See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348575288

Acompanion to the archaeological sources of Roman military interventions

into the Germanic territory north of the Danube during the Marcomannic
Wars

Chapter · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

5 795

4 authors, including:

Balázs Komoróczy Marek Vlach

Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno The Czech Academy of Sciences
38 PUBLICATIONS   189 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claus-Michael Hüssen

15 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age fortified settlements and Medieval Mottes on the Bekes-Csanadi loess plateau View project

Simulating theoretical model of archaeology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Balázs Komoróczy on 18 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MARCOMANNIC WARS
AND ANTONINE PLAGUE
Selected essays on two disasters
that shook the Roman World

DIE MARKOMANNENKRIEGE
UND DIE ANTONINISCHE PEST
Ausgewählte Essays zu zwei Desastern,
die das Römische Reich erschütterten

M. Erdrich, B. Komoróczy, P. Madejski, M. Vlach (eds.)

Michael Erdrich, Balázs Komoróczy, Paweł Madejski, Marek Vlach (eds.)

Marcomannic Wars and Antonine Plague

Selected essays on two disasters that shook the Roman World

Die Markomannenkriege und die Antoninische Pest

Ausgewählte Essays zu zwei Desastern, die das Römische Reich
erschütterten
SPISY ARCHEOLOGICKÉHO ÚSTAVU AV ČR BRNO 61

Responsible editor: Lumír Poláček

LUBELSKIE MATERIAŁY ARCHEOLOGICZNE TOM XVII

ISSN 1804-1345
 Marcomannic Wars and Antonine Plague
Selected essays on two disasters that shook the Roman World
Die Markomannenkriege und die Antoninische Pest
Ausgewählte Essays zu zwei Desastern, die das Römische Reich
erschütterten

edited by
Michael Erdrich, Balázs Komoróczy, Paweł Madejski, Marek Vlach

Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, Brno

Instytut Archeologii, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin
Brno – Lublin
2020
This book was published with the financial support of the Czech Academy of Sciences and the Maria Curie-Skłodowska
University in Lublin.

The book was published with the institutional support for the long-term conceptual development of a research
organisation RVO: 68081758 - The Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, Brno.

Reviewers:
Prof. Dr. Thomas Fischer
Prof. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

© Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, 2020

ISBN 978-80-7524-026-2
© Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, 2020
ISBN 978-83-227-9223-0
© The individual contributors, 2020
 Contents / Inhalt
List of contributors / Autoren 9

Editors’ preface / Vorwort der Herausgeber 11

Michael Erdrich, Balázs Komoróczy, Paweł Madejski, Marek Vlach

PART 1: ANTONINE PLAGUE / ANTONINISCHE PEST

Pest und Provinz. Seuchen und ihre Auswirkungen auf das tägliche Leben 17
Rupert Breitwieser

The Antonine Plague and impact possibilities during the Marcomannic Wars 23
Marek Vlach

Bemerkungen zur Bevölkerung Pannoniens im Zeitalter der Markomannenkriege 37

Péter Kovács

PART 2: POLITICS AND HISTORIOGRAPHY / POLITIK UND GESCHICHTSSCHREIBUNG

Exercises in loss or absence? Ancient historiography and the Marcomannic Wars 45

Paweł Madejski

Die Personalpolitik des Imperium Romanum in der Periode der Markomannenkriege 51

Peter Herz

Die Außenpolitik des Kaisers Marcus Aurelius während der Markomannenkriege 59

– ein Beispiel der propagatio Imperii?
Krzysztof Królczyk

In search of the bellum desertorum 71

Michał N. Faszcza

PART 3: GERMANIC THREAT OF THE PROVINCES / DIE GERMANISCHE

BEDROHUNG DER PROVINZEN

Vorboten und Auswirkungen der Markomannenkriege im Nordgrenzbereich. Das Beispiel Raetien 81

Ragnar Hund

Ein markomannenzeitlicher Schatzfundhorizont? Die norischen und pannonischen Münzdepots 89

mit Schlussmünzen der Kaiser Antoninus Pius und Marcus Aurelius und ihr Bezug zu
den Markomannekriegen
Alexander Ruske

Raids of the Marcomanni and Quadi in the Southeast Alpine Region around 170 AD 99
– The Case Study Flavia Solva
Christoph Hinker

Römerzeitliche Brandschichten in St. Pölten 107

Ronald Risy, Silvia Zenz

Vindobona während der Markomannenkriege 113

Martin Mosser

Markomannenkriege, Antoninische Pest und die Folgen für die Provinz Germania inferior 121
– Eine archäologische Spurensuche
Boris A. N. Burandt
PART 4: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE MARCOMANNIC WARS BEYOND
EMPIRE’S BORDERS / DER ARCHÄOLOGISCHE NIEDERSCHLAG DER
MARKOMANNENKRIEGE JENSEITS DER REICHSGENZEN

Britain beyond Hadrian’s Wall in the late second century: Imperial policies and local responses 129
Fraser Hunter

Der Münzhort von Kovaszinc (heute: Covăsinţ, Rumänien) – Bemerkungen zu den Münzhorten 137
des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in der Ungarischen Tiefebene
Péter Prohászka

Die Markomannenkriege und die quadischen Siedlungen in der Slowakei 145

Vladimir Varsik

Comparative research on Roman imports to Moravia before, during and after the Marcomannic Wars, 159
based on published finds (state of research until 2010)
Jan Jílek

A companion to the archaeological sources of Roman military interventions into the Germanic territory 173
north of the Danube during the Marcomannic Wars
Balázs Komoróczy, Ján Rajtár, Marek Vlach, Claus-Michael Hüssen

Summing up and looking forward / Resümee und Ausblick 255

Michael Erdrich

References / Literaturverzeichnis 261

 List of contributors / Autoren
RUPERT BREITWIESER BALÁZS KOMORÓCZY
Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, Brno
Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde Čechyňská 363/19, CZ-602 00 Brno, Česká republika
Residenzplatz 1, A-5020 Salzburg, Österreich komoroczy@arub.cz
Rupert.Breitwieser@sbg.ac.at
PÉTER KOVÁCS
BORIS BURANDT Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem
LVR-Amt für Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland Klasszika-Filológia Tanszék
Außenstelle Titz Egyetem u. 1, H-2081 Piliscsaba, Magyarország
Ehrenstraße 14-16, D-52445 Titz, Deutschland kovacs.peter@btk.ppke.hu
boris.burandt@lvr.de
KRZYSZTOF KRÓLCZYK
MICHAEL ERDRICH Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej ul. Umultowska 89d, PL-61-614 Poznań, Polska
Zakład Archeologii Środkowo i krolczyk@amu.edu.pl
Wschodnioeuropejskiego Barbaricum
Pl. Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, PL-20-031 Lublin, Polska PAWEŁ MADEJSKI
erdrich@gmx.at Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
Katedra historii starożytnej i średniowiecznej
MICHAŁ N. FASZCZA Pl. Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, PL-20-031 Lublin, Polska
Akademia Humanistyczna im. Aleksandra Gieysztora tresvir@gmail.com
w Pułtusku
ul. Mickiewicza 36b, PL-06-100 Pułtusk, Polska MARTIN MOSSER
michalfaszcza@o2.pl Museen der Stadt Wien – Stadtarchäologie
Obere Augartenstraße 26–28, A-1020 Wien, Österreich
PETER HERZ martin.mosser@stadtarchaeologie.at
Universität Regensburg
Lehrstuhl für Alte Geschichte PÉTER PROHÁSZKA
Universitätsstraße 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Archeologický ústav SAV
Deutschland Akademická 2, SK-949 21 Nitra, Slovensko
peter.herz@geschichte.uni-regensburg.de prohaszkapeter1975@gmail.com

CHRISTOPH HINKER JÁN RAJTÁR

Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Archeologický ústav SAV
Zentrale Wien Akademická 2, SK-949 21 Nitra, Slovensko
Franz Klein-Gasse 1, A-1190 Wien, Österreich jan.rajtar@savba.sk
christoph.hinker@oeai.at
RONALD RISY
RAGNAR HUND Stadtmuseum St. Pölten
Independent Researcher / Unabhängiger Forscher Prandtauerstraße 2, AT-3100 Sankt Pölten, Österreich
Osnabrück, Deutschland ronald.risy@st-poelten.gv.at
rhund@uni-osnabrueck.de
ALEXANDER RUSKE
FRASER HUNTER Independent Researcher / Unabhängiger Forscher
National Museum of Scotland Krems a. d. Donau, Österreich
Chambers St, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland alexander.ruske@a1.net
F.Hunter@nms.ac.uk
VLADIMIR VARSIK
CLAUS-MICHAEL HÜSSEN Archeologický ústav SAV
Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Akademická 2, 949 21 Nitra, Slovensko
Archäologischen Instituts vladimir.varsik@savba.sk
Palmengartenstraße 10-12, D-60325 Frankfurt am
Main, Deutschland MAREK VLACH
claus.huessen@t-online.de Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, Brno
Čechyňská 363/19, CZ-602 00 Brno, Česká republika
JAN JÍLEK vlach@arub.cz
Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity Brno
Ústav archeologie a muzeologie SILVIA ZENZ
Arna Nováka 1, CZ-602 00 Brno, Česká republika Independent Researcher / Unabhängiger Forscher
mitridates@post.cz Wien, Österreich
silvia.zenz@gmx.net

9|
A companion to the archaeological sources of Roman military
interventions into the Germanic territory north of the Danube
during the Marcomannic Wars1
Balázs Komoróczy – Ján Rajtár – Marek Vlach – Claus-Michael Hüssen
Keywords:
Middle Danube region – Roman army – Roman
camps – Marcomannic wars – Marcomanni – Quadi
– Mušov – Iža
Abstract:
Roman-Barbarian contacts are a special phe-
nomenon and enjoy a long tradition in various fields
of archaeological research on the Roman Period in
the Middle Danube region. One of the most interest-
ing forms of these relations, which vary in type and
intensity considerably, are traces of military confron-
tations dating into the period of the Marcomannic
wars. Next to the known sites with evidence of
Roman military presence in Mušov-Burgstall and
Iža, our knowledge of spatial deployment, dynam-
ics and structure of Roman military offensive forces
on Germanic territory is primarily based on the re-
search of the so-called temporary camps. During
the last decades, our state of knowledge in this field
of research has improved considerably through the
discovery of numerous new temporary camps of the
Roman army as well as through the compilation of
all available information on this research topic. It
was the aim of an international research project,
among other things, to determine the topographical
location of the temporary camps, their chronological
classification and period of use as exactly as possi-
ble. In a second step, an aÃempt was made to define
their role within the overall geostrategic concept of
the Roman offensive forces.
At present, we register 16 localities within
the Marcomannic seÃlement zone west of the LiÃle
Carpathians, where it has so far been possible to dis-
tinguish or reconstruct a total of 26 separate tempo-
rary military camps or their phases. East of the LiÃle
1 This contribution was wriÃen within the frame of a trilateral
cooperation between the Romano-Germanic Commission
of the DAI Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Archaeology of
the Czech Academy of Sciences in Brno and the Institute of
Archaeology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra, as
part of the Institutional Support project RVO: 68081758 and
the Czech Science Foundation grant project No. 20-11070S
and the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA project No. 2/0358/18.
Carpathians, in the seÃlement area of the Quades,
we now know 6 sites with 20 identified fortifications.
The purpose of the presented paper is to give a com-
prehensive overview of the current state of research.
Schlüsselwörter:
MiÃlere Donauraum – Römische Armee – Römische
Lager – Markomannenkriege – Markomannen –
Quaden – Mušov – Iža
Zusammenfassung:
Römisch-barbarische Kontakte stellen ein
besonderes Phänomen dar, das in unterschiedli-
chen Bereichen der archäologischen Erforschung
der Römischen Kaiserzeit im MiÃleren Donauraum
eine lange Tradition besitzt. Eine der interessantes-
ten Ausdrucksformen dieser in Art und Intensität
sehr unterschiedlichen Beziehungen sind Spuren
militärischer Konfrontationen aus der Zeit der
Markomannenkriege. Neben den seit langem
nachgewiesenen Fundstellen mit Zeugnissen rö-
mischer Militärpräsenz in Mušov-Burgstall und
Iža beruht unsere Kenntnis der räumlichen
Ausdehnung, Dynamik und Struktur der römi-
schen Militärintervention auf germanischem Gebiet
in erster Linie auf der Erforschung der sog. tem-
porären Lager. In den letzten beiden Jahrzehnten
hat sich gerade hier der Kenntnisstand durch
die Entdeckung zahlreicher neuer temporärer
Lager der römischen Armee wie auch durch das
Zusammentragen aller verfügbaren Informationen
zu diesem Forschungsthema erheblich verbessert.
Ziel des internationalen Forschungsprojektes war es
unter anderem, die topographische Lage der tempo-
rären Lager, ihre chronologische Einordnung und
Nutzungsdauer möglichst genau zu bestimmen. In
einem zweiten Schrià wurde versucht, ihre Rolle in-
nerhalb des geostrategischen Gesamtkonzepts der
römischen Offensivtruppen zu klären.
Gegenwärtig registrieren wir 16 Orte inner-
halb der markomannischen Siedlungszone westlich
der Kleinen Karpaten, in denen bisher insgesamt 26
separate temporäre Militärlager oder deren Phasen
unterschieden oder rekonstruiert werden konnten.
Östlich der Kleinen Karpaten, im Siedlungsgebiet
173 |
der Quaden, kennen wir derzeit 6 Standorte mit ins-
gesamt 20 identifizierten Befestigungen. Gegenstand
der vorgestellten Studie ist es, einen umfassenden
Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand zu
geben.

1. Historical introduction
The so-called Marcomannic wars (166–180)
were the largest and most extensive armed conflict
during which the Roman forces repeatedly pene-
trated deep into barbarian territory in the Middle
Danube region. 2 In Roman period sources they are
referred to as Germanic war (bellum Germanicum),
Germanic and Sarmatian wars (bellum Germanicum
et Sarmaticum), Germanic campaigns (expeditio
Germanica), Germanic Sarmatian campaigns (expe-
ditio Germanica Sarmatica), or as the First campaign
(expeditio prima) and the Second campaign (expeditio
secunda). The main adversaries were Marcomanni,
Quadi and Sarmatians, but they did not fight alone
against the Romans. Also involved were almost all
neighbouring tribes in the Danube region as well as Fig. 1. A scene from the Column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome,
several groups from more distant parts of the bar- showing the negotiations of the emperor with Germanic
chiefs in the middle of a schematically depicted Roman camp
barian territory (e.g. Costoboci at the Lower Danube in Germanic territory (after Petersen – von Domaszewski –
region). One of the main reasons of this conflict is Calderini 1896, Taf. 39)
said to have been distinct movements and migrations
deep inside the Germanic world leading to pressure
and unrest in immediate foreland of the Roman Meditations. The emperor wrote this treatise during
Limes.3 This situation eventually caused a major con- his campaigns in his war headquarters at Carnuntum
frontation between this part of the barbarian world and in a military fort “in the country of the Quadi above
and the Roman Empire. the river Granua” (Hron). 6

Unfortunately, no consistent antique narra- Important information on the events of that

tive describing the reasons and the chronological
sequence of events during the military campaigns
of Emperor Marcus Aurelius against the Germans
and Sarmatians on the Danube in detail is known.
From the Roman History wriÃen by Cassius Dio
only some fragmentary notes on that period are pre-
served. Passages from this writing as well as from
other lost literary sources are cited in later synthetic
works. Another important source is the Vita Marci,
part of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. 4 We also
know the depictions of war events on the Column of
Marcus Aurelius in Rome (Fig. 1)5 and on relief panels
of the destroyed Arch of Marcus Aurelius, which
were mounted again on the Arch of Constantine and
are preserved in the Santa Martina Church in Rome
as well. Not a  single word about the events of this
war was wriÃen by Marcus Aurelius himself in his
2 The historical introduction is based on several synthesising
treatises on the Marcomannic wars, above all Birley 1971; 1979;
2000; 2012b; Böhme 1975; Friesinger – Tejral – Stuppner 1994;
Kehne 2001; 2009; 2016; Kovács 2006; 2009.
3 E.g. Dobesch 2001.
4 For an overview of wriÃen sources, see e.g. Birley 2012a.
time can be drawn from coins with a  consecutive
series of imperial acclamations aÌer a  victory, from
numerous inscriptions describing the careers of in-
dividual persons who actively participated in the
events, or from a  unique inscription carved in the
castle rock of Trenčín7 in the valley of the River Váh,
Slovakia (Fig. 3). The inscription refers to a  still not
localised military fort which was built here in the
winter of 179/180. 8 Its Roman name Laugaricio has
also appeared in a panegyric inscription for the leg-
atus legionis M. Valerius Maximianus from the an-
cient city of Diana Veteranorum (modern Aïn Zana)
in Algeria.9
Historical sources and the development of
their scientific evaluation were recently studied in
detail by P. Kehne, who also presented a  prelimi-
nary chronology of the Marcomannic wars. 10 His
6 Ceporina 2012.
7 CIL III 13439.
8 Mi–hof 2015 with a revised size of the troop spending the
winter in the camp (2855 instead of 855 men).

5 Petersen – von Domaszewski – Calderini 1896; different interpre- 9 AE 1956, 124.

tations of scenes, see e.g. Kovács 2009; Wolff 1994; Zwikker 1941. 10 Kehne 2016, 241–243.

| 174
timeline differs in details from the chronology pub-
lished recently by A. Demandt in his biography of
Marcus Aurelius. 11 The differences are based on un-
certainties, discrepancies and gaps in wriÃen sourc-
es which have been emphasized by both authors
mentioned. Despite some uncertainties, we can at
least approximately reconstruct the sequence of
war events by analysing and comparing the literary,
epigraphic and numismatic evidence.
The wars started with an invasion of Germanic
warriors into the territory of Pannonia Superior in
166. In the years 169–171 aÃacks of various Germanic
tribes or groups of warriors, to a  greater or lesser
extent, affected the Roman Danube provinces of
Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dacia and the invad-
ers reached as far as northern Italy.12 The main oppo-
nents on the Middle Danube were the Marcomanni
and the Quadi. Soldiers from the legionary garrisons
in Vindobona (Wien [AT], Legio X Gemina), Carnuntum
(Deutsch-Altenburg [AT], Legio XIV Gemina), Brigetio
(Komárom [H], Legio I  Adiutrix) as well as Aquincum
(Budapest [H], Legio II Adiutrix), together with auxil-
iary units fought against these tribes on the Upper
Pannonian Limes. To the west of this area, the
Danubian Limes was defended from about 170 by
the auxilia as well as by two newly raised legions –
in Noricum by the Legio II Italica in Enns (AT) and
in Raetia by the Legio III Italica in Regensburg (D).
Imperial campaigns against the Germanic and other
neighbouring tribes are divided in wriÃen sources
into two phases: expeditio Germanica prima and se-
cunda. The first phase began in 168/169 and formally
ended with the triumph of Marcus Aurelius and his
son Commodus in December 176. The second phase
began in the summer of 178 and ended aÌer the death
of Marcus Aurelius with the triumph of his successor
Commodus in October 180.
The first campaign under the command of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus started with the
profectio Augustorum. Both Emperors leÌ Rome and
marched to the headquarters in Aquileia at the be-
ginning of 168. However, their army was decimated
by the Antonine Plague and was forced to retreat in
winter, during which the co-emperor Lucius Verus
died.13 In autumn of 169, Marcus Aurelius launched
a  new campaign to the north. The sources do not
clearly say whether he spent the winter in Aquileia
or Carnuntum, where he had established the head-
quarters either during this or the following winter.
The first campaign on transdanubian barbaricum
in 170 or 171 ended with a  severe defeat against the
Marcomanni. As a  result, barbarian warriors pen-
etrated deep into Roman provincial territory and
Roman forces had to fight them back. The retreat-
ing Marcomanni suffered a defeat when they crossed
11 Demandt 2019, 183–231, 233–270, 539–541.
12 An overview of archaeological evidence for military conflicts
in provinces, see Fischer 2012a.
13 Cf. e.g. the chapter by Vlach in this book.
the river Danube and they signed a peace treaty de-
manding a  ten-mile-wide buffer zone without set-
tlement on the northern bank of the Danube. From
wriÃen sources we do not know whether or not the
peace was preceded by another Roman offensive into
Marcomannian tribal seÃlement territory.
In the following year, i.e. 172 or 173, a  mili-
tary operation has started against the treaty-breach-
ing Quadi. During this operation, the so-called
“rain miracle” occurred, which saved the Roman
army from a  defeat. This campaign ended with the
deditio of the Quadi. The peace conditions for the
Marcomanni were relieved aÌer the Quadian defeat.
The seventh imperatorial acclamation of the emper-
or followed, and his wife was given the honorific title
mater castrorum. As the provinces of Pannonia Inferior
and Dacia were threatened by the Iazyges, the head-
quarters were relocated from Carnuntum to Sirmium.
AÌer the Iazyges were defeated, a punitive campaign
was undertaken against the Quadi, who again violat-
ed the terms of peace treaty. The act of usurpation
by the Syrian governor Avidius Cassius in the spring
of 175 resulted in cancellation of all military actions
on the Danube and departure of the emperor and
his army to the east. The large cavalry contingents
of the Marcomanni, Naristi and Quadi took part in
the campaign almost as hostages.
On 23 December 176, Marcus Aurelius togeth-
er with Commodus celebrated a triumph de Germanis
et Sarmatis. Already in 177, both of the Pannonian
provinces saw new fighting. They ended with Roman
victories – it is not known whether in- or outside the
imperial frontiers – but the situation was by far not
definitely pacified. The expeditio Germanica secunda
started on 3 August 178 when Marcus Aurelius and
Commodus formally declared war at the Temple of
Bellona. The main adversaries were the Marcomanni,
Quadi, Hermunduri and Sarmatians. The available
sources do not allow any reconstruction of individ-
ual phases of the military campaign. The question
of where the last imperial headquarters before the
death of Marcus Aurelius (17 March 180) were situ-
ated has been answered in several different ways.
P. Kehne argues in favour of Bononia near Sirmium, 14
whereas A. Demandt pleads for the relocation of the
imperial headquarters to Vindobona in the spring of
179. This theory, in his view, is supported not only by
brief notes in wriÃen sources, but also by arrange-
ments implemented along the borderline between
Regensburg and Brigetio and by negotiations with
the Naristi, Marcomanni and Quadi. 15
WriÃen sources inform us that during the final
phase of the conflict, about 40 000 Roman occupa-
tion forces were deployed throughout the Germanic
territory. The question is to what extent this number
corresponds with reality although, regarding the
14 Kehne 2016, 243.
15 Demandt 2019, 401 ff.
175 |
capacities of the Roman army in the given situa-
tion, this number can be considered acceptable and
unexaggerated. Some literary sources suggest the
idea, that these military operations served an effort
of Marcus Aurelius to establish a  stable provincial
structure in order to prevent a new outbreak of sim-
ilar conflicts. 16 P. Kehne and A. Demandt have stud-
ied the external policy objectives of Rome from an
ancient historical point of view. While Kehne ap-
provingly considers the plan of establishing the new
provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia, 17 Demandt
regards these ideas, both put forward in Historia
Augusta 18 and in Cassius Dio, 19 rather sceptical. On
the other hand, he considers the construction of
a  winter camp at Trenčín to be an instrument for
permanent area control. 20 However, Emperor Marcus
Aurelius died in March 180 and in the same year, his
successor Commodus signed peace agreements with
the main opponents. 21 The terms of these treaties for-
mally and temporarily restricted the independence
of individual tribes and weakened their defence ca-
pabilities. However, territorial issues were returned
to their original boundaries. 22
Among the main opponents of Rome, accord-
ing to historical reports, were the Germanic tribes
of the Marcomanni and the Quadi, whose territo-
ry also became the main theatre of Roman military
operations. In the past, there was some uncertain-
ty about the localisation of their tribal territories.
Today, aÌer having analysed and compared literary
and archaeological sources, the Quadian seÃlements
of this period are located in Southwestern Slovakia
east of the LiÃle and White Carpathian Mountains
(Fig. 2). 23 Most researchers agree that in the same
time a  major part of the Marcomanni already set-
tled directly in the foreland of the Noric-Pannonian
border west of the Carpathian mountain range, i.e.
in modern Central and South Moravia, in the Slovak
part of the Morava River valley and the trans-Dan-
ubian parts of Lower Austria. 24 However, the tribal
territories of the Marcomanni and Quadi cannot be
identified in more detail and their seÃlements cannot
be clearly distinguished from one another by archae-
ological evidence, since their material culture was
very similar.
16 Cf. the chapter by Królczyk in this book. Disapprovingly
Alföldy 1979; cf. Kehne 2016, 239–241 with literature; Komoróczy
2009a.
17 Kehne 2016, 239–241.
18 Vita Marci 24,5–6; 27,10.
19 Cassius Dio XXI, 33,4.
20 Demandt 2019, 265–269.
21 Dietz 1994.
22 For peace treaties and strategic concepts, see Schmi– 1997;
Strobel 2001.
23 Dobiáš 1964, 150; Kolník 1971, 520–522; 1977, 161–168; Rajtár 2014,
111; Salač 2016.
24 Dobiáš 1964, 151; Schmidt 1970, 160; Pollak 1980, 184; Tejral 1970a,
163–166; 1983, 93–94; Droberjar 2017, 37, Fig. 10.
| 176
The origins of archaeological interest in
Roman remains in former Czechoslovakia can be
traced back to the interwar period. 25 J. Dobiáš sup-
posed in his synthesis of his book on the protohis-
tory of this region already that the Roman army, as
mentioned in written sources, must have built many
temporary camps on barbarian territory during
the Marcomannic wars. 26 The search for archaeo-
logical evidence of Roman campaigns against the
Marcomanni and Quadi during the Marcomannic
wars has for many years depended mainly on older
research. Several Roman buildings, so-called “sta-
tions”, which were known from the territory north of
the Middle Danube (Bratislava-Devín, Milanovce –
today Veľký Kýr, and Stupava in Southwest Slovakia,
Niederleis, Oberleiserberg and Stillfried in Lower
Austria and Mušov-Burgstall in South Moravia)
have earlier been associated with these expedi-
tions. These theories were based on the tradition-
al idea, boosted by the scenes depicted on Marcus
column, that during these campaigns, the Roman
Army had built fortifications and castella with ma-
sonry buildings and stone walls on enemy territo-
ry. 27 Some researchers had criticised such a  biased
interpretation already from the beginning. 28 Later
analyses and new researches have shown that most
of these buildings probably were civilian, Roman-
style residences or manors for Germanic elites or
a  sort of production plants. Besides, most of them
date in later periods. 29 Recent research has proved
that among the above-mentioned sites, only Mušov
had a  military function during the Marcomannic
wars (see below).30
Knowledge increased at the end of the 1980s
through the resumed excavations at Mušov and Iža31
and through the development of archaeological
aerial survey, which has yielded the first discoveries
of crop marks interpreted as outlines of temporary
camps in Lower Austria.32 In the early 1990s, the era
of aerial prospection started in countries beyond the
former Iron Curtain. This method helped to discover
many Roman temporary camps in Slovakia and the
25 For a summary see Gnirs 1976; Tejral 1986b.
26 Dobiáš 1964, 215.
27 Gnirs 1976; Mitscha-Märheim 1967; Mitscha-Märheim – Nischer-
Falkenhof 1929; Nischer-Falkenhof – Mitscha-Märheim 1931;
Ondrouch 1938, 21–32; Křížek 1959.
28 Swoboda 1959; 1965; Mócsy 1969, 356; Böhme 1975, 190–194.
29 Kolník 1986; 1995; Friesinger – Stuppner 1997; Stuppner 2002a;
Staník – Turčan 2001; Turčan 2012; Varsik – Kolník 2013.
30 Tejral 1992, 381–408; Komoróczy 2008a; 2009a, 119–125.
31 The first results of these new excavations at Mušov-Burgstall,
see e.g. Tejral 1986b; 1992, 381–401; 1999, 81–86; on the military
camp at Iža, see e.g. Kuzmová – Rajtár 1986; Hüssen – Rajtár
1994, 217–219.
32 Friesinger 1985, 258–259.
Fig. 2. Distribution of Germanic settlement territories on both sides of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)
Czech Republic.33 However, for a long time, the study
of these camps was limited to mere localisation, iden-
tification of the course of fortification, and spot sam-
pling with simple documentation and no further re-
search. These sparse data were used to reconstruct
the line of approach of Roman forces. Temporary
camps were not the focal point of more detailed ar-
chaeological research due to their considerable size
up to several dozen hectares and due to presumed
absence of any internal building structures. This un-
satisfactory state of knowledge and the emergence of
many important questions related to the historical
interpretation resulted some years ago in a complex
interdisciplinary research project, which was part of
an international cooperation between the Institute of
Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences Brno,
the Romano-Germanic Commission of the German
Archaeological Institute in Frankfurt am Main and
the Institute of Archaeology of the Slovak Academy
33 Older overviews of research history, see e.g. Bálek – Drober-
jar – Šedo 1994; Bálek – Šedo 1998; Hanzelyová – Kuzma – Rajtár
1996, 194–212; Hüssen – Rajtár 1994, 219–220; Komoróczy 2003b;
2009c; Komoróczy – Vlach 2010; Kovárník 1996; Kovárník 1997a;
Kuzma 1995; Rajtár 2002; 2008; Stuppner 2002b; 2008; Tejral
1992, 401–408; 1999, 114–130.
of Sciences in Nitra.34 Our sources of knowledge
of Roman operations in the Marcomannian and
Quadian territory are currently much more exten-
sive and more structured also due to this intensive
cooperation research activities (Fig. 33). The follow-
ing contribution sketches the main characteristics
of these sources and several possibilities of their ar-
chaeological and historical interpretation.
2. Archaeological evidence of Roman
campaigns on the Quadian territory
east of the Little Carpathians
(J. Rajtár, C.-M. Hüssen)
From the end of the 1st century and mainly
during the 2nd century, Quadian seÃlement area has
spread from the region at the lower reaches of river
34 The first phase of systematic research into Roman temporary
camps began in 1992 with systematic aerial survey in Slovakia
and the detection of a number of temporary camps north
of the Danube. The activities were resumed in 2008 with
high intensity and were extended to the territory of South
Moravia. Initially, the Austrian Archaeological Institute also
took part in the cooperation, but withdrew from it during the
course of research activities. General methodical parameters
of research activities concerning the temporary camps, see
Groh et al. 2015; Komoróczy et al. 2014. The research on tempo-
rary camps in Lower Austria was carried out separately and
the results were already published: Groh – Sedlmayer 2015.
177 |
Morava and from the southern edge of the Trnava
loess plateau to the whole territory of Southwest
Slovakia and along the rivers Váh, Nitra and Hron
also to the seÃlement area of Púchov Culture, which
probably represented the Celtic tribe of the Cotini.35
The dense distribution of archaeological sites indica-
tes that the Quadian population experienced a  dis-
tinct growth at that time. Conspicuous concentrati-
ons of seÃlements east of the confluence of the rivers
Morava and Danube, along lesser streams and along
the river Dudváh in the loess area east of the LiÃle
Carpathians, on the lower Nitra, Žitava, Hron and
Ipeľ rivers, but also east of the Danube bend indicate
the cores of Quadian seÃlement area (Fig. 2). Roman
forces undertook two major offensives against the
Quadi during the Marcomannic wars. The first one
has probably taken place in 173–174 as a  punitive
campaign for previous incursions of the Quadi into
Roman territory and for their disloyalty and violati-
on of the terms of peace treaty. The second offensive
in 178–180 was presumably undertaken with the aim
of breaking their resistance, occupying their territo-
ry and preventing them from moving away.
A  unique epigraphic evidence showing how
deep the Roman forces had penetrated into the
Quadian territory at that time is represented by an
inscription carved into the castle rock of Trenčín
in the valley of Váh River, 120 km away from the
Roman frontier on the Danube (Fig. 3). The text in-
forms us that here the fort of Laugaricio was built
which accommodated 855 (or up to 2855) soldiers of
the Legio II Adiutrix. The inscription is dated to the
turn of 179/180, thus to the second and final phase
of the Marcomannic wars, when numerous Roman
troops occupied the Quadian territory and spent the
winter here. This interpretation was confirmed and
the here illegible name of the legatus could be com-
pleted aÌer the discovery of a  panegyric inscripti-
on for M. Valerius Maximianus in Zana, Algeria.36
However, the exact place where this camp in Trenčín
was situated is not yet known.37
The detection of direct archaeological evi-
dence for military campaigns against the Marcomanni
and Quadi and for the presence of Roman troops
in their territory north of the Danube during the
Marcomannic wars in the form of temporary camps
and fortifications was significantly boosted by im-
plementation of aerial survey and the analysis of
archived aerial images. In the territory of modern
Slovakia east of the LiÃle Carpathians, this method
already helped to detect a  series of Roman tempo-
rary camps since the 1990s. Various methods, such
as geophysical measurements, archaeological trial
trenching, natural scientific analyses and systematic
large-scale surface prospections including metal de-
tector survey, were used to identify the camps more
35 Pieta 1996, 34–35.
36 Pflaum 1955; Dobiáš 1957; Böhme 1975, 210–211; Alföldy 1979, 399.
37 Rajtár 2008, 180–181.
| 178
Fig. 3. Inscription on the castle rock of Trenčín, Slovakia
(©AÚ SAV Nitra)
accurately, to specify their dimensions, fortification
type, structure and dating.
2.1. Iža (Nitra region, Slovakia)
One of the main starting points of Roman
campaigns against the Quadi was Brigetio. Although
this legionary fortress was probably heavily dam-
aged by the Quadian incursion into Pannonia,38 it still
played an irreplaceable role in later Roman offen-
sives. Important evidence resulted from an intensive
aerial survey in its neighbourhood. In recent years,
a distinct concentration of temporary fortifications –
so far 34 camps in total – were discovered. Hungarian
researchers suppose that they were intended to as-
semble multiple troops before the start of Roman
offensives against the Quadi.39 These camps, all in
provincial territory, were not yet subject of field ex-
cavation, so it is well possible that they were built
in other periods to fulfil some other function, but it
is very likely that at least a  part of them was built
during the Marcomannic wars.
Crucial knowledge was provided by excava-
tions and aerial survey in the foreland of Brigetio on
the north bank of the Danube. Long-term excavation
of the Roman castellum in Iža has clearly proved that
this fortress served as a bridgehead of Brigetio during
the Marcomannic wars. However, in a different form
than earlier supposed. Beneath the massive layers of
the stone-built castellum, in some places even up to
2 m thick, large parts of an older timber-earth camp
were uncovered (Fig. 4). Its total extent is not yet
known. The camp probably had a  rhomboid shape
with rounded corners and covered an area of more
than 3  ha. In the northern part of the fortification,
segments of two parallel defensive ditches were
explored at a  distance of 5–6 m  from one another.
The ditches were V-shaped in cross-section, about
5  m wide and 2.3–2.6  m deep. Traces of an earthen
38 Barkóczi 1951, 15–16.
39 Visy 1995; 2000, 32–37; Számadó – Borhy 2003; Szabó – Visy 2011.
Fig. 4. Schematic sketch of the layout of a Roman castellum in Iža, marking out the explored parts of an older timber-earth camp (A) and traces of
buildings in the southern part of its internal area (B) (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

rampart with supposed wooden wall or palisade later by the construction of a  stone-built castellum. 40
were not yet found. They probably were destroyed In the southern part of the inner area of the fortress,

40 Kuzmová – Rajtár 1986, 359–360, obr. 2.

179 |

Fig. 5. Traces of Roman temporary camps 2, 3 and 4 to the west
of the Roman castellum in Iža in a 1990 aerial photograph
(©AÚ SAV Nitra)
relics of eleven barracks were unearthed. They had
a  rhomboid ground plan and reached a  length of
44–48  m and width of 11–12  m. The barracks were
built from dried clay bricks bound with mud mortar
and their wall thickness was about 1–1.25  m. The
building layout was longitudinally divided into two
tracts, each of them partitioned into three identical
rooms of 12.5  x  4.5  m in size. In this southern part
of the fort originally probably twelve barracks were
built. They were symmetrically arranged at regular
distances of 4–4.5  m from one another, so that they
formed parallel streets. This is indicated by a  wider
gap in the middle between the sixth and seventh bar-
rack, where traces of the main entrance road to the
fort from the side of the Danube bank were found.
The find contexts inside the unearthed build-
ings and in their neighbourhood clearly proved that
this camp was probably destroyed during an unex-
pected enemy aÃack. ShaÃered and complete ceram-
ic vessels, components of military equipment and
weaponry and more than one hundred iron hobnails
from leather shoes were found lying on the floor of
individual rooms and at the level of adjacent streets.
Arms were represented by iron spearheads, shield
fiÃings and fragments of various types of protective
armour. From several types of weapons, e.g. the long
cavalry swords and particularly the numerous ar-
rowheads and bone plates of bows, we can infer that
the camp’s  garrison was mostly composed of troops
of mounted archers. 41
The most important dating clues for the camp
and its decline are offered by 82 coin finds. The major
part of identifiable coins (37 pieces in total) was
minted under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, almost half
of them between 175 and 179. The two latest coins
were minted between December 178 and spring of
179. So, the destruction of the timber-earth camp in
Iža can be reliably dated to 179. From the analysis of
archaeological contexts and finds, as well as from the
historical context follows that the timber-earth camp
was not built until the outbreak of the Marcomannic
wars. It hardly could have resisted the first major
41 Rajtár 1996.
| 180
aÃack on the North Pannonian border, during which
even the legionary camp of Brigetio was damaged.
Therefore, it is very likely that the timber-earth camp
in Iža was built aÌer the peace treaty in 175 and it
functioned as an outpost, from which the Romans
were able to oversee the strategically important ter-
ritory in the foreland of the Roman Limes more effec-
tively and to oversee compliance of the peace terms. 42
The first five Roman temporary camps were
detected at once due to extraordinarily favourable
conditions during an aerial survey west of the cas-
tellum near the Danube bank in 1990. 43 These camps
were the first of this type discovered in Slovakia and
their identification was quite easy. The crop marks
in cereals indicated the course of fortification ditch-
es, which enclosed typical rectangular or rhomboid
areas with rounded corners, reminding of the shape
of a  playing card (Fig. 5). Each of them was protect-
ed by one ditch. The camps were situated close to
one another, without overlaps (Fig. 6). Their dimen-
sions differed in individual cases. Three small camps
(camps 3–5) covered areas between 1.1 and 1.7 hec-
tares, another somewhat larger camp (camp 2) had
an area of about 3.2 ha. The gaps in ditches on all
four sides of camps indicated the position of en-
trances. The fiÌh, largest, camp (camp 1) was only
partly visible, so that its extent can only roughly
estimated at 7  ha. The northern entrance was rein-
forced by a short, advanced segment of the defensive
ditch (titulus). The fortifications were subsequently
examined by cross-sections, which showed that the
V-shaped ditches were 2–2.5 m wide and almost 2 m
deep and were very symmetrically and thoroughly
excavated (Fig. 7). Their infill contained only a  few
fragments of grey coarse poÃery and Pannonian
painted ware and a small fragment of terra sigillata,
which can be only roughly dated to the second half
of the 2nd century or to the beginning of the 3rd cen-
tury. However, one of the trenches which were laid
out across the ditch of camp 2 yielded a  denarius of
Commodus minted for his spouse Crispina in 178–
180. This coin could potentially date the camp to the
second phase of the Marcomannic wars (Fig. 8).
In 2016, a  1969 Hungarian archival aerial pho-
tograph was published, 44 on which the traces of anot-
her five camps were identified east of the castellum (Fig.
9). Their size can be estimated at 1.2 through 1.5  ha.
Geophysical prospections, using multiple different met-
hods (caesium magnetometry, fluxgate gradiometry),
did not bring expected results due to specific physical
characteristics of the bedrock and of the ditch infill. Test
trenching was carried out in the accessible parts of four
of these camps. The cross-sections have proved that the
areas were fortified by V-shaped ditches of the same di-
mensions as those in camps to the west of the fortress
(Fig. 10). Subsequently, a systematic surface prospection
42 Rajtár 1992b, 162–168; 2002, 104; Hüssen – Rajtár 1994, 218.
43 Rajtár 1992a.
44 Szabó 2016, Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Localisation of Roman temporary camps in the neighbourhood of the Roman castellum in Iža (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

Fig. 7. Cross-sections of ditches of Roman temporary camps 2 and 5 to the west of the Roman castellum in Iža (©AÚ SAV Nitra)with the help

181 |
Fig. 8. Finds from the excavations of Roman temporary camps west of the Roman castellum in Iža. 1: Commodus for Crispina, denarius; 2: iron
hobnail from the sole of leather shoes; 3–4: fragments of yellow painted Pannonian pottery; 5: rim fragment of terra sigillata; 6: bottom
fragment of grey coarse pottery (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

Fig. 9. Traces of Roman temporary camps 6–10 east of the Roman castellum in Iža in a 1969 aerial photograph from a Hungarian archive
(©AÚ SAV Nitra)

| 182
Fig. 10. Cross-sections of ditches of Roman temporary camps 7 and 9 west of the Roman castellum in Iža (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
of metal detectors was conducted in all accessible areas
of these camps and in their surroundings in a  total
extent of more than 75 ha. In the area of the newly disco-
vered camps 6–10, both directly inside the camps and
in their close neighbourhood, a  total of 16 coins were
found, among them 3 denarii of Trajan, 1 sestertius of
Hadrian, 3 coins of Antoninus Pius and 7 coins of Marcus
Aurelius. The other finds comprised 7 knee brooches,
an iron arrowhead, the top knob of a Niederbieber type
helmet, fragments of metal fiÃings from the milita-
ry equipment and a  silver finger ring with a  gem por-
traying Jupiter. In the area of camps 1–5, a  total of 19
coins were found, among them a denarius of Vespasian
and one of Domitian, 4 denarii of Trajan, a denarius of
Nerva, an as of Hadrian, 5 denarii of Antoninus Pius
minted for Faustina Major and Minor and 5 coins of
Marcus Aurelius, where the latest coin – a  176–177 ses-
tertius – was found in the area of camp 1. Surface metal
detector survey in these camps has yielded more knee
brooches, a bronze key, fragment of a sword suspender
as well as fiÃings and buÃons from leather straps of mi-
litary equipment (Fig. 11). These items have direct pa-
rallels in destruction layers of the timber-earth camp in
Iža 45, among the finds from Mušov-Burgstall46 and from
Eining-Unterfeld. 47
45 Rajtár 1992b, 157, Abb. 15: 2–9; 1996, 84, 93, Abb. 4: 1–16; 8: 1–8.
46 Komoróczy et al. 2010, 28; Tejral 2014, 229–232, Fig. 9: 1; 12: 1–6,
12–16; 13; 2017, 165–166, Abb. 12: 1–7, 9, 13.
47 Jü–ing 1995, 156, 164, 169–170, 173, 175, Abb. 5: 6–11, 13–14; 8:
54–64; 11: 124–133; 13: 174; 15: 197–198, 204.
These military installations evidently were
neither training camps nor temporary construction
camps from the building period of the timber-earth
or stone fortress. From their extent and grouping we
can infer that for a  certain time period they accom-
modated military units of different size. The con-
centration of stray finds in the camps and in their
immediate neighbourhood testifies that these areas
were associated with presence of troops that can be
reliably dated to the period of Marcomannic wars.
A  176–177 coin of Marcus Aurelius from the area of
camp 1, together with a 178–180 coin of Commodus for
Crispina, which was found earlier in the infill of the
ditch of the camp 2, indicate that these camps proba-
bly come from the second phase of the Marcomannic
wars. The coins thus support the original hypothe-
sis, according to which the camps are associated with
the counteraÃack and punitive campaign against the
Quadi aÌer destruction of the timber-earth fortress
in Iža during a  Germanic incursion in 179. It is well
possible that all these camps have functioned during
a  single military operation. Small camps were suffi-
cient for auxiliary infantry troops (cohors quingenar-
ia), camp 2 with an area of 3.2 ha might have been in-
tended for a cavalry unit (ala quingenaria). The largest
camp (camp 1) may have accommodated a special unit
(vexillatio), probably one part of the Legio I  Adiutrix
from Brigetio, together with supplies and train. The
camps thus might have temporarily accommodat-
ed an army of more than five through six thousand
183 |
Fig. 11. Selection of finds collected on the surface in the areas of Roman temporary camps in Iža and in their surroundings. 1–2: Trajan, denarii;
3: Hadrian, denarius; 4: Antoninus Pius for Faustina Minor, denarius; 5: Marcus Aurelius for Faustina Minor, denarius; 6: Marcus
Aurelius, denarius; 7: Marcus Aurelius, dupondius; 8: Marcus Aurelius, sestertius from 176–177; 9–14: knee brooches; 15–23: belt fittings,
copper alloy; 24: tie-ring from an armour; 25: top knob of a helmet; 26: scabbard slide; 27: arrowhead; 9–26: copper alloy; 27: iron
(©AÚ SAV Nitra)

| 184
Fig. 12. Localisation and extent of Roman temporary camps in Radvaň nad Dunajom and Virt (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
men who were stationed here aÌer having crossed the
Danube. 48
The results of excavations in Iža point to
several important facts. The first permanent camp
directly across from Brigetio was built as a  bridge-
head of this legionary fortress, most probably aÌer
the end of the first phase of the Marcomannic wars
in about 175 or a  liÃle later. It was fortified by two
parallel ditches and by an earthen rampart, which
was probably reinforced by a  wooden wall or pali-
sade. The camp was built from a  local, easily ac-
cessible but durable material. The barracks were
mainly built from a  large amount of unfired mud-
bricks. 49 High numbers of mudbricks were also used
elsewhere at that time, for example to reinforce the
earthen fortification ramparts of the extensive occu-
pation base at Mušov-Burgstall50 and the temporary
camp in Charvátská Nová Ves.51 The destruction of
the timber-earth camp in Iža in 179 at the same time
clearly shows that the situation of the Romans at
this segment of the North Pannonian frontier still
must have been worrying, insecure and very dan-
gerous at that time. The temporary camps detected
in the surroundings are probably associated with
48 Rajtár 1992a, 97–99; 1992b, 151–153; 2002, 112 ; Hüssen – Rajtár
1994, 219.
49 Kuzmová – Rajtár 1993; Hajnalová – Rajtár 2009, 195–197.
50 Komoróczy 2009a, 120.
51 Komoróczy et al. 2018, 300–303, Abb. 7; more details, see below.
a  counteraÃack and a  punitive campaign against
the Quadi aÌer the destruction of the camp in Iža
in 179, and refer to events of the second phase of the
Marcomannic wars.
2.2. Radvaň nad Dunajom – Virt (Nitra
region, Slovakia)
Other Roman temporary camps were detect-
ed by aerial survey only about 10 km east of Iža, in
Radvaň nad Dunajom and Virt. The camps were sit-
uated on an elevated terrace above former confluence
of the rivers Žitava and Danube (Fig. 12). Initially only
a corner of one of these camps was visible. The subse-
quent geophysical prospections have shown that this
camp had extraordinary dimensions. Its north-eastern
front reached a  length of 830 m  and its ditch was in-
terrupted on this side by two entrance gaps 18 m wide,
which were protected by advanced ditch segments
(tituli). The camp stretched as far as the terrace edge,
so that its narrow sides were at least 600 m long and its
area was around 50 ha. Aerial prospection confirmed
the results of geophysics in this camp (L1) and at the
same time identified the ditch of a second camp (L2).
Its southern part, which was overlaid by a  modern
road, was destroyed for the most part by gravel mining
and the rest is situated below modern build-up area.
The dimensions of the camp L2 thus were only esti-
mated at about 400 x 500 m, so that its area was about
20  ha. From the position of camps follows that they
partly overlapped, which indicates that they were
185 |
Fig. 13. Surface finds from the areas of Roman temporary camps in Radvaň nad Dunajom and Virt. 1: Vespasian, denarius; 2: Hadrian, denarius;
3: Antoninus Pius for Faustina Major, denarius; 4: metal fitting in the form of a lion head; 5: hobnail from the sole of leather shoes;
6: arrowhead; 7: fragment of a metal fitting; 8: S-shaped brooch (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
built one aÌer the other. However, the evident super-
position of their ditches is buried beneath the modern
road. The first trial trenches laid out across the fortifi-
cation ditches of both of these camps revealed marked
differences in their dimensions. While the camp L1
had a  massive ditch 2.8  m deep and 4.5  m wide, the
ditch of camp L2 was only 1.3 m deep and 1.6 m wide.52
Large-scale geophysical prospections in the extent of
almost 20 ha were conducted in the area of camp L2 in
2010. Their results showed that the ditch of this camp
was interrupted by a 13 m wide entrance and protected
by an advanced ditch approximately in the middle of
the northern front (titulus), and by a similar entrance
without an advanced ditch on the eastern front. Inside
the camp area, the ditch of another camp (L2b) was
detected. It had a  rounded corner, a  length of 280  m
and an entrance protected by an advanced ditch (titu-
lus). However, the ditches of these two camps did not
intersect. In the place where the ditch of the smaller
camp adjoined the eastern front of camp L2a, a  gap
was leÌ with a  width of 6  m. This makes us suppose
that the camp L2a was reduced at some time later and
its new area covered about 8 ha. This assumption was
proved by later trial trenching. Also came to light that
the ditches of the original (L2a) as well as of the re-
duced camp (L2b) had here approximately the same
width of 3 to 3.4 m and depth of 1.4–1.6 m.53
The infill of ditches has yielded only some
small fragments of Roman coarse grey kitchen ware
52 Rajtár – Tirpák 1996.
53 Hüssen – Ölvecky – Rajtár 2018.
| 186
and an iron hobnail from leather shoes. However,
by metal detector survey at the south-eastern front
of camp L1 two coins were detected – an as of
Antoninus Pius minted for Faustina Major in 141–161
and a  sestertius of Marcus Aurelius minted in 168–
169. Surface survey has yielded more coins – a denar-
ius of Vespasian, a  denarius and an as of Hadrian,
a  denarius of Antoninus Pius minted for Faustina
Major aÌer 141 and a  sestertius of Marcus Aurelius
minted for Faustina Major in 161–165. In the area of
this camp also an iron three-winged arrowhead, of
which numbers were found in the timber-earth camp
in Iža,54 a  deformed bronze S-shaped brooch and
a fragment of an openwork bronze fiÃing were found.
In the area of camp L2a, near the ditch at the north-
ern front of the reduced camp L2b, a bronze cast fit-
ting in the form of a  lion head was found (Fig.  13).
Its face has a  silvered, partly abraded surface. In
two small holes, the remains of fastening rivets are
preserved. The two round holes on both sides of
the mouth were intended for a  ring, now missing.
FiÃings with relief depictions of lion heads were rel-
atively widespread in the Roman milieu. Some of
them, having the form of a  phalera, might have be-
longed to horse harness fiÃings, others may have
represented door and furniture fiÃings or decorative
elements of wooden boxes.55 Several similar fiÃings
are known from Carnuntum56 and a  specimen with
almost identical dimensions and design was found in
54 Rajtár 1996, 84.
55 Gáspár 1986, 223, tab. CXCVII.
56 Humer – Kremer 2011, 406–407.
Siscia.57 On several official busts of Roman emperors,
e.g. Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Marcus
Aurelius, Commodus and Septimius Severus, who
are portrayed in muscle cuirasses, the right shoul-
der guard is fastened by a  leather strap or a  ribbon,
which is drawn through a  movable ring mounted in
the mouth of an apparently similar lion head fiÃing
on the breastplate of the cuirass.58 Therefore, it can
be supposed that the above-mentioned silvered fiÃing
might come from a similar precious cuirass of a high
military officer from a unit garrisoned in the camp.
Six cremation graves, which were unearthed
only about 200  m  east of camp L2 during an ar-
chaeological rescue excavation of an Avar burial
ground in 1960, can be connected with these forts.59
The way of deposition of the remains in spacious
pits and especially the grave goods clearly refer to
burials of Roman soldiers. In two graves coins were
found. Grave 3 contained an as of Marcus Aurelius
for Lucius Verus, minted from December 162 to the
autumn of 163 (Fig. 14: 3c). Grave 6, yielding two iden-
tical bronze openwork fiÃings with trumpet motif,
a  fragment of a  belt buckle and iron nails, prob-
ably from a  coffin, contained also an as of Marcus
Aurelius, minted from December 164 to August 165
(Fig. 15: 6a). Grave 4 contained besides scorched re-
mains of human bones also multiple components of
military equipment: an elongated bronze openwork
fiÃing, fragment of a  belt buckle with iron prong, 11
iron studs (Fig. 14: 4d–e, i), and an iron knife with
massive blade and ornamentally profiled bronze grip
terminal with an overall length of 26.5 cm (Fig. 14: 4f).
To this weapon belonged a scabbard lining, scabbard
fiÃings and a  sheet metal socket to aÃach a  leather
strap, to suspend the knife and scabbard on a  waist
belt (Fig. 14: 4a–c, g–h). Similar massive knives were
also found in the timber-earth camp of Iža. 60 Such
knives with a precious scabbard, adorned with metal
fiÃings, sheet metal lining and suspension sockets,
were found in graves from regions adjacent to the
Limes or from the neighbourhood of military envi-
ronments, e.g. from Carnuntum, Viminacium, Matrica,
Nijmegen61 and Emona. 62 A  close parallel was found
in a  latrine in the vicus of Rainau-Buch. 63 In their
design, appearance and suspension on a  belt they
remind of 1st century daggers and since the middle or
the last third of the 2nd century they probably became
part of military equipment. Very intriguing is the oc-
currence of such a knife with fiÃings in the inhuma-
tion grave 7 of a  Sarmatian woman in Tiszavasvári
in the Upper Tisza region. The funerary equipment
contained next to typical Sarmatian objects also
57 Koščević 2001, 138, tab. III: 24.
58 Ertel 2011, 12, figure on top.
59 Kolník 1961, 853.
60 Kuzmová – Rajtár 1986, 368, tab. IV: 3–4.
61 Jilek 1999, 77, note 443, tab. 24: 23,6–7; 79: 177,15–16.
62 Petru 1972, 87, tab. XXXIX: 617,24; LXIX: 930,30–34.
63 Greiner 2008, 103–105, Abb. 141–146.
a Germanic brooch Almgren 129, dating of the grave
roughly in the time of the Marcomannic wars or to
the end of the 2nd century. 64 The grave 5 in Radvaň
nad Dunajom contained besides scorched remains
of human bones also an elongated bronze openwork
fiÃing, a pteryx-type strap end, iron nails and 10 iron
hobnails from the sole of leather shoes (Fig. 15: 5).
The above-mentioned graves were doubtlessly
related to the presence of Roman troops in nearby
camps and the finds date them reliably to the period
of the Marcomannic wars. It is so far the only Roman
burial ground of that time, which was uncovered
north of the River Danube. Even though the cause
of death of these soldiers is not known, it is unlike-
ly that they were killed in a baÃle. They might have
died in an accident or disaster, but according to an-
tique wriÃen sources it is also well possible that they
died from one of the recurrent outbreaks of plague
in Roman army of that time. The fear of the spread
of plague might have been the reason why the re-
mains of these soldiers were not transported to the
nearby Roman territory beyond the Danube but were
promptly incinerated and buried in the vicinity of
the camps.
The strategically favourable location at the
mouth of the river Žitava was evidently one of the
most important starting points of Roman campaigns
against the Quadi during the Marcomannic wars.
The mouth of Žitava, which was situated across from
the Limes castellum Odiavum and not far from Brigetio
down the river Danube, offered very favourable con-
ditions for landing and anchoring the vessels that
transported numbers of soldiers and large amounts
of necessary provisions. This probably was the main
reason why the Romans chose this place twice in
a  row to undertake such complicated military oper-
ations. We can rightly suppose that these camps were
intended to assemble the transported troops, materi-
al and supplies during two different campaigns. The
first installation that was built during the first cam-
paign, probably in 173, was camp L2a with an area
of about 20 ha. It was large enough to accommodate
a  contingent of several thousand men with many
transport animals and supplies. AÌer the major part
of this army has leÌ the camp and marched further
inland, the Romans probably leÌ here a garrison who
provided secured supplies and necessary communi-
cation point with Roman territory. The units leÌ in
place then evidently reduced the camp area (camp
L2b) to about 8 ha.
Camp L1 with an area of 50 ha together with
the camp in EngelhartsteÃen (see below) counts
among the largest temporary Roman installations
north of the Danube. Its area can be compared to
camps in Northern England and Scotland, which
have been associated with major parts of the occupa-
tion army or even with the whole army from the time
64 Istvánovits 1990, tab. III: 5–6; V: 1–5.
187 |
Fig. 14. Finds from graves 1–4 in Radvaň nad Dunajom (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

| 188
Fig. 15. Finds from graves 5–6 in Radvaň nad Dunajom (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

