Iatrus Castle

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kriwina Castle
Alternative name a) Iatrus ,
b) Iatrio ,
c) Latris ,
d) Latron
limes Mösischer Limes
section Route 3
Dating (occupancy) Constantine
a) 2nd half of 4th century
to 6th century
b) around AD 600
to 7th century
Type Equestrian or infantry fort
unit a) legio I Italica ,
b) cuneus equitum scutatorium ,
c) foederati  ?
size 2.5-3 ha
Construction Stone fort
State of preservation Numerous remains of walls from all construction periods, the wall and the interior buildings on the SE side are visible above ground, the foundation walls of the Principia have been preserved, the northern fort area largely removed by the Jantra
place Kriwina
Geographical location 43 ° 37 '54 "  N , 25 ° 33' 47"  E Coordinates: 43 ° 37 '54 "  N , 25 ° 33' 47"  E hf
Previous Legion camp Novae (west)
Subsequently Scaidava Castle (east)
Limes5.png
Novae and Iatro (top left), location on the Tabula Peutingeriana
Constantine I.
The Gothic Procession in Moesia and Thrace after the Battle of Adrianople (4th century)

Fort Iatrus was a Roman equestrian camp at the mouth of the Jantra into the Danube in the area of ​​the village Gradisto, Kriwina , Russe Oblast , in Bulgaria .

It is one of the best-researched Limes forts on the lower Danube. The camp of the early phase in particular is a good example of the symbiosis of traditional and newly developed structural features in late antique military installations as well as a focus for the radical changes in the final phase of the lower Danube Limes.

The castle was founded around 310/20 n. Chr., Was for 300 years part of the Danube limes and went through several periods of colonization and construction phases. In the course of the turbulent events of the Great Migration, it was transformed into a defensive village, as violent armed conflicts with barbaric invaders came more and more often on the border of the empire, as a result of which Iatrus was repeatedly destroyed, abandoned and then rebuilt. In the 7th century the Roman army finally gave up the castle, Slavs and Bulgarians founded a new settlement within the castle ruins, which was continuously inhabited until the 10th century.

The fort has given its name to the Yatrus Promontory , a peninsula in Grahamland in Antarctica , since 2010 .

Surname

The ancient name of the fort square is derived from the Jantra river . In addition, the name is also mentioned in ancient sources such as the Tabula Peutingeriana as Iatro , in a late Roman state almanac , the Notitia Dignitatum as Latris and by the geographer of Ravenna as Latron .

location

The excavation site and the village of Krivina are located on the right bank of the Jantra, about 2–3 km before its confluence with the Danube. For the location of the fort, the Roman architects selected an approx. 3–4 hectare large, flood-protected spur on the edge of the alluvial land zone, the slopes of which fall on almost all sides. The plateau also has a natural slope extending from the southwest to the northeast. In the late Roman period, this area was part of the Roman province of Moesia secunda (Upper Moesia ) - in what is now northern Bulgaria - which in turn was part of the diocese of Thrace.

function

The fort belonged to the surveillance area of ​​the legio I Italica , which had its headquarters in the legionary camp Novae , about 20 km upstream from Iatrus . The crew was primarily responsible for securing their section of the Mösian Danube Limes in the run-up to the eastern metropolis of Constantinople . The Jantra, which has its source in the Balkan Mountains, was navigable far into the province of Moesia inferior (Lower Moesia ), so monitoring its confluence with the Danube was essential for the Romans since invaders - especially the Goths , Huns , Slavs , Proto-Bulgarians and other migrant peoples - Time and again it was possible to invade the Eastern Roman Empire from the northeast across the Danube, in order to later settle there permanently. The military importance of its strategic position for the defense of Moesia II remained unbroken throughout its 300 years of existence. This also underlines the repeated mention of the base in the Notitia Dignitatum as castellum , as phrourion in Procopius and as polis (city) in the history of Theophylactus Simocatta .

Research history

So far, building remains of the fort from three centuries (310 / 20–600 AD) have come to light. Systematic excavations have been taking place in Iatrus since 1958 in collaboration with German scientists , initially by archaeologists from the former GDR, and since 1992 by the German Archaeological Institute . Since the 1950s, other specialists such as epigraphists , numismatists , archaeozoologists , archaeobotanists and geologists have also been involved in the excavations.

In the 1970s, German / Bulgarian cooperation was further intensified. In 1981 the excavations were largely stopped, but continued to a limited extent during the following decade by the Regional Historical Museum in Ruse . From 1992 to 2002, the Roman-Germanic Commission, in cooperation with the Archaeological Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia and the Museum in Russe, carried out archaeological excavations and site surveys every year.

The excavations were primarily intended to gather knowledge about late antique military sites on the lower Danube. The relatively well-preserved ruins allow the building history of the fort to be broken down into a total of four periods. In addition, investigations were carried out in the vicinity of the fort on the road network, settlement and funeral systems as well as general economic activities in a Limes fort of this size. In 24 excavation campaigns, 11 towers and the east gate or over half of the fort area could be archaeologically examined and observed.

development

Field inspections , aerial photographs and geophysical investigations revealed a dense settlement of the lowlands in the area of ​​the Jantra estuary that has persisted since the Neolithic . There are only sparse finds from the first centuries of Roman rule on the Jantra. Some wall remains made of stone and clay were found and gravestones from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD were discovered in the fort wall. Despite coin finds from the time of Aurelian , Probus and Diocletian , archaeologists have not yet been able to provide any evidence of an early / middle imperial fortification or settlement that preceded the late Roman fort.

Sergei Torbatov divided the period between the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 7th century - i.e. the period in which Iatrus was occupied - into a total of five periods in order to better illustrate the gradual change process of the fortresses on the lower Danube.

  • Period 1 covers the years between the late 3rd century and the late 4th century, when most of the forts on the Mösian Limes were modernized and reinforced.
  • Period 2 deals with the time of the complete collapse of the late Roman Danube Limes in the middle of the 5th century.
  • Period 3 he connects with the reorganization of the border defense under Emperor Anastasius and the final transformation into fortified fortified villages, which changed the Limes forts, but also the settlements far inland.
  • Period 4 includes the restoration of the Danube border under Justinian I.
  • Period 5 describes the renewed collapse of the border defense in the 580s and the final abandonment of the Danube border by the Byzantines in the 7th century.

Period 1

When the Roman army, administration and part of the civilian population evacuated the Dacia province , which had been hard-pressed by the Goths, on the orders of Emperor Aurelian between 270 and 275 AD, the part of the Danube adjacent to it also became the outer border of the empire again. The reactivated Danube Limes soon revealed its weaknesses. The rigid, linearly arranged chain of fortresses on the river bank was no longer able to cope with the onslaught of migrants and horsemen. Although the Mösian Limes comprised more than 40 forts, the barbarian tribes managed to break through it again and again. An improvement only set in when the emperors Diocletian and Constantine I were able to put the defense of the empire on a more solid basis through a new military organization and largely stabilized it. At the beginning of the 4th century AD Constantine had the lower Danube Limes again massively reinforced. For this purpose, numerous new forts and watchtowers had to be built on the southern bank of the Danube, or existing ones had to be renovated and modernized. Most of the new buildings were built between 310 and 320 AD, one of which was the Iatrus cavalry fort .

