See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323006228

M O N T A N A – praesidium, regio, municipium. (co-auth. Rumen Ivanov). In:

Roman cities in Bulgaria. Ed. R. Ivanov. T. 2

Article · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 218

1 author:

Krassimira Luka

2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Roman pottery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krassimira Luka on 08 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MONTANA
Praesidium, R egio, M unicipium
Rumen Ivanov, Krassimira Luka

Montana

І. Geographic location1
Montana (Kutlovitsa/Ferdinand/Mihaylov­
grad) is located in present­day Northwestern
Bulgaria – in the western part of the Balkan/
the Balkan Mountains (Stara Planina), the an­
cient Haemus mons. The small Shiroka Planina
Mountain rises in front of it. Its continuation
is the Verenishko Bardo Ridge, which is 624
m high. To the east the Ogosta River valley
(the ancient Augusta fluvius) is situated.
The climate here is moderate­continental,
the winter often is very cold, the summer is
hot, and the spring and autumn are change­
able. The region is prone to strong winds
– oceanic air masses coming from the west­
northwest, and cold winds from the north­
east, especially in winter and spring. Fur­
thermore, the Balkan Mountains block these
winds, and they are trapped in the region.
However, the lowlands are mostly covered
with fertile alluvial soils, the black earths in
the Danubian plain being formed on a loess
bed. In the fore­Balkan light grey and dark
grey forest soils predominate, and in the
Balkan area – brown forest and mountain

1
In the current study R. Ivanov is author of the chapters ‚Geographic Location‛, ‚The Area before
the Roman Presence‛, ‚Name and Status of the Settlement and the Vicinity‛, ‚Historical Events‛, ‚Pro­
vincial Belonging, Road Network and Customs Control‛, ‚Ethnic Composition, Classes and Religion‛,
‚Necropolises‛.
K. Luka is the author of the chapters ‚ C h r o n i c l e o f R e s e a r c h ‛ , ‚Archaeological Surveys‛,
Christianity‛ and ‚The Area during the Middle Ages‛, as well as of the historical events after the end
of the 5th c., the information about the Roman villa by the village of Urovene, arts and crafts (sculpture
and pottery production) as well as of the maps: Figs 3, 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 42.

197
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
meadow soils. The fertile soil, in combina­
tion with the climate, provides conditions for
the production of cereals, fodder crops, and
even conditions for vegetable­growing, vine­
growing and fruit­growing.
The region is characterized by a great va­
riety of woods, frutescent and herbaceous
plants. The forest resources are represented
mainly by deciduous woods (oak, beech,
hornbeam, lime, ash, etc.), along the river val­
leys there are willow, hazel, and poplar; in
the mountain areas there are mixed decidu­
ous – coniferous forests (beech, fir, spruce,
pine), and in the alpine areas the forests are
coniferous (fir, spruce, pine scrub). There are
bushes everywhere – briar, bramble, rasp­
berry bushes, blackthorn, and also cornel
tree and hornbeam. The fauna is also varied.
There are more than 150 kinds of nesting
birds, more than 16 kinds of reptiles, 60 kinds
of mammals, and 20 varieties of fish. The in­
vertebrate fauna is also rich.
In the vicinity of Montana throughout the
Roman age there were also wild animals. Ep-
igraphic and archaeological evidence tes­ tifies
to the presence of bears and bisons. In more
ancient times in the Balkan Mountains, as
well as in remote areas, there are traces of
lions and aurochs (Нинов, Л. 1989:55–61; Ni­
nov, L. 1999:323-338).
The Ogosta River (Augusta fluvius) runs
through Montana; it is 144 km long and is a
right tributary of the Danube. It consists of
three large and numerous small tributaries.
At snowmelt it overruns its bed, and some­
times causes floods.
ІІ. The Area before the Roman Presence
Here the stress will be mostly on the two
big tribal groups which played an impor­
tant part in the history of this region. We start
with the Triballi (Triballoi, Τριβαλλοί). A great
Thracian tribal community, inhabiting the ter­
ritory between the valleys of the Morava River
(Morava fluvius) to the west, and the Iskar Riv­
er (Oescus fl.) to the east, is concerned.
198
As far as the etymology is concerned, there
are a few opinions, but two of them are note­
worthy. According to Academician Vladimir
Georgiev, the origin of the name has Dacian–
Moesian roots and means ‚village‛, i.e. the
name Triballi means peasants (Georgiev, V.
1978:80). The academic Dimitar Dechev pre­
sents another view. The name comes from
that of the family which dominated and di­
rected life in a certain area (the leaders also
direct the religious and political life). Similar
in sound are epithets of deities such as Dio­
nysus, Jupiter and others which indicate that
the name actually bears a religious meaning
(Фол, А., T. Спиридонов 1983:80; Detschew,
D. 1976:41; Белитов, И. 1991:165).
This large tribe was first mentioned by He-
rodotus (Hdt., IV, 49, 2). The name is pre­
served for more than a millennium, and in
the Early Middle Ages it started to be used
as a name for the Serbians (Белитов, И.
1991:165). Perhaps ‚the father of history‛
borrowed information from Hecataeus of Mi-
letus (Jacoby, F. 1908:432). The evidence prob-
ably refers to an earlier age – the 6th c. BC.
The evidence of Herodotus indicates that the
Angros River ran through the Triballi plain,
and flowed into the Istar (Danube). It is sup-
posed that Brongos was the old name of the
Morava River and Angros is considered to
refer to the smaller Western Serbian Mora­ va
River (Белитов, И. 1991:167 with refe-rence).
There are interesting things written about
the Triballi. For instance, their battle forma­
tion had four rows. According to Joannes
Stobaeus ІV, 13, the first line consisted of the
weaker soldiers; the second included the ex­
perienced ones; the third line was occupied
by the cavalry, and the last one included
their women who stopped the deserters with
insults, and threw stones at them. The com­
mentaries are controversial; perhaps they
were borrowed from Roman sources, describ­
ing some ‚tactical‛ schemes of the Gauls and
the Germans (Фол, А. 1975:24; Papazoglu, F.
1978:36, 460).
 MONTANA
Claudius Ptolemaeus’ ‚Geography‛ prob­
ably reflects the Late Trajan/ Early Hadrian
period. Using this source, it should be consid­
ered that the administrative borders do not
coincide with the ethnic areas (Papazoglu, F.
1978:65-66). He mentions Oescus Triballorum
(Gigen, Pleven reg.). A decree from December
4, 291 AD, at the time of Diocletian’s rule, was
issued in the city called Tribal(l)is. There is a
hypothesis that the city of Oescus was tem­
porarily called such (Polaschek, E. 1937:2399).
The Triballi inhabited a vast region in the
Thracian Northwest (Белитов, И. 1991:183).
At the end of the sixth century, the beginnings
of a political structure developed here. The
organization of the Triballi seems to have had
its apogee in the 5th and the beginning of the
4th c. BC. This is mostly expressed by tenden­
cies to unification and centralization as well
as by raids, mainly to the south and east. The
Triballi managed to a great extent to remain
independent from the strong Macedonian ru-
lers nearby. However, gradually a process of
increasing tension developed. Frequent at­
tacks on neighbouring tribes, or more accu­
rately those which had become neighbours
of the Triballi – Celts and Scordisci, Avtariati
and Bastarnae – began.
The vicinity of Montana was inhabited
by the Southeastern Mountain Triballi. The
hilly agriculture was characteristic for them.
They were occupied in stockbreeding, fruit­
growing and vine­growing. Of course, most
fertile were the areas along the river valleys.
Undoubtedly they were experienced in the
extraction of gold, and built houses of mud
and stone.
In the valleys the settlements were most
frequently unfortified. Fortresses with vari­
ous functions were situated in the hilly and
mountain areas (often refugia, fortresses of
the small settlement type, guard posts, etc.).
In the construction of the houses, many
of which were large, the following materi­
als were used: clay, beams, adobe and straw.
The Triballi considered the sun their supreme
deity.
When Roman aggression started on the Bal­
kans in the first century BC, in the vast area be­
tween the aforementioned rivers Morava and
Iskar, the future conquerors came into contact
with quite a lot of tribes. All of this is a sign
of the decentralization and weakening of the
Triballi. Perhaps by then only a small group
would still be called Triballi; it was located
in the sub­Balkan area of the present­day re­
gions of Vratsa and Montana. In the 1st c. AD
there were no longer independent Triballi.
Everyone was subject to the new Roman au­
thorities. Then the name was mentioned as an
ethnic and geographical term only (Белитов,
И. 1991:183).
The Scordisci initially settled between the
rivers Sava and Drava. In historical literature
they are known from the 2nd c. BC. They are
mentioned under two names – Scordisci and
Scordisti (Домарадски, М. 1984:91). Some
authors call them Gauls or Celts, while others
number them among the Illyrians and even
the Thracians. In inscriptions from Delphi and
Europa dated respectively in the 3rd and the
1st c. BC, the Scordisci are called Celts. There
is evidence of four invasions of the Scordisci
against the Triballi – in AD 298, 281, 280 and
271. There is no later historical record. Per-
haps after AD 278 the Scordisci occu­
pied a part of the western lands of the Trib­
alli. The area of the Scordisci and especially of
the Triballi is rich in ore.
After AD 179 the participation of the Scor­
disci in the political life of the Balkans was
significant.
The Bastarnae moved to the Lower Stream
of the Danube. They defeated the Dardani,
and thus they became temporary southern
neighbours of the Scordisci. In AD 168 Rome
defeated Macedonia, and 20 years later the
new Roman province with the same name
was founded. Originally, it was not occupied
by the conqueror, and thus the Scordisci of­
ten undertook raids towards the rich south.
A half­century­long peak in Scordisci power
is to be observed. No Roman operation here
against them ended successfully.
199
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
It all ended in 84 BC. The Scordisci, Dardani
and Maedi attacked Macedonia and parts of
Greece in large numbers. They plundered a
few centres among which the sanctuary in
Delphi. The Romans sent a big army led by
Licinius Cornelius Scipio. That marked the be­
ginning of the end of the Scordisci. They were
finally defeated by Emperor Tiberius (14-37).
ІІІ. Name and Status of the Settlement
and the Vicinity
Since 1993 the city has been called Mon­
tana which was its ancient name. The name
of the settlement from the age of the perma­
nent settling of the Slavs in the Early Middle
Ages was Kutlovitsa. After the Liberation of
Bulgaria from Ottoman Rule (1878), between
1891 and 1945 the city was named after Kn­
yaz (later – Tsar) Ferdinand (the second ruler
of the third and last Bulgarian Kingdom),
and after World War II it was named Mihay­
lovgrad (after the communist functionary
Georgy Mihaylov).
Ancient authors and itineraries do not men-
tion Montana. Perhaps the settlement did not
lie on a major crossroads and probably it
was not large (Александров, Г. 1994:33). It
is not mentioned in the dozens of histori­
cal or geographical maps from the 17th­18th
c. and even in the earlier times discussed by
us. This fact should be seriously taken into
consideration because the other military gar­
rison in the hinterland of Moesia Inferior –
Abritus is mentioned in a number of literary
sources and a few maps (Иванов, Т. 1980).
Maybe that is because the battle between the
Romans and Goths in which Emperor Decius
himself and his son Herennius died (June
251) took place there (around the nearby vil­
lage of Dryanovets – after G. Radoslavova
and G. Dzanev).
After all, Montana lies not far from the Da-
nube River and from the centre Ratiaria, as
well as from Serdica to the south.
There are two views about the origin of
the name Montana. According to the first
200
opinion, it is associated with the words
mons = mountain, and montani = highlanders
(Бешевлиев, В. 1963:33). This name can be as-
sociated with the hill Kaleto at the foot of
which a sanctuary functioned. The cult of the
spring was practiced by the Thracians even
afterwards during the age of the Roman pres­
ence (Монтана, І, 1987:17 with reference – by
Velizar Velkov).
According to the second view, one of the
two cohortes Montanorum which were re­
cruited from the region of the Alps was sta­
tioned here (Cichorius, 1901:316; Wagner,
W. 1938:168; Ritterling, E. 1927:86; Spaul, J.
2000: 295-296; Велков, В. 1987:10). Professor
Velizar Velkov believes that the case with the
name of the military unit that was at camp
in the region is similar to those with the set­
tlement of Augustae (not far from here, by
the village of Harlets, Vratsa reg., and 5 km
inland from the Danubian bank). The castel­
lum there was given the name of аla Augusta,
stationed by the mouth of the river with the
same name from the beginning of the 50s of
the 1st c. It is even thought that the river run­
ning there (Augusta fluvius) obtained its name
after this auxiliary unit. We must note that
the Thracian name has not been revealed
so far (Герасимова, В. 1970:24; Машов, С.
1980).
According to V. Velkov, it is possible that
cohors Montanorum in the 1st c. AD was some­
where in Moesia or somewhere around Mon­
tana (Велков, В. 1971:107). Such a unit was
stationed somewhere in Moesia for a while
during the Claudius’ and Nero’s reign, and
afterwards it was sent to Pannonia. With re­
spect to Domitian’s wars (81-96) against the
Dacians, it was returned for a while to West­
ern Moesia (the later Moesia Superior?). Prob­
ably it was in the area by Тimacum Minus (to-
day’s Ravna, Serbia), stationed there to de-
fend the road Ratiaria – Naissus, the defile by
Ravna and the rich mining regions there, all
territories of the later province of Moesia Su-
perior (Герасимова, В. 1970:25; Велков, В.
1987:10, note 13-16).
 MONTANA

TableІ
Сohors Montanorum
(after J. Wilkes 1969:473; J. Šašel 1983:782-786; B. Lörincz 1990:80; J. Spaul 2000:294-295)

Military unit and personnel Province Date Reference

I (Montanorum) Pannonia 05.09.85 CIL, XVI, 31
I Montanorum C.R. Pannonia 20.02.98 CIL, XVI, 42
I Montanorum Moes. Sup. 12.07.96 RMD, 6
I Montanorum C.R. Moes. Sup. 08/05.100 CIL, XVI. 46
I Montanorum Moes. Sup. 103/105 CIL, XVI, 54
I Montanorum Dacia 14.10.109 RMD, 148
Coh. I Montanorum Dacia 14.10.109 RMD, 148
I Montanorum Dacia 02.07.110 CIL, XVI, 163
I Mont. Syria Pal. 22.11.139 CIL, XVI, 87
I Montanor. Syria Pal. 07.03.160 RMD, 173
I Mont. Moesia Sup. 158/159 ZPE, 126:251
I Mont. Moesia Sup. 159/160 CIL, XVI, 111
I Montanor. Moesia Sup. 08.02.161 RMD, 55

Čezava­Novae,
Coh. I Mont. a.98/99 AE, 1976, 609
Serbia
­H I Mon Mülbach CIL, III, 8074/21
Coh. Montanorum Šuplja Crkva Situla, 19, 841
Coh. Mont. Šuplja Crkva CIL, III, 15003
Co­ I Mont. Ravna AE, 1903,289
Coors (sic) Prima Montanorum Prishtina Situla, 19, 534
Ti.Cl.Mercurialis, praef. Ravna AE, 1903, 289
Cornelius Felicior, praef. caligati Dacia 14.10.109 RMD, 148
Buccus Staurni f.Fab. domo Brixia miles Šuplja Crkva Situla, 19, 841
Remmosa Conis f. miles Šuplja Crkva CIL, III, 15003
M. Herennius M.f. Polymita, Berens,
Dacia 14.10.109 RMD, 148
pedes veteranus
Septimius Dassius veteranus Prishtina Situla, 19, 534

Epigraphically, the name Montana is not neia) in Frygia (present­day Turkey) is con­
mentioned until AD 134 and it was extra fines cerned. It mentions Montana as a praesidium.2
(Монтана, ІІ, № 151). A Latin inscription dis­ Cohors I Sugambrorum (Sygambrorum) (vet-
covered in the village of Išekli (Ishekli, Eume­ erana) is mentioned there; from here it was

2
JRS, XVI, 1926:74 = AE, 1927, No 95; Монтана, ІІ, No 151:
Pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) divi Traiani / Parth(ici) fil(ii), divi Nervae nepotis Traiani / Hadriani Aug(usti)
domuique eius senatui Populiq(ue) / R(omani) et coh(ortis) I Cl(audiae) Sygambrorum / veteranae equitatae et
M(arcus) Iulius M(arci) / f(ilius) Fabia Pisonianus qui et Dion, praef(ectus) / fabrum et praef(ectus) coh(ortis)
s(upra) s(criptae) / domo Tyro metropolis Phoenices et Coeles Syriae / qui a Moesia(e) Inf(erioris) Montan(ensi)
praesidio / numerum in Asia(m) peruxit. / V(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

201
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

transferred to Asia Minor. This auxiliary unit
is one of the first which came temporarily into
the newly founded province of Moesia (found­
ed according to a new hypothesis in AD 12 –
Avram, A., or in AD 16 – Boteva, D. 2012:9-22).
It took an active part in the suppression of the
local Thracian population during the events of
AD 26­27.
Two types of seals on bricks originate from
Montana; they indicate the presence of a mili­
tary unit and are related to building activ­
ity: COH I SVG VE; COH I SYG VE (CIL, III,
12529; Добруски, В. 1895:330; Александров,
Г. 1977а:59–60; on the military unit see:
Герасимова, В. 1970:24). The hypothesis is
that in Asia a numerus (?) was transferred
which was led and left there by Pisonianius.
The auxiliary unit was still in Moesia after AD
45 when the neighbouring province of Thracia
was founded. It is mentioned in a military di­
ploma from AD 75. Between 97 and 153 it re­
mained in Moesia Inferior, in praesidium Mon-
tanensium (Тачева, М. 2000:98–99).
A statuette was found in neighbouring Da-
cia (Cioioiul Nou); it is dedicated to a person
most likely related to Montana.3
About the mid­2nd c. is also the dating of
the inscription discovered in the sanctuary
by the hill. It refers to Malia or Aemilia (?) or
Aemiliana, born in the capital Rome who ar­
rived here for the second time with her son,
and she is repeating the offering made before
at the sanctuary (Велков, В., Александров, Г.
1994:№ 46 with reference).4
The name occurs in an ara dedicated to Deus
Aeternus during the age of the Severs (193-235)
(Велков, В., Александров, Г. 1994:№ 68).5
The settlement has been attested to under
three technical names which show its status
during the Principate – praesidium, regio and
municipium.
As far as the purpose of the term praesidium,
used often during the age of the Principate as
well as during Late Antiquity is concerned,
there are still some unclear points (Монтана,
ІІ, № 151; Николов, Д. 1994:125–131;
Торбатов, С. 2000:15–19 with reference; 2004).
According to some experts, this term refers to
a military camp in general. Here the stress is
rather on the numbers of the garrison inside
itself than on the building itself (Fabricius, Е.
1926:576; Торбатов, С. 2000:15). Certainly,
there is another opinion – that a synonym of
castellum is regarded (Baatz, D. 1975:24-25).
Here we must remember the Latin inscription
from Pannonia (CIL, III, 3385), where it is men­
tioned that to stop the penetration of latrunculi
along the Danubian border, multiple praesidia
and burgi must be raised. It is clear that de­
fensive fortifications for interior security are
implied. We must mention five more inscrip­
tions (three from the northern territories of
Thracia near Moesia Inferior, and two from
the east and not far from the Pontic coast) – re­
spectively from the urban territories of Serdica
(Sofia, Sofiya), Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora),
Marcianopolis (Devnya – west of Varna), and
the last two monuments which originate from
colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium (Develt, Debelt
southwest of Burgas) and Bizye (Vize in Euro­
pean Turkey, by the Black Sea) (Кацаров, Г.
1926/27:107–112; Бешевлиев, В. 1952:33–36;
Mihailov, G. 1961; Мирчев, М. 1961:15–16;
Буюклиев, Хр., Л. Гетов 1964:29–30; Rohde,
G. 1940:76-78; Velkov, V. 1978:176, note 18; Iva-
nov, R., Bülow, G.v. 2008:30). They refer to the
building of praesidia, burgi and phruri (pruri).
They have been dated to between 152 and 155

3
AE, 1967, No.392: M(arcus) Opellius Maxsimus (sic) / [---Mo]ntanensium, Herculi / [---Aeq]uensium
/ ex voto.
4
Cum primum / veni Monta/nis et numina / vidi, deabus / votum vovi/ut potui, pos/ui.
Mallia vel Ae/miliana do/10 mo Roma fr[u] /mento [p]ubli/[co] cum fili[o] suo / m(onumentum)
restotui[t].
The name is in Ablative/Locative instead of Accusativ directionis.
5
Aeterno Maxi/mo deo. Pro / salute Monta/nen(sium) et L(uci) Civi /5 Sanctus, veteranus./ V(otum
s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

202
 MONTANA

AD and have been interpreted as defensive fa­

cilities with military – police functions. They
maintained order and supported the admin­
istration of the regions and they guaranteed
the control of the roads if there was any local
unrest (Forni, G. 1974:124-126).6
In the epigraphic evidence discussed here,
the number of praesidia was much smaller
than that of the other types of fortifications.
Perhaps they were larger in area and a consid­
erably greater military potential was stationed
there. They were raised on strategically im­
portant military – economic sites. That must
have been the case with Montana.7
A few inscriptions with different contents
originate from here; there is a common idea in
all of them that a municipium (?) is referred to.
We must start with a votive epigraphic record
(from the village of Gromshin in the vicinity
of today’s town of Montana) to the health of
the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus raised by the governor of the province – Fig. 1. Dedication to Diana by Q. Sabinus Veranus,
M. Servilius Fabianus. The territory of Montana II vir primus (after Монтана, 2, 1994, № 12) (photo
is mentioned, i.e. that could only happen after by Violeta Voeva)
the settlement had already been raised to the
rank of a municipium (see the commentary of that decuriones are concerned and the post II
Th. Mommsen в CIL, III, 12385). The date is (duo) vir primus = first city councillor, occurs
162 AD (Thomasson, B. 1984:136, No.93). 8 in a fourth one (Александров, Г. 1977а:57, №
In three other inscriptions it is supposed 12).9 (Fig. 1).

6
We are aware of such cases from other provinces of the Empire (Isaac, B. 1986:390-391; 1990:174-183;
Торбатов, С. 2000:16). Recently the opinion that these three types of fortifications represent a second
inner line of the Lower Danubian Limes, as some scholars in the recent past thought, has been categori­
cally rejected (Mihailov, G. 1961:5-7).
7
A roadside fortification in the province of Arabia in present-day Jordan (Khirbet el-Khalde) is called
a Praesidium. It was raised and functioned actively in Diocletian – Constantine’s age; it reminds one of a
quadriburgium (54 × 33 m), yet in Notitia Dignitatum it is noted that a cohort was stationed there (Parker,
S. 1986:108-109). Along the Lower Danubian Limes we have epigraphic records of a number of praesidia
from the age of the First Tetrarchy. There are lots of unclear points concerning their characteristics, but
in general they were small in size and they seemed to resemble burgi (on more details about these forti­
fications, see: Popescu, E. 1976: No.205; Florescu, G. 1924:88 sqq.; Polonik, P. 1935:20; TIR, L – 35:65; Ko­
lendo, J. 1966:139 sqq.; Petrović, P. 1977:263-264; Scorpan, C. 1980:7; Sarnowski, T. 1988:125 ff.; 1990:855
ff.; Ivanov, R. 1996:161-167; Zahariade, M., N. Gudea 1997:78-79; Торбатов, С. 2000:17–19).
8
Montana, ІІ, No 59: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo). / Pro salute imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) / Aureli(i)
Antonini Aug(usti) et / imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci) Aureli(i) Veri Aug(usti) /5 M(arcus) Servilius Fa­
bianus , leg(atus) / Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore), templum vetus/tate corruptum a solo / per reg(ionem)
Mont(anensium) restituit.
9
Monatanа, ІІ, No 101: *---------------] / [M]ontanus dec(urio) Mo(ntanensium) p(osuit) (the time of the
Severs – AD. 193-235).

203
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

However, as far as the urban status (by
AD 162 and afterwards) of the settlement in
the southwestern district of Moesia Inferior
is concerned, there are a few opinions which
may look more plausible.10
Recently, M. Tacheva has also issued a view
which is similar to that of other colleagues
shared earlier (D. Tudor, R. Vulpe, N. Ran­
kov). 11
Here we should discuss briefly the term ter-
ritoria (without an urban centre). Of course,
some of the settlements grew into bigger cen­
tres subsequently. The non­urban territories
are civitas, regio and territoria. Their area is not
big and they were governed in a quasi­muni­
cipial way. Regiones do not fall under the pro­
tective control of a certain legion or auxiliary
unit. However, on the orders of the governor

Montana, ІІ, No 116: [L(ucius) Ant(onius)] Proc/[lus] dec(urio) M(ontanensium ? ) / <vixit / [an]
nis L, me /5 [ns]is tres, L(ucius) / [Ant(onius)] Proc/[lus] et L(ucius) Ant(onius) Se/[n]eca et / L(ucius)
Ant(onius) Cassi /10 anus et L(ucius) / Ant(onius) Melli/or fil(i) / patri be/ne mere/15 nti posu/erunt.
Montana, ІІ, No 123: [----------] / [---] D(ecurio?) M(ontanensium?) vix(it) / *annis<+X, Val(erius) /
[Vale?]rianus---/ [---vix(it) a]nn(is)XV / [---]ris d[------] [--------] (the mid-3rd c.).
According to Margarita Tacheva, decurioni of Montana are regarded – dec. Mo(ntanensium), but not
decurioni for a municipium – dec. municipii.
10
Rankov, N. 1983:57-58: ‚< This interpretation of the meaning region, if correct, must cast further
doubt on the supposition that Montana definitely achieved municipial status. This assumption has been
based on two pieces of evidence: firstly, the references on four inscription to decuriones Montanensium
(Decuriones Montanensium: CIL, III, 7461; Kazarow, G. 1938: No 589; D. Tudor, Oltenia Romană, Bucha­
rest 1968:527, No 381 at Cioroioul Nou in Oltenia; on this evidence for the municipial status of Montana
see the crtisism of R.Vulpe, Studia Thracologica, Bucharest 1976:294-296, 310); Professor Radu Vulpe has
rightly pointed out that, whilst this certainly indicates a municipal type of organization, it does not nec­
essarily imply official municipal status, since these officials are found both in civitates peregrinae, such as
the territorium Dianensium (AE, 1911, No 16), and in vici, as attested to by the decurions of the vicani of
Trullenses (CIL, III, 12390; 14409); and secondly an inscription of A.D. 161-163 from Gromšin (Gromshin)
further down the Ogosta from Montana, in which the provincial governor records the reconstruction of
atemple per reg(ionem) Mont(anensium) (CIL, III, 12385). This has been taken to indicate municipal sta­
tus for Montana at least from that date. Certainly, region can be used to mean a municipal territory and
no doubt that inscription set up in honour of the emperor by a provincial governor should imply the
term in a strict technical sense. But even in most official documents neither this term nor the word terri­
torium, also often used to mean a municipally territory (E.g. Weiss, J. 1913:209-210), was thus restricted.
A good example of this is provided by an inscription of AD 138, only about twenty years before the
Montana inscription, found in Henchir el Begar in the province of Africa. This is the text of a Senatus
Consultum concerning markets to be held in regione Beguensi, Territorio Musulamiorum. From the
inscription it is clear that the region Beguensis was an area of imperial estates lying in the territory of
the tribe of the Musulami (CIL, VIII, 270). The evidence cited above clearly shows, I hope, that the term
region Montanensium regularly refers to an area under special military control and possibly even to a
region of imperial estates; this excludes its use as a municipal territory. We cannot prove that Montana
was not a municipium, but the Gromshin inscription certainly does not prove that it was.‛
11
Dianae. / Pro sal(ute) Q(uinti) / Sabini Ve/rani II v(iri) p/5 rimi, Macrin(us)/ arc(arius) pos(uit),
cur(ante) / Hilaro. Vite/lius d(edit) v(otum) s(plvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Fig. 1 Date: the second half of the 2nd
c. Prof. Velizar Velkov gives an example from Dessau, ILS (the number of the inscription is not given) II
vir(o) primo col(oniae) Iconii. Prof. Margarita Tacheva’s opinion about this abbreviation is the following
(Tatscheva, M. 1996:180): ‚< Die Lesung duov(ir) pr(imus) nehme ich als nicht überzeugend an; dagegen
sprechen die Ungewöhnliche Abkürzung des Amtes, das Fehlen bis heutzutage inschriftlich beweisener
Minicipal~mter aus region Montatensium, wie auch die persönlich Angaben über die Sabinii. Was eine
Zivilsiedlung in regio Montanensium betrifft, könnte sie auch ein vicus gewesen sein, wenn die zur Sep­
timius Severus’ Zeit datierte Inschrift über einen primceps vici Tautiomosis in Betracht zögen.‛

204
 MONTANA

territory of Montana‛ (Rankov, N. 1983:51-

Fig. 2. Dedication to Diana and Apollo and to the
provincial governor L. Iulius Severus from L. Iulius
Macedo, beneficiaries consularis (159-160 г.) (after
Монтана, 2, 1994, № 49) (photo by Violeta Voeva)
of Moesia Inferior, soldiers, non­commisiant of­
ficers and officers were recruited from exerci-
tus provinciae. At the head there was a centurio
regionarius,12 who was replaced by optio agens
regione Montanense.13 A beneficiarius consularis
of Thracian origin was also engaged in ‚the
56).14 From the second volume of Montana
(Mонтана, ІІ) we have at our disposal the fol­
lowing inscriptions with beneficiarii consularis
– NoNo 1, 19, 35, 49, 56, 57, 95) (Fig. 2).
Monuments in the vicinity have been docu­
mented from the village of Dolna Verenitsa
(Montana reg.), from the very close vicinity
of Vratsa – the villages of Gromshin and Sira­
kovo, as well as regionarii from Almus and Au-
gustae, northeast and not far from here. From
more distant sites we know of ones from the
village of Obnova, Pleven reg., from the vil­
lage of Koshov Dol by the city of Ruse, etc.
The basic functions of these police officers was
keeping the order, pursuit of rebels or bandits,
control of the roads and stations, and restora­
tion of buildings. In our case it seems that the
exploitation and control of the gold and silver
deposits, their extraction, supervision and ex­
ploitation were of major importance15 (on these
topics see: Rankov, N. 1983:56-57; Speidel,
M. 1984:185-188; Sarnowski, T. 1988:99-104;
Божилова, В. 1987:30; Геров, Б. 1980:68, 78;
Герасимова-Томова, В. 1986:30–31; Николов,
Д. 1994:125–131; Иванов, Р. 1999:276; Тачева,
М. 2000; 2004). According to M. Tacheva,
(Тачева, М. 2004:78) a civilian settlement with
a big sanctuary (in our view it had been there
earlier) occurred around the military camp in
134; it served the local, mostly mining popula­

12
Montana, ІІ, No 39: [Ap]ollini /Sancto / C(aius) Iulius / Saturni/5 nus (centurio) /region/arius / ex
voto. Date: 225-250.
CIL, III, 12380; Montana, ІІ, No 134: [---------] / C(aius) Iul(ius) / Sa(t)urn/inus ce(n)turio r(e)/gionariu(s)
/ ex voto. Date: 225-250.
13
Monatana, ІІ, No 53: Dianae et Ap/ollini sacrum./ C(aius) Val(erius) Valens / optio leg(ionis) 5/ XI
Cl(audiae) agens / r(egione) Mont[an(ensium)]. / V(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)]. Date: 161-163.
14
Rankov, N. 1983:51-52; Montana, ІІ, No 57: Diis sanctis,/ Deanae Reginae / et Apollini /Phoe­
bo. 5/ Iul(ius) Mucaze/nus b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) leg(ionis) / I Ital(icae), ag(ens) t(erritorii)
M(ontanensium),/ pro sal(ute) sua / et Iuliae, coniu(gis) / 10 eius, gratias / agens, v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)
m(erito).
15
Rankov, N. 1983:49 – ‚What, then, were beneiciarii consularis doing at Montana ? If we are right
to see Montana as the centre of a mining area then the answer may lie there. Several stationes of these
officers were located in mining areas of the eastern European provinces. In Dalmatia there was a station
at Skelani, in the silver­mining area of the Drina valley, and another further down the valley at Doma­
via, where the imperial procurator of the Pannonian and Dalmatian silver mines resided.‛ (Wilkes, J.
1969:125 with a full list of inscriptions of beneficiarii consularis in the area; on the mines: Davies, O.

