You are on page 1of 46

Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum.

The Barbarians around the
Province of Dacia and
Their Relations with
the Roman Empire



Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum

Sorin Cociş
Adrian Ursuţiu

Volume 14


Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum
The Barbarians around the Province
of Dacia and Their Relations
with the Roman Empire

Edited by
Vitalie Bârcă

Mega Publishing House

This work was supported by grants of the Ministry of National Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number
PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0210 and the grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS
– UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0216.

Vitalie Bârcă

DTP and cover:
Francisc Baja

Translation into English:
Gabriela Balica

Cover image:
Right-angled knee brooch from Alba Iulia/Apulum © George Bounegru

© The Autors, 2016
The authors are responsible for the contents.

ISBN 978-606-543-755-5
Descrierea CIP este disponibilă la Biblioteca Națională a României.

Editura Mega |

Cristian Găzdac Deceiving the Barbarians? A Roman Golden Forgery from a Frontier Marketplace at Porolissum (Romania) and its Archaeological Context 25 Sorin Cociș. Statistic view and historical notes 111 Robert Gindele The Barbarian settlement at Tășnad-Sere (Satu Mare County). Bihor County 151 George Dan Hânceanu Roman Imports in the Settlement of the Free Dacians at Roşiori (Neamţ County) 169 Alexandru Popa Roman Amphorae beyond the frontiers of the Roman provinces of Dacia and Moesia Inferior 203 Costin Croitoru On the lamps discovered in the east-Carpathian Barbaricum 243 Vitalie Bârcă Disc brooches of box/capsule type (Dosenfibel/Kapselfibel) in the Sarmatian environment of the Great Hungarian Plain. Ovidiu Ţentea The Eastern Frontier of Dacia. The rescue excavations of 2015 131 Sorin Bulzan. Cristian-Claudiu Filip Stamped Pottery discovered in the Roman Settlement from Margine. George Bounegru Again on the Barbarian brooches from Roman Dacia  37 Horațiu Cociș Linear Fortifications on the North–Western Frontier of Dacia Porolissensis. A Gazetteer of the Forts and Units 7 Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu. Alexandru Rațiu Roman customs station from Capidava. A few notes on their dating and origin 251 Lavinia Grumeza. An Overview 41 Dan Matei The Dacian groups of population and the abandoned castra in the (former) territory of the province(s) of Dacia 77 Ioan Carol Opriș. Statio for publicum portorii Illyrici in the 2nd century AD and a hypothetical model for interactions with Barbaricum in the 4th century AD  89 Marius Ardeleanu Roman imports from north-western Romania. Adrian Ursuțiu The Sarmatian Cemetery from Nădlac 3M North 283 Claudia Radu Anthropological Analyses of the Skeletons Discovered in the Sarmatian Cemetery Nădlac 3 M North 325 . Contents Florian Matei-Popescu.

Erwin Gáll. Mason An Amateur Archaeologist at Athanaric’s Wall: James Berry in Tecuci (1917) 353 . András Iván From absolutization to relativization: the hoard from Valea-Strâmbă (Hu: Tekerőpatak)-Kápolnaoldal revisited 331 Florin-Gheorghe Fodorean Beyond the Roman world. Theodor Isvoranu. Aspects concerning the geographical knowledge outside the frontiers: the extreme East and India in the Peutinger map 345 Richard A. Norbert Kapcsos.

Moreover. Thus. Sfântu Gheorghe alex.(ethnic) identity of the archaeological sites. This study further proposes an analysis of the Roman-Barbarian relations. Currently. it is believed that the diffusion of the Roman-provincial goods reflects the nature and intensity of the economic. b. Therefore. as diplomatic gifts or stipends or as payments made to the Barbarians by the imperial administration. dissemination. Dacian-Moesian limes. Roman-Barbarian trade and contacts 1. produc- tion centres or the spatial and time diffusion of this vessel category. the amphorae research focused on their typology. The amphorae are the main Roman-provincial products reaching the emipre’s neighbours beyond its frontiers. The Roman-provincial goods may be used in establishing a structure . Although the archaeological material is numerous. Roman Amphorae beyond the frontiers of the Roman provinces of Dacia and Moesia Inferior Alexandru Popa The National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians. Barbaricum.popa@mncr. identification of origin. As early as the end of the 19th century. they became an important source for the study of the relations between the Roman Empire and the neighbouring. political and social relations between the Roman Empire and the people living next to its borders. we identified 316 finds com- ing from 203 sites. The study of the Roman-Barbarian relations in time and space with the aid of the so-called Roman-provincial imports. cultural. Amphorae. these finds have been discussed in the scholarly literature within the context of the cultural. especially of how Roman products (mainly the amphorae carrying wine and oil) reached the Barbaricum: via trade. We thus proposed to synthesise the knowledge of the last 100 years of research in the field. Keywords: Roman imports. To these we may also add other 73 refrences that only mention the “Roman amphorae finds”. Introduction T he aim of this study is to discuss the state of research of the Roman-provincial amphorae discovered in archaeological sites in front the Dacian-Moesian frontier of the Roman Empire that date to the period of Roman Dacia. The Roman-provincial imports in the Barbaricum (and implicitly of the amphorae) entail two main study directions: a. the amphorae are one of the most analysed sources of economic history of the Antiquity. content of the amphorae or their area of origin is modest. our knowledge on the Abstract: The aim of this study is to discuss the current state of research of the Roman-provincial amphorae discovered in the Barbarian environment in front the Dacian-Moesian frontier of the Roman Empire. non-Roman populations. There.

it is worth mentioning that E. playing an intermediate function between the Roman-provincial artifacts and those locally made. Despite our diligence. Part of the publications and material housed within museal institutions was not accessible to us or we were unable to incorporate in this research. as “diplomatic gifts” or the so-called “peace funding” (“Stillhaltegelder”).of relative chronology (and possibly even of absolute chronology) for the archaeological cultures of the Barbaricum. They discuss the material based not on shape or carried content. in our view. 1/4–5. but the products/substances inside were of interest for the ancient peoples. Ris. It is difficult to imagine the diffusion of the amphorae without their content. The research of the amphorae as archaeological source should bear in mind we are dealing with recipi- ents used for the carriage and possibly storage of products. we may not be entirely certain (or claim) to have taken into consideration every known/published find at present. Thus. 73–74. In his article on the dating of Roman imports from the Chernyakhov culture sites. 9   RIKMAN 1972. One of the basic questions of the research of Roman-provincial products from the Barbaricum is related to the directions/paths through which these artifacts cross over the borders of the Roman Empire in order to reach the Barbarian environment: either as war spoils. are of different proportions and may not be. but rather represents an assess- ment of existing bibliography on amphorae finds. 3   GROSU 1990. 89–90. This “ethnocultural” analysis is spe- cific to the historiography of the analysed area. the content caused the carriage of amphorae from the production region to that of their discovery and no other reason related to the pottery recipient itself. nor geographically. Thus. 4   SANIE 1981. but mainly based on ethnical (and cultural) attribution of the find spot. there is available information in relevant publications. Despite all these methodological limitations. they may also include chance objects reaching the Barbarians as “souvenirs” (“Mitbringsel”). 1/2–3. 6   ZEEST 1960. without further emphasis on other formal peculiarities. the first group included amphorae made of light-coloured fabric and narrow elongated neck. Proper amphorae did not represent goods travelling from one geographic area to another. for amphorae finds in the hinterland of the provinces of Moesia Inferior and Dacia. One of the first typologies of the Roman period amphorae in our research area was compiled by E. Ris. Vasile Grosu3. by any means ascribed to one and the same type10. 8   SCORPAN 1976. the author identified in the area between the Prut and the Dnister six amphora types. 88. Several studies were published. which would in fact be illogical and economically groundless. 90–94. History and current state of research Up to date. usually food products. For instance. 85–91. 11   RIKMAN 1972. a type later defined in the scholarly litera- 1   RIKMAN 1972. ascribed to the same group. PARASCHIV 2006. the specimens at Pervomajsk and Bălţata. Moreover. We have attempted to bibliographically identify as many as such finds as possible from the analysed historical-geographical space. the first two categories are of interest. limited though to only certain geographical areas or separate archaeological culture. SCORPAN 1977. of which. 2   BICHIR 1973. 7   SHELOV 1978. which he ordered chronologically and culturally. Methodological limits of the research This research is not based on the study of all artifacts in museal collections. 177. Silviu Sanie4 or Ion Ioniţă5 are notable. Gheorghe Bichir2. In addition. Rik- man’s typology may be applied only partially. BICHIR 1977. 10  See RIKMAN 1972. the north of the Black Sea7 or Dobruja8. 5   IONIŢĂ 1982. Rikman ascribed the light-coloured fabric amphorae and relatively short conical neck11. we believe that the material processed herein is repre- sentative. further applied to other categories of archaeological materials. 3. there is no monographic analysis of the amphorae diffusion in the Barbarian environment past the Dacian-Moesian limes. Last but not least. Some of these finds might have served as pro- totypes for the copies in the local production of the Barbaricum.. 85–91. The works of Emanoil Rikman1. PARASCHIV 2002. For the research herein. in one way or another. Rikman9. 2. These are firstly Crimea6. as products resulted from bilateral trade. OPAIŢ 1980. To the second type. E. the typological and chronological grouping of the amphorae was made by the comparison with amphorae coming from other regions. 204 .

Thus. without checking. 397–398. In the context of such dating. belongs to Ion Ioniţă30. 24   ALEXIANU 1988. 89. 19   BICHIR 1973.B. 18–19. 29   SIMONENKO 2004. 30   IONIŢĂ 1982. Thus. analysed and interpreted by Marius Alexianu23. Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d&apos.Université de Rennes II et l&apos. BÂRCĂ/SYMONENKO 2009. reached the conclusion that most come from areas close to the Siret24. the colour of the amphorae fabric: it was either light or orange16.</author><- author>Garlan. Bichir has studied in detail the amphorae finds in archaeological sites attributed to the Free Dacians in the east19 and south of the Carpathians20. the author inventoried 57 finds of inscribed or stamped amphorae and. conical neck. See also ŠELOV 1986D. 9–14. 87–89. A significant contribution in understanding the role of the amphorae in the historical reconstruction of the period discussed herein. l&apos. 1. M. 2) vessels made of orange fabric. SIMONENKO/MARČENKO/LIMBERIS 2008. The large number of finds in the sub-Carpathian area was explained by the “flourishing state” of the economy of the Free Dacians25. The inscribed amphorae were collected. J. Fig. 20   BICHIR 1984. 23   ALEXIANU 1988. 114. We shall not endeavour here in a dispute on the chronology of the Sarmatian culture features.Athènes (Athènes. 10–12 Septembre 1984. 15   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. 13   RIKMAN 1972. elongated neck. 73–74. 25   ALEXIANU 1988. 31. 21   BICHIR 1977.-Y.ture and known under the title “Shelov D” or “Tanais”12. 106.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recherche scientifique. BÂRCĂ 2006. V.and south-Carpathian territories: 1) vessels made of light-coloured fabric with narrow. Grosu29. 22  See OPAIŢ 2003b. mapping the finds. 91–94. 26   ALEXIANU 1988. Notably though. since the Tanais type amphorae do not emerge in synchronous archae- ological contexts with amphorae of earlier types15. 18   URSACHI 1978. Moreover. 115. The author takes and assumes. The author underlines the presence of several types specific to the east. in our view. 177.argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. 14   RIKMAN 1972. 27   GROSU 1990. it is inexplicable why E. as works published meanwhile have already pointed out the inconsistencies and errors in the book signed by V. In his work on the Roman-provincial imports from Eastern Europe. wherein the author briefly presents an entire list of unknown finds or dispersed in various regional studies18. Vessel shapes were discussed according to Iraida Borisovna Zeest’s typology based on the finds from Bosporan Kingdom17. Rikman states that both types of amphorae are found within the same ancient sites. Grosu used amphorae finds to establish the “chronology of the Sarmatian antiquities”27 from the inter- fluve Prut – Dnister as the so-called “chronological marker”. The second type was dated based on analogies from the north of the Black Sea to the 3rd century AD14.École francaise d&apos. Ioniţă’s hypoth- esis on the connection between these clusters of inscribed amphorae with the early power centres of the Free Dacians26. inwards thickened rim and ovoid body. 215. Except the mention that amphorae in the first type are unknown within the Roman province of Dacia. Gh. Alexianu rejects I. Vasile Ursachi’s study is of the same type. Shelov C amphorae are dated exclusively to the 2nd cen- tury AD. The first selection criterion was. 17   ZEEST 1960. Without discussing descriptions of other authors for amphorae on his list. 38–39. are the following aspects: 12   SHELOV 1978. 28   For a critical overview of the research method of Grosu – see SIMONENKO 1995b. The first amphora type was dated based on parallels to the 2nd century AD13. 16   KROPOTKIN 1970. To the amphorae category were also ascribed the “Table Pitcher”22 vessels. A catalogue-type publication of the finds in the western part of the former USSR was drafted by Vladislav Vsevolodovič Kropotkin. while those of Shelov D type only to the first half of the 3rd century AD. the author also discusses amphorae finds. to the author. 205 . all of Shelov’s dating and inevitably makes significant dat- ing errors of the analysed funerary features28. See also KROPOTKIN 1967. as well as in those of the Sarmatians21. the author references only some supposed parallels from the area of the Black Sea. commented catalogue. Bichir gives no further explanations or any additional interpreting of the diffusion intensity or chronology of this category of containers. Gh.

