[ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA XIV, 2 (2010), 53-59 Municipium Aurelium Durostorum or vicus Gavidina lian BOYANOV Regular archaeological surveys in Silistra (a Danube city in NE Bulgaria) and the village of Ostrov in Romania in the last few decades, as well as chance discover- ies, have provided a solid basis for studying various aspects of the urban life of ancient Durostorum. However, they have also posed some new problems related to the development of the city in Roman times. One of the most important and controversial problems concerning this development is exactly the localization of Municipium Aurelium Durostorum, or more precisely which of the two civilian settlements near the camp of Legio XI Claudia ~ canabae or vicus - was granted urban status and during the reign of which emperor that occurred. At this stage the sparse data about the municipium did not permit a resolution of this problem, but a new epigraphic monument provided grounds to confirm or reject some of the hypotheses concerning the development of Durostorum in the age of the Principate (Boston in the press). The information contained in the last three lines of the inscription is of essential importance about the development of Durostorum in the age of the Principate. They have recorded the names of two villages, obvi- ously in direct proximity to the camp of Legio XI Claudia. Ihe text of the inscrip- tion runs as follows: Jovi Optli}mo / Maximo luli(u)s / Eutuches ex v[ol/[t]o pro se et pro / [patro- num suum / Juli Maxim (sic!) po/{suilt et donavit / vicos Gavidin(a) / Arnumtum sup/periore In the light of this epigraphic monument I shall try to introduce more clarity into the matter of the localization of Municipium Aurelium Durostorum. To this end, I shall make a short review of the latest opinions on this problem, as well as on the evidence that has been quoted in support of these. The last two decades saw the publication of several articles of P. Donevski which summarize the condi- tion of archaeological surveys in Silistra, According to him, the excavations in the 1980s and the 1990s prove that the camp of Legio XI Claudia is located in the southwestern part of the contemporary city, about | km from the Danube (lonencku 1988, 84-96). The author also localizes the canabae of the legion to the northeast, north and northwest of the camp on an area of about 25 - 30 ha (lonencxs 1995, 259-270). Here I will not dwell on the numerous finds and the different architectural complexes related to the military camp and the canabae as the surveys have sufficient power of proof for their localization, With a view to the new epigraphic monument, my interest is aroused by the remains of a set tlement from the Roman age near the present-day village of Ostrov in Romania, located some 4 km east of contemporary Silistra. ‘The archaeological surveys of this site in the past do not provide sufficient information about the planning of the settlement or about its connection with and location in respect to the military camp. Should one have to make a short summary of these surveys, they boil down to the discovery of some 20 sculptural and architectural elements, while in the profile of the Danubian bank one can discern traces of walls, clay sewage pipes and bricks with seals of Legio XI Claudia, including such inscribed Leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae) Fig(lina) Kas(trorum), designating a workshop of the legion and dated54 HAN wovaNov from the end of the 2" to the middle of the 3° century (Culicd 1978, 115 et seq). It ‘was only at the end of the last century, when archaeological surveys were already regular, that specialists found 13 pottery furnaces (Museteanu 1996, 17-21), one bathroom of the 2".3" century, as well asa building with unclear functions inter- preted as a horreum (Baltac | Damian 2007, 66). According to the team studying the settlement, it covered an area of some 24 ha. These discoveries, as well as the investigation of several tombs with abundant grave goods, favour the assumption made on the basis of the so-called “settlement