Tropaeum Traiani: A Testament to Roman Glory in Ancient Dacia

Rising from the windswept plateau of Adamclisi in Romania’s Dobruja region, the reconstructed Tropaeum Traiani stands as one of the most remarkable testimonies to Roman imperial ambition and military might. This magnificent circular monument, commissioned by Emperor Trajan in 109 CE, commemorates not just a victory, but the brutal reality of conquest that shaped the ancient world.

Metopes on the Tropaeum Traiani monument. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The Historical Context: Trajan’s Dacian Wars

The story of Tropaeum Traiani begins with one of the most decisive conflicts in Roman history—the Dacian Wars (101-106 CE). The monument specifically commemorates the victory at the Battle of Adamclisi in the winter of 101-102 CE, where Emperor Trajan faced the Dacian king Decebalus in what would prove to be a pivotal confrontation. The battle was particularly brutal, with heavy casualties on both sides, though it ultimately resulted in a decisive Roman victory.

The battle arose from Decebalus’s strategic gambit to attack Roman-held Moesia south of the Danube, hoping to force Trajan to abandon his positions near the Dacian capital of Sarmizegetusa. The Dacian army, allied with the Roxolani and Bastarnae tribes, attempted to cross the frozen Danube but suffered massive losses when the ice broke under their weight. Trajan moved his army from the mountains, following the Dacians into Moesia, where the decisive engagement unfolded at Adamclisi.

Architectural Marvel: Engineering Roman Glory

The Tropaeum Traiani  was likely designed by Apollodorus of Damascus, Trajan’s favored architect who also engineered the famous bridge across the Danube. Standing approximately 40 meters tall with an equal diameter, the structure embodies the Roman mastery of monumental architecture. The monument consists of a massive cylindrical drum built on seven concentric rows of stone steps. The drum itself was constructed of concrete (opus caementicium) faced with local limestone blocks, arranged using the sophisticated opus quadratum technique without mortar—a method showing Greek influence adapted to Roman engineering standards.

Tropaeum Traiani. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The structure was dedicated to Mars Ultor (“Mars the Avenger”), with a bilingual inscription preserved fragmentarily on the hexagonal base: “MARTI ULTOR[I] IM[P(erator)CAES]AR DIVI NERVA[E] F(ILIUS) N[E]RVA TRA]IANUS [AUG(USTUS) GERM(ANICUS)] DAC]I[CU]S PONT(IFEX) MAX(IMUS) TRIB(UNICIA) POTEST(ATE) XIII IMP(ERATOR) VI CO(N)S(UL) V P(ater) P(atriae),” translating to “To Mars the Avenger, Caesar the emperor, son of divine Nerva, Nerva Trajan Augustus, Germanicus, Dacicus, Pontifex Maximus…”

Reconstruction of the inscription.

The Metopes: Visual Chronicles of Conquest

The monument’s most striking feature was its frieze of 54 rectangular stone panels (metopes) that encircled the drum like a belt, each measuring approximately 1.48-1.49 meters in height.

Metopes on the monument. Photo by Michel Gybels.

These metopes depicted scenes from the Dacian Wars in remarkable detail, from cavalry charges to hand-to-hand combat.

Metopes – a closer view. Photo by Michel Gybels.

Of the original 54 metopes, 48 survive and are housed in the Adamclisi Museum, while one is preserved in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. The remaining few were lost over time, with some reportedly falling into the Danube during attempts to transport them to Bucharest.

Roman Legionary with a mail manica and spear with Dacian falxman. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The metopes narrate the progression of war, beginning with cavalry action and heavy fighting, including five scenes of hand-to-hand engagement between Roman legionaries and their Dacian opponents. The narrative includes depictions of Trajan himself, Roman soldiers on the march, brutal battle scenes, and the final subjugation of the Dacian prisoners.

Vexilliferi (Standard Beareres). Photo by Michel Gybels.

The metopes were created by five different groups of craftsmen, each with varying levels of skill—some carved human sculptures clumsily, while others demonstrated sophisticated knowledge of human proportions. Unlike the refined depictions on Trajan’s Column in Rome, these metopes have been described as displaying “barbarian provincial taste,” carved by “sculptors of provincial training” who “reveal a lack of experience in figurative representation.” However, this rawer, bloodier art carries “more power and authenticity for lacking the filter of a refined disdain for the realities of war.”

