ANDREI BODOR (Cluj) EMPEROR AURELIAN AND THE ABANDONMENT OF DACIA The present article has a single aim : to elucidate, as far as possible, the abandonment of Dacia by the Roman army and administration. Consequently it is not its purpose to deal with the events before Aure- lian's reign, or with the way and the phases of evacuation. It is an well-known fact that already in the last century there was, and still is, a great variety of opinions among the historians relating to the year of abandonment. At the end of the last century Théodor Bernhardt and H. Schiller ® considered that the evacuation took place in the year of 270 as a result of a convention concluded with the Van- dals. J. Jung®, and then Brandis‘ in Pauly-Wissova, Real Encyclopa- die are for the year 271 and they connect the abandonment with the renewed attacks of the Goths. A. D. Xenopol in a study published in 1896, in French, is of the opinion that it happened in the year of 2755. The well-known French historian, Léon Homo %, is, likewise, for this view. The year of 275 is accepted by Besnier too fe Among the Romanian historians, V. Parvan® approves the date suggested by Bernhardt, ie. the year of 270. In the modern his- toriography there is a greater unity in views and the year of 271 is generally accepted. This is made on the ground of a study by M. Macrea entitled Monetele si pdrdsirea Daciei (The Coins and the Abandonment of Dacia) ®, Thus, C. Daicoviciu, in his article Problema continuitdfii in Dacia (The Problem of Continuity in Dacia) 10 pleads for the years 270—271 and he refers to Macrea’s study. This date has been approved “1. Th, Bernhardt, Geschichte Roms von Valerianus bis zu Diocletians Tode, Berlin, 1867, p. 153, 2H. Schiller, Geschichte der Rémischen Kalserzeit, Gotha, 1883, fs, p. 853. - . Jung, Rémer und Romanen in den Doneianeerne p. 107, note 1. . Brandis, PWRE, IV, p. 1975, the article about Dacia. , ee ae 'D. Xenopol, Histoire des Roumains de la Dacie Trajane, Paris, 1896, 6. Léon Homo, Essai sur le régne de Iempereur Aurélien (270—275), p. 313-321. Niced", Maurice Besnier, Tr eachine aan de vavenement des Sévéres au concile de icée, in the series of Histoire générale, p. 243. yrs pian &:,¥; Patan, Dacia, an Outline of the Early Civilisations of the Carpato-Danu- ‘an countries, Cambridge, 1928, p. 197. 9. M, Macrea, op, cit. in TH (1936—1940), p. 270305. 10. C. Daicoviciu, op, cit., in AISC, it aa tod), p. 255.ANDREI BODOR k he History of Romania) and, thus, being agg n Istoria Romaniei " (T cae ay in Jstorie ROWvall contemporary historians % it became somehow the stficial date of the abandonment. * ne there were expressed other views too. C. Daicovieiy in a ouvataphy ‘with the title Din istoria Transiivaniei (From the History or Transylvania) and in Rémer in Rumanien A that : «she History of ively abandoned in the years 271—272 under Emperor Ay. was detid eDie Aufgabe Dakien trug sich im Jahre 271/272 zu», Rady Vulpe in Din istoria Dobrogei (The History of Dobrogea) "is for the year ‘Consequently the date of 271 entered into the Romanian histori raphy chielly on the ground of M. Macrea’s studies, namely Monetele J kardsirea Daciei, the respective chapter in The History of Romania Sha his last work, Viafa in Dacia Romand (Life in Roman Dacia) "5, As the reasoning in the three studies is absolutely identic, we summarise his arguments in the following three points *, 1) The abandonment of Dacia in the year of 271 is proved by the fact that at the end of this year Aurelian issued coins in the capital of the new Dacia, at Serdica, because the mint from Tarraco had been transferred to the new province. On these coin-emissions the legend Dacia Felix does not appear anymore, whereas the legends Genius Illyrici and Pannoniae continue to appear. 2) At the end of the year 271 Aurelian arrived in Moesia and faught against the Goths. 