
1988-1989
necropolele de epocă romană şi romano-bizantină la Tomis,
Pontica, 21-22, 1988-1989, p. 123-61.
Bucovală, Pașca Mihai Bucovală, Cecilia Paşca, Descoperiri recente în
1991
necropola romană de sud-vest a Tomisului, Pontica, 24, 1991,
p. 185-236.
Bucovală,
Mihai Bucovală, Cecilia Paşca, Cercetări în necropola romană
Paşca 1992
de vest a Tomisului (1992), Pontica, 25, 1992, p. 241-72.
Buzoianu,
Livia Buzoianu, Maria Bărbulescu, Tomis. Comentariu
Bărbulescu
istoric și arheologic / Historical and Archaeological
2012
Commentary, Muzeul de Istorie Națională și Arheologie
Constanța, 2012.
Barbu 1961
142
Canarache 1961 Vasile Canarache, Tomis, Bucureşti, Meridiane, 1961.
Canarache 1966 Vasile Canarache, Edificiul cu mozaic din Tomis, Bucureşti,
1966.
Canarache et
Vasile Canarache, Adrian Rădulescu, Andrei Aricescu, and
al. 1963
Vasile Barbu, Tezaurul de sculpturi de la Tomis, Bucureşti,
1963.
CheluţăNicolae Cheluţă-Georgescu, Contribuţii la topografia
Georgescu 1977 Tomisului în sec. VI e. n.,Pontica, 10, 1977, p. 253-60.
CheraConstantin Chera-Mărgineanu, Noi morminte din necropolele
Tomisului, Pontica, 12, 1979, p. 247-250.
Mărgineanu
1979
CheraConstantin Chera-Mărgineanu, Virgil Lungu, Contribuţii
Mărgineanu,
la cunoaşterea unor necropole creştine ale Tomisului (II),
Lungu 1983
Pontica, 16, 1983, p. 217-30.
Cliante 2006
Laurenţiu Cliante, Un nou segment al incintei tomitane
târzii, Pontica, 39, 2006, p. 249-58.
Coja 1982
Maria Coja, Les fortifications grecques dans les colonies de la
côte ouest du Pont Euxin, in La fortification dans l’histoire
du monde grec, P. Leriche, H. Tréziny (eds.), CNRS
Colloque International, vol. 614, 1982, p. 95-103.
Constantin et Robert Constantin, Laurențiu Radu, Mihai Ionescu, and
al. 2007
Nicolae Alexandru, Mangalia. Cercetări arheologice de
salvare,Peuce, S. N., 5, 2007, p. 241-96.
Covacef P 1998 Petre Covacef, Despre un tumulus la Constanţa, Pontica, 31,
1998, p. 261-4.
Covacef Z 1980 Zaharia Covacef, Raport preliminar asupra cercetărilor
arheologice din sectorul V al cetăţii Capidava (campaniile din
anii 1975, 1976, 1978 şi 1979),Pontica, 13, 1980, p. 254-74.
Covacef Z 2011 Zaharia Covacef, Sculptura antică din expoziția de bază
a Muzeului de Istorie Națională și Arheologie Constanța,
Cluj-Napoca, Editura Mega, 2011.
Domăneanţu, Catrinel Domăneanţu, Anișoara Sion, Incinta romană tîrzie
Sion 1982
de la Histria. Încercare de cronologie, Studii și Cercetări de
Istorie Veche și Arheologie, 33, 4, 1982, p. 377-96.
Georgescu 1998 Nicolae [Cheluţă-]Georgescu, Urbanistica romanobizantină în aria vest pontică (sec. IV-VII e.n.), Universitatea
„Al. I. Cuza”, Facultatea de Istorie, unpublished PhD
thesis, 1998.
143
Alexandra TEODOR
Lambrino 1936 Scarlat Lambrino, Turnul și poarta cea nouă ale cetății Tomis,
Arhiva pentru ştiinţă şi reformă socială, II, 1936, p. 912-7.
Lander 1984
James Lander, Roman Stone Fortification: Variation
and Change from the First Century A.D. to the Fourth.
University of California, Los Angeles, 1984 (published,
