Recent additions, changes and updates to the Alexis site

Insignia

Contact Dr Gheorghe, the coordinator, at alexis_project@yahoo.com for further information about the Alexis Project:

Email: alexis_project@yahoo.com

Bridges connecting the Peoples of the World - a Country without a Past has no Future!
FlagFlagFlag
FlagFlagFlag

eagle

banner      
Navigation

Home


The Roman Fort from Răcari

© arch.dr.Eugen Silviu Teodor from the Romanian National Museum of History, Bucharest

Contact for this page: Eugen Teodor esteo60@yahoo.co.uk

Introduction


History of research


The fort is positioned in Răcarii de Jos village, Brădeşti commune, Dolj county, at approximately 70 m SW from Răcari train station. In the terms of physical geography, it is situated in the centre of Oltenia region, on the left bank of Jiu River – the symmetry axe of the province -, guarding an old ford, the only one known on the middle course of the river.

In Roman strategic terms, the fort is placed in the rear, far away from the main defense alignments of Dacia Inferior – Limes Alutanus and Limes Transalutanus, thus on the Olt River and eastwards. Răcari is situated at a relative equal distance from the foremost strategically reference points from Roman Oltenia, approximately 80 km from Romula capital (towards ESE), from the Carpathians’ key position, namely the fort from Bumbeşti (towards NNW), and from the vital connection with the Empire, i.e. the Danube port from Drobeta (towards west). By its dimensions (170 x 141 m; numbers under re-evaluation), the fort from Răcari belongs among the large fortifications from Oltenia, after Slăveni and Bumbeşti, but afore Drobeta.

During the XIXth century, its ruins were still visible, drawing the attention of collectors antiques. Properly archaeological investigations have been undertaken during several episodes, all of them of short period of time, under the leading of Gr. Tocilescu (1897-1898), Gr. Florescu (1928-1929) and C. Vlădescu (1991-1992). Pre-war archaeologists have followed the epoch customs, uncovering all the visible stone monuments, insistently seeking an illuminating inscription, which has not shown, leaving us in the deceptive scientific arguments regarding the ancient name of the fort. They have uncovered the gates, all of them of simple type, with the opening of 3.5 m, Principia – or the headquarter placed in the centre of the fort –, one of the most impressive from Dacia (37 x 34 m), but a horreum as well, of 20 x 9 m, namely the supply deposit, placed immediately at the left of the commandment, aligned to Via Principalis. D. Tudor’s presumption (1965) that the second horreum would flank Principia at its right side as well – has not been confirmed. Gr. Florescu has controlled once more all the perimeters previously investigated (except for the horreum) and, to be sure that nothing has been omitted, he made a trench surrounding the defense wall. Yet, the inscription hasn’t appeared…

As regarding the chronology of the fortification, the former archaeologists have left only presumptions; for example – the suggestion that there was an earlier earth and timber phase, strictly based on epoch analogies, with no stratigraphic evidence. A general destruction has been observed, assigned – luckily – to the Carpic invasion, after which the fort has been immediately rebuilt (which only partial is true). Pamfil Polonic observed in the structure of Via Principalis at least two construction levels, but three decades later Gr. Florescu (1930) vehemently contested his predecessor’s conclusions, stating that during his investigations it appeared only one “layer”, a very instructive polemic regarding the stratigraphic abilities of the epoch (today, minimum six “layers” can be observed).

Finally, other chronological markers sustained by the predecessors have not been as well confirmed. For example – the idea (assumed also by the History Treatise) that the stone fortification would be erected during Hadrian’s time, assumption based as well on pertinent analogies in the epoch. Lastly, it has been asserted the existence of a “civil” fortification from the time of Constantinus the Great, overlapping the Roman fort, fortification that has heroically resisted during the migration epoch until the time of Phocas. These ideas have been thoroughly contested elsewhere (Teodor 2006).



