^{page 1 note 1} This paper was sent from Germany to the Editor of the Journal of Roman Studies towards the end of July 1914, and since it failed to come to hand either then or with the resumption of normal relations after the Armistice, I contented myself with adding to a paper on an associated subject (‘Trajan's First Campaign of 101’) published in J.R.S. vii, 74 ff., a brief summary of its main contentions. At the beginning of the present year the original MS., by a series of accidents, was returned to England. There is of necessity some overlapping, in substance and, here and there, in expression (δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται), between this paper and the four pages of résumé in the previous article; but it is hoped that the readers of the Journal will regard this with indulgence, in view of the exceptional circumstances. I have thought it best to make no changes of consequence, and the paper is printed substantially as it was written, together with the map originally drawn for it.

^{page 1 note 2} Gibbon on the Epitome of Cassius Dio.

^{page 2 note 1} ‘The Historical Interpretation of the Reliefs of Trajan's Column’ in Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. v (1910), p. 435 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 2 note 2} This is not to say that we are not left, even here, with a considerable residuum of the problematic. The difficulties, for instance, in connexion with the variation of the Lorica as shown on the historical monuments of the Early Empire are unsolved and perhaps insoluble.

^{page 2 note 3} Die Marcus-Säule, p. 21.

^{page 3 note 1} And also some Sarmatians. This is a stumbling to the German-Bohemaians in their polemics with the Czech ‘autochthonists.’ The former are thus disposed to depreciate the evidence of the Marcus Column. See Geschichte Böhmens und Mährens bis zum Aussterben der Premysliden, by Dr. Bretholz, Bertold (Munich and Leipzing, 1912), p. 25Google Scholar. He recognises, however, that the vast extension of the warlike operations leaves little room for doubt that Moravia and Bohemia were affected.

^{page 3 note 2} It would appear that very little of the fighting represented in the reliefs is to be placed in the great Roumanian plain which is interposed between the Roman bases on the Danube and the Dacian fastnesses in S. Transylvania. At any rate severe economy of treatment which it actually receives, in so striking a disproportion to its territorial importance, shews that the designer fully realised how recalcitrant it was to his purpose, this being to provide salient backgrounds for his pictures, and to endow them with all possible distinctness and variety.

^{page 3 note 3} Red Tower Pass, Vulcan Pass, Key of Teregova. The Iron Gate Pass is shown on the Column, but the route leading to it skirts the Western, and does not like the others cross the main range of the Southern, Carpathians.

^{page 4 note 1} Petersen, Die Marcus-Säule, p. 103.

^{page 4 note 2} Some compensation is given by the profuse representations of military paraphernalia on the pedestal.

^{page 4 note 3} Or. 13.35.4 quoted by Petersen, op. cit. p. 99.

^{page 5 note 1} Simplified by the exclusion of the Dacian and Sarmatian raid into Moesia in 101–102, and of the irregular operations which occupy the remainder of the spiral after the capture of Sarmizegethusa in 106.

^{page 5 note 2} Priscian (Peter, H. R. Frag. 324) Traianus in I Dacicorum: lnde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus.

^{page 5 note 3} p. 439 ff. See also Professor Haverfield, ‘Roman History since Mommsen,’ Quarterly Review, vol. 217, p.338Google Scholar. He suggested as the site of the crossing by two bridges Bazias, ‘where for uncounted ages men have crossed from one side of the Danube to the other by an easy ferry.’

^{page 5 note 4} Petersen, (Trajans Dakische Kriege I Der Ersie Krieg, Leipzig 1899, p. 27Google Scholar) says ‘man kaum umhin kann, sich der preussischen Strategie im böhmischen Feldzug von 1866 zu erinnern.’

^{page 6 note 1} Lieut.-Col.Malcolm, Neill in Bohemia 1866, p. 32, note 1Google Scholar, quotes an extract from the Militär-Wochenblatt: ‘The timely junction of the Prussian armies in the war of 1866 has never been represented—at least by our own general staff—as a stroke of genius or a brilliant idea. It was only an expedient, a remedy chosen skilfully, and applied with rigour, for a situation inherently defective but unavoidable.’ He adds that the author of the article is now known to have been von Moltke himself. Petersen's analogy was rashly adopted, unless I am mistaken, from an obiter dictum of Kanitz, Römische Studien in Serbien, p. 37. Dass schon Kaiser Traian der Theorie des ‘getrennt marschieren und vereint schlagen’ huldigte, beweisen einerseits die vielen in Taliata mündenden Strassenzüge, zur Sammlung einer grossen Streitmacht, und seine von verschiedenen Punkten des mösischen Donaulimes conzentrisch in das Herz des feindlichen Daciens führenden Strassenanlagen.

