Abstract
Modern topographical research in and around the legionary fortress of Brigetio (Komárom/Szőny, Hungary) started in the 1920s motivated by the desire to stop the centuries-long archaeological lootings at the site and to prevent further loss of archaeological data caused by the uncontrolled removal and selling of artefacts. The excavations led by István Paulovics between 1927 and 1929 touched upon the northern surrounding wall of the castra, a short section of the via decumana south of the fortress and parts of the late Roman cemeteries southeast of the fortress. During the excavation 67 stamped bricks and tiles were collected and taken to the Hungarian National Museum. Forty-five of them were mentioned in the 1933 brick stamp corpus of J. Szilágyi, but 22 have never been published. The significance of the material is twofold. On the one hand it yielded a wide array of Valentinian tile stamps, for example the stamps of Lupicinus tribunus, Terentianus tribunus, Caris tribunus, Verianus tribunus, Corta Vicen, Quadriburgium, and Vincentia. On the other hand, 27 of the 43 legio I Adiutrix stamps (the garrison of Brigetio between the early second and early fifth centuries AD) came from late Roman archaeological contexts, which means that some of the types of the otherwise undatable legio I Adiutrix stamps can now be dated with reasonable probability to the fourth century.
Introduction
István Paulovics led several important excavations between 1927 and 1929 concerning the topography of Brigetio: on the one hand southeast of the legionary fortress in the late antique cemeteries and along the via decumana leading to the castra and on the other hand aimed at finding the northern wall of the fortress (Fig. 1).1 The bulk of the find material he unearthed during his excavations consisted of stamped bricks and tiles that helped with the dating of the construction phases of the legionary castra. Some of the stamped bricks he collected during these excavations are in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum (HNM), some others are now lost but are known from photos made by István Paulovics. Altogether 67 stamped bricks and tiles could be catalogued, but only 41 can now be found in the HNM, 26 seem to be lost. It is hardly surprising that more than half of the stamped tiles can be attributed to the legio I Adiutrix, the garrison of Brigetio from the early second to the early fifth century. These were produced in the legionary tilery that lay 1,200 m east of the fortress and was also excavated by I. Paulovics in 1934–1935.2 All other brick stamps were of Valentinianic date, except for two legio XI Claudia stamps that can be dated to between 101 and 105 AD.3
Map with the location of the 1927–1929 excavation sites of I. Paulovics. Drawing: L. Dobosi based on the map of L. Rupnik, in Rupnik et al. (2018) Fig. 1
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
The excavations of I. Paulovics in the legionary castra in 1928–1929
Even in the 1920s the line of the surrounding walls and fossae in the southern half of the fortress could be discerned on the location. However, this was not the case with the northern half of the castra, therefore, I. Paulovics concentrated his topographical research there. The goal of the archaeological investigation was to find the northern wall of the legionary fortress. The excavations of 1928–1929 took place in the northeastern corner of the castra, where six trial trenches were opened named Trenches A–F (Figs 2 and 3). Paulovics only published a short description of his results and did not describe the find material in detail.4 There are 83 artefacts in the inventory book of the Hungarian National Museum under the number RT-RO 33/1929.1–83., 43 of which are stamped tiles, one antefix and 39 other objects made of bone, metal, glass and ceramics: for example coins, an iron buckle, an iron spear head, iron and bone arrow heads, two iron knives, pieces of iron horse harness (?), fragments of a glass bracelet, a few pottery sherds and other bone objects. The exact find circumstances of the finds are unknown. In the case of the stamped tiles we only know the name of the trench they were found in, nothing more exact.
Plan of the 1928 excavation in the northeastern corner of the fortress with the location of the trial trenches. Drawing: L. Dobosi based on Paulovics (1941) Abb. 6
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos from the excavation, Paulovics (1941) Table XXIII/1, Table XXVI/7 and Table XXIV/5
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Paulovics found the northern wall of the fortress in Trench B: a 1.6–1.7 m thick opus quadratum wall. Further to the west, in Trench A only the robbed foundation trenches were found. According to Paulovics, the walls in Trenches D and E belonged to some kind of hypocaust heating system, built from sandstone. The floor of the heating channel was made from large, rectangular bricks and small hexagonal floor tiles, all unstamped.5
One of the most important finds was the oven discovered in Trench F: the oven floor, which was 1.8 × 1.8 m large, consisted of 3 × 3 bipedales (57.5 × 58.0 × 8.5 cm) stamped by the legio XI Claudia.6 Only one small, stamped fragment was taken to the HNM.7
The other interesting find in Trench C was a large, base-like structure covered by a thick layer of tegulae and imbrices, a collapsed roof structure. Altogether 30 stamped tiles were collected from this layer, from which all datable stamps were made during the reign of Valentinian I (AD 364–375). The base-like structure itself was a large foundation block 2.5 m long and 1.96 m wide built of stone and brick fragments, covered with a 13 cm thick layer of mortar.8 According to Paulovics, the roof structure was decorated with the terracotta antefix found in the layer, as well as pinecones carved from limestone.9 Five coins were also found among the debris, the latest was dated to the early 360s.10
From this excavation 43 stamped tiles could be catalogued, from these ten are now lost (see Table 1 and Figs 4–9). From Trenches A and B only stamps of the legio I Adiutrix were collected (four and six specimens, respectively). Trench F yielded one legio XI Claudia stamp, while in Trench C thirty late Roman stamps were discovered. Apart from these, two more Valentinianic stamps were found: one as a stray find on the Danube shore and the other with the description “from the Northern big trench”. Among the late Roman stamps, we can find one VINCENTIA, one CORTA VICEN, three QUADRIBURGIUM, two Terentianus tribunus, five Lupicinus tribunus, one Caris tribunus, one Verianus tribunus and one unidentifiable. The 17 stamps of the legio I adiutrix from Trench C (one of them with the name of the Bommius) can also be dated to the reign of Valentinian with probability until proven otherwise.
Photos and drawings of the brick stamps from the castra excavations, Trenches A, the Danube shore and the “Northern big trench”. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, colour photos and drawings by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos and drawings of the brick stamps from the castra excavations, Trenches B. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, colour photos and drawings by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos of the legio I Adiutrix stamps from Trench C at the castra excavations. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, colour and drawings photos by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos of the legio I Adiutrix stamps from Trench C at the castra excavations. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, colour and drawings photos by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos of the Valentinianic brick stamps from Trench C at the castra excavations. Photos and drawings by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos of the Valentinianic brick stamps from Trench C at the castra excavations. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, colour and drawings photos by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
The excavation of the aqueduct in 1927–1928
In 1927 and 1928 I. Paulovics led excavations to find the aqueduct of Brigetio which brought spring water from Tata to the legionary fortress. In order to verify the hypothesis of and map drawn by M. Berkovics-Borota,11 he opened a long trench south of the castra. He found a 10.0–12.5 m wide road with c. 40 cm wide and 30–40 cm deep channels on both sides which he interpreted as the aqueduct. However, based on the remains, what he found was in fact the via decumana leading outside the fortress with drainage channels and pillars on both sides and not the Tata–Brigetio aqueduct (Fig. 10).12 During this excavation he collected four stamped tiles: one of the legio XI Claudia and three of the legio I Adiutrix, one with an Antoniniana epithet (see Table 2 and Fig. 11).13
I. Paulovics's sketches of the excavated section of the via decumana south of the fortress, 1927. Drawings and photos by I. Paulovics, HNM 77.B.II
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos and drawings from the so-called aqueduct excavation in 1927–1928. Black-and-white photos of the lost stamps by I. Paulovics, HNM 77.B.II, drawings by L. Dobosi. The exact size of the stamp is only known for Cat. 44–7/1929.33. and Cat. 45–7/1929.34.
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Late antique cemeteries near the legionary fortress
In 1927 and 1929 Paulovics excavated in four graveyards south of the legionary fortress (Fig. 1). He named them Cemeteries 1–4 but only described his findings briefly.14 His results were published in detail including the small finds by L. Barkóczi in 1961 based on the documentation of the excavations.15 All four cemeteries can be dated to the second half of the fourth century. It seems that the latest graveyard was Cemetery 1 which lay closest to the fortress walls and was used in a period when most of the population must have lived inside the fortress walls. These four cemeteries were the latest graveyards in Brigetio marking the end of life in the Roman settlement. Some of the find material indicates the presence of barbarian people in the area.16
Only few of the graves contained stamped tiles, mostly tegulae and some imbrices as well. In Cemetery 1 there were two whole tegulae in Grave 3 with stamps: Leg(io) · I · Ad(iutrix) · P(ia) F(idelis) and Leg(io) I Adi(utrix) P(ia) F(idelis). The size of the tegulae were 59 × 44 cm and 56 × 44 cm respectively.17 Neither the tiles nor photos or drawings survive of them. Some of the tegulae in Grave 4 of Cemetery 2 bore stamps reading Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix), but these are also lost without further documentation.18
Most stamped tiles were found in Cemetery 4, twenty tiles in seven graves. I. Paulovics made photos of all of them, but only seven of the actual stamped tiles can be found in the collection of the Museum at present.
