THE ROMAN FORT FROM RĂCARI
The history of research

Fieldwork reports

The Roman fort from Răcari has been mentioned for the first time by A. T. Laurian, who identified it with – still enigmatic – Amutrium from Tabula Putingeriana (Laurian, 1846, p. 104-105); at the moment when the Transylvanian humanist visited the fort, most of its walls were standing. The identification with Amutrium was based on the fact that the distance recorded in Tabula Peutingeriana “is pretty well the same with the placement” of Răcari.

Important archaeological researches in the Roman fort from Răcari were initiated by Grigore Tocilescu (the head of the Romanian Arcaheological Institute), through his delegates, Pamfil Polonic, Zay Guglielmo and I.M. Ştefănescu, at the end of the XIXth century (1897-1898). The fort was sectioned from north-south, exactly on the Via Principalis, with the evident intention of investigating the area in front of the commandment’s building, searching for inscriptions which should have been placed here. Moreover, the commandment’s building was researched through the diggings coordinated by Gr. Tocilescu. At least one of the towers of the praetorian gate, the north-eastern one, was investigated by P. Polonic. Unfortunately, Tocilescu published only some observations regarding the fort (Tocilescu 1900, p. 140), several pieces from those discovered by him during the two campaigns being afterwards presented by D. Tudor (Tudor 1965). Remarkable is the discovery, in the perimeter of the fort, of thousands of fragments belonging to bronze statues of three Roman emperors (Tudor 1976, p. 576).

Three decades later (1928 and 1930), Gr. Florescu followed Gr. Tocilescu in his researches, occasion on which several useful data regarding the fort were obtained. The main objective was the stone wall of the fort, which was highlighted by ditches along the wall. At least four gates were as well investigated, the commandment’s building and the corner towers of the fort. Unlike Gr. Tocilescu, Florescu conscientious published what he discovered during the researches, his report being actually the first systematic presentation of the fort from Răcari. For all these, see Florescu 1931, 1-28.

In 1991-1992, the Central Military Museum undertaook other archaeological investigations in the fort, performed manu militari; the research team comprised C.M. Vlădescu, R. Avram, O. Stoica and L. Amon. Two main sections were performed over the fort perimeter on the east-west direction and respectively, north-south, as to investigate the fortification elements. The ditch (fossa), the berm, the wall (murus), the vallum (agger), the interior roads, as well as several military barracks placed in the interior of the fort, were stressed out. Summary data on these researches was published in 1996 (Revista Muzeului Naţional. Supliment 1, 1996, p.7) and in 1998 (Vlădescu, Avram, Stoica, Amon 1998, p. 80-85).

Starting with 2003, the investigations have been retaken by Eugen S. Teodor from the Romanian National Museum of History, together with Dorel Bondoc from the Oltenia Museum. Until the moment of this text editing (2005), small sectors from praetentura dextra (S.1) and praetentura sinistra (S.2) have already been investigated, regarding the fortification system of the fort. Much of the obtained results are substantially different of those previous known. For all these, see Teodor, Bondoc et al. 2004, 251-255; Teodor, Bondoc, Bălteanu 2005, 288-289. 

Other contributions

Nicolae Gostar investigated several inscriptions on tegular material, from the patrimony of the Oltenia Museum, which have previously made the object of contradictory comments; he reads NMΣ, rejecting the lecture NMε (proposed by G. Cantacuzino, in Câteva corpuri barbare din armata romană de la Augustus la Galienus, Bucureşti 1929, p. 69). The legend proposed is Numerus Mauretanorum Saldensium, the name Saldae being a reconstruction after the Saldensioi tribal name (see also Gr. Tocilescu - Monumente epigrafice şi sculpturale ale Muzeului de Antichităţi din Bucuresci, Bucureşti 1902, p. 636) attested for the west of Oltenia (Pârvan - Getica, Bucureşti 1926, p. 228).

Gostar rejects the possibility of that sigma to signify Sucidava, for in this location is attested no Moor military unit, and takes Pârvan’s idea (Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile secţiunii istorice, 36, 1913, p. 23-25) according to which Sigma should be the render of an absent phonem in Latin, but probably characteristic to Thraco-Dacians, probably Ş. We should read therefore “Şucidava” [Shuchidava] or “Şalde” [Shaldae].

