Proceedings of the 22nd International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies,
The Presence of Rome in Barbaricum:
Archaeological Evidence of the Interaction between
Romans and Barbarians in the Târgşoru Vechi Area
Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton
The main archaeological interest at Târgşoru Vechi
originally was not the Roman age (1st-3rd centuries
AD). In 1956, it concerned medieval ruins and since
the 1960s – the Chernyakhov culture cemetery. Still,
by archaeological research of these two main sites,
features dated to the La Tène and Roman ages were
also discovered. Later, when the Roman bath was
found partially covered by a medieval church, ar-
chaeologists turned their attention to the Roman
period.
The archaeological reserve at Târgşoru Vechi is
situated 9 km northwest from Ploieşti, in the prox-
imity of the village of the same name. Placed on
the right side of the road from Ploieşti-Strejnic to
Târgşoru Vechi, the archaeological site is crossed by
the Leaota River, now clogged up.
The Leaota River, one of the many tributaries
of the Prahova River, crossed the piedmont plain of
Ploieşti, in the north part of Wallachia. This river
banks offered proper conditions for habitation
since oldest times, especially in the area of present
day Târgşoru Vechi village. Maybe, this is one of the
reasons that one of the many episodes of interaction
between the Dacians and the Romans around the
beginning of the 2nd century occurred here.
Although insufficiently published, such sites
demonstrate several problems, such as the way the
Dacians helped the Romans build the fort, how lo-
cals and newcomers existed together, and why the
Romans built forts north of Wallachia. Thus, we
need to reassess the discoveries and attempt to an-
swer some questions like: Where was the Roman
fort and what did it look like? What is the chrono-
logical relation between the fort, the Dacian settle-
ment (from the late La Tène period) and the ‘free
Dacian’ settlement (fig. 1/1).
Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012
We will try to analyze all the archaeological in-
formation that we have related to those three com-
ponents: Dacians from the La Tène period, Romans
and “free Dacians” from the Roman period.
La Tène Period (2nd Century BC – 1st
Century AD)
Unfortunately, Dacian features that can be dated
before the Roman conquest are almost unknown.
Only some brief notes record such discoveries.
In 1956, when the very first trench was surveyed,
the first elements of a Dacian habitat were discov-
ered. Despite that in a succinct note this settlement
was considered to be “large and rich” (Diaconu et
al. 1959, 619-629; Constantinescu et al. 1961, 632-
636), it was never mentioned again and no further
research was conducted in this settlement area.
As a consequence, the chronology of this
Dacian settlement remains uncertain: 2nd – 1st cen-
turies BC and, probably, 1st century AD, based on
the archaeological materials found, especially pot-
tery and some tools. A brief, but important mention
is that in neither of the cases of La Tène structures
was a burnt layer found. This, together with the fact
that no Roman imports were found in these La Tène
structures, make a date before the beginning of the
1st century AD (before the Roman presence in the
Wallachian plain in any case) a reliable one.
The Roman Structures (1st – 2nd Centuries
AD)
As already mentioned, in 1956, the first trench,
marked A I, was placed perpendicularly across the
medieval enclosure, which was still visible on the
ground. The purpose of this trench, 163 m long and
1.5 m wide, was to identify more clearly the archae-
772 Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton
ological potential of the site, where fieldwalking
previously had identified “the most numerous and
representative archeological materials” (Diaconu et
al. 1959, 620).
This was the moment when the first finds, most-
ly pottery dated to the Roman period, appeared in
the e-f and g-h sectors of the trench AI/1956. But
the most important were the bricks with a legionary
stamp. Among the numerous fragments of anepi-
graphic ordinary bricks (Diaconu et al. 1959, 625:
square or hexagonal bricks, the last ones possibly
medieval) were also found stamped bricks of the
legio XI Claudia P. F. Unfortunately, most of them
were discovered in the fill of medieval pits (Diaconu
et al. 1959, 625, fig. 5).
