The Border area between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor in a topographical approach

EUGEN S. TEODOR

The Border area between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor in a topographical approach

EUGEN S. TEODORRomanian National History Museum, Bucharest, [email protected]

Keywords: itineraria; Late Roman; Lower Danube; strategic road; stronghold; landscape archaeology; distance estimation; topographic section.

Abstract: The paper discusses the old issue of the border between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor. For thirty years, the thesis of Radu Vulpe stood undisturbed. Ten years ago Sergey Torbatov challenged it, on all its parts, but that seamed to pass almost unobserved in Romania. At its turn, Sergey Torbatov’s view seems jeopardized by the lack of control in measuring distances on a map. As a consequence, the newly proposed border line is broadly acceptable, but not all his arguments. For instance, the route between Marcianopolis and Durostorum, as proposed by Torbatov, has to be rejected because it does not stand against data in Tabula Peutingeriana, in any of the hypotheses, including that recently issued by the Bulgarian scholar.

The author is proposing a new interpretation of the error comprised in Tabula, between Durostorum and Marcianopolis, the correct distance being XIV+LXV (instead of XLV) m.p.

Entering this field of geographical history, the author uses recent technologies, as GIS, to provide accuracy in identification of sites, in evidence of archaeological points of interest, and to gain credibility in theoretical reconstruction of the antique routes.

1. The Topic

Most of third century AD history is taken by military anarchy. Th e great Roman Empire was already too large, impossible to manage. Th e role played

by the army in society became a plague within the fi ghts for supremacy, each provincial commander taking his chances in deposing or imposing a certain emperor, looking for fortune (Campbell 2005:110). In time, barbarian tribes became restless and hungry, being more active as ever. On the Lower Danube the Romans had to face a strong coalition led by Goths, the war raged several times between 247–251 and ended with the disas-trous batt le from Abritt us were the emperor Decius perished on the fi eld (Drinkwater 2005:35–9). Other Gothic raids in the next two decades, by land or sea, as far as Macedonia, mainland Greece, Aegean, Asia Minor, produced the ruin of several cities, like Chalcedon, Nicomedia, Athens, Corinth, Argos, etc (idem:42, 46), but also Histria or Philippopolis, closer to the main area of interest in this paper (Suceveanu and Rădulescu 2001:301–2).

During late third century, Diocletian initiated reforms meant to put an end to disaster. Th e one we are referring here is the administrative reform which supposed the split of the ancient provinces (Lo Cascio 2005:179). So happened with Moesia Inferior, from which most of its maritime territories were detached, becoming the new province Scythia Minor;1 later on, its name was changed to Moesia Secunda. Th e reform made

1 Th e inscription in which is mentioned C. Aurelius Firminianus, vir perfectissimus, dux limitis Scythiae (IGRL, III, 3 = ISM, II, 155) is the earliest proof of the existing new provinces, dated between 286 and 293 (Zahariade 1988:33) or 285–292 (Barnea 2001:488). Apparently the fi rst move was splitt ing the existing provinces, to secure the power against too powerful governors, and only aft er that regrouping them in dioceses (in 297, see Lo Cascio 2005:180), because they were already too many to keep a direct connection with the central administration.

422 | EUGEN S. TEODOR

sense: the army which remained in each of the provinces wasn’t anymore a menace to the emperor, being too small to challenge the imperial army. Moreover, the new provincial army was no longer a fi eld army;2 the great military units of the Principate were themselves split into much smaller units, and transformed in border guards (limitanei), spread densely on the border line, hosted by litt le fortresses like quadriburgia.3 Th e new provincial troops were not able to tackle large barbarian hordes, but would make a bett er survey and avoid surprises (Lo Cascio 2005:174). At least for the fourth century, the reform relatively fulfi lled the purposes.

Th e limits of the new province from the Danube mouth, Scythia Minor, are given, almost all, by geographical data: Danube as the western and the northern edge and Black Sea as the eastern neighbor. Th e only historical incertitude is connected with the border with Moesia Secunda. Th e historiographers dealt with the issue, or details of it, all through the twentieth century4. Th e fi rst dedicated study was published by Radu Vulpe in 1972 and was not contested till recently, being used by most of the general reviews in the meantime.5 Since that study was published in Romanian, it would be useful, at least for the foreign scholars, a brief overview6.

2. Vulpe’s Thesis

Th at ‘litt le’ Scythia, located south of the Danube’s mouth, was perceived as an entity not only long time before Diocletian, but long time before Roman presence in the area. Th e short name, Scythia, is att ested at the end of the third century B.C. in an epigraph from Histria (Lambrino 1960; Russu 1967); the full name, Scythia Minor was fi rst used by Strabo (VII, 4, 5 – hJ μικρὰ Skuqiva), three centuries before Diocletian. Th e future province of the Later Roman Empire has always been perceived as a special area, with distinctive features concerning the climate (Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto, IV, 7 and 10), vegetation and soil, as the literary sources survey proves (Vulpe 1972:205). I would add here a diff erent type of coast, especially in its northern part, important fact for a nation of sailors, as were the Greeks.7

In short, the reform imposed by Diocletian, separating the eastern and southern parts of the former Moesia Inferior by its northeastern territory – Scythia Minor – was then not arbitrarily, but according to an old distinction between forested west and steppe-like east. Th e thesis is illustrated by a map, redrawn and reloaded here as Figure 1.8

Th e second set of arguments came from the Late Roman sources, mainly Notitia Dignitatum, providing a fi rm assignation of the main landmarks from the border area either to Moesia Secunda (Odessus, Marcianopolis,

2 For the fi eld army as the main guarantee for the imperial power see Campbell 2005:129. Some of the military units from provinces, as legio I Iovia and legio II Herculia (both from the Danubian frontier of Scythia Minor) are the core of the future fi eld army of the fourth century (comitatenses), formed in the years of the diarchy of Diocletian and Maximinus (Zahariade 1988:33), although that situation seems transitional. Later on, from the military units based on the Danube’s bank were detached, for indefi nite time, vexillationes which were sent away and probably never turned back (Zahariade 1988:68–72; Campbell 2005:127). Other parts of the former legions were dispersed on the limes, as ‘new’ auxiliary units, as the case of Milites Scythici (Barnea 2001a:500–1). At the end of the fourth century comitatenses were already regional troops, with a limited action, merely inside one specifi c diocese, while the palatine troops, directly att ached to the court, were the real maneuver army (Whitby 2007:143).

3 Th e late forts are more than early Roman castra, but generally smaller, refl ecting the diminishing number of fi ghters for each (Wilkes 2005a:363). Th e change is adjusted mainly for a defensive war, behind large walls and tall towers, with garrisons meant to keep defenses, not retaliate on the fi eld, which could be a bit diff erent only for the last decade of Constantine the Great.

4 Tocilescu 1900:151, with the fi rst att empt to locate Zaldapa; Pârvan 1912a:577, the fi rst who suggested the real position of Zaldapa, south-east of Durostorum; Vulpe 1938:281–2 with plate XLVIV, as the fi rst att empt to draw the border line; Beshevliev 1962 for identifi cation of litt le forts in the proximity of the border.

5 Aricescu 1977; Scorpan 1980; Suceveanu and Barnea 1991; Zahariade 1988 and 2006. Constantin Băjenaru (2007:14) is the only Romanian archaeologist, as far I know, which rejected Vulpe’s thesis, based on Torbatov’s works, discussed below.

6 See also Vulpe 1970, a French version of the paper. My commentary follows the Romanian version (1972).7 Th e Scythian coastline is unusually low, diffi cult to be observed from high seas, thus dangerous, especially north of

Kaliakra Cape (Arnaud 2005:31).8 Th e map was entirely redrawn, because the original is diffi cult to read. Some changes were done, like the replacement

of the old names (almost all of them Turkish in the beginning of the XXth century, but Bulgarian or Romanian now) with the names encountered in the present on Internet (either Google Earth and Maps, Wikipedia or Wikimapia, etc.). Th e locations of the forts FLAVIANA and SACIDAVA were adjusted to fi t the text in Vulpe 1972:217–9.

The Border area between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor in a topographical approach | 423

Abritt us, Durostorum, Cimbriana9, Sucidava10, Altinum)11 or Scythia Minor (Dionysopolis, Zaldapa, Tropaeum, Flaviana12, Axiopolis). Th e identifi cation between those antique names and archaeological sites is certain for most of them, although some, like Sucidava and Flaviana, are still in debate. A major breakthrough was achieved with the identifi cation of Abritt us in the outskirts of Razgrad city, due to an inscription found in the ruins from Hisarlyk (Ivanov 1955); it was thus corrected a false etymology, connecting the antic name of Abritt us with the modern name of Abtaat (Abrit today...).13 Looking for impressive ruins to take an important name, the modern Abrit was elected to play the part of Zaldapa, although a solid prove never popped up. Th is major change enforced Radu Vulpe to adjust his early att empt to draw the border (1938) and move the proposed border some kilometers westward.

