AUTHENTICITY AND EXPERIENCE

Governor’s palaces of Roman imperial period and the limes

Proceedings of the international conference

Budapest, 5–6 November 2018

AQUINCUM NOSTRUM II. 8.

AUTHENTICITY AND EXPERIENCE
Governor’s palaces of Roman imperial period and the limes

Proceedings of the international conference

AQUINCUM NOSTRUM II.8.

Budapest, 2019
 AUTHENTICITY AND EXPERIENCE
Governor’s palaces of Roman imperial period and the limes
Proceedings of the international conference, Budapest, 5–6 November 2018

Edited by:
Zoltán Havas

Translation by:
Dóra Erős

Proofreading by:
Dr. Gabriella Fényes

Design by:
Krisztián Kolozsvári

Published by:
Budapest History Museum

Front cover:
The refined reconstructed model of the Governor‘s palace in Aquincum
(Zoltán Havas [BHM Aquincum Museum], Zsolt Vásáros – Gábor Nagy [Narmer Architecture Studio])

Back cover:
Northern Hall of the Cologne Praetorium with substructures for wooden columns in the middle
(Image: Sebastian Ristow)

Funded by the National Cultural Fund of Hungary

Editor-in-chief:
Noémi Népessy, Director General of the Budapest History Museum

ISSN 1785 0339

ISBN 978-615-5341-65-6

Budapest, 2019
 CONTENTS

Sebastian Ristow:
Das Praetorium von Köln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Christian Gugl – Mario Wallner:

Die Kaserne der Statthaltergarde in Carnuntum (Pannonia superior). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Ronald Risy:
Virunum – Lauriacum – Ovilava und/oder doch Aelium Cetium? Ein spätantiker Baukomplex unter dem
Domplatz von St. Pölten. Mit einem Beitrag von Silvia Zenz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Zsolt Vasáros – Zoltán Havas:

Revision of the architectural reconstruction of the Aquincum Governor’s Palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț:
The praetorium consularis from Apulum. A symbol of official power in the province of Dacia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Florin-Ovidiu Botiș – Iulia Strîmbu:

Rediscovering the Heritage of Apulum/Alba Iulia. The future touristic promotion and valorization
of the praetorium consularis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Programme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
 Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț:

The praetorium consularis from Apulum

A symbol of official power in the province of Dacia

In conformity with the epigraphic and archaeological evidences, capital of Roman Dacia. Thus, the military forces of the prov-
the palaces of the Roman governors – the praetoria – served, ince where united under the command of a consular governor,
in equal measure, as official seats of the highest ranking rep- as the province had now two legions – XIII Gemina in Apulum
resentatives of Rome in the provinces, but also as their privateand V Macedonica in Potaissa – whose permanent seat was at
residences1. One of the most typical Governors’ Palaces in the Apulum3. The fast development of the urban centre at Apulum
Roman Empire, judging from its epigraphic evidences but also was favoured by the military presence of one of the elite military
from the archaeological discoveries made, is the Palace of the units of the Roman army (legio XIII Gemina), by the vicinity with
consular governor of the three Dacias, located at Apulum. Our the gold mines from Alburnus Maior (Roşia Montană), by the
study is meant to synthesize the scientific information known economic potential of the Mureș Valley and its location along
until today regarding the praetorium consularis from Apulum the Roman imperial road4.
(an up-to-date study) and to emphasize the manner in which Starting with this moment in time (the second half of the 2nd
it became a symbol of Roman official power in the province of century AD), all the epigraphic and archaeological evidences
Dacia. confirm the existence of a complex building structure (with an
official office, a possible military sector, temples, a private resi-
1. The location of the Governor’s Palace dence quarter, thermae etc.) which represented the headquar-
within the topography of the ancient Apulum ters of the consular governor5.
The Palace of the consular governor of the three Dacian prov-
Apulum was a first rank settlement in Roman Dacia and af- inces is situated 300 m East South-East from the XIII Gemina
ter the second half of the 2nd century AD it became one of the legionary camp, at the meeting point of the imperial road that
largest urban centres in the province2. This complex urban set- connected Apulum with the other major cities of the province
tlement included a legionary camp, canabae, and two separate and the prolongation of the road that led to the above men-
towns: colonia Aurelia Apulensis and municipium Septimium tioned fortress (Fig. 1).
Apulense. After Marcus Aurelius’ administrative reform from Compared to other known praetoria in the Roman Empire,
168–169 AD, Apulum became de facto the political and military which were placed in the vicinity of major waterways (the Gover-
nor’s Palace from Germania Inferior within the Colonia Claudia
1 For the significance of the term praetoria, see the most recent SCHÄFER
2014, 337, with its literature. 3 PISO 1993, 9, 37–38, 89–90; DIACONESCU–PISO 1993, 72; PISO 1993–
2 For the evolution of the ancient settlements from Apulum, see DIACONES- 1994, 205, Fig. 2; HAENSCH 1997, 338–348, 684–693; PISO 2001, XX;
CU–PISO 1993; PISO 1993–1994, 203-209; ARDEVAN 1998, 45-50; PISO VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 115.
2001; DIACONESCU 2004, Abb. 4.13-4.14; SCHÄFER 2014, 265, 271–272; 4 DIACONESCU–PISO 1993, 67; PISO 1993–1994, 203.
VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 115. 5 VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 115.
97
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
Ara Agrippinensis – on the Rhine; the praetoria consularis from
Carnuntum and Aquincum – on the Danube; the one from Dura
Europos – the Euphrates, and the one from Caesarea – on the
shore of the Mediterranean Sea)6, the Palace for the consular gov-
ernor of the three Dacias was placed in a lower plain, as opposed
to the high plateau on which the camp of the legion XIII Gemina
was built. The location chosen for the representative office for the
provincial administration of Dacia was surely of strategic impor-
tance – it was placed at the crossroad of major thoroughfares that
spanned the province and passed by the front door of the Gov-
ernor’s Palace before reaching the XIII Gemina legionary camp
(Fig. 1)7. Moreover, it was situated in the immediate vicinity of
the bridge over the Ampoi River, which facilitated the crossing
towards the road that led to the southern part of the province.
Furthermore, in case of extreme danger, the Governor’s office
could be defended by the troops of the XIIIth legion. Hence,
the main criteria for choosing a convenient place for building
6 SCHÄFER 2014, 338, Beilage IV.
7 F. Schäfer supposed that the direct access from the legionary camp could
have been made through the porta principalis dextra by prolonging the
decumanus maximus, which could make plausible the supposition that
the north side of the praetorium was in fact connected to the camp (?) – see
SCHÄFER 2014, 272, Abb. 280.
98
Fig. 1. 1. General plan of
Apulum (after Piso 2001,
pl. III); 2. The placement
of the components of the
Governor’s Palace excavated
until 2018 (after RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al. 2011a, 15).
the praetorium8 were covered also in the case of the Palace of
the consular governor of the three Dacias at Apulum, namely:
easy access, a best possible connection with the regional road
network in order to ensure communication/the transmission of
messages and a maximum freedom of movement for the gover-
nor and his staff. All these facts confirm the theory of R. Haensch,
who noticed the fact that in choosing the site of the provincial
capital, the technical and logistics criteria played a major part9.
2. State of research
2.1. Previous archaeological research (1888–
1908; 1943; 1962) and the identification
of the Governor’s Palace from Apulum
The first archaeological excavations undergone on this site
were initiated by A. Cserni, the first warden of the History Mu-
seum of Alba Iulia. During 17 excavation campaigns (between
1888 and 1908), Cserni excavated a surface of 13 000 square
meters (120×160 m). The garden where the archaeological ex-
cavations were executed laid at circa 130 m eastwards from the
8 SCHÄFER 2014, 337.
9 HAENSCH 1997 passim.