Legionary and Dacian Warrior. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The simplified nature of the reliefs may have been deliberately designed to clarify imperial iconography for a provincial or foreign audience. As scholar Jas Elsner noted, the reliefs present all the “vitality, vigour and non-classicism of barbarian art,” giving the conquered Dacians a “visual voice” in the narrative that was “familiar, even natural” to them.

Barbarian family in a four-wheel cart. Photo by Michel Gybels.

Destruction and Rediscovery

The monument’s fate mirrored the empire’s own decline. By the second and third centuries CE, it suffered degradation from earthquakes and human activity. In 170 CE, the citadel of Tropaeum Traiani faced attacks from the Goths, and the monument may have been destroyed in an earthquake by 316 CE. A great earthquake in 477 CE further damaged the structure, causing it to lean, as discovered by later topographic surveys.

With the rise of Christianity, the monument faced deliberate destruction as local inhabitants, who “still shared the pagan philosophy,” attacked “the ancient cults represented by sculptures and images.” The process was similar to that experienced by the Tropaeum Augusti in France, where Saint Honoratus initiated the demolition of statues considered pagan idols. The scattering of fragments occurred between the fifth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. During this time, after the Ottoman empire established its capital in Constantinople in 1453, a Turkish general visited the site and extracted a sculpted metope to send to Constantinople.

Tropaeum by H. Jacobi in 1896, Public Domain

By the 19th century, the monument appeared as “a huge dome-shaped masonry surrounded by massive deposits of earth and debris, where shrubs had grown, among which were carved stones scattered about.” The first modern archaeological investigations began in 1882 under Grigore Tocilescu, the first Romanian archaeologist, who conducted campaigns in 1883, 1884, and 1890.

Tropaeum Traiani at Adamclisi, before its reconstruction in 1977. Source: Remembering victories, remembering losses: Trajan’s Trophy and Altar at Adamclisi.

After extensive debates in the 1960s, Romanian authorities chose to rebuild the monument using new materials while preserving the original pieces in museums. Two solutions were proposed: restore the original pieces to Adamclisi and reconstruct the missing ones, or keep the originals in Bucharest’s History Museum and create copies. The second option was approved, and reconstruction began in 1973, completed in 1977 to coincide with the centenary of Dobrogea’s union with the Romanian state.

Reconstruction works. Source: Tropaeum Augusti (France) and Tropaeum Traiani (Romania): A Comparative Study

The new monument uses a metal structure clad with stone pieces from the same ancient quarries exploited 2,000 years ago, located in the Enigea valley about 4 kilometers from Adamclisi. This approach maintained the monument’s visual impact while preserving the authentic artifacts for posterity. The reconstruction follows the same architectural principles as the original, including the cylindrical base, conical roof with scale-like stone plates arranged in 25 concentric rows, and the hexagonal superstructure supporting the trophy.

Military and Strategic Importance

Tropaeum Traiani was positioned at a crucial strategic location, controlling the ancient road from Tomis (modern Constănţa) to Durostorum (modern Silistra in Bulgaria). This positioning made it not merely a commemorative monument but a statement of Roman territorial control and a warning to potentially rebellious tribes. Trajan settled veterans from his Dacian campaigns in the area, establishing both a fortress and a civil town. The inhabitants, known as the “Traianenses Tropaeenses,” dedicated a statue to their patron emperor between 115-116 CE.

Cities and roads in eastern Moesia, by CristianChirita, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Under Antoninus Pius, the site became home to a detachment of the XI Claudia legion, and its importance grew when it was promoted to the rank of municipium around 180 CE during Marcus Aurelius’s reign. However, the settlement’s exposed position meant it did not prosper during the 3rd century and had to be rebuilt almost from scratch during the time of Constantine the Great and Licinius. A dedication survives to the two emperors, with Constantine tellingly taking precedence. The settlement continued until it was destroyed by the Avars at the end of the 6th century, marking the end of nearly five centuries of Roman presence in the region.