189 |
Fig. 16. Localisation of Roman temporary camps in the foreland of
Brigetio (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

of Agricola’s expeditions and with later campaigns of

Septimius Severus. 65 The camp in Logie Durno with
an area of 58  ha is sometimes estimated to have ac-
commodated up to 53,000 soldiers. 66 However, lower
estimates are probably more real. The largest camp,
St. Leonard’s Hill in Scotland with an area of about
70 ha, is supposed to have accommodated an army of
about 40,000 men. 67

The extraordinarily large area of camp L1 in

Virt also indicates that this camp probably tempo-
rarily accommodated a whole Roman invasion army,
which may have been composed of several vexilla-
tiones of Roman legions and multiple auxiliary units
of more than 20,000 men in total. However, such
mighty forces probably could have been deployed
against the Quadi only in the second phase of the
Marcomannic wars during the expeditio Germanica
secunda. This camp was thus most probably built at
that time.
2.3. Chotín (Nitra region, Slovakia)
In the area between the mouths of the Rivers
Váh and Žitava once existed a  marshland with nu-
merous branched of river arms, which have silted
and are dried up today. Roman forces thus probably
moved forward to the Quadian territory along an el-
evated terrace of the River Žitava and transported
material and supplies on the river. This is indicated
by another fortification, probably a  Roman tempo-
rary camp, which was detected by aerial survey in
Chotín. It is situated at the edge of a  lower terrace
above former alluvial landscape of the River Žitava,
only about 9 km away from the camps in Radvaň
nad Dunajom and Virt (Fig. 16). This area has been
intensively occupied in prehistoric as well as in me-
dieval periods and then it was altered by multiple
modern intrusions, so that the extent of the camp
could not be exactly documented with help of aerial
photographs. Geophysical prospection has shown
65 Jones – Ma–ingly 1990, 77–84.
66 Gilliver 1999, 86–87, fig. 38.
67 Jones 2012, 54–55.
Fig. 17. Traces of a presumed Roman temporary camp in Chotín
in an aerial imagery and in a geophysical anomaly map
(©AÚ SAV Nitra)
that its ditches enclosed a  rectangular area with
rounded corners of about 1.2 ha in size. However, the
supposed entrances could not clearly be recognised
due to numerous disturbing interferences (Fig. 17).
Two test trenches have detected here a 2.5–3 m wide
and 1.3  m deep V-shaped ditch. This fortification
was originally dated to the Middle Ages, 68 but nu-
merous surface finds recovered later from the inner
area and from neighbouring areas, where an ex-
tensive Germanic settlement was situated, indicate
that it might be a Roman temporary camp from the
period of the Marcomannic wars. The surface finds
comprise multiple components of Roman military
equipment such as fragments of the mail armour
(lorica hamata), rings from the plate or scale armour
(lorica segmentata or lorica squamata) together with
a bronze scale, a fragment of a helmet, several three-
winged arrowheads, the fragment of a scabbard fit-
ting, hobnails from leather shoes, a plummet, multi-
ple fragments of metal fittings and 16 complete and
fragmented knee brooches, which have direct par-
allels on sites reliably dated into the period of the
Marcomannic wars (Fig. 18). However, the interpre-
tation and dating of this fortification still demand
further research and verification.
68 Hanzelyová – Kuzma – Rajtár 1996, 204.

| 190
Fig. 18. Selection of surface finds from the area of the presumed Roman temporary camp in Chotín and from its surroundings (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

191 |
2.4. Vráble (Nitra region, Slovakia)
Further advance of the Romans along the
River Žitava into the Quadian territory is indicat-
ed by another two Roman temporary camps, which
were detected by large-scale geophysical survey of
within the extensive Early Bronze Age settlement
and fortification at Fidvár on the southern border
of the town of Vráble. Geophysical measurements
were conducted within an area of more than 80 ha.
The resulting maps show numerous traces of pre-
historic settlement activities as well as two relative-
ly symmetrical ditched enclosures, which can surely
be identified as Roman temporary camps. 69 The site
is situated in a  slightly undulating landscape at the
edge of a  distinct terrace, which overtops the rela-
tively wide floodplain of the River Žitava. It is situ-
ated about 60 km north of the River Danube. A 2nd–
3rd century Germanic settlement was detected on the
inclined slope, on the terrace edge and in the flood-
plain of the Žitava.70
The smaller camp 2 was close to the edge of
the river terrace of the Žitava and its area also en-
compassed the Fidvár location (Fig. 19). At the edge
of the terrace, a  ditch segment was visible at the
western front of this camp. It was interrupted by
one gap, probably an entrance. The rest of the for-
tification was presumably destroyed by erosion of
the terrace. On the southern and eastern fronts, the
camp was fortified by two parallel ditches 18–20 m
apart from one another. On the northern side, the
fortification extended as far as a local river, but its
further course was not identified. The eastern front
of the inner ditch exhibits two entrance gaps, one
of them also with an advanced short ditch segment
(titulus). This part of the ditch was still fronted by
a  segment of a  third advanced ditch at a  distance
of 30–31  m from the first, innermost ditch. The in-
ternal dimensions of the camp were approximately
400 x 300 m, so that its overall area can be estimat-
ed at 12 ha.
The larger camp 1 was fortified by only one
ditch. Its northern front, where an entrance with
an advanced ditch segment was visible, adjoined
the segment of the third ditch of camp 2. The camp
was trapezoidal, N-S  755–800  m and its width in
the southern part about 510 m. The total area of the
camp can be estimated to be about 35–36 ha. Two en-
trance gaps were visible on the long eastern front of
the camp; another entrance was probably situated in
the middle of the southern front. All entrances were
fronted by short advanced ditches (tituli).
Between 2010 and 2012, the results of geo-
physical prospections were verified by archaeologi-
cal trial trenching. First of all, cross sections were
dug to examine the ditch at the northern entrance of
69 Bátora et al. 2009b, 10–11, Abb. 3–4.
70 Točík 1981, 298; Bátora et al. 2009a, 26.
| 192
the eastern front of camp 1 and the advanced ditch in
front of this entrance. Both of these ditches showed
a  symmetrical V-shaped cross-section. The ditch
of the camp was 3.4 to 3.6  m wide and its slightly
rounded boÃom was up to 1.8 m deep. The titulus was
2.8–3,0 m wide and 1.6 m deep (Fig. 20: 1). Later, the
ditches of both camps were examined in the loca-
tion where the fortifications overlapped each other.
The ditch of camp 1 reached here a  width of 3.2 to
3.4  m and depth of 1.9 to 2,0  m. It turned out that
this ditch was recessed into the infill of the advanced
segment of the third ditch of camp 2, but was fin-
ished immediately aÌerwards. This means that the
areas of camps 1 and 2 did not overlap. The fortifica-
tion of the larger camp 1 was indeed later connect-
ed to the fortification of camp 2. All ditches in the
remaining cross-sections were V-shaped, with very
similar dimensions. The titulus in front of the north-
ern entrance to camp 1 was 3.4–3.6 m wide and 1.8 m
deep. The third advanced ditch of camp 2 was about
3.2–3.4  m wide and 1.8  m deep, the second defen-
sive ditch of this camp was 3.4–3.6 m wide and 1.9 m
deep (Fig. 20: 2). An excavation trench in the area of
the northern entrance at the eastern front of camp 2
showed, that the first defensive ditch of this camp,
3–3.2  m wide and 2  m deep, was intentionally back-
filled within a  short time. Subsequently, a  narrower
and shallower ditch (2  m wide and only 1  m deep)
was recessed into this backfill at the inner edge of
the ditch. The new shallow ditch then longitudinally
crossed the whole entrance to the camp (Fig.  20:  3).
This rebuilding of the fortification of camp 2 was
probably related to the later connection with the for-
tification of camp 1, but the reason for an intentional
backfilling of the first defensive ditch in this segment
and the subsequent establishment of a new, narrower
and shallower, ditch in its original direction across
the entrance remains unclear.71
The examination of ditches has yielded only
two iron hobnails from leather shoes and two small
pottery shards but no relevant finds which would
date these camps in more detail. Systematic metal
detector survey in the area of these camps has yield-
ed several items, which evidently indicate the pres-
ence of Roman army. Among them are four coins:
four denarii, one Trajan, one of Hadrian and two
of Marcus Aurelius, one of them minted in 174. The
finds include five complete or fragmented knee
brooches, a  tie-ring from the plate or scale armour,
a deformed conical plummet, a bronze seal box with
enamelled lid, metal components of horse harness
and a  massive bronze fitting with an ornamental
openwork extension from a  Roman yoke (Fig. 21).
Almost identical finds from Brigetio are dated to the
second half of the 2nd century or the first third of the
3rd century.72
71 Hüssen – Ölvecky – Rajtár 2016; 2017.
72 Alföldi – Radnóti 1940, 317, tab. 29: 2–3.
 Fig. 19. Localisation and extent of Roman temporary camps
in Vráble (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

Fig. 20. Cross-sections of ditches of Roman temporary camps 1 and 2 in Vráble (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

193 |
Fig. 21. Selection of surface finds from the area of Roman temporary camps in Vráble (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
According to all finds, both forts in Vráble
can be dated to the period of the Marcomannic wars.
Camp 2 was fortified by two parallel ditches, which
is the only example among the known Roman tem-
porary camps north of the Middle Danube. The de-
fence at the eastern front was strengthened by a seg-
ment of a third ditch. The explored contexts testify to
building alterations and modifications of the fortifi-
cation. This evidence indicates that the camp might
have been in operation for a  longer period of time,
possibly also as a winter camp (castra hiberna) during
the second phase of the Marcomannic wars. Its area
of 12 ha offered enough space for the accommodation
of a military unit of several thousand men with nec-
essary supplies for several months. Camp 1 with an
estimated area of 35–36 ha was built and connected
to the fortification of camp 2 little later. Clearly, this
was built after the arrival of more, very numerous
troops. Such a  large concentration of Roman forces
can only be supposed in the second phase of the
Marcomannic wars. The two camps in Vráble thus
must date from this period. They probably served
| 194
not only as an outpost overseeing the surrounding
territory, but also as a  starting point for offensives
to more remote regions.
2.5. Mužla (Nitra region, Slovakia)
Until recently, two small fortifications, which
were detected by aerial survey in Mužla about 3 km
north of the Danube, also have been interpreted as
Roman temporary camps.73 One of them was situ-
ated at the edge of a  distinct terrace, the other was
located in its neighbourhood beneath the terrace, in
the floodplain of a stream which is regulated today
(Fig. 22). Their position within sight of the castellum
Crumerum, the results of archaeological test trench-
ing and mainly the surface finds indicated that these
73 Rajtár 2014, 119; Rajtár – Hüssen 2017, 541.

Fig. 22. Aerial photograph showing the traces of ditched enclosures in
Mužla (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
Fig. 23. Geophysical anomaly map showing the traces of ditched
enclosures in Mužla (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
fortifications might be Roman temporary camps.74
However, new geophysical measurements have
shown that they had a  different shape than earlier
supposed on the basis of aerial photographs. Such
layouts are atypical for Roman camps (Fig. 23), so
that their previous interpretation seems disputa-
ble.75 Multiple surface finds, which were previous-
ly regarded as traces of Roman military presence,
are in fact probably related to the relatively inten-
sive Germanic settlement activities. However, we
can only speculate how these items found their way
into the settlements of local inhabitants.
2.6. Hviezdoslavov (Trnava region, Slovakia)
One of the most important starting bases
for the campaigns during the Marcomannic wars,
not only against the Marcomanni but also against
the Quadi east of the Carpathians, was Carnuntum.
One of these expeditions is proven by a  Roman
74 Kuzma – Rajtár – Tirpák 1996, 116–118; Rajtár 2014, 119, obr. 11;
Rajtár – Hüssen 2017, 541, Abb. 3.
75 Rajtár – Hüssen – Ölvecky 2018, 292, obr. 7.
temporary camp detected by aerial survey in 2,000
in the western part of the Rye Island (Žitný ostrov)
at the southern border of the cadastral district of
Hviezdoslavov, 7  km off the main stream of the
River Danube.76 The aerial survey has only detect-
ed its north-western corner (Fig. 24). Further knowl-
edge of its location, layout and extent was obtained
from archived aerial photographs. They showed that
the camp was situated on the bank of former river
arm and was rhomboidal in plan. Later geophysi-
cal prospections have specified the location and di-
mensions of the fort, which were about 615  x  415  m,
so that the camp covered an area of about 25.5  ha
(Fig. 25). Its longer northern front was interrupt-
ed by two entrances and each of the narrow sides
had an entrance with a  14–16  m wide advanced de-
fensive ditch (titulus) in the middle.77 Trial trenches
revealed that the V-shaped ditch of the camp was
Fig. 24. Traces of a Roman temporary camp in Hviezdoslavov in
an aerial imagery (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
4.2–4.6 m wide and 1.5–2.1 m deep (Fig. 26). Its infill
has yielded no finds except for a  fragment of the
bottom and the lower part of a Roman pottery vessel
from fine grey-yellow clay and a sherd from a small
Germanic pot with polished surface, which can be
dated roughly to the 2nd–3rd centuries. Southwest of
the camp, at the edge of a nowadays silted river arm
in the cadastral district of the neighbouring munic-
ipality of Kvetoslavov, a Germanic settlement dating
more or less into the same period was detected by
surface monitoring.78
In 2017, a  large-scale metal detector survey
was conducted on all accessible parts of this camp.
Surface survey directly in the inner area of the camp
has yielded two complete Roman and one fragment-
ed Roman knee brooch, a strap end (pteryx) and five
complete or fragmented denarii: one of Vespasian,
one of Hadrian, a fragmented of Antoninus Pius and
one with a copper core of Marcus Aurelius, probably
minted in 166–169. Of great importance is an as of
76 Kuzma et al. 2001, 118, obr. 71: 2.
77 Rajtár – Tirpák 2008, 126, obr. 71–72; 2013.
78 Rajtár 2011.
195 |
Fig. 25. Localisation and extent of the Roman temporary camp in Hviezdoslavov (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

Fig. 26. Cross-sections of the ditch of the Roman temporary camp in Hviezdoslavov (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

| 196
Fig. 27. Surface finds from the area of the Roman temporary camp in Hviezdoslavov (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
Commodus, minted under Marcus Aurelius in 175–
176, which indicates that this camp was not built ear-
lier than the second phase of the Marcomannic wars
(Fig. 27). From its dimensions we can infer that the
camp may have accommodated an army of several
thousand men, maybe a whole legion. The army prob-
ably arrived from the west, thus Carnuntum, and had
crossed the river Danube somewhere southwest of the
Roman fort of Gerulata, south of modern Bratislava.
Some recent finds from the western part of
Rye Island are probably related to the presence and
movements of Roman troops in this region during
the Marcomannic wars. In a  Germanic seÃlement
at Dunajská Lužná, only about 4  km away from the
camp of Hviezdoslavov, a  hoard of iron objects was
discovered in a  bronze bucket, some of them were
of Roman origin. Among them were two pickaxes
(dolabrae), which belonged to the regular equipment
of Roman soldiers. The hoard is dated into the period
of the Marcomannic wars or shortly aÌer.79 Surface
surveys in the area of this seÃlement has also yield-
ed two bronze scales from the Roman armour and
a Roman type of brooch.
Another remarkable surface find comes
from a  large Germanic seÃlement in Hamuliakovo,
which is situated about 6  km away off the camp of
Hviezdoslavov. 80 Among the most important finds
is a  leÌ cheek guard from a  Roman helmet of the
Niederbieber type. The surface prospection has
yielded an extraordinarily high number of Roman
provincial knee brooches, of which 24 complete spec-
imens or fragments were found. Their frequent oc-
currence is particularly conspicuous because from
79 Bazovský 2010, 15, 23–25, obr. 5: 1–2.
80 Iván – Ölvecky 2015, 303–311, figs. 6–7, 11–13, 9: 5; Rajtár 2014,
121–122, Abb. 13–14.
the area of the Rye Island so far only a single find of
this brooch was known. In most of these finds we do
not know their original context, so that it is not clear
how they found their way to the Germanic milieu,
but we can rightly suppose that they are related to
the presence and movements of Roman troops in this
region during the Marcomannic wars.
2.7. Cífer-Pác (Trnava region, Slovkia)
Further advance of the Roman army from
the south-western direction towards the heart of the
Quadian territory is evidenced by another two camps
discovered in Cífer-Pác. They are situated 30 km away
from Hviezdoslavov and about 40 km away from the
river Danube near Gerulata. At first, the ground plan
of the smaller camp 1 was identified in aerial photo-
graphs made by the Eurosense company and pub-
lished on Google Earth in 2008. The quadratic area
with rounded corners, which had the dimensions of
about 160  x  190  m and an extent of 3  ha, was situat-
ed northwest of the local district Pác near the Gidra
stream. The course of its ditch on the south-east-
ern narrow side was interrupted by a simple gap en-
trance (Fig. 28: 1). During examination of another ar-
chived aerial imagery, the corner of a  second camp
was identified at the north-eastern edge of the pres-
ent village. Geophysical prospections, which were
conducted in accessible areas in the following year,
have proved a  considerable extent of this second
camp. The straight line of its north-western front was
428  m long, the slightly bent line of the south-west-
ern front reached a length of 600 m. The ground plan
with an estimated area of about 26  ha probably had
the form of an irregular rhomboid. In the middle of
the narrow north-western side, the course of the ditch
was interrupted by an entrance gap with an advanced
defensive ditch segment. In the longer south-western
front, we can recognise two gaps in the ditch of less
197 |
than 20 m in length, representing more entrances to
the camp on this side. One of these gaps was front-
ed by a  short defensive ditch segment (titulus). The
north-eastern and south-eastern fronts of the camp
stretched as far as the modern gardens and below the
buildings of the village (Fig. 28: 2).
Test excavation was carried out to verify the
results of geophysical prospections and some trench-
es were laid out across the ditches of both camps to
identify their shape and dimensions (Fig. 29). The
ditch of the smaller camp 1 had a pronounced V-shape
with inclined even walls. Its boÃom reached a depth
of 2.3  m and the original width can be estimated at
4 m. The ditch of camp 2 exhibited the same symmet-
rical V-shape with even walls in all cross-sections,
including the advanced ditch segment (titulus). It was
3.4–3.6 m wide and was recessed 1.8–2.3 m deep into
the loess subsoil. The infills of the ditches did not
yield any finds relevant to their dating. 81
However, multiple facts already indicated that
these field camps were built during the Marcomannic
wars. Previous rescue excavation in the area between
the still unknown camps has yielded remarkable finds
from the infill of a  Germanic sunken-floor dwelling
(Fig. 28: 3). Among them were fragments of Germanic
poÃery, several iron objects, as well as numerous
fragments of Roman militaria (pieces of bronze scale
armour and other components of Roman military
equipment) and a  fragment of a  terra sigillata bowl,
dating to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. 82 These finds
at that time already indicated possible relationship
to the presence or movements of Roman troops in
this region during the Marcomannic wars. 83 Similar
indication was also a  coin of Marcus Aurelius 84 and
a metal fiÃing from horse harness, which was found
during a  surface survey on the right bank of the
Gidra stream. 85
Systematic large-scale metal detector survey,
which was carried out in accessible areas of both
camps in 2017, has yielded numerous finds confirming
that the camps were built during the Marcomannic
wars. Coin finds comprise a denarius of Titus, a  de-
narius of Domitian, a dupondius of Trajan, a denari-
us and two asses of Hadrian, an as of Antoninus Pius
for Faustina Major and an unspecifiable as from the
1st or 2nd century. Particularly important are compo-
nents of Roman arms and military equipment repre-
sented by more than 20 bronze scales from the lorica
squamata, four bronze tie-rings from the scale or plate
armour and one tie-hook from the plate armour, sev-
eral top knobs of Niederbieber type helmets, metal
fiÃings and buÃons from military equipment or
81 Rajtár 2013.
82 Cheben – Ru–kay 1995, 68, obr. 42–43; 2010.
83 Hüssen – Rajtár 1994, 220, obr. 9.
84 Novosedlík 1994.
85 Kolník – Rajtár 2004, 205–208, obr. 3: 1a–b.
| 198
horse harness, and eleven Roman knee brooches.
These items find parallels in Eining-Unterfeld, Iža
and Mušov-Burgstall. Also remarkable are bronze
and golden finger rings (Fig. 30).
Two camps of different size in Cífer-Pác testify
to presence of two different military units or contin-
gents. The smaller camp 1 with an area of 3  ha of-
fered enough space for an auxiliary unit, an infantry
troop or a cavalry unit of 500 mounted soldiers. The
large camp 2 with an area of about 26  ha may have
accommodated an army of several thousand men,
similar to that in Hviezdoslavov. It is therefore well
possible that the military contingent, which crossed
the Danube and then spent some time in camps in
the western part of the Rye Island, has moved for-
ward against the Quadi and came to this region with
dense Germanic population. The question is wheth-
er these different troops were encamped here simul-
taneously, or one aÌer the other. Nevertheless, it
seems likely that aÌer departure of the major part
of Roman forces, a  small garrison was leÌ in place
to oversee the territory, roads and transport of sup-
plies. Roman troops then probably moved forward
from this region along the rivers Dudváh and Váh to
the north as far as Laugaricio.
The presence and movements of Roman
forces in this area during the Marcomannic wars are
also indicated by some other finds. In the infill of
a  Germanic sunken-floor dwelling from the nearby
site of Zvončín (the site was originally erroneously
localised to the cadastral district of Biely Kostol),
several bronze scales from the Roman scale armour
were found. 86 Particularly interesting is a hoard from
the nearby Germanic seÃlement in Čataj. It con-
tained multiple items of Roman origin, such as three
hub rings, a linchpin, a massive key and grate parts.
The hoard most probably dates to the period of the
Marcomannic wars, too. 87
2.8. Conclusions
Systematic aerial and geophysical survey of
the Quadian territory east of the LiÃle Carpathians
has helped to identify, accurately localise, explore
and date multiple Roman temporary camps from the
period of the Marcomannic wars. Most of these camps
were protected by only one ditch. Other distinct traces
of their fortification, such as reinforcements of ram-
parts, palisades, constructions of entrance gates or
towers, were not yet identified. Also, we still lack any
evidence for their internal layout and structure, such
as guÃers, garbage pits, fireplaces, ovens or other
traces, which could indicate some stable construc-
tions inside their fortified areas. However, we must
take into consideration that these traces might have
perished due to unfavourable soil conditions, deep
86 Hüssen – Rajtár 1994, 220, obr. 8.
87 Bazovský 2007.
Fig. 28. Localisation and extent of two Roman temporary camps in Cífer-Pác (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

Fig. 29. Cross-sections of ditches of Roman temporary camps 1 and 2 in Cífer-Pác (©AÚ SAV Nitra)

199 |
Fig. 30. Selection of surface finds from the area of Roman temporary camps in Cífer-Pác. 1: Titus, denarius; 2: Domitian, denarius; 3: Hadrian,
denarius; 4: Trajan, dupondius; 5: gold; 1–3, 21: silver; 4, 6–20, 22–27: copper alloy (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
ploughing and a  long-term intensive agricultural ac-
tivity. Nevertheless, it is evident that most of these
fortifications were intended to serve for only a  short
period of time, maybe some weeks or months at the
most. The discovered fortifications can thus be clas-
sified as Roman temporary camps or simply field
camps. Roman troops have usually built such camps
during individual military campaigns or expeditions.
Ground plans of these camps usually were rec-
tangular with rounded corners, reminding a  shape
of playing card, mostly with a  2:3 side ratio of long
and narrow sides. In the case of camps 2 and 5 in
Iža, the entrances in their long sides were placed at
two-thirds of their length. Larger camps mostly had
two entrances in their long sides. The entrances were
protected by advanced ditch segments (tituli), whose
length corresponded to the width of entrance gaps
(Fig. 31). From these facts clearly follows that the
| 200
camps were built according to a  relatively unified,
widely used scheme. The ground plans of several
camps had a  rhomboid or trapezoidal shape, which
may have been caused by measurement and survey-
ing errors. However, their shape, as well as their loca-
tion and orientation, may have been adapted to local
terrain conditions. It seems that the width and depth
of their ditches and thereby also the size of the ram-
part fortification, were influenced by the period of
use, function and strategic significance rather than
by the extent of these camps.
The discovered camps differ from one another
mainly by their dimensions, which divide them into
two distinct groups. Many of these camps covered an
area of only about 1–3 ha. They may have accommo-
dated small troops, maybe the auxilia composed of 500
or 1,000 soldiers. A liÃle more extensive fortification
of the camp 1 in Iža with an area of approximately
Fig. 31. Comparative diagram of the extent of Roman temporary camps in Quadic territory in the foreland of the North Pannonian Limes east of
the Little and White Carpathians (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
7  ha, the reduced camp 2b in Radvaň nad Dunajom
with an area of about 8 ha and the camp 2 in Vráble
probably served for vexillationes or for contingents of
multiple troops of even several thousand men. The
only evidence for the size of a vexillatio, who spent the
winter 179/180 at Laugaricio, is the information on 855
soldiers of the Legio II Adiutrix. However, such a unit
could also be well stationed in a  camp sized around
3–4  ha. The second group is represented by much
larger camps with an area of more than 20 or even
30 ha. The largest among them, camp 1 in Virt, covers
an area of about 50 ha. Such forts accommodated con-
tingents composed of vexillationes and troops equal
to at least one legion or even one entire army of
maybe more than twenty thousand men including
other personnel, animals and large train with sup-
plies and equipment. From the size of individual
camps, we can infer that the Roman military opera-
tions in Quadian territory during the Marcomannic
wars were conducted by troops of variable size, from
small units up to complete large military contingents.
Some of the discovered camps are located di-
rectly on the Danube bank or not far from the river.
Their largest concentration is situated in the foreland
of Brigetio, which evidently represented an impor-
tant starting point of Roman campaigns against the
Quadi. Two places were identified, where the Roman
forces crossed the Danube during these offensive ac-
tions. One of them was the area at the old mouth of
the river Žitava, in Radvaň nad Dunajom and Virt.
This location was probably used by the Romans
for this purpose twice during two different expedi-
tions, both in the first and in the second phase of the
Marcomannic wars. A second such place was situat-
ed directly across from Brigetio, where a contingent of
multiple Roman units probably crossed the Danube
during a counteraÃack and a punitive campaign aÌer
201 |
Fig. 32. Geographic distribution of presently known Roman temporary camps in the foreland of the North Pannonian Limes and presumed
directions of movements of Roman forces during their expeditions into the territory of the Quadi (©AÚ SAV Nitra)
destruction of the timber-earth camp in Iža in the
second phase of the Marcomannic wars.
The geographic distribution of other camps
in many regards indicates the strategy, tactics and
dynamics of these campaigns as well as their direc-
tions and goals (Fig. 32). The Roman troops who have
crossed the Danube at the mouth of Žitava probably
moved forward along this river. By changing the di-
rection along the river Nitra and turning to the west
they may have reached the Váh valley, through which
they advanced further to the north as far as Laugaricio.
Another direction is indicated by the position of the
camp in Hviezdoslavov. The units which possibly
set out from Carnuntum may have moved north to
the Danube, where they encamped in Cífer-Pác, in
a region densely populated by the Quadi. From there
they probably moved forward to the northwest as far
as the Váh valley. During the second phase of the
Marcomannic wars, Roman troops probably used the
route along the river Žitava (the river itself may have
been used for transport of supplies and military ma-
terial) and on a terrace at the southern edge of pres-
ent-day town of Vráble they built a temporary camp,
in which they also could have probably spent the
winter. AÌer arrival of another large military con-
tingent, the Romans established here an important
base, from which they oversaw a  wide Quadian ter-
ritory and started their expeditions to the valleys of
Váh and Nitra rivers. The camp in Hviezdoslavov can
be dated to the second phase of the Marcomannic
| 202
wars, too. For the time being, we cannot yet identify
during which campaigns the remaining camps were
built. The above-mentioned results of archaeological
research thus provide important new knowledge of
Roman military campaigns against the Quadi during
the Marcomannic wars and fill the gaps in fragmen-
tarily preserved and unclear historical reports on
these significant historical events.
3. Archaeological evidences of the
Roman military campaigns on
the Marcomannian territory to
the west of the Little Carpathians
(B. Komoróczy, M. Vlach,
C.-M. Hüssen)
The region to the west and north of the LiÃle
Carpathians constitutes a  characteristic and geo-
graphically seÃlement zone of Germanic popula-
tions on its own foremost associated with the tribe
of Marcomanni. 88 Therefore, in connection with the
thematic focus of this paper, archaeological phenom-
ena identified in this region can be considered as ev-
idences of particular military operations distinctive
88 Droberjar 2018, 37, Fig. 10; Komoróczy – Vlach 2010, 256; Rajtár
2014, 111.
from the comparable evidences to the east of the LiÃle
Carpathians. From a  geographical point of view, it
is a  naturally compact area comprising present-day
Moravia, Lower Austria and the Slovak part of the
Morava river valley west of the LiÃle Carpathians.
It is an area structured by vast lowlands – valleys
with axial watercourses, bordered on the outer pe-
rimeter by geomorphological units with higher alti-
tudes. Unlike the surrounding regions with higher
altitudes (the Outer Western Carpathians and the
Bohemian-Moravian Highlands), this northern part
of the Vienna Basin has continuously been inhabit-
ed with various intensity since the Neolithic Period.
The overall configuration of the landscape implies its
permeability mainly in the north-southern direction.
Moreover, the river Danube in its southern part pro-
vides the region with an equally important west-east-
ern communication corridor.
Currently we know of many indicators for
Roman military activities within this Marcomannian
seÃlement territory. They can generally be divided
into movable and immovable evidence, whose op-
tions for interpretation are determined by their in-
dividual characteristics. A distinctive group of mate-
rial sources can be interpreted as direct evidence of
a  Roman military presence (Fig. 33). This group in-
cludes the central fortified base on the hill at Burgstall
(Hradisko) near Mušov and the so-called temporary
camps. Secondary indications of possible military ac-
tivities encompass the finds of Roman militaria, com-
ponents of military equipment which formally cor-
respond with the find horizon of the Marcomannic
wars. 89 All of these were found in the context of bar-
barian features or as individual stray finds.90 A limit-
ed spectrum of these unstratified finds indicating the
presence of Roman military forces is known from the
prospecting activities of the so-called detectorists in
recent years.91 Other less conclusive evidence is rep-
resented by numerous linear crop marks, which have
been identified by aerial survey but have not yet been
verified by other methods.92 In the following text we
will focus on the direct evidences of Roman activi-
ties (largely known already from the subject publica-
tions), for which the connection with the events of the
Marcomannic wars could be considered proven and
which constitute the main information basis of his-
torical interpretation of archaeological record.
3.1. Mušov-Burgstall – a space of complex
Roman-Germanic interactions
Archaeological interpretations of the events
of Marcomannic wars in the territory of present-day
89 For a recapitulation of this horizon see Tejral 1994a; Fischer
2012b, 335–340; Burandt 2017.
90 E.g. Elschek 2017a, 76–79; Jílek – Žákovský 2014; Komoróczy –
Vlach 2010, 255; Tejral 1999, 135–147; Zeman 2017b.
91 E.g. Komoróczy – Vlach – Hložek 2014.
92 E.g. Tejral 1999, 126–127, Abb. 34: 1–2.
Moravia have long been limited almost solely to find-
ings from Burgstall (Hradisko) near Mušov. However,
excavations were conducted here to a  limited extent
and their results are not satisfactorily processed. Many
interpretational and chronological studies were pub-
lished, which present in synthesis oÌen hardly com-
prehensible parts of archaeologically explored features
or choices from the voluminous collection of finds.93
But we must admit that in a closer examination of in-
dividual terrain phenomena and in the search for an-
swers to still unanswered questions we oÌen encounter
the problem of insufficient excavation of the site and
a very unsatisfactory, subjective and selective form of
publication of older archaeological data. Besides prob-
lems arising from various aspects of older research
phases, we also have plenty of new material from the
past twenty years, whose character impacts the pre-
vious interpretative models. In order to change this
condition, we have to make a  very detailed revision
of hitherto results, introduce the primary sources and
contexts and conduct new and intensive follow-up re-
search focused on a secure verification of previous in-
terpretation premises. This process just begins while
this chapter is wriÃen. In the following text we will
therefore avoid a  critical analysis of particular con-
texts and partial topics. We will only outline without
deep analyses the basic characteristics of the site and
its hinterland, on which the previous interpretations
were based. We are doing so without trying to discuss
all data and previous opinions, bearing in mind that
some chronological and interpretational constructions
may change distinctly in future.
The site is situated on and at the foot of the
gentle hilltop called Burgstall (Hradisko in Czech), in
the cadastral district of the already defunct village
of Mušov. It is located in the immediate neighbour-
hood of the confluence of the rivers Dyje, Jihlava and
Svratka, whose alluvial landscapes – presently flood-
ed – form a  unique environmental context (Fig.  34).
During the first excavations of the site in the late
1920s94 for the first-time relics of building construc-
tions were discovered being doubtlessly of Roman
origin (Fig.  35:  1). Today, we consider them as a  com-
plex comprising a  bath and a  residential building
(mansio), which were equipped with underfloor heat-
ing (hypocaustum).95 The construction of buildings
included Roman bricks bearing the stamps of Legio
X  Gemina Pia Fidelis and, according to formal and
archaeometric criteria, representing a  homogenous
series from the brickworks of this legion, dating from
the second half of the 2nd century.96 The aboveground
parts of the constructions were apparently built using
timber-earth masonry technique. Further towards
the south-eastern slopes of Burgstall, a  so-called
workshop quarters were excavated (Fig. 35:  2), where
93 Most recent summary with literature Komoróczy 2008a; Tejral
2014; 2017.
94 Their summary, see Gnirs 1976.
95 Komoróczy 2009b, 1421 ff., Fig. 2: 1.
96 See Mosser in this book.
203 |
Fig. 33. Middle Danube region. Distribution of the verified Roman temporary camps east and west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)

Fig. 34. Mušov region at the confluence of the Dyje, Jihlava and Svratka rivers with localisation of the central military base at Mušov-Burgstall,
linear 2.1 km long fortification ditch enclosing the outer perimeter of this base, and dislocation of the neighbouring temporary camps in
Mušov – Na Pískách, Ivaň and Drnholec (©ARÚB)

| 204
the field research yielded evidence of pyrotechno-
logical features and small aboveground one-room
wooden post buildings.97 Other features, among them
the complete ground plans of two timber-earth build-
ings, one of them interpreted as residential building
(Fig. 35:  3),98 the other one without doubt a  valetudi-
narium (Fig. 35:  4),99 were discovered on the eastern
and south-eastern hillsides. Rescue excavations and
geophysical survey also detected here variously struc-
tured segments of Roman ditches.
The general interpretative concept of the site
has changed in the past considerably. Most recent
research is documenting the chronological and spa-
tial dynamics regarding the extent of the fortification
and the internal build-up. The collections of archae-
ological finds, mainly Roman militaria, 100 poÃery, 101
coins102 and building material, 103 which were acquired
during long-term terrain activities, predominantly
date from the 2nd half of the 2nd century, i.e. gener-
ally within the horizon of the Marcomannic wars.
However, the traces of Roman building activities are
spread over an area of more than 30 ha and most of
the archaeological features localised by non-destruc-
tive methods have not yet been analysed. A more pre-
cise determination of individual construction phases
and their chronology is a  task for the future. Until
then, we can only theorise about the possible exist-
ence of other (earlier) construction phases. 104
Despite many unanswered questions, the
current level of knowledge enables us to interpret
Mušov–Burgstall as a  central command post and
a logistic base for Roman military operations within
the scope of the Marcomannic wars. 105 Besides the
presumable accommodation of military units, it may
also have provided space for the headquarters of the
Roman army, which coordinated the troops in the
whole of the operation territory, provided logistic
support and supplies, cared for the wounded and pos-
sibly provided accommodation to various dignitaries
of the highest social rank. This military installation
differs from the ordinary field camp architecture not
only by the character of the currently known internal
build-up but also by its unique layout and location.
97 Komoróczy 1999b; 2009b, 1428 ff., Fig. 2: 3.
98 Bálek – Šedo 1996, 403, Abb. 4; Komoróczy 2009b, 1426–1428;
interpretation as a bath see Bidwell 2002.
99 Preliminarily Komoróczy – Vlach 2011, 400, Fig. 7: 2.
100 Tejral 1994a.
101 E.g. Droberjar 1993; Klanicová 2008.
102 Komoróczy 2008a, 417–422.
103 Komoróczy 2003a; Musil 1993.
104 Cf. Bálek – Šedo 1996; Šedo – Knápek 2019; Komoróczy 2008b;
Tejral 2017, 153–159; Groh 2015d, 167–176.
105 This thesis is not doubted even by those of the above-men-
tioned authors, who otherwise do not fully agree on the
dating of individual phases of Roman features and suggest
to date part of the buildings to the Augustan or the Flavian
period.
On the southern and eastern sides, the whole forti-
fied area is protected by the natural system of the
alluvial landscape of the River Dyje and its tribu-
taries. On the northern and north-western sides, the
an area of almost 4  km 2 between the rivers Jihlava
and Dyje is enclosed by an outer fortification ditch of
2.1 km long (Fig. 34). 106 It can be reasonably supposed
that garrisons of several temporary camps in the pe-
riphery of this region (e.g. Mušov – Na Pískách, Ivaň,
Drnholec), 107 which are situated in places of impor-
tant fords and access roads to Burgstall, were “over
a long period” involved in the defence of the central
fortress in Mušov.
This interpretation indicates far-reaching ge-
ostrategic interests of Rome in this location. In view
of the fact that Mušov-Burgstall is located in the
heart of the Germanic seÃlement zone with a direct
connection to a major crossing of overland and river
roads, we can regard it as archaeological record of
an emerging administration centre for the entire set-
tlement territory. This centre was probably intended
to become the nucleus of a  planned long-term oc-
cupation of the land. This interpretation therefore
may support the fragmentary ancient literary sourc-
es, which in several cases mention the intention or
willingness of Emperor Marcus Aurelius to establish
a new province in the conquered territory. 108
Mušov and its immediate surroundings within
the territory of present-day village of Pasohlávky
give us the most stratified picture of the impact of
Marcomannic wars on a local Germanic community.
Although, identifying this phenomenon in archaeo-
logical structures is far more complicated than it is
with traces of direct Roman military presence. 109 In
the chapter about the so-called temporary camps is
mentioned an oÌen detected overlap of Germanic
seÃlements and Roman military camps, whose
most illustrative example is the site of Mušov – Na
Pískách. 110 Some researchers interpreted this phe-
nomenon as a  display of the total decline or aban-
donment of individual Marcomannian seÃlements
in the whole of the studied region. 111 This process,
whose archaeological reflections are usually referred
to as seÃlement horizon late B2, has been regarded
as the impact of Roman military strategy which was
aimed at the total destruction of local social and
economic relations and was depicted on the Column
of Marcus Aurelius. This schematic model does not
leave enough space to find the archaeological record
106 Cf. Bálek – Šedo 1998, 163–164; Tejral 2017, Abb. 3.
107 See below.
108 E.g. Birley 2012b; Komoróczy 2008a; 2009a; cf. Kehne 2001, 313;
2016.
109 Detailed analysis of this problem goes beyond the scope of
this study, therefore only some important phenomena are
described in broad outline.
110 Komoróczy 1999a; 2002.
111 E.g. Tejral 1998a; 2004, 332 ff.; 2008, 74–82.
205 |
Fig. 35. Mušov-Burgstall. Outline of the verified courses of fortification ditches and excavated buildings complexes (1 – “mansio” complex,
2 – workshop quarters, 3 – timber residential building with apse, 4 – valetudinarium) (basemap: orthophoto; ©ČÚZK WMS, ©ARÚB)
of “peaceable” relationship between Roman army
and Germans (archaeologically demonstrated as
a parallel existence of Roman and Germanic features
in regions that were most heavily occupied by Rome)
during the war conflict. Moreover, the Marcomannic
wars are perceived in it as a  turning point and the
later, post-war seÃlement horizon (so-called seÃle-
ment horizon C1) should not be a record of continu-
ous seÃlement activities in the area.
It is beyond any doubt that some seÃlements
have shrunk if not due to direct advance of Roman
troops, then within the turbulences before and
during the military conflict. However, archaeologi-
cal evidence for a violent destruction of these seÃle-
ments by Roman forces is not available. The thesis
about a  wide-area decline of seÃlements within the
narrow time interval of war events (and therewith
also a schematic division of seÃlements into horizons
B2 and C1) seems to be methodologically untenable.
It is probably based on the impossibility to clearly
synchronize the seÃlement horizons with relative
chronology derived from grave finds, rather than on
| 206
historical facts. 112 The assumption of a differentiated
approach of Roman troops to local population seems
more realistic. Many seÃlements (or maybe even
most of them) may have survived the wartime. 113 The
military base on Burgstall near Mušov is currently
being interpreted as a central structure designed for
a long-term occupation, so an intentional “genocide”
of the indigenous Marcomanni does not seem rea-
sonable from a Roman point of view.
The prevailingly accepted interpretation of
the famous chieftain’s grave from Mušov also would
112 Most recently in detail, see Tejral 2017, 176 ff., Abb. 22. It is
necessary to point out certain methodological problems of
his model, because J. Tejral synchronizes some Germanic fea-
tures on Burgstall, according to their stratigraphy definitely
from the post-war period, with seÃlement structures outside
this area, where Roman finds only sporadically occur in the
infill of a few objects (and most of them are even unpub-
lished). The author thereby omits the fact that these finds do
not determine the period of existence of these seÃlements.
113 SeÃlement features of phase B2/C1 (i.e. simultaneous with the
war years) were on the basis of ceramic finds already iden-
tified by E. Droberjar (1994; 1997) but his conclusions were
not clearly verifiable due to low chronological sensibility
and contextual uncertainty of these assemblages. Anyway,
they showed that the wide-area decline of seÃlements at the
beginning of the Marcomannic wars cannot be accepted
without reservation.
contradict this assumption. 114 Its noticeable spatial
characteristic, which were already frequently accen-
tuated in professional literature, is its location in im-
mediate neighbourhood of the fortress on Burgstall
(ca. 1.5  km as the crow flies from its centre), inside
the above-described area enclosed by the outer
Roman fortification (Fig. 36). The extraordinary fu-
nerary equipment of this grave was already analysed
and published in detail and, despite its fragmen-
tariness, it has instigated a  discussion about dating
and culture-historical determination of this unique
archaeological find. With some degree of simplifi-
cation, we can say that this discussion gave rise to
two basic interpretation theses. The predominantly
accepted opinion was formulated by J.  Tejral who
mainly accentuated the Roman component of funer-
ary equipment, reflecting extraordinarily tight rela-
tionships of the buried persons to the Roman milieu,
from which they also adopted some spiritual and
cultural influences. 115 A  different concept was pre-
sented by C.  von Carnap-Bornheim, who puts the
major emphasis on the equally unique component
of luxury grave goods of Germanic provenance. He
pointed out that these finds reflect not only the ex-
traordinary status of the members of Germanic elite
buried in this grave, springing from the long-flour-
ishing central location in Marcomannian settle-
ment territory, but also their intensive connection
to the Germanic milieu in the Bohemian Basin, the
Przeworsk Culture, the regions on the lower reaches
of the river Elbe and the territory between the Elbe
and Oder rivers. In one of the persons buried on this
site he saw a  Germanic chieftain, whose political
and military potential enabled him to play a  lead-
ing role in the initial phase of the conflict between
the Roman Empire and Germanic societies. 116 These
two, in principle antithetic conceptions which C. von
Carnap-Bornheim aptly expressed in the phrase
“Freund oder Feind?” (“friend or foe”) also have their
own different chronological connotations, which
can only hardly – if at all – be validated because
they are based solely on relative-chronological con-
structs. The most recent finds from the preserved
part of the funerary equipment fall generally within
the late phase B2b and the transitional phase B2/
C1. 117 However, the absolute-chronological definition
114 Peška – Tejral 2002a.
115 Peška – Tejral 2002b, 501–513; Tejral 2004, 339: „…wahrscheinlich
wenigstens eine der hier beigesetzten Personen, wohl königlichen
Ranges, zum Teil einer Romanisierung unterlag, was nicht nur
durch die Verwendung der antiken Gegenstände, sondern vor allem
auch durch die Übernahme der typischen provinzialrömischen
Jenseitsvorstellungen und Beigabensi–en zum Ausdruck kommt …“.
116 In Detail von Carnap-Bornheim 1999.
117 E.g. Tejral 2004, 339; 2017, 159–164.
of these phases cannot yet be reliably identified. 118
C.  von Carnap-Bornheim’s culture-historical inter-
pretation found its chronological context in the as-
sumption that the burial of the chieftain/s has taken
place shortly before the arrival of the Roman army
on Marcomannian territory, i.e. before 172. J.  Tejral
tends to the opinion that phase B2/C1 began after the
outbreak of Marcomannic wars and the interment
of the prominent individual is dated by him to the
wartime. According to him, the spatial relation of
the grave to the Roman fortress on Burgstall, which
corresponds to this dating, not only underlines the
close contacts of the buried chieftains to Rome, but
defines them as elites cooperating or collaborating
with the Roman occupation army, whose funeral
may have also been attended by prominent Roman
military officers.
Until recently, it seemed that the only
Germanic structure from the time of Roman oc-
cupation inside the area around Burgstall, which
J. Tejral called “quasi Exterritorium” of Roman occu-
pation, 119 is the chieftain’s  grave from Mušov. This
“exclusive location” was meant to support its dating
and interpretation. However, large-scale rescue ex-
cavations conducted by the authors in the past ten
years have uncovered numerous Germanic fea-
tures, which make this picture more accurate. In
the relatively extensive area on the original left-
bank terrace of the river Dyje, stretching from the
eastern border of the built-up area of present-day
municipality of Pasohlávky as far as the findspot
of the chieftain’s  grave, scattered Germanic set-
tlement and production features were detected,
which are most intensively concentrated on the site
U vodárny, ca. 1.5 km as the crow flies southwest of
the centre of Burgstall. They also are situated inside
the “Roman” territory delimited by a  long ditch
(Fig.  36). The analysis and evaluation of material
from this settlement, whose details cannot be pre-
sented here due to lack of room, are currently being
finished and the results will soon be published. We
will only briefly summarize the most interesting
information. 120
118 We therefore can completely agree with von Carnap-Born-
heim 1999, 60: „Zudem verfügen wir heute noch nicht über ein
chronologisches Instrumentarium, das die sichere Unterscheidung
von Gräbern erlaubt, die unmi–elbar vor, während oder gleich
nach den Markomannenkriegen abgelegt wurden.“ („In addition,
we do not yet have a chronological toolkit that would allow us to
distinguish reliably graves that were built immediately before,
during or immediately a»er the Marcomannic Wars.“)
119 Tejral 1999, 107; 2017, 164.
120 The seÃlement has been mentioned in several partial studies
which, however, were only conceived as preliminary reports.
In some cases, they even contain inaccurate or erroneous
conclusions which do not reflect the overall picture of
uncovered components. Cf. Tejral 2006; Klanicová 2010; Ko-
moróczy – Vlach 2011, 392–396; Hošek – Komoróczy – Beran 2012;
Komoróczy 2017, 286 ff.
207 |
Fig. 36. Detailed geomorphology (Basemap: LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK) of the present landscape of the Mušov-Burgstall and its vicinity with delimitation
of the significant traces of the Germanic presence in the area (Germanic settlement in Pasohlávky, rich princely grave) (©ARÚB)
The seÃlement Pasohlávky U vodárny (Fig. 37)
counts among unfortified lowland seÃlements. All
Roman-dated features represent a  single, broadly
definable seÃlement horizon. However, it is not pos-
sible to make a  clear internal temporal differentia-
tion based on the finds and terrain phenomena an-
alysed. Its overall spatial layout and structure differ
in various aspects from the hitherto known exam-
ples of Germanic seÃlements of the Roman Period in
Marcomannian and Quadian territory. 121 Apart from
a few exceptions, no significant overlaps of individu-
al features were detected and the features from older
prehistoric epochs (oÌen graves) are present on the
site only in a  marginal amount. The most noticea-
ble superposition of buildings dated to the Roman
Period is the mutual relationship of two or three
aboveground buildings at the western border of the
excavation area, in which we cannot clearly distin-
guish which building dates from the early and which
from the later phase. Anyway, one of these structures
represents a  type of aboveground hall building (the
others were simple granaries of four-post construc-
tion), which was not yet registered in Moravia during
the Early and Middle Roman Period. 122
121 Overviews with further literature, see Droberjar 1997; Varsik
2004; 2011.
122 Komoróczy – Vlach 2011, 396; comparable objects, see e.g.
Ostermoor, Norre Snede – Brabandt 1993, 47.
| 208
The scaÃered development paÃern is in
contrast to the overall extent of the seÃlement. 123
Noticeable concentrations of features appear in the
eastern part of the polygon, where the sunken-floor
dwellings are placed at similar distances from one
another and are surrounded by distinct clusters of
uniform seÃlement pits. Apart from some excep-
tions, these features are accompanied by a  larger
or smaller number of aboveground buildings with
four-, six- and nine-post construction, interpreted as
granaries. 124 Aboveground buildings, or clusters of
individual postholes representing remains of such
buildings, are distributed over the whole area except
a square area of ca. 1,300 m 2 situated roughly in the
centre of the explored residential district. For the
time being, we can only speculate that it might have
been a  central “village square”. It is surrounded on
all sides by small aboveground buildings (granaries),
which might provide some clues for understanding
its function.
Although it is obvious that not all features
existed at the same time, it can be guessed that the
123 The site U vodárny extends over an area of ca. 4.5 hectares.
Other Germanic features from the same chronological hori-
zon were detected spot-wise in so distant locations that the
total extent of seÃlement activities of various intensity can be
estimated as more than twice as big as this area.
124 Komoróczy – Vlach 2011, 396, Fig. 5; cf. e.g. Berg-Hobohm 2004;
Teichner 2004; Zimmermann 1992.
Fig. 37. Pasohlávky “U vodárny”. Plan of an extensive Germanic settlement with basic discernment of uncovered contexts and structures (sunken-
floor dwellings, above ground structures and storage/removal pits) (©ARÚB)
uncovered ones represent the archaeological record
of a  single seÃlement horizon, an internal differ-
entiation is yet not possible. The spectrum of finds
from infills mirrors the whole period of existence of
the seÃlement and at the same time is a  reflection
of a quite complicated, partly unintentional, deposi-
tion process, whose dynamics are evidenced for ex-
ample by the distances between features containing
fragments from the same ceramic vessel. The analy-
sis of the overall layout reveals some differentiation
within the archaeological record, which might have
deeper social roots. Distinct concentration of rela-
tively uniform seÃlement pits around several sunk-
en-floor dwellings might indicate certain specialisa-
tion of activities in their neighbourhood. According
to the spatial distribution of technological facilities,
including a foundry, a smithy and metallurgical fur-
naces, it seems that a  certain degree of specialisa-
tion can be observed in the eastern part of the area.
Considerable amount of metal objects acquired from
two sunken-floor dwellings in this part of the seÃle-
ment might also indicate that metal raw materials
for these activities as well as finished products also
were stored there. The eccentric position of the large
hall building in the western part of the explored area
might have resulted from the internal functional
and maybe also social structuring of the residential
district.
Following the evidence of different catego-
ries of finds from individual features we can observe
a  repeated common occurrence of forms which in
the chronology of Germanic grave finds appear in
the later phase of phase B2, in the transitional hori-
zon B2/C1 and in the oldest phase of the Late Roman
Period, in phase C1a. The ceramic collection from
Pasohlávky stems from an older local Danubian
Suebic reservoir, which is shown by the presence of
a  small amount of relatively archaic forms, whose
roots can be sought in the 1st half of the 2nd centu-
ry. Apart from these older forms, which are never
found alone in particular features and whose longer
survival cannot be excluded, the ceramic collection
largely coincident with finds from features which,
according to the above-mentioned interpretation
model, fall within the seÃlement horizon of the late
phase B2 and B2/C1. Their decline has been seen in
relation with activities of the Roman army. However,
the spectrum of vessels also includes some forms
and decorative elements, which find their parallels
among the not very numerous finds of Germanic
poÃery from the Roman features on Burgstall or in
the chieÌain’s  grave at Mušov. 125 Germanic ceramic
finds from Pasohlávky can generally be regarded as
an assemblage from the 2nd half of the 2nd century and
from the early years of the 3rd century. A similar time
frame is given by the not very numerous set (21 frag-
ments) of terra sigillata from the seÃlement, 126 con-
125 Cf. Droberjar 2002; Tejral 2008, obr. 5; 2017, Abb. 23.
126 Klanicová 2010.
209 |
taining products from Central Gaulish workshops
in Lezoux (Cinnamus, Pugnus). There are ten frag-
ments of products from Rheinzabern (Januarius II,
Cerialis I, Comitialis I, II) and a single one from the
workshop of Helenius in Westerndorf.
The metal finds (Fig. 38) most distinctly refer
to the 2nd half of the 2nd century (in relative chronol-
ogy of funerary assemblages this equals the stages
B2b, B2/C1 or C1a). Two very well-preserved brooches
Almgren 129 and 43 are typical representatives of the
transitional horizon B2/C1 and at the same time they
are characteristic forms of the Przeworsk Culture. 127
One large piece of raw amber, discovered in one of
the features together with small fragments of amber
beads, indicates the contacts of local community to
the north-eastern parts of non-Roman Europe. The
finds of casting moulds and finished products give
evidence that local craÌsmen participated in the pro-
duction of brass two-piece brooches with high catch-
plate of so-called Sarmatian type, whose occurrence
in the Middle Danube region is generally dated to
phases B2/C1 and C1a. Recent analyses of casting
moulds provided a  clear evidence of local produc-
tion of strap-ends Raddatz type J  II 3–4. 128 These
strap-ends are in Germanic milieu oÌen accompa-
nied by two-part iron buckles Madyda-Legutko type
G46 found here as well, which are mostly dated to
the relative-chronological phases B2b to B2/C1. 129
Radiocarbon dating was also made with charcoal
pieces from the infill of two features. A pit containing
among other finds also terra sigillata of the Bernhard
Ib group from Rheinzabern yielded a  date 130±50
with standard deviation 1 σ. The date from a  well,
which, for example, contained the brooch Almgren
129, is 150±50 with standard deviation 1 σ. All availa-
ble data thus indicate that the duration of seÃlement
in Pasohlávky overlaps with several seÃlement ho-
rizons that were previously regarded as separated
by the Marcomannic Wars. It´s  spectrum of finds is
characterised by a parallel occurrence of forms of the
late phase B2 and the oldest forms of the phase C1. In
terms of absolute chronology, it is roughly the time
interval from 150/160–170 to 210/220. 130
A  notable phenomenon in the spectrum of
finds from the seÃlement Pasohlávky U  vodárny is
the presence of a  Roman artefactual component,
127 Recent overviews with literature see Droberjar 2019; Rajtár
2018; Tejral 2015.
128 A premature publication of a foundry from the seÃlement
(Tejral 2006) also mentioned the production of strap-ends
Raddatz type J II 6 (cf. Raddatz 1957, 95). However, a revision
of casting moulds from the seÃlement area did not prove this
statement, so it cannot be used in chronologisation of the
seÃlement.
129 Madyda-Legutko 1986, 54–55, Taf. 17.
130 Tejral 2015, 68 proposes a beginning of the seÃlement aÌer
the end of the Marcomannic wars. However, his arguments
do not seem to be convincing, both in the light of the analysis
of material and in the context of its interpretation, but a de-
tailed discussion goes beyond the scope of this chapter.
| 210
whose quantity and quality are beyond any compar-
ison with standard collections from seÃlements of
this era. This component also includes many Roman
bricks identical with those from Burgstall. The vast
majority of these bricks were found in infills of indi-
vidual features, sometimes also in secondary func-
tional context. 131 Significant is the occurrence of quern
stones from porous basalt and andesite of volcan-
ic origin, which can be considered Roman imports.
Closest analogies to this type are found in the assem-
blage of finds from the Roman fortress on Burgstall,
in several Quadian seÃlements in immediate neigh-
bourhood of the Roman Limes, or in the military
camp at Iža. In our region, on the other hand, they
do not appear in the Germanic context. 132 The col-
lection of Roman glass fragments from Pasohlávky
goes beyond the scope of ordinary seÃlement mate-
rial, too. The spectrum of identified vessels includes
fragments of square boÃles of Ising’s  type 50 made
of blue glass, which were also abundant in the grave
furnishings of the nearby princely tomb in Mušov. 133
The collection of metal finds contains a notable group
of Roman artefacts, which do not belong to usual cat-
egories of trade goods imported to the Germans in
our territory. Among them are the components of
Roman military equipment: two sword fragments
(blade of a  spatha of type Lauriacum–Hromówka,
variant Mainz–Canterbury, fragment of the hilt of
an iron ring-pommel sword, Ger. Ringknaufschwert)
and numerous large or small fragments of armour
lorica squamata, lorica segmentata and lorica hamata.
Other examples include a bronze military belt fiÃing
of type Neuburg–Zauschwitz, bronze buckle, numer-
ous iron cart fiÃings, bucket handles, iron tools – e.g.
spoon bits, file, drawknife and other knives. 134
J. Tejral explained the occurrence of these
categories of finds in Germanic features generally as
a  result of collecting of things that were leÌ behind
by the Roman army leaving the Marcomannian
territory aÌer the end of the Marcomannic wars. 135
However, when we take into account their extraor-
dinary parameters and a  parallel existence of the
seÃlement at Pasohlávky U vodárny and the Roman
fortress on Burgstall, it is also well possible that
this Germanic community has acquired Roman
articles within some unspecifiable interactions in
the form of a  direct contact with the Roman occu-
pation power. In the years 172–180, the seÃlement
surely could not exist in this area without cooper-
ating with the Roman army. It must have been quite
important for the Romans because they protected it
inside their fortification system around Burgstall. In
this regard we must again turn aÃention to the no-
ticeable structure of the seÃlement, which included
131 Komoróczy 2017, Fig. 4.
132 In detail, see Halama – Zeman 2009.
133 Follmann-Schulz 2002, 396–399.
134 E.g. Hošek – Komoróczy – Beran 2012, 275 ff.
135 Tejral 2017, 164 ff.; originally in this sense also Komoróczy 2017.
Fig. 38. Pasohlávky U vodárny. Selection of finds from different settlement objects. 1–3, 5–9, 15–16: copper alloy; 4, 9, 11–14, 17: iron;
10: pottery; 18: amber (©ARÚB)