Fig. 2. General plan of the A. Cserni’s excavations
(1888‑1908) (after SCHÄFER 2014, Abb. 277).
south side of the Vauban fortress, basically in its former glacis,
being surrounded by a fence that separated it from the gardens
of the neighbouring houses (Fig. 2–3)10.
The building complex discovered by A. Cserni represents
the largest part of the Consular Governor’s Palace at Apulum
unearthed until today. The results of the archaeological exca-
vations were exemplary published by the passionate amateur
archaeologist, with a thorough description spanning twelve
preliminary reports, published between 1890 and 1908 in
the Annual Bulletin of the Museum of the Society for History,
Archaeology and Natural Sciences of the Lower Alba County (Az
Alsófehérmegyei Történelmi, Régészeti és Természettudományi
Egylet tizenharmadik évkönyvev = ATE), concerning the build-
10 CSERNI 1890, 22–23; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 36, Fig. 1; for the history
of research regarding the Governor’s Palace area, see also SZABÓ 2016,
113–123.
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
Fig. 3. The placement of A. Cserni’s excavations in the
praetorium consularis from Apulum (Photo Collection of the
National Museum of Union, Alba Iulia, CF 2182).
Fig. 4. Buildings uncovered between 1892 and 1894 (after
CSERNI 1894, pl. I).
ing’s structure and archaeological materials, but also accompa-
nied by a general plan that was updated after each excavation
campaign (Fig. 2–4). 11. Due to the fact that he unearthed several
hypocaust installations and a sewage system, the author of the
discoveries thought, from the first year of excavations, that the
uncovered building complex are in fact Apulum’s baths and this
CSERNI 1890; CSERNI 1891; CSERNI 1892; CSERNI 1894; CSERNI 1895;
11
CSERNI 1896; CSERNI 1897; CSERNI 1899; CSERNI 1901; CSERNI 1902;
CSERNI 1903; CSERNI 1904; CSERNI 1908. For A. Cserni’s contribution to
the discovery of the praetorium consularis from Apulum, see SCHÄFER 2014,
265–267, Abb. 275–277, and more recently RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017.
99
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
Fig. 5. Buildings uncovered in 1904 (after CSERNI 1904, pl. XI).
is why the structures that were to be unearthed later, regardless
of their size and position, were described in reports as being
baths/thermae, with their components12. Nevertheless, as the
excavations progressed, A. Cserni tried to nuance his interpreta-
tion of the discoveries made, supporting the existence of a bath
complex (situated in the central-west area of the site) and of sev-
eral temples (in the north-east area) etc. Nonetheless, he did not
properly identify the structures unearthed with so much passion
as being the Governor’s Palace13.
A drawback of these reports is the fact that, during the ar-
chaeological campaigns, the buildings were renumbered and
thusly it became difficult to correlate the descriptions with the
published plans14. Moreover, in order to offer the larger audi-
ence information in these published reports, A. Cserni intention-
ally omitted from the published plans some important details,
such as the earlier building structures (or belonging to the first
phase of construction of the complex?), less spectacular and only
partially known15.
The one who succeeded in synthesising the information
published by A. Cserni and attempted to define a possible
functionality of the unearthed structures is F. F. Schäfer, in his
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 17; SCHÄFER 2014, 265.
12
13 RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 17; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 38–39.
SCHÄFER 2014, 265 and note 6.
14
SCHÄFER 2014, 265.
15
100
paper dedicated mainly to the Palace of the Governor of Lower
Germania from Köln, but also to other known praetoria through-
out the Roman Empire16. He has the merit of systemizing all the
data from A. Cserni’s published reports, renumbering the build-
ings (there are 263 rooms, corridors, courtyards, streets, heating
installations and sewage) and dividing the researched area in
seven modules, marked with capital letters (from A to I)17. Also,
he sought to identify the successive construction phases of the
complex18, a subject that we will revisit in the following pages.
Parts of the same building complex were discovered north,
north-east and north-west of Cserni’s excavations, along the Alba
Iulia – Zlatna railway (1943) and on the current location of the
Economic Highschool “Dionisei Pop Marţian” (No. 11, O. Goga
Street, formerly known as Dobrogeanu Gherea Blvd.), due to the
researches of I. Berciu and Al. Popa (1962).
I. Berciu discovered in the area situated north of A. Cserni’s
excavations, on the Dobrogeanu Gherea Blvd., the ruins of a
building system, unearthed on a smaller surface, of only 384
square metres. The results of the archaeological excavations
were presented in a brief report, including a plan and one of the
cross sections of the revealed buildings, together with several
uncovered archaeological artefacts19. According to the author of
these excavations, a large building was unearthed, having heat-
ing installations in the form of channels, and decorated with
stucco work, dated by the discovered artefacts (including coins)
at the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries AD.
Due to its impressive size and the unearthed tegular material
carrying the stamp of the troops responsible for guarding the
governor, I. Berciu sustained that this building was in fact a part
of the governor’s residence at Apulum20.
The other edifice, discovered during preventive archaeologi-
cal research carried out on the location of the new building for
a professional school situated on No. 11, Dobrogeanu Gherea
Blvd. (present day No. 11, O. Goga Street), was never published.
Nevertheless, I. Berciu and Al. Popa have referred to it when they
SCHÄFER 2014.
16
SCHÄFER 2014, 265–287, Abb. 275–291; 442–451 (the catalogue for the
17
renumbered constructive elements); 452–456 general literature, and on p.
457 – literature regarding the praetorium consularis from Apulum.
SCHÄFER 2014, 272–284, Abb. 281, 285.
18
BERCIU 1949, 188–199, Fig. 5–12. See also OTA 2012, 131, pl. IV/1.
19
BERCIU 1949, 198–199 and notes 11–12.
20

published the special materials discovered on the site21. The
building in question was in fact described as being an edifice
of impressive proportions, made of multiple chambers, their
plastered walls painted with shades of Pompeian red, while the
rooms had imposing marble stairs and heating system, but with-
out offering any other details and without publishing a plan of
the building. On the basis of an inscription dedicated to Minerva
Augusta by six officers from the Governor’s staff – exceptores
consularis22,of fragments of a bronze statue of great dimen-
sions23, of the stamped names of the troops responsible with
the governor’s protection made on brick material (pedites sin­
gulares, numerus singularium) discovered in the same area, but
also on the basis of the imposing size of the uncovered build-
ing24, I. Berciu and Al. Popa sustained that the respective edifices
were part of the Governor’s Palace. They did not, in fact, make
any connection between their discoveries and the vast complex
unearthed by A. Cserni, which continued to be known as the “Ro-
man baths from Apulum”.
The correct identification of the complex was made more re-
cently by I. Piso and Al. Diaconescu, based on the inscriptions
erected for various governors by members of the official staff, as
well as on the impressive amount of stamped tiles bearing the
mark of the governor’s guard troops25. The same authors have
attempted to offer an explanation regarding the functionality of
the buildings uncovered by A. Cserni, but without going as far as
studying them in detail26.
BERCIU–POPA 1964; BERCIU–POPA 1965; BERCIU–POPA 1977, 223–225,
21
Fig. 9.
BERCIU–POPA 1964; BERCIU–POPA 1965.
22
BERCIU–POPA 1977, 223–225, Fig. 9.
23
BERCIU–POPA 1964; BERCIU–POPA 1965; POPA 1975, 99; BERCIU–POPA
24
1977, 231.
DIACONESCU–PISO 1993, 72–73, Fig. 3, 8; PISO 1993, 37 and notes 46;
25
89–90 and note 32; PISO 1993–1994, 206, Fig. 2; HAENSCH 1997, 343,
685; PISO 2001, XX; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 43; VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ
2017, 116.
DIACONESCU–PISO 1993, 73; PISO 1993–1994, 206; PISO 2001 – in the
26
discussion regarding the honorific and votive inscriptions discovered in the
praetorium consularis from Apulum, I. Piso often refers to their archaeologi-
cal context and mentions the functionality of the buildings where they were
unearthed.
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
2.2. Recent archaeological researches
(1992–2003; 2007–2018)
The recent archaeological excavations from Munteniei Street
are situated 100 m south and south-east of Cserni’s excavations
and 100 m west of the excavations of I. Berciu and Al. Popa from
1943 and 1962 (Fig. 1/2). The monumental buildings, as well as
the archaeological artefacts, prove that the discoveries are part
of the Governor’s Palace. The area researched during the above
mentioned periods is of 850 square meters. The excavations
were carried out in 1992–2003, 2007–2018 by a team of spe-
cialists from The National History Museum of Transylvania from
Cluj-Napoca, The National Museum of Unification from Alba
Iulia, the Heritage of Alba County and the „1 Decembrie 1918”
University from Alba Iulia, led by Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț. The ex-
cavations were focused on recovering the constructive elements
of a Roman building partially neglectfully destroyed through a
series of construction works. During the first three archaeologi-
cal campaigns (1992–1994), the general stratigraphy was estab-
lished and the first habitation phases of the site were revealed27.
In 1998, the excavated area was enlarged with 2.30–3.50
meters north, in an area never researched before (Fig. 8). Here,
five rooms were discovered, some of them impressive in dimen-
sions, pertaining to the last Roman phase (starting with the
­second quarter of the 3rd century AD).
In 2001, a new trench was opened on the eastern side of the
archaeological park – SXVII/0128 and in 2007, trench SXVIII/0729
was opened in the southern part of the area, followed in 2014
and 2016 by two other trenches – SXIX/14 and SXX/16 – made
in the same area of the archaeological park30. The research was
The preliminary results of the archaeological research were published in the
27
Romanian Archaeological Research Chronicle (Cronica cercetărilor arheo­
logice din România) and other such periodicals – see BOLINDEȚ 1993; RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ 1994; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1995; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1996; RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ 2017, 43–44; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2002;
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2003; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2004; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ
et al 2008; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2009; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2010; RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 20–22; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011b; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ
et al 2015; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2017; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2018.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2002; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al
28
2003; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2004; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 24.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2008; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2009; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et
29
al 2010; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 27–28; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011b;
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 23–26, pls. I–II, figs. 1–21, 24–28.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 25–26, pls. I, III, figs. 22–23; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et
30
al 2017, 14–15; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2018, 13–14.
101
Fig. 6. General plan of the excavations conducted by A. Cserni, with the phases of the complex (processed after SCHÄFER
2014, Abb. 281).