3) After two years, on his return from the East, he faught again at the Lower Danube against the Carps, and on this occasion he assu- med the titles of Carpicus Maximus and Dacicus Maximus ; the latter one, with all probability, owing to the fights on the evacuated territory of the former Dacia. Analysing more profoundly these arguments we easily observe that they bear the signs of the vehement discussions between the to world-wars about the abandonment of Dacia, At the same time some ee filtered in referring to the concrete data and the Some of these inadvertences originate from the scantiness of the literary sources, others from their contradictory character. It is an well known fact that 1, storia Roménii, Vo M, Macrea. _ ae 12.11, Russu, E, Condurachi, D. Pr al 12-1 1, Russy, ©. Condurachi, D, Protase in many works, studies and et son, 2G, Dacvicn, St asc V. Checsteiy x. Matar Bin nie Transl the ancient sources are contradictory even as reget Bucuresti, 1960, p, 465466, The chapter PY Rumiinien, 1969, 9.7 14 Radi Valpe — ton yes vol pad Ratt Valo Bames, Din’ istoria Dobrogel, Bucuresti, 1968, 1 15M. Mactea, Viaja tn Dacia 4 16, Mi Sacra’ alan Dacia romand, Bucuresti, Batura $uinttics, 1060 | the length of Aurelian’s reign, On the legends of Aurelian’s coins there is a discordance between the function of tribunicia polestas and that of consulate, a phenomenon much discussed in modern his- toriography *. Passing over to the analysis of the main arguments, we think, that the testimony of the coins cannot be considered conclusive, The mone- tary discoveries in the various places of the territory of the former Dacia confute the often suggested argument that there are very few coin-hoards from the time of Aurelian. The studies of C. Daicoviciu, D, Protase and J. Winkler prove that the number of coins from this time is much greater than it was supposed before. According to J. Win- kler their number in rural settlements amounts to 17 (Orlea 2, Aiud 3, Cristesti 1, Gusterita 1, Sibiu 2, Socolovat 3, Sura 2, Constanfia 3), thus even more than the coins of Gallienus (15) or of Decius (6). In the urban settlements there has been found up to the present 39 pieces (Apulum 3, Sucidava 17, Drubeta 16, Dierna 3)®. To this number @ coin of Aure- lian’s wife is to be added, discovered at Iernut and issued in the year of 275%. This comparatively great number of the coins discovered in the centre, and chiefly, in the southern part of the Roman Dacia is an important ‘proof of the circulation of money in the time of Aurelian. Unfortunately, no conclusion can be drawn from this regarding to the exact date of the withdrawal of the Roman troops and administration from Dacia. The first argument, according to which Dacia was abandoned already in the year of 271, because on the coins issued at Tarraco at the beginning of Aurelian’s reign the legend of Dacia Felix together with that of Genius Illyrici and Pannoniae occurs, while on the issues at Serdica this legend is absent, has not the presumed value. First of all, we have to state, that referring to the mint at Serdica even now a great uncertainly prevails, As regards Tarraco in this period no impe- Tial mint existed there es Cohen, Rohde and others thaught*. Recent numismatic studies arrived to the conclusion that Emperor Claudius II issued coins in Rome, Mediolanum, Siscia in Cyzic and in an other mint, somewhere in the East, but its place remains unknown. As H. Mattingly ascertains in his recent work about the Roman coinage ®, Aurelian continued to issue his coins in the same mints, but he added 18. L. Bivona, Per Ja cronologia di Aureliano, Bpigrafia, XXVIII (1966), fase. 1—4, Pies E winkter, Clieulafia moneterd in Dacia romand, 196, 2nd port, p. 37. Ma- maser yen op cling Ie BeaANDREI BODOR sm three new ones, namely Serdica, Tripolis and a third 0 to them tree acdolphine but its place cannot be identified.” Will ee Onder Aurelian’s reign the mint from Mediolanum was transfer num receiving the sign T or Ti wich later was confounded wht citial of Tatraco in Spain. According to Mattingly the provine {We nica and Spain played no important role in the military history ss fhe period and they had no mints of their own. Mattingly enumergy sllowing arguments which