Coriolan Horatiu Oprean* The Garrison of the Roman Fort at Porolissum (Dacia). The Analysis of the Tile-Stamps

Transcription

1 Open Archaeology 2018; 4: Original Study Coriolan Horatiu Oprean* The Garrison of the Roman Fort at Porolissum (Dacia). The Analysis of the Tile-Stamps Received November 17, 2017; accepted March 29, 2018 Abstract: The author is dealing with the tile-stamps found in the Roman auxiliary fort at Porolissum attempting to establish which of the many units recorded on tile-stamps stayed in garrison at Porolissum. The author of the present article is arguing his own hypothesis on the subject, based on his own excavations at Porolissum and on all the data gathered from the scientific literature. He finally proposes two tables and a graph that correlate all the information on the troops known from the tile-stamps and stone inscriptions, establishing which of them were in garrison at Porolissum and which were only temporarily attached for building activity. At the same time he sets in chronological order the tile-stamps, demonstrating that the three units which built the headquarters building and the gates of the fort (coh III, L VII GF, L III G) were brought to the Porolissum area late in Hadrian s reign, to build in stone the fort and other military facilities in the limes area of Porolissum. The permanent garrison of the fort was composed during the 2nd century AD of two infantry auxiliary units, cohors I Brittonum and cohors V Lingonum, while a third one, numerus Palmyrenorum was probably lodged in a smaller fort situated 500 m away, on the Citera Hill. In the third century, cohors V Lingonum was still there, cohors I Brittonum also for Caracalla s time (even not recorded by any later inscription, but, at the same time, not attested in another fort), while the smaller Citera Hill fort was out of use and the numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium was moved inside the big fort from Pomet Hill. The author is concluding that the garrison of the military site Porolissum was not changed during the Roman rule in Dacia, all the other tile-stamps found belonging to units brought mainly during the 2nd century to built the military facilities of this strengthened sector of the frontier. Keywords: tile-stamps, inscriptions, forts, auxiliary units, legions 1 Introduction Porolissum is a Roman military key-point on North-Western frontier of the province of Dacia established in AD 106, immediately after the Roman conquest (Opreanu & Lăzărescu, 2016) (Fig. 1). It controlled the main passage through the Meseș Mountains, from the barbarian inhabited Western plain to the Roman-controlled Transylvanian plateau. The site is composed of two forts, a big one on the Pomet Hill and a smaller one on the neighbouring Citera Hill, lodging several auxiliary units. The civilian settlement developed into a municipium in Septimius Severus time. Many other turf-walls, stone walls, mile-castles and watch-towers were positioned in the area, making up a complicate military network. The site was abandoned in AD 271 when the emperor Aurelianus officially withdrew the Roman army and imperial administration from Dacia. Even though the first excavations in the fort started at the beginning of the 20th century (Gudea, 1989), many unsolved problems await to be elucidated. One of these is finding out which military units were permanently quartered in the fort. Article note: This article is a part of Topical Issue on the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire, edited by Mateusz Żmudziński *Corresponding author: Coriolan Horatiu Oprean, Romanian Academy-Institute of Archaeology and History of Art Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania, choprean@yahoo.com Open Access Coriolan Horatiu Oprean, published by De Gruyter. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons

2 366 C.H. Oprean Figure 1. Map of Roman Dacia with the location of Porolissum (after Opreanu, Lăzărescu 2016). 2 Methodological Principles The garrisons of the Roman auxiliary forts from Roman Dacia have frequently been identified using the tilestamps of different auxiliary units. As recent research (Kurzmann, 2006) pointed out, the finding of a tilestamp inside a fort is not enough to conclude that the unit mentioned in the stamp was garrisoned in that fort. In many cases this identification was correct, mainly when it was confirmed by building, honorary, votive, or funerary inscriptions dedicated by the same unit, or by individuals with military ranks in the unit. The situation seems to be more complicated when dealing with several units that left tile-stamps in the same fort. The first obstacle is the absence of the real archaeological context for most of the finds, by which I mean a context that can be inserted into a chronological scheme. Many tile-stamps kept in the Romanian museums collections lack any detailed contextual information, except the place-name of the find location. Others, most of them collected in the excavations in the forts between , include an indication of the trench, the approximate location of the find within the unit and an approximate depth taken from the topsoil with a tape measure (which is not the real depth). There are cases when only identified buildings and constructions are mentioned (such as gates, or headquarters buildings). It is obviously that a tilestamp is in the first instance an archaeological artifact, being normally recovered from an archaeological excavation, but because it includes an abbreviated written text it is also an object of study for epigraphers. Unfortunately, neither archaeologists nor epigraphers have seriously recorded and studied this type of artifact, both category of scholars ignoring the importance of the precise context of discovery. The operation of selecting only the tile-stamps of the units in garrison must be made by comparison with the honorary inscriptions or other types of stone inscriptions.