211 |
a  spacious hall, metallurgical furnaces, a  foundry
and a  smithy, but above all the dominant grana-
ries. Judging from culture-anthropological and eth-
nographic research of societies organised at the
level of chiefdom, aboveground granaries may also
demonstrate prestige and power. 136 The remarkable
presence of all these aspects in Pasohlávky could be
seen as evidence for the presumption of a seÃlement
of prominent Germanic social elites who may have
maintained various forms of cooperative relations
with the Roman military structures at Burgstall, in-
cluding participating in their supply.
Both, the location of the seÃlement in
Pasohlávky, which chronologically existed partly
parallel to the Roman fort on Burgstall, as well as
an enormous influx of Roman military or “non-
imported” finds into the seÃlement, an influx un-
paralleled within the entire region, evidently reflect
close contacts between the inhabitants of this set-
tlement with the Roman military fort on Burgstall.
This fact can be regarded as an expression of strong
support of that part of Germanic population, who
remained loyal towards the Roman occupants.
A  similar interpretation was presented already ear-
lier during the analysis of the funerary equipment
of the chieÌain’s  grave, which was detected only
about 500 m  away from the centre of the seÃlement
in Pasohlávky. Therefore, the hypothesis is offered
whether these areas are directly interconnected by
the environment of the elite buried in the grave at
a  certain moment of existence of the seÃlement.
Regarding the chronological context of the seÃle-
ment as well as the dating of Germanic activities in
the area of Burgstall tin the years aÌer the end of the
Marcomannic wars, we open the possibility of a new
discussion about whether the grave might be buried
in the years aÌer the end of the Marcomannic wars.137
3.2. Temporary camps
The first so-called temporary field camps138
in the Marcomannian territory were discovered as
a result of the evolving aerial archaeology in Central
Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s (except for
the camp in Bernhardsthal incidentally discovered
during the rescue excavation, see below). 139 The first
verifying field research was also carried out liÃle
later, but their intensive and systematic implemen-
tation took place only within the framework of the
above-mentioned multilateral project cooperation.
As part of the above mentioned international pro-
ject, some of these camps were investigated using
136 E.g. Wesson 1999.
137 In this sense already Krierer 2002, 379 ff.
138 For terminology and definitions, see Davies – Jones 2006, 5–7;
Jones 2011, 5–12; 2012, 18–31; Welfare – Swan 1995, 1–2, 24.
139 For summary of previous knowledge and progression of re-
search, see e.g. Bálek – Droberjar – Šedo 1994; Bálek – Šedo 1998;
Friesinger 1985; Komoróczy 2009c, 64–76.
| 212
a variety of research methods. In general, these com-
ponents can be said to represent a  specific autono-
mous category of archaeological evidence, which
logically requires the application of specific research
approaches. The search for answers to fundamental
questions, for example, the exact dating, the possi-
ble functional differentiation, the duration and char-
acter of their use, the geomorphological parameters
of their localisation and the environmental aspects
of their formation and decline, cannot be solely an-
swered by archaeological methods. Therefore, the
project employed and tested a wide spectrum of po-
tentially beneficial natural scientific analyses. 140 In
the Marcomannian seÃlement territory west of the
LiÃle Carpathians there is currently positive evi-
dence of at least 26 military camps or their phases
(reductions or extensions of the fortified area) in
a  total of 16 sites (Fig. 33). These represent a  unique
collection of archaeological sources that can be used
to study the presence of Roman forces in enemy terri-
tory. This summary provides an outline of individual
camp sites (in alphabetical order) and aÌerwards fol-
lows treatises of some significant common sectional
characteristics and relevant interpretational theses.
3.2.1. Bernhardsthal (Lower Austria, Austria)
Just a  few kilometres northwest of the con-
fluence of Dyje and Morava rivers is located the
Roman temporary camp in Bernhardsthal (loca-
tion Aulüssen). 141 It is the first military camp in the
Marcomannian territory, detected during a  rescue
excavation. The camp was irregular in shape and
had a nonstandard design of the entrance, which was
2.4 m wide. The typical V-shaped ditch of the camp
was 1.8 m deep and 3 m wide. To date, only two sides
of the camp were detected, 100 and 95  m  long, in-
cluding an angle of 75°. Its present state of knowledge
and local conditions (presence of alluvial floodplain)
allow to estimate the fortified area to roughly 1 to
3  ha (Fig. 39). Documented stratigraphy relations of
the V-shaped ditch and Germanic seÃlement features
from relative chronological phases B2 and C1 imply
dating of the camp to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. 142
Many small objects (for example fragments of lorica
squamata and lorica segmentata) were detected with
the help of metal detectors in the neighbourhood of
the camp. These items can be indirectly associated
with the presence of Roman army. 143 Regarding the
specific shape and small dimensions of the camp, we
can consider that it probably had a  special function
within the Roman military structures, which was re-
lated to the water route on the river Dyje. 144 However,
140 E.g. Lisá et al. 2015; Lenďáková et al. 2020.
141 Adler 1979, 14–18; 1989, 244–247; Stuppner 2008, 56.
142 Adler 1981, 502; Stuppner 1994, 287
143 Ölvecky 2014, 97–124.
144 Groh 2015d, 179, note 419.
Fig. 39. Bernhardsthal. Outline of the excavated course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the fortified
area (basemap: orthophoto ©BEV – basemap.at, WMS; ©ARÚB)
the current state of research does not provide any
further insight into other aspects of the camp.
3.2.2. Brno – Vojtova street (South Moravian
region, Czech Republic)
In fall 2017, the Institute of Archaeological
Heritage in Brno carried out a  large-scale archaeo-
logical rescue excavation in the southern part of the
urban district Brno-Centre, Vojtova street, 145 which
involved the only still-undeveloped plot between
house blocks. On the western side of the excava-
tion area, immediately at its border, a linear feature
was examined at a  length of 70 metres. Its formal
parameters fully correspond to a  typical V-shaped
ditch. The ditch, about 3  m wide, with a  depth of
1.6 m below the subsoil level, ran straight in approx-
imately the north-southern direction at the total re-
corded length of 70  m (Fig. 40). According to the in-
formation of the excavators the lowermost part of
the ditch yielded as good as no artefacts. An excep-
tion, however, is represented by an almost complete-
ly preserved Roman provincial poÃery vessel found
at the boÃom of the ditch. It represents a  bowl with
145 The authors of the paper would like to express the gratitude
to colleagues from the ARCHAIA Institute of Archaeological
Heritage in Brno (foremost to V. Kolařík) for possibility to
provide the preliminary overview of the principal findings
and excavation results.
horizontal rim belonging to Pannonian grey ware,
whose parallels at the Pannonian Limes fall within
the 2nd century. 146
In one of the sectors of the ditch rested
a completely preserved human skeleton deposited in
stretched supine position without any accompany-
ing artefacts. The tip of the ditch was already partly
filled with runoff sediments when the skeleton was
placed inside the ditch. It means that the ditch still
must have been clearly visible at that time. The re-
lation between the skeleton and the activities in
a  time when the fortification already lost its origi-
nal function is still being explored. A 14C radiocarbon
date from the skeleton has yielded a time interval of
16–208 with 2 σ. The whole area of the rescue excava-
tion contained numerous archaeological components
from various periods of prehistoric as well as histori-
cal seÃlement, whose stratigraphic position definite-
ly excludes early medieval or more recent dating of
the ditch. According to all available information, in-
cluding the above-mentioned poÃery, and according
to formal criteria of the ditch itself, its dating to the
Roman Period, more precisely to the period of the
Marcomannic wars, is well possible.
Although we do not yet know much of de-
tailed data on the character of the camp, we can get
146 Cf. Grünewald 1979, 58; Kuzmová 1997b, Fig. 2–3.
213 |
Fig. 40. Brno – Vojtova street. Outline of the excavated course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstruction of its fortified
area extent (basemap: orthophoto, ©ČÚZK WMS; ©ARÚB)
some idea based on its location and presupposition
of its dating to the period of the Marcomannic wars.
The available sections indicate that the inner side of
the camp was most probably situated to the east of
the uncovered sector of the ditch, that is towards the
area where is now an arm of the river Svratka. The
flat ground in this area soon changes into a  moder-
ate and later relatively steep hillside in the western
direction. The camp is built on loess sediments in
a bend of the river Svratka, in a location where a ford
in north-southern direction is already documented
since the Early Middle Ages at the latest. The detec-
tion of further course of the fortification is unfortu-
nately considerably limited by dense development.
Regarding the character of the local geomorpholog-
ical context, which is delimited from the north and
northeast by the river Svratka and from the west by
a distinct hill, it probably was a small-scale fortifica-
tion falling within the category smaller than 10 ha.
In the case of the camp in Brno we can suppose that
its garrison probably guarded the strategically signif-
icant ford and fulfilled some other logistic functions
in the communication corridor. This theory is also
supported by the fact that the camp is situated only
7  km away along a  modelled path from the nearest
camp in southern direction, in the cadastral district
of Modřice south of Brno (see below). 147
147 Komoróczy – Vlach – Hüssen 2018, 310–312.
| 214
3.2.3. Drnholec (South Moravian region,
Czech Republic)
The last discovery, which can most proba-
bly be considered the relic of a  Roman temporary
camp, was made in the cadastral district of the mu-
nicipality of Drnholec, site “Holenická pole” (some-
times also referred to as “Roviny”) on a flat leÌ-bank
terrace of the river Dyje. A series of non-destructive
surveys in the past few years were conducted with
the aim to verify and specify in detail the chrono-
logical and spatial relations of local archaeological
components. Their presence was long indicated by
many small finds, which were acquired during metal
detector surveys conducted by members of the pub-
lic. 148 Among other investigations, geophysical survey
was conducted of an area of 4.6 ha. The most distinct
spatial anomaly is a  regular linear structure with
a rounded bend at almost a right angle (94 degrees).
Its total detected length is 226  m  (the side lengths
apart from the bend are 58  m  and 189  m), without
any identifiable gaps (Fig. 41). The whole course of
the anomaly could not be followed up due to strongly
waterlogged areas. However, several aÃributes of this
linear structure (above all morphology of the almost
right-angled bend and its characteristic rounding)
148 The results of these activities are published in Komoróczy et.
al. 2019c.
Fig. 41. Drnholec “Holenická pole”. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the
fortified area (basemap: LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK; ©ARÚB)
allow us to interpret it as one part of a  Roman tem-
porary camp.
For the time being, we cannot yet directly
support the chronological determination of the sup-
posed military installation in Drnholec. The site
as a  whole has yielded a  voluminous collection of
metal artefacts, including as good as all prehistoric
periods from the Bronze Age until the Middle Ages.
However, the objects dating generally from the pro-
to-historic era, particularly from the Roman Period,
are most frequent. 149 Numerous chronologically sen-
sitive brooches and coins, which were found recently
with the help of metal detectors, indicate that the
main settlement activities on this site have taken
place within the time span from the first half of the
2nd to the end of the 4th century (relative chronolog-
ical phases B2 through C3). 150 Among these finds is
149 On the same site, in places which were drowned by the river
Dyje during construction of the Nové Mlýny reservoirs at the
end of the 1980s, parts of a Roman Period seÃlement were
discovered already earlier. They were not yet published in
detail; only some selected finds occurred in studies dealing
with classification of seÃlement features in South Moravia
into chronological horizons before and aÌer the Marcoman-
nic wars (e.g. Tejral 1994b, 305, Abb. 5: 1, 15: 3, 6, 16: 4–7; 1999,
112; 2008, 70–74, obr. 1: 18).
150 For findings supporting the chronology of Germanic seÃle-
ment horizons in general, cf. Tejral 1998a; 2008 and above all
Varsik 2011, 181–208.
a  small group of artefacts, which might have been
“lost” here by members of the garrison of a  Roman
camp. We can name, for example, five specimens
of Roman knee brooches with semi-circular head-
plate or a  series of coins minted by rulers from the
Antonine dynasty. Also interesting is one incom-
pletely preserved openwork fitting, probably a com-
ponent of horse trappings (Fig. 42), combining a pel-
ta-shaped ornamental motif, which is characteristic
also for the period of Marcomannic wars. 151 Another
noticeable find is a  fragment of a  dolphin-shaped
sword scabbard slide of type von Carnap-Bornheim
ID, 152 whose parallels are known from the Roman
fortress on Burgstall near Mušov153 and from
Bernhardsthal. 154 It is, of course, also possible that
these objects were not brought to the site “Holenická
pole” by the Romans themselves, but were eventu-
ally deposited in the context of Germanic settle-
ment. However, there is a high probability that they
reached this area within the activities of Roman
army at the time of the Marcomannic wars. Anyway,
the methodology of research into temporary camps
in Marcomannian territory does not regard the
151 Regarding the motif in the context of the region, see Ko-
moróczy – Vlach – Hložek 2014, 768–769 with further literature.
152 von Carnap-Bornheim 1991, 16–18; Miks 2007, 289–292.
153 Komoróczy 2009c, obr. 5.
154 Komoróczy 2009a, Abb. 1.
215 |

Fig. 42. Drnholec “Holenická pole”. Surface find of copper alloy
fitting from the area of the Roman temporary camp
(©ARÚB)
surface finds including coins in general as direct
dating supports. 155
The location of the camp in Drnholec on a flat
terrace at the border of the alluvial landscape, slight-
ly reaching inside, exhibits with regard to local en-
vironmental conditions (above all geomorphology,
hydrology and geological structure) the same char-
acteristics as the majority of hitherto verified tempo-
rary camps of Roman forces in the Middle Danube
region. The documented course of the SW fortifica-
tion line of the camp represents a direction perpen-
dicular to the boundary between the alluvial land-
scape and the fi rst terrace above. This phenomenon
might be a support to the reconstruction of the min-
imum length of the SW side of the camp, which, ac-
cording to previous knowledge of spatial parameters
of temporary camps, would end before the terrace
edge, without reaching inside the zone of the then
active alluvial landscape. 156 On the basis of this as-
sumption, the length of the SW side of the fortifica-
tion can be reconstructed to between 210 and 220 m.
If this assumption is right, the long side of the camp
will be about 315 through 330  m when we apply the
most frequent module of side proportion of Roman
camps 2:3. 157 Taking into consideration the recon-
structed side lengths, the hypothetical fortified area
of the camp would be within the interval of 6.6–
7.3  ha. The camp at Drnholec would thus belong
to Roman military installations of smaller dimen-
sions, perhaps providing accommodation for mili-
tary units with relatively limited number of soldiers.
This would allow to class the camp in Drnholec with
a group of Roman military installations, which by all
appearances were not the result of a  “linear move-
ment” of troops within a wider region of the occupied
155 In this regard, cf. the different approach to camps in Quadian
territory in this paper. On the methodical pitfalls in inter-
pretation of surface detector finds in the context of Roman
temporary camp, see Komoróczy – Vlach – Zelíková 2017.
156 Vlach 2016, 87–109.
157 Cf. Davies – Jones 2006, 16; Vlach 2016, 116–117, Graf 10; Welfare
– Swan 1995, 10.
| 216
zone, but fulfi lled some chronologically or spatially
defi ned function (see below). 158
3.2.4.Engelhartstetten (Lower Austria,
Austria)
The camp in the territory of the municipality
of Engelhartstetten was long known only from aerial
survey. 159 The first excavations were conducted here
within a joint project of the Austrian Archaeological
Institute and Institute of Archaeology of the Czech
Academy of Sciences in Brno. Extensive geophysical
and metal detector survey and test trenching were
carried out in 2010–2013. Staff and finances were se-
cured by both project partners. 160 This cooperation
was then unilaterally suspended by the Austrian
Archaeological Institute and the results of research
activities together with new data on other tempo-
rary camps in the territory of Lower Austria were
already published by Austrian colleagues only. 161
The camp is situated on the northern bank of
the river Danube, about 9 km north of Carnuntum,
in a  complicated geological relief with important
hydrological structures of the Danube floodplain. It
is virtually the fi rst place beyond the river Danube
suitable for the construction of a military camp. On
the basis of geophysical survey and crop marks we
can reconstruct the almost regularly square-shaped
ground plan of the camp with the fortified area of
46.6  ha and dimensions of 685  x  695  m. The exist-
ing results do not allow to defi nitely reconstruct the
number and position of gates. The only exception
is the western front with two simple gates 14 or 10
m  wide, situated at about two-thirds of its length
(Fig.  43). 162 The fortification was examined on the
western side by three test trenches (one of them laid
out across the entrance gap in the ditch), which con-
fi rmed the presence of a  standard form of fossa fas-
tigata. On the other hand, the internal area and the
forefield of the camp did not yet provide any indica-
tions of the presence of features or traces of other
constructions and devices (e.g. baking ovens), which
would be contemporaneous with the existence of the
158 Komoróczy – Vlach 2017, 38. These considerations are based
on the predicted dating of the possible camp in Drnholec
to the period of the Marcomannic wars. This theory is
supported by the above-mentioned small collection of
chronologically significant small finds, as well as by a general
chronologisation of Roman temporary camps in Marco-
mannian seÃlement territory, based on archaeological and
natural scientific data (Komoróczy et al. 2019b; 2019c). However,
an accurate dating of the ditch in Drnholec must be verified
by further research in the future.
159 Friesinger 1988, 36; Kandler 1986, 233–234.
160 Groh – Komoróczy 2010; 2012; Groh – Komoróczy – Sedlmayer
2013; 2014; Groh – Lindinger – Komoróczy 2011; Groh et al. 2015;
Groh 2015a, 14.
161 Groh – Sedlmayer 2015.
162 Groh 2015a, Abb. 18.
Fig. 43. Engelhartstetten. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the fortified
area (basemap: LiDAR ©Land Kärten; ©ARÚB)
camp. Geophysical survey and small finds acquired
during excavation of the ditch and during metal de-
tector survey testify to seÃlement activities from the
late phases of La Tène development (phase LT D2). 163
The dating and interpretation of the camp in
EngelhartsteÃen are full of contradictions. Austrian
colleagues interpreted the camp in their publication
as a  military installation from the time of Emperor
Augustus and connected it with supposed campaign
of Tiberius against Maroboduus. 164 They base their
considerations on determination and interpreta-
tion of an assemblage of small metal artefacts pre-
sented by H.  Sedlmayer, which were acquired by
metal detector survey and excavation of the course
of fortification. However, it must be said, in accord-
ance with the already published detailed review of
M.  Erdrich, 165 that this interpretation is particularly
misleading and biased. Medieval and modern objects
are presented here as Early Roman items, and find-
ings which have exact parallels in features from the
2nd half of the 2nd century are interpreted as Early
Roman. On the other hand, the assemblage does not
contain any truly significant item, which could be
definitely classified as Early Roman and which could
at the same time signalise military activities of this
163 Groh 2015a, Abb. 11, 12; Sedlmayer 2015a, 41–54, Abb. 24 – 65.
164 Groh 2015a, 34; 2015d; Sedlmayer 2015a, 41–65; 2015b.
165 Erdrich 2017, 236–244.
era at the given place. S.  Groh and H.  Sedlmayer in
their considerations ignore the methodical limita-
tions of the interpretation of surface finds as a source
category and the finds which do not fit into their pre-
conceptual chronological frame remain unnoticed. 166
The series of radiocarbon dates acquired from sam-
ples (unspecified macroremains, in one case animal
bone), which were taken from various levels of the
ditch infill, do not confirm the Early Roman dating of
the existence of the camp, either. 167 The most recent
date in this series is 2 σ 50–180 (88.5 %). This date, as
well as all the other 14C dates from the ditch infills
166 See e.g. the coin of Traian (Sedlmayer 2015a, Abb. 31: 45).
Detailed criticism of this approach, exemplified by individ-
ual finds, goes beyond the scope of this paper and this topic
was already partly treated earlier (e.g. Komoróczy – Vlach –
Zelíková 2017, 47–53). As an example, we can name a surface
find of a three-winged arrowhead (Sedlmayer 2015a, 48, Abb.
31: 22). The Austrian researcher “analysed” this find and
listed several analogies from Early Roman Period sites, but
she completely omiÃed to mention that absolutely identical
forms are also frequent with archaeological features from the
time of the Marcomannic wars, e.g. from Mušov-Burgstall
(Tejral 1994a, Abb. 3: 1–3), Iža-Leányvár (Rajtár 1996, 84, Abb.
4: 1–16; Tejral 1994a, Abb. 4: 1–12) or Eining-Unterfeld (Jü–ing
1995, Abb. 15: 197–198); see already Erdrich 2017, 237.
167 The dates provided by Austrian colleagues, see Groh 2015d,
180, Tab. 14/Nr. 1–5; the date acquired by the authors of this
paper within their participation in research and the general
interpretation, see Komoróczy et al. 2019b, 167–169; for 14C dates
from Roman camps, see also Komoróczy et al. 2019a.
217 |
in the camp at EngelhartsteÃen, can be regarded as
a terminus post quem for its existence. The series of ra-
diocarbon dates from the ditch infill – in accordance
with one part of the spectrum of finds – contains
many distinct traces of older La Tène seÃlement ac-
tivities in the area of the camp, which secondari-
ly contaminated the lower portions of infills of the
stratigraphically “subsequent” ditch of the Roman
camp. 168 The above-mentioned most recent 14C date
(taken from the position above the layer with La Tène
14
C dates and below or inside a  layer with plenty of
seÃlement finds from late La Tène strata or features)
then chronologically corresponds to the whole Early
Roman Period including the Marcomannic wars.
This date does not provide any direct chronologi-
cal support to the definite chronological determina-
tion of the camp, but it significantly eliminates the
possibility of an exclusive dating in to the Augustan
period. The considerations of S. Groh about suitabili-
ty of the location for an Augustan camp, derived from
visual relations to, for example, the site of Devín, can
be regarded as irrelevant, or relevant to the same
extent as in the context of the Marcomannic wars. 169
On the basis of these indications, the dating of the
camp in EngelhartsteÃen is currently to be consid-
ered disputable. Within the predominant archaeo-
logical and historical interpretations in the whole
Marcomannian seÃlement zone, we count the camp
with critical caution among military structures from
the period of the Marcomannic wars.
The camp in EngelhartsteÃen with its almost
square ground plan differs a  liÃle from the other
camps within the largest size category (see below).
Closest analogy with an almost square ground plan
is the camp in Hulín-Pravčice. 170 This difference, how-
ever, is not of key importance; it might be the result
of many factors (above all the geomorphological
and topographic conditions, but also the size of the
garrison or planned duration of usage). The known
ground plans of camps both in Marcomannian and
in Quadian seÃlement territory, in our opinion, do
not yet allow to distinguish any regularly repeating
identical fortification structures, forming clearly dis-
cernible spatial “series” which could be interpreted
as archaeological evidence of a  particular military
campaign with specific characteristics regarding the
chronology, strategy or type of the deployed military
unit. 171 We think that the dimensions and location of
the camp in EngelhartsteÃen fit well into the exist-
ing theoretical logistic models of military campaigns
168 The same way also Groh 2015a, 25, 26; 2015d, 181.
169 Argumentation, see Groh 2015a, 34; Devín, see Pieta – Plachá
1999; legitimate criticism of the conclusions by S. Groh and
H. Sedlmayer, see Erdrich 2017, 244–248.
170 This fact is also mentioned by Groh 2015d, 156, where the
parallels cited by him are not chronologically determining.
171 In this point, the situation completely differs from that in
Britannia and beyond its borders, cf. Jones 2011, 97–107; 2012,
112–130.
| 218
at the time of the Marcomannic wars. 172 We regard
the camp as a  starting and assembly point of a  nu-
merically significant Roman contingent, still undi-
vided by the requirements of partial military opera-
tions. As a parallel to this camp in Quadian territory
can be the camps in cadastral districts of Radvaň
nad Dunajom and Virt (see above). The last-men-
tioned site is situated in the foreland of the legion-
ary camp at Brigetio, which probably was the main
starting base for the operations against the Quadi.
EngelhartsteÃen also has a  similar position in rela-
tion to Carnuntum. We cannot agree with the opin-
ion of S. Groh that this camp does not have strategic
position towards the capital city of Pannonia Superior
and the permanent camp of the Fourteenth Legion. 173
His assumption that the access route to the camp
did not go directly from Carnuntum to the north but
from the river Morava or from its confluence with
Russbach Stream can be taken into consideration.
This theory partly corresponds to our model of the
route of communication corridors on possible trajec-
tories of movements of Roman troops in barbarian
territory north of the Danube (Fig. 81). Nevertheless,
the large military contingent at the beginning of
the expedition in Marcomannian territory proba-
bly did not comprise only the units arriving from
Carnuntum. The camp was situated at approximate-
ly the same distance from the rivers Danube and
Morava, and the army could reach the camp (or leave
it) both from the southeast and from the southwest
(direction Vindobona). All these factors testify that the
camp had an outstanding strategic position, which
was suitable to assemble a  large mixed contingent,
whose individual parts might have been deployed to
this area from both of the legionary camps in the
western segment of the Upper Pannonian Limes at
the beginning of the campaign. This location also
offered the possibility to effectively oversee both the
confluence of Morava and Danube, and the foreland
of the entire so-called Bratislava Gate.
3.2.5. Hulín-Pravčice (Zlín region, Czech
Republic)
The camp was found during a rescue excava-
tion in the transept for a  motorway in the cadastral
districts of Hulín and Pravčice in the Upper Morava
Valley, on the leÌ-bank river terrace above the al-
luvial landscape of the river Morava. Currently, it
represents the easternmost temporary camp within
the studied region. 174 The present state of knowledge
enables to determine the short axis of the camp as
approximately 500 m, and the other axis can be esti-
mated as at least 530 m (side proportion 16:17, round-
ed to 1:1; similar side proportion can be observed
172 Komoróczy – Vlach 2010; 2018; 2019; Rajtár 2014, 116–117.
173 Groh 2015a, 14.
174 Daňhel et al. 2009; Kalábek 2008.
Fig. 44. Hulín-Pravčice. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed minimal expected extent
of the fortified area (basemap: orthophoto, ©ČÚZK WMS; ©ARÚB)
with the camp in EngelhartsteÃen). 175 On the basis
of these assumptions, we can reconstruct the min-
imum size of the fortified area as 26.1  ha (Fig.  44).
The ditch of the camp at Hulín-Pravčice exhibits
several noticeable characteristics, such as verified
presence of a  so-called cleaning channel at the bot-
tom, 176 which can be considered a  sort of indication
for the length of usage of the fortification. The area
of the camp included, among other things, traces of
Germanic seÃlement activities as well as of burial ac-
tivities. 177 The collection of finds from the infills of
ditches comprised Roman provincial poÃery, includ-
ing terra sigillata, dating from the 2nd half of the 2nd
century. 178 Absolute radiocarbon dating was applied
to one animal bone from the ditch infill179 and to
a child’s inhumation burial deposited secondarily at
the boÃom of the ditch. 180 These data, together with
other dating materials, help to assign the camp to
175 However, considering the symmetrical position of two detect-
ed titulus gates, this value cannot go distinctly beyond 550 m.
176 Daňhel et al. 2009, obr. 13; cf. e.g. Komoróczy 2002, 132, Abb. 3;
Welfare – Swan 1995, 17–18, Johnson 1987, 61, Abb. 26; evidence
of cleaning the boÃom of a ditch, see also e.g. Hüssen 1995, 98.
177 See also Kolbinger 2013.
178 Daňhel et al. 2009, 184.
179 Kalábek 2008, 454, Graf 1.
180 Pankowská – Kalábek 2011, 118.
the group of Roman military installations from the
period of the Marcomannic wars. 181
3.2.6. Charvátská Nová Ves (South Moravian
region, Czech Republic)
The camp at Charvátská Nová Ves (urban dis-
trict of Břeclav) has been known since the 1990s. 182
Its reconstruction was based almost exclusively on
the results of aerial survey. In various aerial images
it was possible to recognize two titulus gates on the
western side and a  gate of the same type on the
northern side. On basis of aerial imagery, the for-
tified extent of the camp was estimated at 41 ha.
The camp is located on the first terrace of the river
and the river bed is now located about 2.5 km to the
east, but traces of the earlier active river arms can be
found nearby below the edge of the terrace. The flat-
land-like area of the camp is part of an extensive pal-
aeo-meander delimited by a  typical shape towards
the west. The central location of the camp at one of
the main river routes within the region undoubtedly
provided suitable conditions for movements of large
contingents of the Roman army.
181 For detailed information, see Komoróczy et al. 2019a; 2019b.
182 Kovárník 1997b, 92, Taf. 7–8; Tejral 1999, 123, Abb. 32–33.
219 |

The new phase of field and terrain research
has provided significant information about its struc-
ture and chronological position. 183 Until now, a total
of 13  ha was surveyed with geophysics and now it
is possible to draw a somewhat complicated picture
of Roman fortifications. The largest camp general-
ly remains in original extent, now labelled as camp
1a. Its fortified area covers 41.2 ha (Fig. 45: 1a). It has
the shape of a not entirely regular rectangle, and its
longer axis is oriented parallel to the edge of the ter-
race. The gate on the northern side of the camp is
situated in almost the middle of the northern front,
the entrances on the western side of the camp are
placed at about the thirds of its length. The eastern
side was considerably damaged by modern activi-
ties. The titulus gate in the northern third of the east-
ern front, which was visible on the previous aerial
imagery, corresponds to the position of the opposite
gate in the western fortification front. That is why
183 For detailed information, see Komoróczy et al. 2014, 347 ff.;
2018, 299–303.
| 220
Fig. 45. Charvátská Nová Ves. Outline
of recorded course of the
fortification ditch of the
discerned temporary camps and
reconstructed extent of the
fortified areas (camps 1a and
1b). Extent of presumed annex
(2) could not be reconstructed
(basemap: LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK;
©ARÚB)
an identical gate can also be supposed in the south-
ern third of this side and in the middle of the narrow
southern side of the camp. We thus prefer the re-
construction of camp 1a in a  regular form with six
titulus gates.
Geophysical survey proved the absence of
a  gap in the ditch of the gate in the middle of the
northern front of the camp 1a, which is implied
by the position of a  16  m wide titulus advanced by
21 m. The ditch was either originally not interrupted
in place of the gate, and the entrance was enabled
through a  wooden bridging, which is quite unusual
situation with temporary camps. Or the function of
the gate was revised during the existence of the camp
and the ditch was interconnected. Such secondary
intervention into the original structure of the gate in
camp 1a is indicated by not only a  slightly different
character of magnetic anomalies, but also by a mod-
erate change of the ditch course angle in place of the
original gap. With this appearance can be associat-
ed a  less distinct linear anomaly in the interior of
the camp, coming out from a point in approximately
Fig. 46. Charvátská Nová Ves. Example of geophysically recorded alignments of the field ovens at the temporary camps 1a and 1b (©ARÚB)
one third of the length of the northern front and
running parallel to the longer axis of the camp 1a
through the whole measured area. This line does not
disturb the main ditch, moreover, it was interrupted
at one place and complemented with a  titulus gate.
The structure was named 1b and its fortified area is
estimated at 10.4  ha. We prefer its interpretation as
a spatial reduction of the original area of the camp 1a
(Fig. 45:  1b). 184 The problem of other gates or the use
of original fortification structures in the eastern and
northern fronts of the camp 1a has not been clarified
yet. However, it seems likely that the decline of the
northern gate of camp 1a must have been associated
with this reduction.
In the area north of the northern gate of camp
1a, a further linear anomaly was detected at a length
of 280  m. It begins about 15  m north of the titulus
and continues parallel to the main axis of the camp
1a. Approximately at the half of its length it is in-
terrupted at a  length of 21  m. Its dimensions corre-
spond to the largest known gate of the camp Přibice 3
(see below). Further course of the ditch could not yet
be identified. Anyway, the position and orientation
of the anomaly with regard to the other structures
of the temporary camp do not lack logical context,
184 Cf. e.g. the camps Crawford III-IV (Jones 2011, 177–178, ill. 108),
Mertoun Bridge I-II with identical reduction and with a titu-
lus gate where the ditch is not interrupted (Jones 2011, 273–274,
ill. 175), Oxton I-II (Jones 2011, 290, ill. 189), Pathhead I-II (Jones
2011, 291, ill. 190).
which also induced the subsequent field verification.
For the time being, we mark this structure with
number 2, but it is too early to determine with cer-
tainty whether it is the relic of a  separate camp, or
an annex (Fig. 45: 2). 185
Small-scale excavations were carried out
in the area of the northern gate. In all cases, field
research proved the presence of a  characteristic
V-shaped ditch. The aim of the excavations was not
only to document the characteristics of ditches, but
also to verify some geophysical anomalies detect-
ed inside the fortification of the camp, whose spa-
tial parameters indicate that they might have been
related to the existence of the camp. The results of
geophysical survey of this camp proved for the first
time a non-accidental occurrence of circular or oval
anomalies in a regular linear arrangement, usually 6
to 9 metres away from the line of fortification, in the
inner area of the camp (Fig. 46). The excavations have
confirmed the presence of pyrotechnological devices
with distinct traces of fire. These features are round
or oval in shape (Fig. 47) and do not overlap despite
being placed close to one another. All of them could
be identified as simple ovens with stoking pit. These
ovens were gradually detected and verified in terrain
185 In Scotland, several temporary camps are known with
an annex, typically added to one of the narrow sides (e.g.
Edenwood camp – Jones 2011, 198, ill. 123). However, it must be
said that these structures cover a much smaller area than the
camp itself.
221 |

Fig. 47. Charvátská Nová Ves. An example of the first discovered
bipartite field oven belonging to the Roman temporary camp
in the Middle Danube region west of the Little Carpathians.
Its close spatial relation to a stoking pit of another field oven
is apparent (©ARÚB)
Fig. 48. Charvátská Nová Ves. Computed tomography picture of
an almost completely preserved caliga from the infill of the
fortification ditch of the temporary camp 1b (©ARÚB)
both along the fortification of the large camp 1a, and
along the ditch of the reduced camp 1b. The infill of
these features has mainly yielded plenty of palaeo-
botanical material.
As far as the accurate dating of individual
camps or phases is concerned, the performed ex-
cavations did not yield chronologically sensitive ar-
chaeological finds (nevertheless, in the lowermost
part of the ditch infill of the camp 1b, hobnails were
uncovered in a position indicating original presence
of a complete specimen of caliga; Fig. 48). Evidence of
Germanic seÃlement activities, dating generally from
the 2nd to the 4th century, have been previously found
in the neighbourhood and also inside the camp. 186
Also known is a  smaller collection of metal finds
186 Vlach 2008.
| 222
discovered by amateur collectors using metal de-
tectors. These objects partially exhibit a  connec-
tion to the Germanic seÃlement activities in the
surroundings, but some of them are probably relat-
ed to presence of the Roman army. 187 The charred
plant remains from the lowermost deposits of the
V-shaped ditch and the backfills of ovens have yield-
ed relatively consistent radiocarbon dates. The re-
sults from the most samples clearly show the focal
point within the chronological interval of 80 to 259
or 123 to 197 with standard deviations of 2  σ and 1  σ
respectively. 188 In the case of dates from ovens we can
assume a  higher interpretational value with regard
to “closeness” of the find assemblage and a  lower
risk of contamination and intrusions. This circum-
stantial evidence confirms the assumed dating of the
camps in Charvátská Nová Ves to the period of the
Marcomannic wars.
3.2.7. Ivaň (South Moravian region, Czech
Republic)
The camp at Ivaň, in the neighbourhood of
the central military base on Mušov-Burgstall, was al-
ready discovered in the 1990s (Fig. 49). 189 It is situated
2.5 km northeast of Burgstall, on the opposite terrace
above the river Jihlava, which also forms the external
border of a long ditch delimiting the area to the north
of the central base (see above). The most part of the
camp is now overlaid by the present-day village. We
only know its south-eastern part, which was inter-
rupted by a titulus gate. The gate is most probably sit-
uated in the middle of the narrow side of the camp. It
represents a relatively small gate, where the course of
the ditch was interrupted in length of 10.4 m. Previous
excavations yielded a  surprising finding – the pres-
ence of a  timber construction of the gate, 190 which
has no parallels within the temporary camps so far
(Fig. 50). 191 It can be considered a proof that a unit was
garrisoned here for a  “longer time” (see below) and
187 E.g. Komoróczy – Vlach 2010, obr. d.
188 Komoróczy et al. 2014, 358 f., Tab. 2; 2019a; 2019b.
189 Bálek et al. 1994, 65, Abb. 5; Tejral 1999, 120 (the corners depict-
ed here in Abb. 29: 1 were recognised in aerial photographs,
but it was proved later that these structures are not Roman
but modern).
190 Bálek – Droberjar – Šedo 1994, 65, Abb. 5, 13.
191 Typological determination and reconstruction of the gate are
very problematic, particularly with regard to the insufficient
width of the excavation trench. The detected arrangement
of posts finds its closest parallels in the gate of the camp at
Malton (this way already Komoróczy 2003b, 47–75; also Groh
2015d, 172–173), which can be classed approximately with type
Manning/Scoà Ib (cf. Manning – Sco– 1979, 35, Fig. 4). J. Musil
(2000, 118–119, Tab. 5: 3), on the other hand, assumes the
existence of two side towers, of whose construction only the
internal row of posts was unearthed. Incomplete uncovering
is also mentioned by Bálek – Šedo 1998, 169. The fact that the
area between the heads of the ditch in front of the gate is
partly partitioned by chequer-wise arranged posts was never
really reflected in considerations.
Fig. 49. Ivaň. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the fortified area
(basemap: orthophoto, ©ČÚZK WMS; ©ARÚB)

together with the garrison of the camps at Mušov –

Na Pískách and probably Drnholec (Fig. 34) it rather
formed permanent defence of access roads to the
central military base. The total extent of the camp,
according to local geomorphology, presumed axial
symmetry and standard side ratio 2:3, is estimated
as 11.5 ha. Direct dating indications for the camp are
not yet available and its stratigraphic relationship to
Germanic seÃlement structures in its area is not yet
known, either. However, considering the overall spa-
tial arrangement and the general archaeological and
historical concept of Roman-Germanic interactions,
we count the camp among military installations from
the period of the Marcomannic wars.

3.2.8. Jevíčko (Pardubice region, Czech

Republic)
A  recently discovered camp is located at the
periphery of the Marcomannian seÃlement area in
what is now Moravia. In the fall of 2016, on the ter-
ritory of the town of Jevíčko, archaeologists from the
East Bohemian Regional Museum in Litomyšl carried
out an archaeological rescue excavation and uncov-
ered a  relic of a  ditch which undoubtedly represents
the fortification remnant of a Roman military camp.
The findspot itself is situated in the flat western part
of the built-up area of the town. Jevíčko is a  natural
centre of the region, where recent archaeological ex-
cavations yielded, among other finds, the evidence of
Fig. 50. Ivaň. Excavated timber-earth gate construction at the south
eastern entrance of the temporary camp (photo M. Bálek;
©ARÚB)
relatively significant Germanic seÃlement from the
Early Roman Period, inclusive of numerous displays
of contacts with the north-eastern Germanic regions
of the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures.192 During
excavations, the course of the ditch was identified at
two places, which enabled a  primary reconstruction
of the ditch at a  length of about 80  m. In one place
192 Droberjar 2015.