A third set of data in confi guring the proposal is given by archaeology. Radu Vulpe collected infor-mation from some recent works, like that of Beshevliev (1962) and Aricescu (1970), but also some much older papers, such Kalinka (1906), Pârvan (1912 and 1912a) and Popa-Lisseanu (1914). Some of data was not revisited, I suppose, as log as some locations were cited only in their old Turkish form (Arnaut-cujus, Kara Sinan, Bazaurt, Artmutli, Karanlyk),14 long time ago changed by authorities for more patriotic sounds of Bulgarian or Romanian languages. Anyway, the author looks at his map (here as Fig. 1) and concludes that the chart of discoveries looks ‘straight like beds on a string, from Tolbuhin [= Dobrich] area to Oltina Lake, on Danube’; furthermore, ‘westward of that line the map of discoveries stays blank, for a large extent’ (Vulpe 1972:211–2). To be frank – that is odd enough to ask for a new examination!

Radu Vulpe made his conclusions for the border between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor based on two facts: fi rst – the eastern limit of the forest, making Scythia Minor so ‘oriental’, steppe-like and contrasting; second – the archaeological discoveries south of Zaldapa-Abrit, line supposed to mark the southwestern limit of Scythia (Fig. 1).

We are going to put these facts on test. First of all we need a pedological map, the oldest we can get, to avoid the consistent changes from the recent decades. Th e chart of the soils in Romania, probably the oldest ever made15, was provided by G. M. Murgoci, a pioneer in the fi eld, and is redrawn here as the Figure 2. We have, in both maps from fi gs 1 and 2, three important common landmarks: Dobrich, in southeast, Silistra, on the Danube, in west, and Cernavoda, also on the Danube, downstream. What anyone can easily see, the eastern limit of the forest, as pictured in Vulpe’s map, does not match the same limit presented on Murgoci’s map. In his text Radu Vulpe (1970:212) mentioned a ‘pedological map’ and the reddish soil, typical for old forests, but made no reference to an author. As I can only suppose, Vulpe used a post-war map and the intense plowing might be responsible for soil degradation, in about half a century. If so, the soil map can be, at the most, just a suggestion, not a decisive argument. Soils are ‘alive’ and sensitive to climate changes, to a certain use, and can’t be a credible witness of their own antique status, in the absence of multidisciplinary studies on the site. Th e pedological map for historical environments has just to come, sometime...

Th e second part of the test is also very simple, at least as a general approach. Data from varied sources were put together on a map16, along with Vulpe’s archaeological sites. For the start we can see the civil sett le-

9 NDOr, 40, 27, identifi ed by Romanian archaeologists with the remains (still visible in late XIXth century) from Gura Canliei, on Danube (Zahariade 1988:116–7, with plan and references), 6 km upstream Sucidava.

10 NDOr, XL, 7, 17. See also TIR L35; Vulpe 1972:214; Aricescu 1977:230; Scorpan 1980:4, 83–86; Zahariade 2006:71.11 NDOr, XL, 28. See also TIR-L35; Aricescu 1977:230; Scorpan 1980:4; Zahariade 2006:71. Altinum is reported later

(Procop. De Aed. IV, 11, 20) as assigned to Scythia Minor due to a shift ing of the border in the time of Anastasius (Barnea 2001a:501). I am not sure that Procopius was really aware about those distant frontiers, in a time when only questura exercitus was important. A similar view in Curta 2001:153 for historian’s lack of coherence and personal experience in northern Balkans).

12 NDOr, XXXIX, 3, 20. See also TIR-L35; Vulpe 1972, 214–5; Aricescu 1977, 230; Scorpan 1980, 4. Flaviana was the fi rst fl uvial garrison (milites nauclarii) of Scythia Minor.

13 Nevertheless, such risky etymologies continue to off er ‘certain’ identifi cations, like Altinum, recognized in the modern name Oltina, on Danube, very important in this context. I have to admit that the philological arguments off ered by Vulpe (1972:218) for the shift ing ‘a’ to ‘o’ (Aluta-Olt, Samus-Someș, Marisus-Moreș-Mureș, Almus-Lom, Augusta-Ogost, Asamus-Osma, Traianus-troian) is convincing. So did the former identifi cation Abbritus-Abtaat.

14 Rendered in Romanian orthography, like Arnăutcuius (for Dolina), Carasinan (for Rosenovo), Bazaurt (for Tjanevo), Armutli (for Krushari), Azaplar (for Polkovnik Diakovo) and Caranlîc (for Negureni).

15 Th e edition used is published in 1957, but it retakes a paper fi rst released in 1910, in Romanian and German, Die Bodenzonen Rumäniens (in Anuarul Institutului Geologic al României, IV, tom I). Th e map, redrawn here as the Figure 2, was published in 1924, included in État de l’étude et de la cartographie des sols, dans divers pays de l’Europe, Amerique, Afr ique et Asie, Bucharest: Cartea românească. Th e toponyms from Bulgaria are those valid today, not those of the original.

16 Th e main sources for the map are: the map of TIR-K35; TIR-L35, map and text; databases online (RA N, RA R), and others, fully explained in the fourth section of this paper. See also Table 1 at the end of the paper.



ments from the area – the southwestern limits of Scythia Minor and the most eastern of Moesia Secunda – on the Figure 3. Th e fi rst observation would be that the sites encountered in Vulpe’s work do not stand in line, like the beads on a string. Arnaut-kujus (= Dolina) and Bazaurt (= Tjanevo; in original, old Turkish forms) are on advanced positions westward, about 15 km in front of the others; more or less in a line one can fi nd, from south to north, Alachkioi (= Plachidol), Azaplar (= Pobeda, former Polkovnik Diakovo) and Gelendjik (= Tsarevets), aft er that, far in the north, follow Zagortsi, Armutli (= Krushari), Aleksandrija, Dobromir and Caranlîc (= Negureni), driving to the fortress on the Danube’s bank, Altinum. More, west of Dolina and Tjanevo there is not a terra deserta; on the contrary, between the basins of the valleys Suha (in east) and Aranlarska (in west) there are lots of Roman sett lements.


It’s obvious that, for this central sector of the limit drawn by Radu Vulpe, his arguments do not work any more. What about the ends of it? At the northern end there is the military port of Altinum, known from Notitia Dignitatum as being the most eastern on Danube from Moesia Secunda (Vulpe 1972, 214; see also 219).

As concerns the southern limit, Vulpe made his case with lots of arguments. First of all – the history lesson: Gerania is an old oppidum of the so called Scythae aroteres, cited by Pliny the Elder (NatHist, IV, 44) as the last of the Scythians’ oppida on the coast line, to the south, next to the antique Zyras valley, today Batova (Vulpe 1972:213–4). One thousand years later, two Byzantine fortresses were set on the antic border: fi rst – Cranea, from which both Turkish (Ecrenè) and Bulgarian (Kranevo) names were inspired, built on the top of the hill ‘Ialtasu’17; in fact, Cranea itself is a corrupted form of the antique Gerania, therefore Cranea is a landmark for the older Gerania. Th e second fort should be beyond the valley, blocking access to and from Odessus, in the modern locality named ‘Dişpudac’ (correctly Dish Budak), or Osenovo, these days. Th e main piece of evidence was found in Osenovo, an inscription marking f(ines) [t]err(itorii) Odess(itanorum), i.e. the limit between the territories of Dionysopolis and Odessus18. Th e rest couldn’t be anything else than happy guess, like the other limit of the border between Dionysopolis and Odessus, at the opposite corner of the Batova Valley, as proposed by Vulpe in Chatalar (= Batovo, the village). Th e hypothesis is reasonable as long as Batovo is 16.9 km away from Dionysopolis, and 24 km away from Odessus, as the bird fl ies. In fact, there are few exits from the deep valley of Batova, and the position of the village Batovo is one of them; the next exit, some km to the south, is to the fortress from Debrene, and should be fairly the half way between Dionysopolis and Odessus.

3. Torbatov’s hypothesis

Vulpe’s thesis stood undisturbed for 30 years. In 2000 Sergey Torbatov published a pair of studies in two diff erent volumes from Archaeologia Bulgarica. He rejected drastically the Romanian scholar’s proposed border between Scythia Minor and Moesia Secunda (Torbatov 2000:70–1). First of all, Torbatov observes that the archaeological map of the area changed dramatically in time, mostly the middle area, north and south of Dobrich, which is right, but not a reason good enough for rejecting the border line. Both ends of the border are also contested. Th e proposed identifi cation of Altinum with the remains located 3 km north of the village Oltina, on Danube’s bank – accepted by all Romanian archaeologists! – is considered groundless, which is, again, almost right: the site from Macuca Hill has no archaeological research, no Late Roman features to be noticed in the fi eld survey, and, of course, the fact that the village from our time is placed east of the lake couldn’t be an argument, no matt er the philological aspect (Altina > Oltina).

Th e southern end of the border proposed by Vulpe is also rejected, because none of the monuments known as terminus between Dionysopolis and Odessus were found in situ, all being spolia. Torbatov hypothesis is that the Batova River made the border of his entire length. Yet, the position of that spolia from Osenovo is diffi cult to explain. Th e relief around the village of Osenovo is quite rugged, which leads to peculiar geographical connections. Th e village is only 4 km away from Kranevo, but the modern route to the port is 18.5 km long! Similar relationships might be established with any points placed on the other side of the Batova River: following modern routes, there are 21.4 km to Dolishte, westward, and 19.4 km to Obrochishte, northward. Th e distance is unreasonable long to carry large stones for such a modest objective as Osenovo; more, such spolia, if available, would be useful also for reconstructions in Dolina or Obrochishte as well. So, at this point, the statement made by Vulpe still stands.

