Tomis-Comentariu Istoric Si Arheologic PDF

ȱ
LIVIAȱBUZOIANUȱȱ ȱ MARIAȱB"RBULESCUȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
TȱOȱMȱIȱSȱ
COMENTARIUȱISTORICȱkIȱȱ
ARHEOLOGICȱȱ
HISTORICALȱANDȱARCHAEOLOGICALȱ
COMMENTARYȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
CONSTANoAȱȬȱ2012
CopertaȱI:ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ Tomis.ȱZonaȱarheologic©ȱdeȱlaȱParculȱCatedralei.ȱ
Tomis.ȱArchaeologicalȱresearchesȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱtheȱCathedralȱPark.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱ CopertaȱIV:ȱ
Simbolulȱpalmelorȱridicateȱpeȱoȱinscripöieȱfunerar©.ȱSec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱraisedȱpalmsȱsymbolȱonȱaȱfuneraryȱinscription.ȱ1stȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
Versiune limba engleză:

Corina Apostoleanu
Tehnoredactare computerizată:
Vasilica Podariu
Fotografii:
OltiĠa ğiĠei
Copertă:
Răzvan Petcu
DescriereaȱCIPȱaȱBiblioteciiȱNaöionaleȱaȱRomâniei
BUZOIANU,ȱLIVIAȱ
Tomis.ȱComentariuȱistoricȱóiȱarheologic/ȱ
Tomis.ȱHistoricalȱandȱarchaeologicalȱcommentaryȱ
LiviaȱBuzoianu,ȱMariaȱB©rbulescu.Ȭȱȱ
Constanöa:ȱExȱPonto,ȱ2012ȱ
ISBN:ȱȱ978Ȭ606Ȭ598Ȭ169Ȭ0ȱ
ȱ
MARIA,ȱB"RBULESCUȱ
ȱ
ȱ902 (498 Tomis)
ISBN:ȱ978Ȭ606Ȭ598Ȭ169Ȭ0ȱ
ExȱPontoȱȬȱ2012
Moliter a vobis mea sors excepta, Tomitae
Tam mites Graios indicat esse viros
Ovidius, Ex Ponto, IV, 14, v. 47-48.
Cu dragoste pe mine voi m-aĠi primit aice,

O tomitani! Se vede că sunteĠi de neam grec.
(trad. T. Naum, vol. Tristele. Ponticele,
Publius Ovidius Naso, Bucureúti, 1972)
Tomitae, my situation’s gentle reception among you

shows how kind men of Greek extraction are.
(Translated by A. S. Kline, 2003)
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
CUPRINSȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ Cuvântȱînainte………………………………………………ȱ 7ȱ
Foreword…………………………………………………….ȱ 9ȱ
ȱ Tomisȱ–ȱversiuneȱînȱlimbaȱromân©………………………..ȱ 11ȱ
EtapaȱI:ȱsec.ȱVIȱ–ȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr…………...ȱ 17ȱ
EtapaȱII:ȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr……………ȱ 24ȱ
EtapaȱIII:ȱsec.ȱIȱ–ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr………………………….ȱ 37ȱ
EtapaȱIV:ȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱsec.ȱVIȱ(VII)ȱp.ȱChr…..ȱ 74ȱ
Tomisulȱdup©ȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr………………………ȱȱ 107ȱ
Abrevieri……………………………………………..ȱ 217ȱ
Listaȱilustraöiilor……………………………………..ȱ 219ȱ
Ilustraöii………………………………………………ȱ 231ȱ
ȱ
ȱ Tomisȱ–ȱenglishȱversion…………………………………… 113ȱ
StageȱI:ȱ6thȱ–ȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturiesȱBC……….ȱ 120ȱ
StageȱII:ȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱ–ȱ1stȱcenturiesȱBC……… 127ȱ
StageȱIII:ȱ1stȱ–ȱ3rdȱcenturiesȱAD……………………..ȱ 140ȱ
StageȱIV:ȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱ–ȱ6thȱ(7th)ȱcenturiesȱAD…...ȱ 178ȱ
Tomisȱafterȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD…………………………ȱ 213ȱ
Abreviations…………………………………………ȱ 217ȱ
Tableȱofȱillustrations………………………………... 225ȱ
Illustrations………………………………………….. 231ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
CUVÂNTȱÎNAINTEȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Preocup©rileȱ noastreȱ deȱ maiȱ mult©ȱ vremeȱ pentruȱ epigrafiaȱ tomitan©ȱ óiȱ
interesulȱ pentruȱ cercet©rileȱ arheologiceȱ dinȱ Constanöa,ȱ neȬauȱ determinat,ȱ înȱ aniiȱ
precedenöi,ȱ caȱ urmareȱ aȱ uneiȱ invitaöiiȱ externe,ȱ s©ȱ alc©tuimȱ unȱ studiuȱ maiȱ largȱ
destinatȱTomisului,ȱap©rutȱînȱvol.ȱAncientȱGreekȱColoniesȱinȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱ2,ȱI,ȱȱȱ(ed.ȱ
D.V.ȱ Grammenos,ȱ E.K.ȱ Petropoulos),ȱ BARȱ Internationalȱ Series,ȱ 1675ȱ (I),ȱ 2007,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 287Ȭ366.ȱ Pentruȱ maiȱ bunaȱ cunoaótereȱ aȱ acestuia,ȱ darȱ óiȱ pentruȱ prilejulȱ deȱ aȱ
ad©ugaȱ celeȱ maiȱ recenteȱ descopeririȱ arheologiceȱ (limitânduȬneȱ laȱ celeȱ edite),ȱ
epigraficeȱ óiȱ numismaticeȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ amȱ dezvoltatȱ subiectul,ȱ realizândȱ aceast©ȱ
ediöieȱ bilingv©,ȱ românoȬengez©.ȱ Lucrareaȱ conöineȱ analizaȱ sintetic©ȱ aȱ evoluöieiȱ
Tomisului,ȱ deȱ laȱ întemeiereȱ (sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ încetareaȱ vieöiiȱ urbaneȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ cuȱ câtevaȱ menöiuniȱ despreȱ existenöaȱ ulterioar©ȱ aȱ aóez©rii,ȱ înȱ
contextulȱgeneralȱistoricȱóiȱcelȱspecialȱvestȬpontic.ȱ
Momentulȱ aȱ fostȱ unȱ bunȱ prilejȱ pentruȱ aȱ evidenöiaȱ contribuöiileȱ anterioareȱ aleȱ
celorȱ careȱ sȬauȱ aplecatȱ înȱ decursulȱ timpuluiȱ asupraȱ istorieiȱ tomitane,ȱ c©roraȱ leȱ dedic©mȱ
acesteȱrânduri,ȱdarȱóiȱcelorȱcareȱînȱviitorȱvorȱinvestigaȱTomisulȱarheologicȱóiȱistoric,ȱ
peȱm©suraȱimportanöeiȱmetropoleiȱPontuluiȱStâng.ȱȱ
Traducereaȱ lucr©riiȱ înȱ limbaȱ englez©ȱ aȱ fostȱ realizat©ȱ deȱ dr.ȱ Corinaȱ
Apostoleanu,ȱc©reiaȱîiȱmulöumimȱóiȱaiciȱpentruȱcolaborareaȱexemplar©.ȱMulöumimȱ
deopotriv©ȱ dȬnelorȱ Vasilicaȱ Podariu,ȱ pentruȱ tehnoredactareaȱ textuluiȱ óiȱ Oltiöaȱ
oiöei,ȱpentruȱrealizareaȱilustraöiei,ȱdup©ȱclióotecaȱMINAC.ȱ
Înscriemȱ contribuöiaȱ noastr©ȱ înȱ seriaȱ Bibliothecaȱ Tomitana,ȱ ajuns©ȱ laȱ volȱ IX,ȱ
susöinut©ȱ cuȱ mult©ȱ convingereȱ deȱ conducereaȱ MINAC,ȱ instituöieȱ careȱ aȱ asiguratȱ
apariöiaȱacesteiȱlucr©riȱdestinateȱcelorȱpreocupaöiȱdeȱistoriaȱTomisuluiȱóiȱdeȱistoriaȱ
antic©ȱaȱDobrogei.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Constanöa,ȱaprilieȱ2012ȱ ȱ ȱ Cercet©torȱótiinö.ȱI,ȱdr.ȱLiviaȱBuzoianuȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Cercet©torȱ ótiinö.ȱ I,ȱ dr.ȱ Mariaȱ B©rbulescu
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
FOREWORDȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Ourȱ longȱ timeȱ studiesȱ aboutȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ epigraphyȱ andȱ theȱ interestȱ forȱ theȱ
archaeologicalȱresearchesȱinȱConstanöaȱhaveȱȱdeterminedȱus,ȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱ
years,ȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ anȱ externalȱ invitation,ȱ toȱ writeȱ aȱ largerȱ studyȱ aboutȱ Tomis,ȱ
publishedȱ inȱ theȱ volumeȱ Ancientȱ Greekȱ Coloniesȱ inȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ 2,ȱ I,ȱ eds.ȱ D.V.ȱ
Grammenos,ȱ E.ȱ K.ȱ Petropoulos,ȱ BARȱ Internationalȱ Seriesȱ 1675,ȱ (I),ȱ 2007,ȱ p.ȱ 287Ȭ
366.ȱ Forȱ aȱ betterȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱ city,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ forȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ addȱ theȱ
mostȱ recentȱ archaeological,ȱ epigraphicȱ andȱ numsimaticȱ discoveriesȱ atȱ Tomisȱ
(limittingȱ usȱ toȱ theȱ onesȱ alreadyȱ published),ȱ weȱ haveȱ developedȱ theȱ subject,ȱ byȱ
theȱ presentȱ bilingualȱ edition,ȱ Romanianȱ andȱ English.ȱ Theȱ workȱ includesȱ theȱȱ
syntheticȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱcityȱdevelopment,ȱfromȱtheȱfoundationȱ(6thȱBC),ȱuntilȱtheȱ
endȱofȱurbanȱlifeȱ(7thȱAD),ȱwithȱsomeȱmentionsȱaboutȱtheȱsubsequentȱexistenceȱofȱ
theȱ settlement,ȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ historicalȱ ȱ frameworkȱ andȱ underȱ theȱ specialȱ westȬ
Ponticȱcircumstances.ȱ
Theȱ momentȱ hasȱ beenȱ aȱ goodȱ opportunityȱ forȱ highlightingȱ theȱ previousȱ
contributionsȱ ofȱ thoseȱ scholarsȱ who,ȱ alongȱ theȱ time,ȱ studiedȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ historyȱ andȱ toȱ
whomȱ weȱ dedicateȱ theseȱ lines,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ thoseȱ who,ȱ inȱ future,ȱ willȱ investigateȱ theȱȱ
archaeologyȱ ȱ andȱ historyȱ ofȱ Tomis,ȱ asȱ theȱ importanceȱ thisȱ metropolisȱ fromȱ theȱ
LeftȱPontȱusedȱtoȱhave.ȱ
TheȱEnglishȱversionȱbelongsȱtoȱdr.ȱCorinaȱApostoleanu,ȱtoȱwhomȱweȱexpressȱ
ourȱ gratitudeȱ ȱ here,ȱ forȱ theȱ ȱ exemplaryȱ collaboration.ȱ Weȱ expressȱ alsoȱ ourȱ
gratitudeȱtoȱMrs.ȱVasilicaȱPodariu,ȱforȱtheȱtextȱeditingȱandȱMrs.ȱOltiöaȱoiöeiȱforȱtheȱ
illustrationsȱȱfromȱtheȱMuseumȱphotoȱcollection.ȱ
Weȱ ȱ placeȱ ourȱ contributionȱ inȱ theȱ seriesȱ Bibliothecaȱ Tomitana,ȱ nowȱ atȱ vol.ȱ IX,ȱ
sustainedȱ withȱ greatȱ enthusiasmȱ byȱ theȱ Museumȱ management,ȱ theȱ institutionȱ
whichȱ alsoȱ hasȱ supportedȱ theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ work,ȱ destinedȱ toȱ thoseȱ
interestedȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱTomisȱandȱancientȱhistoryȱofȱDobruja.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Constanöa,ȱaprilȱ2012ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ResearcherȱI,ȱDr.ȱLiviaȱBuzoianuȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ResearcherȱI.ȱDr.ȱMariaȱB©rbulescu
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
TOMISȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Al©turiȱ deȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ Callatis,ȱ Tomis1ȱ apareȱ înȱ procesulȱ coloniz©riiȱ greceótiȱ
dinȱ Pontulȱ Stâng,ȱ dinȱ secoleleȱ VIIȬVIȱ a.ȱ Chr.2.ȱ Promontoriulȱ tomitanȱ seȱ ofereaȱ caȱ
1
ȱ Istoriaȱ Tomisuluiȱ esteȱ prezentat©ȱ înȱ câtevaȱ monografii:ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana.ȱ
Contribuöiiȱ epigraficeȱ laȱ istoriaȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomis,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1962;ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ
exilat,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1972;ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1961;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ 1967;ȱ idem,ȱ Ovidiuȱ laȱ Pontulȱ Euxin,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1981.ȱ Informaöiiȱ istoriceȱ despreȱ
Tomisȱ suntȱ cuprinseȱ óiȱ înȱ volumele:ȱ Dinȱ istoriaȱ Dobrogeiȱ ȱ (DID),ȱ vol.ȱ I:ȱ D.ȱ Berciu,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Geöiȱ óiȱ greciȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Jos,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1965;ȱ vol.ȱ II:ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ
Romaniiȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Jos,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1968;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ I.ȱ Bitoleanu,ȱ Aȱ conciseȱ historyȱ ofȱ
Dobruja,ȱ Bucarest,ȱ 1984;ȱ iidem,ȱ Istoriaȱ Dobrogei,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1998;ȱ lorȱ liȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ lucrareaȱ
maiȱvecheȱaȱluiȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱHistoireȱancienneȱdeȱlaȱDobroudja,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1938ȱ(HAD)ȱóiȱlucrareaȱ
maiȱ recent©ȱ semnat©ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1991.ȱ
Descoperirileȱ tomitaneȱ auȱ f©cutȱ obiectulȱ unorȱ publicaöiiȱ distincte:ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Zidulȱ cet©öiiȱ
Tomi,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1915;ȱ D.M.ȱ Teodorescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ inediteȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1918;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
P.ȱ Nicorescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ nou©ȱ dinȱ teritoriulȱ oraóuluiȱ Tomi,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1920;ȱ I.ȱ Micu,ȱ C©l©uzaȱ
vizitatoruluiȱ înȱ Muzeulȱ regionalȱ alȱ Dobrogei,ȱ Cern©uöi,ȱ 1937;ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Tezaurulȱ deȱ sculpturiȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1963,ȱ (Tezaurul);ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Necropoleȱ elenisticeȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1968;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ
romanoȬbizantineȱdinȱsectorulȱdeȱvestȱalȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1966.ȱInscripöiileȱsuntȱeditateȱ
deȱ I.ȱ Stoianȱ înȱ Inscripöiileȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ latine.ȱ II.ȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ teritoriulȱ s©u,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1987ȱ(ISMȱII);ȱceleȱtârziiȱsuntȱincluseȱdeȱEm.ȱPopescuȱînȱInscripöiiȱgreceótiȱóiȱlatineȱ
dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȬXIIIȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ România,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1976ȱ (IGLR);ȱ not©mȱ óiȱ lucrareaȱ colectiv©ȱ
semnat©ȱ deȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ N.ȱ Gostar,ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordeaȱ óiȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Noiȱ
monumenteȱepigraficeȱdinȱScythiaȱMinor,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1964ȱ(NMESM)ȱóiȱinscripöiiȱpublicateȱmaiȱ
recent,ȱ înȱ generalȱ înȱ revistaȱ Pontica.ȱ Alteȱ informaöiiȱ afl©mȱ laȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armataȱ înȱ
Dobrogeaȱ roman©,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1977,ȱ (Armata);ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Viaöaȱ economic©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ
roman©,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1977ȱ(VEDR);ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱScultureȱgrecheȱeȱromaneȱdelȱMuseoȱnazionaleȱ
diȱ antichitàȱ diȱ Bucarest.ȱ I.ȱ Statueȱ eȱ relieviȱ diȱ culto,ȱ elementiȱ arhitettoniciȱ eȱ decorativi,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1969;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ istoriaȱ vecheȱ aȱ României,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1967ȱ (Contribuöii 2 );ȱ
idem,ȱ Studiiȱ deȱ istorieȱ aȱ religiilorȱ antice.ȱ Texteȱ óiȱ interpret©ri,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1969,ȱ (Studii);ȱ
monografiiȱ recenteȱ privindȱ domeniiȱ distincteȱ aleȱ Dobrogeiȱ înȱ perioadaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ romanoȬ
bizantin©:ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱViaöaȱrural©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©ȱ(sec.ȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2001;ȱ
Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIII),ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2002;ȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ
Circulaöiaȱ monetar©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (secoleleȱ IȬIII),ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2002;ȱ M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱ Gh.ȱ
Papuc,ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ Dobrogeiȱ romaneȱ (sec.ȱ IȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2005;ȱ
Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Tomisȱ I.ȱ Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ târzie,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ2005;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱRomanȱArmyȱinȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱBucharest,ȱ2010.ȱ
2
ȱ J.ȱ Boardman,ȱ Theȱ Greeksȱ Overseas,ȱ Londra,ȱ 1964ȱ (înȱ traducereȱ româneasc©ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱ AlexandrescuȬVianuȱ óiȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1988),ȱ cap.ȱ 6ȱ (Nordulȱ óiȱ Mareaȱ
Neagr©);ȱP.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ DosarȱpentruȱMareaȱ Neagr©,ȱ ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ409Ȭ428;ȱD.M.ȱPippidiȱ înȱ DIDȱ
12ȱ ȱ
ȱ
escal©ȱ inevitabil©ȱ pentruȱ navigatori.ȱ Izvoareleȱ literareȱ (Strabon,ȱ Geogr.,ȱ VII,ȱ 6,ȱ 1;ȱ
PomponiusȱMela,ȱDeȱchorogr.,ȱII,ȱ2,ȱ22;ȱPtolemeu,ȱGeogr.,ȱIII,ȱ10,ȱ3;ȱArrian,ȱScutumȱ
Duraeȱ Europiȱ repertum,ȱ Tabulaȱ Peutingeriana,ȱ Itinerariumȱ Antoniniȱ etc.)ȱ îiȱ stabilescȱ
loculȱînȱPontulȱStâng,ȱîntreȱHistriaȱóiȱCallatisȱóiȱdistanöaȱînȱstadiiȱfaö©ȱdeȱacestea:ȱ
250ȱdeȱstadiiȱfaö©ȱdeȱHistriaȱóiȱ280ȱdeȱCallatisȱ–ȱdup©ȱStrabonȱ–ȱsauȱ300ȱdeȱstadiiȱ
faö©ȱdeȱamândou©ȱ–ȱdup©ȱArrian3.ȱIzvoareleȱmaiȱtârziiȱp©streaz©ȱmaiȱpuöinȱaceast©ȱ
ordineȱînȱenumerareȱ–ȱnot©mȱtotuóiȱlaȱGeografulȱdinȱRavennaȱsecvenöaȱCallatisȱ–ȱ
Stratonisȱ –ȱ Tomisȱ –ȱ Histria;ȱ restulȱ documentelorȱ fieȱ c©ȱ adopt©ȱ oȱ notaöieȱ selectiv©ȱ
(laȱAmmianusȱMarcellinus),ȱfieȱc©ȱamestec©ȱplasareaȱunorȱtoponimeȱ(laȱProcopiusȱ
dinȱCaesarea).ȱȱ
Denumireaȱ aóez©riiȱ variaz©ȱ înȱ greac©ȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱ sauȱ ̖ΓΐΉϾΖȱ iarȱ înȱ latin©,ȱ Tomiȱ
sauȱ Tomis4.ȱ Alteȱ formeȱ Ȭȱ ̖ΓΐνΓ΍ȱ (Pseudoȱ Skymnos),ȱ Tomoeȱ (Pomponiusȱ Mela),ȱ
Tomosȱ (acuzativulȱ deȱ laȱ unȱ nominativȱ Tomoiȱ laȱ Pliniusȱ celȱ B©trân)ȱ sauȱ înȱ formaȱ
greceasc©ȱînȱaceeaóiȱrelaöieȱcazual©ȱȬȱ̖ϱΐΓΙΖȬ̖ϱΐΓ΍ȱ(ApollodoriȱBibliotheca),ȱ̖Γΐν΅ȱ
(Scutumȱ Duraeȱ Europi)ȱ sauȱ cuȱ acuzativulȱ ̖Γΐν΅Ζȱ deȱ laȱ unȱ nominativȱ ̖ΓΐΉϧΖȱ (laȱ
Arrian)ȱ Ȭ,ȱ suntȱ considerateȱ aberanteȱ sauȱ rare.ȱ Monedeleȱ auȱ înscriseȱ óiȱ eleȱ formeȱ
diferiteȱȬȱ̖ϱΐ΍,ȱ̖ΓΐνΝΖ,ȱ̖ϱΐΓΖ,ȱ̖ΓΐνΝΑȱ(peȱmonedeleȱautonomeȱformaȱfrecvent©ȱ
fiindȱ ̖ϱΐ΍)5.ȱ Înȱ documenteleȱ epigrafice6ȱ toponimulȱ esteȱ constantȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱ (greac©)ȱ
sauȱTomisȱ(latin©),ȱunȱnominativȱ̖ΓΐΉϾΖȱap©rândȱcaȱoȱform©ȱpoetic©ȱpentruȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζ.ȱ
LoculȱesteȱdesemnatȱprinȱterraȱTomitanaȱȱ(Ovidiu,ȱExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ1,ȱ1Ȭ2),ȱiarȱlocuitoriiȱ
suntȱ Tomitaeȱ (laȱ Ovidiu),ȱ ̖ΓΐϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϟΘ΋Ζȱ (pluralȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍),ȱ Tomitaniȱ (înȱ
izvoareleȱepigrafice).ȱ
Toponimulȱ aȱ ocazionatȱ c©utareaȱ unorȱ etimologiiȱ legateȱ deȱ ucidereaȱ luiȱ
Absyrtos,ȱ laȱ ȱ ȱ Ovidiuȱ (Tristia,ȱ III,ȱ 9,ȱ 1Ȭ10)ȱ óiȱ întrȬunȱ compendiuȱ deȱ mitologieȱ deȱ
sec.ȱIȬIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱcunoscutȱcaȱBibliotecaȱluiȱApollodor7.ȱAmbeleȱsurseȱapropieȱnumeleȱ
aóez©riiȱ deȱ substantiveleȱ greceótiȱ ΘϱΐΓΖȱ =ȱ t©ietur©,ȱ bucat©ȱ óiȱ ΘΓΐΉϾΖȱ =ȱ cuöit,ȱ lam©.ȱ
NuȱlipsescȱniciȱcredinöeleȱîntrȬunȱ„erouȱfondator”ȱsauȱ„eroin©ȱfondatoare”,ȱprimulȱ
recunoscutȱ peȱ monedeleȱ locale8,ȱ iarȱ ultimaȱ variant©ȱ întâlnit©ȱ laȱ unȱ scriitorȱ deȱȱȱȱȱ
sec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ–ȱIordanes,ȱcareȱvreaȱs©ȱexplice,ȱprobabil,ȱprezenöaȱsciöilorȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱ
I,ȱ p.ȱ 139Ȭ156;ȱ idem,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ passim;ȱ idem,ȱ Scythicaȱ Minora.ȱ Recherchesȱ surȱ lesȱ coloniesȱ
grecquesȱ duȱ littoralȱ roumainȱ deȱ laȱ merȱ Noire,ȱ BucureótiȬAmsterdam,ȱ 1975,ȱ passim;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
P.ȱAlexandrescu,ȱLaȱcolonisationȱgrecque,ȱînȱL’AigleȱsurȱleȱDauphin,ȱBucarestȬParis,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ1Ȭ
48;ȱ Istros/Histria,ȱIbid.,ȱ p.ȱ 49Ȭ181;ȱ G.R.ȱTsetskhladze,ȱGreekȱ Colonisationȱofȱ theȱBlackȱSeaȱ Area.ȱ
Stages,ȱModelsȱandȱNativeȱPopulation,ȱinȱTheȱGreekȱColonisationȱofȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱArea,ȱStuttgart,ȱ
1998,ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ68;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱPentruȱoȱfenomenologieȱaȱraporturilorȱdintreȱgeöiȱóiȱgreci,ȱînȱSymposiaȱ
Thracologica,ȱ7ȱ(1989),ȱTulcea,ȱp.ȱ70Ȭ93;ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©ȱînȱzonaȱvestȬpontic©ȱóiȱ
impactulȱeiȱasupraȱlumiiȱautohtoneȱ(sec.ȱVIIȬIVȱa.ȱChr.),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ192Ȭ207.ȱ
3
ȱPentruȱautoriiȱcitaöiȱveziȱóiȱFontesȱadȱHistoriamȱDacoromaniaeȱPertinentes,ȱI,ȱBucureóti,ȱ
1964,ȱ passim;ȱ înȱ rezumat,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Tomisulȱ înȱ luminaȱ izvoarelorȱ literareȱ
antice,ȱînȱDinȱistoriaȱEuropeiȱromane,ȱOradea,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ61Ȭ68.ȱ
4
ȱVeziȱdiscuöiaȱlaȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ13ȱóiȱ16.ȱ
5
ȱC.ȱMoisil,ȱCreótereaȱcolecöiilor,ȱ1912,ȱAcademiaȱRomân©,ȱCabinetulȱNumismatic,ȱ1912,ȱ
p.ȱ21Ȭ102.ȱ
6
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 407ȱ óiȱ 409,ȱ Geographica:ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍,ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱ ̖ΓΐΉϾΖ,ȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζ,ȱ Tomis,ȱ
Tomitani.ȱȱ
7
ȱApollodoriȱBibliotheca,ȱI,ȱ133,ȱînȱFontesȱI,ȱp.ȱ464Ȭ465.ȱ
8
ȱB.ȱPick,ȱK.ȱRegling,ȱDieȱantikenȱMünzenȱvonȱDacienȱundȱMoesien,ȱII,ȱ1,ȱBerlin,ȱ1910,ȱȱȱp.ȱ
614.ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ 13
ȱȱȱ
a.ȱ Chr.ȱ înȱ Dobrogea:ȱ dup©ȱ Iordanesȱ (Getica,ȱ 62),ȱ reginaȱ acestora,ȱ Tomyris,ȱ aȱ ziditȱ
peȱö©rmulȱmoesicȱalȱPontuluiȱoraóulȱTomis,ȱc©ruiaȱiȬaȱdatȱnumeleȱs©u.ȱȱ
Dincoloȱ deȱ acesteȱ etimologiiȱ populareȱ reöinemȱ notaöiaȱ luiȱ Ovidiuȱ dup©ȱ careȱ
numeleȱ acestuiȱ locȱ esteȱ maiȱ vechiȱ decâtȱ aóezareaȱ cet©öiiȱ (sedȱ vetusȱ huicȱ nomenȱ
positaqueȱ antiquiusȱ urbe;ȱ Tristia,ȱ III,ȱ 9,ȱ 5).ȱ Poateȱ pornindȱ deȱ aiciȱ uniiȱ cercet©toriȱ seȱ
pronunö©ȱ pentruȱ oȱ etimologieȱ trac©9ȱ ȱ óiȱ recunoscȱ înȱ formaȱ Tomiȱ oȱ maiȱ vecheȱ
r©d©cin©ȱ indoȬeuropean©*ȱ tumȬ=ȱ umfl©tur©,ȱ legat©ȱ deȱ aspectulȱ geograficȱ alȱ
locului10.ȱ
Înȱ izvoareleȱ scriseȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Hierocles,ȱ Procopiusȱ dinȱ Caesarea),ȱ
paralelȱcuȱvechiulȱtoponimȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱapareȱunulȱnou,ȱ̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑΣ11;ȱcumȱniciunulȱ
dinȱizvoareȱnuȱrespect©ȱoȱordonareȱtoponimic©,ȱiarȱceleȱdou©ȱformeȱaparȱînȱtexteȱ
înȱlocuriȱ(rânduri)ȱdiferite,ȱesteȱdificilȱdeȱalesȱîntreȱdesemnareaȱprinȱdou©ȱnumeȱaȱ
unuiȱ singurȱ toposȱ sauȱ aȱ doiȱ topoiȱ diferiöi.ȱ Oȱ scriereȱ anonim©ȱ (ͩΔΓΘϾΔΓΗ΍Ζȱ
·ΉΝ·Ε΅Πϟ΅ΖȱπΑȱπΔ΍ΘΓΐφ,ȱ41)12,ȱalc©tuit©ȱprobabilȱlaȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱdup©ȱ
izvoareȱ maiȱ vechi,ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ p©streaz©ȱ formaȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζ,ȱ referinduȬseȱ laȱ
distanöaȱ deȱ 6000ȱ deȱ stadiiȱ careȱ desparteȱ acestȱ locȱ deȱ gurileȱ râuluiȱ Phasis.ȱ Maiȱ
târziuȱ(sec.ȱVIIȬVIII),ȱformaȱTomisȱoȱafl©mȱlaȱGeografulȱdinȱRavenna;ȱinspirânduȬ
seȱ dinȱ surseȱ óiȱ h©röiȱ maiȱ vechi,ȱ izvorulȱ amintitȱ p©streaz©ȱ secvenöaȱ CallatisȬ
StratonisȬTomisȬIstriopolis13.ȱ FolosinduȬseȱ deȱ Hierocles,ȱ unȱ izvorȱ deȱ sec.ȱ X,ȱ
Constantinȱ Porphirogenetul,ȱ p©streaz©ȱ ambeleȱ toponimiiȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱ óiȱ
̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑΣ14.ȱ
Înȱ sec.ȱ XIȬXII,ȱ Georgiosȱ Kedrenos15ȱ óiȱ Zonaras16,ȱ referinduȬseȱ laȱ revenireaȱ
autorit©öiiȱ bizantineȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ deȱ laȱ nordȱ deȱ Dun©re,ȱ menöioneaz©ȱ Constanteiaȱ
(̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘΉϟ΅),ȱ deȱ undeȱ vinȱ soliȱ laȱ împ©ratulȱ Ioanȱ Tzimiskes.ȱ Toponimulȱ aȱ fostȱ
identificat,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ cuȱ Constantianaȱ Daphnéȱ (înc©ȱ nelocalizat©)ȱ sauȱ cuȱ actualaȱ
Constanöa.ȱ
Înȱ h©röileȱ nauticeȱ italieneȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ XIVȬXVIȱ apareȱ formaȱ Constanza17.ȱ Înȱ
perioadaȱ otoman©,ȱ denumireaȱ adaptat©ȱ Kiustengeȱ nuȱ oȱ înl©tur©ȱ peȱ ceaȱ veche,ȱ
Constanza.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ administraöiaȱ româneasc©ȱ instaurat©ȱ dup©ȱ 1878,ȱ consacr©ȱ
definitivȱformaȱConstanöa.ȱ
Revenindȱ laȱ toponimiileȱ maiȱ vechiȱ ȬTomisȱ ȱ óiȱ Constantiana,ȱ ȱ concomitenöaȱ
folosiriiȱ lorȱ înȱ aceleaóiȱ izvoareȱ las©ȱ locȱ laȱ interpret©ri:ȱ oȱ cetateȱ Constantianaȱ sauȱ
ConstantiaȱarȱfiȱexistatȱînȱapropiereȱdeȱTomis,ȱceeaȱceȱarȱfiȱfavorizatȱsubstituireaȱdeȱ
nume;ȱsauȱambeleȱnumeȱTomisȱóiȱConstantianaȱarȱfiȱfostȱpurtateȱsimultanȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱ
ȱChr.ȱDanov,ȱZapadnijatȱbriagȱnaȱCernoȱMoreȱvȱdrevnostata,ȱSofia,ȱ1947,ȱp.ȱ80Ȭ81.ȱ
9
10
ȱW.ȱTomaschek,ȱDieȱaltenThraker:ȱeineȱethnologischeȱUntersuchung,ȱWien,ȱ1893Ȭ1894,ȱII,ȱ
2,ȱp.ȱ75;ȱE.ȱPhilippon,ȱLesȱpeuplesȱprimitifsȱdeȱl’Europeȱméridionale,ȱParis,ȱ1925,ȱp.ȱ7.ȱ
11
ȱ Hierocles,ȱ Synekdemos,ȱ 637,ȱ 1ȱ óiȱ 6;ȱ Procopiusȱ dinȱ Caesarea,ȱ Deȱ aedificiis,ȱ IV,ȱ 11ȱ (veziȱ
FontesȱII,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1970,ȱp.ȱ350Ȭ351ȱóiȱ472Ȭ475).ȱȱ
12
ȱͩΔΓΘϾΔΓΗ΍Ζȱ·ΉΝ·Ε΅Πϟ΅ΖȱπΑȱπΔ΍ΘΓΐφ,ȱ41,ȱînȱFontes,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ343.ȱ
13
ȱCosmographia,ȱIV,ȱ6,ȱ47.ȱ
14
ȱConstantinusȱPorphyrogenetus,ȱDeȱthematibus,ȱ47,ȱ1,ȱ58Ȭ60.ȱ
15
ȱGeorgiosȱKedrenos,ȱSynopsis,ȱ23.ȱ
16
ȱZonaras,ȱChronicon,ȱXVII,ȱ2,ȱ33.ȱ
17
ȱ N.ȱ Gr©mad©,ȱ Laȱ Sciziaȱ Minoreȱ nelleȱ carteȱ nauticheȱ delȱ Medioȱ Evo,ȱ Ephemerisȱ DacoȬ
Romanaȱ4ȱ(1930),ȱp.ȱ220Ȭ227,ȱ236Ȭ240.ȱ
14ȱ ȱ
ȱ
p.ȱ Chr.ȱ deȱ unulȱ óiȱ acelaóiȱ oraó18.ȱ Ulterior,ȱ vechiulȱ numeȱ arȱ fiȱ disp©rutȱ dinȱ uz,ȱ
r©mânândȱdoarȱformaȱConstantiana.ȱ
Oȱproblem©ȱarȱfiȱóiȱeventualaȱderivareȱdinȱConstantianaȱaȱnumeluiȱConstantia:ȱ
seȱadmiteȱînȱgeneralȱc©ȱformeleȱConstantiaȱóiȱapoiȱConstanöaȱarȱfiȱprescurtareaȱceleiȱ
arhaice19.ȱ
Oȱ inscripöieȱ funerar©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ g©sit©ȱ chiarȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ (IGLR,ȱ
37)ȱ menöioneaz©ȱ expresȱ origineaȱ defunctuluiȱ dinȱ Constantianaȱ (ΦΔϲȱ
̍ΓΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑκΖ)20.ȱ Inscripöiaȱ aduceȱ confirmareaȱ epigrafic©ȱ doarȱ aȱ toponimuluiȱ
Constantiana,ȱ darȱ nuȱ rezolv©ȱ problemaȱ identit©öiiȱ sauȱ distincöieiȱ celorȱ dou©ȱ
toponimii.ȱ OperânduȬseȱ oȱ demarcaöieȱ peȱ hartaȱ actualuluiȱ oraóȱ întreȱ zonaȱ
peninsular©ȱóiȱzonaȱcontinental©ȱsȬaȱpropus21ȱc©ȱprimaȱdenumireȱdesemneaz©ȱmaiȱ
vechiulȱ Tomis,ȱ iarȱ aȱ douaȱ sȬarȱ referiȱ laȱ Constantiana/Constantia.ȱ Tocmaiȱ evoluöiaȱ
acesteiȱ zoneȱ continentaleȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ aȱ impusȱ noulȱ numeȱ care,ȱ prinȱ extindere,ȱ seȱ
aplic©ȱ întreguluiȱ areal,ȱ înlocuindȱ vecheaȱ denumire22.ȱ Momentulȱ cândȱ numeleȱ
Tomisȱȱaȱieóitȱdinȱuzȱesteȱfixatȱprinȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(aȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsecolului)23.ȱ
Numeleȱ Constantiana/Constantiaȱ sȬarȱ datoraȱ unuiaȱ dinȱ personajeleȱ dinastieiȱ
constantiniene,ȱ fieȱ c©ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ Constantiusȱ II,ȱ cunoscutȱ c©ȱ aȱ determinatȱ oȱ
intens©ȱ activitateȱ constructiv©ȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ fieȱ deȱ fiicaȱ acestuia,ȱ Flaviaȱ
MaximaȱConstantia,ȱsanctificat©ȱdeȱbisericaȱortodox©24.ȱ
Identificareaȱ vechiuluiȱ oraóȱ cuȱ Constanöaȱ actual©ȱ sȬaȱ petrecutȱ relativȱ târziu,ȱ
înȱ sec.ȱ XIX,ȱ dup©ȱ ceȱ fuseser©ȱ avansateȱ diferiteȱ ipoteze,ȱ pentruȱ unȱ arealȱ careȱ
includeaȱKiev,ȱOvidiopol,ȱCapulȱMidia,ȱTomiswar,ȱTuzla,ȱMangalia,ȱVarnaȱetc.,ȱóiȱ
celȱmaiȱapropiat,ȱcartierulȱAnadolchioiȱalȱConstanöeiȱmoderne25.ȱȱ
Problemeleȱ legateȱ deȱ dataȱ întemeieriiȱ óiȱ origineaȱ colonieiȱ Tomisȱ trebuiescȱ
tratateȱ împreun©.ȱ Dinȱ p©cateȱ izvoareleȱ literareȱ nuȱ neȱ dauȱ nicioȱ informaöieȱ
referitoareȱlaȱmomentulȱîntemeierii.ȱSȬaȱconsideratȱc©ȱTomisȱaȱfostȱcreatȱodat©ȱcuȱ
primeleȱcoloniiȱmilesieneȱdinȱPontulȱEuxinȱsauȱcurândȱdup©ȱaceeaȱ(celȱmaiȱtârziuȱ
laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.)26.ȱ Nuȱ auȱ lipsitȱ niciȱ opiniileȱ careȱ îiȱ plaseaz©ȱ
începuturileȱînȱsec.ȱVIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ(Regling,ȱWeiss,ȱDanov)27.ȱMajoritateaȱistoricilorȱseȱ
18
ȱN.ȱGr©mad©,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ238.ȱ
19
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 164ȱ respingeȱ formaȱ Constantiana:ȱ toponimulȱ aparöineȱ uneiȱ
alteȱ aóez©riȱ dobrogene,ȱ iarȱ formaȱ actual©ȱ aȱ numeluiȱ oraóuluiȱ nuȱ poateȱ fiȱ explicat©ȱ caȱ
provenindȱdinȱmaiȱvecheaȱConstantiana.ȱ
20
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 463;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Constantiana.ȱ Unȱ problèmeȱ deȱ géographieȱ
historiqueȱ deȱ laȱ Scythieȱ Mineure,ȱ BZȱ 66ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 359Ȭ382ȱ (alt©ȱ localizare);ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ
istorieȱtomitan©,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ159.ȱ
21
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ160Ȭ162.ȱ
22
ȱVeziȱóiȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱ
23
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ443;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ165.ȱ
24
ȱÎnȱaceast©ȱideeȱsȬaȱpropusȱcaȱunaȱdinȱbasilicileȱdinȱzonaȱcontinental©ȱaȱoraóuluiȱs©ȱfiȱ
purtatȱchiarȱnumeleȱei;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱ
25
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ16ȱóiȱnotaȱ10;ȱN.ȱLascu,ȱktiriȱóiȱtradiöiiȱcuȱprivireȱlaȱloculȱdeȱexilȱ
alȱluiȱOvidiu,ȱînȱvol.ȱPubliusȱOvidiusȱNaso,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1957,ȱp.ȱ340Ȭ373.ȱȱ
26
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ150;ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ18.ȱ
27
ȱ B.ȱ Pick,ȱ K.ȱ Regling,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 590;ȱ J.ȱ Weiss,ȱ Dieȱ Dobrudschaȱ imȱ Altertum,ȱ Sarajevo,ȱ
1911,ȱ p.ȱ 27ȱ óiȱ 62;ȱ Chr.ȱ Danov,ȱ Zapadnijatȱ briag,ȱ p.ȱ 80Ȭ81;ȱ idem,ȱ RE,ȱ Suppl.ȱ IX,ȱ v.ȱ Tomis,ȱ col.ȱ
1397Ȭ1398.ȱȱ
ȱ 15
ȱȱȱ
oprescȱ îns©ȱ laȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.:ȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ secolului28ȱ sauȱ doarȱ „cuȱ titluȱ
provizoriu”ȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.29.ȱ SȬaȱ emisȱ óiȱ ipoteza,ȱ dup©ȱ noiȱ ceaȱ maiȱ verosimil©,ȱ aȱ
emigr©riiȱunuiȱgrupȱdeȱcoloniótiȱdinȱMiletȱóiȱfix©riiȱlorȱpeȱpromontoriulȱtomitanȱînȱ
intervalulȱ 549Ȭ494ȱ a.ȱ Chr.30.ȱ Istoriografiaȱ deȱ dat©ȱ recent©ȱ seȱ opreóteȱ totȱ laȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
sec.ȱVIȱa.ȱChr.,ȱdarȱnuȱmaiȱtârziuȱdeȱalȱdoileaȱsfertȱalȱsecolului31.ȱ
Oȱ raportareȱ cronologic©ȱ laȱ coloniileȱ apropiateȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ anterioritateaȱ
indiscutabil©ȱ aȱ Histriei.ȱ Pentruȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ Callatisȱ opiniileȱ seȱ împartȱ întreȱ
acceptareaȱ priorit©öiiȱ primeiȱ aóez©riȱ –ȱ laȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ aducândȱ caȱ argumentȱ situaöiaȱ
topografic©ȱ óiȱ origineaȱ oraóului:ȱ „întemeindȱ Histria,ȱ milesieniiȱ trebuiauȱ s©ȱ seȱ
aigureȱ deȱ toateȱ staöiunileȱ principaleȱ óiȱ deȱ drumulȱ deȱ accesȱ spreȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ deȱ
promontoriulȱ tomitan”32.ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidiȱ propuneȱ unȱ raportȱ cronologicȱ invers:ȱ atâtȱ
Tomisȱ câtȱ óiȱ Callatisȱ suntȱ întemeiateȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ ȱ ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ darȱ cuȱ eventual©ȱ
precedenö©ȱaȱCallatidei33.ȱ
Înȱ discutareaȱ raportuluiȱ cronologicȱ Tomis/Callatisȱ singureleȱ documenteȱ deȱ
careȱ dispunemȱ deocamdat©ȱ suntȱ celeȱ arheologiceȱ óiȱ eleȱ pledeaz©ȱ înȱ favoareaȱ
vechimiiȱceleiȱdintâi34.ȱ
Origineaȱ milesian©ȱ aȱ colonieiȱ aȱ fostȱ mult©ȱ vremeȱ necontestat©.ȱ Eaȱ esteȱ
afirmat©ȱdeȱDemetriosȱdinȱCallatis,ȱpreluatȱdeȱPseudoȬSkymnos:ȱ„OraóulȱTomisȱaȱ
fostȱ oȱ colonieȱ aȱ milesienilor”ȱ (̖ΓΐνΓ΍ȱ ΔϱΏ΍Ζȱ ΩΔΓ΍ΎΓ΍ȱ ·ΉΑϱΐΉΑΓ΍ȱ ̏΍Ώ΋ΗϟΝΑ)ȱ
(Periegesis,ȱ774)ȱóiȱmaiȱtârziuȱdeȱOvidiu:ȱ„Miletidaȱadȱurbem”,ȱ(Tristia,ȱI,ȱ10,ȱ41)ȱsauȱ
„Hucȱquoqueȱ Miletoȱmissiȱ venereȱcoloni”ȱȱ(Tristia,ȱIII,ȱ9,ȱ3).ȱArrianȱd©ȱoȱreferireȱmaiȱ
general©,ȱ notândȱ doarȱ origineaȱ greac©ȱ aȱ primilorȱ coloniótiȱ (Arrian,ȱ Peripl.,ȱ 24,ȱ 1).ȱ
Primaȱ menöiuneȱ scris©ȱ despreȱ Tomisȱ apareȱ îns©ȱ laȱ Memnonȱ óiȱ seȱ refer©ȱ laȱ unȱ
evenimentȱ deȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ asupraȱ c©ruiaȱ vomȱ aveaȱ ocaziaȱ s©ȱ
revenim:ȱ „r©zboiulȱ pentruȱ emporionȬulȱ Tomisului”(πΔϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ).ȱ
Dataȱ târzieȱ aȱ uneiȱ menöiuniȱ literareȱ óiȱ utilizareaȱ special©ȱ aȱ termenuluiȱ deȱ
πΐΔϱΕ΍ΓΑȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ Tomis,ȱ aȱ f©cutȱ posibil©ȱ óiȱ alt©ȱ opinie:ȱ Tomisȱ arȱ fiȱ oȱ colonieȱ
creat©ȱ nuȱ directȱ deȱ milesieni,ȱ ciȱ deȱ Histria35.ȱ Primiiȱ coloniótiȱ milesieniȱ stabiliöiȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ arȱ fiȱ venitȱ prinȱ intermediulȱ Histriei,ȱ cândvaȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ
Chr.;ȱTomisȱarȱfiȱfostȱfolositȱcaȱpunctȱprincipalȱdeȱsprijinȱînȱextindereaȱintereselorȱ
comercialeȱ aleȱ Histrieiȱ deȬaȱ lungulȱ litoraluluiȱ deȱ vestȱ alȱ M©riiȱ Negre,ȱ înȱ direcöiaȱ
28
ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 152ȱ consider©ȱ c©ȱ activitateaȱ colonizatoareȱ aȱ Miletuluiȱ
iaȱ sfâróitȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (dup©ȱ 546ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Miletulȱ nuȱ maiȱ puteaȱ aveaȱ
colonii,ȱiarȱcelȱmaiȱnouȱoraóȱmilesianȱdinȱPontulȱStângȱesteȱOdessos:ȱcca.ȱ570ȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
29
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ152;ȱmaiȱdeparte,ȱp.ȱ157ȱseȱconsider©ȱc©ȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVIȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱHistria,ȱTomisȱóiȱCallatisȱerauȱdejaȱîntemeiate.ȱ
30
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Rezultateȱ preliminareȱ aleȱ s©p©turilorȱ arheologiceȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ
(ParculȱCatedralei),ȱ1971Ȭ1974,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ54ȱóiȱînȱspecialȱp.ȱ46Ȭ49.ȱ
31
ȱ G.R.ȱ Tsetskhladze,ȱ Greekȱ Penetrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ Sea,ȱ înȱ Theȱ Archaeologyȱ ofȱ Greekȱ
Colonisation,ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱCommitteeȱforȱArchaeology,ȱ1994,ȱp.ȱ111Ȭ135.ȱ
32
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ151.ȱ
33
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ155.ȱ
34
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ54;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ ktiriȱ despreȱ
începuturileȱ oraóuluiȱ Constanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 53Ȭ57;ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Tipuriȱ deȱ amforeȱ deȱ
sec.ȱVIȬIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱdescoperiteȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ75Ȭ96.ȱ
35
ȱVl.ȱIliescu,ȱCuȱprivireȱlaȱcoloniileȱgreceótiȱdinȱDobrogeaȱóiȱlaȱdataȱconstituiriiȱteritoriuluiȱ
lorȱ rural,ȱ Ponticaȱ 3ȱ (1970),ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92ȱ óiȱ notaȱ 52;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ înȱ Symposiaȱ Thracologicaȱ 7ȱ
(1989),ȱp.ȱ73.ȱ
16ȱ ȱ
ȱ
sudic©36.ȱ Susöin©toriiȱ acesteiȱ opiniiȱ caut©ȱ argumenteȱ înȱ descopeririȱ similareȱ –ȱ înȱ
specialȱ deȱ pieseȱ cuȱ valoriȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monedeȱ histrieneȱ cuȱ roataȱ –ȱ înȱ aóez©riȱ
dinȱ teritoriulȱ histrianȱ óiȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Totodat©,ȱ nuȱ identific©ȱ unȱ partenerȱ localȱ deȱ
schimbȱpentruȱrelaöiileȱpeȱcareȱnouaȱaóezareȱtrebuiaȱs©ȱleȱstabileasc©ȱcuȱpopulaöiaȱ
dinȱ jur.ȱ Oriȱ tocmaiȱ prezenöaȱ acestorȱ pieseȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monetare37ȱ óiȱ aȱ uneiȱ
cantit©öiȱ apreciabileȱ deȱ ceramic©ȱ local©ȱ lucrat©ȱ cuȱ mâna38ȱ pledeaz©,ȱ înȱ opiniaȱ
noastr©,ȱpentruȱprezenöaȱchiarȱaiciȱaȱpartenerilorȱdeȱschimb39.ȱDeȱaltfelȱTomisȱniciȱ
prinȱ situaöieȱ óiȱ niciȱ prinȱ evoluöiaȱ ulterioar©ȱ nuȱ poateȱ fiȱ comparatȱ cuȱ aóez©rileȱ
createȱ deȱ Histriaȱ înȱ teritoriuȱ (incluzândȱ aiciȱ óiȱ aóezareaȱ Nikonion/Roxolani).ȱ
Apreciindȱc©ȱ„HistriaȱaȱjucatȱunȱrolȱesenöialȱînȱistoriaȱdeȱînceputȱaȱoraóuluiȱTomis,ȱ
controlândȱ întreagaȱ viaö©ȱ economic©ȱ óiȱ politic©ȱ aȱ acestuia”40,ȱ anul©mȱ
recunoaótereaȱ vreuneiȱ formeȱ deȱ autonomie.ȱ Peȱ deȱ alt©ȱ parte,ȱ chiarȱ dac©ȱ provinȱ
dintrȬoȱ perioad©ȱ maiȱ târzie,ȱ elementeleȱ careȱ pledeaz©ȱ pentruȱ creaöieȱ directȱ
milesian©ȱsuntȱpreaȱnumeroaseȱpentruȱaȱleȱpune,ȱtoate,ȱpeȱseamaȱHistriei;ȱavemȱînȱ
vedereȱ dialectulȱ inscripöiilor,ȱ atestareaȱ triburilorȱ ioniene,ȱ instituöiile,ȱ cultele,ȱ
antroponimia41.ȱ R©mânemȱ laȱ opiniaȱ peȱ careȱ raportoriiȱ cercet©riiȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ
CatedraleiȱóiȬauȱexprimatȬoȱdeȱmaiȱmult©ȱvreme:ȱipotezaȱc©ȱTomisulȱarȱputeaȱfiȱoȱ
creaöieȱaȱHistrieiȱr©mâneȱoȱprezumöieȱfoarteȱgreuȱdeȱcontrolat42.ȱ
SȬaȱ încercatȱ oȱ conciliereȱ întreȱ dateleȱ diferiteȱ atribuiteȱ înfiinö©riiȱ Tomisuluiȱ
raportateȱlaȱdesemnareaȱluiȱcaȱemporionȱóiȱpolis:ȱdataȱtimpurieȱsȬarȱreferiȱlaȱfazaȱdeȱ
emporionȱ(careȱarȱfiȱduratȱpân©ȱlaȱdataȱevenimentuluiȱdinȱtextulȱluiȱMemnon)ȱ,ȱiarȱ
dataȱtârzieȱ–ȱlaȱceaȱdeȱpolis43.ȱCumȱsȬaȱdemonstrat44ȱc©ȱceiȱdoiȱtermeniȱnuȱseȱexcludȱ
óiȱ nuȱ auȱ niciȱ implicaöieȱ juridic©,ȱ r©mâneȱ s©ȱ apreciemȱ valoareaȱ primuluiȱ caȱ
referinduȬseȱlaȱoȱfuncöieȱeconomic©ȱóiȱs©ȱconsider©mȱTomisulȱcaȱaóezareȱexclusivȱ
portuar©,ȱ creat©ȱ numaiȱ pentruȱ miculȱ comerö45.ȱ SȬarȱ puteaȱ explicaȱ astfelȱ óiȱ nivelulȱ
modestȱ laȱ careȱ aȱ r©masȱ Tomisȱ mult©ȱ vremeȱ dup©ȱ întemeiereȱ óiȱ absenöaȱ
menöion©riiȱ saleȱ înȱ evenimenteȱ careȱ auȱ implicatȱ Pontulȱ Stângȱ pân©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ
Chr.ȱ
Înȱprivinöaȱrecunoaóteriiȱsale,ȱmajoritateaȱizvoarelorȱliterareȱîlȱdesemneaz©ȱcaȱ
36
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱCuȱprivireȱlaȱînceputurileȱoraóuluiȱTomis,ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ113.ȱ
37
ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Vârfuriȱ deȱ s©geöiȱ –ȱ semneȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monedeȱ cuȱ „roata”ȱ descoperiteȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱ SCNȱ 7ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 25Ȭ34;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Descopeririȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monetareȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ
(sec.ȱVIȬIȱa.ȱChr.),ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ360.ȱ
38
ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Prezenöaȱ óiȱ continuitateaȱ getic©ȱ înȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ Callatis,ȱ SCIVȱ 21ȱ (1970),ȱ 1,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 65Ȭ90;ȱ L.ȱ Arsenie,ȱ Ceramicaȱ lucrat©ȱ cuȱ mânaȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Stadiulȱ actualȱ alȱ cercet©rilor,ȱ
Ponticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ298.ȱ
39
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ281Ȭ286.ȱ
40
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ112.ȱ
41
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ202Ȭ203;ȱIȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ17Ȭ18;ȱ56Ȭ74;ȱ148Ȭ160;ȱidem,ȱLeȱ
culteȱ desȱ Dioscuresȱ etȱ lesȱ tribusȱ tomitainesȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ d’unȱ monumentȱ récemmentȱ publié,ȱ Daciaȱ
NSȱ 10ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 347Ȭ349,ȱ 355Ȭ356;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 151Ȭ152;ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ op.ȱ
cit.,ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ220.ȱ
42
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ49.ȱ
43
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ18;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ153ȱóiȱnotaȱ19;ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱ
Ponticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ362ȱóiȱnoteleȱ36,ȱ37.ȱ
44
ȱ A.ȱ Bresson,ȱ Lesȱ citésȱ grecquesȱ etȱ leursȱ emporia,ȱ înȱ Emporionȱ (eds.ȱ A.ȱ Bresson,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
P.ȱRouillard),ȱParis,ȱ1993,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ226.ȱ
45
ȱ 17
ȱȱȱ
polisȱ (Ptolemeu,ȱ Arrian,ȱ Sozomenos,ȱ Zosimosȱ ó.a.)ȱ sauȱ cuȱ echivalenteleȱ latineótiȱ
urbsȱ(laȱOvidiuȱóiȱEusebiusȱdinȱCaesarea)ȱsauȱcivitasȱ(laȱEutropius,ȱRufiusȱFestus,ȱ
Ammianusȱ Marcellinusȱ –ȱ acestaȱ folosindȱ paralelȱ óiȱ termenulȱ deȱ oppidumȬ,ȱ
Iordanes,ȱ Geografulȱ dinȱ Ravenna).ȱ Strabonȱ foloseóteȱ unȱ diminutivȱ deȱ laȱ polisȬ
polichnion,ȱ darȱ nuȱ ótimȱ înȱ ceȱ m©sur©ȱ folosireaȱ acestuiaȱ maiȱ corespundeȱ unorȱ
realit©öiȱ tomitaneȱ deȱ laȱ începutulȱ epociiȱ romaneȱ sauȱ nuȱ esteȱ cumvaȱ doarȱ oȱ
apreciereȱexterioar©46.ȱȱ
Premiseleȱ peȱ careȱ leȱ avemȱ înȱ vedereȱ înȱ tratareaȱ subiectuluiȱ nostruȱ înȱ
continuareȱsuntȱdou©:ȱȱ
a) existenöaȱaóez©riiȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱdintrȬoȱperioad©ȱmaiȱtimpurieȱdecâtȱceaȱaȱ
primelorȱ consemn©riȱ scrise;ȱ apreciemȱ caȱ oȱ realitateȱ dejaȱ dovedit©ȱ óiȱ acceptat©ȱ
plasareaȱ începuturilorȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (probabilȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ
secolului);ȱ
b) aȱ douaȱ premis©ȱ înseamn©ȱ recunoaótereaȱ óiȱ pentruȱ Tomisȱ aȱ unorȱ
evenimenteȱ comuneȱ prinȱ conöinutulȱ óiȱ repercursiunileȱ lorȱ litoraluluiȱ vestȬponticȱȱ
óiȱcareȱsuntȱanterioareȱevenimentelorȱdeȱlaȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱmenöionateȱdeȱ
Memnon.ȱ
Dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ metodologic,ȱ împ©röimȱ perioadaȱ analizat©ȱ înȱ patruȱ
capitoleȱcareȱcorespundȱóiȱmarilorȱetapeȱistoriceȱaleȱoraóuluiȱantic:ȱ
- etapaȱ Iȱ –ȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ –ȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (deȱ laȱ înfiinöareȱ pân©ȱ laȱ
„r©zboiulȱTomisului”);ȱ
- etapaȱ IIȱ –ȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ –ȱ primeleȱ deceniiȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (deȱ laȱ
„r©zboiulȱTomisului”ȱpân©ȱlaȱprimeleȱprezenöeȱmilitareȱromaneȱînȱPontulȱStâng);ȱ
- etapaȱ IIIȱ –ȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Ȭȱ ȱ perioadaȱ roman©ȱ
timpurie;ȱ
- etapaȱIVȱ–ȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱsec.ȱVIȱ(VII)ȱ–ȱperioadaȱroman©Ȭtârzie.ȱ
Cronologiaȱ oȱ baz©mȱ peȱ situaöiileȱ stratigraficeȱ înregistrateȱ înȱ terenȱ (zonaȱ
ParculȱCatedralei47ȱóiȱnotaöiiȱprivindȱs©p©turileȱdeȱsalvareȱdinȱalteȱpuncteȱdinȱzonaȱ
peninsular©)48ȱ corelateȱ cuȱ materialeȱ arheologiceȱ descoperiteȱ óiȱ cuȱ elementeȱ ceȱ öinȱ
deȱorganizareaȱurban©,ȱchiarȱdac©ȱpentruȱultimeleȱistoriciiȱnuȱauȱajunsȱlaȱaprecieriȱ
definitive.ȱ Prezentareaȱ situaöieiȱ arheologiceȱ vaȱ fiȱ precedat©ȱ deȱ unȱ comentariuȱ
istoricȱalȱperioadei.ȱ
ȱ
EtapaȱIȱ(sec.ȱVIȱ–ȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
Urm©rindȱ evenimenteleȱ înȱ ordineaȱ desf©óur©riiȱ lorȱ înȱ timp,ȱ primul,ȱ darȱ dinȱ
p©cateȱ asupraȱ c©ruiaȱ nuȱ neȱ putemȱ pronunöaȱ arȱ fiȱ incursiunea,ȱ sauȱ maiȱ degrab©ȱ
urm©rileȱ incursiuniiȱ persaneȱ deȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr. 49.ȱ Pentruȱ Tomisȱ dataȱ
46
ȱ Strabon,ȱ VII,ȱ 6,ȱ 1;ȱ veziȱ discuöiaȱ asupraȱ termenuluiȱ laȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 319;ȱȱȱȱ
R.ȱVulpe,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ154.ȱ
47
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ54;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA.ȱ
Campaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
48
ȱMulteȱinedite;ȱveziȱóiȱnotaöiileȱnoastreȱdinȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ80.ȱ
49
ȱ Veziȱ înȱ general,ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Izvoareȱ greceótiȱ despreȱ retragereaȱ luiȱ Dariusȱ dinȱ
expediöiaȱ scitic©,ȱ SCIVȱ 7ȱ (1956),ȱ 3Ȭ4,ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ341;ȱ idem,ȱ Histriaȱ înȱ epocaȱ arhaic©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 19ȱ
(1986),ȱ p.ȱ 28Ȭ31ȱ înȱ specialȱ notaȱ 99;ȱ S.ȱ Dimitriu,ȱ Evénementsȱ duȱ Pontȱ Euxinȱ deȱ laȱ finȱ duȱ VI e ȱ
siècleȱav.n.è.ȱreflétésȱdansȱl’histoireȱd’Histria,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ8ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ133Ȭ144;ȱveziȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱ
Civilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ39ȱ(cadrulȱistoric).ȱ
18ȱ ȱ
ȱ
esteȱfoarteȱtimpurieȱpentruȱaȱneȱpermiteȱs©ȱfacemȱvreoȱpresupunere,ȱiarȱoȱanalogieȱ
cuȱHistria,ȱacum,ȱnuȱneȬarȱajuta.ȱȱ
Admiöând,ȱ înȱ continuare,ȱ interesulȱ acordatȱ deȱ Athenaȱ óiȱ deȱ ligaȱ condus©ȱ deȱ
eaȱ pentruȱ oraóeleȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Pont50,ȱ nuȱ credemȱ c©ȱ micaȱ aóezareȱ tomitan©ȱ s©ȱ fiȱ
atrasȱ întrȬunȱ felȱ atenöiaȱ puterniciiȱ symachiiȱ óiȱ niciȱ c©ȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ înȱ m©sur©ȱ s©Ȭóiȱ
asumeȱvreoȱobligaöieȱcaȱeventualȱmembru.ȱ
Niciȱpentruȱoȱst©pânireȱscitic©ȱ(pân©ȱlaȱdataȱconflictuluiȱdintreȱAteasȱóiȱFilipȱ
alȱ IIȬlea,ȱ dinȱanulȱ 339ȱ a.ȱChr.)ȱ sauȱ unaȱ macedonean©ȱ careȱ aȱ urmatȱ evenimentuluiȱ
menöionatȱóiȱsȬarȱfiȱîncheiatȱodat©ȱcuȱmoarteaȱluiȱLysimachȱ(281ȱa.ȱChr.)ȱnuȱavemȱ
informaöiiȱ directe.ȱ Dac©ȱ accept©mȱ c©ȱ autoritateaȱ primilorȱ sȬarȱ fiȱ manifestatȱ înȱ
Dobrogeaȱdeȱlaȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.,ȱanteriorȱdeciȱdateiȱconflictului51,ȱprobabilȱ
informaöiaȱluiȱIordanesȱdinȱGetica,ȱII,ȱ10,ȱ65,ȱdup©ȱcareȱTomisȱeraȱsupusȱgeöilorȱîiȱ
aveaȱînȱvedereȱpeȱsciöi 52,ȱiarȱtermenulȱdeȱsupunereȱȱȱȱsȬarȱputeaȱreferiȱlaȱplataȱunorȱ
tributuri53.ȱ Ulterior,ȱ intervenöiaȱ macedonean©ȱ aȱ pututȱ s©ȱ însemneȱ oȱ eliberareȱ deȱ
teamaȱ barbarilorȱ óiȱ intrareaȱ subȱ unȱ nouȱ „protectorat”.ȱ Dac©ȱ instituireaȱ acestuiȱ
protectoratȱsȬaȱprodusȱpeȱcaleȱviolent© 54ȱsauȱaȱfostȱacceptat©ȱóiȱînsoöit©ȱdeȱacorduriȱ
óiȱprezenöeȱnemijlociteȱmacedoneneȱaici55,ȱesteȱgreuȱdeȱdecis.ȱNuȱótimȱniciȱdeȱdataȱ
aceastaȱ dac©ȱ oȱ comparaöieȱ cuȱ Histriaȱ neȬarȱ ajuta.ȱ Afirmaöiaȱ c©ȱ Tomisȱ ȱ aȱ avutȱ faö©ȱ
deȱFilipȱoȱatitudineȱasem©n©toareȱcuȱ ceaȱaȱHistrieiȱóiȱaȱsuferitȱaceeaóiȱsoart© 56ȱnuȱ
beneficiaz©ȱ deȱ oȱ argumentareȱ suficient©57.ȱ Esteȱ posibilȱ caȱ urmeleȱ deȱ incendiuȱ
înregistrateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ s©ȱ seȱ datorezeȱ acestorȱ evenimenteȱ sauȱ celorȱ careȱ auȱ urmatȱ
spreȱ sfâróitulȱ secoluluiȱ óiȱ sȬauȱ datoratȱ revolteiȱ oraóelorȱ ponticeȱ împotrivaȱ luiȱ
Lysimach58.ȱ Tomisulȱ nuȱ pareȱ str©inȱ deȱ alianöaȱ cet©öilorȱ ponticeȱ îndreptat©ȱ
împotrivaȱdiadohuluiȱLysimach,ȱurmat©,ȱînȱdou©ȱrânduri,ȱdeȱasediulȱCallatideiȱóiȱ
înfrângereaȱ aliaöilor.ȱ Informaöiaȱ luiȱ Diodorȱ (XIX,ȱ 73,ȱ 1Ȭ2)ȱ referitoareȱ laȱ alianöaȱ
callatienilorȱ cuȱ celelalteȱ cet©öiȱ vecineȱ pareȱ s©ȱ fiȱ avutȱ înȱ vedereȱ óiȱ Tomisul.ȱ Dac©ȱ
istoriculȱ dinȱ Siciliaȱ nuȱ faceȱ menöiuneaȱ expres©ȱ decâtȱ pentruȱ Histria,ȱ aceastaȱ sȬarȱ
datoraȱóiȱfaptuluiȱc©ȱputernicaȱpân©ȱatunciȱcetateȱmilesian©ȱnuȱseȱsituaȱînȱimediataȱ
vecin©tateȱ aȱ Callatideiȱ óiȱ deciȱ nuȱ puteaȱ fiȱ inclus©ȱ înȱ categoriaȱ deȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘΤΖȱ ΩΏΏ΅Ζȱ
ΘΤΖȱ ΔΏ΋Η΍ΓΛЏΕΓΙΖȱ ΔΓΏΉϧΖ,ȱ careȱ conveneaȱ maiȱ degrab©ȱ Tomisului.ȱ Niciȱ situareaȱ
50
ȱ Pentruȱ eventualaȱ prezenö©ȱ înȱ ligaȱ delioȬattic©ȱ aȱ Histrieiȱ óiȱ Callatidei,ȱ veziȱ D.M.ȱ
Pippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ183.ȱȱ
51
ȱVl.ȱIliescu,ȱPonticaȱ3ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ87Ȭ90;ȱveziȱóiȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ213Ȭ215ȱóiȱnotaȱ
129.ȱ
52
ȱVl.ȱIliescu,ȱGetenȱoderȱSkythen?ȱZuȱIord.ȱGet.,ȱ65,ȱînȱEosȱ56ȱ(1966),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ341Ȭ346.ȱ
53
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ 1967,ȱ p.ȱ 152ȱ óiȱ notaȱ 111ȱ cuȱ trimiteriȱ laȱ textulȱ dinȱ Diodor,ȱ
XVI,ȱ 71;ȱ Ligiaȱ Ruscu,ȱ Relaöiileȱ externeȱ aleȱ oraóelorȱ greceótiȱ deȱ peȱ litoralulȱ românescȱ alȱ M©riiȱ
Negre,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ66Ȭ67.ȱ
54
ȱVeziȱdistrugereaȱincinteiȱhistrieneȱpuseȱpeȱseamaȱintervenöieiȱluiȱFilipȱIIȱlaȱM.ȱCoja,ȱ
Zidulȱdeȱap©rareȱalȱcet©öiiȱHistriaȱóiȱîmprejur©rileȱistoriceȱaleȱdistrugeriiȱluiȱînȱsec.ȱalȱIVȬleaȱî.e.n.,ȱ
SCIVȱ15ȱ(1964),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ383Ȭ398;ȱopinieȱdiferit©,ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ218ȱóiȱnotaȱ149.ȱ
55
ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 71Ȭ73ȱ cuȱ trimitereȱ (notaȱ 71)ȱ óiȱ laȱ E.ȱ Badian,ȱ Philipȱ IIȱ andȱ Thrace,ȱ
Pulpudevaȱ4ȱ(1983),ȱp.ȱ51Ȭ71.ȱ
56
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
57
ȱ Veziȱ totuóiȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Descopeririȱ monetareȱ macedoneneȱ înȱ Dobrogea,ȱ BSNRȱ 92Ȭ97ȱ
(1998Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ37.ȱȱ
58
ȱ Deȱ altfelȱ óiȱ pentruȱ Histriaȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ evenimenteȱ suntȱ considerateȱ deopotriv©ȱ
posibileȱînȱdistrugereaȱincinteiȱclasice;ȱveziȱmaiȱsus,ȱnotaȱ54.ȱ
ȱ 19
ȱȱȱ
geografic©ȱói,ȱcumȱvomȱvedea,ȱniciȱstareaȱeconomic©ȱdeȱpân©ȱatunciȱaȱaóez©riiȱnuȱ
excludȱaceast©ȱparticipareȱ(arȱmaiȱtrebuiȱs©ȱrecunoaótemȱapelativulȱΔϱΏ΍Ζ,ȱaplicatȱ
indirectȱ aóez©riiȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Înȱ plusȱ dac©ȱ consider©mȱ Miletulȱ nuȱ
str©inȱ deȱ revoltaȱ împotrivaȱ luiȱ Lysimach,ȱ participareaȱ Tomisuluiȱ laȱ evenimenteȱ
pareȱasigurat©59.ȱ
Perioadaȱ deȱ dup©ȱ înfrângereaȱ definitiv©ȱ aȱ Callatideiȱ (dup©ȱ asediulȱ reluatȱ înȱ
309ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)60ȱ óiȱ pân©ȱ laȱ moarteaȱ luiȱ Lysimachȱ nuȱ maiȱ cunoaóteȱ manifest©riȱ
violente,ȱ oraóeleȱ ponticeȱ r©mânândȱ subȱ autoritateaȱ regeluiȱ Thraciei.ȱ Nicioȱ surs©ȱ
literar©ȱnuȱneȱofer©ȱinformaöiiȱdespreȱsituaöiaȱoraóelorȱdinȱPontȱdup©ȱmoarteaȱluiȱ
Lysimach.ȱ„Protecöiaȱseleucid©”ȱcareȱarȱfiȱurmat,ȱseȱmanifest©ȱdeȱlaȱdistanö©ȱóiȱareȱ
înȱvedereȱmaiȱmultȱcoastaȱtracic©.ȱ
Stratigrafiaȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ înȱ zonaȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedralei,ȱ stabileóteȱ pentruȱ
intervalulȱsecolelorȱVIȬIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱcinciȱniveluriȱarheologice61,ȱaȱc©rorȱordonare,ȱdeȱ
josȱînȱsus,ȱareȱurm©toareaȱstructur© :ȱ
ȬȱNȱXIIȬXIȱ–ȱsecoleleȱVIȬVȱa.ȱChr.,ȱcuȱpreciz©rileȱc©ȱceleȱdou©ȱniveluriȱaparöinȱ
celeiȱdeȱaȱdouaȱjum©t©öiȱaȱsec.ȱVIȱa.ȱChr.,ȱiarȱNȱXIȱseȱprelungeóteȱînȱprimiiȱaniȱaiȱ
secoluluiȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (nuȱ maiȱ multȱ îns©ȱ deȱ sfâróitulȱ celuiȱ deȱ alȱ doileaȱ deceniuȱ alȱ
secolului).ȱ
ȱȬȱNȱXȱóiȱIXȱ–ȱsecoleleȱVȱóiȱIVȱa.ȱChr.:ȱNȱXȱ–ȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsecoluluiȱVȱa.ȱ
Chr.;ȱȱNȱIXȱ–ȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsecoluluiȱVȱa.ȱChr.ȱóiȱprobabilȱprimiiȱaniȱaiȱsec.ȱIVȱ
a.ȱChr.ȱ
Celeȱ dou©ȱ niveluriȱ seȱ constituieȱ dinȱ maiȱ multeȱ podeleȱ deȱ lutȱ succesive,ȱ cuȱ
arsuriȱpeȱfiecareȱdinȱele,ȱinterpretateȱcaȱrefaceriȱrepetate.ȱ
Ȭȱ Nȱ VIIIȱ esteȱ bineȱ constituit;ȱ elȱ seȱ întâlneóteȱ înȱ toat©ȱ zonaȱ cercetat©ȱ óiȱ esteȱ
acoperitȱ cuȱ unȱ stratȱ foarteȱ grosȱ deȱ incendiu.ȱ Depunerileȱ deȱ peȱ acestȱ nivelȱ conöinȱ
materialeȱarheologiceȱunitare,ȱdatabileȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱȱ
Referitorȱ laȱ cronologiaȱ nivelurilorȱ arheologiceȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedraleiȱ óiȱ înȱ
funcöieȱ deȱ realit©öileȱ numismatice62ȱ sȬaȱ apreciatȱ caȱ fiindȱ corecteȱ pentruȱ nivelurileȱ
XIIȬIXȱ dateleȱ indicateȱ deȱ autoriiȱ raportuluiȱ înȱ paranteze:ȱ respectiv,ȱ Nȱ XIIȬXI:ȱ sec.ȱ
VIȬVȱ a.ȱ Chr.;ȱ Nȱ XȬIX:ȱ sec.ȱ VȬIVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ alȱ interpret©riiȱ
stratigrafice,ȱ observaöia,ȱ dup©ȱ p©rereaȱ noastr©,ȱ nuȱ modific©ȱ acesteȱ date,ȱ ciȱ leȱ
precizeaz©63.ȱȱ
Reöinemȱipotezaȱpotrivitȱc©reiaȱNȱXȱarȱtrebuiȱs©ȱînceap©ȱpeȱlaȱ465Ȭ460ȱa.ȱChr.,ȱ
iarȱNȱIXȱȱsȬarȱîncheiaȱtotuóiȱspreȱsfâróitulȱprimuluiȱp©trarȱalȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱAcesteȱ
59
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ216Ȭ217;ȱIu.G.ȱVinogradov,ȱDerȱPontosȱEuxeinosȱalsȱpolitische,ȱ
ökonomischeȱ undȱ kulturelleȱ Einheitȱ undȱ dieȱ Epigraphik,ȱ Actaȱ Centriȱ Historiaeȱ „Terraȱ Antiquaȱ
Balcanica”,ȱ2,ȱTîrnovo,ȱ1987,ȱp.ȱ43;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ23ȱóiȱnotaȱ94.ȱ
60
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ218;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ24.ȱ
61
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ49ȱóiȱpl.ȱ1Ȭ4.ȱ

ȱÎnȱnotaöiileȱnoastreȱNȱ=ȱnivel;ȱNAȱ=ȱnivelȱarhaic.ȱ
62
ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ P.ȱ Dicu,ȱ Monedeȱ anticeȱ óiȱ bizantineȱ dinȱ Dobrogea,ȱ BSNRȱ 75Ȭ76ȱ (1981Ȭ
1982),ȱ1983,ȱînȱspecialȱp.ȱ447Ȭ454.ȱ
63
ȱ Cercetareaȱ arheologic©ȱ dintrȬoȱ zon©ȱ aflat©ȱ înȱ imediataȱ apropiereȱ stabileóteȱ pentruȱ
perioadaȱ greac©ȱ patruȱ niveluriȱ arheologice,ȱ datateȱ dinȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ –ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ
sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IV/începutulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Eleȱ corespundȱ nivelurilorȱ XIIȬVIIIȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ
Catedralei.ȱVeziȱGh.ȱPapucȱetȱalii,ȱConstanöa,ȱjud.ȱConstanöaȱ[Tomis].ȱPunctȱstr.ȱArhiepiscopieiȱ
nr.ȱ23,ȱînȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱcIMeCȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
20ȱ ȱ
ȱ
dat©riȱ pornescȱ deȱ laȱ realit©öiȱ numismaticeȱ aflateȱ înȱ teren:ȱ prezenöaȱ paralel©ȱ aȱ
semnelorȱpremonetareȱóiȱaȱmonedelorȱcuȱroataȱpeȱNȱX,ȱdeȱexemplu,ȱsauȱprezenöaȱ
semnelorȱpremonetareȱóiȱpeȱNȱIX;ȱmonedeleȱcuȱroataȱlipsescȱcuȱdes©vâróireȱpeȱNȱ
VIIIȱ (sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ faptȱ pusȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ epocaȱ deȱ destr©mareȱ aȱ primeiȱ ligiȱ
maritimeȱatenieneȱînȱPontȱ(careȱarȱcorespundeȱstratigraficȱlaȱTomisȱniveluluiȱIX).ȱ
DintrȬoȱ cercetareȱ anterioar©ȱ deȱ controlȱ stratigrafic,ȱ întreprins©ȱ înȱ aniiȱ 1959Ȭ
1960ȱ înȱ zonaȱ peninsular©,ȱ provinȱ maiȱ multeȱ materialeȱ deȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ câtevaȱ
deȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ ÎntrȬunȱ raportȱ deȱ s©p©tur©ȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ respectiv©ȱ seȱ
consemneaz©ȱ faptulȱ c©ȱ toateȱ provinȱ deȱ peȱ unȱ singurȱ nivelȱ (Nȱ I),ȱ aflatȱ laȱ –4ȱ mȱ
adâncime,ȱnivelȱpeȱcareȱsȬaȱaflatȱóiȱunȱfragmentȱdeȱvasȱindigen,ȱlucratȱcuȱmâna,ȱdeȱ
epoc©ȱ hallstattian©ȱ târzie.ȱ ȱ Autorulȱ raportuluiȱ dataȱ nivelulȱ respectivȱ laȱ începutulȱ
sec.ȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ îlȱ consideraȱ „deocamdat©ȱ caȱ celȱ maiȱ timpuriuȱ nivelȱ deȱ viaö©ȱ alȱ
Tomisului”64.ȱ Reluândȱ aceast©ȱ apreciere,ȱ noiȱ l©rgimȱ datareaȱ niveluluiȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ
sec.ȱVIȱ–ȱînceputulȱ(sauȱalȱdoileaȱsfertȱal)ȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱChr.ȱóiȬlȱpunemȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱ
s©p©turileȱulterioareȱdeȱlaȱParculȱCatedraleiȱ(respectivȱNȱXI) 65.ȱ
Raportândȱnoileȱdateȱcelorȱdinȱaóezareaȱhistrian©ȱdeȱpeȱplatou66,ȱremarc©m:ȱ
1) începuturileȱaóez©riiȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱcorespundȱNAȱIIIȱdeȱlaȱHistria;ȱ
2) secoluluiȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ îiȱ corespundȱ laȱ Tomisȱ dou©ȱ niveluriȱ arheologice;ȱ
refacerileȱ repetateȱ aleȱ amenaj©rilorȱ deȱ peȱ acesteȱ niveluriȱ nuȱ auȱ semnificaöiiȱ
generale;ȱ
3) secolulȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ iaȱ sfâróitȱ totȱ printrȬunȱ incendiuȱ puternic,ȱ peȱ careȱ
autoriiȱraportuluiȱezit©ȱînȱaȬlȱatribuiȱunuiaȱdinȱceleȱdou©ȱevenimente:ȱexpediöiaȱluiȱ
Filipȱ alȱ IIȬleaȱ sauȱ expediöiaȱ luiȱ Lysimachȱ (alȱ doileaȱ evenimentȱ pare,ȱ totuói,ȱ înȱ
opiniaȱraportorilor,ȱresponsabilȱdeȱdistrugere)67;ȱ
4) peȱ Nȱ XIȱ auȱ fostȱ înregistrateȱ urmeȱ puterniceȱ deȱ incendiu.ȱ Suprafaöaȱ
restrâns©ȱ cercetat©ȱ nuȱ neȱ permiteȱ s©ȱ deducemȱ dac©ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ unȱ incendiuȱ
general,ȱcuȱmotivaöieȱistoric©,ȱsauȱdeȱunulȱparöialȱóiȱaccidental.ȱNuȱexcludemȱîns©ȱ
posibilitateaȱ stabiliriiȱ uneiȱ corelaöiiȱ cuȱ incendiulȱ careȱ aȱ pusȱ cap©tȱ NAȱ IIIȱ deȱ laȱ
Histria68.ȱȱ
Categoriileȱceramiceȱdescoperite69ȱfacȱdovadaȱexistenöeiȱlaȱTomisȱaȱuneiȱaóez©riȱȱ
greceótiȱstabile,ȱbineȱmarcateȱînc©ȱdinȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
64
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Raportȱ ineditȱ aflatȱ înȱ fondulȱ documentarȱ alȱ Muzeuluiȱ deȱ istorieȱ
naöional©ȱ óiȱ arheologieȱ Constanöaȱ (MINAC),ȱ inv.ȱ 1327.ȱ Numerotareaȱ nivelurilorȱ aparöineȱ
autoruluiȱs©p©turii,ȱ(aiciȱNȱIȱesteȱprimulȱcronologic).ȱ
65
ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ întreagaȱ zon©ȱ peninsular©ȱ aȱ f©cutȱ obiectulȱ unorȱ s©p©turiȱ deȱ salvareȱ întreȱ
1959Ȭ1960ȱ óiȱ 1986Ȭ1988,ȱ careȱ auȱ prilejuitȱ surprindereaȱ precis©ȱ numaiȱ aȱ dou©ȱ niveluriȱ deȱ
locuire,ȱ dinȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ respectiv,ȱ romanoȬbizantin©.ȱ Materialeleȱ elenisticeȱ óiȱ greceótiȱ
sȬauȱaflatȱpeȱtoat©ȱariaȱcercetat©,ȱf©r©ȱîns©ȱaȱputeaȱformaȱunȱnivelȱcompact.ȱ
66
ȱ Pentruȱ stratigrafiaȱ zoneiȱ deȱ platouȱ aȱ Histrieiȱ veziȱ S.ȱ Dimitriu,ȱ înȱ Histriaȱ II,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1966,ȱ p.ȱ 21Ȭ37;ȱ veziȱ maiȱ recentȱ M.ȱ Angelescu,ȱ inȱ CCA.ȱ Campaniaȱ 1994,ȱ ClujȬ
Napoca,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ42;ȱCampaniaȱ1995,ȱBr©ila,ȱ1996,ȱp.ȱ58Ȭ59;ȱM.ȱAngelescu,ȱA.ȱBâltâc,ȱSondajulȱ
„΅”ȱ dinȱ basilicaȱ episcopal©ȱ deȱ laȱ Histria,ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 85Ȭ122;ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ
M.ȱAngelescuȱ(ed.),ȱHistria.ȱGhidȱalbum,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ17Ȭ19.ȱ
67
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ25Ȭ27.ȱ
68
ȱ Înȱ cercet©rileȱ dinȱ 2001ȱ (maiȱsus,ȱn.ȱ 63)ȱ peȱ nivelulȱ Iȱ suntȱ notateȱ refaceriȱ succesiveȱ înȱ
urmaȱaȱcelȱpuöinȱdou©ȱincendii.ȱ
69
ȱCeramicaȱdeȱepoc©ȱgreac©ȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱesteȱînȱmareȱparteȱinedit©;ȱrefeririȱgeneraleȱseȱ
facȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ materialeleȱ proveniteȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedralei;ȱ veziȱ A.ȱ R©dulescuȱ etȱ alii,ȱ
ȱ 21
ȱȱȱ
Categoriaȱ ceaȱ maiȱ bineȱ reprezentat©ȱ pentruȱ secoleleȱ VIȬVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ ceaȱ aȱ
ceramiciiȱ grecoȬorientale;ȱ vaseleȱ aparöinȱ categorieiȱ ceramiciiȱ deȱ uzȱ curentȱ óiȱ seȱ
reg©sescȱînȱformeȱcomuneȱdescoperiteȱînȱnivelurileȱarhaiceȱdeȱlaȱHistria.ȱȱ
Majoritateaȱ pieselorȱ seȱ apropieȱ deȱ ceramicaȱ dinȱ NAȱ IIIȱ deȱ laȱ Histria70.ȱ Întreȱ
descoperirileȱ deȱ sec.ȱ VIȬVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ not©mȱ óiȱ câtevaȱ fragmenteȱ corintiene,ȱ
nesemnificative;ȱeleȱaparöinȱprobabilȱstiluluiȱcorintianȱrecent,ȱdeóiȱnuȱesteȱexclus©ȱ
niciȱfazaȱmijlocieȱaȱstilului.ȱ
Ceramicaȱattic©ȱînregistreaz©ȱaceleaóiȱfazeȱcaȱlaȱHistria:ȱrelativ©ȱînȱsec.ȱVIȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱóiȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱChr.,ȱtotalȱabsent©ȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱóiȱ„masiv©”ȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱóiȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
Ceramicaȱ attic©ȱ deȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ prezent©ȱ prinȱ maiȱ multeȱ
fragmenteȱ dinȱ categoriaȱ cupelorȱ cuȱ piciorȱ înaltȱ óiȱ decorȱ înȱ benzi,ȱ datateȱ cca.ȱ 530Ȭ
520ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ cupeȱ cuȱ firnisȱ negruȱ óiȱ f©r©ȱ decorȱ (cca.ȱ 525ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ pieseȱ cuȱ figuriȱ
negreȱtârzii,ȱdatabileȱpeȱlaȱ520Ȭ510ȱa.ȱChr.ȱLaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱcontinu©ȱseriaȱceramiciiȱcuȱfirnisȱnegru,ȱreprezentat©ȱdeȱcupe,ȱskyphoi,ȱboluriȱ
cuȱmargineaȱjoas©,ȱbolsalsȱcuȱdecorȱimprimat.ȱÎóiȱfacȱapariöiaȱóiȱtipuriȱceramiceȱcuȱ
figuriȱroóii,ȱreprezentateȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱdeȱfragmenteȱdeȱpelikeȱ
óiȱ skyphoi.ȱ Registrulȱ decorativȱ esteȱ comun:ȱ personajeȱ drapate,ȱ Satiri,ȱ palmeteȱ óiȱ
acolade.ȱ
Ceramicaȱ presupus©ȱ colonial©ȱ îóiȱ afl©ȱ analogiiȱ înȱ formeȱ recunoscuteȱ întreȱ
produseleȱ histriene;ȱ fiindȱ vorbaȱ deȱ formeȱ uzuale,ȱ eleȱ potȱ reprezentaȱ nuȱ neap©ratȱ
importuriȱ histriene,ȱ ciȱ óiȱ produseȱ aleȱ atelierelorȱ tomitane.ȱ Analizaȱ deȱ soluriȱ
prelevateȱ dinȱ depoziteleȱ deȱ loessuriȱ deȱ peȱ falezaȱ deȱ nordȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ aȱ identificatȱ
maiȱ multeȱ calit©öi.ȱ Cumȱ esteȱ recunoscutȱ faptulȱ c©ȱ argileleȱ uneiȱ regiuniȱ formeaz©ȱ
unȱ „ansambluȱ omogen”,ȱ calit©öileȱ argilelorȱ tomitaneȱ sunt,ȱ probabil,ȱ foarteȱ
apropiateȱ deȱ celeȱ aleȱ Histriei.ȱ Selecöiaȱ seȱ dovedeóteȱ dinȱ acestȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ
dificil©,ȱiarȱr©spunsulȱnuȬlȱpoateȱdaȱdecâtȱoȱfin©ȱanaliz©ȱcomparativ©ȱdeȱlaborator.ȱ
Întreȱ categoriileȱ presupuseȱ colonialeȱ not©mȱ farfuriiȱ deȱ peóteȱ (fishȱ plates),ȱ cuȱ
vopseaȱ roóieȱ înȱ interior;ȱ platouriȱ cuȱ margineaȱ canelat©,ȱ castroaneȱ dintrȬoȱ argil©ȱ
roóie,ȱinsuficientȱars©,ȱcuȱmiezȱcenuóiu.ȱ
Oȱ remarc©ȱ special©ȱ dator©mȱ amforelorȱ careȱ documenteaz©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ oȱ vieȱ
activitateȱ economic©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ aleȱ c©reiȱ premiseȱ seȱ plaseaz©ȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ
jum©tateȱ sauȱ spreȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.71.ȱ Importurile,ȱ caȱ óiȱ laȱ Histriaȱ ajungȱ
dinspreȱ Chios,ȱ Lesbosȱ óiȱ Thasos.ȱ Aceast©ȱ caracteristic©ȱ seȱ menöineȱ óiȱ înȱ primaȱ
jum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱDemonstrativ,ȱraportulȱimportuluiȱamforicȱdintreȱsec.ȱVȱ
óiȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ quasiegal.ȱÎnȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ
Chr.,ȱ importurileȱ deóiȱ maiȱ variateȱ înregistreaz©ȱ valoriȱ maiȱ sc©zute,ȱ datorateȱ
probabilȱ situaöieiȱ politiceȱ nesigureȱ aȱ Dobrogeiȱ óiȱ maiȱ alesȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ înȱ aceast©ȱ
perioad©72.ȱ
Comparaöiaȱ dintreȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ Callatisȱ privindȱ începuturileȱ importuluiȱ deȱ
Ponticaȱ 6ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 333Ȭ347;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 34ȱ óiȱ fig.ȱ 28Ȭ35;ȱ
L.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ254Ȭ260.ȱ
70
ȱVeziȱmaterialulȱceramicȱlaȱS.ȱDimitriu,ȱHistriaȱII,ȱp.ȱ41Ȭ54.ȱ
71
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ75Ȭ96.ȱ
72
ȱVeziȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱLesȱpremièresȱimportationsȱd’amphoresȱtimbréesȱdansȱlesȱcitésȱgrecquesȱ
deȱTomisȱetȱdeȱCallatis,ȱBCH,ȱSuppl.ȱ13ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ406Ȭ415.ȱ
22ȱ ȱ
ȱ
amforeȱótampilateȱesteȱlaȱrândulȱeiȱsugestiv©.ȱConsiderareaȱsituaöieiȱdeȱansambluȱ
aȱimporturilorȱdinȱceleȱdou©ȱcoloniiȱplaseaz©ȱThasosȬulȱcaȱprimȱcentruȱexportatorȱ
deȱ produseȱ folosindȱ ambalajeȱ ótampilateȱ peȱ piaöaȱ tomitan©,ȱ cuȱ unȱ comeröȱ
permanentȱdinȱalȱdoileaȱsfertȱalȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱPiaöaȱcallatian©,ȱspreȱdeosebireȱdeȱ
Histriaȱ óiȱ Tomis,ȱ eraȱ orientat©ȱ laȱ aceaȱ dat©ȱ spreȱ comeröulȱ cuȱ Heracleeaȱ Pontic©.ȱ
Absenöaȱótampilelorȱtimpuriiȱdeȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱatâtȱ
laȱ Tomisȱ câtȱ óiȱ laȱ Callatisȱ esteȱ oȱ dovad©ȱ aȱ activit©öiiȱ economiceȱ maiȱ restrânseȱ înȱ
comparaöieȱcuȱHistria,ȱdatorateȱóiȱdateiȱmaiȱrecenteȱdeȱîntemeiereȱaȱlor.ȱPeȱdeȱalt©ȱ
parte,ȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ num©rulȱ ridicatȱ deȱ ótampileȱ deȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ înȱ
comparaöieȱ cuȱ Callatis,ȱ constituieȱ dovadaȱ uneiȱ activit©öiȱ comercialeȱ maiȱ timpuriiȱ
cuȱinsulaȱThasos.ȱ
Factorulȱlocalȱseȱdovedeóteȱdestulȱdeȱputernic,ȱînȱceleȱdou©ȱaspecteȱsurprinseȱ
óiȱ laȱ Histria:ȱ autohtonȱ (predominant)ȱ óiȱ nordȬpontic.ȱ Probabilȱ esteȱ prezentȱ óiȱ
aspectulȱ localȱ colonialȱ maiȱ greuȱ deȱ identificatȱ înȱ stadiulȱ actualȱ alȱ cercet©rilor.ȱ
Ceramicaȱautohton©ȱesteȱprezent©ȱdinȱprimeleȱniveluriȱarheologice.ȱDinȱpunctȱdeȱ
vedereȱcantitativȱpareȱmaiȱbineȱreprezentat©ȱdecâtȱlaȱHistria.ȱSeȱcontinu©ȱtradiöiaȱ
hallstattian©ȱ aȱ formelor.ȱ Tehnicaȱ deȱ decorareȱ aȱ vaselorȱ areȱ unȱ repertoriuȱ larg,ȱ înȱ
careȱ recunoaótemȱ elementeȱ deȱ decorȱ getic,ȱ darȱ óiȱ alteleȱ apropiateȱ ceramiciiȱ nordȬ
pontice.ȱ Formeleȱ leȱ recunoaótemȱ înȱ ceramicaȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ NAȱ IIIȱ deȱ laȱ Histriaȱ
sauȱ înȱ stratulȱ arhaic,ȱ totȱ deȱ acolo,ȱ cuȱ datareȱ coborât©ȱ laȱ limitaȱ secolelorȱ VIȬVȱ a.ȱ
Chr.73ȱ
Înȱ privinöaȱ descoperirilorȱ numismaticeȱ observaöiileȱ noastreȱ auȱ înȱ vedereȱ maiȱ
alesȱvârfurileȱdeȱs©geöiȱdeȱbronzȱcuȱvaloareȱpremonetar©ȱóiȱmonedeleȱdeȱbronzȱcuȱ
„roata”74.ȱÎnȱprivinöaȱprimelorȱreöinem:ȱ
1) repartiöiaȱ stratigrafic©ȱ aȱ pieselorȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedralei:ȱ aceastaȱ
evidenöiaz©ȱpentruȱsec.ȱVIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ(NȱXIIȬXI)ȱatâtȱprezenöaȱs©geöilorȱcuȱtreiȱmuchiiȱ
câtȱ óiȱ aȱ celorȱ foliforme;ȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ tipuriȱ seȱ
menöin;ȱînȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱChr.ȱaparȱnumaiȱvârfuriȱdeȱs©geöiȱfoliforme;ȱȱ
2) apariöiaȱpeȱuneleȱpieseȱaȱ unorȱsemneȱ distincteȱînȱrelief,ȱcareȱarȱ puteaȱfiȱ
interpretateȱcaȱsemneȱdeȱatelier;ȱ
3) laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ cunoscuteȱ dou©ȱ tezaureȱ deȱ vârfuriȱ deȱ s©geöiȱ deȱ bronzȱ cuȱ
valoareȱ premonetar©ȱ óiȱ unȱ depozit75.ȱ Notateȱ peȱ rând,ȱ Tomisȱ Iȱ (58ȱ pieseȱ óiȱ doiȱ
delfinaóiȱolbieniȱ),ȱTomisȱIIȱ(140ȱpiese)ȱóiȱTomisȱIIIȱ(12ȱpiese),ȱeleȱȱpunȱTomisulȱînȱ
situaöiaȱunic©ȱdeȱaȱaflaȱastfelȱdeȱtezaureȱînȱmediuȱ„grecesc”.ȱEsteȱposibilȱcaȱeleȱs©ȱ
fiȱ aparöinutȱ grecilorȱ dinȱ cetateȱ óiȱ s©ȱ fiȱ constituitȱ obiecteȱ deȱ darȱ (dora)ȱ sauȱ deȱ
schimbȱ cuȱ populaöiaȱ local©;ȱ amȱ aflaȱ astfelȱ óiȱ unȱ argumentȱ pentruȱ funcöiaȱ deȱ
emporionȱaȱaóez©rii.ȱ
Monedeleȱdeȱbronzȱcuȱroata,ȱatribuiteȱHistriei,ȱsȬauȱaflatȱpeȱniveleȱdeȱsec.ȱ Vȱ
73
ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Civilizaöiaȱ greac©,ȱ p.ȱ 259Ȭ260;ȱ L.ȱ Arsenie,ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ283Ȭ298.ȱ
74
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ34Ȭ37;ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱSCNȱ7ȱ(1980),ȱp.ȱ25Ȭ
34;ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱSemneȱmonetareȱdinȱariaȱdeȱvestȱóiȱnordȬvestȱaȱPontuluiȱEuxin.ȱDeȱlaȱsimbolȱlaȱ
comeröȱ(secoleleȱVIȬVȱa.ȱChr.),ȱClujȬNapocaȱ2010,ȱpassim.ȱ
75
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 82;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Theȱ arrowheadȬmonetaryȱ signsȱ
hoard,ȱ foundedȱ inȱ Constanöaȱ (Constanöaȱ county),ȱ inȱ Coinȱ hoardsȱ ofȱ Dobrudja.ȱ I.ȱ Constanöaȱ 2007,ȱ
p.ȱ11Ȭ35.ȱȱ
ȱ 23
ȱȱȱ
a.ȱChr.ȱóiȱsuntȱabsenteȱpeȱnivelulȱdeȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ(NȱVIII).ȱNum©rulȱpieselorȱesteȱ
îns©ȱpreaȱmicȱ(28ȱexemplareȱlaȱParculȱCatedraleiȱóiȱcâtevaȱpeȱȱȱȱstr.ȱArhiepiscopiei,ȱ
nivelulȱ 2)ȱ pentruȱ aȱ susöineȱ ideea,ȱ tentant©ȱ deȱ altfel,ȱ aȱ prezenöeiȱ unorȱ ateliereȱ
locale.ȱTrebuieȱs©ȱaccept©mȱremarca 76ȱpotrivitȱc©reiaȱmonedaȱrespectiv©ȱreprezint©ȱ
oȱvaloareȱcirculatorieȱpeȱrazaȱmaxim©ȱdeȱrelaöiiȱcomercialeȱaleȱHistriei.ȱNot©mȱaiciȱ
óiȱ unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ 110ȱ monedeȱ histrieneȱ deȱ argintȱ aflatȱ „înȱ apropiereȱ deȱ anticulȱ
Tomis”ȱóiȱdatatȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr. ȱ
Pentruȱ perioadaȱ deȱ început,ȱ sȬaȱ emisȱ p©rerea77ȱ c©ȱ dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ
monetarȱ Tomisȱ seȱ afl©ȱ înȱ „sferaȱ deȱ interese”ȱ aȱ Histriei.ȱ Aceast©ȱ „r©mânere”ȱ subȱ
influenöaȱ Histrieiȱ esteȱ apreciat©ȱ caȱ durândȱ pân©ȱ peȱ laȱ jum©tateaȱ sauȱ dup©ȱ
jum©tateaȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
Acesteiȱremarciȱcategoriceȱîiȱprefer©mȱunaȱmaiȱnuanöat©,ȱînȱsensulȱc©ȱTomisȱaȱ
beneficiatȱdeȱfaptulȱc©ȱsȬaȱaflatȱînȱzonaȱdeȱcirculaöieȱaȱmonedeiȱhistriene.ȱMonedaȱ
histrian©ȱ seȱ dovedeóteȱ destulȱ deȱ puternic©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȬIVȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ pentruȱ aȱ acoperiȱ
necesarulȱmonetarȱalȱcelorlalteȱaóez©riȱgreceótiȱaflateȱînȱapropiere78.ȱ
Decopeririȱ întâmpl©toareȱ auȱ ocazionatȱ prezenöaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ aȱ unorȱ monedeȱ
str©ine79.ȱ Eleȱ provin,ȱ înȱ ordine,ȱ dinȱ Chersonesulȱ Tracicȱ (515Ȭ493ȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Persiaȱ
(486Ȭ450ȱa.ȱChr.),ȱApolloniaȱPontic©ȱ(sfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.)ȱóiȱ
Thessaliaȱ(începutulȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.).ȱInformaöiiȱmaiȱvechiȱsemnaleaz©ȱaiciȱóiȱdou©ȱ
tezaureȱ monetareȱ dinȱ Apolloniaȱ Pontic©ȱ (sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ
Chr.)ȱóiȱMesambriaȱ(sec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.),ȱf©r©ȱalteȱdateȱsuplimentare80.ȱ
Ariaȱ descoperirilorȱ ȱ deȱ sec.ȱ VIȬIVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ ocup©ȱ cap©tulȱ peninsuleiȱ tomitaneȱ
(zonaȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedraleiȱ óiȱ ceaȱ apropiat©ȱ ei)81ȱ ,ȱ zonaȱ peninsular©ȱ înȱ general,ȱ
aflat©ȱpeȱloculȱóiȱimediatȱlaȱsudȱóiȱvestȱdeȱactualaȱPiaö©ȱOvidiu.ȱ
Esteȱ adev©ratȱ îns©,ȱ înȱ zonaȱ peninsular©ȱ maiȱ numeroaseȱ suntȱ materialeleȱ deȱ
sec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱNot©mȱunȱgrupȱdeȱ8ȱamforeȱdeȱChiosȱdinȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱ
a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ careȱ provin,ȱ probabil,ȱ dintrȬunȱ depozitȱ aleȱ c©ruiȱ condiöiiȱ deȱ descoperireȱ
nuȱneȱsuntȱsuficientȱdeȱclare82.ȱ
Elementeleȱconstructiveȱsuntȱreprezentateȱnumaiȱînȱzonaȱcercetat©ȱdeȱcâtevaȱ
76
ȱBucurȱMitrea,ȱRoata,ȱsimbolȱsolarȱpeȱmonedeleȱhistriene,ȱPonticaȱ15ȱ(1982),ȱp.ȱ97.ȱ

ȱ Tezaurulȱ alȱ c©ruiȱ locȱ deȱ p©strareȱ nuȱ seȱ cunoaóte,ȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperitȱ înȱ 1916.ȱ Veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Repertoriulȱ tezaurelorȱ monetareȱ dinȱ Dobrogea,ȱ Constanöaȱ 2011,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ164,ȱnr.ȱIIȱ(cuȱtrimitereȱlaȱG.ȱSevereanu,ȱBSNRȱ15ȱ(1920),ȱ35Ȭ36,ȱp.ȱ20Ȭ27).ȱ
77
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ Discuöiiȱ peȱ margineaȱ câtorvaȱ monedeȱ str©ineȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ antic©,ȱ
SCIVȱ21ȱ(1970),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ137.ȱ
78
ȱPentruȱariaȱdeȱr©spândireȱaȱmonedeiȱhistriene,ȱveziȱrecent,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ
36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ357Ȭ394.ȱ
79
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Theȱ mints’issuesȱ fromȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ coastȱ andȱ otherȱ areasȱ ofȱ Dobruja.ȱ Theȱ
PreȬromanȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Romanȱ Periodsȱ (6 th ȱ Centuryȱ BCȱ –ȱ 1 st ȱ Centuryȱ AD),ȱ ClujȬNapocaȱ 2007,ȱ
passim.ȱ
80
ȱ C.ȱ Moisil,ȱCreótereaȱ ColecöiilorȱCabinetuluiȱNumismaticȱ înȱBibliotecaȱAcademieiȱRomâne,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1944,ȱ p.ȱ 5,ȱ nr.ȱ 40,ȱ 42,ȱ reluatȱ óiȱ deȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 164Ȭ165;ȱ veziȱ recentȱ óiȱ
G.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriulȱtezaurelor,ȱp.ȱ169ȱ(VIII;ȱaiciȱdatareaȱprobabil©ȱ330Ȭ320ȱ
a.ȱChr.).ȱ
81
ȱ Cercet©riȱ înȱ curteaȱ catedraleiȱ episcopaleȱ óiȱ înȱ zonaȱ muzeuluiȱ Ionȱ Jalea;ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Constanöaȱ (Tomis),ȱ înȱ CCA,ȱ 1983Ȭ1992,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.ȱ 25,ȱ nr.ȱ 18;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ
etȱalii,ȱConstanöaȱ(Tomis),ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110,ȱnr.ȱ73.ȱ
82
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ88.ȱ
24ȱ ȱ
ȱ
locuinöeȱ –ȱ bordeieȱ (sec.ȱ VIȬVȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ pavimenteȱ óiȱ ziduriȱ deȱ piatr©ȱ aleȱ unorȱ
locuinöeȱdeȱsuprafaö©ȱ(sec.ȱVȬIVȱa.ȱChr.).ȱNot©mȱidentificareaȱuneiȱstr©ziȱcuȱdou©ȱ
niveluriȱ deȱ amenajareȱ (Nȱ II,ȱ inferior,ȱ sec.ȱ VȬIVȱ a.ȱ Chr.;ȱ Nȱ Iȱ –ȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.);ȱ
traseulȱ eiȱ esteȱ identicȱ cuȱ celȱ alȱ str©ziiȱ romaneȱ deȱ maiȱ târziu83.ȱ Aceleaóiȱ structuriȱ
constructiveȱ suntȱ semnalateȱ óiȱ înȱ punctulȱ deȱ peȱ str.ȱ Arhiepiscopiei;ȱ not©mȱ aiciȱ oȱ
locuinö©ȱdeȱsuprafaö©ȱcuȱdou©ȱînc©peri,ȱdinȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱChr.ȱóiȱcontinuareaȱpavajuluiȱ
deȱpiatr©ȱalȱstr©ziiȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.84ȱȱȱ
Deocamdat©ȱreöinemȱcaȱelementeȱcaracteristiceȱaleȱacesteiȱperioade:ȱ
- suprafaöaȱredus©ȱdeȱlocuire/ariaȱredus©ȱocupat©ȱdeȱaóezare;ȱ
- posibilitateaȱ implant©riiȱ grecilorȱ întrȬunȱ mediuȱ autohtonȱ ceȱ pareȱ maiȱ
puternicȱexprimatȱdecâtȱlaȱHistria;ȱ
- orientareaȱ relaöiilorȱ economiceȱ spreȱ aceleaóiȱ centreȱ microȬasiaticeȱ óiȱ
egeeneȱidentificateȱlaȱHistria.ȱ
ȱ
EtapaȱaȱIIȬa:ȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
Evenimentulȱ importantȱ alȱ perioadeiȱ esteȱ aóaȬnumitulȱ „r©zboiȱ alȱ Tomisului”ȱ
sau,ȱ dup©ȱ sintagmaȱ greac©,ȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ,ȱ rezumatȱ deȱ Memnon,ȱ
dup©ȱ oȱ prezentareȱ maiȱ detaliat©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Nymphis.ȱ Pentruȱ importanöaȱ informaöieiȱ
red©mȱtextulȱdinȱMemnonȱ(FGrHistȱIIIȱB,ȱp.ȱ347Ȭ348)85:ȱ
̒Ёȱ ΔΓΏΏХȱ Έξȱ ЂΗΘΉΕΓΑȱ ΛΕϱΑУȱ ΔϱΏΉΐΓΖȱ ΦΑΉΕΕΣ·΋ȱ ̅ΙΊ΅ΑΘϟΓ΍Ζȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ
̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϿΖȱ (ΩΔΓ΍ЩΓ΍ȱ Έξȱ ΓЈΘΓ΍ȱ ̽Ε΅ЩΏΉΝΘЗΑȱ ϖΗ΅Α)ȱ Щ΅Ϡȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ ͑ΗΘΕ΍΅ΑΓϿΖȱ
ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ,ȱ ϶ȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϧΖȱ ϵΐΓΕΓΑȱ ώ,ȱ ΐΓΑΓΔЏΏ΍ΓΑȱ ΘΓІΘΓȱ
Έ΍΅ΑΓΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ Щ΅Θ΅ΗЩΉΙΣΗ΅΍ȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑЗΑ.ȱ ̇΍ΉΔΕΉΗΆΉϾΓΑΘΓȱ ΓЇΑȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ
̽Ε΅ЩΏΉЏΘ΅Ζȱ πΔϠȱ ΗΙΐΐ΅Λϟ΅Αȱ οЩΣΘΉΕΓ΍Ɇȱ Γϡȱ Έξȱ ΔΓΏΉΐ΍ЩχΑȱ ΐξΑȱ ϹΓΔχΑȱ ΓЁΈΉΘνΕУȱ
σΑΉΐΓΑȱ ΐνΕΉ΍,ȱ Έ΍΅ΏΏ΅ЩΘφΕ΍ΓΙΖȱ Έξȱ ΩΑΈΕ΅Ζȱ οЩ΅ΘνΕΓ΍Ζȱ ΦΔνΗΘΉΏΏΓΑ,ȱ ЩΪΑȱ
ΩΔΕ΅ЩΘΓΖȱ΅ЁΘЗΑȱψȱΗΔΓΙΈφȱΘΓΘΉȱ·ν·ΓΑΉ.ȱ̓ΓΏΏΤȱΈξȱΓϡȱΘϛΖȱ̍΅ΏΏΣΘ΍ΈΓΖȱЀΔϲȱΘЗΑȱ
ΔΓΏΉΐϟΝΑȱ Δ΅ΌϱΑΘΉΖ,ȱ ЂΗΘΉΕΓΑȱ ΉϢΖȱ Έ΍΅ΏϾΗΉ΍Ζȱ ώΏΌΓΑ,ȱ ΦΔϲȱ Θ΅ϾΘ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΗΙΐΠΓΕκΖȱ
ΓЁЩνΘ΍ȱΗΛΉΈϲΑȱΦΑ΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑȱ΅ЀΘΓϿΖȱΈΙΑ΋ΌνΑΘΉΖ.ȱ
„Nuȱ multȱ dup©ȱ aceea,ȱ aȱ izbucnitȱ unȱ r©zboi,ȱ peȱ careȬlȱ porniser©ȱ bizantiniiȱ
împotrivaȱ callatienilorȱ –ȱ aceótiaȱ erauȱ coloniótiȱ aiȱ heracleoöilorȱ –ȱ óiȱ [totodat©]ȱ
împotrivaȱ istrienilor,ȱ pentruȱ emporiulȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ careȱ seȱ aflaȱ înȱ vecin©tateaȱ
callatienilor.ȱ Aceótiaȱ seȱ gândeauȱ s©ȱ fac©ȱ acoloȱ unȱ monopolȱ alȱ lor.ȱ kiȱ uniiȱ óiȱ alöiiȱ
trimiser©ȱsoliȱheracleoöilor,ȱcaȱs©ȱleȱvin©ȱîntrȬajutor,ȱdarȱaceótiaȱnuȱacordar©ȱsprijinȱ
militarȱniciȱunoraȱniciȱaltora,ȱciȱtrimiser©ȱînȱambeleȱp©röiȱsoliȱcareȱs©Ȭiȱîmpace,ȱf©r©ȱ
caȱ str©daniaȱ lorȱ s©ȱ fiȱ ajunsȱ laȱ rezultat.ȱ Locuitoriiȱ dinȱ Callatisȱ suferir©ȱ multeȱ
pierderiȱdinȱpricinaȱduómanilorȱóiȱmaiȱtârziuȱîncepur©ȱtratativeȱdeȱpace,ȱdarȱnȬauȱ
maiȱpututȱs©ȱseȱrefac©ȱdinȱaceast©ȱnenorocire”86.ȱ
Analizat©ȱsecvenöialȱóiȱtradiöional,ȱinformaöiaȱareȱînȱvedere:ȱȱ
83
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 44ȱ óiȱ planulȱ generalȱ alȱ zonei;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
C.ȱScorpan,ȱL’évolutionȱurbanistiqueȱdeȱlaȱcitéȱdeȱTomis,ȱRRHȱ15ȱ(1976),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ3Ȭ10.ȱ
84
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109.ȱ
85
ȱ Memnon,ȱ frg.ȱ 21ȱ (FHGȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 537ȱ =ȱ FGr,ȱ Histȱ III,ȱ B,ȱ 434,ȱ fr.ȱ 13).ȱ Refeririȱ laȱ r©zboiulȱ
Tomisuluiȱ laȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 222;ȱ idem,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ35;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ20Ȭ21ȱóiȱ215Ȭ216;ȱveziȱmaiȱrecent,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2250,ȱPonticaȱ23ȱ(1990),ȱp.ȱ23Ȭ
28;ȱȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱȱp.ȱ150Ȭ163;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ26Ȭ32.ȱ
86
ȱTraducereaȱtextuluiȱdinȱMemnon,ȱdup©ȱFontesȱI,ȱp.ȱ511.ȱ
ȱ 25
ȱȱȱ
- oȱ înfruntareȱ militar©ȱ întreȱ oȱ coaliöieȱ histroȬcallatian©ȱ óiȱ Byzantion,ȱ caȱ
parteȱadvers©;ȱ
- obiectivulȱ înfrunt©rii:ȱ oböinereaȱ monopoluluiȱ asupraȱ emporionȬuluiȱ deȱ
laȱTomis;ȱȱ
- apelulȱpeȱcareȱp©röileȱimplicateȱîlȱadreseaz©ȱHeracleeiȱPontice;ȱȱ
- intervenöiaȱdiplomatic©ȱ(nuȱóiȱmilitar©)ȱaȱHeracleei,ȱr©mas©ȱf©r©ȱrezultat;ȱ
- încheiereaȱ conflictuluiȱ înȱ defavoareaȱ Callatideiȱ (tratativeȱ deȱ paceȱ
probabilȱanterioareȱînfrângeriiȱfinale).ȱ
Evenimentulȱrelatat,ȱdeȱoȱimportanö©ȱcovâróitoareȱpentruȱistoriaȱcet©öiiȱvestȬ
pontice,ȱseȱplaseaz©ȱîntrȬunȱcontextȱpoliticoȬmilitarȱmaiȱlarg87,ȱcareȱaȱantrenatȱmaiȱ
multeȱspaöiiȱgeograficeȱ–ȱMareaȱEgee,ȱr©s©ritulȱM©riiȱMediteraneȱóiȱMareaȱNeagr©ȱ
–ȱ óiȱ aȱ opusȱ regateȱ óiȱ uniuniȱ politiceȱ cuȱ intereseȱ diferite.ȱ Întreȱ ultimele,ȱ amintimȱ
Ligaȱnordic©,ȱsymachieȱtemporar©ȱcuȱorientareȱantiseleucid©,ȱaleȱc©reiȱintereseȱerauȱ
legateȱ deȱ politicaȱ economic©ȱ aȱ Heracleeiȱ Pontice 88.ȱ Atitudineaȱ acesteiaȱ faö©ȱ deȱ
Bizanö,ȱ óiȱ elȱ membruȱ alȱ ligii,ȱ cap©t©ȱ unȱ aspectȱ maiȱ specialȱ datoratȱ deöineriiȱ deȱ
ultimulȱ aȱ monopoluluiȱ comercialȱ înȱ bazinulȱ ponticȱ óiȱ aȱ roluluiȱ deȱ intermediarȱ înȱ
relaöiileȱ Pontuluiȱ cuȱ bazinulȱ M©riiȱ Egee.ȱ Aceastaȱ explic©ȱ deȱ ceȱ Heracleea,ȱ careȱ înȱ
alteȱ împrejur©riȱ aȱ venitȱ cuȱ ajutoareȱ substanöialeȱ înȱ sprijinulȱ Bizanöului,ȱ laȱ dataȱ
conflictului,ȱ înȱ careȱ erauȱ antrenateȱ deopotriv©ȱ óiȱ Bizanöȱ óiȱ Callatis,ȱ îóiȱ p©streaz©ȱ
neutralitateaȱóiȱopteaz©ȱpentruȱîmp©care.ȱ
Maiȱ multȱ decâtȱ raöiunileȱ economiceȱ avuteȱ înȱ vedereȱ înȱ acestȱ conflict,ȱ careȱ
pentruȱ lig©ȱ însemnaȱ constituireaȱ unorȱ oraóeȱ greceótiȱ libereȱ –ȱ óiȱ Tomisului,ȱ prinȱ
poziöiaȱ sa,ȱ cuȱ atâtȱ maiȱ multȱ iȱ seȱ potriveaȱ aceast©ȱ stareȬ,ȱ bizantiniiȱ auȱ urm©ritȱ óiȱ
alteȱ interese,ȱ maiȱ alesȱ politice,ȱ careȱ însemnauȱ spargereaȱ sfereiȱ deȱ influenö©ȱ
seleucid©,ȱ înȱ aȱ c©reiȱ clientel©ȱ Callatisȱ seȱ pareȱ c©ȱ seȱ aflaȱ deȱ maiȱ mult©ȱ vreme.ȱ Înȱ
ordineaȱevenimentelor,ȱr©zboiulȱcuȱCallatisȱtrebuieȱs©ȱfiȱconstituitȱmotivulȱpentruȱ
careȱ regeleȱ seleucidȱ Antiochosȱ IIȱ Theosȱ (261Ȭ246ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ porneóteȱ unȱ asediuȱ
împotrivaȱ Bizanöului,ȱ acöiuneȱ conjugat©ȱ cuȱ oȱ campanieȱ înȱ Thraciaȱ (255/254ȱ a.ȱ
Chr.)89.ȱ„R©zboiulȱTomisului”ȱîlȱplas©mȱînȱraportȱtocmaiȱcuȱacestȱconflictȱînȱcareȱaȱ
fostȱangajatȱBizanöulȱóiȱcareȱseȱtermin©ȱdac©ȱnuȱlaȱsfâróitulȱanuluiȱ255ȱa.ȱChr.,ȱcelȱ
maiȱtârziuȱînȱprim©varaȱanuluiȱ254ȱa.ȱChr. 90.ȱPentruȱ dataȱdeȱînceputȱaȱr©zboiuluiȱ
Tomisului,ȱ afl©mȱ unȱ reperȱ înȱ r©zboiulȱ deȱ succesiuneȱ bithinian91.ȱ Înȱ relatareaȱ luiȱ
Memnon,ȱ fragmentulȱ referitorȱ laȱ r©zboiulȱ Tomisuluiȱ esteȱ plasatȱ înainteaȱ
prezent©riiȱ conflictuluiȱ dinȱ Bithynia;ȱ începutulȱ pentruȱ amândou©ȱ seȱ plaseaz©ȱ
undevaȱ întreȱ 256Ȭ255ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Oböinemȱ caȱ limiteȱ aleȱ r©zboiuluiȱ Tomisuluiȱ aniiȱ
87
ȱ B.ȱ Niese,ȱ Geschichteȱ derȱ griechischenȱ undȱ makedonischenȱ Staatenȱ zeitȱ derȱ Schlachtȱ beiȱ
Chaeronea,ȱ II,ȱ Gotha,ȱ 1899,ȱ p.ȱ 137Ȭ138;ȱ W.P.ȱ Newskaia,ȱ Byzanzȱ inȱ derȱ klassischenȱ undȱ
hellenistischenȱ Epoche,ȱ Leipzig,ȱ 1955,ȱ p.ȱ 150Ȭ151;ȱ M.ȱ Rostovtzeff,ȱ Socialȱ andȱ Economicȱ Historyȱ
ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ World,ȱ Oxford,ȱ 1941,ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 590Ȭ591;ȱ S.Iu.ȱ Saprykin,ȱ Geraklejaȱ Pontijskajaȱ iȱ
HersonesȱTavriceskij,ȱMoscova,ȱ1986,ȱp.ȱ124Ȭ139.ȱ
88
ȱ Despreȱ Ligaȱ nordic©,ȱ veziȱ înȱ specialȱ M.ȱ Rostovtzeff,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 26Ȭ27ȱ óiȱ 590;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
S.Iu.ȱ Saprykin,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.;ȱ idem,ȱ „Severnajaȱ Liga”,ȱ Pri²ernomor’eȱ vȱ epohuȱ ellenizma,ȱ 1985,ȱ p.ȱ 49Ȭ
61.ȱ
89
ȱMemnon,ȱp.ȱ228ȱa,ȱ53ȱf;ȱbȱ28ȱf.ȱ
90
ȱVeziȱdateleȱóiȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ31.ȱ
91
ȱDup©ȱB.ȱNiese,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ137;ȱveziȱóiȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ26Ȭ27,ȱn.ȱ115.ȱ
26ȱ ȱ
ȱ
256/255Ȭ254ȱa.ȱ Chr.92.ȱ Seȱ aduceȱ astfelȱ oȱ corectur©ȱ dateiȱ deȱ cca.ȱ 260ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ admis©ȱ
înȱgeneralȱdeȱistorici 93;ȱalteȱcronologiiȱ–ȱcca.ȱ275ȱa.ȱChr.ȱsauȱ253Ȭ247ȱa.ȱChr.Ȭ,ȱsuntȱ
considerateȱfieȱpreaȱînalte,ȱfieȱpreaȱjoaseȱóiȱoricumȱneargumentate94.ȱ
Desf©óurareaȱ ostilit©öilor,ȱ prezentateȱ lacunarȱ deȱ Memnon,ȱ las©ȱ locȱ laȱ
supoziöii.ȱ Provocareaȱ pareȱ s©ȱ fiȱ venitȱ dinȱ parteaȱ Byzantionuluiȱ care,ȱ dup©ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ R.ȱ
Vulpe,ȱ„voullaitȱs’emparerȱdeȱcetteȱvilleȱsituéeȱauȱmilieuȱdeȱlaȱcôteȱdeȱDobroudjaȱ
etȱ bienȱ placéeȱ pourȱ contrôlerȱ leȱ commerceȱ deȱ toutȱ leȱ Pontȱ Gauche”95.ȱ Deóiȱ
avantajeleȱ propriiȱ nuȱ parȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ ignorate96,ȱ credemȱ maiȱ curândȱ c©ȱ Bizanöulȱ aȱ
luatȱasupraȱsaȱacestȱr©zboiȱóiȱlȬaȱpurtatȱînȱspiritulȱóiȱînȱnumeleȱintereselorȱligii,ȱiarȱ
scopulȱ urm©ritȱ aȱ fostȱ desfiinöareaȱ oric©ruiȱ monopolȱ asupraȱ Tomisuluiȱ óiȱ
declarareaȱluiȱcaȱportȱliber.ȱEste,ȱdeȱaltfel,ȱóiȱceeaȱceȱaȱreuóitȱs©ȱrealizeze.ȱTomisulȱ
beneficiindȱ ulteriorȱ deȱ condiöiaȱ creat©,ȱ îóiȱ vaȱ consolidaȱ foröeleȱ careȱ aveauȱ s©Ȭlȱ
ridiceȱînȱfrunteaȱcet©öilorȱdinȱPont.ȱ
Nuȱ maiȱ insist©mȱ óiȱ asupraȱ altorȱ supoziöiiȱ privindȱ desf©óurareaȱ peȱ mareȱ aȱ
ostilit©öilor97.ȱ
Menöionareaȱ expres©ȱ deȱ c©treȱ Memnonȱ ΐΓΑΓΔЏΏ΍ΓΑȱ ΘΓІΘΓȱ Έ΍΅ΑΓΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ
Ύ΅Θ΅ΗΎΉΙΣΗ΅΍ȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑЗΑȬ,ȱ aȱ f©cutȱ peȱ uniiȱ istoriciȱ s©ȱ presupun©ȱ c©ȱ
instituireaȱacestuiȱmonopolȱeraȱurm©rit©ȱexclusivȱdeȱcallatieni,ȱînȱtimpȱceȱ Histriaȱ
urmaȱs©Ȭóiȱanexezeȱoȱparteȱdinȱteritoriulȱruralȱtomitan98.ȱÎnȱcazulȱacestaȱnuȱvedemȱ
deȱ ceȱ Memnon,ȱ referinduȬseȱ tocmaiȱ laȱ acestȱ teritoriu99,ȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ înȱ primulȱ
rândȱvecin©tateaȱcallatian©ȱȬȱϳȱΘΓϧΖȱ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϧΖȱϵΐΓΕΓΑȱώ.ȱ
Peȱ deȱ alt©ȱ parte,ȱ nuȱ credemȱ c©ȱ Histria,ȱ deöin©toareaȱ unuiȱ teritoriuȱ rural100,ȱ
careȱtrebuieȱs©ȱseȱfiȱîntinsȱdestulȱdeȱmultȱóiȱspreȱsud101ȱóiȱaȱc©reiȱap©rareȱîiȱvaȱcreaȱ
92
ȱVeziȱschemaȱdesf©óur©riiȱevenimentelorȱpropus©ȱdeȱIu.G.ȱVinogradovȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱ
ISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ32;ȱibid.,ȱp.ȱ27,ȱn.ȱ116.ȱ
93
ȱVeziȱmaiȱsus,ȱn.ȱ87.ȱ
94
ȱ Pentruȱ datareȱ veziȱ óiȱ Iu.G.ȱ Vinogradov,ȱ Derȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinos,ȱ p.ȱ 47,ȱ n.ȱ 184;ȱ K.ȱ
Nawotka,ȱ Theȱ westernȱ ponticȱ cities:ȱ historyȱ andȱ politicalȱ organization,ȱ Ohioȱ Stateȱ University,ȱ
1991,ȱp.ȱ41,ȱn.ȱ116.ȱȱ
95
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱHAD,ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ86.ȱ
96
ȱB.ȱNiese,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ137.ȱ
97
ȱ Cf.ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 34.ȱ Deóiȱ anevoieȱ deȱ controlat,ȱ supoziöiaȱ r©mâneȱ înȱ
picioare,ȱ öinândȱ seamaȱ c©ȱ Bizanöulȱ dispuneȱ deȱ numeroaseȱ vaseȱ maritimeȱ deȱ r©zboiȱ (poateȱ
nuȱînȱaceeaóiȱm©sur©ȱcaȱHeracleeaȱPontic©);ȱTomisȱóiȱCallatisȱseȱpareȱc©ȱdispuneauȱóiȱeleȱdeȱ
câteȱoȱflot©,ȱînȱprimulȱrândȱcomercial©ȱói,ȱpoate,ȱóiȱdeȱcâtevaȱvaseȱdeȱap©rare.ȱ
98
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ154ȱóiȱn.ȱ22.ȱ
99
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ197Ȭ198;ȱidem,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ175,ȱn.ȱ22.ȱ
100
ȱ Veziȱ notaȱ anterioar©;ȱ deȱ asemenea,ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Însemn©riȱ arheologice,ȱ StClsȱ 12ȱ
(1970),ȱ p.ȱ 152ȱ careȱ óiȱ adaug©ȱ prudent:ȱ „Pentruȱ momentȱ nuȱ ótimȱ careȱ eraȱ înȱ vremeaȱ arhaic©ȱ
óiȱclasic©ȱ(…)ȱlimitaȱsudic©ȱaȱexpansiuniiȱhistriene”.ȱ
101
ȱ Pentruȱ perioadaȱ roman©,ȱ limitaȱ sudic©ȱ propus©ȱ esteȱ Laculȱ TaóaulȬCapulȱ Midia;ȱ
veziȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ348Ȭ385ȱóiȱfig.ȱ4;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱÎntindereaȱteritoriuluiȱHistrieiȱ
înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ înȱ luminaȱ hot©rnicieiȱ consularuluiȱ Maniusȱ Laberius.ȱ Încercareȱ deȱ reconstituire,ȱ
CCDJ,ȱ C©l©raói,ȱ 5Ȭ7ȱ (1988Ȭ1989),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ197;ȱ idem,ȱ înȱ Histria.ȱ Eineȱ Griechenstadtȱ anȱ derȱ
rumänischenȱ Schwartzmeerküsteȱ (eds.ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescuȱ óiȱ W.ȱ Schuller),ȱ Xenia,ȱ 25,ȱ Konstanz,ȱ
1990,ȱp.ȱ11Ȭ14.ȱVeziȱóiȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱFântânele.ȱContribuöiiȱlaȱstudiulȱvieöiiȱruraleȱînȱDobrogeaȱ
roman©,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ160.ȱȱ
ȱ 27
ȱȱȱ
dificult©öi102,ȱ maiȱ aveaȱ nevoieȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ s©ȱ óiȬlȱ extind©ȱ înȱ
defavoareaȱ uneiȱ cet©öiȱ aleȱ c©reiȱ intereseȱ convergeauȱ cuȱ aleȱ sale.ȱ Maiȱ degrab©ȱ
histrieniiȱ vizauȱ acelaóiȱ monopolȱ asupraȱ comeröuluiȱ deȱ tranzitȱ peȱ care,ȱ conformȱ
alianöei,ȱaveauȱs©ȱóiȬlȱîmpart©ȱcuȱCallatis.ȱLaȱdataȱconflictuluiȱcallatieniiȱînc©ȱnuȬlȱ
deöineauȱ ciȱ doarȱ „seȱ gândeau”ȱ s©ȱ óiȬlȱ asume,ȱ iarȱ histrienii,ȱ dac©Ȭlȱ aveau,ȱ nuȱ
înöelegeauȱs©Ȭlȱpiard©ȱînȱfavoareaȱBizanöuluiȱsauȱaȱconfederaöieiȱpontice.ȱ
Oȱnou©ȱinterpretare103ȱmodific©ȱscenariulȱalianöelorȱóiȱridic©ȱmaiȱmulteȱsemneȱ
deȱ întrebare.ȱ Eaȱ aȱ fostȱ avansat©ȱ deȱ Vinogradovȱ óiȱ aȱ avutȱ caȱ obiectivȱ tocmaiȱ
„Monopolkieg”ȱ umȱ Tomisȱ zurȱ Seeschlachtȱ beiȱ Kos”.ȱ Vinogradovȱ porneóteȱ deȱ laȱ
recunoaótereaȱ uneiȱ st©riȱ conflictualeȱ întreȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ Callatis,ȱ peȱ careȱ oȱ puneȱ înȱ
leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ r©zboiulȱ pentruȱ Tomis.ȱ Documentulȱ epigraficȱ careȱ menöioneaz©ȱ acestȱ
conflictȱ (ISMȱ III,ȱ 7)ȱ esteȱ datatȱ deȱ Vinogradovȱ (óiȱ cuȱ argumenteȱ deȱ sprijinȱ dinȱ
parteaȱluiȱAl.ȱAvram)ȱînȱ253ȱa.ȱChr.ȱÎnȱceȱneȱpriveóteȱreöinemȱc©ȱesteȱvorbaȱdeȱunȱ
r©zboiȱîntreȱHistriaȱóiȱCallatis,ȱcare,ȱchiarȱdac©ȱîlȱraport©mȱlaȱr©zboiulȱTomisului,ȱ
difer©ȱóiȱprinȱconöinutȱóiȱprinȱrezultatȱdeȱconflictulȱnotatȱdeȱMemnon.ȱ
Acestȱr©zboi,ȱdac©ȱsȬaȱdesf©óuratȱlaȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr.,ȱesteȱposibilȱs©ȱfiȱ
reprezentatȱ începutulȱ sauȱ primaȱ faz©ȱ aȱ r©zboiuluiȱ Tomisului:ȱ iniöialȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ
Callatis,ȱ adversareȱ pentruȱ controlulȱ emporionuluiȱ tomitan,ȱ devinȱ aliateȱ înȱ
momentulȱ cândȱ Byzantionȱ esteȱ óiȱ elȱ interesat.ȱ Exist©ȱ óiȱ posibilitateaȱ caȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ
Callatisȱ s©ȱ nuȱ fiȱ fostȱ aliateȱ înȱ acestȱ conflict,ȱ iarȱ referireaȱ laȱ Histriaȱ înȱ textulȱ luiȱ
Memnonȱ s©ȱ redeaȱ oȱ stareȱ conflictual©ȱ peȱ careȱ óiȱ histrieniiȱ auȱ avutȬoȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ
ΘΓІȱπΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ.ȱAdversareȱr©mânȱdoarȱCallatisȱóiȱByzantion:ȱambasadaȱheraclean©ȱ
leȱpriveóteȱdoarȱpeȱele;ȱrezultatulȱdezastruosȱesteȱ notatȱdoarȱpentruȱCallatis.ȱMaiȱ
mult,ȱ callatieniiȱ apeleaz©ȱ laȱ „tratativeȱ deȱ pace”,ȱ exerciöiuȱ pusȱ înȱ practic©ȱ óiȱ înȱ
r©zboiulȱîmpotrivaȱhistrienilor.ȱÎntreȱceleȱdou©ȱst©riȱconflictualeȱaȱexistatȱunȱscurtȱ
intervalȱ înȱ careȱ „lucrurileȱ auȱ fostȱ restabiliteȱ laȱ stareaȱ lorȱ iniöial©”ȱ (ΉϢΖȱ ΘΤΑȱ πΒȱ
ΦΕΛκΖȱΈ΍ΣΟΉ΍Η΍Α,ȱdup©ȱISMȱIII,ȱ7).ȱÎnȱaceast©ȱinterpretare,ȱplasândȱr©zboiulȱdintreȱ
Histriaȱ óiȱ Callatisȱ înainteaȱ celuiȱ dintreȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ Byzantion,ȱ ói,ȱ raportânduȬleȱ peȱ
ambeleȱasigur©riiȱcontroluluiȱemporionuluiȱtomitan,ȱputemȱp©straȱóiȱoȱdat©ȱînȱjurȱ
deȱ264/261ȱa.ȱChr.ȱpentruȱînceputulȱevenimentelor104.ȱ
Oricareȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ îns©ȱ ordonareaȱ evenimentelor,ȱ urm©rileȱ lorȱ suntȱ beneficeȱ
pentruȱTomis:ȱdeȱacumȱoraóulȱîóiȱîncepeȱascensiunea.ȱ
Deȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ emiteȱ primeleȱ monede:ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ emisiuniȱ
deȱ bronz,ȱ maiȱ numeroaseȱ óiȱ maiȱ variateȱ decâtȱ celeȱ b©tuteȱ înȱ aceeaóiȱ perioad©ȱ laȱ
HistriaȱóiȱCallatis105;ȱînȱcantitateȱmaiȱmic©,ȱacesteaȱajungȱóiȱînȱafaraȱpieöeiȱoraóului,ȱ
102
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 167Ȭ185ȱ (pentruȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 186Ȭ221ȱ (pentruȱ
sec.ȱIIȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
103
ȱ Iu.G.ȱ Vinogradov,ȱ Vomȱ „Monopolkrieg”ȱ umȱ Tomisȱ zurȱ Seeschlachtȱ beiȱ Kos,ȱ preluatȱ deȱ
noiȱdup©ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ32.ȱ
104
ȱ R©mâneȱ s©ȱ fimȱ deȱ acordȱ óiȱ cuȱ oȱ posibil©ȱ comunitateȱ deȱ intereseȱ întreȱ Bithyniaȱ óiȱ
Miletȱ înȱ acestȱ interval.ȱ Oȱ astfelȱ deȱ „comunitateȱ deȱ interese”,ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 160ȱ oȱ
v©zuseȱcaȱposibil©ȱînȱperioadaȱdintreȱcca.ȱ241ȱa.ȱChr.ȱóiȱcelȱpuöinȱdataȱizbucniriiȱceluiȱdeȱalȱ
IVȬleaȱr©zboiȱsirian.ȱ
105
ȱ C.ȱ Preda,ȱ Istoriaȱ monedeiȱ înȱ Daciaȱ preroman©,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1998,ȱ p.ȱ 78Ȭ84;ȱ idem,ȱ
DescopeririȱpremonetareȱóiȱmonetareȱînȱDobrogea,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ357Ȭ394.ȱRecentȱ
esteȱ semnalatȱ unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ pesteȱ 100ȱ deȱ monedeȱ deȱ bronzȱ emiseȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ descoperitȱ „înȱ
oraóȱsauȱîmprejurimi”ȱóiȱp©stratȱîntrȬoȱcolecöieȱparticular©;ȱveziȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱ
28ȱ ȱ
ȱ
înȱDobrogeaȱ(inclusivȱlaȱHistriaȱóiȱCallatis),ȱNEȱBulgarieiȱóiȱînȱzonaȱdeȱvecin©tateȱ
aȱ Dun©rii106.ȱ Seȱ cunoscȱ 26ȱ deȱ localit©öiȱ cuȱ unȱ totalȱ deȱ pesteȱ 166ȱ deȱ monedeȱ
tomitaneȱ(întreȱcareȱpesteȱ96ȱsȬauȱaflatȱnumaiȱînȱoraóeleȱgreceóti)107.ȱEsteȱposibilȱcaȱ
înȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Tomisȱ s©ȱ fiȱ emisȱ óiȱ stateriȱ deȱ aurȱ deȱ tipȱ Alexandruȱ celȱ Mare,ȱ
consideraöiȱemisiuniȱpostume,ȱcareȱlaȱCallatisȱseȱplaseaz©ȱîntreȱcca.ȱ279/5Ȭȱ228/220ȱ
a.ȱChr.108.ȱȱ
Înȱ literaturaȱ deȱ specialitateȱ suntȱ cunoscuteȱ maiȱ multeȱ tezaureȱ monetareȱ ceȱ
conöinȱóiȱmonedeȱtomitane:ȱóaseȱînȱDobrogeaȱ(întreȱcareȱdou©ȱînȱNEȱBulgariei,ȱlaȱ
Grani²arȱ óiȱ B©lgarevo)109;ȱ dou©ȱ laȱ nordulȱ Dun©riiȱ (laȱ Anadol/Ucrainaȱ óiȱ
M©r©óeóti)110ȱ óiȱ alteȱ dou©ȱ înȱ Turciaȱ actual©ȱ (laȱ Kirazliȱ óiȱ Mektepini).ȱ Monedeȱ
izolateȱantrenateȱînȱcirculaöiaȱmonetar©ȱelenistic©111ȱauȱmaiȱfostȱsemnalateȱînȱzonaȱ
pontic©ȱlaȱTyras,ȱOlbia,ȱChersonesȱóiȱLeuké,ȱiarȱînȱafaraȱei,ȱlaȱThessalonicȱóiȱDelos.ȱȱ
Dinȱsec.ȱIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱdateaz©ȱóiȱprimeleȱinscripöiiȱoficialeȱaleȱoraóului112.ȱ
Pân©ȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ nuȱ avemȱ m©rturiaȱ niciunuiȱ evenimentȱ
importantȱ înȱ careȱ oraóeleȱ ponticeȱ s©ȱ fieȱ implicate.ȱ Eleȱ tr©iescȱ oȱ stareȱ deȱ
nesiguranö©,ȱ înȱ careȱ termeniȱ precumȱ Ύ΅΍ΕΓϟ,ȱ ΔΉΕ΍ΗΘΣΗΉ΍Ζ,ȱ ΈϾΗΉΏΔ΍Ζ,ȱ ΦΔΓΕϟ΅ȱ etc.ȱ
aparȱfrecventȱînȱinscripöiiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2ȱóiȱ3).ȱ
Înȱ jurulȱ începutuluiȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ afl©mȱ oraóeleȱ vestȬponticeȱ înȱ situaöiaȱ deȱ
aliateȱaleȱluiȱMithridatesȱVIȱEupator.ȱNuȱcunoaótemȱîns©ȱniciȱdataȱóiȱniciȱcondiöiileȱ
înȱcareȱacesteȱoraóeȱauȱfostȱcuprinseȱînȱregatulȱponticȱalȱluiȱMithridates.ȱ
Seȱ apreciaz©,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ instaurareaȱ dominaöieiȱ luiȱ Mithridatesȱ aiciȱ înȱ primulȱ
deceniuȱ alȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.113ȱ sauȱ întreȱ cucerireaȱ Crimeeiȱ óiȱ cuprindereaȱ Regatuluiȱ
Repertoriul,ȱ p.ȱ 182Ȭ183ȱ (LXIV).ȱ Alteȱ monede,ȱ totȱ deȱ bronz,ȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ zonaȱ
peninsular©ȱ aȱ Constanöei;ȱ veziȱ totȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 169ȱ (IX;ȱ tezaurȱ deȱ
11ȱpieseȱdeȱbronzȱtipȱFilipȱII),ȱ171ȱ(XIV:ȱdepozitȱfunerarȱcompusȱdinȱ11ȱmonede),ȱ182ȱ(LXII:ȱ
depozitȱmonetarȱcuȱ12ȱpiese).ȱ
106
ȱ Gh.ȱ Poenaruȱ Bordea,ȱ Laȱ diffusionȱ desȱ monnaiesȱ d’Istros,ȱ Callatisȱ etȱ Tomiȱ duȱ VI e ȱ auȱ I er ȱ
siècleȱ av.ȱ J.ȬC.ȱ dansȱ leursȱ territoires,ȱ zonesȱ d’influenceȱ etȱ ailleurs,ȱ inȱ Presenzaȱ eȱ funzioniȱ dellaȱ
monetaȱnelleȱchoraiȱdelleȱcolonieȱgrecheȱdall’IberiaȱalȱMarȱNero,ȱRoma,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ41.ȱ
107
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Lesȱ monnaiesȱ autonomesȱ d’Istros,ȱ Callatisȱ etȱ Tomis.ȱ Circulationȱ etȱ
contexte,ȱWetterenȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ41.ȱ
108
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ113.ȱVezi,ȱtotuói,ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ41ȱóiȱnoteleȱ48,ȱ
49:ȱ „Notreȱ atelierȱ neȱ sembleȱ pasȱ avoirȱ frappéȱ desȱ pseudoalexandresȱ enȱ or,ȱ maisȱ aȱ euȱ uneȱ
productionȱ considérableȱ deȱ statèresȱ pseudolisimaques,ȱ supérieure,ȱ ilȱ nousȱ semble,ȱ àȱ celleȱ
deȱ Callatis”.ȱ Not©mȱ totuóiȱ aiciȱ descoperireaȱ înainteȱ deȱ 1895ȱ aȱ unuiȱ tezaurȱ deȱ cca.ȱ 1000ȱ deȱ
stateriȱ deȱ tipȱ Filipȱ IIȱ óiȱ Alexandruȱ III,ȱ înȱ cartierulȱ Anadolchioiȱ (undeȱ vaȱ fiȱ localizat,ȱ înȱ
epocaȱ roman©ȱ vicusȱ Turrisȱ Muca…).ȱ Pentruȱ tezaurȱ veziȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ
Repertoriul,ȱp.ȱ164ȱ(I),ȱcuȱbibliografia.ȱ
109
ȱ Celelalteȱ provinȱ dinȱ Constanöa,ȱ Cump©na,ȱ D©eniȱ óiȱ Tuzla.ȱ Pentruȱ r©spândireaȱ
monedelorȱ tomitaneȱ veziȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 64Ȭ66;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ
passim.ȱ Reöinemȱ caȱ noutateȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ 30Ȭ35ȱ monedeȱ deȱ bronzȱ tomitaneȱ óiȱ monedeȱ
autonomeȱcallatieneȱdescoperitȱlaȱTuzla,ȱînȱ2003;ȱcf.ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ94,ȱnr.ȱ22.ȱ
110
ȱ Maiȱ exist©ȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ laȱ Vârtejuȱ (Bucureóti),ȱ înȱ careȱ sȬaȱ aflatȱ óiȱ oȱ moned©ȱ deȱ
Tomis;ȱcf.ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱnr.ȱ30.ȱ
111
ȱDup©ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ41.ȱ
112
ȱ Izolat©,ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ esteȱ inscripöiaȱ funerar©ȱ publicat©ȱ deȱ Mariaȱ Munteanu,ȱ
Câtevaȱinscripöiiȱtomitaneȱinedite,ȱPonticaȱ7ȱ(1974),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ159;ȱveziȱóiȱISMȱII,ȱ456.ȱ
113
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Mithridatesȱ alȱ VIȬleaȱ Eupatorȱ óiȱ coastaȱ deȱ vestȱ aȱ Pontuluiȱ
Euxin.ȱ Înȱ jurulȱ unuiȱ decretȱ ineditȱ deȱ laȱ Histria,ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱ p.ȱ 155Ȭ165.ȱ Iidem,ȱ
ȱ 29
ȱȱȱ
Bosporanȱ óiȱ Chersonesuluiȱ înȱ regatulȱ ponticȱ (întreȱ 114Ȭ107ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ izbucnireaȱ
primuluiȱ r©zboiȱ cuȱ Roma114ȱ (89ȱ a.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanuȱ fixeaz©ȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ
imediatȱ dup©ȱ ceȱ Mithridatesȱ îóiȱ vaȱ fiȱ extinsȱ dominaöiaȱ înȱ Crimeeaȱ (cuȱ observaöiaȱ
caȱ acestȱ momentȱ s©ȱ fieȱ datatȱ maiȱ târziu)115;ȱ celȱ maiȱ târziuȱ termenȱ postȱ quemȱ esteȱ
consideratȱ anulȱ 86ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ când,ȱ dup©ȱ cucerireaȱ Athenei,ȱ soartaȱ r©zboiuluiȱ seȱ
schimb©ȱ înȱ defavoareaȱ luiȱ Mithridates.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ unȱ argumentȱ pentruȱ plasareaȱ
dominaöieiȱ luiȱ Mithridatesȱ înȱ zonaȱ vestȬpontic©ȱ înȱ intervalulȱ 106Ȭ76ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ
lacunaȱmisiunilorȱguvernatorilorȱMacedonieiȱóiȱThracieiȱlaȱDun©reȱtocmaiȱînȱacestȱ
interval.ȱ
Nouaȱ dominaöieȱ seȱ vaȱ fiȱ manifestatȱ printrȬoȱ reöeaȱ deȱ alianöeȱ individuale,ȱ
încheiateȱ cuȱ cet©öileȱ greceóti.ȱ C©ȱ acesteȱ alianöeȱ puteauȱ fiȱ încheiateȱ chiarȱ laȱ
solicitareaȱ oraóelorȱ greceóti116ȱ sauȱ dinȱ iniöiativaȱ luiȱ Mithridatesȱ (prinȱ „binefaceri”ȱ
óiȱ „daruri”,ȱ dup©ȱ Trogusȱ Pompeius,ȱ XXXVIII,ȱ 3,ȱ 6),ȱ areȱ aiciȱ maiȱ puöin©ȱ
importanö©.ȱ Oricum,ȱ oraóeleȱ îóiȱ p©strauȱ autonomiaȱ înȱ cadrulȱ uneiȱ uniuniȱ politiceȱ
cuȱ Regatulȱ Ponticȱ óiȱ Bosporulȱ Cimmerianȱ óiȱ seȱ bucurauȱ deȱ oȱ siguranö©ȱ intern©ȱ óiȱ
extern©.ȱ Tomisulȱ nuȱ puteaȱ faceȱ excepöieȱ sustr©gânduȬseȱ alianöeiȱ sauȱ refuzândȱ
protecöia.ȱArgumenteȱafl©mȱînȱnum©rulȱmareȱdeȱstateriȱdeȱtipȱLysimachȱb©tuöiȱlaȱ
Tomisȱ maiȱ alesȱ înȱ perioadaȱ 90Ȭ72ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ înȱ cantitateȱ maiȱ mic©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ
Chr.117.ȱProbabilȱcaȱóiȱHistriaȱóiȱApolloniaȱ(óiȱlaȱNord,ȱOlbia),ȱTomisȱbeneficiaȱóiȱdeȱ
prezenöaȱuneiȱgarnizoane.ȱNumeleȱoraóuluiȱapareȱîntrȬoȱinscripöieȱdinȱMesambriaȱ
(IGBȱ I2,ȱ 320)ȱ al©turiȱ deȱ Histria,ȱ Apolloniaȱ ói,ȱ desigur,ȱ Mesambriaȱ înȱ acöiuneaȱ
comun©ȱdeȱcelebrareȱaȱunuiȱnecunoscut.ȱCumȱfiecareȱdinȱcet©öileȱcitateȱexceleaz©ȱ
prinȱ buneȱ relaöiiȱ cuȱ regeleȱ Pontuluiȱ (uneleȱ relaöiiȱ –ȱ caȱ înȱ cazulȱ MesambrieiȬ,ȱ deȱ
maiȱ lung©ȱ durat©,ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ nuȱ aȱ fostȱ greuȱ pentruȱ comentatoriȱ s©ȱ
stabileasc©ȱ oȱ leg©tur©ȱ întreȱ conöinutulȱ inscripöieiȱ óiȱ unȱ posibilȱ reprezentatȱ oficialȱ
sauȱtrimisȱalȱregeluiȱînȱoraó118.ȱ
Laȱ ad©postulȱ siguranöeiȱ createȱ seȱ vorȱ fiȱ desf©óuratȱ relaöiileȱ peȱ careȱ Tomisȱ leȱ
areȱ înȱ lumeaȱ pontic©:ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ unȱ tomitan,ȱ alȱ c©ruiȱ numeȱ aȱ fostȱ întregitȱ
diferit,ȱ esteȱ beneficiarulȱ unuiȱ decretȱ deȱ proxenieȱ laȱ Histriaȱ (ISMȱ I,ȱ 48)119;ȱ unȱ altȱ
tomitan,ȱnecunoscut,ȱesteȱmenöionatȱpeȱoȱinscripöieȱdeȱsec.ȱIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱtotȱlaȱHistriaȱ
Mithridatesȱ VIȱ Eupatorȱ undȱ griechischenȱ Städteȱ anȱ derȱ Westküsteȱ desȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinosȱ înȱ Pontosȱ
Euxeinos.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Archäeologieȱ undȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Schwarzmeerȱ undȱ Balkanraumes,ȱ
ManfredȱOppermannȱzumȱ65.ȱGeburstag,ȱLangenweissbach,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ397Ȭ413ȱ(bibliografia).ȱ
114
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101ȱóiȱn.ȱ40.ȱ
115
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱΐν·΍ΗΘΓΖȱ(Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϿΖ)ȱΘЗΑȱπΔϠȱ̋ΕιΎ΋ΖȱΆ΅Η΍ΏνΝΑȱ(IGBȱI 2 ,ȱ
13,ȱr.ȱ22Ȭ23),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ319Ȭ335ȱ(înȱspecialȱp.ȱ326Ȭ327).ȱ
116
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ119Ȭ120.ȱ
117
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱIstoriaȱmonedei,ȱp.ȱ112Ȭ114.ȱ
118
ȱ Inscripöiaȱ aȱ fostȱ datat©,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (G.ȱ Mihailov,ȱ IGBȱ V,ȱ
5097;ȱ idem,ȱ Epigraphicaȱ 41ȱ (1979),ȱ p.ȱ 24Ȭ25);ȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ
Contributionȱ épigraphiqueȱ àȱ l’histoireȱ deȱ Tomisȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ duȱ Principat,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 19ȱ (1975),ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ153),ȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ(L.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ113Ȭ121).ȱȱ
119
ȱISMȱI,ȱ48,ȱr.ȱ2Ȭ3:ȱ„̈Ё]΋ΑΝΕΔϟ[Έ΋Ζ]/e.g.̘΍ΏΓΏΣΓΙȱ̖Γΐϟ]Θ΋Ζ”;ȱveziȱóiȱr.ȱ8Ȭ9.ȱÎnȱBull.ép.ȱ
1984,ȱ268ȱseȱpropuneȱ„̈ЁφΑΝΕȱ̓[΍Η΍]ΏΣΓΙȱ(sauȱ̓Ή΍ΌΓΏΣΓΙ,ȱ̓Ή΍Η΍ΏΣΓΙ”)ȱcf.ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱLeȱ
corpusȱdesȱinscriptionsȱd’Istrosȱrevisité,ȱDaciaȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ91Ȭ92,ȱnr.ȱ48,ȱcareȱrestituieȱnumeleȱ
astfel:ȱ„̝Ώ?]ΎφΑΝΕȱ̌[Ȭ]/[ȬȱȬȱȬΣΓΙȱ̖Γΐϟ]Θ΋Ζ”.ȱȱ
30ȱ ȱ
ȱ
(ISMȱ I,ȱ 38)120;ȱ unȱ decretȱ dinȱ Odessosȱ (IGBȱ I2,ȱ 43ȱ bis)ȱ esteȱ datȱ înȱ onoareaȱ
tomitanuluiȱArtemonȱChairionos,ȱînȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.ȱLaȱrândulȱlui,ȱTomisȱcinsteóteȱpeȱ
unȱ locuitorȱ dinȱ Tyrasȱ careȱ „sȬaȱar©tatȱ prevenitor”ȱ faö©ȱ deȱ toöiȱ negustoriiȱ tomitaniȱ
aflaöiȱ înȱ drumȱ spreȱ Olbia,ȱ înlesninduȬleȱ chiarȱ unȱ tratamentȱ preferenöialȱ ȱ acoloȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 5)121.ȱ Esteȱ oȱ atitudineȱ careȱ aȱ continuatȱ s©ȱ seȱ manifesteȱ óiȱ maiȱ târziu:ȱ unȱ
olbian,ȱTheoclesȱalȱluiȱSatyrosȱesteȱonoratȱpeȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱII/începutulȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱ
Chr.ȱȱdeȱcetateaȱsaȱdeȱorigineȱóiȱdeȱînc©ȱalteȱ18ȱcet©öiȱprintreȱcareȱóiȱTomisȱpentruȱ
serviciiȱ aduseȱ concet©öenilorȱ lorȱ aflaöiȱ temporarȱ laȱ Olbia122.ȱ Înȱ jurulȱ anuluiȱ 100ȱ a.ȱ
Chr.ȱ unȱ cet©öeanȱ originarȱ dinȱ Sinopeȱ ridic©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ unȱ monumentȱ închinatȱ luiȱ
Sarapisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ152).ȱInscripöiaȱtomitan©,ȱal©turiȱdeȱalteȱdocumenteȱepigraficeȱdinȱ
aceeaóiȱperioad©,ȱprobeaz©ȱunitateaȱlumiiȱponticeȱrealizat©ȱdeȱMithridates123.ȱ
Dominaöiaȱ luiȱ Mithridatesȱ iaȱ sfâróitȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ campaniaȱ proconsululuiȱ
Macedonieiȱ M.ȱ Terentiusȱ Varroȱ Lucullus,ȱ dinȱ 72Ȭ71ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Acöiuneaȱ echivaleaz©ȱ
cuȱ primaȱ prezenö©ȱ militar©ȱ roman©ȱ peȱ ö©rmulȱ vestȬpontic.ȱ Termenulȱ careȱ red©,ȱ
constant,ȱ acöiuneaȱ luiȱ Lucullusȱ asupraȱ oraóelorȱ greceótiȱ deȱ aici,ȱ cuȱ excepöiaȱ
Apolloniei,ȱ esteȱ deȱ „luare”ȱ sauȱ „ocupare”ȱ –ȱ capta,ȱ cepit,ȱ occupavit,ȱ capiensȱ óiȱ doarȱ
pentruȱApolloniaȱacöiuneaȱesteȱdevastatoare:ȱevertitȱApolloniam124.ȱ
Dinȱpunctȱdeȱvedereȱarheologic,ȱperioadaȱelenistic©ȱdinȱistoriaȱTomisuluiȱesteȱ
reprezentat©ȱ înȱ s©p©turileȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedraleiȱ printrȬunȱ singurȱ nivelȱ
arheologicȱ (Nȱ VII),ȱ discontinuu.ȱ Elȱ esteȱ constituitȱ dinȱ 1Ȭ2ȱ straturi,ȱ cuȱ materialeȱ
arheologiceȱdiverse,ȱdinȱperioadaȱelenistic©ȱtârzieȱsauȱchiarȱroman©Ȭtimpurie.ȱ
Deseoriȱ Nȱ VIIȱ lipseóte,ȱ f©cânduȬseȱ directȱ trecereaȱ laȱ Nȱ VI.ȱ Înȱ zonaȱ imediatȱ
apropiat©ȱ Parculuiȱ Catedraleiȱ auȱ fostȱ identificateȱ patruȱ niveluriȱ arheologice,ȱ ceȱ
aparöin,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ secoluluiȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Nȱ 3,ȱ marcatȱ spreȱ finalȱ deȱ unȱ puternicȱ
incendiu),ȱ sfâróituluiȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ –ȱ începutuluiȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Nȱ 4,ȱ careȱ const©ȱ dintrȬ
unȱ stratȱ grosȱ deȱ nivelare),ȱ secolelorȱ IIIȬIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Nȱ 5),ȱ secolelorȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ (Nȱ 7ȱ óiȱ Nȱ 8;ȱ niveleleȱ elenisticeȱ târziiȱ óiȱ romaneȱ timpuriiȱ auȱ materialȱ
arheologicȱ amestecat) 125.ȱ Epocaȱ elenistic©ȱ esteȱ bineȱ reprezentat©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ prinȱ
materialeȱ arheologice.ȱ Înȱ zonaȱ portuluiȱ anticȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ câtevaȱ suteȱ deȱ ótampileȱ
amforice126.ȱ Dinȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ dup©ȱ cumȱ amȱ v©zut,ȱ oraóulȱ bateȱ moned©ȱ
120
ȱ Dovad©ȱ c©ȱ relaöiileȱ dintreȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ oraóeȱ auȱ continuatȱ óiȱ dup©ȱ evenimenteleȱ deȱ laȱ
mijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
121
ȱAsupraȱleg©turilorȱdintreȱTomis,ȱTyrasȱóiȱOlbia,ȱveziȱóiȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱPopulaöiaȱzoneiȱ
nordiceȱóiȱnordȬvesticeȱaȱPontuluiȱEuxinȱînȱsecoleleȱVIȬIȱa.ȱChr.ȱpeȱbazaȱizvoarelorȱepigrafice,ȱIaói,ȱ
2004,ȱp.ȱ382ȱóiȱ384.ȱ
122
ȱIOSPEȱI 2 ȱ40ȱcuȱunȱcomentariuȱóiȱlaȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱLimbaȱinscripöiilorȱgreceótiȱdinȱoraóeleȱ
deȱ laȱ nordulȱ M©riiȱ Negreȱ înȱ secoleleȱ VIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ tez©ȱ deȱ doctoratȱ (mss.),ȱ Iaóiȱ 2010,ȱȱ
p.ȱ237Ȭ240.ȱ
123
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Surȱ laȱ diffusionȱ desȱ cultesȱ égyptiensȱ enȱ Scythieȱ Mineure,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱȱ
p.ȱ103Ȭ118ȱ(înȱspecialȱp.ȱ106);ȱidem,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ82.ȱ
124
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 276;ȱ idem,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 224ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 9;ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Relaöiile,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ127Ȭ141ȱ(óiȱp.ȱ128,ȱn.ȱ151).ȱ
125
ȱGh.ȱPapucȱetȱalii,ȱConstanöa,ȱjud.ȱConstanöaȱ[Tomis],ȱPunct:ȱstr.ȱArhiepiscopieiȱnr.ȱ23,ȱînȱ
CCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108.ȱTotȱînȱzon©ȱ(punct:ȱstr.ȱBrâncoveanu),ȱsingurulȱnivelȱelenisticȱ
(deȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ conteaz©ȱ caȱ primȱ nivelȱ deȱ locuire;ȱ veziȱ iidem,ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2006,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ132.ȱ
126
ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ ktampileȱ rhodieneȱ deȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaic,ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 119Ȭ139;ȱ eadem,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ ótampilelorȱ sinopeeneȱ deȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaic,ȱ
ȱ 31
ȱȱȱ
proprie127;ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ chiarȱ maiȱ timpuriu128,ȱ avemȱ primeleȱ
documenteȱ epigraficeȱ lapidareȱ ói,ȱ înȱ sfâróit,ȱ s©p©turileȱ deȱ salvareȱ auȱ permisȱ
localizareaȱnecropoleiȱoraóului129.ȱ
Revenindȱ laȱ situareaȱ descoperirilor,ȱ constat©mȱ oȱ extindereȱ aȱ zoneiȱ locuiteȱ aȱ
cet©öiiȱ înȱ toat©ȱ zonaȱ peninsular©,ȱ afectat©ȱ înc©ȱ dinȱ antichitateȱ deȱ transform©riȱ óiȱ
reconstrucöiiȱ succesive.ȱ Materialeleȱ descoperiteȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ fieȱ înȱ umpluturaȱ
modern©,ȱfieȱamestecateȱcuȱmaterialeȱmaiȱtârzii,ȱantrenateȱdeȱintervenöiiȱulterioareȱ
epociiȱelenistice.ȱ
Avemȱinformaöii130ȱdespreȱunȱsondajȱexecutatȱînȱ1961ȱînȱfaöaȱmagazieiȱnr.ȱXȱaȱ
mozaicului,ȱóiȱcareȱaȱatinsȱoȱ„groap©”ȱcuȱmaterialȱelenisticȱneamestecat.ȱGroapaȱaȱ
fostȱ t©iat©ȱ deȱ zidulȱ Edificiuluiȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ óiȱ deȱ unȱ zidȱ modernȱ careȱ urmaȱ liniaȱ
ziduluiȱanticȱ(fragmenteleȱceramiceȱauȱfostȱdescoperiteȱîntreȱ–9,40ȱóiȱ–12,60ȱm)131.ȱ
Alteȱ materiale,ȱ înȱ amestecȱ îns©,ȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ óiȱ cuȱ prilejulȱ urm©ririiȱ ziduluiȱ dinspreȱ
edificiulȱprincipalȱalȱmagaziilorȱaflateȱmaiȱaproapeȱdeȱmare,ȱînȱfaöaȱînc©periiȱmariȱ
aȱedificiuluiȱtermal,ȱînȱzonaȱbasiliciiȱdeȱlaȱintrareaȱînȱport.ȱIndiciileȱsuntȱsuficienteȱ
pentruȱ aȱ probaȱ faptulȱ c©ȱ neȱ afl©mȱ înȱ apropiereaȱ portuluiȱ elenisticȱ alȱ cet©öiiȱ
suprapus,ȱcelȱpuöinȱparöial,ȱdeȱmareleȱedificiuȱcuȱmozaic.ȱ
Lucr©rileȱ deȱ salvareȱ situateȱ cevaȱ maiȱ laȱ nordȱ auȱ surprinsȱ dou©ȱ niveluriȱ
elenistice,ȱcuȱmaterialeȱarheologiceȱdinȱsecoleleȱIIIȬIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱȱ
Stadiulȱ deȱ dezvoltareȱ alȱ vieöiiȱ economiceȱ dinȱ acesteȱ secoleȱ îlȱ analiz©mȱ dinȱ
punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ alȱ importurilorȱ amforice132,ȱ singureleȱ înȱ m©sur©ȱ pentruȱ noiȱ s©ȱ
evidenöiezeȱnióteȱetapeȱóiȱs©ȱdeaȱnotaȱdeȱoriginalitateȱ(dac©ȱaȱexistat)ȱaȱTomisului.ȱ
Dinȱacestȱpunctȱdeȱvedereȱremarc©m:ȱȱ
- continuareaȱactivit©öiiȱcomercialeȱdinȱperioadaȱanterioar©;ȱ
- oȱadev©rat©ȱliberalizareȱcomercial©ȱcunoaóteȱTomisulȱdeȱlaȱmijloculȱsec.ȱ
IIIȱa.ȱChr.,ȱpus©ȱînȱvaloareȱdeȱapogeulȱproduselorȱsinopeeneȱ(întreȱ261Ȭ229/183ȱa.ȱ
Chr.)ȱ óiȱ rhodieneȱ (210Ȭ188ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)133.ȱ Esteȱ perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ urmatȱ evenimentuluiȱ
relatatȱ deȱ Memnonȱ óiȱ care,ȱ dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ economic,ȱ aȱ echivalatȱ cuȱ
Ponticaȱ 14ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 133Ȭ151;ȱ eadem,ȱ Importulȱ amforelorȱ thasieneȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ perioadaȱ
elenistic©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 15ȱ (1982),ȱ p.ȱ 137Ȭ151;ȱ eadem,ȱ Importurileȱ amforiceȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ perioadaȱ
elenistic©,ȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ99Ȭ165.ȱ
127
ȱ Maiȱ sus,ȱ n.ȱ 105,ȱ 106.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Scurt©ȱ privireȱ asupraȱ arieiȱ deȱ difuzareȱ aȱ
monedelorȱautonomeȱemiseȱdeȱCallatisȱóiȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ395Ȭ408.ȱ
128
ȱSupra,ȱn.ȱ112;ȱprovenienöaȱinscripöieiȱdinȱTomisȱesteȱîns©ȱnesigur©;ȱveziȱcomentariulȱ
înȱISMȱII,ȱ456.ȱ
129
ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Considérationsȱ chronologiquesȱ baséesȱ surȱ lesȱ donnéesȱ fourniesȱ parȱ lesȱ
inventairesȱ funérairesȱ desȱ nécropolesȱ tomitaines,ȱ StCls,ȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 203Ȭ205;ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ
Necropoleȱ elenisticeȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1968;ȱ idem,ȱ Unȱ altȱ mormântȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ elenistic©ȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 375Ȭ388;ȱ vezi,ȱ maiȱ nou,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ
cunoaótereaȱcomplexelorȱfunerareȱdeȱincineraöieȱcuȱ„rugȬbusta”ȱdeȱepoc©ȱelenistic©ȱóiȱroman©ȱdeȱlaȱ
Tomis,ȱPonticaȱ19ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ89Ȭ114;ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱUnȱaltȱmormântȱelenisticȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomis,ȱ
Ponticaȱ28Ȭ29ȱ(1995Ȭ1996),ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ82.ȱ
130
ȱM.ȱGramatopol,ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȱBordea,ȱAmforeȱótampilateȱdinȱTomis,ȱSCIVȱ19ȱ(1968),ȱ1,ȱ
p.ȱ43Ȭ44ȱóiȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
131
ȱ Notaöiiȱ aleȱ autorilorȱ s©p©turii,ȱ m©surateȱ (apreciate)ȱ deȱ laȱ nivelulȱ actualȱ alȱ Pieöiiȱ
Ovidiu;ȱveziȱM.ȱGramatopol,ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȱBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ44,ȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
132
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱsus,ȱn.ȱ126ȱóiȱmaiȱalesȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ125.ȱ
133
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ13ȱ(1980),ȱp.ȱ125Ȭ129;ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ144.ȱ
32ȱ ȱ
ȱ
recunoaótereaȱ uneiȱ funcöiiȱ înȱ primulȱ rândȱ comercialeȱ óiȱ anulareaȱ oric©rorȱ intenöiiȱ
deȱmonopol;ȱ
- valorileȱ schimburilorȱ economiceȱ înregistreaz©ȱ oȱ curb©ȱ înȱ uóorȱ regresȱ
pân©ȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ sensibilȱ accentuat©ȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ parteȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ óiȱ
începutulȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
Deóiȱ parteneriiȱ comercialiȱ pentruȱ perioadaȱ analizat©ȱ suntȱ comuniȱ cet©öilorȱ
pontice,ȱ dateleȱ deȱ am©nuntȱ neȱ permitȱ s©ȱ surprindemȱ oarecariȱ afinit©öiȱ peȱ careȱ leȱ
manifest©ȱ óiȱ Histria:ȱ avemȱ înȱ vedereȱ pondereaȱ maiȱ mic©ȱ aȱ importurilorȱ dinȱ
Heracleeaȱ Pontic©;ȱ perioadaȱ deȱ apogeuȱ aȱ produselorȱ deȱ Thasosȱ –ȱ aceeaóiȱ caȱ óiȱ laȱ
Histria134;ȱsituaöiaȱimporturilorȱdinȱSinopeȱpentruȱultimeleȱgrupeȱcronologice,ȱcareȱ
oricumȱoȱdiferenöiaz©ȱdeȱCallatisȱetc.135.ȱȱ
Peȱ piaöaȱ tomitan©ȱ suntȱ prezenteȱ óiȱ monedeȱ str©ine:ȱ dinȱ oraóeleȱ ponticeȱ
(Odessos,ȱ Dionysopolis,ȱ Mesambria,ȱ Olbia,ȱ Chersonesulȱ Tauric),ȱ darȱ óiȱ dinȱ zoneȱ
maiȱ îndep©rtateȱ (Cyzik,ȱ Abydos,ȱ Athena,ȱ Histiaea,ȱ Rhodos,ȱ Efes).ȱ Atragȱ atenöiaȱ
prinȱ num©rulȱ lorȱ monedeleȱ dinȱ Cilicia,ȱ Syriaȱ óiȱ maiȱ alesȱ dinȱ Egiptulȱ elenisticȱ
(ultimeleȱ înȱ serieȱ continu©ȱ deȱ laȱ Ptolemeusȱ Iȱ Soterȱ laȱ Ptolemeuȱ VIȱ Philometorȱ óiȱ
Cleopatra)136.ȱ
Unȱ altȱ aspectȱ alȱ perioadeiȱ analizateȱ priveóteȱ organizareaȱ spaöiuluiȱ urban.ȱ
Spreȱcap©tulȱpeninsuleiȱ tomitaneȱlocuireaȱesteȱatestat©ȱdeȱcâtevaȱpodeleȱdeȱlutȱóiȱ
resturiȱdeȱlocuinöeȱcuȱziduriȱdeȱpiatr©,ȱdistruseȱîns©ȱdeȱgropiȱóiȱfundaöiiȱdeȱziduriȱ
romanoȬbizantine 137.ȱDateȱmaiȱimportanteȱputemȱextrageȱdinȱraportareaȱspaöiuluiȱ
necropoleiȱlaȱoȱeventual©ȱincint©.ȱ
Necropolaȱ elenistic©ȱ ocupaȱ unȱ spaöiuȱ înȱ interiorulȱ viitoareiȱ cet©öiȱ romaneȬ
târzii,ȱceȱvaȱajungeȱînȱparteaȱluiȱsudic©,ȱpân©ȱînȱapropiereaȱPieöeiȱOvidiu,ȱundeȱsȬ
auȱ descoperitȱ înȱ ultimiiȱ aniȱ maiȱ multeȱ morminteȱ datateȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ óiȱ maiȱ alesȱ înȱ
sec.ȱIIȱa.ȱChr.138.ȱ
Repartiöiaȱcronologic©ȱaȱmormintelorȱpublicateȱcoroborat©ȱcuȱceaȱtopografic©ȱ
stabileóteȱ celeȱ maiȱ vechiȱ morminteȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.;ȱ ariaȱ lorȱ deȱ descoperireȱ esteȱ
îns©ȱ preaȱ larg©ȱ pentruȱ aȱ nuȱ excludeȱ posibilitateaȱ caȱ uneleȱ s©ȱ aparöin©ȱ unorȱ
aóez©riȬsatelitȱ (sauȱ dinȱ preajma)ȱ Tomisului139;ȱ descoperirileȱ deȱ laȱ Garaȱ vecheȱ
r©mânȱ celeȱ maiȱ sigurȱ deȱ atribuitȱ oraóuluiȱ grecescȱ óiȱ celeȱ maiȱ vechi.ȱ Recent,ȱ înȱ
spateleȱ teatruluiȱ „Fantasio”,ȱ laȱ bazaȱ secvenöelorȱ stratigraficeȱ dinȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ
târzieȱauȱfostȱdescoperiteȱ7ȱmorminte:ȱcelȱmaiȱvechiȱdateaz©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȬIIIȱa.ȱChr.;ȱ
134
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Histria.ȱ VIII.ȱ Lesȱ timbresȱ amphoriques.ȱ 1.ȱ Thasos,ȱ Bucarest/Paris,ȱ
1996,ȱp.ȱ44ȱóiȱtab.ȱVIȱóiȱVII.ȱ
135
ȱ N.ȱ Conovici,ȱ Histria.ȱ VIII.ȱ Lesȱ timbresȱ amphoriques.ȱ 2.ȱ Sinope,ȱ Bucarest/Paris,ȱ 1998,ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ175Ȭ181.ȱ
136
ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱTheȱmint’sȱissuesȱfromȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱcoastȱandȱotherȱareasȱofȱDobrudja.ȱTheȱ
PreȬromanȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Romanȱ periodsȱ (6 th ȱ Centuryȱ BCȱ –ȱ 1 st Centuryȱ AD),ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2007,ȱ
passim;ȱveziȱóiȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ184ȱ(LXVIII).ȱ
137
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 24Ȭ25;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108;ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
138
ȱ Materialeȱ inedite;ȱ L.ȱ Cliante,ȱ Greciiȱ înȱ Tomisȱ (sec.ȱ VIȬIȱ a.ȱ Chr.),ȱ tez©ȱ deȱ doctoratȱ
(mss.),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 2009,ȱ p.ȱ 75Ȭ78.;ȱ inventareleȱ funerareȱ auȱ fostȱ prezentateȱ înȱ expoziöiaȱ
Ceramic©ȱgreac©ȱlaȱPontulȱEuxin,ȱConstanöa,ȱseptembrie,ȱ2004.ȱ
139
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱsus,ȱn.ȱ129.ȱ
ȱ 33
ȱȱȱ
celȱ maiȱ recentȱ –ȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.140.ȱ Peȱ liniaȱ ocupat©ȱ deȱ incintaȱ târzie,ȱ laȱ poartaȱ deȱ
Nordȱ óiȱ „turnulȱ m©celarilor”ȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ morminteȱ deȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.;ȱ
extindereaȱ necropoleiȱ înȱ perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ urmatȱ secoluluiȱ IVȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ oȱ baz©mȱ maiȱ
alesȱpeȱdescoperirileȱdeȱlaȱNordȱdeȱacestȱzid.ȱ
ÎnȱfuncöieȱtocmaiȱdeȱariaȱnecropoleiȱsȬaȱîncercatȱplasarea,ȱipotetic©,ȱaȱziduluiȱ
deȱincint©.ȱExistenöaȱincinteiȱelenisticeȱesteȱsusöinut©ȱepigraficȱóiȱistoric,ȱchiarȱdac©ȱ
surseleȱrespectiveȱseȱrefer©ȱlaȱoȱsituaöieȱdeȱplasatȱîntreȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱ
sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2)ȱ sauȱ chiarȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (dup©ȱ relat©rileȱ luiȱ
Ovidius).ȱ
Situareaȱînȱterenȱaȱacesteiȱincinteȱesteȱmaiȱdificilȱdeȱstabilit:ȱȱ
- urm©rindȱ indicaöiaȱ izvoarelorȱ literareȱ óiȱ observaöiileȱ deȱ teren,ȱ A.ȱ
Aricescuȱ plaseaz©ȱ incintaȱ spreȱ limitaȱ NordȬEstic©ȱ aȱ Pieöeiȱ Ovidiu141.ȱ Aiciȱ autorulȱ
ipotezeiȱconstat©ȱoȱdescreótereȱevident©ȱaȱpanteiȱterenuluiȱspreȱSudȱóiȱSudȬEst,ȱiarȱ
descoperirileȱ deȱ materialeȱ elenistice,ȱ situateȱ înȱ afaraȱ linieiȱ propuse,ȱ leȱ consider©ȱ
proveniteȱdinȱstratȱdeȱumplutur©ȱsauȱdinȱpr©buóireaȱmaluluiȱmaiȱînaltȱdinȱparteaȱ
deȱ NEȱ aȱ peninsulei.ȱ Totȱ autorulȱ amintitȱ disociaz©ȱ incintaȱ elenistic©ȱ deȱ incintaȱ
roman©ȱ timpurieȱ (sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ plasat©,ȱ totȱ ipotetic,ȱ peȱ liniaȱ Bisericaȱ greac©ȱ –ȱ
poartaȱnr.ȱ2ȱaȱportului142;ȱ
- oȱ alt©ȱ propunereȱ vineȱ dinȱ parteaȱ luiȱ V.ȱ Barbu143ȱ careȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ
aproximativȱliniaȱcareȱuneaȱceleȱdou©ȱfalezeȱ–ȱdeȱVestȱóiȱdeȱEst–,ȱóiȱcareȱcoincideȱ
cuȱ liniaȱ propus©ȱ deȱ A.ȱ Aricescuȱ pentruȱ incintaȱ roman©Ȭtimpurie.ȱ V.ȱ Barbuȱ
consider©ȱ îns©ȱ c©ȱ incintaȱ elenistic©ȱ îóiȱ p©streaz©ȱ funcöionalitateaȱ óiȱ înȱ periodaȱ
roman©Ȭtimpurie.ȱȱ
Cercet©rileȱ arheologiceȱ auȱ ocazionatȱ înȱ câtevaȱ rânduriȱ descopeririȱ deȱ ziduriȱ
monumentale,ȱ dinȱ p©cateȱ izolate,ȱ pentruȱ aȱ leȱ puteaȱ atribuiȱ înȱ modȱ certȱ uneiȱ
incinteȱsauȱalteiȱconstrucöiiȱpublice:ȱ
a) zidȱ dinȱ blocuriȱ fasonate,ȱ deȱ dimensiuniȱ mariȱ careȱ parȱ s©ȱ fiȱ aparöinutȱ
uneiȱincinte,ȱdescoperitȱînspreȱfalezaȱCazinoului144;ȱ
b) înȱ s©p©turileȱ executateȱ întreȱ aniiȱ 1974Ȭ1976ȱ laȱ SEȱ deȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ
mozaicȱsȬaȱdegajatȱunȱzidȱconstruitȱdinȱblocuriȱmasiveȱdeȱ piatr©,ȱcareȱputeaȱs©ȱfiȱ
aparöinutȱuneiȱconstrucöiiȱelenisticeȱ(deóiȱtrebuieȱs©ȱpreciz©mȱc©ȱelȱaȱfostȱintegratȱ
ulteriorȱamenaj©rilorȱromaneȱtârziiȱdinȱacestȱpunct);ȱ
c) alteȱdescopeririȱsȬauȱf©cutȱpeȱliniaȱpresupuseiȱincinteȱromaneȱtimpurii.ȱ
Toateȱ acesteȱ descopeririȱ denot©ȱ oȱ l©rgireȱ aȱ spaöiuluiȱ civilȱ alȱ cet©öii,ȱ fenomenȱ
declanóatȱînȱepocaȱelenistic©ȱóiȱcontinuatȱînȱetapeleȱurm©toare145.ȱ
140
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱConstanöa,ȱ jud.ȱ Constanöaȱ [Tomis].ȱ Punctȱ –ȱ str.ȱ Mihaiȱ Viteazu,ȱ CCA,ȱ
141
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Despreȱ zidulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ alȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Ovidius,ȱ Ponticaȱ 5ȱ
(1972),ȱȱȱp.ȱ439Ȭ446.ȱ
142
ȱIdem,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ156.ȱ
143
ȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱStClsȱ3ȱ(1961),ȱp.ȱ204.ȱ
144
ȱ Zidulȱ esteȱ cunoscutȱ deȱ A.ȱ Aricescuȱ óiȱ folositȱ caȱ posibilȱ argumentȱ înȱ favoareaȱ
susöineriiȱcaracteruluiȱdeȱΔΉΕϟΆΓΏΓΖȱalȱincinteiȱtomitane;ȱveziȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ443.ȱ
145
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 5ȱ (1972),ȱ p.ȱ 442ȱ estimeaz©ȱ spaöiulȱ dinȱ cap©tulȱ peninsuleiȱ
tomitaneȱocupatȱdeȱoraóulȱgrecȱlaȱcca.ȱ17ȱha;ȱînȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱsuprafaöaȱlocuit©ȱseȱextindeȱlaȱ
cca.ȱ30ȱhaȱ(loc.ȱcit.ȱóiȱn.ȱ13).ȱ
34ȱ ȱ
ȱ
NuȱputemȱîncheiaȱprezentareaȱTomisuluiȱînȱperioadaȱautonom©ȱf©r©ȱaȱamintiȱ
óiȱalteȱelementeȱcareȱöinȱdeȱimagineaȱóiȱstructuraȱunuiȱoraóȱgrec:ȱeponimat,ȱculte,ȱ
magistraturi,ȱurbanismȱetc.ȱ
Eponimiaȱ cet©öiiȱ esteȱ deöinut©ȱ deȱ unȱ preot,ȱ careȱ poateȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ preotulȱ luiȱ
Apollon 146.ȱNuȱavemȱîns©ȱsuficienteȱdateȱpentruȱ oȱafirmaöieȱcert©.ȱInscripöiileȱ dinȱ
Tomisȱ numescȱ fieȱ numaiȱ funcöiaȱ f©r©ȱ indicareaȱ divinit©öii,ȱ fieȱ divinitateaȱ îns©ói,ȱ
deöin©toareaȱfuncöieiȱ(Apollon,ȱdup©ȱISMȱII,ȱ5ȱsauȱDemetra,ȱdup©ȱISMȱII,ȱ36).ȱ
Dinȱpantheonulȱpublicȱtomitanȱf©ceauȱparteȱzeiiȱdinȱSamothrake147ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ1),ȱ
CybelaȱóiȱDioscuriiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2),ȱApollonȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ5ȱóiȱ6)148,ȱDemetraȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ36).ȱPeȱ
emisiunileȱ monetareȱ afl©mȱ imaginiȱ aleȱ maiȱ multorȱ divinit©öi:ȱ Apollon,ȱ Zeus,ȱ
Hermes,ȱ Athena,ȱ Mareleȱ Zeu,ȱ Helios,ȱ Dioscurii,ȱ Demetra149.ȱ Probabilȱ óiȱ Dionysosȱ
f©ceaȱparteȱdinȱacestȱpantheonȱavândȱînȱvedereȱexistenöaȱunuiȱteatruȱ(ΘϲȱΟν΅ΘΕΓΑȱ
menöionatȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 4),ȱ edificiuȱ undeȱ cuȱ prilejulȱ
Dionysiilorȱsauȱaȱaltorȱs©rb©toriȱseȱdesf©óurauȱreprezent©rileȱdramaticeȱsusöinuteȱ
deȱ actori;ȱ unȱ astfelȱ deȱ colegiuȱ esteȱ atestatȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ (ΟΙΐΉΏ΍Ύχȱ ΗϾΑΓΈΓΖ;ȱ
ISMȱII,ȱ70),ȱcândȱm©rturiileȱdeȱadorareȱaȱdivinit©öiiȱsuntȱmultȱmaiȱfrecvente150.ȱ
Unȱ locȱ aparteȱ deöinȱ culteleȱ egiptene,ȱ p©trunseȱ deȱ timpuriuȱ înȱ zonaȱ vestȬ
pontic©ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 152).ȱ Laȱ Tomisȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ unȱ templuȱ óiȱ unȱ primȱ preotȱ alȱ
Isidei;ȱ unȱ templuȱ alȱ luiȱ Sarapisȱ (Θϲȱ ϡΉΕϲΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̕΅ΕΣΔ΍ΈΓΖ),ȱ oȱ asociaöieȱ deȱ
închin©toriȱaiȱluiȱSarapisȱóiȱIsis;ȱslujitoriȱaiȱtempluluiȱ(ΔΕΓΗΉΈΕΉϾΓΑΘ΅΍ȱΘЗ΍ȱϡΉΕЗ΍),ȱ
ói,ȱînȱsfâróit,ȱoȱs©rb©toareȱaȱIsideiȱȬȱΛ΅ΕΐϱΗΙΑ΅ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ7,ȱinscripöieȱdatat©ȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Întreȱ lunileȱ calendaruluiȱ milesianȱ suntȱ atestateȱ
̝Δ΅ΘΓΙΕΉЏΑ151ȱ(pentruȱ̝Δ΅ΘΓΙΕϟΝΑ),ȱprezent©ȱóiȱlaȱOdessos,ȱOlbiaȱóiȱTanais152ȱóiȱ
̏ΉΘ΅·Ή΍ΘΑ΍ЏΑ153,ȱmenöionat©ȱóiȱlaȱOlbia.ȱ
146
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ148ȱóiȱurm.;ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ202ȱóiȱ258.ȱ
147
ȱ Inscripöiaȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 1)ȱ conöineȱ „regulamentul”ȱ (ΑϱΐΓΖ)ȱ deȱ cump©rareȱ aȱ
sacerdoöiuluiȱ zeilorȱ dinȱ Samothrake.ȱ Dup©ȱ afirmaöiaȱ luiȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 255,ȱ înȱ
cet©öileȱ vestȬponticeȱ cultulȱ zeilorȱ dinȱ Samothrakeȱ trebuieȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ înainteȱ deȱ toateȱ unȱ cultȱ
alȱDioscurilor;ȱpentruȱTomis,ȱtrimitereȱtotȱacoloȱlaȱJeanȱBabelon,ȱRA,ȱ1948,ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ24Ȭ33.ȱ
148
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Neueȱ Inschriftenȱ ausȱ Tomisȱ înȱ Christofȱ Schuler,ȱ Victorȱ Cojocaruȱ
(eds.),ȱDieȱAußenbeziehungenȱpontischerȱundȱkleinasiatischerȱStädteȱinȱhellenistischerȱundȱ
romischerȱ Zeit,ȱ Aktenȱ desȱ RumänischȬDeutschenȱ Kolloquiums,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 20.Ȭ24.ȱ
Septemberȱ 2010,ȱ Münchenȱ (înȱ preg©tire),ȱ r.ȱ 10Ȭ14:ȱ „…Ή[ϢΖ]/[Θϲȱ ϡΉΕϲΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̝ΔϱΏΏΝΑ]ΓΖɆȱ
…ЀΔϲȱπΔ΍ΐ΋ΑϟΓΙȱ̝Ε[΍]/…ΘΓІȱ̴Ε]ΐϟΔΔΓΙȱ̏ΉΘ΅·Ή΍ΘΑ[΍]/ЗΑΓΖȱ΋΍”ȱ(sec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
149
ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Culteȱ óiȱ zeit©öiȱ înȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior.ȱ Demetraȱ –ȱ evidenö©ȱ numismatic©,ȱ Ponticaȱ
33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 355Ȭ360;ȱ eadem,ȱ Culteȱ óiȱ zeit©öiȱ înȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior.ȱ 2.ȱ Hermesȱ –ȱ evidenö©ȱ
numismatic©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 409Ȭ412;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Aspecteȱ iconograficeȱ
privitoareȱlaȱmonedeleȱemiseȱdeȱc©treȱcoloniileȱvestȬponticeȱCallatisȱóiȱTomisȱînȱepocaȱautonom©,ȱînȱ
StudiaȱhistoriaeȱetȱreligionisȱDacoȬRomanae.ȱInȱhonoremȱSilviiȱSanieȱ(eds.ȱL.ȱMih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ
O.ȱBounegru),ȱBucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
150
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 534;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 147;ȱ R.M.ȱ Feraru,ȱ S©rb©toriȱ
dionysiaceȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Pontulȱ Stâng,ȱ Ponticaȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ 243Ȭ244;ȱ idem,ȱ
Culturaȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ deȱ peȱ ö©rmulȱ vesticȱ alȱ M©riiȱ Negre,ȱ Timióoara,ȱ 2006,ȱ passim;ȱ M.ȱ
Dana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilitéȱdansȱleȱPontȬEuxin,ȱBordeaux,ȱ2011,ȱpassim.ȱ
151
ȱ Lecturaȱ dinȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 1ȱ esteȱ preferat©ȱ celeiȱ propuseȱ deȱ L.ȱ Robertȱ (̖΅ΙΕνΝΑ);ȱ vezi,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 77,ȱ n.ȱ 1ȱ óiȱ N.ȱ Ehrhardt,ȱ Miletȱ undȱ seineȱ Kolonien,ȱ Frankfurtȱ amȱ
Main/Bern/NewȱYork,ȱParis,ȱ1988,ȱp.ȱ118,ȱn.ȱ227.ȱ
152
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ214Ȭ215ȱóiȱ309.ȱ
153
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ(supraȱn.ȱ148).ȱ
ȱ 35
ȱȱȱ
Elementulȱ deȱ baz©ȱ alȱ organiz©riiȱ societ©öiiȱ lȬauȱ reprezentatȱ triburileȱ gentilice,ȱ
chiarȱdac©ȱaccept©mȱipotezaȱc©ȱeleȱarȱfiȱavutȱdeȱlaȱînceputȱóiȱunȱcaracterȱteritorial.ȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ atestateȱ toateȱ celeȱ óaseȱ triburiȱ milesieneȱ înȱ inscripöiiȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ
roman© 154;ȱ singuraȱ inscripöieȱ cuȱ oȱ datareȱ maiȱ timpurieȱ (darȱ nuȱ maiȱ devremeȱ deȱ
primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ menöioneaz©ȱ tribulȱ ̝Ε·΅ΈΉϧΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 35).ȱ
Triburilorȱliȱseȱatribuieȱfuncöiiȱpoliticeȱînȱepocaȱautonom©ȱóiȱtotȱmaiȱmultȱ(dac©ȱnuȱ
chiarȱexclusiv)ȱreligioaseȱînȱepocaȱroman©155.ȱ
Formeleȱ deȱ conducereȱ suntȱ celeȱ cunoscuteȱ înȱ cet©öiȱ cuȱ regimuriȱ democratice:ȱ
ΆΓΙΏχȱΎ΅ϠȱΈϛΐΓΖ;ȱlaȱTomisȱesteȱmenöionat©ȱóiȱoȱadunareȱcuȱcaracterȱextraordinar,ȱ
înȱ careȱ seȱ alegeauȱ magistraöiiȱ (ΦΕΛ΅΍ΕΉΘ΍Ύχȱ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 6)156.ȱ Peȱ lâng©ȱ sfatȱ
funcöionauȱ unȱ preóedinteȱ (πΔ΍ΐφΏ΍ΓΖ)ȱ ceȱ garantaȱ legalitateaȱ hot©rârilor157ȱ óiȱ unȱ
secretarȱ(·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϿΖȱΘϛΖȱΆΓΙΏϛΖ),ȱcuȱatribuöiiȱpractice.ȱ
Întreȱ magistraturiȱ maiȱ not©mȱ colegiulȱ arhonöilorȱ (ΩΕΛΓΑΘΉΖ),ȱ cuȱ atribuöiiȱ
administrativeȱ generaleȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2,ȱ 4,ȱ 5,ȱ 36);ȱ întrȬunȱ cazȱ specialȱ avemȱ menöiuneaȱ
expres©ȱ aȱ unorȱ ΩΕΛΓΑΘΉΖȱ πΑȱ ΘЗ(΍)ȱ Ώ΍ΐνΑ΍,ȱ consideraöiȱ arhonöiȱ administratoriȱ aiȱ
portuluiȱsauȱaiȱpieöii158.ȱFuncöiaȱdeȱΦ·ΓΕ΅ΑϱΐΓΖȱesteȱóiȱeaȱatestat©,ȱîntrȬoȱinscripöieȱ
înȱ careȱ suntȱ notaöiȱ negustoriȬrevânz©toriȱ (Γϡȱ ΐΉΘΣΆΓΏΓ΍;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 4)159.ȱ Probabilȱ
exist©ȱóiȱunȱΓϢΎΓΑϱΐΓΖȱcareȱs©ȱasigureȱcheltuielileȱstipulateȱînȱdecreteȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ6).ȱ
Înȱ situaöiiȱ specialeȱ suntȱ aleóiȱ dinȱ rândulȱ cet©öenilorȱ doiȱ hegemoniȱ (ψ·νΐΓΑΉΖ),ȱ
comandanöiȱmilitariȱaleóiȱpeȱtimpȱlimitatȱpentruȱaȱfaceȱfaö©ȱsituaöiilorȱexcepöionaleȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ2)160.ȱ
Subȱ raportȱ onomasticȱ predomin©ȱ antroponimeleȱ greceóti,ȱ uneleȱ comuneȱ prinȱ
frecvenöaȱlorȱrepertoriuluiȱonomasticȱdinȱPontulȱEuxin;ȱunȱnum©rȱapreciabilȱsuntȱ
theonimeȱ sauȱ theofore161.ȱ Întreȱ numeleȱ rareȱ not©mȱ peȱ acelaȱ aleȱ unuiȱ fostȱ
154
ȱ Pentruȱ triburileȱ milesieneȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ veziȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 56Ȭ74;ȱ idem,ȱ
Contributionȱ àȱ l’étudeȱ desȱ tribusȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 175Ȭ202;ȱ idem,ȱ Cultulȱ Dioscurilorȱ
óiȱ triburileȱ tomitane.ȱ Înȱ luminaȱ unuiȱ monumentȱ deȱ curândȱ publicat,ȱ SCIVȱ 16ȱ (1965),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 519Ȭ
532;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Triburileȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©,ȱ StCls,ȱ 12ȱ (1970),ȱ p.ȱ 117Ȭ126;ȱ veziȱ
óiȱȱȱȱN.ȱEhrhardt,ȱȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ67,ȱn.ȱ514.ȱȱ
155
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 105ȱ accept©ȱ c©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ Odessosȱ triburileȱ gentiliceȱ
îndeplineauȱ rosturileȱ încredinöateȱ înȱ alteȱ locuriȱ triburilorȱ teritoriale;ȱ dup©ȱ acelaóiȱ
cercet©torȱ laȱ Histriaȱ triburileȱ gentiliceȱ auȱ fostȱ înlocuiteȱ cuȱ triburileȱ teritoriale,ȱ careȱ aveauȱ
funcöiiȱadministrative.ȱ
156
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Unȱ decretȱ ineditȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ înȱ Omagiuȱ luiȱ Constantinȱ Daicoviciu,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1960,ȱ p.ȱ 509Ȭ513.ȱ Înȱ general,ȱ veziȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Bouleȱ andȱ Demosȱ inȱ Miletusȱ andȱ itsȱ Ponticȱ
ColoniesȱfromȱClassicalȱAgeȱuntilȱThirdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱWroclaw/Warszawa/Krakow,ȱ1999.ȱ
157
ȱVeziȱatestareaȱluiȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
158
ȱ Înȱ primaȱ situaöieȱ esteȱ deȱ presupusȱ oȱ divizareȱ aȱ atribuöiilorȱ arhonöilor,ȱ înȱ alȱ doileaȱ
caz,ȱfuncöiaȱsȬarȱsuprapuneȱcuȱceaȱdeöinut©ȱdeȱagoranom;ȱveziȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ32,ȱcuȱdiscuöia.ȱ
159
ȱNegustoriiȱpropriuȬzióiȱ(σΐΔΓΕΓ΍)ȱsuntȱóiȱeiȱmenöionaöiȱîntrȬoȱinscripöieȱdinȱsec.ȱIIȬIȱ
a.ȱChr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ5).ȱ
160
ȱ Pentruȱ funcöiaȱ deȱ ψ·νΐΓΑΉΖ,ȱ veziȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 75.ȱ Pentruȱ situaöiaȱ
general©,ȱ veziȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Laȱ défenseȱ desȱ citésȱ enȱ merȱ Noireȱ àȱ laȱ basseȱ époqueȱ hellénistique,ȱ înȱ
AncientȱGreekȱColoniesȱinȱtheȱBlackȱSea,ȱ1,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱThessaloniki,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ182.ȱ
161
ȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱPopulaöia,ȱp.ȱ153Ȭ341;ȱidem,ȱLesȱnomsȱthéophoresȱauȱnordȱetȱnordȬouestȱdeȱ
laȱ merȱ Noireȱ (VI e ȱ –ȱ I er ȱ sièclesȱ av.ȱ J.ȬC.),ȱ înȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ lifeȱ inȱ Southȱ Eastȱ Europeȱ fromȱ
Prehistoryȱ toȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ (eds.ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaruȱ óiȱ V.ȱ Spinei),ȱ Iaói,ȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 105Ȭ134;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
N.ȱ Ehrhardt,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 67ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 515ȱ atrageȱ atenöiaȱ asupraȱ amprenteiȱ ionicȬmilesieneȱ aȱ
36ȱ ȱ
ȱ
conduc©torȱdeȱtribȱ(ΠΙΏΣΕΛ΋Η΅Ζ)ȱ̍ΉΕΎϟΝΑȱ̖΍ΐΓΐΣΛΓΙ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ35)162.ȱOȱinscripöieȱ
funerar©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ165)ȱconöineȱunȱnumeȱfemininȱgrecȱ(̝ΑΘ΍·ϱΑ΋),ȱal©turatȱlaȱdou©ȱ
antroponimeȱ traceȱ (̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζȱ óiȱ ̕ΉϾΟ΋Ζ)163.ȱ Deóiȱ puöineȱ laȱ num©r,ȱ inscripöiileȱ
dinȱ perioadaȱ autonom©ȱ dauȱ m©suraȱ componenöeiȱ etniceȱ aȱ populaöiei,ȱ înȱ careȱ
elementulȱgrecȱesteȱpredominant.ȱ
Deȱ caracterulȱ grecȱ alȱ aóez©riiȱ öineȱ óiȱ structuraȱ urban©;ȱ asupraȱ zidurilor,ȱ careȱ
trebuieȱ s©ȱ fiȱ ap©ratȱ oraóulȱ înc©ȱ deȱ laȱ început,ȱ amȱ avutȱ prilejulȱ s©ȱ neȱ referim.ȱ Înȱ
interiorulȱoraóuluiȱaȱexistatȱdeȱasemeneaȱoȱagoraȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ5),ȱunȱteatruȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ4)164;ȱ
câtevaȱtempleȱ(pentruȱApollon,ȱdup©ȱISMȱII,ȱ6;ȱIsisȱóiȱSarapis,ȱdup©ȱISMȱII,ȱ7).ȱ
Activit©öiȱ citadineȱ suntȱ óiȱ celeȱ legateȱ deȱ strângereaȱ sauȱ plataȱ impozitelor,ȱ
intr©rileȱ óiȱ ieóirileȱ dinȱ port,ȱ însoöite,ȱ desigur,ȱ deȱ achitareaȱ unorȱ taxeȱ vamale,ȱ
achiziöionareaȱdeȱbunuriȱmobile,ȱacöiuniȱînȱjustiöie165;ȱacesteȱactivit©öiȱtrebuieȱs©ȱfiȱ
dispusȱdeȱinstituöiiȱóiȱlocaöiiȱpropriiȱdeȱdesf©óurare.ȱ
Oraóulȱ aȱ beneficiatȱ óiȱ deȱ unȱ teritoriuȱ agrarȱ (ΛЏΕ΅),ȱ laȱ careȱ seȱ faceȱ aluzieȱ înȱ
textulȱluiȱMemnon166;ȱîntindereaȱluiȱaproximativ©ȱaȱfostȱraportat©ȱlaȱlimiteleȱóiȱeleȱ
aproximativeȱaleȱteritoriuluiȱHistrieiȱ(înȱNord)ȱóiȱCallatideiȱ(înȱSud)167.ȱ
Cumȱ activit©öileȱ comercialeȱ óiȱ nuȱ celeȱ agricoleȱ parȱ s©ȱ primezeȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ
cumȱîntindereaȱteritoriuluiȱruralȱesteȱînȱfuncöieȱdeȱm©rimeaȱóiȱimportanöaȱcoloniei,ȱ
limiteleȱ luiȱ suntȱ variabile.ȱ Uneleȱ descopeririȱ dinȱ apropiereaȱ Constanöei,ȱ spreȱ
Nord,ȱauȱaparöinutȱf©r©ȱîndoial©ȱteritoriuluiȱtomitan;ȱeleȱsuntȱsemnalateȱpeȱmalulȱ
deȱ SVȱ alȱ laculuiȱ Siutghiolȱ óiȱ înȱ actualulȱ cartierȱ Palazuȱ Mare.ȱ Esteȱ posibilȱ caȱ totȱ
spreȱ Nordȱ teritoriulȱ s©ȱ seȱ fiȱ întinsȱ pân©ȱ laȱ laculȱ Taóaulȱ óiȱ râulȱ Casimceaȱ (ceȱ
marcau,ȱ deȱ altfel,ȱ unaȱ dinȱ limiteleȱ sudiceȱ propuseȱ aleȱ teritoriuluiȱ histrian).ȱ Înȱ
acestȱ spaöiuȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ materialeȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ autohtone,ȱ datateȱ largȱ înȱ
secoleleȱIVȬIȱa.ȱChr.ȱDescoperirileȱarheologiceȱfoarteȱtimpurii,ȱdeȱsec.ȱVIȬVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
deȱ laȱ Capulȱ Midia,ȱ deȱ peȱ actualulȱ amplasamentȱ alȱ combinatuluiȱ Petromidiaȱ sauȱ
deȱ laȱ Ovidiuȱ suntȱ deȱ interpretatȱ maiȱ degrab©ȱ caȱ tentativeȱ deȱ fixareȱ aȱ grecilorȱ înȱ
zonaȱ pontic©ȱ litoral©ȱ óiȱ nuȱ caȱ f©cândȱ parteȱ dinȱ teritoriulȱ uneiȱ coloniiȱ (alȱ Histriei,ȱ
pentruȱprimeleȱdou©,ȱsauȱalȱTomisuluiȱpentruȱceleȱdinȱoraóulȱOvidiu).ȱ
Spreȱ Sud,ȱ teritoriulȱ seȱ întindeaȱ pân©ȱ înȱ apropiereaȱ fostuluiȱ lacȱ Agigeaȱ óiȱ
actualulȱ canalȱ Dun©reȬMareaȱ Neagr©.ȱ Alteȱ aóez©riȱ situateȱ maiȱ laȱ Sudȱ –ȱ laȱ
TechirghiolȬUrluchioiȱ óiȱ Tuzlaȱ –ȱ puteauȱ reprezenta,ȱ eventual,ȱ limitaȱ maxim©ȱ aȱ
antroponimelorȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis;ȱ înȱ inscripöiileȱ dinȱ perioadaȱ autonom©ȱ reöinemȱ formeleȱ
̴Ύ΅Θ΅ϧΓΖ,ȱ̴ΗΘ΍΅ϧΓΖ,ȱ̐ΓΙΐφΑ΍ΓΖ.ȱȱ
162
ȱDeȱv©zutȱL.ȱRobert,ȱRÉGȱ75ȱ(1962),ȱp.ȱ186Ȭ187.ȱ
163
ȱ Al©turareaȱ primelorȱ dou©ȱ (̝ΑΘ΍·ϱΑ΋ȱ ̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζ,ȱ numeȱ femininȱ dublu)ȱ tr©deaz©ȱ
influenöaȱgrecoȬmacedonean©;ȱveziȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ193Ȭ194;ȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱPopulaöia,ȱp.ȱ143,ȱn.ȱ155.ȱȱ
164
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ243ȱóiȱcuȱtrimitereȱlaȱL.ȱRobert,ȱRA,ȱ1933,ȱp.ȱ144;ȱidem,ȱNoteȱ
deȱlectur©,ȱStClsȱ8ȱȱ(1966),ȱp.ȱ231Ȭ232;ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ532Ȭ534.ȱ
165
ȱDespreȱtoateȱacesteaȱafl©mȱînȱdecretulȱISMȱII,ȱ5ȱpentruȱNylosȱdinȱTyras.ȱ
166
ȱVeziȱcomentariulȱlaȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ197;ȱidem,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ155,ȱn.ȱ22.ȱ
167
ȱ M.ȱ Irimia,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ privindȱ teritoriulȱ ruralȱ alȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ perioadaȱ elenistic©,ȱ înȱ
Studiiȱ istoriceȱ dobrogene,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 57Ȭ67ȱ =ȱ Überlegungenȱ überȱ dasȱ Hinterlandȱ vonȱ
Tomisȱ inȱ hellenistischerȱ Zeit,ȱ înȱ Historiaeȱ diversitas.ȱ Festschriftȱ fürȱ Vladimirȱ Iliescuȱ zumȱ 80.ȱ
Geburstag,ȱ Galaöi,ȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 51Ȭ74;ȱ idem,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ privindȱ aóez©rileȱ geticeȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ óiȱ
problemaȱexistenöeiȱunorȱemporiaȱînȱzonaȱDun©riiȱinferioare,ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ171ȱóiȱp.ȱ219,ȱ
fig.ȱ3.ȱ
ȱ 37
ȱȱȱ
teritoriuluiȱtomitan,ȱdac©ȱnuȱcumvaȱuneleȱf©ceauȱparteȱdinȱteritoriulȱcallatian.ȱ
Înȱsfâróit,ȱlimitaȱminim©ȱspreȱVestȱajungeaȱpân©ȱlaȱConstanöaȬPalasȱóiȱactualaȱ
localitateȱValuȱluiȱTraian,ȱatingândȱprobabilȱóiȱlocalit©öileȱBasarabiȱóiȱPoartaȱAlb©.ȱ
Oricumȱ limiteleȱ propuseȱ suntȱ delimitateȱ óiȱ natural;ȱ tipulȱ deȱ aóezareȱ dinȱ
teritoriuȱpareȱs©ȱöin©ȱmaiȱmultȱdeȱtradiöiaȱmilesian©,ȱîntâlnit©ȱóiȱlaȱHistriaȱ(aóez©riȱ
deschise)ȱóiȱmaiȱpuöinȱdeȱceaȱcallatian©ȱ(cuȱaóez©riȱfortificate)168.ȱ
Spreȱ deosebireȱ deȱ Histriaȱ óiȱ Callatisȱ îns©,ȱ înȱ niciunaȱ dinȱ aóez©rileȱ ceȱ potȱ fiȱ
atribuiteȱteritoriuluiȱtomitanȱnuȱauȱfostȱîntreprinseȱcercet©riȱsistematice.ȱ
Înȱ pragulȱ epociiȱ romaneȱ Tomisȱ seȱ prezentaȱ cuȱ toateȱ atributeleȱ óiȱ formeleȱ deȱ
organizareȱaleȱunuiȱoraóȱgrecesc,ȱcareȱtrebuieȱs©ȱfiȱexistatȱóiȱfuncöionatȱaiciȱînc©ȱdeȱ
laȱînceput.ȱȱ
ȱ
EtapaȱaȱIIIȬaȱ(sec.ȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.)ȱ ȱ
Campaniaȱ luiȱ M.ȱ Terentiusȱ Varroȱ Lucullusȱ (72/71ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ ceaȱ aȱ luiȱ M.ȱ
Liciniusȱ Crassusȱ (29/28ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ reprezint©ȱ premiseȱ aleȱ cuceririiȱ romaneȱ înȱ
Dobrogea.ȱ Înȱ totȱ acestȱ interval,ȱ Dobrogeaȱ aȱ fostȱ înȱ atenöiaȱ romanilorȱ cuȱ dou©ȱ
perioadeȱ deȱ cezur©ȱ –ȱ unaȱ marcat©ȱ deȱ acöiuneaȱ împotrivaȱ luiȱ Caiusȱ Hybrida,ȱ aȱ
douaȱdeȱcucerireaȱluiȱBurebista.ȱPrimaȱcampanie,ȱcareȱaȱavutȱcaȱobiectivȱatragereaȱ
oraóelorȱponticeȱînȱsferaȱpolitic©ȱdeȱinteresȱaȱRomeiȱnuȱpareȱs©ȱseȱfiȱdesf©óuratȱînȱ
celeȱ maiȱ amicaleȱ condiöii169.ȱ Înȱ acestȱ contextȱ devineȱ discutabil©ȱ chiarȱ punereaȱ înȱ
relaöieȱ cuȱ acestȱ evenimentȱ aȱ tratatuluiȱ mutualȱ (foedus)ȱ încheiatȱ întreȱ Romaȱ óiȱ
Callatis170ȱ óiȱ statutulȱ juridicȱ peȱ careȱ aveauȱ s©Ȭlȱ primeasc©ȱ oraóeleȱ vestȬponticeȱ
dup©ȱ 71ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Odat©ȱ cuȱ succesulȱ militarȱ alȱ luiȱ Varroȱ Lucullus,ȱ oraóeleȱ ponticeȱ
vorȱ intraȱ subȱ autoritateaȱ proconsululuiȱ Macedoniei,ȱ f©r©ȱ îns©ȱ aȱ fiȱ integrateȱ
provinciei.ȱ
Statutulȱ deȱ civitatesȱ liberaeȱ devineȱ îns©ȱ discutabilȱ dac©ȱ avemȱ înȱ vedereȱ
condiöiileȱ(óiȱmaiȱalesȱmodalit©öile)ȱdeȱimpunereȱaȱ„protecöiei”ȱromane;ȱelȱr©mâneȱ
valabilȱdac©ȱseȱrefer©ȱdoarȱlaȱsituaöiaȱaceloraóiȱoraóeȱ„eliberate”ȱdeȱobligaöiileȱceȱleȱ
reveneauȱprinȱsistemulȱdeȱalianöeȱalȱluiȱMithridates.ȱ
Laȱ rândulȱ lui,ȱ statutulȱ deȱ civitatesȱ foederataeȱ esteȱ valabilȱ dac©ȱ vomȱ consideraȱ
caȱsigur©ȱînglobareaȱóiȱaltorȱcet©öiȱînȱsistemulȱdeȱalianöeȱalȱRomei;ȱacestȱstatutȱnuȱ
pareȱ îns©ȱ compatibilȱ cuȱ situaöiaȱ aceloraóiȱ cet©öiȱ înȱ urmaȱ acöiuniiȱ luiȱ Lucullus.ȱ Înȱ
anulȱ 61ȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ areȱ locȱ oȱ acöiuneȱ comun©ȱ (aȱ oraóelorȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ sauȱ aȱ
populaöiilorȱbarbare)ȱîmpotrivaȱguvernatoruluiȱMacedoniei,ȱC.ȱAntoniusȱHybrida.ȱ
TextulȱdinȱDioȱCassiusȱ(XXXVII,ȱ10,ȱ3)ȱesteȱpreaȱgeneralȱpentruȱaȱnuȱdaȱlocȱlaȱ
presupuneri:ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ ΗΙΐΐΣΛΓΙΖȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ πΑȱ ΘϜȱ ̏ΙΗϟθȱ poateȱ aveaȱ înȱ vedereȱ
ȱ Vezi,ȱ deȱ exemplu,ȱ Alexandraȱ Wasowicz,ȱ Modèlesȱ d’aménagemnentȱ desȱ coloniesȱ