dualism” along the Rhein-Danube border of the empire that this was the second settlement besides the one by the camp, more specifically a hitherto unknown vicus (JJonencxst 2006, 234), ‘The archaeological surveys at Ostrov village which allow the ancient vicus to be localized there, as well as the fact that the inscription with the name Municipium Aurelium Durostorum was found precisely there, although reused as construction material in a Late Antiquity development, gave a number of scholars in the past few years grounds to voice the assumption that precisely this vicus, not the canabae of the legion that developed into a municipium. Without making a review of the historiography on the matter, I will discuss shortly the main arguments in favour of the two opinions and will try to support or question them on the basis of the latest data. First I will dwell on the thesis voiced even by V. Parvan (Parvan 1924, 319) and subsequently supported by B. Gerov (Iepos 1980, 96-97) and M. Tacheva (Tasena 2004, 80), that precisely the canabae of the legion developed into a muni- cipium during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. B. Gerov gave several basic arguments in support of this opinion: first, there are of course the two inscriptions published by P. Georgiev (Leoprites 1974, 96-99) and subsequently corrected by K. Banev (Banev 2001, 31-35), which according to him give the first data about the simultaneous existence of the municipium and the vicus in 209, when the two monuments were erected. On the basis of yet another epigraphic monument found in the village of Smilets, some 20 km south of Silistra, from which we learn that a primipilus of Legio XI Claudia erected a border stone by order of the provincial governor Marcus Servilius Fabianus Maximus (Tepos 1980, 96-97). Although it does not become clear from the text which is the border territory meant, in the opinion of B. Gerov the fact that a primipilus was engaged in such an activity was necessitated by the establishment of the munticipium and the need of its territory to receive forma publica. In addition, the absence of the name of the vicus in the above-mentioned two inscriptions, according to him, shows its secondary role in respect to the canabae, respectively the municipium (Tepor 1980, 96-97). As proof of this he quotes the names of seven villages from Dobrudja recorded epigraphi- cally. As to the time in which the municipium was established, on the basis of the inscription from Smilets and the provincial governor mentioned in it Gerov suggests the years 161/163 or 162/164, which differ from the 169-176 offered by V. Parvan. ‘The epigraphic monuments commented by B. Gerov were interpreted by E. Dorutiu-Boil in a totally different way. According to her, the two inscriptions erected by the veteran Gaius Antonius Herculanus show that in 209 Durostorum still had the status of a vicus, while the inscription which mentions the muici- pium and the name of Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus refers to Caracalla, not to Marcus Aurelius. As to the inscription from Smilets village, she assumes that this may be a border between two villages or private estates, On the basis of these observations E. Dorutiu-Boila expressed the opinion that precisely the vicus at Ostrov village, not the canabae of the legion, developed into a mu- rnicipium and that happened during the reign of Caracalla (Dorutiu-Boila 1978,-MUNICIPIUM AURELIUM DUROSTORUM OR VICUS GAVIDINA 55 245-247). In support of this opinion, R. Ivanov (M1saHos 2006, 118-119) expressed the view that the vicus had greater opportunities to develop into a municipium as it belonged to territorium provinciae and had a greater opportunity to grow on principle, while the military territory, to which the canabae also belonged, was limited, although he himself admits that the unclear matters around the military and civilian territory of Durostorum are much more than the categorical state- ments on the problem. Again according to him, the question during the reign of which emperor this happened remains open (Misano 1999, 275). P. Donevski