The single archaeological complex in the re-
searched area was a platform of river stones il-
lustrated by a section drawing from the sector e-f.
According to this drawing, the estimated thickness
of this platform was almost 0.40 m and was 6 m
long at least. This complex was interpreted either
like a construction within the text, or like a pave-
ment in the figure legend (Diaconu et al. 1959, fig.
2). Summing up the discoveries, the researchers be-
lieved that it was a pavement related to a construc-
tion (Diaconu et al. 1959, 624), dated to the Roman
period according to the sherds discovered among
the river stones.
An inhumation grave with a Roman date under
this stone platform (Diaconu et al. 1959, 621, 624)
also raises a series of questions. This grave, found
0.75 m deep, was covered by sandstone blocks, like
a small mound, and its chronology was based on a
sherd, un-illustrated: a fragment of a stamp, rectan-
gular, the only letter still visible being “N”.
To about 8 m east from this stone platform, a
new archaeological complex was identified and,
based on its characteristics, the researchers relate
those two. This time the platform was made of river
stones and gravel, it was 6 m long and 0.20-0.30 m
thick. It is either upon dark yellow soil, or disturbs
the La Tène layer.
The fact that even in this very first campaign,
stamp bricks of legio XI Claudia P. F. were found,
make archaeologists believe that in the area was
the “place” of this legion. At that moment, it was
considered that all Roman findings suggest a date
around the beginning of the 2nd century AD, during
the military campaign of Trajan.
In 1957 and 1958, new trenches brought new
data about Roman inhabitation. The new informa-
tion, which changed the 1956 ideas, was published
in a report in 1959.
Based on the archaeological campaigns from
1957-1958 (trenches I A2, I A4, I A5 and I A6), the
archaeologists were certain that a Roman fort was
to be found in the area. They also considered that
the platforms identified in 1956 belonged to a mo-
ment subsequent to the existence of the fort, being
built with materials taken from the fortification,
especially bricks and tegulae with mortar remains
(Constantinescu et al. 1961, 638).
A new campaign brought a new chronological
suggestion. In 1959, the platform was considered
Roman, again, and based on data from trench I A9
it was dated at the end of the 1st and the beginning
of the 2nd century AD (Diaconu / Constantinescu
1962, 537).
This chronological idea was also main-
tained when a monograph of Sântana de Mureş –
Chernyakhov cemetery was published in 1965 – an
occasion to summarize all the data about Roman
discoveries from Târgşoru Vechi (Diaconu 1965, 11).
Some important chronological observations were
that the Roman fortification can be precisely dated
with the help of coins of emperors Nerva and Trajan
and 10 stamped bricks of legio XI Claudia P. F.
In 1960 and 1961, new evidence of Roman pres-
ence was discovered (Diaconu 1965, pl. II, pl. IV:
all information is according to the published illus-
tration). In the region of the Sântana de Mureş –
Chenyakhov cemetery, in area 6 C, next to its south-
west limit, a pit was found under the grave M 185.
A new pit appeared in the south part of area 12 A,
under the grave M 141, while a third one was ex-
plored in the west corner of area 14 A, under the
grave M 269. Other four pits were found in areas 11
A and 15 A.
Besides the pits, two special archaeological
structures were also found.
First, in trenches I A9 – I A10 and in areas 6 A
and 9 A, a large structure, irregular oval in shape
was identified, main axes measuring 6.50 x 3.20 m.
This large pit (according to the illustration legend)
had a northeast – southwest main orientation and
contained a large amount of stone.
The second archaeological structure was, accord-
ing to the map legend published in 1965, a kiln. This
was discovered in areas 9 A and 11 A and had both
an oven and an access pit, 5.80 m long and 2.30 m
wide, main axis having a north-south orientation.
But the most important Roman structure was
discovered in the 1970s. It was the years when the
Roman bath was discovered, especially the 1976-
1978 campaigns (Tzony / Diaconu 1979, 263). The
short report published in 1979 reveals that important
The presence of Rome in Barbaricum: archaeological evidence of the interaction... 773
parts of the bath like the praefurnium, a room with
hypocaust and cold-water basins were identified.
