Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies,

Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012

IntroductionThe earliest settlement phases and/or a possible indigenous predecessor of the Aquincum Civil Town in Pannonia Inferior have been long de-bated among scholars. Over the past 120 years, there have been theories promulgated that the town was preceded by a military fort or a vicus (?) that developed along the main North-South road of the settlement, i.e. what was later to become the limes road. However, these theories and references concerning the early phases of town development were based either on old theories, or “excavation results” that have never been published or have appeared only partially in preliminary reports. Thus, locating these early features or identifying the finds that came from them remained an im-possible task.

Surprisingly, revaluating old excavation-doc-umentations and find materials from the North-Eastern zone of the Aquincum Civil Town revealed some still unknown, “early” archaeological features and finds. This work enabled us to create a perio-dization for this part of the town. The aim of this paper is to examine these phases, features and finds and decide whether – for the first time in the re-search history of Aquincum – it will be possible to delineate the ground plan for the earliest settlement phase and speak about some kind of structured settlement-concept in the area of what was later to become the Aquincum Civil Town.

Research History on the Earliest Settlement Phases of AquincumThe more than 120 years of archaeological excava-tions at the Aquincum Civil Town have brought to light less than half of the ancient town (Zsidi 2002, 8; fig. 1) Research is still going on in other parts of the settlement2. The first excavator to define the area and character of the settlement was Bálint Kuzsinszky, who identified the western part as a mil-itary fort while in his opinion the vicus surrounding the fort may have lain in the eastern part3.

Since the 1960s, scholars have accepted that the antecedent of the Civil Town was a two-period Roman vicus inhabited mainly by craftsmen living in semi-subterranean pit houses with other sunken features and no trace of an indigenous character (Nagy 1971, 59-81; fig. 2)

Klára Póczy (and earlier Lajos Nagy as well) added to this picture by describing the early occu-pation as a Romanized rustic settlement, owing its existence to the legionary fortress (Nagy 1942, 372; Póczy 1970, 189, 191; 1986, 121). According to K. Póczy, this “Handwerkersdorf ” must have included pit houses and workshops (Póczy / Hajnóczi 1971, 27).

Melinda Kaba in turn suggested that the later Civil Town was built over a Celtic-Eraviscan prede-cessor, based on a pit containing “indigenous mate-rial” excavated from below the southern part of the Great Bath (Kaba 1963, 289, footnote 73).

The Beginnings: New Data on the Earliest Settlement Phases at the Aquincum Civil Town1

Orsolya LÁNG

1 The manuscript was finished in 2012.2 The area of the settlement enclosed by walls is circa 35-38 ha. For the ground plan of the town: Zsidi 2002, 41.3 Kuzsinszky 1890, 77-81, fig. 1. His hypothesis was probably based on the fact that the remains of the town’s Western defences

were still visible on ground surface in the 19th c., while those on the Eastern side of the early town were already buried deep beneath the ground due to the steeply sloping nature of the area. He later withdrew this idea.

Erzsébet Márity, in her summary of the build-ing history of the Civil Town, described the early settlement as having its main features stretching along the cardo (later the limes road) and she even hypothesized that this may have been a “village-like settlement with Latin-culture”4.

A completely different view was proposed by P. Zsidi in the early 1990s. She suggested that the town had had a military antecedent (fort?) based on her own excavations results from the end of the 20th

century. She thought that the settlement evolved as a civilian vicus only after the fort ceased its military function5.

Nevertheless, given these conflicting ideas, the mostly unpublished excavations (or only prelimi-nary reports), the isolated, small areas that were uncovered and the paucity of maps only new hy-pothesis have emerged but no reliable results have yet been produced concerning its function, extent or the settlement structure6.

Fig. 1. Plan of the Aquincum Civil Town (drawing by K. Kolozsvári)

4 Márity 1992, 65; Márity, “Colonia Septimia Aquincum (Aquincum Civil Town)”. Unpublished book or paper in the bequest of E. Márity. BTM RA H.1927-2006, 6.

5 Zsidi 2002, 34-35; 2004, 189. Recently, K. Póczy hypothesized the presence of an auxiliary fort here: Póczy 2004, 58, 109. 6 On the latest summary of the research history of the early phase and legal status of the settlement: Póczy 2003, 125.