namely in the province of Moesia Inferior. 1: „Karta nakhodok amfornoj tary rimskogo vremeni v Vostochnoj Evrope”. as cremation urns. 33   PARASCHIV 2002. The author divided the amphorae from Dobrudja into 17 types. • Among the finds one can count more amphorae for oil and less for wine. The basic work for a long period of time was Zeest’s monograph. 36   See types 28 b-c-d and 29 a – DYCZEK 1999. the author also evidenced the correlation with cremation grave finds of the Free Dacians. 34   DYCZEK 1999. deemed to be Roman-pro- vincial “imports” for the Free Dacians. over time.</author><author>Garlan. DYCZEK 2001. OPAIȚ 2004b. 42   VNUKOV 2003. OPAIȚ 1996. written based on the analysis of the material from Bosporan Kingdom39. • In some cases.Université de Rennes II et l&apos. OPAIȚ 1980. DYCZEK 1999. we should also note that the map taken up by the author from Kropotkin’s37 publication refers to all amphorae finds from the former USSR and not only to those made of light-coloured fabric with narrow. for instance. The division of the light-coloured amphorae into six separate types (A-F) suggested by the author. Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d&apos. chemical structure of the fabric. thus obtaining a distorted image according to which most finds in the area came from the local Dobrujan production33. maps with the geographical diffusion of the finds and tables with the chemical composition of the fabric35.</style></author></authors><ter- tiary-authors><author>Empereur. therefore one may speak of oil use in burial rituals. J. SCORPAN 1976.École francaise d&apos. which diffuse chronologically over six cen- turies. analysed and interpreted a series of ca. published in French – ŠELOV 1986D. 182. delimiting 36 amphora types. 41   The groups of amphorae fragments according to SHELOV’s typology are used in both site studies. A view south of the analysed territory. an entire series of specialised works discussing in detail the research of amphorae finds31 was drafted. I. 174–192. 37   KROPOTKIN/KROPOTKIN 1988. like for instance the lower course of the Dniester – MALJUKEVICH 1991. VNUKOV 2006. With the aid of a spatial distribution map of these finds. 184. See also the reviewed version of the study. the amphorae were used secondarily. 38   DYCZEk 1999. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recherche scientifique. 170.B. • Amphorae are one of the most numerous categories of archaeological artifacts. 39   ZEEST 1960. Fig. or even inter-regional. The design of Piotr Dyczek’s work is different34. elongated neck – as argued by the Dyczek in the figure’s title38. l&apos.Athènes (Athènes. Notable. the author granted too much attention to the spatial distribution of the finds from Dobruja. 350 complete amphorae and over 2500 identifiable 31   RĂDULESCU 1976. but also the origin and dating of the recipients in each type. Ioniță’s analysis consists in correlating the amphorae with the significant number of hoards composed of Roman denarii from the sub-Carpathian area. KUZMANOV/SALKIN 1992. Ioniţă’s significant results were not taken up or developed by future research. Interesting and productive approaches in the research of the amphorae from Roman province of Dacia were developed based on the material collected from the sites on the northern coast of the Black Sea.-Y. The Roman amphorae in this region were also extensively studied by Dmitrij Borisovič Shelov. The author inventoried. 206 . namely the entire Pontic area – ABADIE-REYNAL 1999. • The main trading paths were the large rivers in the region. PARASCHIV 2006. as well as in regional studies. • Roman traders could travel only up to some larger trading centres in the territory of the Free Dacians. When determining the origin of the amphorae. Furthermore. The knowledge level significantly evolved through the research of Sergej Jur‘evič Vnukov42.argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Gre- ques. 32   PARASCHIV 2002. There. • Inscribed amphorae clusters may be interpreted as evidence of power centres in the Dacian environment. The author briefly discusses their shape. 40   SHELOV 1978. The typology serves until nowadays as a starting point for many studies of the amphorae in Eastern Europe41. Unfortunately. Concerning our area of interest. • The number of finds within cemeteries is larger than in synchronous settlements. 186: „Występowanie amfor tpu 28 na obszare północnego nadczarnomorza”. • The Roman amphorae reach the inland Dacian territory via traders from the Dacian environment. DYCZEK 2001. Ris. narrow neck36. The discussion is completed by a series of images. shows a different state of research. OPAIȚ 2003b. was recognized and generally accepted in the scholarly literature40. like for instance Tanais – ARS- EN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003. 10–12 Septembre 1984. SCORPAN 1977. The virtue of I. 35   For a critical view of Dyczek’s research see reviews OPAIȚ 2003a. is one of the most recent researches carried out by Dorel Paraschiv32. we note the absence of a more clear chronological and typological division of light-coloured amphorae with elongated.

ABADIE-REYNAL 1999. based on the cultural. Kuzmanov VII. Samo- jlova43. The establishment of possible areas of origin of the amphorae was mainly made based on the mapping of the find spots. the pottery material was not only very fragmentary. 19). we identified 316 finds of complete and frag- mentary amphorae. As mentioned above. 49   As noted. we therefore avoided using a certain numbering or denomination of types. 1986. which changed the isolationist perception of the north-Pontic area in the economy system of the Roman Empire of the first centuries of the Christian era. our knowledge on the typology. mentioning only “Roman amphorae finds”. See also the comments of EIRING/FINKIELSZTEJN/ LAWALL/LUND 2004. Making a brief summary of the history and state of the current research. Shapes and types of finds 3. the finds were selected for publication. place names are found (from where similar finds come). 48   Roman amphorae whose production dates to the Republican period were not chosen. 46   ETTLINGER/HEDINGER/HOFFMANN 1990. in order to define a type of amphorae it is not enough to describe the form of the recipient.. To these we can add another 73 literary notes. as well as the knowledge on the origin of these containers is very modest. Terminology A multitude of terms are used to denominate various types and forms of ancient containers in the current research of the Roman-provincial amphorae in our area of interest44. rightfully. see HINKER 2013. Berenice MR Amphora. very often. Rădulescu 6. As early as the first half of the 20th century. a goal of the future research. but especially by the very fragmentary state of most finds. as well as denominations whose etymology is related to the specificity of the recipient shape. on the other hand there are also terms coming from person names (who defined for the first time respective type). In our research area. Keay XII. The current state of the publications underlying our study allows only appreciations of the form and proportions of the discussed vessels. until an analysis of each find. Bjelajac XII. 16 types of Roman-pro- vincial amphorae. Thus. No notes (or chemical analyses) were made regarding the content carried or preserved in those recipients. Peacock-Williams 47. coming from 203 sites48. Obviously. most often. For one and the same form there are occasionally several terms.1. each of different origin45. Subsequent to the examination of available publications. in the archaeology of the Roman period from the north-Pontic basin the amphorae material was customarily divided based on fabric colour: orange or white (light colour). Furthermore. nearby our research area. Roman-provincial amphorae are made of both orange and white fabrics. On one hand. while the long-time solution would likely be the draft of a Conspectus formarum of the Roman-provincial amphorae. It is a fundamental analysis of the amphorae shapes from the north of the Black Sea.(ethnic) identity of the archaeological sites and not on geographical criteria. this classi- fication became the norm in both the scholarly literature of the former USSR as well as in Western Europe47. the fol- lowing types were identified: 43   SAMOJLOVA 1978. This division of the amphorae fragments. 45   See below the terms for the Kapitän II amphorae – Niederbieber. these maps show the places where the products carried inside the amphorae were consumed and by no means the area where they were produced or „bottled”. Scopan E. PARASCHIV 2006. spatial and time distribution. Of this mass of finds. were analysed by Tat’jana L. Zeest 79 – for references see DYCZEK 2001. resulting from archaeological excavations and field walks. being also required descriptions of the fabric and production technology (VNUKOV 2003. The scholar succeeded to identify among the materials coming from Tyras. but the archaeological layers were mixed among eachother. we note that although a large quantity of amphorae fragments was collected. In fact. at first sight simplistic. 207 . 461–462. There are also the denominations indicating the place sup- posed as origin of the amphorae. 137–138. content carried or stored. The amphorae in the ancient town of Tyras. 47–55. 4. 47  See SHELOV 1978. Ostia VI. based on the form and proportion of the recipients49. was caused by a series of objective and subjective factors. similar to that for terra sigillata46. These results reflected the state of research of the site to that moment. 44   For a general description of the terms used in the archaeology of the Roman provinces for the name of artifacts discovered generally. foot or handle fragments coming from the sites on the northern coastline of the Black Sea. The other peculiarities remain.amphora rim. Dyczek 18. by Vnukov. which she grouped into two distinct chronological horizons (the 1st century until mid 3rd century AD and mid 3rd century until the 4th century AD).

A similar dating was suggested for the amphorae in barrow 14 at Bagaevski58 or the amphorae in barrow 4 from the cemetery at Sokolovski59. 15/3. 8. 164 Tabl. From the point of view of the geographical distribution. in these recipients was stored and carried wine. 50   VNUKOV 2004. In the middle. 37.</author><au- thor>Garlan. 6/7.2. the accuracy of the attribution is not compelling. 300. 10/2. 170. 51   SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991. Ris. In Shelov’s study. 60   SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991. 58   RAEV 1986. 66   SIMONENKO 2004. I/1. These are the speci- mens illustrated in CĂPITANU 1997. 55   SCORPAN 1976. The amphora at Porogi lay in the same funerary feature beside other inven- tory pieces (brooches. 2). l&apos. 18. The maximum height is of approximately 78 cm and the maximum diameter of ca. XI/1. “tamga” symbols).-Y. It is worth noting that this vessel has a biconical and not ovoid body shape – as defined in SHELOV’s typology. The cylindrical neck is elongated and ends in the upper part with a thick everted rim. Based on this association. slightly above the maximum body diameter point. 65   PUZDROVSKIJ/ZAJCEV 2004. Ris. 62   VNUKOV 2004. In the upper part they are attached to the neck. Simonenko dated the burial time of the dead at Porogi to the fourth quarter of the 1st century AD60. 56   ZEEST 1960. Crimea65 or the north-Pontic coast66. at least until the analysis of the find. 412–415.École francaise d&apos. Distinctive for this form is the relatively wide footring. Closest analogies come from the dava type settlements on the Siret.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur. 27. 1). The southern shore of the Black Sea is deemed as the region of origin of this amphorae type62. 6. Parallels for the amphorae in the research area come from the Lower Danube63 and Dobruja64. J. Pl.3. 17. whose specificity is this foot shape50. 3/3–6). 60–61. 21/6.Athènes (Athènes. 20 cm. as well as in further inland territories (Fig. 63   SANIE 1981. the body of the amphorae in this form may have a grooved surface. Pl. 161. ending in the upper part with a thick everted rim. 53   To the same type were ascribed also a series of fragments coming from the excavation campaigns of 1992–1996. In our research area. Răcătău53 and Poiana54 (Fig. This peculiarity evidences a possible typological connection with the “Table Pitcher” amphorae or the Gallic amphorae. like the ancient town at Tomis55 or the northern coast of the Black Sea56. VI/1. it is noticeable that specimens ascribed to this form of amphorae are found both nearby the large rivers in the area. Similar shaped recipients are found especially in the coastal regions of the Black Sea. Pl. 245. The containers in this form are distinguished by ovoid body and elongated neck. as well as other fragments (Fig. The handles start on the neck and end on the vessel shoulders. while in the lower part they fall onto the vessel’s shoulders. 10–12 Septembre 1984. 4).argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. those found at Porogi51 are known (Fig.B. so this appreciation remains questionable. 208 . 61   For the chronology of the dava type sites on the Siret see more recently BOȚAN 2015. A similar dating also have the amphorae discovered in the dava settlements at Poiana and Răcătău61. 64   OPAIȚ 1980. 3/1–2). 8/61. 33/2. 71–96. silver cup. 3. Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d&apos. of whitish fabric. 153. much lower below the rim. 3. almost conical body ending in a small footring. 57   SHELOV 1978. We wish to ascribe to this form also the fragments in the grave at Michajlovka52. Ris. copying in fact a twisting. 90. Abb. In our research area only two entirely preserved specimens are known. Based on the published illustration. See also ŠELOV 1986D. whitish fabric is dated based on some parallels from Tanais and Akkermen to the period comprised between the second half of the 1st century – first half of the 2nd century AD57. 110. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recherche scientifique. specimens with grooved neck may be found. We ascribed these fragments to type Vnukov C IV A. Ris. this amphorae form of light. Occasionally. 412–414.  54   UNGUREANU 2002. Shelov A2 This form belongs to the group of light-coloured fabric amphorae. 52   SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990a. The handles are profiled in cross-section. 59   RAEV 1985. 52–53.Université de Rennes II et l&apos. 397. Other close analogies come from the neighbouring geographical areas. Likely. XXVIIII/65a. to this type belong two complete specimens (Fig. so that one may speak of a feature of associated pieces. like the Siret or the Prut. Shelov B2 To this type belong the large containers.