Cemetery 4 lay 200 m southeast from the southeastern corner of the legionary fortress (Fig. 12). Thirty-one burials were uncovered in the graveyard: four simple pit-graves, a robbed sarcophagus, five tombs built of stone slabs, eight tombs built of roof tiles, in two cases the skeletons were covered with tiles, and one additional grave contained stamped bricks.19 Coins were found in seven graves, the latest was a bronze coin of Constantius II (337–361). Based on this coin and the find material in general, the cemetery was dated to the middle or the second half of the fourth century.
The plan of Cemetery 4. Drawing: L. Dobosi based on Paulovics, HNM 104.Sz.II
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
From the twenty collected brick stamps eighteen were produced by the legio I Adiutrix (Figs 13 and 14). The stamps of this legion can rarely be dated in Brigetio because of the three centuries long presence of this troop in the area. However, as the graveyard is dated to the second half of the fourth century, it is reasonable to assume that the tegulae used to build the graves can also be dated to the fourth century (it is unlikely but not entirely impossible that a stamped tile used in the graves was more than a hundred years old). This hypothesis is corroborated by the only datable stamp in the material, a late Roman non-legionary stamp that reads CORTA VICEN (Cat. 57, see Table 3).
Photos and drawings of the brick stamps from Cemetery 4. Photos and drawings by L. Dobosi
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Photos of the brick stamps from Cemetery 4. Photos by I. Paulovics, HNM 104.Sz.II
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
The brick stamps
Altogether 67 tile stamps were catalogued from which 60 could be linked to a producer. Although 43 stamps belonged to the legio I Adiutrix, the garrison of Brigetio for three centuries and two to the legio XI Claudia, the garrison of Brigetio for half a decade, the remaining 15 stamps show a surprisingly large variety of late Roman brick stamps, including such rare examples as the stamp of Verianus tribunus, otherwise unknown from Brigetio. The repertoire of the fourth-century stamps: 5 Lupicinus tribunus, 2 Terentianus tribunus, 1 Caris tribunus, 1 Verianus tribunus, 2 Corta Vicen, 3 Quadriburgium, and 1 Vincentia stamp.
Legio XI Claudia pia fidelis
Two brick stamps of the legio XI Claudia were collected during the excavations in 1927–1928: one from Trench F in the northern part of the fortress (Cat. 12), and one from the so-called “aqueduct excavation” (Cat. 45), and the two stamps were of different types.20 The brick stamp from Trench F was a fragment of one of the nine stamped bipedales bricks used for the construction of an oven floor, while the other stamped brick was used in one of the drainage channels that ran on both sides of the via decumana.
Apart from these, earlier excavations uncovered the legion's bricks and tiles in several parts of the fortress, for example the principia.21 During the recent excavations in the fortress baths the stamps of the legio XI Claudia have been unearthed in large quantities: the bipedales produced by the legion were used in the floor of the hypocaust heating system of the warm and hot rooms of the legionary baths.22
Altogether four different stamp types of the legion are known in Pannonia (Fig. 15), which is quite a number considering that the legion spent only a few years in Pannonia. The stamped bricks must have been produced in the legionary tilery of Brigetio, which was already operating between 101–105 when the legio XI Claudia was stationed in Brigetio.23 Stamped bricks of the legio XI Claudia were not found in the legionary tilery during Paulovics's excavation in the 1930s,24 but some of them were discovered in secondary position during the 1941 excavation at Kurucdomb led by Aladár Radnóti and László Barkóczi.25
Stamp types of the legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis in Pannonia
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
The numerous bricks of the legio XI Claudia in the principia, along the via decumana, the lowest parts of the legionary baths, and the oven floor testifies that the legion took part in laying the foundations of the most important infrastructure in the castra legionis. Two stamped bricks of the legio came to light during the excavations in the civil town in 2005 and 2014.26
The legion spent only a few years in Pannonia from 101 when they arrived from Vindonissa (Windisch, Switzerland) until 105 when they were moved to Durostorum (Silistra, Bulgaria).27 For this reason, their stamped bricks are only attested in a few sites apart from Brigetio: in the forum of Scarbantia (Sopron, Hungary),28 in the counter-fort at Iža (Slovakia)29 and a stray find in Tokod.30
The text of all four stamp types is the same: Leg(io) XI C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis), but the form of the frame and the letters are different in each version (Fig. 15). The fourth type is only known from Scarbantia, the other three mostly from Brigetio.
Type 1
The simplest of the stamp types was Type 1 where the text was set in a rectangular frame, the letters were tall and slim.31 This was the type found in the oven floor in Trench F of the castra excavation (Cat. 12). Two specimens of the type are in the Tussla-collection32 and one was found during the excavation in the civil town of Brigetio.33 This type was stamped on lateres in different sizes: 58 and 28.5 cm square, as well as on tegulae. The stray find in Tokod was of the same type, however, a distinct interpunction in the form of an arrowhead can be seen between the G and the X.34 Apart from this small difference, the specimen from Tokod and those of Brigetio look exactly the same. Based on modern experiments, it is a common occurrence during the stamping of a large series of bricks or tiles that small parts of the stamp die get temporarily blocked up by lumps of clay, which results in the disappearance of an interpunction or parts of a letter on some of the stamps.35 This means that the above-mentioned stamps could have been punched with the same die.
Type 2
In Type 2, the text can be seen in tabula ansata, the spacing of the letters is narrow, the letters are drawn with thick lines. There are faint interpunctions in the form of triangles between the G and X, the C and P and the P and F.36 This type was discovered at the “aqueduct excavation” (Cat. 45) and during the excavation in the civil town of Brigetio.37
Type 3
The Type 3 stamp had an elaborate frame with zig-zag motive along the top and the bottom of the frame. The P and F stand in ligature and there is a triangular interpunction between the G and the X.38 Two examples of this stamp are in the Tussla-collection of the HNM.39
Type 4
This type is only known from Scarbantia where it was discovered during the excavation of the Capitolium in the 1890s.40
Lupicinus tribunus
The stamped tiles of Lupicinus tribunus are frequently found in excavations along the Danube in the province of Valeria.41 During the Paulovics-excavations five specimens were collected (Cat. 37, 38, 39, 40 and 43), but six others from Brigetio are in the Tussla-collection of the Hungarian National Museum,42 and several found during the excavation of the legionary tilery of Brigetio.43 Recently, the brick stamps of Lupicinus were discovered during the excavation of the legionary baths in Brigetio, marking a renovation phase in the fortress.44
Terentianus tribunus
Two of the bricks were stamped with the name of Terentianus tribunus both recovered by I. Paulovics during his excavations in the legionary fortress. Several others of his stamped bricks are known from the castra: both from the Tussla-collection from 188545 and from the recent excavations in the legionary baths of Brigetio.46 Terentianus was tribunus in Valeria provincia during the reign of Valentinian I, probably between 369–373.47
His stamps are interesting because they had been discovered in two military tileries, both in the Brigetio legionary tilery48 and in the late Roman Esztergom-Szentgyörgypuszta tilery.49 Also, his stamped tile was collected in Lugio (Dunaszekcső, Hungary) in the early 1900s, but it is not known if it was found in the area of the Dunaszekcső-Halena tilery or not.50 It seems certain, however, that his bricks were fired in several workshops along the Danube in Valeria: in Brigetio, Solva and perhaps in Lugio.
Caris tribunus
There is one stamped imbrex fragment of Caris tribunus from the castra excavation of Paulovics (Cat. 42), but three others are listed by Szilágyi from Brigetio, all from the Tussla-collection in the Hungarian National Museum.51 Caris was tribunus in the province of Valeria in the first half of the 370s, maybe between 371–37452 and his brick stamps have been discovered in several watchtowers along the ripa Pannonica.53
Verianus tribunus
Only one brick stamp fragment with the first three letters of Verianus' name have come to light in Brigetio so far (Cat. 31). They are not exactly numerous in Pannonia anywhere: two examples are known from the Pilismarót-Malompatak watchtower54 and another five from the late Roman cemetery of Esztergom-Bánom. Only the latter are full stamps, so the very existence of Verianus tribunus became known only in the 2000s.55 Verianus was tribunus in Valeria provincia during the reign of Valentinian I, his brick stamps are dated to between 368 and 374 by Péter Kovács.56 The text of his stamps appears in two versions: Veriano tr(ibuno) and Veriano tr(i)b(uno) both with retrograde N.57
Quadriburgium
Three of the tiles bore Quadriburgium stamps: one later (Cat. 32) and two tegulae (Cat. 29 and 33), all found in the late Roman debris of Trench C in the castra.
