Visegrád-Gizellamajor small fort
Map with all coordinates: | Visegrád – Gizellamajor small fort | |
|---|---|
| limes | Pannonian Limes |
| section | 3 |
| Dating (occupancy) |
Constantius II until the end of the first third of the 5th century |
| Type | Small fort |
| size | 34.3 × 34.3 m |
| Construction | stone |
| State of preservation | Building remains secured under a temporary protective roof |
| place | Visegrád |
| Geographical location | 47 ° 45 '39.3 " N , 18 ° 55' 50.1" E |
| height | 108 m |
| Previous | Castra ad Herculem (northwest) |
| Subsequently | Burgus Visegrád-Lepence (northeast) |
The small fort Visegrád-Gizellamajor was a Roman garrison that, as a late antique border fortress, was responsible for guarding a section of the Danube in the Pannonian Limes ( Limes Pannonicus ) . The river marked the Roman border in large sections. The small fort, completely excavated and made visible, is located on the south bank of the river, almost exactly above the apex of the Danube Bend . Gizellamajor is a western part of the municipality Visegrád (Plintenburg) in the Hungarian Pest county . Due to its shape, size and internal structure, the fortification is so far unique on the Pannonian Limes.
location
The location of the lower slope of the small fort at the apex of the Danube Bend, near the so-called Dömös Bay and around 1200 meters east-southeast of the Dömös ship landing stage, was strategically very well chosen. From this point the ship traffic could be seen in the north, north-west and north-east direction without any obstacles. There were at least six burgi , small tower-like fortresses that were also built along this section in late antiquity. Both with these stations and with the large garrison Castra ad Herculem located in the north-west on a hill plateau and the Pone Navata fort , which was built in the north-east on a foothill of the Visegrád mountains above the Danube , which was dismantled to a burgus in the course of the 4th century, the crew of Gizellamajor was able to exchange optical signals and thus maintain contact in an emergency. The operated especially in late antiquity with great effort dense expansion of border installations in this area had its cause in the serious threat of Pannonia by on the opposite bank, the so-called. Barbaricum living tribe of Germanic Quaden , who often appeared as a staunch enemy of Rome. Opposite the small fortress bordering the nearby river bank is a large headland on the northern bank of the Danube, which, as a mighty spur of the surrounding hill country, carries the Sankt-Michaels-Berg, which the river has to flow around in a wide arc. The southern bank zone of the Danube is bounded by the Pilis Mountains rising behind the site, the short foothills of which reach right up to the narrow strip of alluvial land of the river. Due to the geological conditions, the rock material in the Pilis Mountains consists of volcanic weathered debris, finer and coarser andesite tuff , which is covered in some places by layers of loess and fine-grained tuff.
Research history
The place name Gizellamajor , which is more common in Hungary, recalls the first Hungarian queen, Gisela of Bavaria , who married Stephan I around 995 . The first mention of the later find area is found in 1964 after a site inspection by the archaeologist Sándor Soproni (1926–1995). The Gabčíkovo –Bős-Nagymaros barrage system, which had been planned on the Danube from 1977 , also threatened the area around the Visegrád – Gizellamajor fort due to planned canalization and dike measures. Therefore, large-scale rescue excavations were necessary on the bank zones, which were tackled in 1988 in the Visegrad district of Gizellamajor. In the course of this, the leading archaeologists Dániel Gróh and Péter Gróf were able to uncover previously unknown Roman walls in the same year. Since 1984, on the initiative of environmentalists, massive protests against the large dam and power plant project have taken place, so that work on the Hungarian side was finally stopped in 1989. This also saved the archaeological monuments on the Danube Bend from final destruction. At Gizellamajor, scheduled excavations began immediately, which - with brief interruptions - lasted until 2004. The northern section of the small fort under the federal road 11 has not yet been examined, despite numerous promises by the authorities to relocate the road.
The remains of the small fort were preserved after the investigations had been completed and secured against the weather with a temporary wooden protective structure for the time being. This is to be replaced later by a permanent structure as part of an archaeological park. Until then, a chain-link fence will also prevent prohibited access to the site.
Building history
Middle Imperial watchtower?