223 |
at the boÃom of the ditch, fragments of terra sigillata
occurred.193 Other dating materials are not yet known.
On the inner side of the fortification, traces of two
simple bipartite field ovens for food preparation were
found and their relation to Roman military presence
is being examined. With the aim to apply natural sci-
entific analyses a trench was laid out perpendicular to
the course of the ditch, and continued to the north of
the area of rescue excavation. The identification and
interpretation of characteristic deposits in the back-
fill of the ditch, which resulted from redeposition of
the aboveground part of the fortification, enabled to
identify the internal extent of the camp in eastern di-
rection towards the built-up area of the present-day
town. Another trench has proved that the ditch ran
further straight to the north, where it probably was
completely destroyed by later development (Fig. 51).
The course of the western part of the forti-
fication of the camp was identified with the help of
geophysical magnetometric survey carried out fur-
ther to the south on a  moderate slope outside the
built-up area. The ditch runs here straight towards
an indistinct terrace edge at the northern border of
the floodplain of a brook. However, in several sectors
the course of the anomaly interpreted as a  ditch is
quite faint. In places where a distinct anomaly of the
aboveground power line is present, the ditch fades
out. Regarding the fact that only the course of the
western fortification line of the camp at a  length of
at least 405 metres is known, the extent of the whole
fortified area can be estimated only indirectly, on the
basis of the local geomorphological context and the
most frequently recorded values of side proportions
in temporary camps. For the “minimal” estimation of
the fortified area we can only use the reliably identi-
fied sector of the ditch. On the basis of the most fre-
quent 2:3 side ratio module of temporary camps194 we
thus get two variants of reconstructed areas sized 11
and 25  ha (Fig. 52). The possibilities of further iden-
tification of the course of fortification, both by geo-
physical survey and by excavations, are limited due to
current extent of the built-up area and the way of land
use. In places where the excavations in Jevíčko were
carried out, no dating superpositions were detected.
Nevertheless, we can suppose that the camp counts
among Roman military installations from the period
of the Marcomannic wars, even though this assump-
tion is based so far only on characteristic displays of
terrain contexts, the presence of terra sigillata and
the overall parameters of chronological and historical
determination of military installations on the territo-
ry of Moravia. This interpretation of the camp is also
supported by the spatial logic of its location. With
regard to distribution of similar components, the
temporary camp in Jevíčko currently represents the
193 According to preliminary determination by K. Kuzmová, it
was a bowl type Draggendorf 37 from Butrio in Lezoux or his
circle.
194 Davies – Jones 2006, 20–21; Vlach 2016, 116–119; Welfare – Swan
1995, 10.
| 224
Fig. 51. Jevíčko. Cross section of the V-shape Roman fortification ditch
(©ARÚB)
northernmost camp of this type within the whole bar-
barian territory on the Middle Danube. Its discovery
at the same time deepens, extends and completes the
volume of indications for the study of movements and
operation strategies of the Roman forces in the bar-
barian territory,195 inclusive of their logistic aspects,
as it is explored further on in the following text.
3.2.9. Kollnbrunn (Lower Austria, Austria)
The camp was detected by aerial survey al-
ready in the 1980s and its fortification was verified by
a  test trench. 196 Recent non-destructive research ac-
tivities Austrian colleagues have specified the extent
of the camp and provided indications for its dating. 197
The shape of the camp can be now reconstructed
as a  slightly irregular elongated rectangle with di-
mensions of 389–402 x 604 m and with total area of
23.3 ha (Fig. 53). 198 The preservation state and terrain
accessibility enabled to distinguish so far only one
titulus gate at one-third of the length of the western
front of the fortification (it is highly probable that the
camp originally had the characteristic layout with 2-2
gates in long sides and 1-1 gate in the middle of the
narrow sides of the fortification). The published re-
sults of geophysical survey indicate the presence of
at least fourteen anomalies with parameters of py-
rotechnological devices, arranged in a line along the
inner side of the fortification (most distinctly along
the western front, and presumably also along the
northern and eastern fronts of the fortification). 199
Any direct chronological clues for dating
of the camp are not yet available. The presented
195 Cf. Komoróczy – Vlach 2019.
196 Friesinger 1985, 258, Abb. 3; 1988, 36–37; Stuppner 2008, 57, Abb. 9.
197 Groh 2015b; Sedlmayer 2015c.
198 Groh 2015b, Abb. 44, 49.
199 Groh 2015b, 67–68, Abb. 47–48, note 148, interprets them as
pits with no relation to the camp and considers the distinct
line of these features on the western side to be traces of
wooden posts reinforcing the embankment or forming a pal-
isade. Parallels cited by him are the camps in Ruhhof and
Charvátská Nová Ves where, however, these features were
definitely identified as ovens from the period of existence of
the camp (cf. Komoróczy et al. 2014, 350 ff.).
Fig. 52. Jevíčko. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch and two versions of estimated fortified area (basemaps: above – orthophoto,
©ČÚZK WMS, below - LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK; ©ARÚB)

225 |
Fig. 53. Kollnbrunn. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the fortified area
(basemap: orthophoto © orthophoto ©BEV – basemap.at, WMS; ©ARÚB)
assemblage of small finds200 was acquired solely by
a  detector survey in the area of the camp and rep-
resents therefore, in our opinion, only an indirect
chronological indication. Such an indication is above
all a coin of Marcus Aurelius minted in 176. 201 On the
basis of this find and in accordance with predomi-
nant archaeological and historical concept of devel-
opment of Roman-barbarian relationships, we date
the camp with critical caution to the period of the
Marcomannic wars. With regard to geomorphologi-
cal conditions in wider surroundings of the camp, we
can say that it is one of the less standard locations in
a  region with moderate hills. About one-half of the
camp itself is situated in an inclined terrain with an
elevation difference of 32 m inside the fortified area.
According to S.  Groh, this location may have been
chosen because of a  good visual connection to hill-
top sites situated about 42  km away in the so-called
Bratislava Gate (Devín, Pfaffenberg), within the field
of vision of the camp. 202 The modelled communica-
200 Sedlmayer 2015c, Abb. 54, 58.
201 Other finds presented by H. Sedlmayer cannot be considered
a clear evidence of military presence and Roman origin of the
majority of these finds cannot be confirmed (e.g. Sedlmayer
2015c, Abb. 54: 3, 6, 9–16). On this problem cf. Erdrich 2017,
249–251.
202 Groh 2015b, 69, Abb. 53 (but in this case, unlike Engelhartstet-
ten, the relation to Devín is not regarded as an indication of
Early Roman dating).
| 226
tion corridors indicate that the camp was located at
a strategically significant communication nod, about
midway between the camps in EngelhartsteÃen and
Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof. It also was the starting
point of a route to a significant concentration of con-
temporaneous Germanic seÃlement structures (and
maybe also still undetected camps) in the Lower
Austrian Drösing, one day’s  march away (Fig. 81).
Here most probably was an important Morava ford,
with possible relation to a temporary camp in Závod
on the eastern bank of the river.
3.2.10. Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof (Lower
Austria, Austria)
Indications of the possible presence of
a Roman fortification in Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof,
in an area of an extensive polycultural site includ-
ing the Germanic seÃlement, have been registered
before, but due to the absence of research and rela-
tively complicated terrain with numerous manifesta-
tions of recent melioration systems, these evidences
were not considered to be reliable. 203 The presence
of the temporary camp was not confirmed until 2013
aÌer the publication of a series of new aerial photo-
graphs on the GoogleEarth map server. The camp
is located on a  distinctive right-bank terrace of the
203 Toriser 1994, 328, Nr. 13; Stuppner 2008, 58.
Fig. 54. Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed extent of the
fortified area (basemap: orthophoto ©BEV - basemap.at, WMS; ©ARÚB)
middle reaches of the river Thaya. It has a  slightly
trapezoidal shape with a standard aspect ratio of 2:3.
With a  side length of 482–511 x  720–748 m  it covers
an area of 36.3  ha (Fig. 54). Geophysical prospecting
enabled determination of the entire course of the
fortifications, including six camp gates. Five of them
have the form of an internal clavicula, which is only
the second occurrence of this form in the middle
Danube region (they were firstly registered in case of
the camp 1c in Mušov – Na Pískách, see below). The
gate in the middle of the south-eastern shorter side
is the titulus. Geophysical prospecting also revealed
on the northwest side of the camp typical anomalies
situated in a row along the inner side of the fortifica-
tion line, which can be clearly interpreted as traces
of pyrotechnological objects (field ovens) associable
with the existence of the camp, based on examples
from the Charvátská Nová Ves, Mušov – Na Pískách
and Přibice. 204 According to available data there are
at least 23 magnetic anomalies, which could be inter-
preted as mentioned type of feature.
204 Groh 2015c, 106–109, Abb. 83, note 208; S. Groh, as in the case
of the camp in Kollnbrunn, misinterprets these anomalies as
part of the construction of fortification (see above).
From the metal detector prospections as well
as from the conducted excavations come a  relative-
ly numerous find collections, in which the objects
characteristic for the military environment of the
Marcomannic wars (e.g. fragments of lorica squamata,
hobnails, buÃon-shaped fiÃings), but especially for
the Germanic environment of the 2nd half of the 2nd
century and the beginning of the 3rd century, are rep-
resented. 205 Field research in the area of the south-
west gate documented the resumption of Germanic
seÃlement activities immediately aÌer the camp was
leÌ by the Roman army, which clearly contributes
to the indirect dating of the camp to the period of
Marcomannic wars.
205 Sedlmayer 2015d, 131–142, Abb. 92–149, again with hotchpotch
of finds, which dating and interpretation are very problemat-
ic and some of them are probably of recent origin. Inter-
pretation of some finds from a partly filled ditch as result of
intentional ritual behaviour (Groh 2015c, 106; Sedlmayer 2015c,
131) has been subject of justifiable criticism by M. Erdrich
(2017, 251–252) and it can be reasonably leÌ unnoticed. Other
imaginary interpretative constructions of Austrian colleagues
based on stray finds from the camp area have been rejected
previously (Komoróczy – Vlach – Zelíková 2017) and it is not
necessary to reflect them here at all.
227 |
 The camp discovered in Laa an der Thaya –
Ruhhof represent a significant shiÌ in knowledge of
the geostrategic parameters of Roman military ac-
tivities during the Marcomannic wars. Its position
upstream of the river Dyje from the central mili-
tary base in Mušov-Burgstall points to the impor-
tance of the area of the middle Dyje region in the
strategic concepts of the Roman military command.
Movement of the military contingent, resp. bearers
of the back then valid concept of camps construc-
tion, along this route is also indicated by the fact
that only in Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof and Mušov
– Na Pískách 1c the clavicula type gates appear in the
fortification construction. It should also be noted
that the distance between Charvátská Nová Ves and
Mušov – Na Pískách is approximately the same as
between Mušov – Na Pískách and Laa an der Thaya
– Ruhhof. At the same time, the camp in Ruhhof hy-
pothetically creates an “information bridge” between
the relatively isolated camp in Plank am Kamp and
the other camps within the Dyje watershed (Fig. 81).
As well, according to the sequencing of the modelled
path corridors, this position represents a  suitable
connection with the communication corridor from
Kollnbrunn. 206 The movement of a  particular mili-
tary contingent from Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof to-
wards the camp Mušov – Na Pískách 1c due to the
presence of clavicula type gates as well as the smaller
size of the later was also assumed by S. Groh. 207
3.2.11. Modřice (South Moravian region,
Czech Republic)
The most northern situated camp within
the area of the Svratka river valley was discovered
at the turn of Eras during the rescue excavation
and spatially limited test trenching in the town of
Modřice in the southern outskirts of Brno. During
the excavations was uncovered western corner of
the camp with relatively spacious V-shaped ditch
over 2  m deep, as well as its stratigraphic rela-
tions with Germanic settlement structures (sunk-
en-f loor dwelling) allowing its dating to the 2 nd half
of the 2 nd century. The camp is located at location
of Germanic settlement, which is dated on basis of
206 For further information, see Komoróczy – Vlach 2018; 2019.
207 Groh 2015d, 176–177, Abb. 137. Along the path, which he calls
Route 1, he sees one of the main roll-call routes of the expe-
ditio Germanica secunda. He refers to Vindobona as its starting
point, but its reconstructed course up to Laa and der Thaya
– Ruhhof is based only on speculative localizations of clearly
unsubstantiated footholds and „Germanic poleis“ (sic!). Its
course through geomorphologically relatively less suitable
terrain distinctively differs from our modelled communica-
tion corridors and from the point of view of geostrategic logic
reflected by distribution of so far known temporary camps it
seems very unlikely. Dating to chronological frame 178–180
is quite probable from perspective of the current historical
reconstruction of the course of war events, but it is clearly not
based on archaeological data, as the works by S. Groh and
H. Sedlmayer try to suggest.
| 228
finds to the 2 nd half of the 2 nd century. 208 The spatial
extent of the camp was not recognized back then.
Later indistinctive indices from the aerial prospec-
tion 209 have been recently refined through geo-
physical prospection, which revealed an uneven-
ly preserved course of a  fortification ditch. Also,
a  number of anomalies interpretable as a  settle-
ment features from various periods have been dis-
cerned. Despite the fact that most of the camp is
situated under the present build-up area, it was at
least possible to discern completely the south-east-
ern side of the camp in length of 540  m and on
basis of the most frequently observed side ration
2:3 its fortified area could be estimated roughly
at 21  ha. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out the
possibility that the known south-eastern front of
the camp represents one of the narrow sides, thus
the total fortified area could be estimated at more
than 40 ha (Fig. 55). Through the results of the geo-
physical prospection it was possible to discern nu-
merous examples of anomalies corresponding to
characteristic signs of ovens on the interior side
along the course of fortification, which was also
confirmed during the small-scale excavations (Fig.
56). Ascertained charred palaeobotanical materi-
al also allowed application of radiocarbon dating,
which provided two dates with 2  σ intervals 2–172
and 126–258. 210
3.2.12. Mušov – Na Pískách (South Moravian
region, Czech Republic)
The site Mušov – Na Pískách extends 2.5  km
south of the Mušov-Burgstall on the right bank of
the river Dyje. Linear crop marks of the Roman
camps were identified here by aerial survey for the
first time in the Czech Republic. 211 The site is situated
on a crossing of communication corridors defined on
the basis of GIS spatial analyses (Fig. 81). 212 Mušov –
Na Pískách represents a locality on the south bank of
the river, from where it was convenient to reach the
central military base on Burgstall through a  system
of river arms within the alluvial landscape, direct-
ly up-stream of the confluence of the rivers Dyje,
Jihlava and Svratka (Fig. 34).
The earlier published 4 individual camps
(Mušov – Na Pískách I to IV) were presented on the
basis of aerial survey but the later one was never pre-
cisely identified. During the recent years, geophysi-
cal survey was carried out here covering an area of
208 Komoróczy 2002.
209 Kos 2005.
210 Komoróczy et al. 2019a, Figure 5 (statistical combining of the
two dates from the same context provided a date covering
mostly the 2nd century).
211 Bálek – Droberjar – Šedo 1994, 62–64, Abb. 6; Bálek – Šedo 1998,
161, obr. 6; Kovárník 1997b, 92; Komoróczy 1999a, 165–167; Tejral
1992, 402, Abb. 18; 1999, 116–117, Abb. 26.
212 Cf. Komoróczy – Vlach 2010, 259–262, Abb. 14; 2018; 2019.
Fig. 55. Modřice. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch and two versions of estimated fortified area (basemaps: above – orthophoto,
©ČÚZK WMS, below - LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK; ©ARÚB)

229 |

Fig. 56. Modřice. Excavated bipartite field oven previously detected
through geophysical prospection (©ARÚB)
40 ha and more than thousand anomalies of archae-
ological interest were identified. This high number
springs from the fact that this polycultural site com-
prises components from different archaeological pe-
riods (Bronze age, Iron Age, Roman Period, Great
Migration Period). Based on the results of geophysi-
cal prospection, it was possible to correct significant-
ly the number, featuring characteristics and fortified
area in the location where the camps I  and III have
been previously located. Non-destructive prospect-
ing methods and trial trenching proved that a  spa-
cious camp was located there, whose fortified area
was repeatedly reduced in the course of military
operations.
The largest camp is a  trapezoidal structure
Mušov – Na Pískách 1a (Fig. 57: 1a) with two identifia-
ble corners. In its southern front there are two titulus
gates dividing the line into three segments and its
fortified area covered 41.3 ha. A titulus is also visible
on the northern side. The second gate in this front,
most probably of the same type, according to its axial
symmetry, can be supposed in the area inaccessible to
measurements due to vegetation cover. In the middle
of the north-eastern narrow side of the camp there
is a simple gap gate. Uncertainty still exists concern-
ing the opposite front of the camp, where the perim-
eter does not show any gap. This is associated with
question of the fortification structures of the subse-
quent camp phases (reductions). With an identifier
1b a  structure was marked, which is delimited from
three sides by the same perimeter as the structure 1a
(Fig. 57: 1b). Just on the eastern side, the fortification
line is shiÌed by 63  m to the west. The extent of an
area delimited this way covers 37.5  ha. We assume
that it is a  reduction of camp 1a, but aÃention must
be called to two noticeable phenomena. The gate on
the eastern side is situated out of the axis of the camp
1a gate as well as out of the centre of this fortification
line. Further to the north, the reduction line does not
reach as far as the perimeter of the larger camp 1a.
This could be explained so that the reduction was
not finished because the requirements have suddenly
changed, or this line was not necessarily intended as
a new camp, but rather as a sort of internal structur-
ing of the camp 1a.
| 230
Another spatial reduction is now marked as
the camp 1c, which covers an area of 21.1  ha, where-
as it exhibits fortification elements partly different
from the other camps (Fig. 57:  1c). Internal clavicula
gates came to light very clearly in the middle of the
eastern and western fronts and in approximately the
thirds of the southern front. In opposite positions on
the northern longer front, two titulus gates were ev-
idenced. The camp 1c on its western side shares the
fortification line with the previous two larger camps
1a and 1b. In place of the clavicula on this side, the
linear anomaly is not interrupted, which probably
refers to the subsequent construction phase. The last
element in this complex fortification structure was
marked as camp 1d and covers an area of 7.8 ha (Fig.
57: 1d). It is most probably a further reduction, where
a titulus gate was supposedly preserved in the north-
ern front. 213
The camp 1c displays the very first evidence of
claviculae in the Middle Danube region, only a  liÃle
later this type was evidenced in the camp Laa and
der Thaya – Ruhhof (see above). There also was
a combination of claviculae and tituli used within the
same fortification perimeter. This mutual structural
resemblance between camps in Laa an der Thaya –
Ruhhof and Mušov – Na Pískách 1c is very conspic-
uous and these camps represent the only two instal-
lations with internal claviculae in combination with
titulus type gates in the Middle Danube region. In
this regard, they represent a  significant deviation
from the “standard” type of fortification of camp en-
trances, even in comparison with the numerically
much more extensive group of camps in Britain. 214
However, they are not completely identical; the camp
in Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof is about 10  ha larger,
it differs in the number and position of individual
represented forms of gates and it evidently had only
a  single construction phase. Within the relatively
small group of camps in the Middle Danube region,
it is possible to regard these two camps as a “random”
effect, but in fact they most probably represent an
archaeological reflection of specific, short-term and
nonquantifiable mutually related events or phenom-
ena. With regard to the position of camp Mušov – Na
Pískách 1c inside the camp “superstructure” 1, it is ev-
ident that the build-up of a  new fortification only at
a certain moment followed the same principles as in
the camp Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof. These princi-
ples were applied neither to previous camps 1a and
213 Examples of reduced temporary camps, which partly used
the fortifications of previous phases, see Jones 2012. Howev-
er, no four-phase reduction comparable with Mušov – Na
Pískách is known in Britain.
214 The use of these two different constructional elements of
gates within one and the same fortification is quite rare (cf.
Jones 2009, 16; 2012, 88–91). On claviculae see Jones 2009; Groh
2015d, 166–167 with parallels and additional literature.
Fig. 57. Mušov – Na Pískách. Outline of individual phases of the largest fortification structure at the location (1) and small fortification 2 at the edge of
terrace (basemap: LiDAR 5G, ©ČÚZK; ©ARÚB)
1b, nor to the last phase 1d of the camp at Mušov –
Na Pískách. 215
The position of the small camp 2 has not di-
verted from previous knowledge and geophysical
survey did not confirm any interruptions in fortifi-
cation line for gates in any of the three known fronts
(Fig. 57:  2). The fourth north-western side is orient-
ed towards the edge of the terrace and river flood-
plain (presently flooded) and it was not detected by
none of the non-destructive methods. The earlier
published camp IV was not identified by neither ge-
ophysical survey nor the following excavations. For
215 S. Groh (2015d, 167, note 362) speculates about a causal link
between the occurrence of claviculae in Laa an der Thaya
– Ruhhof and Mušov – Na Pískách and involvement of
vexillationes of the Legio X Fretensis and Legio XV Apollinaris in
fights during the Marcomannic wars. He bases himself on the
fact that external claviculae were detected in two camps from
the time of the Bar-Kokhba revolt and internal claviculae were
observed with camps from the time of the Siege of Masada
and the two above-mentioned legions were involved in these
events. However, the extent to which the vexillationes of these
legions have taken part in the Marcomannic wars is not clear-
ly defined, not in the works cited by him (in the case of the
FiÌeenth legion, the expeditio Germanica prima is preferred,
which is in contradiction with his dating of the camp in Laa
an der Thaya – Ruhhof to the latest phase of the wars). We
ourselves are very sceptical about the possibility of a verifica-
tion of this theory by archaeology.
the time being we thus do not take its existence into
consideration.
A  new finding is a  linear anomaly of NW-SE
orientation almost 600  m  long in the north-eastern
part of the flat terrace recorded by geophysics, which
is in superposition with the camps 1a and 1b. About
halfway it is cut and both ends are turned at a right
angle towards the edge of the terrace. This new line
is marked as structure Mušov – Na Pískách  3, but
any convincing evidence for its dating to the Roman
Period is still absent (Fig. 57:  3). With regard to the
overall landscape configuration and the significance
of the site as an important ford across the river Dyje
towards Mušov it is well possible that it is a fortifica-
tion element of a similar type as it is known north of
Mušov-Burgstall (2 km long ditch; Fig. 34).
Geophysical survey, particularly in the area of
the camp “superstructure” 1a–d, has yielded the larg-
est collection of anomalies that can be interpreted
as simple bipartite baking ovens used by the Roman
army (more than 200 anomalies). They are situated
here mainly in a  standard position in a  row along
the inner side of the fortification, but at the same
time also in large numbers at the edge of the ditched
structures. This phenomenon was also verified by ex-
cavations and it is an evidence that the already de-
funct ditches were used as stoking pits. According to
the documented features in Mušov – Na Pískách, we
can say that the location was controlled and used by
231 |
the encamped units to such an extent that some of
their activities have taken place outside the perime-
ter of the then fortified area of the camps.

The main strongpoint for an absolute chrono-

logical classification of camps in Mušov – Na Pískách
resulted from a small-scale excavation, which was con-
ducted at the north-western corner of camps 1a and
1b in 1994–1995. In this place, the Roman fortification
clearly disturbed one of the Germanic sunken-floor
dwellings, whose infill contained a characteristic spec-
trum of finds from B2 or B2b phase.216 Other settlement
features were unearthed within a  wider polygon
about 100 to 250  m  to the north of the outer perime-
ter of camps 1a–d in 1958 already. The finds from their
infill date them back to phase C1.217 This stratigraphic
situation, partly vertical and partly horizontal, led
to the well-founded hypothesis that the Germanic
settlement continuity at the boundary between the rel-
ative chronological phases B2 and C1 was interrupted
by the presence of Roman army, which can thus be
definitely associated with historical events during the
Marcomannic wars.218 Surface collecting in the whole
area of Mušov – Na Pískách has yielded a voluminous
collection of small finds, which aÃest to seÃlement ac-
tivities from the Bronze Age to the Migration Period.
These activities are also frequently observed in the
resulting magnetograms of the geophysical survey.219
Some of them might even indicate the presence of ac-
tivities reflecting a  relatively longer period of time, Fig. 58. Mušov – Na Pískách. Surface find of half-finished product
of a copper alloy belt buckle from the area of the Roman
which the army has spent in the given place (Fig. 58).
temporary camp (©ARÚB)
However, regarding the unprovable contextual rela-
tion to the military installation themselves, they rep-
resent only an indirect chronological indication. The today´s seà lement area (a cemetery north of the doc-
latest excavations provided also a series of samples for umented course of the ditch), because otherwise, it
radiocarbon dating. The excavated oven, as relative- would have been detected by surveys on the adjacent
ly the most suitable context minimalizing intrusions, arable land. This assumption makes it possible to de-
provided time span of the 2nd half of the 2nd century. termine the maximum length of this side at 550 m. 221
If this side would be the long axis, it would aÃest,
similarly as in other cases, that the camp was orient-
3.2.13. Olomouc-Neředín (Olomouc region, ed in north-southern direction, parallel to the course
Czech Republic) of the River Morava. In the case of an ideal propor-
tion module 2:3, the total fortified area could theo-
The camp at site “Mýlina” in the town district retically measure up to 20.5 ha. This value, however,
Neředín in Olomouc was discovered during rescue must be rather understood as the maximum variant
excavations. 220 Due to its location within the residen- because the real area might have been smaller. But it
tial area, only two sides of a  fortification structure seems reasonably within the size categories of forts
could be partly explored in a  total length of 356  m in statistical analyses. 222 Recent reports have men-
(Fig. 59). The angle of a  lià le more than 90°, which tioned that one of the excavation trenches across
the sides include, indicates that the camp might have the ditch revealed the presence of turfs, which orig-
had a slightly trapezoidal ground plan. This situation inally reinforced the embankment and were found
enables only a  hypothetical reconstruction of the in a  secondary position in the infi ll of the ditch. 223
area of the camp, which is based on local geomor- According to available photographic documentation
phology and land use. It can probably be supposed and a spare description of results of natural scientific
that its dimensions did not go beyond the extent of

221 Peška – Vránová – Šrámek 2005, 271 consider the minimum

216 Komoróczy 1999a.
217 Cf. Droberjar 1997, Tab. 132–147.
218 For further argumentation, see e.g. Tejral 2008, 74–82.
219 E.g. Komoróczy – Vlach 2010, Obr. e.
220 Kalábek et al. 2017.
side length of 280 m in the case of a regular square ground
plan, or a length from 450 m to more than 600 m in case of
a rectangular ground plan. These considerations cannot be
validated on the basis of available information.
222 For details of the analysis and their results, see Vlach 2016.
223 Kalábek et al. 2017, 173–175, obr. 4, 5.

| 232
Fig. 59. Olomouc-Neředín. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch of the temporary camp and reconstructed minimal expected extent
of the fortified area (basemap: orthophoto, ©ČÚZK WMS; ©ARÚB)
analyses, sediments were taken from the fluvial en-
vironment of a river, probably from the banks of the
watercourse. 224 In the light of the detections in other
temporary camps, it seems that here mudbricks were
also used, and no sods (see below).
The camp and the other features in its area,
unfortunately, were not published in details, but it
seems that well dated evidence for the chronologi-
cal determination of these structures is insufficient.
The publications mention finds, which may have be-
longed to Germanic seÃlement in the Early Roman
Period (relative chronological phase B2). Their direct
connection with the ditch, which clearly overlaps
older La Tène objects, is not known. The occurrence
of features and artefacts (in some cases also in direct
superposition with a  ditch) from later phases of the
Roman Period (phases C1 to maybe C3) is more obvi-
ous and these finds represent a terminus ante quem for
the existence of the camp. The ditch filling contains
a wide range of pre- and protohistoric as well as more
recent poÃery, which cannot date the existence of the
camp. The period of existence of the camp has been
associated with only a few finds atypical in military
environment, whose determination is sometimes
224 Kalábek et al. 2017, 184–186; and hÃp://www.rimanevolomouci.
cz/en/page/camp-in-neredin.html#preÃyPhoto[ad]/1/ (ac-
cessed on 03. 09. 2020)
also disputable. 225 Considering all available dates and
the general archaeological and historical concept of
Roman-Germanic interactions, we count the camp
among military installations from the period of the
Marcomannic wars.
3.2.14. Plank am Kamp (Lower Austria,
Austria)
This military installation represents the west-
ernmost temporary camp within the Middle Danube
region, which is situated in a  relatively isolated (in
relation to the other evidence of Roman military
presence, but not in relation to Germanic seÃle-
ment zone)226 catchment area of the River Kamp.
Among the main areas of interest within the Middle
Danube region, this river valley is cut into hilly
225 Kalábek et al. 2017, obr. 7–10, graf 1; popularising presentation
of finds, see hÃp://www.rimanevolomouci.cz/en/page/olo-
mouc-neredin-en.html (accessed on 03. 09. 2020). Determi-
nation of the iron objects presented on the site and e.g. in
Kalábek et al. 2017, obr. 10: 2–3 as hobnails from the Roman
caligae is, in our opinion, very problematic. The work Peška
– Šrámek 2004, 131, Foto 5; Kalábek et al. 2017, obr. 15 presents
fragments of bricks from a Germanic object of uncertain
function, which also contained unspecified ceramic material
of the Roman Period. These fragments, in our opinion, do not
represent Roman bricks.
226 Cf. Stuppner 2008, Abb. 5.
233 |
Fig. 60. Plank am Kamp. Outline of recorded course of the fortification ditch and hypothetical extent of the fortified area (Basemap: orthophoto
©BEV - basemap.at, WMS; ©ARÚB)
uplands. Similar geomorphological parameters can
also be found, for example, in the so-called Malá
Haná region, where the Roman military presence
was documented in present-day town of Jevíčko (see
above). In the built-up area of the town, aerial survey
has detected parts of two sides of a  camp 130 and
120 m long, with rounded corner (Fig. 60). The known
segments of the ditch include an angle of less than
90°, so that the ground plan of the camp probably
was trapezoidal. The western front of the fortifica-
tion was interrupted by a  single gate in the form of
a simple gap of 14 m wide. 227
The relation of the camp to the relative-
ly dense Germanic population in the valley of the
river Kamp is evident. 228 There are some arguments
proposed, that this camp is not related to expedi-
tions initiated from the large military centres on the
Upper Pannonian Limes, but that this fort is part
of an isolated punitive campaign starting from the
camps at Zwentendorf or Traismauer on the Norican
Limes. 229 This assumption can be neither proved
nor disproved on the basis of available sources. Of
course, it seems logical that the redeployment of
military units within offensive operations preferred
stable infrastructure in provinces before entering
227 Friesinger 1985, 258, Taf. 32:4; 1988, 35–36; Stuppner 2008, 58.
228 For detailed topography, see Pollak 1980, Karte 1.
229 Ölvecky 2014, 61.
| 234
the barbarian territory. 230 However, it is not neces-
sary to regard the military presence in the valley
of the river Kamp as an isolated phenomenon. On
the contrary, it can be also interpreted in the overall
geo-strategic context of the Roman army operating
within the Marcomannian seÃlement area. The local
garrison could have controlled an important cluster
of Germanic seÃlements, but also monitored one of
the potentially dangerous corridors of access to the
Roman frontier from the central Marcomannian ter-
ritories on the middle reaches of the river Dyje fur-
ther to the north. 231 The modelled communication
corridors (Fig. 81) and the recently discovered camp
in Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof (see above) make this
assumption, and therewith also the direct strategic
relation of the camp in Kamp am Plank to other si-
multaneously existing temporary military installa-
tions, highly probable.
3.2.15. Přibice (South Moravian region,
Czech Republic)
The conspicuous concentration of temporary
camps just 8 km to the north of Mušov-Burgstall
on the leÌ bank of the river Jihlava is known since
230 Vlach 2016, 179.
231 In the same way also Stuppner 2008, 59.
the 1990s. 232 The entire site stretches about 1,5  km
along the terrace from the end of the built-up area
of Přibice in the south to a  pronounced prehistoric
meander in the north. Aerial photography revealed
three large forts here. Camp 1 appeared to be an ir-
regular ground plan with the western corner elon-
gated towards the river. Although only three sides
of camp 3 were known it counted among the larg-
est one. The smallest camp 2 is located at the edge
of the last terrace step. Regarding geomorphology,
with more than 20  m  differences in height this lo-
cation is built on one of the most sloping locations
with Roman temporary camps in the Middle Danube
region.
Geophysical survey was carried out on an
area of 23  ha, to determine the exact structure of
the individual fortifications. In the case of the larg-
est camp 3 (estimated area 43  ha) it was not possi-
ble to clarify the course of the SW front, but the
steep edge of the terrace enables reconstructing
the area as an almost regular trapeze (Fig. 61:  3).
Presently two titulus gates are identified in the
centre of narrow sides. Geophysical survey in camp
1 (Fig. 61: 1) did not confirm the originally detected
non-standard layout of the camp, but it has a  rel-
atively regular trapeze shape (25,8  ha). Up to now
a  total of 6 camp entrances have been identified,
among them 5 titulus gates situated on the upper-
most terrace. The titulus gate in the middle of the
south-western front was excavated. The newly de-
tected entrance in the corrected western side of the
camp most probably did not have this fortification
element and it is turned right towards the neigh-
bouring camp 2, whose orientation is nearly iden-
tical. Considerable part of the camp area is also
situated on a  relatively steep slope (between 5 and
10 degrees), which doesn’t provide convenient con-
ditions for tents. This anomaly is also ref lected in
non-standard position of individual gates, which
are differentiated with their dimensions as well.
Two entrances in the longer sides of the camp are
more than 20 m wide. The other two gates in these
sides are about 10 m  wide (Fig.  62). From the posi-
tion of the gates it is evident that the focal point of
communication corridors and standard tent areas
were dislocated on the uppermost f lat terrace.
Including the steep slope into the interior area of
the camp testifies specific intentions of the con-
structors as there is sufficient space for a standard
position little further to the east. The slopes within
the camp area could have been used for stables, for
instance. 233 Directly at the breaking edge of the last
terrace step, next to the neighbouring alluvial
landscape, is camp 2, the smallest with a  forti-
fied area of just 0.9  ha located (Fig. 61:  2). Various
232 Bálek – Droberjar – Šedo 1994, 66–68, Abb. 4, 5, 7, 11; Bálek – Šedo
1998, 164–168, obr. 8; Kovárník 1997b, 89; Tejral 1999, 120, Abb. 29.
233 This function of some of the fortifications is also mentioned
by Groh 2015d, 179, only he doesn’t support this argumenta-
tion with any specific observation.
non-destructive surveys and small-scale excava-
tions were amongst others aimed to find possible
corners or the western front of this fortification. 234
While the excavation trenches on the southern side
revealed a  ditch at a  distance of no more than 2  m
from the present-day watercourse and yielded finds
dating to the 2 nd half of the 2 nd century, the situation
in the northern front was different. Here, the ditch
of evidently of lesser dimensions, has transformed
significantly. The backfill differed from standard
situations and indicated rather fast deposition, ap-
parently consisting of fine sandy material of the
local subsoil. In characteristic position in a  row
along the interior side of the fortification line of
the camps 1 and 3 have been also discovered lines
of magnetic anomalies with the same formal and
spatial properties as bipartite field ovens.
The chronological determination of the
camps in Přibice is partly based on individual finds
and partly on available absolute-chronological data.
From the area of all camps, a  minor collection of
small finds of coins and militaria, that could be
dated back to the horizon of the Marcomanni wars,
is known. This may reflect the presence of Roman
soldiers in the camps in question. A  characteristic
form of a  Roman-provincial knee brooch Jobst 13
was also discovered in one of the excavation trench-
es on the terminal part of the fortification of camp
2, hard on the edge leading to the alluvial landscape
(Fig. 63). The corresponding radiocarbon dates were
then obtained from the field oven examined within
camp 3. 235
The camp 2 induces considerations about the
issue concerning the function of similar facilities of
the same small extent. These undoubtedly identified
examples are not isolated cases, but on the contra-
ry, they are accompanied by camps of much larger.
It is also clear from the location of the camp Přibice
2 that it could not have existed separately without
the protection of the garrison of at least one of the
adjacent large fortifications. From its position the
field of vision covers only very limited area. The
question is to which unit and which purpose camps
sized around 1  ha may have served, as it is the case
with Přibice  2 or Mušov – Na Pískách 2 (Fig. 74). 236
Sometimes it is supposed that they accommodated
a smaller tactical unit comprising no more than 500
men, exploratores or a small auxiliary unit, given the
task of more permanent nature, perhaps safeguard-
ing tasks, amongst others the key communication
points (e.g. fords, main crossroads) and strategic
234 Cf. Lenďáková et al. 2020.
235 Cf. Komoróczy et al. 2019b, 165, Taf. 1.
236 The camps in Bernhardsthal and Brno-Vojtova street could
be hypothetically assigned to the same size-category, at this
time without additional details. For the camp in Suchohrad
see below.
235 |

infrastructure. 237 But why would be such a  unit be
placed immediately next to forts, which were in-
tended to accommodate a  much larger contingents,
which even surpass the extent of camps containing
an army of the size mentioned in literary sources
for the whole area of operation to the west of Little
Carpathians during the Marcomannic wars?238 The
dislocation of these camps does not mean that such
a  military unit would advance separately from
the Limes. We know with certainty only two such
camps, both of them situated on the edge of the allu-
vial landscape, with side oriented towards the river
without obvious fortification line. One could specu-
late, whether these camps have had any fortification
on this side at all. A clear answer cannot be found in
the present archaeological evidence. The supposed
absence of fortifications oriented towards the river
and their analogies – even though their display in
the archaeological record is different – from other
237 Similar assumptions e.g. in Groh 2015d, 177–179; Tejral 1999,
127.
238 Cf. e.g. Jones 2012, 47 ff.
| 236
Fig. 61. Přibice. Outline of recorded courses
of the fortification ditch and extent
of fortified areas of the temporary
camps 1, 2 and 3 (Basemap: LiDAR 5G,
©ČÚZK; ©ARÚB)
regions (the so-called Uferkastelle in Haltern, 239 the
fortified Rhine ports from the 1st half of the 1st cen-
tury in Velsen, 240 as well as the late antique fortified
Danubian ports in Pannonia 241) make it possible to
interpret them as protected landing points and an-
chorages for riverboats and barges. These provided
the troop contingents with supplies and other neces-
sary military provisions and were part of the infra-
structure securing the river supply lines. 242
In case of the camps in Přibice their location
indicates that they were not part of the fortification
structures linked immediately to the protection of
the central occupation base on Mušov-Burgstall.
Their proximity to other fortifications within the
Mušov region also makes it unlikely that it would be
a further position on the linear access route coming
239 E.g. Aßkamp 2009, 174–175, Abb. 2:3, 3; Kühlborn 1995, 84–86,
Abb. 1.; Kehne 2008, 274.
240 Driessen 2014, 210–213, Fig. 2a–c.
241 Mócsy 1958; Visy 2003, 164 ff.
242 See the general reflections upon this topic in Kehne 2008.
Fig. 62. Přibice. Geomorphological conditions and slope classification within the fortified area of the temporary camp 1. (basemap: orthophoto,
©ČÚZK WMS; ©ARÚB)

from south. On basis of overall spatial layout, differ-

ent sizes and functions stemming from these differ-
ences, can hypothetically be supposed that all three
camps existed at the same time, although we do not
have any direct evidence for it. Under these assump-
tions they can give proof of a concentration of a large
army which stayed here at the beginning of a  new
military campaign. 243 The largest camp 3 could have
served for numerous fighting contingents, while the
protected anchorage (camp 2) and the neighbouring
camp 1 with large areas inappropriate for tents could
have served as storage area for logistical support
and accommodation for service personnel. The di-
rection of this campaign can be estimated according
to modelling of communication corridors pointing to
the northern camps at Modřice at southern outskirts Fig. 63. Přibice. Copper alloy knee brooch discovered in the
of Brno, as well as the camps located further to the fortification ditch of the camp 2 (©ARÚB)
northeast in Olomouc-Neředín, Jevíčko and Hulín-
Pravčice (Fig. 81). detector prospections took place here later, which
results have mostly been published. 244 The latest
survey conducted within our project corporation
3.2.16. Závod (Bratislava region, Slovakia) covered of 6 ha and allowed to distinguish in detail
the fortification structures of the camp and other
The camp in Závod is located at the edge archaeological components from prehistory until
of a  terrace on the left bank of the Morava river, the Early Middle Ages, including Germanic settle-
at a  distance of 45 km from the Danube. The pres- ment activities (Fig.  64). 245 The fortification enclos-
ence of a  Roman fortification was detected here by
aerial survey, whereas trial trenching and metal
244 Rajtár 2002; 2014, 122–124, Obr. 15; Elschek – Rajtár 2008.
245 For summary of the latest research results see Komoróczy et al.
243 Cf. Maxwell 1991, 111 ff. 2018, 296–299.

237 |
es 4.2  ha, therefore it rates among the smaller mil-
itary installations in the region. However, there is
no similar layout known among the camps in the
Middle Danube region (Fig.  65). The camp is slight-
ly asymmetrical in shape and oriented west-east
with minimum deviation and its northern fortifica-
tion line goes right along the edge of the terrace.
All together five camp entrances were identified, all
of them in the form of a  simple gap. The estimated
width of the gates in the narrow eastern and west-
ern sides of the camp is 8 m. Another three narrow
entrances were detected in the northern line, about
2  m wide. Four small-scale excavations were car-
ried out. Trench No.  1 was laid out in the area of
the identified entrance in the eastern third of the
northern front. A  gap in the ditch 1.9  m wide was
identified at the level of subsoil. Along the western
end of the ditch 4 regularly distributed shallow post-
holes were detected, which may implicate a  simple
aboveground gate structure (Fig. 66). The wide open
trench shape in the loose gravelly-sandy subsoil
implies an advanced erosion process of the origi-
nal shape and can be associated with the backfill-
ing of the lowest deposits. Above rested redeposited
remains of the Germanic settlement layer contain-
ing among others terra sigillata from the Severian
Period (Fig. 67). Analysis of archaeobotanical mac-
ro-remains from this sediments, which probably got
to the partially backfilled ditch some time after the
camp lost its primary function, yielded a carbonized
fragment of spelt, providing a  radiocarbon date 210
to 384 at 2  σ. This date is thus a  terminus ante quem
for the camp. 246 Trench No. 3 was situated in the area
of the simple gap gate in the western perimeter of
the camp. The width of the ditch gap was 9  m. In
the area of the entrance several shallow postholes
were identified, but they cannot be clearly associ-
ated with the camp defensive structures. Collection
of scarcely distributed finds of the Roman origin
from the camp area are known, which could be as-
sociated with the period of Marcomannic wars, and
which were left or lost by the soldiers from units
garrisoned here. A  systematic detector survey was
also conducted recently and the area of the camp
yielded among others a  coin of Faustina, two knee
brooches and several fragments of military equip-
ment. Quite unique is a find of iron folding chair of
type Weißenburg, variant A  after the classification
by Ch. Miks. 247
The camp in Závod represents in some as-
pects not entirely a  standard form of a  military in-
stallation. Only two small gates in narrow sides in-
dicate that its function and garrison may have been
different from the other temporary camps on the
studied territory. It is particularly conspicuous in
246 This form of superposition, i.e. disruption of the Roman
fortification by the later Germanic feature from the 1st third
of the 3rd century, has been documented in Závod earlier
(Elschek – Rajtár 2008, 476, Abb. 5).
247 Miks 2009, 433, Abb. 26.
| 238
relation to the size of the fortified area. Small en-
trances on the northern front indicate permanent
need of access to water course. The position of the
camp at the edge of a  protected river arm, not very
distant from the main flow, also suggests an inter-
pretation that this camp was closely connected with
the river supply route (Fig. 82), and its garrison had
not necessarily the form of a standard tactical unit.
This assumption is also supported in terms of hy-
drodynamics by the position at the end of meander
shaped edge of the terrace, along which the flow
would be expectedly slowest and provide suitable
conditions for anchoring.
The assignment of the camp in Závod to the
group of the smallest military installations is not en-
tirely accurate in terms of area and identified forms
of gates, but in terms of functional interconnec-
tion with the river routes it seems to be correct. 248 It
cannot be ruled out that the currently known distri-
bution of Roman fortifications on the leÌ bank of the
lower reaches of Moravia is significantly conditioned
by insufficient state of knowledge, or is caused by the
specific character of the local landscape and condi-
tions for their registration. Despite the problems of
the evidences from Suchohrad and the unclear role
of the building in Stupava (see below), it seems – in
accordance with the modelled communication cor-
ridors – that more significant military activities are
found here especially in positions that could serve as
suitable places to cross the river, a probable fords or
anchorage. The fact that the camp in Závod is located
on the Morava–Dyje river route approximately half-
way between Carnuntum and Mušov may also not be
without importance. The one of river arms, located
immediately below the northern side of the fortifi-
cation with three specific gates, could thus offer an
important location for ship anchorage, widely used
by the Romans for the transport of supplies, material
or military units.
3.2.17. The question of military objects on
the lower reaches of the river Morava
– Stillfried (Lower Austria, Austria),
Suchohrad and Stupava (Bratislava
region, Slovakia)
Although in this study we do not deal with
a  more detailed discussion of unverified Roman
army objects in the Marcomannian territory and do
not reflect minor solitary indications of its presence
in specific locations (mostly individual unstratified
finds), we make an exception for some of the sites
at the terminal section of the lower Morava reach-
es before the mouth to the Danube (Fig. 68). These
248 Cf. Groh 2015d, 156, where they are considered to be a reflec-
tion of the movement of one small military unit along the on
land route and represents a different military strategy, not
similar to one applied at the rest of the scoped territory.
Fig. 64. Závod. Basic interpretation of the magnetic anomalies recorded through geophysical prospection (©ARÚB)

Fig. 65. Závod. Geomorphological conditions within the hinterland of the Roman temporary camp (basemap: LiDAR 5G, ©ÚGKK SR; ©ARÚB)

239 |

Fig. 66. Závod. Excavated narrow (2 m wide) entrance at the northern
fortification front with postholes, presumable belonging to
some kind of a simple gate construction (©ARÚB)
Fig. 67. Závod. Detail of the distinguishing stratigraphical unit within
the infills of the fortification ditch with deposition containing
Germanic settlement material (terra sigillata; context also
complemented with radiocarbon date) reflecting consecutive
phase of activities at the location after Roman army withdrawal
(©ARÚB)
locations have been repeatedly in the focus in scien-
tific contributions on the Marcomannic wars.
The area of Carnuntum and its immediate
neighbourhood, where the barbarian part of the
Amber Road crosses to the Pannonian border, had to
play an extraordinary importance as advance point
of the Roman army into Marcomannian territory and
in securing its hinterlands. It is also an area where
the earliest traces of Germanic settlement activities
west of the Little Carpathians have been recorded
and since the 1st century numerous testimonies of in-
teractions between the Roman Empire and barbar-
ian societies as well as rich burials reflecting the
presence of Germanic elites were detected. 249 Except
for Engelhartstetten, however, we still lack clear ev-
idence of Roman military objects from the period of
the Marcomannic wars, although some locations are
considered to belong to this context. Unfortunately,
very few indications are yet available on the possi-
ble function of the elevated positions of Devín and
Devínska Kobyla directly above the confluence of
249 Cf. e.g. Elschek 2017a; 2017b; 2019, Abb. 1.
| 240
Moravia and the Danube. 250 Certainly these were po-
sitions with excellent conditions for the establish-
ment of observation and control posts of the army, 251
but we do not possess yet any direct evidences for
such use during the Marcomannic wars.
In connection with the Marcomannic wars,
the site Stupava “Kopec” is sometimes mentioned. 252
Research dates back to the 1920s and this site often
appears in a list of Roman “stations” in the barbar-
ian territory. 253 Here, several Roman type buildings
were detected and their development is still sub-
ject of debate. The houses begin in the 2nd half of
the 2nd century following from stratigraphic rela-
tions with Germanic settlement activities. 254 In the
first phase a  building with a  square floor plan of
30  x  30 m made of wood and clay was erected. No
interior structures were recorded here as the foun-
dations of later buildings overlie them and the only
find coming from this context is a fragment of iron
lorica hamata. 255 Outside of the building, two paral-
lel lines, 1.70 m from each other, were documented,
which V.  Turčan regarded as foundations of mili-
tary barracks. Unfortunately, no further informa-
tion is available, but common background with
the Marcomannic wars and a  military use of these
buildings cannot be ruled out. 256
Approximately 35  km to the north of
Carnuntum, about roughly two days marching north
from Engelhartstetten, evidence of Roman mili-
tary presence can be found within the area of pres-
ent Stillfried. Here, on a  prominent plateau, whose
slopes were probably connected directly to the reach-
es of Moravia river in the Roman period, 257 there is
a  significant, but unfortunately only fragmentarily
explored and published polycultural site. The exact
250 Pieta – Plachá 1999; Bazovský 2011; Erdrich 2015, 15 ff.
251 Cf. e.g. Komoróczy – Vlach – Hložek 2014.
252 E.g. Tejral 1999, 85.
253 Research history and older state of knowledge, see Hečková
1986; cf. Böhme 1975; Kolník 1986; 1995.
254 Summary in Turčan 2012.
255 Turčan 2012, 421–422, Abb. 2: A; 3.
256 A more detailed analysis of Stupava is limited by the quality
of information available. Nevertheless, is can be pointed out
that the earliest, rather simple building, was probably rela-
tively early abandoned and torn down, whereas subsequent
building activities leading to considerably different ground
plans. So far, we lack any knowledge about a possible forti-
fication and it is necessary also emphasize that the location
itself is not entirely suitable for a military camp. The simple
ground plan of the first building phase resembles the sim-
plest type of a wooden horreum (e.g. Rödgen – Reddé et al. 2006,
111–116, Fig. 92; Fischer 2012b, 284–285, Abb. 429), although the
characteristic internal structural elements of a raised floor
were not identified. Hypothetically, it can be assumed that
the first building was created as a part of logistic support in
the vicinity of a Roman army operating nearby (cf. Turčan
2012, 421).
257 Lauermann 2017, 239.

form and chronology of the archaeological traces
dating in the Roman period is difficult to recon-
struct on the basis of the information available. 258
They are located within an extensive system of pre-
historic fortifications (but not in all of its parts),
while perhaps two parallel V-shaped ditches along
a  medieval fortification in the southeast are of
Roman origin. 259 E. Lauermann supposed that here
the seat of Germanic elites was located having con-
tact with a  Rome milieu through client relations.
258 Summarized in e.g. Pollak 2009, 154–158; Lauermann 2017,
238–240; Stuppner 2008, 55–56.
259 Pollak 2009, 156, Abb. 1a.
Fig. 68. The Lower course of
the Morava River.
Distribution of the Roman
temporary camps and
indirect indices of the
Roman military presence
and extent of the alluvial
landscape (©ARÚB)
Some of the buildings were equipped with hypocaus-
tum. 260 Lauermann regards the sporadic occurrence
of Roman militaria as indicator for the presence of
the Roman army with their main body somewhere
else. Most often he speaks of its function in terms
of an observation point or a  fortified position. The
site was supposed to have been under control of the
Germanic elites during the Marcomannic wars. 261 In
most of the publications, some of the buildings and
numerous ovens known from Stillfried are dated to
260 This would be a relatively unique finding for the Early Ro-
man period. So far, it seems that all known Roman buildings
in Germanic territory, if they are not directly part of military
installations, belong to the Late Roman period; cf. Tejral 1999,
81–85; Kolník 1995; Rajtár 2014, 113.
261 According to E. Lauermann Stillfried could maybe looked
upon as „Außenposten des Marschlagers in Suchohrad“ – Lauer-
mann 2017, 239.
241 |
Fig. 69. Suchohrad. Basic interpretation of the magnetic anomalies recorded through geophysical prospection (©ARÚB)
the late Roman period. However, there is a  general
consensus that most of the finds of Roman militaria,
e.g. including an almost complete lorica segmentata of
the Newstead type, 262 clearly date in the period of the
Marcomannic wars. 263 Although it is not yet possible
to assign a clear construction context to them, they
can be a very significant indirect evidence of the use
of this strategically important position during the
Marcomannic wars. In a recently published synthe-
sis of Roman operations during the Marcomannic
wars north of the Pannonian border, S.  Groh also
regarded Stillfried as an extremely important point
in the military route network from Carnuntum and
Devín. From a  geospatial point of view and regard-
ing the presence of a  ford across the Morava River
here, this view seems to be completely justified, al-
though verifiable terrain features are still absent. 264
On the opposite, Slovak bank of the River
Morava lies the site of Suchohrad where aerial survey
earlier detected linear structures which, however,
were not identified representatively by subsequent
262 Lauermann 2017, 239; Ölvecky 2015, 93, Tab. XLIV: 2, L: 1, LI: 6,
LV: 5, LVI: 2, LVII: 1, LIX: 8, LX: 1, LXI: 1.
263 Tejral 1999, 83.
264 Groh 2015d, 176–178, Abb. 104. Further ideas put forward by
S. Groh about the function of the entire plateau by the Ro-
man army and the position of the alleged camp in Suchohrad
on the opposite Slovak river bank as a „Contra-Lager“ have no
support in the archaeological record available.
| 242
magnetometric survey. Excavations carried out
proved the presence of a  ditch on three sides of the
feature, which did not resemble the typical layout of
Roman temporary fortification. 265 Nevertheless, the
site was preliminarily included among the list of tem-
porary camps of the Roman army with an estimated
fortified area of approximately 1  ha. 266 Geophysical
prospection was carried out again as part of a recent
joint project, but its results did not confirm the pres-
ence of magnetic anomalies clearly aÃributable to
the fortification of the Roman field camp (Fig.  69).
Subsequent trial trenching revealed a  ditch, which
shape doesn’t  correspond to the characteristic form
of V-shaped ditch, common in temporary camps in
the scoped region. Even the archaeobotanical sample
taken from the ditch infills did not provide a  radio-
carbon date falling within the frame of Roman period.
Recently conducted detector survey in Suchohrad
yielded two Denarii minted for Faustina as well as
a  knee brooch, but all of these artefacts were found
outside the enclosed area. Despite its logical spatial
relation to Stillfried is necessary to consider an un-
verified temporary camp so far. 267
In light of the information mentioned here
about the sites in the southern part of the Záhorie
region and the Austrian bank of the Morava River, it
265 Shape of the ditches cf. e.g. Ölvecky 2014, Tab. XCII.
266 Hanzelyová – Kuzma – Rajtár 1996, 204; Rajtár 2014, 122–123.
267 Komoróczy et al. 2018, 297, Abb. 2.
Fig. 70. Camp size classes. Outline of the recorded (left) and hypothetically reconstructed (right) fortified areas of the verified Roman temporary
camps within the study region west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)
can be assumed that this area was intensively used
by Roman troops and the control of this area was cer-
tainly a key strategic objective. According to the pres-
ent state of knowledge about the temporary camps,
it seems that the movement of larger military con-
tingents took place along the route EngelhartsteÃen
– Charvátská Nová Ves along the west bank of the
river, while a large part of supply transports could be
carried most effectively via this waterway. To secure
it and control its main fords both significant elevat-
ed observation positions (Devín, Devínská Kobyla
and Stillfried) as well as smaller field camps could
be used. At the same time, they could also serve as
defensive positions over places suitable for anchor-
age of Roman ships (Závod, Bernhardsthal).
So far, it seems that the modelled communi-
cation corridor (Fig. 81) on the Slovakian bank of the
Morava River was used less intensively. For a  more
accurate interpretation of this picture, however, we
lack deeper and more detailed understanding of the
development of Roman-Germanic relations in this
exceptionally important and intensively populat-
ed region, which differs in some aspects from other
parts of the so-called Marcomannian seÃlement
zone. 268 Local conditions (especially the width of al-
luvial landscape and the intensity and complexity
of hydrology) probably favourable most for the river
crossing the area of Suchohrad – Stillfried and Závod
268 Cf. outline in Elschek 2018.
243 |
further to the north, for which testify also archaeolog-
ically explored military objects or at least evidenced
through indirect indices. In this context, it is also
possible to draw aÃention to the fact that their posi-
tions correspond to the modelled section of the river
route (Fig. 82). The distance of the area of Suchohrad
– Stillfried from the confluence with the Danube is
18.5  km and further to the north the next identified
section has a length 19.6 km. About the same length
of a  modelled route section could be observed fur-
ther upstream to the camp in Bernhardsthal, above
the confluence of the rivers Morava and Dyje. 269
3.2.18. General characteristics
The localisation of military camps is, in most
cases, clearly linked to the axial rivers in the region
(Morava, Dyje, Jihlava and Svratka) and particularly
to the area of the first terraces above their alluvial
plains. The shape of the local geomorphology also
determines the orientation of temporary fortifica-
tions, which generally parallels the watercourses in
their neighbourhood and has no regularities with re-
spect to other cardinal directions. The rivers can be
regarded as a significant factor in Roman occupation
plans, not only as a source of drinking water for nu-
merous military units accompanied by animals but
also as a means for the transport for military equip-
ment and supplies. 270
At present, 26 individually identifiable forti-
fications or their phases (reductions or extensions
of the fortified area) can be distinguished (Fig. 70).
Although the main structural elements of temporary
camps are based on the same principles (layout, side
proportion, character of corner rounding or the type
of camp entrances and gates), the camps particular-
ly differ in their spatial extent (from 1 to 50  ha) re-
sulting from differences in size and probably task
of their garrison. In the majority of cases, the over-
all layout of the camps is irregular rectangular or
slightly trapezoidal. The side proportion ratio of
2:3 is generally the most common in these types of
fortifications. 271 According to the extent of the for-
tified area, we can divide the camps into four size
categories. 272 The largest size category encompass-
es fortifications with an area between 37 and 47  ha
(Engelhartstetten, Charvátská Nová Ves 1a, Mušov –
Na Pískách 1a and 1b, Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof
and Přibice 3). We can interpret these as strong-
holds for extraordinarily large contingents, proba-
bly formations composed of several different types
of military units (legions or their parts, vexillationes,
auxiliary or other specialised units, service troops
269 Vlach 2016, 190 ff.
270 In detail cf. Komoróczy – Vlach 2018; 2019; Vlach 2016; cf. Roth
1999, 14 ff.
271 Cf. Davies – Jones 2006, 16; Welfare – Swan 1995, 10.
272 Different categorization cf. Groh 2015d, 156 ff., Abb. 109.
| 244
or civilian accompaniment respectively). 273 In their
distribution (Fig. 71) could be seen evidence of the
presence of almost total size of expedition forces,
whereas its departure point can be expected in the
camp in Engelhartstetten. However, a  similar phe-
nomenon can be seen in Přibice, where the largest
recorded military installation could have served for
accommodation of an exceptional military contin-
gent and this whole place along with the other two
camps served as springboard for further campaign
heading north and northeast from already pacified
areas to the south perhaps during the final phases of
occupation of the Marcomannian territory.
The second largest size category is represent-
ed by camps with an area of 20 to 26 ha (Kollnbrunn,
Modřice, Jevíčko, Olomouc-Neředín, Hulín-Pravčice,
Mušov – Na Pískách 1c and Přibice 1). We can regard
these as evidence of the activities of “mid-size” tacti-
cal combat units capable of carrying out operations
independently with sufficient military strength and
perhaps also involving the necessary logistical sup-
port. Their conspicuous distribution (Fig. 72) in the
northern half of the Marcomannian seÃlement zone,
resp. on its outer periphery, for which could be con-
sidered military contingents coming from the com-
plex camp structure in Přibice. A  camp of this size
category can be also found within the “Germanic
inland” in Kollnbrunn.
The third category includes camps with an
area of 4 to 11 ha (Závod, presumably Drnholec, Ivaň,
Plank am Kamp and the reductions of more extensive
camps Mušov – Na Pískách 1c and Charvátská Nová
Ves 1b), which could have accommodated smaller
units charged with subtasks in the given location
(e.g. control over road junctions, over supply routes
and anchorage grounds, supervision of particular
Germanic communities, etc.). This interpretation
seems to be also underlined by their concentration
in locations (Fig. 73), where the access routes lead into
273 In general, however, we consider detailed account of the
types of units in the individual temporary camps in the
Middle Danube region on the basis of their fortified area as
rather problematic. The automatic transformation of the size
parameters of the permanent legionary or auxiliary camps
into the conditions of the temporary camps on the hostile
territory seems to us a far too schematic approach, which
misses both the size categories identified here and the cast
that they probably included non-standard or mixed military
contingents, including technical staff and logistical support
(cf. non-standard sizes of military installations of Augustan
period east of the Rhine and sizes of various types of camps
in Fischer 2012b, 268 ff.). For different considerations on the
types of units in the temporary camps see e.g. Groh 2015d, 156;
Visy 2000, 32–36 (camps around Brigetio); Rajtár 2014, 113 ff.
(camps on Quadian territory); Tejral 1999, 127; Jones 2012, 47 ff.
(camps in Britain). Although the participation of specific
units in military operations can be reconstructed only very
fragmentarily from the available sources, according to nu-
merous indications, it seems that in most cases it was troops
of variable compositions (cf. Kovács 2009, 222 ff.; Dobiáš 1964,
215; Lőrincz 1994).
Fig. 71. Distribution of the temporary camps of the size class 1 (37–47 ha) within the study region west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)