3 The Garrison of Porolissum Analyzing of the Tile-Stamps and Discussion Having all these in mind we will try in the next pages to examine the knowledge on the tile-stamps found in the Roman fort at Porolissum and finally to see how useful they are in establishing which of the mentioned military units were in garrison at Porolissum. In 1978 E. Tóth, publishing the old excavation at Porolissum of A. Radnóti, concluded that the troops permanently garrisoned in the fort at Porolissum-Pomet were cohors I Brittonum and cohors V Lingonum, while numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium was located in the smaller fort on the Citera Hill (Tóth, 1978, p. 12). Dealing with the same problem, N. Gudea s conclusion is unclear, as he considers that the units mentioned in the tile-stamps were all, at that moment, part of the garrison at Porolissum, which he estimated at about 4000/5000 soldiers lodged in the forts on the Pomet and Citera Hills (Gudea, 1989, p. 178), even both together have a much smaller area than a legionary fortress. Anyway, he also talks about cohors I Brittonum and cohors V Lingonum which worked together to build the fort in Caracalla s time (Gudea, 1989, p. 177). Finally, I. Piso, reading a votive inscription (ILD 683=AE 2001, p.1707) found in the temple of Iupiter Dolichenus in the civilian settlement at Porolissum, dating to the reign of Gordian III (AD ) and which mentions the cohors III Campestris, became convinced that this unit was moved into the garrison of Porolissum during the 3rd century, replacing cohors I Brittonum (Piso, ; Piso, 2005). As his epigraphic evidence was weak, no honorary, official inscription of this unit being found in the area, he looked for support examining the tile-stamps of the military units from Porolissum. His recently published attempts comprise two Appendices of a future work Inscriptiones Daciae romanae (?), gathering the tile-stamps from the Museum of Zalău (Piso & Deac, 2016) and of the Museum from Cluj-Napoca (Piso & Marcu, 2016). It is hard to understand why the authors did not understand the usefulness for their research of the spatial and statistical analysis, as they totally avoided these methods (as, for example, Dolata et al., 2010). Piso is once again repeating his old groundless supposition: in Septimius Severus time or in AD 213, under Caracalla, cohors III Campestris replaced at Porolissum cohors I Brittonum (Piso & Marcu, 2016, p. 100). His argument is confused and he is obviously wrong when he explains that cohors I Brittonum worked au début de la province [at the beginnings of the province] when seuls les édifices les plus importants du camp de Pomet ont été couverts de tuiles, notamment les principia, le prétoire et les bains. C était l oeuvre de la cohors I Brittonum milliaria, tandis que les barraques restèrent couvertes de bardeaux. Ce n est qu après l arrivée de la cohors III Campestris que les barraques ont été elles aussi couvertes des tuilles [only the most important buildings of the fort from Pomet were roofed with tiles, first of all the headquarters building, the house of the commander and the baths. This was the work of cohors I Brittonum milliaria, while the soldiers barracks remained roofed with shingle] (Piso & Deac, 2016, p. 95). This conclusion is totally devoid of any documentary support. Even if it is true that cohors I Brittonum garrisoned the fort at the beginning of the province, not a single tile-stamp of cohors I Brittonum was found in the principia (see Piso s both catalogues), praetorium, or bath. Secondly, no barrack was excavated at Porolissum, as the buildings revealed by Gudea s trenches cannot be surely identified as barracks (Opreanu & Lăzărescu, 2016, Fig. 33). The only excavated barrack is situated inside the customs building, which was built in Hadrian s time, and it is a wooden barrack roofed with tiles (Gudea, 1996, pp , , graphic reconstruction by the architect Sanda Salontai), unknown to I. Piso. Piso s obsession for units working or sending tiles for roofing barracks at Porolissum can be seen again in his discussion of the tile-stamps of cohors I Hispanorum at Porolissum; even though most of them were found in the Roman municipium, he again concludes...aient servi...