532 ORSOLyA LÁNG

The North – Eastern Zone: Prelude and Method

The only place where possible early phases of the town are available for study lies in a relatively contiguous area in the North-Eastern zone of the settlement. Several excavations were carried out here in the past, but for different reasons (the grow-

ing number of investment-led excavations have driven archaeologists away from this site over the past decades) only the preliminary results have been published. Thus, separation of building peri-ods or evaluation of the finds have not been carried out (fig. 3).

The North-Eastern zone of the Civil Town is bordered by Road “A” (the continuation of the cardo, Road “C”) on the West and the decumanus running down to the river (Road “D”) on the South. Its Northern border may have been the East-West Roman road running below a modern street, or it may also have stretched to the Northern town wall7. Its Eastern border is hard to identify because the modern North-South running street runs along here while there is also a housing estate standing here below which only small-scale excavations were carried out at the beginning of the 20th century8. This zone has traditionally been associated with industrial and commercial activities related to the busy road that ran through here and the remains of the strip buildings visible on the surface (Zsidi 2002, 77-78).

The first excavation – the one that is important in terms of the early phase of Roman habitation (pit features and layers) – was carried out by T. Nagy in the Western and Central parts of Building # I (the so-called basilica) in 1961-62. Only he has so far distinguished and also published building phases and functions in the North-Eastern zone of the town (Nagy 1964a, 9-54; 1964, 301-302). In the fol-lowing years, several – partly overlapping – excava-tions were carried out within the Eastern wing of Building # I. These excavations also revealed early layers and pits: J. Szilágyi worked here in 1966-67 (Szilágyi 1967, 32-33; 1968, 23) and K. Póczy in 1972 – the latter work was related to the construc-tion of the new entrance building and pay office (Póczy / Hajnóczi 1973, 34-35). This excavation was later continued by P. Zsidi in 1990 (Póczy / Zsidi 1992, # 47/14, 2. 32).

A new control excavation connected to the re-construction of this part of the archaeological park was carried out at the beginning of the 1990s when E. Márity again led excavations in the Eastern wing of Building # I in two seasons, 1991-1992 (Márity 1993, 34; 1994, 34; 1996, 36) and the Northern part of Building # XXVI where she also found Roman features from the early occupation in 1993 (Márity

Fig. 2. Hypotheses about the earliest settlement phases of Aquincum: a, suggestion by B. Kuzsinszky (after Kuzsinszky 1890, fig. 1); b, T. Nagy’s plan of the vicus (after Nagy 1971,

Abb. 1); c, P. Zsidi’s suggested military use (Zsidi 2004, fig. 14a)

7 Street “D1”: Kuzsinszky 1891, 125; Zsidi 2002, 64 (with incorrect reference).8 Nagy 1942, 376. Later research were mainly related to the earthworks of public utilities here (South-Eastern part of the Civil

Town): Németh 1973, 115-120.

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 533

1996, 36). East of Building # I, only the Northern and Southern ends of Building # XXVI were exca-vated in 1966-67 by J. Szilágyi (Szilágyi 1967, 32-33; 1968, 23).

The next building where an early layer and early finds were found in this area is Building # XXIX. It was first studied by B. Kuzsinszky, who unearthed the Northern part of the house in 1890-91 (Kuzsinszky 1891, 134-140). This was continued some 50 years later by J. Szilágyi (1944-1947) al-though he concentrated on the Southern part of the house (Szilágyi 1950, 312-317). The next research was carried out here from 2004 onwards in order to conserve the ruins. Excavations were started in the southernmost rooms and continued towards the North in 2006 and 2007 (T. Láng 2005, 68-80; 2007, 117-128; 2008, 71-80).

In spite of the relatively incomplete picture we have of this settlement zone and the several times re-excavated areas, it seemed useful to try and eval-uate the unpublished or only partially published data (in preliminary reports) from known excava-tions9. Because of the different standards of evalua-tion were used to document the excavations10, it was necessary to transform all this data within a single integrated system. In this case it seemed most ap-propriate to use the Harris matrix system. All ar-chaeological features described in the diaries were numbered, employing the entire handwritten and typed documentation. These features were placed afterwards into a matrix based on the site drawings and photos. This method permitted the creation of an “internal”, relative chronology for each excava-tion so they could be compared to each other and

Fig. 3. Aerial photo of the North-Eastern zone with location of the excavations and the Roman archaeological features from the early occupation (photo: G. Rákóczi, O. Láng)

9 The first attempt to re-evaluate old excavation documentation took place when the find material from the 1965 excavation of the Aquincum macellum was connected to field observations: Láng 2001 and T. Láng 2003, 165-204.

