Small fort Tetrapyrgium

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Small fort Tetrapyrgium
Alternative name Tetrapyrgium
limes Limes Arabicus
section Strata Diocletiana
Dating (occupancy) at the earliest Constantinian until around 580 AD
Type Small fort (Quadriburgus)
size 38.2 × 37.2 m (= 0.10 ha)
Construction Stone, adobe
State of preservation current condition unknown; buried under sand before 1992;
only the remains of the camp village were partially visible
place Qusair as-Saila
Geographical location 35 ° 48 '5.2 "  N , 38 ° 48' 45.9"  E
height 302  m
Previous Legion camp Sura (northwest)
Subsequently Resafa (south)
The small fort Tetrapyrgium according to the excavation findings until 1994.

The small fort Tetrapyrgium was a Roman garrison which, as a border fortress in late antiquity, was responsible for guarding a section of the Strata Diocletiana in the Roman province of Syria Euphratensis . Since the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284-305), the desert road marked the territory then claimed by Rome with an open but heavily guarded border. After the archaeological investigations on the fortification of Tetrapyrgium, it was possible for the first time to make detailed statements about the appearance and location of a late Roman fortification on the northern Syrian Limes. In addition, archaeological evidence of a previous early border security on the northern Syrian Limes section for the middle of the 1st century AD was provided there for the first time.

location

The small fortress located on a low terrace on the northern Syrian Limes may have been planned as planned together with its large vicus (camp village) that was subsequently fortified . As usual, at the chosen location in the flat desert steppe during the rainy season, there were cheap ways of obtaining water in order to be able to operate agriculture and thus to supply the troops and the village community with sufficient basic food. A large, pear-shaped cistern was found 120 meters southeast of the small fort. About 250 meters north of the settlement there were three more cisterns of the same type.

The stage station on the Strata Diocletiana and its settlement can be seen from afar in the plain due to its hillside location. There was line of sight to the legionary camp Sura on the Euphrates , about 12.5 kilometers (about eight Roman miles) away , and the crew of the Resafa cavalry fort 16 kilometers to the south could probably be kept in contact with the help of optical signals. The Quadriburgus was built in the middle over the northern end of a hill sloping at this point. The vicus area to the west and east of the small fort was about two to three meters lower. In the south, the terrain is also sloping at first, but then immediately rises again steeply to the hilltop and towers above the natural ground level on which the fortification was built by one meter. The builders did not choose the highest point of the terrain for the fortification, but instead erected it on a slightly lower terrace of the hill.

Name and research history

On his travels between 1908 and 1915, the orientalist Alois Musil (1868–1944) was the first to identify the sand-covered ruins of Quasair as-Saila with the ancient tetrapyrgium.

This Greek place name is also a synonym for the type of fort built there (four [towers] castle). The corresponding Latin word with which these late antique plants are described is Quadriburgus. Apart from a travel report by the anonymous pilgrim from Piacenza around 570 AD (there as civitas Tetrapyrgium ), no other contemporary sources have been known about this name. The orientalist René Dussaud (1868-1958) and - in 1930 and 1931 - the Jesuits and archaeologists René Mouterde (1880-1961) and Antoine , who worked at the St. Joseph University in Beirut , put older publications dealing with Quasair as-Saila Poidebard (1878–1955).

The fort was researched and published by the archaeologist Michaela Konrad from 1992 . Another employee was Markus Gschwind . The multi-year excavations, which were only possible to a very limited extent due to the cost pressure, were carried out as part of a Limes project at the Damascus Station of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), which investigated the course of the Limes between 1992 and 1996 with targeted field research. The excavation site was chosen because the site was previously undisturbed and not too deep. In addition, the archaeologists were interested in a garrison site for which only late Roman-Early Byzantine finds were available and which, according to the opinion of the time, was finally abandoned in the years 636/638 AD. These assumptions turned out to be a fallacy during the first campaign. A trial exploration had already taken place in 1990, during which a very well-preserved piece of the eastern fort fortification came to light. On this occasion, the excavation was started on the east side of the small fort. After the fortification had been uncovered in the 1993 campaign, the excavators partially examined the vicus and its enclosure in 1994 . With this campaign, the then Limes project in Tetrapyrgium was completed.

As with other sites in Syria that have become known to the population, this small fort and its vicus are also threatened with complete destruction by robbery graves, if this may not have already happened.