205
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

tion. She believes that the theory that the terri­
tory had no pronounced urban centre is more
convincing. Prof. Tacheva supposes that the
raising of Montana into a municipium did not
take place in AD 162 or until the end of the
2nd c. but much later – probably after the mid­
3rd c. (Тачева, М. 2004:79). In a Latin inscrip­
tion from 256 AD, two types of population are
mentioned there – castrenses et cives Montan-
enses – the civilian and the military popula­
tion are topographically separated from the
military camp and the municipium.16 In Late
Antiquity the name of the city vanished from
the records, but its functioning as a religious
and cultural centre is beyond doubt.
ІV. Historical Events
The conquest of the Thracian lands on both
sides of the Balkan Mountains started with the
great campaigns of M. Licinius Crassus in 29 and
28 BC (Геров, Б. 1949:3–4; Ivanov, R. 1997:473
ff.; Иванов, Р. 1999:18–21). The Bastarnae and
Daci crossed the frozen Danube and reached
the present­day plain of Kyustendil (in to­
day’s Southwestern Bulgaria). The climate
there is mild and the conditions are perfect
for agriculture, stockbreeding and use of the
natural resources of the Osogovo Mountain.
This area was inhabited by the Thracian tribe
of the Dentheletae. It was entirely dependent
on the Roman authority in the neighbouring
province of Macedonia. With an impressive
military contingent Crassus invaded and sub­
dued everything in his way.17
The newcomers from the north who were
left alive stampeded toward the great Euro­
pean river. The Roman military commander
conquered everything in his path. He passed
through the present-day Sofia Plain and con­
tinued upwards along the valleys of the rivers
of Nishava and Timok (Timacus fluvius). The
crucial battle took place on the right Danubian
bank. It is not exactly sure where this bloody
event happened. According to some, the site
is by the mouth of the Tsibritsa River (Kebros,
Ciabrus fluvius), which is not far from the re­
gion of Моntana, but according to others it
took place around Ratiaria (the future Roman
colonia Ulpia Traiana Ratiaria). Surveys in small
sectors have been conducted so far in Mon­
tana and its vicinity and there is no evidence
of burning from that time.
However, half a century earlier, the Thra­
cians from the hilly areas rebelled against the
Roman authorities. It is assumed that the area
around the Thracian fortress at Montana was
very active. It is not by chance that cohors I

1935; Wilkes, J. 1969:125, 363; Dušanić, S. 1977:872, note 19). In Dacia a bf.cos. is attested at Ampelum,
centre of one of the principal gold­mining areas of the province and again the seat of an imperial procu­
rator of mines. Another station possibly connected with gold­mining lay at Micia, 12 miles south of the
Boicza district mines, the approaches to which were guarded by Micia’s auxiliary garrison (AE, 1930, No.
11 – Ampelum; On the mines see Davies 1935:201-202; CIL, III, 7859 – Micia; On the garrison see Wagner,
W. 1938:49050, 53; Gudea, N. 1977:872, note 19). Nor was it just gold and silver mines which attracted the
presence of these officers: on the very northernmost part of the Dacian frontier the salt-workings, an im­
perial estate under an imperial procurator at Domneşti, were organised just like the mines as an imperial
estate under an imperial procurator, and not far to the west the beneficiarius consularis at Alsó – Kos{ly
(Caşei), stationed by the auxiliary fort which guarded the approach up the Szamos valley to Napoca,
perhaps had responsibility for the nearby salinae at Ocna Dejului (AE, 1930, No.11 – Domneşti; for the
procurator: AE, 1930, No.10; note that Pascua and salinae were administrated together, salt being essen­
tial for the proper raising of livestock: Glodariu, I. 1977:960-961; CIL, III, 823, 825-827 – Alsó – Kos{ly).
16
CIL, III, Suppl., 12376 : Монтана, ІІ, № 5: *<burgum constitui] / [iussit] un[de latruncu/los o]
bservare[nt] / [pro]pter tutela[m] 5/ [ca]stresium (sic) et / [ci]vium Montanesium (sic),/ Maximo et G[la/
brione] [co(n)s(ulibus)].
17
Liv., Per., CXXXXIV: ‘<bellum adversus Basternas et Moesos et alias gentes a M.Crasso (ges­
tum)<‛; Flor., Ii, 26: ‚<bellum a M.Crasso adversus Thracas<gestum<‛; Liv., Per., CXXXV: ‚<bel­
lum Moesiacum<‛; Cassius Dio, LI, 23: ‚<τοῖς τε Δακοῖς καὶ <τοῖ> Βαστάρναις έπολέμησε<‛.

206
 MONTANA

Sugambrorum was active there and took part terwards, there were small Thracian forti­ fi-
in the suppression of the unrests. cations across these lands. This region is in-
Now, let’s focus on the military contingent habited by the tribal group of the Triballi
here. The area of Montana is rich in natural (Белитов, И.). During the riots of AD 26-27,
resources, especially the extraction of aurifer­ the aforementioned cohors Sugambrorum was
ous sands. This forced the governor of Moesia put under the command of the governor Pop-
Inferior to take special precautions regarding paeus Sabinus (Tac., Ann., IV, 5).
the extraction of the precious material, its pro­ Many cohorts are called Sugambri (one
tection during transportation, as well as con­ of the numerous tribes of the Germani, also
trol over the local population. called Sygambri, Sucambri), and they are con­
This hilly region had been in contact with nected with the history of a few Roman prov­
the Roman world since the time related with inces: Moesia, Moеsia Inferior, Moesia Superi-
the annexation of Macedonia. Coins from or, Syria, Mauretania (CIL, XVI, 16, 56; VIII,
the 2nd and the 1st c. BC have been found 9362-9363, 20 999; XVI, 16, 44; Mirković, M.
here (Fig. 3), as well as pottery from Aretium 1968:178 ff.; RMD, 1997, 297, Table 2; Weiss,
(Arezzo) in Italy. Perhaps before the Romans P. 1977:227-268; 1999a:279-286; 1999b:287-
of М. Licinius Crassus arrived here and af­ 292).
T a b l e ІІ Co-
hortes Sugambrorum
(after М. Тачева 2000:101; J. Spaul 2000:245)

Location
Reference Military unit Province Year AD
of finding
RMD, 2 I Sugambrorum veterana Moesia 75 Timacum Minus
CIL, XVI, 22 I Sugambrorum tironum Moesia 78 Reg. Montanens.
ZPE, 1977:233 [I sugambror]um t[ir]onum Moesia Inferior 97
CIL, XVI, 44 I Sugambr. veterana 99 Tomis
CIL, III, 12529 I coh. Sug. ve Moesia Inferior 99-134 Praes. Mont.
Montana Praes. Mon-
I coh. Syg. Ve. Moesia Inferior 99-134
(Монтана, ІІ, № 151) tanens.
I Sugambrum (M.Val.
ILS, 2724 Syria Ante 134? Byllis, Maced.
Lollianus, Syr.)
I Cl.Syganbrum vet. Išecli (Eu-
AE, 1927, No.95 equitata (M.Iulius Piso- Asia 134 meneia),
nianus, praef. coh.) Frygia
I Cl. Sugambr.? (M.Ac. Giurgiu,
CIL, XVI, 78 Moesia Inferior ? 134?
Alexander, Palmyr.) Romania
<χώρτη ά Κλοδία Moesia Inferior –
IGBulg.,II, 591 145?
΢υγάμβρων οὐετράνα ? Thracia
RMD, 165 I Claud. Sugambr. [vet.] Moesia Inferior 145 Durostorum
ZPE, 1999a:279, Moesia Inferior –
I Cl. Sugambrum veterana 145­146
No.10 Thracia
RMD, 50 [I Claud.] Sugamb[r. vet.] Moesia Inferior 153 Candidiana
ZPE,1999a:282, No.12 I Claud. Sugambr. Tironum Syria ? 153 Moesia Inferior ?
Kazanlak,
CIL, XVI, 106 I Cl*<+ Sugambr. Syria 157
Thracia

207
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 3. Coin hoards from the 1st c. BC in the region of Montana (after Krassimira Luka)
Legend:
ancient settlement, known from the sources; coin hoard
4 – Staliyska Mahala (Paunov, E. , I. Prokopov 2002: 42, Kat. No. 62; 42-43, Kat. No. 63-64); 15 – Yakimovo
(Велков, В. 1987: 9; Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 45-46, Kat. No. 70-71); 24 – Mihaylovo (Dolna Gnoenitsa)
(Николов, Б. 1996: 108; Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 23, Kat. No. 11); 29 – Gradeshnitsa (Paunov, E.,
I.Prokopov 2002:27, Kat. No. 26; 64-65, Kat. No. 104); 30 – Beli breg (Герасимов, Т. 1966: 211; Paunov, E.,
I. Prokopov 2002: 20-21, Kat. No 6, Kat. No 30); 35 – Nikolovo (Велков, В. 1987: 9); 36 – Kalimanitsa (An-
cient villa № 1 Montana) (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 28-29, Kat. No. 29); 38 – Baurene (Герасимов, Т.
1966: 211; Paunov, E. , I.Prokopov 2002: 20, Kat. No 4); 42 – Galatin (Paunov, E., I.Prokopov 2002: 64, Kat.
No. 103); 50 – Gorna Verenitsa (Герасимов, Т. 1937: 320; Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 26, Kat. No. 22);
64 – Dolno Ovirovo (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 23, Kat. No. 12); 66 – Kravoder (vicus Vorovum Minor)
(Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 31, Kat. No. 36-37); 69 – Miziya (Bukyovtsi) (Герасимов, Т. 1967: 187; Pau­
nov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 22, Kat. No. 8; 23, Kat. No. 9); 70 – Krushovitsa (Paunov, E. , I. Prokopov 2002:
31, Kat. No. 38); 74 – Altimir (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 19, Kat. No 1); 87 – Bukovets (Герасимов, Т.
1937: 320; Paunov, E. , I.Prokopov 2002: 21-22, Kat. No 7); 90 – Ohoden (Димитрова-Чудилова, С. 1972;
Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 36, Kat. No. 47); 93 – Tishevitsa (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov2002: 44, Kat. No.
68); 104 – Lazarovo (Strupen) (Герасимов, Т. 1964: 238-239; Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002:32-33, Kat. No.
39); 106 – Koynare (Герасимов, Т. 1964: 242; Paunov, E., I.Prokopov 2002: 65, Kat. No. 110); 114 – Komo-
shtitsa (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov2002: 30, Kat. No. 33-34); 115 – Rasovo (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 39-
40, Kat. No. 56­57; 73, Kat. No. 124); 116 – Medkovets (Paunov, E., I. Prokopov 2002: 70-71, Kat. No. 117).

208
 MONTANA

We’ve already mentioned cohors I Montano-

rum earlier (Велков, В. 1971:107; Wagner, W.
1938:170-171; Rankov, N. 1983:41).
From Montana itself, a military diploma
from February 7, 78 AD originates; its holder
was pedes of cohors Cilicum and was called Per-
asius Publi f(ilius). The tribune of this cohort
is mentioned in an inscription from AD 147
(Velkov, V., Alexandrov, G. 1988:271-277).
After the transfer of Montana to the border
province of Moesia Inferior, vexillationes of le-
gio XI Claudia and legio I Italica arrived. In the
interior of the province there were two more
centres – Abritus, where there were auxiliary
troops in the region of the Ludogorie Plateau,
and the important Troyan Pass on the road Oes-
cus – Philippopolis, which was guarded by the
fort at Sostra. For the time being four auxiliary
units which were stationed there throughout
the age of the Principate have become known
epigraphically (Христов, И. 2006b; Eck, W., R.
Ivanov 2009). Undoubtedly, there were defen­ Fig. 4. Dedication to Diana in honour of a success­
sive positions at the other Balkan passes but fully completed hunt of bears and bisons ordered
here it was most tangible. by the provincial governor Claudius Saturninus,
as ‚imperial hunting‛ (after Монтана, 2, 1994,
The earliest mention of vexillationes of legio
No 9) (photo by Violeta Voeva)
I Italica and legio ХІ Claudia dates from AD
147. We learn that from a recently discovered
Latin inscription with very valuable informa­ ing year – 148 – there were great celebrations
tion (Fig. 4). The organization of Venatio Cae- on the occasion of the 900 anniversary of the
sariana is concerned. An impressive military foundation of Rome (Velkov, V., Alexandrov,
contingent took part in bear and bisons hunt­ G. 1988: 271 ff.; Монтана, ІІ, № 9).
ing. Military personnel from cohors I Cilicum This inscription calls into question an ear­
(Table ІІІ), legio I Italica et legio XI Claudia (vex- lier opinion (Геров, Б. 1980:77, бел. 91 with
illationes), classis Flavia Moesica was engaged in reference), and namely that regio Montanensis
this activity.18 The monument is dedicated to in the 2nd­3rd c. was under the area of control
Diana and commemorates the successful hunt of legio I Italica (with main garrison at No-
in the region. The mention of the river Moe­ vae), from where they sent vexillationes to this
sian fleet implies that the wild animals were remote district. In the sixth decade of the 2nd
transported via the Danube and then probably c. there were outfits of legio XI Claudia here
the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean from the considerably more distant garrison
Sea and the Mediterranean to the Eternal City. of Durostorum. This was probably imposed
At the time of Philip the Arab, in the follow­ because of the participation of legio I Italica

18
Velkov, V., Alexandrov, G. 1988:271, 277: Dianae/ Ti(berius) Claudius Ulpianu(s) / trib(unus) c(o)
h(ortis) I Cil(icum) cum vexilla/tionibus leg(ionum) I Ital(icae), XI Cl(audiae), class(is) 5/ Fl(aviae)
Mo(esicae) ob venationem / Caesarianam iniunc/tam a Cl(audio) Saturnino leg(ato) / Aug(usti) pr(o)
pr(aetore) ursis et vison/tibus prospere captis 10/ aram consecra/vit Largo et Mes/sallino co(n)s(ulibus).

209
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

T a b l e ІІІ
Cohors I Cillicum milliaria (sagittaria) (after J. Spaul 2000:397-398)

Diploma Province Date Reference

Cilicum Moesia 07.02.78 CIL, XVI, 22
Cohors Cilicum Moesia 07.02.78 CIL, XVI, 22
I Cilicum Moesia Superior 16.09.94 CIL, XVI, 39
I Cilicum Moesia Superior 16.09.94 Tyche, 13, 221
Cohors I Cilicum Moesia Superior 16.09.94 Tyche, 13, 221
I Cilicum Moesia Superior 12.07.96 RMD, 6
I Cilicum Moesia Superior 08.05.100 CIL, XVI, 46
I Cilicum Moesia Inferior 02.04.136 CIL, XVI, 78
­­­lic Sag. Moesia Inferior 01.05.145 RMD, 165
I Cilicum Sag. Moesia Inferior 145­146 ZPE, 124, 279
Coh. I Cilic. Sag. Moesia Inferior 148­154 ZPE, 117, 252
I Cilic. Sag. Moesia Inferior 157 RMD, 50
Altar or votive tablet Place Date Reference
Coh. I Cili Mihaylovgrad (Montana) 144­147 AE, 1987, 867
Cor. I Cil. Philippi Tomis (Constanța) AE, 1957, 192
Boundary stone Place Date Reference
Civ(itas) Ausdec. Adver. Dac.
Coh. I Cilic. 177-179 AE, 1957, 333
(Adamclisi, Moes. Inf.)
Dedicatory stone Place Date Reference
Cohor. Cil. Uxama EE, VIII, 144
Vexillat. Coh. I Cilic. Beyrouth AE, 1926, 150
ΖΠΕΙΡΑ ΠΡΩΣΗ ΚΙΛΙΚΘΝ Thyatira IGR, IV, 1213
C­­­Cilicum Musait Dun}reni 247 AE, 1981,743
Coh. I Cil. Musait Dun}reni AE, 1981, 741
Funerary tablet or stone Place Date Reference
Coh. I Cil. Naissus (Niš) CIL, III, 8250
Coh.I Cilicum Musait Dun}reni AE, 1981, 742
Coh. I Cili. Chersonesus CIL, III, 13751 b
Coh. I Cil. Tomis AE, 1957, 193

in the military actions of Emperor Antoninus
Pius in Mauritania between 144 and 152 AD.
In our opinion, these hypotheses must be ig­
nored.
At the beginning of the 3rd c. (AD 204), by
the village of Kamenna Riksa, near and north­
west of Montana, there was a unit of cohors
Dacorum. It is assumed that military control
along the Valley of Ogosta River had to be
strengthened because there were mines for
precious metals and their transportation had
to be secured.19

19
Rankov, N. 1983:58: ‚W. Wagner 1938:130 sees this unit as one of those which went to make up
a new unit, cohors Gemina Dacorum Gordiana milliaria, attested to on an inscription found between
Kamenna Riksa and Belimel and probably based in the same fort as the earlier unit; he suggests that the
new unit was put together from the remants of the earlier cohort and others after some disaster (CIL, III,
14211,9; Kalinka, E. 1906, No. 62).

210
 MONTANA

In a few inscriptions, one of them dated pre­

cisely to the age of Maximinus Thrax’ rule (235­
238), NCR = N(umerus) C(ivium) R(omanorum) is
mentioned.20 There hardly was a unit with this
name after Caracalla’s reform?21 Here, there is
a controversial issue. In another view, the ab­
breviation may be deciphered as N(umerus)
C(ollectus) R(egionarium) (On regionarii see:
Speidel, M. 1984:185-188).
In an inscription from AD 258 building ac­
tivity conducted by cohors III Collecta is men­
tioned. This military unit is known from other
inscriptions from this site (Монтана, ІІ, №№
4, 6, 80, 133) (Fig. 5). From the offered review
it can be seen clearly that the military presence
here was quite massive during the Principate
age.
Now we are about to discuss briefly two
inscriptions which later are to be considered
further. Margarita Tacheva discusses them on
the occasion of the restoration of a temple and
an altar as well as the situation in the region
in the troubled times among local population
when the region was transferred to the neigh­
bouring province of Moesia Inferior.
‚<Finally I’m going to mention the resto­
ration of the shrine of Iupiter Optimus Maxi-
mus in 162 AD in regio Montanensium (CIL, III,
12385 from Gromshin – vetustate corruptum), Fig. 5. Inscription – acclamation in honour of Em­
destroyed ‚by age‛ according to an inscrip­ peror Valerian by cohors III Collecta. The dedica­
tion, and the restoration of the votive altar at tion was organized by the tribune Aelius Maximus
the sanctuary of Diana and Apollo approxi­ (253 AD) (photo by Violeta Voeva)
mately at the same time. In fact, the second in­
scription of the devout Roman lady (ILS 9775
– monumentum restituit) implies that in both for the elevation of Montana into a municip­
cases the shrine and the inscription at anoth­ ium as V. Velkov and G. Alexandrov claim,
er sanctuary were not suffered damage over but of a war­time situation. It led through the
the years. Since the events of that time do not aforementioned inscriptions of the Thracian
speak of long preparations and celebrations provincial governors in AD 151­156 about the

20
Монтана, ІІ, № 3: Numini perpetuo / d(omini) n(ostri) invictissimi / Imp(eratoris) Caes(arius) C(ai)
Iul(i) V(eri)/ [[Maximini]] Pii, Fe/5 licis, Aug(usti), Pont(ificis) / Maximo (sic), trib(unicia) / potest(ate),
p(atris) p(atriae) proco(n)s(ulis), / n(umerus) c(ivium) Romanorum [[Maximinia]]/ [[nus]] devotus / nu­
mini maiesta/tique eius.
Монтана, ІІ, № 20: *Diana+e Reginae / *<S+ELEVCUS / *libr.?+arius n(umeri) c(ivium) [R(omanorum)]
/ [pro s]e et suos / [ex v]oto posuit.
21
Rankov, N. 1983:59: ‚<A numerus of Roman citizens is thus rather unusual. Possibly they were a
local militia, as V.Bozhilova 1976:41, note 8 suggests, perhaps formed out of newly-enfranchised natives
following on the Constitutio Antoniniana of A.D. ‛.
211
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

construction of fortresses and guard posts for
the defense of Thracia.‛ (Тачева, М. 2000:88–
89). As far as the incursion of the Costoboci in
AD 170 is concerned, there is no data about
devastation (!?).22
Building activity of the aforementioned co-
hors III Collecta is a consequence of the Gothic
invasions from the mid­3rd c. (250­251). The
great coalition led by the Gothic military
commander Кniva, forced a crossing over
the Danube in four directions. From east and
west they have been localized in the area of
Sexaginta Prista and further southwards and
south­eastwards in present­day Northeastern
Bulgaria. The second spot was at the legionary
camp Novae. That is where the Danube is nar­
rowest and the bank is not high. Here Kniva,
along with 70 000 men, crossed the river and
headed towards Nicopolis ad Istrum (Nikyup),
the market­place Discoduraterae (Gostilitsa)
and from there he passed Haemus mons. The
third direction was at Ulpia Oescus (Иванов,
Р. 1999). From here, along the strategic road,
one headed directly to Philippopolis (Plovdiv).
The last area of invasion was namely the Val­
ley of the Ogosta River by which Montana
was reached. Deposited coin hoards from that
time have been discovered at many sites across
the region of Montana: Orsoya (Добруски,
В. 1890: 19), Mokresh, Komoshtitsa, Yaki­ mo-
vo, Medkovets, Smirnenski, (Gerov, B.
1963:141-143; Александров, Г. 1994:40), Kriv­
odol (Герасимов, Т. 1938: 450; Александров,
Г. 1994:40), Sofronievo (Николов, Б. 1996:
274; Gerasimov, T. 1979:141), Mihaylovo (Ге-
расимов, Т. 1937: 317–318; Николов, Б.
1996: 108; Gerasimov, T. 1979: 138), Zamfiro-
vo (Герасимов, Т. 1937: 320), Kravoder (Ге-
расимов, Т. 1937: 320), Virovsko (Николов, Б.
1996: 52), Oryahovo(Герасимов, Т. 1937: 315),
Knezha (Gerasimov, T. 1979: 135) (Fig. 6).
The region was devastated by the great
Gothic incursions in 376­378. There is no in­
formation about the fortress in particular,
but numerous coin finds originate from the
nearby villages: Orsoya, Mihaylovo, Be­ lo-
tintsi (Александров, Г. 1994:41), Govezhda
(Герасимов, Т. 1938: 450; Александров, Г.
1994:41), Krushovitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 171–
172), Linitsa (Герасимов, Т. 1965:249). The ra-
vaging raids affected most of all the big villa
estates, i.e. the owners of rich lands along the
Valley of the Ogosta River. Probably the local
exploited population took the side of the in­
vaders (Fig. 6).
As far as the Hunnic invasions in Montana
are concerned, we do not have any certain in-
dications. However, the city of Ratiaria on the
Danube was affected (Динчев, В. 2002:15),and
in 408 Hunnic troops, led by Ildris, seized Ca-
stra Martis (Castramartis) (Атанасова, Й,
2005:12). By 453 in the vicinity of the same
city, a small group of Huns as well as Sarma­
tians and Kemandri were given the right to
live there as foederati.
At the very end of the 5th and the begin­
ning of the 6th c., the name ‚Bulgars‛ occurred
in sources (Vulgares/Bulgares, Βούλγαρι)
(Златарски, В. 1994:36–37); their attacks, ac­
cording to the reports of Marcellinus Comes,
Cassiodorus and Ennodius, were localized
from west to east around Sirmium, Horreum,
Margum, the Tsurta River (Tsibritsa?) and the
Iatrus River.23 It can be assumed that the area

22
We think Montana must have been affected by these invasions. It is not clear why the reserachers
have not come across such devastation so far.
23
In 499: ‚... Arist, commander of the troops of Illyricum headed< against the Bulgarian (Bulgares),
who were devastating Thracia. The battle took place by the Tsurta River.‛ (Marc. Com., Chr., 502 (X);
ЛИБИ, I, 1958, 317). In 535: ‚The patrician Cita clashed at Iatrus in Moesia with enemies – Bulgarians,
and came out victorious.‛ (Marc. Com., Chr., 535 (XII); ЛИБИ, I, 1958, 320). In 504 the Bulgarians took
part in the defense of Sirmium as allies of the Gepids against the Ostrogothian King Theodorich (Cass.,
Var., 504; ЛИБИ, I, 1958, 306). In 505 Bulgarians took part in the battle at Margus between the army of
Mundo supported by Picia – the military commander of Theodorich, and the Byzantine military forces
led by Sabinian (Ennod., Panagyricus, XII; Marc. Com., Chr., 505 (XIII); ЛИБИ, I, 1958, 299–302, 317).

212
 MONTANA

Fig. 6. Coin hoards from the age of the Gothic invasions in the area of Montana (after Krassimira Luka)
Legend:
– ancient settlement, known from the sources; – coin hoard from the age of the First Gothic Inva­
sion (250­251); – coin hoard from the age of the Second Gothic Invasion (376­378).
2 – Orsoya (Remetodia) (Добруски, В. 1890: 19); 5 – Smirnenski (Lukovets) (Александров, Г. 1994: 40);
15 – Yakimovo (Александров, Г. 1994: 40); 21 – Sofronievo (Николов, Б. 1996: 274; Gerasimov, T. 1979:
141); 24 – Mihaylovo (Dolna Gnoenitsa) (Герасимов, Т. 1937: 317-318; Николов, Б. 1996: 108; Gerasimov,
T. 1979: 138); 34 – Belotintsi (Александров, Г. 1994: 41); 41 – Krivodol (vicus Tautiomosis) (Герасимов, Т.
1938: 450); 54 – Govezhda (Герасимов, Т. 1938: 450); 62 – Zamfirovo (Герасимов, Т. 1937: 320); 66 – Kra-
voder (vicus Vorovum Minor) (Герасимов, Т. 1937: 320); 70 – Krushovitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 171-172);
71 – Lipnitsa (Герасимов, Т. 1965: 249); 95 – Virovsko (Николов, Б. 1996: 52); 97 – Oryahovo (Aedbae ?)
(Герасимов, Т. 1937: 315); 102 – Knezha (Gerasimov, T. 1979: 135); 114 – Komoshtitsa (Александров, Г.
1994: 40); 116 – Medkovets (Александров, Г. 1994: 40); 117 – Mokresh (Александров, Г. 1994: 40)

of Montana, which falls between the last two
sites, was also affected. According to V. Be­
shevliev, the early Bulgarian tribes launched
these attacks from the region between the riv­
ers Tisa and Danube or the southern districts
of the Carpathian Mountains: ‚From the con­
stant mention of praefecture Illyricum, it can
be concluded that they must have lived some­
where near the regarded district, since it is un-
likely that they undertook their raids from
the settlements on the coast of the Black Sea
or even further from the Sea of Azov or the
Caucasian districts, because in that case the
path of the invading Huns would have run

213
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

through Scythia Minor, which has not been
mentioned in any source.‛ (Бешевлиев, В,
1980:52, 54). Confirmation of such an idea is a
late source (Riders to the Old Bulgarian trans­
lation of the Chronicle of Manassas) where
it is stated: ‚Under Emperor Anastasius the
Bulgarians started to conquer this land. When
they crossed from Bdin and at first started to
seize the Lower land of Ohrid and afterwards
the entire land. Since the exit of the Bulgar­
ians, it has been 870 years.‛ (Каймакамова,
М. 1993:36).24
In the period after AD 534 when the Byz­
antine military commander Belisarius trans­
ferred his troops and thus started the bat­
tle of Byzantine Empire in the Gothic war
(Ангелов, Д., 1965: 25–26), the names of An­
tes and Sklaveni occurred for the first time in
sources. In AD 548 they also come into contact
with the Illyrian territories of the Empire.25 A
study by S. A. Ivanov on the age of Justinian I
shows that the Danubian Limes was fortified
most strongly from the area of the present­day
city of Orshova to the east to the mouth of the
Iskar River and Oescus (Иванов, С. 1983: 42–
44). L. Hauptmann presumes contact with the
Byzantine Limes by Slavs who, while moving
along the line which runs from the inner ridge
of the Carpathian Mountains and which leads
to the Tisa River, turned in the Valley of Wal­
lachia (Hauptmann, L. 1929:142).
With the settling of the Avars on the Mid­
dle Danube another stage in the ethnic shift
was completed. The literary sources point to
a series of military actions undertaken by the
Avar Khaganate, the ultimate target of which
was the occupation of the region east of the
Olt River.26 Very likely, the status of the lands
west of this river was in relation to the Avar
politic hegemony. However, the historical data
regarding the region of ancient Montana dis­
cussed here is indirect and the archaeological
evidence is insignificant. It is known that in AD
582 the Avars destroyed the fortress of Augustae
(Машов, С. 1980:42), and in 586 the capital of
Dacia Ripensis – Ratiaria, also fell (Динчев, В.
2002:16). In the beginning of the 7th c. the Byz­
antine defensive system along the Valley of the
Danube collapsed once and for all (Комша, М.
1992: 263–264), and at the end of the same cen­
tury the area of Montana was already a border
territory between the Bulgarian State and the
Avar Khaganate (Златарски, В. 1994:152).
V. Provincial Belonging, Road Network
and Customs Control
V/1. P r o v i n c i a l B e l o n g i n g
The provincial border between Thracia
and Moesia, later Moesia Inferior, was quite
changeable throughout the age of the Princi­

24
M. Kaymakamova links the data containing in the riders with the movement of the Bulgars of Ku­
ber in the second half of the 7th c. (Каймакамова, М., 1993:39–40). However, in the text the time when
the Bulgars started ‚to conquer this land‛ has been precisely indicated – under Emperor Anastasius
(491-518).
25
In 548, the Sklaveni, crossing the Istros River ‚created a huge evil across whole Illyria as far as
Epidamnos<‛; in 550 ‚hordes of Sklaveni‛ appeared in the outskirts of Naissus; in 551 ‚a huge horde
of Sklaveni, attacking Illyricum, caused indescribable disasters there.‛ (Proc. BG.VII.29.11; VII.40.1-7;
VIII.25.1; Свод, 1994: 188–189; 194–197; 200–203).
26
According to the reports by Menandros, and earlier by Ioannes of Ephesus, in the second half of the
th
6 c., the Antes – Avars conflict was evolving (Io. Eph. II, III; Men. Fr. 6; Свод, 1994: 284–285, 316–317).
Besides the Antes, the Avar expansion was aimed against some Slavic tribes who have usually been lo­
calized in the northeastern part of the Balkans (Men. Fr. 48). Against these tribes was the raid of Bayan
in 578. In 580 the Avar Khagan started building a bridge across the Sava River ‚< in order to go against
the Slavs and get across the Sava and enter the lands of the Byzantines, to cross the Istros afterwards and
turn against them<‛ (Men. Fr. 63). The same year an Avar emissary was attacked by Slavs in Illyricum
(Men. Fr. 64).