BAR International Series 206, 1984).
Lungu 2000
Virgil Lungu, Creştinismul în Scythia-Minor în contextul
vest-pontic, Sibiu-Constanţa, 2000.
MărgineanuMonica Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, Némésis et la Coudée. Un
Cârstoiu 2011 édicule votif de Tomis, Caiete ARA, 2, 2011, p. 53-68.
Michel 1862
J. Michel, Les traveaux de défense des Romains dans la
Dobroudja, Paris, Société Antiquaires de France, 1862.
Papuc 2005
Gheorghe Papuc, Tomis I. Aprovizionarea cu apă a cetăţii
Tomis în epoca romană târzie, Constanţa, Ex Ponto, 2005.
Papuc, Lungu Gheorghe Papuc, Liviu Lungu, Poarta mare a cetăţii Tomis,
1998
Pontica, 31, 1998, p. 201-8.
Pârvan 1915
Vasile Pârvan, Zidul cetății Tomi, Analele Academiei Române:
Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice, 2, 37, 1915, p. 416-436.
Polonic mss.
Pamfil Polonic, Ruinele oraşului Tomis (Constanţa),
Academia Română, Fond Pamfil Polonic, Mss., mapa 3,
plic I, caiet 9, p. 51-77 and plan.
Popovici
Dorin-Mircea Popovici, Valentina Voinea, Ciprian Ilie, Mihai
et al. 2010
Polceanu, Victor Rizea, and Vera Hramco, Reconstituirea
virtuală a edificiului roman cu mozaic de la Tomis, Pontica, 43,
2010, p. 555-62.
Preda 1968
Constantin Preda, Monede coloniale rare si inedite – Histria,
Callatis si Tomis – din tezaurul de la Mangalia, Studii și
Cercetări de Numismatică, 4, 1968, p. 223-37.
Rădulescu 1966 Adrian Rădulescu, Monumente romano-bizantine din
sectorul de vest al cetăţii Tomis, Constanţa, Muzeul
Regional de Arheologie Dogrobea, 1966.
Rădulescu 1991 Adrian Rădulescu, Recherches archéologiques récentes dans
le périmètre de la cité de Tomis, Études Byzantines et PostByzantines, II, 1991, p. 23-45.
Rădulescu
Adrian Rădulescu, Zidul de apărare al Tomisului, de epocă
1995-1996
târzie în reconstituirea sa actuală, Pontica, 28-29, 1995-1996,
p. 83-93.
144
Adrian Rădulescu, Constantin Scorpan, Rezultate preliminare
ale săpăturilor arheologice din Tomis (Parcul Catedralei), 19711974, Pontica, 8, 1975, p. 9-54.
Rykwert 1995 Joseph Rykwert, The idea of a town: The anthropology of
urban form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World, MIT
Press, 1995.
Scarlat 1975
Constantin Scarlat, Portul antic Tomis și peninsula submersă
Tomis, o așezare geto-dacică anterioară sosirii navigatorilor
greci. Cercetări de arheologie submarină, Muzeul Național,
2, 1975, p. 257-72.
Soficaru 2011 Andrei Dorian Soficaru, Populaţia provinciei Scythia în
perioada romano – bizantină (sf. sec. III – înc. sec. VII),
Iaşi, Editura Universității “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2011.
Stoian 1954
Iorgu Stoian, În legătură cu decretele tomitane privitoare
la paza orașului, Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și
Arheologie, 5, 3-4, 1954, p. 557-68.
Stoian 1962
Iorgu Stoian, Tomitana. Contribuţii epigrafice la istoria
cetăţii Tomis, 1962.
Suceveanu
Alexandru Suceveanu, Observations sur la stratigraphie des
1969
cités de la Dobrogea aux IIe-IVe siècles à la lumière des fouilles
d’Histria, Dacia N. S., 13, 1969, p. 329-66.