168
grecques:ȱvilleȱetȱterritoire,ȱBCH,ȱSuppl.ȱ34,ȱTerritoiresȱdesȱcitésȱgrecquesȱ(ed.ȱMichèleȱBrunet),ȱ
1999,ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ258.ȱ
169
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ15.ȱȱ
170
ȱ D.ȱ P.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ înȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 277ȱ óiȱ urm.;ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Dou©ȱ noteȱ privindȱ istoriaȱ
Moesieiȱ înȱ secolulȱ Iȱ î.e.n.,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 269Ȭ274,ȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ oȱ datareȱ maiȱ târzieȱ aȱ
foedusȬului,ȱ raportânduȬlȱ laȱ campaniaȱ luiȱ Crassus;ȱ veziȱ întreagaȱ discuöieȱ óiȱ bibliografieȱ laȱ
Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 38Ȭ44ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 201Ȭ226,ȱ 1ȱ (totȱ aiciȱ propunereaȱ deȱ datareȱ aȱ tratatuluiȱ înȱ
intervalulȱ106Ȭ101/100ȱa.ȱChr.);ȱidem,ȱDerȱVertragȱzwischenȱRomȱundȱKallatis.ȱEinȱBeitragȱzumȱ
römischenȱVölkerrecht,ȱAmsterdam,ȱ1999.ȱ
38ȱ ȱ
ȱ
fieȱoraóeleȱgreceótiȱaliateȱdinȱMoesia171,ȱfieȱpopulaöiileȱbarbareȱ(localeȱsauȱdiverse)ȱ
înȱ ajutorulȱ c©roraȱ vinȱ bastarnii172,ȱ fie,ȱ înȱ sfâróit,ȱ oȱ alianö©ȱ grecoȬbarbar©.ȱ Faptulȱ
îns©ȱ c©ȱ Hybridaȱ aȱ fugitȱ înȱ öinutulȱ ponticȱ óiȱ aȱ suferitȱ oȱ înfrângereȱ „lâng©ȱ cetateaȱ
histrienilor”ȱ(<ΔΕϲΖ>ȱΘϜȱΘЗΑȱ͑ΗΘΕ΍΅ΑЗΑȱΔϱΏΉ΍)ȱpledeaz©ȱînȱfavoareaȱuneiȱalianöeȱaȱ
oraóelorȱ dinȱ aceast©ȱ zon©.ȱ Dinȱ amintitaȱ alianö©ȱ credemȱ c©ȱ nuȱ puteaȱ lipsiȱ Tomis,ȱ
avândȱînȱvedereȱapropiereaȱgeografic©ȱóiȱrelaöiileȱcareȱauȱlegatȬoȱdinȱtotdeaunaȱdeȱ
Histria.ȱCertȱesteȱfaptulȱc©ȱepisodulȱHybridaȱpuneȱcap©tȱprimeiȱetapeȱdeȱafirmareȱ
aȱ autorit©öiiȱ romaneȱ laȱ Dun©re.ȱ Seȱ creaz©ȱ unȱ vidȱ deȱ putere;ȱ f©r©ȱ oȱ protecöieȱ
politic©ȱ puternic©ȱ dinȱ sud,ȱ oraóeleȱ vestȬponticeȱ vorȱ fiȱ cucerite,ȱ înȱ parte,ȱ deȱ
Burebista173.ȱȱ
Evenimentulȱ esteȱ apreciatȱ caȱ avândȱ locȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ etape,ȱ înȱ intervalulȱ 55Ȭ
48ȱ a.ȱ Chr.174ȱ sauȱ dup©ȱ 48ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ anulȱ înfrângeriiȱ luiȱ Pompeiȱ laȱ Pharsalos175.ȱ Înȱ
relatareaȱluiȱDionȱChrysostomosȱ(XXXVI,ȱ4)ȱóiȱraportatȱlaȱdateleȱlaȱcareȱoratorulȱaȱ
statȱlaȱOlbiaȱ(95ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱȱȱóiȱaȱöinutȱdiscursulȱ(97ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱacöiuneaȱîntreprins©ȱdeȱ
BurebistaȱsȬarȱfiȱprodusȱpeȱlaȱ55Ȭ53ȱa.ȱChr.176.ȱDinȱtextȱreöinemȱc©ȱesteȱvorbaȱdeȱoȱ
cucerireȱ (ΐΉ·ϟΗΘ΋Αȱ ΧΏΝΗ΍Α)ȱ prinȱ careȱ geöiiȱ auȱ luatȱ (ΉϩΏΓΑ)ȱ atâtȱ oraóulȱ Boristeneȱ
(Olbia),ȱ„câtȱóiȱalteȱcet©öiȱaóezateȱpeȱö©rmurileȱPontuluiȱStâng,ȱpân©ȱlaȱApollonia”ȱ(Ύ΅Ϡȱ
ΘΤΖȱΩΏΏ΅ΖȱΘΤΖȱπΑȱΘΓϧΖȱΦΕ΍ΗΘΉΕΓϧΖȱΘΓІȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱΔϱΏΉ΍ΖȱΐνΛΕ΍ȱ̝ΔΓΏΏΝΑϟ΅Ζ).ȱ
Acöiuneaȱviolent© 177ȱsauȱnu178ȱaȱavutȱcaȱefectȱoȱînr©ut©öireȱaȱsituaöieiȱoraóelorȱ
dinȱPont.ȱAcelaóiȱtextȱdinȱDionȱChrysostomosȱconsemneaz©ȱmaiȱdeparteȱ(XXXVI,ȱ
5):ȱ„situaöiaȱgrecilorȱcareȱlocuiescȱpeȱaiciȱesteȱfoarteȱnefericit©ȱ(…);ȱmajoritateaȱbarbarilorȱ
seȱ unescȱ întreȱ eiȱ pentruȱ aȱ seȱ rev©rsaȱ asupraȱ acestorȱ cet©öi”.ȱ Nuȱ esteȱ greuȱ s©ȱ
recunoaótemȱaiciȱaceeaóiȱstareȱdeȱnesiguranö©ȱdeȱcareȱseȱvaȱplângeȱnuȱpesteȱmultȱ
timpȱOvidiu,ȱrelegatȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
Nesiguranöaȱ explic©ȱ óiȱ m©surileȱ peȱ careȱ oraóulȱ leȱ iaȱ pentruȱ instituireaȱ uneiȱ
g©rziȱ civiceȱ deȱ supraveghereȱ aȱ zidurilorȱ óiȱ poröilor;ȱ c©ȱ textulȱ celorȱ dou©ȱ decreteȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 2)ȱ nuȱ faceȱ referireȱ laȱ Burebista,ȱ iarȱ datareaȱ lorȱ esteȱ posibil©ȱ s©ȱ fieȱ maiȱ
171
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ280Ȭ281;ȱidem,ȱÎnȱjurulȱdateiȱtratatuluiȱRomaȬCallatis,ȱStClsȱ15ȱ
(1973),ȱp.ȱ64Ȭ67;ȱveziȱóiȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ45Ȭ46ȱóiȱmaiȱalesȱnoteleȱ175ȱóiȱ183.ȱ
172
ȱVeziȱdiscuöiaȱlaȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ141Ȭ143.ȱ
173
ȱ Înȱ general,ȱ despreȱ acesta,ȱ veziȱ H.ȱ Daicoviciu,ȱ Daciaȱ deȱ laȱ Burebistaȱ laȱ cucerireaȱ
roman©,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1972;ȱ I.H.ȱ Crióan,ȱ Burebistaȱ óiȱ epocaȱ sa 2 ,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1977;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Istoriaȱ
Românilor,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ635Ȭ651ȱ(cap.ȱVIII:ȱBurebista).ȱ
174
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Parerga.ȱ Ecritsȱ deȱ Philologie,ȱ d’Épigraphieȱ etȱ d’Histoireȱ ancienne,ȱ
Bucureóti/Paris,ȱ 1984,ȱ p.ȱ 183Ȭ188;ȱ idem,ȱ Gètesȱ etȱ Grecsȱ dansȱ l’histoireȱ deȱ laȱ Scythieȱ Mineureȱ àȱ
l’époqueȱ deȱ Byrebistas,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 25ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 255Ȭ262;ȱ pentruȱ oȱ posibil©ȱ prezenö©ȱ aȱ luiȱ
Burebistaȱ înȱ zonaȱ pontic©ȱ înc©ȱ dinȱ aniiȱ 61/60ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ veziȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ
ΐν·΍ΗΘΓΖȱ (Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϿΖ)ȱ ΘЗΑȱ πΔϠȱ ̋ΕιΎ΋Ζȱ Ά΅Η΍ΏνΝΑ:ȱ (IGBȱ I 2 ,ȱ 13,ȱ Z.ȱ 22Ȭ23),ȱ Tycheȱ 13ȱ (1998),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 229Ȭ247ȱ (=ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ335);ȱ idem,ȱ Burébistaȱ etȱ laȱ Dobroudja,ȱ înȱ
OpusculaȱScythica.ȱGrecsȱetȱRomainsȱauȱBasȬDanube,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ35Ȭ56.ȱ
175
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 48ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 189;ȱ acöiuneaȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ menit©ȱ s©ȱ opreasc©ȱ trecereaȱ
oraóelorȱvestȬponticeȱdeȱparteaȱluiȱCaesar.ȱ
176
ȱIbidem,ȱp.ȱ47,ȱn.ȱ186.ȱ
177
ȱLaȱOlbia,ȱHistria,ȱMesambria;ȱveziȱDyonȱChrisostomos,ȱXXXVI,ȱ4;ȱP.ȱAlexandrescu,ȱ
Laȱ destructionȱ d’Istrosȱ parȱ lesȱ Gètes.ȱ 1.ȱ Dossierȱ archéologique,ȱ Ilȱ Marȱ Neroȱ Iȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ214ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(=ȱSCIVAȱ44ȱ(1993),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ231Ȭ266);ȱveziȱóiȱG.ȱMihailovȱ(ed.),ȱIGBȱI 2 ,ȱp.ȱ323.ȱ
178
ȱ Esteȱ cazulȱ laȱ Dionysopolis,ȱ dup©ȱ cumȱ reieseȱ dinȱ decretulȱ pentruȱ Acornion,ȱ IGBȱ I 2 ,ȱ
13.ȱ
ȱ 39
ȱȱȱ
devremeȱ (sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.)179,ȱ nuȱ împiedic©ȱ constatareaȱ uneiȱ situaöiiȱ deȱ
durat©,ȱ caracterizateȱ prinȱ „vitregiaȱ vremurilor”,ȱ „situaöieȱ greaȱ óiȱ mareȱ strâmtorare”,ȱ
„disperare”,ȱ „sl©biciune”,ȱ soldateȱ cuȱ p©r©sireaȱ oraóuluiȱ óiȱ imposibilitateaȱ deȱ aȱ fiȱ
p©zit.ȱ
Acesteȱfenomeneȱdeclanóateȱdeȱabsenöaȱuneiȱprotecöii,ȱcredemȱc©ȱputeauȱaveaȱ
locȱfieȱînainteȱdeȱMithridatesȱ(dac©ȱr©mânemȱlaȱoȱdatareȱaȱdecretelorȱspreȱsfâróitulȱ
sec.ȱIIȱa.ȱChr.),ȱfieȱ(maiȱnesigur)ȱînȱsec.ȱIȱa.ȱChr.ȱîntreȱHybridaȱóiȱBurebistaȱsauȱpostȱ
Burebista 180.ȱ
Unȱ ultimȱ aspectȱ îlȱ maiȱ consemn©mȱ spreȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.:ȱ înȱ anulȱ
premerg©torȱb©t©lieiȱdeȱlaȱPharsalos,ȱPompeiȱaveaȱîntreȱaliaöiiȱs©iȱ„toateȱneamurileȱ
r©s©rituluiȱ óiȱ deȱ peȱ meleagurileȱ Pontuluiȱ Euxinȱ –ȱ fieȱ greci,ȱ fieȱ barbari.ȱ Iarȱ regii,ȱ atâtȱ
prieteniiȱpoporuluiȱromanȱcâtȱóiȱamiciȱ<aiȱluiȱPompei>ȱneȱpunȱlaȱîndemân©ȱtrupe,ȱarme,ȱ
hran©ȱóiȱalteȱlucruriȱtrebuincioaseȱpreg©tiriiȱnoastre”ȱ(Appian,ȱR©zboaieleȱcivile,ȱII,ȱ51).ȱ
Întreȱaceótiȱregiȱprieteniȱ(ΠϟΏΓ΍),ȱdesigur,ȱseȱaflaȱóiȱBurebista181.ȱ
Prestigiulȱ deȱ careȱ trebuieȱ s©ȱ seȱ fiȱ bucuratȱ Pompeiȱ înȱ zonaȱ pontoȬoriental©ȱ
trebuieȱs©ȱfiȱfostȱmare;ȱaóaȱseȱexplic©ȱaliniereaȱdeȱparteaȱluiȱdeopotriv©ȱaȱoraóelorȱ
greceótiȱóiȱaȱregilorȱlocali.ȱAtitudineaȱcomun©ȱaȱgrecilorȱóiȱaȱluiȱBurebistaȱfaö©ȱdeȱ
acesteȱevenimenteȱarȱputeaȱconstituiȱunȱargumentȱdup©ȱcareȱacöiunileȱregeluiȱgetȱ
înȱzonaȱpontic©ȱsȬarȱîncadraȱunuiȱplanȱstrategic182.ȱ
Autoritateaȱgetic©ȱdureaz©ȱpân©ȱlaȱmoarteaȱluiȱBurebistaȱ(44ȱa.ȱChr.)183ȱóiȱesteȱ
urmat©ȱ deȱ stareaȱ deȱ instabilitateȱ peȱ careȱ amȱ v©zutȬoȱ descris©ȱ laȱ Dionȱ
Chrysostomos.ȱ
Aȱdouaȱpremis©ȱaȱprezenöeiȱromaneȱînȱDobrogeaȱesteȱcampaniaȱdinȱ29/28ȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱ aȱ proconsuluiȱ Macedoniei,ȱ M.ȱ Liciniusȱ Crassus184.ȱ Poateȱ esteȱ deȱ reöinutȱ aiciȱ
ipotezaȱpotrivitȱc©reiaȱcampaniaȱluiȱLiciniusȱCrassusȱsȬarȱjustificaȱóiȱprinȱintenöiaȱ
luiȱAugustusȱdeȱaȱatrageȱdeȱparteaȱsaȱoȱzon©ȱdependent©ȱpân©ȱatunciȱdeȱMarcusȱ
Antonius,ȱ înȱ condiöiileȱ înȱ careȱ interesulȱ acestuiaȱ dinȱ urm©ȱ pentruȱ zonaȱ balcanic©ȱ
seȱ intensificaseȱ dup©ȱ 35/34ȱ a.ȱ Chr.185.ȱ Dataȱ desf©óur©riiȱ eiȱ aȱ fostȱ considerat©ȱ doarȱ
unȱ terminusȱ postȱ quemȱ pentruȱ momentulȱ instaur©riiȱ autorit©öiiȱ romaneȱ aici;ȱ unȱ
179
ȱVeziȱdiscuöiile,ȱînȱrezumatȱlaȱI.ȱStoian,ȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ30.ȱ
180
ȱVeziȱóiȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ37ȱóiȱmaiȱalesȱn.ȱ53.ȱPentruȱoȱdatareȱaȱaceloraóiȱdecreteȱ
laȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱveziȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ283ȱóiȱ296Ȭ297.ȱ
181
ȱ Pentruȱ titulaturaȱ regeluiȱ get,ȱ dataȱ asum©riiȱ eiȱ óiȱ atitudineaȱ proȬroman©ȱ deȱ parteaȱ
luiȱ Pompei,ȱ veziȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ335ȱ (înȱ specialȱ p.ȱ 330Ȭ
332).ȱ
182
ȱIndirectȱamȱaflaȱaiciȱóiȱunȱargumentȱalȱacöiunilorȱluiȱBurebistaȱînȱacestȱarealȱînainteȱ
deȱ49/48ȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
183
ȱ Înȱ 48ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ dup©ȱ Pharsalos,ȱ Burebistaȱ seȱ retrageȱ îns©ȱ pesteȱ Dun©reȱ (Avram,ȱ ISMȱ
III,ȱ p.ȱ 48).ȱ Pentruȱ cronologiaȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Burebistaȱ óiȱ relaöiileȱ luiȱ cuȱ Roma,ȱ veziȱ óiȱ V.ȱ Lica,ȱ
QuaestionesȱBurebistanae,ȱînȱScriptaȱDacica,ȱBr©ila,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ57Ȭ95.ȱ
184
ȱ Veziȱ relatareaȱ laȱ Dioȱ Cassius,ȱ 51,ȱ 23Ȭ27;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ .ȱ Asupraȱ
perioadeiȱ veziȱ acumȱ V.ȱ Lica,ȱ M.ȱ Liciniusȱ Crassusȱ (cos.ȱ 30ȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ undȱ dieȱ römischeȱ
Donaugrenze,ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ236Ȭ242.ȱ
185
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 274Ȭ284).ȱ Argumenteȱ indirecteȱ suntȱ dou©ȱ
inscripöiiȱ(unaȱdinȱOdessos,ȱIGB,ȱI 2 ,ȱ46,ȱdatat©ȱîntreȱaniiȱ44/43ȱa.ȱChr.ȱ–ȱ2/3ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱiarȱceaȱ
deȱaȱdouaȱ dinȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ 37,ȱdedicat©ȱAgrippinei),ȱînȱcareȱ suntȱ menöionaöiȱpurt©toriȱaiȱ
numeluiȱAntonius.ȱ
40ȱ ȱ
ȱ
terminusȱanteȱquemȱîlȱreprezint©ȱanulȱreleg©riiȱluiȱOvidiuȱlaȱTomisȱ(8ȱp.ȱChr.)186.ȱOȱ
datareȱóiȱmaiȱstrâns©ȱesteȱstabilit©ȱpentruȱaniiȱ3Ȭ2ȱa.ȱChr.,ȱcândȱP.ȱViniciusȱaȱavutȱ
misiuneaȱdeȱlegatȱimperialȱ(propraetor)ȱînȱThraciaȱóiȱMacedonia187.ȱ
Ovidiuȱ neȱ transmiteȱ c©ȱ „regiuneaȱ aceastaȱ aȱ intratȱ foarteȱ deȱ curândȱ subȱ
jurisdicöiaȱausonic©”ȱ(haecȱestȱAusonioȱsubȱiureȱnovissima;ȱTrist.,ȱII,ȱ199Ȭ200).ȱNuȱseȱ
cunoaóteȱ îns©ȱ formaȱ juridic©ȱ peȱ careȱ oraóeleȱ greceótiȱ auȱ avutȬoȱ subȱ autoritateaȱ
roman©ȱ stabilit©ȱ acumȱ definitiv.ȱ Seȱ admite,ȱ înȱ general,ȱ c©ȱ zonaȱ cuprins©ȱ întreȱ
Dun©reȱ óiȱ mareȱ (cuȱ excepöiaȱ litoralului)ȱ sȬaȱ aflatȱ subȱ controlulȱ regilorȱ odrizi;ȱ
litoralulȱ cuȱ oraóeleȱ greceótiȱ arȱ fiȱ constituitȱ oȱ praefecturaȱ (oraeȱ maritimae)188ȱ sauȱ
civitatiumȱ oraeȱ maritimae189.ȱ Situaöiaȱ seȱ menöineȱ óiȱ dup©ȱ constituireaȱ provincieiȱ
Moesiaȱ (primulȱ deceniuȱ alȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ –ȱ anulȱ 15ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ cuȱ specificareaȱ faptuluiȱ c©ȱ
litoralulȱ esteȱ controlatȱ acumȱ deȱ praefectiȱ aflaöiȱ subȱ ordineleȱ guvernatoruluiȱ
Moesiei.ȱOvidiuȱaminteóteȱprezenöaȱunorȱtrupeȱodrideȱlaȱAegyssusȱ(ExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ8;ȱ
IV,ȱ 7)190ȱ óiȱ Troesmisȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ IV,ȱ 9)ȱ óiȱ faceȱ apelȱ laȱ regeleȱ Cotysȱ s©Ȭiȱ asigureȱ
siguranöaȱ exiluluiȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ II,ȱ 9).ȱ ÎntrȬoȱ regiuneȱ înȱ careȱ geöiiȱ „nuȱ seȱ temȱ deȱ
armeleȱsoldatuluiȱroman”ȱ(necȱAusoniiȱmilitisȱarmaȱ timet;ȱExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ2,ȱ84),ȱpaceaȱ
devineȱ nesigur©ȱ (pacisȱ fiduciaȱ numquam;ȱ Tristia,ȱ II,ȱ 5,ȱ 17).ȱ Nuȱ numaiȱ geöiiȱ suntȱ ceiȱ
careȱ atac©ȱ graniöeleȱ imperiului;ȱ Ovidiuȱ aminteóteȱ deȱ „l©ncileȱ sarmatice”ȱ (piculaȱ
Sarmatica),ȱ suliöeleȱ bistonieneȱ (Bistoniasȱ sarissas),ȱ arculȱ sciticȱ (Scythicoȱ arcu)ȱ óiȱ deȱ
iazigiiȱaprigiȱ(IazygesȱacresȱsauȱferoxȱIazyx).ȱAceeaóiȱstareȱdeȱnesiguranö©ȱoȱtr©ieóteȱ
óiȱ oraóulȱ Tomis.ȱ Poetulȱ vorbeóteȱ deȱ nenum©rateȱ neamuriȱ dinȱ jurȱ (circaȱ innumeraeȱ
gentes)ȱ careȱ „ameninö©ȱ cuȱ r©zboaieȱ crude”ȱ (feraȱ bellaȱ minantur).ȱ S©geöileȱ otr©viteȱ
suntȱculeseȱînȱinteriorulȱcet©öii,ȱînȱmijloculȱdrumurilorȱ(intraȱmuros;ȱperȱmediasȱvias;ȱ
Trist.,ȱ V,ȱ 10,ȱ 21Ȭ22)ȱ sauȱ stauȱ înfipteȱ peȱ acoperióulȱ caselorȱ „caȱ unȱ parapetȱ (velutiȱ
velata;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ I,ȱ 2,ȱ 23).ȱ Desigur,ȱ erauȱ momenteȱ critice,ȱ darȱ imaginaöiaȱ poetuluiȱ
exagereaz©ȱ voitȱ uneleȱ aspecte,ȱ meniteȱ s©Ȭóiȱ impresionezeȱ cititorii 191.ȱ Elementulȱ
etnicȱ mereuȱ prezentȱ esteȱ reprezentatȱ deȱ geöi.ȱ Ovidiuȱ transmiteȱ salut©riȱ „dinȱ öaraȱ
geöilor”ȱ(eȱGetico;ȱTristia,ȱV,ȱ13,ȱ1);ȱogoareleȱsuntȱgeticeȱ(Geticis…ȱabȱarvis;ȱExȱPonto,ȱ
I,ȱ9,ȱ45);ȱelȱseȱafl©ȱprintreȱgeöiȱ(inqueȱGetis;ȱTristia,ȱIII,ȱ9,ȱ4);ȱpeȱliniaȱDun©riiȱseȱafl©ȱ
„geöiiȱ ceiȱ nesupuóiȱ peȱ deplin”ȱ (nonȱ beneȱ pacatisȱ fluminaȱ potaȱ Getis;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ III,ȱ 4,ȱ
92).ȱ ReferinduȬseȱ laȱ geöiiȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ poetulȱ constat©ȱ c©ȱ lorȱ leȱ aparöineȱ ceaȱ maiȱ
mareȱ parteȱ dinȱ caseȱ (tectaȱ plusȱ quoqueȱ parteȱ tenet;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ III,ȱ 4)ȱ óiȱ c©ȱ deóiȱ suntȱ
186
ȱ Pentruȱ acesteȱ date,ȱ veziȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ lectur©,ȱ StClsȱ 16ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ 256Ȭ260;ȱ
Parerga,ȱp.ȱ209.ȱ
187
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ46Ȭ54;ȱidem,ȱP.ȱViniciusȱundȱKallatis.ȱZumȱBeginnȱderȱrömischenȱ
Kontrolleȱ griechischenȱ Städteȱ anȱ derȱ Westküsteȱ desȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinosȱ înȱ G.R.ȱ Tsetskhladzeȱ (ed.),ȱ
TheȱGreekȱColonisationȱofȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱArea.ȱHistoricalȱInterpretationȱofȱArchaeology,ȱStuttgart,ȱ
1998,ȱp.ȱ115Ȭ129;ȱISMȱIII,ȱ57.ȱ
188
ȱ Asupraȱ denumiriiȱ óiȱ evoluöieiȱ acesteiȱ structuriȱ veziȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ
dataȱdeȱanexareȱaȱDobrogeiȱdeȱc©treȱromani,ȱPonticaȱ4ȱ(1971),ȱp.ȱ114Ȭ115;ȱveziȱóiȱinfra.,ȱn.ȱ200.ȱ
189
ȱVeziȱdiscuöiaȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ54Ȭ56.ȱ
190
ȱExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ8,ȱ15:ȱOdrisiisȱinopinoȱMarteȱperemptis.ȱ
191
ȱ N.ȱ Lascu,ȱ P©mântulȱ óiȱ vechiiȱ locuitoriȱ aiȱ ö©riiȱ noastreȱ înȱ operaȱ deȱ exilȱ aȱ luiȱ Ovidiu,ȱ înȱ
vol.ȱ Publiusȱ Ovidiusȱ Naso,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1957,ȱ p.ȱ 119Ȭ191;ȱ idem,ȱ Ovidiu,ȱ omulȱ óiȱ poetul,ȱ Cluj,ȱ
1971,ȱ p.ȱ 309Ȭ348;ȱ L.ȱ Franga,ȱ Ovidiuȱ óiȱ spaöiulȱ danubianoȬpontic,ȱ ThracoȬDacicaȱ 11ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ
p.ȱ 225Ȭ238;ȱ L.ȱ Franga,ȱ ȱ M.ȱ Franga,ȱ Ovidianaȱ Pontica.ȱ Surȱ lesȱ deuxȱ mondesȱ réelsȱ duȱ poète,ȱ StClsȱ
40Ȭ41ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ 215Ȭ222.ȱ Asupraȱ opereiȱ dinȱ exil,ȱ veziȱ peȱ larg,ȱ Al.ȱ Podossinov,ȱ Ovidsȱ
DichtungȱalsȱQuelleȱfürȱGeschichteȱdesȱSchwarzmeergebiets,ȱKonstanz,ȱ1987,ȱpassim.ȱ
ȱ 41
ȱȱȱ
amestecaöiȱ cuȱ greciiȱ „ö©rmulȱ öineȱ maiȱ multȱ deȱ geöiiȱ nedomoliöi”ȱ (Mixtaȱ sitȱ haecȱ
quamvisȱinterȱGraecosqueȱGetasque/aȱmaleȱpacatisȱplusȱtrahitȱoraȱGetis;ȱTristia,ȱV,ȱ7,ȱ11Ȭ
12).ȱOvidiuȱexagereaz©ȱaiciȱrezultateleȱunuiȱprocesȱdeȱconvieöuireȱîndelungatȱóiȱdeȱ
manifestareȱ recent©ȱ totȱ maiȱ accentuat©ȱ aȱ factoruluiȱ getic.ȱ Înȱ maiȱ multeȱ locuriȱ
poetulȱ neȱ ofer©ȱ informaöiiȱ preöioaseȱ asupraȱ sistemuluiȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ alȱ Tomisului.ȱ
Esteȱ menöionatȱ unȱ zidȱ deȱ incint©ȱ aóezatȱ peȱ unȱ promontoriumȱ (tumullus)ȱ óiȱ careȱ
esteȱ prev©zutȱ cuȱ turnuriȱ óiȱ poröiȱ (Tristia,ȱ V,ȱ 10).ȱ Înȱ celeȱ maiȱ multeȱ pasaje,ȱ Ovidiuȱ
încearc©ȱ s©ȱ demonstrezeȱ nesiguranöaȱ sistemului,ȱ folosindȱ epiteteȱ careȱ subliniaz©ȱ
sl©biciuneaȱ ziduluiȱ óiȱ aȱ poröilor:ȱ brevisȱ murusȱ (zidȱ mic),ȱ moeniaȱ exiguaȱ (ziduriȱ
scunde),ȱ portaȱ vixȱ firmaȱ (poart©ȱ insuficientȱ deȱ solid©).ȱ kiȱ deȱ dataȱ aceastaȱ poetulȱ
exagereaz©:ȱ zidul,ȱ poateȱ micȱ înȱ comparaöieȱ cuȱ alteleȱ cunoscuteȱ poetului,ȱ rezist©ȱ
atacurilorȱ dinȱ afar©ȱ óiȱ poateȱ faceȱ faö©ȱ nevoilorȱ deȱ securitateȱ aleȱ cet©öii.ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ
poetulȱ însuóiȱ cândȱ vreaȱ s©ȱ atrag©ȱ atenöiaȱ asupraȱ altorȱ neajunsuriȱ suferiteȱ înȱ exilȱ
spuneȱc©ȱvântulȱfaceȱunaȱcuȱp©mântulȱ„turnurileȱînalte”ȱ(altasȱturres).ȱContradicöiaȱ
esteȱ evident©:ȱ zidulȱ esteȱ preaȱ micȱ dac©ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ pericolulȱ atacurilorȱ
n©v©litoare,ȱ darȱ turnurileȱ luiȱ suntȱ înalteȱ cândȱ suntȱ zugr©viteȱ rigorileȱ iernii.ȱ Nuȱ
esteȱmomentulȱs©ȱdiscut©mȱaiciȱdac©ȱzidulȱap©raȱoraóulȱnumaiȱpeȱoȱlatur©ȱsauȱeraȱ
unȱzidȱdeȱîmprejmuire192,ȱfaptulȱîns©ȱc©ȱpoetulȱfoloseóteȱpentruȱoraóȱóiȱtermeniiȱdeȱ
castellumȱ óiȱ castra,ȱ sugereaz©ȱ c©ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ unȱ zidȱ deȱ împrejmuire;ȱ informaöiaȱ
esteȱ sprijinit©ȱ deȱ unȱ documentȱ epigraficȱ laȱ careȱ dejaȱ neȬamȱ referitȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2),ȱ óiȱ
undeȱîntâlnimȱtermenulȱdeȱΔΉΕϟΆΓΏΓΖ.ȱ
Dup©ȱconstituireaȱprovincieiȱMoesia193,ȱdeóiȱatacurileȱgeöilorȱcontinu©,ȱseȱfacȱ
simöiteȱ simptomeleȱ uneiȱ stabilit©öiȱ înȱ zon©.ȱ ReferinduȬseȱ laȱ ataculȱ dinȱ anulȱ 15ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ asupraȱ cet©öiiȱ Troesmisȱ óiȱ laȱ victoriaȱ luiȱ Pomponiusȱ Flaccus194,ȱ poetulȱ
noteaz©:ȱ ripaȱ feroxȱ Histri(…)tutaȱ fuitȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ IV,ȱ 9,ȱ 76);ȱ înȱ acelaóiȱ anȱ locuitoriiȱ
Tomisuluiȱ organizeaz©ȱ jocuriȱ publice;ȱ cuȱ ocaziaȱ uneiȱ ceremoniiȱ consacrateȱ
memorieiȱluiȱAugustus,ȱOvidiuȱesteȱalesȱagonothetȱ(ExȱPonto,ȱIV,ȱ9,ȱ101Ȭ116)195;ȱînȱ
oraóeleȱ vestȬponticeȱ vecineȱ suntȱ cunoscuteȱ deopotriv©ȱ manifest©riȱ deȱ pietateȱ faö©ȱ
deȱ împ©ratulȱ roman196.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ not©mȱ c©ȱ oraóulȱ Tomisȱ îóiȱ reîncepeȱ emisiunileȱ
monetare197.ȱ
Odat©ȱ cuȱ transformareaȱ Thracieiȱ înȱ provincieȱ roman©,ȱ înȱ anulȱ 46ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ iaȱ
sfâróitȱ óiȱ „mandatul”ȱ regilorȱ odriziȱ înȱ Dobrogea198.ȱ Dac©ȱ aceast©ȱ zon©ȱ esteȱ
192
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ439Ȭ446.ȱ
193
ȱR.ȱSyme,ȱDanubianȱPapers,ȱBucharest,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ72;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDID,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ46.ȱ
194
ȱ Veziȱ laȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 54Ȭ56ȱ discuöiaȱ generat©ȱ deȱ calitateaȱ luiȱ Pomponiusȱ
Flaccusȱ deȱ comandantȱ militarȱ sauȱ praefectus.ȱ Remarc©mȱ totuóiȱ c©ȱ înȱ afaraȱ termenuluiȱ
praefuitȱ careȱ poateȱ fiȱ asimilatȱ cuȱ calitateaȱ deȱ dux,ȱ respectivȱ comandantȱ militar,ȱ Ovidiusȱ seȱ
refer©ȱ laȱ acelaóiȱ Flaccusȱ caȱ praeses:ȱ inȱ quoqueȱ quoȱ laevusȱ fueratȱ subȱ praesideȱ Pontusȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ
IV,ȱ9,ȱ119).VeziȱóiȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱînȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ45,ȱn.ȱ96.ȱ
195
ȱAdaug©,ȱExȱPonto,ȱII,ȱ8,ȱ1Ȭ10;ȱIV,ȱ9,ȱ105Ȭ112;ȱIII,ȱ1,ȱ161Ȭ164.ȱ
196
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ323.ȱPentruȱHistriaȱveziȱISMȱI,ȱ146,ȱiarȱpentruȱCallatis,ȱISMȱ
III,ȱ58.ȱ
197
ȱ K.ȱ Regling,ȱ Münzen,ȱ p.ȱ 673;ȱR.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ovidioȱ nellaȱcittàȱdell’esilio,ȱ înȱStudiiȱ Ovidiani,ȱ
Roma,ȱ 1959,ȱ p.ȱ 59;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Unaȱ cittàȱ diȱ provinciaȱ alȱ limiteȱ dell’imperoȱ romano:ȱ Tomiȱ alȱ tempoȱ diȱ
Ovidio,ȱStudiȱRomaniȱ6ȱ(1958),ȱ6,ȱp.ȱ629Ȭ648.ȱȱ
198
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ46Ȭ49.ȱ
42ȱ ȱ
ȱ
integrat©ȱ înȱ provinciaȱ Moesiaȱ laȱ aceast©ȱ dat©199ȱ sauȱ cevaȱ maiȱ târziu200,ȱ înȱ vremeaȱ
luiȱ Vespasian,ȱ esteȱ oȱ problem©ȱ peȱ careȱ nuȱ neȱ propunemȱ s©ȱ oȱ dezbatemȱ aici.ȱ Înȱ
interpretareaȱ tradiöional©,ȱ evenimentulȱ sȬarȱ fiȱ produsȱ înȱ 46ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ înȱ
faptȱ „oȱ transformareȱ paónic©ȱ óiȱ treptat©”201,ȱ prinȱ careȱ cet©öileȱ ponticeȱ r©mânȱ „cuȱ
autonomiaȱlorȱintern©ȱdeȱmaiȱînainte”202.ȱ
Conformȱuneiȱp©reriȱmaiȱnoi,ȱdeȬabiaȱînȱvremeaȱluiȱVespasianȱavemȱ„doveziȱ
indiscutabileȱ despreȱ oȱ reorganizareȱ aȱ Moesiei,ȱ înȱ careȱ Dobrogeaȱ pareȱ s©ȱ fieȱ
încadrat©ȱdefinitivȱm©carȱdinȱpunctȱdeȱvedereȱmilitar”203.ȱ
Unȱultimȱactȱceȱvizeaz©ȱadministraöiaȱroman©ȱînȱaceast©ȱperioad©ȱdeȱînceputȱ
aȱimperiuluiȱesteȱdivizareaȱMoesieiȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱDomitianȱ(86ȱp.ȱChr.);ȱDobrogeaȱ
óiȱoraóeleȱponticeȱsuntȱintegrateȱprovincieiȱMoesiaȱInferior.ȱ
ÎntreȱtoateȱoraóeleȱvestȬpontice,ȱTomisȱsȬaȱbucuratȱdeȱoȱatenöieȱspecial©.ȱPân©ȱ
înȱperioadaȱdomnieiȱluiȱVespasianȱaȱavutȱprobabilȱstatutȱdeȱcivitasȱlibera204.ȱAcestȱ
statutȱ pierdutȱ temporarȱvaȱfaceȱcaȱînȱcalitateȱdeȱcivitasȱ stipendiariaȱ Tomisuluiȱs©Ȭiȱ
sporeasc©ȱ obligaöiileȱ financiareȱ óiȱ militareȱ faö©ȱ deȱ Romaȱ (dovad©ȱ existenöaȱ aiciȱ aȱ
uneiȱgarnizoaneȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.)205.ȱȱ
Preeminenöaȱ Tomisuluiȱ seȱ poateȱ observaȱ înc©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Laȱ oȱ dat©ȱ
cuprins©ȱ întreȱ 47Ȭ53ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ prezentȱ aiciȱ guvernatorulȱ Moesiei,ȱ Tulliusȱ
Geminus206:ȱfieȱacestaȱaȱvenitȱlaȱTomisȱpentruȱrezolvareaȱproblemelorȱdeȱhotarȱaleȱ
histrienilor,ȱfieȱc©ȱîóiȱaveaȱchiarȱsediulȱaici207.ȱDeȱaltfel,ȱseȱconsider©ȱc©ȱTomisȱvaȱfiȱ
fostȱcapitalaȱprovinciei208.ȱCuȱsiguranö©ȱaȱfostȱsediulȱComunit©öiiȱponticeȱînȱsec.ȱIIȱ
p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ΎΓ΍ΑòΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ siveȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̴ΏΏφΑΝΑ),ȱ confederaöieȱ aȱ oraóelorȱ greceótiȱ
dinȱ Pontulȱ Stâng.ȱ Începuturileȱ acesteiaȱ auȱ fostȱ plasateȱ laȱ dateȱ diferite;ȱ f©r©ȱ aȱ fiȱ
omis©ȱ epocaȱ elenistic©,ȱ maiȱ evidentȱ aȱ fostȱ luat©ȱ înȱ considerareȱ ceaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ
anume,ȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Augustus209ȱ sauȱ Tiberius210ȱ óiȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ
extindereaȱ provincieiȱ Moesia211.ȱ Maiȱ cunoscut©ȱ esteȱ Comunitateaȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ(primaȱjum©tate),ȱdeȱcândȱdateaz©ȱtoateȱdocumenteleȱepigraficeȱcareȱprivescȱ
199
ȱVeziȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱPonticaȱ4ȱ(1971),ȱp.ȱ106Ȭ111ȱóiȱnoteleȱ4Ȭ15.ȱ
200
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 4ȱ (1971),ȱ p.ȱ 105Ȭ123;ȱ idem,ȱ Sugliȱ iniziȱ dellaȱ dominazioneȱ
romanaȱ inȱ Dobrugia.ȱ Puntiȱ diȱ vistaȱ eȱ controversie,ȱ QCȱ 2ȱ (1980),ȱ 4,ȱ p.ȱ 469Ȭ499ȱ =ȱ Opusculaȱ
Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 77Ȭ95;ȱ idem,ȱ M.ȱ Arruntiusȱ Claudianusȱ etȱ l’annexionȱ romaineȱ deȱ laȱ Dobroudja,ȱ înȱ
Ancientȱ Societyȱ 22ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 255Ȭ276ȱ =ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 97Ȭ114.ȱ Asupraȱ perioadei,ȱ veziȱ
óiȱ T.ȱ Sarnowski,ȱ Ti.ȱ Plautiusȱ Silvanus,ȱ Tauricȱ Chersonesosȱ andȱ Classisȱ Moesica,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 50ȱ
(2006),ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ92.ȱ
201
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ48.ȱ
202
ȱIbidem.ȱ
203
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ22ȱóiȱsupraȱn.ȱ200.ȱ
204
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 47:ȱ civitasȱ sineȱ foedereȱ libera;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ
19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ152:ȱcivitasȱfoederataȱsiveȱlibera.ȱ
205
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ30ȱóiȱ31;ȱveziȱóiȱinfraȱnotaȱ221.ȱ
206
ȱ Veziȱ importantulȱ document:ȱ ͟ΕΓΟΉΗϟ΅ȱ ̎΅ΆΉΕϟΓΙȱ ̏΅ΒϟΐΓΙȱ Ѐ[Δ΅Θ΍ΎΓІ]ȱ apudȱ D.M.ȱ
Pippidi,ȱ ISMȱ I,ȱ 67Ȭ68,ȱ r.ȱ 54ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 210;ȱ B.E.ȱ Thomasson,ȱ Laterculiȱ praesidum,ȱ Göteborg,ȱ 1984,ȱ
20:17Ȭ47Ȭ53ȱ(cca.ȱ50/53)ȱ(maiȱdeparteȱLP).ȱ
207
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ47,ȱn.ȱ185.ȱ
208
ȱB.ȱPick,ȱMünzen,ȱp.ȱ73;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱHAD,ȱp.ȱ129;ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ38Ȭ40.ȱ
209
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ401Ȭ431ȱ=ȱScythicaȱMinora,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ249.ȱ
210
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱÉtudesȱhistriennes,ȱBruxelles,ȱ1972,ȱp.ȱ147Ȭ166.ȱ
211
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ63Ȭ64,ȱ67Ȭ73ȱóiȱnr.ȱ99Ȭ100.ȱ
ȱ 43
ȱȱȱ
ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȬulȱvestȬponticȱcentratȱpeȱcultulȱimperialȱóiȱavândȱînȱfrunteȱunȱpontarh212.ȱ
Pentruȱperioadaȱcuprins©ȱîntreȱdomniaȱluiȱClaudiusȱóiȱceaȱaȱluiȱDomitianȱ(41Ȭ
96ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ documenteleȱ epigraficeȱ descoperiteȱ laȱ Tomisȱ arat©ȱ interesulȱ cet©öiiȱ
pentruȱcasaȱimperial©213;ȱunȱafluxȱdeȱoameniȱnoi,ȱveterani,ȱsuntȱveniöiȱaiciȱdinȱceleȱ
maiȱdiverseȱlocuri:ȱdinȱöinutulȱligurȱdeȱlaȱAquaeȱStatellaeȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ8),ȱdinȱPannoniaȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 170),ȱ dinȱ Pessinusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 169);ȱ numeleȱ suntȱ completȱ romanizate,ȱ uneleȱ
tr©dândȱoȱcet©öenieȱdeȱdat©ȱrecent©.ȱ
Interesulȱ pentruȱ consolidareaȱ autorit©öiiȱ romaneȱ vaȱ sporiȱ înȱ timpulȱ
împ©raöilorȱ dinȱ dinastiaȱ Antoninilor 214.ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ g©seóteȱ
Dobrogeaȱînȱplin©ȱacöiuneȱdeȱrefacereȱconstructiv©ȱóiȱdeȱorganizareȱadministrativ©ȱ
óiȱ militar©ȱ iniöiat©ȱ deȱ împ©ratulȱ Traianȱ dup©ȱ rezolvareaȱ problemeiȱ dacice.ȱ Maiȱ
multeȱ inscripöiiȱ suntȱ dedicateȱ acestuiȱ împ©ratȱ înȱ numeleȱ „poporuluiȱ tomitan”,ȱ
desemnatȱ expresȱ înȱ formuleȱ deȱ tipulȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 38)ȱ sauȱ ΆΓΙΏχȱ
ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 42)215.ȱ Înȱ dou©ȱ rânduri,ȱ peȱ arhitraveȱ fragmentare,ȱ
inscripöiileȱ suntȱ puseȱ deȱ respublicaȱ Tomitanorumȱ înȱ timpulȱ guvernatorilorȱ
provincieiȱ Q.ȱ Fabiusȱ Postuminusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 41;ȱ 103ȱ siveȱ 103Ȭ105ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ Quintusȱ
Rosciusȱ Coeliusȱ Murena…ȱ Pompeiusȱ Falcoȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 43;ȱ 116Ȭ117ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)216.ȱ
Prezenöaȱ guvernatorilorȱ citaöiȱ óiȱ interesulȱ pentruȱ activitateaȱ constructiv©217ȱ indic©ȱ
Tomisulȱ peȱ caleȱ deȱ aȱ deveniȱ celȱ maiȱ importantȱ oraóȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior218.ȱ Deȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ provineȱ bazaȱ uneiȱ statuiȱ ridicateȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ seȱ pare,ȱ spreȱ începutulȱ
perioadeiȱ deȱ domnie219.ȱ Peȱ monedeleȱ tomitaneȱ apareȱ imagineaȱ monumentuluiȱ
triumfalȱdeȱlaȱAdamclisi220,ȱoȱdovad©ȱînȱplusȱaȱglorific©riiȱacöiunilorȱluiȱTraianȱînȱ
aceast©ȱregiune.ȱ
ÎncepândȱcuȱdomniaȱluiȱHadrianȱ(117Ȭ138ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱTomisulȱrevineȱlaȱstatutulȱ
212
ȱSupraȱn.ȱ209Ȭ211.ȱVeziȱóiȱmenöiuneaȱuneiȱbibliografiiȱcompleteȱlaȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ
op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 152Ȭ157;ȱ G.ȱ Mihailov,ȱ Theȱ Westernȱ Ponticȱ Koinon,ȱ Epigraphicaȱ 41ȱ (1979),ȱ p.ȱ 7Ȭ42;ȱ
M.ȱ Musielak,ȱ Pontarchowieȱ înȱ Studiaȱ Moesiacaȱ I,ȱ Poznan,ȱ 1994,ȱ p.ȱ 101Ȭ115;ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ
KOINONȱ TO̗ȱ ̓ONTO̗,ȱ Balcaniaȱ Posnaniensiaȱ 5ȱ (1990),ȱ p.ȱ 151Ȭ161;ȱ idem,ȱ Theȱ „Firstȱ
Pontarch”ȱ andȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ etablishmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Westernȱ Ponticȱ KOINON,ȱ Klioȱ 75ȱ (1993),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ342Ȭ350;ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱDeȱnouveauȱsurȱleȱKoinonȱduȱPontȱGaucheȱàȱpartirȱd’uneȱinscriptionȱ
inéditeȱdeȱTomis,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ145.ȱȱ
213
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 37,ȱ inscripöieȱ pentruȱ „divinaȱ Agrippina”ȱ (ΟΉΣȱ ̝·Ε΍ΔΔΉϟΑ΅),ȱ soöiaȱ luiȱ
ClaudiusȱóiȱmamaȱluiȱNero;ȱinscripöiaȱesteȱdatat©ȱînȱintervalulȱ49Ȭ59ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
214
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDID,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ117Ȭ179;ȱAlȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱpassim.ȱ
215
ȱ Veziȱ totuóiȱ laȱ S.ȱ Olteanu,ȱ Noteȱ epigrafice,ȱ Ponticaȱ 21Ȭ22ȱ (1988Ȭ1989),ȱ p.ȱ 313Ȭ315ȱ
propunereaȱcaȱceleȱdou©ȱfragmenteȱISMȱII,ȱ42ȱóiȱ38ȱs©ȱconstituieȱoȱsingur©ȱdedicaöie.ȱ
216
ȱ Numeleȱ maiȱ apareȱ peȱ alteȱ treiȱ inscripöiiȱ tomitane:ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 44,ȱ 45,ȱ 46;ȱ deȱ asemenea,ȱ
peȱ inscripöiiȱ deȱ laȱ Tropaeumȱ Traiani,ȱ Durostorum,ȱ Tyrasȱ óiȱ dinȱ alt©ȱ parte;ȱ veziȱ B.E.ȱ
Thomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:73ȱ(numeleȱcompletȱalȱguvernatoruluiȱamintit).ȱ
217
ȱ Num©rulȱ arhitravelorȱ peȱ careȱ apareȱ numeleȱ împ©ratuluiȱ sauȱ alȱ guvernatorilorȱ s©iȱ
esteȱmaiȱmare;ȱînȱafaraȱinscripöiilorȱpeȱarhitrav©ȱcitate,ȱmaiȱnot©mȱISMȱII,ȱ40,ȱ44,ȱ45.ȱ
218
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 39Ȭ40,ȱ consider©ȱ oraóulȱ caȱ fiindȱ dejaȱ capital©ȱ oficial©ȱ aȱ
provinciei;ȱcontra,ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ127Ȭ128.ȱ
219
ȱ Cca.ȱ 98Ȭ103ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Veziȱ propunereaȱ deȱ întregireȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 42,ȱ 38)ȱ laȱ S.ȱ Olteanu,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
op.ȱcit.ȱ
220
ȱ PickȬRegling,ȱ Münzen,ȱ II,ȱ 1,ȱ p.ȱ 635ȱ óiȱ 680Ȭ681;ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ Trofeulȱ luiȱ Traianȱ deȱ laȱ
AdamclisiȱpeȱmonedeȱaleȱoraóuluiȱTomis,ȱSCIVȱ30ȱ(1979),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ367Ȭ376.ȱ
44ȱ ȱ
ȱ
deȱ civitasȱ libera221,ȱ situaöieȱ careȱ îiȱ sporeóteȱ posibilit©öileȱ deȱ dezvoltare.ȱ Dedicaöiileȱ
oficialeȱ suntȱ puseȱ deȱ respublicaȱ Tomitanorumȱ (ΆΓΙΏχȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑ)222ȱ sauȱ deȱ
senatusȱpopulusqueȱTomitanorum223.ȱReöinemȱalteȱdou©ȱinscripöiiȱonorificeȱdinȱTomisȱ
închinateȱ luiȱ Hadrian.ȱ Dinȱ primaȱ seȱ cunoscȱ dou©ȱ fragmente,ȱ unulȱ g©sitȱ înȱ
p©mântulȱdeȱumplutur©ȱdeȱlaȱEdificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaic224,ȱiarȱalȱdoileaȱdescoperitȱ
întrȬoȱs©p©tur©ȱexecutat©ȱlâng©ȱmonumentulȱamintit225.ȱCealalt©ȱdedicaöieȱsȬaȱaflatȱ
întrȬoȱ zon©ȱ foarteȱ apropiat©,ȱ laȱ SEȱ deȱ edificiu226.ȱ Celeȱ dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ onorifice,ȱ
descoperiteȱîntrȬunȱspaöiuȱrestrâns,ȱseȱaflauȱpoateȱnuȱdeparteȱdeȱloculȱlorȱiniöial.ȱ
OȱinscripöieȱdinȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ52)ȱesteȱextremȱdeȱimportant©ȱpentruȱapariöiaȱ
óiȱ structuraȱ Comunit©öiiȱ ponticeȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ fiindȱ pân©ȱ acumȱ primaȱ
menöiuneȱ aȱ acesteiaȱ înȱ veaculȱ amintit;ȱ esteȱ oȱ dedicaöieȱ peȱ oȱ baz©ȱ deȱ statuieȱ pus©ȱ
pentruȱ „̖ϲΑȱ Δ]ΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Αȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΦΕ/[Λ΍ΉΕν]΅ȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̴Β΅Δϱ<Ώ>ΉΝΖ/[Θϲ]Αȱ ΙϡϲΑȱ ΘΓІȱ
̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ Ύ΅Ϡ/ΔΕЗΘΓΑȱ Φ·ΝΑΓΟνΘ΋Α/ȱ ΌΉΓІȱ ̝ΑΘ΍ΑϱΓΙ,ȱ ̖.ȱ ̘ΏΣ/ΓΙ΍ΓΑȱ
̓ΓΗΉ΍ΈЏΑ΍ΓΑ/ΙϡϲΑȱ ̘΅ϟΈΕΓΙȱ ΘΓІȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕ/ΛΓΙȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΙϡΓІȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΔϱΏΉ/ΝΖ…”ȱ ȱ deȱ c©treȱ
tribulȱ Argadeis.ȱ Phaidrosȱ aȱ deöinutȱ funcöiaȱ deȱ pontarhȱ înainteȱ deȱ dataȱ inscripöieiȱ
(130Ȭ138ȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ deȱ aiciȱ ideeaȱ organiz©riiȱ Comunit©öiiȱ înȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Hadrian227ȱ
sauȱ poateȱ chiarȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ înȱ perioadaȱ cândȱ acestaȱ organizeaz©ȱ
provinciileȱdun©reneȱ(107Ȭ117ȱp.ȱChr.)228.ȱȱ
Oȱatenöieȱspecial©ȱseȱacord©ȱîntreöineriiȱdrumurilor;ȱesteȱcunoscut©ȱinspecöiaȱ
ö©rmuluiȱ ponticȱ întreprins©ȱ dinȱ ordinulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ deȱ c©treȱ Arrianȱ óiȱ vizitaȱ peȱ
careȱîmp©ratulȱînȱpersoan©ȱoȱîntreprindeȱînȱMoesiaȱInferiorȱînȱ123Ȭ124ȱp.ȱChr.ȱDoiȱ
stâlpiȱ miliari,ȱ unulȱ dinȱ 124ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ óiȱ înȱ leg©tur©,ȱprobabil,ȱ cuȱ vizitaȱ laȱ careȱ neȬ
amȱ referit 229ȱ Ȭȱ óiȱ altulȱ dinȱ 134ȱ p.ȱ Chr.230ȱ reflect©ȱ interesulȱ constantȱ pentruȱ bunaȱ
221
ȱ Esteȱ interpretareaȱ dat©ȱ deȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ statutulȱ juridicȱ alȱ oraóuluiȱ
Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 115Ȭ124ȱ óiȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 47ȱ peȱ bazaȱ epitetuluiȱ
̳ΏΉΙΟνΕ΍ΓΖȱ cuȱ careȱ esteȱ cinstitȱ împ©ratulȱ înȱ inscripöiaȱ dinȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 47,ȱ datat©ȱ deȱ I.ȱ Stoianȱ
întreȱ 129Ȭ138ȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Neueȱ Inschriftenȱ ausȱ Tomis,ȱ (supraȱ n.ȱ 148),ȱ nr.ȱ 2ȱ
(inscripöieȱdinȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱg©sit©ȱlaȱTopraisar,ȱdarȱcareȱtrebuieȱatribuit©ȱ
cet©öiiȱ Tomis),ȱ înȱ careȱ seȱ aminteóteȱ construcöiaȱ realizat©ȱ deȱ triakostologoiȱ (hapax),ȱ înȱ faöaȱ
altaruluiȱ unuiȱ heroon,ȱ cuȱ ocaziaȱ „restabiliriiȱ libert©öii”ȱ („…ΦΔΓΎ΅Ο]ΉΗΘ΅ΐνΑ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ
πΏΉΙΟΉΕϟ΅Ζȱ ψ[ΐЗΑ]”);ȱ autorulȱ presupuneȱ c©ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ anumiteȱ privilegiiȱ acordateȱ
oraóuluiȱTomisȱdeȱc©treȱHadrian.ȱ
222
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 48,ȱ inscripöieȱ bilingv©,ȱ peȱ careȱ apareȱ numeleȱ guvernatoruluiȱ C.ȱ Ummidiusȱ
Quadratusȱ Severusȱ Sertoriusȱ (120ȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Inscripöiaȱ aȱ fostȱ întregit©ȱ ulteriorȱ peȱ bazaȱ unuiȱ
nouȱ fragmentȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomis;ȱ veziȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ M.ȱ Munteanu,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ dinȱ
Tomisȱ óiȱ Callatis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 84Ȭ87,ȱ nr.ȱ 5;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ lectur©,ȱ StClsȱ 20ȱ
(1981),ȱp.ȱ77Ȭ79;ȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:ȱ74;ȱC.ȱUmmidiusȱQuadratusȱS[allustiusȱSe]rtorius:ȱ
G.ȱMolisani,ȱTituliȱ4ȱ(1982),ȱp.ȱ395ȱs.q.ȱ=ȱAE,ȱ1985,ȱ759.ȱȱȱ
223
ȱISMȱII,ȱ50,ȱinscripöieȱdatat©ȱînȱ129ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
224
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱNoteȱepigrafice,ȱI,ȱPonticeȱ1ȱ(1968),ȱp.ȱ329Ȭ330ȱóiȱfig.ȱ4.ȱ
225
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱAdnot©riȱepigraficeȱ(2),ȱSCIVAȱ27ȱ(1976),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ523Ȭ525,ȱfig.ȱ1.ȱ
226
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Descopeririȱ epigraficeȱ recente,ȱ Ponticaȱ 14ȱ
(1981),ȱp.ȱ159Ȭ162.ȱ
227
ȱ P.ȱ Veyne,ȱ Augustalȱ deȱ l’anȱ 1ȱ –ȱ premierȱ pontarque,ȱ BCHȱ 90ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 144Ȭ145;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱMusielak,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ191Ȭ195.ȱ
228
ȱCf.ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱKlioȱ75ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ342Ȭ350.ȱ
229
ȱISMȱII,ȱ49;ȱveziȱóiȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
ȱ 45
ȱȱȱ
funcöionareȱaȱc©ilorȱdeȱcirculaöie.ȱ
Dinȱ timpulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ (138Ȭ161ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ dateaz©ȱ primulȱ
documentȱ epigraficȱ înȱ careȱ Tomisulȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ caȱ metropol©ȱ aȱ Pontuluiȱ Stângȱ
(ΐ΋ΘΕϱΔΓΏ΍ΖȱΘΓІȱ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙ)231,ȱtitulatur©ȱcareȱvaȱapare,ȱtotȱdeȱatunciȱpeȱ
monede232.ȱDovadaȱinteresuluiȱacordatȱdeȱîmp©ratȱoraóului233ȱsuntȱdedicaöiileȱpuseȱ
peȱ arhitraveleȱ unorȱ edificiiȱ publiceȱ înȱ timpulȱ guvernatorilorȱ L.ȱ Miniciusȱ Natalisȱ
Quadroniusȱ Verus234,ȱ Q.ȱ Fuficiusȱ Cornutus235ȱ óiȱ Titusȱ Flaviusȱ Turbo236;ȱ maiȱ mulöiȱ
stâlpiȱ miliariȱ aflaöiȱ peȱ liniaȱ litoraluluiȱ óiȱ aȱ Dun©riiȱ arat©ȱ grijaȱ imperiuluiȱ pentruȱ
bunaȱfuncöionareȱaȱdrumurilor237.ȱ
Împ©ratulȱ seȱ bucur©ȱ deȱ recunoaótere:ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ sȬaȱ g©sitȱ capulȱ uneiȱ statuiȱ
colosaleȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Antoninusȱ Pius238;ȱ GeniusȬulȱ personalȱ esteȱ transferatȱ
unuiȱ Geniusȱ loci239,ȱ expresieȱ ceȱ traduceȱ tutelaȱ divin©ȱ deȱ careȱ oraóulȱ sȬaȱ bucuratȱ înȱ
timpulȱunuiȱîmp©ratȱconsideratȱelȱînsuóiȱ„preaȱdivin”240.ȱPeȱunȱmonumentȱvotivȱdeȱ
marmur©ȱ dinȱ 160ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ numeleȱ luiȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ óiȱ alȱ caesaruluiȱ Marcusȱ
Aureliusȱsuntȱinvocateȱal©turiȱdeȱdivinit©öiȱegipteneȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ153).ȱInscripöia,ȱpus©ȱ
deȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑȱ ȱ atrageȱ ȱ atenöiaȱ prinȱ referireaȱ laȱ elementulȱ etnicȱ
prezentȱ laȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ constituireaȱ luiȱ întrȬoȱ asociaöieȱ religioas©ȱ (deȱ
celebrareȱaȱluiȱSarapisȱóiȱaȱcelorlalöiȱzeiȱegipteni)ȱóiȱtotodat©ȱprofesional©ȱ(format©ȱ
dinȱnegustoriȱóiȱarmatori).ȱ
Cumȱlaȱ Tomis,ȱînȱperioadaȱcândȱMarcusȱAureliusȱeraȱînc©ȱcaesarȱ(139Ȭ161ȱp.ȱ
Chr.),ȱexist©ȱóiȱoȱasociaöieȱaȱarmatorilor,ȱΓϨΎΓΖȱΘЗΑȱπΑȱ̖ϱΐΉ΍ȱΑ΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
60),ȱnuȱesteȱgreuȱs©ȱdeducemȱc©ȱoraóulȱdesf©óuraȱoȱintens©ȱactivitateȱcomercial©241.ȱ
230
ȱISMȱII,ȱ53;ȱesteȱnotat©ȱoȱaóezareȱ–ȱTresȱProtomaeȱ–ȱpentruȱaȱc©reiȱlocalizareȱvezi,ȱmaiȱ
recent,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Drumurileȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ peȱ bazaȱ stâlpilorȱ miliariȱ dinȱ
sec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ121,ȱnoteleȱ11Ȭ16.ȱ
231
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 54;ȱ datareaȱ inscripöieiȱ esteȱ stabilit©ȱ întreȱ 140/141ȱ –ȱ 144ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Seȱ poateȱ caȱ
monumentulȱs©ȱfieȱpusȱprinȱgrijaȱguvernatoruluiȱL.ȱMiniciusȱNatalis,ȱveziȱobservaöiileȱdeȱlaȱ
notaȱ234.ȱ
232
ȱPickȬRegling,ȱMünzen,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ72;ȱII,ȱp.ȱ683Ȭ688.ȱ
233
ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ domniaȱ luiȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ esteȱ recunoscut©ȱ dreptȱ „epocaȱ celeiȱ maiȱ
exuberanteȱ activit©öiȱ constructiveȱ peȱ careȱ aȱ cunoscutȬoȱ antichitatea”,ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ149Ȭ150.ȱ
234
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱDedicaöiiȱimperialeȱdinȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ
170,ȱ nr.ȱ 1;ȱ autoriiȱ atragȱ atenöiaȱ c©ȱ fragmentulȱ trebuieȱ analizatȱ înȱ raportȱ cuȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 54.ȱ
Asupraȱ guvernatoruluiȱ veziȱ B.E.ȱ Thomasson,ȱ LP,ȱ 20:82;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Legaöiiȱ Moesieiȱ
Inferioareȱîntreȱaniiȱ137ȱóiȱ160,ȱI,ȱSCIVAȱ40ȱ(1989),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ161ȱóiȱ163.ȱȱ
235
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 55;ȱ guvernatorȱ prezentȱ cuȱ aproximaöieȱ întreȱ 147Ȭ155ȱ (LPȱ 20:85)ȱ sau?ȱ 152Ȭ
153/54ȱ (laȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Legaöiiȱ Moesieiȱ Inferioareȱ întreȱ aniiȱ 137Ȭ160.ȱ Parteaȱ II:ȱ Legaöiiȱ
întreȱ150Ȭȱóiȱ160,ȱSCIVAȱ40ȱ(1989),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ325Ȭ338.ȱȱ
236
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 56,ȱ guvernatorulȱ T.ȱ Flaviusȱ Longinusȱ Q.ȱ Marciusȱ Turboȱ aȱ fostȱ prezentȱ înȱ
MoesiaȱInferiorȱînȱanulȱ155ȱ(LP,ȱ20:86)ȱsau?ȱ153/4ȱ–ȱ156ȱ(cf.ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱop.ȱcit.);ȱveziȱ
óiȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱSCIVAȱ54Ȭ56ȱ(2003Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ303Ȭ304ȱóiȱfig.ȱ1Ȭ2.ȱ
237
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ122,ȱnoteleȱ21Ȭ23.ȱ
238
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Laȱ statueȱ imperialiȱ nellaȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ eȱ propagandaȱ officialliȱ
nell’impero,ȱStClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ218Ȭ219ȱóiȱfig.ȱ5.ȱ
239
ȱISMȱII,ȱ124;ȱpentruȱgeniusȱpersonal,ȱveziȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ278Ȭ279.ȱ
240
ȱPentruȱepitet,ȱveziȱISMȱII,ȱ61.ȱ
241
ȱVeziȱóiȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ120Ȭ128;ȱOȱBounegru,ȱEconomieȱóiȱsocietateȱînȱspaöiulȱ
pontoȬegeeanȱ(sec.ȱIIȱa.ȱC.ȱ–ȱIIIȱp.ȱC.),ȱIaói,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ105Ȭ119.ȱ
46ȱ ȱ
ȱ
PerioadaȱdeȱdezvoltareȱaȱTomisuluiȱdinȱvremeaȱluiȱAntoninusȱPiusȱcontinu©ȱóiȱînȱ
primiiȱ aniȱ aiȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Marcusȱ Aurelius;ȱ suntȱ posibileȱ preocup©riȱ edilitare242;ȱ
maiȱmulteȱdedicaöiiȱsuntȱpuseȱpentruȱMarcusȱAureliusȱsingurȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ63)243ȱsauȱînȱ
coregenö©ȱcuȱLuciusȱVerusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ67);ȱpeȱoȱbaz©ȱdeȱstatuieȱfigureaz©ȱnumeleȱluiȱ
Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ înȱ calitateȱ deȱ caesarȱ laȱ dataȱ ridic©riiȱ monumentului;ȱ oȱ statuieȱ
loricat©ȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ seȱ refer©,ȱ probabil,ȱ totȱ laȱ Marcusȱ Aurelius244;ȱ înȱ
sfâróit,ȱ peȱ bazaȱ unorȱ stâlpiȱ miliariȱ seȱ constat©ȱ refacereaȱ unorȱ drumuriȱ peȱ arteraȱ
litoral©ȱînȱaniiȱ162Ȭ163ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ68)245.ȱ
Procesulȱesteȱîntreruptȱpentruȱoȱscurt©ȱvreme,ȱpeȱlaȱ170ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱcaȱurmareȱaȱ
invazieiȱcostoboce246,ȱcareȱaȱafectatȱmaiȱalesȱzonaȱcentral©ȱóiȱdeȱvestȱaȱDobrogeiȱóiȱ
aȱ fostȱ resimöit©ȱ óiȱ înȱ oraóeleȱ pontice247.ȱ Pentruȱ Tomisȱ nuȱ avemȱ dovediteȱ clarȱ
distrugeriȱ sauȱ lucr©riȱ deȱ refacere.ȱ Unȱ importantȱ edificiuȱ publicȱ dinȱ timpulȱ
guvernatoruluiȱ M.ȱ Serviliusȱ Fabianusȱ r©mâneȱ neterminatȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 65);ȱ dataȱ 162ȱ
(162/164?)248,ȱ esteȱ preaȱ timpurieȱ pentruȱ aȱ legaȱ abandonareaȱ lucr©riiȱ deȱ invaziaȱ
costobocilorȱ dinȱ 170ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Maiȱ probabilȱ unȱ evenimentȱ externȱ –ȱ cumȱ aȱ fostȱ
r©zboiulȱ dinȱ Orientȱ óiȱ costurileȱ peȱ careȱ leȱ presupuneaȬ,ȱ aȱ pututȱ determinaȱ
întrerupereaȱ lucr©riiȱ laȱ Tomis249.ȱ Listaȱ contribuabililorȱ pentruȱ refacereaȱ uneiȱ
poröiuniȱreduseȱaȱziduluiȱdeȱincint©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ21),ȱpus©ȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱreparaöiaȱdinȱ
timpulȱluiȱMarcusȱAurelius250ȱpare,ȱdup©ȱcaracterulȱliterelor,ȱmaiȱdegrab©ȱdinȱsec.ȱ
IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ laȱ fel,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 22ȱ analizat©ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 21ȱ caȱ referinduȬseȱ
tocmaiȱ laȱ oȱ operaöieȱ deȱ refacereȱ aȱ zidului,ȱ dateaz©ȱ maiȱ sigurȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ
dup©ȱConstituöiaȱAntoninian©251.ȱUnȱaltarȱpentruȱApolloȱAgyeusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ116)ȱesteȱ
datatȱ prinȱ numeleȱ guvernatoruluiȱ M.ȱ Catoniusȱ Vindexȱ fieȱ înȱ jurulȱ anuluiȱ 170ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.,ȱ fieȱ cevaȱ maiȱ târziu252,ȱ darȱ oricumȱ dup©ȱ „furtuna”ȱ costoboc©ȱ óiȱ cândȱ viaöaȱ
roman©ȱ intr©ȱ înȱ firesculȱ s©u.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ deȱ peȱ unȱ monumentȱ publicȱ
242
ȱISMȱII,ȱ65.ȱ
243
ȱ Veziȱ totuói,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ împrejurimi,ȱ
Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 166,ȱ n.ȱ 63ȱ consider©ȱ caȱ nesigur©ȱ recunoaótereaȱ luiȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ înȱ
ISMȱII,ȱ63.ȱ
244
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ217Ȭ218ȱóiȱfig.ȱ4.ȱ
245
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ A.ȱ ktefan,ȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ arteraȱ rutier©ȱ litoral©ȱ înȱ secolulȱ alȱ IIȬleaȱ e.n.,ȱ StClsȱ 22ȱ
(1984),ȱp.ȱ95Ȭ107;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱ195,ȱ199.ȱ
246
ȱVeziȱóiȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱEpigraphischeȱBeiträgeȱzurȱGeschichteȱderȱStadtȱTropaeumȱTraiani,ȱ
StClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ192Ȭ200.ȱ
247
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱObservationsȱsurȱlaȱstratigraphieȱdesȱcitésȱdeȱlaȱDobroudjaȱauxȱII Ȭe ȱ–ȱIV Ȭe ȱ
sièclesȱ ap.J.ȬC.,ȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ desȱ fouillesȱ d’Histria,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 340;ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 26Ȭ27;ȱ
f©r©ȱ aȱ excludeȱ c©ȱ ataculȱ costobocȱ s©ȱ fiȱfostȱ concomitentȱcuȱalȱaltorȱ populaöiiȱveniteȱdinspreȱ
mare,ȱautorulȱcitatȱremarc©ȱtotuóiȱc©ȱlaȱTomisȱurmeleȱinvazieiȱsuntȱmaiȱpuöinȱclare.ȱ
248
ȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:93.ȱ
249
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ162Ȭ163ȱóiȱn.ȱ203.ȱ
250
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 155;ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Zidul,ȱ p.ȱ 17;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 21ȱ areȱ înȱ
vedereȱ reparareaȱuneiȱ p©röiȱaȱ ziduluiȱ (ΐνΕ΍ΖȱΘΓІȱΘΉϟΛΓΙΖ);ȱ poröiunileȱ ref©cuteȱvariaz©ȱ întreȱ
1Ȭ3ȱ coöiȱ (ΔφΛΉ΍Ζ);ȱ numaiȱ unaȱ dinȱ poröiuniȱ ajungeȱ laȱ 13ȱ coöi;ȱ contribuöiaȱ esteȱ înȱ moned©ȱ deȱ
aurȱ(ΛΕΙΗΓІΖ).ȱ
251
ȱUnȱargumentȱîlȱconstituieȱnum©rulȱmareȱdeȱAureliiȱmenöionaöiȱînȱtext;ȱISMȱII,ȱ22ȱnuȱ
specific©ȱlucrarea,ȱdarȱseȱrefer©ȱlaȱaceeaóiȱunitateȱdeȱm©sur©ȱ(ΔφΛΉ΍Ζ).ȱ
252
ȱ B.E.ȱ Thomasson,ȱ LP,ȱ 20:96ȱ (169Ȭ176ȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ Leivaȱ Petersen,ȱ PIR 2 ,ȱ V,ȱ 2,ȱ M,ȱ nr.ȱ 22ȱ
(175Ȭ176ȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Dieȱ Statthalterȱ Niedermösiensȱ zwischenȱ 161ȱ undȱ 175,ȱ
DaciaȱNSȱ36ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ32Ȭ33,ȱ35ȱ(170Ȭ172/173ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
ȱ 47
ȱȱȱ
recentȱpublicat©253ȱpoateȱdovediȱlucr©riȱîntreprinseȱlaȱTomisȱtotȱdup©ȱ170ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
PerioadaȱdintreȱdomniaȱluiȱMarcusȱAureliusȱóiȱceaȱaȱluiȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȱseȱ
caracterizeaz©ȱ prinȱ acöiuniȱ constructiveȱ aleȱ c©rorȱ efecteȱ sȬauȱ resimöitȱ óiȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ
DeȱacumȱsȬaȱpresupusȱc©ȱdateaz©ȱprimaȱfaz©ȱdeȱconstrucöieȱaȱcl©diriiȱcuȱmozaicȱóiȱ
aȱb©ilorȱpubliceȱ(thermae)ȱaleȱoraóului254.ȱ
Dinastiaȱ Severilorȱ reprezint©ȱ pentruȱ oraóeleȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Pontulȱ Stângȱ oȱ
perioad©ȱdeȱrelativ©ȱlinióteȱóiȱdeȱprelungireȱaȱunorȱformeȱdeȱviaö©ȱanterioare255.ȱ
LaȱTomisȱafl©mȱmaiȱmulteȱdedicaöiiȱpentruȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȱóiȱfamiliaȱsa,ȱlaȱ
careȱ suntȱ asociaöiȱ senatul,ȱ armata,ȱ guvernatorulȱ provincieiȱ óiȱ cetateaȱ Tomis256.ȱ Înȱ
dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ bilingveȱ dedicateȱ luiȱ Septimiusȱ Severus257ȱ afl©mȱ deȱ unȱ mareȱ
edificiuȱ ridicatȱ deȱ metropolisȱ Tomitanorum,ȱ prinȱ grijaȱ guvernatoruluiȱ C.ȱ Oviniusȱ
Tertullus.ȱ Numeleȱ aceluiaóiȱ guvernatorȱ esteȱ al©turatȱ familieiȱ imperialeȱ óiȱ înȱ
dedicaöiaȱ uneiȱ asociaöiiȱ religioaseȱ (Οϟ΅ΗΓΖ)ȱ aȱ Cybeleiȱ „pentruȱ darulȱ f©cutȱ
asociaöiei”258.ȱDeȱasemenea,ȱdoiȱstâlpiȱmiliariȱdescoperiöiȱlaȱTomisȱauȱinscripöionatȱ
numeleȱguvernatorului259.ȱDinȱteritoriulȱtomitan,ȱdinȱvicusȱClementianensis,ȱprovinȱ
dou©ȱ altareȱ puseȱ „pentruȱ s©n©tatea”ȱ luiȱ Septimiusȱ Severus,ȱ laȱ oȱ dat©ȱ deȱ plasatȱ
spreȱînceputulȱactivit©öiiȱsaleȱ(195ȱóiȱ196ȱp.ȱChr.)260.ȱȱ
Numeleȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Caracallaȱ apareȱ peȱ dou©ȱ documenteȱ epigrafice:ȱ primulȱ
esteȱunȱsalutȱadusȱdeȱsfatulȱóiȱpoporulȱmetropoleiȱTomisȱluiȱCaracallaȱóiȱluiȱGetaȱ
cuȱ ocaziaȱ veniriiȱ lorȱ laȱ tronȱ (inscripöieȱ datat©ȱ 211Ȭ212ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)261;ȱ alȱ doileaȱ
documentȱîiȱaparöineȱfoarteȱprobabilȱtotȱluiȱCaracallaȱóiȱesteȱdatatȱîntreȱ212Ȭ217ȱp.ȱ
Chr.262.ȱ Peȱ unȱ altarȱ datatȱ înȱ 216ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ împ©ratulȱ esteȱ amintitȱ f©r©ȱ numeleȱ
personalȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 130),ȱ situaöieȱ ceȱ contrasteaz©ȱ cuȱ prezenöaȱ înȱ inscripöiileȱ localeȱ aȱ
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ27ȱ(1994),ȱp.ȱ161Ȭ166,ȱnr.ȱ4.ȱ
253
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
254
255
256
ȱVeziȱISMȱII,ȱ82.ȱ
257
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 84,ȱ datat©ȱ 201ȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 170Ȭ174,ȱ fig.ȱ 2ȱ (aiciȱ seȱ faceȱ óiȱ corecturaȱ laȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 84:ȱ metropolisȱ Tomitanorumȱ înȱ locȱ deȱ
respublicaȱ Tomitanorum).ȱ Pentruȱ monumentalitateaȱ oraóuluiȱ înȱ epocaȱ Severilor,ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ27;ȱidem,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
258
ȱISMȱII,ȱ83;ȱpentruȱΟϟ΅ΗΓΖ,ȱveziȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ231,ȱ245,ȱ246ȱóiȱ259,ȱn.ȱ104.ȱOȱ
dedicaöieȱaȱunuiȱthiasosȱ pentruȱ „întreagaȱ august©ȱcas©”ȱ (ΗΙΐΔΣΗ΋ΖȱΓϢΎϟ΅]Ζȱ ̄Ё·ΓϾΗΘ΋Ζ)ȱ esteȱ
óiȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 85,ȱ datat©ȱ undevaȱ întreȱ 198/199ȱ –ȱ 209/210ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Pentruȱ C.ȱ Oviniusȱ Tertullusȱ
(198Ȭ201ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ veziȱ óiȱ D.ȱ Boteva,ȱ Lowerȱ Moesiaȱ andȱ Thraciaȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Imperialȱ Systemȱ
(A.D.ȱ193Ȭ217/218),ȱSofia,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ46Ȭ88;ȱ331Ȭ332ȱ(înȱbulgar©).ȱ
259
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Stâlpiȱ miliariȱ inediöiȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ
Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 145Ȭ146,ȱ nr.ȱ 2;ȱ iidem,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ privindȱ seriaȱ guvernatorilorȱ Moesieiȱ
Inferioareȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 123Ȭ126ȱ (întrucâtȱ peȱ born©ȱ nuȱ figureaz©ȱ
distanöa,ȱseȱpresupuneȱc©ȱaȱfostȱpus©ȱînȱpreajmaȱziduluiȱdeȱincint©ȱalȱTomisului,ȱînȱpunctulȱ
careȱmarcaȱdrumulȱreparatȱpeȱlitoral).ȱ
260
ȱISMȱII,ȱ134ȱóiȱ136;ȱpentruȱultimaȱinscripöieȱveziȱóiȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱISM,ȱV,ȱ93.ȱ
261
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 91;ȱ înȱ inscripöieȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ óiȱ numeleȱ augusteiȱ Iuliaȱ Domna,ȱ „mam©ȱ aȱ
taberelor”.ȱ
262
ȱ ISMȱII,ȱ 86.ȱVeziȱ totuóiȱ óiȱobservaöiaȱluiȱ R.ȱVulpeȱdinȱ HAD,ȱ p.ȱ255Ȭ256ȱprivindȱ lipsaȱ
dedicaöiilorȱpentruȱCaracallaȱdinȱperioadaȱcândȱacestaȱaȱcondusȱsingurȱimperiul.ȱ
48ȱ ȱ
ȱ
numeluiȱ mameiȱ sale,ȱ Iuliaȱ Domna263.ȱ Unȱ evenimentȱ notabilȱ esteȱ vizitaȱ peȱ careȱ
împ©ratulȱoȱfaceȱînȱ214ȱp.ȱChr.ȱprovinciilorȱdun©rene,ȱocazieȱcuȱcareȱpoposeóteȱóiȱ
înȱDacia264,ȱapoiȱtreceȱînȱThraciaȱóiȱdeȱacoloȱînȱAsiaȱMic©265.ȱ
Dinȱ ultimaȱ perioad©ȱ aȱ dinastieiȱ reöinemȱ oȱ dedicaöieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 92)ȱ c©treȱ Iuliaȱ
Mamaea,ȱmamaȱluiȱSeverusȱAlexander,ȱpus©ȱdeȱ„sfatulȱóiȱpoporulȱpreaȱstr©luciteiȱ
metropoleȱ óiȱ capitaleȱ aȱ Pontuluiȱ Stâng,ȱ Tomis”ȱ (ΆΓΙΏχȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ
ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅’ȱ ΘΓІȱ ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ),ȱ laȱ oȱ dat©ȱ cuprins©ȱ întreȱ
222Ȭ235ȱp.ȱChr.ȱFormulaȱl©rgit©ȱóiȱlaȱorganeleȱadministraöieiȱlocaleȱseȱmaiȱg©seóteȱ
înȱ alteȱ dou©ȱ documenteȱ datateȱ dinȱ epocaȱ Severilor,ȱ poateȱ chiarȱ dinȱ ceaȱ aȱ luiȱ
Severusȱ Alexander266ȱ óiȱ esteȱ pus©ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ preocupareaȱ administraöieiȱ
romaneȱpentruȱaceast©ȱregiune267.ȱ
Spreȱ sfâróitulȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Severusȱ Alexanderȱ imperiulȱ esteȱ supusȱ
ameninö©rilorȱexterneȱcareȱvorȱcrea,ȱprobabil,ȱóiȱînȱDobrogeaȱmomenteȱdificile.ȱ
ÎntreȱMaximinȱTraculȱóiȱGallienusȱ(238Ȭ269ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱimperiulȱesteȱtulburatȱdeȱ
maseȱ imenseȱ deȱ barbari.ȱ Tomisulȱ scap©,ȱ pareȬseȱ deȱ distrugeri,ȱ chiarȱ dac©ȱ uneleȱ
indiciiȱneȱfacȱs©ȱcredemȱc©ȱnuȱintegral.ȱDinȱtimpulȱluiȱMaximinȱTraculȱ(235Ȭ238ȱp.ȱ
Chr.)ȱdispunemȱdeȱunȱaltarȱfragmentarȱpusȱdeȱcivesȱRomaniȱetȱLaeȱconsistentesȱvicoȱ
Turreȱ Muca(…);ȱ numeleȱ imperialeȱ martelateȱ aparöineauȱ foarteȱ probabilȱ luiȱ
Maximinȱ óiȱ fiuluiȱ s©uȱ Maximus268.ȱ Maiȱ numeroaseȱ suntȱ monumenteleȱ epigraficeȱ
tomitaneȱ dedicateȱ luiȱ Gordianȱ IIIȱ (238Ȭ244ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ soöieiȱ sale,ȱ Sabiniaȱ
Tranquillina.ȱ Situaöiaȱ sȬarȱ datoraȱ óiȱ guvernatoruluiȱ provinciei,ȱ Tulliusȱ
Menophilus,ȱ careȱ aȱ dusȱ tratativeȱ cuȱ carpii,ȱ prevenindȱ atacurileȱ acestoraȱ timpȱ deȱ
treiȱ aniȱ câtȱ aȱ condusȱ provinciaȱ (238Ȭ240/241ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)269.ȱ Numeleȱ guvernatoruluiȱ
esteȱ înregistratȱ laȱ Tomisȱ peȱ unȱ stâlpȱ miliarȱ peȱ careȱ îlȱ raport©mȱ laȱ acöiuneaȱ deȱ
refacereȱaȱdrumurilorȱ(óiȱînȱgeneralȱaȱprovinciei)ȱdup©ȱataculȱcarpoȬgoticȱdinȱ238ȱ
p.ȱ Chr.270.ȱ Unȱ personajȱ importantȱ aȱ fostȱ óiȱ P.ȱ Aeliusȱ Ammoniusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 106),ȱ
deöin©torȱ alȱ maiȱ multorȱ funcöiiȱ militareȱ óiȱ civile,ȱ întreȱ careȱ reöinemȱ peȱ ceaȱ deȱ
procuratorȱAugustiȱ–ȱîns©rcinatȱ cuȱadministraöiaȱfinanöelorȱdinȱ MoesiaȱInferioar©Ȭ,ȱ
263
ȱObservaöiaȱîiȱaparöineȱtotȱluiȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ256.ȱNumeleȱIulieiȱDomnaȱapareȱóiȱ
peȱ unȱ monumentȱ deȱ piatr©ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 135)ȱ óiȱ esteȱ însoöitȱ deȱ epitetulȱ Augusta.ȱ Monumentulȱ
poateȱdataȱîns©ȱóiȱdinȱperioadaȱdeȱdomnieȱaȱluiȱSeptimiusȱSeverus.ȱ
264
ȱD.ȱRuscu,ȱProvinciaȱDaciaȱînȱistoriografiaȱantic©,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ142Ȭ149.ȱ
265
ȱNuȱótimȱnimicȱsigurȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱprezenöaȱsaȱînȱDobrogea.ȱȱ
266
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 96:ȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕϱΘ΅ΘΓΖȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
97:ȱΏ΅ΐΔΕϱΘ΅ΘΓΖȱΈϛΐΓΖȱΘϛΖȱΏ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋ΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ΅’ȱΘΓІȱ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ.ȱAȱdouaȱ
inscripöieȱesteȱapreciat©ȱlaȱoȱdat©ȱuóorȱmaiȱrecent©ȱdecâtȱprimaȱ(observaöieȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ121ȱóiȱ
123,ȱ cuȱ trimitereȱ óiȱ laȱ PickȬRegling,ȱ Münzen,ȱ p.ȱ 73).ȱ Formulareaȱ scurt©ȱ dintrȬunȱ altȱ
documentȱ –ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 105ȱ –[ψȱ ΆΓΙΏχȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ϳ]ȱ ΈϛΐΓ[Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓ]ΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ [ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉ]ΝΖȱ
̖ϱΐΉΝΖȬ,ȱtrimiteȱtotȱlaȱperioadaȱSeverilor.ȱȱȱ
267
ȱ Peȱ oȱ dedicaöieȱ provenit©ȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 93)ȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ numeleȱ luiȱ L.ȱ
Anniusȱ Italicusȱ Honoratus,ȱ cuȱ oȱ bogat©ȱ carier©,ȱ înȱ careȱ esteȱ óiȱ ceaȱ deȱ guvernatorȱ alȱ
provincieiȱMoesiaȱInferiorȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱAlexanderȱSeverusȱ(224ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
268
ȱISMȱII,ȱ141;ȱveziȱóiȱI.I.ȱRussu,ȱNoteȱepigrafice.ȱSeriaȱIV,ȱSCIVȱ10ȱ(1959),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ140.ȱ
Pentruȱ vicusȱ Turrisȱ Muca(…),ȱ localizatȱ înȱ cartierulȱ Anadalchioiȱ dinȱ Constanöa,ȱ veziȱ maiȱ
departe.ȱ
269
ȱInformaöieȱtransmis©ȱdeȱPetrusȱPatricius,ȱFHG,ȱIV,ȱp.ȱ186,ȱfr.ȱ8ȱ=ȱFHDR,ȱp.ȱ488Ȭ489.ȱ
VeziȱóiȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:131,ȱcca.ȱ238/240ȱvelȱ239/241ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
270
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ132,ȱnr.ȱ2.ȱ
ȱ 49
ȱȱȱ
óiȱ peȱ ceaȱ deȱ praefectusȱ alȱ floteiȱ Flaviaȱ Moesicaȱ Gordiana271.ȱ Cuplulȱ imperialȱ
beneficiaz©ȱ deȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ onorific©ȱ pus©ȱ deȱ unȱ thiasosȱ alȱ luiȱ Dionysosȱ înȱ 241ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ107).ȱSabiniaȱTranquillina,ȱsingur©,ȱesteȱonorat©ȱprintrȬunȱmonumentȱ
pusȱ deȱ autorit©öileȱ localeȱ prinȱ grijaȱ guvernatoruluiȱ Prosiusȱ Tertullianusȱ laȱ oȱ dat©ȱ
cuprins©ȱ întreȱ 241Ȭ244ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 108)272.ȱ Esteȱ foarteȱ probabilȱ caȱ óiȱ bustulȱ
zeiöeiȱ Isis,ȱ descoperitȱ întrȬunȱ tezaurȱ deȱ sculpturiȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ s©ȱ reprezinteȱ totȱ peȱ
SabiniaȱTranquillinaȱînȱipostaz©ȱdeȱpreoteas©ȱaȱcultuluiȱzeiöeiȱegiptene273.ȱ
Domniileȱ urm©toareȱ aleȱ luiȱ Filipȱ Arabul,ȱ Deciusȱ óiȱ Valerianusȱ suntȱ marcateȱ
deȱ puterniceȱ invaziiȱ aleȱ neamurilorȱ transdanubieneȱ careȱ atingȱ óiȱ provinciileȱ
Moesiaȱ óiȱ Thracia274.ȱ Tomisȱ îóiȱ p©streaz©ȱ calitateaȱ deȱ metropol©;ȱ tomitaniiȱ auȱ
mijloaceȱ necesareȱ s©ȱ reconstruiasc©ȱ poröiuniȱ dinȱ drumulȱ litoraluluiȱ cuȱ sprijinulȱ
guvernatorilorȱ provincieiȱ careȬóiȱ aveauȱ aiciȱ sediulȱ sauȱ s©Ȭóiȱ exprimeȱ ataóamentulȱ
faö©ȱ deȱ imperiu.ȱ Oȱ inscripöieȱ onorific©ȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Decius,ȱ provenindȱ foarteȱ
probabilȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ esteȱ ridicat©ȱ pentruȱ cinstireaȱ împ©r©teseiȱ Herenniaȱ
Etruscillaȱ óiȱ aȱ caesaruluiȱ Q.ȱ Herenniusȱ Etruscus,ȱ peȱ laȱ 250Ȭ251ȱ p.ȱ Chr.275.ȱ Întreȱ
repetateȱatacuriȱcarpoȬgoticeȱaȱexistatȱtotuóiȱóiȱoȱstareȱdeȱacalmieȱîntreȱ254Ȭ258ȱp.ȱ
Chr.ȱ Doiȱ stâlpiȱ miliariȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ împ©raöilorȱ Valerianȱ óiȱ Gallienusȱ puóiȱ deȱ
metropolisȱ Tomitanorumȱ dovedescȱ refacereaȱ drumuluiȱ litoralȱ înȱ preajmaȱ cet©öii,ȱ
tocmaiȱînȱaceast©ȱperioad©276.ȱImediatȱîns©,ȱînȱ258ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱinvadatoriȱ„sciöi”,ȱcumȱ
noteaz©ȱ Zosimosȱ (I,ȱ 34.2),ȱ darȱ deȱ faptȱ goöi,ȱ carpiȱ óiȱ alteȱ neamuriȱ transdanubiene,ȱ
auȱ trecutȱ doarȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ Histria,ȱ Tomis,ȱ Anchialosȱ înȱ drumulȱ lorȱ spreȱ Bizanö.ȱ Înȱ
schimb,ȱînȱ269ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱClaudiusȱGoticul,ȱn©v©litorii,ȱdeȱdataȱaceastaȱ
maiȱ numeroóiȱ óiȱ porniöiȱ întrȬoȱ adev©rat©ȱ migraöie,ȱ sȬauȱ opritȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ auȱ
încercatȱs©ȱasediezeȱoraóul.ȱInformaöiaȱoȱafl©mȱdeȱlaȱZosimosȱ(I,ȱ42),ȱcare,ȱdincoloȱ
deȱcifreleȱdubleiȱinvaziiȱ–ȱ6ȱ000ȱdeȱcor©biiȱ(darȱprobabilȱvreoȱ2ȱ000)ȱóiȱ320ȱ000ȱdeȱ
oameniȬ,ȱfaceȱmenöiuneaȱexpres©:ȱ„atacar©ȱTomis,ȱoraóȱînt©ritȱcuȱziduri”ȱ(̖ΓΐΉϧȱΐΉΑȱ
ΘΉ΍ΛφΕΉ΍ȱ ΔϱΏΉ΍ȱ ΔΕΓΗΆ΅ΏϱΑΘΉΖ).ȱ Asediatoriiȱ suntȱ respinói,ȱ darȱ oraóulȱ nuȱ aȱ r©masȱ
neatinsȱ deȱ distrugeri 277.ȱ Acesteaȱ parȱ s©ȱ fiȱ atinsȱ óiȱ monumenteȱ sacre,ȱ dup©ȱ cumȱ
271
ȱUltimaȱfuncöieȱpresupuneȱreorganizareaȱfloteiȱdeȱc©treȱGordianȱIIIȱprinȱlegatulȱs©u,ȱ
Tulliusȱ Menophilus;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 237.ȱ Pentruȱ P.ȱ Aeliusȱ Ammonius,ȱ veziȱ óiȱȱȱȱ
I.ȱPiso,ȱLaȱ carièreȱ équestreȱ deȱP.ȱAeliusȱHammonius,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ 20ȱ (1976),ȱp.ȱ251Ȭ257;ȱIDRȱIII/2,ȱ
83ȱóiȱ246.ȱ
272
ȱPentruȱdatareaȱinscripöieiȱînȱ242ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdup©ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱsauȱ241Ȭ243ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdup©ȱ
R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ evenimenteȱ deȱ natur©ȱ personal©ȱ óiȱ politic©,ȱ veziȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 236.ȱ
Pentruȱguvernator,ȱveziȱóiȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:134.ȱ
273
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ221Ȭ222,ȱfig.ȱ10.ȱ
274
ȱ Asupraȱ aceluiȱ îndelungȱ Scythicumȱ bellumȱ (SHA,ȱ Vitaȱ Maximiniȱ etȱ Balbini,ȱ XVI,ȱ 3),ȱ
veziȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱExcidiumȱHistriaeȱînȱActesȱdeȱlaȱXII eȱ ConférenceȱInternationaleȱd’Étudesȱ
Classiquesȱ Eirene,ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2Ȭ7ȱ oct.ȱ 1972,ȱ BucureótiȬAmsterdam,ȱ 1975,ȱ p.ȱ 635Ȭ642;ȱ Al.ȱ
Suceveanu,ȱ înȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ34.ȱ Probabil,ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ lupteleȱ peȱ careȱ Filipȱ
Arabulȱ leȱ d©ȱ împotrivaȱ uneiȱ puterniceȱ coaliöiiȱ deȱ goöi,ȱ carpi,ȱ taifali,ȱ peuciniȱ etc.ȱ înȱ 248ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.,ȱCohorsȱIȱCilicumȱprimeóteȱepitetulȱdeȱPhilippiana.ȱDeȱlaȱTomisȱprovineȱunȱaltarȱpusȱdeȱ
unȱsoldatȱalȱcohorteiȱînȱnouaȱtitulatur©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ452);ȱvezi,ȱmaiȱdeparte,ȱarmata.ȱ
275
ȱMariaȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱOȱnou©ȱinscripöieȱdinȱvremeaȱluiȱDeciusȱînȱDobrogea,ȱ
Ponticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ138.ȱ
276
ȱIidem,ȱPonticaȱ13ȱ(1980),ȱp.ȱ148Ȭ151,ȱnr.ȱ4;ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ132Ȭ136,ȱnr.ȱ3;ȱpeȱalȱ
doileaȱexemplarȱseȱp©streaz©ȱnumeleȱluiȱC.ȱIuliusȱVictorȱcaȱpraesesȱprovinciae.ȱ
277
ȱExpediöiaȱseȱtermin©ȱcuȱînfrângereaȱn©v©litorilorȱlaȱNaissus.ȱ
50ȱ ȱ
ȱ
indic©ȱuneleȱ pieseȱsculpturaleȱdeȱcult,ȱdeteriorateȱ óiȱdepozitateȱspreȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱ
IIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ–ȱînceputulȱceluiȱurm©tor,ȱprobabilȱóiȱdinȱcauzeȱreligioase278.ȱ
Dup©ȱ atacurileȱ populaöiilorȱ transdanubiene,ȱ odat©ȱ pericolulȱ trecut,ȱ îiȱ afl©mȱ
peȱtomitaniȱref©cândȱdrumulȱdinȱpreajmaȱoraóului.ȱSingurulȱmiliarȱdinȱtimpulȱluiȱ
Claudiusȱ Goticulȱ ȱ cunoscutȱ înȱ Moesiaȱ Inferioar©ȱ provineȱ chiarȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis:ȱ
drumulȱ litoralȱ esteȱ reparatȱ deȱ metropolaȱ tomitanilorȱ prinȱ grijaȱ guvernatoruluiȱ
provinciei,ȱTitiusȱSaturninus279,ȱaȱc©ruiȱactivitateȱseȱplaseaz©ȱîntreȱ268Ȭ270ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
sauȱ poateȱ numaiȱ spreȱ începutulȱ acestuiȱ interval.ȱ Stabilitateaȱ imperiuluiȱ esteȱ
asigurat©ȱ pentruȱ unȱ timpȱ deȱ operaȱ deȱ organizareȱ administrativ©ȱ óiȱ militar©ȱ
întreprins©ȱ deȱ Aurelianȱ (270Ȭ275ȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Tomisulȱ vaȱ beneficiaȱ deȱ peȱ urmaȱ
m©surilorȱdeȱredresareȱluateȱdeȱîmp©rat280.ȱUnȱstâlpȱmiliarȱdescoperitȱlaȱConstanöaȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 109)ȱ esteȱ pusȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ tocmaiȱ cuȱ activitateaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ deȱ înt©rireȱ aȱ
limesȬuluiȱ dun©rean281.ȱ Acumȱ aȱ fostȱ ridicatȱ zidulȱ deȱ incint©ȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ lucrareȱ deȱ
amploareȱ careȱ închideaȱ oȱ suprafaö©ȱ dubl©ȱ faö©ȱ deȱ presupusaȱ incint©ȱ elenistic©ȱ óiȱ
careȱ t©iaȱ peninsulaȱ deȱ laȱ Nordȱ spreȱ Sud,ȱ întinzânduȬse,ȱ probabil,ȱ óiȱ înȱ parteaȱ deȱ
Sudȱ aȱ oraóului,ȱ spreȱ port.ȱ Refacereaȱ luiȱ vaȱ continuaȱ óiȱ înȱ timpulȱ împ©raöilorȱ
Tacitusȱ(275Ȭ276ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱóiȱProbusȱ(276Ȭ282ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱPân©ȱlaȱdomniaȱluiȱDiocletianȱ
niciunȱevenimentȱnuȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱatrasȱatenöiaȱistoricilor.ȱ
Alteȱ aspecteȱ referitoareȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ perioadaȱ Principatuluiȱ leȱ vomȱ trata,ȱ peȱ
rând,ȱ înȱ continuare.ȱ Eleȱ privesc:ȱ circulaöiaȱ monetar©,ȱ armat©,ȱ populaöie,ȱ culte,ȱ
instituöii,ȱurbanismȱ(óiȱstratigrafie),ȱteritoriu.ȱ
ȱ
Monedeȱ(atelier;ȱcirculaöieȱmonetar©)ȱ
Odat©ȱ cuȱ manifestareaȱ interesuluiȱ romanilorȱ pentruȱ zonaȱ Dun©riiȱ deȱ Jos,ȱ
suntȱ semnalateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ desopeririȱ izolateȱ deȱ monedeȱ romaneȱ republicaneȱ
(denari)282.ȱ
Monet©riaȱ autonom©ȱ îóiȱ înceteaz©ȱ activitatea,ȱ înȱ condiöiiȱ maiȱ puöinȱ clare,ȱ laȱ
sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.283.ȱ Eaȱ reîncepeȱ îns©ȱ foarteȱ curândȱ óiȱ acoper©ȱ integralȱ
perioadaȱ dintreȱ domniileȱ luiȱ Augustusȱ óiȱ Filipȱ IIȱ inclusivȱ (cuȱ oȱ cezur©ȱ înȱ timpulȱ
împ©raöilorȱ Macrinusȱ óiȱ Diadumenianus)284.ȱ Oȱ încercareȱ deȱ statistic©ȱ arat©ȱ c©ȱ
278
ȱ V.ȱ Canaracheȱ etȱ alii,ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 121Ȭ123ȱ (celeȱ maiȱ noiȱ pieseȱ dateaz©ȱ deȱ laȱ mijloculȱ
sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ totȱ acoloȱ nuȱ eȱ respins©ȱ niciȱ ipotezaȱ îngrop©riiȱ tezauruluiȱ deȱ sculpturiȱ înȱ
leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ conflictulȱ dintreȱ creótinismȱ óiȱ culteleȱ p©gâneȱ dinȱ secoleleȱ IIIȬIVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Veziȱ înȱ
acestȱdinȱurm©ȱsensȱóiȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ284Ȭ310.ȱ
279
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 136Ȭ139,ȱ nr.ȱ 4;ȱ remarc©mȱ óiȱ aiciȱ
desemnareaȱguvernatoruluiȱcaȱpraesesȱprovinciae.ȱ
280
281
ȱ Inscripöiaȱ esteȱ datat©ȱ celȱ maiȱ devremeȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ anuluiȱ 271/începutulȱ 272ȱ –ȱ celȱ
maiȱtârziuȱlaȱmijloculȱanuluiȱ275ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
282
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Republicanȱ Coinageȱ inȱ Dobrudja,ȱ ClujȬNapocaȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 32,ȱ
nr.ȱ 13,ȱ noteaz©ȱ 34ȱ deȱ pieseȱ (7ȱ dinȱ zonaȱ portuluiȱ turisticȱ Tomis,ȱ iarȱ restulȱ dinȱ localitateȱ óiȱ
împrejurimi);ȱveziȱóiȱ tabelulȱ deȱ laȱ p.ȱ150Ȭ151ȱ (piesaȱ ceaȱmaiȱ timpurieȱesteȱdatat©ȱ179Ȭ170ȱa.ȱ
Chr.;ȱultimeleȱ32Ȭ31ȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
283
ȱ Veziȱ C.ȱ Preda,ȱ Istoriaȱ monedei,ȱ p.ȱ 83;ȱ autorulȱ leag©ȱ sfâróitulȱ monedelorȱ autonomeȱ
tomitaneȱ maiȱ curândȱ deȱ momentulȱ Burebistaȱ sauȱ deȱ campaniaȱ luiȱ Liciniusȱ Crassusȱ dinȱ 29Ȭ
28ȱa.ȱChr.,ȱdecâtȱdeȱcampaniaȱdinȱ72/71ȱa.ȱChr.ȱaȱluiȱVarroȱLucullus.ȱȱ
284
ȱ Aiciȱ óiȱ maiȱ departe,ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Noiȱ descopeririȱ deȱ monedeȱ tomitaneȱ înȱ Dobrogea.ȱ
Atelierulȱmonetarȱtomitanȱînȱepocaȱroman©,ȱPeuceȱSNȱ1ȱ(14)ȱ(2003),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ340.ȱ
ȱ 51
ȱȱȱ
atelierulȱ tomitanȱ seȱ situeaz©ȱ peȱ primulȱ locȱ caȱ num©rȱ deȱ emisiuniȱ înregistrateȱ
(1128,ȱrespectivȱ33%ȱdinȱnum©rulȱtotalȱdeȱemisiuniȱmoesiceȱpentruȱsecoleleȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱ
Chr.)285.ȱOȱprim©ȱetap©ȱaȱmonet©rieiȱtomitaneȱ(fixat©ȱîntreȱAugustusȱóiȱHadrian)ȱseȱ
caracterizeaz©ȱprinȱemisiuniȱpuöineȱóiȱtipuriȱiconograficeȱaproapeȱneschimbate 286.ȱ
Nivelulȱsc©zutȱpoateȱfiȱcauzatȱóiȱdeȱpoliticaȱdeȱdeflaöieȱaȱdinastieiȱIulioȬClaudiene.ȱ
Pentruȱ acestȱ intervalȱ activitateaȱ atelieruluiȱ tomitanȱ devineȱ maiȱ intens©ȱ înȱ timpulȱ
luiȱ Neroȱ óiȱ Domitian;ȱ înȱ schimb,ȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Traianȱ óiȱ Hadrianȱ emisiunileȱ suntȱ
puöine.ȱ Schimb©riȱ suntȱ înregistrateȱ înȱ perioadaȱ deȱ prosperitateȱ óiȱ linióteȱ ceȱ
urmeaz©.ȱ Poziöiaȱ deȱ metropol©ȱ apareȱ explicitȱ trecut©ȱ peȱ reversulȱ monedelorȱ
începândȱ cuȱ domniaȱ luiȱ Antoninusȱ Pius.ȱ Numaiȱ înȱ vremeaȱ acestuiȱ împ©ratȱ
num©rulȱemisiunilorȱmonetareȱatingeȱvaloriȱspectaculoase287.ȱUrmeaz©ȱoȱperioad©ȱ
cuȱnum©rȱredusȱdeȱemisiuniȱlaȱMarcusȱAurelius288,ȱAnniusȱVerus,ȱpentruȱcaȱodat©ȱ
cuȱCommodusȱ(CaesarȱóiȱAugustus)ȱnum©rulȱemisiunilorȱs©ȱcreasc©ȱdinȱnou289.ȱÎnȱ
timpulȱ luiȱ Pertinax,ȱ atelierulȱ tomitanȱ esteȱ singurulȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ Inferioar©ȱ careȱ
emiteȱmoned©ȱcuȱnumeleȱîmp©ratului.ȱ
Perioadaȱ dintreȱ 193Ȭ217ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ marcat©ȱ deȱ emisiuniȱ monetareȱ pentruȱ
SeptimiusȱSeverus,ȱIuliaȱDomna,ȱCaracalla,ȱPlautilaȱóiȱGeta;ȱceleȱmaiȱmulteȱtipuriȱ
óiȱ varianteȱ suntȱ înregistrateȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Caracalla290;ȱ num©rulȱ emisiunilorȱ dinȱ
timpulȱ luiȱ Getaȱ seȱ anunö©ȱ deȱ asemeneaȱ consistent291.ȱ Dup©ȱ perioadaȱ scurt©ȱ deȱ
întrerupereȱ MacrinusȬDiadumenianusȱ (217Ȭ218ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ atelierulȱ tomitanȱ îóiȱ
continu©ȱactivitatea.ȱEmisiunileȱluiȱElagabalȱsuntȱdestulȱdeȱnumeroase.ȱMomentulȱ
deȱ maximumȱ dinȱ timpulȱ dinastieiȱ Severilorȱ esteȱ atinsȱ deȱ emisiunileȱ luiȱ Severusȱ
Alexanderȱ(óiȱIuliaȱMamaea)292.ȱ
Perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ urmatȱ dinastieiȱ Severilor,ȱ deóiȱ dificil©,ȱ seȱ reflect©ȱ maiȱ puöinȱ
acutȱ înȱ producöiaȱ atelieruluiȱ tomitan.ȱ Începândȱ cuȱ Maximinusȱ atelierulȱ emiteȱ
moned©ȱ neîntrerupt,ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ încetareaȱ activit©öii,ȱ subȱ Filipȱ II.ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ înȱ cursulȱ
domnieiȱ luiȱ Gordianusȱ IIIȱ seȱ înregistreaz©ȱ celȱ maiȱ mareȱ num©rȱ deȱ emisiuniȱ dinȱ
285
ȱ Dateleȱ dup©ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ cuȱ preciz©riȱ inclusivȱ privindȱ monedeleȱ f©r©ȱ portretȱ
imperialȱóiȱiconografiaȱmonetar©ȱtomitan©ȱînȱsec.ȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
286
ȱ Seȱ remarc©ȱ totuóiȱ caracterulȱ constantȱ cuȱ careȱ atelierulȱ tomitanȱ bateȱ moned©ȱ înȱ
condiöiileȱ înȱ care,ȱ înȱ uneleȱ perioade,ȱ r©mâneȱ singurulȱ atelierȱ dinȱ provincie;ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
op.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ296.ȱ
287
ȱ Peȱ lâng©ȱ 35ȱ emisiuniȱ dinȱ corpusȬulȱ Regling,ȱ maiȱ suntȱ notateȱ alteȱ emisiuniȱ noiȱ laȱ
Ruzickaȱóiȱ24ȱtotȱnoiȱlaȱM.ȱIacob;ȱlorȱliȱseȱadaug©ȱ41ȱemisiuniȱMarcusȱAureliusȱCaesar;ȱveziȱ
M.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ296Ȭ298.ȱ
288
ȱ Acumȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ peȱ monedeȱ înȱ titulaturaȱ cet©öiiȱ atributulȱ ʆϱΑΘΓΙ,ȱ legendaȱ
devenindȱ̏΋ΘΕΓΔ(…)ʆϱΑΘΓΙȱ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ.ȱ
289
ȱ Commodusȱ (Caesar):ȱ9ȱ emisiuniȱReglingȱ+ȱ 1ȱ Ruzicka;ȱ 6ȱpieseȱ laȱ M.ȱ Iacobȱ suntȱ toateȱ
tipuriȱ noiȱ sauȱ varianteȱ aleȱ tipurilorȱ cunoscute;ȱ (Augustus):ȱ 35ȱ emisiuniȱ Reglingȱ óiȱ Ruzicka;ȱ
laȱM.ȱIacobȱdinȱ38ȱpiese,ȱ37ȱreprezint©ȱtipuriȱnoiȱ(totalulȱarȱdaȱ89ȱtipuriȱc©roraȱliȱseȱadaug©ȱ
maiȱmulteȱvariante);ȱveziȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ300Ȭ302.ȱ
290
ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 303Ȭ305;ȱ deducemȱ numaiȱ pentruȱ Caracallaȱ 24ȱ tipuriȱ óiȱ 9ȱ
variante;ȱ acestorȱ cifreȱ liȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ oȱ emisiuneȱ Caracallaȱ +ȱ Plautilaȱ óiȱ 9ȱ emisiuniȱ Plautilaȱ
singur©.ȱ
291
ȱ Numaiȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 303ȱ óiȱ 308Ȭ309ȱ seȱ refer©ȱ laȱ 27ȱ tipuriȱ noi;ȱ celeȱ maiȱ multeȱ
suntȱdinȱperioadaȱ211Ȭ212ȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
292
ȱIbidem,ȱp.ȱ312Ȭ315.ȱ
52ȱ ȱ
ȱ
toat©ȱ perioadaȱdeȱfuncöionareȱaȱatelierului293.ȱUltimaȱperioad©ȱesteȱceaȱaȱdomnieiȱ
luiȱFilipȱIȱ(M.ȱIuliusȱPhilippus)ȱóiȱaȱfiuluiȱacestuiaȱFilipȱII,ȱdarȱcuȱunȱnum©rȱredusȱ
deȱ emisiuniȱ (comparativȱ cuȱ perioadaȱ anterioar©).ȱ Atelierulȱ tomitanȱ îóiȱ înceteaz©ȱ
activitateaȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱFilipȱII,ȱprobabilȱcaȱurmareȱaȱuneiȱm©suriȱdeȱintervenöieȱaȱ
statuluiȱóiȱnuȱînȱurmaȱunuiȱevenimentȱmilitar.ȱ
Acesteȱ dateȱ leȱ corobor©mȱ cuȱ altele,ȱ careȱ reflect©ȱ situaöiaȱ deȱ peȱ piaöaȱ
tomitan©294.ȱ Înȱ perioadaȱ deȱ începutȱ (ultimeleȱ deceniiȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ primeleȱ
deceniiȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ suntȱ înregistrateȱ emisiuniȱ romaneȱ republicaneȱ óiȱ
imperialeȱ óiȱ foarteȱ rareȱ emisiuniȱ ponticeȱ dinȱ perioadaȱ autonom©.ȱ Nivelulȱ
circulaöieiȱ monetareȱ esteȱ sc©zutȱ pân©ȱ laȱ transformareaȱ Thracieiȱ înȱ provincieȱ
roman©;ȱ dup©ȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ seȱ înregistreaz©ȱ oȱ cert©ȱ intensificare.ȱ Peȱ oȱ secvenö©ȱ
temporal©ȱ l©rgit©ȱ (pân©ȱ laȱ Antoninusȱ Pius)ȱ emisiunileȱ seȱ întâlnescȱ sporadic295.ȱ Oȱ
dat©ȱcuȱacestȱîmp©ratȱseȱtreceȱlaȱoȱactivitateȱmonetar©ȱorganizat©296.ȱPerioadaȱ161Ȭ
192ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ înregistreaz©ȱ oȱ reprezentareȱ monetar©ȱ relativȱ slab©ȱ pentruȱ Marcusȱ
Aureliusȱ óiȱ Luciusȱ Verusȱ óiȱ unȱ revirimentȱ subȱ Commodus297.ȱ Prezenöaȱ monetar©ȱ
înregistreaz©ȱunȱsaltȱspectacularȱînȱDobrogeaȱînȱvremeaȱluiȱSeptimiusȱSeverus,ȱcaȱ
oȱreflectareȱaȱuneiȱsituaöiiȱeconomiceȱóiȱpoliticeȱmaiȱbune.ȱSaltulȱesteȱînregistratȱóiȱ
laȱ Tomis,ȱ esteȱ adev©ratȱ îns©ȱ nuȱ laȱ valoriȱ sensibilȱ m©riteȱ faö©ȱ deȱ perioadaȱ
anterioar© 298.ȱ Situaöiaȱ esteȱ similar©ȱ înȱ perioadaȱ urm©toare;ȱ cifreleȱ suntȱ înȱ creótereȱ
subȱ Caracalla,ȱ Geta 299ȱ óiȱ Severusȱ Alexander,ȱ dovad©ȱ c©ȱ viaöaȱ sȬaȱ desf©óuratȱ înȱ
condiöiiȱrelativȱliniótite;ȱunȱmomentȱdificilȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱafectatȱoȱzon©ȱsituat©ȱînȱafaraȱ
oraóului300.ȱ Celȱ maiȱ mareȱ num©rȱ deȱ monedeȱ esteȱ înregistratȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ subȱ
GordianȱIII301;ȱactivitateaȱdeȱemitereȱaȱTomisuluiȱînȱaceast©ȱperioad©ȱseȱsitueaz©ȱlaȱ
valoriȱ quasiegaleȱ cuȱ Histria.ȱ Filipȱ Arabulȱ óiȱ familiaȱ saȱ încheieȱ seriaȱ principalelorȱ
emisiuniȱgrecoȬcolonialeȱpeȱpiaöaȱtomitan©302.ȱ
DinȱTomisȱóiȱdinȱzonaȱsuburban©ȱapropiat©ȱnot©mȱmaiȱmulteȱdescoperiri:ȱȱ
- unȱ micȱ depozit,ȱ dinȱ zonaȱ intraȱ murosȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ antic,ȱ compusȱ dinȱ 14ȱ
293
ȱ Reglingȱ înregistreaz©ȱ 133ȱ deȱ emisiuniȱ pentruȱ Gordianusȱ singur,ȱ 49ȱ emisiuniȱ
Gordianusȱ IIIȱ óiȱ Tranquillina,ȱ 2ȱ Tranquillinaȱ singur©;ȱ acestorȱ cifreȱ liȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ prinȱ
complet©rileȱaduseȱdeȱRuzickaȱalteȱ7ȱemisiuniȱGordianusȱIIIȱóiȱ2ȱemisiuniȱnoiȱGordianusȱIIIȱ
óiȱTranquillinaȱ(apudȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ317Ȭ322).ȱ
294
ȱVeziȱaiciȱóiȱînȱcontinuare,ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱpassim.ȱ
295
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ337,ȱtabelȱAȱóiȱcatalog.ȱ
296
ȱSemnificativȱesteȱfaptulȱc©ȱdinȱtotalulȱdeȱ20ȱdeȱemisiuniȱaleȱacestuiȱîmp©rat,ȱTomisȱ
deöineȱprimulȱloc,ȱcuȱ13ȱmonedeȱ(apudȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ163).ȱ
297
ȱ Maiȱ bineȱ marcatȱ îns©ȱ laȱ Histria;ȱ dinȱ totalulȱ deȱ 46ȱ monede,ȱ Tomisuluiȱ îiȱ aparöinȱ 10ȱ
(ibidem).ȱ
298
ȱ14ȱexemplareȱdinȱtotalulȱdeȱ83ȱpentruȱDobrogeaȱ(celeȱmaiȱmulteȱprovinȱóiȱacumȱdeȱ
laȱHistria).ȱPentruȱaceeaóiȱperioad©ȱveziȱînȱlucrareaȱcitat©ȱóiȱp.ȱ69Ȭ77.ȱ
299
ȱ Caracallaȱ (óiȱ Plautilla)ȱ –ȱ 18ȱ monedeȱ (majoritateaȱ emiseȱ deȱ Tomis);ȱ Getaȱ –ȱ 17ȱ
(majoritateaȱ totȱ dinȱ Tomis).ȱ Veziȱ dateleȱ aiciȱ óiȱ înȱ continuareȱ laȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 163Ȭ
165,ȱtabloulȱrepartiöieiȱmonedelorȱgrecoȬorientaleȱpeȱîmp©raöi.ȱ
300
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱdeparte,ȱtezaurulȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱ–ȱGr©niceri;ȱesteȱprobabilȱvorbaȱdeȱunȱvicusȱ
sauȱoȱvillaȱdinȱteritoriu.ȱ
301
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ164.ȱȱ
302
ȱ Ibidem,ȱ p.ȱ 165;ȱ Filipȱ Iȱ –ȱ 29ȱ piese,ȱ majoritateaȱ (9)ȱ emiseȱ deȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ doarȱ dou©ȱ deȱ
Tomis.ȱ
ȱ 53
ȱȱȱ
monedeȱcolonialeȱdeȱbronzȱ(13ȱTomis;ȱ1ȱ–ȱMarkianopolis)303;ȱ
- depozitȱ dinȱ zonaȱ intraȱ murosȱ (descoperireȱ înȱ 1936)ȱ dinȱ 63ȱ monedeȱ deȱ
bronzȱ(dinȱcareȱauȱfostȱcunoscuteȱdoarȱ20),ȱdinȱperioadaȱ276Ȭ294ȱp.ȱChr.;ȱ
- tezaurȱ monetarȱ descoperitȱ înȱ 1965,ȱ zonaȱ Tomisȱ III,ȱ compusȱ dinȱ 289ȱ
piese,ȱ ascunsȱ sauȱ pierdutȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ aceeaóiȱ perioad©ȱ deȱ emitereȱ
cuȱdepozitulȱanterior;ȱ
- unȱ tezaurȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperitȱ înȱ dou©ȱ etapeȱ (1976ȱ óiȱ 1977),ȱ înȱ zonaȱ Tomisȱ
Nordȱ (Gr©niceri).ȱ Descoperireaȱ dinȱ 1976ȱ seȱ constituieȱ dinȱ 260ȱ monedeȱ (10ȱ denariȱ
óiȱ 250ȱ coloniale).ȱ Înȱ 1977ȱ auȱ maiȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ 470ȱ deȱ piese:ȱ 12ȱ denariȱ romaniȱ
imperialiȱ óiȱ 458ȱ monedeȱ colonialeȱ greceóti,ȱ deȱ laȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ (oȱ pies©)ȱ laȱ
Severusȱ Alexanderȱ (174ȱ piese)304.ȱ Înȱ descoperireaȱ dinȱ 1977ȱ majoritareȱ (451ȱ
exemplare)ȱ suntȱ emisiunileȱ tomitane.ȱ Anterioareȱ anuluiȱ 193ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ suntȱ doarȱ 32ȱ
piese;ȱ celelalteȱ aparöinȱ perioadelorȱ urm©toare:ȱ 193Ȭ217ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (199ȱ piese)ȱ óiȱ 217Ȭ
235ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(227ȱpiese)305.ȱÎngropareaȱtezauruluiȱsȬaȱpetrecutȱînȱvremeaȱluiȱSeverusȱ
Alexander,ȱprobabilȱdup©ȱ232ȱp.ȱChr.306;ȱȱ
- unȱ lotȱ deȱ 20ȱ deȱ pieseȱ deȱ laȱ Tiberiusȱ laȱ Claudiusȱ IIȱ ȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperitȱ înȱ
cartierulȱactualȱViileȱNoi307;ȱȱ
- unȱaltȱtezaurȱdinȱ24ȱdeȱmonedeȱdeȱbronzȱaȱfostȱdescoperitȱînȱzonaȱPalas:ȱ
toateȱ suntȱ emisiuniȱ tomitaneȱ dinȱ primeleȱ patruȱ decadeȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ deȱ laȱ
CaracallaȱlaȱMaximinusȱóiȱMaximusȱCaesar308;ȱ
- monedeȱdeȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱsuntȱnotateȱînȱnivelulȱdeȱumplutur©ȱcuȱresturiȱ
ceramiceȱromaneȱtimpuriiȱînȱzonaȱstr.ȱTraian/BȬdulȱMarinarilor309.ȱ
Reöinemȱ caȱ not©ȱ comun©ȱ pentruȱ toateȱ acesteȱ descopeririȱ num©rulȱ mareȱ deȱ
monedeȱemiseȱpentruȱSeverusȱAlexander.ȱ
Oȱ ultim©ȱ observaöieȱ priveóteȱ ariaȱ deȱ r©spândireȱ aȱ monedelorȱ tomitane;ȱ
acesteaȱsuntȱprezenteȱînȱteritoriulȱruralȱalȱoraóului;ȱînȱzonaȱlitoral©ȱîntreȱTomisȱóiȱ
303
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ C.ȱ Nopcea,ȱ Despreȱunȱnouȱ tezaurȱ monetarȱ dinȱ primaȱ parteȱaȱ secoluluiȱ IIIȱ
p.ȱ Chr.ȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 40ȱ (2007),ȱ p.ȱ 593Ȭ599;ȱ ultimeleȱ emisiuniȱ suntȱ deȱ laȱ
SeverusȱAlexander;ȱaiciȱóiȱmaiȱdeparteȱveziȱacumȱóiȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱ
p.ȱ164Ȭ184.ȱ
304
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱp.ȱ273Ȭ274,ȱnr.ȱ11;ȱeadem,ȱEvenimenteȱpoliticeȱreflectateȱ
înȱdescoperirileȱdeȱtezaureȱmonetareȱimperialeȱdinȱDobrogea,ȱPonticaȱ32ȱ(1999),ȱp.ȱ130,ȱnr.ȱ11.ȱȱ
305
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱp.ȱ183Ȭ184ȱóiȱ202Ȭ204ȱ(tabele).ȱ
306
ȱ „Semnificaöiaȱ istoric©ȱ aȱ ascunderiiȱ óiȱ nerecuper©riiȱ (…)ȱ neȱ scap©ȱ înȱ acestȱ stadiuȱ alȱ
cercet©rii”ȱ apudȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Descopeririȱ monetareȱ înȱ aóez©rileȱ ruraleȱ dinȱ
Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (14ȱ d.ȱ Cr.ȱ –ȱ 270ȱ d.ȱ Cr.),ȱ Ponticaȱ 23ȱ (1990),ȱ p.ȱ 246.ȱ Dup©ȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Ponticaȱ
32ȱ (1999),ȱ p.ȱ 122:ȱ „amȱ puteaȱ consideraȱ c©ȱ ascundereaȱ tezauruluiȱ sȬaȱ f©cutȱ întrȬunȱ vicusȱ sauȱ
întrȬoȱvillaȱlaȱnordȱdeȱTomis,ȱînȱvremeaȱdomnieiȱluiȱSeverusȱAlexander,ȱprobabilȱdup©ȱanulȱ
232,ȱcândȱaȱizbucnitȱ„Scythicumȱbellum”.ȱȱ
307
ȱ Dateȱ laȱ Gh.ȱ Poenaruȱ Bordea,ȱ Alȱ 15Ȭleaȱ Simpozionȱ Naöionalȱ deȱ Numismatic©,ȱ
AlexandriaȬTeleorman,ȱ12Ȭ14ȱmaiȱ1998,ȱrezumate,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ33.ȱ
308
ȱ M.ȱ Dima,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Aȱ Tomitaneȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ hoardȱ foundȱ inȱ Constanöa,ȱ inȱ Coinȱ
hoardsȱofȱDobruja.ȱI.,ȱConstanöaȱ2007,ȱp.ȱ91Ȭ103;ȱultimeleȱpieseȱdinȱtezaurȱsuntȱdinȱtimpulȱluiȱ
MaximinusȱI,ȱdarȱînȱopiniaȱautorilorȱeleȱnuȱparȱs©ȱfiȱcirculat.ȱ
309
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱC.ȱB©jenaru,ȱL.ȱCliante,ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ127Ȭ128,ȱnr.ȱ79.ȱPentruȱ
descopeririȱ izolateȱ veziȱ óiȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Câtevaȱ descopeririȱ deȱ denariȱ romaniȱ republicaniȱ dinȱ
Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ Ponticaȱ 19ȱ (1986),ȱ p.ȱ 83,ȱ nr.ȱ 7;ȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monetar©,ȱ p.ȱ 287ȱ óiȱ 337ȱ
(120ȱpiese).ȱ
54ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Callatis310;ȱ înȱ nordulȱ Dobrogeiȱ (zon©ȱ înȱ careȱ domin©ȱ îns©ȱ monedeleȱ histriene);ȱ înȱ
nordȬestulȱ litoraluluiȱ ponticȱ pân©ȱ laȱ Chersones;ȱ înȱ sudulȱ Dobrogei;ȱ dincoloȱ deȱ
Dun©reȱînȱMoldovaȱóiȱînȱCâmpiaȱromân©311.ȱ
ȱ ȱ
Armataȱȱ
Preocup©rileȱ pentruȱ ap©rareaȱ litoraluluiȱ óiȱ implicitȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ sȬauȱ
manifestatȱ peȱ totȱ parcursulȱ perioadeiȱ Principatului.ȱ ÎntrȬunȱ intervalȱ situatȱ întreȱ
primiiȱ aniȱ aiȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Vespasianȱ óiȱ inclusivȱ domniaȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ esteȱ poateȱ
posibil©ȱ instalareaȱ uneiȱ garnizoaneȱ romaneȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ pierzândȱ statutulȱ deȱ
civitasȱ libera312.ȱ Primeleȱ atest©riȱ leȱ avemȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Vespasian,ȱ cândȱ auȱ fostȱ
cantonateȱprobabilȱaiciȱ(sauȱînȱapropiere)ȱCohorsȱIȱFlaviaȱCommagenorumȱóiȱCohorsȱ
VIIȱ Gallorum313.ȱ Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ dup©ȱ r©zboaieleȱ dacice,ȱ r©mâneȱ consemnat©ȱ
numaiȱCohorsȱVIIȱGallorum314,ȱajutat©ȱeventualȱdeȱvexilaöiiȱdinȱlegiunileȱsituateȱpeȱ
Dun©re.ȱ Laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ cunoscuöiȱ beneficiariȱ consulariȱ dinȱ Legioȱ Vȱ Macedonicaȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ192,ȱ193);ȱmaterialulȱepigraficȱtomitanȱpermiteȱidentificareaȱunorȱmilitariȱ
activiȱ aiȱ legiuniiȱ óiȱ aȱ unorȱ veterani315.ȱ Peȱ bazaȱ descoperirilorȱ dinȱ zon©ȱ putemȱ
310
ȱ Deȱ notatȱ num©rulȱ mareȱ deȱ pieseȱ –ȱ 3ȱ 000ȱ (32,69%)ȱ înȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ laȱ Mangalia;ȱ veziȱ
prezent©riȱaleȱtezauruluiȱlaȱC.ȱPreda,ȱDateȱóiȱconcluziiȱpreliminareȱasupraȱtezauruluiȱdescoperitȱ
laȱ Mangaliaȱ înȱ anulȱ 1960,ȱ SCIVȱ 12ȱ (1961),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 241Ȭ250;ȱ Monedeȱ colonialeȱ rareȱ óiȱ inediteȱ –ȱ
Histria,ȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ Tomisȱ dinȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ laȱ Mangalia,ȱ SCNȱ 4ȱ (1968),ȱ p.ȱ 223Ȭ237;ȱ Noiȱ doveziȱ óiȱ
consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ tezauruluiȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Mangaliaȱ înȱ 1960ȱ –ȱ lotulȱ deȱ monede,ȱ SCNȱ 10ȱ (1993),ȱ
p.ȱ27Ȭ41;ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ277Ȭ278.ȱ
311
ȱNuȱneȬamȱpropusȱs©ȱneȱoprimȱaiciȱasupraȱcirculaöieiȱmonedeiȱtomitaneȱînȱteritoriu,ȱ
niciȱ asupraȱ monedeiȱ romaneȱ imperialeȱ descoperiteȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ aspecteȱ pentruȱ careȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ passim;ȱ adaug©,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Dateȱ noiȱ privindȱ descoperirileȱ monetareȱ
romaneȱimperialeȱdinȱDobrogea,ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ336Ȭ343,ȱnr.ȱ46Ȭ102ȱóiȱp.ȱ366Ȭ374.ȱ
Pentruȱ aóez©rileȱ ruraleȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ veziȱ totuóiȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ Viaöaȱ rural©,ȱ p.ȱ 219Ȭ244ȱ (înȱ
specialȱp.ȱ229Ȭ230ȱpentruȱmonedeleȱtomitane).ȱ
312
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱdéfenseȱduȱlittoralȱdeȱlaȱDobroudjaȱàȱl’époqueȱromaineȱ(I Ȭer ȱ–ȱIII e ȱsièclesȱ
deȱn.è.),ȱRRHȱ13ȱ(1974),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ231;ȱidem,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ115Ȭ124.ȱȱ
313
ȱ Ambeleȱ unit©öiȱ militareȱ suntȱ atestateȱ înȱ inscripöiiȱ funerareȱ puseȱ deȱ soldaöiiȱ activi:ȱ
ISMȱ II,ȱ 176ȱ óiȱ 177;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 59Ȭ60ȱ óiȱ 69;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Trupeleȱ auxiliareȱ
romaneȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ SCIVAȱ 52Ȭ53ȱ (2001Ȭ2002),ȱ p.ȱ 204Ȭ205;ȱ 210Ȭ211ȱ óiȱ 235Ȭ236,ȱ puneȱ
subȱ semnulȱ întreb©riiȱ staöionareaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ coh.ȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Commagenorumȱ óiȱ admiteȱ totȱ
ipoteticȱprezenöaȱînȱacestȱoraóȱaȱcoh.ȱVIIȱGallorumȱequitata,ȱînȱperioadaȱînȱcareȱaȱstaöionatȱînȱ
Moesiaȱ Inferior;ȱ ȱ idem,ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Armyȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ Bucharest,ȱ 2010ȱ (Theȱ Army),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 213ȱ óiȱ 242ȱ –ȱ Tomisȱ (?);ȱ veziȱ óiȱ L.ȱ Mih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ Uneȱ nouveauxȱ diplômeȱ militaireȱ deȱ
MésieȱInférieure,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ52ȱ(2008),ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ208.ȱ
314
ȱ Cohorsȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Commagenorum,ȱ dup©ȱ r©zboaieleȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ aȱ fostȱ dislocat©ȱ laȱ Nȱ deȱ
Dun©reȱ óiȱ apoiȱ afectat©ȱ provincieiȱ Daciaȱ Inferior.ȱ Veziȱ C.C.ȱ Petolescu,ȱ Auxiliaȱ Daciae.ȱ
Contribuöieȱ laȱ istoriaȱ militar©ȱ aȱ Dacieiȱ romane,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 2002,ȱ p.ȱ 95Ȭ97,ȱ nr.ȱ 30;ȱ W.ȱ Eck,ȱ A.ȱ
Pangerl,ȱ Neueȱ Diplomeȱ fürȱ dieȱ Auxiliartruppenȱ inȱ denȱ mösischenȱ Provinzenȱ vonȱ Vespasianȱ bisȱ
Hadrian,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 50ȱ (2006),ȱ p.ȱ 97Ȭ102,ȱ nr.ȱ 2ȱ (14ȱ august,ȱ 99),ȱ înȱ careȱ aparȱ uneleȱ dinȱ trupeleȱ
amintite,ȱstaöionateȱînȱMoesiaȱInferior;ȱiidem,ȱMoesiaȱundȱseineȱTruppenȱII.ȱNeueȱDiplomeȱfürȱ
Moesia,ȱMoesiaȱInferiorȱundȱMoesiaȱSuperior,ȱChironȱ39ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ510Ȭ522;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱ
TheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ207.ȱ
315
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 59ȱ óiȱ 146,ȱ notaȱ 179;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱȱȱȱȱ
Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ Dobrogeiȱ romaneȱ (sec.ȱ IȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ
2005,ȱȱp.ȱ67Ȭ72;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱNoteȱepigraficeȱI,ȱSCIVAȱ54Ȭ56ȱ(2003Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ310,ȱn.ȱ21:ȱlaȱ
Tomis,ȱ dinȱ celeȱ cca.ȱ 43ȱ deȱ inscripöiiȱ înȱ careȱ aparȱ militariȱ sauȱ veterani,ȱ sȬauȱ identificatȱ cca.ȱ
ȱ 55
ȱȱȱ
presupuneȱc©ȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱLegioȱVȱMacedonicaȱaveaȱînȱsferaȱeiȱ
deȱacöiuneȱîntregȱlitoralulȱdobrogean.ȱDup©ȱplecareaȱlegiuniiȱpeȱfrontulȱparthicȱóiȱ
apoiȱ înȱ Daciaȱ (167ȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Tomis,ȱ asemeneaȱ celorlalteȱ dou©ȱ oraóeȱ vestȬpontice,ȱ
intr©ȱ înȱ sferaȱ deȱ acöiuneȱ aȱ Legiuniiȱ XIȱ Claudia;ȱ înȱ câtevaȱ rânduriȱ laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ
consemnaöiȱ militariȱ activiȱ dinȱ aceast©ȱ legiuneȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 263,ȱ 348).ȱ Documenteleȱ
epigraficeȱtomitaneȱsemnaleaz©ȱoȱconcentrareȱdeȱtrupeȱchiarȱînȱvremeaȱluiȱTraian:ȱ
suntȱmenöionaöiȱmaiȱmulöiȱcenturionesȱlegionisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ10)ȱóiȱpraefectiȱequitumȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ15) 316.ȱChiarȱdac©ȱdinȱdocumenteleȱrespectiveȱnuȱseȱpoateȱdeduceȱvreoȱacöiuneȱ
militar©ȱ precis©,ȱ monumenteleȱ avândȱ probabilȱ unȱ caracterȱ comemorativ,ȱ eleȱ potȱ
sugeraȱprezenöaȱefectiv©ȱaȱarmateiȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
Cohorsȱ VIIȱ Gallorumȱ esteȱ atestat©ȱ c©treȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ înȱ Syria317,ȱ
Tomisulȱ r©mânândȱ f©r©ȱ garnizoan©.ȱ Momentulȱ esteȱ apropiatȱ deȱ cinstireaȱ
împ©ratuluiȱ Hadrianȱ cuȱ apelativulȱ deȱ ̳ΏΉΙΟνΕ΍ΓΖ,ȱ iarȱ pentruȱ Tomisȱ cuȱ
recâótigareaȱ statutuluiȱ deȱ civitasȱ libera318.ȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ reînvieȱ preocup©rileȱ
pentruȱ pazaȱ litoralului319,ȱ chiarȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ seȱ poateȱ vorbiȱ deȱ cantonareaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ
unorȱunit©öiȱmilitare.ȱDeȱlaȱMarcusȱAurelius,ȱdarȱmaiȱsigurȱdinȱvremeaȱSeverilor,ȱ
laȱTomisȱesteȱposibilȱs©ȱfiȱstaöionatȱAlaȱIȱFlaviaȱGaetulorumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ247)320.ȱAdus©ȱ
înȱ cadrulȱ m©surilorȱ deȱ sporireȱ aȱ capacit©öiiȱ defensiveȱ aȱ litoralului,ȱ unitateaȱ esteȱ
atestat©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ c©treȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ f©r©ȱ apelativulȱ Flaviaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
127)321.ȱ Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Severusȱ Alexander,ȱ Alaȱ Iȱ Gallorumȱ Atectorigiana,ȱ purtândȱ
apelativulȱ deȱ Severiana,ȱ seȱ pareȱ c©ȱ seȱ aflaȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ óiȱ aȱ cantonatȱ pentruȱ scurtȱ
24ȱ militariȱ activi,ȱ 13ȱ veteraniȱ óiȱ 10ȱ nuȱ auȱ pututȱ fiȱ încadraöi;ȱ idem,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 27,ȱ n.ȱ 70;ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ50,ȱn.ȱ261Ȭ264ȱ(militariȱactiviȱdinȱleg.ȱVȱMacedonicaȱlaȱTomis);ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ74ȱ(veterani,ȱuniiȱcuȱ
gradȱnecunoscut).ȱ
316
ȱPentruȱISMȱII,ȱ10,ȱprimulȱeditor,ȱD.M.ȱTeodorescu,ȱMonumente,ȱp.ȱ24Ȭ25ȱstabileóteȱoȱ
posibil©ȱ raportareȱ laȱ r©zboaieleȱ daciceȱ aleȱ luiȱ Traian;ȱ pentruȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 15,ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ seȱ
pronunö©ȱpentruȱoȱdatareȱmaiȱtârzie.ȱ
317
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 66;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ SCIVAȱ 52Ȭ53ȱ (2001Ȭ2002),ȱ p.ȱ 210ȱ
(asupraȱ momentuluiȱ transfer©riiȱ trupei).ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ P.A.ȱ Holder,ȱ Auxiliaryȱ deploymentȱ inȱ theȱ
reignȱofȱTrajan,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ50ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ142,ȱn.ȱ11.ȱ
318
ȱSupraȱnotaȱ312.ȱ
319
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ RRHȱ 13ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ 229Ȭ230ȱ seȱ pronunö©ȱ pentruȱ oȱ acöiuneȱ conótient©ȱ
deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoralului;ȱ idem,ȱ Dieȱ römischenȱ Verteidigungsanlagenȱ anȱ derȱ Küsteȱ derȱ
Dobrudscha,ȱBJ,ȱ1992,ȱp.ȱ195Ȭ223;ȱpentruȱproblematicaȱap©r©riiȱlitoraluluiȱvestȬpontic,ȱveziȱóiȱ
M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ passim;ȱ opinieȱ diferit©ȱ laȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ p.ȱ
27Ȭ28.ȱ
320
ȱ Dateȱ maiȱ recenteȱ privindȱ alaȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Gaetulorumȱ înȱ provinciaȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ laȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ deȱ laȱ Histria,ȱ Ponticaȱ 31ȱ (1998),ȱ p.ȱ 109Ȭ114;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬ
Popescu,ȱ SCIVAȱ 52Ȭ53ȱ (2001Ȭ2002),ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ183;ȱ ultimulȱ autorȱ credeȱ c©ȱ nuȱ putemȱ precizaȱ
loculȱundeȱóiȬaȱavutȱtrupaȱcastrulȱpeȱperioadaȱdeȱstaöionareȱînȱMoesiaȱInferiorȱ(sec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱ
Chr.);ȱidem,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ172Ȭ178;ȱp.ȱ242ȱ(Oescus,ȱ62Ȭ71ȱ(?);ȱCarsium,ȱpriorȱ114ȱ(?).ȱ
321
ȱ Alaȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Gaetulorumȱ esteȱ atestat©ȱ indirectȱ printrȬoȱ inscripöieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 106)ȱ dinȱ
careȱcunoaótemȱcarieraȱluiȱP.ȱAeliusȱAmmonius;ȱînainteȱdeȱaȱfiȱprefectȱalȱfloteiȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱ
GordianȱóiȱcomandantȱalȱMoesieiȱInferioare,ȱAmmoniusȱfuseseȱprefectȱalȱacesteiȱformaöiuniȱ
deȱcavalerie,ȱdup©ȱ 234ȱ sauȱ înȱ timpulȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Maximinusȱ Thrax,ȱcf.ȱIȱ Piso,ȱ DaciaȱNSȱ 20ȱ
(1976),ȱ p.ȱ 251Ȭ257;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 176Ȭ177,ȱ n.ȱ 1443Ȭ1444,ȱ cuȱ trimitereȱ laȱ
Devijver,ȱ PME,ȱ Sȱ 13,ȱ p.ȱ 724,ȱ consider©ȱ c©ȱ înȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 127ȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ alaȱ Gaetulorumȱ careȱ
staöionaȱînȱArabia.ȱ
56ȱ ȱ
ȱ
timpȱóiȱlaȱTomis322.ȱOȱinscripöieȱdinȱ224ȱp.ȱChr.ȱesteȱdedicat©ȱchiarȱguvernatoruluiȱ
provinciei,ȱL.ȱAnniusȱItalicusȱHonoratus,ȱdeȱc©treȱunȱdecurionȱalȱacesteiȱaleȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ 93).ȱ Prinȱ 244Ȭ249ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ înȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Filipȱ Arabul,ȱ oȱ vexilaöieȱ dinȱ Cohorsȱ Iȱ
Cilicumȱ (ceȱ primeaȱ óiȱ numeleȱ deȱ Philippiana)ȱ aȱ acöionatȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 345ȱ óiȱ
452)323.ȱ
Inscripöiileȱ nuȱ dauȱ vreunȱ indiciuȱ dup©ȱ careȱ Classisȱ Flaviaȱ Moesicaȱ arȱ fiȱ avutȱ
subȱ controlȱ óiȱ Tomisul.ȱ Lucrulȱ esteȱ foarteȱ probabil,ȱ maiȱ alesȱ c©ȱ nuȱ avemȱ nicioȱ
dovad©ȱ c©ȱ aiciȱ óiȬarȱ fiȱ extinsȱ activitateaȱ Classisȱ Pontica324.ȱ Laȱ Tomisȱ sȬaȱ aflatȱ
inscripöiaȱfunerar©ȱaȱunuiȱveteranȱalȱfloteiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ199)325;ȱînȱapropiereaȱTomisuluiȱ
aȱfostȱdescoperitȱcippusȬulȱdinȱ240Ȭ244ȱcuȱreferireȱlaȱcarieraȱmilitar©ȱaȱluiȱP.ȱAeliusȱ
Ammonius,ȱ procuratorȱ alȱ Moesieiȱ Inferioare,ȱ careȱ avuseseȱ subȱ comandaȱ saȱ óiȱ
ClassisȱFlaviaȱMoesica,ȱacreditat©ȱcuȱepitetulȱGordianaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ106).ȱȱ
LaȱTomisȱóiȱînȱteritoriuȱsȬauȱstabilitȱunȱnum©rȱmareȱdeȱveterani;ȱeiȱprovinȱdinȱ
legiunileȱ Moesieiȱ Inferioareȱ –ȱ Legioȱ Vȱ Macedonicaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 226,ȱ 458)326,ȱ XIȱ Claudiaȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 383,ȱ 374)ȱ óiȱ Iȱ Italicaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 250)327ȱ sauȱ dinȱ unit©öiȱ militareȱ dinȱ alteȱ
provincii:ȱ Leg.ȱ VIIȱ Claudiaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 169)328,ȱ XIIIȱ Geminaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 190,ȱ 221,ȱ 296);ȱ seȱ
adaug©ȱ ceiȱ proveniöiȱ dinȱ trupeleȱ auxiliareȱ dinȱ provincie:ȱ alaȱ Iȱ Asturumȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
172)329,ȱ alaȱ Iȱ Pannoniorumȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 170)330,ȱ alaȱ IIȱ Hispanorumȱ etȱ Aravacorumȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
225),ȱ cohorsȱ Iȱ Lusitanorumȱ Cyrenaicaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 196).ȱ Oȱ menöiuneȱ special©ȱ dator©mȱ
veteranilorȱproveniöiȱdinȱcohorteleȱpretorieneȱdeȱlaȱRoma;ȱunulȱdintreȱei,ȱoriginarȱ
dinȱ Aquaeȱ Statellae,ȱ aȱ f©cutȱ parteȱ dinȱ cohorsȱ VIȱ praetoriaȱ óiȱ aȱ ajunsȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înc©ȱ
dinȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Vespasianȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 8)331.ȱ Alteȱ menöiuniȱ deȱ militariȱ dinȱ cohorteleȱ
322
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 53;ȱ asupraȱ aleiȱ amintiteȱ óiȱ posibileiȱ locaöii,ȱ veziȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬ
Popescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ178Ȭ181;ȱ243:ȱAppiariaȱ(?).ȱ
323
ȱEsteȱunaȱdinȱunit©öileȱcunoscuteȱdinȱprovincie,ȱcareȱaȱstaöionatȱînȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
laȱSacidava;ȱveziȱóiȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ201Ȭ205;ȱ243.ȱ
324
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 73.ȱ Înȱ modȱ (aproape)ȱ sigurȱ oȱ parteȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ vesticȱ alȱ
Pontuluiȱdeȱlaȱv©rsareaȱDun©riiȱînȱmareȱpân©ȱlaȱHistriaȱseȱaflaȱsubȱcontrolulȱfloteiȱmoesiceȱ
(ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ 71).ȱ Veziȱ maiȱ nuanöatȱ asupraȱ misiuniiȱ deȱ supraveghereȱ óiȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ
vestȬponticȱdeȱc©treȱclassisȱFlaviaȱMoesicaȱlaȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱM.ȱZahariade,ȱLesȱforcesȱnavalesȱduȱ
BasȱDanubeȱetȱdeȱlaȱmerȱNoireȱauxȱI Ȭer ȱ–ȱVI e ȱsiècles,ȱOxford,ȱ1996,ȱp.ȱ15,ȱ18Ȭ19;ȱp.ȱ76,ȱ78Ȭ79ȱóiȱ89,ȱ
hartaȱ1ȱ(Tomis);ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ255.ȱ
325
ȱInscripöieȱdatat©ȱcuȱprobabilitateȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
326
ȱVeziȱóiȱISMȱII,ȱ466,ȱ442;ȱM.ȱB©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱ
p.ȱ 165Ȭ169,ȱ nr.ȱ 3ȱ óiȱ 4;ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Inscriptionsȱ inéditesȱ etȱ reviséesȱ deȱ laȱ
collectionȱ duȱ Muséeȱ d’Histoireȱ Nationaleȱ etȱ d’Archéologieȱ deȱ Constantza.ȱ II,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ (2010),ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ348Ȭ351,ȱnr.ȱ1.ȱ
327
ȱ Pentruȱ militariiȱ atestaöiȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ proveniöiȱ dinȱ diferiteȱ formaöiuni,ȱ veziȱ acumȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Fl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱpassim.ȱ
328
ȱ Inscripöieȱ datat©ȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ pentruȱ datare,ȱ veziȱ G.ȱ
Bordenache,ȱTemiȱeȱmotiviȱdellaȱplasticaȱfunerariaȱdiȱetàȱRomanaȱnellaȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ
9ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ260.ȱ
329
ȱTotȱsec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.;ȱpentruȱdatare,ȱtotȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ260Ȭ262.ȱ
330
ȱ Inscripöieȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Vespasianȱ sauȱ curândȱ dup©ȱ aceea;ȱ titularulȱ eiȱ
fuseseȱ „r©spl©titȱ deȱ Vespasianȱ pentruȱ vitejiaȱ sa”ȱ (donisȱ donatoȱ abȱ imperatoreȱ Vespasianoȱ obȱ
virtutem).ȱȱ
331
ȱDiplomaȱdateaz©ȱdinȱ2ȱdecembrieȱ76ȱp.ȱChr.;ȱnuȱesteȱexclus©ȱposibilitateaȱcaȱfostulȱ
pretorianȱ s©ȱ fiȱ deöinutȱ laȱ Tomisȱ oȱ funcöieȱ important©ȱ (A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 74).ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ
C.C.ȱPetolescu,ȱUnȱancienȱprétorienȱdansȱunȱdiplômeȱdeȱTomis,ȱînȱCivilisationȱgrecqueȱetȱculturesȱ
ȱ 57
ȱȱȱ
pretorieneȱ leȱ avemȱ dinȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 140) ȱ óiȱ deȱ laȱ
sfâróitulȱsec.ȱII/începutulȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ266).ȱȱ
LaȱTomisȱexistaȱoȱstatioȱdeȱbeneficiariiȱconsularisȱóiȱoȱaltaȱdeȱspeculatoresȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ327)332.ȱ
Titulariiȱ inscripöiilor,ȱ militariȱ activiȱ sauȱ veteraniȱ auȱ diferiteȱ gradeȱ militare:ȱ
praefectusȱ alae/cohortis,ȱ praefectiȱ equitum,ȱ decurio,ȱ duplicarius,ȱ centurio,ȱ imaginifer,ȱ
trecenarius,ȱprimusȱpilus,ȱsignifer,ȱequesȱvexillarius,ȱlibrariusȱleg(ati)?/ȱlegionis.ȱCâöivaȱ
militariȱ activeaz©ȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ guvernatori:ȱ afl©mȱ deȱ unȱ corniculariusȱ alȱ
guvernatoruluiȱ Q.ȱ Marciusȱ Turboȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 56;ȱ anulȱ 155ȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ Fl(avius)ȱ
Severianusȱdec(urio)ȱalaeȱIȱAtectorumȱSeverianaeȱeraȱcandidatusȱalȱluiȱItalicusȱAnniusȱ
Honoratusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 93;ȱ anulȱ 224ȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Unȱ interesȱ deosebitȱ prezint©ȱ implicareaȱ
militarilorȱ înȱ viaöaȱ civil©:ȱ doiȱ veteraniȱ devinȱ membriȱ aiȱ Sfatuluiȱ (consilieri)ȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ180ȱóiȱ249)333.ȱ
ȱ
Populaöieȱ
Înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ populaöiaȱ Tomisuluiȱ aȱ r©masȱ esenöialmenteȱ greac©334;ȱ
datorit©ȱ influenöeiȱ romaneȱ seȱ producȱ îns©ȱ schimb©riȱ înȱ structuraȱ demografic©,ȱ
reflectateȱ deȱ onomasticaȱ inscripöiilor.ȱ Înȱ inscripöiileȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ numeleȱ
proprii,ȱ cuȱ rareȱ excepöii,ȱ suntȱ greceóti,ȱ înȱ structuraȱ cunoscut©:ȱ dou©ȱ nume,ȱ înȱ
filiaöieȱ greac©.ȱ Seȱ remarc©ȱ oȱ proporöieȱ crescând©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ pân©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.335,ȱ urmareȱ probabil©ȱ óiȱ aȱ uneiȱ creóteriȱ demografice.ȱ Chiarȱ óiȱ numeleȱ greceótiȱ
sufer©ȱ modific©riȱ înȱ cursulȱ primelorȱ secole;ȱ seȱ estompeaz©ȱ diferenöeleȱ întreȱ
onomasticaȱ cet©öilorȱ ionieneȱ óiȱ celeȱ doriene.ȱ Numeleȱ tradiöionaleȱ ionieneȱ devinȱ
sporadice:ȱ Antianax,ȱ Aristarchos,ȱ Ariston,ȱ Damostratos,ȱ Demonax,ȱ Epikrates,ȱ
Kallimachos,ȱNeikostratos,ȱTrasymachos336.ȱȱ
Peȱ bazaȱ uneiȱ statisticiȱ maiȱ recenteȱ dinȱ totalulȱ deȱ 739ȱ numeȱ înregistrate,ȱ 217ȱ
(37,56%)ȱsuntȱgreceótiȱóiȱ29ȱ(5%)ȱînȱcursȱdeȱgrecizare337.ȱÎntreȱnumeleȱgreceótiȱceleȱ
maiȱfrecventeȱsunt:ȱAlexandros,ȱDionysios,ȱTheodoros,ȱPoseidoniosȱetc.ȱ
Influenöaȱ roman©ȱ seȱ manifest©ȱ progresivȱ înȱ onomastic©.ȱ Dinȱ celeȱ 739ȱ numeȱ
amintite,ȱ 221ȱ (38,23%)ȱ suntȱ romaneȱ óiȱ 81ȱ (14%)ȱ înȱ cursȱ deȱ romanizareȱ (celeȱ maiȱ
antiquesȱ périphériques,ȱ Hommageȱ àȱ Petreȱ Alexandrescuȱ àȱ sonȱ 70ȱ anniversaireȱ (éds.ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ
M.ȱBabeó),ȱBucureóti,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ339Ȭ341.ȱ