à couvrir les baraques sous le règne de Caracalla (!?) [they served...to roof the barracks under the reign of Caracalla] (Piso & Deac, 2016, p. 206). Older scholarship (Gudea, 1989) mentions that 107 items of stamps with COH III were discovered in the principia, quite contrarily to Piso s supposition. Concerning the identity of the cohors III I have already discussed the subject (Opreanu, 2013; Opreanu, 2015a). In this context I would only like to point out that, if the unit had no ethnic name and its tile-stamps are associated with the tile-stamps of the legio VII Gemina Felix and legio III Gallica, then it seems very likely to be the third cohort of one of the two legions. Even I. Piso believed this in the past (Piso, 2000, p. 208, fn. 36). Filling out the text of an intact stamp with additional words not abbreviated in the original text is an unjustifiable procedure. This is the case of the intact tile-stamps, CHIII (Fig. 2/1), where there is no epigraphic reason to add CAMPESTRIS, as Piso has

4 368 C.H. Oprean done. I suggest that the easiest, unprejudiced, reading of this undamaged stamp is c(o)h(ortis) III. The first sure observation is that the ethnic name of the unit never existed in these tile-stamps. Why the ethnic name is missing is another discussion and needs an explanation. But technically, nothing allows us to add any ethnic name, or other determinative. Moreover, CAMPESTRIS is attested on tile-stamps from Viminacium and Drobeta on the Danube in the form COH III CAMP (Fig. 2/2), a type which was not found at Porolissum. It is absurd to believe that at Porolissum the name CAMPESTRIS was deliberately omitted (even Piso offers no explanation), as the significance of stamping tiles was just knowing who produced them and how many pieces have been produced. The military diploma from Drobeta (RMD 123=AE 1987, p. 843) dated in AD 179 (Doudin-Payre, 1986) records cohors III Campestris in the army of Upper Dacia (Piso & Benea, 1984; Piso & Benea, 1984a). There is no direct proof that the unit was transferred to Dacia Porolissensis before AD 213, as Piso suggests. The inscription mentioning a tribunus of the unit at Napoca has no precise chronology (Petolescu, 2001, p. 94) and the inscription from the temple of Iupiter Dolichenus from Porolissum is from Gordianus III s time (Piso, , p. 187, fig. 2b). Figure 2. 1: Tile-stamp from Porolissum (after Tóth, 1978); 2: Tile-stamp of coh III Campestris from Viminacium (after Gudea, 2001). [IMP CAES M AVRELIO ANTONINO PIO FELICI AVG] [PARTHICO MAX PONT]IF MAX B[RIT MAX TRIB POT]ES[TATIS XVI] [IMP II COS III] PROCO[S FELICISSIMO F]ORTISSI[M]OQ[VE] PRINC INDVL[GENTIIS EIVS AVCTA L]IBERALITAT[I]BVS[QVE] DITATA [COH I BRITTON (milliaria) EQ ANTO]NINIANA C R[ P F] Figure 3. Fragmentary inscription for Caracalla from the headquarters building at Porolissum. Text reconstructed by A. Diaconescu (after Diaconescu, 2004). But the main evidence which stands out against Piso s view is C. Daicoviciu s find of an inscription mentioning COH I BRITTONUM ANT[ONI]NIA[NA] in his 1939 excavation in the fort at Porolissum (RE XXII (1953), s. v. Porolissum, 267), ignored, or unknown to Piso. Unfortunately, no detailed description of this inscription was offered by C. Daicoviciu and today it is lost, but the text of the inscription shows that the unit was still in the fort at Porolissum in Caracalla s time. This renders plausible the reconstruction of the text made by A. Diaconescu to another inscription found in the yard of the headquarters building at Porolissum. It is a fragmentary plaque from a quadriga monument for Caracalla (Fig. 3). A. Diaconescu demonstrated that the unit with the epithet Antoniniana mentioned in the inscription was cohors I Brittonum milliaria equitata Antoniniana civium Romanorum pia fidelis (Diaconescu, 2004, pp ). For the same

