Burgus Hatvan-Gombospuszta

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Burgus Hatvan-Gombospuszta
limes Limes Sarmatiae
section outer boundary line
Dating (occupancy) C 371–373
Type Burgus
size 9.40 × 10.02 m (core plant)
Construction stone
State of preservation Probably unfinished Burgus with additional enclosures encompassing an outbuilding
place Hatvan
Geographical location 47 ° 43 '52.2 "  N , 19 ° 41' 5"  E hf
Previous Fort Göd-Bócsaújtelep (west)
Pannonia with the Limes Sarmatiae and the location of the Burgus Hatvan-Gombospuszta
The heavily damaged structures of the Valentinian Burgus with the cuts through the upstream moat. Late Celtic and Late Sarmatian pits are hidden
In comparison, the 18 × 18 meter Valentine Burgus Visegrád-Lepence in the core works, which was built according to the building inscription in 371 AD.

The Burgus Hatvan-Gombospuszta is a small, possibly never completed Roman military site which , as a structurally extended late antique residential and watchtower ( Burgus ) , would have been responsible for controlling a section of the Limes Sarmatiae and a river crossing. This fortified borderline secured a large part of today's Great Hungarian Plain . Since the 1st century AD, the residential areas of the Sarmatian Jazyans have been located here . The excavated Roman building remains are in the Gombospuszta corridor in the municipality of the city of Hatvan in the Hungarian county of Heves .

location

In the west, between the Pannonian Danube Limes and Hatvan, lies the small-scale hilly region of the Gödöllő Mountains (Gödöllői-dombság). This landscape stretches to the north and connects to the Mátra Mountains north of Hatvan , a foothill of the Carpathian Mountains . The excavations for the Roman Burgus took place near the Strázsaberg. This strongly flattened, elongated hill is located northeast of the old town of Hatvan and runs from northwest to southeast. The Strázsa, which flows gently to the east, drops in the northwest to the now highly regulated Zagyva river . The Zagyva runs from the mountains in the north to the south into the lowlands and on to the Tisza . Finds from the Early Bronze Age , known as the Hatvan culture , have made the mountain known as an important prehistoric site. The Burgus stood between the east bank of the river and the foot of the Strázsaberges. The Limes, which has not yet been proven in this area, crossed the Zagyva here, which means that the Burgus crew was also responsible for monitoring this important river crossing.

Research history

The agriculturally used Pusztagombos or Gombospuszta corridor had become known since the discovery of three late Roman brick temples in 1875. These were given to the Hungarian National Museum . In 1941, the archaeologist János Szilágyi (1907–1988) reported that of the brick stamps from the reign of Emperor Valentinian I (364–375) found on the left bank of the Danube so far, those from the Pusztagombos corridor near Hatvan were particularly out of place, because this place lies deep in the Barbaricum . At that time, the AP LUPPIANO ORD stamp and the AP VALENTINI imprint were known. To go the long suspected late antique military station on the ground, was by archaeologist Sándor Soproni (1926-1995) in 1966 after a field inspection on the suspected site, a test trench made. Already here the size and age of the actual Burgus could be clarified. During two excavation campaigns , in 1967 and 1968, Soproni and his team (1967 with Pál Patay ; 1968 with Pál Patay and Éva Garam ) uncovered this burgus and other associated facilities.

Building history

Since the 3rd century AD at the latest, the Roman army has been building border barriers around the residential areas of the rebellious Jazygen that belonged to the Barbaricum. Their causes and purpose are still discussed in the professional world today. A massive expansion of the Limes Sarmatiae, which consists of earth walls, took place during the reign of Emperor Valentinian I, who was born in Pannonia . The older Sarmatian Limes line was moved a little further north to the territory of the Germanic people of the Quadi who lived there . With this land attachment the Romans committed a clear breach of contract with the - extremely angry - Quads. With the subsequent start of construction on the mighty Göd-Bócsaújtelep fort , which was supposed to secure the northern starting point of the Limes Sarmatiae around three kilometers east of the Danube Limes, as well as the recently established Ländeburgi on both sides of the Danube, the Roman Emperor also made many Jazyans an enemy. With the simultaneous expansion of the Sarmatian Limes with new high ramparts and military stations, he finally turned both peoples against him, because they feared a permanent threat to their borders from Rome. In this politically sensitive environment, the Burgus Hatvan-Gombospuszta was built on the outer, new line of the earth wall system. It was about two days' march (40 Roman miles ) east of the Danube and the planned large fort Göd-Bócsaújtelep.