Building history

The earliest Roman finds from Qusair as-Saila date from before and around the middle of the 1st century AD. It is possible that there was a military camp there - as perhaps also in Sura - under the command of Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo . During the final phase of the Parthian Wars in 61/62 AD, the general set up garrisons both along the Euphrates and obviously in the hinterland at strategically important locations. During the research between 1992 and 1996, the theses put forward by the Byzantinist Ernst Honigmann in 1931/32 could be archaeologically verified for the first time.

The establishment of military bases under Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo probably gave the impetus for the further development of the border fortifications. There are also finds from Qusair as-Saila from the period of office of the governor Marcus Ulpius Traianus (73 / 74–77 / 78 AD). Objects found in Resafa fall during the same period. An inscription from Sura also belongs to this period. At the latest with the expansion of the Via Nova Traiana during the reign of Emperor Trajan (98–117), the Roman imperial border on this section will have taken the same course as in late antiquity. Only after the Limes moved forward, which followed the capture of Mesopotamia in 166, the road along the previous border towns temporarily lost its importance. The withdrawal of the Limes was caused by the Sassanid incursions (231-266), the rising of Palmyra's Queen Zenobia (266-271) and renewed Persian Wars from 287 onwards.

Under Diocletian, work began on securing Rome's eastern border from the Red Sea to the Tigris with a dense chain of fortifications and watchtowers. During this long-term phase, which extended at least into the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337), the fort and vicus tetrapyrgium were built on the reactivated border road . It is possible that the emperor made the decision to build these border fortifications during a trip to Palestine in 286. The execution could have been delayed by the subsequent Persian Wars. But at the latest with the peace treaty of Nisibis concluded in 298/299 it was possible to start construction work. The conclusion of the contract is also Diocletian's first definitely attested stay on the Euphrates and probably indicates the earliest point in time when the first facilities were established on the Strata Diocletiana .

Conception of the late antique small fort

The Visegrád-Gizellamajor small fort on the Pannonian Danube Limes, which is structurally very similar.

The small fortress belongs to the type of fort from the late antiquity that, with its strictly geometrically structured structure, is still strongly reminiscent of older military building traditions. Defense structures like these are also known from other provinces. For example, the layout of the 34.3 × 34.3 meter small fort Visegrád-Gizellamajor on the Pannonian Danube Limes in Hungary follows a very similar structure. During the planning and marking phase of the facility in the area, the Roman engineers used basic geometric shapes such as the square and the resulting diagonal . The fortress ground plan is delimited by a square defensive wall, at the intersection of which was formed by diagonals, a groma , the main surveying instrument . Recalculations show that these dimensional specifications, which were determined in advance of the construction, were met very precisely. The overall alignment of the fortifications in the terrain, which follows an imaginary north-south or west-east axis relatively precisely, confirms this careful planning. All four corners of the enclosure were secured by fan-shaped towers with a side length of eleven meters, which protruded far over the curtains , were drawn slightly over a quarter circle and were probably tiled; the only gate was on the west side of the small fort. Fan-shaped towers have been preserved in their westernmost examples across Pannonia to the western border of the province of Noricum Ripense ( Boiotro Fort ).

The basic concept of small forts such as Tetrapyrgium, the earliest representatives of which arose during the time of the Tetrarchy , persisted well into late antiquity. Despite distancing itself from the strictly structured interior development that characterized the early and middle imperial era, late Roman fortifications throughout the Roman Empire had specific characteristics that were retained in a similar form across all times. This includes the already advanced Prinzipat emerging development of more and more from the curtain walls protruding towers and the eventual emergence of polygonal, circular and semi-circular tower floor plans that defending the fort for archers and catapults simplified.

Dating

As Konrad was able to determine due to a lack of evidence, the garrison of Tetrapyrgium was only founded after the time of the Tetrarchy . She therefore dated the small fort “not before” the reign of Constantine the Great. Since Constantine was only the sole ruler of the Roman Empire from 324 onwards, he received all power of disposal over the eastern provinces, the term post quem could be used here . For the structurally comparable small fort Visegrád-Gizellamajor mentioned, the excavators put the founding time in the reign of Emperor Constantius II (337–361). The fan-shaped towers, known from many late antique fort sites, are typical of this period and can be observed both on the Strata Diocletiana and in other parts of the empire.