79   BRUDIU 1976. The geographical dissemination of this category of recipients underlay the hypothesis on their north-Pontic or Moesian origin76. mainly in the north and north-west areas and much less on the eastern coast. See also DYCZEK 2001.4. 5). 68   VNUKOV 2004. l&apos. 46. it was wine. 75   ŠELOV 1986D. The published illustrations of the amphora at Cazaclia clearly show that its association with Zeest 91–93 type is impossible. 6). 147. They are light-co- loured fabric recipients.argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></ title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. 413–415. the hypothesis on the origin of these amphorae in the economic centres on the southern coast of the Black Sea like Heraclea or Sinope74 is generally agreed. 213–214. Fig. Overall.B. 72   As variants of this form we deem the recipients in feature 22 at Petreşti (GLAZOV/KURCHATOV 1989. is of a smaller height (38 cm) than form SHELOV C. 78   For the results of the discussion on this topic see DYCZEK 2001.-Y. 213–214. The amphorae came from the southern coast of the Black Sea. 21/32. Evidence for the diffusion period of Shelov B2 amphorae in our research area may be obtained based on the inventory components of the grave at Cazaclia (Fig. Shelov C The type of amphora most often found in our research area appears under this name.École francaise d&apos. 3. We do not know to what extent such tests may be deemed accurate or relevant for the contemporary research.Shelov assumed these amphorae circulated from the end of the 1st century and first half of the 2nd century AD67. Rhodos. 160–194). The body is ovoid and ends in the lower part with a foot or rather a relatively vertical support ring (Fig. 7/4). 74   ABADIE-REYNAL 1999. 209 . 134. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recherche scientifique. this amphora form is very rare73. The find at Schela79 is import- ant to this effect. J.</author><au- thor>Garlan. 397. 71   These amphorae include the types described below as SHELOV C and D. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la recher- che scientifique. likely from Heraclea68. beside the Shelov B2 type amphora. Shelov admitted the possibility of their production in Kos. shades varying from pink to yellow. Similarly debatable remains the question of the primary content of these amphorae. Simonenko dated the feature at Cazaclia to the 3rd century AD70 subsequent to the erroneous ascribing of the amphora in the grave to type Zeest 91–9371. 5.-Y. 10–12 Septembre 1984. 70   SIMONENKO 1995a. The large quantity of dark-brown mineral parti- cles.Université de Rennes II et l&apos.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur. 76   See for instance BICHIR 1984. Approximately the same dating was also suggested for above analogies. Yvon</author></tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d&apos. The presence of these amphorae at Athens was excellently documented by Andrei Opaiț (OPAIȚ 2010. Based on most inscrip- tions on the surface of their walls it is assumed they were made to carry wine78. The analysis of the remains preserved on the recipient’s walls led to the hypothesis that olive oil was stored in the amphora at the time this “closed ensemble”80 was created. a bronze Eggers 71/72 vessel or „Stangerup/Hagenow”. 69   PETROVSZKY 1993. 159. Bosporus or even Tanais75. whose production period begins only with the reign period of Antoninus Pius69.B. The amphora at Petreşti is much smaller.</style></author></authors><tertiary-authors><author>Empereur. ending in the upper part with a thick everted rim.École francaise d&apos. 67   SHELOV 1978. The specificity of the form is given by the narrow elongated neck. J. barely reaching a height of 30 cm. 138. 4/2) and grave 2 at Vităneşti (LEAHU/TROHANI 1979. The liquids carried in this type of containers were not established with certainty. which start from up on the neck and are attached to the body in the shoulder area72 (Fig. likely pyroxene (?) is notable. this container is much reminiscent of the Colcis amphorae in the area east the Black Sea (VNUKOV 2003. Except the Pontic regions. The chemical tests per- formed on the fabric seem to indicate a resemblance with the clay ores in the area of Heraclea Pontica77. note 2. It includes. Ris. 80   BRUDIU 1976. 39. 110–111).Athènes (Athènes. 7). 10–12 Septembre 1984. See also ŠELOV 1986D. Fig.Université de Rennes II et l&apos. 256. Similarly. Its origin is exten- sively debated in the scholarly literature. Most likely. the vessel at Vităneşti. namely a completely preserved amphora found in a house floor. 81   ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006.</author><author>Garlan. This amphora form is spread especially in the Black Sea basin. 73   HAYES 1983. l&apos. 350. and is much closer to the Hellenistic recipients produced in Heraclea. By its proportions. 219–220. however it is certain that Brudiu’s hypothesis was forgotten81. Yvon</author></ tertiary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face=”normal” font=”default” charset=”238” size=”100%”>Les </style><style face=”normal” font=”default” size=”100%”>amphores d&apos. 399–400. 18.Athènes (Athènes. 77   DYCZEK 2001. To this amphora form are specific the profiled handles bent below a 90 degree angle.argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire</style></title><secondary-title>Recherches sur les Amphores Greques.

210 . 223. The handles profiled on the outside are attached to the neck. Last but not least. 196. 89   ZEEST 1960. in particular93. one must mention the singular finds. we may note a cluster of the finds on the middle course of the Siret. Fig. Shelov D This form defines the relatively small recipients. 70 cm deep from the current surface level. The chemical tests of the fabric seem to indicate a south-Pontic origin95. likely of pyroxene. in a point where any inhabitancy evidence or traces of funerary features are missing87. The neck is relatively narrow and ends in the upper part with a profiled rim. 117. The geographical area of their diffusion is mostly related to the north and north-west basin of the Black Sea and also to the Lower Danube. supported on a small foot. 246. Fig. This exception may also be due to an error in determining the fragment based only on the published illustration. 84   KETRARU/RIKMAN 1960. ovoid body. Most such finds come from contexts datable with certainty to the 3rd cen- tury AD. whose existence ceases prior to the Roman conquest of Dacia83. Fig. Other hypotheses on the origin of this amphora type consider the central territories of the Bosporan Kingdom or the coast line of Dobruja94. 96   DYCZEK 2001. 91   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. 28–29. 222–223. on one hand. Fig. the town was not a pottery production centre. arguing that in the 3rd century AD. Culturally. 246/3. and the inside volume – of ca. In the north or south of the researched area. below the rim. 86% come from sites ascribed in the Romanian literature to the “Free Dacians”. 83   For a synthesis on the peculiarities of this site see BOȚAN 2015. while in the scholastic literature it was agreed that Shelov D recipients carried wine96. in the lower part88 (Fig. show that ca. geographical and cultural distribution of Shelov C amphorae. 725. or of amphorae. 725. A preliminary statistics of the amphorae. Taking a synthetic look at the information on the chronological. As resulted from the statistical analysis. The specimens at Holboca86 were interpreted as amphorae deposit. 347. 191. 31.1–2. in the upper part and on the shoulders. being practically unknown outside these areas90. hollow on the inside. without any special marks. The vessels height is of ca. 2. 92   ZEEST 1960.5. 11–12. The fabric of these containers is light-coloured and contains dark-brown mineral particles. funerary features and rarely from the so-called “deposits”. towards the container’s walls. The spatial distribution of Shelov C amphorae in the analysed territory shows a visible clustering by the middle course of the Siret (Fig. Shelov C amphorae come from settlements. 93   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. Ris. Shelov D amphorae are found in Zeest’s typology under numbers 91–9389. 3. 9). 31. 85   VULPE/TEODOR 2003. 8). Unless the fragment is examined – its ascribing to form Shelov C remains hypothetical. In our view. 223. The single noted exception comes from the settlement at Poiana82. 31. 90   DYCZEK 1999. in features ascribed to the “Free Dacians” and dated to the 3rd century AD. it is conical and turns smoothly. most finds in this town come from archaeological 82   VULPE/TEODOR 2003. 40 cm. the finds within settlements and funerary contexts are approxi- mately equal in ratio (Fig.3. at ca. 88   For a definition of this form see BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. A special role in the determination of the chronology of such amphorae had the archaeological excavations at Tanais. 33 and DYCZEK 2001. which may not be related to any clear archaeological con- text. with short. In the case of the older find at Goteşti84 or the already mentioned specimen at Poiana85 any appreciation as to cultural origin of the site remains uncertain. 87   The reason for assigning these finds to the culture of the “Free Dacians” is not clearly presented in the publication. hence it shall not be discussed here. 95   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. 94   For a critical view regarding this hypothesis see BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. this is a historiographic and not an archaeological issue. The origin of these amphorae in the site at Tanais was denied by Böttger. acces- sible to us from publications. See also DYCZEK 2001. in general. 8). identified in occasion of farming works. 86   SANIE 1968. 3. Böttger and Shelov established that. The relatively high degree of standardisation might be interpreted as evidence for the hypothesis that amphorae in this type were made by a single production centre91 and not in several – like previously believed92. 117–118.5. The body surface is partially decorated/covered with horizontal grooves. Shelov C amphorae spread in both contexts of the Sarmatian culture as well as in those of the “Free Dacians”. 3–4 litres. In the lower part. this amphora type is much less numerous. 82–85.

hence. Occasionally. 111   SMISHKO 1964. Consequently. Fig. 113   DYCZEK 2001. contemporary to the damages level of the site at Tanais104. 2–3. 211 . 275–276.6. 102   PALAMARCHUK 1982. from where were later exported in the Mediterranean world108. Eloquent examples are the sites in Crimea. Fig. Geograph- ically. Scorpan VII / LRA 2 This form105 may be ascribed a single fragment. Tabl. massive handles. 512 as well as IONIŢĂ 1982. Based on some dippinti at Novae and Romula. For the multitude of terms for this form see DYCZEK 2001. 31. it may be framed chronologically.6. which allow the dating of the circulation period of the amphorae approximately by mid 3rd century AD. The pottery fragment from Mătăsaru comes from the settlement. in such amphorae112. 173–176. Culturally. Pl. settlement finds predominate. 99   The find place at Pângrați (DYCZEK 2001. Quantitatively. Scorpan deemed Histria as the production area of the amphorae. as well as later one. 38. Except those. 15. 297. Single specimens are found at Ostia. only from the cemetery at „Sevastopol’skij / Sovchoz 10” come 80 amphorae109. 307–308. 104   The situation of feature “Pivnița 7” in the 1999 campaign. At first sight. 55. In a single case it was assumed that the Shelov D type recipients belonged to a hoard. Oil is the product which seems to have been carried. there are only two so-called “closed” archaeological ensembles: the two inhumation graves from Gradeška103. 107   DYCZEK 2001. 110   GUDEA 1980. Anm. thick profiled inverted rim. the archaeological research has identi- fied also other regions where LRA 2 recipients appear in large quantities. 101   For Etulia culture see especially GUDKOVA 1999. 295–296. 106   BICHIR 1984. 11. especially in the area of the so-called “Troian al Moldovei de Sus”100 (between the Prut and the Siret). as well as in the region near the Danube (Fig. these amphorae are singular and chance finds.ensembles established during the destruction of the town (by mid 3rd century AD). 169. 183–185. Athens and Crete or in other centres of the Mediterranean world107. The amphorae ascribed to type Shelov D from our research area come both from settlements and funerary features. Dyczek also discusses the garrum as product that might have been trans- ported in these clay containers113. Based on this broad geographical distribution. 97   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. 114 and note 151. 108   SCORPAN 1977. Ris. Dobruja and by the Lower Danube. biconi- cal neck. 10. 100   For the description of the site and research references see PĂUNESCU 1978. 32/7. of which only a single amphora has survived (?!)99. 261. The fabric colour oscillates between red and brown-red. these amphorae are missing from both earlier ensembles. In conclusion. 39 154. II. Fig. 75. XXXV. 271–304. whose cultural origin is yet to be clarified102. we note a certain clustering in the northern side of the sub-Carpathains. where we pre- viously noted a cluster of Shelov C finds! 3. The form is well spread in areas neighbouring that herein. Such conclusions were further confirmed by subsequent archaeological research conducted in the ancient town98. in the area of the “Troianul in Moldova de Sus” and to the south. 98   ARSEN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003. Such attribution is based on the very specific form of the upper part: funnel-shaped mouth. by the Danube mouths. In order to explain the chronology of Shelov D amphora finds from our research area. 112   OPAIȚ 2004a. we may argue that the Shelov D type amphorae form two geographical distribution nuclei: to the north. 223). this category of finds seems to be missing from the area on the middle course of the Siret. 109  STRŽELECKIJ/VYSOTSKAJA/RYŽOVA/ŽESTKOVA 2005. coming from the settlement at Mătăsaru106. 274–276. See also OPAIȚ 2004a. coming from outside well delimited archaeological contexts.11. 103   GUDKOVA/REDINA 1999. respectively stored. on the other hand. 512. 10). Shelov D amphorae come from both sites of the Sarmatian culture as well as those ascribed to the “Free Dacians”. 192. Meanwhile. where 188 amphorae of the type associated with coins struck during AD 211–238 may serve as an example – ARSEN’EVA/BÖTTGER 2000. especially in the north of the Black Sea. two specimens are known in sites of the Etulia culture101 as well as in the settlement at Volshya Balka. Similar specimens seem to come from the Roman auxiliary fort at Breţcu110 or the settlement with a glass vessels pro- duction workshop from Komarovo (on the middle course of the Dniester)111. For instance. the research at Tanais allows the dating of this Shelov D type approximately by mid 3rd century AD97. Fig. 105   SCORPAN 1977. See also the illustration published by KROPOTKIN 1970.