The early fort was only occupied for a few decades and should not have been used by the military for a long time after the cavalry troops had been withdrawn by Constantius II . The Persian campaigns by Constantius II and his successor Julian had weakened the defense of the lower Danube Limes considerably. In a speech by Themistius , the Limes is described as desolate. He complains that there are too few, dilapidated and poorly equipped forts with crews that are too small in number and also lacking discipline. The Goths, who settled north of the Danube, immediately took advantage of the weakness of the Roman border troops for extensive raids in the provinces of Lower Moesia. Only after long struggles were the Romans able to drive them out again and restore their supremacy in the region. Nevertheless, the pressure on the Danube border from the barbarian tribes continued to increase.

In the long run, the Roman strategists could therefore not do without a renewed occupation of the conveniently located fort site at the mouth of the Jantra. Either Iatrus - as a result of the defensive battles against the Goths, under Constantius II, his successor Julian, the reign of the Valens or in the late 4th century under Theodosius I - was occupied with federates as a new garrison. After the death of Theodosius I in 395, the Roman Empire finally split into two halves and Moesia II fell to the eastern part of the empire.

Period 2

From the first half of the 5th century, the greatest danger for the Romans on the lower Danube came from the rapidly expanding Huns under the leadership of Attila . Repeatedly they invaded the rich Eastern Roman provinces on the Danube - where they fell victim to almost 70 towns and forts near the border - and demanded ever higher tribute payments from the emperor in Constantinople. When Theodosius II (408-450) finally refused them, Attila retaliated by almost completely devastating the vicinity of the capital. Also Iatrus was there - like most military bases Moesia Secunda and neighboring provinces - burned down. As can be seen from the finds, the crew and civilian population evidently managed to get to safety in time. The last coins of this period were minted in the time of Theodosius II. After the recent destruction by the Huns, the fort was abandoned by its previous residents (end of construction period C). The province was slow to recover from this devastation.

Period 3

It was only under Emperor Anastasius (491-518) that the forts on the Danube were restored to a large extent - even if only in a makeshift manner - and given new garrisons. In Iatrus , however, compared to the structure of the first half of the 5th century, it seems to have been a very modest settlement with only a few inhabitants. The barbarian invasions did not subside, however, only 30 years after its reconstruction, the fort was again devastated. From the early 6th century Iatrus was mostly empty, only a small group of warriors and their families had made makeshift living in the castle ruins. There are no indications of the ethnic or social composition of the fort's inhabitants for this period; it was probably again a question of federates, especially the construction of the buildings erected after the destruction in the middle of the 5th century and the finds suggest this.

Period 4

After a fire in the early or middle of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian I (527-565) had the fort repaired again as part of his security program for the Danube border. The fact that Justinian included the phrourion Iatrus in his restoration program despite the scarce resources, speaks for the great importance of the fort as a military base even then. In addition to the towns and forts, all remaining settlements and villas were re-fortified, as can be seen from the writings of Prokop. Furthermore, simple dwellings for a small crew and a new church (see Basilica III) were built inside. Otherwise, the condition of the fort in the middle of the 6th century is likely to have generally corresponded to the image of the Limesorte on the lower Danube. In the course of the restructuring measures, however, it was not possible to increase the population of the Romanesque population on the Danube border, so the army, which was far too small, was unable to hold the forts, which had been recaptured with great difficulty.

Period 5

Between 598 and 602 the Limes on the lower Danube was finally overrun by Avars , Slavs and other foreign peoples, the Romans had to evacuate all of their remaining military bases between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains and retreat far to the south. The coins of the last Roman find layer in Iatrus were issued in 577/8 under Justin II . The place is mentioned again in Theophylactus Simocattas Historiae in which he reports on the invasion of the Avars in 600. Apart from Iatrus , 30 other places are mentioned in Simocatta's work. The area around the fort was the scene of clashes between Romans and Slavs during Maurikios' Balkan campaigns from 591 to 602. The generals Priskos and Petros used Iatrus - along with a few other fortresses - as a base of operations for their troop movements along the Danube. In April 598 another general, Komentiolos , marched north with his newly raised troops and reached the polis Iatrus on the seventh day . However, his contingent near the fort was defeated by the Avars when he tried to relieve the hard-pressed Priskos in Tomis . The Avars broke off the siege of Tomis and put Komentiolos to flight. They then advanced to the walls of Constantinople , where they suffered heavy losses due to the outbreak of a plague epidemic . Finally, they withdrew on assurance of annual tribute payments.

In the now completely defenseless border provinces, almost all of the remaining Roman settlements and fortresses were reduced to rubble one after the other, including Iatrus once more . In contrast to the Novae / Swishtov , which was conquered by the Slavs after 613 , Iatrus remained as a small Roman enclave during the Slavs' conquest of the Balkans until the invasion of the Proto- Bulgarians. The last novels of Iatrus were absorbed by the newly immigrated Slavs and Proto-Bulgarians in the course of the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarian people. The settlement, which is now predominantly Bulgarian, was inhabited until the late 10th century.

Fort

Excavation plan and construction phases of the fort from the 4th to the 6th century

According to the coins found, the fort was probably founded in the second decade of the 4th century during the joint reign of Constantine I and Licinius . 146 of them were from the early 4th century. The construction of the south wall is very similar to the west wall of Tropaeum Traiani in Adamklisi (RO). An inscription on its west gate tells of renovation measures under Constantine and Licinius, so with a probability bordering on certainty the south wall of Iatrus was also built during this time.

Judging by the brick stamps found in Iatrus , members of the Legion in Novae in particular were involved in its construction. After evaluating the stratigraphic observations, the archaeologists were able to distinguish between several construction phases:

  • Phase A: early 4th century to 360s,
  • Phase B: late 4th century to 410,
  • Phase C: after 410 to 440 years (destroyed by the Huns),
  • Phase D1: late 5th to early 6th century,
  • Phase D2: mid-6th century to around 600 AD (destroyed by the Slavs)

Today the Jantra flows in a loop just past the excavation site. Over the centuries, it has washed away about a third of the fort area, so that only 330 m of the original 500 m long defense can be detected. Of this remnant, mostly only the foundations remained, as their stone material was removed for the construction of today's Krivina.

The fort was partly still in the building tradition of the middle imperial period (interior development), but in its overall concept, the late antique modernizations in the fortress construction, which differed significantly from those of the 1st – 3rd centuries, were clearly evident. Century. The floor plan and course of the wall were no longer rigidly rectangular, but rather irregular (heptagon) and largely adapted to the topography of the surrounding area. The building scheme of period A shows a uniform plan that still takes military needs into account. Occasionally, similarities to the fort buildings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries can be seen, such as B. through the presence of the principia , a praetorium and barracks . The inner road network also showed a certain regularity.

From the second half of the 4th century AD, far-reaching renovations took place in Iatrus (so-called ruralization process ), which were probably connected with the stationing of federates (beginning of period B / C). As has often been observed on the Danube Limes, this fort had also largely changed into a civil oppidum with a village character towards the end of the 4th century , but still fulfilled a military function, as there were also two larger warehouses (Horreum) , which were presumably used for supply Mobile troop formations were used in the western part of the fort of the period B / C could be detected. At the same time as the warehouses, the first early Christian church was built in Iatrus (Basilica I). The classic administrative buildings and barracks, as well as the regular structure of the road network, had largely disappeared. As a substitute, smaller, individually designed buildings were built in which regular soldiers no longer lived and worked, but rather barbaric military farmers with their families.

After the complete destruction by the Huns, the fortress was obviously rebuilt in great haste and only sparingly (beginning of period D1). Completely new residential and commercial units were created over a layer of rubble up to 1 m thick. Horrea and Basilica I burned down again in the early 5th century, shortly afterwards the Basilica II was built in their place, the ruins of the warehouses were removed and then overbuilt with small residential and farm houses because the previous buildings were apparently so badly destroyed that they were could no longer be used (period D2). At the end of period D2, the fort is finally destroyed and then abandoned by its residents.