In the same campaigns, another important
structure was explored, which also remains unpub-
lished. It is a building of the Roman fort, with an
apse on one side (Tzony / Diaconu 1979, 263). It
was noticed that a stone pavement was connected
to this building. A chronological idea about the date
of this complex was given by archaeological materi-
als found among the stones, all suggesting the end
of the 1st century AD (Tzony / Diaconu 1979, 264).
The report from 1979 sketched “some prob-
lems that must be followed in the future. First of
all, the research in the area of the Roman fort must
be increased, in order to establish its characteristics
(made of earth or stone), plan of fortification, con-
struction technique, relation between the fort and
the bath, and the connection between the Roman
structures and the Geto-Dacian layer, which can
demonstrate a similar situation to that at Drajna”
(Tzony / Diaconu 1979, 264).
Unfortunately, these goals remained, for differ-
ent reasons, just an intention. Not even the structures
already discovered and researched were published.
Summing up all the published information and
mapping all the structures that can be dated to the
Roman period (except for the Roman bath), we can
see that they are concentrated in a small area, north-
east of the Leaota River, measuring 10 000 m2 (100
x 100 m).
Position of the Fort
The intention to mark the correct position of the
fort, based on the spatial distribution of bricks and
tegulae next to Roman bath, takes no count of the
structures identified in different trenches. The fort
area was hypothetically marked as a square of 70 x
70 m, crossed on a north-south axis by a modern
road and with its sides orientated to the cardinal
points.
Based on this placement of the fort, at the end
of the 1980s, a reroute of the modern road was sug-
gested, in order to avoid the Roman monument and
to fully integrate it in the protected area of the ar-
chaeological reserve.
Nevertheless, in a recent article it has been not-
ed that “we know of the existence of an earth forti-
fication, at Târgşor, but its precise dimensions and
shape have not been identified, yet” (Zahariade /
Lichiardopol 2006, 128).
This goal, to locate the exact position and di-
mension of the fort, was the starting point for a new
research, this time based on aerial and satellite pho-
tography, captured either from private flights from
Strejnic airport, or from online sources like Google
Earth, Bing Maps or Yahoo Maps, together with
ground photos (Măgureanu / Ciupercă / Anton
2012, 169-171).
The overlaying of all the data had a surprising
result: a square perimeter framed by another one,
this time with three sides, placed to the north, east
and south from the first perimeter. The fact that to
the west there is no side of the second perimeter is
more probably due to the Leaota River and its flood-
plain (fig. 1).
This situation, of a fort that has a double earth
fortification on three sides, is not a singular one.
It was already known from various forts. We can
quote some good analogies, without intention to
fully discuss this problem. In this respect we can
mention the case of the castella at Rucăr (fig. 7b)
and Putineiu (Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1997, 105 and fig.
76-77), or the fort at Bistreţ (Tudor 1978, 216, fig.
46). Other forts, like those at Băneasa or Urluieni,
have double sides as well (Tudor 1978, 216, fig. 44.5;
Marcu 2009, 181, pl. 40).
Based on what the photos suggest, for the fort of
Târgşoru Vechi, internal dimensions of 170 x 170 m
from vallum to vallum can be suggested. Of course,
those dimensions have only a guidance character
and do not represent an absolute measurement. The
fort itself was smaller, taking into consideration that
after the vallum there is an area of some 2 m wide,
so-called berm, and after that the walls of the fort
(for example in case of Mălăieşti and Cincşor, the
berm is 2 m wide, at Râşnov it is 2.25 m; cf. Ţentea et
al. 2012, 130; Damian et al. 2007, 44, 50-51).