A Dupondius of Vespasian or Titus , a denarius of Marcus Aurelius , a brick stamp of Cohors I Ulpia Pannoniorum and some remains of walls below the level of the 4th century have been discovered as pre-castellar finds . Soproni had assumed during his surface investigation that these finds could have belonged to an earlier watchtower.
Conception of the late antique small fort
The fortress of Gizellamajor, which was founded under Emperor Constantius II (337–361) according to the excavators, belongs to that type of late antique small fortress, which with its strictly geometrically structured structure is still strongly reminiscent of older military building traditions. Systems like those in Visegrád-Gizellamajor are known from the most distant provinces. For example, the floor plan of the 38.2 × 37.2 meter Tetrapyrgium small fort on Strata Diocletiana in Syria 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 34.3 × 34.3 meter square defensive wall with 1.80 meter thick walls, at the intersection of which was formed by diagonals, a groma , the main surveying instrument . Recalculations show that these dimensional specifications, which were set 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, confirms this careful planning. All four corners of the fence were secured by a fan tower protruding far over the curtains ; the only gate was on the Praetorial Front , the side of the small fort facing the enemy. This faced the Danube and the Barbaricum on the opposite bank. The Germanic tribe of the Quadi lived there in late antiquity .
Interior development
Inside the facility, a building leaning against the curtains was found, which was grouped around an open courtyard. A small heatable bath was built into the northwest corner tower. The fortification, built in the 4th century, was renovated during the reign of Emperor Valentinian I. At the end of this century barbaric federations settled behind the defensive walls until the small fort was finally abandoned at the end of the first third of the 5th century.
In several places, the Roman period was still to be determined from a thin layer of clay. In the south-west corner of the fortification, this clay soil was found under a layer of destruction made up of charred posts and beams. The basis of this soil was a uniform, gravel and undisturbed layer. The east wing attached to the east curtain was 22.75 × 6.35 meters, its walls around 60 to 70 centimeters thick. During the Valentine's renovation, two partition walls bound with clay were erected here, with only weak foundations. One of the new rooms received a canal heating system that formed an irregular L.
In the southwestern area of the south wing, a furnace was, in - established during the Valentinian reconstruction - room next to a kiln . The L-shaped duct heating installed there contained, among other things, secondary bricks with the stamp of the Coh (ors) I Ulp (ia) Pan (noniorum) . In the northeast corner, on the corner tower erected there, three or four beam holes could be found 30 centimeters above a threshold stone, which may have belonged to a staircase that led to the upper floor of the tower. During the excavations it turned out that the threshold stone had a relief decoration on its lower surface. The stone was as during the Valentinian renovation spoils been used and could originally the front element of an architrave have been leading to a as a shrine belonged designed tomb.
In the west wing, a 22 × 5.5 meter room was excavated in which industrial activities apparently also took place. In the leveling layer investigated there, on which the fort and this room were founded, there were a few pieces of late Roman coarse ceramic fragments and a glazed ceramic piece that can be dated to the era of Constantius II.
The archaeologists were able to observe renovation work on the small fort. A small rectangular room was added to the western outer wall at an angle to the north-west tower, in which the heated bathroom was located. The buildings on the north wall were pushed further south, reducing the area of the inner courtyard. In addition, the gate passage inside was made much narrower by a space pushing in front of it.
Vicus
The camp village belonging to the small fort, called vicus , which mostly began to develop shortly after the establishment of a Roman garrison, is still relatively unknown today. Until 2004, the excavators were able to perceive a 40 to 100 centimeter thick layer of culture immediately southeast of the fortification. Only the remains of a stone oven are evidence of the former development. And also in the southwest, behind the small fort, two different types of furnace were encountered during various search cuts in the loess hill there. Already in the last third of the 4th century, at the time of Emperor Valentinian I , the vicus ceased to exist. This is evidenced by several graves that were dug in the former south-western settlement area. The ash pit of an oven had been reused for a burial.