^{page 6 note 2} Das Monument von Adamklissi. Benndorf—Niemann—Tocilesco. Vienna 1895, p. 113 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 6 note 3} Philologus, 1906, 337 ff. and Geschichte der römischen Kaiser II, 176 ff.

^{page 6 note 4} Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus, p. 18.

^{page 6 note 5} Trajan, I suggest, being supposed to make the crossing at Ratiaria, indicated by the exceptional representation of the classiarii as roadmakers. Ratiaria was a station of the Moesian flotilla (see Daremberg and Saglio s.v. ratis). The Lissus-Naissus route branched off from Naissus to its two termini, Viminacium and Ratiaria. For its importance see A. v. Premerstein, ‘Die Anfänge der Provinz Moesien, Jahresh. Oest. Arch. Inst. 1898 (Beibl.) 176, and for its relation to Trajan, von Domaszewski Abhandlungen zur römischen Religion (Traiansbogen), 37. As it is not possible for me within the limits of this paper to attempt to traverse Professor Stuart Jones's arguments in detail, I must content myself with expressing the opinion that his view takes too little account of two prime factors: (1) the identity of the long walls shown here with those which defend Drobetae (on N. bank of Danube) in the lower half of the spiral; (2) the reversed direction of the Emperor's progression, which, despite the fact that it has been unintelligently imitated on the Marcus Column, must be assigned full value here.

^{page 7 note 1} The remaining campaign, that of 105, is excluded from consideration here, since the Roman operations shown for it, whether they be regarded as taking place on the N. or on the S. bank, cease at or about the Danube. There was no advance into Transylvania.

^{page 7 note 2} The artist would also be influenced, no doubt, by the difficulty of characterisation within the restricted surface of the half-strip of the spiral; but this seems to me to offer no adequate explanation of the indifferent execution of this section.

^{page 7 note 3} Petersen, (Trajans Dakische Kriege II, Leipzig 1903, p. 82Google Scholar) apparently regards the determination of these routes as an open question, and decides arbitrarily for the Key of Teregova and the Vulcan Pass as being the nearest. I fail to see what this consideration has to do with the question at issue. As to the Vulcan Pass, it might be urged that it does satisfy the above condition—an approach from the E., since after the turn from the Strell into the Hatszeg valley the direction taken would be in fact due W. Such an argument however would spring from misconception of the character of Cich. III, for this picture is intended less to depict scenes enacted under Sarmizegethusa than to give a general idea of the direction of the march as a whole, relatively to the Dacian capital. This being so, the Vulcan Pass is excluded by its southerly position. I may add that my supposition that we have here (in III) a distant and summary view of Sarmizegethusa, conceived rather as the goal of the advancing armies than as a city on the point of beleaguerment, is supported by the fact that it resolves various difficulties which have seriously exercised the interpreters—the absence or detail in the defences, the exceptional representation of Sarmizegethusa as a ‘city set on an hill,’ and other points of discrepancy with the remaining pictures of the capital given on the Column. The elevation on which the city is shown is merely an attempt to indicate both distance and also the upward march of the army into the Transylvaman plateau. Fröhner and others saw in the city here shown some unknown Dacian fortress, and a Roumanian scholar. Antonescu, Teohari (Cetatea Sarmizegethusa dupa Columna Traiana, Jassy, 1906Google Scholar) has made a fantastic attempt to identify it with the ruins of the fortress Coltea (Hung. Coldsvar) in the Hatszeg valley. As Petersen has shown in his elaborate (perhaps over-elaborate) analysis of the representations of Sarmizegethusa on the Column (II, Appendix ii, 134 ff.), it is beyond doubt Sarmizegethusa. (I have argued in my former article that Sarmizegethusa is not shown by the artist in the First War (praefulget eo magis effigies eius quia non videtur). III is thus the first representation of it on the Column.)