plead for Ticinum instead of Tarracgs a) Under Aurelian’s reign the symbol M (Mediolanum) is substi. tuted for T and Ti. b) The mint was in the possesion of Gallienus and only for a ven short period in that of Postumus. The situation should have been other, wise if the mint were in Spain. ©) The coins issued in this mint have been found in great quan. tity in the coin-hoards discovered in the North of Italy. @) The style of the mint is very near to that of Rome and not to the style of the Lugudunum mint. { ‘According to Mattingly these arguments are conclusive and any atempt to maintain the existence of Tarraco mint is condemned to failure, However, the elucidation of the situation of the two mints does not influence essentially the solution of our problem. Therefore we have to examine whether the coins with the legend Dacia Felix serve really sound proofs and arguments for the determination of the exact year in which Dacia has been abandoned. Mommsen thinks that these coins were issued in new Dacla, ie. in Dacia Ripensis. On the other hand Homo believes that they stil represents the old Dacia*, Alfoldi considers them the expression of Aurelian’s political aim, i.e. the reoccupation of Dacia. This aim, accor- ding to Alféldi proved to be unrealisable and for this reason the coins wilt the legends Genfus Tilyriel and Pannoniae were maintained While | those with Dacia Felix abandoned. Professor Macrea changes Alféldi’s symbolical interpretation and rightly points out that the emissions plead for the existence and the continuity of the Roman rule in Dacia, but using his arguments affirms that the stopping of these issues coincides with the abandon ment of Dacia 2°, Consequently this change in the legends for Alféld! has the meaning that Dacia was lost already in the time of Gallienus for Macrea it is an argument that Dacia was abandoned at the begi- ning of Aurelian’s reign. To our opinion neither of these affirmations is well founded: this for the following reasons : the change of the legend on the various to Tic and 24, Th. Mommsen, CIL, I, p. 161. a 25. Homo, op. cit p. 314, note 2. «Ces pi&ces ne se raportent pas... & 1a eréettg de la nouvelle Dacie; elles font probablement allusion & quelque succes remPl fen Dacie, atu début du régne d’Aurélien, On ne sait rien des pices a cet égards. 26. A. AllSldi, A gol mozgalom és Dacia feladdsa, Budapest, 1990, P. 45 emissions shouldn't always be interpreted as a result of changes inter- vened in the political and religious life of the Empire. The validity of this assertion will be clear from an analysis of the emissions Tarraco- Ticinum, which we can make with the help of Rohde's valuable monography. In the first emission of the first period (270) there are altogether 13 legends, in the second one (the years 270274) 7, being abandoned 6 (Dacia Felix, Concordia militum, Martis paci, Concordia exercitum, Pax eterna), repeated 5 (Genius Illyrici, Fides militum, Pannoniaé (twice) and Concordia legionum) and a new one introduced, virtus aequit. On the emissions of the second period neither Genius Ilyrici, nor Pannoniae occurs, a fact from which nobody draws the conclusion that Pannonia or Ilyricum had been abandoned by the Romans ™. On the emissions from Siscia the legend Genius Illyrici occurs in many variations in the second period *. The argument loses even more of its force If we consider that coins with the legend Dacia Felix have been issued by Aurelian's predecessor Claudius 11%. Then it is known that Quintillus, in his short reign, maintained the type of coins issued by Claudius and he changed only the Emperor's name. Probably we have the same process at the begin- ning of Aurelian's reign ®, Now we cannot be even sure, that the mint in Serdica was founded by Aurelian, Probabily it functioned already under Gallienus and Clau- dius II, as N. Mouchmoff tries to prove in an article about the coins from Serdica*, If the affirmation that the mint in Serdica was founded by Aurelian is not certain®, this does not mean, that this Emperor did not reor- ganize