Fig. 72. Distribution of the temporary camps of the size class 2 (20–26 ha) within the study region west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)

245 |
Fig. 73. Distribution of the temporary camps of the size class 3 (4–11 ha) within the study region west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)

Fig. 74. Distribution of the temporary camps of the size class 4 (around 1 ha) within the study region west of the Little Carpathians (©ARÚB)

| 246
the central military base at Mušov-Burgstall, or by
such as camps in Charvátská Nová Ves and Plank am
Kamp, where connection to an important communi-
cation node or seÃlement cluster can be found.
A  specific category is represented by camps
with an area of around 1 ha (Fig. 74), located on the
edge of a  terrace above the alluvial plain of the po-
tentially navigable rivers in the region (with certain-
ty Mušov – Na Pískách 2 and Přibice 2; but proba-
bly also Brno-Vojtova street and Bernhardsthal). As
mentioned above, we are inclined to believe that
both of the certain examples served as protected
landing places for riverboats and barges. These pro-
vided the larger troop contingents with supplies and
other necessary military provisions and were part of
the structure of the bases on supply routes.
Excavations of fortification relics in tempo-
rary camps revealed an almost exclusive use of ditch-
es of the fossa fastigata type. Until recently it has been
supposed that temporary camps had only an earthen
fortification. The indications of a  wooden gate con-
struction were by that time found only in two cases
(Ivaň, Závod). The latest excavations enabled us to
document for the first time an entirely new category
of building material in case of temporary military
installations: most representatively in one of the
most extensive fortifications in Charvátská Nová Ves.
Excavations in the area of the northern gate in sev-
eral cases reliably identified the relics of redeposit-
ed mudbricks in the backfill of the fortification ditch
(Fig. 75). 274 They showed up as a  distinctly compact
and evidently intentionally formed humus rich sed-
iment mixed with fine-grained sand without coarse
admixtures. Their deposition direction follows the
morphology of characteristic deposits sloping down
from the interior side of the camp, which are usual-
ly interpreted as remains of a redeposited rampart. 275
Therefore, it is very likely that it was at least in its
front strengthened with this building material.
Sediments, which were macroscopically inter-
preted as relics of mudbricks, yielded new knowledge
through the analysis of malacological remains, 276 not
only in the camp at Charvátská Nová Ves. Molluscs
are characterised by a firm bond to substrate and by
low mobility. Malacological analyses of ditch fills in
all examined localities west of the LiÃle Carpathians
proved that the camps were located in very similar
ecological conditions. Forest species were absent in
all cases, which indicates that none of these sites
had a  forest canopy closure, neither during build-
up of fortification nor at the time of decline when
the ditches were backfilled and were dry and sunny
stands. An entirely different information, howev-
er, resulted from the analyses of molluscs from
274 Komoróczy et al. 2014, 353–355, Obr. 8, 9.
275 Cf. Lisá et al. 2015, 74.
276 For their realization we would like to express our gratitude to
J. Bíšková.
Fig. 75. Charvátská Nová Ves. The first recorded remains of mud-bricks
in context of a temporary camp fortification and direct evidence
of their use in revetment of fortification wall (©ARÚB)
sediments identified on site as mudbricks. These
sediments only contained a foreign admixture of al-
lochthonous water malacofauna bound to strongly
eutrophic waters. 277 Therefore, it is likely that the ma-
terial for production of mudbricks came from a type
of environment, which can be found in immediate
neighbourhood of the camp in Charvátská Nová Ves,
below the terrace in one of the already silted oxbows
of the distinctly meandering Dyje River (width of al-
luvial landscape about 1 km). Similarly, as it was with
Charvátská Nová Ves, recent excavations of the for-
tification on Mušov-Burgstall also confirmed a  sim-
ilar spectrum of malacofauna remains contained in
mudbricks, which is different from the other sedi-
ments. Other malacological indications of the use of
mudbricks in construction of rampart come from the
camps at Přibice and Závod. Nevertheless, in both
cases the transformation processes did not allow
to distinguish them macroscopically during field
research.
Mudbricks apparently were widespread in
the context of building activities at the time of the
Marcomannic wars within the studied region. They
represent, for example, the only building material
in the construction of walls and floors of buildings
inside the timber-and-earth camp in Iža-Leányvár. 278
It was estimated here that construction of 12 blocks
of barrack buildings would require roughly 1 mil-
lion bricks made of 6,000 m3 of processed clay. 279
Easy availability of material for their production
in alluvial landscape around the Danube and suit-
able properties of mudbricks caused that they were
widely used. 280
The present state of research into relics of for-
tification structures in Charvátská Nová Ves at the
277 Cf. the same finding on the basis of pollen analyses taken
from mudbricks found in ditch of the Roman temporary
camp in Olomouc-Neředín (perhaps misinterpreted as relics
of turfs there; Kalábek et al. 2017, 184–186).
278 Hüssen – Rajtár 1994; Rajtár 2014, 113–114.
279 Hajnalová – Rajtár 2009, 196–197.
280 Other examples of use see Komoróczy et al. in print.
247 |
same time enables to reconstruct some of the basic
parameters of the aboveground part of fortification
(Fig. 76), and calculate some of demands in the con-
text of the recently proved building material. 281 In the
case of a  minimal reconstruction module the exter-
nal revetment of the defensive wall of 2.5  km in pe-
rimeter would demand between 90 and 100 thousand
bricks. For their production it would be necessary to
extract and transport approximately 12 to 16 hundred
tons of fluvial sediment. Even though the material has
been transported only over several hundred metres,
the overall context of the production process and
time demands of its individual phases would require
a relatively high extent of logistic capacities. This as-
sumption also enables to roughly estimate the dura-
tion of building works on the fortification – which
may have lasted at least several weeks, especially Fig. 76. Charvátská Nová Ves. Minimal module of schematic
when we take into consideration demands for drying reconstruction of dimensions and shape of the original
of material. 282 Regardless the total building time the fortification based on documented field situations at the
northern gate area (©ARÚB)
applied measures point out certain strategic inten-
tions encompassing use of the military installation
over the lengthier period of time. This finding repre-
sents an evident turning point in the current knowl-
edge of field evidence of the fortification structures
of Roman temporary camps in the Middle Danube
region. Thus, it can considerably influence our pre-
vious interpretational premises on the purpose and
length of use of these installations. Technologically,
mud bricks, in contrast to turf, were a  relatively de-
manding building material with a specific manufac-
turing process. On Burgstall near Mušov, mudbricks
are considered to be evidence of an aÃempt to build
a  more durable fortification (Fig. 77). 283 The locally
produced mudbricks for the construction of fortifi-
cations of some temporary camps can be seen as an
evidence of efforts to build a  more permanent forti-
fication facility also in their case.

We currently assume that the internal build-

up in temporary camps only consisted of tents, which
did not leave any durable traces in the ground.
Nevertheless, geophysical surveys and excavations
conducted on the camps in Přibice, Mušov – Na
Pískách, Modřice, Charvátská Nová Ves, Kollnbrunn
and Laa an der Thaya – Ruhhof have considerably
enriched our knowledge of the internal structures of
the camps. Anomalies repeatedly occurred, which
upon the correlation of field evidence and the char-
acteristic displays of magnetometric data, can be
classified as the remains of baking ovens (Fig. 46, 78).
The ovens are mostly arranged in a  line parallel to
the course of the fortification, usually at a  distance
of 6 to 9  m  from the detected course of the ditch.
This position roughly corresponds to the inner side
281 Vlach 2016, 160–165, Obr. 65.
282 E.g. Van Beek – Van Beek 2008, 153. Nevertheless, it cannot be
ruled out that mudbricks in non-structural building contexts,
such as reinforcement of fortification faces in form of revet-
ment, could have been used also in not completely dried out
form, which would decrease the necessary production time.
283 Komoróczy 2008a, 394–404, fig. 3, 4, 11.
Fig. 77. Mušov-Burgstall. Example of well-preserved remains of mud
bricks redeposited into the ditch infills from revetment of above
ground fortification (rampart) (©ARÚB)
of the rampart and the edge of the intervallum, where
ovens are also found in permanent camps. A  signif-
icant part of the set of palaeobotanical data origi-
nates from the explored field ovens, which is logi-
cally implied by the function of these devices and
how they were used. Regarding the variability and
the volume of plant material, an oven examined in
Modřice differs significantly from other structures
of this type. Besides wild plant species, it also con-
tained a relatively wide range of cultivated plants in-
cluding wheat, barley, rye and millet. This composi-
tion is generally comparable to the spectra of species
from ovens examined in the Roman timber-and-
earth camp in Iža, 284 and even those in the Kintore
camp in Scotland. 285 A  similarity also exists in the
wild plant species, namely the representative
284 Hajnalová – Rajtár 2009.
285 Cook – Dunbar 2008, 251–272, Tab. 29.

| 248

occurrence of plants of the genus Chenopodium.
On the contrary, the occurrence of einkorn wheat,
emmer wheat or spelt in Modřice rather refers to the
spectrum of species typical of Germanic agriculture.
It is highly probable that this is indirect evidence of
the requisition of commodities among local popula-
tions, which is also indicated in wriÃen sources.
To this day, the chronological position of
the temporary camps has mainly been determined
on the basis of detected superposition relationships
(particularly the preceding or subsequent Germanic
seÃlement) and unstratified finds from the area of
the camp and its surroundings. In the locations of
the camps in Bernhardsthal, Mušov – Na Pískách,
Modřice and probably also Drnholec in Moravia or
Závod in Slovakia the Germanic seÃlement horizons
of relatively-chronological phase B2 and C1 were ar-
chaeologically recognized (either directly by terrain
excavations or indicated through collections of small
finds from the surface). Although the chronology of
seÃlement horizons lacks fine resolution which would
Fig. 78. Přibice. Example of geophysically
recorded field ovens apparently
aligned with course of
fortifications at the temporary
camps 1 (south eastern part of
the camps at the uppermost
flat terrace) and 3 (northern
fortification line) (©ARÚB)
make it possible to clearly demonstrate this assump-
tion, it is very likely that the local population was
forced to leave these seÃlements before the construc-
tion of the camp. 286 Whether it was done voluntarily
and even with a certain time lag before the arrival of
the Romans, or this phenomenon occurred directly
under the direct action of the Roman army (which
is repeatedly indicated by scenes on the Column of
Marcus Aurelius), it is not possible to decide une-
quivocally from archaeological sources. The result-
ing chronological clues were then synchronised with
some of the Roman-Germanic conflicts known from
historical sources, as well as with parallels in the
spectrum of finds from reliably dated archaeolog-
ical features and layers of a  relevant chronological
horizon. Considering the conditions of the origin,
existence and decline of the primary function and
the archaeological formative processes, temporary
camps tend to offer limited possibilities with regard
286 See above.
249 |
to standard dating methods, particularly when set
into context. Excavations only sporadically yielded
archaeological finds, which are suitable for more ac-
curate dating of individual camps or even phases.
In effort to create independent framework
for the chronological position of individual tempo-
rary camps, we already presented a  series of radi-
ocarbon dates, which was completed during subse-
quent excavations. 287 The dates, of course, were not
collected to differentiate the camps in the course of
the Marcomannic wars, but above all to identify the
camps associated with more distant chronological in-
tervals and events which, according to literary sourc-
es, sometimes may have leÌ traces of Roman army
on the territory of our interest. 288 Representative ar-
chaeobotanical data, with regard to depositional pro-
cesses, were mainly acquired from suitable samples
taken from the lower parts of backfills of ditches in
temporary camps, and from above mentioned field
ovens (Fig. 79). The summarizing statistical analy-
sis of the acquired 14C dates, 289 in accordance with
other indications and with relative-chronological
dating of individual phenomena, allows to conclude
that in most of the Roman temporary camps west
of the LiÃle Carpathians we currently can confirm
that they fall within the chronological range of the
Marcomannic wars (Fig. 80). The existing data, inclu-
sive of small finds, do not enable to associate the tem-
porary camps with other possible periods of Roman
military presence, 290 above all with the frequently
discussed military campaign against Maroboduus
shortly aÌer the turn of the eras. Also, we do not yet
see any space for unequivocal chronological differen-
tiation within the period of the Marcomannic wars.
The fact that we lack any superposi-
tion relations between the verified camps in the
Marcomannian territory (perhaps only with the
possible exception of the fortification Mušov – Na
Pískách 3 and Mušov – Na Pískách 1a a  1b; Fig. 57)
can be considered a  striking chronological clue in
assessment of their length of use and chronological
position. On the contrary, repeating reductions of
camp areas together with the recently confirmed use
of more durable building materials and the sporadic
287 Komoróczy et al. 2019a; 2019b.
288 To the historical events chronologically significantly remote
from the horizon of the Marcomannic wars cf. also some con-
siderations of dating of some of the buildings at Mušov-Burg-
stall e.g. Tejral 2014; 2017, 155 ff.; Groh 2015d, 173–176; cf.
Komoróczy et al. 2019b, 154–159.
289 Komoróczy et al. 2019a, Fig. 4, Tab. 1; 2019b, Abb. 18, Taf. 1.
290 See above the discussion with the different views by S. Groh
a H. Sedlmayer in case of the camp in EngelhartsteÃen.
| 250
occurrence of wooden structures291 suggest that some
of the temporary camps may have been used in the
context of war operations for a  relatively longer pe-
riod. 292 Notable manifestations of multiphase use
and construction horizons have been so far identi-
fied only in the case of Mušov-Burgstall, with which
the existence of temporary camps had to be at least
partially synchronous, but where a  clear temporal
and functional discernment of individual construc-
tion phases is a task for the future. 293 On basis of re-
construction of course of military campaigns, based
mainly on the historical sources, 294 it seems probable
that most of the buildings belong to the final phases
of conflict in the years 178–180 (expeditio Germanica
secunda). However, until further research is carried
out, especially on more representative areas of its
interior, it will probably not be possible to clearly
differentiate and distinguish within this archaeolog-
ically extremely short period, which of the camps
represent only a  trace of a  short-term presence of
a  military unit and which could be also assigned
with “semi-permanent” tasks in a given location. 295
The currently known distribution of temporary
camps also enables to reflect some of the other stra-
tegic and tactical parameters of Roman occupation.
The positions of the individual camps have an obvi-
ous connection with the seÃlement structure of the
local Germanic population. The densely populated
riverbanks on the lower reaches of the Morava, which
291 Based on them S. Groh differentiates the military installa-
tions in Ivaň and Mušov-Burgstall and considers them as
castra hiberna (Groh 2015d, 167). This terminology in case of
the fortification examined by us does not seem to be entirely
appropriate and relies too much on the schematic division
mediated by literary sources (for its summary see e.g. Jones
2012, 32–36). An aÃempt to define a hibernaculum (Baatz 1985)
seems to be convincing only in distinguishing them from
the permanent camps at the Limes. Cf. Bishop – Freeman
1993, 171 ff. with doubt about the possibility of archaeological
distincteveness of castra aestiva and castra hiberna.
292 For considerations on the length of use of camps with similar
construction element see e.g. Hüssen 1991, 191–195; 1995, 99,
107.
293 This also applies to the buildings and fortifications that
were previously published with an unambiguous dating (e.g.
residential and baths, above-ground fortification relics) – e.g.
Tejral 2017, 151 ff. See also older state of interpretative consid-
erations in Komoróczy 2008a with bibliography.
294 Kehne 2016, 241–243.
295 Similar considerations have appeared in the relevant
literature before. E.g. Bouzek 1994, 173 rejected the possibil-
ity of field identification of situations where the marching
army stayed for only a few days. The interpretation of these
military objects as marching camps was also rejected by Bálek
– Šedo 1998, 159. See also Hüssen 1991, 194, where he expresses
considerable doubts regarding the consideration of the tem-
porary camps known from aerial survey without appropriate
field verifications. His researches also confirmed the fact that
the absence of massive wooden structures in the fortification
construction and at the gates does not necessarily mean that
there are no simple wooden structures in the camp interior.
Cf. also von Petrikovits 1975, 33-34.

corresponded to the course of the Amber Road on the
Austrian-Slovak border, were affected by the Roman
military presence. These military installations then
appear in large quantities in the wider surroundings
of Mušov in the middle reaches of the River Dyje. This
phenomenon must be regarded in the context of the
entire region including the character of the central for-
tified base on Burgstall near Mušov. Archaeological
evidence shows that this area was the centre of the
Marcomannian seÃlement domain and power in the
second half of the 2nd century.296 Part of the garrison
from the camps in Mušov – Na Pískách and from the
camp at Ivaň and Drnholec presumably continuously
exerted control over the access roads and fords leading
to Burgstall (Fig. 34). The camps located further to the
north near Brno (Modřice, Brno), in the region of Malá
Haná (Jevíčko) and in the forefield of the Moravian
Gate in the Upper Morava Valley (Olomouc-Neředín,
Hulín-Pravčice) probably represent the outer “perime-
ter” of the fortification structures protecting the access
routes from the seÃlement territory of the Germanic
communities in the north and northeast. Their loca-
tion also roughly corresponds to the outer border of
the Marcomannian seÃlement in the region.297
The possibilities of a more exact formulation of
theoretical models on the basis of new data also pro-
vide valid inputs to static or dynamic digital models.298
On the basis of the spatial distribution of temporary
field camps, which according to the available data fall
within the period of the Marcomannic wars, we can
use spatial statistics to model the ideal courses of the
overland routes suitable for the transfer of armed forces
and supplies (Fig. 81). The phasing of the axial route
296 E.g. Tejral 2002; Peška – Tejral 2002b.
297 Komoróczy – Vlach 2017, 39.
298 See e.g. Komoróczy – Vlach 2010; 2018; 2019; Vlach 2016.
Fig. 79. Synchronisation of the
radiocarbon dates from the
charred material (mostly
archaeobotany) from the
bipartite field ovens associated
with the Roman temporary
camps (©ARÚB)
along the River Morava within intervals of 15 to 20 km
is, according to the cumulative load, in many cases
positively validated by the presence of verified mili-
tary installations of a various extent or by indirect in-
dications of a Roman military presence. The directions
of marching indicated by the camp at Kollnbrunn, on
the other hand, clearly show that the optimal passage
through the landscape was subordinate to other stra-
tegically motivated plans of the Roman military ad-
ministration. The intersection of layers of corridors or
the ideal individual connecting lines between verified
temporary camps enable detailed evaluation of the po-
tential or predicted routes and modelling of the inten-
sity of potential activities in the area. On the basis of
the models of overland and river routes (Fig. 82), capac-
ities of the means of transportation, and the estimat-
ed size of the operating contingent, various occupation
scenarios were simulated.299 These will be presented in
the forthcoming overall synthesis of the Roman tem-
porary camps in the middle Danube region.
3.3. Conclusions
In this chapter, of course, not all aspects of
archaeological footprints of Roman military activi-
ties on the Marcomannian seÃlement territory north
of the Middle Danube could be considered. The em-
phasis was mainly placed on the known Roman mil-
itary camps, which can definitely be regarded as
an archaeological reflection of the strategy, tactics,
goals and dynamics of military movements during
individual operations. The cartographic distribu-
tion of Roman military installations presented in
this chapter is certainly far from complete, but we
can draw some general conclusions. The camps, of
299 In detail see Vlach 2016.
251 |
Fig. 80. Type of determination of chronological position of the individual sites with the verified Roman temporary camps (©ARÚB)
course, were not necessarily used all at the same
time, they do not necessarily fall within the temporal
frame of one and the same military campaign, and
their operation period also might have been differ-
ent. However, some of the above-mentioned findings
indicate that their use might not have been as short-
term as previously supposed. In the context of the
Marcomannic wars, some of these military installa-
tions may have outlived individual offensive phases
of the conflict. The difference between these camps
and the building complexes such as in the central
fortified base on Burgstall near Mušov might be the
main intent of the builder and the character of inter-
nal development rather than their operating period.
To date, no reliable terrain evidence has been found
that would classify these installations as marching
camps, which were built only for one or a few nights.
The distribution map of the known roman
military installations shows clear differences be-
tween the seÃlement areas of the Marcomanni and
the Quadi (Fig. 32). These are expressed in a  signifi-
cantly lower number of camps in the Quadian terri-
tory and in their different geographical distribution.
Nevertheless the sequence of wartime events recon-
structed on the basis of historical sources (in which
the Emperor explicitly mentioned that he personally
was in Quadian territory) does not imply that the ac-
tivities of the Roman army in the territory east of the
| 252
LiÃle Carpathians would be less intensive.300 There is
no clear explanation for this phenomenon and it can
be largely due to the state of knowledge of one or the
other territory. In this context, the fact that the relief
of the landscape in the peripheral parts of the Quad
seÃlement area is more varied, formed by a  mosaic
of high mountains and small valleys, which signifi-
cantly influence the preservation and identification
of temporary camps, is certainly important. However,
it is also possible that the difference in the distribu-
tion of camps is due to the different military strate-
gies applied to these two separate operation territo-
ries. Hypothetically we can formulate some causes for
such differences. The main Quadian seÃlement areas
extend “linearly”, along the Danube, in the basin of its
two tributaries (Nitra/Váh and Hron) and on the fer-
tile terraces lining the arch of the LiÃle Carpathians
from the southeast. This area largely stretches along
the Pannonian border in width rather than depth,
which might have enabled the Romans to conduct
shorter, more intensive operations with the possibility
of a fast return to the camps on the Limes. Moreover,
the access from the external parts of the barbaricum
through the Carpathians is significantly hindered
300 This phenomenon becomes even more apparent in the
territory east of the borders of Pannonia Inferior. The local
Sarmatians were also significantly involved in the military
conflicts as evidenced by many historical sources. Neverthe-
less, Hungarian archaeologists have not yet found there any
Roman military installations from that period (cf. several
chapters in Visy 2003).
Fig. 81. Weighted aggregation of the modelled least-cost path corridors between each of the verified temporary camps within the studied
region (©ARÚB)

Fig. 82. Modelled segmentation of the main river courses of the region west to the Little Carpathians according to known evidences and constrains
based on the standard march distance (©ARÚB)

253 |
in comparison to the north-eastern periphery of the
Marcomannian territory. The highest concentration
of the Marcomannian population, including the elites,
was identified deep inside barbarian territory, in the
region of Mušov, quite far from the Roman frontier.
This area evidently represented the “heart” of the
Roman military presence during the Marcomannic
wars. The occurrence of Roman camps in the area of
Cífer-Pác in Quadian territory could represent a simi-
lar phenomenon, although its archaeological displays
are less distinct. A centre of the elite in this area may
have already formed at the time of the Marcomannic
wars although its most distinctive archaeological dis-
plays fall within the Late and Final Roman Period.301
The so far systematically unpublished results of sur-
face detector surveys (especially the unique quality
and quantity of finds, including the amount of Roman
imports and coins) also indicate extremely large set-
tlements with possible presence of elites in areas
near the Danube, such as in the vicinity of the camps
Radvaň nad Dunajom – Virt and Chotín.302 However,
the distance of these regions from the military bases
on the Limes is much lower than for instance in the
case of Mušov. Although superposition and reduction
of some camps were also found here, and presence
of a  military unit in place for an extended period of
time is also confirmed by the inscription on the rock
in Trenčín, the overall picture of archaeological traces
of the Roman army in Quadian territory rather mir-
rors the routes of individual targeted campaigns, per-
haps more limited in their duration, than extensive
occupation of the entire seÃlement area.
Marcomannic wars. Rome demonstrated its power
through various acts: occupation of the road network
in the given area with an efficient use of river and over-
land routes for transporting goods and people; control
over the regions with the densest seÃlement and access
corridors in the peripheries of the occupied territory;
founding of a mighty occupation base with a long-term
building perspective in the heart of the barbarian set-
tlement domain; encroachment on the social situation
of the local population by vacating some seÃlements
and supporting other loyal groups; bonds with local
elites loyal to Rome, etc. These acts are evidence of the
supremacy of the Roman power in terms of military,
conceptual and logistic factors,303 for which we can
currently find more or less conclusive data in archae-
ological records. This situation is an illustrative case
of an archaeologically recognisable violent aÃitude of
one entity to another and violent enforcement of power
and dominance. In the light of wriÃen, numismat-
ic and epigraphic sources, it can be considered quite
probable that this state (and thus the “creation” of the
archaeological records presented in this chapter) was
reached in the final phase of the wars, at the time of
the expeditio Germanica secunda. According to the cur-
rent state of knowledge, it seems that at least the ter-
ritory of the Marcomanni304 was effectively controlled,
occupied, and its permanent annex could be feasible at
least from the military-strategic point of view.

Archaeological evidence from the seÃlement

territory of the Marcomanni provides a  much more
complex picture. In this contribution, we omiÃed
many of the significant results obtained during the
exploration of individual military installations, as
well as a  more detailed analysis of various aÃitudes
of the occupation army to the local population. We
know of several Germanic seÃlements, which were
probably abandoned due to Roman military activi-
ties, but the finds from the princely grave of Mušov
or the as yet not completely published Germanic
settlement of Pasohlávky U  vodárny suggested that
one part of the local society profited from the Roman
occupation by strengthening their political, social
and economic status. We can assume that the aÃi-
tude of the Romans was differentiated to the local
population although if they intended to oversee the
occupied territory for a  long time, a  mass decima-
tion of the indigenous Marcomanni would not be
a profitable act.

The archaeological sources summarized in this

chapter suggest some certain geostrategic intentions
of the Romans in Marcomannian territory during the

303 Generally, cf. e.g. Erdkamp 2007.

301 E.g. Varsik – Kolník 2012; 2013. 304 Of course, in the territorial concept, as presented in this
302 The spacious seÃlement agglomeration in Chotín and basic article, not in the traditional scheme, including, for example,
characteristics of the survey collection, see Rajtár – Kolníková Bohemia, which cannot be synchronized with archaeological
– Kuzmová 2017. sources (cf. Birley 2012b, 229–230).