Despite the many predatory attacks by Sarmatian armored riders on Roman imperial territory, the Roman officers valued their high combat value and they tried to make the cavalry warriors subservient. For example, grave goods from the Sarmatian burial places Kismari-fenék near Mezőszemere and Pamlényi-tábla near Szihalom testify that Sarmatians who put themselves in the service of the Romans were equipped by them. In addition to the Sarmatians who guarded the Limes Sarmatiae under Roman command, Valentinian I also planned to use Roman associations from the empire directly along this Limes line. For this reason, both the Göd-Bócsaújtelep fort and the Hatvan-Gombospuszt complex were built.

Burgus

The Burgus, which was already "badly destroyed" when it was found in 1966, was built according to a well-known Pannonian Grenzburgi construction scheme, even if it was designed much smaller. The area of ​​the residential and watchtower, which was completely exposed in 1968, was 9.40 × 10.02 meters. According to Soproni, only remnants of the foundation remained of its masonry, which were measured with a width of 0.65 meters. The tower stood in the middle of a 14.87 × 15.70 meter courtyard, which was secured by a 0.67 to 0.70 meter thick perimeter wall. Between this wall and the tower there was a two to 2.20 meter large open space. Unusually, the rubble foundations of both the tower and the enclosing wall were joined together without any bonding agent. In addition to brick stamps, some late Roman pottery shards were also found. In addition to the site, Late Celtic and Late Sarmatian pits were also observed. They contained typical La Téne ceramics and shards of the Sarmatian period.

Outbuildings

Another Roman-era building with rubble foundations was cut at a north-north-west distance of 58 meters from the Burgus. The 22.30 × 9 meter house had two rooms of different sizes and was largely a victim of the stone robbery. The larger, rectangular room was 16 × 7.50 meters, the smaller room was attached to the north-western narrow side of the building. It had a right-angled trapezoidal shape and was 3.80 meters wide. Its long side was 7.55 or six meters long. As far as it could be determined, the wall thickness of the house was 0.70 meters. Despite the poor state of preservation of the building, the excavators were able to detect a layer of fire on the floor of the building, in which fire clay and rubble were found.

Containment ditch

Soproni had some search cuts created to fix the moat of the Burgus. However, it could only be found around 23 meters southeast of the watchtower's wall. The depth of this trench was still 1.10 meters, its width was measured to be around 2.50 meters. Due to the terrain conditions encountered during the excavation, the excavator assumed that the top of the Roman terrain had long since fallen victim to erosion and that an originally deeper and wider ditch must therefore be assumed. It seemed as if the entire building complex with the burgus and outbuildings was surrounded by this moat.

End and problems of interpretation

The archaeologist Zsolt Mráv assumed that both the construction site of the Göd-Bócsaújtelep fort and the small complex in the Gombospuszta corridor had the same fate. Both complexes can be ascribed to the tenure of Dux Frigeridus , who was responsible for the late antique Pannonian province of Valeria ripensis , on the basis of the brick stamps (see below) . Most likely, Frigeridus replaced his predecessor Terentius in 371 as Dux in the province of Valeria and stayed there until his intrigued impeachment in 373/374. The great outrage that Rome had triggered with its breach of treaty among the Quadi turned into sheer hatred under the successor of Frigeridus when the Quadenkönig , who was supposedly invited to new negotiations in Aquincum ( Budapest ), was insidiously murdered by the Romans. The Quads then allied themselves with their neighboring peoples, above all the Jazygens, crossed the Danube with them at harvest time and brought death and devastation to the completely surprised inhabitants of Pannonia. Valentinian marched into Pannonia in June 374 with a powerful army. In the same year he succeeded in driving out the invaders and forcing them to sign a peace treaty again. During an audience for the envoys of the Jazygen and Quaden in Brigetio on November 17, 375, he probably died of a stroke. Continuing the construction work on the Limes Sarmatiae was out of the question, especially since the Sarmatic Limes project had to be abandoned for good soon after the defeat of the Romans during the Battle of Adrianople (378).