the mints in this town. The precise date of the reorganization, however, is not known. It should be put with all probability after the minters' ‘revolt in 271, as a reasonable consequence of the general monetary reform ®, Thus if the numismatic data do not offer reliable evidence about the abandonment of Dacia, however, they prove the continuity of the Roman domination under Aurelian’s reign. Our problem at issue can be solved more easily if we examine it from the point of view of gene- ral history of the Empire. : It is well-known that from the beginning of Claudius’ reign the main objective of the Roman state was to reconquer the lost territories and to reestablish the unity of the Empire. At the beginning of Aure- Rohde op twp. 202 Kohde, oP et ; BoP a lattes cone, V1 UO p22 oA. cohen 2, 64. CI. N. Lascu, Dacia Felix, AISC, IV (1941106) p. 68-71. 30, Homo: op esp, 62, note 4and p. 63 aate SU No Moschonoll,"Les'monnaies de Serdica, 1826, p. 138, 207208, sani iaus ‘lemet, Veraejegyeh, a eximrionfdmal pasion, in Brem 1904 (Ganuary~February), B17 and: Mouehmoft, op. ell the quoted Passage. MY Suautagly op ells pr 126 and HV. Suberland, JRS, 41 (1961), p. 94 3ANDREI BODOR rr ded into three parts: the East, ruled p the successors of Odenathus, by Zenobia and Vaballath, the Weg! the, successors nation of the Gaulish emperors, and the Centre, which under the femyradition and the idea of the unity. This idea was em preserved il iis convictions and possibilities by Aurelian, who indeed braced reat effort succeded to reestablish the unity of the Empire, 1y with Gir of his policy the voluntary abandonment of Dacia at the beg hing of his reign would have been equal with undermining of his pol ning Of jective, But even if we accept this possibility, from a simple tical orion of the events it will become evident that the evacuation era'province, not under the threats of an external enemy, but for poli Gea ponsiderations, was simply impossible. ‘At the beginning of the year 270 (probably in April) Aurelian was proclaimed Emperor at Sirmium. Immediately after Quintillus’ death he prost to Noricum and Rhaetia, the provinces invaded by the Jutungs, In Rhaetia he won a great victory over the invaders and prevented {hem from crossing the river Danube. On this occasion the Emperor, as Dexippos relates, refused to pay subventions to the Jutungs * This wat should be dated at the spring of the year of 270. During the autuma of the same year the Jazig-Sarmatians, the Vandals and, as we shall see later, the free Dacians invaded Pannonia. Though Aurelian’s victory — ener them was not yet decisive, however, being compelled by the hasty” attitude of the soldiers, he made peace. The ‘Vandals committed them- selves to give 2000 hostages 3, On this occasion, as Mécsy remarks *, the Emperor assumed the title of Sarmaticus Maximus, and we shall show that at the same time also the title of Dacicus Maximus was 2 sumed. “At the end of 270 the Jutungs and their allies invaded northern Itelf pressing forward towards Mediolanum. Aurelian advanced from uae 4 honia against them, but he was defeated near Placentia. ‘With his defeat the first year of his reign ended *. | From the torrent and the gravity of the events it seems to be -elian could not even think about the evacuation ‘of Dacia: tian’s rule the Empire was divi AURELIAN AND DACIA s i ee In the year 271 the Emperor continued th ‘inst th in Haly. On the Lith of January the sibyiin books were consulted, ond after an interval the length of which cannot be established the deci sive baitle was faught, and the Julungs were defeated at ‘Fanum For- tunae, near Ticinum. Adler this victory the Emperor assumed the title Shortly after, the uprising of the minters broke out to which — as Mattingly states ® — also other groups joined transforming it into a civil war. Zosimus mentions from this period an uprising in Dalmatia Jed by a certain Epitimius, and an other one led by Urbanus and Do- mitianus but its place is not given. As some coins issued by Domi- tianus had been found in the valley of