| 254
 References / Literaturverzeichnis
van Ackeren, M. (ed.) 2012: A Companion to Marcus
Aurelius. Malden.
Adams, G. W. 2013: Marcus Aurelius in the Historia
Augusta and Beyond. Plymouth.
Adler, H. 1976: Ein germanisches Körpergrab der
Römischen Kaiserzeit in Neuruppersdorf.
Fundberichte aus Österreich 14 (1975), 15–26.
Adler, H. 1979: Die Entdeckung eines römi-
schen Marschlagers in norddanubischen
Niederösterreich. Pro Austria Romana 29,
14–18.
Adler, H. 1981: Bernhardsthal. Fundberichte aus
Österreich 19 (1980), 500–503.
Adler, H. 1989: Bernhardsthal. In: Kandler, M. –
VeÃers, H.: Der römische Limes in Österreich.
Ein Führer. Wien, 244–247.
Alföldi, A. – Radnóti, A. 1940: Zügelringe und
Zierbeschläge von römischen Jochen
und Kummeten aus Pannonien. In: Serta
Hoffilleriana – Hoffillerov zbornik Vjestnika
Hrvatskoga Arheološkoga Društva Nove Serije
Sveske 18–21 (1937–1940). Zagreb, 309–319.
Alföldy, G. 1971: Bellum desertorum. Bonner
Jahrbücher 171, 367–376.
Alföldy, G. 1974: Noricum. London.
Alföldy, G. 1979: Der Friedenschluß des Kaisers
Commodus mit den Germanen. In: Klein, R.
(Hrsg.): Marc Aurel. Wege der Forschung Bd.
550. Darmstadt, 389–428.
Alföldy, G. 1984: Römische Statuen in Venetia et
Histria. Epigraphische Quellen. Heidelberg.
Alföldy, G. 1989: Die Krise des Römischen
Reiches. Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung
und Geschichtsbetrachtung. Ausgewählte
Beiträge. StuÃgart.
Alföldy, G. 2002a: Epigraphica Pannonica I.
InschriÌen aus der näheren Umgebung von
Aquincum. ZeitschriÌ für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 140, 263–277.
Alföldy, G. 2002b: Epigraphica Pannonica II.
InschriÌen aus der niederpannonischen
Limeszone zwischen Matrica und Intercisa.
Specimina Nova 16, 47–70.
Alföldy, G. 2004: Epigraphica Pannonica III.
InschriÌen aus dem Gebiet der Eravisker und
vom Territorium von Aquincum. Specimina
Nova 18, 1–48.
Alston, R. 2009: The Revolt of the Boukoloi:
Geography, history and myth. In: Hopwood,
K. (ed.) 2009: Organised crime in Atniquity.
Swansea, 129–154.
Aßkamp, R. 2009: Aufmarsch an der Lippe. Römische
Militärlager im rechtsrheinischen Germanien.
In: LWL-Römermuseum in Haltern am See
(Hrsg.): Imperium. 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht.
StuÃgart, 172–179.
Astarita, M. L. 1983: Avidio Cassio. Roma.
Auliard, C. 2005: Les deditiones, entre capitula-
tions et négociations. In: Garrido-Hory, M.
– Gonzalès, A. (eds.): Histoire, espaces et
marges de l‘antiquité: hommages à Monique
Clavel-Lévêque 4. Besançon, 255–270.
Baatz, D. 1985: Hibernacula. Germania 63, 147–154.
Baatz, D. 1993: Der römische Limes. Archäologische
Ausflüge zwischen Rhein und Donau. 3. über-
arbeitete Auflage. Berlin.
Badot, Ph. – De Decker, D. 1992: La naissance du
mouvement Bagaude. Klio 74, 334–370.
Bagnall, R. S. 2000: P. Oxy. 4527 and the Antonine
plague in Egypt: Death or Flight? Journal of
Roman Archaeology 13, 288–292.
Bagnall, R. S. 2002: The Effects of Plague: Model and
Evidence. Journal of Roman Archaeology 15,
114–120.
Bagnall, R. S. – Frier, B. W. 1994: The Demography
of Roman Egypt. Cambridge.
Balbuza, K. 2005: Triumfator. Triumf i ideologia
zwycięstwa w starożytnym Rzymie epoki ce-
sarstwa. Poznań.
Bálek, M. – Droberjar, E. – Šedo, O. 1994: Die rö-
mischen Feldlager in Mähren (1991–1992).
Památky archeologické 85, 59–74.
Bálek, M. – Šedo, O. 1996: Das frühkaiserzeitliche
Lager bei Mušov – Zeugnis eines augustei-
schen Feldzugs ins Marchgebiet? Germania
74, 399–414.
Bálek, M. – Šedo, O. 1998: Příspěvek k poznání krát-
kodobých táborů římské armády na Moravě.
Památky archeologické 89, 159–184.
261 |
Balla, L. 1963: Östliche ethnische Elemente in Savaria.
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 15, 225–237.
Bannert, H. 1977: Der Tod des Kaisers Marcus.
Latinität und alte Kirche. FestschriÌ für
Rudolf Hanslik zum 70. Geburtstag. Wien –
Köln – Graz, 9–19.
Barbu, M. – Hügel, P. 1993: Monede imperiale romane
descoperite în zona arădeană. Römische kai-
serzeitliche Münzen aus der Arader Gegend.
Ziridava Studia archaeologica 18, 63–78.
Barkóczi, L. 1951: Brigetio. Dissertationes Pannonicae
II/22. Budapest.
Barkóczi, L. 1964: The population of Pannonia
from Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 16, 257–356.
Bartus, D. 2011: Roman Figural Bronzes from
Brigetio: Preliminary Notes. Anodos, Studies
of the Ancient World 10/2010, 17–27.
Bátora, J. – Eitel, B. – Falkenstein, F. – Rassmann,
K. 2009a: Výsledky povrchovej prospekcie na
lokalite Fidvár pri Vrábľoch. Archeologické
výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 2007,
25–27.
Bátora, J. – Eitel, B. – Hecht, S. – Koch, A. – Rassmann,
K. – Schukra®, G. – Winkelmann, K. 2009b:
Fidvár bei Vráble (Kr. Nitra, Südwestslowakei).
Untersuchungen auf einem äneolithisch-früh-
bronzezeitlichen Siedlungshügel. Germania
87, 1–23.
Baumgarten, S. – Burandt, B. 2017: Die Nord-
West-Ecke des Bonner Legionslagers.
Archäologische Ausgrabungen 2013 und 2014.
Bonner Jahrbücher 216, 13–30.
Bazovský, I. 2007: Depot železných predmetov
z  germánskeho sídliska v Čataji (okr. Senec,
juhozápadné Slovensko). In: Droberjar, E.
– Chvojka, O. (eds.): Archeologie barbarů
2006. Příspěvky z II. protohistorické konfe-
rence České Budějovice, 21.–24.11. 2006. Sv.  1
Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách
Supplementum 3. České Budějovice, 249–260.
Bazovský, I. 2010: Depot z doby rímskej z Dunajskej
Lužnej. In: Beljak, J. – Březinová, G. –
Varsik, V. (eds.): Archeológia barbarov 2009.
Hospodárstvo Germánov. Sídliskové a ekono-
mické štruktúry od neskorej doby laténskej
po včasný stredovek. Archaeologica Slovaca
Monographiae, Communicationes X. Nitra,
13–32.
Bazovský, I. 2011: Rímske a germánske aktivity v okolí
| 262
rímskej stanice na Devíne. In: Droberjar,
E. (ed.): Archeologie barbarů 2010. Hroby
a  pohřebiště Germánů mezi Labem
a  Dunajem. Studia Archaeologica Suebica I.
Olomouc, 481–490.
Becker, M. 2016: Metallgefäße aus Siedlungsfunde
MiÃeldeutschlands im Vergleich mit
den Fundspektren der Brand- und
Körpergräber. Methodische Anmerkungen
zur Fundüberlieferung, Chronologie und
Befundstrukturen. In: Voss, H.-U. – Müller-
Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwischen
Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und
Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des
2.  und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich und
im Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele
(Gefässe, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer
Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 1.
Internationales Kolloquium, Frankfurt am
Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/1. Bonn, 5–24.
Beckmann, M. 2011: The column of Marcus Aurelius.
The genesis and meaning of a Roman impe-
rial monument. Chapel Hill.
Behringer, W. 2007: Kulturgeschichte des Klimas.
München.
Beljak, J. 2010: Germánske osídlenie v Štúrove
a  na dolnom Pohroní v staršej dobe rímskej.
Germanische Besiedlung in Štúrovo und un-
terem Gran. Gebiet in der älteren Römischen
Kaiserzeit. Zborník Slovenského Národného
Múzea 104, Archeológia 20, 141–173.
Beljak, J. – Kolník, T. 2008: Germanic seÃlement
from the Late Roman and Early Migration
Periods in Štúrovo. In: Niezabitowska-
Wiśniewska, B. – Juściński, M. – Łuczkiewicz,
P. – Sadowski, S. (eds.): The Turbulent Epoch.
New materials from the Late Roman Period
and the Migration Period. Monumenta Studia
Gothica V. Lublin, 63–85.
Benea, D. 2010: Despre războaiele cu dacii din timpul
lui Antoninus Pius (anii 144/147, 155–157). In:
Rusu-Bolindeţ, V. – Sŭlăgean, T. – Varga, R.
(eds.): Studia archaeologica et historica in
honorem magistri Dorin Alicu. Cluj-Napoca,
154–180.
Berg-Hobohm, S. 2004: Die germanische Siedlung
Göritz, Lkr. Oberspreewald-Lausitz.
Wünsdorf.
Bergdolt, K. 1994: Der Schwarze Tod in Europa. Die
Große Pest und das Ende des MiÃelalters.
München.
Berlinger, L. 1935: Beiträge zur inoffiziellen Titulatur
der römischen Kaiser. Eine Untersuchung
 ihres ideengeschichtlichen Gehaltes und ihrer
Entwicklung. Breslau.
Bernheim F. – Adams Zener A. 1978: The Smithian
Apollo and the Epidemic Among the Achaeans
at Troy. Transactions of the American
Philological Association 108, 11–14.
Bidwell, P. T. 2002: Timber baths in Augustan
and Tiberian fortresses. In: Freeman, P. –
BenneÃ, J. – Fiema, Z. T. – Hoffmann, B. (eds.):
Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth
International Congress of Roman Frontier
Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September
2000). BAR International Series 1084 (1).
Oxford, 467–481.
Birley, A. R. 1968: The Invasion of Italy in the Reign
of M. Aurelius. In: Schmid, E. – Berger, L. –
Burgin, P. (Hrsg.): Provincialia. FestschriÌ für
Rudolf Laur-Belart. Basel, 214–225.
Birley, A. R. 1971: Roman Frontier Policy under
Marcus Aurelius. In: Applebaum, S. (ed.):
Roman Frontier Studies 1967. The Proceedings
of the 7th International Congress held at Tel
Aviv from the 5th to the 19th April 1967. Tel
Aviv, 7–13.
Birley, A. R. 1979: Die Außen- und Grenzpolitik
unter der Regierung Marc Aurels. In: Klein,
R. (Hrsg.): Marc Aurel. Wege der Forschung
Bd. 550. Darmstadt, 473–502.
Birley, A. R. 2000: Marcus Aurelius. A biography.
Revised edition. New York.
Birley, A. R. 2012a: Cassius Dio and the Historia
Augusta. In: van Ackeren, M. (ed.): A compa-
nion to Marcus Aurelius. Malden, 13–28.
Birley, A: R. 2012b: The Wars and Revolts. In: van
Ackeren, M. (ed.): A companion to Marcus
Aurelius. Malden, 217–233.
Bíróné Sey, K. 1960: A szombathelyi koracsászárkori
éremlelet. Folia archaeologica 12, 75–89.
Bíróné Sey, K. 1997–1998: Római II. századi denárle-
let Hetényegyházáról. Numizmatikai Közlöny
96–97, 17–21.
Bishop, M. C. – Freeman, P. W. M. 1993: Recent work
at Osmanthorpe, NoÃinghamshire. Britannia
24, 162–175.
Blackwell, A. – Goldberg, M. – Hunter, F. 2017:
Scotland’s early silver: transforming Roman
pay-offs to Pictish treasures. Edinburgh.
Blanchard, P. – Castex, D. – Coquerelle, M. –
Giuliani, R. – Ricciardi, M. – 2007: A mass
grave from the catacomb of Saint Peter and
Marcellinus in Rome, second–third century
AD. Antiquity 81, 989–998.
Bloemers, J. H. F. 1978: Rijswijk (Z.H.), ‚De Bult‘.
Eine Siedlung der Cananefaten. Nederlandse
Oudheden 8. Amersfoort.
de Blois, L. 2002: The crisis of the third century AD
in the Roman empire: a modern myth? In: de
Blois L. – Rich, J. (eds.): The Transformation
of Economic Life under the Roman Empire.
Proceedings of the Second Workshop of the
International Network Impact of Empire
(Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476),
NoÃingham, July 4–7, 2001. Impact of Empire
2. Amsterdam, 204–217.
Blok, A. 1972: The Peasant and the Brigand: Social
Banditry Reconsidered. Comparative Studies
in Society and History 14/4, 494–503.
Blouin, K. 2010: La révolte des boukoloi (Delta du Nil,
Égypte, ca. 166–172 de notre ère): regard socio-
environnemental sur la violence. Phoenix 64,
386–422.
Boak, A. 1959: Egypt and the Plague of Marcus
Aurelius. Historia 8/2, 248–250.
Boe®, J. den – Drijvers, J. W. – den Hengst, D. –
Teitler, H. C. 2013: Philological and Historical
Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus
XXIX. Leiden.
Böhme, H. W. 1975: Archäologische Zeugnisse zur
Geschichte der Markomannenkriege (166–180
n. Chr.). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 22, 153–217.
Böker, C. 1996: Das Auktionshaus Sotheby‘s stellt
ein Silberservice vor, das 50 Jahre lang in
Brandenburg vergraben war: Der Schatz
lag Mielke einst zu Füßen. Berliner Zeitung
(online, 03.05.1996, www.berliner-zeitung.de/
das-auktionshaus-sotheby-s-stellt-ein-silber-
service-vor--das-50-jahre-lang-in-branden-
burg-vergraben-war-der-schatz-lag-mielke-
einst-zu-fuessen-17469510).
Borhy, L. – Kuzmová, K. – Rajtár, J. – Számadó,
E. 2003: Kelemantia – Brigetio. Tracing the
Romans on the Danube. Guide. Nové Zámky.
Börner, S. 2012: Marc Aurel im Spiegel seiner
Münzen und Medaillons. Eine vergleichende
Analyse der stadtrömischen Prägungen zwi-
schen 138 und 180 n. Chr. Antiquitas Reihe 1:
Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 58. Bonn.
Börner, S. 2017: Von Pietas und Krisen – Antoninus
Pius im Spiegel seiner stadtrömischen
Münzprägung. In: Michels, C. – MiÃag,
P. F. (Hrsg.): Jenseits des Narrativs. Kaiser
263 |
 Antoninus Pius in den nicht-schriÌlichen
Quellen. StuÃgart, 109–130.
Bosch, E. 1967: Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt
Ankara im Altertum. Ankara.
Bouzek, J. 1994: Die neuen römischen und barba-
rischen Funde und Befunde in Südmähren
und Niederösterreich: Historische
Interpretationsmöglichkeiten. In: Friesinger,
H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.):
Markomannenkriege: Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 173–178.
Bouzek, J. – Ondřejová, I. 1990: „Třetí zóna“ mezi
Římem a barbarikem při norickopanonském
limitu. Archeologické rozhledy 42, 22–35.
Bowersock, G. W. 1994: Fiction as history: Nero
to Julian. Sather Classical Lectures LVIII.
Berkeley.
Bowman, A. – Wilson, A. (eds.) 2011: SeÃlement,
Urbanization, and Population. Oxford Studies
on the Roman Economy 2. Oxford.
Brabandt, J. 1993: Hausbefunde der römischen
Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien. Ein
Forschungsstand. Halle (Saale).
Bradley, R. – Williams, H. (eds.) 1998: The past in
the past: the reuse of ancient monuments.
World Archaeology 30/1. London.
Brandl, U. 1999: Untersuchungen zu den
Ziegelstempeln römischer Legionen in den
nordwestlichen Provinzen des Imperium
Romanum. Katalog der Sammlung Julius
B. Fritzemeier. Passauer UniversitätsschriÌen
zur Archäologie 6. Rahden/Westfalen.
Brather, S. 2005: Acculturation and Ethnogenesis
along the Frontier. Rome and the Ancient
Germans in an Archaeological Perspective.
In: Curta, F. (ed.): Borders, Barriers, and
Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages. Studies in the Early Middle
Ages 12. Turnhout, 139–171.
Breeze, D. J. 1982: The northern frontiers of Roman
Britain. London.
Breeze, D. J. 2006: The Antonine Wall. Edinburgh.
Breitwieser, R. 1995: Virunum und die „Antoninische
Pest“. Grazer Beiträge 21, 149–156.
Breitwieser, R. 2001: Asklepios und das Erlanger
Baby. Zur Geschichte der „Sectio in
mortua“. In: Taeuber, H. (Hrsg.): Akten des
7. Österreichischen Althistorikertages. Wien,
7–12.
| 264
Broux, Y. – Clarysse, W. 2009: Two Greek Funerary
Stelae from Lydia and the Antonine Plague.
Tyche 24, 27–33.
Brüggler, M. 2009: Villa rustica, GlashüÃe und
Gräberfeld. Die kaiserzeitliche und spätantike
Siedlungsstelle HA 132 im Hambacher Forst.
Rheinische Ausgrabungen Bd. 63. Mainz am
Rhein.
de Bruin, J. 2017: Rurale gemeenschappen in de
civitas Cananefatium 50-300 na Christus.
Unpublished PhD Theses Leiden University.
Leiden.
Bruun, C. 2003: The Antonine Plague in Rome and
Ostia. Journal of Roman Archaeology 16,
426–434.
Bruun, C. 2007: The Antonine Plague and the
“Third-century Crisis”. In: Hekster, O. – de
Kleijn, G. – Slootjes, D. (eds.): Crises and the
Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Seventh
Workshop of the International Network
Impact of Empire (Nijmegen, June 20–24,
2006). Leiden – Boston, 201–217.
Bruun, C. 2012: La mancanza di prove di un effet-
to catastrofico della “peste Antonina” (dal 166
d.C. in poi). In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L’impaÃo
della “Peste Antonina”. Bari, 123–165.
Bucher, G. S. 2000: The Origins, Program, and
Composition of Appian’s Roman History.
Transactions of the American Philological
Association 130, 411–458.
Budai Balogh, T. 2011: Iam pridem Syrus in Danuvium
defluxit Orontes? Az Aquincum polgárvárosi
szír városnegyed körüli tényekről és tévhitek-
ről. Ókor 10, 73–82.
Büntgen, U. – Tegel, W. – Nicolussi, K. – McCormick,
M. – Frank, D. C. – Luterbacher, J. – Esper, J.
2011: 2500 Years of European Climate
Variability and Human Susceptibility. Science
331, 578–583.
Buora, M. 2002: La peste Antonina a Aquileia e nel
teritorio circostante. In: Buora, M. – Jobst,
W. (eds.): Roma sul Danubio. Da Aquileia
a  Carnuntum lungo la via dell’ambra. Roma,
93–97.
Burandt, B. A. N. 2017: Die Ausrüstung der römi-
schen Armee auf der Siegessäule des Marcus
Aurelius in Rom. Ein Vergleich zwischen der
skulpturalen Darstellung und den archäologi-
schen Bodenfunden. Oxford.
Bursche, A. 1993: Pourquoi les denarii frap-
pés après 194 étaient-ils absents dans le
Barbaricum? In: Hackens, T. – Moucharte, G.
 (eds.): Proceedings of the XIth International
Numismatic Congress. Louvain-la-Neuve,
297–303.
Cameron, A. 1970: Claudian: poetry and propaganda
at the court of Honorius. Oxford.
Campbell, J. L. 1993: The State and Fiscal Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology 19, 163–185.
Campbell, L. 2012: Modifying material: social biogra-
phies of Roman material culture. In: Jervis, B.
– Kyle, A. (eds.): Make do and mend: the ar-
chaeologies of compromise, repair and reuse.
BAR International Series 2408. Oxford, 13–26.
Campbell, L. 2014: Negotiating identity on the edge
of empire. In: Popa, C. N. – Stoddart, S. (eds.):
Fingerprinting the Iron Age. Oxford, 211–222.
Campbell, L. 2015: Interfacing with the Empire: ma-
teriality maÃers. In: Breeze, D. J. – Jones, R. H.
– Oltean, I. A. (eds.): Understanding Roman
frontiers: a celebration for Professor Bill
Hanson. Edinburgh, 167–181.
von Carnap-Bornheim, C. 1991: Die Schwert-
riemenbügel aus dem Vimose (Fünen). Zur
Typologie der Schwertriemenbügel der römi-
schen Kaiserzeit im Barbarikum und in den
römischen Provinzen. Kleine SchriÌen aus
dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg
HeÌ 38. Marburg.
von Carnap-Bornheim, C. 1999: Freund oder Feind?
Überlegungen und Thesen zum König von
Mušov. In: Bouzek, J. – Friesinger, H. – Pieta,
K. – Komoróczy, B. (Hrsg.): Gentes, Reges und
Rom, Auseinandersetzung-Anerkennung-
Anpassung. FestschriÌ für Jaroslav Tejral
zum 65. Geburtstag. Spisy Archeologického
ústavu AV ČR Brno 16. Brno, 59–65.
von Carnap-Bornheim, C. – Salač, V. 1994: Eine no-
risch-pannonische Flügelfibel aus Lovosice
(Bez. Litoměřice, NW-Böhmen). Marburger
Beiträge zur Vor- u. Frühgeschichte 16, 127–138.
Cary, E. 1955: Dio’s Roman History IX.
London–MassachuseÃs.
Ceporina, M. 2012: The Meditations. In: van Ackeren,
M. (ed.): A Companion to Marcus Aurelius.
Malden, 45–61.
Červinka, I. L. 1902: Morava za pravěku. Vlastivěda
moravská I/2. Brno.
Červinka, I. L. 1939: Germáni – Němci. První okupa-
ce, nájezdy a průchody kmenů Germánských
na Moravě. Nepublikovaný rukopis,
Archeologický ústav AV ČR Brno. Brno.
Cheben, I. – Ru¹kay, M. 1995: Záchranné výskumy
v Cíferi-Páci a v Čataji. Archeologické výsku-
my a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1993, 67–69.
Cheben, I. – Ru¹kay, M. 2010: Römische Militär-
ausrüstungsgegenstände aus dem germani-
schen Grubenhaus in Cífer. Slovenská archeo-
lógia 58, 309–336.
Christ, K. 1991: Antike Numismatik. Einführung und
Bibliographie. Darmstadt.
Cohen, H. 1859: Description historique des monnaies
frappées sous l’Empire Romain, communé-
ment appelées médailles impériales, Tome II.
Paris.
Conrad, F. 1889: Mark Aurels Markomannenkriege.
Neuruppin.
Cook, M. – Dunbar, L. 2008: Rituals, Roundhouses
and Romans. Excavations at Kintore,
Aberdeenshire 2000–2006. Vol I, Forest Road.
Edinburgh.
Couper, J. G. 2015: Gallic Insurgencies? Annihilating
the Bagaudae. In: Howe, T. – Brice, L. L.
(eds.): Brill’s Companion to Insurgency and
Terrorism in the Ancient Mediterranean.
Leiden – New York – Köln, 312–343.
Cowan, R. 2003: Imperial Roman legionary AD 161–
284. Oxford.
Cox, D. H. 1959: Coins from the excavations at Curium
1932–1953. Numismatic notes and monographs
No. 145. New York.
Cunha, C. B. – Cunha, B. A. 2008: Great Plagues of
the Past and Remaining Questions. In: Raoult
D.– Drancourt, M. (eds.): Paleomicrobiology:
Past Human Infections. Berlin – Heidelberg,
1–20.
Curle, J. 1932: An inventory of objects of Roman
and provincial Roman origin found on sites
in Scotland not definitely associated with
Roman constructions. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 66 (1931–
1932), 277–397.
Czuth, B. 1965: La Quellen der Geschichte der
Bagauden. Szeged.
Dahlheim, W. 1968: Struktur und Entwicklung des
römischen Völkerrechts im driÃen und zwei-
ten Jahrhundert v. Chr. München.
Daňhel, M. – Kalábek, M. – Klanicová, S. –
Pankowská, A. – Paulus, M. 2009: Krátkodobý
tábor u Hulína a Pravčic. Archeologické cen-
trum Olomouc, ročenka 2008. Olomouc,
184–208.
265 |
Danyi, J. 2005: Római dénárlelet Tiszanánáról. Agria.
Az egri Dobó István Vármúzeum Évkönyve 41,
91–98.
Davies, J. L. – Jones, R. H. 2006: Roman Camps in
Wales and the Marches. Cardiff.
Davies, R. W. 1976: Singulares and Roman Britain.
Britannia 7, 134–144.
Del Valle, S. – Hethcote, H. – Hyman, J. M. – Castillo-
Chavez, C. 2005: Effects of behavioural chan-
ges in a smallpox aÃack model. Mathematical
Biosciences 195, 228–251.
Delamarre, X. 2003: Dictionnaire de la langue
gauloise 2. Une approche linguistique du
vieux-celtique continental. Paris.
Della Casa, P. – Deschler-Erb, E. (eds.) 2016: Rome’s
Internal Frontiers. Proceedings of the 2016
RAC session in Rome. Zurich Studies in
Archaeology Vol. 11. Zürich.
Demandt, A. 2019: Marc Aurel. Der Kaiser und seine
Welt. München.
Dembski, G. 1977: Die antiken Münzschatzfunde
aus Österreich. Numismatische ZeitschriÌ 91,
3–63.
Dembski, G. 2006: Ein römischer Schatzfund aus
dem zerbombten Wien des Jahres 1945.
Fundort Wien 9, 64–105.
Dembski, G. – Zavadil, M. 2004: Der Münzschatz
vom Rennweg 44. Ausgewählte Funde vom
Rennweg 44 in Wien. Wiener Archäologische
Studien 6. Wien, 13–99.
Derks, T. – Roymans, N. 1993: Der Tempel von Empel.
Ein Hercules-Heiligtum im Batavergebiet.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblaà 23,
479–492.
Deschler-Erb, E. 2005: Militaria aus
Zerstörungshorizonten – grundsätzli-
che Überlegungen. In: Jobst, W. (Hrsg.):
Archäologie der Schlachtfelder – Militaria
aus Zerstörungshorizonten. Akten 14.
International Roman Military Equipment
Conference (ROMEC), Wien, 27.–31. August
2003. Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005, 43–54.
De¹mer, H. 1872: Geschichte des markomannischen
Krieges. GöÃingen.
Devijver, H. 1977: Prosopographie militiarum eques-
trium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum
II. Leuven.
Devijver, H. 1991: Equstrian officers from North
Africa. In: Mastino, A. (ed.): L’Africa Romana
| 266
8. Sassari, 127–201.
Dietz, K. 1989: Zur Verwaltungsgeschichte
Obergermaniens und Rätiens unter Mark
Aurel. Chiron 19, 407–447.
Dietz, K. 1994: Zum Ende der Markomannenkriege:
die expeditio Germanica tertia. In:
Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A.
(Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege: Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 7–15.
Dietz, K. 2000: Legio III Italica. In: Le Bohec, Y. (ed.):
Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire.
Actes du Congrès du Lyon (17–19 septembre
1998). Tome 1. Lyon, 133–143.
Dietz, K. – Fischer, T. 1996: Die Römer in Regensburg.
Regensburg.
Dobesch, G. 1994: Aus der Vor- und Nachgeschichte
der Markomannenkriege. Anzeiger
der Österreichischen Akademie der
WissenschaÌten, Phil.-hist. Kl. 131, 67–125.
Dobesch, G. 2001: Aus der Vor- und Nachgeschichte
der Markomannenkriege. In: HeÌner, H. –
Tomaschitz, K. (Hrsg.): Gerhard Dobesch.
Ausgewählte SchriÌen, Band 2: Kelten und
Germanen. Köln – Weimar – Wien, 1031–1082.
Dobiáš, J. 1957: Nový pramen k dějinám mar-
komanských válek na našem území.
Archeologické rozhledy 9, 523–534.
Dobiáš, J. 1964: Dějiny československého území před
vystoupením Slovanů. Praha.
Dobiáš, J. 1966: Rom und die Völker jenseits der
miÃleren Donau. In: Corolla memoriae Erich
Swoboda dedicata. Graz – Köln, 115–125.
Donat, P. – Sakl-Oberthaler, S. – Sedlmayer, H.
2003: Die WerkstäÃen der canabae legio-
nis von Vindobona. Befunde und Funde der
Grabungen Wien 1, Michaelerplatz (1990/1991),
Teil 1. Fundort Wien 6, 4–57.
Donat, P. – Sakl-Oberthaler, S. – Sedlmayer, H.
2005: Die Wohnbereiche der canabae legio-
nis von Vindobona. Befunde und Funde der
Grabungen Wien 1, Michaelerplatz (1990/1991),
Teil 2. Fundort Wien 8, 24–90.
Dostál, B. 1960: Römerzeitliche Funde aus Horní
Dunajovice. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty
Brněnské Univerzity IX, E 5, 73–84.
Driessen, M. 2014: The Roman harbours of
Velsen and Voorburg-Arentsburg (NL). In:
Kennecke, H. (Hrsg.): Der Rhein als europäi-
sche Verkehrsachse. Die Römerzeit. Bonner
 Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichtlichen
Archäologie Bd. 17. Bonn, 209–228.
Drinkwater, J. F. 1984: Peasants and Bagaudae in
Roman Gaul. Échos du monde classique 28,
349–371.
Droberjar, E. 1989: Římská importovaná kera-
mika na sídlištích 1.–4. století na Moravě,
I–II. Nepublikovaný rukopis diplomové
práce, Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Jana
Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně (dnes Masarykova
Univerzita). Brno.
Droberjar, E. 1991: Terra Sigillata in Mähren. Funde
aus germanischen Lokalitäten. Mährische ar-
chäologische Quellen. Brno.
Droberjar, E. 1993: Die römische Keramik vom
Burgstall bei Mušov, Mähren. Archaeologia
Austriaca 77, 39–87.
Droberjar, E. 1994: Der Niederschlag der
Markomannenkriege auf den kaiserzeit-
lichen Siedlungen in Südmähren und
die Frage der Übergangsstufe B2/C1. In:
Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A.
(Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege: Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 179–201.
Droberjar, E. 1997: Studien zu den germanischen
Siedlungen der Älteren römischen Kaiserzeit
in Mähren. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses
21. Praha.
Droberjar, E. 2002: Die römische und germani-
sche Keramik. In: Peška, J. – Tejral, J. (Hrsg.):
Das germanische Königsgrab von Mušov
in Mähren. Teil 2. Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum Monographien 55. Mainz am
Rhein, 411–419.
Droberjar, E. 2010: Pohřby Germánů (Markomanů
a Kvádů) na sídlištích doby římské a doby
stěhování národu. In: Hroby, pohřby a lidské
pozůstatky na pravěkých a středověkých síd-
lištích. Živá archeologie Supplementum 3,
159–164.
Droberjar, E. 2015: Markomannen und Superiores
Barbari in Třebusice und Jevíčko zur Zeit
der Markomannenkriege. Zur Problematik
der Übergangsstufe B2/C1 in Böhmen und
Mähren. Přehled výzkumů 56/2, 103–125.
Droberjar, E. 2016: Poznámky k nálezům římských
spon na území Čech. Archeologie ve středních
Čechách 20, 827–844.
Droberjar, E. 2018: The emergence of the Suebi
and further developments in Bohemia. In:
IN TEMPORE SUEBORUM. El tiempo de los
Suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585). El primer
reino medieval de Occidente. Volumen de es-
tudios. Ourense, 35–44.
Droberjar, E. 2019: Wpływy kultury przeworskiej
w Czechach i na Morawach od okresu późno-
lateńskiego po wczesną fazę okresu wędrówek
ludów (The Przeworsk culture influence from
the late Latene to the beginning of the mi-
gration period of Bohemia and Moravia). In:
Kot-Legieċ, K. et al. (eds.): Kultura przewor-
ské. Procesy przemian i kontakty zewnętrzne
(Przeworsk Culture. Transformation proces-
ses and external contacts). Łodź, 251–290.
Duncan-Jones, R. 1990: Structure and Scale in the
Roman Economy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Duncan-Jones, R. 1996: The Impact of the Antonine
Plague. Journal of Roman Archaeology 9,
108–136.
Dymowski, A. 2020: Roman Imperial hoards of de-
narii from the European Barbaricum. In:
Găzdac, C. (ed.): Group and individual tra-
gedies in Roman Europe. The evidence of
hoards, epigraphic and literary sources.
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology,
monograph 1. Cluj-Napoca, 193–242.
Eck, W. 2010: Friedenssicherung und Krieg in der rö-
mischen Kaiserzeit. Wie ergänzt man das rö-
mische Heer? In: Eck, W. – Eich, A. (Hrsg.):
Die Verwaltung der kaiserzeitlichen römi-
schen Armee. Studien für Hartmut Wolff.
StuÃgart, 81–110.
Eck, W. 2012: Die Seuche unter Mark Aurel: ihre
Auswirkungen auf das Heer. In: Lo Cascio, E.
(ed.): L’impaÃo della “Peste Antonina”. Bari,
63–78.
Eck, W. – Pangerl, A. 2008: Neue Diplome für die
dakischen Provinzen. Acta Musei Napocensis
43/44,1 (2006/2007), 185–210.
Eck, W. – Pangerl, A. 2014: Zwei neue Diplome für
die Truppen von Dacia superior und Dacia
Porolissensis. ZeitschriÌ für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 191, 269–277.
Eggers, H. J. 1951: Der römische Import im freien
Germanien. Atlas der Urgeschichte Band 1.
Hamburg.
Ehmig, U. 1998: Die Auswirkung der Pest in antoni-
nischer Zeit. ZeitschriÌ für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 122, 106–108.
Elliot, C. P. 2016: The Antonine Plague, Climate
Change and Local Violence in Roman Egypt.
Past and Present 231, 3–31.
267 |
Elschek, K. 2017a: Ausgewählte Funde und Befunde
aus der Zeit der Markomannenkriege
von Zohor und dem westslowakischen
Limesvorland. In: Na hranicích impéria. Extra
fines imperii. Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. naroze-
ninám. Brno, 73–82.
Elschek, K. 2017b: Bratislava-Dúbravka im 1. bis 4. Jh.
Germanischer Fürstensitz mit römischen
Bauten und die germanische Besiedlung.
Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Studia
XXIX. Nitra.
Elschek, K. 2018: Römische Bauten und das ger-
manische Fürstenmilieu während der römi-
schen Kaiserzeit im 1. – 3. Jahrhundert nach
Chr. nördlich der miÃleren Donau. Zborník
Slovenského národného múzea CXII –
Archeológia 28, 201–219.
Elschek, K. 2019: Grabungen in Siedlungen aus
der römischen Kaiserzeit im slowakischen
Marchgebiet und die germanische Siedlung
von Plavecký Štvrtok. In: Karwowski, M. –
Komoróczy, B. – Trebsche, P. (Hrsg.): Auf
den Spuren der Barbaren – archäologisch,
historisch, numismatisch (Archäologie der
Barbaren 2015). Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 19. Brno, 117–129.
Elschek, K. – Rajtár, J. 2008: Ein temporäres römi-
sches Feldlager in Závod (Westslowakei). In:
Droberjar, E. – Komoróczy, B. – Vachůtová, D
(eds.): Archeologie barbarů 2007. Barbarská
sídliště. Chronologické, ekonomické a his-
torické aspekty jejich vývoje ve světle
nových archeologických výzkumu. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 37. Brno,
469–478.
van Enckevort, H. – Hendriks, J. 2015: Het plaÃe-
land van Romeins Limburg. In: Tummers, P.
– Berkvens, L. – Bijsterveld, A.-J. – KnoÃer,
A. – Wessels, L. – Hermans, F. – van Royen,
E. (Red.): Limburg. Een Geschiedenis tot 1500.
Maastricht, 115–152.
Erdkamp, P. 2002: Introduction. In: Erdkamp, P.
(ed.): The Roman Army and the Economy.
Amsterdam, 5–18.
Erdkamp, P. (ed.) 2007: A Companion to the Roman
army. Oxford.
Erdrich, M. 2001: Rom und die Barbaren: Das
Verhältnis zwischen dem Imperium Romanum
und den germanischen Stämmen vor seiner
Nordwestgrenze von der späten römischen
Republik bis zum Gallischen Sonderreich.
Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 58.
Mainz 2001.
Erdrich, M. 2009: Konfrontation, Kooperation,
| 268
Ignoranz? Rom und der Norden Europas nach
den Makromannenkriegen. In: Varusschlacht
im Osnabrücker Land GmbH – Museum
und Park Kalkriese (Hrsg.): 2000 Jahre
Varusschlacht – Konflikt. Ausstellungskatalog
Museum und Park Kalkriese. StuÃgart,
162–169.
Erdrich, M. 2015: Augustan and early Tiberian sta-
tiones in context: Fishbourne, Bentumersiel,
Winsum, Devín. In: Breeze, D. J. – Jones, R. H.
– Oltean, I. A. (eds.): Understanding Roman
Frontiers. A celebration for Professor Bill
Hanson. Edinburgh, 3–26.
Erdrich, M. 2016: Römische Keramik beider-
seits der Grenzen. In: Voss, H.-U. – Müller-
Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwischen
Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und
Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2.
und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich und im
Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefässe,
Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung,
Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 1. Internationales
Kolloquium, Frankfurt am Main, 19.–22. März
2009. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Bd. 22/1. Bonn, 25–47.
Erdrich, M. 2017: Zur wissenschaÌlichen
Bearbeitung und chronologischen Stellung
römischer Marschlager nördlich der oberen
Donau. In: Scherrer, P. (Hrsg.): Römisches
Österreich. JahresschriÌ der Österreichischen
GesellschaÌ für Archäologie, Jahrgang 40.
Graz, 233–255.
Ertel, R. F. 2011: Kaiser, Feldherr und Philosoph
Marc Aurel. Ein Leben zwischen Rom und
Carnuntum. Bad Deutsch-Altenburg.
Faber, A. 1994: Das römische Auxiliarkastell und
der Vicus von Regensburg-Kumpfmühl.
Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- u. Frühgeschichte
49. München.
Fant, J. C. 1989: Cavum antrum Phrygia: the orga-
nization and operations of the Roman im-
perial marble quarries in Phrygia. British
Archaeological Reports 482. Oxford.
Farkas, E. – Torbágyi, M. 2008: Sarmatians and
the Roman coins. In: Bursche, A. – Ciołek,
R. – Wolters, R. (eds.): Roman Coins Outside
the Empire: Ways and Phases, Contexts and
Functions. Proceedings of the ESF/SCH
Exploratory Workshop Radziwiłł Palace,
Nieborów (Poland) 3–6 September 2005.
Collection Moneta 82. WeÃeren, 255–266.
Faure, P. 2013: L’aigle et le cep. Les centurions légio-
naires dans l’Empire des Sévères. Bordeuax.
Fears, J. R. 2004: The Plague under Marcus Aurelius
 and the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
Infectious Disease Clinics of North America
18 (1), 65–77.
Fenn, E. A. 2000: Biological Warfare in Eighteen-
Century North America: Beyond Jeffery
Amherst. The Journal of American History
Vol. 86 (4), 1552–1580.
Ferguson, R. B. – Whitehead, N. L. (eds.) 1992: War
in the tribal zone: Expanding states and indi-
genous warfare. Santa Fe –Oxford.
Fischer, T. 2009: Zerstörungshorizonte.
Germanische Übergriffe und ihr archäolo-
gischer Niederschlag. In: Varusschlacht im
Osnabrücker Land GmbH – Museum und Park
Kalkriese (Hrsg.): 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht –
Konflikt. Ausstellungskatalog Museum und
Park Kalkriese. StuÃgart, 109–113.
Fischer, T. 2012a: Archaeological Evidence of the
Marcomannic Wars of Marcus Aurelius
(AD 166–180). In: van Ackeren, M. (ed.):
A  Companion to Marcus Aurelius. First
Edition. Chichester.
Fischer, T. 2012b: Die Armee der Caesaren.
Archäologie und Geschichte. Regensburg.
Fischer, T. (Hrsg.) 2012c: Die Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts
n. Chr. und das Gallische Sonderreich.
SchriÌen des Lehr- und Forschungszentrums
für die antiken Kulturen des MiÃelmeerraumes
– Centre for Mediterranean Cultures
(ZAKMIRA), Bd. 8. Wiesbaden.
Fischer, T. – Riedmeier-Fischer, E. (Hrsg.) 2008: Der
römische Limes in Bayern. Geschichte und
Schauplätze entlang des UNESCO-Welterbes.
Regensburg.
Fitz, J. 1972: Les Syriens à Intercisa. Collection
Latomus Vol. 122. Bruxelles.
Fitz, J. 1985: Ti. Claudius Pompeianus und die ge-
plante Provinz Sarmatia. In: Lebendige
AltertumswissenschaÌ. Festgabe zur
Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von
Hermann VeÃers dargebracht von Freunden,
Schülern und Kollegen. Wien, 123–125.
Follmann-Schulz, A.-B. 2002: Die Gläser. In:
Peška, J. – Tejral, J. (Hrsg.): Das germani-
sche Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren. Teil
2. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Monographien 55. Mainz am Rhein, 387–410.
Foucault, M. 1961: Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la
folie à l‘âge classique. Paris.
Foucault, M. 1966: Les Mots et les choses. Paris.
Frier, W. B. 2000: Demography. In: Bowman,
A. – Garnsey, P. – Rathbone, D. (eds.):
The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. XI.
Cambridge, 787–816.
Friesinger, H. 1984: Bemerkungen zu den frühge-
schichtlichen Grab- und Siedlungsfunden von
Wien-Leopoldau. Archaeologia Austriaca 68,
127–136.
Friesinger, H. 1985: Römische Befestigungsbauten
nördlich der Donau in Niederösterreich. In:
Lebendige AltertumswissenschaÌ. Festgabe
zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von
Hermann VeÃers dargebracht von Freunden,
Schülern und Kollegen. Wien, 258–259.
Friesinger, H. 1988: Römer und Germanen – bar-
barische Könige im Kampf gegen Rom. In:
Friesinger, H. – Vacha, B.: Römer-Germanen-
Slawen in Österreich, Bayern und Mähren.
Eine Spurensuche. StuÃgart, 19–52.
Friesinger, H. – Stuppner, A. 1997: Der Oberleiserberg
bei Ernstbrunn. Vorrömische Siedlung – ger-
manischer Fürstensitz. In: Friesinger, H. –
Krinzinger, F. (Hrsg.): Der römische Limes in
Österreich. Führer zu den archäologischen
Denkmälern. Wien, 282–286.
Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.)
1994: Markomannenkriege – Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno.
Frýzl, J. 2016: Římsko-provinciální spony z oblasti
severně od středního Dunaje a jejich význam
v tehdejší živé kultuře. Nepublikovaný ru-
kopis disertační práce, Filozofická Fakulta
Západočeské univerzity v Plzni. Plzeň.
Fuhrmann, P. M. 1738–1739: Alt- und Neues Wien,
oder dieser Kayserlich- und Erz-Lands-
Fürstlichen Residenz-Stadt Chronologisch-
und Historische Beschreibung 1. Wien.
Fündling, J. 2006: Kommentar zur Vita Hadriani
der Historia Augusta. Antiquitas, Reihe 4:
Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung 4
Serie 3: Kommentare. Bonn.
Fündling, J. 2008: Mark Aurel. Gestalten der Antike.
Darmstadt.
Fürnholzer, J. 2010: Die archäologische Ausgrabung
auf Grundstück Nr. 181 der MG und KG
Wagna im Jahr 2008. Ein Vorbericht. Schild
von Steier 23, 154–165.
Furse, Y. – Suzuki, A. – Orhitani, H. – 2010: Origin
of measles virus: divergence from rinder-
pest virus between the 11th and 12th century.
Virology Journal 7 (52).
269 |
Gabler, D. 1975: Zu Fragen der Handelsbeziehungen
zwischen den Römern und den „Barbaren” im
Gebiet östlich von Pannonien. In: Grünert, H.
(Hrsg.): Römer und Germanen in MiÃeleuropa.
Berlin, 87–21.
Gabler, D. 1994: Die ländliche Besiedlung
Oberpannoniens. In: Bender, H. – Wolff,
H. (Hrsg.): Die ländliche Besiedlung und
LandwirtschaÌ in den Rhein-Donau-
Provinzen des Römischen Reiches. Passauer
UniversitätsschriÌen zur Archäologie 2.
Passau, 377–419.
Gabler, D. – Kocztur, É. 1976: Terra Sigillata
Depotfund aus Gorsium. Alba Regia 15, 65–88.
Gabler, D. – Lőrincz, B – Mócsy, A. 1990: Hadsereg.
In: Mócsy, A. – Fitz, J. (szerk.): Pannonia régé-
szeti kézikönyve. Budapest, 71–113.
Galimberti, A. 2014: Erodiano e Commodo.
Traduzione e commento storico al primo
libro della Storia dell’Impero dopo Marco.
GöÃingen.
Galsterer, B. – Galsterer, H. 1975: Die römischen
SteininschriÌen aus Köln. WissenschaÌliche
Kataloge des römisch-germanischen Museums
Köln 2. Köln.
Gáspár, D. 1986: Römische Kästchen aus Pannonien.
Antaeus, Communicationes ex Instituto
Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 15. Budapest.
Gassner, V. 1989: Gelbtonige Keramik aus datier-
ten Fundkomplexen in Carnuntum. Ein
Überblick über die Gefäßformen. Carnuntum
Jahrbuch 1989, ZeitschriÌ für Archäologie und
Kulturgeschichte des Donauraumes, 133–161.
Găzdac, C. 2010: Monetary Circulation in Dacia
and the provinces from the Middle and
Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine
I (AD 106–337). Coins from Roman Sites and
Collections of Roman Coins from Romania 7.
Cluj-Napoca.
Gerlach, G. 1989: Gestempelte Ziegel aus der Colonia
Ulpia Traiana. Zur Frage ihrer Verteilung
auf städtische Bauten. In: Precht, G. –
Schalles, H.-J. (Hrsg.): Spurenlese. Beiträge
zur Geschichte des Xantener Raumes. Köln,
113–123.
Gilliam, J. F. 1961: The Plague under Marcus
Aurelius. The American Journal of Philology
82, 225–251.
Gilliver, C. M. 1999: The Roman Art of War. Stroud
– Charleston.
| 270
Ginalski, J. 1991: Ostrogi kabłąkowe kultury przewor-
skiej. Klasyfikacja typologiczna. Bügelsporen
der Przeworsk-Kultur. Typologische
Klassifikation. Przeglad Archeologiczny 38,
53–84.
Gindele, R. 2010: Die Entwicklung der kaiserzeitli-
chen Siedlungen im Barbaricum im nordwest-
lichen Gebiet Rumäniens. Satu Mare.
Gnirs, A. 1976: Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Geographie Böhmens und Mährens in der
Zeit des Imperium Romanum. Bonn.
Gohl, Ö. 1906: Éremleletek. Numizmatikai Közlöny
5, 105.
Gorecki, J. 2011: Die römischen Metallgefässe.
In: Mączyńska, M.: Der frühvölkerwan-
derungszeitliche Hortfund aus Łubiana,
Kreis Kościerzyna (Pommern). Bericht der
Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 90
(2009), 154–194.
Gorecki, J. 2016: Römische Metallgefässspektren aus
ausgewählten militärischen Fundkomplexen
diesseits und jenseits von Rhein und Donau von
der Zeit der späten Republik bis zum Beginn
des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. In: Voss, H.-U. –
Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwi-
schen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung
und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten
des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich
und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele
(Gefässe, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer
Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 1.
Internationales Kolloquium, Frankfurt am
Main, 19.-22. März 2009. Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/1. Bonn, 177–214.
Gourevitch, D. 2013: Limos kia Loimos. A study of
the Galenic plague. Collection Pathographie
10. Éditions de Boccard. Paris.
Graafstal, E. 2012: Hadrian’s haste: a priority pro-
gramme for the Wall. Archaeologia Aeliana
(fiÌh series) 41, 123–184.
Graf, F. 1992: An Oracle against Pestilence from
a Western Anatolian Town. ZeitschriÌ für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92, 267–279.
Grane, T. 2007: The Roman Empire and Southern
Scandinavia – A northern Connection!
Unpublished PhD Theses. SAXO-Institute,
University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen.
Grane, T. 2017: Modern perceptions of Roman-
Scandinavian relations: research history
and interpretations. In: Gonzalez Sanchez,
S. – Guglielmi, A. (eds.): ‘Romans’ and ‘bar-
barians’ beyond the frontiers: archaeology,
ideology and identities in the north. Oxford,
 83–104.
Greenberg, J. 2003: Plagued by doubt: reconside-
ring the impact of a mortality crisis in the
2nd c. A.D. Journal of Roman Archaeology
16, 413–425.
Greiner, B. A. 2008: Rainau-Buch II. Der römische
Kastellvicus von Rainau-Buch (Ostalbkreis).
Die archäologischen Ausgrabungen von 1976
bis 1979. Band I – Text. Forschungen und
Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in
Baden-WürÃemberg 106. StuÃgart.
Grieb, V. (Hrsg.) 2017: Marc Aurel – Wege zu seiner
HerrschaÌ. Gutenberg.
Grimal, P. 1997: Marek Aureliusz [Marc Aurel].
Warszawa.
Groh, S. 1996: Die Insula XLI von Flavia Solva.
Ergebnisse der Grabungen 1959 und 1989
bis 1992. Österreichisches Archäologisches
Institut, SonderschriÌen 28. Wien.
Groh, S. 2015a: EngelhartsteÃen – Die
Feldforschungen und ihre Interpretation.
In: Groh, S. – Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones
Barbaricae. Forschungen zu den römischen
Feldlagern von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn
und Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. NF. 2.
Krems, 14–40.
Groh, S. 2015b: Kollnbrunn – Die Feldforschungen
und ihre Interpretation. In: Groh, S. –
Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones Barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. NF. 2.
Krems, 66–85.
Groh, S. 2015c: Ruhhof – Die Feldforschungen
und ihre Interpretation. In: Groh, S. –
Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones Barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. NF. 2.
Krems, 95–130.
Groh, S: 2015d: Römische Feldlager in der March-
Thaya-Region. In: Groh, S. – Sedlmayer, H.:
Expeditiones Barbaricae. Forschungen zu den
römischen Feldlagern von EngelhartsteÃen,
Kollnbrunn und Ruhhof, Niederösterreich.
Archäologische Forschungen in
Niederösterreich. NF. 2. Krems, 154–184.
Groh, S. – Komoróczy, B. 2010: KG EngelhartsteÃen,
MG EngelhartsteÃen, VB Gänserndorf.
Fundberichte aus Österreich Bd. 49, 269.
Groh, S. – Komoróczy, B. 2012: EngelhartsteÃen.
In: WissenschaÌlicher Jahresbericht des ÖAI
2011. Wien, 70.
Groh, S. – Komoróczy, B. – Sedlmayer, H. 2013:
Forschungen zu den temporären römischen
Militärlagern in Mähren (Tschechische
Republik) und Niederösterreich. In:
WissenschaÌlicher Jahresbericht des ÖAI
2012. Wien, 67–69.
Groh, S. – Komoróczy, B. – Sedlmayer, H. 2014:
Forschungen zu den temporären römischen
Militärlagern in Mähren (Tschechische
Republik) und Niederösterreich. In:
WissenschaÌlicher Jahresbericht des ÖAI
2013. Wien, 72–74.
Groh, S. – Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Sedlmayer,
H. 2015: Basis of the International Research
Project of the Roman Military Camps in
the Barbarian Territory to the North of
Carnuntum. In: Vagalinski, L. – Sharankov,
N. (eds.): LIMES XXII. Proceedings of the
22nd International Congress of Roman
Frontier Studies Ruse, Bulgaria, September
2012. Bulletin of the National Archaeological
Institute XLII. Sofia, 749–755.
Groh, S. – Lindinger, V. – Komoróczy, B. 2011:
KG EngelhartsteÃen, MG EngelhartsteÃen.
Fundberichte aus Österreich Bd. 50, 245.
Groh, S. – Sedlmayer, H. 2015: Expeditiones
Barbaricae. Forschungen zu den römischen
Feldlagern von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn
und Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. NF. 2.
Krems.
Grosso, F. 1964: La LoÃa Politica al Tempo di
Commodo. Memorie dell‘ Accademia delle
Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze Morali,
Storiche e Filologiche Ser. 4, n. 7. Torino.
Grüll, T. 2015: „Non extincta lues”. Az Antoninus-
kori járvány. Ókor 14, 37–47.
Grünewald, M. 1979: Die Gefäßkeramik des
Legionslagers von Carnuntum (Grabungen
1968-1974). Der Römische Limes in Österreich
29. Wien.
Grünewald, T. 1999: Bandits in the Roman Empire:
Myth and reality. London – New York.
Habermann, W. 1997: Aspekte des
Bewässerungswesens im kaiserzeitlichen
Ägypten I: Die Erklärungen für nicht über-
flutetes Land (Abrochia-Deklarationene).
In: Ruffing, K. – Tenger, B. (Hrsg.):
Miscellanea oeconomica: Studien zur antiken
WirtschaÌsgeschichte. FestschriÌ H. Wikel
271 |
 zum 65. Geburtstag. St. Katharinen, 213–283.
Hajnalová, M. – Rajtár, J. 2009: Supply and subsis-
tence: The Roman fort at Iža. In: Hanson, W.
S. (ed.): The Army and Frontiers Rome. Papers
offered to David J. Breeze on the Occasion of
sixty-fiÌh birthday and his retirement from
Historic Scotland. Portsmouth, 194–207.
Halama, J. 2007: Nálezy terry sigillaty v Čechách. In:
Droberjar, E. – Chvojka, O. (eds.): Archeologie
barbarů 2006. Příspěvky z II. protohistoric-
ké konference České Budějovice, 21.–24.11.
2006. Sv. 1 Archeologické výzkumy v jižních
Čechách. Supplementum 3. České Budějovice,
195–240.
Halama, J. – Zeman, T. 2009: Nálezy žernovů
z  kontextů doby římské v Čechách a na
Moravě. In: Karwowski, M. – Droberjar,
E. (eds.): Archeologia Barbarzyńców
2008: powiązania i kontakty w świecie
barbarzyńskim (Archäologie der Barbaren
2008: Beziehungen und Kontakte in der bar-
barischen Welt). Rzeszów, 479–530.
Halfmann, H. 1986: Itinera principum. Geschichte
und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen
Reich. Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge
und epigraphische Studien II. StuÃgart.
Hamdoune, Ch. 1999: Les auxilia externa africaines
des armées romaines, III siècle av. J.-C. -–IVe
siècle ap. J.-C. Montpellier.
Hampl, F. 1960: Kaiser Marc Aurel und die Völker
jenseits der Donaugrenze. Eine quellenkriti-
sche Studie. In: Fischer, W. (Hrsg.): FestschriÌ
zu Ehren Richard Heuberger. Innsbruck,
33–40.
Hanzelyová, E. – Kuzma I. – Rajtár, J. 1996: Letecká
prospekcia v archeológii na Slovensku.
Archeologické rozhledy 48, 194–212, 275–278.
Harper, K. 2015: Pandemics and passages to late an-
tiquity: rethinking the plague of c. 249–270
described by Cyprian. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 28, 223–260.
Harper, K. 2020: Fatum: Das Klima und der
Untergang des Römischen Reiches. Müchen.
Harsányi, P. 1910: Éremleletek. Numizmatikai
Közlöny 9, 133–136.
Haupt, P. 2001: Römische Münzhorte des 3. Jhs. in
Gallien und den germanischen Provinzen.
Eine Studie zu archäologischen Aspekten der
Entstehung, Verbergung und Auffindung von
Münzhorten. Provinzialrömische Studien 1.
Grünbach.
| 272
Heald, A. 2005: Non-ferrous metalworking in Iron Age
Scotland 700 BC – AD 700. Unpublished PhD
theses, University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh.
Hečková, J. 1986: Römischer Baukomplex in Stupava.
Archeologické rozhledy 38, 378–394.
Hekster, O. 2002: Commodus: an emperor at the
crossroads. Leiden.
Henderson, J. (ed.) 1921: Historia Augusta with
an English Translation by David Magie.
Loeb Classical Library 139. Cambridge
– MassachuseÃs.
Henderson, J. (ed.) 1925: Lucian with an English
Translation by A. M. Harmon. Loeb Classical
Library 162. Cambridge – MassachuseÃs.
Henderson, J. (ed.) 1927: Dio Cassius with an English
Translation by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical
Library 177. Cambridge – MassachuseÃs.
Henderson, J. (ed.) 1939: Ammianus Marcellinus
with an English Translation by John  C.
Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 331. Cambridge
– MassachuseÃs.
Herz, P. 2017: Die Mobilität römischer Soldaten in
Friedenszeiten. In: Giardina, A. – Lo Cascio,
E. – Tacoma, L. E. (eds.): The impact of mo-
bilty and migration in the Roman Empire
(Impact of Empire 12). Leiden – Boston, 80–99.
Herz, P. in Vorbereitung: Der centurio Petronius
Fortunatus aus Cillium.
Heuss, A. 1933: Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen
der römischen Außenpolitik in republika-
nischer Zeit. Klio, BeiheÌ 31, Neue Folge 18.
Leipzig.
Heymans, H. 2004: Abschließender Bericht zur
Notgrabung des Bundesdenkmalamtes
am südlichen Stadtrand von Flavia Solva,
Steiermark. Fundberichte aus Österreich 43,
507–525.
Hidber, Th. 2006: Herodians Darstellung
der Kaisergeschichte nach Marc
Aurel. Schweizerische Beiträge zur
AltertumswissenschaÌ Bd. 29. Basel.
Hinker, C. 2008: 130 Jahre Grabungen in Flavia
Solva (1877–2007) – Ein Resümee zur Arbeit
am Stadtplan. Ein kurzer Überblick zu den ar-
chäologischen Ausgrabungen in Flavia Solva.
Schild von Steier 21, 251–252.
Hinker, C. 2012: Ein markomannenkriegzeitlicher
Brandhorizont aus dem Munizipium Flavia
Solva. Archäologie Österreichs 23, 8–10.
Hinker, C. 2014: Ein Brandhorizont aus der Zeit der
Markomannenkriege im südostnorischen
Munizipium Flavia Solva. Zentraleuropäische
Archäologie 4. Wien.
Hinker, C. 2015: Acta cruenta und Brandschicht
= Flavia Solva in Schuà und Asche? Die
Archäologie der römischen Provinzen,
ihre Quellen und deren historisches
Potenzial. JahresheÌe des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 84, 51–96.
Hobsbawm, E. 1959: Primitive Rebels: Studies in
Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th
and 20th centuries. Manchester.
Hobsbawm, E. 1981: Bandits. New York.
Hodgson, N. 2011: The provenance of RIB 1389 and
the rebuilding of Hadrian’s Wall in AD 158.
The Antiquaries Journal 91, 59–71.
Hodgson, N. 2014: The British expedition of
Septimius Severus. Britannia 45, 31–51.
Hodgson, N. – Breeze, D. 2020: Plague on Hadrian’s
Wall? Interpreting evidence for pandemics
in Roman Britain. Current Archaeology 365,
28–35.
Hogg, A. – Lowe, D. J. – Palmer, J. – Boswijk, G.
– Bronk Ramsey, Ch. 2011: Revised calendar
date for the Taupo eruption derived by 14C
wiggle-matching using a New Zealand kauri
14C calibration data set. The Holocene 22 (4),
439–449.
Hohl, E. 1954: Kaiser Commodus und Herodian.
Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen
Akademie der WissenschaÌen zu Berlin,
GesellwschaÌswissenschaÌen Klasse 1954,1.
Berlin.
Holmes, N. M. McQ. 2006: Two denarius hoards from
Birnie, Moray. British Numismatic Journal 76,
1–44.
Holmes, N. M. McQ. 2014: The Synton and Kippilaw
denarius hoards: further numismatic eviden-
ce for late Antonine and Severan Scotland.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 144, 133–167.
Hölscher, T. 2000: Die Säule des Marcus Aurelius:
narrative Struktur und ideologische BotschaÌ.
In: Scheid, J. – Huet, V. (eds.): Autour de la
Colonne Aurélienne. Geste et image sur la
Colonne de Marc Aurèle à Rome. Turnhout,
89–105.
Holt, J. C. 1982: Robin Hood. London.
Homsher, R. S. 2012: Mud Brick and the Process
of Construction in the Middle Bronze Age
Southern Levant. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 368, 1–27.
Hopwood, K. 1989: Bandits, elites and rural order.
In: Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.): Patronage in
Ancient Society. London – New York, 71–187.
Horsnæs, H. 2010: Crossing boundaries. An analy-
sis of Roman coins in Danish contexts. Vol.
1: Finds from Sealand, Funen and Jutland.
Copenhagen.
Horstmanshoff, H. F. J. 1992: Epidemie und Anomie.
Epidemien in der griechischen Welt (800–
400 v. Chr.). Medizinhistorisches Journal 27,
42–65.
van den Hout, M. P. J. 1999: A commentary on the
leÃers by M. Cornelius Fronto. Leiden.
Hošek, J. – Komoróczy, B. – Beran, V. 2012:
Metalografická analýza železných
dřevoobráběcích nástrojů z období mar-
komanských válek v oblasti Mušova. In:
Březinová, G. – Varsik, V. (eds.): Archeológia
na prahu histórie. K životnému jubileu Karola
Pietu. Nitra, 271–288.
Hrnčiarik, E. 2013: Römisches Kulturgut in der
Slowakei. Herstellung, Funktion, und
Export römischer Manufakturerzeugnisse
aus den Provinzen in der Slowakei.
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 222. Bonn.
Hrnčiarik, E. – Baňovič, J. 2014: Vyobrazenia nádob
na Trajánovom stĺpe a stĺpe Marka Aurélia.
In: Bartík, J. (ed.): Stĺp Marca Aurelia a stred-
né Podunajsko. Štúdie (Column of Marcus
Aurelius and the Middle Danube Area.
Studies). Zborník Slovenského národného
múzea – Archeológia Supplementum 8, 51–59.
Huber, I. 2005: Rituale der Seuchen- und
Schadensabwehr im vorderen Orient
und Griechenland: Formen kollektiver
Krisenbewältigung in der Antike. Oriens et
Occidens Bd. 10. StuÃgart.
Hudeczek, E. 1973: Ausgrabungen im nördlichen
Stadtbezirk von Flavia Solva. Schild von
Steier, Kleine SchriÌen 14, 33–56.
Hudeczek, E. 2002: Flavia Solva. Entwicklung und
Topographie. In: Šašel Kos, M. – Scherrer, P.