According to Mráv, it cannot be decided whether the lowest foundation layers of the tower can be seen in the mortar-free ground plans of the Burgus, which were already heavily eroded when they were found, or whether these stones were merely laid out as the first markings for a structure that was still to be built. Mráv had already been able to prove it for the Göd-Bócsaújtelep fort. Looking at the dramatic historical events, it can be taken into account that an unfinished structure can be seen in the remains of the building at Hatvan-Gombospuszta. According to Mráv, this thesis is supported by the extensive lack of ceramics. The mortar fragments observed in the fields around the site could have been used to build the tower. As the archaeological research shows, the work on the Sarmatian border fortifications was stopped in several places. This can also be seen as an indication that construction work on the Burgus is coming to an early end. In all considerations, it should not be overlooked that the low wall thicknesses of the tower and the surrounding wall are more than unusual for Valentine's military buildings. Along the Danube Limes these were always thicker than a meter. Based on this finding, a non-military use of Hatvan-Gombospuszta was also discussed. The military finds that can be clearly identified by the brick stamps, however, leave almost no alternatives. The time window in which the tower construction began and which ended with the war against the Quadi and Jazygen extends from 371 to 373 AD.

Finds

The most important finds for dating and classifying the Burgus include the inventory of brick stamps discovered as reading finds and during the excavation. These include the impressions AP LVPPIANO ORD, AP IOVINI, AP VALENTINI, FIG SAB as well as late copies of the Legio II Adiutrix (2nd Adiutrix Legion), which at that time served in several locations along the Danube Limes . As a limitanei (border army), the legion was subordinate to the Dux of the province of Valeria ripensis at that time . The other brick temples of high-ranking officers can be placed in a narrow historical time window due to their typical socialization and due to parallels to other sites. A stamp fragment also found with the name of Frigeridus dux is of particular importance. The stamp AP LVPPIANO ORD belonged to the centurion Luppianus, who can be easily assigned to the time of Valentinian I. Szilágyi interpreted the abbreviations on this stamp as AP (parente) LVPPIANO ORD (inario centurione) . The Centurion Iovinus (IOVINI) and the Tribune Valentinus (VALENTINI) were active at the same time as the Dux Frigeridus in the province of Valeria ripensis. The stamp Figlina Sabiniana (FIG SAB) comes from an initially privately operated brick factory, which was taken over in the 4th century AD by the Legio II Italica stationed in Lauriacum and was located at the Albing legionary camp .

In the course of the field inspection carried out in 1966, Soproni found the remains of an abandoned medieval village around two kilometers north of the Burgus, on the left bank of the Zagyva. The Roman roof tiles also discovered on the surface here led the archaeologists to assume that the late Roman tower site was exploited for building houses in the Middle Ages.

Lost property

The finds from the excavations were inventoried in the Hungarian National Museum.

Early reception

In Germany in particular, experts in the late 20th century were at times very cautious when it came to Roman findings outside the apparently fixed borders of the empire. In this context, the watchtower findings, which have been known since the 1960s and which extended the Odenwald Limes beyond the Kochendorf small fort east of the Neckar, received strikingly little attention in the specialist literature. The Hungarian research on the Sarmatian Limes, which Soproni first comprehensively described and evaluated in 1969, has met with very mixed feedback in Germany in the past. In the historical atlases, the mighty, deeply staggered border walls, which encompass the Great Plain, were completely absent. Soproni's very far-reaching considerations on the system of the Limes Sarmatiae were sometimes completely “bold” by the archaeologist. The historian Ursula-Barbara Dittrich wrote in 1986 with reference to the Roman outposts far away from the border: “In addition, all these stations were much too small for forts; they only had the fencing wall that is common with Roman villas, but no strong defensive wall. - The wall thickness at Hatvan-Gombospuszta station was only 0.67–0.70 m. - The stations also lacked other fortification defensive devices such as ramparts in front of trenches and stone towers. On the other hand, they had numerous facilities that served comfort, such as water pipes, hypocaust heating and bathing facilities. It is particularly noticeable that they consistently - only for Hatvan this is not known - immediately next to or even within a simultaneously existing Germanic settlement and at least Some of them were on trade routes. ”Dittrich saw Hatvan-Gombospuszta as a trading post. Not a word was lost in this context about the military brick stamps known from this site since the 19th century. The historian Angela Pabst was able to follow Soproni in 1989 when she also saw a Valentine Burgus in Hatvan-Gombospuszta with a crew of around 80, which was dependent on the functioning of the supply lines and on agreement with the residents. With this checkpoint, which was well advanced, Rome could have shown a selective military presence, which, in conjunction with the client state system, was part of the foreland security. The wall system made no Roman impression on archaeologist Rosemarie Krämer in 1984. She saw it as the work of a non-Roman population. In view of this, in their opinion, the structures, which could be dated, among other things, with the findings from the Roman military installation of Hatvan-Gomospuzsta, could have been one of the greatest dams of the Roman era and of the Roman initiative.