East gate

Findings plan Osttor, excavations 1958–1962

A novelty in late antiquity forts was that - of the four gates customary in early Roman forts - often only one was built in that was in a strongly secured position. In terms of its location, the east gate is comparable to the south gate of Fort Abrittus . Its construction was similar to that of walls and towers. From the gate the main street of the camp, the Decumanus maximus , led directly into the center of the camp.

The gateway (porta Praetoria) stood in a wedge-shaped wall indentation and was covered on its flanks by two neighboring U-towers (No. 8 and 9). Its dimensions were 9.45 m (N) × 9.2 m (OW). The fort gate was relatively narrow and probably closed off by a portcullis on the outside and a two-wing gate on the inside (each 3.77 m wide). A square propugnaculum ( gate chamber) with a side length of 5.5 m was located between the two gate openings . The passage was paved with pebbles that had been renewed several times.

Of the entire complex, only the swell stone with two hinged holes has been preserved today. At the beginning of the 5th century (period D), however, the street level was half a meter higher than the original threshold level at the inner passage (period A); a stone block in the interior of the gate, which is still in situ today, was covered by the later street level. At this point in time, the east gate was either no longer in use or was blocked. Possibly there was another passage elsewhere, perhaps a kind ( postern ), but this question could not be clarified due to the poor state of preservation of the facility.

Wall, moat and intermediate towers

The once 500 m long and massive defense was 8–10 m high and up to 3.5 m thick. The north wall and the north-western end of the south-western wall have been supported by undercutting in the Jantra over time and have now completely disappeared. The 1.5 m deep foundations consisted of roughly hewn limestone, connected with white mortar and stood on grown loess soil. Its outside (in places the wall is still over 2 m high) was faced with carefully smoothed cuboids, which are closely lined up in the stretcher truss bond. In some places they were connected by iron clips soldered with lead. On the inside, the facing consisted of smaller, approx. 0.5 m long and 0.25 cm high blocks arranged in a horizontal row. The inner filling of the wall consisted of an enplekton conglomerate .

117 m in front of the south wall, probes in 2000 also showed signs of a weir ditch.

The wall was reinforced at its front and at the corners by structurally identical and efficiently arranged, fan-shaped or semicircular, protruding towers (so-called U-towers or horseshoe towers), of which up to 11 are accepted on the wall sections in the south and east alone. Their wall thickness was an average of 3 m. The distance between them was 15.25 m - 16 m. On the south side - the most endangered section of the wall - there were 7 pieces, on the south-west or north-west wall no tower structures could be detected because the terrain here sloped steeply. In the center of the south wall was a 30 m × 50.1 m large, rectangular protruding bastion - or perhaps a monumental tower (No. 4) - with four supporting pillars inside, which probably once supported the intermediate floors and a tiled roof. At the front, the wall was made a little wider, at the back - in contrast to the horseshoe towers - it protrudes a little into the interior of the fort.

Interior development

Construction phase A shows a more strictly structured interior design that is planned and designed exclusively according to military-strategic aspects. In a later period (construction phase B-D), however, this dissolved completely and gave way to a looser and unregulated building scheme. Above all, the principia (staff building), the praetorium (commandant's residence) and the barracks were abandoned to decay or demolished.

4th century

If you turned south from the main road lined with colonnades (portico) , you came across a larger, elegantly furnished house, the Praetorium , which served as accommodation for the camp commandant. A small bathhouse (Thermae) stood right next to it, but it was by no means large enough to allow all soldiers stationed here to visit the baths. So far, no larger thermal baths have been excavated within the fortress wall. Other larger buildings, such as B. a parade hall (basilica) could not be found so far. The horses of the first occupation unit were housed inside the fort, probably near the gate. Since their stables (stabulum) were made of wood and clay, almost nothing of them remained. Crew barracks (Contubernia) could be detected behind the command building (Principia) . In the west they were joined by two smaller buildings on the so-called Object XXX (Tabernae) , all of which had the same floor plan. Since all of these buildings were separated by streets running along NS, the result was a homogeneously structured development from the fort gate to the Principia .

5th century

Floor plans of the basilica III, the praetorium and the annex of the basilica II

In the early 5th century Iatrus was transformed into a densely built-up oppidum , the inhabitants of which were able to supply themselves adequately with daily necessities, but were unable to create any additional prosperity (so-called subsistence economy ). During this time, differently sized, randomly laid out building complexes were built within the old, now repaired fortress walls, most of which served as living quarters, workhouses and storehouses. The organization of this new camp community evidently no longer required the traditional functional buildings of a Roman military camp, such as principia , praetorium or barracks. Most of them were therefore removed, and in some sections even the lowest foundation layers were removed. The colonnades on both sides of the main road had been partially demolished and built over. The structural changes during this time period (B / C) on the tabernae were particularly clear (see below).

The paved wall road (via sagularis) , which is important in the event of a defense, was now partially built over, and the remaining colonnades on the main camp road were gradually converted into closed rooms. The streets were no longer straight, but often had to change their direction because of the irregular development, and at the same time, free spaces kept opening up between these houses. Only the main camp road leading from the gate remained almost unchanged.

The development of Iatrus from the middle of the 5th century onwards resembled a barbaric settlement rather than a Roman military station. No house was any longer like the other. The windows were glazed due to the severe winter. The walls could even be built in one and the same room using very different construction techniques. Most of them consisted of a broken stone base bound in clay, on which sat timber-framed walls made of wood and air-dried clay bricks. There were also specimens that had been raised without an insulating stone base. Other buildings consisted entirely of mortar rubble in the classic manner. The walls were plastered with clay, more rarely with lime, plastered or whitewashed, the roofs were covered in Roman style with probably reused tile tiles ( Tegulae) and overlapping hollow tiles (Imbrices) . They weighed heavily on the outer walls, so additional support posts had to be drawn in for the roof structure in almost all rooms. As a rule, this type of construction did not allow the construction of multi-storey houses.

6th century

Prokopios of Caesarea reports that Justinian I had the fort walls restored. Of the construction work under his government (period D2), with the exception of Basilica III, only a few remains of poorly executed stone buildings and traces of primitive wood and clay huts could be detected. Whether the changes in the appearance of the settlement in period D2 were due to a change in population could not be clarified due to the poor state of preservation of the fort from this time. After the final withdrawal of the Romans, Slavs and Bulgarians built simple pit houses in the fort area.

Principia

Principia , floor plan and subsequent developments

The rectangular, 24.5 × 14.9 m large Principia were originally the most representative structure in Iatrus . However, their builders made them somewhat smaller and simpler than comparable examples from the early and middle imperial period. The walls were built of carefully hewn, white mortar blocks of limestone, plastered and in some cases even decorated with wall paintings. The staff building consisted of a walled and pillar walkway, 13.40 × 10.47 m large peristyle courtyard, through which the building could be entered from the Via principalis . From this courtyard, fortified with brick chippings, visitors came via one of three entrances, descending three steps, to the rectangular transverse hall (basilica) , which was 0.30 m lower, with its cantilevered roof, which in turn was closed on the west side by a semicircular apse , one of which was had an inner radius of 3.60 m and was 0.60 m above the level of the cross hall. The large wooden door wings of the transverse hall were decorated with bronze fittings and carvings. The raised apse had massive monolithic swelling stones facing the hall and a floor made of brick slabs. The inlet grooves visible in the swelling stones of the apse, which is probably used as a flag sanctuary (Aedes), could have belonged to a wooden balustrade, which was interrupted in the middle by an entrance that was accessible from the level of the transverse hall via a wooden staircase. It is also conceivable that instead of a wooden balustrade, a metal grille had separated the flag sanctuary from the transverse hall. In the rubble was still an overturned stone altar, which was dedicated to protective gods. To the right of it stood a stone pedestal almost as high as a man, on which the portrait of the reigning emperor was once placed. When there was a change of power in Constantinople, it could therefore be swapped again quickly. A limestone eagle sculpture (Aquila) may also have been placed above the main gate to the Principia .