ȱ C.C.ȱ Petolescuȱ Q.ȱ Trebelliusȱ Maximus,ȱ [e]xȱ trecenario,ȱ înȱ Laȱ hiérarchieȱ (Rangordung)ȱ deȱ
l’arméeȱ romaineȱ sousȱ leȱ HautȬEmpire,ȱ inȱ Actesȱ duȱ Congrèsȱ deȱ Lyonȱ (15Ȭ18ȱ septembreȱ 1994)ȱ
ressemblésȱetȱéditésȱparȱYaanȱLeȱBohec,ȱParis,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ248..ȱ
332
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 211;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 28,ȱ n.ȱ 80ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 50,ȱ n.ȱ 262Ȭ266ȱ
(beneficiariiȱconsularisȱlaȱTomis).ȱ
333
ȱ Asupraȱ organiz©riiȱ militareȱ aȱ provincieiȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ veziȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ
passim;ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ56Ȭ72;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱpassim.ȱ
334
ȱ PopulaöiaȱTomisuluiȱ pentruȱ secoleleȱIIȬIIIȱ p.ȱChr.ȱesteȱapreciat©ȱ laȱ cca.ȱ 20Ȭ30000ȱdeȱ
locuitori;ȱveziȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ49.ȱ
335
ȱ Sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ ȱ –ȱ 33ȱ persoane;ȱ primeleȱ treiȱ sferturiȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ 49;ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ
mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ 55;ȱ cf.ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 49,ȱ n.ȱ 211.ȱ Proporöiaȱ crescând©ȱ
poateȱfiȱóiȱurmareaȱfaptuluiȱc©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱcunoaótemȱmultȱmaiȱmulteȱdocumenteȱ
epigraficeȱ(n.ȱa.).ȱ
336
ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ159.ȱȱ
337
ȱ Cf.ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ ͞ΑΓΐ΅ΗΘ΍ΎϱΑ.ȱ Aspectsȱ démographiquesȱ dansȱ lesȱ villesȱ ouestȬpontiquesȱ
deȱlaȱprovinceȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱArhMolȱ19ȱ(1996),ȱp.ȱ135Ȭ148,ȱtabelȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
58ȱ ȱ
ȱ
multeȱgrecoȬromane)338.ȱÎntreȱgreciiȱdeveniöiȱrecentȱcet©öeniȱromaniȱsuntȱnumeroóiȱ
purt©toriȱaiȱnumelorȱimperiale:ȱIulii,ȱFlavii,ȱUlpii,ȱAeliiȱóiȱAurelii.ȱNuȱputemȱvorbiȱ
deȱ acordareaȱ dreptuluiȱ deȱ cet©öenieȱ decâtȱ începândȱ cuȱ domniaȱ luiȱ Claudius339.ȱ
Apoi,ȱ înȱ epocaȱ Flaviilor,ȱ procesulȱ seȱ extinde,ȱ continuândȱ neîntreruptȱ pân©ȱ c©treȱ
mijloculȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱepoc©ȱceȱcorespundeȱuneiȱdezvolt©riȱmaximeȱaȱprocesuluiȱ
deȱ romanizareȱ înȱ toat©ȱ lumeaȱ roman©.ȱ Dac©ȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ numeleȱ
romaneȱreprezentauȱînc©ȱunȱfenomenȱdestulȱdeȱrarȱlaȱTomis,ȱnum©rulȱlorȱsporeóteȱ
bruscȱ cuȱ perioadaȱ luiȱ Traianȱ óiȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ C©treȱ sfâróitulȱ
sec.ȱ IIȱ óiȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ numeleȱ romaneȱ ajungȱ s©ȱ dep©óeasc©,ȱ înȱ
inscripöii,ȱ num©rulȱ celorȱ greceóti,ȱ cuprinzândȱ toateȱ straturileȱ sociale.ȱ Dup©ȱ
intrareaȱ înȱ vigoareȱ aȱ Constituöieiȱ Antoniniene,ȱ titlulȱ deȱ cet©öeanȱ romanȱ seȱ
generalizeaz©ȱlaȱTomis,ȱcaȱînȱîntregȱImperiulȱRoman.ȱCuȱrareȱexcepöii,ȱpersoaneleȱ
atestateȱînȱinscripöiileȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱdup©ȱaceast©ȱdat©ȱpoart©ȱnumeȱromane340.ȱ
Centruȱ economicȱ importantȱ óiȱ capital©ȱ aȱ comunit©öiiȱ pontice,ȱ Tomisulȱ esteȱ
preferatȱóiȱdeȱmulöiȱstr©ini341.ȱSuntȱmenöionaöiȱînȱinscripöiiȱ̉opyriskosȱdinȱCallatisȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 312),ȱ Aureliusȱ Sozomenosȱ fiulȱ luiȱ Zotichosȱ originarȱ dinȱ Bizanöȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
257),ȱ Pontikosȱ fiulȱ luiȱ Neikiasȱ dinȱ Olbiaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 279),ȱ Nilosȱ óiȱ Attasȱ dinȱ Tyrasȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ5ȱóiȱ313).ȱAlöiiȱsuntȱdinȱregiuniȱmaiȱîndep©rtate:ȱdinȱAthenaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ375),ȱ
Perinthȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 365,ȱ 129),ȱ Cyzikȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 366);ȱ dinȱ Ancyraȱ Galatiaeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 375),ȱ
dinȱ Abonoteichosȱ (Paphlagonia;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 129),ȱ dinȱ Mazacaȱ óiȱ Tyanaȱ Cappadocieiȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 129),ȱ dinȱ Neapolisȱ Syriaeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 188),ȱ Antipatrisȱ (Samariaȱ Palestinae;ȱ
ISMȱ II,ȱ 96)ȱ óiȱ Sidonȱ (Phoenicia;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 290)342.ȱ Unȱ num©rȱ mareȱ provinȱ dinȱ
Bithynia:ȱ dinȱ Prousaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 368,ȱ 308)ȱ sauȱ dinȱ Prousias/Hypiosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 462,ȱ
248)343,ȱNicomediaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ129,ȱ281,ȱ328,ȱ256,ȱ259),ȱHeracleeaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ57,ȱ129,ȱ235),ȱ
Caesareiaȱ óiȱ Tiusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 129)344.ȱ Existenöaȱ asociaöiilorȱ Alexandrinilorȱ (ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ
338
ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 160ȱ suntȱ amintiteȱ 800ȱ deȱ nume,ȱ dintreȱ careȱ 120ȱ suntȱ
romaneȱ óiȱ 162ȱ aparöinȱ elementelorȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ romane.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ M.ȱ Musielakȱ înȱ Studiaȱ
Moesiacaȱ IIȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 69Ȭ78;ȱ eadem,ȱ Histria,ȱ Tomisȱ undȱ Callatis:ȱ Möglichkeitenȱ derȱ
prosopographischenȱForschung:ȱKataloge,ȱProsopographica,ȱPoznaÚ,ȱ1993,ȱp.ȱ97Ȭ108.ȱ
339
ȱ Asupraȱ câótig©riiȱ cet©öenieiȱ romaneȱ óiȱ aȱ elitelorȱ veziȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Dieȱ Strukturȱ derȱ
ElitenȱwestpontischenȱGriechenstädteȱwährendȱdesȱPrinzipatsȱimȱRahmenȱihresȱrechtlichenȱStatus,ȱ
Antiquitasȱ 28ȱ (2005),ȱ p.ȱ 141Ȭ162;ȱ adaug©ȱ óiȱ L.ȱ Mih©ilescuȬBîrlibaȱ óiȱ V.ȱ Piftor,ȱ Lesȱ vétéransȱ
membresȱd’éliteȱcivileȱenȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱPeuceȱSNȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ210.ȱ
340
ȱ Înȱ inscripöiiȱ datateȱ dup©ȱ 212ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ afl©mȱ pesteȱ 50ȱ deȱ purt©toriȱ aiȱ numeluiȱ
Aurelius.ȱ Veziȱ A.ȱ Boil©,ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Discuöiiȱ recenteȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ Constitutioȱ
Antoniniana,ȱ StClsȱ 14ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ194;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 19ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 160;ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ43ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ356Ȭ359,ȱnr.ȱ5.ȱ
341
ȱ Nuȱ neȱ referimȱ aiciȱ laȱ numeleȱ militarilorȱ activiȱ sauȱ alȱ veteranilorȱ aflaöiȱ sauȱ stabiliöiȱ
laȱTomis.ȱ
342
ȱ Pentruȱ alöiȱ str©iniȱ dinȱ Sidonȱ ajunóiȱ (stabiliöi)ȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ169;ȱ AEȱ (1995),ȱ 1343ȱ =ȱ SCIVAȱ 48ȱ (1997),ȱ 4,ȱ nr.ȱ 717ȱ
(Cronica).ȱ
343
ȱPentruȱISMȱII,ȱ298,ȱveziȱóiȱD.ȱSluóanschi,ȱTomitanaȱGraeca,ȱPonticaȱ21Ȭ22ȱ(1988Ȭ1989),ȱ
p.ȱ307ȱ(SEGȱ39,ȱ679).ȱ
344
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 406Ȭ409,ȱ index;ȱ R.ȱ Curc©,ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ „Orientaux”ȱ dansȱ laȱ
Dobroudjaȱromaine.ȱUneȱapprocheȱonomastique,ȱînȱEthnicȱContactsȱandȱCulturalȱExchangesȱNorthȱ
andȱWestȱofȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱfromȱtheȱGreekȱColonizationȱtoȱtheȱOttomanȱConquest(ed.ȱV.ȱCojocaru),ȱ
Iaói,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 313Ȭ329.ȱ Adaug©ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Dieȱ Beziehungenȱ zwischenȱ denȱ Stätdenȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ
InferiorȱundȱderȱProvinzȱDakien,ȱibidem,ȱp.ȱ273Ȭ276.ȱVeziȱpeȱlargȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱProsopographiaȱ
ȱ 59
ȱȱȱ
̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 153)ȱ presupuneȱ c©ȱ membriiȱ eiȱ erauȱ înȱ mareȱ m©sur©,ȱ dac©ȱ
nuȱ exclusiv,ȱ negustoriȱ óiȱ armatoriȱ dinȱ vestitulȱ oraóȱ egiptean.ȱ Înȱ privinöaȱ unorȱ
nominaȱ Aegyptiaȱ graecata345ȱ cit©mȱ ̝ΐΐЏΑ΍ΓΖ,ȱ ̝ΑΓΙΆϟΝΑ,ȱ ̈ϢΗϟΈΝΕΓΖȱ (͑ΗϟΈΝΕΓΖ),ȱ
̕΅ΆΉϟΟ΋,ȱ ̕΅Ε΅ΔϟΝΑȱ (̕ΉΕ΅ΔϟΝΑ),ȱ ̕ΉΕ΅ΔϱΈΝΕoΖ,ȱ ̕νΔΔΝΑ.ȱ Întreȱ orientaliiȱ deȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ remarc©mȱ câtevaȱ nominaȱ Asiana,ȱ precum:ȱ ̡ΘΘ΅ΏΓΖ,ȱ atestatȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ
rânduriȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 340,ȱ 459,ȱ70),ȱ ̡ΠΠΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 282),ȱ ̡ΔΠ΋346ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 238),ȱ ̇ΣΈ΅Ζȱ
(Dada,ȱ înȱ inscripöiileȱ latine;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 18,ȱ 26,ȱ 295,ȱ 137)347.ȱ Alteȱ nominaȱ Asianaȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ suntȱ ̇Σ΋ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 125),ȱ ̋΍Ο΍ΗΣΘΘ΅ȱ óiȱ ̍ϟ΅ΘΘ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 307)348,ȱ ̐΅Α΅Ζȱ (ISMȱ
II,ȱ 83),ȱ ̓΅ΔκΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 26ȱ óiȱ 125),ȱ ̓΅ΔΉϟ΅Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 362);ȱ numeȱ iranieneȱ
̌Ε΅ΗΘ΅ΐΓΖ,ȱ ̄Έ΍΅·ΓΖ,ȱ ̄ΆΕ΅·ΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 313)349;ȱ unȱ numeȱ semitic,ȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ chiarȱ
iudaic,ȱSambatisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ367).ȱ
Nuȱ lipsescȱ niciȱ persoaneleȱ cuȱ numeȱ traceȱ (aproximativȱ 28ȱ dinȱ 800ȱ deȱ numeȱ
înregistrate)350:ȱ̕ΉϾΟ΋Ζȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ165),ȱ̕ΎϟΕΘΓΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ344)351,ȱ̕ϱΏ΅ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ330),ȱ
Curithieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 303),ȱ Daciscusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 352),ȱ Zibesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 303).ȱ Înȱ majoritateaȱ
cazurilorȱsuntȱnumeȱdubleȱgrecoȬindigeneȱ(̝ΑΘ΍·ϱΑ΋ȱ̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ165)ȱsauȱ
înȱfiliaöieȱgreac©:ȱ̍ΓΙΟϟ΅Ζȱ̍΅ΏΏ΍ΎΕΣΘΓΙȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ468),ȱ̅ΓϾΘΉ΍Ζȱ̽ΕΓΒνΑΓΙȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
125),ȱ ̐΅΍νΘΝΑȱ ̇ΉΎΉΆΣΏΓΙ 352.ȱ kiȱ înȱ cazulȱ numelorȱ traceȱ înregistr©mȱ procesulȱ deȱ
romanizare,ȱ urmare,ȱ înȱ uneleȱ cazuri,ȱ aȱ câótig©riiȱ cet©öenieiȱ romane:ȱ Aureliusȱ
Daleniȱ óiȱ Aureliaȱ Uthisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 266)353,ȱ Tiberiusȱ Claudiusȱ Mucasiusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
Pontiȱ Euxiniȱ externa,ȱ înȱ cursȱ deȱ apariöieȱ înȱ colecöiaȱ „Colloquiaȱ Antiqua”ȱ (Louvain);ȱ idem,ȱ
LesȱBithyniensȱenȱThrace,ȱenȱMésieȱInférieureȱetȱdansȱleȱPontȱNordȱàȱl’époqueȱimpériale,ȱînȱActesȱ
duȱ Colloqueȱ internationalȱ deȱ Besançon,ȱ 26Ȭ27ȱ nov.ȱ 2010ȱ (înȱ cursȱ deȱ apariöie);ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ seȱ
observ©ȱ disponibilitateaȱ deȱ aȱ acordaȱ cet©öeniaȱ bithinienilor,ȱ poateȱ maiȱ alesȱ celorȱ dinȱ
Nicomedia.ȱ
345
ȱ Veziȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 387;ȱ numeleȱ orientaleȱ suntȱ înȱ num©rȱ deȱ 19ȱ (3,29%),ȱ cf.ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ
op.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
346
ȱ Acestaȱ óiȱ derivateleȱ sale,ȱ bogatȱ atestateȱ înȱ Asiaȱ Mic©ȱ óiȱ bazinulȱ pontic,ȱ suntȱ poateȱ
hipocoristiceȱcuȱparaleleȱînȱmaiȱmulteȱlimbi;ȱveziȱcomentariulȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ411;ȱ
M.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ392.ȱȱ
347
ȱ Dadaȱ eȱ unȱ numeȱ hipocoristic,ȱ atribuitȱ adeseoriȱ onomasticiiȱ trace;ȱ apareȱ îns©ȱ
frecventȱ înȱ oraóeleȱ greceótiȱ ponticeȱ (veziȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 380Ȭ381).ȱ Totȱ unȱ
hipocoristicȱesteȱóiȱMama,ȱnumeȱcareȱaparöineȱmaiȱmultorȱfonduriȱlingvistice,ȱinclusivȱceluiȱ
tracic;ȱD.ȱDetschew,ȱDieȱthrakischenȱSprachreste,ȱWien,ȱ1957,ȱp.ȱ284.ȱ
348
ȱ Ultimeleȱ dou©ȱ aparȱ peȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ aflat©ȱ înȱ teritoriulȱ tomitanȱ laȱ Valuȱ luiȱ Traian;ȱ
pentruȱeleȱseȱpropuneȱóiȱoȱorigineȱtrac©;ȱveziȱISMȱII,ȱ307ȱóiȱp.ȱ291.ȱ
349
ȱ L.ȱ Robert,ȱ RÉGȱ 73ȱ (1960),ȱ p.ȱ 178;ȱ I.I.ȱ Russu,ȱ Noteȱ epigrafice,ȱ StClsȱ 8ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 226Ȭ
227.ȱ
350
ȱInclusivȱceleȱdinȱteritoriu,ȱveziȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ383.ȱAsupraȱnumelorȱtraceȱdinȱTomisȱ(15)ȱ
óiȱdinȱteritoriulȱacestuiaȱ(6)ȱveziȱóiȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©ȱînȱActesȱduȱII e ȱCongrèsȱInternationalȱdeȱ
Thracologie,ȱII,ȱBucarest,ȱ1980,ȱp.ȱ281Ȭ287.ȱLaȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱArhMoldȱ19ȱ(1996),ȱp.ȱ136ȱdinȱ739ȱ
deȱantroponimeȱlaȱTomis,ȱ4ȱ(0,69%)ȱsuntȱtraceȱóiȱtotȱ4ȱ(0,69%)ȱînȱcursȱdeȱtracizare.ȱ
351
ȱAlȱdoileaȱnumeȱb©nuitȱaȱfiȱóiȱiliric;ȱveziȱóiȱI.I.ȱRussu,ȱIllirii,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1969,ȱp.ȱ246.ȱ
352
ȱ Atestatȱ maiȱ recentȱ înȱ teritoriulȱ tomitan,ȱ laȱ Topraisar,ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ Numeleȱ
̇ΉΎνΆ΅ΏΓΖȱ peȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ Dobrogea,ȱ ThracoȬDacicaȱ 11ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 5Ȭ9;ȱ C.C.ȱ
Petolescu,ȱIDREȱII,ȱ348.ȱ
353
ȱ Inscripöiaȱ apareȱ óiȱ înȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ 237ȱ întrucâtȱ înȱ textȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ vicusȱ Amlaidina,ȱ
integratȱteritoriuluiȱcallatian;ȱD.ȱDetschew,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ114ȱ–ȱDalenus;ȱI.I.ȱRussu,ȱLimbaȱtracoȬ
dacilor 2 ,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1967,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101.ȱ
60ȱ ȱ
ȱ
128)354.ȱ
Îndeletnicirileȱ populaöiei355ȱ suntȱ înȱ mareȱ m©sur©ȱ orientateȱ spreȱ navigaöieȱ óiȱ
comerö356.ȱ Amȱ avutȱ ocaziaȱ s©ȱ neȱ referimȱ dejaȱ laȱ „casaȱ Alexandrinilor”,ȱ menöionat©ȱ
întrȬoȱinscripöieȱdinȱ160ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ153).ȱAlteȱdou©ȱinscripöii,ȱtotȱdinȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱ
Chr.,ȱ menöioneaz©ȱ oȱ asociaöieȱ deȱ armatoriȱ tomitaniȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ πΑȱ ̖ϱΐΉ΍ȱ
Α΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 60)357ȱ sauȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ Α΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 132)358.ȱ Al©turiȱ deȱ
colegiulȱarmatorilorȱtomitaniȱsuntȱatestaöiȱóiȱarmatoriȱ(Α΅ϾΎΏ΋ΕΓ΍)ȱizolaöiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
186ȱ óiȱ 291)359,ȱ precumȱ óiȱ oȱ familieȱ deȱ armatoriȱ str©iniȱ stabiliöiȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
375).ȱ
Calitateaȱ deȱ negustorȱ (σΐΔΓΕΓΖ)ȱ oȱ afl©mȱ menöionat©ȱ peȱ unȱ catalogȱ
fragmentarȱ deȱ numeȱ propriiȱ (asociaöieȱ profesional©?;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 403)ȱ óiȱ peȱ dou©ȱ
monumenteȱfunerareȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ462ȱóiȱ248)ȱaleȱunorȱnegustoriȱoriginariȱdinȱProusiasȱ
Bithyniae.ȱ Peȱ oȱ plac©ȱ deȱ calcarȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 463)ȱ esteȱ trecutȱ unȱ „negustorȱ deȱ vinuriȱ dinȱ
Alexandria”ȱ (ΓϢΑνΐΔΓΕΓΖȱ ̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕϟ΅Ζ).ȱ Seȱ practicaȱ óiȱ unȱ comeröȱ deȱ m©runöióuri;ȱ
deóiȱ termenulȱ deȱ ΎΣΔ΋ΏΓΖ360ȱ nuȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ expresȱ înȱ inscripöie,ȱ nuȱ esteȱ greuȱ
s©ȱ recunoaótemȱ unȱ astfelȱ deȱ comerciantȱ peȱ monumentulȱ funerarȱ alȱ unuiȱ str©inȱ
originarȱdinȱBizanöȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ257).ȱ
Alteȱîndeletniciri,ȱtotȱpractice,ȱseȱrefer©ȱlaȱarhitectur©ȱóiȱprelucrareaȱaurului.ȱ
F©r©ȱaȱvedeaȱexactȱleg©turaȱdintreȱacesteȱocupaöii,ȱacelaóiȱindivid,ȱPontianos,ȱleȬaȱ
354
ȱ kiȱ acesteȱ inscripöiiȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ înȱ teritoriuȱ (tomitanȱ deȱ dataȱ aceasta),ȱ laȱ Urluchioiȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 266);ȱ laȱ Mihailȱ Kog©lniceanuȱ (vicusȱ Clementianensis;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 191:ȱ Castusȱ Mucapori)ȱ
óiȱlaȱPoartaȱAlb©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ128).ȱ
355
ȱ Peȱ largȱ asupraȱ acestoraȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ passim.ȱ Asupraȱ denumirilorȱ veziȱ óiȱ
V.ȱCojocaru,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ146Ȭ147.ȱ
356
ȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱComeröȱóiȱnavigatoriȱlaȱPontulȱStângȱóiȱDun©reaȱdeȱJosȱ(sec.ȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.),ȱ
Iaói,ȱ 2002,ȱ passim;ȱ idem,ȱ Economieȱ óiȱ societateȱ înȱ spaöiulȱ pontoȬegeanȱ (sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ C.ȱ –ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ C.),ȱ
Iaói,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ105Ȭ119;ȱidem,ȱNotesȱsurȱlaȱΎΓinéȱcommercialeȱduȱPontȱGaucheȱàȱl’époqueȱromaine,ȱ
Peuceȱ SNȱ 2ȱ (15),ȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 61Ȭ72.ȱ Pentruȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍ȱ (eventualȱ posesoriȱ aȱ uneiȱ „dubleȱ
cet©öenii”,ȱ urmareȱ aȱ óederiiȱ maiȱ îndelungateȱ înȱ metropolaȱ Pontuluiȱ Stâng),ȱ atestaöiȱ înȱ
diverseȱ centreȱ dinȱ bazinulȱ ponticȱ sauȱ maiȱ îndep©rtate,ȱ veziȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ̕ΘΕ΅ΘϱΑΉ΍ΎΓΖȱ
̈Ё΅ΕνΗΘΓΙȱ ̖΍΅ΑϲΖȱ ϳȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱ StClsȱ 34Ȭ36ȱ (1989Ȭ2000),ȱ p.ȱ 137Ȭ140;ȱ idem,ȱ
ProsopographiaȱPontiȱEuxiniȱexterna,ȱp.ȱ223Ȭ226ȱ(mss.).ȱȱȱ
357
ȱ Pentruȱ sensulȱ cuvintelorȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ óiȱ Α΅ϾΎΏ΋ΕΓΖ,ȱ veziȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ108,ȱn.ȱ32;ȱidem,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱn.ȱ32;ȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ51Ȭ81.ȱ
358
ȱ Celeȱ dou©ȱ asociaöiiȱ aleȱ navigatorilorȱ suntȱ diferiteȱ deȱ casaȱ Alexandrinilor,ȱ astfelȱ
încâtȱ laȱ Tomisȱ parȱ aȱ existaȱ treiȱ asociaöiiȱ deȱ armatori,ȱ dovad©ȱ aȱ importanöeiȱ saleȱ pentruȱ
comeröulȱ regionalȱ óiȱ celȱ interprovincialȱ dinȱ vestulȱ M©riiȱ Negreȱ (cf.ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Comeröȱ óiȱ
navigatori,ȱ p.ȱ 75;ȱ idem,ȱ Economieȱ óiȱ societate,ȱ p.ȱ 57Ȭ73;ȱ idem,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 2ȱ (15),ȱ (2004),ȱ p.ȱ 67Ȭ
70).ȱ
359
ȱ Pentruȱ datareaȱ inscripöieiȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 186ȱ (careȱ areȱ reprezentat©ȱ óiȱ oȱ corabie),ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 9ȱ (1965),ȱ p.ȱ 279.ȱ Monumentulȱ esteȱ pentruȱ Theocritosȱ fiulȱ luiȱ
Theocritos,ȱ armatorȱ zisȱ óiȱ „regele”.ȱ Asupraȱ acestuiȱ signum,ȱ Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϾΖ,ȱ veziȱ acumȱ
completareaȱ laȱ ISMȱ IIȱ 291,ȱ cf.ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 42ȱ (2009),ȱ p.ȱ 394Ȭ396,ȱȱȱ
nr.ȱ3.ȱ
360
ȱ Asupraȱ denumiriiȱ negustorilorȱ veziȱ óiȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Comeröȱ óiȱ navigatori,ȱ p.ȱ 87Ȭ108;ȱ
idem,ȱ Notesȱ surȱ lesȱ petitsȱ commerçantsȱ deȱ laȱ Mésieȱ etȱ deȱ laȱ Thraceȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ romaine,ȱ înȱ Studiaȱ
historiaeȱ etȱ religionisȱ DacoȬRomanae.ȱ Inȱ honoremȱ Silviiȱ Sanieȱ (eds.ȱ L.ȱ Mih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ O.ȱ
Bounegru),ȱBucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ317Ȭ326.ȱ
ȱ 61
ȱȱȱ
practicatȱlaȱTomisȱpeȱamândou©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ253;ȱΛΕΙΗΓΛϱΓΖȱóiȱΦΕΛ΍ΘνΎΘΝΑ)361.ȱ
ȱ
Triburi.ȱInstituöii.ȱ
Comunitateaȱ civic©ȱ continuaȱ s©ȱ fieȱ organizat©ȱ peȱ triburi362.ȱ Inscripöiileȱ
p©streaz©ȱ numeleȱ celorȱ óaseȱ triburiȱ milesieneȱ Ȭȱ ̝Ε·΅ΈΉϧΖ,ȱ ̄Ϣ·΍ΎΓΕΉϧΖ,ȱ ͣΔΏΉΘΉΖ,ȱ
̒ϢΑЏΔΉΖ,ȱ̆ΉΏνΓΑΘΉΖȱóiȱ̅ΓΕΉϧΖ363,ȱdarȱeleȱîndeplinescȱacumȱtotȱmaiȱmultȱ(dac©ȱnuȱ
chiarȱ exclusiv)ȱ funcöiiȱ religioase.ȱ Apareȱ óiȱ unȱ alȱ óapteleaȱ tribȱ Ȭȱ ΠΙΏχȱ ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑ.ȱ
Cândȱaȱfostȱcreatȱacestȱtribȱóiȱcareȱerauȱmembriiȱs©iȱnuȱseȱpoateȱspuneȱcuȱprecizie.ȱ
Not©mȱ c©ȱ ΠΙΏχȱ ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑȱ nuȱ comport©ȱ unȱ sensȱ juridicȱ óiȱ niciȱ etnic,ȱ ciȱ numaiȱ
onorific,ȱ asem©n©torȱ triburilorȱ nouȱ createȱ înȱ alteȱ oraóeȱ greceóti.ȱ Inscripöiileȱ careȱ
amintescȱΠΙΏχȱͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑ,ȱatâtȱlaȱTomisȱcâtȱóiȱlaȱHistria,ȱDionysopolisȱóiȱOdessosȱ
suntȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Înȱ totȱ cazul,ȱ apariöiaȱ acestuiȱ tribȱ trebuieȱ legat©ȱ deȱ
instaurareaȱ autorit©öilorȱ romaneȱ aici,ȱ fiindȱ oȱ creaöieȱ recent©,ȱ numit©ȱ astfelȱ cuȱ
intenöiaȱ deȱ aȱ onoraȱ peȱ st©pâniiȱ lumii364.ȱ Singuraȱ inscripöieȱ careȱ atest©ȱ existenöaȱ
acestuiȱ tribȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 256)ȱ esteȱ pus©ȱ deȱ unȱ grecȱ provenitȱ dinȱ Nicomedia,ȱ
̖Ή΍ΐΓΎΕΣΘ΋Ζȱ ̝ΏΉΒΣΑΈΕΓΙ,ȱ devenitȱ óiȱ cet©öeanȱ alȱ Tomisului365.ȱ Triburileȱ aveauȱ oȱ
organizareȱ interioar©:ȱ unȱ patronȱ Ȭȱ ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 52ȱ óiȱ 123),ȱ unȱ óefȱ deȱ tribȱ Ȭȱ
ΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 35)ȱ sauȱ Έ΍ΗΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 123),ȱ unȱ administratorȱ Ȭȱ
πΔ΍ΐΉΏφΟ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 123),ȱ unȱ secretarȱ Ȭȱ ·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϾΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 179ȱ óiȱ 95).ȱ Uneoriȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ123)ȱaceeaóiȱpersoan©ȱcumulaȱmaiȱmulteȱfuncöiiȱimportanteȱînȱtribȱsauȱmaiȱ
deöineaȱoȱfuncöieȱînȱafaraȱtribului,ȱînsemnat©ȱpentruȱcetateȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ95)366.ȱ
Oraóulȱ îóiȱ p©streaz©ȱ organizareaȱ intern©ȱ dinȱ epocaȱ preroman©ȱ óiȱ înȱ ceaȱ
imperial©.ȱ Celeȱ dou©ȱ organismeȱ –ȱ sfatulȱ óiȱ poporulȱ (ΆΓΙΏχȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΈϛΐΓΖ)367ȱ îóiȱ
continu©ȱ activitatea,ȱ fiindȱ frecventȱ atestateȱ deȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ pân©ȱ înȱ
sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.368ȱ Eleȱ aveauȱ atribuöiiȱ restrânse;ȱ decideauȱ asupraȱ problemelorȱ
interne,ȱ iarȱ celeȱ externeȱ erauȱ limitateȱ laȱ relaöiileȱ dinȱ cadrulȱ koinonȬului.ȱ Intrareaȱ
cet©öenilorȱ romaniȱ înȱ sfatulȱ oraóuluiȱ óiȱ decernareaȱ onorific©ȱ aȱ titluluiȱ deȱ
361
ȱVeziȱóiȱIOSPEȱI 2 ,ȱ174,ȱundeȱapareȱarhitectulȱ̐ΉΎΓΐ[΋ΈΉϿΖ]ȱϳȱΎ΅Ϡȱ̖ΓΐΉϟΘ[΋Ζ]ȱ(198ȱp.ȱ
Chr.);ȱ artizaniȱ dinȱ Nicomedia,ȱ înȱ specialȱ sculptori,ȱ auȱ activatȱ óiȱ înȱ zonaȱ vestȬpontic©,ȱ veziȱ
ISMȱI,ȱ374ȱ(Târguóor):ȱ̘ΓϧΆΓΖȱ̐΍ΎΓΐ΋ΈΉϾΖ.ȱNuȱneȱreferimȱaiciȱlaȱalteȱocupaöiiȱlegateȱdeȱartaȱ
spectacoluluiȱ deȱ teatruȱ sauȱ aȱ jocurilorȱ deȱ aren©,ȱ veziȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 146.ȱ Pentruȱ
reliefuriȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ unorȱ personajeȱ cuȱ volumenȱ înȱ mân©ȱ óiȱ semnificaöiaȱ lor,ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱDana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilité,ȱBordeaux,ȱ2011,ȱp.ȱ165Ȭ167.ȱ
362
ȱ Pentruȱ triburileȱ tomitane,ȱ veziȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 175ȱ sq;ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 56ȱ
sq.;ȱSCIVȱ16ȱ(1965),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ519ȱsq.;ȱLeȱculteȱdesȱDioscuresȱetȱlesȱtribusȱtomitainesȱàȱlaȱlumièreȱd’unȱ
monumentȱ récemmentȱ publié,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 10ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 347Ȭ356;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ StClsȱ 12ȱ
(1970),ȱ p.ȱ 117ȱ sq.;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ (2010),ȱ p.ȱ 352Ȭ355,ȱ nr.ȱ 3ȱ
(completareȱlaȱISMȱII,ȱ251ȱ(„…ψȱΠΙ]Ώχȱ̄Ϡ·΍Ύ[o]/ΕνΝ[Α…”).ȱȱ
363
ȱVeziȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ420,ȱindex.ȱ
364
ȱPentruȱacestȱtrib,ȱveziȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ120ȱsq.ȱȱ
365
ȱ Ceilalöiȱ membriȱ aiȱ familieiȱ poart©ȱ îns©ȱ numeȱ romane:ȱ Olpiaȱ (pentruȱ Ulpia)ȱ Castaȱ –ȱ
soöieȬ,ȱóiȱUlpiusȱMartinus,ȱfiu.ȱ
366
ȱISMȱII,ȱ95:ȱinscripöieȱpentruȱunȱanonimȱ„phylarchosȱóiȱgymnasiarchosȱalȱpoporuluiȱóiȱalȱ
tribului”ȱ(ΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱΘΓІȱΈφΐΓΙȱΘϛΖȱΘΉȱΠΙΏϛΖ).ȱ
367
ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱop.ȱcit.ȱ(supraȱn.ȱ156)ȱaȱanalizatȱrecentȱatribuöiileȱóiȱactivitateaȱacestora,ȱ
inclusivȱlaȱTomisȱ(veziȱp.ȱ61Ȭ63,ȱ94Ȭ95,ȱ138Ȭ139ȱetc).ȱ
368
ȱ Celeȱ maiȱ timpuriiȱ decreteȱ p©strateȱ suntȱ dinȱ jurulȱ anuluiȱ 100ȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ veziȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 2ȱȱ
óiȱ5ȱ(sec.ȱIIȬIȱa.ȱChr.).ȱ
62ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ΆΓΙΏΉΙΘφΖȱ persoanelorȱ influenteȱ constituieȱ aspectulȱ celȱ maiȱ caracteristicȱ alȱ
funcöion©riiȱ acestorȱ organisme369.ȱ Laȱ felȱ caȱ organeleȱ deliberative,ȱ magistraturileȱ
dinȱTomisȱr©mânȱpân©ȱlaȱsfâróitȱexclusivȱgreceóti;ȱarhontatulȱcontinu©ȱs©ȱfieȱprimaȱ
magistratur©ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 61,ȱ 70,ȱ 96,ȱ 150,ȱ 273,ȱ 390)370.ȱ Alteȱ magistraturiȱ tradiöionaleȱ
suntȱ indicateȱ prinȱ funcöiileȱ deȱ Φ·ΓΕ΅ΑϱΐΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 57,ȱ 104,ȱ 70,ȱ 71,ȱ 273),ȱ
ΦΗΘϾΑΓΐΓ΍ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 21),ȱ Θ΅ΐϟ΅Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 57,ȱ 70).ȱ Instituöiaȱ efebieiȱ esteȱ indicat©ȱ deȱ
exercitareaȱ funcöieiȱ deȱ ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 12,ȱ 26)ȱ sauȱ ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ ΘΓІȱ
ΈφΐΓΙȱΘϛΖȱΘΉȱΠΙΏϛΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ95).ȱMenöiuneaȱdirect©ȱaȱefebilorȱlaȱTomis,ȱorganizaöiȱ
înȱ claseȱ deȱ vârst©371,ȱ darȱ óiȱ aȱ unuiȱ ΗΓΠ΍ΗΘφΖ,ȱ ajunsȱ înȱ carier©ȱ pân©ȱ înȱ frunteaȱ
comunit©öiiȱ vestȬponticeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 69)ȱ neȱ îndrept©öeóteȱ s©ȱ presupunemȱ oȱ activitateȱ
intens©ȱ înȱ gymnasiulȱ tomitan.ȱ Aparȱ óiȱ funcöiiȱ noi:ȱ ΔΣΘΕΝΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
77)ȱ sauȱ ΔΣΘΕΝΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 101,ȱ 110);ȱ σΎΈ΍ΎΓΖȱ (defensorȱ civitatis;ȱ
ISMȱ II,ȱ 61)372;ȱ ΉЁΔΓΗ΍ΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ –ȱ demnitateȱ public©ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 79,ȱ 298)ȱ sauȱ colegial©ȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ82).ȱ
Colegiile,ȱ laȱ rândulȱ lor,ȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ demnit©öiȱ comuneȱ cuȱ celeȱ publiceȱ Ȭȱ
σΎΈ΍ΎΓΖ373,ȱ ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 19,ȱ 27),ȱ ΑΓΐΓΠϾΏ΅Βȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 19,ȱ 125),ȱ
·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϾΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 16,ȱ 23,ȱ 25,ȱ 82,ȱ 125),ȱ auȱ óiȱ altele,ȱ proprii:ȱ ϡΉΕΉϾΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 26),ȱ
ϡΉΕν΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 125),ȱ ϡΉΕΓΎφΕΙΒȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 19,ȱ 125),ȱ ΐΙΗΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 90) 374.ȱ Înȱ
câtevaȱrânduriȱlaȱTomis,ȱînȱcadrulȱunorȱcolegii,ȱg©simȱóiȱfuncöiileȱdeȱΈ΋ΐΓΗЏΗΘ΋Ζ,ȱ
„salvatorȱ alȱ poporului”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 19)375ȱ óiȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΓ[ΗЏΗΘ΋Ζ],ȱ „salvatorȱ alȱ koinonȬului”ȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ17ȱóiȱ23)376.ȱ
Demnitateaȱ ceaȱ maiȱ important©,ȱ menöionat©ȱ adeseoriȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ membreȱ aleȱ
ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȬuluiȱ vestȬpontic,ȱ eraȱ aceeaȱ deȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱ preóedinteȱ alȱ Comunit©öiiȱ înȱ
formaȱsaȱdeȱ̴ΒΣΔΓΏ΍Ζȱ(sec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.)ȱsauȱ̓ΉΑΘΣΔΓΏ΍Ζȱ(primaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIIȱ
p.ȱChr.)377.ȱ
T.ȱ Flaviusȱ Poseidonius,ȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΦΕΛ΍ΉΕΉϾΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̴Β΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖ,ȱ fiulȱ luiȱ
Phaidros,ȱpontarch,ȱapareȱîntrȬoȱinscripöieȱtomitan©ȱdinȱvremeaȱluiȱHadrianȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ52,ȱdinȱ130Ȭ138ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱdovad©ȱc©ȱfederaöiaȱelenilorȱdinȱPontulȱStângȱfuncöionaȱ
înȱ aceast©ȱ structur©ȱ înȱ vremeaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ amintitȱ sauȱ alȱ luiȱ Traian,ȱ celȱ maiȱ
devreme378.ȱ
369
ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ94Ȭ95,ȱn.ȱ469ȱóiȱurm.ȱanalizeaz©ȱ„25ȱpublicȱtituliȱhonorariiȱofȱ
Tomis”.ȱ
370
ȱÎnȱmulteȱcazuri,ȱmagistraturaȱesteȱindicat©ȱprinȱparticipiulȱaoristȱalȱverbuluiȱΩΕΛΝ.ȱ
371
ȱISMȱII,ȱ79,ȱr.ȱ6Ȭ7:ȱ…σΚ΋ΆΓ[ΑȱΘЗ]ΑȱΔΕΓ΋·ΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ(…efebȱdinȱprimaȱclas©).ȱ
372
ȱFuncöiaȱfrecventȱmenöionat©ȱînȱcolegiiȱreligioaseȱ(Οϟ΅ΗΓ΍):ȱISMȱII,ȱ17,ȱ18,ȱ125,ȱ468.ȱ
373
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱsus.ȱ
374
ȱ Uneleȱ funcöiuniȱ religioaseȱ leȱ vomȱ amintiȱ maiȱ jos,ȱ laȱ culte;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ op.ȱ
cit.,ȱp.ȱ143Ȭ144.ȱ
375
ȱFuncöiaȱesteȱcunoscut©ȱóiȱlaȱCallatis,ȱveziȱISMȱIII,ȱ32,ȱr.ȱ7ȱóiȱp.ȱ283.ȱ
376
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Einȱ neuesȱ griechischesȱ Wort:ȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΓΗЏΗΘ΋Ζ,ȱ StClsȱ 28Ȭ30ȱ (1992Ȭ1991),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ121Ȭ123;ȱveziȱdeȱesemeneaȱóiȱISMȱIII,ȱ73ȱ(comentariul).ȱ
377
ȱ Supraȱ notaȱ 212.ȱ Adaug©ȱ Z.ȱ Gocheva,ȱ Organizationȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ andȱ administrativeȱ
lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ westernȱ Ponticȱ Koinon,ȱ înȱ Studiaȱ inȱ honoremȱ Christoȱ M.ȱ Danovȱ Univ.Prof.D.Dr.ȱ
collegaeȱ etȱ discipuliȱ dedicaverunt,ȱ Thraciaȱ 12,ȱ Sofia,ȱ 1998,ȱ p.ȱ 141Ȭ146;ȱ M.ȱ Tatscheva,ȱ Dasȱ
westpontischeȱ Koinonȱ (2.Ȭ3.Jh.),ȱ înȱ Machtȱ undȱ Gesellschaftȱ inȱ denȱ römischenȱ Provinzenȱ Moesiaȱ
undȱThracia,ȱ2,ȱSofia,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ190ȱ(înȱbulgar©,ȱrezumatȱînȱgerman©).ȱ
378
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Scythicaȱ Minora,ȱ p.ȱ 253;ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Klioȱ 75ȱ (1993),ȱ p.ȱ 342Ȭ350;ȱ Al.ȱ
Avram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ69,ȱn.ȱ273,ȱ281Ȭ282ȱóiȱp.ȱ430.ȱ
ȱ 63
ȱȱȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ –ȱ „str©lucitaȱ metropol©ȱ óiȱ capital©ȱ aȱ Pontuluiȱ Stâng”ȱ –ȱ „primaȱ
magistratur©ȱaȱComunit©öiiȱHellenilor”ȱ(„ΩΕΒ΅ΑΘ΅ȱΘΓІȱΎΓ΍ΑΓІȱΘЗΑȱ̴ΏΏφΑΝΑ”ȬȱISMȱ
II,ȱ 97)ȱ esteȱ consemnat©ȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ inscripöii,ȱ fiindȱ cunoscuteȱ numeleȱ aȱ óapteȱ
pontarchi;ȱ înȱ câtevaȱ rânduriȱ esteȱ p©strat©ȱ peȱ piatr©ȱ doarȱ titulaturaȱ acestora.ȱ
Constat©mȱ c©ȱ uniiȱ pontarchiȱ poart©ȱ titulaturaȱ Comunit©öii,ȱ iarȱ alöiiȱ suntȱ numiöiȱ
doarȱ simpliiȱ pontarchi379.ȱ Ipotezaȱ c©ȱ aceótiaȱ dinȱ urm©ȱ arȱ fiȱ pontarchiȱ locali,ȱ
membriiȱ aiȱ unuiȱ consiliuȱ alȱ ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȬului,ȱ condusȱ deȱ unȱ ΔΕЗΘΓΖȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ380,ȱ aȱ
fostȱ respins©381,ȱ peȱ temeiulȱ c©ȱ titulaturaȱ pontarchilorȱ puteaȱ fiȱ simplificat©ȱ sauȱ nuȱ
înȱinscripöii382ȱóiȱaȱfaptuluiȱc©ȱcelelalteȱΎΓ΍ΑΣȱdinȱOrientulȱromanȱnuȱofer©ȱanalogiiȱ
aleȱuneiȱconduceriȱcolegiale.ȱ
Atestareaȱ deȱ curândȱ aȱ unuiȱ ΔΕЗΘΓΖȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ laȱ Callatisȱ (ISMȱ III,ȱ 99;ȱ veziȱ
óiȱ 100)383,ȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ celȱ cunoscutȱ laȱ Histriaȱ (ISMȱ I,ȱ 207)384,ȱ vineȱ înȱ sprijinulȱ p©reriiȱ
exprimateȱ maiȱ demultȱ c©ȱ neȱ afl©mȱ înȱ acestȱ cazȱ înȱ faöaȱ primuluiȱ pontarchȱ dinȱ
centrulȱ respectivȱ înȱ raportȱ cuȱ succesoriiȱ s©iȱ înȱ aceast©ȱ funcöieȱ dinȱ acelaóiȱ oraó385,ȱ
termenulȱΔΕЗΘΓΖȱavândȱaiciȱoȱsemnificaöieȱcronologic©ȱóiȱnuȱierarhic©386.ȱ
Uniiȱ dintreȱ pontarchiȱ deöinȱ óiȱ calitateaȱ deȱ ΦΕΛ΍ΉΕΉϾΖ,ȱ mareȱ preotȱ alȱ cultuluiȱ
imperial,ȱf©r©ȱs©ȱputemȱr©spundeȱdefinitivȱdac©ȱneȱaflamȱînȱfaöaȱuneiȱdemnit©öiȱdeȱ
aspectȱ civilȱ óiȱ religiosȱ deöinuteȱ deȱ oȱ singur©ȱ persoan© 387ȱ sauȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ
demnit©öiȱdistincte388.ȱ
ÎntrȬoȱ inscripöieȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 188)ȱ afl©mȱ c©ȱ personajulȱ aȱ fostȱ pontarchȱ
deȱ dou©ȱ oriȱ („ΈϠΖȱ ·ΤΕȱ πΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Η΅”),ȱ prilejȱ cuȱ careȱ aȱ datȱ lupteleȱ luiȱ Aresȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(=ȱjocuriȱdeȱgladiatori),ȱavândȱînȱesenö©ȱgrijaȱcultuluiȱimperial,ȱprincipalaȱatribuöieȱ
aȱComunit©öii,ȱf©r©ȱaȱfiȱexcluseȱóiȱaspecteȱdeȱalt©ȱnatur©389.ȱ
Serb©rileȱ ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȬuluiȱ seȱ desf©óurauȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ darȱ probabilȱ óiȱ înȱ celelalteȱ
379
ȱPentruȱlistaȱcomplet©ȱaȱpontarchilor,ȱveziȱG.ȱMihailov,ȱEpigraphicaȱ41ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ
21;ȱ M.ȱ Musielak,ȱ înȱ Studiaȱ Moesiaca,ȱ Iȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 110Ȭ115;ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Theȱ westernȱ ponticȱ
cities.ȱHistoryȱandȱpoliticalȱorganization,ȱAmsterdam,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ234Ȭ236;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ
67Ȭ71.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Familiesȱ atȱ Histria,ȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Callatis:ȱ twoȱ prosopographicalȱ notes,ȱ înȱ
Orbisȱantiquus.ȱStudiaȱinȱhonoremȱIoannisȱPisonis,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ910Ȭ911.ȱ
380
ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ154Ȭ156;ȱG.ȱMihailov,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ33.ȱ
381
ȱ J.ȱ Deininger,ȱ Zuȱ einerȱ neuenȱ Hypotheseȱ überȱ dieȱ Pontarchieȱ imȱ westpontischenȱ Koinon,ȱ
ZPEȱ51ȱ(1983),ȱp.ȱ219Ȭ227.ȱ
382
ȱM.ȱMusielak,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ191Ȭ195.ȱ
383
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 69,ȱ notaȱ 280ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 428Ȭ431:ȱ T.ȱ Aeliusȱ Miniciusȱ Athanaion,ȱ
atestatȱ înȱ 172ȱ ȱ ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ al©turiȱ deȱ fiulȱ s©u,ȱ esteȱ primulȱ pontarchȱ originarȱ dinȱ Callatis,ȱ careȱȱ
óiȬaȱ exercitatȱ funcöiunea,ȱ înȱ aniiȱ ’50ȱ sauȱ ’60ȱ aiȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱ Àȱ proposȱ desȱ pontarchesȱ duȱ Pontȱ Gauche,ȱ Ancientȱ West&Eastȱ 3ȱ (2004),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 354Ȭ
364.ȱ
384
ȱ Inscripöiaȱ dateaz©ȱ dinȱ jurulȱ anuluiȱ 140;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ interpret©rileȱ ulterioareȱ asupraȱ
inscripöieiȱlaȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱLeȱcorpusȱdesȱinscriptionsȱd’Istrosȱrevisité,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ103,ȱ
nr.ȱ207;ȱp.ȱ98Ȭ99,ȱȱnr.ȱ137.ȱ
385
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱScythicaȱMinora,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ256.ȱ
386
ȱP.ȱVeyne,ȱBCHȱ90ȱ(1966),ȱp.ȱ149Ȭ150.ȱ
387
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ StClsȱ 17ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 196Ȭ198ȱ =ȱ Studiiȱ deȱ istorieȱ óiȱ epigrafie,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1988,ȱp.ȱ178Ȭ180.ȱ
388
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱLatomusȱ24ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ85.ȱ
389
ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 156Ȭ157;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 70.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ E.ȱ Bouley,ȱ
JeuxȱromainsȱdansȱlesȱprovincesȱbalkanoȬdanubiennesȱduȱII Ȭe ȱsiècleȱavantȱJ.ȬC.ȱàȱlaȱfinȱduȱIII Ȭe ȱsiècleȱ
aprèsȱJ.ȬC.,ȱParis,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ135;ȱM.ȱDana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilité,ȱp.ȱ121Ȭ122.ȱȱ
64ȱ ȱ
ȱ
oraóeȱ aleȱ Comunit©öii,ȱ dinȱ momentȱ ceȱ laȱ Dionysopolisȱ suntȱ cinstiöiȱ „ΘϛΖȱ
̓ΉΑΘ΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱΆΓΙΏΉΙΘ΅ϟ”,ȱaflaöiȱînȱtrecereȱprinȱoraóȱ(IGB,ȱI2,ȱ15ȱóiȱ15ȱbis).ȱ
Oȱ inscripöieȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ atest©ȱ unȱ ΆΓΙΏΉΙΘχΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̓ΉΑΘ΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖ,ȱ confirmândȱ
existenöaȱacesteiȱfuncöiiȱînȱcadrulȱΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȬuluiȱvestȬpontic390.ȱ
ȱ
Culteȱ
Informaöiiȱ referitoareȱ laȱ culteleȱ cet©öiiȱ leȱ select©mȱ dinȱ domeniulȱ epigrafieiȱ óiȱ
alȱreprezent©rilorȱiconografice.ȱEleȱpermitȱrecunoaótereaȱunorȱtr©s©turiȱcomuneȱcuȱ
aleȱ oraóelorȱ ponticeȱ vecine,ȱ darȱ óiȱ distingereaȱ unorȱ noteȱ individuale,ȱ tomitane.ȱ
Întreȱprimeleȱnot©mȱataóamentulȱlaȱculteleȱtradiöionaleȱgreceótiȱóiȱromane.ȱ
Înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ seȱ p©streaz©ȱ mitulȱ luiȱ Tomos,ȱ Herosȱ eponimȱ alȱ cet©öiiȱ
Tomis391.ȱ
Apollonȱcontinu©ȱs©ȱfieȱadoratȱîntrȬoȱipostaz©ȱnou©,ȱdeȱΦ·ΙΉϾΖ392,ȱ„protectorȱalȱ
drumurilor”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ116),ȱîntrȬoȱinscripöieȱpus©ȱlaȱrecomandareaȱunuiȱoracolȱ(Ύ΅ΘΤȱ
ΛΕ΋ΗΐϱΑ)ȱ pentruȱ împ©ratulȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ óiȱ metropolaȱ Tomis.ȱ Monumenteleȱ
sculpturaleȱ îlȱ prezint©ȱ óiȱ înȱ ipostazaȱ deȱ cithared393;ȱ aceeaóiȱ ipostaz©ȱ –ȱ KitharodosȬ,ȱ
darȱóiȱalteleȱ–ȱPythiosȱóiȱprobabilȱIetrosȱóiȱPropylaiosȱsuntȱidentificateȱpeȱmonedeleȱ
tomitane394.ȱ Indirect,ȱ legatȱ deȱ cultulȱ luiȱ Apollon,ȱ amintimȱ deȱ jocurileȱ înȱ cinsteaȱ
Pythiei,ȱlaȱSmirna,ȱlaȱcareȱTomisulȱîóiȱtrimiteȱunȱparticipantȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ189)395.ȱÎntreȱ
divinit©öileȱ olimpieneȱ menöion©mȱ óiȱ peȱ Zeus,ȱ indicatȱ prinȱ patronimulȱ „fiuȱ alȱ luiȱ
Cronos”ȱ(̍ΕΓΑΉϟΝΑ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ197).ȱMaiȱnumeroaseȱsuntȱatest©rileȱpentruȱdivinitateaȱ
roman©ȱIupiterȱcuȱepiteteleȱOptimusȱMaximus.ȱÎnȱaceast©ȱformul©ȱzeulȱesteȱinvocatȱ
singurȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 133Ȭ139)ȱ sauȱ înȱ asociereȱ cuȱ Iunonaȱ Reginaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 141),ȱ Dianaȱ
Augustaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 143)ȱ sauȱ înȱ triadaȱ capitolin©ȱ Iupiterȱ –ȱ Iunonaȱ –ȱ Minervaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
142);ȱ maiȱ not©mȱ oȱ asociereȱ cuȱ Herosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 140)396.ȱ Divinitateaȱ esteȱ reprezentat©ȱ
laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ tipulȱ iconograficȱ clasic,ȱ iarȱ întrȬoȱ dedicaöieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 159)ȱ esteȱ
recunoscut©ȱ dup©ȱ imagineaȱ acvilei397.ȱ Peȱ unȱ altȱ monumentȱ tomitan,ȱ acvilaȱ apareȱ
peȱ lâng©ȱ unȱ personajȱ feminin,ȱ înȱ careȱ amȱ puteaȱ recunoaóteȱ peȱ Hera/Iunona.ȱ
390
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ145.ȱ
391
ȱ Cetateaȱ esteȱ numit©ȱ întrȬoȱ epigram©ȱ funerar©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ ΩΗΘΙȱ ̖ϱΐo΍o”ȱȱȱȱȱ
(cf.ȱ A.ȱ Avram,ȱ C.ȱ P.ȱ Jones,ȱ Anȱ actorȱ fromȱ Byzantiumȱ inȱ aȱ newȱ epigramȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ ZPEȱ 178ȱ
(2011),ȱ126Ȭ134ȱ(înȱspecialȱ131Ȭ132ȱóiȱn.ȱ17,ȱ22);ȱadaug©ȱóiȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱsupra,ȱn.ȱ221:ȱheroonȬulȱ
amintitȱaparöineȱluiȱTomos,ȱfondatorulȱmiticȱalȱcet©öii.ȱȱȱ
392
ȱPentruȱacelaóiȱepitetȱalȱdivinit©öii,ȱveziȱóiȱISMȱIII,ȱ30ȱóiȱp.ȱ268ȱcuȱbibliografia.ȱ
393
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ p.ȱ 68,ȱ nr.ȱ 125;ȱ Gr.ȱ Florescu,ȱ Monumentsȱ antiquesȱ duȱ Muséeȱ
Régionalȱ deȱ laȱ Dobrogeaȱ àȱ Constanöa,ȱ Daciaȱ 5Ȭ6ȱ (1934Ȭ1936),ȱ p.ȱ 433.ȱ Pentruȱ alteȱ reprezent©ri,ȱ
veziȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ109Ȭ111.ȱ
394
ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 1ȱ (14),ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 289ȱ óiȱ urm.;ȱ Florinaȱ Panaitȱ Bîrzescu,ȱ Iconografiaȱ
luiȱApolloȱpeȱmonedeleȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱSCIVAȱ61ȱ(2010),ȱ1Ȭ2,ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ88.ȱȱ
395
ȱVeziȱóiȱE.ȱBouley,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ201,ȱn.ȱ66ȱ(cuȱtrimitereȱlaȱPick,ȱDieȱantikenȱMünzenȱvonȱ
DacienȱundȱMoesien,ȱII,ȱBerlin,ȱ1910,ȱ802,ȱnr.ȱ3108,ȱtaf.ȱXXI,ȱKȱ26,ȱKȱ31),ȱdup©ȱcareȱElagabalȱaȱ
creatȱsauȱrestauratȱjocurileȱPythieiȱ(Pythia)ȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
396
ȱ Em.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ inscripöieȱ aȱ luiȱQ.ȱTrebelliusȱMaximus?,ȱSCIVȱ13ȱ (1962),ȱ 2,ȱ
p.ȱ 415Ȭ419:ȱ propuneȱ asociereaȱ luiȱ IupiterȬHercules;ȱ veziȱ totuóiȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 218,ȱ
nr.ȱ12ȱ(Heros).ȱ
397
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ p.ȱ 79,ȱ nr.ȱ 154.ȱ Pentruȱ alteȱ reprezent©riȱ plasticeȱ aleȱ
zeului,ȱveziȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ104Ȭ105.ȱȱ
ȱ 65
ȱȱȱ
Inscripöiaȱ fragmentar©,ȱ p©streaz©,ȱ dac©ȱ suntemȱ deȱ acordȱ cuȱ editorul398,ȱ numeleȱ
Herei.ȱ Cultulȱ Demetrei,ȱ atestatȱ epigraficȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 36),ȱ deöine,ȱ înȱ
continuare,ȱunȱlocȱimportant.ȱÎnȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱesteȱmenöionatȱunȱarhiereuȱóiȱpreotȱ
alȱ zeiöeiȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 59).ȱ Peȱ alteȱ monumenteȱ dinȱ aceeaóiȱ perioad©ȱ Demetraȱ apareȱ
al©turiȱdeȱAsclepiosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ118)ȱsauȱdeȱPlutonȱóiȱKoreȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ150).ȱTriadaȱeleusin©ȱ
îóiȱafl©ȱoȱreplic©ȱplastic©ȱpeȱoȱfriz©ȱdeȱmarmur©399;ȱimaginiȱaleȱDemetreiȱóiȱȱaleȱluiȱ
Hermesȱ aparȱ óiȱ peȱ emisiunileȱ monetareȱ tomitaneȱ (înȱ maiȱ multeȱ tipuriȱ
iconografice)400.ȱ Ceilalöiȱ zeiȱ olimpieniȱ suntȱ reprezentaöiȱ întrȬoȱ m©sur©ȱ maiȱ mic©.ȱ
Poseidonȱ esteȱ prezentȱ printrȬunȱ monumentȱ votiv,ȱ cuȱ epitetulȱ consacratȱ înȱ lumeaȱ
ionian©ȱ –ȱ Helikoniosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 151)ȱ óiȱ printrȬoȱ reprezentareȱ plastic©ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ singura,ȱ deȱ
altfel,ȱdinȱoraóeleȱvestȬponticeȬ,ȱdeȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr. 401.ȱHadesȱóiȱAresȱsuntȱmenöionaöiȱ
înȱ inscripöii;ȱ numeleȱ lorȱ auȱ îns©ȱ valoareȱ metaforic©,ȱ primulȱ pentruȱ „moarte”ȱ sauȱ
„mormânt”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 166,ȱ 197,ȱ 326),ȱ alȱ doileaȱ pentruȱ „jocuriȱ deȱ gladiatori”ȱ óiȱ
„gladiator”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ188).ȱOȱaccepöieȱlegat©ȱnuȱneaparatȱdeȱdivinitateȱpoateȱaveaȱóiȱ
Hestia:ȱΎ΅ΘΉΗΎΉϾ΅ΗΉΑȱΘχΑȱ̴ΗΘϟ΅Αȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ132)ȱsȬarȱputeaȱreferiȱchiarȱlaȱ„vatr©”.ȱ
Afrodita,ȱ deóiȱ nuȱ esteȱ menöionat©ȱ epigrafic,ȱ esteȱ prezent©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ prinȱ nuȱ maiȱ
puöinȱ deȱ nou©ȱ realiz©riȱ plastice,ȱ oferindȱ celeȱ maiȱ multeȱ doveziȱ privindȱ adorareaȱ
zeiöeiȱ maiȱ alesȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Reprezent©rileȱ aparöinȱ tipurilorȱ „Venusȱ pudica”,ȱ
„Genetrix”ȱ sauȱ „Anadyomene”402;ȱ ̖ϾΛ΋ȱ ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ dinȱ cuplulȱ Fortunaȱ cuȱ Pontos,ȱ
interpretat©ȱcaȱ̝ΠΕΓΈϟΘ΋ȱ̓ΓΑΘϟ΅403,ȱtrebuieȱprivit©ȱmaiȱdegrab©ȱînȱprimaȱaccepöie,ȱ
caȱ oȱ divinitateȱ deȱ oȱ extrem©ȱ complexitate404.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ intensitateaȱ cultuluiȱ
Venereiȱ laȱ Tomisȱ esteȱ dovedit©ȱ deȱ maiȱ multeȱ reprezent©riȱ aleȱ principaluluiȱ s©uȱ
acolitȱ–ȱEros,ȱpeȱcareȬlȱîntâlnimȱóiȱînȱipostazeȱfunerare405.ȱ
Dintreȱcelelalteȱdivinit©öi,ȱneolimpiene,ȱreöinemȱDioscurii,ȱDionysos,ȱAsclepiosȱ
óiȱ Nemesis.ȱ Zeiȱ aiȱ navigaöiei,ȱ Dioscuriiȱ ocup©ȱ unȱ locȱ preeminentȱ înȱ pantheonulȱ
tomitan.ȱ Peȱ fragmentulȱ statuarȱ dinȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ sculpturi406ȱ suntȱ adoraöiȱ caȱ
„fondatoriȱ aiȱ cet©öii”ȱ (ΎΘϟΗΘ΅΍ȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΔϱΏΉΝΖ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 122)407.ȱ Laȱ rândulȱ lor,ȱ
398
ȱVeziȱN.ȱGostar,ȱînȱNMESM,ȱ1964,ȱp.ȱ76ȱóiȱfig.ȱ6.ȱArȱfi,ȱdeȱaltfel,ȱsinguraȱinscripöieȱcuȱ
numeleȱ zeiöeiȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Pentruȱ oȱ reprezentareȱ plastic©,ȱ veziȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 107ȱ óiȱȱȱȱ
n.ȱ44ȱ(fragmentȱcapȱmarmur©,ȱȱsec.ȱIȬIIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
399
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱLaȱTriadeȱEleusinaȱàȱTomis,ȱStClsȱ4ȱ(1962),ȱp.ȱ281Ȭ290.ȱ
400
numismatic©,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ409Ȭ422.ȱ
401
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ41,ȱnr.ȱ63.ȱ
402
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 119Ȭ121;ȱ eadem,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ statuet©ȱ aȱ zeiöeiȱ Venusȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱPonticaȱ39ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ339Ȭ344.ȱȱȱ
403
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 16Ȭ24;ȱ pentruȱ ultimaȱ opinie,ȱ veziȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Contributiȱ perȱ unaȱ
storiaȱdeiȱcultiȱeȱdell’arteȱnellaȱTomiȱd’etàȱromana,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ175.ȱ
404
ȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱTheȱtreasuryȱofȱȱsculpturesȱfromȱTomis.ȱTheȱcultȱinventaryȱofȱaȱ
temple,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ53ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ31.ȱ
405
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 121Ȭ122;ȱ eadem,ȱ Quelquesȱ aspectsȱ deȱ l’artȱ funéraireȱ
romainȱ àȱ Tomi,ȱ Ponticaȱ 7ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ 303Ȭ305,ȱ fig.ȱ 5Ȭ7;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Relaöiileȱ provincieiȱ Scythiaȱ
MinorȱcuȱAsiaȱMic©,ȱSiriaȱóiȱEgiptul,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ257Ȭ260ȱóiȱfig.ȱ6ȱ(sec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
406
ȱ Veziȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 90Ȭ93,ȱ fig.ȱ 46Ȭ47;ȱ pentruȱ alteȱ reprezent©riȱ adaug©ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Oȱ
nou©ȱ reprezentareȱ aȱ Dioscurilorȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ SCIVAȱ 22ȱ (1971),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 337Ȭ339;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ
sculptural©,ȱp.ȱ123Ȭ124.ȱ
407
ȱVeziȱJ.ȱBabelon,ȱLesȱDioscuresȱàȱTomis,ȱînȱMélangesȱCh.ȱPicard,ȱRA,ȱ1949,ȱp.ȱ24Ȭ33.ȱ
66ȱ ȱ
ȱ
comandanöiiȱ g©rziiȱ civiceȱ aducȱ jertfeȱ „pentruȱ s©n©tateaȱ oraóului”,ȱ Mameiȱ zeilorȱ óiȱ
Dioscurilorȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2).ȱEsteȱcunoscut©ȱasimilareaȱlorȱcuȱMariiȱZeiȱdinȱSamothrake,ȱ
atestaöiȱcaȱatareȱlaȱTomisȱînȱperioadaȱautonom©ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ1)ȱóiȱpoateȱcuȱdivinit©öileȱ
locale.ȱApariöiaȱimaginiiȱDioscurilorȱóiȱpeȱunȱelementȱarhitectonic,ȱbogataȱserieȱdeȱ
reprezent©riȱ numismatice,ȱ înt©reóteȱ ideeaȱ existenöeiȱ unuiȱ templuȱ alȱ divinit©öilorȱ
protectoareȱaleȱnavigaöieiȱlaȱTomis408.ȱCultulȱluiȱDionysosȱînregistreaz©ȱoȱfrecvenö©ȱ
deosebit©ȱ laȱ Tomis409,ȱ asemeneaȱ întregiiȱ provincii410.ȱ Înȱ inscripöiiȱ zeulȱ esteȱ
menöionatȱ ȱ cuȱ epiclezeȱ maiȱ puöinȱ obiónuite:ȱ Ύ΅Ο΋·΋ΐЏΑȱ („conduc©torul”;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
121),ȱ ΔΙΕϟΆΕΓΐΓΖȱ („scânteietorul”)ȱ óiȱ Θ΅ΙΕϱΎΉΕΓΖȱ („celȱ cuȱ coarneȱ deȱ taur”;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
120).ȱ Cultulȱ esteȱ întreöinutȱ deȱ maiȱ multeȱ grupuriȱ Ȭȱ Οϟ΅ΗΓ΍,ȱ implicateȱ înȱ viaöaȱ
cet©öiiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ107);ȱthiasiöiiȱ(numiöiȱΆΣΎΛΓ΍)ȱsuntȱasimilaöiȱcuȱzeulȱînsuóiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
120)411ȱóiȱfacȱoȱstatuieȱzeuluiȱprobabilȱînȱateliereleȱlocale412.ȱComplexitateaȱcultului,ȱ
cuȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ aspecteȱ aleȱ sale,ȱ agrestȱ óiȱ mistic,ȱ aȱ fostȱ adeseoriȱ analizat©413.ȱ Al©turiȱ
deȱ Dionysosȱ óiȱ Demetraȱ nuȱ lipsescȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ alteȱ divinit©öiȱ deȱ natur©ȱ agrest©,ȱ
Nimfeleȱ óiȱ Artemis,ȱ dup©ȱ cumȱ eraȱ cunoscut©ȱ s©rb©toareaȱ Rosaliaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 370)414.ȱ
Asklepiosȱ esteȱ prezentȱ înȱ dou©ȱ dedicaöiiȱ împreun©ȱ cuȱ Hygeiaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 117)ȱ óiȱ
Demetraȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 118).ȱ Divinitateaȱ esteȱ reprezentat©ȱ óiȱ plastic,ȱ singur©ȱ sauȱ
împreun©ȱ cuȱ celelalteȱ divinit©öiȱ aleȱ s©n©t©öii415.ȱ Reöinemȱ óiȱ oȱ posibil©ȱ tratareȱ aȱ luiȱ
Asklepiosȱ laȱ Tomisȱ subȱ formaȱ luiȱ Glykon416.ȱ Nemesisȱ apareȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ
reprezent©riȱ plastice:ȱ înȱ dubl©ȱ ipostaz©ȱ întrȬoȱ aediculaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 148)ȱ óiȱ înȱ dou©ȱ
statueteȱ ceȱ seȱ înscriuȱ tipuluiȱ iconograficȱ subȱ careȱ esteȱ adorat©ȱ zeiöaȱ laȱ Smirna417.ȱ
408
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ SCIVȱ 16ȱ (1965),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 523;ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 1ȱ (14),ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 289Ȭ326;ȱ Z.ȱ
Covacef,ȱ Templeleȱ Tomisului,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 161;ȱ M.ȱ Oppermann,ȱ Derȱ
Dioskurenkultȱ imȱ Östbalkanraumȱ zwischenȱ Donauȱ undȱ Rhodopen,ȱ înȱ Antiquitasȱ IstroȬPontica,ȱ
ClujȬNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ445Ȭ452ȱóiȱpl.ȱIȬIII.ȱ
409
ȱ Peȱ lâng©ȱ monumenteleȱ epigrafice,ȱ veziȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 29Ȭ30;ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Reprezent©riȱ
bacchice,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1966,ȱ passim;ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ nr.ȱ 106,ȱ 107,ȱ 111,ȱ 113Ȭ116;ȱ alteȱ
trimiteriȱ înȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 147;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭ131;ȱ eadem,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ
(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱȱ
410
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ234Ȭ266.ȱ
411
ȱAsociaöiaȱesteȱfondat©ȱdeȱoȱfemeie,ȱPaso,ȱfenomenȱmaiȱpuöinȱobiónuit;ȱveziȱI.ȱStoian,ȱ
ISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ147.ȱ
412
ȱ Înȱ aceeaóiȱ inscripöieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 120)ȱ suntȱ menöionateȱ numeleȱ aȱ doiȱ meseriaóiȱ –ȱ artióti:ȱ
(fiulȱlui)ȱParmisȱóiȱHermogenes.ȱ
413
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.;ȱ Alexandraȱ ktefan,ȱ Cultulȱ luiȱ Dionysosȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ nordȱ óiȱ vestȬ
ponticeȱ înȱ epocileȱ greac©ȱ óiȱ roman©,ȱ înȱ luminaȱ monumentelorȱ epigraficeȱ óiȱ figurateȱ (rezumatulȱ
tezeiȱ deȱ doctorat),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1978.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ R.M.ȱ Feraru,ȱ S©rb©toriȱ Dionysiaceȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ
greceótiȱdinȱPontulȱStâng,ȱPonticaȱ37Ȭ38ȱ(2004Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ239Ȭ252;ȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȱVianu,ȱSurȱ
lesȱmystèresȱdionysiaquesȱàȱTomis,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ221Ȭ226;ȱeadem,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ53ȱ(2009),ȱ
p.ȱ 31Ȭ33ȱ (cuȱ preciz©riȱ privindȱ epiclezeleȱ purtateȱ deȱ divinitate);ȱ veziȱ óiȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ
Pergamenischesȱ anȱ derȱ westpontischenȱ Küste,ȱ înȱ Antiquitasȱ IstroȬPontica.ȱ Mélangesȱ d’archéologieȱ
etȱ d’histoireȱ ancienneȱ offertsȱ àȱ Alexandruȱ Suceveanu,ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2010,ȱ p.ȱ 51Ȭ58.ȱ Pentruȱ
imagineaȱluiȱDionysosȱpeȱmonede,ȱveziȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ289Ȭ326.ȱ
414
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ88,ȱn.ȱ122Ȭ127.ȱ
415
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ42Ȭ44;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱp.ȱ16Ȭ18,ȱnr.ȱ6,ȱ7,ȱ9,ȱ10.ȱ
416
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ163.ȱ
417
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 165Ȭ167ȱ óiȱ fig.ȱ 11Ȭ12;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 144Ȭ
145;ȱ adaug©ȱ unȱ micȱ basoreliefȱ alȱ zeiöeiȱ pentruȱ careȱ veziȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Reliefuriȱ inediteȱ dinȱ
MuzeulȱdeȱarheologieȱConstanöa,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ519,ȱnr.ȱ5.ȱ
ȱ 67
ȱȱȱ
Num©rulȱ reprezent©rilorȱ zeiöeiȱ laȱ Tomisȱ permiteȱ ipotezaȱ existenöeiȱ aiciȱ aȱ unuiȱ
nemeseion418.ȱ
Dintreȱeroi,ȱHeraclesȱesteȱprezentȱpeȱmaiȱmultȱdeȱzeceȱreliefuriȱóiȱstatui419.ȱSȬaȱ
propusȱ chiarȱ prezenöaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ unuiȱ templu:ȱ dou©ȱ coloaneȱ peȱ careȱ suntȱ
sculptateȱ sceneȱ dinȱ muncileȱ luiȱ Herculeȱ nuȱ arȱ fiȱ pututȱ proveniȱ decâtȱ deȱ laȱ unȱ
templuȱînchinatȱeroului420.ȱ
Dintreȱdivinit©öileȱorientale,ȱseȱpareȱc©ȱceleȱegipteneȱauȱf©cutȱlaȱTomisȱobiectulȱ
uneiȱ adoraöiiȱ maiȱ statornice.ȱ Menöionateȱ înc©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.,ȱ popularitateaȱ lorȱ
aveaȱ s©ȱ creasc©ȱ înȱ secoleleȱ urm©toare.ȱ Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ óiȱ Marcusȱ
Aureliusȱ prestigiulȱ lorȱ trebuieȱ s©ȱ fiȱ sporitȱ prinȱ existenöaȱ aceluiȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ
̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑ.ȱP©trundereaȱlorȱ(óiȱînȱspecialȱaȱluiȱSarapis)ȱpareȱs©ȱseȱfiȱpetrecutȱînȱ
afaraȱ oric©reiȱ propagandeȱ oficialeȱ óiȱ numaiȱ datorit©ȱ circulaöieiȱ oamenilorȱ óiȱ
schimbuluiȱ deȱ bunuri421.ȱ Înȱ epigrafeȱ zeiiȱ egipteniȱ suntȱ menöionaöiȱ înȱ grupȱ –ȱ
Sarapis,ȱ Isis,ȱ Anubis,ȱ c©roraȱ leȱ suntȱ asociaöiȱ „toöiȱ zeii”ȱ (Γϡȱ ΟΉΓϠȱ ΔΣΑΘΉΖ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
154)422;ȱ unȱ monumentȱ votivȱ esteȱ pusȱ pentruȱ „mareleȱ zeuȱ Sarapis”ȱ óiȱ „zeiiȱ cinstiöiȱ
împreun©ȱ cuȱ elȱ înȱ acelaóiȱ templu”ȱ (Γϡȱ ΗϾΑΑ΅Γ΍ȱ ΟΉΓϟ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 153)423;ȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ dinȱ
sec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱmenöioneaz©ȱunȱpreotȱalȱluiȱSarapisȱóiȱIsisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ37).ȱLegatȱnumaiȱ
deȱ cultulȱ Isidei,ȱ cunoaótemȱ s©rb©toareaȱ zeiöeiȱ Ȭȱ Λ΅ΕΐϱΗΙΑ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 7)ȱ óiȱ
ceremoniileȱconöinuteȱînȱnavigiumȱIsidis;ȱafl©mȱoȱconfrerieȱdeȱcredincioóiȱpropriiȱȬ
ϡΉΕΓΑ΅ІΘ΅΍Ȭ,ȱ cuȱ unȱ „p©rinteȱ alȱ pastophorilor”ȱ (Δ΅ΘχΕȱ ΘЗΑȱ Δ΅ΗΘΓΠϱΕΝΑ)ȱ óiȱ unȱ
preóedinteȱ (ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘΝΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΓІ,ȱ (?)ȱ sau,ȱ maiȱ curând,ȱ ΘΓІȱ ΓϥΎΓΙ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 98).ȱ
Aceleaóiȱ divinit©öiȱ egipteneȱ suntȱ reprezentateȱ óiȱ plastic:ȱ Sarapisȱ apareȱ singur424ȱ
sauȱînsoöitȱdeȱIsisȱóiȱHarpocrate425.ȱIsisȱesteȱreprezentat©ȱînȱdou©ȱbusturi,ȱunulȱdinȱ
epocaȱFlavilor426,ȱalȱdoilea,ȱspreȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(240Ȭ250ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱapropiatȱ
deȱportretulȱSabinieiȱTranquillina427.ȱImagineaȱluiȱOsirisȱoȱafl©mȱpeȱunȱaltarȱvotivȱ
dinȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.428.ȱ
418
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ144.ȱ
419
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ passim;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ privindȱ cultulȱ luiȱ Herculeȱ înȱ
Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 391Ȭ428;ȱ Chr.ȱ ktirbulescu,ȱ Ilȱ cultoȱ d’Ercoleȱ nellaȱ provinciaȱ
MoesiaȱInferiore.ȱIȱbassorilieviȱvotivi,ȱînȱAntiquitasȱIstroȬPontica,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ463Ȭ489ȱ
óiȱpl.ȱIȬIII.ȱ
420
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ148;ȱeadem,ȱPeuceȱSNȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ168.ȱ
421
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Cuȱ privireȱ laȱ r©spândireaȱ cultelorȱ egipteneȱ înȱ Sciöiaȱ Mic©,ȱ înȱ
Studii,ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ82.ȱ
422
ȱ Aceleaóiȱ divinit©öiȱ suntȱ amintiteȱ întrȬoȱ dedicaöieȱ recentȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ cuȱ
epiclezele:ȱ Serapisȱ Ȭȱ ΎϾΕ΍ΓΖ,ȱ ΌΉϲΖȱ ΐν·΅Ζ,ȱ Isisȱ Ȭȱ ΐΙΕ΍ΓΑϟΐ΅,ȱ Anubisȱ óiȱ ΌΉΓϠȱ ΗϾΑΑ΅Γ΍ȱ πΔφΎΓΓ΍ȱ
(aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ dinȱ
Dobrogea,ȱPonticaȱ39ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ215ȱóiȱfig.ȱ5.ȱȱ
423
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ SIRIS,ȱ 708;ȱ adaug©,ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Uneȱ inscriptionȱ deȱ Tomisȱ redécouverteȱ àȱ Caen,ȱ
înȱStudiaȱhistoriaeȱetȱreligionisȱDacoȬRomanae,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ277Ȭ283.ȱȱ
424
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ165,ȱ168.ȱ
425
ȱIbidem,ȱcat.ȱ171,ȱbasorelief,ȱdarȱcuȱprovenienö©ȱprobabil©ȱTomis.ȱ
426
ȱIbidem,ȱcat.ȱ170.ȱ
427
428
ȱEadem,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ172.ȱ
68ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Înȱ afaraȱ cultelorȱ egipteneȱ seȱ facȱ remarcateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ altele,ȱ dinȱ Asiaȱ Mic©ȱ óiȱ
Siria.ȱ Deȱ oȱ vechimeȱ maiȱ mare429ȱ óiȱ deȱ celeȱ maiȱ multeȱ reprezent©riȱ beneficiaz©ȱ
Cybela.ȱ Numeleȱ zeiöeiȱ (̏φΘ΋Εȱ ΟΉЗΑ)ȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ înȱ decretulȱ pentruȱ gardaȱ
oraóuluiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2)ȱóiȱ peȱmaiȱmulteȱdedicaöiiȱdinȱsecoleleȱ IIȱóiȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
72,ȱ 146)430.ȱ Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Septimiusȱ Severusȱ funcöionaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ unȱ thiasosȱ alȱ
Cybeleiȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 83);ȱ întreȱ magistraöiiȱ cuȱ sarciniȱ specialeȱ reöinemȱ
archidendrophoroi431,ȱ oȱ mam©ȱ aȱ dendrophorilorȱ (ΐφΘ΋Εȱ ΈΉΑΈΕΓΠϱΕΝΑ)ȱ óiȱ oȱ
archirabdouchisaȱ (funcöieȱ redat©ȱ aiciȱ printrȬunȱ participiuȱ verbal).ȱ Închin©toriiȱ unuiȱ
colegiu,ȱfoarteȱprobabilȱaiȱCybeleiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ160)432ȱsuntȱnumiöiȱînȱaceast©ȱinscripöieȱ
g©sit©ȱnuȱdeparteȱdeȱConstanöa 433,ȱsacratiȱdumi434:ȱAur(elius)ȱValeria[nu]sȱpaterȱdumiȱ
óiȱ Fl(avia)ȱ Nona,ȱ materȱ dumiȱ auȱ dedicatȱ monumentulȱ închin©torilorȱ colegiuluiȱ
(sacratisȱ dumi),ȱ prinȱ îngrijireaȱ stegaruluiȱ „vixillarius”,ȱ Dionusius.ȱ Celȱ maiȱ târziuȱ
monumentȱ esteȱ consacratȱ zeiöeiȱ deȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianus,ȱ duxȱ limitisȱ provinciaeȱ
Scythiaeȱ întreȱ 293Ȭ305ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 144)435.ȱ Peȱ monumenteleȱ sculpturaleȱ zeiöaȱ
esteȱ reprezentat©ȱ singur©,ȱ cuȱ Attis436ȱ sauȱ înconjurat©ȱ deȱ choribanöi.ȱ Unitateaȱ
tipologic©ȱóiȱstilistic©ȱaȱreprezent©rilorȱaȱcondusȱlaȱipotezaȱexistenöeiȱunuiȱcentruȱ
deȱproducöieȱ(atelier)ȱceȱarȱfiȱpututȱexistaȱlaȱTomis437.ȱȱ
Cultulȱ zeuluiȬóarpeȱ Glykon,ȱ ipostaz©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Asclepios,ȱ instituitȱ deȱ Alexandrosȱ
dinȱ Abonuteichos,ȱ esteȱ documentatȱ laȱ Tomisȱ printrȬoȱ pies©ȱ sculptural©ȱ
considerat©ȱunicatȱprinȱmanieraȱartistic©ȱóiȱmaiȱalesȱiconografic©438.ȱ
Formaȱ sincretic©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Iupiterȱ cuȱ Baalȱ dinȱ Dolicheȱ esteȱ Iupiterȱ Dolichenus.ȱ
AjunsȱlaȱTomisȱprinȱnegustoriȱóiȱsoldaöiȱsirieni,ȱcultulȱbeneficiaz©ȱdeȱunȱcolegiuȱdeȱ
preoöiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ292)ȱóiȱstatueteȱvotiveȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ158)439.ȱ
429
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ p.ȱ 228ȱ óiȱ 292.ȱ Asupraȱ divinit©öiiȱ veziȱ óiȱ R.ȱ Turcan,ȱ Culteleȱ
orientaleȱînȱlumeaȱroman©,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ43Ȭ90.ȱ
430
ȱÎnȱISMȱII,ȱ146ȱesteȱnumit©:ȱ[̏φΘ΋Ε]ȱπΔφΎΓΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ[ΔΣΑ]ΘΝΑȱΈνΗΔΓ[΍Α΅].ȱȱ
431
ȱVeziȱóiȱISMȱII,ȱ119.ȱ
432
ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Aktenȱ desȱ IV.ȱ Kongressesȱ fürȱ griechischeȱ undȱ lateinischeȱ Epigraphik,ȱ Wien,ȱ
1964,ȱp.ȱ111ȱsq.;ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱNoteȱdeȱlectur©,ȱStClsȱ9ȱ(1967),ȱp.ȱ226Ȭ228ȱpresupuneaȱc©ȱesteȱ
vorbaȱdeȱzeiöaȱiranian©ȱAnaitis.ȱ
433
ȱ Înȱ localitateaȱ M.ȱ Kog©lniceanuȱ (nuȱ excludemȱ caȱ altarulȱ s©ȱ fiȱ ajunsȱ aiciȱ dinȱ Tomis).ȱ
Dinȱ aceeaóiȱ localitateȱ provineȱ unȱ altȱ altarȱ votivȱ pusȱ dreptȱ prinosȱ (ΉЁΛ΅Ε΍ΗΘφΕ΍ΓΑ)ȱ „̏΋ΘΕϠȱ
̋ΉЗΑ”,ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ W.ȱ Wisoóenschi,ȱ Pieseȱ epigraficeȱ óiȱ sculpturaleȱ dinȱ
teritoriulȱrural,ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ410Ȭ414,ȱnr.ȱ1.ȱȱ
434
ȱ Sacrati,ȱ desigur,ȱ sinonimȱ cuȱ consacrani,ȱ cultores,ȱ iarȱ dumus/ΈΓІΐΓΖȱ esteȱ întâlnitȱ înȱ
câtevaȱepigrafeȱdinȱspaöiulȱculturalȱtracoȬphryian,ȱundeȱaȱc©p©tatȱsensulȱdeȱ„colegiu”.ȱ
435
ȱISMȱII,ȱ144:ȱMaterȱdeumȱmagna;ȱISMȱII,ȱ145:ȱMaterȱdeorum.ȱ
436
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ56ȱ=ȱISMȱII,ȱ453;ȱveziȱóiȱISMȱII,ȱ119.ȱ
437
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱCulteleȱorientaleȱînȱpanteonulȱDobrogeiȱromane,ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱ
p.ȱ374Ȭ375;ȱeadem,ȱLesȱcultesȱthracoȬphrigiensȱauȱBasȬDanube,ȱînȱEightȱInternationalȱCongressȱofȱ
Thracology,ȱ II,ȱ Thraceȱ andȱ theȱ Aegean,ȱ Sofia,ȱ 2002,ȱ p.ȱ 823Ȭ831;ȱ veziȱ acum,ȱ M.ȱ Nenninger,ȱ Derȱ
Kultȱ derȱ Kybeleȱ inȱ derȱ romischenȱ Provinzȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ înȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinos.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ
Archäologieȱ undȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Schwarzmeerȱ undȱ Balkanraumes,ȱ Manfredȱ Oppermannȱ
zumȱ65.ȱGeburtstag,ȱLangenweissbach,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ199Ȭ212.ȱ
438
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 109Ȭ111;ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱ p.ȱ 157Ȭ163;ȱ eadem,ȱ Anconaȱ suȱ
dueȱ scultureȱ delȱ depositoȱ diȱ Constanöa.ȱ Glykon,ȱ laȱ Tycheȱ diȱ Tomis,ȱ StClsȱ 12ȱ (1970),ȱ p.ȱ 135Ȭ136;ȱȱ
M.ȱ Irimia,ȱ Statuiaȱ luiȱ Glykonȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Glykonisȱ Statueȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ inȱ Preda’sȱ Internationalȱ
Magazine,ȱArt.ȱAntiques.ȱArchaeology,ȱ1ȱ(2005),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ88Ȭ105.ȱ
439
ȱProvenienöaȱdinȱTomisȱaȱpieseiȱesteȱnesigur©,ȱveziȱISMȱV,ȱ109.ȱ
ȱ 69
ȱȱȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ esteȱ adorat©ȱ óiȱ ̋ν΅ȱ ̕ΙΕϟ΅ȱ deȱ c©treȱ Sosipposȱ alȱ luiȱ Callicratesȱ dinȱ
Sidon440.ȱ
Divinitateȱ persan©,ȱ Mithras,ȱ esteȱ atestatȱ aiciȱ dinȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱóiȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱSeȱcunoscȱmonumenteȱmithriaceȱcuȱinscripöiiȱ(ISMȱIIȱ454ȱ
óiȱ147)ȱóiȱreliefuriȱcuȱscenaȱconsacrat©ȱaȱsacrificiului441.ȱ
Întreȱ zeiiȱ careȱ ilustreaz©ȱ oȱ tradiöieȱ religioas©ȱ local©ȱ celȱ maiȱ bineȱ reprezentatȱ
esteȱ zeulȬcavalerȱ cunoscutȱ subȱ numeleȱ deȱ Cavalerulȱ Tracȱ (́ΕΝΖȱ sauȱ ́ΕΝΑ).ȱ
Divinitateaȱ cap©t©ȱ unȱ caracterȱ complexȱ –ȱ zeuȱ funerar,ȱ darȱ óiȱ mareȱ zeuȱ înȱ
sincretismȱcuȱalöiȱzeiȱgreciȱsauȱromani442.ȱÎntreȱmaterialeleȱepigrafice443ȱînregistr©mȱ
oȱdedicaöieȱdinȱperioadaȱSeverilorȱpus©ȱdeȱunȱthiasosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ125)444.ȱNumeleȱesteȱ
însoöitȱdeȱepiteteȱcareȱexprim©ȱipostazeleȱmultipleȱînȱcareȱdivinitateaȱeraȱadorat©:ȱ
Manimazosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ126)ȱsauȱManibazosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ127),ȱIrsaios445,ȱDomnusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ129,ȱ
inscripöieȱ pus©ȱ deȱ oȱ confraternitateȱ aȱ romanilor)446,ȱ Invictusȱ etȱ Sacerȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 130),ȱ
̍΅ΘΓ΍ΎΣΈ΍ΓΖȱ (deformareȱ pentruȱ Ύ΅ΘΓ΍ΎϟΈ΍ΓΖ,ȱ „casnic”,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 131),ȱ ̳Δ΍Π΅ΑφΖȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 455).ȱ Esteȱ cunoscutȱ sincretismulȱ Erouluiȱ cuȱ Dioscuriiȱ (poateȱ prinȱ
sincretismulȱ cuȱ Cybelaȱ sauȱ Cabirii)447,ȱ cuȱ Cybela448ȱ sauȱ cuȱ Dionysos449.ȱ
Iconografia450ȱCavaleruluiȱTracȱesteȱbineȱilustrat©ȱdeȱmonumenteleȱsculpturale,ȱcuȱ
atributeȱcareȱdefinescȱcalitateaȱvotiv©ȱsauȱfunerar©ȱaȱreprezent©rilor451.ȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ întâlnimȱ deopotriv©ȱ monumenteȱ închinateȱ Cavalerilorȱ Danubieni,ȱ
religieȱ înȱ careȱ seȱ observ©ȱ combinareaȱ unorȱ credinöeȱ localeȱ cuȱ elementeȱ dinȱ alteȱ
440
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ27ȱ(1994),ȱp.ȱ166Ȭ168,ȱnr.ȱ5,ȱfig.ȱ5.ȱ
441
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 102Ȭ103,ȱ fig.ȱ 53;ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ cat.ȱ 182ȱ (Tomis?);ȱ M.J.ȱ
Vermaseren,ȱ Corpusȱ Inscriptionumȱ etȱ Monumentorumȱ Religionisȱ Mithriacae,ȱ II,ȱ 1960,ȱ p.ȱ 263Ȭ
264,ȱ nr.ȱ 2297Ȭ2302;ȱ V.ȱ Bottez,ȱ Quelquesȱ aspectsȱ duȱ culteȱ mithriaqueȱ enȱ Mésieȱ Inferieure,ȱ Daciaȱ
NSȱ50ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ285Ȭ296;ȱasupraȱzeit©öiiȱvezi,ȱR.ȱTurcan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ224Ȭ280;ȱI.ȱMoga,ȱMithraȱ
înȱ Asiaȱ Mic©ȱ óiȱ înȱ lumeaȱ roman©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ 253Ȭ273;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ
sculptural©,ȱp.ȱ165Ȭ166.ȱ
442
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ p.ȱ 219Ȭ224;ȱ N.ȱ Hampartumian,ȱ Corpusȱ Cultusȱ Equitisȱ Thracii,ȱ
IV.ȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ (Rumanianȱ Section)ȱ andȱ Dacia,ȱ (CCET),ȱ Leiden,ȱ 1979,ȱ passim;ȱ M.ȱ
Oppermann,ȱ Derȱ Thrakischeȱ Reiterȱ desȱ Ostbalkanraumesȱ imȱ Spannungsfeldȱ vonȱ Graecitas,ȱ
Romanitasȱ undȱ lokalenȱ Traditionen,ȱ Langenweissbach,ȱ 2006,ȱ passimȱ (cuȱ unȱ comentariuȱ
completȱasupraȱdescoperirilorȱóiȱsemnificaöieiȱacestora).ȱ
443
ȱDocumenteleȱepigraficeȱsuntȱdinȱsec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱpân©ȱînȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(inclusiv).ȱ
444
ȱ Interesulȱ inscripöieiȱ const©ȱ óiȱ înȱ faptulȱ c©ȱ suntȱ menöionateȱ maiȱ multeȱ funcöiiȱ înȱ
cadrulȱcolegiului;ȱdeȱasemenea,ȱdeȱreöinutȱînȱcatalogȱamesteculȱdeȱnumeȱgreceóti,ȱromaneȱóiȱ
b©ótinaóe.ȱ
445
ȱ Piesaȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ apropiereȱ deȱ Constanöa,ȱ laȱ Oituz,ȱ veziȱ Cr.ȱ Matei,ȱ Herosȱ
Irsaios,ȱThracoȬDacicaȱ9ȱ(1988),ȱ1Ȭ2,ȱp.ȱ219Ȭ223.ȱ
446
ȱÎnȱrealitateȱoȱserieȱdeȱorientaliȱromanizaöi,ȱveziȱóiȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ292.ȱ
447
ȱISMȱII,ȱ126ȱóiȱp.ȱ157;ȱveziȱóiȱZ.ȱGo²eva,ȱLeȱculteȱduȱCavalierȱThraceȱdansȱleȱcontexteȱdeȱ
laȱrégionȱestȬméditerranéenne,ȱînȱEightȱInternationalȱCongressȱofȱThracology,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱSofia,ȱ2002,ȱ
p.ȱ769Ȭ794.ȱ
448
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱ p.ȱ 163;ȱ N.ȱ Hampartumian,ȱ CCETȱ IV,ȱ nr.ȱ 35ȱ óiȱ 37ȱ
(Tomis).ȱ
449
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ32Ȭ37;ȱISMȱII,ȱ121.ȱ
450
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ94Ȭ103,ȱnr.ȱ18Ȭ21;ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱCavalerulȱTrac,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1967,ȱpassim;ȱG.ȱ
Bordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ206Ȭ209;ȱN.ȱHampartumian,ȱCCET,ȱIV,ȱpassim;ȱM.ȱOppermann,ȱop.ȱ
cit.,ȱpassim.ȱ
451
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 169Ȭ177;ȱ eadem,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 168ȱ
(templulȱErouluiȱ–ȱCavalerȱTrac).ȱ
70ȱ ȱ
ȱ
culte,ȱînȱreprezent©riȱîncadrateȱînȱclaseleȱBȱóiȱCȱdeȱredareȱaȱdivinit©öilor452.ȱ
Înainteȱ deȱ aȱ treceȱ maiȱ departeȱ suntemȱ datoriȱ s©ȱ menöion©mȱ descoperireaȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱînȱ1962,ȱaȱunuiȱtezaurȱdeȱ24ȱpieseȱsculpturale453,ȱstatui,ȱstatuete,ȱoȱaedicula,ȱ
reliefuriȱ votiveȱ óiȱ unȱ altarȱ deȱ miciȱ dimensiuni.ȱ Reprezent©rileȱ aparöinȱ atâtȱ
pantheonuluiȱgrecoȬromanȱ(Hecate454,ȱSelene,ȱNemesis,ȱTyche,ȱCharites,ȱDionysos,ȱ
Asclepios,ȱDioscurii,ȱHermes),ȱcâtȱóiȱceluiȱorientalȱ(Cybele,ȱIsis,ȱGlykon,ȱMithras)ȱ
óiȱlocalȱ(CavalerulȱTrac).ȱOȱsingur©ȱpies©ȱdinȱtezaurȱpoateȱfiȱîncadrat©ȱdup©ȱstilulȱ
maiȱ arhaicȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ perioadeiȱ elenisticeȱ sauȱ poateȱ maiȱ probabilȱ începutulȱ celeiȱ
romaneȱ (sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ câtevaȱ monumenteȱ aparöinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Datareaȱ pentruȱ
majoritateaȱ exemplarelorȱ esteȱ limitat©ȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ a.ȱ Chr.455ȱ
Îngropareaȱ pieselorȱ efectuat©ȱ cuȱ scopȱ religiosȱ aȱ fostȱ determinat©ȱ deȱ evenimenteȱ
istoriceȱ importante:ȱ fieȱ c©ȱ neȱ gândimȱ laȱ atacurileȱ carpoȬgoticeȱ deȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ
IIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(dinȱcareȱesteȱdeȱreöinutȱasediulȱTomisuluiȱdinȱ269ȱp.ȱChr.),ȱfieȱc©ȱavemȱ
înȱvedereȱunȱmomentȱdeȱaccentuareȱaȱluptelorȱdintreȱp©gânismȱóiȱcreótinismulȱînȱ
accensiune456.ȱ
Tabloulȱ divinit©öilorȱ adorateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ esteȱ întregitȱ deȱ reprezent©rileȱ peȱ
monede457,ȱ deȱ bronzurileȱ figurate458,ȱ deȱ opaiöe459,ȱ statueteȱ ceramiceȱ sauȱ chiarȱ vaseȱ
deȱsticl©,ȱg©siteȱînȱceaȱmaiȱmareȱparteȱînȱcomplexeȱfunerare460.ȱ
Întreȱultimeleȱnuȱtrebuieȱs©Ȭiȱuit©mȱpeȱDiiȱManes,ȱinvocaöiȱadeseoriȱlaȱTomis,ȱ
caȱ pretutindeniȱ înȱ lumeaȱ roman©,ȱ peȱ monumenteȱ funerareȱ cuȱ oȱ bogat©ȱ
simbolistic©461,ȱilustrativ©ȱpentruȱcredinöaȱînȱlumeaȱumbrelor.ȱ
452
ȱD.ȱTudor,ȱCorpusȱMonumentorumȱReligionisȱEquitumȱDanuviorum,ȱI,ȱLeiden,ȱ1969,ȱnr.ȱ
93Ȭ96;ȱ idem,ȱ Uneleȱ aspecteȱ iconograficeȱ aleȱ reliefurilorȱ Cavalerilorȱ Danubieniȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ
Ponticaȱ 5ȱ (1972),ȱ p.ȱ 503Ȭ511;ȱ adaug©ȱ óiȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ C.ȱ Chiriac,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ iconografiaȱ
Cavalerilorȱ Danubieniȱ înȱ Dobrogea,ȱ ArhMold,ȱ 25ȱ (2003),ȱ p.ȱ 54Ȭ58;ȱ oȱ alt©ȱ propunereȱ pentruȱ
tipologiaȱ óiȱ cronologiaȱ monumentelor,ȱ inclusivȱ aȱ celorȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ laȱ S.ȱ Nemeti,ȱ
SincretismulȱreligiosȱînȱDaciaȱroman©,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ208Ȭ216.ȱ
453
ȱVeziȱTezaurul,ȱpassim;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ178;ȱeadem,ȱIlȱdepositoȱdiȱ
scultureȱ votiveȱ diȱ Tomis,ȱ Eireneȱ 4ȱ (1965),ȱ p.ȱ 67Ȭ69;ȱ M.ȱ AlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 53ȱ
(2009),ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ46.ȱ
454
ȱ Tezaurulȱ înȱ ansamblulȱ s©uȱ ilustreaz©ȱ deplinȱ culteleȱ practicateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ întreȱ careȱ
multeȱ legateȱ deȱ mistere,ȱ cumȱ arat©ȱ numeroaseleȱ reprezent©riȱ aleȱ Hecatei,ȱ darȱ óiȱ alteȱ
monumenteȱdinȱtezaurȱ(veziȱînȱacestȱsensȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱop.ȱcit.).ȱHecate,ȱplasat©ȱ
înȱ galeriaȱ zeilorȱ salvatoriȱ (ΗΝΘΉϧΕ΅ȱ ̴ΎΣΘ΋),ȱ seȱ bucur©ȱ deȱ unȱ cultȱ înȱ careȱ seȱ distingeȱ oȱ
ierarhieȱsacerdotal©,ȱveziȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱPaterȱnomimosȱînȱcultulȱHecateiȱlaȱTomis,ȱ
Ponticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ253.ȱȱȱ
455
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 123;ȱ M.ȱ AlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 28ȱ (Hekataionȱ 1)ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 46;ȱ D.M.ȱ
Pippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ303Ȭ307ȱareȱînȱvedereȱóiȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
456
ȱAmbeleȱipotezeȱsuntȱluateȱînȱconsideraöieȱînȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ122Ȭ123;ȱD.ȱM.ȱPippidi,ȱop.ȱ
cit.,ȱp.ȱ307ȱconsider©ȱmaiȱplauzibil©ȱipotezaȱ„c©ȱneȱg©simȱînainteaȱunuiȱepisodȱcaracteristicȱ
deȱ r©zboiȱ religios”,ȱ pieseleȱ fiindȱ ad©postiteȱ deȱ furiaȱ „adversarilorȱ creótiniȱ sauȱ aȱ
autorit©öilorȱimperiale”.ȱ
457
458
ȱM.ȱIrimia,ȱBronzuriȱfigurate,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1966.ȱ
459
ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱOpaiöeȱgrecoȬromane,ȱConstanöaȱ1967.ȱ
460
ȱC.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱImporturiȱdeȱvaseȱdeȱsticl©ȱsuflateȱînȱtiparȱdescoperiteȱînȱnecropoleleȱ
Tomisului,ȱ Ponticaȱ 25ȱ (1992),ȱ p.ȱ 273Ȭ280;ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Reprezent©riȱ mitologiceȱ înȱ inventareleȱ
funerareȱdinȱTomisȱ(sec.ȱIȬIVȱp.ȱChr.),ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ217Ȭ236.ȱ
461
ȱ Veziȱ S.ȱ Conrad,ȱ Dieȱ Grabstelenȱ ausȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior.ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ Chronologie,ȱ
TypologieȱundȱIkonografie,ȱLeipzig,ȱ2004ȱ(cuȱbibliografia).ȱ
ȱ 71
ȱȱȱ
Stratigrafieȱóiȱurbanismȱ
PerioadaȱsecolelorȱIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱesteȱdocumentat©ȱstratigraficȱprinȱtreiȱniveluriȱ
arheologice462:ȱȱ
ȬȱNȱVI,ȱsesizabilȱpeȱmiciȱporöiuni,ȱdatatȱcuȱprobabilitateȱînȱsec.ȱIȬIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱElȱ
apareȱ caȱ unȱ nivelȱ deȱ c©lcareȱ puternicȱ incendiat;ȱ incendiulȱ ,ȱ constatatȱ înȱ câtevaȱ
puncte,ȱreprezint©ȱdovadaȱuneiȱdistrugeriȱviolenteȱînȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.;ȱ
Ȭȱ Nȱ V,ȱ maiȱ greuȱ sesizabil,ȱ aparöineȱ dup©ȱ ceramic©ȱ secolelorȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ elȱ
nuȱesteȱmarcatȱdeȱvreunȱincendiuȱsauȱalteȱurmeȱdeosebite;ȱ
Ȭȱ Nȱ IVȱ seȱ caracterizeaz©ȱ printrȬunȱ stratȱ grosȱ deȱ incendiu;ȱ esteȱ celȱ maiȱ grosȱ
stratȱdeȱincendiuȱdinȱepocaȱroman©ȱóiȱindic©ȱoȱdistrugereȱviolent©,ȱpetrecut©ȱînȱaȱ
douaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱCeramicaȱdeȱpeȱacestȱnivelȱaparöineȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱ
cuȱuneleȱelementeȱceȱanunö©ȱsecolulȱurm©tor.ȱ
Zoneleȱ cercetateȱ arheologicȱ p©streaz©ȱ slabeȱ doveziȱ deȱ urbanism.ȱ ÎntrȬunȱ
sondajȱ executatȱ înȱ Piaöaȱ Ovidiuȱ seȱ constat©ȱ oȱ locuireȱ intens©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ
suprapus©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ deȱ unȱ edificiu463.ȱ S©p©turiȱ deȱ dat©ȱ relativȱ recent©ȱ
(1989),ȱsituateȱîntrȬunȱspaöiuȱapropiat,ȱlaȱNEȱdeȱzonaȱamintit©ȱauȱdat,ȱsubȱruineleȱ
uneiȱ basiliciȱ deȱ mariȱ dimensiuni,ȱ deȱ ziduriȱ fragmentare,ȱ careȱ închidȱ oȱ suprafaö©ȱ
deȱplanȱelipsoidal.ȱPoziöiaȱzidurilorȱindic©ȱexistenöaȱuneiȱareneȱcuȱlungimeaȱdeȱ55Ȭ
60ȱ mȱ óiȱ l©öimeaȱ deȱ 30Ȭ35ȱ m,ȱ avândȱ înȱ exteriorȱ miciȱ înc©periȱ utilizateȱ înȱ timpulȱ
luptelorȱcuȱanimale464.ȱDinȱacestȱperimetruȱauȱfostȱrecuperateȱmaiȱmulteȱb©nciȱdeȱ
calcar,ȱdislocateȱdinȱantichitate465.ȱ
Punemȱînȱleg©tur©ȱurmeleȱdescoperiteȱcuȱinscripöiileȱdeȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱcareȱ
menöioneaz©ȱ organizareaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ spectacolelorȱ deȱ gladiatoriȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 96,ȱ 188,ȱ
288,ȱ341,ȱ 342,ȱ 343,ȱ 344,ȱ206)ȱ óiȱ aȱ luptelorȱ deȱ fiareȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 96,ȱ341),ȱ alȱ c©rorȱ locȱ deȱ
desf©óurareȱ eraȱ amfiteatrul.ȱ Unȱ teatruȱ eraȱ atestatȱ înc©ȱ dinȱ perioadaȱ autonom©ȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 4)466;ȱ acumȱ afl©mȱ deȱ existenöaȱ unuiȱ colegiuȱ alȱ actorilorȱ (ΟΙΐΉΏ΍Ύχȱ
ΗϾΑΓΈΓΖ)467,ȱactivȱlaȱmarileȱserb©riȱanualeȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ70).ȱȱ
Documenteleȱ epigraficeȱ óiȱ numismaticeȱ menöioneaz©ȱ óiȱ alteȱ importanteȱ
construcöii:ȱzidȱdeȱincint©,ȱtemple,ȱtrofeeȱóiȱarcuriȱdeȱtriumf.ȱ
Dezvoltareaȱ oraóuluiȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Iȱ óiȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ aȱ impusȱ l©rgireaȱ
suprafeöeiȱlocuiteȱóiȱconstruireaȱunuiȱnouȱzidȱdeȱap©rare.ȱTraseulȱexactȱalȱacestuiȱ
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ11Ȭ13,ȱpl.ȱI;ȱGh.ȱPapucȱ(responsabil),ȱ
462
CCA,ȱ Campania2001,ȱ p.ȱ 108,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ punctȱ str.ȱ Arhiepiscopieiȱ nr.ȱ 23,ȱ totȱ treiȱ niveluriȱ
arheologice:ȱ Nȱ 7Ȭ8ȱ (sec.ȱ Iȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Nȱ 9ȱ (sec.ȱ IIȱ Ȭȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ unȱ nivelȱ deȱ locuireȱ
romanȱ timpuriu,ȱ darȱ puternicȱ deranjatȱ deȱ construcöiiȱ moderneȱ aȱ fostȱ surprinsȱ totȱ înȱ zonaȱ
peninsular©ȱ aȱ Tomisului;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 132,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ punctȱ str.ȱ
Brâncoveanu.ȱ
463
ȱVl.ȱZirra,ȱP.ȱAlexandrescu,ȱMaterialeȱ4ȱ(1957),ȱp.ȱ88Ȭ94.ȱ
464
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Recherchesȱ archéologiquesȱ récentsȱ dansȱ leȱ périmètreȱ deȱ laȱ citéȱ deȱ
Tomi,ȱ Étudesȱ byzantinesȱ etȱ postȬbyzantines,ȱ IIȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (s©p©turiȱ efectuateȱ deȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Tr.ȱ Clianteȱ óiȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc;ȱ inedite);ȱ E.ȱ Bouley,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 125ȱ includeȱ aceast©ȱ construcöieȱ înȱ
categoriaȱteatruluiȱmixtȱ(teatru/amfiteatru),ȱcumȱsuntȱceleȱdeȱlaȱDyrrachium,ȱMarcianopolisȱ
óiȱDiocletianopolis.ȱ
465
ȱUnaȱdinȱb©nciȱp©streaz©ȱunȱbasoreliefȱpeȱlaturaȱfrontal©ȱóiȱoȱinscripöieȱfragmentar©.ȱ
466
467
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 176Ȭ177;ȱ dintrȬoȱ epigram©ȱ funerar©ȱ afl©mȱ deȱ unȱ bizantinȱ
Euelpistos,ȱ fiulȱ luiȱ Sosos,ȱ stabilitȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ apreciatȱ caȱ bunȱ recitatorȱ óiȱ cânt©reö;ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱAvram,ȱC.ȱP.ȱJones,ȱop.ȱcit.ȱ(supraȱn.ȱ391).ȱ
72ȱ ȱ
ȱ
zidȱ nuȱ esteȱ cunoscut.ȱ Dup©ȱ câtȱ seȱ pareȱ elȱ uneaȱ falezeleȱ deȱ Estȱ (deȱ lâng©ȱ Bisericaȱ
Greac©)ȱóiȱdeȱVestȱ(lâng©ȱvecheaȱcl©direȱaȱTribunalului)468,ȱap©rândȱoraóulȱdinspreȱ
uscat.ȱPeȱfalezaȱdeȱVestȱseȱmaiȱv©dȱresturileȱunuiȱturnȱcareȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱfostȱreutilizatȱ
cuȱ alteȱ scopuriȱ maiȱ târziu469.ȱ Suprafaöaȱ ap©rat©ȱ esteȱ dubl©ȱ faö©ȱ deȱ ceaȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ
elenistic.ȱ Dinȱ dou©ȱ documenteȱ epigraficeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 21ȱ óiȱ 22)ȱ afl©mȱ deȱ lucr©riȱ deȱ
reparaöiiȱ sauȱ completareȱ aȱ ziduluiȱ deȱincint©,ȱ plasateȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ
p.ȱChr.ȱ(poateȱchiarȱînȱvremeaȱluiȱMarcusȱAurelius)ȱsauȱînȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.470.ȱ
oinândȱ contȱ deȱ bogataȱ viaö©ȱ spiritual©ȱ aȱ cet©öii,ȱ num©rulȱ l©caóurilorȱ deȱ cultȱ
trebuieȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ mare.ȱ Templeleȱ dinȱ cetateȱ aparȱ reprezentateȱ peȱ monedeȱ deȱ laȱ
Tiberius,ȱ Nero,ȱ Titus,ȱ Domitian,ȱ Septimiusȱ Severus,ȱ Caracalla,ȱ Geta,ȱ Elegabal,ȱ
Severusȱ Alexanderȱ óiȱ Maximin.ȱ Peȱ monedeȱ deȱ laȱ Traianȱ óiȱ dinȱ dinastiaȱ Severilorȱ
aparȱreprezentateȱtrofee,ȱiarȱpeȱceleȱdeȱlaȱMaximinȱóiȱMaximusȱ–ȱarcuriȱdeȱtriumf.ȱ
Numeroaseȱfragmenteȱarhitectonice,ȱdinȱmarmur©ȱóiȱcalcarȱîntreȱcareȱsemnal©mȱóiȱ
câtevaȱcapiteluri471ȱdauȱm©suraȱvieöiiȱurbaneȱlaȱTomis.ȱMaiȱmulteȱarhitraveȱconöinȱ
dedicaöiiȱ c©treȱ Traianȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 40,ȱ 41,ȱ 43,ȱ 44,ȱ 45),ȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ óiȱ Marcusȱ
Aureliusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 55),ȱ Septimiusȱ Severusȱ óiȱ familiaȱ imperial©ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 84)472.ȱ Deȱ
altfel,ȱ esteȱ recunoscut©ȱ monumentalitateaȱ oraóuluiȱ înȱ epocaȱ Severilor,ȱ justificândȱ
titlulȱdeȱΏ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋ȱΐ΋ΘΕϱΔΓΏ΍ΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ΅’ȱΘΓІȱ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱpurtatȱînȱ
primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 92,ȱ 96,ȱ 97,ȱ 105).ȱ Esteȱ posibilȱ caȱ dou©ȱ dintreȱ
construcöiileȱ deȱ cert©ȱ valoareȱ public©,ȱ lentiarionȱ óiȱ edificiulȱ cuȱ mozaic,ȱ bineȱ
documentateȱ pentruȱ secoleleȱ IVȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ s©Ȭóiȱ fiȱ începutȱ construireaȱ óiȱ
funcöionalitateaȱînc©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.473ȱ
Unȱ edificiuȱ publicȱ importantȱ cuȱ faöad©ȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ eraȱ plasatȱ totȱ înȱ parteaȱ
deȱ Vestȱ aȱ portuluiȱ antic.ȱ Identificat,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ cuȱ unȱ templuȱ sauȱ atelierȱ deȱ
prelucrareȱ aȱ marmurei,ȱ monumentulȱ respectivȱ aȱ fostȱ datatȱ (peȱ bazaȱ tipuluiȱ
arhitectonicȱ recunoscutȱ înȱ pieseleȱ deȱ marmur©)ȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ –ȱ
începutulȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.474ȱ
DintrȬunȱ documentȱ epigraficȱ afl©mȱ despreȱ existenöaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ unuiȱ heroonȱ
468
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ târzie,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 51;ȱ idem,ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2000,ȱ p.ȱ 71:ȱ urmeleȱ ziduluiȱ identificateȱ peȱ
loculȱactualuluiȱhotelȱBTT;ȱtraseulȱuneaȱfalezaȱportuluiȱmodernȱóiȱPoartaȱII.ȱ
469
ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ TomisȬKustendjeȬConstanöa.ȱ Topografiaȱ antic©ȱ tomitan©ȱ înȱ h©röiȱ óiȱ însemn©riȱ
deȱ c©l©torieȱ dinȱ epocaȱ modern©ȱ (sec.ȱ XIXȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ XX),ȱ Caieteȱ ARA.ȱ Arhitectur©.ȱ
Restaurare.ȱArheologie,ȱ1ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ61ȱóiȱfig.ȱ1ȱóiȱ4.ȱ
470
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ156;ȱveziȱóiȱsupraȱnoteleȱ250ȱóiȱ251.ȱ
471
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Activitàȱ ediliziaȱ aȱ Tomiȱ nell’IIȱ secoloȱ dell’e.n.,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 4ȱ (1960),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 255Ȭ272;ȱ vezi,ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ Capiteluriȱ corinticeȱ romaneȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Grupulȱ deȱ capiteluriȱ
„serviliene”,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 2ȱ (2004),ȱ p.ȱ 73Ȭ94;ȱ eadem,ȱ Eineȱ Gruppeȱ vonȱ Pilasterkapitellenȱ
korintischerȱ Ordungȱ ausȱ Tomis,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 53ȱ (2009),ȱ p.ȱ 113Ȭ129;ȱ capitelurile,ȱ realizateȱ dinȱ
marmur©ȱ deȱ import,ȱ aparöinândȱ uneiȱ categoriiȱ cuȱ originiȱ microasiaticeȱ óiȱ cuȱ analogiiȱ înȱ
spaöiulȱvestȬpontic,ȱseȱîncadreaz©ȱcronologicȱînȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
472
ȱ Ultimaȱ esteȱ oȱ dedicaöieȱ peȱ oȱ plac©ȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ p©strat©ȱ fragmentar;ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ170Ȭ174.ȱ
473
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 27,ȱ n.ȱ 172;ȱ idem,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudja,ȱ p.ȱ 33;ȱ veziȱ laȱ noi,ȱ maiȱ
departe,ȱetapaȱIV.ȱ
474
ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ Caieteȱ ARA,ȱ Arhitectur©.ȱ Restaurare.ȱ Arheologie,ȱ 1ȱ (2010),ȱ p.ȱ 63Ȭ68ȱ óiȱȱȱ
fig.ȱ 5Ȭ7ȱ (desemnatȱ aiciȱ prinȱ „edificiuȱ cuȱ scar©”).ȱ Identificareaȱ luiȱ cuȱ unȱ posibilȱ nymphaeumȱ
r©mâneȱdoarȱipotetic©;ȱveziȱtotȱacolo,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱn.ȱ55.ȱ
ȱ 73
ȱȱȱ
cuȱ porticȱ (duplexȱ sauȱ bifrons)ȱ sauȱ oȱ eventual©ȱ stoa(?)475.ȱ Resturiȱ deȱ pavajeȱ subȱ
nivelulȱstr©zilorȱromaneȱtârziiȱfacȱdovadaȱamenaj©riiȱunuiȱsistemȱstradal476.ȱDintreȱ
locuinöeleȱ civile,ȱ documentateȱ deȱ fragmenteȱ deȱ ziduriȱ deȱ piatr©ȱ amintimȱ unȱ
ansambluȱ constructivȱ cuȱ dou©ȱ fazeȱ deȱ locuireȱ dinȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.477ȱ
Subȱ raportȱ economic,ȱ activitateaȱ comercial©ȱ seȱ arat©ȱ aȱ fiȱ ocupaöiaȱ deȱ baz©ȱ aȱ
tomitanilor.ȱNum©rulȱoraóelorȱcuȱcareȱTomisȱajungeȱs©ȱîntreöin©ȱrelaöiiȱcomercialeȱ
esteȱ mare:ȱ peȱ lâng©ȱ contacteleȱ normaleȱ cuȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ învecinate,ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ
aparȱ menöionaöiȱ oȱ serieȱ deȱ str©iniȱ proveniöiȱ dinȱ oraóeleȱ dinȱ Mareaȱ Neagr©,ȱ dinȱ
Grecia,ȱ Asiaȱ Mic©ȱ (maiȱ alesȱ caȱ urmareȱ aȱ importanöeiȱ linieiȱ maritimeȱ NicomediaȬ
Tomis)ȱ óiȱ dinȱ Egipt478.ȱ Acestoraȱ liȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ relaöiiȱ cuȱ oraóeleȱ dinȱ provinciileȱ
dun©reneȱóiȱdinȱItalia.ȱActivitateaȱcomercial©ȱtomitan©,ȱcontrolat©ȱdeȱoficialit©öileȱ
romane,ȱ oȱ dep©óeóteȱ peȱ ceaȱ aȱ Histriei.ȱ Unȱ indiciuȱ îlȱ reprezint©ȱ importurileȱ deȱ
ceramic©ȱlaȱTomis.ȱApariöiaȱprimelorȱimporturiȱoccidentaleȱareȱlocȱînc©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIȱ
p.ȱChr.479.ȱNuȱlipsescȱimporturileȱorientaleȱcare,ȱîmpreun©ȱcuȱproducöiaȱlocal©,ȱvorȱ
creaȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ oȱ
cultur©ȱ material©ȱ unitar©,ȱ caracteristic©ȱ întreguluiȱ teritoriuȱ dobrogean.ȱ Ceramicaȱ
dinȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ pareȱ s©ȱ atesteȱ oȱ recrudescenö©ȱ aȱ influenöeiȱ
orientale480.ȱ Produseleȱ deȱ sticl©481ȱ urmeaz©ȱ liniileȱ principaleȱ aleȱ comeröuluiȱ
tomitanȱ constatateȱ óiȱ înȱ ceramic©:ȱ componentaȱ grecoȬoriental©ȱ peȱ toat©ȱ perioadaȱ
Principatului,ȱ c©reiaȱ iȱ seȱ adaug©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ unȱ importantȱ aportȱ
occidental.ȱ
Preocup©rileȱcomercialeȱaleȱcapitaleiȱsuntȱreflectateȱóiȱînȱteritoriu482.ȱ
Tomis,ȱ conformȱ statutuluiȱ s©uȱ juridicȱ deȱ oraóȱ liber,ȱ aȱ avutȱ oȱ posesiuneȱ
efectiv©ȱasupraȱpropriuluiȱteritoriu,ȱdeȱaceeaȱnuȱputemȱvorbiȱdeȱoȱdelimitareȱîntreȱ
teritoriulȱ propriuȬzisȱ óiȱ regio483.ȱ M©rimeaȱ teritoriuluiȱ tomitanȱ trebuieȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ
considerabil©,ȱdac©ȱöinemȱseamaȱdeȱînsemn©tateaȱoraóuluiȱînȱepocaȱroman©ȱóiȱdeȱ
întindereaȱteritoriilorȱcet©öilorȱvecine,ȱHistriaȱóiȱCallatis.ȱÎnȱabsenöaȱunorȱpietreȱdeȱ
hotar,ȱ calculeleȱ r©mânȱ aproximative.ȱ Dac©ȱ limitaȱ nordic©ȱ seȱ plasaȱ peȱ liniaȱ
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱsupraȱ(n.ȱ221).ȱ
475
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109;ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
476
477
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
478
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ121,ȱn.ȱ119;ȱveziȱóiȱsupra,ȱn.ȱ344ȱóiȱn.ȱ356;ȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱLeȱ
Pontȱ Gaucheȱ etȱ Rome:ȱ traditionsȱ hellénistiquesȱ etȱ modèlesȱ commerciauxȱ romains,ȱ Classicaȱ etȱ
Christanaȱ2ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ50Ȭ58;ȱidem,ȱArmateursȱetȱmarchandsȱdeȱNicomédieȱdansȱlaȱMéditerranéeȱàȱ
l’époqueȱromaine,ȱClassicaȱetȱChristianaȱ5/2ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ291Ȭ292.ȱ
479
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Tradiöiiȱ elenisticeȱ înȱ materialeleȱ funerareȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©ȱ timpurieȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 297Ȭ332;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 125,ȱ n.ȱ 165Ȭ166;ȱ veziȱ
maiȱ departeȱ pentruȱ importurileȱ orientale,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Kleinasiatischeȱ undȱ östlicheȱ
keramischeȱ Importfundeȱ ausȱ Histriaȱ undȱ Tomisȱ (1.Ȭ3.ȱ Jh.n.Chr.),ȱ MBAHȱ XII/2ȱ (1993),ȱ 33ȱ f.f.;ȱ
idem,ȱVariaȱCretariaȱPergamena,ȱînȱEconomieȱóiȱsocietate…,ȱp.ȱ227Ȭ238.ȱ
480
ȱ Situaöieȱ explicabil©ȱ prinȱ afirmareaȱ înȱ zon©ȱ aȱ autorit©öiiȱ crescândeȱ aȱ Bizanöului;ȱȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ125ȱóiȱn.ȱ168.ȱȱ
481
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Vaseȱ anticeȱ deȱ sticl©ȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1968;ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ
482
ȱPentruȱdescoperiri,ȱveziȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ128.ȱ
483
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱViaöaȱrural©,ȱînȱspecialȱp.ȱ47Ȭ61ȱóiȱ151Ȭ158;ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱContribuöiiȱ
laȱcunoaótereaȱsatuluiȱdobrogeanȱdinȱepocaȱroman©,ȱSCIVAȱ52Ȭ53ȱ(2001Ȭ2002),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ172.ȱ
74ȱ ȱ
ȱ
CasimceaȱóiȱpeȱmalulȱdeȱnordȱalȱlaculuiȱTaóaul,ȱceaȱdeȱsudȱpoateȱs©ȱfiȱajunsȱpân©ȱ
laȱlaculȱTechirghiol;ȱînȱinterior,ȱtraseulȱr©mâneȱipotetic.ȱ
Prezenöaȱelementelorȱromaneȱînȱteritoriulȱtomitanȱînc©ȱdinȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱ
sec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱaȱdusȱdeȱtimpuriuȱlaȱapariöiaȱunorȱpraediaȱóiȱapoiȱaȱunorȱvici.ȱDinȱceleȱ
câtevaȱ toponimeȱ p©strate,ȱ l©sândȱ deȱ oȱ parteȱ vicusȱ Celeris,ȱ careȱ seȱ localizeaz©ȱ maiȱ
degrab©ȱ înȱ teritoriulȱ histrian,ȱ alöiȱ viciȱ atestaöiȱ aiciȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ sunt:ȱ v.ȱ
Clementianensis,ȱv.ȱNarcissiani,ȱv.ȱSc[apt]ia,ȱv.ȱTurrisȱMuca(…).ȱPentruȱceiȱmaiȱmulöiȱ
propunerileȱdeȱlocalizareȱr©mânȱipotetice.ȱȱ
Deoareceȱ nuȱ avemȱ doveziȱ deȱ împ©röireȱ aȱ teritoriuluiȱ peȱ triburiȱ (phylai),ȱ aȱ
unorȱ obótiȱ indigeneȱ sauȱ aȱ unorȱ conduc©toriȱ careȱ s©ȱ steaȱ înȱ frunteaȱ formaöiunilorȱ
deȱtipȱneromanȱ(principesȱlocorum)484,ȱcredemȱc©ȱromanizareaȱmaiȱintens©ȱaȱdusȱlaȱ
organizareaȱ maiȱ unitar©ȱ aȱ teritoriuluiȱ tomitan.ȱ Prezenöaȱ aproapeȱ pretutindeniȱ aȱ
elementelorȱ indigeneȱ óiȱ m©rturiileȱ epigraficeȱ privindȱ populaöiaȱ greac©,ȱ înȱ specialȱ
peȱlitoralȱ(ΎЏΐ΋ȱ̝ΔΓΏΏΝΑϟΓΙ) 485ȱóiȱînȱalteȱlocuri,ȱnuȱexcludȱp©strareaȱóiȱaȱformelorȱ
tradiöionaleȱdeȱorganizare.ȱ
ȱ
EtapaȱaȱIVȬa:ȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȬsec.ȱVIȱ(VII)ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Odat©ȱ cuȱ instaurareaȱ Dominatuluiȱ deȱ c©treȱ împ©ratulȱ Diocletianȱ seȱ producȱ
schimb©riȱ înȱ administraöiaȱ provinciilor.ȱ Desp©röit©ȱ deȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ Dobrogeaȱ
vaȱfiȱtransformat©ȱînȱprovincieȱindependent©ȱsubȱnumeleȱdeȱScythiaȱ(Minor).ȱkiȱînȱ
nouaȱ structur©ȱ Tomisȱ vaȱ fiȱ capitalaȱ provinciei.ȱ Aiciȱ îóiȱ aveaȱ sediulȱ guvernatorulȱ
provincieiȱ (praeses).ȱ Esteȱ foarteȱ probabilȱ c©ȱ acumȱ înceteaz©ȱ comunitateaȱ oraóelorȱ
pontice 486.ȱ Înc©ȱ deȱ laȱ începutulȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Diocletian,ȱ înȱ 284ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ „sfatulȱ óiȱ
poporulȱ tomitanilor”ȱ dedic©ȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ împ©ratuluiȱ „preaȱ iubitȱ deȱ zei”ȱ
(ΟΉΓΠ΍ΏνΗΘ΅ΘΓΖ,ȱISMȱII,ȱ111).ȱInscripöiaȱpoateȱs©ȱfiȱfostȱocazionat©ȱdeȱurcareaȱpeȱ
tronȱaȱîmp©ratuluiȱsauȱdeȱfixareaȱlaȱTomisȱaȱcapitaleiȱprovinciei487.ȱkiȱîntrȬunȱcazȱóiȱ
înȱ cel©laltȱ tomitaniiȱ înöelegȱ s©Ȭóiȱ manifesteȱ loialitateaȱ faö©ȱ deȱ împ©rat.ȱ Politicaȱ
defensiv©ȱ aȱ imperiuluiȱ impuneȱ lucr©riȱ speciale.ȱ Dinȱ ordinulȱ împ©raöilorȱ
Diocletianȱ óiȱ Maximianȱ óiȱ prinȱ grijaȱ comandantuluiȱ militarȱ alȱ provincieiȱ (duxȱ
limitisȱ Scythici),ȱ C.ȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianus488,ȱ tomitaniiȱ construiescȱ poröileȱ sauȱ oȱ
poart©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ deȱ reóedinö©ȱ (aȱ guvernatorului,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 3ȱ =ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 155)489.ȱ Acelaóiȱ
Firminianus,ȱvirȱperfectissimus,ȱduxȱlimitisȱprovinciaeȱScythiae,ȱesteȱmenöionatȱpeȱunȱ
484
ȱ Veziȱ totuóiȱ p©rereaȱ exprimat©ȱ deȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 52ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 251ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ
cuȱ CILȱ IIIȱ 772ȱ (=ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 183),ȱ inscripöieȱ considerat©ȱ aȱ proveniȱ deȱ laȱ Techirghiol;ȱ asupraȱ
probabileiȱ provenienöeȱ aȱ epigrafeiȱ deȱ laȱ Seimeni,ȱ veziȱ bibliografiaȱ laȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ
ISMȱV,ȱ4.ȱȱ
485
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ170,ȱ nr.ȱ 6,ȱ fig.ȱ 6;ȱ Al.ȱ
Suceveanu,ȱSCIVAȱ52Ȭ53ȱ(2001Ȭ2002),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ171.ȱ
486
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDID,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ370,ȱn.ȱ6.ȱ
487
ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱcomentariuȱlaȱIGLR,ȱ1.ȱȱ
488
ȱ Consideratȱ deȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ p.ȱ 37ȱ poateȱ primulȱ duxȱ dup©ȱ înfiinöareaȱ
provincieiȱ deȱ c©treȱ Diocletian;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 125,ȱ stabileóteȱ activitateaȱ luiȱ
AureliusȱFirminianusȱîntreȱ284Ȭ286ȱp.ȱChr.;ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱProsopographiaȱScythiaeȱMinorisȱnachȱ
denȱ epigraphischenȱ undȱ sphragistischenȱ Quellenȱ vonȱ 284ȱ bisȱ zumȱ 7.ȱ Jh.ȱ înȱ Siegelȱ undȱ Siegler.ȱ
Aktenȱ desȱ 8.ȱ Internationalenȱ Simposionsȱ fürȱ Byzantinischeȱ Sigillographie,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 6ȱ areȱ înȱ
vedereȱintervalulȱ285Ȭ305ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
489
ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ3ȱóiȱp.ȱ38ȱîntregeóteȱinscripöiaȱporta[sȱsiveȱȬmȱcivita]tiȱpraesida[liȱ
siveȬariae]ȱ(285Ȭ292ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱVeziȱóiȱAl.ȱBarneaȱînȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ195.ȱȱ
ȱ 75
ȱȱȱ
monumentȱ votivȱ dinȱ 293Ȭ305ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ închinatȱ „mariiȱ mameȱ aȱ zeilor”ȱ pentruȱ
s©n©tateaȱ împ©raöilorȱ (Augusti)ȱ óiȱ aȱ caesarilorȱ (Caesares)490.ȱ Probabilȱ c©ȱ totȱ
Firminianus491ȱ sauȱ unȱ patronȱ alȱ oraóului492ȱ esteȱ personajulȱ c©ruiaȱ iȱ seȱ dedic©ȱ oȱ
statuieȱ pentruȱ c©ȱ „aȱ uóuratȱ sarcinileȱ greleȱ aleȱ curiilorȱ dinȱ Scythia493ȱ óiȱ ȱ leȬaȱ f©cutȱ
posibil©ȱoȱviaö©ȱfrumoas©ȱóiȱsigur©”ȱ(IGLR,ȱ4ȱ=ȱISMȱII,ȱ113).ȱDinȱpoliticaȱdefensiv©ȱ
faceȱ parteȱ óiȱ acöiuneaȱ deȱ refacereȱ aȱ drumurilor.ȱ Suntȱ cunoscuöiȱ stâlpiȱ miliariȱ dinȱ
perioadaȱTetrarhieiȱpeȱprincipaleleȱc©iȱrutiereȱdinȱprovincie 494,ȱinclusivȱdeȱpeȱceaȱaȱ
litoralului,ȱdeȱexempluȱlaȱCorbu,ȱpeȱdrumulȱspreȱHistriaȱ(IGLR,ȱ82)495.ȱ
DeȱnumeleȱluiȱDiocletianȱseȱleag©ȱpersecuöiileȱanticreótineȱdinȱaniiȱ303Ȭ304ȱp.ȱ
Chr.ȱTexteleȱmartirologilorȱlocalizeaz©ȱlaȱTomisȱunȱmareȱnum©rȱdeȱmartiri496.ȱ
Continuândȱ óiȱ dezvoltândȱ sistemulȱ deȱ reformeȱ alȱ luiȱ Diocletian,ȱ Constantinȱ
celȱ Mareȱ aȱ p©stratȱ provinciaȱ Scythiaȱ înȱ diocezaȱ Thraciei;ȱ Tomisȱ esteȱ maiȱ departeȱ
capitalaȱ provinciei.ȱ Esteȱ posibilȱ caȱ deȱ atunciȱ s©ȱ datezeȱ uneleȱ poröiuniȱ aleȱ ziduluiȱ
deȱ incint©ȱ óiȱ cl©diriȱ deȱ interesȱ publicȱ situateȱ deȬaȱ lungulȱ falezei.ȱ Drumurileȱ dinȱ
apropiereaȱTomisuluiȱsuntȱreparateȱtotȱacum:ȱoȱdovedeóteȱunȱmiliarȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱ
datatȱîntreȱ323Ȭ337ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(IGLR,ȱ6)497.ȱInvaziileȱgoöilorȱcareȱseȱpareȱc©ȱînȱ331Ȭ332ȱ
p.ȱ Chr.ȱ auȱ trecutȱ óiȱ prinȱ Scythiaȱ Minor498,ȱ nuȱ auȱ atinsȱ Tomisul.ȱ Deȱ numeleȱ luiȱ
Constantiusȱ IIȱ(337Ȭ361ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱseȱleag©ȱtoponimulȱConstanti(an)a,ȱdatȱzoneiȱdinȱ
apropiereaȱ Tomisuluiȱ construiteȱ sauȱ ref©cuteȱ deȱ acestȱ împ©rat499.ȱ Odat©ȱ cuȱ
sfâróitulȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Constantiusȱ IIȱ seȱ încheieȱ óiȱ perioadaȱ înfloritoareȱ peȱ careȱ oȱ
cunoscuseȱTomisulȱóiȱScythiaȱMinorȱînȱurmaȱreformelorȱdinȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱ
IVȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Iulianȱ Apostatulȱ seȱ reiaȱ acöiuneaȱ deȱ refacereȱ aȱ drumuluiȱ
litoraluluiȱ(IGLR,ȱ82ȱb).ȱIncursiunileȱgoöilorȱînȱdiocezaȱThracieiȱdetermin©,ȱînȱ367Ȭ
369ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ expediöiiȱ împotrivaȱ lor,ȱ conduseȱ chiarȱ deȱ împ©ratulȱ Valens500.ȱ
Oratorulȱ Themistios,ȱ careȱ lȬaȱ însoöitȱ peȱ Valensȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ înȱ timpulȱ expediöieiȱ
dinȱ 369ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ noteaz©ȱ lucr©riȱ deȱ reparaöiiȱ laȱ apeducte,ȱ depoziteȱ óiȱ laȱ porturileȱ
490
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 144ȱ (=ȱ IGLR,ȱ 2);ȱ seȱ înöelegeȱ c©ȱ ceiȱ desemnaöiȱ suntȱ Diocletianȱ óiȱ Maximianȱ
(Augusti),ȱGaleriusȱóiȱConstantiusȱChlorusȱ(Caesares).ȱ
491
ȱDup©ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ4.ȱ
492
ȱDup©ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱISMȱII,ȱ113ȱóiȱp.ȱ139.ȱ
493
ȱPentruȱordinesȱScythiciȱînȱtext,ȱveziȱmaiȱdeparte.ȱ
494
ȱ Veziȱ L.ȱ Hollenstein,ȱ Recherchesȱ deȱ géographieȱ historique,ȱ Studiaȱ Balcanicaȱ 10,ȱ Sofia,ȱ
1975,ȱ p.ȱ 23Ȭ44;ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Voiesȱ deȱ communicationȱ auȱ BasȬDanubeȱ auxȱ IVȬVIȱ siècles,ȱ înȱ Étudesȱ
byzantinesȱ etȱ postȬbyzantines,ȱ III,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.ȱ 29Ȭ43;ȱ idem,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 291,ȱ fig.ȱ 21;ȱ A.ȱ Panaite,ȱ C.ȬG.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Aȱ „rediscovered”ȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Dobrudja.ȱ
RoadsȱandȱmilestonesȱinȱScythiaȱ(3 rd Ȭ4 th ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ429Ȭ455.ȱ
495
ȱStâlpulȱaȱfostȱdescoperitȱlaȱCorbuȱdeȱSusȱóiȱpoart©ȱdou©ȱinscripöii:ȱa)ȱdatat©ȱ293Ȭ305ȱ
p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ b)ȱ datat©ȱ 360Ȭ363ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Pentruȱ alȱ doileaȱ exemplarȱ deȱ laȱ Corbuȱ óiȱ alöiȱ stâlpiȱ dinȱ
perioadaȱ Tetrarhiei,ȱ veziȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Stâlpiȱ miliariȱ descoperiöiȱ înȱ Dobrogea,ȱ
496
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ378Ȭ379.ȱ
497
ȱVeziȱóiȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ387;ȱISMȱII,ȱ112ȱ(324Ȭ333ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
498
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ389.ȱ
499
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ391ȱóiȱn.ȱ108;ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ162,ȱ196ȱóiȱnoteleȱ37ȱ(p.ȱ302)ȱóiȱ196ȱ
(p.ȱ307);ȱveziȱóiȱlaȱnoi,ȱtoponimia.ȱ
500
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ394ȱsq.ȱ
76ȱ ȱ
ȱ
maritime501.ȱEsteȱposibilȱcaȱastfelȱdeȱlucr©riȱs©ȱseȱfiȱdesf©óuratȱóiȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
Unȱstâlpȱmiliarȱcuȱnumeleȱîmp©raöilorȱValentinian,ȱValensȱóiȱGratianȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
114)ȱesteȱpusȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱprezenöaȱluiȱValensȱînȱScythiaȱMinorȱînȱperioadaȱ367Ȭ
369502.ȱOȱdedicaöieȱnumaiȱpentruȱValentinianȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ115)ȱdateaz©ȱdinȱjurulȱanuluiȱ
369ȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ înȱ eaȱ împ©ratulȱ esteȱ numitȱ „înving©torulȱ neamurilorȱ barbare”ȱ
(debelatorȱ gentiumȱ barbarum);ȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ esteȱ doarȱ unȱ simpluȱ gestȱ deȱ lealitate,ȱ
inscripöiaȱseȱrefer©ȱprobabilȱlaȱvictoriileȱdinȱtimpulȱcampanieiȱîmpotrivaȱgoöilor503.ȱ
Evenimentulȱ politicȱ esteȱ îns©ȱ dep©óitȱ înȱ relatareaȱ izvoarelorȱ scriseȱ deȱ unȱ altul,ȱ
religios.ȱ Dou©ȱ izvoareȱ istoriceȱ Sozomenosȱ óiȱ Actaȱ Sanctorum504,ȱ redauȱ înȱ aceiaóiȱ
termeniȱepisodulȱtreceriiȱîmp©ratuluiȱValensȱprinȱTomis,ȱînȱaniiȱ368Ȭ369ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱóiȱ
întâlnireaȱacestuiaȱcuȱepiscopulȱortodoxȱBretanionȱsauȱVetranion505.ȱInformaöiaȱluiȱ
Sozomenosȱ(VI,ȱ21)ȱcuȱprivireȱlaȱTomisȱesteȱimportant©ȱdinȱ maiȱmulteȱpuncteȱdeȱ
vedere:ȱȱ
- recunoaóteȱTomisul,ȱcapitalaȱprovinciei,ȱcaȱ„oraóȱmareȱóiȱbogat”ȱ(ΔϱΏ΍Ζȱ
ΐΉ·ΣΏ΋ȱΎ΅ϠȱΉЁΈ΅ϟΐΝΑ);ȱȱ
- menöioneaz©ȱ prezenöaȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ unuiȱ episcopȱ ortodoxȱ óiȱ aȱ unuiȱ mareȱ
num©rȱdeȱcreótini;ȱȱ
- marcheaz©ȱ existenöaȱ laȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ aȱ unuiȱ singurȱ episcopȱ pentruȱ
întreagaȱprovincieȱóiȱrecunoaótereaȱsediuluiȱacestuiaȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
Urm©torulȱ eveniment,ȱ apropiatȱ înȱ timpȱ –ȱ cca.ȱ 386ȱ p.ȱ Chr.Ȭ,ȱ esteȱ legatȱ deȱ
numeleȱluiȱGerontios,ȱ comandantulȱgarnizoaneiȱlocale,ȱóiȱesteȱrelatatȱdeȱ Zosimosȱ
(IV,ȱ40).ȱTomisulȱareȱlaȱdispoziöieȱoȱgarnizoan©ȱroman©,ȱînȱinterior,ȱiarȱlaȱexterior,ȱ
înȱ faöaȱ cet©öii,ȱ trupeȱ deȱ foederatiȱ vizigoöi,ȱ fixateȱ aiciȱ deȱ împ©ratulȱ Theodosius.ȱ
Perioadaȱ esteȱ critic©ȱ atâtȱ pentruȱ conducereaȱ Imperiului,ȱ câtȱ óiȱ pentruȱ provincii.ȱ
Scythiaȱ (Minor)ȱ esteȱ înȱ mareȱ m©sur©ȱ numaiȱ cuȱ numeleȱ oȱ provincieȱ roman©,ȱ iarȱ
capitalaȱ –ȱ TomisȬ,ȱ esteȱ ameninöat©ȱ deȱ pericolulȱ deȱ aȱ fiȱ capturat©ȱ deȱ federaöi.ȱ
„Zidurile”ȱ óiȱ „poröile”ȱ cet©öii,ȱ laȱ careȱ seȱ refer©ȱ repetatȱ Zosimos,ȱ probabilȱ nuȱ
constituiauȱunȱobstacolȱseriosȱpentruȱaceótia,ȱsingurulȱlucruȱdeȱluatȱînȱseam©ȱfiindȱ
putereaȱexempluluiȱpersonal506.ȱȱ
Situaöiaȱ înȱ Imperiuȱ óiȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ continu©ȱ s©ȱ seȱ degradeze;ȱ auȱ locȱ
incursiuniȱ aleȱ hunilor,ȱ populaöieȱ peȱ careȱ imperiulȱ încearc©ȱ s©ȱ oȱ creótineze.ȱ Înȱ
ultimiiȱ aniȱ deȱ domnieȱ aiȱ luiȱ Theodosiusȱ Iȱ óiȱ subȱ Arcadiusȱ izvoareleȱ bizantineȱ
menöioneaz©ȱunȱepiscopȱalȱTomisuluiȱ–ȱTheotimosȱIȱzisȱóiȱ„Scitul”ȱcareȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱ
fostȱóiȱmisionarȱalȱcreótinismuluiȱlaȱhuni507.ȱDeȱreöinutȱtotȱacumȱbuneleȱrelaöiiȱîntreȱ
Tomisȱ óiȱ Constantinopol,ȱ acöiunileȱ luiȱ Theotimosȱ fiindȱ sprijiniteȱ deȱ patriarhulȱ
501
ȱThemistios,ȱOr.,ȱX,ȱ133Ȭ140.ȱ
502
ȱStâlpulȱmiliarȱaȱajunsȱîntrȬoȱlocalitateȱdinȱinteriorulȱDobrogeiȱ(Miriótea)ȱadusȱdeȱpeȱ
liniaȱ litoralului;ȱ drumulȱ aȱ fostȱ probabilȱ ref©cutȱ deȱ cetateaȱ Callatisȱ (veziȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ
discuöiaȱlaȱIGLR,ȱ81).ȱ
503
ȱ Veziȱ inscripöiaȱ óiȱ laȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Dédicaceȱ enȱ l’honneurȱ deȱ Valentinien,ȱ Ponticaȱ 11ȱ
(1978),ȱp.ȱ151Ȭ154,ȱundeȱsuntȱpropuseȱóiȱalteȱipoteze.ȱ
504
ȱÎnȱActaȱSanctorum,ȱIII,ȱ235,ȱTomisȱeraȱconsiderat©ȱ„urbsȱmagnaȱetȱopulenta”.ȱ
505
ȱ Trecândȱ prinȱ Tomis,ȱ Valensȱ aȱ c©utatȱ s©ȱ impun©ȱ aiciȱ arianismul,ȱ darȱ aȱ întâmpinatȱ
opoziöieȱdinȱparteaȱepiscopuluiȱBretanionȱ(Vetranion).ȱ
506
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ167.ȱ
507
ȱElȱesteȱnumitȱdeȱ„huniiȱdeȱlaȱIstru”ȱ„zeulȱromanilor”;ȱSozomenos,ȱHist.eccl.,ȱVII,ȱ26;ȱ
veziȱóiȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ407,ȱn.ȱ13ȱóiȱ14.ȱ
ȱ 77
ȱȱȱ
Chrisostomos508.ȱȱ
Înȱtimpulȱîmp©ratuluiȱAnastasiusȱIȱ(491Ȭ518ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱScythiaȱMinorȱcunoaóteȱ
oȱperioad©ȱdeȱrelativ©ȱprosperitate.ȱȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ lucr©riȱ importanteȱ suntȱ databileȱ înȱ aceast©ȱ perioad©509.ȱ Deȱ altfel,ȱ
singurulȱsigiliuȱdeȱplumbȱdinȱDobrogeaȱdeȱlaȱîmp©ratulȱAnastasiusȱsȬaȱg©sitȱtotȱlaȱ
Tomis510.ȱ Operaȱ început©ȱ deȱ Anastasiusȱ esteȱ continuat©ȱ deȱ Iustinianȱ (527Ȭ565ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.),ȱînȱ vremeaȱc©ruiaȱTomisulȱcunoaóteȱultimaȱ perioad©ȱdeȱ mareȱînflorire.ȱTreiȱ
inscripöiiȱînȱlimbaȱgreac©ȱatest©ȱrefacereaȱzidurilorȱcet©öiiȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱ
VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ celȱ maiȱ probabilȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Iustinian.ȱ Inscripöiaȱ dinȱ paramentulȱ
exteriorȱ alȱ unuiȱ turnȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ menöioneaz©ȱ oȱ lucrareȱ deȱ refacereȱ laȱ zidulȱ deȱ
incint©ȱ peȱ oȱ poröiuneȱ (ΔΉΈ΅ΘΓϾΕ΅)ȱ deȱ 24ȱ deȱ picioareȱ (cca.ȱ 8ȱ m),ȱ executat©ȱ deȱ
corporaöiaȱȱ(breasla)ȱm©celarilorȱ(IGLR,ȱ8).ȱLâng©ȱzidulȱcuȱinscripöieȱsȬaȱg©sitȱóiȱoȱ
moned©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Iustinian,ȱ datat©ȱ 547Ȭ548ȱ p.ȱ Chr.511ȱ Aȱ douaȱ inscripöie,ȱ peȱ unȱ blocȱ
provenitȱ dinȱ placajulȱ incinteiȱ tomitane,ȱ conöineȱ numeleȱ aȱ doiȱ particulariȱ Ȭȱ
̝ΏνΒ΅ΑΈΕΓΖȱ óiȱ ̅κΗ(Η)ΓΖ,ȱ careȱ auȱ contribuitȱ laȱ lucr©rileȱ deȱ restaurareȱ aȱ unuiȱ
segmentȱ alȱ incinteiȱ (IGLR,ȱ 9)512.ȱ Aȱ treiaȱ inscripöieȱ oficial©ȱ esteȱ oȱ invocaöieȱ c©treȱ
Dumnezeuȱcaȱs©ȱajuteȱ„oraóulȱreînnoit”ȱ(ΆΓφΟ΍ȱΔϱΏ΍ΑȱΦΑ΅ΑΉΓΙΐνΑ΋Α;ȱIGLR,ȱ7);ȱeaȱ
indic©ȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Iustinianȱ sauȱ aȱ predecesorilorȱ s©iȱ imediaöi 513.ȱ Laȱ lucr©rileȱ deȱ
construcöieȱ(sauȱreînnoire)ȱesteȱposibilȱs©ȱfiȱparticipatȱóiȱaceiȱsagittariiȱiunioresȱ(sauȱ
Η΅·΍ΘΘΣΕ΍Γ΍)ȱmenöionaöiȱînȱdou©ȱrânduriȱpeȱsteleȱfunerareȱdinȱTomisȱ(IGLR,ȱ30ȱóiȱ
41)514.ȱ Înȱ cadrulȱ reformeiȱ administrativeȱ aȱ luiȱ Iustinian,ȱ înȱ 536ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ provinciileȱ
Scythiaȱ(Minor)ȱóiȱMoesiaȱSecundaȱsuntȱdesprinseȱdeȱdiocezaȱThracieiȱóiȱpuseȱsubȱ
conducereaȱ unuiȱ quaestorȱ Iustinianiȱ exercitusȱ cuȱ competenöeȱ civileȱ óiȱ militare,ȱ aȱ
c©ruiȱreóedinö©ȱesteȱfixat©ȱlaȱOdessos.ȱÎnȱintervalulȱdintreȱultimeleȱdeceniiȱaleȱsec.ȱ
Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (cândȱ sȬaȱ desfiinöatȱ vicariatulȱ Thracia)ȱ óiȱ anulȱ 536ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (cândȱ sȬaȱ
înfiinöatȱquaesturaȱexercitus)ȱesteȱposibilȱs©ȱfiȱfostȱunȱvicarȱalȱprovinciilorȱScythiaȱóiȱ
Moesiaȱ Secunda,ȱ cuȱ reóedinöaȱ laȱ Odessos.ȱ Existenöaȱ acestuiȱ vicariatȱ esteȱ sugerat©ȱ
deȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ funerar©ȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ pentruȱ Marcellusȱ „vicarȱ odessitan”ȱ
(IGLR,ȱ47).ȱExpresiaȱͲΈΙΗ΍ΘκΑΓΖȱΆ΍ΎΣΕ΍Ζȱlas©ȱlocȱinterpret©rilorȱ–ȱvicarȱdeȱOdessosȱ
(=ȱcareȱóiȬaȱîndeplinitȱfuncöiaȱînȱoraóulȱOdessos) 515ȱsauȱvicarȱoriginarȱdinȱOdessosȱ(óiȱ
508
ȱ Peȱ laȱ 399ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ patriarhulȱ Constantinopolului,ȱ Ioannesȱ Chrisostomos,ȱ trimiteȱ
misionariȱ pentruȱ „nomaziiȱ sciöiȱ deȱ laȱ Istru”,ȱ termenȱ prinȱ careȱ suntȱ desemnaöiȱ probabilȱ
hunii;ȱTheodoretos,ȱHist.eccl.,ȱV,ȱ31.ȱ
509
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Contributionsȱ toȱ Dobrudjaȱ historyȱ underȱ Anastasiusȱ I,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 4ȱ (1960),ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ367Ȭ373.ȱ
510
ȱH.ȱMetaxa,ȱPlumburiȱdeȱmarc©ȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱBCMIȱ8ȱ(1915),ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
511
ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱZidulȱcet©öiiȱTomi,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1915,ȱp.ȱ416Ȭ421.ȱ
512
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Quelquesȱ considérationsȱ surȱ lesȱ inscriptionsȱ chrétiennesȱ deȱ laȱ Scythieȱ
Mineure,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ1ȱ(1957),ȱp.ȱ269Ȭ270ȱóiȱfig.ȱ3/2.ȱ
513
ȱ Dup©ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 424;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 7ȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ oȱ reînnoireȱ laȱ
sfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱAnastasiusȱsauȱIustinian.ȱ
514
ȱ Ambeleȱ inscripöiiȱ suntȱ datateȱ deȱ I.ȱ Barneaȱ înȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Totȱ
astfel,ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 124ȱ óiȱ 185;ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 217;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Em.ȱ Popescuȱ areȱ înȱ vedereȱ pentruȱ IGLR,ȱ 30ȱ oȱ datareȱ maiȱ timpurie,ȱ sec.ȱ IVȬVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ sec.ȱ
VȬVIȱpentruȱIGLR,ȱ41.ȱ
515
ȱDup©ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱUnȱvicarȱdeȱOdessosȱlaȱTomis,ȱSCIVȱ8ȱ(1957),ȱ1Ȭ4,ȱp.ȱ347Ȭ351.ȱ
78ȱ ȱ
ȱ
mortȱ laȱ Tomis)516.ȱ Inscripöiaȱ tomitan©ȱ r©mâneȱ deocamdat©ȱ caȱ singuraȱ atestareȱ aȱ
acestuiȱ posibilȱ vicariat.ȱ Subȱ Iustinianȱ óiȱ înȱ perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ urmat,ȱ pân©ȱ spreȱ
sfâróitulȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱöinutulȱScythieiȱesteȱdevastatȱdarȱnuȱóiȱocupatȱdeȱbarbariȱ
(kutriguri,ȱhuni,ȱbulgari,ȱavari,ȱslavi).ȱLaȱConstanöaȱaȱfostȱdescoperitȱuniculȱsigiliuȱ
aparöinândȱregeluiȱgepidȱConimundosȱ(550Ȭ567ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱînȱcalitateȱdeȱcomandantȱ
óefȱ(stratilates)517;ȱdescoperireaȱpuneȱînȱlumin©ȱrelaöiileȱacestuiaȱcuȱBizanöulȱói,ȱcaȱoȱ
noutate,ȱrelaöiileȱluiȱcuȱmetropolaȱprovincieiȱScythiaȱMinor.ȱOraóeleȱdeȱpeȱö©rmulȱ
m©riiȱ auȱ rezistatȱ atacurilorȱ avareȱ dinȱ 586Ȭ587ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Înȱ apropiereȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ
oasteaȱcondus©ȱdeȱhaganulȱ(Λ΅·ΣΑΓΖ)ȱavarȱBaianȱesteȱsurprins©ȱdeȱtrupeleȱtrimiseȱ
deȱComentiolus,ȱcomandantulȱThraciei,ȱsubȱconducereaȱluiȱMartinus.ȱAvariiȱsuntȱ
alungaöiȱ darȱ nuȱ înfrânöi,ȱ Baianȱ revenindȱ înȱ Imperiuȱ óiȱ împotrivaȱ Thracieiȱ
(TheophylactosȱSimocatta,ȱHistoriae,ȱII,ȱ10)518.ȱ
Ultimeleȱ manifest©riȱ aleȱ Imperiuluiȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ auȱ locȱ subȱ semnulȱ
atacurilorȱ repetateȱ aleȱ barbarilorȱ óiȱ aȱ aóez©riiȱ slavilorȱ laȱ sudȱ deȱ Dun©re.ȱ Pentruȱ
perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ urmatȱ moröiiȱ luiȱ Mauriciuȱ Tiberiusȱ (602ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ óiȱ pân©ȱ laȱ
constituireaȱ primeiȱ formaöiiȱ stataleȱ aȱ bulgarilorȱ laȱ sudȱ deȱ Dun©reȱ (681ȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ
lipsescȱ informaöiiȱ specialeȱ înȱ izvoareleȱ literareȱ pentruȱ teritoriulȱ Dobrogei.ȱ Tomisȱ
vaȱ cunoaóteȱ atacurileȱ avaroȬslaveȱ dinȱ aniiȱ 614Ȭ615ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ careȱ vorȱ afectaȱ
numeroaseȱ cet©öiȱ dobrogene519.ȱ Leg©turileȱ cuȱ capitalaȱ Imperiuluiȱ sȬauȱ menöinutȱ
îns©ȱóiȱînȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱElementeȱmaterialeȱauȱpermisȱs©ȱseȱpresupun©ȱc©ȱviaöaȱaȱ
continuatȱs©ȱseȱmanifesteȱînȱformeȱdeȱcultur©ȱromanoȬbizantin©ȱpân©ȱpeȱlaȱ680ȱȱȱp.ȱ
Chr. 520.ȱ Dup©ȱ aceast©ȱ dat©,ȱ pentruȱ oȱ perioad©ȱ deȱ aproapeȱ treiȱ secoleȱ istoriaȱ
Tomisuluiȱ(caȱóiȱaȱprovincieiȱdobrogene)ȱvaȱintraȱîntrȬoȱetap©ȱpuöinȱcunoscut©.ȱ
ÎntrȬoȱ lucrareȱ deȱ sintez©ȱ privindȱ istoriaȱ Dobrogeiȱ seȱ apreciaz©ȱ c©ȱ Tomis,ȱ
devenitȱsimpl©ȱaóezareȱrural©,ȱexist©ȱóiȱlaȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIIIȱp.ȱChr.521ȱȱ
Administraöiaȱóiȱarmata.ȱ
Dispunemȱdeȱpuöineȱinformaöiiȱprivindȱadministraöiaȱprovincieiȱóiȱaȱoraóuluiȱ
eiȱ deȱ reóedinö©ȱ înȱ perioadaȱ romanoȬbizantin©.ȱ Conduc©torulȱ provincieiȱ (praeses)ȱ
esteȱînlocuitȱdestulȱdeȱdevremeȱdeȱconduc©torulȱmilitarȱ(dux),ȱultimulȱprimindȱóiȱ
516
ȱ V.ȱ Velkov,ȱ Dieȱ thrakischeȱ undȱ dakischeȱ Stadtȱ inȱ derȱ Spätantikeȱ (4.Ȭ6.ȱ Jh).ȱ
Untersuchungenȱ undȱ Materialen,ȱ Sofia,ȱ 1959,ȱ p.ȱ 58;ȱ deȱ v©zutȱ óiȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Dieȱ
spätgriechischenȱ Inschriftenȱ ausȱ KleinȬSkythien,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 11ȱ (1967),ȱ p.ȱ 172Ȭ173;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ
Culturaȱbizantin©ȱînȱRomânia,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ102,ȱnr.ȱ21.ȱ
517
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱSigiliiȱbizantineȱinediteȱdinȱDobrogeaȱ(II),ȱPonticaȱ18ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ239Ȭ240.ȱ
518
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ433Ȭ434;ȱveziȱîns©ȱGh.ȱktefan,ȱTomisȱetȱTomea.ȱÀȱproposȱdesȱluttesȱ
entreȱ Byzantinsȱ etȱ Avarsȱ àȱ laȱ finȱ duȱ VI e ȱ siècleȱ deȱ notreȱ ère,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 11ȱ (1967),ȱ p.ȱ 253Ȭ258;ȱ S.ȱ
Olteanu,ȱToponimeȱ procopiene,ȱSCIVAȱ 58ȱ (2007),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ80Ȭ86ȱóiȱ fig.ȱ 5,ȱcareȱ apreciaz©ȱ c©ȱ esteȱ
vorbaȱdeȱTomisȬulȱmoesianȱ(dinȱapropiereȱdeȱRemesiana)ȱsauȱalteȱcentreȱóiȱnuȱdeȱTomisȬulȱ
pontic.ȱ
519
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ Situaöiaȱ imperiuluiȱ romanoȬbizantinȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ
secoluluiȱ alȱ VIȬleaȱ óiȱ începutulȱ celuiȱ deȱ alȱ VIIȬlea,ȱ SCIVȱ 22ȱ (1971),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 221Ȭ225ȱ consider©ȱ c©ȱ
TomisȱóiȬaȱîncetatȱacumȱexistenöa.ȱ
520
ȱA.ȱPetre,ȱQuelquesȱdonnéesȱarchéologiquesȱconcernantȱlaȱcontinuitéȱdeȱlaȱpopulationȱetȱdeȱ
laȱ cultureȱ romanoȬbyzantinesȱ dansȱ laȱ Scythieȱ Mineureȱ auxȱ VI e ȱ etȱ VII e ȱ sièclesȱ deȱ notreȱ ère,ȱ Daciaȱ
NSȱ7ȱ(1963),ȱp.ȱ348Ȭ353;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ442Ȭ444;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ165.ȱȱ
521
ȱ I.ȱBarnea,ȱ DIDȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 9.ȱ Pentruȱ informaöiileȱ privindȱaóezareaȱ înȱ secoleleȱurm©toare,ȱ
veziȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȱ Adameóteanu,ȱ Tomisȱ Ȭȱ Constantiaȱ Ȭȱ Constanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 299Ȭ
327.ȱ
ȱ 79
ȱȱȱ
funcöiiȱcivile;ȱsediulȱacestuiaȱseȱaflaȱînȱcapitalaȱprovinciei.ȱÎnȱcalitateȱdeȱduxȱlimitisȱ
provinciaeȱ Scythiae,ȱ înȱ perioadaȱ 285Ȭ305ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ îlȱ afl©mȱ peȱ C.ȱ Aureliusȱ
Firminianus,ȱ virȱ perfectissimusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 144ȱ óiȱ 155)522.ȱ Totȱ laȱ Tomisȱ seȱ aflaȱ officiumȱ
praesidis,ȱ cancelariaȱ conduc©toruluiȱ civilȱ alȱ provinciei.ȱ Dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ
p.ȱ Chr.ȱ numescȱ peȱ Valeriusȱ Felix,ȱ princepsȱ officiiȱ praesidisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 373)523ȱ óiȱ peȱ
FlaviusȱUrsinianus,ȱmilesȱofficiiȱpraesidisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ382).ȱDeȱnotatȱaccepöiaȱcivil©ȱóiȱnuȱ
militar©ȱpentruȱmilesȱ(=ȱofficialis),ȱlaȱfelȱcaȱóiȱceaȱdeȱexȱquaestionariusȱalȱtribunaluluiȱ
administraöieiȱ (óiȱ nuȱ alȱ armatei)ȱ pentruȱ Martinus,ȱ tat©lȱ luiȱ Ursinianus 524.ȱ Oȱ stel©ȱ
dinȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 36)ȱ menöioneaz©ȱ unȱ Marcus,ȱ fostȱ principalis.ȱ Întrucâtȱ
titlulȱ seȱ acordaȱ membrilorȱ sfatuluiȱ cet©öii,ȱ inscripöiaȱ esteȱ citat©ȱ caȱ dovad©ȱ aȱ
continu©riiȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ aȱ organiz©riiȱ administrativeȱ romaneȱ maiȱ vechi525.ȱ
Laȱ Tomis,ȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ suntȱ atestateȱ
funcöiiȱnoi:ȱprimusȱsingularisȱóiȱsilentiarius.ȱPrimaȱdesemneaz©ȱunȱfuncöionarȱdestulȱ
deȱ important,ȱ probabilȱ alȱ oficiuluiȱ guvernatoruluiȱ provinciei;ȱ ceaȱ deȱ aȱ doua,ȱ maiȱ
puöinȱ important©,ȱ aveaȱ caȱ atribuöiiȱ menöinereaȱ ordineiȱ înȱ palatȱ înȱ prezenöaȱ
împ©ratului526.ȱȱ
Unit©öileȱ militareȱ atestateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ unit©öiȱ deȱ manevr©ȱ (comitatenses)527.ȱ
Oȱ prezenö©ȱ probabil©ȱ pentruȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ óiȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ
cuneusȱ D(almatarum?)528,ȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ cumvaȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ numeleȱ vreuneiȱ unit©öiȱ
palatineȱ dinȱ careȱ oȱ subunitateȱ aȱ participatȱ laȱ lucr©riȱ deȱ construcöieȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Nuȱ
esteȱ exclus©529ȱ niciȱ eventualitateaȱ caȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ adusȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ unȱ cuneusȱ sauȱ chiarȱ maiȱ multeȱ subunit©öiȱ careȱ s©ȱ participeȱ laȱ ridicareaȱ
incintei.ȱ Iuliusȱ Atzeisȱ vexillariusȱ ridic©ȱ oȱ stel©ȱ cuȱ frumoaseȱ simboluriȱ creótine530.ȱ
Dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ funerare,ȱ ambeleȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.531,ȱ numescȱ peȱ Atala,ȱ fiulȱ luiȱ
Tzeiukȱ (IGLR,ȱ 41)ȱ óiȱ peȱ Terentius,ȱ fiulȱ luiȱ Gaioneȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30)ȱ dinȱ trupeleȱ deȱ
sagittariiȱ iuniores.ȱ Inscripöiileȱ citateȱ suntȱ importanteȱ dinȱ maiȱ multeȱ puncteȱ deȱ
522
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱsus,ȱcomentariulȱistoricȱóiȱn.ȱ488.ȱ
523
ȱ Aceeaóiȱ inscripöieȱ laȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 5;ȱ idemȱ înȱ Epigraphica.ȱ Travauxȱ dédiésȱ auȱ
VII e ȱ Congrèsȱ d’épigraphieȱ grecqueȱ etȱ latineȱ (Constantza,ȱ 9Ȭ15ȱ septembreȱ 1977),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1979,ȱȱ
p.ȱ256Ȭ258.ȱ
524
ȱ Înȱ acestȱ sensȱ óiȱ M.ȱ Zahariade,ȱ Moesiaȱ Secunda,ȱ Scythiaȱ óiȱ Notitiaȱ Dignitatum,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1988,ȱp.ȱ54.ȱ
525
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ epigrafieȱ romanoȬbizantin©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 275;ȱ pentruȱ
termenulȱprincipalisȱînȱsensulȱdeȱfuncöionarȱmunicipal,ȱveziȱIGLR,ȱp.ȱ72.ȱ
526
ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Sigiliiȱ óiȱ inscripöiiȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȬVIIȱ e.ȱ n.,ȱ SCIVAȱ 37ȱ (1986),ȱ 2,ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ134Ȭ140.ȱ
527
ȱ Pentruȱ organizareaȱ militar©ȱ aȱ provincieiȱ Scythia,ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ
romaine,ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ221;ȱM.ȱZahariade,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ55Ȭ99.ȱ
528
ȱ Dac©ȱ întregireaȱ CVNDȱ peȱ oȱ tegul©ȱ esteȱ corect©;ȱ veziȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 122Ȭ
123,ȱ careȱ nuȱ excludeȱ niciȱ alteȱ posibilit©öiȱ deȱ întregire;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 274ȱ
nuȱsusöineȱprezenöaȱacesteiȱformaöiuni.ȱ
529
ȱTotȱdup©ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱloc.ȱcit.;ȱveziȱóiȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ216.ȱ
530
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Uneȱ inscriptionȱ funéraireȱ chrétienneȱ récemmentȱ découverteȱ àȱ
Constantzaȱ înȱ Studiaȱ historiaeȱ etȱ religionisȱ DacoȬRomanae.ȱ Inȱ honoremȱ Silviiȱ Sanieȱ (ed.ȱ L.ȱ
Mih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 439Ȭ448ȱ (sec.ȱ VȬVI,ȱ f©r©ȱ aȱ excludeȱ oȱ
datareȱmaiȱtimpurie);ȱveziȱóiȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱBull.ép.,ȱ2008,ȱp.ȱ696Ȭ697,ȱnr.ȱ373ȱ(propuneȱsec.ȱIVȱ
óiȱrestituieȱ[̖.]ȱ͑ΓϾΏ(΍ΓΖ)ȱ̡ΘΊΉ΍Ζ).ȱȱ
531
ȱPentruȱdatareaȱinscripöiilorȱveziȱmaiȱsus,ȱnotaȱ514.ȱ
80ȱ ȱ
ȱ
vedere:ȱ ceiȱ doiȱ arcaói,ȱ moröiȱ laȱ vârsteȱ tinere,ȱ auȱ c©zutȱ probabilȱ întrȬoȱ acöiuneȱ
îndreptat©ȱ împotrivaȱ n©v©lirilorȱ barbareȱ asupraȱ Tomisului532.ȱ Numeleȱ suntȱ
sugestiveȱ pentruȱ recrutareaȱ înȱ armataȱ roman©ȱ aȱ unorȱ elementeȱ proveniteȱ dinȱ
rândulȱ populaöiilorȱ migratoare:ȱ turaniceȱ (poateȱ hunice)ȱ –ȱ înȱ cazulȱ luiȱ Tzeiukȱ óiȱ
AtalaȬ,ȱóiȱgoticeȱpentruȱGaionas.ȱSȬaȱpresupusȱc©ȱunitateaȱmilitar©ȱdinȱcareȱaceótiaȱ
f©ceauȱ parteȱ –ȱ sagittariiȱ iunioresȱ Gallicaniȱ (sauȱ Orientales)ȱ aȱ participatȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ laȱ refacereaȱ ziduluiȱ Tomisului533.ȱ Maiȱ probabilȱ esteȱ vorbaȱ deȱ oȱ vexillatioȱ
comitatensisȱdeȱequitesȱsagittariiȱiuniores,ȱcareȱactivauȱînȱdiocezaȱThraciei534.ȱ
ȱ
Monede.ȱȱ
Dup©ȱîncetareaȱemisiunilorȱproprii,ȱmonedeleȱromaneȱauȱcontinuatȱs©ȱcirculeȱ
laȱ Tomisȱ pân©ȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ circulaöiaȱ aȱ fostȱ apoiȱ continuat©ȱ deȱ
monedeȱbizantine.ȱ
Deȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ oraóuluiȱ anticȱ óiȱ aȱ zonelorȱ apropiateȱ luiȱ provinȱ maiȱ multeȱ
tezaureȱmonetare.ȱDou©ȱtezaureȱsuntȱpuseȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱinvaziaȱgotic©ȱdinȱ295ȱp.ȱ
Chr.ȱPrimul,ȱdescoperitȱînȱ1936,ȱseȱcompuneȱdinȱ62ȱdeȱmonedeȱcolonialeȱemiseȱdeȱ
Alexandriaȱ Egiptului535.ȱ Tezaurulȱ esteȱ unȱ importȱ adusȱ probabilȱ deȱ unulȱ dinȱ
militariiȱ careȱ auȱ participatȱ subȱ conducereaȱ luiȱ Diocletianȱ laȱ înfrângereaȱ r©scoaleiȱ
egiptene.ȱCeaȱmaiȱtârzieȱmoned©ȱdinȱtezaurȱesteȱoȱemisiuneȱaȱcezaruluiȱGalerius,ȱ
datat©ȱîntreȱ295Ȭ296ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Unȱ alȱ doileaȱ tezaurȱ conöineȱ monedeȱ imperialeȱ deȱ bronz;ȱ esteȱ unȱ tezaurȱ
fragmentar,ȱ descoperitȱ laȱ nordȱ deȱ anticulȱ Tomis,ȱ întrȬunulȱ dinȱ cartiereleȱ
suburbaneȱ aleȱ cet©öii,ȱ dinȱ careȱ sȬauȱ recuperatȱ 288ȱ deȱ piese.ȱ Ultimeleȱ monedeȱ nuȱ
dep©óescȱanulȱ294ȱp.ȱChr.536ȱ
Unȱtezaurȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdarȱconstituitȱînȱalt©ȱparte,ȱaȱfostȱdescoperitȱînȱ
portulȱConstanöa.ȱMonedeleȱ–ȱ18ȱpieseȱdeȱbronzȱcuȱnumeleȱîmp©raöilorȱDiocletian,ȱ
Maximian,ȱGaleriusȱóiȱConstantiusȱIȬ,ȱauȱaparöinutȱunuiȱdepozitȱmonetarȱaflatȱpeȱ
oȱ nav©ȱ scufundat©ȱ înȱ radaȱ portuluiȱ Tomis 537.ȱ Structuraȱ peȱ monet©riiȱ indic©ȱ oȱ
provenienö©ȱegean©.ȱ
DinȱtimpulȱluiȱConstantinȱcelȱMareȱexist©ȱunȱtezaurȱdeȱ50ȱdeȱpieseȱdeȱbronz,ȱ
aflatȱînȱzonaȱdeȱlaȱParculȱCatedralei538.ȱTezaurulȱseȱcompuneȱdinȱpieseȱemiseȱîntreȱ
320Ȭ324ȱ (13ȱ monede)ȱ óiȱ 330Ȭ335ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (37ȱ monede);ȱ emisiunileȱ dinȱ perioadaȱ
532
ȱObservaöieȱlaȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ124.ȱ
533
ȱD.M.ȱTeodorescu,ȱMonumente,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1918,ȱp.ȱ38Ȭ44,ȱnr.ȱ18.ȱ
534
ȱ D.ȱ Hoffman,ȱ Dasȱ spätrömischeȱ Bewegungsheerȱ undȱ dieȱ Notitiaȱ Dignitatum,ȱ II,ȱ
Düsseldorf,ȱ1969,ȱp.ȱ109,ȱn.ȱ591;ȱveziȱdiscuöiaȱlaȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱp.ȱ66;ȱM.ȱIonescu,ȱȱȱȱGh.ȱ
Papuc,ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ Dobrogeiȱ romaneȱ (sec.ȱ IȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2005,ȱȱ
p.ȱ74.ȱ
535
ȱ Esteȱ consideratȱ celȱ maiȱ târziuȱ tezaurȱ deȱ monedeȱ colonialeȱ greceótiȱ g©sitȱ peȱ
teritoriulȱ României;ȱ veziȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monetar©,ȱ p.ȱ 261;ȱ eadem,ȱ Ponticaȱ 32ȱ (1999),ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ126.ȱ
536
ȱIbidem,ȱn.ȱ59.ȱ
537
ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱCâtevaȱdescopeririȱmonetareȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȱe.n.ȱînȱScythiaȱMinor,ȱPonticaȱ17ȱ
(1984),ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ134.ȱ
538
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ A.ȱ Smaranda,ȱ A.ȱ Diaconu,ȱ Unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ monedeȱ
deȱ bronzȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Constantinȱ celȱ Mareȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 23ȱ (1990),ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ267Ȭ275.ȱ
ȱ 81
ȱȱȱ
intermediar©ȱ suntȱ absente539.ȱ Întrucâtȱ tezaurulȱ conöineȱ înȱ exclusivitateȱ emisiuniȱ
dinȱSisciaȱóiȱThessalonic,ȱsȬaȱemisȱipoteza540ȱc©ȱelȱaȱp©trunsȱconstituitȱcaȱatareȱdinȱ
zoneleȱ vestȬbalcaniceȱ óiȱ deȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ mijlocie.ȱ Prezenöaȱ tezauruluiȱ laȱ Tomisȱ
poateȱfiȱpus©ȱînȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱacöiuneaȱdeȱtransferareȱaȱsarmaöilor,ȱînȱ334ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdeȱ
c©treȱ autorit©öileȱ imperialeȱ înȱ Italiaȱ óiȱ înȱ regiuniȱ devastateȱ dinȱ Peninsulaȱ
Balcanic©,ȱ întreȱ careȱ óiȱ Scythia.ȱ Tezaurulȱ poateȱ s©ȱ fiȱ aparöinutȱ unuiȱ militarȱ
transferatȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ pentruȱ aȬiȱ escortaȱ peȱ sarmaöi.ȱ Pierdereaȱ luiȱ prinȱ 334ȱ
sauȱ imediatȱ dup©ȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ sȬarȱ datoraȱ unuiȱ evenimentȱ localȱ deȱ importanö©ȱ
minor©,ȱ f©r©ȱ oȱ motivaöieȱ politicoȬmilitar©ȱ óiȱ poateȱ chiarȱ f©r©ȱ urm©riȱ pentruȱ
Tomis541.ȱ Dou©ȱ depoziteȱ monetareȱ auȱ fostȱ depuseȱ caȱ ofrandeȱ funerare.ȱ Primulȱ
dintreȱ eleȱ seȱ compuneȱ dinȱ 11ȱ monedeȱ romaneȱ imperialeȱ emiseȱ înȱ ultimulȱ sfertȱ alȱ
sec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.542ȱAlȱdoilea,ȱcareȱneȱintereseaz©ȱaici,ȱseȱcompuneȱdinȱ13ȱpiese;ȱcuȱoȱ
singur©ȱ excepöie543,ȱ monedeleȱ seȱ dateaz©ȱ înȱ intervalulȱ 355Ȭ361ȱ p.ȱ Chr.544ȱ Eleȱ
acoper©ȱperioadaȱdeȱdomnieȱaȱluiȱConstantiusȱIIȱóiȱIulianȱApostatulȱ(ultimulȱdoarȱ
cuȱdou©ȱpiese).ȱ
Unȱ tezaurȱ sȬaȱ descoperitȱ înȱ 2003ȱ întrȬoȱ zon©ȱ suburban©ȱ aȱ Tomisului545.ȱ
Tezaurul,ȱ inedit,ȱ seȱ compuneȱ dinȱ 6500ȱ pieseȱ óiȱ cca.ȱ 500ȱ fragmente.ȱ Dinȱ analizaȱ
preliminar©ȱ rezult©ȱc©ȱascundereaȱluiȱaȱfostȱ ocazionat©ȱdeȱataculȱgoticȱdinȱ378ȱp.ȱ
Chr.546ȱ
Dou©ȱdescopeririȱcareȱseȱîncheieȱpeȱlaȱ395Ȭ402ȱp.ȱChr.ȱsuntȱsemnalateȱînȱdou©ȱ
puncteȱdiferiteȱaleȱTomisuluiȱ;ȱunulȱînȱzonaȱintraȱmurosȱ(str.ȱTraian),ȱcuȱunȱnum©rȱ
neprecizatȱdeȱpiese,ȱdinȱcareȱsȬauȱrecuperatȱ20ȱexemplareȱ;ȱóiȱaltul,ȱîntrȬoȱaóezareȱ
suburban©ȱ(aflat©ȱlaȱintersecöiaȱbulevardelorȱTomisȱóiȱL©puóneanu),ȱdinȱcareȱsȬauȱ
recuperatȱ10ȱpiese547.ȱ
Unȱ depozitȱ maiȱ târziuȱ (încheiatȱ peȱ laȱ 474Ȭ491ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ cuȱ emisiuniȱ deȱ laȱ
Zenon)ȱaȱfostȱdescoperitȱrecentȱînȱPiaöaȱOvidiuȱ;ȱelȱseȱcompuneȱdinȱ126ȱmonedeȱdeȱ
539
ȱEsteȱconsideratȱsingurulȱtezaurȱdinȱDobrogeaȱcareȱseȱdateaz©ȱspreȱsfâróitulȱdomnieiȱ
luiȱConstantinȱcelȱMare.ȱ
540
ȱVeziȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱR.ȱOcheóeanuȱetȱalii,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ(n.ȱ538).ȱ
541
ȱ Posibilitateaȱ puneriiȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ aȱ tezauruluiȱ cuȱ evenimenteȱ dinȱ primiiȱ aniȱ deȱ
domnieȱ aiȱ urmaóilorȱ luiȱ Constantinȱ celȱ Mare,ȱ întreȱ 337Ȭ342ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ nuȱ esteȱ exclus©ȱ deȱ
autoriiȱstudiului;ȱesteȱpreferat©ȱîns©ȱipotezaȱenunöat©ȱînȱtext.ȱȱ
542
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Câtevaȱ depoziteȱ monetareȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ
depuseȱcaȱofrandeȱfunerareȱ(secoleleȱIIIȬVȱd.Cr.),ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ349Ȭ353.ȱ
543
ȱIidem,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ353Ȭ359;ȱexcepöiaȱesteȱoȱmoned©ȱdeȱCyzik,ȱdinȱ348Ȭ350ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
544
ȱDintreȱeleȱ7ȱsuntȱemiseȱîntreȱ357Ȭ358ȱsauȱpoateȱnumaiȱ358ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
545
ȱTezaurulȱnotatȱConstanöaȬObor,ȱ2003,ȱsȬaȱaflatȱdepusȱîntrȬunȱvasȱceramic.ȱ
546
ȱ Informaöieȱ dat©ȱ deȱ colegulȱ Gabrielȱ Custurea,ȱ înȱ studiulȱ c©ruiaȱ seȱ afl©ȱ tezaurul;ȱ
dup©ȱ aceeaóiȱ informaöieȱ ceaȱ maiȱ timpurieȱ moned©ȱ esteȱ deȱ laȱ Licinius;ȱ tezaurulȱ seȱ închideȱ
cuȱ emisiuniȱ deȱ laȱ Valensȱ óiȱ Valentinian;ȱ veziȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Recentȱ monetaryȱ discoveriesȱ înȱ
Preda’sȱ Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ martieȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 118Ȭ121;ȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ
Repertoriul,ȱp.ȱ183,ȱLXV.ȱ
547
ȱ Veziȱ ambeleȱ descopeririȱ laȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Repertoriul,ȱ puncteleȱ XVȱ óiȱ
XXIIIȱ cuȱ bibliografia.ȱ Not©mȱ totȱ aiciȱ descoperireaȱ înȱ zonaȱ teatruluiȱ Fantasioȱ aȱ cca.ȱ 800ȱ
monedeȱ deȱ bronzȱ óiȱ argint,ȱ datateȱ întreȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ
VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (majoritateaȱ aparöinȱ secolelorȱ IVȬVȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ veziȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA.ȱ
82ȱ ȱ
ȱ
bronz548.ȱ
Înȱ1959,ȱcuȱocaziaȱs©p©turilorȱarheologiceȱdeȱlaȱEdificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaic,ȱînȱ
depunerileȱ careȱ acopereauȱ pavimentulȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperitȱ unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ
153ȱpieseȱdeȱbronz 549.ȱMajoritateaȱpieselorȱ(102ȱmonede)ȱdateaz©ȱdinȱperioadaȱ425Ȭ
475ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Unȱ procentajȱ ridicatȱ (75%)ȱ esteȱ înregistratȱ deȱ monedeleȱ împ©ratuluiȱ
LeonȱI.ȱDescoperireaȱreflect©ȱalimentareaȱsuficient©ȱaȱprovincieiȱînȱalȱtreileaȱsfertȱ
alȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ cuȱ moned©ȱ nouȱ emis©ȱ óiȱ dep©óireaȱ momentelorȱ dificileȱ datorateȱ
invaziilorȱbarbare.ȱȱȱ
DintrȬoȱzon©ȱapropiat©ȱTomisuluiȱ–ȱcartierulȱAnadalchioiȬ,ȱprovineȱunȱtezaurȱ
fragmentarȱdeȱmonedeȱbizantineȱ(dinȱcareȱauȱfostȱrecuperateȱcca.ȱ383ȱdeȱpiese)550.ȱ
Monedeleȱ auȱ fostȱ emiseȱ deȱ Anastasius551,ȱ Iustinȱ Iȱ óiȱ Iustinian;ȱ tezaurulȱ seȱ încheieȱ
cuȱmonedeȱdatateȱînȱ545/546ȱp.ȱChr.ȱMajoritareȱsuntȱmonedeleȱdeȱConstantinopolȱ
(84%)ȱ –ȱ dovad©ȱ c©ȱ necesarulȱ monetarȱ alȱ provincieiȱ eraȱ asiguratȱ deȱ capitalaȱ
Imperiului;ȱurmeaz©,ȱînȱordineaȱfrecvenöei,ȱNicomediaȱ(11,54%);ȱrestulȱatelierelorȱ
(Cyzik,ȱ Thessalonicȱ óiȱ Antiochia)ȱ aparȱ cuȱ rolȱ minor.ȱ Îngropareaȱ tezauruluiȱ peȱ laȱ
545/546ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (sauȱ imediatȱ dup©ȱ aceast©ȱ dat©)ȱ nuȱ poateȱ fiȱ relaöionat©ȱ cuȱ vreoȱ
informaöieȱistoric©ȱsauȱepigrafic©ȱdeȱnatur©ȱs©ȱdocumentezeȱunȱevenimentȱmilitarȱ
sauȱvreoȱinvazie.ȱComparaöiaȱcuȱalteȱtezaureȱdinȱtimpulȱluiȱIustinianȱcunoscuteȱînȱ
alteȱ p©röi,ȱ aȱ dusȱ laȱ concluziaȱ c©ȱ înȱ jurulȱ dateiȱ îngrop©riiȱ tezauruluiȱ aiciȱ sȬaȱ
înregistratȱ unȱ puternicȱ impactȱ venitȱ dinȱ afar©,ȱ cuȱ efecteȱ devastatoare,ȱ deóiȱ
trec©toare,ȱpentruȱprovincie.ȱDataȱimpactuluiȱóiȱaȱîngrop©riiȱtezauruluiȱesteȱadus©ȱ
caȱ argumentȱ pentruȱ refacereaȱ incinteiȱ tomitaneȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Iustinian,ȱ înȱ primaȱ
jum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.552ȱ
Dinȱ descopeririȱ izolateȱ suntȱ înregistrateȱ pesteȱ 550ȱ deȱ pieseȱ databileȱ înȱ sec.ȱ
VIȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.553ȱ Acesteaȱ neȱ permitȱ oȱ evaluareȱ maiȱ strict©ȱ aȱ prezenöeiȱ monedeiȱ
bizantineȱ peȱ piaöaȱ tomitan©ȱ peȱ perioadeȱ dintreȱ domniaȱ luiȱ Anastasiusȱ Iȱ óiȱ
Constantinȱ IVȱ Pogonatulȱ (cuȱ observaöiaȱ c©ȱ limiteleȱ deȱ avântȱ sauȱ regresȱ monetarȱ
nuȱ suprapunȱ neaparatȱ integralȱ aniiȱ deȱ domnie).ȱ Astfel,ȱ sȬauȱ constatatȱ foarteȱ
548
ȱIidem,ȱRepertoriul,ȱLXVI;ȱdepozitulȱesteȱdatȱcaȱinedit;ȱinformaöieȱG.ȱTalmaöchiȱóiȱD.ȱ
Moisil.ȱ
549
ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©ȱîntreȱaniiȱ270Ȭ498ȱe.n.ȱlaȱDun©reaȱdeȱJos,ȱcuȱspecial©ȱ
privireȱasupraȱScythieiȱMinor;ȱlucrareȱdeȱdoctorat,ȱvol.ȱIV,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1995ȱ(mss.),ȱp.ȱ147Ȭ150.ȱ
550
ȱ B.ȱ Mitrea,ȱ Unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ monedeȱ bizantineȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Constanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 16ȱ (1983),ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 239Ȭ262;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ Eug.ȱ Mihail,ȱ Minimiȱ dinȱ tezaurulȱ descoperitȱ laȱ
ConstanöaȱînȱcartierulȱAnadalchioi,ȱBSNR,ȱ80Ȭ85ȱ(1986Ȭ1991),ȱ134Ȭ139,ȱp.ȱ101Ȭ115;ȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱ
Dateȱ noiȱ privindȱ circulaöiaȱ monedeiȱ bizantineȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ VȬVII),ȱ Ponticaȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ
2005),ȱp.ȱ530Ȭ531,ȱnr.ȱ6.ȱ
551
ȱMonedeleȱluiȱAnastasiusȱsuntȱemiseȱdup©ȱreformaȱdinȱ498ȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
552
ȱIpotez©ȱformulat©ȱdeȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ423Ȭ424.ȱ
553
ȱAiciȱóiȱînȱcontinuare,ȱveziȱGh.ȱPoenaruȱBordea,ȱAl.ȱPopeea,ȱMonedeȱbizantineȱdintrȬoȱ
colecöieȱformat©ȱlaȱConstanöa,ȱSCIVA,ȱ27ȱ(1976),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ215Ȭ229;ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱProblèmesȱ
historiquesȱ deȱ laȱ Dobroudjaȱ (VI e ȱ –ȱ VII e ȱ siècles)ȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ desȱ monnaiesȱ byzantinesȱ traitéesȱ parȱ
desȱ méthodesȱ statistiques,ȱ Pactȱ 5ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 365Ȭ377;ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱ Popeea,ȱ Monnaiesȱ byzantinesȱ duȱ Muséeȱ deȱ Constanöaȱ (Roumanie).ȱ Moneta,ȱ Wetteren,ȱ 2004;ȱ
G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 509,ȱ nr.ȱ 15ȱ (înregistreaz©ȱ 522ȱ monedeȱ AE)ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 491Ȭ494;ȱ adaug©,ȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Tr.ȱ Cliante,ȱ Monedeȱ bizantineȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ VIȬVII),ȱ Ponticaȱ 39ȱ
(2006),ȱ p.ȱ 426Ȭ428,ȱ nr.ȱ 38Ȭ70ȱ (31ȱ monedeȱ AEȱ deȱ laȱ Anastasiusȱ Iȱ laȱ Heracliusȱ +ȱ 2ȱ Imperiulȱ
Bizantinȱ(datateȱdup©ȱ538ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
ȱ 83
ȱȱȱ
puöineȱ monedeȱ întreȱ 498Ȭ512ȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ oȱ situaöieȱ maiȱ bun©ȱ seȱ înregistreaz©ȱ înȱ aȱ
douaȱparteȱaȱdomnieiȱluiȱAnastasius;ȱcoeficientulȱesteȱaproapeȱdubluȱînȱtimpulȱluiȱ
Iustinȱ Iȱ caȱ oȱ consecinö©ȱ normal©ȱ aȱ m©surilorȱ anterioareȱ deȱ redresare.ȱ Înȱ primaȱ
etap©ȱ aȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Iustinianȱ seȱ constat©ȱ oȱ oarecareȱ sc©dereȱ pus©ȱ peȱ seamaȱ
deterior©riiȱcondiöiilorȱpoliticeȱóiȱmilitareȱlaȱDun©reaȱdeȱJos.ȱDificult©öileȱparȱîns©ȱ
paröialȱ dep©óiteȱ înȱ perioadaȱ urm©toareȱ –ȱ 538Ȭ542ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ –ȱ óiȱ înȱ ciudaȱ invaziilorȱ
dinȱ 540ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Perioadaȱ dintreȱ 542ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ domnieiȱ luiȱ Iustinianȱ
înregistreaz©ȱdinȱnouȱsc©deri,ȱdatorateȱpresiunilorȱóiȱinvaziilorȱmigratoare.ȱȱ
Înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Iustinusȱ IIȱ monedaȱ bizantin©ȱ înregistreaz©ȱ dinȱ nouȱ valoriȱ
crescute,ȱdarȱpuseȱacumȱpeȱseamaȱtendinöeiȱinflaöioniste.ȱImediatȱîns©ȱ(poateȱchiarȱ
deȱlaȱsfâróitulȱdomnieiȱluiȱIustinusȱII),ȱsubȱTiberiusȱIIȱConstantinȱseȱînregistreaz©ȱ
oȱ sever©ȱ sc©dere,ȱ urmat©,ȱ subȱ Mauriciuȱ Tiberiu,ȱ deȱ oȱ nou©ȱ creótere554.ȱ Variaöiileȱ
înregistrateȱpentruȱperioadaȱcareȱaȱurmatȱnuȱmaiȱsuntȱimportante.ȱDeȱnotatȱc©ȱlaȱ
Tomisȱseȱînregistreaz©ȱdeȱlaȱMauriciuȱTiberiuȱpân©ȱlaȱConstantinȱIVȱPogonatulȱoȱ
serieȱcontinu©ȱdeȱmonede 555.ȱCirculaöiaȱmonedeiȱbizantineȱlaȱTomisȱînceteaz©ȱpeȱlaȱ
cca.ȱ 680ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ înȱ vremeaȱ acestuiȱ împ©rat.ȱ Deóiȱ rare,ȱ monedeleȱ marcheaz©ȱ oȱ
prezenö©,ȱfieȱchiarȱóiȱprecar©,ȱaȱimperiuluiȱbizantinȱaici556.ȱDinȱpunctȱdeȱvedereȱalȱ
atelierelorȱ monetare,ȱ primulȱ locȱ esteȱ ocupatȱ deȱ produseȱ deȱ Constantinopol;ȱ
urmeaz©ȱlaȱdistanöeȱmari,ȱNicomedia,ȱThessalonic,ȱCyzic,ȱAntiochia557.ȱ
ȱ
Cultur©.ȱCreótinism.ȱ
Înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ manifest©rileȱ culturaleȱ urmeaz©ȱ tradiöiaȱ grecoȬroman©.ȱ
CultulȱSoarelui,ȱr©spânditȱînȱImperiulȱromanȱînc©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.558ȱesteȱatestatȱ
laȱ Tomisȱ întrȬoȱ dedicaöieȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 155)ȱ dinȱ timpulȱ împ©raöilorȱ Diocletianȱ óiȱ
Maximian.ȱTotȱdeȱatunciȱdateaz©ȱóiȱcelȱmaiȱtârziuȱmonumentȱdedicatȱCybeleiȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ 144).ȱ Doveziȱ deȱ manifestareȱ aȱ credinöeiȱ creótineȱ seȱ înregistreaz©ȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ
înainteaȱ dateiȱ edictuluiȱ luiȱ Constantinȱ celȱ Mare.ȱ Acesteaȱ suntȱ îns©ȱ izolateȱ óiȱ seȱ
plaseaz©ȱ laȱ limitaȱ deȱ manifestareȱ aȱ celorȱ p©gâne.ȱ Leȱ deducemȱ dinȱ formul©riȱ maiȱ
puöinȱobiónuiteȱînȱconöinutulȱinscripöiilorȱsauȱdinȱposibileȱvaloriȱcreótineȱaleȱunorȱ
elementeȱ deȱ decor 559.ȱ Poateȱ maiȱ valoroaseȱ pentruȱ începuturileȱ creótineȱ laȱ Tomisȱ
suntȱ câtevaȱ obiecteȱ deȱ art©ȱ minor©:ȱ gemaȱ deȱ cornalin©,ȱ ajuns©ȱ dejaȱ celebr©,ȱ cuȱ
imagineaȱ luiȱ Christosȱ r©stignitȱ flancatȱ deȱ apostoli560.ȱ Înȱ aceeaóiȱ categorieȱ maiȱ
554
ȱ Monedeleȱ deȱ laȱ Mauriciuȱ Tiberiuȱ denot©ȱ c©ȱ momentulȱ dinȱ 587ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ aȱ fostȱ maiȱ
puöinȱgravȱdecâtȱsȬaȱcrezut;ȱoraóulȱnuȱaȱfostȱdistrusȱlaȱaceast©ȱdat©.ȱ
555
ȱ Irimiaȱ Dimian,ȱ Câtevaȱ descopeririȱ monetareȱ bizantineȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ RPR,ȱ SCNȱ 1ȱ (1957),ȱ
p.ȱ 197,ȱ nr.ȱ 1Ȭ5;ȱ posibilȱ tezaurȱ ascunsȱ probabilȱ cuȱ ocaziaȱ p©trunderiiȱ bulgarilorȱ laȱ sudȱ deȱ
Dun©re.ȱ
556
ȱ Num©rulȱ monedelorȱ deȱ laȱ Focasȱ (46ȱ înregistrateȱ deȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.)ȱ óiȱ
Heracliusȱ(16,ȱdup©ȱaceleaóiȱînregistr©ri)ȱdenot©ȱc©ȱTomisulȱaȱjucatȱînȱvremeaȱrespectiv©ȱunȱ
rolȱimportant.ȱ
557
ȱVeziȱînȱacestȱsensȱóiȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ251.ȱ
558
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ329Ȭ330;ȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱAntichitateaȱtârzie,ȱIaói,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ42Ȭ44.ȱ
559
ȱ Înȱ sintez©,ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ privindȱ celeȱ maiȱ vechiȱ monumenteȱ creótineȱ deȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ269Ȭ275.ȱ
560
ȱ Gema,ȱ datat©ȱ iniöialȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ aȱ fostȱ considerat©ȱ mult©ȱ vremeȱ celȱ maiȱ
vechiȱ documentȱ creótinȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis;ȱ temaȱ iconografic©,ȱ reinterpretat©,ȱ aȱ condusȱ laȱ
redatareaȱ pieseiȱ nuȱ maiȱ înainteȱ deȱ sec.ȱ IVȬVȱ p.ȱ Chr;ȱ veziȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Lesȱ monumentsȱ
paléochretiensȱ deȱ Roumanie,ȱ Cittàȱ delȱ Vaticano,ȱ 1977,ȱ p.ȱ 73Ȭ74,ȱ nr.ȱ 41;ȱ idem,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ
84ȱ ȱ
ȱ
not©mȱunȱ opaiöȱcuȱimagineaȱluiȱChristosȱbinecuvântând,ȱînconjuratȱdeȱapostoli561ȱ
óiȱ unȱ altul,ȱ lucratȱ dinȱ bronz,ȱ înȱ form©ȱ deȱ peóte562.ȱ Celȱ maiȱ vechiȱ obiectȱ creótinȱ
cunoscutȱpân©ȱdeȱcurândȱlaȱTomisȱnuȱdep©óeóteȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱȱȱȱȱsec.ȱ
IVȱp.ȱChr.;ȱesteȱunȱopaiöȱceramicȱcareȱareȱcruceaȱmonogramatic©ȱimprimat©ȱdeȱtreiȱ
ori563.ȱ Aceeaóiȱ datareȱ oȱ areȱ óiȱ unȱ altȱ opaiöȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ aȱ doiȱ peótiȱ ceȱ potȱ fiȱ
consideraöiȱprobabilȱunȱsimbolȱcreótin564.ȱRecentȱaȱfostȱpublicatȱunȱopaiöȱdinȱTomisȱ
cuȱ treiȱ simboluriȱ paleocreótineȱ –ȱ crucea,ȱ porumbelulȱ óiȱ delfinulȱ ȱ Ȭȱ datatȱ înainteaȱ
sec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.565.ȱ
Începândȱ îns©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ óiȱ maiȱ alesȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ creótinismulȱ aȱ
influenöatȱ înȱ celȱ maiȱ înaltȱ gradȱ culturaȱ provinciei566.ȱ Organizat©ȱ ierarhic,ȱ bisericaȱ
eraȱ condus©ȱ pân©ȱ înȱ timpulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Anastasiusȱ deȱ unȱ singurȱ episcop567ȱ cuȱ
reóedinöaȱlaȱTomis568.ȱDup©ȱîntemeiereaȱpatriarhieiȱecumeniceȱdeȱConstantinopol,ȱ
episcopiaȱTomisuluiȱdepindeȱdirectȱdeȱaceasta,ȱleg©turileȱculturaleȱîntreȱregiuneaȱ
Dun©riiȱ deȱ Josȱ óiȱ capitalaȱ imperiuluiȱ bizantinȱ devenindȱ maiȱ strânse.ȱ Primulȱ
România,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1979,ȱ p.ȱ 92,ȱ 1;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ ȱ 53ȱ (cuȱ bibliografia);ȱ întreȱ
contribuöiileȱmaiȱnoi,ȱP.ȱDiaconu,ȱDocumenteȱvechiȱcreótineȱdinȱDobrogea,ȱPonticaȱ17ȱ(1984),ȱp.ȱ
164Ȭ166;ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱC.ȱChera,ȱDinȱnouȱdespreȱgemaȱcreótin©ȱdeȱlaȱConstanöa,ȱPonticaȱ23ȱ(1990),ȱ
p.ȱ177Ȭ182.ȱȱȱ
561
ȱ Obiectulȱ cuȱ inscripöieȱ dup©ȱ Ioan,ȱ XIV,ȱ 27:ȱ Pacemȱ meamȱ doȱ vobis,ȱ esteȱ consideratȱ deȱ
producöieȱ italic©ȱ óiȱ oȱ dovad©ȱ aȱ caracteruluiȱ latinȱ alȱ creótinismuluiȱ dacoȬroman.ȱ Veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
I.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ74,ȱnr.ȱ42;ȱidem,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱp.ȱ92,ȱnr.ȱ2.ȱȱ
562
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ230;ȱidem,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ231;ȱnr.ȱ3;ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱ
IGLR,ȱ55.ȱ
563
ȱ C.ȱ CheraȬM©rgineanu,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Noiȱ descopeririȱ dinȱ necropoleleȱ tomitane,ȱ Ponticaȱ 17ȱ
(1984),ȱ p.ȱ 128Ȭ129;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Leȱ christisnismeȱ enȱ Scythieȱ Mineureȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ
desȱ dernièresȱ découvertesȱ archéologiques,ȱ înȱ Actesȱ duȱ XI e ȱ Congrèsȱ Internationalȱ d’Archéologieȱ
Chrétienne,ȱRoma,ȱ1989,ȱp.ȱ2565Ȭ2567.ȱ
564
ȱ C.ȱ CheraȬM©rgineanu,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 128ȱ óiȱ p.ȱ 118,ȱ pl.ȱ 3/29.ȱ Înȱ general,ȱ veziȱȱ
V.ȱLungu,ȱȱ Începuturileȱ creótinismuluiȱ înȱScythiaȱ Minor,ȱ înȱ luminaȱdescoperirilorȱarheologice,ȱ înȱ
Izvoareleȱcreótinismuluiȱromânesc,ȱArhiepiscopiaȱTomisului,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ45.ȱ
565
ȱ C.ȱ B©jenaru,ȱ Unȱ opaiöȱ cuȱ simboluriȱ paleocreótineȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ
(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ217Ȭ223,ȱpropuneȱoȱdatareȱaȱopaiöuluiȱînȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
566
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ267Ȭ295.ȱ
567
ȱ Veziȱ peȱ largȱ laȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Christianitasȱ DacoȬRomana.ȱ Florilegiumȱ studiorum,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1994,ȱ passim;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Genezaȱ creótinismuluiȱ popularȱ alȱ românilor,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1997,ȱ passim;ȱ idem,ȱ înȱ Fontesȱ Historiaeȱ DacoȬRomanaeȱ Christianitatis.ȱ Izvoareleȱ istorieiȱ
creótinismuluiȱ românescȱ (=FHDRCh),ȱ traduceriȱ M.ȱ Paraschiv,ȱ C.ȱ T©rn©uceanu,ȱ W.ȱ Danc©.ȱ
Selecöiaȱ textelor,ȱ studiuȱ introductiv,ȱ notiöeȱ bibliografice,ȱ noteȱ óiȱ comentarii,ȱ indice,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Iaóiȱ 2008,ȱ passim.ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ A.ȬC.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Instituöiileȱ ecleziasticeȱ peȱ litoralulȱ vestȬ
pontic,ȱ înȱ luminaȱ izvoarelorȱ arheologice,ȱ literareȱ óiȱ epigraficeȱînȱ secoleleȱ IVȬVII,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ2006,ȱ
passim;ȱveziȱóiȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱînȱClassicaȱetȱChristiana,ȱ2ȱȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ338Ȭ359.ȱ
568
ȱInformaöiaȱoȱafl©mȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVȱp.ȱChr.ȱlaȱSozomenos,ȱTheodoretȱóiȱînȱ
legeaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Zenonȱ dinȱ 480ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Pentruȱ organizareaȱ bisericiiȱ tomitane,ȱ veziȱ óiȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Noiȱ dateȱ despreȱ mitropoliaȱ Tomisului,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 277Ȭ282;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ
DieȱkirchlicheȱOrganisationȱderȱProvinzȱScythiaȱMinorȱvomȱviertenȱbisȱinsȱsechsteȱJahrhundert,ȱînȱ
JahrbuchȱderȱÖsterreichischenȱByzantinistikȱ38ȱ(1988),ȱp.ȱ75Ȭ94;ȱidem,ȱIerarhiaȱeclesiastic©ȱpeȱ
teritoriulȱ României.ȱ Creótereaȱ óiȱ structuraȱ eiȱ pân©ȱ înȱ secolulȱ alȱ VIIȬlea,ȱ înȱ Bisericaȱ Ortodox©ȱ
Român©,ȱ 108ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 152Ȭ154,ȱ 160Ȭ163;ȱ idem,ȱ Începuturileȱ îndep©rtateȱ aleȱ autocefalieiȱ
Bisericiiȱ Ortodoxeȱ Române:ȱ Tomisul,ȱ Arhiepiscopieȱ autocefal©,ȱ înȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ
românesc,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 171Ȭ200;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravuȱ înȱ FHDRCh,ȱ p.ȱ 74Ȭ106ȱ (cuȱ trimiterileȱ
bibliograficeȱóiȱlaȱtexteleȱdinȱvolum).ȱ
ȱ 85
ȱȱȱ
episcopȱ alȱ Tomisuluiȱ seȱ pareȱ c©ȱ aȱ fostȱ Evangelicus,ȱ careȱ aȱ tr©itȱ înȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ
Diocletian.ȱ Numeleȱ luiȱ esteȱ menöionatȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ martiriiȱ Epictetȱ óiȱ Astion,ȱ
careȱ auȱ p©timitȱ laȱ Halmyrisȱ peȱ laȱ anulȱ 303ȱ p.ȱ Chr.569.ȱ Nuȱ maiȱ târziuȱ deȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ esteȱ datat©ȱ inscripöiaȱ pus©ȱ pentruȱ „unȱ martirȱ alȱ luiȱ Christosȱ óiȱ episcop”ȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 22).ȱ Numele,ȱ c©zutȱ înȱ lacun©,ȱ seȱ presupuneȱ aȱ fiȱ fostȱ Titusȱ (sauȱ Philus)570,ȱ
cunoscutȱ aȱ fiȱ p©timitȱ înȱ timpulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Licinius,ȱ prinȱ aniiȱ 319Ȭ323ȱ p.ȱ Chr.571.ȱ
Documenteleȱistoriceȱatest©ȱsigurȱpeȱBretanionȱ(sauȱVetranion),ȱ„b©rbatȱdestoinicȱóiȱ
renumitȱ prinȱ virtuöileȱ sale”ȱ (Sozomenos,ȱ VI,ȱ 21),ȱ careȱ „conduceaȱ caȱ episcopȱ
oraóeleȱ întregiiȱ Sciöii”ȱ (Theodoretus,ȱ IV,ȱ 35).ȱ Înȱ 368Ȭ369ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ acestaȱ seȱ opuneȱ
introduceriiȱarianismuluiȱap©ratȱdeȱîmp©ratulȱValens572.ȱÎiȱurmeaz©ȱGerontiusȱ(sauȱ
Terentius),ȱ participantȱ înȱ 381ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ laȱ Sinodulȱ IIȱ ecumenicȱ deȱ laȱ
Constantinopol573.ȱTheotimusȱIȱScitul,ȱcca.ȱ390ȱ–ȱcca.ȱ407ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱesteȱcunoscutȱóiȱcaȱ
scriitor574;ȱcelebruȱpropov©duitorȱalȱcreótinismuluiȱînȱrândurileȱhunilor575ȱóiȱnumitȱ
deȱ aceótiaȱ „Zeulȱ /Dumnezeulȱ romanilor”ȱ (ΟΉϱΖȱ ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑ),ȱ acestȱ episcopȱ aȱ fostȱ
adversarȱóiȱalȱarianismului576.ȱTimotheusȱesteȱparticipant,ȱînȱ431ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱlaȱSinodulȱ
IIIȱecumenicȱdeȱlaȱEfes577.ȱOȱΘΕΣΔΉΊ΅ȱΦ·΅ΔЗΑ,ȱdescoperit©ȱlaȱTomisȱóiȱcareȱaȱf©cutȱ
parteȱ dintrȬoȱ construcöieȱ funerar©,ȱ esteȱ dedicat©ȱ „fericituluiȱ Timotei”ȱ dinȱ parteaȱ
unuiȱ neofitȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25).ȱ Numeleȱ inscripöionatȱ esteȱ consideratȱ caȱ aparöinândȱ uneiȱ
personalit©öiȱ religioaseȱ Ȭȱ martir578ȱ sauȱ chiarȱ episcop579.ȱ Ioannesȱ aȱ activatȱ înȱ aniiȱ
569
ȱ Despreȱ aceótiȱ martiriȱ veziȱ M.ȱ Zahariade,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Despreȱ începuturileȱ
creótinismuluiȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Jos:ȱ MartyriumȬulȱ deȱ laȱ Halmyris,ȱ înȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ
românesc,ȱ p.ȱ 115Ȭ126;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Itinerariaȱ ecclesiasticaȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ Studiaȱ
Universitatisȱ BabeóȬBolyai,ȱ Teologiaȱ catholica,ȱ LIIȱ 3,ȱ 2007,ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ12,ȱ n.ȱ 3Ȭ11;ȱ idem,ȱ înȱ
FHDRCh,ȱ p.ȱ74Ȭ77ȱ óiȱCXXI;ȱM.ȱZahariade,ȱ Aȱhistoricalȱcomentaryȱtoȱaȱ hagiographicȱ text:ȱ passioȱ
Epictetiȱ Presbyteriȱ etȱ Astionisȱ Monachi,ȱ înȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Missionȱ onȱ theȱ Romanianȱ Territoryȱ
duringȱtheȱFirstȱCenturiesȱofȱtheȱChurch,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ83Ȭ111.ȱȱȱ
570
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱInscripöiiȱpaleocreótineȱinediteȱdinȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ7ȱ(1974),ȱp.ȱ377Ȭ380;ȱIGLR,ȱ
22.ȱ
571
ȱ Cf.ȱ Actaȱ Sanctorum,ȱ înȱ Fontesȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 704Ȭ707.ȱ Inscripöiaȱ laȱ careȱ neȱ referimȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ
aóezat©ȱlaȱintrareaȱunuiȱmartyrium,ȱconstruitȱspreȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIVȱóiȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Veziȱ totuóiȱ óiȱ Petreȱ N©sturel,ȱ Deȱ laȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ creótin©ȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ laȱ p©timireaȱ Sf.ȱ Teogene,ȱ înȱ
Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 283Ȭ286;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ înȱ FHDRCh.,ȱ p.ȱ 81Ȭ82:ȱ nuȱ aȱ existatȱ unȱ episcopȱ
PhilusȱsauȱTitus;ȱîntreȱcca.ȱ308Ȭ324ȱ–ȱAnonymusȱepiscopus.ȱ
572
ȱVezi,ȱmaiȱsus,ȱcomentariulȱistoric;ȱinformaöiaȱliterar©ȱlaȱSozomenos,ȱVI,ȱ21,ȱ2Ȭ6ȱóiȱînȱ
alteȱsurse;ȱveziȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱînȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109,ȱn.ȱ709.ȱ
573
ȱSozomenos,ȱVII,ȱ9,ȱ6ȱ(Terentius;ȱînȱtimpulȱîmp©ratuluiȱTeodosius);ȱveziȱóiȱFHDRCh,ȱ
XVIIIȱóiȱXLVI.ȱ
574
ȱ Hieronymus,ȱ Liberȱ deȱ viribusȱ illustribus,ȱ 131ȱ (22,152):ȱ Theotimus,ȱ Scythiaeȱ Tomoromȱ
episcopus.ȱ
575
ȱ Sozomenos,ȱ VII,ȱ 26,ȱ 6Ȭ9:ȱ „bisericaȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ dinȱ restulȱ Sciöieiȱ eraȱ condus©ȱ deȱ
scitulȱTheotimos”.ȱ
576
ȱSozomenos,ȱVIII,ȱ14;ȱActaȱSanctorum,ȱaprilieȱII,ȱ753ȱîlȱmenöioneaz©ȱcaȱparticipândȱlaȱ
sinodulȱdeȱlaȱConstantinopol;ȱveziȱóiȱFHDRCh,ȱXL,ȱXLVII,ȱXLVIII,ȱLIII.ȱ2ȱóiȱp.ȱ88Ȭ89,ȱn.ȱ552Ȭ
556.ȱ
577
ȱIbidem,ȱp.ȱ84Ȭ85ȱóiȱXLV.I.1.a,ȱI.3a;ȱXLV,ȱII.ȱ1,ȱ4,ȱ5,ȱ6,ȱ7.ȱ
578
ȱDup©ȱR.ȱBerlinger,ȱEinȱfrüchristlicherȱAgapentischȱausȱKonstanza,ȱînȱByzNeugrJahrb.,ȱ
II,ȱ1921,ȱȱȱȱp.ȱ150Ȭ153.ȱ
579
ȱ Dup©ȱ J.ȱ Zeiller,ȱ Strenaȱ Buliciana,ȱ Zagreb,ȱ 1924,ȱ p.ȱ 415ȱ (apud,ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ
comentariuȱlaȱIGLR,ȱ25).ȱ
86ȱ ȱ
ȱ
445/6ȱ –ȱ 448ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Peȱ impostaȱ unuiȱ capitelȱ esteȱ recunoscut©580ȱ monogramaȱ
sculptat©ȱ aȱ episcopuluiȱ Ioanȱ (IGLR,ȱ 14).ȱ Urmeaz©ȱ Alexander,ȱ careȱ înȱ 451ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ
semneaz©ȱacteleȱceluiȱdeȱalȱIVȬleaȱsinodȱecumenicȱdeȱlaȱChalcedon581;ȱTheotimusȱII,ȱ
careȱ semneaz©ȱ caȱ Theotimusȱ humilisȱ Scythiaeȱ regionisȱ episcopusȱ oȱ scrisoareȱ c©treȱ
împ©ratulȱ Leon,ȱ înȱ 458ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ ap©rândȱ credinöaȱ ortodox©582.ȱ Timpȱ deȱ câtevaȱ
deceniiȱ nuȱ seȱ maiȱ cunoaóteȱ numeleȱ niciunuiȱ altȱ episcopȱ deȱ Tomis583,ȱ pân©ȱ cândȱ
esteȱ datatȱ disculȱ cuȱ inscripöiaȱ episcopuluiȱ Paternus584.ȱ Înȱ 520ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Paternusȱ
semneaz©ȱ acteleȱ sinoduluiȱ deȱ laȱ Constantinopolȱ cuȱ titlulȱ deȱ episcopusȱ provinciaeȱ
Scythiaeȱ metropolitanus.ȱ Titlulȱ pareȱ s©ȱ îndrept©öeasc©ȱ ipoteza585ȱ dup©ȱ care,ȱ înȱ
timpulȱ luiȱ Anastasius,ȱ subȱ autoritateaȱ episcopatuluiȱ maiȱ vechiȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ în©löatȱ
acumȱ laȱ rangulȱ deȱ mitropolie,ȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ createȱ episcopateȱ noiȱ óiȱ înȱ alteȱ locuriȱ dinȱ
Dobrogea586.ȱ Paternusȱ esteȱ consideratȱ primulȱ mitropolitȱ alȱ Scythieiȱ óiȱ aȱ avutȱ subȱ
autoritateaȱ saȱ alteȱ 14ȱ episcopate587.ȱ Activitateaȱ saȱ esteȱ plasat©ȱ înc©ȱ înȱ ultimaȱ
decad©ȱaȱsec.ȱVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(înȱoriceȱcazȱînainteȱdeȱ498ȱp.ȱChr.)588.ȱUltimulȱepiscopȱdeȱ
Tomisȱ cunoscutȱ esteȱ Valentinianusȱ (550Ȭ553ȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ aflatȱ înȱ relaöiiȱ strânseȱ cuȱ
bisericaȱ dinȱ Constantinopolȱ óiȱ înȱ corespondenö©ȱ cuȱ papaȱ Vigiliusȱ deȱ laȱ Roma589.ȱ
580
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱMonumenteȱdeȱart©ȱcreótin©ȱdescoperiteȱpeȱteritoriulȱRPR,ȱînȱSt.ȱTeologiceȱ17ȱ
(1965),ȱ3Ȭ4,ȱȱp.ȱ153Ȭ154ȱóiȱfig.ȱ15;ȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱînȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ85ȱóiȱXLIX.ȱȱȱ
581
ȱ Ibidem,ȱ p.ȱ 85ȱ (episcopȱ întreȱ 448Ȭ452);ȱ veziȱ óiȱ L,ȱ n.ȱ 8ȱ óiȱ LIII,ȱ 1,ȱ n.ȱ 5ȱ („prezenöaȱ saȱ laȱ
conciliuȱesteȱproblematic©”).ȱ
582
ȱR.ȱNetzhammer,ȱDieȱchristlichenȱAltertümerȱderȱDobrudscha,ȱBukarest,ȱ1918,ȱp.ȱ52Ȭ56;ȱ
J.ȱ Zeiller,ȱ Lesȱ originesȱ chrétiennesȱ dansȱ lesȱ provincesȱ danubiennesȱ deȱ l’Empireȱ romain,ȱ Paris,ȱ
1918,ȱp.ȱ173;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ278;ȱveziȱóiȱFHDRCh,ȱLVII.ȱ1,ȱ2.ȱ
583
ȱ Veziȱ totuóiȱ FHDR,ȱ p.ȱ 372ȱ (480ȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ FHDRCh,ȱ p.ȱ 86,ȱ n.ȱ 541ȱ óiȱ LXXII.ȱ 1ȱ (Petrusȱ
episcopus)ȱ–ȱ496ȱȱȱȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
584
ȱDiscul,ȱdinȱargintȱaurit,ȱcuȱunȱdiametruȱdeȱ0,61ȱmȱóiȱoȱgreutateȱdeȱ7855,11ȱg,ȱaȱf©cutȱ
parteȱdinȱtezaurulȱcatedraleiȱdinȱTomis;ȱtehnicaȱdeȱlucruȱarȱindicaȱunȱprodusȱalȱatelierelorȱ
deȱ Constantinopol.ȱ Asupraȱ condiöiilorȱ deȱ descoperireȱ veziȱ IGLR,ȱ 64ȱ (bibliografia);ȱ veziȱ óiȱ
Al.ȱMadgearu,ȱDisculȱluiȱPaternusȱînȱtezaurulȱdeȱlaȱMalajaȱPeres²epina:ȱprad©ȱsauȱdar?,ȱSCIVAȱ
61ȱ (2010),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ187.ȱ ȱ Despreȱ Paternusȱ (498Ȭ520ȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ veziȱ óiȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Histriaȱ
XIIIȱóiȱcâtevaȱproblemeȱaleȱcreótinismuluiȱtimpuriuȱdobrogean,ȱClassicaȱetȱChristianaȱ3ȱ(2008),ȱp.ȱ
282Ȭ287;ȱidem,ȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ86ȱóiȱLXXVI.4,ȱn.ȱ12ȱóiȱ14.ȱ
585
ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Nuoveȱ considerazioniȱ sulȱ vescovatoȱ dellaȱ Sciziaȱ Minore,ȱ înȱ Rendicontiȱ dellaȱ
PontificiaȱAccademiaȱRomanaȱdiȱArcheologia,ȱIIȱ(1924),ȱp.ȱ122ȱóiȱ132Ȭ135;ȱveziȱóiȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ458Ȭ
459ȱóiȱn.ȱ12.ȱ
586
ȱ Ipotez©ȱ confirmat©ȱ óiȱ deȱ m©rturiaȱ „c©lug©rilorȱ sciöi”:ȱ istiȱ deȱ suaȱ provinciaȱ episcoposȱ
accusantȱ interȱ quosȱ estȱ Paternusȱ Tomitanaeȱ civitatisȱ antistesȱ (Papaȱ Hormisdas,ȱ Epistolae,ȱ 217).ȱ
Asupraȱ „c©lug©rilorȱ sciöi”,ȱ veziȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Itinerariaȱ ecclesiastica,ȱ p.ȱ 16Ȭ17ȱ óiȱ 20ȱ
(bibliografia);ȱidem,ȱînȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ96,ȱn.ȱ602Ȭ614ȱóiȱp.ȱ123Ȭ126.ȱ
587
ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱContributionsȱàȱlaȱgéographieȱhistoriqueȱdeȱlaȱPéninsuleȱBalkaniqueȱauxȱV e ȱ
–ȱVIII e ȱsièclesȱdeȱnotreȱère,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ13ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ411ȱóiȱurm.;ȱidem,ȱînȱIzvoareleȱcreótinismuluiȱ
românesc,ȱp.ȱ197.ȱȱ
588
ȱ Esteȱ dataȱ atribuit©ȱ disculuiȱ inscripöionatȱ cuȱ numeleȱ luiȱ Paternus;ȱ veziȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ
NoteȱdeȱepigrafieȱromanoȬbizantin©,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ276;ȱseȱcorecteaz©ȱastfelȱdatareaȱmaiȱ
larg©,ȱ înȱ timpulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Anastasius,ȱ 491Ȭ518ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ acceptat©ȱ multȱ timp;ȱ veziȱ óiȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
N.ȱZugravu,ȱînȱFHDRCh,ȱȱȱp.ȱ91Ȭ92.ȱ
589
ȱ Vigiliiȱ Papaeȱ Epistolaȱ (olimȱ XII)ȱ adȱ Valentinianumȱ episcopumȱ Tomitanum,ȱ înȱ Fontesȱ II,ȱȱ
p.ȱ 400Ȭ405;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ L’égliseȱ deȱ Tomisȱ auȱ tempsȱ duȱ métropoliteȱ Valentinien.ȱ L’ambassadeȱ
(l’apocrisiariat)ȱdeȱConstantinople,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ251Ȭ255ȱ(=ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ407Ȭ
414).ȱȱ
ȱ 87
ȱȱȱ
ValentinianȱóiȬaȱp©stratȱprobabilȱtitlulȱdeȱepiscopusȱmetropolitanusȱcareȱîlȱdistingeaȱ
deȱ ceilalöiȱ episcopiȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minor590.ȱ Dup©ȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ nuȱ maiȱ cunoaótemȱ
niciunȱierarhȱlaȱTomis.ȱȱ
Episcopiiȱ deȱ Tomisȱ auȱ fostȱ personalit©öiȱ culturaleȱ óiȱ religioase,ȱ careȱ auȱ
întreöinutȱ leg©turiȱ permanenteȱ cuȱ ceiȱ maiȱ deȱ seam©ȱ reprezentanöiȱ aiȱ bisericiiȱ
oficiale.ȱ Acesteȱ leg©turiȱ auȱ contribuitȱ laȱ menöinereaȱ unit©öiiȱ bisericiiȱ óiȱ laȱ
dezvoltareaȱcultural©ȱaȱprovincieiȱScythiaȱMinor.ȱ
Dinȱ ierarhiaȱ bisericeasc©,ȱ inscripöiileȱ tomitaneȱ menöioneaz©ȱ unȱ preotȱ
(presbyter)ȱ Patriciusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 27);ȱ unȱ hypodiaconosȱ deȱ origineȱ sirian©,ȱ darȱ cuȱ numeȱ
latin,ȱ Paulosȱ (IGLR,ȱ 48)591;ȱ peȱ Ioan,ȱ administratorȱ alȱ bisericiiȱ Sf.ȱ Ioanȱ
(ΔΕ΅·ΐ΅ΘΉΙΘχΖȱ ΘΓІȱ Υ·ϟΓΙȱ ͑Ν(ΣΑΑΓΙ;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 32)592;ȱ peȱ Heraclides,ȱ „citeöȱ alȱ sfinteiȱ
bisericiȱ universale”ȱ (ΦΑ΅·ΑЏΗΘ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ Υ·ϟ΅Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ύ΅ΟΓΏ΍ΎϛΖȱ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅Ζ;ȱ IGLR,ȱ
45)593.ȱÎntreȱcredincioóiȱsuntȱmenöionaöiȱdoarȱindiviziȱdeȱcurândȱconvertiöiȱ(neofiöi;ȱ
ΑΉϱΠΙΘΓ΍;ȱIGLR,ȱ25ȱóiȱ29)ȱóiȱcatehumeniiȱ(audientes),ȱcareȱseȱpreg©teauȱs©ȱprimeasc©ȱ
botezulȱcreótinȱ(IGLR,ȱ23).ȱȱ
Laȱ Tomisȱ suntȱ înregistraöiȱ ceiȱ maiȱ mulöiȱ martiriȱ creótiniȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minor;ȱ
majoritateaȱ suntȱ dinȱ timpulȱ persecuöiilorȱ luiȱ Diocletian,ȱ Maximian,ȱ Galeriusȱ óiȱ
Liciniusȱ (290Ȭ325ȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ Dup©ȱ uneleȱ surseȱ seȱ cunoscȱ pesteȱ 60ȱ deȱ martiriȱ
executaöiȱ aiciȱ Ȭȱ maiȱ mulöiȱ decâtȱ înȱ celelalteȱ centreȱ aleȱ provinciei594.ȱ Întreȱ numeleȱ
menöionateȱ înȱ sinaxareleȱ greceóti,ȱ mineeleȱ ortodoxeȱ óiȱ Actaȱ Sanctorumȱ reöinemȱȱ
dou©:ȱEfremȱóiȱTheogenes.ȱPrimulȱaȱfostȱtrimisȱînȱScythiaȱdeȱpatriarhulȱHermonȱalȱ
Ierusalimuluiȱ óiȱ arȱ fiȱ fostȱ decapitatȱ înȱ 304ȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ uniiȱ cercet©toriȱ îlȱ consider©ȱ caȱ
celȱdintâiȱepiscopȱdeȱTomis,ȱcunoscutȱînȱizvoareleȱliterare,ȱalöiiȱneag©ȱprezenöaȱsaȱ
aiciȱ sauȱ poateȱ maiȱ exactȱ îlȱ apreciaz©ȱ caȱ episcopȱ misionarȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor595.ȱ Alȱ
doileaȱnumeȱaȱbeneficiatȱdeȱunȱ„studiuȱdeȱcaz”ȱcareȱaȱcondusȱlaȱoȱplasareȱcorect©ȱ
aȱ luiȱ nuȱ printreȱ martiriiȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ ciȱ întreȱ ceiȱ deȱ Cyzik596.ȱ Precizareaȱ nuȱ
diminueaz©ȱimportanöaȱm©rturiilorȱpaleoȬcreótineȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
ȱ
Populaöia.ȱ
Unȱ locȱ importantȱ înȱ susöinereaȱ creótinismuluiȱ laȱ Tomisȱ îlȱ reprezint©ȱ
antroponimia.ȱOnomasticaȱinscripöiilorȱtomitaneȱdenot©ȱleg©turileȱScythieiȱMinorȱ
590
ȱ Esteȱ posibilȱ caȱ Tomisȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ ridicatȱ laȱ rangulȱ deȱ arhiepiscopatȱ autocefalȱ înȱ
vremeaȱluiȱIustinianus;ȱveziȱdiscuöiaȱlaȱN.ȱZugravuȱînȱFHDRCh.,ȱp.ȱ92Ȭ95.ȱ
591
ȱ Esteȱ primaȱ menöiuneȱ aȱ unuiȱ hypodiaconosȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor;ȱ pentruȱ sirieniiȱ dinȱ
aceast©ȱzon©,ȱveziȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ255Ȭ257;ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ92.ȱ
592
ȱTextulȱarȱfiȱtrebuitȱs©ȱfieȱΔΕ΅·ΐ΅ΘΉΙΘχΖȱΘϛΖȱπΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅ΖȱΘΓІȱΥ·ϟΓΙȱ͑Ν(ΣΑΑΓΙ).ȱ
593
ȱ „ψȱ Ύ΅ΟΓΏ΍Ύχȱ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅ȱ semnific©ȱ probabilȱ bisericaȱ universal©,ȱ ortodox©,ȱ înȱ
opoziöieȱcuȱceaȱeretic©”ȱ(dup©ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ46ȱóiȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ462);ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱ
op.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ506;ȱveziȱóiȱȱp.ȱ522Ȭ535ȱ(contribuöiiȱdeȱordinȱlingvistic).ȱ
594
ȱ Veziȱ Ch.ȱ Auner,ȱ Dobrogea,ȱ înȱ Dict.ȱ d’Archéol.Chrét.ȱ etȱ deȱ Litourgie,ȱ t.ȱ IV,ȱ col.ȱ 1238Ȭ
1239;ȱ Eneȱ Branióte,ȱ Martiriȱ óiȱ sfinöiȱ peȱ p©mântulȱ Dobrogeiȱ deȱ azi,ȱ înȱ Deȱ laȱ Dun©reȱ laȱ mare.ȱ
M©rturiiȱ istoriceȱ óiȱ monumenteȱ deȱ art©ȱ creótin©,ȱ Galaöi,ȱ 1977,ȱ p.ȱ 34Ȭ62;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Romanitateȱ óiȱ
creótinismȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Jos,ȱ Symposiaȱ Thracologicaȱ 7,ȱ Tulcea,ȱ 1989,ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ174;ȱ V.H.ȱ
Baumann,ȱînȱIzvoareleȱcreótinismuluiȱromânesc,ȱp.ȱ99Ȭ113;ȱidem,ȱSângeleȱmartirilor,ȱConstanöa,ȱ
2004,ȱp.ȱ41Ȭ63;ȱ90Ȭ132.ȱ
595
ȱ Veziȱ discuöiaȱ laȱ I.ȱ Holubeanu,ȱ Despreȱ ariaȱ misionar©ȱ aȱ Sfântuluiȱ Episcopȱ Mucenicȱ
Ephraim,ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ415Ȭ428.ȱ
596
ȱP.ȱN©sturel,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ286.ȱ
88ȱ ȱ
ȱ
cuȱ Asiaȱ Mic©,ȱ Siriaȱ óiȱ Egiptul.ȱ Suntȱ atestateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ numeȱ propriiȱ frecventeȱ înȱ
inscripöiileȱ creótineȱ dinȱ Imperiulȱ deȱ r©s©ritȱ –ȱ Alexandrosȱ óiȱ Alexandra,ȱ Basos,ȱ
Gennadios,ȱ Focas,ȱ Theclaȱ etc.ȱ Pentruȱ uneleȱ seȱ poateȱ precizaȱ origineaȱ lorȱ dinȱ Siria.ȱ
Astfel,ȱnumeleȱpropriuȱSerghios,ȱctitorulȱsauȱbeneficiarulȱuneiȱconstrucöiiȱfunerareȱ
sauȱdeȱcultȱ(IGLR,ȱ12),ȱînscrisȱpeȱfragmenteleȱunuiȱcapitelȱdeȱmarmur©ȱdinȱsec.ȱVȬ
VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.597,ȱ îlȱ punemȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ localitateaȱ Serghiopolisȱ dinȱ Siriaȱ óiȱ cuȱ Sf.ȱ
Serghie,ȱ alȱ c©ruiȱ mormântȱ seȱ afl©ȱ acolo.ȱ Numeleȱ femininȱ Maru,ȱ fiicaȱ luiȱ Ioannes,ȱ
administratorȱ alȱ bisericiiȱ Sf.ȱ Ioanȱ (IGLR,ȱ 32),ȱ îóiȱ afl©ȱ corespondenöaȱ totȱ întreȱ
numeleȱdinȱSiriaȱóiȱAsiaȱMic©598.ȱOrigineaȱsirian©ȱesteȱînȱmodȱexpresȱspecificat©ȱpeȱ
oȱstel©ȱfunerar©ȱdinȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱpentruȱunȱanumeȱPaulos,ȱhipodiaconȱóiȱpentruȱ
soöiaȱ lui,ȱ Paulaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 48).ȱ Peȱ unȱ blocȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ esteȱ
menöionat,ȱ fragmentar,ȱ numeleȱ Nazarin(…),ȱ pusȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ Nazareos,ȱ epitetȱ alȱ
luiȱ Iisusȱ înȱ Siria,ȱ sauȱ Nazarenus,ȱ înȱ alteȱ p©röiȱ aleȱ Imperiuluiȱ (IGLR,ȱ 40)599.ȱ Altorȱ
numeȱ leȱ recunoaótemȱ origineaȱ semitic©,ȱ deóiȱ ulteriorȱ eleȱ auȱ fostȱ adoptateȱ deȱ
creótini,ȱ înȱ specialȱ înȱ Orient.ȱ Esteȱ cazulȱ numeluiȱ Em(m)anuel,ȱ întrȬoȱ inscripöieȱ
tomitan©ȱ dinȱ secoleleȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 16)ȱ careȱ repet©,ȱ prescurtat,ȱ profeöiaȱ
naóteriiȱ luiȱ Christos,ȱ óiȱ aȱ numeluiȱ Ioannes,ȱ ap©rutȱ peȱ maiȱ multeȱ inscripöiiȱ dinȱ
aceeaóiȱ perioad©ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 14,ȱ 32,ȱ 37)600.ȱ Probabilȱ totȱ numeȱ semiticȱ esteȱ óiȱ Suliferaȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 44),ȱ pusȱ înȱ relaöieȱ cuȱ formaȱ sigurȱ semitic©ȱ SuleifȬ;ȱ purt©torulȱ lui,ȱ caȱ óiȱ celȱ
careȱ aȱ ridicatȱ monumentulȱ funerar,ȱ Entolios,ȱ arȱ fiȱ originariȱ maiȱ curândȱ dinȱ
CezareeaȱCappadociei601ȱdecâtȱdinȱCezareeaȱPalestinei602.ȱFrecventeȱsuntȱóiȱnumeleȱ
careȱdenot©ȱorigineaȱgreceasc©.ȱPeȱoȱstel©ȱfunerar©ȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȬVȱp.ȱChr.ȱîntâlnimȱ
peȱ Theodule,ȱ fiicaȱ preotuluiȱ Patriciusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 27).ȱ Totȱ deȱ origineȱ greceasc©,ȱ darȱ
frecventeȱ înȱ mediulȱ romanȱ sauȱ orientalȱ suntȱ óiȱ numeleȱ luiȱ Orestes,ȱ Timotheos603,ȱ
Eufemia,ȱ Kalliopeȱ óiȱ Heracleides.ȱ Pentruȱ numeleȱ Gheorgheȱ (Georgios)ȱ sȬaȱ remarcatȱ
frecvenöaȱ luiȱ înȱ limbaȱ greac©604.ȱ Reluareaȱ inscripöieiȱ IGLR,ȱ 52ȱ óiȱ reconstituireaȱ
corect©605ȱ stabileóteȱ caracterulȱ votivȱ (óiȱ nuȱ funerar)ȱ alȱ inscripöiei606.ȱ Acelaóiȱ
caracter,ȱ stabilitȱ óiȱ pentruȱ IGLR,ȱ 49607,ȱ esteȱ pusȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ cultulȱ Sfântuluiȱ
GheorgheȱcaȱsfântȱmilitarȱintratȱpeȱteritoriulȱDobrogei608ȱînȱsec.ȱVIȬVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Oȱimportanö©ȱdeosebit©ȱprezint©ȱóiȱnumeleȱlatine.ȱDinȱperioadaȱdeȱînceputȱaȱ
597
ȱDup©ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ274ȱ(datatȱînȱperioadaȱluiȱIustinian).ȱ
598
ȱVeziȱînȱgeneral,ȱL.ȱZgusta,ȱKleinasiatischeȱPersonennamen,ȱPrague,ȱ1964.ȱ
599
ȱ IGLR,ȱ p.ȱ 77;ȱ înȱ onomasticaȱ creótin©,ȱ Nazariusȱ esteȱ cunoscutȱ caȱ numeȱ deȱ martirȱ óiȱ
sfânt.ȱ
600
ȱ Pentruȱ frecvenöaȱ numeluiȱ înȱ Bulgariaȱ veziȱ V.ȱ Beševliev,ȱ Spätgriechischeȱ undȱ
spätlateinischeȱInschriftenȱausȱBulgarien,ȱBerlin,ȱ1964,ȱp.ȱ191.ȱ
601
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 275Ȭ276ȱ (argumentulȱ îlȱ constituieȱ relaöiileȱ destulȱ deȱ
intenseȱaleȱprovincieiȱScythiaȱMinorȱcuȱCappadociaȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.)ȱ
602
ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ44.ȱ
603
ȱPentruȱeventualitateaȱidentific©riiȱcuȱnumeleȱepiscopului,ȱveziȱmaiȱsus.ȱ
604
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ276.ȱ
605
ȱ N.ȱ Duval,ȱ Revueȱ Archéologique,ȱ 1980,ȱ p.ȱ 318Ȭ319ȱ (apudȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Sigiliiȱ óiȱ
inscripöiiȱdinȱDobrogeaȱ(sec.ȱVIȬVIIȱe.n.),ȱSCIVAȱ37ȱ(1986),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ137Ȭ139ȱóiȱn.ȱ20).ȱȱ
606
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
607
ȱRecitit©ȱ[Sanc]tiȱGeorgii.ȱ
608
ȱ P©trundereaȱ cultuluiȱ esteȱ considerat©ȱ normal©ȱ aiciȱ óiȱ înȱ spaöiulȱ IllyricumȬuluiȱ
Orientalȱ spreȱ deosebireȱ deȱ zonaȱ luiȱ apusean©,ȱ pân©ȱ laȱ Salonic,ȱ undeȱ înȱ aceeaóiȱ perioad©ȱ
dominantȱeraȱcultulȱSfântuluiȱDumitru;ȱveziȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
ȱ 89
ȱȱȱ
epociiȱ creótineȱ not©mȱ numeleȱ Aureliaȱ Ianuaria,ȱ fiicaȱ luiȱ Ianuarius,ȱ c©s©torit©ȱ cuȱȱ
FlaviusȱMartinusȱ(IGLR,ȱ21).ȱAlteȱmonumenteȱcreótineȱdinȱsecoleleȱVȱóiȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
menöioneaz©ȱ peȱ Terentius,ȱ filiusȱ Gaione(…)ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30)609,ȱ peȱ Marcellaȱ óiȱ peȱ fiulȱ eiȱ
Marcellusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 31),ȱ peȱMarciaȱ Aurelia,ȱ soöiaȱ unuiȱ oarecareȱ Marcusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 36);ȱ peȱ
AureliaȱVeneriaȱ(IGLR,ȱ39)ȱóiȱpeȱSabina,ȱLeontina,ȱVeneraȱ(IGLR,ȱ35),ȱpeȱIuliusȱAtzeisȱ
(=ȱ Attiusȱ sauȱ Atteius)ȱ óiȱ soöiaȱ saȱ Bonosa.ȱ kiȱ alteȱ numeȱ feminineȱ aparöinȱ epigrafieiȱ
creótine:ȱLupicinaȱ(IGLR,ȱ46,ȱnumeȱcreatȱdup©ȱformaȱmasculin©ȱLupicinus);ȱColunbaȱ
(pentruȱ Columba;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 51)ȱ óiȱ Romanaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 37),ȱ creatȱ totȱ dup©ȱ unȱ numeȱ
masculin,ȱRomanus.ȱ
BassianusȱóiȱIanuaria,ȱatestaöiȱpeȱoȱinscripöieȱînȱversuriȱdeȱlaȱînceputulȱȱȱȱȱsec.ȱ
IVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(IGLR,ȱ18),ȱambiiȱcuȱnumeȱromane,ȱdeplângȱsoartaȱcopiluluiȱlorȱmortȱdeȱ
timpuriu,ȱ Lillasȱ careȱ poart©ȱ unȱ numeȱ deȱ oȱ posibil©ȱ origineȱ trac©ȱ sauȱ bithynic©610.ȱ
Numeleȱ Diniasȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25),ȱ atestatȱ óiȱ înȱ câtevaȱ inscripöiiȱ dinȱ Bulgariaȱ óiȱ Beoöia,ȱ
prezint©ȱóiȱoȱform©ȱDinis,ȱc©reiaȱiȱseȱrecunoaóteȱoȱorigineȱtrac©.ȱ
Concludentȱ înȱ ceȱ priveóteȱ rolulȱ creótinismuluiȱ înȱ convertireaȱ populaöiilorȱ
migratoareȱóiȱincludereaȱacestoraȱînȱelementulȱlocalȱstabilȱesteȱmenöionareaȱpeȱunȱ
monumentȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ luiȱ Atala,ȱ fiulȱ luiȱ Tzeiukȱ (IGLR,ȱ 41)611.ȱ Numeleȱ luiȱ
Gaiones(Ȭas?)ȱdeȱpeȱoȱalt©ȱinscripöieȱ(IGLR,ȱ30)ȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱaparöinutȱunuiȱgotȱfederat.ȱ
Înȱ felulȱ acesta,ȱ religiaȱ creótin©,ȱ adaptat©ȱ maiȱ întâiȱ deȱ populaöiaȱ local©ȱ stabil©,ȱ
devineȱóiȱoȱcaracteristic©ȱaȱacesteiȱpopulaöiiȱînȱraportȱcuȱ„barbarii”ȱnecreótinaöiȱói,ȱ
ulterior,ȱ unȱ elementȱ deȱ atragereȱ óiȱ asimilareȱ aȱ acestora.ȱ Dincoloȱ deȱ aspectulȱ
aparentȱ eterogenȱ peȱ careȬlȱ ofer©ȱ antroponimia612ȱ reöinemȱ c©ȱ nouaȱ religieȱ creótin©ȱ
esteȱînȱprimulȱrândȱatributulȱpopulaöieiȱromanizateȱstabile,ȱiarȱc©ileȱdeȱp©trundereȱ
aȱeiȱdinȱOrientȱauȱtrecutȱmaiȱîntâiȱprinȱScythiaȱMinorȱóiȱprinȱcapitalaȱprovinciei.ȱ
ȱ
Stratigrafieȱóiȱurbanism.ȱ
Înȱ zonaȱ cercetat©ȱ arheologicȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedraleiȱ auȱ fostȱ surprinseȱ
nivelurileȱ IIIȬI,ȱ corespunz©toareȱ secolelorȱ IVȬVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Pentruȱ perioadaȱ careȱ aȱ
urmatȱ pân©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ afl©mȱ elementeȱ deȱ referinö©ȱ înȱ monumenteleȱ
publiceȱp©strate.ȱȱȱ
- Nivelulȱ IIIȱ aparöineȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ foarteȱ probabilȱ primeiȱ jum©t©öi,ȱ
datareȱ confirmat©ȱ deȱ maiȱ multeȱ monede.ȱ Majoritateaȱ monumentelorȱ p©strateȱ înȱ
zon©ȱauȱfostȱridicate/sauȱseȱsprijin©ȱpeȱacestȱnivel.ȱRefacerileȱóiȱreconstrucöiileȱdeȱ
laȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱauȱurmatȱuneiȱacöiuniȱdeȱnivelareȱgeneral©613.ȱ
- Nivelulȱ II,ȱ marcatȱ deȱ urmeleȱ unuiȱ incendiu,ȱ esteȱ databilȱ spreȱ sfâróitulȱ
ȱPatronimicȱconsideratȱgermanicȱ(got);ȱveziȱmaiȱsus,ȱarmata.ȱ
609
ȱÎnȱleg©tur©ȱcuȱaceast©ȱinscripöieȱveziȱcomentariulȱasupraȱ„copiei”ȱsaleȱdeȱlaȱCallatisȱ
610
(ISMȱIII,ȱ148).ȱNumeleȱfemeiiȱesteȱtranscrisȱ͑΅ΑΆ΅Εϟ΅.ȱAsupraȱluiȱ̎ϟΏΏ΅Ζ,ȱveziȱIGLR,ȱp.ȱ53.ȱ
611
ȱ Consideraöiȱ huniȱ elenizaöiȱ óiȱ creótinaöi;ȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ numeȱ suntȱ puseȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ
activitateaȱ misionar©ȱ printreȱ huniȱ aȱ episcopuluiȱ Theotimusȱ Iȱ alȱ Tomisului.ȱ Veziȱ Em.ȱ
Popescu,ȱcomentariuȱlaȱIGLR,ȱ41;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱSt.Teol,ȱ6ȱ(1954),ȱp.ȱ90,ȱ103,ȱnr.ȱ33;ȱidem,ȱDaciaȱ
NSȱ1ȱ(1957),ȱp.ȱ286.ȱ
612
ȱAnalizat©ȱînȱansambluȱpentruȱaceast©ȱperioad©ȱdeȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱpassim.ȱVeziȱ
óiȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱsupraȱ(n.ȱ488),ȱp.ȱ5Ȭ29.ȱȱ
613
ȱ Acöiuneaȱ deȱ nivelareȱ deȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ aȱ fostȱ surprins©ȱ óiȱ înȱ alteȱ
puncte:ȱ veziȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭ128ȱ (punct:ȱ str.ȱ Traian/BȬdulȱ Marinarilor);ȱ CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ291Ȭ292ȱ(punct:ȱstr.ȱMihaiȱViteazu).ȱ
90ȱ ȱ
ȱ
sec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱDeȱaltfel,ȱnivelurileȱIIȱóiȱIII,ȱcuȱurmeȱevidenteȱdeȱincendiu,ȱseȱafl©ȱlaȱ
adâncimiȱapropiateȱîntreȱeleȱóiȱsuntȱasem©n©toareȱcaȱstructur©.ȱ
- NivelulȱIȱ(formatȱdeȱfaptȱdinȱdou©ȱniveluri,ȱnotateȱI1ȱóiȱI2),ȱdeȱasemeneaȱ
foarteȱ apropiate,ȱ seȱ dateaz©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Datareaȱ seȱ bazeaz©ȱ peȱ descoperireaȱ
unuiȱ depozitȱ monetarȱ (deȱ aproximativȱ 200ȱ piese),ȱ aȱ c©ruiȱ limit©ȱ superioar©ȱ seȱ
termin©ȱ cuȱ emisiuniȱ dinȱ 402,ȱ 408ȱ óiȱ 423ȱ p.ȱ Chr.614ȱ Nivelulȱ I2ȱ esteȱ datatȱ înȱ primaȱ
jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ V,ȱ iarȱ nivelulȱ I1,ȱ înȱ ceaȱ deȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ óiȱ probabil,ȱ începutulȱ
sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Urmeleȱ deȱ locuireȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ auȱ fostȱ desfiinöateȱ înȱ zonaȱ
cercetat©ȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ amenajareaȱ parculuiȱ apropiatȱ Catedralei.ȱ Secolulȱ VIȱ esteȱ
doveditȱ îns©ȱ arheologicȱ prinȱ materialeȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ gropiȱ óiȱ înȱ straturileȱ deȱ
umplutur©.ȱ
Cercet©riȱrecenteȱ(2009,ȱ2010)ȱsurprindȱtotȱtreiȱniveluriȱarheologice,ȱcuȱuóoareȱ
nuanö©riȱprivindȱperioadeleȱdeȱînceputȱóiȱsfâróit:ȱ
- NivelulȱIIIȱesteȱstabilitȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
- Nivelulȱ I,ȱ esteȱ datatȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ seȱ
caracterizeaz©ȱ printrȬoȱ puternic©ȱ demantelareȱ aȱ amenaj©rilorȱ anterioare,ȱ înȱ
absenöa,ȱîns©,ȱaȱunorȱurmeȱfoarteȱclareȱdeȱincendiu.ȱ
- Întreȱele,ȱNȱII,ȱdiscontinuu,ȱareȱóiȱceaȱmaiȱlung©ȱdurat©ȱînȱtimp:ȱaȱdouaȱ
jum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱóiȱîntregȱsec.ȱVȱ(poateȱchiarȱóiȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVI)ȱp.ȱChr.615ȱ
Dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ urbanistic,ȱ nivelurileȱ cercetateȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedraleiȱ
marcheaz©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ oȱ schimbareȱ topografic©ȱ raportat©ȱ laȱ dou©ȱ axeȱ
stradaleȱdeȱbaz©.ȱ
Perioadaȱesteȱmarcat©ȱprinȱmariȱcomplexeȱcivile,ȱpavajeȱsuprapuseȱdeȱstr©zi,ȱ
canaliz©riȱ óiȱ unȱ posibilȱ complexȱ termal.ȱ Pentruȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ aȱ fostȱ identificatȱ unȱ
edificiuȱ cuȱ canalizareȱ proprie,ȱ cuȱ urmeȱ deȱ porticȱ óiȱ scar©ȱ interioar©,ȱ accesoriiȱ
întâlniteȱóiȱlaȱedificiileȱhistrieneȱdinȱzonaȱDomus616.ȱ
Complexeȱdeȱlocuire,ȱcuȱmaiȱmulteȱetapeȱconstructive,ȱuneleȱóiȱcuȱamenaj©riȱ
specialeȱ (curteȱ interioar©ȱ sauȱ spaöiiȱ deȱ depozitare)ȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ zonaȱ
imediatȱapropiat©ȱdeȱpeȱstr.ȱArhiepiscopiei617.ȱ
Urm©rindȱînȱcontinuareȱurbanismulȱtomitan,ȱdeȱlaȱzonaȱcercetat©ȱspreȱnord,ȱ
reöinemȱ nuȱ atâtȱ aspecteleȱ generale,ȱ câtȱ elementeleȱ careȱ facȱ posibileȱ nuanö©riȱ deȱ
natur©ȱcronologic©.ȱ
Înȱzonaȱapropiat©ȱfalezeiȱdeȱest,ȱlocuireaȱdeȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱesteȱsuprapus©ȱînȱ
sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ deȱ unȱ edificiuȱ aȱ c©ruiȱ suprafaö©ȱ mozaical©ȱ m©soar©ȱ cca.ȱ 60ȱ m2.ȱ
Epocaȱdeȱconstruireȱaȱluiȱesteȱplasat©ȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.:ȱînȱnivel©riȱsȬauȱg©sitȱdou©ȱ
monedeȱ datateȱ 355Ȭ360ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ ceramic©ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ
mozaiculȱ esteȱ deteriorat 618.ȱ Totȱ înȱ apropiereaȱ falezeiȱ deȱ est,ȱ peȱ str.ȱ Sulmona,ȱ oȱ
s©p©tur©ȱ deȱ salvareȱ aȱ dezvelitȱ p©röiȱ aleȱ unuiȱ edificiuȱ publicȱ dinȱ zidȱ masiv,ȱ unȱ
canalȱ deȱ scurgereȱ óiȱ pavajeȱ interioareȱ dinȱ daleȱ mariȱ deȱ piatr©,ȱ oȱ strad©ȱ orientat©ȱ
614
615
ȱVeziȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292,ȱnr.ȱ143,ȱPunct:ȱMihaiȱViteazu.ȱ
616
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ23;ȱ adaug©ȱ óiȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ
Aprovizionareaȱcuȱap©ȱaȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱConstanöaȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ57ȱ(edificiuȱtermalȱînȱcolöulȱdeȱSVȱalȱ
ParculuiȱCatedralei).ȱ
617
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱnr.ȱ73,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110ȱ(locuinöeleȱA,ȱBȱóiȱC).ȱ
618
ȱ 91
ȱȱȱ
c©treȱmareȱóiȱunȱbogatȱinventarȱarheologic:ȱceramic©ȱ–ȱamfore,ȱvaseȱdeȱuzȱcomun,ȱ
opaiöeȱ –ȱ vaseȱ deȱ sticl©,ȱ obiecteȱ dinȱ metal,ȱ monede,ȱ descopeririȱ careȱ încadreaz©ȱ
locuireaȱ dinȱ zon©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȬVIȱ (eventualȱ pân©ȱ înȱ primeleȱ deceniiȱ aleȱ sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.)619.ȱ Reöinemȱ óiȱ unȱ edificiuȱ termalȱ descoperitȱ peȱ str.ȱ 21ȱ decembrieȱ 1989,ȱ
compusȱdinȱtreiȱînc©periȱ(bazine),ȱpraefurnium,ȱcanale,ȱpuöȱzidit,ȱcareȱaȱfuncöionatȱ
înȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.620.ȱ
Construcöiileȱ deȱ peȱ falezaȱ deȱ Vestȱ –ȱ desemnateȱ prinȱ „mareleȱ edificiuȱ cuȱ
mozaic”ȱóiȱ„lentiarion”ȱfacȱparteȱdintrȬoȱamenajareȱurbanistic©ȱunitar©,ȱpresupus©ȱ
aȱ fiȱ începutȱ dintrȬoȱ perioad©ȱ anterioar©ȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ terminat©ȱ printrȬoȱ
distrugereȱcândvaȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVIȱóiȱînceputulȱȱȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Primulȱ edificiuȱ serveaȱ caȱ locȱ deȱ desf©óurareȱ aȱ vieöiiȱ socialȬeconomiceȱ óiȱ
comercialeȱ aȱ oraóului621.ȱ Plasatȱ înȱ faöaȱ portuluiȱ antic,ȱ edificiulȱ seȱ compuneȱ dinȱ
patruȱ teraseȱ ceȱ corespund,ȱ peȱ rând,ȱ niveluluiȱ deȱ locuireȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ anticȱ (A),ȱ
pavimentuluiȱcuȱmozaicȱ(B)ȱóiȱmagaziilorȱdeȱdepozitareȱaȱm©rfurilorȱ(teraseleȱCȱóiȱ
D).ȱ Corespunzândȱ teraseiȱ Bȱ esteȱ oȱ înc©pereȱ mare,ȱ pardosit©ȱ cuȱ pesteȱ 2000ȱ m2ȱ deȱ
mozaicȱpolicrom,ȱsuprafaö©ȱcareȱîlȱplaseaz©ȱîntreȱceleȱmaiȱmariȱdinȱimperiu.ȱZidulȱ
deȱsprijinȱalȱterasei,ȱspreȱest,ȱp©stratȱpeȱoȱlungimeȱdeȱ65ȱm,ȱareȱîn©löimeaȱmaxim©ȱ
deȱ 5,40ȱ m.ȱ Lucratȱ dinȱ rânduriȱ deȱ c©r©miziȱ alternândȱ cuȱ blocheteȱ deȱ calcar,ȱ zidulȱ
prezint©ȱ laȱ distanöeȱ deȱ 4ȱ metriȱ pilaótri,ȱ uniöi,ȱ seȱ pare,ȱ laȱ parteaȱ superioar©ȱ prinȱ
arcuri.ȱSuprafaöaȱziduluiȱeraȱacoperit©ȱcuȱmarmur©,ȱiarȱpilaótriiȱerauȱornamentaöiȱ
laȱ parteaȱ superioar©ȱ cuȱ capiteleȱ deȱ placat,ȱ decorate.ȱ Modific©riȱ ulterioareȱ
construiriiȱauȱad©ugatȱcaȱelementeȱnoi,ȱlaȱacestȱzid,ȱoȱnió©ȱóiȱoȱtribun©.ȱ
Dimensiunileȱ construcöieiȱ potȱ fiȱ fixateȱ peȱ bazaȱ celorlalteȱ ziduriȱ conservate:ȱ
celȱdeȱsud,ȱpeȱlungime,ȱdeȱ18ȱm,ȱcorespunz©toareȱl©öimiiȱedificiuluiȱóiȱparöialȱceleȱ
deȱ vestȱ óiȱ nord,ȱ toateȱ susöinândȱ acoperióulȱ înc©periiȱ deȱ tipȱ hal©.ȱ Parteaȱ ceaȱ maiȱ
interesant©ȱaȱînc©periiȱesteȱpavimentulȱcuȱmozaic,ȱdinȱcareȱsȬaȱp©stratȱoȱsuprafaö©ȱ
deȱ cca.ȱ 850ȱ m2.ȱ Decorulȱ const©ȱ dinȱ motiveȱ geometriceȱ óiȱ floraleȱ realizateȱ dinȱ
tesseraeȱ colorateȱ naturalȱ (singurulȱ elementȱ deȱ decorȱ zoomorfȱ esteȱ unȱ porumbel).ȱ
Suprafaöaȱ central©,ȱ lucrat©ȱ înȱ opusȱ vermiculatum,ȱ esteȱ acoperit©ȱ deȱ cercuriȱ mari,ȱ
distanöateȱ întreȱ ele,ȱ înscriseȱ înȱ p©trateȱ óiȱ desp©röiteȱ deȱ câmpuriȱ dreptunghiulareȱ
(diametrulȱ unuiȱ cercȱ esteȱ deȱ 7ȱ m).ȱ Terasaȱ Cȱ reprezint©ȱ nivelulȱ înc©perilorȱ –ȱ
magazii.ȱÎnȱnum©rȱdeȱ11,ȱeleȱauȱ11ȱmȱlungimeȱóiȱ6ȱmȱl©öime;ȱintr©rileȱmasive,ȱsuntȱ
înalteȱ deȱ 8ȱ m.ȱ Treaptaȱ deȱ josȱ aȱ falezei,ȱ ocupat©ȱ deȱ terasaȱ D,ȱ eraȱ destinat©ȱ altorȱ
magazii622;ȱaflat©ȱacumȱsubȱnivelulȱm©rii,ȱterasaȱesteȱacoperit©.ȱZonaȱcomplexuluiȱ
eraȱ legat©ȱ deȱ platformaȱ dinȱ faöaȱ cheiuluiȱ óiȱ deȱ nivelulȱ oraóuluiȱ printrȬoȱ scar©ȱ deȱ
calcarȱ cochilifer.ȱ SȬaȱ stabilitȱ c©ȱ edificiulȱ faceȱ parteȱ dintrȬunȱ sistemȱ unitarȱ deȱ
619
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱRaportȱpreliminarȱprivindȱcercet©rileȱarheologiceȱcuȱcaracterȱdeȱsalvareȱdinȱ
Constanöa,ȱstr.ȱSulmona,ȱnr.ȱ7,ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ171Ȭ200.ȱ
620
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ61Ȭ63ȱóiȱfig.ȱ1.ȱ
621
ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ L’édificeȱ àȱ mosaïqueȱ découvertȱ devantȱ leȱ portȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ229Ȭ240;ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱDateȱtehniceȱdespreȱEdificiulȱcuȱMozaicȱdinȱConstanöa,ȱBMIȱ39ȱ(1970),ȱ
3,ȱ p.ȱ 52Ȭ56;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Quelquesȱ nouvellesȱ considérationsȱ surȱ leȱ pavésȱ mosaïquesȱ deȱ Tomi,ȱ Daciaȱ
NSȱ20ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ265Ȭ268;ȱveziȱóiȱnoteleȱurm©toare.ȱȱ
622
ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ exilat,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1972,ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92:ȱ laȱ acestȱ nivelȱ seȱ
aflauȱ antrepoziteȱ portuare,ȱ compuseȱ dinȱ înc©periȱ deȱ mariȱ dimensiuniȱ (pesteȱ 150ȱ m 2 ),ȱ dou©ȱ
(sauȱ trei)ȱ bazineȱ tencuite;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ mss.,ȱ 2083ȱ Fondȱ Documentarȱ
MINAC,ȱp.ȱ9.ȱ
92ȱ ȱ
ȱ
construcöii,ȱridicateȱîntrȬoȱperioad©ȱdeȱprosperitateȱaȱoraóului,ȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱ
începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ óiȱ suferind,ȱ înȱ timpulȱ funcöion©riiȱ luiȱ complet©riȱ óiȱ
refaceri623.ȱMonedeleȱdeȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱaflateȱlaȱnivelulȱpodeleiȱuneiaȱdinȱmagaziiȱ
arȱ puteaȱ fiȱ unȱ indiciuȱ deȱ folosireȱ aȱ magaziilorȱ chiarȱ dintrȬoȱ perioad©ȱ maiȱ
timpurie624.ȱ Ultimulȱ nivelȱ deȱ funcöionareȱ alȱ edificiuluiȱ esteȱ datatȱ deȱ amforeleȱ
pr©buóiteȱ aflateȱ inȱ situ,ȱ unitareȱ dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ tipologicȱ óiȱ datateȱ spreȱ
sfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱóiȱînȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.625.ȱSubȱformeȱmodificateȱfuncöional,ȱedificiulȱaȱ
continuatȱs©ȱexisteȱóiȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.626.ȱ
Dup©ȱoȱalt©ȱopinie627ȱ„perioadaȱdeȱprosperitate”ȱînȱcareȱtrebuieȱs©ȱseȱfiȱridicatȱ
mozaiculȱesteȱstabilit©ȱnuȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIII/începutulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.,ȱciȱeventualȱ
înȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱînȱacordȱcuȱ„epocaȱînfloritoare”ȱaȱSeverilorȱóiȱ
chiarȱ aȱ Antoninilor.ȱ Argumenteȱ înȱ plusȱ suntȱ aflateȱ înȱ decoraöiaȱ capitelurilorȱ óiȱ aȱ
frizelorȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ óiȱ redatareaȱ capuluiȱ uneiȱ statuiȱ imperiale,ȱ spreȱ mijloculȱ óiȱ aȱ
douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.628.ȱ Maiȱ departe,ȱ fazaȱ aȱ IIȬaȱ óiȱ chiarȱ fazaȱ aȱ IIIȬaȱ aȱ
edificiuluiȱ suntȱ datateȱ înȱ plinȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Perioadaȱ deȱ încetareȱ aȱ funcöion©riiȱ
edificiuluiȱsȬarȱsituaȱóiȱeaȱmaiȱdevreme,ȱspreȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIV/sauȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVȱ
p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ formeȱ deȱ viaö©ȱ material©ȱ înȱ interiorulȱ edificiuluiȱ continuândȱ s©ȱ existeȱ
pân©ȱînȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Cumȱ nuȱ neȱ propunemȱ neap©ratȱ unȱ acordȱ întreȱ opiniileȱ exprimate,ȱ leȱ
menöion©mȱ caȱ varianteȱ acceptabileȱ întrȬoȱ eventual©ȱ reevaluareȱ aȱ întreguluiȱ
complex.ȱ
Aceeaóiȱ observaöieȱ esteȱ valabil©ȱ óiȱ pentruȱ „lentiarion”,ȱ pentruȱ careȱ reöinem:ȱ
similitudineaȱ sistemuluiȱ deȱ construcöieȱ cuȱ primulȱ edificiu;ȱ posibilaȱ datareȱ aȱ
inscripöieiȱ deȱ aiciȱ înȱ epocaȱ Severilor;ȱ óiȱ aflarea,ȱ dup©ȱ încetareaȱ funcöional©ȱ aȱ
construcöiei,ȱ aȱ unorȱ doveziȱ materialeȱ (opaiöe)ȱ deȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ
sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Edificiul,ȱ compusȱ dinȱ maiȱ multeȱ înc©peri,ȱ aȱ fostȱ înȱ mareȱ parteȱ
distrusȱ deȱ lucr©rileȱ moderne.ȱ Aiciȱ funcöionauȱ probabilȱ b©ileȱ (sauȱ unaȱ dinȱ b©ile)ȱ
publiceȱaleȱoraóului,ȱdup©ȱcumȱlas©ȱs©ȱseȱînöeleag©ȱinscripöiaȱdeȱpeȱancadramentulȱ
uneiaȱ dintreȱ intr©ri 629.ȱ SȬaȱ p©stratȱ salaȱ principal©ȱ (cuȱ oȱ suprafaö©ȱ deȱ 30ȱ xȱ 10ȱ m)ȱ óiȱ
623
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱconsider©ȱc©ȱpavimentulȱcuȱmozaicȱaȱfostȱrealizatȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱ
Vȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
624
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ Preciz©riȱ cronologiceȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ
Constanöa,ȱ BMIȱ 42ȱ (1973),ȱ 4,ȱ p.ȱ 59Ȭ60;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Descopeririȱ deȱ tipareȱ deȱ opaiöeȱ laȱ
Tomis,ȱPonticaȱ9ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ143Ȭ144ȱóiȱn.ȱ36,ȱ40.ȱ
625
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.ȱ reöineȱ maiȱ curândȱ primaȱ datare.ȱ Asupraȱ amforelor,ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Amforeȱ cuȱ inscripöiiȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 6ȱ (1973),ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 193Ȭ207.ȱ Adaug©,ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Ceramic©ȱ roman©ȱ târzieȱ cuȱ decorȱ ótampilatȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ
Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ ibidem,ȱ p.ȱ 153Ȭ192;ȱ M.ȱ Munteanu,ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Laȱ
céramiqueȱ romaineȱ tardiveȱ àȱ decorȱ estampéȱ découverteȱ àȱ Tomi,ȱ Ponticaȱ 9ȱ (1976),ȱ p.ȱ 147Ȭ154;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
C.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱȱp.ȱ135Ȭ146.ȱ
626
ȱM.ȱSâmpetru,ȱBMIȱ42ȱ(1973),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ59Ȭ60;ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ142Ȭ145.ȱ
627
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 349Ȭ351ȱ (=ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 129Ȭ130);ȱ
idem,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ27ȱóiȱ124ȱ(sec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr);ȱidem,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ119Ȭ120.ȱ
628
ȱ Înȱ privinöaȱ portretuluiȱ imperial,ȱ veziȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Monumenteȱ sculpturaleȱ descoperiteȱ
laȱedificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaicȱdinȱConstanöa,ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ206ȱ(sfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
629
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 389:ȱ ͒ΉΕκȱ ΆΓΙΏϛȱ Ύ΅ΘΉΗΎΉΙΣΗΟ΋/Θϲȱ ΏΉΑΘ΍ΣΕ΍ΓΑȱ ЀΔϲȱ ̴ΕΐϟΔΔΓΙȱ ̡ΘΘ΅;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
J.ȬȱL.ȱRobert,ȱRÉG,ȱ83ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ415,ȱnr.ȱ403.ȱ
ȱ 93
ȱȱȱ
unȱvestibulȱcuȱscar©ȱspreȱterasaȱoraóului630,ȱambeleȱpardositeȱcuȱpl©ciȱdeȱmarmur©ȱ
alb©.ȱȱ
Edificiiȱcuȱcaracterȱpublicȱsituateȱînȱspaöiulȱintraȱmurosȱalȱoraóuluiȱanticȱsuntȱ
óiȱ celeȱ óapteȱ basiliciȱ creótineȱ identificateȱ pân©ȱ acum.ȱ Înȱ sectorulȱ deȱ vestȱ alȱ cet©öiiȱ
seȱridicaȱ„basilicaȱmare” 631ȱ(1),ȱorientat©ȱESEȬVNVȱcuȱoȱsuprafaö©ȱdeȱ48,10ȱxȱ23,45ȱ
m;ȱaveaȱnaosȱdesp©röitȱprinȱdou©ȱrânduriȱdeȱcoloaneȱînȱtreiȱnave632,ȱnartexȱsimpluȱ
óiȱ tribuneȱ deasupraȱ navelorȱ laterale.ȱ Celȱ maiȱ importantȱ elementȱ constructivȱ esteȱ
criptaȱ înȱ form©ȱ deȱ cruceȱ (cuȱ oȱ suprafaö©ȱ deȱ 50ȱ m2)ȱ óiȱ împ©röit©ȱ înȱ óapteȱ
compartimenteȱ careȱ comunicauȱ întreȱ ele.ȱ Înȱ cript©ȱ seȱ ajungeaȱ printrȬunȱ culoarȱ înȱ
trepteȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ lungȱ deȱ 7,50ȱ m.ȱ Blocurileȱ folositeȱ înȱ construcöiaȱ treptelorȱ
provinȱ dinȱ monumenteȱ maiȱ vechi.ȱ Planulȱ orizontalȱ alȱ cripteiȱ seȱ poateȱ înscrieȱ
aproximativȱîntrȬunȱp©trat;ȱóaseȱdintreȱcompartimenteȱsuntȱp©trateȱ(2,20ȱxȱ2,20ȱm)ȱ
óiȱalȱóapteleaȱdreptunghiular,ȱînscrisȱînȱabsid©ȱ(cuȱdimensiunileȱdeȱ2,70ȱxȱ2,20ȱm).ȱ
Acoperióurileȱacestorȱînc©periȱerauȱînȱform©ȱdeȱcalot©ȱsferic©ȱóiȱnuȱdep©óeauȱ2,50ȱ
mȱ în©löimeȱ deȱ laȱ nivelulȱ deȱ c©lcareȱ alȱ criptei.ȱ Pereöiiȱ tencuiöiȱ erauȱ acoperiöiȱ cuȱ
picturi,ȱdinȱcareȱnȬauȱmaiȱr©masȱdecâtȱurmeȱslabe.ȱSȬauȱp©stratȱmiciȱporöiuniȱdinȱ
pavimentulȱ deȱ c©r©mid©ȱ alȱ naosuluiȱ óiȱ narthexuluiȱ óiȱ dinȱ dalajulȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ alȱ
altarului.ȱ SȬauȱ descoperitȱ fragmenteȱ deȱ fusuriȱ deȱ coloan©,ȱ deȱ capiteluri,ȱ pl©ciȱ deȱ
cancelliȱóiȱdinȱplacajulȱînȱmarmur©ȱalȱpereöilor.ȱBasilicaȱîndeplineaȱprobabilȱfuncöiaȱ
deȱcatedral©ȱaȱoraóuluiȱînȱsec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.633.ȱ
Laȱ NEȱ deȱ basilicaȱ mareȱ óiȱ laȱ cca.ȱ 35ȱ mȱ distanö©ȱ seȱ afl©ȱ basilicaȱ mic©ȱ (2),ȱ
orientat©ȱ NEȬSV634;ȱ eaȱ esteȱ aproapeȱ paralel©ȱ peȱ lungimeaȱ eiȱ cuȱ zidulȱ deȱ incint©,ȱ
identificatȱ înȱ apropiere.ȱ Lucr©rileȱ deȱ construcöieȱ moderneȱ auȱ permisȱ cercetareaȱ
paröial©ȱ aȱ monumentului.ȱ Lungimeaȱ esteȱ estimat©ȱ laȱ cca.ȱ 35ȱ m;ȱ celelalteȱ
dimensiuniȱ suntȱ 18,80ȱ mȱ l©öimeȱ óiȱ 8ȱ mȱ diametrulȱ absidei.ȱ Subȱ centrulȱ absideiȱ óiȱ
paröialȱsubȱnavaȱcentral©ȱseȱafl©ȱcripta,ȱaȱc©reiȱl©öimeȱm©surat©ȱînȱinteriorȱesteȱdeȱ
2,20ȱ m.ȱ Tencuialaȱ pereöilorȱ p©streaz©ȱ vagiȱ urmeȱ deȱ fresc©.ȱ Atâtȱ criptaȱ câtȱ óiȱ
pardosealaȱ basiliciiȱ ȱ suntȱ construiteȱ dinȱ c©r©mizi.ȱCâtevaȱ pieseȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ –ȱ unȱ
blocȱ paralelipipedicȱ folositȱ probabilȱ caȱ treapt©ȱ deȱ coborâreȱ înȱ cript©ȱ óiȱ unȱ
fragmentȱdinȱplacajulȱinteriorȱalȱpereöilorȱpoart©ȱresturiȱdeȱinscripöiiȱmaiȱvechi635.ȱ
Deȱ jurȱ împrejurulȱ basilicii,ȱ laȱ exterior,ȱ esteȱ unȱ pavajȱ deȱ daleȱ deȱ piatr©,ȱ
contemporanȱconstrucöiei.ȱ
Înȱapropiereȱdeȱfalezaȱînalt©ȱaȱportuluiȱsȬauȱaflatȱruineleȱuneiȱbasiliciȱcreótineȱ
(3)636,ȱ suprapuseȱ deȱ cl©direaȱ liceuluiȱ „Mihaiȱ Eminescu”.ȱ Dinȱ construcöiaȱ antic©ȱ sȬ
auȱ descoperitȱ numaiȱ fragmenteȱ dinȱ zidurileȱ deȱ laȱ r©s©ritȱ óiȱ unȱ culoarȱ careȱ duceȱ
c©treȱcriptaȱdeȱsubȱaltar;ȱaceastaȱseȱafl©ȱlaȱ–2,50ȱmȱsubȱnivelulȱpardoselei;ȱesteȱdeȱ
form©ȱ dreptunghiular©,ȱ cuȱ suprafaöaȱ deȱ 6,15ȱ xȱ 3,75ȱ mȱ óiȱ tavanȱ boltit.ȱ Parteaȱ deȱ
630
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticeȱ1ȱ(1968),ȱp.ȱ325Ȭ329.ȱȱ
631
ȱ A.ȱR©dulescu,ȱ MonumenteȱromanoȬbizantineȱ dinȱ sectorulȱ deȱ vestȱ alȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱ p.ȱ28Ȭ
84;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©,ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 128Ȭ131;ȱ idem,ȱ Lesȱ monumentsȱ paléochrétiensȱ deȱ Roumanie,ȱ
Roma,ȱ1977,ȱp.ȱ125Ȭ126.ȱ
632
ȱLungimeaȱaxial©ȱinterioar©ȱesteȱdeȱ43ȱm.ȱ
633
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ272;ȱvezi,ȱtotuóiȱmaiȱdeparte,ȱbasilicaȱnr.ȱ7.ȱ
634
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ23Ȭ27;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ126.ȱ
635
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱInscripöiiȱinediteȱdinȱDobrogea,ȱSCIVȱ14ȱ(1963),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ83,ȱnr.ȱ5ȱ(=ȱISM,ȱII,ȱ
90).ȱ
636
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ128;ȱidem,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ132Ȭ133.ȱ
94ȱ ȱ
ȱ
vestȱaȱcripteiȱoȱconstituieȱoȱînc©pereȱaproapeȱp©trat©ȱ(3,70ȱxȱ3,75ȱm),ȱcuȱîn©löimeaȱ
maxim©ȱ deȱ 2,32ȱ m.ȱ Peȱ pereöiiȱ înc©periiȱ seȱ maiȱ p©streaz©ȱ oȱ parteȱ dinȱ tencuialaȱ
pictat©;ȱ înȱ jum©tateaȱ inferioar©ȱ picturaȱ const©ȱ dinȱ chenareȱ dreptunghiulareȱ maiȱ
mari,ȱ iarȱ înȱ jum©tateaȱ superioar©ȱ óiȱ laȱ bazaȱ bolöiiȱ dinȱ chenareȱ maiȱ miciȱ cuȱ decorȱ
vegetal.ȱÎnȱparteaȱdeȱestȱaȱcripteiȱsuntȱziditeȱtreiȱmorminteȱboltiteȱînȱform©ȱdeȱnióeȱ
(înalteȱ deȱ 1,68ȱ mȱ óiȱ largiȱ deȱ 0,90ȱ m).ȱ Înȱ interiorulȱ cripteiȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ pl©ciȱ deȱ
marmur©ȱcuȱdecorȱprovenindȱdeȱlaȱamvonulȱbasilicii.ȱÎnȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱ
p.ȱChr.ȱprobabilȱaceastaȱvaȱfiȱfostȱcatedralaȱTomisuluiȱóiȱpoateȱchiarȱprimaȱbasilic©ȱ
episcopal©ȱ aȱ Scythieiȱ Minor637.ȱ Înȱ sprijinulȱ acesteiȱ ipotezeȱ pledeaz©ȱ uneleȱ
fragmenteȱ arhitectoniceȱ deȱ sec.ȱ IVȬVȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ pardosealaȱ deȱ mozaicȱ óiȱ execuöiaȱ
îngrijit©ȱaȱmonumentului638.ȱ
Alt©ȱ bazilic©ȱ (4)ȱ eraȱ situat©ȱ laȱ intrareaȱ portuluiȱ actual.ȱ Dezvelit©ȱ paröial,ȱ eaȱ
areȱlungimeaȱdeȱ24ȱmȱóiȱunȱdiametruȱalȱabsideiȱdeȱ8,70ȱm.ȱMonumentul,ȱcompus,ȱ
seȱ pare,ȱ dintrȬoȱ singur©ȱ nav©,ȱ aȱ fostȱ construitȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ înȱ interiorulȱ
unuiȱedificiuȱmaiȱmare,ȱdeȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.639.ȱȱ
Peȱ falezaȱ deȱestȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ anticȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperit©ȱ oȱ aȱ 5Ȭaȱ bazilic©,ȱ orientat©ȱ
NNEȬSSV.ȱ Construitȱ dinȱ piatr©ȱ óiȱ c©r©mid©ȱ edificiulȱ aȱ fostȱ afectatȱ deȱ lucr©rileȱ
moderne.ȱ Subȱ pavajulȱ altaruluiȱ seȱ afl©ȱ criptaȱ dreptunghiular©ȱ (1,52ȱ xȱ 1,22ȱ m),ȱ cuȱ
în©löimeaȱmaxim©ȱaȱtavanuluiȱboltitȱdeȱ2,05ȱm.ȱPeȱpereöiiȱdeȱest,ȱnordȱóiȱprobabilȱ
deȱ sudȱ aiȱ cripteiȱ óiȱ laȱ în©löimeaȱ deȱ 0,78ȱ mȱ deȱ laȱ nivelulȱ pardoseleiȱ auȱ fostȱ
practicateȱ nióe;ȱ ceaȱ deȱ peȱ pereteleȱ deȱ estȱ areȱ pictat©ȱ deasupraȱ cuȱ vopseaȱ roóieȱ oȱ
cruceȱlatin©ȱóiȱînȱnió©ȱeraȱdepusȱunȱvasȱ–ȱreliquarȱdeȱsticl©.ȱConstrucöiaȱesteȱdatat©ȱ
înȱsec.ȱVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.640.ȱ
Resturileȱ unuiȱ edificiuȱ basilicalȱ (6)ȱ cuȱ orientareaȱ NEȬSV,ȱ descoperitȱ înȱ 1979,ȱ
seȱafl©ȱtotȱpeȱfalezaȱdeȱest641.ȱAcestaȱseȱcompuneȱdintrȬunȱnartexȱóiȱoȱsingur©ȱnav©,ȱ
absidaȱ fiindȱ distrus©ȱ deȱ construcöiileȱ moderne.ȱ Elementulȱ constructivȱ celȱ maiȱ
însemnatȱ îlȱ constituieȱ puöulȱ dinȱ interiorulȱ navei,ȱ identificatȱ cuȱ unȱ baptisterium.ȱ
Construcöiaȱareȱcaȱlimit©ȱinferioar©ȱdeȱdatareȱsec.ȱVȱp.ȱChr.642.ȱ
Peȱ falezaȱ deȱ NEȱ aȱ peninsulei643ȱ sȬauȱ descoperitȱ înȱ 1989ȱ temeliileȱ celeiȱ maiȱ
mariȱ basiliciȱ (7)ȱ cunoscuteȱ pân©ȱ acumȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ cuȱ orientareaȱ NVȬSE.ȱ
Dimensiunileȱ exterioareȱ suntȱ deȱ 54,7ȱ xȱ 24,3ȱ m;ȱ laȱ nivelulȱ fundaöiilor,ȱ zidurileȱ auȱ
grosimeaȱdeȱcca.ȱ1,25ȱm;ȱînȱinterior,ȱdimensiunileȱnaosuluiȱsuntȱdeȱ32,1ȱxȱ21,7ȱm.ȱ
Dou©ȱ rânduriȱ deȱ coloaneȱ creaz©ȱ unȱ spaöiuȱ trinavat;ȱ absidaȱ areȱ oȱ deschidereȱ deȱ
9,15ȱmȱóiȱînȱexteriorȱseȱîncadreaz©ȱunuiȱpentagon.ȱDeȬaȱlungulȱziduluiȱdeȱnordȱalȱ
absideiȱ óiȱ legateȱ structuralȱ deȱ corpulȱ basiliciiȱ suntȱ treiȱ înc©periȱ anex©.ȱ Laturaȱ deȱ
637
ȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱTomis,ȱoraóulȱpoetuluiȱexilat,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1972,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ
24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ271Ȭ272.ȱ
638
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.,ȱ nuȱ excludeȱ posibilitateaȱ caȱ aceastaȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ catedralaȱ înȱ careȱ seȱ
aflaȱepiscopulȱBretanionȱlaȱsosireaȱluiȱValens.ȱ
639
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ128;ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱCreótinismulȱînȱScythiaȱMinorȱînȱcontextulȱ
vestȬpontic,ȱSibiuȬConstanöa,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ69.ȱ
640
ȱ Basilicaȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperit©ȱ peȱ str.ȱ Revoluöieiȱ dinȱ Decembrieȱ 1989ȱ colöȱ cuȱ str.ȱ 9ȱ Mai;ȱ
V.ȱLungu,ȱȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ69Ȭ70;ȱidem,ȱînȱIzvoareleȱcreótinismuluiȱromânesc,ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ158.ȱ
641
ȱBasilicaȱseȱafl©ȱlaȱ25ȱmȱsudȬvestȱdeȱhotelulȱPalace.ȱ
642
ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱCreótinismulȱînȱScythiaȱMinor…,ȱp.ȱ70.ȱ
643
ȱ Laȱ intersecöiaȱ str©zilorȱ Ecaterinaȱ Varga,ȱ NegruȬVod©ȱ óiȱ Mirceaȱ celȱ B©trân,ȱ veziȱ óiȱ
supraȱn.ȱ464.ȱ
ȱ 95
ȱȱȱ
nordȱ aȱ ansambluluiȱ eraȱ delimitat©ȱ deȱ unȱ portic,ȱ p©stratȱ fragmentar.ȱ Edificiulȱ aȱ
fostȱdatatȱîntreȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.644.ȱ
Ultimulȱ monumentȱ deȱ interesȱ publicȱ laȱ careȱ neȱ vomȱ referiȱ esteȱ zidulȱ deȱ
incint©ȱ romanoȬbizantin.ȱ Acestaȱ închideȱ ceaȱ maiȱ mareȱ suprafaö©ȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ antic;ȱ
urmeaz©ȱ unȱ traseuȱ careȱ uneóteȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ maluriȱ aleȱ peninsulei,ȱ spreȱ parteaȱ saȱ
continental©,ȱ deȱ laȱ SVȱ laȱ NE.ȱ Discuöiileȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ acestȱ monumentȱ auȱ avutȱ înȱ
vedereȱ deopotriv©ȱ traiectoriaȱ óiȱ cronologiaȱ construcöiei645.ȱ Înȱ privinöaȱ traiectoriei,ȱ
singuraȱ latur©ȱ careȱ nuȱ puneȱ problemeȱ esteȱ ceaȱ deȱ nord.ȱ Cercetat©ȱ înc©ȱ deȱ Vasileȱ
Pârvan,ȱ aceast©ȱ latur©ȱ areȱ dou©ȱ poröi:ȱ poartaȱ deȱ NEȱ cuȱ celebrulȱ „turnȱ alȱ
m©celarilor”646,ȱ areȱ oȱ deschidereȱ deȱ 4,34ȱ m.ȱ Poartaȱ deȱ SVȱ esteȱ flancat©ȱ deȱ turnuriȱ
deȱ ap©rareȱ rectangulareȱ cuȱ feöeleȱ frontaleȱ deȱ circaȱ 5,40ȱ m;ȱ curtinaȱ areȱ 3,20ȱ mȱ
grosime;ȱintrareaȱesteȱdeȱcircaȱ4ȱm.ȱ
Înȱ mortarulȱ segmentuluiȱ deȱ curtin©ȱ dintreȱ celeȱ dou©ȱ poröiȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ dou©ȱ
monedeȱdinȱtimpulȱluiȱTacitusȱ(275Ȭ276ȱp.ȱChr.)ȱóiȱProbusȱ(276Ȭ282ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
Orientareaȱ ziduluiȱ peȱ celelalteȱ laturiȱ esteȱ ipotetic©:ȱ spreȱ V/SVȱ curtineleȱ
urmeaz©ȱunȱunghiȱobtuz,ȱcareȱarȱputeaȱs©ȱaib©ȱlaȱpunctulȱdeȱîntâlnireȱunȱturnȱdeȱ
colö.ȱ Planulȱ incinteiȱ spreȱ SVȱ esteȱ reconstituitȱ înȱ funcöieȱ deȱ poröiuniȱ aleȱ ziduluiȱ
surprinseȱ ocazionalȱ óiȱ cuȱ orientareȱ uneoriȱ diferit©.ȱ Deȱ laȱ poartaȱ deȱ SVȱ zidulȱ seȱ
bifurc©:ȱoȱparteȱurmeaz©ȱdirecöiaȱaóteptat©ȱspreȱSV,ȱpân©ȱlaȱö©rmulȱm©rii,ȱundeȱoȱ
aglomerareȱ deȱ pietreȱ poateȱ fiȱ indiciulȱ incintei,ȱ posibilȱ chiarȱ aȱ uneiȱ poröiȱ aȱ ei 647;ȱ oȱ
alt©ȱparteȱurmeaz©ȱdirecöiaȱV/SV,ȱdup©ȱcareȱseȱabateȱspreȱsud,ȱspreȱacelaóiȱpunctȱ
terminalȱmarcatȱdeȱaglomerareaȱdeȱpietre648.ȱCercet©toriiȱapreciaz©ȱdat©riȱdiferiteȱ
pentruȱceleȱdou©ȱtraiecteȱaleȱincinteiȱspreȱV/SV:ȱprimulȱtraiectȱesteȱlegatȱorganicȱóiȱ
cronologicȱ deȱ curtinaȱ deȱ nordȱ (sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ alȱ
doileaȱ esteȱ oȱ curtin©ȱ ad©ugat©ȱ ulteriorȱ (sec.ȱ VȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ l©rgireaȱ spreȱ
vestȱaȱsuprafeöeiȱoraóuluiȱóiȱpentruȱap©rareaȱcentruluiȱeclesiasticȱalȱTomisului649.ȱ
Incintaȱcontinu©ȱóiȱspreȱEst,ȱdincoloȱdeȱturnulȱm©celarilor650,ȱóiȱmaiȱareȱaiciȱoȱ
644
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 70Ȭ71;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Étudesȱ byzantinesȱ etȱ postȬbizantines,ȱ II,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ34:ȱmonedeȱdeȱlaȱMauriciuȱTiberiuȱ(588Ȭ589)ȱóiȱFocasȱ(602Ȭ603).ȱ
645
ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱZidulȱcet©öiiȱTomi,ȱp.ȱ415Ȭ450;ȱV.ȱCanarache,ȱTomis,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1961,ȱȱȱȱȱȱp.ȱ
19Ȭ20;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 156Ȭ157ȱ óiȱ 163Ȭ164;ȱ N.ȱ Cheluö©ȬGeorgescu,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ
topografiaȱ Tomisuluiȱ ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ e.ȱ n.,ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 253Ȭ260;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Zidulȱ deȱ
ap©rareȱ alȱ Tomisului,ȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ târzie,ȱ înȱ reconstituireaȱ saȱ actual©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 28Ȭ29ȱ (1995Ȭ1996),ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ83Ȭ93;ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱL.ȱLungu,ȱPoartaȱmareȱaȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ201Ȭ208.ȱ
646
ȱ Numeleȱ dup©ȱ inscripöiaȱ IGLR,ȱ 8ȱ ceȱ indic©ȱ oȱ poröiuneȱ aȱ ziduluiȱ ref©cut©ȱ deȱ breaslaȱ
(asociaöia)ȱ m©celarilor;ȱ inscripöiaȱ esteȱ încastrat©ȱ înȱ paramentulȱ turnului:ȱ ̏΅ΎΉΏ΅Εϟ[ΝΑ]ȱ
ΔΉΈ΅ΘΓІ[Ε΅]ȱΔϱ(ΈΉΖ)ȱ̍̇;ȱveziȱóiȱIGLR,ȱ7ȱóiȱ9.ȱ
647
ȱVeziȱóiȱN.ȱToma,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱînȱCaieteȱARA,ȱ1ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ61Ȭ63,ȱ68Ȭ69ȱóiȱfig.ȱ1,ȱ2ȱóiȱ4,ȱcareȱ
reconstituieȱ 9ȱ sauȱ 10ȱ drumuriȱ „vechi”,ȱ raportândȱ uneleȱ dintreȱ acesteaȱ laȱ poröileȱ cet©öiiȱ
romanoȬbizantine;ȱ r©mânȱ ipoteticeȱ poröileȱ deȱ peȱ laturaȱ deȱ Vȱ aȱ incintei,ȱ notateȱ P 4 ȱ óiȱ P 5 ȱ (deȱ
undeȱpleac©ȱdrumurileȱspreȱsud).ȱ
648
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ88,ȱfig.ȱ4:ȱpietreȱuriaóeȱcareȱpotȱfiȱaleȱziduluiȱprev©zutȱaiciȱ
cuȱoȱpoart©.ȱ
649
ȱ N.ȱ Cheluö©ȬGeorgescu,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 86Ȭ87;ȱ L.ȱ Cliante,ȱ Unȱ nouȱ
segmentȱalȱincinteiȱtomitaneȱtârzii,ȱPonticaȱ39ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ249Ȭ258.ȱ
650
ȱObservaöieȱf©cut©ȱdeȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ417ȱóiȱpl.ȱI.ȱ
96ȱ ȱ
ȱ
poart©ȱ flancat©ȱ deȱ turnuri651.ȱ S©p©turileȱ arheologiceȱ efectuateȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ etapeȱ
auȱscosȱlaȱiveal©ȱansamblulȱdatȱdeȱturnurileȱdeȱap©rareȱaleȱuneiȱporöi 652.ȱTurnurile,ȱ
dinȱ careȱ sȬauȱ p©stratȱ 2Ȭ3ȱ rânduriȱ deȱ asize,ȱ auȱ avutȱ p©röileȱ frontaleȱ semicirculare.ȱ
Turnulȱ deȱ SVȱ areȱ lungimeaȱ deȱ aproximativȱ 15ȱ m,ȱ iarȱ l©öimeaȱ (m©surat©ȱ laȱ bazaȱ
arculuiȱfrontal)ȱesteȱdeȱ11,50ȱm;ȱelevaöiaȱareȱgrosimeaȱdeȱ3,5ȱm,ȱiarȱcrepidaȱdeȱ0,45ȱ
m.ȱ Câtevaȱ elementeȱ constructiveȱ confer©ȱ unȱ caracterȱ particularȱ turnului.ȱ Laturaȱ
interioar©ȱdeȱNEȱascundeȱunȱtunelȱlatȱdeȱ1ȱmȱóiȱînaltȱdeȱ2ȱm;ȱpornitȱdinspreȱzidulȱ
deȱ incint©ȱ acestaȱ seȱ deschideȱ înȱ interiorulȱ turnului;ȱ podeauaȱ tuneluluiȱ seȱ afl©ȱ laȱ
cca.ȱ 0,70ȱ mȱ subȱ nivelulȱ fundaöieiȱ turnului.ȱ Dinȱ celȱ deȱ alȱ doileaȱ turn,ȱ afectatȱ deȱ
distrugeriȱ moderne,ȱ seȱ p©streaz©ȱ doarȱ leg©turaȱ frontal©ȱ semicircular©.ȱ Caleaȱ deȱ
accesȱaȱporöiiȱesteȱlarg©ȱdeȱ10,5ȱmȱóiȱareȱunȱdalajȱdeȱpiatr©.ȱPoarta,ȱcuȱdeschidereaȱ
spreȱNV,ȱareȱoȱl©öimeȱtotal©ȱdeȱpesteȱ31ȱmȱ(öinândȱcontȱóiȱdeȱlaturileȱexterioareȱaleȱ
celorȱdou©ȱturnuri).ȱDimensiunileȱóiȱcomplexitateaȱturnurilorȱóiȱdimensiunileȱc©iiȱ
principaleȱdeȱaccesȱconducȱlaȱapreciereaȱc©ȱaceastaȱesteȱpoartaȱceaȱmaiȱimportant©ȱ
aȱcet©öii.ȱReliefulȱpeninsuleiȱaȱsuferitȱînȱtimpȱmodific©riȱdatorateȱeroziuniiȱmarine;ȱ
poartaȱnuȱavea,ȱînȱantichitate,ȱpoziöiaȱperiferic©,ȱpeȱcare,ȱfals,ȱsuntemȱtentaöiȱs©ȱiȬoȱ
atribuimȱ ast©zi653.ȱ Dincoloȱ deȱ alȱ doileaȱ turn,ȱ incintaȱ continuaȱ spreȱ mare654.ȱ
Întrebareaȱdac©ȱTomisȱaȱavutȱoȱincint©ȱperimetral©ȱsauȱpeninsulaȱeraȱap©rat©ȱdoarȱ
dinspreȱ continentȱ nuȬóiȱ g©seóteȱ unȱ r©spunsȱ sigur655.ȱ Dinȱ punctȱ deȱ vedereȱ
cronologic656ȱconstrucöiaȱincinteiȱtârziiȱaȱpututȱîncepeȱînȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIIIȱ
p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ dup©ȱ invaziaȱ goöilor.ȱ Acöiuneaȱ constructiv©ȱ aȱ pututȱ fiȱ iniöiat©,ȱ eventual,ȱ
deȱ Gallienus657.ȱ Eaȱ aȱ fostȱ continuat©ȱ (dac©ȱ nuȱ chiarȱ început©)ȱ deȱ Aurelianȱ óiȱ
Tacitus658ȱóiȱterminat©,ȱprobabil,ȱdeȱDiocletian659ȱ(înȱtimpulȱc©ruiaȱseȱridic©ȱporöileȱ
651
ȱ Oȱ prim©ȱ descriereȱ aȱ monumentuluiȱ oȱ afl©mȱ laȱ Sc.ȱ Lambrino,ȱ înȱ Arhivaȱ pentruȱ
ótiinö©ȱóiȱreform©ȱsocial©,ȱ14ȱ(1936),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ912Ȭ917.ȱ
652
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ L.ȱ Lungu,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.;ȱ cercet©rileȱ sȬauȱ desf©óuratȱ înȱ aniiȱ 1988,ȱ 1991Ȭ1992,ȱ
1993ȱóiȱ1998.ȱ
653
ȱZiduriȱantice,ȱrupte,ȱvizibileȱînȱpuncteleȱfalezei,ȱconfirm©ȱaceast©ȱipotez©.ȱDeȱaltfel,ȱ
pân©ȱ înȱ urm©ȱ cuȱ jum©tateȱ deȱ secolȱ existaȱ aiciȱ stradaȱ C©r©midari,ȱ careȱ aȱ disp©rutȱ datorit©ȱ
surp©riiȱmalului.ȱ
654
ȱ Zidulȱ deȱ incint©ȱ pareȱ s©ȱ dep©óeasc©ȱ ipoteticaȱ latur©ȱ exterioar©ȱ aȱ turnuluiȱ deȱ NE;ȱ
veziȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱL.ȱLungu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ205ȱóiȱn.ȱ15;ȱveziȱóiȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱM.ȱAdumitroaie,ȱ„Lifeȱ
(afterȱ town)ȱ inȱ town”,ȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minor.ȱ Interpret©riȱ stratigrafice,ȱ Peuceȱ SN,ȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ265ȱcareȱamintescȱóanöulȱdeȱap©rare,ȱaflatȱlaȱ16,5ȱmȱestȱdeȱliniaȱfrontal©ȱaȱturnurilor,ȱaleȱ
c©ruiȱ maluriȱ erauȱ placateȱ cuȱ blocuriȱ semifasonateȱ deȱ calcar;ȱ poartaȱ aȱ funcöionatȱ pân©ȱ celȱ
puöinȱînȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱsocotindȱdup©ȱmonedeleȱFocasȱdescoperiteȱînȱzon©.ȱ
655
ȱ Veziȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92,ȱ undeȱ suntȱ notateȱ óiȱ „vagiȱ indicii”ȱ c©ȱ arȱ fiȱ
existatȱoȱincint©ȱperimetral©.ȱ
656
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 348Ȭ350ȱ (=ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 128Ȭ129),ȱ
propuneȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ aceeaóiȱ datareȱ óiȱ laȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 59Ȭ72,ȱ peȱ bazaȱ
existenöeiȱpeȱfalezaȱdeȱSVȱaȱTomisuluiȱaȱunorȱedificiiȱmonumentale,ȱprecumȱcelȱ„cuȱsc©r©”,ȱ
construitȱ probabilȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ totȱ aici,ȱ ipotezaȱ
uneiȱposibileȱstr©ziȱlaȱnivelulȱportuluiȱantic.ȱȱ
657
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ156.ȱ
658
ȱ Veziȱ monedeleȱ aflateȱ înȱ emplectonulȱ construcöiei,ȱ cf.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 84Ȭ
85,ȱn.ȱ5ȱóiȱ6.ȱ
659
ȱ Autoriiȱ raportuluiȱ deȱ cercetareȱ arheologic©ȱ dinȱ Tomis,ȱ punctȱ –ȱ str.ȱ Mihaiȱ Viteazu,ȱ
bazaöiȱ peȱ începutulȱ locuiriiȱ înȱ acestȱ sector,ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ reöinȱ aceast©ȱ dat©ȱ óiȱ pentruȱ
ridicareaȱincinteiȱtârziiȱaȱoraóului;ȱveziȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292.ȱȱ
ȱ 97
ȱȱȱ
sauȱpoartaȱcet©öiiȱ;ȱIGLR,ȱ3).ȱNuȱesteȱexclus©ȱniciȱposibilitateaȱcaȱlucrareaȱs©ȱfiȱfostȱ
terminat©ȱdeȱConstantinȱcelȱMare660.ȱPoröiuniȱaleȱincinteiȱauȱfostȱref©cuteȱînȱtimpulȱ
împ©ratuluiȱ Iustinianȱ (sauȱ poateȱ chiarȱ înȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Anastasius).ȱ Siguranöaȱ
construcöieiȱaȱpututȱpermiteȱap©rareaȱoraóuluiȱanticȱpân©ȱînȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Structuraȱurban©ȱaȱTomisuluiȱdinȱaceast©ȱperioad©ȱesteȱcompletat©ȱdeȱtraseeȱ
deȱstr©zi,ȱcanaleȱdeȱscurgere,ȱpavaje,ȱcomplexeȱdeȱlocuire,ȱfundaöiiȱdeȱpilaótriȱceȱarȱ
indicaȱ unȱ posibilȱ portic,ȱ amenaj©riȱ rectangulareȱ cuȱ gropiȱ deȱ proviziiȱ înȱ interiorȱ
sauȱdoarȱgropiȱmasive,ȱneprotejate661.ȱ
Înȱ apropiereaȱ incinteiȱ seȱ aflauȱ cuptoarele;ȱ înȱ zonaȱ deȱ NVȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ sȬauȱ
identificatȱ6ȱcuptoareȱdeȱarsȱc©r©mid©662ȱ(3ȱînȱzonaȱap©rat©ȱdeȱincintaȱcet©öiiȱóiȱ3ȱînȱ
afar©)663.ȱ Celeȱ dou©ȱ grupuriȱ deȱ cuptoareȱ reprezint©ȱ înȱ faptȱ complexeȱ deȱ instalaöiiȱ
meóteóug©reóti.ȱConstruiteȱpeȱoȱsuprafaö©ȱrestrâns©664,ȱeleȱauȱfuncöionatȱsimultan.ȱ
Alegereaȱ terenuluiȱ esteȱ legat©,ȱ peȱ deȱ oȱ parte,ȱ deȱ necesitateaȱ deȱ aȱ construiȱ înȱ
sectorulȱdeȱvest,ȱiarȱpeȱdeȱalt©ȱparteȱdeȱcalitateaȱargilei.ȱPeȱplatformaȱunuiaȱdintreȱ
cuptoareȱ sȬauȱ aflatȱ c©r©miziȱ deȱ acelaóiȱ tipȱ cuȱ celeȱ identificateȱ înȱ pardosealaȱ
basilicilorȱ dinȱ apropiere665.ȱ Maiȱ multeȱ elementeȱ pledeaz©ȱ pentruȱ datareaȱ
cuptoarelorȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.:ȱ materialulȱ ceramicȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ
roman©Ȭtârzie,ȱ preponderentȱ înȱ mediulȱ stratigraficȱ alȱ cuptoarelor;ȱ aspectulȱ
rudimentarȱ alȱ construiriiȱ instalaöiilor;ȱ identitateaȱ tipologic©ȱ dintreȱ c©r©mizileȱ
întrebuinöateȱ laȱ basilicileȱ paleocreótineȱ óiȱ celeȱ deȱ peȱ platformaȱ unuiaȱ dintreȱ
cuptoare;ȱ apartenenöaȱ laȱ epocaȱ târzieȱ aȱ stratuluiȱ deȱ cultur©ȱ contemporanȱ
cuptoarelor.ȱ
Ateliereȱ ceramiceȱ vorȱ fiȱ existatȱ îns©ȱ înȱ num©rȱ maiȱ mareȱ decâtȱ arat©ȱ
descoperirileȱ arheologiceȱ deȱ pân©ȱ acum.ȱ Înȱ modȱ sigurȱ aȱ existatȱ unȱ atelierȱ deȱ
producereȱ aȱ opaiöelor:ȱ oȱ dovedescȱ ótampileleȱ produc©torilor666,ȱ depoziteleȱ óiȱ
tipareleȱdeȱopaiöeȱdescoperiteȱlaȱTomis667.ȱȱ
660
ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ p.ȱ 17;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 163;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ
p.ȱ157.ȱ
661
ȱDescoperirilorȱmaiȱvechiȱdeȱlaȱParculȱCatedraleiȱliȱseȱadaug©ȱceleȱrecente,ȱaflateȱpeȱ
loculȱ actualeiȱ Camereȱ aȱ Notarilorȱ Publiciȱ (CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭ128,ȱ nr.ȱ 79)ȱ sauȱȱȱȱ
str.ȱMihaiȱViteazu,ȱsediulȱOCPIȱConstanöaȱ(CCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292,ȱnr.ȱ143).ȱ
662
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱMonumenteȱromanoȬbizantine,ȱp.ȱ5Ȭ23.ȱ
663
ȱ Unȱ altȱ cuptor,ȱ necercetat,ȱ sȬaȱ aflatȱ totȱ înȱ apropiereaȱ incintei,ȱ spreȱ est;ȱ veziȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A.ȱR©dulescu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ6,ȱn.ȱ5.ȱ
664
ȱ Distanöeleȱ deȱ laȱ unȱ cuptorȱ laȱ altulȱ suntȱ deȱ 10Ȭ12ȱ m.ȱ Asupraȱ complexelorȱ artizanaleȱ
dinȱregiuneȱveziȱóiȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ230.ȱȱ
665
ȱ Seȱ consider©ȱ aproapeȱ sigurȱ c©ȱ primulȱ grupȱ deȱ cuptoareȱ aȱ fostȱ specialȱ creatȱ pentruȱ
construcöiaȱbasilicilor.ȱ
666
ȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Opaiöe,ȱ p.ȱ 17Ȭ18,ȱ tipȱ XIX:ȱ „̏ΣΕΎΓΙȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘ΋Ζȱ πΔΓϟΉ΍”;ȱ alteȱ numeȱ deȱ
produc©toriȱtomitani:ȱ̈ЁΎΘφΐΝΑ,ȱ̡ΐ΍΅Ζ,ȱlaȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱG.ȱBordeianu,ȱOȱnou©ȱdescoperireȱdeȱ
lucerneȱ laȱConstanöa,ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 269Ȭ276ȱ (pieseȱaflateȱ întrȬunȱmormântȱ óiȱdatateȱlaȱ
mijloculȱ sauȱ alȱ treileaȱ sfertȱ alȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ cuȱ oȱ circulaöieȱ maiȱ îndelungat©);ȱ unȱ numeȱ
̈Ё(…)ȱ apareȱ peȱ unȱ opaiöȱ deȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.:ȱ veziȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Unȱ depozitȱ deȱ
lucerneȱlaȱConstanöa,ȱPonticaȱ3ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ237Ȭ238,ȱnr.ȱ1.ȱVeziȱrecentȱóiȱVioricaȱRusuȬBolindeö,ȱ
Theȱ lampsȱ fromȱ theȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ timesȱ atȱ Histria.ȱ Anȱ introductionȱ onȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ theȱ lampȱ
producingȱ workshopsȱ inȱ Romanȱ Dobrogea,ȱ inȱ Antiquitasȱ IstroȬPontica,ȱ Mélangesȱ d’archéologieȱ etȱ
d’histoireȱancienneȱoffertsȱàȱAlexandruȱSuceveanu,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ401Ȭ419.ȱ
667
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ articolulȱ deȱ sintez©ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Dieȱ lokaleȱ Herstellungȱ derȱ
Beleuchtungsgegenständeȱ–ȱLucernae,ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ209.ȱ
98ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Laȱ cca.ȱ 200ȱ mȱ deȱ zidulȱ deȱ incint©ȱ romanȱ târziuȱ sȬauȱ aflat668ȱ întrȬoȱ groap©ȱ
antic©ȱ 141ȱ deȱ opaiöeȱ sparte;ȱ toateȱ suntȱ rebuturiȱ deȱ fabricaöieȱ aleȱ unuiȱ atelierȱ
local669,ȱ aleȱ c©ruiȱ instalaöiiȱ trebuieȱ s©ȱ seȱ fiȱ aflatȱ înȱ apropiere.ȱ Pieseleȱ auȱ fostȱ
produseȱ fieȱ cuȱ tipareȱ importate,ȱ fie,ȱ maiȱ probabil,ȱ prinȱ copiereaȱ unorȱ originaleȱ
importateȱlaȱoȱdat©ȱdeȱplasatȱînȱprimaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.670.ȱTipareleȱcareȱsȬ
auȱ p©stratȱ ascunseȱ întreȱ pietreleȱ zid©rieiȱ uneiaȱ dinȱ bolöileȱ edificiuluiȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ
suntȱ maiȱ târzii:ȱ secolulȱ VI,ȱ eventualȱ óiȱ primaȱ jum©tateȱ (sauȱ începutul)ȱ sec.ȱ VIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.671.ȱPrezenöaȱtiparelorȱpresupuneȱexistenöaȱînȱapropiere,ȱdac©ȱnuȱchiarȱînȱzonaȱ
edificiului,ȱaȱunorȱateliereȱmeóteóug©reóti672.ȱȱ
Prezumtiv©ȱr©mâneȱproducöiaȱsticleiȱlaȱTomis:ȱînȱapropiereaȱcl©diriiȱactualeȱaȱ
muzeuluiȱ deȱ art©ȱ popular©ȱ sȬauȱ descoperitȱ urmeleȱ aȱ dou©ȱ cuptoare,ȱ careȱ nuȱ auȱ
pututȱfiȱîns©ȱpeȱ deplinȱcercetate673.ȱDeóiȱ existenöaȱunuiaȱsauȱmaiȱmultorȱcuptoareȱ
pentruȱ fabricareaȱ sticleiȱ arȱ fiȱ fireasc©,ȱ eaȱ nuȱ poateȱ fiȱ susöinut©ȱ deocamdat©ȱ decâtȱ
cuȱtitluȱipotetic.ȱ
Urmeleȱ unuiȱ atelierȱ deȱ prelucrareȱ aȱ marmureiȱ auȱ fostȱ identificateȱ deȱ maiȱ
multȱtimpȱ(1958),ȱlaȱbazaȱfalezeiȱdeȱvestȱaȱoraóului,ȱlaȱnivelulȱportuluiȱantic674.ȱDinȱ
aceeaóiȱ zon©,ȱ înainteȱ deȱ 1900,ȱ cuȱ ocaziaȱ lucr©rilorȱ deȱ construcöiiȱ óiȱ amenaj©riȱ
portuareȱ auȱ fostȱ recuperateȱ maiȱ multeȱ pieseȱ masiveȱ dinȱ marmur©675.ȱ Seȱ pareȱ c©ȱ
atelierulȱ eraȱ destinatȱ înȱ principalȱ prelucr©riiȱ marmureiȱ pentruȱ construcöiileȱ
monumentale676.ȱ
Producöiaȱ local©ȱ nuȱ diminueaz©ȱ importanöaȱ produselorȱ proveniteȱ dinȱ
importuri.ȱ Provinciiȱ caȱ Egiptul,ȱ Palestinaȱ sauȱ Siriaȱ seȱ afl©ȱ peȱ primeleȱ locuriȱ înȱ
privinöaȱ produselorȱ peȱ careȱ leȱ realizauȱ óiȱ leȱ exportau677.ȱ Scythiaȱ óiȱ implicitȱ Tomisȱ
întreöineauȱ relaöiiȱ comercialeȱ atâtȱ cuȱ centreȱ economiceȱ dinȱ cadrulȱ imperiului,ȱ câtȱ
óiȱ dinȱ afaraȱ acestuia,ȱ primeleȱ centreȱ fiindȱ îns©ȱ óiȱ celeȱ maiȱ importante.ȱ Laȱ Tomisȱ
soseauȱ amforeȱ cuȱ produseȱ atâtȱ dinȱ zonaȱ syroȬpalestinian©,ȱ câtȱ óiȱ dinȱ Mediteranaȱ
668
ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱPonticaȱ3ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ237Ȭ254.ȱ
669
ȱ Dup©ȱ restaurareȱ sȬauȱ stabilitȱ 10ȱ varianteȱ deȱ opaiöeȱ careȱ seȱ încadreaz©ȱ înȱ câtevaȱ
tipuriȱimportante.ȱ
670
ȱAutorulȱstudiuluiȱareȱînȱvedereȱchiarȱperioadaȱluiȱConstantinȱcelȱMare.ȱ
671
ȱ C.ȱIconomu,ȱPonticaȱ 9ȱ (1976),ȱ p.ȱ 135Ȭ146;ȱascundereaȱ pieselorȱ esteȱ pus©ȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ
cuȱunȱpericolȱceȱameninöaȱTomisulȱînȱaceast©ȱperioad©;ȱpericolulȱesteȱidentificatȱînȱinvaziileȱ
avaroȬslaveȱ dinȱ 601Ȭ602ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (dataȱ coincideȱ óiȱ cuȱ ultimaȱ distrugereȱ aȱ edificiuluiȱ cuȱ
mozaic).ȱȱ
672
ȱ S©p©turileȱ arheologiceȱ deȱ laȱ edificiulȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ auȱ datȱ óiȱ pesteȱ cuptoareȱ deȱ
c©r©mid©ȱóiȱdeȱvar,ȱdarȱeleȱaparöinȱunorȱepociȱmaiȱnoi;ȱveziȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ144ȱóiȱn.ȱ
41,ȱ42.ȱ
673
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱVaseȱanticeȱdeȱsticl©ȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1968,ȱp.ȱ154Ȭ156.ȱ
674
ȱAiciȱsȬauȱdescoperitȱmaiȱmulteȱmonumenteȱaflateȱînȱdiverseȱstadiiȱdeȱprelucrare:ȱoȱ
arhitrav©ȱ deȱ 5ȱ mȱ lungime,ȱ oȱ cornió©,ȱ dou©ȱ capiteleȱ deȱ colöȱ óiȱ parteaȱ superioar©ȱ aȱ unuiȱ
sarcofag.ȱ Veziȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ 1961,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ35;ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 120ȱ óiȱ urm.;ȱ opinieȱ diferit©,ȱ
N.ȱ Toma,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 65Ȭ68ȱ dup©ȱ careȱ pieseleȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ nefinisateȱ arȱ indicaȱ unȱ óantierȱ deȱ
construcöieȱóiȱnuȱunȱatelierȱdeȱprelucrareȱaȱmarmurei.ȱ ȱ
675
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Correntiȱ d’arteȱ eȱ riflessiȱ d’ambienteȱ suȱ alcuniȱ ritrattiȱ delȱ Museoȱ
NationaleȱdiȱAntichità,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ2ȱ(1958),ȱp.ȱ267,ȱn.ȱ19.ȱ
676
ȱ Perioadaȱ saȱ deȱ maxim©ȱ funcöionareȱ seȱ plaseaz©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Pentruȱ
construcöiileȱdeȱpeȱfalezaȱdeȱsudȬvestȱveziȱacumȱN.ȱToma,ȱop.ȱcit.ȱ
677
ȱVeziȱA.ȱOpaiö,ȱAspecteȱaleȱvieöiiȱeconomiceȱdinȱprovinciaȱScythiaȱ(secoleleȱIVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
Producöiaȱceramiciiȱlocaleȱóiȱdeȱimport,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1996,ȱpassim.ȱ
ȱ 99
ȱȱȱ
apusean©.ȱ Multeȱ dinȱ amforeleȱ descoperiteȱ laȱ edificiulȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ conöineauȱ r©óiniȱ
vegetaleȱ (colophoniu,ȱ terebentin©,ȱ mastix),ȱ multeȱ veniteȱ deȱ peȱ coastaȱ deȱ vestȱ aȱ
Asieiȱ Mici,ȱ iarȱ alteleȱ deȱ peȱ coasteleȱ Arabieiȱ óiȱ Somaliei678.ȱ Înȱ 599ȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ cândȱ
Tomisȱ eraȱ asediatȱ deȱ avari,ȱ aȱ fostȱ posibilȱ s©ȱ seȱ deaȱ hanuluiȱ avarȱ câtevaȱ soiuriȱ deȱ
condimenteȱexotice,ȱsositeȱprobabilȱdinȱIndia679.ȱEsteȱposibilȱcaȱuneleȱamforeȱcareȱ
poart©ȱ inscripöiiȱ cuȱ caracterȱ creótin,ȱ s©ȱ reprezinteȱ daruriȱ trimiseȱ deȱ episcopiiȱ
sirieniȱ c©treȱ episcopulȱ deȱ Tomis680.ȱ Maiȱ multȱ decâtȱ alteȱ oraóeȱ dinȱ zonaȱ pontic©,ȱ
Tomisȱexceleaz©ȱprinȱvarietateaȱamforelorȱnordȱafricane.ȱDac©ȱlaȱaceast©ȱvarietateȱ
deȱ amforeȱ ad©ug©mȱ óiȱ peȱ aceeaȱ aȱ veseleiȱ deȱ mas©681ȱ óiȱ aȱ opaiöelorȱ deȱ iluminat682,ȱ
avemȱoȱimagineȱcomplet©ȱaȱproduselorȬmarf©ȱajunseȱînȱacestȱoraó.ȱ
Organizareaȱ financiar©ȱ óiȱ comercial©ȱ aȱ provinciei683ȱ esteȱ ilustrat©ȱ deȱ oȱ serieȱ
deȱdescopeririȱdeȱlaȱTomis:ȱFlaviusȱServandus,ȱΔΉΕϟΆΏΉΔΘΓΖȱΎϱΐ΋ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΩΕΛΝΑ,ȱaȱ
pusȱînȱcirculaöieȱexagiumȱ(πΒΣ·΍ΓΑ)ȱ–ȱoȱunitateȱdeȱm©sur©ȱ(óiȱverificare)ȱaȱmonedeiȱ
deȱ aurȱ (solidus)ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 86;ȱ sec.ȱ Vȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ elȱ aplic©ȱ foarteȱ probabilȱ dispoziöiileȱ
autorit©öilorȱ imperiale,ȱ existândȱ óiȱ alteȱ doveziȱ înȱ provincieȱ asupraȱ controluluiȱ
centralizat,ȱexercitatȱasupraȱcomeröului.ȱ
Sigiliileȱcomercialeȱdeȱplumbȱindic©ȱm©rfuriȱveniteȱdinȱAsiaȱMic©ȱóiȱregiunileȱ
învecinate:ȱ Smyrna,ȱ Ephes,ȱ Metropolis,ȱ Koloeȱ (Lydia)684,ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ IV,ȱ darȱ óiȱ peȱ
parcursulȱsecolelorȱurm©toare,ȱpân©ȱlaȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
Obiectulȱ negoöuluiȱ maritimȱ esteȱ bineȱ ilustratȱ deȱ descoperirileȱ deȱ laȱ edificiulȱ
romanȱ cuȱ mozaic:ȱ ancoreȱ deȱ metal,ȱ piroaneȱ deȱ fier,ȱ mariȱ cantit©öiȱ deȱ minereuȱ deȱ
fier,ȱgreut©öiȱdeȱmarmur©ȱpentruȱcântareleȱmari,ȱr©óiniȱóiȱevidentȱamfore685.ȱ
Revenindȱlaȱstructurileȱurbane,ȱdator©mȱpreciz©riȱunorȱconstrucöiiȱspecialeȱ–ȱ
galeriileȱ subteraneȱ careȱ traverseaz©ȱ peninsulaȱ tomitan©686.ȱ Dispuseȱ înȱ reöea,ȱ
prev©zuteȱ cuȱ c©iȱ deȱ ventilareȱ ziditeȱ óiȱ guriȱ deȱ ieóire,ȱ eleȱ auȱ fostȱ s©pateȱ directȱ înȱ
stânc©ȱ sauȱ loessȱ óiȱ auȱ pereöiiȱ zidiöiȱ dinȱ piatr©ȱ óiȱ c©r©mid©,ȱ tencuial©ȱ înȱ opusȱ
signinum.ȱ Auȱ fostȱ cercetateȱ dou©ȱ tronsoane687:ȱ primul,ȱ unindȱ falezaȱ estic©ȱ cuȱ
portulȱturisticȱTomis,ȱareȱoȱlungimeȱdeȱaproapeȱ285ȱmȱóiȱîn©löimeaȱdeȱ1,60/1,70ȱ–ȱ
2,49ȱm.ȱAlȱdoileaȱtronson,ȱdintreȱportulȱTomisȱóiȱedificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaic,ȱareȱoȱ
lungimeȱ deȱ 265ȱ m.ȱ Eleȱ str©batȱ peninsulaȱ laȱ –20ȱ mȱ subȱ nivelulȱ actualȱ deȱ c©lcare.ȱ
678
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱAmforeȱromaneȱóiȱromanoȬbizantineȱdinȱScythiaȱMinor,ȱPonticaȱ9ȱ(1976),ȱ
p.ȱ99Ȭ114.ȱ
679
ȱTheophylactusȱSimocatta,ȱHistoriae,ȱ7,ȱ13,ȱ1Ȭ6ȱ(Fontes,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ545).ȱ
680
ȱA.ȱOpaiö,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ165.ȱ
681
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Ceramicaȱ roman©ȱ târzieȱ cuȱ decorȱ ótampilatȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ
mozaicȱdinȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ6ȱ(1973),ȱp.ȱ153Ȭ192.ȱ
682
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱOpaiöeȱdeȱimportȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ9ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ201Ȭ205.ȱ
683
684
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPlombsȱbyzantinsȱdeȱlaȱcollectionȱMichelȱC.ȱSoutzo,ȱRÉSEEȱ7ȱ(1969),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ23Ȭ
25,ȱnr.ȱ1Ȭ7.ȱ
685
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱAmforeȱcuȱinscripöiiȱdeȱlaȱEdificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaicȱdinȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ6ȱ
(1973),ȱp.ȱ193Ȭ207.ȱ
686
ȱ Refeririȱ laȱ acesteȱ construcöiiȱ veziȱ laȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ 1961,ȱ p.ȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ óiȱ
manuscriseȱ inediteȱ aflateȱ înȱ Fondulȱ MINAC;ȱ veziȱ óiȱ revistaȱ Tomis,ȱ I,ȱ 3,ȱ 1966,ȱ p.ȱ 18;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Tomisȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ exilat,ȱ p.ȱ 95Ȭ99;ȱ Mirceaȱ D.ȱ Matei,ȱ Leȱ troisièmeȱ colloqueȱ mixteȱ
roumanoȬsoviétiqueȱd’archéologieȱetȱd’etnographie,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ3ȱ(1959),ȱp.ȱ573Ȭ579.ȱȱ
687
ȱ Veziȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Tipuriȱ deȱ apeducteȱ peȱ litoralulȱ vestȬpontic,ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱ p.ȱ 237Ȭ
250;ȱidem,ȱAprovizionareaȱcuȱap©ȱaȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ70Ȭ85.ȱ
100ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Considerate,ȱpeȱrând,ȱcanaleȱcolectoareȱaleȱapelorȱmenajereȱóiȱpluviale,ȱad©postȱînȱ
cazȱdeȱprimejdieȱóiȱmijlocȱdeȱevadareȱînȱtimpulȱasediilor,ȱeleȱnuȱsuntȱînȱfaptȱdecâtȱ
unȱ apeductȱ deȱ mariȱ dimensiuni,ȱ capabilȱ s©ȱ înmagazinezeȱ óiȱ oȱ mareȱ cantitateȱ deȱ
ap© 688.ȱ Sensulȱ deȱ curgereȱ alȱ apeductuluiȱ esteȱ spreȱ falezaȱ deȱ vest,ȱ undeȱ suntȱ óiȱ
termeleȱ oraóului,ȱ cuȱ bazineȱ óiȱ rezervoareȱ proprii.ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ galeriiȬapeductȱ aȱ
pututȱ fiȱ construitȱ înȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.;ȱ eleȱ auȱ funcöionatȱ óiȱ peȱ
perioadaȱ deȱ existenö©ȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ romanoȬbizantin;ȱ suntȱ cunoscuteȱ totodat©ȱ óiȱ
instalaöiileȱdeȱtransportȱaȱapeiȱdeȱlaȱsurseleȱdinȱîmprejurimi689.ȱ
Ultimulȱsectorȱalȱstructurilorȱurbaneȱdeȱcareȱneȱvomȱocupaȱînȱcontinuareȱesteȱ
celȱ alȱ necropolelor.ȱ Raportateȱ incintelor,ȱ auȱ fostȱ identificateȱ óiȱ localizateȱ laȱ Tomisȱ
cinciȱzoneȱdeȱnecropole690;ȱacesteaȱseȱîntindȱînȱjurulȱoraóuluiȱantic,ȱdinȱcolöulȱdeȱNEȱ
alȱpeninsuleiȱpân©ȱlaȱVestȱóiȱdeȬaȱlungulȱdrumurilorȱlitoraleȱcareȱlegauȱTomisulȱdeȱ
HistriaȱóiȱCallatis.ȱ
Primaȱ dintreȱ necropole691ȱ esteȱ situat©ȱ aproximativȱ înȱ poröiuneaȱ dintreȱ zidulȱ
deȱ incint©ȱ elenisticȱ óiȱ celȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©ȱ târzie.ȱ Esteȱ principalaȱ necropol©ȱ
elenistic©,ȱ suprapus©ȱ paröialȱ deȱ oraóulȱ roman.ȱ Exist©ȱ óiȱ câtevaȱ zoneȱ situateȱ laȱ oȱ
distanö©ȱmaiȱmareȱdeȱoraóȱóiȱînȱcareȱsȬauȱdepistatȱpân©ȱacumȱunȱnum©rȱînsemnatȱ
deȱînmormânt©riȱelenistice.ȱSituareaȱunoraȱdinȱacesteȱzoneȱlaȱoȱdistanö©ȱdeȱcca.ȱ2Ȭ3ȱ
kmȱ deȱ zidulȱ elenisticȱ precumȱ óiȱ existenöaȱ unorȱ miciȱ aóez©riȱ suburbaneȱ arȱ puteaȱ
oferiȱ eventualȱ ipotezaȱ unorȱ necropoleȱ maiȱ mici,ȱ öinândȱ deȱ aceleȱ aóez©riȱ óiȱ nuȱ deȱ
Tomis.ȱCircaȱ2/3ȱdinȱmorminteleȱelenisticeȱsuntȱdeȱincineraöie,ȱrestul,ȱdeȱ1/3ȱsuntȱ
deȱînhumaöie.ȱTipulȱdeȱmormântȱdeȱincineraöieȱcelȱmaiȱdesȱîntâlnitȱesteȱcuȱardereaȱ
peȱ locȱ (rugȬmormânt) 692;ȱ înhumaöiaȱ seȱ practicaȱ deȱ obiceiȱ înȱ gropiȱ deȱ form©ȱ
rectangular©.ȱ
NecropolaȱIIȱseȱîntindeȱ dincoloȱdeȱincintaȱroman©ȱ timpurie;ȱîncepeȱ probabilȱ
imediatȱ dinȱ apropiereaȱ acesteiaȱ óiȱ seȱ întindeȱ c©treȱ Nȱ óiȱ NV,ȱ deȱ laȱ falez©ȱ pân©ȱ
dincoloȱ deȱ intersecöiaȱ bulevardelorȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ L©puóneanu.ȱ Auȱ fostȱ identificate 693ȱ
câtevaȱzeciȱdeȱsarcofageȱdinȱmarmur©ȱóiȱpiatr©,ȱmorminteȱînȱciste,ȱcâtevaȱsuteȱdeȱ
morminteȱ deȱ înhumaöieȱ cuȱ protecöieȱ deȱ öigleȱ sauȱ cuȱ sicrieȱ deȱ lemn.ȱ Necropolaȱ
688
ȱ Despreȱ aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ veziȱ óiȱ M.ȱ Botzan,ȱ Observaöiiȱ dinȱ secolulȱ
trecutȱ asupraȱ unorȱ construcöiiȱ anticeȱ dinȱ Dobrogea,ȱ Ponticaȱ 12ȱ (1979),ȱ p.ȱ 175Ȭ179;ȱ idem,ȱ
Consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ aliment©riiȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ oraóelorȱ cet©öiȱ Histria,ȱ Tomis,ȱ Callatis,ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ
(1980),ȱp.ȱ305Ȭ308;ȱidem,ȱApeleȱînȱviaöaȱpoporuluiȱromân,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1984,ȱp.ȱ164Ȭ170.ȱ
689
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱMihaiȱIonescu,ȱNoiȱcercet©riȱprivindȱapeductulȱdeȱlaȱOvidiu,ȱjud.ȱConstanöa,ȱ
Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 209Ȭ221;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Tomisȱ –ȱ aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ potabil©ȱ înȱ epocaȱ
roman©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ târzie,ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 425Ȭ449;ȱ idem,ȱ Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ
cet©öiiȱTomis,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ94.ȱ
690
inventairesȱ funérairesȱ desȱ nécropolesȱ tomitaines,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 222Ȭ225;ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ
Necropoleleȱ tomitaneȱ înȱ contextulȱ lumiiȱ romaneȱ vestȬponticeȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIVȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ lucrareȱ deȱ
doctoratȱ(mss.),ȱConstanöa,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ10Ȭ23.ȱȱ
691
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱNecropole,ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ133;ȱidem,ȱUnȱaltȱmormântȱdeȱepoc©ȱelenistic©ȱlaȱTomis,ȱ
Ponticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ375Ȭ388;ȱidem,ȱUnȱaltȱmormântȱelenisticȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ28Ȭ29ȱ
(1995Ȭ1996),ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ82.ȱ
692
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ cunoaótereaȱ complexelorȱ funerareȱ deȱ incineraöieȱ cuȱ
„rugȱbusta”ȱdeȱepoc©ȱelenistic©ȱóiȱroman©ȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ19ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ89Ȭ114.ȱ
693
ȱVeziȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱDinȱnecropoleleȱTomisului.ȱI.ȱTipuriȱdeȱmorminteȱdinȱepocaȱroman©,ȱSCIVȱ
22ȱ(1971),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ47Ȭ68.ȱ
ȱ 101
ȱȱȱ
existaȱdejaȱlaȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱóiȱaȱcontinuatȱs©ȱfieȱfolosit©ȱpân©ȱlaȱsfâróitulȱ
sec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.694.ȱ
Necropolaȱ IIIȱ seȱ întindeȱ deȬaȱ lungulȱ falezeiȱ deȱ est;ȱ începeȱ înȱ zonaȱ poröiiȱ
principaleȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ óiȱ continu©ȱ spreȱ nord.ȱ Oȱ mareȱ suprafaö©ȱ aȱ fostȱ distrus©ȱ deȱ
alunec©riȱ óiȱeroziuni.ȱ Necropolaȱ seȱ plaseaz©ȱlaȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Înȱ aceast©ȱ
zon©ȱ aȱ fostȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ 1988ȱ oȱ construcöieȱ funerar©ȱ cuȱ pictur©ȱ mural©,ȱ deȱ oȱ
realizareȱ óiȱ semnificaöieȱ deosebite695.ȱ Esteȱ unȱ cavouȱ cuȱ dromos,ȱ utilizatȱ caȱ l©caóȱ
sepulcralȱfamilialȱpeȱoȱperioad©ȱdeȱcca.ȱ50ȱdeȱani696.ȱPereöiiȱinterioriȱsuntȱacoperiöiȱ
cuȱ pictur©ȱ înȱ fresc©,ȱ cuȱ reprezent©riȱ antropomorfe,ȱ zoomorfe,ȱ fitomorfeȱ óiȱ
geometrice.ȱ SȬaȱ urm©ritȱ oȱ decorareȱ specific©ȱ aȱ zidurilorȱ óiȱ aȱ boltei.ȱ Înȱ timpanulȱ
nordicȱesteȱredatȱunȱfestinȱritualȱlaȱcareȱparticip©ȱmaiȱmulteȱpersonajeȱmasculine;ȱ
înȱ timpanulȱ sudic,ȱ deasupraȱ intr©rii,ȱ suntȱ pictaöiȱ patruȱ porumbeiȱ înȱ jurulȱ unuiȱ
kantharos.ȱ Laturaȱ deȱ vestȱ red©ȱ laȱ bazaȱ bolöiiȱ dou©ȱ scene:ȱ unȱ grupȱ deȱ patruȱ
potârnichiȱ óiȱ unȱ iepureȱ hr©ninduȬseȱ cuȱ struguri.ȱ Peȱ pereteleȱ deȱ estȱ figureaz©ȱ doiȱ
p©uniȱafrontaöi,ȱcareȱciugulescȱdintrȬunȱcoóȱcuȱfructeȱroóii.ȱBoltaȱesteȱacoperit©ȱcuȱ
unȱ decorȱ fitomorf,ȱ pictatȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ culori.ȱ Înȱ cavouȱ auȱ fostȱ depuói,ȱ succesiv,ȱ
maiȱ mulöiȱ defuncöi697.ȱ Peȱ bazaȱ stiluluiȱ naturist,ȱ alȱ bogatuluiȱ decorȱ floralȱ óiȱ
faunistic,ȱ combinatȱ cuȱ ornamenteȱ geometriceȱ óiȱ aȱ puöinelorȱ pieseȱ deȱ inventarȱ
descoperite,ȱcavoulȱaȱfostȱdatatȱînȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(cuȱmenöiuneaȱ
c©ȱ elȱ aȱ fostȱ folositȱ pentruȱ înmormânt©riȱ oȱ perioad©ȱ maiȱ îndelungat©).ȱ
Interpretareaȱ picturiiȱ las©ȱ locȱ ipotezelor.ȱ Reprezent©rileȱ p©s©rilorȱ óiȱ aleȱ iepureluiȱ
potȱfiȱdeopotriv©ȱsimboluriȱp©gâneȱóiȱcreótine;ȱlaȱfelȱóiȱbanchetulȱfunerarȱcândȱnuȱ
poart©ȱ niciunȱ semnȱ sauȱ inscripöieȱ specific©ȱ creótin©.ȱ Singurulȱ indiciuȱ creótinȱ esteȱ
orientareaȱ Vest/Estȱ aȱ mormintelorȱ dinȱ interiorulȱ cavoului.ȱ Analogiaȱ ceaȱ maiȱ
apropiat©ȱ esteȱ aflat©ȱ întrȬoȱ scen©ȱ aȱ banchetuluiȱ euharisticȱ dinȱ catacombaȱ „Santiȱ
PietroȱeȱMarcellino”ȱdeȱlaȱRoma,ȱalȱc©ruiȱcaracterȱcreótinȱesteȱneîndoielnic698.ȱ
694
ȱ Veziȱ unȱ mormântȱ deȱ înhumaöieȱ înȱ daleȱ deȱ calcarȱ óiȱ datatȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.,ȱlaȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱDécouvertesȱrécentesȱdansȱlesȱnécropolesȱdeȱTomisȱ(I erȱ partie),ȱDaciaȱNSȱ35ȱ
(1991),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ199ȱ (mormântul,ȱ deȱ factur©ȱ obiónuit©,ȱ seȱ distingeȱ prinȱ inventarȱ funerarȱ
deosebitȱdeȱbogat).ȱ
695
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Unȱ monumentȱ arheologicȱ deȱ oȱ excepöional©ȱ valoareȱ laȱ
Tomis/Constanöaȱ (Anȱ Archaeologicalȱ Monumentȱ ofȱ anȱ Excelentȱ Valueȱ fromȱ Tomis/Constanöa),ȱ înȱ
Artaȱ 35ȱ (1988),ȱ 4,ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ14;ȱ iidem,ȱ Romischeȱ Wandmalereinȱ inȱ neugefundenenȱ Gräbernȱ ausȱ denȱ
Nekropolenȱ derȱ Dobrogea,ȱ înȱ Dieȱ Schwarzmeerküsteȱ inȱ derȱ Spätantikeȱ undȱ imȱ frühemȱ Mittelalter,ȱ
Wien,ȱ 1992,ȱ p.ȱ 94Ȭ96ȱ óiȱ pl.ȱ 10;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Entreȱ fasteȱ etȱ dénouement.ȱ Lesȱ mystèresȱ soulévésȱ
parȱ leȱ „Tombeauȱ auȱ banquet”ȱ retrouvéȱ àȱ Constantza,ȱ inȱ Archéologieȱ Nouvelleȱ 1ȱ (1993),ȱ p.ȱ 42Ȭ
47.ȱ
696
ȱDimensiunileȱexterioareȱaleȱconstrucöieiȱsuntȱdeȱ3,84ȱxȱ3,18ȱxȱ3ȱmȱ(iarȱceleȱinterioareȱ
2,80ȱxȱ2,30ȱxȱ2,05ȱm).ȱ
697
ȱ SȬauȱ aflatȱ 4ȱ scheleteȱ înȱ sicrie,ȱ altele,ȱ f©r©ȱ caset©ȱ funerar©ȱ lâng©ȱ intrareȱ óiȱ unȱ copilȱ
depusȱîntrȬoȱamfor©.ȱ
698
ȱ Veziȱ observaöiaȱ laȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 272Ȭ273ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 12;ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ
Începuturileȱ creótinismuluiȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ înȱ luminaȱ descoperirilorȱ arheologice,ȱ Preda’sȱ
Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ ianuarie,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 148ȱ (totȱ acolo,ȱ posibileleȱ semnificaöiiȱ aleȱ picturiiȱ
deȱ peȱ pereteleȱ nordicȱ alȱ cavoului);ȱ idem,ȱ înȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ românesc,ȱ p.ȱ 30Ȭ33ȱ óiȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ53Ȭ60ȱ(C.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLunguȱîncadreaz©ȱcronologicȱcavoulȱtomitanȱînȱepocaȱconstantinian©ȱ
óiȱpân©ȱc©treȱsfâróitulȱveaculuiȱalȱIVȬlea);ȱveziȱóiȱC.ȱMiron,ȱNoiȱconsideraöiiȱdespreȱmormântulȱ
pictatȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱPeuceȱSNȱ6ȱ(2008),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ296;ȱdatare:ȱprimeleȱdeceniiȱaleȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
102ȱ ȱ
ȱ
NecropolaȱIVȱesteȱsituat©ȱspreȱVȱóiȱSV,ȱîntreȱzidulȱdeȱincint©ȱtârzieȱóiȱactualaȱ
gar©ȱferoviar©.ȱSȬauȱcercetatȱmaiȱmulteȱsarcofageȱóiȱcomplexeȱfunerareȱînȱcisteȱdeȱ
piatr©,ȱprecumȱóiȱmorminteȱdeȱînhumaöieȱcuȱprotecöieȱdeȱöigle.ȱNecropolaȱdateaz©ȱ
dinȱ aȱ douaȱ jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ pân©ȱ laȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Unȱ complexȱ
arheologicȱ importantȱ reprezentândȱ mormântulȱ deȱ înhumaöieȱ alȱ uneiȱ femeiȱ aȱ fostȱ
descoperitȱ înȱ 1986ȱ peȱ BȬdulȱ Ferdinand.ȱ Importanöaȱ mormântuluiȱ esteȱ constituit©ȱ
deȱnum©rulȱmareȱdeȱpieseȱdinȱbronz,ȱargintȱóiȱaur.ȱCeleȱdinȱaurȱseȱconstituieȱîntrȬ
unȱ adev©ratȱ „tezaur”:ȱ 7ȱ ineleȱ (ȱ 4ȱ dintreȱ eleȱ cuȱ pietreȱ semipreöioaseȱ gravate),ȱ 2ȱ
cerceiȱmariȱ(fiecareȱavândȱmontateȱcâteȱ7ȱpietre),ȱcoroniö©ȱfunerar©ȱ(cuȱ14ȱpieseȱcuȱ
montur©,ȱ14ȱapliceȱóiȱpesteȱ50ȱdeȱfrunze),ȱoȱfibul©Ȭdisc,ȱ2ȱbr©ö©riȱdecorateȱcuȱpietreȱ
montate,ȱ unȱ colanȱ cuȱ capeteȱ deȱ leuȱ (lucratȱ dinȱ aurȱ peȱ unȱ suportȱ vegetal),ȱ câtevaȱ
tuburiȱ miciȱ deȱ laȱ unȱ altȱ colierȱ óiȱ oȱ amfor©ȱ miniatural©.ȱ Enumerareaȱ obiectelorȱ deȱ
inventarȱarȱputaȱcontinuaȱcuȱzeciȱdeȱpieseȱdinȱargint,ȱbronz,ȱplumb,ȱfier,ȱceramic©,ȱ
sticl©ȱ óiȱ os.ȱ Toateȱ suntȱ deȱ factur©ȱ roman©,ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ;ȱ uneleȱ dinȱ eleȱ
p©streaz©ȱtradiöiiȱmaiȱvechi,ȱelenistice,ȱceȱarȱputeaȱindicaȱoȱposibil©ȱprovenienö©ȱaȱ
lorȱdinȱprovinciileȱorientaleȱaleȱImperiului699.ȱȱ
Caȱ oȱ descoperireȱ singular©ȱ not©mȱ unȱ complexȱ funerarȱ cuȱ óaseȱ înc©peri 700ȱ
realizateȱ dinȱ lespeziȱ deȱ piatr©.ȱ Num©rulȱ mareȱ deȱ scheleteȱ g©siteȱ (11)ȱ óiȱ
succesiuneaȱ înmormânt©rilorȱ sugereaz©ȱ c©ȱ avemȱ deȬaȱ faceȱ cuȱ unȱ cavouȱ
aparöinândȱ unorȱ familiiȱ înruditeȱ întreȱ ele.ȱ Inventarulȱ recuperatȱ seȱ plaseaz©ȱ dinȱ
punctȱdeȱvedereȱcronologicȱînȱlimiteleȱsecolelorȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
Necropolaȱ Vȱ ocup©ȱ spaöiulȱ dintreȱ necropoleleȱ IIȱ óiȱ IV,ȱ suprapunândȬo,ȱ
paröial,ȱpeȱultima.ȱSeȱplaseaz©ȱînȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdarȱînȱmulteȱp©röiȱmorminteleȱdeȱ
sec.ȱIVȱseȱinterfereaz©ȱcuȱceleȱdeȱsec.ȱIIȱóiȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
Num©rulȱ mareȱ deȱ morminteȱ identificateȱ înȱ ultimiiȱ ani701,ȱ continuitateaȱ
zonelorȱdeȱnecropoleȱóiȱuneoriȱsuprapunereaȱlorȱajungȱs©ȱcreezeȱunȱvastȱteritoriuȱ
cimiterialȱ deȱ jurȱ împrejurulȱ Tomisului.ȱ Delimitareaȱ zonelorȱ esteȱ artificial©,ȱ
înmormânt©rileȱ practicânduȬseȱ f©r©ȱ respectareaȱ unorȱ îngr©diriȱ sauȱ parcel©ri.ȱ
Numaiȱ înȱ 1987Ȭ1988,ȱ înȱ zonaȱ deȱ SVȱ aȱ oraóuluiȱ auȱ fostȱ cercetateȱ 106ȱ morminte702;ȱ
majoritateaȱseȱdateaz©ȱînȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱȱp.ȱChr.;ȱmaiȱpuöineȱmorminteȱaparöinȱsecolelorȱ
IVȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.703.ȱ Peȱ lâng©ȱ înmormânt©riȱ individualeȱ auȱ fostȱ constatateȱ óiȱ
699
ȱC.ȱChera,ȱNecropoleleȱtomitaneȱînȱcontextulȱlumiiȱromaneȱvestȬponticeȱ(sec.ȱIȬIVȱp.ȱChr.),ȱ
PhD,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ87Ȭ88ȱ(mss.);ȱidem,ȱTezaurȱfunerarȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomisȱ(Constanöa),ȱinȱ
Preda’sȱ Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ martieȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 149Ȭ154;ȱ veziȱ acumȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ
C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Bijuteriiȱ anticeȱ dinȱ aurȱ dinȱ colecöiileȱ Muzeuluiȱ deȱ Istorieȱ Naöional©ȱ óiȱ Arheologieȱ
Constanöa,ȱConstanöaȱ2012,ȱp.ȱ22Ȭ29.ȱ
700
ȱC.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱUnȱcomplexȱfunerarȱineditȱdeȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ18ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ203Ȭ
214.ȱ
701
ȱVeziȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ110,ȱnr.ȱ74.ȱ(Punct:ȱNecropolaȱroman©;ȱstr.ȱTraian;ȱ15ȱ
morminteȱ deȱ înhumaöie;ȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIVȱ p.ȱ Chr.);ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2002,ȱ p.ȱ 90Ȭ91,ȱ nr.ȱ 58ȱ (Punct:ȱ
MagazinulȱTomis,ȱ25ȱmorminteȱromaneȱóiȱromanoȬbizantine);ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132Ȭ
134,ȱnr.ȱ 64Ȭ65,ȱ punctȱ –ȱ str©zileȱ G.ȱ Enescu,ȱSmârdanȱ–ȱ M.ȱEminescuȱ (24ȱmorminte;ȱsec.ȱ IIȬVIȱ
p.ȱChr.);ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2008,ȱnr.ȱ144,ȱpunct:ȱstr.ȱTraianȱ(17ȱmorminte;ȱsec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
702
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ C.ȱ Paóca,ȱ Descopeririȱ recenteȱ înȱ necropoleleȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ romanoȬ
bizantin©ȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ21Ȭ22ȱ(1988Ȭ1989),ȱp.ȱ123Ȭ161.ȱ
703
ȱ Veziȱ óiȱ C.ȱ B©jenaru,ȱ C.ȱ Dobrinescu,ȱ S©p©turiȱ deȱ salvareȱ înȱ necropolaȱ roman©ȱ aȱ
Tomisului,ȱ Ponticaȱ 41ȱ (2008),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ208ȱ (12ȱ morminteȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ óiȱ 4ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȬVI,ȱ peȱ
str.ȱGeorgeȱEnescu,ȱnr.ȱ22).ȱ
ȱ 103
ȱȱȱ
înmormânt©riȱ colectiveȱ deȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ indiviziȱ (ói,ȱ cazȱ singularȱ înȱ acestȱ perimetru,ȱ unȱ
mareȱ mormântȱ colectivȱ pentruȱ 40ȱ deȱ indivizi).ȱ Cercet©rileȱ auȱ stabilitȱ existenöaȱ înȱ
sectorulȱdeȱvestȱalȱTomisuluiȱaȱuneiȱnecropoleȱintensȱfolositeȱînȱperioadaȱromanoȬ
bizantin© 704.ȱS©p©turiȱulterioareȱ(1991Ȭ1992)ȱînȱaceeaóiȱzon©,ȱauȱmaiȱdescoperitȱalteȱ
45ȱdeȱmorminteȱdeȱînhumaöie,ȱdatateȱprinȱelementeleȱdeȱritȱóiȱinventarȱfunerarȱînȱ
sec.ȱIIȱóiȱIIIȱp.ȱChr705.ȱÎnȱcontinuare,ȱspreȱvest,ȱauȱfostȱcercetateȱtotȱînȱ1992ȱalteȱ46ȱ
deȱ morminteȱ deȱ înhumaöie,ȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȱ pân©ȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (celȱ maiȱ târziuȱ seȱ
dateaz©ȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱVI/chiarȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.)706.ȱ
Pentruȱcaracterulȱs©uȱspecialȱnot©mȱdescoperireaȱînȱzonaȱnecropoleiȱdeȱSVȱaȱ
unuiȱ cavouȱ ceȱ p©streaz©ȱ resturileȱ uneiȱ picturiȱ muraleȱ paleocreótine.ȱ Esteȱ oȱ
construcöieȱhypogeuȱcuȱoȱsingur©ȱcamer©ȱfunerar©ȱ(6,15ȱxȱ3,90ȱóiȱ2,90ȱmȱîn©löime),ȱ
precedat©ȱ deȱ unȱ dromos707.ȱ Cavoulȱ seȱ pareȱ c©ȱ aveaȱ óiȱ elementeȱ deȱ arhitectur©ȱ înȱ
marmur©708.ȱ Pereöiiȱ suntȱ acoperiöiȱ deȱ pictur©,ȱ dispus©ȱ înȱ panouriȱ careȱ imit©ȱ
marmura.ȱ Panourileȱ suntȱ separateȱ deȱ pilaótriȱ cuȱ capiteluriȱ corintice709;ȱ aceótiaȱ
susöinȱ oȱ arhitrav©ȱ fictiv©ȱ compus©ȱ deȱ oȱ serieȱ deȱ benziȱ óiȱ fileuri,ȱ suprapuseȱ deȱ
panouriȱmaiȱmari,ȱcuȱsceneȱfigurate.ȱDecorulȱînȱpanouriȱred©ȱunȱbanchetȱfunerarȱ
óiȱ dou©ȱ figuriȱ deȱ oranöi710.ȱ Scenaȱ banchetului,ȱ rar©ȱ înȱ lumeaȱ roman©,ȱ maiȱ esteȱ
întâlnit©ȱ laȱ Tomis;ȱ redareaȱ oranöilor,ȱ frecvent©ȱ înȱ catacombeleȱ peninsuleiȱ italice,ȱ
apareȱóiȱlaȱTomis.ȱMonumentulȱaȱfostȱdatatȱcelȱmaiȱdevremeȱlaȱmijloculȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱ
Chr.711;ȱmormântulȱaȱfostȱutilizatȱóiȱlaȱsfâróitulȱsec.ȱIVȱóiȱeventualȱînceputulȱsec.ȱVȱ
p.ȱChr.ȱ
Unȱ interesȱ aparteȱ îlȱ prezint©ȱ unȱ complexȱ funerarȱ înȱ pl©ciȱ deȱ calcar712,ȱ ceȱ aȱ
servitȱ unorȱ înmormânt©riȱ colective,ȱ practicateȱ înȱ maiȱ multeȱ etape,ȱ dinȱ primaȱ
jum©tateȱ aȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ pân©ȱ dup©ȱ mijloculȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Majoritareȱ suntȱ
înmormânt©rileȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ Num©rulȱ neobiónuitȱ deȱ mareȱ alȱ defuncöilorȱ óiȱ
prezenöaȱ armelorȱ întreȱ obiecteleȱ deȱ inventarȱ auȱ stabilitȱ oȱ ipotetic©ȱ leg©tur©ȱ aȱ
704
ȱÎnȱ1961ȱnuȱseȱputeauȱfaceȱrefeririȱlaȱoȱnecropol©ȱdeȱsec.ȱIVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.,ȱnesesizat©ȱlaȱ
aceaȱ dat©ȱ „d’uneȱ manièreȱ concrète”ȱ (V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 207).ȱ Pentruȱ morminteȱ deȱ
sec.ȱ IVȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ veziȱ óiȱ C.ȱ CheraȬM©rgineanu,ȱ Noiȱ morminteȱ dinȱ necropoleleȱ
Tomisului,ȱPonticaȱ12ȱ(1979),ȱȱȱp.ȱ247Ȭ250;ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱCavouȱdinȱsecolulȱIVȱd.ȱChr.ȱdescoperitȱ
înȱnecropolaȱdeȱvestȱaȱTomisului,ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ214.ȱ
705
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱC.ȱPaóca,ȱDescopeririȱrecenteȱînȱnecropolaȱroman©ȱdeȱsudȬvestȱaȱTomisului,ȱ
706
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ C.ȱ Paóca,ȱ Cercet©riȱ înȱ necropolaȱ roman©ȱ deȱ vestȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ (1992),ȱ
707
ȱ Alixȱ Barbet,ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ L’hypogéeȱ paléochrétienȱ desȱ orantsȱ àȱ Constanöaȱ (Roumanie),ȱ
l’ancienneȱTomis,ȱMEFRAȱ108ȱ(1996),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ105Ȭ158.ȱ
708
ȱ Acesteȱ elementeȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ –ȱ fragmenteȱ deȱ coloneteȱ óiȱ câtevaȱ fragmenteȱ dinȱ
mobilierulȱ mormântuluiȬ,ȱ esteȱ posibilȱ s©ȱ fiȱ fostȱ aduseȱ dinȱ alt©ȱ parte,ȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ profanareaȱ
antic©ȱaȱmonumentului.ȱ
709
ȱ Pilaótriiȱ suntȱ coloraöiȱ înȱ bleu;ȱ capitelurileȱ înȱ violetȱ óiȱ frunzeleȱ deȱ acanthȱ înȱ alb;ȱ
arhitravaȱesteȱschiöat©ȱprinȱumbreȱlongitudinaleȱverzi.ȱ
710
ȱUnulȱdinȱoranöiȱpoart©ȱnimb;ȱînȱabsenöaȱuneiȱindicaöiiȱepigrafice,ȱesteȱimposibilȱdeȱ
stabilitȱidentitateaȱpersonajului.ȱ
711
ȱ Câtevaȱ monede,ȱ careȱ reprezint©ȱ momentulȱ înmormânt©rii,ȱ dateaz©ȱ dinȱ aȱ douaȱ
treimeȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
712
ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱC.ȱChera,ȱUnȱmormântȱînȱpl©ci,ȱdeȱepoc©ȱroman©,ȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomis,ȱPonticaȱ
18ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ215Ȭ234.ȱ
104ȱ ȱ
ȱ
înmormânt©rilorȱ cuȱ evenimenteleȱ dinȱ 269ȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ cândȱ Tomisulȱ areȱ deȱ înfruntatȱ
puternicaȱ coaliöieȱ deȱ goöi,ȱ bastarni,ȱ sarmaöiȱ óiȱ alteȱ populaöiiȱ aflateȱ înȱ migraöie.ȱ
Urm©toareleȱînmormânt©riȱauȱavutȱlocȱprobabilȱînȱtimpulȱdomnieiȱluiȱConstantinȱ
celȱ Mare.ȱ Dup©ȱ Constantiusȱ IIȱ complexulȱ funerarȱ aȱ fostȱ folositȱ óiȱ deȱ creótiniȱ
pentruȱînmormântareaȱunorȱcoreligionari.ȱȱ
Dac©ȱ neȱ referimȱ óiȱ laȱ inscripöiileȱ funerareȱ ajungemȱ nuȱ deȱ puöineȱ oriȱ laȱ
cunoaótereaȱunorȱconcepteȱdeȱviaö©ȱóiȱatitudiniȱspeciale.ȱInscripöiileȱfunerareȱaparȱ
caȱ documenteleȱ celeȱ maiȱ expresiveȱ dinȱ acestȱ punctȱ deȱ vedere.ȱ Dincoloȱ deȱ
elementeleȱcomuneȱdeȱconöinutȱlegateȱdeȱvremelniciaȱomului,ȱneprev©zutulȱsoröii,ȱ
jaleaȱsupravieöuitorilorȱetc.,ȱaparȱnoteȱdistincteȱdeȱacceptareȱînȱideeaȱc©ȱ„moarteaȱ
ótergeȱ suferinöele”ȱ (ISMȱ IIȱ 188,ȱ 166)ȱ óiȱ „totulȱ devineȱ cenuó©”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 311)ȱ sau,ȱ
dimpotriv©,ȱviaöa,ȱînȱformaȱeiȱspiritual©,ȱcontinu©ȱóiȱdup©ȱmoarteȱ(IGLR,ȱ92,ȱ94)713.ȱ
Inscripöiileȱ nuȱ reprezint©ȱ îns©ȱ mijloaceleȱ celeȱ maiȱ potriviteȱ deȱ cunoaótereȱ aȱ unuiȱ
conceptȱ filosofic,ȱ chiarȱ dac©ȱ recunoaótemȱ înȱ eleȱ ideiȱ aleȱ hedonismuluiȱ epicureanȱ
sauȱ aleȱ fatalismuluiȱ stoic.ȱ Rolulȱ lorȱ esteȱ acelaȱ deȱ aȱ l©saȱ înȱ amintireȱ posterit©öiiȱ
scurteȱ biografiiȱ aleȱ unorȱ indiviziȱ care,ȱ chiarȱ dac©ȱ nuȱ întotdeaunaȱ auȱ excelatȱ înȱ
funcöiiȱ sauȱ prinȱ calit©öiȱ deosebiteȱ auȱ oferitȱ modeleȱ deȱ comportareȱ exemplare.ȱ
Conceptulȱseȱcompuneȱdinȱelementeȱclarȱdefinite:ȱpietate,ȱfrumuseöe,ȱcuminöenie,ȱ
bun©ȱreputaöie,ȱprietenie,ȱdemnitate,ȱînöelepciune.ȱ Frecventeȱsuntȱlocurileȱînȱcareȱ
membriiȱ familieiȱ beneficiaz©ȱ dinȱ parteaȱ urmaóilorȱ deȱ epitetulȱ piusȱ laȱ formaȱ luiȱ
superlativ©ȱ parentesȱ pientissimiȱ (sauȱ ΉЁΗΉΆνΗΘ΅ΘΓ΍;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 194),ȱ pientissimoȱ patriȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 247),ȱ filisȱ piisimisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 260).ȱ Prieteniaȱ esteȱ apreciat©ȱ caȱ oȱ important©ȱ
virtute:ȱ „amȱ socotitȱ prieteniaȱ faö©ȱ deȱ toöiȱ caȱ unȱ titluȱ deȱ glorie”ȱ (Ύ΅Ϡȱ Π΍Ώϟ΋ȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ
ΔΣΑΘ΅ΖȱπΘ΍ΐφΟ΋ȱπΔ΍ΈϱΒΝΖ),ȱafl©mȱdinȱepigramaȱfunerar©ȱpentruȱHermogenesȱdinȱ
Cyzicȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 366);ȱ peȱ piatraȱ deȱ mormântȱ aȱ unuiȱ necunoscutȱ dinȱ Prusaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
368)ȱseȱmenöioneaz©:ȱ„amȱpracticatȱprietenia”ȱ(Ύ΅ϠȱΠ΍Ώϟ΋ΑȱόΗΎ΋Η΅)ȱóiȱ„amȱp©stratȱ
încredereaȱ prietenilor”ȱ (ΔϟΗΘΉ΍Ζȱ Έξȱ ΠϟΏΝΑȱ πΗΣΝΗ΅).ȱ Alteȱ concepteȱ auȱ înȱ vedereȱ
viaöaȱ frumoas©ȱ (Ύ΅ΏЗΖȱ Ά΍ЗΗ΅Ζ,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 252),ȱ bunaȱ reputaöieȱ (ΉЁΈΓΒϟ΅;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
166),ȱ înöelepciuneaȱ înȱ c©snicieȱ óiȱ înȱ viaö©;ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 380).ȱ Relaöiileȱ dintreȱ soöiȱ suntȱ
exemplareȱprinȱlongevitateȱóiȱacurateöeȱmoral©.ȱAstfel,ȱEiaȱaȱtr©itȱal©turiȱdeȱ soöulȱ
s©u,ȱDiogenes,ȱ34ȱdeȱaniȱ„f©r©ȱreproóȱ óiȱcuȱcredinö©”ȱ(ΦΐνΐΔΘΝΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΉЁΗΉΆЗΖ)ȱóiȱ
deȱ aceeaȱ beneficiaz©ȱ dinȱ parteaȱ copiilorȱ deȱ unȱ epitetȱ maiȱ puöinȱ obiónuitȱ Ȭȱ ΐΉΘΕϠȱ
·ΏΙΎΙΘΣΘ΋ȱ („preaȱ dulceiȱ mame”,ȱ înȱ dativ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 185).ȱ Laȱ rândulȱ ei,ȱ Corneliaȱ
Fortunataȱaȱdoveditȱ„oȱdragosteȱcuviincioas©ȱóiȱcast©ȱfaö©ȱdeȱsoö”ȱ(ΗΘΓΕ·χΑȱΔΕϲΖȱ
ΦΑΈΕϱΖȱΎΓΗΐϟ΅ΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΗЏΠΕΓΑ΅;ȱISMȱII,ȱ195).ȱ
Speranöeleȱp©rinöilorȱînȱurmaóiȱsuntȱnaturaleȱóiȱm©reöe.ȱTermeniiȱnoiȱmaiȱdesȱ
folosiöiȱ suntȱ σΏΔ΍Ζȱ (speranö©)ȱ óiȱ ΈϱΒ΅ȱ (faim©),ȱ întrebuinöaöiȱ singuriȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 384)ȱ
sauȱ asociaöiȱ (ΈϱΒ΅ȱ ΦΕΉΘϛΖȱ („gloriaȱ virtuöii”;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 166).ȱ Dispariöiileȱ celeȱ maiȱ
dureroaseȱsuntȱceleȱpetrecuteȱînainteȱdeȱvreme,ȱsau,ȱcumȱplasticȱseȱexprim©ȱîntrȬoȱ
inscripöieȱ „innocentiaeȱ pleno”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 354).ȱ Semnificativȱ r©mâneȱ textulȱ scurtȱ alȱ
epitafuluiȱ pusȱ deȱ Asclepiadesȱ pentruȱ copiiiȱ s©iȱ óiȱ imaginea,ȱ peȱ monumentȱ aȱ
palmelorȱridicate,ȱîntrȬunȱgestȱplasatȱundevaȱîntreȱimplorare,ȱteam©ȱóiȱimprecaöieȱ
713
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Elementeleȱ deȱ gândireȱ umanist©ȱ înȱ uneleȱ epigrafeȱ dinȱ
Dobrogea,ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱTulcea,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ241Ȭ245.ȱ
ȱ 105
ȱȱȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ173)714.ȱFatalitateaȱactuluiȱesteȱpus©ȱpeȱseamaȱdestinuluiȱ(IGLR,ȱ21),ȱaȱuneiȱ
divinit©öiȱ r©uf©c©toareȱ (ΆΣΗΎ΅ΑΓΖȱ Έ΅ϟΐΝΑ)ȱ óiȱ celȱ maiȱ adesea,ȱ aȱ Moirelor.ȱ Oȱ
epigram©ȱ funerar©,ȱ înȱ form©ȱ deȱ dialog,ȱ proclam©ȱ deȱ laȱ început:ȱ „Nimicȱ nuȱ
depindeȱdeȱoameni;ȱtoateȱseȱînvârtescȱînȱputereaȱdestinului”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ384).ȱÎnȱalteȱ
epigrameȱ Moireleȱ suntȱ acuzate,ȱ indirect,ȱ deȱ suferinöeleȱ produse.ȱ Deȱ celeȱ maiȱ
multeȱ oriȱ suntȱ prezentateȱ caȱ insensibileȱ laȱ durereȱ (ΦΔ΅ΟφΖȱ ̏ΓϧΕ΅;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 347,ȱ
369,ȱ377),ȱfunesteȱ(ϴΏΓφȱ̏ΓϧΕ΅;ȱISMȱII,ȱ459)ȱóiȱuneltitoareȱ(ΘΉΛΑ΋Η΅ΐνΑ΋;ȱISMȱII,ȱ
377).ȱ Acöiuneaȱ lor,ȱ singular©ȱ sauȱ înȱ grup,ȱ areȱ efectȱ funest:ȱ „judecataȱ crud©ȱ aȱ
impasibileiȱ soarte”,ȱ trimiteȱ oamenilorȱ „necazuriȱ dureroase”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 347).ȱ
Confruntatȱ cuȱ fatalismul,ȱ individulȱ transfer©ȱ peȱ pietreleȱ funerareȱ adev©rateȱ
sententiae.ȱȱ
Unaȱ dinȱ celeȱ maiȱ profundeȱ epigrameȱ funerare,ȱ apreciateȱ chiarȱ deȱ Pârvanȱ
printreȱ celeȱ maiȱ frumoaseȱ aleȱ genului,ȱ sȬaȱ aflatȱ maiȱ demultȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
275).ȱDatorit©ȱimportanöeiȱconöinutuluiȱeiȱneȱpermitemȱs©ȱoȱcit©mȱaiciȱaproapeȱînȱ
întregime:ȱ „Celorȱ moröiȱ nuȱ leȱ maiȱ esteȱ dorȱ deȱ nimic,ȱ [dup©ȱ cum]ȱ nuȱ maiȱ esteȱ
iubireȱ pentruȱ ceiȱ ceȱ sȬauȱ dus,ȱ ciȱ celȱ mortȱ zaceȱ caȱ oȱ piatr©ȱ înöepenit©ȱ înȱ mijloculȱ
câmpului,ȱîmpr©ótiindȱcarneaȱsaȱînȱp©mântulȱproasp©tȱ(…).ȱDinȱap©,ȱdinȱ p©mântȱ
óiȱdinȱsuflareȱeramȱmaiȱînainte.ȱOdat©ȱmort,ȱzacȱ[aici]ȱdândȱtuturorȱtoate.ȱAceastaȱ
r©mâneȱtuturor.ȱDarȱmaiȱmultȱce?ȱDeȱundeȱaȱvenit,ȱînȱaceeaȱsȬaȱîmpr©ótiatȱcorpulȱ
sl©bit”.ȱ
Reluândȱ comentariulȱ luiȱ Pârvan715,ȱ nuȱ neȱ r©mâneȱ decâtȱ s©ȱ constat©mȱ înc©ȱ oȱ
dat©:ȱ „Nimicȱ nuȱ r©mâne,ȱ dar©,ȱ dinȱ noiȱ dup©ȱ moarte,ȱ niciȱ chiarȱ sufletul”.ȱ Niciȱ
urm©ȱ deȱ regret,ȱ lamentaöie,ȱ revolt©ȱ sauȱ speranö©ȱ înȱ aceast©ȱ epigram©.ȱ
Materialitateaȱfiinöeiȱumaneȱesteȱaproapeȱtrivialȱexprimat©.ȱ
Alteȱ inscripöiiȱ afirm©,ȱ dimpotriv©,ȱ nemurireaȱ sufletuluiȱ redat,ȱ prinȱ moarte,ȱ
„naturiiȱ sale”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 346:ȱ spiritumȱ naturaeȱ suaeȱ reddedit)ȱ sauȱ eroizareaȱ
defunctului,ȱ trecutȱ prinȱ moarte,ȱ înȱ rândulȱ zeilorȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 273,ȱ 285)716.ȱ Înȱ sfâróit,ȱ
întrȬoȱ inscripöieȱ închinat©ȱ Zeilorȱ Maniȱ óiȱ Securit©öiiȱ Eterneȱ (D(is)ȱ M(anibus)ȱ etȱ
PerpetuaeȱSecuritatis),ȱseȱexprim©ȱcredinöaȱc©ȱdefunctul,ȱcurândȱdup©ȱmoarteȱvaȱdaȱ
socoteal©ȱpentruȱviaöaȱsaȱ(modoȱpostȱob[it]umȱreddoȱmeaeȱvitisȱrationem;ȱISMȱII,ȱ383).ȱ
Nuȱesteȱvorbaȱaiciȱdeȱjudecataȱlaȱcareȱseȱrefer©ȱînv©ö©turaȱcreótin©:ȱniciȱcredinöaȱînȱ
fatum,ȱ niciȱ tenebreleȱ moröiiȱ óiȱ cuȱ atâtȱ maiȱ puöinȱ formulaȱ deȱ adresareȱ nuȱ
îndrept©öeóteȱoȱatareȱopinie717.ȱ
Întreȱ inscripöiileȱ creótine,ȱ maiȱ numeroaseȱ laȱ Tomisȱ decâtȱ înȱ alteȱ centreȱ dinȱ
714
ȱVeziȱóiȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱSimbolulȱpalmelorȱîn©löateȱpeȱoȱstel©ȱdinȱTomis,ȱînȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ206Ȭ
217.ȱȱ
715
ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱGânduriȱdespreȱlumeȱóiȱviaö©ȱlaȱgrecoȬromaniiȱdinȱPontulȱStâng,ȱMemoriale,ȱ
Cluj,ȱ1973,ȱp.ȱ52Ȭ53.ȱ
716
ȱ Eroizareaȱ esteȱ oricumȱ oȱ form©ȱ deȱ nemurireȱ superioar©ȱ simpleiȱ supravieöuiriȱ înȱ
Hades;ȱveziȱcomentariulȱluiȱD.M.ȱPippidiȱlaȱISMȱI,ȱ309.ȱ
717
ȱ Disȱ Manibusȱ etȱ Perpetuaeȱ Securitatisȱ esteȱ oȱ sintagm©ȱ frecventȱ folosit©ȱ înȱ
monumenteleȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ careȱ red©,ȱ înȱ termeniȱ funerariȱ concepöiaȱ deȱ sorginteȱ
filosofic©ȱ despreȱ linióteaȱ des©vâróit©ȱ óiȱ absenöaȱ emoöiilor,ȱ pasiunilor,ȱ grijilorȱ odat©ȱ cuȱ
trecereaȱ peȱ t©râmulȱ umbrelor,ȱ veziȱ Fr.ȱ Cumont,ȱ Recherchesȱ surȱ leȱ symbolismeȱ funéraireȱ desȱ
Romains,ȱParis,ȱ1966.ȱ
106ȱ ȱ
ȱ
provincie,ȱmaiȱmultȱdeȱjum©tateȱauȱcaracterȱfunerar718.ȱ
Peȱ monumenteleȱ funerareȱ deȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ IIIȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ IVȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ
întâlnimȱ motiveȱ decorativeȱ maiȱ vechiȱ (iedera,ȱ rozeta,ȱ persoaneȱ reprezentateȱ înȱ
relief,ȱ colonete),ȱ înlocuiteȱ rândȱ peȱ rândȱ deȱ simboluriȱ creótine;ȱ maiȱ frecvent©ȱ esteȱ
cruceaȱsimpl©ȱ(începândȱdinȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.)ȱ–ȱimagineaȱreligieiȱ
luiȱChristos,ȱcareȱdomin©ȱuneoriȱgraficȱîntreagaȱinscripöieȱ(IGLRȱ37,ȱ40,ȱ41,ȱ43,ȱ46,ȱ
48ȱ etc.) ȱ;ȱ cruceaȱ monogramatic©,ȱ redat©ȱ înȱ câtevaȱ rânduriȱ cuȱ monogramaȱ luiȱ
Christosȱ (litereleȱ greceótiȱ IȬXȱ sauȱ XȬP),ȱ înscriseȱ întrȬunȱ cerc,ȱ careȱ înlocuieóteȱ
coroanaȱ (IGLRȱ 24,ȱ 30,ȱ 31),ȱ simbolizeaz©ȱ triumfulȱ Mântuitoruluiȱ asupraȱ moröii.ȱ
Câteodat©ȱ al©turiȱ deȱ semnulȱ cruciiȱ sauȱ separatȱ deȱ aceastaȱ aparȱ alteȱ simboluriȱ
creótine:ȱ ancora,ȱ peóteleȱ (amintindȱ apaȱ Botezului)ȱ (IGLRȱ 25),ȱ porumbelulȱ
(simbolulȱSfântuluiȱDuh)ȱ(IGLRȱ25,ȱ31),ȱpalmierulȱ(biruinöaȱasupraȱmoröii),ȱasociatȱ
aiciȱ cuȱ steauaȱ cuȱ cinciȱ colöuriȱ (imagineȱ pitagorician©ȱ preluat©ȱ înȱ artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ
specialȱ deȱ gnostici)ȱ (IGLRȱ 28)ȱ óiȱ orantaȱ (probabilȱ semnȱ alȱ rug©ciuniiȱ pentruȱ
sufletulȱdefunctului)ȱ(IGLRȱ35)ȱ719.ȱ
Peȱlâng©ȱepigrameȱfunerareȱalc©tuiteȱînȱmanier©ȱtradiöional©ȱlaȱînceputulȱsec.ȱ
IVȱ(IGLRȱ18,ȱ19)ȱsauȱformul©riȱp©gâneȱóiȱcreótineȱpeȱacelaóiȱepitafȱ(IGLRȱ21),ȱmaiȱ
not©mȱ p©strareaȱ înȱ inscripöiileȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ aȱ expresiilorȱ maiȱ vechiȱ pentruȱ
începutulȱtextului:ȱD.M.,ȱσΑΟ΅ȱ(sauȱπΑΟΣΈΉ)ȱΎ΅ΘΣΎ΍ΑΘΉȱ(ΎϧΘΉ,ȱΎ΅ΘΣΎ΍Θ΅΍ȱetc.);ȱoriȱ
pentruȱ finalul:ȱ Λ΅ϧΕΉ(Λ΅ϟΕΓ΍Ζȱ sauȱ ΛνΕΉ)ȱ Δ΅ΕΓΈϧΘ΅,ȱ ΐΑϟ΅Ζȱ ΛΣΕ΍Α,ȱ ave,ȱ valeȱ viatorȱ
(întâlniteȱînȱsec.ȱIV,ȱdarȱóiȱmaiȱtârziuȱînȱsec.ȱVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱȱ
Pentruȱ denumireaȱ mormântuluiȱ seȱ foloseóteȱ deopotriv©ȱ terminologiaȱ
anterioar©:ȱ ΘϾΐΆΓΖȱ (IGLRȱ 18,ȱ 19)ȱ;ȱ tumulusȱ (IGLRȱ 30),ȱ memoria/mimoriaȱ (IGLRȱ 36,ȱ
40,ȱ 43,ȱ 27ȱ –ȱ „piatr©ȱ deȱ mormânt”;ȱ adaug©,ȱ ΘΣΠΓΖȱ IGLRȱ 18),ȱ Ηϛΐ΅ȱ (IGLRȱ 19),ȱ înȱ
limbajȱ poeticȱ óiȱ ΐΑ΋ΐϧΓΑȱ (IGLRȱ 48);ȱ pentruȱ epitaf/inscripöieȱ întâlnimȱ titulusȱ (IGLRȱ
27),ȱredatȱînȱgreceóteȱΘϟΘΓΏΓ(Α) 720.ȱ
Peȱ m©suraȱ înt©ririiȱ noiiȱ credinöeȱ asist©mȱ laȱ schimbareaȱ mesajuluiȱ funerar,ȱ
careȱ reflect©ȱ concepöiaȱ creótin©ȱ despreȱ moarte,ȱ privit©ȱ caȱ repaosȱ eternȱ înainteaȱ
reînvierii.ȱ
Numeleȱcelorȱvii,ȱdarȱmaiȱalesȱalȱcelorȱdecedaöiȱesteȱînsoöitȱuneoriȱdeȱepitetulȱ
ΐΣΎ΅Ε΍ΓΖ/Ȭ΅ȱ(fericit,ȱȬȱ©)ȱ(IGLRȱ31,ȱ25).ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Mormântul,ȱ cunoscutȱ óiȱ înainteȱ dreptȱ „l©caóȱ veónic”ȱ (ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΅ϢЏΑ΍ΓΖ),ȱ esteȱ
construitȱ acumȱ „dinȱ darurileȱ luiȱ Dumnezeu”ȱ (πΎ[Θ]ЗΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̋(Ή)Зȱ ΈΓΕ΍ΐΣΘΓΑ),ȱ iarȱ
defunctaȱesteȱaóezat©ȱ„deȱDomnulȱcuȱdrepöii”ȱ(ΦΑ΅Δ΅ϾΗ΍ȱ΅ЁΘχΑȱϳȱ̋(Ήϲ)ΖȱΐΉΘΤȱΘЗΑȱ
Έ΍Ύν[ΝΑ])ȱ(IGLRȱ44).ȱ
Peȱpietreleȱfunerareȱfigureaz©ȱinvocaöiiȱreligioaseȱóiȱînȱcâtevaȱrânduriȱscurteȱ
pasajeȱ liturgiceȱ (f©r©ȱ caȱ exempleleȱ s©ȱ fieȱ foarteȱ numeroase),ȱ ЀΔξΕȱ ΉЁΛϛΖȱ (spreȱ
îndeplinireaȱ rug©ciunii;ȱ IGLRȱ 35)ȱ sauȱ totȱ atâtȱ deȱ sugestivȱ –ȱ ΐ[ΉΟ’ψΐЗΑȱ ϳȱ ̋ΉϱΖȱ (cuȱ
718
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱQuelquesȱconsidérationsȱsurȱlesȱinscriptionsȱchrétiennesȱdeȱlaȱScythieȱMineure,ȱ
Daciaȱ NSȱ 1ȱ (1957),ȱ p.ȱ 265Ȭ289;ȱ idem,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©,ȱ p.ȱ 16Ȭ21,ȱ pl.ȱ 9Ȭ29;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ19Ȭ33ȱóiȱnr.ȱ12Ȭ52.ȱ