(eds.): The Autonomous Towns of Noricum
and Pannonia. Situla 40. Ljubljana, 203–212.
Humer, F. – Kremer, G. (Hrsg.) 2011: GöÃerbilder
– Menschenbilder. Religion und Kulte in
Carnuntum. Katalog. Wien, 145–437.
273 |
Hunt, D. 1995: Julian and Marcus Aurelius. In: Ines,
D. C. – Hine, H. – Pelling, Ch. (eds.): Ethics and
rhetoric: classical essays for Donald Russell
on his seventy-fiÌh birthday. Oxford, 287–298.
Hund, R. 2017: Studien zur Außenpolitik der Kaiser
Antoninus Pius und Marc Aurel im SchaÃen
der Markomannenkriege. Pharos: Studien
zur griechisch-römischen Antike 40. Rahden/
Westfalen.
Hunter, F. 2001: Roman and native in Scotland: new
approaches. Journal of Roman Archaeology
14, 289–309.
Hunter, F. 2002: Problems in the study of Roman and
native. In: Freeman, P. – BenneÃ, J. – Fiema,
Z. T. – Hoffmann, B. (eds.): Limes XVIII:
Proceedings of the XVIIIth International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held
in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). BAR
International Series 1084 (1). Oxford, 43–50.
Hunter, F. 2006: New light on Iron Age massive arm-
lets. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 136, 135–160.
Hunter, F. 2007a: Beyond the edge of the Empire:
Caledonians, Picts and Romans. Rosemarkie.
Hunter, F. 2007b: Silver for the Barbarians: inter-
preting denarii hoards in north Britain and
beyond. In: Hingley, R. – Willis, S. (eds.):
Roman finds: context and theory. Oxford,
214–224.
Hunter, F. 2009: Denarius hoards beyond the fron-
tier. A ScoÃish case study. In: Morillo, A. –
Hanel, N. – Martín, E (eds.): Limes XX: XX
congreso internacional de estudios sobre
la frontera romana. Anejos de Gladius 13.
Madrid, 1619–1630.
Hunter, F. 2010: Beyond the frontier: interpreting
late Roman Iron Age indigenous and impor-
ted material culture. In: Collins, R. – Allason-
Jones, L. (eds.): Finds from the frontier: ma-
terial culture in the 4th–5th centuries. CBA
Research Report 162. York, 96–109.
Hunter, F. 2014: Looking over the Wall: The Late and
Post-Roman Iron Age north of Hadrian’s Wall.
In: Haarer, F. K. (ed.): AD 410: the history and
archaeology of late and post-Roman Britain.
London, 206–215.
Hunter, F. 2015a: The lure of silver: denarius hoards
and relations across the frontier. In: Breeze,
D. J. – Jones, R. H. – Oltean, I. A. (eds.):
Understanding Roman frontiers: a celebra-
tion for Professor Bill Hanson. Edinburgh,
251–269.
| 274
Hunter, F. 2015b: CraÌ in context: artefact produc-
tion in later prehistoric Scotland. In: Hunter,
F. – Ralston, I. (eds.): Scotland in later prehis-
toric Europe. Edinburgh, 225–246.
Hunter, F. 2016: Beyond Hadrian’s Wall. In: MilleÃ,
M. – Revell, L. – Moore, A. (eds.): The Oxford
Handbook of Roman Britain. Oxford, 179–202.
Huq, F. 1976: Effect of temperature and relative humi-
dity on variola virus in crusts. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization 54, 710–712.
Hurst, H. 2010: Interpretative challenges from a well-
studied cemetery at Gloucester. Journal of
Roman Archaeology 23, 633–638.
Hüssen, C.-M. 1991: Das Holzkastell auf der „Breitung“
in Weißenburg in Bayern. In: Maxfield, V. A. –
Dobson, M. J. (eds.): Roman Frontier Studies
1989. Proceedings of the XVth International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Exeter,
191–195.
Hüssen, C. M. 1995: Römische Lager an der Donau
in Ingolstadt-Zuchering. In: Czysz, W. et al.
(Hrsg.): Provinzialrömische Forschungen.
FestschriÌ für Günter Ulbert zum 65.
Geburtstag. Espelkamp, 95–110.
Hüssen, C. M. – Ölvecky, R. – Rajtár, J. 2016: Výskum
dočasných rímskych táborov vo Vrábľoch.
Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 2011, 101–107.
Hüssen, C. M. – Ölvecky, R. – Rajtár, J. 2017: Tretia
sezóna výskumu dočasných rímskych táborov
vo Vrábľoch. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy
na Slovensku v roku 2012, 86–87.
Hüssen, C. M. – Ölvecky, R. – Rajtár, J. 2018: Hrob
ohraničený kruhovým žľabom a rímske tábory
v Radvani nad Dunajom. Archeologické
výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 2013,
70–77.
Hüssen, C.-M. – Rajtár, J. 1994: Zur Frage archäo-
logischer Zeugnisse der Markomannenkriege
in der Slowakei. In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J.
– Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege
– Ursachen und Wirkungen. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. Brno,
217–232.
Hü¹l, W. 1936: Antoninus Pius. Historisch-politische
Darstellung, Bd. 1. Prag.
Ichikawa, M. 1988: The Marcomannic Wars: A
Reconsideration of Their Nature. In: Yuge,
T. – Doi, M. (eds.): Forms of Control and
Subordination in Antiquity. Tokio, 253–258.
Ingemark, D. 2014: Glass, alcohol and power in
 Roman Iron Age Scotland. Edinburgh.
Ireland, S. 2008: Roman Britain: a sourcebook, third
edition. London.
Istvánovits, E. 1990: A Felső-Tisza-vidék legko-
rábbi szarmata leletei – 2-3. századi sírok
Tiszavasváriból. Nyíregyházi Jósa András
Múzeum Évkönyve 27–29 (1984–1986), 83–133.
Iván, R. – Ölvecky, R. 2015: New Germanic seÃ-
lement finds in the Western part of the
Great Rye Island. In: Biró, Sz. – Molnár, A.
(Hrsg.): Ländliche Siedlungen der römischen
Kaiserzeit im miÃleren Donauraum. Győr,
297–315.
Ivantchik, A. – Krapivina, V. 2007: A Roman Military
Diploma Issued to a Sailor of the Classis Flavia
Moesica. Chiron 37, 119–242.
Jäckel, D. 2005: Judenmord – Geißler – Pest: Das
Beispiel Straßburg 1349. In: Meier, M. (Hrsg.):
Pest. Geschichte eines Menschheitstraumas.
StuÃgart, 162–178.
James, S. 2005: The deposition of military equipment
during the final siege at Dura Europos, with
regard to the Tower 19 countermine. In: Jobst,
W. (Hrsg.): Archäologie der Schlachtfelder –
Militaria aus Zerstörungshorizonten. Akten
14. Internatinal Roman Military Equipment
Conference (ROMEC), Wien, 27.–31. August
2003. Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005, 189–206.
Janiszewska, D. 2010: Decennalia cesarza
Septymiusza Sewera i ślub Karakalli – bo-
gactwo w służbie ideologii dynastycznej (Die
Dezenalien des Kaisers Septimius Severus
und die Hochzeit des Caracalla – Reichtum
im Dienste der dynastischen Ideologie). In:
Kostuch, L. – Ryszewska, K. (eds.): Zbytek
i ubóstwo w starożytności i średniowieczu
(Reichtum und Armut in Antike und
MiÃelalter). Kielce, 195–203.
Jarre¹, M. G. 1972: An album of the euestrians
from North Africa in the emperor’s service.
Epigraphische Studien 9, 146–232.
Jeneson, K. 2012: Exploring the Roman villa world
between Tongres and Cologne. A landsca-
pe archaeological approach. Unpublished
PhD theses, Vrije universiteit Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
Jenkins, J. C. 1982: Why do Peasants Rebel? Structural
and Historical Theories of Modern Peasant
Rebellions. American Journal of Sociology
88, 3, 487–514.
Jílek, J. 2012: Bronzové nádoby z doby římské
na Moravě a naddunajské části Dolního
Rakouska. Pardubice.
Jílek, J. 2016a: Bronzegefäße aus der Römischen
Kaiserzeit in Mähren: kritische Revision und
chronologische Übersicht. In: Voss, H.-U. –
Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwi-
schen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung
und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten
des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im Reich
und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele
(Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer
Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 1.
Internationales Kolloquium Frankfurt am
Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte 22/1. Bonn, 399–418.
Jílek, J. 2016b: Roman Metal Vessels in the Milieu
of Germanic Elites in the Middle Danube
Region. Studia Hercynia XIX/1–2, 169–188.
Jílek, J. 2016c: Grooved Metal Vessels from the
Roman Period. Comments on the Variability
and Contemporary State of Research. Acta
Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica
31, 35–53.
Jílek, J. – Žákovský, P. 2014: Ein Schwert vom Typ
Lauriacum-Hromówka, Var. Hromówka
aus Brno-Jundrov. In: Komoróczy, B. (ed.):
Sociální diferenciace barbarských ko-
munit (Archeologie barbarů 2011). Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 44.
Brno, 335–339.
Jilek, S. 1999: Kleinfunde. In: Ch. Ertel, Ch. – Gassner,
V. – Jilek, S. – Stiglitz, H.: Untersuchungen zu
den Gräberfeldern in Carnuntum. Band I: Der
archäologische Befund. Der Römische Limes
in Österreich 40. Wien, 66–78.
Johne, K.-P. 2006: Die Römer an der Elbe. Das
Stromgebiet der Elbe im geographischen
Weltbild und im politischen Bewusstsein der
griechisch-römischen Antike. Berlin.
Johnson, A. 1987: Römische Kastelle des 1. und 2.
Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in Britannien und in den
germanischen Provinzen des Römerreiches.
Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt Bd. 37.
Mainz am Rhein.
Jones, A. H. M. 1963: The Greeks under the Roman
Empire. Dumbarton Oak Papers 17, 3–19.
Jones, A. H. M. 1966: The Decline of the Ancient
World. London.
Jones, B. – Ma¹ingly, D. 1990: An Atlas of Roman
Britain. Oxford – Cambridge.
Jones, C. P. 1970: A leading family from Roman
Thespiae. Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 74, 223–255.
275 |
Jones, C. P. 1971: The levy at Thespiae under Marcus
Aurelius. Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 12, 45–48.
Jones, C. P. 2005: Ten dedications “To the gods and
goddesses” and the Antonine Plague. Journal
of Roman Archaeology 18, 293–301.
Jones, C. P. 2006: Cosa and the Antonine Plague?
Journal of Roman Archaeology 19, 368–369.
Jones, C. P. 2012: Recruitment in time of Plague:
the case of Thespiae. In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.):
L’impaÃo della “Peste Antonina”. Bari, 79–85.
Jones, R. H. 2009: “Lager mit claviculae” in Britannia.
In: Hanson, W.S. (ed.): The Army and Frontiers
Rome. Papers offered to David J. Breeze on the
Occasion of sixty-fiÌh birthday and his re-
tirement from Historic Scotland. Portsmouth,
11–23.
Jones, R. H. 2011: Roman camps in Scotland.
Edinburgh.
Jones, R. H. 2012: Roman camps in Britain. Stroud.
Jongman, W. 2007: Gibbon was Right: The Decline
and Fall of the Roman Economy. In: Hekster,
O. – de Kleijn, G. – Slootjes, D. (eds.): Crises
and the Roman Empire: Proceedings of
the Seventh Workshop of the International
Network Impact of Empire (Nijmegen, June
20–24, 2006). Leiden – Boston, 183–199.
Jongman, W. 2012: Roman Economic Change and the
Antonine Plague. In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L’ im-
paÃo della “Peste Antonina”. Bari, 253–263.
Juntunen K. 2013: The lost books of Cassius Dio.
Chiron 43, 459–486.
Jü¹ing, I. 1995: Die Kleinfunde aus dem römi-
schen Lager Eining-Unterfeld. Bayerisches
VorgeschichtsbläÃer 60, 143–230.
Kaenel, H.-M. – Brem, H. – Elmer, J. T. – Gorecki,
J. – Hedinger, B. – King, C. E. – Klee, M. –
Leuthard, M. – Northover, J. P. – Rychener,
J. – Zürcher, A. 1993: Der Münzhort aus dem
Gutshof in NeÌenbach. Antoniniane und
Denare von Septimius Severus bis Postumus.
Zürcher Denkmalpflege, Archäologische
Monographien 16. Zürich.
Kaiser, M. 1996: Die Ziegelstempel der römischen
Garnisonen von Bonn. Bonner Jahrbücher
196, 51–160.
Kaiser-Raiß, M. R. 1980: Die stadtrömische
Münzprägung während AlleinherrschaÌ
des Commodus. Untersuchungen zur
Selbstdarstellung eines römischen Kaisers.
| 276
Frankfurt am Main.
Kalábek, M. 2008: Nové doklady římských a  ger-
mánských aktivit v okolí Hulína. In:
Droberjar, E. – Komoróczy, B. – Vachůtová,
D. (eds.): Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické,
ekonomické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje
ve světle nových archeologických výzkumů.
Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno
37. Brno, 453–460.
Kalábek, M. – Peška, J. – Svobodová-Svitavská, H.
– Vaněček, Z. – Holub, M. 2017: Dosavadní
výsledky výzkumu krátkodobého tábora
římské armády v Olomouci-Neředíně. In:
Na hranicích impéria. Extra fines imperii.
Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. narozeninám. Brno,
165–189.
Kämmerer, R. T. 2004: About the emergence and
spreading of smallpox in the Ancient Near
East. Did it reach us from camels or from
caÃle? Journal des médicines cuneiforms 2
(4), 16–25.
Kandler, M. 1986: EngelhartsteÃen. In: Kandler, M. –
VeÃers, H.: Der römische Limes in Österreich.
Ein Führer. Wien, 233–234.
Karl, S. 2008: Kommentar zum Übersichtsplan der
archäologischen Grabungen in Flavia Solva.
Schild von Steier 21, 253–256.
Karyshkovskij, P. O. 1965: Nakhodki monet Rimskoj
imperii v Ol‘vii (Finds of Coins of the Roman
Empire in Olbia). Numizmatika i sfragistika
2, 50–75.
Kehne, P. 1989: Formen römischer Außenpolitik
in der Kaiserzeit: Die auswärtige Praxis im
Nordgrenzbereich als Einwirkung auf das
Vorfeld. Diss. Mikrofilm. Hannover, 1989.
Kehne, P. 1994: Das Instrumentarium kaiser-
zeitlicher Außenpolitik und die Ursachen
der Markomannenkriege. In: Friesinger,
H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.):
Markomannenkriege: Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 39–50.
Kehne, P. 2001: Markomannenkrieg. § 1: Historisches.
In: Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde Bd. 19. Berlin – New York,
308–316.
Kehne, P. 2008: Zur Strategie und Logistik römischer
Vorstöße in die Germania: Die Tiberiusfeldzüge
der Jahre 4 und 5 n. Chr. In: Kühlborn,
J.-S. u.  a. (Hrsg.): Rom auf dem Weg nach
Germanien: Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen
und Logistik. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45.
Mainz, 253–301.
Kehne, P. 2009: Rom in Not. Zur Geschichte der
Markomannenkriege. In: Varusschlacht im
Osnabrücker Land GmbH – Museum und Park
Kalkriese (Hrsg.): 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht –
Konflikt. Ausstellungskatalog Museum und
Park Kalkriese. StuÃgart, 98–108.
Kehne, P. 2016: Zur althistorischen Erforschung der
Markomannenkriege. Eine Annäherung mit
aktualisierter Chronik der Jahre 166 bis 180
n. Chr. Slovenská archeológia 64-2, 193–260.
Kemzis, A. M. 2010: Lucian, Fronto, and the absence
of contemporary historiography under the
Antonines. American Journal of Philology 131,
3, 285–325.
Kennedy, D. L. 1994: The cohors XX Palmyrenorum
at Dura Europos. In: Dąbrowa, E. (ed.): The
Roman and Byzantine Army in the East.
Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the
Jagiellonian University, Kraków in September
1992. Kraków, 89–98.
Kenner, F. 1865: Wien unter der RömerherrschaÌ.
Berichte und MiÃheilungen des Altertums-
Vereines zu Wien 9, 153–198.
Kenner, F. 1907: Die Dekumantore von Vindobona.
Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 1, 25–43.
Keppie, L. 2009: The garrison of the Antonine Wall:
endangered species or disappearing asset?
In: Morillo, A. – Hanel, N. – Martín, E (eds.):
Limes XX: XX congreso internacional de es-
tudios sobre la frontera romana. Anejos de
Gladius 13. Madrid, 1135–1145.
Kerekes, P. 1914: A budai és mendei római éremlele-
tek. Numizmatikai Közlöny 9, 133–136.
Kerler, G. 1970: Die Außenpolitik in der Historia
Augusta. Bonn.
Kiang, K. M. – Krathwohl, H. D. 2013: Rates and
risks of transmission of smallpox and mecha-
nisms of prevention. Journal of Laboratory
and Clinical Medicine 142, 229–238.
Kienast, D. – Eck, E. – Heil, M. 2017: Römische
Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen
Chronologie, 6. Auflage. Darmstadt.
Kiss, G. – Tóth, E. – Zágorhidi Czigány, B. 1998:
Savaria – Szombathely története a város ala-
pításától 1526-ig. Szombathely.
Klages, R. 2015: Darmstadt: Rund 20.000 Euro zer-
schniÃen und weggeworfen. Der Tagesspiegel
[online, 22.09.2015: hÃtp://www.tagesspiegel.
de/weltspiegel/bundesbank-bestaetigt-ech-
theit-des-geldes-darmstadt-rund-20-000-euro-
zerschniÃen-und-weggeworfe/12353216.html].
Klanicová, S. 2007: Nové poznatky o importu
terry sigillaty na Moravě. In: Droberjar, E.
– Chvojka, O. (eds.): Archeologie barbarů
2006. Příspěvky z II. protohistorické konfe-
rence České Budějovice, 21.–24.11. 2006. Sv.
1. Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách.
Supplementum 3. České Budějovice, 175–194.
Klanicová, S. 2008: Horizont nálezů z období mar-
komanských válek na příkladu terry sigilla-
ty z Hradiska u Mušova. Der Fundhorizont
der Markomannenkriege am Beispiel
der Terra Sigillata aus dem Burgstall bei
Mušov. In: Droberjar, E. – Komoróczy, B. –
Vachůtová, D. (eds.): Archeologie barbarů
2007. Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické, eko-
nomické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje
ve světle nových archeologických výzkumů.
Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno
37. Brno, 439–452.
Klanicová, S. 2010: Germánské osídlení na katastru
obce Pasohlávky (Jihomoravský kraj) z hledis-
ka nálezů keramiky typu terra sigillata. In:
Beljak, J. – Březinová, G. – Varsik, V. (eds.):
Archeológia barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo
Germánov. Sídliskové a ekonomické štruktú-
ry od neskorej doby laténskej po včasný stre-
dovek. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae,
Communicationes, Tomus X. Nitra, 603–613.
Klein, R. (Hrsg.) 1979: Marc Aurel. Wege der
Forschung Bd. 550. Darmstadt.
Knight, S. T. 2003: Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography.
New York.
Kobes, J. 2005: „Pest“ in der Hohen Kaiserzeit? In:
Meier, M. (Hrsg.): Pest. Geschichte eines
Menschheitstraumas. StuÃgart, 66–77.
Kőhegyi, M. 1966–1970: Megjegyzések és pótlás két
szombathelyi II. század végi denárlelethez.
Savaria 4, 97–105.
Kolbinger, D. 2013: Osídlení východního Kroměřížska
a Přerovska v době římské a stěhování národů.
Hulín.
Kolník, T. 1961: Nové pohrebiskové nálezy z doby
rímskej na Slovensku. Archeologické rozhle-
dy 13, 822–854.
Kolník, T. 1962: Nové sídliskové nálezy z doby rím-
skej na Slovensku. Neue Siedlungsfunde aus
der Römerzeit in der Slowakei. Archeologické
rozhledy 14, 344–397.
Kolník, T. 1971: Prehľad a stav bádania o dobe rím-
skej a sťahovaní národov. Slovenská archeoló-
gia 19, 499–558.
Kolník, T. 1975: Žiarové pohrebisko z neskorej doby
277 |
 rímskej a zo začiatku sťahovania národov
v  Čiernom Brode. Slovenská archeológia 23,
341–378.
Kolník, T. 1977: Anfänge der germanischen Besiedlung
in der Südwestslowakei und das Regnum
Vannianum. In: Symposium Ausklang der
Latène-Zivilisation und Anfänge der germa-
nischen Besiedlung im miÃleren Donaugebiet.
Bratislava, 143–171.
Kolník, T. 1980: Römerzeitliche Gräberfelder in der
Slowakei I. Bratislava.
Kolník, T. 1986: Römische Stationen im slowa-
kischen Abschnià des nordpannonischen
Limesvorlandes. Archeologické rozhledy 38,
411–434, 467–472.
Kolník, T. 1995: Zum Problem der villenartigen
Bauten im miÃeldanubischen Barbarikum.
Balácai közlemények 3, 359–368.
Kolník, T. 2000: Stéla z Boldogu – najstarší náhrob-
ný nápis na Slovensku. Pamiatky a múzea
3/2000, 20–21.
Kolník, T. 2016: Skyphoi und Kantharoi – nordita-
lische glasierte Relieöeramik in Gräbern
des regnum Vannianum? In: Voss, H.-U. –
Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwi-
schen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung
und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten
des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich
und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele
(Gefässe, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer
Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 2.
Internationales Kolloquium, Frankfurt am
Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/2. Bonn, 887–909.
Kolník, T. – Rajtár, J. 2004: Neue Angaben zur
Ausdehnung und Funktion der römisch-ger-
manischen Anlage Cífer-Pác. Študijné zvesti
Archeologického ústavu SAV 36, 203–210.
Kolník, T. – Varsik, V. – Vladár, J. 2007: Branč.
Germánska osada z 2. až 4. storočia. Eine
germanische Siedlung vom 2. bis zum
4. Jahrhundert. Archaeologica Slovaca
Monographiae, Catalogi 10. Nitra.
Kolníková, E. 1994: Die Markomannenkriege im
Lichte der Fundmünzen aus der Slowakei.
In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A.
(Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege. Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archcheologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 487–496.
Komoróczy, B. 1999a: Zpráva o výzkumu fortifika-
ce římského krátkodobého tábora a objektů
sídliště z doby římské na lokalitě Mušov – Na
Pískách v letech 1995–1996. Přehled výzkumů
| 278
39 (1995–1996), 165–196.
Komoróczy, B. 1999b: Ein bemerkenswerter
Eisenfund im Areal der römischen Anlage
am Burgstall bei Mušov (Bez. Břeclav,
Südmähren). In: Tejral, J. (Hrsg.): Das miÃel-
europäische Barbaricum und die Krise des rö-
mischen Weltreiches im 3. Jahrhundert. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 12. Brno,
71–90.
Komoróczy, B. 2000: Panzerschuppentypen aus der
römischen Befestigungsanlage am Burgstall
bei Mušov. In: Bouzek, J. – Friesinger, H. –
Pieta, K. – Komoróczy, B. (Hrsg.): Gentes, Reges
und Rom, Auseinandersetzung-Anerkennung-
Anpassung. FestschriÌ für Jaroslav Tejral zum
65. Geburstag. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 16. Brno, 79–86.
Komoróczy, B. 2002: Das römische temporäre Lager
in Modřice (Bez. Brno-venkov). In: Kuzmová,
K. – Rajtár, J. – Pieta, K. (Hrsg.): Zwischen Rom
und dem Barbaricum, FestschriÌ für Titus
Kolník zum 70. Geburstag. Nitra, 129–142.
Komoróczy, B. 2003a: Římské cihly na Hradisku
u Mušova. Zprávy památkové péče 63/2, 66–77.
Komoróczy, B. 2003b: A barbár-római kapcsolat-
rendszer felbomlása az i.sz. II. században
a  Pannoniával szomszédos barbarikumban.
A  markomann háborúk és előzményei a ré-
gészeti források tükrében. PhD értekezés,
kézirat, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem.
Budapest.
Komoróczy, B. 2008a: Hradisko (Burgstall) u Mušova
ve světle výzkumu v letech 1994–2007. Hradisko
(Burgstall) at Mušov in the light of results
of excavations in 1994–2007. In: Droberjar,
E. – Komoróczy, B. – Vachůtová, D. (eds.):
Archeologie barbarů 2007. Barbarská sídli-
ště. Chronologické, ekonomické a historické
aspekty jejich vývoje ve světle nových archeo-
logických výzkumů. Spisy Archeologického
ústavu AV ČR Brno 37. Brno, 391–438.
Komoróczy, B. 2008b: Gab es ein frühkaiser-
zeitliches Militärlager in Mähren? Einige
Bemerkungen zu den Baustrukturen auf
der Flur Mušov-Neurissen zehn Jahre nach
den Notgrabungen. In: Kühlborn, J.-S. u. a.
(Hrsg.): Rom auf dem Weg nach Germanien:
Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen und Logistik.
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45. Mainz,
103–146.
Komoróczy, B. 2009a: Marcomannia. Der
Militärschlag gegen die Markomannen
und Quaden – ein archäologischer Survey.
In: Varusschlacht im Osnabrücker Land
GmbH – Museum und Park Kalkriese
 (Hrsg.): 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht – Konflikt.
Ausstellungskatalog Museum und Park
Kalkriese. StuÃgart, 114–125.
Komoróczy, B. 2009b: The character of the inter-
nal buildings of the Roman military bases
on Burgstall at Mušov (South Moravia, Czech
Republic). . In: Morillo, A. – Hanel, N. –
Martín, E (eds.): Limes XX: XX congreso inter-
nacional de estudios sobre la frontera romana.
Anejos de Gladius 13. Madrid, 1421–1436.
Komoróczy, B. 2009c: Římské fortifikace na barbar-
ském území ve středním Podunají v období
markomanských válek. In: XXX. Mikulovské
sympozium 2008. Hranice na jižní Moravě
a její obrana od doby římské. Brno, 51–82.
Komoróczy, B. 2017: Bemerkungen zu den Formen
des Zustroms der Importgüter in das germani-
sche Siedlungsmilieu während der Römischen
Kaiserzeit im miÃleren Donauraum. In:
Hodgson, N. – Bidwell, P. – Schachtmann,
J. (eds.): Roman Frontiers Studies 2009.
Proceedings of the XXI International Congress
of Roman Frontiers Studies (Limes Congress)
held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August 2009.
Oxford, 284–291.
Komoróczy, B. – Lukáš, M. – Růžičková, P. – Šterc,
J. – Vlach, M. 2010: Po stopách římských legií
v kraji pod Pálavou. Pasohlávky.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. 2010: Využití GIS pro
výzkum římského vojenského zásahu na bar-
barské území ve střední Evropě v době mar-
komanských válek – úvod do problematiky
a perspektivy (Application of GIS in research
of Roman military impact on barbarian terri-
tory in Central Europe during Marcomannic
wars – introduction and perspectives). In:
Beljak, J. – Březinová, G. – Varsik, V. (eds.):
Archeológia barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo
Germánov. Sídliskové a ekonomické štruktú-
ry od neskorej doby laténskej po včasný stre-
dovek. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae,
Communicationes X. Nitra, 247–289.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. 2011: Types of Architecture
of the Germanic Population and the Roman
Army on the Territory north of the Middle
Danube during the Marcomannic Wars.
Histria Antiqua 20, 391–404.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. 2017: Archeologická stopa
(vel)moci na nepřátelském území. Živá ar-
cheologie 17, 35–41.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. 2018: Viae militares a mo-
delování vybraných prostorových aspektů
římsko-barbarských konfrontací na území
středodunajského barbarika. In: Martínek, J.
(ed.): Cesty v interdisciplinárním kontextu.
Vlastivědný věstník moravský – supplemen-
tum. Brno, 7–34.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. 2019: Römische Lager im
miÃleren Donauraum als geographisch, mi-
litärstrategisch und kulturell definierte Orte
der Mobilität. Siedlungsforschung 36, 21–58.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Bíšková, J. – Rajtár,
J. – Hüssen, C.-M. in print: A contribution
to use of mudbricks in Roman military con-
text in the Middle Danube Barbaricum. In:
Proceedings of the 24. International Roman
Frontier Conference in Viminacium 2018.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Hložek, M. 2014:
Detektorový nález římsko-provinciálního pro-
lamovaného kování z Pavlova, Jihomoravský
kraj. In: Čižmářová, J. – Venclová, N. –
Březinová, G. (eds.): Moravské křižovatky –
Střední Podunají mezi pravěkem a historií.
Brno, 767–784.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Hüssen, C.-M. 2018:
Die Dislokation römischer Truppen im
Kerngebiet der Markomannen. In: Sommer,
C. S. – Matešić, S. (eds.): Limes XXIII – Akten
des 23. Internationalen Limeskongresses in
Ingolstadt 2015. Mainz, 305–314.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Hüssen, C.-M. – Lisá,
L. – Lenďáková, Z. – Groh, S. 2014: Projekt
interdisciplinárního výzkumu římských
krátkodobých táborů ve středním Podunají
(Interdisciplinary research project of the
Roman temporary camps in the Middle
Danube region). In: Komoróczy, B. (ed.):
Archeologie barbarů 2011. Sociální diferen-
ciace barbarských komunit ve světle nových
hrobových, sídlištních a sběrových nálezů.
Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno
44. Brno, 339–364.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Hüssen, C.-M. –
Rajtár,  J. 2019a: 14C Dating of the Roman
military interventions in the middle Danube
barbarian world. Radiocarbon 61/2, 515–530.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Hüssen, C.-M. –
Rajtár, J. 2019b: Absolutchronologische
Daten aus Römischen temporäre Lagern
im Markomannischen Siedlungsraum im
MiÃeldonaugebiet. In: Karwowski, M. –
Komoróczy, B. – Trebsche, P. (Hrsg.): Auf
den Spuren der Barbaren – archäologisch,
historisch, numismatisch (Archäologie der
Barbaren 2015). Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 19. Brno, 151–183.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Rajtár, J. – Ölvecky,
R. – Hüssen, C.-M. 2018: Temporäre Lager aus
der Zeit der Markomannenkriege entlang der
militärischen Vormarschroute an March und
279 |
 Thaya. In: Sommer, C. S. – Matešić, S. (Hrsg.):
Limes XXIII – Akten des 23. Internationalen
Limeskongresses in Ingolstadt 2015. Mainz,
296–304.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Zelíková, M. 2017:
Dokumentace, publikace a interpretace de-
tektorových nálezů na příkladu spon typu
Jobst 4F. In: Droberjar, E. – Komoróczy, B.
(eds.): Římské a germánské spony ve střední
Evropě (Archeologie barbarů 2012). Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 53. Brno,
31–61.
Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Zelíková, M. – Sedláček,
J. – Růžičková, P. 2019c: Revize stavu ar-
cheologických komponent v trati Drnholec
„Holenická pole“ pomocí prospekčních a málo
invazivních výzkumných metod. Přehled
výzkumů 60-2, 9–56.
Konik, E. 1959–1960: Markomania i Sarmacja.
Niedoszłe prowincje rzymskie (Marcomannia
und Sarmatia. Die nicht verwirklichten rö-
mischen Provinzen). Eos. Commentarii
Societatis Philologae Polonorum 50, 143–162.
Kos, P. 2005: Modřice (okr. Brno-venkov). Přehledy
výzkumů za rok 2004, 269–270.
Koščević, R. 2001: Sitni metalni predmeti iz Siscije.
Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 18,
135–142.
Kovács, P. 1995: Neue römische InschriÌen im
Matrica-Museum. Acta Antiqua Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 249–264.
Kovács, P. 2006: Fontes Pannoniae antiquae ab A. D.
CLXVI usque ad A. D. CXCII. Budapest.
Kovács, P. 2009: Marcus Aurelius‘ Rain Miracle
and the Marcomannic Wars. Mnemosyne
Supplements 308. Leiden.
Kovács, P. 2010: Notes on the ’Jewish’ inscriptions
in Pannonia. Journal of Ancient Judaism 1,
159–180.
Kovács, P. 2014: A history of Pannonia during the
Principate. Antiquitas Reihe 1: Abhandlungen
zur alten Geschichte 65. Bonn.
Kovács, P. 2016: Natione Boius – oder: Was geschah
mit den Boiern? In: Humer, F. – Kremer, G.
– Pollhammer, E. – Pülz, A. (Hrsg.): Akten
der 3. Österreichischen Römersteintagung in
Carnuntum, 2.–3. Oktober 2014 Hainburg a. d.
Donau. Wien, 59–70.
Kovárník, J. 1996: Přínos letecké archeologie k po-
znání pravěku a rané doby dějinné na Moravě
(1983–1995). Archeologické rozhledy 48, 177–191.
| 280
Kovárník, J. 1997a: 10 let letecké archeologie na
Moravě (a v bývalém Československu) 1983–
1994. Přehled výzkumů 1993–1994, 311–331.
Kovárník, J. 1997b: Neue Entdeckung römischer
Feldlager nördlich von der MiÃeldonau
(Fünf Jahre nach der Entdeckung der ersten
Feldlager in Mähren). In: Čižmářová, J. –
Měchurová, Z. (eds.): Peregrinatio Gothica.
Jantarová stezka. Supplementum ad Acta
Musei Moraviae 82. Brno, 87–109.
Kra®, K. 1963: Geschichte eines Münzhortes unter
Tiberius. Schweizer MünzbläÃer 13, 14–15.
Krekovič, E. 1992: Zur Datierung der Fürstengräber
der römischen Kaiserzeit in der Slowakei.
In: Godłowski, K. – Madyda-Legutko, R.
(Hrsg.): Probleme der relativen und ab-
soluten Chronologie ab Latènzeit bis
zum FrühmiÃelalter. Materialen des III.
Internationalen Symposiums: Grundprobleme
der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nörd-
lichen MiÃeldonaugebiet Kraków-Karniowice
3.–7. Dezember 1990. Kraków, 55–68.
Krierer, K. R. 2002: Germanenbüsten auf dem Kessel.
Die HenkelaÃaschen des Bronzekessels. In:
Peška, J. – Tejral, J. (Hrsg.): Das germani-
sche Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren. Teil
2. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Monographien 55. Mainz am Rhein, 367–385.
Królczyk, K. 2016: Propagatio Imperii. Cesarstwo
Rzymskie a świąt zewnętrzny w okresie rządów
Septymiusza Sewera (193–211 r.) [Propagatio
Imperii. Das Römische Kaiserreich und
die Außenwelt während der HerrschaÌ von
Septimius Severus]. 2. Auflage. Oświęcim.
Kron, G. 2012: Nutrition, hygiene and mortality.
SeÃing parameters for Roman health and life
expectancy consistent with our comparati-
ve evidence. In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L’impaÃo
della “Peste Antonina”. Bari, 193–252.
Kronberger, M. 1997: St. Pölten–Rathausplatz.
Typentafeln zur Fein- und Gebrauchskeramik
der Gebäude. Unveröffentlitche Manuskript.
Kronberger, M. 2002: Siedlungschronologische
Überlegungen am Beispiel von Feinkeramik
der Grabungen St. Pölten-Rathausplatz 1988
und 1989. In: Šašel Kos, M. – Scherrer, P.
(eds.): The Autonomous Towns of Noricum
and Pannonia. Situla 40. Ljubljana, 229–236.
Křížek, F. 1959: Das Problem der römischen Grenzen
am nordpannonischen Limes. In: Limes
Romanus Konferenz Nitra. Bratislava, 49–61.
Kubín, P. 2002: Římskoprovinciální spony starší doby
římské z Moravy a naddunajské části Dolního
 Rakouska. Nepublikovaný rukopis diplomové
práce, Univerzita Karlova, Filozofická Fakulta.
Praha.
Kühlborn, J.-S. 1995: Der augusteische
Militärstützpunkt Haltern. In: Kühlborn, J.-S.,
Germaniam pacavi – Germanien habe ich be-
friedet. Archäologische StäÃen augusteischer
Okkupation. Münster, 82–102.
Kunow, J. 1983: Der römische Import in der Germania
libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen:
Studien zu Bronze- und Glasgefäßen.
Neumünster.
Künzl, E. 1993: Die Alamannenbeute aus dem Rhein
bei Neupotz. Plünderungsgut aus dem römi-
schen Gallien. Monographien des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 34.
Bonn.
Kuzma, I. 1995: LuÌbildarchäologie in der Slowakei.
Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land
Brandenburg 3, 251–258.
Kuzma, I. – Blažová, E. – Bartík, M. – Rajtár,
J. 2001: Letecká prospekcia na Slovensku.
Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 2000, 112–125.
Kuzma, I. – Rajtár, J. – Tirpák, J. 1996: Zisťovací
výskum v Mužli-Jurskom Chlme.
Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 1994, 116–120.
Kuzmová, K. 1997a: Terra Sigillata im Vorfeld des
nordpannonischen Limes. Archaeologica
Slovaca Monographiae, Fontes XVI. Nitra.
Kuzmová, K. 1997b: PoÃery from the Earth-and-
Timber Fort at Iža, Bridgehead of Brigetio. Rei
Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 35, 45–49.
Kuzmová, K. 2016: Römisch-germanische
Beziehungen im Vorland des nordpanno-
nischen Limes im Lichte der Sigillaten. In:
Voss, H.-U. – Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.):
Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren.
Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer
Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts
n.  Ch. im Reich und im Barbaricum – ausge-
wählte Beispiele (Gefässe, Fibeln, Bestandteile
militärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät,
Münzen). Teil 2. Internationales Kolloquium,
Frankfurt am Main, 19.–22. März 2009.
Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Bd.
22/2. Bonn, 925–931.
Kuzmová, K. – Rajtár, J. 1986: Anfänge des
Römerlagers in Iža. Archeologické rozhledy
38, 358–377, 459–462.
Kuzmová, K. – Rajtár, J. 1993: Das Holz-Erde-Lager
in Iža und seine Bautechnik. In: Actes du
XIIe Congres International des Sciences
Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques 3.
Bratislava, 331–337.
Kuzmová, K. – Roth, P. 1988: Terra sigillata v barba-
riku. Nálezy z germánskych sídlisk a  pohre-
bísk na území Slovenska (Terra sigillata
im Barbarikum. Funde aus germanischen
Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern im Gebiet der
Slowakei). Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca
IX. Nitra.
Lassère, J.-M. 1991: Biographie d’un centurion (C.I.L.
VIII,217–218). Antiquités africaines 27, 53–68.
Lauermann, E. 2017: Zum Forschungsstand
der römischen Kaiserzeit und der
Völkerwanderungszeit im norddanubischen
Niederösterreich. In: Na hranicích impéria.
Extra fines imperii. Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80.
narozeninám. Brno, 235–254.
Leenen, S. – Berner – Maus, S. – Mölders, D. (Hrsg.)
2019: Pest!: eine Spurensuche: 20. September
2019 – 10. Mai 2020, LWL-Museum für
Archäologie, Westfälisches Landesmuseum
Herne. Darmstadt.
Lehner, H. 1930: Römische Steindenkmäler von der
Bonner Münsterkirche. Bonner Jahrbücher
135, 1–48.
Lenďáková, Z. – Bábek, O. – Komoróczy, B. –
Vlach, M. – Hüssen, C.-M. – Rajtár, J. 2020:
Petrophysical and geochemical characteriza-
tion of sediments filling V-shaped ditches of
Roman camps in Moravia, Czech Republic:
Filling processes and the role of pedogene-
sis. Geoarchaeology 2020, 1–19 (hÃps://doi.
org/10.1002/gea.21794).
Lenz, K.-H. 1999: Siedlungen der Römischen
Kaiserzeit auf der Aldenhovener PlaÃe.
Rheinische Ausgrabungen 45. Köln.
Leven, K.-H. 1997: Die Geschichte der
Infektionskrankheiten. Von der Antike bis ins
20. Jahrhundert. Landsberg/Lech.
Leven, K.-H. 2005: Von RaÃen und Menschen –
Pest, Geschichte und das Problem der ret-
rospektiven Diagnose. In: Meier, M. (Hrsg.):
Pest. Geschichte eines Menschheitstraumas.
StuÃgart, 11–32.
Leven, K.-H. 2011: Die „Justinianische Pest“. In:
Meier, M. (Hrsg.): Justinian. Neue Wege der
Forschung. Darmstadt, 216–249.
Lind, L. 1981: Roman denarii found in Sweden 2.
Catalogue text. Stockholm.
281 |
Lippert, A. – Dembski, G. 2000: Keltische und rö-
mische Paßopfer am Mallnitzer Tauern.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblaà 30,
251–268.
Lisá, L. – Komoróczy, B. – Vlach, M. – Válek, D. –
Bajer, A. – Kovárník, J. – Rajtár, J. – Hüssen,
C. M – Šumberová, J. 2015: How were the ditch-
es filled? Sedimentological and micromorpo-
hological classification of formation process-
es within graben-like archaeological objects.
Quarternary International 370, 66–76.
Li¹man, R. J. – Li¹man, M. L. 1973: Galen and
the Antonine plague. American Journal of
Philology 94, 243–255.
Lo Cascio, E. 1991: Fra equilibrio e crisi. In: Clemente,
G. – Coarelli, F. – Gabba, E. (eds.): Storia di
Roma. Volume secondo: L’impero mediter-
raneo, tomo II: I principi e il mondo. Turin,
701–732.
Lo Cascio, E. (ed.) 2012: L’impaÃo della “Peste
Antonina”. Bari.
Loomba, A. 1998: Colonialism/Postcolonialism.
London – New York.
Lorenz, Ch. 1998: Can Histories be True? Narrativism,
Positivism, and the ‘Methaporical Turn’.
History and Theory 37, 3, 309–329.
Lőrincz, B. 1989: Cohors quingenaria Maurorum.
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 41, 257–263.
Lőrincz, B. 1994: Die Truppenbewegungen
am pannonischen Limes während der
Markomannenkriege. In: Friesinger,  H.
– Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.):
Markomannenkriege – Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 51–57.
Lőrincz, B. 2000: Legio II Italica. In: Le Bohec,
Y. (ed.): Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-
Empire. Actes du Congrès du Lyon (17–19 sep-
tembre 1998). Tome 1. Lyon, 145–149.
Lőrincz, B. 2001: Die Hilfstruppen in Pannonien
während der Prinzipatszeit. Wien.
Lőrincz, B. 2005: Zu den Besatzungen der
Auxiliarkastelle in Ostpannonien. In:
Mirković, M. (Hrsg.): Römische Städte und
Festungen an der Donau vom 1. bis zum 5.
Jahrhundert. Akten der regionalen Konferenz,
Beograd 16.–19. Oktober 2003. Beograd, 51–66.
Lund Hansen, U. 1987: Römischer Import im Norden.
Warenaustausch zwischen dem Römischen
Reich und dem freien Germanien während der
| 282
Kaiserzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
Nordeuropas. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serie B,
Bd. 10. København.
MacCallum, F. O. – McDonald, J. R. 1957: Survival
of Variola Virus in raw CoÃon. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization 16, 247–254.
MacMullen, R. 1963: The Roman concept robber-pre-
tender. Revue Internationale des Droits de
l’Antiquité 10, 221–225.
MacMullen, R. 1966: Enemies of the Roman Order:
Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire.
Cambridge.
MacMullen, R. 1974: Roman Social Relations 50 B.C.
to A.D. 284. New Haven.
Mączyńska, M. 2016: Emailscheibenfibeln und
Kniefibeln mit halbrunder KopfplaÃe. In:
Voss, H.-U. – Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.):
Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren.
Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer
Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n.
Ch. im Reich und im Barbaricum – ausgewähl-
te Beispiele (Gefässe, Fibeln, Bestandteile mi-
litärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen).
Teil 1. Internationales Kolloquium, Frankfurt
am Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Kolloquien
zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/1. Bonn,
453–463.
Mączyńska, M. – Rudnicka, D. 2004: Ein Grab mit
römischen Importen aus Czarnówko. Kr.
Lębork (Pommern). Germania 82, 397–429.
Madsen, J. M. 2014: Patriotism and Ambitions:
Intellectual Response to Roman Rule in the
High Empire. In: Madsen, M. J. – Rees, R.
(eds.): Roman Rule in Greek and Latin Writing:
Double Vision. Leiden – Boston, 16–38.
Madyda-Legutko, R. 1986: Die Gürtelschnallen
der Römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen
Völkerwanderungszeit im miÃeleuropäischen
Barbaricum. BAR International Series 360.
Oxford.
Maier-Weber, U. 1989: Ein römischer Gutshof
am Gillbach: Die „villa rustica“ von
Rommerskirchen – NeÃesheim-Butzheim.
Neuss.
Manley, J. 2013: Measles and Ancient Plagues: A Note
on New Scientific Evidence. Classical World
107, no. 2, 393–397.
Mann, J. 1974: The northern frontier aÌer AD 369.
Glasgow Archaeological Journal 3, 34–42.
Mann, J. C. 1963: The Raising of New Legions during
the Principate. Hermes 91, 483–489.
Manning, W. H. – Sco¹, I. R. 1979: Roman Timber
Military Gateways in Britain and on the
German Frontier. Britannia 10, 19–61.
Marcone, A. 2002: La peste antonina: testimonianze
e interpretazioni. Rivista storica italiana 114,
803–819.
Marinovic, M. 2004: The roster of VII Claudia legion.
ZeitschriÌ für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
146, 211–220.
Márki, S. 1892: Aradvármegye és Arad szabad királyi
város monographiája. Arad.
Marsina, R. (ed.) 1998: Pramene k dejinám Slovenska
a Slovákov. Sv. 1. Územie Slovenska pred prí-
chodom Slovanov. Bratislava.
Martin, M. 2004: Childerichs Denare – zum
Rückström römischer Silbermünzen
ins Merowingerreich. In: Friesinger, H.
– Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.): Zentrum und
Peripherie. GesellschaÌliche Phänomene
in der Frühgeschichte. Materialien
des 13. Internationalen Symposiums
„Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen
Entwicklung im miÃleren Donauraum“ ZweÃl,
4.–8. Dezember 2000. MiÃeilungen der prähis-
torischen Kommission der Österreichischen
Akademie der WissenschaÌen 57. Wien,
241–278.
Marvin, W. T. R. 1912: Notes on Coin-Finds. American
Journal of Numismatics XLVI/1, 35–36.
Maxwell, G. S. 1991: Springboards for invasion: mar-
ching-camp concentrations and coastal instal-
lations in Roman Scotland. In: Maxfield, V. A.
– Dobson, M. J. (eds.): Roman Frontier Studies
1989. Proceedings of the XVth International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Exeter,
111–113.
McCormick, M. – Büntgen, U. – Cane, M. A. –
Cook, E. R. – Harper, K. – Huybers, P. –
Li¹, T. – Manning, S. W. – Mayewski, P. A.
– More, A. F. M. – Nicolussi, K. – Tegel, W.
2012: Climate Change during and aÌer the
Roman Empire: Reconstructing the Past from
Scientific and Historical Evidence. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 43/2, 169–220.
McGing, B. 1998: Bandits, Real and Imagined, in
Greco-Roman Egypt. The Bulletin of the
American Society of Papyrologists 35, 159–183.
McGlew, J. F. 1993: Tyranny and Political Culture in
Ancient Greece. New York.
McLynn, F. 2009: Marcus Aurelius. Warrior,
Philosopher, Emperor. London.
McNeill, W. H. 1976: Plagues and Peoples. New York.
Medgyes, M. 1981: Grabstein der Familie
Caesius und ein spätrömisches Grab aus
Chernelházadamonya. Savaria 15, 199–207.
Meid, W. 2005: Die keltischen Personennamen in
Pannonien. Archaeolingua, Series minor 20.
Budapest.
Meiggs, R. 1973: Roman Ostia. Oxford.
Meller, H. – Schefzik, M. (Hrsg.) 2015: Krieg. Eine
archäologische Spurensuche. Begleitband zur
Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für
Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale). Halle (Saale).
Merkelbach, R. – Stauber, J. 1996: Die Orakel des
Apollon von Klaros. Epigraphica Anatolica 27,
1–53.
Meyer, M. 2013: Romanisierung? Überlegungen
zum römischen Einfluss auf die kaiser-
zeitliche Germania Magna. In: Rubel, A.
(Hrsg.): Imperium und Romanisierung. Neue
Forschungsansätze aus Ost und West zu
Ausübung, Transformation und Akzeptanz
von HerrschaÌ im Römischen Reich.
Konstanz, 57–72.
Michels, Ch. 2017: Usurpation und Prinzipatsordnung
unter Antonius Pius und Marc Aurel. In:
Grieb, V. (Hrsg.): Marc Aurel – Wege zu seiner
HerrschaÌ. GuÃenberg, 23–48.
Michels, Ch. – Mi¹ag, P. F. (Hrsg.) 2017: Jenseits des
Narrativs. Antoninus Pius in den nicht-litera-
rischen Quellen. StuÃgart.
Miks, Ch. 2007: Studien zur römischen
Schwertbewaffnung in der Kaiserzeit. Kölner
Studien zur Archäologie der römischen
Provinzen, Band 8. Rahden.
Miletz, J. 1876: Temes- és Arad-vármegyék történelmi
és régészeti emlékei. Történelmi és Régészeti
Értesítő. A Délmagyarországi Történelmi és
Régészeti Társulat Közlönye 2/IV, 165–188.
Milne, J. 1928: Egyptian Nationalism under Greek
and Roman Rule. Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 14, 226–234.
van Minen, P. 2001: P. Oxy. LXVI 4527 and the
Antonine plague in the Fayyum. ZeitschriÌ
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 175–177.
Minor, C. E. 1975: ‘Bagaudae’ or ‘Bacaudae’? Traditio
31, 318–322.
Minor, C. E. 1996: Bacaudae: A Reconsideration.
Traditio 51, 297–307.
283 |
Mircovic, M. 1977: Einheimische Bevölkerung und
römische Städte in der Provinz Obermösien.
In: Temporini, H. (Hrsg.): Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt, II,6. Berlin,
811–848.
Mitchell, St. – French, D. 2012: The Greek and Latin
inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra). Volume I:
From Augustus to the end of the third centu-
ry AD. München.
Mitrofan, D. 2014: The Antonine plague in Dacia and
Moesia inferior. Journal of Ancient History
and Archaeology 1(2), 9–13.
Mitscha-Märheim, H. 1967: Römische Baureste und
Münzen im nördlichen Niederösterreich.
Jahrbuch für Landeskunde von
Niederösterreich 37, 1965–1967, 1–12.
Mitscha-Märheim, H. – von Nischer-Falkenhof,
E. 1929: Der Oberleiseberg, ein Zentrum
vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Besiedlung:
Bericht über die in den Jahren 1925 bis
1928 mit Unterstützung der Akademie der
WissenschaÌen in Wien durchgeführten
Arbeiten. MiÃeilungen der Prähistorischen
Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie
der WissenschaÌen, II/5. Wien 391–438.
Mi¹ag, P. F. 2009: Processus consularis, adventus
und HerrschaÌsjubiläum. Zur Verwendung
von Triumphalsymbolik in der miÃleren
Kaiserzeit. Hermes 137, 447–462.
Mi¹hof, F. 2015: Exercitus qui Laugaricione sedit: 855
oder 2855 Mann? Tyche 30, 252–254.
Mócsy, A. 1958: Die spätrömische Schiffslände in
Contra Florentiam. Folia archaeologica 10,
89–104.
Mócsy, A. 1959: Die Bevölkerung von Pannonien bis
zu den Markomannenkriegen. Budapest.
Mócsy, A. 1962: Pannonia. In: Pauly-Wissowa
Realencyclopädie der classischen
AltertumswissenschaÌ (PWRE) IX Suppl.
StuÃgart, 515–776.
Mócsy, A. 1969: Pannonia-Forschung 1964–1968.
Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 21, 340–375.
Mócsy, A. 1974: Pannonia and Upper Moesia.
A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of
the Roman Empire. London.
Mócsy, A. 1990: Lakosság és társadalom. In: Mócsy,
A. – Fitz, J. (szerk.): Pannonia régészeti kézi-
könyve. Budapest, 237–242.
Mócsy, A. 1992: Das Gerücht von neuen Provinzen
| 284
unter Marcus Aurelius. In: Mócsy, A.:
Pannonien und das römische Heer.
Ausgewählte Aufsätze. StuÃgart, 19–25.
Mócsy, A. – Szentléleky, T. (Hrsg.) 1971: Die römi-
schen Steindenkmäler von Savaria. Budapest.
Modrijan, W. 1959–1961: 150 Jahre Joanneum – 150
Jahre Forschungen in Flavia Solva. Stand und
Aufgaben der Forschungen in Solva. Schild
von Steier 9, 13–25.
Mommsen, Th. 1885: Römische Geschichte, Bd. 5.
2. Auflage. Berlin.
Mommsen, Th. 1906: Der Marcomanen-Krieg unter
Kaiser Marcus. In: Mommsen, Th. (Hrsg.):
Historische SchriÌen, Bd. 6. Berlin, 487–497.
Mommsen, Th. 1992: Römische Kaisergeschichte:
nach den VorlesungsmitschriÌen von
Sebastian und Paul Hensel 1882/86. München.
Monti, E. 2000: Marc Aurel. Kaiser aus Pflicht.
Regensburg.
Mosser, M. 2007: Die Kasernen der ersten Kohorte im
Legionslager Vindobona. Unveröffentlitche
Dissertationsarbeit. Wien.
Mosser, M. 2008a: Eine Translatio cadaveris in der
NachbarschaÌ des M. Antonius Tiberianus
in Vindobona. Ausgrabungen in der römi-
schen Zivilstadt von Vindobona (Grabung
Wien 3., Rennweg 16 im Jahr 2005). In:
Grabherr, G. – Kainrath, B. (Hrsg.): Akten
des 11. Österreichischen Archäologentages
in Innsbruck. 23.–25. März 2006. IKARUS 3.
Innsbruck, 183–194.
Mosser, M. 2008b: Wien 1, Hoher Markt. Fundort
Wien 11, 328–331.
Mosser, M. 2011: Das Legionslager Vindobona – Wien
zwischen Spätantike und FrühmiÃelalter.
In: Konrad, M. – Witschel, Ch. (Hrsg.):
Römische Legionslager in den Rhein- und
Donauprovinzen – Nuclei spätantik-früh-
miÃelalterlichen Lebens? Abhandlungen der
Bayerischen Akademie der WissenschaÌen N.
F. 138. München, 475–504.
Mosser, M. – Adler-Wölfl A. 2015: Die Legionsziegelei
von Vindobona im 17. Wiener Gemeindebezirk.
Fundort Wien 18, 50–93.
Mosser, M. – Adler-Wölfl, K. –Binder, M. 2010:
Die römischen Kasernen im Legionslager
Vindobona. Die Ausgrabungen am Judenplatz
in Wien in den Jahren 1995–1998. Monografien
der Stadtarchäologie Wien 5. Wien.
Mosser, M. – Adler-Wölfl, K. – Czeika, S. – Gaisbauer, I.
 – Radbauer, S. – Sedlmayer,  H. 2012: Befunde
im Legionslager Vindobona. Teil VII: Der
Abwasserkanal der via praetoria – Wien 1,
Wipplingerstraße 6 (Altes Rathaus). Fundort
Wien 15, 74–118.
Mosser, M. – Krause, H. 2014: Vom Valetudinarium
über das Benefiziatenhaus der Salvatorkapelle
zum Alten Rathaus – Die Grabungen in Wien
1, Wipplinger-straße 6–8. Fundort Wien 17,
4–21.
Mosser, M. – Kronberger, M. – Pregesbauer, M.
2010: 3D-Laserscanning in two Sites of
Ancient Vindobona. In: Ausserer, K. F. –
Bodó, S. (Hrsg.): Vindobona – Aquincum.
Herausforderungen und Ergebnisse in der
Stadtarchäologie. Aquincum nostrum II.6.
Budapest, 55–60.
Müller, M. 2000: Römische und neuzeitliche Funde
aus Wien 3, Eslarngasse 20. Zur Befstigung
der Zivilstadt von Vindobona. Fundort Wien
3, 76–102.
Musil, J. 1993: Gestempelte römische Ziegel vom
Burgstall bei Mušov, Mähren. Archaeologia
Austriaca 77, 89–103.
Musil, J. 2000: Dočasné římské tábory v literár-
ních a  archeologických pramenech. Studia
Hercynia IV, 103–130.
Neumann, A. 1951: Ausgrabungen und
Funde im Wiener Stadtgebiet 1948/49.
Veröffentlichungen des Historischen Museums
der Stadt Wien. Wien.
Neumann, A. 1965: Spital und Bad des Legionslagers
Vindobona. Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 12,
99–117.
Neumann, A. 1967: Forschungen in Vindobona 1948
bis 1967. I. Teil. Lager und Lagerterritorium.
Der Römische Limes in Österreich 23. Wien.
Neumann, A. 1973: Ziegel aus Vindobona. Der
Römische Limes in Österreich 27. Wien.
Neumann, A. 1980: Vindobona. Die römische
Vergangenheit Wiens. Wien – Köln – Graz.
Nijakowski, L. M. 2014: Rozkosz zemsty: socjo-
logia historyczna mobilizacji ludobójczej.
Warszawa.
von Nischer-Falkenhof, E. – Mitscha-Märheim,  H.
1931: Die römische Station bei Niederleis
und abschließende Untersuchungen
auf dem Oberleiserberge. MiÃeilungen
der Prähistorischen Kommission
der Österreichischen Akademie der
WissenschaÌen, II/6, 399–469.
Nishura, H. – Kashiwagi, T. 2009: Smallpox and
Season: Reanalysis of Historical Data.
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious
Diseases vol. 2009, 1–10.
Noll, R. 1954: Zur Vorgeschichte der
Markomannenkriege. Archaeologia Austriaca
14, 43–66.
Novosedlík, P. 1994: Cífer-Pác, okr. Trnava. In:
Kolníková, E. – Hunka, J. (eds.): Nálezy mincí
na Slovensku IV. Nitra, 62.
Nuber, H. U. 1973: Kanne und Griffschale. Ihr
Gebrauch im täglichen Leben und die Beigabe
in Gräbern der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bericht
der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 53,
1–232.
Ober, J. 2003: Tyrant Killing as Therapeutic Stasis:
A Political Debate in Images and Texts. In:
Morgan, K. A. (ed.): Popular Tyranny. Austin,
215–250.
Oexle, J. 1997: Der WeÃinerschatz im Walde.
Archäologie in Deutschland, HeÌ 1, 36.
Okamura, L. 1988: Social Disturbances in Late Roman
Gaul: Deserters, Rebels, and Bagaudae. In:
Yuge, T. – Doi, M. (eds.): Forms of Control and
Subordination in Antiquity. Tokyo, 288–301.
Okamura, L. 1990: Coin Hoards and Frontier Forts,
Problems of Interpretation. In: VeÃers, H. –
Kandler, M. (Hrsg.): Akten des 14. internati-
onalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum.
Der Römische Limes in Österreich 36, Wien,
45–48.
Olędzki, M. 2007: Roman knee fibulae with a semi-
circular plate on the head from present-day
Poland. In: Droberjar, E. – Chvojka, O. (eds.):
Archeologie barbarů 2006. Příspěvky z II.
protohistorické konference České Budějovice,
21.–24.11. 2006, Sv. 1. Archeologické výzkumy
v jižních Čechách. Supplementum 3. České
Budějovice, 113–117.
Olędzki, M. 2008: Czas przemian: Barbaricum
między Bałtykiem a środkowym Dunajem
w dobie wojen markomańskich. Łódź.
Olędzki, M. 2011: Wojny markomańskie 162–185 n. e.
Warszawa.
Olędzki, M. 2014: The Causes of the Outburst
of Marcomannic Wars. In: Bartík, J. (ed.):
Stĺp Marca Aurelia a stredné Podunajsko.
Štúdie (Column of Marcus Aurelius and
the Middle Danube Area. Studies). Zborník
Slovenského národného múzea – Archeológia
285 |
 Supplementum 8, 101–106.
Oliva, P. 1979: Zur Bedeutung der
Markomannenkriege. In: Klein, R. (Hrsg.):
Marc Aurel. Wege der Forschung Bd. 550.
Darmstadt, 119–131.
Oliva, P. 1986: Marcomannia Provincia? Studii clasi-
ce 24, 125–129.
Oliver, J. H. 1984: Greek constitutions of early Roman
Emperors from inscriptions and papyri.
American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia.
Ölvecky, R. 2014: Rímsky mocenský zásah v stre-
dodunajskom barbariku v období marko-
manských vojen. Nepublikovaná dizertačná
práce, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Bratislava.
Ondrouch, V. 1938: Limes romanus na Slovensku.
Bratislava.
Ondrouch, V. 1957: Bohaté hroby z doby rimskej na
Slovensku. Bratislava.
Ortisi, S. 2001: Die Stadtmauer der raetischen
Provinzhauptstadt Aelia Augusta – Augsburg.
Die Grabungen Lange Gasse 11, Auf dem Kreuz
58, Heilig-Kreuz-Str. 26 und 4. Augsburger
Beiträge zur Archäologie Bd. 2. Augsburg.
Ortisi, S. 2012: Die Markomannenkriege im ar-
chäologischen Befund. In: van Ackeren, M.
– Opsomer, J. (Hrsg.): Selbstbetrachtungen
und Selbstdarstellungen. Der Philosoph und
Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht.
Akten des Interdisziplinären Kolloquiums