The chronology of the fort from Răcari


All the six archaeological campaigns performed after the reprise of the researches (2003-2008) have allowed ascertaining the following building phases:
  1. The small earth fort (with timber palisade), built in the conditions of the Dacian-Roman wars, by the soldiers of the legion V Macedonica, is placed in the interior of the stone fort, well-known from previous investigations. Its dimensions are, from the interior of the ditches, of 144 x 125 m, having the same east-west “classical” orientation. The ditches, not exactly identical, have the average opening of 6 m and the depth of 2 m. The north, west and south ditches are to be found just in the rear of the later stone curtain, while the eastern one is remoted with 12.5 m towards the interior (details in Teodor 2006). As a consequence, the initial praetentura was shorter, following nevertheless the usual ratio of a fort from the beginning of the 2nd century. It seems that, in the subsequent phases, the street structure of the first fort has been used as well – with remakings and extensions.

  2. The large earth and timber fort, having the exact dimensions of the stone fort from the subsequent phase (170 x 141 m), was probably erected in the context of the Marcomanic wars, most likely to house a larger unit, having a post quem limit in a coin issued by Antoninus Pius, in the year 157, discovered in the leveling overlapping the Trajanic ditch. The characteristic of the defensive system is represented by a short berme, of 1.5-1.7 m, followed by a “W” ditch, with the total opening of less than 5 m and with depths oscillating between 1.2-1.4 m, providing the palisade a rather symbolic protection. Traces of the palisade have been observed in S.1, on the eastern side, where traces of two massive timber beams have been discovered, slightly placed in front of the stone curtain. Indirect traces of the palisade have been attested in all “W” shape ditches, from where plaster fragments have been recovered, used in order to prevent premature timber rotting. The palisade has been strongly burnt down, situation confirmed in other places as well, for the same level (north of horreum, for example).

  3. For the moment of the stone curtain construction, there is an older mention made by Pamfil Polonic, who observed in the gates stills epigraphical monuments prior to Caracalla (Tudor 1965). The supposition that the stone fort was built during the time of Caracalla is concordant with the numismatic discoveries from the interior, belonging to the stone fort phases, but also with the circumstances that other forts of large dimensions from Oltenia have been endowed as well with stone walls during the first years of the 3rd century, fact luckily well known from the discovered inscriptions (Bumbeşti and Slăveni for the year 201, namely 205). The replacement of the palisade with 1 m wide stone wall (with the estimate height of 3.7 m) is accompanied by other defensive measures, the “W” ditch being clogged, in order to widen the berme to approximately 4 m, being dug another defensive ditch, wide of 11 m and deep of 2.5 m; on the eastern side, existed, most surely, a second ditch as well, while the topographical measurements suggest the existence of a third one, the entire system of defensive ditches having the considerable opening of 35 m (compared to 5 m, previously). This is the certain sign that the position from Răcari was not considered safe enough anymore, although it was situated far behind two fortified lines, placed at the eastern boarders of Dacia Inferior province. Finally, another certain fact, regarding this third phase, is that according to the analyze of the defensive system (the stratigraphical sequence of the vallum), but also from the stratigraphical analyze of the constructions from the interior, we are facing two sub-phases, separated by a disruptive fire, dated during the ‘20s. Our conclusions are according to the observation that in the renovation observed by Polonic at the gates, a monument dated during the time of Caracalla was re-used, but also to the situation from the southern gate, blocked by a brick wall, situation that cannot be assigned to the Carpic destruction and remaking (see below). Sub-phase II is characterized by the abundance of archaeological material, but as well numismatic, situation that cannot be entirely ascribed to the effects of inflation, being thus feasible to suppose military events in which the fort from Răcari would have played an important role.