but also based on the stratigraphic divi- sion of level III into two separate layers (first and second)114.5 cm129 (Fig. most likely. As mentioned by even Bichir122. we may agree with the conclusion of the author of the first publication concerning the dating of the feature to the 2nd – 3rd 114   BICHIR 1984. 131   For examples see PEACOCK/WILLIAMS 1986. with 11 respectively 6 identified specimens. 127   OPAIȚ 2003b. “Table Pitcher” This type of containers is distinguished by a biconical body and hollow foot. while others might have been also used in the 4th century AD121. 423. On the other hand. Bichir proposed the dating of the so-called level III1 – from where said fragment comes – to the 2nd century AD subsequent to the discovery of some denarii. 117   OPAIȚ 2004a. Both sub- types are found in the Roman-provincial environment. cemetery/grave) is unnoticeable. 128   Perieni commune. 468. with wine and went off towards their consumers on the middle course of the Siret. 91. According to Opaiţ. 142–150. Ampho- rae of this type have cylindrical neck and thick everted rim. 372. 555. 12. Fig. 86–94. 130   OPAIȚ 2003b. The ovoid body is supported by a footring. 202. in Dobruja116 or in the north of the Black Sea117. Containers of the type may be divided into two groups based on the present or absent marked groove on the shoulders (Fig. 121   OPAIȚ 2003b. being though also found in many other regions in the Black Sea basin123. See also OPAIȚ 2004a. 420. in ensembles dated from the end of the 2nd century – first half of the 3rd century AD. Its form and proportions allow us to ascribe it to type 1 of “Table amphora” defined by Opaiţ130. 295. Opaiţ assumes this form emerged especially under the influences of the Gallic amphorae131. 216. 12). It is orange-red and its surviving height is of 24. 115   DYCZEK 2001. 215 notes 2–7. 173–174. 116   OPAIȚ 1984. the 3rd century AD included. In the investigated area. A geographical separation upon the site type (settlement. The recipient from Ciocani comes from an inhumation grave. with the distinguished sites at Văleni-„La Moară”124 and Homiceni125. dominated by the Greek culture127. “Table Pitcher” containers cluster on the middle course of the Siret (Fig. 124   IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988 – graves 184. 478. 218. “Table amphora” The single vessel of the type comes from Ciocani128. 129   PALADE 1978–1979. Class 27–31. 311–312. The liquids’ volume carried in these recipients might have reached ca. in our view. Bichir’s dating being thus inacceptable. 132   OPAIȚ 2003b. 382. 107 no. 118   IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988. A single find (Shi- rokoe. 13). None of the 24 specimens of the type identified in the researched area has the mouth or rim118 preserved. Nevertheless. also the fragment at Mătăsaru. Vaslui county. 216. Nonetheless. 120   OPAIȚ 2003b. See also ALEXIANU 1988. 295–296. 433. these amphorae date approximately by mid 3rd century AD. 212 . Opaiţ believes that they might have appeared as early as the 1st century AD. 119   OPAIȚ 2003b. however does not exclude the possibility it copies similar metal and glass vessels132. below the mouth. 122   BICHIR 1973. 6/9. Nevertheless.yet with great reserves. such pitcher-amphorae were filled. the cemetery at “Alkaliya”)126 comes from a grave ascribed to the Sarmatian culture. Based on grave structure. 215 with additional literature. 126   SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990b. 101–102. There. the form may be defined by analogies. 253. “Table Pitcher” recipients originate in the coastal areas of the Black Sea. 6/15. 7. 123   For a geographical distribution of this type see OPAIȚ 2003b. 3. The maximum body diameter is reached in the vessel’s shoulder area. 9 litres120. Ris.  To this period would frame. at Novae115.14. these “Table Pitcher” broadly spread by the Lower Danube and in Dobruja. 3. and in the lower part – onto the shoulders. we may not ignore the fact these denarii were in circulation for long periods of time. The term of “Table Pitcher” was introduced in the scientific circulation by Opaiţ to define certain single-handled larger vessels119. Handles are attached in the upper part.8. 11).7. 218. 203. 193. 125   PETRIȘOR 1986. The rest of the finds come from sites ascribed to the “Free Dacians”.

Pruteni type We ascribed to this type a few amphorae specimens identified in the eponymous settlement152. of Moldova. When checked. 553. Dacia being one of the prov- inces with relatively many finds147. whose dating so early is uncertain134. “Table amphora” resembles the “Carpic”. 152. Rajon Reni. Kapitän II This amphorae type was originally defined by Franz Oelmann by type 77 Niederbieber136. The same error also appears in the Polish version of the book (DYCZEK 1999. Ostia VI. differentiating from the Roman ones only by their grey fabric135. 149   For an overall view of these views see DYCZEK 1999. 298–299. 143.XXX. 150   OPAIȚ 2004a. The ampho- rae are made of red fabric and are relatively large: height of ca. In the area under analysis. The almost cylindrical foot. 258. In Dyczek’s syn- thesis we found the information according to which a similar amphora would have been discovered also at Poiana140. Ungheni district. 3. 134   ALEXANDRESCU 1966. Form “Kapitän II” is defined by a conical neck. 299. Kuzmanov VII. XXV/11. 141   The author references SANIE 1981. 50 cm. The vessel is mentioned as belonging to type Zeest 79. 143 and Fig. 143  See CRÎȘMARU 1977. 47/1. these recipients were used to carry/store wine151. 402–403. 3. Keay XII. the terms Berenice MR Amphora. 145   CRÎȘMARU 1977. Pl. this type of containers is represented by a fragment (foot) from Coloneş- ti-Mărunţei138 and another fragment coming from the cemetery at Čauš in the Bugeac area139. In the Roman-provincial environment. Most come from features dating to the 3rd century AD. A good dating alternative is provided by an analogy from Athens. 1 m and diameter of ca. Scopan E. 75. especially since from respective ensemble also came a fine red fabric bowl. Oblas’ Odessa. with a commonly grooved surface. Pl. 147   ARDEȚ 2006. 137   For references on the research evolution history of this amphorae type see for instance DYCZEK 2001. originating in Grave 1 Barrow 5 (SIMONENKO 2003.centuries AD133. Zeest 79 etc. 135   For this form of vessels see BICHIR 1973. 221–222. 94–95. Dyczek 18. 101. although specimens datable either as early as the second half of the 2nd century AD or by early 4th century AD148 are known. For the research at Pruteni (VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004. XXV/11. 46–47. From the form point of view.10. Over the course of the research. it cannot be identi- fied as belonging to a Kapitän II type recipient145. Bjelajac XII. Fig. 138   BICHIR 1984. 137–138.137 were also used. Checking the information collected by Dyczek for our area of study pointed out further errors.9. Dyczek’s reference141 shows that all amphorae presented there come from Barboşi and by no means from Poiana! Neither the monograph of the site at Poiana contains any specimen of this amphora type142. 143. 151   OPAIȚ 2004a. To confirm the infor- mation see BICHIR 1984. 80–81. with a slightly grooved surface is also specific. 213 . 146. Rădulescu 6. 65. 153. where the production of these recipients is dated by Robinson to the end of the 2nd century AD. Asia Minor or even Syria149 or the Aegean Islands basin150. Pl. See also TELNOV/ VORNIC/BUBULICI 2003. 88/8. 53). like for instance. 140   DYCZEK 2001. 144   Botoșani county. with a grooved surface. 142   VULPE/TEODOR 2003. Peacock-Williams 47. CRÎȘMARU 1981. We could not confirm the presence of Kapitän II amphorae143 fragments in also other cases reported by Dyczek. like for instance Drăguşeni144. 111. Recip- ients of the type are made of brownish-red fabric. 146   DYCZEK 2001. small. See also DYCZEK 2001. 136   OELMANN 1914. 112). Abb. R. 136. The dating of a similar specimen from Histria as early as the 1st century AD seems uncon- firmed. Fig. Likely. 32/5 and 33/1. 148   An overall view of the distribution and dating of this amphorae form gives MACKENSEN 1999. this type of amphorae is much spread. Over-heightened han- dles start from below the rim. 152   Pruteni. however. 139   The cemetery at Čauš is near the place at Novosel’skoe. The origin area of Kapitän II amphorae was identified with Moesia Inferior. The archaeological monograph of Drăguşeni contains indeed the illustration of an amphora foot.2.1. the find at Coloneşti-Mărunţei presented under the name of Mătăsaru146.3rd century amphorae. in our view. The cylindrical 133   PALADE 1978–1979. See also NEGRU/BĂDESCU/AVRAM 2003.

Interestingly. like cereals or flour155. while this amphorae type should be regarded as a duplicate or local copy of Roman amphorae163. further research of the landscape. there should be a reason why they were produced in the area by the middle course of the Prut. However. this form might have been used for the transport and storage of salted fish. The explanation that the Pruteni amphorae were occasionally produced for the domestic use of the settle- ment there and the area nearby. not all Roman period amphorae were made of high quality fabric. The amphora base ends in a small cylindrical foot (Fig.neck ends in the upper part with an inwards thickened rim and a profiled groove (to attach the lid). • There are certain Roman period kilns where large amphorae were used as supporting posts of the pottery firing kiln dome or to anchor the containers intended for firing – namely. 161   ZEEST 1960. their content is worth a separate discussion. who argues that an amphora copy may be identified only where vessels were examined fragment by fragment (EHMIG 2003. the issue of a local amphorae production at Pruteni remains. The term of “Roman amphorae” occasionally conceals that of “Roman-provincial” amphorae. Fig. An identical parallel for the containers at Petreni could not be found. 156   DYCZEK 2001. currently. 158   OPAIȚ/BAUMANN 2006. 164   How difficult is to differentiate among local copies and “import” amphorae is shown by Ulrike Ehmig’s work. Dyczek’s hypothesis should rather be dismissed. This find has led to the idea of a “local” production at Pruteni. red-fired amphorae dating to the 3rd century AD are still a less known phenomenon. 52–56. • According to our observations. 116. all the more so since olive cultivation in the Bosporan Kingdom for the export of olive oil is not recorded during the Roman period. less supported by arguments. If the research team led by Vlad Vornic is right (namely that the Pruteni amphorae are locally made). 159. which broadly corresponds with the dating of the Zeest 85161 amphorae too. it is impossible to say if large fish quantities were processed by the middle course of the Prut. based on container sizes. Similar proportions and sizes are found with recipients in form Zeest 85 discovered in the Bosporan Kingdom area153 or in type Dyczek 36154. starting from the neck and supported onto the shoulders. we may agree with Opaiţ’s conclusion above that originally. 214 . Likely. XXXV/85. it is reported that among the amphorae found at Pruteni. flora and fauna history in the Pruteni area would bring additional information for the under- standing of this topic. 4162. 165   See for instance the comments HINKER 2013. 211–212. 14). we do not agree that a poor quality Roman-provincial product is necessarily indicative of its local production/copy in the Barbaricum. therefore. 116. Handles are massive yet short. Anm. still open. Starting from the premise that the amphorae are nothing but recipients for merchandise. they were secondarily used and were not the results of a local pottery production165. Opaiţ158. the scholar interprets these amphorae as being used to store and carry fish by-products159. 46–47. 159   See also OPAIȚ 2007. it is argued they likely stored retailed goods. 46–47. 171. This hypothesis too generates a series of questions: • In the current state of research. as supposed by Dyczek157. on the other hand. Furthermore. 154   DYCZEK 2001. The geo-political situation in the area did not favour either the export of the farming products from the Bosporan Kingdom to the east-Medi- terranean world. 160   VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004. seems at least. However. 569). later filled in broad mouth lidded amphorae. 33. differentiating among each other in both form and quality. Tabl. 157   DYCZEK 1999. Based on the material in Dobruja. in this current state of the research. 163   VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004. The purpose of these amphorae is unclear: on one hand. A more plausible interpreting of the use of these amphorae was expressed by A. 153   ZEEST 1960. The excavations conducted in the settlement at Pruteni dated this amphorae type to the 3rd century AD160. Based on their shape. 160 with additional literature. in our view. 28–29. it is assumed they were used for wine or olive oil156. the excavators presented the quality differences of the fabric and degreasers used at Pruteni comparative to “proper”164 Roman ampho- rae. 162   VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI/CIOBANU 2007. Until then. 252. Our knowledge on the typology of the amphorae forms in this chronological segment relies mostly on the study of small fragments and not complete or restorable containers. one was discovered inside the pot- tery firing kiln no. 250–253. 155   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998.

They were generally dated to the 2nd – 3rd centuries AD. The problem resolution requires the extension of the studied chronological period so to include each information on Roman amphorae and not only those from the existence period of Roman Dacia (Fig. Indeed. These are finds from both settlements and cemeteries. 16). in our view. Some specimens were discovered in the feet or pelvis area. Commonly. on the contrary. the amphorae must be interpreted not as funerary inventory objects. This is why. they were also used to store and carry other products as well. The Roman amphorae in the investigated area were especially used to transport wine. as they were only recipients used to carry (and occasionally store) products168. according to the standards of the historical-ethnical periodization. Secondarily. 170  SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BEGER/PAUNIER 1999. Ris. for instance: Pervomaisc/ Pervomajsk172 or Porogi173. where they associate with other pieces. as are circumstances from other well studied areas of the empire170. 173   SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991. we appreciate less likely the statements of some of our colleagues that similar amphorae carried different types of goods. 84. amphorae also appear as funerary inventory. Except that. In one of the cremation graves from Bărboasa. namely the filling of the gravepit or even in the barrow mantle. A strict position of the amphorae within the inhumation graves could not be determined. others. like fish or cereals. the chance finds of Roman amphorae were ascribed almost exclusively only to the existence period of the Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture. 17. The author excludes the production and sale of empty/contentless amphorae (EHMIG 2007. A rela- tively large number of finds are also worth mentioning. 69–74). while their mapping indicates a cluster- ing of the finds west the Prut and their lack in the territory between the Dniester and the Prut. being used for the transport of other goods. 167   RIKMAN 1975. Typologically unidentified amphorae Over the course of our investigation we recorded a series of amphorae fragments whose typological order- ing is impossible based only on publications. 40% of the studied amphorae come from archaeological contexts of funerary nature. an amphorae form was reserved for a single product type. The spatial distribution of the amphorae in funerary contexts evidences a large number of finds within 166   URSACHI 1978. 15). but as remains of the funerary feats/banquets occurring after the burial. 215 . The content carried With the recent research. 171   CĂPITANU 1975. The find of those dippinti might record an exception rather than the rule itself. as evidenced by the tests performed at Schela. Dyczek’s hypothesis that all Sco- pan VII amphorae were used to carry oil and garrum seems unlikely169. 169   DYCZEK 1999. lay outside the proper grave. 3. an accurate methodical comparison between the two research sub-regions is impossible. 9. The overlapping distribution limits of this category of archaeological artifacts with the current political borders of Romania makes us believe we should look for the causes of such spatial distribution in the history of the archaeological research on both banks of the Prut. most often we are dealing with amphorae carrying liquid goods. 168   See Ulrike Ehmig’s analysis on the possibility of the amphorae production and distribution only as containers and not as recip- ients indispensable for the movement of other goods. it has been increasingly clear that amphorae themselves were not the Roman-pro- vincial product circulating. 172   RIKMAN/HYNKU 1970. Fig. 5. otherwise all amphorae should have been marked in the same manner! In conclusion. the lower part of an amphora was used as cinerary urn171. In these cases. No other similar tests or results are known until now. ca. especially during the former USSR. The use and re-use of the amphorae in the Barbaricum The main questions to be asked are as follows: in what context were the amphorae discovered? In what context were they used? As noted from (Fig. 4.1–2. 151–152. like for instance oil. whose flourishing phase dates mainly only after the abandonment of Dacia by the Romans167. 79. a more detailed analysis of the circumstances has showed the following: the chance Roman amphorae finds in the current territory of Romania (in the research area) were ascribed. 27. Furthermore. of which it is known only the fact they are “Roman amphorae”. In the Republic of Moldova. Galaţi county.11. based only on publications. The Pruteni amphorae are exceptions. to the “Free Dacians” and dated to the existence period of the Roman province of Dacia166.