214
 MONTANA

pate. It is considered that it was not until the
end of the 2nd c. that the ridge of the Balkan
(Stara planina/ Haemus mons) became the per­
manent borderline, something which we do
not consider true.27 Moesia – Moesia Inferior
is very long in the direction west – east. In its
eastern district (the later Moesia Inferior) it
is very narrow in direction north–south. The
border in some sectors reaches a width of just
25­40 km. From the mid­1st c., when the prov­
ince of Thracia was founded (AD 45), to the
beginning of the 2nd c., Montana belonged to
this province.
Thracia was provincia inermis, there were on-
ly auxiliary units stationed here, in the hin­
terland and especially in the hilly districts.
Of course, some of them were relocated here
from abroad. The aforementioned risings of
26­27 AD, the removal of the Thracian strate­
gies and the deprivation of land for the needs
of urbanization led to rebellions in the peri­
ods under the rule of Hadrian and Antoninus
Pius. The region of Montana was among the
troubled ones.
According to a hypothesis, the lands south
and near Montana belonged to Thracia, and
Montana itself to Moesia Inferior (Алек-
сандров, Г. 1994:33). According to another
view, around the first quarter of the 2nd c., co-
hors I Claudia Sugambrorum was attested to in
Montana (the inscription from AD 134 shows
this area already belonged to Moesia Inferior)
(Rankov, N. 1983:42) (Fig. 7).
At first, the area around the present-day
city of Berkovitsa and Montana belonged to
the province of Thracia. After AD 134­136,
changes happened between the borders of the
three neighbouring provinces of Upper Moe­
sia (Moesia Superior), Lower Moesia (Moesia
Inferior) and Thrace (Thracia). Thus, the bor­
derline between the first two provinces was
moved to the west (the former border was the
Tsibritsa River, the ancient Kiabros, Cebrus),
and thus Almus (Lom) on the Danube passed
from Upper to Lower Moesia. The aim was
Moesia Inferior to be provided with a harbour
by which to export the ore production from
the area of Montana (for more details about
the border see: Gerov, B.1979:213 ff.; Тачева,
М. 2000). Perhaps by the village of Smolyantsi
(probably in Upper Moesia), the boundary
between the two provinces turned eastwards
(Gerov, B. 1979, Karte 1).
According to literary sources, between
117 and 119 AD, in Dacia and Lower Moe­
sia, Barbarian tribes penetrated unexpect­ ed-
ly (Sarmatians, Iazyges and Roxolani).28 A few
years later, in 124-125, Emperor Hadrian him-
self visited the two provinces. Undoubt­ ed-
ly there was military reinforcement at the
weakest spots. Between 136 and 138 AD there
is evidence of minting of monetary emissions
on the reverse of which can be read – S. C.
EXERCI(TUS) THRACIAE (Strak, P. 1933:149;
Тачева, М. 1994:115–124; 2000:66).
The region of Montana in general includes
the lands in the drainage basin of the Ogosta
River.
The north­eastern end reaches the village of
Gromshin a little more than 30 km from Mi­
haylovgrad – Montana.
During Aurelian’s rule, or more likely un­
der Diocletian, serious provincial reforms
took place. The Utus (Vit) River became the

27
Thus, for instance, emporion/emporium Discoduraterae (Gostilitsa, Gabrovo reg.) lies north of the Bal­
kan and belongs to the urban territory of Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora) – beyond the mountain and
even south of the neighbouring parallel mountain of Sredna Gora (more precisely in the area of Sarnena
Gora Mountain). This situation remained until the rule of Emperor Aurelian (270-275). Afterwards, in a
few years during the same age this market­place passed to the territory of the city of Nicopolis ad Istrum
to the north of the Balkan Mountains. The same is valid for the urban northern territory of Serdica in
the province of Thracia, which passed to the north of the Balkan until the time of Aurelian – Diocletian.
28
The numismatic evidence of these events in today’s Northern Bulgaria has been unconvincing so
far (K.L.).

215
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 7. Inscriptions, reliefs and votive tablets revealed within the territory of Montana (after Krassimira
Luka)
Legend:
• – ancient settlement, known from the sources; – inscription in Latin; – inscription in Greek;
– votive tablet of the Thracian Heros; 1) Area, reached by the circulation of the monuments of the
Thracian Heros; 2) Area, reached by the distribution of inscriptions in Greek.
1 – Lom (Almus) (Добруски, В. 1890: 17, 19; Басанович, И. 1894: 64; Добруски, В. 1900: 21-22; Геров, Б.
1953: Кат. №№ 16, 17, 205, 230; Филов, Б. 1911: 273, 275, Обр. 8); 2 – Orsoya (Remetodia) (Бассанович,
И. 1894: 66; Велков, В. 1964-1965: 6; Добруски, В. 1890: 20); 3 – Dobri dol (Геров, Б. 1953: № 184, № 199,
№ 224); 5 – Smirnenski (Lukovets) (Добруски, В. 1890: 35-36; Геров, Б. 1953: № 227); 6 – Dolno Linevo
(Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1892: 79); 8 – Stanevo (Labets) (Pomodiana) (Добруски, В 1890, 16; Бассанович,
И. 1894: 65-66; Добруски, В. 1900: 22, Фиг. 9; Геров, Б. 1953: № 200; Велков, В., Г. Александров
1994: №121; Ферјанчић, С. 2002: 285); 11 – Zlatiya (Kule mahala) (Тодоров, Я. 1928: 217, №№ 480-481;

216
 MONTANA

Дякович, Б. 1900: 149; Геров, Б. 1953: № 233); 13 – Valchedram (Добруски, В. 1900: 31, Фиг. 13; Тодоров,
1928: 173); 19 – Harlets (Augustae) (Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1891: 151; Филов, В. 1911: 63; Тодоров, Я. 1928:
185, № 172; Геров, Б. 1949: №35; Машов, С. 1975: 38, Обр. 2); 23 – Manastirishte (Димитров, Д. 1942:
34, № 46; Геров, Б. 1953: № 201; Машов, С. 1975: 36-37, Обр. 1); 25 – Beli brod (Добруски, В. 1890:
13); 27 – Lehchevo (Дякович, Б. 1904: 30; Велков, В., Г. Александров Г. 1994: 40, № 92); 28 – Gromoshin
(Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1891: 148); 29 – Gradeshnitsa (Николов, Б. 1967: 222, Обр. 9; Машов, С. 1975: 39-40,
Обр. 6); 31 – Marchevo (Велков, В. 1987: 11, бел. 29); 33 – Ancient villa No 2 Montana (Александров, Г.
1980 b: 17, 43, 46-47); 34 – Belotintsi (Добруски, В. 1890: 13); 36 – Kalimanitsa (Ancient villa No 1 Montana)
(Александров, Г. 1977 а: 51-52, обр. 1; Александров, Г. 1983: 69, № 1; Велков, В., Г. Александров 1994:
31-32, № 63); 37 – Ohrid (Велков, В. / Александров Г. 1994: 53, № 129); 39 – Lipen (Николов, Б. 1996:
189); 41 – Krivodol (vicus Tautiomosis) (Венедиков, И. 1955: 201); 46 – Chelyustnitsa (Добруски, В. 1896:
434; Дякович, Б. 1904: 27); 47 – Belimel (Добруски 1896, 433-434); 48 – Kovachitsa (Филов, Б. 1912-1913:
332, Обр. 261; Велков, В., Г. Александров 1994: 36, № 77); 49 – Vidlitsa (Александров, Г. 1977 а: 59, №
14; Велков, В., Г. Александров 1994: 35, № 75); 51 – Dolna Verenitsa (Добруски, В. 1890: 13; Геров, Б.
1953: № 39; Божилова, В. 1976: 42-43); 52 – Georgy Damyanovo (Lopushna) (Дякович, Б. 1904: 12; Геров,
Б. 1953: № 271; Велков, В. , Г. Александров 1994: 31, № 61; 39-40, № 90; 49-50, № 119); 55 – Bistrilitsa
(Добруски, В. 1894: 94; Тодоров, Я. 1928: 172-173; Геров, Б. 1953: № 278); 56 – Gaganitsa (Велков, И. ,
Хp. Данов 1938; Велков, И. 1940-1942: 268; Велков, В. 1971: 106-106); 57 – Leskovets (Berkovitsa Munici-
pality) (Тодоров, Я. 1928: 198, № 299; Геров, Б. 1953: № 8; Велков, В. / Александров Г. 1994: 41, № 96);
58 – Kotenovtsi (Тодоров, Я. 1928: 45, 53, 198, № 297); 59 – Kostentsi (Тодоров, Я. 1928: 172, 198, 230);
60 – Komarevo (Berkovitsa Municipality) (Добруски, В. 1890: 10; Тодоров, Я. 1928: 18; Геров, Б. 1953: №
276); 61 – Berkovitsa (Добруски, В. 1890: 8-9; Шкорпил, К. , Х. Шкорпил 1892: 79; Тодоров, Я. 1928:
45, 52, 229, № 577; Геров, Б. 1953, № 274; Велков, В., Г. Александров 1994: 5-6, № 7); 66 – Kravoder
(vicus Vorovum Minor) (Велков, В. 1962: 31-32, Обр. 1); 67 – Lilyache (Велков, И. 1930-1931: 302-303,
Обр. 217); 68 – Chiren; 70 – Krushovitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 171-172); 73 – Sirakovo (Тодоров, Я. 1928:
171; Николов, Б. 1967: 228-229, Обр. 20); 74 – Altimir (Геров, Б. 1953: №№ 22-23; Велков, В. 1962: 33-
34, Обр. 2; Николов, Б. 1967: 218-219, Обр. 2-3; Машов, С. 1975: 39, Обр. 5); 75 – Galiche (Николов,
Б. 1967: 219, Обр. 4); 79 – Byala Slatina (Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1891: 151, 153; Геров, Б. 1953: № 27); 81 –
Sokolare; 85 – Komarevo (Byala Slatina Municipality) (Геров, Б. 1953: № 252); 86 – Tlachene (Николов, Б.
1996: 287); 92 – Golyamo Peshtene (Геров, Б. 1953: № 249; Николов, Б. 1967: 221, Обр. 7); 93 – Tishevitsa
(Николов, Б. 1967: 232, Обр. 24); 97 – Oryahovo (Adabae ?) (Добруски, В. 1900: 59; Тодоров, Я. 1928:
234, № 614; Велков, И. 1930-1931: 304- 305, Обр. 221-223; Геров, Б. 1953: № 202-203); 98 – Leskovets
(Oryahovo Municipality) (Variana) (Николов, Б. 1967: 227, Обр. 18); 99 – Selanovtsi (Николов, Б. 1996:
264); 101 – Ostrov (Pedoniana) (Добруски, В. 1900: 29-30, фиг. 11; Тодоров, Я. 1928: 171); 104 – Lazarovo
(Strupen) (Николов, Б. 1996: 282); 105 – Enitsa (Геров, Б. 1953: № 28); 106 – Koynare (Шкорпил, К. и
Х. 1892: 107, Фиг. 17; Кацаров, Г. 1911: 176-179, Обр. 2; Геров, Б. 1953: № 259; Николов, Б. 1967: 224,
225, обр.13); 107 – Chomakovtsi (Добруски, В. 1890: 44-45; Шкорпил К. И Х. 1892: 104-105, Фиг. 15;
107, Фиг. 18; Геров, Б. 1950: 15; Геров, Б. 1953: № 30-31, 253-258, 293, 297; Машов, С. 1975: 38-39, Обр.
4); 108 – Sukache (Филов, Б. 1912-1913: 41-42, обр. 35; Тодоров, Я. 1928: 45; Николов, Б. 1967: 229-231,
Обр. 21-23; Николов, Б. 1996: 276; 109 – Gabare (Добруски, В. 1900: 34-35; Геров, Б. 1950: 15; Геров,
Б. 1953: № 260-261, 287; Машов, С. 1975: 40, Обр. 7); 111 – Gornik (Филов, Б. 1912-1913: 9; Геров, Б.
1953: № 299); 112 – Cherven bryag (Геров, Б. 1950: 15, бел. 4; Димитров, Д. 1942: 45, № 86; Геров, Б.
1953: № 395); 113 – Reselets (Дякович, Б. 1904: 6-7; Геров, Б. 1950: 15, бел. 4-5; Геров, Б. 1953: № 288;
Боянов, И. 2008: 333).

217
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 8. Registered ancient sites and road thoroughfares on the territory of Montana (after KrassimiraLu-
ka)
Legend:
– ancient settlement, known from the sources; – unfortified settlement; – villa; – plain fortifi-
cation; – hill fortification; – quarry; – mile­stone column; – route of an ancient road
(1 – after Wendel, M. 2005: 146 ff.; 2 – after Добруски, В. 1890: 12; 3-5 –
after Григоров, В. 2011: 128-130, Обр. 1)

218
 MONTANA

2 – Orsoya (Remetodia) (Добуски, В. 1890: 20); 4 – Staliyska Mahala (Добруски, В. 1890: 33, бел. 61);
8 – Stanevo (Labets) (Pomodiana) (Добруки, В. 1890: 17; Басанович, И. 1894: 56); 9 – Dolni Tsibar
(Добруски, В. 1890: 17; Дякович, Б. 1900: 148); 10 – Gorni Tsibar (Cebrus) (Дякович, Б. 1900: 149); 16 –
Virove (Дякович, Б. 1904: 29); 17 – Doktor Yosifovo (Valkova Slatina) (Дякович, Б. 1904: 29); 18 – Kozloduy
(Regianum) (Добруски, В. 1890: 37; Николов, Б. 1996: 149); 19 – Harlets (Augustae) (Машов, С. 1980;
Машов, С. 1990); 20 – Butan (Николов, Б. 1996: 33); 21 – Sofronievo (Николов, Б. 1996: 274); 22 – Hay-
redin (Николов, Б. 1996: 128); 24 – Mihaylovo (Dolna Gnoenitsa) (Николов, Б. 1996: 108); 26 – Furen
(Николов, Б. 1996: 299); 27 – Lehchevo (Александров, Г. 1971: 118); 29 – Gradeshnitsa (Николов, Б.
1967: 222); 31 – Marchevo (Добруски, В. 1890: 13; Дякович, Б. 1904: 30; Александров, Г. 1971: 118-119);
32 – Erden (Добруски, В. 1890: 13; Дякович, Б. 1904: 30; Александров, Г. 1971: 119-120); 33 – Ancient
villa № 2 Montana (Александров, Г. 1980 b); 34 – Belotintsi (Добруски, В. 1890: 13; Дякович, Б. 1904:
29; Александров, Г. 1980 b: 11); 36 – Kalimanitsa (Ancient villa № 1 Montana) (Миланов, М. 1978: 61;
Александров, Г. 1983); 39 – Lipen (Николов, Б. 1967: 189); 40 – Urvene (Николов, Б. 1967: 297; Машов,
С. ръкопис); 41 – Krivodol (vicus Tautiomosis) (Николов, Б. 1967: 166-167); 42 – Galatin (Николов, Б.
1967: 70); 43 – Osen (Николов, Б. 1967: 229); 44 – Smolyanovtsi (Дякович, Б. 1904: 28); 45 – Kamenna
Riksa (Дякович, Б. 1904: 26; Александров, Г. 1971: 123); 47 – Belimel (Александров, Г. 1971: 123); 52 –
Georgy Damyanovo (Lopushna) (Дякович, Б. 1904: 12; Александров, Г. 1971: 123-124); 53 – Glavanovtsi
(Дякович, Б. 1904: 12; Динчев, В. 2006: 85); 55 – Bistrilitsa (Александров, Г. 1971: 130-132); 56 – Gaganitsa
(Добруски, В. 1890: 10; Александров, Г. 1971: 127-130; Миланов, М. 1978: 62-65); 57 – Leskovets (Berko-
vitsa Municipality) (Александров, Г. 1971: 130-132; Миланов, М. 1978: 65-67, фиг. 4-5); 58 – Kotenovtsi
(Добруски, В. 1890: 14); 61 – Berkovitsa (Добруски, В. 1890: 10; Динчев, В. 2006: 85); 62 – Zamfirovo
(Александров, Г. 1971: 130); 63 – Draganitsa (Дякович, Б. 1904: 8); 64 – Dolno Ovirovo (Дякович, Б. 1904:
8); 65 – Botunya (Миков, В. 1928-1929: 31); 66 – Kravoder (vicus Vorovum Minor) (Велков, В. 1962: 31-32);
67 – Lilyache (Александров, Г. 1971: 119; Николов, Б. 1996: 187); 68 – Chiren (Велков, И. 1930-1931: 303;
Цветков, А. 1930-1931: 262; Николов, Б. 1996: 311); 69 – Miziya (Bukyovtsi) (Николов, Б. 1996: 212); 70
– Krushovitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 171-172; Luka, K. 2003: 41); 71 – Lipnitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 193); 72 –
Rogozen (Николов, Б. 1996: 255-256); 73 – Sirakovo (Николов, Б. 1967: 229, Обр. 20 б; Николов, Б. 1996:
270); 74 – Altimir (Милчев, А. 1958; Николов, Б. 1961 а; Николов, Б. 1961 b; Лука, К. / Машов, С. 2006);
78 – Bardarski geran (Николов, Б. 1996: 39-40); 80 – Borovan (Николов, Б. 1962: 36; Николов, Б. 1996: 17;
Luka, K. 2003: 41); 81 – Sokolare (Николов, Б. 1996: 272); 82 – Popitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 243-244); 83 –
Tarnak (Николов, Б. 1996: 295-296); 84 – Vranyak (Николов, Б. 1996: 58); 86 – Tlachene (Шкорпил, К. и
Х. 1891: 155; Николов, Б. 1996: 287); 87 – Bukovets (Николов, Б. 1996: 30); 88 – Nivyanin (Джурилово)
(Николов, Б. 1996: 101); 90 – Ohoden (Дилов, И. И., И.Д. Дилов 2003: 15-18); 91 – Banitsa (Николов, Б.
1996: 9-10); 92 – Golyamo Peshtene (Николов, Б. 1967: 221, Обр. 7-8); 93 – Tishevitsa (Николов, Б. 1996:
286); 94 – Tsakonitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 307); 96 – Varbitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 66); 97 – Oryahovo (Aedabae ?)
(Добруски, В. 1890: 37); 98 – Leskovets (Oryahovo Municipality) (Variana) (Добруски, В. 1890: 37; Торбов,
Н. / Антонов, Д. / Найденова, Е. 2005); 99 – Selanovtsi; 101 – Ostrov (Pedoniana) (Добруски, В. 1890: 38);
102 – Knezha (Николов, Б. 1996: 144); 103 – Brenitsa (Димитрова, Д. 1985: 21); 104 – Lazarovo (Николов,
Б. 1996: 282); 105 – Enitsa (Николов, Б. 1996: 125); 106 – Koynare (Николов, Б. 1996: 152); 107 – Chomako-
vtsi (Николов, Б. 1996: 314-315; Велков, В. 1959: 171); 108 – Sukache (Николов, Б. 1967: 231); 109 – Gabare
(Димитрова, Д. 1985: 24; Николов, Б. 1996: 67-68); 113 – Reselets (Николов, Б. 1996: 253-254).

219
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
border not only between the two dioceses –
Тhracia to the east and Dacia to the west, but
also between two praefectures – Per Orientem
and Illyricum.
The province of Dacia Ripensis with capi­
tal city of Ratiaria fell within the diocese of
Dacia. Its borders were the following in the
territories of present-day Eastern Serbia
and Northwestern Bulgaria: to the east – the
mouth and the extent of the Vit River; to the
south – the ridge of the Balkan Mountains; to
the west – along the watershed between the
rivers Timok and Morava; and to the north
– the Danube River in the section from Tali­
ata to the mouth of the aforementioned Vit
River.
Major centres were Oescus, Bononia, Castra
Martis, Zetnukortu, Montana, Augustae, Dier-
na, Pontes, Variana, Valeriana, Almus and oth­
ers (Велков, В. 1959:76–78).
V/2. R o a d N e t w o r k
An the beginning it was mentioned that
Montana is not marked in the ancient sourc­
es, which is a little odd. The settlement lies on
a road which connects three provinces.
The road from Ratiaria (Moesia Superior) –
Montana (Moesia Inferior) – Serdica (Thracia) is
concerned. Two of these cities became capi­
tals of the new provinces founded at the end
of the third century – Dacia Ripensis (Ratiaria)
and Dacia Mediterranea (Serdica) (Велков, В.
1959:76 sq.; Иванов, Р. 1999:27–28).
According to M. Wendel, there were two
roads during Late Antiquity. The first road
started from Ratiaria and then to the south­
west it ran through Ruzhintsi and Gyurgich,
and passed next to Kamena Riksa; after­
wards by Montana it ran straight southwards
– Zamfirovo – Draganitsa – Varshets – Osi­
kovo – Iskar Defile – Serdica/Sofia (Wendel,
M. 2005:146 ff.).
D(ominis) n(ostris) Constantino [et Liciio] Augg. Crispo Constantino et Constantio <<<..
29
Caess. M(ilia) p <..
220
The second road, until it reached Montana,
passed through the same villages as the first
one. Afterwards, it continued to the northeast
towards Kravoder – the towns of Vratsa and
then the town of Mezdra, making a sharp
turn to the southwest towards Lyutibrod –
Eleshnitsa – the Iskar Defile again and Serdi­
ca (Wendel. M. 2005:147-148) (Fig. 8 – 1).
As early as the 19th c., V. Dobruski localized
the route of another ‚old cobblestone road‛
which from Montana ran through the villages
of Valkova Slatina (today’s Doktor Yosifovo),
Slivovik, Brusartsi and from there it headed
directly to Archar (Добруски, В. 1890:12). In
geographical terms, this road represents the
shortest link between Montana and Ratiaria
and judging by the recently discovered vo­
tive inscription of dux Daciae Ripensis Aurelius
Priscus, it ran through a great sanctuary lo­
cated by the present­day village of Drenovets
(Лука, К. 2011b: 533, oбр. 2) (Fig. 8 – 2).
Montana was on the inner provincial Low­
er Moesian road which ran parallel with the
Danubian road (Fig. 8 – 3). The thoroughfa­
res from Serdica and Ratiaria came together
in Montana. From there to the east they con­
tinued towards Melta (Lovech) – Nicopolis
ad Istrum (the village of Nikyup) – south of
Abritus with a branch towards it – Marciano­
polis – Odessus on the Black Sea coast. Sec­
tions of the road have been localized by K.
Shkorpil (Григоров, В. 2011:130) (Fig. 8 – 5).
From the villages of Chomakovtsi (Велков,
В. 1959:171) and Tlachene (Шкорпил, К. и Х.
1891:155), situated near this road, mile-col­
umns are known which refer to Late Antiq­
uity.29 Another road connecting Oescus with
Montana probably ran through the villages of
Altimir and Sirakovo (Григоров, В. 2011:130)
(Fig. 8 – 4).
It is assumed that another road from Dal­
matia also ran through Montana; it reached
Upper Moesia at Naissus (Niš/Nish) and to­
 MONTANA

day’s Pirot, then continued towards Chip­ (138-161) was related to this family (Стоев,
rovtsi (in Upper Moesia again) – Montana, К. 2012:18–19).
and from there it ran northwards to the Da­
nube.
VІ. Ethnic Composition, Classes
V/3. C u s t o m s C o n t r o l and Religion

Before AD 146 Montana had been a sta­ VІ/1. E t h n i c C o m p o s i t i o n

tion of the Illyrian customs. Recently M. Ta-
cheva (Тачева, M. 2000:79–92) made a se­
rious analysis of two newly discovered in­
scriptions from there.30 On the basis of this ep-
igraphic record, she has tried to provide an
approximate chronological scheme refer­ ring
the people occupied in the organization of
the customs system. Here are the more impor-
tant conclusions (Тачева, М. 2000:87). Within
the short interval between 146 and 157 AD,
conductor P.P. was T. Iulius Saturni- nus. That
is namely when his liberated slave
T. Iulius Capito was already circitor. Perhaps
at that time Q. Sabinus Veranus was conduc-
tor P.P. Illyrici Noricum, Moesia Superior, Dacia
Superior. Within four years (157­161) T. Iulius
Satirninus occupied the position P.P. Illyrici
utriusque et Ripae Thraciae, which undoubt­
edly gave him great powers. From AD 161 he
had become procurator Augustorum. Between
161 and 166 T. Iulius Capito was conductor P.P.
Illyrici et Ripae Thraciae. After 166 the office of
T. Iulius Capito was given to Iulius Ianuarius,
Iulius Capito, Iulius Epaphroditus conductores
P.P. Illyrici et Ripae Thraciae.
According to a new hypothesis based on
epigraphic records from Gaul, Hispania and
Lower Moesia, T. Iulius Saturninus originates
from a famous and wealthy family which
was in close patronal relationship with the
family of the Annii. Emperor Antoninus Pius
The civil population of Montana during
the 2nd c. was to some extent similar to that
of the big urban centre of Ratiaria (Геров, Б.
1952:81–82). Various ethnic groups were pre­
sent. Under the Severan dynasty (193-235) the
Thracian element occurs in the lands along the
upper reaches of the Ogosta River (especially
in votive inscriptions). However, this process
may have happened a little earlier.
From Montana itself inscriptions of per­
sons with Italic names, which can also be of
civilians, originate. We have even evidence of
connections between Montana and the capital
– Rome. A woman from there raised a votive
monument and then restored it again. The
veterans contributed to the infiltration of Ro­
manization and the Latin language in the re­
gion and especially along the upper stream of
the Ogosta River.
Here, the Society of Dionysus was main­
tained mainly by Greek Anatolian settlers.
The Greek names occur rarely in epigraphic
records, but do exist.
Of course, in Montana and vicinity persons
of military origin have also been attested to.
From the former city of Kutlovitsa a Latin in­
scription, unique for Lower Moesia, originates
(it was discovered in 1880); it is dated to AD
155 after the names of the consuls. Seventy­
five men from a vexillatio of legio ХІ Claudia

30
Монтана, ІІ, № 21: Dianae Reginae./Pro salute Favo/rini et Secundiae/ vern(arum) T(iti)
Iul(i) Satur/nini c(onductoris) p(ublici) p(ortorii) Illyrici sub Iul(io) Capitone et Eup(oro)
circ(itoribus) p.p.Ascle/piades serv(us) vil(icus) et Lu/censia parentes.
According to M. Tacheva (Тачева, M. 2000:80), the publishers V. Velkov and G. Aleksandrov wrong­
ly decipher the Gentile in singular but it is in plural and refers to the second circitor Eup(h?)orus.
Монтана, ІІ, № 12: Dianae./ Pro sal(ute) (Quinti) Sabini Ve/rani II viri p/r(imi) Macrin(us)/ arc(arius)
pos(uit) cur(ante) / Hilaro Vite/lius d(edit), v.s.l.m.