The Quadriburgium brick stamps are among the most debated ones in the Pannonian research. Several text versions are known, which were recently collected by M. Kelemen: Quadrib, Quadribu, Quadribur, Quadriburasa and Quadriburg.58 We now know that they (or at least some of them) were produced in Solva, where two stamped bricks were found in the brick kiln at the Esztergom-Szentgyörgymező tilery.59 The Quadriburgium brick stamps have been dated either to the reign of Diocletian (284–305)60 or to the reign of Valentinian I (364–375),61 or recently to the whole of the fourth century AD.62 The specimens from Brigetio were discovered among stamped tiles dated to the reign of Valentinian I.
The versions of the Quadriburgium brick stamps are extremely widespread in Valeria provincia: M. Kelemen collected 85 pieces from 17 settlements.63
CORTA VICEN
Barnabás Lőrincz held the CORTA VICEN and VINCENTIA stamps variations with the same meaning. In contrast, M. Kelemen was of the opinion that the two stamps have two independent meanings.64
According to B. Lőrincz, the meaning of the CORTA VICEN stamp was: Co(ho)rt(is) A(pparatu) Vi(n)cen(tii)65 and was thus a brick stamp with the name of an army officer. M. Kelemen accepted the reading and the categorization as an army officer's stamp. She also stated that bricks with this stamp were probably produced from the reign of Constantius II and are often found with other brick stamps of Valentinianic army officers.66
There are two CORTA VICEN stamps in this material: one from Cemetery 4 (Cat. 57, lost) and the other from the late Roman Trench C in the fortress (Cat. 34). Other CORTA VICEN stamps are known from the legionary fortress of Brigetio as well, there are two in the Tussla-collection of the Hungarian National Museum,67 and one was recently found near the principia of the castra legionis.68 They were discovered in several other late Roman sites: in Crumerum (Nyergesújfalu, Hungary),69 in Solva (Esztergom, Hungary),70 in the late Roman fort of Hideglelőskereszt,71 and in the Pilismarót fortlet.72
Both CORTA VICEN stamps from the Paulovics-excavations came from late Roman contexts: one from Grave 17 in Cemetery 4 dated to the second half of the fourth century, and one from the late Roman collapsed roof with other Valentinianic army officers' stamps.
VINCENTIA
András Alföldi read the stamp in 1920 as VINCENTI(i) A(pparatu) and counted it to the Valentinianic army officers' stamps.73 As mentioned above, B. Lőrincz accepted this reading and categorization and thought that the VINCENTIA stamps were a variation of the CORTA VICEN stamps. In comparison, M. Kelemen believed that they were two separate stamps with independent meanings. According to M. Kelemen, the VINCENTIA stamp is to be interpreted as a stamp with a place name like the Quadriburgium stamp, and were produced from the reign of Diocletian until the reign of Valentinian I. This hypothesis was first formed by Theodor Mommsen based on the Notitia Dignitatum mentions of a “tribunus cohortis Vincentiae” (N.D. occ. XXXIII. 59) and a “tribunus cohortis Quadriburgio” (N.D. icc. XXX. 60).74 Kelemen also states that VINCENTIA stamps are never found in the same grave with Valentinianic army officers' stamps, unlike the CORTA VICEN type.75
The VINCENTIA stamp (Cat. 1, now lost) was discovered on the Danube shore by I. Paulovics. It was a retrograde version of the stamp. Another example was recently found during field walking in the area of the Brigetio legionary fortress.76
VINCENTIA stamps are known from several sites along the Danube: from the Roman fort of Cirpi (Dunabogdány, Hungary),77 from several places in Budapest: 12–14 Lánchíd Street late Roman watchtower, Budapest Laktanya Street78 and Transaquincum late Roman fort in Budapest 13th district,79 from the late Roman layers of the auxiliary castellum in Intercisa (Dunaújváros, Hungary),80 and from Lugio (Dunaszekcső, Hungary).81
Unidentified stamp – Cat. 41
The fragmented stamp seems to read: [– – –]M TIB. Based on the fact that it was found in Trench C in the castra, in the late Roman collapsed roof, this stamp can most probably be dated to the reign of Valentinian, as well.
Unidentified stamp – Cat. 60
The stamp on the Cat. 60 piece is hard to interpret (Fig. 16). The stamp is whole in a tabula ansata-like cartouche, however, the middle of the stamp is damaged: from the six letters of the text one letter (the fourth) is missing and two letters (third and fifth) are mutilated. It is not even sure if the text was meant to be retrograde or not. It is undebatable that the last (sixth) letter is a well-cut letter E and the second letter is an O. Based on the opinion of Andrea Barta, an expert in Latin linguistics, there are two possibilities. If the stamp is not retrograde, the first letter could be a C, the second O, the third and fifth may be an F, the fourth is missing and the sixth is an E. The last two letters might mean fe(cit). If the stamp is retrograde, the first letter from the right could be an S or C, the second an O, the third and fifth an L, the fourth is missing, and the sixth an E.82 A somewhat similar stamp had been found in Crumerum (Nyergesújfalu, Hungary, about 30 km down the Danube) a few years ago (Fig. 16).83 The size and the shape of the cartouche are exactly the same, but the letters are wider and not so sharply cut. The first letter of this stamp is missing, however, the other five correspond to the letters of the Brigetio stamp. The second letter, an O, has an accent grave on it, missing from the O in Brigetio. According to the excavators, this accent is only the consequence of a fault on the surface of the die, therefore unintentional and not part of the letter.84 The third and fifth letters have roughly the same shape on both stamps, the fourth letter (missing from the Brigetio stamp) is an O, while the sixth letter can be read as an E, albeit a blurred one. The location of the letters in relation to the cartouche is also the same in both stamps. It is possible that for the brick stamp in Crumerum the same die was used as for the one in Brigetio, but the die was recarved in between. This would explain the differences in the letters: in the Brigetio example the letters are thinner and more finely cut, while in the Crumerum specimen the letters are thicker and less sharp. This could only have happened if the die was made of wood. If the two stamps are indeed the same, then the two fragmented texts can be used to complete each other. If the stamp is not retrograde, it could be for example COFOFE, where the OF could mean officina and the FE could mean fecit. If the stamp is retrograde, the stamp could read SOLOLE for instance. Further analysis of the stamp can only be made if another example would be found.
The unidentified stamp Cat. 60
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
The stamped tile came from Grave 19 of the late Roman Cemetery 4 in Brigetio. The grave was built of tegulae assembled in a roof-like structure. None of the other tiles were stamped, and the burial did not contain coins, but the whole graveyard was dated to the second half of the fourth century AD.85 Based on the find circumstances, the brick stamp can probably be dated to the fourth century, as well.86
Legio I Adiutrix
The stamped bricks of the legio I Adiutrix are extremely common: more than a thousand have been collected in Brigetio alone, but they are known from countless sites from all parts of Pannonia. Szilágyi assembled as many as 108 different stamp types of the legion, but several others have come to light since.87
Some of the characteristic late Roman stamp types of the legio I adiutrix
Type 1
One of the most particular stamps of the legio I Adiutrix is a two-line stamp that includes the name of a certain Bommius (Fig. 17). According to B. Lőrincz he must have been an immunis who specialized in brick production. J. Szilágyi collected three versions of this type, and recent finds haven't yielded new types yet. The type was dated by B. Lőrincz to the second half of the fourth century based on the specimen from Trench C at the castra excavation (Cat. 30).88
Versions of the legio I Adiutrix Type 1 stamp
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Type 1.1
This is the version that was found by I. Paulovics during his castra excavation in the 1920s (Cat. 30) and this is also the simplest one. The two lines of the text are surrounded by a rectangular frame. The text reads Leg(io) T Adi(utrix) / Bommi(us) ▫ f(ecit). Our specimen is broken, the I in the first line and the F in the second line are missing. J. Szilágyi filled the gaps based on an intact example in the Kállay-collection.89 There is another specimen of this type in the Museum Carnuntinum.90
Type 1.2
The second version of the type has a decorated cartouche: on the left there is a pine tree sprig and on the right a sun (?) motif. The text reads Leg(io) ⸰ I Adiut̂r̂(ix) / Bommi(us) f(ecit) and the two lines of the text are separated by a straight line. This type was found in Brigetio in 1890,91 and in the Roman cemetery of Vetus Salina (Adony, Hungary).92 The piece discovered by I. Paulovics during his excavation in the legionary tilery of Brigetio probably belongs to this type.93
Type 1.3
The text of the third version is somewhat different: Leg(io) T Ad(iutrix) / Bomi Cresc. The frame is rectangular, the two lines of the text are separated by a straight line, and there is a pine tree sprig in the upper right corner. Szilágyi cited one example in the Museum Komárom, and it might be the same specimen mentioned by L. Mathédesz in the collection of the Danube Region Museum in Komárno.94
During the excavations in the legionary baths in Brigetio, another stamped brick of Bommius was unearthed.95
Type 2
Another easily recognisable stamp reads LEG I ADI E. It also has several types, most of them retrograde (Fig. 18).