In fact, Torbatov studies are not about the border between Scythia Minor and Moesia Secunda; the main part of them are about the route from Durostorum to Marcianopolis, having as initial pretext those four locations mentioned by Procopius (De Aed., VII, 12–14) as being reinforced under the rule of Justinian, placed at some distance from the Danube: Questris, Palmatis, Adina and Tilikion. Th is is the core of his hypothesis and we have to take a closer look.

From those four locations, the only one mentioned in another antique source – Tabula Peutingeriana – is Palmatis19, where it is positioned as the only station between Durostorum and Marcianopolis, XIV miles

17 Vulpe 1972:214. ‘Ialtasu’ in original. In fact, the cliff standing 252 m above the sea is named, in Turkish, Iarlar iatalsi, where iatalsi seems to be a common noun, meaning probably the height/ cliff .

18 Vulpe 1972:212–3. CIL III 12507 = 7589. Th e inscription is about one century earlier than Diocletian’s reforms, but the new administrative entities are usually not arbitrary.

19 Probably an ablative form for Palmatae (Palmata, Palmati), Torbatov 2000a:58. For tentative identifi cations till now see Torbatov 2000a:59.


away from the fi rst, and XLV miles from the second.20 But something is missing there, because the distance is 103.2 km as the bird fl ies, much bigger than summed m.p. (XIV + XLV = 87.3 km). Th ere are many att empts to explain the error. Th e most common is the usual careless of the copyist, which would have jumped over a locality and its distance. Torbatov supposes that the omission would be due to the identity of distances, that would have puzzled the copyist. Th e real itinerary would be thus XIV+XIV+XLV = LXXIII m. p. or 108 km21. A litt le too close to 103.2 km...

Th e arguments used by Torbatov to reconstruct the route Durostorum to Marcianopolis are many and not always simple. We will recall here, briefl y – and unavoidable simpler – just some absolutely necessary.

Th e milestone from Shtipsko, having engraved the distance of XI m.p., it is considered to ‘fl atly corre-spond to the real distance between its fi nding place and Marcianopolis’ (Torbatov 2000:62). Note quite... XI m.p. equals 16.3 km, but the distance in a straight line, from Marcianopolis to Shtipsko, is 18.5 km; measured via Suvorovo, as required by the relief and the map of discoveries, the real distance is at least 23.3 km. We can consider the milestone as discovered in a primary position only if we suppose that the distance would be taken from the other side, from a presumptive northern station; but nothing interesting out there! Vladimirovo, advocated by Torbatov (2000:67), is 19.5 km away (by land), to NNE; to NNW, Karamanite is too close (14 km), and Cherventsi too far (18 km).

Th e milestone from Altsek is the main piece of evidence. Th e inscription is badly damaged, making the reading diffi cult and leaving too much on desire. Th e fi rst editor was able to read, from the critical eleventh row, (...)TIS, proposing the completion PALMATIS (Boshnakov 1975:84), but the second editor rejected the fi rst lecture (Holenstein 1979:42–3). Torbatov himself thinks he was able to read APALMATISM (A PALMATIS M[P]), but his photo is completely worthless (Torbatov 2000:62).

Very important is the identifi cation of the Roman road, on the fi eld, for some dozens of kilometers. It was fi rst studied in a lucky digging in Hitovo, where, briefl y, it was stated a width of 5 m and a clearly distinctive infrastructure of clay, easy distinguishable on dark, blackish humus. Th is feature allowed Bulgarian archae-ologists to fi nd the road in the plow land, from a point placed 3.5 km northwest of Karapelit and 1.6 east of Podslon, for 22 km to the north, in a position north of Kolartsi, where it is branching off a road going straight to the Danube22. Th e main road takes northwest, another 12 km from Kolartsi, following close the modern route from Dobrich to Silistra, until the last spot detected, 3 km southeast of the village Vojnovo (Torbatov 2000:63–7). Th e supposed trajectory follows the crest between Suha and Aranlarska valleys, avoiding the deep torrents. More, I should add that the route is fl anked all the way by tumuli, marked on the military maps, which means not quite ‘a Roman road’, but ‘an antique road’ anyway. Torbatov suppose, from that point (Vojnovo), that the road goes west, passing the deep valley of Taban at the junction with Kanagyol, where the village of Bogorovo lays. North of this village he thinks to identify again the road, but not that sure (‘insig-nifi cant remains’ – Torbatov 2000:67). In my turn, I should say that this part of the Roman road is impossible to track both on military maps or satellite imagery; tumuli are missing west of Chamur valley (the name of Taban valley beyond the Romanian border), but they follow a crest heading north, going to the shores of the Lake Bugeac, probably to its western part, where one fi nds the fortress of Bugeac .

At the opposite part, south of Karapelit, was tracked another occurrence of a Roman road, southeast of Vladimirovo village, in the proximity of an antique sett lement. Torbatov thinks that this is the continuation of the main road, as that studied in Hitovo. I have doubts, because it is only 3.5–4 m wide (Torbatov 2000:67) and should be a secondary road. I suppose that the main road should be searched on the southwestern side of Karapelit, in the direction of Benkovski, aft er that southward, on the eastern side of the villages Cherventsi and Karamanite. Th e road proposed by Torbatov, via Vladimirovo, and that proposed here, via Benkovski, are coming together west of Valchidol. Th e lengths are almost the same (27 km from Karapelit via Vladimirovo; 29.7 km via Benkovski), but the profi les are not: the route via Benkovki is easier (see fi g. 5a).

Th e importance of this imperial road from Durostorum to Marcianopolis for the main topic of the paper is obvious: it connects the main fl uvial port of Moesia Secunda with the capital itself. Th is road would be then in the administration of Moesia Secunda and would show the most western possible extent of Scythia Minor.

20 LXV m.p. in Torbatov 2000:61, probably by mistake (L and X are reverted). On TP the distance is ‘xlv’ (htt p://soltdm.com/sources/mss/tp/tp7.htm)

21 Torbatov 2000:68, which follows Miller’s hypothesis (1916:col. 588) only half way. Th e editor of TP was supposing that the absent station road was XX miles from Palmatis, based on a correct estimation of the distance Durostorum –Marcianopolis. See also Aricescu 1977:152, which starts with proper premises but ends with conclusions for which geography just doesn’t exist (idem:153–4 and the map following the page 178).

22 It can be followed on aerial photographs, on Google Earth, for about 3 km, heading northeast.


Before continuing, there are some technical issues to fi x.

4. Technical issues

So many fi gures about distances in terrain or vertical profi les of diverse routes have to be explained to the reader, even in a few lines. Th ere is nothing special, extraordinary or expensive; there are just some casual computing facilities from the later decade. Because the ‘computational archaeology’ is not yet the rule in this part of Europe, some details would be hopefully interesting for my colleagues.

First of all is Global Mapper (version 11), soft ware made for cartography, being able to import older maps, to represent them in diff erent cartographic projections (like Stereo 70, offi cial – still – in Romania, the universal WGS84, and many others). Data can be exchanged with other cartographic supports, like Google Earth, the comparison between topographic conventions and the satellite imagery being welcome anytime.23 Global Mapper is not for free, but it is cheap enough for any East-European.

As supporting data loaded in Global Mapper I used a complete set of military maps from early 1980s, 1:25000 for Romania (or DTM data)24, and 1:50000 for Bulgaria.25 For resolute names of the localities in the area one needs the military Austrian maps from early XXth century, available on the site of the Eötvös University, Department of Cartography and Geoinformatics.26 Th e old Austrian maps were geo-referenced in Stereo 70 projection by Vasile Crăciunescu and are a public resource on the Geospatial site of the Bucharest University.27 For a three dimensional render of the terrain were used SRTM28 fi les.

As concerning the aerial photography, so necessary for a bett er resolution of the locations, for the territory of Romania they can be simply bought, already normalized and referenced,29 or used online,30 more diffi cult to manage data, but absolutely free. Th e resolution of those ortho-photos is 0.5 m per pixel; the quality is not always the same, but certainly improving in time. Th ey can be bett er or worse than Google Earth images, but for sure all of them are useful (each photo is another photo), unless with diff erent geo-refer-ences, incompatibles for juxtaposition. ‘Googlers’ should take the time to look carefully around, mainly when the desired information seems absent, because the ‘Panoramio’ snapshots could contain not only relevant pictures of the landscape, but sometimes old toponyms surviving, miraculously, in the travelers’ souvenirs.

I should add here another type of public resources – the databases. Th e so called RA N database (Registrul Arheologic Naţional = National Archaeological Record), made up from the archaeological reports in the last 20 years, managed by the Institute for Cultural Memory from Bucharest (cIMeC),31 far yet from what should be, made real progress in the last few years, counting at the present almost 11000 records. Th e area of interest, for the subject at stake, the southwestern corner of Constanţa county, is from the most well covered in Romania, off ering a real support for the cartographer in terms of textual data; in terms of precise location mapping, although the information exist, it is not public, for true, giving coordinates only for the center of localities... Somebody imagines that this is a strategy to avoid illegal diggings... Another important data off ered by the same institute is a database of the Archive of the National Museum of Antiquities (most of them are fi les completed in the decade aft er the Second WW), today the Institute of Archaeology ‘V. Pârvan’ from Bucharest32, containing data about 2107 localities33 (with multiple archaeological sites for each).