Loire, it has been presumed that the stage of the second uprising was in Gallia‘. At the same time it was decided to surround the town with walls and the works were began in the course of the year. During the summer of 271 preparations were made for the war against Palmyra and an army under the leadership of Probus advanced towards Egypt, which then was taken out from Zenobia’s rule. We cannot state exactly when the Emperor left for the East, but we know that in april of the following year he was in Syria conquering the town of Antiochia, In his way to the East, that is at the beginning (february- march) of 272, in Moesia Inferior and Thrace he faught against the Goths who had invaded these provinces, and he pursued them across the Danube — probably into Muntenia, where defeated them in an em- ered battle and Killed with his own hands king Cannabaudes *. On this oocasion he assumed the title of Gothicus Maximus. Radu Vulpe thinks that he assumed now the title of Dacicus Maximus also, suppo- sing that the free Dacians joined the actions of the Goths ®. His view, however, is not proved by concrete facts, Similarly, we hawe no reason to presume that the Emperor could give the order for the evacuation of the province in such a critical moment. In the East the war against Zenobia was waged from may to july and ended with the victory of the Romans. Palmyra opened her gates, and queen Zenobia surrendered. During the summer of the same yearANDREI BODOR r b a * was between Carsium and Sucidava“; was bety 1 an other inscription 4 Tees allatis and dated from 272, calls Aurelian the restitutor so: tiae “, This inscription h i . ‘ a inscription has a great importance because it facilites letermination of the precise date of the war with te Carps, M, crea without any ground, puts the date of this war to the follows Year, i.e, in 273, on the final return of the Emperor from the East, ang maintains that Aurelian assumed the title of Dacicus Maximus on this occasion. Further more he thinks that the title is connected either with the same fights, or with some others faught in the evacuated Daciai This title, however, is not connected with this war, a fact proved by the inscription from Callatis which enumerates the following titles of the Emperor: Parthicus Maximus, Gutticus Maximus, Germanicus Ma. ximus and Carpicus Maximus but Dacicus Maximus is absent. After the victory over the Carps, in the autumn of the year 279, Aurelian returned to the East, supressed the uprising led by Apsaeus, then destroyed the town of Palmyra and returned the eastern territories to the Roman state‘. It seems that these events withheld him in the East till the beginning of the following year. Taking into account the events of 272 we may conclude that the evacuation of a Dacia could not be made in the interval of four wars, of which two were waged at the Lower Danube and two in Syria, | Hermann Vetters in a comparatively recent work about Dacia Ri- pensis #* expresses the opinion that Dacia was evacuated in 272 as a result of the convention concluded between Cannabaudes’Goths and Aurelian. He believes that the refreshing and the regeneration of Moesia was a necessity dictated by the real situation of the Empire. This pro- vince served as an important link between the East and the West, and this is the reason for which an alliance was concluded between the Goths and the Emperor, but the new order could not be dictated by the Emperor, because the liquidation of Dacia as a Roman province was @ condition forced by the Goths. This affirmation, however, remains without argumentation and is not supported by historical facts. Since we know, that — in contrary with the formers presumptions — the abandoned Dacia was not at on¢e 44, CIL, Ill, 12456 [I(ovi) O{ptimo) M(aximo) .... gratum referens quod i}mpleratat) Acre(lianus)'vieit [reginam Ze}nabiem invisolsque’tyrannos et. Campos tt Sucidfavam delevit} Duros{torum) Aureliantm). Ct Radu. Vaipe, op. “45. Cit, Il, 7505 {Im}p(eretor) Caesar 1. (Djomitius (Aulrelianus / jpius flix tus) [tibujticiae Potej(stails IM Co(njs(al) Plater) Platsiee) [Projconsul Po mJazinus Pavtlcus mazjimus Gutticus} 7 maximus Germanicus /, (maximus COD: cus / [maximus rlestitutori Patri(ae) ///////s (praleses provinciafe] / [dev(otus) nil malesisuae] ius Ck. Radu Vale, op ep aa 45, Mactea, Viaja in Dacia romend, p. oot. 47, Besaier, op. cll, p. 259-240; Mattingly, The Imperial Recovery, 0. 