The southern row of the tabernae (see below) continued with two more rooms and the northern with three rooms on the Principia and ended flush with the line of the western wall (without apse). Although these rooms were not accessible from the transverse hall or the courtyard of the Principia - since no signs of doorsteps could be found - it is assumed that here possibly the office rooms (Officium) of the camp administration or the armory (Armamentaria) or the Garrison treasury could have been housed.

After the cavalry left, the building was abandoned and fell into disrepair. Towards the end of the 4th century, the room subdivisions were largely eliminated, which is a further indication that it was obviously no longer used by the military administration. Most of the pillars in the forecourt had also been removed, so there was no canopy either. All that was left was an open space surrounded by the outer walls, which had completely lost its representative character. According to the finds, a primitively equipped metalworking workshop was temporarily set up here. After they were exposed, the foundations of the Principia were restored and preserved.

Praetorium

Of the three-winged peristyle house (mill house) of the camp commandant (period B / C), only the four pillar foundations of the inner courtyard and several swelling stones of double-winged hall doors can be seen today. The inscription on a fragment of a building inscription found nearby suggests that this structure was built between 340 and 350 AD (period A).

The facility was built over the remains of a previous building. The foundations consisted of stones set in even layers, only roughly hewn and bound in clay. Almost nothing of the rising masonry remained. It had an almost rectangular floor plan and its long sides were oriented roughly east-west (dimensions: 29.30 m × 27.20 m × 18.80 m × 17.80 m). The five larger rooms of the building surrounded a peristyle courtyard to the west, north and east. Their entrance thresholds were made of carefully hewn limestone blocks. The doors to the living rooms were opened inwards. The peristyle passage had a floor made of mortar plaster, which could also be observed in a similar form in front of the south facade of the Praetorium. In the central courtyard there was a water basin (impluvium) , presumably decorated with plants and sculptures , which was fed by rainwater from the roof and then drained off again via a canal.

The building only served as the commandant's accommodation for about 30 years (end of period A, late 4th century). At the beginning of Period B / C, the building was finally demolished and rebuilt on its foundations. The walls consisted of roughly trimmed stones bonded with mortar, which were leveled with broken bricks. From a height of 1.60 m, mud bricks were used to continue building. The floors consisted of rammed earth. The roof consists of a tiled wooden structure that was held together with iron nails. Courtyard entrances and double doors were partially bricked up. A bronze smith set up his workshop in one room; in another (room 1) a hoard of 260 bronze coins from the early 5th century (Valentinian I to Honorius / Arkadius) was found in a clay vessel. Presumably the building partially burned down in the early 5th century. In room 2, more than 100 bronze coins, charred remains of grain, a hand turning mill stone and two shield bosses were found scattered on the floor. The water basin was obviously destroyed in the early Middle Ages by excavating a pit in which a drying oven for grain was built.

Barracks

In the western section of the excavation site, the accommodation of the occupation (period A) was found in 1992. The buildings were elongated and consisted of two rows of roughly equal rooms. A head building - as is still the case with barracks from the Middle Imperial period - was missing. The assignment as barracks could not be clearly confirmed due to the high degree of destruction, but it is very likely.

Tabernae

Between 1992 and 1996 a multi-phase building complex (50 × 20 m) with a floor area of ​​approx. 1000 m² was discovered in the fort, which was rebuilt four times (also object XXX). It was north of Via praetoria and reached just under the gate area. To the east it bordered the inner Wallstrasse, the Via sagularis , directly in front of the fort gate, to the west and north streets also ran past the building.

In period A it probably consisted of 28 rooms of almost the same size, which were laid out in two rows (longitudinally west-east). The southern rooms opened onto the colonnade accompanying the main street of the warehouse. The rear rooms, which were only accessible from the north, probably served as craftsmen's quarters, office rooms for the camp administration or as other official offices. The entrances were laid out in the middle and were about 1.30 m wide. There was no possibility of passage between the individual rooms. The southern row of rooms continued with three more rooms on the Principia and closed off on the west wall (without apse). The foundations of the building complex consisted of rubble stones bonded with clay or mortar. Because of the architectural similarity of the individual rooms, there were probably small shops, workshops, equipment depots, storage depots, and the like. housed.

A large part of the tabernae was removed at the end of period A down to the lowest foundation layers and replaced by new buildings from period B / C, which were oriented towards the course of the main camp road. The result was a residential and commercial complex typical of that time, which was redesigned and expanded several times. While the original room layout was largely retained in the western part, an open inner courtyard was initially created in the central part, where a ceramic kiln and other handicraft production facilities were operated. However, these were given up after a short time and the courtyard was again dismantled to a closed space and now used as a storage room for grain. A room in the north-western part had also retained its structural integrity and - based on what was found - had been in use almost continuously since the early 4th century, but was completely destroyed by a fire at the end of Period B / C. In this fire layer, up to 1 m thick, there were - in addition to ceramic vessels, household utensils, fragments of a round oval marble table top and tools - gold coins from Valentinian II to Arcadius and Honorius . He may have played an important role for the camp residents.

At the end of period B / C, the building complex was completely destroyed by fire. At the end of the 5th century, only the north wing was largely rebuilt (period D1 '), but most of the rooms in the south wing were not. However, their intended function could no longer be determined. At the end of period D1 the building burned down again. The later developments of period D2 were no longer based on their predecessors.

Thermal baths

Sketch floor plan bathroom XVI
Sketch floor plan bathroom XXVII

Two smaller bathing facilities were uncovered in the fort area, which are recorded in the excavation plan as buildings XVI and XXVI. Since another building with very deep foundations was erected in the same place in period B, No. XVI was only very poorly preserved. Due to their modest size, they were probably private and only accessible to a small group of people (camp officers?).

Bathroom XVI

The bathing complex was built in period A and was in use between the years 320 and 350. Above ground, only the northern wall (1.50 m high) and a remnant of the apse remained . It belonged to the row type - frequently occurring on the Limes - and had an elongated rectangular floor plan with the dimensions of 8.30 m × 4.05 m. The walls, made of mortar and rubble, were 60 cm wide. The thermal baths could be entered from the west. Its three interiors were arranged in a west-east line, the easternmost was closed by an apse. A smaller (2 m × 2.60 m) and a slightly larger (2 m × 2.85 m) room were connected to it. No other rooms could be discovered. Between the first two bathrooms there was a 35 cm wide, brick-vaulted passage for the hot air of the hypocaust heater. The height between the heating duct and the floor was probably 80 cm. The hypocaust pillars were made of fired rectangular and round bricks. The pillar floors were paved with rubble stones. When it was uncovered, it was still covered with a 2 to 3 cm thick layer of ash and charcoal, as the praefurnium of the thermal baths was once located here .

Bath XXVI

This spa (two phases) was still in good shape relative and part of a complex of the entire southern front of the in period B peristyle occupied. The 5.04 m × 4.20 m bathroom was located right next to a larger house, also equipped with hypocaust heating. In the 6th century it was extended a little to the north. In the corner between the two extensions there was a 6.2 mx 4.2 m work yard that could be entered from the east side. The heating material for the praefurnium could be pushed through an 85 cm wide opening. The walls were made of mortared rubble and bricks. In the south and east they were preserved up to a height of 2 m.