also assumes the vicus developed into a municipium, but still at the time of Marcus Aurelius, thinking that vicani canabarum or canabensium stand behind the vicani mentioned in the inscription of 209, ie. that the canabae continued to exist in 209 (Houescxu 2006, 237-238). One can see from the review of the discussion around the establishment of Municipium Aurelium Durostorum that both hypotheses step on serious argu- ments, but that they also contain quite a number of questionable elements for which itis diffcult to find support in the archaeological and epigraphic context. For example, according to the opponents of B. Gerov, the weak point in his thesis is the opportunity of the canabae to grow with a view to the fact that, as wwe have already mentioned, they were located in the military territory of the legion. Archaeological surveys in the last few decades, however, show that this settlement covered an area of approximately 25 ~ 30 ha, while the supposed vicus at Ostrov village has an arca of about 24 ha, ic. it is smaller or at least equal in area with the canabae of the legion. This fact, as well as the circumstance that an inscription of the time of Antoninus Pius distinguishes the settlement by the camp with the honorary ttle of canabae Aetiae (CIL III 7474), as was the practice for true municipia and coloniae, show that it was rather the one to have received ‘municipium rights. The results from archaeological excavations also lead to this thought - over 20 public and residential buildings were discovered on its territory, most of which with hypocaust, as well as baths and streets directed north-south and east-west, under which there are canals built with bricks or stone (Jlonenckis 2006a, 186 et seq). Most of the buildings have identical orientation, which shows that they, together with the street network, were subordinate to a certain urban development scheme for which research of the vicus at Ostrov so far does not provide information. In view of the above-mentioned data and in the light of the new epigraphic monument providing data abut the settlement structure in the region of Durostorunt, 1 shall take the liberty of voicing my own hypothesis about the inception of Municipium Aurelium Durostorum or, more precisely, about its lo calization in one of the two settlements in the vicinity of the camp of Legio XI Claudia - canabae and vicus. As we have already seen, archaeological surveys in the tivo settlements reveal essential differences in their development ~ while the settlement by the camp obviously has the main characteristic features of a Roman town, things with the assumed vicus by Ostrov village are far from this case. At this point, the excavations there do not provide serious grounds to assume that it was precisely this settlement that was promoted to the rank of municipium. To date, this hypothesis above all rests on theoretical speculations. In addition, the area of the two settlements does not indicate that the vicus grew more than the ca- nabae ~ quite the contrary, it is even smaller, or in the best case equal in area to the settlement by the camp. Another argument in favour of the canabae is the location of the Late Roman and Late Antiquity town, which developed precisely on part of its territory ~ something quite logical in view of the advantages of the terrain.56 HAN wovaNov On the contrary, the marshy lands on which the vicus is located are doubtless rich in quality clay, confirmation of which we also find in the large number of pottery kilns found there, but they were hardly very appropriate for the development of a Roman city. The location of the necropolises also confirms the dimensions and the significance of the settlement by the camp in the 2-3" century (JJonescxt 2006, 243 et seq,). We also find evidence of the obvious prosperity of the canabae in the epigraphic monuments. ‘hus in the inscription from 145 we see that their prosperity was acknowledged as reflected in the honorary title with the name of the emperor ~ canabae Acliae. Itis difficult to assume that such a settlement was disregarded on account of