221
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

are regarded. They were garrisoned here and
had been recruited from the first five cohorts of
the legion.31 Later we will cite the commentary
of B. Gerov (Геров, Б. 1952:52–53). The legion­
aries have mostly imperial Gentile names and
the prevailing ones are Aurelii – 17, followed
by Valerii – 12, Iulii – 11, Flavii – 9, Aelii – 6, Ulpii
– 2, Cocceius – 1. According to him, the great­
est number of names belongs to men who are
newcomers in the unit during Emperor Had­
rian’s Principate (117-138) and in the first half
of Antoninus Pius’ rule (138­161). Boris Gerov
believes that this is particularly valid for those
who bear the Praenomen Аurelius, who could
hardly inherit this name from their parents.
He makes this assumption on the basis of an
inscription regarding legio VII Claudia (CIL
III, 8110), where thirty­six newly recruited
legionaries are listed and only one of them is
named Aurelius (dating 134­135 AD). Howev­
er, fourteen men are Aelii, which is the Gentile
name of Hadrian (Геров, Б. 1952:52 sq.).
It is B. Gerov again who has forwarded the
opinion that, as far as the presence of persons
of Thracian origin is concerned, there are no
clear indications about that time and most
likely this took place during the rule of Mar­
cus Aurelius (161­180) and afterwards.32 In the
same monument from Montana a beneficiariuis
consularis is mentioned as well as a physician
(medicus), who are of Greek origin. Recently,
the idea of B. Gerov has been subject to serious
analysis and has endured certain changes.33
Auxiliary units have been registered in
Montana and the region. At some of them in
their composition there are people from the

31
CIL, III, 7449: -------------------/ [Permissu ? T.Flavi] Longini leg(ati) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) / vexil-
lat(io) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae) / sub cura Fl(avi) Maximi (centurionis) leg(ionis) eiusdem / Severo et Sa-
biniano co(n)s(ulibus), 5/ b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) Ulpius Alexander,/ principales: tes(serarius)
Iulius Aeternalis,/ tub(icen): Aurelius Postumus, cornice[n]: Valerius Rufus, med(icus): Aurelius Arter­
mo, im(m)unes ven(atores): Iulius Longinus et Fl(avius) 10/ Valerius ; c(o)hor(tis) I : Calpur(nius) Ter­
tianus, / Valerius Felix, Fla(vius) Valens, Aurel(ius) Pedo, Fla(vius) (H)eracl(a), / Aurel(ius) Cerfonius ?;
c(o)hot(tis) II : Aurelius Appianus, Fla(vius) / Reginus, Aurelius C(h)aireas, Val(erius) Fronto, Iulius
15/ Claudianus; c(o)hor(tis) III: Iuliu(s) Horte(n)sis, Aelius / Marcial[i]s, Val(erius) Valens, Antoni(us)
Valens,/ Pontius Pontianus, Val(erius) Antonius, Val(erius) Rufus,/ Clau(dius) Ianuarius, c(o)hor(tis)
IIII: Ael(ius) Paulus, Aurel(ius)/ Germanus, Aurel(ius) Sanctus, Val(erius) Maximus, 20 / Anto(nius) Va­
lens, Iul(ius) Valens, Val(erius) Longus, Ulp(ius)/ Bassus, Fl(avius) Primus ; c(o)hor(tis) V : Ael(ius)
Apollodoru(s)/ Aeli(us) Sabinus, Iul(ius) Flaccus, Aur(elius) Helenus,/ Aur(elius) Artemo, Cocceius
Long(us?), Atil(ius) Crispus, Aur(elius) Quadratus, Ael(ius) Apellles, Fl(avius) Alexander, Iul(ius) 25/
Nigrinus, Ael(ius) Antullinus, Ael(ius) Victorinus, Cervius / Maximus, Vl(erius) Firmus), Ael(ius) Fla­
vius, Petro(nius) Valens, / [Au]r(elius) Longinus, Val(erius) Valens, Iul(ius) Alexander, Aur(elius) Ag­
atho/[c]les, Iul(ius) C[a]pito, Umi(dius) Quadratus, Mum(mius) Celer, Tri[---] Valens,/ [F ?]l(avius) Ter­
tius, Aur(elius) [Te]rtulianus, Fl(avius) Po[n]tianus, Mu[mm(ius)] Niger, 30/ Val(erius) Valens, Fl(avius)
Lo[n]ginus, Iul(ius) V[---] / [---] Aur(elius) Vindex, Aur(elius) Decimus, ---[Qui]ntus, Val[erius]---/ (uite)
leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae).
32
Геров, Б. 1952:49–53. According to him, unquestionable evidence of recruitment among the per­
egrinal element is the big list from Viminacium (Kostolac) (from AD 195), where the numerous Thracian
Cognomina testify to recruitment among the local Thracians.
33
In his PhD thesis, Kalin Stoev (2012) spatially and logically expressed his view that in the laterculus
from Montana of AD 155 there can be registered the first mass recruitment of the local settled popula­
tion which was probably partly non­Roman in terms of civil right, but still ‚Romanized‛. Therefore,
the composition of soldiers of the vexillatio of legio XI Claudia at that time was more varied. Except for
the soldiers recruited locally among which there were successors of earlier settlers from the district lo­
cated on the border between Upper and Lower Moesia, there were such the recruitment of whom was
predetermined by the permanent garrison at Durostorum. Here we are not going to discuss his theory
because the study is in print.

222
 MONTANA

Western (Celtic origin) and maybe also from

the Eastern provinces (I Claudia Sugambrorum,
I Hispanorum, I Cilicum – with probable re­
cruits from Cyprus). However, it must be not­
ed that a part of the military contingent of the
auxiliary troops was barbarized or gradually
became barbarized over the years. According
to V. Velkov, the civilian settlement at Mon­
tana occurred namely around the military
camp and the later municipium evolved from
an early settlement of the vicus type. The set­
tling of soldiers from various sorts of troops
after the end of their service at similar camp­
side settlements, often with their own govern­
ment, is a frequent phenomenon in Moesia
Inferior and can be assumed here. The com­
position of these settlements was quite varied
but traditions (including the name), character­
istic of the homelands of the people serving at
the auxiliary units, must have been kept. This
may explain the presence of such Cognomini,
characteristic for the Gauls and the Lower
Danubian lands.
After the mid­3rd c. the names of command­
ers of auxiliary units occur. They are entirely
Roman with imperial Gentilicium and at the
same time they show the provincial origin of
their bearers (Геров, Б. 1952:83).
Fig. 9. Sculpture (torso) of an honoured person
from Montana (photo by Violeta Voeva)
VІ/2. C l a s s e s

There are very few epigraphic records re­
garding the elite of Moesia Inferior compared
with the provinces along the Danube and the
Rhine (Mrozewicz, L. 1982; 1989).
There was a transit crossroads and link be-
tween the two cities in Upper Moesia and
Thracia, respectively – Ratiaria and Serdica.
For the level of the two provinces, they were in
good state under the Antonines and especially
under the Severan dynasty. It is not by chance
that Montana is missing in itineraries and liter­
ary sources.
Regardless of time when Montana became
a municipium there were representatives of the
local government who undoubtedly belonged
to the provincial elite. These were members
of provincial families and already Romanized
(Геров, Б. 1852:82). It is possible that there
were families of Italic origin which were solv­
ing the problems of Montana (Fig. 9).
The few studied villas indicate that they be-
longed to people with enviable financial re­
sources for this district. However, the evidence
of leading persons in social, administrative
and even religious life (despite the information
about the sanctuary) is scarce.
Noteworthy is the name of T. Iulius Saturni-
nus, his slaves and clients, and his big family
(Тачева, М. 2000:87). His origin and qualities
helped him acquire great power in a number of
provinces of the Empire. It is very likely that this
man was in Montana in the years around the
middle of the 2nd c. when his career flourished.
His libertine T. Iulius Capito was probably here

223
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
Fig. 10. Dedication to Diana (ara and statuette) by
C. Marius Victorinus centurio legionis I Italicae
(after Монтана, 2, 1994, № 14) (photo by Violeta
Voeva)
in Montana or in Ulpia Oescus as servus vilicus,
and afterwards as circitor (Тачева, М. 2000:87–
88). When Saturninus’ career declined, of
course other families appear in the tax system
across these lands. This is shown by the third
member of the Julii here – Iulius Epaphroditus
(Стоев, К. 2012:19). People with considerable
wealth which grew even more with their work
in the new offices are regarded.
As part of the ‚military‛ elite we must
mention high military ranks such as tribunus,
tribunus cohortis, praefectus cohortis, praeposi-
tus (Монтана, ІІ, 1994:passim). However, we
must immediately note that these men occu­
pied their positions for a short time and they
hardly remained in Montana for a long time.
The Latin epigraphic records where the
names with the rank of centurio (centurio, cen-
turio regionarius) are mentioned are numerous
(Fig. 10). Of course, we should not refer them
to an upper social class, but in this militarized
district their part was important by all means.
224
In Montana there is data about a Roman­
ized population, peregrines – most of all per­
manently or temporarily settled merchants
who met the needs of the military and civilian
population.
There were many craftsmen in the city – lo­
cals and foreigners, and liberated slaves. Slav­
ery here was a frequent phenomenon – in the
villas, workshops and in quarries. The rural
community tried to protect the interests of
the poor local population as far as possible.
However, often rich landowners and veterans
managed to claim a part of this land.
On the periphery of Montana the local ru­
ral Thracian population lived. Undoubtedly it
remained a little far from the process of Ro­
manization.
VІ/3. R e l i g i o n
The big sanctuary in Montana developed
around the Karst spring with pure fresh water
at the foot of the hill. During archaeological
surveys fragments of a large gable, columns
and epistyles were found here. There was
a large temple there for the construction of
which white marble had been used, extracted
from the nearby quarries along the southern
slopes of the Balkan. At the foot of the hill the
rocks were used and niches for statues are cut
into them. They were of different sizes (one
such is preserved and its height is 65 cm). The
statuary figures are of bronze, marble or lime­
stone (Александров, Г. 1994:83–84). There are
also many area, some of which have statues
raised on them. Often the inscriptions start
with the expression that the initiator is raising
‚aram cum sigillum‛ (Fig. 10).
Some of the statues are coloured. This gives
them additional colouring especially at night
processions to the light of torches. Red dye
can be seen on the belts of Diana while the col­
our is purple on the statues of Mars. Often the
marble is covered with wax.
Diana was most worshipped here and in
the region (maybe due to the fact that namely
this big sanctuary was revealed) (Fig. 11). She
is patroness of game and fruit trees, of forests
 MONTANA

and mountains and of course, of the hunt. She

was worshipped by miners and there were
many of them in the district.34 The goddess,
as a ‚keeper of the balance‛ between nature
and man was honoured by the military men at
the garrison, too. Her name has been written
as Diana (16 monuments), Deana (10), Deana
Augusta (2) (Fig. 11), Deana Lucifera Augusta
(1), Diana/Deana Regina (7) (Fig. 13), Diana/
Deana Sancta (3), Diana Sancta venatrix (1).
We must mention the discovery of three mar­
ble statues of Diana. The first is life size and
the other two are a little smaller. Of course,
only the torso of the three statues has been
found. The making of the ‚first‛ Diana is on a
very high provincial level. The wrap is made
so well that the folds are visible and even un­
derneath the beautiful young athletic body
emerges (Fig. 27). Often on votive tablets
(Montana, Gaganitsa, Lyuta and Bistrilitsa),
Diana the Hunter is represented riding a deer
with a dog running next to them. The recently
discovered inscription which gives indica­
tions of an undoubtedly successful hunt of Fig. 11. Dedication to Deanae (sic) Augustae by C.
bisons and bears from AD 147 is dedicated to Aemilius Donatus, centurio legionis XI Claudiae
Diana (Fig. 4). In another epigraphic record (after Монтана, 2, 1994, № 18) (photo by Violeta
the goddess is mentioned as ve(natrix). On a Voeva)
votive tablet from Gaganitsa the inscription
in Greek says ‚Artemis‛. That is the only evi­
dence in Ancient Greek from the district, the statuette discovered in a cave with a spring
initiators of which are emigrants from the East near the village of Govezhda.
(Монтана, ІІ, № 33). The sanctuary is also dedicated to Apollo,
Thracians often identified Diana with Heca- her brother: Apollo (12), Apollo Phoebus (1),
te. Hecate (Hekate) has been attested to by a Apollo Sanctus (6) (Fig. 12).

34
Rankov, N. 1983:46 – ‚... The existence of a temple to Diana and Apollo here may also be significant
in that these are two of the deities represented on the small second­century copper coins known from
the mining districts of the Danubian provinces, especially in the Kosmaj region of Moesia Superior,
which were apparently used as a form of currency in these districts. S. Dušanić has suggested that the
coins representing Diana, the moon goddess, were destined for use in the silver mines, and those repre­
senting Sol (or Apollo ?) for use in the gold mines. He supports his theory by reference to the known cult
of Diana in the silver mines of Bosnia and Serbia (Dušanić, S. 1977:58, note 12; he refers to CIL, III, 12723
– Domavia; CIL, III, 14546 – Koslaj; Starinar, V, 1885:35 – Kučajna; ŽA, XII, 1963:372-375) – Timacum
minus and compares the place names Zanes (Diana) and Argentares which he locates in the same region
of the Timok valley. He also suggests possible identification by miners of Diana with the earth-goddess,
quoting AE, 1967, No. 407, a dedication to [Di]anae et [Ter]rae Mat[r]i from the Dacian Salinae). If his
theory is correct, then the cult of Diana and Apollo at Montana may represent the two metals produced
by the Ogosta and Zlatitsa mines, silver and gold.‛

225
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

lief marble image of the Horseman, almost life

size, is kept at the RHM – Montana. He is rep­
resented during hunting while he is stabbing
a wild boar with a sharp spear (Fig. 31). On a
votive tablet from the spring by the village of
Leskovets we read dedications to the Thracian
Heros (Eroni sancto) (Монтана, ІІ, № 96).
Diana and Dionysus can be noticed on vo­
tive tablets from Montana and Valchedram
and there is a tablet originating from Mon­
tana which represents Diana with the Three
Nymphs and Dionysus. Another votive tab­

Fig. 12. Dedication to Apollo, initiated by P. Ae­

lius Fronto, centurio legionis XI Claudiae (after
Монтана, 2, 1994, № 34) (photo by Violeta Voeva)

Besides his dedications, there are naturally

such of them both together: Apollo et Diana (1),
Deana/Diana et Apollo (5), Diana Regina et Apol-
lo Phoebo (1) (Fig. 13).
We must mention a Latin votive monument
of Latona (Leto, TN) – the mythical mother of
Diana and Apollo. In actual fact, such dedica­
tions are rare (Монтана, ІІ, № 78).
Of course, there are quite a lot ‚official‛ de-
ities – I.O.M. (7), I.O.M. conservator (1), I(ovi)
O(ptimo) M(axio) S(oli) (1), Zeus (1), Iuno Regina
(2). A significant number of monuments and
votive tablets from the area are dedicated to
Zeus. Moulds with images of Zeus and Hera
have also been discovered. The merging of the
cult of Zeus and that of the Thracian Sabazios
has been established across these districts. Fig. 13. Dedication to Dianae Reginae et Apollini
The local population worshipped the Thra­ for the health of the governor of Moesia Inferior –
cian Horseman (Fig. 7). Four votive tablets Vitrasius Pollio. The initiator is C. Iulius Africanus,
have been discovered in Montana and two centurio legionis XI Claudiae (after. Монтана, 2,
tablets originate from Leskovets. A large re­ 1994, № 47) (photo by Violeta Voeva)

226
 MONTANA
let represents Dionysus next to Silvanus. A
dedication to Dionysus is in Greek. A fam­
ily (a priest and a priestess) raised a statue
of the deity. Probably a religious society of
Anatolian settlers here who came as crafts­
men and merchants is regarded. This de­
ity, highly worshipped by Thracians, too, is
well documented in Montana and its vicinity
(Александров, Г. 1990:30–37). The ancient
Italic deity Liber who offered fertility, was
syncretized across these lands with Dionysus
(Монтана, ІІ, № 70).
Fig. 14. Dedication to Silvanus (photo by Violeta
Voeva)
Fig. 15. Dedication to Aesculapius and Hygieia by
Publius Aelius Fronto, centurio legionis XI Clau­
diae (photo by Violeta Voeva)
Silvanus is an ancient Roman deity of wild
nature, but was also worshipped as a found­
er and patron of agriculture, guardian of the
home, the estate and the lands. Spring celebra­
tions (for instance on March 17) were organ­
ized in his honour. In six monuments (most of
them – votive tablets) we have evidence of this
deity, written as: Silvanus (2); Silvanus Deus
(2), Silvanus Sanctus (2), Silvano et Silvestri (2)
(Fig. 14). In one of the inscriptions the dedica­
tion was made by a person named with the
theophoric name of this deity – Silvano sancto.
Silvane(n)sis ex v(oto) p(osuit) (Монтана, ІІ, №
87). The healer­deities Aesculapius and Hy­
gieia were worshipped by both the military
and civil population (Fig. 15). They were writ­
ten as: Aesculapius (1), Hyg(ia) (2), Aesculapius
et Hygia (1). We must mention a bronze statu­
227
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
ette of Fortuna – the goddess of good fortune.
The lives of both military men and civilians
were unimaginable without luck. It is not acci­
dental that the expression ‚Fortuna imperatrix
mundi‛ was so popular.
Among the military men, Hercules (2) and
Mars (1) enjoy great honour. The first demi-
god’s name is written in an inscription as ‚Al-
cidi (Herculi) salvatori‛. With this name he is
mentioned as a descendent of his grandfather
Alcaeus, something which has been recorded
epigraphically for the first time within pre­
sent­day Bulgaria. He is also mentioned as
‚saviour‛.
There are quite a lot of epigraphic records
with initiators of Eastern origin – two images
of Zeus Hypsistos (Montana and the vicinity),
Mithra (Deus Invictus) in four monuments and
votive tablets from Montana and the village
of Zlatiya, Numini Sara(p)i from the sanctuary
itself (Монтана, ІІ, № 81), Deus Aeternus (of
Syrian origin, and he is syncretized with other
deities).
A long Latin inscription with dedications
to … Montis presidibus deis Nicovisi natis dei(s)
que in insula vaga Nil … has raised some dis­
cussion (Монтана, ІІ, № 48 b). The dedica­
tion is to ‚The patrons of the mountain‛ (per­
haps the hill above Montana and the Balkan).
Secondly, ‚the deities born in Nicivosus‛ are
regarded. The authors of Montana, Volume
ІІ, p. 24-25, are not aware of this geographic
term. Perhaps territories inhabited by the
Celts is concerned – for instance, ‚Nic‛ occurs
in names such as Nic-arus (cognomen), Nic-er,
Niciola (river names), Nic-etus, Nici-acus (per­
sonal names). The second part ‚vosi‛ occurs
in names: Vosio, Vosion (cognomen), in personal
names – Vosis, Vo-solvia, Voss-illus (Holder, A.
1963). Finally, the offering is dedicated to ‚the
deities of the vast island on the Nile‛. Two is­
lands are particularly important in the mid­
dle of the great African river – they are Phyle
and Elephantine. Maybe the first one is con­
cerned since there were famous sanctuaries of
Isis, Hathor and other Egyptian deities there
(Kees, H. 1938:2019-2113).
228
In the area around Montana there are a
number of sanctuaries of many worshipped
deities. The closest one is that located high
above the left bank of the Ogosta River (at the
end of the present­day dam wall). Others lie
around the villages of Bistrilitsa, Govezhda,
Gaganitsa, Leskovets, Lehchevo, and Pishur­
ka (Александров, Г. 1994:82–83) (Fig. 7).
VІІ. Chronicle of Research
The first brief data about the Roman ruins
by Kutlovitsa (today’s Montana) we owe to
the Austro-Hungarian traveller Felix Kanitz
in 1871 (Kanitz, F. 1882:282). A more thorough
description is provided by the Czech historian
and traveller Konstantin Jireček, who later be­
came the Minister of Culture in the Principa­
lity of Bulgaria after Liberation from Turkish
rule (Иречек, К. 1974:342 sq.). He revealed
the name of the city and issued in literature
the inscription in Latin on a marble slab from
AD 155 discovered at the ruins of the fortress
in 1880 (CIL III 7449; Jireček, К. 1881:464 sq.).
The first epigraphic records from Montana
were published in Suppllementum of CIL III
7447-7451; 12370-12378; 12529, 14209.
In the series of collections of folklore V.
Dobruski (Добруски, В. 1890:10–15), I. Ba­ sa-
novich (Басанович, И. 1894:58–64) and B.
Dyakovich (Дякович, Б. 1904:10–15) describe
their personal observations on the ruins of the
city which at that time was called Ferdinand.
At the beginning of World War I, in 1915,
during work on the spring supplying the
newly proclaimed city with fresh water, the
sanctuary of Diana and Apollo was discov­
ered accidentally. The world political events
at that time, however, prevented its explo­ ra-
tion (Филов, Б. 1915:216 sq.; Велков, И.
1934:447–467; 1940/42:269–271; Welkow, W.
1955:91-101; Милчев, А., Пеков, Д. 1965:43–
45; Александров, Г. 1970:43–47; 1977:51–61;
1980:34–41; Божилова, В. 1976:40–46; Bozhilo­
va, V. 1977:473-484; Rankov, N. 1983:40, 62;
Бинев, М. 2003:160–182). At that time, in the
immediate vicinity of the spring (west of it),
 MONTANA
Fig. 16. The ancient site ‚Kaleto‛ in the city of Montana. General plan of the archaeological excavations
(after Огненова-Маринова, Л. и др. 1987, План 2)
niches, hewn into the vertical rocks, were re­
vealed; inside one of them there stood a mar­
ble statue of Diana, as well as many arae for
statues with dedications. In 1928 the materials
related to religious life were included in the
study of Yanko Todorov on paganism in Moe­
sia Inferior (Тодоров, Я. 1928).
In 1933 information about Montana was
published in a brief feature in the Encyclope­
dia RE (Pauly – Wissowa) in German, and to
a great extent the existing Bulgarian literature
was ignored in it (Fluss, M. 1933:201).
Montana and what was known about it
were included in the studies of Ivan Velkov,
related to the road connections during the
Roman age, as well as in publications of sin­
gle finds (Велков, И. 1929:71; 1942:183–189).
Single finds have also been discussed and
analyzed by D. P. Dimitrov (Димитров, Д.
1942:30–31 № 33).
The Greek epigraphic records from Mon­
tana and its vicinity were published in the
second volume of the corpus by Georgy Mi­
haylov (Mihailov), containing the inscriptions
discovered between the Danube and the Bal­
kan Mountains until 1958 (IGBulg. II, 1958:21-
23, NoNo 480­484).
The greatest scientific importance belongs
to the analysis of the materials available from
Montana and its territory, issued by prof. Bo­
229
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
ris Gerov in his studies on the border between
Thracia and Moesia (Lower Moesia), as well
as in his monumental study on Romanization
in present-day Northern Bulgaria (Геров, Б.
1949:13 sq.; 1952:64–67; Gerov, B. 1979).
In 1971 the article of Velizar Velkov on the
history of Montana was published (Велков,
B. 1971:105–114). It included the field ob­ ser-
vations of G. Aleksandrov (Alexandrov)
about the defensive system in the Pre­Roman
and Roman ages in Montana and its adjacent
lands to the north of Haemus (Александров,
Г. 1971:115–133).
The British archaeologist N. B. Rankov also
wrote a thorough study regarding most of all
the rich epigraphic material from this area
(Rankov, N. 1983:40-73). It treats a number of
important issues about the status of Montana
and the military presence there.
Ten years ago material about Montana was
issued by Metodi Binev. He has made a col­
lection in brief of all known historical and ar­
chaeological data related to this site (Бинев,
М. 2003:160–182).
Finally, we should mention the study of
Krasimira Luka who actually represents a re­
view of the archaeological excavations under­
taken in Mihaylovgrad which were published
in Volume I of the series ‚Montana‛ (Лука, К.
2008).
Regular archaeological excavations of the
sanctuary started in 1969 and the fortress on
the Kaleto Hill started being excavated in
1971, and since then the researchers G. Alek­
sandrov, L. Ognenova – director of the first ex­
cavations, and V. Bozhilova have issued in the
specialized periodicals a considerable number
of monuments (Александров, Г. 1977 b: 267
sq.; Божилова, В. 1976:40 sq.). All materials
collected until 1987 were included in Volume I
of the series ‚Montana‛ where the results from
the excavations of the sanctuary of Diana and
Apollo at the foot of the hill and the surveys
of the fortress itself are presented in separate
chapters (Монтана, І, 1987). In 1994 the epi­
35
The excavations of the Early Christian basilica were resumed in 2009 (Кабакчиева 2010 а; 2011).
230
graphic material from Montana and region,
including the monuments discovered during
rescue excavations at the sanctuary in 1986 by
Velizar Velkov and Georgy Aleksandrov, was
published in a separate volume (Монтана, ІІ,
1994). That is when G. Aleksandrov’s study
on the history, everyday life, culture and
economy in the area of the upper and middle
reaches of the Ogosta River was issued; that is
where the centre of Montana developed dur­
ing the Roman age. The author gives informa­
tion from the age of the earliest finds to the
present times (Александров, Г. 1994), and he
has paid great attention to the Roman period
and Late Antiquity (Александров, Г. 1994:31–
102). The second chronological period in this
geographic area was included in V. Velkov’s
monograph on the city in Late Antiquity
(Велков, В. 1959:76) when Montana belonged
to the newly founded province of Dacia Rip-
ensis.
VІІІ. Archaeological surveys
The archaeological site ‚Kaleto‛ is located in
the periphery of the present­day town of Mon­
tana, on the western bank of the Ogosta River,
on the hill which dominates over the modern
site. The long surveys here were spread over
two sectors: Eastern and Western (Figs 17, 18),
the first of which revealed the ruins of a large
basilica structure (published as ‚Excavations at
the sanctuary of Diana and Apollo‛ – Монтана,
І, 1987), and the second one a fortification
with an approximate area of about 1 hectare
(Динчев, В. 2006:85; Александров, Г. 1987).
In the sector of the Sanctuary (East) there are
two chronological periods (or ‚complexes‛
according to the publication): 1. Sanctuary –
from the age of Augustus after parallels with
the sanctuary at Philippi (temenos of the sanc­
tuary in earlier walls); and 2. Christian – after
the beginning of the 4th c. (an Early Christian
basilica35 and support wall from which the
predominant part of the epigraphic material
 MONTANA
known from Montana originates). The chro­
nology of the fortress (Western sector) is con­
siderably more complex since ruins from the
Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron ages have been
revealed at the site. According to its researcher,
the fortress was built by the Thracians. After
the Thracian revolt of AD 26, cohors I Sugam­
brorum settled here. This fortification, in his
view, was mentioned in 134 as a praesidium, in
161 as a municipium. In 253 porta praetoria with
a tower was raised here, and in 258 – burgus
was raised, all attested to in inscriptions. The
fortress survived over the next centuries and
there are traces of habitation here even during
the Middle Ages (Александров, Г. 1987:75–80;
1977b; Станилов, С., Г. Александров 1983b).
The study of the results from the archaeo­
logical surveys raises some questions which
do not allow us to agree with the aforemen­
tioned chronological continuity of the site.
VІІІ/1. E a s t e r n S e c t o r (Fig. 17)
The sector is located at the foot of the hill
Kaleto and contains the ruins of a large late­
antique basilica building and its adjacent sup­
port wall, inside which numerous arae with
inscriptions are walled in (the so called ‚wall
with the area‛). Despite the obvious construc­
tion stage referring to the Late Antiquity, the
main interest of researchers in this sector has
always been focused on the sanctuary stage.
Architectural remains (in fact they are the main
part of the explored sector) are scarce and the
evidence –controversial. A major problem is
not only the dating of the studied structures,
but also their internal chronology. Thus, for
example, according to the researchers of the
site, the foundations of the basilica are dug
into cultural strata with total thickness of 1.40
m where two strata are clearly isolated – one
of them is 0.50 m thick and the other is 0.30
m (i.e. their total thickness is 0.80 m and not
1.40 m). The earlier of these strata is related to
the destruction and subsequent restoration of
the temple existing at that site, while the later
one is associated to the final destruction of the
temple and its transformation into a Christian
religious centre (Монтана, І, 1987:16). Since in
substructure the basilica is directly over the
foundations of the earliest building identified
with a shrine, its construction is dated imme­
diately after the destruction of the building
from the pagan stage (Монтана, І, 1987:17).
In fact, the dating of this sector is complicat­
ed by the controversial information from the
finds of coins (totally two), the first of which
– of Constantius II (337­361) was not discov­
ered inside a stratum, but over a stratum – ‚on
the terrace of this wall< (the dismantled wall
with spolia – note by Krassimira Luka)‛. This
find has been used in the publication as a dat­
ing element of inscription No 25, announcing
the restoration of the destroyed temple which,
according to V. Bozhilova, took place under
Julian the Apostate (361-363) (Божилова, B.
1987:32, № 25). The same inscription (wrongly
referred on page 16 under No 24), discovered
over the earlier stratum in turn, gives grounds
for dating of ‚this earlier fire‛ at the time ‚be­
fore the cult in the pagan sanctuary declined‛
(Монтана, І, 1987:16), or ‚at the proclamation
of Christianity as a state religion‛ (Божилова,
В. 1987:32). The upper stratum in turn ‚< con­
vincingly relates to the end of the pagan cult
and the destruction of pagan monuments‛
(Монтана, І, 1987:16) or ‚< between AD
330 when Constantine the Great proclaimed
Christianity as a state religion and AD 337 –
a date implied by the coins from the second
architectural complex raised over the ruins of
the sanctuary ‚ (Монтана, І, 1987:17). i.e, ac­
cording to this information, we must assume
that between the aforementioned data, the
temple existing was destroyed, subsequently
– restored (after AD 361 according to the data
from the inscription) and at last – destroyed
again (around AD 337 ?!) and afterwards a
Christian church was immediately raised over
its ruins.
The second coin find was discovered inside
the filling (implectum) of the support wall
and according to the researchers of Kaleto,
it belongs to Faustina (Монтана, І, 1987:17).
Actually, if the regarded coin is late­antique,
it should be associated with Fausta, Constan­
231
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 17. ‚Kaleto‛, Montana. Eastern sector ‚The Sanctuary‛. Plan and section (after Огненова-Маринова,
Л. и др. 1987, План 4 и План 5)

tine’s wife from 307 AD, who became Augusta
in 325 and was murdered in 326.36 Since a great
amount of the area and stone plastics were re­
used for the construction of the regarded wall,
its chronological position can certainly be re­
ferred to the time after the demolition of the
pagan shrine or to the beginning of the 4th c.
(according to the coin).
This stage can be defined as a third one in
the overall chronology of the sector (without
registered cultural stratum in the publication).
According to V. Bozhilova, ‚this wall later be-
came the substructure of the Early Chris­ tian
basilica‛ (Божилова, B. 1987:20), which
refers the construction of the Christian tem­
ple to the time of another, fourth stage of the
overall chronology of this sector. A last, fifth,
stage has been marked by Christian graves
dug into ‚a pavement‛ which they have de­
stroyed and which is linked with the level of
the basilica building (Монтана, І, 1987:16 and
fig. 20). Thus, at the established two cultural
strata, the chronology offered by the research­
ers of this sector spans to five stages in total,
about three of which there is categorically no
evidence in the stratigraphy of this site. In the
stratigraphic section of the sector (Fig. 17) not
a single one of these cultural layers has been

36
I thank Assoc. Prof. PhD Dilyana Boteva who pointed out this inaccuracy (К. L.).

232
 MONTANA

reflected, and neither has been the level to
which the substructures of the revealed archi­
tectural ruins reach.
The aforementioned data make the inter­
pretation of the late­antique complex situ­
ated over the ruins of the ancient sanctuary
extremely difficult. The orientation of the ba-
silica building makes a strong impression
with its declination along the axis E-W by 40°.
This fact is in contrast with the position of the
pagan shrine which, according to the applied
plan (Fig. 17) (Монтана, І, 1987, plan 3 and
5) is orientated along the four cardinal points.
The position of the temple in a direction dif­
ferent from that of the late­antique buildings
suggests a different levelling of the ground in
the early stage from that reflected in the pub­
lication; therefore, it should also be referred to
the time after the beginning of the 4th c.
The dating of the basilica building once
‚not very long after the time of the rejection of
the pagan cult‛ (Монтана, І, 1987:17) and then
later than the construction of the support wall
(the so called wall with the area) around AD
337 (Монтана, І, 1987:20) shows a documenta­
tion which is not precise enough, on the basis
of which the building has been interpreted.
The lack of ‚a mound‛ between the spolia of
the temple and the substructure of the basilica
(Монтана, І, 1987:17) cannot be taken as proof
of the direct construction of the later building
over the ruins of the shrine since there hardly
are many examples which can be cited when
foundations of a solid building is on a mound
without reaching a firm and sufficiently sta­
ble ground. On the other hand, the photos
added to the publication show a compara­
tively identical technique of building of the
ruins of the basilica and of the ‚support‛ and
the ‚fence‛ wall as well as of the transverse
structures. The fact that the regarded support
wall ‚later became the substructure of an Ear­
ly Christian basilica‛ is reflected nowhere in
the published graphic surveys (Божилова, В.
1987:20). On the contrary, in the stratigraphic
section, as well as in the horizontal measur­
ing (Fig. 17), it is documented as attached to
the northeastern wall of the basilica. i.e. there
are not enough categorical grounds either for
the first dating (immediately after the demo­
lition of the pagan shrine) or for the second
one (later than the construction of the support
wall). 37
It can be assumed that the flat refusal of the
researchers of this sector to admit and respec­
tively to register cultural layers belonging to
the late­antique stage is the main reason for
the confused and sometimes paradoxical con­
clusions related to its chronology.
If the coin finds (actually quite close in time)
are interpreted not as an indicator for the fi-
nal date of the sanctuary or the opening date
of the Christian church (to such an interpreta­
tion leads the use of terms such as ‚over the
stratum‛, ‚on the terrace‛) but as identifying
a respective construction stage, then the coin
of Constantius ІІ, discovered ‚over the lower
stratum‛, should logically be referred to the
upper stratum which must be likely referred
to the unregistered and neglected late­antique
stage in the sector. On this basis the assump­
tion seems very likely that the entire complex
was constructed at once at a time determined
by the two coin finds (the first half of the 4th c.)
and that the revealed support and enclosing
walls were somehow related to the fortifica­
tion of the site meant to carry the weight of
quite a monumental building which the ba­
silica structure is (about 21 m length and over
10 m width according to the attached plan).