finished in trenches SXVII/01 and SXVIII/07, and in the case of
the most recent trenches – the archaeological research is still
under way. Moreover, the team carried out interdisciplinary re-
search in the site’s unaffected areas. Thusly, starting with 2016,
magnetometric analyses were made and also tests for electric
resistivity in the area situated north of the three new trenches
located on the south side, in order to identify the preserved con-
structive elements31. At the same time, orthophotographs were
made by applying photogrammetry (with the use of a drone)
and 3D modelling of the unearthed buildings32. A 3D scan of the
artefacts discovered in the praetorium consularis was initiated,
while their digital presentation was held for the general public
on the website of the National Museum of Unification of Alba
Iulia33. The first volume of the site’s archaeological monograph
is presently under way.
3. The evolution of the site –
the habitation phases
3.1. Cserni’s excavations
The excavations carried out by A. Cserni have offered the first
data concerning the Roman habitation phases of the Governor’s
Palace at Apulum. As was mentioned before, they were described
by the author in his archaeological reports, but without being il-
lustrated on the plans that accompanied these records34.
Based on the reports of A. Cserni, F. F. Schäfer determined two
habitation phases. The earliest (phase I) is illustrated by only a
few traces of several building structures, considered by the au-
thor of the excavations to be earlier depending on the depth at
which they were found, on the different orientation of the walls,
by their reuse as substructures for newer walls and by their con-
struction details35. F. Schäfer observed building structures in 11
places on the surface unveiled by Cserni that were earlier than
The geophysical investigations and aerial photographs were undertaken by
31
D. Ștefan, Ph.D. – see RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2017, 16–17, pls. 1–4; RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al 2018, 14, 273, pls. 1–4.
The Photogrammetry surveying was realized by Călin Șuteu, Ph.D. – see
32
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2018, 15, 271–272, pls. 1–4.
The 3D scanning of the artefacts discovered within the Governor’s Palace
33
from Apulum is realized by Călin Șuteu, Ph.D. – see the platform Sketchfab.
com.
CSERNI 1892, 9–16; CSERNI 1896, 44; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017, 39–40.
34
SCHÄFER 2014, 272–275, Abb. 281.
35
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
the second/final phase of the Governor’s Palace (Fig. 6). Based
on the deficient available information, he determined that there
was no pre-Roman settlement on the location where the praeto­
rium consularis was to be placed, that the analysed constructive
elements, because of the walls’ different orientation in compari-
son with the second phase of the complex, probably were not
part of a previous phase and that they must have been exten-
sively demolished beforehand, at a dated unknown, before the
moment of erection of the praetorium. The proposed dating of
this phase – late Trajanic/early Hadrianic36 – without any certain
archaeological materials is at the moment just a supposition.
The same author has placed during the second phase of the
Governor’s Palace (dated at the middle of the 2nd century until
the middle of the 3rd century AD) all the structures mentioned
in A. Cserni’s plans – that were, probably, part of its final phase37.
Because of a lack of precise information in A. Cserni’s archaeo-
logical reports, he preferred to interpret them in this manner,
even if they could be attributed, at a more thorough analysis,
to different phases, to possible extensions or repairs (see below
the correlation of Cserni’s results with recent finds). As already
mentioned before, F. F. Schäfer renumbered all the constructive
elements unearthed by A. Cserni (there are 263 chambers, corri-
dors, courtyards, streets, heating installations and sewage) and,
in his attempt to define the functionality of the uncovered struc-
tures, he divided the researched area in seven modules, marked
with capital letters (from A to I). Through a detailed analysis of
the buildings and other constructive elements that seem to
group from an architectural point of view (even if the complex’s
general plan does not seem consistent) the mentioned author
fundamentally contributed to a better understanding of the ar-
chitecture of the Governor’s Palace from Apulum. The analysis
was accompanied by a very useful catalogue of the constructive
elements discovered by A. Cserni, with the correlation of the old
and new renumbering, together with the essential data concern-
ing every chamber and with its relevant literature38.
SCHÄFER 2014, 285.
36
SCHÄFER 2014, 275–284, Abb. 281, 285; it is not unlikely that some of the
37
structures were dated in the second masonry phase, determined by this
paper’s author in recent excavations (see below), nevertheless, this fact could
be eventually clarified by revising the archaeological reports published by A.
Cserni.
SCHÄFER 2014, 275–284, Abb. 281, 285; 442–451.
38
103
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț

3.2. The remains discovered by I. Berciu in 1943

north of the excavations conducted by A. Cserni
The author of the excavations mentioned the existence of a
large building, delimited by two enclosure walls (to the north
and south). It was provided with a heating system, which was
not built on the entire building’s surface, but identified in the
form of a two pilae rows-wide channel, located in the middle
area of the building; from it channels started northwards and
southwards, distributing the hot air beneath the floor. Further-
more, along the northern perimeter wall of the building another
hypocaust was built with a single row of pilae, connected with
the central hypocaust also by a channel39. Underneath the floor
of this building belonging to the final Roman phase, I. Berciu
mentioned the existence of a consistent layer of debris, emerg-
ing below the wall of another building, east-west oriented, made
of river rocks bound with mortar, and connected to it, a mortar
floor, only 0.10 m thick40. The trench of the discussed building41
evidenced two habitation phases, divided by two layers, one
burnt and the other, a debris layer. On the basis of the discov-
ered archaeological materials, I. Berciu dated the large building
identified in the last Roman habitation phase, at the end of the
2nd– early 3rd century AD, believing that the burnt layer was the
result of the destructions caused by the Marcomannic wars, un-
til then without any reference regarding the dating of the first
phase of the building42. R. Ota reconsidered such a dating, sug- Fig. 7. General plan of the archaeological excavations
conducted by A. Cserni, with the functionality of the
gesting the chronological framing of the first phase, based on buildings (after SCHÄFER 2014, Abb. 285).
reinterpreted stratigraphy, broadly to the 2nd century AD. Yet,
the author provided no further arguments than the author of the
excavations43.
The structure discovered by I. Berciu and Al. Popa in the vi-
For a detailed description of the discovered building parts see BERCIU 1949,
39
cinity of the building mentioned above, was not published in
188–191, figs. 6–9. detail. Studies discussing the special materials discovered at
The author mentioned at the start of the presentation of the finds from the
40

Dobrogeanu-Gherea Blvd. that there were buildings belonging to the fist the respective site44 specified only general data, focusing on the
Roman phase, east-west oriented – see BERCIU 1949, 189; however when grandeur of the building and its association with the governor’s
actually discussing this phase (BERCIU 1949, 195), he only mentioned the
seat, just as was the case with the building identified in 1943.
elements which we included herein, which were not included in the excava-
tion plan. Instead, the first phase building’s floor appears on the drawing of Regarding the dating, based on the inscription dedicated to
the trench dug through the last Roman phase building – see BERCIU 1949, Minerva Augusta by the 6 exceptores consularis in the staff of
195, fig. 10.
It is not specified in which area of the building the trench was made – BER-
41 the Dacian consular governor, on the parallels with an inscrip-
CIU 1949, 195, 197, fig. 10.
BERCIU 1943, 195–199, figs. 10–12.
42
Marcomannic wars, might have had other causes as well – see OTA–LASCU
OTA–LASCU 2011, 205–207, Fig. VI/1. The authors consider that the burnt
43
2011, 206–207; OTA 2012, 131, Fig. IV/1.
layer, which I. Berciu believed to belong to the destructions caused by the See note 21.
44

104

Fig. 8. Ortophotoplan of the southern part of the praetorium consularis, located on Munteniei st. no. 15-17 in Alba Iulia,
with the habitation phases of the settlement (author C. Șuteu; plan processed by I.-Al. Iliescu).
tion identified by A. Cserni in the Governor’s Palace45 and on the
1943-finds from just nearby the discussed building, the authors
of the excavations suggested the end of the 2nd century and first
half of the 3rd century AD46, without subsequently exploiting the
archaeological materials and excavation documentations.
3.3. Habitation phases identified
by recent excavations
In the area south the A. Cserni’s excavations, where recent
archaeological investigations of the surviving part of the prae­
torium consularis in Apulum are conducted, the plan of the un-
CSERNI 1901, 374–375 = CIL III, 14 215 = IDR III/5, 266 – inscription
45
dedicated to Minerva Victrix by Aelius Sabinus, librarius consularis, dated to
AD 196–197.
BERCIU–POPA 1964, 306.
46
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
veiled buildings must be understood according to the specificity
of the site’s preservation. There, because of the partial destruc-
tion of the site’s central part, on a 50/60 by 18 m surface down
to a depth of -2.25–2.50 m reached by modern excavations47,
the building that belonged to the last two Roman habitation
phases (otherwise, rather well preserved) was removed, only the
construction elements of the first masonry phase of the feature
remaining. For that reason, traces of wall along the cross sections
of the excavated surface (of which only the area of the northern
cross section could be extended in order to reveal adjacent
buildings), may not be plausibly/coherently explained in terms
of their assemblage in the constructional evolution of this part of
the Governor’s Palace.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 20, with photos illustrating the site’s destruc-
47
tion.
105
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
Fig. 9. The first masonry
phase of the recently
excavations at praetorium
consularis (processed by
I.-Al. Iliescu, after RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al. 2011, 15).

Certain timber structures were also found on the western side

of the excavated trench49 and in the southern extremity of the ar-
chaeological park50, in the form of timber walls, however in this
state of research it is difficult to say whether they were related to
an initial stage of the Governor’s Palace or pre-dated it.
The buildings and construction elements discovered during
our recent excavations, which we believe to belong to the Gov-
ernor’s Palace, were made of stone and tile material bound with
mortar, recording three construction phases, including repairs,
restorations and extensions etc., over the course of its existence
Fig. 10. Buildings from the first masonry phase (photo by V.
Rusu-Bolindeț).
(AD 168–275).
The first masonry phase (Fig. 9–11) was mainly identified on
the bottom of the trench excavated in 1992, yet also on the east
Regarding the land onto which the building composing the and south sides of the undisturbed area of the archaeological
southern part of the praetorium consularis was placed, no previ- park. Rooms with a coherent layout were discovered (Fig. 8–9),
ous Dacian habitation could be noted, however in a few points in but also a few isolate walls, in areas where it was impossible to
the excavated area habitation remains were discovered, dated to extend the excavation or where destructions (ancient or modern)
the end period of the Bronze Age and early Iron Age (Hallstatt)48. prevented us from completing the respective rooms.

RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1995, 4; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1997, 1; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al

48
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 22.
49

2010, 31–32; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011b. RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 25, fig. 16b.