Enclosure

Before the construction of the slightly trapezoidal quadriburgus, 38.2 × 37.2 meters (= 0.10 ha) from curtain wall to curtain wall, the uneven areas of the marly rock had been leveled out with stone material. The builders then founded the small fort directly on the sub-soil prepared in this way, whereby the fort wall was also sunk into the ground in the case of higher rock sections. On the east side facing away from the weather, the barriers made of almost square mud bricks were in excellent condition and up to 4.05 meters high. Only in the area of ​​the topmost brick layers, which came to light 15 centimeters below the sand, was more severe erosion damage to be seen. The approximately 3.30 meter wide, lower layers of this wall section consist of a 2.20 to 2.40 meter high partially hewn quarry stone shell masonry that was set in clay and plastered with white plaster on the outside. Flat stones can be identified as compensation layers. Between the wall shells was a clay-stone pack. The surrounding wall sat directly on the upcoming one. The excavators were able to determine that the wall in the lower plinth area was very carefully executed, while the builders in the upper layers certainly had the courage to make smaller gaps: Among other things, stones of different sizes alternated in random alignment and arrangement, gaps were closed with clay. A millstone was also used as a spoiler . No traces of plaster could be seen here. This was only at the level of the massive base zone. The question of whether there were battlements on the surrounding parapet could not be answered. Since the post-Roman agriculture caused extensive destruction around the small fort, the existence of a circumferential moat remains speculative.

The only gate of the fort was placed in the middle of the west side of the complex. It was laid out in a very robust and high-quality design and consisted of large, carefully placed stone blocks. The single-lane driveway was 3.25 meters wide and had a paving made of rectangular stone slabs. On the outer front, the entrance was tapered to 2.50 meters with the help of two small opposite door cheeks. A swelling stone six inches high lay between these cheeks.

Interior development

The analysis of the building findings showed that the surrounding wall was built first before the interior development began. This is particularly evident from the white plastered base wall. It was only after this plastering that the walls were built, which directly touched the fence.

Inside the complex, a building leaning against the defensive wall was found, which was grouped on three sides around an open, rectangular courtyard. Only behind the door curtain in the west was there only a small installation, consisting of one room. The three large structures were contubernias with a size of 15.80, 17.8 and 19.3 square meters. The troops were housed here. If the buildings were one-story, they would have offered space for around 65 to 70 men. It remains unknown whether these accommodations had a pent roof sloping towards the courtyard or whether they had a flat roof. Since there were no traces of recesses or corresponding requirements for a joist layer in the walls, some of which were very well preserved, at the contubernia , a height of the ground floor rooms of at least 3.50 meters would have to be expected, which, however - especially in comparison with other, better preserved forts - is not to be expected. Due to the defensive corridor height of 5.70 to 6.5 meters, which has been proven several times at other comparable garrison locations, one storey must have been an average of 2.20 meters high. In Tetrapyrgium, due to the lack of auxiliary structures, it can be assumed that the ceiling on the ground floor was supported by wooden studs or was designed as an adobe vault.

In the north-east tower examined, too, there was no evidence of beam inlets up to a height of 3.62 meters. The loopholes found here, however, were 2.85 or 3.02 meters above the ancient walking level. Since such notches cannot be expected on the ground floor, the ceiling here was probably at a maximum height of 2.52 to 2.82 meters, which corresponds to the ceiling heights of other forts at the same time (around 2.50 to 2.76 meters) of this Limes line . Therefore, there were alternative forms of ceiling construction in the towers - corresponding to the counterbernias. Due to the lack of staircases in the towers, access to the upper floors was probably only possible via ladders.

The inner courtyard, which was most likely undeveloped, was partially laid out with stone slabs, and a plaster floor was visible in the area of ​​the examined access to the northeast tower. Due to the fortification, which was only accessible through cuts, no definitive statements could be made, but the central area was also kept free in comparable forts. Only cisterns would be assumed here.

The End

There was very clear evidence of the end of the garrison. The year 518/527 could be determined as the end point for the coin series and in the time around 580 AD the fine ceramics stopped.

Vicus

The construction of the 230 × 250 meter camp village probably coincided with the construction of the border fortress. The terrain at the vicus slopes gently to the south, west and east. At the latest since the first Persian War, which took place during the first half of the 6th century, the settlement was secured by its own tower-reinforced wall. This is indicated by a late Roman sigillate of the LRC type Hayes 3G found there, which was embedded under the ancient level of walking. At another point Konrad was able to observe that a vicus building had first been destroyed before the surrounding wall was then built at this point. However, the archaeologist did not want to speak of a comprehensive horizon of destruction and a connection with the traditional Persian foray of the year 540 AD, even if a narrow layer of fire appeared below a later ancient walkway in front of the fort, which was also LRC ceramics of the Hayes type 3G barg.