23 And vice versa! As correctly observed (Palmer 2009:24), the military older maps have the locations for communist agricultural facilities (like stables, sheds, others), disappeared in the meanwhile, which left marks on the land that could be taken as antique locations (for example, the usual buildings made for stables look similar to Roman barracks from the High Empire...)

24 DTM is a shortcut for Direcţia Topografi că Militară (Military Topographical Unit). Th ere is no public resource for that, but they are a very public secret, at least for some archaeologists.

25 Soviet stuff : htt p://www.topomaps.eu/europe/index.shtml. 26 htt p://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm 27 htt p://earth.unibuc.ro/download/harile-austriece–1910-reproiectate-in-stereo70 28 For Shutt le Radar Topography Mission, a free resource from NASA (htt p://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/) covering the

whole world. I have to express my deep thanks to my colleague from the National History Museum, Mihai Florea, for initiating me in such intricate subjects and preparing the complex set-up necessary to begin the work

29 See ANCPI: htt p://www.ancpi.ro/pages/home.php, section ‘Harti si planuri’ (Maps and plans) > ortophoto (htt p://www.ancpi.ro/pages/wiki.php?lang=ro&pnu=ortofoto).

30 htt p://195.138.192.4/kortalromanien/download.asp. 31 htt p://www.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RA N/sel.asp?Lang=EN. 32 htt p://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/ArhivaDigitala/Sumar.htm, referred as RA R database.33 In terms of comparison, in the national database of the localities (‘Siruta codes’) there are registered, today, 13754

localities.


Archaeological encyclopedias are another kind of databases, the printed ones. Considered the most authoritative, they have to wait digitization to become fully useful. Th ere are three collections of data of the kind, for Romania: Dicţionarul enciclopedic de artă veche a României (Th e illustrated dictionary of the ancient art of Romania, Bucureşti 1980), Enciclopedia civilizaţiei romane (Th e Roman Civilization Encyclopedia, Bucureşti 1982), Enciclopedia arheologiei şi istoriei vechi a României (Th e Encyclopedia of Archaeology and Ancient History of Romania, fi rst vol. 1994, second vol. 1996, third vol. in 2000, and the fourth in a great delay). A similar but shorter collection of data is also Tabula Imperii Romani, L35 (Lower Danube), printed in 1969. For Bulgaria I have only the map of the TIR K35-Varna34, well enough for the limited purposes of this study.

One tricky side of the cartographer job is the orthography... Th e Balkan’s culture used at least four diff erent alphabets and the conversion of the sounds was performed depending on many changing rules and fashions.35 Th e antiques diversity of the encountered names for one and the same location36 became, in the modern era, even more confusing. More than half of the villages of the historical Dobrogea (Dobroudja) changed their names two or three times only in the last century. Reading history books from the early XXth century can be a disheartening experience and the orientation on old maps is compulsory. Even so, if the equivalences between old, present, or even older names are established, we have to deal with the choice for a specifi c orthography. Romanian names can be rendered in original, and this is the best practice to avoid confusions, but the Bulgarian names raise the problem of transliteration. Tosho Spiridonov, in TIR K35, used older standards, writing ‘c’ for ‘ts’, like in ‘Carevec’ (for ‘Tsarevets’), ‘č’ for ‘ch’ (like in ‘change’, for example ‘Červenci’ for ‘Chervents’), ‘š’ for ‘sh’ (like in ‘shadow’, as ‘Orešak’). All these are accustomed in academic practice and probably they are correctly read; but how long? Th e pressure of the media and the ‘international’ English is high and higher each day. On such a broad accessed media as Google Earth, the names are rendered in an English manner, so ‘Tsarevets’, ‘Chervents’ and ‘Oreshak’ are to be found. Th is made me choose for this paper the English forms of the locations37. Finally, we have to admit that the plain Latin alphabet cannot render sounds encountered in Satem languages, no matt er what. Th e problem has already more than two thousands years.

5. Measurements and possibilities

Torbatov was locating Palmatae ‘without hesitation’ on the ruins close to the village Onogur, on the left side of Suha Valley. He made his case with the milestone from Altsek, with an unreadable distance (II, or III, or IIII, XIII or whatever), suggesting anyway the proximity, if the string APALMATISM is right. He followed some of Miller’s suggestion and considered that there where on the road two stations south of Durostorum, each placed on XIV m.p. Th e ‘correct’ distance between Durostorum and Marcianopolis would be thus XIV+XIV+XLV=LXXIII m.p., i.e. 108 km38. All presumptions till now took Palmatis as the fi rst station south of Durostorum. Torbatov argues that Palmatis could be any of the two, which, in fact, is possible. In this

34 Th e map is made by Tosho Spiridonov in 1997–1999 and printed under the aegis of the DIOS Society from Sofi a. I received the map from the author himself – and I am truly thankful, but the map does not seem to be a ‘public resource’ as long as it cannot be found in large libraries from Frankfurt, Berlin or Bucharest.

35 htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9. 36 For example, Durostorum has at least ten diff erent orthographies and that only for its antique name. Th e number of

variations depends only of the number of antique citations, almost every half a century producing a new variant. From here to the name confusion is just a litt le step, as in the case Sacidava-Sucidava (Vulpe 1972:216–7). If we add that lots of names are replicated not only in the Empire, but three or four times in the Balkan Peninsula, we come to the conclusion that historical geography is a dangerous fi eld of practice.

37 So did Wilkes (2005) in his recent overview about Roman fortifi cations along Danube, with some mistakes like Odarci for Odărtsi (id:215). But dealing with foreign languages implies errors of all kind. Wilkes used also zh for ž (j in Romanian), as in Ograzhden. Th e so-called scientifi c transliteration (htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi c_transliteration) using diacritics to render sounds not covered by Latin alphabet is quite diffi cult to learn and de facto unused. Th e French oriented transliteration (used by Todorov, for example) was offi cially abandoned by Bulgarian authorities who begin in the late 1990s to switch on English oriented transliteration. In the authoritative New Orthographic Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language from 2002 it is suggested that ъ should be rendered as ă rather than a (htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Bulgarian), but the proposal was not adopted in practice (as in Wilkes, for instance), being diff erent from a system of transliteration which uses only standard Latin signs. Why not double a, then? Th e phonetic diff erence should be anyway stated, because a and ă are clear cut diff erent (ă is considered by Romanian linguists a semivowel).

38 ‘Th e real distance however, if measured along the archaeologically-established road course, amounts to about 108.0 km (LXXIII m.p.)’ (Torbatov 2000a:59–60).


case Palmatis would be somewhere XLV miles north of Marcianopolis, or 66.5 km. Th is is now the simplest thing! From Devnija – the modern village overlapping the old capital of Moesia Secunda –, following the route proposed by Torbatov, there are 74.2 km to Onogur. Th e measurement was stopped on the main road, because from there to the fortress Onogur there are another at least 3 km. It is anyway too much. To admit that Palmatis was the ruins east of Onogur village means to accept that Roman measurement could have had an error more than 11.5%, which is not reasonable.

What is then interesting 66 km north of Marcianopolis? Th e fortress from Voynikovo has an appropriate measurement, 63.5 km. It’s worth mentioning that those measurements are accurate only as a distance on the map, not as a real distance made by foot; the diff erences of height, as climbing a hill or descending a valley, have to be added here, meaning another 2–3% if not more, depending on terrain. Th e map printed as TIR-K35 (Varna) is proposing a western variant of the road from Marcianopolis to Durostorum, starting from Suvorovo and Vladimirovo, as Torbatov did, but choosing aft er that Benkovski and northwest and reaching Vojnikovo. Our map (Fig. 3) is not a replication of the route presented on K35, but a remade depending on terrain and looking for the easiest possible route. Aft er Vojnikovo the route is heading NNW, crossing Taban Valley, climbing back to the crest of the plateau (see Figure 4), passing near the sett lement from Alekovo and descending again in the valley named Kanagyol. On the opposite high bank is the fortress Suhata chesmata (the dry fountain!). From this point the antique route can be followed on satellite images from Google, with some interruptions, until some 3 km south of Kalipetrovo, in the vicinity of Silistra. Interesting to note, the route does not follow the best possible way, on the crest that border on west Kanagyol valley, crest on which there are not known archaeological remains (Fig. 5b). Th e place could be forested in antiquity, or completely devoid of water.

Th e measurements on the possible routes from Marcianopolis to Durostorum do not look good for Torbatov’s hypothesis. Th e route via Voynikovo has the length of 114.45 km (+ 2% = 116.7 km). Th e route via Onogur has the length of 121.3 km (+ 2% = 123.7 km). Th e old hypothesis, made by Miller in 1916, is bett er, even if the position proposed for the missing station road (Chestimenko) was not. In Torbatov’s terms (2000:68), ‘in an absolutely arbitrary manner, he placed it some 20 Roman miles south of Palmatae, in the surroundings of the modern village of Chestimensko’. To be sure, Miller was closer to the true, because XIV+XX+XLV = LXXIX m.p., i.e. 116.8 km!