50

106

The preserved chambers, square or rectangular in shape, are
oriented NW-SE and are generally provided with heating sys-
tems (rooms a, h, k, m and o). Owing to subsequent overlapping
phases, their wall foundations, consisting of river rocks bound
with mortar and opus signinum floors survived, on top of which
lay the hypocaust pilae. From the latter, composed of square
bricks, only one row was preserved (Fig. 10). A praefurnium was
also discovered, on the western side wall of room o, which con-
firms its heating source by a hypocaust system51.
On the eastern side, the first masonry phase is recorded by
the extraction pit of a wall, on top of which the eastern enclosure
of the building was later built, located in the southern corner of
trench SXVII/0152. Moreover, in the southern extremity of the in-
vestigated area, in trench SXVIII/07, the foundations of another
building belonging to the same phase were identified, these
were divided into two rooms (r and s), which, in the excavated
part, were not heated (Fig. 17–18)53.
The specificity of this phase resides in coherently laid build-
ings, with similarly oriented rooms as in the subsequent phases,
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 22.
51
52 RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 25 and the plan of trench SXVII/01, with the
location of the first stone wall trace.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2008.
53
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
Fig. 11. Second masonry
phase of the recently
excavations at praetorium
consularis (processed by
I.-Al. Iliescu, after RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al. 2011, 15).
indicative of a relatively uniform architectonical plan of this
area in the Governor’s Palace. Another peculiarity of this phase
is represented by foundations composed of river rocks bound
with mortar, no longer found in the building technique of future
phases.
The second masonry phase (Fig. 8; 11–13) was most dif-
ficult to identify because it was topped by the last Roman habita-
tion phase, represented by larger buildings set on the northern
and southern sides of the excavated area, while centrally, they
were destroyed by the previous excavations. The few surviving
rooms or elements were better outlined in the southern half of
the excavated area, where they overlapped by rooms from the
first phase (namely, rooms g and h) or created additional rooms
towards the south (rooms i, i’, c, e, f) (Figs.  11, 13). The most
impressive find was the unveiling of a hall (h’), paved with bi-
coloured mosaic, in the form of a square of white and black tes­
sarae placed in a chessboard pattern (Fig. 12/2). It cracked on
its width in antiquity, reason for which it was reused in the sub-
sequent stage as substructure for room H’s floor (Fig. 12/1). For
ensuring the floor’s durability, a layer of opus signinum was laid
on top, in which marble and sandstone plaques were inserted54.
It is the only mosaic recorded in situ in the Governor’s Palace
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 21.
54
107
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
1 Fig. 13. Buildings from the 1st-3rd masonry phases
2
Fig. 12. 1-2. Mosaic discovered in the h’ hall belonging to
the second masonry phase (photo by V. Rusu-Bolindeț).
from Apulum. Instead, two other pieces of bicoloured mosaic,
with floral motifs, made of white tessarae on a black background,
respectively a black pattern on white background, were discov-
ered in the demolition layer from room I. On the northern side of
the excavated area, rooms of the buildings from the same phase
were used as substructures for the larger constructions of the last
phase, which incorporated wall foundations, heating systems,
sewage and much resulted debris55.
On the eastern side of the site, in trench SXVII/01, to the sec-
ond masonry phase belonged the enclosure wall foundations
of the building delimited by its southern half, which partially
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 21.
55
108
uncovered in the central and northern parts of the
excavated surface (photo by V. Rusu-Bolindeț).
topped the extraction pit of the wall from the preceding phase
(Fig. 11)56. Instead, on the southern side of the site, in the only
trench excavated down to the virgin soil, the second masonry
phase could be only sporadically identified57.
The third masonry phase (Fig.  14–18) is characterized by
the presence of large buildings, which surfaced throughout the
area under study. The most important group could be investigat-
ed on the northern side of the excavated surface, where signifi-
cant parts of at least five buildings were revealed (rooms A, A’, C,
D, with hall D’, E) on the northern side, and three on the southern
one (rooms F, H, K, M and M’). In addition, similar buildings were
discovered on the eastern (the corner of a two-roomed building)
and southern sides (two buildings and their divisions) of the site
(Fig. 14).
The rooms are characterized by walls built in the opus mixtum
technique (of limestone and sandstone at the base and brick in
the upper half or, often, reused tile material); by opus signinum
floors or brick, respectively marble pavements; by painted walls
with vegetal or geometric patterns or marble-plated; by hypo-
caust systems, spreading on their entire surface or only in part
(in the form of channels), by sewage.
Among the mentioned buildings, particular by size and build-
ing elements are the rooms C, D, D’, E and E’ on the northern side
of the excavated area (Fig. 15), rooms H and K on the southern
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2010, 31.
56
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2014.
57

side of said area, as well as the buildings where research is still
in progress on the southern side of the archaeological park, in
trenches SXVIII/07, SXIX/14 and SXX/16 (Fig. 18).
Thusly, room C, 15 m long58, had its walls built in opus mix­
tum and an opus signinum floor paved with large, rectangular,
unstamped bricks. Approximately centrally a square shaped sew-
age pit was discovered, made of limestone (0.70×0.70 m), with
a floral pattern, communicating with a water drainage channel
made of bricks stamped with the seal of XIII Gemina and names
of individuals (Fig. 15/1).
Room D, on the same side, excavated on a length of 5.10 m59,
with walls and floor similar to room C, was peculiar by a heat-
ing system in the form of two channels each with a row of pilae,
placed diagonally to the trench’s width (Fig. 14). Their junction
likely was positioned in an area with a central channel or a prae­
Room C width was only partially unveiled (varying between 2.30 and 3.40
58
m) because of the destructions caused by previous excavations and the
impossibility for its complete investigation to the north because the limit of
the archaeological reserve – see RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 25–26; RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 24 and illustration from the top of the page.
The same notes for the width of room D alike the preceding note – see RUSU-
59
BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 25; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 25–26.
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
Fig. 14. The third masonry
phase of the the recently
excavations at praetorium
consularis (processed by
I.-Al. Iliescu, after RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et. al 2011, 15).
furnium, which ensured the heating of the respective room. The
connection between rooms C and D was assured by passage D’
(with preserved dimensions of 3.70 by 1.40 m), whose opus
signinum floor was paved with stamped bricks, while the walls
were marble plated. The timber print of the door’s threshold by
which the communication between room D and the mentioned
passage was ensured, also survived, 1.50 by 0.60 m in size, set
on the western passage wall. Even more interestingly, on the
southern side, room C and especially hall D’ delimited a room
with an apsis (E’), yet preserved on a small portion, as it was al-
most completely destroyed. This room too had a brick floor, with
a base of a consistent opus signinum layer, on which a few round
hypocaust pilae were placed. On the bottom, the same room was
also provided with a water drainage channel with walls built in
opus mixtum, which ran to the north and south, respectively60.
When room E was excavated, all parts of a heating system
were identified in situ on the western extremity of the northern
side (Fig. 15/2): the opus signinum floor with the hypocaust pi­
lae, the larger bricks on top of them to ensure the stability of the
opus signinum floor in the upper part and the tegula mammata
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 25.
60
109
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
1
2
Fig. 15. 1-2. The third masonry phase: rooms C and E from
the northern part of the settlement (photo by V. Rusu-
Bolindeț).
bricks attached between the wall and plastering, designed to en-
sure hot air circulation through the floor and room walls61. The
same room was also equipped with a praefurnium, located on its
western side, although the heating system is not present on the
entire room’s surface, but only along its western side, in the form
of a channel. Moreover, below the room’s floor a succession of
three channels for water discharge was identified, east-west ori-
ented, partially overlapping62. They consisted of bricks stamped
with the seal of the XIII Gemina legion and names of individuals.
These channels were overlapped by the eastern enclosure wall
of room E, further running eastwards, below the floor of room D.
It is difficult to say whether they were concurrently operational;
The room’s unveiled length was of 7.20 m – RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 25;
61
for the illustration of the hypocaust system see RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a,
23.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 25; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 24, with
62
related illustration.
110
though, it is certain that they originally belonged to the second
masonry stage (given the overlapping foundations of the east-
ern wall of room D), however they were most definitely used also
during the subsequent phase.
On the southern side of the site, the most impressive is room
H, whose unveiled length was of 9.50 m, while its width varied
(owing to its previous destruction). It was built according to the
same technique just as the rooms on the northern side, never-
theless, the opus signinum floor was paved with marble and
sandstone plates, while its walls were marble plated. Its peculiar-
ity resides, as aforementioned, in the use for its substructure of
the mosaic from hall h’, as well as of certain walls of rooms from
the previous phase, some heating systems included63. It was at
its turn heated by a hypocaust system, of which two brick cannels
survived, ensuring the hot air circulation beneath the floor.
Room K on the same side (very much destroyed by excavat-
ing), had a particular architecture, being built in an apsis shape,
having a surviving diameter of 4.90 m (Fig. 14). Its northern wall
(the only one preserved), 0.90 m thick, was also built in opus mix­
tum technique, the foundation comprising stones and reused tile
material fragments, while the elevation consisted of bricks. On
the inside, the room was coated with a thick layer of opus signi­
num, 0.20 m thick. This room too was heated, provided by a hy-
pocaust system made of round and square pilae. On the bricks on
which the pilae laid, square-shaped and larger in size, the stamps
of the XIII Gemina legion and names of individuals were found,
as well as the P SING stamp, of the pedites singulares units which
composed the governor’s guard64. Also, in the foundations of the
apsis room a lead pipe for water drainage was discovered in situ.
On the southern side of the archaeological park, during the
research carried between 2007 and 2018, trenches SXVIII/07,
SXIX/14 and SXX/16 were excavated, which yielded two build-
ings that belonged to the last habitation phase of the complex
(Figs. 8, 14). The Roman building situated in the southern half
of the trench (conventionally termed Building I), has the un-
veiled size of 6.10 by 3.40 m, extending towards the east and
west. It contains two rooms (U and V), whose walls, built in opus
mixtum (with alternative rows of stones and bricks, including
reused tile material, bound by mortar), are very well preserved
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 21, with related illustration.
63
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 21, photo right low.
64
 The praetorium consularis from Apulum