  4. The most significant devastation, observed as well by our predecessors, is the one due to the Carpians, in 247 or 248. The fort was not abandoned then forever, as it has been correctly assumed, the monetary circulation from the following years being very intense. It is worth mentioning that none of the coins recovered from the diggings crosses the barrier of year 251. The sudden interruption of the monetary circulation should not be related to the sudden abandonment of the location, as we would be tempted to believe, because some of the coins have a high blunting level, possible only for the coins used for at least two decades, according to the specialists (Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu). Nevertheless, traces of a military re-building have been observed only in the NE corner, where via sagularis is repaired, a new defensive wall is built, behind the older one, and, eventually, the barracks are repaired. For the rest of the fort’s surface, several phenomena are observed, leaving no doubts regarding the loss of the regular military character. The clearest phenomenon is the missing of a levelment for the constructions ruined during the previous phase and the occupation of the inside roads with constructions having another purpose (improvised dwellings or even wells). Even parts of the defensive walls are demolished, manu military, namely very precisely and “clean” (unlike the chaotic interventions of the later inhabitants), the construction material being, probably, immediately reused. For the moment, the area of military re-utilization, from NE, has not been delimited from the area of civil occupation; nevertheless, it is not the symmetrical division of the fort, assumed by Polonic (these types of destructions have been observed, as well, in the northern part of Principia).

  5. Despite the insistences of the previous researchers to confirm the existence of a somewhat “civil fortification” of Constantinian age, there is not a single artefact from the filed investigations to allow even a hypothesis of this kind, namely a 4th century dating. The enthusiastic descriptions of a large vallum, which would have been deposited over the walls, are due to clumsy stratigraphic analyses. A very simple fact has not been understood, namely that the walls have been taken out up to the foundation, and thus, in the empty space created, with time, the earth vallum fallen, being initially placed right behind the walls, therefore creating a false stratigraphic superposition (vallum over the walls)

  6. There is a certain level dated in the 6th century, attested through sunken-floor dwellings, with clay kilns (typical), but as well by the potsherds distributed on the surface of the fort, and also outside of it. This inhabitation has nothing to do neither with the Romans, nor Constantine the Great, not even that bow fibula, of a late type, less probable contemporary with the wheel-made pottery, of relative good quality, that we have found here-and-there, and which should be earlier (first part of the 6th century).


Comments regarding the constructions from the interior


One of the features of the fort from Răcari is the relative correspondence between the elements of the defensive system and the buildings from the interior, as regarding the technology and the raw materials.

To the earth and timber obstacles that separated the garrison from the rest of the world, match in the interior timber constructions, made on a massive structure, from timber logs with a diameter of 25-30 cm, buried in earth up to 0.5 m (in trenches or posts), the rest of the construction materials being of perishable type as well. Very probably, the adobe walls were sheathed at the exterior with planks, induction made due to the fact that along the walls, at the exterior, traces of plastering have appeared almost everywhere, commune feature of the palisade and of the interior buildings. Timber phases could be documented, incompletely but evidently, for the monumental constructions from the centre of the fort as well.

The insistent investigations of our predecessors in the middle of the camp had as a result, during our days, o large hole, with a bench-mark of -1 m as the rest of the surrounding terrain, disappearing not only the walls, but the excavated earth as well. The present day bench-mark from the area is with about 40 cm lower that the level of phase 1, the foundations being as well compromised. Given the situation, the little information regarding the initial phases, of timber, cannot, most probably, represent a systemic image, only confirming that, according to the building system, but as well according to the plan correlations, at least two distinct timber phases have existed before the stone Principia. This should be the situation for the horreum as well, which stratigraphically correlates to phase 3.

The most significant construction of this type, observed at foundation level, is the sequence of 5 compartments, with an east-west alignment, on a length of over 20 m (on S.5/ 2008) and a width of 3.25 m at the interior (width intersected by S.3/ 2007). The construction belongs to phase 1, to the Praetorium. The compartments of this assembly are unequal, one of them having the length of 7.40 m, the rest being of approximately 3 m long, the large central compartment seeming to have a special function (triclinium?).

