BARBARZYNCY W OCZACH STAROZYTNYCH GREKOW I RZYMIAN BARBARIANS AS SEEN BY ANCIENT GREEKS AND ROMANS seria ,Speculum” tom 2 dois adam. gparszalelyRecenzenci dr hab. Tomasz Torbus, prof. UG dir Piotr Fudziiski Redaktorzy serii Inga Gluszek Jakub Mosiejczyk Redaktor prowadzacy Szymon Gumienik Redaktor techniczny Pawet Kucypera Korekta Marcin Rééariski, Autorzy Projekt okladki Marcin Nowak Tlustracja na okladce Detal z Mozaiki Gladiator6w z willi w Zalitan, Libia ~ przerys, grajfika komputerowa © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Adam Marszalek © Copyright by Kolo Naukowe Studentéw Archeologii Antycznej Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Mikolaja Kopernika w Toruniu ‘Woaysthie prawa zastercione. Ksigika, kira nabyles, jest dzielem twércy i wydawey. Zadna jj ezgsé nie mote bye reprodukowana jakimkolwiek sposobem - mechanicenie, elektronicznie, drogg fotokopii itp. - ber pisemnego ze ‘wolenia wydawey: Jeli cytujest fragmenty tej ksigiki, nie emieniaj ich tredei i koniecenie zaznacr,cayje to dzito, Torus 2017 ISBN 72? Redakcja serii ,Speculum” ‘Zaktad Archeologii Antyczne} Instytut Archeologii Wydziat Nauk Historyeznych UMK Szosa Bydgoska 44/48, 87-100 Torun, ‘Wydawnictwo prowadai sprzedaé wysylkowg tel /fax 56 648 50 70, e-mail: marketing@marszalek com pl ‘Wydawnictwo Adam Marszatek, ul. Lubicka 44, 87-100 Torus tel. 56 664 22 35, 56 660 81 60, e-mail: info@marszalek com pl, hitp://www.marszalek.com pl Drukarnia nr 2, ul, Warszavska 52, 87-148 Lysomice, lel. 56 678 34 78SPIS TRESCI Inga Gluszek, Jakub Mosiejezyk SLOWO WSTEPNE..... Tatiana Adamowska ARCHEOLOGICZNE SWIADECTWA WPLYWOW ASYRYJSKICH W KROLESTWIE URATRU.___ Hadrian Ludwik Kryskiewicz CLASH OF EMPIRES - ROME AND PARTHIA IN THE FIRST CENTURY BC . ‘Adam Janczewski NABATAEANS ~ NOMADS IN THE EASTERN DESERT OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE... Tomasz Jan ski SARACENS AT THE EASTERN BORDER OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, _61 Jakub Mosiejezyk ICONOGRAPHY OF THE MOSAIC OF GLADIATORS FROM ZLITAN (LIBYA) IN THE CONTEXT OF MUTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN ROMANS AND GARAMANTES... Katarzyna Rygala NIEPUBLIKOWANA MONETA APOLLONII ILIRYJSKIE} ZBIOROW MUZEUM OKREGOWEGO W TORUNIU... Rada Varga WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? OVERVIEW ON THE ATTESTATIONS OF THE LOCAL POULATION IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DACIA__4 SPIS TRESCI Maria Pronobis NASLADOWNICTWO DOBR LUKSUSOWYCH IMPORTOWANYCH Z TERENOW IMPERIUM ROMANUM NA ZIEMIACH POLSKICH - WYBRANE PRZYKEADY ___ Inga Gluszek, Jakub Mosiejezyk W BIBLIOTECE I W PODROZY. OBJAZDY NAUKOWE KOLA. NAUKOWEGO STUDENTOW ARCHEOLOGII ANTYCZNEJ UNIWERSYTETU MIKOLAJA KOPERNIKA W TORUNIU..Babes-Bolyi University, Cluj-Napoca ‘Centre for Roman Studies Rada Varga WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? OVERVIEW OF THE ATTESTATIONS OF THE LOCAL POPULATION IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DACIA! In 106, Trajan won the war against the Dacian king Decebalus and created the province of Dacia. 'The capital was moved 70 kilometres east and the old royal capital (Sarmizegetusa Regia), political and re- ligious centre of the former kingdom, was abandoned. The new capital was colonia deducta with a full name of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augu- sta Dacica Sarmizegetusa; the conservation of the Dacian element in the city’s name is still not fully explained, as its political and ideologi- cal message — of benevolence and integration — seems to come at odds with the rest of the Roman immediate post-war actions (Mitthof 2014). The Dacian gods were not included under any form in the pan- theon of the province, their sanctuaries were destroyed and the elite of the barbarian kingdom was completely annihilated. This is high- ly atypical for the Roman Empire’s politics of general integration; an analogy, much quoted by historical literature, is the situation of the Jews and of Jerusalem. Other similar cases - though each unique in itself — are the ones of Cartage, Corinth, Numantia and Palmyra (Flo- 1 ‘This work was supported by a grant of Ministry of Research and Innovation, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0255.WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 115 rea, Pupeza 2008). The reasons for Trajan’s drastic measures are most probably Decebalus’s betrayal (by starting war in 105 he violated peace treaty from 102) and human sacrifices the Dacians still practiced and which the Romans found repulsive. This last aspect has also been con- firmed archaeologically, thus proving to be more than a historiograph- ical topos (Sarbu 1993). Besides, the Dacian state seems to have been a theocratic one — for the institutionalisation of religion as a state su- pra-structure see Iordanes (Getica, 39) - and the military resistance was built on a powerful religious ideology. By destroying its religious centre, the Romans de-structured the Dacian state completely and with it any form of active rebellion. ‘The Dacian king certainly made a powerful impression not only on his own subjects, who seemed to have followed him blindly in a hope- less war, but on the Roman public as well. Cassius Dio (Historia Ro- mana, 68, 14, 3) tells that the king abandoned his royal residence and preferred death to captivity. The epitaph of Tiberius Claudius Maxi- mus (Speidel 1970), found at Philippi, reveals that this duplicarius of the ala II Pannoniorum was the one who witnessed Decebalus’s sui- cide and delivered his head to Trajan. The scene itself is represented on the epitaph, as well as on Trajan’s column. Apart from the literary, epigraphic and major art descriptions/depictions of the event, Dece- balus’s suicide was depicted even on La Graufesenque terra sigillata, thus perpetuating the “legend” of the Dacian war on a large scale and on various layers of society (Bruun 2003). In order to understand the particular situation registered in the Roman province after the conquest, we must look into the immediate post-war facts. By all indications, the Dacian aristocracy was military and or/sacerdotal (Florea 2006); its defeat in war and the exclusion of the Dacian religion from the Roman pantheon became the equiva- lent of elite annihilation. Along with king Decebalus’s suicide, which essentially underlined the total lack of compromise possibilities, the disappearance of the social upper layers must have come as a trauma and made the integration of the Dacians in the new social and polit-116 RADA VARGA ical structures of the Empire difficult and slow. The place and even existence of the Dacians in the newly formed province was hotly de- bated on ideological and political grounds and only the last decades brought a more scientifically detached oversight on the matter. The literary source on which many theories were built is Eutropius’s Bre- viarium, which states: Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris fuer- at exhausta (8, 6, 2). The 4" century historian says that all men were eradicated from Dacia as a result of the war waged against Decebalus. It is hardly plausible that this remark fully describes a real situation, but it had generated a somewhat fervent quest for the autochthonous inhabitants of the Roman province. Province Dacia’s strangest epi- graphic particularity is the quasi-absence of the Dacian names. From a total of about 3.500 attested names, no more than four can be con- sidered etymologically Dacian. The Dacian names from the province are extremely few and the most “notorious” of them certainly is Decebalus Luci (Piso, Rusu 1990, pp. 13-14). The discovery of the best known Dacian royal name on a golden leaflet dedicated to the Nymphs at a thermal spring ra- ised huge interest. We believe it is not completely wrong to say that the name was “fashionable” at a certain time. Even more so in Dacia, the name must have been seductive after the war became a mere me- mory, whether it was for Decebalus, slave of Lucius or for the son of a Romanised family. ‘The name Decebalus appears in this linguistic form at least five times in epigraphic documents coming from outsi- de of Dacia (OPEL II 94) and at least twice in slightly modified forms (Dana 2003, p. 175). The name is not always associated with auxiliae made up of Dacians outside the province. Without the literary infor- mation at our disposal, without the certainty that this was one of the royal names of pre-Roman Dacia, we might give it a Thracian origin, more so because certain attestations come from Moesia Inferior (BE 1965, 257, 8; CIL VIII 8562). Another possible Dacian name comes from a military diploma: Diurpa Dotu (...) £, wife of Dida Cuttius, from Cohors II Augusta Ne-WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 117 rviana milliaria