(Figs. 16–17)65. Room V has an opus signinum wall and likely

a praefurnium in the south-western corner (which runs into the
western cross section and could not be researched)66. Room U,
partially destroyed by a modern cellar, was likely provided with
a praefurnium midway in the eastern perimeter wall (Fig. 16),
to which a hypocaust system corresponds, of which a few pilae
and the mortar floor where they were set survived. This system
ran out of the building, eastwards, while its extension could
be found upon the removal of the baulk between trenches
­SXVIII/07 and SXIX/1467.
In the Roman building II – in the north-eastern corner of the
trench, 5.30 by 3.50 m in size, only the western enclosure wall
was identified, the rest of the building stretching to the north,
south and east. The unearthed wall is also built in the same
technique, opus mixtum, using many reused tile materials, ei-
ther stamped with the seal of the XIII Gemina legion and the
governor’s guard, or unstamped. The western enclosure wall of
building II might have been identified by geophysical investi-
gations68. Concurrently, during the more recent archaeological
campaigns, we discovered a wall corner, which might represent
a division of this building (rooms W1 and W2) (Figs. 14, 18).
Within the mentioned rooms, the floor was strongly disturbed by
a modern cellar (19th – 20th centuries). The same circumstances Fig. 16. The third masonry phase: buildings I and II from the
were noted also in the case of a possible hypocaust system, of southern part of the settlement (photo by V. Rusu-Bolindeț).
which fragments of opus signinum, tegulae mammatae and
much burnt layers were found, amassed in the south-western
corner of room W269. The investigations for the complete excava-
tion of this room are still in progress.
The two Roman buildings (of which only Building I was completely re-
65

searched to date) were presented in several archaeological reports, reason

for which we shall not resume their detailed description – see RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al 2008; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2009; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al
2010; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 27–28; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011b;
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2017; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et
al 2018.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 28; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 24, pls. I–II,
66

figs. 3–5, 6b, 9. Also, we mention that size differences among respective buil-
dings are due to the extension of the archaeological trenches uncompleted
from one year to another, subsequent to the collapse of their profiles.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 27–28; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 24, pls.
67

I–II, figs. 3–5, 6a, 7–8.

RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al. 2017, 16–17, pl. 04 – magnetometric investigations;
68
Fig. 17. General view of the buildings from the southern
pls. 05–06 – ERT investigations (electrical resistivity tomography); RUSU- part of the settlement (photo by V. Rusu-Bolindeț).
BOLINDEȚ et al 2018, 14, pls. 1–4.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2017, 15, pls. I–II, IV/1–2; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2018,
69

111
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
4. The functionality of the building
Praetorium consularis is a complex formed of several parts,
established on the basis of written and archaeological informa-
tion. Thus, it might have included: courtyards and porticoes for
large assemblies of people, a basilica serving as courthouse and
a possible secretarium for legal matters; reception halls and
dining rooms for special occasions; archives and offices for the
administrative staff; sacred places for religious purposes; a wing
with the governor’s residence and private baths, for his family
and staff; scholae and other assembly places for officiales, re-
spectively singulares; stables, warehouses and store rooms for
domestic activities70.
In the current state of research, the praetorium consularis
from Apulum was unveiled on a surface of approximately one
and a half hectares, which represents one of the most impressive
complexes of its type discovered within the Roman Empire. It
has not been fully excavated, the three points where ruins were
reported and unearthed extending the built area of the complex
to a much larger surface, possibly of ca. 4–5 hectares71.
The multitude of the constituent building structures obviously
raised the key issue of defining their functionality.
The most consistent part discovered in the praetorium con­
sularis from Apulum is represented by the complex identified
by A. Cserni, which measures, as mentioned, approximately
13000 m2. In his detailed analysis of the excavations conducted
in the Consular Governor’s Palace of the Roman province of Da-
cia from Apulum, with special focus on the complex unearthed
by A. Cserni, F. F. Schäfer also suggested the most pertinent func-
tionality for the composing buildings72. We shall not resume the
entire discussion here, but only a few of his conclusions. Thus,
the author underlined the heterogeneous nature of the complex,
comprising of numerous rooms, which formed separate wings,
without yet a uniform architectural design. The seven modules
in which F. F. Schäfer divided the complex (A-I) (Figs. 6–7) also
represented its different possible parts, some of which being di-
rectly connected by representative halls.
13–14, pls. I–XII; see also the site’s photogrammetric surveying – RUSU-
BOLINDEȚ et al 2018, 15, pls. 1–4.
70 SCHÄFER 2014, 337.
PISO 1993–1994, 205.
71
SCHÄFER 2014, 272–285, Abb. 281–291.
72
112
In Schäfer’s view, the Governor’s Palace in the published
form covers amongst other with assembly C a bathroom group,
several courtyards and paved paths, three octagonal rooms as
connection centres (rooms 3, 221 and 225), two apsidal halls for
meeting purposes in the A and B rooms’ group (rooms 7 , 1 and
25), a schola for the speculatores in room group F, a mithraeum
in room group E (rooms 246–247), a smaller shrine in the east
in front of room group D (room 95), possibly a larger temple in
room group I (room 251) and several heated rooms and cor-
ridors. Large, representative halls in a prominent location with
tiered access routes for the access of the greater public cannot be
seen – nor the architectural means mentioned above. A. Cserni
apparently seems to have excavated the part of the Governor’s
Palace which was primarily intended for the members of the
­officium, the soldiers of the guard and provincial government as
well as the housekeeping staff. This assumption is also highlight-
ed by the quality of the interior decoration, lifted high quality in
most areas, but not to be described as representative, much less
as luxurious – at least compared with other expensive domus
and peristyle villas of the Roman empire73. The most common
type of floor design is the opus figlinum74, thus usually laying
out of only a few centimetres large bricks with simple geometric
shapes to mosaic-like rapport patterns.
The distribution of the opus figlinum floors reveals that they
are not restricted to a particular area of the praetorium, but occur
in almost all components. Often, mosaic tiles focus on several
adjacent rooms, as in modules A, B, C and D; some might have
been heated. A real opus tesselatum floor is not known for the
building excavated by A. Cserni, only in the recently excavated
part (Fig. 15), but in three rooms there is an expensive marble
pavement, and in ten rooms, large rectangular or square tiles
were used as a normal floor. Overall, the floors show purely geo-
metric, abstract decorations and only one room had a six-pointed
star as the main central motif. Similarly, figurative and repre-
sentational motifs in almost all stucco fragments and remains
of wall paintings are missing. The most lavishly decorated hall
of the complex seems to have been the octagonal room 3, in
which not only the floor, but also the wall design is remarkable.
SCHÄFER 2014, 284–286.
73
SCHÄFER 2014, 286, Abb. 290.
74