Versions of the legio I Adiutrix Type 2 stamp
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Type 2.1
Two examples of the type were found in Trench C of the fortress and another in Trench A (Cat. 5, 26 and 27). The retrograde text is surrounded by a rectangular frame with rounded corners. The text reads: Leg(io) I Adi(utrix) E, where the E at the end is missing its stem and the A does not have a crossbar. Szilágyi states that many examples of the type are known (he says more than 50), and indeed it is true.96 They were obviously produced in the legionary tilery at Kurucdomb where seven specimens were collected by I. Paulovics in the 1930s.97 There are five examples of this stamp in the Tussla-collection98 as well, one on an imbrex, three others on a bessalis (20 × 20 cm), one on a later (26 × 27 cm) while the ones from the castra are on tegulae. B. Lőrincz published one from the Hansági Múzeum in Mosonmagyaróvár,99 and another from Vienna.100
Type 2.2
Another type has the same retrograde text, but the form of the A is a little different and the E at the end is a regular E with stem. The only specimen is published by L. Mathédesz from the Danube Region Museum in Komárno.101
Type 3
This stamp is another retrograde stamp in tabula ansata, with the text: Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) (Fig. 19). Characteristic is the A without crossbar and with one stem almost vertical and the other in 45°. Szilágyi sites two, almost identical types, in one the A is less lopsided then in the other. However, based on several fragmented stamps, he completed it the wrong way: not as a retrograde stamp.104
The legio I Adiutrix Type 3 stamp
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Type 4
This type is characteristic for its lettering: an I stands in the place of the L, E, and F letters in the text like so: IIC I AD PI, Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) (Fig. 20). One complete and two fragmented specimens came to light from Cemetery 4 from two different graves (Cat. 61, 66 and 67).111
The legio I Adiutrix Type 4 stamp
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Type 5
Only one example is known from the type, a complete stamp from Cemetery 4 (Cat. 58). The text is retrograde, except for the letter L, and the frame has a zig-zagged border (Fig. 21). The stamp reads: Leg(io) I Adi(utrix).
The legio I Adiutrix Type 5 stamp
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00022
Conclusions
The re-examination of old finds which were either unpublished or only published in a cursory manner can yield important new data. This is the case with the stamped bricks from the excavations led by I. Paulovics between 1927 and 1929 which touched upon the northern surrounding wall of the castra, a short section of the via decumana south of the fortress and parts of the late Roman cemeteries southeast of the fortress. During the excavation 67 stamped bricks and tiles were collected and taken to the Hungarian National Museum. Forty-three of the 67 brick stamps belonged to the legio I Adiutrix, the garrison of Brigetio from the early second to the early fifth century AD. A large variety of ceramic building material was manufactured by the legion in the legionary tilery at Kurucdomb, east of the legionary fortress. Because of its long stay in Brigetio the more than thousand known tile stamps of the legion with more than 100 different stamp types cannot be dated with precision. At the Paulovics excavations 27 legio I Adiutrix stamps came from archaeological contexts dated to the second half of the fourth century AD, which enabled us to date a few of the stamp types to the fourth century with high probability. Apart from this, significant is the wide array of brick stamps from the reign of Valentinian I, some of which is only known from this excavation from Brigetio, for example the stamp of Verianus tribunus. Other late Roman stamps include those of Lupicinus tribunus, Terentianus tribunus, Caris tribunus, Verianus tribunus, Corta Vicen, Quadriburgium, and Vincentia.
The stamped bricks of the 1927–1929 excavation of István Paulovics are not the only stamped bricks from Brigetio in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum. The so-called Tussla-collection provides a perfect complement to this material, and both can serve as reference material for the on-going excavations of the legionary fortress of Brigetio.
References
Alföldi, A. (1922). Az I. Valentinianus-féle erődépítés tégláiról (Note on the bricks used in the watchtower buildings of Valentinian I). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 39: 96–98.
Barkóczi, L. (1951). Brigetio. Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pazmany nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, II.22. Budapest.
Barkóczi, L. (1961). Adatok Brigetio későrómai történetéhez (Zur spätrömerzeitlichen Geschichte Brigetios). Folia Archaeologica, 13: 95–115.
Barkóczi, L. and Bónis, É. (1954). Das frührömische Lager und die Wohnsiedlung von Adony (Vetus Salina). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 4: 129–200.
Barna, F. (2023). A Brigetio/Szőny-MOL-Kiskertek lelőhelyen, 2015 nyarán végzett feltárás anyagának feldolgozása és elemzése (Analysis of the find material of the 2015 excavation at the Brigetio/Szőny-MOL-Kiskertek archaeological site). Unpublished MA Thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Barna, F. (2025). Gestempelte Ziegel aus der Ausgrabung von Komárom/Szőny-MOL-Kiskertek (Brigetio) im Jahr 2015. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 13. in press.
Bartus, D., Borhy, L., Delbó, G., Dévai, K., Kis, Z., Hajdu, B., Nagy, A., Sáró, Cs., Sey, N., Számadó, E., and Juhász, L. (2016). Jelentés a Komárom-Szőny, Vásártéren 2014-ben folytatott régészeti feltárások eredményeiről (Bericht über die Ergebnisse der im Jahre 2014 im Munizipium von Brigetio (FO: Komárom-Szőny, Vásártér) geführten archäologischen Grabungen). Kuny Domokos Múzeum Közleményei, 22: 113–191.
Bartus, D., Szabó, M., Joháczi, Sz., Juhász, L., Simon, B., Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (2022). Short report on the excavations in the legionary fortress of Brigetio in 2021–2022. The legionary bath. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 10: 355–367. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2022.355.
Bartus, D., Szabó, M., Juhász, L., Müller, Á., Olasz, R., Simon, B., Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (2023). Short report on the excavations of the Legionary Bath of Brigetio in 2023. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3 ,11: 625–639. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2023.625.
Bella, L. (1894). Scarbantiai emlékekről (About remains from Scarbantia). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 14: 76.
Benes, A. (2018). The Roman aqueduct of Brigetio. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 6: 419–440. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2018.419.
Berkovics-Borota, M. (1886). Ásatásom az ó-szőnyi táborban (My excavations in the legionary castra in Ószőny). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 6: 392–397.
Borhy, L. (2012). Die legio XI Claudia im pannonischen Brigetio (Komárom/Szőny, Ungarn). In: Kovács, P. and Szabó, Á. (Eds.), Studia epigraphica Pannonica, IV: In memoriam Barnabás Lőrincz. TITE könyvek. Budapest, pp. 23–36.
Brandl, U. (1999). Untersuchungen zu den Ziegelstempeln römischer Legionen in den nordwestlichen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Katalog der Sammlung Julius B. Fritzemeier. Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie, 6. Rahden/Westf.
Buora, M. and Jobst, W. (Eds.) (2009). Roma sul Danubio: da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dellˈambra. Udine.
Dobosi, L. (2020). Építőanyagok és építéstechnika Brigetióban (Building techniques and building materials in Brigetio). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Dobosi, L. (2021). Brick and tile kilns in Roman Pannonia – a state of research. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 72(1): 27–53. https://10.1556/072.2021.00003.
Dobosi, L. (2022). Building techniques and building materials in Brigetio: with the virtual reconstruction of House I/a of the civil town of Brigetio. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 9: 313–336. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2021.313.
Dobosi, L. and Borhy, L. (2022). The legionary tilery of Brigetio and the Late Roman watchtower at Kurucdomb: The 1934–1935 excavation of István Paulovics at Komárom/Szőny-Kurucdomb with a catalogue of the brick stamps. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 10: 129–191. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2022.129.
Dobosi, L. and Szabadváry, T. (2024a). Unpublished antefixes and a mould fragment from Brigetio in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 149. in press.
Dobosi, L. and Szabadváry, T. (2024b). Roman stamped bricks from the Tussla-collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 12. in press.
Farkas, I.G. (2013). Roman stamped tiles from Dunaszekcső. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 53: 101–132. https://doi.org/10.1556/AAnt.53.2013.1.6.