a far less representative vicus, although this was the generally accepted scheme. ‘The new epigraphic monument creates even greater difficulties to provide arguments in support of the theory that the vicus by Ostrov developed into a municipium. ‘The two villages recorded in it, obviously in direct proximity to the military camp, make the so-called “settlement dualism” at the le- gion’s camp questionable as they generally do the existence of the castra - canabae ~ vicus scheme in such pure form, at least in respect to Durostorum. Under such circumstances it is even more difficult to give an answer to the question which one of these at least two vici was awarded urban status and what were the grounds for it to be preferred before the other and before the canabae of the legion. ‘This possibility seems ever less possible and questionable. ‘he written sources about one of the Early Christian martyrs of Durostorum ~ St. Emilian - also speak in support of this thesis. The main source for the vita of this martyr is a Greek manuscript of the 12" century, which was published in 1725 and is known as Codex Vaticanus 866 (Boschius 1868, 370-377). The discus- sion in respect to the time when the initial document in Latin was compiled, later translated into Greek, is still open, although the opinion prevails that the text was written soon after the martyred death of St. Emilian at the end of the 4" or the be- ginning of the 5 century (Arantacon 2004, 203). The authenticity of this text was also confirmed by another version of the Vita of St. Emilian, published in 1972 (Halkin 1972, 30-35). This 11° century manuscript in Greek, known as Codex Parisiensis, almost entirely repeats the text of Codex Vaticanus, with some differ- ences, in particular in respect to the date of St, Emilian’s death and the place where he was buried, which we shall discuss later. Here I will not comment the full text of the vitae as it has been the subject of numerous publications over the past cen- tury. The part of the text that is directly related to the localization of Municipium Aurelium Durostorum is the end of the vita where the place St. Emilian was buried is indicated ~ év romp EmAcyouévy Tnbiva, dog and zpirov pidiov Tig MdAEwS xaAovpévns Awpootohov. In Codex Vaticanus it is called Tyéwva, and in Codex Parisiensis - TioiSiva. Both texts state that this is neither a city nor a village, but a location ~ tonog, As the question which of the two copies is closer to the original source is still controversial until now it was not possible to say definitely how the name of the location sounded in the original. It was only with the discovery of the inscription quoted above that this name has become clear ~ Gavidina. There is also an essential difference between the two copies in respect to the distance they give between Gavidina and Durostorum ~ three miles (4.5 km) according to Codex Vaticanus or three stadia (550 m) according to Codex Parisiensis. Recently G. Atanassov made an attempt to localize Inéiva at Golesh village, Silistra region, thinking that the castellum Adwa mentioned by Procopius of Caesarea should be localized there. In his hypothesis G. Atanassov assumed that [n6iva and Adwa are one and the same castellum and that Procopius has given an incorrect transcrip- tion (Atanasov 1997, 127-136). Is it possible, though, that the [diva mentioned-MUNICIPIUM AURELIUM DUROSTORUM OR VICUS GAVIDINA 37 in the Vita of St. Emilian is identical to the castellum of Adiva noted by Procopius of Caesarea? ‘The great problem in this case, however, is that the village of Golesh is 30 miles (43 km) away from Durostorum — ten times more than the distance given in Codex Vaticanus. The explanation of this difference with a mistake of the copist of the vita or with the desire of the Christian community to change the distance in the text consciously so that the martyrium would be close to Durostorum does not sound convincingly (Atanasov 1997, 127-136). G. Atanassov recently gave up this hypothesis basing himself on the latest surveys in the region. In his study he offers a new localization of the