Those dimensions, even if they seem to delimi-
tate a large perimeter, are in fact very similar to those
of forts from Bumbeşti (Tudor 1978, 221; Marcu
2009, 120: 167 m east side, the only one preserved
intact), Purcăreni (Tudor 1978, 240; Marcu 2009,
213: 160 m west side, the only one preserved intact),
Mălăieşti (Ţentea et al. 2012, 130: 160 m north-south
axis) and others (Teodor 2006, 231, fig. 11).
The correct dimensions of a fortification are im-
portant, because the relation between the area of a
fort and the quantity of troops suggests that a differ-
ent perimeter, a bigger one, implies the capacity to
protect a larger garrison than the one presumed for
a fort of only 70 x 70 m (dimensions of the old pe-
rimeter proposal). If our interpretation of the avail-
able data is correct, then we can no longer speak
about a castellum at Târgşoru Vechi, as previously
supposed according to the available information at
that time (Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1997, 49, note 86).
774 Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton

La Tène finds (2nd century BC – 1st century AD?)

Roman finds (first half of 2nd century AD)
“Free Dacian” finds (second half of 2nd – 3rd century AD)
Sarmatian finds (3rd century AD)

Fig. 1. 1 Roman period (1st-3rd century finds); 2 ground photo of the Roman fort (2012)
The presence of Rome in Barbaricum: archaeological evidence of the interaction... 775
Military Troops at Târgşoru Vechi
Based on the brick stamps (fig. 2) found at Târgşoru
Vechi (Zahariade / Lichiardopol 2006), all the mili-
tary troops were part of the army of Moesia Inferior
(for recent discussions on the Roman army in
Wallachia, see: Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1997, Petolescu
/ Matei-Popescu 2008, Matei-Popescu 2010),
Wallachia being under the authority of this prov-
ince’s legatus (Matei-Popescu / Ţentea 2006, 79).
At Târgşoru Vechi, the best known unit is legio
XI Claudia Pia Fidelis, part of the army of Moesia
Inferior (for a full discussion of its activities in the
Lower Danube region, see Matei-Popescu 2010,
261-264). In the first years of the 2nd century AD,
this legion arrived at Oescus and was shortly in-
volved in the Dacian wars. Soon, as the typology of
stamps shows (at Târgşoru Vechi were found bricks
of type A: LEG XI CPF in tabula ansata, see Matei-
Popescu 2007, 297), vexillationes of this legion were
dispatched to several forts in Wallachia: Drajna de
Sus, Pietroasele, Târgşoru Vechi, Voineşti, and, after
a while, to forts in Oltenia: Buridava and Romula
(Matei-Popescu 2010, 263; Stăicuţ 2010, 211-213).
It seems that this withdrawal from Wallachia took
place in the 118-119 AD (Barnea / Ştefan 1974, 23).
During recent research, Dan Lichiardopol found
a brick with a special stamp. Despite its fragmentary
state, it was considered to be a stamp of legio I Italica
(Zahariade / Lichiardopol 2006, 123, fig. 2f). This
stamp represents a singular discovery but nonethe-
less it records that a detachment of this legion was
here, considering the composition of troops attested
at Drajna de Sus, as well.
There is also another unit coming from the
army of Moesia Inferior, which is well confirmed
in the fort at Târgşoru Vechi: cohors I Flavia
Commagenorum equitata sagittariorum (Matei-
Popescu / Ţentea 2006, 87; for a complete bibliog-
raphy on this unit: Matei-Popescu 2010, 206, note
1780). As the stamped bricks show, vexillationes of
this troop were part of the garrison of the forts at
Jidova, Drajna de Sus and Voineşti. This fact was at
the base of the hypothesis that all those forts were
used at the same time (Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1997,
113), being built under Trajan probably simultane-
ously (Petolescu 2002, 24).
Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum was one of the
units that participated in the Dacian wars. Soon, af-
ter a short stay in Wallachia, it was relocated to the
limes Alutanus, as the brick stamps confirm, as part
of the army of Dacia Inferior (Petolescu / Matei-
Popescu 2008, 361 and Table 1). Detachments of
this unit were to be found in the forts at Acidava,
Romula and Slăveni (Tudor 1958, 273) as a strat-
egy that involved the abandonment of the forts in
Wallachia and repositioning of the troops on the
limes Alutanus.