Comparison with Tropaeum Augusti: Two Monuments, One Empire

The Tropaeum Traiani shares striking similarities with its French counterpart, the Tropaeum Augusti at La Turbie. Both monuments celebrate imperial victories over frontier peoples—Augustus over 45 Alpine tribes in 6 BCE, and Trajan over the Dacians in 102 CE. Both use circular architecture with metopes and pilasters, were built according to Vitruvian principles, and served as symbols of Roman territorial control in conquered regions.

La Turbie – reconstruction. Photo by Von Matthias Holländer.

Key differences exist in their current states: Tropaeum Augusti preserves original ancient construction consolidated but incomplete, while Tropaeum Traiani presents a complete reconstruction using new materials. The La Turbie monument stands 35 meters high and retains much of its original stonework, while partial reconstruction allowed only the western facade to be completely restored. In contrast, the Adamclisi monument was entirely rebuilt with copies to preserve the originals in museums.

La Turbie – photo by Von I, Gugerell, CC BY 2.5.

The Adamclisi Museum: Preserving Ancient Testimony

The modern museum, designed as a lapidarium to shelter and promote the original sculptural pieces, houses the authentic metopes carefully arranged and numbered according to their presumed placement on the monument. Beyond the 48 preserved metopes, the museum displays the lower and upper friezes, pilasters, crenelations, parapet blocks from the figured attic, and the colossal statue of the trophy with preserved elements of the statuary group—Geto-Dacian women and captives with hands bound.

Museum. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The museum also contains fragments of the dedicatory inscription and remains from the altar bearing the names of approximately 3,800 fallen Roman soldiers. Archaeological artifacts from the nearby city of Tropaeum Traiani and surrounding areas illustrate both the early habitation of the Geto-Dacians in southern Dobrogea and the continuity of Romanian settlement in this region where Romanization occurred most profoundly.

Museum. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The Site of the Ancient Town

The remains of the ancient town lies just a couple of kilometers away from the actual village, on a low rise from which a fantastic view can be had of the trophy itself and on to the high plateau up to the east.

Civitas Tropaensium – by Rotaru Florin – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.

It is protected on three sides by a natural slope, which was reinforced in the 4th century by a defensive wall studded with horseshoe-shaped towers. Here and there the ground is scarred with the trenches from various archaeological campaigns.

Remains of the ancient walls. Photo by Michel Gybels.

On the town’s main street, around 200 metres from the principal gate, lies the basilica forensis, the civilian basilica, marked out by two rows of column bases that formed the portico of the building.

Columns of the Basilica. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The forum, alongside which the basilica must have lain, is obscured by a jumble of ruins. Nearby, four Christian basilicas from the 4th to 6th centuries are evidence of the Christian life of the city. One, the ‘Cistern Basilica’, was adapted in late-Roman times from a pre-excisting water cistern, which provided a convenient and well-built rectangular structure without the need for extensive new building. Across the main street again are the ruins of the ‘Marble Basilica’, clear only from the shape of its apse, the rest being just an undifferentiated mass of stones.

View on the archaeological site. Photo by Michel Gybels.

The east gate of the city and the adjacent wall have been reconstructed and one tower stands incongruously whole. Leaving the site from the south side, a single jagged arch of a gateway survives, divorced from any surviving stones of the walls, from where a slight scramble leads down to the modern roadway.

Reconstructed tower. Photo by Michel Gybels.

Legacy and Significance

The Tropaeum Traiani stands as more than a monument to military victory; it represents the complex relationship between conqueror and conquered, between imperial ambition and human cost. Its brutal imagery depicts not just Roman triumph but “the subjugation of a nation and the ugliness of war, made all the more unsavoury for its triumphalist tone.” Yet from the Roman perspective, they had merely punished treaty-breakers and brought “peace” to a new province.

The monument exemplifies how Rome used architecture as political propaganda, creating permanent reminders of imperial power that would outlast the battles themselves. The choice to erect such a massive structure in conquered territory, rather than in Rome itself, demonstrates the importance of projecting strength to both subjected populations and potential enemies. The inclusion of local artistic traditions in the metopes suggests a nuanced approach to cultural integration, allowing the conquered some representation in their own subjugation.