place in the Late Antiquity necropolis 500 m from the camp of the legion, or in the necropolis in the southern periphery of Durostorum (Aranacon 2004, 213; Aranacon 2006, 291; Ararracon 2007, 41). In my opinion, the identification of the city necropolis of Durostorum with TaiSiva or Gavidina is difficult to accept as the inscription we have quoted explicitly states the loca- tion in question is a vicus, which precludes the possibility for it to have developed within the military territory of Legio XI Claudia and even less so within one of the city necropolises. Of course, the delusion comes from the fact that the Vita of St. Emilian speaks of Gavidina as a location ~ tén0¢ ~ not as a village. Itis only with the discovery of the new inscription that this problem has been resolved, but new questions also arise regarding the fate of the vici around Durostorum at the end of the 4* and the 5* century, which it seems led to the disappearance of the village of Gavidina and the preservation only of its name as a toponym. Summing up the information from archaeological surveys, epigraphic monu- ments and written sources, we can assume that the remains at Ostrov village in Romania do not belong to Municipium Aurelium Durostorum but to the vicus of Gavidina, recorded in the quoted inscription and in the Vita of St. Emilian, The existence of this settlement in the period 2*-5" century (Donevski 1990, 238-245) also completely corresponds to the chronological scope of the sources. Last, but not least, the distance of three miles (4.5 km) between Durostorum and Gavidina given in Codex Vaticanus corresponds with great precision to the contemporary distance between Silistra and the village of Ostrov in Romania. With a view to what has been said so far, I think that the archaeological, writ- ten and epigraphic data attest to a large degree that it was precisely the settlement by the camp that was promoted to the rank of municipium, not the vicus by Ostrov in Romania which, as we learnt was not the only one either in the vicinity of the camp of Legio XI Claudia. Thus, in my opinion, a not inconsiderable portion of the architectural complexes revealed on the territory of the canabae should already be referred to Municipium Aurelium Durostorum. The vici by the military camp prob- ably took over the functions of the settlement by the camp after it developed into a ‘municipium, evidence of which is also the fact that veterans settled there (BoaHos 2008, 105-107). The question during the reign of which emperor this occurred remains controversial. Regrettably, the only epigraphic monument recording the ‘municipium governance of Durostorum is also dated too generally in the 2".3" century (Pippidi 1987, #302). Nevertheless, with a view to the archaeological and epigraphic data we can assume that this occurred rather during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, when too the first veterans began to settle in the vicus at Ostrov. Several other cities founded in Africa Proconsularis during the reign of Marcus Aurelius also support this assumption ~ they bore the epithet of Aurelius or Aurelia, unlike the settlements which were awarded urban status during the reign of Caracalla, which bore his gentile name ~ Antoninianus (Gascou 1972, 14-58), and particularly in neighbouring Dacia, such as Municipium Aurelium Apulum and Colonia Aurelia Napoca.se BIBLIOGRAPHY Amawacos, [ 2007, Xputersantcxuat Mypoc- ropys = lipscrsp. Berxo Tupuoso. Amanacoe, I: 2006, Pano xpuctaauckitve abuewi or IV n. Jlypocropym. In Auras lypocropy Meropua na Canwerpa, row I, Chuuterpa ! Coop. 263-2 Amaviacoa, I 2004, Ca. Ewsemax Jlopoctoncxis (1382 1) ~ nocnegnar pannoxpucraasckte Moser » Muon. ls Civitas Divino-Hamana Im honorem annorurn LX Georgii Bakalov, Cospen 203-218. Boswos, H. 2008. Pumcxiere serepaint s Jona Masia x Tpaxita (I~ IIL a). Copies Bosviog, Hin the press Hoot: jax 3a pasostea- ero a Ilypocropyxt mpea Mpwunysnara In: Stadia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis. Suppl V. Feopeues, 1.1974, Pnmtexie ceranyc we nagunicn or Cuanerpa, - HMB X, 95-102, Tepoe, B. 1980, Semennage- raveto m Pismcka Tpaxia 1 Moroua (I-IIl x). (= PCY OKHO 72,2). Cogua Hlonescxu, Il 20062, Kanab a XI Kaangies nero. In Aurrastauter /lypoctopyy. Meropua wa Cunnerpa, ros I, Cunutcxpa { Coda 136-227, Fonescxu, I. 2006b. Hexpo: snomre ua Jlypoctopyat. In Aurrasanutst flypoctopyu Meropua a Crnuetpa, rout I. Cuuctpa f Cota 243-262, Honescxu, 112006. Buxye ve Myniagimnys Aypenmya Hypoctopya. B: Ainsuunat Dypocropyss, Heropia na Cunuerpa, 10M 1. Cuter pa Cospux. 