^{page 8 note 1} The Red Tower pass, Vulcan Pass, and Key of Teregova have all found advocates. The route from Lederata by Tibiscum against the Iron Gate pass is excluded here, for the following among other reasons: (1) The reliefs of the campaign of 101 show that Trajan was brought to a standstill before the powerful defences guarding this access. It is natural to suppose that another route should have been chosen for the operations of the following year (this also tells against von Domaszewski's advocacy of the Key of Teregova route, which joins that from Lederata at Tibiscum); (2) The starting-point is Drobetae, which does not suit the westernmost approach to the Dacian capital; (3) The pictures of the march in 102 clearly represent a terrain quite different from that shown for the preceding campaign. (4) The reliefs show that a considerable distance is interposed between the crossing of the Carpathians and Sarmizegethusa.

^{page 8 note 2} Textband II, passim after p. 226 (Bild 48).

^{page 8 note 3} I, 76 ff.

^{page 8 note 4} Philologus, 1906, p. 331 ff. and Geschichte der römischen Kaiser, 1909, II, 175Google Scholar.

^{page 9 note 1} Throughout this article Cichorius's division of the relief scenes will be followed for convenience of reference. This, however, ‘without prejudice,’ since C.'s conjunction of pictures really separate to form a single scene and much more often his separation of a single scene into two or more pictures has exposed him to damaging criticism. This caution is not unnecessary, since Baumgarten—Poland—Wagner (Die hellenistisch-römische Cultur, p. 482) are so impressed with the sanctity of his numeration that they inform the reader, without qualification or reference to Cichorius, that the reliefs contain 154 scenes. I have occasionally added the corresponding numbers in Reinach's, Répertoire de Reliefs, Tome I, p. 330 ffGoogle Scholar. Bartoli's drawing there reproduced are, as M. Reinach remarks, belles infidèles. He suggests, however, that they are adequate for the study of the reliefs, a recommendation to which I cannot subscribe, if it is implied that an examination of the plates of Cichorius or Fröhner may be dispensed with.

^{page 9 note 2} Cich. LXXIV, R. 58.—the Roman bath at Kis-Kalàn (Ad Aquas). See J.R.S. vii, 95.

^{page 10 note 1} C.I.L. xiii, 8213. Von Domaszewski there refers to Ptolemy's mention (iii, 8, 2) of Ἀλόυτα ποταμοῖ ἐκβολαί as a river in Asiatic Sarmatia. The reading is uncertain, Müller, ad loc. For an attempt to date the inscription, Premerstein, A. v., Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Marcus in Klio, 1911, p. 357Google Scholar (Aluta is the usual form, but the masculine occurs also in Tab. Peut. ‘Ponte alitti’).

^{page 10 note 2} Which certainly took part in the Dacian wars of Trajan.

^{page 10 note 3} Jung, Grundriss der Geographie von ltalien und dent Orbis Romanus, p. 128, and Römer und Romanen in den Donauländern, p. 118, note 3; Zeuss, Die Deutschen, etc., p. 410; Wolff, J., in Archiv des Vereines für Siehenbürgische Landeskunde, xvii, 500 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 10 note 4} xiii, 4, 12.

^{page 10 note 5} iii, 8, 3.

^{page 11 note 1} Arch. epigr. Mittheil, xv, 12; xvii, 82, 225; xix. 81.

^{page 11 note 2} And also indirectly, by dominating the Hatszeg valley, the Iron Gate Pass.

^{page 11 note 3} See esp. Jung, , Fasten der Provinz Dacien, 1894, 141 ff.Google Scholar and ‘Zur Geschichte der Pässe Siebenburgens’ in Mittheilungen des Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband, no. 4, 1893Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 4} See Gooss, Chronik der archäologischen Funden Siebenbürgens, s.v. Also-Városviz; and Klio, 1910, 499. Most of this camp has been washed away by the Városviz river in the changes of its course.

^{page 12 note 1} Eph. epig. iv, 188. Cf. also the Sarmizegethusan dedication to M. Claudius Fronto ‘fortissimo duci, amplissimo praesidi.’ For him Prosop. i, 373, no.699; Jung, Fasten, p. 18.