During the investigations that were ongoing until 1994, the vicus walling on the north-east and east side was still a clear rubble wall. It could be established that the mostly 1.8 meter thick wall of the camp village had been built in a significantly more negligent manner than the fortifications. Presumably, the builders hadn't dug a foundation trench either, but merely raised the wall to the level it was at that time. The small defense towers along this wall stood out as conical heaps of rubble. The northeast corner tower of the vicus wall stood around 80 meters east of the fortification. An intermediate tower could be seen exactly between these two buildings. From the north-east corner tower, the wall, which was badly damaged here, pulled further south. At a distance of 75 to 80 meters (measured from the center of the tower) there were five further intermediate towers. At least three, possibly even five towers at a distance of 60 to 70 meters were found on the western flank. The dimensions of the towers vary greatly. One tower jumped two meters out of the fence and was 3.80 meters wide, while another was only 1.80 meters wide. He pushed himself 1.40 meters in front of the defensive wall. Obviously most of these towers were not accessible from the inside and only supported a platform with parapet. Findings that confirmed a later construction of the vicus wall were also shown at the small fort. Here it became clear that the fortification of the camp village had only been added to the surrounding wall of the garrison at a later date.

Burial ground

To the east of the vicus the land rises again to form a long hill. There was a burial ground at least 18,800 square meters in size, littered with funnel-shaped depressions and cones of rubble, some of which had been left behind by predatory graves. Even during the several years of investigations under Konrad, the excavators repeatedly discovered freshly dug holes. Cones were also formed by crumbling grave structures, depressions could also have their cause in fallen burial places ( Arkosolia ) . The entire visible necropolis was littered with roof tiles, plaster and limestone fragments. The southern and eastern ends of the burial ground formed a hilltop, the northern end lay under a modern field and could therefore not be determined. Since the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute at that time were limited to the fort and vicus, no details about this necropolis are known.

Frequency of Late Roman C-Forms (LRC) sigillates 3 and 10

shape variant Frequency in the small fort (= monastery area) Frequency in the camp village
Hayes 3 B. 1 -
Hayes 3 E. 3 1
Hayes 3 F. 3 2
Hayes 3 G 8th 3
Hayes 3/10 (without BS) 1 1
Hayes 10 A. 6th 3
Hayes 10 C. - 1

The sigillates of the late Roman C-Ware, Form 3, ( Phocaean Red-Slip-Ware ) date primarily from the middle of the 5th to the middle of the 6th century, while those of the Form 10 are assigned to the early and middle 7th centuries.

Post-Roman and early Islamic development

After the fort was abandoned around 580, the garrison square fell into disrepair. As indicated by late Umayyad coins, a Byzantine monastery was established in the ruins, probably around 720, but it only existed for a short time. During the construction of the monastery, some Roman building materials were reused as a secondary means. This post-castle use destroyed or superimposed many architectural details of the garrison in Tetrapyrgium. The coins of the caliph Hischam , who ruled from 724 to 743, have already ended the monastery finds that can be safely dated. The few Abbasid ceramic shards found in the planing of the complex already belong to a new cultural layer.

At the time of the founding of the monastery, it can still be assumed that there was continuity of settlement on the area of ​​the camp village after the fortification period. A pot with a collar-shaped, outwardly thickened rim, which comes from an Umayyad period ceramic hoard , is an indication that older traditions were also maintained during the early Islamic period.

Shortly after the beginning of Abbasid rule in 750, the traces of settlement in Tetrapyrgium are lost. Like other ancient sites in Syria that were evacuated by the Byzantine-Greek population, the local tradition broke off here too. Therefore Tetrapyrgium has only become known through its newer, Arabic-Bedouin name as Qusair as-Saila until modern times .