Halitzky, A. (1820). Értekezés egy Hidvárrúl (de Munimento Pontis), melly a’ Pesti DunaParton a’ régi Római Aquincum, a’ mostani ó-Budának által ellenében állott, és némelly VINCENTIA névvel meg-Külömböztetett Téglákrúl, mellyek az emlitett Hidvárnak Omladékaiban találtattak. MDCCCXX. (Short report about the bridgehead fortress across Aquincum and about the Vincentia stamped tiles found in the debris). Tudományos Gyűjtemény, 4(3): 9–26.
Hanel, N., Tegtmeier, U., and Bethke, A. (2004). Stempelstöcke für Ziegel in römischer Zeit. Archäologische Aspekte und experimentelle Beobachtungen. Kölner Jahrbuch, 37: 449–461.
Kelemen, M. (1995). A legio I Adiutrix téglavetője Dömösön (Die Ziegelei der legio I Adiutrix in Dömös). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 121–122(1994–1995): 97–114.
Kelemen, M. (2011). Késő római téglaégető kemence Esztergomból (Eine spätrömische Ziegelbrennofen aus Esztergom). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 136: 135–163.
Kelemen, M. and Merczi, M. (2002). Az esztergomi Várhegy 1934–1938. évi ásatásának későkelta és római kori kerámiája (Spätkeltische und römerzeitliche Keramikfunde aus dem Ausgrabungen des Esztergomer Burgberges in den Jahren 1934–1938). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, 9: 25–72.
Kelemen, M. and Merczi, M. (2019). Az esztergomi Várhegy a római korban (Der Burgberg von Esztergom in der römischen Kaiserzeit). Esztergom.
Kovács, P. (2018). Pannonia története Kr.u. 374–378 között (The history of Pannonia between AD 374–378). In: Forisek, P., Szabó Á., and Szakács, J. (Eds.), “Hadak útján”. A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatóinak XXVII. konferenciája – 27thConference of Young Scholars on the Migration Period, Debrecen, 2017. október 27–28. Debrecen, pp. 85–127.
Kuzmová, K. and Rajtár, J. (1986). Bisherige Erkentnisse zur Befestigung des Römerkastells in Iža. Slovenska Archeológia, 34: 185–224.
Lóki, R., Szabó, M., and Visy, Zs. (2011). A PTE kutatócsoportja által felmért lelőhelyek katalógusa (Catalogue of sites surveyed by the research team of University of Pécs). In: Visy, Zs. (Ed.), A Danube Limes program régészeti kutatásai 2008–2011 között – The Danube Limes Project archaeological research between 2008–2011. Pécs, pp. 53–100.
Lőrincz, B. (1975). Zur Erbauung des Legionslagers von Brigetio. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 27: 343–352.
Lőrincz, B. (1979). Pannonische Stempelziegel, II: Limes-Strecke Vetus Salina – Intercisa. Dissertationes archaeologicae, II.7. Budapest.
Lőrincz, B. (1980). A mosonmagyaróvári Hansági Múzeum bélyeges téglái (Die Ziegelstempel des Hansági-Museums von Mosonmagyaróvár). Alba Regia, 20: 265–290.
Lőrincz, B. (1981). Gestempelte Ziegel aus Tokod. In: Mócsy, A. (Hrsg.), Die spätrömische Festung und das Gräberfeld von Tokod. Budapest, pp. 121–144.
Lőrincz, B. (2006). Spätrömische Offiziere und Unteroffiziere im pannonischen Heer aufgrund der Ziegelstempel. Specimina nova. Dissertationum ex Instituto Historiae Antiquae et Archaeologiae Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis, 20: 103–120.
Lőrincz, B. (2008). A bélyeges téglák. Die Ziegelstempel. In: H. Kelemen, M., Merczi, M., and Lőrincz, B. (Eds.), Solva. Esztergom későrómai temetői (Die spätrömische Gräberfelder von Esztergom). Libelli archaeologici, Series nova, 3. Budapest, pp. 479–548.
Lőrincz, B. Gestempelte Ziegel aus Vindobona. Unpublished manuscript, https://stadtarchaeologie.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/L%C3%B6rincz_Ziegelstempel_Tafeln.pdf (Last accessed: 12.07.2024).
Mathédesz, L. (2014). Római bélyeges téglák a komáromi Duna Menti Múzeum gyűjteményében (Roman stamped bricks in the collection of the Danube Region Museum of Komárno). Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Ser. 3, 2: 67–96.
Nagy, L. (1937). Aquincumi vonatkozású kiadatlan feliratos kőemlékek Szentendréről (Unpublished stone inscriptions from Szentendre concerning Aquincum). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 50: 85–115.
Nagy, T. (1942). Kutatások Ulcisia Castra területén. Előzetes jelentés az 1939. évi ásatásról (Indagini sul territorio di Ulcisia Castra). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 3: 261–285.
Neumann, A. (1973). Ziegel aus Vindobona. Der Römische Limes in Österreich, 27. Wien.
Paulovics, I. (1930). Brigetio. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 44: 198–201.
Paulovics, I. (1934). Újabb kutatás a brigetiói (szőnyi) római táborban és annak környékén (New research in the Roman fortress of Brigetio (Szőny) and its surroundings). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 47: 134–140.
Paulovics, I. (1938). Il limes romano in Ungheria. Quaderni dellˈImpero. Il limes romano, 4. Roma.
Paulovics, I. (1941). Funde und Forschungen in Brigetio (Szőny). In: Aquincumi babérágak. Kuzsinszky Bálint emlékének szenteli Budapest székesfőváros közönsége és a Pázmány-Egyetem Érem- és Régiségtani Intézete – Laureae Aquincenses. Memoriae Valentini Kuzsinszky dedicatae, II. Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestensis provenientes, II.11. Budapest, pp. 118–164.
Rómer, F. (1868). Az ősrégi agyagmívesség viszonya a történelemhez (Ancient pottery in relation to history). Századok, 2: 413–432.
Rupnik, L., Czajlik, Z., and Bartus, D. (2018). The use of aerial photography in the topographical research of Brigetio: The archive imagery. In: Borhy, L., Dévai, K., and Tankó, K. (Eds.), Celto – Gallo – Roman. Studies of the MTA-ELTE Research Group for Interdisciplinary Archaeology. Paris, pp. 83–96.
Schilling, L., Sörös. F.Zs., Jablonkai, D., and Novák, K. (2021a). Crumerum (Nyergesújfalu) im Licht der neueren Forschungen. In: Farkas, I.G., Neményi, R., and Szabó, M. (Eds.), The Danube limes in Hungary. Archaeological research conducted in 2015–2020. Pécs, pp. 127–186.
Schilling, L., Sörös. F.Zs., Jablonkai, D., and Novák, K. (2021b). Crumerum/Nyergesújfalu a legújabb kutatások tükrében (Crumerum/Nyergesújfalu in the light of most recent research). Glaeba, 1: 78–121. https://doi.org/10.54098/glaeba.2021.1.4.
Simon, B. and Rupnik, L. (2023). Identifying the Roman aqueduct of Brigetio (Komárom/Szőny, Komárom-Esztergom county/HU) using historical sources, maps, GIS modelling and non-destructive methods. Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt, 53: 531–546. https://doi.org/10.11588/ak.2023.4.104076.
Soproni, S. (1958). Adatok a Valentinianuskori bélyegestéglák időrendjéhez (Data about Valentinian brick stamp chronology). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 85: 52–55.
Soproni, S. (1978). Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendre. Budapest.
Szilágyi, J. (1933). Inscriptiones tegularum Pannonicarum. Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestensis provenientes, II.1. Budapest.
Szilágyi, J. (1950). Új adatok Aquincum és Pannonia hadtörténetéhez (Neue Beiträge zur pannonischen Garnisons-Geschichte). Budapest Régiségei, 15: 516–534.
Szilágyi, J. (1952). Roman garrisons stationed at the northern Pannonian-Quad frontier-sectors of the Empire. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2: 189–222.
Trumm, J. (2008). Der Weg der 11. Legion von Vindonissa an die untere Donau – eine archäologische Spurensuche. Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, 2008: 15–20.
Visy, Zs. (2003). The ripa Pannonica in Hungary. Budapest.
Paulovics (1930) 200–201.
Paulovics (1934) 139–140; Paulovics (1938) 7; Dobosi and Borhy (2022).
Paulovics (1941) 153–154. The documentation of the excavation is in the HNM Central Database, Archaeological Documentation Collection, no. 75.B.I. and 105.Sz.II. (MNM Régészeti Adattár 75.B.I. “Brigetio Castrum – 1927. Paulovics-hagyaték” and 105.Sz.II. “Szőny Topográfiai adatok – Paulovics-hagyaték”).