37
Surveys in 2009-2010 directed by Gergana Kabakchieva (National Institute of Archaeology with
Museum) of the Early Christian basilica established two construction stages, respectively – the first half
of the 4th c. and the second half of the 5th c., as well as the use of multiple spolia of tombstones and votive
monuments (Кабакчиева 2010a:331; Кабакчиева 2010b). We can only hope that a future more detailed
publication of these excavations would provide categorical and documentarily grounded data regard­
ing the stratigraphic position of the basilica building toward the earlier stages in the sector.

233
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

The foregoing allows us to draw the follow­
ing conclusions:
1. The archaeological surveys at the so
called ‚Sanctuary of Diana and Apollo‛ at the
foot of Kaleto Hill in Montana actually reveal
a construction stage well documented by coins
in the first half of the 4th c. It is related to the
building of a support wall, for the construc­
tion of which a great amount of spolia from an
earlier age was used.
2. There are no grounds for dating inscrip­
tion No 25 from the reviewed publication an­
nouncing the restoration of the pagan shrine
in AD 361 or later than the other inscriptions
revealed in the support wall. Its discovery si­
multaneously with a coin of Constantius II
does not contradict the overall characteristics
of the late­antique construction stage when
multiple earlier ashlars with inscriptions
were reused as building material. In fact, V.
Velkov and G. Aleksandrov, even though they
marked paleographic specificities characteris­
tic for a later age, admit the use of ‚older for­
mulas‛ in the regarded inscription (Монтана,
ІІ, № 45). The expression ‚templum ... ex suo
restituit‛ is present in all building inscrip­
tions known from the region from the age of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Ratiaria –
Добруски, В. 1890:27; Gromshin – Шкорпил,
К., Шкорпил, Х. 1891:148; Монтана, ІІ, № 59;
Byala Slatina – Шкорпил, К., Шкорпил, Х.
1891:153). If we accept the foregoing reasons,
there are no grounds for the assumption that
the demolition and the subsequent restoration
of the pagan shrine took place under Julian
the Apostate which would certainly have left
clearly distinguishable stratigraphic traces. P.
Hristova has come to roughly the same con­
clusions independently of us (Христова, П.
1999:188–191).38
3. There is no archaeological data about
the dating of the so called ‚Sanctuary stage‛
in the discussed sector. The extremely scarce
information from the field does not give any
grounds for the temenos of the sanctuary to be
localized namely on this site.
4. In the studied sector only two construc­
tion stages have been stratigraphically prov­
en; the dating of the first one has not been es-
tablished, but it is earlier than the second
stage which refers to the first half of the 4th c.
VІІІ/2. W e s t e r n S e c t o r (Figs 18, 19)
The obvious link of the sanctuary complex
with a military centre located at the same site
or nearby is documented by the military men
known so far, over forty examples, who left

38
Here is the regarded Latin inscription – Божилова, В. 1987:32, № 25: Numin(i) sanct(o) deo aram
cum sig(illo)./ L. Attienus Iulianus pro sal(ute) suum / et suorum posuit et templum / dilapsum ex suo
restituit. The most characteristic linguistic unit in this inscription is templum dilapsum. Христова, П.
1999:188–189: The participle dilapsus is formed from the verb dilabor, which is very close to labi. It means
‚destruction‛ as a result of a long effort, i.e. destruction caused by time, collapse caused by the ages.
There are building inscriptions containing the term templum vetustate conlapsum/templum vetustate con-
labsum, templum vetustate corruptum from Lower Moesia. Here are some examples:
– Velkov, V. 1974:151-153: <I<R/ I<us leg(atus) / Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) templum / Dianae Ple-
stren/sis vetustate con/lapsum resti/tuit er Iul(ium) /<(centurionem) Leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae) R.
Dating: the first half of the 3rd c? More likely (in our view the letter R in the end of the inscription is the
abbreviation Regionarius) the second half of the 2nd c. (Христова, П. 1999:1890–190).
– ILN, 1992:68, No.38: Imperatores [Caes(ares) Aurelius Antoninus] /et Aurelius Com[modus Augusti
?...ve.]/testate cinlabsu[m a solo restituerunt per] leg(ionem) I Ital(icam) P.Calburni*o<?+ / et cura(nte)
Mucio Maiore [leg(ato) leg(ionis) ?]. Dating: 176-180 AD.
– CIL, III, 12385 (the aforementioned epigraphic record from Gromshin: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo)./
Pro salute imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) / Aureli Antonini Aug(usti) et imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci)
Aureli Veri Aug(usti)./ M(arcus) Servilius Fabianus leg(atus) / Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) templum vetus­
tate corruptum a solo / per reg(ionem) Mont(anensium) restituit. Dating: 161-163 AD.

234
 MONTANA

Fig. 18. ‚Kaleto‛, Montana. Western sector ‚The Big Tower‛. Plan and section (after Александров, Г.
1987, 59, План 3; 62, План 6)

235
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 19. ‚Kaleto‛, Montana. Western sector ‚The Gate‛. Plan and section (after
Александров, Г. 1987, 61, План 5; 65, План 7)

236
 MONTANA
dedications to the deities worshipped at the
sanctuary. According to the researcher of the
western sector of the site, the military fortifi­
cation simultaneous with the sanctuary stage
was located on the hill above the sanctuary ‚or
was at the foot of the hill around the spring
and has not been revealed yet‛ (Александров,
Г. 1987:75). In literature, for the time until AD
134 this fortification is defined as a praesid-
ium and permanent camp of cohors I Claudia
Sugambrorum (Sygambrorum) (Герасимова,
В. 1970:24). The transfer of vexilationes from
legio XI Claudia and legio I Italica has been
documented in AD 155 and 160 (Тачева, М.
2000:88; Иванов, Р. 1999:157, 170). In the first
half of the 3rd c. the permanent presence of a
military unit NCR, deciphered as N(umerus)
C(ivium) R(omanorum) (?) (or Numerus Coll.
Reg. – after M.Speidel 1984:185-188) is sup­
posed (Велков, В. 1987:10; Монтана, ІІ, №№
3, 12, 20).
In archaeological terms, this evidence, obvi­
ously regarding the time from the end of the
1st c. (according to the information about the
Sugambrian cohort) to the mid­3rd c., is rep­
resented by the presence of a stratum, dated
generally ‚not later than the second half of the
3rd c.‛ (Монтана, І, 61, 76). This dating is de­
termined by the data about the construction of
porta praetoria with a tower and burgus, known
from two inscriptions, respectively from AD
253 and 256 (Велков, В., Александров, Г.
1994, 4–5, №№ 5, 6). According to V. Velkov,
the first of the cited inscriptions suggests that
cohors III Collecta took part in these building
works (Монтана, І, 10); the presence of this
unit here is attested to by two more records
with almost the same dating – 253 and 258
(Монтана, ІІ, № № 4, 33). G. Aleksandrov
identified the regarded buildings with the for­
tification facilities revealed west of the sector
(Монтана, І, 1987:76–66).
The strong contradiction between epigraph­
ic records about the military presence (the end
of the 1st – the mid­3rd c.) and the dating of the
defensive facility (after the middle of the 3rd c.)
should be noted. Of course, on one hand, the
unstudied ruins of an early defensive facility
(for which there are clues), and on the other
hand, the decline of the functions of the sanc­
tuary (which predetermined the lack of infor­
mation linked with epigraphic records) could
explain this mismatch in time between the ep­
igraphic and archaeological facts. However, in
this case, we should take as a final date of the
sanctuary stage the middle of the 3rd c. or, we
would have to agree that the construction of
the military-fortification stronghold at this site
marked the end of the existence of the sanctu­
ary of Diana and Apollo. As incompatible with
the conclusions of the researchers of the site
this statement may look, at many places in the
text G. Aleksandrov stresses that the fortifica­
tion structures dated in the mid­3rd c. are dug
into a stratum containing fragments of marble
statues, reliefs and monuments with Latin in­
scriptions (Монтана, І, 1987:60–61, 76).
If we relate these observations to the al­
ready discussed chronology at the eastern sec­
tor of the site (Sanctuary), we should accept a
50­year­long period within which the ground
was not used – between the destruction of the
sanctuary in the mid­3rd c. (according to the
data from the fortress) and the building of the
complex of support walls at the beginning of
the 4th c. (according to the coin, discovered in
the implectum of the wall). As it can be seen,
this data complicates even more the already
inexact dating of the site. Of course, during
archaeological surveys already finished and
without the needed graphic documentation, it
is almost impossible to draw a grounded the­
sis supported by categorical data, regarding
the chronology and respectively the logical
dating of each of the construction stages. Here
we can mention some indirect facts which
may have some connection to the information
known from the excavations of the discussed
site.
The characteristic of the military stronghold
defined in an inscription from Phrygia by the
term praesidium (Филов, Б. 1906:72), is rarely
discussed in Bulgarian literature, first of all,
due to the fact that such a fortification has not
been studied in Montana. Another important
fact is that it belongs to the category of mili­
237
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
tary posts which are ‚supporting garrisons
in the inland‛ – this in Montana and perhaps
the still unrevealed early fortification of Abri-
tus (Иванов, Р. 1999:170). Discussing the term
praesidium, S. Torbatov distinguishes it from
the burgi and phruri known from inscrip­
tions of the Thracian provincial governors
from AD 151­156, bringing forward its more
special position in the system of the provin­
cial inner security‛. Besides the location of the
sites, most important from a strategic perspec­
tive, he suggests considerably greater sizes of
the fortifications marked with this term, as
well as a garrison composed of professional
military personnel (Торбатов, С. 2000:17).
It is noteworthy, however, that for the time
being on the territory of Bulgaria there is no
archaeological evidence which could dem­
onstrate the difference between the camps of
the regular auxiliary troops, marked as castra/
castrum/castellum, and those, belonging also to
professional military personnel, called prae-
sidia. According to S. Torbatov (Торбатов, C.
2000:15, 19), ‚the term praesidium has obvi­
ously never been distinguishable with suffi­
cient clarity and with any strict terminological
exactness‛, yet, for the time before the end of
the 2nd c. the same author suggests an inter­
pretation, first of all related to fortifications
designed for inner security.
Actually, exactly the issue about the early
military camps located outside the system of
defensive fortresses along the border is the
main reason why Montana remained almost
entirely on the periphery of scientific interest,
directed at the study of the Roman defensive
system in our lands. The idea of doubling the
Danubian linear defensive system (this time
based on the data from the aforementioned
inscriptions from AD 151­156) is not accepted
in contemporary scientific study (Торбатов,
С. 2000:16). However, the data regarding the
relocation of auxiliary troops along the major
thoroughfares in the interior (Герасимова, В.
1970), the camps of which, if the data from
Montana is considered, should have flanked
the most important passes of the Balkan
Mountains, is beyond doubt.
238
The lack of scientific interest directed at
these problems is partly predetermined by
the total lack of archaeological surveys in the
same direction. Ten years ago the surveys at
the castellum of Sostra by the village of Lomets
(Troyan reg.) started (Христов, И. 2006а:11–
13; 2006b). Despite the fact that the fortification
by the village of Lomets has been long known
as an auxiliary camp on the basis of the in­
scriptions with official character revealed here
(Христов, И. 2003:31–42), it was not until the
start of the surveys that its planning and de­
fensive system corresponding to the standard
characteristics of the Roman military camps
studied along the Danubian Limes were made
clear (Иванов, Р. 1999:228–239, Христов, Ив.
2006b:112). Without entering into the details
of these extensive problems, we will mention
just the fact that elements such as the rectan­
gular plan, orientated roughly toward the four
cardinal points and located at a comparatively
flat site, are not among the basic characteristics
of the fortification studied at Montana, i.e. the
synchronous data about presence of auxiliary
troops known from epigraphic records – 134
AD for Montana (Монтана, І, 1987:75) and
147 AD for Sostra (Христов, И. 2006b) – does
not correspond with respective simultaneous
archaeological data from both sites or even the
localization of the stronghold/ camp of coh. I
Sugambrorum in Montana on Kaleto Hill.
The data about two further similar and still
unstudied fortifications support the assump­
tion that the permanent camps of the Roman
auxiliary troops across the territory of present­
day Bulgaria could hardly be identified with
sites of the type of that at Montana. It was in
1904 that B. Dyakovich defined as ‚a signifi­
cant Roman military camp‛ the ruins of a site
localized by him around the village of Smoly­
anovtsi (Montana Municipality). The camp
was ‚situated in the locality where the first
waters of the Tsibritsa River come together‛
and ‚had a plan of a large square with a length
about 190 × 150 steps‛ (Дякович, Б. 1904:28).
In 2008 the first surveys of Conbustica/Combus-
tica known from Tabula Peutingeriana and lo­
cated by the village of Kladorub (Dimovo Mu­
 MONTANA
nicipality, Vidin region) in the neighbouring
province of Upper Moesia, established a rec­
tangular fortification with sizes of 140 × 110 m
the opening date of which has been set in the
first half of the 1st c. (Лука, K. 2009; 2010; 2011c).
Despite the scanty information so far, the co­
incidence in the basic characteristics of the en-
listed sites with those ones already known
from the Danubian Limes is obvious; in turn,
this shows that the localization of a perma­
nent military camp of an auxiliary unit in the
region of Montana was hardly an isolated
case. However, logic suggests that this camp
should be sought on the plain sites or near the
site studied on Kaleto Hill and not over the
fort.
Despite its comparatively hypothetical na­
ture, the assumption of the probable existence
of another, still not localized military base in
the vicinity of present­day Montana, allows us
to consider the reports about building activi­
ties in the mid­3rd c. from a different perspec­
tive. The use of the term porta praetoria unam­
biguously points at the military character of
the fortification to which it belonged. The at­
tempt by G. Aleksandrov to apply the specific
terminology characteristic for the Roman mili­
tary camps to the planning of Kaleto endures
serious opposition. First of all, the presence of
porta praetoria and the establishment of a par­
ticular entrance to the fortress as such should
be made on the basis of distinguishing it from
the other entrances, in the case of military
camps – porta decumana, porta principalis dextra
and porta principalis sinistra, which are obvi­
ously missing at the site discussed here (Fig.
19). Another fact which perplexes is the con­
struction of a special wall designed for sepa­
rating via sagularis in the fortress (Монтана,
І, 1987:64), since the major function of this
street was to provide open space needed for
the movement of the soldiers along the cur­
tain wall while in the particular case, the open
space is limited namely by the construction of
the regarded wall (Fig. 18). Considered from
this perspective, the assumption about refer­
ring the construction of porta praetoria and tur-
ris to the supposed and not localized military
camp does not look so impossible. Moreover,
in the inscription announcing this building
activity, the name of the military unit is ex­
plicitly mentioned – coh. III Collecta. Here we
should pay attention to the fact that in the sec­
ond building inscription known from Mon­
tana, announcing the construction of a burgus,
this newly raised defensive facility is unam­
biguously topographically distinguished from
‚castrensium et civium Montanensium‛.
Once again we should mention the ba­
sic characteristics which are derived by S.
Torbatov regarding the term ‚burgus‛, and
namely: small strongholds with secondary
but relatively independent function, square
plan with sizes not larger than 10 × 10 m; at
least two floors and only one entrance, situ­
ated in the centre of one of the walls; the up­
per floor is often supported by inner pylons
(Торбатов, C. 2000:19–21). The so called ‚big
tower‛ revealed at the westernmost part of
the site (Fig. 18) corresponds almost com­
pletely to the aforementioned characteris­
tics except for the plan which, in this case,
may be explained by the requirements and
restrictions imposed by the lay of the land.
According to the researcher of the site, G.
Aleksandrov, ‚the big tower was not raised
exactly simultaneously with the rest of the
fortress‛ (Montana, I, 1987:77), which sug­
gests its original independent existence and
respectively – its identification with the burgus
mentioned in the inscription from AD 256. In­
deed, despite the lack of a particular descrip­
tion in the text itself, on Plan 6 in the publica­
tion (Fig. 18) the curtain wall is represented as
being attached to ‚the big tower‛, i.e. without
a constructive connection between them, and
discussing the existence of an earlier staircase
‚at the westernmost part of the northern de­
fensive wall, parallel with the inner line of
the northern defensive wall (1.10 m from it)
and near the tower (?!)‛, he mentions the cur­
tain wall itself, ‚the restored part of which
has an outlined connection by the tower‛
(Александров, Г. 1987:63). From all the above
it can be concluded that despite the represen­
tation on the graphic plan as belonging to one
239
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
and the same stage (the big tower, its adjacent
curtain wall, the eastern gate and the defen­
sive wall in this sector) (Александров 1987,
62, План 6; 67, План 7) (Figs 18, 19), after all,
G. Aleksandrov supports the idea of the origi­
nal independent existence of the regarded
tower. From this we should assume that if the
big tower was raised in correspondence with
the inscription about the construction of bur-
gus in 256 AD, then the other explored sections
of the defensive facilities on Kaleto Hill were
raised at a later period. The identification of
the Eastern gate and its adjacent tower with
the aforementioned porta praetoria cum turre
from the inscription from AD 258 (Montana,
I, 1987:59-60) is the reason why in the publi­
cation both dates of the defensive facility are
considered (simultaneous with the big tower
and later than the big tower). However, if we
assume that the last inscription refers to an
eventual military camp with its canabae, situ­
ated somewhere else, then the second dating
seems convincing enough for the chronology
of the stronghold on the hill as well as for the
sanctuary located at its foot. The construction
of the defensive facility at this site after the be­
ginning of the 4th c. would explain the great
amount of ruins used by the already inactive
sanctuary and would fit logically into the mili­
tary historical situation during and after the
age of the Tetrarchy when such building ac­
tivities have been registered across the entire
territory of present­day Bulgaria.
Finally, we should express another assump­
tion related to the earliest recorded buildings
from the Roman age on Kaleto Hill. Unfor­
tunately, the finds of coins from the time of
Augustus – Claudius mentioned earlier, as
well as the finds of imported terra sigillata
with seals of Gellius (Montana, I, 1987:60-61),
are not connected with the chronology of the
earlier walls. In addition, exactly on the site
(or next to it) where these early structures
were registered, there is a medieval dug­out
which extends to 1 m under the level of the
floor of the big tower (Montana, I, 1987:72),
which drastically decreases the possibilities
for interpretation of the early walls. However,
240
in the context of the foregoing assumptions
about the localization of the military camp ex-
isting at this site outside the framework of Ka-
leto, we would have to assume an organic re-
lationship of the traces of habitation at the
westernmost part of the hill with the sanctu­
ary which was active here. Grounds for this
speculation are first of all the limited territory
over which ruins of the so called temenos of
the sanctuary have been studied, as well as
their subordinate position at the foot of the
hill and not on the hill itself. Such a location
can hardly be referred to a significant sanctu­
ary centre what undoubtedly functioned here.
It is a fact that there is a direct access to the
spring taken as the central part of the sanctu­
ary; it is from the highest part of the hill as this
can be seen from the postern revealed by G.
Aleksandrov (Montana, I, 1987:70). The pres­
ence of a part of a solid wall with thickness
of 1.30 m (crossed by the southern curtain
wall of the later fortress) (Montana, I, 1987:58)
(Fig. 18) also does not oppose the thesis that
this part of the hill was an organic part of the
planning and architecture of the sanctuary.
The latest surveys of a similar site in Mezdra
which is a sanctuary in nature indicate an
analogous situation in which on a similar hill
dominating over the surrounding area, a sig­
nificant religious center developed simulta­
neously and even later than the construction
of the strong fortification facility at the same
site (Торбатов, C., Ганецовски, Г. 2006:267).
Even though a new phenomenon which has
not been registered so far, the fortification of
important cultural centres with the purpose
of additional protection of the site does not
contradict logic. We already had the chance to
stress that the construction of defensive sys­
tems around civilian sites is explainable from
the perspective of their importance as eco­
nomic, cultural, and central places, probably
dating from the time before the Roman con­
quest (Лука 2006:168).
As a summary of the foregoing we must
make the following conclusions:
1. The civilian settlement in Montana
should be sought around or near the military
 MONTANA
camp. The logic suggests that here, just like in
a number of other cases, it is very likely that
the development of a canabae is concerned, the
historical fate of which was directly connected
with the military camp.
2. The sanctuary of Diana and Apollo which
was active at Montana was rather situated on
Kaleto Hill itself, the topographic position of
which is extremely suitable for the location of
such an important religious centre. The mar­
vellous examples of stone plastics revealed
in ‚the wall with the arae‛ suggest the exist­
ence of a monumental building with a domi­
nant position in the area, the position of which
must be sought on the highest spot of the hill.
The situation in Pautalia is similar; here, at the
foot of the Hisarlaka Hill there was a big sanc­
tuary while the city lay down in the valley.
It can be assumed that on the basis of a
comparison with the last surveys of the sanc­
tuary at Mezdra, this religious centre had (at
least in the first years of its existence) its own
defensive system or it ‚inherited‛ one. Unfor­
tunately, the opening date of the functioning
of the sanctuary cannot be established on the
basis of the data from archaeological surveys
here. According to the votive inscriptions ori-
ginating from here, this age can be set from
the middle of the 2nd c. The decline of the sanc­
tuary is not supported by enough categorical
facts, either. What is only clear is that at the
time of Constantine the Great, quite signifi­
cant reconstructions were undertaken at this
site (new levelling of the ground, document­
ed by the construction of a system of terraces
along the northern slope of the hill and sup­
port walls at them) and they are not consistent
with the earlier architectural structures.
There is a great possibility that this recon­
struction is related with the building of the
fortification facility on the hill.
3. Cohors I Sugambrorum was stationed here
even before the Dacian Wars of Emperor Tra­
jan (Тачева, M. 2000:101). Taking into consid­
eration the data from the latest surveys at the
fortification by the village of Kladorub (an­
cient Conbustica), where the military presence
has been proven for the time between the rule
of Claudius (41­54) and the Flavian dynasty
(69-96), it can be assumed that the Roman mil­
itary politic strategy from the middle and the
second half of the 1st c. includes the stationing
of auxiliary troops at key locations, flanking
the passes of the Balkan Mountains.
Perhaps here the defense of the basic mili­
tary road thoroughfares with presence of aux­
iliary units, located along the line of the Bal­
kan Mountains, is concerned; this fact is well
illustrated by epigraphic records from the time
until about the end of the 3rd c. (Fig. 9). Future
surveys in this direction would give rich infor­
mation regarding the area of occupation of the
northern part of the Balkan Peninsula and the
military strategic approach to the foundation
and administration of the province of Moesia.
4. The vicinity of Montana, many times
pronounced as a key location for the military
and economic development of the province
of Moesia, must not and cannot be consid­
ered a precedent against the background of
the overall military politic development of
the province or, more accurately, the thesis
of ‚a region without an urban centre‛ should
be reconsidered. Grounds for this statement
are given first of all by the extremely low de­
gree of archaeological surveys of the ancient
period, symptomatic of the whole territory of
present­day Northwestern Bulgaria, a result
of which is the chronic ‚lack of information‛
which is taken literally in a number of cases.
More particularly, this ‚lack of information‛
about the military camp at Montana should
not be used as a proof for the lack of the camp
itself.
5. The relocation of military units in the mid­
dle of the 2nd c., well documented by the epi­
graphic records from Montana, undoubtedly
should be associated with the dynamic politi­
cal events at that time (Тачева, М. 2000:88),
but on the other hand, it is also related to the
situation change after the foundation of Dacia
Ripensis which led to the formation of a vast
‚protected area‛ which suggests the respec­
tive changes in the border defense of this re­
gion. Regardless of the fact that it was divided
between two different administrative units
241
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 20. Territory between Ratiaria and Oescus. Discoveries of epigraphic records containing the names
of military auxiliary units (after Krassimira Luka)
Legend: – auxilia

(Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior), as far as
the military organization was concerned, this
‚protected area‛ should demonstrate simul­
taneous development. The two big centres on
the Danube – Ratiaria and Oescus/Ulpia Oescus
– obviously reduced their military contingents
and this process is well documented at Oescus,
while it can only be assumed for Ratiaria. The
centres of Montana and Almus located in the
centre of this area certainly acquired impor­
tant strategic positions expressed in the relo­
cation of legionary vexilationes.
Noteworthy is the extraordinarily rich epi­
graphic material originating from Almus/Lom
and its vicinity, which once again, due to ‚the
lack of information‛, is very rarely discussed
in scientific literature. Besides the inscription
of Caius Valerius Valens optio legionis XI Clau-
diae agens regione Montanensium, which is sup­
posed by V. Velkov and G. Aleksandrov to
have been moved here from Montana (Велков,
В., Александров, Г. 1994:27, № 53 = Монтана,
ІІ), two more inscriptions are known from this
site; they contain lists of military personnel;
one of them mentions the name of the mili­
tary unit – legio I Italica (Геров, Б. 1953, № 16,
№ 224). In fact, regardless of whether Almus
was the second military stronghold with units

242
 MONTANA

Fig. 21. Territory between Ratiaria and Oescus. Discoveries of epigraphic records containing the name
of Legio I Italica, Legio XI Claudia and Legio V Macedonica (after Krassimira Luka)
Legend: – Legio I Italica; – Legio XI Claudia; – Legio V Macedonica

stationed there, the two legions – I Italica and
XI Claudia – show a quite solid presence in ep-
igraphic records in the entire zone of the so
called ‚protected area‛, more particularly be­
tween the two colonial centres of Ratiaria and
Oescus (Figs 10-11).
6. It is also noteworthy that the mapping
of the inscriptions, containing the names of
these two military units, shows a concentra­
tion around supposedly big sanctuary centres
within the considered region: at the village of
Lilyache (Vratsa reg.), the village of Altimir
(near Byala Slatina), and the village of Kunino
(near Roman) (Fig. 7). Even today these centres
remain unstudied, but it can be assumed that
their more thorough archaeological explora­
tion would yield the same amount of inscrip­
tions as at Kaleto in Montana. This fact alone
means that the concentration of a great amount
of inscriptions containing the names of mili­
tary personnel from both legions at a particular
sanctuary centre does not lead to the conclu­
sion that the permanent camp of these military
men was located near the sanctuary. The situ­
ation with the inscriptions containing town of­
fices is similar. Decurioni of colonia Ratiaria,
for instance (dec. col. Rat.), are known from the
distant centre of Timacum Minus (Ravna, Ser­