Pacensis. Diurpa is not found with this spelling as a Dacian name, but in the Greek form of Diourpa, and neither is it fo- und as a female name (Dana 2003, p. 177). The Dacian root, however, seems quite obvious, especially since the particle dotu appears in more possible Dacian names. As for the name of the husband, Dida, it can be Dacian as well as Thracian: it is used by the Dacian soldiers from Egypt (Dana 2003, 176), thus it had some cultural connections to the Dacian world or at least with some circles, perhaps military, but it is frequently encountered south of the Danube as well. A name recently identified as Dacian is that of (...) Blasa, from Cagseiu (Samum), recon- structed by D. Dana and R. Zagreanu as Dablasa or Zuroblasa (Dana, Zagreanu 2013, p. 152). Associated with another Dacian name from the same epitaph — Aurelia Tsinta - the reconstruction seems very plausible. We find Dacian soldiers with Dacian names in troops from Egypt (Dana 2003), Britannia (RIB I 136) and other provinces of the Empi- re, but not in Dacia. In other European provinces (Noricum: Alféldy 1974, p. 86; Gallia Narbonensis: Chastagnol 1990, p. 61), most peregri- ne and middle class names have pre-Roman local roots, whereas such an issue cannot even be brought into discussion in case of Dacia. The hypothesis of Dacian onomastics disappearing in the province lacks plausibility. Even if one were to accept a wide-scale adoption of Latin onomastics during the second generation after the conquest, it would still not be a sufficient explanation for the almost complete absence of Dacian names. The hypothesis of an epigraphy in wood is very allu- ring, but even considering it deductively as a probability, proofs of its existence still elude us. Independent of the many multi-folded expla- nations, one can find a common ground for this phenomenon - it se- ems that the native population resisted acculturation to a certain de- gree; in absolute terms, one cannot completely deny even a hostility felt after the end of the wars which was probably more severe than ne- cessary (Oltean 2007, p. 223). An adequate parallel can be drawn between the situation of Da- cian names from Dacia - their extreme scarcity - and the onoma-18 RADA VARGA stical situation of Macedonia up until the 1990s (Hatzopoulos 2001, p. 102), where “native” names were impossible to identify. In time, non-Greek names from Macedonia have increased in number (tho ugh they still do not reach considerable figures) and are relative- ly easily identified as local. Therefore, lack of evidence does not al- ways mean that something is missing, and it must not be ruled out that the future might reveal more Dacian names, as archaeological researches bring forth more and more epigraphic monuments. But even so, the miss-integration of the local population in an impor- tant cultural aspect of the province speaks of a brutal war that left deep scars and of the integration difficulties that even the Roman system and society faced. As one can see, the epigraphical situation of the Dacians is rather ambiguous. In these circumstances, the archaeological data were re- garded as the only possibility for “finding” the Dacian inhabitants of the Roman province and those, unfortunately, were often interpreted to suit an ideological platform. Thus, older repertories (Mitrofan 1972) registered no less than 17 autochthonous settlements within the pro- vince, based on the presence of La Tene tradition pottery along with Roman pottery. The proportion of the so called Dacian pottery is of 5-8% (Mihailescu-Birliba 2009, p. 12) at each of these sites. At this point, the discussion regarding the legal status of the co- nquered population from Dacia is also relevant. ‘The first hypothesis, easy to imagine, is the one that states the conquered Dacians became dediticii, lacking any legal rights in the Roman state (the theory has been explicitly presented by Piso 1995, p. 70). Another historiographi- cal hypothesis worthy of consideration assumes, based on Roman legal procedures, that the viability of a deductio is doubtful for the Dacian kingdom (Cirjan 2006, p. 263). Once Decebalus was physically elimi- nated, it is questionable whether the Romans accepted some of the re- presentatives of Dacian nobility as bearers of the statehood; only in these circumstances could the deditio ceremony take place, involving the presence of two sovereign states, legally