ȱNot©mȱdinȱIGLRȱdoarȱexempleleȱmaiȱsemnificative.ȱ
719
ȱSupraȱn.ȱ707,ȱimagineaȱunorȱoranöiȱpeȱpereöiiȱunuiȱcavouȱdinȱTomis.ȱ
720
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ supra,ȱ n.ȱ 530;ȱ dinȱ inscripöieȱ reöinemȱ aiciȱ óiȱ termenii:ȱ
„ΐ΅Ύ΅Εϟ΅”,ȱ„ΘЗȱΐΑ΋ΐϧΓΑ”ȱóiȱ„ΐΑ΋ΐΓΗϾΑ΋”ȱ(înȱsensulȱdeȱmemoria).ȱ
ȱ 107
ȱȱȱ
noiȱesteȱDumnezeu)721,ȱcareȱtrimitȱlaȱNoulȱTestament.ȱ
Vocabularulȱ neotestamentarȱ seȱ reg©seóte,ȱ întrȬadev©r,ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ diverseȱ
formuleȱ funerare,ȱ exprimateȱ direct,ȱ întreȱ careȱ not©m:ȱ ̋(ΉΓ)Іȱ ΛΣΕ΍Ζȱ (Harulȱ luiȱ
Dumnezeu;ȱIGLRȱ44),ȱ„spir[it]umȱDeoȱrede[re”ȱ(s©ȬóiȱdeaȱsufletulȱluiȱDumnezeu;ȱIGLRȱ
21)ȱsauȱ„c[om]plevitȱinȱpace”ȱ(sȬaȱs©vâróitȱînȱpace;ȱIGLRȱ40).ȱ
Cuvinteleȱ ̘ЗΖ/̉Νφȱ (Lumin©,ȱ Viaö©)ȱ (IGLRȱ 49),ȱ scriseȱ peȱ cruceȱ (IGLRȱ 50),ȱ
simbolizândȱ chiarȱpersoanaȱluiȱIisusȱChristos,ȱchipulȱmântuitorului722ȱsauȱlitereleȱ
apocalipticeơ̇̄̄,ȱsemnȱalȱatributelorȱdivineȱînȱîntregulȱlor723,ȱsuntȱalteȱexempleȱaleȱ
cunoaóteriiȱîndeaproapeȱaȱmesajuluiȱbiblic.ȱ
Limbajulȱcreótinȱuniversal,ȱasemeniȱsimbolisticii,ȱaȱsporitȱimpactulȱemoöionalȱ
alȱ textelorȱ funerare;ȱ valoareaȱ lorȱ ducumentar©ȱ înȱ variateȱ domenii,ȱ completeaz©ȱ
substanöialȱ tabloulȱ vieöiiȱ religioaseȱ óiȱ evoluöiaȱ mentalit©öilorȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ caȱ înȱ
întreagaȱprovincieȱScythia.ȱ
ȱ
IstoriaȱTomisuluiȱdup©ȱsec.ȱVIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱesteȱmaiȱpuöinȱcunoscut©.ȱCaȱtoat©ȱzonaȱ
vestȬpontic©ȱ oraóulȱ sufer©ȱ transform©riȱ socialȬeconomiceȱ óiȱ unȱ procesȱ deȱ
ruralizareȱ aproapeȱ total©.ȱ Înȱ secolulȱ VIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ patriarhulȱ Nikephorosȱ alȱ
Constantinopoluluiȱ menöioneaz©ȱ aóezareaȱ cuȱ vechiulȱ nume,ȱ Tomis,ȱ darȱ caȱ satȱ
(ΛΝΕϟΓΑ)724.ȱ Descoperirileȱ arheologice,ȱ sigilograficeȱ óiȱ numismaticeȱ parȱ s©ȱ indiceȱ
existenöaȱuneiȱaóez©riȱmodesteȱînȱaȱdouaȱjum©tateȱaȱsec.ȱVIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱóiȱînceputulȱ
celuiȱ urm©tor,ȱ careȱ sȬarȱ fiȱ pututȱ s©ȱ seȱ numeasc©ȱ totȱ Tomis 725.ȱ Urmeaz©ȱ unȱ hiatusȱ
deȱ aproapeȱ unȱ secolȱ înȱ careȱ nuȱ avemȱ nicioȱ informaöieȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ istoriaȱ
locului726.ȱ Peȱ laȱ mijloculȱ secoluluiȱ Xȱ împ©ratulȱ Constantinȱ ȱ VIIȱ Porfirogenetulȱ
menöioneaz©ȱlocalitateaȱConstantiaȱf©r©ȱs©Ȭiȱprecizezeȱsituaöiaȱdeȱsatȱsauȱoraó.ȱMaiȱ
multeȱ vestigiiȱ arheologice727ȱ –ȱ locuinöe,ȱ cuptoare,ȱ gropiȱ menajere,ȱ morminteȱ deȱ
înhumaöieȱ documenteaz©ȱ existenöaȱ aóez©riiȱ înȱ sec.ȱ X.ȱ Probabilȱ totȱ deȱ Constantiaȱ
721
ȱ IGLRȱ 16:ȱ pasajȱ dinȱ profetulȱ Isaia,ȱ 7,ȱ 14,ȱ careȱ anunö©ȱ naótereaȱ dinȱ fecioar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ
Christos,ȱprofeöieȱreg©sit©ȱóiȱlaȱevanghelistulȱMatei,ȱ1,ȱ23.ȱ
722
ȱIoanȱ1,ȱ7Ȭ9.ȱ8,ȱ12;ȱ9,ȱ5,ȱ11,ȱ25,ȱ12,ȱ46ȱcf.ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱp.ȱ18ȱóiȱpl.ȱ26,ȱ2.ȱ
723
ȱApocalipsa,ȱ1,ȱ8;ȱ21,ȱ6;ȱ22,ȱ13.ȱ
724
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱIII,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ9.ȱ
725
ȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱ TomisȬConstantiaȬConstanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 302Ȭ
303ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 17ȱ (descopeririȱ monetare)ȱ óiȱ n.ȱ 19ȱ (descopeririȱ sigilografice);ȱ autorulȱ îóiȱ exprim©ȱ
îndoialaȱ caȱ aiciȱ s©ȱ fiȱ existatȱ unȱ centruȱ episcopal.ȱ Adaug©,ȱ pieseȱ emiseȱ deȱ Romanȱ Iȱ
descoperiteȱ laȱ Constanöa,ȱ cf.ȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monedeiȱ bizantineȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ IXȬ
XI),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ136,ȱnr.ȱ26;ȱidem,ȱMonedeȱbizantineȱdescoperiteȱrecentȱînȱDobrogeaȱ(sec.ȱ
IXȬXIII),ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ632,ȱnr.ȱ11.ȱ
726
ȱ Veziȱ totuóiȱ informaöiaȱ c©lug©ruluiȱ Walafridiusȱ Straboȱ deȱ peȱ laȱ 841,ȱ despreȱ limbaȱ
getic©,ȱutilizat©ȱînȱregiuneaȱTomisului,ȱcf.ȱFHDR,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ641Ȭ642;ȱveziȱacumȱóiȱMihaiȱOvidiuȱ
C©öoi,ȱ Înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ localizareaȱ sciöilorȱ tomitaniȱ consemnaöiȱ deȱ Walafridiusȱ Strabo,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ
(2010),ȱp.ȱ141Ȭ164.ȱ
727
ȱ C.ȱ Cârjan,ȱ Ceramicaȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ feudalȬtimpurieȱ descoperit©ȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ ȱ oraóuluiȱ
Constanöa,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 373Ȭ394;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Contributionȱ àȱ uneȱ meilleureȱ
connaissanceȱ duȱ répertoireȱ archéologiqueȱ duȱ Hautȱ Moyenȱ Âgeȱ enȱ Dobroudja,ȱ Actesȱ duȱ VIII e ȱ
CongrèsȱdesȱSciencesȱPréhistoriquesȱetȱProtohistoriques,ȱPrague,ȱII,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ981;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱ
op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 243;ȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 303Ȭ307.ȱ Ultimulȱ autor,ȱ raportândȱ
descoperirileȱ numismaticeȱ deȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ laȱ realit©öiȱ istoriceȱ aleȱ imperiuluiȱ bizantin,ȱ
consider©ȱ c©ȱ aóezareaȱ deȱ aiciȱ seȱ formeaz©ȱ înȱ intervalulȱ 927Ȭ941,ȱ caȱ punctȱ deȱ sprijinȱ peȱ
litoralȱpentruȱbizantiniȱmenitȱs©ȱleȱuóurezeȱcontrolulȱnavigaöieiȱînȱzonaȱgurilorȱDun©rii.ȱ
108ȱ ȱ
ȱ
esteȱvorbaȱóiȱînȱcronicileȱluiȱScylitzesȱóiȱZonarasȱreferitoareȱlaȱînfruntareaȱdinȱ971ȱ
deȱlaȱDorostolonȱdintreȱIoanȱTzimiskesȱóiȱcneazulȱSviatoslavȱalȱKievului728.ȱDup©ȱ
revenireaȱ st©pâniriiȱ bizantineȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ înȱ timpulȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Ioanȱ
Tzimiskesȱ (971)ȱ óiȱ aȱ organiz©riiȱ înȱ aceast©ȱ regiuneȱ aȱ themeiȱ Paristrionȱ
(Paradunavon)ȱ vechiulȱ Tomisȱ cunoaóteȱ oȱ nou©ȱ perioad©ȱ deȱ prosperitate729.ȱ Dinȱ
motiveȱ politicoȬadministrative,ȱ centrulȱ deȱ greutateȱ alȱ noiiȱ provinciiȱ sȬaȱ mutatȱ laȱ
Dorostolonȱ(Silistra,ȱBulgaria).ȱSeȱpresupuneȱc©ȱaóezareaȱbeneficiaȱdeȱunȱsistemȱdeȱ
fortificaöii,ȱ careȱ îns©ȱ nuȱ aȱ pututȱ fiȱ localizatȱ peȱ teren730;ȱ oȱ presupus©ȱ incint©ȱ târzieȱ
dinȱ secoleleȱ XIIȬXIIIȱ surprins©ȱ pân©ȱ înȱ zonaȱ portuluiȱ eȱ greuȱ deȱ interpretatȱ caȱ oȱ
construcöieȱnou©ȱsauȱrefacereaȱunuiȱzidȱpreexistent,ȱdinȱsec.ȱXȬXI.ȱVestigiiȱîns©ȱdeȱ
laȱ sfâróitulȱ sec.ȱ Xȱ óiȱ începutulȱ secoluluiȱ urm©torȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ
vechiuluiȱ oraó,ȱ dup©ȱ cumȱ nucleeȱ deȱ locuireȱ suntȱ dispersateȱ peȱ oȱ suprafaö©ȱ maiȱ
mare;ȱeleȱaparöineauȱunorȱaóez©riȱruraleȱsituateȱînȱjurulȱConstantiei.ȱȱ
LaȱTomisȱaȱfostȱcercetat©ȱóiȱoȱnecropol©ȱdeȱsec.ȱXȬXI.ȱNecropola,ȱlocalizat©ȱînȱ
zonaȱ stadionuluiȱ „Portul”ȱ poateȱ fiȱ contemporan©ȱ cuȱ ultimaȱ etap©ȱ deȱ locuireȱ aȱ
aóez©rii.ȱMormintele,ȱdeóiȱmajoritateaȱurmeaz©ȱritualulȱcreótin,ȱp©streaz©ȱóiȱuneleȱ
elementeȱdeȱinspiraöieȱp©gân©731.ȱ
Descopeririȱsigilograficeȱóiȱobiecteȱcuȱ caracterȱcreótinȱpunȱînȱlumin©ȱaspecteȱ
noiȱ legateȱ deȱ viaöaȱ economic©ȱ óiȱ religioas©ȱ aȱ comunit©öiiȱ locale.ȱ Constanöaȱ esteȱ
printreȱ puöineleȱ aóez©riȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ înȱ careȱ auȱ fostȱ descoperiteȱ sigilii732.ȱ Suntȱ
notateȱ dou©ȱ sigiliiȱ bizantineȱ deȱ plumbȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ XȬXIȱ careȱ auȱ aparöinutȱ unorȱ
mitropoliöiȱdinȱTomisȱ(AnicetȱóiȱVasile)733.ȱFuncöiaȱcelorȱdoiȱierarhiȱóiȱmenöionareaȱ
expres©ȱ „mitropolitȱ deȱ Tomis”ȱ este,ȱ dup©ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ dovadaȱ continuit©öiiȱ aóez©riiȱ
óiȱ p©str©riiȱ caracteruluiȱ eiȱ urban.ȱ Maiȱ mult,ȱ înȱ opiniaȱ aceluiaóiȱ cercet©tor,ȱ celeȱ
dou©ȱsigiliiȱcitateȱconstituieȱoȱdovad©ȱc©ȱmitropoliaȱdeȱTomisȱaȱcontinuatȱs©ȱexisteȱ
paralelȱ cuȱ mitropoliaȱ nouȱ înfiinöat©ȱ deȱ Dorostolon,ȱ ambeleȱ depinzândȱ directȱ deȱ
Patriarhiaȱ ecumenic©ȱ deȱ Constantinopol734.ȱ Subȱ aspectȱ numismaticȱ dezvoltareaȱ
maxim©ȱaȱaóez©riiȱesteȱînregistrat©ȱsubȱRomanȱIIIȱ(1028Ȭ1034).ȱSeȱpareȱc©ȱatacurileȱ
pecenegeȱ dinȱ 1036ȱ vorȱ afectaȱ óiȱ Constantia.ȱ Descopeririȱ monetareȱ semnificativeȱ
728
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ74;ȱveziȱóiȱFontesȱIII,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1975,ȱp.ȱ141;ȱpentruȱdiverseȱ
interpret©riȱocazionateȱdeȱmenöionareaȱConstantieiȱal©turiȱdeȱ„celelalteȱfort©reöeȱdeȱdincoloȱ
deȱIstru”,ȱveziȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ316Ȭ317ȱóiȱn.ȱ54Ȭ56.ȱ
729
ȱ Pentruȱaóezareaȱfeudalȱ timpurieȱdeȱ laȱConstanöa,ȱ veziȱ óiȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱ DIDȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ15ȱ óiȱ
20;ȱidem,ȱByzantinischeȱBleisiegelȱausȱRumänien,ȱinȱByzantinaȱ13ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ298.ȱ
730
ȱR.ȱFlorescu,ȱGhidȱarheologicȱalȱDobrogei,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1968,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ30.ȱ
731
ȱ Cercet©riȱ dinȱ anulȱ 1986,ȱ inedite;ȱ necropol©ȱ semnalat©ȱ deȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬ
Adameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ321ȱcuȱinformaöiiȱpreluateȱdeȱlaȱdescoperitori.ȱ
732
33;ȱRÉSEEȱ24ȱ(1986),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ117;ȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ320.ȱȱ
733
ȱ Sigiliileȱ g©siteȱ probabilȱ laȱ Istanbul,ȱ auȱ fostȱ publicateȱ înȱ Catalogueȱ ofȱ Byzantineȱ Sealsȱ
atȱ Dumbartonȱ Oaksȱ andȱ theȱ Foggȱ Museumȱ ofȱ Art,ȱ I,ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.,ȱ 1991,ȱ p.ȱ 180Ȭ181ȱ (eds.ȱ
Johnȱ Nesbittȱ andȱ Nicolasȱ Oikonomides);ȱ veziȱ informaöiaȱ laȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Dateȱ noiȱ despreȱ
mitropoliaȱTomisului,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ279Ȭ281.ȱȱ
734
ȱ Deȱ mitropoliaȱ deȱ Tomisȱ vorȱ fiȱ depinsȱ înȱ sec.ȱ XIȬXIIȱ episcopiileȱ dinȱ jum©tateaȱ deȱ
nordȱ aȱ Dobrogei;ȱ mitropoliileȱ deȱ Tomisȱ óiȱ Dorostolonȱ auȱ existatȱ probabilȱ pân©ȱ laȱ r©scoalaȱ
As©neótilorȱ (1186),ȱ câtȱ aȱ duratȱ óiȱ themaȱ Paristrion.ȱ Reöineriȱ privindȱ recunoaótereaȱ
Tomisuluiȱ caȱ centruȱ importantȱ alȱ ortodoxismului,ȱ laȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ320.ȱ
ȱ 109
ȱȱȱ
suntȱceleȱdinȱtimpulȱîmp©raöilorȱConstantinȱIXȱ(1042Ȭ1055)ȱóiȱConstantinȱXȱ(1059Ȭ
1067).ȱInvaziaȱuzilorȱdinȱ1064ȱaȱfostȱevenimentulȱceȱpareȱs©ȱfiȱpusȱcap©tȱexistenöeiȱ
aóez©rii.ȱ Deóiȱ acelaóiȱ rezultatȱ ȱ sȬarȱ puteaȱ datoraȱ óiȱ r©scoaleiȱ oraóelorȱ paristriene,ȱ
emisiunileȱ monetareȱ dinȱ intervalulȱ 1067Ȭ1081ȱ (dinȱ timpulȱ împ©raöilorȱ Romanȱ IV,ȱ
Mihailȱ VIIȱ óiȱ Niceforȱ III)ȱ auȱ caracterȱ accidental.ȱ Acelaóiȱ caracterȱ auȱ óiȱ emisiunileȱ
dinȱ sec.ȱ XIIȬXIV 735;ȱ câtevaȱ pieseȱ doarȱ deȱ laȱ Theodorȱ Iȱ Lascarisȱ óiȱ Ioanȱ IIIȱ Ducasȱ
Vatatzesȱarȱputeaȱsugeraȱoȱreluareȱaȱlocuiriiȱînȱsec.ȱXIII.ȱȱÎnȱsfâróit,ȱafl©mȱóiȱdeȱunȱ
tezaurȱdescoperitȱaiciȱmaiȱdemultȱ(1938),ȱcompusȱdinȱcca.ȱ100ȱdeȱducaöiȱemióiȱdeȱ
Mirceaȱ celȱ B©trânȱ óiȱ careȱ aȱ fostȱ pierdutȱ (sauȱ ascuns)ȱ înȱ timpulȱ campaniilorȱ luiȱ
Mehmedȱ Iȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (1417Ȭ1418)736.ȱ Înȱ portulaneleȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ XIVȬXVȱ suntȱ
înregistrateȱ numeleȱ deȱ Constantia,ȱ Constantzaȱ sauȱ Constansa,ȱ varianteȱ toponimiceȱ
aleȱConstanöeiȱactuale.ȱȱȱȱȱ
735
ȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ323Ȭ324,ȱn.ȱ84,ȱ85ȱóiȱtabelulȱdeȱlaȱp.ȱ324.ȱ
736
ȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ168,ȱnr.ȱVI.ȱ
TOMISȱ
ENGLISHȱVERSIONȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
TOMISȱ
ȱ
ȱ
114ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Tomis1ȱ wasȱ foundedȱ togetherȱ withȱ Histriaȱ andȱ Kallatisȱ duringȱ theȱ Greekȱ
1
Theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ isȱ presentedȱ inȱ someȱ monographs:ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana.ȱ Contribuöiiȱ
epigraficeȱlaȱistoriaȱcet©öiiȱTomisȱ(Tomitana.ȱEpigraphicalȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱ
Tomis),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1962;ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ exilatȱ (Tomis,ȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ theȱ Exiledȱ
Poet),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1972;ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1961;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ 1967;ȱ idem,ȱ Ovidiuȱ laȱ Pontulȱ Euxinȱ (Ovidȱ atȱ Pontusȱ Euxinus),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1981.ȱ
HistoricalȱinformationȱaboutȱTomisȱisȱincludedȱinȱtheȱvolumes:ȱDinȱistoriaȱDobrogeiȱ(Historyȱ
ofȱDobruja)ȱ(fromȱnowȱonȱabbreviatedȱtoȱDID),ȱvol.ȱI:ȱD.ȱBerciu,ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱGeöiȱóiȱgreciȱlaȱ
Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ (Getaeȱ andȱ Greeksȱ atȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danube),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1965;ȱ vol.ȱ II:ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Romaniiȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ (Romansȱ atȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danube),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1968;ȱ vol.ȱ Ill:ȱȱȱ
I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ kt.ȱ ktef©nescu,ȱ Bizantini,ȱ romaniȱ óiȱ bulgariȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ (Byzantines,ȱ Romansȱ
andȱ Bulgariansȱ atȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danube),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1971;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ I.ȱ Bitoleanu,ȱ Aȱ conciseȱ
historyȱ ofȱ Dobruja,ȱ Bucarest,ȱ 1984;ȱ iidem,ȱ Istoriaȱ Dobrogeiȱ (ȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Dobruja),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ
1998.ȱWeȱaddȱtoȱthese:ȱR.ȱVulpeȇsȱearlierȱpaper,ȱHistoireȱancienneȱdeȱlaȱDobroudja,ȱBucureóti,ȱ
1938ȱ (abridgedȱ HAD)ȱ andȱ aȱ recentȱ paperȱ ofȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ
romaine,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1991.ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ discoveriesȱ areȱ discussedȱ in:ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Zidulȱ cet©öiiȱ
Tomiȱ (Theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Tomis’sȱ wall),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1915;ȱ D.M.ȱ Teodorescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ inediteȱ dinȱ
Tomisȱ (Unpublishedȱ monumentsȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1918;ȱ P.ȱ Nicorescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ nou©ȱ
dinȱ teritoriulȱ oraóuluiȱ Tomiȱ (Newȱ Monumentsȱ inȱ theȱ territoryȱ ofȱ Tomis),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1920;ȱ I.ȱ
Micu,ȱ C©l©uzaȱ vizitatoruluiȱ înȱ Muzeulȱ regionalȱ alȱ Dobrogeiȱ (Visitorȇsȱ guideȱ toȱ Dobrujaȱ Regionalȱ
Museum),ȱ Cernauöi,ȱ 1937;ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Tezaurulȱ deȱ
sculpturiȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Theȱ catalogueȱ ofȱ sculpturesȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1963,ȱ (noteȱ furtherȱ
Tezaurul);ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Necropoleȱ elenisticeȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Hellenisticȱ necropolisȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ 1968;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ romanoȬbizantineȱ dinȱ sectorulȱ deȱ vestȱ alȱ cet©öiiȱ
Tomisȱ (RomanȬByzantineȱ monumentsȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Tomis,ȱ westȱ side),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1966.ȱ Theȱ
inscriptionsȱ areȱ publishedȱ byȱ I.ȱ Stoianȱ inȱ Inscripöiileȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ latine.ȱ II.ȱ
Tomisȱ óiȱ teritoriulȱ s©uȱ (Theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Latinȱ Inscriptionsȱ fromȱ Scythiaȱ Minor.ȱ II.ȱ Tomisȱ andȱ itsȱ
territory),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1987ȱ (fromȱ nowȱ onȱ ISMȱ II);ȱ theȱ latestȱ areȱ includedȱ byȱ Em.ȱ Popescuȱ înȱ
Inscripöiiȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ latineȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IVȬXIIIȱ descoperiteȱ înȱ Româniaȱ (Theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Latinȱ
Inscriptionsȱfromȱtheȱ4 th Ȭ13 th ȱcenturiesȱfoundȱinȱRomania),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1976ȱ(fromȱnowȱonȱIGLR);ȱ
weȱ mentionȱ aȱ collectiveȱ paperȱ signedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ N.ȱ Gostar,ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬ
Bordeaȱ andȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Noiȱ monumenteȱ epigraficeȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ (Newȱ epigraphicalȱ
monumentsȱ fromȱ Scythiaȱ Minor),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1964ȱ (abridgedȱ NMESM).ȱ Otherȱ informationȱ isȱ
foundȱ in:ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armataȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (Theȱ armyȱ inȱ Romanȱ Dobruja),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1977ȱ(fromȱnowȱonȱArmata);ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱViaöaȱeconomic©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©ȱ(Theȱeconomyȱ
inȱ Romanȱ Dobruja),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1977ȱ (abridgedȱ VEDR);ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Scultureȱ grecheȱ eȱ
romaneȱ delȱ Museoȱ nazionaleȱ diȱ antichitaȱ diȱ Bucarest.ȱ I.ȱ Statueȱ eȱ relieviȱ diȱ culto,ȱ elementeȱ
arhitettoniciȱ eȱ decorativi,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1969;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ istoriaȱ vecheȱ aȱ Românieiȱ
(Contributionsȱ toȱ Romaniaȇsȱ ancientȱ history),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1967;ȱ (noteȱ Contribuöii 2 );ȱ idem,ȱ Studiiȱ
deȱ istorieȱ aȱ religiilorȱ antice.ȱ Texteȱ óiȱ interpret©riȱ (Ancientȱ religionsȱ studies.ȱ Textsȱ andȱ
interpretations),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1969,ȱ(noteȱStudii);ȱtheȱrecentȱmonographsȱonȱDobrujaȇsȱseparateȱ
subjectsȱ duringȱ theȱ Romanȱ age:ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ Viaöaȱ rural©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.)ȱ(RuralȱlifeȱinȱRomanȱDobrujaȱ(theȱ1 st Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2001;ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱ
sculptural©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIII)ȱ (Theȱ sculpturalȱ artȱ inȱ Romanȱ Dobrujaȱ (theȱ 1 st Ȭ3 rd ȱ
centuriesȱAD),ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2002;ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©ȱ(secoleleȱ
IȬIII)ȱ(CoinȱcirculationȱinȱRomanȱDobruja,ȱ1 st Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2002.ȱM.ȱIonescu,ȱ
Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ Dobrogeiȱ romaneȱ (sec.ȱ IȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Theȱ Romanȱ
Dobrujaȱ coastȱ defenceȱ systemȱ (1 st Ȭ7 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2005;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Tomis.ȱ I.ȱ
ȱ 115
ȱȱȱ
colonizationȱ processȱ atȱ theȱ Westȱ Pontȱ inȱ theȱ 7Ȭ6thȱ centuriesȱ BC2.ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ
promontoryȱwasȱusedȱasȱanȱunavoidableȱstopoverȱforȱnavigators.ȱLiteraryȱsourcesȱ
(Strabo,ȱ Geogr.,ȱ VII,ȱ 6,ȱ 1;ȱ Pomponiusȱ Mela,ȱ Deȱ Chorogr.,ȱ II,ȱ 2,ȱ 22;ȱ Ptolemaios,ȱ
Geogr.,ȱ Ill,ȱ 10,ȱ 3;ȱ Arrian,ȱ Scutumȱ Duraeȱ Europiȱ repertum,ȱ Tabulaȱ Peutingeriana,ȱ
Itinerariumȱ Antoniniȱ etc.)ȱ determineȱ itsȱ placeȱ onȱ theȱ Westȱ Pont,ȱ betweenȱ Histriaȱ
andȱKallatis,ȱandȱtheȱdistanceȱinȱstadiaȱtoȱthisȱsite:ȱ250ȱstadiaȱfromȱHistriaȱandȱ280ȱ
fromȱ Kallatis,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Strabo,ȱ orȱ 300ȱ stadiaȱ fromȱ both,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Arrian3.ȱ
Laterȱ sourcesȱ doȱ notȱ emphasizeȱ thisȱ enumerationȱ orderȱ soȱ much;ȱ howeverȱ itȱ isȱ
worthȱ mentioningȱ theȱ sequenceȱ recordedȱ byȱ aȱ geographerȱ fromȱ Ravenna:ȱ
KallatisȬStratonisȬTomisȬHistria;ȱ otherȱ documentsȱ eitherȱ useȱ aȱ selectiveȱ notationȱ
(Amminausȱ Marcellinus)ȱ orȱ aȱ combinationȱ ofȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ variousȱ toponymsȱ
(ProcopiusȱofȱCaesarea).ȱ
TheȱsettlementȇsȱnameȱvariesȱinȱGreek:ȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱorȱ̖ΓΐΉϾΖȱandȱinȱLatin,ȱTomiȱorȱ
Tomis4.ȱ Otherȱ formsȱ Ȭȱ ̖ΓΐνΓ΍ȱ (PseudoȬSkymos),ȱ Tomoe,ȱ (Pomponiusȱ Mela),ȱ Tomosȱ
(accusativeȱformȱofȱaȱnominativeȱTomoiȱinȱPlinyȱtheȱElder)ȱorȱinȱtheȱGreekȱformȱinȱ
theȱsameȱcaseȱrelationȱ̖ϱΐΓΙΖȬ̖ϱΐΓ΍ȱ(ApollodoriȱBibliotheca),ȱ̖Γΐν΅ȱ(ScutumȱDuraeȱ
Europi)ȱ orȱ withȱ theȱ accusativeȱ formȱ ̖Γΐν΅Ζ,ȱ fromȱ theȱ nominativeȱ ̖ΓΐΉϧΖȱ (inȱ
Arrian)ȱȬȱareȱconsideredȱincorrectȱorȱrareȱforms.ȱCoinsȱhaveȱdifferentȱengravings:ȱ
̖ϱΐ΍,ȱ̖ΓΐνΝΖ,ȱ̖ϱΐΓΖ,ȱ̖ΓΐνΝΑȱ(onȱtheȱautonomousȱcoinsȱtheȱmostȱfrequentȱformȱ
isȱ̖ϱΐ΍)5.ȱ Epigraphicalȱdocuments6ȱconstantlyȱmentionȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱ (inȱGreek)ȱandȱTomisȱ
(inȱLatin).ȱAȱnominativeȱformȱ̖ΓΐΉϾΖȱappearsȱlikeȱaȱpoeticalȱformȱforȱ̖ϱΐ΍Ζ.ȱTheȱ
settlementȱ isȱ namedȱ terraȱ Tomitanaȱ (Ovid,ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ I,ȱ 1,ȱ 1Ȭ2)ȱ andȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ
Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ târzieȱ (Tomis.ȱ I.ȱ Tomisȱ waterȱ
supplyȱinȱtheȱRomanȱepochȱandȱlateȱRomanȱepoch),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱArmyȱinȱ
MoesiaȱInferior,ȱBucharest,ȱ2010ȱ(abridgedȱArmy).
2
ȱ J.ȱ Boardman,ȱ Theȱ Greeksȱ Overseas,ȱ London,ȱ 1964ȱ (Romanianȱ versionȱ byȱ M.ȱ
AlexandrescuȬVianuȱ andȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1988),ȱ chapterȱ 6ȱ (Theȱ Northȱ andȱ theȱ
Blackȱ Sea);ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Dosarȱ pentruȱ Mareaȱ Neagr©ȱ (Fileȱ forȱ theȱ Blackȱ Sea),ȱ Ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ 409Ȭ
428;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidiȱ inȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 139Ȭ156;ȱ idem,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ passim;ȱ idem,ȱ Scythicaȱ Minora.ȱ
Recherchesȱ surȱlesȱ coloniesȱ grecquesȱduȱ littoralȱ roumainȱ deȱ laȱ merȱ Noire,ȱ BucureótiȬAmsterdam,ȱ
1975,ȱ passim;ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Laȱ colonisationȱ grecque,ȱ inȱ LȇAigleȱ surȱ leȱ Dauphin,ȱ BucarestȬ
Paris,ȱ 1999,ȱ p.ȱ 1Ȭ48;ȱ IstrosIHistria,ȱ Ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ 49Ȭ181.;ȱ G.R.ȱ Tsetskhladze,ȱ Greekȱ colonisationȱ ofȱ
theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ area.ȱ Stages,ȱ modelsȱ andȱ nativeȱ population,ȱ inȱ Theȱ Greekȱ colonisationȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ
Seaȱ area,ȱ Stuttgart,ȱ 1998,ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ68ȱ (especiallyȱ p.ȱ 15Ȭ43);ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Pentruȱ oȱ fenomenologieȱ aȱ
raporturilorȱ dintreȱ geöiȱ óiȱ greciȱ (Forȱ aȱ phenomenologyȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Getaeȱ andȱ
Greeks),ȱ inȱ Symposiaȱ Thracologicaȱ 7ȱ (1989),ȱ Tulcea,ȱ p.ȱ 70Ȭ93;ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Civilizaöiaȱ greac©ȱ
înȱ zonaȱ vestȬpontic©ȱ óiȱ impactulȱ eiȱ asupraȱ lumiiȱ autohtoneȱ (sec.ȱ VIIȬIVȱ a.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Theȱ Greekȱ
civilisationȱinȱtheȱWestȬPonticȱareaȱandȱitsȱimpactȱuponȱtheȱautochtonousȱworldȱ(7 th —4 th ȱcenturiesȱ
BC),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ192Ȭ207.ȱ
3
ȱ Forȱ theȱ quotedȱ authorsȱ seeȱ also,ȱ Fontesȱ adȱ Historiamȱ Dacoromaniaeȱ Pertinentes,ȱ I,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1964,ȱ passim;ȱ inȱ brief,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Tomisulȱ înȱ luminaȱ izvoarelorȱ
literareȱanticeȱ(Tomisȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱancientȱliteraryȱsources),ȱinȱDinȱistoriaȱEuropeiȱromaneȱ(Fromȱ
theȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱRomanȱEurope),ȱOradea,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ61Ȭ68.ȱ
4
ȱSeeȱtheȱsubjectȱinȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ13ȱandȱ16.ȱ
5
ȱ C.ȱ Moisil,ȱ Creótereaȱ colecöiilor,ȱ 1912ȱ (Collectionsȱ Development,ȱ 1912),ȱ Theȱ Romanianȱ
Academy,ȱTheȱNumismaticȱOffice,ȱ1912,ȱp.ȱ21Ȭ102.ȱ
6
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 407ȱ andȱ 409,ȱ Geographica:ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍,ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱ ̖ΓΐΉϾΖ,ȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζ,ȱ Tomis,ȱ
Tomitani.ȱ
116ȱ ȱ
ȱ
areȱ Tomitaeȱ (Ovid),ȱ ̖ΓΐϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϟΘ΋Ζȱ (pluralȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍)ȱ andȱ Tomitaniȱ inȱ theȱ
epigraphicalȱsources.ȱ
Theȱ toponymȱ gaveȱ riseȱ toȱ someȱ searchingȱ etymologiesȱ connectedȱ withȱ
Absyrtosȇȱdeath,ȱȱatȱOvidȱ(Tristia,ȱIII,ȱ9,ȱ1Ȭ10)ȱandȱinȱaȱmythologicalȱcompendiumȱ
fromȱtheȱ1st—ȱ2ndȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱknownȱasȱTheȱLibraryȱofȱApollodorus7ȱBothȱsourcesȱ
bringȱ togetherȱ theȱ settlementȇsȱ nameȱ andȱ theȱ Greekȱ namesȱ ΘϱΐΓΖȱ =ȱ cutting,ȱ pieceȱ
andȱ ΘΓΐΉϾΖȱ =ȱ knife,ȱ blade.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ mythsȱ aboutȱ ȇtheȱ founderȱ heroȇȱ orȱ ȇtheȱ
founderȱ heroineȇ,ȱ theȱ firstȱ recognizedȱ onȱ theȱ localȱ coins8ȱ andȱ theȱ latterȱ variantȱ
mentionedȱ byȱ aȱ writerȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ Iordanes,ȱ whoȱ probablyȱ wantedȱ toȱ
explainȱ theȱ Scythianȱ presenceȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BC.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ
Iordanesȱ(Getica,ȱ62),ȱtheirȱqueen,ȱTomyris,ȱbuiltȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomisȱonȱtheȱMoesianȱ
shoreȱofȱtheȱPontȱandȱnamedȱitȱafterȱher.ȱ
Beyondȱ theseȱ popularȱ etymologies,ȱ weȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ Ovidȇsȱ
notation,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱnameȱofȱthisȱplaceȱisȱolderȱthanȱtheȱcityȱ(sedȱvetusȱ
huicȱ nomenȱ positaqueȱ antiquiusȱ urbe;ȱ Tristia,ȱ III,ȱ 9,ȱ 5).ȱ Maybeȱ startingȱ fromȱ thisȱ
sentence,ȱ someȱ researchersȱ supportedȱ theȱ Thracianȱ etymology9ȱ andȱ suggestedȱ
thatȱtheȱformȱTomiȱwasȱaȱresultȱofȱanȱolderȱIndoeuropeanȱrootȱ*ȱtumȬȱ=ȱelevationȱofȱ
theȱground,ȱreferringȱtoȱaȱgeographicalȱaspectȱofȱtheȱplace10.ȱ
Writtenȱ sourcesȱ fromȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ A.ȱ D.ȱ (Hierocles,ȱ Procopiusȱ ofȱ
Caesarea),ȱ mentionȱ aȱ newȱ toponymȱ inȱ parallelȱ withȱ theȱ oldȱ oneȱ Tϱΐ΍Ζ,ȱ thatȱ isȱ
̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑΣ11.ȱ ȱ Asȱ noneȱ ofȱ theȱ sourcesȱ observedȱ aȱ toponymicalȱ orderȱ andȱ theȱ
twoȱ formsȱ appearȱ inȱ textsȱ inȱ differentȱ places,ȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ determineȱ whetherȱ
theȱ twoȱ namesȱ representȱ oneȱ toposȱ orȱ twoȱ differentȱ topoi.ȱ Anȱ anonymousȱ sourceȱ
(ͩΔΓΘϾΔΓΗ΍Ζȱ·ΉΝ·Ε΅Πϟ΅ΖȱπΑȱπΔ΍ΘΓΐφ,ȱ41)12,ȱ probablyȱfromȱ theȱbeginningȱ ofȱtheȱ
6thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ andȱ usingȱ olderȱ sourcesȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ maintainsȱ theȱ
formȱTϱΐ΍Ζ,ȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱdistanceȱofȱ6000ȱstadiaȱwhichȱseparatesȱthisȱcityȱfromȱ
theȱ mouthȱ ofȱ theȱ riverȱ Phasis.ȱ Laterȱ onȱ (7thȬ8thȱ centuries),ȱ theȱ formȱ Tomisȱ canȱ beȱ
foundȱ atȱ theȱ geographerȱ fromȱ Ravenna;ȱ inspiredȱ byȱ olderȱ maps,ȱ theȱ aboveȬ
mentionedȱ sourceȱ maintainsȱ theȱ sequenceȱ KallatisȬStratonisȬTomisȬIstriopolis13.ȱ
BasedȱonȱHierocles,ȱaȱsourceȱfromȱtheȱ10thȱcentury,ȱConstantinusȱPorphirogenetusȱ
maintainsȱbothȱtoponymsȱofȱTϱΐ΍Ζȱandȱ̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑΣ14.ȱ
Inȱ theȱ 11Ȭ12thȱ centuries,ȱ Georgiosȱ Kedrenos15ȱ andȱ Zonaras16ȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ
recurrentȱ Byzantineȱ authorityȱ overȱ theȱ Greekȱ cityȱ onȱ theȱ northȱ ofȱ theȱ Danubeȱ
mentionedȱ Constanteiaȱ (̍ΝΑΗΘ΅ΑΘΉϟ΅),ȱ fromȱ whenceȱ cameȱ messengersȱ toȱ theȱ
7
ȱApollodoriȱBibliotheca,ȱI,ȱ133,ȱinȱFontes,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ464Ȭ465.ȱ
8
ȱB.ȱPick,ȱK.ȱRegling,ȱDieȱantikenȱMünzenȱvonȱDacienȱundȱMoesien,ȱII,ȱ1,ȱBerlin,ȱ1910,ȱȱȱp.ȱ
614.ȱ
ȱChr.ȱDanov,ȱZapadnijatȱbriagȱnaȱCernoȱMoreȱvȱdrevnostata,ȱSofia,ȱ1947,ȱp.ȱ80Ȭ81.ȱ
9
10
ȱ W.ȱ Tomaschek,ȱ Dieȱ altenȱ Thraker:ȱ eineȱ ethnologischeȱ Untersuchung,ȱ Wien,ȱ 1893Ȭ1894,ȱ
II,ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ75;ȱE.ȱPhilippon,ȱLesȱpeuplesȱprimitifsȱdeȱIȇEuropeȱméridionale,ȱParis,ȱ1925,ȱp.ȱ7.ȱ
11
ȱ Hierocles,ȱ Synekdemos,ȱ 637,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ 6;ȱ Procopiusȱ ofȱ Caesarea,ȱ Deȱ aedificiis,ȱ IV,ȱ 11ȱ (seeȱ
Fontes,ȱII,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1970,ȱp.ȱ350Ȭ351ȱandȱ472Ȭ475).ȱ
12
ȱͩΔΓΘϾΔΓΗ΍Ζȱ·ΉΝ·Ε΅Πϟ΅ΖȱπΑȱπΔ΍ΘΓΐφ,ȱ41,ȱînȱFontes,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ343.ȱ
13
ȱCosmographia,ȱIV,ȱ6,ȱ47.ȱ
14
ȱConstantinusȱPorphyrogenetus,ȱDeȱthematibus,ȱ47,1,ȱ58Ȭ60.ȱ
15
ȱGeorgiosȱKedrenos,ȱSynopsis,ȱ23.ȱ
16
ȱZonaras,ȱChronicon,ȱXVII,2,ȱ33.ȱ
ȱ 117
ȱȱȱ
Emperorȱ Ioannesȱ Tzimiskes.ȱ Theȱ toponymȱ hasȱ beenȱ successivelyȱ identifiedȱ withȱ
ConstantianaȱDaphnéȱ(locationȱyetȱunknown)ȱorȱwithȱtheȱpresentȱConstanöa.ȱ
Italianȱ nauticalȱ mapsȱ fromȱ theȱ 14th—16thȱ centuriesȱ useȱ theȱ nameȱ Constanza17.ȱ
UnderȱtheȱOttomanȱadministration,ȱtheȱadaptedȱnameȱKiustengeȱdidȱnotȱeliminateȱ
theȱoldȱone,ȱConstanza.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱRomanianȱadministration,ȱinstalledȱafterȱ1878,ȱ
definitivelyȱestablishedȱtheȱformȱConstanöa.ȱ
Reconsideringȱ theȱ olderȱ toponymsȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Constantiana,ȱ theȱ simultaneityȱ
ofȱtheirȱusageȱinȱtheȱsameȱsourcesȱcreatesȱtwoȱinterpretations:ȱaȱcityȱConstantianaȱ
orȱConstantiaȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱexistedȱnearȱTomis,ȱwhichȱwouldȱpermitȱtheȱnameȱ
substitution;ȱ orȱ bothȱ namesȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Constantianaȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ
simultaneouslyȱ attributedȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ cityȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD18.ȱ Laterȱ on,ȱ theȱ
oldȱ nameȱ wouldȱ haveȱ disappearedȱ fromȱ usageȱ andȱ onlyȱ theȱ nameȱ Constantianaȱ
remainedȱinȱuse.ȱ
Aȱ problemȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ possibleȱ derivationȱ fromȱ Constantianaȱ ofȱ theȱ nameȱ
Constantia:ȱ itȱ isȱ generallyȱ admittedȱ thatȱ Constantiaȱ andȱ thenȱ Constanöaȱ wouldȱ beȱ
theȱshorteningȱofȱtheȱarchaicȱform19.ȱ
Aȱ funeralȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ BC,ȱ foundȱ preciselyȱ inȱ
Constanöaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 37)ȱ mentionsȱ clearlyȱ thatȱ theȱ deceasedȱ originatedȱ fromȱ
Constantianaȱ (ΦΔϲȱ ̍ΓΗΘ΅ΑΘ΍΅ΑκΖ)20.ȱ Thisȱ inscriptionȱ providesȱ epigraphicalȱ
confirmationȱ onlyȱ forȱ theȱ toponymȱ Constantiana,ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ solveȱ theȱ identityȱ
problemȱ orȱ provideȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ toponyms.ȱ Byȱ markingȱ onȱ theȱ actualȱ cityȱ
mapȱbetweenȱtheȱpeninsularȱareaȱandȱtheȱ continentalȱarea,ȱitȱwasȱassumed21ȱthatȱ
theȱ firstȱ representsȱ theȱ olderȱ Tomisȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ refersȱ toȱ
Constantiana/Constantia.ȱ Preciselyȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ thisȱ continentalȱ cityȱ areaȱ
impossedȱ aȱ newȱ name,ȱ which,ȱ byȱ extensionȱ wasȱ thenȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ wholeȱ
territory22.ȱ ȱ Theȱ momentȱ whenȱ theȱ nameȱ Tomisȱ wentȱ outȱ ofȱ useȱ isȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ
secondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD23.ȱ
Theȱ nameȱ Constantiana/Constantiaȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ connectedȱ withȱ oneȱ ofȱ
theȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Constantinianȱ dynasty,ȱ eitherȱ Constantiusȱ II,ȱ knownȱ forȱ
carryingȱ outȱ anȱ intensiveȱ buildingȱ activityȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ orȱ hisȱ daugther,ȱ
FlaviaȱMaximaȱConstantia,ȱwhoȱwasȱcanonizedȱbyȱtheȱOrthodoxȱChurch24.ȱ
TheȱidentificationȱofȱtheȱoldȱcityȱwithȱcontemporaryȱConstanöaȱwasȱadoptedȱ
inȱ theȱ 19thȱ century,ȱ afterȱ someȱ differentȱ hypothesesȱ hadȱ beenȱ takenȱ intoȱ
17
ȱ N.ȱ Gramad©,ȱ Laȱ Sciziaȱ Minoreȱ nelleȱ carteȱ nauticheȱ delȱ Medioȱ Evo,ȱ Ephemerisȱ DacoȬ
Romanaȱ4ȱ(1930),ȱp.ȱ220Ȭ227,ȱ236Ȭ240.ȱ
18
ȱN.ȱGramad©,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ238.ȱ
19
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ164ȱrebutsȱtheȱvariantȱConstantiana:ȱtheȱtoponymȱbelongsȱtoȱ
anotherȱ Dobrujanȱ settlement,ȱ andȱ theȱ presentȱ wordȱ forȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ cannotȱ beȱ
explainedȱasȱoriginatingȱinȱtheȱformerȱConstantiana.ȱ
20
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 463;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Constantiana.ȱ Unȱ problèmeȱ deȱ géographieȱ
historiqueȱ deȱ laȱ Scythieȱ Mineure,ȱ BZȱ 66ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 359Ȭ382ȱ (otherȱ localization);ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Noteȱ
deȱistorieȱtomitanaȱ(Tomitanȱhistoryȱnotes),ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ159.ȱ
21
22
ȱSeeȱalsoȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱ
23
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ443;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ165.ȱ
24
ȱFollowingȱthisȱidea,ȱthereȱwasȱassumedȱevenȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱbasilicasȱfromȱtheȱcityȇsȱ
continentalȱareaȱcouldȱbearȱitsȱname;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱ
118ȱ ȱ
ȱ
consideration,ȱ forȱ territoriesȱ includingȱ Kiev,ȱ Ovidiopol,ȱ Midiaȱ Cape,ȱ Tomiswar,ȱ
Tuzla,ȱ Mangalia,ȱ Varna,ȱ andȱ theȱ closestȱ area,ȱ Anadolchioi,ȱ inȱ theȱ districtȱ ofȱ
modernȱConstanöa25.ȱ
TheȱproblemsȱconcerningȱtheȱdateȱofȱtheȱsettlementȱandȱtheȱoriginȱofȱTomisȱ
colonyȱ shouldȱ beȱ discussedȱ together.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ theȱ literaryȱ sourcesȱ doȱ notȱ
provideȱ anyȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ momentȱ ofȱ settlement.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ assumedȱ thatȱ
TomisȱwasȱbuiltȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱtheȱfirstȱMilesianȱcoloniesȱatȱPontusȱEuxinusȱ
orȱ shortlyȱ afterȱ thatȱ (theȱ latestȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ BC)26.ȱ Otherȱ
opinionsȱhaveȱestablishedȱthisȱmomentȱduringȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱBCȱ(Regling,ȱWeiss,ȱ
Danov)27.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ historiansȱ acceptȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ BC:ȱ theȱ firatȱ
halfȱ ofȱ theȱ century28ȱ orȱ onlyȱ „untilȱ now”ȱ theȱ 6thȱ century29.ȱ Thereȱ wasȱ alsoȱ wasȱ
suggestedȱ theȱ theoryȱ Ȭȱ whichȱ weȱ considerȱ theȱ mostȱ likelyȱ Ȭȱ thatȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ
colonistsȱ leftȱ Miletusȱ andȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ promontoryȱ betweenȱ 549Ȭ494ȱ
BC30.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ recentȱ historiographyȱ alsoȱ takesȱ underȱ considerationȱ theȱ 6thȱ
centuryȱBC,ȱbutȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱsecondȱquarterȱofȱtheȱcentury31.ȱ
Histriaȱ isȱ withoutȱ doubtȱ theȱ oldestȱ colonyȱ amongȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ area,ȱ
chronologicallyȱspeaking.ȱForȱTomisȱandȱKallatis,ȱopinionsȱdifferȱinȱacceptingȱtheȱ
priorityȱofȱtheȱfirstȱsettlementȬatȱR.Vulpe,ȱcitingȱasȱanȱargumentȱtheȱtopographicalȱ
situationȱ andȱ theȱ cityȇsȱ origin:ȱ ȇbuildingȱ Histria,ȱ theȱ Milesiansȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ sureȱ
aboutȱallȱtheȱmainȱstationsȱandȱtheȱaccessȱroadȱtoȱHistriaȱandȱtheȱTomitanȱpromontoryȇ32.ȱ
D.M.ȱPippidiȱsuggestsȱaȱreverseȱchronologicalȱorder:ȱbothȱTomisȱandȱKallatisȱareȱ
foundedȱinȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBC,ȱbutȱwithȱtheȱpossibleȱprecedenceȱofȱKallatis33.ȱ
ȱInȱ discussingȱ theȱ chronologicalȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Tomis/Kallatis,ȱ untilȱ
now,ȱ weȱ haveȱ onlyȱ archaeologicalȱ evidenceȱ andȱ thisȱ evidenceȱ urgesȱ forȱ theȱ
precedenceȱofȱtheȱfirst34.ȱ
25
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 16ȱ andȱ noteȱ 10;ȱ N.ȱ Lascu:ȱ ktiriȱ óiȱ tradiöiiȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ loculȱ deȱ
exilȱ alȱ luiȱ Ovidiuȱ (Newsȱ andȱ traditionsȱ regardingȱ Ovidȇsȱ placeȱ ofȱ exile),ȱ inȱ v.ȱ Publiusȱ Ovidiusȱ
Naso,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1957,ȱp.ȱ340Ȭ373.ȱ
26
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ150;ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ18.ȱ
27
ȱ B.ȱ Pick,ȱ K.ȱ Regling,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 590;ȱ J.ȱ Weiss,ȱ Dieȱ Dobrudschaȱ imȱ Altertum,ȱ Sarajevo,ȱ
1911,ȱp.ȱ27ȱandȱ62;ȱChr.ȱDanov,ȱZapadnijatȱbriag,ȱp.ȱ80Ȭ81;ȱidem,ȱRE,ȱSuppl.ȱIX,ȱv.ȱTomis,ȱcol.ȱ
1397Ȭ1398.ȱ
28
ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 152ȱ considersȱ thatȱ theȱ Milesianȱ colonizationȱ activityȱ
endedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 6 th ȱ centuryȱ BCȱ (afterȱ 546ȱ BCȱ Miletusȱ couldnȇtȱ haveȱ coloniesȱ
andȱtheȱmostȱrecentȱMilesianȱcityȱinȱtheȱleftȱPontusȱisȱOdessos:ȱdatedȱtoȱaboutȱ570ȱBC).ȱ
29
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 152;ȱ furtherȱ on,ȱ p.ȱ 157ȱ considersȱ thatȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 6 th ȱ
centuryȱBC,ȱHistria,TomisȱandȱKallatisȱhadȱbeenȱalreadyȱsettled.ȱ
30
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Rezultateȱ preliminareȱ aleȱ s©p©turilorȱ arheologiceȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ
(Parculȱ Catedralei),ȱ 1971Ȭ1974ȱ (Preliminaryȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ excavationsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ
(CathedralȱPark)ȱ1971Ȭ1974),ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ54ȱandȱespeciallyȱp.ȱ46Ȭ49.ȱ
31
ȱ G.R.ȱ Tsetskhladze,ȱ Greekȱ Penetrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ Sea,ȱ inȱ Theȱ Archaeologyȱ ofȱ Greekȱ
Colonisation,ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱCommitteeȱforȱArchaeology,ȱ1994,ȱp.ȱ111Ȭ135.ȱ
32
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ151.ȱ
33
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ155.ȱ
34
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ54;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ ktiriȱ despreȱ
începuturileȱ oraóuluiȱ Constanöaȱ (Newsȱ aboutȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ Constanöaȱ City),ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ
(1977),ȱp.ȱ53Ȭ57;ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱTipuriȱdeȱamforeȱdeȱsec.ȱVIȬIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱdescoperiteȱlaȱTomisȱ(Typesȱ
ofȱ6Ȭ4 th ȱcenturyȱBCȱamphoraeȱfoundȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ75Ȭ96.ȱ
ȱ 119
ȱȱȱ
Theȱ Milesianȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ colonyȱ wasȱ indisputableȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ time.ȱ
DemetriosȱofȱKallatisȱaffirmedȱit,ȱcitedȱbyȱPseudoȬSkymos:ȱ„TheȱcityȱofȱTomisȱwasȱaȱ
Milesianȱ colony”ȱ (̖ΓΐνΓ΍ȱ ΔϱΏ΍Ζȱ ΩΔΓ΍ΎΓ΍ȱ ·ΉΑϱΐΉΑΓ΍ȱ ̏΍Ώ΋ΗϟΝΑ)ȱ (Periegesis,ȱ 774);ȱ
alsoȱ Ovidȱ later:ȱ Miletidaȱ adȱ urbemȱ (Tristia,ȱ I,ȱ 10,ȱ 41)ȱ orȱ Hucȱ quoqueȱ Miletoȱ missiȱ
venereȱ coloniȱ (Tristia,ȱ III,ȱ 9,ȱ 3).ȱ Arrianȱ givesȱ aȱ generalȱ reference,ȱ mentioningȱ onlyȱ
theȱ Greekȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ colonistsȱ (Arrian,ȱ Peripl.,ȱ 24,ȱ 1).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ firstȱ
writtenȱevidenceȱaboutȱTomisȱappearsȱatȱMemnonȱandȱdealsȱwithȱanȱeventȱfromȱ
theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BC,ȱ eventȱ whichȱ weȱ willȱ haveȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ
mentionȱlaterȱon:ȱȇtheȱwarȱforȱtheȱemporionȱofȱTomisȇ(πΔϠȱ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱΘΓІȱπΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ).ȱ
Theȱ lateȱ literaryȱ notationȱ andȱ theȱ specialȱ utilizationȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ πΐΔϱΕ΍ΓΑȱ nearȱ
Tomisȱ facilitateȱ anotherȱ opinion:ȱ Tomisȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ colonyȱ builtȱ notȱ
directlyȱ byȱ Milesians,ȱ butȱ byȱ Histria35.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ Milesianȱ colonistsȱ settledȱ inȱ
TomisȱwouldȱhaveȱcomeȱfromȱHistria,ȱonceȱinȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBC;ȱ
TomisȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱusedȱasȱtheȱmainȱsupportȱforȱtheȱenlargementȱofȱHistrianȱ
tradeȱinterestsȱalongȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱwestȱcoastȱtoȱtheȱsouth36.ȱTheȱsupportersȱofȱthisȱ
opinionȱ areȱ lookingȱ forȱ confirmationȱ inȱ archaeologicalȱ discoveries,ȱ especiallyȱ
piecesȱ withȱ preȬmonetaryȱ valueȱ andȱ Histrianȱ wheelȱ coinsȱ Ȭȱ bothȱ inȱ settlementsȱ
insideȱ theȱ Histrianȱ territoryȱ andȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theyȱ cannotȱ findȱ aȱ
localȱtradingȱpartnerȱforȱtheȱrelationshipsȱthatȱtheȱnewȱsettlementȱwasȱsupposedȱ
toȱ haveȱ withȱ theȱ surroundingȱ populations.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ preciselyȱ theȱ
existenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ preȬmonetaryȱ andȱ monetaryȱ pieces37ȱ andȱ ofȱ importantȱ
handmadeȱ ceramicȱ vessels38ȱ signifiesȱ Ȭȱ inȱ ourȱ opinionȱ Ȭȱ theȱ presenceȱ inȱ thisȱ veryȱ
placeȱ ofȱ theȱ exchangeȱ partners39.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ Tomisȱ canȱ beȱ compared,ȱ bothȱ byȱ itsȱ
positionȱandȱbyȱitsȱfutureȱdevelopment,ȱwithȱ theȱ settlementsȱfoundedȱbyȱ Histriaȱ
inȱ theȱ areaȱ (includingȱ alsoȱ theȱ Nikonion/Roxolaniȱ settlement).ȱ Consideringȱ thatȱ
”HistriaȱplayedȱanȱessentialȱroleȱinȱTomis”ȱearlyȱhistory,ȱbyȱcontrollingȱallȱitsȱeconomicȱ
andȱ politicalȱ life”40,ȱ weȱ revokeȱ anyȱ aspectȱ ofȱ autonomy.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ evenȱ
theyȱ comeȱ fromȱ aȱ laterȱ period,ȱ theȱ elementsȱ suggestingȱ aȱ directȱ Milesianȱ
foundationȱ areȱ tooȱ numerousȱ toȱ beȱ consideredȱ allȱ ofȱ Histrianȱ origin;ȱ weȱ areȱ
takingȱ intoȱ considerationȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ dialectȱ asȱ attestationȱ ofȱ Ionianȱ tribes,ȱ
35
ȱVI.ȱIliescu,ȱCuȱprivireȱlaȱcoloniileȱgreceótiȱdinȱDobrogeaȱóiȱlaȱdataȱconstituiriiȱteritoriuluiȱ
lorȱ ruralȱ (Aboutȱ theȱ Greekȱ coloniesȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ andȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ theirȱ ruralȱ
territory),ȱ Ponticaȱ 3ȱ (1970),ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92ȱ andȱ noteȱ 52;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ inȱ Symposiaȱ Thracologicaȱ 7ȱ
(1989),ȱp.ȱ73.ȱ
36
ȱ Preda,ȱ Cuȱ privireȱ laȱ începuturileȱ oraóuluiȱ Tomisȱ (Aboutȱ theȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ
Tomis),ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ113.ȱ
37
ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Vârfuriȱ deȱ s©geöiȬsemneȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monedeȱ cuȱ „roata”ȱ descoperiteȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ (Arrowȱ Headsȱ Ȭȱ PreȬmonetaryȱ symbolsȱ andȱ coinsȱ withȱ wheelsȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ SCNȱ 7ȱ
(1980),ȱ p.ȱ 25Ȭ34;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Descopeririȱ premonetareȱ óiȱ monetareȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ VIȬIȱ a.ȱ
Chr.)ȱ /PreȬmonetaryȱ andȱ monetaryȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ (theȱ 6 th Ȭ1 st ȱ centuriesȱ AD),ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ
36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ360.ȱ
38
ȱ C.ȱScorpan,ȱPrezenöaȱ óiȱcontinuitateaȱ getic©ȱînȱ Tomisȱ óiȱCallatisȱ (TheȱGeticȱ presenceȱ andȱ
theȱcontinuityȱinȱTomisȱandȱCallatis),ȱSCIVȱ21ȱ(1970),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ65Ȭ90;ȱL.ȱArsenie,ȱCeramicaȱlucrat©ȱ
cuȱmânaȱdeȱlaȱTomis.ȱStadiulȱactualȱalȱcercet©rilorȱ(HandȱmadeȱceramicsȱfromȱTomis.ȱTheȱpresentȱ
researchȱstage),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ298.ȱ
39
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ281ȱȬ286.ȱ
40
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ112.ȱ
120ȱ ȱ
ȱ
institutions,ȱ religionȱ andȱ anthroponomy41.ȱ Weȱ maintainȱ theȱ opinionȱ thatȱ theȱ
researchersȱ atȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ haveȱ expressedȱ forȱ someȱ time:ȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ
TomisȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱHistrianȱcreationȱcontinuesȱtoȱbeȱaȱdifficultȱstatementȱtoȱ
prove42.ȱ
Aȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ differentȱ dataȱ fromȱ theȱ settlementȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ hasȱ beenȱ done,ȱ
takingȱintoȱconsiderationȱtheȱmomentsȱwhenȱitȱwasȱnominatedȱasȱanȱemporionȱorȱaȱ
polis:ȱtheȱearlyȱdateȱ wouldȱreferȱ toȱtheȱemporionȱ phaseȱ(whichȱ wouldȱhaveȱ lastedȱ
untilȱtheȱeventȱfromȱMemnonȇsȱtext)ȱandȱtheȱlaterȱdateȱtoȱthatȱofȱpolis43.ȱAsȱitȱhasȱ
beenȱdemonstrated44,ȱtheȱtwoȱtermsȱdoȱnotȱexcludeȱoneȱanotherȱandȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱ
anyȱ legalȱ implication,ȱ andȱ weȱ considerȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ financialȱ
positionȱ andȱ marksȱ Tomisȱ asȱ anȱ exclusiveȱ portȱ settlement,ȱ builtȱ onlyȱ forȱ smallȱ
trade45.ȱThisȱcouldȱexplainȱasȱwell,ȱtheȱmodestȱdevelopmentalȱlevelȱmaintainedȱbyȱ
Tomisȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ afterȱ itsȱ foundationȱ andȱ itsȱ absenceȱ inȱ majorȱ eventsȱ inȱ theȱ
WestȱPontȱuntilȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
Regardingȱ itsȱ nomination,ȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ theȱ literaryȱ sourcesȱ callȱ itȱ aȱ polisȱ
(Ptolemaios,ȱArrian,ȱSozomenos,ȱZosimos)ȱorȱtheȱLatinȱequivalentsȱurbsȱ(Ovidiusȱ
andȱ Eusebiusȱ ofȱ Caesarea)ȱ orȱ civitasȱ (Eutropius,ȱ Rufiusȱ Festus,ȱ Ammianusȱ
MarcellinusȱȬȱusingȱinȱparallelȱtheȱtermȱoppidumȬ,ȱIordanes,ȱandȱtheȱGeographerȱofȱ
Ravenna).ȱ Straboȱ usesȱ aȱ diminutiveȱ ofȱ polisȬpolichnion,ȱ butȱ weȱ areȱ notȱ awareȱ
whetherȱthisȱwordȱisȱstillȱadequateȱforȱtheȱrealityȱofȱTomisȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
Romanȱ ageȱ orȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ onlyȱ anȱ externalȱ remark46.ȱ Weȱ considerȱ twoȱ premises,ȱ asȱ
follow:ȱ
a) existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ settlementȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ earlierȱ thanȱ theȱ firstȱ writtenȱ
records;ȱ weȱ admitȱ asȱ alreadyȱ provedȱ andȱ acceptedȱ thatȱ Tomisȱ wasȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ
6thȱcenturyȱBCȱ(probablyȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱcentury);ȱ
b) secondȱpremiseȱmeansȱadmittingȱalsoȱforȱTomisȱandȱtheȱwestȱPonticȱshoreȱ
someȱ commonȱ eventsȱ byȱ contentȱ andȱ consequence,ȱ eventsȱ takingȱ placeȱ previousȱ
toȱthoseȱofȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBCȱmentionedȱbyȱMemnon.ȱ
Fromȱ aȱ methodologicalȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ weȱ divideȱ theȱ aboveȬmentionedȱ
periodȱ intoȱ fourȱ stagesȱ correspondingȱ alsoȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ historicalȱ
momentsȱofȱtheȱancientȱcity:ȱ
- stageȱ I:ȱ 6thȱ centuryȬmiddleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȱ (fromȱ theȱ settlementȱ toȱ
theȱȇwarȱforȱTomisȇ);ȱ
- stageȱ II:ȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȬtheȱ firstȱ decadesȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ
BCȱ(fromȱȇtheȱwarȱforȱTomisȇȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱRomanȱmilitaryȱpresenceȱinȱtheȱwestȱPont);ȱ
41
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 202Ȭ203;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 17Ȭ18;ȱ 56Ȭ74;ȱ 148Ȭ160;ȱ idem,ȱ
Leȱ culteȱ desȱ Dioscuresȱ etȱ lesȱ tribusȱ tomitainesȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ dȇunȱ monumentȱ récemmentȱ publié,ȱ
Daciaȱ NS,ȱ 10ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 347Ȭ349,ȱ 355Ȭ356;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 151Ȭ152;ȱ L.ȱ
Buzoianu,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ220.ȱ
42
43
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 18;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 153ȱ andȱ noteȱ 19;ȱ G.ȱ
Talmaöchi,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ362ȱandȱnoteȱ36,ȱ37.ȱ
44
ȱ A.ȱ Bresson,ȱ Lesȱ citésȱ grecquesȱ etȱ leursȱ emporia,ȱ inȱ Emporionȱ (eds.ȱ A.ȱ Bresson,ȱ P.ȱ
Rouillard),ȱParis,ȱ1993,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ226.ȱ
45
46
ȱ Strabo,ȱ VII,ȱ 6,ȱ 1;ȱ seeȱ theȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ theȱ wordȱ atȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 319;ȱȱ
R.ȱVulpe,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ154.ȱ
ȱ 121
ȱȱȱ
- stageȱIII:ȱ1stȱcenturyȱBCȬȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱtheȱearlyȱRomanȱAge;ȱ
- stageȱIV:ȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱADȬ6thȱ(7th)ȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱ
period.ȱ
Thisȱ chronologyȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ stratigraphicalȱ evidenceȱ discoveredȱ inȱ theȱ
areaȱ (theȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ area47ȱ andȱ notesȱ aboutȱ theȱ preventiveȱ excavationsȱ fromȱ
otherȱplacesȱinȱtheȱpeninsula)48ȱinȱcorrelationȱwithȱarchaeologicalȱmaterialsȱfoundȱ
andȱwithȱcityȱadministrationȱelements,ȱevenȱifȱhistoriansȱhavenȇtȱcompletedȱtheirȱ
opinionȱ regardingȱ theseȱ last.ȱ Theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ situationȱ isȱ
precedeedȱbyȱaȱhistoricalȱcommentaryȱforȱeveryȱperiod.ȱ
ȱ
StageȱIȱ(6thȬmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBC)ȱ
Followingȱmajorȱeventsȱasȱtheyȱdevelop,ȱunfortunatelyȱweȱcannotȱpronounceȱ
ourȱopinionȱuponȱtheȱfirst,ȱtheȱinvasionȱorȱratherȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱtheȱPersianȱ
invasionȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBC49.ȱThisȱdateȱisȱearlyȱforȱTomisȱandȱforȱusȱ
toȱventureȱmakingȱanyȱsuppositionȱorȱanalogyȱwithȱHistriaȱwouldȱbeȱhelpful.ȱ
Furthermore,ȱ admittingȱ theȱ interestȱ ofȱ Athensȱ andȱ itsȱ leagueȱ forȱ theȱ Ponticȱ
Greekȱcities50,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱtheȱsmallȱTomitanȱsettlementȱwouldȱhaveȱattractedȱ
theȱ attentionȱ ofȱ theȱ powerfulȱ symmachia,ȱ orȱ thatȱ itȱ couldȱ affordȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ memberȱ
andȱtakeȱonȱthatȱresponsibility.ȱ
WeȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱanyȱdirectȱinformationȱevenȱforȱaȱScythianȱdominationȱ(untilȱ
theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ Ateasȱ andȱ Phillipȱ IIȱ fromȱ 339ȱ BC)ȱ orȱ aȱ
Macedonianȱ dominationȱ followingȱ theȱ eventȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ whichȱ probablyȱ
endedȱwhenȱLysimachusȱdiedȱ(281ȱBC).ȱIfȱweȱadmitȱthatȱtheȱScythianȱauthorityȱinȱ
Dobrujaȱexistedȱfromȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcentury,ȱsoȱbeforeȱtheȱdateȱofȱtheȱwar51,ȱ
probablyȱIordanesȇȱnoteȱfromȱGeticaȱ(II,ȱ10,ȱ65)ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱTomisȱisȱunderȱ
Gethianȱ authorityȱ actuallyȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ Scythians52.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ subjectedȱ couldȱ
referȱ toȱ someȱ tributeȱ likeȱ aȱ moneyȱ payment53.ȱ Laterȱ on,ȱ theȱ Macedonianȱ militaryȱ
interventionȱ couldȱ representȱ theȱ relievingȱ ofȱ theȱ barbarianȱ fearȱ andȱ theȱ
establishmentȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ „protectorate”.ȱ Itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ determineȱ ifȱ thisȱ
47
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ54;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA.ȱ
48
ȱManyȱunpublished;ȱseeȱalsoȱourȱnotesȱinȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ80.ȱ
49
ȱ Seeȱ generally,ȱ P.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Izvoareȱ greceótiȱ despreȱ retragereaȱ luiȱ Dariusȱ dinȱ
expediöiaȱ scitic©ȱ (Greekȱ sourcesȱ aboutȱ Darius’ȱ retreatȱ fromȱ theȱ Scythianȱ expedition),ȱ SCIVȱ 1ȱ
(1956),ȱ 3Ȭ4,ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ341;ȱ idem,ȱ Histriaȱ înȱ epocaȱ arhaic©ȱ (Histriaȱ inȱ Archaicȱ Age),ȱ Ponticaȱ 19ȱ
(1986),ȱ p.ȱ 28Ȭ31ȱ alsoȱ andȱ especiallyȱ noteȱ 99;ȱ S.ȱ Dimitriu,ȱ Événementsȱ duȱ Pontȱ Euxinȱ deȱ laȱ finȱ
duȱ VI e ȱ siècleȱ av.ȱ n.ȱ è.ȱ reflétésȱ dansȱ lȇhistoireȱ dȇHistria,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 8ȱ (1964),ȱ p.ȱ 133Ȭ144;ȱ seeȱ L.ȱ
Buzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ39.ȱ
50
ȱForȱtheȱpossibleȱparticipationȱofȱHistriaȱandȱKallatisȱinȱtheȱDelianȬAtticȱLeague,ȱseeȱ
D.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ183.ȱ
51
ȱ VI.ȱ Iliescu,ȱ Ponticeȱ 3ȱ (1970),ȱ p.ȱ 87Ȭ90;ȱ seeȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 213Ȭ215ȱ andȱ noteȱ
129.ȱ
52
ȱVI.ȱIliescu,ȱGetenȱoderȱSkythen?ȱZuȱIord.ȱGet,ȱ65,ȱinȱEosȱ56ȱ(1966),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ341Ȭ346.ȱ
53
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ 1967,ȱ p.ȱ 152ȱ andȱ noteȱ 111ȱ withȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ
Diodor,ȱ XVI,ȱ 71;ȱ Ligiaȱ Ruscu,ȱ Relaöiileȱ externeȱ aleȱ oraóelorȱ greceótiȱ deȱ peȱ litoralulȱ românescȱ alȱ
M©riiȱ Negreȱ (Foreignȱ affairsȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ citiesȱ onȱ theȱ Romanianȱ coastȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ Sea),ȱ ClujȬ
Napoca,ȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ66Ȭ67.ȱ
122ȱ ȱ
ȱ
protectorateȱwasȱinstalledȱinȱaȱviolentȱmanner54ȱorȱifȱitȱwasȱacceptedȱandȱfollowedȱ
byȱagreementsȱandȱanȱimmediateȱMacedonianȱpresenceȱhere55.ȱWeȱareȱnotȱsureȱifȱ
aȱcomparisonȱwithȱHistriaȱwouldȱhelpȱatȱthisȱpoint.ȱTheȱstatementȱthatȱTomisȱhadȱ
aȱ similarȱ attitudeȱ toȱ Histriaȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ Phillipȱ andȱ hadȱ theȱ sameȱ fate56ȱ doesȱ
notȱhaveȱadequateȱargumentation57.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱtracesȱofȱfireȱnoticedȱatȱ
Tomisȱ wereȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ eventsȱ orȱ elseȱ someȱ othersȱ followingȱ
towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ century,ȱ meaningȱ theȱ Ponticȱ citiesȱ uprisingȱ againstȱ theȱ
diadochȱ Lysimachus58.ȱ Tomisȱ seemedȱ toȱ takeȱ partȱ inȱ theȱ Ponticȱ citiesȱ allianceȱ
againstȱLysimachus,ȱfollowedȱtwiceȱbyȱtheȱsiegeȱagainstȱKallatisȱandȱtheȱdefeatȱofȱ
theȱallies.ȱDiodorusȇȱinformationȱ(XIX,ȱ73,ȱ1Ȭ2)ȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱallianceȱofȱKallatisȱ
andȱ theȱ neighbouringȱ citiesȱ seemedȱ toȱ considerȱ Tomisȱ asȱ well.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ Sicilianȱ
historianȱ mentionedȱ onlyȱ Histriaȱ deliberately,ȱ thatȱ wasȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ
theȱ powerfulȱ untilȱ thenȱ Milesianȱ cityȱ wasȱ notȱ neighbouringȱ Kallatis,ȱ soȱ itȱ couldȱ
notȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ cathegoryȱ ofȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘΤΖȱ ΩΏΏ΅Ζȱ ΘΤΖȱ ΔΏ΋Η΍ΓΛЏΕΓΙΖȱ ΔΓΏΉϧΖȱ
whichȱ wasȱ appropiateȱ forȱ Tomis.ȱ Neitherȱ itsȱ geographicalȱ positionȱ norȱ itsȱ
economicȱ condition,ȱ asȱ weȱ willȱ seeȱ below,ȱ untilȱ thatȱ momentȱ don’tȱ excludeȱ thisȱ
participationȱ (weȱ shouldȱ admitȱ theȱ nameȱ ΔϱΏ΍Ζ,ȱ indirectlyȱ mentionedȱ forȱ theȱ
settlementȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC).ȱMoreover,ȱifȱweȱconsiderȱthatȱMiletusȱ
wasȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱuprisingȱagainstȱLysimachus,ȱthenȱTomisȇȱparticipationȱinȱtheȱ
eventȱseemsȱcertain59.ȱ
Thereȱ wereȱ noȱ moreȱ violentȱ eventsȱ afterȱ Kallatisȱ wasȱ definitivelyȱ defeatedȱ
(theȱ siegeȱ startedȱ againȱ afterȱ 309ȱ BC)60ȱ andȱ untilȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Lysimachus,ȱ theȱ
Ponticȱ citiesȱ wereȱ stillȱ underȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Thracia.ȱ Noȱ literaryȱ
sourceȱ offersȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theseȱ citiesȱ afterȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ
Lysimachus.ȱ„TheȱSeleucidȱprotection”,ȱwhichȱwouldȱhaveȱfollowed,ȱwasȱonlyȱfromȱ
aȱdistanceȱandȱonlyȱforȱtheȱThracianȱshore.ȱ
StratigraphyȱatȱTomis,ȱaroundȱtheȱCathedralȱParkȱdeterminesȱtheȱorderȱforȱtheȱ
6Ȭ4thȱcenturiesȱarcheologicalȱlevels,ȱwithȱtheȱfollowingȱstructureȱfromȱtheȱ bottomȱ
up61:ȱ
- NȱXIIȬXI :ȱtheȱ6Ȭ5thȱcenturiesȱwithȱtheȱspecification,ȱtheȱtwoȱlevelsȱbelongȱtoȱ
theȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcentury,ȱandȱXIȱpassesȱtoȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBC,ȱcontinuingȱ
54
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Histrianȱ precinctsȱ becauseȱ ofȱ Philipȱ IIȇsȱ intervention,ȱ inȱ
M.ȱCoja,ȱZidulȱdeȱap©rareȱalȱcet©öiiȱHistriaȱóiȱimprejur©rileȱistoriceȱaleȱdistrugeriiȱluiȱînȱsec.ȱalȱIVȬ
leaȱ î.e.n.ȱ (Theȱ defensiveȱ wallȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Histriaȱ andȱ theȱ historicalȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ itsȱ
destructionȱ inȱ theȱ 4 th ȱ centuryȱ BC),ȱ SCIVȱ 15ȱ (1964),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 383Ȭ398;ȱ forȱ aȱ differentȱ opinion,ȱȱȱȱ
D.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ218ȱandȱnoteȱ149.ȱ
55
ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 71Ȭ73ȱ withȱ referenceȱ (noteȱ 71)ȱ alsoȱ toȱ E.ȱ Badian,ȱ Philipȱ IIȱ andȱ
Thrace,ȱPulpudevaȱ4ȱ(1983),ȱp.ȱ51Ȭ71.ȱ
56
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
57
ȱHoweverȱseeȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱDescopeririȱmonetareȱmacedoneneȱînȱDobrogeaȱ(Macedonianȱ
coinsȱdiscoveredȱinȱDobruja),ȱBSNRȱ92Ȭ97ȱ(1998Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ37.ȱ
58
ȱOtherwise,ȱforȱHistriaȱasȱwell,ȱtheȱtwoȱeventsȱareȱconsideredȱbothȱpossibleȱsourcesȱ
forȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱprecincts;ȱsecȱabove,ȱnoteȱ54.ȱ
59
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ216Ȭ217,ȱJu.G.ȱVinogradov,ȱDerȱPontosȱEuxeinosȱalsȱpolitische,ȱ
ökonomischeȱ undȱ kulturelleȱ Einheitȱ undȱ dieȱ Epigraphik,ȱ Actaȱ Centriȱ Historiaeȱ „Terraȱ Antiquaȱ
Balcanica”,ȱ2,ȱTîrnovo,ȱ1987,ȱp.ȱ43;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ23ȱandȱnoteȱ94.ȱ
60
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ218;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ24.ȱ
61
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ9Ȭ49ȱandȱpl.ȱ1Ȭ4.ȱ
ȱ 123
ȱȱȱ
intoȱ theȱ firstȱ yearsȱ ofȱ thatȱ centuryȱ (butȱ noȱ furtherȱ thanȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ
decadeȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBC).ȱ
- NȱXȱandȱIX:ȱ5thȱȬ4thȱcenturiesȱBC;ȱNȱX:ȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcentury,ȱNȱIX:ȱ
theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ andȱ probablyȱ theȱ firstȱ yearsȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ
BC.ȱȱ
Theȱ twoȱ levelsȱ areȱ formedȱ ofȱ manyȱ clayȱ floorsȱ superimposedȱ aboveȱ oneȱ
another,ȱwithȱfireȱtracesȱonȱeach,ȱinterpretatedȱasȱrepeatedȱreconstructions.ȱ
ȬȱNȱVIIIȱisȱwellȱformed;ȱitȱisȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱwholeȱresearchȱareaȱandȱitȱisȱ
coveredȱ withȱ aȱ veryȱ thickȱ fireȱ stratum.ȱ Theȱ depositsȱ onȱ thisȱ levelȱ includeȱ
homogenousȱarchaeologicalȱmaterials,ȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
Mentioningȱ theȱ chronologyȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ levelsȱ fromȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ
Parkȱ andȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ numismaticȱ findings62,ȱ itȱ wasȱ appreciatedȱ asȱ beingȱ
correctȱforȱtheȱlevelsȱXIIȬIXȱtheȱdataȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱauthorsȱreportȱinȱbrackets:ȱNȱ
XIIȬXI:ȱtheȱ6thȱȬ5thȱcenturiesȱBC;ȱNȱXȬIX:ȱtheȱ5thȱȬ4thȱcenturiesȱBC.ȱFromȱtheȱpointȱofȱ
viewȱ ofȱ stratigraphicalȱ analysis,ȱ thisȱ observationȱ doesȱ notȱ changeȱ inȱ ourȱ opinionȱ
someȱdates,ȱbutȱemphasizesȱthem63.ȱ
WeȱmaintainȱtheȱhypothesisȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱNȱXȱshouldȱbeginȱaboutȱ465Ȭ
460ȱBCȱandȱNȱIXȱwouldȱendȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱfirstȱquarterȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
Theseȱdatesȱstartȱfromȱnumismaticȱrealitiesȱonȱtheȱsite:ȱtheȱsimultaneousȱpresenceȱ
ofȱtheȱpreȬmonetaryȱevidenceȱandȱtheȱwheeledȱcoinsȱalsoȱinȱNȱX,ȱforȱexample,ȱorȱ
theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ preȬmonetaryȱ symbolsȱ inȱ levelȱ Nȱ IX;ȱ theȱ wheeledȱ coinsȱ areȱ
completelyȱ missingȱ inȱ Nȱ VIIIȱ (4thȱ centuryȱ BC),ȱ factȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ
disintegrationȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ PonticȬAthenianȱ maritimeȱ leagueȱ whichȱ wouldȱ
correspondȱtoȱlevelȱIX.ȱ
Someȱ materialsȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ andȱ othersȱ fromȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ
BCȱ comeȱ fromȱ aȱ previousȱ excavationȱ stratigraphicalȱ controlȱ inȱ theȱ peninsula,ȱ
betweenȱ 1959Ȭ1960.ȱ Anȱ excavationȱ reportȱ ofȱ thatȱ timeȱ mentionsȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ allȱ
materialsȱcomeȱfromȱoneȱlevelȱ(NȱI)ȱsituatedȱatȱȬ4ȱmȱdepth,ȱlevelȱwhereȱthereȱwasȱ
alsoȱdiscoveredȱanȱindigenenousȱhandmadeȱvesselȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱlateȱHallstatt.ȱTheȱ
authorȱ ofȱ theȱ reportȱ datedȱ theȱ aboveȬmentionedȱ levelȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ
centuryȱ andȱ consideredȱ itȱ toȱ beȱ „forȱ theȱ momentȱ theȱ earliestȱ levelȱ forȱ Tomis”64.ȱ
Maintainingȱthisȱopinion,ȱweȱbroadenȱtheȱlevelȇsȱdateȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱ

ȱNȱ=ȱlevel;ȱNAȱ=ȱarchaicȱlevel.ȱ
62
ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱP.ȱDicu,ȱMonedeȱanticeȱóiȱbizantineȱdinȱDobrogeaȱ(AncientȱandȱByzantineȱ
coinsȱfromȱDobruja),ȱBSNR,ȱ75Ȭ76ȱ(1981Ȭ1982),ȱ1983,ȱespeciallyȱp.ȱ447Ȭ454.ȱ
63
ȱTheȱarchaeologicalȱresearchȱinȱanȱareaȱsituatedȱveryȱcloseȱestablishedȱforȱtheȱGreekȱ
periodȱȱfourȱarchaeologicalȱlevels,ȱdatedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ6 th ȱcenturyȱ–untilȱtheȱendȱ
ofȱ theȱ 4 th /beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ BC.ȱ Theyȱ correspondȱ toȱ theȱ levelsȱ XIIȬVIIIȱ fromȱ theȱ
Cathedralȱ Park.ȱSeeȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱConstanöa,ȱ countyȱConstanöaȱ [Tomis],ȱ 23,ȱ Arhiepiscopieiȱ
street,ȱinȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
ȱ
64
ȱ A.ȱ ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Unpublishedȱ Reportȱ inȱ theȱ documentaryȱ fondȱ ofȱ theȱ Constanöaȱ
Nationalȱ Historyȱ andȱ Archaeologyȱ Museumȱ (MINAC,ȱ inv.ȱ 1327).ȱ Theȱ levelȱ notationsȱ
belongȱtoȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱexcavationsȱ(hereȱNȱIȱisȱfirstȱchronologically).ȱ
124ȱ ȱ
ȱ
beginningȱ (orȱ theȱ secondȱ quarter)ȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ andȱ connectȱ itȱ withȱ theȱ nextȱ
excavationsȱfromȱtheȱCathedralȱParkȱ(respectivelyȱNȱXI)65.ȱ
ComparingȱthisȱnewȱdataȱwithȱthatȱfromȱtheȱplateauȱsettlementȱinȱHistria 66,ȱ
weȱnotice:ȱ
1) ȱtheȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ theȱ settlementȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ correspondȱ toȱ NAȱ IIIȱ fromȱ
Histria;ȱ
2) ȱtwoȱ archaeologicalȱ levelsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ correspondȱ toȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ BC;ȱ
theȱ repetitiveȱ reconstructionsȱ ofȱ theȱ arrangementsȱ onȱ theseȱ levelsȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱ
generalȱsignificance;ȱ
3) ȱtheȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ seemsȱ toȱ endȱ withȱ aȱ strongȱ fireȱ whichȱ theȱ authorsȇȱ
reportȱhesitatesȱtoȱattributeȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱevents:ȱȱtheȱexpeditionȱofȱPhillipȱIIȱ
orȱȱtheȱexpeditionȱofȱLysimachusȱ(howeverȱtheȱsecondȱeventȱseems,ȱinȱtheȱreportȇsȱ
view,ȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcauseȱofȱdestruction)67;ȱ
4) ȱimportantȱ fireȱ tracesȱ wereȱ detectedȱ onȱ Nȱ XI.ȱ Theȱ limitedȱ researchȱ areaȱ
doesȱnotȱallowȱusȱtoȱconcludeȱifȱthereȱwasȱaȱgeneralȱfireȱwithȱanȱhistoricalȱcause,ȱ
orȱ anȱ accidentalȱ incompleteȱ one.ȱ Weȱ doȱ notȱ exclude,ȱ though,ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ aȱ
correlationȱwithȱtheȱfire,ȱwhichȱdestroyedȱNAȱIIIȱatȱHistria68.ȱ
Theȱceramicsȱcategoriesȱfoundȱhere69ȱproveȱaȱstableȱGreekȱsettlementȱinȱTomis,ȱ
wellȱdefinedȱevenȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱorȱtheȱlastȱquarterȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
GreekȬEasternȱ ceramicsȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ representativeȱ forȱ theȱ 6thȬ5thȱ centuriesȱ
BC;ȱthereȱareȱcommonȱvesselsȱandȱtheseȱwereȱfoundȱinȱusualȱshapesȱexcavatedȱinȱ
theȱarchaicȱlevelsȱofȱHistria.ȱ
MostȱofȱtheȱpiecesȱlookȱlikeȱHistriaȱNAȱIIIȱceramics70.ȱ Amongȱtheȱpiecesȱfromȱ
theȱ 6thȬ5thȱ centuriesȱ BCȱ weȱ mentionȱ someȱ irrelevantȱ Corinthianȱ fragments;ȱ
probablyȱ theyȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ lateȱ Corinthianȱ style,ȱ thoughȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ excludeȱ theȱ
middleȱphaseȱofȱthisȱstyle.ȱ
TheȱAtticȱceramicsȱwithȱdecorationsȱhaveȱsimilarȱphasesȱtoȱtheȱHistriaȱones:ȱ
relativelyȱcommonȱinȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBCȱandȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBC,ȱ
65
ȱ Otherwise,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ peninsulaȱ areaȱ wasȱ studiedȱ inȱ aȱ campaignȱ ofȱ preventiveȱ
excavationsȱbetweenȱ1959Ȭ1960ȱandȱ1986Ȭ1988ȱwhichȱbroughtȱaboutȱtheȱpreciseȱobservationȱ
ofȱ onlyȱ twoȱ habitableȱ levelsȱ fromȱ theȱ Romanȱ ageȱ andȱ RomanȬByzantine.ȱ Theȱ Hellenisticȱ
andȱ Greekȱ materialsȱ wereȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ wholeȱ researchedȱ area,ȱ butȱ withoutȱ formingȱ aȱ
compact,ȱuniformȱlevel.ȱ
66
ȱ Forȱ theȱ plateauȱ areaȱ stratigraphyȱ fromȱ Histria,ȱ seeȱ S.ȱ Dimitriu,ȱ inȱ Histriaȱ II,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1966,ȱ p.ȱ 21Ȭ37;ȱ secȱ moreȱ recentlyȱ M.ȱ Angelescu,ȱ inȱ CCA.ȱ Campaniaȱ 1994,ȱ ClujȬ
Napoca,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ42;ȱCampaniaȱ1995,ȱBr©ila,ȱ1996,ȱp.ȱ58Ȭ59;ȱM.ȱAngelescu,ȱA.ȱBâltâc,ȱSondajulȱ
„΅”ȱȱdinȱbasilicaȱepiscopal©ȱdeȱlaȱHistriaȱ(Theȱ„΅”ȱsondageȱinȱtheȱbishopricȱbasilicaȱfromȱHistria),ȱȱ
Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 85Ȭ122;ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ M.ȱ Angelescuȱ (eds.),ȱ Histria.ȱ GhidȬ
albumȱ(Histriaȱ–ȱGuideȬalbum),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ17Ȭ19.ȱ
67
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ25Ȭ27.ȱ
68
ȱ Inȱ theȱ researchesȱ inȱ 2001ȱ (supra,ȱ n.ȱ 63)ȱ ȱ thereȱ areȱ recordedȱ onȱ theȱ levelȱ Iȱ successiveȱ
rebuildingȱareas,ȱafterȱatȱleastȱtwoȱfires.ȱ
69
ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ periodȱ ceramicsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ isȱ mostlyȱ unpublished;ȱ thereȱ areȱ generalȱ
referenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ materialsȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Park;ȱ seeȱ A.ȱ R©dulescuȱ etȱ alii,ȱ
Ponticaȱ 6ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 333Ȭ347;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 34ȱ andȱ figs.ȱ 28Ȭ
35;ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ254Ȭ260.ȱ
70
ȱSeeȱtheȱceramicsȱatȱS.ȱDimitriu,ȱHistriaȱII,ȱp.ȱ41Ȭ54.ȱ
ȱ 125
ȱȱȱ
totallyȱabsentȱinȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBCȱandȱ„massive”ȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
5thȱcenturyȱandȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC.ȱȱ
Theȱ Atticȱ ceramicsȱ fromȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ areȱ presentȱ inȱ moreȱ
fragmentsȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱhighȬfootedȱcupsȱandȱcupsȱdecoratedȱwithȱ
stripes,ȱdatingȱtoȱaroundȱ530Ȭ520ȱBC,ȱandȱcupsȱwithȱblackȱoilȱvarnishȱwithoutȱanyȱ
decorationȱ(aboutȱ525ȱBC)ȱandȱpiecesȱwithȱblackȱfigures,ȱdatedȱaboutȱ520Ȭ510ȱBC.ȱ
Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȬbeginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuriesȱ BCȱ theȱ ceramicȱ seriesȱ withȱ
blackȱoilȱvarnishȱcontinued,ȱrepresentedȱbyȱcups,ȱskyphoi,ȱbowlsȱwithȱaȱlowȱedgeȱ
andȱbolsalsȱwithȱpaintedȱdecoration.ȱThereȱareȱalsoȱceramicȱtypesȱwithȱredȱfigures,ȱ
representatingȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ onȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ pelikeȱ andȱ
skyphoi.ȱTheȱdecorativeȱthemesȱareȱcommon:ȱindividualsȱinȱdrapedȱclothes,ȱSatyrs,ȱ
palmettaeȱandȱaccolades.ȱ
Theȱ supposedȱ colonialȱ ceramicsȱ areȱ similarȱ toȱ knownȱ shapesȱ amongȱ theȱ
Histrianȱ products;ȱ talkingȱ aboutȱ commonȱ shapes,ȱ theyȱ needȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ beȱ
Histrianȱimports,ȱbutȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱtheȱproductsȱofȱTomitanȱworkshops.ȱAnalysisȱ
ofȱsoilsȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱloessȱdepositsȱonȱtheȱnorthȱcliffȱofȱtheȱcityȱidentifiedȱusableȱ
qualities.ȱ Asȱ isȱ known,ȱ theȱ argilsȱ ofȱ someȱ regionsȱ formȱ aȱ ȇunityȱ wholeȇ,ȱ theȱ
qualitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ clayȱ areȱ probablyȱ veryȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱ Histrianȱ ones.ȱ Fromȱ
thisȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheȱselectionȱisȱdifficult,ȱandȱtheȱanswerȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱgivenȱbyȱ
aȱ fineȱ comparativeȱ analysisȱ inȱ theȱ laboratory.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ categoriesȱ supposedȱ
colonialsȱ weȱ noticeȱ fishplatesȱ withȱ redȱ paintȱ inside,ȱ traysȱ withȱ channelledȱ skirts,ȱ
bowlsȱofȱredȱclay,ȱinsufficientlyȱburnt,ȱwithȱaȱgreyȱcore.ȱ
Weȱ particularlyȱ pointȱ outȱ theȱ amphorae,ȱ whichȱ proveȱ theȱ vividȱ economicȱ
activityȱinȱTomisȱinȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBCȱwhichȱwasȱprefiguredȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱtoȱ
theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ BC71.ȱ Similarly,ȱ toȱ Histria,ȱ theȱ importsȱ wereȱ comingȱ
fromȱ Chios,ȱ Lesbosȱ andȱ Thasos.ȱ Thisȱ featureȱ isȱ preservedȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ
theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BC.ȱ Eloquently,ȱ theȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ theȱ amphoraeȱ importedȱ
betweenȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ isȱ quasiȬequal.ȱ Inȱ
theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ theȱ imports,ȱ thoughȱ moreȱ varied,ȱ wereȱ lessȱ
numerous,ȱ probablyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ insecureȱ politicalȱ situationȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ andȱ
alongȱmostȱofȱtheȱshoreȱduringȱthisȱperiod72.ȱȱ
TheȱcomparisonȱbetweenȱTomisȱandȱKallatisȱconcerningȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
stampedȱ amphoraȱ importsȱ isȱ inȱ itsȱ turnȱ eloquent.ȱ Takingȱ intoȱ considerationȱ theȱ
generalȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ importsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ colonies,ȱ Thasosȱ becomesȱ theȱ
firstȱ exportationȱ goodsȱ centreȱ usingȱ stampedȱ packingȱ materialsȱ onȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ
market,ȱ withȱ permanentȱ tradeȱ activityȱ beginningȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ quarterȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱBC.ȱUnlikeȱHistriaȱandȱTomis,ȱtheȱKallatianȱmarketȱwasȱorientatedȱatȱthatȱ
timeȱtoȱtheȱtradeȱwithȱPonticȱHeraclea.ȱTheȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱearlyȱstampsȱfromȱtheȱ
endȱofȱtheȱ5thȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC,ȱbothȱinȱTomisȱandȱKallatis,ȱisȱproofȱ
ofȱ moreȱ restrictedȱ economicȱ activityȱ comparedȱ toȱ Histria,ȱ owingȱ toȱ theȱ moreȱ
recentȱ dateȱ ofȱ theirȱ settlement.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ increasedȱ numberȱ ofȱ
stampsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ comparedȱ toȱ Kallatisȱ isȱ
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ75Ȭ96.ȱ
71
ȱ Seeȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Lesȱ premièresȱ importationsȱ dȇamphoresȱ timbréesȱ dansȱ lesȱ citésȱ grecquesȱ
72
deȱTomisȱetȱdeȱCallatis,ȱBCHȱSuppl.ȱ13ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ406Ȭ415.ȱ
ȱ
126ȱ ȱ
ȱ
proofȱofȱearlierȱtradeȱactivityȱwithȱThasosȱIsland.ȱ
Theȱ localȱ elementȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ strongȱ enoughȱ forȱ theȱ twoȱ aspectsȱ noticedȱ
alsoȱ inȱ Histria:ȱ theȱ autochtonousȱ (prevailing)ȱ andȱ theȱ Northȱ Pontic.ȱ Probably,ȱ aȱ
localȱ colonialȱ aspectȱ isȱ alsoȱ present,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ putȱ intoȱ lightȱ inȱ theȱ
researchȱ stage.ȱ Theȱ autochtonousȱ potteryȱ isȱ presentȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ archaeologicalȱ
levels.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ quantityȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ betterȱ representedȱ thanȱ inȱ
Histria.ȱ Theȱ Hallstattȱ shapesȱ traditionȱ wasȱ continued.ȱ Theȱ vesselsȱ decorationȱ
techniqueȱ hasȱ aȱ largeȱ repertory,ȱ whereȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ recognizedȱ Gethianȱ
decorativeȱ elements,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ someȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ northȬPonticȱ pottery.ȱ Theȱ
shapesȱ canȱ beȱ recognizedȱ inȱ theȱ potteryȱ discoveredȱ inȱ NAȱ IIIȱ atȱ Histriaȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ
archaicȱstratusȱthere,ȱtoȱbeȱdatedȱgoingȱtoȱtheȱlimitȱofȱtheȱ6thȱȬ5thȱcenturyȱBC73.ȱ
Regardingȱ coinȱ discoveries,ȱ ourȱ notesȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ onlyȱ bronzeȱ
arrowheadsȱ withȱ aȱ preȬmonetaryȱ valueȱ andȱ wheeledȱ bronzeȱ coins74.ȱ Concerningȱ
theȱfirstȱone,ȱweȱnoteȱthat:ȱ
1) theȱ stratigraphicalȱ distributionȱ ofȱ theȱ piecesȱ fromȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Park:ȱ
thisȱshowsȱforȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱBCȱ(NȱXIIȬXI)ȱbothȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱthreeȱedgedȱ
arrowsȱandȱtheȱfoliformȱones;ȱinȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱtheȱtwoȱtypesȱstillȱ
exist,ȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱBCȱonlyȱfoliformȱarrowheadsȱappear;ȱ
2) someȱ piecesȱ haveȱ specialȱ symbolsȱ markedȱ inȱ relief,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ
interpretedȱasȱworkshopȱmarks;ȱ
3) thereȱ areȱ knownȱ atȱ Tomisȱ twoȱ arrowheadsȱ hoardsȱ withȱ premonetaryȱ
valueȱandȱalsoȱaȱdeposit75.ȱNamedȱsuccesivelyȱTomisȱIȱ(58ȱpiecesȱandȱtwoȱOlbianȱ
dolphins),ȱ Tomisȱ IIȱ (140ȱ pieces)ȱ andȱ Tomisȱ IIIȱ (12ȱ pieces),ȱ theyȱ putȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ
uniqueȱ situationȱ toȱ discoverȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ hoardsȱ inȱ aȱ „Greek”ȱ environment.ȱ Itȱ isȱ
possibleȱthatȱtheyȱbelongedȱtoȱtheȱGreeksȱinȱtheȱcityȱandȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱgiftsȱ(dora)ȱ
orȱ exchangeȱ objectsȱ withȱ theȱ localȱ population;ȱ thisȱ wayȱ weȱ couldȱ findȱ anȱ
argumentȱforȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱemporionȱofȱtheȱsettlement.ȱȱ
Theȱ wheeledȱ bronzeȱ coins,ȱ attributedȱ toȱ Histria,ȱ wereȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ 5thȱ
centuryȱlevelsȱandȱwereȱabsentȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱ(ȱNȱVIII).ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱpiecesȱisȱ
tooȱsmallȱ(28ȱsamplesȱinȱtheȱCathedralȱParkȱandȱfewȱonȱArhiepiscopieiȱst.,ȱlevelȱ2)ȱ
toȱ supportȱ theȱ temptingȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ localȱ workshops.ȱ Weȱ shouldȱ acceptȱ theȱ
observation76ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theseȱ coinsȱ representȱ aȱ circulatingȱ valueȱ inȱ theȱ
Histriaȇsȱ maximumȱ tradeȱ relationȱ area.ȱ Hereȱ weȱ alsoȱ mentionȱ aȱ hoardȱ ofȱ 110ȱ
73
ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Civilizaöiaȱ greac©,ȱ p.ȱ 259Ȭ260;ȱ L.ȱ Arsenie,ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ283Ȭ298.ȱ
74
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ34Ȭ37;ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱSCNȱ7ȱ(1980),ȱp.ȱ25Ȭ
34;ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱSemneȱmonetareȱdinȱariaȱdeȱvestȱóiȱnordȬvestȱaȱPontuluiȱEuxin.ȱDeȱlaȱsimbolȱlaȱ
comeröȱ (secoleleȱ VIȬVȱ a.ȱ Chr.)/ȱ Monetaryȱ signsȱ inȱ theȱ Westȱ andȱ NorthȬWestȱ areaȱ ofȱ Pontusȱ
Euxinus,ȱfromȱsymbolȱtoȱtradeȱ(6 th ȱ–ȱ5 th ȱcenturiesȱBC),ȱClujȬNapocaȱ2010,ȱpassim.ȱ
75
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 82;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Theȱ arrowheadȬmonetaryȱ signsȱ
hoard,ȱ foundedȱ inȱ Constanöaȱ (Constanöaȱ county),ȱ inȱ Coinȱ hoardsȱ ofȱ Dobruja.ȱ I.ȱ Constanöaȱ 2007,ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ11Ȭ35.ȱȱ
76
ȱ Bucurȱ Mitrea,ȱ Roata,ȱ simbolȱ solarȱ peȱ monedeleȱ histrieneȱ (Wheel,ȱ sunȱ symbolsȱ onȱ
Histrianȱcoins),ȱPonticaȱ15ȱ(1982),ȱp.ȱ97.ȱȱ
ȱ 127
ȱȱȱ
Histrianȱsilverȱcoinsȱdiscoveredȱ„nearȱtheȱancientȱTomis”ȱandȱdatedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱ
theȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC .ȱȱ
Forȱ theȱ initialȱ period,ȱ itȱ wasȱ admitted77ȱ thatȱ fromȱ aȱ monetaryȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ
TomisȱisȱstillȱinȱHistriaȇsȱ„sphereȱofȱinfluence”.ȱHistriaȇsȱinfluenceȱwasȱconsideredȱ
toȱhaveȱbeenȱ„maintained”ȱuntilȱtheȱmiddleȱorȱafterȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱ
BC.ȱ Weȱ preferȱ toȱ thisȱ categoricalȱ opinionȱ aȱ moreȱ modulatedȱ view,ȱ meaningȱ thatȱ
Tomisȱ benefitedȱ fromȱ itsȱ positionȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ whereȱ Histrianȱ coinsȱ circulated.ȱ
Histrianȱ coinsȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ powerfulȱ enoughȱ inȱ theȱ 6thȬ4thȱ centuriesȱ BCȱ toȱ coverȱ
theȱcoinȱnecessaryȱofȱtheȱotherȱneighbouringȱGreekȱsettlements78.ȱ
Accidentalȱdiscoveriesȱhaveȱbroughtȱaboutȱalsoȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱsomeȱforeignȱ
coinsȱ atȱ Tomis79.ȱ Theyȱ comeȱ successivelyȱ fromȱ theȱ Thracianȱ Chersonesȱ (515Ȭ493ȱ
BC),ȱ Persiaȱ (486Ȭ450ȱ BC),ȱ Apolloniaȱ Ponticaȱ (endȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ Ȭȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ
century)ȱ andȱ Thessaliaȱ (beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BC).ȱ Olderȱ informationȱ
recordedȱ hereȱ alsoȱ twoȱ hoardsȱ fromȱ Apolloniaȱ Ponticaȱ (endȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȬbeginningȱ
ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BC)ȱ andȱ Mesambriaȱ (4thȱ centuryȱ BC),ȱ withoutȱ anyȱ
supplementaryȱdata80.ȱ
Theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ discoveriesȱ areaȱ coversȱ theȱ extremityȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomisȱ
peninsulaȱ (theȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ areaȱ andȱ thatȱ closeȱ toȱ it)81ȱ andȱ generallyȱ theȱ
peninsulaȱexistingȱinȱtheȱplaceȱandȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱsouthȱandȱwestȱofȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱ
OvidiuȱSquare.ȱ
Itȱisȱtrueȱ thatȱ4thȱcenturyȱ BCȱmaterialsȱareȱmoreȱnumerousȱinȱtheȱpeninsula.ȱ
Weȱ noteȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ 8ȱ Chiosȱ amphorasȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ century,ȱ
probablyȱfromȱaȱstorehouseȱwhoseȱexcavationȱconditionsȱareȱnotȱclearlyȱknownȱtoȱ
us82.ȱ
ȱTheȱ buildingȱ elementsȱ areȱ representedȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ searchedȱ areaȱ byȱ someȱ
hutsȬhousesȱ (6thȱ Ȭ5thȱ centuriesȱ BC),ȱ pavementsȱ andȱ stoneȱ wallsȱ ofȱ someȱ surfaceȱ
housesȱ (5thȬ4thȱ centuriesȱ BC).ȱ Weȱ noticeȱ aȱ streetȱ withȱ twoȱ madeȬupȱ levelsȱ (Nȱ II,ȱ
inferior,ȱ5thȬ4thȱcenturiesȱBC;ȱNȱ1Ȭtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC).ȱItsȱwayȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱlateȱ

ȱ Theȱ hoardȱ ȱ whoseȱ preservingȱ placeȱ isȱ notȱ known,ȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ inȱ 1916.ȱ Seeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Repertoriulȱ tezaurelorȱ monetareȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Repertoireȱ ofȱ coinȱ
hoardsȱ fromȱ Dobruja).ȱ Constanöaȱ 2011,ȱ p.ȱ 164,ȱ no.ȱ IIȱ (withȱ referenceȱ toȱ G.ȱ Severeanu,ȱ BSNRȱ
15ȱ(1920),ȱ35Ȭ36,ȱp.ȱ20Ȭ27.ȱ
77
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ Discuöiiȱ peȱ margineaȱ câtorvaȱ monedeȱ str©ineȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ antic©ȱ
(DebatesȱconcerningȱsomeȱforeignȱcoinsȱfromȱancientȱDobruja),ȱSCIVȱ21ȱ(1970),ȱl,ȱp.ȱ137.ȱ
78
ȱForȱtheȱHistrianȱcoinȱspreadingȱarea,ȱseeȱrecentlyȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ
2003),ȱp.ȱ357Ȭ394.ȱ
79
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Theȱ mints’issuesȱ fromȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ coastȱ andȱ otherȱ areasȱ ofȱ Dobruja.ȱ Theȱ
PreȬRomanȱ andȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ periodsȱ (6 th ȱ centuryȱ BCȱ –ȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ ClujȬNapocaȱ 2007,ȱ
passim.ȱ
80
ȱ C.ȱ Moisil,ȱCreótereaȱ ColecöiilorȱCabinetuluiȱNumismaticȱ înȱBibliotecaȱAcademieiȱRomâne,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1944,ȱ p.ȱ 5,ȱ nr.ȱ 40,ȱ 42,ȱ resumedȱ alsoȱ byȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 164Ȭ165;ȱ seeȱ
recentlyȱalsoȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriulȱtezaurelor,ȱp.ȱ169ȱ(VIII;ȱhereȱtheȱpossibleȱ
dateȱ330Ȭ320ȱBC).ȱ
81
ȱNewȱresearchȱinȱtheȱEpiscopalȱCathedralȱyardȱandȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱIonȱJaleaȱmuseum;ȱ
seeȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Constanöaȱ (Tomis),ȱ inȱ CCA,ȱ 1983Ȭ1992,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.ȱ 25,ȱ no.ȱ 18;ȱ Gh.ȱ
Papucȱetȱalii,ȱConstanöaȱ(Tomis),ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110,ȱno.ȱ73.ȱ
82
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ88.ȱ
128ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Romanȱ street83.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ buildingȱ structuresȱ areȱ recordedȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ onȱ
Arhiepiscopieiȱstreetȱ;ȱweȱmentionȱhereȱaȱsurfaceȱhouseȱwithȱtwoȱrooms,ȱdatedȱinȱ
theȱ5thȱcenturyȱBCȱandȱtheȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱstoneȱstreetȱpavementȱfromȱtheȱ4thȱ
centuryȱBC84.ȱ
Forȱtheȱmoment,ȱweȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱcharacteristicȱelementsȱforȱthisȱperiodȱare:ȱ
- reducedȱinhabitedȱarea;ȱ
- conditionsȱ ofȱ settlingȱ Greeksȱ inȱ anȱ autochthonousȱ millieuȱ moreȱ definedȱ
thanȱthatȱofȱHistria;ȱ
- economicalȱ relationshipsȱ orientatedȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ microȬAsianȱ andȱ Aegeanȱ
centresȱidentifiedȱatȱHistria.ȱ
ȱ
Theȱ2ndȱstage:ȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱȬȱ1stȱcenturyȱBCȱ
Theȱ importantȱ eventȱ ofȱ theȱ periodȱ isȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ ȇwarȱ forȱ Tomisȇȱ or,ȱ
accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ phraseȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ,ȱ summarizedȱ byȱ
Memnonȱ afterȱ aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ presentationȱ byȱ Nymphis.ȱ Consideringȱ asȱ veryȱ
importantȱ thisȱ informationȱ weȱ quoteȱ Memnonȱ literally85ȱ (FGrHistȱ IIIȱ B,ȱ p.ȱ 347Ȭ
348):ȱ ̒Ёȱ ΔΓΏΏХȱ Έξȱ ЂΗΘΉΕΓΑȱ ΛΕϱΑУȱ ΔϱΏΉΐΓΖȱ ΦΑΉΕΕΣ·΋ȱ ̅ΙΊ΅ΑΘϟΓ΍Ζȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ
̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϿΖȱ (ΩΔΓ΍ЩΓ΍ȱ Έξȱ ΓЈΘΓ΍ȱ ̽Ε΅ЩΏΉΝΘЗΑȱ ϖΗ΅Α)ȱ Щ΅Ϡȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ ͑ΗΘΕ΍΅ΑΓϿΖȱ
ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ,ȱ ϶ȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϧΖȱ ϵΐΓΕΓΑȱ ώ,ȱ ΐΓΑΓΔЏΏ΍ΓΑȱ ΘΓІΘΓȱ
Έ΍΅ΑΓΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ Щ΅Θ΅ΗЩΉΙΣΗ΅΍ȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑЗΑ.ȱ ̇΍ΉΔΕΉΗΆΉϾΓΑΘΓȱ ΓЇΑȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ
̽Ε΅ЩΏΉЏΘ΅Ζȱ πΔϠȱ ΗΙΐΐ΅Λϟ΅Αȱ οЩΣΘΉΕΓ΍Ɇȱ Γϡȱ Έξȱ ΔΓΏΉΐ΍ЩχΑȱ ΐξΑȱ ϹΓΔχΑȱ ΓЁΈΉΘνΕУȱ
σΑΉΐΓΑȱ ΐνΕΉ΍,ȱ Έ΍΅ΏΏ΅ЩΘφΕ΍ΓΙΖȱ Έξȱ ΩΑΈΕ΅Ζȱ οЩ΅ΘνΕΓ΍Ζȱ ΦΔνΗΘΉΏΏΓΑ,ȱ ЩΪΑȱ
ΩΔΕ΅ЩΘΓΖȱ΅ЁΘЗΑȱψȱΗΔΓΙΈφȱΘΓΘΉȱ·ν·ΓΑΉ.ȱ̓ΓΏΏΤȱΈξȱΓϡȱΘϛΖȱ̍΅ΏΏΣΘ΍ΈΓΖȱЀΔϲȱΘЗΑȱ
ΔΓΏΉΐϟΝΑȱ Δ΅ΌϱΑΘΉΖ,ȱ ЂΗΘΉΕΓΑȱ ΉϢΖȱ Έ΍΅ΏϾΗΉ΍Ζȱ ώΏΌΓΑ,ȱ ΦΔϲȱ Θ΅ϾΘ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΗΙΐΠΓΕκΖȱ
ΓЁЩνΘ΍ȱΗΛΉΈϲΑȱΦΑ΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑȱ΅ЀΘΓϿΖȱΈΙΑ΋ΌνΑΘΉΖ.ȱ
„Notȱ longȱ afterȱ that,ȱ aȱ warȱ brokeȱ out,ȱ whichȱ theȱ Byzantinesȱ beganȱ versusȱ
Kallatiansȱ Ȭtheseȱ beingȱ colonistsȱ ofȱ HeracleaȬȱ and,ȱ [atȱ theȱ sameȱ time]ȱ versusȱ
Histriansȱ forȱ theȱ emporionȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ whichȱ wasȱ closeȱ toȱ Kallatis.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ
thinkingȱaboutȱtheirȱmonopolyȱthere.ȱBothȱofȱthemȱsentȱmessengersȱtoȱHeracleaȱtoȱ
helpȱ them,ȱ butȱ Heracleaȱ offeredȱ militaryȱ supportȱ toȱ neitherȱ ofȱ them,ȱ butȱ sentȱ
messengersȱ toȱ bothȱ citiesȱ toȱ pacifyȱ them,ȱ butȱ thisȱ effortȱ wasȱ inȱ vain.ȱ Theȱ
Kallatiansȱ sufferedȱ manyȱ lossesȱ fromȱ theirȱ enemiesȱ andȱ laterȱ onȱ theyȱ startedȱ
peaceȱnegotiations,ȱbutȱtheyȱcouldȱnotȱrecoverȱthemselvesȱfromȱthisȱmisfortune”86.ȱ
Analyzingȱeveryȱsequenceȱandȱtraditionallyȱeveryȱsequence,ȱthisȱinformationȱ
dealsȱwithȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ
- aȱ militaryȱ confrontationȱ betweenȱ aȱ HistriaȬKallatisȱ coalitionȱ andȱ
Byzantionȱasȱenemies;ȱ
- theȱconfrontationȱtargetȱwasȱtheȱmonopolyȱuponȱtheȱemporionȱofȱTomis;ȱ
83
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 44ȱ andȱ theȱ researchedȱ area’sȱ generalȱ
plan;ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱLȇévolutionȱurbanistiqueȱdeȱlaȱcitéȱdeȱTomis,ȱRRHȱ15ȱ(1976),ȱ1,ȱp. ȱ 3Ȭ10.ȱ
84
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109.ȱ
85
ȱ Memnon,ȱ fr.ȱ 21ȱ (FHGȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 537ȱ =ȱ FGrHIST,ȱ III,ȱ B,ȱ 434,ȱ fr.ȱ 13).ȱ Referenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ
warȱforȱTomisȱatȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ222;ȱidem,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ33Ȭ35;ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱ
p.ȱ 20Ȭ21ȱ andȱ 215Ȭ216;ȱ seeȱ recently,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2250,ȱ Ponticaȱ 23ȱ (1990),ȱ p.ȱ 23Ȭ
28;ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ150Ȭ163;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ26Ȭ32.ȱ
86
ȱTheȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱtextȱfromȱMemnon,ȱinȱFontesȱI,ȱp.ȱ511.ȱ
ȱ 129
ȱȱȱ
- theȱappealȱbothȱpartsȱsentȱtoȱHeracleaȱPontica;ȱ
- Heracleaȇsȱdiplomaticȱ(butȱnotȱmilitary)ȱapproachȱwhichȱwasȱwithoutȱanyȱ
result;ȱ
- conflictȱendȱinȱKallatis’ȱdisatvantageȱ(peaceȱnegotiationsȱprobablyȱbeforeȱ
theȱfinalȱdefeat).ȱ
Theȱ narratedȱ eventȱ hasȱ anȱ outstandingȱ importanceȱ forȱ westȱ Ponticȱ cityȱ
historyȱ andȱ isȱ placedȱ inȱ aȱ largerȱ politicalȱ andȱ militaryȱ context87,ȱ whichȱ
encompassedȱ manyȱ geographicalȱ areasȱ Ȭȱ theȱ Aegeanȱ Sea,ȱ theȱ easternȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ
Mediteraneanȱ Seaȱ andȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ Ȭȱ andȱ putȱ intoȱ oppositionȱ kingdomsȱ andȱ
politicalȱ unionsȱ withȱ differentȱ interests.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ latter,ȱ weȱ mentionȱ theȱ
NorthernȱLeague,ȱaȱtemporaryȱsymmachiaȱwithȱanȱantiȬSeleucidȱorientation,ȱwhoseȱ
interestsȱ wereȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ economicȱ interestsȱ ofȱ Heracleaȱ Pontica88.ȱ Itsȱ
attitudeȱtowardsȱByzantium,ȱinȱitsȱturnȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱLeague,ȱchangedȱbecauseȱ
asȱ Byzantiumȱ heldȱ theȱ tradeȱ monopolyȱ inȱ theȱ Ponticȱ basin,ȱ andȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ theȱ
mediatingȱroleȱthatȱByzantiumȱplayedȱinȱPontȇsȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱAegeanȱSeaȱ
basin.ȱ Thisȱ explainsȱ whyȱ Heraclea,ȱ whichȱ underȱ differentȱ circumstancesȱ
considerablyȱ helpedȱ Byzantium,ȱ maintainedȱ itsȱ neutralityȱ andȱ choseȱ
reconciliationȱ facedȱ withȱ aȱ conflictȱ inȱ whichȱ bothȱ Byzantiumȱ andȱ Kallatisȱ wereȱ
involved.ȱ
Moreȱthanȱtheȱeconomicȱinterestsȱofȱthisȱconflict,ȱwhichȱforȱtheȱLeagueȱmeantȱ
theȱ settingȱ upȱ ofȱ Greekȱ freeȱ cities,ȱ andȱ forȱ Tomisȱ meantȱ itsȱ positionȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ
thisȱstatusȱ wasȱrightȱforȱit,ȱ theȱByzantinesȱwereȱaimingȱatȱotherȱinterests,ȱ mainlyȱ
politicalȱ ones,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ breakingȱ upȱ ofȱ theȱ Seleucidȱ sphereȱ ofȱ influence,ȱ underȱ
whichȱ Kallatisȱ seemedȱ toȱ beȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ time.ȱ Followingȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ events,ȱ
Kallatisȱ shouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ whichȱ theȱ Seleucidȱ kingȱ Antiochosȱ IIȱ
Theosȱ (261Ȭ246ȱ BC)ȱ startedȱ aȱ siegeȱ againstȱ Byzantium,ȱ anȱ operationȱ associatedȱ
withȱaȱcampaignȱinȱThraciaȱ(255Ȭ254ȱBC)89.ȱWeȱconsiderȱ„theȱwarȱforȱTomis”ȱtoȱbeȱ
relatedȱ preciselyȱ toȱ thisȱ conflictȱ inȱ whichȱ Byzantiumȱ wasȱ involvedȱ andȱ whichȱ
finished,ȱifȱnotȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱ255ȱBC,ȱatȱtheȱlatestȱinȱtheȱspringȱofȱ254ȱBC90.ȱForȱtheȱ
dateȱofȱtheȱ beginningȱofȱtheȱwarȱforȱTomisȱweȱfindȱaȱhintȱinȱtheȱsuccessionȱfromȱ
Bithynia91.ȱInȱMemnonȇsȱnarration,ȱtheȱfragmentȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱwarȱforȱTomisȱisȱ
placedȱ beforeȱ theȱ narrationȱ aboutȱ theȱ conflictȱ inȱ Bithynia;ȱ theȱ startȱ ofȱ bothȱ
conflictsȱisȱplacedȱbetweenȱ256Ȭ255ȱBC.ȱWeȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱwarȱforȱ
Tomisȱareȱ256/255Ȭ254ȱBC92.ȱSo,ȱtheȱdateȱ260ȱBC,ȱgenerallyȱacceptedȱbyȱhistorians93ȱ
87
ȱ B.ȱ Niese,ȱ Geschichteȱ derȱ griechischenȱ undȱ makedonischenȱ Staatenȱ seitȱ derȱ Schlachtȱ beiȱ
Chaeronea,ȱ II,ȱ Gotha,ȱ 1899,ȱ p.ȱ 137Ȭ138;ȱ W.P.ȱ Newskaia,ȱ Byzanzȱ inȱ derȱ klassischenȱ undȱ
hellenistischenȱ Epoche,ȱ Leipzig,ȱ 1955,ȱ p.ȱ 150Ȭ151;ȱ M.ȱ Rostovtzeff,ȱ Socialȱ andȱ Economicȱ Historyȱ
ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ World,ȱ Oxford,ȱ 1941,ȱ 1,ȱ p.ȱ 590Ȭ591;ȱ S.Ju.ȱ Saprykin,ȱ Geraklejaȱ Pontijskajaȱ iȱ
HersonesȱTavriceskij,ȱMoscova,ȱ1986,ȱp.124Ȭ139.ȱ
88
ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ Northenȱ League,ȱ seeȱ especialyȱ M.ȱ Rostovtzeff,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 26Ȭ27ȱ andȱ 590;ȱȱȱ
S.ȱJu.ȱSaprykin,ȱop.cit;ȱidem,ȱSevernajaȱLiga,ȱPricernomorȇeȱvȱepohuȱellenizma,ȱ1985,ȱp.ȱ49Ȭ61.ȱ
89
ȱMemnon,ȱp.ȱ228ȱa,ȱ53ȱf;ȱbȱ28ȱf.ȱ
90
ȱSeeȱtheȱdatesȱalsoȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ31.ȱ
91
ȱApudȱB.ȱNiese,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ137;ȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ26Ȭ27,ȱn.ȱ115.ȱ
92
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ planȱ ofȱ theȱ eventsȱ developmentȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Ju.G.ȱ Vinogradovȱ atȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ32;ȱibid.,ȱp.ȱ27,ȱn.ȱ116.ȱ
93
ȱSeeȱabove,ȱn.ȱ87.ȱ
130ȱ ȱ
ȱ
shouldȱ beȱ corrected;ȱ otherȱ chronologiesȱ Ȭȱ 275ȱ BCȱ orȱ 253Ȭ247ȱ BCȱ Ȭȱ areȱ consideredȱ
eitherȱtooȱearlyȱorȱtooȱlateȱandȱwithoutȱanyȱsupportingȱevidence94.ȱ
TheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱwarfareȱdescribedȱincompletelyȱbyȱMemnonȱarousesȱ
suppositions.ȱ Byzantiumȱ seemedȱ toȱ haveȱ provoked,ȱ asȱ R.ȱ Vulpeȱ wrote,ȱ „voullaitȱ
sȇemparerȱ deȱ cetteȱ villeȱ situéeȱ auȱ milieuȱ deȱ laȱ côteȱ deȱ Dobroudjaȱ etȱ bienȱ placéeȱ
pourȱ controlerȱ leȱ commerceȱ deȱ toutȱ leȱ Pontȱ Gauche”95.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ advantagesȱ
toȱthemselvesȱwereȱnotȱtoȱbeȱignored96,ȱweȱratherȱthinkȱthatȱByzantiumȱstartedȱtoȱ
fightȱ thisȱ warȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ interestsȱ ofȱ theȱ Leagueȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ
League,ȱsinceȱtheȱultimateȱpurposeȱwasȱtoȱabolishȱanyȱmonopolyȱuponȱTomisȱandȱ
toȱdeclareȱitȱaȱfreeȱport.ȱByzantiumȱindeedȱachievedȱthat.ȱTomisȱbenefitedȱfurtherȱ
byȱ theseȱ newȱ circumstancesȱ andȱ consolidatedȱ itsȱ positionȱ atȱ headȱ ofȱ theȱ Ponticȱ
cities.ȱWeȱareȱnotȱconfirmingȱotherȱsuppositionsȱconcerningȱtheȱwarȱatȱsea97.ȱ
Memnonȇsȱ purposefulȱ mentionȱ ofȱ ΐΓΑΓΔЏΏ΍ΓΑȱ ΘΓІΘΓȱ Έ΍΅ΑΓΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ
Ύ΅Θ΅ΗΎΉΙΣΗ΅΍ȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑЗΑȬ,ȱ determinedȱ someȱ historiansȱ toȱ thinkȱ thatȱ
onlyȱKallatisȱaimedȱatȱtheȱsettingȱupȱofȱthisȱmonopoly,ȱandȱthatȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ
Histriaȱ wantedȱ toȱ annexȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ ruralȱ areaȱ ofȱ Tomis98.ȱ Underȱ theseȱ
circumstancesȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ understandȱ whyȱ Memnon,ȱ referringȱ preciselyȱ toȱ thisȱ
agricultureȱ territory99ȱ takesȱ intoȱ considerationȱ firstȱ neighbouringȱ Kallatis,ȱ ϳȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ
̍΅ΏΏ΅Θ΍΅ΑΓϧΖȱϵΐΓΕΓΑȱώ.ȱ
Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ Histria,ȱ havingȱ aȱ ruralȱ territory100ȱ
whichȱ mustȱ alreadyȱ haveȱ beenȱ wellȱ extendedȱ toȱ theȱ south101,ȱ creatingȱ defensiveȱ
difficulties102,ȱ neededȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȱ toȱ extendȱ thisȱ territoryȱ
againstȱaȱcityȱwithȱsimilarȱinterests.ȱ Histriaȱratherȱaimedȱforȱ theȱmonopolyȱuponȱ
theȱ transitȱ trade,ȱ which,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ alliance,ȱ sharedȱ withȱ Kallatis.ȱ Atȱ theȱ
94
ȱForȱdatingȱseeȱalsoȱJu.G.ȱVinogradov,ȱDerȱPontosȱEuxeinos,ȱp.ȱ47,ȱn.ȱ184;ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱ
Theȱwesternȱ ponticȱcities:ȱhistoryȱ andȱ politicalȱ organization,ȱOhioȱStateȱ University,ȱ1991,ȱp.ȱ 41,ȱ
n.ȱ116.ȱ
95
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱHAD,ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ86.ȱ
96
ȱB.ȱNiese,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ137.ȱ
97
ȱ Cf.ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 34.ȱ Althoughȱ difficultȱ toȱ verify,ȱ theȱ suppositionȱ
holdsȱ good,ȱ takingȱ intoȱ accountȱ thatȱ Byzantiumȱ hadȱ numerousȱ maritimeȱ warȱ vesselsȱ
(maybeȱ notȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ extentȱ asȱ Heracleaȱ Pontica);ȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Kallatisȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ inȱ
theirȱturnȱaȱfleetȱof,ȱfirstlyȱtradeȱvessels,ȱandȱalsoȱpossiblyȱsomeȱdefenceȱvessels.ȱ
98
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ154ȱsiȱn.ȱ22.ȱ
99
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ197Ȭ198;ȱidem,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ175,ȱnoteȱ22.ȱ
100
ȱSeeȱtheȱpreviousȱnote;ȱseeȱalsoȱP.ȱAlexandrescu,ȱÎnsemn©riȱarheologiceȱ(Archaeologicalȱ
Notes),ȱStClsȱ12ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ152,ȱwhoȱaddsȱprudently:ȱ„Forȱtheȱmomentȱweȱdonȇtȱknowȱwhichȱ
wasȱtheȱsouthȱlimitȱofȱtheȱHistrianȱterritoryȱinȱtheȱarchaicȱandȱclassicalȱage.”ȱ
101
ȱ Forȱ theȱ Romanȱ age,ȱ theȱ assumedȱ southernȱ limitȱ isȱ Taóaulȱ lakeȱ –ȱ Midiaȱ Cape;ȱ seeȱ
D.M.ȱPippidi,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ348Ȭ385ȱandȱfig.ȱ4;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱÎntindereaȱteritoriuluiȱHistrieiȱînȱ
epocaȱ roman©ȱ înȱ luminaȱ hot©rnicieiȱ consularuluiȱManiusȱ Laberius.ȱ Incercareȱ deȱ reconstituireȱ (Theȱ
areaȱofȱHistrianȱterritoryȱinȱtheȱRomanȱageȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱbordersȱdecidedȱbyȱtheȱconsularisȱManiusȱ
Laberius.ȱ Reconstructionȱ attempt),ȱ CCDJ,ȱ C©l©raói,ȱ 5Ȭ7ȱ (1988Ȭ1989),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ197ȱ;ȱ idemȱ inȱ
Histria.ȱEineȱGriechenstadtȱanȱderȱrumänischenȱScwarzmeerküsteȱ(eds.ȱP.ȱAlexandrescuȱandȱW.ȱ
Schuller),ȱXenia,ȱ25,ȱȱKonstanz,ȱ1990,ȱp.ȱ11Ȭ14.ȱSeeȱalsoȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱFântânele.ȱContribuöiiȱ
laȱ studiulȱ vieöiiȱ ruraleȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (Fântânele.ȱ Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ ruralȱ lifeȱ inȱ
RomanȱDobruja).ȱBucureóti,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ160.ȱ
102
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ185ȱ(forȱtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱBC)ȱandȱp.ȱ186Ȭ221ȱ(forȱtheȱ
2 nd ȱcenturyȱBC).ȱ
ȱ 131
ȱȱȱ
timeȱofȱconflict,ȱKallatisȱdidȱnotȱactuallyȱholdȱthisȱmonopoly,ȱtheȱKallatiansȱwereȱ
justȱ „thinking”ȱ ofȱ takingȱ upȱ theȱ rightȱ forȱ thisȱ andȱ whileȱ Histriaȱ didȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ
loseȱitȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱByzantiumȱorȱtheȱPonticȱconfederation,ȱifȱitȱhad.ȱ
Aȱ newȱ interpretation103ȱ changesȱ theȱ allianceȱ structureȱ andȱ posesȱ someȱ
questions.ȱ Theȱ hypothesisȱ wasȱ putȱ forwardȱ byȱ Vinogradov,ȱ takingȱ intoȱ
considerationȱ justȱ „Monopolkriegȱ umȱ Tomisȱ zurȱ Seeschlachtȱ beiȱ Kos”ȱ Heȱ beginsȱ byȱ
admittingȱtheȱexistanceȱofȱaȱconflictȱbetweenȱHistriaȱandȱKallatisȱandȱheȱassumesȱ
itsȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ warȱ forȱ Tomis.ȱ Vinogradovȱ datesȱ theȱ epigraphicalȱ
documentȱ mentioningȱ thisȱ conflictȱ (ISMȱ III,ȱ 7)ȱ (withȱ supportingȱ argumentsȱ fromȱ
Al.ȱ Avram)ȱ toȱ 253ȱ BC.ȱ Weȱ noticeȱ aȱ warȱ betweenȱ Histriaȱ andȱ Kallatis,ȱ evenȱ
connectedȱ withȱ theȱ warȱ forȱ Tomis,ȱ isȱ differentȱ inȱ matterȱ andȱ consequencesȱ fromȱ
theȱconflictȱmentionedȱbyȱMemnon.ȱ
Itȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱthisȱwar,ȱifȱitȱtookȱplaceȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBC,ȱ
wasȱ theȱ beginningȱ orȱ theȱ firstȱ phaseȱ ofȱ theȱ warȱ forȱ Tomis:ȱ firstȱ Histriaȱ andȱ
Kallatis,ȱ antagonistsȱ forȱ controllingȱ theȱ emporionȱ Tomisȱ mayȱ haveȱ becomeȱ alliesȱ
whenȱ Byzantiumȱ becameȱ interestedȱ inȱ thisȱ matterȱ asȱ well.ȱ However,ȱ moreȱ likelyȱ
HistriaȱandȱKallatisȱwereȱnotȱalliesȱinȱthisȱconflictȱandȱtheȱreferenceȱ toȱHistriaȱinȱ
Memnonȇsȱ textȱ mentionsȱ aȱ conflictȱ whichȱ Histriaȱ alsoȱ hadȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȱ ΘΓІȱ
πΐΔΓΕϟΓΙ;ȱ onlyȱ Kallatisȱ andȱ Byzantiumȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ enemies.ȱ Heracleaȇsȱ
messengersȱ onlyȱ concernȱ them;ȱ theȱ disastrousȱ resultȱ isȱ mentionedȱ onlyȱ forȱ
Kallatis.ȱFurthermore,ȱKallatisȱaskedȱforȱ„peaceȱnegotiations”,ȱanȱattitudeȱputȱintoȱ
practiceȱ alsoȱ duringȱ theȱ warȱ againstȱ Histria.ȱ Thereȱ wasȱ aȱ shortȱ lapseȱ ofȱ timeȱ
betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ conflicts,ȱ aȱ periodȱ whenȱ ȇtheȱ initialȱ positionȱ ofȱ mattersȱ wasȱ reȬ
establishedȇȱ(ΉϢΖȱΘΤΑȱπΒȱΦΕΛκΖȱΈ΍ΣΟΉ΍Η΍Α,ȱinȱISMȱIII,ȱ7).ȱThisȱinterpretation,ȱarguesȱ
thatȱtheȱwarȱbetweenȱHistriaȱandȱKallatisȱwasȱbeforeȱtheȱoneȱbetweenȱKallatisȱandȱ
Byzantium,ȱandȱthatȱbothȱofȱthemȱwereȱaboutȱcontrolȱoverȱtheȱemporionȱofȱTomis.ȱ
Weȱcanȱretainȱaȱdateȱaroundȱ264/261ȱBCȱasȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheseȱevents104.ȱ
Noȱ matterȱ whatȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ eventsȱ was,ȱ theirȱ consequencesȱ wereȱ
favourableȱtoȱTomis:ȱtheȱcityȱbeganȱtoȱdevelopȱthenceforth.ȱȱ
ȱBeginningȱwithȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBC,ȱTomisȱissuedȱitsȱfirstȱcoins,ȱ
someȱbronzeȱones,ȱmoreȱnumerousȱandȱvariousȱthanȱtheȱcoinsȱissuedȱatȱtheȱsameȱ
periodȱ byȱHistriaȱandȱKallatis105.ȱSmallȱamountsȱofȱ theseȱcoinsȱcirculatedȱbeyondȱ
theȱcityȱmarket,ȱinȱDobrujaȱ(includingȱinȱHistriaȱandȱKallatis),ȱNEȱofȱBulgariaȱandȱ
103
ȱ Ju.G.ȱ Vinogradov,ȱ Vomȱ „Monopolkrieg”ȱ umȱ Tomisȱ zurȱ Seeschlachtȱ beiȱ Kos,ȱ quotedȱ byȱ
usȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ32.ȱ
104
ȱItȱremainsȱforȱusȱtoȱagreeȱpossibleȱcommonȱinterestsȱbetweenȱBithyniaȱandȱMiletusȱ
duringȱ thisȱ time.ȱ Suchȱ „commonȱ interests”,ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 160ȱ sawȱ asȱ possibleȱ inȱ theȱ
periodȱbetweenȱaboutȱ241ȱBCȱandȱatȱleastȱtheȱtimeȱwhenȱtheȱ4 th ȱSyrianȱwarȱbegan.ȱ
105
ȱ C.ȱ Preda,ȱ Istoriaȱ monedeiȱ înȱ Daciaȱ preroman©ȱ (Coinageȱ historyȱ inȱ preȬRomanȱ Dacia),ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ78Ȭ84;ȱidem,ȱDescopeririȱpremonetareȱóiȱmonetareȱînȱDobrogeaȱ(PreȬmonetaryȱ
andȱ monetaryȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ Dobruja),ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 357Ȭ394.ȱ Recentlyȱ isȱ
mentionedȱ aȱ hoardȱ ofȱ 100ȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ issuedȱ byȱ Tomis,ȱ discoveredȱ „inȱ theȱ cityȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ
neighbourhood”ȱ andȱ preservedȱ inȱ aȱ privateȱ collection;ȱ seeȱ G.Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi.ȱ
Repertoriul,ȱ p.ȱ 182Ȭ183ȱ (LXIV).ȱ Otherȱ bronzeȱ coins,ȱ too,ȱ haveȱ beenȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöaȱ
peninsulaȱ area;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ G.Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 169ȱ (IXȱ :ȱ hoardȱ ofȱ 11ȱ bronzeȱ
samplesȱ Phillipȱ IIȱ type),ȱ 171ȱ (XIV:ȱ funeraryȱ depositȱ includingȱ 11ȱ coins),ȱ 182ȱ (LVII:ȱ coinȱ
storehouseȱincludingȱ12ȱsamples).ȱ
132ȱ ȱ
ȱ
generallyȱinȱtheȱneighbourhoodȱofȱtheȱDanube106.ȱȱThereȱareȱknownȱ26ȱsettlementsȱ
withȱ aȱ totalȱ ofȱ moreȱ thanȱ 166ȱ Tomitanȱ coinsȱ (amongȱ whichȱ moreȱ thanȱ 96ȱ thereȱ
haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ onlyȱ inȱ Greekȱ cities107.ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȱ
Tomisȱ issuedȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ GreatȬtypeȱ goldȱ staters,ȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ
posthumous,ȱstatersȱdatedȱinȱKallatisȱaroundȱ279/5ȱȬȱ228/220ȱBC108.ȱ
Theȱ specializedȱ literatureȱ knowsȱ muchȱ moreȱ hoardsȱ includingȱ alsoȱ Tomitanȱ
coins:ȱ sixȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ (amongȱ whichȱ twoȱ inȱ theȱ NEȱ ofȱ Bulgaria,ȱ atȱ Grani²arȱ andȱ
B©lgarevo)109;ȱtwoȱinȱtheȱnorthȱofȱtheȱDanubeȱ(atȱAnadol/UkrainȱandȱM©r©óeóti)110ȱ
andȱotherȱtwoȱinȱȱcontemporaryȱTurkeyȱ(atȱKirazliȱandȱMektepini).ȱTheȱonlyȱcoinsȱ
enteringȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱcoinȱcirculation111ȱhaveȱbeenȱrecordedȱalsoȱinȱtheȱPonticȱ
areaȱ inȱ Tyras,ȱ Olbia,ȱ Chersonesȱ andȱ Leuké,ȱ andȱ outsideȱ ofȱ it,ȱ inȱ Thessalonikȱ andȱ
Delos.ȱȱ
Theȱfirstȱofficialȱcityȱinscriptionsȱareȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱBC112.ȱ
WeȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱanyȱevidenceȱaboutȱanȱimportantȱeventȱinvolvingȱtheȱPonticȱ
citiesȱ untilȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ BC.ȱ Theyȱ passedȱ overȱ anȱ insecureȱ
periodȱ whenȱ wordsȱ likeȱ Ύ΅΍ΕΓϟ,ȱ ΔΉΕ΍ΗΘΣΗΉ΍Ζ,ȱ ΈϾΗΉΏΔ΍Ζ,ȱ ΦΔΓΕϟ΅ȱ appearȱ
frequentlyȱinȱinscriptionsȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2,3).ȱ
Aroundȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱBC,ȱtheȱWestȱPonticȱcitiesȱwereȱalliedȱ
withȱ Mithridatesȱ VIȱ Eupator.ȱ Weȱ areȱ notȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ dateȱ andȱ underȱ whatȱ
circumstancesȱtheseȱcitiesȱwereȱincludedȱintoȱMithridatesȇȱPonticȱkingdom.ȱ
Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ thatȱ Mithridatesȱ establishedȱ hisȱ dominationȱ hereȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ
decadeȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱBC113,ȱorȱbetweenȱCrimeaȇsȱconquestȱandȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱ
106
ȱ Gh.ȱ Poenaruȱ Bordea,ȱ Laȱ diffusionȱ desȱ monnaiesȱ d’Istros,ȱ Callatisȱ etȱ Tomiȱ duȱ VI e ȱ auȱ I er ȱ
siècleȱ av.ȱ J.ȬC.ȱ dansȱ leursȱ territoires,ȱ zonesȱ d’influenceȱ etȱ ailleurs,ȱ inȱ Presenzaȱ eȱ funzioniȱ dellaȱ
monetaȱnelleȱchoraiȱdelleȱcolonieȱgrecheȱdall’IberiaȱalȱMarȱNero,ȱRoma,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ41.ȱ
107
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Lesȱ monnaiesȱ autonomesȱ d’Istros,ȱ Callatisȱ etȱ Tomis.ȱ Circulationȱ etȱ
contexte,ȱWetterenȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ41.ȱ
108
ȱ C.ȱ Preda,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 113.ȱ See,ȱ however,ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 41ȱ andȱ theȱ
notesȱ48,ȱ49:ȱ„Notreȱatelierȱneȱsembleȱpasȱavoirȱfrappéȱdesȱpseudoalexandresȱenȱor,ȱmaisȱaȱ
euȱuneȱproductionȱconsidérableȱdeȱstatèresȱpseudolisimaques,ȱsupérieure,ȱilȱnousȱsemble,ȱàȱ
celleȱdeȱCallatis”.ȱȱWeȱmentionȱhereȱtheȱdiscoveryȱbeforeȱ1895ȱofȱaȱ1,000ȱstatersȱtypeȱPhillipȱ
IIȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ III,ȱ inȱ Anadolchioiȱ districtȱ (whereȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ identifiedȱ vicusȱ Turrisȱ
Muca…,ȱinȱtheȱRomanȱepoch).ȱForȱtheȱhoards,ȱseeȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ
164ȱ(I),ȱwithȱtheȱbibliography.ȱ
109
ȱTheȱotherȱonesȱcomeȱfromȱConstanöa,ȱCump©na,ȱD©eniȱandȱTuzla.ȱForȱtheȱTomitanȱ
coinsȱspreadingȱseeȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ64Ȭ66;ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱpassim.ȱWeȱȱ
mentionȱasȱnewȱtheȱ30Ȭ35ȱTomitanȱbronzeȱandȱautonomousȱKallatianȱcoinȱhoardȱdiscoveredȱ
atȱTuzla,ȱinȱ2003;ȱcf.ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ94,ȱnr.ȱ22.ȱ
110
ȱThereȱisȱalsoȱtheȱhoardȱfromȱVârtejuȱ(Bucureóti),ȱwhereȱthereȱcouldȱbeȱfoundȱalsoȱaȱ
Tomitanȱcoin;ȱcf.ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱnr.ȱ30.ȱ
111
ȱAfterȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ41.ȱ
112
ȱ Isolatedȱ inȱ theȱ 4 th ȱ centuryȱ BCȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ publishedȱ byȱ Mariaȱ
Munteanu,ȱCâtevaȱinscripöiiȱtomitaneȱinediteȱ(SomeȱunpublishedȱTomitanȱinscriptions),ȱPonticaȱ7ȱ
(1974),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ159;ȱseeȱalsoȱISMȱII,ȱ456.ȱ
113
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Mithridatesȱ alȱ VlȬleaȱ Eupatorȱ óiȱ coastaȱ deȱ vestȱ aȱ Pontuluiȱ
Euxin.ȱ Înȱ jurulȱ unuiȱ decretȱ ineditȱ deȱ laȱ Histriaȱ (MithridatesȱEupatorȱ theȱ 6 th ȱ andȱ theȱ westȱ coastȱ ofȱ
Pontusȱ Euxinus.ȱ Aboutȱ anȱ unpublishedȱ decreeȱ fromȱ Histria),ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱ p.ȱ 155Ȭ165.ȱ
Iidem,ȱMithridatesȱVIȱEupatorȱundȱdieȱgriechischenȱStädteȱanȱderȱWestküsteȱdesȱPontosȱEuxeinos,ȱ
ȱ 133
ȱȱȱ
theȱ Bosporanȱ andȱ Chersonesosȱ kingdomsȱ intoȱ theȱ Ponticȱ kingdomȱ (114Ȭ107ȱ BC),ȱ
andȱtheȱoutbreakȱofȱtheȱfirstȱwarȱwithȱRome114ȱ(89ȱBC).ȱAl.ȱSuceveanuȱdeterminesȱ
thisȱdateȱimmediatelyȱafterȱMithridatesȱextendedȱhisȱdominationȱoverȱtheȱCrimeaȱ
(mentioningȱ thisȱ momentȱ shouldȱ beȱ datedȱ later)115;ȱ theȱ latestȱ dateȱ postȱ quemȱ isȱ
consideredȱ86ȱBC,ȱwhen,ȱafterȱtheȱconquestȱofȱAthens,ȱtheȱfateȱofȱtheȱwarȱturnedȱ
againstȱ Mithiridates.ȱ Finally,ȱ anȱ argumentȱ forȱ consideringȱ Mithridatesȇȱ
dominationȱuponȱtheȱwestȱPonticȱareaȱbetweenȱ106Ȭ76ȱBCȱisȱtheȱlackȱofȱgovernorsȱ
mentionedȱinȱMacedoniaȱandȱThraceȱpreciselyȱinȱthisȱperiod.ȱȱ
AȱnetworkȱofȱindividualȱalliancesȱwithȱtheȱGreekȱcitiesȱwouldȱshowȱtheȱnewȱ
domination.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ importantȱ whetherȱ theseȱ alliancesȱ wereȱ settledȱ atȱ theȱ
preciseȱ requirementȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ cities116ȱ or,ȱ byȱ Mithridatesȇȱ initiativeȱ (byȱ
„advantages”ȱ orȱ „gifts”,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Trogusȱ Pompeius,ȱ XXXVIII,ȱ 3,ȱ 6).ȱ Anyway,ȱ
theseȱ citiesȱ maintainedȱ theirȱ authonomyȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ politicalȱ unionȱ withȱ theȱ
Ponticȱ kingdomȱ andȱ theȱ Kimmerianȱ Bosporos,ȱ andȱ hadȱ internalȱ andȱ externalȱ
security.ȱ Tomisȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ anȱ exception,ȱ avoidingȱ theȱ allianceȱ orȱ
refusingȱ itsȱ protection.ȱ Argumentsȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ numerousȱ statersȱ ofȱ theȱ
Lysimachusȱ typeȱ issuedȱ byȱ Tomis,ȱ mostlyȱ betweenȱ 90ȱ andȱ 72ȱ BC,ȱ andȱ aȱ smallerȱ
quantityȱ inȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BC117.ȱ Probablyȱ likeȱ Histriaȱ andȱ Apolloniaȱ (andȱ inȱ
Northȱ Olbia),ȱ Tomisȱ benefitedȱ fromȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ aȱ garrison.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ
cityȱ appearsȱ onȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Mesambriaȱ (IGBȱ I2,ȱ 320)ȱ besideȱ Histria,ȱ
ApolloniaȱandȱMesambriaȱinȱtheȱcommonȱactivityȱofȱcelebratingȱanȱunknown.ȱAsȱ
everyȱquotedȱcityȱhadȱexcellentȱrelationshipsȱwithȱtheȱPonticȱkingȱ(someȱofȱtheseȱ
relationships,ȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱȱMesambria,ȱexistingȱfromȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱBC),ȱȱȱitȱȱȱ
wasȱȱȱnotȱȱȱdifficultȱȱȱforȱȱȱtheȱcommentatorsȱtoȱestablishȱaȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱ
inscriptionȱ contentȱ andȱ aȱ possibleȱ officialȱ envoyȱ orȱ messengerȱ ofȱ theȱ kingȱ inȱ theȱ
city118.ȱ
Tomisȱ wouldȱ haveȱ interactedȱ withȱ theȱ Ponticȱ worldȱ underȱ theȱ aboveȱ
mentionedȱprotection:ȱȱinȱtheȱ2ndȬ1stȱcenturiesȱBC,ȱaȱcitizenȱofȱTomisȱwhoseȱnameȱ
wasȱcompletedȱdifferently,ȱbenefitedȱ fromȱaȱdecreeȱofȱproxeniaȱatȱHistriaȱ(ISMȱI,ȱ
48)119;ȱanotherȱunknownȱcitizenȱfromȱTomisȱisȱalsoȱmentionedȱinȱanȱinscriptionȱofȱ
inȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinos.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Archäeologieȱ andȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Schwarzmeerȱ undȱ
Balkanraumes,ȱManfredȱOppermannȱzumȱ65.ȱGeburstag,ȱLangenweissbach,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ397Ȭ413.ȱ
114
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101ȱandȱn.ȱ40.ȱ
115
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱΐν·΍ΗΘΓΖȱ(Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϿΖ)ȱΘЗΑȱπΔϠȱ̋ΕιΎ΋ΖȱΆ΅Η΍ΏνΝΑȱ(IGBȱI 2 ,ȱ
13,ȱl.ȱ22Ȭ23),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ319Ȭ335ȱ(especially,ȱp.ȱ326Ȭ327).ȱ
116
ȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ119Ȭ120.ȱ
117
ȱC.ȱPreda,ȱIstoriaȱmonedei,ȱp.ȱ112Ȭ114.ȱ
118
ȱ Theȱ inscriptionȱ wasȱ dated,ȱ onȱ turns,ȱ fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(G.ȱ Mihailov,ȱ IGB,ȱ V,ȱ 5097;ȱ idem,ȱ Epigraphicaȱ 41ȱ (1979),ȱ p.ȱ 24Ȭ25);ȱ theȱ 2 nd Ȭ1 st ȱ centurysȱ BCȱ
(Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Contributionȱ épigraphiqueȱ àȱ l’histoireȱ deȱ Tomisȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ duȱ Principat,ȱ
Daciaȱ NSȱ 19ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 153;ȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ Ȭȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ BC.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(L.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ113Ȭ121).ȱ
119
ȱ ISMȱ I,ȱ 48,ȱ l.ȱ 2Ȭ3:ȱ „̈Ё]΋ΑΝΕΔϟ[Έ΋Ζ]/e.g.̘΍ΏΓΏΣΓΙȱ ̖Γΐϟ]Θ΋Ζ”;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ l.ȱ 8Ȭ9.ȱ Inȱ
Bull.ép.ȱ 1984,ȱ 268ȱ itȱ isȱ suggestedȱ „̈ЁφΑΝΕȱ ̓[΍Η΍]ΏΣΓΙȱ (orȱ ̓Ή΍ΌΓΏΣΓΙ,ȱ ̓Ή΍Η΍ΏΣΓΙ”)ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
cf.ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Leȱ corpusȱ desȱ inscriptionsȱ d’Istrosȱ revisité,ȱ Daciaȱ 51ȱ (2007),ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92,ȱ no.ȱ 48,ȱ
whichȱcompletesȱtheȱnameȱasȱfollow:ȱ„̝Ώ?]ΎφΑΝΕȱ̌[Ȭ]/[ȬȱȬȱȬΣΓΙȱ̖Γΐϟ]Θ΋Ζ”.ȱȱ
134ȱ ȱ
ȱ
theȱ2ndȱcenturyȱBCȱalsoȱatȱHistriaȱ(ISMȱI,ȱ38)120;ȱaȱdecreeȱfromȱOdessosȱ(IGB,ȱI2,ȱ43ȱ
bis)ȱ isȱ enactedȱ inȱ honourȱ ofȱ aȱ Tomisȱ citizen,ȱ Artemonȱ Chairionos,ȱ inȱ theȱ 1stȱ
centuryȱBC.ȱInȱitsȱturn,ȱTomisȱhonoursȱaȱcitizenȱfromȱTyrasȱwhoȱ”showedȱhimselfȱ
amiableȱwithȱallȱtheȱmerchantsȱfromȱTomisȱinȱtheirȱwayȱtoȱOlbia,ȱfacilitatingȱthemȱ
aȱ preferentialȱ attendanceȱ there”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 5)121.ȱ Thisȱ practiceȱ continuedȱ laterȱ on:ȱ
aboutȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ2ndȱcentury/beginningȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱaȱcitizenȱfromȱOlbia,ȱTheoclesȱ
ofȱ Satyrosȱ isȱ honouredȱ byȱ hisȱ nativeȱ cityȱ andȱ byȱ anotherȱ 18ȱ cities,ȱ amongȱ themȱ
Tomis,ȱ forȱ theȱ servicesȱ heȱ renderedȱ toȱ theirȱ citizensȱ temporarilyȱ presentȱ inȱ
Olbia122.ȱ Aroundȱ theȱ yearȱ 100ȱ BC,ȱ anȱ indigenousȱ citizenȱ ofȱ Sinopeȱ raisedȱ aȱ
monumentȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ Sarapisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 152)ȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ inscription,ȱ
asȱwellȱasȱotherȱepigraphicalȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱsameȱperiod,ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱ
theȱPonticȱworldȱachievedȱunityȱunderȱMithridates123.ȱȱ
Mitrhridatesȇȱ dominationȱ endedȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ theȱ campaignȱ ofȱ
Macedoniaȇsȱ proconsulȱ M.ȱ Terentiusȱ Varroȱ Lucullusȱ betweenȱ 72Ȭ71ȱ BC.ȱ Hisȱ
operationȱwasȱequivalentȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱRomanȱmilitaryȱpresenceȱonȱtheȱWestȱPonticȱ
shore.ȱTheȱwordȱconstantlyȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱLucullusȇȱactionsȱtowardsȱtheȱPonticȱ
cities,ȱ exceptingȱ Apollonia,ȱ isȱ „holding”,ȱ „occupancy”ȱ Ȭȱ capta,ȱ cepit,ȱ occupavit,ȱ
capiensȱȬȱandȱonlyȱforȱApolloniaȱwasȱtheȱactionȱdevastating:ȱevertitȱApolloniam124.ȱ
Fromȱ archaeologicalȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ Tomisȱ 2ndȱ stageȱ historyȱ isȱ representedȱ inȱ
theȱ excavationsȱ ȱ atȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ byȱ oneȱ levelȱ (Nȱ VII),ȱ butȱ ȱ fragmentary.ȱ Itȱ
consistsȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ twoȱ strataȱ withȱ diverseȱ archaeologicalȱ materialsȱ fromȱ theȱ lateȱ
Hellenisticȱ Age,ȱ orȱ evenȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ Age.ȱ Nȱ VIIȱ isȱ oftenȱ missing,ȱ withȱ remainsȱ
passingȱdirectlyȱtoȱNȱVI.ȱInȱtheȱȱveryȱcloseȱareaȱtoȱtheȱCathedralȱParkȱthereȱhaveȱ
beenȱ identifiedȱ fourȱ archaeologicalȱ levels,ȱ belonging,ȱ successively,ȱ toȱ theȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱBCȱ(Nȱ3,ȱmarkedȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱbyȱaȱstrongȱfire),ȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱ
BCȱ–beginningȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱBCȱ(Nȱ4,ȱconsistingȱinȱaȱthickȱlevellingȱstratum),ȱ
toȱtheȱȱ3rdȬ2ndȱcenturyȱBCȱ(Nȱ5),ȱtoȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱBCȱȬ1stȱcenturyȱADȱ(Nȱ7ȱandȱNȱ
8),ȱȱHellenisticȱlateȱandȱRomanȱearlyȱlevelsȱwithȱarchaeologicalȱmixedȱmaterial125.ȱ
Thisȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Ageȱ isȱ poorlyȱ representedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ byȱ
archaeologicalȱmaterials.ȱNotȱfarȱfromȱtheȱresearchȱzone,ȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱtheȱancientȱ
120
ȱ Theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ citiesȱ continuedȱasȱ wellȱ afterȱ
theȱeventsȱfromȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
121
ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ connectionsȱ amongȱ Tomis,ȱ Tyrasȱ andȱ Olbia,ȱ seeȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ Populaöiaȱ
zoneiȱnordiceȱóiȱnordȬvesticeȱaȱPontuluiȱEuxinȱînȱsecoleleȱVIȬIȱa.ȱChr.ȱpeȱbazaȱizvoarelorȱepigraficeȱ
(PontusȱEuxinusȱNorthenȱandȱNorthȬWesternȱareaȱpopulationȱinȱtheȱ6 th —1 st ȱcenturiesȱBCȱbasedȱonȱ
epigraphicalȱsources),ȱIaóiȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ382ȱandȱ384.ȱ
122
ȱ IOSPEȱ I 2 ȱ 40,ȱ withȱ aȱ commentaryȱ alsoȱ atȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ
inscriptionsȱfromȱtheȱcitiesȱinȱtheȱnorthȱofȱBlackȱSeaȱinȱtheȱ6 th ȱBCȬ3 rd ȱAD,ȱPhdȱthesisȱ(mss.),ȱIaói,ȱ
2010,ȱp.ȱ237Ȭ240.ȱ
123
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Surȱ laȱ diffusionȱ desȱ cultesȱ égyptiensȱ enȱ Scythieȱ Mineure,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱ
p.ȱ103Ȭ118ȱ(especiallyȱp.ȱ106);ȱidem,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ82.ȱ
124
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 276;ȱ idem,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 224ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 9;ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ127Ȭ141ȱ(andȱp.ȱ128ȱn.ȱ151).ȱ
125
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ countyȱ Constanöaȱ [Tomis],ȱ 23,ȱ Arhiepiscopieiȱ street,ȱ inȱ
CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2001,ȱ p.ȱ 108.ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ areaȱ (Brâncoveanuȱ street),ȱ theȱ onlyȱ Hellenisticȱ
levelȱ (fromȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ BC)ȱ representsȱ theȱ firstȱ inhabitanceȱ level;ȱ see,ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ
2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
ȱ 135
ȱȱȱ
portȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱfoundȱhundredsȱofȱamphoraȱstamps126.ȱFromȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱ
BCȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ mentioned,ȱ theȱ cityȱ issuedȱ itsȱ ownȱ coins127;ȱ weȱ haveȱ theȱ
firstȱ epigraphicȱ lapidaryȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BCȱ orȱ evenȱ earlier128ȱ
and,ȱ finally,ȱ preventiveȱ excavationsȱ permittedȱ theȱ localizationȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ
necropolis129.ȱ
Resumingȱtheȱdiscoveryȱplace,ȱweȱnoticeȱaȱbroadeningȱofȱtheȱinhabitedȱareaȱ
ofȱ theȱ cityȱ inȱ theȱ wholeȱ peninsula,ȱ affectedȱ evenȱ inȱ ancientȱ timesȱ byȱ successiveȱ
changesȱ andȱ rebuildingȱ activities.ȱ Theȱ excavatedȱ materialsȱ wereȱ foundȱ eitherȱ inȱ
modernȱ fillingȱ orȱ mixedȱ withȱ laterȱ materialsȱ usedȱ inȱ operationsȱ followingȱ theȱ
HellenisticȱAge.ȱ
Weȱ haveȱ information130ȱ aboutȱ anȱ excavationȱ inȱ 1961ȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ tenthȱ
mosaicȱwarehouseȱwhichȱreachedȱ„aȱpit”ȱwithȱunmixedȱHellenisticȱmaterial.ȱTheȱ
pitȱ wasȱ passedȱ overȱ byȱ theȱ wallȱ ofȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ andȱ byȱ aȱ modernȱ wallȱ
followingȱtheȱlineȱofȱanȱancientȱwallȱ(ceramicȱfragmentsȱwereȱfoundȱbetweenȱȬ9.40ȱ
andȱȬ12.60ȱm)131.ȱOtherȱmixedȱmaterialsȱwereȱfoundȱonȱtheȱoccasionȱofȱtheȱsurveyȱ
ofȱ theȱ wallȱ fromȱ theȱ mainȱ warehouseȱ edificeȱ nearerȱ theȱ sea,ȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ largeȱ
roomȱ ofȱ theȱ bathȱ building,ȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ basilicaȱ atȱ theȱ portȱ entrance;ȱ thisȱ isȱ
enoughȱ toȱ proveȱ theȱfactȱ thatȱweȱareȱ nearȱtheȱHellenisticȱcityȱ portȱsuperimposedȱ
atȱleastȱinȱpartȱbyȱtheȱgreatȱmosaicȱedifice.ȱ
Theȱ preventiveȱ excavationsȱ onȱ theȱ northȱ sideȱ showedȱ twoȱ Hellenisticȱ levelsȱ
withȱarchaeologicalȱmaterialsȱfromȱtheȱ3rdȬ2ndȱcenturiesȱBC.ȱ
ȱTheȱeconomicalȱdevelopmentȱduringȱtheseȱcenturiesȱcanȱbeȱstudiedȱfromȱtheȱ
pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ importȱ ofȱ amphorae132,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ importantȱ materialȱ remainsȱ
126
ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ ktampileȱ rhodieneȱ deȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ (Rhodianȱ Stampsȱ fromȱ
theȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edifice),ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 119Ȭ139;ȱ Consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ ótampilelorȱ
sinopeeneȱ deȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ (Considerationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ Synopeanȱ stampsȱ fromȱ theȱ
Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edifice),ȱ Ponticaȱ 14ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 133Ȭ151;ȱ Importulȱ amforelorȱ thasieneȱ laȱ Tomisȱ inȱ
perioadaȱ elenistic©ȱ (Theȱ Thasianȱ amphoraȱ importsȱ toȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Age),ȱ Ponticaȱ
15ȱ (1982),ȱ p.ȱ 137Ȭ151;ȱ Importurileȱ amforiceȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ perioadaȱ elenistic©ȱ (Theȱ amphoraȱ importsȱ
toȱTomisȱduringȱtheȱHellenisticȱAge),ȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ99Ȭ165.ȱ
127
ȱ Supra,ȱ n.ȱ 105,ȱ 106.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Scurt©ȱ privireȱ asupraȱ arieiȱ deȱ difuzareȱ aȱ
monedelorȱ autonomeȱ emiseȱ deȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ Tomisȱ (Shortȱ noteȱ aboutȱ theȱ spreadingȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ
autonomousȱcoinsȱissuedȱbyȱTomisȱandȱCallatis),ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ395Ȭ408.ȱ
128
ȱ Supra,ȱ n.ȱ 112;ȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ hasȱ anȱ uncertainȱ origin;ȱ seeȱ theȱ
commentaryȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ456.ȱ
129
inventairesȱ funérairesȱ desȱ nécropolesȱ tomitaines,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 203Ȭ205;ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ
Necropoleȱ elenisticeȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Hellenisticȱ necropolisȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 1968;ȱ idem,ȱ Unȱ altȱ
mormântȱdeȱepoc©ȱelenistic©ȱ laȱTomisȱ (Anotherȱ HellenisticȱAgeȱ tombȱatȱTomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ
p.ȱ375Ȭ388;ȱseeȱrecently,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱC.ȱChera,ȱContribuöiiȱlaȱcunoaótereaȱcomplexelorȱfunerareȱdeȱ
incineraöieȱ cuȱ „rugȬbusta”ȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ elenistic©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ
knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ funeraryȱ complexesȱ withȱ Hellenisticȱ andȱ Romanȱ Ageȱ „Bustaȱ Pile”ȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ
Ponticaȱ 19ȱ (1986),ȱ p.ȱ 89Ȭ114;ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ ȱ Unȱ altȱ mormântȱ elenisticȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomisȱ
(AnotherȱHellenisticȱtombȱfoundȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ28Ȭ29ȱ(1995Ȭ1996),ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ82.ȱ
130
ȱM.ȱGramatopol,ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȱBordea,ȱAmforeȱótampilateȱdinȱTomisȱ(Stampedȱamphorasȱ
fromȱTomis),ȱSCIVȱ19ȱ(1968),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ43Ȭ44ȱandȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
131
ȱ Notesȱ ofȱ theȱ excavationsȱ authors,ȱ measuredȱ fromȱ theȱ presentȱ levelȱ ofȱ Ovidiuȱ
Square;ȱseeȱM.ȱGramatopol,ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȱBordea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ44,ȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
132
ȱSeeȱabove,ȱnoteȱ126ȱandȱmainlyȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ125.ȱ
136ȱ ȱ
ȱ
forȱusȱinȱpointingȱoutȱsomeȱstagesȱandȱdeterminingȱtheȱoriginalityȱofȱfeaturesȱforȱ
Tomisȱ(ifȱtheyȱexisted).ȱ
Fromȱthisȱpintȱofȱviewȱweȱnotice:ȱ
Ȭȱoldȱtradingȱactivityȱwasȱcontinued;ȱ
Ȭȱ aȱ realȱ tradeȱ liberalityȱ forȱ Tomisȱ fromȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȱ
pointedȱoutȱbyȱtheȱapogeeȱofȱSinopeȱproductsȱ(betweenȱ261ȱandȱ229/183ȱBC)ȱandȱ
Rhodianȱ productsȱ (210Ȭ188ȱ BC)133.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ Ȭȱ theȱ periodȱ followingȱ theȱ eventȱ
mentionedȱ byȱ Memnon,ȱ andȱ which,ȱ economicallyȱ speaking,ȱ wasȱ equivalentȱ toȱ
allowingȱtheȱfirstȱtradeȱfunctioningȱandȱrevocationȱofȱanyȱintentionȱofȱmonopoly;ȱ
Ȭȱtheȱvaluesȱofȱeconomicȱexchangesȱdiminishedȱslowlyȱuntilȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ
2ndȱ centuryȱ BCȱ andȱ moreȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BCȱ andȱ theȱ
beginnmgȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱBC.ȱ
AlthoughȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱourȱdiscussionȱtheȱPonticȱcitiesȱhadȱcommonȱ
tradeȱpartners,ȱtheȱdetailsȱallowȱusȱtoȱmentionȱsomeȱsimilaritiesȱwithȱHistria;ȱweȱ
takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ lessȱ importantȱ importsȱ fromȱ Ponticȱ Heraclea;ȱ theȱ apogeeȱ
ofȱ Thassosȱ productsȱ wasȱ theȱ sameȱ forȱ Histria 134;ȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ Sinopeȱ importsȱ
wasȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱchronologicalȱgroups,ȱwhichȱsomehowȱdistinguishȱ
itȱfromȱKallatis135ȱetc.ȱȱ
Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ presentȱ foreignȱ coinsȱ onȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ market:ȱ fromȱ theȱ Ponticȱ
cities:ȱ ȱ(Odessos,ȱDionysopolis,ȱMesambria,ȱOlbia,ȱTauricȱ Chersonese),ȱasȱ wellȱasȱ
inȱmoreȱremotedȱareasȱ(Cyzik,ȱAbydos,ȱAthens,ȱHistiaea,ȱRhodos,ȱEfes).ȱThereȱareȱ
toȱ beȱ noticedȱ dueȱ toȱ theirȱ importantȱ numberȱ theȱ coinsȱ fromȱ Cilicia,ȱ Syriaȱ andȱ
mostlyȱ fromȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Egyptȱ (theȱ lastȱ inȱ theȱ seriesȱ continuingȱ fromȱ
PtolemaiosȱIȱSoterȱtoȱPtolemaiosȱVIȱPhilometorȱandȱCleopatra)136.ȱ
Anotherȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ analyzedȱ periodȱ concernsȱ theȱ cityȱ planningȱ structure.ȱ
Theȱ inhabitableȱ areaȱ isȱ attestedȱ byȱ someȱ clayȱ pavementsȱ andȱ remainsȱ ofȱ housesȱ
withȱ stoneȱ walls,ȱ butȱ destroyedȱ byȱ oitsȱ andȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ RomanȬByzantineȱ
walls137.ȱ Moreȱ importantȱ dataȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ ascribingȱ theȱ necropolisȱ areaȱ toȱ aȱ
possibleȱprecinct.ȱ
Theȱ Hellenisticȱ necropolisȱ wasȱ placedȱ insideȱ theȱ Lateȱ Romanȱ cityȱ andȱ
reachedȱ inȱ itsȱ southernȱ extentȱ upȱ toȱ Ovidiuȱ Square,ȱ whereȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ burialȱ placesȱ
datedȱ toȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ BCȱ andȱ theȱ majorityȱ toȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BCȱ haveȱ beenȱ
found138.ȱ
133
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ13ȱ(1980),ȱp.ȱ125Ȭ129;ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ144.ȱ
134
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Histria.ȱ VIII.ȱ Lesȱ timbresȱ amphoriques.ȱ 1.ȱ Thasos,ȱ Bucarest/Paris,ȱ
1996,ȱp.ȱ44ȱandȱtab.ȱVI,ȱȱVII.ȱ
135
ȱN.ȱConovici,ȱHistria.ȱVIII.ȱLesȱtimbresȱamphoriques.ȱ2.ȱSinope,ȱBucarest/Paris,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ
175Ȭ181.ȱ
136
ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱTheȱmint’sȱissuesȱfromȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱcoastȱandȱotherȱareasȱofȱDobruja.ȱTheȱ
preȬRomanȱ andȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ periodsȱ (6 th ȱ BCȱ –ȱ 1 st ȱ AD),ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2007,ȱ passim;ȱ ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ G.ȱ
Custurea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ184ȱ(LXVIII).ȱ
137
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 24Ȭ25;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108;ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
138
ȱUnpublishedȱmaterials;ȱL.ȱCliante,ȱGreciiȱînȱTomisȱ(sec.ȱVIȬIȱa.ȱChr.)ȱ/GreeksȱinȱTomisȱ
(6 th ȱ Ȭȱ 1 st ȱ centuriesȱ BC),ȱ PhDȱ thesisȱ (mss.),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 2009,ȱ p.ȱ 75Ȭ78;ȱ theȱ funeraryȱ inventariesȱ
haveȱ beenȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ exhibitionȱ Ceramicaȱ greac©ȱ laȱ Pontulȱ Euxinȱ (Greekȱ ceramicsȱ atȱ
PontusȱEuxinus),ȱConstanöa,ȱSeptember,ȱ2004.ȱ
ȱ 137
ȱȱȱ
Theȱ chronologicalȱ distributionȱ ofȱ theȱ publishedȱ tombsȱ (givenȱ inȱ itsȱ generalȱ
data),ȱ agreesȱ withȱ theȱ topographicalȱ distributionȱ inȱ determiningȱ theȱ olderȱ tombsȱ
fromȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱBC;ȱbutȱtheirȱexcavationȱareaȱisȱtooȱbroadȱnotȱtoȱexcludeȱtheȱ
possibilityȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ belongedȱ toȱ settlementsȱ aroundȱ Tomis139;ȱ theȱ
discoveriesȱfromȱtheȱoldȱRailwayȱstationȱareȱcertainlyȱtheȱoldestȱandȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱ
Greekȱ city.ȱ Recently,ȱ ȱ behindȱ „Fantasio”ȱ Theatre,ȱ atȱ theȱ basementȱ ofȱ theȱ
stratigraphicalȱstructuresȱofȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱepochȱthererȱhaveȱbeenȱdiscoveredȱȱ7ȱ
graves:ȱ ȱ theȱ oldestȱ –ȱ ȱ theȱ 4thȬ3rdȱ centuriesȱ BC;ȱ ȱ theȱ mostȱ recent–ȱ ȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ
AD140.ȱInȱtheȱlineȱofȱtheȱlaterȱgateȱonȱtheȱnorthȱandȱtheȱ„ButcherȇsȱTower”,ȱtombsȱ
datedȱ toȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BCȱ haveȱ beenȱ found;ȱ theȱ broadeningȱ ofȱ theȱ necropolisȱ
afterȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ BCȱ canȱ beȱ tracedȱ inȱ theȱ discoveriesȱ onȱ theȱ northȱ sideȱ ofȱ thisȱ
wall.ȱ
Theȱ precinctȱ wallȱ hasȱ beenȱ placedȱ hypothetically,ȱ preciselyȱ relyingȱ onȱ theȱ
necropolisȱ area.ȱ Theȱ Hellenisticȱ precinctȱ canȱ beȱ provenȱ epigraphicallyȱ andȱ
historically,ȱevenȱifȱtheseȱsourcesȱreferȱtoȱaȱsituationȱdatedȱbetweenȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
2ndȱcenturyȱandȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2)ȱorȱevenȱtheȱbeginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱADȱ(inȱaccordanceȱwithȱOvid’sȱnarration).ȱ
Placingȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ thisȱ precinctȱ isȱ farȱ moreȱ difficultȱ toȱ determine:ȱ followingȱ
theȱindicationȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱsourcesȱandȱtheȱsiteȱnotes,ȱA.ȱAricescuȱconsidersȱtheȱ
precinctȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ theȱ northȬeasternȱ boundaryȱ ofȱ Ovidiuȱ Square141.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ
pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ evidentȱ decreaseȱ inȱ groundȱ levelȱ toȱ theȱ southȱ andȱ
southȬeast,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ notesȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ materialsȱ foundȱ there,ȱ beyondȱ theȱ
suggestedȱlineȱheȱconsidersȱtoȱcomeȱfromȱfillingȱstrataȱorȱfromȱtheȱprolongationȱofȱ
theȱ higherȱ shoreȱ onȱ theȱ NEȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ peninsula.ȱ Aricescuȱ alsoȱ separatesȱ theȱ
Hellenisticȱ precinctȱ fromȱ theȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ precinctȱ (theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ alsoȱ
placedȱhypotheticallyȱonȱtheȱlineȱofȱtheȱGreekȱchurchȱȬȱtheȱsecondȱportȱgate142.ȱȱ
V.ȱ Barbuȱ takesȱ intoȱ consideration143ȱ approximatelyȱ theȱ lineȱ connectingȱ theȱ
twoȱcliffsȱȬȱtheȱwestȱsideȱandȱtheȱeastȱsideȱȬȱwhichȱconcoursȱwithȱtheȱlineȱAricescuȱ
suggestedȱ forȱ theȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ precinct.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ considersȱ thatȱ theȱ
HellenisticȱprecinctȱmaintainedȱitsȱfunctionȱduringȱtheȱearlyȱRomanȱAge,ȱtoo.ȱ
ȱTheȱ archaeologicalȱ researchesȱ hasȱ twiceȱ occasionedȱ monumentalȱ wallsȱ
discoveries,ȱ unfortunatelyȱ tooȱ isolatedȱ toȱ considerȱ themȱ asȱ precinctȱ componentsȱ
orȱbelongingȱtoȱaȱpublicȱedifice:ȱ
a)ȱshapedȱwallȱblocks,ȱpossiblyȱfragmentsȱofȱaȱveryȱlargeȱprecinct,ȱfoundȱonȱ
theȱCasinoȱcliff144;ȱ
b) duringȱ theȱ excavationsȱ betweenȱ 1974Ȭ1976ȱ onȱ theȱ southȬeastȱ sideȱ ofȱ
Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ aȱ wallȱ builtȱ ofȱ massiveȱ stoneȱ blocksȱ wasȱ found,ȱ possiblyȱ
ȱSeeȱaboveȱnoteȱ129.ȱ
139
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ jud.ȱ Constanöaȱ [Tomis],ȱ Mihaiȱ Viteazuȱ street,ȱ CCA,ȱ
140
141
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Despreȱ zidulȱ deȱ aparareȱ alȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Ovidiusȱ (Aboutȱ theȱ
defensiveȱwallȱofȱTomisȱinȱOvidȇsȱage),ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ439Ȭ446.ȱ
142
ȱIdem,ȱArmata,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1977,ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ156.ȱ
143
ȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱStCls,ȱ3ȱ(1961),ȱp.ȱ204.ȱ
144
ȱTheȱwallȱisȱknownȱbyȱA.ȱAricescuȱandȱusedȱasȱaȱpossibleȱargumentȱinȱfavourȱofȱtheȱ
ideaȱofȱtheȱΔΉΕϟΆΓΏΓΖȱfeatureȱofȱtheȱTomitanȱprecinct;ȱseeȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ443.ȱ
138ȱ ȱ
ȱ
belongingȱtoȱaȱHellenisticȱedificeȱ(thoughȱweȱmustȱspecifyȱitȱwasȱintegratedȱlaterȱ
intoȱtheȱLateȱRomanȱarrangementsȱinȱthisȱarea);ȱ
c) otherȱdiscoveriesȱonȱtheȱlineȱofȱtheȱsupposedȱearlyȱRomanȱprecinct.ȱ
Allȱtheseȱdiscoveriesȱshowȱaȱbroadeningȱofȱtheȱcityȇsȱcivilianȱarea,ȱaȱfactȱthatȱ
wasȱinitiatedȱduringȱtheȱHellenisticȱAgeȱandȱcontinuedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱperiods145.ȱȱȱ
Weȱ cannotȱ finishȱ aȱ presentationȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ theȱ autonomousȱ periodȱ
withoutȱmentioningȱotherȱelementsȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱrepresentationȱandȱstructureȱofȱ
aȱGreekȱcity:ȱeponimy,ȱcultsȱandȱreligions,ȱmagistrature,ȱcityȱplanning.ȱ
Theȱ cityȇsȱ eponimyȱ belongedȱ toȱ aȱ priestȱ whoȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ Apolloȇsȱ
priest146.ȱYetȱȱweȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱdataȱforȱaȱcertainȱaffirmation.ȱTheȱinscriptionsȱfromȱ
Tomisȱ nameȱ eitherȱ theȱ positionȱ only,ȱ notȱ indicatingȱ theȱ deityȱ god,ȱ orȱ theȱ deityȱ
himself/herselfȱoccupyingȱtheȱpositionȱ(Apollo,ȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ5ȱorȱDemeter,ȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ
36).ȱ
TheȱpublicȱTomitanȱpantheonȱincludedȱtheȱgodsȱofȱSamothrake147ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ1),ȱ
CybeleȱandȱtheȱDioskouroiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2),ȱApolloȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ5ȱandȱ6) 148,ȱDemeterȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
36).ȱ Theȱ coinsȱ hadȱ markedȱ imagesȱ ofȱ Apollo,ȱ Zeus,ȱ Hermes,ȱ Athens,ȱ Theȱ Greatȱ
God,ȱHelios,ȱDioskouroi,ȱDemeter149.ȱProbably,ȱDionysosȱwasȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱthisȱ
pantheon,ȱ consideringȱ howȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ aȱ theatreȱ (Θϲȱ Ον΅ΘΕΓΑ,ȱ mentionedȱ atȱ
theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BC;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 4),ȱ edificeȱ whereȱ duringȱ Dionysos’ȱ
celebrationsȱorȱduringȱotherȱfestivalsȱthereȱusedȱtoȱbeȱdramaticȱrepresentationsȱofȱ
theȱ actors;ȱ suchȱ aȱ collegeȱ isȱ attestedȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ epochȱ (ΟΙΐΉΏ΍Ύχȱ ΗϾΑΓΈΓΖ)ȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 70),ȱ whenȱ theȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ divinityȱ adorationȱ areȱ muchȱ moreȱ
frequent)150.ȱ
Aȱ specialȱ importanceȱ wasȱ attachedȱ toȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ cultsȱ whichȱ hadȱ
penetratedȱearlyȱintoȱtheȱ westȱPonticȱ areaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ152).ȱAȱtempleȱandȱaȱpriestȱofȱ
145
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 5ȱ (1972),ȱ p.ȱ 442ȱ estimatesȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ peninsulaȱ
coveredȱ byȱ theȱ Greekȱ cityȱ atȱ aboutȱ 17ȱ ha;ȱ inȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ theȱ inhabitedȱ areaȱ wasȱ
aboutȱ30ȱhaȱ(loc.ȱcit.ȱandȱn.ȱ13).ȱ
146
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ148ȱandȱfollowing;ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ202ȱandȱ258.ȱ
147
ȱTheȱinscriptionȱfromȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ1)ȱincludesȱtheȱbuyingȱ„regulations”ȱ(ΑϱΐΓΖ)ȱofȱ
theȱ godsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samothrakeȱ sacerdocy.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidiȇsȱ statement,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ
255,ȱ inȱ theȱwestȱ Ponticȱcitiesȱ theȱSamothrakeȱgodsȱ cultȱmustȱhaveȱbeenȱ firstȱofȱ allȱaȱcultȱofȱ
theȱDioskouroi;ȱforȱTomis,ȱseeȱalsoȱthereȱatȱJeanȱBabelon,ȱinȱRA,ȱ1948ȱ(I),ȱp.ȱ24Ȭ33.ȱ
148
ȱSeeȱalsoȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱNeueȱInschriftenȱausȱTomis,ȱinȱChristofȱSchuler,ȱVictorȱCojocaruȱ
(eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Außenbeziehungenȱ pontischerȱ undȱ kleinasiatischerȱ Städteȱ inȱ hellenistischerȱ undȱ
romischerȱZeit,ȱAktenȱdesȱRumänischȬDeutschenȱKolloquiums,ȱConstanöa,ȱ20.Ȭ24.ȱSeptemberȱ
2010,ȱ Münchenȱ (underȱ print):ȱ l.ȱ 10Ȭ14:ȱ „…Ή[ϢΖ]/[Θϲȱ ϡΉΕϲΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̝ΔϱΏΏΝΑ]ΓΖɆȱ …ЀΔϲȱ
πΔ΍ΐ΋ΑϟΓΙȱ̝Ε[΍]/…ΘΓІȱ̴Ε]ΐϟΔΔΓΙȱ̏ΉΘ΅·Ή΍ΘΑ[΍]/ЗΑΓΖȱ΋΍”ȱ(1 st ȱcenturyȱBC).ȱ
149
numismatic©,ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 409Ȭ412;ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Aspecteȱ iconograficeȱ
privitoareȱ laȱ monedeleȱ emiseȱ deȱ c©treȱ coloniileȱ vestȬponticeȱ Callatisȱ óiȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ autonom©ȱ
(Iconographicalȱ aspectsȱ regardingȱ theȱ coinsȱ issuedȱ byȱ theȱ westȬPonticȱ coloniesȱ Kallatisȱ andȱ Tomisȱ
inȱtheȱautonomousȱepoch),ȱinȱStudiaȱhistoriaeȱetȱreligionisȱDacoȬRomanae.ȱInȱhonoremȱSilviiȱSanieȱ
(eds.ȱL.ȱMih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱO.ȱBounegru),ȱBucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
150
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 534;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 147;ȱ R.M.ȱ Feraru,ȱ S©rb©toriȱ
dionysiaceȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Pontulȱ Stâng,ȱ Ponticaȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ 243Ȭ244;ȱ idem,ȱ
Culturaȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ deȱ peȱ ö©rmulȱ vesticȱ alȱ M©riiȱ Negre,ȱ Timióoara,ȱ 2006,ȱ passim;ȱ M.ȱ
Dana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilitéȱdansȱleȱPontȬEuxin,ȱBordeaux,ȱ2011,ȱpassim.ȱ
ȱ 139
ȱȱȱ
Isisȱ wereȱ mentionedȱ atȱ Tomis,ȱ aȱ templeȱ ofȱ Sarapisȱ (Θϲȱ ϡΉΕϲΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̕΅ΕΣΔ΍ΈΓΖ),ȱ anȱ
associationȱ veneratingȱ Sarapisȱ andȱ Isis,ȱ templeȱ servantsȱ (ΔΕΓΗΉΈΕΉϾΓΑΘ΅΍ȱ ΘЗ΍ȱ
ϡΉΕЗ΍),ȱ andȱ finallyȱ aȱ celebrationȱ forȱ Isisȱ Ȭȱ Λ΅ΕΐϱΗΙΑ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 7,ȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ 1 stȱ
centuryȱ BCȱ –ȱ theȱ beginningȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ AD).ȱ Amongȱ theȱ monthsȱ inȱ theȱ Milesianȱ
calendar,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ ȱ attestedȱ areȱ ̝Δ΅ΘΓΙΕΉЏΑ151ȱ (forȱ ̝Δ΅ΘΓΙΕϟΝΑ),ȱ presentȱ inȱ
Odessos,ȱOlbia,ȱTanais152ȱandȱ̏ΉΘ΅·Ή΍ΘΑ΍ЏΑ153ȱmentionedȱalsoȱatȱOlbia.ȱ
Theȱ essentialȱ elementȱ ofȱ societyȱ structureȱ wasȱ theȱ tribalȱ organization,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ
weȱ acceptȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ itȱ hadȱ atȱ firstȱ aȱ territorialȱ aspect.ȱ Allȱ sixȱ Milesianȱ
tribesȱ areȱ attestedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ onȱ Romanȱ periodȱ inscriptions154;ȱ theȱ onlyȱ earlierȱ
inscriptionȱ (butȱ notȱ earlierȱ thanȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ BC)ȱ mentionsȱ theȱ
tribeȱ̝Ε·΅ΈΉϧΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ35).ȱTheȱtribesȱhadȱpoliticalȱtasksȱduringȱtheȱautonomousȱ
ageȱandȱmoreȱ(ifȱnotȱexclusively)ȱreligiousȱtasksȱduringȱtheȱRomanȱperiod155.ȱ
TheȱleadershipȱstructureȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱinȱtheȱdemocraticȱcitiesȱȬȱΆΓΙΏχȱΎ΅Ϡȱ
ΈϛΐΓΖȱ Ȭȱ atȱ Tomisȱ aȱ specialȱ assemblyȱ isȱ mentionedȱ whichȱ electedȱ theȱ magistratesȱ
(ΦΕΛ΅΍ΕΉΘ΍Ύχȱ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 6)156.ȱ Beyondȱ theȱ councilȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ presidentȱ
(πΔ΍ΐφΏ΍ΓΖ)ȱ ȱ guaranteeingȱ theȱ legalityȱ ofȱ decisions157,ȱ aȱ secretaryȱ (·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϿΖȱ
ΘϛΖȱΆΓΙΏϛΖ)ȱwithȱusefulȱtasks.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ magistratesȱ weȱ mentionȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ archonsȱ (ΩΕΛΓΑΘΉΖ)ȱ withȱ
generalȱ administrativeȱ dutiesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2,ȱ 4,ȱ 5,ȱ 36);ȱ inȱ specialȱ situationsȱ weȱ haveȱ
clearȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ ΩΕΛΓΑΘΉΖȱ πΑȱ ΘЗ(΍)ȱ Ώ΍ΐνΑ΍,ȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ archonsȱ
administratingȱ theȱ portȱ orȱ theȱ market158.ȱ Theȱ Φ·ΓΕ΅ΑϱΐΓΖȱ functionȱ isȱ attestedȱ asȱ
wellȱonȱanȱinscriptionȱwhereȱresellȱmerchantsȱareȱmentionedȱ(ΓϡȱΐΉΘΣΆΓΏΓ΍,ȱISMȱ
II,ȱ 4)159.ȱ Probablyȱ thereȱ wasȱ anȱ ΓϢΎΓΑϱΐΓΖ,ȱ too,ȱ whoȱ providedȱ theȱ expensesȱ
stipulatedȱ inȱ decreesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 6).ȱ Forȱ specialȱ situations,ȱ twoȱ leadersȱ wereȱ electedȱ
151
ȱ Theȱ lectureȱ ofȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 1ȱ isȱ preferedȱ toȱ thatȱ suggestedȱ byȱ L.ȱ Robertȱ (̖΅ΙΕνΝΑ);ȱ seeȱȱȱ
I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 77,ȱ n.ȱ 1ȱ andȱ N.ȱ Ehrhardt,ȱ Miletȱ undȱ seineȱ Kolonien,ȱ Frankfurtȱ amȱ
Main/Bern/NewȱYork/Paris,ȱ1988,ȱp.ȱ118,ȱn.ȱ227.ȱ
152
ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱCivilizaöiaȱgreac©,ȱp.ȱ214Ȭ215ȱandȱ309.ȱȱ
153
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ(supra,ȱn.ȱ148).ȱ
154
ȱ Forȱ theȱ Milesianȱ tribesȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ seeȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 56Ȭ74;ȱ idem,ȱ
Contributionȱ àȱ lȇétudeȱ desȱ tribusȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 175Ȭ202;ȱ idem,ȱ Cultulȱ Dioscurilorȱ
óiȱtriburileȱtomitane.ȱÎnȱluminaȱunuiȱmonumentȱdeȱcurândȱpublicatȱ(TheȱcultȱofȱtheȱDioskouroiȱandȱ
theȱ Tomitanȱ tribes.ȱ Inȱ lightȱ ofȱ aȱ recentlyȱ discoveredȱ monument),ȱ SCIVȱ 16ȱ (1965),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 519Ȭ532;ȱ
Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Triburileȱ laȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ (Theȱ tribesȱ atȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ theȱ Romanȱ
Age),ȱStClsȱ12ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ117Ȭ126;ȱseeȱalsoȱN.ȱEhrhardt,ȱȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ67,ȱn.ȱ514.ȱȱ
155
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 105ȱ agreedsȱ thatȱ atȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Odessosȱ theȱ gentileȱ
tribesȱhadȱtheȱoccupationsȱassuredȱinȱotherȱplacesȱbyȱtheȱterritorialȱtribes;ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱ
sameȱ researcher,ȱ atȱ Histriaȱ theȱ gentileȱ tribesȱ haveȱ beenȱ replacedȱ byȱ theȱ territorialȱ tribesȱ
whichȱhadȱadministrativeȱtasks.ȱ
156
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱUnȱdecretȱineditȱdinȱTomisȱ(AnȱunpublishedȱdecreeȱfromȱTomis),ȱinȱOmagiuȱluiȱ
Constantinȱ Daicoviciu,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1960,ȱ p.ȱ 509Ȭ513.Generally,ȱ seeȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Bouleȱ andȱ
Demosȱ inȱ Miletusȱ andȱ itsȱ Ponticȱ coloniesȱ fromȱ Classicalȱ Ageȱ untilȱ Thirdȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ Wroclawȱ
/Warszawa/ȱKracow,ȱ1999.ȱ
157
ȱSeeȱitsȱattestationȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
158
ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ situationȱ itȱ isȱ assumedȱ theȱ archontsȇȱ tasksȱ wereȱ divided;ȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ
situation,ȱ theȱ functionȱ wasȱ superpassedȱ byȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ agoranomos;ȱ seeȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 32,ȱ withȱ
debate.ȱ
159
ȱ Theȱ properȱ merchantsȱ (σΐΔΓΕΓ΍)ȱ areȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱ inȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ
centuryȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ5).ȱ
140ȱ ȱ
ȱ
fromȱ theȱ citizensȱ asȱ millitaryȱ commandersȱ (ψ·νΐΓΑΉΖ)ȱ forȱ aȱ limitedȱ periodȱ (ISMȱ
II,ȱ2)160.ȱ
Concerningȱ theȱ onomastics,ȱ Greekȱ namesȱ prevailed,ȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ themȱ
commonȱ toȱ theȱ Pontusȱ Euxinusȱ area;ȱ importantȱ byȱ theirȱ numberȱ areȱ thoseȱ ofȱ
theonianȱ andȱ ofȱ frequentȱ occurenceȱ theofore161.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ rareȱ namesȱ weȱ
mentionȱoneȱofȱaȱtribeȱleaderȱ(ΠΙΏΣΕΛ΋Η΅Ζ)ȱ̍ΉΕΎϟΝΑȱ̖΍ΐΓΐΣΛΓΙȱȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ35)162.ȱ
Aȱfuneraryȱinscriptionȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ165)ȱmentionsȱaȱGreekȱfeminineȱnameȱ(̝ΑΘ΍·ϱΑ΋),ȱ
alongȱwithȱtwoȱThracianȱnamesȱ(̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζȱandȱ̕ΉϾΟ΋Ζ)163.ȱThoughȱveryȱfewȱofȱ
theȱ autonomousȱ ageȱ inscriptionsȱ showȱ theȱ ethnicalȱ structure,ȱ withȱ aȱ prevailingȱ
Greekȱelementȱpopulation.ȱ
Theȱ cityȱ organizationȱ wasȱ Greekȱ too;ȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ wallsȱ
whichȱwouldȱhaveȱprotectedȱtheȱcityȱevenȱfromȱtheȱbeginning.ȱThereȱwasȱalsoȱanȱ
agoraȱ insideȱ theȱ cityȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 5),ȱ aȱ theatreȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 4)164ȱ andȱ aȱ fewȱ templesȱ (forȱ
Apollo,ȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ6;ȱIsisȱandȱSarapis,ȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ7).ȱ
Cityȱ activitiesȱ includedȱ alsoȱ paymentȱ ofȱ taxes,ȱ portȱ activitiesȱ withȱ customȱ
taxesȱofȱcourse,ȱbuyingȱgoods,ȱjusticeȱactivities165;ȱtheseȱactivitiesȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱ
theirȱownȱinstitutionsȱandȱedificesȱtoȱtakeȱplaceȱin.ȱȱ
Theȱ cityȱ hadȱ alsoȱ anȱ agriculturalȱ areaȱ (ΛЏΕ΅),ȱ whichȱ isȱ mentionedȱ inȱ
Memnonȇsȱtext166;ȱitsȱapproximateȱareaȱwasȱcomparedȱtoȱtheȱapproximateȱbordersȱ
ofȱHistriaȱonȱtheȱnorthȱandȱKallatisȱonȱtheȱsouth167.ȱAsȱtheȱtradeȱactivitiesȱandȱnotȱ
theȱ agriculturalȱ onesȱ seemȱ toȱ prevailȱ atȱ Tomisȱ andȱ asȱ theȱ surfaceȱ ofȱ theȱ ruralȱ
territoryȱ dependsȱ onȱ theȱ sizeȱ andȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ colony,ȱ theȱ limitsȱ areȱ
changeable.ȱSomeȱdiscoveriesȱnearlyȱConstanöaȱtoȱtheȱnorthȱbelongȱwithȱnoȱdoubtȱ
toȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ territory;ȱ theyȱ wereȱ foundȱ onȱ theȱ southȬwestȱ shoreȱ ofȱ Siutghiolȱ
lakeȱandȱinȱtheȱpresentȱdistrictȱofȱPalazuȱMare.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱpossibleȱthatȱtoȱtheȱnorthȱ
theȱ territoryȱ spreadȱ upȱ toȱ Taóaulȱ lakeȱ andȱ Casimceaȱ riverȱ (whichȱ marked,ȱ
otherwise,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱsouthernȱbordersȱofȱtheȱHistrianȱterritory).ȱInȱthisȱareaȱwereȱ
160
ȱ Forȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ ψ·νΐΓΑΉΖ,ȱ seeȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Contribuöii 2 ,ȱ p.ȱ 75;ȱ forȱ theȱ generalȱ
situation,ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Laȱ défenseȱ desȱ citésȱ enȱ merȱ Noireȱ àȱ laȱ basseȱ époqueȱ hellénistique,ȱ inȱ
AncientȱGreekȱcoloniesȱinȱtheȱBlackȱSea,ȱ1,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱThessaloniki,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ182.ȱ
161
ȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱPopulaöia,ȱp.ȱ153Ȭ341;ȱidem,ȱLesȱnomsȱthéophoresȱauȱnordȱetȱnordȬouestȱdeȱ
laȱ merȱ Noireȱ (VI e ȱ –ȱ I er ȱ sièclesȱ av.ȱ J.ȬC.)ȱ inȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ lifeȱ inȱ Southȱ Eastȱ Europeȱ fromȱ
Prehistoryȱ toȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ (eds.ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ V.ȱ Spinei),ȱ Iaói,ȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 105Ȭ134;ȱ N.ȱ
Ehrhardt,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 67ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 515ȱ talksȱ aboutȱ theȱ IonicȬMilesianȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ
anthroponymsȱ fromȱ Tomis;ȱ inȱ inscriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ autonomousȱ periodȱ weȱ noticeȱ theȱ formsȱ
̴Ύ΅Θ΅ϧΓΖ,ȱ̴ΗΘ΍΅ϧΓΖ,ȱ̐ΓΙΐφΑ΍ΓΖ.ȱȱ
162
ȱSeeȱL.ȱRobert,ȱRÉGȱ75ȱ(1962),ȱp.ȱ186Ȭ187.ȱ
163
ȱ Theȱ associationȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ (̝ΑΘ·ϱΑ΋ȱ ̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζȱ feminineȱ doubleȱ name)ȱ
showsȱ theȱ GreekȬMacedonianȱ influence;ȱ seeȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 193Ȭ194;ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ Populaöia,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ143,ȱn.ȱ155.ȱ
164
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ243ȱandȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱL.ȱRobert,ȱRA,ȱ1933,ȱp.ȱ144;ȱidem,ȱ
Noteȱdeȱlectur©ȱ(Lectureȱnotes),ȱStClsȱ8ȱ(1966),ȱp.ȱ231Ȭ232;ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ532Ȭ534.ȱ
165
ȱWeȱfindȱoutȱaboutȱallȱofȱtheseȱfromȱtheȱdecreeȱISMȱII,ȱ5ȱforȱNylosȱofȱTyras.ȱ
166
ȱSeeȱtheȱcommentaryȱatȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ197;ȱidem,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ155,ȱn.ȱ22.ȱ
167
ȱ M.ȱ Irimia,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ privindȱ teritoriulȱ ruralȱ alȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ perioadaȱ elenistic©ȱ
(ConsiderationsȱregardingȱTomisȇȱruralȱterritoryȱduringȱtheȱHellenisticȱAge),ȱinȱDobrujanȱHistoryȱ
Studies,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ57Ȭ67.ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ 141
ȱȱȱ
discoveredȱ Greekȱ andȱ autochthonousȱ materialsȱ datedȱ generallyȱ fromȱ theȱ 4thȬ1stȱ
centuriesȱBC.ȱTheȱ6thȬ5thȱcenturiesȱBCȱearlyȱarchaeologicalȱdiscoveriesȱfromȱMidiaȱ
cape,ȱatȱtheȱpresentȱlocationȱofȱtheȱPetromidiaȱChemicalȱPlantȱorȱfromȱOvidiuȱareȱ
toȱ beȱ interpretedȱ ratherȱ asȱ Greeksȱ attemptsȱ toȱ settleȱ inȱ theȱ Ponticȱ shoreȱ areaȱ andȱ
notȱ asȱ partsȱ ofȱ aȱ colonyȱ (ofȱ Histriaȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ two,ȱ orȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ forȱ thoseȱ fromȱȱ
Ovidiuȱtown).ȱ
ToȱtheȱsouthȱtheȱterritoryȱspreadȱupȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱformerȱlakeȱAgigeaȱandȱtheȱ
presentȱBlackȱSeaȬDanubeȱcanal.ȱOtherȱsettlements,ȱsituatedȱfartherȱtoȱtheȱsouthȱatȱ
TechirghiolȬUrluchioiȱ andȱ Tuzla,ȱ couldȱ possiblyȱ representȱ theȱ maximumȱ limitȱ ofȱ
Tomitanȱ territory,ȱ althoughȱ ifȱ notȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ
Callatianȱterritory.ȱ
Finally,ȱ theȱ minimumȱ limitȱ toȱ theȱ westȱ reachedȱ ConstantaȬPalasȱ andȱ theȱ
presentȱvillageȱofȱValuȱluiȱTraian,ȱreachingȱprobablyȱalsoȱtheȱsettlementsȱBasarabiȱ
andȱPoartaȱAlb©.ȱ
ȱInȱanyȱcase,ȱtheȱsuggestedȱlimitsȱareȱnaturallyȱbordered;ȱtheȱsettlementȱtypeȱ
seemedȱ toȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ Milesianȱ traditionȱ alsoȱ noticedȱ forȱ Histriaȱ (openȱ
settlements)ȱandȱlessȱofȱtheȱCallatianȱoneȱ(withȱfortifiedȱsettlements)168.ȱ
ȱButȱunlikeȱHistriaȱandȱKallatis,ȱinȱnoȱsettlementȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱassignedȱtoȱ
theȱTomitanȱterritoryȱhaveȱthereȱbeenȱanyȱsystematicȱresearches.ȱ
Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ age,ȱ Tomisȱ showedȱ allȱ theȱ attributesȱ andȱ
structuralȱaspectsȱofȱaȱGreekȱcityȱ whichȱwouldȱ haveȱexistedȱandȱfunctionedȱhereȱ
evenȱfromȱtheȱbeginning.ȱ
ȱ
Theȱ3rdȱstageȱ(1stȱ–ȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD)ȱ
M.ȱ Terentiusȱ Varroȱ Lucullusȇsȱ campaignȱ (72/71ȱ BC)ȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ M.ȱ Liciniusȱ
Crassusȱ (29/28ȱ BC)ȱ representȱ theȱ startȱ ofȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ Romanȱ conquestȱ inȱ
Dobruja.ȱAllȱthisȱtimeȱDobrujaȱremainedȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱRomanȱattentionȱexcludingȱ
twoȱperiodsȱȬȱoneȱmarkedȱbyȱtheȱoperationȱagainstȱCaiusȱHybrida,ȱtheȱsecondȱoneȱ
byȱtheȱBurebistaȱconquest.ȱTheȱfirstȱcampaign,ȱwhichȱaimedȱatȱdrawingȱtheȱPonticȱ
citiesȱintoȱtheȱRomeȱpoliticalȱsphereȱofȱinterest,ȱdidȱnotȱseemȱtoȱhappenȱunderȱtheȱ
mostȱ friendlyȱ conditions169.ȱ Underȱ theseȱ circumstancesȱ evenȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ thisȱ
eventȱandȱtheȱmutualȱtreatyȱ(foedus)ȱwithȱRomeȱandȱKallatis170ȱbecomesȱuncertain,ȱ
asȱwasȱtheȱlegalȱstatusȱtheȱPonticȱcitiesȱreceivedȱafterȱ71ȱBC.ȱImmediatelyȱafterȱtheȱ
militaryȱ successȱ ofȱ Varroȱ Lucullus,ȱ theȱ Ponticȱ citiesȱ fellȱ underȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ
Macedoniaȇsȱproconsul,ȱnotȱbeingȱintegratedȱintoȱtheȱprovince.ȱ
Theȱ civitatesȱ liberaeȱ statusȱ becameȱ questionableȱ ifȱ weȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ
theȱ conditionsȱ (andȱ mostlyȱ theȱ ways)ȱ underȱ whichȱ theȱ Romanȱ „protection”ȱ wasȱ
168
ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱAlexandraȱWasowicz,ȱModèlesȱd’aménagementȱdesȱcoloniesȱgrecques:ȱ
villeȱ etȱ territoire,ȱ BCH,ȱ Suppl.ȱ 34,ȱ Territoiresȱ desȱ citésȱ grecquesȱ (ed.ȱ Michèleȱ Brunet),ȱ 1999,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ245Ȭ258.ȱ
169
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ15.ȱ
170
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 277ȱ ff.;ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Dou©ȱ noteȱ privindȱ istoriaȱ Moesieiȱ înȱ
secolulȱ Iȱ î.e.n.ȱ (Twoȱ notesȱ aboutȱ Moesiaȇsȱ historyȱ inȱ theȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ BC),ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ ȱ ȱ p.ȱ
269Ȭ274ȱ considersȱ aȱ laterȱ dateȱ forȱ foedus,ȱ referringȱ itȱ toȱ ȱ Crassusȇȱ campaign;ȱ seeȱ theȱ wholeȱ
subjectȱandȱtheȱbibliographyȱinȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ38Ȭ44ȱandȱp.ȱ201Ȭ226,ȱ1ȱ(hereȱtooȱtheȱ
suggestionȱ ofȱ datingȱ theȱ treatyȱ betweenȱ 106Ȭ101/100ȱ BC);ȱ idemȱ Derȱ Vertragȱ zwischenȱ Romȱ
undȱCallatis.ȱEinȱBeitragȱzumȱrömischenȱVölkerrecht,ȱAmsterdam,ȱ1999.ȱ
142ȱ ȱ
ȱ
imposed.ȱTheȱaboveȬmentionedȱstatusȱwasȱstillȱvalidȱifȱitȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱ
theȱsameȱcitiesȱ„setȱfree”ȱfromȱtheȱobligationsȱstipulatedȱinȱMithridatesȱsystemȱofȱ
alliances.ȱ
Inȱ itsȱ turn,ȱ civitatesȱ foederataeȱ statusȱ isȱ validȱ ifȱ weȱ considerȱ certainȱ theȱ
inclusionȱofȱotherȱcitiesȱintoȱRomeȇsȱsystemȱofȱalliances;ȱthisȱstatusȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱ
compatibleȱwithȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱsameȱcitiesȱafterȱtheȱLucullusȱoperation.ȱInȱ61ȱ
BCȱaȱcommonȱactionȱtookȱplaceȱ(ofȱtheȱGreekȱcitiesȱofȱMoesiaȱorȱofȱtheȱbarbarianȱ
populations)ȱagainstȱMacedoniaȇsȱgovernor,ȱC.ȱAntoniusȱHybrida.ȱ
Theȱ textȱ ofȱ Dioȱ Cassiusȱ (XXXVII,ȱ 10,ȱ 3)ȱ isȱ tooȱ generalȱ notȱ toȱ giveȱ wayȱ toȱ
supposition:ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ ΗΙΐΐΣΛΓΙΖȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ πΑȱ ΘϜȱ ̏ΙΗϟθȱ couldȱ meanȱ theȱ alliedȱ
Greekȱ citiesȱ fromȱ Moesia171ȱ orȱ theȱ barbarianȱ populationȱ (localȱ orȱ diverse)ȱ helpedȱ
byȱ Bastarnae172ȱ or,ȱ finally,ȱ aȱ GreekȬbarbarianȱ alliance.ȱ Theȱ fact,ȱ though,ȱ thatȱ
Hybridaȱ ranȱ toȱ theȱ Ponticȱ areaȱ andȱ wasȱ defeatedȱ „nearȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Histria”ȱ
(<ΔΕϲΖ>ȱ ΘϜȱ ΘЗΑȱ ͑ΗΘΕ΍΅ΑЗΑȱ ΔϱΏΉ΍)ȱ suggestsȱ anȱ allianceȱ ofȱ theȱ citiesȱ inȱ thisȱ area.ȱ
Weȱ argueȱ thatȱ Tomisȱ didȱ notȱ missȱ outȱ ȱ ȱ onȱ ȱ ȱ thisȱ ȱ ȱ alliance,ȱ ȱ ȱ consideringȱ ȱ ȱ theȱȱȱ
geographicalȱ neighbourhoodȱ andȱ theȱ connectionsȱ itȱ alwaysȱ hadȱ withȱ Histria.ȱ
Withoutȱ doubtȱ isȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ incidentȱ ofȱ Hybridaȱ putȱ anȱ endȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ
periodȱofȱRomanȱauthorityȱpresenceȱatȱtheȱDanube.ȱThereȱwasȱaȱlackȱofȱauthority;ȱ
withoutȱ powerfulȱ politicalȱ protectionȱ onȱ theȱ south,ȱ theȱ westȱ Ponticȱ citiesȱ wouldȱ
beȱincludedȱinȱtheȱunionȱofȱstatesȱcreatedȱbyȱBurebista173.ȱ
Theȱ eventȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ atȱ someȱ stageȱ betweenȱ 55Ȭ48ȱ
BC174,ȱ orȱ afterȱ 48ȱ BC,ȱ theȱ yearȱ whenȱ Pompeiȱ wasȱ defeatedȱ atȱ Pharsalos175.ȱ
AccordingȱtoȱDioȱChrysostomosȇȱnarrationȱ(XXXVI,ȱ4),ȱrememberingȱtheȱfactȱthatȱ
theȱoratorȱlivedȱinȱOlbiaȱ(95ȱAD)ȱandȱaddressedȱhisȱorationȱinȱ97ȱAD,ȱȱBurebistaȇsȱ
operationȱ occurredȱ inȱ 55Ȭ53ȱ BC176.ȱ Weȱ noticeȱ theȱ textsȱ talksȱ aboutȱ aȱ conquestȱ
(ΐΉ·ϟΗΘ΋ΑȱΧΏΝΗ΍Α)ȱafterȱwhichȱtheȱGetaeȱtookȱ(ΉϩΏΓΑ)ȱtheȱcityȱofȱBoristeneȱ(Olbia)ȱ
„andȱ alsoȱ otherȱ citiesȱ setȱ onȱ theȱ westȱ Ponticȱ shores,ȱ upȱ toȱ Apollonia”ȱ (Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘΤΖȱ
ΩΏΏ΅ΖȱΘΤΖȱπΑȱΘΓϧΖȱΦΕ΍ΗΘΉΕΓϧΖȱΘΓІȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱΔϱΏΉ΍ΖȱΐνΛΕ΍ȱ̝ΔΓΏΏΝΑϟ΅Ζ).ȱ
171
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ DIDȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 280Ȭ281;ȱ idem,ȱ Înȱ jurulȱ dateiȱ tratatuluiȱ RomaȬCallatisȱ (Aboutȱ
theȱ dateȱ ofȱ RomaȬCallatisȱ treaty),ȱ StClsȱ 15ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 64Ȭ67;ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 45Ȭ46ȱ
andȱmostlyȱtheȱnotesȱ175,ȱ183.ȱ
172
ȱSeeȱtheȱsubjectȱatȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱRelaöiile,ȱp.ȱ141Ȭ143.ȱ
173
ȱ Aboutȱ this,ȱ generally,ȱ seeȱ H.ȱ Daicoviciu,ȱ Daciaȱ deȱ laȱ Burebistaȱ laȱ cucerireaȱ roman©ȱ
(DaciaȱfromȱBurebistaȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱconquest),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1972;ȱI.H.ȱCrióan,ȱBurebistaȱóiȱepocaȱsaȱ
(Burebistaȱ andȱ hisȱ age),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1977;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Istoriaȱ românilorȱ (Theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Romanians),ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ635Ȭ651ȱ(chapterȱVIII:ȱBurebista).ȱ
174
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Parerga.ȱ Ecritsȱ deȱ Philologie,ȱ dȇÉpigraphieȱ etȱ dȇHistoireȱ Ancienne,ȱ
BucureótiȬParis,ȱ 1984,ȱ p.ȱ 183Ȭ188;ȱ idem,ȱ Gètesȱ etȱ Grecsȱ dansȱ lȇhistoireȱ deȱ laȱ Scythieȱ Mineureȱ àȱ
lȇépoqueȱdeȱByrebistas,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ25ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ255Ȭ262;ȱforȱaȱpossibleȱpresenceȱofȱBurebistaȱinȱ
theȱ Ponticȱ areaȱ evenȱ fromȱ 61/60ȱ BCȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΐν·΍ΗΘΓΖȱ (Ά΅Η΍ΏΉϿΖ)ȱ
ΘЗΑȱ πΔϠȱ ̋ΕιΎ΋Ζȱ Ά΅Η΍ΏνΝΑ:ȱ IGBȱ I 2 ,ȱ 13,ȱ Z.ȱ 22Ȭ23ȇ,ȱ Tycheȱ 13ȱ (1998),ȱ p.ȱ 229Ȭ247ȱ (=ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ
34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ335)ȱ;ȱ idem,ȱ Burébistaȱ etȱ laȱ Dobroudja,ȱ inȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica.ȱ Grecsȱ etȱ
RomansȱauȱBasȬDanube,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ35Ȭ56.ȱ
175
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 48ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 189;ȱ theȱ operationȱ wouldȱ haveȱ aimedȱ atȱ stoppingȱ
theȱwestȱPontusȱrangingȱonȱCaesarȇsȱside.ȱ
176
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ47,ȱn.ȱ186.ȱ
ȱ 143
ȱȱȱ
Thisȱ action,ȱ violent177ȱ orȱ not178,ȱ hadȱ asȱ aȱ consequenceȱ anȱ aggravationȱ ofȱ theȱ
situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Ponticȱ cities.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ textȱ ofȱ Dioȱ Chrysostomosȱ furthermoreȱ
mentionsȱ(XXXVI,ȱ5)ȱ„theȱsituationȱofȱtheȱGreeksȱwhoȱliveȱhereȱisȱveryȱunpleasantȱ
(....);ȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱBarbariansȱhaveȱalliedȱtoȱcomeȱagainstȱtheseȱcities”.ȱItȱisȱ
notȱ difficultȱ toȱ noticeȱ hereȱ theȱ sameȱ conditionȱ ofȱ uncertaintyȱ thatȱ Ovidȱ exiledȱ atȱ
Tomisȱwouldȱcomplainȱofȱafterȱnotȱmuchȱtime.ȱ
Thisȱuncertaintyȱexplainsȱtheȱarrangementsȱdoneȱbyȱtheȱcityȇsȱadministrationȱ
toȱ trainȱ aȱ civilianȱ guardȱ toȱ watchȱ theȱ wallsȱ andȱ theȱ gates;ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ
decreeȱ textsȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2)ȱ didȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ Burebista,ȱ andȱ areȱ possiblyȱ datedȱ earlierȱ
(toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BC)179ȱ doesȱ notȱ preventȱ usȱ fromȱ noticingȱ aȱ longȬ
standingȱ situationȱ characterizedȱ byȱ „timesȱ ofȱ vicissitude”,ȱ „difficultȱ situations”ȱ
andȱ „greatȱ trouble”,ȱ „despair”,ȱ „weakness”,ȱ endingȱ withȱ cityȱ leaningȱ andȱ theȱ
impossibilityȱofȱbeingȱdefeated.ȱWeȱconsiderȱtheseȱaspectsȱconsequencesȱofȱaȱlackȱ
ofȱ protectionȱ whichȱ tookȱ placeȱ eitherȱ beforeȱ Mithridatesȱ (ifȱ weȱ maintainȱ thatȱ theȱ
decreesȱ dateȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BC),ȱ or,ȱ moreȱ uncertainlyȱ inȱ theȱ 1stȱ
centuryȱBCȱbetweenȱtheȱmomentsȱHybridaȱandȱBurebistaȱorȱpostȱBurebista180.ȱ
Weȱ mentionȱ aȱ lastȱ aspectȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ BC:ȱ aȱ yearȱ beforeȱ
theȱ Pharsalosȱ confrontation,ȱ Pompeiusȱ hadȱ amongȱ hisȱ alliesȱ „allȱ theȱ Eastȱ
populationsȱ andȱ bothȱ populationsȱ fromȱ theȱ Pontusȱ Euxinusȱ shores,ȱ eitherȱ Greeks,ȱ orȱ
Barbarians.ȱAndȱtheȱKings,ȱbothȱtheȱRomanȱpeoplesȱfriendsȱandȱmineȱ[Pompeiȇsȱfriends]ȱ
broughtȱ troops,ȱ weapons,ȱ foodsȱ andȱ otherȱ usefulȱ thingsȱ toȱ prepareȱ us”ȱ (Appian,ȱ Theȱ
CivilianȱWars,ȱII,ȱ51).ȱ
Amongȱtheseȱfriendlyȱkingsȱ(ΠϟΏΓ΍),ȱthereȱisȱBurebista,ȱofȱcourse181.ȱPompeiȇsȱ
prestigeȱ inȱ theȱ eastȱ Ponticȱ areaȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ great;ȱ thisȱ explainsȱ bothȱ theȱ
Greekȱcitiesȱandȱtheȱlocalȱkingsȱrangeȱonȱhisȱside.ȱTheȱcommonȱattitudeȱofȱGreeksȱ
andȱBurebistaȱconcerningȱtheseȱeventsȱcouldȱbeȱanȱargumentȱaccordingȱtoȱ whichȱ
theȱGeticȱkingȇsȱactionsȱinȱthisȱareaȱwouldȱbeȱaȱpartȱofȱaȱstrategy182.ȱ
TheȱGeticȱauthorityȱlastedȱuntilȱBurebistaȇsȱdeathȱ(44ȱBC)183ȱandȱwasȱfollowedȱ
byȱtheȱunstableȱperiodȱwhichȱDioȱChrysostomosȱdescribed.ȱ
Theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ presenceȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ isȱ theȱ campaignȱ ofȱ M.ȱ
LiciniusȱCrassus,ȱproconsulȱofȱMacedonia184,ȱbetweenȱ29/28ȱBC.ȱ
177
ȱAtȱOlbia,ȱHistria,ȱMesambria;ȱseeȱDioȱChrysostomos,ȱXXXVI,ȱ4;ȱP.ȱAlexandrescu,ȱLaȱ
destructionȱ dȇIstrosȱ parȱ lesȱ Gètes.ȱ 1.ȱ Dossierȱ archéologique,ȱ Ilȱ Marȱ Neroȱ Iȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ214;ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
(=ȱSCIVAȱ44ȱ(1993),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ231Ȭ266);ȱseeȱalsoȱG.ȱMihailovȱ(ed.),ȱIGBȱI 2 ,ȱ323.ȱ
178
ȱ Isȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ Dionysopolis,ȱ asȱ resultingȱ fromȱ theȱ decreeȱ forȱ Acornion,ȱ IGBȱ I 2 ,ȱ
13.ȱ
179
ȱSeeȱtheȱsubjectȱsummaryȱatȱI.ȱStoian,ȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ30.ȱ
180
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ R.ȱVulpeȱ inȱ DIDȱII,ȱ p.ȱ 37ȱ andȱ mostlyȱn.ȱ 53.ȱ Forȱ datingȱ theȱsameȱ decreesȱatȱ
theȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ1 st ȱcenturyȱAD,ȱseeȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDIDȱI,ȱp.ȱ283ȱandȱ296Ȭ297.ȱ
181
ȱ Forȱ theȱ Geticȱkingȇsȱ title,ȱ theȱ dateȱofȱ takingȱ itȱ and,ȱ forȱ theȱ proȬRomanȱ attitudeȱandȱ
theȱ dateȱ ofȱ takingȱ theȱ sideȱ ofȱ Pompeiȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 33Ȭ34ȱ (2000Ȭ2001),ȱ p.ȱ 319Ȭ
335ȱ(mostlyȱp.ȱ330Ȭ332).ȱ
182
ȱ Evasively,ȱ weȱ couldȱ findȱ hereȱ anȱ argumentȱ forȱ Burebistaȇsȱ actionsȱ inȱ thisȱ areaȱ
beforeȱ49/48ȱBC.ȱ
183
ȱ Inȱ 48ȱ BC,ȱ afterȱ Pharsalos,ȱ Burebistaȱ retreatedȱ beyondȱ theȱ Danubeȱ (Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ
p.ȱ48).ȱForȱtheȱchronologyȱofȱBurebista’sȱreignȱandȱhisȱrelationshipsȱwithȱRome,ȱseeȱalsoȱV.ȱ
Lica,ȱM.ȱLiciniusȱCrassus,ȱQuaestionesȱBurebistanae,ȱinȱScriptaȱDacica,ȱBr©ila,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ57Ȭ95.ȱ
144ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Probablyȱ alsoȱ shouldȱ beȱ mentionedȱ hereȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ
theȱLiciniusȱCrassusȱcampaignȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱjustifiedȱbyȱAugustusȇsȱintentionȱ
toȱ drawȱ toȱ hisȱ sideȱ anȱ areaȱ whichȱ dependedȱ untilȱ thenȱ onȱ Marcusȱ Antoniusȱ andȱ
underȱ theȱ circumstancesȱ thatȱ Marcusȱ Antoniusȇsȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ Balkanȱ areaȱ wasȱ
growingȱafterȱ35/34ȱBC185.ȱ
Theȱ dateȱ ofȱ thisȱ campaignȱ isȱ consideredȱ onlyȱ aȱ terminusȱ postȱ quemȱ forȱ theȱ
momentȱ whenȱ Romanȱ authorityȱ wasȱ establishedȱ here;ȱ theȱ yearȱ whenȱ Ovidȱ wasȱ
exiledȱ atȱ Tomisȱ (8ȱ AD)ȱ representsȱ aȱ terminusȱ anteȱ quem186.ȱ Aȱ closerȱ dateȱ isȱ
determinedȱforȱ3Ȭ2ȱBC,ȱwhenȱP.ȱViniciusȱhadȱtheȱimperialȱlegateȱtitleȱpropraetorȱinȱ
ThraciaȱandȱMacedonia187.ȱ
OvidȱwroteȱthatȱthisȱregionȱenteredȱveryȱsoonȱunderȱtheȱAusonicȱjurisdictionȱ
(haecȱestȱAusonioȱsubȱjureȱnovissima;ȱTrist.,ȱII,ȱ199Ȭ200);ȱbutȱtheȱlegalȱconditionȱthatȱ
theȱGreekȱcitiesȱheldȱunderȱtheȱRomanȱauthorityȱestablishedȱatȱthatȱpointȱforȱgoodȱ
isȱnotȱknown.ȱ
Itȱ isȱ generallyȱ admittedȱ thatȱ theȱ areaȱ betweenȱ theȱ Danubeȱ andȱ theȱ seaȱ
(exceptingȱ theȱ shore)ȱ wasȱ controlledȱ byȱ theȱ Odrydesȱ Kings;ȱ theȱ shoreȱ withȱ theȱ
Greekȱ citiesȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ praefecturaȱ (oraeȱ maritimae)188ȱ orȱ (civitatiumȱ oraeȱ
maritimae)189.ȱ Thisȱ situationȱ wasȱ maintainedȱ afterȱ theȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ wasȱ
organizedȱ(theȱfirstȱdecadeȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱȬȱ15ȱAD),ȱbutȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱshoreȱwasȱ
nowȱ controlledȱ byȱ praefectiȱ underȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ Moesiaȇsȱ governor.ȱ Ovidȱ
mentionsȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱsomeȱofȱOdrydesȱtroopsȱatȱAegyssusȱ(ExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ8;ȱIV,ȱ
7)190ȱ andȱ Troesmisȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ IV,ȱ 9)ȱ andȱ appealledȱ toȱ kingȱ Cotysȱ toȱ ensureȱ theȱ
safetyȱ ofȱ theȱ exileȱ (Exȱ Pontoȱ II,ȱ 9).ȱ Inȱ aȱ regionȱ whereȱ „theȱ Getaeȱ didȱ notȱ fearȱ theȱ
Romanȱsoldiersȱweapons”ȱ(necȱAusoniiȱmilitisȱarmaȱtimet;ȱExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ2,ȱ84),ȱpeaceȱ
becameȱ uncertainȱ (pacisȱ fiduciaȱ numquam;ȱ Tristia,ȱ II,ȱ 5,ȱ 17).ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ theȱ Getiȱ
attackedȱ theȱ empireȇsȱ borders;ȱ Ovidȱ wroteȱ aboutȱ „theȱ Sarmatianȱ lances”ȱ (piculaȱ
Sarmatica),ȱ„theȱBistonianȱspears”ȱ(Bistoniasȱsarissas),ȱ„theȱScythianȱbow”ȱ(Scythicoȱ
arcu)ȱandȱ„theȱimpulsiveȱIazigi”ȱ(IazygesȱacresȱorȱferoxȱIazyx).ȱTomisȱboreȱtheȱsameȱ
insecureȱ condition.ȱ Theȱ poetȱ noticedȱ theȱ numerousȱ populationȱ inȱ theȱ
neighbourhoodȱ (circaȱ innumeraeȱ gentes)ȱ whoȱ wereȱ „threatenedȱ withȱ cruelȱ wars”ȱ
184
ȱSeeȱDioȱCassiusȇsȱnarration,ȱ51,ȱ23Ȭ27;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ33Ȭ34.ȱAboutȱtheȱperiod,ȱ
seeȱ nowȱ V.Lica,ȱ M.Liciniusȱ Crassusȱ (cos.ȱ 30ȱ ȱ BC)ȱ undȱ dieȱ ȱ römischeȱ Donaugrenze,ȱ Ponticaȱ 40ȱ
(2007),ȱp.ȱ236Ȭ242.ȱ
185
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 274Ȭ284.ȱ Twoȱ inscriptionsȱ areȱ indirectȱ
arguments:ȱ oneȱ fromȱ Odessosȱ IGBȱ I 2 ,ȱ 46,ȱ datedȱ betweenȱ 44/43ȱ BCȱ Ȭȱ 2/3ȱ ADȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ
oneȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 37ȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ Agrippina,ȱ onȱ whichȱ thereȱ areȱ markedȱ personsȱ
calledȱAntonius.ȱ
186
ȱ Forȱ thisȱ data,ȱ seeȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ lecturaȱ (Lectureȱ notes),ȱ StClsȱ 16ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ
256Ȭ260;ȱidem,ȱParerga,ȱp.ȱ209.ȱ
187
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ46Ȭ54;ȱidem,ȱP.ȱViniciusȱundȱKallatis.ȱZumȱBeginnȱderȱrömischenȱȱȱ
Kontrolleȱ ȱ derȱ griechischenȱ Städteȱ anȱ derȱ Westküsteȱ desȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinos,ȱ inȱ G.R.ȱ Tsetskhladzeȱ
(ed.),ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ colonisationȱ ȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ area.ȱ Historicalȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ archaeology,ȱ
Stuttgart,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ115Ȭ129;ȱidem,ȱISMȱIII,ȱ57.ȱ
188
ȱ Aboutȱ theȱnameȱ andȱ evolutionȱofȱ thisȱ structureȱ seeȱ Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱ Înȱȱ ȱ leg©tur©ȱ ȱcuȱȱ
dataȱȱdeȱȱȱanexareȱȱȱaȱȱDobrogeiȱȱȱdeȱȱ ȱc©treȱȱromaniȱ(ConcerningȱtheȱdateȱofȱDobrujaȇsȱannexationȱ
byȱtheȱRomans),ȱPonticaȱ4ȱ(1971),ȱp.ȱ114Ȭ115ȱ;ȱseeȱalsoȱinfra,ȱn.ȱ200.ȱ
189
ȱSeeȱtheȱsubjectȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ54Ȭ56.ȱ
190
ȱExȱPonto,ȱI,ȱ8,ȱ15:ȱOdrisiisȱinopinoȱMarteȱperemptis.ȱ
ȱ 145
ȱȱȱ
(feraȱbellaȱminantur).ȱPoisonedȱarrowsȱwereȱfoundȱinsideȱtheȱcity,ȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱ
theȱroodsȱ(intraȱmuros,ȱperȱmediasȱvias;ȱTrist.,ȱII,ȱ10,ȱ21Ȭ22)ȱorȱthrustȱintoȱtheȱhousesȱ
roofsȱ „likeȱ aȱ parapet”ȱ (velutiȱ velata;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ I,ȱ 2,ȱ 23).ȱ Forȱ certain,ȱ thereȱ wereȱ
difficultȱ moments,ȱ butȱ theȱ poetȇsȱ imaginationȱ exaggeratedȱ onȱ purposeȱ someȱ
aspectsȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱanȱimpressionȱonȱhisȱreaders191.ȱTheȱethnicȱGeticȱelementȱ
isȱalwaysȱpresent.ȱOvidȱsentȱhisȱregardsȱ„fromȱtheȱGeticȱcountry”ȱ(eȱGetico;ȱTristia,ȱ
V,ȱ13,ȱ1),ȱtheȱfieldsȱareȱGeticȱ(Geticis....abȱarvis;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱI,ȱ9,ȱ45);ȱheȱlivesȱamongȱ
Getaeȱ (inqueȱ Getis;ȱ Tristia,ȱ III,ȱ 9,ȱ 4);ȱ onȱ theȱ Danubeȱ liveȱ thereȱ areȱ „theȱ Getaeȱ notȱ
entirelyȱruled”ȱ(nonȱbeneȱpacatisȱfluminaȱpotaȱGetis;ȱExȱPonto,ȱIII,ȱ4,ȱ9,ȱ2).ȱ
MentioningȱtheȱGetaeȱfromȱTomis,ȱtheȱpoetȱnoticesȱthatȱtheyȱownȱmostȱofȱtheȱ
housesȱ (tectaȱ plusȱ quoqueȱ parteȱ tenet;ȱ Exȱ Ponto,ȱ III,ȱ 4)ȱ andȱ thoughȱ theyȱ areȱ mixedȱ
withȱGreeks,ȱtheȱshoreȱbelongedȱmostlyȱtoȱtheȱfieryȱGetaeȱ(Mixtaȱsitȱhaecȱquamvisȱ
interȱ Graecosqueȱ Getasque/aȱ maleȱ pacatisȱ plusȱ trahitȱ oraȱ Getis;ȱ Tristiaȱ IV,ȱ 7,ȱ 11Ȭ12).ȱ
Ovidȱoverestimatedȱhereȱtheȱresultsȱofȱaȱlongȱcohabitationȱandȱaȱmoreȱrecentȱandȱ
stronglyȱ pronouncedȱ demonstrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Geticȱ element.ȱ Manyȱ timesȱ theȱ poetȱ
offersȱvaluableȱinformationȱaboutȱTomisȱdefenceȱsystem.ȱAȱprecinctȱwallȱsetȱonȱaȱ
promotoryȱ(tumullus)ȱisȱmentioned;ȱtheȱwallȱhadȱtowersȱandȱgatesȱ(Tristia,ȱV,ȱ10).ȱ
Inȱ mostȱ ofȱ hisȱ excerpts,ȱ Ovidȱ triesȱ toȱ showȱ howȱ insecureȱ thisȱ systemȱ isȱ withȱ
epithetsȱ underliningȱ theȱ poorȱ strengthȱ ofȱ theȱ wallȱ andȱ gates:ȱ brevisȱ murusȱ (smallȱ
wall)ȱmoeniaȱ exiguaȱ(lowȱ walls),ȱportaȱvixȱfirmaȱ(notȬstrengthenedȱgate).ȱThisȱisȱanȱ
exaggeration,ȱtoo:ȱtheȱwall,ȱperhapsȱlowerȱthanȱothers,ȱwhichȱconcernedȱtheȱpoet,ȱ
resistedȱoutsideȱattacksȱandȱcouldȱadequatelyȱcopeȱwithȱcityȇsȱsecurityȱneeds.ȱ
Otherwise,ȱ theȱ poetȱ himself,ȱ tryingȱ toȱ drawȱ attentionȱ toȱ otherȱ difficultiesȱ ofȱ
hisȱexile,ȱwroteȱthatȱtheȱwindȱrazedȱtoȱtheȱgroundȱ„theȱhighȱtowers”ȱ(altasȱturres).ȱ
Theȱcontradictionȱisȱobvious:ȱtheȱwallȱwasȱtooȱlowȱspeakingȱwhenȱheȱwasȱtalkingȱ
aboutȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ attack,ȱ butȱ itsȱ towersȱ areȱ tooȱ highȱ whenȱ heȱ mentionsȱ theȱ
winterȇsȱharshness.ȱItȱisȱnotȱnecessaryȱtoȱdiscussȱhereȱthatȱtheȱwallȱwasȱdefendingȱ
theȱ cityȱ onlyȱonȱoneȱsideȱ orȱthatȱitȱwasȱanȱenclosureȱwall192;ȱbutȱtheȱfactȱ theȱpoetȱ
usesȱforȱcityȱtheȱwordsȱcastellumȱandȱcastraȱsuggestsȱthereȱwasȱanȱenclosureȱwall.ȱ
Thisȱ informationȱ isȱ alsoȱ supportedȱ byȱ anȱ epigraphicalȱ documentȱ whichȱ weȱ haveȱ
alreadyȱ mentionedȱ beforeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 2)ȱ andȱ whereȱ weȱ noteȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ
ΔΉΕϟΆΓΏΓΖ.ȱ
Afterȱ theȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ wasȱ organized193,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ Geticȱ attacksȱ
continued,ȱ someȱ elementsȱ ofȱ stabilityȱ canȱ beȱ notedȱ inȱ theȱ area.ȱ Mentioningȱ theȱ
attackȱ fromȱ 15ȱ ADȱ againstȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Troesmisȱ andȱ Pomponiusȱ Flaccusȇsȱ
191
ȱ N.ȱ Lascu,ȱ P©mântulȱ óiȱ vechiiȱ locuitoriȱ aiȱ ö©riiȱ noastreȱ înȱ operaȱ deȱ exilȱ aȱ luiȱ Ovidiuȱ (Theȱ
territoryȱ andȱ theȱ ancientȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ ourȱ countryȱ inȱ Ovidȇsȱ exileȱ literaryȱ works),ȱ inȱ Publiusȱ
OvidiusȱNaso,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1957,ȱp.ȱ119Ȭ191;ȱidem,ȱOvidiu,ȱomulȱóiȱpoetulȱ(Ovid,ȱTheȱManȱandȱtheȱ
Poet),ȱinȱtheȱvolumeȱPubliusȱOvidiusȱNaso,ȱCluj,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ309Ȭ348;ȱL.ȱFranga,ȱOvidiuȱóiȱspaöiulȱ
danubianoȬponticȱ (Ovidȱ andȱ theȱ DanubianȬPonticȱ territory),ȱ ThracoȬDacicaȱ 11ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ
225Ȭ238ȱ;ȱL.ȱFranga,ȱM.ȱFranga,ȱOvidianaȱPontica.ȱSurȱlesȱdeuxȱmondesȱréelsȱduȱpoète,ȱStClsȱ40Ȭ
41ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ 215Ȭ222.ȱ Aboutȱ hisȱ worksȱ inȱ exile,ȱ seeȱ inȱ detail,ȱ Al.ȱ Podossinov,ȱ Ovidsȱ
DichtungȱalsȱQuelleȱfurȱGeschichteȱdesȱSchwarzmeergebiets,ȱKonstanz,ȱ1987,ȱpassim.ȱ
192
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ439Ȭ446.ȱ
193
ȱR.Syme,ȱDanubianȱPapers,ȱBucharest,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ72;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDID,ȱII,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ46.ȱ
146ȱ ȱ
ȱ
victory194,ȱtheȱpoetȱwrote:ȱripaȱferoxȱHistriȱ(...)ȱtutaȱfuitȱ(ExȱPonto,ȱIV,ȱ9,ȱ76);ȱTomisȱ
inhabitantsȱ organizedȱ publicȱ gamesȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ year;ȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ aȱ
ceremonyȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ Augustusȇsȱ memory,ȱ Ovidȱ wasȱ electedȱ agonothetesȱ (Exȱ
Ponto,ȱIV,ȱ9,ȱ101Ȭ116)195;ȱthereȱareȱalsoȱknownȱdevotionȱexpressionsȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱ
emperorȱ inȱ theȱ closeȱ westȬPonticȱ cities196.ȱ ȱ Theȱ cityȱ issuedȱ coinȱ again197.ȱ Withȱ
ThraciaȱchangedȱintoȱaȱRomanȱprovinceȱinȱ46ȱAD,ȱtheȱOdrydisȱKingsȱ„mandate”ȱ
endedȱinȱDobruja198.ȱWeȱdoȱnotȱintendȱtoȱdiscussȱwhetherȱthisȱterritoryȱisȱincludedȱ
inȱ theȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ atȱ thisȱ time199ȱ orȱ later200ȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Vespasian.ȱ
Theȱtraditionalȱinterpretationȱacceptsȱthatȱtheȱeventȱwouldȱhaveȱtakenȱplaceȱinȱ46ȱ
ADȱ andȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ „aȱ peacefulȱ andȱ gradualȱ change”201ȱ whenȱ theȱ Ponticȱ
citiesȱkeptȱ„theirȱinternalȱautonomy”202.ȱ Accordingȱtoȱaȱnewȱopinion,ȱonlyȱduringȱ
theȱ Vespasianicȱ periodȱ doȱ weȱ haveȱ „certainȱ evidenceȱ aboutȱ aȱ reorganizationȱ ofȱ
Moesia,ȱwhereȱDobrujaȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱincludedȱirreversiblyȱatȱleastȱfromȱaȱmilitaryȱ
pointȱ ofȱ view”203.ȱ Aȱ finalȱ deedȱ referingȱ toȱ Romanȱ administrationȱ inȱ thisȱ earlyȱ
imperialȱ ageȱ wasȱ theȱ breakingȱ upȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ duringȱ theȱ Domitianicȱ periodȱ (86ȱ
AD);ȱDobrujaȱandȱtheȱPonticȱcitiesȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱprovinceȱofȱMoesiaȱInferior.ȱ
Amongȱ allȱ theȱ Westȱ Ponticȱ cities,ȱ Tomisȱ wasȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ specialȱ attention.ȱ
Untilȱ Vespasianȱ itȱ probablyȱ hadȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ civitasȱ libera204.ȱ Thisȱ status,ȱ
temporarilyȱ revoked,ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ becomeȱ civitasȱ stipendiariaȱ underȱ whichȱ Tomisȱ
hadȱ moreȱ financialȱ andȱ militaryȱ dutiesȱ toȱ Romeȱ (theȱ evidenceȱ beingȱ aȱ garrisonȱ
hereȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱȬtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱAD)205.ȱ
Theȱ preȬeminenceȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ canȱ beȱ noticedȱ evenȱ fromȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ
Tulliusȱ Geminus206,ȱ Moesiaȇsȱ governorȱ wasȱ presentȱ hereȱ atȱ aȱ dateȱ betweenȱ 47Ȭ53ȱ
194
ȱ Seeȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 54Ȭ56ȱ aboutȱ Pomponiusȱ Flaccusȇsȱ positionȱ asȱ militaryȱ
commanderȱ orȱ praefectus.ȱ However,ȱ weȱ notice,ȱ besideȱ theȱ wordȱ praefuitȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ
assimilatedȱ withȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ dux,ȱ orȱ militaryȱ commander,ȱ Ovidȱ alsoȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ
Flaccusȱ asȱ praeses:ȱ inȱ quoqueȱ quoȱ laevusȱ fueratȱ subȱ praesideȱ Pontusȱ (Exȱ Ponto,ȱ IV,ȱ 9,ȱ 119);ȱ seeȱ
alsoȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ45,ȱn.ȱ96.ȱ
195
ȱAdd,ȱExȱPonto,ȱII,ȱ8,ȱ1Ȭ10;ȱIV,ȱ9,ȱ105Ȭ112;ȱIII,ȱ1,ȱ161Ȭ164.ȱ
196
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱDID,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ323;ȱforȱHistria,ȱseeȱISMȱI,ȱ146ȱandȱforȱCallatis,ȱISMȱIII,ȱ58.ȱ
197
ȱ K.ȱ Regling,ȱ Münzen,ȱ p.ȱ 673;ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Ovidioȱ nellaȱ cittaȱ del’esilio,ȱ inȱ Studiȱ Ovidiani,ȱ
Roma,ȱ1959,ȱp.ȱ59;ȱseeȱalsoȱUnaȱcittàȱdiȱprovinciaȱalȱlimiteȱdellȇimperoȱromano:ȱTomiȱalȱtempoȱdiȱ
Ovidio,ȱStudiȱRomaniȱ6ȱ(1958),ȱ6,ȱp.ȱ629Ȭ648.ȱ
198
199
ȱSeeȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱPonticaȱ4ȱ(1971),ȱp.ȱ106Ȭ111ȱandȱnotesȱ4Ȭ15.ȱ
200
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 4ȱ (1971),ȱ p.ȱ 105Ȭ123;ȱ Sugliȱ iniziȱ dellaȱ dominazioneȱ romanaȱ inȱ
Dobrugia.ȱ Puntiȱ diȱ vistaȱ eȱ controversie,ȱ QCȱ 2ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 469Ȭ499ȱ =ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 77Ȭ95;ȱ
idemȱ M.ȱ Arruntiusȱ Claudianusȱ etȱ lȇannexionȱ romaineȱ deȱ laȱ Dobroudja,ȱ Ancientȱ Society,ȱ 22ȱ
(1991),ȱ p.ȱ 255Ȭ276ȱ =ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 97Ȭ114.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ period,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ T.ȱ Sarnowski,ȱȱȱ
Ti.ȱPlautiusȱSilvanus,ȱTauricȱChersonesosȱandȱClassisȱMoesica,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ50ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ92.ȱ
201
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ48.ȱ
202
ȱIbidem.ȱ
203
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ22;ȱalsoȱsupraȱn.ȱ200.ȱ
204
ȱ Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 47:ȱ civitasȱ sineȱ foedereȱ libera;ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱDaciaȱNS,ȱ
19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ152:ȱcivitasȱfoederataȱsiveȱlibera.ȱ
205
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ30Ȭ31;ȱseeȱalsoȱinfraȱn.ȱ221.ȱ
206
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ importantȱ document:ȱ ͟ΕΓΟΉΗϟ΅ȱ ̎΅ΆΉΕϟΓΙȱ ̏΅ΒϟΐΓΙȱ Ѐ[Δ΅Θ΍ΎΓІ]ȱ apudȱȱȱȱ
D.M.ȱPippidi,ȱISMȱI,ȱ67Ȭ68,ȱl.ȱ54ȱandȱp.ȱ210ȱ;ȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLaterculiȱpraesidum,ȱGöteborg,ȱ
1984,ȱ20ȱ:ȱ17Ȭ47Ȭ53ȱ(c.a.ȱ50/53)ȱ(furtherȱonȱLP).ȱ
ȱ 147
ȱȱȱ
AD;ȱ heȱ cameȱ toȱ Tomisȱ eitherȱ forȱ settlingȱ Histriaȇsȱ borderȱ problemsȱ orȱ hisȱ
headquartersȱ wereȱ here207.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ Tomisȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ
provinceȱcapital208.ȱItȱwasȱcertainlyȱtheȱheadquartersȱforȱtheȱPonticȱcommunityȱinȱ
theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ ADȱ (ΎΓ΍ΑòΑȱ ΘΓІȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ siveȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̴ΏΏφΑΝΑ),ȱ aȱ confederationȱ ofȱ
theȱ westȱ Ponticȱ Greekȱ cities.ȱ Differentȱ datesȱ haveȱ beenȱ suggestedȱ forȱ itsȱ
foundation;ȱ withoutȱ leavingȱ outȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Age,ȱ theȱ Romanȱ ageȱ wasȱ takenȱ
intoȱ considerationȱ moreȱ obviously,ȱ precisely,ȱ theȱ Augustanȱ Age209ȱ orȱ thatȱ ofȱ
Tiberius210,ȱorȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱAD,ȱwhenȱtheȱprovinceȱofȱMoesiaȱwasȱ
enlarged211.ȱTheȱcommunityȱwasȱbetterȱknownȱinȱtheȱ2ndȬ3rdȱcenturiesȱADȱ(theȱfirstȱ
half),ȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ epigraphicalȱ documentsȱ concerningȱ theȱ westȱ Ponticȱ ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȱ
concentratedȱonȱtheȱimperialȱcultȱandȱledȱbyȱaȱpontarch212.ȱ
Forȱ theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ Claudiusȱ andȱ Domitianȱ reignȱ (41Ȭ96ȱ AD)ȱ theȱ
epigraphicalȱ documentsȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomisȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ supportȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ forȱ
theȱ imperialȱ house213;ȱ anȱ influxȱ ofȱ newȱ population,ȱ veteransȱ settledȱ hereȱ fromȱ
variousȱplaces:ȱtheȱLigurianȱterritoryȱ ȱfromȱAquaeȱStatellaeȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ8),ȱPannoniaȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 170)ȱ andȱ Pessinusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 169);ȱ weȱ findȱ completelyȱ Romanizedȱ names,ȱ
someȱofȱthemȱshowingȱnewȱcitizenshipȱstatus.ȱ
Theȱ interestȱ forȱ theȱ increasingȱ Romanȱ authorityȱ grewȱ underȱ theȱ Antonini 214.ȱ
Otherwise,ȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ Dobrujaȱ wasȱ fullȱ ofȱ rebuildingȱ
activity,ȱ administrativeȱ andȱ militaryȱ arrangementsȱ initiatedȱ byȱ theȱ emperorȱ
Trajanȱ afterȱ heȱ defeatedȱ theȱ Dacians.Numerousȱ inscriptionsȱ areȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ thisȱ
emperorȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ „Tomitanȱ people”,ȱ namedȱ clearlyȱ inȱ expressionsȱ asȱ
ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 38)ȱ orȱ ΆΓΙΏχȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 42)215.ȱ Inȱ twoȱ
situations,ȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ onȱ architraveȱ fragmentsȱ areȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ respublicaȱ
TomitanorumȱduringȱtheȱepochȱofȱprovincialȱgovernorsȱFabiusȱPostuminusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
41;ȱ 103ȱ siveȱ 103Ȭ105ȱ AD)ȱ andȱ Quintusȱ Rosciusȱ Coeliusȱ Murenaȱ Pompeiusȱ Falcoȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ43;ȱ116Ȭ117ȱAD)216.ȱTheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱcitedȱgovernorsȱandȱtheȱinterestȱinȱ
207
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ47,ȱn.ȱ185.ȱ
208
ȱB.ȱPick,ȱMünzen,ȱp.ȱ73;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱHAD,ȱp.ȱ129;ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ38Ȭ40.ȱ
209
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱContribuöii 2 ,ȱp.ȱ401Ȭ431ȱ=ȱScythicaȱMinora,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ249.ȱ
210
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱÉtudesȱhistriennes,ȱBruxelles,ȱ1972,ȱp.ȱ147Ȭ166.ȱ
211
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱp.ȱ63Ȭ64,ȱ67Ȭ73ȱandȱnos.ȱ99Ȭ100.ȱ
212
ȱ Supraȱ notesȱ 209Ȭ211.ȱ Mentionȱ ofȱ completeȱ bibliographyȱ apud:ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ
op.cit.,ȱp.ȱ152Ȭ157;ȱG.ȱMihailov,ȱTheȱWesternȱPonticȱKoinon,ȱEpigraphicaȱ41ȱ(1979),ȱp.ȱ7Ȭ42;ȱM.ȱ
Musielak,ȱ Pontarchowie,ȱ inȱ Studiaȱ Moesiacaȱ I,ȱ Poznan,ȱ 1994,ȱ p.ȱ 101Ȭ115;ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ
KOINONȱ TO̗ȱ ̓ONTO̗,ȱ Balcanicaȱ Posnaniensiaȱ 5ȱ (1990),ȱ p.ȱ 151Ȭ161ȱ ;ȱ idemȱ Theȱ „Firstȱ
Pontarch”ȱ andȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Westernȱ Ponticȱ ȱ KOINON,ȱ Klioȱ 75ȱ (1993),ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ342Ȭ350;ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱDeȱnouveauȱsurȱleȱKoinonȱduȱPontȱGaucheȱàȱpartirȱd’uneȱinscriptionȱ
inéditeȱdeȱTomis,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ145.ȱ
213
ȱ ISMȱII,ȱ37,ȱ inscriptionȱ forȱ ȇdivineȱAgrippinaȇȱ(ΟΉΣȱ ̝·Ε΍ΔΔΉϟΑ΅),ȱClaudius’ȱwifeȱ andȱ
Neroȇsȱmother;ȱtheȱinscriptionȱisȱdatedȱbetweenȱ49Ȭȱ59ȱAD.ȱ
214
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ117Ȭ179;ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱpassim.ȱ
215
ȱ Howeverȱ seeȱ atȱ Sorinȱ Olteanu,ȱ Noteȱ epigraficeȱ (Epigraphicalȱ notes),ȱ Ponticaȱ 21Ȭ22ȱ
(1988Ȭ1989),ȱ p.ȱ 313Ȭ315ȱ forȱ theȱ suppositionȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ fragmentsȱ ISMȱ I,ȱ 42ȱ andȱ 38ȱ formȱ
oneȱdedication.ȱ
216
ȱTheȱnameȱappearsȱonȱotherȱthreeȱTomitanȱinscriptions:ȱISMȱII,ȱ44,ȱ45,ȱ46;ȱasȱwellȱonȱ
inscriptionsȱ from:ȱ Tropaeumȱ Traiani,ȱ Durostorum,ȱ Oescus,ȱ Tyrasȱ andȱ others;ȱ seeȱ B.E.ȱ
Thomasson,ȱLPȱ20:73ȱ(governorȇsȱfullȱname).ȱ
148ȱ ȱ
ȱ
building217ȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Tomisȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ becomeȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ cityȱ inȱ
MoesiaȱInferior218.ȱTheȱbottomȱofȱaȱstatueȱraisedȱprobablyȱaboutȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ
Trajanȇsȱ rule,ȱ wasȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomis219.ȱ Theȱ Adamclisiȱ Triumphalȱ Monumentȱ
appearsȱ onȱ Tomitanȱ coins220;ȱ moreȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ glorificationȱ ofȱ Trajanȇsȱ
operationsȱinȱtheȱregion.ȱ
Beginningȱ withȱ Hadrianȱ (117Ȭ138ȱ AD),Tomisȱ regainedȱ itsȱ civitasȱ liberaȱ
status221,ȱȱconditionȱforȱitsȱdevelopmentalȱincrease.ȱTheȱofficialȱdedicationsȱareȱputȱ
byȱ respublicaȱ Tomitanorumȱ (ΆΓΙΏχȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘΝΑ)222ȱ orȱ byȱ senatusȱ populusqueȱ
Tomitanorum223.ȱ Weȱ noticeȱ twoȱ honoraryȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ
Hadrian.ȱTwoȱfragmentsȱofȱtheȱfirstȱareȱknown,ȱoneȱfoundȱinȱtheȱfillingȱsoilȱfromȱ
theȱ Romanȱ Mosaic224,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ foundȱ inȱ anȱ excavationȱ nearȱ theȱ aboveȱ
mentionedȱ monument225.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ dedicationȱ wasȱ inȱ aȱ neighbourhoodȱ area,ȱ
southȬeastȱ ofȱ theȱ building226.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ honoraryȱ inscriptionsȱ foundȱ inȱ aȱ limitedȱ
areaȱwereȱprobablyȱnotȱfarȱfromȱtheirȱinitialȱplaces.ȱ
Anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 52)ȱ isȱ veryȱ importantȱ forȱ theȱ birthȱ andȱ
structureȱofȱtheȱPonticȱcommunityȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱAD,ȱbeingȱuntilȱnowȱitsȱfirstȱ
mentionȱ inȱ theȱ aboveȱ mentionedȱ century;ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ dedicationȱ onȱ aȱ statueȱ bottomȱ
addressedȱ to:ȱ „̖ϲΑȱ Δ]ΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Αȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΦΕ/[Λ΍ΉΕν]΅ȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̴Β΅Δϱ<Ώ>ΉΝΖ/[Θϲ]Αȱ ΙϡϲΑȱ
217
ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ architravesȱ withȱ theȱ emperorȇsȱ nameȱ andȱ governorȇsȱ namesȱ isȱ
larger;ȱbesideȱtheȱinscriptionsȱonȱtheȱarchitraveȱquotedȱweȱmentionȱISMȱII,ȱ40,ȱ44,ȱ45.ȱ
218
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ39Ȭ40,ȱconsidersȱtheȱcityȱasȱalreadyȱbeingȱanȱofficialȱprovinceȱ
capital;ȱcontraȱR.Vulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ127Ȭ128.ȱ
219
ȱMonumentȱdatedȱinȱ98Ȭ103ȱAD.ȱSeeȱtheȱproposalȱtoȱcompleteȱISMȱII,ȱ42ȱandȱ38ȱtoȱS.ȱ
Olteanu,ȱop.cit.ȱȱ
220
ȱPickȬRegling,ȱMünzen,ȱII,ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ635ȱandȱ680Ȭ681;ȱM.ȱSâmpetru,ȱTrofeulȱluiȱTraianȱdeȱlaȱ
Adamclisiȱ peȱ monedeȱ aleȱ oraóuluiȱ Tomisȱ (Theȱ Trophyȱ ofȱ theȱ ȱ Emperorȱ Trajanȱ onȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ
coins),ȱSCIVȱ30ȱ(1979),ȱ3,ȱp.ȱ367Ȭ376.ȱ
221
ȱ Thereȱ isȱ anȱ interpretationȱ givenȱ byȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ statutulȱ juridicȱ alȱ
oraóuluiȱTomisȱînȱepocaȱroman©ȱ(AboutȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomisȱlegalȱstatusȱinȱtheȱRomanȱAge),ȱPonticaȱ
8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 115Ȭ124ȱ andȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 47ȱ toȱ theȱ epithetȱ ̳ΏΉΙΟνΕ΍ΓΖȱ honouringȱ theȱ emperorȱ onȱ
theȱinscriptionȱISMȱII,ȱ47,ȱdatedȱbyȱI.ȱStoianȱbetweenȱ129Ȭ138ȱAD;ȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱNeueȱ
Inschriftenȱ ausȱ Tomisȱ (supraȱ n.ȱ 148),ȱ no.ȱ 2ȱ (inscriptionȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ
AD,ȱ foundȱ atȱ Toparisar,ȱ butȱ whichȱ mustȱ beȱ assignedȱ toȱ Tomis),ȱ whereȱ thereȱ isȱ mentionedȱ
theȱ ȱ buildingȱ ȱ raisedȱ byȱ triakostologoiȱ (hapax),ȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ altarȱ ofȱ aȱ heroon,ȱ onȱ theȱ
occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ „reȬestablishmentȱ ofȱ liberty”ȱ („…ΦΔΓΎ΅Ο]ΉΗΘ΅ΐνΑ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ πΏΉΙΟΉΕϟ΅Ζȱ
ψ[ΐЗΑ]”)ȱ ;ȱ theȱ authorȱ supposesȱ itȱ speaksȱ aboutȱ someȱ privilegesȱ grantedȱ ȱ toȱ ȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ
TomisȱbyȱHadrian.ȱ
222
ȱISMȱII,ȱ48ȱbilingualȱinscriptionȱwithȱtheȱnameȱofȱgovernorȱC.ȱUmmidiusȱQuadratusȱ
SeverusȱSertoriusȱ(120ȱAD).ȱTheȱinscriptionȱwasȱcompletedȱbasedȱonȱaȱnewȱfragmentȱfoundȱ
atȱTomis;ȱseeȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱM.ȱMunteanu,ȱInscripöiiȱinediteȱdinȱTomisȱóiȱCallatisȱ(Unpublishedȱ
inscriptionsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Kallatis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 84Ȭ87,ȱ no.ȱ 5;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ
lectur©ȱ (Lectureȱ notes),ȱ StClsȱ 20ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 77Ȭ79;ȱ B.E.ȱ Thomasson,ȱ LP,ȱ 20:ȱ 74;ȱ C.ȱ Ummidiusȱ
QuadratusȱS[allustiusȱSe]rtorius:ȱG.ȱMolisani,ȱTituliȱ4ȱ(1982),ȱp.ȱ395ȱsqȱ=ȱAE,ȱ1985,ȱp.ȱ759.ȱ
223
ȱISMȱII,ȱ50,ȱdatedȱinscriptionȱ129ȱAD.ȱ
224
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Noteȱ epigraficeȱ (Epigraphicalȱ notes),ȱ Ponticeȱ 1ȱ (1968),ȱ p.ȱ 329Ȭ330ȱ andȱȱ
fig.ȱ4.ȱ
225
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱAdnot©riȱepigraficeȱ(Epigraphicalȱannotations),ȱSCIVAȱ27ȱ(1976),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ523Ȭ
525ȱandȱfig.ȱ1.ȱ
226
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Descopeririȱ epigraficeȱ recenteȱ (Recentȱ
epigraphicalȱdiscoveries),ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ159Ȭ162.ȱ
ȱ 149
ȱȱȱ
ΘΓІȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ Ύ΅Ϡ/ΔΕЗΘΓΑȱ Φ·ΝΑΓΟνΘ΋Α/ȱ ΟΉΓІȱ ̝ΑΘ΍ΑϱΓΙ,ȱ ̖.ȱ ̘ΏΣ/ΓΙ΍ΓΑȱ
̓ΓΗΉ΍ΈЏΑ΍ΓΑ/ΙϡϲΑȱ ̘΅ϟΈΕΓΙȱ ΘΓІȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕ/ΛΓΙȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΙϡΓІȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΔϱΏΉ/ΝΖ…”ȱ ȱ byȱ theȱ
Argadeisȱ tribe.ȱ Phaidrosȱ wasȱ pontarchȱ beforeȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ dateȱ (130Ȭ138ȱ AD),ȱ
soȱresultingȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱCommunityȱwasȱstructuredȱduringȱHadrianȇsȱreign227ȱ
orȱprobablyȱevenȱduringȱTrajanȇsȱreign,ȱwhenȱheȱorganizedȱtheȱDanubeȱprovincesȱ
(107Ȭ117ȱAD)228.ȱ
Specialȱattentionȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱmaintainȱtheȱroads;ȱtheȱPonticȱcoastȱinspectionȱ
orderedȱ byȱ theȱ emperorȱ andȱ doneȱ byȱ Arrianȱ andȱ theȱ visitȱ theȱ emperorȱ himselfȱ
paidȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ inȱ 123Ȭ124ȱ AD,ȱ whenȱ heȱ alsoȱ visitedȱ Tomis,ȱ areȱ wellȬ
known.ȱ Twoȱ milliaryȱ pillars,ȱ oneȱ fromȱ 124ȱ ADȱ andȱ inȱ connection,ȱ probablyȱ withȱ
theȱ ȱ aboveȱ mentionedȱ visit229,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ oneȱ fromȱ 134ȱ AD230,ȱ showȱ aȱ
permanentȱinterestȱinȱaȱbetterȱroadȱsystem.ȱ
ȱAntoninusȱ Piusȱ (138Ȭ161ȱ AD)ȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ toȱ stateȱ Tomisȱ asȱ aȱ westȱ Ponticȱ
metropolisȱ(ΐ΋ΘΕϱΔΓΏ΍ΖȱΘΓІȱ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ̓ϱΑΘΓΙ)231,ȱaȱnameȱalsoȱmentionedȱonȱtheȱ
coins232.ȱ Theȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ emperorȱ tookȱ anȱ interestȱ inȱ Tomis233ȱ areȱ theȱ
dedicationsȱ putȱ onȱ architravesȱ ofȱ someȱ publicȱ edificesȱ duringȱ theȱ governorsȱ L.ȱ
Miniciusȱ Natalisȱ Quadroniusȱ Verus234,ȱ Q.ȱ Fuficiusȱ Cornutus235ȱ andȱ Titusȱ Flaviusȱ
Turboȇs236ȱ rules;ȱ manyȱ milliaryȱ pillarsȱ setȱ alongȱ theȱ coastȱ andȱ Danubeȱ showȱ theȱ
imperialȱadministrationȱwishȱforȱaȱbetterȱroadȱsystem237.ȱ
Theȱ emperorȱ wasȱ heldȱ inȱ respect:ȱ theȱ headȱ ofȱ aȱ hugeȱ marbleȱ statueȱ
representingȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ wasȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomis238.ȱ Theȱ personalȱ Geniusȱ wasȱ
227
ȱ P.ȱ Veyne,ȱ Augustalȱ deȱ lȇanȱ 1ȱ Ȭȱ premierȱ pontarque,ȱ BCHȱ 90ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 144Ȭ145;ȱ M.ȱ
Musielak,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ191Ȭ195.ȱ
228
ȱCf.ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱKlio,ȱ75ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ342Ȭ350.ȱ
229
ȱISMȱII,ȱ49;ȱseeȱalsoȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
230
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 53;ȱ aȱ Tomitanȱ settlementȱ wasȱ mentionedȱ Tresȱ Protomae,ȱ toȱ localizeȱ itȱ seeȱ
moreȱ recently,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Drumurileȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ peȱ bazaȱ stâlpilorȱ
miliariȱ dinȱ sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Theȱ roadsȱ inȱ Romanȱ Dobrujaȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ 2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ
milliaryȱpillars),ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ121,ȱnotesȱ11Ȭ16.ȱ
231
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 54;ȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ dateȱ isȱ establishedȱ betweenȱ 140/141ȱ andȱ 144ȱ AD;ȱ itȱ isȱ
possibleȱ theȱ monumentȱ wasȱ doneȱ byȱ careȱ ofȱ theȱ governorȱ L.ȱ Miniciusȱ Natalis;ȱ seeȱ theȱ
observationsȱatȱnoteȱ234.ȱ
232
ȱPickȬRegling,ȱMünzen,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ72;ȱII,ȱp.ȱ683Ȭ688.ȱ
233
ȱ Otherwise,ȱ Antoninusȱ Pius’ȱ reignȱ isȱ knownȱ asȱ „theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ exultantȱ
buildingȱactivitiesȱofȱancientȱtimes”,ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ149Ȭ150.ȱ
234
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Dedicaöiiȱ imperialeȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (Imperialȱ dedicationsȱ fromȱ
Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱ p.ȱ 167Ȭ170,ȱ no.ȱ 1;ȱ authorsȱ pointȱ outȱ theȱ fragmentȱ shouldȱ beȱ
studiedȱ relatedȱ toȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 54.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ governorȱ seeȱ Thomasson,ȱ LP,ȱ 20:82;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬ
Boil©,ȱ Legaöiiȱ Moesieiȱ Inferioareȱ întreȱ aniiȱ 137ȱ óiȱ 160ȱ (Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ legatesȱ betweenȱ 137ȱ andȱ
160),ȱSCIVAȱ40ȱ(1989),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ161ȱandȱ163.ȱ
235
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 55;ȱ governorȱ datedȱ aboutȱ 147Ȭ155ȱ (LP,ȱ 20:85)ȱ or?ȱ 152Ȭȱ 153/154ȱ (byȱ Em.ȱ
DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Theȱ Legatesȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ betweenȱ 137andȱ 160.ȱ Partȱ II.ȱ Theȱ Legatesȱ betweenȱ
150ȱandȱ160,ȱSCIVAȱ40ȱȱ(1989),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ325Ȭ338).ȱ
236
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 56,ȱ theȱ governorȱ F.ȱ Flaviusȱ Longinusȱ Q.ȱ Marciusȱ Turboȱ wasȱ presentȱ inȱ
Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ inȱ 155ȱ (LP,ȱ 20:86)ȱ orȱ 153/4Ȭ156ȱ (cf.ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ op.ȱ cit.);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Fl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱSCIVAȱ54Ȭ56ȱ(2003Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ303Ȭ304ȱandȱfig.ȱ1Ȭ2.ȱȱ
237
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ122,ȱnotesȱ21Ȭ23.ȱ
238
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Laȱ statueȱ imperialiȱ nellaȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ eȱ laȱ propagandaȱ officialiȱ
nellȇimpero,ȱSlClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ218Ȭ219,ȱfig.ȱ5.ȱ
150ȱ ȱ
ȱ
transferredȱtoȱaȱgeniusȱloci239,ȱanȱexpressionȱmeaningȱtheȱdivineȱtutelaȱfromȱwhichȱ
theȱ cityȱ benefittedȱ whenȱ anȱ emperorȱ consideredȱ himselfȱ „tooȱ divine”240.ȱ Onȱ aȱ
votiveȱ marbleȱ monumentȱ fromȱ 160ȱ ADȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ
caesarȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ areȱ mentionedȱ togetherȱ withȱ Egyptianȱ divinitiesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
153).ȱ Theȱ inscriptionȱ madeȱ byȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑȱ ȱ callsȱ ourȱ attentionȱ byȱ
namingȱtheȱethnicalȱelementȱpresentȱatȱTomisȱatȱthatȱtimeȱwhoȱformedȱaȱreligiousȱ
associationȱ (toȱ celebrateȱ Sarapisȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ Egypthianȱ divinities)ȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ
sameȱtimeȱincludeȱprofessionalsȱ(merchantsȱandȱshipowners).ȱ
Asȱanȱassociationȱofȱshipownersȱ(ΓϨΎΓΖȱΘЗΑȱπΑȱ̖ϱΐΉ΍ȱΑ΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ60)ȱ
existedȱ inȱ Tomisȱ whenȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ wasȱ stillȱ Caesarȱ (139Ȭ161ȱ AD),ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ
difficultȱ toȱ concludeȱ ȱ thatȱ theȱ cityȱ wasȱ developingȱ aȱ flourishingȱ tradeȱ activity241.ȱȱ
Theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ continuedȱ inȱ theȱ
firstȱyearsȱofȱMarcusȱAurelius;ȱȱpossiblyȱȱbuildingȱactivitiesȱexisted242;ȱaȱnumberȱofȱ
dedicationsȱ areȱ devotedȱ onlyȱ toȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 63)243ȱ orȱ inȱ coȬregencyȱ
withȱLuciusȱVerusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ67);ȱtheȱnameȱofȱMarcusȱAureliusȱhavingȱtheȱauthorityȱ
ofȱ Caesarȱ whenȱ theȱ monumentȱ wasȱ builtȱ isȱ mentionedȱ onȱ aȱ statueȱ bottom;ȱ aȱ
marbleȱstatueȱfromȱTomisȱalsoȱrefersȱprobablyȱtoȱMarcusȱAurelius244;ȱfinally,ȱsomeȱ
milliaryȱ pillarsȱ showȱ thatȱ someȱ roadsȱ onȱ theȱ coastȱ wereȱ reconstructedȱ betweenȱ
162Ȭ163ȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ68)245.ȱ
Thisȱ processȱ stoppedȱ forȱ aȱ while,ȱ aroundȱ 170ȱ AD,ȱ asȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ
Costobociȱ invasion246ȱ whichȱ affectedȱ mainlyȱ Dobrujaȇsȱ centralȱ andȱ westernȱ areaȱ
andȱwasȱfeltȱinȱtheȱPonticȱcities,ȱtoo247.ȱDestructionȱorȱrebuildingȱactionsȱforȱTomisȱ
areȱnotȱclearlyȱproved.ȱAnȱimportantȱpublicȱedificeȱduringȱgovernorȱM.ȱServiliusȱ
Fabianusȱwasȱleftȱunfinishedȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ65);ȱtheȱdateȱȬȱ162ȱ(162/164?)248ȱȬȱisȱtooȱearlyȱ
toȱ connectȱ thisȱ withȱ theȱ Costobociȱ invasionȱ inȱ 170ȱ AD.ȱ Mostȱ likelyȱ anȱ externalȱ
event,ȱforȱexampleȱtheȱOrientȱwarȱandȱitsȱcosts,ȱcouldȱdetermineȱtheȱdateȱforȱtheȱ
stoppingȱofȱworksȱatȱTomis249.ȱTheȱpayers’ȱlistȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ21)ȱforȱrebuildingȱaȱscantyȱ
239
ȱISMȱII,ȱ124;ȱforȱpersonalȱgenius,ȱseeȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ278Ȭ279.ȱ
240
ȱForȱtheȱepithet,ȱseeȱISMȱII,ȱ61.ȱ
241
ȱ Seeȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 120Ȭ128;ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Economieȱ óiȱ societateȱ înȱ spaöiulȱ
pontoȬegeanȱ (sec.ȱ IIȱ a.ȱ Chr.ȱ Ȭȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr)ȱ (Economyȱ andȱ societyȱ inȱ PonticȬAegeanȱ area,ȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ
centuryȱBCȬtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱAD),ȱIaói,ȱ2003,ȱp.ȱ105Ȭ119.ȱ
242
ȱISMȱII,ȱ65.ȱ
243
ȱHoweverȱseeȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱInscripöiiȱinediteȱdinȱTomisȱóiȱîmprejurimiȱ
(Unpublishedȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ andȱ vicinity),ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 166,ȱ n.ȱ 63ȱ whoȱ
considerȱuncertainȱtheȱadmissionȱofȱMarcusȱAureliusȱinȱISMȱII,ȱ63.ȱ
244
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ217Ȭ218ȱandȱfig.ȱ4.ȱ
245
ȱSeeȱalsoȱA.ȱktefan,ȱCallatisȱóiȱarteraȱrutier©ȱlitoral©ȱînȱsecolulȱalȱIIȬleaȱe.n.ȱ(Kallatisȱandȱ
theȱcoastȱroadȱinȱtheȱ2 nd ȱcenturyȱAD),ȱStClsȱ22ȱ(1984),ȱp.ȱ95Ȭ107;ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱIII,ȱ195,ȱ199.ȱ
246
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Epigraphischeȱ Beitrageȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ derȱ Stadtȱ Tropaeumȱ
Traiani,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ192Ȭ200.ȱ
247
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Observationsȱ surȱ laȱ stratigraphieȱ desȱ citésȱ deȱ laȱ Dobroudjaȱ auxȱ II e ȱ –ȱ IV e ȱ
sièclesȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱdesȱ fouillesȱ dȇHistria,ȱ DaciaȱNSȱ13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ340;ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 26Ȭ27.ȱWithoutȱ
excludingȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theȱ Costobociȱ attackȱ couldȱ beȱ simultaneousȱ withȱ otherȱ
populationȱ attacksȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ sea,ȱ theȱ quotedȱ authorȱ pointsȱ autȱ thatȱ tracesȱ ofȱ
invasionȱare,ȱhowever,ȱlessȱclearȱatȱTomis.ȱ
248
ȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:93.ȱ
249
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ162Ȭ163ȱandȱn.ȱ203.ȱ
ȱ 151
ȱȱȱ
precinctȱ wallȱ fragmentȱ originallyȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ restorationȱ duringȱ Marcusȱ
Aurelius250,ȱ seemsȱ fromȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ letters,ȱ toȱ dateȱ ratherȱ toȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ
AD.ȱ Aȱ similar,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 22,ȱ studiedȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 21,ȱ referringȱ
preciselyȱtoȱthisȱwallȬrebuildingȱwork,ȱdatesȱratherȱfromȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱafterȱ
theȱ Antonineȱ Constitution251.ȱ Anȱ altarȱ devotedȱ toȱ Apolloȱ Agyeusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 116)ȱ isȱ
datedȱbasedȱonȱtheȱgovernor’sȱname,ȱM.ȱCatoniusȱVindex,ȱeitherȱaroundȱ170ȱAD,ȱ
orȱlater252,ȱbutȱ anywayȱtoȱafterȱ theȱ Costobociȱ„storm”,ȱwhenȱRomanȱlifeȱreturnedȱ
toȱnormality.ȱFinally,ȱanȱinscriptionȱfromȱaȱpublicȱmonumentȱrecentlyȱpublished253ȱ
canȱproveȱworksȱatȱTomisȱafterȱ170ȱAD.ȱ
TheȱperiodȱbetweenȱtheȱreignsȱofȱMarcusȱAureliusȱandȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȱisȱ
characterizedȱbyȱbuildingȱactivitiesȱatȱTomis,ȱasȱwell.ȱProbablyȱduringȱthisȱperiodȱ
canȱbeȱdatedȱtheȱfirstȱstageȱofȱtheȱRomanȱMosaicȱEdificeȱandȱtheȱcityȱpublicȱbathsȱ
(thermae)254.ȱ
Theȱ Severianȱ dynastyȱ meantȱ aȱ ratherȱ calmȱ periodȱ forȱ theȱ westȱ Pontȱ Greekȱ
citiesȱandȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱpreviousȱlivingȱhabits255.ȱ
ȱThereȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱatȱTomisȱmanyȱdedicationsȱtoȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȱandȱhisȱ
family,ȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱSenate,ȱarmy,ȱgovernorȱofȱtheȱprovinceȱandȱtheȱcityȱofȱ
Tomis256.ȱ Twoȱ bilingualȱ dedicationsȱ toȱ Septimiusȱ Severus257ȱ mentionȱ aȱ greatȱ
edificeȱ builtȱ byȱ metropolisȱ Tomitanorum,ȱ underȱ theȱ careȱ ofȱ C.ȱ Oviniusȱ Tertullus.ȱ
Theȱnameȱofȱtheȱsameȱgovernorȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱimperialȱfamilyȱalsoȱonȱtheȱ
dedicationȱ ofȱ aȱ religiousȱ associationȱ (Οϟ΅ΗΓΖ)ȱ forȱ Cybeleȱ „forȱ theȱ giftȱ offeredȱ toȱ
theȱassociation”258.ȱTwoȱmilliaryȱpilarsȱfoundȱatȱTomisȱhaveȱthisȱgovernorȇsȱnameȱ
asȱwell259.ȱTwoȱaltarsȱdevotedȱtoȱ„SeptimiusȱSeverusȇȱhealth”ȱwereȱfoundȱinȱTomisȱ
250
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 155;ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Zidul,ȱ p.ȱ 17;ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 21ȱ takesȱ intoȱ
considerationȱ thatȱ aȱ wallȱ fragmentȱ (ΐνΕ΍Ζȱ ΘΓІȱ ΘΉϟΛΓΙΖ)ȱ wasȱ restored;ȱ theȱ restoredȱ partsȱ
variesȱbetweenȱ1Ȭ3ȱellsȱ(ΔφΛΉ΍Ζ);ȱonlyȱoneȱpartȱreachesȱ13ȱells;ȱtheȱcontributionȱwasȱinȱgoldȱ
coinsȱ(ΛΕΙΗΓІΖ).ȱ
251
ȱ Oneȱ argumentȱ couldȱ beȱ theȱ greatȱ numberȱ ofȱ Aureliiȱ mentionedȱ inȱ text;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 22ȱ
doesnȇtȱmentionȱtheȱwork,ȱbutȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsameȱunitȱofȱmeasureȱ(ΔφΛΉ΍Ζ).ȱ
252
ȱ B.E.ȱ Thomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:96ȱ(169Ȭ176ȱ AD);ȱLeivaȱPetersen,ȱPIR 2 ,ȱV,ȱ2,ȱ M,ȱno.ȱ22ȱ (175Ȭ
176ȱ AD);ȱ Em.ȱ ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ ȱ Dieȱ Statthalterȱ Niedermösiensȱ zwischenȱ 161ȱ undȱ 175,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ
36ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ32Ȭ33,ȱ35ȱ(170Ȭ172/173ȱAD).ȱ
253
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ27ȱ(1994),ȱp.ȱ161Ȭ166,ȱno.ȱ4.ȱ
254
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobrudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
255
256
ȱSeeȱISMȱII,ȱ82.ȱ
257
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 84ȱ datedȱ 201ȱ AD;ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1997),ȱ p.ȱ 170Ȭ
174,ȱ fig.ȱ 2ȱ (hereȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 84ȱ isȱ rectified:ȱ metropolisȱ Tomitanorumȱ insteadȱ ofȱ respublicaȱ
Tomitanorum).ȱForȱ theȱ cityȇsȱmonumentalityȱ duringȱSeveranȱ age,ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ
p.ȱ27;ȱidem,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
258
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 83;ȱ forȱ Οϟ΅ΗΓΖȱ seeȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ p.ȱ 230Ȭ231,ȱ 245,ȱ 246ȱ andȱ 259,ȱ n.ȱ 104.ȱ Aȱ
dedicationȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ thiasosȱ forȱ „theȱ wholeȱ Augustaȱ dinasty”ȱ (ΗΙΐΔΣΗ΋Ζȱ ΓϢΎϟ΅]Ζȱ
̄Ё·ΓϾΗΘ΋Ζ)ȱ isȱ alsoȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 85ȱ datedȱ betweenȱ 198/199ȱ andȱ 209/210ȱ AD.ȱ Forȱ C.ȱ Oviniusȱ
Tertullusȱ (198Ȭ201ȱ AD)ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ D.ȱ Boteva,ȱ Lowerȱ Moesiaȱ andȱ Thraciaȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ
ImperialȱSystemȱ(ADȱ193Ȭ217/218),ȱSofia,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ46Ȭ88;ȱ331Ȭ332ȱ(inȱBulgarian).ȱ
259
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Stâlpiȱ miliariȱ inediöiȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ
(Unpublishedȱ milliaryȱ pillarsȱ fromȱ Scythiaȱ Minor),ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 145Ȭ146,ȱ no.ȱ 2;ȱ iidem,ȱ
Contribuöiiȱ privindȱ seriaȱ guvernatorilorȱ Moesieiȱ Inferioareȱ înȱ secolulȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (Contributionsȱ
aboutȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ Governorsȱ inȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 123Ȭ
152ȱ ȱ
ȱ
area,ȱ fromȱ vicusȱ Clementianensis;ȱ theyȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ datedȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ hisȱ
activityȱ(195ȱandȱ196ȱAD)260.ȱȱ
Emperorȱ Caracallaȇsȱnameȱappearsȱonȱtwoȱepigraphicalȱdocuments:ȱtheȱfirstȱ
isȱ aȱ greetingȱ toȱ Caracallaȱ andȱ toȱ Getaȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ theirȱ raiseȱ toȱ powerȱ
(inscriptionȱdatedȱ211Ȭ212ȱAD)261,ȱbroughtȱbyȱtheȱcouncilȱandȱpeopleȱofȱTomis;ȱtheȱ
secondȱ documentȱ isȱ mostȱ likelyȱ dedicatedȱ alsoȱ toȱ Caracallaȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ datedȱ
betweenȱ 212Ȭ217ȱ AD262.ȱ Onȱ anȱ altarȱ datedȱ toȱ 216ȱ AD,ȱ theȱ emperorȱ isȱ mentionedȱ
withoutȱaȱnameȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ130),ȱaȱsituationȱunlikeȱtheȱpresenceȱonȱlocalȱinscriptionsȱ
ofȱhisȱmotherȇsȱname,ȱluliaȱDomna263.ȱAnȱimportantȱeventȱisȱtheȱEmperorȇsȱvisitȱinȱ
theȱ Danubeȱ provincesȱ inȱ 214ȱ AD,ȱ opportunityȱ toȱ payȱ aȱ visitȱ toȱ Dacia,ȱ asȱ well264;ȱ
then,ȱheȱpassedȱtoȱThraciaȱandȱfromȱthereȱintoȱAsiaȱMinor265.ȱȱ
Fromȱtheȱlastȱperiodȱofȱtheȱdynasty,ȱweȱnoticeȱaȱdedicationȱtoȱluliaȱMamaea,ȱ
Severusȱ Alexanderȇsȱ motherȱ writtenȱ byȱ „theȱ councilȱ andȱ theȱ citizensȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ
splendidȱ metropolisȱ andȱ capitalȱ ofȱ theȱ Westȱ Pont,ȱ Tomis”ȱ (ΆΓΙΏχȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ
Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅’ȱ ΘΓІȱ ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ),ȱ datedȱ
betweenȱ 222Ȭ235ȱ AD.ȱ Theȱ extendedȱ phrase,ȱ includingȱ localȱ administrativeȱ
structures,ȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ twoȱ moreȱ documentsȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ Severanȱ period,ȱ
probablyȱ fromȱ Severusȱ Alexander266ȱ andȱ isȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ Romanȱ
administrationȱforȱthisȱregion267.ȱȱ
Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ Severusȱ Alexanderȇsȱ reign,ȱ theȱ empireȱ isȱ confrontedȱ withȱ
externalȱthreatsȱwhichȱwould,ȱprobably,ȱcreateȱdifficultȱmomentsȱinȱDobruja,ȱtoo.ȱ
Betweenȱ Maximinusȱ Thraxȱ andȱ Gallienusȱ (238Ȭ269ȱ AD),ȱ theȱ empireȱ wasȱ
disturbedȱbyȱhugeȱgroupsȱofȱbarbarians.ȱTomisȱseemedȱtoȱescapeȱtheȱdestruction,ȱ
evenȱ ifȱ someȱ evidenceȱ leadsȱ usȱ toȱ thinkȱ notȱ completely.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ aȱ fragmentaryȱ
altarȱ fromȱ Maximinusȱ Thraxȱ (235Ȭ238ȱ AD)ȱ doneȱ byȱ theȱ civesȱ Romaniȱ etȱ Laeȱ
consistentesȱ vicoȱ Turreȱ Mucaȱ (...);ȱ theȱ imperialȱ hammerȬwroughtȱ namesȱ belongȱ
126ȱ (asȱ onȱ theȱ milestoneȱ theȱ distanceȱ isȱ notȱ mentioned,ȱ itȱ isȱ supposedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ setȱ
aroundȱTomis’ȱprecinctsȱwall,ȱonȱtheȱplaceȱmarkingȱtheȱrepairedȱcoastȱroad).ȱ
260
ȱISMȱII,ȱ134ȱandȱ136,ȱforȱtheȱlastȱseeȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱISMȱV,ȱ93.ȱ
261
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 91;ȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ mentionesȱ alsoȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Augustaȱ Juliaȱ Domna,ȱ
„motherȱofȱRomanȱcamps”.ȱ
262
ȱISMȱII,ȱ86;ȱseeȱhoweverȱR.ȱVulpeȇsȱnoteȱfromȱHAD,ȱp.ȱ255Ȭ256ȱregardingȱtheȱlackȱofȱ
dedicationsȱtoȱCaracallaȱwhenȱheȱreigndȱtheȱempireȱbyȱhimself.ȱ
263
ȱTheȱnoteȱbelongsȱalsoȱtoȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ256.ȱJuliaȱDomnaȇsȱnameȱappearsȱalsoȱ
onȱ aȱ stoneȱ monumentȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 135)ȱ andȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ theȱ epithetȱAugusta.ȱ Theȱ monumentȱ
couldȱbeȱalsoȱdatedȱtoȱduringȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȇȱreign.ȱ
264
ȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Provinciaȱ Daciaȱ înȱ istoriografiaȱ antic©ȱ (Daciaȱ Provinceȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ
historiography),ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ142Ȭ149.ȱ
265
ȱWeȱareȱnotȱsureȱaboutȱhisȱpresenceȱinȱDobruja.ȱ
266
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 96:ȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕϱΘ΅ΘΓΖȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
97:ȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕϱΘ΅ΘΓΖȱ ΈϛΐΓΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅’ȱ ΘΓІȱ ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ.ȱ Theȱ
secondȱinscriptionȱisȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱofȱaȱlaterȱdateȱthanȱtheȱfirstȱ(noteȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ121ȱandȱ
123,ȱreferenceȱalsoȱatȱPickȬRegling,ȱMünzen,ȱp.ȱ73).ȱTheȱshortȱversionȱinȱanotherȱdocumentȱȬȱ
ISMȱII,ȱ105ȱȬȱψȱΆΓΙΏχȱΎ΅ϠȱϳȱΈϛΐΓΖȱΏ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋Ζȱΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ̖ϱΐΉΝΖȬ,ȱrefersȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱ
Severanȱdynasty.ȱ
267
ȱ Aȱ dedicationȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 93ȱ mentionsȱ L.ȱ Anniusȱ Italicusȱ Honoratusȇȱ
name,ȱ withȱ anȱ importantȱ career,ȱ amongȱ whichȱ wasȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ Lowerȱ Moesiaȱ provinceȱ
governorȱduringȱAlexanderȱSeverusȱ(224ȱAD).ȱ
ȱ 153
ȱȱȱ
mostȱ likelyȱ toȱ Maximinusȱ andȱ hisȱ sonȱ Maximus268.ȱ Moreȱ numerousȱ areȱ theȱ
Tomitanȱ epigraphicalȱ monumentsȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ Gordianȱ IIIȱ (238Ȭ244ȱ AD)ȱ andȱ hisȱ
wife,ȱ Sabiniaȱ Tranquillina.ȱ Theȱ situationȱ wasȱ alsoȱ probablyȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ provinceȱ
governor,ȱ Tulliusȱ Menophilusȱ whoȱ negotiatedȱ withȱ theȱ Carps,ȱ preventingȱ theirȱ
attacksȱ forȱ threeȱ yearsȱ asȱ longȱ heȱ ruledȱ theȱ provinceȱ (238Ȭ240/241ȱ AD)269.ȱ Theȱ
governorȇsȱnameȱisȱregisteredȱinȱTomisȱonȱaȱmilliaryȱpillar,ȱwhichȱweȱdateȱinȱtheȱ
periodȱ ofȱ theȱ roadȱ reconstructionȱ (andȱ generally,ȱ theȱ provinceȱ reconstruction)ȱ
afterȱ theȱ CarpsȬGothsȱ attackȱ inȱ 238ȱ AD270.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ personȱ wasȱ alsoȱ Aeliusȱ
Ammoniusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 106),ȱ whoȱ heldȱ someȱ militaryȱ andȱ civilȱ positions,ȱ amongȱ
whichȱ weȱ noteȱ thatȱ ofȱ procuratorȱ Augustiȱ Ȭȱ inȱ chargeȱ ofȱ theȱ financialȱ problemsȱ inȱ
Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ Ȭȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ praefectusȱ ofȱ theȱ fleetȱ Flaviaȱ Moesicaȱ ȱ ȱ Gordiana271.ȱ
Theȱ ȱ ȱ imperialȱ ȱ ȱ coupleȱ ȱ ȱ hasȱ ȱ ȱ anȱ honoraryȱ inscriptionȱ writtenȱ byȱ aȱ Dionysosȇȱ
thiasosȱinȱ241ȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ107).ȱSabiniaȱTranquillina,ȱbyȱherself,ȱisȱhonouredȱbyȱaȱ
monumentȱsetȱupȱ byȱ theȱ localȱauthoritiesȱunderȱ theȱcareȱofȱ theȱgovernorȱProsiusȱ
Tertullianus,ȱatȱaȱdateȱbetweenȱ241Ȭ244ȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ108)272.ȱItȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱtheȱIsisȱ
bustȱ foundȱ inȱ aȱ sculpturalȱ depositȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ alsoȱ representsȱ Sabiniaȱ
TranquillinaȱasȱaȱpriestessȱofȱtheȱEgyptianȱgodessȱcult273.ȱȱ
Theȱ followingȱ reigns,ȱ Phillipȱ theȱ Arabian,ȱ Deciusȱ andȱ Valerian,ȱ wereȱ
confrontedȱ withȱ invasionȱ byȱ powerfulȱ Transdanubianȱ peoples,ȱ whoȱ reachedȱ
Moesiaȱ andȱ theȱ Thracianȱ provinces274.ȱ Tomisȱ maintainedȱ itsȱ positionȱ asȱ aȱ
metropolis;ȱ theȱ citizensȱ hadȱ theȱ necessaryȱ meansȱ toȱ rebuildȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ coastȱ
road,ȱ beingȱ supportedȱ byȱ theȱ governersȱ havingȱ theirȱ headquartersȱ hereȱ orȱ toȱ
showȱ theirȱ devotionȱ toȱ theȱ empire.ȱ Anȱ honoraryȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Decius,ȱ
probablyȱ originatingȱ inȱ Tomis,ȱ wasȱ raisedȱ toȱ honourȱ theȱ empressȱ Herenniaȱ
EtruscillaȱandȱtheȱCaesarȱQ.ȱHerenniusȱEtruscus,ȱaboutȱ250Ȭ251ȱAD275.ȱ Betweenȱtheȱ
repeatedȱ Carpȱ andȱ Gothȱ attacks,ȱ however,ȱ thereȱ existedȱ aȱ timeȱ ofȱ peaceȱ betweenȱ
268
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 141;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ I.I.ȱ Russu,ȱ Noteȱ epigraficeȱ (Epigraphicalȱ notes),ȱ SCIVȱ 10ȱ (1959),ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 139Ȭ140;ȱ forȱ vicusȱ Turrisȱ Muca(...),ȱ localizedȱ inȱ Anadalchioiȱ districtȱ inȱ Constanöa,ȱ seeȱ
furtherȱon.ȱ
269
ȱ Informationȱ transmittedȱ byȱ Petrusȱ Patricius,ȱ FHGȱ IV,ȱ p.ȱ 186,ȱ fr.ȱ 8ȱ =ȱ FHDR,ȱ p.ȱ 488Ȭ
489;ȱseeȱalsoȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20:131,ȱc.a.ȱ238/240ȱvelȱ239/241ȱAD.ȱ
270
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPontica,ȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ132,ȱno.ȱ2.ȱ
271
ȱ Theȱ lastȱ positionȱ meansȱ theȱ fleetȱ wasȱ reorganisedȱ underȱ Gordianȱ IIIȱ byȱ hisȱ legate,ȱ
Tulliusȱ Menophilus;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ R.ȱ Vulpe;ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 237.ȱ Forȱ P.ȱ Aeliusȱ Ammoniusȱ seeȱ I.ȱ Piso,ȱ
LaȱcarrièreȱéquestreȱdeȱP.ȱAeliusȱHammonius,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ20ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ251Ȭ257;ȱIDRȱIII/2,ȱ83ȱandȱ
246.ȱ
272
ȱ Forȱ datingȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ toȱ 242ȱ AD,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ V.ȱ Pârvanȱ orȱ 241Ȭȱ 243ȱ AD,ȱ
accordingȱ toȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ politicalȱ andȱ personalȱ facts,ȱ seeȱ DIDȱ II,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ236.ȱForȱtheȱgovernorȱ,ȱseeȱalsoȱB.E.ȱThomasson,ȱLP,ȱ20ȱ:ȱ134.ȱ
273
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ7ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ221Ȭ222,ȱfig.ȱ10.ȱ
274
ȱ Aboutȱ thatȱ longȱ Scythicumȱ bellumȱ (SHA,ȱ Vitaȱ Maximiniȱ etȱ Balbini,ȱ XVI,ȱ 3)ȱ seeȱ Em.ȱ
DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Excidiumȱ Histriae,ȱ inȱ Actesȱ deȱ laȱ XII e ȱ Conférenceȱ Internationaleȱ dȇÉtudesȱ
Classiquesȱ Eirene,ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2Ȭ7ȱ Oct.ȱ 1972,ȱ BucureótiȬAmsterdam,ȱ 1975,ȱ p.ȱ 635Ȭ642;ȱ Al.ȱ
Suceveanu,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ34.ȱ Probably,ȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ confrontationȱ
Phillipȱ theȱ Arabianȱ hadȱ withȱ aȱ powerfulȱ Goth,ȱ Carp,ȱ Taiphaliȱ andȱ Peuciniȱ coalitionȱ inȱ 248ȱ
AD,ȱ cohorsȱ Iȱ Cilicumȱ gainsȱ theȱ epithetȱ Philippiana.ȱ Anȱ altarȱ setȱ byȱ aȱ cohortȱ soldierȱ withȱ theȱ
newȱnameȱISMȱII,ȱ452ȱcomesȱfromȱTomis;ȱsee,ȱfurtherȱon,ȱarmy.ȱ
275
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ inscripöieȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ luiȱ Deciusȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Aȱ
newȱinscriptionȱfromȱDeciusȱreignȱinȱDobruja),ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ138.ȱ
154ȱ ȱ
ȱ
254ȱ andȱ 258ȱ AD.ȱ Twoȱ milliaryȱ pillarsȱ fromȱ theȱ Emperorsȱ Valerianȱ andȱ Gallienusȱ
setȱ upȱ byȱ metropolisȱ Tomitanorumȱ proveȱ thatȱ theȱ coastȱ roadȱ wasȱ reconstructedȱ
aroundȱtheȱcity,ȱpreciselyȱduringȱthisȱtime276.ȱImmediatelyȱafterwards,ȱinȱ258ȱAD,ȱ
„Scythian”ȱinvadersȱaccordingȱtoȱZosimosȱ(I,ȱ34,ȱ2),ȱbutȱinȱfactȱGoths,ȱ Carpsȱandȱ
otherȱ Transdanubianȱ populations,ȱ passedȱ nearȱ Histria,ȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Anchialosȱ onȱ
theirȱ wayȱ toȱ Byzantium.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ inȱ 269ȱ AD,ȱ duringȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ
Claudiusȱ theȱ Goth,ȱ theȱ invaders,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ moreȱ numerousȱ andȱ inȱ aȱ migratingȱ
proccessȱ stoppedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ andȱ triedȱ toȱ layȱ siegeȱ toȱ theȱ city.ȱ Zosimosȱ wroteȱ thisȱ
pieceȱ ofȱ informationȱ (I,ȱ 42),ȱ clearlyȱ statingȱ beyondȱ theȱ figuresȱ ofȱ theȱ doubleȱ
invasionȱȬȱ6,000ȱshipsȱ(butȱprobablyȱaroundȱ2,000)ȱandȱ320,000ȱpeopleȱȬȱthatȱ„theyȱ
attackedȱ Tomis,ȱ aȱ cityȱ strengthenedȱ byȱ walls”ȱ (̖ΓΐΉϧȱ ΐΉΑȱ ΘΉ΍ΛφΕΉ΍ȱ ΔϱΏΉ΍ȱ
ΔΕΓΗΆ΅ΏϱΑΘΉΖ).ȱ Theȱ besiegersȱ wereȱ pushedȱ away,ȱ butȱ theȱ cityȱ sufferedȱ
damages277.ȱ Theseȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ affectedȱ sacredȱ monuments,ȱ asȱ someȱ cultȱ
sculptureȱ piecesȱ wereȱ damagedȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ andȱ depositedȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ
centuryȱADȱȬȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱnextȱone,ȱpossiblyȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱ
confrontationsȱbetweenȱChristianityȱandȱPaganism278.ȱ
Afterȱ theȱ Transdanubianȱ attacks,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ dangerȱ gone,ȱ theȱ Tomitansȱ
reconstructedȱtheȱroadȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱcity.ȱTheȱsingleȱmilliaryȱpillarȱfromȱȱClaudiusȱ
theȱ Gothȱ knownȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ comeȱ fromȱ Tomis.ȱ Theȱ coastȱ roadsȱ wereȱ alsoȱ
reconstructedȱ byȱ careȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ governor,ȱ Titiusȱ Saturninus279,ȱ whoseȱ
activitiesȱtookȱplaceȱbetweenȱ268Ȭ270ȱADȱorȱprobablyȱaboutȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthisȱ
period.ȱTheȱstabilityȱofȱtheȱempireȱisȱguarantedȱforȱaȱwhileȱbyȱtheȱadministrativeȱ
andȱ militaryȱ arrangementsȱ ofȱ Aurelianȱ (270Ȭ275ȱ AD).ȱ Tomisȱ benefittedȱ fromȱ theȱ
straighteningȱactionsȱofȱtheȱemperor280.ȱAȱmilliaryȱpilllarȱfoundȱinȱConstanöaȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ 109)ȱ isȱ connectedȱ preciselyȱ withȱ theȱ emperor’sȱ actionsȱ toȱ consolidateȱ theȱ
Danubeȱ limes281.ȱ Tomisȱ precinctȱ wallȱ wasȱ builtȱ orȱ onlyȱ rebuilt,ȱ asȱ anȱ importantȱ
workȱ enclosingȱ anȱ areaȱ doubleȱ theȱ sizeȱ ofȱ theȱ presumptiveȱ Hellenisticȱ precinctsȱ
andȱwhichȱcrossedȱtheȱpeninsulaȱfromȱnorthȱtoȱsouth,ȱstretchingȱprobablyȱonȱtheȱ
southȱareaȱofȱtheȱcity,ȱ toȱ theȱport.ȱTheȱwallȱreconstructionȱcontinuedȱduringȱȱtheȱ
EmperorsȱTacitusȱ(275Ȭ276ȱAD)ȱandȱProbusȱ(276Ȭ282ȱAD).ȱNoȱimportantȱhistoricalȱ
eventsȱuntilȱDiocletianȱdrawȱȱhistorians’ȱattention.ȱ
Otherȱaspectsȱregardingȱ Tomisȱ duringȱtheȱPrincipalityȱwillȱbeȱ discussed,ȱonȱ
turns,ȱ inȱ theȱ following.ȱ Theyȱ dealȱ with:ȱ coinȱ circulation,ȱ army,ȱ population,ȱ cults,ȱ
institutions,ȱcityȱadministrationȱ(andȱstratigraphy),ȱterritory.ȱ
ȱ
276
ȱ Iidem,ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 148Ȭ151,ȱ no.ȱ 4;ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 132Ȭ136,ȱ no.ȱ 3;ȱ theȱ
secondȱsampleȱpreservesȱtheȱnameȱC.ȱIuliusȱVictorȱasȱpraesesȱprovinciae.ȱ
277
ȱTheȱexpeditionȱendsȱwithȱtheȱinvadersȱdefeatȱatȱNaissus.ȱ
278
ȱ V.ȱ Canaracheȱ etȱ alii,ȱ ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 121Ȭ123ȱ (theȱ mostȱ recentȱ piecesȱ areȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ
middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ AD);ȱ thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ theȱ sculptureȱ thesaurusȱ wasȱ
buriedȱduringȱtheȱconflictȱbetweenȱChristianityȱandȱPaganȱcultsȱinȱtheȱ3 rd Ȭ4 th ȱcenturiesȱAD.ȱ
SeeȱforȱtheȱlastȱalsoȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ284Ȭ310.ȱ
279
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 136Ȭ139,ȱ no.ȱ 4;ȱ weȱ alsoȱ noticeȱ
hereȱtheȱgovernorȇsȱnominationȱasȱpraesesȱprovinciae.ȱ
280
ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ271ȱȬ277.ȱ
281
ȱTheȱinscriptionȱisȱdatedȱatȱtheȱearliestȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱ271Ȭbeginningȱofȱ272ȱandȱatȱtheȱ
latestȱtoȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱ275ȱAD.ȱ
ȱ 155
ȱȱȱ
Coinsȱ(workshop,ȱmonetaryȱcirculation)ȱ
Togetherȱ withȱ theȱ Romans’ȱ interestȱ forȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danubeȱ area,ȱ thereȱ areȱ
reportedȱisolatedȱRomanȱRepublicanȱcoinsȱ(denari)ȱdiscoveriesȱatȱTomis282.ȱ
Theȱ localȱ mintȱ ceasedȱ itsȱ activity,ȱ inȱ unclearȱ conditions,ȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ 1stȱ
centuryȱ BC283.ȱ Itȱ startedȱ upȱ againȱ veryȱ soonȱ afterwardsȱ andȱ totallyȱ coversȱ theȱ
periodȱ betweenȱ Augustusȱ andȱ Philipȱ IIȱ inclusivelyȱ (withȱ aȱ periodȱ ofȱ cessationȱ
duringȱtheȱreignsȱofȱtheȱEmperorsȱMacrinusȱandȱDiadumenianus)284.ȱStatistically,ȱ
weȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱTomitanȱworkshopȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱfirstȱforȱitsȱproductionȱrateȱ
(1,128ȱcoins),ȱwhichȱrepresentȱ33%ȱofȱallȱMoesianȱemissionsȱinȱtheȱl stȬ3rdȱcenturiesȱ
AD285.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ mintȱ (establishedȱ betweenȱ Augustusȱ andȱ
Hadrian)ȱ isȱ markedȱ byȱ aȱ smallȱ numberȱ ofȱ coinsȱ andȱ almostȱ unchangedȱ
iconographicȱ types286.ȱ Thisȱ lowȱ levelȱ couldȱ beȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ deflationȱ
policyȱ ofȱ theȱ JulioȬClaudianȱ dynasty.ȱ Theȱ workshopȇsȱ activityȱ grewȱ especiallyȱ
duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ Neroȱ andȱ Domitian;ȱ duringȱ Trajanȱ andȱ Hadrianȱ theȱ
productionȱisȱlimited;ȱchangesȱareȱtoȱbeȱnoticedȱduringȱtheȱfollowingȱpeacefulȱandȱ
flourishingȱ period.ȱ Theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ metropolisȱ isȱ clearlyȱ shownȱ onȱ theȱ reverseȱ
sideȱofȱcoinsȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱAntoninusȱPius’ȱreign.ȱTheȱcoinageȱreachesȱhighȱ
valuesȱ onlyȱ duringȱ thisȱ emperor287.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ andȱ
AnniusȱVerusȱthereȱisȱaȱperiodȱofȱlowȱcoinage288,ȱwhileȱduringȱCommodusȇȱreignȱ
(Caesarȱ andȱ Augustus),ȱ theȱ coinageȱ increasesȱ again289.ȱ Duringȱ Pertinax,ȱ theȱ
Tomitanȱ workshopȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ issuingȱ coinsȱ withȱ theȱ
emperorȇsȱname.ȱ
Theȱperiodȱbetweenȱ193Ȭ217ȱADȱisȱmarkedȱbyȱcoinageȱforȱSeptimiusȱSeverus,ȱ
IuliaȱDomna,ȱCaracalla,ȱPlautilaȱandȱGeta.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱtypesȱandȱvariantsȱareȱ
282
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Republicanȱ Coinageȱ inȱ Dobruja,ȱ ClujȬNapocaȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 32,ȱȱ
no.ȱ 13,ȱ mentionsȱ 34ȱ samplesȱ (7ȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ touristicȱ portȱ area,ȱ andȱ theȱ restȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ
andȱ ȱ inȱ theȱ neighbourhood);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ tableȱ atȱ p.ȱ 150Ȭ151ȱ (theȱ earliestȱ sampleȱ isȱ datedȱ
179Ȭ170ȱȱBC;ȱȱtheȱlastȱinȱ32Ȭ31ȱȱBC).ȱ
283
ȱ See,ȱ C.ȱ Preda,ȱ Istoriaȱ monedei,ȱ p.ȱ 83;ȱ theȱ authorȱ connectsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ Tomitanȱ
independentȱ coinageȱ withȱ Burebistaȇsȱ actionsȱ orȱ theȱ campaignȱ ofȱ Liciniusȱ Crassusȱ inȱ 29/28ȱ
BCȱratherȱthanȱtheȱcampaignȱofȱVarroȱLucullusȱinȱ72/71ȱBC.ȱ
284
ȱ Hereȱ andȱ furtherȱ onȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Noiȱ descopeririȱ deȱ monedeȱ tomitaneȱ inȱ Dobrogea.ȱ
Atelierulȱ monetarȱ tomitanȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ (Newȱ Tomitanȱ coinȱ findingsȱ inȱ Dobruja.ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ
mintȱduringȱtheȱRomanȱAge),ȱPeuceȱSNȱ1ȱ(14),ȱ(2003),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ340.ȱ
285
ȱ Theȱ datesȱ apudȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ withȱ explanationsȱ regardingȱ theȱ coinsȱ withoutȱ anȱ
imperialȱportraitȱandȱtheȱTomitanȱcoinȱiconographyȱinȱtheȱ1 st Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturiesȱAD.ȱ
286
ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ invariableȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ workshopȱ coinageȱ underȱ theȱ
circumstancesȱ whenȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ workshopȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ inȱ someȱ periods,ȱ shouldȱ beȱ
noted;ȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ296.ȱ
287
ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ 35ȱ Reglingȱ corpusȱ coinsȱ issues,ȱ thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱ ȱ newȱ coinsȱ
atȱ Ruzickaȱ andȱ 24ȱ newȱ asȱ wellȱ atȱ M.ȱ Iacob;ȱ toȱ addȱ toȱ themȱ 41ȱ coinsȱ ofȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ
Caesar;ȱsee,ȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ296Ȭ298.ȱ
288
ȱ Nowȱ thereȱ isȱ addedȱ onȱ theȱ coinsȱ theȱ cityȇsȱ name,ȱ theȱ qualityȱ ʆϱΑΘΓΙ,ȱ theȱ legendȱ
becomesȱ̏΋ΘΕΓΔ(…)ʆϱΑΘΓΙȱ̖ϱΐΉΝΖ.ȱ
289
ȱ Commodusȱ (Caesar):ȱ 9ȱ Reglingȱ +ȱ 1ȱ Ruzickaȱ coins;ȱ 6ȱ piecesȱ atȱ M.ȱ Iacobȱ areȱ allȱ newȱ
typesȱ orȱ variantsȱ ofȱ theȱ knownȱ types;ȱ (Augustus):ȱ 35ȱ Rieglingȱ andȱ Ruzickaȱ coins;ȱ atȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
M.ȱ Iacobȱ 37ȱ ofȱ 38ȱ piecesȱ representȱ newȱ typesȱ (theȱ totalȱ wouldȱ beȱ 69ȱ typesȱ andȱ inȱ additionȱ
moreȱvariants);ȱseeȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ300Ȭ302.ȱ
156ȱ ȱ
ȱ
registeredȱ duringȱ Caracallaȇsȱ ȱ reign290;ȱ theȱ amountȱ ofȱ coinageȱ duringȱ Getaȱ isȱ alsoȱ
significant291.ȱAfterȱaȱshortȱcessationȱperiodȱduringȱMacrinusȱandȱDiadumenianusȱ
(217Ȭ218ȱ AD),ȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ workshopȱ continuedȱ itsȱ activity.ȱ Elagabalȇsȱ coinageȱ isȱ
numerousȱ enough.ȱ Theȱ maximumȱ outputȱ duringȱ theȱ Severanȱ dynastyȱ isȱ reachedȱ
byȱSeverusȱAlexanderȱ(andȱIuliaȱMamaea)292.ȱ
ȱ Thoughȱ difficult,ȱ theȱ periodȱ afterȱ theȱ Severanȇsȱ dynastyȱ isȱ reflectedȱ lessȱ
keenlyȱ inȱ Tomitanȱ workshopȱ procuction.ȱ Beginningȱ withȱ Maximinus,ȱ theȱ