The vicus of Gizellamajor with its strong cultural layer makes it clear that the scientific idea that the civilian population and the military had their place together in the late Roman military installations cannot be generalized. The archaeologists put the earliest date for the construction of the camp village in the 5th decade of the 4th century. You can already see its end in the 360s. This means that the development of civil settlement would obviously have come to an end at a very early stage, which is why only a few structural remains could be secured. The vicus , which is under military control, can be compared with the similar structures of the Pannonian inland fortresses . Only with the abandonment of the camp village can civilian settlers in the small fort of Gizellamajor be expected. Some rooms, the entrances to which were initially walled up before sewer heating systems were subsequently installed, could represent a reference to civilians behind the defensive walls. This type of reconstruction was found in the north-eastern and probably also in the western wing of the small fort. At the same time as the renovations, the number of tools found that could also be seen in an agricultural context increased very significantly. The most numerous were axes, hatchets and hooks, along with drills, awls, a scythe, a saw blade, a pickaxe and a knife that was used in viticulture. In addition, over a dozen millstones and fragments of hand mills could be secured. Most of the tools found can also be found in purely military finds.
Burial ground
By 2004, a cemetery with 226 graves was uncovered southwest of the small fort on the top of the loess hill located there. Surprisingly, the archaeologists also discovered prehistoric burials of the burial mound culture and found a single Avar grave . The late Roman burials can be divided into three groups. Rectangular grave pits were found, some with rounded corners. Small embankments were found on some of these graves, which originally made the grave visible above the ground. The next, smaller group was found to be box graves made of flat stone slabs, some of which had irregularly composed, 50-60 centimeter high cairns. The last and smallest group, which consisted of two burials and was laid out later, were grave structures, in the construction of which roof tiles and / or bricks ( brick plate graves ) were used. More than two thirds of the graves showed a classical Christian, west-east orientation. Just over 10 percent are oriented from east to west. Most difficult is the dating of the few, north-south and south-north oriented burials as well as those that, with the exception of a few hand-made vessels, had no grave goods. There is no relationship between the grave orientation and the grave type. Among the deceased were a total of 75 children and 64 women. The supposedly richer and higher status crate graves were mostly robbed.
Grave goods around 355 to 365
Most of the additions found during the excavations were components of costumes from the late Roman era, including brooches made of bronze, gilded silver and gold. The pieces could be decorated with valuable stones. In addition, glass beads found a wide variety of style, a finger ring with a Bernstein - cameo , in which the god of war Mars was engraved, decorated belts and buckles, bracelets made of bronze, bone and iron, mirrors and much more. A brooch was pear-shaped, and the inscription VTERE FELIX (use it happily) was engraved on the handle of an onion-button brooch .
Grave goods from the end of the 4th century to the early 5th century
The excavators were able to assign the second group of grave goods to the post-fort village period, in which they suspect the civilians as additional residents of the garrison. The deceased were given multi-faceted earrings, crescent-shaped silver pendants, brooches made of bronze or iron and buckles with beak-shaped tips. These buckles were used for both belt and shoe straps. A ring with the Christ monogram was discovered in a grave . In addition to these workpieces, two basic types of post-Valentine ceramics were found, most of which were placed on the feet of the dead. On the one hand work turned on a potter's wheel, on the other hand originally barbaric, manually assembled containers. No polished goods were found. Glass bottles and cups are among the exquisite finds. While one grave made of bricks was found robbed, several late Roman skeletons were discovered in the second. This burial place had a plastered vault that had been painted with a red lattice decoration. Remarkably, later burials are missing. The ruins of the small fort were not visited until the middle of the 5th century by new sovereigns, the Huns , who buried their deceased in the crumbling walls.
Further found material
Coins
Most of the coins discovered by 2004, 92 percent, date from the 4th century. Of this piece, in turn, 75 percent belong to the epoch of Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337) and Emperor Constantius II (337–361). The most recent finds could be dated between 378 and 383.
Ceramics
A total of 3555 broken pieces were recovered by 2004. Local pottery made up 82 percent of these fragments. 7.6 percent fell on the smoothed goods and almost the same amount, 6.6 percent, on glazed stoneware. Endre Tóth mentions in connection with the smoothed-in pieces that lattice pattern ceramics were found in several places. The common occurrence of smoothed and glazed pieces is characteristic of many late Roman settlements and burial grounds in Hungary. Several peoples in a very large cultural area took up the fashion of smoothed ceramics in the late Roman period from the 4th to the 5th century. Therefore, today the theories about smoothed ceramics are diverse and very controversial. Earlier works, such as that by Herbert Mitscha-Märheim , which are still referred to as pure so-called Foederatenkeramik , are considered outdated. In addition to the fragments mentioned above, the polished pottery only makes up one percent. For this low occurrence, the variety of decorations on the vessels was surprising. The number of pieces built by hand or made on a slow potter's wheel was 3.2 percent.