literature

  • Alois Musil: Palmyrena. A Topographical Itinerary. New York 1928, pp. 263-264.
  • René Dussaud: La Palmyrène et l'exploration de M. Aloïs Musil. In: Syria 10, 1, 1929, pp. 52-62. ( Digitized version ) .
  • René Mouterde: La Strata Diocletiana et ses bornes milliaires. (= Melanges de l'Universite Saint-Joseph 15), Beirut 1930.
  • René Mouterde, Antoine Poidebard: La voie antique des caravanes entre Palmyre et Hît, au IIe siècle après Jésus-Christ, d'après une inscription retrouvée au Sud-Est de Palmyre. In: Syria , 12, 2, 1931, pp. 101–115 ( digitized version ) .
  • Ernst Honigmann : Tetrapyrgia 4. In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Antiquity Science (RE). Volume VA, 1, Stuttgart 1934, column 1089.
  • Antoine Poidebard, René Mouterde: A propos de Saint Serge: aviation et épigraphie. In: Analecta Bollandiana 67, 1949, pp. 109-117; here: pp. 109–110.
  • Michaela Konrad: The Limes Project: Roman border fortifications between Gabal Bisri and the Euphrates. In: German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department, Damascus Branch (ed.): Ten years of excavations and research in Syria, 1989-1998. 1999, pp. 59-71.
  • Michaela Konrad: Umayyad Pottery from Tetrapyrgium (Qseir es-Seileh), North Syria. Traditions and Innovations. In: La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 and 5 December 1994. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 159, Beirut 2001, pp. 163-191.
  • Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (=  Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 .

Remarks

  1. a b c d Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 114.
  2. a b Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (=  Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 14.
  3. a b c d Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (=  Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 13.
  4. ^ Alois Musil: Palmyrena. A Topographical Itinerary. New York 1928, pp. 263-264.
  5. Itinerarium 47, ed. Paul Geyer: Itineraria Hierosolymitana. Vienna 1898, p. 191 Digitized : in civitate Tetrapyrgio . The pilgrim from Piacenza wrongly locates the tomb of St. Sergios in Tetrapygium .
  6. a b c d Guntram Koch: Book review on Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. In: The World of the Orient . 33, 2003, pp. 272-273; here p. 272.
  7. a b Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 23.
  8. a b c d e Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 115.
  9. a b c d Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa. (= Resafa 5), ​​Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 99.
  10. Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa. (= Resafa 5), ​​Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 97.
  11. Real Lexicon of Germanic Antiquity . 2nd edition, Volume 24: Quadriburgium - Cattle. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York 2003, ISBN 3-11-017575-4 , p. 2.
  12. a b c d e The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 61.
  13. a b The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 58.
  14. Thomas Fischer : The Roman army in the time of the tetrarchy. An army between innovation and continuity? In: Dietrich Boschung, Werner Eck (ed.): The tetrarchy. A new system of government and its media presentation. Reichert, Wiesbaden 2006. ISBN 978-3-89500-510-7 . Pp. 103-132; here: p. 109.
  15. Péter Gróf , Dániel Gróh : Sírépítményből átalakílott küszöbkő a Visegrád-Gizella majori későrómai erődből (threshold stone modified from a grave element from the late Roman fort of Visegramajor-Gizellegrád-Gizellegrád). In: Folia archaeologica 49/50, 2001/02, pp. 247-261; here: p. 261.
  16. For example, as the earliest evidence of fan towers on the Hungarian Danube Limes at Fort Annamatia, a coin minted under Emperor Constantine II (337–340) could be recovered from the leveled medieval fort moat over which a fan tower was built. See Péter Kovács : Annamatia Castellum. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. Teleki Lázló Foundation 2003, ISBN 963-86388-2-6 , p. 120.
  17. a b Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa. (= Resafa 5), ​​Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 24.
  18. a b c d e Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa (= Resafa. Vol. 5). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2001, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 60.
  19. a b Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa. (= Resafa 5), ​​Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 67.
  20. a b Markus Gschwind, Haytham Hasan: The late Roman-early Islamic civil settlement Tall ar-Rum and the late antique settlement of the Euphrates valley between Zenobia and Circesium. In: Damascus communications. Volume 15, 2006 (2008), pp. 321-382; here: p. 361.
  21. a b Michaela Konrad: The late Roman Limes in Syria. Archaeological investigations at the border forts of Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle and in Resafa. (= Resafa 5), ​​Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000, ISBN 3-8053-2600-9 , p. 94.
  22. John W. Hayes: Late Roman Pottery , British School at Rome, London 1972. pp. 329-338.
  23. John W. Hayes: Late Roman Pottery , British School at Rome, London 1972, pp. 343-346.
  24. Markus Gschwind, Haytham Hasan: The late Roman-early Islamic civil settlement Tall ar-Rum and the late antique settlement of the Euphrates valley between Zenobia and Circesium. In: Damascus communications. Volume 15, 2006 (2008), pp. 321-382; here: p. 344.