workshopȱ issuedȱ coinȱ continuouslyȱ untilȱ activityȱ stoppedȱ underȱ Phillipȱ II.ȱ Asȱ aȱ
matterȱ ofȱ fact,ȱ duringȱ Gordianȱ Ill,ȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ coinageȱ ofȱ allȱ workshopȱ
activity293ȱisȱtoȱbeȱnoticed.ȱTheȱlastȱperiodȱisȱthatȱofȱPhillipȱIȱ(M.ȱIuliusȱPhillippus)ȱ
andȱ hisȱ sonȱ Phillipȱ II,ȱ withȱ aȱ smallȱ coinageȱ outputȱ (comparedȱ toȱ theȱ previousȱ
period).ȱ Theȱ workshopȱ ceasedȱ ȱ itsȱ ȱ activityȱ ȱ duringȱ ȱ Phillipȱ ȱ II,ȱ ȱ probablyȱ asȱ aȱ
consequenceȱofȱsomeȱstateȱinterventionȱandȱnotȱfollowingȱaȱmilitaryȱoperation.ȱ
Weȱ confirmȱ theseȱ datesȱ withȱ someȱ othersȱ reflectingȱ theȱ situationȱ onȱ theȱ
Tomitanȱmarket294.ȱAtȱtheȱbeginningȱ(theȱlastȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱBCȱandȱtheȱ
firstȱ decadesȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ Romanȱ Republicanȱ andȱ Imperialȱ coinageȱ isȱ
recordedȱ andȱ theȱ Ponticȱ coinageȱ fromȱ theȱ autonomousȱ periodȱ isȱ veryȱ rare.ȱ Theȱ
coinȱ circulationȱ levelȱ wasȱ lowȱ untilȱ Thraciaȱ wasȱ transformedȱ intoȱ aȱ Romanȱ
province;ȱafterȱthisȱdateȱaȱrealȱgrowthȱisȱrecorded.ȱ
Overȱ aȱ longȱ periodȱ ofȱ timeȱ (untilȱ Antoninusȱ Pius)ȱ theȱ coinageȱ isȱ
intermittent295.ȱAlongsideȱthisȱemperor,ȱanȱorganisedȱcoinageȱcanȱbeȱmentioned296.ȱ
Theȱperiodȱ161Ȭ192ȱADȱproducedȱaȱratherȱpoorȱcoinageȱforȱMarcusȱAureliusȱandȱ
Luciusȱ Verusȱ withȱ aȱ suddenȱ changeȱ underȱ Commodus297.ȱ Coinageȱ flourishedȱ
spectacularlyȱinȱDobrujaȱduringȱSeptimiusȱSeverus,ȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱbetterȱ
economicalȱandȱpoliticalȱsituation.ȱThisȱgrowthȱisȱrecordedȱalsoȱatȱTomis,ȱbut,ȱitȱisȱ
true,ȱ withȱ valuesȱ notȱ considerablyȱ increasedȱ fromȱ toȱ theȱ previousȱ period 298.ȱ Theȱ
situationȱ isȱ similarȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ period.ȱ Theȱ figuresȱ growȱ underȱ Caracalla,ȱ
Geta299ȱ andȱ Severusȱ Alexander,ȱ illustratingȱ ratherȱ quietȱ livingȱ conditions;ȱ aȱ
290
ȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ203Ȭ205;ȱweȱconcludeȱonlyȱforȱCaracallaȱ24ȱtypesȱandȱ9ȱvariants;ȱ
aȱCaracallaȱ+ȱPlautillaȱcoinageȱandȱ9ȱPlautillaȱcoinageȱaloneȱareȱadded.ȱ
291
ȱ Onlyȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 303ȱ andȱ 308Ȭ309ȱ refersȱ toȱ 27ȱ newȱ types;ȱ mostȱ ofȱ themȱ
comeȱfromȱtheȱperiodȱ211Ȭ212ȱAD.ȱ
292
ȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ312Ȭ315.ȱ
293
ȱReglingȱrecordsȱ133ȱcoinsȱonlyȱforȱGordian,ȱ49ȱcoinsȱforȱGordianȱIIIȱ+ȱTranquillina;ȱ
2ȱ Tranquillinaȱ alone;ȱ inȱ addition,ȱ theȱ supplementȱ broughtȱ byȱ Ruzicka,ȱ anotherȱ 7ȱ Gordianȱ
IIIȱcoinagesȱandȱ2ȱnewȱTranquillinaȱcoinagesȱ(apudȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ317Ȭ322).ȱ
294
ȱSeeȱhereȱandȱfurtherȱonȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱ(Theȱcoinȱcirculation),ȱpassim.ȱ
295
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ337,ȱtableȱAȱandȱcatalogue.ȱ
296
ȱ Noteworthyȱ isȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ ofȱ allȱ 20ȱ coinsȱ knownȱ ofȱ thisȱ emperor,ȱ
Tomisȱhasȱfirstȱplaceȱwithȱ13ȱcoinsȱ(apudȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ163).ȱ
297
ȱButȱbetterȱmarkedȱatȱHistria;ȱofȱallȱ46ȱcoins,ȱTomisȱhasȱ10ȱ(ibid.).ȱ
298
ȱ 14ȱ samplesȱ ofȱ allȱ 83ȱ forȱ Dobrujaȱ (mostȱ ofȱ themȱ comeȱ alsoȱ fromȱ Histria).ȱ Forȱ theȱ
sameȱperiodȱseeȱtheȱquotedȱpaperȱandȱp.ȱ69Ȭ77.ȱ
299
ȱ Caracallaȱ (andȱ Plautilla)ȱ Ȭȱ 18ȱ coinsȱ (theȱ majorityȱ issuedȱ byȱ Tomis);ȱ Getaȱ Ȭȱ 17ȱ (theȱ
majorityȱ alsoȱ issuedȱ byȱ Tomis).ȱ Seeȱ theȱ datesȱ hereȱ andȱ furtherȱ onȱ atȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ163Ȭ165,ȱtheȱtableȱofȱtheȱGreekȬOrientalȱcoinȱdistributionȱbyȱemperors.ȱ
ȱ 157
ȱȱȱ
difficultȱ momentȱ seemsȱ toȱ affectȱ anȱ areaȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theȱ city300.ȱ Theȱ biggestȱ coinȱ
numberȱisȱrecordedȱinȱDobrujaȱunderȱGordianȱIII301;ȱTomisȱcoinageȱactivityȱinȱthisȱ
periodȱ reachesȱ valuesȱ almostȱ equalȱ withȱ Histria.ȱ Phillipȱ theȱ Arabianȱ andȱ hisȱ
familyȱ endsȱ theȱ Greekȱ colonialȱ coinageȱ seriesȱ inȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ market302.ȱ ȱ Weȱ
mentionȱaȱlotȱofȱdiscoveriesȱfromȱTomisȱandȱtheȱsuburbanȱarea:ȱȱ
- aȱsmalȱcoinȱdepositȱinȱtheȱintraȱmurosȱareaȱofȱtheȱancientȱcity,ȱitȱincludesȱ
14ȱcolonialȱbronzeȱcoinsȱ(ȱ13ȱ–ȱTomis;ȱ1ȱȬȱMarkianopolis)303;ȱ
- aȱ63ȱbronzeȱpiecesȱhoard,ȱfromȱtheȱȱintraȱmurosȱareaȱ(discoveredȱinȱ1936)ȱ
(ofȱwhichȱonlyȱ20ȱwereȱknown),ȱdatedȱinȱ276Ȭ294ȱAD;ȱ
- hoardȱ discoveredȱ inȱ 1965,ȱ Tomisȱ IIIȱ district,ȱ includingȱ 289ȱ samples,ȱ
hiddenȱorȱlostȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD;ȱtheȱsameȱissuingȱperiodȱwithȱtheȱ
aboveȱmentionedȱhoard;ȱ
- aȱ hoardȱ wasȱ foundȱ inȱ twoȱ stagesȱ (1976ȱ andȱ 1977)ȱ inȱ Tomisȱ Nordȱ
(Gr©niceri)ȱdistrict.ȱTheȱdiscoveryȱfromȱ1976ȱincludesȱ260ȱcoinsȱ(10ȱdenariȱanȱ250ȱ
colonialȱ Greekȱ coins).ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ discoveredȱ otherȱ 470ȱ samplesȱ inȱ 1977ȱ :ȱ 12ȱ
Romanȱ imperialȱ denariȱ andȱ 458ȱ colonialȱ Greekȱ coins,ȱ fromȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ (aȱ
sample),ȱ toȱ Severusȱ Alexanderȱ (174ȱ samples)304.ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ discoveryȱ fromȱ 1977ȱ theȱ
majorityȱ (451ȱ samples)ȱ areȱ Tomitanȱ issues.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ onlyȱ 32ȱ samplesȱ beforeȱ 193ȱ
AD;ȱtheȱotherȱonesȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱperiods:ȱ193Ȭ217ȱADȱ(199ȱsamples)ȱandȱ
217Ȭ235ȱ ADȱ (227ȱ samples)305.ȱ Theȱ hoardȱ burialȱ tookȱ placeȱ duringȱ Severusȱ
Alexander,ȱprobablyȱȱafterȱ232ȱȱAD306;ȱȱ
- aȱ ȱ 20ȱ samplesȱ lotȱ ȱ fromȱ Tiberiusȱ toȱ Claudiusȱ IIȱ ȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ inȱ theȱ
presentȱdistrictȱViileȱNoi307;ȱȱ
- anotherȱ 24ȱ ȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ hoardȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Palasȱ area:ȱ allȱ areȱ
Tomitanȱissuesȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱfourȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱfromȱȱȱCaracallaȱ
toȱMaximinusȱandȱMaximusȱCesar308;ȱ
300
ȱ Seeȱ furtherȱ on,ȱ theȱ hoardȱ fromȱ TomisȬGr©niceri;ȱ probablyȱ theȱ settlementȱ isȱ aȱ vicusȱ
orȱaȱvillaȱȱinȱtheȱterritory.ȱ
301
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ164.ȱȱ
302
ȱ Ibid.;ȱ Phillipȱ Iȱ Ȭȱ 29ȱ pieces,ȱ theȱ majorityȱ (9)ȱ issuedȱ byȱ Kallatisȱ andȱ onlyȱ twoȱ byȱ
Tomis.ȱ
303
ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ C.ȱ Nopcea,ȱ Despreȱ unȱ nouȱ tezaurȱ dinȱ primaȱ parteȱ aȱ secoluluiȱ IIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.,ȱ
descoperitȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Aboutȱ aȱ newȱ hoardȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ discoveredȱ atȱ
Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 40ȱ (2007),ȱ p.ȱ 593Ȭ599;ȱ theȱ lastȱ issuesȱ areȱ fromȱ Severusȱ Alexander;ȱ hereȱ andȱ
furherȱon,ȱseeȱnowȱalsoȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ164Ȭ184.ȱ
304
ȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monetar©ȱ (Theȱ Coinȱ Circulation),ȱ p.ȱ 273Ȭ274,ȱ n.ȱ 11;ȱ eadem,ȱ
Evenimenteȱ politiceȱ reflectateȱ înȱ descoperirileȱ deȱ tezaureȱ monetareȱ imperialeȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ
(Politicalȱ eventsȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ imperialȱ hoardsȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ Dobruja),ȱ Ponticaȱ 32ȱ (1999),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ130,ȱnr.ȱ11.ȱȱ
305
ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱp.ȱ183Ȭ184ȱandȱ202Ȭ204ȱ(tables).ȱ
306
ȱ„Weȱareȱnotȱawareȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱsignificationȱofȱhidingȱandȱnotȱretrievingȱ(…)ȱinȱ
thisȱ stageȱ ofȱ research”ȱ apudȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Descopeririȱ monetareȱ înȱ aóez©rileȱ
ruraleȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ roman©ȱ (14ȱ d.ȱ Cr.ȱ –ȱ 270ȱ d.ȱ Cr.)ȱ (Coinȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ ruralȱ settlementsȱ ofȱ
theȱ Romanȱ Dobruja,ȱ (14ȱ Ȭ270ȱ AD),ȱ Ponticaȱ 23ȱ (1990),ȱ p.ȱ 246.ȱ Afterȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 32ȱ
(1999),ȱp.ȱ122:ȱ„weȱcouldȱconsiderȱtheȱhoardȱwasȱhidȱinȱaȱvicusȱorȱinȱaȱȱvillaȱinȱtheȱnorthȱofȱTomis,ȱ
duringȱSeverusȱAlexander’sȱreign,ȱprobablyȱȱafterȱ232,ȱȱwhenȱ„Sciticumȱbellum”ȱburst”.ȱȱ
307
ȱ Dataȱ atȱ Gh.ȱ Poenaruȱ Bordea,ȱ Alȱ 15Ȭleaȱ Simpozionȱ Naöionalȱ deȱ Numismatic©ȱ (Theȱ 15 th ȱ
NumismaticsȱNationalȱSymposium),ȱAlexandriaȬTeleorman,ȱ12Ȭ14ȱmaiȱ1998,ȱsummaries,ȱp.ȱ31Ȭ
33.ȱ
158ȱ ȱ
ȱ
- ȱ3rdȱ centuryȱ Romanȱ coinsȱ areȱ noticedȱ inȱ theȱ fillingȱ levelȱ withȱ Romanȱ
earlyȱceramicȱremainsȱinȱtheȱareaȱȱTraianȱst/MarinarilorȱBlvd309.ȱ
Weȱmentionȱasȱaȱcommonȱaspectȱforȱallȱtheseȱdiscoveriesȱtheȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱ
coinsȱissuedȱforȱȱSeverusȱAlexander.ȱȱ
Aȱ lastȱ noteȱ concernsȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ coinsȱ spreadingȱ area;ȱ theyȱ areȱ presentȱ inȱ
theȱ ruralȱ territoryȱ ofȱ theȱ city,ȱ inȱ theȱ coastalȱ areaȱ betweenȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Kallatis310,ȱ
northȱofȱDobrujaȱ(theȱHistrianȱcoinsȱdominateȱhere),ȱinȱtheȱnorthȬeastȱareaȱofȱtheȱ
Ponticȱ coastȱ upȱ toȱ Chersonesus,ȱ southȱ ofȱ Dobrujaȱ andȱ beyondȱ theȱ Danubeȱ inȱ
MoldaviaȱandȱtheȱWallachianȱPlain311.ȱ
ȱ
Armyȱ
Theȱinterestȱinȱcoastalȱdefence,ȱincludingȱTomis,ȱhasȱbeenȱshownȱduringȱtheȱ
Principality.ȱ Inȱ theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ theȱ firstȱ yearsȱ ofȱ Vespasianȱ andȱ Trajan,ȱ aȱ
Romanȱ garrisonȱ wasȱ probablyȱ installedȱ atȱ Tomis,ȱ theȱ cityȱ losingȱ itsȱ civitasȱ liberaȱ
status312.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ theȱ firstȱ attestationsȱ fromȱ Vespasianȇ,ȱ whenȱ thereȱ wereȱ
quarteredȱ hereȱ (orȱ inȱ theȱ neighbourhood)ȱ theȱ Cohorsȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Commagenorumȱ andȱ
Cohorsȱ VIIȱ Gallorum313.ȱ Duringȱ Trajan,ȱ afterȱ theȱ Dacianȱ wars,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ Cohorsȱ VIIȱ
308
ȱ M.ȱ Dima,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ Aȱ Tomitaneȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ hoardȱ foundȱ inȱ Constanöa,ȱ inȱ Coinȱ
hoardsȱ ofȱ Dobruja.ȱ I.,ȱ Constanöaȱ 2007,ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ103;ȱ theȱ lastȱ samplesȱ ofȱ theȱ thesaurusȱ areȱ datedȱ
duringȱMaximinusȱI,ȱȱbutȱtheȱinȱtheȱauthorsȱopinionȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱseemȱtoȱbeȱcirculated.ȱ
309
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ C.ȱ B©jenaru,ȱ L.ȱ Cliante,ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2004ȱ ,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭ128,ȱ no.ȱ 79.ȱ Forȱ
isolatedȱ discoveriesȱ seeȱ alsoȱ ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Câtevaȱ descopeririȱ deȱ denariȱ romaniȱ republicaniȱ
dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ (Fewȱ Romanȱ Republicanȱ denariȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor)ȱ ,ȱ Ponticaȱ 19ȱ
(1986),ȱp.ȱ83,ȱno.ȱ7;ȱA.ȱVertan,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©,ȱp.ȱ287ȱandȱȱ337ȱ(120ȱsamples).ȱ
310
ȱNoteworthyȱtheȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱpieces,ȱ3000ȱ(32.69ȱ%),ȱinȱtheȱMangaliaȱhoard;ȱseeȱ
C.ȱ Preda,ȱ Dateȱ óiȱ concluziiȱ preliminareȱ asupraȱ tezauruluiȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Mangaliaȱ (Dataȱ andȱ
preliminaryȱ conclusionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ hoardȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Mangalia),ȱ SCIVȱ 12ȱ (1961),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 241Ȭ250;ȱ
MonedeȱcolonialeȱrareȱóiȱinediteȱȬȱHistria,ȱCallatisȱóiȱTomisȱdinȱtezaurulȱdeȱlaȱMangaliaȱ(Rareȱandȱ
unpublishedȱcolonialȱcoinsȱȬȱHistria,ȱKallatisȱandȱTomisȱfromȱtheȱMangaliaȱHoard),ȱSCNȱ4ȱ(1968),ȱ
p.ȱ 223Ȭ237;ȱ Noiȱ doveziȱ óiȱ consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ tezauruluiȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Mangaliaȱ inȱ 1960ȱ Ȭȱ lotulȱ deȱ
monedeȱ romaneȱ imperialeȱ (Newȱ evidenceȱ andȱ considerationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ hoardȱ discoveredȱ inȱ
Mangaliaȱ inȱ 1960ȱ Ȭȱ theȱ groupȱ ofȱ Romanȱ Imperialȱ coins),ȱ SCNȱ 10ȱ (1993),ȱ p.ȱ 27Ȭ41);ȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ
op.cit.,ȱp.ȱ277Ȭ278.ȱ
311
ȱ Weȱ haveȱ noȱ intentionȱ toȱ stopȱ hereȱ regardingȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ coinȱ circulationȱ inȱ theȱ
territoryȱorȱtheȱImperialȱRomanȱcoinsȱdiscoveredȱinȱTomis,ȱaspectsȱforȱwhichȱseeȱA.ȱVertan,ȱ
op.ȱcit.,ȱpassim;ȱadd,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱDateȱnoiȱprivindȱdescoperirileȱmonetareȱromaneȱimperialeȱdinȱ
Dobrogeaȱ (Newȱ dataȱ concerningȱ Romanȱ Republicanȱ monetaryȱ discoveriesȱ fromȱ Dobruja),ȱ Peuceȱ
SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 336Ȭ343,ȱ no.ȱ 46Ȭ102ȱ andȱ p.ȱ 366Ȭ374.ȱ Forȱ theȱ ruralȱ settlementsȱ inȱ
DobrujaȱseeȱthoughȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱViaöaȱrural©ȱ(Theȱruralȱlife),ȱp.ȱ219Ȭ244ȱ(especiallyȱp.ȱ229Ȭ
230ȱȱforȱtheȱTomitanȱcoins).ȱ
312
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱdéfenseȱduȱlittoralȱdeȱlaȱDobroudjaȱàȱl’époqueȱromaineȱ(I Ȭer ȱ–ȱIII e ȱsièclesȱ
deȱn.è.),ȱRRHȱ13ȱ(1974),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ231;ȱidem,ȱPonticaȱ8ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ115Ȭ124.ȱ
313
ȱ Bothȱ militaryȱ unitsȱ areȱ attestedȱ onȱ funeraryȱ inscriptionsȱ writtenȱ byȱ
activeȱ soldiers;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 176ȱ andȱ 177;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 59Ȭ60ȱ andȱ 69;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬ
Popescu,ȱ Trupeleȱ auxiliareȱ romaneȱ dinȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ (Theȱ auxiliaryȱ Romanȱ troopsȱ fromȱ Moesiaȱ
Inferior),ȱSCIVAȱ52Ȭ53ȱ(2001Ȭ2002),ȱp.ȱ204Ȭ205,ȱ210Ȭ211ȱandȱ235Ȭ236ȱarguesȱagainstȱtheȱcohorsȱ
IȱFlaviaȱCommagenorumȱbeingȱstationedȱatȱTomisȱandȱsuggestsȱinsteadȱtheȱhypothesisȱofȱtheȱ
presenceȱ inȱ thisȱ cityȱ ofȱ theȱ cohorsȱ VIIȱ Gallorumȱ equitataȱ duringȱ theȱ timeȱ itȱ wasȱ stationedȱ inȱ
MoesiaȱInferior;ȱidem,ȱTheȱRomanȱarmyȱinȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱBucharest,ȱ2010ȱ(TheȱArmy),ȱp.ȱ213ȱ
ȱ 159
ȱȱȱ
Gallorum314ȱisȱattested,ȱsupportedȱinȱcaseȱofȱneedȱbyȱtheȱvexilationesȱofȱtheȱLegionsȱ
situatedȱ onȱ theȱ Danube.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ knownȱ ȱ forȱ Tomisȱ beneficiariiȱ consularesȱ ofȱ theȱ
LegioȱVȱMacedonicaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ192,ȱ193);ȱtheȱTomitanȱepigraphicalȱmaterialȱallowsȱtheȱ
identificationȱ ofȱ someȱ activeȱ legionȱ soldiers,ȱ andȱ someȱ veteransȱ too315.ȱ Basedȱ onȱ
theȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ area,ȱ weȱ canȱ presumeȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ
centuryȱAD,ȱtheȱLegioȱVȱMacedonicaȱwatchedȱtheȱwholeȱDobrujanȱcoast.ȱAfterȱthisȱ
legionȱ leftȱ inȱ theȱ Parthicȱ warȱ andȱ thenȱ inȱ Daciaȱ (167ȱ AD),ȱ Tomis,ȱ likeȱ theȱ otherȱ
twoȱ westȱ Ponticȱ cities,ȱ wasȱ watchedȱ byȱ theȱ Legionȱ XIȱ Claudia;ȱ aȱ fewȱ timesȱ activeȱ
soldiersȱbelongingȱtoȱthisȱlegionȱwereȱmentionedȱatȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ263,ȱ348).ȱTheȱ
epigraphicalȱ documentsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ multitudeȱ ofȱ troopsȱ evenȱ duringȱ
Trajan:ȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ centurionesȱ legionisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 10)ȱ andȱ praefectiȱ equitumȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 15)316ȱ
areȱ mentioned.ȱ Evenȱ though,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ concludeȱ ȱ ȱ anyȱ ȱ ȱ clearȱ ȱ ȱ militaryȱȱȱ
operationȱȱȱfromȱȱȱtheseȱdocuments,ȱprobablyȱbeingȱcommemorativeȱmonuments,ȱ
theyȱsuggestȱtheȱrealȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱRomanȱarmyȱatȱTomis.ȱ
Theȱ Cohorsȱ VIIȱ Gallorumȱ isȱ attestedȱ byȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ inȱ
Syria317,ȱ Tomisȱ losingȱ itsȱ garrison.ȱ Thisȱ momentȱ isȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱ venerationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Emperorȱ Hadrianȱ withȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ ̳ΏΉΙΟνΕ΍ΓΖ,ȱ andȱ forȱ Tomisȱ regainingȱ itsȱ
civitasȱ liberaȱ status318.ȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ revivedȱ theȱ worksȱ forȱ coastalȱ defence319,ȱ
evenȱ ifȱ weȱ cannotȱ assumeȱ thatȱ militaryȱ unitsȱ wereȱ quarteredȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Theȱ Alaȱ Iȱ
Flaviaȱ Gaetulorumȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 247)ȱ wasȱ possiblyȱ toȱ beȱ quarteredȱ atȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ
andȱ 242ȱ –ȱ Tomisȱ (?);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ L.ȱ Mih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ Uneȱ nouveauȱ diplômeȱ militaireȱ deȱ Mésieȱ
Inférieure,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ52ȱ(2008),ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ208.ȱ
314
ȱTheȱCohorsȱIȱFlaviaȱCommagenorum,ȱafterȱTrajanȇsȱwarsȱwasȱtransferredȱtoȱtheȱnorthȱ
ofȱ theȱ Danubeȱ andȱ thenȱ draftedȱ toȱ theȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Daciaȱ Inferior;ȱ seeȱ C.C.ȱ Petolescu,ȱ
Auxiliaȱ Daciaeȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ istoriaȱ militar©ȱ aȱ Dacieiȱ romaneȱ (Auxiliaȱ Daciae.ȱ Contributionsȱ toȱ
theȱ militaryȱ historyȱofȱ theȱRomanȱ Dacia,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2002,ȱ p.ȱ95Ȭ97,ȱno.ȱ 30;ȱW.ȱ Eck,ȱ A.ȱ Pangerl,ȱ
Neueȱ Diplomeȱ fürȱ dieȱ Auxiliartruppenȱ inȱ denȱ mösischenȱ Provinzenȱ vonȱ Vespasianȱ bisȱ Hadrian,ȱ
DaciaȱNSȱ50ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ97Ȭ102,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(Augustȱ14 th ,ȱ99),ȱwhereȱthereȱappearȱsomeȱofȱtheȱaboveȱ
mentionedȱ troopsȱ stationedȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior;ȱ iidem,ȱ Moesiaȱ undȱ seineȱ Truppenȱ II.ȱ Neueȱ
Diplomeȱ fürȱ Moesia,ȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ undȱ Moesiaȱ Superior,ȱ Chironȱ 39ȱ (2009),ȱ p.ȱ 510Ȭ522;ȱ Fl.ȱ
MateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ207.ȱ
315
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ59ȱandȱ146,ȱn.ȱ179;ȱseeȱalsoȱM.ȱIonescu,ȱGh.ȱ
Papuc,ȱSistemulȱdeȱap©rareȱaȱlitoraluluiȱDobrogeiȱromaneȱ(sec.ȱIȬVIIȱp.ȱChr.)ȱ(TheȱRomanȱDobrujaȱ
coastȱdefenceȱsystemȱ(1 st Ȭ7 th ȱcenturiesȱAD)ȱ,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ67Ȭ72;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱNoteȱ
epigraficeȱ(Epigraphicalȱnotes),ȱI,ȱSCIVAȱ54Ȭ56ȱ(2003Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ310,ȱn.ȱ21:ȱinȱTomis,ȱthereȱwereȱ
identifiedȱ 24ȱ activeȱ soldiers,ȱ 13ȱ veteransȱ andȱ 10ȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ determinedȱ inȱ aboutȱ 43ȱ
inscriptionsȱ whereȱ thereȱ appearȱ soldiersȱ orȱ veterans;ȱ idemȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 27,ȱ n.ȱ 70;ȱ p.ȱ 50,ȱ n.ȱ
231Ȭ364ȱ(activeȱsoldiersȱfromȱtheȱLegioȱVȱMacedonicaȱinȱTomis;ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ74ȱ(veterans,ȱȱsomeȱofȱ
themȱwithȱunknownȱmilitaryȱrank).ȱ
316
ȱ Forȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 10,ȱ theȱ firstȱ publisher,ȱ D.M.ȱ Teodorescu,ȱ Monumente,ȱ p.ȱ 24Ȭ25ȱ
determinesȱ aȱ possibleȱ connectionȱ withȱ Trajanȇsȱ Dacianȱ wars;ȱ forȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 15,ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ p.ȱ 50ȱ
supportsȱaȱlaterȱdate.ȱ
317
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 66;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ SCIVAȱ 52Ȭ53ȱ (2001Ȭ2002),ȱ p.ȱ 210ȱ
(aboutȱtheȱmomentȱofȱtroopȱtransfer).ȱSeeȱalsoȱP.A.ȱHolder,ȱAuxiliaryȱdeploymentȱinȱtheȱreignȱ
ofȱTrajan,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ50ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ142,ȱn.ȱ11.ȱ
318
ȱSupra,ȱnoteȱ312.ȱ
319
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ RRHȱ 13ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ 229Ȭ230ȱ supposesȱ aȱ fullyȱ awareȱ coastalȱ defenceȱ
operation;ȱ idem,ȱ Dieȱ römischenȱ Verteidigungsanlagenȱ anȱ derȱ Küsteȱ derȱ Dobrudscha,ȱ BJȱ 192ȱ
(1992),ȱ p.ȱ 195Ȭ223;ȱ forȱ theȱ generalȱ subjectȱ ofȱ westȱ Ponticȱ coastalȱ defence;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ M.ȱ
Ionescu,ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱpassim;ȱaȱdifferentȱopinionȱatȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ28.ȱ
160ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Marcusȱ Aurelius,ȱ butȱ moreȱ certainlyȱ fromȱ theȱ Severanȱ period320.ȱ Broughtȱ inȱ asȱ
partȱofȱtheȱactionȱtoȱincreaseȱcoastalȱdefenceȱcapacity,ȱtheȱAlaȱIȱFlaviaȱGaetulorumȱ
unitȱ isȱ attestedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ ADȱ withoutȱ theȱ nameȱ
Flaviaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 127)321.ȱ Duringȱ Severusȱ Alexander,ȱ theȱ Alaȱ Iȱ Gallorumȱ Atectorigianaȱ
hadȱtheȱnameȱSeverianaȱandȱitȱseemedȱtoȱbeȱquarteredȱinȱDobrujaȱandȱforȱaȱshortȱ
timeȱ inȱ Tomis322.ȱ Anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ 224ȱ ADȱ isȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ provinceȱ
governor,ȱ L.ȱ AnniusȱItalicusȱHonoratus,ȱbyȱaȱdecurionȱofȱthisȱalaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ93).ȱByȱ
244Ȭ249ȱ AD,ȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Phillipȱ theȱ Arabian,ȱ aȱ vexilationȱ ofȱ Cohorsȱ Iȱ
Cilicumȱ(calledȱfurtherȱonȱPhilippiana)ȱoperatedȱinȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ345ȱandȱ452)323.ȱ
Theȱ inscriptionsȱ giveȱ noȱ clueȱ toȱ decideȱ whetherȱ theȱ Classisȱ Flaviaȱ Moesicaȱ
wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ underȱ Tomitanȱ control,too.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ veryȱ likely,ȱ mostlyȱ becauseȱ
thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ Classisȱ Ponticaȱ extendedȱ itsȱ activityȱ here324.ȱ Theȱ
funeraryȱ inscriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ fleetȱ veteranȱ wasȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 199)325;ȱ nearȱ
Tomisȱwasȱalsoȱfoundȱtheȱcippusȱfromȱ240Ȭ244ȱAD,ȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱmilitaryȱcareerȱ
ofȱ P.ȱ Aeliusȱ Ammonius,ȱ theȱ procuratorȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ alsoȱ inȱ
commandȱ ofȱ theȱ Classisȱ Flaviaȱ Moesica,ȱ namedȱ withȱ theȱ epithetȱ Gordianaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
106).ȱ
Anȱ importantȱ numberȱ ofȱ veteransȱ settledȱ downȱ inȱ Tomisȱ andȱ itsȱ territory;ȱ
theyȱ cameȱ fromȱ theȱ legionsȱ ofȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ theȱ Legioȱ Vȱ Macedonicaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
226,458)326,ȱ XIȱ Claudiaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 383,ȱ 374)ȱ andȱ ȱ Iȱ Italicaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 250)327,ȱ orȱ fromȱ
320
ȱ Moreȱ recentȱ dataȱ aboutȱ theȱ alaȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Gaetulorumȱ inȱ theȱ provinceȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ
atȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Dou©ȱ inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ deȱ laȱ Histriaȱ (Twoȱ unpublishedȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ
Histria),ȱ Ponticaȱ 31ȱ (1998),ȱ p.ȱ 109Ȭ114;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ SCIVAȱ 52Ȭ53ȱ (2001Ȭ2002),ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ
183;ȱtheȱlastȱauthorȱthinksȱweȱcannotȱdetermineȱtheȱplaceȱwhereȱtheȱtroopsȱhadȱtheirȱcampȱ
duringȱ theȱ periodȱ theyȱ wereȱ stationedȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ (theȱ 2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ
AD);ȱȱidem,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ172Ȭ178;ȱp.ȱ242ȱ(Oescus,ȱ62Ȭ71ȱ(?);ȱCarsiumȱpriorȱ114ȱAD?).ȱ
321
ȱ Theȱ Alaȱ Iȱ Flaviaȱ Gaetulorumȱ isȱ indirectlyȱ attestedȱ byȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 106)ȱ ofȱ
whichȱ weȱ areȱ acquaintedȱ withȱ P.ȱ Aeliusȱ Ammoniusȇȱ career;ȱ beforeȱ heȱ wasȱ theȱ fleetȱ prefectȱ
underȱGordianȱandȱtheȱcommanderȱofȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱAmmoniusȱusedȱtoȱbeȱprefectȱofȱthisȱ
cavaleryȱunitȱafterȱ234ȱorȱduringȱMaximinusȱThraxȇsȱtime;ȱcf.ȱI.ȱPiso,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ20ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ
251Ȭ257;ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬPopescu,ȱ Theȱ Army,ȱ p.ȱ 176Ȭ177,ȱ n.ȱ 1443Ȭ1444,ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ Devijver,ȱ
PME,ȱ Sȱ 13,ȱ p.ȱ 724,ȱ considersȱ thatȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 127ȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Alaȱ Gaetulorumȱ whoȱ wereȱ
stationedȱinȱArabia.ȱ
322
ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 53;ȱ aboutȱ theȱ mainȱ alaȱ andȱ theȱ possibleȱ location,ȱ seeȱ Fl.ȱ
MateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ178Ȭ181;ȱ243:ȱAppiariaȱ(?).ȱ
323
ȱ Itȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ knownȱ unitsȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ whichȱ quarteredȱ atȱ Sacidavaȱ inȱ 2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ
centurysȱAD;ȱseeȱalsoȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ201Ȭ205;ȱ243.ȱ
324
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ73.ȱAlmostȱcertainlyȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱwestȱPonticȱcoastȱfromȱtheȱ
Danubeȇsȱ mouthȱ upȱ toȱ Histriaȱ wasȱ underȱ theȱ controlȱ ofȱ theȱ Moesianȱ fleetȱ (ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ 71).ȱ Seeȱ
moreȱnuancedȱaboutȱtheȱȱwesternȬPonticȱcoastȱsurveyȱandȱdefenceȱmissionȱȱbyȱclassisȱFlaviaȱ
MoesicaȱatȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱM.ȱZahariade,ȱLesȱforcesȱnavalesȱduȱBasȱDanubeȱetȱdeȱlaȱmerȱNoireȱauxȱ
I Ȭer ȱ –ȱ VI e ȱ siècles,ȱ Oxford,ȱ 1996,ȱ p.ȱ 15,ȱ 18Ȭ19;ȱ p.ȱ 76,ȱ 78Ȭ79ȱ andȱ 89,ȱ mapȱ 1ȱ (Tomis);ȱ Fl.ȱ MateiȬ
Popescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ255.ȱ
325
ȱInscriptionȱdatedȱprobablyȱinȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ3 rd ȱAD.ȱ
326
ȱSeeȱalsoȱISMȱII,ȱ466,ȱ442;ȱM.ȱB©rbulescuȬMunteanu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱ
p.ȱ 165ȱ Ȭȱ 169,ȱ nos.ȱ 3ȱ andȱ 4;ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Inscriptionsȱ inéditesȱ etȱ reviséesȱ deȱ laȱ
collectionȱ duȱ Muséeȱ d’Histoireȱ Nationaleȱ etȱ d’Archéologieȱ deȱ Constantza.ȱ II,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ (2010),ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ348Ȭ351,ȱno.ȱ1.ȱ
327
ȱ Forȱ theȱ militariesȱ attestedȱ atȱ Tomis,ȱ comingȱ fromȱ differentȱ units,ȱ nowȱ Fl.ȱ Mateiȱ
Popescu,ȱȱTheȱArmy,ȱpassim.ȱ
ȱ 161
ȱȱȱ
militaryȱ unitsȱ ofȱ otherȱ provinces:ȱ theȱ Legioȱ VIIȱ Claudiaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 169)328,ȱ Legioȱ XIIIȱ
Geminaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ190,ȱ221,ȱ296).ȱToȱbeȱaddedȱthoseȱcomingȱfromȱtheȱauxiliaryȱtroopsȱ
inȱtheȱprovince:ȱalaȱIȱAsturumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ172)329,ȱalaȱIȱPannoniorumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ170)330,ȱalaȱ
IIȱHispanorumȱetȱAravacorumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ225)ȱandȱcohorsȱIȱLusitanorumȱCyrenaicaȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ196).ȱAȱspecialȱnoteȱshouldȱbeȱmadeȱofȱtheȱveteransȱcomingȱfromȱtheȱPraetorianȱ
cohortsȱfromȱRome;ȱoneȱofȱthem,ȱoriginallyȱfromȱAquaeȱStatellaeȱwasȱaȱsoldierȱofȱ
theȱcohorsȱVIȱpraetoriaȱandȱreachedȱTomisȱinȱVespasianȇsȱtimeȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ8)331.ȱOtherȱ
recordsȱofȱPraetorianȱcohortȱveteransȱareȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱADȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ140) ȱandȱfromȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ2nd/beginningȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
266).ȱ
ThereȱwasȱatȱTomisȱaȱstationȱofȱbeneficiariiȱconsularisȱandȱotherȱofȱspeculatoresȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ327)332.ȱ
Theȱ inscriptionȱ bearersȱ haveȱ differentȱ militaryȱ ranks:ȱ praefectusȱ alae/cohortis,ȱ
praefectiȱ equitum,ȱ decurio,ȱ duplicarius,centurio,ȱ imaginifer,ȱ trecenarius,ȱ primusȱ pilus,ȱ
signifier,ȱ equesȱ vexillarius,ȱ librariusȱ leg(ati)?/ȱ legionis.ȱ Someȱ soldiersȱ act,ȱ though,ȱ
alongsideȱ theȱ governors:ȱ weȱ learnȱ aboutȱ aȱ corniculariusȱ ofȱ governorȱ T.ȱ Flaviusȱ
Turboȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 56ȱ datedȱ toȱ 155ȱ AD);ȱ Flaviusȱ Severianusȱ dec(urio)ȱ alaeȱ Iȱ Atectorumȱ
Severianaeȱ wasȱ candidatusȱ ofȱ Luciusȱ Anniusȱ Honoratusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 93ȱ datedȱ toȱ 224ȱ
AD).ȱȱAȱspecialȱinterestȱisȱtoȱbeȱshownȱtoȱtheȱtheȱsoldiersȱinvolvementȱinȱcivilȱlife:ȱ
twoȱveteransȱbecameȱmembersȱofȱtheȱCouncilȱ(councillors)ȱatȱTomisȱȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ180ȱ
andȱ249)333.ȱ
Populationȱ
Duringȱ theȱ Romanȱ Age,ȱ theȱ populationȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ mainlyȱ
Greek334,ȱbutȱtheȱRomanȱinfluenceȱproducedȱchangesȱtoȱtheȱdemographicȱstructureȱ
reflectedȱbyȱtheȱonomatologyȱinȱinscriptions.ȱTheȱproperȱnamesȱonȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱ
ADȱ inscriptionsȱ wereȱ Greek,ȱ withȱ rareȱ exceptions,ȱ inȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ structure:ȱ
twoȱ namesȱ inȱ Greekȱ filiation.ȱ Thereȱ wasȱ anȱ increasingȱ proportionȱ fromȱ theȱ 1stȱ
328
ȱ Inscriptionȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ AD;ȱ forȱ datingȱ seeȱ G.ȱ
Bordenache,ȱTemiȱeȱmotiviȱdellaȱplasticaȱfunerariaȱdiȱetàȱRomanaȱnellaȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ
9ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ260.ȱ
329
ȱ Theȱ sameȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ AD;ȱ forȱ dating,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ
p.ȱ260Ȭ262.ȱ
330
ȱ Inscriptionȱ fromȱ Vespasianȱ orȱ soonȱ after;ȱ hisȱ bearerȱ wasȱ „rewardedȱ byȱ Vespasianȱ forȱ
hisȱcourageȱandȱbravery”ȱ(donisȱdonatoȱabȱimperatoreȱVespasianoȱobȱvirtutem).ȱ
331
ȱ Theȱ diplomaȱ isȱ preciselyȱ datedȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ Decemberȱ 76ȱ AD;ȱ possiblyȱ theȱ formerȱ
Praetorianȱ hadȱ anȱ importantȱ positionȱ atȱ Tomisȱ (Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 74)ȱ ;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ C.C.ȱ
Petolescu,ȱ Unȱ ancienȱ prétorienȱ dansȱ unȱ diplômeȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ înȱ Civilisationȱ grecqueȱ etȱ culturesȱ
antiquesȱ périphériques,ȱ Hommageȱ àȱ Petreȱ Alexandrescuȱ àȱ sonȱ 70ȱ anniversaireȱ (éds.ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ
M.ȱBabeó),ȱBucureóti,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ339Ȭ341.ȱ