represented as such. TheWHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 119 sources are silent about these details and if deditio did not take place formally, then the conquered Dacians became peregrini nullius civita- tis, meaning some kind of incolae lacking rights (Cirjan 2006). Even though seductive and apparently well-reasoned, both theories are spe- culations as there are no written sources to strongly support them. Fi- nally, there is a very strong possibility that the Dacians simply gained the status associated with their settlements after the conquest, most of them becoming peregrines. ‘The existence of civitas-like settlements in Dacia has long been debated, The legal status of autonomous peregrine settlements is pre- sented by Plinius Maior (Naturalis Historia III 3-4) who, quite enli- ghteningly, assimilates the terminology to that used for eastern cities and says that in Baetica there were over one hundred twenty peregri- ne communities, three allied (foederatae) and three free, in Lusitanis a single allied (foederata) city and in Lusitania thirty-six communities, all paying tribute (stipendiariae). In terms of Roman law, allied cities seem to have benefited from Latin law and the free ones - colonies and municipalities (municipii) from ius Italicum (Chastagnol 1990, p. 51). Another historiographical theory, however, offers a different possibili- ty, namely the existence of a superior status for the allied cities, as a fo- edus was irrevocable, while the status of civitas sine foedere libera et imuna was based on a Roman decision (Abbott, Johnson 1968, p. 41). Sometimes, in Western Europe, civitatess peregrinae received ius Latii with the purpose of accelerating the integration process (Cirjan 2010, p. 122) However, we do not find these realities in Dacia and the desire to identify civitates similar to those from Western Europe is unfruit- ful - not because of the lack of sources, but probably because of the- ir nonexistence. Even so, Dacian toponyms are present on the map of the province: apart from the name of the capital, we encounter settle- ment names such as Potaissa, Arcobadara, Docidava, etc., which de- finitely have non-Latin etymology (Deac 2013). ‘The necropolises might be better and more accurate indicators for the presence of the local population. Thus, a number of sites all over Da-120 RADA VARGA cia register bi-ritualism, as well as mixed pottery: Locusteni (Popilian 1980), Ighiu (Protase 1971a, p. 92), Obreja (Protase 1971b), Cincit (Flo- ca, Valea 1965), lacobeni (Protase, Milea 1969), Soporul de Campie (Pro tase, Tigdra 1959), Casolt (Macrea 1959), Ocna Sibiului (Protase 1968), Lechinta de Mures (Protase, Vlassa 1959), Sighisoara (Protase, Vlassa 1959), Moresti (Protase, Vlassa 1959), Calbor (Macrea et alii 1959). The archaeologists that first excavated and published these sites considered them, without exception, Dacian burial sites. Meanwhile, the invento- ry of graves has been reconsidered and so has been the chronology of the necropolises. Therefore, at least some of the necropolises (Locusteni, Soporul de Campie, Obreja) seem to belong to certain Barbarian groups colonised or migrated inside the province during the late 2nd and early 3rd century A.D. (Opreanu 1997). Of course without any anthropologi- cal studies and based only on artefact analyses, it is very hard to do a re- levant ethnic circumscribing for certain groups or individuals. But even so, the migration theory must not be ignored and one must regard the Dacian realities of the province with awareness and a clear mind. A case worth mentioning is the one of the settlements from the Medias area (the point Gura Campului, in between Medias and Tar- nava), where the authors of an archaeological report at the beginning of the 90s (Winkler, Blajan 1993, p. 467) noticed the material charac- teristic of the “native Dacians”, but also the orderly structure of the settlement following the model of a Roman vicus. These two pieces of information and their juxtaposing prove once again the polyva- lence of living conditions in the provincial environment of the Ro- man Empire and the frailness of deductive interpretations that are meant to have absolute value. Another example of this type is that of the Norico-Panonians from Cagolt and Calbor, buried in tumuli that have characteristic busta, with typical tripods of the Dreifussschale type (Husar 2003, p. 