^{page 12 note 2} At Sub-Kunun in immediate proximity to the Muncel. C.I.L. iii, 1415, 1416.

^{page 12 note 3} At Also-Váosviz, (Archäol. epior. Mitth. xiii. 194Google Scholar).

^{page 12 note 4} In Daciai Problémak (with French summary), Kolozsvár, 1912Google Scholar, Dr. Arpad Buday argues that this territory was not conquered in the wars of Trajan, but only in the second half of the century. His arguments, however, are quite consistent with the recrudescence of rebellion in this quarter, and he fails, I think, to dispose of the evidence of coin finds to which I shall advert later. I take this opportunity of saying that although Dr. Buday in his interesting article unduly depreciates the evidence of the reliefs, his argument (based on much spadework) for the severe restriction of the territory actually conquered by Trajan merits careful consideration. The area of Trajan's conquest seems destined to suffer progressive shrinkage.

^{page 12 note 5} Hung. Varhély, but Gredistye or Cetate (‘Cetatea’ is the more correct form) are the more usual names even with the non-Roumanians, Attempts have been made (of course) to derive Cetatea from a Dacian original; it is undoubtedly from civitas. All these words = ‘fortified place.’ The old name for the hamlet below was Fiscal-Gredistye (Uj = new). Muncel from Monticulus.

^{page 13 note 1} Ackner's plan (in his report in 1857) marks with fair accuracy most of the sites on the Muncel, but gives the fortress too regular an outline.

^{page 13 note 2} Nature and men have vied in working havoc on these remains. The treasure-hunt of the roboth-bauern was undertaken at a time when the Austrian exchequer was depleted and wild imaginations conceived the idea of repairing part of the Napoleonic dilapidations by the ‘treasures of Decebalus.’ It has sorely complicated the task which lies before the scientific excavator. To this must be added the sporadic grubbing on the part of holiday-makers from Szászváros (Broos) at a time when the Muncel was a favourite choice for a summer excursion, and also (it must be said) acts of gross vandalism. Near the S. wall lie a fine oval bath of Syenite porphyry of which the rim and much of the sides have been chipped away. The thick accumulations of the beechwoods have served as a kindly shroud, although at some points the trees have fixed their roots into the joints of the mighty wall and thus added their quota to the disintegration of a noble monument. In 1838 Ackner saw masons’ marks and monograms (in Greek characters) on a number of stones. These, however, were not to be found on his later visit. The fortress at that time was a licensed quarry for the villagers of the district, who, being compelled by their feudal duties to carry stones (especially those with inscription or adornment) to Szászváros and Hatszeg, appear to have been in the habit of hurling the blocks down the S. slope into the valley of the Riul Alb in order to save themselves the trouble of transport down the long ridge. This side, at any rate, is littered with stones as far as one's sight carried, and systematic search here would probably yield finds of value.

^{page 13 note 3} Extraordinary numbers of these coins have been found in this part of Transylvania. See Müller, L., Die Münzen des thracischen Königs Lysimachus, p. 34, note 38Google Scholar; Jung, , Fasten der Provinz Dacien, p. 145, note 2.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 4} Archiv. des Vereines für Siebenbürgishe Landeskunde, i, 2, 20.

^{page 13 note 5} Mittheilungen der K. K Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmäler, 1856, p. 93 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 6} Gooss, , Skizzen zur vorrömischen Culturgeschichte der mittleren Donaugegenden in Archiv. xiv, 1878, p. 108Google Scholar. , F. and Müller, H., Archiv. xvi, 293Google Scholar. Also a short note in “Siebenbürgen,’ by Dr. E. A. Bielz, rev. by Sigerus, p. 56.

^{page 15 note 1} Tac., Ann. iv, 46Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 2} Those recorded or known to me are: (1) The Muncel Cetate; (2) Piatra Rosie; (3) Comarnicelul under Brusturelu, N. of Uj-Gredistye; (4) Faule (Facele) Albe; (5) Dealu Negru; (6) Kozstesd; (7) Kudzsir.

^{page 15 note 3} The remains are opposite the forester's house at La Grebla and thus some little distance out of Kozstesd. This must be the same, I think, with the Cetate described as ‘near Kis-Oklos,’ which is some two miles distant in the mountains.