It is interesting to note that in the forts in
Wallachia were found stamps both of legio XI Claudia
Pia Fidelis and of cohors I Flavia Commagenorum.
One explanation can be that a figlina from Drajna
de Sus produced bricks for the forts at Târgşoru
Vechi, Mălăieşti, Voineşti sau Rucăr (Zahariade /
Dvorski 1997, 50). On the other hand, this fact can
be a suggestion either of a collaboration of those
two troops, or of successive garrisons, but this is
another discussion.
Anyway, their presence in Wallachia’s forts seems
to have had the purpose to block the routes from
the mountains to the South (Zahariade / Dvorski
1997, 18; Bogdan-Cătăniciu 1997, 49-50; Petolescu
2002, 23, 24; Matei-Popescu 2010, 268), Târgşoru
Vechi fort being part of the defensive line, next to
Drajna and Mălăieşti (Zahariade / Dvorski 1997, 65;
Petolescu 2010, 163), abandoned under Hadrian in
accordance with his military strategy.
At least, this role of defending Wallachia
against a possible threat from the north was more
probably only one of the reasons to build the forts.
Another motive was to protect the main roads
along the Teleajen River that connect the south
and north sides of the Carpathian Mountains.
This was a clearer motivation after the forts at
Breţcu and Hoghiz, that controlled the South-East
Transylvania, were built (Petolescu 2010, 164). In
order to cross the mountains, Romans used more
probably the Tabla Buţii pass, which was used till
the Middle Ages.
Free Dacian Settlement (2nd – 3rd
Centuries AD)
While the Roman structures are on the left bank of
the Loeta River, the free Dacian settlement is placed
on the right bank. Its chronology in the 2nd – 3rd cen-
turies is based predominantly on metal finds (sever-
al types of fibulas), bone combs and Roman coins.
In 1962, the archaeological investigations in
the area of the right bank of the Leaota River be-
gan. Since then, over 6000 m2 in 30 trenches and 35
squares have been excavated. The results consist of
20 dug-in buildings dated to the Roman period (2nd
– 3rd centuries AD).
There is a standard settlement for the epoch in the
North-Danubian area, with simple structures without
fireplaces inside, pits (garbage and storage ones) and
open-air hearths between the buildings. There are
776 Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton

Fig. 2. Târgşoru Vechi, Roman period finds: 1-3) pottery (after Diaconu 1965, pl. V), 4-14 stamps of Roman troops (4-5 after
Diaconu 1965, pl. VI; 6-14 after Zahariade / Lichiardopol 2006, fig. 2/f; fig. 4/c-d, f-h; fig. 5/e-f)
The presence of Rome in Barbaricum: archaeological evidence of the interaction... 777
rectangular dwellings with a dug-in floor, with a sur-
face between 2.30 x 1.50 m and 3.90 x 3.30 m.
The dwellings seem to have been arranged in
groups, around an empty space that probably had
a special role for the community daily life (Diaconu
2009, 28-29). The spatial analyses of the settlement
suggest that there was more than one habitation
level, and the distance between some buildings was
less than 1 meter. This observation is not sustained,
unfortunately, by other kind of data, because there
is no overlapping between the dwellings and there
are no stratigraphic layers that can be used in order
to observe a succession in time of different archaeo-
logical structures of this settlement.
Unlike the La Tène epoch settlement, in these
dwellings Roman imports were found in a surpris-
ing variety, next to local characteristic pottery (fig.
3). The same mixture of materials, of Roman and
Dacian origin, was found both in the area of the fort
and the Roman bath, proving, according to some
opinions, a cohabitation of Dacians in the neigh-
borhood of the Roman fort (Diaconu 2009, 28). The
same situation was documented in other Roman
forts, as is the case with the major fort at Drajna
(Diaconu 2003, 192; Ştefan 1945-1947, 115-147).