243
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
bia) (Геров, Б. 1953, № 180). However, in the
context of these speculations, the two building
inscriptions from AD 256 and 258 announcing
the construction of burgus and porta praetoria
with a tower cannot be ignored by any means.
Unfortunately, both epigraphic records do not
originate from the archaeological surveys but
were revealed accidentally; the first was dis­
covered in 1891 when stones were being ex­
tracted at Kaleto for paving the central street
of the city (Бассанович, И. 1894:60); the sec­
ond record was found at the end of the 19th c.
again, on the northern foothill of Kaleto, near
the old reservoir (Бассанович, И. 1894:56–57,
62). If we accept that the inscription announc­
ing the construction of a burgus refers to the
so called ‚big tower‛ inside Kaleto itself, and
the second one refers to building activity con­
ducted at the supposed military camp, then
the location of the latter should be sought un­
der the present­day city of Montana or, even
more particularly, the supposed civilian set­
tlement which probably developed around it,
must also be localized within the framework
of the modern city.
7. The steady presence of military person­
nel from legio I Italica and legio XI Claudia
over the entire territory between Ratiaria and
Oescus implies that the sense of the expres­
sion ‚regio Montanensis‛ should rather be as­
sociated with the military terminology, espe­
cially since two of the totally three inscrip­
tions about regio Montanensis are connected
with a military titulature: Aurel(ius) Titus, vex-
ill(arius) eq(uitum) leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) Gor- di-
anae Au(gustae) in reg(ione) Mont(anensium),
and C(aius) Val(erius) Valens, optio leg(ionis) XI
Cl(audiae) agens r(egione) Mont[an(ensium)].
All three known inscriptions which contain
this expression were found at different sites
(the village of Gromshin, Montana and Lom)
(Монтана, ІІ, 1994, №№ 22, 53, 59). Thus, the
data from Montana do not oppose but rather
confirm the opinion expressed long ago by D.
Nikolov that the inscriptions where regions
are mentioned hint at military regions which
do not coincide with the administrative urban
territories (Николов, Д. 1983:92–93). There­
244
fore, Regio Montanensium should cover the re-
gion in which epigraphic records left by mili-
tary personnel from legio I Italica and le­ gio
XI Claudia have been registered, namely the
territory between the two colonies – Ra- tia-
ria and Oescus. It is necessary to stress that
the methods adopted in scientific studies, ter­
ritorially conforming to the administrative di-
vision of the Roman Empire, prevents (and is
still preventing) the value consideration of
troubled districts of that type at which the re­
garded ‚regio‛ covers a territory belonging at
the same time to two provinces (Moesia Supe-
rior and Moesia Inferior).
8. Considering the foregoing, it is clear that
regardless of the status of the civilian settle­
ment (municipium or vicus with quasi­munici­
pal organization), regio Montanensium did not
by any means represent a territory without a
distinguished civilian centre, the urban terri­
tory of which (regardless of the fact whether
there was or there was not such territory) can­
not be connected to and has no relation to regio
Montanensium. The civilian centre probably
adopted the name of the military one which
is clearly named in the inscription from Phry­
gia: Montan(ensi) praesidio (Монтана, ІІ, 1994,
№ 151), which is confirmed by the formula­
tion ‚castra et civitas Montanensium‛ in the in­
scription from AD 256 (Монтана, ІІ, 1994, №
5). It is obvious that this settlement centre oc­
curred and developed in direct relation with
the military units stationed at this site (as with
the prevailing part of the significant civilian
structures in the province of Moesia) which is
further proof of its actual existence. The ques­
tion about the municipal rights of this centre,
however, has no relation and does not have
to be considered as a key issue regarding the
character of regio Montanensium.
9. The dramatic political events between
the Gothic invasions from the mid­3rd c. and
the rule of Constantine the Great are docu­
mented at the site near Montana through the
gradual decline of the functions of the sanc­
tuary and and an entirely new defensive for­
tification building in its place in the first half
of the 4th c. In connection with the territory
 MONTANA

of regio Montanensium we
must note an important
historical fact related to
the departure of the Ro­
man forces of Transdanu­
bian Dacia in 271­272 AD.
Besides the displacement
of the Limes once again
along the Danube River,
this act had consequences,
one of which is a rarely
discussed fact – namely
the migration of a prob­
ably numerous Roman­
ized population in the ter-
ritories south of the Ro- Fig. 22. Mensa mensuaria from ancient villa No 3 by Montana. publ.
man border. In history a Монтана, 2, 1994, № 9 (after Александров, Г. 1984:22-23) (photo by
poorly studied phenom­ Violeta Voeva)
enon is mentioned and
namely the formation of
a new administrative unit over parts of the was extracted in two ways – by digging of au­
territories of Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferi- riferous ore and by sieving which took place in
or and Thracia – the so called Dacia Aureliani the rivers Ogosta and Zlatitsa (the name comes
(Добруски, В. 1890:22). It cannot be left un­ from the Bulgarian word for gold – ‚zlato‛).
noticed that the point where these three prov­ After strong rains or in late spring the water
inces come together once again coincides with became very turbulent and broke smaller and
the former ‚protected area‛, the centre of larger pieces with auriferous veins. On the
which was occupied by regio Montanensium. river, in the plain areas, the deposits formed.
For the time being this extraordinarily inter­ It started with the processing of the stones
esting question can only be outlined as raising which took place in two ways. The first one is
problems, the study of which lies ahead and by long (up to 1.5 m and 0.40 m wide) stone
their study in detail will probably give valu­ troughs, which had grooves on the bottom.
able information regarding the formation and The auriferous sand is deposited in the cracks.
subsequent development of the late­antique This happens during the turbulent swift cur­
province of Dacia Ripensis. rents on the upper parts of the river. In the
second way in places where the water is slow­
er or its capacity is smaller, barrages are made
ІХ. Economy, Villas, Arts and Crafts and small basins are formed.
The mountain provides limestone and mar­
ІХ/1. E c o n o m y ble used in various fields of everyday life. The
same is valid for wood material used for heat­
In Montana and the region there are a num­ ing and building.
ber of natural resources which predetermined Stockbreeding is another basic branch. Os­
a few basic sectors of the economy. The major teological analyses show the presence of cat­
factor is the Balkan Mountains. In this area of tle, sheep and goats, pigs and poultry. Rivers
the mountain iron and lead, silver, and aurif­ naturally provide lots of fish and archaeologi­
erous sands are extracted (Александров, Г. cal excavations have revealed an iron fishing
1974а:118–126; Миланов, М. 1978:57–71). Gold rod for big fish (100 m away from villa No 3

245
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
by the bank of the Ogosta River), as well as a
tool with four horns similar to a big fork. At
night, using lanterns, some fish stayed mo­
tionless on the bottom and experienced fish­
ermen stuck them. In all of the three villas
around Montana lead weights of different siz­
es have been found; these were used for fish­
ing rods (Александров, Г. 1994:49; Чолаков,
И. 2010:163). Among the domestic animals
there are dogs and cats.
Agriculture is also a basic branch – rye, bar-
ley, millet, lentils, peas and some vegeta­ bles
were grown here. From ancient villa No 3 at
Montana a mensa mensuaria originates,
found in the horreum of the villa which had
the practical function to control the sale of
goods – perhaps cereals (Fig. 22). It repre­
sents a marble block inside which two meas­
ures with different sizes and the shape of an
inverted cone are carved. Holes for the out­
flow of the measured foodstuff are driven
(Александров, Г. 1984:22-23, oбр. 18-19). In
the vicinity of Montana wine production was
also developed. We must note a stone krater
with scenes from grape­gathering on it dis­
covered here. A woman who is picking grapes
is represented, as well as a man who is carry­
ing a full wicker basket and their two children
are walking on the gathered grapes. During
excavations pruning knives for vines and a
double mattock for working the vines have
been discovered. The votive tablets with im­
ages of Dionysus also indicate the production
and consumption of wine.
ІХ/2. V i l l a s
Georgy Aleksandrov has studied three villas
around Montana. They belonged to eminent
wealthy people who inhabited them approxi­
mately during the same age (Александров, Г.
1983; 1994; Динчев, В. 1997; 2006:110–112).
Villa No 1 (Fig. 23) – the representative part
of the, is situated around a yard with irregu­
lar shape; next and separated from it there is a
small balneum (both are in the north) and oth­
er farming premises with various purposes.
246
The residential building consists of premises
grouped in a block. Over time it was extend­
ed, including the addition of an exedra for the
central room. To the west the large farming
building is situated – a horreum and a stone­
cutter’s workshop. To the south there are other
buildings. This is where roof­tiles and bricks,
as well as kitchenware, were produced. There
is a small premises which is supposed to have
been inhabited by villicus.
Villa No 2 is the largest one (Fig. 24). The
rooms are grouped around a rectangular pro­
longed yard. At the northern part the main
building of the owner (900 sq. m) is situated
– around a small courtyard there are about
ten premises. Some of them have hypocaustum
installation. The central premises, which is in­
terpreted as a dining­room – reception­hall,
was later provided with an exedra. Next to
this complex there is another heated building
called by the researcher G. Aleksandrov ‚a
building for slaves‛. A cattle-shed (?), two bal-
nea and two horrеа have been revealed. Then
many additional facilities follow: the so called
‚small residential building‛, a large farming
building with a horreum and a cattle-shed. Pot­
tery­kilns for tiles, a forge and a facility with
pylons and a round plan (?) have also been
documented. Almost all buildings are mor­
tared.
Villa No 3 (Fig. 25) – block premises form
the central residential building. The important
premises and the one with the exedra have hy-
pocaustum installation. In the eastern part there
are workshops which are associated with met­
al working. Around another yard rooms of
the staff are grouped, as well as a large cattle-
shed and a horreum. There is a building here
the masonry of which is more solid, perhaps
designed for a vilicus (villicus). There is also
a third configuration of buildings – another
horreum (?), balneum, pottery-kiln and drying-
furnace for roof­tiles and bricks (which have
not been marked on the plan).
According to the archaeologist G. Alek­
sandrov (Александров, Г. 1980b: 53; 1983:73;
1984:35), villas No 1 and No 2 around Montana
 MONTANA

Fig. 23. Plan of Villa No 1 by Montana (after Александров, Г. 1983: 41)

were raised in the second half of the 2nd c. and
villa No 3 – in the age of the Severan dynasty
(193-235). According to V. Dinchev (Динчев,
В. 1997:40–41, 110, бел. 34; 2006:112), only the
Latin inscriptions reused as spolia belong to
that age, i.e. before the Gothic invasions from
the mid­3rd c. A later dating is not impossible.
From 1982 to 1990, Spas Mashov studied a
Roman villa rustica in the locality Rosenentsa
by the village of Urovene, 18 km northeast of

247
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 24. Plan of Villa No 2 by Montana (after Александров, Г. 1980 b: 12, oбр. 1)

Montana, which has not been published (Fig. plex. Similar to the other villas studied in the
26).39 Five buildings were revealed, and the re­ surroundings of Montana, this one also falls
searcher assumes the existence of ten to twelve into the so called type of ‚scattered villa com­
more buildings belonging to the same com­ plexes‛ with buildings situated irregularly in

39
We express our gratitude to Spas Mashov who placed at our disposal his unpublished manuscript
‚Roman Villa Rustica by the Village of Urvene (Urovene), Krivodol Municipality‛, as well as the right
to publish for the first time the plan of the villa and the burial facilities related to it. We are using the
opportunity to discuss in greater detail the arrangement of this villa, as well as the basic conclusions of
its researcher and we hope that thus we are going to put into scientific circulation this extraordinarily
interesting archaeological site (K.L.).

248
 MONTANA
relation to one another which, according to
Spas Mashov, are due to the non­concurrent
existence of each of the buildings.
The first of them (Building 1) has a rectan­
gular plan, orientated north­south, and it is
provided with a wide exedra which is pen­
tagonal from the outside. From the east, al­
most along the entire length of the building a
covered courtyard ran. Spas Mashov assumes
that the building had a hypocaust. Two con­
struction stages have been established, and
the initial stage of building is set in the end
of the 3rd – the beginning of the 4th c., and the
demolition of the building is referred to the
very end of the 4th c.
Baths (Building 2) have been studied east of
the first building; they consist of a frigidarium,
tepidarium and caldarium. The apodyterium
and the frigidarium are in one. The rooms of
the baths are arranged in a chain with a cal­
darium to the north, in contrast with the an­
cient building tradition. Traces of hypocaust
have been established in the tepidarium and
the caldarium.
Near the baths (1.20 m south of it) a build­
ing with a rectangular plan and total area of
about 200 sq. m (Building 3) has been stud­
ied. According to the researcher of the villa,
the location of this building immediately by
the baths indicates that both buildings did not
exist simultaneously and probably the baths
were raised later. The earlier Building 3 was
used as a hayloft or a cattle-shed.
The fourth building in the complex (Build­
ing 4) collapsed due to a devastating fire and
that is why its study provides plentiful ma­
terial about its construction as well as about
the purposes of each room and the dating of
the premises. The foundations of the building
were built of quarry stones and mud and the
construction is of adobe. As a result of the fire,
the walls collapsed inwards. The ceiling was
a wooden construction covered with straight
and curved tegulae.
The plan of the building is rectangular,
with dimensions of 23.60 × 17.70 m. An open­
air shed stretched along the entire length of
the building; it was opened to the south with
a roof supported by wooden columns. In situ
here remains of a cart were found; it prob­
ably stood under the shed at the moment of
the fire. On the basis of the numerous finds
discovered under the ruins of the walls, the
functional purpose of each of the premises
has been defined. From the shed through a
long passage access was to a warehouse hall
(Room 6) inside which a great amount of pot­
tery, glass vessels, as well as bronze and iron
balances and scales were found. East of the
warehouse there was a dwelling (Room 4)
from which there was access to two smaller
rooms (Rooms 2 and 3), used as workshops.
West of the warehouse with a wide exit there
was a store (Room 7).
The date of the collapse of Building 4 is de­
termined by coins, and it has been set to the
very end of the 4th c. After the fire the build­
ing was no longer used except for the pas­
sage where a barrier wall was raised over the
adobe. The enclosed area was cleared out and
hypocaust was constructed in the newly built
room.
Building 5 consists of eleven rooms ar­
ranged in a chain from south to north over
an area of about 550 sq. m. Two construc­
tion stages have been established, and dur­
ing the second one, fragments of architectural
elements, pieces of mill­stones and boulders
were reused in the masonry. During the earli­
er stage, the central premises were with floors
of mortar plaster with a pink colour, while in
the premises raised later from the north and
south, the floors are of beetled clay. The cen­
tral part had a roof construction covered with
straight tegulae and the wings which were
added later were covered with curved tegulae.
Seven open­work bronze belt appliques and
three copper from the end of the 4th c.
were found in Building 5.
In conclusion, we must stress that around
Montana more than half of the villa com­
plexes known from the region of present­day
Northwestern Bulgaria have been studied.
According to V. Dinchev, during the Late Ro­
man stage (the end of the 3rd c. to the 70s of
the 4th c.) the evolution of villas in present­day
249
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 25. Plan of Villa No 3 by Montana (after Александров, Г. 1984:12, oбр. 1)

250
 MONTANA

Fig. 26. Plan of the villa by the village of Urovene (after Машов, С., Ръкопис)

251
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Western Bulgaria was definitely more intense

that that in Central and Eastern Bulgaria.
This is explained by the different admin­
istrative status of this territory and its inclu­
sion in the borders of praefectura Illyricum
(Динчев, В. 1997: 135).

ІХ/3. A r t s a n d C r a f t s

During the Roman age, and especially after

the joining of the region to the border province
of Moesia Inferior, crafts flourished consider­
ably. The goods of the craftsmen must have
been bought and used by the military and ci­
vilian population as well as by persons pass­
ing on private or official travels. There were
people here who produced tiles, water pipes,
tegulae et imbrices, tubuli, lids, etc. That was all
imposed by the construction and repair works
of buildings with military, religious and pri­
vate purposes. With the growth of prosperity
of a part of the local elite, there was a need for
many and different materials, some of which
were even imported. Besides woodcutters
and carpenters, builders with different crafts
worked here – for the construction of the se-
werage and water­supply system, for the
building of hypocaustum installation, cisternae,
of pools with various sizes for their private
baths, for the construction of tombs/ mauso­
leums. Some of the occupations are related to
the abundant wood and stone material nearby
(limestone and marble) and with the clay de­
posits. Peasants in the area were occupied in Fig. 27. Statue of Diana with a bow and a short­
traditional agriculture and stock­breeding. ened peplos (after Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987:
There were many craftsmen here who made обр. 3) (photo by Violeta Voeva)
goods for the poor classes of the population
and especially for the female half of it. Tailors
were also needed for clothing. Italicae) is mentioned; he was argentarius (the
Of course, the main occupation in Montana monument was discovered in villa No 1)
and the vicinity was working in the mines – (Александров, Г. 1994:53).
extraction of metal (iron and lead), a part of Sculptures, mostly related to the cult at the
which was of very high value (especially the sanctuary of Diana and Apollo, originate from
gold extraction and the limited extraction of Montana. They are characterized by high ar­
silver). The army strictly supervised the pre­ tistic quality. Their production in one and the
cise organization (production, documentation same iconography and style of local marble
and export) of the products. In an inscrip­ from Berkovitsa speaks of the existence of a
tion from here Pudentinus (centurio legionis I local atelier. The local coarse­grained marble

252
 MONTANA

with a greyish shade was used for the bases of

the statues on which votive texts are written,
while the fine white or grey marble was used
for the statues. The name of one of the sculp­
tors from Montana, Saturnius, has survived to
our times; he sculptured a votive statue at a
time when his wife was performing priestess
functions (Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987:40–
41). On one votive inscription from the sanc­
tuary in Montana an officina is mentioned –
the only state atelier known so far from epi­
graphic records in Moesia Inferior (Тодоров, Я.
1928:171).
Among the monuments known from Mon­
tana, the round sculpture prevails but there
are also open­work reliefs. The iconographic
prototype of votive sculptures from the sanc­
tuary can be traced back to the 5th c. BC and
their production continued until the very end
of the pagan age, especially of those which
representing the superior deity worshipped at
the sanctuary – the goddess Diana (Ogneno­
va-Marinova, L. 1987:173). The statue of Diana
with the bow and a shortened peplos (Fig. 27),
for instance, has high artistic qualities charac­
teristic for the Hellenistic age. The garment is
reproduced with fine outlines over the body
enhancing its shape and the manner in which
the deep fold between the knees is made
Fig. 28. Statue of Diana with shooting with a bow
strongly reminds one of the Nereids from
(after Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987: обр. 7 (photo
the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Огненова- by Violeta Voeva)
Маринова, Л. 1987:42–43).
A marvellous image of Diana shooting with
a bow (Fig. 28) represents the goddess in the terized by the smooth, polished surface of the
very moment of taking the arrow out of the naked body parts (Огненова-Маринова, Л.
quiver – iconography known from the famous 1982:147).
statue of Diana from Versailles, the prototype A wall­pier, the frontal side of which is di­
of which is sought among the works of Le­ vided into relief fields, represents the stand­
ochares as well as of Damophones – a sculptor ing figure of Hermes (Mercurius) (Fig. 30).
from the 2nd c. BC and author of the statue of The wall­pier probably belonged to a niche
Artemis Phosphorus/Phosphoros from Mess­ inside which the votive statue stood. The ico­
ene (Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1982:149, бел. nography of this sculptural image is distin­
15). guished from the Hellenistic one which was
The statue of Aesculapius (Fig. 29) reveals widespread even during the Roman age in the
an experienced master from the Flavian age monuments from Bulgaria. Instead of putting
who followed the traditions of classical art. the wings on both sides of the petasos, they are
Its execution follows the iconography estab­ on its top. His garment reminds one of mili­
lished as early as the 5th c. BC, and is charac­ tary uniform and the clothing of the Eastern

253
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
Fig. 29. Statue (torso) of Aesculap – Aesculapius
(after Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987:обр. 21) (pho­
to by Violeta Voeva)
deities from the 2nd c. (Огненова-Маринова,
Л. 1987:50–51).
A wonderful example of open­work sculp­
ture is the image of the Heros­Horseman in
the scene ‚Return from Hunting‛ (Fig. 31).
The horseman is riding to the right with a ch­
254
lamis waving behind his shoulders and in his
lowered hand he is holding the game’s rear
legs (Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987:50).
An accidental find of pottery moulds from
Montana shows that near the sanctuary a pot­
ter’s atelier also worked. The find was discov­
ered in 1883 and represents clay moulds for
casting of votive tablets with the image of dif­
ferent deities: Zeus and Hera, Diana, Apollo,
Hermes, Heracles, Hygeia, Dionysus, and
Epona (Fig. 32) (Велков, Ив. 1940/1942). Ten
of the moulds are in the shape of aedicule and
two represent open­work round medallions.
The find contains a prepared votive tablet as
well as four ceramic seals for the decoration of
tableware (Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1987:174).
According to L. Ognenova­Marinova, this
find proves the existence of an atelier of a
craftsman who was making moulds of wax
and clay which were used for different pro­
ductions – plastes imaginarius. The ceramic
moulds were used for casting models from
wax which in turn served for the production
of matrices for metallic decorations. Thus, the
find indicates indirectly the existence of a met­
alworking atelier for the production of high­
quality works of art (Ognenova­Marinova, L.
1987:175-176).
Analyzing the seals from the same find, A.
Dimitrova­Milcheva expresses a similar view
– that the items discovered in Montana were
part of a greater production and in this particu­
lar case they were designed for the production
of clay moulds for the production of relief pot­
tery (Димитрова, А. 1961:31–32). In her view,
the potters from the local atelier themselves
made the stamps which were needed for the
making of moulds (Димитрова-Милчева, А.
2008:142–143).
Remains of painting have been established
at villa No 2, and more precisely in the first
and the fourth mausoleum (Александров, Г.
1994:93). The mortar plaster, on which there
are traces of wall­paintings, actually con­
sists of two layers. The basic one, according
to the researcher G. Aleksandrov, is 3­4 cm
thick (fine sand, lime and thin straw). On
 MONTANA

top the fine putty follows; it is very thin (up

to 4 mm). Inorganic paints were laid on it. At
first ‚al fresco‛ the lighter shades were laid
and on a part of them the dark colours were
added, already in the technique ‚al secco‛.
At the bottom there was a belt of wall-paint­
ings imitating marble tiling (Александров, Г.
1994:93). Other traces of wall-paintings were
documented in Montana itself, on a building
on the top. In a room of the owner of villa No
1 by Montana the researchers came across co-
loured mosaics with parameters 3.90-3.72 m
(Александров, Г. 1974:3; 1994:94–96). The pe-
riphery is bordered with decoration in the
Meandros style. The central pane (2.38 × 2.18
m) consists of geometric ornaments enclosed
by three frames. In the circles, against a black
background, twice intertwined ovals stand
out (Solomon’s knot). The spaces between the
circles are filled with two or three rows each
and with rhombs of different sizes. It is made
in opus tessalatum. Underneath the pieces of
the mosaics a coin of Constantine the Great
was found; according to the researcher, it was
intentionally left there by the masters for luck.

Fig. 30. Wall­pier with the portrait of Hermes – Fig. 31. Open­work marble relief of the Thracian
Mercurius (after Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987: Heros (after Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987:обр.
обр. 27) (photo by Violeta Voeva) 25) (photo by Violeta Voeva)

255
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
Fig 32. Ceramic moulds and stamps for production of votive tablets, decorations and artistic pottery
(photo by Krassimira Luka)
Х. Christianity
At the southeastern end of Kaleto Hill there
is an Early Christian basilica (No 1) (Fig. 33). It
served the residents of the hill and the valley.
The building has a nave and two aisles with an
inscribed semi­round apse. There are two side
premises – respectively a prothesis and a di­
aconicon. Within the territories of the provinc­
es Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea such
planning dos not occur often. The parameters
of the basilica are 20.30 × 13.10 m. The founda­
tions are not deep and at the western wall they
are 0.80 m. The masonry of the building is of
stone and brick. The construction took place
in the first half of the 4th c. Its existence was
very short. Perhaps a little after AD 361 it was
demolished (Чанева-Дечевска, Н. 1999: 221–
223; Кабакчиева, Г. 2010: 330–331; 2011: 290).
In the second half of the 5th c. basilica No
2 was built. Its sizes are 25.70 × 14.80/15.40
m. The ruins of the earlier religious build­
ing were used. Both basilicas were dug more
deeply at the southern side of the rock bed (up
to 1.80 m). In the walls of both churches mul­
tiple reused materials from the Pre­Christian
age are walled in – tombstones, votive inscrip­
tions, fragments of statues (especially a torso
256
of a togatus) and architectural elements. All
the brick steps from the colonnade of the ba­
silica were revealed. They are built of whole
and fragmented bricks on white mortar. The
floor of the second basilica is plastered with
pink mortar. Many fragments of glass for win­
dows and large pieces of wall­paintings were
revealed. The second basilica was demolished
in the second half of the 6th c. The latest coin
so far is from the age of Justin and Sophia
(around 568-569).
Ruins of a small church – 14.10 × 5.40 m,
were revealed on the high eastern part of the
fortress (once again in the locality Kaleto) (Fig.
34). Access to the naos was from the west. The
church is single­nave, single­apse without a
narthex or additional premises, with a single
entrance from the west.
Six kilometers northeast of Montana, at the
studied ancient villa No 2, a large building has
been revealed which was once reconstructed
and turned into a church (Fig. 35). Its length
is 30.60 m and its width is 8.80 m. The plan of
the building is elaborate. The naos is raised
over the foundations of an earlier residential
building. To the east a semi­round apse has
been registered. To the west a wide spacious
narthex can be seen. South of the naos more
 MONTANA

Fig. 33. Plan of the basilica in Montana (after Кабакчиева, Г. 2011:291, oбр. 1)

rooms were added later, two of which are

provided with hupocaustum installation. The
western room was probably used as a baptis­
terium (?).
According to N. Chaneva-Dechevska (Ча-
нева-Дечевска, Н. 1999:220), the church must
be dated to the very beginning of the 4th c. It
represents an example of continuity between
an ancient and an Early Christian building,
where only by adding two ecclesiastical forms
(an altar conch and a narthex) a residential
building can be transformed into a church.
The structure was demolished at the end of

Fig. 34. Plan of the so called ‚Garrison church‛ in

Montana (after Александров 1987, 61, План 5; 65,
План 7)

257
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
Fig. 35. Plan of the church at ancient villa No 2 by Montana (after Александров, Г. 1980b:41, обр. 15)
the 4th c. In our view the dating assumed for
the construction of the church is too early.
In the opposite direction – 6.5 km southwest
of Montana, the ancient villa No 1 lies. South
of the pottery workshop a single-nave single-
apse church with sizes of 12.90 m (along with
the apse) × 6.5 m has been revealed (Fig. 36).
Fig. 36. Plan of the church at ancient villa No 1 by
Montana (after Александров, Г. 1983)
258
There is no narthex. The entrance from the
west leads to the naos.
From northwest and southeast two at­
tached rectangular premises are visible. Per­
haps the first one served as a store for the of­
ferings left by the worshippers, while the sec­
ond one was the residence of a cleric. Accord­
ing to N. Chaneva­Dechevska, the church also
dates to the beginning of the 4th c. (?) (Чанева-
Дечевска, Н. 1999:221).
ХІ. Necropolises
The necropoles around Montana have not
been studied. They are known from casual
finds of tombstones such as the tombstone
of C. Valerius Felix, raised by his wife Vale­
ria Saturnina (Fig. 37). The stone was discov­
ered northwest of the fortress and south of the
road which leads from Montana to the west.
Another of the town necropoles is situated in
the locality Izdremets on the right bank of the
Ogosta River, across from the ancient fortress
and along the road towards Serdica (Монтана,
ІІ, 1994:46, 50). A great part of the tombstones,
however, were discovered reused in the later
walls of Kaleto and at other sites (Figs 38, 39).
 MONTANA

Fig. 38. Tombstone of Ulpius Dometianus, soldier

from legio IIII Flavia (photo by Violeta Voeva)

Fig. 37. Tombstone of C. Valerius Felix,

raised by his wife Valeria Saturnina (af­
ter Монтана, 2, 1994, № 120) (photo by
Violeta Voeva)

Fig. 39. Tombstone, raised by Aelia Ge­

mella for her dead relatives – husband,
two sons and two daughters (photo by
Violeta Voeva)

259
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 40. Plan of the necropolis at ancient villa No 2 by Montana (after Александров, Г. 1980b:44,
обр. 16)

During the surveys of the three villas, the
archaeologist Georgy Aleksandrov man­
aged to study the necropoles around them
(Александров, Г. 1994:79–82). The necropoles
around villas NoNo 2 and 3 have been thor­
oughly studied. The owners and their heirs
fenced the area for ‚those who passed into the
afterlife‛ with walls which were between 0.60
and 0.90 m thick. On the outer side at each
3­6 m there are counterforts. These defensive
measures indicate a certain degree of wealth
of the facilities and the burial inventory inside
them.
At villa No 2, the necropolis covers an area
of 3 decares (Fig. 40). Noteworthy are four
tombs–mausoleums. Their entrances are from
different directions. At two of the tombs the
doorsteps of the entrances are built of re­
used marble blocks, one of which represents
a tombstone – stela with a Latin inscription.
The thickness of the walls reaches 1.10­1.20 m.
In some areas three rows of parallel belts are
visible. At mausoleum No 4 the masonry is al­
most entirely of bricks. One marble sarcopha­
gus was discovered inside; it is not ornament­
ed and its lid is in the shape of a triangle with
acroteria (Александров, Г. 1994:80). There are
some notable features in the masonry of this
mausoleum which is the largest for the time
being. Its walls are 1.20 m thick and inside

260
 MONTANA
them there is a tunnel (0.30 m high and 0.70
m wide) which is at the level of the threshold
and runs through the three walls of the facil­
ity. The purpose is to maintain a constant tem­
perature in order to preserve the wall­paint­
ings. The tomb is slightly dug into the ground.
The exterior of the mausoleum is decorated.
Thus, for instance, above the entrance there is
a gable with two acroteria at each end, each
of them 0.55 m high. Fragments of marble im-
post capitals have been found around the en-
trance. Fragments of a cornice and columns
have also been discovered. The roof is covered
with red flat roof tiles.
Inside, the walls of the tombs are plastered
and there are murals on them, traces of which
can be seen on larger fragments. Under the
stratum of the mausoleums one or two tombs
are dug in. Their construction is the following
– they are rectangular in shape, built of bricks
and semi­cylindrical arches for a roof.
The necropolis at villa No 3 covers 2.5 de­
cares and is smaller than the previous one.
A tomb–mausoleum was revealed by G.
Aleksandrov (Александров, Г. 1994:80); it
was reached by eight steps, most of which
are of marble. Afterwards a long and narrow
dromos is entered. The tomb itself is located
to the north; it is built of bricks and its vault
is semi-cylindrical. At the bottom there is a
niche with another tomb. The facility is built
of bricks and plastered with mortar. There is a
floor of stones, fragments of bricks and mortar
underneath. Its thickness is impressive – 0.60
m. The entire burial facility (two graves and a
small passage) is covered with a semi­cylin­
drical vault of bricks, arranged radially. From
outside this entire structure is covered with
a stone shell. It is interesting that this shell
served as a foundation for a building above
the tomb which was also a mausoleum.
The tomb–mausoleum discovered at the
villa by the village of Urovene which has an
octagonal shape is of great interest.40 The ne­
40
We owe this information to the researcher of the villa by the village of Urovene – Spas Mashov. See
note 39.
cropolis of the villa was located about 800 m
southeast of it and two mausoleums and a
single­chamber vaulted tomb have been stud­
ied within it (Fig. 41). Mausoleum No 1 rep­
resents a solid building constructed of stone
with mortar. Three semi­round apses, which
are inscribed in the octagonal shape, are
raised around the square central art with sides
of 4.30 m each. According to Spas Mashov, the
above­ground part of the mausoleum can be
interpreted as a religious building related to
rites in honor of the buried people.
The entrance to the crypt was located from
the north and had a frame of marble slabs. It
leads to a central square premises which was
covered with a semi­spherical dome of bricks.
On the other three sides of this room, just un­
der the apses of the over­ground part, there are
vaulted burial chambers, also built of bricks.
The entire crypt was plastered with fine white
mortar putty laid over rough plaster.
Another mausoleum has been studied east
of the first one. It represents a rectangular
building orientated east­west. Two single­
chamber tombs with different orientations ha-
ve been revealed inside it. According to Spas
Mashov, the two tombs belong to different
ages and the orientation of the first one sets
its construction in the pagan period, while the
second one is consistent with the Christian
canon.
Northwest of Mausoleum No 1 of the villa
by the village of Urovene, a single­chamber
vaulted tomb has been revealed. It is orientat­
ed east-west. The floor of the tomb was paved
with stone slabs and the semi­cylindrical vault
was brick. The southern and northern walls of
the tomb are enveloped by a shell built of river
boulders with dry masonry. In isolated areas
in the interior of the tomb, plaster of mortar of
a pale red colour has survived.
According to the researcher of the complex,
the two mausoleums were used between the
end of the 2nd and the 4th c. and the single­
261
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 41. Plan of the necropolis at the villa by the village of Urovene (after Машов, С., Pъкопис)

chamber vaulted tomb was used during the
second decade of the 4th c.
A stone sarcophagus originates from the
present­day city of Montana (Mihaylovgrad).
The lid is of marble and represents a tomb­
stone with the name of the deceased eighteen­
years­old woman and a relief portrait. This all
was made by his husband, who was of Thra­
cian origin.
The poor were laid on brick floors and cov-
ered with tegulae. On top they were cov­
ered with imbrices. Those who were a little
richer had limestone stelae raised; today we
gather data about their ‚curriculum vitae‛
from them.
ХІІ. The Area during the Middle Ages
The most popular fact regarding the me­
dieval stage in the area of Montana are the
so called Western Bulgarian Trenches or the
three defensive facilities known as Lomski,
Hayredinski and Ostrovski ramparts (Fig. 42).
Most researchers of these problems set their
construction in the age of the First Bulgar­
ian State (Рашев, Р., Иванов, П. 1986:19 and
the review there). According to V. Zlatarski,
they mark the western border of the Bulgar­
ian state union from the period of its founda­
tion to the annexation of the Avar Khaganate
at the beginning of the 9th c.41, while, according