It showed at its base a painted marble imitation, in the middle
of the wall; probably three female figures were represented and
above followed a stucco moulding75.
With regard to further features, the exceptional number of
hypocausts draws the attention, which, like the opus figlinum,
spread to the whole praetorium, but occur more often in one
‘core area’. Excepting the spaces that obviously belonged to
bath wings as in assembly C and F, floor heating systems were
installed in different areas of the palace, which are neither in
connection to a bathing use, nor identify themselves as particu-
larly representative places – such as in corridor 55/26 of assem-
bly D and the eastern subsequent group of rooms or rooms 4–5,
11–12. Since this accumulation may be noted in other governor
seats, it is most likely due to the specific use of the building as
part of the provincial administration.
Regarding the specific function of the buildings discovered by
A. Cserni, Schäfer concluded that it is possible that he had uncov-
ered some office buildings, rooms designed to economic activi-
CSERNI 1891, 39, T. 5; SCHÄFER 2014, 287.
75
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
Fig. 18. Aerial view of the
buildings discovered in
the southern part of the
settlement (author C. Șuteu).
ties, cult places with dedications for Minerva Victrix76 (module E,
room 228), Nemesis (module C, room 232)77, Epona (module A,
room 76)78 and possibly even a Serapeum, as well as a part of the
governor’s private quarters, comprising the thermal complex79.
The two buildings uncovered by I. Berciu and Al. Popa in the
part lying to the north and north-west of the area excavated by
A. Cserni have a uniform architectural design similar to that re-
cently identified to the south and south-east of it. The buildings’
monumentality, the construction technique and furnished in-
stallations might plead for the discovery of a representative area
of the Governor’s Palace. The finds – the inscription dedicated
to Minerva Augusta by the six exceptores consularis, the bronze
statue fragments etc. – might represent arguments supporting
this hypothesis.
In the praetorium consularis area where current excavations
are conducted (Figs. 8–18), much of the information was unfor-
Statue base set up by Aelius Sabinus, librarius co(n)sularis, dated between
76
AD 196–197 = IDR III/5.1, 260; SCHÄFER 2014, 282, Abb. 278.
SCHÄFER 2014, 279–280, Abb. 281.
77
SCHÄFER 2014, 276–278.
78
SCHÄFER 2014, 286–287.
79
113
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
tunately destroyed by the former excavations of a large surface
of the site. Therefore, defining the functionality of the uncovered
buildings is a mere attempt, since at any moment, the newly
emerging data in terms of their architecture and connected ar-
chaeological materials, might change previous datasets. Thus, as
aforementioned, the first masonry phase buildings differentiate
those which F. F. Schäfer attempted to define for the complex re-
vealed by A. Cserni. They exhibit the same orientation as in the
subsequent phases and seem to group coherently throughout
the researched area. Most are provided with heating systems,
yet this is a peculiarity of the Governor’s Palace from Apulum,
where the number of heated rooms exceeds those of other prae­
toria consulares within the empire80. Consequently, they must
not be mandatorily associated with the existence of certain ther­
mae, excepting the cases in which the specific plans of these
edifices are found here as well. They might equally be offices of
the governor’s staff, buildings being grouped, possibly also with
interstices in-between or alleys for the transit of the staff from
officium consularis.
There is much less information for the second masonry phase,
while the discovered fragmentary rooms do not provide accurate
details on the activities carried out within. The single interesting
construction, unique as well insofar, is represented by the hall h’,
with the only mosaic discovered in situ in all areas investigated
within the Governor’s Palace (Fig. 15). Because of the destruc-
tion of the surrounding construction elements, it is impossible
to link this mosaic to a representative area of the palace, and
given the small sizes of the rooms known for this stage, we are
tempted to believe that these buildings fulfilled the same func-
tion – as offices of the governor’s staff or places where economic
activities were performed (?).
The third masonry phase of the discussed site is the most
spectacular and the better persevered of the recently excavated
site (Figs. 8, 14). It somewhat resembles with modules marked
C and D from A. Cserni’s excavations, identified by Schäfer as
bath facilities, mixed with office areas, in which the various em-
ployees with the officium consularis carried out their official busi-
ness. The existence of certain apsidal buildings from this period,
both on the northern side of the excavated area (room E’) and
also on its southern part (room K), the heating systems and sew-
SCHÄFER 2014, 287.
80
114
age might plead for such possible use of the buildings discov-
ered to date. Among the construction elements identified, none
was a cult place – the single marble statue, a fragmentary bust
of goddess Diana – was found in a modern habitation level from
the area of Buildings I and II on the southern side of the archaeo-
logical park81. Therewith, for possible barracks of the equites and
pedites singularis units do not seem to plead any of the layouts
of the discovered buildings.
Concerning the functionality of the buildings discovered by
A. Cserni, much debate in the academic literature was focused
around the possible cult edifices, subsequent to the discovery
of several inscriptions within the investigated area by said au-
thor of these excavation, as well as those identified within the
territory of Apulum, mainly. Thus, beside the previously ex-
pressed views by I. Piso82, Al. Diaconescu83 and F. F. Schäfer84,
other scholars have more recently approached the topic. R. Varga
and V. Rusu-Bolindeț analysed the votive monuments raised by
governors and members of the officium consularis from Apulum
in a study attempting to provide an image of the deities they
worshipped and the chronology of the dedicated monuments,
as well as the locations of possible temples or sanctuaries within
the praetorium of Apulum85. D. Deac and R. Varga resumed the
idea of the existence of a Serapeum in the Governor’s Palace in
a recent study86.
C. Szabó, in his PhD thesis, collected the research results con-
cerning cult places from the province of Dacia, including those
related to the praetorium consularis in Apulum87. The author
identifies the cult places from the Governor’s Palace of Apulum
according to their find spot88, resuming the discussion on the
possibility that the identified buildings represented sanctuar-
ies or temples of the deities worshipped by governors and the
members of their staff, with locations identical with those men-
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2009, 70–71.
81
PISO 1993–1994; PISO 2001 = IDR III/5; Piso 1998, 257; IDR III/5, 319.
82
DIACONESCU–PISO 1993, 72–73 and references; DIACONESCU 2004.
83
SCHÄFER 2014, passim.
84
VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ, 118–120, 122–123, figs. 7.2–7.5.
85
DEAC–VARGA 2014, 13–14 and notes 10–16, with references.
86
SZABÓ 2018, 53–59.
87
In a previous study – SZABÓ 2015, 126–127 and note 13 –, the author rejects
88
the idea of the existence of a mithraeum, suggested by F. F. Schäfer accor-
ding to Cserni’s report of 1897 (based on the building’s layout) – see Schäfer
2014, 450, rooms no. 246–247, arguing there are no supportive inscriptions
or other class of finds.

tioned by previous specialists. He believes that because of the
votive monuments as well as other cult objects discovered, the
Governor’s Palace was a place for the practice of both individ-
ual/domestic and community cults. The worshipped deities are
strictly related to the senatorial choices of the 2nd – 3rd centu-
ries AD (Minerva, Nemesis, Fortuna and Mercurius, Apollo etc.),
with only the cult of Epona as a deity connected to equites singu­
lares, the governor’s personal guard89.
5. Chronology of the praetorium
consularis of Apulum
As stated when discussing the habitation phases of the Gov-
ernor’s Palace of the three provinces of Dacia in Apulum, sev-
eral chronologies were offered, based on the investigated area
within the complex.
I. Piso maintained, on the basis of inscriptions, that at Apulum
must have been located the seat of the praetorian governor of
Dacia Superior, subsequent to the administrative reform accom-
plished by Emperor Hadrian in AD 12390. F. F. Schäfer agrees with
such view and dates the first phase of the buildings discovered
by A. Cserni91 to the late Trajanic – early Hadrianic period. How-
ever, the aforementioned author does not believe that the ruins
belonging to this phase could not be part of the Governor’s Pal-
ace because of the different orientation of the buildings, they
being demolished upon their construction92. The same author’s
suggested chronological frame of the buildings deemed to form
part of the praetorium consularis discovered by A. Cserni, the
so-called phase II, dated between the mid-2nd century and the
half of the 3rd century AD93. Furthermore, he noticed that they
must have suffered changes, restorations, extensions, which he
attempted to observe from the published archaeological reports.
For the lack of rather accurate evidence yielded by the discovered
artefacts, the author preserved the same chronological framing
for the most consistent part of the Governor’s Palace94.
SZABÓ 2018, 59.
89
PISO 1993, 37 and note 47; 89 and note 32; PISO 2001, XX and note 31,
90
with related references.
SCHÄFER 2014, 272–275, Abb. 281.
91
SCHÄFER 2014, 275, 285.
92
SCHÄFER 2014, 275–284.
93
SCHÄFER 2014, 285. Unfortunately, the numerous coins found by A. Cserni
94
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
The buildings identified by I. Berciu and Al. Popa in 1943 and
1962 within the area of the praetorium consularis were dated to
the end of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century
AD. They belonged to the last masonry phase of the complex, I.
Berciu also recognizing a destruction level which he related to
the Marcomannic wars, as well as a previous phase, undated. The
artefacts based on which the dating was established included
four coins issued under Antoninus Pius and the brick stamps
bearing the seal of the XIII Gemina legion, with the epithet An­
toniana95. The similarity between the finds from this area and
those recently investigated on Muntenia st. makes us reconsider
their phases, which seem to be still three in number96.
The latest archaeological excavations on street Muntenia re-
sulted in a refined site chronology. Firstly, a timber phase was
noted, discovered in two points in the recently investigated area,
where the respective buildings have the same wall orientations
as the stone buildings97. Up to present, it is difficult to say wheth-
er they belonged to previous structures of the Governor’s Palace
or represented its first phase. A denarius issued under Trajan,
discovered at the base of the western profile of the excavated
area, at -2.40 m deep, where a timber wall was also found, might
provide a chronological indication to this effect98.
The stone buildings part of the Governor’s Palace have three
construction, extension, restoration phases, dated between the
mid/second half of the 2nd century and first three decades of
the 3rd century AD. Unfortunately, the artefacts providing safe
chronological frameworks are few in this area, as most of its sur-
face was destroyed. For the first masonry phase, a coin issued
under Antoninus Pius was discovered on the floor of room a99,
thus providing an ante quem date of its construction. Instead,
in the building layer of one of the hypocaust channels in room
D, which belonged to the third stone phase, at -2.10 m deep,
was found a bronze coin minted for Faustina Senior, spouse to
Marcus Aurelius. It may provide a post quem term of respective
in his excavations are without find context, being published as such in one
of his excavation reports – CSERNI 1903, 90–141.
BERCIU 1949, 195–197. The coins did not indicate the find context.
95
OTA–LASCU 2011, 206–207 suggested dating for the first stage building of
96
the complex to the 2nd century AD, based on reinterpreted stratigraphy.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 21; RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015, 25, Fig. 16b.
97
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1992, 62.
98
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1995, 4.
99
115
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
room construction100. Therefore, we framed the first phase of the
investigated complex by mid/second half of the 2nd century AD,
the second one – by the end of the same century, while the last
masonry phase – by early/first three quarters of the 3rd century
AD101. The large buildings, some rather monumental, built in the
latter phase most definitely represent the last prosperous period
of Dacia, during the Severan dynasty. The end of the investigat-
ed part of the praetorium consularis was not a violent one, the
buildings discovered in situ laying in ruin because of the pas-
sage of time.
Subsequent habitation levels, dated to the early, late medi-
eval102, modern and contemporary periods, affected in various
places the site; however, overall, the Roman remains are rela-
tively well preserved in this area.
6. Conclusions
The palace of the consular governor of Roman Dacia is one
of the most extended complexes of this type known throughout
the Roman Empire. The unveiled surface following the archaeo-
logical excavations, of ca. 1.5 hectares, exceeds other seats of Ro-
man provincial administration within the empire103.
Its clear limits are still unknown, yet it is possible that the
western enclosure wall of room A, provided with buttresses, rep-
resented its western boundary (Fig. 6). Moreover, another limit
could be represented by the east-west oriented wall, joining
rooms A and D, which also have two access entrances. Most defi-
nitely, the buildings of the praetorium consularis of Apulum ex-
tended northwards and eastwards, and probably southwards104.
For now, there is no evidence for a present representative
wing, like in the case of the governor’s palace from CCAA (Ger-
mania Inferior) or especially that from Aquincum (Pannonia In-
ferior). The palace’s architecture is atypical to a residential com-
plex belonging to the provincial administration, without extant
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001, 26.
100
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a, 20, 22, 28.
101
In the north-eastern corner of the excavated surface, a house dated to the
102
16th century was found, which belonged to Johannes Mezerzius – see
RUSU– RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2007.
For a comparative study – see F. F. Schäfer’s plan with praetoria consulares
103
known within the empire –SCHÄFER 2014, 337, Beilage IV.
See SCHÄFER 2014, 337, Abb. 281.
104
116
resemblance elements with villa or domus type buildings. F. F.
Schäfer noted, based on A. Cserni’s previous excavations, that
praetorium consularis from Apulum seems to have been built
during several phases, without a pre-established architectonic
design for the surface it covered over one century, which is mir-
rored by the appearance of its layout105. Such notion is also due
to certain factors specific to the period when the archaeological
excavations were conducted (the end of the 19th and the early
20th century), like the excavation techniques, the publishing of
the results, as well as the damages caused by the local inhabit-
ants and subsequent to military operations carried out by the
Austrian troops on the land where excavations might have been
performed. These factors undoubtedly affected the planimetry of
the praetorium consularis’ part researched by A. Cserni, as well as
the understanding of many of its composing elements.
This note is based on the results of recent archaeological in-
vestigations, which evidenced three clear evolution phases of
the discovered buildings, which seem to have been built uni-
formly. It is possible that, depending on their purpose, different
building constituent parts of the Governor’s Palace had a coher-
ent plan and uniform building works, without having an archi-
tectonic concept similar with that of villa or domus complexes.
In fact, none of the governor palaces known within the Roman
empire had such a plan, but rather one adjusted to the specific
circumstances of the areas where were raised, being, from this
point of view, architectonically unique buildings.
For the moment, the largest part of the complex seems to
have been occupied by the governor’s staff offices – officium
consularis –, by at least two bath facilities and three possible cult
places, likely also those of the governor’s guard (singulares) (?).
The palace of the consular governor of the three provinces
of Dacia from Apulum is also very well recorded epigraphically,
but also archaeologically. Thus, inscription corpuses published
for Apulum – IDR III/5 and IDR III/6 – included all epigraphic
evidence discovered in the area deemed to belong to the Gov-
ernor’s Palace106. Furthermore, the constituents of officium con­
SCHÄFER 2014, 275–284.
105
For a synthesis of the inscriptions discovered in the praetorium consularis of
106
Apulum see HAENSCH 1997, 338–348,684–692; PISO 2001 and IDR III/5;
for the stamped tile material bearing the stamps of units which constituted
the governor’s guard – see BĂLUȚĂ 1980; BĂLUȚĂ–POPA 1980; BERCIU–
BĂLUȚĂ 1981 and more recently BĂLUȚĂ 1999, 143–152. The careers of