The situation from latera dextra is a very special one and we mention it here as a particular feature of the site. Section 3/ 2007, which crossed the entire central part of the fort, on the direction south-north, has produced an ascertainment at least unusual. There was no road south of Principia, as it does in all the forts from the epoch, as it does, for example, north of the commandment, situation valid for all the phases. A very convincing via sagularis could not be observed, in 2006, on the same section 3, namely on the southern side of the fort. Nevertheless, it appeared a gravel road, at approximately half of the distance between Principia and the vallum, dividing the area usually reserved to the commandant’s accommodation (Praetorium) in two distinct insulae. Obviously, they cannot be both Praetorium, section 5/ 2008 being designated to test whether the Praetorium was situated or not in the proximity of the headquarters. The answer was affirmative, through the type of the accommodation from phase 1, and as well through the sequence from the west of this construction, where, for phases 2 and 3 (both sub-phases), has functioned a metallurgical workshop, neighboring a graveled court-yard, with peristilium, feature that confirms the domestic function of the assembly. The special inventory of the area is another specific element (see infra).

Double brick paraments bound with earth represent characteristics for both sub-phases of phase 3 (stone fort); these paraments have a longitudinal disposal, the space between them being filled with adobe. This manufacturing type for the paraments has been observed at two different constructions, namely at a barrack from praetentura dextra and another one from latera sinistra. The numerous tiles recommend this type of construction material for the roof. The typical structure of the barracks is of two rows of parallel rooms, of almost similar dimensions, or asymmetrical structures, with a larger room and another narrower lateral space, possible a porch.

The description of the stone buildings from the interior has been possible only at the extremities of the “hole” from the centre of the fort, namely at the southern and northern edges, that is the Principia’s southern wall and the northern wall of the horreum. In the first case, it was observed a foundation of minimum 60 cm depth (there is no block of the elevation), with a thickness at the base of almost 1 m. In the second case, of the horreum, the foundation has no less that 85 m high, with the counterfort pyramidally build, of two rows of stones, all the rest being completely sunken in cement. Nevertheless, in this case, three rows of stone from the elevation have been preserved; they are made of big oblong stone, relatively unregulated, yet the edification using compensations which give the rows a regulate aspect. Almost similarly it has been made for all the investigated stone foundations, including the ones from the curtain, similarity that suggests the same builder and, possible, a close moment.

The 2007 investigations, which crossed Principia on the south-north direction, have confirmed only in part Grigore Florescu’s drawings and measurements. It has been confirmed the width of the building (almost 34 m), but not the relation between the outside and inside walls, those from the atrium, as well as the foundation of the peristilum, being, on both sides, with more than half a meter towards the court-yard. With other words, the covered area of the building is somewhat larger, the court-yard being proportionally smaller.

The investigation from the horreum has confirmed the width reported by Polonic, namely 10.18 (not 9), adding to the plan 5 piers for sustaining the elevated floor (for ventilation), with a relative regulated disposal, from one side to the other, relatively aligned to a row of counterforts.

For the phase 4, the constructions are rather improvisations, starting with that supplementary wall near the eastern curtain, almost with no foundation. The buildings with a domestic function, placed almost always in the middle of the former roads from the fort, replicate the building style of phase 3 barracks, revealing thus a certain continuity, combining yet the technique of the double parament with post-holes, in which are placed stones of big dimensions, probably serving as foundation for massive timber piers from the dwelling frame. Also for this evolution phase of the fort, a well was discovered, almost in the middle of the alley witch previously separated two military barracks. The well might be connected to the ceramic production.



Significant discoveries from Răcari


We do not intend to make here an inventory list. Nevertheless, there are collections of items which produced sensation, and of which we shall discuss further below.

Firstly, we mention the “almost 3000 bronze fragments”, which might come from monumental statues. One of the first problems is raised by the location of these 3000 fragments, since, for the moment, we were able to identify only a few. Even so, their recent study has proved, on the one hand, the exceptional quality of the bronze alloy, and on the other hand, that they come, most probably, from more than two statues (information from Cristina Alexandrescu). They have been discovered “all over the fort” (Tudor 1966, after Tocilescu’s manuscripts), information for the more unsatisfactory since there were sufficiently investigations “all over the fort”, and similar items have not appeared anymore. One of the problems would be the high value of those statues, most probably brought form a prestigious artistic center, which highlights the important role of the fort, especially for its final period of use. A second issue is represented by the intrinsic value of the remains cut for reutilization and which haven’t been recovered “from all over the fort”, reflecting thus the sudden end of the settlement from Răcari fort, namely before or around 271.