^{page 16 note 1} Despite the woods which cover the Muncel ridge the exact situation of the fortress is fixed by a considerable escarpment below its E. wall, which appears plainly as a notch in the profile of the slope when viewed from Kozstesd.

^{page 16 note 2} The Muncel road is attributed by local tradition, though not without hesitation, to das Militär (the heroes of 1804). Indication of it is given in the wall-map of Roman Hungary ‘Forma Partium Imperii Romani intra Fines Hungariae,’ by Professor Gabriel Finály, of Budapest, who marks in this region Also-Városviz, Kozstesd, Muncel Cetate and Piatra Rosie.

^{page 17 note 1} Schuster says Surian, and it is true that the shepherds give the name Surian also to Ausinelul. The peak of Surian, properly so-called, with its small Alpensee or Jäser, rises across the valley to face Verfu lui Petru and Ausinelul. I follow Bielz on this point (op. cit. p. 59).

^{page 17 note 2} Unless they have suffered in their incorporation in the Chronik der archäologischen Funden Siebenburgens (s.v. Verfu lui Petru) of the conspicuously accurate Gooss. I have unfortunately been unable to come by a copy of Schuster's Program. This camp, in its name, position and character, has suffered much at the hands of later writers. Not Potru but Petru (Die Petersspitze) would seem to be the correct form. It is near the source of the Mühlbach river, but far removed from the town of that name. Lastly, it has been classed by the Müllers (op. cit) and others with the Dacian group of fortresses, with which it has nothing whatever in common. It is undoubtedly the same with that which Téglás, (Ungar. Revue, 1893, p. 438Google Scholar—a short summary of a paper read before the Hungarian Geographical Society) claimed to have ‘discovered.’ This in spite of not only the record in Gooss and Schuster, but also mention by Ackner, (Archiv. 1843, i, 2, IIGoogle Scholar) as well as Lehmann, ‘Die Südkarpathen zwischen Retjezat und Königstein’ (in Zts. der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin, xxii (1885), p. 367)Google Scholar.

^{page 17 note 3} According to Bielz (p. 59) Verfu lui Petru, of all the peaks from the Fogaras range to Retjezat and paringu, offers the finest and widest prospect.

^{page 17 note 4} Comarnicelul (1714 m) is to be distinguished from Comamicele (1488 m.) which lies about 8 miles to N.W., and also from the Comarnicelul (1178 m.) under Brusturelu to N. of Uj-Gredistye. For these mountains see Zone 23 cols. 28 and 29, of the maps of the K. u. K. Militär-geographisches Institut (1/75000). Much more convenient however is the 1/200000 map (Section 41° 46° Gyulafehérvár (Karlsburg) which shows almost all the sites mentioned in this Paper.

^{page 17 note 5} I was informed on respectable authority in Broos (after my return) that clear traces of a Roman roadway are to be seen beneath Godian.

^{page 18 note 1} This, though not directly recorded, is a certain inference from the Dacian descent to the Danube as aggressors in 105 and from the appearance of Sarmizegethusa in the Second War as the Dacian capital.

^{page 18 note 2} The heroic Longinus may have been the commandant of one of these, and not of the main force at Sarmizegethusa, as is sometimes assumed. Cassius Dio (68, 12, 1) describes him simply as στρατοπέδου Ῥωμαϊκοῦ ἐξηγούμενον.

^{page 18 note 3} I am indebted to the late Captain G. L. Cheesman for very valuable criticism of this section of my paper.

^{page 18 note 4} The same inference may be drawn from a smaller find in Uj-Gredistye (Jung, Fasten, 145, note 3).

^{page 18 note 5} Mittheilungen, p. 99.

^{page 19 note 1} I follow the text of Dindorf. Boissevain's arrangement of the excerpts at this point has little value for the historian (as may be seen by his marginal dating iii, 193). He says (196) ‘excerptoris Constantiniani ὄρη τε ἐντετειχισμένα ἔλαβε non respondere Xiphilineis ὡς δέ καὶ … κατλαμβάνων mihi constat.’ Yet Cichorius (ii, 286), whom he cites in favour of this view, expressly (and rightly) identifies the two sets of operations described.