The entrance to the thermal baths was in the east. The interior was divided into two elongated, 2.15 m and 1.45 m × 3.40 m measuring rooms (west, east). The eastern one presumably also served as a changing room ( apodyterium ) as no signs of a wooden construction or similar could be found in front of it. The apsidal sweat bath ( sudatorium ) was located directly above the praefurnium . They were originally heated by hypocausts, but they were removed in ancient times. The walls were probably clad in tegulae mammate , flat bricks with tenons at the back. The formation of condensation water should be prevented by the cavity between the brick and the stone wall. The rooms were probably roofed with a barrel vault, the height of which from Suspendura to the apex was about 5 m.

In the south wall a vaulted, fired flat brick, 31–40 cm wide and 70–74 cm high, was installed. It was part of the eastern hypocaust and consisted of particularly heat-resistant black granite on the sides. A second passage was in the dividing wall of the two inner pillars, but only one foundation block remained. The apse-shaped praefurnium with eight brick-built hypocaust pillars was added to the outside of the south wall . At the apex of the furnace room a 36 cm wide channel reached into the interior of the bath. The stove could also be loaded with longer logs and branches. The floor between the heating chamber and the western pillar room behind it was of different heights to prevent the penetration of soot and ash into the hypocaust. Hot air and exhaust gases were not diverted upwards, but instead moved from the praefurnium into the western pillar space, then through the small passage into the eastern one and returned to the open air at the southern outlet. In this way, a gradual warming of the bathrooms was achieved.

Nothing remained of the bathing pools, canals and other systems for water treatment. Only a breakthrough for a clay pipe in the east wall, probably the drain for the used water, was still visible.

Warehouses

Findings from Horreum II

In addition to the first residential and commercial buildings for single families, two large storage buildings were built ( Horreum I and II), where, in addition to food supplies, various military equipment and items of equipment, both for the occupation and for supplying or supplementing troop units passing through, were held. Such depots were usually under the supervision of the provincial administration. Their remains were excavated in the western section, on the former barracks district of period A.

The smaller, two-aisled Horreum I lies with its northern narrow side directly on the bank of the Jantra. It is dated to the late 4th century (period B) and was rebuilt in the early 5th century (period C). In the east there was an extension extending the full length of the building, which was accessible from three sides and was made of stone at least up to the top of the foundation. The main entrance was in the middle. A stylobate wall ended horizontally with the screed floor and probably also supported wooden pillars. The extension was probably covered with a sloping canopy. To the northeast of Horreum I, the excavator suspects that there is still a storage area for the temporary storage of supplies brought from the river bank. Two smaller buildings erected in period B delimited this square to the south and east and possibly housed the administration of the warehouses. The second - somewhat larger - also two-aisled Horreum II was located directly on the SW Wall (so-called Sector IX). This zone is not accessible due to the deposition of excavation debris.

Basilica I-III

A total of three Christian basilicas were found in the Iatrus of the late period. The changing orientation of the church foundations to the east was based on the sunrise at the time of the start of construction. This also results in the slight shift in axis of Basilica III compared to its predecessor buildings, as construction began in a different time of the year.

In the 5th century, what was initially only a small basilica formed the architectural and spiritual center of the civil settlement within the wall ring (basilica I). When it soon fell victim to a fire, a new church was quickly built on its ruins, even larger and better equipped than its predecessor (Basilica II). An extra wing with a sacristy , baptistery and parish rooms was added to the new church , which speaks for a prosperous Christian community. Like the rest of the fort, the entire church complex perished in the Huns' storm of the 40s of the 5th century. The Basilica III was built in the time of Justinian, d. H. built around the middle of the 6th century. Their foundations were 3 m deep and consisted of mortared limestone. It was much larger than the basilicas I-II and dominated the poor dwellings surrounding them on the fort area of ​​the last settlement period.

Warehouse streets

As soon as one had passed the fort gate, one stepped into an open space, from which several streets led off. To the right and left of it was a wide paved path, Wallstrasse or via sagularis , which ran along the inside of the fortress wall so that it and the towers could be accessed quickly and unhindered in the event of an alarm.

A narrow gravel path branched off at an acute angle and led to the crew quarters. If you turned to the left you came to the 115 m long and 7 m wide main road (via praetoria) , which could also be used by carts and trucks. The pedestrians could stroll or rest under the porticoed halls on both sides of the street and were thus shielded from rain and wind, but also from the burning summer heat in these latitudes. From here one could get into the numerous small shops, workshops, clerks and offices or cookshops. However, these colonnades only existed during the first settlement period A.

The main street of the camp was crossed at right angles by two small and narrow streets. In an emergency, they could also be used to reach the battlements of the fortress wall and the horseshoe towers. To get to the areas behind, however, you had to go back to a cross street and bypass the center in a large arc.

If you had reached the back of the command building on this way, you were standing on a street that also led directly to the fortress wall and a bastion. Beyond this were the barracks, which extended to the end of the fort, where the terrain then sloped steeply towards the river.

Small canals for water pipes were found under the pavement of the main and some secondary roads; House pipes, public wells or latrines have not been discovered.

garrison

The following crew units are known for Iatrus :

Time position Troop name comment
early 4th century AD legio prima Italica (first legion of the Italians) The Legion (or a vexillation ) was mainly involved in the construction of Iatrus. The roof, wall and floor tiles found in Iatrus also come from the military brickwork in Novae, their headquarters.
Brick stamp of the Legio I Italica from Novae
until the middle of the 4th century AD cuneus equitum scutatorum (a formation of mounted shield carriers) The first long-term crew stationed here consisted of a cavalry unit of around 500 men , which had probably been detached from the I. Italica. In the Notitia Dignitatum they are mentioned in the troop list of the military commander responsible for this province, the Dux Moesiae secundae , but without giving the rank of their commanding officer. However, these horsemen were probably withdrawn as early as the 50s of the 4th century for a campaign by Constantius II against the Persians .
Late antique riding spurs from Iatrus (4th – 5th centuries)
from the late 4th century AD foederati ( mercenary ) When Emperor Valens was crushed by the Gothic tribal leaders Alatheus and Saphrax near Adrianople (today Edirne ) in 378 , his successor Theodosius I was forced to grant the Goths marauding through Moesia and Thrace the right to settle within the empire, protection money in the form of To pay gold coins, to provide them with food and equipment and to guarantee them extensive autonomy (foedus) . In return, the new allies undertook to defend the imperial border against attacks by other barbarian tribes and to provide troop contingents for the army in the event of war. They were now officially considered members of the army and were thus obliged to the ruling Eastern Roman emperor and his military and provincial administration. However, these men only had to undergo military exercises from time to time and provide security guards in the camp and at the signal stations in the area and, if necessary, fend off intruders at the border section they were monitoring. In between, they could largely devote themselves to their civilian activities. One group of these federates was probably assigned to Iatrus as a settlement.
Sketch of the late Roman officer's helmet from Iatrus (4th century)

Vicus

During site inspections it was found that the fort was surrounded by a civilian settlement ( vicus ) in the periods A - B / C , which probably had to be abandoned because of the Hun invasions in the 5th century. Its residents probably fled behind the walls of the fort. Due to an accumulation of ceramic finds from this time, approx. 50 m in front of the east gate, and the discovery of a quarry stone wall bound with mortar, the majority of its area is assumed to be under today's Krivina.

population

Even if the families of the soldiers stayed in the walled area in the early days of the fort, they must have been housed separately from their men in the northern part of the fort, which is no longer preserved today. It is more likely, however, that most of them lived outside the fortress walls in a vicus . The finds of some gold coins in the tabernae led the excavator Gerda von Bülow to assume that the fort could have been occupied by the above Gothic federates in the 5th century. The total of eight gold coins were minted between 378 and 395 AD and probably hoarded as a financial reserve for times of need. Even for some weapons, pieces of jewelry or pottery, a fairly precise chronological classification and culture can be made by comparing them with other pieces. Lenticular beads made of marble or semi-precious stones were z. B. worn by some steppe peoples as an amulet on the sword hilt. The discovery of such pieces in Iatrus indicates that members of these tribes were also present here or that they hired themselves as soldiers in Roman services. In the vicinity of the fort even bones of camels appeared, which suggests that people from the North African or inner-Asian desert regions also stayed here at times.