A second significant discovery has been recently made, during the 2008 campaign, when a deposit of four aurei, dating during the time of Vespasianus, has been found, in that room belonging to the initial phase of the Praetorium. It is worth mentioning that this represents the most consistent aurei discovery from Romania, made during a systematic archaeological campaign, the value of the deposit proving the important social status of the military unit’s commander (it is hard to determine whether we are talking about a vexilation of legio V Macedonica or an “irregular” unit of Moors – Numeri Maurorum).

Despite the extensive investigations undertaken by Pamfil Polonic and Grigore Florescu in Principia, thus including all the areas boarding the atrium, traditionally named armamentarium, the largest collections of weapons has resulted due to recent investigations, from 2007, from a perimeter placed north of horreum, namely a group of 5 spear-heads discovered in S.4. Another two items of this kind appeared during the investigations from Praetorium, in 2008.

Several fibulae discovered in Răcari, dated in the 4th century (Popescu 1944, 495, 503) have contributed to the consolidation of the idea that, here, it might have existed a Constantinian settlement. Once again, we must highlight the fact that the place of discovery is unknown, as well as the exact origin of the monetary collection speculated by Dumitru Tudor, which has as only relation with Răcari the pot in which it was discovered in repository, decades after Tocilescu’s dead, inscriptioned “Răcari”. Nevertheless, the structure of that collection suggests o modern collecting, not an antique one. Yet, the question still remains, whether such a settlement, dated in the 4th century, has existed or not, in the outskirts the fort.



The civil settlement


There were no systematic investigations in the civil settlement of the fort. Dumitru Tudor (1965), in the study depicting Tocilescu & Polonic investigations, published a sketch of the discoveries around the fort, on the basis of which he estimated that the distribution area of these discoveries would cover “more than” 9 hectares. The superposing of this sketch over an orthophotograph leads to the conclusion that, even from Polonic’s drawings, we are talking about more than 20 hectares. For anyone accustomed with the Roman time traits, the numbers are approximately 6 times higher than the usual. Anyhow, the field-survey seemed not to be a major concern in the epoch, because otherwise it would have been observed the fact that the main dispersion direction of the civil settlement is not NW, but SE, direction in which, along the former Jiu course, the remains are distributed on approximately 500 m. Altogether, the dispersion of the antique monuments, around the fort, is on 45-50 ha. To such numbers, it comes in our mind Vasile Pârvan’s hypothesis, according to which the capital of Dacia Malvensis could have been at Răcari. Even though we don’t agree with such assumption, we must conclude that around this fort was placed one of the most significant communities from Roman times, the name and status of which remains still unknown.

Combining older and newer information, we are able to make a description of the organization scheme of the area surrounding the fort. The necropolis seems to have been placed in the axis of Via Praetoria, at approximately 200 m eastwards the fort, south-east from Răcari train station. A second necropolis, or only a stone workshop that produced the funerary monuments, was placed at the intersection of E70 and 606F roads. The largest part of the fort’s civil settlement (canabae) was situated towards south and SE of the fort, on the (former) bank of Jiu River, area probably closed with a vallum, towards east. Recent modernizations of E70 road have revealed the existence of an important habitation nucleus, comprising as well massive stone buildings (destroyed with the occasion…). The orientation of these buildings is not the same with the axes of the fort, suggesting thus the existence of another settlement, on the second terrace of the Jiu River (as well beyond the railway), having no connection with the fort, probably a settlement of colonists (or Romanized locals?) having commercial and/ or administrative purposes. Hence, the unusual dimension of the civil settlement could begin to be explained, because, in reality, we haven’t got one settlement (as enlisted in the List of Historical Monuments), but two.