Monument protection

The monuments of Hungary are protected under the Act No. LXIV of 2001 by being entered in the register of monuments. The Hatvan-Gombospuszta military station, as an archaeological site according to Section 3.1, is a nationally valuable cultural asset. According to § 2.1, all finds are state property, regardless of where they are found. Violations of the export regulations are considered a criminal offense or a crime and are punished with imprisonment for up to three years.

literature

  • Dénes Gabler : Terra Sigillata finds from the Sarmatic settlement of Dunakeszi-Alagi Major. In: Slovenská archeológia 49, Slovenská akadémia vied, 2002, p. 119 ff .; here: p. 252.
  • Sándor Soproni : The late Roman Limes between Esztergom and Szentendre. The defense system of the province of Valeria in the 4th century. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1978, p. 85.
  • Sándor Soproni: Hatvan . In: Jenő Fitz (ed.): The Roman Limes in Hungary . Fejér Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 1976, p. 127.
  • Sándor Soproni: Késő római katonai őrállomás Hatvan-Gombospusztán. (A late Roman military watch post in Hatvan-Gombospuszta.) In: Dolgozatok Heves megye múltjából. Eger 1970. pp. 17-28.
  • Sándor Soproni: A late Roman military station in the Sarmatian area. In: Eric Birley , Brian Dobson, Michael Jarrett (Eds.): Roman frontier studies 1969, Eighth International Congress of Limes Research . University of Wales, Cardiff 1974. pp. 197-203.
  • Sándor Soproni: Hatvan-Gombospuszta (Kom. Heves). In: Archaeologiai értesítő 96, 1969, p. 256.
  • Zsolt Mráv : Hatvan-Gombospuszta fortlet. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation, 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , pp. 207-209.

