By the end of the 1st c. A.D., Dacia had been an intermittent thorn in Rome's side for almost two centuries. The ambitions of Burebista and the actions of his various successors continued to threaten Roman hegemony along the lower Danube, culminating in the rise of the powerful kingdom of Decebalus and a substantial Roman defeat in Moesia. Domitian sent troops against the Dacians to restore the dignity of Rome (85-86 and 88-88/89), but with mixed success, finally having to settle for buying peace at a substantial price in order to free himself to deal with threats to security in both Germany and Pannonia. No doubt both the costs involved and the perceived lack of success further contributed to the hostility of Roman authors towards Domitian and left unfinished business on the Danube frontier. It is no great surprise, therefore, that Dacia was the first area to which Trajan — to whom the attitude of contemporary sources (e.g., Pliny's Panegyricus) could not have been in greater contrast — turned his attention within three years of his accession.

An ongoing programme of archaeological aerial reconnaissance in southwestern Transylvania, the first time such a programme has been conducted in Romania, revealed quite large numbers of negative cropmarks or parchmarks, particularly in the dry summer of 2000. These areas of restricted crop growth indicated the presence of buried stone-walled buildings, predominantly of Roman date, which were previously unknown. Important discoveries included much of the internal plan of the auxiliary fort at Cigmau; an extensive civil settlement to the east of that fort; buildings within the civil settlements outside the forts at Vetel (Micia) and Razboieni; buildings and property boundaries within the municipium at Apulum (Alba Iulia); and villas at Oarda and Vintu de Jos. By contrast, positive cropmarks, enhanced growth reflecting the existence of buried pits or enclosure ditches, were observed only rarely. Explanations for this phenomenon linked to a bias in the reconnaissance programme or to a general absence of enclosed sites within the archaeological record in the area are rejected. The preferred explanation relates to local soil conditions, whereby the widespread, deep alluvial soils reduce the contrast in moisture content between buried archaeological ditches or pits and the surrounding soil matrix so that positive cropmarks are rarely formed.

No abstract

The author describes a process of systematic integration of aerial and satellite imagery, which has provided a huge increase in the number of known burial mounds in the area where the Danube meets the Black Sea. Careful evaluation of newly acquired and archival imagery from satellites and lower level platforms shows where data is comparable and how visibility varies with imagery type. Excavations to date suggest the majority of the mounds are of Greco-Roman date and associated with the large towns and their road networks. Clusters of barrows exist, hinting at associated settlement aggregation, but a large proportion are single tumuli, raising interesting questions about their social role in this period. Above all, the large numbers revealed by the survey must invite new thoughts on whether, or in what way, the mounds reflect social ranking.

No abstract