Facing the fi gures restituted by Miller rationale with the archaeological evidence, nothing more can be proved. Th e fortress from Karaul is too close to Durostorum (16.11 km, i.e. less than XI m.p.); the fortress from Suhata Chesmata is too far from Durostorum (27.3 km, i.e. XVIII m.p. and half). Vojnovo, on the eastern route, is also too far (23.7 km).

In my opinion, the error made by Torbatov writing LXV (which is against all he tried to prove) instead of XLV is revealing the mechanical of error, because the diff erence is... 20. Th e same error could be made by any copyist from Middle Age. Of course, the original was correct, having LXV m.p. between Palmatis and Marcianopolis. Torbatov is right saying that there are no such long stations and a day journey couldn’t be much more of 20 miles.39 We already know such a name, Reginassum, where Diocletian signed two decrees, on 25 October 294, being on one day journey from Marcianopolis (Torbatov 2000:61).

6. Clusters of settlements and networks of security

Looking at the map from the Figure 3 we can draw some outcomes about the number and distri-bution of fortifi ed and not fortifi ed sett lements. Th e open sett lements are the most numerous, or it seems like. In fact, most of them are not archaeologically investigated and we don’t know their real chronology, or which of them correspond to Late Roman Age. As a general evaluation, they are rather many, about 1:2 with the villages from our time, a density similar with that encountered in northern Dobroudja (Baumann 2000). Th e density is bett er exactly on the middle Suha valley, on both sides, where Vulpe proposed the border just because the emptiness of the map. Lower densities are south of Dobrich and Karaman dere springs, where the dividing line of the watershed lies and where we can presume the lack of water. More distant localities are also in the eastern side of the map, the sett lements from Senokos and General Toshevo being more than 10 km away from the sett lements disposed – allegedly – on the imperial route from Marcianopolis to Zaldapa; this area is also on the watershed line. Some of the localities from the western side of the map are also distant,

39 Torbatov 2000:70, with references for other estimates. Th e older estimate of 25 miles for a day march when traveling by carriage (Ramsey 1925:68, apud Torbatov) looks too optimistic. On the other hand, Tabula Peutingeriana does not mention every station and not the lack of space is the cause. West of Marcianopolis there are CXXX m.p. to Nicopolis ad Istrum and no station between!


as Preselka, Mirovich and Nicola Kozlevo. Evidently, this is not a reason to imagine here any kind of border... Almost devoid of opened sett lements is the area from the rectangle Durostorum – Suhata-cheshma – Golesh – Altinum. Th ere are at least two concurrent explanations: the fi rst is the insecurity, being close to the main ford of the Danube, at Durostorum; the second is the lack of water. Th e main valleys in the area are dry because the karstic subsoil. Th e water supply is here a vital resource to survive, and some forts are provided with tunnels not only for access, instead of a gate, but also for bringing the water, as the cases from Balik and Golesh (Dinchev 2007:498). Defending the wells could be a reason to have here many forts and lesser opened sett le-ments. But there is a third reason for the absence of the sett lements in the archaeological record: here lies the modern border between Romania and Bulgaria! Before 1990 a large strip of land – about 10 km – had a very special status, requiring approvals almost impossible to get; aft er 1990 the archaeological missions on the strip were possible, but also diffi cult, when not dangerous; the concept of ‘intra-European’ border, established in 2007, much more permissive for the access in the area, is too recent to produce results till day.

Th e rural sett lements had much to suff er as consequence of the turbulence induced by Gothic invasions and ‘federalization’, in Eastern Balkans, aft er 37640. A second wave of destruction came quick, along the fi rst half of the fourth century, increasingly worst towards the end of the period, with the Hunnic wars. What we know is that almost all fortifi ed places in the area of the Lower Danube were burned to ashes at least once;41 what we don’t know is if any of the opened sett lements survived the multiple Hunnic invasions. Th e concept itself of open village seems to be compromised in that half of the century. In the vernacular culture (both Romanian and Bulgarian) there are extremely few historical characters from the ancient times, like Trajan – the founder – and Att ila, ‘the scourge of God’. Th at should mean something for real.

Th e multiplication of the forts made to the end of Antiquity is a well established fact, along their modest establishment, in terms of surface and internal buildings. Th ese are general facts, for Empire, but nowhere could be truer than here, in the Lower Danube area, in such exposed territories for invasions. Th e particularities of the military architecture, with large U towers and fan-shape corner towers stand for the specifi c hard condi-tions42. Th e increasing number of fort places in Late Antiquity is not only an archaeological fact, but also a strongly suggested one by comparison between antique narratives and maps43. In the perimeter on the stake, one side or another of the border between Scythia Minor and Moesia Secunda, there is some positive data about the ramparts raised in late antiquity. For instance, Debrene is an old sett lement, besides which fi rst appeared a refuge enclosure (fourth to fi ft h centuries), turned in a fully fortifi ed permanent sett lement (sixth century; see Băjenaru 2007:156–7; Dinchev 2007:513–4, fi gs. 33–4); Osenovo has been turned into a fortifi ed place in Late Antiquity (Biernacka-Lubanska 1982:217, 237). Odărtsi is also a late fort, considered both as a rural sett lement and a strategic facility, due to the storage capacity, but also to the outstanding quality of the ‘admin-istrative buildings’ (Doncheva-Petkova and Torbatov 2001:242–4). Plachidol would be a fort place housing a rural sett lement, dating from the fi rst to the fourth century (Biernacka-Lubanska 1982:84, map 3), but the fortifi cation itself should be late. Th e position east of the village of Onogur was occupied as early as the second century AD, but the features of the ramparts are surely later (Torbatov 2000a:69). Th is last observation can be easily extended for other forts in the area, as Balik (Hisar Kalesi), Kaleto, Popkralevo, Poprusanovo, on the ground of published plans (Torbatov 2000a). Th e fort from Vojnikovo, such important for one of the hypothesis earlier exposed, can be dated only beginning with the fourth century (Biernacka-Lubanska 1982:240), which would be a weakness in the tentative of considering it as a road station in late third century Diocletian’s travels.

Some of the forts in the area were considered by Biernacka-Lubanska (1982:84, 98) as having a ‘purely’ strategic relevance (Abrit, Odărtsi, Hrabovo, Kapitan Dimitrovo), while others are rendered just as fortifi ed villages (Aleksandrija, Dolina, Onogur, Plachidol), some of them being both (Odărtsi, Hrabovo). Th e grounds for such classifi cation are not always obvious. Th e forts along the imperial ways are strategic by defi nition, as Zaldapa (Abrit) in east, Vojnikovo in west, Suvorovo and Kalimantsi in south. Also the forts

40 Heather 2007, esp. 167–73; Poulter 2007:82, for extended surveys in the countryside around Nicopolis and the outcome of their destruction on fi re before the end the fourth century.

41 Heather 2007. Th ere are few exceptions from the rule, as the city of Asemus (id:177).42 Th is strong character is att ested mainly on the limes or large fort places from the rear (Noviodunum, Troesmis, Libida,

Capidava, Tropaeum, Iatrus, Vojvoda) – Băjenaru 2007:38–43. Th e presence of such features (large U towers, fan towers, large rectangular towers) should be indicative for building activities along the fourth century performed by elite troops from imperial army, with good knowledge about the defensive works from Orient, of which seem to inspire, but the setup with U towers on curtains and fan-towers at the corners is a regional feature (Wilkes 2005a:263).

43 In the sixth century there were 15 bishoprics in Scythia Minor (i.e. ‘cities’), in Hierocles’ list, but 40 fortifi ed sett lements, as accounted by Procopius. Justinian was not making anymore distinction between poleis and castra (Barnea 2001:487–8).



controlling a passage point over a deep valley can be considered as strategic (for example Suhata cheshma is west, Golesh in north), or assuming that an important road was there (Balik). In other cases, the strategic position is diffi cult to motivate judging case by case.

Th e clusters of fort places are also indicative for the strategic positions. A dens chain of fortresses is located on Danube, along the Limes. Th e patt ern of distribution is interesting, but would require a distinctive paper. Another defi nite cluster of strongholds is located along Batova Valley, protecting the strategic harbors from Black Sea, more and more vital for the subsistence of the garrisons from the inside44. An important cluster of strongholds one can fi nd in the rear of Durostorum, the main garrison of legio XI Claudia; it is composed by four forts in the fi rst line, disposed at equal distances of Danube (13–14 km), from west to east Kazimir, Karaul, Popkralevo and Voynovo. In the second line there is a backup, placed also relatively regular, Suhata cheshma 10 km behind Karaul, and Poprusanovo, 6.5 km (in very diffi cult relief) behind Popkralevo. Th is cluster of strongholds would make sense only if those forts from the fi rst line would be connected by a secondary (strategic anyway) road, allowing side circulation. A short segment of this road can be traced on the satellite imagery, as in the map from the Fig. 3, east and west of Karaul. Of course, the strategic meaning of the cluster is not to protect Durostorum, or not directly, but to prevent the invasion further inside; it can, at most, to make diffi cult, or at least risky, any enemy’s maneuvers in the rear of the main fortress from Durostorum.