ȱC.C.ȱPetolescu,ȱQ.ȱTrebelliusȱMaximus,ȱ[e]xȱtrecenario,ȱinȱLaȱHiérarchieȱ(Rangordung)ȱdeȱ
l’arméeȱ romaineȱ sousȱ leȱ HautȬEmpire,ȱ inȱ Actesȱ duȱ Congrèsȱ deȱ Lyonȱ (15Ȭ18ȱ septembreȱ 1994)ȱ
ressemblésȱetȱéditésȱparȱYaanȱLeȱBohec,ȱParis,ȱ1995,ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ248.ȱȱ
332
ȱSeeȱalsoȱISMȱII,ȱ211;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ28,ȱn.ȱ80ȱandȱp.ȱ50,ȱn.ȱ262Ȭ266ȱ
(beneficiariiȱconsularisȱatȱTomis).ȱȱ
333
ȱ Forȱ theȱ militaryȱ organisationȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ seeȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ passim;ȱȱȱȱ
Al.ȱSuceveanu,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ56Ȭ72;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱpassim.ȱ
334
ȱ Tomisȱ populationȱ forȱ theȱ 1 st ȱ Ȭȱ 3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ isȱ estimatedȱ atȱ aboutȱ 20Ȭ30,000ȱ
inhabitants;ȱseeȱALȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ49.ȱ
162ȱ ȱ
ȱ
centuryȱ ADȱ untilȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD335,ȱ probablyȱ asȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ aȱ
demographicȱ growth.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ Greekȱ namesȱ changedȱ duringȱ theȱ firstȱ centuries;ȱ
theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ namesȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ Ionianȱ citiesȱ andȱ theȱ Dorianȱ
citiesȱ diminished.ȱ Theȱ traditionalȱ Ionianȱ namesȱ becameȱ rare:ȱ Antianax,ȱ Ariston,ȱ
Aristarchos,ȱDamostratos,ȱDemonax,ȱȱEpikrates,ȱKallimachos,ȱNeikostratos,ȱTrasymachos336ȱ
etc.ȱ
Basedȱ onȱ aȱ moreȱ recentȱ statisticsȱ ofȱ 739ȱ namesȱ fullyȱ recorded,ȱ 217ȱ (37.56%)ȱ
areȱ Greekȱ andȱ 29ȱ (5%)ȱ wereȱ Hellenized337.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ Greekȱ namesȱ theȱ mostȱ
frecquentȱ areȱ Alexandros,ȱ Dionysios,ȱ Theodoros,ȱ Poseidoniosȱ etc.ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ
influenceȱgrewȱgraduallyȱinȱonomatology:ȱofȱtheȱaboveȱmentionedȱ739ȱnames,ȱ221ȱ
(38.23%)ȱareȱRomanȱandȱ81ȱ(14%)ȱwereȱRomanizedȱ(theȱmajorityȱofȱthemȱGraecoȬ
Roman)338.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ recentlyȱ declaredȱ Greekȱ citizensȱ areȱ numerousȱ bearingȱ
imperialȱ names:ȱ Iulii,ȱ Flavii,ȱ Ulpii,ȱ Aeliiȱ andȱ Aurelii.ȱ Theȱ rightȱ ofȱ citizenshipȱ wasȱ
admittedȱ onlyȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ Claudianȱ reign339.ȱ Then,ȱ duringȱ theȱ Flavianȱ
dynasty,ȱtheȱprocessȱisȱextended,ȱcontinuingȱwithoutȱceaseȱuntilȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ
2ndȱcenturyȱAD,ȱtheȱperiodȱofȱmaximumȱflourishingȱofȱtheȱRomanizationȱprocess.ȱ
Ifȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ ADȱ theȱ Romanȱ namesȱ wereȱ ratherȱ rareȱ inȱ Tomis,ȱ
theirȱ numberȱ increasesȱ suddenlyȱ duringȱ Trajanȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ
century.ȱ Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ
Romanȱ namesȱ exceededȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ onesȱ onȱ inscriptions,ȱ coveringȱ
theȱ entireȱ socialȱ structure.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ Constitutioȱ Antoninianaȱ cameȱ intoȱ effect,ȱ theȱ
statusȱofȱaȱRomanȱcitizenȱwasȱgeneralizedȱinȱTomis,ȱlikewiseȱinȱtheȱwholeȱRomanȱ
Empire.ȱ Withȱ rareȱ exceptions,ȱ theȱ attestedȱ personsȱ inȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionsȱ bearȱ
Romanȱnamesȱafterȱthisȱdate340.ȱȱ
Anȱ importantȱ tradeȱ centreȱ andȱ Ponticȱ communityȱ capital,ȱ Tomisȱ isȱ theȱ
favouriteȱ ofȱ manyȱ foreigners341.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ inscriptionsȱ ̉opyriskosȱ
335
ȱ Theȱ 1 st ȱ centuryȱ AD:ȱ 33ȱ persons;ȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱ quartersȱ ofȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ AD:ȱ 49;ȱ
untilȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ AD:ȱ 55;ȱ cf.ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 49,ȱ n.ȱ 211.ȱ Theȱ
increasingȱproportionȱcanȱbeȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱ2 nd ȱandȱ3 rd ȱ
centuriesȱADȱweȱareȱawareȱofȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱepigraphicalȱdocumentsȱ(n.a.).ȱ
336
ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ159.ȱ
337
ȱ Cf.ȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ ͞ΑΓΐ΅ΗΘ΍ΎϱΑ.ȱ Aspectsȱ démographiquesȱ dansȱ lesȱ villesȱ ouestȬ
pontiquesȱdeȱlaȱprovinceȱMoesiaȱInferior,ȱArhMold,ȱ19ȱ(1996),ȱp.ȱ135Ȭ148,ȱtable,ȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
338
ȱ Atȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 160ȱ areȱ 800ȱ namesȱ mentionedȱ ofȱ whichȱ 120ȱ areȱ
Romanȱ andȱ 162ȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Romanȱ elements.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ M.ȱ Musielakȱ inȱ Studiaȱ
Moesiacaȱ IIȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 69Ȭ78;ȱ eadem,ȱ Histria,ȱ Tomisȱ undȱ Callatis:ȱ Möglichkeitenȱ derȱ
prosopographischenȱForschung:ȱKataloge,ȱProsopographica,ȱPoznaÚ,ȱ1993,ȱp.ȱ97Ȭ108.ȱ
339
ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ Romanȱ citizenshipȱ andȱ theȱ elitesȱ seeȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Dieȱ Strukturȱ derȱ Elitenȱ
westpontischenȱ Griechenstädteȱ währendȱ desȱ Prinzipatsȱ imȱ Rahmenȱ ihresȱ rechtlichenȱ Status,ȱ
Antiquitasȱ 28ȱ (2005),ȱ p.ȱ 141Ȭ162;ȱ addȱ alsoȱ L.ȱ Mih©ilescuȬBîrlibaȱ ȱ andȱ V.ȱ Piftor,ȱ Lesȱ vétéransȱ
membresȱd’éliteȱcivileȱenȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ210.ȱ
340
ȱ Onȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ datedȱ afterȱ 212ȱ ADȱ weȱ findȱ moreȱ thanȱ 50ȱ peopleȱ bearingȱ theȱ
nameȱ Aurelius.ȱ Seeȱ A.ȱ Boil©,ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Discuöiiȱ recenteȱ cuȱ privireȱ laȱ Constitutioȱ
Antoninianaȱ (Recentȱ Debatesȱ aboutȱ Constitutioȱ Antoniniana),ȱ StClsȱ 14,ȱ 1973,ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ194;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 19ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 160ȱ;ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ
(2010),ȱȱp.ȱ356Ȭ359,ȱno.ȱ5.ȱ
341
ȱ Weȱ doȱ notȱ discussȱ hereȱ theȱ activeȱ soldiersȱ orȱ veteransȱ names,ȱ livingȱ orȱ settledȱ atȱ
Tomis.ȱ
ȱ 163
ȱȱȱ
fromȱ Callatisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 312),ȱ Aureliusȱ Sozomenos,ȱ Zotichosȇȱ son,ȱ originallyȱ fromȱ
Byzantiumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ257),ȱPontikos,ȱsonȱofȱNeikiasȱofȱOlbiaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ279),ȱNilosȱandȱ
Attasȱ fromȱ Tyrasȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 5ȱ andȱ 313)ȱ .ȱ Someȱ othersȱ comeȱ fromȱ moreȱ remotedȱ
regions,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ fromȱ Athensȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 375),ȱ Perinthȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 129,ȱ 365),ȱ Cyzikȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 366),ȱ fromȱ Ancyraȱ Galatiaeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 375),ȱ fromȱ Mazacaȱ andȱ Tyanaȱ inȱ
Cappadociaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 129),ȱ fromȱ Abonoteichosȱ (Paphlagonia;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 129),ȱ fromȱ
NeapolisȱinȱSyriaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ188)ȱandȱfromȱAntipatrisȱinȱSamariaȱPalestinaeȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
96)ȱandȱSidonȱinȱPhoeniciaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ290)342.ȱNumerousȱpersonsȱareȱoriginallyȱfromȱ
Bithynia:ȱfromȱProusaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ368,ȱ308),ȱandȱProusias/Hypiosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ248,ȱ462)343,ȱ
Nicomediaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 129,ȱ 281,ȱ 328,ȱ 256,ȱ 259),ȱ Heracleaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 57,ȱ 235),ȱ Caesareiaȱ
andȱTiusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ129)344.ȱ TheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱAlexandriniȇsȱassociationȱ(ΓϨΎΓΖȱΘЗΑȱ
̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑ,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 153)ȱ meansȱ itsȱ membersȱ wereȱ mainly,ȱ ifȱ notȱ exclusively,ȱ
merchantsȱ andȱ shipownersȱ fromȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ Egyptianȱ town.ȱ Concerningȱ
someȱ nominaȱ Aegyptiaȱ graecata345ȱ weȱ quoteȱ ̝ΐΐЏΑ΍ΓΖ,ȱ ̝ΑΓΙΆϟΝΑ,ȱ ̈ϢΗϟΈΝΕΓΖȱ
(͑ΗϟΈΝΕΓΖ),ȱ ̕΅ΆΉϟΟ΋,ȱ ̕΅Ε΅ΔϟΝΑȱ (̕ΉΕ΅ΔϟΝΑ),ȱ ̕ΉΕ΅ΔϱΈΝΕoΖ,ȱ ̕νΔΔΝΑ.ȱ Amongȱ
theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Easternȱ origin,ȱ weȱ noticeȱ someȱ nominaȱ Asianaȱ asȱ ̡ΘΘ΅ΏΓΖȱ attestedȱ
manyȱ timesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 340,ȱ 459,ȱ 70);ȱ ̡ΔΠ΋ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 238)346,ȱ ̡ΠΠΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 282),ȱ
̇ΣΈ΅Ζȱ (Dada,ȱ inȱ Latinȱ inscriptions:ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 18,ȱ 26,ȱ 295,ȱ 137)347.ȱ Otherȱ nominaȱ
Asianaȱ inȱ Tomisȱ areȱ ̇Σ΋ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 125),ȱ ̋΍Ο΍ΗΣΘΘ΅ȱ andȱ ̍ϟ΅ΘΘ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 307)348,ȱ
̐΅Α΅Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 83),ȱ ̓΅ΔκΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 26ȱ andȱ 125),ȱ ̓΅ΔΉϟ΅Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 362);ȱ Iranianȱ
namesȱ ̌Ε΅ΗΘ΅ΐΓΖ,ȱ ̄Έ΍΅·ΓΖ,ȱ ̄ΆΕ΅·ΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 313)349;ȱ aȱ Semiticȱ name,ȱ ifȱ notȱ aȱ
Jewishȱone,ȱSambatisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ367).ȱ
342
ȱ Forȱ anotherȱ foreignersȱ fromȱ Sydonȱ establishedȱ here,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ
A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ169;ȱ AEȱ (1995),ȱ 1343ȱ =ȱ SCIVAȱ 48ȱ (1997),ȱ 4,ȱ no.ȱ 717ȱ
(Cronica).ȱ
343
ȱ Forȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 298,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ D.ȱ Sluóanschi,ȱ Tomitanaȱ Graeca,ȱ Ponticaȱ 21Ȭ22ȱ (1988Ȭ1989),ȱ
p.ȱ307ȱ(SEGȱ39,ȱ679).ȱ
344
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 406Ȭ409,ȱ index;ȱ R.ȱ Curc©,ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ „Orientaux”ȱ dansȱ laȱ
Dobroudjaȱromaine.ȱUneȱapprocheȱonomastique,ȱînȱEthnicȱContactsȱandȱCulturalȱExchangesȱNorthȱ
andȱ Westȱ ofȱ theȱ Blackȱ Seaȱ fromȱ theȱ Greekȱ Colonizationȱ toȱ theȱ Ottomanȱ Conquestȱ (ed.ȱ V.ȱ
Cojocaru),ȱ Iaói,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 313Ȭ329.ȱ Addȱ L.ȱ Ruscu,ȱ Dieȱ Beziehungenȱ zwischenȱ denȱ Stätdenȱ inȱ
Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ undȱ derȱ Provinzȱ Dakien,ȱ ibidem,ȱ p.ȱ 273Ȭ276.ȱ ȱ Seeȱ inȱ detailȱ atȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ
Prosopographiaȱ Pontiȱ Euxiniȱ externa,ȱ underȱ printȱ inȱ theȱ collectionȱ „Colloquiaȱ Antiqua”ȱ
(Louvain);ȱ idem,ȱ Lesȱ Bithyniensȱ enȱ Thrace,ȱ enȱ Mésieȱ Inférieureȱ etȱ dansȱ leȱ Pontȱ Nordȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ
impériale,ȱ inȱ Actesȱ duȱ Colloqueȱ Internationalȱ deȱ Besançonȱ 26Ȭ27ȱ nov.,ȱ 2010ȱ (underȱ print);ȱȱ
thereȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ noticedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ theȱ availabilityȱ toȱ admitȱ theȱ citizenshipȱ toȱ theȱ Bithinians,ȱ
possibleȱmainlyȱtoȱthoseȱofȱNicomedia.ȱ
345
ȱSeeȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ387;ȱtheȱEasternȱnamesȱareȱ19ȱ(3.29ȱ%),ȱcf.ȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ136.ȱ
346
ȱTheseȱareȱtheirȱderivativesȱrichlyȱattestedȱinȱMinorȱAsiaȱandȱtheȱPonticȱarea,ȱmaybeȱ
hypocoristicȱwithȱparallelȱformsȱinȱallȱlanguages;ȱtoȱseeȱtheȱcommentaryȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱISMȱ
III,ȱp.ȱ411;ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ392.ȱȱ
347
ȱ Dadaȱ isȱ aȱ hypocoristicȱ name,ȱ attributedȱ frequentlyȱ toȱ theȱ Thracianȱ onomatology;ȱ
butȱ itȱ appearsȱ oftenȱ inȱ theȱ Ponticȱ Greekȱ cities;ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 380Ȭ381.ȱ Mamaȱ isȱ
alsoȱ aȱ hypocoristic;ȱ thisȱ nameȱ belongsȱ toȱ manyȱ wordȱ stocks,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Thracianȱ one;ȱȱȱ
D.ȱDetschew,ȱDieȱthrakischenȱSprachreste,ȱWien,ȱ1957,ȱp.ȱ284.ȱ
348
ȱ Theȱ lastȱ twoȱ appearȱ onȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ territory,ȱ atȱ Valulȱ luiȱ
Traian;ȱforȱthemȱitȱisȱalsoȱsuggestedȱaȱThracianȱorigin,ȱseeȱISMȱIIȱ307ȱandȱp.ȱ291.ȱ
349
ȱ Seeȱ L.ȱ Robert,ȱ RÉGȱ 73ȱ (1960),ȱ p.ȱ 178,ȱ I.I.ȱ Russu,ȱ Noteȱ epigraficeȱ (Epigraphicalȱ notes),ȱ
StClsȱ8ȱ(1966),ȱp.ȱ226Ȭ227.ȱ
164ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ personsȱ withȱ Thracianȱ namesȱ (almostȱ 28ȱ ofȱ 800ȱ recordedȱ
names)350:ȱ ̕ΉϾΟ΋Ζ,ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 165),ȱ ̕ΎϟΕΘΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 344)351,ȱ ̕ϱΏ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 330),ȱ
Curitthieȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ303),ȱDaciscusȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ352)ȱandȱZilesȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ303).ȱMostȱofȱthemȱ
areȱ doubleȱ Greekȱ nativeȱ namesȱ (̝ΑΘ΍·ϱΑ΋ȱ ̄ЁΏΓΗΣΑ΍Ζ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 165)ȱ orȱ withȱ aȱ
Greekȱ structureȱ (̍ΓΙΟϟ΅Ζȱ ̍΅ΏΏ΍ΎΕΣΘΓΙ,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 468;ȱ ̅ΓϾΘΉ΍Ζȱ ̽ΕΓΒνΑΓΙ,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
125;ȱ ̐΅΍νΘΝΑȱ ̇ΉΎΉΆΣΏΓΙȱ )352.ȱ Theȱ Thracianȱ namesȱ areȱ alsoȱ romanized,ȱ aȱ
consequenceȱofȱRomanȱcitizenshipȱstatus:ȱAureliusȱDaleniȱandȱAureliaȱUthisȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ266)353,ȱTiberiusȱClaudiusȱMucasiusȱ(ISMȱIIȱ128)354.ȱ
Theȱoccupationsȱofȱtheȱpopulation355ȱareȱmainlyȱorientatedȱtoȱnavigationȱandȱ
trade356.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ hadȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ raiseȱ forȱ discussionȱ „Alexandriniȇsȱ
association”,ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ 160ȱ ADȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 153).ȱ Twoȱ otherȱ
inscriptions,ȱ alsoȱ fromȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ mentionȱ aȱ Tomitanȱ shipownerȇsȱ
association,ȱ ϳȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ πΑȱ ̖ϱΐΉ΍ȱ Α΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 60)357ȱ orȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ
Α΅ΙΎΏφΕΝΑȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 132)358.ȱ Besideȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ shipownerȇsȱ collegiumȱ areȱ
350
ȱ Includingȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ territory;ȱ seeȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 383.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ Thracianȱ namesȱ ofȱ
Tomisȱ (15)ȱ andȱ itsȱ territoryȱ (6),ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ inȱ Actesȱ duȱ II e ȱ Congrèsȱ
Internationalȱ deȱ Thracologie,ȱ II,ȱ Bucarest,ȱ 1980,ȱ p.ȱ 281Ȭ287.ȱ Atȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ ArhMoldȱ 19ȱ
(1996),ȱp.ȱ136,ȱofȱ739ȱanthroponymsȱfromȱTomis,ȱ4ȱ(0.69ȱ%)ȱareȱThracianȱandȱ4ȱasȱwellȱ(0.69ȱ
%)ȱtoȱbeȱThracized.ȱ
351
ȱTheȱsecondȱnameȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱbeȱIllyrian;ȱseeȱalsoȱI.I.ȱRussu,ȱIllyriiȱ(TheȱIllyrians),ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1969,ȱp.ȱ246.ȱ
352
ȱ Attestedȱ moreȱ recentlyȱ inȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ territory,ȱ atȱ Topraisar,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ
Numeleȱ ̇ΉΎνΆ΅ΏΓΖ ȱ peȱ oȱ inscripöieȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Theȱ nameȱ ̇ΉΎνΆ΅ΏΓΖȱ onȱ anȱ
inscriptionȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Dobruja),ȱ ThracoȬDacicaȱ 11ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 5Ȭ9;ȱ C.C.ȱ Petolescu,ȱ IDRE,ȱ
II,ȱ348.ȱ
353
ȱ Theȱ inscriptionȱ appearsȱ inȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ 237ȱ becauseȱ theȱ textȱ mentionsȱ vicusȱ Amlaidina,ȱ
integratedȱtoȱtheȱterritoryȱofȱKallatis;ȱD.ȱDetschew,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ114ȬDalenus;ȱI.ȱI.ȱRussu,ȱLimbaȱ
tracoȬdacilorȱ(ThracoȬDacianȱlanguage),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1967,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101.ȱ
354
ȱTheseȱinscriptionsȱwereȱfoundȱinȱtheȱterritoryȱtooȱ(Tomitanȱthisȱtime),ȱatȱUrluchioiȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 266),ȱ Mihailȱ Kog©lniceanuȱ (vicusȱ Clementianensis,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 191:ȱ Castusȱ Mucapori)ȱ
andȱatȱPoartaȱAlbaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ128).ȱ
355
ȱ Forȱ detailedȱ informationȱ aboutȱ thatȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ passim.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ
names,ȱseeȱalsoȱV.ȱCojocaru,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ146Ȭ147.ȱ
356
ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Comeröȱ óiȱ navigatoriȱ laȱ Pontulȱ Stângȱ óiȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ
/TradeȱandȱnavigatorsȱatȱtheȱLeftȱPontȱandȱLowerȱDanubeȱ(theȱ1 st Ȭtheȱ3 rd ȱcentuiesȱAD),ȱIaói,ȱ2002;ȱ
idem,ȱEconomieȱóiȱsocietateȱînȱspaöiulȱpontoȬegeanȱ(sec.ȱIIȱa.C.ȱȬȱIIIȱp.C.)ȱ/EconomyȱandȱSocietyȱinȱ
theȱ PonticȬAegeanȱ areaȱ (theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ BCȬ3 rd ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ Iaói,ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 105Ȭ119;ȱ idem,ȱ Notesȱ
surȱ laȱ ΎΓ΍néȱ commercialeȱ duȱ Pontȱ Gaucheȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ romaine,ȱ Peuceȱ SN,ȱ 2ȱ (15),ȱ 2004,ȱ p.ȱ 61Ȭ72.ȱ
Forȱ ̖Γΐ(Ή)ϧΘ΅΍ȱ (possibleȱ admittedȱ forȱ aȱ „doubleȱ citizenship”ȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ aȱ longerȱ
stayingȱ inȱ theȱ Leftȱ Pontȱ metropola),ȱ attestedȱ inȱ differentȱ centresȱ ofȱ theȱ Ponticȱ basinȱ orȱ
farer,ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ̕ΘΕ΅ΘϱΑΉ΍ΎΓΖ,ȱ̈Ё΅ΕνΗΘΓΙȱ ̖΍΅ΑϲΖȱϳȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘ΋Ζ,ȱStClsȱ 34Ȭ36ȱ(1989Ȭ
2000),ȱp.ȱ137Ȭ140;ȱidem,ȱProsopographiaȱPontiȱEuxiniȱexterna,ȱp.ȱ223Ȭ226ȱ(mss).ȱȱȱ
357
ȱ Forȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ wordsȱ ΓϨΎΓΖȱ andȱ Α΅ϾΎΏ΋ΕΓΖ,ȱ seeȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ
(1964),ȱp.ȱ108,ȱn.ȱ32;ȱidem,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱnoteȱ32;ȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱComeröȱóiȱnavigaöie,ȱp.ȱ51Ȭ81.ȱ
358
ȱ Theȱ twoȱ associationsȱ ofȱ theȱ navigatorsȱ areȱ differentȱ fromȱ „Alexandriniȱ
association”,ȱ soȱ thatȱ thereȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ threeȱ associationsȱ atȱ Tomisȱ Ȭȱ proofȱ ofȱ itsȱ importanceȱ
forȱtheȱtradeȱbetweenȱprovincesȱofȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱareaȱ(cf.ȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ75);ȱidem,ȱ
Economieȱóiȱsocietate,ȱp.ȱ57Ȭ73;ȱidem,ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ2ȱ(15),ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ67Ȭ70.ȱ
ȱ 165
ȱȱȱ
attestedȱ isolatedȱ shipownersȱ Ȭȱ Α΅ϾΎΏ΋ΕΓ΍ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 186ȱ andȱ 291)359,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ
familyȱofȱforeignȱshipownersȱsettledȱinȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ375).ȱ
Theȱ attributeȱ ofȱ merchantȱ (σΐΔΓΕΓΖ)ȱ isȱ mentionedȱ onȱ aȱ fragmentaryȱ
catalogueȱ ofȱ properȱ namesȱ (professionalȱ association?;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 403)ȱ andȱ onȱ twoȱ
funeraryȱ monumentsȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 462ȱ andȱ 248)ȱ ofȱ someȱ merchantsȱ originaryȱ fromȱ
Prousiasȱ (Bithynia).ȱ Onȱ aȱ limestoneȱ plateȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 463)ȱ isȱ mentionedȱ aȱ wineȱ
merchantȱfromȱAlexandriaȱ(ΓϢΑνΐΔΓΕΓΖȱ̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕϟ΅Ζ).ȱAȱsmallȱgoodsȱ tradeȱwasȱ
practiced,ȱ andȱ thoughȱ theȱ wordȱ ΎΣΔ΋ΏΓΖ360ȱ isȱ notȱ preciselyȱ mentioned,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ
difficultȱ toȱ noticeȱ inȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ merchantȱ onȱ theȱ funeraryȱ
monumentȱofȱaȱforeignerȱoriginallyȱfromȱByzantiumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ257).ȱ
Otherȱ practicalȱ occupationsȱ includeȱ architectureȱ andȱ goldȱ processing.ȱ
Withoutȱ seeingȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theseȱ occupations,ȱ theȱ sameȱ Pontianosȱ
carriedȱonȱbothȱofȱthemȱinȱTomisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ253;ȱΛΕΙΗΓΛϱΓΖȱandȱΦΕΛ΍ΘνΎΘΝΑ)361.ȱ
ȱ
Tribes,ȱinstitutionsȱ
Theȱ civilȱ communityȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ organizedȱ aroundȱ tribes362.ȱ Theȱ
inscriptionsȱ preserveȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ sixȱ Milesianȱ tribesȱ Ȭȱ ̝Ε·΅ΈΉϧΖ,ȱ ̄Ϣ·΍ΎΓΕΉϧΖ,ȱ
ͣΔΏΉΘΉΖ,ȱ̒ϢΑЏΔΉΖ,ȱ̆ΉΏνΓΑΘΉΖȱandȱ̅ΓΕΉϧΖ363,ȱbutȱtheyȱhaveȱnowȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱ
(ifȱ notȱ exclusively)ȱ religiousȱ functions.ȱ Theȱ seventhȱ tribeȱ appearsȱ onȱ theȱ
inscriptionȱ Ȭȱ ΠΙΏχȱ ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑ.ȱ Whenȱ thisȱ tribeȱ wasȱ formedȱ andȱ whoȱ itsȱ membersȱ
wereȱ isȱ notȱ knownȱ precisely.ȱ Weȱ shouldȱ mentionȱ thatȱ ΠΙΏχȱ ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑȱ doesȱ notȱ
includeȱaȱlegalȱaspectȱorȱethnicalȱelement,ȱbutȱwasȱsimplyȱhonorary,ȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱ
newlyȱ createdȱ tribesȱ inȱ otherȱ Greekȱ cities.ȱ Theȱ inscriptionsȱ mentioningȱ ΠΙΏχȱ
ͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑȱ atȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Histria,ȱ Dionysopolisȱ andȱ Odessosȱ areȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ 3rdȱ
centuryȱAD.ȱThisȱtribeȱmustȱbeȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱRomanȱauthoritiesȱsetȱupȱhere,ȱ
beingȱ aȱ recentȱ formation,ȱ calledȱ likeȱ thisȱ honourȱ theȱ mastersȱ ofȱ theȱ world364.ȱ Theȱ
onlyȱ inscriptionȱ attestingȱ thisȱ tribeȱ atȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 256)ȱ isȱ writtenȱ byȱ aȱ Greekȱ
359
ȱ Toȱ dateȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 186ȱ (whichȱ alsoȱ hasȱ aȱ shipȱ representation),ȱ seeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 9ȱ (1965),ȱ p.ȱ 279.ȱ Theȱ monumentȱ isȱ forȱ Theocritos,ȱ Theocritosȱ son,ȱ
shipowner,ȱcalledȱ„theȱking”.ȱAboutȱthisȱsignum,ȱΆ΅Η΍ΏΉϾΖ,ȱseeȱnowȱtheȱcompletionȱtoȱISMȱ
II,ȱ291,ȱcf.ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱL.ȱBuzoianu,ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ394Ȭ396,ȱno.ȱ3.ȱ
360
ȱAboutȱmerchantsȱnamesȱseeȱalsoȱO.ȱBounegru,ȱComeröȱóiȱnavigatori,ȱp.ȱ87Ȭ108,ȱidem,ȱ
NotesȱsurȱlesȱpetitsȱcommerçantsȱdeȱlaȱMésieȱetȱdeȱlaȱThraceȱàȱl’époqueȱromaine,ȱinȱStudiaȱhistoriaeȱ
etȱreligionisȱDacoȬRomanae.InȱhonoremȱSilviiȱSanieȱ(eds.ȱL.ȱMih©ilescuȱ–Bîrliba,ȱO.ȱBounegru),ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ317Ȭ326.ȱ
361
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ IOSPEȱ Iȱ ,ȱ 174,ȱ whereȱ theȱ appearsȱ theȱ architectȱ ̐ΉΎΓΐ[΋ΈΉϾΖ]ȱ ϳȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ
̖ΓΐΉϟΘ[΋Ζ]ȱ (198ȱ AD);ȱ artisansȱ fromȱ Nicomedia,ȱ especiallyȱ sculptors,ȱ workedȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ
westȬPonticȱ area,ȱ seeȱ ISMȱ I,ȱ 374ȱ (Târguóor):ȱ ̘ΓϧΆΓΖȱ ̐΍ΎΓΐ΋ΈΉϾΖ.ȱ Weȱ doȱ notȱ referȱ hereȱ toȱ
occupationsȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ ȱ theatreȱ representationsȱ orȱ theȱ arenaȱ ȱ games,ȱ seeȱ V.ȱ
Cojocaru,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 146.ȱ Forȱ reliefsȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ someȱ personsȱ bearingȱ
volumenȱinȱtheirȱhandsȱandȱtheirȱsignificance,ȱseeȱM.ȱDana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilité,ȱp.ȱ165Ȭ167.ȱȱ
362
ȱ Forȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ tribes,ȱ seeȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 175ȱ sq;ȱ Tomitana,ȱ p.ȱ 56ȱ sq;ȱ
SCIVȱ 16ȱ (1965),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 519ȱ sq.,ȱ Leȱ culteȱ desȱ Dioscuresȱ etȱ lesȱ tribusȱ tomitainesȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ d’unȱ
monumentȱ récemmentȱ publié,ȱ Daciaȱ 10ȱ (1966),ȱ p.ȱ 347Ȭ356;ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ StClsȱ 12ȱ (1970),ȱ
p.ȱ 117ȱ sq.;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ (2010),ȱ p.ȱ 352Ȭ355,ȱ no.ȱ 3ȱ
(completionȱtoȱISMȱII,ȱ251ȱ(„ψȱΚΙ]Ώχȱ̄Ϣ·΍Ύ[Γ]/ΕνΝ[Α…”)ȱ
363
ȱSeeȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ420,ȱindex.ȱ
364
ȱForȱthisȱtribe,ȱseeȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ120ȱsq.ȱ
166ȱ ȱ
ȱ
corningȱ fromȱ Nicomedia,ȱ ̖Ή΍ΐΓΎΕΣΘ΋Ζȱ ̝ΏΉΒΣΑΈΕΓΙȱ whoȱ becameȱ alsoȱ citizenȱ ofȱ
Tomis365.ȱ Theȱ tribesȱ hadȱ anȱ internalȱ structure:ȱ aȱ patronȱ Ȭȱ ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 52ȱ
andȱ123),ȱaȱtribeȱleaderȱȬȱΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ35)ȱorȱΈ΍ΗΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ123),ȱanȱ
administratorȱ Ȭȱ πΔ΍ΐΉΏφΟ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 123)ȱ andȱ aȱ secretaryȱ Ȭȱ ·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϾΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
179ȱ andȱ 95).ȱ Sometimesȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 123)ȱ theȱ sameȱ personȱ hadȱ moreȱ importantȱ
positionsȱinȱtheȱtribeȱorȱhadȱaȱpositionȱoutȱofȱtheȱtribe,ȱimportantȱforȱtheȱcityȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ95)366.ȱȱ
Theȱ cityȱ maintainedȱ itsȱ internalȱ structureȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ period.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ
bodiesȱȬȱtheȱcouncilȱandȱtheȱpeopleȱ(ΆΓΙΏχȱΎ΅ϠȱΈϛΐΓΖ)367ȱcontinuedȱtheirȱactivity,ȱ
beingȱ frequentlyȱ attestedȱ fromȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BC368ȱ toȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ
AD.ȱ Theyȱ hadȱ confinedȱ functions;ȱ theyȱ ruledȱ uponȱ internalȱ problemsȱ andȱ forȱ
externalȱ problemsȱ theyȱ wereȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ theȱ frameȱ ofȱ koinon.ȱ
TheȱRomanȱcitizensȱparticipationȱinȱtheȱcityȱcouncil,ȱandȱtheȱhonoraryȱnominationȱ
ofȱ theȱ titleȱ ΆΓΙΏΉΙΘφΖȱ toȱ theȱ influentȱ persons,ȱ representȱ theȱ mostȱ characteristicȱ
functionsȱofȱtheseȱbodies369.ȱSimilarȱtoȱtheȱdeliberativeȱbodies,ȱtheȱmagistraturesȱofȱ
Tomisȱ wereȱ exclusivelyȱ Greekȱ untilȱ theȱ end;ȱ theȱ archonȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ firstȱ
magistrateȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ61,ȱ70,ȱ96,ȱ150,ȱ273,ȱ390)370.ȱOtherȱtraditionalȱmagistraturesȱareȱ
indicatedȱbyȱtheȱfunctionsȱofȱΦ·ΓΕ΅ΑϱΐΓΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ58,ȱ104,ȱ70,ȱ71,ȱ273),ȱΦΗΘϾΑΓΐΓ΍ȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ21)ȱandȱΘ΅ΐϟ΅Ζȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ57,ȱ70).ȱTheȱinstitutionȱofȱephebesȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱ
theȱ functionȱ ofȱ ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 12,ȱ 26)ȱ orȱ ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱ ΘΓІȱ ΈφΐΓΙȱ
ΘϛΖȱ ΘΉȱ ΠΙΏϛΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 95).ȱ Theȱ directȱ nominationȱ ofȱ theȱ ephebesȱ atȱ Tomis,ȱ
organizedȱ intoȱ ageȱ groups371,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ aȱ ΗΓΠ΍ΗΘφΖ,ȱ reachingȱ aȱ westȱ Ponticȱ
communityȱleadershipȱpositionȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ69)ȱleadsȱusȱtoȱsupposeȱintenseȱactivityȱinȱ
theȱ Tomitanȱ gymnasium.ȱ Newȱ functionsȱ areȱ mentioned:ȱ ΔΣΘΕΝΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ
(ISMȱ II,ȱ 77)ȱ orȱ ΔΣΘΕΝΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΐ΋ΘΕΓΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 101,ȱ 110),ȱ σΎΈ΍ΎΓΖȱ (defensorȱ
civitatis;ȱISMȱII,ȱ61)372,ȱΉЁΔΓΗ΍ΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ–ȱȱpublicȱhighȱpositionȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ79,ȱ298)ȱorȱofȱaȱ
collegiumȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ82).ȱȱ
Theȱ collegia,ȱ inȱ theirȱ turn,ȱ alongsideȱ theȱ commonȱ highȱ publicȱ positionsȱ Ȭȱȱ
σΎΈ΍ΎΓΖ373,ȱ ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 19,ȱ 27),ȱ ΑΓΐΓΠϾΏ΅Βȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 19,ȱ 125),ȱ
·Ε΅ΐΐ΅ΘΉϾΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ16,ȱ23,ȱ25,ȱ82,ȱ125)ȱȬȱhaveȱtheirȱownȱpositions:ȱϡΉΕΉϾΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
26),ȱ ϡΉΕν΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 125),ȱ ϡΉΕΓΎφΕΙΒȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 17,ȱ 19,ȱ 125)ȱ andȱ ΐΙΗΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
90)374.ȱInȱfewȱoccasions,ȱatȱTomis,ȱinȱsomeȱcolleges,ȱweȱfiindȱalsoȱtheȱfunctionsȱofȱ
365
ȱ Butȱ theȱ otherȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ familyȱ haveȱ Romanȱ names:ȱ Olpiaȱ (forȱ Ulpia)ȱ Castaȱ
wifeȱandȱUlpiusȱMartinusȱȬȱson.ȱ
366
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 95,ȱ inscriptionȱ forȱ anȱ anonymusȱ personȱ „phylarchosȱ andȱ gymasiarchosȱ ofȱ theȱ
peopleȱandȱofȱtheȱtribe”ȱ(ΠϾΏ΅ΕΛΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ·ΙΐΑ΅Ηϟ΅ΕΛΓΖȱΘΓІȱΈφΐΓΙȱΘϛΖȱΘΉȱΠΙΏϛΖ).ȱ
367
ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ op.ȱ cit.ȱ (n.ȱ 156),ȱ studiedȱ recentlyȱ theirȱ dutiesȱ andȱ activities,ȱ includingȱ
inȱTomisȱ(seeȱp.ȱ61Ȭ63,ȱ94Ȭ95,ȱ138Ȭ139ȱetc.).ȱ
368
ȱForȱtheȱearliestȱpreservedȱdecrees,ȱdatedȱaroundȱ100ȱBC,ȱseeȱISMȱII,ȱ2ȱandȱ5ȱ(2 nd ȱȬ1 st ȱ
centuriesȱBC).ȱ
369
ȱK.ȱNawotka,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ94Ȭ95,ȱn.ȱ469ȱstudiesȱ25ȱpublicȱtituliȱhonorariiȱofȱTomis.ȱ
370
ȱ Inȱ manyȱ situations,ȱ theȱ ȱ magistratureȱ isȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ aoristȱ participleȱ ofȱ theȱ
verbȱΩΕΛΝ.ȱ
371
ȱISMȱII,ȱ79,ȱl.ȱ6Ȭ7:ȱ…σΚ΋ΆΓ[ΑȱΘЗ]ΑȱΔΕΓ΋·ΓΙΐνΑΝΑȱ(anȱephebeȱofȱtheȱfirstȱgroup).ȱ
372
ȱFunctionȱoftenȱmentionedȱinȱreligiousȱassociationsȱ(Οϟ΅ΗΓ΍);ȱISMII,ȱ17,18,125,468.ȱ
373
ȱSeeȱabove.ȱ
374
ȱ Someȱ religiousȱ functionsȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ mentionedȱ belowȱ atȱ cults;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ V.ȱ Cojocaru,ȱ
op.cit.,ȱp.ȱ143Ȭ144.ȱ
ȱ 167
ȱȱȱ
Έ΋ΐΓΗЏΗΘ΋Ζȱ„theȱsaverȱofȱtheȱdemos”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ19)375ȱandȱΎΓ΍ΑΓΗЏΗΘ΋Ζ,ȱ„theȱsaverȱ
ofȱtheȱkoinon”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ17ȱandȱ23)376.ȱ
Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ position,ȱ frequentlyȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ cityȱ membersȱ ofȱ
theȱwestȱPonticȱΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȱ wasȱthatȱofȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱpresidentȱofȱtheȱcommunity,ȱinȱhisȱ
aspectȱ ofȱ ̴ΒΣΔΓΏ΍Ζȱ (theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ AD)ȱ orȱ ̓ΉΑΘΣΔΓΏ΍Ζȱ (theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ
centuryȱAD)377.ȱ
T.ȱ Flaviusȱ Poseidonius,ȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΦΕΛ΍ΉΕΉϾΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̴Β΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖ,ȱ
Phaidrosȇȱson,ȱpontarch,ȱ appearsȱonȱaȱTomitanȱinscriptionȱfromȱHadrianȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
52,ȱ fromȱ 130Ȭ138ȱ AD),ȱ provingȱ thatȱ theȱ Hellenicȱ federationȱ ofȱ theȱ westȱ Pontȱ wasȱ
functioningȱinȱ thisȱstructureȱduringȱ theȱ timeȱofȱ theȱaboveȱ mentionedȱemperorȱorȱ
duringȱTrajanȱatȱtheȱearliest378.ȱ
Atȱ Tomisȱ –ȱ „theȱ brilliantȱ metropolisȱ andȱ capitalȱ ofȱ theȱ Westȱ Pont”ȱ –ȱ „theȱ firstȱ
magistratureȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellenicȱ Community”ȱ („ΩΕΒ΅ΑΘ΅ȱ ΘΓІȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΓІȱ ΘЗΑȱ ̴ΏΏφΑΝΑ”Ȭȱ
ISMȱII,ȱ97)ȱisȱmentionedȱonȱmanyȱinscriptions,ȱwithȱtheȱnamesȱofȱsevenȱpontarchsȱ
known;ȱ inȱ aȱ fewȱ casesȱ thereȱ isȱ preservedȱ onlyȱ theirȱ positionȱ onȱ theȱ stone.ȱ Weȱ
noticeȱ thatȱ someȱ pontarchsȱ bearȱ theȱ Communityȱ title,ȱ andȱ otherȱ areȱ calledȱ onlyȱ
pontarchs379.ȱTheȱhypothesisȱthatȱtheȱlatterȱcouldȱbeȱlocalȱpontarchs,ȱmembersȱofȱaȱ
councilȱofȱΎΓ΍ΑϱΑ,ȱledȱbyȱaȱΔΕЗΘΓΖȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ380,ȱhasȱbeenȱrefuted381,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
factȱthatȱtheȱ pontarchsȇȱ titlesȱcouldȱbeȱshortenedȱorȱnotȱ onȱinscriptions 382,ȱandȱonȱ
theȱfactȱthatȱtheȱothers,ȱidȱΎΓ΍ΑΣȱofȱtheȱRomanȱOrient,ȱdoȱnotȱofferȱanalogiesȱofȱaȱ
fellowȱleadership.ȱ
Theȱ recentȱ attestationȱ ofȱ aȱ ΔΕЗΘΓΖȱ ΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζȱ atȱ Kallatisȱ (ISMȱ III,ȱ 99;ȱ seeȱ
alsoȱ 100)383,ȱ besidesȱ thatȱ alreadyȱ knownȱ atȱ Histriaȱ (ISMȱ I,ȱ 207)384,ȱ supportsȱ theȱ
375
ȱThisȱpositionȱisȱknownȱforȱKallatisȱasȱwell,ȱseeȱISMȱIII,ȱ32,ȱl.ȱ7ȱandȱp.ȱ283.ȱ
376
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Einȱ neuesȱ griechischesȱ Wort:ȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΓΗЏΗΘ΋Ζ,ȱ StClsȱ 28Ȭ30ȱ (1992Ȭ1994),ȱ p.ȱ
121Ȭ123;ȱseeȱalsoȱISMȱIII,ȱ73ȱ(commentary).ȱ
377
ȱ Supraȱn.ȱ212;ȱseeȱ alsoȱZ.ȱ Gocheva,ȱ Organizationȱofȱ theȱ religiousȱandȱadministrativeȱ lifeȱ
ofȱtheȱWesternȱPonticȱKoinon,ȱinȱStudiaȱinȱhonoremȱChristoȱM.ȱDanovȱUniv.ȱProf.ȱD.ȱDr.ȱcollegaeȱ
etȱ discipuliȱ dedicaveruntȱ (Thracia,ȱ 12),ȱ Sofia,ȱ 1998,ȱ p.ȱ 141Ȭ146.ȱ M.ȱ Tatscheva,ȱ Dasȱ
westpontischeȱ Koinonȱ (2.Ȭ3.ȱ Jh.),ȱ inȱ Machtȱ undȱ Gesellschaftȱ inȱ denȱ römischenȱ Provinzenȱ Moesiaȱ
undȱThracia,ȱ2,ȱSofia,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ190ȱ(inȱBulgarian,ȱsummaryȱinȱGerman).ȱ
378
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Scythicaȱ Minora,ȱ p.ȱ 253;ȱ P.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Klioȱ 75ȱ (1993),ȱ p.ȱ 342Ȭ350;ȱ Al.ȱ
Avram,ȱISM,ȱIII,ȱp.ȱ69,ȱnotesȱ273,ȱ281Ȭ282ȱandȱp.ȱ430.ȱ
379
ȱ Forȱ theȱ completeȱ fistȱ ofȱ theȱ pontarchsȱ seeȱ G.ȱ Mihailov,ȱ Epigraphicaȱ 41ȱ (1972),ȱ p.ȱ 9Ȭ
21;ȱ M.ȱ Musielak,ȱ inȱ Studiaȱ Moesiaca,ȱ Iȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 110Ȭȱ 115.ȱ K.ȱ Nawotka,ȱ Theȱ westernȱ ponticȱ
cities.ȱ Historyȱ andȱ politicalȱ organization,ȱ Amsterdam,ȱ 1997.ȱ p.ȱ 234Ȭ236;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ ISM,ȱ III,ȱȱȱ
p.ȱ67Ȭ71.ȱSeeȱalsoȱL.ȱRuscu,ȱFamiliesȱatȱHistria,ȱTomisȱandȱCallatis:ȱtwoȱprosopographicalȱnotes,ȱ
înȱOrbisȱantiquus.ȱStudiaȱinȱhonoremȱIoannisȱPisonis,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ910Ȭ911.ȱ
380
ȱEm.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ19ȱ(1975),ȱp.ȱ154Ȭ156;ȱG.ȱMihailov,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ33.ȱ
381
ȱ J.ȱ Deininger,ȱ Zurȱ einerȱ neuenȱ Hypotheseȱ überȱ dieȱ Pontarchieȱ imȱ westpontischenȱ Koinon,ȱ
ZPEȱ51ȱ(1983),ȱp.ȱ219Ȭ227.ȱ
382
ȱM.ȱMusielak,ȱ̓ΕЗΘΓΖȱΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Ζ,ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ191Ȭ195.ȱ
383
ȱ Al.ȱ Avram.ȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 69,ȱ n.ȱ 280ȱ andȱ p.ȱ 428Ȭ431:ȱ T.ȱ Aeliusȱ Miniciusȱ Athanaionȱ
attestedȱ inȱ 172ȱ ADȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ sonȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ pontarchȱ originallyȱ fromȱ Kallatisȱ whoȱ
actedȱ inȱ theȱ ‘50sȱ orȱ ‘60sȱ ofȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ AD;ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱ Àȱ
proposȱdesȱpontarchesȱduȱPontȱGauche,ȱAncientȱWest&Eastȱ3ȱ(2004),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ354Ȭ364.ȱ
384
ȱ Theȱ inscriptionȱ isȱdatedȱaroundȱ 140ȱ ADȱ;ȱseeȱ alsoȱ furtherȱ interpretationsȱ aboutȱtheȱ
inscriptionȱatȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱLeȱcorpusȱdesȱinscriptionsȱdȇIstrosȱrevisité,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱȱȱȱȱȱp.ȱ
103,ȱno.ȱ207,ȱp.ȱ98Ȭ99,ȱno.ȱ137.ȱ
168ȱ ȱ
ȱ
olderȱ opinionȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ pontarchȱ ofȱ thisȱ centre,ȱ comparedȱ toȱ hisȱ
successorsȱ inȱ thisȱ positionȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ city385,ȱ theȱ wordȱ ΔΕЗΘΓΖȱ havingȱ hereȱ aȱ
chronologicalȱmeaningȱandȱnotȱhierarchical386.ȱ
SomeȱofȱtheȱpontarchsȱhaveȱalsoȱtheȱpositionȱofȱΦΕΛ΍ΉΕϾΖ,ȱgreatȱpriestȱofȱtheȱ
imperialȱcult,ȱbutȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhetherȱthisȱisȱaȱcivilȱandȱreligiousȱpositionȱforȱ
onlyȱoneȱperson387ȱorȱifȱthereȱwereȱdifferentȱpositions388.ȱ
Aȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 188)ȱ mentionsȱ aȱ personȱ whoȱ wasȱ pontarchȱ
twiceȱ („ΈϠΖȱ ·ΤΕȱ πΔΓΑΘΣΕΛ΋Η΅”),ȱ onȱ anȱ occasionȱ whenȱ heȱ presentedȱ Aresȱ fightsȱȱȱ
(=ȱgladiatorsȱgames),ȱhavingȱasȱaȱfunctionȱtheȱcareȱforȱtheȱimperialȱcult,ȱtheȱmainȱ
dutyȱofȱtheȱcommunity,ȱnotȱexcludingȱotherȱactivities389.ȱ
Theȱ festivalsȱ ofȱ ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑȱ wereȱ heldȱ inȱ Tomis,ȱ butȱ probablyȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ
communityȱ cities,ȱ asȱ atȱ Dionysopolis,ȱ areȱ honouredȱ „ΘϛΖȱ ̓ΉΑΘ΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ
ΆΓΙΏΉΙΘ΅ϟ”,ȱpassingȱoverȱtheȱcityȱ(IGBȱI2,ȱ15ȱandȱ15ȱbis).ȱ
Anȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ attestedȱ aȱ ΆΓΙΏΉΙΘχΖȱ ΘϛΖȱ ̓ΉΑΘ΅ΔϱΏΉΝΖ,ȱ
strengtheningȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ positionȱ inȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ theȱ westȱ Ponticȱ
ΎΓ΍ΑϱΑ390.ȱ
ȱ
Cultsȱ
Informationȱaboutȱtheȱcultsȱofȱtheȱcityȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱepigraphicalȱevidenceȱ
andȱiconographicȱrepresentations.ȱTheyȱallowȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱsomeȱcommonȱ
featuresȱ withȱ thoseȱ ofȱ neighbouringȱ Ponticȱ cities,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ featuresȱ peculiarȱ toȱ
Tomis.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ firstȱ weȱ mentionȱ theȱ inclinationȱ towardsȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Romanȱ
traditionalȱ cults.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ Romanȱ epochȱ thereȱ wasȱ preservedȱ Tomos’ȱ myth,ȱ
Heros,ȱȱȱeponymȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomis391.ȱ
ApolloȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱveneratedȱinȱaȱnewȱhypostasisȱofȱΦ·ΙΉϾΖ392,ȱ„protectorȱ
ofȱ theȱ roads”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 116)ȱ onȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ writtenȱ atȱ theȱ recommendationȱ ofȱ anȱ
oracleȱ (Ύ΅ΘΤȱ ΛΕ΋ΗΐϱΑ)ȱ forȱ theȱ emperorȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ andȱ theȱ Tomisȱ
metropolis.ȱ Theȱ sculpturalȱ monumentsȱ presentȱ himȱ alsoȱ withȱ aȱ cithara393.ȱ Theȱ
sameȱ hypostasisȱ Ȭȱ Kitharodosȱ butȱ alsoȱ othersȱ –ȱ Pythiosȱ andȱ probablyȱ Ietrosȱ andȱ
385
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱScythicaȱMinora,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ256.ȱ
386
ȱP.ȱVeyne,ȱBCHȱ90ȱ(1966),ȱp.ȱ149Ȭ150.ȱ
387
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ StClsȱ 17ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 196Ȭ198ȱ =ȱ Studiiȱ deȱ istorieȱ óiȱ epigrafieȱ (Historyȱ andȱ
epigraphyȱstudies),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1988,ȱp.ȱ178Ȭ180.ȱ
388
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱLatomusȱ24ȱ(1965),ȱp.ȱ85.ȱ
389
ȱ Em.ȱDoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ156Ȭ157;ȱ Al.ȱAvram,ȱ ISMȱIII,ȱ p.ȱ 70;ȱ seeȱalsoȱE.ȱBouley,ȱ
JeuxȱromainsȱdansȱlesȱprovincesȱbalkanoȬdanubiennesȱduȱII Ȭe ȱsiècleȱavantȱJ.ȬC.ȱàȱlaȱfinȱduȱIII Ȭe ȱsiècleȱ
aprèsȱJ.ȬC.,ȱParis,ȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ135;ȱM.ȱDana,ȱCultureȱetȱmobilité,ȱp.ȱ121Ȭ122.ȱȱ
390
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ139Ȭ145.ȱ
391
ȱ Theȱ cityȱ isȱ namedȱ „ΩΗΘΙȱ ̖ϱΐoio”ȱ inȱ aȱ funeraryȱ 2 nd ȱ ADȱ centuryȱ epigramȱ (cf.ȱ A.ȱ
Avram,ȱ C.P.ȱ Jones,ȱ Anȱ actorȱ fromȱ Byzantiumȱ inȱ aȱ newȱ epigramȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ ZPEȱ 178ȱ (2011),ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 126Ȭ134ȱ ȱ (especialyȱ 131Ȭ132ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 17,ȱ 22);ȱ addȱ alsoȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ supra,ȱ n.ȱ 221:ȱ theȱ aboveȱ
mentionedȱheroonȱbelongsȱtoȱTomos,ȱtheȱmyticalȱfounderȱofȱtheȱcity.ȱȱȱ
392
ȱ Forȱ theȱ sameȱ epithetȱ ofȱ theȱ deity,ȱ secȱ alsoȱ ISMȱ III,ȱ 30ȱ andȱ p.ȱ 268ȱ withȱ
bibliography.ȱ
393
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ p.ȱ 68,ȱ no.ȱ 125;ȱ Gr.ȱ Florescu,ȱ Monumentsȱ antiquesȱ duȱ Muséeȱ
RégionalȱdeȱlaȱDobrogeaȱàȱConstanöa,ȱDaciaȱ5Ȭ6ȱ(1934Ȭ1936),ȱp.ȱ433.ȱForȱotherȱrepresentations,ȱ
seeȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ109Ȭȱ111.ȱ
ȱ 169
ȱȱȱ
Propylaiosȱ areȱ mentionedȱ theȱ godȇsȱ representationsȱ onȱ theȱ coins394.ȱ Indirectlyȱ
connectedȱ withȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Apollo,ȱ weȱ noteȱ theȱ gamesȱ inȱ honourȱ ofȱ Pythia,ȱ inȱ
Smyrna,ȱ whereȱ Tomisȱ sentȱ aȱ participantȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 189)395.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ Olympianȱ
deitiesȱ weȱ mentionȱ alsoȱ Zeus,ȱ indicatedȱ byȱ hisȱ patronymȱ „sonȱ ofȱ Cronos”ȱ
(̍ΕΓΑΉϟΝΑ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 197).ȱ Moreȱ numerousȱ isȱ theȱ evidenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ Romanȱ godȱ
JupiterȱwithȱtheȱepithetsȱOptimusȱMaximus.ȱInȱthisȱphrase,ȱtheȱgodȱisȱinvokedȱaloneȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ133Ȭ139)ȱorȱtogetherȱwithȱJunonaȱReginaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ141),ȱDianaȱAugustaȱ(ISMȱ
II,ȱ 143)ȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ Capitolineȱ triadȱ Jupiterȱ Ȭȱ Junoȱ Ȭȱ Minervaȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 142);ȱ weȱ alsoȱ
noticeȱ anȱ associationȱ withȱ Herosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 140)396.ȱ Theȱ deityȱ isȱ representedȱ ȱ atȱȱ
Tomisȱȱinȱȱȱtheȱȱȱclassicalȱȱȱiconographicȱhypostasis;ȱonȱaȱdedicationȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ159),ȱ
theȱ godȱ isȱ recognizedȱ byȱ theȱ eagleȱ representation397.ȱ Onȱ anotherȱ Tomitanȱ
monumentȱ theȱ eagleȱ appearsȱ togetherȱ withȱ aȱ feminineȱ person,ȱ whoȱ canȱ beȱ
Hera/Juno.ȱ Theȱ fragmentaryȱ inscriptionȱ preserves,ȱ ifȱ weȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ editor398,ȱ
Heraȇsȱ name.ȱ Demeterȇsȱ cultȱ epigraphicallyȱ attestedȱ fromȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ BCȱ (ISMȱ
II,ȱ36),ȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱveryȱimportant.ȱTheȱfunctionȱofȱArchiereusȱandȱaȱpriestȱofȱ
theȱ goddessȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ ADȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 59).ȱ Onȱ otherȱ
monumentsȱofȱtheȱsameȱperiodȱDemeterȱappearsȱtogetherȱwithȱAsklepios,ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ
118)ȱorȱPlutoȱandȱKoreȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ150).ȱTheȱEleusianȱtriadȱhasȱaȱfineȱartȱreplicationȱonȱ
aȱ marbleȱ frieze399.ȱ Demeterȱ andȱ ȱ Hermesȱ representationsȱ appearȱ alosȱ onȱ theȱ
Tomitanȱ monetaryȱ issuesȱ (inȱ manyȱ iconographicȱ types)400.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ Olympianȱ
godsȱareȱonlyȱslightlyȱrepresented.ȱPoseidonȱisȱpresentȱonȱaȱvotiveȱmonumentȱwithȱ
theȱwellȬknown,ȱinȱtheȱIonianȱworld,ȱepithetȱHelikoniosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ151)ȱandȱbyȱaȱfineȱ
artȱ representationȱ (theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ inȱ theȱ Westȱ Ponticȱ cities)ȱ fromȱ theȱ 3 rdȱ centuryȱ
AD401.ȱ Hadesȱ andȱ Aresȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ inscriptions;ȱ butȱ theirȱ namesȱ haveȱ aȱ
metaphoricalȱmeaningȱȬȱtheȱfirstȱforȱ„death”ȱorȱ„grave”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ166,ȱ197,ȱ326),ȱtheȱ
secondȱforȱ„gladiatorsȱgames”ȱandȱ„gladiator”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ188).ȱTheȱwordȱHestiaȱcouldȱ
alsoȱhaveȱaȱmeaningȱnotȱnecessarilyȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱdeity:ȱΎ΅ΘΉΗΎΉϾ΅ΗΉΑȱΘχΑȱ
̴ΗΘϟ΅Αȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 132)ȱ couldȱ referȱ preciselyȱ toȱ „fireplace”.ȱ Thoughȱ sheȱ wasȱ notȱ
394
ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Peuceȱ SN,ȱ 1ȱ (14),ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 289ȱ andȱ furtherȱ on;ȱ Florinaȱ Panaitȱ Bîrzescu,ȱ
Iconografiaȱ luiȱApolloȱpeȱ monedeleȱ cet©öiiȱTomisȱ (Apollo’sȱ iconographyȱ onȱ theȱ cityȱofȱ Tomisȱcoins,ȱ
SCIVAȱ61ȱ(2010),ȱ1Ȭ2,ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ88.ȱȱ
395
ȱSeeȱalsoȱE.ȱBouley,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ201,ȱn.ȱ66ȱ(withȱȱreferenceȱtoȱPick,ȱDieȱantikenȱMünzenȱ
vonȱ Dacienȱ undȱ Moesien,ȱ II,ȱ Berlin,ȱ 1910,ȱ 802,ȱ no.ȱ 3108,ȱ taf.ȱ XXI,ȱ Kȱ 26,ȱ Kȱ 31),ȱ ȱ afterȱ that,ȱ
ElagabalȱopenedȱorȱrestoredȱȱPythiaȱgamesȱatȱTomis.ȱ
396
ȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬBoil©,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ inscripöieȱ aȱ luiȱ Q.ȱ Trebelliusȱ Maximus?ȱ (Aȱ Newȱ Q.ȱ
Trebelliusȱ Maximusȱ inscription?),ȱ SCIVȱ 13ȱ (1962),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 415Ȭ419ȱ suggestsȱ theȱ associationsȱ
JupiterȬHercules;ȱthoughȱseeȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ218,ȱno.ȱ12ȱ(Heros).ȱ
397
ȱSeeȱalsoȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱp.ȱ79,ȱno.ȱ154.ȱForȱotherȱartisticȱrepresentationsȱofȱ
theȱgod,ȱseeȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ104Ȭ105.ȱ
398
ȱ Seeȱ N.ȱ Gostar,ȱ inȱ NMESM,ȱ p.ȱ 76ȱ andȱ fig.ȱ 6.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ onlyȱ
inscriptionȱ withȱ theȱ goddessȇsȱ nameȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Forȱ anȱ artisticȱ representation,ȱ seeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Z.ȱCovacef,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ107ȱandȱn.ȱ44ȱ(marbleȱheadȱfragment,ȱ1ȱ st Ȭ2 nd ȱcenturiesȱAD).ȱ
399
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱLaȱTriadeȱEleusinaȱàȱTomis,ȱStCIsȱ4ȱ(1962),ȱp.ȱ281Ȭ290.ȱ
400
ȱM.ȱIacob,ȱCulteȱóiȱzeit©öiȱînȱMoesiaȱInferior.ȱDemetraȱ–ȱevidenö©ȱnumismatic©ȱ(Cultsȱandȱ
deitiesȱinȱMoesiaȱInferior.ȱDemeterȬnumismaticȱevidence),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ355Ȭ371;ȱ
eadem,ȱCulteȱóiȱzeit©öiȱînȱMoesiaȱInferior.ȱ2.ȱHermesȱ–ȱevidenö©ȱnumismatic©,ȱCultsȱandȱdeitiesȱinȱ
MoesiaȱInferior.ȱ2.ȱHermesȬnumismaticȱevidence),ȱPonticaȱ35Ȭ36ȱ(2002Ȭ2003),ȱp.ȱ409Ȭ422.ȱ
401
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱp.ȱ40Ȭ41,ȱno.ȱ63.ȱ
170ȱ ȱ
ȱ
mentionedȱ epigraphically,ȱ Aphroditeȱ isȱ presentȱ atȱ Tomisȱ inȱ nineȱ fineȱ artȱ
representations,ȱ offeringȱ theȱ mostȱ numerousȱ evidenceȱ concerningȱ venerationȱ ofȱ
theȱ goddess.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ representationsȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ typeȱ „Venusȱ pudica”,ȱ
„Genetrix”ȱ orȱ „Afroditaȱ Anadyomene”402.ȱ ̖ϾΛ΋ȱ ΔϱΏΉΝΖȱ ofȱ theȱ coupleȱ Fortunaȱ andȱ
Pontos,ȱ interpretedȱ asȱ ̝ΠΕΓΈϟΘ΋ȱ ̓ΓΑΘϟ΅403ȱ (thereȱ shouldȱ beȱ takenȱ intoȱ
considerationȱ ratherȱ theȱ firstȱ acception,ȱ asȱ aȱ veryȱ complexȱ deity)404.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ
Aphrodite’sȱ ȱ cultȱ intensityȱ isȱ provedȱ byȱ theȱ sevenȱ representationsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ ofȱ
herȱmainȱacolyte–ȱEros,ȱwhomȱweȱmeetȱalsoȱinȱfuneraryȱrepresentations405.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ otherȱ nonȬOlympianȱ deities,ȱ weȱ noteȱ theȱ Dioskouroi,ȱ Dionysos,ȱ
Asklepiosȱ andȱ Nemesis.ȱ Asȱ navigationȱ deities,ȱ theȱ Dioskouroiȱ haveȱ anȱ importantȱ
placeȱinȱtheȱTomitanȱpantheon.ȱOnȱtheȱstatueȱfragmentȱofȱtheȱsculpturalȱdeposit406ȱ
theyȱareȱveneratedȱasȱ„foundersȱofȱtheȱcity”ȱ(ΎΘϟΗΘ΅΍ȱΘϛΖȱΔϱΏΉΝΖ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ122)407.ȱInȱ
theirȱturn,ȱtheȱcivilȱguardȱcommandersȱbroughtȱsacrificesȱforȱtheȱ„cityȇsȱsalvation”ȱ
toȱtheȱGodȇsȱMotherȱandȱtoȱtheȱDioskouroiȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2).ȱTheirȱassimilationȱwithȱtheȱ
Greatȱ Godsȱ ofȱ Samothrakeȱ isȱ assumed,ȱ attestedȱ asȱ suchȱ atȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ
autonomousȱperiodȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ1),ȱandȱmaybeȱalsoȱassimilationȱwithȱtheȱlocalȱdeities.ȱ
TheȱDioskouroiȱrepresentationȱonȱanȱarchitecturalȱelementȱandȱtheȱnumerousȱcoinȱ
representations,ȱsuggestȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱtempleȱforȱdeitiesȱprotectingȱ
navigationȱinȱTomis408.ȱȱTheȱcultȱofȱDionysosȱcultȱisȱespeciallyȱfrequentȱinȱTomis409ȱ
asȱ inȱ theȱ wholeȱ province410.ȱ Theȱ godȱ isȱ mentionedȱ onȱ inscriptionsȱ withȱ lessȱ
commonȱ names:ȱ Ύ΅Ο΋·΋ΐЏΑȱ („theȱ leader”;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 121),ȱ ΔΙΕϟΆΕΓΐΓΖȱ („theȱ
brilliant”)ȱ andȱ Θ΅ΙΕϱΎΉΕΓΖȱ („thatȱ withȱ bullȱ horns”,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 120).ȱ Theȱ cultȱ isȱ
maintainedȱ byȱ manyȱ Οϟ΅ΗΓ΍ȱ ȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ cityȇsȱ lifeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 107).ȱ Thiaseitaiȱ
(namedȱ ΆΣΎΛΓ΍)ȱ areȱ assimilatedȱ withȱ theȱ godȱ himselfȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 120)411ȱ andȱ buildȱ aȱ
402
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 119Ȭ121;ȱ eadem,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ statuet©ȱ aȱ zeiöeiȱ Venusȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ(AȱnewȱstatuetteȱofȱtheȱgoddessȱVenusȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ39ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ339Ȭ344.ȱȱȱ
403
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ16Ȭ24;ȱforȱtheȱlastȱoppinionȱseeȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱContributiȱperȱunaȱstoriaȱ
deiȱcultiȱeȱdell’arteȱnellaȱTomiȱd’etàȱromana,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ175.ȱ
404
ȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱTheȱtreasuryȱofȱȱsculpturesȱfromȱTomis.ȱTheȱcultȱinventaryȱofȱaȱ
temple,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ53ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ31.ȱ
405
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 121Ȭ122;ȱ eadem,ȱ Quelquesȱ aspectsȱ deȱ l’artȱ funéraireȱ
romainȱ àȱ Tomi,ȱ Ponticaȱ 7ȱ (1974),ȱ p.ȱ 303Ȭ305,ȱ fig.ȱ 5Ȭ7;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Relaöiileȱ provincieiȱ Scythiaȱ
Minorȱ cuȱ Asiaȱ Mic©,ȱ Siriaȱ óiȱ Egiptulȱ (Scythiaȱ Minor’sȱ relationsȱ withȱ Asiaȱ Minor,ȱ Syriaȱ andȱ
Egypt),ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ257Ȭ260ȱandȱfig.ȱ6ȱ(4 thȱ centuryȱAD). ȱ
406
ȱSeeȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ90Ȭ93,ȱfig.ȱ46Ȭ47.ȱForȱotherȱrepresentationsȱadd:ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱOȱnou©ȱ
reprezentareȱ aȱ Dioscurilorȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Aȱ newȱ Dioskouroiȱ representationȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ SCIVAȱ 22ȱ
(1971),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ337Ȭ339;ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ123Ȭ124.ȱ
407
ȱSeeȱJ.ȱBabelon,ȱLesȱDioscuresȱàȱTomis,ȱinȱMélangesȱCh.ȱPicard,ȱRA,ȱ1949,ȱp.ȱ24Ȭ33.ȱ
408
ȱ I.ȱ Stoian,ȱ SCIVȱ 16ȱ (1965),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 523;ȱ M.ȱ Iacob,ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 1ȱ (14),ȱ 2003,ȱ p.ȱ 289Ȭ326;ȱ Z.ȱ
Covacef,ȱ Templeleȱ Tomisuluiȱ (Theȱ templesȱ ofȱ Tomis),ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 161;ȱ M.ȱ
Oppermann,ȱDerȱDioskurenkultȱimȱOstbalkanraumȱzwischenȱDonauȱundȱRhodopen,ȱinȱAntiquitasȱ
IstroȬPontica,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ445Ȭ452ȱandȱpl.ȱIȬIII.ȱ
409
ȱBesideȱtheȱepigraphicalȱmonuments,ȱseeȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ30;ȱC.ȱScorpan,ȱReprezent©riȱ
bacchiceȱ (Bacchusȱ representations),ȱConstanöaȱ 1966,ȱ passim;ȱ G.ȱBordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ nos.ȱ106,ȱ
107,ȱ 111,ȱ 113Ȭ116;ȱ otherȱ referenceȱ inȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 147;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭȱ
131;ȱeadem,ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱȱ
410
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ234Ȭ266.ȱ
411
ȱ Theȱ associationȱ isȱ foundedȱ byȱ aȱ woman,ȱ Paso,ȱ anȱ uncommonȱ situation;ȱ seeȱ I.ȱ
Stoian,ȱISMȱII,ȱp.ȱ147.ȱ
ȱ 171
ȱȱȱ
statueȱ toȱ theȱ godȱ probablyȱ inȱ localȱ workshops412.ȱ Theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ withȱ
twoȱessentialȱelementsȱȬagriculturalȱandȱmysticalȱȬȱhasȱbeenȱfrequentlyȱstudied413.ȱ
Besideȱ Dionysosȱ andȱ Demeterȱ thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ otherȱ agriculturalȱ deities,ȱ theȱ Nymphsȱ
andȱArtemis,ȱasȱaȱRosaliaȱfestivalȱwasȱknownȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ370)414.ȱAsklepiosȱisȱpresentȱonȱ
twoȱdedicationsȱtogetherȱwithȱHygeiaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ117)ȱandȱDemeterȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ118).ȱTheȱ
deityȱ isȱ representedȱ alsoȱ inȱ fineȱ arts,ȱ aloneȱ orȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ otherȱ healthȱ
deities415.ȱ Weȱ noteȱ aȱ possibleȱ representationȱ ofȱ Asklepiosȱ atȱ Tomisȱ asȱ Glykon416ȱ
Nemesisȱ appearsȱ inȱ numerousȱ fineȱ artȱ representations:ȱ inȱ aȱ doubleȱ hypostasisȱ onȱ
anȱaediculaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ148)ȱandȱinȱtwoȱstatuettesȱincludedȱinȱtheȱiconographicalȱtypesȱ
specificȱ forȱ theȱ venerationȱ ofȱ theȱ goddessȱ atȱ Smyrna 417.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ
representationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ goddessȱ atȱ Tomisȱ allowsȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ ofȱ theȱ existenceȱ
thereȱofȱaȱnemeseion418.ȱ
Amongȱtheȱheroes,ȱHeraclesȱisȱpresentȱonȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱreliefsȱandȱstatues 419.ȱ
Itȱ hasȱ evenȱ beenȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ templeȱ inȱ Tomis:ȱ twoȱ columnsȱ onȱ
whichȱ thereȱ areȱ paintedȱ scenesȱ ofȱ Herculesȇȱ laboursȱ couldȱ onlyȱ comeȱ fromȱ aȱ
templeȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱhero420.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ orientalȱ deities,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ godsȱ wereȱ theȱ mostȱ
frequentlyȱvenerated.ȱEvenȱfromȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱBC,ȱtheirȱpopularityȱincreasedȱinȱ
theȱfollowingȱcenturies.ȱInȱtheȱtimeȱofȱAntoninusȱPiusȱandȱMarcusȱAureliusȱtheirȱ
prestigeȱwasȱprobablyȱincreasedȱbyȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱΓϨΎΓΖȱΘЗΑȱ̝ΏΉΒ΅ΑΈΕνΝΑ.ȱ
Theirȱ penetrationȱ ofȱ theirȱ cultȱ (andȱ especiallyȱ thatȱ ofȱ Sarapis)ȱ seemsȱ toȱ occurȱ
despiteȱ theȱ officialȱ propagandaȱ andȱ dueȱ toȱ peopleȇsȱ journeysȱ andȱ goodsȱ
412
ȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ inscriptionȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 120)ȱ thereȱ areȱ mentionedȱ theȱnamesȱofȱ twoȱ artistsȬ
workers,ȱ(theȱsonȱof)ȱParmisȱandȱHermogenes.ȱ
413
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ op.ȱ cit.;ȱ Alexandraȱ ktefan,ȱ Cultulȱ luiȱ Dionysosȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ nordȱ siȱ vestȬ
ponticeȱînȱepocileȱgreac©ȱóiȱroman©,ȱînȱluminaȱmonumentelorȱepigraficeȱóiȱfigurateȱ(Dionysiacȱcultȱ
inȱ theȱ northȱ andȱ westȱ Ponticȱ citiesȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Romanȱ Agesȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ epigraphicalȱ andȱ
figurativeȱmonuments),ȱtheȱabstractȱofȱtheȱPh.D.ȱthesis,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1978.ȱSeeȱalsoȱR.M.ȱFeraru,ȱ
S©rb©toriȱ Dionysiaceȱ înȱ cet©öileȱ greceótiȱ dinȱ Pontulȱ Stângȱ (Dionysos’ȱ festivalsȱ inȱ theȱ Leftȱ Pontȱ
Greekȱcities),ȱ Ponticaȱ37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ p.ȱ239Ȭ252;ȱ M.ȱ AlexandrescuȱVianu,ȱ Surȱ lesȱ mystèresȱ
dionysiaquesȱ àȱ Tomis,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 51ȱ (2007),ȱ p.ȱ 221Ȭ226;ȱ eadem,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 53ȱ (2009),ȱ p.ȱ 31Ȭ33ȱ
(withȱdetailsȱ aboutȱ theȱepithetsȱ assignedȱ toȱ theȱdivinity);ȱ seeȱalsoȱL.ȱ Ruscu,ȱPergamenischesȱ
anȱ derȱ westpontischenȱ Küste,ȱ inȱ Antiquitasȱ IstroȬPontica.ȱ Mélangesȱ d’archéologieȱ etȱ d’histoireȱ
ancienneȱ offertsȱ àȱ Alexandruȱ Suceveanu,ȱ ClujȬNapoca,ȱ 2010,ȱ p.ȱ 51Ȭ58.ȱ Forȱ ȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ
Dionysosȱonȱcoins,ȱseeȱȱM.ȱIacob,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ289Ȭ326.ȱ
414
ȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ88,ȱnotesȱ122Ȭ127.ȱ
415
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ42Ȭ44;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱp.ȱ16Ȭ18,ȱnos.ȱ6,ȱ7,ȱ9,ȱ10.ȱ
416
417
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ165Ȭ167ȱandȱfig.ȱ11Ȭ12;ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ144Ȭ
145;ȱaddȱaȱsmallȱbasȬreliefȱofȱtheȱdeityȱforȱwhichȱseeȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱReliefuriȱinediteȱdinȱMuzeulȱ
deȱ arheologieȱ Constanöaȱ (Unpublishedȱ reliefsȱ fromȱ Constanöaȱ Archaeologicalȱ Museum),ȱ Ponticaȱ 5ȱ
(1972),ȱp.ȱ519,ȱno.ȱ5.ȱ
418
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ144.ȱ
419
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ passim;ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ privindȱ cultulȱ luiȱ Herculeȱ inȱ
Scythiaȱ Minorȱ (Contributionsȱ concerningȱ Herculesȇȱ cultȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor),ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ
391Ȭ428;ȱChr.ȱktirbulescu,ȱIlȱcultoȱd’ErcoleȱnellaȱprovinciaȱMoesiaȱInferiore.ȱIȱbassorelieviȱvotivi,ȱ
inȱAntiquitasȱIstroȬPontica,ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ463Ȭ489ȱandȱpl.ȱIȬIII.ȱ
420
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ148;ȱeadem,ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ3Ȭ4ȱ(2005Ȭ2006),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ168.ȱ
172ȱ ȱ
ȱ
exchange421.ȱ Theȱ Egyptianȱ godsȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ groupsȱ inȱ epigraphsȱ Ȭȱ Sarapis,ȱ
Isis,ȱ Anubisȱ Ȭȱ inȱ associationȱ withȱ „allȱ gods”ȱ (Γϡȱ ΟΉΓϠȱ ΔΣΑΘΉΖ;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 154)422.ȱ Aȱ
votiveȱ monumentȱ isȱ madeȱ forȱ theȱ „greatȱ godȱ Sarapis”ȱ andȱ „theȱ godsȱ veneratedȱ
togetherȱwithȱhimȱinȱtheȱsameȱtemple”ȱ(ΓϡȱΗϾΑΑ΅Γ΍ȱΟΉΓϟ;ȱISMȱII,ȱ153)423;ȱanȱinscriptionȱ
fromȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ ADȱ mentionsȱ aȱ priestȱ ofȱ Sarapisȱ andȱ Isisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 37).ȱ Inȱ
connectionȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Isis,ȱ weȱ knowȱ theȱ goddessȱ celebrationȱ Ȭȱ
Λ΅ΕΐϱΗΙΑ΅ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 7)ȱ andȱ moreȱ preciselyȱ withȱ theȱ ceremoniesȱ includedȱ inȱ
navigiumȱ Isidis;ȱ weȱ findȱ aȱ fraternityȱ ofȱ believersȱ ȬϡΉΕΓΑ΅ІΘ΅΍Ȭ,ȱ withȱ aȱ „priestȱ ofȱ
pastophoroi”ȱ(Δ΅ΘχΕȱΘЗΑȱΔ΅ΗΘΓΠϱΕΝΑ)ȱandȱaȱ„president”ȱ(ΔΕΓΗΘΣΘ΋ΖȱΘΓІȱΎΓ΍ΑΓІ,ȱ
(?)ȱ or,ȱratherȱΘΓІȱΓϥΎΓΙ;ȱ ISMȱII,ȱ98).ȱTheȱsameȱEgyptianȱdeitiesȱareȱrepresentedȱinȱ
fineȱarts.ȱSarapisȱappearsȱalone424ȱorȱaccompaniedȱbyȱIsisȱandȱHarpocrates425.ȱIsisȱisȱ
representedȱinȱtwoȱbusts,ȱoneȱfromȱFlavianȱperiod426,ȱtheȱsecondȱfromȱtheȱmiddleȱ
ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ ADȱ (240Ȭ250ȱ AD),ȱ similarȱ toȱ Sabiniaȱ Tranquillinaȇsȱ portrait427.ȱ
Osirisȇȱrepresentationȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱonȱaȱvotiveȱaltarȱfromȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱAD428.ȱ
BesideȱtheȱEgyptianȱcults,ȱothersȱoriginatingȱinȱAsiaȱMinorȱandȱSyriaȱshouldȱ
beȱnoted.ȱCybelaȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱoldestȱdeities429ȱandȱtheȱoneȱwithȱtheȱmostȱnumerousȱ
representations.ȱTheȱgoddessȇsȱnameȱ(̏φΘ΋ΕȱΟΉЗΑ)ȱisȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱdecreeȱforȱ
cityȇsȱguardȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ2)ȱandȱonȱmanyȱdedicationsȱfromȱtheȱ2ndȱandȱ3rdȱcenturiesȱADȱ
(ISMȱII,ȱ72,ȱ146)430.ȱDuringȱSeptimiusȱSeverus,ȱaȱthiasosȱforȱCybeleȱwasȱfunctioningȱ
atȱ Tomisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 83);ȱ amongȱ theȱ magistratesȱ withȱ specialȱ dutiesȱ weȱ mentionȱ theȱ
archidendrophoroi431,ȱ aȱ motherȱ ofȱ dendrophoroiȱ (ΐφΘ΋Εȱ ΈΉΑΈΕΓΠóΕΝΑ)ȱ andȱ anȱ
archirabdouchisaȱ(functionȱexpressedȱhereȱbyȱaȱverbalȱparticiple).ȱTheȱworshippersȱ
ofȱ aȱ collegium,ȱ likelyȱ ofȱ Cybeleȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 160)432ȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ
foundȱ notȱ farȱ fromȱ Constanöa433,ȱ sacratiȱ dumi434;ȱ Aur(elius)ȱ Valeria[nu]sȱ paterȱ dumiȱ
421
ȱSeeȱalsoȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱCuȱprivireȱlaȱr©spândireaȱcultelorȱegipteneȱînȱSciöiaȱMic©ȱ(Aboutȱ
theȱspreadȱofȱEgyptianȱCultsȱinȱScythiaȱMinor),ȱinȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ82.ȱ
422
ȱ Theȱ sameȱ deitiesȱ appearȱ onȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ recentlyȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomisȱ withȱ theȱ
epithets:ȱ Serapisȱ Ȭȱ ΎϾΕ΍ΓΖ,ȱ ΌΉϲΖȱ ΐν·΅Ζ;ȱ Isisȱ Ȭȱ ΐΙΕ΍ΓΑϟΐ΅;ȱ Anubisȱ andȱ ΌΉΓϠȱ ΗϾΑΑ΅Γ΍ȱ πΔφΎΓΓ΍ȱ
(theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ inediteȱ dinȱ
Dobrogeaȱ(UnpublishedȱinscriptionsȱfromȱDobruja),ȱPonticaȱ39ȱ(2006),ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ215ȱandȱfig.ȱ5.ȱ
423
ȱ SeeȱalsoȱSIRIS,ȱ 708;ȱadd,ȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Uneȱ inscriptionȱdeȱTomisȱ redécouverteȱ àȱCaen,ȱ inȱ
StudiaȱhistoriaeȱetȱReligionisȱDacoȬRomanae,ȱBucureóti,ȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ277Ȭ283.ȱ
424
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ165,ȱ168.ȱ
425
ȱIbidem,ȱcat.ȱ171ȱ(ȱbasrelief,ȱbutȱprobablyȱoriginatedȱinȱTomis).ȱ
426
ȱIbidem,ȱcat.ȱ170.ȱ
427
428
ȱEadem,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ172.ȱ
429
ȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ228ȱandȱ292.ȱAboutȱtheȱdeityȱalsoȱR.ȱTurcan,ȱCulteleȱorientaleȱ
înȱlumeaȱroman©ȱ(TheȱOrientalȱcultsȱinȱtheȱRomanȱworld),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1998,ȱp.ȱ43Ȭ90.ȱ
430
ȱInȱISMȱII,ȱȱ146ȱisȱnamed:ȱ[̏φΘ΋Ε]ȱπΔφΎΓΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ[ΔΣΑ]ΘΝΑȱΈνΗΔΓ[΍Α΅].ȱȱ
431
ȱSeeȱandȱISMȱII,ȱ119.ȱ
432
ȱ R.ȱ Vulpe,ȱ Aktenȱ desȱ IV.ȱ Kongresseȱ fürȱ griechischeȱ undȱ lateinischeȱ Epigraphik,ȱ Wien,ȱ
1964,ȱ p.ȱ 111ȱ sq.;ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ lectur©ȱ (Lectureȱ notes),ȱ StClsȱ 9ȱ (1967),ȱ p.ȱ 226Ȭ228ȱ
supposedȱitȱisȱtheȱIranianȱgoddessȱAnaitis.ȱ
433
ȱ Inȱ Mihailȱ Kog©lniceanuȱ communeȱ (notȱ excludingȱ theȱ altarȱ cameȱ hereȱ fromȱ Tomis).ȱ
Fromȱ theȱ sameȱ settlementȱ thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ anotherȱ votiveȱ altarȱ offeredȱ asȱ gratitudeȱ objectȱ toȱ
theȱ „Motherȱ ofȱ Gods”ȱ (ΉЁΛ΅Ε΍ΗΘφΕ΍ΓΑȱ ̏΋ΘΕϠȱ ̋ΉЗΑ);ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ W.ȱ
Wisoóenschi,ȱ Pieseȱ epigraficeȱ óiȱ sculpturaleȱ dinȱ teritoriulȱ ruralȱ (Epigraphicȱ andȱ sculptureȱ piecesȱ
inȱruralȱarea),ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ410Ȭ414,ȱȱno.ȱ1.ȱ
ȱ 173
ȱȱȱ
andȱ Fl(avia)ȱ Nona,ȱ materȱ dumi,ȱ dedicatedȱ theȱ monumentȱ toȱ theȱ collegiumȱ prayersȱ
(sacratisȱ dumi),ȱ byȱ theȱ careȱ ofȱ theȱ standardȱ bearerȱ (vixillarius),ȱ Dionusius.ȱ Theȱ
latestȱmonumentȱisȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱgoddessȱbyȱAureliusȱFirminianus,ȱduxȱlimitisȱ
provinciaeȱScythiaeȱinȱ293Ȭ305ȱADȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ144)435.ȱOnȱtheȱsculpturalȱmonumentsȱtheȱ
goddessȱ isȱ representedȱ alone,ȱ withȱ Attis436ȱ orȱ suroundedȱ byȱ choribants.ȱ Theȱ
stylisticalȱandȱtypologicalȱunityȱofȱtheȱrepresentationsȱarousesȱtheȱhypothesisȱthatȱ
aȱprocuctionȱcentreȱcouldȱhaveȱexistedȱatȱTomis437.ȱ
Theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Glykonȱ godȬserpent,ȱ asȱ ȱ Asklepiosȇȱ hypostasis,ȱ establishedȱ byȱ
Alexandrasȱ fromȱ Abonuteichos,ȱ isȱ supportedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ byȱ aȱ sculpturalȱ pieceȱ
consideredȱ uniqueȱ inȱ itsȱ artisticȱ andȱ iconographicalȱ mannerȱ ofȱ representation438.ȱ
Jupiterȇsȱ syncretismȱ withȱ Baalȱ ofȱ Dolicheȱ isȱ Jupiterȱ Dolichenus.ȱ Thisȱ ȱ cultȱ
penetratedȱtoȱTomisȱdueȱtoȱSyrianȱmerchantsȱandȱsoldiers,ȱtheȱcultȱhadȱaȱcollegeȱ
ofȱpriestsȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ292)ȱandȱvotiveȱstatuettesȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ158)439.ȱȱ
̋ν΅ȱ ̕ΙΕϟ΅ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ veneratedȱ atȱ Tomis,ȱ byȱ Sosipposȱ ofȱ Callicratesȱ fromȱ
Sydon440.ȱ
TheȱPersianȱdeityȱMithrasȱisȱattestedȱhereȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱ
ADȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ knownȱ Mithras’ȱ monumentsȱ withȱ
inscriptionsȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 454ȱ andȱ 147)ȱ andȱ reliefsȱ withȱ theȱ consacratedȱ imageȱ ofȱ
sacrifice441.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ autochthonousȱ gods,ȱ theȱ Thracianȱ Horsemanȱ (́ΕΝΖȱ orȱ ́ΕΝΑ)ȱ isȱ
theȱbestȱrepresented.ȱTheȱdeityȱbecomesȱaȱcomplexȱcharacter:ȱfuneraryȱgodȱasȱwellȱ
asȱ aȱ greatȱ godȱ inȱ syncretismȱ withȱ otherȱ Greekȱ orȱ Romanȱ deities442.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ
434
ȱ Sacrati,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ aȱ synonymȱ withȱ consacrani,ȱ cultores;ȱ dumusȱ (ΈΓІΐΓΖ)ȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ
someȱepigraphsȱfromȱtheȱThracianȬPhrygianȱculturalȱarea,ȱwhichȱhereȱmeansȱcollegium.ȱ
435
ȱISMȱII,ȱ144:ȱMaterȱdeumȱmagna;ȱISMȱII,ȱ145:ȱMaterȱdeorum.ȱ
436
ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ56ȱ=ȱISMȱII,ȱ453;ȱseeȱalsoȱISMȱII,ȱ119.ȱ
437
ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱCulteleȱorientaleȱinȱpanteonulȱDobrogeiȱromaneȱ(TheȱOrientalȱcultsȱinȱRomanȱ
Dobrujaȇsȱpantheon),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ374Ȭ375.;ȱeadem,ȱLesȱcultesȱthracoȬphrigiensȱ
auȱ BasȬDanube,ȱ inȱ Eightȱ Internationalȱ Congressȱ ofȱ Thracology,ȱ II,ȱ Thraceȱ andȱ theȱ Aegean,ȱ Sofia,ȱ
2002,ȱp.ȱ823Ȭ831;ȱseeȱnow,ȱM.ȱNenninger,ȱDerȱKultȱderȱKybeleȱinȱderȱromischenȱProvinzȱMoesiaȱ
Inferior,ȱ inȱ Pontosȱ Euxeinos.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Archäologieȱ undȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Schwarzmeerȱ
undȱ Balkanraumes,ȱ Manfredȱ Oppermannȱ zumȱ 65.ȱ Geburtstag,ȱ Langenweissbach,ȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 199Ȭ
212.ȱ
438
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ109Ȭ111ȱ;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ12ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ135Ȭ163ȱ;ȱM.ȱIrimia,ȱStatuiaȱ
luiȱ Glykonȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Glykon’sȱ statueȱ atȱ Tomis)ȱ ȱ inȱ Preda’sȱ Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ Art.ȱ
Antiques.Archaeology,ȱ1ȱ(2005),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ88Ȭ105.ȱ
439
ȱTheȱoriginȱfromȱTomisȱisȱuncertain,ȱseeȱISMȱV,ȱ109.ȱ
440
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ27ȱ(1994),ȱp.ȱ166Ȭ168,ȱno.ȱ5.,ȱfig.ȱ5ȱ
441
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 102Ȭ103,ȱ fig.ȱ 53;ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Sculture,ȱ cat.ȱ 182ȱ (Tomis?);ȱ M.J.ȱ
Vermaseren,ȱ Corpusȱ Inscriptionumȱ etȱ Monumentorumȱ Religionisȱ Mithriacae,ȱ II,ȱ 1960,ȱ p.ȱ 263Ȭ
264,ȱ nr.ȱ 2297Ȭ2302;ȱ V.ȱ Bottez,ȱ Quelquesȱ aspectsȱ duȱ culteȱ mithriaqueȱ enȱ Mésieȱ Inférieure,ȱ Daciaȱ
NSȱ 50ȱ (2006),ȱ p.ȱ 285Ȭ296;ȱ aboutȱ theȱ goddessȱ see,ȱ R.ȱ Turcan,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 224Ȭ280;ȱ I.ȱ Moga,ȱ
Mithraȱ înȱ Asiaȱ Mic©ȱ óiȱ înȱ lumeaȱ roman©ȱ (Mithraȱ inȱ Asiaȱ Minorȱ andȱ theȱ Romanȱ World),ȱ Ponticaȱ
37Ȭ38ȱ(2004Ȭ2005),ȱp.ȱ253Ȭ273;ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱsculptural©,ȱp.ȱ165Ȭ166.ȱ
442
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ p.ȱ 219Ȭ224,ȱ N.ȱ Hampartumian,ȱ Corpusȱ Cultusȱ Equitisȱ Thracii,ȱ
IV.ȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ (Rumanianȱ Section)ȱ andȱ Daciaȱ (abrigedȱ CCET),ȱ Leiden,ȱ 1979,ȱ passim;ȱ M.ȱ
Oppermann,ȱ Derȱ Thrakischeȱ Reiterȱ desȱ Ostbalkanraumesȱ imȱ Spannungsfeldȱ vonȱ Graecitas,ȱ
Romanitasȱ undȱ lokalenȱ Traditionen,ȱ Langenweissbach,ȱ 2006,ȱ passimȱ (withȱ aȱ completeȱ
commentaryȱuponȱtheȱdiscoveriesȱandȱtheirȱsignificance).ȱ
174ȱ ȱ
ȱ
epigraphicalȱ materials443,ȱ weȱ noticeȱ aȱ dedicationȱ fromȱ theȱ Severanȱ dynastyȱ madeȱ
byȱ aȱ thiasosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 125)444.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ epithetsȱ expressingȱ theȱ
multipleȱhypothesesȱinȱwhichȱtheȱdeityȱwasȱvenerated:ȱManimazosȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ126)ȱorȱ
Manibazosȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 127),ȱ Irsaios445,ȱ Domnusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 129,ȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ madeȱ byȱ aȱ
Romanȱ fraternity)446,ȱ Invictusȱ etȱ Sacerȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 130),ȱ ̍΅ΘΓ΍ΎΣΈ΍ΓΖȱ (alterationȱ forȱ
Ύ΅ΘΓ΍ΎϟΈ΍ΓΖ,ȱ „domestic”,ȱISMȱII,ȱ131)ȱandȱ̳Δ΍Π΅ΑφΖȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ455).ȱTheȱsyncretismȱ
ofȱ theȱ Heroȱ withȱ theȱ Dioskuroiȱ (perhapsȱ byȱ theȱ syncretismȱ withȱ Cybeleȱ andȱ
Kabires)447,ȱ withȱ Cybele448,ȱ orȱ withȱ Dionysosȱ isȱ wellȬknown449.ȱ Theȱ Thracianȱ
Horsemanȱiconography450ȱisȱwellȱrepresentedȱ byȱtheȱsculpturalȱmonuments,ȱwithȱ
featuresȱdefiningȱtheȱvotiveȱorȱfuneraryȱqualityȱofȱtheȱrepresentations451.ȱ
Weȱ findȱ atȱ Tomisȱ bothȱ monumentsȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ Danubianȱ Horsemen,ȱ aȱ
cultȱ inȱ whichȱ thereȱ areȱ mixedȱ someȱ localȱ beliefsȱ withȱ elementsȱ ofȱ otherȱ cults,ȱ inȱ
representationsȱframedȱintoȱȱBȱandȱCȱdeitiesȱrepresenationsȱclasses452.ȱ
Beforeȱcontinuingȱweȱshouldȱmentionȱtheȱdiscoveryȱinȱ1962ȱatȱTomisȱofȱaȱ24Ȭ
pieceȱ sculpturalȱ deposit453ȱ ofȱ statues,ȱ statuetes,ȱ anȱ aedicula,ȱ votiveȱ reliefsȱ andȱ anȱ
altarȱ ofȱ smallȱ sizes.ȱ Theȱ representationsȱ belongȱ bothȱ toȱ theȱ RomanȬGreekȱ
pantheonȱ (Hecate454,ȱ Selene,ȱ Nemesis,ȱ Tyche,ȱ Charites,ȱ Dionysos,ȱ Asklepios,ȱ
443
ȱTheȱepigraphicalȱdocumentsȱareȱdatedȱfromȱtheȱ1 st ȱcenturyȱADȱuntilȱtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱ
ADȱ(inclusively).ȱ
444
ȱ Theȱ inscriptionȇsȱ importanceȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ mentionedȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ
functionsȱ inȱ theȱ collegium;ȱ alsoȱ shouldȱ beȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ catalogueȱ isȱ theȱ mixtureȱ ofȱ
Greek,ȱRomanȱandȱnativeȱnames.ȱ
445
ȱ Theȱpieceȱ wasȱ foundȱ nearȱConstanöa,ȱatȱOituz,ȱ seeȱCr.ȱMatei,ȱ Herosȱ Irsaios,ȱThracoȬȱ
Dacicaȱ9ȱ(1988),ȱ1Ȭ2,ȱp.ȱ219Ȭ223.ȱ
446
ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ Romanizedȱ orientalȱ individuals;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ
p.ȱ292.ȱ
447
ȱISMȱII,ȱ126ȱandȱp.ȱ157;ȱseeȱalsoȱZ.ȱGo²eva,ȱLeȱculteȱduȱCavalierȱThraceȱdansȱleȱcontexteȱ
deȱ laȱ régionȱ estȬmediterranéenne,ȱ inȱ Eightȱ Internationalȱ Congressȱ ofȱ Thracology,ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ Sofia,ȱ
2002,ȱp.ȱ769Ȭ794.ȱ
448
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ StClsȱ 6ȱ (1964),ȱ p.ȱ 163;ȱ N.ȱ Hampartumian,ȱ CCETȱ IV,ȱ nr.ȱ 35ȱ andȱ 37ȱ
(Tomis).ȱ
449
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ32Ȭ37;ȱISMȱII,ȱ121.ȱ
450
ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 94Ȭ103,ȱ nos.ȱ 18Ȭ21;ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Cavalerulȱ Tracȱ (Theȱ Thracianȱ Horseman),ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ1967,ȱpassim;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱSculture,ȱcat.ȱ206Ȭ209;ȱN.ȱHampartumian,ȱCCET,ȱIV,ȱ
passim;ȱM.ȱOppermann,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱpassim.ȱ
451
ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ sculptural©,ȱ p.ȱ 169Ȭ177;ȱ eadem,ȱ Peuceȱ SN,ȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 168ȱ
(theȱtempleȱofȱtheȱHeroȬTheȱThracianȱRider).ȱ
452
ȱ D.ȱ Tudor,ȱ Corpusȱ Monumentorumȱ Religionisȱ Equitumȱ Danuviorum,ȱ I,ȱ Leiden,ȱ 1969,ȱȱ
no.ȱ 93Ȭ96;ȱ idem,ȱ Uneleȱ aspecteȱ iconograficeȱ aleȱ reliefurilorȱ Cavalerilorȱ Danubieniȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ
Minorȱ (Someȱ iconographicȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ Danubianȱ Ridersȱ reliefsȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor),ȱ Ponticaȱ 5ȱ
(1972),ȱ p.ȱ 503Ȭ511;ȱ addȱ alsoȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ C.ȱ Chiriac,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ iconografiaȱ Cavalerilorȱ
Danubieniȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ iconographyȱ ofȱ theȱ Danubianȱ Ridersȱ inȱ Dobruja),ȱ
ArhMold,ȱ 25ȱ (2003),ȱ p.ȱ 54Ȭ58;ȱ anotherȱ suggestionȱ forȱ theȱ typologyȱ andȱ cronologyȱ ofȱ
monuments,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ inȱ Moesiaȱ Inferiorȱ atȱ ȱ S.ȱ Nemeti,ȱ Sincretismulȱ religiosȱ înȱ Daciaȱ
roman©ȱ(ReligiousȱsyncretismȱinȱRomanȱDacia),ȱClujȬNapoca,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ208Ȭ216ȱȱ
453
ȱSeeȱTezaurul,ȱpassim;ȱG.ȱBordenache,ȱStClsȱ6ȱ(1964),ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ178;ȱeadem,ȱIlȱdepositoȱdiȱ
scultureȱ votiveȱ diȱ Tomi,ȱ Eireneȱ 4ȱ (1965),ȱ p.ȱ 67Ȭ69ȱ ;ȱ M.ȱ AlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 53ȱ
(2009),ȱp.ȱ27Ȭ46.ȱ
454
ȱ Theȱ thesaurusȱ inȱ itsȱ wholeȱ illustratesȱ ȱ entirelyȱ theȱ cultsȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ amongȱ whichȱ
manyȱ areȱ connectedȱ withȱ mysteries,ȱ asȱ showȱ theȱ numerousȱ representationsȱ ohȱ Hecate,ȱ butȱ
ȱ 175
ȱȱȱ
Dioscouroi,ȱHermes),ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱorientalȱdeitiesȱ(Cybele,ȱIsis,ȱGlykon,ȱMithras)ȱ
andȱ localȱ onesȱ (theȱ Thracianȱ Horseman).ȱ ȱ Oneȱ sampleȱ ofȱ theȱ thesaurusȱ canȱ beȱ
consideredȱ asȱ belongingȱ toȱ theȱ moreȱ archaicȱ styleȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellniesticȱ
periodȱ orȱ moreȱ probableȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ epochȱ (1stȱ centuryȱ AD);ȱ
fewȱ monumentsȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ AD;ȱ theȱ dateȱ forȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ theȱ
samplesȱ isȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD455.ȱ Theȱ buryingȱ ofȱ theȱ
piecesȱ withȱ aȱ religiousȱ purposeȱ wasȱ determinedȱ byȱ importantȱ historicalȱ events:ȱ
eitherȱ theȱ Carpicȱ andȱ Gothicȱ attacksȱ fromȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ ADȱ (ofȱ
whichȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ theȱ siegeȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ inȱ 269ȱ AD),ȱ orȱ aȱ periodȱ ofȱ increaseȱ inȱ
theȱconflictȱbetweenȱpaganismȱandȱtheȱascendingȱChristianity456.ȱ
Theȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ deitiesȱ veneratedȱ inȱ Tomisȱ isȱ completedȱ byȱ theȱ
representationsȱonȱcoins457,ȱbyȱfigurativeȱbronzes458,ȱ byȱlamps459,ȱceramicȱstatuettesȱ
andȱevenȱglassȱvessels,ȱmostȱofȱthemȱfoundȱinȱfuneraryȱcomplexes460.ȱ
Amongȱ theȱ lastȱ onesȱ weȱ shouldȱ notȱ forgetȱ Diiȱ Manes,ȱ oftenȱ mentionedȱ inȱ
Tomis,ȱ ȱ asȱ everywhereȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ world,ȱ onȱ funeraryȱ monumentsȱ withȱ aȱ richȱ
symbology461,ȱȱaȱtellingȱproofȱforȱtheȱbeliveȱinȱtheȱworldȱofȱshadows.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Stratigraphyȱandȱurbanismȱ
Theȱ1stȬ3rdȱcenturiesȱADȱareȱstratigraphicallyȱdocumentedȱbyȱthreeȱ
archaeologicalȱlevels462:ȱȱ
ȬȱNȱVI,ȱnoticedȱonȱsmallȱareas,ȱprobablyȱtoȱbeȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ1stȬ2ndȱcenturiesȱ
AD.ȱItȱappearsȱasȱaȱstepȱlevelȱstronglyȱburnt;ȱtheȱfire,ȱnoticedȱinȱsomeȱspots,ȱ
representsȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱaȱviolentȱdestructionȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱAD;ȱ
alsoȱotherȱmonumentsȱfromȱthesaurusȱ(seeȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱop.ȱcit.).ȱHecate,ȱplacedȱ
amongȱtheȱsaviourȱdeitiesȱ(ΗΝΘΉϧΕ΅ȱ̴ΎΣΘ΋)ȱknowsȱaȱcultȱwhereȱthereȱisȱtoȱbeȱdistiguishedȱ
aȱsacerdotalȱhierarchy,ȱseeȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱPaterȱnominosȱînȱcultulȱHecateiȱlaȱTomisȱ
(PaterȱnominosȱinȱtheȱcultȱofȱHecateȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ245Ȭ253.ȱ
455
ȱTezaurul,ȱp.ȱ455;ȱM.ȱAlexandrescuȬVianu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ28ȱ(Hekataionȱ1)ȱandȱp.ȱ46;ȱD.M.ȱ
Pippidi,ȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ303Ȭ307ȱrefersȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ4 th ȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
456
ȱ Bothȱ hypothesesȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ intoȱ considerationȱ inȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 122Ȭ123;ȱ D.M.ȱ
Pippidi,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 307ȱ considersȱ moreȱ plausibleȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ ȇweȱ noticeȱ aȱ
characteristicȱ episodeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ warȇ,ȱ theȱ piecesȱ beingȱ shelteredȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ furyȱ ȇofȱ
theȱChristianȱenemiesȱorȱtheȱimperialȱauthoritiesȇ.ȱ
457
ȱSeeȱabove,ȱn.ȱ400.ȱ
458
ȱM.ȱIrimia,ȱBronzuriȱfigurateȱ(Figurativeȱbronzes),ȱConstanöa,ȱ1966.ȱ
459
ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱOpaiöeȱgrecoȬromaneȱ(GreekȬRomanȱlamps),ȱConstanöa,ȱ1967.ȱ
460
ȱC.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱImporturiȱdeȱvaseȱdeȱsticl©ȱsuflateȱînȱtiparȱdescoperiteȱînȱnecropoleleȱ
Tomisuluiȱ (Blownȱ intoȱ patternȱ glassȱ vesselsȱ importsȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Tomisȱ necropoles),ȱ Pontica,ȱ 25ȱ
(1992),ȱp.ȱ273Ȭ280;ȱC.ȱChera,ȱReprezent©riȱmitologiceȱînȱinventareleȱfunerareȱdinȱTomisȱ(sec.ȱIȬIVȱ
d.ȱ Chr.)ȱ /Mythologicalȱ representationsȱ inȱ theȱ funeraryȱ inventorsȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ (1 st Ȭ4 th ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ
461
ȱ Seeȱ S.ȱ Conrad,ȱ Dieȱ Grabstelenȱ ausȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior.ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ Chronologie,ȱ
TypologieȱundȱIkonografie,ȱLeipzig,ȱ2004ȱ(withȱtheȱbibliography).ȱ
462
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ13,ȱ pl.ȱ I;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papucȱ etȱ alii,ȱ CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108,ȱ23,ȱArhiepiscopieiȱstreet,ȱalsoȱthreeȱarchaeologicalȱlevels:ȱNȱ7Ȭ8ȱ(1 st ȱ
BCȬ1 st ȱ AD),ȱ Nȱ 9ȱ (2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ AD);ȱ anȱ earlyȱ ȱ Romanȱ inhabitanceȱ level,ȱ butȱ stronglyȱ
damagedȱbyȱmodernȱconstructionsȱwasȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱtheȱpeninsulaȱareaȱofȱTomisȱ;ȱseeȱalsoȱ
CCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132,ȱConstanöa,ȱBrâncoveanuȱstreet.ȱȱ
176ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Ȭȱ Nȱ V,ȱ moreȱ difficultȱ toȱ beȱ noticed,ȱ belongs,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ ceramicsȱ
discoveries,ȱ toȱ theȱ 2ndȬ3rdȱ centuriesȱ AD;ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ markedȱ byȱ anyȱ fireȱ orȱ otherȱ
distinctiveȱtraces;ȱ
ȬȱNȱIVȱisȱcharacterizedȱbyȱaȱthickȱfireȱlevel;ȱitȱisȱtheȱthickestȱfireȱlevelȱofȱtheȱ
Romanȱ ageȱ andȱ showsȱ aȱ violentȱ destructionȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ
AD.ȱTheȱceramicsȱonȱthisȱlevelȱisȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱwithȱsomeȱelementsȱ
indicatingȱtheȱnextȱcentury.ȱ
Theȱ archaeologicallyȱ researchedȱ areasȱ preserveȱ littleȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ cityȱ
planning.ȱ Duringȱ anȱ excavationȱ inȱ Ovidiuȱ Squareȱ thereȱ wasȱ notedȱ anȱ intenselyȱ
inhabitedȱ areaȱ fromȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ builtȱ overȱ withȱ anȱ edificeȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ
century463.ȱRatherȱrecentȱexcavationsȱ(1988)ȱinȱaȱneighbourhood,ȱonȱtheȱnorthȬeastȱ
ofȱtheȱaboveȱmentionedȱarea,ȱbroughtȱtoȱlightȱwallȱfragmentsȱunderȱtheȱruinsȱofȱaȱ
largeȱbasilicaȱ;ȱtheȱwallsȱencloseȱanȱellipsoidalȱarea.ȱTheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱwallsȱshowsȱanȱ
arenaȱ ofȱ 55Ȭ60ȱ mȱ inȱ lengthȱ andȱ 30Ȭ35ȱ mȱ wideȱ ȱ havingȱ outsideȱ littleȱ roomsȱ usedȱ
duringȱ theȱ fightsȱ withȱ animals464.ȱ Someȱ limestoneȱ benches,ȱ brokenȱ inȱ ancientȱ
timesȱwereȱretrievedȱfromȱthisȱarea465.ȱ
Weȱmakeȱaȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱdiscoveredȱevidenceȱandȱtheȱinscriptionsȱ
fromȱ theȱ 2ndȱ Ȭȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ ADȱ whichȱ mentionȱ gladiatorialȱ performancesȱ atȱ Tomisȱ
(ISMȱ 96,ȱ 188,ȱ 288,ȱ 341,ȱ 342,ȱ 343,ȱ344,ȱ206)ȱ andȱ beastȱ fightsȱ (ISMȱ IIȱ 96,ȱ 341)ȱ takingȱ
placeȱ inȱ theȱ amphitheatre;ȱ aȱ theatreȱ wasȱ attestedȱ evenȱ fromȱ theȱ autonomousȱ
periodȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ4)466ȱandȱweȱnowȱfindȱoutȱaboutȱanȱassociationȱofȱactorsȱ(ΟΙΐΉΏ΍Ύχȱ
ΗϾΑΓΈΓΖ)467ȱactiveȱduringȱtheȱgreatȱannualȱfestivalsȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ70).ȱȱ
Theȱepigraphicȱandȱnumismaticȱevidenceȱmentionȱotherȱimportantȱbuildings:ȱ
aȱȱȱprecinctȱȱȱwall,ȱȱȱtemples,ȱtrophiesȱȱȱandȱtriumphalȱarches.ȱ
Theȱcityȱdevelopmentȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱandȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱADȱȱ
imposedȱ theȱ extensionȱ ofȱ theȱ inhabitedȱ areaȱ andȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ defenceȱ
wall.ȱTheȱpreciseȱlineȱofȱthisȱwallȱisȱnotȱknown.ȱProbablyȱitȱconnectedȱtheȱeasternȱ
cliffȱ (closeȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ church)ȱ andȱ theȱ westernȱ oneȱ (nearȱ theȱ oldȱ Courtȱ
building)468,ȱ defendingȱ theȱ cityȱ byȱ land.ȱ Onȱ theȱ westȱ cliff,ȱ ȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ theȱ
tracesȱofȱaȱtower,ȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱreusedȱforȱotherȱpurposesȱlaterȱon469.ȱ
463
464
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Recherchesȱ archéologiquesȱ récentsȱ dansȱ leȱ perimètreȱ deȱ laȱ citéȱ deȱ
Tomi,ȱ Étudesȱ Byzantinesȱ etȱ PostȬByzantines.ȱ IIȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (excavationsȱ doneȱ byȱ Tr.ȱ
ClianteȱandȱGh.ȱPapucȱ(unpublished);ȱE.ȱBouley,ȱop.cit,ȱp.ȱ125ȱincludesȱthisȱbuildingȱinȱtheȱ
categoryȱ ofȱ theȱ mixedȱ theatreȱ ȱ (theatre/amphitheatre),ȱ similarȱ toȱ thoseȱ fromȱ Dyrrachium,ȱ
MarcianopolisȱandȱDiocletianopolis.ȱ
465
ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ benchesȱ preservesȱ aȱ basȱ reliefȱ onȱ theȱ frontalȱ sideȱ andȱ aȱ fragmentaryȱ
inscription.ȱ
466
ȱȱSupra,ȱn.ȱ164.ȱ
467
ȱI.ȱStoian,ȱTomitana,ȱp.ȱ176Ȭ177;ȱfromȱaȱfuneraryȱepigram,ȱweȱfindȱaboutȱaȱByzantineȱȱ
namedȱEuelpistos,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱSosos,ȱestablishedȱatȱTomis,ȱappreciatedȱasȱaȱgoodȱreciterȱandȱȱ
songsȱinterpreter;ȱseeȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱC.P.ȱJones,ȱop.ȱcit.ȱ(supraȱn.ȱ391).ȱ
468
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomisȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ târzie,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 51;ȱ idem,ȱ CCA.ȱ Campaniaȱ 2000,ȱ p.ȱ 71:ȱ theȱ tracesȱ ofȱ theȱ wallȱ identifiedȱ
onȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ hotelȱ BTT;ȱ theȱ lineȱ connectedȱ theȱ cliffȱ ofȱ theȱ modernȱ portȱ andȱ
GateȱII.ȱ
469
ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ TomisȬKustendjeȬConstanöa.ȱ Topografiaȱ antic©ȱ tomitan©ȱ înȱ h©röiȱ óiȱ însemn©riȱ
deȱ c©l©torieȱ dinȱ epocaȱ modern©ȱ (sec.ȱ XIXȱ –ȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ XX)ȱ (Theȱ ancientȱ topographyȱ inȱ mapsȱ
ȱ 177
ȱȱȱ
Theȱ defendedȱ areaȱ isȱ doubleȱ ȱ comparedȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ cityȱ area.ȱ Twoȱ
epigraphicalȱ documentsȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 21ȱ andȱ 22)ȱ mentionȱ restorationȱ orȱ completionȱ
worksȱforȱtheȱprecinctȱwall,ȱatȱaȱdateȱtoȱbeȱdeterminedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ2ndȱ
centuryȱADȱ(probablyȱevenȱduringȱMarcusȱAurelius)ȱorȱinȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱA.D470.ȱ
ȱ Takingȱintoȱaccountȱtheȱimportantȱspiritualȱlifeȱofȱtheȱcity,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱ
cultȱ placesȱ shouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ remarkable.ȱ Theȱ cityȱ templesȱ areȱ representedȱ onȱ
coinsȱ datedȱ fromȱ theȱ periodsȱ ofȱ Tiberius,ȱ Nero,ȱ Titus,ȱ Domitian,ȱ Septimiusȱ
Severus,ȱCaracalla,ȱGeta,ȱElagabal,ȱSeverusȱAlexanderȱandȱMaximinus.ȱTheȱcoinsȱ
fromȱ Trajanȱ andȱ theȱ Severanȱ dynastyȱ representȱ trophies,ȱ whileȱ thoseȱ fromȱ
MaximinusȱandȱMaximusȱshowȱtriumphalȱarches.ȱNumerousȱarchitecturalȱmarbleȱ
andȱlimestoneȱfragments,ȱ amongȱwhichȱweȱnoticeȱ alsoȱsomeȱcapitels471,ȱshowȱ theȱ
cityȱ featuresȱ inȱ Tomis.ȱ Manyȱ architravesȱ includeȱ dedicationsȱ toȱ Trajanȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
40,41,ȱ 43,ȱ 44,ȱ 45),ȱ Antoninusȱ Piusȱ andȱ Marcusȱ Aureliusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 55),Septimiusȱ
Severusȱ andȱ theȱ imperialȱ familyȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 84)472.ȱ Theȱ monumentalityȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ
duringȱ theȱ Severanȱ periodȱ isȱ wellȬknown,ȱ justifyingȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕΓΘΣΘ΋ȱ
ΐ΋ΘΕϱΔΓΏ΍Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅’ȱ ΘΓІȱ ̈ЁΝΑϾΐΓΙȱ ̓ϱΑΘΓΙȱ ̖ϱΐ΍Ζȱ ȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ
centuryȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 92,ȱ 96,ȱ 97,ȱ 105).ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ twoȱ ofȱ theȱ reallyȱ importantȱ
publicȱ buildings,ȱ theȱ lentiarionȱ andȱ theȱ mosaicȱ edifice,ȱ wellȱ documentedȱ forȱ theȱ
4thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ AD,ȱ wereȱ builtȱ andȱ functionedȱ asȱ earlyȱ asȱ fromȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ
AD473.ȱ
Anȱimportantȱpublicȱedificeȱwithȱaȱmarbleȱfacadeȱwasȱalsoȱsetȱinȱtheȱancientȱ
portȱ westernȱ part.ȱ Succesivelyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ aȱ templeȱ orȱ anȱ workshopȱ forȱ
processingȱ marble,ȱ thisȱ monumentȱ wasȱ datedȱ (basedȱ onȱ theȱ architecturalȱ typeȱ
recognizedȱ inȱ theȱ marbleȱ pieces)ȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȬȱ beginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD474.ȱ
Thereȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ fromȱ anȱ epigraphicalȱ documentȱ aboutȱ theȱ existenceȱ atȱ
Tomisȱ ofȱ aȱ ȱ heroonȱ withȱ aȱ porticȱ (duplexȱ orȱ bifrons)ȱ orȱ aȱ possibleȱ stoa(?)475.ȱȱ
Pavementȱ remainsȱ underȱ theȱ lateȱ Romanȱ streetsȱ levelȱ proveȱ theȱ streetȱ systemȱ
arrangement476.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ civilȱ houses,ȱ documentedȱ byȱ stoneȱ wallsȱ fragments,ȱ
andȱ travelȱ notesȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ timeȱ (19 th Ȭtheȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 20 th ȱ century),ȱ Caieteȱ ARA.ȱ
Arhitectur©.ȱRestaurare.ȱArheologie,ȱ1ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ60Ȭ61,ȱóiȱfig.ȱ1ȱandȱ4.ȱ
470
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ155Ȭ156;ȱȱseeȱalsoȱsupraȱnotesȱ250ȱandȱ251.ȱȱ
471
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Activitàȱ ediliziaȱ aȱ Tomiȱ nell’IIȱ secoloȱ dell’e.n.,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 4ȱ (1960),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 255Ȭ272;ȱ seeȱ also,ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ Capiteluriȱ corinticeȱ romaneȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Grupulȱ deȱ capiteluriȱ
„serviliene”,ȱ(RomanȱCorinthianȱcapitalsȱfromȱTomis.ȱTheȱgroupȱofȱServilianȱcapitals),ȱPeuceȱSN,ȱ
2ȱ (2004),ȱ p.ȱ 73Ȭ94;ȱ eadem,ȱ Eineȱ Gruppeȱ vonȱ Pilasterkapitellenȱ korintischerȱ Ordungȱ ausȱ Tomis,ȱ
Daciaȱ NSȱ 53ȱ (2009),ȱ p.ȱ 113Ȭ129;ȱ ȱ theȱ capitels,ȱ madeȱ ofȱ importedȱ marble,ȱ belongingȱ toȱ aȱ
categoryȱ withȱ originsȱ inȱ Asiaȱ Minorȱ andȱ withȱ analogiesȱ inȱ theȱ westȬPonticȱ area,ȱ isȱ
cronologicallyȱframedȱinȱȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ2 nd ȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
472
ȱ Theȱ lastȱ isȱ aȱ dedicationȱ onȱ aȱ marbleȱ plateȱ preservedȱ inȱ aȱ fragmentaryȱ state;ȱ M.ȱ
B©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ170Ȭ174.ȱ
473
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 27,ȱ n.ȱ 172;ȱ idem,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 33;ȱ seeȱ furtherȱ
on,ȱStageȱIV.ȱ
474
ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ Caieteȱ ARA,ȱ Arhitectur©,ȱ Restaurare,ȱ Arheologie,ȱ 1ȱ (2010),ȱ p.ȱ 63Ȭ68ȱ andȱ
fig.ȱ 5Ȭ7ȱ (namedȱ hereȱ byȱ „edificeȱ withȱ stairs”).ȱ Itsȱ identificationȱ withȱ aȱ possibleȱ nymphaeumȱȱ
isȱstillȱhypothetical;ȱȱseeȱȱalsoȱthere,ȱp.ȱ66,ȱn.ȱ55.ȱ
475
ȱAl.ȱAvram,ȱsupraȱ(n.ȱ221)ȱ
476
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109;ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
178ȱ ȱ
ȱ
weȱmentionȱaȱbuildingȱensembleȱwithȱtwoȱinhabitingȱstagesȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱ
theȱ2ndȱcenturyȱAD477.ȱ
Speakingȱ aboutȱ economy,ȱ tradeȱ seemedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ Tomitans’ȱ mainȱ
activity.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ citiesȱ withȱ whichȱ Tomisȱ hadȱ tradeȱ relationshipsȱ isȱ
large:ȱ besideȱ theȱ normalȱ connectionsȱ withȱ theȱ neighbouringȱ Greekȱ cities,ȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ
foreignersȱcomingȱfromȱterritoriesȱaroundȱtheȱBlackȱSeaȱareȱmentionedȱatȱTomisȱ;ȱ
theyȱwereȱfromȱGreece,ȱAsiaȱMinorȱ(mainlyȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱ
theȱ maritimeȱ lineȱ NicomediaȬTomisȱ andȱ others)ȱ andȱ Egypt,ȱ asȱ well478.ȱ
Relationshipsȱ withȱ theȱ citiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Danubianȱ provincesȱ andȱ Italyȱ areȱ addedȱ toȱ
these.ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ tradeȱ activityȱ controlledȱ byȱ theȱ Romanȱ authoritiesȱ wasȱ moreȱ
intenseȱ thanȱ atȱ Histria.ȱ Anȱ indicationȱ isȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ ceramicsȱ importȱ atȱ
Tomis.ȱTheȱfirstȱwesternȱimportsȱappearedȱevenȱfromȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱAD479.ȱThereȱ
areȱalsoȱOrientalȱimportsȱwhich,ȱalongȱwithȱtheȱlocalȱproduction,ȱwouldȱcreateȱinȱ
theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ ADȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ aȱ
unitaryȱ materialȱ culture,ȱ aȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ Dobrujaȱ territory.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ
halfȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD,ȱceramicsȱseemȱtoȱattestȱaȱreappearanceȱofȱtheȱOrientalȱ
influence480.ȱ Theȱ glassȱ products481ȱ followȱ theȱ mainȱ linesȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ tradeȱ
noticedȱalsoȱforȱceramics:ȱtheȱGreekȱorientalȱelementȱduringȱtheȱPrincipateȱperiod,ȱ
toȱwhichȱanȱimportantȱwesternȱelementȱwasȱadded,ȱinȱtheȱ2ndȬ3rdȱcenturiesȱAD.ȱ
Theȱ tradeȱ activitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ capitalȱ areȱ alsoȱ reflectedȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ outlyingȱ
territory482.ȱ
ȱAccordingȱ toȱ itsȱ juridicalȱ status,ȱ Tomisȱ asȱ aȱ freeȱ city,ȱ hadȱ effectiveȱ
possessionȱ overȱ itsȱ ownȱ territory,ȱ whichȱ isȱ whyȱ weȱ cannotȱ actuallyȱ talkȱ ofȱ
delimitationȱ betweenȱ itsȱ ownȱ territoryȱ andȱ regio483.ȱ Theȱ sizeȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ
territoryȱ wouldȱ ȱ haveȱ beenȱ important,ȱ ifȱ weȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ theȱ
importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ duringȱ theȱ Romanȱ ageȱ andȱ theȱ areasȱ ofȱ theȱ neighbouringȱ
cities,ȱHistriaȱandȱKallatis.ȱWithoutȱ clearȱborders,ȱ theȱterritoriesȱareȱestimated.ȱIfȱ
theȱnorthernȱborderȱwasȱsetȱonȱCasimceaȱlineȱandȱnorthwardsȱtoȱTaóaulȱlake,ȱtheȱ
southȱoneȱcouldȱhaveȱreachedȱTechirghiolȱlake;ȱinside,ȱtheȱlineȱisȱhypothetical.ȱ
477
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2006,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱ
478
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 121,ȱ n.ȱ 119;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ ȱ supra,ȱ n.ȱ 344ȱ andȱ ȱ 356;ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ
Leȱ Pontȱ Gaucheȱ etȱ Rome:ȱ traditionsȱ hellénistiquesȱ etȱ modèlesȱ commerciauxȱ romains,ȱ Classicaȱ etȱ
Christana,ȱ2ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ50Ȭ58;ȱidem,ȱArmateursȱetȱmarchandsȱdeȱNicomédieȱdansȱlaȱMéditerranéeȱ
àȱl’époqueȱromaine,ȱClassicaȱetȱChristiana,ȱ5/2ȱ(2010),ȱp.ȱ291Ȭ292.ȱ
479
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Tradiöiiȱ elenisticeȱ înȱ materialeleȱ funerareȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©ȱ timpurieȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ (Hellenisticȱ traditionsȱ inȱ earlyȱRomanȱAgeȱ funeraryȱ materialsȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱPonticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ
p.ȱ 297Ȭ332;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ op.cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 125,ȱ n.ȱ 165Ȭ166;ȱ seeȱ furtherȱ forȱ Orientalȱ
imports,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ Kleinasiatischeȱ undȱ östlicheȱ keramischeȱ Importfundeȱ ausȱ Histriaȱ undȱ
Tomisȱ (1.ȱ Ȭ3.ȱ Jh.n.Chr.),ȱ MBAH,ȱ XII/2ȱ (1993),ȱ 33ȱ ff.;ȱ idem,ȱ Variaȱ Cretariaȱ Pergamena,ȱ inȱ
Economieȱóiȱsocietate,ȱp.ȱ227Ȭ238.ȱ
480
ȱ Situationȱ explainableȱ byȱ theȱ increasingȱ Byzantineȱ authorityȱ inȱ theȱ area;ȱ Al.ȱ
Suceveanu,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ125ȱandȱn.ȱ168.ȱ
481
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱVaseȱanticeȱdeȱsticl©ȱlaȱTomisȱ(AncientȱglassȱvesselsȱatȱTomis),ȱConstanöa,ȱ
1968;ȱC.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ273Ȭ280.ȱ
482
ȱForȱtheȱdiscoveries,ȱseeȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ128.ȱ
483
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ Viaöaȱ rural©,ȱ especiallyȱ p.ȱ 47Ȭ61ȱ andȱ 151Ȭ158;ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ
Contribuöiiȱ laȱ cunoaótereaȱ satuluiȱ dobrogeanȱ înȱ epocaȱ roman©ȱ (Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ
DobrujanȱvillageȱduringȱtheȱRomanȱAge),ȱSCIVAȱ52Ȭ53ȱ(2001Ȭ2002),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ172.ȱ
ȱ 179
ȱȱȱ
TheȱpresenceȱofȱRomanȱelementsȱinsideȱtheȱTomitanȱterritoryȱevenȱfromȱtheȱ
secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 1stȱ centuryȱ ADȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ settlementȱ ofȱ someȱ praediaȱ andȱ
vici.ȱ Besidesȱ vicusȱ Celeris,ȱ whichȱ weȱ wouldȱ localizeȱ ratherȱ inȱ theȱ Histrianȱ
territory,ȱ basedȱ onȱ fewȱ toponymsȱ stillȱ preserved,ȱ otherȱ viciȱ localizedȱ hereȱ areȱ inȱ
theȱ 2ndȬ3rdȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ areȱ theȱ following:ȱ v.ȱ Clementianensis,ȱ v.ȱ Narcissiani,ȱ v.ȱ
Sc[apt]ia,ȱv.ȱTurrisȱMucaȱ(...).ȱForȱmostȱofȱthem,ȱtheȱlocalizationȱisȱhypothetical.ȱȱ
Asȱ weȱ haveȱ noȱ evidenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ organizationȱ ofȱ theȱ territoryȱ onȱ tribesȱ
(phylai),ȱ ȱ indigenousȱ communityȱ orȱ leadersȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱ nonȬRomanȱ communitiesȱ
(principesȱlocorum)484,ȱweȱbelieveȱmoreȱintenseȱRomanizationȱledȱtoȱaȱmoreȱunitaryȱ
organizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ territory.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ indigenousȱ elementsȱ
almostȱ everywhereȱ andȱ theȱ epigraphicalȱ evidenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ Greekȱ population,ȱ
especiallyȱonȱtheȱcoastȱ(ΎЏΐ΋ȱ̝ΔΓΏΏΝΑϟΓΙ)485ȱandȱinȱotherȱplaces,ȱdoȱnotȱexcludeȱ
theȱpossibilityȱofȱtheȱmaintenanceȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱorganizationalȱpatterns.ȱ
ȱ
StageȱIV:ȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȬ6thȱ(7)thȱc.ȱADȱȱ
Withȱ theȱ instaurationȱ ofȱ theȱ ȱ Dominateȱ byȱ Emperorȱ Diocletian,ȱ provincialȱ
administrationȱ changed.ȱ Separatedȱ fromȱ Moesiaȱ Inferior,ȱ Dobrujaȱ wasȱ
transformedȱ intoȱ anȱ independentȱ provinceȱ underȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Scythiaȱ (Minor),ȱ
Tomisȱ beingȱ theȱ provincialȱ capitalȱ inȱ theȱ newȱ structure,ȱ too.ȱ Theȱ provincialȱ
governorȱ(praeses)ȱhadȱhisȱheadquartersȱthere.ȱItȱisȱveryȱlikelyȱthatȱtheȱPonticȱcitiesȱ
communityȱendedȱitsȱactivityȱnow486.ȱSinceȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱDiocletianȇsȱreign,ȱinȱ
284ȱ AD,ȱ „theȱ councilȱ andȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Tomis”ȱ dedicatedȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ toȱ theȱ
emperorȱ„mostȱlovedȱbyȱgods”ȱ(ΟΉΓΠ΍ΏνΗΘ΅ΘΓΖ,ȱISMȱII,ȱ111).ȱTheȱinscriptionȱwasȱ
madeȱ probablyȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ hisȱ coronationȱ orȱ whenȱ theȱ provincialȱ capitalȱ
wasȱ settledȱ atȱ Tomis487.ȱ Inȱ bothȱ situations,ȱ Tomitansȱ showȱ theirȱ loyaltyȱ toȱ theȱ
emperor.ȱ Theȱ imperialȱ defensiveȱ policyȱ requiredȱ specialȱ works.ȱ Byȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ
emperorsȱ Diocletianȱ andȱ Maximian,ȱ andȱ underȱ careȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ militaryȱ
commanderȱ (duxȱ limitisȱ Scythici),ȱ C.ȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianus488,ȱ ȱ Tomitansȱ builtȱ theȱ
gatesȱorȱaȱgateȱofȱtheȱresidenceȱcityȱ(ofȱtheȱgovernor,ȱIGLR,ȱ3ȱ=ȱISMȱII,ȱ155)489.ȱTheȱ
sameȱFirminianus,ȱvirȱperfectissimus,ȱduxȱlimitisȱprovinciaeȱScythiae,ȱisȱmentionedȱonȱ
aȱvotiveȱmonumentȱfromȱ293Ȭ305ȱADȱdedicatedȱtoȱ„theȱgreatȱmotherȱofȱgods”ȱforȱ
484
ȱ However,ȱ seeȱ ȱ theȱ opinionȱ expresssedȱ byȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ VEDR,ȱ p.ȱ 52ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 251ȱȱ
aboutȱ CILȱ IIIȱ 772ȱ (=ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 183),ȱ inscriptionȱ consideredȱ toȱ comeȱ fromȱ Techirghiol;ȱ aboutȱ
theȱ possibleȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ epigraphȱ fromȱ Seimeni,ȱ ȱ seeȱ ȱ theȱ bibliographyȱ atȱ Em.ȱ DoruöiuȬ
Boil©,ȱISMȱV,ȱ4.ȱ
485
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ170,ȱ no.ȱ 6,ȱ fig.ȱ 6;ȱ Al.ȱ
Suceveanu,ȱSCIVAȱ52Ȭ53ȱ(2001Ȭ2002),ȱp.ȱ167Ȭ171.ȱ
486
ȱI.Barnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ370,ȱn.ȱ6ȱ
487
ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱcommentaryȱtoȱIGLR,ȱ1.ȱ
488
ȱConsideredȱbyȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱp.ȱ37ȱmaybeȱȱtheȱfirstȱduxȱafterȱtheȱprovinceȱwasȱ
settledȱ byȱ Diocletian;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 125ȱ determinesȱ C.ȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianusȇȱ
activityȱ betweenȱ 284ȱ andȱ 286ȱ AD;ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Prosopographiaȱ Scythiaeȱ Minorisȱ nachȱ denȱ
epigraphischenȱ undȱ sphragistischenȱ Quellenȱ vonȱ 284ȱ bisȱ zumȱ 7.ȱ Jh.ȱ inȱ Siegelȱ undȱ Siegler.ȱ Aktenȱ
desȱ 8.ȱ Internationalenȱ Simposionsȱ fürȱ Byzantinischeȱ Sigillographie,ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 6ȱ considersȱ theȱ
periodȱbetweenȱ285ȱandȱ305ȱAD.ȱ
489
ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 3ȱ andȱ p.ȱ 38ȱ completesȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ porta[sȱ siveȱ —mȱ civita]tiȱ
praesida[liȱsiveȬariae]ȱ(285Ȭ292ȱAD);ȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱinȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ195.ȱ
180ȱ ȱ
ȱ
theȱ Emperors,ȱ (Augusti)ȱ andȱ theȱ Caesars’ȱ healthȱ (Caesares)490.ȱ Alsoȱ likelyȱ
Firminianus491ȱ orȱ aȱ protectorȱ ofȱ theȱ city492ȱ ȱ isȱ theȱ personȱ toȱ whomȱ aȱ statueȱ isȱ
dedicated,ȱ becauseȱ „heȱ easedȱ upȱ theȱ difficultȱ tasksȱ ofȱ theȱ curiaeȱ fromȱ Scythia493ȱ
andȱ madeȱ possibleȱ forȱ themȱ aȱ niceȱ andȱ secureȱ life”ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 4ȱ =ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 113).Theȱ
restorationȱofȱtheȱroadsȱwasȱalsoȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱdefensiveȱpolicy.ȱThereȱareȱknownȱ
milliaryȱ pillarsȱ fromȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ Tetrarchyȱ onȱ theȱ mainȱ roadsȱ ofȱ theȱ
province494,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ onȱ theȱ coast,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ atȱ Corbuȱ ȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ
Histriaȱ(IGLR,ȱ82)495.ȱȱ
Diocletianȇsȱ nameȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ Christiansȱ fromȱ 303Ȭ
304ȱAD.ȱTheȱmartyrologyȱmentionsȱaȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱmartyrsȱatȱTomis496.ȱ
Continuingȱ andȱ developingȱ theȱ reformȱ systemȱ initiatedȱ byȱ Diocletian,ȱ
Constantineȱ theȱ Greatȱ maintainedȱ theȱ provinceȱ Scythiaȱ inȱ theȱ Thracianȱ diocese;ȱ
Tomisȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱprovinceȱcapital.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱsomeȱprecinctȱwallȱ
fragmentsȱ andȱ publicȱ buildingsȱ alongȱ theȱ coastȱ toȱ beȱ datedȱ inȱ thisȱ period.ȱ Theȱ
roadsȱ nearȱ Tomisȱ wereȱ alsoȱ restoredȱ inȱ thisȱ time:ȱ aȱ milliaryȱ pillarȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ
datedȱ betweenȱ 323ȱ andȱ 337ȱ ADȱ (IGLR,ȱ 6)497ȱ isȱ anȱ evidenceȱ ȱ ofȱ that.ȱ Theȱ Gothicȱ
invasionȱ whichȱ seemedȱ toȱ passȱ throughȱ Scythiaȱ Minor498ȱ inȱ 331Ȭ332ȱ ADȱ didȱ notȱ
reachȱ Tomis.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ ofȱ ȱ Constantiusȱ IIȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ toponymȱ
Constanti(an)aȱ inȱ theȱ areasȱ neighbouringȱ Tomis,ȱ areasȱ builtȱ orȱ restoredȱ byȱ thisȱ
emperor499.ȱWithȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱreignȱofȱConstantiusȱII,ȱtheȱflourishingȱperiodȱforȱ
TomisȱandȱScythiaȱMinorȱfinished,ȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱreformsȱofȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱ
ofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
ȱTheȱ nameȱ ofȱ Julianȱ theȱ Apostateȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ coastalȱ roadȱ
recostructionȱ (IGLR,ȱ 82ȱ b).ȱ Goths’ȱ attacksȱ inȱ theȱ dioceseȱ ofȱ Thraciaȱ bringȱ aboutȱ
campaignsȱagainstȱthem,ȱledȱbyȱtheȱemperorȱValensȱhimself,ȱinȱ367Ȭ369ȱAD500.ȱTheȱ
oratorȱ Themistios,ȱ whoȱ accompaniedȱ Valensȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ duringȱ theȱ campaignȱ inȱ
490
ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 144ȱ (=ȱ IGLR,ȱ 2);ȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ theȱ mentionedȱ onesȱ areȱ Diocletianȱ
andȱMaximianȱ(Augusti),ȱGaleriusȱandȱConstantiusȱChlorusȱ(Caesares).ȱ
491
ȱApudȱȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ4ȱ
492
ȱApudȱI.ȱStoian,ȱISMȱII,ȱ113ȱandȱp.ȱ139.ȱ
493
ȱForȱordinesȱScythici,ȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱseeȱfurtherȱon.ȱ
494
ȱ Seeȱ L.ȱ Hollenstein,ȱ Recherchesȱ deȱ géographieȱ historique,ȱ inȱ Studiaȱ Balcanica,ȱ 10,ȱ Sofia,ȱ
1975,ȱ p.ȱ 23Ȭ44ȱ;ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Voiesȱ deȱ communicationȱ auȱ BasȬDanubeȱ auxȱ IV e ȱ Ȭȱ VI e ȱ siècles,ȱ inȱ
Étudesȱ Byzantinesȱ etȱ PostȬByzantines,ȱ III,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.ȱ 29Ȭ43;ȱ idem,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ
romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 291,ȱ fig.ȱ 21ȱ;ȱ A.ȱ Panaite,ȱ C.ȬG.ȱ Alexandrescu,ȱ Aȱ „rediscovered”ȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ
Dobrudja.ȱRoadsȱandȱmilestonesȱinȱScythiaȱ(3 rd Ȭ4 th )ȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱPonticaȱ42ȱ(2009),ȱp.ȱ429Ȭ455.ȱ
495
ȱ Theȱ pillarȱ wasȱ foundȱ atȱ Corbuȱ deȱ Susȱ andȱ hasȱ twoȱ inscriptions:ȱ a)ȱ datedȱ 293Ȭ305ȱ
AD;ȱ b)ȱ datedȱ 360Ȭ363ȱ AD.ȱ Forȱ theȱ secondȱ pieceȱ fromȱ Corbuȱ andȱ otherȱ pillarsȱ fromȱ
Tetrarchiaȱ period,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Stâlpiȱ miliariȱ descoperiöiȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ
(MilliariesȱdiscoveredȱinȱDobruja),ȱPontica,ȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ183Ȭ197.ȱ
496
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ378Ȭ379.ȱ
497
ȱSeeȱalsoȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ387;ȱISMȱII,ȱ112ȱ(324Ȭ333ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
498
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ389.ȱ
499
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ391ȱandȱn.ȱ108;ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ162,ȱ196ȱandȱtheȱnotesȱ37ȱ(p.ȱ302)ȱ
andȱ196ȱ(p.ȱ307);ȱseeȱatȱusȱtheȱtoponymy.ȱ
500
ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ394ȱsq.ȱ
ȱ 181
ȱȱȱ
369ȱADȱmentionsȱrestorationȱworksȱatȱtheȱaqueducts,ȱwarehousesȱandȱseaȱports501.ȱ
ItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱȱsuchȱworksȱȱtoȱbeȱcarriedȱoutȱatȱTomis,ȱtoo.ȱȱ
Aȱ milliaryȱ pillarȱ withȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorsȱ Valentinian,ȱ Valensȱ andȱ
Gratianȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ114)ȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱValensȇȱpresenceȱinȱScythiaȱMinorȱbetweenȱ
367ȱandȱ369502.ȱAȱdedicationȱonlyȱforȱValentinianȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ115)ȱdatesȱtoȱaroundȱ369ȱ
AD;ȱ theȱ emperorȱ isȱ calledȱ „theȱ conquerorȱ ofȱ theȱ Barbarians”ȱ (debelatorȱ gentiumȱ
barbarum);ȱ ifȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ loyaltyȱ gesture,ȱ thenȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ probablyȱ
refersȱtoȱtheȱvictoriesȱduringȱtheȱcampaignȱagainstȱGoths503.ȱThough,ȱthisȱpoliticalȱ
eventȱ isȱ overpassedȱ byȱ aȱ religiousȱ oneȱ inȱ theȱ writtenȱ historicalȱ sources.ȱ Twoȱ
historicalȱ sourcesȱ Ȭȱ Sozomenosȱ andȱ theȱ Actaȱ Sanctorum504ȱ describe,ȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ
words,ȱ theȱ visitȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorȱ Valensȱ toȱ Tomisȱ inȱ 368Ȭ369ȱ ADȱ andȱ hisȱ meetingȱ
withȱ theȱ Orthodoxȱ bishopȱ Bretanionȱ orȱ Vetranion505.ȱ Sozomenosȇȱ informationȱ
aboutȱTomisȱ(VI,ȱ21)ȱisȱimportantȱfromȱȱseveralȱpointsȱofȱview:ȱ
Ȭȱ identifiesȱ Tomis,ȱ capitalȱ ofȱ theȱ province,ȱ asȱ aȱ „largeȱ andȱ richȱ city”ȱ (ΔϱΏ΍Ζȱ
ΐΉ·ΣΏ΋ȱΎ΅ϠȱΉЁΈ΅ϟΐΝΑ);ȱ
ȬȱmentionsȱanȱOrthodoxȱbishopȱatȱTomisȱandȱnumerousȱChristians;ȱ
Ȭȱ registersȱ oneȱ bishopȱ forȱ theȱ wholeȱ provinceȱ atȱ thisȱ dateȱ andȱ identifiesȱ hisȱ
residenceȱatȱTomis.ȱ
Theȱnextȱevent,ȱaboutȱ386ȱAD,ȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱGerontios,ȱtheȱlocalȱgarrisonȱ
commander,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ mentionedȱ byȱ Zosimosȱ (IV,ȱ 40).ȱ Tomisȱ hasȱ aȱ Romanȱ innerȱ
garrison,ȱ andȱ outside,ȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ city,ȱ troopsȱ ofȱ foederati,ȱ Visigoths,ȱ settledȱ
thereȱbyȱtheȱemperorȱTheodosius.ȱThisȱisȱaȱdifficultȱtimeȱforȱbothȱtheȱleadershipȱofȱ
theȱempireȱandȱtheȱprovinces.ȱScythiaȱ(Minor)ȱisȱtoȱaȱcertainȱextentȱonlyȱinȱnameȱaȱ
Romanȱprovince,ȱandȱtheȱcapitalȱȬȱTomisȱȬȱisȱthreatenedȱwithȱtheȱdangerȱofȱbeingȱ
takenȱ byȱ theȱ foederati.ȱ Theȱ „walls”ȱ andȱ „gates”ȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ aboutȱ whichȱ Zosimosȱ
wroteȱveryȱoftenȱdidȱnotȱseemȱlikeȱaȱseriousȱobstacleȱforȱthem,ȱtheȱonlyȱaspectȱtoȱ
beȱconsideredȱisȱtheȱpowerȱofȱtheȱownȱexample506.ȱ
Theȱ situationȱ ȱ inȱ theȱ empireȱ andȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ continuedȱ toȱ deteriorate;ȱ
thereȱ wereȱ Hunȱ attacks,ȱ aȱ populationȱ whichȱ theȱ empireȱ ȱ triedȱ toȱ christianize.ȱ
DuringȱtheȱlastȱyearsȱofȱȱreignȱofȱTheodosiusȱIȱandȱunderȱArcadius,ȱtheȱByzantineȱ
sourcesȱmentionȱaȱbishopȱofȱTomisȱȬȱTheotimosȱI,ȱalsoȱcalledȱ„theȱScythian”,ȱwhoȱ
seemedȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ Christianȱ missionaryȱ toȱ theȱ Huns507.ȱ Toȱ rememberȱ alsoȱ forȱ thisȱ
ȱThemistios,ȱOr.ȱX,ȱ133Ȭ140.ȱ
501
ȱ Theȱ milliaryȱ ȱ wasȱ broughtȱ toȱ aȱ innerȱ settlementȱ fromȱ Dobrujaȱ (Miriótea)ȱ comingȱ
502
fromȱ theȱ coast;ȱ theȱ roadȱ wasȱ probablyȱ restoredȱ byȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Kallatisȱ (seeȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ
debateȱatȱIGLR,ȱ81).ȱ
503
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ alsoȱ atȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Dédicaceȱ enȱ lȇhonneurȱ deȱ Valentinien,ȱ
Ponticaȱ11ȱ(1978),ȱp.ȱ151Ȭ154,ȱwhereȱotherȱhypothesesȱareȱsuggestedȱasȱwell.ȱ
504
ȱInȱtheȱActaȱSanctorum,ȱIII,ȱ235ȱTomisȱwasȱconsideredȱ„urbsȱmagnaȱetȱopulenta”.ȱ
505
ȱ Passingȱ throughȱ Tomis,ȱ Valensȱ triedȱ toȱ imposeȱ hereȱ theȱ Arianism,ȱ butȱ theȱ bishopȱ
Bretanionȱ(Vetranion)ȱputȱupȱresistance.ȱ
506
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDoboudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ167.ȱ
507
ȱHeȱisȱcalledȱbyȱ”theȱHunsȱfromȱIstros”,ȱTheȱRomans’ȱGod;ȱSozomenos,ȱHist.eccl.,ȱVII,ȱ
26;ȱseeȱalsoȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ407,ȱnotesȱ13ȱandȱ14.ȱ
182ȱ ȱ
ȱ
periodȱ theȱ goodȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Constantinople,ȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ
TheotimosȱbeingȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱpatriarchȱChrysostomos508.ȱ
Duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ theȱ Emperorȱ Anastasiusȱ Iȱ (491Ȭ518ȱ AD),ȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ
wasȱratherȱprosperous.ȱȱ
Thereȱ areȱ importantȱ worksȱ toȱ mentionȱ forȱ Tomisȱ duringȱ thisȱ period509.ȱ
Otherwise,ȱtheȱonlyȱleadȱsealȱfromȱDobrujaȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱemperorȱAnastasiusȱwasȱ
alsoȱ discoveredȱ atȱ Tomis510.ȱ Theȱ deedȱ initiatedȱ byȱ Anastasiusȱ wasȱ continuedȱ byȱ
Justinianȱ (527Ȭ565ȱ AD);ȱ duringȱ hisȱ timeȱ Tomisȱ hadȱ itsȱ lastȱ greatȱ flourishingȱ
period.ȱ Threeȱ inscriptionsȱ inȱ Greekȱ certifyȱ theȱ restorationȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ wallsȱ inȱ theȱ
firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȱ century,ȱ probablyȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Justinian.ȱ Theȱ externalȱ
inscriptionȱonȱaȱdefensiveȱtowerȱmentionsȱrestorationȱworkȱtoȱtheȱprecinctȱwallȱonȱ
aȱ partȱ (ΔΉΈ΅ΘΓϾΕ΅)ȱ ofȱ 24ȱ feetȱ (aboutȱ 8ȱ m),ȱ doneȱ byȱ theȱ butchersȇȱ associationȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 8).ȱ Aȱ coinȱ datedȱ betweenȱ 547Ȭ548ȱ ADȱ andȱ issuedȱ byȱ Justinianȱ wasȱ foundȱ
nearȱtheȱwallȱwithȱtheȱinscription511.ȱAȱsecondȱinscription,ȱonȱaȱblockȱcomingȱfromȱ
theȱ ȱ veneeringȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ precinctȱ includesȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ twoȱ individualsȱ Ȭȱ
̝ΏνΒ΅ΑΈΕΓΖȱandȱ̅κΗ(Η)ΓΖ,ȱwhoȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱrestorationȱworksȱofȱaȱprecinctȱ
wallȱfragmentȱ(IGLR,ȱ9)512.ȱTheȱthirdȱofficialȱinscriptionȱisȱanȱinvocationȱtoȱtheȱgodȱ
toȱ helpȱ „theȱ renewedȱ city”ȱ (ΆΓφΟ΍ȱ ΔϱΏ΍Αȱ ΦΑ΅ΑΉΓΙΐνΑ΋(Α);ȱ IGLR,ȱ 7).ȱ Itȱ indicatesȱ
theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Justinianȱ orȱ hisȱ directȱ predecessors513.ȱ Theȱ sagittariiȱ junioresȱ (orȱ
Η΅·΍ΘΘΣΕ΍Γ΍)ȱ probablyȱ participatedȱ inȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ buildingȱ (orȱ renewing);ȱ theyȱ
areȱmentionedȱtwiceȱonȱfuneraryȱstelaȱfromȱTomisȱ(IGLR,ȱ30ȱandȱ41)514.ȱ Justinianȇsȱ
administrativeȱ reformȱ includes,ȱ inȱ 536ȱ AD,ȱ aȱ separationȱ ofȱ theȱ provincesȱ Scythiaȱ
(Minor)ȱandȱMoesiaȱSecundaȱfromȱtheȱThracianȱdiocese;ȱtheyȱwereȱputȱunderȱtheȱ
controlȱofȱaȱquaestorȱJustinianiȱexercitusȱwithȱmilitaryȱandȱcivilȱjurisdiction,ȱwhoseȱ
residenceȱ wasȱ inȱ Odessos.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ theȱ lastȱ decadesȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ
centuryȱ ADȱ (whenȱ theȱ vicarshipȱ functionȱ ofȱ Thraciaȱ wasȱ revoked)ȱ andȱ 536ȱ ADȱ
(whenȱquaesturaȱexercitusȱwasȱsettled)ȱaȱdeanȱcouldȱhaveȱexistedȱforȱtheȱprovincesȱ
Scythiaȱ andȱ Moesiaȱ Secunda,ȱ withȱ theirȱ residenceȱ atȱ Odessos.ȱ Theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ
thisȱserviceȱisȱsuggestedȱbyȱaȱfuneraryȱinscriptionȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis,ȱmadeȱforȱ
MarcellusȱͲΈΙΗ΍ΘκΑΓΖȱΆ΍ΎΣΕ΍Ζȱ(IGLR,ȱ47).ȱTheȱsyntagmȱraisesȱquestionsȱȬȱvicarȱofȱ
508
ȱ Aboutȱ 399ȱ AD,ȱ theȱ patriarchȱ ofȱ Constantinople,ȱ Ioannesȱ Chrisostomosȱ sentȱ
missionariesȱ toȱ theȱ Scythiansȱ nomadsȱ atȱ Istros,ȱ probablyȱ meaningȱ theȱ Huns;ȱ Theodoretos,ȱ
Hist.ȱEccl.,ȱV,ȱ31.ȱ
509
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱContributionsȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱDobrujaȱunderȱAnastasiusȱI,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ4ȱ(1960),ȱ
p.ȱ367Ȭ373.ȱ
510
ȱH.ȱMetaxa,ȱPlumburiȱdeȱmarc©ȱdeȱlaȱTomiȱ(SealȱleadsȱfromȱTomis),ȱBCMIȱ8ȱ(1915),ȱp.ȱ33.ȱ
511
ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱZidulȱcet©öiiȱTomi,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1915,ȱp.ȱ416Ȭ421.ȱ
512
ȱSeeȱalsoȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱQuelquesȱconsidérationsȱsurȱlesȱinscriptionsȱchrétiennesȱdeȱlaȱScythieȱ
Mineure,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ1ȱ(1957),ȱp.ȱ269Ȭ270ȱandȱfig.ȱ3/2.ȱ ȱ
513
ȱ Apudȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 424;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 7ȱ takesȱ intoȱ considerationȱ aȱ
renewalȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 5 th ȱ Ȭȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 6 th ȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ
AnastasiusȱorȱJustinian.ȱ
514
ȱ Bothȱ inscriptionsȱareȱdatedȱbyȱ I.ȱBarneaȱ inȱ ȱ theȱ firstȱhalfȱ ofȱ theȱ 6 th ȱcenturyȱ AD;ȱ theȱ
same,ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 124ȱ andȱ 185;ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ romaine,ȱ p.ȱ 217;ȱ Em.ȱ
Popescuȱ considersȱ forȱ IGLR,ȱ 30ȱ anȱ olderȱ date,ȱ theȱ 4 th Ȭ5 th ȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ andȱ theȱ 5 th Ȭ6 th ȱ
centuriesȱADȱforȱIGLR,ȱ41.ȱ
ȱ 183
ȱȱȱ
Odessosȱ(whoȱcarriedȱonȱhisȱfunctionȱinȱtheȱcityȱofȱOdessos)515ȱorȱdeanȱoriginaryȱinȱ
Odessosȱ(andȱdeadȱatȱTomis)516.ȱForȱtheȱmomentȱtheȱTomitanȱinscriptionȱcontinuesȱ
toȱ beȱ theȱ onlyȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ office.ȱ Underȱ Justinianȱ andȱ duringȱ theȱ followingȱ
period,ȱuntilȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD,ȱtheȱScythianȱterritoryȱisȱdestroyedȱbutȱ
notȱ conqueredȱ byȱ barbariansȱ (Kutriguri,ȱ Huns,ȱ Bulgarians,ȱ Avars,ȱ Slavs).ȱ Theȱ
uniqueȱ sealȱ belongingȱ toȱ theȱ Gepidaeȱ kingȱ Conimundosȱ (550Ȭ567ȱ AD),ȱ asȱ aȱ
commanderȬinȬchiefȱ (stratilates)517,wasȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöa;ȱ theȱ discoveryȱ
bringsȱforwardȱtheȱrelationshipȱheȱhadȱwithȱByzantiumȱandȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱ
theȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ provincialȱ metropolis.ȱ Theȱ citiesȱ onȱ theȱ coastȱ resistedȱ theȱ
attacksȱofȱtheȱAvarsȱfromȱ586Ȭ587ȱAD.ȱNearȱTomis,ȱtheȱarmyȱcommandedȱbyȱtheȱ
Avarȱ commanderȱ (Λ΅·ΣΑΓΖ)ȱ Baianȱ isȱ caughtȱ byȱ troopsȱ sentȱ byȱ Comentiolus,ȱ
Thraciaȇsȱ commanderȱ andȱ ledȱ byȱ Martinus.ȱ Theȱ Avarsȱ areȱ drivenȱ away,ȱ butȱ notȱ
defeated,ȱ Baianȱ cameȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ empireȱ andȱ againstȱ Thraciaȱ (Theophylactosȱ
Simocatta,ȱHistoriae,ȱII,ȱ10)518.ȱ
TheȱlastȱremainsȱofȱtheȱempireȱonȱtheȱLowerȱDanubeȱareȱstruckȱbyȱrepeatedȱ
barbarianȱ attacksȱ andȱ settlementsȱ ofȱ theȱ Slavsȱ onȱ theȱ southȱ ofȱ theȱ Danube.ȱ Afterȱ
Mauriciusȱ Tiberiusȱ diedȱ (602ȱ AD)ȱ andȱ untilȱ theȱ firstȱ Bulgarianȱ stateȱ structureȱ onȱ
theȱsouthȱofȱtheȱDanubeȱ(681ȱAD),ȱthereȱisȱaȱlackȱofȱinformationȱaboutȱDobrujaȱinȱ
theȱliteraryȱsources.TomisȱfacedȱtheȱAvarȱandȱBulgarianȱattacksȱfromȱ614Ȭ615ȱAD,ȱ
whichȱ wouldȱ alsoȱ reachȱ numerousȱ Dobrujanȱ cities519.ȱ Theȱ connectionsȱ withȱ theȱ
capitalȱofȱtheȱempireȱwereȱalsoȱmaintainedȱduringȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱDiscoveriesȱ
permitȱ theȱ suppositionȱ thatȱ lifeȱ thereȱ continuedȱ toȱ haveȱ RomanȬByzantineȱ
featuresȱ untilȱ aboutȱ 680ȱ AD520.ȱ Afterȱ thisȱ date,ȱ forȱ aȱ periodȱ ofȱ almostȱ threeȱ
centuries,ȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ (asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Dobruja)ȱ isȱ poorlyȱ
known.ȱ Inȱ aȱ syntheticȱ workȱ concerningȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Dobruja,ȱ thereȱ isȱ assumedȱ
thatȱ Tomisȱ becameȱ aȱ simpleȱ village,ȱ stillȱ existingȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 8thȱ
515
ȱ Apudȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Unȱ vicarȱ deȱ Odessosȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Aȱ Deanȱ ofȱ Odessosȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ SCIVȱ 8ȱ
(1957),ȱ1Ȭ4,ȱp.ȱ347Ȭ351.ȱ
516
ȱ V.ȱ Velkov,ȱ Dieȱ thrakischeȱ undeȱ dakischeȱ Stadtȱ inȱ derȱ Spätantikeȱ (4.Ȭ6.ȱ Jh).ȱ
Untersuchungenȱ undȱ Materialen,ȱ ȱ Sofia,ȱ 1959,ȱ p.ȱ 58ȱ (inȱ Bulgarian,ȱ Germanȱ abstract);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ
Em.ȱPopescu,ȱDieȱspätgriechischenȱInschriftenȱausȱKleinȬSkythien,ȱȱDaciaȱNSȱ11ȱ(1967),ȱp.ȱ172Ȭ
173ȱ;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱCulturaȱbizantin©ȱînȱRomâniaȱ(ByzantineȱCultureȱinȱRomania),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1971,ȱ
p.ȱ102,ȱno.ȱ21.ȱ
517
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Sigiliiȱ bizantineȱ inediteȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Unpublishedȱ Byzantineȱ sealsȱ fromȱ
Dobruja)ȱ(II),ȱPonticaȱ18ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ239Ȭ240.ȱ
518
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 433Ȭ434;ȱ though,ȱ seeȱ Gh.ȱ ktefan,ȱ Tomisȱ etȱ Tomea.ȱ Àȱ proposȱ desȱ
luttesȱentreȱByzantinsȱetȱAvarsȱàȱlaȱfinȱduȱVI e ȱsiècleȱdeȱnotreȱère,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ11ȱ(1967),ȱp.ȱ253Ȭ258;ȱ
S.ȱ Olteanu,ȱ Toponimeȱ procopieneȱ (Toponymsȱ atȱ Procopius),ȱ SCIVAȱ 58ȱ (2007),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 80Ȭ86ȱ andȱ
fig.ȱ 5,ȱ whoȱ considersȱ itȱ isȱ aboutȱ theȱ Moesianȱ Tomisȱ (closeȱ toȱ Remesiana)ȱ orȱ otherȱ centresȱ
andȱnotȱtheȱPonticȱTomis.ȱ
519
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ Situaöiaȱ imperiuluiȱ romanoȬbizantinȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ laȱ sfâróitulȱ
secoluluiȱalȱVlȬleaȱóiȱînceputulȱceluiȱdeȱalȱVIIȬleaȱ(TheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomanȬByzantineȱEmpireȱatȱ
theȱLowerȱDanubeȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6 th ȱandȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7 th ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱSCIVȱ22ȱ(1971),ȱ
2,ȱp.ȱ222Ȭ225ȱconsidersȱthatȱTomisȱendedȱitsȱexistenceȱnow.ȱ
520
ȱA.ȱPetre,ȱQuelquesȱdonnéesȱarchéologiquesȱconcernantȱlaȱcontinuitéȱdeȱlaȱpopulationȱetȱdeȱ
laȱcultureȱromanoȬbyzantinesȱdansȱlaȱScythieȱMineureȱauxȱVI e ȬȱVII e ȱsièclesȱdeȱnotreȱère,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ
7ȱ(1963),ȱp.ȱ348Ȭ353;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ442Ȭ444;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ165.ȱ
184ȱ ȱ
ȱ
centuryȱAD521.ȱ
ȱ
AdministrationȱandȱArmyȱ
Weȱ haveȱ littleȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ provinceȱ andȱ itsȱ residentȱ cityȱ
administrationȱduringȱtheȱRomanȬByzantineȱperiod.ȱTheȱprovinceȱleaderȱ(praeses)ȱ
isȱreplacedȱratherȱearlyȱbyȱaȱmilitaryȱcommanderȱ (dux),ȱwhoȱalsoȱhadȱcivilȱtasks.ȱ
Hisȱ headquartersȱ wereȱ inȱ theȱ provinceȱ capital.ȱ C.ȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianus,ȱ virȱ
perfectissimusȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 144ȱ andȱ 155),ȱ hadȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ duxȱ limitisȱ provinciaeȱ
Scythiaeȱ betweenȱ 285ȱ andȱ 305ȱ AD522.ȱ Tomisȱ wasȱ alsoȱ theȱ residenceȱ forȱ anȱ officiumȱ
praesidis,ȱ theȱ officeȱ ofȱ theȱ provincialȱ civilȱ leader.ȱ Twoȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ theȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱADȱnameȱValeriusȱFelixȱprincepsȱofficiiȱpraesidisȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ373)523ȱandȱFlaviusȱ
Ursinianusȱ milesȱ officiiȱ praesidisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 382).ȱ Toȱ beȱ notedȱ theȱ civilȱ significationȱ
andȱ notȱ militaryȱ forȱ milesȱ (=ȱ officialis),ȱ theȱ sameȱ forȱ theȱ exȱ quaestionariusȱ ofȱ theȱ
administrationȱcourtȱ(andȱnotȱ theȱarmyȱcourt)ȱforȱMartinus,ȱUrsinianusȇȱfather524.ȱ
Aȱ steleȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ (IGLR,ȱ 36)ȱ mentionsȱ Marcus,ȱ formerȱ
principalis.ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱtitleȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱcityȱcouncilȱmembers,ȱtheȱ
inscriptionȱ isȱ quotedȱ asȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theȱ continuityȱ ofȱ theȱ olderȱ Romanȱ
administrativeȱstructureȱintoȱtheȱ5thȬ6thȱcenturiesȱAD525.ȱNewȱfunctionsȱareȱattestedȱ
atȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 6thȬbeginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 7thȱ centuries:ȱ primusȱ
singularisȱ andȱ silentiarius.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ indicatesȱ aȱ relativelyȱ importantȱ official,ȱ
probablyȱ inȱ theȱ officeȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ governor;ȱ ȱ theȱ secondȱ isȱ aȱ lessȱ importantȱ
one,ȱ withȱ theȱ taskȱ toȱ maintainȱ orderȱ inȱ theȱ palaceȱ whenȱ theȱ emperorȱ wasȱ
present526.ȱ
Theȱ militaryȱ unitsȱ attestedȱ inȱ Tomisȱ areȱ usedȱ forȱ exercisesȱ (comitatenses)527.ȱ
Probably,ȱ cuneusȱ D(aImatarum?)528ȱ wasȱ presentȱ hereȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ
andȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD;orȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ aȱ palatineȱ unitȱ ofȱ
whichȱ onlyȱ aȱ subȬunitȱ participatedȱ inȱ restorationȱ worksȱ inȱ Tomis.ȱ Itȱ isȱ ȱ notȱ
excluded529ȱthatȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱADȱaȱcuneusȱorȱevenȱmoreȱsubȬunitsȱ
521
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 9.ȱ Forȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ settlementȱ duringȱ theȱ nextȱ
centuries,ȱ seeȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱ Tomisȱ Ȭȱ Constantiaȱ Ȭȱ Constanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ
p.ȱ299Ȭ327.ȱ
522
ȱSeeȱabove,ȱtheȱhistoricalȱcommentaryȱandȱn.ȱ488.ȱ
523
ȱ Theȱ sameȱ inscriptionȱ atȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 5;ȱ idemȱ inȱ Epigraphica.ȱ Travauxȱ
dédiésȱ auȱ VII e ȱ Congrèsȱ dȇépigraphieȱ grecqueȱ etȱ latineȱ (Constantza,ȱ 9Ȭ15ȱ septembreȱ 1977),ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1979,ȱp.ȱ256Ȭ258.ȱ
524
ȱ Withȱ thisȱ meaning,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ M.ȱ Zahariade,ȱ Moesiaȱ Secunda,ȱ Scythiaȱ andȱ Notitiaȱ
Dignitatum,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1988,ȱp.ȱ54.ȱ
525
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ epigrafieȱ romanoȬbizantin©ȱ (RomanȬByzantineȱ epigraphyȱ notes),ȱ
Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 275;ȱ forȱ theȱ wordȱ principalisȱ meaningȱ municipalȱ official,ȱ seeȱ IGLR,ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ72.ȱ
526
ȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Sigiliiȱ óiȱ inscripöiiȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȬVIIȱ e.ȱ n.ȱ (Sealsȱ andȱ inscriptionsȱ
fromȱDobrujaȱinȱtheȱ6 th Ȭ7 th ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱSCIVAȱ37ȱ(1986),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ134Ȭ140.ȱ
527
ȱ Forȱ theȱ militaryȱ organisationȱ ofȱ Scythiaȱ province,ȱ seeȱ Al.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Laȱ Dobroudjaȱ
romaine,ȱp.ȱ209Ȭ221;ȱM.ȱZahariade,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ55Ȭ99.ȱ
528
ȱ Ifȱ theȱ completionȱ forȱ CVNDȱ onȱ aȱ tegulaȱ isȱ correct;ȱ seeȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 122Ȭ
123,ȱwhoȱdidnȇtȱexcludeȱotherȱcompletionȱpossibilities;ȱFl.ȱMateiȬPopescu,ȱTheȱArmy,ȱp.ȱ274:ȱ
theȱsuggestedȱcompletionȱisȱnotȱlikelyȱtoȱreferȱtoȱcuneusȱDalmatarumȱinȱScythiaȱMinor.ȱ
529
ȱAlsoȱapudȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱloc.ȱcit.;ȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ216.ȱ
ȱ 185
ȱȱȱ
wereȱ broughtȱ toȱ Tomisȱ toȱ workȱ onȱ theȱ precinctȱ wallȱ building.ȱ Iuliusȱ Atzeis,ȱ
vexillarius,ȱ builtȱ aȱ steleȱ withȱ beautifulȱ Christianȱ symbols530.ȱ Twoȱ funeraryȱ
inscriptions,ȱ bothȱ fromȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ AD531,ȱ mentionȱ Atala,ȱ ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Tzeiukȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 41)ȱ andȱ Terentius,ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Gaioneȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30)ȱ belongingȱ toȱ theȱ sagittariiȱ
iuniores.ȱTheȱquotedȱinscriptionsȱareȱimportantȱforȱmanyȱreasons:ȱtheȱtwoȱarchersȱ
diedȱ young,ȱ probablyȱ killedȱ inȱ aȱ militaryȱ operationȱ againstȱ barbarianȱ attacksȱ
uponȱTomis532.ȱTheirȱnamesȱareȱsuggestiveȱforȱrecruitingȱintoȱtheȱRomanȱarmyȱofȱ
someȱindividualsȱbelongingȱtoȱmigratingȱpopulations:ȱTuranianȱ(maybeȱHun)ȱȬȱasȱ
TzeiukȱandȱAtalaȱȬȱandȱGothic,ȱasȱGaionas.ȱItȱwasȱassumedȱtheȱmilitaryȱunitȱtheyȱ
belongedȱ toȱ Ȭsagittariiȱ iunioresȱ Gallicaniȱ (orȱ Orientales)ȱ –ȱ workedȱ atȱ theȱ wallȱ
restaurationȱ atȱ Tomis533ȱ inȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Moreȱ likelyȱ weȱ referȱ toȱ aȱ vexillatioȱ
comitatensisȱofȱequitesȱsagittariiȱiuniores,ȱwhoȱactedȱinȱtheȱdioceseȱofȱThracia534.ȱ
ȱ
Coinsȱ
Afterȱ ceasingȱ theȱ localȱ coinȱ issue,ȱ Romanȱ coinsȱ continuedȱ toȱ circulateȱ untilȱ
theȱendȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱAD;ȱȱtheirȱcirculationȱwasȱthenȱcontinuedȱbyȱByzantineȱ
coins.ȱ Numerousȱ hoardsȱ wereȱ foundȱ onȱ theȱ territoryȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ
neigbourhood.ȱ Twoȱ hoardsȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Gothicȱ invasionȱ ofȱ 295ȱ AD.ȱ
Theȱ first,ȱ discoveredȱ inȱ 1936,ȱ includesȱ 62ȱ colonialȱ coinsȱ issuedȱ byȱ Alexandriaȱ inȱ
Egypt535.ȱ Theȱ hoardȱ isȱ anȱ importȱ broughtȱ probablyȱ byȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ soldiersȱ whoȱ
activelyȱparticipatedȱinȱtheȱdefeatȱofȱtheȱEgyptianȱuprisingȱunderȱDiocletian.ȱTheȱ
latestȱcoinȱinȱtheȱhoardȱwasȱissuedȱbyȱcaesarȱGaleriusȱandȱwasȱȱdatedȱbetweenȱ295ȱ
andȱ296ȱAD.ȱ
Theȱsecondȱhoardȱincludesȱbronzeȱimperialȱcoins;ȱitȱisȱaȱfragmentaryȱhoard,ȱ
discoveredȱtoȱtheȱnorthȱofȱancientȱTomisȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱsuburbanȱcityȱdistricts;ȱ288ȱ
piecesȱofȱthisȱhoardȱwereȱretrieved.ȱTheȱlatestȱcoinsȱdoȱnotȱgoȱunderȱ294ȱAD536.ȱ
Aȱhoardȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD,ȱbutȱformedȱelsewhere,ȱwasȱȱdiscoveredȱȱȱ
inȱȱȱtheȱȱȱportȱȱȱofȱConstanöa.ȱTheȱcoinsȱȬȱ18ȱbronzeȱpiecesȱbearingȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱ
emperorsȱ Diocletian,ȱ Maximian,ȱ Galeriusȱ andȱ Constantiusȱ Iȱ Ȭȱ belongedȱ toȱ aȱ coinȱ
530
ȱ M.ȱ B©rbulescu,ȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Uneȱ inscriptionȱ funéraireȱ chrétienneȱ récemmentȱ découverteȱ àȱ
Constantza,ȱ inȱ Studiaȱ historiaeȱ etȱ religionisȱ DacoȬRomanae.ȱ Inȱ honoremȱ Silviiȱ Sanieȱ (eds.ȱ L.ȱ
Mih©ilescuȬBîrliba,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegru),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 439Ȭ448ȱ (5 th Ȭ6 th ȱ centuries,ȱ notȱ
excludingȱ anȱ earlierȱ date);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Al.ȱ Avram,ȱ Bull.ép.,ȱ 2008,ȱ p.ȱ 696Ȭ697,ȱ nr.ȱ 373ȱ (suggestsȱȱ
theȱ4 th ȱcenturyȱandȱrestoresȱȱ[̖.]ȱ͑ΓϾΏ(΍ΓΖ)ȱ̡ΘΊΉ΍Ζ.ȱ
531
ȱForȱdatingȱtheȱinscriptionsȱseeȱtheȱnoteȱaboveȱ514.ȱ
532
ȱNoteȱatȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ124.ȱ
533
ȱD.M.ȱTeodorescu,ȱMonumente,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1918,ȱp.ȱ38Ȭ44,ȱno.ȱ18.ȱ
534
ȱ D.ȱ Hoffman,ȱ Dasȱ spätrömischeȱ Bewegungsheerȱ undȱ dieȱ Notitiaȱ Dignitatum,ȱ II,ȱ
Düsseldorf,ȱ 1969,ȱ p.ȱ 109,ȱ n.ȱ 591;ȱ seeȱ theȱ debateȱ atȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ p.ȱ 66;ȱ M.ȱ Ionescu,ȱȱ
Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Sistemulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ aȱ litoraluluiȱ Dobrogeiȱ romaneȱ (sec.ȱ IȬVIIȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Theȱ ȱ Romanȱ
Dobrujaȱcoastȱdefenceȱsystemȱȱ(ȱ1 st Ȭ7 th ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ74.ȱ
535
ȱ Itȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ latestȱ hoardȱ ofȱ colonialȱ Greekȱ coinsȱ discoveredȱ onȱ theȱ
Romanianȱ territory;ȱ seeȱ A.ȱ Vertan,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monetar©,ȱ p.ȱ 261;ȱ eadem,ȱ Ponticaȱ 32ȱ (1999),ȱ p.ȱ
126.ȱ
536
ȱIbidem,ȱn.ȱ59.ȱ
186ȱ ȱ
ȱ
depositȱ onȱ aȱ shipȱ sunkȱ inȱ Tomisȱ portȱ roadstead537.ȱ Theȱ structure,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ
mints,ȱshowsȱanȱAegeanȱorigin.ȱ
Aȱ hoardȱ ofȱ 50ȱ bronzeȱ piecesȱ discoveredȱ inȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ area538ȱ wasȱ
datedȱ ȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Constantineȱ theȱ Great.ȱ Theȱ hoardȱ includesȱ piecesȱ
issuedȱ betweenȱ 320Ȭ324ȱ (13ȱ coins)ȱ andȱ 330Ȭ335ȱ ADȱ (37ȱ coins);ȱ theȱ intermediaryȱ
periodȱ issuesȱ areȱ missing539.ȱ Asȱ theȱ hoardȱ includesȱ exclusivelyȱ issuesȱ fromȱ Sisciaȱ
andȱ Thessalonica,ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ admitted540ȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ broughtȱ hereȱ asȱ suchȱ formedȱ
fromȱ theȱ westȱ Balkanȱ areaȱ andȱ fromȱ theȱ middleȱ Danube.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ
hoardȱ atȱ Tomisȱ canȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ transferȱ ofȱ theȱ Sarmatiansȱ byȱ theȱ
imperialȱ authoritiesȱ toȱ Italyȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ devastatedȱ regionsȱ fromȱ theȱ Balkanȱ
Peninsula,ȱamongȱwhichȱwasȱScythia,ȱinȱ334ȱAD.ȱTheȱhoardȱcouldȱhaveȱbelongedȱ
toȱ aȱ soldierȱ transferredȱ toȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ toȱ escortȱ theȱ Sarmatians.ȱ Itsȱ lossȱ aboutȱ
334ȱAD,ȱorȱimmediatelyȱafterȱthisȱdate,ȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱaȱlocalȱeventȱ
ofȱminorȱimportance,ȱwithoutȱaȱpoliticalȱorȱmilitaryȱmotivationȱandȱperhapsȱwithȱ
noȱ consequencesȱ forȱ Tomis541.ȱ Twoȱ coinȱ depositsȱ haveȱ beenȱ givenȱ asȱ funeraryȱ
offerings.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ ofȱ themȱ includesȱ 11ȱ Romanȱ imperialȱ coinsȱ issuedȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ
quarterȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD542.ȱTheȱsecond,ȱwhichȱisȱunderȱdebateȱhere,ȱincludesȱ
13ȱ pieces;ȱ withȱ onlyȱ oneȱ exception543ȱ theȱ coinsȱ areȱ datedȱ betweenȱ 355ȱ andȱ 361ȱ
AD544.ȱTheyȱcoverȱtheȱreignsȱofȱConstantiusȱIIȱandȱJulianusȱApostatusȱ(theȱlastȱoneȱ
withȱonlyȱtwoȱpieces).ȱ
Aȱ hoardȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ atȱ Tomisȱ suburbanȱ area545ȱ inȱ 2003.ȱ Theȱ hoard,ȱ
unpublished,ȱ includesȱ 6,500ȱ piecesȱ andȱ aboutȱ 500ȱ fragments.ȱ Theȱ preliminaryȱ
analysisȱ concludedȱ itȱ wasȱ hiddenȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ Gothicȱ attackȱ inȱ 378ȱ
AD546.ȱȱ
Twoȱdiscoveriesȱendingȱaboutȱ395Ȭ402ȱȱADȱareȱtoȱbeȱnoticedȱinȱtwoȱdifferentȱ
spotsȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ;ȱ ȱ oneȱ ofȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ intraȱ murosȱ ȱ areaȱ (Traianȱ st.),ȱ ȱ withȱ aȱ
537
ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱCâtevaȱdescopeririȱmonetareȱdinȱsec.ȱIVȱe.n.ȱînȱScythiaȱMinorȱ(Someȱcoinsȱ
discoveriesȱfromȱtheȱ4 th ȱcenturyȱADȱinȱScythiaȱMinor),ȱPonticaȱ17ȱ(1984),ȱp.ȱ131Ȭ134.ȱ
538
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ A.ȱ Smaranda,ȱ A.ȱ Diaconu,ȱ Unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ monedeȱ
deȱ bronzȱ dinȱ vremeaȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Constantinȱ celȱ Mareȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Aȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ hoardȱ
fromȱConstantineȱtheȱGreatȱtimeȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ23ȱ(1990),ȱp.ȱ267Ȭ275.ȱ
539
ȱ Itȱ isȱ consideredȱ theȱ onlyȱ hoardȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ datedȱ ȱ toȱ ȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱȱ
ConstantineȱtheȱGreat.ȱ
540
ȱSeeȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱR.ȱOcheóeanuȱetȱal.,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ(n.ȱ538).ȱ
541
ȱ Theȱ authorsȱ ofȱ thisȱ studyȱ doȱ notȱ excludeȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ associatingȱ thisȱ hoardȱ
withȱ eventsȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ yearsȱ ofȱ Constantineȱ theȱ Greatȱ reign,ȱ betweenȱ 337Ȭ342ȱ AD,ȱ butȱ
theȱhypothesisȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱtextȱisȱgenerallyȱaccepted.ȱ
542
ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ R.ȱ Ocheóeanu,ȱ Câtevaȱ depoziteȱ monetareȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ
depuseȱ caȱ ofrandeȱ funerareȱ (secoleleȱ IIIȬIVȱ d.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Someȱ coinȱ depositsȱ fromȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ givenȱ
asȱfuneraryȱofferingsȱ(3 rd ȱȬȱ5 th ȱAD),ȱPontica,ȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ349Ȭ353.ȱ
543
ȱIidem,ȱop.cit,ȱp.ȱ353Ȭ359;ȱtheȱexceptionȱisȱaȱcoinȱfromȱCyzicȱfromȱ348Ȭ350ȱAD.ȱ
544
ȱAmongȱthem,ȱ7ȱareȱissuedȱbetweenȱ357ȱandȱ358ȱorȱperhapsȱonlyȱ358ȱAD.ȱ
545
ȱTheȱhoardȱnamedȱConstanöaȬObor,ȱ2003ȱwasȱfoundȱinȱaȱceramicȱvessel.ȱ
546
ȱ Informationȱ providedȱ byȱ ourȱ colleagueȱ Gabrielȱ Custurea,ȱ whoȱ isȱ studyingȱ theȱ
hoard;ȱ apudȱ theȱ sameȱ information,ȱ theȱ earliestȱ coinȱ isȱ fromȱ Licinius;ȱ theȱ latestȱ coinsȱ areȱ
issuedȱ byȱ Valensȱ andȱ Valentinian;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Recentȱ monetaryȱ discoveries,ȱ inȱ
Predaȇsȱ Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ Marchȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 118Ȭ121;ȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ G.ȱ Talmaöchi,ȱ
Repertoriul,ȱp.ȱ183,ȱLXV.ȱ
ȱ 187
ȱȱȱ
unspecifiedȱ numberȱ ofȱ pieces,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ retrievedȱ ȱ 20ȱ samplesȱ;ȱ
anotherȱ inȱ theȱ suburbanȱ settlementȱ (situatedȱ atȱ theȱ crossroadsȱ ofȱ theȱ boulevardsȱ
TomisȱandȱL©puóneanu),ȱȱofȱwhichȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱretrievedȱ10ȱȱsamples547.ȱ
Aȱ laterȱ storeȱ (closedȱ aboutȱ 474Ȭ491ȱ ADȱ includingȱ issuesȱ fromȱ Zenon)ȱ ȱ hasȱ
beenȱdiscoveredȱinȱOvidiuȱSquareȱrecentlyȱ;ȱitȱincludesȱ126ȱbronzeȱcoins548.ȱ
Inȱ 1959,ȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ excavationsȱ atȱ theȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edifice,ȱ aȱ
hoardȱ ofȱ 153ȱ bronzeȱ samplesȱ wasȱ discovered549ȱ inȱ theȱ depositsȱ coveringȱ theȱ
mosaicȱperimeter.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱsamplesȱ(102ȱcoins)ȱareȱdatedȱbetweenȱ425Ȭ
475ȱ AD.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ percentageȱ ofȱ themȱ (75ȱ %)ȱ representsȱ coinsȱ issuedȱ byȱ theȱ
emperorȱLeonȱI.ȱThisȱdiscoveryȱreflectsȱtheȱsufficientȱsupplyȱofȱnewlyȱissuedȱcoinsȱ
inȱtheȱprovinceȱduringȱtheȱthirdȱquarterȱofȱtheȱȱ5ȱ thȱcenturyȱADȱandȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
difficultȱperiodȱofȱtheȱbarbarianȱinvasions.ȱ
AȱfragmentaryȱByzantineȱcoinȱhoardȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱAnaldachioiȱdistrict,ȱinȱ
theȱneighbourhoodȱofȱTomis;ȱthereȱwereȱretrievedȱaboutȱ383ȱsamplesȱofȱit550.ȱTheȱ
coinsȱ wereȱ issuedȱ byȱ Anastasius551,ȱ Justinȱ Iȱ andȱ Justinian;ȱ theȱ latestȱ coinsȱ ofȱ thisȱ
hoardȱareȱdatedȱtoȱ545/546ȱAD.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱthemȱareȱȱfromȱConstantinopleȱ(84ȱ
%),ȱprovingȱthatȱtheȱnecessaryȱcoinȱforȱtheȱprovinceȱwasȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱcapitalȱofȱ
theȱ empire;ȱ itȱ isȱ followedȱ inȱ frequencyȱ byȱ Nicomediaȱ (11.54ȱ %);ȱ theȱ otherȱ mintsȱ
(Cyzic,ȱ Thessalonicȱ andȱ Antiochia)ȱ accountȱ forȱ little.Theȱ buryingȱ ofȱ theȱ hoardȱ inȱ
545/546ȱADȱ(orȱimmediatelyȱafterȱthisȱdate)ȱcannotȱbeȱconnectedȱwithȱhistoricalȱorȱ
epigraphicalȱinformationȱofȱaȱnatureȱtoȱproveȱaȱmilitaryȱeventȱorȱanȱinvasion.ȱTheȱ
comparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ hoardsȱ fromȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Justinianȱ knownȱ inȱ otherȱ areasȱ
ledȱ toȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ aroundȱ theȱ buryingȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ hoardȱ thereȱ wasȱ anȱ
importantȱoutsideȱeventȱwithȱdevastatingȱthoughȱtemporaryȱconsequencesȱforȱtheȱ
province.ȱ Theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ hoardȱ burialȱ isȱ anȱ argumentȱ forȱ theȱ
reasonȱofȱtheȱrestorationȱofȱtheȱTomitanȱprecinctȱduringȱtheȱreignȱofȱJustinian,ȱinȱ
theȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD552.ȱ
547
ȱ Seeȱbothȱ discoveriesȱ atȱ G.ȱCusturea,ȱ G.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱ ȱXVȱ andȱ XXIIIȱ ȱ withȱ
theȱbibliography.ȱFromȱtheȱareaȱinȱtheȱneighbourhoodȱofȱȈFantasioȈȱTheatreȱ(MihaiȱViteazuȱ
st.),ȱ thereȱ wereȱ takenȱ 800ȱ bronzeȱ coinsȱ andȱ someȱ ofȱ silver.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ
halfȱofȱtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱAD,ȱuntilȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ6 th ȱcenturyȱ(mostȱofȱthemȱareȱfromȱtheȱ
4 th Ȭ5 th ȱcenturyȱAD)ȱG.ȱPapucȱetȱalii,ȱCCAȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292.ȱȱ
548
ȱ Iidem,ȱ Repertoriul,ȱ LXVI;ȱ theȱ storeȱ isȱ givenȱ asȱ unpublished;ȱ informationȱ ȱ G.ȱ
TalmaöchiȱandȱD.ȱMoisil.ȱ
549
ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱCirculaöiaȱmonetar©ȱîntreȱaniiȱ270Ȭ498ȱe.n.ȱlaȱDun©reaȱdeȱJos,ȱcuȱspecial©ȱ
privireȱ asupraȱ Scythieiȱ Minorȱ (Coinȱ circulationȱ betweenȱ 270ȱ andȱ 498ȱ ADȱ onȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danubeȱ
withȱaȱspecialȱconsiderationȱofȱScythiaȱMinor);ȱPhD,ȱvol.ȱIV,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1995ȱ(mss),ȱp.ȱ147Ȭ150.ȱ
550
ȱ B.ȱ Mitrea,ȱ Unȱ tezaurȱ deȱ monedeȱ bizantineȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ (Aȱ Byzantineȱ coinȱ
hoardȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöa),ȱ Ponticaȱ 16ȱ (1983),ȱ p.ȱ 239Ȭ262;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ
Eug.ȱMihail,ȱMinimiȱdinȱtezaurulȱdescoperitȱlaȱConstanöaȱînȱcartierulȱAnadalchioiȱ(Minimiȱinȱtheȱ
hoardȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöaȱ inȱ Analdachioiȱ district),ȱ BSNRȱ 80Ȭ85ȱ (1986Ȭ1988),ȱ p.ȱ 101Ȭ115;ȱȱȱȱȱ
G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Dateȱ noiȱ privindȱ circulaöiaȱ monedeiȱ bizantineȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ VȬVII)ȱ (Newȱ dataȱ
aboutȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ coinȱ circulationȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ (theȱ 5 th Ȭ7 th ȱ century),ȱ Ponticaȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ (2004Ȭ2005),ȱ
p.ȱ530Ȭ531,ȱno.ȱ6.ȱ
551
ȱTheȱcoinsȱofȱAnastasiusȱareȱissuedȱafterȱtheȱreformȱinȱ498ȱAD.ȱ
552
ȱHypothesisȱformulatedȱbyȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱII,ȱp.ȱ423Ȭ424.ȱ
188ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Moreȱ thanȱ 500ȱ samplesȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ 6thȬ7thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ haveȱ beenȱ
discoveredȱ inȱ isolatedȱ places553.ȱ Theyȱ allowȱ usȱ toȱ evaluateȱ moreȱ strictlyȱ theȱ
Byzantineȱ coinȱ presenceȱ inȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ marketȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ theȱ
reignsȱ ofȱ Anastasiusȱ andȱ Constantineȱ IVȱ Pogonatȱ (byȱ recordingȱ theȱ periodsȱ ofȱ
flourishingȱ orȱ regressionȱ ofȱ coinȱ issue).ȱ Thus,ȱ veryȱ fewȱ coinsȱ areȱ notedȱ betweenȱ
498Ȭ512ȱ AD;ȱ aȱ betterȱ situationȱ developedȱ forȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ
Anastasius;ȱȱȱtheȱvalueȱisȱalmostȱdoubleȱduringȱȱtheȱreignȱofȱJustinȱIȱasȱaȱnormalȱ
consequenceȱ ofȱ previousȱ straighteningȱ measures.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ firstȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ
reignȱofȱJustinian,ȱanȱimportantȱdiminutionȱmotivatedȱbyȱtheȱdeteriorationȱofȱtheȱ
politicalȱ andȱ militaryȱ conditionsȱ atȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danubeȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ found.Theȱ
difficultiesȱseemȱinȱpartȱoverpassedȱduringȱtheȱnextȱperiodȱȬȱ538Ȭ542ȱADȱȬȱandȱinȱ
spiteȱ ofȱ theȱ invasionsȱ fromȱ 540ȱAD.ȱ Theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ 542ȱ ADȱ untilȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱȱ
theȱreignȱofȱJustinianȱwasȱmarkedȱagainȱbyȱaȱdiminution,ȱmotivatedȱbyȱpressuresȱ
andȱinvasionsȱȱofȱȱtheȱmigratingȱpopulations.ȱ
Duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Justinȱ II,ȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ coinsȱ wereȱ increasingȱ againȱ inȱ
number,ȱmotivatedȱbyȱinflationȱtendencies.ȱImmediatelyȱafterȱthatȱ(perhapsȱevenȱ
fromȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱreignȱofȱJustinȱII),ȱunderȱTiberiusȱIIȱConstantinus,ȱthereȱwasȱaȱ
drasticȱ diminution,ȱ followedȱ byȱ aȱ newȱ increase554ȱ underȱ Mauriciusȱ Tiberius.ȱ Theȱ
variationsȱ notedȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ periodȱ areȱ notȱ soȱ important.ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ
mentionedȱ thatȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ coinsȱ wasȱ issuedȱ inȱ Tomisȱ fromȱ Mauriciusȱ Tiberiusȱ
untilȱ Constantineȱ IVȱ theȱ Pogonate555.ȱ Byzantineȱ coinȱ circulationȱ atȱ Tomisȱ endedȱ
aboutȱ680ȱADȱduringȱtheȱruleȱofȱtheȱreignȱofȱtheȱlastȱmentionedȱemperor.ȱThoughȱ
rare,ȱ theyȱ proveȱ theȱ presence,ȱ evenȱ poor,ȱ ofȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ empireȱ here556.ȱ Fromȱ
theȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ ofȱ mints,ȱ theȱ firstȱ placeȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ samplesȱ producedȱ inȱ
Constantinople,ȱ followed,ȱ withȱ aȱ greatȱ differenceȱ byȱ Nicomedia,ȱ Thessalonica,ȱ
CyzikȱandȱAntiochia557.ȱ
CultureȱandȱChristianityȱ
553
ȱ Hereȱ andȱ furtherȱ on,ȱ seeȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ Al.ȱ Popeea,ȱ Monedeȱ bizantineȱ dintrȬoȱ
colecöieȱformat©ȱlaȱConstanöaȱ(ByzantineȱCoinsȱfromȱaȱCollectionȱFormedȱinȱConstanöa),ȱSCIVAȱ27ȱ
(1976),ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 215Ȭ229;ȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬBordea,ȱ Problèmesȱ historiquesȱ deȱ laȱ Dobroudjaȱ (VI e ȱ –ȱ VII e ȱ
siècles)ȱàȱlaȱlumièreȱdesȱmonnaiesȱbyzantinesȱtraitéesȱparȱdesȱméthodesȱstatistiques,ȱPactȱ5ȱ(1981),ȱ
p.ȱ365Ȭ377;ȱGh.ȱPoenaruȬBordea,ȱR.ȱOcheóeanu,ȱAl.ȱPopeea,ȱMonnaiesȱbyzantinesȱduȱMuséeȱdeȱ
Constanöaȱ (Roumanie),ȱ Moneta,ȱ Wetteren,ȱ 2004ȱ;ȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 509,ȱ no.ȱ 15ȱ (recordsȱȱ
522ȱAEȱcoins)ȱandȱp.ȱ491Ȭ494;ȱadds,ȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱTr.ȱCliante,ȱMonedeȱbizantineȱdescoperiteȱînȱ
Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ VIȬVII)ȱ /Byzantineȱ coinsȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ (theȱ 6 th Ȭ7 th ȱ centuries),ȱ Ponticaȱ 39ȱ
(2006),ȱ p.ȱ 426Ȭ428,ȱ nos.ȱ 38Ȭ70ȱ (31ȱ AEȱ coinsȱ fromȱ Anastasiusȱ Iȱ toȱ Heracliusȱ +ȱ 2ȱ ȱ Byzantineȱ
Empireȱ(ȱafterȱ538ȱAD).ȱ
554
ȱ Theȱ coinsȱ fromȱ Mauriciusȱ Tiberiusȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ momentȱ ofȱ 587ȱ ADȱ wasȱ lessȱ
criticalȱthanȱitȱwasȱassumed;ȱtheȱcityȱwasȱnotȱdestroyedȱatȱthatȱtime.ȱ
555
ȱIrimiaȱDimian,ȱCâtevaȱdescopeririȱmonetareȱbizantineȱpeȱteritoriulȱRPRȱ(SomeȱByzantineȱ
coinȱ discoveriesȱ onȱ RPRȱ territory),ȱ SCNȱ 1ȱ (1957),ȱ p.ȱ 197,ȱ nos.ȱ 1Ȭ5;ȱ possibleȱ hoardȱ hiddenȱ
probablyȱonȱtheȱoccasionȱofȱBulgariansȱinvasionȱonȱtheȱsouthȱofȱtheȱDanube.ȱ
556
ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ coinsȱ fromȱ Phocasȱ (16ȱ registeredȱ byȱ Gh.ȱ PoenaruȬȱ Bordea,ȱ R.ȱ
Ocheóeanu,ȱ Al.ȱ Popeea,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.)ȱ andȱ Heracliusȱ (5ȱ afterȱ theȱ sameȱ registration)ȱ showȱ thatȱ
Tomisȱhadȱinȱthatȱtimeȱanȱimportantȱrole.ȱ
557
ȱSeeȱthisȱwayȱalsoȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ251.ȱ
ȱ 189
ȱȱȱ
Culturalȱ activitiesȱ followȱ theȱ GreekȬRomanȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ
TheȱcultȱofȱtheȱsunȱspreadȱintoȱtheȱRomanȱEmpireȱevenȱfromȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD558,ȱ
attestedȱ atȱ Tomisȱ inȱ aȱ dedicationȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 155)ȱ fromȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorsȱ
DiocletianȱandȱMaximian.ȱTheȱlatestȱmonumentȱdedicatedȱtoȱCybeleȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ144)ȱ
isȱ alsoȱ datedȱ toȱ thatȱ period.ȱ Evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ faithȱ isȱ registeredȱ atȱ Tomisȱ
beforeȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ edictȱ Constantineȱ theȱ Great.ȱ Itȱ isȱ isolatedȱ andȱ includesȱ
paganȱ elements.ȱ Weȱ deduceȱ thisȱ fromȱ unusualȱ expressionsȱ inȱ inscriptionȱ contentȱ
orȱ fromȱ theȱ possibleȱ Christianȱ valuesȱ ofȱ someȱ decorativeȱ elements559.ȱ Perhapsȱ
moreȱvaluableȱforȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱChristianityȱatȱTomisȱisȱaȱminorȱartȱobject:ȱtheȱ
alreadyȱ famousȱ cornelianȱ gemȱ representingȱ Christȱ crucifiedȱ amongȱ theȱ
Apostles560.ȱ
Weȱmention,ȱforȱtheȱsameȱcategory,ȱaȱlampȱwithȱtheȱimageȱofȱChristȱblessing,ȱ
surroundedȱ byȱ Apostles561,ȱ andȱ anotherȱ fishȬshapedȱ bronzeȱ one562.ȱ Theȱ oldestȱ
Christianȱ objectȱ knownȱ untilȱ recentlyȱ inȱ Tomisȱ isȱ noȱ laterȱ thanȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ
centuryȱADȱȬȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD;ȱitȱisȱaȱceramicȱlampȱwhichȱhasȱ
theȱ monogramȱ crossȱ engravedȱ threeȱ times563.ȱ Anotherȱ lampȱ hasȱ theȱ sameȱ date;ȱ itȱ
representsȱtwoȱfishes,ȱprobablyȱaȱChristianȱsymbol564.ȱRecentlyȱhasȱbeenȱpublishedȱ
aȱ lampȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ withȱ threeȱ PalaeoȬChristianȱ symbolsȱ Ȭȱ theȱ cross,ȱ theȱ pigeonȱ
andȱtheȱdolphinȱȬȱdatedȱbeforeȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD565.ȱȱ
558
ȱ D.M.ȱ Pippidi,ȱ Studii,ȱ p.ȱ 329Ȭ330;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Antichitateaȱ târzieȱ (Theȱ lateȱ antiquity),ȱ
Iaói,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ42Ȭ44.ȱ
559
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ synthesis,ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ privindȱ celeȱ maiȱ vechiȱ monumenteȱ creótineȱ deȱ
laȱ Tomisȱ (Considerationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ oldestȱ Christianȱ Monumentsȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ
269Ȭ275.ȱ
560
ȱ Theȱ gem,ȱ originallyȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ 2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ AD,ȱ wasȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ
consideredȱ theȱ oldestȱ Christianȱ documentȱ fromȱ Tomis;ȱ theȱ iconographicalȱ subject,ȱȱ
reinterprteted,ȱ ledȱ toȱ aȱ newȱ datation,ȱ notȱ beforeȱ theȱ 4 th Ȭ5 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD;ȱ seeȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Lesȱ
monumentsȱ paléochretiensȱ deȱ Roumanie,ȱ Cittàȱ delȱ Vaticano,ȱ 1977,ȱ p.ȱ 73Ȭ74,ȱ no.ȱ 41;ȱ idemȱ Artaȱ
creótin©ȱ înȱ Româniaȱ (Theȱ Christianȱ Artȱ inȱ Romania),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1979,ȱ p.ȱ 92,ȱ 1;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱȱȱ
IGLR,ȱȱ53ȱȱȱ(withȱȱȱtheȱbibliography);ȱȱȱȱamongȱȱȱȱtheȱȱȱȱnewestȱȱȱȱcontributions,ȱȱP.ȱDiaconu,ȱ
Documenteleȱ ȱ ȱ vechiȱ ȱ ȱ creótineȱ ȱ ȱ dinȱ ȱ ȱ Dobrogeaȱ ȱ (Theȱ ȱ ȱ oldȱ ȱ Christianȱ documentsȱ fromȱ Dobruja),ȱ
Ponticaȱ 17ȱ (1984),ȱ p.ȱ 164Ȭ166;ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Dinȱ nouȱ despreȱ gemaȱ creótin©ȱ deȱ laȱ
Constanöaȱ(AgainȱaboutȱtheȱChristianȱgemȱfromȱConstanöa),ȱPonticaȱ23ȱ(1990),ȱp.ȱ177Ȭ182.ȱ
561
ȱ Theȱ object,ȱ withȱ inscriptionsȱ apudȱ theȱ Gospelȱ ofȱ ȱ John,ȱ XIV,ȱ 27ȱ (Pacemȱ meamȱ doȱ
vobis),ȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ originallyȱ fromȱ Italyȱ andȱ ȱ theȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Latinȱ featureȱ ofȱ
DacianȬRomanȱ Christianity;ȱseeȱI.ȱ Barnea,ȱLesȱ monuments,ȱ p.ȱ 74,ȱno.ȱ 42;ȱ idem,ȱ Artaȱcreótin©,ȱ
p.ȱ92,ȱno.ȱ2.ȱ
562
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ230;ȱidem,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱp.ȱ230Ȭ231,ȱno.ȱ3;ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱ
IGLR,ȱ55.ȱ
563
ȱ C.ȱ Cheraȱ M©rgineanu,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Noiȱ descopeririȱ dinȱ necropoleleȱ tomitaneȱ (Newȱ
discoveriesȱinȱtheȱTomitanȱnecropolis),ȱPonticaȱ17ȱ(1984),ȱp.ȱ128Ȭ129;ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱ
Leȱ christianismeȱ enȱ Scythieȱ Mineureȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ desȱ dernièresȱ découvertesȱ archéologiques,ȱ inȱ
ActesȱduȱXI e ȱCongrèsȱInternationalȱdȇArchéologieȱChrétienne,ȱRoma,ȱ1989,ȱp.ȱ2565Ȭ2567.ȱ
564
ȱ C.ȱ Cheraȱ M©rgineanu,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 128ȱ andȱ p.ȱ 118,ȱ theȱ pl.ȱ 3/29;ȱ generally,ȱ
seeȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Începuturileȱ creótinismuluiȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ înȱ luminaȱ descoperirilorȱ arheologiceȱ
(Theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ discoveries),ȱ inȱ
Izvoareleȱcreótinismuluiȱromânesc,ȱArhiepiscopiaȱTomisului,ȱ2002,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ45.ȱ
565
ȱC.ȱB©jenaru,ȱUnȱopaiöȱcuȱsimboluriȱpaleocreótineȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomisȱ(AȱlampȱwithȱPaleoȬ
Christianȱ symbolsȱ discoveredȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 35Ȭ36ȱ (2002Ȭ2003),ȱ p.ȱ 217Ȭ223ȱ suggestsȱ datingȱ
theȱlampȱtoȱtheȱ2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
190ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ andȱ mostlyȱ inȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ Christianityȱ
stronglyȱ influencedȱ provincialȱ culture566.ȱ Hierarchicallyȱ organized,ȱ churchȱ wasȱ
led,ȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorȱ Anastasius,ȱ byȱ oneȱ bishop567ȱ withȱ hisȱ
residenceȱ atȱ Tomis568.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ ecumenicalȱ patriarchyȱ wasȱ establishedȱ inȱ
Constantinople,ȱ ȱ theȱ ȱ dioceseȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ dependedȱ directlyȱ onȱ itȱ andȱ theȱ culturalȱ
connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danubeȱ regionȱ andȱ theȱ capitalȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ
Empireȱ becameȱ strongerȱ andȱ stronger.ȱ Evangelicusȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ firstȱ
Tomitanȱ bishopȱ andȱ heȱ livedȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Diocletian.ȱ Hisȱ nameȱ isȱ
mentionedȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ martyrsȱ Epictetȱ andȱ Astionȱ whoȱ sufferedȱ atȱ
Halmyrisȱ aroundȱ 303ȱ AD569.ȱ Noȱ laterȱ thanȱ toȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ isȱ datedȱ anȱ
inscriptionȱsetȱupȱforȱaȱ„martyrȱofȱChristȱandȱbishop”ȱ(IGLRȱ22).ȱTheȱinscription,ȱ
incompleteȱ now,ȱ isȱ supposedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ forȱ Titusȱ (orȱ Philus)570,ȱ knownȱ toȱ haveȱ
sufferedȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorȱ Licinius,ȱ aroundȱ 319Ȭ323ȱ AD571.ȱ Theȱ
566
567
ȱ Seeȱ inȱ detailȱ atȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Christianitasȱ DacoȬRomana.ȱ Florilegiumȱ studiorum,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ 1994,ȱ passim;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Genezaȱ creótinismuluiȱ popularȱ alȱ românilorȱ (Theȱ originȱ ofȱ
theȱ popularȱ Romanianȱ Christianity),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1997,ȱ passim;ȱ idem,ȱ inȱ Fontesȱ Historiaeȱ DacoȬ
Romanaeȱ Christianitatis.ȱ Izvoareleȱ istorieiȱ creótinismuluiȱ românescȱ (Theȱ Romanianȱ Christianityȱ
sources)ȱ (=FHDRCh),ȱ translationsȱ byȱ M.ȱ Paraschiv,ȱ C.ȱ T©rn©uceanu,ȱ W.ȱ Danc©.ȱ Theȱ textȱ
selection,ȱforeward,ȱbibliography,ȱnotes,ȱcommentary,ȱindex,ȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱIaóiȱ2008,ȱpassim.ȱ
Seeȱ andȱ A.ȱ Câteia,ȱ Instituöiileȱ ecleziasticeȱ peȱ litoralulȱ vestȬpontic,ȱ înȱ luminaȱ izvoarelorȱ
arheologice,ȱliterareȱóiȱepigraficeȱînȱsecoleleȱIVȬVIIȱ(TheȱecclesiasticȱinstitutionsȱonȱtheȱwestȬPonticȱ
coast,ȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeological,ȱ literaryȱ andȱ epigraphicalȱ evidence,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2006,ȱ
passim;ȱseeȱandȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱinȱClassicaȱetȱChristianaȱ2ȱȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ338Ȭ359.ȱ
568
ȱ Weȱ findȱ theȱ informationȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 5 th ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ atȱ Sozomenos,ȱ
Theodoretȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ lawȱ ofȱ emperorȱ Zenonȱ fromȱ 480ȱ AD.ȱ Forȱ theȱ organizationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Tomitanȱ church,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Noiȱ dateȱ despreȱ mitropoliaȱ Tomisuluiȱ (Newȱ informationȱ
aboutȱtheȱmetropolitanȱseatȱofȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ277Ȭ282;ȱEmȱPopescu,ȱDieȱkirchlicheȱ
Organisationȱ derȱ Provinzȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ vomȱ viertenȱ bisȱ insȱ sechsteȱ Jahrhundert,ȱ Jahrbuchȱ derȱ
Österreichischenȱ Byzantinistikȱ 38ȱ (1988),ȱ p.ȱ 75Ȭ94;ȱ idemȱ Ierarhiaȱ eclesiastic©ȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ
României.ȱ Creótereaȱ óiȱ structuraȱ eiȱ pân©ȱ înȱ secolulȱ alȱ VIIȬleaȱ (Theȱ Ecclesiaticalȱ hierarchyȱ onȱ
Romaniaȇsȱ Territory.ȱ Itsȱ developmentȱ andȱ structureȱ untilȱ theȱ 7 th ȱ centuryȱ AD),ȱ Bisericaȱ Ortodox©ȱ
Român©ȱ 108ȱ (1990),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 152Ȭ154,ȱ 160Ȭ163;ȱ idemȱ Începuturileȱ îndep©rtateȱ aleȱ autocefalieiȱ
Bisericiiȱ Ortodoxeȱ Române:ȱ Tomisul,ȱ Arhiepiscopieȱ autocefal©ȱ (Theȱ Remoteȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ theȱ
autocephalyȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanianȱ Orthodoxȱ Church:ȱ Tomis,ȱ Autocephalȱ Bishoprie),ȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ
creótinismuluiȱ românescȱ (Theȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ Romanianȱ Christianity),ȱ p.ȱ 171Ȭ200ȱ ;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravuȱ inȱ
FHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ74Ȭ106ȱ(withȱbibliographicalȱnotesȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱtextsȱinȱtheȱvolume).ȱ
569
ȱ Aboutȱ theseȱ martyrs,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Zahariade,ȱ O.ȱ Bounegruȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ
românesc,ȱ p.ȱ 115Ȭ126;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Itinerariaȱ ecclesiasticaȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ (Itinerariaȱ
ecclesiasticaȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor),ȱ Studiaȱ Universitatisȱ BabeóȬBolyai,ȱ Teologiaȱ catholica,ȱ LIIȱ 3,ȱ
2007,ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ12,ȱ n.ȱ 3Ȭ11;ȱ idem,ȱ înȱ FHDRCh,ȱ p.ȱ 74Ȭ77ȱ óiȱ CXXI;ȱ M.ȱ Zahariade,ȱ Aȱ historicalȱ
commentaryȱ toȱ aȱ Hagiographicȱ text:ȱ Passioȱ Epictetiȱ Presbyteriȱ etȱ Astionisȱ Monachiȱ inȱ Theȱ
ChristianȱMissionȱonȱtheȱRomanianȱterritoryȱduringȱtheȱfirstȱcenturiesȱofȱtheȱChurch,ȱConstanöa,ȱ
2009,ȱp.ȱ83Ȭ111.ȱȱȱ
570
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ paleocreótineȱ inediteȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (Unpublishedȱ palaeochristianȱ
inscriptionsȱofȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ7ȱ(1974),ȱp.ȱ377Ȭ380;ȱIGLR,ȱ22.ȱ
571
ȱCf.ȱActaȱSanctorum,ȱinȱFontesȱII,ȱp.ȱ704Ȭ707.ȱTheȱinscriptionȱunderȱdiscussionȱwouldȱ
haveȱ beenȱ setȱ atȱ theȱ entranceȱ ofȱ aȱ martyrium,ȱ builtȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 4 th ȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ
beginningȱofȱtheȱ5 th ȱcenturyȱAD.ȱHowever,ȱseeȱalsoȱPetreȱN©sturel,ȱDeȱlaȱoȱinscripöieȱcreótin©ȱ
dinȱ Tomisȱ laȱ p©timireaȱ Sf.ȱ Teogeneȱ (Fromȱ aȱ christianȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ toȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Teogeneȇsȱ
ȱ 191
ȱȱȱ
historicalȱ documentȱ attestsȱ certainlyȱ Bretanionȱ (orȱ Vetranion),ȱ „competentȱ andȱ
famousȱ manȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ qualities”ȱ (Sozomenos,ȱ VI,ȱ 21),ȱ whoȱ „wasȱ leadingȱ asȱ
bishopȱtheȱcitiesȱofȱtheȱwholeȱofȱScythia”ȱ(Theodoretus,ȱIV,ȱ35).ȱInȱ368Ȭ369ȱAD,thisȱ
oneȱresistedȱ theȱ penetrationȱofȱArianismȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱemperorȱValens 572.ȱHeȱ
wasȱ followedȱ byȱ Gerontiosȱ (orȱ Terentius),ȱ participantȱ inȱ 381ȱ ADȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ
ecumenicalȱ Synodȱ inȱ Constantinople573.ȱ Theotimusȱ Iȱ theȱ Scythian,ȱ betweenȱ 390Ȭ407ȱ
ADȱisȱknownȱalsoȱasȱaȱwriter574;ȱaȱfamousȱChristianȱpreacherȱamongȱHuns575ȱandȱ
calledȱbyȱthemȱ„theȱRomanȇsȱGod”ȱ(ΟΉϱΖȱͦΝΐ΅ϟΝΑ),ȱthisȱbishopȱwasȱanȱopponentȱ
ofȱArianism576.ȱTimoteiȱisȱparticipantȱtoȱtheȱ3rdȱecumenicalȱSynodȱfromȱEphes577,ȱinȱ
431ȱAD.ȱAȱΘΕΣΔΉΊ΅ȱΦ·΅ΔЗΑ,ȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis,ȱwhichȱwasȱpartȱofȱaȱfuneraryȱ
edifice,ȱ isȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ „Hisȱ Holinessȱ Timotei”ȱ byȱ aȱ neophyteȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25).Theȱ
writtenȱnameȱisȱconsideredȱtoȱrepresentȱaȱreligiousȱpersonalityȱȬȱmartyr578ȱorȱevenȱ
bishop579.ȱIoannesȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱactedȱinȱ445/6Ȭ448ȱAD.ȱTheȱsculptedȱmonogramȱofȱ
bishopȱ Ioannesȱ couldȱ beȱ identified580ȱ onȱ theȱ impostȱ ofȱ aȱ capitalȱ (IGLR,ȱ 14).ȱ
Alexanderȱ follows,ȱ andȱ signsȱ inȱ 451ȱ ADȱ theȱ papersȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ ecumenicalȱ synodȱ
fromȱ Chalcedon581;ȱ Theotimȱ II,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ signedȱ aȱ letterȱ asȱ Theotimusȱ humilisȱ
Scythiaeȱ regionisȱ episcopusȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ emperorȱ Leonȱ byȱ whichȱ heȱ defendedȱ
theȱOrthodoxȱreligionȱ(458ȱp.ȱChr.)582.ȱForȱsomeȱdecadesȱnoȱnamesȱofȱbishopsȱareȱ
knownȱ inȱ Tomis583,ȱ untilȱ theȱ plateȱ withȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ bishopȱ Paternusȱ isȱ
dated584.ȱ Inȱ 520ȱ AD,ȱ Paternusȱ signsȱ theȱ papersȱ ofȱ theȱ Synodȱ fromȱ Constantinopleȱ
suffering),ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 283Ȭ286;ȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ inȱ FHDRCh.,ȱ p.ȱ 81Ȭ82:ȱ ȱ thereȱ didȱ notȱ
existȱaȱbishopȱPhilusȱȱorȱTitus;ȱȱbetweenȱaboutȱ308ȱandȱ324ȱ–ȱAnonymus.ȱ
572
ȱ See,ȱ above,ȱ theȱ historicalȱ commentary;ȱ theȱ literaryȱ informationȱ atȱ Sozomenos,ȱ VI,ȱ
21,ȱ2Ȭ6ȱalsoȱinȱotherȱsources;ȱȱseeȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱinȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ109,ȱn.ȱ709.ȱ
573
ȱ Sozomenos,ȱ VII,ȱ 9ȱ (Terentius;ȱ duringȱ emperorȱ Theodosiusȇȱ time);ȱ seȱ alsoȱ FHDRCh,ȱ
XVIIIȱandȱXLVI.ȱ
574
ȱ Hieronymus,ȱ Liberȱ deȱ viribusȱ illustribus,ȱ 131ȱ (22,ȱ 152):ȱ Theotimus,ȱ Scythiaeȱ Tomorumȱ
episcopus.ȱ
575
ȱSozomenos,ȱVII,ȱ26,ȱ6Ȭ9;ȱtheȱchurchȱfromȱTomisȱandȱofȱtheȱrestȱofȱScythiaȱwasȱledȱbyȱtheȱ
ScythianȱTheotimos.ȱ
576
ȱSozomenos,ȱVIIIȱ14;ȱActaȱSanctorum,ȱAprilȱII,ȱ753ȱmentionsȱhimȱasȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱ
SynodȱatȱConstantinople;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱFHDRCh,ȱ XL,ȱXLVII,ȱXLVIII,ȱLIII.ȱ 2ȱandȱ p.ȱ88Ȭ89,ȱ n.ȱ 552Ȭ
556.ȱ
577
ȱIbidem,ȱp.ȱ84Ȭ85ȱóiȱXLV.I.1.a,ȱI.3a;ȱXLV,ȱII.ȱ1,ȱ4,ȱ5,ȱ6,ȱ7.ȱ
578
ȱ Apudȱ R.ȱ Berlinger,ȱ Einȱ früchristlicherȱ Agapentischȱ ausȱ Konstanza,ȱ ByzNeugrJahrb.ȱ II,ȱ
1921,ȱp.ȱ150Ȭ153.ȱ
579
ȱ Apudȱ J.ȱ Zeiller,ȱ Strenaȱ Buliciana,ȱ Zagreb,ȱ 1924,ȱ p.ȱ 415ȱ (apudȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ
commentaryȱatȱIGLR,ȱ25).ȱ
580
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Monumenteȱ deȱ art©ȱ creótin©ȱ descoperiteȱ peȱ teritoriulȱ RPRȱ (Christianȱ artȱ
monumentsȱdiscoveredȱonȱtheȱterritoryȱofȱRomania),ȱStTeologiceȱ 17ȱ (1965),ȱ3Ȭ4,ȱ ȱ p.ȱ153Ȭ154ȱ andȱ
fig.ȱ15;ȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱinȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ85ȱandȱXLIX.ȱȱȱ
581
ȱ Ibidem,ȱ p.ȱ 85ȱ (bishopȱ betweenȱ 448ȱ andȱ 452);ȱ ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ L,ȱ n.ȱ 8ȱ andȱ LIII,ȱ 1,ȱ n.ȱ 5ȱ („ȱ hisȱ
presenceȱinȱtheȱconciliumȱisȱdoubtful”).ȱ
582
ȱR.ȱNetzhammer,ȱDieȱchristlichenȱAltertümerȱderȱDobrudscha,ȱBukarest,ȱ1918,ȱp.ȱ52Ȭ56:ȱ
J.ȱ Zeiller,ȱ Lesȱ originesȱ chrétiennesȱ dansȱ lesȱ provincesȱ danubiennesȱ deȱ l’Empireȱ romain,ȱ Paris,ȱ
1918,ȱp.ȱ173;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ278;ȱseeȱalsoȱFHDRCh,ȱLVII.ȱ1,ȱ2.ȱ
583
ȱ Seeȱ thoughȱ FHDR,ȱ p.ȱ 372ȱ (480ȱ AD);ȱ FHDRCh,ȱ p.ȱ 86,ȱ n.ȱ 541ȱ andȱ LXXII.ȱ 1ȱ (Petrusȱ
episcopus)ȱ–ȱ496ȱAD.ȱ
584
ȱ Theȱ goldenȱ silverȱ plate,ȱ 0.61ȱ mȱ inȱ diameterȱ andȱ 7855.11ȱ gȱ weight,ȱ wasȱ includedȱ inȱ
theȱ thesaurusȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ cathedral;ȱ theȱ workȱ techniqueȱ wouldȱ indicateȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ aȱ
192ȱ ȱ
ȱ
withȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ episcopusȱ provinciaeȱ Scythiaeȱ metropolitanus.ȱ Theȱ titleȱ seemsȱ toȱ
justifyȱ theȱ hypothesis585ȱ accordingȱ toȱ which,ȱ duringȱ ȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Anastasius,ȱ
underȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱolderȱTomisȱepiscopate,ȱnowȱaȱmetropolitanȱseat,ȱotherȱ
episcopatesȱ wereȱ alsoȱ createdȱ inȱ Dobruja586.ȱ Paternusȱ isȱ consideredȱ theȱ firstȱ
Scythianȱ metropolitanȱ bishopȱ andȱ hadȱ 14ȱ episcopatesȱ underȱ hisȱ authority587.ȱ Hisȱ
activityȱ tookȱ placeȱ duringȱ theȱ lastȱ decadeȱ ofȱ theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ (inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ
beforeȱ 498ȱ AD)588.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ knownȱ bishopȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ wasȱ Valentinianusȱ (550Ȭ553ȱ
AD),ȱ whoȱ hadȱ closeȱ connectionsȱ withȱ theȱ churchȱ ofȱ Constantinopleȱ andȱ wasȱ inȱ
correspondenceȱ withȱ theȱ Popeȱ Vigiliusȱ atȱ Rome589.ȱ Valentinianȱ maintainedȱ
probablyȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ episcopusȱ metropolitanusȱ whoȱ distinguishedȱ himȱ fromȱ theȱ
otherȱbishopsȱofȱScythiaȱMinor590.ȱWeȱareȱnotȱawareȱofȱanyȱotherȱhierarchȱatȱTomisȱ
afterȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱȱ
Theȱ bishopsȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ wereȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ personalitiesȱ whoȱ
maintainedȱpermanentȱconnectionsȱwithȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱrepresentantativesȱofȱ
theȱ officialȱ church.ȱ Theseȱ connectionsȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ churchȱ
unityȱandȱtheȱculturalȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱprovinceȱScythiaȱMinor.ȱ
Theȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionsȱ mentionȱ aȱ priestȱ ofȱ theȱ ȱ hierarchyȱ ofȱ theȱ churchȱ
(presbyter),ȱ Patriciusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 27);ȱ aȱ hypodiaconosȱ ofȱ Syrianȱ origin,ȱ butȱ bearingȱ theȱ
Latinȱ nameȱ Paulosȱ (IGLR,ȱ 48)591;ȱ alsoȱ Ioannes,ȱ administratorȱ ofȱ theȱ St.ȱ Ioannesȱ
churchȱ(ΔΕ΅·ΐ΅ΘΉΙΘχΖȱΘΓІȱΥ·ϟΓΙȱ͑ΝΣΑΑΓΙ;ȱIGLR,ȱ32)592;ȱandȱHeraclidesȱ„readerȱ
ofȱ theȱ holyȱ andȱ universalȱ church”ȱ (ΦΑ΅·ΑЏΗΘ΋Ζȱ ΘϛΖȱ Υ·ϟ΅Ζȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ύ΅ΟΓΏ΍ΎϛΖȱ
Constantinopleȱ workshop.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ discovery,ȱ seeȱ IGLR,ȱ 64ȱ (theȱ
bibliography);ȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱMadgearu,ȱDisculȱluiȱPaternusȱînȱtezaurulȱdeȱlaȱMalajaȱPeres²epina:ȱ
prad©ȱsauȱdar?ȱ(PaternusȱdiscȱinȱtheȱthesaurusȱfromȱMalajaȱPeres²epina,ȱplunderȱorȱgift?),ȱSCIVAȱ
61ȱ (2010),ȱ 1Ȭ2,ȱ p.ȱ 179Ȭ187.ȱ Aboutȱ Paternusȱ (498Ȭ520ȱ ȱ AD),ȱȱ seeȱ alsoȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱ Histriaȱ XIIIȱȱ
andȱ someȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ Dobrujanȱ Christianity,ȱ Classicaȱ etȱ Christianaȱ 3ȱ (2008),ȱ p.ȱ 282Ȭ
287;ȱidem,ȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ86ȱandȱLXXVI.4,ȱn.ȱ12ȱandȱ14.ȱ
585
ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Nouveȱ considerazioniȱ sulȱ vescovatoȱ dellaȱ Sciziaȱ Minore,ȱ inȱ Rendicontiȱ dellaȱ
Pontificiaȱ Accademiaȱ Romanaȱ diȱ Archeologia,ȱ IIȱ (1924),ȱ p.ȱ 122ȱ andȱ 132Ȭ135;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ
458Ȭ459ȱandȱnoteȱ12.ȱ
586
ȱHypothesisȱprovedȱalsoȱbyȱtheȱtestimonyȱofȱtheȱScythianȱmonks:ȱistiȱdeȱsuaȱprovinciaȱ
episcoposȱ accusantȱ interȱ quosȱ estȱ Paternusȱ Tomitanaeȱ civitatisȱ antistesȱ (Popeȱ Hormisdas,ȱ
Epistolae,ȱ 217).ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ „Scythianȱ monks”,ȱ ȱ seeȱ N.ȱ Zugravu,ȱ Itinerariaȱ ecclesiastica,ȱ p.ȱ 16Ȭ
17ȱandȱ20ȱ(theȱbibliography);ȱidem,ȱinȱFHDRCh,ȱp.ȱ96,ȱn.ȱ602Ȭ614ȱandȱp.ȱ123Ȭ126.ȱ
587
ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Contributionsȱ àȱ laȱ géographieȱ historiqueȱ deȱ laȱ Péninsuleȱ Balkaniqueȱ auxȱ
V e Ȭȱ VIII e ȱ sièclesȱ deȱ notreȱ ère,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 411ȱ andȱ theȱ following;ȱ idem,ȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ
creótinismuluiȱromânesc,ȱp.ȱ197.ȱ
588
ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ dateȱ forȱ theȱ plateȱ markedȱ withȱ Paternusȇȱ name;ȱ seeȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Noteȱ deȱ
epigrafieȱ romanoȬbizantin©ȱ (RomanȬByzantineȱ epigraphyȱ notes),ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 276;ȱ itȱ isȱ
correctedȱ thisȱ wayȱ theȱ broaderȱ datingȱ duringȱ theȱ emperorȱ Anastasius,ȱ 491Ȭ518ȱ AD,ȱ
acceptedȱforȱaȱlongȱtime;ȱȱseeȱalsoȱȱN.ȱZugravu,ȱinȱFHDRCh,ȱȱȱp.ȱ91Ȭ92.ȱ
589
ȱVigiliiȱPapaeȱEpistolaȱ(olimȱXII)ȱadȱValentinianumȱepiscopumȱTomitanorum,ȱinȱFontesȱII,ȱ
p.ȱ 400Ȭ405;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ L’égliseȱ deȱ Tomisȱ auȱ tempsȱ duȱ métropoliteȱ Valentinian.ȱ L’ambassadeȱ
(l’apocrisiariat)ȱdeȱConstantinople,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ51ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ251Ȭ255ȱ(=ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ407Ȭ
414).ȱȱ
590
ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ Tomisȱ ȱ wasȱ raisedȱ atȱ theȱ rankȱ ofȱ autochefalousȱ archiepiscopateȱ
duringȱtheȱreignȱofȱIustinianus;ȱȱseeȱtheȱdiscussionȱatȱN.ȱZugravuȱinȱFHDRCh.,ȱp.ȱ92Ȭ95.ȱ
591
ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ mentionȱ ofȱ aȱ hypodiaconosȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor;ȱ forȱ theȱ Syriansȱ ofȱ thisȱ
area;ȱseeȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ5ȱ(1972),ȱp.ȱ255Ȭ257;ȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ92.ȱ
592
ȱTheȱtextȱshouldȱhaveȱbeenȱΔΕ΅·ΐ΅ΘΉΙΘχΖȱΘϛΖȱπΎΎΏ΋ΗϠ΅ΖȱΘΓІȱΥ·ϟΓΙȱ͑Ν(ΣΑΑΓΙ).ȱ
ȱ 193
ȱȱȱ
πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅Ζ;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 45)593.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ believersȱ onlyȱ theȱ newȱ Christianizedȱ
individualsȱ (neophytes;ȱ ΑΉϱΠΙΘΓ΍;ȱ IGLRȱ 25ȱ andȱ 29)ȱ andȱ catehumeniȱ (theȱ audientes)ȱ
areȱmentioned;ȱtheyȱwereȱpreparedȱtoȱbeȱbaptizedȱ(IGLR,ȱ23).ȱ
TheȱgreatestȱnumberȱofȱChristianȱmartyrsȱofȱScythiaȱareȱregisteredȱatȱTomis;ȱ
theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ themȱ livedȱ duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorsȱ Diocletian,ȱ
Maximian,ȱ Galeriusȱ andȱ Liciniusȱ (290Ȭ325ȱ AD).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ someȱ sourcesȱ thereȱ
areȱ moreȱ thanȱ 60ȱ martyrsȱ executedȱ here,ȱ moreȱ thanȱ inȱ othersȱ citiesȱ ofȱ theȱ
province594.ȱAmongȱtheȱmentionedȱnamesȱinȱtheȱGreekȱsynaxarions,ȱtheȱOrthodoxȱ
liturgyȱ booksȱ andȱ Actaȱ Sanctorumȱ weȱ noticeȱ twoȱ ofȱ them:ȱ Efremȱ andȱ Theogenes.ȱ
Theȱ first,ȱ wasȱ sentȱ toȱ Scythiaȱ byȱ theȱ patriarchȱ Ermonȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ wouldȱ
haveȱbeenȱbeheadedȱhereȱinȱ304ȱAD;ȱsomeȱsourcesȱconsiderȱhimȱasȱtheȱfirstȱbishopȱ
ofȱ Tomisȱ knownȱ inȱ theȱ literaryȱ sources,ȱ otherȱ ȱ sourcesȱ denyȱ hisȱ presenceȱ hereȱ orȱ
moreȱexactlyȱconsiderȱhimȱasȱaȱmissionaryȱbishopȱinȱScythiaȱMinor595.ȱTheȱsecondȱ
nameȱwasȱ„aȱcaseȱstudy”ȱwhoȱplacedȱhimȱnotȱamongȱtheȱmartyrsȱfromȱTomis,ȱbutȱ
amongȱ ofȱ Cyzicȱ ones596.ȱ Thisȱ mentionȱ doesȱ notȱ diminishȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ
PalaeoȬChristianȱevidenceȱinȱTomis.ȱ
ȱ
Populationȱ
AnȱimportantȱpieceȱofȱevidenceȱforȱemphasizingȱChristianityȱatȱTomisȱisȱtheȱ
anthroponimy.ȱ Theȱ onomatologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionsȱ showsȱ theȱ
connectionsȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ hadȱ withȱ Asiaȱ Minor,ȱ Syriaȱ andȱ Egypt.ȱ Frequentȱ
properȱnamesȱonȱinscriptionsȱoriginallyȱfromȱtheȱEasternȱempireȱȬȱAlexandrosȱandȱ
Alexandra,ȱ Basos,ȱ Genadios,ȱ Focas,ȱ Theclaȱ etc.ȱ Ȭȱ areȱ attestedȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Forȱ someȱ ofȱ
themȱ weȱ canȱ specifyȱ theirȱ originȱ inȱ Syria.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ properȱ nameȱ Sergios,ȱ theȱ
founderȱ orȱ theȱ beneficiaryȱ ofȱ aȱ funeraryȱ orȱ cultȱ edificeȱ (IGLR,ȱ 12),ȱ writtenȱ onȱ
fragmentsȱofȱaȱmarbleȱ capitalȱofȱ theȱ5thȱȬ6thȱcenturiesȱAD597ȱisȱassociatedȱ withȱtheȱ
settlementȱ Sergiopolisȱ fromȱ Syriaȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ St.ȱ Sergie,ȱ whoseȱ tombȱ isȱ there.ȱ
TheȱwomanȱnameȱMaru,ȱIoannesȱȇsȱdaughter,ȱchurchȱadministratorȱ(IGLR,ȱ32)ȱcanȱ
beȱ originatedȱ alsoȱ amongȱ theȱ namesȱ comingȱ fromȱ Syriaȱ andȱ Asiaȱ Minor598.ȱ Theȱ
Syrianȱoriginȱisȱpreciselyȱspecifiedȱonȱaȱfuneraryȱsteleȱfromȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱADȱforȱ
aȱ nameȱ Paulos,ȱ hypodiaconusȱ andȱ forȱ hisȱ wifeȱ Paulaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 48).ȱ Onȱ aȱ fragmentaryȱ
593
ȱ „ψȱ Ύ΅ΟΓΏ΍Ύχȱ πΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅ȱ meansȱ probablyȱ theȱ Orthodoxȱ universalȱ churchȱ inȱ contrastȱ
withȱ theȱ hereticalȱ one”ȱ (apudȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ 45ȱ andȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 462);ȱ A.ȱ
Câteia,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ506;ȱseeȱalsoȱȱp.ȱ522Ȭ535ȱ(linguisticalȱcontributions).ȱ
594
ȱSeeȱCh.ȱAuner,ȱDobruja,ȱinȱDictionnaireȱdȇArchéologieȱChrétienneȱetȱdeȱLitourgie,ȱt.ȱIV,ȱ
col.ȱ 1238Ȭ1239;ȱ Eneȱ Branióte,ȱ Martiriȱ óiȱ sfinöiȱ peȱ p©mântulȱ Dobrogeiȱ deȱ aziȱ (Martyrsȱ andȱ Saintsȱ
onȱ theȱ territoryȱ ofȱ presentȱ Dobruja),ȱ inȱ Deȱ laȱ Dun©reȱ laȱ mare.ȱ M©rturiiȱ istoriceȱ óiȱ monumenteȱ deȱ
art©ȱ creótin©ȱ (Fromȱ theȱ Danubeȱ toȱ theȱ Sea.ȱ Historicalȱ evidenceȱ andȱ Christianȱ artȱ monuments),ȱ
Galaöi,ȱ 1977,ȱ p.ȱ 34Ȭ62;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Romanitateȱ óiȱ creótinismȱ laȱ Dun©reaȱ deȱ Josȱ (Romanȱ worldȱ andȱ
Christianityȱ atȱ theȱ Lowerȱ Danube),ȱ Symposiaȱ Thracologicaȱ 7,ȱ Tulcea,ȱ 1989,ȱ p.ȱ 168Ȭ174;ȱ V.H.ȱ
Baumann,ȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ românesc,ȱ p.ȱ 99Ȭ113;ȱ idem,ȱ Sângeleȱ martirilorȱ (Theȱ
martyrs’ȱblood),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ41Ȭ63;ȱ90Ȭ132.ȱ
595
ȱSeeȱtheȱdiscussionȱȱatȱI.ȱHolubeanu,ȱDespreȱariaȱmisionar©ȱaȱSfântuluiȱEpiscopȱMucenicȱ
Ephraimȱ(AboutȱtheȱmissionaryȱareaȱofȱSaintȱBishopȱMartyrȱEphraim),ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ415Ȭ
428ȱ
596
ȱP.ȱN©sturel,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ283Ȭ286.ȱ
597
ȱApudȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ274ȱ(datedȱduringȱJustinian’sȱreign).ȱ
598
ȱSeeȱgenerallyȱL.ȱZgustaȱKleinasiatischeȱPersonennamen,ȱPrague,ȱ1964.ȱ
194ȱ ȱ
ȱ
marbleȱ blockȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ theȱ nameȱ Nazarin(...)ȱ isȱ mentioned,ȱ
associatedȱ withȱ Nazareus,ȱ epithetȱ forȱ Jesusȱ inȱ Syria,ȱ orȱ Nazarenus,ȱ inȱ otherȱ placesȱ
ofȱtheȱempireȱ(IGLR,ȱ40)599.ȱOtherȱnamesȱhaveȱSemiticȱorigins,ȱthoughȱlaterȱonȱtheyȱ
wereȱadaptedȱbyȱtheȱChristians,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱOrient.ȱItȱisȱtheȱsituationȱ ofȱtheȱ
namesȱ Em(m)anuel,ȱ onȱ aȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ (IGLR,ȱ
16)ȱ whichȱ repeats,ȱ shortly,ȱ theȱ prophecyȱ ofȱ Jesusȇsȱ birthȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ
Ioannes,ȱwhoȱappearedȱonȱnumerousȱinscriptionsȱofȱtheȱsameȱperiodȱ(IGLRȱ14,ȱ32,ȱ
37)600.ȱ ProbablyȱaȱSemiticȱnameȱisȱalsoȱSuliferaȱ(IGLR,ȱ44),ȱcertainlyȱassociatedȱwithȱ
theȱSemiticȱformȱSuleifȬ;ȱtheȱindividualȱbearingȱitȱandȱthatȱwhoȱbuiltȱtheȱfuneraryȱ
monument,ȱ Entolios,ȱ couldȱ beȱ originallyȱ fromȱ Caesareaȱ inȱ Cappadocia601ȱ ratherȱ
thanȱ Caesareaȱ inȱ Palestine602.ȱ Greekȱ originȱ namesȱ areȱ alsoȱ frequent.ȱ Aȱ funeraryȱ
steleȱ fromȱ theȱ 4thȬ5thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ mentionsȱ Theodule,ȱ theȱ daughterȱ ofȱ theȱ priestȱ
Patriciusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 27).ȱ Orentes,ȱ Timotheos603,ȱ Eufemia,ȱ Kalliopeȱ andȱ Heracleidesȱ areȱ
namesȱ ofȱ Greekȱ originȱ asȱ well,ȱ butȱ usedȱ inȱ aȱ Romanȱ orȱ Orientalȱ environment.ȱȱ
ThereȱmustȱbeȱmentionedȱtheȱfrequentȱusageȱinȱGreekȱofȱtheȱnameȱGeorgios604.ȱTheȱ
secondȱstudyȱregardingȱtheȱinscriptionȱIGLR,ȱ52,ȱandȱitsȱcorrectȱreconstruction605,ȱ
determinesȱ theȱ votiveȱ featureȱ (andȱ notȱ funerary)ȱ ofȱ theȱ inscription606.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ
feature,ȱdeterminedȱalsoȱforȱIGLR,ȱ49607ȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱcultȱofȱSaintȱGeorgeȱ
asȱ aȱ militaryȱ saint,ȱ whichȱ ȱ enteredȱ onȱ ȱ theȱ Dobrujanȱ territory608ȱ inȱ theȱ 6thȬ7thȱ
centuriesȱAD.ȱ
Theȱ Latinȱ namesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ aȱ specialȱ importance.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ
Christianityȱ weȱ mentionȱ theȱ nameȱ Aureliaȱ Ianuaria,ȱ Ianuariusȇȱ daughterȱ whoȱ
marriedȱ Flaviusȱ Martinusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 21).ȱ Otherȱ Christianȱ monumentsȱ fromȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ
centuriesȱ mentionȱ Terentius,ȱ filiusȱ Gaioneȱ (...)ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30)609,ȱ Marcellaȱ andȱ herȱ sonȱ
Marcellusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 31),ȱ Marciaȱ Aurelia,ȱ wifeȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ Marcusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 36),ȱ Aureliaȱ
Veneriaȱ(IGLR,ȱ39)ȱandȱSabina,ȱLeontina,ȱVeneraȱ(IGLR,ȱ35),ȱIuliusȱAtzeisȱ(=ȱAttiusȱorȱ
Atteius)ȱ andȱ hisȱ wifeȱ Bonosa.Otherȱ namesȱ ofȱ womenȱ alsoȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ
epigraphy:ȱ Lupicinaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 46,ȱ aȱ nameȱ createdȱ afterȱ theȱ maleȱ formȱ Lupicinus);ȱ
599
ȱ IGLR,ȱ p.ȱ 77;ȱ Nazariusȱ isȱ knownȱ asȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ martyrȱ andȱ saintȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ
onomatology.ȱ
600
ȱ Forȱ theȱ frequencyȱ ofȱ theȱ nameȱ inȱ Bulgaria,ȱ seeȱ V.ȱ Beševliev,ȱ Spätgriechischeȱ undȱ
spätlateinischeȱInschriftenȱausȱBulgarien,ȱBerlinȱ1964,ȱp.ȱ191.ȱ
601
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ275Ȭ276ȱ(theȱargumentȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱratherȱintenseȱ
relationshipȱ ofȱ theȱ provinceȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ withȱ Cappadocia,ȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4 th ȱ
centuryȱAD).ȱ
602
ȱApudȱEm.ȱPopescu,ȱIGLR,ȱ44.ȱ
603
ȱForȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱidentificationȱwithȱtheȱbishopȇsȱname,ȱseeȱabove.ȱ
604
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ10ȱ(1977),ȱp.ȱ276.ȱ
605
ȱN.ȱDuval,ȱRevueȱArchéologique,ȱ1980,ȱp.ȱ318Ȭ319ȱ(apudȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱSigiliiȱóiȱȱinscripöiiȱ
dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ ȱ (sec.ȱ ȱ VIȬVIIȱ ȱ e.n.)ȱ (Sealsȱ andȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ Dobrujaȱ (theȱ 6 th Ȭ7 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD),ȱ
SCIVAȱ37ȱ(1986),ȱ2ȱp.ȱ137Ȭ139ȱandȱn.ȱ20).ȱ
606
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
607
ȱReinterpretedȱasȱ[Sanc]tiȱGeorgii.ȱ
608
ȱ Theȱ penetrationȱ ofȱ thisȱ cultȱ isȱ consideredȱ normalȱ hereȱ andȱ intoȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ
Orientalȱ ȱ Illyricum,ȱ exceptȱ thatȱ itsȱ westernȱ areaȱ upȱ toȱ Salonica,ȱ whereȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ periodȱ
theȱcultȱofȱSaintȱDemeterȱwasȱdominant;ȱseeȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱloc.ȱcit.ȱ
609
ȱPatronymicȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱofȱGermanicȱoriginȱ(Goth);ȱseeȱabove,ȱtheȱarmy.ȱ
ȱ 195
ȱȱȱ
Colunbaȱ (forȱ Columba;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 51)ȱ andȱ Romanaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 37),ȱ createdȱ alsoȱ afterȱ aȱ maleȱ
name,ȱRomanus.ȱ
BassianusȱandȱIanuaria,ȱattestedȱonȱanȱinscriptionȱinȱverseȱfromȱtheȱbeginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ4thȱ centuryȱADȱ(IGLR,ȱ18),ȱbothȱwithȱRomanȱnames,ȱstateȱtheȱfaithȱ ofȱtheirȱ
earlyȱ deadȱ child,ȱ Lillas,ȱ whoȱ boreȱ aȱ nameȱ possibleȱ originallyȱ fromȱ Thraciaȱ orȱ
Bithynia610.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ Diniasȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25),ȱ attestedȱ onȱ someȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ
BulgariaȱandȱBoeotia,ȱhasȱalsoȱaȱformȱDinisȱofȱThracianȱorigin.ȱ
Theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Atala,ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Tzeiukȱ (IGLR,ȱ 41)ȱ onȱ aȱ monumentȱ fromȱ
Tomisȱ isȱ conclusiveȱ forȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ inȱ convertingȱ theȱ migratingȱ
populationsȱ andȱ theirȱ inclusionȱ intoȱ theȱ localȱ stableȱ element611.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ ofȱ
Gaionesȱ (Ȭas?)ȱ onȱ anotherȱ inscriptionȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30)ȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ foederatusȱ
Goth.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ wayȱ theȱ Christianȱ religion,ȱ firstȱ embracedȱ byȱ theȱ stableȱ localȱ
population,ȱ becomesȱ oneȱ ofȱ itsȱ featuresȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ nonȬChristianizedȱ
„Barbarians”,ȱand,ȱlaterȱon,ȱanȱelementȱtoȱattractȱandȱassimilateȱthem.ȱBeyondȱtheȱ
apparentlyȱ heterogeneousȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ anthroponimy612,ȱ weȱ noticeȱ theȱ newȱ
Christianȱ religionȱ isȱ firstȱtheȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ stableȱ Romanizedȱ population,ȱ andȱ onȱ
theȱwayȱinȱitsȱpenetrationȱfromȱtheȱOrientȱhadȱpassedȱfirstȱthroughȱScythiaȱMinorȱ
andȱtheȱprovincialȱcapital.ȱ
ȱ
StratigraphyȱandȱUrbanismȱ
Theȱ levelsȱ (N)ȱ IIIȬIȱ correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ 4thȬ5thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ haveȱ beenȱ
revealedȱinȱtheȱarchaeologicallyȱresearchedȱareasȱaroundȱtheȱCathedralȱPark.ȱTheȱ
preservedȱ publicȱ monumentsȱ representȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ elementsȱ forȱ theȱ
followingȱperiod,ȱuntilȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
ȬȱNȱIIIȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD,ȱveryȱlikelyȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱhalf,ȱdateȱattestedȱ
byȱvariousȱcoins.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱpreservedȱmonumentsȱinȱtheȱareaȱwereȱbuiltȱ
orȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱthisȱlevel.ȱTheȱrestorationȱandȱreconstructionȱactivities 613ȱfromȱ
theȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱADȱfollowedȱgeneralȱlevellingȱactivities.ȱ
ȬȱNȱII,ȱmarkedȱbyȱfireȱtracesȱcouldȱbeȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
Actually,ȱ levelsȱ IIȱ andȱ IIIȱ withȱ evidentȱ fireȱ tracesȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ atȱ aȱ similarȱ
widthȱandȱareȱsimilarȱinȱstructure.ȱ
ȬȱNȱIȱ(formedȱbyȱtwoȱlevelsȱmarkedȱI1ȱandȱI2),ȱareȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
Thisȱ dateȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ monetaryȱ depositȱ discoveryȱ (aboutȱ 200ȱ pieces),ȱ whoseȱ
laterȱcoinsȱareȱdatedȱtoȱ402,ȱ408ȱandȱ423ȱAD614.ȱLevelȱI2ȱisȱdatedȱinȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱ
theȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ andȱ levelȱ I1ȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ andȱ probablyȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ
610
ȱ Relatedȱ toȱ thisȱ inscription,ȱ seeȱ theȱ commentsȱ uponȱ itsȱ „copy”ȱ fromȱ Callatisȱ (ISMȱ
III,ȱ148).ȱTheȱwomanȇsȱnameȱisȱwrittenȱȱ͑΅ΑΆ΅Εϟ΅.ȱAboutȱ̎ϟΏΏ΅Ζ,ȱseeȱIGLR,ȱp.ȱ53.ȱ
611
ȱConsideredȱHellenizedȱandȱChristianizedȱHuns;ȱtheȱtwoȱnamesȱareȱconnectedȱwithȱ
theȱ missionaryȱ activityȱ amongȱ theȱ Hunsȱ ofȱ theȱ bishopȱ Theotimosȱ Iȱ ofȱ Tomis;ȱ seeȱ Emȱ
Popescu,ȱcommentaryȱatȱIGLR,ȱ41;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱStTeol,ȱ6ȱ(1954),ȱp.ȱ90,ȱ103,ȱn.ȱ33;ȱidem,ȱDaciaȱ
NSȱ1ȱ(1957),ȱp.ȱ286.ȱ
612
ȱ Generallyȱ analysedȱ forȱ thisȱ periodȱ byȱ Emȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱ passim.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Al.ȱ
Barnea,ȱsupraȱ(n.ȱ488),ȱp.ȱ5Ȭ29.ȱ
613
ȱ Theȱ levellingȱ fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 4 th ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ hasȱ beenȱ noticedȱ inȱ otherȱ
areas,ȱtoo:ȱseeȱtheȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2004,ȱp.ȱ127Ȭ128ȱ(Traianȱstreet/ȱMarinarilorȱBlvd);ȱCCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ291Ȭ292ȱ(MihaiȱViteazuȱstreet).ȱ
614
196ȱ ȱ
ȱ
theȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱTheȱhabitationȱtracesȱfromȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱADȱwereȱdestroyedȱ
inȱ theȱ researchȱ areaȱ whenȱ theȱ parkȱ nearȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ wasȱ arranged.ȱ Theȱ 6thȱ
centuryȱADȱisȱarchaeologicallyȱprovenȱbyȱtheȱmaterialsȱdiscoveredȱinȱtheȱpitsȱandȱ
theȱfillȱstrata.ȱ
Recentȱ researchesȱ (2009,ȱ 2010)ȱ ȱ revealȱ alsoȱ threeȱ archaelogicalȱ levels,ȱ withȱ
slightȱnuancesȱȱforȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱfinalȱperiods:ȱ
- NȱȱIIIȱȱisȱdatedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȬȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱ
AD.ȱ
- ȱȱNȱ I,ȱ ȱ isȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȬȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 7thȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱȱ
characterizedȱ byȱ anȱ importantȱ uncoveranceȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ arrangements,ȱ ȱ butȱ inȱ
theȱabsenceȱȱofȱsomeȱveryȱclearȱtracesȱofȱaȱfire.ȱ
- Betweenȱthem,ȱNȱII,ȱdiscontinuous,ȱȱhasȱtheȱlargestȱtimeȱperiodȱ:ȱȱsecondȱ
halfȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱandȱtheȱwholeȱ5thȱcenturyȱ(maybeȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ6thȱ
century)ȱȱAD615.ȱ
Fromȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ ofȱ cityȱ planning,ȱ theȱ researchedȱ levelsȱ markȱ inȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱADȱaȱtopographicalȱchangeȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱtwoȱfundamentalȱstreetȱaxes.ȱ
Theȱ periodȱ isȱ markedȱ byȱ greatȱ civilȱ complexes,ȱ pavements,ȱ streets,ȱ sewers,ȱ
andȱ aȱ possibleȱ bathȱ complex.ȱ Anȱ edificeȱ withȱ aȱ properȱ sewerageȱ system,ȱ porchȱ
tracesȱandȱinnerȱstepsȱwasȱidentifiedȱforȱtheȱ5thȬ6thȱcenturiesȱAD.Theseȱaccessoriesȱ
wereȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱtheȱHistrianȱedificesȱofȱtheȱDomusȱarea616.ȱ
Inhabitanceȱ complexes,ȱ withȱ severalȱ constructionȱ stages,ȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ withȱ
specialȱ arrangements,ȱ tooȱ (insideȱ yardȱ orȱ storageȱ areas)ȱ ȱ haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ
areaȱnextȱonȱArhiepiscopieiȱstreet617.ȱ
Furtherȱ studyȱ ofȱ Tomitanȱ cityȱ planningȱ fromȱ theȱ researchedȱ areaȱ toȱ theȱ
north,ȱ illuminatesȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ generalȱ aspects,ȱ butȱ theȱ elementsȱ whichȱ makeȱ
possibleȱparticularȱchronologicalȱfeatures.ȱ
Inȱ theȱ areaȱ closeȱ theȱ toȱ easternȱ cliff,ȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ ADȱ habitationȱ levelȱ isȱ
superposedȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱoverȱanȱedificeȱwithȱaȱmosaicȱareaȱofȱaboutȱ60ȱsq.ȱm.ȱ
Itsȱbuildingȱperiodȱisȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD;ȱtwoȱcoinsȱdatingȱfromȱ355Ȭ360ȱ
ADȱandȱceramicsȱfromȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱADȱwereȱdiscoveredȱinȱtheȱlevel;ȱtheȱmosaicȱ
wasȱdamagedȱinȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱAD618.ȱ
Closeȱtoȱtheȱeasternȱcliffȱasȱwell,ȱonȱSulmonaȱstreet,ȱaȱpreventiveȱexcavationȱ
uncoveredȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ aȱ publicȱ edificeȱ ofȱ aȱ massiveȱ wall,ȱ sewerageȱ canalȱ andȱ
innerȱ pavementsȱ ofȱ bigȱ stoneȱ slabs,ȱ aȱ streetȱ runningȱ toȱ theȱ seaȱ andȱ aȱ richȱ
archaeologicalȱ inventory:ȱ ceramics,ȱ amphorae,ȱ commonȱ vessels,ȱ lamps,ȱ glassȱ
vessels,ȱmetalȱobjectsȱandȱcoins,ȱdiscoveriesȱwhichȱattestȱhabitationȱinȱtheȱarea,ȱinȱ
theȱ4thȬ6thȱcenturiesȱADȱ(likelyȱuntilȱtheȱfirstȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD)619.ȱȱ
Weȱ alsoȱ mentionȱ anȱ edificeȱ forȱ thermaeȱ discoveredȱ onȱ theȱ streetȱ 21ȱ
615
ȱSeeȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292,ȱno.ȱ143ȱ(MihaiȱViteazuȱstreet).ȱ
616
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ C.ȱ Scorpan,ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ23;ȱ addȱ alsoȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ
Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomis,ȱ Constanöaȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 57ȱ (thermaeȱ inȱ theȱ SWȱ cornerȱ ofȱ theȱ
CathedralȱPark).ȱ
617
ȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱno.ȱ73,ȱp.ȱ108Ȭ110ȱ(housesȱA,ȱBȱandȱC).ȱ
618
619
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱRaportȱpreliminarȱprivindȱcercet©rileȱarheologiceȱcuȱcaracterȱdeȱsalvareȱdinȱ
Constanöa,ȱ str.ȱ Sulmona,ȱ nr.ȱ 7ȱ (Preliminaryȱ excavationȱ reportȱ concerningȱ theȱ preventiveȱ
archaeologicalȱresearchȱfromȱConstanöa,ȱno.ȱ7,ȱSulmonaȱstreet),ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ171Ȭ200.ȱ
ȱ 197
ȱȱȱ
Decembrieȱ1989,ȱincludingȱthreeȱroomsȱ(basins),ȱpraefurnium,ȱcanals,ȱȱaȱbrickedȱupȱ
pit,ȱwhichȱfunctionedȱinȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD620.ȱ
Theȱ buildingsȱ ofȱ theȱ westernȱ cliffȱ representedȱ byȱ „theȱ greatȱ mosaicȱ edifice”ȱ
andȱ lentiarionȱ areȱ includedȱ inȱ aȱ possibleȱ unitaryȱ cityȱ arrangement,ȱ supposedlyȱ
builtȱ beginningȱ withȱ aȱ stageȱ beforeȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ andȱ finishedȱ byȱ aȱ
destructionȱaroundȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱADȱandȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱ
AD.ȱ
Theȱ firstȱ edificeȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ placeȱ forȱ social,ȱ economicȱ andȱ tradeȱ
activitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ city621.ȱ Setȱ upȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ ȱ ȱ theȱ ȱ ȱ port,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ theȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ edificeȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ includesȱȱȱȱ
fourȱȱȱȱterracesȱcorrespondingȱeachȱatȱitsȱturnȱtoȱtheȱhabitationȱlevelȱofȱtheȱancientȱ
cityȱ (A),ȱ toȱ theȱ pavementȱ withȱ mosaicȱ (B)ȱ andȱ goodsȱ warehousesȱ (theȱ terracesȱ Cȱ
andȱ D).ȱ Correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ terraceȱ B,ȱ aȱ largeȱ roomȱ isȱ pavedȱ withȱ moreȱ thanȱ
2000ȱsq.ȱmȱofȱpolychromeȱmosaic,ȱplacingȱitȱamongȱtheȱgreatestȱsuchȱareasȱofȱtheȱ
empire.ȱTheȱterraceȱsupportingȬwall,ȱpreservedȱtoȱtheȱeast,ȱofȱ65ȱmȱinȱlength,ȱhasȱ
aȱ maximumȱ 5.4ȱ mȱ height.ȱ Madeȱ ofȱ brickȱ rowsȱ alternatingȱ limestoneȱ withȱ smallȱ
blocks,ȱ theȱ wallȱ hasȱ pilastersȱ atȱ aȱ distanceȱ ofȱ 4ȱ mȱ apartȱ each,ȱ possiblyȱ unitedȱ onȱ
theȱtopȱbyȱarches.ȱTheȱwallȱsurfaceȱwasȱcoveredȱbyȱmarbleȱandȱtheȱpilastersȱwereȱ
decoratedȱ onȱ theȱ topȱ withȱ platedȱ decoratedȱ capitals.ȱ Furtherȱ changesȱ broughtȱ asȱ
newȱelementsȱaȱnicheȱandȱaȱrostrumȱforȱthisȱwall.ȱȱ
Theȱbuildingȱsizesȱcanȱbeȱdeterminedȱbyȱstudyingȱotherȱpreservedȱwalls:ȱtheȱ
southernȱone,ȱ18ȱmȱlong,ȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱedificeȱwidthȱandȱtheȱwesternȱandȱ
theȱnorthȱonesȱpartially,ȱallȱsupportingȱtheȱroofȱofȱtheȱmarketȱplaceȱtypeȱhall.ȱTheȱ
mostȱ interestingȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ roomȱ isȱ theȱ mosaicȱ pavementȱ ofȱ whichȱ aboutȱ 850ȱ
sq.ȱ mȱ areȱ stillȱ preserved.ȱ Theȱ decorationȱ includesȱ geometricalȱ andȱ floweredȱ
patternsȱmadeȱofȱnaturallyȱcolouredȱtesseraeȱ(theȱonlyȱzoomorphicȱrepresentationȱ
isȱ aȱ pigeon).ȱ Theȱ centralȱ areaȱ workedȱ inȱ opusȱ vermiculatumȱ isȱ coveredȱ byȱ largeȱ
circles,ȱplacedȱinȱgreatȱintervals,ȱframedȱbyȱsquaresȱandȱseparatedȱbyȱrectangularȱ
areasȱ(theȱcircleȱdiameterȱisȱ7ȱm).ȱTerraceȱCȱrepresentsȱtheȱwarehouseȱlevel.ȱTheseȱ
11ȱwarehousesȱareȱeachȱofȱ11ȱmȱlengthȱandȱ6ȱmȱwidth;ȱtheȱmassiveȱentrancesȱareȱ8ȱ
mȱhigh.ȱTheȱlowestȱlevelȱofȱtheȱcliff,ȱcoveredȱbyȱterraceȱDȱwasȱdestinedȱforȱotherȱ
storehouses622;ȱ nowȱ underȱ theȱ seaȱ level,ȱ theȱ terraceȱ isȱ covered.ȱ Theȱ complexȱ areaȱ
wasȱalsoȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱplatformȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱcityȱlevelȱbyȱaȱshellȱlimestoneȱ
staircase.ȱ
Itȱwasȱdeterminedȱtheȱedificeȱwasȱincludedȱinȱaȱunitaryȱbuildingȱsystemȱbuiltȱ
duringȱaȱperiodȱofȱcityȱflourishing,ȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱADȬbeginningȱofȱ
theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ restoredȱ andȱ completedȱ duringȱ itsȱ periodȱ ofȱ
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ61Ȭ63ȱandȱfig.ȱ1.ȱ
620
ȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Lȇédificeȱ àȱ mosaïqueȱ découvertȱ devantȱ leȱ portȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱȱȱ
621
p.ȱ229Ȭ240;ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱDateȱtehniceȱdespreȱEdificiulȱcuȱmozaicȱdinȱConstanöaȱ(Technicalȱdataȱ
aboutȱ theȱ buildingȱ withȱ Mosaicȱ ofȱ Constanöa),ȱ BMIȱ 39ȱ (1970),ȱ 3,ȱ p.ȱ 52Ȭ56;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Quelquesȱ
nouvellesȱ considérationsȱ surȱ leȱ pavésȱ mosaïquesȱ deȱ Tomi,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 20ȱ (1976),ȱ p.ȱ 265Ȭ268;ȱ seeȱ
alsoȱtheȱfollowingȱnotes.ȱȱ
622
ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ exilatȱ (Tomis,ȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ theȱ exiledȱ poet),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1972,ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92:ȱ ȱ thereȱ wereȱ atȱ thisȱ levelȱ theȱ portȱ warehouses,ȱ includingȱ veryȱ largeȱ roomsȱ
(moreȱ thanȱ 150ȱ sq.m),ȱ 2ȱ (orȱ 3)ȱ plasteredȱ basinsȱ ;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ mss.,ȱ 2083ȱȱ
DocumentaryȱCollectionȱMINAC,ȱp.ȱ9.ȱ
198ȱ ȱ
ȱ
functioning623.ȱ Theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ coinsȱ foundȱ atȱ theȱ pavementȱ levelȱ ofȱ oneȱ
warehouseȱ couldȱ beȱ aȱ proofȱ thatȱ theȱ warehousesȱ hadȱ beenȱ usedȱ inȱ aȱ previousȱ
period624.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ functionȱ levelȱ forȱ theȱ edificeȱ isȱ datedȱ byȱ theȱ brokenȱ amphoraeȱ
inȱsitu,ȱfromȱaȱtypologicalȱpointȱofȱviewȱallȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ5ȱ thȱcenturyȱandȱ
theȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD625.ȱTheȱedificeȱcontinuedȱtoȱexistȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȬbeginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱhavingȱitsȱfunctionȱchanged626.ȱOtherȱopinions627ȱadmitȱtheȱ
„flourishingȱ period”ȱ whenȱ theȱ mosaicȱ wasȱ madeȱ couldȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ
ofȱ3rdȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱbutȱpossiblyȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ
3rdȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ Severanȇsȱ „flourishingȱ period”ȱ andȱ evenȱ ofȱ
theȱ Antonini.ȱ Moreȱ argumentsȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ marbleȱ capitalsȱ andȱ friezeȱ
decorationȱandȱalsoȱbyȱredatingȱtheȱheadȱofȱanȱimperialȱstatueȱtoȱtheȱmiddleȱandȱ
theȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD628.ȱFurtherȱon,ȱtheȱedificeȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱstageȱandȱ
evenȱ theȱ 3rdȱ stageȱ isȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Theȱ periodȱ whenȱ theȱ edificeȱ
ceasedȱ functioningȱ forȱ itsȱ primeȱ purposeȱ couldȱ beȱ determinedȱ earlierȱ inȱ itsȱ turn,ȱ
atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ4thȱorȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturiesȱAD,ȱwithȱactivitiesȱtakingȱ
placeȱinsideȱtheȱedificeȱuntilȱtheȱ6thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
Asȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ aimȱ atȱ aȱ congruityȱ ofȱ allȱ opinions,ȱ weȱ mentionȱ themȱ asȱ
admissibleȱvariantsȱforȱaȱpossibleȱrevaluationȱofȱtheȱwholeȱcomplex.ȱ
Theȱ sameȱ observationsȱ forȱ theȱ lentiarionȱ canȱ beȱ mentioned:ȱ theȱ similarityȱ ofȱ
theȱ buildingȱ systemȱ withȱ theȱ firstȱ edifice;ȱ theȱ possibleȱ datingȱ ofȱ itsȱ inscriptionȱ
duringȱ theȱ Severanȱ dynasty;ȱ afterȱ theȱ edificeȱ ceasedȱ toȱ functionȱ inȱ itsȱ primeȱ roleȱ
materialȱevidenceȱ(lamps)ȱfromȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ6thȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱtheȱ7thȱcenturiesȱ
ADȱisȱstillȱfound.ȱ
Theȱ edifice,ȱ includingȱ manyȱ rooms,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ largelyȱ destroyedȱ byȱ modernȱ
works.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ probablyȱ functioningȱ publicȱ cityȱ bathsȱ (atȱ least,ȱ one),ȱ asȱ anȱ
inscriptionȱ onȱ theȱ entranceȱ frameȱ mentions629.ȱ Theȱ mainȱ roomȱ (30ȱ xȱ 10ȱ m)ȱ andȱ aȱ
623
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ pavementȱ withȱ mosaicȱ wasȱ madeȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ
theȱ5 ȱcenturyȱADȱ–ȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ6 th ȱcenturyȱAD.ȱȱ
th
624
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ Preciz©riȱ cronologiceȱ înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ
Constanöaȱ(ChronologicalȱexplanationsȱregardingȱtheȱRomanȱMosaicȱEdificeȱfromȱConstanöa),ȱBMIȱ
42ȱ(1973),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ59Ȭ60;ȱseeȱalsoȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱDescopeririȱdeȱtipareȱdeȱopaiöeȱlaȱTomisȱ(Rushlightsȱ
mouldsȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ9ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ143Ȭ144ȱandȱnotesȱ36,ȱ40.ȱ
625
ȱ M.ȱ Sâmpetru,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ returnsȱ ratherȱ theȱ firstȱ date.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ amphoraeȱ seeȱ A.ȱ
R©dulescu,ȱ Amforeȱ cuȱ inscripöiiȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (Amphorasȱ withȱ
inscriptionsȱ atȱ theȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 6ȱ (1973),ȱ p.ȱ 193Ȭ207.ȱ Addȱ Gh.ȱ
Papuc,ȱ Ceramic©ȱ roman©ȱ târzieȱ cuȱ decorȱ ótampilatȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ
Tomisȱ (sec.ȱ IVȬVIȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Romanȱ lateȱ ceramicsȱ withȱ markedȱ decorationȱ discoveredȱ atȱ theȱ Romanȱ
Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ (theȱ 4 th Ȭ6 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD),ȱ ibid.,ȱ p.ȱ 153Ȭ192;ȱ M.ȱ Munteanu,ȱ Gh.ȱ
Papuc,ȱ Laȱ céramiqueȱ romaineȱ tardiveȱ àȱ decorȱ estampéȱ découverteȱ àȱ Tomi,ȱ Ponticaȱ 9ȱ (1976),ȱ p.ȱ
147Ȭ154.ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ135Ȭ146.ȱ
626
ȱM.ȱSâmpetru,ȱBMIȱ42ȱ(1973),ȱ4,ȱp.ȱ59Ȭ60;ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱ142Ȭȱ145.ȱ
627
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 349Ȭ351ȱ (=ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 129Ȭ130);ȱ
idem,ȱVEDR,ȱp.ȱ27ȱandȱ124ȱ(2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturysȱAD);ȱidem,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ119Ȭ120.ȱ
628
ȱ Asȱ concerningȱ theȱ imperialȱ portraitȱ seeȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Monumenteȱ sculpturaleȱ
descoperiteȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ mozaicȱ dinȱ Constanöaȱ (Sculpturalȱ monumentsȱ discoveredȱ atȱ theȱ
RomanȱMosaicȱEdificeȱinȱConstanöa),ȱPonticaȱ30ȱ(1997),ȱp.ȱ206ȱ(theȱendȱofȱtheȱ3 rd ȱcenturyȱAD).ȱ
629
ȱ ISM,ȱ II,ȱ 389:ȱ ͒ΉΕκȱ ΆΓΙΏϛȱ Ύ΅ΘΉΗΎΉΙΣΗΟ΋/Θϲȱ ΏΉΑΘ΍ΣΕ΍ΓΑȱ ЀΔϲȱ ̴ΕΐϟΔΔΓΙȱ ̡ΘΘ΅;ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
J.ȬL.ȱRobert,ȱRÉGȱ83ȱ(1970)ȱp.ȱ415,ȱno.ȱ403.ȱ
ȱ 199
ȱȱȱ
hallȱ withȱ stairsȱ leadingȱ toȱ theȱ cityȱ terraceȱ areȱ preserved,ȱ bothȱ coveredȱ byȱ whiteȱ
marbleȱplates630.ȱ
Otherȱ publicȱ cityȱ edificesȱ situatedȱ insideȱ theȱ ancientȱ cityȱ precinctsȱ whichȱ
haveȱbeenȱidentifiedȱupȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱtimeȱareȱtheȱsevenȱChristianȱbasilicas.ȱ
Theȱ greatȱ basilicaȱ (1)631ȱ orientatedȱ eastȬsoutheastȱ toȱ westȬnorthwest,ȱ withȱ anȱ
areaȱ ofȱ 48.10ȱ xȱ 23.45ȱ m,ȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ westernȱ cityȱ area;ȱ itȱ hadȱ aȱ naosȱ
separatedȱ byȱ twoȱ rowsȱ ofȱ columnsȱ intoȱ threeȱ naves632,ȱ aȱ simpleȱ nartexȱ andȱ aȱ
galleryȱ aboveȱ theȱ sideȱ naves.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ buildingȱ elementȱ isȱ theȱ crossȬ
shapedȱ cryptȱ (withȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ 50ȱ sq.ȱ m)ȱ andȱ dividedȱ intoȱ sevenȱ communicatingȱ
areas.ȱ
Theȱ cryptȱ couldȱ beȱ reachedȱ byȱ aȱ 7.5ȱ mȱ longȱ hallȱ withȱ marbleȱ stairs.ȱ Theȱ
blocksȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ stairsȇȱ constructionȱ cameȱ fromȱ olderȱ monuments.ȱ Theȱ
horizontalȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ cryptȱ canȱ beȱ inscribedȱ intoȱ aȱ square;ȱ sixȱ ofȱ theȱ areasȱ areȱ
squareȱ(2.20ȱxȱ2.20ȱm)ȱandȱtheȱseventhȱisȱrectangularȱinscribedȱintoȱtheȱapseȱ(2.70ȱ
xȱ 2.28ȱ mȱ size).ȱ Theȱ roofsȱ ofȱ theseȱ roomsȱ wereȱ domeȬȱ andȱ vaultȬshapedȱ andȱ wereȱ
onlyȱ2.50ȱmetresȱinȱheightȱfromȱtheȱcryptȇsȱgroundȱlevel.ȱ
Theȱplasteredȱwallsȱwereȱcoveredȱwithȱpaintingsȱofȱwhichȱfewȱtracesȱareȱstillȱ
preserved.ȱ Smallȱ areasȱ ofȱ theȱ naosȱ andȱ nartexȱ brickȱ pavementȱ andȱ theȱ marbleȱ
platesȱ ofȱ theȱ altarȱ areȱ stillȱ preserved.ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ foundȱ fragmentsȱ of:ȱ columns,ȱ
capitals,ȱ cancelliȱ platesȱ andȱ theȱ marbleȱ coverȱ ofȱ theȱ walls.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ assumedȱ forȱ aȱ
longȱtimeȱthatȱtheȱbasilicaȱwasȱfunctioningȱprobablyȱasȱtheȱcityȱcathedralȱinȱtheȱ6thȱ
centuryȱAD633.ȱ
Onȱ theȱ northeastȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ basilicaȱ andȱ atȱ aboutȱ 35ȱ mȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ
„smallȱ basilica”ȱ (2)ȱ orientatedȱ NEȬSW634.ȱ Itȱ isȱ almostȱ parallelȱ inȱ lengthȱ withȱ theȱ
precinctȱ wallȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱ neighbourhood.ȱ Modernȱ buildingȱ worksȱ allowedȱ
theȱpartialȱstudyȱofȱtheȱmonument.ȱItsȱlengthȱisȱestimatedȱatȱaboutȱ35ȱm;ȱtheȱotherȱ
sizesȱareȱ18.80ȱmȱinȱwidthȱandȱ8ȱmȱtheȱdiameterȱofȱtheȱapse.ȱUnderȱtheȱapseȱandȱ
partiallyȱunderȱtheȱcentralȱnaveȱthereȱisȱtheȱcryptȱwithȱanȱinsideȱwidthȱofȱ2.20ȱm.ȱ
TheȱwallȬplasterȱpreservedȱaȱfewȱtracesȱofȱfresco.ȱBothȱtheȱcryptȱandȱtheȱpavementȱ
ofȱ theȱ basilicaȱ areȱ madeȱ ofȱ bricks.ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ aȱ fewȱ marbleȱ piecesȱ Ȭȱ aȱ
parallelipipedicȱ blockȱ usedȱ probablyȱ asȱ aȱ descendingȱ stairȱ andȱ aȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ theȱ
innerȱwallȱcoveringsȱbearȱtracesȱofȱolderȱinscriptions635.ȱAroundȱtheȱbasilicaȱonȱtheȱ
outsideȱthereȱisȱaȱstoneȱplatedȱpavementȱcontemporaryȱwithȱtheȱbuilding.ȱ
Christianȱ basilicaȱ ruinsȱ (3)ȱ wereȱ discoveredȱ nearȱ theȱ portȱ highȱ cliff636.ȱ Theȱ
buildingȱ ofȱ „Mihaiȱ Eminescu”ȱ highȱ schoolȱ wasȱ superimposedȱ overȱ it.ȱ Ofȱ theȱ
ancientȱbuildingȱonlyȱfragmentsȱofȱanȱeasternȱwallȱandȱaȱhallȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱcryptȱ
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱPonticeȱ1ȱ(1968),ȱp.ȱ325Ȭ329.ȱ
630
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Monumenteȱ romanoȬbizantineȱ dinȱ sectorulȱ deȱ vestȱ alȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomisȱ
631
(RomanȬByzantineȱ monumentsȱ fromȱ theȱ westernȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Tomis),ȱ p.ȱ 28Ȭ84;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ
Artaȱ creótin©,ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 128Ȭ131;ȱ idem,ȱ Lesȱ monumentsȱ paléochrétiensȱ deȱ Roumanie,ȱ Roma,ȱ 1977,ȱ p.ȱ
125Ȭ126.ȱ
632
ȱTheȱaxialȱinnerȱlengthȱisȱ43ȱm.ȱ
633
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ272;ȱhowever,ȱseeȱfollowingȱbasilicaȱ7.ȱ
634
ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ23Ȭ27;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ126.ȱ
635
ȱ A.ȱ ȱ ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ ȱ ȱ Inscripöiiȱ ȱ ȱ inediteȱ ȱ dinȱ ȱ Dobrogeaȱ ȱ (Unpublishedȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ
Dobruja),ȱSCIVȱ14ȱ(1963),ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ83,ȱno.ȱ5ȱ(=ȱISMȱII,ȱ90).ȱ
636
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ126Ȭ128;ȱidem,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱI,ȱp.ȱ132Ȭ133.ȱ
200ȱ ȱ
ȱ
underȱ theȱ altarȱ wereȱ found;ȱ theȱ cryptȱ isȱ situatedȱ atȱ 2.50ȱ mȱ underȱ theȱ pavementȱ
level,ȱ itȱ hasȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ 6.15ȱ xȱ 3.75ȱ mȱ andȱ aȱ vaultedȱ roof.ȱ Theȱ westernȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ
cryptȱ isȱ aȱ squareȬshapedȱ roomȱ (3.70ȱ xȱ 3.75ȱ in),ȱ withȱ theȱ maximumȱ heightȱ ofȱ 2.32ȱ
m.ȱTheȱroomȱwallsȱstillȱpreserveȱfragmentsȱofȱpaintedȱplaster;ȱinȱtheȱinferiorȱhalfȱ
thereȱ areȱ largerȱ paintedȱ rectangularȱ bordersȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ superiorȱ halfȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ
bottomȱ ofȱ theȱ vaultȱ thereȱ areȱ smallerȱ bordersȱ withȱ vegetalȱ decoration.ȱ Threeȱ
vaultedȱnicheȬshapedȱtombsȱ(1.68ȱinȱheightȱandȱ0.90ȱmȱinȱwidth)ȱareȱwalledȱonȱtheȱ
Eastȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ crypt.ȱ Marbleȱ platesȱ withȱ decorationȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ basilicaȱ
pulpitȱwereȱfoundȱinsideȱtheȱcrypt.ȱProbablyȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱ
ADȱ thisȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ Tomisȱ cathedralȱ andȱ probablyȱ theȱ firstȱ bishopȇsȱ
cathedralȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor637.ȱ Someȱ 4thȬ5thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ architecturalȱ fragments,ȱ
theȱ marbleȱ pavementȱ andȱ theȱ accurateȱ monumentȱ buildingȱ supportȱ thisȱ
hypothesis638.ȱ
Anotherȱ basilicaȱ (4)ȱ wasȱ situatedȱ atȱ theȱ presentȱ portȱ entrance.ȱ Uncoveredȱ
partially,ȱ itȱ isȱ 24ȱ mȱ inȱ lengthȱ andȱ itsȱ apseȱ isȱ 8.70ȱ mȱ inȱ diameter.ȱ Theȱ monument,ȱ
probablyȱ includingȱ onlyȱ aȱ nave,ȱ wasȱ builtȱ inȱ theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ AD,ȱ insideȱ aȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱADȱlargerȱedifice639.ȱ
Theȱ5thȱbasilicaȱwasȱdiscoveredȱonȱtheȱeastȱcityȱcliff,ȱorientatedȱtoȱNNEȬSSW;ȱ
itȱwasȱbuiltȱofȱstoneȱandȱbricks.ȱTheȱedificeȱwasȱdamagedȱbyȱmodernȱworks.ȱTheȱ
rectangularȱcryptȱ(1.52ȱxȱ1.22ȱm),ȱwithȱaȱmaximumȱvaultedȱroofȱheightȱofȱ2.05ȱm,ȱ
isȱsetȱunderȱtheȱaltar.ȱOnȱtheȱeast,ȱnorthȱandȱprobablyȱsouthȱcryptȱwallsȱandȱatȱaȱ
heightȱofȱ0.78ȱmȱfromȱtheȱpavementȱlevelȱthereȱwereȱniches;ȱtheȱnicheȱonȱtheȱeastȱ
wallȱhasȱaȱredȬcolouredȱpaintedȱcruxȱlatinaȱandȱinsideȱaȱreliquaryȱglassȱvessel.ȱTheȱ
buildingȱisȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱ5thȬ6thȱcenturiesȱAD640.ȱ
Theȱtracesȱofȱaȱbasilicaȱedificeȱ(6)ȱorientatedȱNEȬSWȱwereȱdiscoveredȱinȱ1979ȱ
asȱ wellȱ onȱ theȱ easternȱ cliff641.ȱ Thisȱ includesȱ aȱ nartexȱ andȱ aȱ nave,ȱ theȱ apseȱ beingȱ
destroyedȱ byȱ modernȱ constructions.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ buildingȱ elementȱ isȱ theȱ
wallȱ insideȱ theȱ nave,ȱ identifiedȱ asȱ aȱ baptisterium.ȱ Theȱ buildingȱ isȱ notȱ olderȱ thanȱ
theȱ5thȱcenturyȱAD642.ȱ
FoundationsȱofȱtheȱlargestȱbasilicaȱknownȱsoȱfarȱatȱTomis643ȱwereȱdiscoveredȱ
onȱtheȱnortheastȱcliffȱofȱtheȱpeninsulaȱinȱ1989.ȱOrientatedȱwestȬnorthwestȱtoȱeastȬ
southeast,ȱ itsȱ outsideȱ sizesȱ areȱ 54.7ȱ xȱ 24.3ȱ m;ȱ atȱ theȱ foundationȱ level,ȱ theȱ wallsȇȱ
widthȱ isȱ aboutȱ 1.25ȱ m;ȱ inside,ȱ theȱ naosȱ isȱ 32.1ȱ xȱ 21.7ȱ m.ȱ Twoȱ rowsȱ ofȱ columnsȱ
637
ȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱTomis,ȱoraóulȱpoetuluiȱexilat,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1972,ȱp.ȱ100Ȭ101;ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPonticaȱ
24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ271Ȭ272.ȱ
638
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱloc.ȱcit.,ȱdoesnȇtȱexcludeȱtheȱpossibilityȱthisȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱcathedralȱwhereȱ
theȱbishopȱBretanionȱwasȱwhenȱValensȱarrived.ȱ
639
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱLesȱmonuments,ȱp.ȱ128;ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱCreótinismulȱînȱScythiaȱMinorȱînȱcontextulȱ
vestȬponticȱ (Christianityȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ inȱ theȱ Westȱ Ponticȱ Environment),ȱ SibiuȬConstanöa,ȱ
2000,ȱp.ȱ69.ȱ
640
ȱBasilicaȱwasȱfoundȱonȱtheȱst.ȱRevoluöieiȱdinȱDecembrieȱ1989ȱȱcornerȱwithȱȱ9ȱMaiȱst.;ȱȱ
V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 69Ȭ70;ȱ ȱ idem,ȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ românescȱ (Theȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ theȱ
RomanianȱChristianity),ȱp.ȱ157Ȭ158.ȱ
641
ȱBasilicaȱisȱsituatedȱ25ȱmȱsouthwestȱofȱtheȱPalaceȱhotel.ȱ
642
ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱCreótinismulȱînȱScythiaȱMinor,ȱp.ȱ70.ȱ
643
ȱ Atȱ theȱ crossroadsȱ ofȱ Ecaterinaȱ Varga,ȱ NegruȬVod©ȱ andȱ Mirceaȱ celȱ B©trânȱ streets;ȱ
seeȱsupra,ȱn.ȱ464.ȱ
ȱ 201
ȱȱȱ
createȱ threeȱ naves;ȱ theȱ apseȱ isȱ 9.15ȱ mȱ inȱ breadthȱ andȱ outsideȱ itȱ isȱ inscribedȱ inȱ aȱ
pentagon.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ threeȱ annexeȱ roomsȱ alongȱ theȱ northernȱ apseȱ wallȱ andȱ
structurallyȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ basilica.ȱ Theȱ northȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ ensembleȱ wasȱ
boundedȱ byȱ aȱ porticoȱ fragmentarilyȱ preserved.ȱ Theȱ edificeȱ wasȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ
ofȱtheȱ5thȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD644.ȱ
TheȱlastȱpublicȱmonumentȱweȱareȱdiscussingȱisȱtheȱRomanȱByzantineȱprecinctȱ
wall.ȱThisȱbordersȱtheȱlargestȱpartȱofȱtheȱancientȱcity;ȱitȱfollowsȱaȱlineȱconnectingȱ
theȱ twoȱ peninsulaȱ shores,ȱ toȱ theȱ continentalȱ side,ȱ fromȱ southwestȱ toȱ northeast.ȱ
Theȱ analysesȱ ofȱ thisȱ monumentȱ haveȱ takenȱ intoȱ considerationȱ bothȱ theȱ planȱ andȱ
theȱ chronologyȱ ofȱ theȱ building645.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ plan,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ sideȱ raisingȱ noȱ
questionsȱisȱtheȱnorthernȱone.ȱResearchȱbyȱVasileȱPârvan,ȱthisȱsideȱhasȱtwoȱgates:ȱ
theȱ northeastȱ gateȱ withȱ theȱ famousȱ „butchersȇȱ tower”ȱ (4.34ȱ mȱ inȱ aperture)646.ȱ Theȱ
southwestȱgateȱisȱframedȱbyȱdefensiveȱrectangularȱtowersȱwithȱtheȱfrontȱsidesȱofȱ
aboutȱ5.40ȱm;ȱtheȱprecinctȱisȱhereȱ3.20ȱmȱinȱwidth;ȱtheȱentranceȱisȱaboutȱ4ȱm.ȱTwoȱ
coinsȱfromȱtheȱtimeȱofȱTacitusȱ(275Ȭ276ȱAD)ȱandȱProbusȱ(276Ȭ282ȱAD)ȱwereȱfoundȱ
inȱtheȱmortarȱofȱtheȱprecinctsȱsegmentȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱgates.ȱ
Theȱ wallȱ orientationȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ sidesȱ isȱ onlyȱ hypothetical:ȱ toȱ theȱ
west/southwestȱ theȱ precinctsȱ followsȱ anȱ obtuseȱ angleȱ whichȱ couldȱ haveȱ aȱ cornerȱ
towerȱ atȱ theȱ crossingȱ point.ȱ Theȱ precinctȱ designȱ isȱ restoredȱ onȱ theȱ southȱ westȱ
basedȱ onȱ wallȱ fragmentsȱ foundȱ occasionallyȱ andȱ sometimesȱ withȱ differentȱ
orientations.ȱ Theȱ wallȱ branchesȱ fromȱ theȱ southwestȱ gate:ȱ aȱ partȱ followsȱ theȱ
expectedȱ lineȱ toȱ theȱ southwestȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ seashore,ȱ whereȱ aȱ stoneȱ pileȱ couldȱ
indicateȱtheȱprecincts,ȱorȱevenȱaȱgate647;ȱanotherȱpartȱgoesȱwest/southwest,ȱwhereȱ
itȱ turnsȱ offȱ toȱ theȱ southȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ endingȱ pointȱ markedȱ byȱ theȱ stoneȱ piles648.ȱ
Archaeologistsȱestimateȱdifferentȱdatesȱforȱtheȱtwoȱwest/southwestȱlines:ȱtheȱfirstȱ
lineȱisȱstructurallyȱandȱchronologicallyȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱnorthȱprecinctȱ(theȱendȱ
ofȱ theȱ3rdȬbeginningȱ ofȱ theȱ4thȱcenturiesȱAD);ȱ theȱ secondȱisȱaȱ precinctȱaddedȱlaterȱ
644
ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 70Ȭ71;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Étudesȱ byzantinesȱ etȱ postȬbizantines,ȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 34:ȱ
coinsȱfromȱMauriciusȱTiberiusȱ(588Ȭ589)ȱandȱPhocasȱ(602Ȭ603).ȱ
645
ȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱZidulȱcet©öiiȱTomi,ȱp.ȱ415Ȭ450;ȱV.ȱCanarache,ȱTomis,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1961,ȱp.ȱ19Ȭ
20;ȱ A.ȱ Aricescu,ȱ Armata,ȱ p.ȱ 156Ȭ157ȱ andȱ 163Ȭ164;ȱ N.ȱ Cheluö©ȬGeorgescu,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ
topografiaȱ Tomisuluiȱ înȱ sec.ȱ VIȱ e.n.ȱ (Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ topographyȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ inȱ theȱ 6 th ȱ centuryȱ
AD),ȱ Ponticaȱ 10ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 253Ȭ260;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Zidulȱ deȱ ap©rareȱ alȱ Tomisului,ȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ
târzie,ȱ înȱ reconstituireaȱ saȱ actual©ȱ (Theȱ lateȱ defenceȱ wallȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ inȱ itsȱ presentȱ restauration),ȱ
Ponticaȱ 28Ȭ29ȱ (1995Ȭ1996),ȱ p.ȱ 83Ȭ93;ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ L.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Poartaȱ mareȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomis,ȱ (Theȱ
largeȱgateȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ31ȱ(1998),ȱp.ȱ201Ȭ208.ȱ
646
ȱTheȱnamesȱinȱinscriptionȱIGLR,ȱ8ȱindicatingȱaȱwallȱfragmentȱrebuiltȱbyȱtheȱbutchersȱ
association;ȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ isȱ embeddedȱ inȱ theȱ towerȱ face:ȱ ̏΅ΎΉΏ΅Εϟ[ΝΑ]ȱ ΔΉΈ΅ΘΓІ[Ε΅]ȱ
Δϱ(ΈΉΖ)ȱ̍̇;ȱȱseeȱalsoȱȱIGLR,ȱ7ȱandȱȱ9.ȱ
647
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱN.ȱ Toma,ȱ op.ȱcit.,ȱ inȱCaieteȱ ARA,ȱ 1ȱ (2010),ȱ p.ȱ61Ȭ63,ȱ 68Ȭ69ȱ andȱ fig.ȱ1,ȱ 2ȱ andȱ
4,ȱ whichȱ reconstitutesȱ 9ȱ orȱ 10ȱ ȱ „old”ȱ roads”,ȱ ȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ ȱ beingȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ RomanȬ
Byzantineȱcityȱgates;ȱthereȱareȱstillȱtheȱgatesȱonȱtheȱprecinctsȱwesternȱside,ȱnotedȱP 4 ȱandȱP 5 ȱ
(wherefromȱgoȱtheȱroadsȱtoȱtheȱsouth).ȱ
648
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.ȱ p.ȱ 88,ȱ fig.ȱ 4:ȱ hugeȱ stonesȱ probablyȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ wallȱ havingȱ aȱ
gateȱhere.ȱ
202ȱ ȱ
ȱ
(theȱ 5thȬ6thȱ centuriesȱ AD)ȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ cityȱ enlargementȱ toȱ theȱ westȱ andȱ theȱ
defenceȱofȱtheȱTomisȱecclesiaticalȱcentre649.ȱ
Theȱprecinctsȱcontinuesȱtoȱtheȱeast,ȱbeyondȱtheȱbutchersȇsȱtower650ȱandȱitȱhadȱ
hereȱ aȱ gateȱ framedȱ byȱ towers651.ȱ Archaeologicalȱ excavationsȱ inȱ manyȱ stagesȱ
revealedȱ anȱ ensembleȱ ofȱ aȱ defensiveȱ gateȱ towers652.ȱ Theȱ towers,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ 2Ȭ3ȱ
seatingȱ rowsȱ areȱ stillȱ preserved,ȱ hadȱ semicircularȱ frontalȱ sides.ȱ Theȱ southwestȱ
towerȱisȱaboutȱ15ȱmȱlongȱandȱtheȱwidthȱmeasuredȱatȱtheȱfrontȱvaultȱarchȱisȱ11.50ȱ
m,ȱtheȱelevationȱisȱ3.50ȱmȱwide.ȱSomeȱbuildingȱelementsȱconfirmȱaȱspecialȱfeatureȱ
ofȱ theȱ tower.ȱ Theȱ insideȱ northwestȱ sideȱ hidesȱ aȱ 1ȱ mȱ wideȱ andȱ 2ȱ mȱ inȱ heightȱ
tunnel;ȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ precinctȱ wallȱ thisȱ opensȱ insideȱ theȱ tower;ȱ theȱ tunnelȱ
pavementȱisȱaboutȱ0.70ȱmȱunderȱtheȱtowerȱfoundation.ȱOnlyȱtheȱsemicircularȱfrontȱ
connectionȱisȱstillȱpreservedȱofȱtheȱsecondȱtowerȱdamagedȱbyȱmodernȱworks.ȱTheȱ
gateȱaccessȱ wayȱisȱ10.50ȱinȱwidthȱandȱisȱcoveredȱ withȱstoneȱplates.ȱOrientatedȱtoȱ
theȱnorthwest,ȱtheȱgatesȇȱapertureȱisȱoverȱ31ȱmȱinȱtotalȱ(takingȱintoȱconsiderationȱ
alsoȱtheȱexteriorȱsidesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱtowers).ȱ
Theȱtowers’ȱsizesȱasȱwellȱasȱtheirȱcomplexityȱandȱtheȱsizeȱofȱaccessȱwaysȱleadȱ
toȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ gateȱ ofȱ theȱ city.ȱ Theȱ outlineȱ ofȱ theȱ
peninsulaȱ hasȱ beenȱ changedȱ overȱ timeȱ byȱ seaȱ erosion;ȱ theȱ gateȱ didȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ
ancientȱ periodȱ haveȱ aȱ periphericȱ positionȱ whichȱ weȱ areȱ inaccuratelyȱ inclinedȱ toȱ
believeȱtoday653.ȱBeyondȱtheȱsecondȱtower,ȱtheȱprecinctsȱwereȱcontinuingȱupȱtoȱtheȱ
sea654.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whetherȱ Tomisȱ hadȱ aȱ perimeterȱ precinctȱ orȱ theȱ peninsulaȱ
wasȱ defendedȱ onlyȱ fromȱ theȱ landȱ sideȱ hasȱ notȱ aȱ definiteȱ answer655.ȱ
Chronologicallyȱspeaking656,ȱtheȱlateȱprecinctsȱbuildingsȱcouldȱstartȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ
halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ afterȱ theȱ Gothicȱ invasion.ȱ Constructionȱ couldȱ haveȱ
649
ȱ N.ȱ Cheluö©ȬGeorgescu,ȱ loc.ȱ cit.;ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 86Ȭ87;ȱ L.ȱ Cliante,ȱ Unȱ nouȱ
segmentȱ alȱ incinteiȱ tomitaneȱ târziiȱ (Aȱ newȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȱ Tomitanȱ precincts),ȱ Ponticaȱ 39ȱ
(2006),ȱp.ȱ249Ȭ258.ȱ
650
ȱNoteȱofȱV.ȱPârvan,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ417ȱandȱpl.ȱI.ȱ
651
ȱ Aȱ firstȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ monumentȱ wasȱ madeȱ byȱ Sc.ȱ Lambrino,ȱ inȱ Arhivaȱ pentruȱ
ótiinö©ȱóiȱreform©ȱsocial©ȱ(Theȱarchiveȱforȱsocialȱscienceȱandȱreform),ȱ14ȱ(1936),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ912Ȭ917.ȱ
652
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ L.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.;ȱ researchesȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ 1988,ȱ 1991ȱ Ȭȱ 1992,ȱ 1993ȱ andȱ
1998.ȱ
653
ȱ Ancientȱ brokenȱ walls,ȱ visibleȱ inȱ theȱ cliffȱ wallȱ confirmȱ thisȱ hypothesis.ȱ Actually,ȱ
C©r©midariȱ streetȱ existedȱ hereȱ halfȱ ofȱ centuryȱ agoȱ whichȱ disappearedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ shoreȱ
slippage.ȱ
654
ȱ Theȱ precinctsȱ wallȱ seemsȱ toȱ passȱ overȱ theȱ possibleȱ exteriorȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ NEȱ tower;ȱ
seeȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ L.ȱ Lungu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 205ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 15;ȱ ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ O.ȱ Bounegru,ȱ M.ȱ Adumitroaie,ȱ
„Lifeȱ (afterȱ town)ȱ inȱ town”,ȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minor.ȱ Interpret©riȱ stratigraficeȱ (Stratigraphicalȱ analysis,ȱ
Peuceȱ SNȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ (2005Ȭ2006),ȱ p.ȱ 265ȱ ȱ mentionȱ theȱ defenceȱ ditch,ȱ situatedȱ atȱ 16.5ȱ mȱ toȱ theȱ Eastȱ
fromȱ theȱ towersȱ frontalȱ line,ȱ whoseȱ banksȱ wereȱ platedȱ withȱ limeȱ halfȬshapedȱ blocksȱ ;ȱ theȱ
gateȱ functionedȱ atȱ leastȱ untilȱ theȱ 7 th ȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ takingȱ intoȱ considerationȱ ȱ Phocas’ȱ coinsȱ
discoveredȱinȱtheȱarea.ȱ
655
ȱ Seeȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 91Ȭ92,ȱ whereȱ isȱ mentionedȱ ȇvagueȱ evidenceȇȱ aboutȱ aȱ
perimeterȱprecinctȱexistingȱhere.ȱ
656
ȱ Al.ȱ Suceveanu,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 13ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ 348Ȭ350ȱ (=ȱ Opusculaȱ Scythica,ȱ p.ȱ 128Ȭ129),ȱ
suggestsȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ2 nd ȱcenturyȱAD;ȱȱtheȱsameȱdateȱalsoȱatȱN.ȱToma,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ59Ȭ72,ȱ
basedȱ onȱ theȱ existenceȱ onȱ Tomisȱ SWȱ coastȱ ofȱ ȱ someȱ monumentalȱ edifices,ȱ asȱ thatȱ „withȱ
stairs”,ȱ build,ȱ probablyȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2 nd ȱ centuryȬtheȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ
centuryȱAD;ȱalsoȱhereȱtheȱhypothesisȱofȱaȱpossibleȱstreetȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱancientȱport.ȱȱ
ȱ 203
ȱȱȱ
beenȱ initiatedȱ probablyȱ byȱ Gallienus657.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ continuedȱ (ifȱ notȱ started)ȱ byȱ
AurelianȱandȱTacitus658ȱandȱfinishedȱprobablyȱbyȱDiocletian659ȱ(duringȱhisȱtimeȱtheȱ
gatesȱorȱtheȱgateȱofȱtheȱcityȱwereȱbuiltȱ(IGLR,ȱ3).ȱTheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱworkȱwasȱ
finishedȱ byȱ Constantineȱ theȱ Greatȱ isȱ notȱ excluded660.ȱ Precinctsȱ fragmentsȱ wereȱ
rebuiltȱ duringȱ theȱ emperorȱ Justinianȱ (orȱ probablyȱ evenȱ duringȱ Anastasius).ȱ Theȱ
buildingȱsecurityȱpermittedȱtheȱancientȱcityȇsȱdefenceȱuntilȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
ȱTomisȱ urbanȱ structureȱ duringȱ thieȱ periodȱ isȱ completedȱ byȱ streetȱ routes,ȱ
sewerȱ canals,ȱ pavements,ȱ andȱ inhabitanceȱ complexes,ȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ pillastersȱ
indicatingȱ possibleȱ portic,ȱ rectangularȱ arrangementsȱ withȱ storingȱ pitsȱ insideȱ orȱ
onlyȱunprotectedȱlargeȱpits661.ȱ
Theȱ kilnsȱ wereȱ setȱ nearȱ theȱ precincts;ȱ sixȱ kilnsȱ forȱ brickȱ burning662ȱ (threeȱ
insideȱ theȱ city,ȱ threeȱ outside)ȱ haveȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱ northwestȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ
city663.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ kilnȱ groupsȱ actuallyȱ representȱ handmadeȱ goodsȱ complexes.ȱ Builtȱ
inȱaȱlimitedȱarea664,ȱtheyȱfunctionedȱcontemporaneously.ȱThisȱareaȱwasȱchosenȱonȱ
oneȱ handȱ becauseȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ buildingȱ necessityȱ onȱ theȱ westȱ side,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ
hand,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱclayȱquality.ȱBricksȱsimilarȱtoȱthoseȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱpavementȱofȱ
theȱ neighbouringȱ basilicas665ȱ wereȱ foundȱ onȱ theȱ platformȱ ofȱ oneȱ kiln.ȱ Numerousȱ
elementsȱsupportȱtheȱideaȱofȱdatingȱtheȱkilnsȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ5thȱcenturyȱ
AD:ȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱageȱceramicȱmaterial,ȱpreponderantȱinȱtheȱkilnsȇȱstratigraphy;ȱ
theȱ rudimentaryȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ installationȱ construction;ȱ theȱ sameȱ typologyȱ ofȱ theȱ
bricksȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ PaleoȬChristianȱ ȱ ȱ basilicasȱ ȱ ȱ andȱ ȱ ȱ thoseȱ ȱ ȱ onȱ ȱ ȱ someȱ ȱ ȱ kilnȱ
platforms;ȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱculturalȱstratumȱcontemporaryȱtoȱtheȱkilns.ȱ
Workshopsȱ forȱ ceramicsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ moreȱ numerousȱ thanȱ thoseȱ
discoveredȱ untilȱ now.ȱ Thereȱ wasȱ certainlyȱ aȱ workshopȱ forȱ lamps:ȱ theȱ productsȱ
stamps666,ȱ theȱ depositsȱ andȱ theȱ patternsȱ ofȱ lampsȱ foundȱ atȱ Tomis667ȱ areȱ allȱ
657
ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱp.ȱ156.ȱ
658
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ coinsȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ precinctsȱ emplecton;ȱ cfȱ A.ȱ ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 84Ȭ85,ȱ
n.ȱ5ȱandȱ6.ȱ
659
ȱTheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱarchaeologicalȱresearchȱreportȱatȱTomis,ȱMihaiȱViteazuȱst,ȱȱbasedȱ
onȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱinhabitanceȱinȱthisȱarea,ȱinȱtheȱ4 th ȱcenturyȱADȱandȱweȱmaintainȱthisȱ
dateȱalsoȱforȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱtheȱcittyȱlateȱprecincts;ȱseeȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292.ȱȱ
660
ȱV.ȱCanarache,ȱTomis,ȱp.ȱ17ȱ;ȱR.ȱVulpe,ȱPonticeȱ2ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ163ȱ;ȱA.ȱAricescu,ȱArmata,ȱ
p.ȱ157.ȱ
661
ȱ Thereȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ olderȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Park,ȱ theȱ recentȱ
ones,ȱ situatedȱ onȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ actualȱ Chamberȱ ofȱ theȱ Publicȱ Notariesȱ (CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ
2004,ȱ p.ȱ 127Ȭ128,ȱ no.ȱ 79)ȱ ȱ orȱ onȱ Mihaiȱ Viteazuȱ st,ȱ ȱ theȱ ȱ OCPIȱ buildingȱ Constanöaȱ (CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2009,ȱp.ȱ290Ȭ292,ȱno.ȱ143).ȱ
ȱ ȱ 662ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱMonumenteȱromanoȬbizantine,ȱp.ȱ5Ȭ23.ȱ
663
ȱAnotherȱunstudiedȱbrickȱkilnȱfoundȱnearȱtheȱprecinctȱtoȱtheȱeast;ȱseeȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱ
op.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ6ȱandȱn.ȱ5.ȱ
664
ȱ Theȱ distancesȱ fromȱ oneȱ brickȱ kilnȱ toȱ anotherȱ arcȱ aboutȱ 10Ȭ12ȱ m.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ
handmadeȱcomplexesȱinȱtheȱareaȱseeȱalsoȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱp.ȱ230.ȱ
665
ȱ Itȱ isȱ consideredȱ almostȱ certainȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ kilnȱ groupȱ wasȱ speciallyȱ madeȱ forȱ
buildingȱtheȱbasilicas.ȱ
666
ȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Opaiöe,ȱ p.ȱ 17Ȭ18,ȱ tipȱ XIX:ȱ „̏ΣΕΎΓΙȱ ̖ΓΐΉϟΘ΋Ζȱ πΔΓϟΉ΍”; ȱ otherȱ namesȱ ofȱ
Tomitanȱ producers:ȱ ̈ЁΎΘφΐΝΑ,ȱ ̡ΐ΍΅Ζ,ȱ atȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ G.ȱ Bordeianu,ȱ Oȱ nou©ȱ descoperireȱ deȱ
lucerneȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ (Aȱ newȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ lampsȱ inȱ Constanöa),ȱ Ponticaȱ 14ȱ (1981),ȱ p.ȱ 269ȱ 276ȱ
(piecesȱdiscoveredȱinȱaȱtombȱandȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱmiddleȱorȱtheȱthirdȱquarterȱofȱtheȱ2 nd ȱcenturyȱ
ADȱwithȱaȱaȱlongerȱcirculation);ȱaȱnameȱEЁ(...)ȱappearsȱonȱaȱlampȱfromȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
204ȱ ȱ
ȱ
evidence.ȱ141ȱbrokenȱlampsȱwereȱfoundȱinȱanȱancientȱpitȱatȱaboutȱ200ȱmȱfromȱtheȱ
lateȱ Romanȱ precinctsȱ wall668;ȱ allȱ areȱ productionȱ scrapsȱ fromȱ aȱ localȱ workshop669ȱ
whoseȱ installationsȱ shouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ theȱ neighbourhood.ȱ Theȱ piecesȱ wereȱ
producedȱ eitherȱ withȱ importedȱ patternsȱ or,ȱ moreȱ likely,ȱ byȱ copyingȱ someȱ
importedȱ originalsȱ atȱ aȱ dateȱ thatȱ shouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱ AD670.ȱ Theȱ patternsȱ preservedȱ hiddenȱ amongȱ theȱ wallȱ stonesȱ ofȱ theȱ oneȱ
mosaicȱ edificeȱ warehouseȱ areȱ later:ȱ theȱ 6thȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ possiblyȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ (orȱ
theȱbeginning)ȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD671.ȱTheȱpatternsȱpresenceȱmeansȱtheȱexistenceȱ
ofȱsomeȱhandmadeȱgoodsȱworkshopsȱinȱtheȱneighbourhood672.ȱ
Glassȱ productionȱ atȱ Tomisȱ isȱ stillȱ uncertain:ȱ theȱ tracesȱ ofȱ twoȱ kilnsȱ wereȱ
discoveredȱ nearȱ theȱ presentȱ buildingȱ ofȱ theȱ Folkȱ Artȱ Museum;ȱ theyȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ
completelyȱstudied673.ȱThoughȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱoneȱorȱmoreȱkilnsȱforȱglassȱmakingȱ
wouldȱbeȱnatural,ȱitȱisȱnotȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱproved.ȱ
Tracesȱ ofȱ aȱ marbleȱ workshopȱ haveȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ (1958)ȱ atȱ
theȱbottomȱofȱtheȱwestȱcliff,ȱatȱtheȱancientȱportȱlevel674.ȱ Numerousȱmassiveȱmarbleȱ
piecesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ retrived675ȱ fromȱ thisȱ areaȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ someȱ portȱ
constructionȱ andȱ arrangement,ȱ beforeȱ 1900.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ theȱ workshopȱ wasȱ usedȱ inȱ
theȱmainȱforȱmarbleȱprocessingȱforȱmonumentalȱconstructions676.ȱ
Localȱ productionȱ doesȱ notȱ reduceȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ importedȱ products.ȱ
Provincesȱ suchȱ asȱ Egypt,ȱ Palestineȱ orȱ Syriaȱ areȱ amongȱ theȱ foremostȱ placesȱ
4 th ȱ centuryȱ AD:ȱ seeȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Unȱ depozitȱ deȱ opaiöeȱ laȱ Constanöaȱ (Aȱ depositȱ ofȱ lampsȱ inȱ
Constanöa),ȱPonticaȱ3ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ237Ȭ238,ȱno.ȱ1.ȱSeeȱrecentlyȱVioricaȱRusuȬBolindeö,ȱTheȱlampsȱ
fromȱ theȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ timesȱ atȱ Histria.ȱ Anȱ introductionȱ onȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ theȱ lampȱ producingȱ
workshopȱ inȱ Romanȱ Dobrogea,ȱ inȱ Antiquitasȱ IstroȬPontica,ȱ Mélangesȱ d’archéologieȱ etȱ d’histoireȱ
ancienneȱoffertsȱàȱAlexandruȱSuceveanu,ȱClujȱNapoca,ȱ2010,ȱp.ȱ401Ȭ419.ȱ
667
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ synthesisȱ inȱ articleȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Dieȱ lokaleȱ Herstellungȱ derȱ
Beleuchtungsgegenständeȱ—ȱLucernae,ȱPonticaȱ14ȱ(1981),ȱp.ȱ181Ȭ209.ȱȱ
668
ȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱPonticaȱ3ȱ(1970),ȱp.ȱ237Ȭ254.ȱ
669
ȱ Afterȱ restoration,ȱ thereȱ wereȱ determinedȱ 10ȱ lampȱ variantsȱ whichȱ belongȱ toȱ someȱ
importantȱtypes.ȱ
670
ȱTheȱstudyȇsȱauthorȱtakesȱintoȱconsiderationȱpreciselyȱtheȱperiodȱofȱConstantineȱtheȱ
Great.ȱ
671
ȱ C.ȱ Iconomu,ȱ Ponticaȱ 9ȱ (1976),ȱ p.ȱ 135Ȭ146;ȱ theȱ hiddenȱ piecesȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ
dangerȱ threateningȱ Tomisȱ inȱ thisȱ period;ȱ theȱ dangerȱ isȱ identifiedȱ asȱ beingȱ theȱ Avarsȱ andȱ
Slavesȱ invasionsȱ inȱ 601Ȭ602ȱ ADȱ (theȱ dateȱ matchesȱ withȱ theȱ lastȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ
Edifice).ȱ
672
ȱ Theȱ archaeologicalȱ excavationsȱ atȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ revealedȱ bothȱ brickȱ andȱ limeȱ
kilns,ȱbutȱtheyȱbelongȱtoȱaȱlaterȱperiod;ȱseeȱC.ȱIconomu,ȱop.ȱcit,ȱp.ȱ144ȱandȱnotesȱ41,ȱ42.ȱ
673
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Vaseȱ anticeȱ deȱ sticl©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Ancientȱ glassȱ vesselsȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ1968,ȱp.ȱ154Ȭ156.ȱ
674
ȱ Moreȱ monumentsȱ inȱ variousȱ buildingȱ stagesȱ wereȱ discoveredȱ here:ȱ aȱ 5ȱ mȱ lengthȱ
architrave,ȱ aȱ cornice,ȱ twoȱ cornerȱ capitalsȱ andȱ theȱ superiorȱ pieceȱ ofȱ aȱ sarcophagus:ȱ seeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ 1961,ȱ p.ȱ 33Ȭ35;ȱ V.ȱ Canaracheȱ etȱ alii,ȱ Tezaurul,ȱ p.ȱ 120ȱ ff.;ȱ differentȱ
oppinion,ȱ ȱ N.ȱ Toma,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 65Ȭ68,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ unformedȱ marbleȱ piecesȱ
wouldȱindicateȱaȱconstructionȱsiteȱandȱnotȱaȱmarbleȱprocessingȱworkshop.ȱ
675
ȱ G.ȱ Bordenache,ȱ Correntiȱ dȇarteȱ eȱ riflessiȱ dȇambienteȱ suȱ alcuniȱ ritrattiȱ delȱ Museoȱ
NazionaleȱdiȱAntichità,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ2ȱ(1958),ȱp.ȱ267,ȱnoteȱ19.ȱ
676
ȱ Itsȱ maximumȱfunctionȱ periodȱ isȱdatedȱ inȱ theȱ2 nd ȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Forȱ theȱ constructionsȱ
onȱtheȱsouthȬwesternȱcoast,ȱseeȱnowȱN.ȱToma,ȱop.ȱcit.ȱ
ȱ 205
ȱȱȱ
concerningȱ productsȱ andȱ exportation677.ȱ Scythia,ȱ inclusivelyȱ Tomis,ȱ hadȱ tradeȱ
relationshipsȱ bothȱ withȱ economicȱ centresȱ insideȱ andȱ outsideȱ theȱ empire,ȱ butȱ theȱ
formerȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ important.ȱ Toȱ Tomisȱ wereȱ broughtȱ amphorasȱ withȱ goodsȱ
bothȱfromȱtheȱSyrianȬPalestinianȱarea,ȱandȱfromȱtheȱwesternȱMediteraneanȱarea.ȱ
Manyȱ ofȱ theȱ amphorasȱ discoveredȱ atȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ edifice,ȱ holdȱ vegetalȱ resinsȱ
(colophony,ȱturpentine,ȱmastix),ȱmanyȱofȱwhichȱcameȱfromȱtheȱwestȱcoastȱofȱAsiaȱ
Minor,ȱ othersȱ fromȱ theȱ shoresȱ ofȱ Arabiaȱ andȱ Somalia678.ȱ Inȱ 599ȱ AD,ȱ whenȱ Tomisȱ
wasȱ besiegedȱ byȱ Avars,ȱ itȱ wasȱ possibleȱ toȱ offerȱ toȱ theȱ Avarȱ Khanȱ someȱ kindsȱ ofȱ
exoticȱ condimentsȱ probablyȱ comingȱ fromȱ India679.ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ
amphoraeȱ bearingȱ Christianȱ inscriptionsȱ wereȱ giftsȱ sentȱ byȱ theȱ Sirianȱ bishopsȱ toȱ
theȱ bishopȱ ofȱ Tomis680.ȱ Tomis,ȱ moreȱ thanȱ otherȱ cityȱ inȱ theȱ Ponticȱ area,ȱ
distinguishesȱ itselfȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ Northȱ Africanȱ amphorae.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ addȱ toȱ
thisȱ varietyȱ ofȱ amphorae,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ tableȱ vessels681ȱ andȱ lamps682,ȱ weȱ haveȱ aȱ
completeȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱproductsȱcomingȱtoȱthisȱcity.ȱ
Theȱ ȱ financialȱ andȱ tradeȱ organisationȱ ofȱ theȱ province683ȱ isȱ illustratedȱ byȱ aȱ
seriesȱofȱdiscoveriesȱatȱTomis:ȱFlaviusȱServandus,ȱΔΉΕϟΆΏΉΔΘΓΖȱΎϱΐ΋ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΩΕΛΝΑ,ȱ
issuedȱ exagiumȱ (πΒΣ·΍ΓΑ)ȱ Ȭȱ aȱ measureȱ (andȱ checking)ȱ ofȱ theȱ oldȱ coinȱ (solidus)ȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 86;ȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ AD);ȱ veryȱ likelyȱ heȱ appliesȱ theȱ ordersȱ ofȱ theȱ imperialȱ
authorities,ȱinȱtheȱprovinceȱthereȱisȱalsoȱotherȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱcentralizedȱcontrolȱ
uponȱtrade.ȱ
Theȱ leadȱ tradeȱ sealsȱ indicateȱ goodsȱ comingȱ fromȱ Asiaȱ Minorȱ andȱ theȱ
neighbouringȱ regions,ȱ Smyrna,ȱ Ephes,ȱ Metropolis,ȱ Koloeȱ (Lydia)684,ȱ inȱ theȱ 4thȱ
centuryȱADȱandȱalsoȱduringȱtheȱfollowingȱcenturiesȱuntilȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱ
centuryȱAD.ȱ
Maritimeȱ tradeȱ goodsȱ areȱ wellȬillustratedȱ byȱ theȱ discoveriesȱ atȱ theȱ Romanȱ
Mosaicȱ Edifice:ȱ metalȱ anchors,ȱ importantȱ quantitiesȱ ofȱ ironȱ ore,ȱ marbleȱ weightsȱ
forȱbigȱscales,ȱresinsȱand,ȱobviously,ȱamphorae685.ȱ
Returnȱ toȱ theȱ cityȱ structures,ȱ weȱ mustȱ specifyȱ someȱ dataȱ aboutȱ theȱ specialȱ
constructionsȱ Ȭȱ theȱ undergroundȱ galleriesȱ crossingȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ peninsula686.ȱ Setȱ
677
ȱSeeȱA.ȱOpaiö,ȱAspecteȱaleȱvieöiiȱeconomiceȱdinȱprovinciaȱScythiaȱ(secoleleȱIVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
Producöiaȱ ceramiciiȱ localeȱ óiȱ deȱ importȱ (Economicȱ aspectsȱ inȱ theȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ provinceȱ (4 th ȱ Ȭȱ 6 th ȱ
centuriesȱAD).ȱTheȱlocalȱandȱimportedȱceramicsȱproduction),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1996,ȱpassim.ȱ
678
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Amforeȱ romaneȱ óiȱ romanoȬbizantineȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ (Romanȱ andȱ
RomanȬByzantineȱamphorasȱfromȱScythiaȱMinor),ȱPonticaȱ9ȱ(1976),ȱp.ȱ99Ȭ114.ȱ
679
ȱTheophylactusȱSimocatta,ȱHistoriae,ȱ7,ȱ13,ȱ1Ȭ6ȱ(FontesȱII,ȱp.ȱ545).ȱ
680
ȱA.ȱOpaiö,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ165.ȱ
681
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Ceramicaȱ roman©ȱ târzieȱ cuȱ decorȱ ótampilatȱ descoperit©ȱ laȱ Edificiulȱ romanȱ cuȱ
mozaicȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (Theȱ lateȱ Romanȱ stampedȱ decorationȱ ceramicsȱ discoveredȱ atȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ
EdificeȱfromȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ6ȱ(1973),ȱp.ȱ153Ȭ192.ȱ
682
ȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱ Opaiöeȱ deȱ importȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Importedȱ lampsȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 9ȱ (1976),ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ201Ȭ205.ȱ
683
ȱAl.ȱBarnea,ȱLaȱDobroudjaȱromaine,ȱ236Ȭ257.ȱ
684
25,ȱnos.ȱ1Ȭ7.ȱ
685
ȱAȱR©dulescu,ȱAmforeȱcuȱinscripöiiȱdeȱlaȱEdificiulȱromanȱcuȱmozaicȱdinȱTomisȱ(Amphorasȱ
withȱinscriptionsȱfromȱtheȱRomanȱMosaicȱEdificeȱinȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ6ȱ(1973),ȱp.ȱ193Ȭ207.ȱ
686
ȱ Notesȱ aboutȱ thisȱ buildingȱ seeȱ atȱ V.ȱ Canarache,ȱ Tomis,ȱ 1961,ȱ p.ȱ 37Ȭ38ȱ andȱ
unpublishedȱ manuscriptsȱ atȱ MINAC;ȱ ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Tomisȱ magazineȱ I,ȱ 3,ȱ 1966,ȱ p.ȱ 18;ȱ V.ȱ Barbu,ȱ
206ȱ ȱ
ȱ
upȱ inȱ aȱ net,ȱ havingȱ builtȱ ventilationȱ facilitiesȱ andȱ entranceȱ apertures,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ
dugȱdirectlyȱintoȱtheȱrockȱorȱloessȱandȱhaveȱstoneȱandȱbrickȱwalls,ȱmortarȱinȱopusȱ
signinum.ȱ Twoȱ sidesȱ haveȱ beenȱ studied687,ȱ theȱ firstȱ connectingȱ theȱ easternȱ cliffȱ
withȱ Tomisȇsȱ touristȱ portȱ isȱ almostȱ 285ȱ mȱ longȱ andȱ 1.60/1.70Ȭ2.49ȱ mȱ high.ȱ Theȱ
secondȱ sides,ȱ betweenȱ Tomisȱ portȱ andȱ theȱ Romanȱ Mosaicȱ Edificeȱ isȱ 265ȱ mȱ long.ȱ
TheyȱcrossȱtheȱpeninsulaȱatȱȬ20ȱmȱunderȱtheȱpresentȱgroundȱlevel.ȱConsidered,ȱinȱ
turn,ȱ sewersȱ forȱ theȱ rainȱ andȱ processingȱ waters,ȱ shelterȱ inȱ timesȱ ofȱ dangerȱ andȱ
escapeȱ routesȱ duringȱ sieges,ȱ theyȱ areȱ inȱ factȱ largerȱ aqueducts,ȱ ableȱ toȱ storeȱ anȱ
importantȱquantityȱofȱwater688.ȱTheȱaqueductȱflowȱdirectionȱgoesȱtoȱtheȱwestȱcliff,ȱ
whereȱ theȱ cityȱ bathsȱ withȱ theirȱ ownȱ basinsȱ andȱ reservoirȱ areȱ alsoȱ situated.ȱ Theȱ
aqueductȬgalleriesȱsystemȱwasȱprobablyȱbuiltȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱ
AD;ȱtheyȱfunctionedȱinȱtheȱperiodȱofȱtheȱRomanȬByzantineȱcity,ȱbeingȱknownȱalsoȱ
asȱaȱtransportȱinstallationȱforȱwaterȱfromȱtheȱsourcesȱinȱtheȱneighbourhood689.ȱȱ
Theȱ lastȱ domainȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ structuresȱ weȱ areȱ goingȱ toȱ writeȱ aboutȱ areȱ theȱ
necropoleis.ȱ Relatedȱ toȱ theȱ precincts,ȱ thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ andȱ localizedȱ fiveȱ
necropoleisȱ areasȱ inȱ Tomis690;ȱ theseȱ spreadȱ aroundȱ theȱ ancientȱ city,ȱ fromȱ theȱ
northeastȱ peninsulaȱ cornerȱ toȱ theȱ west,ȱ andȱ alongȱ theȱ coastȱ roadsȱ connectingȱ
TomisȱwithȱHistriaȱandȱKallatis.ȱ
Theȱ firstȱ necropolis691ȱ isȱ situatedȱ approximatelyȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ betweenȱ theȱ
Hellenisticȱ precinctȱ wallsȱ andȱ theȱ lateȱ Romanȱ ageȱ one.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ mainȱ Hellenisticȱ
necropolisȱ overȱ theȱ Romanȱ cityȱ whichȱ isȱ partiallyȱ superimposed.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ
someȱ areasȱ situatedȱ furtherȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ whereȱ anȱ importantȱ numberȱ ofȱ
Hellenisticȱ burialsȱ haveȱ beenȱ discovered.ȱ Theirȱ situation,ȱ aboutȱ 2Ȭ3ȱ kmȱ fromȱ theȱ
Hellenisticȱ wall,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ someȱ suburbanȱ settlements,ȱ couldȱ
Tomis,ȱ oraóulȱ poetuluiȱ exilat,ȱ p.ȱ 95Ȭ99;ȱ Mirceaȱ D.ȱ Matei,ȱ Leȱ troisièmeȱ colloqueȱ mixteȱ roumainoȬ
sovietiqueȱdȇarchéologieȱetȱdȇetnographie,ȱDaciaȱNSȱ3ȱ(1959),ȱp.ȱ573Ȭ579.ȱ
687
ȱ Seeȱ Gh.ȱ Papuc,ȱTipuriȱdeȱ apeducteȱpeȱ litoralulȱ vestȬponticȱ (Aqueductȱtypesȱ onȱ theȱ WestȬ
Ponticȱ coast),ȱ Ponticaȱ 30ȱ (1977),ȱ p.ȱ 237Ȭ250;ȱ idem,ȱ Aprovizionareaȱ cuȱ ap©ȱ aȱ cet©öiiȱ Tomis,ȱ
Constanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ70Ȭ85.ȱȱ
688
ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ Tomisȱ waterȱ supplyȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Botzan,ȱ Observaöiiȱ dinȱ secolulȱ trecutȱ asupraȱ
unorȱ construcöiiȱ anticeȱ dinȱ Dobrogeaȱ (Observationsȱ fromȱ theȱ lastȱ centuryȱ aboutȱ someȱ ancientȱ
buildingsȱ inȱ Dobruja),ȱ Ponticaȱ 12ȱ (1979),ȱ p.ȱ 175Ȭ179;ȱ idem,ȱ Consideraöiiȱ asupraȱ aliment©riiȱ cuȱ
ap©ȱaȱoraóelorȬcet©öiȱHistria,ȱTomisȱóiȱCallatisȱ(Considerationsȱaboutȱtheȱwaterȱsupplyȱofȱtheȱcitiesȱ
Histria,ȱ Tomisȱ andȱ Kallatis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 13ȱ (1980),ȱ p.ȱ 305Ȭ341;ȱ idem,ȱ Apeleȱ înȱ viaöaȱ poporuluiȱ
românȱ(WatersȱinȱtheȱRomanianȱpeopleȱlife),ȱBucureóti,ȱ1984,ȱp.ȱ164Ȭ170.ȱ
689
ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱMihaiȱIonescu,ȱNoiȱcercet©riȱprivindȱapeductulȱdeȱlaȱOvidiu,ȱjud.ȱConstanöaȱ
(Newȱ researchesȱ aboutȱ theȱ aqueductȱ fromȱ Ovidiu,ȱ Constanöaȱ County),ȱ Ponticaȱ 27ȱ (1994),ȱ p.ȱ 209Ȭ
221;ȱGh.ȱPapuc,ȱTomisȱ–ȱaprovizionareaȱcuȱap©ȱpotabil©ȱînȱepocaȱroman©ȱóiȱroman©ȱtârzieȱ(TomisȬ
theȱȱwaterȱsupplyȱinȱRomanȱandȱRomanȱlateȱepoch),ȱPonticaȱ33Ȭ34ȱ(2000Ȭ2001),ȱp.ȱ425Ȭ449;ȱidem,ȱ
Aprovizionareaȱcuȱap©ȱaȱcet©öiiȱTomisȱ(WaterȱsupplyȱinȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomis,ȱConstanöa,ȱ2005,ȱp.ȱ85Ȭ
94.ȱ
690
ȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱConsidérationsȱchronologiquesȱbaséeȱsurȱlesȱdonnéesȱfourniesȱparȱlesȱinventairesȱ
funérairesȱ desȱ nécropolesȱ tomitaines,ȱ StClsȱ 3ȱ (1961),ȱ p.ȱ 222Ȭ225;ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Necropoleleȱ tomitaneȱ
înȱ contextulȱ lumiiȱ romaneȱ vestȬponticeȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIVȱ p.ȱ Chr.)ȱ (Theȱ Tomitanȱ necropoleisȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ
WestȱPonticȱworldȱcontextȱ(theȱ1 st Ȭ4 th ȱcenturiesȱAD),ȱPhD,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1999,ȱp.ȱ10Ȭ23ȱ(mss.).ȱ
691
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Necropole,ȱ p.ȱ 131Ȭ133;ȱ idem,ȱ Unȱ altȱ mormântȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ elenistic©ȱ târzieȱ laȱ
Tomisȱ (Anotherȱ lateȱ Hellenisticȱ ageȱ tombȱ atȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 8ȱ (1975),ȱ p.ȱ 375Ȭ388;ȱ idem,ȱ Unȱ altȱ
mormântȱelenisticȱdescoperitȱlaȱTomisȱ(AnotherȱhellenisticȱtombȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ28Ȭ
29ȱ(1995Ȭ1996),ȱp.ȱ73Ȭ82.ȱ
ȱ 207
ȱȱȱ
suggestȱtheȱhypothesisȱofȱsomeȱsmallerȱnecropoleisȱkeptȱbyȱthoseȱsettlementsȱandȱ
notȱ byȱ Tomis.ȱ Aboutȱ 2/3ȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ tombsȱ areȱ cremationȱ burials,ȱ theȱ rest,ȱ
aboutȱ1/3,ȱareȱinhumation.ȱTheȱmostȱfrequentȱcremationȱburialȱisȱthatȱofȱburningȱ
onȱtheȱspotȱ(funeralȱpileȬtomb)692;ȱtheȱburialȱisȱusuallyȱdoneȱinȱrectangularȱgraves.ȱ
Necropolisȱ II,ȱ whichȱ spreadsȱ beyondȱ theȱ earlyȱ Romanȱ precincts,ȱ beginsȱ
probablyȱ immediatelyȱ inȱ itsȱ neighbourhoodȱ andȱ spreadsȱ toȱ theȱ northȱ andȱ
northwest,ȱ fromȱ theȱ cliffȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ sideȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ andȱ crossingȱ L©puóneanuȱ
boulevard.ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ identified693ȱ dozensȱ ofȱ marble,ȱ stoneȱ slatesȱ graves,ȱ
sarcophagiȱandȱaȱfewȱhundredȱburialsȱwithȱtileȱcoveringsȱorȱwithȱwoodenȱcoffins.ȱ
Thisȱ necropolisȱ alreadyȱ existedȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ ADȱ andȱ
continuedȱtoȱbeȱusedȱuntilȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD694.ȱ
NecropolisȱIIIȱspreadȱalongȱtheȱeasternȱcliff;ȱitȱbeginsȱatȱtheȱmainȱgateȱofȱtheȱ
cityȱ andȱ continuesȱ toȱ theȱ north.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ partȱ ofȱ itsȱ areaȱ wasȱ destroyedȱ byȱ
erosionȱandȱ landslip.ȱTheȱnecropolisȱisȱdatedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ 4thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱAȱ
funeraryȱ constructionȱ withȱ aȱ veryȱ specialȱ qualityȱ andȱ significantȱ wallpainting695ȱ
hasȱ beenȱ discoveredȱ inȱ thisȱ areaȱ inȱ 1988.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ vaultȱ withȱ aȱ dromosȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ
familyȱburialȱplaceȱforȱaboutȱ50ȱyears696.ȱTheȱinsideȱwallsȱareȱcoveredȱwithȱfrescoȱ
painting,ȱ withȱ anthropomorphic,ȱ zoomorphic,ȱ vegetalȱ andȱ geometricalȱ
representations.ȱ Aȱ specificȱ decorationȱ forȱ wallsȱ andȱ vaultȱ wasȱ made.ȱ Onȱ theȱ
northenȱtympanonȱaȱritualȱbanquetȱisȱrepresented,ȱinȱwhichȱmostlyȱmenȱareȱtakingȱ
part;ȱ onȱ theȱ southernȱ tympanonȱ aboveȱ theȱ entranceȱ fourȱ pigeonsȱ areȱ paintedȱ
aroundȱ aȱ kantharos.ȱ Theȱ westȱ sideȱ representsȱ twoȱ scenesȱ atȱ theȱ vaultȱ bottom:ȱ aȱ
groupȱ ofȱ fourȱ partridgesȱ andȱ aȱ rabbitȱ eatingȱ grapes.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ onȱ theȱ eastȱ wallsȱ
twoȱfrontedȱpawnsȱpeakingȱfromȱaȱbasketȱwithȱredȱfruit.ȱTheȱvaultȱisȱcoveredȱbyȱ
vegetalȱ decoration,ȱ paintedȱ inȱ variousȱ colours.ȱ Moreȱ deceasedȱ wereȱ putȱ inȱ theȱ
burialȱ vaultȱ successively697.ȱ Basedȱ onȱ theȱ richȱ floralȱ andȱ zoomorphicȱ decoration,ȱ
mixedȱ withȱ geometricalȱ elementsȱ andȱ onȱ fewȱ inventoryȱ discoveredȱ pieces,ȱ theȱ
tombȱwasȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱADȱ(nothingȱthatȱitȱwasȱusedȱ
forȱ burialsȱ forȱ aȱ longerȱ period).ȱ Theȱ paintingȱ interpretationȱ raisesȱ variousȱ
692
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Contribuöiiȱ laȱ cunoaótereaȱ complexelorȱ funerareȱ deȱ incineraöieȱ cuȱ
ȇrugȬbustaȇȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ elenistic©ȱ óiȱ roman©ȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ
funeraryȱcomplexesȱwithȱHellenisticȱandȱRomanȱAgeȱbustaȱpileȱfromȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ19ȱ(1986),ȱp.ȱ
89Ȭ114.ȱ
693
ȱSeeȱV.ȱBarbu,ȱDinȱnecropoleleȱTomisului.ȱI.ȱTipuriȱdeȱmorminteȱdinȱepocaȱroman©ȱ(Aboutȱ
TomisȱnecropolisȱI.ȱTombȱtypesȱofȱtheȱRomanȱage),ȱSCIVȱ22ȱ(1971),ȱl,ȱp.ȱ47Ȭ68.ȱ
694
ȱ Seeȱ aȱ limestoneȱ platedȱ tombȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ 3 rd ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ atȱ M.ȱ
Bucoval©,ȱ Découvertesȱ récentesȱ dansȱ lesȱ necropolesȱ deȱ Tomis,ȱ Daciaȱ NSȱ 35ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ199ȱ
(thisȱusualȱtombȱisȱdistinguishedȱbyȱaȱveryȱrichȱfuneraryȱinventory).ȱ
695
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Unȱ monumentȱ arheologicȱ deȱ oȱ excepöional©ȱ valoareȱ laȱ
Tomis/Constanöaȱ (Anȱ archaeologicalȱ monumentȱ ofȱ anȱ excelentȱ valueȱ fromȱ Tomis/Constanöa),ȱ Artaȱ
35ȱ (1988)ȱ 4,ȱ p.ȱ 11Ȭ14;ȱ iidem,ȱ Romischeȱ Wandmalereienȱ inȱ neugefundenenȱ Gräbernȱ ausȱ denȱ
Nekropolenȱ derȱ Dobrogea,ȱ inȱ Dieȱ Schwarzmeerküsteȱ derȱ Spätantikeȱ undȱ imȱ frühenȱ Mittelalter,ȱ
Wien,ȱ1992,ȱp.ȱ94Ȭ96ȱandȱpl.ȱ10;ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱEntreȱfasteȱetȱdénouement.ȱLesȱmystèresȱsoulévésȱ
parȱleȱ„Tombeauȱauȱbanquet”ȱretrouvéȱàȱConstantza,ȱinȱArchéologieȱNouvelleȱ1(1993),ȱp.ȱ42Ȭ47.ȱȱ
696
ȱ Theȱ externalȱ sizesȱ ofȱ theȱ buildingȱ areȱ 3.84ȱ xȱ 3.18ȱ xȱ 3ȱ mȱ (andȱ theȱ internalȱ sizesȱ areȱ
2.80ȱxȱ2.30ȱxȱ2.05ȱm).ȱ
697
ȱ Fourȱ skeletonsȱ wereȱ foundȱ inȱ coffins,ȱ othersȱ withoutȱ funeraryȱ boxesȱ nearȱ theȱ
entranceȱandȱaȱchildȱputȱinȱanȱamphora.ȱ
208ȱ ȱ
ȱ
hypotheses.ȱ Birdȱ andȱ rabbitȱ representationsȱ couldȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ beȱ Christianȱ
andȱ Paganȱ symbols;ȱ alsoȱ theȱ funeraryȱ banquetȱ sinceȱ itȱ hasȱ noȱ specificȱ Christianȱ
markȱ orȱ inscription.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ specificallyȱ Christianȱ featureȱ isȱ theȱ westȬeastȱ
orientationȱofȱtheȱtombsȱinsideȱtheȱburialȱvault.ȱTheȱclosestȱanalogyȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱ
inȱ aȱ sceneȱ ofȱ theȱ eucharisticalȱ banquetȱ ofȱ „Santiȱ Pietroȱ eȱ Marcellino”ȱ catacombȱ
fromȱRome,ȱwhereȱChristianȱfeaturesȱareȱdoubtless698.ȱ
Necropolisȱ IVȱ isȱ situatedȱ toȱ theȱ westȱ andȱ southwest,ȱ betweenȱ theȱ lateȱ
precinctȱ wallȱ andȱ theȱ presentȱ railwayȱ station.ȱ Aȱ lotȱ ofȱ sarcophagiȱ andȱ stoneȱ
funeraryȱcomplexes,ȱasȱ wellȱasȱinhumationȱgravesȱwithȱ tileȱcoverings,ȱhaveȱ beenȱ
studied.ȱ Theȱ necropolisȱ isȱ datedȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ
middleȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD.ȱAnȱimportantȱarchaeologicalȱcomplexȱrepresentingȱ
aȱ femaleȱ inhumationȱ tombȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ inȱ 1986ȱ onȱ Ferdinandȱ Boulevard.ȱ Theȱ
tombȱisȱimportantȱforȱtheȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱbronze,ȱsilverȱandȱgoldȱpieces;ȱtheȱgoldȱ
piecesȱ representȱ aȱ realȱ „treasureȈ:ȱ 7ȱ ringsȱ (4ȱ ofȱ themȱ withȱ settingsȱ ofȱ engravedȱ
semipreciousȱ stones),ȱ 2ȱ bigȱ earringsȱ (eachȱ ofȱ themȱ withȱ 7ȱ stoneȱ settings),ȱ aȱ goldȱ
crownȱ withȱ 14ȱ mountedȱ pieces,ȱ 14ȱ appliedȱ adornmentsȱ andȱ overȱ 50ȱ leaves,ȱ 2ȱ
braceletsȱ withȱ stoneȱ settings,ȱ aȱ diskȱ fibula,ȱ aȱ necklaceȱ withȱ lionȱ headsȱ (madeȱ ofȱ
goldȱ leafȱ onȱ aȱ vegetalȱ support),ȱ smallȱ tubesȱ fromȱ anotherȱ necklaceȱ andȱ aȱ
miniatureȱ amphora.ȱ Weȱ canȱ continueȱ theȱ enumerationȱ withȱ aȱ largeȱ collectionȱ ofȱ
silver,ȱ bronze,ȱ lead,ȱ iron,ȱ ceramic,ȱ glassȱ andȱ boneȱ pieces.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ allȱ ofȱ 2ndȱ
century,ȱ Romanȱ style,ȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ ofȱ aȱ Hellenisticȱ tradition,ȱ showingȱ theirȱ
possibleȱprovenenceȱfromȱanȱOrientalȱpartȱofȱtheȱEmpire699.ȱ
Asȱ aȱ uniqueȱ discoveryȱ weȱ mentionȱ aȱ funeraryȱ complexȱ withȱ sixȱ rooms700ȱ
madeȱofȱstoneȱslabs.ȱTheȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱskeletonsȱfoundȱ(11)ȱandȱtheȱsuccessionȱ
ofȱburialsȱsuggestsȱthereȱisȱaȱburialȱvaultȱbelongingȱtoȱsomeȱrelatedȱfamilies.ȱTheȱ
retrievedȱ inventoryȱ isȱ chronologicallyȱ datedȱ toȱ betweenȱ theȱ 2ndȱ andȱ 3rdȱ centuriesȱ
AD.ȱ
Necropolisȱ Vȱ coversȱ theȱ areaȱ betweenȱ theȱ necropoleisȱ IIȱ andȱ IV,ȱ partiallyȱ
superimposedȱoverȱtheȱlatter.ȱItȱisȱdatedȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD,ȱbutȱinȱsomeȱareasȱ
ofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱADȱgravesȱareȱmixedȱwithȱtheȱ2ndȱandȱ3rdȱcenturiesȱADȱones.ȱ
698
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ observationȱ inȱI.ȱ Barnea,ȱPonticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 272Ȭ273ȱ andȱn.ȱ 12;ȱV.ȱLungu,ȱ
Începuturileȱ creótinismuluiȱ înȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ înȱ luminaȱ descoperirilorȱ arheologiceȱ (Christianityȱ
beginningsȱ inȱ Scythiaȱ Minorȱ Inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ discoveries),ȱ inȱ Predaȇsȱ
Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ Jan.ȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 148ȱ (alsoȱ thereȱ theȱ possibleȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ burialȱ
vaultȱ northȱ wallȱ paintings);ȱ idem,ȱ inȱ Izvoareleȱ creótinismuluiȱ românesc,ȱ p.ȱ 30Ȭ33;ȱ ȱ andȱ 53Ȭ60ȱ
(C.ȱChera,ȱV.ȱLunguȱȱdateȱtheȱTomitanȱtombȱinȱtheȱperiodȱofȱConstantine,ȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
4 th ȱ centuryȱ AD);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ C.ȱ Miron,ȱ Noiȱ consideraöiiȱ despreȱ mormântulȱ pictatȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Newȱ
considerationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ paintedȱ tombȱ fromȱ Tomis),ȱ Peuceȱ SNȱ 6ȱ (2008),ȱ p.ȱ 283Ȭ296;ȱ date:ȱ theȱ
firstȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱ4 th ȱcenturyȱA.D.ȱ
699
ȱC.ȱChera,ȱNecropoleleȱtomitaneȱînȱcontextulȱlumiiȱromaneȱvestȬponticeȱ(sec.ȱIȬIVȱp.ȱChr.),ȱ
p.ȱ 87Ȭ88ȱ (mss.);ȱ idem,ȱ Tezaurȱ funerarȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Constanöa)/Einȱ inȱ Tomisȱ (Constanöa)ȱ
aufgefundenerȱ Grabhort,ȱ inȱ Preda’sȱ Internationalȱ Magazine,ȱ Marchȱ 2005,ȱ p.ȱ 149Ȭ154;ȱ seeȱ
recently,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Bijuteriiȱ anticeȱ dinȱ aurȱ dinȱ colecöiileȱ Muzeuluiȱ deȱ
Istorieȱ Naöional©ȱ óiȱ Arheologieȱ Constanöaȱ (Goldȱ jewelryȱ inȱ theȱ collectionsȱ Museumȱ forȱ Nationalȱ
HistoryȱandȱArchaeologyȱConstanöa),ȱConstanöa,ȱ2012,ȱp.ȱ22Ȭ29.ȱ
700
ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ Unȱ complexȱ funerarȱ ineditȱ deȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Anȱ unpublishedȱ funeraryȱ
complexȱfromȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ18ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ203Ȭ214.ȱ
ȱ 209
ȱȱȱ
Theȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱtombsȱidentifiedȱinȱrecentȱyears701,ȱtheȱcontinuityȱofȱtheȱ
necropoleisȱareasȱandȱsometimesȱtheirȱsuperimpositionȱoverȱoneȱanotherȱcreatesȱaȱ
largeȱcemeteryȱareaȱaroundȱTomis.ȱ
Theȱ areaȇsȱ delimitationȱ isȱ artificial,ȱ theȱ burialsȱ beingȱ doneȱ withoutȱ takingȱ
intoȱ considerationȱ anyȱ enclosureȱ orȱ parcelling.ȱ Onlyȱ betweenȱ 1987Ȭ1988,ȱ forȱ
example,ȱ106ȱtombsȱwereȱresearchedȱinȱtheȱcityȇsȱsouthwestȱarea702,ȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱ
themȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱ2ndȬ3rdȱcenturiesȱAD;ȱfewȱofȱthemȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱ4thȬ6thȱcenturiesȱ
AD703.ȱBesideȱtheȱindividualȱburials,ȱthereȱwereȱnoticableȱcollectiveȱburialsȱofȱ2Ȭ6ȱ
individualsȱ(andȱaȱpeculiarȱsituationȱinȱthisȱperimeter,ȱaȱlargeȱcollectiveȱtombȱforȱ
40ȱindividuals).ȱResearchȱhasȱidentifiedȱtheȱexistenceȱinȱtheȱwestȱareaȱofȱTomisȱaȱ
necropolisȱ intensivelyȱ usedȱ duringȱ theȱ RomanȬByzantineȱ period704.ȱ Furtherȱ
excavationsȱ (1991Ȭ1992)ȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ areaȱ revealedȱ anotherȱ 45ȱ inhumationȱ tombs,ȱ
datedȱbyȱritualȱandȱfuneraryȱinventoryȱelementsȱtoȱtheȱ2ndȱandȱ3rdȱcenturyȱAD705.ȱ
Continuingȱ toȱ theȱ west,ȱ anotherȱ 46ȱ inhumationȱ tombsȱ fromȱ theȱ 2ndȱ ,ȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ 6thȱ
centuryȱ ADȱ wereȱ alsoȱ studiedȱ inȱ 1992ȱ (theȱ latestȱ oneȱ isȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ
6th/possiblyȱevenȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱAD)706.ȱ
Weȱmentionȱtheȱdiscoveryȱfromȱtheȱsouthwestȱnecropolisȱareaȱforȱitsȱspecialȱ
feature:ȱaȱburialȱvaultȱpreservingȱtheȱtracesȱofȱaȱPalaeoȬChristianȱwallpainting.ȱItȱ
isȱaȱhypogeumȱconstructionȱwithȱonlyȱoneȱfuneraryȱroomȱ(6.15ȱxȱ3.90ȱandȱ2.90ȱinȱ
height),ȱ precededȱ byȱ aȱ dromos707.ȱ Theȱ burialȱ vaultȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ hadȱ marbleȱ
architecturalȱelements708.ȱTheȱwallsȱareȱcoveredȱbyȱpaintingȱsetȱinȱpanelsȱimitatingȱ
701
ȱSeeȱCCA,ȱCampaniaȱ2001,ȱp.ȱ110,ȱno.ȱ74ȱ(theȱRomanȱnecropolis;ȱTraianȱst.:ȱ15ȱburialȱ
tombs;ȱ ȱ theȱ 2 nd Ȭ4 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD);ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2002,ȱ p.ȱ 90Ȭ91,ȱ no.ȱ 58ȱ (Tomisȱ mall;ȱ 25ȱȱ
Romanȱ andȱ RomanȬByzantineȱ tombs);ȱ CCA,ȱ Campaniaȱ 2006,ȱ p.ȱ 132Ȭ134,ȱ no.ȱ 64Ȭ65ȱ (theȱ
streetsȱ G.ȱ Enescu,ȱ Smârdan,ȱ M.ȱ Eminescu:ȱ (24ȱ ȱ tombs;ȱ ȱ theȱ ȱ 2 nd Ȭ6 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD);ȱ CCA,ȱ
Campaniaȱ2008,ȱno.ȱ144ȱ(Traianȱst.:ȱ17ȱȱtombs;ȱȱtheȱ2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturiesȱAD).ȱ
702
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ C.ȱ Paóca,ȱ Descopeririȱ recenteȱ înȱ necropoleleȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©ȱ óiȱ romanoȬ
bizantin©ȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Recentȱ discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ andȱ RomanȬBzyantineȱ ageȱ necropolesȱ fromȱ
Tomis),ȱPonticaȱ21Ȭ22ȱ(1988Ȭ1989),ȱp.ȱ123Ȭ161.ȱ
703
ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ C.ȱ B©jenaru,ȱ C.ȱ Dobrinescu,ȱ S©p©turiȱ deȱ salvareȱ înȱ necropolaȱ roman©ȱ aȱ
Tomisuluiȱ (Preventiveȱ excavationsȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ Tomisȱ necropolis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 41ȱ (2008),ȱ p.ȱ 189Ȭ208ȱ
(12ȱ ȱ tombsȱ fromȱ theȱ 2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱ centuriesȱ andȱ ȱ 4ȱ fromȱ theȱ 4 th Ȭ6 th ȱ centuriesȱ AD,ȱ ȱ onȱ 22,ȱ Georgeȱ
Enescuȱst.)ȱ
704
ȱ Inȱ 1961ȱ thereȱ wereȱ notȱ possibleȱ referencesȱ toȱ aȱ 4 th Ȭ6 th ȱ centuresȱ ADȱ necropoleisȱ
unnoticedȱatȱthatȱdateȱȇdȇuneȱmanièreȱconcrèteȇȱ(V.ȱBarbu,ȱStClsȱ3ȱ(1961),ȱp.ȱ207).ȱForȱ4 th Ȭ6 th ȱ
centuriesȱ ADȱ tombsȱ atȱ Tomisȱ seeȱ alsoȱ C.ȱ Cheraȱ M©rgineanu,ȱ Noiȱ morminteȱ dinȱ necropoleleȱ
Tomisuluiȱ(Tomisȱnecropolesȱnewȱtombs),ȱPonticaȱ12ȱ(1979),ȱp.ȱ247Ȭ250;ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱCavouȱdinȱ
secolulȱ IVȱ d.ȱ Chr.ȱ descoperitȱ înȱ necropolaȱ deȱ vestȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ (Theȱ 4 th ȱ centuryȱ ADȱ burialȱ vaultȱ
discoveredȱinȱTomisȱwestȱnecropolis),ȱPonticaȱ26ȱ(1993),ȱp.ȱ207Ȭ214.ȱ
705
ȱM.ȱBucoval©,ȱC.ȱPaóca,ȱDescopeririȱrecenteȱînȱnecropolaȱroman©ȱdeȱSudȬVestȱaȱTomisuluiȱ
(RecentȱdiscoveriesȱinȱTomisȱRomanȱSouthȱWestȱnecropolis),ȱPonticaȱ24ȱ(1991),ȱp.ȱ185Ȭ236.ȱ
706
ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ C.ȱ Paóca,ȱ Cercet©riȱ înȱ necropolaȱ roman©ȱ deȱ Vestȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ (1992)ȱ
(ResearchesȱinȱTomisȱWestȱRomanȱnecropolisȱ(1992),ȱPonticaȱ25ȱ(1992),ȱp.ȱ241Ȭ272.ȱ
707
ȱ Alixȱ Barbet,ȱ M.ȱ Bucoval©,ȱ Lȇhypogéeȱ paléochrétienȱ desȱ orantsȱ àȱ Constanöaȱ (Roumanie),ȱ
lȇancienneȱTomis,ȱMEFRAȱ108ȱ(1996),ȱp.ȱ105Ȭ158.ȱ
708
ȱTheseȱmarbleȱelementsȱ—ȱfragmentsȱofȱcolonettesȱandȱsomeȱfragmentsȱofȱtheȱtombȱ
furnitureȱ Ȭȱ wereȱ possiblyȱ broughtȱ fromȱ anotherȱ place,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ ancientȱ violationȱ ofȱ
theȱtomb.ȱ
210ȱ ȱ
ȱ
marble.ȱ Theȱ panelsȱ areȱ supportedȱ byȱ pilastersȱ withȱ Corinthianȱ capitals709;ȱ theseȱ
supportȱaȱfictiveȱarchitraveȱincludingȱaȱseriesȱofȱstripsȱandȱnetsȱsuperimposedȱbyȱ
largerȱ panelsȱ withȱ figurativeȱ scenes.ȱ Theȱ panelȱ decorationȱ representsȱ aȱ funeraryȱ
banquetȱandȱtwoȱfiguresȱpraying710.ȱTheȱbanquetȱscene,ȱrareȱinȱtheȱRomanȱworld,ȱ
isȱ alsoȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ Tomis;ȱ instead,ȱ theȱ prayingȱ personsȱ represented,ȱ thoughȱ
frequentȱ inȱ theȱ Italianȱ peninsulaȱ catacombs,ȱ nowȱ appearȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ inȱ
Tomis.ȱTheȱmonumentȱwasȱdatedȱearlierȱtoȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD711;ȱtheȱ
tombȱwasȱusedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱADȱandȱpossiblyȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ
theȱ5thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱ
Ofȱ specialȱ importanceȱ isȱ aȱ limestone712ȱ platedȱ funeraryȱ complexȱ usedȱ forȱ
collectiveȱburialsȱdoneȱinȱstagesȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱADȱuntilȱtheȱ
secondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱAD.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱindividualsȱwereȱburiedȱinȱ
theȱ 3rdȱ centuryȱ AD.ȱ Theȱ unusuallyȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ deceasedȱ andȱ theȱ weaponsȱ
presentȱ amongȱ theȱ inventoryȱ objectsȱ haveȱ determinedȱ aȱ hypotheticalȱ connectionȱ
betweenȱ theseȱ burialsȱ withȱ theȱ eventsȱ inȱ 269ȱ AD,ȱ whenȱ Tomisȱ wasȱ confrontedȱ
withȱstrongȱattacksȱofȱtheȱalliedȱGoths,ȱBastarnae,ȱSarmatiansȱandȱotherȱmigratingȱ
populations.ȱTheȱnextȱburialsȱtookȱplaceȱprobablyȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱConstantineȱ
theȱGreat.ȱAfterȱConstantiusȱII,ȱtheȱfuneraryȱcomplexȱwasȱalsoȱusedȱbyȱChristiansȱ
forȱburyingȱsomeȱcoȬreligionists.ȱ
Ifȱweȱalsoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱfuneraryȱinscriptionsȱweȱreachȱsomeȱconclusionsȱaboutȱ
someȱ lifeȱ conceptsȱ andȱ specialȱ attitudes.ȱ Fromȱ thisȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ theȱ funeraryȱ
inscriptionsȱ areȱ amongȱ theȱ mostȱ expressiveȱ documents.ȱ Beyondȱ theȱ commonȱ
elementsȱ ofȱ contentȱ speakingȱ aboutȱ peopleȇsȱ transience,ȱ unforeseenȱ fateȱ andȱ theȱ
survivorsȱgrief,ȱthereȱareȱalsoȱnotesȱacceptingȱtheȱideaȱthatȱ„deathȱannihilatesȱallȱ
pains”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ188,ȱ166)ȱandȱ„everythingȱbecomesȱashes”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ311),ȱor,ȱonȱtheȱ
contrary,ȱ lifeȱ inȱ itsȱ spiritualȱ shapeȱ continuesȱ afterȱ deathȱ (IGLR,ȱ 92,ȱ 94)713.ȱ Butȱ theȱ
inscriptionsȱ doȱ notȱ representȱ theȱ mostȱ appropriateȱ meansȱ toȱ understandȱ aȱ
philosophicalȱ concept,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ weȱ canȱ recognizeȱ onȱ themȱ someȱ ideasȱ ofȱ theȱ
hedonismȱ ofȱ Epicurȱ orȱ ofȱ theȱ stoicȱ fatalism.ȱ Theirȱ functionȱ isȱ toȱ rememberȱ theȱ
posterityȱshortȱbiographiesȱofȱsomeȱindividualsȱwho,ȱevenȱnotȱalwaysȱȱexceledȱinȱ
functionsȱ orȱ specialȱ qualitiesȱ offeredȱ ȱ modelsȱ ofȱ exemplaryȱ behaviour.ȱ Theȱ
conceptȱ includesȱ threeȱ clearlyȱ definedȱ elements:ȱ pietyȱ ,ȱ beauty,ȱ goodȱ conduct,ȱ
goodȱ reputation,ȱ friendship,ȱ dignity,ȱ wisdom.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ frequentȱ theȱ placesȱ
whereȱ theȱ familyȱ membersȱ beneficiateȱ ofȱ theȱ epithetȱ piusȱ underȱ itsȱ superlativeȱ
formȱ parentesȱ pientissimiȱ (orȱ ΉЁΗΉΆνΗΘ΅ΘΓ΍;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 194),ȱ pientissimoȱ patriȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
247),ȱ filisȱ piisimisȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 260),ȱ addressedȱ byȱ theȱ descendants.ȱ Friendshipȱ isȱ
709
ȱ Theȱ pilastersȱ areȱ colouredȱ lightȱ blue,ȱ theȱ capitalsȱ violetȱ andȱ theȱ achanthusȱ leavesȱ
white;ȱtheȱarchitraveȱisȱdecoratedȱbyȱlongitudinalȱgreenishȱshadows.ȱ
710
ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ themȱ bearsȱ aȱ nimbus;ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ possibleȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ
personȱwithoutȱanyȱepigraphicalȱindication.ȱ
711
ȱAȱfewȱcoinsȱrepresentingȱtheȱburialȱmomentȱareȱdatedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱthirdȱofȱtheȱ4 th ȱ
centuryȱAD.ȱ
712
ȱ V.ȱ Lungu,ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Unȱ mormântȱ înȱ pl©ci,ȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ roman©,ȱ descoperitȱ laȱ Tomisȱ (Aȱ
RomanȱageȱtombȱwithȱslatesȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomis),ȱPonticaȱ18ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ215Ȭ234.ȱ
713
ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ L.ȱ Buzoianu,ȱ Elementeȱ deȱ gândireȱ umanisteȱ înȱ uneleȱ epigrafeȱ dinȱ
Dobrogeaȱ(HumanistȱthoughtȱelementsȱinȱsomeȱinscriptionsȱinȱverseȱfromȱDobruja),ȱIstroȬPontica,ȱ
Tulcea,ȱ2000,ȱp.ȱ241Ȭ245.ȱ
ȱ 211
ȱȱȱ
appreciatedȱ asȱ anȱ importantȱ virtue:ȱ „Iȱ consideredȱ friendshipȱ withȱ allȱ asȱ aȱ titleȱ ofȱ
glory”ȱ (Ύ΅Ϡȱ Π΍Ώϟ΋ȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ ΔΣΑΘ΅Ζȱ πΘ΍ΐφΟ΋ȱ πΔ΍ΈϱΒΝΖ),ȱ weȱ findȱ fromȱ theȱ funearyȱ
epigramȱforȱHermogenesȱofȱCyzicȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ336);ȱonȱtheȱgraveȱstoneȱofȱanȱunknownȱ
fromȱPrusiaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ368)ȱthereȱisȱmentioned:ȱ„Iȱpracticedȱfriendship”ȱ(Ύ΅ϠȱΠ΍Ώϟ΋Αȱ
όΗΎ΋Η΅)ȱ andȱ „Iȱ preservedȱ myȱ friendsȱ trust”ȱ (ΔϟΗΘΉ΍Ζȱ Έξȱ ΠϟΏΝΑȱ πΗΣΝΗ΅).ȱ ȱ Otherȱ
conceptsȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ theȱ beautifulȱ lifeȱ (Ύ΅ΏЗΖȱ Ά΍ЗΗ΅Ζ,ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 252),ȱ
goodȱ reputationȱ (ΉЁΈΓΒϟ΅;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 166),ȱ wisdomȱ inȱ marriageȱ andȱ inȱ life;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ
380).ȱ ȱ Theȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ husbandȱ andȱ wifeȱ areȱ exemplaryȱ byȱ longevityȱ
andȱ moralȱ accuracy.ȱ Thus,ȱ Eiaȱ livedȱ togetherȱ withȱ herȱ husband,ȱ Diogenes,ȱ 34ȱ
years,ȱ „withoutȱ anyȱ reproachȱ andȱ withȱ loyalty”ȱ (ΦΐνΐΔΘΝΖȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΉЁΗΉΆЗΖ)ȱ andȱ
that’sȱ whyȱ sheȱ beneficiatesȱ ofȱ aȱ lessȱ commonȱ epithetȱ fromȱ herȱ childrenȱ Ȭȱ ΐΉΘΕϠȱ
·ΏΙΎΙΘΣΘ΋ȱ(„ȱtoȱtheȱsweetestȱmother”,ȱinȱDative;ȱISMȱII,ȱ185).ȱȱAtȱherȱturn,ȱCorneliaȱ
Fortunataȱprovedȱ„ȱaȱchasteȱandȱdecentȱloveȱforȱherȱhusband”ȱ(ΗΘΓΕ·χΑȱΔΕϲΖȱΦΑΈΕϱΖȱ
ΎΓΗΐϟ΅ΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΗЏΠΕΓΑ΅;ȱISMȱII,ȱ195).ȱ
ȱȱ Theȱparents’ȱhopesȱforȱdescendantsȱareȱnaturalȱandȱimposing.ȱTheȱnewȱ
veryȱoftenȱusedȱwordsȱareȱσΏΔ΍Ζȱ(hope)ȱandȱΈϱΒ΅ȱ(fame),ȱusedȱaloneȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ384)ȱ
orȱ associatedȱ (ΈϱΒ΅ȱ ΦΕΉΘϛΖȱ („theȱ virtueȱ glory”;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 166).ȱ Theȱ mostȱ painfulȱ
deathsȱ areȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ youngȱ individuals,ȱ orȱ howȱ theyȱ expressȱ inȱ anȱ
inscriptionȱ „innocentiaeȱ pleno”ȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 354).ȱ ȱ Stillȱ remainsȱ veryȱ significantȱ theȱ
shortȱtextȱusedȱonȱtheȱepitaphȱputȱbyȱAsclepiadesȱforȱhisȱchildrenȱandȱtheȱimage,ȱ
onȱtheȱmonument,ȱofȱtheȱraisingȱpalms,ȱinȱaȱgestureȱshowingȱsomethingȱbetweenȱ
imprecation,ȱ fearȱ andȱ ȱ imprecationȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 173)714.ȱ Theȱ actȱ fatalityȱ isȱ assignedȱ toȱ
theȱfaithȱ(IGLR,ȱ21),ȱofȱanȱenviousȱdeityȱ(ΆΣΗΎ΅ΑΓΖȱΈ΅ϟΐΝΑ)ȱandȱmostȱoftenȱtoȱtheȱ
Moiras.ȱ Aȱ funeraryȱ epigram,ȱ inȱ aȱ dialogueȱ form,ȱ claimsȱ fromȱ theȱ beginning:ȱ
„Nothingȱdependsȱonȱpeople;ȱeverythingȱroundsȱinȱtheȱdestinyȱpower”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ384).ȱȱInȱ
otherȱ epigrams,ȱ theȱ Moirasȱ areȱ indirectlyȱ accusedȱ ofȱ theȱ painsȱ theyȱ produced.ȱ
Mostȱofȱtheȱtimes,ȱtheyȱareȱpresentedȱasȱinsensibileȱtoȱpainȱ(ΦΔ΅ΟφΖȱ̏ΓϧΕ΅;ȱISMȱ
II,ȱ 347,ȱ 369,ȱ 377),ȱ funesteȱ (ϴΏΓφȱ ̏ΓϧΕ΅;ȱ ISMȱ II,ȱ 459)ȱ andȱ plotterȱ (ΘΉΛΑ΋Η΅ΐνΑ΋;ȱ
ISMȱ II,ȱ 377).ȱ Theirȱ singularȱ actionȱ orȱ inȱ group,ȱ hasȱ aȱ fatalȱ effect:ȱ „theȱ cruelȱ
judgementȱofȱtheȱimpassiveȱfaith”,ȱsendȱ„painfulȱtroubles”ȱtoȱpeopleȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ347).ȱ
Confrontedȱ withȱ theȱ fatalism,ȱ individualȱ transfersȱ onȱ theȱ graveȱ stonesȱ realȱ
sententiae.ȱȱ
Oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱprofoundȱfuneraryȱinscriptionsȱinȱverseȱappreciatedȱasȱwellȱ
byȱ V.ȱ Pârvanȱ amongȱ theȱ mostȱ beautifulȱ ofȱ thisȱ genreȱ wasȱ foundȱ longȱ agoȱ inȱ
Constanöaȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ275).ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱitsȱcontentȱweȱtakeȱtheȱlibertyȱofȱ
quotingȱitȱhereȱalmostȱcompletely:ȱ„Butȱtheȱdeceasedȱgrievesȱforȱnothing,ȱasȱthereȱ
isȱ noȱ moreȱ loveȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ passedȱ away,ȱ andȱ theȱ deceasedȱ personȱ laysȱ asȱ aȱ
motionlessȱstoneȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱplain,ȱspreadingȱhisȱfleshȱintoȱtheȱfreshȱsoilȱ
(...).ȱ Ofȱ water,ȱ ofȱ soilȱ andȱ ofȱ breathȱ wasȱ Iȱ madeȱ before.ȱ Onceȱ dead,ȱ Iȱ layȱ hereȱ
givingȱeverythingȱtoȱall.ȱTheseȱareȱleftȱtoȱeverybody.ȱButȱwhatȱmore?ȱFromȱwhereȱ
itȱcame,ȱthereȱspreadȱtheȱweakenedȱbody”ȱ
714
ȱSeeȱalsoȱD.M.ȱPippidi,ȱSimbolulȱpalmelorȱîn©löateȱpeȱoȱstel©ȱdinȱTomisȱ(Theȱsymbolȱofȱtheȱ
raisingȱpalmsȱonȱaȱsteleȱinȱȱTomis),ȱinȱStudii,ȱp.ȱ206Ȭ217.ȱȱ
212ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Resumingȱ Pârvanȇsȱ commentary715,ȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ noteȱ onceȱ again:ȱ „Nothingȱ isȱ
stillȱ leftȱ ofȱ usȱ afterȱ ourȱ death,ȱ notȱ evenȱ theȱ soul”.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ traceȱ ofȱ regret,ȱ
lament,ȱ revoltȱ orȱ hopeȱ inȱ thisȱ inscriptionȱ inȱ verse.ȱ Theȱ materialityȱ ofȱ humanȱ
existenceȱisȱalmostȱtriviallyȱexpressed.ȱ
Otherȱ inscriptionsȱ affirm,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theȱ immortalȱ soulȱ returnedȱ byȱ
deathȱ„toȱitsȱnature”ȱ(ISMȱII,ȱ346,ȱspiritumȱnaturaeȱsuaeȱreddedit)ȱorȱtheȱdeceasedȱisȱ
consideredȱ aȱ hero,ȱ passingȱ throughȱ deathȱ toȱ beȱ amongȱ theȱ godsȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ 273,ȱ
285)716.ȱ Finally,ȱ onȱ aȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ Manesȱ Godsȱ andȱ theȱ
Eternalȱ Safetyȱ (D(is)ȱ M(anibus)ȱ etȱ Perpetuaeȱ Securitatis),ȱ isȱ expressedȱ theȱ beliefȱ ofȱ
theȱ deceasedȱ thatȱ soonȱ afterȱ deathȱ beȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ answerȱ forȱ hisȱ lifeȱ (ISMȱ II,ȱ
383:ȱ modoȱ postȱ ob[it]umȱ redoȱ meaeȱ vitisȱ rationem).ȱ Itȱ isȱ unnecessaryȱ toȱ mentionȱ thatȱ
thisȱisȱnotȱtheȱjudgementȱofȱChristianȱteaching.ȱNothingȱinȱtheȱinscriptionȱcontentȱ
justifiesȱ suchȱ anȱ opinion:ȱ eitherȱ theȱ beliefȱ inȱ fatumȱ andȱ theȱ darknessȱ ofȱ death,ȱ orȱ
muchȱlessȱtheȱaddressingȱexpression717.ȱȱ
Amongȱ theȱ Christianȱ inscriptions,ȱ moreȱ numerousȱ atȱ Tomisȱ thanȱ inȱ otherȱ
centresȱinȱprovince,ȱmoreȱthanȱhalfȱareȱfuneraryȱones718.ȱ
Onȱtheȱfuneraryȱmonumentsȱfromȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
4 ȱ centuryȱ AD,ȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ fundȱ olderȱ decorativeȱ motifsȱ (ivy,ȱ rozette,ȱ personsȱ
th
representedȱ inȱ relief,ȱ collonettes),ȱ replaced,ȱ inȱ turns,ȱ byȱ Christainȱ symbols;ȱ theȱ
mostȱfrequentȱisȱtheȱsimpleȱChristianȱcrossȱ(beginningȱwithȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ
4thȱ centuryȱ AD)Ȭȱ Christȱ religionȱ image,ȱ sometimesȱ dominatingȱ theȱ wholeȱȱ
inscriptionȱ graphicȱ (IGLR,ȱ 37,ȱ 40,ȱ 41,ȱ 43,ȱ 46,ȱ 48ȱ etc. ;ȱ ȱ theȱ monogramaticȱ cross,ȱ
representedȱ fewȱ timesȱ withȱ Christȱ monogramȱ (Greekȱ lettersȱ IȬXȱ orȱ XȬP),ȱ inȱ aȱ
circle,ȱ replacingȱ theȱ crownȱ (IGLR,ȱ 24,ȱ 30,ȱ 31),ȱ symbolizesȱ theȱ Saviour’sȱ triumphȱ
uponȱ death.ȱ Sometimes,ȱ besideȱ theȱ crossȱ orȱ separatelyȱ ofȱ itȱ thereȱ appearedȱ otherȱ
Christianȱ symbols:ȱ theȱ anchor,ȱ ȱ theȱ fishȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25;ȱ rememberingȱ theȱ Baptizationȱ
water),ȱ theȱ pigeonȱ (IGLR,ȱ 25,ȱ 31;ȱ theȱ Saintȱ Spiritȱ symbol),ȱ ȱ theȱ palmȱ treeȱ (theȱ
triumphȱ uponȱ death),ȱ associatedȱ hereȱ withȱ theȱ fiveȱ cornersȱ starȱ (IGLR,ȱ 28;ȱ imageȱ
assumedȱbyȱtheȱChristianȱart,ȱespeciallyȱbyȱtheȱgnostics)ȱȱandȱtheȱprayingȱpersonȱ
(IGLR,ȱ35;ȱprobablyȱsignȱofȱtheȱprayerȱforȱtheȱdeceasedȱsoul)719.ȱ
Besideȱ theȱ funeraryȱ epigrams,ȱ writtenȱ inȱ aȱ traditionalȱ wayȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ
ofȱtheȱȱ4thȱcenturyȱ(IGLR,ȱ18,ȱ19)ȱȱorȱPeaganȱandȱChristianȱexpressionsȱonȱtheȱsameȱ
715
ȱ V.ȱ Pârvan,ȱ Gânduriȱ despreȱ lumeȱ óiȱ viaö©ȱ laȱ grecoȬromaniiȱ dinȱ Pontulȱ Stâng,ȱ inȱ
Memoriale,ȱ Clujȱ (Reflectionsȱ aboutȱ worldȱ andȱ lifeȱ atȱ theȱ GreekȬRomansȱ atȱ theȱ Leftȱ Pont),ȱ
Memories,ȱ1973,ȱp.ȱ52Ȭ53.ȱ
716
ȱBecomingȱaȱheroȱisȱȱanywayȱaȱformȱofȱimmortality,ȱsuperiorȱtoȱcommonȱsurvivalȱinȱ
Hades;ȱseeȱtheȱcommentaryȱofȱD.M.ȱPippidiȱforȱISMȱI,ȱ309.ȱ
717
ȱ DisȱManibusȱ etȱ PerpetuaeȱSecuritatisȱ isȱ aȱ syntagmȱoftenȱusedȱonȱ2 nd Ȭ3 rd ȱcenturiesȱ ADȱ
monumentsȱ andȱ whichȱ expressesȱ inȱ funeraryȱ termsȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ ideaȱ aboutȱ theȱ
completeȱquietnessȱandȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱemotions,ȱpassionsȱandȱtroublesȱwhenȱpassingȱtoȱ
theȱshadowȱworld;ȱseeȱFr.ȱCumont,ȱRecherchesȱsurȱleȱsymbolismeȱfunéraireȱdesȱRomains,ȱParis,ȱ
1966.ȱ
718
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱQuelquesȱconsidérationsȱsurȱlesȱinscriptionsȱchrétiennesȱdeȱlaȱScythieȱMineure,ȱ
Daciaȱ NSȱ 1ȱ (1957),ȱ p.ȱ 265Ȭ289;ȱ idem,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©,ȱ p.ȱ 16Ȭ21,ȱ pl.ȱ 9Ȭ29;ȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ IGLR,ȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ19Ȭ33ȱandȱnos.ȱ12Ȭ52.ȱ