*The Tropaeum Traiani can be visited freely, while the Victory Monument and archaeological museum in Adamclisi require admission tickets. The site offers a profound glimpse into the ambitions, achievements, and ultimate limitations of one of history’s greatest empir

Sources: 

“Tropaeum Augusti (France) and Tropaeum Traiani (Romania): A Comparative Study” by Alexandru Ș. Bologa and Ana-Maria Grămescu.

“La propagande impériale aux frontières de l’empire romain: Tropaeum Traiani” by Maria Alexandresca Vianu.

“Inscriptii de la Tropaeum Traiani“. Heidelberg University.

Header photo: By Andrei Lucian Vaida – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.

First Dacian Wars

Decebalus was a shrewd general, and he had won success against the Romans in earlier wars. In the First Dacian War, Emperor Domitian claimed victory far too soon. While he was back in Rome celebrating his triumph, Decebalus was defeating the Roman legions left in Dacia. Revolts in other areas of the Empire kept Domitian from being able to return to the war. Instead, he shamefully accepted Dacian terms for peace. He hailed Decebalus as king, and agreed to pay an annual tribute to him to maintain peaceful relations.

Domitian’s successor as emperor was the well-beloved Trajan. A sharp administrator and a skilled general, Trajan did not accept the tribute so mildly. In 101 A.D., he crossed the Danube River and invaded Dacia. Decebalus tried to request to meet with him, but Trajan refused. He pushed back the Dacian forces to the capital at Sarmizegetusa, destroying much of the city’s outer walls. Eventually Decebalus yielded and accepted Roman terms for peace. Yet the Dacian king was not as passive and subdued as he appeared. He re-fortified his cities and then launched an attack on Roman held territory. Trajan came at once to inspect the Roman forts and take personal leadership of the war.

Decebalus’s Subterfuge

Knowing the quality of his enemy, Decebalus struck in guerilla attacks. He also formed a plan to assassinate Trajan, but the plot was discovered. Next, he sent a carefully crafted letter to Trajan’s general Gnaeus Pompeius Longinus, swearing that he wished peace and promising to submit to anything the Romans asked of him. Though the Romans under Trajan had won their first conflict with Dacia, it had not been an easy one. This promised to be another bloody war, one which would cost many more lives. The prospect of peace and the preservation of his men proved too tempting for Longinus.

He agreed to meet, but when he came to Decebalus, the Dacian king took him prisoner, and proceeded to question him publicly, trying to learn of Trajan’s plans. Though interrogated for hours without respite, Longinus refused to give up any information. Decebalus eventually realized it was useless. Instead, he sent an envoy to Trajan, informing him of his prisoner. He demanded that, in exchange for Longinus, Trajan must return all territory and pay all the costs incurred by the Dacians in defending against the Rome. Trajan was distraught at the message. He could not give in to the demands, but also could not bear to sacrifice his dear friend. Desperate, he responded with a carefully ambiguous letter, hoping to protect Longinus while stalling for time.

The Scheme Fails

It worked, and Decebalus was still debating his next move when Longinus took matters into his own hands. He could not bear laying the guilt of his death on the head of his friend and Emperor, nor did he wish any dishonorable terms to be named in his release. His freedman, taken captive with him, managed to obtain a small vial of poison. Longinus also wished to secure the safety of his freedman, so he sent for Decebalus and told him that he would convince Trajan to ransom him. He wrote a letter, begging for his freedom, and Decebalus allowed Longinus’s freedman to deliver it to Trajan.

Thus assured that his man was safe, Longinus drank the poison and took his own life. Trajan was devastated when he received the note and heard the truth of Longinus’s plan from the freedman. Shortly thereafter, Decebalus sent over one of the captured Roman centurions, who informed them of Longinus’s death and gave a message from the Dacian king. He demanded the return of the freedman in exchange for Longinus’s body. However, Trajan, who highly valued the lives of his people, would not even send the centurion back and flatly refused to surrender the freedman. He believed the men’s safety to be more important for the dignity of the Empire than the burial of Longinus.