A second interior cluster of strongholds is placed north-west of Zaldapa: Aleksandrija, Gaber, Kapitan Dimitrov and Golesh. Th e cluster is positioned similarly, 20 km behind Oltina Lake and 27 km away from Danube. Th e forts are controlling both valleys driving to Zaldapa, including the route from the middle. Segments of this road were identifi ed in fi eld survey, linking the road descending to the Danube and the fort from Golesh (Torbatov 2000a:70), which made me think that the continuation would be via Aleksandrija (therefore more than a fortifi ed village).

Th ese two clusters of strongholds cannot be directly connected due to the harsh relief,45 as suggested in the Figure 5c, but they are surely connected through the crossroad north of Kolartsi. Th e connection is 34 km long, too much for a day march, so we have to suppose that a fortress is missing on our map, somewhere in the middle. We are designing thus a ‘secondary’, but vital way of communication between strongholds, making a secondary, backup limes, allowing military deployment behind Danube, at a distance fairly considered as one day marching. Such a rear road would be vital in the situation in which the main limes should be inoperable. Th is backup limes can be followed north-east to Zaldapa, Cetatea and Tropaeum Traiani. Th ey are located about one day march from each other (17.6 km from Zaldapa to Cetatea, and 13.2 km from Cetatea to Tropaeum) and on similar distances from Danube (24.7 km from Cetatea to Danube and 16.6 from Tropaeum to Danube, both as direct distances). Th is backup limes, starting somewhere west of Durostorum, is laying down as far as Rasova, in east, doubling a segment of at least 64 km fl uvial border.

7. Conclusions

Th e distribution patt ern of archaeological sites, especially fortifi ed ones, and the archaeological or theoretical restitution of the main Roman roads, along knowledge gained in epigraphy, itineraria and antique narratives, are the main vectors in the reconstruction of the ancient border separating Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor.

Th e diggings from Hitovo revealed a Roman road, 5 m wide, fl aked by sewers of 1.5 m each, all made on a clay infrastructure, 8 m wide. Th e ploughed remains of it were identifi ed, from spot to spot, along 34 km, from Karapelit (in south) to Voynovo (in north), doubling the modern route from Dobrich to Silistra. Th e road was connecting Marcianopolis – the capital of Moesia Secunda – and Durostorum, the closest major Danube port. Both ends couldn’t be traced in the fi eld. Th e road spott ed east of Vladimirovo is narrower, only 3.5–4 m wide, and should be a secondary road.

44 Th e opportunity to gather annona seems inversely proportional to the distance to the border, as long as Balkans has become a batt le fi eld, not a grain fi eld. Th erefore, the garrisons on the limes were almost completely dependent on military furniture, as the Egyptian corn. See Curta 2001:175, 189.

45 Th e karstic relief made deep valleys in the plateau, sometimes with almost vertical walls. It is critical to understand this when it comes to antique routes. And seeing is probably the best understanding. Take your time to look at some snapshots from Panoramio: htt p://www.panoramio.com/photo/31679695 for a landscape from the fortress of Odărtsi, looking south; for a picture with the Suha ‘River’ see htt p://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/24756171.jpg; similar landscape one can fi nd on any other valley in the area, like Aranlarska, near Voynovo (htt p://www.panoramio.com/photo/31178934), or htt p://www.panoramio.com/photo/26959475 for lower Dobrich, near Balik. Th is is why I reject any map of the Roman roads which looks more like the international airlines (e.g. Olteanu 2007:84, fi g. 5).


Th e road from Karapelit to Voynovo is fl anked, all the way, by lots (about 35 only on military maps)46 of tumuli, which suggest a chronology which should be connected with the early Antiquity. On the other hand, the diggings from Hitovo (two cross-sections, Torbatov 2000:64, fi gs. 3–4) did not prove any remade of the road, odd for an imperial road is supposed to be used for some fi ve centuries. Torbatov hypothesis about the identifi cation of this road with the imperial road in Late Antiquity has to be rejected in the base of measure-ments made in Global Mapper, along the route proposed by Bulgarian scholar, which is over 123 km. Th at lapsus calami made by Torbatov, writing LXI instead of XLV, reveals the error made by a mediaeval copyist, but vice-versa. Restituted distance from Durostorum to Marcianopolis is hence XIV + LXV m.p., i.e. 116.8 km. Th is perfectly matches the distance on a western route, connecting the main cities via Vojnikovo, which is approx. 116.7 km; parts of this route, from Suhata-cheshma to Kalipetrovo, have been traced on satellite photography.

Other roads just have to be there. Finally, one has to admit that all dots on the map should be connected in a road network. For instance – and for exercise – we need a diagonal from Dionysopolis to Durostorum. Even if the main shipping – with military purpose – was made by water transportation, a road connection is still necessary, at least as a backup solution; more, navigation was closed during the entire cold season, which means half a year47. By water or land, Durostorum was about fi ve days away from Dionysopolis, the closest maritime harbor. We need to imagine this road, also, to explain the position of the stronghold from Balik. Of course, the proposed route, passing through the fi nd place of the milestones from Paskalevo (Vulpe 1972:212) and Rosenovo (TIR-K35) is just one of the possibilities; another, maybe even more tempting, in that passing south, on the left side of Dobrich River, connecting the string of sett lements beginning with Plachidol in southeast and ending with Zhitnitsa in northwest.

Looking along the imperial road from Marcianopolis to Noviodunum, passing through Zaldapa and Tropaeum Traiani, there are also missing links. Forty years ago archaeological sites as Tsarevets, Pobeda, Plachidol or Zagortsi were credited as possible station road48, which means, at least for Late Roman, fort places, hosting garrisons for marching troops. From Debrene to Zaldapa there are 60 km and one should imagine at least one road station, bett er two.

Th e most western site att ested as depending on Scythia Minor is Telerig (Torbatov 2000a:71–2), about half way between Balik and Aleksandrija. It is obvious that the cluster of strongholds from north (Golesh, Gaber, Kapitan Dimitrov) are in the same jurisdiction. All the eastern bank of Dobrich River is for sure under the administration of Scythia, as Vulpe understood or at least felt. What about Balik?... Th e fortifi ed sett lement is placed on the right side of Suha Valley on the confl uence of Dobrich Valley. It can be both... Torbatov is probably right saying that Romans choose as border, with preference, strong natural landmarks, thus, if the border from Balik to Altinum goes along Suha, it is likely that south of Balik it should follow the same landmark49. I agree again with the general idea that Batova Valley would be the next landmark for a border, for all its length. Th e forts looking south, Vinitsa, Axakovo and Kalimantsi, surveying the sea and the valley connecting Odessus to Marcianopolis, should be under the command of Moesia Secunda. It is not very sure, again, the status of the strongholds on the right side of Batova Valley (Dolishte, Osenovo, Gl. Kantardzievo, Rogachevo). Th ere are two reasons to consider them as part of Scythia Minor: the old connection between Gerania-Cranea with Dionysopolis (Vulpe 1972:213–4) and the fact that, in my opinion, the Batova Valley is an inseparable strategic unit. Concluding, from the springs of Suha and Batova, i.e. the villages from Izgrev and Izvorsko, the border should be rendered going straight east to the coastline, following the crest.

As for the northern end of the border, the situation is far from being clear. Torbatov is again right saying that a border following all the way the western bank of Suha should end on the western bank of Oltina Lake. Th e fortress from Măcuca Hill, identifi ed by Romanian archaeologists, until now, as the garrison Altinum, north of Oltina village, northeast of Oltina Lake, has no observable features to be ascribed to Late Roman period50.

46 Th e military maps shows only prominent tumuli, easy to spot by soldiers (which are not... archaeologists). Comparisons made on northern Dobroudja showed that on aerial photographs one can count three or four times tumuli than on military maps. Th e quality of the images on Google Earth, along this route, is not yet good enough to try a parallel counting.

47 From October to April, as a general rule for Mediterranean Sea. Th e ‘closed sea’ could be longer in the Black Sea, as from the middle of September to the end of May (Arnaud 2005:16).

48 Beshevliev 1962:61; Vulpe 1972:210. Unfortunately they are not confi rmed by later research, see the Table 1.49 Torbatov 2000a:71; the argument is casual, as the example of the western border of Moesia Inferior, established by

Aurelian along the Vit River, due to its course straight to Danube (e.g. Zahariade 1988:34, following Vett ers 1950:7), and as old as the end of the nineteenth century (Schulten 1895:94–5, apud Torbatov).

50 Romanian Academy, File Tocilescu, 5131, p. 62–3; Enciclopedia civilizaţiei romane, s.v. Altina (Altinum); Enciclopedia arheologiei și istoriei vechi a României, vol I, s.v. Altina (Altinum); TIR-L35; RA R database: Oltina, Constanţa, esp. site 5; the fort with ditches and palisade made Scorpan (1980:5) have doubts about the identifi cation; see also Zahariade 1988:119.