Remarks

  1. ↑ a b c d e Zsolt Mráv : Hatvan-Gombospuszta fortlet. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , pp. 207-209; here p. 209.
  2. ↑ a b c d e f Sándor Soproni: Hatvan . In: Jenő Fitz (ed.): The Roman Limes in Hungary . Fejér Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 1976, p. 127.
  3. ↑ Ferenc Tompa by : Bronzkori lakótelep Hatvanban . In: Archaeologiai Értesítő 48 (1935), pp. 16–43; Nándor Kalicz: The Early Bronze Age in Northeast Hungary . In: Archaeologia Hungarica 45 (1968), p. 121 No. 60; Viktória Kiss: Data to the eastern relations of Transdanubian Incrusted Pottery culture . In: The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia 1997 , Alba Iulia 1998, ISBN 973-0-00550-8 , pp. 161-189 (170).
  4. ^ Zsolt Mráv : Hatvan-Gombospuszta fortlet. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , pp. 207-209; here pp. 207–208.
  5. ↑ a b c d Sándor Soproni: A late Roman military station in the Sarmatian region. In: Eric Birley , Brian Dobson, Michael Jarrett (Eds.): Roman frontier studies 1969, Eighth International Congress of Limes Research . University of Wales, Cardiff 1974. pp. 197-203; here: p. 197.
  6. ^ Sándor Soproni: Limes Sarmatiae. In: A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2/1969. Szeged, 1969, pp. 117-133; here: p. 131.
  7. ^ János Szilágyi : Az I. Valentinianus alatt készält bélyeges téglák eloszlása ​​a Duna balpartján. (The distribution of the brick dies from the time of Valentinian from the fortresses on the left bank of the Danube). In: Archaeologiai értesítő . 1941, pp. 60-61; here: p. 61.
  8. ^ Andreas Alföldi : The collapse of the Roman defense system in Pannonia. In: Ungarische Jahrbücher 4, 1924, pp. 162-185; here: p. 178; CIL 03, 10688a .
  9. ↑ a b c d Sándor Soproni: The late Roman Limes between Esztergom and Szentendre. The defense system of the province of Valeria in the 4th century. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1978, ISBN 9630513072 , p. 110 (footnote).
  10. ^ A b Sándor Soproni: Hatvan-Gombospuszta (Kom.Heves). In: Archaeologiai értesítő 95, 1968, p. 131.
  11. ↑ a b c Sándor Soproni: Hatvan-Gombospuszta (Kom.Heves). In: Archaeologiai értesítő 96, 1969, p. 256.
  12. ↑ For these explanations see: Zsolt Mráv: Archaeological research 2000–2001 in the area of ​​the late Roman fortress of Göd-Bócsaújtelep (preliminary report) 2002. In: Communicationes archeologicae Hungariae 2003. Budapest 2003. pp. 83–114.
  13. ^ A b Zsolt Mráv : Hatvan-Gombospuszta fortlet. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , pp. 207-209; here p. 207.
  14. ↑ a b c Zsolt Mráv : Hatvan-Gombospuszta fortlet. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , pp. 207-209; here p. 208.
  15. ^ Sándor Soproni: The late Roman Limes between Esztergom and Szentendre. The defense system of the province of Valeria in the 4th century. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1978, ISBN 9630513072 , p. 85.
  16. ^ Sándor Soproni: A late Roman military station in the Sarmatian region. In: Eric Birley , Brian Dobson, Michael Jarrett (Eds.): Roman frontier studies 1969, Eighth International Congress of Limes Research . University of Wales, Cardiff 1974. pp. 197-203; here: p. 200.
  17. ↑ Zsolt Mráv : Archaeological research 2000–2001 in the area of ​​the late Roman fortress of Göd-Bócsaújtelep (preliminary report) 2002. In: Communicationes archeologicae Hungariae 2003, p. 101.
  18. ↑ Ammianus Marcellinus , 29, 6, 6: ... et Quados et gentes circumsitas efferavit ...
  19. ↑ Ammianus Marcellinus, 29, 6, 6: ... circa messem agrestem ...
  20. ↑ Friedrich Lotter : Displacements of peoples in the Eastern Alps-Central Danube region between antiquity and the Middle Ages. (375-600) . de Gruyter, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-11-017855-9 , pp. 45-46.
  21. ↑ Christine van Hoof: Valentinian I. (375-392) . In: Manfred Clauss (Ed.): The Roman Emperors. 55 historical portraits from Caesar to Justinian. 4th edition, Beck, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-406-60911-4 , p. 346.
  22. ^ Sándor Soproni: A late Roman military station in the Sarmatian region. In: Eric Birley , Brian Dobson, Michael Jarrett (Eds.): Roman frontier studies 1969, Eighth International Congress of Limes Research . University of Wales, Cardiff 1974. pp. 197-203; here: pp. 200 and 203 (footnote).
  23. ↑ a b János Szilágyi: Labeled and labeled bricks . In: Acta archaeologia Musei nationalis hungarici 16, 1957, pp. 7-17; here: p. 16.
  24. ^ Barnabás Lőrincz : A későrómai hídfőállások bélyeges téglái Valeriában. In: Attila Gaál (Ed.): Pannoniai kutatások. A Soproni Sándor emlékkonferencia előadásai (Bölcske, 1998. October 7th) . Szekszárd 1999, pp. 53-68.
  25. ↑ János Szilágyi: Inscriptiones tegularum Pannonicarum . DissPann II. Budapest 1933, plate XXVIII, pp. 53-58; Barnabás Lőrincz: A későrómai hídfőállások bélyeges téglái Valeriában. In: Attila Gaál (Ed.): Pannoniai kutatások. A Soproni Sándor emlékkonferencia előadásai (Bölcske, 1998. October 7th) . Szekszárd 1999, pp. 53-68 (footnote 12).
  26. ↑ Rezsõ Pusztai: Ad Flexum (Mosonmagyaróvár) . In: Jenő Fitz (ed.): The Roman Limes in Hungary. István Király Múzeum, Székesfehérvár 1976, p. 15.
  27. ^ Karlheinz Dietz : A 'Carnuntine' bronze stamp from Dalmatia . In: Ekkehard Weber, Gerhard Dobesch (ed.): Roman history, antiquity and epigraphy (= archaeological-epigraphic studies , 1), Austrian Society for Archeology, Vienna 1985, p. 129.
  28. ^ Sándor Soproni: Limes Sarmatiae . In: A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2, 1969, Szeged 1969, pp. 117-133.
  29. ↑ Ursula-Barbara Dittrich: The economic structure of the Quadi, Marcomanni and Sarmatians in the central Danube region and their trade relations with Rome . In: Munster contributions to ancient trading history 6,1 (1987), pp. 9-30; here: p. 25.
  30. ↑ Ursula-Barbara Dittrich: The economic structure of the Quadi, Marcomanni and Sarmatians in the central Danube region and their trade relations with Rome . In: Munster contributions to ancient trading history 6,1 (1987), pp. 9-30; here: p. 28.
  31. ↑ Angela Pabst : Speeches. Orationes (=  texts on research. Volume 53). Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1989, ISBN 3-534-02247-5 ; P. 353.
  32. ↑ Rosemarie Krämer: Dam and Dike . In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 5, de Gruyter, Berlin, New York 1984, ISBN 3-11-009635-8 , pp. 219-220.