Sarmatian Cemetery (3rd Century AD)
The first graves of this cemetery were explored dur-
ing the earliest archaeological campaigns, on the
left bank of the Leaota River, 150-200 m east from
the “free Dacian” settlement, but in the shadow of
the Roman fort. This cemetery is better published
(Niculescu 1993, 197-220; Niculescu 2003, 177-
205) and we will mention just some characteristics.
Till present day, there have been documented 36 in-
humation graves, ascribed to the Sarmatians due to
the details of the ritual (head to the north) and fu-
nerary objects (pottery, fibulas, beads, mirrors, etc.)
found next to the deceased. About 50% of the graves
were looted in antiquity. Placed in simple rectangu-
lar pits, some of the deceased have artificially de-
formed skulls.
Conclusions
The first conclusion is related to a certain dynamic
of the habitation of space in the 1st – 3rd centuries
AD. The existence of Dacian fortifications attracted
Roman attention by building forts in the surround-
ing areas (fig. 4); the presence of the Roman forts re-
sulted in the establishment of the “free Dacian” set-
tlements, especially after Hadrian withdrew from the
Wallachian plains – a fact that can be related to the
Sarmatian presence as well (Niculescu 2003, 186).
As we can observe, in the space between the
Carpathian Mountains and the Danube, for the late
La Tène (1st century BC – 1st century AD), there
were a lot of davae placed usually in proximity to
the river (main communication routes) dispersed in
the entire territory (Turcu 1979; Conovici 1985).
The picture changed in the second half of the
1st century AD, when davae were no longer placed
near the Danube, but in the hills area. This can be
an argument of the Roman policy of creating a “no
man’s land” in the Danube region (Bichir 1984, 96;
Petolescu 2010, 80). Most of these fortifications
controlled important routes that linked the Danube
with the intra-Carpathian area: Tinosu and Coada
Malului controlled Prahova and the corridor Rucăr –
Bran; Făget, Gura Vitioarei and Homorâciu control-
led the Teleajenul Valley and the Tabla Buţii pass.
It can easily be observed that all three Roman
forts (Târgşoru Vechi, Mălăieşti, Drajna de Sus)
were placed in the vicinity of late La Tène fortifica-
tions, used till the dawn of the war that brought the
Roman legions in the Wallachian plains. For exam-
ple, the Roman fort at Târgşoru Vechi is some 10 km
north-east from Tinosu and in a similar distance
from Coada Izvorului, controlling the area between
the Prahova and the Teleajen Rivers, one of the most
important ancient route crossings. In the case of the
Mălăieşti Roman fort, we can note that it was placed
at the junction of the Vărbilău and the Teleajen
Rivers in the surrounding area of Dacian fortifica-
tions at Făget (5 km north-east) and Gura Vitioarei
(7 km north-east). Drajna de Sus Roman fort, the
largest of all three, was placed only 4 km south-east
from the Dacian fortification at Horomâciu and 12
km north-east from that at Gura Vitioarei, having
under surveillance the important Tabla Buţii pass.
After the Romans withdrew, the space was im-
mediately occupied by the settlements of the “free
Dacians” in the hills area, and by Sarmatians in the
plain region (Harhoiu / Spânu / Gáll 2012, 30, fig. 2).
A detailed view of these dynamics can be ob-
served at Târgşoru Vechi, by analyzing the position
of the 1st-3rd century discoveries related to the Leaota
River. It is easy to see that the Roman fort had a dif-
ferent position than that of the “free Dacian” settle-
ment, but the same as the late La Tène Dacian settle-
ment and the Sarmatian cemetery.
First we should note that the Roman fort occu-
pied the area of a Dacian settlement. This fact points
to the idea that Romans were alone in the Târgşoru
Vechi area at the moment when they built the fort.