Tafrali 1930
Oreste Tafrali, Ruinele unei clădiri din epoca imperială romană
la Constanţa, astăzi dispărute, Arta şi Arheologia, 5-6, 1930,
p. 52-55.
Teodor 2012
Alexandra Teodor, Antique Layers of Tomis, in B. Jöger,
D. Comşa (eds.), ICAR 2012: (Re)writing history.
International Conference on Architectural Research:
Proceedings, Bucharest, 18-20 May 2012, “Ion Mincu”
Publishing House, no. 307. Available online at:
https://www.academia.edu/5140327/Antique_Layers_
of_Tomis
Toma 2010
Natalia Toma, Tomis - Kustendje - Constanța. Topografia antică
tomitană în hărţi şi însemnări de călătorie din epoca modernă
(sec. XIX - începutul sec. XX), Caiete ARA, 1, 2010, p. 53-74.
Zahariade 2006 Mihail Zahariade, Scythia Minor. A History of a Later
Roman Province (284-681), Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert,
2006.
Zirra,
Vlad Zirra, Petre Alexandrescu, Cercetări arheologice în
Alexandrescu orașul Constanța, Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice, 4,
1957
1957, p. 88-94.
Rădulescu,
Scorpan 1975
145
Alexandra TEODOR
Websites abbreviations111
ANCPI 2005,
2008
catheofilm.ro
CCA 2000
CCA 2001
CCA 2008
cerva.ro/
tomis/
cjc.ro
gzt.ro-1 2013
gzt.ro-2 2013
gzt.ro-3 2013
PUZ 2012
RAN
wildwinds.
com/
moushmov/
tomis
111
http://www.ancpi.ro/pages/home.php?lang=en.
A web version of the orthophoto set can be seen here,
http://geoportal.ancpi.ro/geoportal/viewer/index.
html. Some useful instructions here: http://civil3design.
wordpress.com/tag/imagery/.
http://www.catheolfilm.ro/video.html
http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=1144&d=Constantaorasul-romano-bizantin-poarta-mare-2000
http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=1343&d=Constantastr-Arhiepiscopiei-nr-23-2001
http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=4144&d=ConstantaStr-Mihai-Viteazu-f-n-sediu-OCPI-Constanta-2008
http://cerva.ro/tomis/
http://www.cjc.ro/MINAC/en/index.html
http://gzt.ro/povestea-batranului-tomis-cu-2600-deani-sub-talpi-i/
http://gzt.ro/batranul-tomis-cu-talpile-pe-2600-de-anide-civilizatie-ii/
http://gzt.ro/povestea-unei-zile-de-arheolog-sausoldurile-rubensiene-ale-unei-venus-din-tomis/
http://www.oardobrogea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/
05/8-arheologic-841x1250.pdf, Mirela Băncescu, Gh.
Vecerdea, Gheorghe-Leonard Duță, „Actualizare P.U.Z. –
Peninsula, Municipiul Constanța, Patrimoniu arheologic”,
scale 1/2000, 2012 (2008 updated edition), pl. no 1.
http://ran.cimec.ro/?lang=EN
http://www.wildwinds.com/moushmov/tomis.html
All websites were accessed on May 27th, 2014.
146

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN ISTORIE VECHE ŞI

Transcription

Similar documents

PrimeFilm 1800 AFL Low-Cost 35mm Slide/Film Scanning Through

WELCOME TO CAESARS PALACE

R - imeko

this product is designed for use in closed course racing

Intelligence in Living Cells

Lowe`s Catalog - MountainViewHOA.org

Historical Development of Zoroastrianism

Lapidus Bunionectomy

Rangemaster Newsletter

Drake TR7