176  SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999. as mentioned also by Martin-Kilcher regarding the Roman amphorae from Switzerland that no map of finds indicates where precisely the amphorae were produced. firstly because of the methodological differences underlying such “chronologies”: some refer to the time when the object was made. The existence of supposedly transfer centres of the products from large containers into the amphorae – alike those known or supposed in the provinces from the west of the Roman Empire177 – could not be. the Roman-provincial amphorae from the investigated area may be divided into two groups. where in the cellars destroyed by mid 3rd century AD also emerge small Shelov D amphorae178. In this literature. The “Table Pitcher” type seems to have the same Pontic origins. as well as in cremation graves from the sub-Carpathian area (Fig. with brownish-dark pyroxene particles as degreasers that may be associated with the amphorae producers from Heraclea or Sinope). See also HINKER 2013. but where the products they carried were sold176. but not least. is explained by the lack of permanent inhabitancy documented archaeologically. 31. like the Lower Danube or the steppes of the Bugeac. 159. are not direct evidence of their firing in such kilns or of a local amphorae production. 175  SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999.inhumation grave by the lower course of the Dniester and the Danube. we identified 109 such finds174. we may not determine with certainty either for how long the amphora was “circulating”. we do not exclude the possibility these recipients of relatively large size had been used to support the kiln walls or dome. may be an exception. it is possible to take as reference the dating of closed ensembles outside the investigated territory. As they are products made of hard material. 6. many of the relevant works deal with the time when the artifact was placed into the ground. An example to this effect is the ancient town at Tanais. Produc- tion was organised in the area of the agricultural production centres as well as in coastal areas or by naviga- ble rivers175. We believe. for the period of the 3rd century AD. The amphorae in this site. due to the evolution of our knowledge on the population north of the Lower Danube during the existence period of Roman Dacia. 216 . For most amphorae types discovered in the researched area. Chronologically. others regard its circulation period and last. however. 178   BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998. Their absence from other regions of the investigated area. The Aegean origin of Kapitän II amphorae is accepted in the scholarly literature. 7. supported by arguments. such approach was possible only in a few cases. This way of identifying the origin of an artifact type seems yet to us erroneous. 17). The amphorae finds from Pruteni. while the “Table amphora” may be interpreted as influence of the Italic or possible Gallic traditions. The chemical analysis of the amphorae fabric from Pruteni and the comparison of the results with the chemical matrix of the fabric of which the local pottery was made could clarify this research issue. Determining the time of the amphorae production (alike the coins or written documents) is for the time being impossible. The first group is composed of amphorae coming from ensembles by the end of the 1st century and early/first half of the 2nd century AD. Overall. published as coming from within the pottery firing kilns. namely in use. Amphorae origin and production places The amphorae production is one of the main research sources of the ancient economy history. where they were likely used to carry the wine brought from the prov- inces of the Roman Empire. The only way to determine (indirectly) the chronology of artifacts like the ampho- rae is the dating based on their find in closed ensembles. 574. 79. These recipients mainly cluster in the sub-Carpathian area. The mapping of the finds points to a most definitely subjective image. on the middle course of the Prut. 177   For comments and additional literature on the topic see EHMIG 2003. unequal in size. 161–177. 46% of all amphorae specimens inventoried herein. Personally. amphorae cannot be dated with certainty in the considered area. Finds from settlements represent ca. while the second includes amphorae from the end of the 2nd century 174   Except these. one may argue for an origin on the south-Pontic coast (especially in the case of light-coloured fabric amphorae. 45 finds from funerary contexts could not be identified chronologically. we identified an attempt to define the origin area of the amphorae based on maps with the spatial distribution of the finds. for the time being. we record only four cases where Roman amphorae come from graves dated to the end of the 1st century – early 2nd century AD. 79. Nonetheless. Anm. For the amphorae analysed herein. The dating of the amphorae production Compared to other groups of archaeological artifacts.

179   To these also add the amphorae for which a dating could not be established. either the mentioned “linear fortifications” are not chronologically related to the Roman period or cannot be regarded only as simple linear earth fortifications. Returning to Shelov C and D type of finds. we found that type Shelov C is much more numerous in the area by the middle course of the Siret. 183   To define this type of Roman-Barbarian relation types in Central Europe see WOLTERS 1995. 184   Although the information in Ovid is with at least a few generations earlier than the period discussed herein. See also SALDERN 2004. As these amphorae types have a different dating at Tanais. based on the mapping of this type of amphorae finds. 8. We may assume that in the areas just nearby the Roman border or around the ancient centres similar to Tyras. not even approximately. Either changes in the taste of the prospective “importers” or changes related to the pro- duction process in the origin area of the goods. Thus. it is not difficult to make the connection with the so-called earth ramparts: most are oriented almost perpendicularly on the rivers’ direction. while those early barely reach the value of 3%179. while Shelov D type cluster northward. established no later than the early 3rd century AD. Roman amphorae diffuse along the large rivers. or any other causes – we noted that amphorae from the period after mid 3rd century AD are lacking from the investigated area. the Prut and the Siret. The amphorae in the second group count for more than three quarters of the total. Nevertheless. the organised delivery of the products supplied in amphorae. which we presented as “Table Pitcher”. 217 . In order to reach them it was necessary to exchange rivers (oriented in the investigated area mainly on a north-south direction) with certain roads. but vice-versa: the finds cluster on both sides of some of these “linear fortifications”182. it is very likely that the same phenom- enon takes place in the researched area we are dealing with. 46 or KREKOVIČ 1996. but also a different spatial distribution.– first half of the 3rd century AD. 180   See for comparisons DOBESCH 2005. These are mainly wine deliveries. It is also specific to other regions of the European Barbaricum180. especially in the area of northern rampart known under the name of “Troianul Mold- ovei de Sus”. The homogeneity of the series of amphorae finds dated especially to the period of the 3rd century AD prooves. The other types of recipients are found in a much smaller quantity and reached the Barbaricum according to other “rules” of the economy. Even though in the field they have no structure associative with that of a road. which “financially” led to considerably increased transport costs181. Entry means into the Barbaricum In the research history of the relations between the Romans and their neighbours east the Carpathians. In terms of the land transport routes. which do not coincide either with the navigable rivers or other natural communication routes. the mapping of the Roman amphorae finds (alike of other categories of Roman-provincial goods) does not account for their border role. which seem to be punctually oriented to certain micro-areas. The nature of such inflows is also conditioned by a chronological dimension. This communication path between the empire and the Barbaricum is also documented by the written sources. These are the connections in the sub-Car- pathian areas. in our view. we noted these recipient types have not only a different “chronol- ogy”. in our view. To a smaller extent we may speak of this phenomenon in the case of the single-handled containers. the population had much more easier access to Roman-provincial goods than believed insofar. there are other access paths to the Barbarian environment in front the Dacian-Moesian frontier. 641 (with reference to the transport of glass containers/products). the directions and paths that the Roman goods entered the Barbaricum were of special interest. In the current state of the research. Thus. we note that in the period of the 1st century – early 2nd century AD. The delivery of goods in amphorae from the Roman-provincial environment to the Barbaricum was not continuous. they are. 116. The different distribution of these two types of amphorae (both geographical and chronological) makes us believe they reached in different periods populations from different geographical areas. the cause of such impulses cannot be supported by solid arguments. namely these two types of amphorae are not con- current in the same closed archaeological features. Another entry path/form of the Roman-provincial amphorae is represented by the ancient equivalent of today’s “small border traffic”183. In their case we may not speak of organised supply. 181   The costs correlation of the goods transport by sea: river: land is assessed at 1:5:28 – GREENE 1986. like for instance Ovid184. practically crossing the territory between the Dniester. 40. The quasi-linear diffusion of the amphorae along the communication lines represents a spatial distribution pattern for other categories of Roman finds from the first period mentioned above. but pulsatile. known in the literature as Shelov C and Shelov D. carried in light-coloured fabric amphorae with elongated narrow neck. 182   From this point of view. while in the subsequent period they reach regions farther than the previous communication routes.

In some cases. We mentioned trade or war spoils. reached the populations outside the Roman borders. Thus. 73–74. A detailed description of the find con- ditions. but rather the lack of potential of the province of Dacia to “export” goods to the Barbaricum. c) The so-called “small border traffic” in areas where direct communication between the Romans and the non-Roman population nearby the borders was possible. 187  BECK/BULITTA/STEUER/WILSON/DÜWEL 1999. 190   GLODARIU 1974. we may note three entry directions of the Roman-provincial amphorae in the researched area: a) The roads along the navigable rivers. One of the most spread hypotheses regards the “commercial” nature of the phenomenon. a process broken. the connection between the investigated area in the Barbaricum and the province of Dacia is interesting. Under such circumstances. 218 . the means may be grouped in some of economic nature (a) and others of political character (b). To ease the understanding of the discussed issues. in general. For how reliable this information is see for instance PODOSINOV 1987. or possibly – less extensively investigated185. we agree that not the diffi- cult communication routes are the cause of communication deficiencies with the province on the other side of the Carpathians. SANIE 1981. They may be though deduced based on logical markers. as they either refer to territories inside the Carpathian Arch or to periods prior the estab- lishment of Dacia as Roman province. we may speak of these goods production in the non-roman territory. 505. usually military. Another explanation is the marked military nature itself of the east of Dacia – without towns and crafting centres. 130. yet identification of these means through the study of the discovered artifacts is a relatively difficult task. by Ioan Glodariu. b) The land roads connecting it with farther inland areas. in the scholarly literature were issued many views on how to interpret the way that the Roman-provincial goods. with no important underground ores186. in particular. relying on data from ancient written sources or even those ethnographic. without a network of villae with their important role in the agricultural pro- duction. 185   OPREANU 1998. Trade Over time. “The economic connections” would thus be the main cause for the diffusion of the “Roman imports” in the Barbaricum from Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. Nevertheless. were deemed commercial products. IONIȚĂ 1982. The same author men- tions the pillage raids of the Sarmatians in the Roman Empire. we shall analyse in detail two of the entry means of the amphorae in the Barbaricum: the trade and stipends/subsidies or “rates” for services. Below. 72–74. without yet making any connection between the distribution of the Roman-provincial artifacts and such military-political events. Within the same context. In Romania. oriented north-south. 9. “diplomatic gifts” or “peace funds” and “souvenirs”. Glodariu’s results are secondary. 77. On the role of the Eastern Carpathians in Dacia’s relations with the area east the Eastern Carpathians see IONIȚĂ 2004 and also REICHERT/UDOLPH/IONIȚĂ 2000. only by the invasion of the Huns189. for instance. of the technological peculiarities applied in the making of a Roman amphora or the accurate mapping of all resembling finds say nothing specific on how such objects crossed the border of the Roman Empire187. 9. 180–300. and the amphorae. his work is representative for the Romanian historical and representative for the “small border traffic” by the Lower Danube and the north-west of the Black Sea. 189   KROPOTKIN 1967.1. 188   KROPOTKIN 1967. in many reference works188. It was presented in the doctoral thesis titled „Relații comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană”190 (“Dacia’s Trade Relations with the Hellenistic and Roman worlds”). because of the difficult accessibility from the province of Dacia. the Roman amphorae for wine or oil discovered east of the Carpathians and north-west the Black Sea. At first sight. 106. Thus. 186   For these details see the theme maps in the dictionary-atlas of Roman Dacia (BĂRBULESCU 2005). Means to cross the border In the introduction we listed a series of manners in which the scholarly literature perceives the “crossing” of the amphorae carrying Roman-provincial products past the borders of the Roman Empire towards the Barbaricum. according to Kropotkin. The author asks and answers a series of questions related to Dacians’ trade with the Romans: what kind of goods did both sides trade? Who were the traders? Which communication routes were accessi- ble? When and how the Roman-provincial “originals” were replaced by local copies? To this study. this economic issue was approached. the inflow of goods to this province seems to have been very timid.