Economy and nutrition

Examples of a transport and storage amphora, type I and IV from Iatrus

After the camp was founded in the 4th century AD, the military administration of the province provided the occupation with everything they needed via the Danube and the Limes Road. In the course of time, almost all consumer goods were increasingly produced by the fort residents themselves - probably also because of the frequent lack of supplies. Above all, however, the fort residents probably had to deal largely with their own agriculture, i.e. H. with arable and horticultural as well as with animal husbandry and breeding, keep afloat. When the men were not doing their prescribed guard duty, they worked in the fields and pastures. In the meantime, their wives were doing housework, kitchen work, and gardening.

But even in more peaceful times it was not possible to obtain all the necessary food and consumer goods on site. The grain grown in the surrounding fields was perhaps able to cover the daily needs of the fort population, but was hardly sufficient to keep additional reserves available for sieges or to supply troops passing through ( Comitatenses ) . These quantities could not be produced by them alone because of the relatively small number of fort residents. The shortages therefore had to be brought in from other parts of the empire. This centrally controlled supply system, which is typical of late antiquity, has also left its traces here archaeologically (see section Warehouses).

Craft

A wide variety of manual activities that occur in the house and yard were carried out here. Traces of a comb workshop from the 4th / 5th centuries. Century show that here z. B. Semi-finished single-row and double-row combs were produced. Findings of tools and slag suggest that iron ore was temporarily smelted in Iatrus and that pig iron of poor quality was produced in the process. Otherwise, roughly executed utility ceramics, device handles and other utensils made of wood and animal bones were made for personal use. Sheep wool was processed in-house and woven into fabrics and carpets. In Iatrus there are mainly spindle whorls and clay weights as evidence.

Agriculture

Sickles from the early 5th century found in Iatrus

The finds of the necessary tools and implements such as scythes, sickles, tree knives and cattle bells testify to the agricultural activity. In some individual rooms of the house complexes examined, traces of grain stocks were found - above all wheat, barley, but millet, rye and oats were also stored here. Various types of fruit, nuts, grapes, peas and other legumes were also part of the diet of the fort residents, such as pigs, cattle, sheep and goats, poultry, wild animals and, last but not least, fish from Jantra and Danube, as is shown by the findings of fishhooks and net sinkers.

import

Another indication of the regular supply of the fort from the outside are 6500 amphorae found in Iatrus . Similar to today's containers , these were burned in standardized sizes and were mainly used as transport packaging. They were regularly delivered to the fort filled with all sorts of foodstuffs and other consumer goods. According to the contents of papyri discovered in Egypt, a soldier's daily ration was 3 pounds in late antiquity. Bread, 2 lb. Meat, 3 sext. Wine and 1/8 sext. Oil. Later on, such amphorae were mostly used a second time in households as storage vessels. Their percentage of the total finds was for the

  • Period A: 28%,
  • Period B: 35%,
  • Period C: 35%,
  • Period D: 37%.

They can be divided into three main types with six design forms. Type I transported grain, Type II wine and Type III oil. There are very few examples of locally produced amphorae specifically designed for use as storage vessels. Due to their flat bottoms, these could stand upright in contrast to most of the transport amphorae found in Iatrus with their rounded bottoms or tapered pedestals in order to be able to stack them on ships or wagons in a stable and space-saving manner. The majority of such amphorae came from distant regions, in the case of the specimens from Iatrus mainly from the eastern Mediterranean coasts, Asia Minor and North Africa. Their shapes have changed only slightly during the almost 300 years of the fort's existence. After evaluating the findings, it was found that wine and oil deliveries increased in the period investigated, while the supply of grain decreased more and more. The archaeologists explained this fact with the withdrawal of the regular limitanei and their replacement by an increased number of Germanic mercenaries and even later by allied Goths (328 AD). The Gothic Foederati were largely self-sufficient, as the changes in the settlement pattern in period C show. Obviously, the required grain was produced on site to compensate, which would also explain the increased occurrence of storage vessels (amphora type I) from period B. This was not possible with wine because its cultivation was too maintenance-intensive and required specialists with years of experience. In the 6th century AD, the grain deliveries increased again, which is probably related to the reconstruction program under Justinian I. The supply of basic food remained (according to evidence of the finds) relatively intact in the period between the 4th and 6th centuries AD, which - despite all the difficulties - speaks for the good functioning of the military organization on the Limes.

Inscriptions

Sketch of the building inscription from the 4th century

Since this is a late antique complex with a military-rural character, the epigraphic yield was very low. Most of the inscriptions date back to the time before the fort was built and are likely to have come here as secondary building material ( Spolie ). Mainly stamped bricks of the legio I Italica , the Rumorid (ius) and the Gemel (us or linus ) were found, which may have held the office of dux Moesiae secundae in the Valentine period . Novae is assumed to be the production site , but it cannot be ruled out that a previously unexplored early / middle imperial fort or settlement existed here.

In 1997 a stamp was found reused in the 5th century with the name of Frig (eridus) du [x] , which could throw light on the Gothic War of the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens (364–378). At the request of the Eastern Emperor, the Western Emperor Gratian (375–383) had sent one of his most capable military leaders, Frigeridus , with an elite unit to the Diocese of Thrace. When the brick was made and whether it has anything to do with the fighting in 377 remains uncertain. However, it is very likely that it confirms the presence of a Frigeridus dux in the province of Moesia secunda .

A fragmented inscription has been known from the late antique fort itself since 1993. It should be a homage to the emperors Constans and Constantius II on a statue base or building inscription, a so-called mensa sacra which was made around 340-350. The three-line inscription is carved into a 56 × 28 × 13 cm fragment of a limestone block, to the left of the first line there are traces of a hedera . 25 letters are still legible:

  • Line 1: SALVIS
  • Line 2: CONSTANTIO E
  • Line 3: AVGG BO REI

According to Klaus Wachtel, the missing parts of the inscription are as follows:

Salvis [dd (ominis) nn (ostris)] Constantio et [Constante] Augg (ustis duobus) bo [n] o rei [publicae natis] [....]

The remaining part of the inscription was lost, which is why it is difficult to understand for which event it was made. The formula salvis dominis nostris in particular speaks in favor of a building inscription, as it occurs frequently in this context for the 4th century. Which building of the fort it once belonged to remains in the dark.