5 The Garrison of Porolissum 369 inscription M. Macrea (Macrea, 1957) theoretically preferred the coh V Lingonum and the same for N. Gudea (Gudea, 1989, pp. 761, nr. 8), while I. Piso reconstructed the text with coh III Campestris without having any new reason (Piso, 2005). As cohors I Brittonum was in Porolissum during Caracalla s time, it is not possible to accept the presence of cohors III Campestris, most of all because this unit is not recorded in any official inscription. The votive inscription mentioning coh III Campestris from the temple of Iupiter Dolichenus is from Gordian III time (Piso, , p. 187, Fig. 2b). Moreover, the absence in the inscription from the quadriga base mentioned above of the title Germanicus Maximus (Opreanu, 2015, p. 18) shows the monument was erected before 8 October 213 (Macrea, 1957, p. 224), that means sometime after the killing of Geta, but when nobody in the province was able to anticipate Caracalla s Oriental expedition (Opreanu, 2016, pp ). So, in AD 212-early AD 2013 was no reason to expect changes of troops at Porolissum. Cohors I Brittonum remained in garrison under Caracalla, Piso s idea of its changing with coh III Campestris on the eve of the Oriental expedition being ill-founded. In conclusion, it is very probable that the unit that was in garrison at Porolissum from the early 2nd century till at least at the beginning of the 3rd century AD was cohors I Brittonum. Its presence at Porolissum after Caracalla is not directly mentioned by other inscriptions, but there is no reason to doubt it remained at Porolissum probably till the end of the province, as it was not recorded in another fort in the 3rd century. The second unit represented at Porolissum by honorary inscriptions is cohors V Lingonum. Its presence is certain for all the 3rd century (Tóth, 1978, pp , nr ). In return it is not attested in the 2nd century at Porolissum but is recorded in the military diplomas of the 2nd century (AE 1954, 149=RMD 64=IDR I Dipl D XVIII from 164 AD, for example). The only moment when coh I Brittonum and coh V Lingonum were surely together at Porolissum is the period of Caracalla. The third unit named Antoniniana in a votive inscription is Numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium (Tóth, 1978, p. 38, nr. 48), which was still in Porolissum under Decius (Gudea, 1989, p. 765, nr. 20). Its presence in the 2nd century could be accepted, as the smaller fort from neighbour Citera Hill was dated till to the Marcomannic wars and its size is reminiscent of a numerus castellum. Following the information provided by the honorary inscriptions, it seems very probable that the same units recorded in the 3rd century were in garrison also in the 2nd century. Tile-stamps Stone inscriptions Chronology 2nd c. 3rd c. C III cohors III Principia Gates Principia Gates Other Principia Gates Other construction C III L VII GF legio VII Gemina Felix C III honorary L VII GF L III legio III Gallica G L VII GF L III G C I BR cohors I Brittonum L III G C I BR C V L cohors V Lingonum C I BR rd c. 2nd c. -? NP NP numerus Palmyrenorum C V L rd c. - -? C V L NP rd c. - 2nd c C III L VII GF L III G C I BR C V L NP principia gates Figure 4. Topographical and chronological correspondence between tile-stamps and honorary and building inscription of the military units recorded in the fort at Porolissum.