The dimension of the second civil settlement form the second terrace, north-east of the railway, namely in the area of recent expansion of Răcarii de Jos village, is not known, the field investigations being impeded by the existence of several private properties, in the new inhabited area, on which the investigations cannot be performed without the approval of the local authorities. Approval that it’s not given…



Opportunities


The archaeological site from Răcari-Dolj presents research and tourism exploitation opportunities. The distance of only 29 km from one major city and university centre such as Craiova, of only 6 km until the closest town (Filiaşi), the proximity of the village centre, the fair conservation state, at least for the fort, that we know better, the presence of road E70, all of these are arguments for transforming the area in an archaeological school-site of which to benefit the scientific community and the students who wish to specialize in the field of archaeology, but the local community as well, the later having the chance of a successful business in tourism. Unfortunately, the great investment potential in the cultural tourism doesn’t imply a guaranteed success. The precarious education, the lack of a tradition regarding the protection of the historical monuments, the business opportunities having an immediate result, in the same perimeter, all together make notions as “sustainable development” and “respect towards culture” to remain only some uninteresting generalizations.


Research team


The present team has been gradually created, after re-taking the field investigations in 2003. It has, at the moment of 2008 campaign, but as well for the future archaeological campaign, from 2009, the following components (permanent team):

      dr. Eugen S. Teodor – coordinator, Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest

      dr. Dorel Bondoc – Museum of Oltenia, Craiova

      dr. Cristina Alexandrescu – “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest

      PhD candidate Corina Nicolae – Romanian National History Museum, Bucharest



Other young specialists, at the beginning of their career, have taken part at the campaigns -
a complete list at http://www.mnir.ro/cercetare/santiere/racari/colectiv/team_frame.htm - but as well several local people, among which we wish to specially mention Cosmin Grîngoiu, also known as the “metal detector”, who, at only 18 years old, already has 5 archaeological campaigns, but as well our veteran, Nicolae Agapie, of 52 years old, whose constant interest for archaeology, manifested along the time, makes us to believe that, even in such a hostile medium towards culture, still there is hope for the citizens to understand the importance – for the future! – of the history beneath the ground.

In this context, of collaboration, we also mention dr. Adrian Gheorghe, amateur archaeologist, that we met during the first days of 2003 campaigns and who remained by our side along the years, in one way or another, representing the sole real support that we have had on local plan. He represents, together with his cultural association, the small part of the “civil society” which we expect to take advantage of the chances that the local authorities are not able to comprehend. During the last campaign (2008) his association also took over some of the administrative assessments of the investigations financed by

the Museum of Oltenia in latus sinistrum, namely in the area between Principia and northern gate, in the basis of an agreement with the Museum of Oltenia.


Minimal bibliographical references:


Tudor 1965 – Dumitru Tudor – Săpăturile lui Gr. G. Tocilescu în castrul roman de la Răcari (raion Filiaşi, reg. Oltenia), in Apulum 5, p. 233-257.

Florescu 1930 – Castrul roman de la Răcari-Dolj. Săpăturile arheologice din anii 1928 şi 1930, Arhivele Olteniei 9, 1930.

History Treatise – Istoria Românilor, vol. II, D. Protase, A. Suceveanu (eds), Bucureşti 2001.

Popescu – Dorin Popescu - Fibeln aus dem National museum für Altertümer in Bukarest, in Dacia 9-10, 1941-1944, 485-505

Teodor 2006 – Eugen S. Teodor – Prima amenajare a castrului de la Răcari (jud. Dolj), in E.S. Teodor and Ovidiu Ţentea (ed), Dacia Augusti Provincia, Bucureşti 2006, 219-236.



For more detailed information (also as bibliographical support) see the research team site:

http://www.mnir.ro/cercetare/santiere/racari/Index_Rac.htm



dr. Eugen S. Teodor




RĂCARI – Illustration


Note: due to the fact that we don’t know the illustrations that will be selected for publishing, in the presentation text we have no references to these illustrations. Nevertheless, the photos are numbered, in order to have a correlation between labelling and images. The entire illustration is the property of the subscriber of the presentation, namely dr. Eugen S. Teodor; yet number 18 is taken from litterature.