^{page 19 note 2} The site of the defeat of Cornelius Fuscus in the reign of Domitian is a ‘still-vex'd’ question. Brandis, , Pauly-Wissowa R. E. iv, 1966Google Scholar, is in favour of the Red Tower Pass and adjacent district, but does not discuss the evidence. It seems possible to base a conjecture on the combination of three or four pieces of the literary record. Tac. Agric. 41, ‘tot exercitus temeritate aut per ignaviam ducum amissi,’ where the former epithet would apply to Fuscus, the latter perhaps to Oppius Sabinus (defeated at Adamklissi ?). Tac, . Hist. ii, 86Google Scholar, ‘non tam praemiis periculorum quam ipsis periculis laetus pro certis et olim partis nova ambigua ancipitia malebat.’ Orosius, vii, 10 (on the basis of Tacitus) ‘male circumactum exercitum.’ From these passages we may plausibly infer, I think, that Tacitus censured Fuscus for attempting, on insufficient intelligence of the country, to approach Sarmizegethusa by the, at that time, unexplored route of the Red Tower Pass, instead of the well-known access by the Iron Gate. Compare also, perhaps, an obscure fragment of Dio (Boissevain, iii, 172) ἐπειδὴ οἱ μετὰ τοῦ Φούσκου στρατευσάμενοι ἡγήσασθαι σπῶν αὐτῶν ἠξίωσαν. Our ancient authorities at any rate place it beyond doubt that Fuscus perished in Dacia, and not, as Cichorius has contended in an ingenious treatise, on the right side of the Danube at Adamklissi (Die römischen Denkmäler in der Dobrudscha, Berlin,1904Google Scholar). Fuscus was by no means a mere carpet knight, as some (even Gsell, Domitien, p. 214) have supposed on the strength of an inept gibe by Juvenal (iv, 112, ‘Fuscus marmorea meditatus proelia villa’). He was a man of energy and ability, but certainly rash, with a tincture, possibly, of the military theorist and experimenter. Altogether a dangerous mixture of ingredients, and quite unlike the component humours of Tacitus' favourite, Suetonius Paulinus, and even that ‘good if not great man’ Agricola.

^{page 20 note 1} The epitomator of Dio omits all reference to any operations in the Roumanian plain, which were doubtless of minor importance. We draw the same inference from the reliefs.

^{page 20 note 2} The content of this picture contains much that is perplexing. Fröhner and Cichorius see in this Dacian noble the embassy, in response to which, according to Cassius Dio, 68, 9, 1, Licinius Sura and Claudius Livianus were sent to treat with Decebalus. The historian, however, speaks of a plurality of envoys, and the demeanour of the pilleatus is rather that of a deserter or captive. So, too, difficulties arise in connexion with the legion shown here. Petersen's explanation of it as merely the customary parade at the reception of envoys can hardly claim to solve these. Only one hypothesis, it seems to me, will furnish solutions for the problems here presented: that the Red Tower Pass was seized and held by a Roman force moving in advance of Trajan, and that this is the legion which now comes to welcome the emperor from the north.

^{page 21 note 1} The outpost defended exceptionally by legionaries shown at the head of LX may represent the garrison left at the Red Tower Pass.

^{page 21 note 2} This is recognised by Cichorius, but not by Petersen, who makes LXII a different camp, probably misled by the change of background. It has not been observed that this is a conventional licence of the designer. Having once indicated the identity of the central building in two or more pictures, he holds himself free to vary the detail or background for the purposes of his narrative.

^{page 21 note 3} So again in CXLIX.

^{page 22 note 1} Perhaps in the neighbourhood of Reussmarkt (the Roman Cedonia), if one may hazard a conjecture. According to Jung (Fasten, 149 ff.) it was from this point that the Dacian road ran W. over the Mühlbach mountains towards the Strell valley.

^{page 21 note 2} The roof is not unlike that shown in the Dacian wattled hut in a well-known Louvre relief (see Papers of the British School at Rome, 1906, p. 226), where, however, the dormer windows are absent.