6 370 C.H. Oprean I correlated in two tables and a graph (Fig. 4) all the information concerning the troops from Porolissum, correlating the honorary inscriptions with the tile-stamps and their known place of discovery (after Tóth, 1978 and Gudea, 1989). A first conclusion is that two units worked intensively in the building of the gates: coh III and coh V Lingonum. The second is very well attested at Porolissum in the 3rd century, so we have to connect its building activity at the gates with the second stone phase recorded by the inscriptions from before 8 October 213. But, because coh III surely worked at the principia and possibly also at the gates from the first stone phase in the time of Hadrian and/or Antoninus and the number of tile-stamps of the two units is almost the same, it is not impossible that we have here the proof that coh V Lingonum worked at the gates from the first stone phase. The same chronology seems to have the tile-stamps of the two units found in the small milecastle, the so called customs building (Gudea, 1996). A second conclusion is that the same coh III worked at the principia together with leg VII GF and leg III G. No auxiliary unit (i.e. the three units garrisoned at Porolissum presented in the previous pages) intensively worked at the headquarters building. Because coh III built the gates in the 2nd century and principia was built at the same time, the activity at Porolissum of the two legionary detachments must be placed in the same first half of the second century (Opreanu, 2015a). Yes, Piso is right when he writes that the principia was roofed au début de la province [at the beginning of the province], but this conclusion is proved by the numerous tile-stamps of coh III, L VII GF and L III G discovered in the principia. While it is obvious that the three units worked at Porolissum during the first half of the 2nd century it is also certain that they were brought to Dacia Porolissensis for building in stone the main buildings of the fort and other military installations in the frontier area of Porolissum (Opreanu, 2015a, p. 307), as they provided the most important quantity of tile-stamps. The same legionary detachments from legio VII Gemina were sent by Hadrian to Britannia to work on the building of Hadrian s Wall (ILS 2726), as B. Dobson thinks (Dobson, 1978, no. 117); the chronology of the expeditio Britannica mentioned in the career of T. Pontius Sabinus was recently reopened and the conclusion was that the most likely period was during Hadrian s visit to Britain in AD 122 (Breeze et al., 2012). 4 Conclusion We may summarise our conclusions to the presence of military units as follows: 1. Garrison of the fort in the second century coh I Brittonum and probably coh V Lingonum (possible working at the gates and mentioned in the military diplomas of Dacia Porolissensis, but not recorded in any other fort, but Porolissum); numerus Palmyrenorum (maybe in the Citera fort?). 2. Garrison of fort in the third century coh I Brittonum (inscription in the headquarters building) and coh V Lingonum (inscription in the headquarters building), numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium sagittariorum c. R. (inscription in the headquarters building and bone lath and bone arrows heads specific to Oriental troops recovered in the excavations in several buildings of the fort, many dated in the 3rd century, can be linked with this unit) (Vass, 2014, pl. III). 3. The three units coh III, Leg VII GF and Leg III G were only temporary detached at Porolissum for military works in the first half of the 2nd century. There are no honorary, or building inscriptions erected by them in the fort, so it appears that none stayed in garrison. Their tile-stamps are not found anywhere else in the province. Our conclusions are based on corroborating information from all the epigraphic and archaeological information available. Unfortunately, the authors of recent published catalogues of tile-stamps did their best to support their earlier established conclusions, just enumerating the tile-stamps from Porolissum, instead of following the methodical steps: analyzing the catalogue and extracting from it the inference and finally checking the validity using other categories of data. That is why their comments on the units recorded at Porolissum are chronologically erroneous.