Excavation finds

During the excavations in Iatrus, very few jewelry or elaborately designed everyday objects came to light. If anything, they were mostly older specimens that had probably been kept as heirlooms or iron reserves. Only sparse remnants of the house inventory of the fort residents have survived, as they were predominantly made of wood and most of them were probably completely burned during the constantly recurring raids by the barbarians. When the houses were uncovered, only objects such as B. oil lamps, most of them in the simplest execution made of clay, only very few made of valuable bronze as well as finer utility ceramics (wine cans, cups, mugs, plates, bowls, individual items of jewelry, coins, etc.). Such objects were most likely to be kept in the representative rooms of the houses. In other places the excavators came across stoves, storage vessels, coarse-tone pots, tools and charred grain that was once stored in crates, boxes, sacks or barrels and separated according to type. This is probably the inventory of kitchen, storage and workshop rooms. A pear-shaped jug with a slender neck found in Iatrus is a good example of the so-called gray-toned turntable ceramic that is widespread on the Danube and is often referred to as "federate ceramic" by experts. The goods traceable from the late 3rd to the middle of the 5th century can be found in almost all Roman Limes forts. A bronze capsule of Iranian origin found in Iatrus appeared exclusively in the women's graves of nomads during the Migration Period.

In 1952 the fragment of a round sculpture (62 mm long, 20 mm thick), which was carved from a bovine bone, came to light. Presumably it dates from the time of the Huns' invasions at the beginning of the 5th century. The shape of the carving was dictated by the natural growth of the bone. A sea monster rears up on a fluted round plate and, supported on two front paws, winds its loaf of fish upwards. The naked abdomen and legs of a person protrude from the wolf-like mouth, which is reinforced with mighty fangs. The upper part of the sculpture is closed by the fan-shaped incised caudal fin. There are two holes between the paws of the monster, presumably they were used to attach the ears that are no longer available today. The lower part of the carving is laced and notched, closed by a bell-shaped dome (diameter 22 mm), which ends in six small, differently broken cones. Two of these pins are profiled. The sculpture almost certainly represents an event in the Old Testament legend of Jonah , the entanglement of Jonas by ketos . The Jonas story was very often used as a motif in Sepukral art of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Militaria

Bronze eagle buckle from Iatrus (5th - 6th centuries)

Judging by the finds in the grave fields, most of the warriors were buried in the costumes of the late Roman Limitanei . Belt sets with rectangular buckles and hangers adorned with animal heads were found in the graves. Usually propeller-shaped fittings were riveted to the belt. Silver-plated or gold-plated onion-head fibulae found were considered badges of rank in the late Roman army. They appeared at the end of the 4th century and remained in use in military dress until the 5th century. A spangenhelm made of gilded copper sheet found in Iatrus possibly belonged to an Ostrogoth officer or perhaps even to the commandant of the fort himself. The typical weapons of the late Roman troops (long swords, spear and arrowheads) were found in Iatrus of the period B / C. Specimens of double-edged swords with copper pommel and elongated, slender blade also found here were widespread in the Black Sea region and on the Volga ; they probably came to Iatrus with the Huns . This also includes two curved, single-edged short swords (so-called saxes ) used by nomad warriors on horseback, which originally came from the Central Asian steppes. A nephrite belt buckle also found in the fort could also have reached the Jantra with the Hunnic horsemen. Nephrite deposits are mainly found in the Tienschan and Lake Baikal .

Notes and whereabouts

Most of the finds from the fort are now kept and exhibited in the Ruse Regional Historical Museum. From Sofia, 275 km away, there is a regular train connection via Gorna Orjahovica to Svishtov or Ruse. There are regular buses between these two cities, which also go via Krivina. The excavation site is in the west of Krivina and can be visited free of charge. Due to the currently discontinued excavations, wall remains and search cuts are heavily overgrown by vegetation in summer.

Monument protection

The facilities are ground monuments within the meaning of the Act for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Museums from 2007. Research and targeted collection of finds without the approval of the National Institute for Cultural Monuments and the National Council for the Conservation of Cultural Monuments are a criminal offense.