Paulovics (1941) 157.
Paulovics (1941) 157. L. Barkóczi mentions this excavation in his Brigetio monography, but with an incorrect date: 1934, see Barkóczi (1951) 9.
Paulovics (1941) 157; Inv. no.: 33/1929.12. Cat. 12, Fig. 4.
Paulovics (1941) 158–159. A fragment of a stone rain water drain was also found among the rubble: inv. no.: RT-RO 33/1929.23.
Paulovics (1941) 158–159; For the antefix see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024a) in press. There is no mention of these pinecones in the inventory book of the HNM.
The coins: inv. no. RT-RO 33/1929.21. A: as? perhaps 1st c. AD; B: bronze coin, Æ2, Constantinian-dynasty, 348–350 AD; C: bronze coin, Æ3, Constantius Gallus caesar, 351–354 AD; D: bronze coin, Æ3, Julian II, 361–363 AD; E: bronze coin, lost.
Paulovics (1941) 143–152; Benes (2018) 423; for more on the actual aqueduct see Simon and Rupnik (2023).
Hungarian National Museum, Inv. no.: 7/1928.33–36. Now lost.
Paulovics (1941) 162–164.
Barkóczi (1961). The documentation of the excavations is in the HNM Central Database, Archaeological Documentation Collection, no. 104.Sz.II. (MNM Régészeti Adattár 104.Sz.II. „Szőny-1929. Paulovics-hagyaték”). The small finds from the excavation are in the Hungarian National Museum (partly lost) under the following numbers: Cemetery 1: RT-RO 5/1928.1–36.; Cemetery 2: RT-RO 9/1928.1–39.; Cemetery 3 RT-RO 31/1929.1–3.; Cemetery 4: RT-RO 32/1929.1–50.
Barkóczi (1961) 109–112.
Barkóczi (1961) 97. In comparison, the size of the tegulae found in the Brigetio civil town (at Komárom/Szőny-Vásártér site) fell into two categories: the bigger were 50.0–52.5 × 39.0–40.5 cm large and were more frequent, while the smaller ones measured 45.2–47.0 × 32.5–34.0 cm. See: Dobosi (2020) 135; Dobosi (2022) 321.
Barkóczi (1961) 103. The stamped tiles themselves are lost with neither photo nor drawing available of them.
Barkóczi (1961) 104–108. The tile graves were nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, and the one containing stamped bricks: no. 27. Interestingly Barkóczi speaks of 29 burials, but on the plan of I. Paulovics the numbering goes from 1 to 31.
In this paper the word „ stamp type” indicates a specific form. Two stamps belonging to the same type means that they were made with the same die: the form and size of the stamp, and the individual letters look exactly the same.
Lőrincz (1975) 347; Barkóczi (1951) 20. Also, with no exact find spot, four legio XI Claudia stamps are in the Tussla-collection of the HNM, see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024b).
Bartus et al. (2022) 365; Bartus et al. (2023) 630 and 636.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022). Based on the so-called vexillation stamps.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022) 144–145.
Dobosi (2020) 321–322.
Borhy (2012) 23–25; Trumm (2008) 19–20; Brandl (1999) 138–139.
Szilágyi (1933) 62 and Table XIV/1; Bella (1894) 76.
Kuzmová and Rajtár (1986) 198 and Abb. 10.
Lőrincz (1981) 121 and Abb. 3. According to B. Lőrincz, the find spot of the stamped brick in the Hansági Múzeum of Mosonmagyaróvár was probably Brigetio (when he catalogued the brick stamps of the museum in the 1970s, the piece was already lost). The CIL mentions several pieces from Aquincum (CIL III 11351) but even Szilágyi could not find in the 1930s. Szilágyi (1933) 63.
Szilágyi (1933) Table XIV/2.
Inv. no. 65/1885 53.23.50. and 65/1885.100., see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024b).
2014.P18–P19.058.420, see Bartus et al. (2016) 115 and 5. tábla/4; Dobosi (2020) Cat. 102. The stamp is fragmentary: Leg(io) X[– – –], but based on the size of the stamp and the form of the letters it is beyond doubt that the tile was stamped by the legio XI Claudia.
Lőrincz (1981) Abb. 3. Balassa Bálint Museum Esztergom, inv. no. 73.37.1.
Szilágyi (1933) Table XIV/3.
Inv. no. 2005.F17.048.129., see Dobosi (2020) Cat. 101.
Szilágyi (1933) Table XIV/4.
Inv. no. 65/1885.275. and 65/1885.243 55.23.49., see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024b).
Szilágyi (1933) 62 and Table XIV/1; Bella (1894) 76. The specimen in question cannot be found in the collection of Museum at the moment.
Lőrincz (2006) 108; Lőrincz (2008) 497–498; Kovács (2018) 90.
Bartus et al. (2023) 636; Bartus et al. (2022) 365.
Kelemen (2011) 148; Lőrincz (2008) 486; Lőrincz (2006) 109. According to Péter Kovács he was tribunus between 368 and 374, Kovács (2018) 92.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022) 147 and 161/Cat. no. 9 (11).
Kelemen (2011) 143 and 148.
Farkas (2013) 104, 117 and 127, Table V/II.4.5.1. Halász-collection.
Szilágyi (1933) 98/31d, 32/b-c and Table XXVI/31–32. Hungarian National Museum (Tussla-collection) inv. nos. 65/1885.362., 65/1885.366., and 65/1885.383., now lost, see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024b).
Kovács (2018) 92; Lőrincz (2008) 484; Lőrincz (2006) 109; Soproni (1958).
Soproni (1978) 189; Soproni (1958) 53; Lőrincz (2006) 109; Kovács (2018) 90.
Soproni (1978) Tafel 31/17 and Tafel 30/20; Lőrincz (2006) 106 and Abb. 4/1–2.
Lőrincz (2006) 106 and Abb. 4/3–7; Lőrincz (2008) 486–487.
Kovács (2018) 92; Lőrincz (2006) 110.
Lőrincz (2008) Tafel 15/5–7 (Cat. nos. 48–50) and Tafel 16/1–2 (Cat. nos. 162 and 164).
Kelemen (2011) 147 and 149–160.
Kelemen (2011) 143; Dobosi (2021) 35–36.
Nagy (1937) 113, based on the stamped bricks found in 1929 in Ulcisia, where they were found together with leg(io) II Ad(iutrix) stamps. Tibor Nagy also based his dating on the bricks of Ulcisia, Nagy (1942) 268–269. And later Kelemen (2011) 144.
Lőrincz (1979) 42.
Lőrincz (2008) 542.
Kelemen (2011) 149–160.
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153–154.
Lőrincz (2008) 488. Another interpretation of the stamp was published by J. Szilágyi in 1950s: co(ho)r(s) I A(lpinorum) Vi(n)cen(tiae), Szilágyi (1950) 520–521; Szilágyi (1952) 199.
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153–154.
Inv. no.: 65.1885.245. and 55.23.140., see Dobosi and Szabadváry (2024b).
In the Klapka György Museum of Komárom, inv. no.: 2015.7.045.74. Barna (2023) 70, Kat. 49, Table XI/49; Barna (2025).
Schilling et al. (2021a,b) 99–100. A a now lost piece was found in the 1860s: Rómer (1868) 428; Soproni (1978) 159.
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153–154; Soproni (1978) 20 and Taf. 2/8; Kelemen and Merczi (2002) 36, 53 and Table XII/2–4.
Soproni (1978) 27 and Taf. 9/3; Visy (2003) 48; Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 154.
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153–154; Alföldi (1922).
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153; Farkas (2013) 118.
Kelemen and Merczi (2019) 153–154.
Lóki et al. (2011) 62, Fig. 46.
I herebey thank Z. Havas for this information. The unpublished piece was found in 1950 in Budapest, 3rd district. Aquincum Museum inv. no. 54742.
Visy (2003) 61; Halitzky (1820) 10–12
Lőrincz (1979) 42–43 and Tafel 23/5.
Farkas (2013) 118, 127 and Table V/II.4.6.1.
Personal communication with A. Barta. According to her, the stamp cannot be dated based on the form of the letters.
Barkóczi (1961) 108–109.
The dating of the Crumerum stamp to the first century based on the form of the stamp is doubtful. Schilling et al. (2021a) 159.
For example a new set of stamp types from the tilery at Dömös, excavated by M. Kelemen in the 1980s. Kelemen (1995).
Lőrincz (1979) 10.
Szilágyi (1933) IV/107.
Buora and Jobst (2009) 252, Cat. IVb.9. Inv. no. 4610.