Fig.1. The plan of the fort, after Florescu (1930; n.b. the horreum is missing), overlapping the topographical measurements dated May 2003, with level curves and the marking of Vlădescu’s sections from 1991-1992 (sure only S.1 and S.2).


Racari

Fig. 2. The general plan of the excavations.


Racari

Fig. 3. Ortophotograph with the indication of the main interest elements from the field: yellow contours – the fort; green – the protection perimeter of the civil settlement (93 ha); blue – recognizable elements from outside the fort.


Racari

Fig. 4. The ford of Jiu River from Răcari. The large riverside and the small angle flow have favoured this area as an ideal passing point.


Racari

Fig. 5. Altimetric profile through Jiu Valley. The large meadow (more than 2 km) has permitted, along the time, oscillations of the main course from one side to the other.


Racari

Fig. 6. Panoramic photography of S.1 northern side; partial view with the main fortification elements.


Racari

Fig. 7. Photography on S.1/ 2003, on the ENE direction. From near to distant plan: agger, demounted precinct, the ruins of the precinct fallen on the exterior, the main defence ditch of the stone phase, the limits of the older archaeological reservation and the buildings near Răcari train station.


Racari

Fig. 8. Precinct reconstruction proposal, on the existent stratigraphical support.


Racari

Fig. 9. Photography with “human scale” illustrating the relation palisade – defence ditch (S.1, Trajanic ditch, phase 1).


Racari

Fig. 10. Section 2, southern profile and profile sketch. 2005 Campaign. The existence of a supplementary defence ditch is illustrated, from phase 4 of the fort.


Racari

Fig. 11. Image from Section 4/ 2006, illustrating the constructing modality of the phase 3 barracks (foreground). The arrows indicate the massive stone bases entrenched in the level for the erecting of phase 4 buildings; it is worth mentioning that these constructions don’t follow anymore the fort’s alignment.


Racari

Fig. 12. Photography along section 3/ 2007, towards south (working stage), from the horreum to the Principia. The foreground area is approximately 1 m lower than the rest, due to the older uncovered archaeological excavations. Background – Jiu riverside.


Racari

Fig. 13. View on the northern side of the horreum, with counterforts, illustrating the building technique of the stone constructions. The foundation has 80 cm height. Three stone rows from the elevation may be observed.


Racari

Fig. 14. Rushlight datable in the middle of the 3rd century.


Racari

Fig. 15. Fibula dated at the end of the 2nd century.


Racari

Fig. 16. Spear apex from Praetorium (2008).


Racari

Fig. 17. The aurei deposit, in the lump which preserved it, and one of the exemplars, issued during the time of Vespasian. Discovery from 2008 campaign, from Praetorium.


Racari

Fig. 18. Plan sketch drawn by Pamfil Polonic in the late XIXth century for the outskirts of the fort, publish by Dumitru Tudor in 1965. For a comparison see Figure 3 (ortophotogram).


Racari





Recent additions, changes and updates to the Alexis site

Home


This site is to publicise the history and culture of Romania, and displays information from the Alexis Project Association

Alexis Project Filiasi/Romania
RC J/263/230/2007 CIF 21464151
Email: alexis_project@yahoo.com

in a partnership and contract with the Oltenia Museum:
Oltenia Museum Craiova/Romania
CF 4417192
Email: muzeulolteniei@yahoo.com

Because Oltenia Museum has the ability to verify the scientific importance of this information and because the specialists of Oltenia Museum have made contributions to this site, the copyrights to it are part of Oltenia Museum property.



If you have any photographs or information which would be useful for this site please contact Don Hitchcock


This page last modified Sunday, 29th July, 2012 04:15pm


Webmaster: Don Hitchcock

Email: don@donsmaps.com


My Archaeology website: http://donsmaps.com/