354). Interestingly, in each of the tombs there was acoin, Roman of course, a proof of the Romanisation process, at least in its initial phases. Burial rituals are among the most persistent spir- itual and cultural manifestations that exist in any given historical ageWHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 12] and their perpetuation, regardless of the environment of an individu- al (even more so when they live inside a group with similar traits) does not prove anything about legal status. Without denying the possibility of associating certain types of artefacts with the building of a distinct identity, we must underline the fact that this alterity did not play the most important part in the life of that individual (Swift 2010, p. 268). Concluding, the presence of the Dacians is incontestable, but at- tributing entire settlements or even burial sites to them is an overes- timation. Moreover, one must not ignore the migration/colonisation factor and keep in mind that many of the archaeologically attested Da- cians are not descendants of the pre-Roman inhabitants of the province. ‘The question of the Dacian presence, status and role in the socio-eco- nomical and political structures of the province cannot yet receive a deci- sive and unambiguous answer. We do not doubt that the pre-Roman inhab- itants and their descendants were part of the provincial life, but we do doubt their capacity to integrate themselves in the new state structures. GDZIE SIE PODZIALI DAKOWIE? SWIADECTWA POPULACJI LOKALNEJ W RZYMSKIEJ PROWINCJI DACIA Artykut porusza problem obecnosci Dakéw w rzymskiej prowincji Dacia. Zagadnienie to stanowito ,wradliwa kwestig” w rumunskiej historiografii, przez co bylo czesto upolityczniane i zideologizowa- ne. Sytuacja regionu na tle Imperium Romanum jest wyjatkowa pod wzgledem braku $wiadectw przetrwania populacji przedrzymskiej pod nowa administracja. W swietle Zrédel archeologicznych materia- ly pewnie okreslane jako dackie nalezq do rzadkosci, natomiast epi- grafika jest niemal nieobecna. Hipoteza fizycznego zaniku ludnosci autochtonicznej na skutek podboju cesarza Trajana (101-106) wydaje sig jednak nieprawdopodobna. Posréd przyjetego instrumentarium majacego na celu identyfikacjg relikt6w dackiej tozsamosci w spoleczeristwie prowincjonalnorzymskim,122 RADA VARGA sq #r6dla epigraficzne i toponomastyka. Nazewnictwo miejsc i imiona os6b wystepujace w dokumentach prywatnych i paristwowych, posréd ktérych wskazano epitafia i dyplomy wojskowe, wskazujg na sporadyczne stoso wanie obcego nazewnictwa. Istotnym elementem sa Zrédta archeologicz- ne, szczegélnie w postaci naczyn wytwarzanych w dackiej technologii. Dane te stanowig istotny argument za przetrwaniem tradycji barbarzyni- skiej, w odniesieniu do struktury birytualnych cmentarzysk, na ktérych pozyskano nawigzujacy do przedrzymskich tradycji material ceramiczny. Niedostateczny stan badan archeologicznych w znacznym stopniu ogranicza formutowanie wnioskéw na temat procesu integracji spo- lecanosci dackich w érodowisku rzymskim. Jednak w éwietle przeana- lizowanych materialéw zauwazalne jest odrzucenie autochtonicznych struktur spotecznych. Norma epigraficzna Swiadczy o brutalnej woj- nie, ktéra skutecznie wyeliminowala lokalne elity z zycia polityczny- ego prowincji, zostawiajgc gleboki Slad w kulturze materialnej i spo- tecznosciach lokalnych. List of abbreviations BE ~ Bulletin Epigraphique CIL ~ Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, OPEL - Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum RIB ~ The Roman Inscriptions of Britain Ancient sources Jordanes ‘The Gothic History of Jordanes [Getica. De origine actibusque Ge- tarum]. In English Version with an Introduction and a Commenta- ry, transl. Ch.Ch. Mierow, Princeton 1915. Cassius Dio Roman History [Historia Romana], vol. Il, V-V1, ed. E. Cary, Cam- bridge-London-New York 1914-1955,WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 123 Eutropius Breviarium, transl. Harold W. Bird, Liverpool 1993. Plinius Maior Naturalis historia, ed. C. Mayhoff, Leipzig 1897. Bibliography Abbott EF, Johnson A.C. 1968 Municipal administration in the Roman Empire, New York. Bruun, C. 2003 The legend of Decebalus, {in:] Roman rule and civic life: local and re- gional perspectives. Proceedings of the fourth workshop of the interna- tional network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), eds. L. De Ligt, E.A. Hemelrijk, H.W. Singor, Leiden, pp. 153-175. Chastagnol A. 1990 Lonomastique de type pérégrine dans les cites de la Gaule Narbon- naise, Mélanges de Ecole Francaise de Rome. Antiquité, 102/2, pp. 51-71. Cirjan R. 2006 —Statutul populafiei indigene dupa constituirea provinciei Dacia, fin:] Dacia Augusti provincia. Crearea provinciei, eds. E.S. Teo- dor, O. Tentea, Bucuresti, pp. 261-270. Cirjan R. 2010 Droit romain et droit latin dans les cités danubiennes de l'Empi- re Romanin (ler ~ Iler siécles), [in:] Antiquitas Istro-Pontica, eds. MN. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Baltac, V. Rusu-Bolindet, V. Bottez, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 121-130. Collingwood R.G., Wright RP. 1965 The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, vol. , Inscriptions on Stone, Oxford. Dana D. 2003 Les Daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de I'Egypte: Morphol- ogie des noms daces, Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 143, pp. 166-186. Dana, D., Zagreanu, R. 2013 Les indigénes en Dacie romaine ou la fin annoncée dune exception: relecture de I’ épitaphe CIL III 7635, Dacia, NS 57, pp. 145-159.124 RADA VARGA Deac D.A. 2013 ‘The toponymy of Dacia Porolissensis. Recent research and new ap- proaches, Ephemeris Napocensis 23, pp. 261-270 Floca O., Valea M. 1965 Villa rustica si necropola daco-romané de la Cincis, Acta Musei Na- pocensis 2, pp. 163-193. Florea G. 2006 The public image of the Dacian aristocracy, Studia UBB. Historia 51/1, pp. 1-11 Florea G., Pupeza P. 2008 Les dieux tués. La destruction du chef-liew du royaume dace, (in:] Die rémischen Province. Begriff und Griindung, ed. 1. Piso, Cluj-Na poca, pp. 281-295. Hatzopoulos M. 2001 "histoire par les noms” in Macedonia, [in:] Greek personal names. ‘Their Value as evidence, eds, S. Hornblower, E. Matthews, Oxford, pp. 99-118. Husar A. 2003 Norico-pannonii, in M. Barbulescu (ed.), Funeraria Dacoromana, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 350-394. Lérinez B. 1999-2002 OPEL, vol. II-IV, Wien. Lérincz B., Reda F. 1994 OPEL, vol. I, Budapest. Macrea M. 1959 Santierul arheologic de la Casol{-Boita, Materiale si Cercetari Arhe- ologice 6, pp. 407-419. Macrea M. et al. 1959 Santierul arheologic de la Casolf-Calbor, Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice 5, pp. 403-410. Mihiilescu-Birliba L 2009 Les autochtones en Dacie romaine, Revista de Istorie Social 10- ~12, pp. 11-16. Mitthof F. 2014 Sarmizegetusa? Zu den Varianten eines dakischen Toponyms in den lateinischen und griechischen Quellen, [ix] Trajan und seine Stad- te, eds. I, Piso, R. Varga, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 233-244.WHERE ARE THE DACIANS? 125 Mitrofan I. 1972 Asezari ale populafiei autohtone in Dacia Superioard, Acta Musei Napocensis 9, pp. 141-162 Opreanu C.H. 1997 Piese metalice de factura barbara in cimitirele din Dacia romana, Ephemeris Napocensis 7, pp. 117-127. Piso, I. 1995 Le territoire de la colonia Sarmizegetusa, Ephemeris Napocensis 5, pp. 63-82 Piso I, Rusu A. 1990 Nymphaeum-ul de la Germisara, Revista Monumentelor Istorice 59/1, pp. 9-17. Popilian G. 1980 Necropola daco-romané de la Locusteni, Craiova Protase D. 1968 Oasezare dacica din epoca romand de la Ocna Sibiului, Apulum 7/1, pp. 229-239. 1971a —_Ritualurile funerare la daci si daco-romani, Bucuresti. 1971b —_Asezarea $i cimitirul daco-roman de la Obreja (Transilvania), Acta Musei Napocensis 8, pp. 131-147. Protase D., Milea Z. 1969 Uncimitir de incineratie din epoca romana de la lacobeni (Transil- vania), Acta Musei Napocensis 6, pp. 525-530. ProtaseD. Tigira I. 1959 Saipaiturile de la Soporul de Campie, Materiale si Cercetiri Arheo- logice 5, pp. 425-434. Protse, D. Vlassa N. 1959 Sapdturile de la Lechinfa de Mures si Cipdu, Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice 6, pp. 445-448. Robert J., Robert L. 1965 BE, Revue des Etudes Grecques 78/369-370, pp. 70-204. Sarbu V. 1993 Credinte si practici funerare, religioase si magice in lumea geto-da- cilor, Galati. Speidel M. 1970 The Captor of Decebalus a New Inscription from Philippi, The Jour- nal of Roman Studies 60, pp. 142-153.126 RADA VARGA Wilmanns G. 1960 IL, [in:] Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, vol. VII, ed. Th. Mom- msen, Berlin, Winkler I. Bijan M. 1993 Asezdrile rurale romane de la Medias (jud. Sibiu), Acta Musei Na- pocensis 26-30, pp. 459-476.