sularis in Apulum are well known, consisting of a large number
of staff members of the governor (111)107. Recent works have
reanalysed or re-evaluated the cult places108 or coin finds within
the complex109 etc. Furthermore, the monograph regarding the
evolution of canabae legionis of Apulum written by R. Ota has
been recently published, which included the Governor’s Pal-
ace110 as well, while the historico-epigraphical and especially
the architectonic-enhancement of the most important part exca-
vated by A. Cserni is owed to F. F. Schäfer111.
Future archaeological research in the only area where the re-
mains of the praetorium consularis of Apulum112 could be still
unearthed and the publication of the first monograph on the
investigated area would most certainly bring new information
regarding this residential complex, which represented, by its
monumentality, the emblem of the official power of the Roman
Empire in the capital of Roman Dacia.
References:
ARDEVAN 1998 • Ardevan, R., Viața municipală din Dacia
romană. (Timișoara 1998).
BĂLUȚĂ 1980 • Băluță, Cl. L., Pedites et equites singulares in Ro-
man Dacia. In: Hanson, W. S. – Keppie, L. J. K. (eds.), Roman
soldiers part of the governor’s guard have been more recently examined by
G. Cupcea – see CUPCEA 2014; CUPCEA 2015.
Most recently analysed by G. Cupcea – see CUPCEA 2012.
107
For recent bibliographical references see above the discussion in the sub-
108
chapter 4 related to building functionalities from the praetorium consularis.
Both the two coin hoards discovered by A. Cserni – see GĂZDAC–SUCIU–
109
ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2009, 35–46, Fig. 1, pls. 1–4 (the hoard termed Apulum
II); 47–57, Fig. 2, pls. 5–7 (the hoard termed Apulum III) –, as well as the
isolate finds from the area were reanalysed – see GĂZDAC–SUCIU–ALFÖLDY-
GĂZDAC 2009, 95–110, figs. 6 and 8.
The author attempted a synthesis of the information on the governor’s
110
palace from Apulum – see OTA 2012, passim.
SCHÄFER 2014, 265–287, Abb. 275–291; 442–451 (the catalogue of the
111
building elements renumbered); 452–456 general bibliography, respec-
tively on p. 457 – bibliography with special regard to the praetorium consu­
laris of Apulum.
The surface covered by the archaeological reserve on street Muntenia
112
is 3058 m2, of which 2208 m2 are available as the remaining surface is
covered by two yards in private property. 850 m2 were excavated between
1992–2003 and 2007–2018, thus remaining 1903 m2 available surface for
future archaeological excavations.
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
Frontier Studies 1979: : papers presented to the 12th Interna-
tional Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (BAR International
Series 71) (Oxford 1980) 836–846.
BĂLUȚĂ 1999 • Băluță, Cl. L., Tegulae Equitum singularium,
Numeri singularium et Peditum singularium. In: Băluță, Cl.
L., Inscripțiile Daciei romane. Volumul III: Dacia Superior, 6.
Apulum – Instrumentum Domesticum = IDR III/6. (București
1999), catalogue nos. 269–286,143–152.
BĂLUȚĂ–POPA 1980 • Băluță, Cl. L. – Popa, Al., Pedites și equites
singulares din Dacia. Materiale tegulare ștampilate. Apulum
XVIII, 1980, 109–129.
BERCIU 1949 • Berciu, I., Descoperiri arheologice în Apulum (I).
Apulum III, 1949, 180–199.
BERCIU–BĂLUȚĂ 1981 • Berciu, I. – Băluță, Cl. L., Sigilla tegula-
ria peditum et equitum singularium in Dacia. Dacia N. S. 25,
1981, 263–270.
BERCIU–POPA 1964 • Berciu, I. – Popa, Al., Exceptoris consularis
in Dacia. Latomus XXIII, 3, 1964, 302–310.
BERCIU–POPA 1965 • Berciu, I. – Popa, Al., Monumente epigrafi-
ce din Apulum (IV). Apulum V, 1965, 167–202.
BERCIU–POPA 1977 • Popa, Al. – Berciu, I., Câteva obiecte de
bronz și argint de la Apulum, Apulum XV, 1977, 217–233.
BOLINDEȚ 1993 • Bolindeț, V., “Urbanism” și arheologie la Alba
Iulia. In: Mărginean, E. – Moga, V. (eds.), Lucrările Seminarului
național “Zone istorice urbane, delimitare, gestiune, politici
de revitalizare”, Alba Iulia (5–7 noiembrie 1992). (Alba Iulia
1993), 14–18 and figs. 1–8.
CSERNI 1890 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok, Az Alsófehér-
megyei Történelmi Régészeti és Természettudományi Egylet
tizenharmadik évkönyve (= ATE) III, 1890, 21–46.
CSERNI 1891 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE IV, 1891,
5–41.
CSERNI 1892 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE V, 1892,
5–32.
CSERNI 1894 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE VI, 1894,
5–32.
CSERNI 1895 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE VII, 1895,
41–51.
CSERNI 1896 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE VIII, 1896,
37–51.
117
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț
CSERNI 1897 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE, IX, 1897,
35–48.
CSERNI 1899 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE X, 1899,
53–68.
CSERNI 1901 • Cserni B., Alsófehér vármegye monográfiája.
(Nagy­enyed 1901).
CSERNI 1902 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE XI, 1902,
3–19.
CSERNI 1903 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE XII, 1903,
90–141.
CSERNI 1904 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE XIII, 1904,
92–131.
CSERNI 1908 • Cserni B., Apulumi maradványok. ATE XIV, 1908,
34–52.
CUPCEA 2012 • Cupcea, G., Officium consularis. The evidence
from Dacia. Transylvanian Review, 22, suppl. 3, 2012, 243–
254.
CUPCEA 2014 • Cupcea, G., Profesional Ranks in the Roman
Army of Dacia. (BAR International Series; 2681) (Oxford
2014).
CUPCEA 2015 • Cupcea, G., Careers in the guard of the Dacian
guvernor. Dacia, LIX, 2015, 49–65.
DEAC–VARGA • Deac, D. – Varga, R., Isis Cults in the Settlement of
Apulum (Dacia Apulensis). Bibliotheca Isiaca III, 2014, 11–19.
DIACONESCU 2004 • Diaconescu, Al., The towns of Roman Da-
cia. An overview of the recent archaeological research in Ro-
mania. In: Haynes, I. – Hanson, W. (eds.), Roman Dacia. The
making of a provincial society. (Portsmouths 2004), 87–142.
DIACONESCU–PISO 1993 • Diaconescu, Al. – Piso, I., Apulum.
In: Alicu, D. – Boegli, H., (éds.), La politique édilitaire dans les
provinces de l’Empire romain IIème-IVème siècles après J.-C.:
Actes de 1er Colloque Roumano-Suisse. Deva 21–26 Octobre
1991. (Cluj-Napoca 1993), 67–83.
GĂZDAC–SUCIU–ALFÖLDY-GĂZDAC 2009 • Găzdac, C. – Suciu,
V. – Alföldy-Găzdac, Á., Apulum. In: Coins from Roman Sites
and Collections of Roman Coins from Romania, vol. V. (Cluj-
Napoca 2009).
HAENSCH 1997 • Haensch, R., Capita provinciarum. Stadthal-
tersitze und Provinzverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit.
(Mainz 1997).
118
OTA 2012 • Ota, R., De la canabele legiunii a XIII-a Gemina la
Municipium Septimium Apulense. (Alba Iulia 2012).
OTA 2017 • Ota, R., Adalbert Cserni and the Roman provincial
art. Case studies from Apulum. In: Szabó, Cs. – Rusu-Bolindeț,
V. – Rustoiu, G. T. – Gligor, M. (eds.), Adalbert Cserni and his
Contemporaries. The Pioneers of Archaeology in Alba Iulia
and Beyond. (Cluj-Napoca 2017), 53–60.
OTA–LASCU 2011 • Ota, R. – Lascu, I., Cercetări arheologice în
canabae legionis XIII Geminae /municipium Septimium Apu-
lense – Sectorul estic. ActaMP, 2011, 201–220.
PISO 1993 • Piso, I., Fasti Provinciae Daciae, I. Die senatorischen
Amsträger. (Bonn 1993).
PISO 1993–1994 • Piso, I., Eine Parallele zwischen dem Praeto-
ria der Statthalter in Carnuntum und in Apulum, Carnuntum
Jahrbuch 1993–1994 (1995), 201–209.
PISO 2001 • Piso, I., Prolegomena historica. In: Piso, I., Inscrip-
tions d’Apulum III/5 (Inscriptions de la Dacie romaine = IDR
III/5), I-II, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres. (Paris 2001), XVI–XXI.
POPA 1975 • Popa, Al., Orașul roman Apulum. In: Alba Iulia
2000. (Alba Iulia 1975), 39–102.
RUSU–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2007 • Rusu, A. A. – Rusu-Bolindeț,
V., “Casa Mezerzius” de la Alba Iulia (arhitectură, unele pie-
se arheologice, identificare și context istoric). Arheologia
medievală VI. Reșița 2007, 81–97.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1992 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba.
Str. Munteniei (sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei
Dacii). Raport preliminar al primei campanii de săpături
arheologice, unpublished manuscript, (Alba Iulia 1992).
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1994 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, str. Mun-
teniei. Un sit arheologic între distrugere și protecție. In:
Bogdan-Cătăniciu, I. (ed.), Trasee turistice și istorice, Neptun,
19-22 septembrie 1994. (București 1994), 90–94.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1995 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba.
Str. Munteniei (sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei
Dacii). In: CCA. Campania 1994. A XXIX-a Sesiunea națională
de rapoarte arheologice. (Cluj-Napoca 1995), no. 3/C, 4.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1996 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba.
Str. Munteniei (sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei
Dacii). In: CCA. Campania 1995. (Călărași 1996), no. 1/II, 1.

RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 1997 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba.
Str. Munteniei (sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei
Dacii). In: CCA. Campania 1996. (București 1997), no. 1/II, 1.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017 • Rusu-Bolindeț V., Adalbert Cserni’s con-
tribution at the discovery of Governor’s Palace from Apulum
– old and new perspectives. In: Szabó, Cs. – Rusu-Bolindeț,
V. – Rustoiu, G. T. – Gligor, M. (eds.), Adalbert Cserni and his
Contemporaries. The Pioneers of Archaeology in Alba Iulia
and Beyond. (Cluj-Napoca 2017), 35–52.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2001 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Ilea, C. – Vol-
kers, T., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum]. Punct: str. Munteniei
nr. 15–17. Sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei Dacii.
In: CCA. Campania 2000. (Suceava 2001), 25–26.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2002 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba
[Apulum]. Punct: str. Munteniei nr. 15–17. Sediul guverna-
torului consular al celor trei Dacii. In: CCA. Campania 2001.
(Buziaș 2002), 26–27.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2003 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V – Barbu, I. –
Nuțiu, R. R., Raport preliminar privind rezultatele cercetărilor
arheologice de la Alba Iulia, str. Munteniei nr. 15–17, sediul
guvernatorului consular al celor trei Dacii. Campania 2003.
Patrimonium Apulense III. (Alba Iulia 2003), 128–131.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2004 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Barbu, I. –
Nuțiu, R., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum]. Punct: str. Munteniei
nr. 15–17. Sediul guvernatorului consular al celor trei Dacii.
In: CCA. Campania 2003. A XXXVIII-a Sesiune națională de ra-
poarte arheologice, Cluj-Napoca 26–29 mai 2004. (București
2004), 36–38.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2008 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Drîmbărean, M.
– Inel, C. – Milea, R., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum]. Punct: str.
Munteniei nr. 15–17. Sediul guvernatorului consular al celor
trei Dacii. In: CCA. Campania 2007. A XLII-a Sesiune națională
de rapoarte arheologice, Iași 14–17 mai 2008., (București
2008), 39–40.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2009 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Inel, C. –
Lăzărescu V.-A. – Ignat, A.-L., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum].
Punct: str. Munteniei nr. 15–17. Sediul guvernatorului consu-
lar al celor trei Dacii. In: CCA. Campania 2008. A XLIII-a Sesi-
une națională de rapoarte arheologice, Târgoviște 27–30 mai
2009. (Târgoviște 2009) (= Valachica 21–22, 2008–2009),
69–71.
The praetorium consularis from Apulum
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2010 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Inel, C. –
Drîmbărean, M. – Popa, C. I. – Varga, R. – Grumeza, L. – Turcu,
C. M. – Horvath, R. – Popa, S. D. – Bica, M. – Muntean, T., Alba
Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum]. Punct: str. Munteniei nr. 15–17. Se-
diul guvernatorului consular al celor trei Dacii. In: CCA. Cam-
pania 2009. A XLIV-a Sesiune națională de rapoarte arheologi-
ce, Suceava 27–30 mai 2010. (București 2010), 30–32.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011a • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Muntean, T.
– Varga, R. – Strîmbu, I. – Bounegru, G., Palatul guvernatoru-
lui Daciei Romane de la Apulum. O redescoperire a patrimo-
niului. (Cluj-Napoca 2011).
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2011b • Rusu-Bolindeț V., – Varga R. –
Drîmbărean M – Inel C. – Muntean T., Alba Iulia, jud. Alba
[Apulum]. Punct: str. Munteniei nr. 15–17. Sediul guverna-
torului consular al celor trei Dacii. In: CCA. Campania 2010. A
XLV-a Sesiune națională de rapoarte arheologice, Sibiu 27–30
mai 2011. (București 2011), 7–10.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2015 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Inel, C. –
Drîmbărean, M. – Muntean, T. – Botiș, F.-O. – Bleoancă, M. –
Loga G.-T. – Buda, A. – Udrea, D. – Frățilă, S. – Stanciu, Al.-Șt.,
Alba Iulia, jud. Alba [Apulum]. Palatul guvernatorului con-
sular al celor trei Dacii. Punct: str. Munteniei nr. 15–17. In:
CCA. Campania 2014. A XLIX-a Sesiune națională de rapoarte
arheologice, Pitești 28–30 mai 2015. (București 2015), 23–
26, 278–307 (illustration – pls. I–III, figs. 1–29).
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2017 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Bounegru, G.
V. – Inel, C. I. – Lascu, Al. I. – Drîmbărean, M. – Mureșan, I. –
Mureșan, M.-L. – Ștefan, D. – Șuteu, C. – Botiș, F.-O. – Bucuren-
ciu, C. – Arhire, R. – Manolescu, S.-A. – Turuș, R.-F. – Ciupercă, M.
– Cucereavâi, N. – Crețu, P. – Dobrea, I. – Popov, P. – David, R.-Al.
– Oloinic, N. – Bendea, C.-V., Mun. Alba Iulia, str. Munteniei
nr. 15–17, jud. Alba. Punct: Palatul guvernatorului consular
al celor trei Dacii [Apulum]. In: CCA. Campania 2016. A LI-a
Sesiune națională de rapoarte arheologice, Muzeul Național
de Istorie a României, București 24–27 mai 2017. (București
2017), 14–17.
RUSU-BOLINDEȚ et al 2018 • Rusu-Bolindeț, V. – Ota, R. – Bou-
negru, G. V. – Inel, C. I. – Lascu, Al. I. – Drîmbărean, M. – Ștefan,
D. – Șuteu, C. – Botiș, F.-O. – Manolescu, S. – Turuș, R.-F. – Florea,
I. F – Bobăilă, R. – Puțan, A. R. – Galdău-Săliștean, C. – David, R.
Al., Mun. Alba Iulia, str. Munteniei nr. 15–17, jud. Alba. Punct:
119
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț

Palatul guvernatorului consular al celor trei Dacii [Apulum]. SZABÓ 2016 • Szabó, Cs., Béla Cserni and the beginnings of ur-
In: CCA. Campania 2017. A LIII-a Sesiune națională de rapo- ban archaeology in Alba Iulia. (Cluj-Napoca 2016).
arte arheologice, Muzeul Național de Istorie a Transilvaniei, SZABÓ 2018 • Szabó, Cs., Sanctuaries in Roman Dacia. Materia-
Cluj-Napoca 15–17 noiembrie 2018. (București 2018), text lity and Religious Experience, Archeopress Roman Archaeolo-
– 12–15; illustration – 266–273 (pls. I-XII for archaeological gy 49. (Oxford 2018).
excavations; pls. 1–4 for photogrammetry, DEM; pls. 1–4 for VARGA–RUSU-BOLINDEȚ 2017 • Varga, R. – Rusu-Bolindeț, V.,
ERT). Provincial landmark of the official power. The praetorium
SCHÄFER 2014 • Schäfer, F. F., Praetoria. Paläste zum Wohnen consularis of Apulum. In: Varga, R. – Rusu-Bolindeț, V. (eds.),
und Verwalten in Köln und anderen römischen Provinzhaupt- Official Power and Local Elite in the Roman Provinces. (Abing-
städten. (Mainz 2014). ton– New York 2017), 115–126.
SZABÓ 2015 • Szabó, Cs., Placing the gods. Sanctuaries and sac-
ralized places in the settlement of Apulum. ReDiva III (2015)
123–142.

120