Introduction

One reason for Dacia being somewhat special for Roman studies is its rather short life within the empire, spanning the second and most of the third century ad, covering the period when the Roman Principate experienced both the peak of its power as well as the onset of decay. Conquered for strategic as well as political reasons by Trajan in the age of the greatest territorial extent and power of the empire, it was abandoned later in the third century ad because of political infighting affecting the empire at its core and the subsequent failure to control the limes areas. The second and the early third centuries ad are generally accepted as the epitome of Roman imperial rule, which continues to serve as a model in various comparisons. In addition, by the end of the first century ad the empire had refined its approach to conquest and further organisation of new provinces. Consequently, studying the implementation and impact of Roman administration in Dacia provides a unique insight into the pattern of conquest and occupation of provincial territory at the height of Rome’s power. One of the great expressions of Roman power in conquered territories

is the impact on the natural and cultural landscape. As argued elsewhere (Oltean 2004), the current orthodoxy concerning the impact of Roman occupation on Dacia (Figure 1.1), the implementation of Roman rule and the development of the provincial landscape is based on a few, seemingly, generally accepted points. First, the Roman conquest is seen as a dramatic event, involving massive colonisation. Several literary sources describe the process; among them Cassius Dio (LXVIII 14, 4), who refers to Trajan’s policy of colonisation with specific reference to urbanisation; and Eutropius (VIII 6, 2), who mentions significant colonisation from all around the Roman world and, indeed, a high Roman citizen-presence in Dacia ‘to occupy its lands and cities’ at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, as a result of a deliberate Trajanic policy to redress the depopulation of Dacia resulting from the long war against Decebalus. These examples suggest that the phenomenon was important enough to have come to the attention of ancient historians (for the most recent discussion see Ruscu (2004)) and, at least superficially, a number

of archaeological discoveries appear to support these records. Another leitmotif throughout modern literature is that the native Dacian population was moved from their hillforts and settled in the lower areas, which were easier for the Roman army to keep under control; indeed, the archaeological evidence for a violent destruction of the major Dacian hillforts (which do not seem to continue to be in use during the Roman period) has been interpreted as occurring within the chronological context of the conquest (Glodariu 1993, 15). Furthermore, it is generally asserted that the Roman policy of colonisation was rather brutal, with the authorities depriving the natives of their lands for town foundations, for colonists and veteran’s land holdings that established villa estates, for army needs and for imperial estates (Protase 1968, 510). Finally (and somewhat surprisingly given the above theories), it is widely believed that the natives lived in harmony with the colonists and romanised themselves during the two centuries of Roman occupation, and that together these two groups continued to settle these lands after the Roman administration and military forces left Dacia at the end of third century ad (see Protase 1980, 228-52). But before analysing the archaeological basis of this theory in more detail,

it is necessary to review the current state of archaeological research and archaeological landscape in Dacia. Despite the efforts made during the twentieth century, archaeological research has tended to concentrate on military (e.g. Gudea 1997) and urban sites, the latter restricted predominantly to sites with proven municipal or colonial status. A number of them attracted interest from antiquarian and early academic research, but after the cessation of excavations at Sarmizegetusa Ulpia in 1938 and until that work recommenced in 1973, the archaeology of Roman towns in Dacia was limited to occasional excavations at Romula and some rescue work at Apulum, Drobeta and Napoca. In the meantime, modern development destroyed the sites of the municipia at Dierna (1968-1969) and Ampelum (1985-1986) without appropriate rescue work being undertaken and published. Research has been re-launched and intensified, particularly in the last two decades, with a number of research projects targeting a number of objectives at Sarmizegetusa Ulpia, Apulum, Napoca and Tibiscum, some of them involving collaborations with French, German and British archaeologists (Diaconescu 2004b). However, a significant number of sites which, as far as we are aware, did not achieve municipal status, but which are accepted elsewhere as having at least a semi-urban function (e.g. Burnham and Wacher 1990) have been somehow neglected; only a few military vici, for example, have been subject to any excavation (e.g. Tibiscum, Casei, Porolissum, Micia). Rural settlements have been approached only sporadically and with a low

priority. The first decades of the twentieth century saw the beginning of the consideration of rural settlements, with excavations at several villa sites, many of them extant at that time, such as Manerau in 1912, Apahida and Garbou in 1913 (see Mitrofan 1973, 127-50, with full bibliography for the first publication of these early excavations). A second period of revival of interest

was noted in the 1950s and 1960s, though for political reasons linked to the agenda of the communist regime. Excavations were conducted on villages (vici) or the cemeteries belonging to them (e.g. Obreja, Soporu de Campie, Bratei, Cristesti, Micasasa – see Protase 1998; Protase 1980, 38-85 with bibliography; Husar and Man 1998; Mitrofan 1999). Similarly, several villa sites were also researched, such as Hobita, Deva, Santamaria Orlea, Aiud, Cincis, Chinteni (Floca 1953; Floca and Valea 1965; Winkler et al. 1968; Popa 1972; Mitrofan 1973, 1974, 1976; Alicu 1994, 1998). In recent decades, efforts have been made to record all archaeological sites

within the territory, improving the older data with new information obtained through field walking. Unfortunately, an ambitious project to produce a general archaeological gazetteer of Romania was never completed, though in some cases it resulted in the publication of regional gazetteers of several counties or geographical areas. For most of the discoveries, however, the information is scattered in studies at various levels of comprehensiveness published in various Romanian archaeological periodicals. Despite its bad reviews (Daicoviciu 1969), Tudor’s book Orase, tirguri si sate in Dacia Romana (1968) used to be the largest collection of published information on Roman settlements in Dacia that specialists could rely upon. But now after more than 30 years, the information needs to be updated, and the same applies to the Tabula Imperii Romani (L-34, Budapest and L-35, Bucharest) whose information continues to be used by the editors of historical atlases (e.g Talbert 2000). This will hopefully be redressed in the future, through the efforts of the Institute for Cultural Memory in Bucharest (cIMeC) to create a large database of the archaeological sites of Romania accessible on the Internet to scholars internationally, through a European Union funded project (https://archweb.cimec.ro).