Beside its obvious geographic advantage, Roman foreign policy also had to consider the high level of organization of the Dacian Kingdom and the strength of the central power. The hillfort of "royal" Sarmizegethusa on the western slopes of the Kudzsir Alps was surrounded by a chain of similarly fortified hilltop settlements which made the royal seat almost inaccessible and defended it against the outlying territories of the kingdom. These forts, 14. T acitu s, Historiae III, 46, 2.
Map 1. Transylvania at the time of the Dacian Kingdom
I. D acian hillfort; 2. R om an m ilitary cam p; 3. Rom an town
covering areas of several hectares and fortified by ditches, thick walls and also often with watchtowers, could not only house an impressive number of armed men, but also served as the kingdom's industrial centres and stores, and, naturally, its treasuries and sanctuaries. That the royal power could m obilize an enormous labour force is reflected by the thick walls faced with regularly cut limestone blocks reinforced by wooden crossbeams, as well as the paved courts, roads, stone staircases and water channels hewn from large blocks of stone all of which also served to underscore royal power.
The impression made by "monarchic representations" of this kind on the com m oners living under far more primitive conditions should not be under
estimated; the enormous social gulf dividing the "cap-w earers" from the
"long-haired" Dacians undoubtedly required these royal accoutrements.
This centralized power was also strengthened by a religion whose cult places have been identified near the hillforts by recent Romanian research.
The round sanctuaries framed by regularly placed stone slabs and the quad
rangular ones with four rows of columns were most probably the scenes of cults interwoven with astrological beliefs. These cults are said to have been introduced by the Thracian Zalmoxis (or in other sources Zamolxis) who was supposed to have been a disciple of Pythagoras. The teachings of this
25
mythical Zalmoxis — who was later admitted to the ranks of the gods —included exhortations to an ascetic way of life. This belief system of Thraco- Getan origin probably was spread among the Dacians by Decaineus who cam e to the Dacian Kingdom at Burebista's invitation. Burebista had prob
ably perceived the possibilities inherent in this belief system and used it in the development of central power. The practice of the cult was a privilege, and the belief system was a jealously guarded priestly secret. The high priest mediated between the supernatural and the king. It could well be that priestly privileges included the art of healing. Greek medical texts m ention a large variety of Dacian m edicinal herbs together with their Dacian nam es, re
flecting the high level of the medical and botanical knowledge of the Dacians.
The excavations conducted on Dacian forts have brought to light a number of Roman imports in addition to the local implements and artifacts. Some of these belong to the group of luxury items that can be found am ong the personal possessions of the barbarian nobility in all parts of Europe. What is conspicuous, however, is that the Roman imports found in this area in
clude not only items that enhanced the luxury of the tribal aristocracy, but also good quality iron implements which undoubtedly contributed to the high level of the crafts practised in the forts. It is also highly probable that Greek and Roman specialists were sought out and employed to direct the fortification w ork of the Dacian hillforts. A number of ashlars, and espe
cially the stone blocks from the sanctuaries, bear Greek letter signs which were probably m ason's marks facilitating the joining of pre-carved archi
tectural elements, whilst another group of these signs is associated with the calendrical function of the sanctuaries. A huge truncated conical vessel — perhaps serving a cultic function — bears stamps with Latin lettering iden
tical to those on Roman stamped tiles in every detail. One of these stamps reads DECEBALVS, the other PER SCORILO.
Rom anian scholars generally translate these two stamps as "D ecebal, Scorillo's son". The difficulty of this translation and interpretation lies in the fact that the two names were impressed by two different stamps (even though both occur on the same vessel), as if one name were that of the customer (the one who ordered the vessel), and the other that of the potter.
The link with King Decebal is plausible, but even so, the lack of the title rex ("k in g ") is highly conspicuous. Assuming that the translation "D ecebal, Scorilo's son" is correct, one is led to conclude that Decebal was King Scorilo's son. However, the Dacian king list records another ruler betw een father and son: King Diurpaneus, who charted the political course which, despite the brief grandeur of Decebal's reign, eventually led to the downfall of the Dacian Kingdom.