3013 48, Hermann Vettets) Dacia Ripensis in Schriften der Balkankommission, 19650 9. 45. l(t a ____AURELIAN AND DAcIA populated by the Goths, even the probability of such a theory should begiven up ®. “In the year of 273 the Em) West, where the Gaulish Em were reincorporated into the vement Aurelian entrusted the returnet to Rome ™, At the beginning of the following celebrated in a splendid triumph. Ther Parthians, the most powerful enemy think that the evacuation of Dacia frame of this general plan. After ne: Empire has been realized again, and the abandonment of a comparatively small territory was no more a grave political question which could have serious Tepercussions over the authority of the central poses Consequently, it was this year when the abandonment of some terri. tories came at issue, namely that of Dacia, and partly of Germania Su- perior, i.e. of the territories situated to the East of the mouth of Rhine #1, But the plan was realised only in the course of the following year, be- cause the Emperor was compelled to go again to the North-West and to Gaul. At Lugudunum a revolt of the minters broke out —— veiled manifestation of the separationist trends in the West. At the same time the Jutungs and the Alemanns invaded Rhaetia and Vindelicia. Having the internal and the external peace consolidated, Aurelian — probably at the beginning or in the spring of the year 275 — marched against the Parthians. On his way to the East, just as Caracalla with 62 years before, he stopped in Moesia, and on this occasion, after the necessary preparations were made Dacia was evacuated, and a new Province, Dacia Ripensis was organized. Indeed, this is the only one interval during his short reign, when the whole Empire enjoyed quietness and peace, and, therefore, the appro- priate moment when the evacuation could be done in accordance with the general policy of the Empire. Accepting this year as the date of the abandonment, some other pro- blems have to be elucidated. In the older historiography and frequently in the recent one too, the death of Aurelian is put to april of 275%, though already Léon Homo has proved that the Emperor died at the end of august or at the beginning of september in the year 275%. The Italian epigraphist G. Sotgiu has published in a study all in- scriptions referring to Aurelian’s reign 4, On the ground of a thorough 8D. Prolase, Problema continutait In Dacia In famine arheotoset st mumis- rately Bacureste 1805, pT tab ein “Transylvania 99d. Olfenia no. Gothic t= heal sical complee is own th now bette te your 30% 51: Hans-Georg Pligurm, Das rémische Kelserrelch, in Propylden Welt-Geschichte, 1V. val Ram: Die tache Welt Aurelie pe 5h Homo, op ep. 303" Sie and S720, 5. Giovanna Sotgia, Siudi? sulPeplgratia 4! Aureliano, Cagliari, 1961 petor passed from the East directly to the pire was liquidated and the western parts Feintegrated state. After this great achie- 'e War against the Alemanns to Probus and J Year, i.e. 274 the victory was n the plan of the war against the of the Empire, was elaborated. We may very well be fitted into the ‘arly two decades the unity of theANDREI BODOR —_3 ination of this epigraphic and partly of the numismatic mate, Livia Bivona tries to establish the chronology of Aurelian’s rejgndl and arrives to the conclusion that the Emperor died in august of ‘¢, . tember of 275 at Cenophrurium, between Perinthus and Byzantium, The suggestion, that Dacia was evacuated in the last year of Au, ‘an’s reign, seems to be supported by some inscriptions too. An jn, tion found at Salona by Bulié (nr, 6 at Sotgiu) in 1917, indicaieg Aurelian’s titles, among them that of Sarmaticus Maximus and Dacieys Maximus ®*, Thus, we have one more inscription, not used till the pre. sent by the historiography, with the title Dacicus Maximus. It dates from the third tribunicia potestas of the Emperer who is called p(atey) p(atriae) and pro(consul). An other inscription found at Callatis ® ang Gated with certainty from 2725° contains the same functions, but the Emperor has the title of Carpicus Maximus too. From the examination, of these inscriptions it comes to light that Aurelian had both titles, but he assumed first the title of Dacicus Maximus. Prof. Alfoldi denies the veracity of the expedition against the Sar. matians and considers it a mere invention of the author of Historia ‘Augusta ®, However, the above inscription — to which two more can be added ® — proves the reality of the campaign which, as we showed it above, took place in the first year of Aurelian’s reign, when Panno- nia was invaded by the Jazig-Sarmatians and their allies. After Trajan all emperors who assumed the title of Dacicus Maximus — as Antoninus Pius, Maximinus, Decius, Gallienus — had this title for the wars waged against the free Dacians. Thus e. g. Maximinus assumes the same titles (Sarmaticus Maximus and Dacicus Maximus) after the war with the Sarmatians and free Dacians. It follows from this that in 270 the | Sarmetians had as their allies the free Dacians and the title of Dacieus Maximus, known till now from a single inscription found in France et Orléans — cannot be brought in connection either with the wal” against the Carps, as Vulpe maintains, or with the campaign against the Goth as Jung thinks, or with a war faught somewhere in the aban doned Dacia as Macrea presumes. Consequently the logical conclusion cannot be but one: the abandonment of Dacia did not take place during the wars with the above mentioned tribes and was not the consequence of a convention between the belligerent parties. put (i ancient sources testify that not the precerious situation of Dacia, ic and mainly the military difficulties of the Empire ! exe 55. Livia Bivona, op. cit, p. 106—121. op eta OP: itn nt6, [Saxfmlaticfo maximo Daleico maxitmo, tib, potl Hh Fr ca, 1, 1248, 61. ILS, 581. fre te Ip. CLD. Aurefino PF, inv Avg, Pont, M. Tr. P. Wicos il Ce S ‘VitiCos II Ger. Pair M. Dale} M. Gar, Mom nM Goth. i OP. cit, p. 114116, AURELIAN AND DACIA to the evacuation of this province. That the evacuation was carried out at the end of Aurelian’s reign it seems to be proved by some inscrip- tion from the southern regions of the Danube, At least we consider them to refer to this event. We find on them the following titles of the Emperor: Reparator and Conservator, Most of the mentioned inscriptions are lacunary, but there is one by the help of which also the others can be dated, It was discovered at Serdica and dedicated to Aurelian ™, The Emperor has the following titles: Germanicus Maxi- mus, Britannicus Maximus, Sarmaticus Maximus, Reparator et Conser- vator Patriae, Proconsul ; the inscription ends with the formule perata re publica. Bivona points out that this inscription should be dated from 274, as terminus post quem on the ground of the titles Reparator and Con- servator assumed in this year by Aurelian“. For this date pleads the title of Britannicus Maximus the last of his honorifics. Not only the numismatic but also the literary sources attest the year of 275, though seemingly they don't give any precise clue as regards the time of abandonment. ‘Among these the most important are the relations of Eutropius, Jordanes and Vita Aureliani in Historia Augusta‘. They might re- present two different traditions, yet from chronological point of view the first two relate the events in the same way. After telling that Aure- Jian constructed a temple for the god of Sun (Sol), Eutropius says : Pro- vinciam Daciam quam Traianus ultra Danubiam fecerat, intermisit, vas- tato omni Illyrico et Moesia, desperans eam posse retineri; abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Dactae in media collocavit appelavitque eam Daciam, quae nunc duas Moesias dividit, et est in dextra Danubjo in mare fluenti, cum antea fuerit in laeva, then the description of Aure- lian’s death follows. ‘Jordanes tells the event in tha same way but he inserts his rela- tion between the characterisation and the death of the Emperor. Indeed recu- @2, CL, I, 12,450, 12, 517; 12,999; 19, 715. 