Köln 23. bis 25. Juli 2009. SchriÌen des Lehr-
und Forschungszentrums für die antiken
Kulturen des MiÃelmeerraumes – Centre
for Mediterranean Cultures (ZAKMIRA).
Wiesbaden, 331–339.
Paine, R. R. 2000: If a population crashes in prehis-
tory, and there is no paleodemographer there
to hear it, does it make a sound? American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 112 (2),
181–190.
Paine, R. R. – Storey, G. R. 2012: The Alps as a Barrier
to Epidemic Disease During the Republican
Period: Implication for the Dynamic of
Disease in Rome. In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.):
L´ImpaÃo della Peste Antotina. Bari, 179–191.
Pankowská, A. – Kalábek, M. 2011: Pohřeb dítěte
v zásypu příkopu krátkodobého římského
tábora u Hulína a Pravčič. In: Droberjar,
E. (ed.): Archeologie barbarů 2010. Hroby
a  pohřebiště Germánů mezi Labem
a  Dunajem. Studia Archaeologica Suebica I.
Olomouc, 117–120.
| 286
Parain, Ch. 1962: Marek Aureliusz. Warszawa.
Pavan, M. 1979: Presenze di militari nel territorio di
Aquileia In: Il territorio di Aquileia nell’an-
tichità, AÃi della IX SeÃimana di Studi
Aquileiesi, 22–28 aprile 1978. Udine, 461–513.
Pavan, M. 1991: Dall’Adriatico al Danubio. Padova.
Perdrizet, P. 1903: Une inscription d’Antioche qui re-
produit un oracle d’Alexander d’Abonotichos.
Comptes-rendus des séances de l‘Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles-LeÃres, 47e année
N. 1, janvier, 62–66.
Peretz, D. 2005: Military Burial and the Identification
of the Roman Fallen Soldiers. Klio 87, 123–138.
Peška, J. – Šrámek, F. 2004: Krátkodobý polní
tábor z doby římské v Olomouci-Neředíně.
Archeologické centrum Olomouc, ročenka
2003. Olomouc, 127–136.
Peška, J. – Tejral, J. 2002a: Das germanische
Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren, Teil 1–3.
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Monographien 55. Mainz am Rhein.
Peška, J. – Tejral, J. 2002b: Gesamtinterpretation
des Königgrabes von Mušov. In: Peška,
J. – Tejral, J. (Hrsg.): Das germanische
Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren. Teil 2.
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Monographien 55. Mainz am Rhein, 501–513.
Peška, J. – Vránová, V. – Šrámek, F. 2005: Olomouc
(k.  ú. Neředín, okr. Olomouc). Přehled
výzkumů 46 (2004), 270–272.
Peškař, I. 1972: Fibeln aus der römischen Kaiserzeit
in Mähren. Praha.
Petersen, E. – von Domaszewski, A. – Calderini,
G. (Hrsg.) 1896: Die Marcus-Säule auf Piazza
Colonna in Rom. München.
von Petrikovtis, H. 1975: Die Innenbauten römischer
Legionslager während der Prinzipatszeit.
Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfalischen
Akademie der WissenschaÌen Bd. 36.
Opladen.
Petrovitsch, H. 2006: Legio II Italica. Forschungen
in Lauriacum 13. Linz.
Petru, S. 1972: Emonske nekropole (odkrite med leti
1635–1960). Ljubljana.
Pflaum, H.-G. 1955: Deux carrières équestres de
Lambèse et de Zana (Diana Veteranorum).
Libyca 3, 123–154.
Pflaum, H.-G. 1960–1961: Les carrières
 procuratoriennes équestres sous le haut-em-
pire Romain. Paris.
Picard, G. Ch. 1985: La révolte de Maternus. Bulletin
de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de
France. Paris, 77–84.
Picco¹ini, G. 1994: Mithrastempel in Virunum. Aus
Forschung und Kunst 28. Klagenfurt.
Pieta, K. 1996: Liptovská Mara. Ein frühgeschicht-
liches Zentrum der Nordslowakei. Bratislava.
Pieta, K. 1998: Die frühen norisch-pannoni-
schen Handelsbeziehungen mit dem nördli-
chen MiÃeldonaugebiet. In: Čižmářová, J. –
Měchurová, Z. (eds.): Peregrinatio Gothica.
Jantarová stezka. Supplementum ad Acta
Musei Moraviae 82. Brno, 45–61.
Pieta, K. – Plachá, V. 1999: Die ersten römer im
nördlichen MiÃeldonauraum im Lichte neuen
Grabungen in Devín. In: Fischer, Th. – Precht,
G. – Tejral, J. (Hrsg.): Germanen beiderseits
des spätantiken Limes. Spisy Archeologického
ústavu AV ČR Brno 14. Brno, 179–205.
Piso, I. 1993: Fasti Provinciae Daciae I. Die sena-
torischen Amtsträger. Antiquitas Rheie 1:
Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 43. Bonn.
Piso, I. 2012: Die Lauùahn des T. Flavius T. fil.
Palatina Priscus Gallonius Fronto Q. Marcius
Turbo und seine Aufgaben im dakischen
und im mauretanischen Raum. Studia
Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai 57, 1, 90–100.
Piso, I. 2013: Fasti provinciae Daciae 2. Die rit-
terlichen Amtsträger. Antiquitas Rheie 1:
Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 60. Bonn.
Pi¹s, L. F. 1989: Relations between Rome and the
German “Kings” on the Middle Danube in the
First to Fourth Centuries A.D. The Journal of
Roman Studies 79, 45–58.
Plassart, A. 1932: Une levée de volontaires Thespiens
sous Marc Aurèle. In: Mélanges en ľhonneur
de Gustave Glotz, II. Paris, 731–738.
Polański, T. 1999: Oriens militans. Extreme
Traditionalist Movements in the Provincial
Populace of the Ptolemaic Egypt and
Their Ideology. Studies in Ancient Art and
Civilization 9, 23–48.
Polański, T. 2006: Boukoloi Banditry: Greek
Perspectives on Native Resistance. Gräzer
Beiträge 25, 229–248.
Pollak, M. 1980: Die germanischen Bodenfunde
des 1.–4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im nördlichen
Niederösterreich. Wien.
Pollak, M. 2009: Frühgeschichtliche Siedlungen
an der unteren March, Niederösterreich –
Kontinuität einer KulturlandschaÌ. Přehled
výzkumů 50, 153–179.
Pollard, N. – Berry, J. 2012: The Complete Roman
Legions. London.
Porod, B. – Kraschitzer, J. – Neuhauser, T. – Zöhrer, K. –
Glöckner, G. – Peitler, K. 2007: Untersuchungen
der Abteilung Provinzialrömische Sammlung
& Antikenkabineà am Landesmuseum
Joanneum im Bereich der Insula XI von Flavia
Solva 2007. Schild von Steier 20, 191–213.
Po¹ier, B. 2011: Peut-on parler de révoltes populaires
dans l’Antiquité tardive? Bagaudes et histo-
rie sociale de la Gaule des IVe et Ve siècles.
Mélanges de l‘école française de Rome 123, 1,
433–465.
Prell, M. 2009: Brückenforschung in bayeri-
schen Flüssen. Bericht der Bayerischen
Bodendenkmalpflege 50, 193–207.
von Premerstein, A. 1911: Das lakedaimonische
Bundeskontingent. Klio 11, 358–366.
Priwitzer, S. 2017: Marc Aurel und der
Doppelprinzipat. In: Grieb, W. (Hrsg.): Marc
Aurel – Wege zu seiner HerrschaÌ. Gutenberg,
1–22.
Prohászka, P. 2016: Die römischen Goldmünzen
des 1.–3. Jahrhunderts im Barbaricum des
Karpatenbeckens (von Augustus bis Carinus).
In: Voss, H.-U. – Müller-Scheeßel, N. (Hrsg.):
Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren.
Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer
Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jh. n. Chr. im
Reich und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte
Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militä-
rischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil
1. Beiträge des Internationalen Kolloquiums
in Frankfurt am Main vom 19.–22. März 2009.
Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 22/1.
Bonn 161–173.
Quast, D. 2009: Wanderer zwischen den Welten. Die
germanischen Prunkgräber von Stráže und
Zakrzów. Mainz.
Quast, D. 2016: Die römischen Importgefässe der
Prunkgräber aus Wrocław-Zakrzów und
Krakovany-Stráže. In: Voss, H.-U. – Müller-
Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwischen
Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und
Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2.
und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich und im
Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefässe,
Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung,
Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil 1. Internationales
Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main, 19.–22. März
287 |
 2009. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Bd. 22/1. Bonn, 333–344.
Rabitsch, J. 2014: Die Insula XXII von Flavia Solva.
Kleinfunde und Befunde aus den Grabungen
der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz und des
Universalmuseums Joanneum von 2009 bis
2010. Schild von Steier 26 (2013/2014), 324–343.
Raddatz, K. 1957: Der Thorsberger Moorfund.
Gürtelteile und Körperschmuck. Offa-Bücher
13. Neumünster.
Radnóti, A. – Gabler, D. 1982: Die Ausgrabungen
von Rusovce (Oroszvár) 1942–1943.
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae.
Budapest, 47–71.
Rajtár, J. 1992a: Rímske poľné tábory v Iži
a  v  Komárne-Veľkom Harčáši. Archeologické
výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1991,
97–99.
Rajtár, J. 1992b: Das Holz-Erde-Lager aus der Zeit der
Markomannenkriege in Iža. In: Godłowski,
K. – Madyda-Legutko, R. (Hrsg.): Probleme
der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab
Latènzeit bis zum FrühmiÃelalter. Materialen
des III. Internationalen Symposiums:
Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen
Entwicklung im nördlichen MiÃeldonaugebiet
Kraków-Karniowice 3.–7. Dezember 1990.
Kraków, 149–170.
Rajtár, J. 1996: Waffen und Ausrüstungsteile aus
dem Holz-Erde-Lager von Iža. In: van Driel-
Murray, C. (ed.): Military equipment in con-
text. Proceedings of the Ninth International
Roman Military Equipment Conference,
Leiden, 1994. Journal of Roman Military
Equipment Studies Vol. 5, 83–95.
Rajtár, J. 1998: Kríza rímsko-germánskych vzťahov
v stredodunajskej oblasti v 2. storočí.
Nepublikovaná kandidátska dizertácia,
Archeologický ústav SAV. Nitra.
Rajtár, J. 2002: Nuove testimonianze archeologiche
delle guerre dei Marcomanni a nord del medio
Danubio. In: Buora, M. – Jobst, W. (eds.): Roma
sul Danubio. Da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo
la via delľambra. Udine, 99–120.
Rajtár, J. 2008: Die Waagsrasse in der Slowakei.
Eine Vormarschroute der Römer während der
Markomannekriege? In: Kühlborn, J.-S. u. a.
(Hrsg.): Rom auf dem Weg nach Germanien:
Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen und Logistik.
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45. Mainz,
169–185.
Rajtár, J. 2009: Im Handstreich genommen. Der Fall
des Römerlagers von Iža. In: Varusschlacht im
| 288
Osnabrücker Land GmbH – Museum und Park
Kalkriese (Hrsg.): 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht –
Konflikt. Ausstellungskatalog Museum und
Park Kalkriese. StuÃgart, 126–127.
Rajtár, J. 2011: Rímsky poľný tábor vo Hviezdoslavove
a germánske sídlisko v Kvetoslavove.
Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 2008, 214–215.
Rajtár, J. 2013: Rímske poľné tábory v Cíferi.
Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 2009, 189–192.
Rajtár, J. 2014: Stĺp Marca Aurelia a archeologické
doklady o rímskych výpravách proti Kvádom
(Die Säule des Marcus Aurelius und die ar-
chäologischen Nachweise der römischen
Expeditionen gegen die Quaden). In: Bartík, J.
(ed.): Stĺp Marca Aurelia a stredné Podunajsko.
Štúdie (Column of Marcus Aurelius and
the Middle Danube Area. Studies). Zborník
Slovenského národného múzea – Archeológia
Supplementum 8, 107–140.
Rajtár, J. 2018: Die Fibeln vom Typ Almgren 43. In:
Nezabitowska-Wiśniewska, B. et al. (eds.):
Studia barbarica. Profesorowi Andrzejowi
Kokowskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin, Tom.
II. Lublin.
Rajtár, J. – Hüssen, C.-M. 2017: Römische Feldlager
aus der Zeit der Markomannenkriege in
der Slowakei. In: Hodgson, N. – Bidwell, P.
– Schachtmann, J. (eds.): Roman Frontiers
Studies 2009. Proceedings of the XXI
International Congress of Roman Frontiers
Studies (Limes Congress) held at Newcastle
upon Tyne in August 2009. Oxford, 537–544.
Rajtár, J. – Hüssen, C.-M. – Ölvecky, R. 2018:
Römische temporäre Lager im Quadenland
östlich der Kleinen Karpaten. In: Sommer, C.
S. – Matešić, S. (eds.): Limes XXIII – Akten
des 23. Internationalen Limeskongresses in
Ingolstadt 2015. Mainz, 286–295.
Rajtár, J. – Kolníková, E. – Kuzmová, K. 2017: K osíd-
leniu Chotína v době rímskej. In: Studia
Historica Nitrensia 21, Supplementum – Sedm
decénií Petra Romsauera. Nitra, 173–193.
Rajtár, J. – Tirpák, J. 1996: Rímske poľné tábory
v  Radvani nad Dunajom. Archeologické
výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1994,
144–147.
Rajtár, J. – Tirpák, J. 2008: Rímsky poľný tábor
vo Hviezdoslavove. Archeologické výskumy
a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 2006, 126–127.
Rajtár, J. – Tirpák, J. 2013: Geofyzikálne merania
rímskeho poľného tábora vo Hviezdoslavove.
 Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku
v roku 2009, 171.
Rathbone, D. W. 1990: Villages, Land and Population
in Greaco-Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philological Society 36, 103–142.
Reddé, M. – Brulet, R. – Fellmann, R. – Haalebos,
J.-K. – von Schnurbein, S. 2006: Les
Fortifications militaires. L´architecture de la
Gaule romaine. Bordeaux.
Reece, R. 2008: Choosing denarii. In: Spinei, V. –
Munteanu, L. (eds.): Miscellanea numismati-
ca antiquitatis. In honorem septagenarii ma-
gistri Virgilii Mihailescu-Bîrliba oblate. Iaşi,
187–195.
Rémy, B. 2005: Antonin le Pieux: Le siècle d’or de
Rome (138–161). Paris.
Rezabek, F. W. 1896: Markomanskiia voiny. Zapiski
Imperatorskago Novorosiiskago Universiteta
68, 1–224.
Richier, O. 2004: Centuriones ad Rhenum. Les cen-
turions légionaires des armées romaines du
Rhin. Paris.
Rieckhoff, S. 1998: „Römische Schatzfunde“. Ein
historisches Phänomen aus prähistorischer
Sicht. In: Fritsch, B. – Maute, M. – Matuschik,
I. – Müller, J. – Wolf, C. (Hrsg.): Tradition
und Innovation. Prähistorische Archäologie
als historische WissenschaÌ. FestschriÌ für
Christian Strahm. Internationale Archäologie
– Studia honoraria 3. Rahden/Westfalen,
479–542.
Risy, R. 2014: Von Aelium Cetium nach St. Pölten.
In: Karl, Th. – Pulle, Th. – Risy, R. (Hrsg.):
St. Pölten. Kultur – Kunst – Natur. St. Pölten
kompakt 3, 14–61.
Ri¹erling, E. 1924–1925: Legio. In: Real-Encyclopädie
der classichen AltertumswissenschaÌ (RE)
XII, StuÃgart 1186–1839.
Robert, L. 1959: Inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie.
Revue de philology, de liÃérature et d’historie
anciennes 85, 165–236.
Robertson, A. 1970: Roman finds from non-Roman
sites in Scotland. Britannia 1, 198–226.
Robertson, A. S. 1988: Romano-British Coin Hoards.
Their numismatic, archaeological and histo-
rical Significance. In: Casey, J. – Reece, R.
(eds.): Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd edi-
tion. London, 13–38.
Rogers, L. 1926: Small-Pox and Climate in India:
Forecasting Epidemics. Medicinal Research
Council Special Report Series 106, 23.
Rogers, L. 1928: Small-Pox and Climate in England
and Wales. British Medical Journal vol. 1,
issue 3503, 300–302.
Roman, Y. 2013: Marc Aurèle. Lüempereur paradoxal.
Paris.
Rosenberger, V. 1992: Bella et expeditiones: die antike
Terminologie der Kriege Roms. Heidelberger
Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische
Studien, Bd. 12. StuÃgart.
Rossignol, B. 1999: La peste antonine (166 ap. J.–C.).
Hypothèses, 31–37.
Rossignol, B. 2012: Le climat, les famines et la guerre:
éléments du context de la peste Antonine. In:
Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L ’impaÃo della “Peste
Antonina”. Bari, 87–122.
Roth, J. 1999: The Logistics of the Roman Army at
War (264 B. C. – A.D. 235). Columbia studies
in the classical tradition 23. Leiden – Boston
– Köln.
Roymans, N. – Derks, T. (Hrsg.) 2011: Villa
Landscapes in the Roman North. Economy,
Culture and Lifestyles. Amsterdam.
Rubin, Z. 1995: Mass movements in Late Antiquity:
appearances and realities. In: Malkin, I. –
Rubinsohn, Z. W. (ed.): Leaders and Masses
in the Roman World: Studies in Honor of Zvi
Yavetz. Leiden – New York – Köln, 129–188.
Ruske, A. 2007: Die Carnuntiner Schatzfunde.
In: Alram, M. – Schmidt-Dick, F. (Hrsg.):
Numismata Carnuntina: Forschungen und
Material. Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit
in Österreich, Abteilung III, Niederösterreich,
Band 2. Die antiken Fundmünzen im Museum
Carnuntinum. Wien, 341–476.
Ruske, A. 2009: Der Zyklus eines Hortfundes.
Methodische Überlegungen zur Bildung,
Deponierung, Zusammensetzung und
Bergung von Münzhorten anhand des Beispiels
der antiken österreichischen Schatzfunde.
Numismatický sborník 24, 65–94.
Ruske, A. 2011: Die Fundregesten der anti-
ken Münzhorte aus Österreich. Eine
Zusammenstellung aller bekann-
ten Münzdepots anhand der Literatur.
Numismatische ZeitschriÌ 118, 53–181.
Rutherford, I. 2000: The Genealogy of the Boukoloi:
How Greek Literature Appropriated an
Egyptian Narrative-Motif. The Journal of
Hellenic Studies 120, 106–121.
289 |
Ru¹kay, M. 2004: Unikátny nález z doby rímskej
v Dvorech nad Žitavou. Archeologické výsku-
my a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 2003, 155–156.
Rzehak, A. 1918: Die römische Eisenzeit in Mähren.
Brünn.
Sakl-Oberthaler, S. 2011: Stadtarchäologische
Forschungen in Wien – Der Status quo.
Fundort Wien 14, 4–31.
Salač, V. 2016: Kvádové v nejstarších dějinách Čech
a střední Evropy (Quaden in der ältesten
Geschichte Böhmens und MiÃeleuropas).
Archeologické rozhledy 68, 477–531.
von Saldern, F. 2003: Studien zur Politik des
Commodus. Rahden/Westfalen.
Sardiello, R. 1997: Il Marco Aurelio di Giuliano
Imperatore. Rudiae 9, 257–268.
Saria, B. 1949: Österreichs unbekannteste
Römerstadt. Auf den Spuren von Aelium
Cetium, dem alten St. Pölten. Die Warte.
Beilage zur Österreichischen Furche Jahrgang
1949, Nr. 39.
Sarnowski, T. – Zubar, V. M. – Savelja, O. 1998:
Zum religiösen Leben der niedermoe-
sischen Vexillationen auf der Südkrim.
InschriÌenfunde aus dem neuentdeckten
Dolichenum von Balaklawa. Historia 47,
321–341.
Schachinger, U. 2014: Die Münzen aus der
BrandschuÃschicht II/II+ der Insula XLI
von Flavia Solva. In: Hinker, C. 2014:
Ein Brandhorizont aus der Zeit der
Markomannenkriege im südostnorischen
Munizipium Flavia Solva. Zentraleuropäische
Archäologie 4. Wien, 121–127.
Schäfer, A. 2011: Die südliche Vorstadt des römi-
schen Köln. Der Limes 5/2011, HeÌ 2, 14–17.
Schäfer, A. – Bernhardt, H. 2015: Eine römische
GlashüÃe an der Tel-Aviv-Straße. Archäologie
im Rheinland, 145–147.
Schalles, H.-J. – Willer, S. (Hrsg.) 2009: Marcus
Caelius. Tod in der Varusschlacht. Kataloge
des Römermuseums im Archäologischen
Park Xanten Bd. 3. Kataloge des Rheinischen
Landesmuseums Bonn Bd. 11. Darmstadt
2009.
Schallmayer, E. 1995: Der Augsburger Siegesaltar:
Zeugnis einer unruhigen Zeit. Saalburg-
SchriÌen 2. Bad Homburg von der Höhe,
22–23.
Schallmayer, E. 2010: Der Odenwaldlimes: Entlang
| 290
der römischen Grenze zwischen Main und
Neckar. StuÃgart.
Scheidel, W. 2002: A Model of Demographic and
Economic Change in Roman Egypt aÌer
the Antonine Plague. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 15, 97–114.
Scheidel, W. 2012: Roman wellbeing and the eco-
nomic consequences of the Antonine Plague.
In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L ’impaÃo della “Peste
Antonina”. Bari, 265–295.
Scherrer, P. 1994: Der große Markomanneneinfall
des Jahres 170 und seine Folgen im Lichte der
neuen Ausgrabungen in Aelium Cetium/St.
Pölten. In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner,
A. (Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege – Ursachen
und Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického
ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 447–455.
Scherrer, P. – Kronberger, M. – Szaivert, W. 2002:
Cetium. In: Šašel – Kos, M. – Scherrer, P.
(Hrsg.): Noricum. Die autonomen Städte in
Noricum und Pannonien. Situla 40. Ljubljana,
213–244.
Scheuerbrandt, J. 2012: Zu Steinausbauphase
des Odenwaldlimes – Das Bauprogramm
von 145/156 n. Chr. In: Schallmayer, E.
(Hrsg.): Der Odenwaldlimes. Neueste
Forschungsergebnisse. Beiträge zum wissen-
schaÌlichen Kolloquium am 19. März 2010
in Michelstadt. Saalburg-SchriÌen 8. Bad
Homburg von der Höhe, 33–36.
Schlange-Schöningen, H. 2003: Die römische
GesellschaÌ bei Galen. Berlin – New York.
Schmid, S. 2010: Die römischen Fibeln aus Wien.
Monografien der Stadtarchäologie Wien.
Wien.
Schmid, W. 1912: Forschungen in Flavia Solva bei
Leibnitz. JahresheÌe des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 15, 37–48.
Schmid, W. 1916: Leipniz (Steiermark). Ausgrabung
von Flavia Solva 1915. Römisch-Germanisches
Korrespondenzblaà 9, 23–26.
Schmid, W. 1917: Flavia Solva 2. Graz.
Schmid, W. 1919: Flavia Solva bei Leibnitz in
Steiermark. JahresheÌe des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 19/20,
135–156.
Schmid, W. 1923–1924: Römische Forschung in
Österreich 1912–1924. II. Die südlichen
Ostalpenländer. Bericht der Römisch-
Germanischen Kommission 15, 178–241.
Schmidt, L. 1970: Die Westgermanen. Geschichte
der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgang der
Völkerwanderung 1. München.
Schmidtová, J. – Jezná, J. 2003: Gerulata Castellum.
In: Visy, Zs. (ed.): The roman army in
Pannonia. An archaeological guide of the
Ripa Pannonica. Pécs, 60–62.
Schmi¹, M. T. 1997: Die römische Außenpolitik des
2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Friedenssicherung
oder Expansion? StuÃgart.
Schmitz, W. 2005: GöÃliche Strafe oder medizini-
sches Geschehen – Deutungen und Diagnosen
der „Pest“ in Athen. In: Meier, M. (Hrsg.):
Pest. Geschichte eines Menschheitstraumas.
StuÃgart, 44–65.
von Schnurbein, S. 2002: Augustus in Germanien.
Neue archäologische Forschungen. Kroon-
Voordracht 24. Amsterdam.
von Schnurbein, S. 2006: Germanen und Römer
im Vorfeld des Obergermanischen Limes.
Vortrag zur Jahressitzung 2006 der Römisch-
Germanischen Kommission. Bericht der
Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 87,
19–40.
Scholz, M. 2009: Das römische Reiterkastell
Aquileia/Heidenheim. Die Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 2000–2004. Forschungen
und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in
Baden-WürÃemberg Bd. 110. StuÃgart.
Scho¹ky, M. 1998: Quellen zur Geschichte von
Media Atropatene und Hyrkanien in par-
thischer Zeit. In: Wiesehöfer, J. (Hrsg.): Das
Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse = The
Arsacid Empire, sources and documentation:
Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums,
Eutin (27.–30. Juni 1996). StuÃgart, 435–472.
Schucany, C. 2005: Krieg, Zerstörung und
Enteignung. In: Jobst, W. (Hrsg.):
Archäologie der Schlachtfelder – Militaria
aus Zerstörungshorizonten. Akten 14.
International Roman Military Equipment
Conference (ROMEC), Wien, 27–31. August
2003. Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005, 55–63.
Schuenemann, V. J. – Bos, K. – DeWi¹e, S. –
Schemedes, S. – Jamieson, J. – Mi¹nik, A. –
Forrest, S. – Coombes, B. K. – Wood, J. W.
– Earn, D. J. D. – White, W. – Krause, J. –
Poinar, H. N. 2011: Targeted enrichment of an-
cient pathogens yielding the pPCP1 plasmid
of Yersinia pestis from victims of the Black
Death. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America
vol. 108 (38), 743–752.
Schuler, A. 2005: Das nördliche Suburbium des
Römischen Köln. Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor-
und Frühgeschichte 38, 245–432.
Schuster, J. 2018: Czarnówko, Stan. 5. Osiem grobów
okazałych – narodziny nowych elit w II
wieku po Chr. w Basenie Morza bałtyckiego.
Monumenta archaeologica barbarica VIII.
Lębork – Warszawa.
Schwendemann, J. 1923: Der historische Wert der
Vita Marci bei den Scriptores Historiae
Augustae. Heidelberg.
Sedlmayer, H. 2002: Römische Gebrauchskeramik.
In: Groh, S. – Sedlmayer, H.: Forschungen im
Kastell Mautern – Favianis. Die Grabungen
der Jahre 1996 und 1997. Römische Limes in
Österreich 42. Wien, 196–321.
Sedlmayer, H. 2015a: EngelhartsteÃen – Archäologische
Funde aus dem römischen Feldlager. In: Groh,
S. – Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und Ruhhof,
Niederösterreich. Archäologische Forschungen
in Niederösterreich. Neue Folge – Band 2.
Krems, 41–65.
Sedlmayer, H. 2015b: EngelhartsteÃen – Interaktionen
des 1. Jahrhunderts v. und n. Chr. Zwischen
Donau, March und Thaya, In: Groh, S. –
Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. Neue Folge
– Band 2. Krems, 185–190.
Sedlmayer, H. 2015c: Kollnbrunn – Archäologische
Funde aus dem römischen Feldlager. In: Groh,
S. – Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. Neue Folge
– Band 2. Krems, 86–94.
Sedlmayer, H. 2015d: Ruhhof – Funde aus
dem römischen Feldlager. In: Groh, S. –
Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. Neue Folge
– Band 2. Krems, 131–153.
Sedlmayer, H. 2015e: Kollnbrunn und Ruhhof –
Zur Präsenz von Detachements der Legio
X Gemina im Barbaricum. In: Groh, S. –
Sedlmayer, H.: Expeditiones barbaricae.
Forschungen zu den römischen Feldlagern
von EngelhartsteÃen, Kollnbrunn und
291 |
 Ruhhof, Niederösterreich. Archäologische
Forschungen in Niederösterreich. Neue Folge
– Band 2. Krems, 191–192.
Sedlmayer, H. 2016: Die Spektren römischer
Bronzegefässe in Noricum und dem angren-
zenden Barbaricum im Vergleich – Typen 2./3.
Jahrhunderts n. Chr. In: Voss, H.-U. – Müller-
Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.): Archäologie zwischen
Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und
Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2.
und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich und im
Barbaricum – ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefässe,
Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung,
Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil I. Internationales
Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main, 19.–22. März
2009. Internationales Kolloquium Frankfurt
am Main, 19.-22. März 2009. Kolloquien zur
Vor- und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/1. Bonn,
379–397.
Šedo, O. 2000: Archeologia a stopy pobytu římských
vojsk v prostoru Mušova. In: Mušov 1276–
2000. Pasohlávky, 183–205.
Šedo, O. – Knápek, R. 2019: Mušov-Neurissen 1993–
1994. Nálezové kontexty z doby římské. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 63. Brno.
Seeck, O. 1910: Geschichte des Untergangs der anti-
ken Welt I. StuÃgart.
Seehauser, H. 2007: Ein Haus der Insula XLIII von
Flavia Solva. Funde und Befunde aus den
Räumen A, B, C1 und C2. Schild von Steier
20, 109–190.
Seelentag, G. 2017: Antoninus Pius und die
HerrschaÌsdarstellung des 2. Jhs. In: Michels,
Ch. – MiÃag, P. F. (Hrsg.): Jenseits des
Narrativs: Antoninus Pius in den nicht-litera-
rischen Quellen. StuÃgart, 19–30.
Seston, W. – Euzenat, M. 1971: Un dossier de la chan-
cellerie romaine, la Tabula Banasitana, étude
diplomatique. Compes Rendus de l’Academie
des Inscriptions et des Belles LeÃres Année
1971, 468–490.
Shaw, B. D. 1984: Bandits in the Roman Empire. Past
& Present 105, 1, 3–52.
Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973: The Tabula of Banasa
and the Constitutio Antoniniana. Journal of
Roman Studies 63, 86–98.
Sidebo¹om, H. 1998: Herodian’s historical methods
and understanding of history. In: Haase,
W. – Temporini, H. (Hrsg.): Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. II. 34.4.
Berlin, 2776–2836.
Siebourg, M. 1933: Der Matronenkult beim Bonner
| 292
Münster. Bonner Jahrbücher 138, 103–123.
Sigerist, H. E. 1963: Anfänge der Medizin: von der
primitiven und archaischen Medizin bis zum
Goldenen Zeitalter in Griechenland. Zürich.
Silver, M. 2011: Antonine Plague and Deactivation of
Spanish Mines. Arctos 45, 133–142.
Silver, M. 2012: The Plague under Commodus as an
Unintended Consequence of Roman Grain
Market Regulation. Classical World 105 (2),
199–225.
Šimek, E. 1953: Velká Germánie Klaudia Ptolemaia.
Sv. IV. Brno.
Simmonds, A. – Marquez-Grant, N. – Loe, L. 2008:
Life and death in a Roman city: Excavation
of a Roman Cemetery with a Mass Grave at
120–122 London Road, Gloucester. Oxford
Archaeology monograph 6. Oxford.
Sommer, C. S. 2011: Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius,
Marc Aurel…? – Zur Datierung der Anlagen
des Raetischen Limes. Bericht der Bayerischen
Bodendenkmalpflege 52, 137–180.
Spaul, J. 2000: Cohors2. The evidence for and a short
history of the auxiliary infantry units of the
Imperial Roman Army. BAR International
Series 841. Oxford.
Speidel, M. P. 1978: Guards of the Roman armies.
An essay on the singulares of the provin-
ces. Antiquitas, Abhandlungen zur alten
Geschichte Bd. 28. Bonn.
Speidel, M. P. 1989: The Soldiers‘ Servants. Ancient
Society 20, 239–247.
Speidel, M. A. 2017: Antonius Pius, das Militär und
der Krieg. Epigraphische Korrekturen zur li-
terarischen Überlieferung. In: Michels, Ch.
– MiÃag, P. F. (Hrsg.): Jenseits der Narrativs.
Antonius Pius in den nicht-literarischen
Quellen. StuÃgart, 255–268.
Speidel, M. P. – Todua, T. T. 1988: Three Inscriptions
from Pityus on the Caucasus Frontier.
Saalburg Jahrbuch 44, 56–58.
Spieß, J. 1975: Avidius Cassius und der Aufstand des
Jahres 175. München.
Spivak, G. C. 1988: Can the Subaltern Speak? In:
Nelson, C. – Grossberg, L. (eds.): Marxism and
the Interpretation of Culture. Basingstroke,
271–313.
Stahl, M. 1989: Zwischen Abgrenzung und
Integration: die Verträge der Kaiser Mark
Aurel und Commodus mit den Völkern
 jenseits der Donau. Chiron 19, 289–317.
Staník, I. – Turčan, V. 2001: Zum Untergangshorizont
der römischen Station in Stupava. Anodos,
Studies of the Ancient World 1, 209–213.
Steidl, B. 2000: Die WeÃerau vom 3. bis 5.
Jahrhundert n. Chr. Materialien zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte von Hessen 22. Wiesbaden.
Steidl, B. 2006: Römische Waffen und
Ausrüstungsteile der miÃleren Kaiserzeit aus
dem germanischen Mainfranken. In: Seitz, G.
(Hrsg.): Im Dienste Roms: FestschriÌ für Hans
Ulrich Nuber. Remshalden, 307–321.
Steidl, B. 2007: Der Blick über den Zaun: Die
Germanen im Vorfeld des Limes. Freunde
– Feinde – Ignoranten? In: Thiel, A. (Hrsg.):
Forschungen zur Funktion des Limes. Beiträge
zum Welterbe Limes 2. StuÃgart, 34–47.
Steidl, B. 2012: Die Tr(ebii) in Raetien. Bayerische
VorgeschichtsbläÃer 77, 65–76.
Steiner, S. C. 2007: A Brief History of Miasmatic
Theory. Bulletin of the History of Medicine
22, 747.
Stertz, S. A. 1977: Marcus Aurelius as ideal emperor
in late antique Greek thought. The Classical
World 70, 433–439.
Stiglitz, H. 1969: Ein Ziegelofen an der Erla. Jahrbuch
des oberösterreichischen Musealvereines
114/I, 69–74.
Storgaard, B. 2003: Cosmopolitan aristocrats. In:
Jørgensen, L. – Storgaard, B. – Thomsen, L. G.
(eds.): The spoils of Victory. The North in the
shadow of the Roman Empire. Copenhagen,
106–125.
Strack, P. L. 1937: Untersuchungen zur römischen
Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts.
3. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Antonius
Pius. StuÃgart.
Stribrny, K. 2003: Funktionanalyse barbarisierter,
barbarischer Denare miÃels numismatischer
und metallurgischer Methoden. Studien zu
Fundmünzen der Antike 18. Mainz.
Strobel, K. 1984: Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen
Trajans. Studien zur Geschichte des miÃle-
ren und unteren Donauraumes in der hohen
Kaiserzeit. Antiquitas, Abhandlungen zur
alten Geschichte Bd. 33. Bonn.
Strobel, K. 2001: Die Markomannenkriege und
die neuen Provinzen Marc Aurels: Ein
Modelfall für die Verflechtung von Innen-
und Außenpolitik des Römischen Reiches.
In: Carinthia Romana und die römische
Welt. FestschriÌ für Gernot Piccotini zum 60.
Geburtstag. Klagenfurt, 103–124.
Stroheker, K. F. 1966: Die Außenpolitik des Antoninus
Pius nach der Historia Augusta. In: Bonner
Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1964/1965.
Bonn, 241–256.
Strouhal, E. 1996: Traces of a smallpox epidemic in
the family of Ramesses V of the Egyptian 20th
dynasty. Anthropologie 35, 315–319.
Stuppner, A. 1994: Zu den Auswirkungen der
Markomannenkriege im niederösterreichi-
schen Limesvorland. In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral,
J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege
– Ursachen und Wirkungen. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. Brno,
285–298.
Stuppner, A. 2002a: Oberleiserberg. In: Reallexikon
der Germanischen Altertumskunde 21. Berlin
– New York, 483–486.
Stuppner, A. 2002b: Rinvenimenti germanici a nord
di Carnuntum. In: Buora, M. – Jobst, W. (eds.):
Roma sul Danubio. Da Aquileia a Carnuntum
lungo la via delľambra. Udine, 21–32.
Stuppner, A. 2008: Stand der archäologi-
schen Forschungen zu den römischen
Vormarschtrassen und Befestigungsbauten
in Österreich. In: Kühlborn, J.-S. u. a.
(Hrsg.): Rom auf dem Weg nach Germanien:
Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen und Logistik.
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45. Mainz, 49–67.
Suski, R. 2005: Why Eusebius of Nantes was not
the author of Kaisergeschichte. Classica
Cracoviensia 9, 43–71.
Su¹on, D. 1977: The Greek Origins of Cacus Myth.
The Classical Quarterly 27, 2, 391–393.
Svoboda, B. 1948: Čechy a římské Imperium. Praha.
Swoboda, E. 1959: Der pannonische Limes und sein
Vorland. Carnuntum Jahrbuch 5, 18–30.
Swoboda, E. 1964: Carnuntum. Seine Geschichte
und seine Denkmäler. Graz – Köln.
Swoboda, E. 1965: Traian und der pannonische
Limes. Carnuntum Jahrbuch 8, 1963/64, 9–20.
Sydenham, E. A. 1968: Historical References on
Coins of the Roman Empire. London.
Szabó, M. 2016: Archaeology from above. Episodes
from the History of the Aerial Archaeological
Archive of Pécs. Budapest.
293 |
Szabó, M. – Borhy, L. 2015: Magyarország története
az ókorban: Kelták és rómaiak. Budapest.
Szabó, M. – Visy, Zs. 2011: MeneÃáborok Brigetio
környékén (Marching camps in the vicini-
ty of Brigetio). In: Visy, Zs. (ed.): A Danube
limes program régészeti kutatásai 2008–2011
(The Danube Limes Project archaeological re-
search between 2008–2011). Pécs, 107–112.
Számadó, E. – Borhy, L. 2003: Brigetio temporary
camps. In: Visy, Zs. (ed.): The roman army
in Pannonia. An archaeological guide of the
Ripa Pannonica. Pécs, 78–79.
Szilágyi, J. 1933: Inscriptiones Tegularum
Pannonicarum (A pannoniai bélyeges téglák).
Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II Nr. 1.
Budapest.
Tausend, S. 2007: Der „Schwarze Tod“ vor Troja?
Apollon Smintheus und Yersinia pestis.
In: Franek, Chr. – Lamm, S. – Neuhauser,
T. – Porod, B. – Zöhrer, K. (Hrsg.): Thiasos.
FestschriÌ für Erwin Pochmarski zum 65.
Geburtstag, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts
für Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität
Graz 10. Wien, 1033–1043.
Teichner, F. 2004: Die Germanische Siedlung
Sülzdorf in Südthüringen. Weimar.
Tejral, J. 1967: K otázce importu bronzových nádob
na Moravu ve starší době římské. Památky ar-
cheologické 58, 81–134.
Tejral, J. 1970a: Počátky doby římské na Moravě
z  hlediska hrobových nálezů. Študijné zvesti
Archeologického ústavu SAV 18, 107–192.
Tejral, J. 1970b: Markomanské války a otázka
římského dovozu na Moravu po Commodově
míru. Archeologické rozhledy 22, 389–411.
Tejral, J. 1974: K některým problémům římského im-
portu na Moravu. In. Sakař, V. (ed.): Římské
importy. Praha, 76–93.
Tejral, J. 1983: Mähren und die Markomannenkriege.
Slovenská Archeológia 31/1, 85–120.
Tejral, J. 1986a: Importe. In: Oliva, P. (ed.): Tabula
Imperii Romani. Praha, 103–109.
Tejral, J. 1986b: Neue Erkenntnisse zum römi-
schen Stützpunkt am Burgstall bei Mušov
in Südmähren. Archeologické rozhledy 38,
395–410.
Tejral, J. 1992: Die Probleme der römisch-germani-
schen Beziehungen unter Berücksichtigung
der neuen Forschungsergebnisse im niederös-
terreichisch-südmährischen Thayaflußgebiet.
| 294
Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 73, 377–468.
Tejral, J. 1994a: Römische und germanische
Militärausrüstungen der antoninischen
Periode im Licht norddanubischer Funde.
In: von Carnap-Bornheim, C. (Hrsg.):
Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer
Bewaffnung in den ersten vier nachchristli-
chen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloqium.
Marburg-Lublin, 27–60.
Tejral J. 1994b: Die archäologischen Zeugnisse
der Markomannenkriegen in Mähren –
Probleme der Chronologie und historischen
Interpretation. In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J.
– Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.), Markomannenkriege
– Ursachen und Wirkungen. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. Brno,
299–324.
Tejral, J. 1998a: Die Besonderheiten der germanischen
Siedlungsentwicklung während der Kaiserzeit
und der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit und
ihr Niederschlag im archäologischen Befund.
In: Leube, A. (Hrsg.): Haus und Hof im öst-
lichen Germanien. Tagung Berlin 4. bis 8.
Oktober 1994. Universitätsforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie Bd. 50. SchriÌen
zur Archäologie der germanischen und slawi-
schen Frühgeschichte Bd. 2. Bonn, 181–207.
Tejral, J. 1998b: Die Grundprobleme der kaiser-
zeitlichen Fibelforschung im nordanubi-
schen Raum. In: Kunow, J. (Hrsg.): 100
Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren
Internationale Arbeitstagung 25.–28. Mai
1997 in Kleinmachnow Land Brandenburg
5. Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land
Brandenburg 5. Wünsdorf, 387–398.
Tejral, J. 1999: Zum Stand der archäologischen
Forschung über den römischen Militärischen
Eingriff in Gebieten nördlich der Donau.
Přehled výzkumů 39 (1995–1996), 81–164.
Tejral, J. 2001a: Die germanische Silberfibel von
Mušov und ihr archäologisch-historisches
Umfeld. Slovenská archeológia 49, 203–247.
Tejral, J. 2001b: Markomannenkrieg. §2:
Archäologisches. In: Reallexikon der
Germanischen Altertumskunde Bd. 19. Berlin
– New York, 316–321.
Tejral, J. 2002: Mušov. In: Reallexikon der
Germanischen Altertumskunde Bd. 20. Berlin
– New York, 425–433.
Tejral, J. 2004: Mušov und Czarnówko – Bemerkungen
zu weiträumigen Verbindungen zwischen ger-
manischen HerrschaÌszentren. In: Friesinger,
H. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.): Zentrum und
 Peripherie. GesellschaÌliche Phänomene
in der Frühgeschichte. Materialien
des 13. Internationalen Symposiums
„Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen
Entwicklung im miÃleren Donauraum“ ZweÃl,
4.–8. Dezember 2000. MiÃeilungen der prähis-
torischen Kommission der Österreichischen
Akademie der WissenschaÌen 57. Wien,
327–387.
Tejral, J. 2006: Die germanische Giessereiwerkstaà in
Pasohlávky (Bez. Břeclav). Ein Beitrag zur Frage
der Fernhandels- und Kulturbeziehungen
nach den Markomannenkriegen. Památky ar-
cheologické 97, 133–170.
Tejral, J. 2008: Ke zvláštnostem sídlištního vývoje
v době římské na území severně od středního
Dunaje. Zu den Besonderheiten der kaiser-
zeitlichen Siedlungsentwicklung nördlich
des miÃleren Donauraumes. In: Droberjar,
E. – Komoróczy, B. – Vachůtová, D. (eds.):
Archeologie barbarů 2007. Barbarská sídliště.
Chronologické, ekonomické a historické
aspekty jejich vývoje ve světle nových archeo-
logických výzkumů. Spisy Archeologického
ústavu AV ČR Brno 37. Brno, 67–98.
Tejral, J. 2009: Das Gebiet nördlich der miÃle-
ren Donau zur Zeit Marbods. In: Salač, V. –
Bemmann, J. (Hrsg.): MiÃeleuropa zur Zeit
Marbods. Praha – Bonn, 149–202.
Tejral, J. 2014: Reevaluated but still enigmatic –
the Roman site at „Burgstall“. In: Römisch-
Germanischee Zentralmuseum (Hrsg.):
Honesta Missione. FestschriÌ für Barbara
Pferdehirt. Monographien des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Band 100.
Mainz, 221–248.
Tejral, J. 2015: Some Remarks on the Transitional
Phase between Early Roman and Late Roman
Periods in the Region North of the Middle
Danube. Přehled výzkumů 56/2, 43–101.
Tejral, J. 2017: Mähren zur Zeit der
Markomannenkriege. Študijné zvesti
Archeologického ústavu SAV 61, 149–188.
Thompson, E. A. 1952: Peasant Revolts in Late Roman
Gaul and Spain. Past & Present 2, 1, 11–23.
Thomson, M. 2012: Studies in the Historia Augusta.
Bruxelles.
Thüry, G. E. 2000: Warum und wo verbirgt man einen
Münzschatz? Die antike Literatur als numis-
matisch nicht verwertete Quelle. In: Kluge,
B. – Weisser, B. (Hrsg.): XII. Internationaler
Numismatischer Kongreß Berlin 1997. Akten
– Proceedings – Actes. Berlin, 142–148.
Thüry, G. E. 2016: Die antike Münze als
Fundgegenstand. Kategorien numismatischer
Funde und ihre Interpretation. Oxford.
Točík, A. 1980: Pokračovanie záchranného výsku-
mu v polohe Kňazova jama v Komjaticiach.
Fortsetzung der ReÃungsgrabung in der Flur
Kňazova jama in Komjatice. Archeologické
výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1979,
215–229.
Točík, A. 1981: Prieskumy a výskumy na juhozá-
padnom Slovensku. Archeologické výskumy
a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1980, 296–311.
Tomlin, R. S. O. 2014: ‘Drive away the cloud of
plague’: a Greek amulet from Roman London.
In: Collins, R. – McIntosh, F. (eds.): Life in the
Limes: studies of the people and objects of
the Roman frontiers. Oxford – Philadelphia,
197–205.
Tömörkény, I.– Harsányi, P. 1912: A szegedi mú-
zeumba került régipénz leletek (1883–1911).
Numizmatikai Közlöny 11, 8–15.
Toriser, A. 1994: Germanische Grab- und
Siedlungsfunde der frühen und miÃleren
Kaiserzeit im Laaer Becken. In: Friesinger,
H. – Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.),
Markomannenkriege – Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy Archeologického ústavu
AV ČR Brno 1. Brno, 325–330.
Toynbee, J. M. C. 1996: Death and Burial in the
Roman World. Baltimore – London.
Turčan, V. 1995: Most pri Bratislave. In: RuÃkay, M.
(ed.): Archeológia a ropa. Nitra, 4–6.
Turčan, V. 2002: Ein germanisches Grubenhaus
aus Trnava (Westslowakei). Ein Beitrag zur
Datierung der Fibeln A84. In: Kuzmová, K.
– Rajtár, J. – Pieta, K. (Hrsg.): Zwischen Rom
und dem Barbaricum, FestschriÌ für Titus
Kolník zum 70. Geburstag. Nitra, 387–393.
Turčan, V. 2012: Ein Baukomplex aus der römi-
schen Kaiserzeit in Stupava. Ein Konzept der
Bauentwicklung. In: Březinová, G. – Varsik, V.
(eds.): Archeológia na prahu histórie. K život-
nému jubileu Karola Pietu. Nitra, 419–427.
Turčan, V. 2014: Germánske sídliskové objekty
na stĺpe Marca Aurelia. In: Bartík, J. (ed.):
Stĺp Marca Aurelia a stredné Podunajsko.
Štúdie (Column of Marcus Aurelius and
the Middle Danube Area. Studies). Zborník
Slovenského národného múzea – Archeológia
Supplementum 8, 169–179.
Ubl, H. 2009: Ziegelstempel in Sohlenform der legio
II Italica aus den Beständen des Museums
295 |
 Lauriacum in Enns, Oberösterreich. In: Kneifel,
H. – Harreither, R. (Hrsg.): FestschriÌ Herbert
Kneifel zum 100. Geburtstag. MiÃeilungen
des Museumsvereines Lauriacum – Enns, N.
F. Nr. 46. Enns, 231–271.
Upham, S. 1986: Smallpox and Climate in
the American Southwest. American
Anthropologist, New Series Vol. 88, No. 1,
115–128.
Van Beek, G. W. – Van Beek, O. 2008: Glorious Mud!
Ancient and Contemporary Earthen Design
and Construction in Northern Africa, Western
Europe, the Near East, and Southwest Asia.
Washington.
Van Dam, R. 1985: Leadership and Community in
Late Antique Gaul. Berkeley – Los Angeles.
Varsik, V. 2004: Zur Entwicklung der quadischen
Siedlung von Veľký Meder (SW-Slowakei).
Študijné zvesti Archeologického ústavu SAV
36, 257–275.
Varsik, V. 2011: Germánske osídlenie na východnom
predpolí Bratislavy. Sídliská z doby rímskej
v Bratislave-Trnávke a v okolí. Germanische
Besiedlung am östlichen Vorfeld von Bratislava.
Kaiserzeitliche Siedlungen von Bratislava-
Trnávka und Umgebung. Archaeologica
Slovaca Monographiae Fontes 18. Nitra.
Varsik, V. – Kolník, T. 2012: Römisch versus ger-
manisch. Zum Bauwesen des quadischen
Herrensitzes in Cífer-Pác (SW-Slowakei).
Anodos, Studies of the Ancient World 12,
257–268.
Varsik, V. – Kolník, T. 2013: Cífer-Pác – Neue
Erkenntnisse zur spätantiken quadischen
Elitensitz. In: Hardt, M. – Heinrich-Tamáska,
O. (Hrsg.): Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht.
HerrschaÌs- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwi-
schen Antike und FrühmiÃelalter im miÃle-
ren Donauraum. Weinstadt, 71–90.
Vavassori, M. 2007: ‘Eodem fato functis’: il ricor-
do della peste in un’epigrafe di Bergamo?
Epigraphica 69, 149–167.
Veldman, H. A. P. – Wyns, S. – van der Velde, H. M.
2009: Sporen en structuren uit de Romeinse
tijd. In: van der Velde, H. M. – Ostkamp, S. –
Veldman, H. A. P. – Wyns, S. (red.): Venlo aan
de Maas. Van vicus tot stad. Sporen van een
Romeinse nederzeÃing en stadsontwikkeling
uit de Middeleeuwen en Nieuwe tijd in het
plangebied Maasboulevard. Archeologisch
Diensten Centrum Monographie 7.
Amersfoort, 69–108.
Ve¹ers, W. 1994: Der Taupo und das Klima um 200
| 296
AD in Europa. In: Friesinger, H. – Tejral, J.
– Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.): Markomannenkriege.
Ursachen und Wirkungen. Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. Brno,
457–461.
Vita-Evrard, G. 1994: Légionnaires africains en
Pannonie au IIe s. ap. J. C. In: Hajnóczi, G.
(ed.): La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano. AÃi del
convegno internazionale, Roma 13–16 gennaio
1994. Roma, 97–114.
Visy, Zs. 1994: Die ländliche Besiedlung und
LandwirtschaÌ in Niederpannonien. In:
Bender, H. – Wolff, H. (Hrsg.): Die ländli-
che Besiedlung und LandwirtschaÌ in den
Rhein-Donau-Provinzen des Römischen
Reiches. Passauer UniversitätsschriÌen zur
Archäologie 2. Passau, 421–449.
Visy, Zs. 1995: LuÌbildarchäologie am römischen
Limes in Ungarn. In: Kunow, J. (Hrsg.):
LuÌbildarchäologie in Ost- und MiÃeleuropa.
Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land
Brandenburg 3. Berlin, 213–218.
Visy, Zs. 2000: A Ripa Pannonica Magyarországon.
Budapest.
Visy, Zs. (ed.) 2003: The roman army in Pannonia. An
archaeological guide of the Ripa Pannonica.
Pécs.
Vlach, M. 2008: Římský krátkodobý tábor a nové
nálezy z doby římské z Charvátské Nové Vsi. In:
In: Droberjar, E. – Komoróczy, B. – Vachůtová,
D. (eds.): Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické,
ekonomické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje
ve světle nových archeologických výzkumů.
Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno
37. Brno, 461–468.
Vlach, M. 2015: Germanic SeÃlement Structure in the
Middle Danube Region as a Complex System
of Agent-Based Modeling. In: Vagalinski, L. –
Sharankov, N. (eds.): LIMES XXII. Proceedings
of the 22nd International Congress of Roman
Frontier Studies Ruse, Bulgaria, September
2012. Bulletin of the National Archaeological
Institute XLII. Sofia, 741–748.
Vlach, M. 2016: Projevy římsko-germánských konfron-
tací na Moravě na základě geoinformačních
analýz. Nepublikovaná disertační práce,
Archeologický ústav SAV. Nitra.
Vlach, M. 2018: Demography modelling and simu-
lation of the barbarian populations of the
“Marcomannic” seÃlement structures of the
Middle Danube region. Přehled výzkumů
59-2, 45–86.
Vlach, M. in print: Antonine Plague: a cese study of
 epidemiological modelling and impact evalu-
ation. In: Brughmans, T. – Wilson, A. (eds.):
Simulating Roman Economies. Theories,
Methods, and Computational Models. Oxford
Studies on the Roman Economy.
Völling, T. 2005: Germanien an der Zeitenwende.
BAR International Series 1360. Oxford.
Voß, H.-U. 2005: Hagenow in Mecklenburg – ein frü-
kaiserzeitlicher BestaÃungsplatz und Aspekte
der römisch-germanischen Beziehungen.
Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 86, 19–59.
Voß, H.-U. – Müller-Scheessel, N. (Hrsg.) 2016:
Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren.
Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer
Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n.
Chr. im Reich und im Barbaricum: ausgewähl-
te Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile mi-
litärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen):
Internationales Kolloquium, Frankfurt am
Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Teil 1, Kolloquien
zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Bd. 22/1–2. Bonn.
Voß, H.-U. – Wigg-Wolf, D. 2017: Romans and
Roman finds in the central European barbari-
cum: a new view on Romano-Germanic rela-
tions? In: González Sánchez, S. – Guglielmi,
A. (eds): Romans and barbarians beyond the
frontiers: archaeology, ideology and identities
in the north. Oxford, 105–124.
Weber, E. 1977a: Die Geschichte der 10. Legion. In:
Vindobona – die Römer im Wiener Raum 52.
Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums
der Stadt Wien. Wien, 43–53.
Weber, E. 1977b: Römische Kaiser in Vindobona. In:
Vindobona – die Römer im Wiener Raum 52.
Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums
der Stadt Wien. Wien, 72–77.
Weber, M. 1921: WirtschaÌ und GesellschaÌ.
Tübingen.
Welfare, H. – Swan, V. 1995: Roman camps in
England. The Field Archaeology. London.
Welwei, K. W. 1988: Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst
III: Rom. Forschungen zur Antiken Sklaverei
21. StuÃgart.
Wendt, K. P. 1986: Bevölkerungsdichte und
Landnutzung in den germanischen Provinzen
des Römischen Reiches im 2. Jahrhundert n.
Chr. Germania 86, 191–226.
Wesson, C. B. 1999: Chiefly power and food sto-
rage in southeastern North Ameica. World
Archaeology 31:1, 145–164.
Wheatley, H. B. (ed.) 1949: The Diary of Samuel
Pepys. London.
Wheeler, E. L. 2000: Legio XV Apollinaris: From
Carnuntum to Satala — and beyond. In: Le
Bohec, Y. (ed.): Les légions de Rome sous
le Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrés de Lyon
(17–19 septembre 1998). Collection du Centre
D’Etudes Romaines et Gallo-Romaines,
Nouvelle série No. 20. Lyon, 259–308.
Wheeler, E. L. 2012: Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 38 and
Roman Deployment in Colchis: Assessing
Recent Views. In: Cabouret-Laurioux, B. (ed.):
Visions de l‘ Occident romain. Hommages
à Yann Le Bohec 2. Paris, 621–676.
White, H. 2010: The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on
History, Literature, and Theory, 1957–2007.
New York.
Wiktorowicz, C. J. – Arnold, B. – Wiktorowicz,
J. E. – Murray, M. L. – Kurosky, A. 2017:
Haemorrhagic fever virus, human blood, and
tissues in Iron Age mortuary vessels. Journal
of Archaeological Science 78, 29–39.
Willis, B. S. 1992: A baÃle from the start. The life of
Nathan Bedford Forrest. New York.
Wirth, G. 1997: Deditizier, Soldaten und Römer:
„Besatzungspolitik“ im Vorfeld der
Völkerwanderung. Bonner Jahrbücher 197,
57–89.
Wohlmayr, W. 2016: M. Valerius Maximianus und
die FelsinschriÌ von Trenčin in der Slowakei.
In: Humer, F. – Kremer, G. – Pollhammer, E. –
Pülz, A. (Hrsg.): Akten der 3. Österreichischen
Römersteintagung in Carnuntum, 2.–3.
Oktober 2014. Wien, 227–232.
Wolff, H. 1990: Dacien. In: ViÃinghoff, F.
(Hrsg.): Europäische WirtschaÌs- und
Sozialgeschichte in der Römischen Kaiserzeit.
Handbuch der europäischen WirtschaÌs- und
Sozialgeschichte, Bd. 1. StuÃgart, 616–630.
Wolff, H. 1994: Die Marcus-Säule als Quelle der
Markomannenkriege. In: Friesinger, H.
– Tejral, J. – Stuppner, A. (Hrsg.) 1994:
Markomannenkriege – Ursachen und
Wirkungen. Spisy archeologického ústavu AV
ČR Brno 1. Brno, 73–83.
Wolters, R. 2006: Geldverkehr, Geldtransporte und
Geldbuchungen in römischer Republik und
Kaiserzeit: das Zeugnis der schriÌlichen
Quellen. Revue Belge de Numismatique et de
Sigillographie 152, 23–49.
Woolf, G. R. 1994: Becoming Roman, Staying Greek:
Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process
297 |
 in the Roman East. Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philological Society 40, 116–143.
Wright, R. P. 1942: New Readings of a Severan
Inscriptions from Nicopolis, near Alexandria.
Journal of Roman Studies 32, 33–38.
Zawadzki, T. 1993: Vita magistra historiae: czy
przeszłość może się uczyć od teraźniejszości?
Poznań.
Zecchini, G. 2016: Storia della storiografia romana.
Roma-Bari.
Zedelius, V. 1979: Der Dormagener Denarfund. In:
Müller, G. (Hrsg.): Durnomagus. Das römi-
sche Dormagen. Köln, 68–70.
Zelener, Y. 2012: Genetic evidence, density depen-
dence and epidemiological models of the
“Antonine Plague”. In: Lo Cascio, E. (ed.): L
’impaÃo della “Peste Antonina”. Bari, 167–178.
Zeman, T. 2017a: Střední Pomoraví v době římské.
Svědectví povrchové prospekce. Archaeologica
Olomucensia Tom. II. Olomouc.
Zeman, T. 2017b: Peltoidní kování koňského postro-
je z germánského sídliště v Hrubé Vrbce. In:
Na hranicích impéria. Extra fines imperii.
| 298
Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. narozeninám. Brno,
439–446.
Zimmermann, M. 1999: Kaiser und Ereignis: Studien
zum Geschichtswerk Herodians. Vestigia Bd.
52. München.
Zimmermann, W. H. 1992: Die Siedlungen des 1. bis
6. Jahrhunderts nach Christus von Flögeln-
Eekhöltjen, Niedersachsen: Die Bauformen
und ihre Funktionen. Probleme der
Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet
19. Hildesheim.
Zubar, V. M. 1995: Zur römischen Militärorganisation
auf der Taurike in der zweiten HälÌe des 2.
und am Anfang des 3. Jahrhunderts. Historia
44, 192–203.
Zubar, V. M. 2007: Roman Military Units in Olbia.
In: Braund, D. – Kryzhitskiy, S. D. (eds.):
Classical Olbia and the Scythian World. From
the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century
AD. Proceedings of the British Academy 142.
Oxford, 173–178.
Zwikker, W. 1941: Studien zur Markussäule I.
Archaeologisch-historische bijdragen 8.
Amsterdam.
Marcomannic Wars and Antonine Plague. Selected essays on two disasters that shook the Roman World
Die Markomannenkriege und die Antoninische Pest. Ausgewählte Essays zu zwei Desastern, die das Römische Reich
erschü¹erten
Michael Erdrich, Balázs Komoróczy, Paweł Madejski, Marek Vlach (eds.)

Scientific editors: Michael Erdrich, Balázs Komoróczy

Technical editing: Balázs Komoróczy, Johana Malíšková, Zdeňka Pavková, Pavla Růžičková, Michaela Zelíková
Graphic design and computer layout: AZU design s. r. o., Pavla Růžičková
Cover design: Pavla Růžičková
Language editors: Michael Erdrich and Balázs Komoróczy have, in close contact with the authors, some of the German
and English texts revised and, if necessary, carefully corrected.
Printed by: Azu design s. r. o., Bayerova 806/40, 602 00 Brno

Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 61

Responsible editor: Lumír Poláček
ISSN 1804-1345

Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne Tom XVII

Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Brno, v. v. i.

Čechyňská 363/19, 602 00 Brno, Česká republika, www.arub.cz
ISBN 978-80-7524-026-2

Instytut Archeologii UMCS

pl. Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, 20-031 Lublin, Polska, www.umcs.pl/pl/archeo.htm
ISBN 978-83-227-9223-0

Brno – Lublin 2020

 ISBN 978-80-7524-026-2
Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 61
ISBN 978-83-227-9223-0
Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne Tom XVII
2020

View publication stats