Also, Sarmatian graves were in the close vicinity of
the west side of the fort and it is possible that future
778 Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton

Fig. 3. Târgşoru Vechi, “free Dacian” settlement: 1 fragment of a buckle, 2 phalera, 3 applique,
4 gem stone, 5-15 fibulas, 16-17 buckles, 18 horse curb, 19-20 pottery (after Petculescu 1999, 897, pl. 2/21, 22; pl. 3/10, 19, 20;
Diaconu 1965, pl. VII/1, 7; pl. VIII/1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18; Diaconu 2009, fig. 2/1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10; fig. 3/1, 2, 3, 13; fig. 5/5, 7, 9; fig. 6/2)
The presence of Rome in Barbaricum: archaeological evidence of the interaction... 779

Fig. 4. Distribution of Dacian fortifications and Roman forts (Prahova County)

archaeological research will prove an effective over-
lapping between those two archaeological sites (fort
and cemetery). This close vicinity would be impos-
sible if the fort was still active, so, the presence of
the Sarmatians should be dated sometime after the
Romans departed.
The “free Dacian” 2nd-3rd century settlement was
developed, as we already mentioned, to the west of
the fort, on the other bank of the Leaota River. The
natural barrier between fort and settlement can sus-
tain the idea of coexistence for a while of those two.
Another argument is the presence of Dacian pottery
in the Roman fort area, as well as the presence of
Roman military equipment and other objects in the
“free Dacian” settlement. What we can say for sure
is that the settlement existed after the Romans had
abandoned their fort.
Moreover, the fact that Sarmatian graves let the
river between the area of the “free Dacian” settle-
ment and their cemetery, can suggest at least a par-
tial contemporaneity of those two groups.
Therefore, the simple notion of dynamics of
population – one comes, while the other goes, at
least from the point of view of the archaeological
discoveries from Târgşoru Vechi, appears to be far
more complex. If someone comes, it does not neces-
sarily mean that the other goes. It is not necessary
to imagine just conflict situations between antago-
780 Bogdan Ciupercă / Andrei Măgureanu / Alin Anton
nistic populations. The picture is more complicated
and, in some circumstances, the main characters
Bibliography
Bichir, Gh. 1984. Geto-dacii din Muntenia în epocă romană.
Bucureşti.
Bogdan-Cătăniciu, I. 1997. Muntenia în sistemul defensiv al
Imperiului Roman. Alexandria.
Conovici, N. 1985. Aşezări fortificate şi centre tribale geto-da-
cice din Muntenia (sec. IV î.e.n – I e. n.). – Istros 4, 71-87.
Constantinescu, N. / Diaconu, Gh. / Popescu, D. / Teodorescu,
V. 1961. Şantierul arheologic Târgşor. – Materiale şi Cercetări
Arheologice 6, 632-636.
Diaconu, Gh. 2009. Dacia în epoca primelor migraţii (secolele
al II-lea – al IV-lea d. Hr.). Bucureşti.
Diaconu, Gh. 2003. Târgşor – un sit milenar. Studii de istorie şi
arheologie. Ploieşti.
Diaconu, Gh. 1965. Târgşor. Necropola din secolele III-IV e. n.
Bucureşti.
Diaconu, Gh. / Morintz, S. / Rosetti, D. V. / Cantacuzino, Gh.
1959. Săpăturile de la Târgşoru Vechi. – Materiale şi Cercetări
Arheologice 5, 619-629.
Diaconu, Gh. / Constantinescu, N. 1962. Şantierul arheologic
Târgşor. – Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice 8, 537-545.
Harhoiu, R. / Spânu, D. / Gáll, E. 2011. Barbari la Dunăre.
Cluj-Napoca
Matei-Popescu, F. 2010. The Roman army in Moesia Inferior.
Bucureşti.
Matei-Popescu, F. 2007. Participarea legiunilor din Moesia
Inferior la expediţiile dacice ale lui Traian. In: Nemeti, S. et al.