^{page 21 note 3} This type of round tower has not been found either in the Sebesely fastnesses above described (with the possible exception of the so-called ‘Circus’ on the Muncel Cetate) or in the small earth-forts in the Udvárhely Comitat described by Téglás, (‘Dák Várák,’ with plans, in Erdelyi Muzeum, xii, 1895, p. 237 ffGoogle Scholar. There is no evidence which justifies the connexion of these with the Roman invasion, which Téglás there posits). A single instance is known to me where remains of such a round tower have plausibly been described as Dacian. This is at the so-called Cetativie on a mountain-slope between Poplaka and Resinar in the neighbourhood of Hermannstadt, a site which was visited by Ackner in Aug. 1848 from Hammersdorf, and described by him in ‘Der Satellit’ (Beiblatt of the Kronstadt Zeitung, 1850, nos. 12, 13, 14). Much of his account is devoted to his maltreatment in Poplaka at the hands of loyalist Roumanians, by whom he was arrested on a charge of espionage. The description of the Cetativie is disappointingly brief. One gathers that it was a fortified place, chosen and arranged on much the same principles as those which determined the construction of the Sebesely group. On its western side he found traces of what he describes as a huge round watchtower. Something may perhaps be hoped for from an examination of the Eastern side of the Mühlbach mountains. It is curious that the Cibin mountains, despite their proximity to Hermannstadt, the home of a number of industrious antiquarians, have received even less attention than the Sebesely side, unless this is to be explained on the principle of the Scotch proverb, ‘The soutar's loons are aye the warst shod.’ Ackner indeed, in the above account, explains naïvely that the difficulties in the way of distant excursion during the convulsions of the '48 compelled him for once to begin at home, The round watch-tower (Cetate Zsidovilor) near Krivadia in the Schyl valley, once thought to be Roman, is certainly in its present form mediaeval, Szinte, Gabor in Archaeologiai Ertésitö, xiv, 110 fGoogle Scholar. attempts to relate it to the Roman invasion and the theory that Lusius Quietus advanced by the Vulcan Pass (Király, Paul, Dacia, i, 353)Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 1} i,68. ‘Die eigentümlichen Zacken und scharfen, weglosen Ränder eben an den tiefsten Stellen der Einsenkungen zeigen, dass es nicht Passwege sind.’

^{page 23 note 2} Cassius Dio, 68, 8, 3. No figure is characterised on the relief as leader. In this suppression we find, it may be, a trace of the powerfully corrupting influence of Hadrian on the monuments, as on the literature, of this period. Lusius was the most, prominent of the camarilla of generals who planned a dangerous conspiracy against Trajan's successor, early in his reign. See passim Das Attentat der vier Konsulare auf Hadrian im Jahre 118 n. Cbr. by Premerstein, A. v. (Leipzig 1908)Google Scholar. It is true, however,that the reliefs give no portraits of officers, unless Trajan is present, a condition which can hardly be said to be satisfied here. Schrader, Hans, ‘Uber den Marmorkopf eines Negers in den Kgl. Museen,’ Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste, Berlin, p. 31Google Scholar, thinks it worth while to discuss a possible identification with Lusius. The Moorish type on Roman monuments is, of course, a familiar and distinctive one. Cf. Bienkowski, , De Simulacris Barbararum Gentium apud Romanos, Cracow, 1900, p. 78 (fig. 74)Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 3} Petersen, i, 70, however, suggests ‘Jene trennenden Höhenzüge finden sich in den nächsten Partien des Reliefs haüfiger, und es ist daher wohl die Frage aufzuwerfen, ob hier nicht Rücksicht der Arbeitsersparnis massgebend gewesen, mehr als die Absicht wirkliche Höhenzüge darzustellen’. This idea is plainly prompted realisation that the representation of high ground throughout this section makes against his proposed advance by the river valley of the Schyl. Cichorius rightly sees in, (LXIV) the systematic clearing of an extensive mountainous area.

^{page 23 note 4} Cassius Dio says simply (68, 8, 3) ἑτέρωθι προσβαλών.

^{page 24 note 1} Proposals to amend this to Pontes or Poatem Augusti) have nothing to recommend them.

^{page 24 note 2} The artist makes them traverse and hold the whole distance from wall to wall.

^{page 26 note 1} A notice in Gooss, Chronik, records the existence of a triple earthwork encircling the summit of Dealu Negru. I was unable to visit it.

^{page 27 note 1} At Aquae (Kis-Kálán)–see J.R.S. vii, 95.

^{page 28 note 1} I have lately heard from Dr. Buday that the Roumanian Government proposes to conduct extensive excavations in the Muncel district in the coming summer.