ȱWeȱnoticeȱfromȱȱIGLRȱȱonlyȱtheȱsignificantȱexamples.ȱ
719
ȱSupraȱn.ȱ707,ȱȱtheȱimageȱofȱsomeȱprayingȱpersonsȱonȱtheȱwallsȱofȱaȱtombȱinȱTomis.ȱ
ȱ 213
ȱȱȱ
epitaphȱ(IGLR,ȱ21),ȱweȱalsoȱmentionȱtheȱpreservationȱȱonȱtheȱinscriptionsȱatȱTomisȱ
ofȱ theȱ olderȱ expresionsȱ forȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ text:ȱ D.M.,ȱ σΑΟ΅ȱ (orȱ πΑΟΣΈΉ)ȱ
Ύ΅ΘΣΎ΍ΑΘΉȱ(ΎϧΘΉ,ȱΎ΅ΘΣΎ΍Θ΅΍ȱetc.);ȱoȱforȱtheȱfinal:ȱΛ΅ϧΕΉ(Λ΅ϟΕΓ΍ΖȱorȱΛνΕΉ)ȱΔ΅ΕΓΈϧΘ΅,ȱ
ΐΑϟ΅ΖȱΛΣΕ΍Α,ȱave,ȱvaleȱviatorȱ(ȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱ4 thȱcenturyȱȱbutȱalsoȱinȱtheȱ5thȬ6thȱ
centuryȱAD).ȱȱ
Thereȱ isȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ graveȱ‘sȱ nameȱ bothȱ theȱ ȱ previousȱ terminology:ȱ ΘϾΐΆΓΖȱ
(IGLR,ȱ 18,ȱ 19),ȱ tumulusȱ (IGLR,ȱ 30),ȱ memoria/mimoriaȱ (IGLR,ȱ 36,ȱ 40,ȱ 43,ȱ 27ȱ –ȱ „graveȱ
stone”;ȱ ȱ addȱ ΘΣΠΓΖȱ (IGLR,ȱ 18),ȱ Ηϛΐ΅ȱ (IGLR,ȱ 19),ȱ ȱ inȱ aȱ poeticalȱ languageȱ andȱȱ
ΐΑ΋ΐϧΓΑȱ(IGLRȱ48);ȱȱforȱepitaph/ȱinscriptionȱȱweȱfindȱtitulusȱ(IGLR,ȱ27),ȱȱtranslatedȱ
inȱGreekȱȱΘφΘΓΏΓ(Α)720.ȱ
ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱtheȱnewȱfaithȱbecameȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱpowerful,ȱweȱassistȱatȱtheȱ
changingȱofȱtheȱfuneraryȱmessage,ȱreflectingȱtheȱChristianȱviewȱaboutȱdeath,ȱseenȱ
asȱeternalȱrestȱbeforeȱresurection.ȱ
Theȱ livingȱ peopleȱ names,ȱ butȱ mostlyȱ theȱ deceasedȱ onesȱ areȱ accompaniedȱ
sometimesȱbyȱtheȱepithetȱΐ΅ΎΣΕ΍ΓΖ/Ȭ΅ȱ(happy)ȱ(IGLR,ȱ31,ȱ25).ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Theȱtomb,ȱknownȱalsoȱbeforeȱasȱ„eternalȱplace”ȱ(ΓϨΎΓΖȱ΅ϢЏΑ΍ΓΖ),ȱisȱmadeȱnowȱ
„ofȱGod’sȱgifts”ȱ(πΎȱ[Θ]ЗΑȱΘΓІȱ̋(Ή)ЗȱΈΓΕ΍ΐΣΘΓΑ),ȱandȱforȱtheȱdeceasedȱpersonȱitȱisȱ
askedȱtoȱbeȱsetȱbyȱGodȱ„withȱtheȱrighteous”ȱ(ΦΑ΅Δ΅ϾΗ΍ȱ΅ЁΘχΑȱϳȱ̋(Ήϲ)ΖȱΐΉΘΤȱΘЗΑȱ
Έ΍Ύν[ΝΑ])ȱ(IGLR,ȱ44).ȱ
Thereȱ areȱ onȱ theȱ funeraryȱ stelaeȱ religiousȱ invocationsȱ andȱ someȱ timesȱ shortȱ
liturgicalȱ fragmentsȱ (withoutȱ beingȱ veryȱ numerousȱ examples)ȱ:ȱ ЀΔξΕȱ ΉЁΛϛΖȱ ȱ (toȱ
fulfillȱ theȱ prayer;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 35)ȱ orȱ asȱ suggestiveȱ asȱ –ȱ ΐΉΟ’ψΐЗΑȱ ϳȱ ̋ΉϱΖȱ (Godȱ isȱ withȱ
us)721,ȱȱsendingȱtoȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱ
TheȱNewȱTestamentȱvocabularyȱcanȱbeȱfound,ȱindeed,ȱatȱTomis,ȱinȱdifferentȱ
funeraryȱ forms,ȱ directlyȱ expressed,ȱ amongȱ whichȱ weȱ mentionȱ:ȱ ̋(ΉΓ)Іȱ ΛΣΕ΍Ζȱ
(God’sȱ grace;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 44),ȱ „spir[it]umȱ Deoȱ rede[re”ȱ (toȱ giveȱ his/herȱ soulȱ toȱ God;ȱ
IGLR,ȱ21)ȱorȱ„c[om]plevitȱinȱpace”ȱ(heȱrestsȱinȱpeace;ȱIGLR,ȱ40).ȱ
ȱTheȱ wordsȱ ̘ЗΖ/̉Νφȱ (Light,ȱ Life;ȱ IGLR,ȱ 49,ȱ 50),ȱ symbolizingȱ evenȱ Jesusȱ
Christȱ person,ȱ theȱ Saviour’sȱ face722ȱ orȱ theȱ apocalypticȱ lettersȱ ̛̄,ȱ ȱ signȱ ofȱ theȱ
divineȱ attributesȱ inȱ theirȱ whole723,ȱ ȱ areȱ otherȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ closeȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ
theȱBiblicalȱmessage.ȱ
Theȱ universalȱ Christianȱ language,ȱ similarȱ thȱ theȱ symbols,ȱ ȱ increasedȱ theȱ
emotionalȱ impactȱ uponȱ theȱ funeraryȱ texts;ȱ theirȱ documentaryȱ valueȱ forȱ differentȱ
fields,ȱ completeȱ substantiallyȱ theȱ ȱ religiousȱ lifeȱ imageȱ andȱ theȱ mentalitiesȱ
evolutionȱatȱTomis,ȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱtheȱwholeȱprovinceȱScythia.ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱTheȱ historyȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ afterȱ theȱ 7thȱ centuryȱ ADȱ isȱ lessȱ known.ȱ Asȱ withȱ allȱ theȱ
westernȱ Ponticȱ area,ȱ theȱ cityȱ undergoesȱ socialȱ andȱ economicȱ changesȱ andȱ aȱ
processȱofȱalmostȱtotalȱconversionȱintoȱaȱvillage.ȱ
720
ȱM.ȱB©rbulescu,ȱA.ȱCâteia,ȱsupra,ȱn.ȱ530;ȱȱweȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱinscriptionȱalsoȱtheȱwords:ȱ
„ΐ΅Ύ΅Εϟ΅”,ȱ„ΘАȱ(=ȱΘϲ)ȱΐΑ΋ΐϧΓΑ”ȱandȱ„ΐΑ΋ΐΓΗϾΑ΋”ȱ(meaningȱȱmemoria).ȱ
721
ȱ IGLR,ȱ 16:ȱ ȱ quotationȱ fromȱ theȱ prophetȱ Isaiah,ȱ 7,ȱ 14,ȱ ȱ alsoȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ atȱ ȱ theȱ
evangelistȱMathew,ȱ1,ȱ23.ȱ
722
ȱIoanȱ1,ȱ7Ȭ9.ȱ8,ȱ12;ȱ9,ȱ5,ȱ11,ȱ25,ȱ12,ȱ46ȱcf.ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱArtaȱcreótin©,ȱp.ȱ18ȱandȱȱpl.ȱ26,ȱ2.ȱ
723
ȱApocalipsaȱ(TheȱRevelation),ȱ1,ȱ8;ȱ21,ȱ6;ȱ22,ȱ13.ȱ
214ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Inȱtheȱ8thȱcenturyȱAD,ȱtheȱpatriarchȱNikephorosȱofȱConstantinopleȱmentionedȱ
theȱ settlementȱ withȱ theȱ oldȱ nameȱ Tomis,ȱ butȱ asȱ aȱ villageȱ (ΛΝΕϟΓΑ)724.ȱ Theȱ
archaeologicalȱ discoveriesȱ ofȱ sealsȱ andȱ coinsȱ seemȱ toȱ indicateȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ aȱ
modestȱ settlementȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 8thȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ
9th,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ namedȱ Tomis725.ȱ Thereȱ followsȱ aȱ hiatusȱ ofȱ almostȱ aȱ centuryȱ forȱ
whichȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱ anyȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ areaȇsȱ history726.ȱ Aroundȱ theȱ
middleȱ ofȱ theȱ 10thȱ century,ȱ theȱ emperorȱ Constantineȱ theȱ Porphirogenetȱ mentionsȱ
theȱ settlementȱ Constantiaȱ withoutȱ definingȱ moreȱ accuratelyȱ itsȱ statusȱ ofȱ villageȱ orȱ
city.ȱ Moreȱ archaeologicalȱ vestiges727ȱ Ȭȱ houses,ȱ kilns,ȱ domesticȱ pits,ȱ inhumationȱ
gravesȱ Ȭȱ proveȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ settlementȱ inȱ theȱ 10thȱ century.ȱ Probablyȱ
Constantiaȱ asȱ wellȱ isȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ chroniclesȱ ofȱ Scylitzesȱ andȱ Zonaras,ȱ
referringȱ toȱ theȱ confrontationȱ atȱ Dorostolonȱ inȱ 971ȱ betweenȱ loanȱ Tzimiskesȱ andȱ
theȱprinceȱSviatoslavȱofȱKiev728.ȱ
AfterȱtheȱByzantineȱruleȱcameȱbackȱtoȱtheȱLowerȱDanubeȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ
theȱ Emperorȱ loanȱ Tzimiskesȱ (971),ȱ andȱ themaȱ Paristrionȱ (Paradunavon)ȱ wasȱ
organizedȱ inȱ thisȱ region,ȱ theȱ oldȱ Tomisȱ knewȱ aȱ newȱ periodȱ ofȱ prosperity 729.ȱ Forȱ
politicalȬadministrativeȱ reasons,ȱ theȱ coreȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ provinceȱ wasȱ movedȱ toȱ
Dorostolonȱ (Silistra,ȱ Bulgaria).ȱ Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ theȱ settlementȱ hadȱ aȱ systemȱ ofȱ
fortifications,ȱ butȱ theyȱ haveȱ notȱ yetȱ beenȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ area730;ȱ anȱ uncertainȱ lateȱ
precinctȱfromȱtheȱ12thȬ13thȱcenturiesȱfoundȱinȱtheȱportȱareaȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱidentify.ȱ
Itȱ couldȱ beȱ aȱ newȱ buildingȱ orȱ theȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ aȱ preȬexistingȱ wallȱ fromȱ theȱ
724
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱDIDȱIII,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1971,ȱp.ȱ9.ȱ
725
ȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱ TomisȬConstantiaȬConstanöa,ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱ p.ȱ 302Ȭ
303ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 17ȱ (monetaryȱ discoveries)ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 19ȱ (sigilographicalȱ discoveries);ȱ theȱ authorȱ
advancesȱhisȱdoubtȱthatȱhereȱcouldȱhaveȱexistedȱanȱEpiscopalȱcentre.ȱȱAddȱpiecesȱissuedȱbyȱ
Romanȱ I,ȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöa,ȱ cf.ȱ G.ȱ Custurea,ȱ Circulaöiaȱ monedeiȱ bizantineȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ
(sec.ȱ IXȬXI)ȱ (Theȱ Byzantineȱ coinȱ circulationȱ inȱ Dobruja)ȱ (9 th Ȭ11 th ȱ centuries),ȱ Constanöa,ȱ 2000,ȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ 136,ȱ no.ȱ 26;ȱ idem,ȱ Monedeȱ bizantineȱ descoperiteȱ recentȱ înȱ Dobrogeaȱ (sec.ȱ IXȬXI)ȱ (Bzyantineȱ
coinsȱdiscoveredȱrecentlyȱinȱDobruja)ȱ(9 th Ȭ11 th ȱcenturies),ȱPonticaȱ40ȱ(2007),ȱp.ȱ632,ȱno.ȱ11.ȱ
726
ȱSeeȱthoughȱtheȱinformationȱofȱtheȱmonkȱWalafridiusȱStraboȱȱatȱaboutȱ841,ȱaboutȱtheȱ
Gethianȱ language,ȱ utilizedȱ inȱ theȱ regionȱ ofȱ Tomis,ȱ cf.ȱ FHDR,ȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 641Ȭ642;ȱ ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Mihaiȱ
Ovidiuȱ C©öoi,ȱ Înȱ leg©tur©ȱ cuȱ localizareaȱ sciöilorȱ tomitaniȱ consemnaöiȱ deȱ Walafridiusȱ Straboȱ
(Aboutȱ theȱ localizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Tomitanȱ Scythesȱ mentionedȱ byȱ Walafridiusȱ Strabo)ȱ ,ȱ Ponticaȱ 43ȱ
(2010),ȱp.ȱ141Ȭ164.ȱ
727
ȱC.ȱCârjan,ȱCeramicaȱdeȱepoc©ȱfeudalȱtimpurieȱdescoperit©ȱpeȱteritoriulȱoraóuluiȱConstanöaȱ
(Earlyȱ Middleȱ Ageȱ ceramicsȱ discoveredȱ onȱ theȱ territoryȱ ofȱ Constanöaȱ city),ȱ Ponticeȱ 2ȱ (1969),ȱ p.ȱ
373Ȭ394;ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱContributionȱàȱuneȱmeilleureȱconnaissanceȱduȱrepertoireȱarchéologiqueȱduȱ
Hautȱ Moyenȱ Âgeȱ enȱ Dobroudja,ȱ Actesȱ duȱ VII e ȱ Congrèsȱ desȱ Sciencesȱ Préhistoriquesȱ etȱ
Protohistoriques,ȱ Prague,ȱ II,ȱ 1971,ȱ p.ȱ 981;ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 243;ȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬ
Adameóteanu,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 303Ȭ307.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ authorȱ relatingȱ theȱ monetaryȱ discoveriesȱ fromȱ
Constanöaȱ toȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ Empireȱ historicalȱ realities,ȱ considersȱ theȱ settlementȱ wasȱ
establishedȱ hereȱ betweenȱ 927Ȭ941ȱ asȱ aȱ supportingȱ stationȱ onȱ theȱ coastȱ forȱ theȱ Byzantinesȱ
destinedȱtoȱfacilitateȱtheirȱcontrolȱuponȱnavigationȱinȱtheȱDanubeȱmouthsȱarea.ȱ
728
ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ op.ȱ cit.,ȱ p.ȱ 73Ȭ74;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Fontesȱ III,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1975,ȱ p.ȱ 141;ȱ forȱ differentȱ
interpretationsȱ occasionedȱ byȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Constantiaȱ besideȱ „theȱ otherȱ citiesȱ beyondȱ
Istros”,ȱseeȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ316Ȭ317ȱandȱnotesȱ54Ȭ56.ȱ
729
ȱ Forȱ theȱ earlyȱ Middleȱ Ageȱ settlementȱ fromȱ Tomis,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ DIDȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 15ȱ
andȱ20;ȱidem,ȱByzantinischeȱBleisiegelȱausȱRumänien,ȱinȱByzantinaȱ13ȱ(1985),ȱp.ȱ298.ȱ
730
ȱ R.ȱ Florescu,ȱ Ghidȱ arheologicȱ alȱ Dobrogeiȱ (Dobrujaȱ archaeologicalȱ guide),ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ
1968,ȱp.ȱ29Ȭ30.ȱ
ȱ 215
ȱȱȱ
10thȬ11thȱ centuries.ȱ Vestiges,ȱ though,ȱ fromȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 10thȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ
beginningȱofȱtheȱ11thȱhaveȱbeenȱdiscoveredȱinȱtheȱterritoryȱofȱtheȱoldȱcity,ȱasȱwellȱ
asȱ habitationȱ centresȱ scatteredȱ overȱ aȱ broadȱ area;ȱ theyȱ belongedȱ toȱ someȱ ruralȱ
settlementsȱ aroundȱ Constanöa.ȱ Aȱ necropolisȱ fromȱ theȱ 10Ȭ11thȱ centuriesȱ hasȱ alsoȱ
beenȱ studiedȱ atȱ Tomis.ȱ Theȱ necropolisȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ „Portul”ȱ stadiumȱ couldȱ
beȱcontemporaryȱwithȱtheȱlastȱhabitationȱperiod.ȱTheȱgraves,ȱthoughȱtheȱmajorityȱ
followȱtheȱChristianȱrite,ȱpreserveȱsomeȱelementsȱofȱpaganȱinfluence731.ȱ
Sealȱ discoveriesȱ andȱ Christianȱ objectsȱ presentȱ aspectsȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ
localȱ communityȇsȱ economicȱ andȱ religiousȱ life.ȱ Constanöaȱ isȱ amongȱ theȱ fewȱ
settlementsȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ whereȱ sealsȱ wereȱ discovered732.ȱ Twoȱ leadȱ Byzantineȱ sealsȱ
belongingȱ toȱ theȱ bishopsȱ fromȱ Tomis(Anicetȱ andȱ Vasile)ȱ fromȱ theȱ 10thȬ11thȱ
centuriesȱ shouldȱ beȱ mentioned733.ȱ Theȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ metropolitanȱ bishopsȱ
andȱ theȱ preciseȱ titleȱ „bishopȱ ofȱ Tomis”ȱ is,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ
settlementȱ continuityȱ andȱ perpetuationȱ ofȱ itsȱ cityȱ features.ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ theȱ
opinionȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ scholar,ȱ theȱ twoȱ sealsȱ aboveȬmentionedȱ representȱ theȱ
evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ metropolitanȱ seatȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ continuedȱ toȱ existȱ inȱ parallelȱ withȱ
theȱ newȱ establishedȱ metropolitanȱ seatȱ atȱ Dorostolon,ȱ bothȱ ofȱ themȱ dependingȱ
directlyȱ onȱ theȱ ecumenicalȱ Patriarchyȱ ofȱ Constantinople734.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ
coinage,ȱ theȱ maximumȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ settlementȱ isȱ notedȱ underȱ Romanȱ IIIȱ
(1028Ȭ1034).ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ theȱ Pechenegȱ attacksȱ inȱ 1036ȱ affectedȱ Constantiaȱ asȱ well.ȱ
Importantȱ coinȱ discoveriesȱ areȱ datedȱ duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ theȱ Emperorsȱ
ConstantineȱIXȱ(1042Ȭ1055)ȱandȱConstantineȱXȱ(1059Ȭ1067).ȱTheȱinvasionȱofȱGhuzzȱ
inȱ 1064ȱ wasȱ theȱ eventȱ whichȱ seemedȱ toȱ putȱ anȱ endȱ toȱ theȱ settlementȇsȱ existence.ȱ
Thoughȱ theȱ sameȱ consequencesȱ couldȱ beȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ uprisingȱ ofȱ theȱ
Paristrianȱ cities,ȱ theȱ coinȱ issuesȱ betweenȱ 1067Ȭ1081ȱ (duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ theȱ
Emperorsȱ Romanȱ IV,ȱ Mihailȱ VIIȱ andȱ Nicephorȱ III)ȱ haveȱ anȱ incidentalȱ
characteristic.ȱ12thȬ14thȱcenturiesȱissuesȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱfeatures735;ȱonlyȱaȱfewȱpiecesȱ
fromȱTheodorȱIȱLascarisȱandȱloanȱIIIȱDucasȱVatatzesȱcouldȱsuggestȱaȱrevivalȱinȱtheȱ
13thȱ century.ȱ Finally,ȱ weȱ findȱ aboutȱ aȱ hoardȱ discoveredȱ hereȱ longerȱ agoȱ (1938),ȱ
includingȱaboutȱ100ȱȱducatsȱȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱrulerȱMirceaȱcelȱB©trânȱȱandȱwhichȱwasȱ
lostȱ (orȱ hidden)ȱ ȱ duringȱ theȱ campaignsȱ ofȱ ȱ Mehmedȱ Iȱ inȱ Dobrujaȱ (1417Ȭ1418)736.ȱ
731
ȱ Researchesȱ fromȱ 1986,ȱ unpublished;ȱ theȱ necropolisȱ noticedȱ byȱ Gh.ȱ M©nucuȬ
Adameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit,ȱp.ȱ321ȱwithȱinformationȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱdiscoverers.ȱ
732
ȱI.ȱBarnea,ȱPlombsȱbyzantinsȱdeȱlaȱcollectionȱMichelȱC.ȱSoutzo,ȱRÉSEE,ȱ7ȱ(1969),ȱp.ȱ32Ȭ33;ȱ
RÉSEEȱ24ȱ(1986),ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ117;ȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.cit.,ȱp.ȱ320.ȱ
733
ȱTheȱsealsȱfoundȱprobablyȱinȱIstanbulȱhaveȱbeenȱpublishedȱinȱCatalogueȱofȱByzantineȱ
sealsȱatȱDumbartonȱOaksȱandȱinȱtheȱFoggȱMuseumȱofȱArt,ȱI,ȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1991,ȱp.ȱ180Ȭ181ȱ
(eds.ȱ Johnȱ Nesbittȱ andȱ Nicolasȱ Oikonomides);ȱ seeȱ informationȱ atȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Dateȱ noiȱ despreȱ
mitropoliaȱ Tomisuluiȱ (Newȱ dataȱ aboutȱ theȱ metropolitanȱ churchȱ ofȱ Tomis),ȱ Ponticaȱ 24ȱ (1991),ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
p.ȱ279Ȭ281.ȱ
734
ȱ Theȱ bishopricsȱ inȱ theȱ northernȱ halfȱ ofȱ Dobrujaȱ wouldȱ haveȱ dependedȱ onȱ theȱ
Metropolitanȱ Tomisȱ seatȱ inȱ theȱ 11 th Ȭ12 th ȱ centuries;ȱ theȱ metropolitanȱ seatsȱ inȱ Tomisȱ andȱ
Dorostolonȱ probablyȱ existedȱ untilȱ theȱ Asan’sȱ uprisingȱ (1186),ȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ themaȱ Paristrionȱ
existed.ȱ Doubtsȱ concerningȱ Tomisȱ recognitionȱ asȱ anȱ importantȱ Orthodoxȱ centerȱ atȱ Gh.ȱ
M©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ320.ȱ
735
ȱGh.ȱM©nucuȬAdameóteanu,ȱop.ȱcit.,ȱp.ȱ323Ȭ324,ȱnotesȱ84,ȱ85ȱandȱtheȱtableȱatȱp.ȱ324.ȱ
736
ȱG.ȱCusturea,ȱG.ȱTalmaöchi,ȱRepertoriul,ȱp.ȱ168,ȱVI.ȱ
216ȱ ȱ
ȱ
Theȱ14thȬ15thȱcenturiesȱportolanoesȱmentionedȱtheȱnamesȱofȱConstantia,ȱConstantzaȱ
orȱConstansa,ȱtoponymicalȱvariantsȱofȱpresentȱConstanöa.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ABREVIERI/ABREVIATIONSȱ
ȱ
ȱ
AÉȱ ȬȱL’Annéeȱépigraphique.ȱ
Antiquitasȱ ȬȱAntiquitas.ȱActaȱUniversitatisȱWratislawiensisȱWroclaw.ȱȱ
ArhMoldȱ ȬȱArheologiaȱMoldovei,ȱIaóiȬBucureóti.ȱ
BCHȱ ȬȱBulletinȱdeȱCorrespondanceȱHellénique,ȱAthenaȬParis.ȱ
BJȱ Ȭȱ Bonnerȱ Jahrbücherȱ desȱ rheinischenȱ Landesmuseumsȱ inȱ
Bonnȱ undȱ desȱ Vereinsȱ vonȱ Altertumsfreunȱ denȱ imȱ
Rheinlande,ȱBonn.ȱ
BMIȱ ȬȱBuletinulȱMonumentelorȱIstorice,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
BSNRȱ ȬȱBuletinulȱSociet©öiiȱNumismaticeȱRomâne,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
ByzNeugrJahrbȱ ȬȱByzantinischeȱNeugriechischeȱJahrbücher,ȱBerlinȬAthena.ȱ
BZȱ ȬȱByzantinischeȱZeitschrift,ȱMünchen.ȱ
CCAȱ ȬȱCronicaȱCercet©rilorȱArheologiceȱdinȱRomânia.ȱ
CCDJȱ ȬȱCultur©ȱóiȱCivilizaöieȱlaȱDun©reaȱdeȱJos,ȱC©l©raói.ȱ
DaciaȱNSȱ Ȭȱ Dacia.ȱ Revueȱ d’archéologieȱ etȱ d’histoireȱ ancienneȱ
(nouvelleȱsérie),ȱBucureóti.ȱȱ
DIDȱ(I,ȱII,ȱIII)ȱ ȬȱDinȱistoriaȱDobrogei,ȱVol.ȱIȬIII,ȱBucureótiȱ1965Ȭ1971.ȱ
FHGȱ ȬȱFragmentaȱHistoricorumȱGraecorum.ȱ
FHDRȱ(Fontes)ȱ ȬȱFontesȱadȱHistoriamȱDacoromaniaeȱPertinentes.ȱȱ
FHDRChȱ ȬȱFontesȱHistoriaeȱDacoȬRomanaeȱChristianitas,ȱIaói,ȱ2008.ȱ
Eosȱ ȬȱEos.ȱCommentariiȱSocietatisȱPhilologaeȱPolonorumȱ
IDRȱ ȬȱInscripöiileȱDacieiȱromane.ȱ
IDREȱ ȬȱC.C.ȱPetolescu,ȱInscriptionsȱdeȱlaȱDacieȱRomaine.ȱInscriptionsȱ
externesȱ concernantȱ l’histoireȱ deȱ laȱ Dacieȱ (IerȬIIIeȱ siècles),ȱ IȬII,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1996Ȭ2000.ȱ
IGBȱ ȬȱInscriptionesȱGraecaeȱinȱBulgariaȱRepertae.ȱ
IGLRȱ Ȭȱ Em.ȱ Popescu,ȱ Inscripöiiȱ greceótiȱ óiȱ latineȱ dinȱ secoleleȱ IVȬXIIIȱ
descoperiteȱînȱRomânia,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1976.ȱ
IOSPEȱ Ȭȱ Inscriptionesȱ antiquaeȱ oraeȱ septentrionalisȱ Pontiȱ Euxiniȱ
GraecaeȱetȱLatinae.ȱ
ISMȱ ȬȱInscripöiileȱdinȱScythiaȱMinor.ȱ
Klioȱ ȬȱKlio.ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱaltenȱGeschichte.ȱ
MBAHȱ Ȭȱ Münsterscheȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ antikenȱ Handelsgeschichte.ȱ
Münster.ȱ
MÉFRAȱ ȬȱMelangesȱdeȱl’ÉcoleȱfrançaiseȱdeȱRome.ȱAntiquité.ȱ
NMESMȱ Ȭȱ Noiȱ monumenteȱ epigraficeȱ dinȱ Scythiaȱ Minor,ȱ Constanöa,ȱ
218ȱ ȱ
ȱ
1964.ȱ
PIRȱ ȬȱProsopographiaȱImperiiȱRomani,ȱsaec.ȱIȬIII.ȱ
PMEȱ Ȭȱ M.ȱ Devijver,ȱ Prosopographiaȱ militiarumȱ equestriumȱ quaeȱ
fueruntȱabȱAugustoȱadȱGallienum,ȱLouvain,ȱ1977Ȭ1993.ȱ
Ponticaȱ Ȭȱ Pontica.ȱ Muzeulȱ deȱ Istorieȱ Naöional©ȱ óiȱ Arheologieȱȱȱ
Constanöa.ȱ
QCȱ ȬȱQuaderniȱcatanesiȱdiȱstudiȱclassiciȱeȱmedievali.ȱCatane.ȱ
RAȱ ȬȱRevueȱarchéologique,ȱParis.ȱ
REȱ Ȭȱ PaulyȬWissowa,ȱ RealȬEnciclopädieȱ derȱ klassischenȱ
Altertumswissenschaft.ȱ
RÉGȱ ȬȱRevueȱdesȱÉtudesȱGrecques,ȱParis.ȱ
RÉSEEȱ ȬȱRevueȱdesȱÉtudesȱSudȬEstȱEuropéennes,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
RRHȱ ȬȱRevueȱRoumanieȱd’Historie,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
SCIVAȱ Ȭȱ Studiiȱ óiȱ Cercet©riȱ deȱ Istorieȱ Vecheȱ óiȱ Arheologie,ȱ
Bucureóti.ȱ
SCNȱ ȬȱStudiiȱóiȱCercet©riȱNumismatice,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
SIRISȱ Ȭȱ L.ȱ Vidman,ȱ Syllogeȱ inscriptionumȱ religionisȱ Isiacaeȱ etȱ
Sarapicae,ȱBerlin,ȱ1969.ȱ
StClsȱ ȬȱStudiiȱClasice,ȱBucureóti.ȱ
ThracoȬDacicaȱ ȬȱThracoȬDacica,ȱBucureóti.ȱInstitutulȱdeȱTracologie.ȱ
VEDRȱ ȬȱAl.ȱSuceveanu,ȱViaöaȱeconomic©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©.ȱSecoleleȱ
IȬIIIȱe.ȱn.,ȱBucureóti,ȱ1977.ȱ
ZPEȱ ȬȱZeitschriftȱfürȱPapyrologieȱundȱEpigraphik,ȱBonn.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
LISTAȱILUSTRAoIILORȱ
ȱ
ȱ
1.ȱ Cercet©riȱarheologiceȱînȱzonaȱParculȱCatedralei:ȱziduriȱdeȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱsuprapuseȱdeȱconstrucöiiȱdinȱperioadaȱroman©.ȱ
2.ȱ Locuinöeȱdinȱaceeaóiȱzon©:ȱzidȱcuȱpragȱdeȱintrareȱînȱlocuinö©.ȱSec.ȱVȱa.ȱ
Chr.ȱ
3.ȱ Resturileȱunuiȱzidȱdinȱsec.ȱVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
4.ȱ Vasȱgeticȱpeȱfundulȱuneiȱgropiȱdinȱperioadaȱgreac©.ȱ
5.ȱ Ceramic©ȱgrecoȬoriental©ȱóiȱcâtevaȱpieseȱcorinthiene.ȱSec.ȱVIȬVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
6.ȱ Vârfuriȱ deȱ s©geöiȱ deȱ bronzȱ (semneȱ premonetare)ȱ descoperiteȱ întrȬunȱ
vasȱdeȱChiosȱdeȱtipȱolpé.ȱSec.ȱVIȬVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
7.ȱ Ceramic©ȱ attic©ȱ provenindȱ dinȱ s©p©turileȱ deȱ laȱ Parculȱ Catedralei;ȱ
uneleȱfragmenteȱpoart©ȱgraffiti.ȱSec.ȱIVȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
8.ȱ Ceramic©ȱ attic©ȱ dinȱ necropoleleȱ elenisticeȱ deȱ laȱ Tomis.ȱ Sec.ȱ IVȱ –ȱ
începutulȱsec.ȱIIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
9.ȱ Amforeȱ dinȱ perioad©ȱ greac©ȱ óiȱ elenistic©ȱ provenindȱ dinȱ Chios,ȱ
Thasos,ȱHeracleeaȱPontic©,ȱSinope,ȱChersonesulȱTauric,ȱCnidos.ȱ
10Ȭ11.ȱ Ceramic©ȱelenistic©ȱdinȱnecropole.ȱSec.ȱIIIȬIIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
12.ȱ Mormântȱdeȱepoc©ȱelenistic©ȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱ(inedit).ȱ
13.ȱ Statueteȱ deȱ teracot©ȱ dinȱ complexeȱ funerareȱ deȱ epoc©ȱ elenistic©ȱ
(exemplarulȱdinȱdreaptaȱinedit).ȱ
14.ȱ Friz©ȱdeȱmarmur©ȱcuȱdivinit©öi.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIȱa.ȱChr.ȱ
15.ȱ Diplomaȱ militar©ȱ aȱ praetorianuluiȱ L.ȱ Enniusȱ Ferox,ȱ originarȱ dinȱ
Aquaeȱ Statellaeȱ (Liguria),ȱ emis©ȱ deȱ împ©ratulȱ Vespasian,ȱ laȱ 2ȱ
decembrieȱ76ȱp.ȱChr.,ȱdescoperit©ȱlaȱTomisȱ(dup©ȱISMȱII,ȱ8).ȱ
16.ȱ Dedicaöieȱ pentruȱ împ©ratulȱ Hadrianȱ dinȱ parteaȱ oraóuluiȱ tomitanilor,ȱ
înȱtimpulȱguvernatoruluiȱC.ȱUmmidiusȱQuadratusȱ(119Ȭ120ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
17.ȱȱ Stâlpiȱ miliariȱ dinȱ timpulȱ împ©raöilorȱ Septimiusȱ Severusȱ (a),ȱ Gordianȱ
ȱ alȱIIIȬleaȱ(b)ȱóiȱClaudiusȱalȱIIȬleaȱGoticulȱ(c).ȱ
18.ȱ Mas©ȱ deȱ verificareȱ aȱ capacit©öilor;ȱ unitateaȱ deȱ m©sur©ȱ notat©ȱ esteȱ
Έ΍ΐϱΈ΍ΓΑȱ(dimodium).ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
19.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Theocritos,ȱ (fiu)ȱ alȱ luiȱ Theocritos,ȱ armator,ȱ pus©ȱ
deȱmamaȱsaȱRufina,ȱ(fiica)ȱluiȱIason.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
20.ȱ Placaȱ deȱ mormântȱ aȱ luiȱ M.ȱ Iuliusȱ Tertullus,ȱ veteranȱ dinȱ cohorsȱ Iȱ
Commagenorum,ȱ pus©ȱ deȱ Mitridates,ȱ soldatȱ înȱ aceeaóiȱ cohort©ȱ óiȱ deȱ
Barales.ȱSec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
21.ȱ AltarȱînchinatȱluiȱHerosȱManibazosȱdeȱSedatiosȱApollonios,ȱprefectulȱ
220ȱ ȱ
ȱ
aleiȱdeȱc©l©reöiȱgetuliȱdinȱArabia.ȱSec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
22.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Aureliusȱ Sozomenosȱ (fiu)ȱ alȱ luiȱ Zotichos,ȱ dinȱ
Bizanö.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
23.ȱ Plac©ȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Vibiusȱ Severus,ȱ speculatorȱ pontic.ȱ Sec.ȱ IIȬIIIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ
24.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ retiaruluiȱ (gladiatorului)ȱ Argutos,ȱ reprezentatȱ cuȱ
echipamentȱdeȱlupt©.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
25.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ gladiatoruluiȱ (retiarius)ȱ Skirtosȱ Dakesis,ȱ deȱ condiöieȱ
liber©,ȱ înmormântatȱ laȱ Tomis,ȱ înf©öióatȱ cuȱ costumulȱ óiȱ armeleȱ deȱ
lupt©.ȱSec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
26.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Chrysion,ȱ fiicaȱ luiȱ Demosthenes,ȱ soöiaȱ luiȱ
Aphphos.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
27.ȱ Simbolulȱ palmelorȱ în©löateȱ înȱ gestȱ deȱ invocareȱ aȱ Eroilorȱ
subp©mânteniȱ peȱ monumentulȱ pusȱ deȱ Asclepiadesȱ înȱ amintireaȱ
copiilorȱs©iȱmoröiȱdeȱtimpuriu.ȱSec.ȱIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
28.ȱ Stelaȱ funerar©ȱ aȱ luiȱ Abascantosȱ (fiu)ȱ alȱ luiȱ Socratesȱ óiȱ aȱ soöieiȱ saleȱ
Zosime.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
29.ȱ Marcusȱ Antoniusȱ Marcianus,ȱ paterȱ nomimosȱ óiȱ preotȱ alȱ Hecateiȱ laȱ
Tomis.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
30.ȱ Inscripöieȱ pus©ȱ înȱ onoareaȱ unuiȱ patronȱ alȱ metropoleiȱ Tomisȱ (numeleȱ
esteȱmartelatȱparöial).ȱSec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
31.ȱ Epigram©ȱ funerar©ȱ pus©ȱ deȱ Perinthosȱ pentruȱ soöiaȱ saȱ Caeciliaȱ
Artemisiaȱ deȱ origineȱ dinȱ Perinthosȱ înȱ careȱ suntȱ menöionaöiȱ óiȱ alöiȱ
membriȱaiȱfamilieiȱsale.ȱSec.ȱIIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
32.ȱ MonumentȱfunerarȱpentruȱKyrille,ȱ„lucratȱcuȱmult©ȱart©”ȱdeȱsoöulȱs©uȱ
Andrys.ȱSec.ȱIIIȬIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
33.ȱ Altarȱ funerarȱ pentruȱ Epiphaniaȱ deȱ origineȱ dinȱ Hellada,ȱ consacratȱ caȱ
amintireȱdeȱsoöulȱs©uȱHermogenes,ȱancyranulȱóiȱtomitanul,ȱdinȱtribulȱ
Oinopes.ȱSec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
34.ȱ Sarcofagȱ ridicatȱ deȱ Alexandrosȱ (fiu)ȱ alȱ luiȱ Zmaragdos,ȱ dinȱ tribulȱ
Oinopes,ȱpentruȱelȱóiȱsoöiaȱsaȱKyrilla.ȱ(EpocaȱSeverilor).ȱ
35.ȱ SarcofagȱridicatȱluiȱDamostratosȱ(fiu)ȱalȱluiȱHerasȱdinȱNicomedia.ȱSec.ȱ
IIȬIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
36.ȱ Sarcofagȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ decoratȱ cuȱ simboluriȱ aleȱ zeuluiȱ Men.ȱ Sec.ȱ IIȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ
37.ȱ Sarcofagȱ pentruȱ Euelpistosȱ (fiu)ȱ alȱ luiȱ Sosos,ȱ actor,ȱ originarȱ dinȱ
ByzantionȱóiȱstabilitȱlaȱTomis.ȱ
38.ȱ Tezaurulȱ deȱ sculpturiȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ înȱ momentulȱ descopeririiȱ (1ȱ aprilieȱ
1962).ȱ
39.ȱ Grupulȱ statuarȱ Fortunaȱ cuȱ Pontos,ȱ divinit©öiȱ protectoareȱ aleȱ oraóuluiȱ
Tomis.ȱ(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
40.ȱ Aediculaȱ cuȱ dublaȱ reprezentareȱ aȱ zeiöeiȱ Nemesisȱ pus©ȱ deȱ C.ȱ
HerenniusȱCharito.ȱ(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
41.ȱ Fragmentȱ dintrȬunȱ grupȱ statuarȱ închinatȱ Dioscurilorȱ Ȭȱ „fondatoriiȱ
cet©öii”Ȭ,ȱînȱnumeleȱtribuluiȱBoreis.ȱ(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
42Ȭ43.ȱ Basoreliefȱ óiȱ grupȱ statuarȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ zeiöeiȱ Hecateȱ triformis.ȱ
ȱ 221
ȱȱȱ
(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
44.ȱ Reliefȱ votivȱ cuȱ inscripöieȱ înȱ limbaȱ greac©ȱ pentruȱ Dionysosȱ
Kathegemon.ȱ Zeulȱ esteȱ însoöitȱ deȱ principaliiȱ s©iȱ acoliöi:ȱ Priap,ȱ satir,ȱ
Pan,ȱCavalerulȱTrac.ȱ(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
45.ȱ Basoreliefȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ Cavaleruluiȱ Trac,ȱ divinitateȱ
autohton©ȱimportant©.ȱ(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
46.ȱ Statuiaȱ óarpeluiȱ fantasticȱ Glykon,ȱ unulȱ dintreȱ celeȱ maiȱ remarcabileȱ
monumenteȱaleȱtezauruluiȱdeȱsculpturiȱdinȱTomis.ȱ
47.ȱ Bustȱ înȱ m©rimeȱ natural©ȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ zeiöeiȱ egipteneȱ Isis.ȱ
(Tezaurulȱdeȱsculpturi).ȱ
48.ȱ Basoreliefȱ deȱ marmur©ȱ cuȱ imagineaȱ zeuluiȱ orientalȱ Mithrasȱ înȱ scenaȱ
sacrificiuluiȱ (Mithrasȱ Tauroctonul);ȱ pies©ȱ dinȱ tezaurulȱ deȱ sculpturiȱ
(aziȱdisp©rut©).ȱ
49.ȱ Triadaȱ eleusin©ȱ –ȱ Pluto,ȱ Proserpina,ȱ Ceres;ȱ basoreliefȱ deȱ marmur©.ȱ
Sec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
50.ȱ CapulȱuneiȱstatuiȱdedicateȱAfroditei.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
51.ȱ Capulȱlucratȱînȱmarmur©ȱreprezentândȱpeȱzeulȱApollo.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
52.ȱ Statuet©ȱdeȱmarmur©ȱcuȱreprezentareaȱAfroditei.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
53.ȱ Inscripöieȱ dinȱ timpulȱ luiȱ Hadrianȱ descoperit©ȱ înȱ teritoriulȱ tomitan,ȱ
careȱatest©ȱ„restabilireaȱlibert©öiiȱoraóului”.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
54.ȱ Colonet©ȱdeȱmarmur©ȱpentruȱzeiöaȱSyriaȱdinȱparteaȱluiȱSosipposȱ(fiu)ȱ
alȱluiȱCallicrates,ȱoriginarȱdinȱSidon.ȱSec.ȱIIȱ–ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
55.ȱ Statuiaȱ„cet©öeanuluiȱtomitan”.ȱSec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ(dup©ȱZ.ȱCovacef,ȱArtaȱ
sculptural©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©.ȱSec.ȱIȬIII,ȱpl.ȱVII/1).ȱ
56.ȱ Statuiaȱ „adolescentei”.ȱ Sec.ȱ Iȱ p.ȱ Chr.ȱ (dup©ȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ
sculptural©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©.ȱSec.ȱIȬIII,ȱpl.ȱV/1).ȱ
57.ȱ Închinareȱ Mariiȱ Mameȱ dinȱ parteaȱ luiȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianusȱ
comandantulȱ graniöeiȱ (duxȱ limitis)ȱ înȱ provinciaȱ Scythia;ȱ 293Ȭ305ȱ p.ȱ
Chr.ȱ
58.ȱ Inscripöieȱ tomitan©ȱ careȱ atest©ȱ perpetuareaȱ curieiȱ (ordoȱ Scythicus)ȱ înȱ
epocaȱroman©ȱtârzie.ȱSec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
59.ȱ Inscripöieȱfunerar©ȱpentruȱValeriusȱFelix,ȱóefȱalȱbirouluiȱadministrativȱ
alȱguvernatorului.ȱSfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
60.ȱ Monumentȱ metrologicȱ cuȱ numeleȱ arhonteluiȱ óiȱ comiteluiȱ Flaviusȱ
Servandus.ȱSec.ȱIVȱ–ȱVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
61.ȱ Plac©ȱ dedicat©ȱ împ©ratuluiȱ Valentinianȱ „înving©torulȱ neamurilorȱ
barbare”;ȱ(înȱjurulȱanuluiȱ369ȱp.ȱChr.).ȱ
62.ȱ Arhitrav©ȱ deȱ laȱ oȱ construcöieȱ funerar©ȱ ridicat©ȱ deȱ Entoliosȱ dinȱ
CezareeaȱPalestineiȱpentruȱsoöiaȱsa,ȱKalliope.ȱSec.ȱVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
63.ȱ Mas©ȱ cuȱ inscripöieȱ folosit©ȱ întrȬoȱ construcöieȱ funerar©ȱ pentruȱ
„fericitulȱTimotei”.ȱSec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱȱ
64.ȱ Stel©ȱ funerar©ȱ pentruȱ Aureliaȱ Sambatisȱ (alȱ doileaȱ numeȱ esteȱ deȱ
origineȱsemitic©).ȱSfâróitulȱsec.ȱIIIȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
65.ȱ Epigram©ȱ funerar©ȱ înȱ form©ȱ deȱ dialog,ȱ pus©ȱ deȱ Bassianusȱ (tat©)ȱ óiȱ
Ianuariaȱ(mam©)ȱpentruȱfiulȱlor,ȱLillas,ȱdecedatȱlaȱoȱvârst©ȱtân©r©.ȱSec.ȱ
IVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
222ȱ ȱ
ȱ
66.ȱ Stel©ȱfunerar©ȱpus©ȱpentruȱTerentiusȱfiulȱluiȱGaione,ȱfostȱostaóȱprintreȱ
arcaóiiȱtineri.ȱSec.ȱIVȬVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
67.ȱ Epigram©ȱfunerar©ȱ(sec.ȱIIIȱp.ȱChr.)ȱreutilizat©ȱînȱperioadaȱcreótin©ȱcaȱ
plac©ȱ deȱ mormântȱ pentruȱ Paula,ȱ soöiaȱ luiȱ Paulȱ sirianul,ȱ hipodiacon.ȱ
Sec.ȱVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
68.ȱ Plac©ȱfunerar©ȱamintindȱunȱ„martirȱalȱluiȱChristosȱóiȱepiscop”.ȱSec.ȱIVȬVȱ
p.ȱChr.ȱ
69.ȱ EpitafȱcreótinȱpusȱdeȱIuliusȱAtzeis,ȱvexillarius,ȱpentruȱsoöiaȱsa,ȱ„fericitaȱ
Bonosa”.ȱSec.ȱIVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
70.ȱ Obiecteȱ cuȱ simboluriȱ creótineȱ (dup©ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ
România,ȱI,ȱBucureótiȱ1979,ȱpl.ȱ28ȱóiȱ97).ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱa.ȱopaiöȱcuȱimagineaȱluiȱIisusȱChristosȱînconjuratȱdeȱapostoliȱóiȱcuȱ
inscripöieȱcreótin©.ȱSec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱ b.ȱ Gem©ȱ deȱ cornalin©ȱ cuȱ reprezentareaȱ luiȱ Christosȱ peȱ cruce,ȱ
flancatȱdeȱceiȱ12ȱapostoli.ȱSec.ȱIVȬVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱ c.ȱ Lamp©ȱ deȱ bronzȱ înȱ form©ȱ deȱ peóteȱ cuȱ monogramaȱ luiȱ Christosȱ
peȱunaȱdinȱfeöe.ȱSec.ȱVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
71.ȱ Discȱ deȱ argintȱ auritȱ inscripöionatȱ cuȱ numeleȱ episcopuluiȱ Paternusȱ
(491Ȭ518ȱ p.ȱ Chr.).ȱ (Dup©ȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ România,ȱ I,ȱ
Bucureóti,ȱ1979,ȱpl.ȱ94).ȱ
72.ȱ Planulȱ (a)ȱ óiȱ criptaȱ (b)ȱ basiliciiȱ mariȱ dinȱ Tomisȱ (dup©ȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ
MonumenteȱromanoȬbizantineȱdinȱsectorulȱdeȱvestȱalȱcet©öiiȱTomis,ȱfig.ȱ11).ȱ
73.ȱ CriptaȱbasiliciiȱdeȱlaȱTomisȱ(dinȱcurteaȱLiceuluiȱ„MihaiȱEminescu”).ȱ
74.ȱ Criptaȱbasiliciiȱ(nr.ȱ5),ȱcuȱnió©ȱóiȱunȱvasȱrelicvar.ȱSec.ȱVȬVIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
75.ȱ Basilicaȱ episcopal©ȱ aȱ Tomisuluiȱ (nr.ȱ 7)ȱ înȱ timpulȱ cercet©rilorȱ
arheologiceȱ(dup©ȱA.ȱR©dulescu,ȱRecherchesȱarchéologiquesȱrécentesȱdansȱ
leȱpérimetreȱdeȱlaȱcitéȱdeȱTomis,ȱînȱÉtudesȱbyzantinesȱetȱpostȬbyzantines,ȱ
II,ȱ1991,ȱp.ȱ31,ȱfig.ȱ5).ȱ
76Ȭ81.ȱ EdificiulȱRomanȱcuȱMozaic.ȱ
ȱ 76.ȱTerasaȱBȱaȱedificiuluiȱcuȱzidulȱdeȱEstȱóiȱpavimentulȱcuȱmozaic.ȱ
ȱ 77.ȱTerasaȱCȱaȱedificiuluiȱcuȱînc©perileȱboltiteȱfolositeȱcaȱantrepoziteȱóiȱ
locuinöeȱadosateȱulteriorȱconstrucöiei.ȱ
ȱ 78Ȭ80.ȱRegistreȱdecorativeȱaleȱpavimentuluiȱcuȱmozaicȱ(detalii).ȱ
ȱ 81.ȱTipuriȱdeȱamforeȱg©siteȱînȱantrepoziteleȱ(magaziile)ȱedificiului.ȱ
82.ȱȱ a.ȱ Inscripöieȱ pentruȱ „sacrulȱ sfat”ȱ pus©ȱ deȱ Hermippos,ȱ (fiul)ȱ luiȱ Attas,ȱ
cuȱ prilejulȱ construcöieiȱ unuiȱ vestiarȱ (Θϲȱ ΏΉΑΘ΍ΣΕ΍ΓΑ)ȱ laȱ termeleȱ
oraóului.ȱ
ȱ b.ȱTermeleȱdeȱpeȱfalezaȱdeȱvestȱaȱoraóului.ȱȱ
83.ȱ Tipuriȱdeȱmorminteȱdeȱepoc©ȱroman©ȱtimpurie.ȱ
84.ȱ Inventarȱ funerarȱ dinȱ mormântulȱ deȱ înhumaöieȱ alȱ uneiȱ femeiȱ
descoperitȱpeȱactualulȱbd.ȱFerdinand.ȱSec.ȱIIȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
85Ȭ88.ȱ MormântulȱhypogeuȱdinȱTomis:ȱpicturaȱinterioar©.ȱSec.ȱIVȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
89Ȭ90.ȱ CavouȱdinȱnecropolaȱdeȱSVȱaȱoraóuluiȱcuȱresturileȱuneiȱpicturiȱmuraleȱ
paleocreótine.ȱSfâróitulȱsec.ȱIVȱ–ȱînceputulȱsec.ȱV.ȱp.ȱChr.ȱ
91.ȱ VedereȱdinȱgaleriileȱsubteraneȱaleȱTomisuluiȱ(catacombe).ȱ
92.ȱ „Edificiulȱcuȱsc©ri”ȱdeȱlaȱbazaȱfalezeiȱdeȱvestȱaȱoraóuluiȱinterpretatȱóiȱ
ȱ 223
ȱȱȱ
caȱ eventualȱ templuȱ sauȱ atelierȱ deȱ prelucrareȱ aȱ marmureiȱ (dup©ȱ oȱ
fotografieȱ deȱ laȱ începutulȱ sec.ȱ XX,ȱ A.ȱ Magrin,ȱ cca.ȱ 1908;ȱ arhivaȱ
MINAC.ȱ
93Ȭ95.ȱ Zidulȱdeȱincint©ȱromanoȬbizantin.ȱ
ȱ 93.Turnulȱm©celarilor.ȱ
ȱ 94.ȱCurtinaȱdeȱNord.ȱ
ȱ 95.ȱPoartaȱdeȱNordȬEstȱóiȱbustulȱluiȱVasileȱPârvan.ȱ
Pl.ȱIȱ Planulȱoraóuluiȱanticȱcuȱprincipaleleȱmonumente.ȱ
Pl.ȱIIȱ Zoneleȱ deȱ necropoleȱ anticeȱ (dup©ȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Necropoleleȱ tomitaneȱ înȱ
contextulȱ lumiiȱ romaneȱ vestȬponticeȱ (sec.ȱ IȬIVȱ p.ȱ Chr.),ȱ Constanöaȱ 1999;ȱ
lucrareȱdeȱdosctorat;ȱmss.).ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
LISTE OF ILLUSTRATION
1.ȱ Archaeologicalȱ researchesȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Park:ȱ 5thȱ
centuryȱwallsȱsuperposedȱbyȱbuildingsȱdatedȱinȱtheȱRomanȱepoch.ȱ
2.ȱ Housingȱdistrictȱinȱtheȱsameȱarea:ȱȱwallȱwithȱanȱentranceȱthresholdȱinȱ
theȱhouse.ȱ5thȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
3.ȱ Remainsȱofȱaȱ5thȱc.ȱBCȱwall.ȱ
4.ȱ GethicȱvesselȱonȱtheȱbottomȱofȱaȱGreekȱepochȱpit.ȱ
5.ȱ GreekȬOrientalȱceramicsȱandȱsomeȱCorinthianȱitems.ȱ6thȬ5thȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
6.ȱ Bronzeȱ arrowheadsȱ (premonetaryȱ symbols)ȱ discoveredȱ inȱ anȱ olpeȱ
typeȱChiosȱvessel.ȱ6thȬ5thȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
7.ȱ Atticȱ ceramicsȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ excavationsȱ inȱ theȱ Cathedralȱ Parkȱ ;ȱ
someȱfragmentsȱhaveȱgraffiti.ȱ4thȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
8.ȱ AtticȱceramicsȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱnecropolisȱfromȱTomis.ȱ4thȬbeginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ3rdȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
9.ȱ AmphorasȱfromȱtheȱGreekȱandȱHellenisticȱperiodȱcomingȱfromȱChios,ȱ
Thasos,ȱHeracleaȱPontica,ȱSinope,ȱȱTauricȱChersonesos,ȱCnidos.ȱ
10Ȭ11.ȱ Hellenisticȱceramicsȱinȱtheȱnecropolis.ȱȱ3rdȬ2ndȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
12.ȱ HellenisticȱepochȱtombȱfromȱTomisȱ(unpublished).ȱ
13.ȱ Teracottaȱ statuettesȱ fromȱ Hellenisticȱ epochȱ funeraryȱ complexesȱ (theȱ
itemȱtoȱtheȱrightȱisȱunpublished).ȱ
14.ȱ Marbleȱfriezeȱwithȱdeities.ȱEndȱofȱ2ndȬ1stȱc.ȱBC.ȱ
15.ȱ Millitaryȱ diplomaȱ ofȱ theȱ praetorianȱ L.ȱ Enniusȱ Ferox,ȱ originaryȱ fromȱ
Aquaeȱ Statellaeȱ (Liguria),ȱ issuedȱ byȱ theȱ emperorȱ Vespasian,ȱ ȱ onȱ
Decemberȱ2nd,ȱ76ȱAD,ȱȱdiscoveredȱatȱTomisȱ(afterȱISMȱII,ȱ8).ȱ
16.ȱ DedicationȱtoȱtheȱempeorȱHadrianȱȱfromȱtheȱcitizensȱofȱȱTomis,ȱinȱtheȱ
timeȱofȱtheȱgovernorȱC.ȱUmmidiusȱQuadratusȱ(119Ȭ120ȱAD).ȱ
17.ȱ MilestonesȱfromȱtheȱreignȱofȱSeptimiusȱSeverusȱ(a),ȱGordianusȱ3thȱ(b)ȱ
ȱ andȱClaudiusȱ2ndȱtheȱGothicȱ(c).ȱȱ
18.ȱ Tableȱ toȱ verifyȱ capacities,ȱ theȱ specifiedȱ measureȱ beingȱ ȱ Έ΍ΐϱΈ΍ΓΑȱ
(dimodium).ȱȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
19.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ Theocritos,ȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ Theocritos,ȱ shipowner,ȱ putȱ byȱ
hisȱmotherȱRufina,ȱ(daughter)ȱofȱIason.ȱ2ndȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
20.ȱ Tombȱ plaqueȱ ofȱ M.ȱ Iuliusȱ Tertullus,ȱ veteranȱ ofȱ cohorsȱ Iȱ
Commagenorum,ȱ putȱ byȱ Mitridates,ȱ soldierȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ cohortȱ andȱ
byȱBarales.ȱ1stȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
21.ȱ Altarȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ Herosȱ Manibazosȱ byȱ Sedatiosȱ Apollonios,ȱ
226ȱ ȱ
ȱ
praefectusȱofȱGetulianȱhorsemenȱalaȱinȱArabia.ȱ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
22.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ Aureliusȱ Sozomenosȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ Zotichos,ȱ fromȱ
Byzantion.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
23.ȱ FuneralȱplaqueȱofȱVibiusȱSeverus,ȱȱPonticȱspeculator.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
24.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ theȱ gladiatorȱ (retiarius)ȱ Argutos,ȱ representedȱ
wearingȱfightȱequipment.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
25.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ theȱ gladiatorȱ (retiarius)ȱ Skirtosȱ Dakesis,ȱ havingȱ
statusȱofȱfreeȱperson,ȱburriedȱatȱTomis,ȱrepresentedȱwearingȱhisȱfightȱ
costumeȱandȱweapons.ȱ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
26.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ Chrysion,ȱ daugtherȱ ofȱ Demosthenes,ȱ ȱ wifeȱ ofȱ
Aphphos.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
27.ȱ Theȱ raisedȱ palmsȱ symbolȱ andȱ invocationȱ ofȱ undergroundȱ Heroesȱ onȱ
theȱ monumentȱ erectedȱ byȱ Asclepiadesȱ toȱ rememberȱ hisȱ earlyȱ deadȱ
children.ȱ1stȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
28.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ ofȱ Abascantosȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ Socratesȱ ȱ andȱ hisȱ wifeȱ Zosime.ȱ
2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
29.ȱ Marcusȱ Antoniusȱ Marcianus,ȱ paterȱ nomimosȱ andȱ priestȱ ofȱ Hecateȱ atȱ
Tomis.ȱ2ndȱc..ȱAD.ȱ
30.ȱ InscriptionȱtoȱhonourȱaȱpatronusȱofȱtheȱmetropolisȱofȱTomisȱ(theȱnameȱ
isȱpartiallyȱhammerȬwrought).ȱ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
31.ȱ Funeraryȱ epigramȱ putȱ byȱ Perinthosȱ forȱ hisȱ wifeȱ Caeciliaȱ Artemisiaȱ
originaryȱ fromȱ Perinthos,ȱ mentioningȱ alsoȱ otherȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ
family.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
32.ȱ Funeralȱ monumentȱ forȱ Kyrille,ȱ „veryȱ skillfullyȱ made”ȱ byȱ herȱ husbandȱ
Andrys.ȱ3rdȬ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
33.ȱ Funeralȱ altarȱ forȱ Epiphaniaȱ ȱ originaryȱ fromȱ Hellada,ȱ consacratedȱ asȱ
rememberȱbyȱherȱhusbandȱHermogenes,ȱȱ originaryȱfromȱAncyraȱandȱ
Tomitan,ȱofȱtheȱtribeȱOinopes.ȱ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
34.ȱ SarcophagusȱraisedȱbyȱAlexandrosȱ(son)ȱofȱZmaragdos,ȱofȱtheȱtribeȱofȱ
Oinopes,ȱȱforȱhimȱandȱhisȱwifeȱKyrilla.ȱ(Severians’ȱepoch).ȱ
35.ȱ Sarcophagusȱ raisedȱ toȱ Damostratosȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ Herasȱ fromȱ Nicomedia.ȱ
2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
36.ȱ Marbleȱ sarcopahgusȱ decoratedȱ withȱ symbolsȱ ofȱ theȱ godȱ Men.ȱ 2ndȱ c.ȱ
AD.ȱ
37.ȱ Sarcophagusȱ forȱ Euelpistos,ȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ Sosos,ȱ anȱ actorȱ nativeȱ ofȱȱ
ByzantionȱandȱsettledȱatȱTomis.ȱ
38.ȱ Thesaurusȱofȱsculpturesȱwhenȱitȱwasȱdiscoveredȱ(1962,ȱAprilȱ1st).ȱ
39.ȱ Statuaryȱ groupȱ Fortunaȱ andȱ Pontos,ȱ deitiesȱ protectingȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ
Tomis.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱȱsculptures).ȱ
40.ȱ Aediculaȱ withȱ doubleȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ goddessȱ Nemesisȱ raisedȱ
byȱC.ȱHerenniusȱCharito.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱsculptures).ȱ
41.ȱ Fragmentȱ ofȱ aȱ statuaryȱ groupȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ Dioscuriȱ „theȱ foundersȱ
ofȱtheȱcity”ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱtribeȱBoreis.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱsculptures).ȱ
42Ȭ43.ȱ BasȬreliefȱ andȱ statuaryȱ groupȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ goddessȱ
Hecateȱtriformis.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱȱsculpturesȱ).ȱ
44.ȱ VotiveȱreliefȱwithȱinscriptionȱinȱGreekȱforȱDionysosȱKathegemon.Theȱ
ȱ 227
ȱȱȱ
godȱ isȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ hisȱ mainȱ acolytes:ȱ Priap,ȱ satyr,ȱ Pan,ȱ theȱ
ThracianȱHorseman.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱsculptures).ȱ
45.ȱ Marbleȱ basȬreliefȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ Thracianȱ Horseman,ȱ
importantȱlocalȱdivinity.ȱ(Thesaurusȱofȱsculptures).ȱ
46.ȱ Statueȱ ofȱ theȱ Fantasticȱ Snakeȱ Glykon,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ remarkableȱ
monumentsȱofȱtheȱthesaurusȱofȱsculpturesȱfromȱTomis.ȱ
47.ȱ LifeȬsizeȱ bustȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ goddessȱ Isis.ȱ
(Thesaurusȱofȱsculptures).ȱ
48.ȱ MarbleȱbasȬreliefȱwithȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱOrientalȱgodȱMithrasȱ
inȱ theȱ sceneȱ ofȱ theȱ sacrificeȱ (Mithrasȱ Tauroctony);ȱ pieceȱ fromȱ theȱ
thesaurusȱofȱsculpturesȱ(missingȱtoday).ȱ
49.ȱ Eleusinianȱ Trinity–ȱ Pluto,ȱ Proserpina,ȱ Ceres;ȱ marbleȱ basȬrelief.ȱ 2ndȱ c.ȱ
AD.ȱ
50.ȱ HeadȱofȱaȱstatueȱdedicatedȱtoȱAphrodite.ȱ2ndȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
51.ȱ HeadȱcarvedȱinȱmarbleȱrepresentingȱtheȱgodȱApollo.ȱ2ndȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
52.ȱ Marbleȱ statuettesȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ goddessȱ Venusȱ
(Aphrodita).ȱ2ndȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
53.ȱ Inscriptionȱ fromȱ Hadrian’sȱ time,ȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Tomisȱ territoryȱ
provingȱ thatȱ “theȱ libertyȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ hasȱ beenȱ reȬestablished”.ȱ 2ndȱ c.ȱ
AD.ȱ
54.ȱ Marbleȱ colonnetteȱ forȱ theȱ goddessȱ Syriaȱ fromȱ Sosipposȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ
Callicrates,ȱoriginaryȱfromȱSidon.ȱ2ndȬ3rdȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
55.ȱ Statueȱ ofȱ theȱ „Tomitanȱ citizen”;ȱ 3rdȱ c.ȱ ADȱ (afterȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ ȱ Artaȱ
sculptural©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©.ȱSecȱIȬIII,ȱpl.ȱVII/1).ȱ
56.ȱ Statueȱ ofȱ theȱ „teenagerȱ girl”,ȱ 1stȱ c.ȱ ADȱ (afterȱ Z.ȱ Covacef,ȱ Artaȱ
sculptural©ȱînȱDobrogeaȱroman©.ȱSec.ȱIȬIII,ȱpl.ȱV/1).ȱ
57.ȱ Dedicationȱ toȱ theȱ Greatȱ Motherȱ fromȱ Aureliusȱ Firminianusȱ theȱ
commanderȱofȱtheȱborderȱ(duxȱlimitis)ȱinȱtheȱprovinceȱScythia.ȱ293Ȭ305ȱ
AD.ȱȱȱ
58.ȱ Tomitanȱ inscriptionȱ attestingȱ theȱ perpetuationȱ ofȱ curiaȱ (ordoȱ
Scythicus)ȱinȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱAge.ȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
59.ȱ Fragmentȱ ofȱ aȱ funeraryȱ inscriptionȱ forȱ Valeriusȱ Felix,ȱ headȱ ofȱ theȱ
administrativeȱ departmentȱ ofȱ theȱ governor.ȱ Endȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȬbeginningȱ
ofȱtheȱ4thȱc.ȱADȱ.ȱ
60.ȱ Metrologicalȱ monumentȱ withȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ archonȱ andȱ comesȱ Flaviusȱ
Servandus.ȱȱ4thȬ5thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
61.ȱ Plaqueȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ emperorȱ Valentinianȱ „theȱ conquererȱ ofȱ theȱ
Barbarianȱpopulations”ȱ(aroundȱ369ȱAD).ȱ
62.ȱ Architraveȱ ofȱ aȱ funeralȱ constructionȱ raisedȱ byȱ Entoliosȱ ofȱ Cezareeaȱ
(Palestina)ȱforȱhisȱwife,ȱKalliope.ȱ5thȬ6thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
63.ȱ Tableȱwithȱinscriptionȱusedȱinȱaȱfuneraryȱconstructionȱforȱ„theȱhappyȱȱ
Timothei”.ȱȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
64.ȱ Funeraryȱ steleȱ forȱ Aureliaȱ Sambatisȱ (secondȱ nameȱ ofȱ Semiticȱ origin).ȱ
Endȱofȱtheȱ3rdȬbeginningȱofȱtheȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
65.ȱ Funeraryȱepigramȱasȱaȱdialog,ȱputȱbyȱBassianusȱ(father)ȱandȱIanuariaȱ
(mother)ȱforȱtheirȱson,ȱLillas,ȱdeceasedȱyoung.ȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
228ȱ ȱ
ȱ
66.ȱ Funeralȱ steleȱ putȱ forȱ Terentiusȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Gaione,ȱ formerȱ soldierȱ
amongȱtheȱyoungȱarches.ȱ4thȬ5thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
67.ȱ Funeraryȱ epigramȱ (3rdȱ AD)ȱ reȬusedȱ duringȱ theȱ Christianȱ epochȱ asȱ aȱ
tombȱplaqueȱforȱPaula,ȱwifeȱofȱPaulȱtheȱSyrian,ȱhypodeacon.ȱ6thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
68.ȱ Funeralȱ plaqueȱ toȱ rememberȱ aȱ „martyrȱ ofȱ Christȱ andȱ bishop”.ȱ 4thȬ5thȱ c.ȱ
AD.ȱ
69.ȱ Christianȱ epitaphȱ putȱ byȱ Iuliusȱ Atzeis,ȱ vexillarius,ȱ forȱ hisȱ wife,ȱ „theȱ
happyȱBonosa”.ȱ4thȬ6thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
70.ȱ Objectsȱ withȱ Christianȱ symbolsȱ (afterȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ
România,ȱI,ȱBucureótiȱ1979,ȱpl.ȱ28,ȱ97).ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱ a.ȱ Rushlightȱ discoveredȱ inȱ Constanöaȱ withȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ
JesusȱChristȱandȱtheȱ12ȱapostlesȱandȱChristianȱinscription.ȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱ b.ȱ Cornelianȱ gemstoneȱ representingȱ Christ,ȱ onȱ theȱ cross,ȱ flankedȱ
byȱtheȱ12ȱapostles;ȱ4thȬ5thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
ȱ 70.ȱ c.ȱ Bronzeȱ oilȱ lamp,ȱ shapedȱ asȱ aȱ fishȱ withȱ Christ’sȱ monogramȱ onȱ
oneȱside.ȱ5thȬ6thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
71.ȱ Gildedȱ silverȱ discȱ inscribedȱ withȱ Paternusȱ bishop’sȱ nameȱ (491Ȭ518ȱ
AD).ȱ (Afterȱ I.ȱ Barnea,ȱ Artaȱ creótin©ȱ înȱ România,ȱ I,ȱ Bucureóti,ȱ 1979,ȱ pl.ȱ
94).ȱ
72.ȱ Planȱ andȱ cryptȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ basilicaȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ (afterȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ
RomanȬByzantineȱmonumentsȱfromȱtheȱwesternȱareaȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱTomis,ȱ
fig.ȱ11).ȱ
73.ȱ Cryptȱ ofȱ theȱ basilicaȱ fromȱ Tomisȱ (insideȱ theȱ yardȱ ofȱ theȱ Collegeȱ
„MihaiȱEminescu”).ȱ
74.ȱ Basilica’sȱcryptȱ(no.ȱ5),ȱwithȱnicheȱandȱaȱreliquaryȱvessel.ȱ5thȬ6thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
75.ȱ Theȱ episcopalȱ basilicaȱ ofȱ Tomisȱ (nr.ȱ 7)ȱ duringȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ
researchesȱ (afterȱ A.ȱ R©dulescu,ȱ Recherchesȱ archéologiquesȱ récentesȱ dansȱ
leȱpérimetreȱdeȱlaȱcitéȱdeȱTomis,ȱinȱÉtudesȱbyzantinesȱetȱpostȬbyzantines,ȱII,ȱ
1991,ȱp.ȱ31,ȱfig.ȱ5).ȱ
76Ȭ81.ȱ TheȱRomanȱEdificeȱwithȱMosaic.ȱ
ȱ 76.ȱ Terraceȱ Bȱ ofȱ theȱ Edifice,ȱ withȱ theȱ easternȱ wallȱ andȱ theȱ mosaicȱ
floor.ȱ
ȱ 77.ȱ Terraceȱ Cȱ ofȱ theȱ Edificeȱ withȱ theȱ vaultedȱ roomsȱ usedȱ asȱ
storeroomsȱ andȱ housesȱ whichȱ wereȱ builtȱ laterȱ on,ȱ nearȱ theȱ
construction.ȱ
ȱ 78Ȭ80.ȱDecorativeȱregistersȱofȱtheȱmosaicȱfloorȱ(details).ȱ
ȱ 81.ȱDifferentȱtypesȱofȱamphorae,ȱfoundȱinȱtheȱEdifice’sȱstorerooms.ȱ
82.ȱȱ a.ȱ Inscriptionȱ forȱ theȱ „sacredȱ council”ȱ putȱ byȱ Hermippos,ȱ (son)ȱ ofȱ
Attas,ȱ onȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ aȱ wardrobeȱ roomȱ (Θϲȱ
ΏΉΑΘ΍ΣΕ΍ΓΑ)ȱatȱtheȱcityȱthermae.ȱ
ȱ b.ȱThermaeȱonȱtheȱwestenȱcliffȱofȱtheȱcity.ȱ
83.ȱ DifferentȱtypesȱofȱtombsȱdatingȱfromȱtheȱearlyȱRomanȱepoch.ȱ
84.ȱ Funeraryȱ inventoryȱ fromȱ theȱ inhumationȱ tombȱ ofȱ aȱ womanȱ
discoveredȱonȱtheȱactualȱFerdinandȱBlvd.ȱȱ2ndȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
85Ȭ88.ȱ TheȱhypogeumȱtombȱfromȱTomis:ȱinsideȱmuralȱpainting.ȱ4thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
89Ȭ90.ȱ Tombȱfromȱtheȱtown’sȱSVȱnecropolisȱwithȱfragmentsȱofȱanȱearlyȱ
ȱ 229
ȱȱȱ
Christianȱmuralȱpainting.ȱEndȱofȱtheȱ4thȱc.ȱ–ȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ5thȱc.ȱAD.ȱ
91.ȱ OverviewȱfromȱtheȱundergroundȱgalleriesȱofȱTomisȱ(catacombs).ȱ
92.ȱ ”TheȱstaircaseȱEdifice”ȱatȱtheȱbaseȱofȱtheȱtown’sȱwesternȱpromenade,ȱ
interpretedȱ alsoȱ asȱ aȱ possibleȱ templeȱ orȱ workshopȱ ofȱ processingȱ
marbleȱ(afterȱaȱphotographȱfromȱtheȱbeginningȱatȱtheȱ20thȱcentury,ȱA.ȱ
Magrin,ȱaroundȱ1908,ȱȱMINAC’sȱarchives).ȱ
93Ȭ95.ȱ RomanȬByzantineȱprecincts.ȱ
ȱ 93.ȱTheȱbutchersȱTour.ȱ
ȱ 94.ȱTheȱnorthernȱCurtainȱwall.ȱ
ȱ 95.ȱTheȱNorthȬEastȱGateȱȱandȱtheȱbustȱofȱVasileȱPârvan.ȱ
Pl.ȱIȱ Theȱplanȱofȱtheȱancientȱcityȱwithȱitsȱmainȱmonuments.ȱ
Pl.ȱIIȱ Theȱ areasȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ necropolisȱ (afterȱ C.ȱ Chera,ȱ Theȱ Tomitanȱ
necropoleisȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Westȱ Ponticȱ worldȱ contextȱ (theȱ 1stȬ4thȱ centuriesȱ
AD,ȱPhD,ȱConstanöa,ȱ1999;ȱmss.).ȱ
ȱ 231
ȱȱȱ
232ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 233
ȱȱȱ
234ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 235
ȱȱȱ
236ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 237
ȱȱȱ
238ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 239
ȱȱȱ
240ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 241
ȱȱȱ
242ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 243
ȱȱȱ
244ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 245
ȱȱȱ
246ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 247
ȱȱȱ
248ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 249
ȱȱȱ
250ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 251
ȱȱȱ
252ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 253
ȱȱȱ
254ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 255
ȱȱȱ
256ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 257
ȱȱȱ
258ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 259
ȱȱȱ
260ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 261
ȱȱȱ
262ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 263
ȱȱȱ
264ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 265
ȱȱȱ
266ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 267
ȱȱȱ
268ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 269
ȱȱȱ
270ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 271
ȱȱȱ
272ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 273
ȱȱȱ
274ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 275
ȱȱȱ

Tomis-Comentariu Istoric Si Arheologic PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tomis-Comentariu Istoric Si Arheologic PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ȱ

Versiune limba engleză:

Cu dragoste pe mine voi m-aĠi primit aice,

Tomitae, my situation’s gentle reception among you

ȱ Vezi,ȱ deȱ exemplu,ȱ Alexandraȱ Wasowicz,ȱ Modèlesȱ d’aménagemnentȱ desȱ coloniesȱ

keenlyȱ inȱ Tomitanȱ workshopȱ procuction.ȱ Beginningȱ withȱ Maximinus,ȱ theȱ

You might also like