(eds.). Dacia Felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata. Cluj-
Napoca. 290-300.
Matei-Popescu, F. / Ţentea, O. 2006. Participarea trupelor
auxiliare din Moesia Superior şi Moesia Inferior la cucerirea
Daciei. In: Teodor, E. S. / Ţentea, O. (eds.). Dacia Augusti
Provincia. Crearea Provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat
în 13-14 octombrie 2006. Târgovişte. 75-120.
Măgureanu, A. / Ciupercă, B. / Anton, A. 2012. Considerations
on Târgşoru Vechi Roman fort. In: Morintz, A. S. /
Kogălniceanu, R. (eds.). Survey in archaeology, often a neglect-
ed science. Proceedings of the II Archaeological symposium,
October 23rd-26th, 2011. Giurgiu. 165-186.
Bogdan Ciupercă PhD.
County Museum of History and Archaeology
RO-Prahova
bogdanciuperca@yahoo.com
Andrei Măgureanu PhD.
Institute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”
Romanian Academy
RO-Bucharest
arheologiemedievala@yahoo.com
can coexist, which, in certain instances, seems to be
the case at Târgşoru Vechi.
Niculescu, A. Gh. 2003. Die sarmatische Kultur im
Zusammenhang der kaiserzeitlichen archäologischen Funde aus
Muntenien – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Funde von
Tîrgşor. Mit einem Beitrag von Nicolae Miriţoiu: “Sarmatische
Gräber mit künstlich deformierten Schädeln in Muntenien”.
In: von Carnap-Bornheim, C. (ed.). Kontakt – Kooperation –
Konflikt. Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. und dem 4.
Jahrhundert nach Christus. Neumünster. 177-205.
Niculescu, A. Gh. 1993. The cremation graves from the cem-
etery of Tîrgşor (third-fourth centuries AD). – Dacia 37, 197-
220.
Petculescu, L. 1999. Roman military equipment in Barbaricum
in the proximity of the Dacian limes. In: Gudea, N.
(ed.). Roman Frontier Studies. Proceedings of the XVIIth
International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Zalău.
895-905.
Petolescu, C. C. 2010. Dacia. Un mileniu de istorie. Bucureşti.
Petolescu, C. C. / Matei-Popescu, F. 2008. The presence of the
Roman army from Moesia Inferior at the North of Danube
and the making of the Dacia Inferior province. In: Piso, I.
(ed.). Die Römischen Provinzen. Begriff und Gründung
(Colloquium Cluj-Napoca, 28. September – 1. Oktober 2006).
Cluj-Napoca. 357-367.
Ştefan, Gh. 1945-1947. Le camp romain de Drajna de Sus, Dep.
de Prahova. – Dacia 11-12, 115-144.
Teodor, E. S. 2006. Prima amenajare a castrului de la Răcari
(jud. Dolj). In: Teodor, E. S. / Ţentea, O. (ed.). Dacia Augusti
provincia. Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat
în 13-14 octombrie 2006. Târgovişte. 219-235.
Tudor, D. 1978. Oltenia Romană. Bucureşti.
Tzony, M. / Diaconu, Gh. 1979. Raport asupra cercetărilor
arheologice de la Târgşoru Vechi (jud. Prahova). – Materiale şi
Cercetări Arheologice 13, 263-264.
Zahariade, M. / Dvorschi, T. 1997. The Lower Moesian army in
northern Wallachia (AD 101-118). An epigraphical and his-
torical study on the brick and tile stamps found in the Drajna
de Sus Roman fort. Bucureşti.
Zahariade, M. / Lichiardopol, D. Componenţa şi structura
armatei romane în nordul Munteniei, între anii 101-117. In:
Teodor, E. S. / Ţentea, O. (eds.). Dacia Augusti provincia.
Crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desfăşurat în 13-14
octombrie 2006. Târgovişte. 121-134.
Alin Anton
County Museum of History and Archaeology
RO-Prahova
anton_alin_pl@yahoo.com