7 The Garrison of Porolissum 371 Abbreviations AE Année Épigraphique, Paris IDR Inscripțiile Daciei Romane I (1980) III/6 (1999). București: Editura Academiei Române ILD C.C. Petolescu, Inscriptiones latinae Daciae (2005). București: Editura Academiei Române ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones latinae selectae, Berlin JahrRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, Mainz JAHA Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology-Institute of Archaeology and History of Art Cluj-Napocaonline publication RE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart und Waldsee: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag RMD Margaret M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas. London: Institute of Archaeology References Breeze, D.J., Dobson, B., & Maxfield, V. (2012). Maenius Agrippa, a chronological conundrum. Acta Classica, 55, Diaconescu, A. (2004). Statuaria majoră în Dacia romană (Unpublished doctoral Dissertation). Babeș-Bolyai University. Cluj-Napoca. Dobson, B. (1978). Die Primipilares. Entwicklung und Bedeutung, Laufbahnen und Persönlichkeiten eines römischen Offiziersranges. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag. Dolata, J., Mucha, H.J., & Bartel, H.G. (2010). Mapping find spots of Roman military brick stamp in Mogontiacum (Mainz) and archaeometrical analysis. In A. Fink, B. Lausen, W. Seidel, A. Ultsch (Eds.), Advances in data analysis, data handling and business intelligence (pp ). New York: Springer. Doudin-Payre, M. (1986). Le diplôme militaire de Drobeta: à propos des consules de 179 ap.-jc. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 62, Gudea, N. (1989). Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman, I (Cercetări și descoperiri arheologice până în anul 1977). Zalău. Gudea, N. (1996). Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roma, II. Vama romană. Monografie arheologică. Contribuții la cunoașterea sistemului vamal din provinciile dacice. Cluj-Napoca. Gudea, N. (2001). Die Nordgrenze der römischen Provinz Obermoesien. Materialien zu ihrer Geschichte ( n. Chr.). JahrRGZM, 48, Kurzmann, R. (2006). Roman military brick stamps: a comparison of methodology. Oxford: Oxbow. Macrea, M. (1957). Apărarea graniței de vest și nord-est a Daciei pe timpul împăratului Caracalla. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche, 8(1 4), Marcu, F. (2004). Military Tile-stamps as a Guide for the garrisons of several forts in Roman Dacia. In L. Ruscu, C. Ciongradi, R. Ardevan, C. Roman, C. Găzdac (Eds.), Orbis antiquus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (pp ). Cluj-Napoca: Nerea Mia. Opreanu, C.H. (2013). Corrigenda Porolissensia (I). Cohors III la Porolissum. Acta Musei Porolissensis, 35, Opreanu, C.H. (2015). Caracalla and Dacia. Imperial visit, a reality or only rumour? JAHA, 2(2), Opreanu, C.H. (2015a). A detachment of legio VII Gemina at Porolissum. When and why?. Dacia N. S. 59, Opreanu, C.H. (2016). Relationship of temples of Deus Invictus Serapis at Sarmizegetusa and of Apollo at Tibiscum with emperor Caracalla. Studia UBB Historia, 61(1), Opreanu, C.H. & Lăzărescu, V.A. (Eds.). (2016). Landscape archaeology on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissum. An interdisciplinary research project. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House Opreanu, C.H., Lăzărescu, V.A., & Ștefan, D. (2013). Noi cercetări la Porolissum. Analele Banatului, 21, Petolescu, C.C. (2001). Auxilia Daciae. București: Ars Docendi. Piso, I. (2000). Les légions dans la province de Dacie. In Y. Le Bohec, C. Wolf (Eds.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut Empire (pp ). Lyon: De Boccard. Piso, I. (2001). Studia porolissensia (I). Le temple dolichénien. Acta Musei Napocensis, 38(1), Piso, I. ( ). Studia porolissensia (II). Acta Musei Napocensis, 41 42(1), Piso, I. (2005). Die cohors III Campestris in Porolissum. In F. Beutler (Eds.), Eine ganz normale Inschrift...änliches zum Geburtstag von Ekkehard Weber. Festschrift zum 30. April 2005 (pp ). Wien: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Archäologie. Piso, I. & Benea, D. (1984). Diploma militară de la Drobeta. Acta Musei Napocensis, 21, Piso, I. & Benea, D. (1984a). Das Militärdiplom von Drobeta. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 56,

8 372 C.H. Oprean Piso, I. & Deac, D. (2016). Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Appendix I. Inscriptiones laterum Musei Zilahensis. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House. Piso, I. & Marcu, F. (2016). Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Appendix II. Inscriptiones laterum Musei Napocensis. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House. Tóth, E. (1978). Porolissum. Das Castellum in Moigrad. Ausgrabungen von A. Radnóti, Budapest: Ungarisches Nationalmuseum. Vass, L. (2014). Contribution to the knowledge of bone and antler bow lath production from Roman Dacia. In S. Cociș (Ed.), Archäologische Beiträge. Gedenkschrift zum hundersten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt (pp ). Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House.