Ioana Bogdan Cătăniciu (1988) contested, at her turn, the identification "Saldae" (which is redrawn for Banska Mitrovica), proposing instead Sornum. The hypotesis did not impressed too much, and recent position taken doesn't take it seriousely (see below).

From the elogium brought to Tocilescu by Dumitru Tudor (1976) we retain several elements of historical context of Roman Oltenia, which might bring to light, although indirectly, the chronology of the fort from Răcari. The first element is represented by the fragments of an inscription, discovered by Tocilescu at Slăveni, attesting the reconstruction a fundamentis (from the basis) in 205. Another epigraph, discovered at Bumbeşti, attests the fact that the fort, initially build as “timber-and-earth”, was endowed with stone walls in 201, from the initiative of Octavius Iulianus, the imperial governor of the three Daciae.
On each side of Răcari (North and South-East), at the beginning of the IIIrd century, the same thing happened: the authorities decided that they need stone walls, as protection from the possible threat. The same was our thought as well, only from stratigraphical reasons; the large timber-and-earth fort (named by us N.2) was build sometime after 157 (according to numismatic discoveries, probably 10 years later), but this fort doesn’t seem to survive very long (at least this is the actual impression, without too much research; but level 2 (= N.2) has no sublevels and not much of archaeological inventory). There is yet no numismatic evidence (or of other nature) to allow more precision; we have nevertheless supposed, according to the stratigraphical situation, that around 200 A.D. was built the stone fort (which, on the contrary, has two distinct sublevels and a lot of material on the layer).

Another clue regarding the chronology of the stone fort (or layer 3, in the stratigraphical terminology; abbreviated N.3) may be found at Dumitru Tudor (1965, 236), who, commenting Tocilescu-Polonic researches, makes the specification that monuments prior to Caracalla (therefore ante 211) have been reused in the construction of the praetorian gates. 

A close reading of the text published by Dumitru Tudor in 1965 (252) provided data regarding the numismatic evidence of the IVth century, from Răcari. The professor says that, on the one hand, we have Polonic’s notes, who enumerated discoveries from Domitian to Gordian III, and on the other hand, “a Roman pot from IInd-IIIrd centuries” (Răcari provenience?), in which was kept a collection of coins from Diocletian to Phocas (?), presumptively considered to come from Răcari. In this situation, we think that we may resume, on the basis of the research reports of five campaigns (two Florescu, two Vlădescu, three of our own, so far; see the numismatic summary), in which no discovery after Etruscilla appeared (the last discovery is dated at 251), that Dumitru Tudor’s presumption was false.

The antique name of the fort and civil settlement remains as a concern for the recent research, and new positions are taken. Sorin Nemeti (2006), writing about Ptolemy's Geography and old tribal names, priviously to the Roman conquest, brings back Amutrium (or Amutria, in Tabula Peutingeriana) to Răcari, considering this identification as certain. Therefore, we have reached now in the departure point... Anyway, I have to add here that old argument about the distance between the Motru River (antic: Mutrius) mouth and the position of Răcari fort (11 km; 22 km to D. Tudor, by error, probably measured on the highroad) is rejectable. Recent environment studies concluded that the juction Motru-Jiu could be, in antiquity, some kilometers lower then today, likely just before the fort. From this point of view, Răcari could be "Amutrium".

Another recent opinion, revealed as a personal communication in the spring of 2007, is due to prof. C.C. Petolescu. The renowned specialist in Roman history made his point considering that such an important location would be impossible to be obliterated by antique sources; the name should be one very well known, like... Pelendava.
Anyway, we inherit here the whole problem, untouched: what should mean Σ (or ε)?... The name of the place looks more and more as a faded possibility. The ethnic name of the military unit, as proposed by Cristian Vlădescu (1983, 41)? What name? Which unit? Why Σ? Why Greek letter, and not a Latin one?

Our own field research produces recently some archaeological overviews (Teodor 2006, 2007). First, in Romanian, although regarding mainly the initial stage of the fort, reffers briefly to all the history of the fort, as it comes from digging reports. The second, in English, is a complete (but as well short) overview about archaeological matters to day.