228-242. Honescks 11.1995. 0 narepe wo nerwona Knanyien 8 Mypocropyse, - Balcanica Posnaniensia VIL, 259-270. Hlonescxu, [1 1988, Paskon: wie a aarepa i kantaGero sua XI Knanmzten nero In Typocropyst - [ipecrsp - Cunnenpa, Cogs. 84-56 Measios, P 2006. Beexsues rewaT xno, In; Ateristtar Hypocropyat. Hevopia ua Cuinnenpa, rox I. Crnmer~ pa/ Coguta, 113-152, Heanos, P1999. Jono: ywascxara orGpanurenna Myxuuunuym Aypennym [lypocropym wm Bukyc Tapnynna Manan BOAHOB (pestome) ‘nesta mexxny Jloprixyst su Mlypocropyac or Abryer 10 Manpcxnit. Cooper. Taveoa, M2004. Bnact couyat» pustcxa Muga Tpaxuss. Kiera Bropa, Atanasoy, G.1997. Marty rium et ATIAZMON dans le castel basbyzantin prés du village de Golech, région de Silistra (communication préliminaire). ~ Miscellanea Bulgarica 11, 127-136. Baltac, A, Damian, P 2007. ‘The civil Roman settlement at Ostrov - Durostorum. - Isttos XIY, 61-70. Banev, K.2001. Addenda et corrigenda epigraphica (1) = Archaeologia Bulgarica V, 2,31-35, Boschias, P1868, Martyrium Sancti Aemiliani, In: Acta Sanctorum Julli, IV. Romae. 370-377. Calica, V.1978, Cu pri vire la lagicul legiunii a XI* ‘Claudia la Dundrea de Jos. ~ Pontica XI, 113-118, Donevski, P1990. Zur To- pographie von Duros ~ Germania LXVIL, 1, 236-245, Dorufiu-Boila, F.1978. Uber den Zeitpunkt det Verlei Peqosanere apxeonorseck npoyysansta & rp. Cummerpa m pit ¢. Ocrpos Pysrsiuia mpes nocnenunre neceTANeTHA, KaKTO H cnyaliintTe HaXORKH, RanOxA conumpra octiona 3a mpoyynantero Ha pasminn acrteKTH OF TpajeKHCA *HCROT Ha anrusatia Jlypoctopym, Ho comenpeMmeniHo NOCTaRHtxa H HKOK HORM Mpo6neMtt, cappsanit c pasBitTieTo Ha rpana mpes puntckava ertoxa, EqvH OF Hail-BaKHHITE 4M CHOPHM BEMpoCH, sacaraMA TORA pasBHTHe, € HMEHHO NOKANKSHpAHeTO Ha hung des Municipialrechte in Scythia Minor. ~ Dacia XXII, 245-248, Gascou, J 1972. La politique ‘municipale de Tempire romain en Afrique procon: sulaire de Trajan & Septime Sévere, Ecole francaise de Rome. Rome, Halkin, E1987. Les recensions de la Passion de saint Emilien In ‘Texte und Textkrtik. ine Aufsatzsammlung. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altehrst chen Literatur 133, Leipzig 223-229 Halkin, E1972. Saint Emilien de Durostorum, martyre sous Julien. Analects Bollandiana 90, 27-35, Mugefeanu, C, 1996, Les atliers céramiques de Durostorum, ~ Rei Cre tariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 33, 17-21 Parvan, V, 1924. ‘Municipium Aurelium Durostorum. - Rivista di Filologia e d'Istruzione Classica, 307-340, Pippidi, D, 1987. Inserip- tones Seythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. Vol. Bucuresti-MUNICIPIUM AURELIUM DUROSTORUM OR VICUS GAVIDINA 59 Mysunuimsyat Aypenuyst JLypocropyst, 11 No-TosHo Koe oF ARETE WEBHOHL muta 8 GnusOCT No Narepa Ha XI Knasnues nerwon — KaHaGy Wii BUKYC ~ € nonysuino rpajcku craryT H mpi Koit umeparop e crastaio ToRa, Asropwr KoMeHTupa jastitre oF apxconorseueckire upoyanasiin 1 ent pabckirre naweriinu, cespsaiit ¢ paseuiTitero Ha [lypoctopym mpes entoxara na TIpunuunara. Cnopey nero Te 0 ronama crenent cRujevencrnar, Ye uMeHHo xpafinarepnoro cenmme e 610 mBaqMTHaTO B pan wa MyHMNUMHyM, a He muxycer mpu c. Octpos m Pysromua. Mocnenmiar, axTo naywaname oT e7istt Hor Hammic, He € Gun enumcTaen R 6nusoct qo narepa na XI Knanquen ne- ron. Tora mienue Ha antopa ce nors»pxyana x oT xkuTHeTO Ha Ca. EMmiaN Jlopoctoncks, w KoeTO € sacUeTeNcTRAHO 3a RTOPH TT UMeTO Ha RUKYCA MPH ¢. Ocrpor ~ Tanuitiia (Dhiqiia), KakTO H TOSHOTO PasCTOAHHE MOKMY HeTO 1 Myumnunuys Aypennyn Dypocropys. Dr Ilian Boyanov New Bulgarian University Department of Archaeology 21 Montevideo Str. BG-1618 Sofia ilianboyanov@nbu.bg