41
‚To the west the border initially ran along the Isakr River to the mouth of Panega River, along the
ridge Dryanovitsa by the village of Gabare; then it continued along the Ostrovski Trench and reached
the Danube where there was an earthenwork fortification on Alibash Hill; but later, when Khan Isperih/
Asparuh, according to the report by the Armenian geographer, drove back the Avars to the west, the
border from the outlet to the Iskar Defile ran along Vratsa Mountain to the north towards the Ogosta
River; along this river – to the village of Hayredin from where it coincided with the old trench existing

262
 MONTANA

to other authors, the Western Bulgarian Ram­
parts are inner defensive lines and the west­
ern border of the Bulgarian state itself reached
the Timok River (Коледаров, П. 1979:25–26;
Петров, П. 1981:245–247). The three ramparts
were consecutively studied in the 70s by G.
Aleksandrov (Lomski Rampart)42, in 1978 by
R. Rashev and S. Mashov (Hayredinski Ram­
part)43 and in 2010­2011 by V. Grigorov (Os­
trovski Rampart)44. Their positions at a com­
paratively small distance from each other, as
well as the common elements of construction,
give grounds to assume that they were built
simultaneously or within a short interval of
time. Their purpose as defensive facilities is
determined by the steppe geomorphology of
the region and their frontal orientation to the
west. However, there has been no categorical
archaeological evidence of their dating. In the
last study on this topic, V. Grigorov uses as
proof the dense settlement network in this re­
gion which in his view occurred by the second
half of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th c.
(Григоров, В. 2011:131). Namely the early me­

today, which runs directly northwards to the Danube west of the village of Kozloduy at the mountain
top Kiler-bair<Shkorpil associates this extension of the Bulgarian border with the extension of the
South-Balkan border which, in our view, is not quite compatible because the latter one in the range
submitted by Shkorpil, refers to the 9th c. (814­815), i.e. at the time when the western border mentioned
here was displaced even further westwards‛ (Златарски, В. 1994:152 and note 5).
42
Lomski Rampart starts about 3 km east of the city of Lom and runs southwards to the road from
Lom to the village of Kovachitsa. Here G. Aleksandrov has localized a stronghold with rectangular shape
and sides of 35 to 40 m long. From here, the rampart runs in direction north­south across the arable lands
of Mladenovo Quarter (the former village of Golnitsi). After a slight turn to the southwest the rampart
runs through the arable lands of the villages of Zemfir, 1.5 km away from the latter and 2-3 km from the
village of Traykovo. Afterwards, it makes a turn to the southeast where the highway Sofia – Montana –
Lom crosses it for the second time, exactly at kilometer 149. From here, southwards across the outskirts of
the village of Rasovo, the rampart reaches Dushilnitsa River, a left tributary of the Tsibritsa River. It runs
southwards between the villages of Yakimovo and Dalgodeltsi. The road from Dalgodeltsi to Yakimovo
crosses it about 300 m east of the last houses of Dalgodeltsi (Александров, Г. 1980c: 202–205).
43
From south to north the rampart emerges by the last houses at the northwestern part of Hayredin;
it reaches the western slope of Vlashkoselska Hollow. In the locality Pripeka, a branch parts from the
rampart at an acute angle. The length of the main rampart from Ogosta to the branch is about 3 km.
The branching section starts from the locality Pripeka and heads southwestwards. The rampart runs up
to the ridge of Lozarski Gred, crosses Valkova Hollow and heads towards the Ogosta River across the
village of Manastirishte. The length of the branching, according to Shkorpil, is 4.8 km. From the local­
ity Pripeka, the rampart heads northwards with a declination of 15° to the northwest and follows this
direction with slight declinations to the west and north for 5 km, reaching Brestoveshka Hollow where a
micro­dam has been built. North of Brestoveshka Mountain the rampart changes its direction twice and
at 12 km from the branching it heads directly northwards following this orientation for 3 km. Fifteen
km from the branching the rampart follows direction 15° northwestwards, and at the 17th km the dec­
lination from the north is 10°. After it crosses Yakva Hollow, the rampart reaches Berech Dam. Here it
is called by the residents of the city of Kozloduy ‚Shishmanov Okop‛ (‚The trench of Shishman‛, TN).
North of the dam the rampart reaches the road Kozloduy – Lom and afterwards it crosses a deep hollow
and reaches the high vertical bank of the Danube River about 6 km west of Kozloduy. The total length
of the rampart from the Ogosta to the Danube is 24 km (Рашев, Р., Иванов, П. 1986:13–14).
44
Of the three ramparts the Osogovski one is the longest – about 58 km. The trench starts from the east­
ern end of the village of Ostrov, runs along the western slope of Alibash Hill and heads to the southwest.
Afterwards, it crosses the localities of Dimov Dol, Zahlupen Kladenets, Varbishki Dol and the watershed
between the rivers Skat and Gostilya. The trench passes between Tranak and Byala Slatina and west of
Vranyak it heads towards Ivanov Kladenets (between Vranyak and Tlachene). The southern end of the
trench reaches the foot of Usoya Mountain between Tlachene and Gabare (Григоров, В. 2011:128–130).

263
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Fig. 42. Registered medieval sites on the territory of Montana and their dating according to the respec­
tive publications (after Krassimira Luka)
Legend:
– settlement; – fortification; – necropolis; – defensive earthwork facility (1 – Lomski
Rampart; 2 – Hayredinski Rampart; 3 – Ostrovski Rampart)

dieval settlement structures, however (includ­
ing the settlement studied in Montana itself
on Kaleto Hill), along with the data from the
necropoles, raise a number of questions, fore­
most among them their chronology (Fig. 42).
As early as the first studies of the region
conducted by Zh. Vazharova and Prof. A. Mil-
chev in the 50s and the early 60s of the 20th c.
(Мuлчев, А. Ръкопис; Въжарова, Ж. 1965а)45,
the two researchers have given dia­ metrically
opposed dates of the settlements revealed by
them. Prof. Milchev dates almost
all settlements localized by him within the end
of the 6th and the 7th c. (Милчев, А. Ръкопис:
120–123), while Zh. Vazharova sets the exist­
ence of the settlements along the river valley
of Tsibritsa and Ogosta within the age of the
9th­11th c. (Въжарова, Ж. 196а:232–236). Fur­
thermore, despite the fact that he defines the
settlement structures as ‚Early Slavic‛, the ne­
cropoles from the same area are dated by Prof.
Milchev two centuries later – in the 9th­10th c.
(Милчев, А. Ръкопис: 152–153). Some sound­
ing surveys followed, consecutively conduct­

45
In 1959-1962 Prof. Milchev undertook a large-scale survey along the river valley of Tsibritsa. He reg­
istered and undertook partial excavations of a great amount of sites belonging not only to the medieval,
but also to the late­antique and the Roman ages, as well as to the Iron Age. The results of these surveys
are still unpublished today. The field scans of Prof. Milchev were followed in 1962-1963 by Zh. Vazharo­
va’s surveys in the same area (the valleys of the rivers Tsibritsa and Ogosta) (Въжарова, Ж. 1965 а).

264
 MONTANA
ed by the two researchers at the same sites: in
1957 Zh. Vazharova started excavations at the
medieval settlement in the locality Gradishteto
by the village of Yakimovo which were carried
on by Prof. Milchev in 1958-1962 (Въжарова,
Ж. 1965а:235, бел. 1; Милчев, А. 1963; Мил-
чев, А. 1964:23; Милчев, А. Ръкопис: 124-
139); in 1964 Milchev performed soundings
at the necropolis in the locality Greda by the
town of Valchedram which were carried out
by Zh. Vazharova in turn (Милчев, А. ръ-
копис: 152; Въжарова, Ж. 1965 b: 146-148;
Въжарова, Ж. 1976: 345). Zh. Vazharova car­
ried on the research of the necropoles in the
locality Bosovite Kamani at the village of Gali­
che and in the locality Orehovski Dol by the
village of Bukyovtsi (today’s town of Miziya),
started by B. Nikolov (Николов, Б. 1962: 33-
34; Въжарова, Ж. 1959; Въжарова, Ж. 1965
а: 236; Въжарова, Ж. 1965 b: 123, 149-150;
Въжарова, Ж. 1976: 220-246).
In 1983 S. Stanilov and G. Aleksandrov publi-
shed some results from the surveys in Montana
as well as of a necropolis partly excavated by
them in the locality Savini Blyasove at Valche­
dram (Станилов, С., Александров, Г. 1983 а;
1983 b). Both researchers refrain from giving a
particular dating of the necropolis the age of
which they simply set to ‚the Christian age‛
(Станилов, С., Александров, Г. 1983а:59),
while the existence of the medieval settlement
in Montana has been set ‚widely in the 8th­11th
c.‛ (Станилов, С., Александров, Г. 1983 b:45).
In 1984 R. Rashev and P. Ivanov undertook
field scans in the area of Hayredinski Ram­
part and they also localized a number of set­
tlements which, in their opinion, could not be
dated earlier than the 9th c. (Рашев, Р., Иванов,
П., 1986: 20–23).
In 1985-1986 S. Angelova and R. Koleva
conducted field surveys and sounding exca­
46
The discrepancy between the actual archaeological proofs and their interpretation was sensed by
Zh. Vazharova who, while discussing the settlement in the locality Gradishteto by the village of Yaki­
movo, emphasized: ‚According to Milchev, this fortification had been inhabited by the Slavs since their
settling south of the Danube. Such a dating is inacceptable, because it is not supported by the actual
material. In our opinion, the fortress Gradishteto dates from the end of the 9th and the beginning of the
10th c.‛ (Въжарова, Ж. 1965 b: 135, бел. 1)
vations in the area of Kozloduy. The dating
they suggest of the settlements localized by
them is the end of the 7th-9th/10th c. (Ангелова,
С., Колева, Р. 1994:132).
As it can be seen, most of the data related to
the medieval stage in the region of Montana
have been gathered during field surveys and
the published materials are scanty and the
dates set by the researchers should be accept
with reserve. The problems of dating and in­
terpretation of medieval sites in the discussed
region can also be seen in the contradiction of
the results of sites which are thoroughly stud­
ied, such as the two necropoles at Gradesh­
nitsa and Galiche, with clearly different bur­
ial custom and inventory, but comparatively
identical dating: the second half of the 9th – the
beginning of the 11th c. – Gradeshnitsa (Mašov,
S. 1979:47) and the 10th­11th c. (later – just the
10th c.) – Galiche (Николов, Б. 1962:33–34; Въ-
жарова, Ж. 1965 а: 236; Въжарова, Ж. 1965 b:
123, 149–150; Въжарова, Ж. 1976:220–246).
The consequences of ‚the large­scale‛ sur­
veys of Prof. Zh. Vazharova and Prof. A. Mil­
chev in the vicinity of Montana which are
characteristic for the gathering of enormous
amount of materials and a strive for its analyz­
ing (but not for its documentation) for a very
short time become most clearly visible by the
occurrence of the theory about the so called
‚culture Valchedram – Yakimovo‛, the bear­
ers of which are defined as population formed
by ‚<the mixing of the Slavic group with the
non­Romanized local Thracian population‛ in
the 7th c. (!?) (Ангелова, С., Колева, Р. 1992:
176). As stated, a serious flaw of this theory is
taking out of context and treating selected el­
ements of the pottery complex (in this case –
the handmade pottery) without subjecting this
complex to overall analysis (Лука, К. 2011 а:
360).46 In fact, the modern surveys in the re­
265
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

gion (performed over a limited area, but with
precise archaeological documentation) show
that the so called ‚Early Slavic‛ vessels origi­
nating from Prof. A. Milchev’s excavations in
Yakimovo and Valchedram, and published
by S. Angelova and R. Koleva (Ангелова, С.,
Колева, Р. 1992: 174, Табл. I/9, 12, 17-18; 175,
Табл. II; 177, Табл. III), have undoubted ana­
logues among the materials dated to the end
of the 3rd and the 4th c. from the same region
and represent a part of the characteristics of
the Late Roman and late­antique culture of
Northwestern Bulgaria (Лука, К., Машов, С.
2006: 98, Табл. III/28-30; 101, Табл. ХI/151–
154; Luka, K. 2003; Лука, К. 2011 а: 364–365,
269, Обр. 2/27–28).47
The surveys carried out in 2001 and 2003 of
ruins of medieval houses in the locality Bres­
ta by the village of Altimir and at the ancient
fortress Augustae by the village of Harlets
provided abundant material belonging to the
medieval age which was thoroughly treated
by statistical methods and which allowed the
establishment of the characteristic features of
the early medieval complexes in this region
in the context of their adjacent types of set­
tlement structures and residential facilities
(Luka, K. 2009; Лука, К., in print).
The precise documentation of the archaeo­
logical artifacts allowed us to conclude:
The two settlements reflect the character­
istics of two consecutive chronological stages
of the medieval culture in Northwestern Bul­
garia. The settlement in the locality Bresta is
situated on a terrace with southerly exposure
on the left bank of the Skat River. The studied
houses are rectangular in form, dug at 0.60­
0.80 m below the ancient surface. Supporting
facilities and parts of clay floor plaster have
been registered at one of the houses. The heat­
ing facilities represent domed furnaces built
of quarry stones in dry masonry with a rec­
tangular plan, dug at 0.40 m below the floor of
the house (Luka, K. 2009:247-249).
The pottery vessels originating from the
houses belong to the same type of pots with
elongated proportions, slanted shoulders, a
slightly pronounced tall neck and a slightly
inwards curved mouth. The pottery is marked
with the sign of production on a slowly ro­
tating potter’s wheel. The decoration is su­
perficially laid with simple motifs (Luka, K.
2009:251-254). The comparative analysis of the
type of dwellings, heating facilities and pot­
tery originating from them date the settlement
in the locality Bresta to the end of the 7th­8th c.
(or in the very beginning of the 9th c. (Luka, K.
2009:254-257 with reference).
The medieval settlement over the ruins of
the ancient city of Augustae has been localized
within the framework of the ancient fortifica­
tion, but it does not extend outside it.48 The
medieval cultural strata are thin and lie di­
rectly over the late­antique strata. There is no
data about the reuse of the late­antique struc­
tures during the Middle Ages. As remains of
over-ground dwelling can be identified frag­
ments of clay plaster with prints of thick poles
on them (Лука, К. In print: Fig. 3). The pot­
tery originating from the medieval stratum of

47
A striking example of the ignorance of the characteristic features of coarse pottery used during the
ancient age in the region of Northwestern Bulgaria which continues even today is the inclusion of such
ancient pot made by hand in the medieval pottery originating from rescue field surveys in the area of
Vidin (Александров, С. и др. 2011:108-109, обр. 4/2). The regarded pot was defined as ‚a casual find
from the site‛ but despite that it gave grounds for the authors to link the complex with the pottery
Valchedram – Yakimovo and to date it in the 7th­8th c. ‚as the team does not ignore the possibility for
dating even in the end of the 6th c‛.
48
During the field scans performed in the vicinity of the site in 2003 it was established that outside the
fortification facility there are no traces of habitation during the medieval stage (Машов, С., Ганецовски,
Г., Лука, К. 2004). The intact vessels published by S. Mashov (one of them has been identified as belong­
ing to the Early Slavic Penkovska pottery – Ангелова, С. / Колева, Р. 1992:173-174,Табл. I/2) (Машов, С.
1980:43-45, Обр. 19-20), obviously belong to an unstudied necropolis on the outskirts of the settlement.

266
 MONTANA

Fig. 43. Plan of the so called ‚Slavic sanctuary‛, revealed on Kaleto in Mon­
tana (after Александров, Г. 1987:67, План 8)

Augustae, compared with that from the settle­
ment in the locality Bresta, indicates consider­
ably better moulding of the vessels, extended
shape and decoration, as well as reduction of
the number of bottoms with relief signs. The
pottery material from Augustae has a number
of parallels in complexes dated after the mid­
8th c49, while the presence of vessels belonging
to the so called ‚cauldrons with inner ears‛
(Лука, К. In print: Fig. 8/71–72) refers the up­
per chronological framework of this settle­
ment to the first half of the 11th c.
In the context of this data, the medieval set­
tlement studied on Kaleto Hill in Montana
shows a number of parallels with the data
from the medieval stratum over the ruins of
ancient Augustae. As such can be defined the
probable reuse of the late­antique defensive

49
The settlements by the villages of Huma, Kladentsi, Vinitsa, Pernik, Popina ‚Kaleto‛ and
‚Dzhedzhovi lozya‛, Garvan, Starmen, Chatalar, the medieval stratum above the ancient town of Abri-
tus (Лука, К., In print; with reference).

267
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

facility (including its reinforcement with an 1987:73 и обр. 2 – Жилище № 5/Dwelling No

additional wall built during the Middle Ages)
(Александров, Г. 1987:74), the finds of plaster
with prints of poles in them (Александров,
Г. 1987:72, Dwelling No 3 and the use of fire­
places50 instead of domed furnaces. The dat­
ing of the pottery material51 originating from
these houses cannot be accepted mostly due
to the fact that in literature only nine vessels
originating from one single house are known
(Dwelling No 4) and from the so called ‚Slav­
ic sanctuary‛ (Александров, Г. 1987:обр. 31;
Станилов, С., Александров, Г. 1983b:46, обр.
9; 49, обр. 11). We will only mention that the
type of residential and heating facilities, the
topographic features of the medieval settle­
ment on Kaleto Hill and, last but not least –
the coin finds inside one of the houses from
the period 1043-1050 AD (Александров, Г.
5) indicate a dating of the settlement not ear­
lier than the 10th – the beginning of the 11th c.
The ‚Slavic sanctuary‛ revealed by S. Stani­
lov and G. Aleksandrov on the hill (Станилов,
С., Александров, Г. 1983b; Александров, Г.
1987:68, План 8; обр. 31а, б) even today re­
mains without any parallels in the study of
Bulgarian medieval culture (Fig. 43). The dat­
ing of this sanctuary in the 8th c. on the basis
of two pottery vessels (Станилов, С., Алек-
сандров, Г. 1983b:46, oбр. 9/а, в; 47) needs
further study. We can only hope for a future
precise publication of this undoubtedly inter­
esting and probably abundant archaeological
material, the complete publication of which
would provide categorical proof of the chro­
nology and characteristics of the medieval set­
tlement on Kaleto Hill in Montana.

50
The heating facility in Dwelling No 2, identified in the text as ‚a small furnace‛ can also be defined
as a ‚fireplace‛ as this can be seen on the photo of the same facility represented in Fig. 28 in the publica­
tion (Александров, Г. 1987:72 and обр. 28). The same photo (unfortunately – the only one representing
the situation of the medieval structures towards the earlier ancient buildings) clearly shows the lack of
digging in at the medieval dwelling. Unclear and with no particular parallels so far is the statement of
the author about the presence of dug­out dwellings on Kaleto Hill in Montana which at the same time
use the ancient walls found here (Александров, Г. 1987:72).
51
According to the author, ‚the 8th­10th c., and some vessels such as the pot with a handle – by the end
of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th c.‛ (Александров, Г. 1987:73) and ‚from the beginning of the 8th
to the beginning of the 11th c. ‛ (Александров, Г. 1987:79).

268
 MONTANA

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST AND NUMBERING OF THE SETTLEMENTS MARKED IN MAPS

(after Krassimira Luka)

1 – Lom (Almus); 2 – Orsoya (Remetodia); 3 – Dobri dol; 4 – Staliyska mahala; 5 – Smirnenski (Luko­
vets); 6 – Dolno Linevo; 7 – Kovachitsa; 8 – Stanevo (Labets) (Pomodiana); 9 – Dolni Tsibar; 10 – Gorni
Tsibar (Cebrus); 11 – Zlatiya (Kule mahala); 12 – Razgrad; 13 – Valchedram; 14 – Cherni vrah; 15 – Yaki­
movo; 16 – Virove; 17 – Doktor Yosifovo (Valkova Slatina); 18 – Kozloduy (Regianum); 19 – Harlets
(Augustae); 20 – Butan; 21 – Sofronievo; 22 – Hayredin; 23 – Manastirishte; 24 – Mihaylovo (Dolna
Gnoenitsa); 25 – Beli brod; 26 – Furen; 27 – Lehchevo; 28 – Gromoshin; 29 – Gradeshnitsa; 30 – Beli
breg; 31 – Marchevo; 32 – Erden; 33 – Ancient villa No 2 Montana; 34 – Belotintsi; 35 – Nikolovo;
36 – Kalimanitsa (Ancient villa No 1 Montana); 37 – Ohrid; 38 – Baurene; 39 – Lipen; 40 – Urvene;
41 – Krivodol (vicus Tautiomosis); 42 – Galatin; 43 – Osen; 44 – Smolyanovtsi; 45 – Kamenna Riksa; 46 –
Chelyustnitsa; 47 – Belimel; 48 – Kovachitsa; 49 – Vidlitsa; 50 – Gorna Verenitsa; 51 – Dolna Verenitsa;
52 – Georgy Damyanovo (Lopushna); 53 – Glavanovtsi; 54 – Govezhda; 55 – Bistrilitsa; 56 – Gaganitsa;
57 – Leskovets (Berkovitsa Municipality); 58 – Kotenovtsi; 59 – Kostentsi; 60 – Komarevo (Berkovitsa
Municipality); 61 – Berkovitsa; 62 – Zamfirovo; 63 – Draganitsa; 64 – Dolno Ovirovo; 65 – Botunya;
66 – Kravoder (vicus Vorovum Minor); 67 – Lilyache; 68 – Chiren; 69 – Miziya (Bukyovtsi); 70 – Krusho­
vitsa; 71 – Lipnitsa; 72 – Rogozen; 73 – Sirakovo; 74 – Altimir; 75 – Galiche; 76 – Malorad; 77 – Tar­
nava; 78 – Bardarski geran; 79 – Byala Slatina; 80 – Borovan; 81 – Sokolare; 82 – Popitsa; 83 – Tarnak;
84 – Vranyak; 85 – Komarevo (Byala Slatina Municipality); 86 – Tlachene; 87 – Bukovets; 88 – Nivya­
nin (Dzhurilovo); 89 – Devene; 90 – Оhoden; 91 – Banitsa; 92 – Golyamo Peshtene; 93 – Tishevitsa;
94 – Tsakonitsa; 95 – Virovsko; 96 – Varbitsa; 97 – Oryahovo (Aedabe ?); 98 – Leskovets (Oryahovo
Municipality) (Variana); 99 – Selanovtsi; 100 – Galovo; 101 – Ostrov (Pedoniana); 102 – Knezha; 103 –
Brenitsa; 104 – Lazarovo (Strupen); 105 – Enitsa; 106 – Koynare; 107 – Chomakovtsi; 108 – Sukache;
109 – Gabare; 110 –Drashan; 111 – Gornik; 112 – Cherven bryag; 113 – Reselets; 114 – Komoshtitsa;
115 – Rasovo; 116 – Medkovets; 117 – Mokresh.

269
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Александров, Г. 1970: Г. Александров. Антични паметници от Монтана (Михайловград). –

Археология, 12, № 3, 1970:43–48.
Александров, Г. 1971: Г. Александров. Антични крепости в района на Монтана (дн. Михайловград).
– In: Сб. Чипровци, София 1981:115–132.
Александров, Г. 1974а: Г. Александров. Добив на злато в района на античната Монтана (дн.
Михайловград). – In: Първи симпозиум по история на минното дело в Югоизточна Европа.
Варна 1974:118–126.
Александров, Г. 1974б: Г. Александров. Антична мозайка от Монтана. – МПК, № 4, 1974.
Александров, Г. 1977a: Г. Александров. Латински надписи от Монтана (дн. Михайловград). –
Векове, 6, № 5, 1977:52–61.
Александров, Г. 1977b: Г. Александров. Резултати от разкопките на ‚Калето‛ в Михайловград. –
ИМСЗБ, 1, 1977:267–292.
Александров, Г. 1980а: Г. Александров. Антични надписи и други находки от Монтана (Долна
Мизия). – Археология, 22, № 1, 1980:34-41.
Александров, Г. 1980b: Г. Александров. Антична вила № 2 край Монтана. – ИМСЗБ, 4, 1980:9–64.
Александров, Г. 1980c: Приноси към средновековното минало на Северозападна България. – In:
Сб. Българско Средновековие. Българо-съветски сборник в чест на 70-годишнината на проф.
Иван Дуйчев. София, 1980:201–211.
Александров, Г. 1983: Г. Александров. Антична вила № 1 край Михайловград. – ИМСЗБ, 8,
1983:37–81.
Александров, Г. 1984: Г. Александров. Антична вила № 3 край Михайловград. – ИМСЗБ, 9,
1984:9–45.
Александров, Г. 1987: Г. Александров. Резултати от разкопките на крепостта Монтана (1971–1982)
– Монтана. Т. 1. София 1987:54–85.
Александров, Г. 1990: Г. Александров. Паметници от култа на Дионис в Монтана. – Археология,
№ 1, 1990:30–43.
Александров, Г. 1994: Г. Александров. История на Монтана–Кутловица и района. Монтана 1994.
Александров, С. и др. 2011: С. Александров, В. Динчев, Т. Христова, Ф. Филипова, И. Цветков,
О. Миланова, Н. Казашки, А. Манев. Спасителни археологически проучвания в м. Гриндур,
землище на с. Антимово, община Видин. – АОР през 2010 г., София 2011:107–110.
Ангелов, Д. 1965: Д. Ангелов. История на Византия. Том 1. София 1994.
Ангелова, С., Р. Колева 1992: С. Ангелова, Р. Колева. За някои особености на раннославянската
керамика от северозападна България. – In: Приноси към българската археология. Том 1, София
1992:173–179.
Ангелова, С., Р. Колева 1994: С. Ангелова, Р. Колева. Ранносредновековна керамика от Козлодуй.
– ГСУ – ИФ, специалност Археология. Том 1, 1994:129–147.
Атанасова, Й. 2005: Й. Атанасова. Писмени извори и изследвания за Кастра Мартис. – In: Кастра
Мартис. Квадрибургий и кастел. София 2005:12–17.
Басанович, И. 1894: И. Басанович. Към епиграфиката и археологията на Горна и Долна Мизия. –
СбНУНК (= Министерски сборник), 11, 1894:55–67.
Белитов, И. 1991: И. Белитов. Трибалите в античната писмена традиция. – ИМСЗБ, 16, Враца
1990. София 1991:165–187.
Бешевлиев, В. 1963: В. Бешевлиев. Проучвания върху личните имена у траките. София 1963.
Бешевлиев, В. 1980: В. Бешевлиев. Българи-наемници в походите на Велизарий и Нарсес в
Италия. – In: Българско средновековие. Българо-съветски сборник в чест на 70-годишнината на
проф. Иван Дуйчев. София 1980:52–54.
Бинев, М. 2003: М. Бинев. Монтана (Montana). – In: (Р. Иванов, ред.) Римски и ранновизантийски
селища в България (Roman and Early Byzantine Settlements in Bulgaria). Том 2, София 2003:
160–182.