As we have seen, Scorilo basically accepted the alliance system created by Rom e along the European frontier of the empire. He may have been favourably disposed towards this system because Tiberius granted him an exceptionally high annual stipendium after building the cliff road along the Danube. According to a later historian, Jordanes, King Diurpaneus launched an attack against the empire after the Dacians "in the reign of the Emperor Domitian ... for fear of his avarice, broke the truce they had long observed under other em perors".15 It could be that Domitian had indeed planned to
1 5 . Jo rd a n es, Getica 76.
reduce the exceptionally high stipendium, but it is hardly plausible that he would have done so in a politically unfavourable climate when the Danubian Germ anic tribes were making preparations for war. It is more likely that the Dacians timed their unexpected and surprise attack — causing serious losses to the empire — in concert with the tensions on the Germanic front.
The Dacians attacked at the latest in the winter of 85-86 and as so often before, they probably poured over the frozen Danube. The surprise attack claimed the life of Oppius Sabinus, the governor of Moesia. The seriousness of the situation is shown by the fact that Domitian himself hastened to Moesia where he devoted several months to the organization of an effective coun
ter-attack. The direction of the counter-offensive was entrusted to Cornelius Fuscus, the praetorian prefect, who crossed the Danube and advanced suc
cessfully on Dacian soil. At this critical moment Diurpaneus gave up his throne to Decebal, who began his reign with a glorious victory over Fuscus's army. Fuscus fell in battle and his defeat was so disastrous that his army was declared lost. Only a third Roman army commander, Tettius Julianus, managed to secure a decisive victory in 88, in the Battle of Tapae, a pass en route to the royal seat. Great Hungarian Plain, "through the kingdom of Decebal".16 Decebal him self repeatedly suggested a peace treaty even before his defeat at Tapae.
Decebal did not exploit the Romans' plight in the ensuing years when Domitian was forced to wage a long Germ anic-Sarm atian war in Pannonia.
It would appear that he had achieved his aim with the high stipendium
ther research. It is possible that the erection of stone walls and watchtowers around the hilltop settlements can in part be attributed to Decebal who asked the specialists sent to him to supervise these and similar operations.
The stamp bearing the name of Decebal was probably made by a Roman military engineer, since it is an exact copy of the stamps used in Roman military brick making. The tiles used in the forts similarly suggest the activ
ity of Roman artisans.
Decebal significantly enlarged his kingdom's territory during the dec
ade of his client relationship with Rome. These expansions were tolerated 16. Dob6, Inscriptiones ... 502 = 774a.
by Rom e as long as they remained within the framework of the alliance system and did not endanger treaties concluded with other kings' and would not foreseeably lead to the collapse of the carefully established and precari
ous clientale network. Decebal's expansion can be reconstructed from Pto
lem y's descriptions, for in his geographic handbook — written well after the conquest of Dacia — the boundaries of Dacia do not correspond to the frontiers of the Roman province. Nor does he mention which legions were stationed in Dacia, even though he never failed to note this detail in his descriptions of other provinces. Sarmizegethusa is still described as "royal", suggesting that it cannot have been the Roman colonia founded at Varhely, but only the royal seat near Ujvarhely. The frontiers of Decebal's Dacia were marked by the Tisza River to the west, by the Carpathians to the north and by the Dniester River to the east. He had subdued this vast territory, which was inhabited not only by Dacians, but also by Celts, Sarmatians and other population groups, step by step and not without the occasional war. Ptolemy also lists the populations that came under Decebal's rule — unfortunately, in a manner that does not allow their precise geographic localization. The northernmost among these peoples we know from other sources as well:
the Celtic Anartii and Taurisci, members of the former Boian tribal confed
eracy inhabiting northern Transylvania, and the Costoboci who lived be
yond the Carpathians and spoke Dacian. The other ethnonym s Ptolemy mentions do not occur elsewhere; however, they include a conspicuously high num ber of ethnic names derived from place nam es (Predavenses, Ratakenses, Kaukoenses, Buridavenses, etc.). Since these peoples are allo
cated a central position on Ptolemy's map the assumption may perhaps be risked that Decebal settled his Dacians on territories that were adm inis
tered from a specific centre, and thereby disrupting the traditional tribal framework. For the other striking feature of Ptolemy's record is that the only previously known Dacian tribe, the Appuli, does not occur even in the form "A pulenses", i.e. derived from the place name Apulum.