Glass
Not a single intact glass object was found inside the small fort. However, with the help of the glasses recovered from the graves of the camp village, many fragments could be classified. Most of the glass objects from the cemetery area were either bottles or cups of good quality, as they were common for around 100 years from the second half of the 4th century. The glassblowers could have founded workshops in Pannonia from the Balkan provinces, and there could also have been connections to Italy. Since some pieces in a similar form were also found in Brigetio , supplies could have been shipped down the Danube from there.
Metal objects
Most of the finds, such as the aforementioned brooches, belts, buckles, jewelry and brooches, formed part of traditional costumes. Other objects, such as keys, a jug with an iron handle, kettles, buckets and considerable amounts of waste from local production facilities, were typical of late antiquity in their appearance. The decorated tongue of a copper belt from the fort was remarkable . Many similar examples found among others in the grave goods male Alemanni on the upper reaches of the Elbe and in the Loire -Tal.
Bone work
From the excavations of Visegrád-Gizellamajor comes a bone comb with a triangular handle and circular eye decoration , on each of which a horse's head was carved.
Post-Roman development
Based on the finds and the stratigraphic results, the excavators assume that the small fort Gizellamajor was used in its originally planned manner until the end of the first third of the 5th century. As a striking horizon of destruction in the fortification proves, it was destroyed by a fire disaster. From the middle of the 5th century, Hunnic tribesmen buried their dead in the ruins. For example, a woman with a skull deformed in the style of the Huns was buried in the trampled Roman running horizon mixed with mortar, which was located right next to a more than 20 meter long camp barrack on the west wing of the small fort. The second burial of this period was laid in the rubble of a ruined wall in the northern part of the former fortification.
Monument protection
The monuments of Hungary are protected under the Act No. LXIV of 2001 by being entered in the register of monuments. The small fort Visegrád – Gizellamajor as well as all other Limes facilities belong to the nationally valuable cultural property as archaeological sites according to § 3.1. According to § 2.1, all finds are state property, regardless of where they are found. Violations of the export regulations are considered a criminal offense or a crime and are punished with imprisonment for up to three years.
See also
literature
General
- Dániel Gróh: Építéstörténeti megjegyzések a limes Visegrád környéki védelmi rendszeréhez. Building history remarks on the defense system of the Limes in the vicinity of Visegrád. In: A kőkortól a középkorig. Edition G. Lőrinczy. Szeged 1994, pp. 239-244.
- Sándor Soproni : New research on the Limes stretch between Esztergom and Visegrád. In: Roman frontier studies 1979. 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. BAR Oxford 1980, ISBN 0-86054-080-4 , pp. 671-679.
- Zsolt Visy : Definition, Description and Mapping of Limes Samples. CE Project "Danube Limes - UNESCO World Heritage" 1CE079P4. Budapest 2010. pp. 16-17.
- Zsolt Visy: The ripa Pannonica in Hungary. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2003, ISBN 963-05-7980-4 , p. 51.
Individual studies
- Katalin Ottományi : A visegrád-gizellamajori erőd Ny / I. helyiségének késő római kerámiája. Changes in the pottery trade in the first half of the 5th century due to the ceramics of the Visegrád – Gizellamajor fortification. In: Mursella Régészeti Egyesület , Győr 2012, pp. 375–412.
- Dániel Gróh: A Visegrád-gizellamajori erdő és a Dunakanyar szerepe a késő római védelmi politikában (The Visegrád-Gizellamajor fort and its role at the Danube Bend in the late Roman border defense). Eötvös Lóránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Történettudományi Doktori Iskola régészeti oktatási program, 2006.
- Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh: Visegrád-Gizellamajori római erőd és temető. Visegrád-Gizellamajor castle and cemetery. In: Ókor. 3, 4, 2004, pp. 53-57.
- Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh: Visegrád-Gizellamajor and Visegrád-Sibrik-domb. In: Zsolt Visy (ed.): The Roman army in Pannonia. An Archaeological Guide of the Ripa Pannonica. Teleki László Foundation, Pécs 2003, pp. 90–95.
- Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh, Zsolt Mráv : Sírépítményből átalakílott küszöbkő a Visegrád-Gizella majori későrómai erődből (threshold stone from the late Roman fort from the late Roman fort of Visegrád-Gizella majori. In: Folia archaeologica. 49/50, 2001/2002, pp. 247-261.
- Dániel Gróh: A Visegrád-gizellamajori erőd és a Dunakanyar szerepe a késő római védelmi politikában. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Budapest 2006 (= dissertation)
- Dániel Gróh: A Visegrád-gizellamajori római erıd rétegviszonyainak építéstörténeti vonatkozásai. The historical relationships between the layers of the Roman fortress of Visegrád-Gizellamajor. In: Hadak útján. A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatóinak konferenciája. Szeged 2000, pp. 27-33.
- Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh: Előzetes jelentés a Visegrád-Gizellamajori római erőd feltárásáról. Preliminary report on the excavation of the Roman fortress of Visegrád-Gizellamajor. In: Communicationes archeologicae Hungariae. 1991 (1993), pp. 85-95.
Web links
Remarks
- ^ Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh: Late Roman watchtower and statues found in Visegrád-Lepence. In: Folia Archaeologica. 47, 1999, pp. 103-116; here: p. 103.
- ↑ a b c d Péter Gróf , Dániel Gróh : Preliminary report on the excavation of the Roman fortress of Visegrád-Gizellamajor. In: Communicationes archeologicae Hungariae. 1991 (1993), p. 93.
- ↑ a b c Zsolt Visy: The ripa Pannonica in Hungary. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2003, ISBN 963-05-7980-4 , p. 51.
- ↑ a b Péter Gróf, Dániel Gróh: Sírépítményből átalakílott küszöbkő a Visegrád-Gizella majori későrómai erődből (threshold stone modified from a grave building element from the late Roman fort of Visegramajor Gizellamajor. In: Folia archaeologica 49/50, 2001/02, pp. 247-261; here, p. 261.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Real Lexicon of Germanic Antiquity . 2nd Edition. Volume 24: Quadriburgium - Cattle. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York 2003, ISBN 3-11-017575-4 , p. 2.
- ↑ Katalin Ottományi : Changes in the pottery trade in the first half of the 5th century. due to the ceramics of the Visegrád – Gizellamajor fortification. In: Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World Romans, Barbarians and Military Culture , Proceedings of the International Conference at the Eötvös Loránd University, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest 2015, ISBN 978-963-984-601-9 , pp. 691-740; here; P. 691.
- ↑ a b c Őrhely a római birodalom északi erdődvonalában . In: Cseke László: Visegrád ezer éve. Almanac . Visegrád Város Önkormányzata, Visegrád 2010, ISBN 978-963-06-9989-1 , pp. 35-44.
- ^ Endre Tóth: Karpen in the province of Valeria. On the question of late Roman smoothed ceramics in Transdanubia In: Communicationes archeologicae Hungariae. Múzsák KozművelŰdesi Kiadó, Budapest 2005, p. 382.
- ↑ Katalin Ottományi : Késő római besimított kerámia Nagykanizsán. In: Zalai Gyűjtemény. 18, 1982-83, pp. 45-58 (in Hungarian).
- ↑ Friderika Horváth: Comments on the late antique ceramic material from the fortress of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta - first results. Workshop Leipzig, 8.-9. February 2008. Archaeological Institute of the UAdW. ( Memento from June 7, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) wayback, accessed on January 22, 2016.
- ↑ Herbert Mitscha-Märheim: Dark centuries of golden traces (The Migration Period in Austria). Wollzeilen publishing house, Vienna 1963.
Esztergom-Hideglelőskereszt Castle | Burgus Szob | Burgus Pilismarót-Malompatak | Castra ad Herculem | Visegrád-Gizellamajor small fort | Burgus Visegrád-Lepence | Visegrád-Sibrik Castle (Pone Navata) | Small fort Kisoroszi | Burgus Verőcemaros-Dunamező | Dunabogdány Castle (Cirpi) | Burgus Tahitótfalu-Balhavár