His proposed relocation, northwest of Oltina Lake, on the site Capul Dealului, is smart but not updated; the place is a fortifi ed one, but later, being Bulgarian, Byzantine or bett er both51. Two unexplored possibilities remain, one for each bank of the lake. On the western side, one km north of Satu Nou village, two Roman sett lements are mapped, Selişte and Văratec, both on defendable promontories, separated by a deep valley (50 m in altitude). Th ey can’t be both open sett lements, neither contemporaries sett lements; one of them could be a military facility, looking to the Lake Oltina, a wide ‘harbor’ with a very narrow entrance, suited for a fl uvial fl eet. On the eastern bank of the lake the team in charge with the archaeological research in Capul Dealului site made land surveys on the northern slopes of Măcuca Hill, looking to the Danube’s island Ostrovu Iepuraşu (Rabbit’s Island), some hundreds meters north of the timber and earth playing-card fort described a century ago by Pamfi l Polonic (published later, 1935:19). Th e archaeologists from Constanţa found in 2006 survey convincing remains of a monumental stone wall, hidden in the forest52. If the remains depend of a fortress, or of a harbor facility, only the future research will answer.

Refferences

Databases, dictionaries and mapsDicţionarul enciclopedic de artă veche a României, București: Editura Știinţifi că și Enciclopedică 1980.Enciclopedia arheologiei și istoriei vechi a României, București: Editura Enciclopedică 1994–2000.Enciclopedia civilizaţiei romane, București: Editura Știinţifi că și Enciclopedică 1982.Registrul Arheologic Naţional (RA N) – htt p://www.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RA N/sel.asp?Lang=ENRepertoriul Arheologic al României (RA R) – Arhiva Institutului de Arheologie “V. Pârvan” – htt p://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/

ArhivaDigitala/Sumar.htmTabula Imperii Romani, L35: Bucarest: Romula-Durostorum-Tomis, București: Académie de la République socialiste de

Roumanie 1969.Tabula Imperii Romani, K35 (Varna), Tosho Spiridonov, Sofi a: DIOS, 1997–1999.Scientifi c worksARICESCU, A., 1970. Quelques précisions sur la carte de la Scythia Minor, Dacia N.S. 14, 297–309.ARICESCU, A., 1977. Armata în Dobrogea romană. București: Ed. Militară.ARNAUD, P., 2005. Les routes de la navigation antiques. Itinéraires en Méditerranée. Paris: Errace 2005.ATANASOV, G., 1987. Kăm istoricheskata geografi ja na Iuzhna Dobrudja, Dobrudja 4, 29–37.BARNEA, A., 2001. Organizarea administrativă. Orașe și târguri. In D. Protase, Al. Suceveanu (eds), Istoria românilor. Vol.

II – daco-romani, romanici, alogeni, 485–92. București: Ed. EnciclopedicăBARNEA, A., 2001a. Organizarea militară. In D. Protase, Al. Suceveanu (eds), Istoria românilor. Vol. II – daco-romani, romanici,

alogeni, 497–506. București: Ed. Enciclopedică.BAUMANN, V.H., 2000. Scurtă privire asupra ocupaţiilor agricole din mediul rural al Dobrogei romane. In M. Iacob,

E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, F. Topoleanu (eds), Istro-Pontica. Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a aniversare – 1950–2000, Tulcea: Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale, 231–40.

BĂJENARU, C., 2007. Fortifi caţii minore în spaţiul balcano-dunărean de la Diocletian la Iustinian, Universitatea București, PhD thesis.

BESHEVLIEV, V., 1962. Zur Geographie Nordost-Bulgariens in der Spätantike und im Mitt elalter, Sofi a: Linguistique Balkanique 4.BIERNACKA -LUBANSKA , MALGORZATA, 1982. Th e Roman and Early Byzantine Fortifi cations of Lower Moesia and

Northern Th race, Wrocław: Academia Scientiarum Polona.BOBCHEVA, LYUBKA , 1973. Archeologicheska karta na Tolbuhinski ogrăg [An archaeological Map of the Tolbuhin

District], Sofi ja.CAMPBELL, B., 2005. Chapter 5 – Th e Army. In Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, Averil Cameron (eds), Th e Cambridge

Ancient History. Vol. 12 – Th e Crisis of Empire AD 193–337, 110–30. Cambridge University Press.CHIRIAC, C., 2004. Oltina, com. Oltina, jud. Constanţa. Punct Capul Dealului, Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.

Campania 2003, 222–4. București: cIMeC.htt p://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/CronicaCA2004/cd/index.htmCURTA, F., 2001. Th e Making of Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge University

Press.CUSTUREA, G., 2006. Noi descoperiri monetare bizantine din așezarea de la Capul Dealului – Oltina, Pontica 39, 415–21.CUSTUREA, G., 2009. Oltina, com. Oltina, jud. Constanţa. Punct Capul Dealului, Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din

România. Campania 2008, 157–8. Târgoviște: Complexul Naţional Muzeal ‘Curtea Domnească’.htt p://www.scribd.com/doc/17102573/Cronica-Cercetarilor-arheologice-din-Romania-campania–2008–2009

51 Irimia, Conovici 1989:117; the recent diggings provided Roman coins (from Trajanus to Heraclius), but no Roman contexts (Chiriac 2004; Custurea 2006, 2009).

52 Th is is the archaeological team from Capul Dealului, led by Gabriel Custurea. Information and snapshots kindly granted by Cristina Talmaschi.


DINCHEV, V., 2007. Th e Fortresses of Th race and Dacia in the Early Byzantine Period. In Andrew G. Poulter (ed), Th e Transition to Late Antiquity, 479–546. London: Proceedings of the British Academy, 141.

DONCHEVA-PETKOVA, LYUDMILA and TORBATOV, S., 2001. Zur Chronologie der Architektur der spätrömischen Befestigung and frühbyzantinischen befestigten Siedlung bei Odarci (Provinz Skythien). In M. Wendel (ed), Schrift en des Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 1, 237–45, Weissbach.

DRINKWATER, J., 2005. Chapter 2: Maximinus to Diocletian and the ‘crisis’. In Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, Averil Cameron (eds), Th e Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 – Th e Crisis of Empire AD 193–337, 28–66.

HEATHER, P.J., 2007. Goths in the Roman Balkans c.350–500, In A.G. Poulter (ed), Th e Transition to Late Antiquity, 163–90. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 141.

IRIMIA, M., and CONOVICI, N., 1989. Așezarea getică fortifi cată de la Satu Nou – „Valea lui Voicu”, Th raco-Dacica 10,115–54.

IVANOV, T., 1955. Zwei Inschrift en aus der antiken Stadt in der Nähe von Razgrad, Izvestija – Bulletin de l’Institut archéolo-gique bulgare 19, 175–86.

KA LINKA , E., 1906. Antike Denkmäler in Bulgarien, Wien: Schrift en der Balkankommission, Antiquarische Abteilung, 4.LAMBRINO, S., 1960. Decret d’Histria en l’honneur d’Agathocles, Revue des études roumaines, 5–6, 180–217.LO CASCIO, E., 2005. Th e new state of Diocletian and Constantine: from the tetrarchi to the reunifi cation of the empire. In

Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, Averil Cameron (eds), Th e Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 – Th e Crisis of Empire AD 193–337, 170–83. Cambridge Univ. Press.

MILLER, K., 1916. Itineraria Romana. Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana dargestellt. Stutt gart [Roma: Bretschneider 1964].

MURGOCI, G.M., 1957. Zonele naturale de soluri din România, Opere Alese [Selected Works], 233–256. București: Editura Academiei; fi rst published 1910.

OLTEANU, S., 2007. Toponime procopiene, SCIVA 58, 1–2, 67–116. htt p://soltdm.com/geo/arts/topproc/Toponime procopiene SCIVA 2007.htm

PALMER, R., 2009 – Rog Palmer, Implicaţii ale fotografi ei aeriene pentru arheologia din România. In Rog Palmer, Irina Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Carmen Bem (eds), Arheologie aeriană în România și Europa, 8–61. București: cIMeC.

PÂRVAN, V., 1912. Cetatea Tropaeum. Consideraţii istorice. București 1912.PÂRVAN, V., 1912a. Cetatea Ulmetum. Descoperirile primei campanii de săpături din vara anului 1911. București: Analele

Academiei Române: Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice, ser. II, tom 34.POLONIC, P., 1935. Cetăţile antice de pe malul drept al Dunării (Dobrogea) până la gurile Dunării, Natura 24, 7, 8–26.POPA-LISSEANU, G., 1914. Cetăţi și orașe greco-romane din noul teritoriu al Dobrogei, București: Flacăra.POULTER, A.G., 2007. Th e Transition to Late Antiquity on the Lower Danube: Th e City, a Fort and the Countryside. In

A.G. Poulter (ed), Th e Transition to Late Antiquity, London: Proceedings of the British Academy 141, 51–97.RUSSU, I.I., 1967. Zoltes și Remaxos. Tracii, sciţii și Histria în sec. III–II, Apulum 6, 123–44.SCHULTEN, A., 1895. S.v. Finis. In E. de Ruggiero (ed), Dizionario epigrafi co di antichita romane, vol. III, fasc. 1, 89–95,

Roma: L. Pasqualucci. SCORPAN, C., 1980. Limes Scythiae. Topographical and stratigraphical research on the late Roman fortifi cations on the Lower

Danube, Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 88.SUCEVEANU, A., and BARNEA, A., 1991. La Dobroudja romaine, București: Ed. Enciclopedică.SUCEVEANU, A., and RĂDULESCU, A., 2001. Dobrogea în secolele II–III. Cap. I. Istoria politică. In D. Protase,