literature

  • Burkhard Böttger : Dipinti from Iatrus. Late antique amphora inscriptions as an economic historical source. In: Klio . Volume 63, 1981, pp. 511-525.
  • Burkhard Böttger, Gerda Sommer von Bülow, Sven Conrad: Iatrus-Krivina. Late antique fortifications and early medieval settlement on the lower Danube. Volume 6. Results of the excavations 1992–2000. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2007, ISBN 978-3-8053-3859-2 (Limes research. Volume 28).
  • Burkhard Böttger: The food supply of the Lower Mossian fort Iatrus (4th – 6th century) , in: Hermann Vetters, Manfred Kandler (ed.): The Roman Limes in Austria , Volume 36/2, = files of the 14th boarding school. Limes Congress 1986 in Carnuntum , Verlag der Österr. Academy of Sciences, Vienna 1990, pp. 925–929.
  • Burkhard Böttger: The ceramic finds from Fort Iatrus and their developmental connection with the late antique ceramics of the Balkan countries. In: Klio. Volume 48, 1967, pp. 251-314.
  • Gerda von Bülow: To the economic situation of the fort Iatrus in the early 5th century. In: Klio . Vol. 63, 1981, pp. 503-510.
  • Gerda von Bülow: Functional determination of archaeologically proven structures by comparison and analogy. Two Horrea in the late antique Limes fort Iatrus. In: Scientific journal of the University of Rostock. G.-Rh. 37, 1988/2, pp. 65-72.
  • Gerda von Bülow: The architectural complexes north of the via praetoria and the Principia (objects XVIII, XXIV, XXXI and XXXII). In: Iatus-Krivina . Volume 4. Berlin 1991, ISBN 3-05-000572-6 , pp. 125-144 and 145-149.
  • Gerda von Bülow: The late antique Iatrus fort on the Lower Danube Limes in Bulgaria. State and problems of exploration. In: Report of the Roman-Germanic Commission . Volume 75, 1994, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1995. pp. 5-22.
  • Gerda von Bülow: The development of the settlement image of Iatrus in the period B / C. In: Iatrus-Krivina . Volume 5. Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-05-002020-2 , pp. 29–53 (Studies on the history and culture of antiquity. Volume 17).
  • Gerda von Bülow: The settlement period D2 in Iatrus. In: Iatrus-Krivina . Volume 5. Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-05-002020-2 , pp. 61–66 (Studies on the history and culture of antiquity. Volume 17).
  • Gerda von Bülow: Iatrus. Late antique military camp at the Jantra estuary. 40 years of German-Bulgarian joint excavations, 1958–1998. Roman-Germanic Commission of the DAI, Frankfurt am Main 1998 (therein plans: fort (construction phases), praetorium, principia).
  • Gerda von Bülow, Alexandra Milceva: The Limes on the Lower Danube from Diocletian to Heraklios, lectures of the international conference Svistov, BG 1. – 5. September 1998. Nous publishing house, Sofia 1999.
  • Gerda von Bülow: Excavations in Iatrus (province of Moesia II, Northern Bulgaria) between 1992 and 2002. A preliminary assessment. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIX International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003 . Univ. of Pécs, Pécs 2005, ISBN 963-642-053-X , pp. 735-739.
  • Gerda von Bülow: The Fort of Iatrus in Moesia Secunda: Observations in the Late Roman Defensive System on the Lower Danube (Fourth-Sixth Centuries AD). In: Andrew G. Poulter (Ed.): The transition to late antiquity on the Danube and beyond . Oxford University Press 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-726402-7 , pp. 459-478 (Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 141).
  • Bernhard Döhle: To the late Roman military architecture. The Limes Fort Iatrus (Moesia Secunda). In: Archeologia. 40, 1989, pp. 41-54.
  • Bernhard Döhle: Two baths from the 4th century in the late Roman fort Iatrus. In: Jenő Fitz (ed.): Limes . Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1977, ISBN 963-05-1301-3 , pp. 427-431.
  • Gudrun Gomolka: The small finds from the Limes Fort Iatrus near Kriwina in Northern Bulgaria. Dissertation at Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg 1966.
  • Joachim Herrmann: Iatrus and the early history of Bulgaria. In: The ancient world. Volume 32, Issue 2, Berlin 1986, pp. 69-77.
  • Iatrus Krivina . Volume 2. Results of the excavations 1966–1973. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1982 (writings on the history and culture of antiquity).
  • Iatrus Krivina . Volume 5. Studies on the history of Fort Iatrus (research status 1989). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-05-002020-2 (Writings on the history and culture of antiquity. Volume 17).
  • Ralf Peter Märtin: The principle of forward defense. The Limes in Dacia. In: Gisela Graichen (Ed.): Limes, Rome's border wall against the barbarians . S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt / M. 2009, ISBN 978-3-502-15186-9 , pp. 337-338.
  • Miroslava Mirkovic: Roman cities and fortresses on the Danube, files of the reg. Conference Beograd 16. – 19. Oct. 2003. Filozofski Faculty, Kompromiss-Design Verlag, Beograd 2005.
  • Klaus Wachtel: On the current state of research on the Iatrus fort excavation. In: Actes du IX e Congrès international d'études sur les frontières romaines, Mamaïa, 6-13 September 1972. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1974, pp. 137ff.
  • Michael Whitby: The Emperor Maurice and his Historian - Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare . Oxford 1988.
  • Teofil Ivanov: The newly discovered third basilica in Iatrus-Krivina. Late antique fortifications and early medieval settlement on the lower Danube. Vol. 1. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1979, pp. 27-33.
  • Teofil Ivanov: Excavations in the Iatrus Castle (Moesia Inferior) in the years 1958–1962 in: Studies on the military borders of Rome. Lectures of the 6th International Limes Congress in Germany , Böhlau Verlag Cologne Graz 1967.
  • Teofil Ivanov: The fortress wall of the Iatrus Castle. In: Klio . Volume 47, 1966, pp. 23-56.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Notitia Dignitatum orr. 40, 8.
  2. ↑ 4, 7.
  3. ^ Theofil Ivanov: 1967, p. 153.
  4. ↑ Aed. 4, 7
  5. ↑ Andrew Poulter: 2007, p. 474.
  6. ↑ Teofil Ivaniv 1967, p. 153.
  7. ↑ Poulter / Bülow: 2007, p. 463.
  8. ↑ Sergei Torbatov: 2002, p. 423.
  9. ↑ Sergei Torbatov, 2002, pp. 412-421.
  10. ↑ Sergei Torbatov: 2002, pp. 408-433.
  11. ↑ Sergei Torbatov: 2002, pp. 425 and 443.
  12. ↑ Sergei Torbatov: 2002, pp. 426-430.
  13. ↑ Sergei Torbatov: 2002, p. 431.
  14. ↑ Ralf Peter Märtin: 2009, pp. 336–337.
  15. ↑ Themistios or 10, 135 d; Patsch (note 4) p. 41.
  16. ↑ Andrew Poulter: 2007, p. 468.
  17. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 1999, p. 163.
  18. ↑ Prokop, de aed. IV 4.
  19. ↑ Miroslava Mirkovic: 2005, p. 19.
  20. ↑ Poultier / Bülow: 2007, p. 472.
  21. ↑ Historiae: 7, 2, 16 and 13.9
  22. ↑ Andrew Poulter, 2007, p. 463.
  23. ^ Teofil Ivanov: 1967, p. 155.
  24. ↑ Gerda v. Bülow: 1999, p. 155, Burkhard Böttger: 1986, p. 925
  25. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 1999, p. 155.
  26. ^ Andrew Poulter: 2007, p. 472.
  27. ^ Teofil Ivanov: 1967, p. 155.
  28. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 737.
  29. ^ Teofil Ivanov: 1967, p. 154.
  30. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 736.
  31. ^ Teofil Ivanov: 1967, p. 155.
  32. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 1999, p. 163.
  33. ^ Gerda von Bülow: The fort of Iatrus in Moesia II: Observations on the late Roman Defense System of the lower Danube (5th – 6th centuries AD). In: Andrew Poultier (Ed.): The transition to late antiquity on the Danube and beyond . Oxford 2007, pp. 463-466 (Proceedings of the British Academy 141).
  34. ^ Rumen Ivanov: On the question of the planning and architecture of the Roman military camp. In: Bulgarian Historical Review. Volume 21, Issue 1, 1993, p. 8.
  35. ^ Bernhard Döhle: On the late Roman military architecture. The Limes Fort Iatrus (Moesia Secunda). In: Archeologia. 40, 1989, p. 51.
  36. ↑ a b c Bernhard Döhle: Observations on the development and construction sequence in the W section of Iatrus (periods A – D). In: Gerda von Bülow, Alexandra Milceva: The Limes on the lower Danube from Diocletian to Heraklios . Sofia 1999, pp. 141-150.
  37. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 736.
  38. ↑ Dimitar Stancev: The Praetorium of Fort Iatrus, preliminary report. 1999, pp. 151-154.
  39. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 736.
  40. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 736.
  41. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: The development on the north side of via praetoria in Iatrus. 1999, pp. 155-163.
  42. ↑ Bernhard Döhle: 1977, pp. 427-428
  43. ↑ Bernhard Döhle: 1977, pp. 428-432
  44. ↑ Andrew Poultier: 2007 S. 472nd
  45. ↑ Cf. also Tadeusz Sarnovski: The legio I Italica and the lower Danube section of the Notitia Dignitatum. In: Germania 63 1/1985, pp. 107-127.
  46. ↑ Notitia Dignitatum orientis: XXXX, 8.
  47. ↑ See also Tadeusz Sarnovski: The legio I Italica and the lower section of the Danube of the ND. In: Germania 63, 1, 1985, pp. 107-127.
  48. ↑ Dietrich Hoffmann: The late Roman movement army and the Notitia Dignitatum. Volume 1, Düsseldorf 1969, pp. 464-468; Volume 2, Düsseldorf 1970, pp. 192-194.
  49. ^ Gerda von Bülow: 2003.
  50. ↑ Gerda von Bülow: 2003, p. 737.
  51. ↑ E. Schönert-Geiß: Die Fundmünzen v. Krivina. In: Iatrus-Krivina I , Berlin 1979, pp. 173–174, cat. No. 1-8.
  52. ↑ Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs: Roman Limes fort on the middle and lower Danube in the light of East Germanic and equestrian nomadic finds. In: Attila and the Huns . Theiss, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-8062-2114-5 , p. 209.
  53. ↑ Burkhard Böttger: 1990, pp. 926-929
  54. ↑ Klaus Wachtel, in: Iatrus Krivina IV. P. 209 with notes 11 and 23.
  55. ↑ See Klaus Wachtel, Valeria Nadjenova, in: Archeologija 26, Sofia 1984, p. 43f.
  56. ^ Klaus Wachtel: Frigeridus dux. In: Chiron. Vol. 30 (2000), pp. 905-914, here: p. 911.
  57. ↑ AE 1999, 1339 .
  58. ^ Klaus Wachtel: Fragment of a building inscription from the years 340/250, found in the Iatrus Castle. In: Bülow / Milciva: The Limes on the lower Danube from Diocletian to Heraclios . Sofia 1999, pp. 195-199.
  59. ↑ Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs: 2007, p. 209.
  60. ↑ Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs: A bone carving depicting Jonas from the Itarus Limes Fort near Krivina (Northern Bulgaria). In: Researches and Reports. Volume 22, 1982, pp. 199-205.
  61. ↑ Jonah 2,1  EU .
  62. ↑ Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs: 2007, p. 214.