Szilágyi (1933) 18 and IV/106. HNM RT-RO 36/1890.8., gift of János Marossy pharmacist from Tata, but the brick was found in Brigetio. The piece is now lost.
Lőrincz (1979) 10 and Taf. I/1, HNM RT-RO 9/1951.; Barkóczi and Bónis (1954) 163 and Abb. 15.8 and Taf. XL/3.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022) 145, Cat. 44. and Fig. 28a.
Mathédesz (2014) 71, Kat. 7, Fig. 1.1.
Szilágyi (1933) 13 and Table III/60.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022) Cat. 214, 218, 224, 225, 259, 271, and 386.
Lőrincz (1980) Tafel I/4. Find spot: Brigetio
Lőrincz (1980) Tafel 1/1. Another Vindobona specimen is published in Neumann (1973) Taf. LXIV/T.3. (1660a).
Mathédesz (2014) Fig. 6/187.
Szilágyi (1933) 11 and Table III/61.
Mathédesz (2014) Fig. 4/103 and Fig. 5/105.
Szilágyi (1933) Table II/45 and 46.
Cat. 55, 62, and 65.
Dobosi and Borhy (2022) Cat. 198, 255, and 277.
Lőrincz (2008) Tafel I/1, Cat. 215.
Szilágyi (1933) II/46.
Lőrincz (2008) Tafel I/1.
Cat. 61. from Grave 21 and Cat. 66–67 from Grave 29.
Appendix
Brick stamps from the castra excavations of Paulovics between 1928–1929
| Cat. no. | Inv. no. | Text of stamp | Text | Notes | Size of stamp length/width [mm] | type of brick or tile | size of brick or tile [cm] | find spot | |
| 1. | 33/1929.1. | VINCEN | Vinceṇ(tia) | lost retrograde | Danube shore | Szilágyi (1933) 97/22, Table XXVI/22. | |||
| 2. | 33/1929.2. | LEG I AD | Ḷeg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | lost in tabula ansata | Trench A | Szilágyi (1933) 10/38d, Table II/38. | |||
| 3. | 33/1929.3. | I AD | [Leg(io)] Ị Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata | 61 × 22 | imbrex | 7.5 × 10.5 th 1.6 | Trench A | – |
| 4. | 33/1929.4. | EG ⸰ I ⸰ ADI ? | [L]ẹg(io) ⸰ I ̣⸰ Ạḍị(utrix) ? | rectangular frame | 107 × 30 | imbrex | 14.5 × 10.2 th 1.6–2.2 | Trench A | Szilágyi (1933) 11/48, Table II/48. |
| 5. | 33/1929.5. | LEG I ADT E | Ḷeg(io) I Adi(utrix) E | retrograde the stem of the E at the end is missing | 131 × 25 | tegula | 14.0 × 13.5 th 2.6–3.3 | Trench A | Szilágyi (1933) 13/60e, Table III/60. |
| 6. | 33/1929.6. | LEG I | Leg(io) I [- - -] | retrograde | 65 × 27 | tegula | 10.0 × 9.0 th 2.4 | Trench B | Szilágyi (1933) 6/2, Table I/2. |
| 7. | 33/1929.7. | LEG ⸰ I ⸰ AD | Leg(io) ⸰ I ⸰ Ạḍ | lost in tabula ansata GI ligature | Trench B | Szilágyi (1933) 6/4, Table I/4. | |||
| 8. | 33/1929.8. | L ⸰ E ⸰ G ⸰ I ⸰ AD | L ⸰ e ⸰ g(io) ⸰ I ⸰ Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata | 121 × 20 | tegula | 17.0 × 10.0 th 3.2 | Trench B | Szilágyi (1933) 7/15, Table I/15. |
| 9. | 33/1929.9. | LEG T AD | Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata the stem of the E is missing | 133 × 22 | imbrex | 18.5 × 10.5 th 1.7–2.0 | Trench B | Szilágyi (1933) 10/40a, Table II/40. |
| 10. | 33/1929.10. | EG I AD PI FI | [L]eg(io) I Ad(iutrix) Pi(a) Fi(delis) | in tabula ansata | 100 × 22 | imbrex | 10.0 × 10.0 th 1.5–1.7 | Trench B | Szilágyi (1933) 18/102, Table IV/102. |
| 11. | 33/1929.11. | EG Ī AD PF | [L]eĝ(io) Î Âd(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | lost GI and IAD ligature | Trench B | – | |||
| 12. | 33/1929.12. | LEG XI CPF | Leg(io) XI C(laudia) P̣(ia) F̣(idelis) | rectangular frame | 88 × 31 | later | 19.0 × 18.0 th 6.8 | Trench F | – |
| 13. | 33/1929.24. | LEG | Ḷẹġ(io) [- - -] | in tabula ansata bottom of letters missing | 83 × 24 | tegula | 13.0 × 10.8 th 3.0–3.4 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 8/27, Table I/27. |
| 14. | 33/1929.25. | G ⸰ Ī ⸰ AD | [Le]g ⸰ Ī ⸰ Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata | 82 × 32 | tegula | 10.1 × 18.5 th 2.5 | Trench C | – |
| 15. | 33/1929.26. | LEG ͮ I ͮ A | Leg(io) ͮ I ͮ A[d(iutrix)] | in tabula ansata | 106 × 24 | tegula | 17.0 × 16.0 th 2.8–3.1 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 10/39a, Table II/39. |
| 16. | 33/1929.27. | LEG I AD P | Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) [- - -] | in tabula ansata? | 103 × 19 | tegula | 18.0 × 14.5 th 3.4 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 16/79b, Table III/79. |
| 17. | 33/1929.28. | LEG | Ḷẹġ(io) [- - -] | lost in tabula ansata bottom of letters missing | Trench C | – | |||
| 18. | 33/1929.29. | LEG I A | Ḷeg(io) I A[d(iutrix)] | lost | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 6/10, Table I/10; at 98/33 it is incorrectly listed instead of 33/1929.50. | |||
| 19. | 33/1929.30. | EG I AD | [L]ẹg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | rectangular frame | 92 × 25 | tegula | 20.0 × 10.0 th 3.3–3.6 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 6/6, Table I/6. |
| 20. | 33/1929.31. | I ADI | [Leg(io)] I Adi(utrix) | retrograde D in tabula ansata | 66 × 12 | tegula | 16.3 × 14.2 th 2.5–3.2 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 7/24d, Table I/24. |
| 21. | 33/1929.32. | ⸰ T ⸰ ADI | [Leg(io)] ⸰ I ⸰ Adi(utrix) | in tabula ansata | 70 × 31 | later | 12.5 × 14.0 th 6.5 | Trench C | – |
| 22. | 33/1929.33. | I ⸰ AD | [Leg(io)] I ⸰ Ad(iutrix) | lost in tabula ansata | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 8/27, Table I/27. At 13/60d, Table III/60 it is written instead of 33/1929.38. | |||
| 23. | 33/1929.34. | DI E | [Leg(io) I A]di(utrix) E | lost rounded rectangular frame | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 13/60b, Table III/60. | |||
| 24. | 33/1929.35. | EG T AD | [L]ẹġ(io) Ị Ạḍ(iutrix) | retrograde rectangular frame bottom half of all letters missing | 107 × 20 | tegula | 15.2 × 12.0 th 3.1–3.2 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 8/31, Table I/31. |
| 25. | 33/1929.36. | LEG I | Leg(io) I [- - -] | rectangular frame with zigzag border | 90 × 31 | tegula | 15.5 × 18.5 th 3.6 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 6/36, Table I/36. |
| 26. | 33/1929.37. | LEG I ADT E | Ḷẹg(io) I Adi(utrix) E | lost retrograde the stem of the E at the end is missing | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 13/60b, Table III/60. | |||
| 27. | 33/1929.38. | LEG I ADT E | Leg(io) I Adi(utrix) E | retrograde rounded rectangular frame | 161 × 25 | tegula | 20.0 × 10.0 th 1.8–2.5 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 13/60d, Table III/60, but mistyped as 33/1929.33. |
| 28. | 33/1929.39. | LEG | Lẹġ(io) [- - -] | retrograde in tabula ansata | 62 × 26 | tegula | 12.5 × 13.0 th 2.3–3.1 | Trench C | – |
| 29. | 33/1929.40. | ADRIP | [Qu]ạḍṛib(urgium) or [Qu]ạḍṛib(urasa) | retrograde in tabula ansata | 80 × 35 | tegula | 18.5 × 12.5 th 2.6–2.9 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 104/92, Table XXIX/92. |
| 30. | 33/1929.41. | LEC T AD BOMMI ⸰ | Leg(io) I Aḍ[i(utrix)] Bommi(us) ⸰ [fecit] | rectangular frame | 81 × 47 | tegula | 17.1 × 12.5 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 18/107b, Table IV/107. |