Trajan Conquers

Trajan pushed on to Sarmizegetuza. Though the Dacians repelled the first attack, the Romans lay siege to the city. As their siege engines maintained a constant barrage, the soldiers built a wall to circumvallate the city. Finally they destroyed the pipes bringing drinking water into the city, and threatened to burn the fortress down. The Dacians surrendered. This time, the Romans deported the citizens and destroyed the ancient capital. With the help of a defector, Trajan found Decebalus’s treasure, which the king had concealed under the Sergetia River. Decebalus escaped the siege, but killed himself to avoid capture and humiliation at the hands of the Romans. The events of the Dacian Wars can be seen carved onto Trajan’s column in Rome. Sarmizegetuza was never rebuilt, though the Romans founded their own new capital about 40 km away, and named it after the original.

What to see in Sarmizegetusa today:

Ruins of both the Dacian fortress and the Roman city are in the area. However, recent nationalistic reasons have brought the first to receive far more attention than the other. The Dacian fortress has its own archeological park, open for visit and equipped with guided tours.

The Roman ruins are mainly pieces of damaged structures, but two areas of the ancient Forum remain on the outskirts of the modern town. Most classic civil structures are also still present. These include the foundations of an amphitheater, a granary and a number of temples.

Sarmizegetuza on Timetravelrome app:

To find out more: Timetravelrome.

Author: written for Timetravelrome by Marian Vermeulen.

Sources: Cassius Dio, Roman History; Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome De Caesaribus; details recorded from Trajan’s Column

Header Photo: Aerial photographs of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa by Raimond Spekking & Elke Wetzig licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Nerva

Some modern historians think of Nerva as a weak and hesitant committee man. In reality, he was clearly clever and shrewd; simply wise enough to seek the counsel of others. He navigated the political quagmire of Rome and enjoyed a successful career while remaining close to six successive emperors during chaos and civil war. He is the only person besides Vespasian’s own son Titus to serve as the Emperor’s co-consul. When conspirators in the Senate planned Domitian’s murder, they had already chosen Nerva as his successor. 

A proven statesman, Nerva re-built the trust of both the people and the Senate and forestalled another civil war. He was well into his sixties, often ill, and physically weak, with no natural children; a perfect placeholder.  The army and the Praetorian Guard were the only unpredictable factions. Nerva’s choice of successor, the shrewd and highly popular general Trajan, ensured full support. He only reigned for fifteen months, but managed to institute popular policies and launch important building programs.  He was remembered fondly by his contemporaries. 

What Site is most closely related with Nerva? We think it is the eponymous Forum in Rome. Often disregarded by tourists, the Forum of Nerva was the fourth and smallest of the imperial fora, but it still reminds us of the legacy of the first of the “good” Emperors of Rome. 

Trajan

Trajan was a perfect Emperor to follow Nerva. He was the ideal Roman; ambitious, skilled in politics and military strategy, restlessly expansionist, yet also kind and fair. Trajan was equally an emperor and a general. He led his armies on the battlefield, and the Empire reached the height of its size during his rule. His soldiers adored him. He would spend the first hours after a battle visiting with the wounded among his men. During one such visit, the army medics ran out of bandages. Trajan immediately cut up his own clothing into strips and offered it to them to dress the soldier’s wounds.

He was equally tactful in his administrative work. He maintained a high level of respect for the Senate and for the old customs of the Republic. The people praised his work to fix the crumbling Roman roads and public buildings. His many social and economic reforms were equally popular. One of these was among the first public welfare programs in history, designed to aid poor and orphaned children. He did all of this without exploiting Roman citizens or provincials. Every ancient source compliments Trajan. He was just, brave, humble, mild, generous, hard-working, trusting, and fiercely loyal. When his cousin died, Trajan adopted the man’s children, Hadrian and Paulina, and he later named Hadrian his heir.

What Site is most related with Trajan? An excellent choice would be Trajan’s Column, constructed in 113 A.D. and commemorating his victories in Dacia. Curiously it served as archetype for later rulers – for Marcus Aurelius and also for Napoleon, who used Trajan’s Column as a template for the depiction of his own military achievements, represented by the Vendôme Column that stands in Paris.