the regional trade192. 196   ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006. 208   For metal and salt extraction see WOLLMANN 1996. 46. already part of the large distance trade203. also relatively accessible to the Barbarians. for Germania magna. 405–418. there are no arguments or at least credible indications on the transfer activities of the goods in these points. 139. it is based on the Roman markets’ (and implicitly of the goods) accessibility to the retail buyers.archaeological school and aids us even today in understanding how to approach the issue of Rome’s relations with its neighbours north of the Lower Danube. 202   KÖHLER 1985. Germ. which was served by a single settlement-fair (PETRIKOVITS 1985. As noted above. it is though an explana- tion model for the spatial diffusion of the Roman-provincial goods discovered in a more spread area from the Barbaricum. as well as to the non-Roman traders coming from beyond the frontiers194. 314–315. 194   For a comparison with the circumstances in Germania Magna see KUNOW 1989. the involvement of the Roman traders was accepted by the researchers for the area just nearby the limes206. Regarding the 191   KÖHLER 1985. 200   We hope that future research on the eastern limes of Roman Dacia would bring further information also on the relations of this prov- ince with the territories east the Carpathians. border areas could be ensured with various categories of merchandise. 193   For this trade form in and with Germania Magna see WOLTERS 1995. 240–250. mainly because the difficult access over the Eastern Carpathians. 199   Tacitus. 64). Stupperich’s critical view on the identification of trading routes based only on the spatial diffusion of Roman “import” finds (STUPPERICH 1995. Another view for the archaeological identification of this trade form belongs to STJERNQUIST 1985. including those cheap. 108–109. 41. 67. We believe that among these wine and oil could have also been found. might have been also – beside the large ports like Tyras or Olbia – centres where goods were re-packaged/ports of trade 202. As result of such regional trade201. For reasons mentioned above. We may define /identify several trade forms for the research area discussed herein. In the scholarly literature there are also views agreeing with the presence of the “foreign” traders (meaning. In the current state of research. A question still mostly unanswered in the analysis of Roman “imports” from the Barbaricum is that of the products sold in exchange for wine or oil. from large barrels to amphorae or other smaller containers. based on the “small border traffic/trade”193. Roman) in the territories of the Germanic tribes TAUSEND/STANGL/TAUSEND 2009. About the role of these trading places nearby the limes. 204   SALDERN 2004. for instance. however without supporting his hypothesis with arguments207. 105–109. cattle. 192   H. we find information from written source especially in cases when access was prohibited by the Roman author- ities198. We may suppose that southern origin goods reached these points by sea and then by rivers204. This hypothesis is confirmed especially by the information in Tacitus on the access of the Hermuduri to the Roman markets199. We may not theorize on the origin of the traders crossing these commercial paths together with the Roman goods – they might have come from the populations in the Barbaricum. 207   KROPOTKIN 1967. Galaţi196. Kropotkin mentions slaves. 219 . On our view. 319). however there are no arguments to exclude those from within the empire as potential traders. 203   For the role of these ports of trade in the establishment of the trade within the Roman Empire see for instance PETRIKOVITS 1985. 107–108. 205   See in this context R. 67. of mass production. von Petrikovits used the term of “Regionalhandel”/”regional trade” to define the trade from a region. sent by the Romans north the Danube or over the Eastern Car- pathians. hides or furs. By trade one understands “the exchange of goods/merchandise within a single group or between different social groups”191. or even amber. From there. 71–72. Glodariu discusses the issue of the reciprocal trade appealing to three well- known products of Dacia: gold. 198   See for such examples WOLTERS/ERDRICH/VOß 2003. 185–186. See for instance POPA/BORDI 2016 for the fortification at Comolău. These are fully recorded in Dacia208. 201   We mention that Godłowski gave this trade only a local role/character (GODŁOWSKI 1985. Orlovka197 or even the centres on the right bank of the lower course of the Danube. 113–114. We mention that. salt and grains. we believe that such a “small border trade” was not possible in the forts on the eastern limes of Roman Dacia200. Firstly. 197   POPA 2001. We may assume that in this “small frontier trade” might have served the Roman points at Barboşi195. 209   GLODARIU 1974. 641. 195   POPA 2001. while the Greek or Roman traders’ interest for these products of Dacia is also well documented by the written sources209. we may not exclude the fact that above points by the Lower Danube.1. as places where regional fairs took place. carried in small amphorae. the Roman-provincial goods should have contin- ued their path to the destinations in the Barbaricum via the smaller rivers and / or later by land205. 206   KUNOW 1989. 102. Nevertheless. 363).

the foreign policy of the Roman Empire was dominated by actions of territorial displacement of populations with which Rome entered in conflict. Subsidies are pays that may be related to takeover by the Barbarians of certain military obligations or the border defence211. information being difficult to obtain based on the currently available archaeological sources. for instance wine (carried in 210   GORDON 1949. out of which recovery was commonly explained by the gradual devaluation of the money/currency in which pays were likely made. the scholarly lit- erature does not admit the possibility they had been used as exchange units in the Romans’ trade with their neighbours north the Lower Danube. the political circumstances change in the region. 3) to create division among the enemies210. seemingly. 219  See for instance Cassius Dio LXVIII. 132. 216   BEMMANN 2003. 120–121. 214   Here would have intervened especially issues regarding the export of arms.2. Starting with Domitian’s reign. Gordon divided the Roman pays to the neighbours by the empire borders into three main cat- egories: 1) to buy alliance and active military help. 64–65. Military conflicts become the main way to resolve any disputes. continued by Hadrian towards the mid of the following century. one should mention also the payments that Roman authorities made for mercenary services. but brought the imperial treasury to deadlocks. we believe plausible the hypothesis according to which some subsidies and stipends addressed to the Barbarians north the Lower Danube were paid in products. together with the means of the Roman foreign policy. Integration of the individuals displaced south the Danube also meant the reinforcement of the economic. while the pay for their military services would have been rested with the leaders of each unit216. 217   See for instance ZAHARIADE 2009. we note there is definite evidence on such a “crossing” manner of the Roman Empire borders. Much more plausible seems Bemmann’s hypothesis that entire mercenary units were employed215. However. 212   The term used in the Germanic environment is “Stillhaltegelder”. On one hand. 2) to buy immunity from attack. Instead of conclusion As early as emperor Augustus’s rule. For this topic see NICOLAY 2009. pays for military services Another way by which Roman-provincial amphorae might have reached the Barbaricum are by way of subsidies paid by the empire to groups of populations outside empire borders. At least until mid 1st century AD. demographic and fiscal potential of the newly populated areas with “Transdanubians” – see KEHNE 2009. this policy was. subsidies. 9. Another form of payments might also be related to the “peace upkeep” and restrain from raiding the empire212. For an archaeological view – see STEUER 2009. 10. 266–269. with which this category of veteran-mercenaries must have been confronted. 220 . comparable to praemium militum in the Roman army213. Neither this category of pays is documented historically or archaeologically in the area under examination herein. 6. these might have been a sort of individual payments subsequent to the completion of a mission. under Domitian also appears the first information on the Roman diplomacy’s attempts to replace military force with that of the money219. the historical and epigraphic sources speak of many such actions carried out also by the Lower Danube. Subse- quent to the Romans’ wars against the Dacians. 218   Ensuring the borders is not the only goal of these actions. Last but not least. Summing up the information on the trade of amphorae for Roman-provincial goods like wine or fish prod- ucts.Roman coins (mainly in silver) discovered in impressive quantities in the investigated area. The written sources of the Antiquity record these subsidies awarded to the Barbarians. In this context. For details see WOLTERS 1991. 215   A view from the standpoint of the written sources on the phenomenon of these military groups /units of the Antiquity see TIMPE 2009. payments to the Barbarian populations becoming a routine which did not only repeat yearly. 60. 211   WOLTERS 1991. In the scholarly literature. Nevertheless. especially since these territories were no source for raising Roman auxiliary troops217. Stipends. subsidies are deemed only of the foreign policy tools of the Roman Empire in its relations with various groups and groupings of Barbarian peoples. this form of individual mercenary services with individuals from the Barbarian environment around the provinces of Moesia Inferior and Dacia is not yet supported directly by either of the known sources214. 116. during which many Transdanubians were displaced from their permanent living places218. 213   For details and previous references see for instance SCHNEIDER/STOLL 2002.

Sarmaţii în spaţiul est-carpatic (sec. Condurachi (ed. BULITTA/H. ARDEȚ. relatively numerous/massive of wine amphorae com- ing from the southern coast of the Black Sea.amphorae!)220. as well as their interpretation within the frame of the relationships of romans with their neighbours north of the Lower Danube was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation. 255–264. 13 (Berlin – New York 1999). In these circumstances. Publicaţiile Institutului de Studii Clasice 6 (Cluj-Napoca 2005). Săpături 1955–1961. In Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertum- skunde.). ARDEȚ 2006 A. The amassment of Roman denarii hoards. ARSEN’EVA/J. Atlas-Dicţionar al Daciei Romane. Eurasia Antiqua 9.e s. Die Grabungen in Tanais 1999. ALEXANDRESCU. WILSON/K. M. 487–528. project number PN-II-RU-TE–2014–4–2563. Garlan (ed. I a. 2003. Chr. SYMONENKO. When presenting the historiography of the issues related to the research of Roman amphorae. Istorie şi civilizaţie. Chr. ARSEN’EVA/FORNASIER 2003 T. In E. M. 497–593. Amfore de tip Kapitän II în Dacia romană.). CNCS-UEFISCDI. In this way. Arheologia Moldovei XII. Răspândirea amforelor cu inscripţii în teritoriul dacic liber din estul României. 105–116. we under- lined the role of Ion Ioniţă’s work in terms of the relations between Roman denarii hoard clusters and those of Roman-provincial amphorae. we may assume that once with the diminished currency reserves of the imperial purse and the ever growing financial deficit. In D. As shown above. 237–279. Sarmaţii în spaţiul Nord-Pontic (Cluj-Napoca 2009). Les amphores romaines en Mer Noire (1. Bondoc (ed. In Y. 221 . Handel. In Honorem Gheorghe Popilian (Craiova 2006) 48–54. BÂRCĂ.) (Cluj-Napoca 2006). BECK/B. M. BÂRCĂ /O. Denarii are usually regarded as the expression of subsidies and stipends paid by the imperial purse regularly or occasionally to Superioris Barbari. II p. Histria II (București 1966).). – începutul sec. BÖTTGER. V. massively present in some micro-area of the sub-Carpathian region (and generally in Eastern and northern Europe). ARSEN’EVA/BÖTTGER 2000 T. The further development of the anal- ysis of previously collected materials. BÂRCĂ 2006 V. Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire (Aix-en-Provence 1999). BECK/BULITTA/STEUER/WILSON/DÜWEL 1999 H. Thus may be explained those deliveries. Translated by Gabriela Balica Acknowledgments This paper represents the improved version of the correspondent chapter in my Habilitation Thesis. 220   Similar interpreting of the Heraclea amphorae from the 4th century AD discovered in the sites of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov culture was proposed by MAGOMEDOV–4. BÂRCĂ /SYMONENKO 2009 V. Călăreţii stepelor. 10 Jahre Ausgrabungen in Tanis. which we suggested especially based on Shelov C and D ampho- rae. 2000. Necropola tumulară. which I presented at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn in 2013. 221   IONIȚĂ 1982. Griechen am Don. these container finds evidence an different spatial and chronological diffusion. ALEXIANU 1988 M. DÜWEL. the naturalization of the Roman economy and the transition to direct exchanges might have affected/influence the foreign policy and the relations with the peoples north the Lower Danube. BĂRBULESCU (ed.). STEUER/D.). 1988. ARSEN’EVA /B. FORNASIER. Eurasia Antiqua 6. ALEXANDRESCU 1966 P. the payment of subsidies and stipends to the populations in the Barbaricum might have also included in-kind products. may be interpreted as evidence of extant local structures/power centres of the peoples in the Barbari- cum 221. BĂRBULESCU 2005 M. ABADIE-REYNAL. 79–80. References ABADIE-REYNAL 1999 C. like for instance wine. 134–294. ALEXIANU.

50–118.  Eiring. II-III e. 459–466. 1981. HOFFMANN. 167–197. Petreshty.  LUND. BÖTTGER/D. HEDINGER/B.). judeţul Botoşani. GLODARIU. Typology (Warszawa 2001). BEMMANN.Chr.  GLAZOV/S. september 26–29. BOȚAN 2015 S. DOBESCH 2005 G. Die römischen Amphoren im Umland von Mainz. Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 4 (Möhnesee 2003).  P. Transport amphorae and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean.S. Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5 (Aarhus 2004). 1977. Carpica XXVI/1. Siems (eds. ETTLINGER/HEDINGER/HOFFMANN 1990 E. O amforă cu ulei de măsline din sec. Hierasus IV. Wassergrenzen und Wasserwege aus urgeschichtlicher und römischer Sicht.  EIRING/G. CĂPITANU 1975 V. EIRING/FINKIELSZTEJN/LAWALL/LUND 2004 J.  LAWALL/J. Wasserwege: Lebenader – Trennungslinien. Dacia N.  Lund (eds. Antyk i barbarzyńcy: księga dedykowana Profesorowi Jer- zemu Kolendo w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin (Warszawa 2003). Jahnkuhn.  L. Otchet ob archeologicheskich issledovaniyakh sarmatskogo i chernyachovskogo mogil’nikov bliz s. Săpăturile arheologice în Dava de la Răcătău-Tamasidava. (Warszawa 1999). v. Contribuţii la o monografie arheologică (Botoşani 1977).und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. CĂPITANU. BICHIR 1984 G. Biblioteca de arheologie 43 (Bucureşti 1984). DYCZEK. EHMIG. Carpica VII. judeţul Bacău.  CĂPITANU. jud. Carnap-Born- heim/H. CRÎȘMARU 1981 A. H. In J. BRUDIU. H. 159–163. Descoperiri sarmatice pe valea Podrigei. Internationales Symposion Grundprob- leme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum.). Vase de sticlă în spaţiul dintre Carpaţi şi Prut (secolele II a. Pontica et Mediterranea IV (Cluj-Napoca 2015).). Biblioteca de arheologie 20 (Bucureşti 1973). Cultura Carpică. 1. B. 15. BICHIR. Les sarmates au Bas-Danube. Muzeul Naţional III. comuna Onceşti.BEMMANN 2003 J. BOȚAN. CRÎȘMARU 1977 A. Die römischen Amphoren aus Mainz. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der 222 . BÖTTGER/ŠELOV 1998 B.n. DYCZEK. Necropola daco-carpică de incineraţie din secolul al III-lea de la Gălăneşti-Bărboasa. Bursche. Dystrybucja amphor i transportowanych w nich produktów w 1. 83–90. Dipinti na amforakh iz Tanaisa / Amphorendipindi aus Tanais. GODŁOWSKI. – II p. GLODARIU 1974 I. Ciołek (eds.Chr. BICHIR 1977 G. EHMIG 2003 U. 1975.  I. ŠELOV. CRÎȘMARU. CĂPITANU 1997 V. po Chr. BICHIR. 53–108. Acts of the international colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens. J.  FINKIELSZTEJN/M. In C. CRÎȘMARU. descoperită la Schela. DYCZEK 1999 P. In K. Concluding remarks. Form und Dauer des provinzialrömischen Einflusses auf Mitteldeutschland während des jüngeren Römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit. In A. 63–91. 1976. BICHIR 1973 G. Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube. Schriften des Archäologischen Landesmuse- ums. DOBESCH. Friesinger (eds. Romanisierte Barbaren oder erfolgreiche Plünderer? Anmerkungen zur Intensität.–3. EHMIG 2007 U. Düwel. Geto-dacii din Muntenia în epoca romană. intre anii 1992–1996. ETTLINGER/B.). GODŁOWSKI 1985 K. DYCZEK 2001 P. Drăguşeni.-P. 2002. Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 5 (Wiesbaden 2007). Der römische Handel in die Germania libera aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen. XXI. Amfory rzymskie z obszaru dolnego Dunaju. Ungenskogo rayona MSSR v 1988 godu (Kishinev 1989). BRUDIU 1976 M. Ergänzungsreihe (Neumünster 2005) 11–70. GLAZOV/KURCHATOV 1989 V. R. Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae (Bonn 1990).).  EHMIG. 1997. BICHIR. w.  KURCHATOV. Pontus Septentrionalis 1 (Moskva 1998). Galaţi. Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană (Cluj-Napoca 1974).