270
 MONTANA

Божилова, В. 1976: В. Божилова, Надписи от светилището на Диана и Аполон при Монтана

(Михайловград). – Археология, 18, № 2, 1976:40–48.
Божилова, В. 1987: В. Божилова. Епиграфски паметници от светилището на Диана и Аполон. –
In: Монтана, Т. 1, София 1987:20–36.
Боянов, И. 2008: И. Боянов. Римските ветерани в Долна Мизия и Тракия (І–ІІІ в). София 2008.
Буюклиев, Хр., Л. Гетов 1964: Хр. Буюклиев, Л. Гетов. Два нови епиграфски паметника за
укрепителната дейност на Антонин Пий в Тракия. – Археология, № 1, 1964:29–33.
Велков, В. 1959: В(елизар) Велков. Градът в Тракия и Дакия през късната античност (IV–VI в.).
Проучвания и материали. София 1959.
Велков, В. 1962: В. Велков. Към въпроса за аграрните отношения в Мизия през ІІ в. от н.е. –
Археология, 4, № 1, 1962:31–34.
Велков, В. 1964/65: В. Велков. Приноси към историята на римските градове в България. І: Рациария.
– ТВПИ „Братя Кирил и Методий‛ – Велико Търново, ІІ/1, 1964–1965:1–24.
Велков, В. 1971: В. Велков. Приноси към историята на римските градове в България. Монтана. –
In: Сб. Чипровци (1688–1968). София 1971:105–114.
Велков, В. 1987: В. Велков. Монтана – исторически очерк. – Монтана, Том 1, София 1987:9–13.
Велков, В., Г. Александров 1994: В. Велков, Г. Александров. Епиграфски паметници от Монтана
и района. Монтана 1994 (= Монтана, ІІ).
Велков, И. 1929: И(ван) Велков. Стари римски пътища и селища в днешните български граници.
– БИБ, 2, № 4, 1929:44–71.
Велков, И. 1930/31: И. Велков. Новооткрити старини. – ИБАИ, 6, 1930–1931:302–313.
Велков, И. 1934: И. Велков. Фердинанд. – ИБАИ, 8, 1934:447–467.
Велков, И. 1940/1942: И. Велков. Принос към историята на религията на Мизия. – ИБАД, 14, 1940–
1942:183–189.
Велков, И., Данов, Хp. 1938: И. Велков, Хр. Данов. Новооткрити старини. – ИБАИ, 12, 1938:434–
435.
Венедиков, И. 1955: И. Венедиков. Два новооткрити паметника за религията на траките през
Римската епоха. – ИАИ, 19, 1955:195–205.
Въжарова, Ж. 1959: Ж. Въжарова. Славянският некропол в с. Букьовци, Врачанско. – Археология,
1, № 1–2, 1959:20–23.
Въжарова, Ж. 1965a: Ж. Въжарова. Средновековни обекти по долините на реките Цибрица и
Огоста (по материали от раззузнаването през 1962–1963 г.). – ИАИ, 28, 1965:231–245.
Въжарова, Ж. 1965b: Ж. Въжарова. Славянски и славянобългарски селища в българските земи
VI–ХI в. София 1965.
Въжарова, Ж. 1976: Ж. Въжарова. Славяни и прабългари по данни на некрополите от VI–ХI в. на
територията на България. София 1976.
Герасимов, Т. 1937: Т. Герасимов. Колективни находки на монети през 1934, 1935 и 1936 г. – ИБАД,
11, 1937:315–324.
Герасимов, Т. 1938: Т. Герасимов. Колективни находки на монети през 1837 и 1938г. – ИБАИ, 12,
1938:450-457.
Герасимов, Т. 1964: Т. Герасимов. Монетни съкровища, намерени в България през 1962 и 1963г. –
ИАИ, 27, 1964:237–248.
Герасимов, Т. 1965: Т. Герасимов. Монетни съкровища, намерени в България през 1964г. – ИАИ,
28, 1965:247–250.
Герасимов, Т. 1966: Т. Герасимов. Монетни съкровища, намерени в България през 1965 г. – ИАИ,
29, 1966:211–216.
Герасимов, Т. 1967: Т. Герасимов. Монетни съкровища, намерени в България през 1966 г. – ИАИ,
30, 1967:187–190.

271
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Герасимова, В. 1970: В. Герасимова, Дислокация на римските помощни войски в провинция

Мизия от 44 до 86 г. от н.е. – Археология, 12, № 4, 1970:22–33.
Герасимова-Томова, В. 1986: В. Герасимова-Томова. Античното селище при с. Обнова, Плевенски
окръг. – Археология, № 2, 1986:26–32.
Геров, Б. 1949: Б. Геров. Романизмът между Дунава и Балкана от Август до Хадриан. Част І: От
Август до Хадриан. – ГСУ – ФФ, 45, 1948/1949: 1–69.
Геров, Б. 1950: Б. Геров. Северната граница на провинция Тракия. – ИАИ, 17, 1950.
Геров, Б. 1952: Б. Геров. Романизмът между Дунава и Балкана. Част ІІ: От Хадриан до Константин
Велики. – ГСУ – ФФ, 47, 1950–1952:17–409.
Геров, Б. 1953: Б. Геров. Романизмът между Дунава и Балкана от Хадриан до Константин Велики.
Част ІІ, 2. – ГСУ – ФФ, 48, 1952/1953.
Геров, Б. 1980: Б. Геров. Земевладението в римска Тракия и Мизия (I–III в.). – ГСУ – ФКНФ, 72, 2,
1977. София 1980:5–173.
Григоров, В. 2011: В. Григоров. Археологическо проучване на Островския вал до Кнежа. –
Археология, № 2, 2011:128–135.
Дилов, И. И., И. Д. Дилов 2003: И. И. Дилов, И. Д. Дилов. Оходен. Летописно-мемоарна сбирка.
Враца 2003.
Димитров, Д. 1942: Д. П. Димитров. Надгробните плочи от римско време в Северна България.
София 1942.
Димитрова-Милчева, А. 2008: А. Димитрова-Милчева. Луксозна керамика – импорт и местно
производство от Тракия и Мизия през I–III в. сл.Хр. – In: (Р. Иванов, съст.) Археология на
българските земи, Т. 3, София 2008: 119–161.
Димитрова-Чудилова, С. 1972: С. Димитрова-Чудилова. Съкровище от римски републикански
монети от с. Оходен, Врачанско. – Археология, № 2, 1972:23–32.
Димитрова, А. 1961: А. Димитрова. За производството на terra sigillata в нашите земи. –
Археология, 3, № 4, 1961:27–33.
Димитрова, Д. 1985: Д. Димитрова. Археологическите паметници във Врачански окръг. София
1985.
Динчев, В. 1997: В. Динчев. Римските вили в днешните български земи. София 1997.
Динчев, В. 2002: В. Динчев. Рациария (Ratiaria). – In: (Р. Иванов, ред.) Римски и ранновизантийски
градове в България. Том 1, София 2002:13–28.
Динчев, В. 2006: В. Динчев. Ранновизантийските крепости в България и съседните земи (в
диоцезите Thracia и Dacia). – РП, 35. София, 2006.
Добруски, В. 1890: В. Добруски. Археологически издирвания в Западна България. – СбНУНК, 2,
1890:1–45.
Добруски, В. 1896: В. Добруски. Материали по археологията на България. – СбНУНК, 13,
1896:398–442.
Добруски, В. 1900: В. Добруски. Материали по археологията на България. – СбНУНК, 16–17,
1900:3–146.
Домарадски, М. 1984: М. Домарадски. Келтите на Балканския полуостров. София 1984.
Дякович, Б. 1900: Б. Дякович. Бележки по археологията на крайдунавска България. – СбНУНК,
16–17, 1900:147–178.
Дякович, Б. 1904: Б. Дякович. Археологически излет в крайдунавска България. – СбНУНК, 20,
1904:1–56.
Златарски, В. 1994: В. Златарски. История на българската държава през средните векове. Том
1. Първо българско царство. Част 1. Епоха на хуно-българското надмощие. София 1994
(Академично издателство „Марин Дринов‚, второ фототипно издание).
Иванов, Р. 1983: Р. Иванов. Principales в римската войска на Горна и Долна Мизия (в дн. Северна
България) през Принципата. – Археология, № 2, 1983: 50–62.

272
 MONTANA

Иванов, Р. 1999: Р. Иванов. Долнодунавската отбранителна система между Дортикум и

Дуросторум от Август до Маврикий. София 1999.
Иванов, С. 1983: С. А. Иванов. Оборона Византии и география ‚варварски‛ вторжений через
Дунай в первой половина VI вв. – ВВ, т. 44, 1983:27–47.
Иванов, Т. 1973: Т. Иванов. За планировката и архитектурата през римската императорска епоха.
– МПК, № 3, 1973:5–11.
Иванов, Т., С. Стоянов 1985: Т. Иванов, С. Стоянов. Абритус. София 1985.
Иречек, К. 1974: К. Иричек. Пътувания по България. София 1974.
Кабакчиева, Г. 2010b: Г. Кабакчиева. Новооткрит надгробен паметник с надпис от антична
Монтана. – In: Studia Classica Serdicensia, Т. I, Musarum Semper Amator, СУ „Св. Климент
Охридски‚, София 2010:471–479.
Кабакчиева, Г. 2010а: Г. Кабакчиева. Разкопки на раннохристиянската базилика в Монтана. –
АОР през 2009 г. София 2010:330–332.
Кабакчиева, Г. 2011: Кабакчиева, Г. Разкопки на раннохристиянска базилика в Монтана. – АОР
през 2010 г. София 2011:289–291.
Каймакамова, М. 1993: М. Каймакамова. Сведения за Куберовите българи в българското
летописание. – In: Studia protobulgarica e mediavalia Europensia. – In: Сб. в чест на член кор.
Веселин Бешевлиев. Велико Търново 1993:35–45.
Каниц, Ф. 1995: Ф. Каниц. Дунавска България и Балканът (Историко-географско-етнографски
пътеписни проучвания от 1860 до 1879 г.). София 1995.
Кацаров, Г. 1911: Г. Кацаров. Антични паметници из България. – ИБАД, 2, 1911:175–190.
Кацаров, Г. 1926/27: Г. Кацаров. Антични паметници из България. – ИАИ, 4, 1926–1927:107–112.
Коледаров, П. 1979: П. Коледаров. Политическа география на средновековната българска
държава. Първа част: от 681 до 1018 г. София 1979.
Комша, М. 1992: М. Комша. Этапы переселения славян на Балканском полуострове в VI–VII вв. –
Четвърти международен конгрес по славянска ахеология. (Доклади и съобщения). Т. 1, София
1992:361–376.
Лука, К. 2006: К. Лука. Находка от керамични калъпи за производство на съдове с апликирана
украса от крепостта Калето край Мездра. – Археология, 47, № 1–4, 2006:161–170.
Лука, К. 2008: К. Лука. Бележки върху датирането и интерпретацията на античния обект
„Калето‛ в град Монтана, Северозападна България. Докторантски изследвания по социални и
хуманитарни науки. Том 2. София 2010:33–62.
Лука, К. 2009: К. Лука. Сондажни археологически проучвания на античен обект „Калето‛ при с.
Кладоруб, община Димово. – АОР през 2008 г., 2009:437–441.
Лука, К. 2010: К. Лука. Археологически проучвания на ранноримски военен лагер и късноримско
селище Conbustica до с. Кладоруб, община Димово. – АОР през 2009 г., София 2010:327–329.
Лука, К. 2011a: К. Лука. Античната керамика от местността ‚Градището‛ при с. Якимово
(проучвания на проф. Ат. Милчев, 1959–1962 г.) (Предварително съобщение). – In: Collegum
Historicum, Т. 1, София 2011:358-374.
Лука, К. 2011b: К. Лука. Издирване на археологиески обекти на територията на община Димово
и община Белоградчик, Видинска област. – АОР за 2010 г., София 2011:531–533.
Лука, К. 2011c: К. Лука. Археологическо проучване на ранноримски военен лагер и късноримско
селище CONBUSTICА до с. Кладоруб, община Видин. – АОР през 2010 г., София 2011:287–289.
Лука, К. Под печат: К. Лука. Керамика от средновековния пласт над развалините на късноантич­
ния град Augustae до с. Хърлец, община Козлодуй, Северозападна България. – Сборник в чест
на акад. Д. П. Димитров (под печат).
Лука, К., Машов, С. 2006: К. Лука., С. Машов. Структури и материали от Късната Античност. –
In: Алтимир-Бреста. Култов комплекс и селище. Библиотека „Български Северозапад‚, № 27,
Серия „Научни изследвания‛, № 17, Враца 2006:94–116.
Машов, С. 1975: С. Машов. Епиграфски паметници от Врачански окръг. – Археология, 17, № 3,
1975:36–43.

273
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Машов, С. 1980: С. Машов. Августа. Augustae. Враца 1980.

Машов, С. 1990: С. Машов. Късноантичният кастел и ранновизантийският град Августа при
с. Хърлец, община Козлодуй. Локализиране, извори, топография и укрепителна система. –
ИМСЗБ, 16, 1990:2-45.
Машов, С. Ръкопис: С. Машов. Римска вила рустика при с. Урвене, община Криводол. Ръкопис.
Машов, С., Г. Ганецовски, К. Лука 2004: С. Машов, Г. Ганецовски, К. Лука. Спасителни
археологически проучвания на римски кастел и ранновизантийски град Августа при с. Хърлец,
община Козлодуй. – АОР през 2003 г., София 2004:104–115.
Миков, В. 1928–1929: В. Миков. Старини от разни крайща в България. – ИБАИ, 5, 1928–1929:
330–336.
Миланов, М. 1978: М. Миланов. Археологически обекти и находки в поречието на Златица. –
ИМСЗБ, 2, 1978:57–73.
Милчев, А. 1958: А. Милчев. Археологическо проучване в околностите на с. Алтимир, Оряховско.
– ГСУ – ФИФ, 1, LI, 1958 (за 1957):19–251.
Милчев, А. 1963: А. Милчев. Първи румъно-български семинар по въпроса за славяните в
Долнодунавския басейн и за балкано-дунавската култура в раннофеодалния период. –
Археология, 5, № 1, 1963:67–72.
Милчев, А. 1964: А. Милчев. Проучвания на раннославянската култура в България и на Плиска
през последните двадесет години. – Археология, 6, № 3, 1964:1–12.
Милчев, А. Ръкопис: А. Милчев. Археологическо проучване на долината на р. Цибрица (Якимово
и Вълчедръм, Михайловградска област). Непубликуван ръкопис.
Милчев, Ат., Д. Пеков 1965: Ат. Милчев, Д. Пеков. Новооткрити находки от Михайловград
(Монтана). – Археология, № 3, 1965:43–51.
Мирчев, М. 1961: М. Мирчев. Нови епиграфски паметници от Черноморието. – ИВАД, 12, 1961:
7–21.
Николов, Б. 1961а: Б. Николов. Грънчарска пещ при с. Алтимир. – Археология, 3, № 4, 1961:
51–53.
Николов, Б. 1961b: Б. Николов. Алтимир през вековете (Исторически очерк). Враца 1961.
Николов, Б. 1962: Б. Николов. Раннобългарски находки край Островския окоп. – Археология, 4,
№ 2, 1962:33–37.
Николов, Б. 1967: Б. Николов. Антични паметници от Врачанско. – ИАИ, 30, 1967:216–235.
Николов, Б. 1996: Б. Николов. От Искър до Огоста. София 1996.
Николов, Д. 1983: Д. Николов. Организация на градовете в римска Тракия. – In: Първи национален
симпозиум „Поселищен живот в Тракия‛, Ямбол 1982:90–100.
Николов, Д. 1994: Д. Николов. Охраната на пътищата в римска Тракия и Мизия. – In: Поселищен
живот в древна Тракия. III Международен симпозиум ‚Кабиле‛. Ямбол 1994:125–131.
Нинов, Л. 1989: Л. Нинов. Останки от лъв по българските земи. – Археология, 31, № 2, 1989:
55–61.
Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1982: Л. Огненова-Маринова. Античната скулптура в Монтана. – In:
България 1300. Институции и държавна традиция. Т. 2, 1982:143–149.
Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1987: Огненова-Маринова. Скулптурата от светилището на Диана и
Аполон. – Монтана І. София 1987:37–53.
Петров, П. 1981: П. Петров. Образуване на българската държава. София 1981.
Рашев, Р., Иванов, П. 1986: Р. Рашев, П. Иванов. Хайрединският вал. – ИМСЗБ, 11, 1986:9–26.
Свод, 1994: Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах. Т. 1 (I-VI вв.). Москва 1994.
Станилов, С., Г. Александров 1983a: С. Станилов, Г. Александров. Ранносредновековен некропол
при град Вълчедръм. – Векове, № 5, 1983:56–59.
Станилов, С., Г. Александров 1983b: С. Станилов, Г. Александров. Средновековно езическо
светилище в развалините на Монтана. – Археология, 25, № 3, 1983:40–52.

274
 MONTANA

Стоев, К. 2012: К. Стоев. Романизация на Горна и Долна Мизия по данни на антропонимията

(І–ІІІ век). София 2012 (автореферат).
Тачева, М. 1997: М. Тачева. История на българските земи в древността през елинистическата и
римската епоха. София 1997.
Тачева, М. 2000: М. Тачева. Власт и социум в Римска Тракия и Мизия. T. 1, София 2000.
Тачева, М. 2004: М. Тачева. За римските провинции Долна Мизия и Тракия (І–ІІІ в.). – In: (Р.
Иванов, съст.) Археология на Българските земи. Том 1, София 2004:49–75.
Тодоров, Я. 1928: Я. Тодоров. Паганизмът в Долна Мизия през първите три века след Христа.
София 1928.
Торбатов, С. 2000: С. Торбатов. Функционално и типологическо съдържание на късноантичната
фортификационна терминология. – Археологически вести, № 1, Приложение № 3. София
2000.
Торбатов, С. 2004: С. Торбатов. Терминология за фортификационните съоръжения през рим-
ската и ранновизантийската епоха. – In: (Р. Иванов, съст.) Археология на българските земи.
Том 1. София 2004:31–48.
Торбатов, С., Г. Ганецовски 2006: С. Торбатов, Г. Ганецовски. Проучвания на многослоен обект
„Калето‛ край Мездра. – АOP през 2005 г. София 2006:265–267.
Торбов, Н., Д. Антонов, Е. Найденова 2005: Н. Торбов, Д. Антонов, Е. Найденова. Археологически
проучвания в района на античния кастел Вариана през 2004 г. – АОР през 2004 г. София 2005:67–
168.
Ферјанчић, С. 2002: С. Ферјанчић, Насељавање легијских ветерана у балканским провинцијама
I–III век н. е. Српска академија наука и уметности. Балканолошки институт. Посебна издања
79. Београд 2002.
Филов, Б. 1906: Б. Филов, Помощните войски на римската провинция Мизия. – ИБИД, 2, 1906:
41–90.
Филов, Б. 1911: Б. Филов, Новооткрити старини. – ИАИ, 2, 1911:268–287.
Филов, Б. 1912/13: Б. Филов. Новооткрити старини. – ИАИ, 3, 1912–1913.
Филов, Б. 1915: Б. Филов. Светилището на Диана и Аполон при гр. Фердинанд. Археологически
вести. – ИБАД, 5, 1915.
Фол, А. 1975: A. Фол. Тракия и Балканите през ранноелинистическата епоха. София 1975.
Фол, А., Т. Спиридонов 1983: А. Фол, Т. Спиридонов. Историческа география на на тракийските
племена до ІІІ век пр.н.е. Том І/1. София 1983.
Христов, И. 2003: И. Христов. Состра. Проучване на римската крайпътна станция и кастел на
пътя Ескус – Филипополис. Т. 1. Велико Търново 2003.
Христов, И. 2006а: И. Христов. Состра. Римският град в полите на Хемус. Велико Търново 2006.
Христов, И. 2006b: И. Христов, Состра. Проучване на римската крайпътна станция и кастел на
пътя Ескус – Филипополис. Т. 2. Велико Търново 2006.
Христова, П. 1999: П. Христова. За порутените от старост храмове. – Thracia Antiqua (ThA 10). In
memoriam Georgi Mihailov. София 1999:188–191.
Цветков, А. 1930/31: А. Цветков. Новооткрити старини във Врачанско. – ИБАИ, 6, 1930–1931:
258–262.
Чанева-Дечевска, Н. 1999: Н. Чанева-Дечевска. Раннохристиянската архитектура в България IV–
VI в. София 1999.
Чолаков, И. 2010: И. Д. Чолаков. Римски и ранновизантийски метални инструменти от
територията на България (І – началото на VІІ век). (Ivo D. Cholakov. Roman and Early Byzantine
Metal Tools on the Territory of Bulgaria – the 1st – the Beginning of the 7th century). София 2010.
Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1891: К. и Х. Шкорпил. Антически надписи изъ разни крайща на България. –
СбНУНК, 4, 1891:146–155.
Шкорпил, К. и Х. 1892: К. и Х. Шкорпил. Надписи и изображения на конници изъ разни крайща
на България. – СбНУНК, 8, 1892:59–81.

275
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Baatz, D. 1975: D. Baatz. Der römische Limes. Arch~ologische Ausflüge zwischen Rhein und Donau.
Berlin 1975 (2).
Bozhilova, V. 1977: V. Bozhilova. Ex-voto des militaries romaines du sanctuaire De Dianae et Apollon
près de Montana. – In: Akten des Internationalen Limeskongress, Székesfehérv{r, 1976. Budapest
1977:473-484.
Boteva, D. 2012: D. Boteva. Ancient Literary Tradition on Moesi/Moesia (Mid. 1st c.BC – Mid 1st c.AD).­
In (L.Vagalinski, N. Sharankov, S. Torbatov eds.) The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st – 6st C.AD).
Sofia 2012:9-22.
Davies, O. 1935: O. Davies. Roman Mines in Europe. Oxford 1935.
Detschew, D. 1976: D. Detschew. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien 1976 (2).
Dušanić, S. 1977: S. Dušanić. Aspects of Roman Mining in Noricum,Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia
Superior. – ANRW, II/6, 1977.
Eck, W., R. Ivanov 2009: W. Eck, R. Ivanov. C. Iulius Victor, senatorischer Legat von Moesia Inferior
unter Valerianus und Gallienus und das Kastell Sostra-Siosta. – ZPE, 170, 2009:191-200.
Florescu, Gr. 1924: Gr. Florescu. Noi descoperiti archeologice la Seimeni Mari. – BCMI, XVII, 1924:88-92.
Fluss, М. 1933: M. Fluss. Montana. – RE, XVI, 1933:201.
Georgiev, V. 1978: V. Georgiev. La situation ethnique en Mysie inférieure et la nécropole destrésors de
Varna. – Studia praehistorica, No. 1-2, 1978:80 sqq.
Gerasimov, T. 1979: T. Gerassimov. Tresors monetaires trouves en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et
1970. – ИАИ, 35, 1979:134-141.
Gerov, B. 1963: B. Gerov. Die gotische Invasion in Mösien und Trakien unter Decius im Lichte der Hort­
funde. – In: Acta antique Philippopolitana. Serdicae 1963:128-146.
Gerov, B. 1979 : B. Gerov. Die Grenzen der römischen Provinz Thracia. – ANRW, II, 7/1, 1979:213-240.
Glodariu, I. 1977: I. Glodariu. Die Landwirtschaft im römischen Dakien. – ANRW, II/6, 1977:960 ff.
Hauptmann, L. 1929: L. Hauptmann. Les Rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant
la seconde moitié du VI-ème siècles. – Byzantion: Revue internationale des études byzantines. T. IV
(1927-1928). Paris-Liege 1929:127-170.
Holder, A. 1964: A. Holder. Alt-keltischer Sprachschatz. Graz 1964.
Issac, B. 1990: B. Isaac. The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East. Oxford 1990.
Ivanov, R. 1996: R. Ivanov. Der Limes von Dorticum bis Durostorum (1.­6. Jh.). Bauperioden de Befesti­
gungssystems und arch~ologische Ergebnisse 1980-1995. – In : (P. Petrović, ed.) Roman Limes on the
Middle and Lower Danube (Archaeological Institute, Belgrade. Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monogra­
phies 2), Belgrade 1996:177-182.
Ivanov, R. 1997: R. Ivanov. Das römische Verteidigungssystem an der unteren Donau zwischen Dor­
ticum und Durostorum (Bulgarien) von Augustus bis Maurikios. – BRGK des DAI, Bd. 78, 1997
(1999):467-640.
Jacoby , F. 1908: F. Jacoby. Herodotus. – RE, Suppl., Band II, 1908:432.
Jirecek, K. 1881: K. Jirecek. Geographie und Epigraphie von Bulgarien. – Monatsberichte der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Berlin 1881.
Kalinka, E. 1906: E. Kalinka. Antike Denkm~ler aus Bulgarien. Wien 1906.
Kanitz, F. 1882: F. Kanitz. Donau – Bulgarien und der Balkan, II. Leipzig 1882.
Kazarow, G. 1938: G. Kazarow. Die Denkm~ler des thrakischen Reitergottes in Bulgarien. Budapest
1938.
Kees, H. 1938: H. Kees. – In: RE, XIX/2, 1938:2109-2113.
Kolendo, J. 1966: J. Kolendo. Une inscription inconnue de Sexaginta Prista et la fortification du Bas-
Danube sous le Tetrarchie. Eirene, V, Praha 1966:139-154.
Lörinz, B. 1990: B. Lörinz. Pannonia. Règèsteti Kèziönyve. Budapest 1990:80.
Luka, K. 2003: K. Luka. Coarse ware from the area of the middle reaches of Skat River, Northewstern
Bulgaria. – Archaeologia Iuventa, 1, Sofia 2003:41-57.

276
 MONTANA

Luka, K. 2009: K. Luka. Ceramics from Middle Age settlements in Bresta locality near the village of
Altimir (Biala Slatina Municipality, North­West Bulgaria). – Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, VIII,
2009:245-261.
Mašov, S. 1979: S. Mašov. La necropole medievaale pres du village Gradešnica, dep. De Vraca. – ИАИ,
35, 1979 :31-47.
Mihailov, G. 1961: G. Mihailov. La fortification de la Thrace par Antoninus de Pieux et Marc Aurèle.-
Studi Urbinati, Nuova serie, B, XXXV, No. 1-2, Roma 1961.
Mirković, M. 1968: M. Mirković. Die Auxiliareinheiten in Mösien unter den Flavien. – Epigraphische
Studien, 5, 1968:177-183.
Mrozewicz, L. 1982: L. Mrozewicz. Rozwój ustrojo municypalnego a postery romanizacji w Mezji Dol­
nej. Poznan 1982.
Mrozewicz, L. 1989: L. Mrozewicz. Arystokracja municypalna w rzymskich prowincjach nad Renem I
Dunajem w okresie wczesnego Cesarstwa. Poznan 1989.
Ninov, L. 1999: L. Ninov. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Jagd und zum Jagdwild w~hrend des
Neolithikums und Äneolithikums in Bulgrien.– Arch~logie in Eurasien, 6, 1999:323-338.
Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1987: L. Ognenova­Marinova. Un atelier de plastes imaginarius a Montana. –
ИАИ, 37, 1987:173-176.
Рapazoglu, F. 1978: F. Papazoglu. The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times. Amsterdam 1978.
Paunov, E., Prokopov, I. 2002: E. Paunov, I. Prokopov. An inventory of Roman Republican Coin Hoards
and Coins from Bulgaria (IRRCHBulg). Milano: Glsux, 2002.
Petrović, P. 1977: P. Petrović. Forteresse romaine a l’embouchure de la rivière Porecka dans les Portes
de Fer. – In: (J. Fitz, Hrsg.) Akten de XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses, Szekesfehervar. Budapest
1977:259-275.
Polaschek, E. 1937: E. Polaschek. Triballi. – RE, XII, 1937:2399.
Popescu, E. 1976: E. Popescu. Inscripțiile din secolele IV-XIII descoperite in Romậnia. București 1976.
Rankov, N. 1983: N. B. Rankov. A Contribution to the Military and Administrative History of Montana.
– In: (A. G. Poulter, ed.) Ancient Bulgaria. Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the
Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria. University of Nottingham 1981. Nottingham 1983:
40­73.
Rohde, G. 1940: G. Rohde. Neue Inschriftenfunde.- TTAED (Istanbul 1940) 65-79.
Sarnowski, T. 1988: T. Sarnowski. Wojsko rzymskie w Mezji Dolnej I na polnocnym Morza Czarnego.
Warszawa 1988 (= Novaensia 3).
Šašel, J. 1983: J. Šašel. Cohors I Montanorum. – In: Studien zu den Milit~rgrenzen Roms III. 13. Interna­
tionalen Limeskongreβ, Aalen, Deutchland 1983, Stuttgart 1986:782-786.
Spaul, J. 2000: J. Spaul. Cohors. The Evidence for and a Short History of the Auxiliary Infantry Units of
the Imperial Roman Army. Oxford 2000 (2).
Speidel, M. 1984: M. P. Speidel. Regionarii in Lower Moesia. – ZPE, 57, 1984:185-188.
Strack, P. 1933: P. S. Strack. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichspr~gung des II Jhdts., II: Die Reich­
spr~gung zur Zeit des Hadrians. Stuttgart 1933.
Tatscheva, M. 1996: M. Tatscheva. Neues über Publicum Portorii Illyrici et Ripae Thraciae. – In: (P.
Petrović, ed.) Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube (Archaeological Institute, Belgrade.
Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monographies 2), Belgrade 1996:177-182.
Tudor, D. 1958: D. Tudor. Oltenia romană. București 1958.
Tudor, D. 1968: D. Tudor. Oltenia romană. București 1968 (3rd ed.).
Velkov, V. 1970: V. Velkov. Epigraphische Beitr~ge zur historischen Geographie der Moesia Inferior: 1.
Locus Subiati. 2. Vorovum Minus. – Studia Balcanica. Sofia 1970:55-60.
Velkov, V, 1974: V. Velkov. Der Kult der Diana Plestrensis in Moesia Inferior. – In: Actes du IX Con­
grès International d’Etudes sur les Frontières romaines (Mamaia 1972). Köln-Wien-Bucharest 1974:
151­153.

277
 Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

Velkov, V. 1978: V. Velkov. Die thrakische Stadt Bizye. – In: Studia in honorem Prof. Veselini Beševliev.
Sofia 1978:174-181.
Velkov, V. 1989: V. Velkov. Wulfila und die Gothi minores in Moesien. – Klio 71, No. 2, 1989:525-527.
Velkov, V., Alexandrov, G. 1988: V. Velkov, G. Alexandrov. ‚Venatio Caesariana‛. Eine neue Inschrift
aus Montana (Moesia Inferior). – Chiron, 18, München 1988:271-277.
Vulpe, R. 1976: R. Vulpe. Studia Thracologica. Bucharest 1976.
Wagner, W. 1938: W. Wagner. Dislokation der römischen Auxiliarformationen in den Provinzen Nori­
cum, Pannonien, Moesien und Dakien. Berlin 1938.
Weiss, J. 1913: J. Weiss. Bauinschrift aus Troesmis. – JÖAI, XVI, Beibl., Wien 1913:209-210.
Weiss, P. 1977: P. Weiss. Neue Milit~rdiplome. – ZPE, 117, 1977: 227-268.
Weiss, P. 1999 a: P. Weis. Ein Diplom des Antoninus Pius für Moesia Inferior von Dez.145/ Dez. 146. –
ZPE, 124, 1999:279-286.
Weiss, P. 1999 b: P. Weiss. Diplomfragmente von Moesia Inferior. – ZPE, 124, 1999:287-292.
Welkow, W. 1955: W.Welkow. Nowe inskrypcje lacinskie z Montany (Moesia Inferior). – Archeologia
(Warszawa), VII, No 1, 1955:91-101.
Wendel 2005: M. Wendel. Karasura III: Die Verkehrsanbindung in frűhbyzantinischer Zeit (4.- 8.
Jh.n.Chr.). Langenweissbach 2005.
Wilkes, J. 1969: J. J. Wilkes. Dalmatia. London (Routledge) 1969.
Zahariade, M., N. Gudea 1997: M. Zahariade, N. Gudea. The Fortifications of Lower Moesia (A.D. 86-
275). Amsterdam 1997.

278

View publication stats