3. CHL, 1, 12833. Da/lmp’eaes / {L Domltiano AurJeliano plo felic! imcompalrabili ac invilclo empler Augusto Pon{tlic: Maximo Germ Maximo Britten Mazino [Gothijeo Sermat Mafaimo Repa}ratort Conlservatori] Patriae procifurata ibelrata re publica ; ae FUE Te/publica. tines according to Hirschfela's deciphering, Profeelisibelrata bat eee Oc ines accor ce ines is nether procurata Iiberata republic, nor proie CorTert deciphering td be completed to proconsul and rata to recuperata 45 CIL, 1, 13,718 proves It oa Be a Pree ii, pi 6 «.deve donque essere datata al 274, come fermi reid TE ae eared onataets Geailseparctor 6) Carter eafO® Baftioe che Acres ane’ assume appunta in quest’ennoy. 65, Eutropius, 1% be 18. 68, Jordenes, ch. 64. ©>. SHA, Vila Aureilani, ch. 25, 29.ANDREI BODOR om these Sources no valid conclusion can be drawn referri ate of the evacuation ee The situation is different with Historia Augusta, It is Well-kn, s collection of emperors’ biographies is one of most dispot ‘al sources of the Roman Empire. We do not intend to dea) uted discussion about the data, the aim, the trends, the sources and (tt uthors of this collection, we just mention a single fact about which all researches seem to agree. It is presumed that the main sou Historia Augusta was a general history of the Roman emperors, o¢ similar to the work of Suetonius, but shorter, in a form similar to the epitomists'works. This basic material was then completed from othe sources or even with invented narrations, letters, decisions of the senate and so on, The confrontation of Herodian’s work with the respective biographies from Historia Augusta might be a very convincing example for the proof of of these assertions, Consequently the logical and natural thread of the events in Historia Augusta was very often interrupted by the insertion of some episodes, This seems to be the case with the passage referring to the abandon. ment of Dacia also. Having no inner connection with the former sen- tence, the narration begins with a temporal subordinate clause and with cum historicum which show that originally it had a direct con- nection with the former events. Like Eutropius and contrary to Jordanes Historia Augusta has a subjective note: Cum vastatum Illyricum ae Moesiam deperditam videret. At the presentation of the events we pointed out that in 274 Au: relian was compelled to go to the West to repel the attack of the German tribes in Vindelicea. Before departing a whole series of deeds were executed : the celebration of the triumph, the construction of the temple for the god of sun and many laws were brought. Taking into account these events we find it easy to follow the logical and original thread of the narration, and to recognize the inserted episodes. We notice that Aurelian from Vindelicia turned towards Ilyricum, where the necessary preparations for the expedition against the Parthians were being made. On this occasion seeing the general situation of Illy- ricum and Moesia he decided to evacuate Dacia. The quotation of tie text might be more convincing than any detailed argumentation. (Cap. 35, 4) “His gestis ad Gallias profectus Vindelicos obsidion® barbarica liberat, deinde ad Ilyricum redit paratoque magno potius quam ingenti exercitu Persis, (quos eo quoque tempore, quo Zeno biam superavit, gloriosisssime iam vicerat) bellum indicit. (Chap. 39, 9 Cum vastatum Ilyricum ac Moesiam deperditam videret, provincial! Transdanuvina(m) Daciam a Traiano constitutam sublato exercitu provincialibus reliquit”... ‘Thus the facts plead for the abandonment of Dacia not at the bedi” ning, but at the end of Aurelian's reign, this interval of time is in COM, cordance with the political event, with the literary, the epigraphic the numismatic sources.