177–193.  A. Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-. 75–138. In V. Novye dannye o pamyatnikakh pervykh vekov nashej ery na territorii Moldavii. Siems (eds. 1949. Simona Regep-Vlascici. KUZMANOV/A. Düwel. 1996. GUDEA 1980 N. Knossos: the Pottery.). Ausgewählte Typologien provinzialrömischer Kleinfunde. Atalia Ştefănescu (eds. Untersuchun- gen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor. LEAHU/TROHANI 1979 V. 235–406. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike (Göttingen 1985). URSACHI. Jahrtausend n. Philologisch-Historische Klasse.). Săpăturile arheologice de la Vităneşti. 60–69. Stratum Plus 4.  A. Formen des Handels in ethnologischer Sicht. SALKIN. IONIȚĂ. 27–61. 2009. GUDKOVA. Masivul Carpatic – un reper geografic de rezonanţă în istoria Europei (mileniul I d. GUDKOVA/REDINA 1999 A. Eine theoretische und praktische Einführung.  KETRARU/E. Folge 143 (Göttingen 1985). V. KREKOVIČ 1996 E. 255–365. Antični amfori ot akvatorijata na Černomorskoto krajbrežie na Južna Dobrudža. 1999. 127–141.  KROPOTKIN. IONIȚĂ 1982 I. 1980. v Severo-Zapadnom Pričernomor’e (Kul’tura osedlogo naseleniya). GREENE 1986 K. Văleni. Din istoria şi civilizaţia dacilor liberi (Iaşi 1982).–4. 3–20. 1979. KREKOVIČ. V. Sarmatskij mogil’nik Gradeshka v nizov’yakh Dunaya. Typologie und völkerrechtlichen Grundlage internationaler Massendeportationen in der griechisch-römischen Antike. KROPOTKIN. Izvestija na Narodnija Muzej Varna 28 (43). Khronologiya pamyatnikov sarmatskoj kul’tury Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya (Kishinev 1990). 223 . Arkheologiya SSR. KROPOTKIN/A.  IONIȚĂ. Izvestiya Moldavskogo filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR 4 (70). Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta 33. Ekonomicheskie svyazi Vostochnoj Evropy v I tysjacheletii nashej ėry (Moskva 1967). Zur Phänomenologie. Încercare de monografie. IONIȚĂ 2004 I. Jahnkuhn. GUDKOVA 1999 A. 56–72. KEHNE 2009 P. 1.). KROPOTKIN 1967 V. W. Subsidies in Roman Imperial Defence.und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. HAYES 1983 J. In K. KUNOW. Kontaktströme zwischen dem Imperium Romanum und der Germania libera. Severnaya granitsa rasprostraneniya amfor rimskogo vremeni v Vostochnoj Evrope. GREENE. O mare necropolă a dacilor liberi (Iaşi 1988). REDINA. Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte 8/1. 1992.  Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov D1–27 (Moskva 1970). In Mariana Crînguş. IONIȚĂ /V. 1989. V. KUNOW 1989 J. In Honorem Magistrae Doina Benea (= Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis 6) (Timişoara 2004).).13–55. 141–144. 1983. Mogil‘niki Chernyachovskoj kul‘tury (Moskva 1988). HAYES. GROSU 1990 V.  V. KÖHLER. GORDON 1949 C. KROPOTKIN 1970 V. H. Castrul roman de la Breţcu. KÖHLER 1985 U. Studia Historica et Arhaeologica. Beiträge zur Archäologie (Wien 2013). Karpatenge- birge – ein bedeutendes geographisches Merkzeichen in der Geschichte Europas (I. Teleorman. GORDON. 1999. GROSU.Chr. The archaeology of the Roman economy (London 1986). LEAHU/G. KROPOTKIN/KROPOTKIN 1988 V. Römische Lampen im Freien Germanien und in Osteuropa. V. (Kishinev1960). Wirtschafts.Hr. Drevnosti Stepnogo Pricherno- mor’ya i Kryma 7. 168–184. The Annual of the British School at Athens 78. V. Acta Musei Porolissensis IV. 97–169. KETRARU/RIKMAN 1960 N. vv. H. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Rimskie importnye izdeliya v Vostochnoj Evrope. IONIȚĂ/URSACHI 1988 I. The villa Dionysos Excavation. Antike. 337–366. Cercetări arheologice 3. 3.  RIKMAN. KEHNE.). 1. GUDEA. V. 217–229.und Sozialgeschichte 26. D. Kropotkin (ed. F. Phoenix 3/2. KUZMANOV/SALKIN 1992 G. HINKER. KROPOTKIN. HINKER 2013 C. GUDKOVA/E. jud. TROHANI.

52–59. zu: “Dyczek. OPAIȚ 2003a A. OELMANN 1914 F. Severo-Zapadnoe Prichernomor‘e – Kontaknaya zona drevnikh kul‘tur (Kiev 1991). MALJUKEVICH.Ch. OPREANU.  BAUMANN. OPAIȚ 1996 A.. 71–82. 2004. Aspecte ale vieţii economice din provincia Scythia (secolele IV-VI p. Typology (Warszawa 2001)”. W. PALADE.  OPAIȚ /V. 2003b. NICOLAY. AVRAM. PALAMARCHUK 1982 S. Ostmediterrane und nordafrikanische Amphoren aus Regensburg. 1980. 393–400. Kousoulakou (eds. OPAIȚ/BAUMANN 2006 A. OPAIȚ. zu: “Dyczek.c. Gabrielsen. OPAIȚ. Archeologia 54. 330–334.). In A. V. OPAIȚ. In V. Arheologia Moldovei XXV. J. Rimskie amfory v Chernyachovskoj kul‘ture. Materialien zur Römisch-Germanischen Keramik 1 (Frankfurt am Main 1914).). Bibliotheca Thracologica 16 (Bucureşti 1996). Konflikt (Stuttgart 2009) 258–269. PARASCHIV 2002 D. 209–214. OPREANU 1998 C. NEGRU/A. 2002. Typology (Warszawa 2001)”. Germanische Heimkehrer aus dem römischen Militärdienst. 1999. 1978– 1979. In A. P. OPAIȚ 2007 A. O torgovykh kontaktakh Nizhnego Podnestrov‘ya v pervye veka n. 108–130. Orgame/Argamum Supl. Regional and Interregional Economic exchanges (Aarhus 2007). Proceedings of the Symposium: Late Antique Ceramics from Greece (3rd–7th c. Pontic wine in the Athenian market. 291–326. PARASCHIV. Producţia ceramicii locale şi de import. Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta 38. Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorum Acta 38. 125–131. MALJUKEVICH 1991 A. în sud-estul colinelor Tutovei. E. 3–5 octobre 2005. Peuce IX.). BĂDESCU/R.  V. OPAIȚ. OPAIȚ. NEGRU/BĂDESCU/AVRAM 2003 M. J. Die Keramik des Kastells Niederbieber. OPAIȚ 2004b A. OPAIȚ. OPAIȚ 1984 A. Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der zwei Amphoratypen. 311–326. 2003.). Descoperiri sarmatice din secolele 2. A. Arheologia Moldovei XXVII. A la recherche d›une colonie. A Weighty Matter: Pontic Fish Amphorae. Goty i Rim (Kiev 2006). Consideraţii privind posibilitatea industrializării peştelui în Dobrogea antică. OPAIȚ. Dacia romană şi Barbaricum. OPAIȚ. Transport amphorae and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean.). The Black Sea in Antiquity. Papanikola-Bakirtzi. Acts of the international colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens. OPAIȚ 2004a A.). Bucarest-Tulcea-Jurilovca.  H. Amfore pontice romane şi romano-bizantine în zona Dunării de Jos. 1 (Bucarest 2006). Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblät- ter 64. In M. OPAIȚ. Rez. Consideraţii preliminare asupra amforelor romane şi romano-bizantine din Dobrogea. Mănucu-Adameşteanu (ed. 215–218. MAGOMEDOV 2006 B. Cercetări Istorice 9–10. Bürger Roms. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5 (Aarhus 2004). In 2000 Jahre Varuss- chlacht. P. Lund (eds. ‘Table’ amphora versus ‘Table’ pitcher in the Roman Dobrudja. 101–121. K. Pamyatniki rimskogo i srednevekovogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e (Kiev 1982).  Gudkova (ed. PALADE 1978–1979 V. The Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae in the Province of Scythia. Peuce VIII. 165–207. Kapitän II Amphorae in Roman Dacia. V. Gudkova (ed.MACKENSEN 1999 M. 293–308.. Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube. OPAIȚ 1980 A.e.). OPAIȚ 2010 A. 399–407. OELMANN. MAGOMEDOV. Poselenie pervych vekov nashej ery Volch’ya Balka. Thessaloniki. In J. Rez. 2002. 247–259. Lund (eds.. OPAIȚ 2003b A. Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd centuries AD found on the Lower Danube.  PALAMARCHUK. 224 .  V. MACKENSEN. 2003. Actes du Colloque International: 40 ans de recherche archéologique a Orgame/Argamum. Bibliotheca historica et archaeologica Banatica 17 (Timişoara 1998). 90–92.–3. 1984. september 26–29. November 12th–16th 2006 (Thessalon- iki 2010).). In D. Eiring. NICOLAY 2009 J.

Memoria Antiquitatis XV-XVII. Düwel. Xenia. PUZDROVSKIJ/ZAJCEV 2004 A. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4. Aşezarea carpică de la Homiceni. 2004.e. RAEV 1986 B. PETRIKOVITS. POPA /BORDI 2016 A. WILLIAMS. Krim. Amfore romane şi romano-bizantine din Scythia Minor. I – VII p.–4. PETRIKOVITS 1985 H. Arheologicheskaya karta Moldavii 5 (Kishinev 1975). jud. vv. BORDI. RIKMAN 1975 E. Eurasia Antiqua 10. A. Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen 1 (Buch am Erlbach 1993).e. Sokolovskij kurgannyj mogil‘nik (Novocherkask 1985). POPA /Z. Jhs. POPA.n. 3. UDOLPH/I. PEACOCK/WILLIAMS 1986 D. 99–114. 1976. IONIȚĂ. Konstanzer Althis- torische Vorträge und Forschungen 19 (Konstanz 1987). – III e. Studii şi cercetări asu- pra frontierelor Imperiului Roman de pe teritoriul României 1 (Cluj-Napoca 2016). 1972. L. Pamyatniki sarmatov i plemen chernyakhovskoj kul‘tury. Amfore romane şi romano-bizantine în zona Dunării de Jos: (sec. Philologisch-Historische Klasse.).  RIKMAN. Karpaten. 1. Handbuch der Archäologie (München 2004). Römischer Handel am Rhein und an der oberen und mittleren Donau.PARASCHIV 2006 D. SANIE. H. in der Nekropole Ust‘-Al‘ma. H. PEACOCK/D. International Series 278 (Oxford 1986). RIKMAN/I. SALDERN 2004 A. PETROVSZKY 1993 R.n. Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor.  A.und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 29/4. PETRIȘOR. S. 1986.  L. 299–336. 1978. PETRIȘOR 1986 E. n. Pervomajsk (Moldaviya). Neamţ. A. Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor‘ya (Kiev 1978). Vopros datirovki importnych veshchej v pamyatnikakh plemen chernyakhovskoj kul‘tury Dnestro- vsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech‘ya. Secolele II î. REICHERT/J. SANIE 1981 S. PUZDROVSKIJ/J.). 229–267. RAEV. Romains ou Barbares? Architecture en pierre dans le barbaricum à l’époque romaine tardive (sur le matériel archéologique du Nord-Ouest du Pont Euxin) (Chişinău 2001). Două mici depozite de amfore romane descoperite în Moldova. Antikes Glas. Abhandlun- gen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. PODOSINOV 1987 A. iz Tiry. SAMOJLOVA 1978 T. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike. In K.) (Iaşi 2006).R. PETROVSZKY. în lumina cercetărilor de la Ripiceni. A. F. E. Studien zu römischen Bronzengefäßen mit Meisterstempeln. v.e. v. RIKMAN/HYNKU 1970 E. P. PĂUNESCU 1978 A. RĂDULESCU. Osnovnye tipy amfor 1. P. RAEV 1985 B. RIKMAN 1972 E. Pontica IX. Civilizaţia romană la est de Carpaţi şi romanitatea de pe teritoriul Moldovei.  SAMOJLOVA. Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin. (Iaşi 1981). RĂDULESCU 1976 A. Contribuţii privind realităţile din nordul Moldovei în secolul al 4-lea e. 1968. Folge 143 (Göttingen 1985). ZAJCEV. SANIE 1968 S. HYNKU. RAEV (ed. SANIE. Pogrebenie 2. B. 99–114. REICHERT/UDOLPH/IONIȚĂ 2000 H. Ovids Dichtung als Quelle für die Geschichte des Schwarzmeergebiets. 505–515.A. An introductory guide (London – New York 1986). Katalog archeologicheskich kollektsij. 345–350. Amphorae and the Roman economy. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 16 (Berlin – New York 2000) 317–322. Siems (eds. Studii asupra graniţelor romane din Dacia. 84–101. v. RIKMAN. A. POPA 2001 A.Chr. 254–266. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arhe- ologie 19/2. n. PARASCHIV. 225 . Jahnkuhn. Chr.n.  PODOSINOV. G. Prunkbestattungen des 1. u s. SALDERN. H. n. PĂUNESCU. In: Drevnie slavyane i ikh sosedi (= Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 176) (Moskva 1970) 35–37. Fortificaţia de la Comolău.