| 31. | 33/1929.42. | VER [- - -] | Veṛ[iano tr(ibuno]) or Veṛ[iano tr(i)b(uno)] | rectangular frame | 62 × 24 | tegula | 13.5 × 7.5 | Trench C | – |
| 32. | 33/1929.43. | QVADRIP | Quadrib(urgium) or Quadriburasa | rectangular frame retrograde | 125 × 37 | later | 24.5 × 23.5 th 4.4–4.7 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 104/92, Table XXIX/92. |
| 33. | 33/1929.44. | QVADRIBVR | Quadribụṛ[gium] or Quadribụṛ[asa] | retrograde Rs | 124 × 25 | tegula | 16.5 × 12.0 th 3.3 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 104/91, Table XXIX/91. |
| 34. | 33/1929.45. | TA ⸰ VICEN | [Cor]ta ⸰ Vicên | rectangular frame retrograde N EN ligature | 102 × 24 | tegula | 19.0 × 20.5 th 2.8 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 97/27. |
| 35. | 33/1929.46. | TERENTIA | Terentịạ[- - -] | rectangular frame retrograde N | 108 × 29 | tegula | 22.0 × 13.5 th 2.6–3.3 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 99/40, Table XXVII/40. |
| 36. | 33/1929.47. | TERENTIA | Terentịạ[- - -] | rectangular frame | 92 × 25 | imbrex | 14.5 × 10.5 th 1.9 | Trench C | – |
| 37. | 33/1929.48. | ICINI TRB | [Lup]ịcini tr(i)b(uni) | 131 × 31 | tegula | 17.5 × 18.0 th 2.9 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 98/34a, Table XXVII/34. | |
| 38. | 33/1929.49. | I TRB | [Lupicin]i tr(i)b(uni) | lost | Trench C | – | |||
| 39. | 33/1929.50. | LVPICINI T | Lupicini ṭ[r(i)b(uni)] | rectangular frame | 109 × 24 | imbrex | 17.5 × 13.5 th 2.2 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 98/33m, Table XXVII/33, but mistyped as 33/1929.29. |
| 33/1929.51. | Identical with 33/1929.57. The tile has 33/1929.57. written on it; Paulovics wrote 33/1929.51. on its photo and in the inventory book. | ||||||||
| 40. | 33/1929.52. | LVPICINI TR | Lupicini ṭṛ(i)[b(uni)] | rectangular frame | 120 × 24 | imbrex | 20.0 × 12.0 th 2.2 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 98/33, Table XXVI/33. |
| 41. | 33/1929.53. | M TIB ? | ? | rectangular frame | 49 × 25 | imbrex | 17.5 × 12.0 th 2.0 | Trench C | – |
| 42. | 33/1929.56. | IS ▫ TRB | [Car]ịs tr(i)b(uni) | rectangular frame | 81 × 21 | imbrex | 13.5 × 10.0 th 1.5–1.8 | “Northern big trench” | Szilágyi (1933) 98/30, Table XXVI/30. |
| 43. | 33/1929.57. | LVPICINI TR | Lupicini tṛ(i)[b(uni)] | rectangular frame | 113 × 26 | imbrex | 12.5 × 13.5 th 2.2 | Trench C | Szilágyi (1933) 98/33, Table XXVI/33. Under number 33/1929.51. |
Brick stamps from the aqueduct excavation of Paulovics in 1928
| Cat. no. | Inv. no. | Text of stamp | Text | Notes | Size of stamp length/width [mm] | type of brick or tile | size of brick or tile [cm] | find spot | |
| 44. | 7/1928.33. | LEG I DAXI | Leg(io) Ị [- - -] Daxi [- - -] | in tabula ansata | 65 × 83 | aqueduct | Szilágyi (1933) 18/103, Table IV/103. | ||
| 45. | 7/1928.34. | LEG XI CPF | Leg(io) XI C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis) | in tabula ansata | 105 × 34 | later | 33.5 | aqueduct | Szilágyi (1933) 63/3, Table IV/3. |
| 46. | 7/1928.35. | AD | [Leg(io) I] Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata | imbrex | aqueduct | – | ||
| 47. | 7/1928.36. | I A PF N | [Leg(io)] Ị A(diutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) Ân̂toniniana | rectangular frame ANT ligature | imbrex | 12.6 × 13.3 | aqueduct | Szilágyi (1933) 17/97, Table IV/97. |
Brick stamps from the Cemetery 4 excavation of Paulovics in 1929
| Cat. no. | Inv. no. | Text of stamp | Text | Notes | Size of stamp length/width [mm] | type of brick or tile | size of brick or tile [cm] | find spot | |
| 48. | 32/1929.21. | LEG I AD | Ḷẹġ(io) I Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata | 124 × 13 | tegula | 28.9 × 40.8 th 3.0–3.5 | Grave 13 | Szilágyi (1933) 7/25, Table I/25. |
| 49. | 32/1929.22. | EG I AD PF | [L] ẹg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | in tabula ansata | 118 × 23 | tegula | 57.6 × 31.5 th 3.4–4.5 | Grave 13 | Szilágyi (1933) 18/98e, Table IV/98 |
| 50. | 32/1929.23. | LEG I A | Leg(io) I Ạ[d(iutrix) ‒ ‒ ‒] | in tabula ansata | Grave 13 | Szilágyi (1933) 10/43d, Table II/43. | |||
| 51. | 32/1929.24. | EG I AD | [L]eg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | with rounded rectangular border, retrograde | Grave 13 | – | |||
| 52. | 32/1929.25. | LEG I | Leġ(io) I [- - -] | Grave 13 | – | ||||
| 53. | 32/1929.28. | III I AD II | L ẹg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | with rounded rectangular border, retrograde | Grave 15 | – | |||
| 54. | 32/1929.30. | LEG I | Leg(io) ị [- - -] | in tabula ansata, retrograde | Grave 17 | – | |||
| 55. | 32/1929.31. | EG I AD | [L]eg(io) I Aḍ(iutrix) | retrograde | Grave 17 | Szilágyi (1933) 11/45h, Table II/45. | |||
| 56. | 32/1929.32. | G I AD PF | [Le]g(io) I Ạḍ(iutrix) P̣(ia) F̣(idelis) | Grave 17 | – | ||||
| 57. | 32/1929.33. | CORT VICEN | CORT[A] VICEN | the letter A is missing from the text | Grave 17 | – | |||
| 58. | 32/1929.34. | LEG I ADI | Leg(io) I Adi(utrix) | rectangular zig-zag border, retrograde except for L | 130 × 31 | tegula | 35.7 × 31.8 th 3.0–3.2 | Grave 18 | Szilágyi (1933) 12/54, Table II/54. |
| 59. | 32/1929.35. | LEG I | Leg(io) I [- - -] | rectangular border retrograde | Grave 18 | – | |||
| 60. | 32/1929.36. | if not retrograde: COFOFE ? if retrograde: SOLOLE ? | in tabula ansata | 115 × 37 | tegula | 50.5 × 34.9–38.9 th 2.8 | Grave 19 | – | |
| 61. | 32/1929.39. | IIC I A | Leg(io) I Ạ[d(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis)] | in tabula ansata, retrograde, I instead of L, I instead of E, C instead of G | 65 × 25 | tegula | 30.5 × 16.5 th 4.0 | Grave 21 | – |
| 62. | 32/1929.40. | LEG I AD | Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata, retrograde | Grave 21 | Szilágyi (1933) 11/45e, Table II/45. | |||
| 63. | 32/1929.41. | III I AD II | L ẹg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | with rounded rectangular border, retrograde | Grave 23 | Szilágyi (1933) 17/96b, Table IV/96. | |||
| 64. | 32/1929.44. | no text | rectangular zig-zag border | 132 × 28 | tegula | 31.5 × 28.0 th 3.1 | Grave 27 | – | |
| 65. | 32/1929.45. | LEG I AD | Ḷẹg(io) I Ad(iutrix) | in tabula ansata, retrograde | Grave 27 | ||||
| 66. | 32/1929.47. | LEG I AD PF | Leg(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | in tabula ansata, retrograde, I instead of L, I instead of E, C instead of G, I instead of F | 114 × 25 | tegula | 24.5 × 39.0 th 3.1 | Grave 29 | Szilágyi (1933) 12/53, Table II/53. |
| 67. | 32/1929.48. | G I AD PF | [Le]g(io) I Ad(iutrix) P(ia) F(idelis) | in tabula ansata, retrograde, C instead of G, I instead of F | Grave 29 | Szilágyi (1933) 15/77. |
