Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 31/1. (2011)
Articles
New Data about the Roman Settlement from Odorheiu Secuiesc 229 the name ATIMETI (PI. 18/15), known in Dacia on several lamps (Gostar 1961, 158; Man 2000, 48 with all the bibliography). Atimetus was a north-italic manufacturer with discoveries at Pompei, Vindonissa, Poetovio (Loeschcke 1919, 296) and in Pannonia two pieces dated in the Antonine period (Ivány 1935, 333). Some new discoveries of roman lamps, stamped with ATIMETI inscription were discovered lately at Rosia Montanä (Damian Et Al. 2007, 298). The lamp is rough modelled, it has red-yellowish colour, without angobe; it is likely a local product, probably from a centre like Apulum from were 5 pieces are known (Gostar 1961, 158). A second piece (PI. 18/14) could come from a bigger centre from the province, such as Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza (Roman 2006, 546, fig. 1-2). A third one (PI. 18/16) seems to be as well the product of a local workshop. Lamps like this could be made in a potter-workshop, possibly as an additional product. Some of the ‘sweet biscuit’ shaped brick-coloured paving stones from the same collection with an early inventory number might also come from one of the building of the thermae. We identified two main types: 1.) large sized -5x4x3 cm - pieces made of clay, well burned, redbrick colour (Pi. 10/17, four pieces); MHR inv. no. 57. 2.), small sized - 4.5 x 3.5 x 2 cm - pieces (PI. 10/16, 3 pieces); MHR inv. no. 55. Two pilae from a hypocaustum system and a tegula with fingerprints (Pi. 16/13), can have the same place of discovery. The first had 6 cm height and 20 cm in diameter, it was well burned, red-brick coloured, circular shaped, well preserved (Pi. 18/17). The second measured 8 cm in height and 17 cm in diameter, it was well burned, red-brick coloured, circular shaped, damaged at the upper part (PI. 18/18). Both are kept in the collection of MHR, without inv. no. 13. Székely támadt/Csonka vár (Cetatea Ciuntitä) The Medieval citadel is the current centre of the city on the eastern side of the Varga River. Here is the alleged location of the roman camp. The first description of the city is made by B. Orbán (1868, 41), who gives detailed information prior to the construction of the school building, and drawing the plan of the locality. G. Téglás (1895, 40) believed that the roman camp situates under the medieval city, and the builders of the citadel reused some of its foundations and ditches. These assumptions have been taken over by I. Paulovics, who noted at the northern and eastern sides the remains of a Roman ditch, while between the groups of households from Kornis Ferenc Str. no. 5 he found traces of Roman walls (Paulovics 1944, 50). He mentions that the first to identify the Roman ruins was J. Szeles, in the 18th century, while in the 16th century, when the city was rebuilt, many Roman ruins have been found (Paulovics 1944, 49, note 104).17 Based on the roman coins discovered J. Szeles believed that a colony or a Roman city’ was here. I. Paulovics believed that the Csonkavár citadel is also built according to the plan and size of a smaller roman camp, with the ancient fortification ditches visible in the north-eastern part (Paulovics 1944, 50). The author considered the place a perfect strategic position for a Roman camp, since in this area local rivers meet; from here the road splits toward Dealu (Oroszhegy), Zetea (Zetelaka) or Bäile Homorod (Homoródfürdő). If no Roman ruins had been on Csonkavár, then the medieval fortress would have been built on Budvár; all the roads led to the camp and later they were diverted; the shape and the plan is very similar to that of a roman fort, but with smaller dimensions, it corresponds roughly to the size of the roman fort from Inláceni (Énlaka); 17 I. Paulovics also mentions a manuscript dated at the end of the 18th century, kept at the Reformed College in Székelyudvarhely.