Al. Suceveanu (eds), Istoria românilor. Vol. II – daco-romani, romanici, alogeni, 291–306. București: Ed. Enciclopedică.TOCILESCU, G., 1900 – Grigore Tocilescu, Fouilles et recherches archéologiques en Roumanie: communications faites à l’Académie

des inscriptions et belles-lett res de Paris, 1892–1899. București: Impr. du ‘Corps didactique’ C. Ispasesco & G. Bratanesco.TORBATOV, S., 2000. Th e Roman Road Durostorum-Marcianopolis, Archaeologia Bulgarica 4, 1, 59–72.TORBATOV, S., 2000a – Sergey Torbatov, Procop. De aedif. IV, 7, 12–14 and the Historical Geography of Moesia Secunda,

Archaeologia Bulgarica 4, 3, 58–77.VETT ERS, H., 1950. Dacia Ripensis. Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschlaft en – Schrift en der Balkan-

Kommission, Antiquarische Abteilung, XI/I.VULPE, R., 1938. Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja, București: Académie Roumaine.VULPE, R., 1970. La limite meridionale de la province romaine de Scythie, Studia Balcanica 1, 33–46.VULPE, R., 1972. Limita meridională a provinciei Scythia (Dobrogea), Pontica 5, 205–21.ZAHARIADE, M., 1988 – Mihail Zahariade, Moesia Secunda, Scythia și Notitia Dignitatum, București: Editura Academiei.ZAHARIADE, M., 2006. Scythia Minor. A History of a Later Roman Province (284–641), Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert.WILKES, J. J., 2005. Th e Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey, Th e Journal of Roman Studies 95, 124–225.WILKES, J. J., 2005a. Chapter 8 – Provinces and frontiers. In Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, Averil Cameron (eds), Th e

Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 – Th e Crisis of Empire AD 193–337, 212–68, Cambridge Univ. Press. WHITBY, M., 2007. Th e Late Roman Army and the Defence of the Balcans. In A.G. Poulter (ed), Th e Transition to Late

Antiquity, Proceedings of the British Academy 141, 135–61.


Table 1.Minor fortresses in the area Marcianopolis-Odessus-Zaldapa-Durostorum

an que name site, village details source

Aleksandrija Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Adina (Alfatar) West of Alfatar Atanasov 1987Tilicium Alfatar – south 5 km south of Alfatar, on the site Suhata cheshma Atanasov 1987

Axakovo Odessus territory; fort TIR-K35Palma s (Balik?) Sta on road between Abri us and Zaldapa Olteanu 2007: fi g. 6Equestris (Balik?) Just on the map, approx. posi on of Balik; not in the index Suceveanu, Barnea 1991:291

Balik Late Roman fort Bobcheva 1973Adina? Balik, Hisarya Late fort; ver cal tunnels for access in the for fi ed

se lementDinchev 2007:494

Balik Se lement, fort TIR-K35Adina Balik Fort at the confl uence of Suha and Dobrich Torbatov 2000a:62–4

Batovo Fort Bobcheva 1973Debrene Fort Bobcheva 1973Debrene, Gradishteto

Ini ally a for fi ed refuge (late IV century); VIth century triangular fort, with tower-gate and basilica

Dinchev 2007:509; 513 with fi g. 33; 514 with fi g. 34; 530

Debrene Dionysopolis territory; se lement, fort, stone pit TIR-K35Dolina Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Dolina Cluster of se lements on upper Suha; aqueduct; TIR-K35Dolina “Arnăutcuius” = Arnaut-kujusu (old Austrian map) Vulpe 1972:212Dolishte Dionysopolis territory; fort TIR-K35Gaber Late Roman fort Bobcheva 1973Gaber East of Zaldapa; fort, stone pit TIR-K35General Kantardzievo

Dionysopolis territory; fort TIR-K35

Golesh Tunnels for access in the for fi ed se lement (V-VI centuries) and for water supply; Chris an basilica inside

Dinchev 2007:494; 498, fi gs. 19–21

Goles(h) Fort on the middle Suha Valley TIR-K35Hrabovo Late fort of strategic relevance Biernacka-Lubanska 1982Hrabovo Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Hrabrovo Se lement in Dionysopolis territory TIR-K35

Pistus Izvorovo “Muzabei” (on Austrian maps = Musubey), today Izvorovo, 5.4 km east of Snop (see fi g. 3, eastern part) and 12.5 km east of Zagortsi (preferred by many for Pistus); unrevealed source

Suceveanu and Barnea 1991:199

Tilicium Kaleto 1.1 km south-east of Drjanovets village, north of Karapelit Torbatov 2000a:66–7Aquis Kalimantsi Fort on the map from the fi g. 21 – Aquis, in the rela ve

posi on of KalimantsiSuceveanu and Barnea 1991:291

Kalimantsi Fort east-north-east of Marcianopolis TIR-K35Kamen Fort Bobcheva 1973Kapitan Dimitrovo

Late fort of strategic relevance Biernacka-Lubanska 1982

Kapitan Dimitrovo

Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973

Kapitan Dimitrovo

West of Zaldapa; fort, se lement TIR-K35

Palmatae Karaul 4.4 km north of Alfatar Atanasov 1987Karaul Fort not named north of Alfatar TIR-K35Kazimir Fort west of Karaul TIR-K35Koriten Fort (se lement in the map on fi g. 3 and TIR-K35) Bobcheva 1973

Cranea Kranevo Par ally known, late fortress; po ery workshops outside the south-western corner tower

Dinchev 2007:508

Gerania Kranevo Dionysopolis territory; se lement; Gerania (main city in legend) and Kranevo are marked separately

TIR-K35


an que name site, village details source

Novakova Dionysopolis territory; fort TIR-K35Obrochishte Fort (se lement on TIR-K35) Bobcheva 1973Odărtsi Late fort of strategic relevance Biernacka-Lubanska 1982Odărtsi Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Odartsi Dionysopolis territory; se lement, fort TIR-K35Odurtsi (sic) Probably “Odărtsi”; late fort with dense se lement inside

(V-VI centuries) => permanent garrison and increasing problems with the available space

Dinchev 2007:499; 500 with fi gs. 23–25; 504; 506; 510

Onogur Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Palmatae Onogur On the le bank of Suha, east of village Onogur Torbatov 2000a:60–1Pistus? Paskalevo Fort (following Beshevliev 1962) Vulpe 1972:210Pistus? Paskalevo (following Vulpe 1972?) Zahariade 2006:9

Plachidol Late Roman for fi ed agricultural facility Bobcheva 1973Plachidol South-east of Dobrich; se lement, altars; TIR-K35

Scopis? Plachidol Fort “Placidol”, following Beshevliev 1962 Vulpe 1972:210Scopis Pobeda “Guelengik”; men oned by Theoph. Sim. VII, 2 (sclaveni

plunder)Suceveanu and Barnea 1991:199

Pobeda Former Polkovnik Diakovo, former Gelendjik (spelled also Gelendzik)

Scopis? Pobeda Li le fort, following Beshevliev 1962 Vulpe 1972:210Scopis Pobeda “Gelencik” Zahariade 2006:9

Popkralevo In the proximity of Durostorum, west of Voynovo, south of Lake Bugeac; fort

TIR-K35

Equestris Popkralevo 1.6 km south-east of the village, 4 km south of the Roman road

Torbatov 2000a:68–70

[le of Tilicium]

Poprusanovo The unnamed fort “from the le hand of Tilicium” Atanasov 1987:34

Rogachevo Fort in the proximity of Gerania Bobcheva 1973Sredno Selo Fort and sanctuary north-west of Marcianopolis TIR-K35Suvorovo Fort north of the provincial capital Marcianopolis, on the

road to Durostorum; fort, inscrip ons, se lementsTIR-K35

Pistus? Tsarevets Fort (following Beshevliev 1962) Vulpe 1972:210Pistus? Tsarevets (following Vulpe 1972?) Zahariade 2006:9

Tsar Asen Se lement and fort (= Suhata cheshma; see also Alfatar) where the roads from Abri us (Razgrad) and Marcianopolis met, south of Durostorum;

TIR-K35

Vinitsa Odessus territory; fort TIR-K35Adina? (Vojnikovo?) Just on the map, approx. posi on of Vojnikovo; not in the

indexSuceveanu and Barnea 1991:291

Vojnikovo Late Roman fort Bobcheva 1973Vojnikovo On the road from Durostorum to Zaldapa; se lement, fort,

necropolisTIR-K35

[le of Tilicium]

Vojnikovo The unnamed fort “from the le hand of Tilicium” Torbatov 2000a:67–8

Palma s Vojnovo Fort south-east of Durostorum TIR-K35Vojnovo2 A second fort around Vojnovo village TIR-K35

Palma s? (Vojnovo?) On the map in the approx. posi on of Vojnovo (drawn about 7 km too much eastern), where on the map from the fi g. 21 shows ?Palma s; not in the index

Suceveanu and Barnea 1991:291

Zagortsi Sanctuary TIR-K35Pistus? Zagortsi Fort (following Beshevliev 1962) Vulpe 1972:201Pistus? Zagortsi “Zagor ”; fort (following Vulpe 1972?) Zahariade 2006:9

Date post:	07-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mnir
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The Border area between Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor in a topographical approach

Documents