n. In Sar- matskie kul’tury Evrazii: problemy regional’noj khronologii. N. Recherches sur les Amphores Greques. 56–83. STOLL. Sarmaty Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya v I v. SCORPAN 1977 C. I. Kishinev 1990”. STEUER 2009 H. (Stuttgart 2009) 309–318. Dacia N. Les amphores d’argile claire des premiers siècles de notre ère en Mer Noire. 141–145. Kurgannye mogil‘niki Divizijskij i Belolesskij. I. Römische Importe in sarmatischen und maiotischen Gräbern zwischen Unterer Donau und Kuban. A. V. Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike (Göttingen 1985). Schneider. XXI. 1976. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii (Moskva) 156. In: G. Methodische Überlegungen zum Nachweis von Handel aufgrund archäologischer Quellen.  V. Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor. SIMONENKO 1995b A. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Duna- jskogo mezhdurech‘ya 2 (Kiev 1990). SUBBOTIN/A. SIMONENKO. IV-VII) din spaţiul Mediteranean şi Pontic. SIMONENKO 1995a A. Porogi) (Kiev 1991). SUBBOTIN/A. J. B. Gar- lan. V. H.  LIMBERIS. Franzius (ed. Glas and Faience Vessels from Sarmatian Graves of the Ukraine. ZHESTKOVA. Origini şi linii evolutive în ceramica romano-bizantină (sec. Landfester (eds. Uzkogorlye svetloglinyanye amfory pervykh vekov nashej ery. Römische Keramik in der Schweiz. SIMONENKO 2004 A. 329–334. 345–375. Quellen und Scheifttum zur Kulturgeschichte des Wiehengebiergsraumes B 1 (Espelkamp 1995).  STJERNQUIST. PAUNIER (eds. Naselenie okrugi Khersonesa v pervoj polovine I tysyacheletiya novoj ery (Po materialam neklropolya „Sovchoz Nr. V. MARTIN-KILCHER/L. 1993 in Osnabrück. Rezension zu: “Grosu.). SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990a L. SIMONENKO/LOBAJ 1991 A. 155–185. Eurasia Antiqua 1. 1964. STRZHELECKIJ/T. Sarmatskie drevnosti Dnestro-Dunays- kogo mezhdurech‘ya 1 (Kiev 1990).SCHNEIDER/STOLL 2002 H. STUPPERICH.  MARČENKO/N. 1995. 67–80.S.Y Emperor. Antiqua 31 (Basel 1999). Der Neue Pauly. In H. 1. V. STUPPERICH 1995 R. Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the North Pontic region. 16–21. H. RYZHOVA/G. LOBAJ. SMISHKO 1964 M. Y. M. e. 269–297. ŠELOV. V. 2003. DZIGOVSKIJ. A Móra Ferek Muzeum Evkönyve 1. VYSOTSKAYA/L. 1995. In K. z slidami sklyanogo virobnictva bilya s. In J. 2003–2004 (2005). N. 1978. SCORPAN 1976 C.  V. Journal of Glas Studies 45.e (Pogrebeniya znati u s. SIMONENKO. (Krasnodar 2004). DZIGOVSKIJ. Poselennya III-IV st. Klassifikatsiya i khronologiya. Siems (eds.  SIMONENKO. SCHUCANY/MARTIN-KILCHER/BERGER/PAUNIER 1999 C..). N.  I. SIMONENKO/MARČENKO/LIMBERIS 2008 A. Komariv Chernivets‘koj oblasti. BERGER/D. 41–57.  SCORPAN. SMISHKO. Stratum Plus 4. SUBBOTIN/DZIGOVSKIJ 1990b L. Konflikt. SCHUCANY/S. Khronologiya pamyatnikov sarmatskoj kul’tury Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya. Archäologie der Gefolgschaft. Jahnkuhn. ŠELOV 1986 D. In: 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Materialy i Doslidzennya z Arkheologii Prykarpattya i Volyni 5. n. B.  J.).und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitteleuropa. STEUER.  SIMONENKO/I. 10“). SIMONENKO 2003 A. Bemerkungen zum römischen Import im sogenannten Freien Germanien. SIMONENKO/B. ŠELOV 1978 D. Veteranen. 27–277. V. STRZHELECKIJ/VYSOTSKAYA/RYZHOVA/ZHESTKOVA 2005 S. SCHNEIDER/O. Contribution a la connaissance de certains types céramiques romano-byzantins (IV-e-VII-e siecle) dans l’espace Istro-Pontique. Vortragsreihe zur Sonderausstellung “Kalkriese-Römer im Osnabrücker Land”. H. Actes du colloque international organisé par le centre national de la 226 . SIMONENKO. 134–173. Düwel. STJERNQUIST 1985 B. 45–98. Aspekte römisch-germanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kaiserzeit. ŠELOV. Pontica IX. Khronologiya i periodizatsiya sarmatskikh pamyatnikov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. Kurgannye mogil‘nki Alkaliya i Khadzhider 2. Cancik. Céramique romaine en Suisse. V. F. Archäologie in Eurasien 25 (Mainz 2008).). SCORPAN. 1977. 12/2 (Stutt- gart 2002). Studia Archaeologica.

39–88. TELNOV/V. Aspekte römisch-germanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kai- serzeit.. Bibliotheca Thracologica 39 (Bucureşti 2003).  WOLLMANN.). 2003. UNGUREANU 2002 C. TIMPE. Münstersche Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsges- chichte 10/1. In Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (Berlin – New York 2003). 2. ZEEST. VNUKOV. Chr. Elemente şi influenţe romane la est de Carpaţi în secolele II-III e. TAUSEND. ȚENTEA/CLEȘIU 2006 O. VORNIC /N. 78–132. 10–12 Septembre 1984). 407–415. Chr. B. 227 . UNGUREANU. P. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 13 (Bucureşti 1996). 138–158.e. TAUSEND/G. Jh. In G. Hierasus 1. do n. Descoperiri de amfore la Poiana. VNUKOV. P. VORNIC/V. ZAHARIADE.  J. Quellen und Scheifttum zur Kulturgeschichte des Wiehengebiergsraumes B 1 (Espelkamp 1995) 99–117. ȚENTEA/S. TIMPE 2009 D. Tyragetia XIII.2009 K. 2006. WOLTERS 1995 R. problemy torgovli (Sankt-Peterburg 2006). BUBULICI/L. Der Waren. Raport arheologic. Im Inneren Germaniens: Beziehungen zwischen den germanischen Stämmen vom 1.n. ZAHARIADE 2009 M. Cercetări arheologice XIII. 395–400. die Salzgewinnung und die Steinbrüche im römischen Dakien. khronologiya. The Center for Roman Military Studies 2 (Cluj-Napoca 2009). Geographica historica (Stuttgart 2009). 147–185. l’Université de Rennes II et l’École francaise d’Athènes (Athènes. 41–48. Un centru de olărie dacic din epoca romană (cerce- tările din 2001 şi 2003). 1991. Germanische Gefolgschaften in den antiken Berichten. ERDRICH/H. CLEȘIU. september 26–29. 1978. Cercetări Istorice 18–20.  VNUKOV.-U. 63–79. BUBULICI.und Dienstleistungsaustausch zwischen dem Römischen Reich und dem Freien Ger- manien in der Zeit des Prinzipats. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht.D. STANGL/S.). G. VORNIC/N. Supplément XIII (Paris 1986). Acts of the international colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. bis zum 2. Konflikt (Stuttgart 2009) 294–300. Franzius (ed. Jh. Transport amphorae and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. 105–137. Prichernomorskie amfory I vek do n. WOLTERS. TEODOR. Mineritul metalifer. 2002. TELNOV/V. TELNOV/VORNIC/BUBULICI 2003 N. WOLTERS 1991 R. Petrografiya. J. VNUKOV 2003 S. BUBULICI. Biblioteca de arheologie (Chişinău 2007). WOLTERS/M. (morfoloigiya) (Moskva 2003). VOß. v. Tyragetia XII. VULPE/S. Römischer Import. 2002.e. – II v. recherche scientifique. Piroboridava. Lund (eds. 2004. VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI 2004 V. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5 (Aarhus 2004). Teil 2. Der Erzbergbau. – II vek n. Pan-Roman amphora types produced in the Black Sea region. cartier “Dunărea”. WOLTERS/ERDRICH/ VOß 2003 R. Fortificaţia şi necropola romană de la Galaţi. 1993 in Osnabrück. Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (= Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 83) (Moskva 1960). TAUSEND/STANGL/TAUSEND. extragerea sării şi carierele de piatră in Dacia romană. TELNOV/V. ZEEST 1960 I. Vortragsreihe zur Sonderausstellung „Kalkriese-Römer im Osnabrücker Land“. URSACHI 1978 V. URSACHI. jud. The thracians in the Roman Imperial Army: from the first to the third centuries A.e. Römische Funde in der Germania magna und das Problem römisch-germanischer Handelsbeziehun- gen in der Zeit des Prinzipats. Prichernomorskie amfory I v.  WOLTERS. Galaţi (campania din 1968). n. In J. VNUKOV 2006 S. J. WOLLMANN 1996 V. VORNIC/TELNOV/BUBULICI/CIOBANU 2007 V. Ceramica din aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Pruteni.e. VULPE/TEODOR 2003 R. Eiring/J. Pruteni. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Aşezarea Geto-Dacica de la Poiana. CIOBANU. Noi descoperiri arheologice în aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Pruteni. n. VNUKOV 2004 S.

Fig. 1. Funerary find. 228 . 2. Spatial distribution of Shelov A2 amphorae. 1. Fig. Amphorae Shelov A2. Settlement. 2.

229 . 3. Mihălăşeni. Cazaclia. Vetrişoaia. 1.Fig. 2. Palanca. 3. 4–6. Amphorae Shelov B2.

Fig. 3 – Roman frontiers line 230 . Amphorae find. 2. 4. 1. Roman fort. Spatial distribution of Shelov B2 amphorae.

 5.Fig. Layout of the grave at Cazaclia and its main inventory pieces. 231 .

Buimăceni-Albeşti. 7. 2. 4. Cândeşti. Ipoteşti. Buimăceni-Albeşti. Fig. Săbăoani. Olăneşti. 8. 10 Corpaci. 5. Jijia. Moldoveni- Gabăra. Pervomajsk. 232 . Amphorae Shelov C. 6. Tămăşeni. 6. 11. 12. 9. Scheia. 3. 1.

Iaşi. 8–9. 6. 3–4.Fig. Petreşti. Homiceni. 1–2. Poiana Dulceşti. Amphorae Shelov C. 233 . Goteşti. Holboca. Bucov. 12. Udeni. Botoşani. 11. 7. 5. 7. 10.

B – funerary find. D – find of unknown character. 234 . 8. A -deposit. Fig. Spatial distribution of Shelov C amphorae. C – find in settlement.

Cucorăni. 7. 3. 9. Botoşani. 1–2. 235 . Mătăsaru. 5. Amphorae Shelov D. Ursoaia.Fig. 6. Stînca. Epureni. 8–9. Etulia. 4.

C – find in settlement. Fig. B – funerary context. A – deposit. D – single find. 10. Spatial distribution of Shelov D amphorae. 236 .

2. Finds from the excavated area: 4. 11. 5–8. Shirokoe. Butnăreşti. Fig. Table Pitcher recipients. 13–14. 3. 9. Moldoveni-Gabăra. Histria. Bel’bek. 11. 12. 15. Parallels: 1. Dumbrava. Gâdinţi. Tomai. Văleni. Homiceni. 237 . Sarichioi. 10.

238 . Fig. Spatial distribution of Table Pitcher recipients. 12.

Table amphora from Ciocani. 13.Fig. 239 .

 14. 240 . Fig. The large amphora from Pruteni and its geographical location.

Fig. 3 – Roman frontiers line 241 . Roman fort. Amphora find. 1. Chance finds of Roman amphorae. 2. 15.

 17. C – unknown conditions. 2. Amphorae finds in funerary contexts. 1. 5 – Roman frontiers line. 3 – unknown dating. First half of the 3rd century AD. 4 – Roman fort. A – settlement. B – deposit. 242 . 16. D – funerary find. Fig. Find conditions of Roman amphorae. Period of the end of the 1st century – early 2nd century AD. Fig.

Related Interests