Hadrian

Coming after Trajan, Hadrian’s complex personality often confused his contemporaries. He frequently ran contrary to Roman ideals, preferring defensive strategy to imperialism and expansion. Early in his reign, he earned the suspicion of the Senate, and he was never able to escape that.  He was generally friendly and kind, treating people with respect and even visiting ill friends personally. Yet, unlike the firm loyalty of Trajan, several times he suddenly dropped formerly favored friends for no obvious reason. He was confident almost to the point of arrogance in his many interests and hobbies, intelligent, decisive, and charismatic. Yet he never displayed the fragile ego of many other Emperors, who would lash out viciously against critics. 

Once a woman approached him, and he brushed her off impatiently, saying he had no time for her. She shot back, “well, stop being emperor, then!” Where many might have had the woman punished for insolence, Hadrian humbly took the barb to heart. He stopped to allow her an audience.  Despite his brash and assured public face, Hadrian maintained a deep need for seclusion. His private rooms at his villa sat on a small island in the middle of a pond, accessible only by rowboat. Despite his contemporaries’ doubts, the Empire prospered under Hadrian, and he deserves his place among the five great emperors. Today, he is best remembered for the ruins of the ancient wall in England that bears his name.

What Site is most representative of Hadrian’s rule?  We suggest it could be the Hadrian’s Wall in northern England. It ran from the North Sea to the Irish Sea with a fort every five Roman miles. The Wall effectively reflects Hadrian’s time: splendor and magnificence in Rome, but tempered by the emerging existential threat on the frontiers of the Empire.

Antoninus Pius

Chosen mainly as a placeholder, Antoninus Pius was already middle-aged when Hadrian picked him as his successor. Hadrian’s favorite was still too young, and the Emperor was growing ever sicker. He appointed Antoninus his successor, if he would adopt Marcus and another boy, Lucius Verus, next, as joint heirs. Antoninus stayed strongly loyalty to Hadrian, remaining by his side to the very end.  He then stood up to the Senate when they refused to deify Hadrian just after the Emperor’s death. Antoninus threatened to resign, and they finally agreed.

He was a beloved ruler, never much for war, instead holding a deep regard for life. His character was flawless. He refused any bribes, and met all problems brought to him with the same focus. The status of the suppliant did not matter. He was humble, cheerful, prudent, wise, and had a soft heart. Antoninus and Marcus loved one another dearly. Marcus began to rule jointly with his adopted father toward the end of his life. 

What Site is most closely related with Antoninus Pius? It is probably the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina in Rome.  The temple was initially dedicated only to Antoninus’s deceased wife, Faustina the Elder. When the Emperor was deified by the Senate after his own death, the temple was re-dedicated to both himself and his wife. Antoninus and Faustina are believed to have enjoyed a happy marriage and the Temple still reminds us of their happy union. 

Marcus Aurelius

Perhaps the greatest ruler of all time, Marcus Aurelius did not even want to become emperor. Serious and smart, he had devoted himself to Stoic philosophy from a young age. When told he was to be the adopted heir, he was furious, but eventually agreed. He ruled as co-emperor with his adopted brother Lucius Verus, until the latter died while on campaign. No other emperor is praised as highly as Marcus Aurelius. Cassius Dio named him the best Emperor in the history of Rome. He was pleasant, deeply kind-hearted, and hated violence. During his rule, he would not even allow gladiators to fight with real weapons. Though frugal, he was still generous to his subjects, forgiving, and also very respectful of the Senate. 

He was the perfect philosopher king. His only failure was that he produced a natural son. The Five Great Emperors had all been chosen deliberately for their abilities and character, and adopted to ensure succession. Upon Marcus Aurelius’s death, his vicious son Commodus became emperor. Cassius Dio says that it degraded Rome “from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust.” 

What Site would we associate with Marcus Aurelius? Perhaps the most well-known is his famous Column in Rome, completed in 193 A.D. It was made of Carrara marble and dedicated to his victories over the Sarmatians and Germanic tribes. Marcus Aurelius is seen as the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of peace and prosperity for the Empire. His Stoic philosophy, which can be read in his personal journal, now published as Meditations, have been praised for centuries.

We have proposed our ideas of the iconic sites that most represent the five “Good Emperors” of ancient Rome. Do you have other ideas? Share your thoughts with us! 

Sources: Cassius Dio, Roman History ; Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome De Caesaribus ; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations ; Historia Augusta

Photo: Hadrian Column by djedj is licensed under  CC0