10 Most of the excavations listed above were documented using a traditional layer-description method. More recent research car-ried out in Building # XXIX were documented using the Harris matrix system.

534 ORSOLyA LÁNG

Phas

esPe

riod

izat

ion

of K

. Póc

zy

K. P

óczy

. Pe

acoc

k ho

use

1.P.

Zsi

diPe

acoc

k ho

use

2.

E. M

árity

B

uild

ing

XX

VI

“Dia

na

sanc

tuar

y”

T. N

agy

Bui

ldin

g I

(Bas

ilica

)

J. S

zilá

gyi

Bui

ldin

gs X

XV

I-X

XV

II “

Dia

na

sanc

tuar

y”

O. L

áng

Bui

ldin

g X

XIX

1. p

its-

--

1.

1. (P

reba

silic

al I)

--

2. (p

its, h

ouse

s)-

--

2.1.

1.

3. (a

dobe

wal

ls)

“cla

y-br

ick

ense

mbl

e” 1

.1.

3.

2. (P

reba

silic

al II

)2.

2.

4. (f

irst

ston

e bu

ildin

gs)

- 2

.2.

, 3.

4.3.

(Bas

ilica

I)3.

3.

5. (“

wal

l-pus

hing

”)“l

imes

tone

syst

em”

3.

4.5.

4. (B

asili

ca II

)4.

4.

6.

“ash

lar,

stro

ngly

bui

lt w

all,

afte

r M

arcu

s Aur

eliu

s” 4

.5.

6.-

-5.

7.

“mou

lded

wal

ls, m

acel

lum

-per

iod”

5.

6.7.

--

6.

8.

“4th c

., st

one-

in- c

lay

wal

ls”

6.

7.8

--

7.

Fig.

4a.

Rel

ativ

e ch

rono

logi

cal s

eque

nce

of th

e bu

ildin

g ph

ases

of e

ach

exca

vatio

ns (O

. Lán

g )

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 535

Peri

odiz

atio

n of

K

. Póc

zy

Terr

a si

gilla

taA

mph

ora

coin

Pann

oni-

an st

ampe

d po

ttery

oil-l

amps

Indi

vidu

al

finds

, sp

ecia

l co

ntex

ts:

fillin

g of

th

e ho

rse-

shoe

shap

ed

cons

truc

tion

Indi

vidu

al

finds

, sp

ecia

l co

ntex

ts:

gem

Indi

vidu

al

finds

, sp

ecia

l co

ntex

ts:

terr

acot

te

stat

uette

Indi

vidu

al

finds

, sp

ecia

l co

ntex

ts:

glas

s cup

Indi

vidu

al

finds

, sp

ecia

l co

ntex

ts:

rigi

d he

ddle

∑

1.-

-m

iddl

e of

1st –

fir

st q

uart

er o

f 2nd

c.?

--

--

--

--

last

qua

rter –

en

d of

1st c

.

2.-

end

of 1

st –

be

ginn

ing

of

2nd c

.

first

qua

rter

–

mid

dle

of 2

nd c

.-

end

of 1

st –

be

ginn

ing

of

2nd c

.-

end

of 1

st c

. -

--

-en

d of

1st –

be

ginn

ing

of

2nd c

.?

3.“c

lay-

bric

k en

sem

ble”

= fi

rst

deca

des o

f 2nd

c.

first

dec

ade

– m

iddl

e of

2nd

c.

mid

dle

– en

d of

2nd

c.

first

dec

ade

– m

iddl

e of

2nd

c.

end

of 1

st –

be

ginn

ing

of

2nd c

.

begi

nnin

g of

2nd

c.

-be

ginn

ing

of 2

nd c

.

first

de

cade

s of

2nd c

.

end

of 1

st –

be

ginn

ing

of 2

nd c

.-

begi

nnin

g –

mid

dle

of 2

nd

c.?

4.-

mid

dle

– la

st

third

of 2

nd c

.th

ird q

uart

er o

f 2nd

– 3

rd c

.-

cann

ot b

e va

luat

ed!

begi

nnin

g –

third

qua

rter

of

2nd

c.

--

--

-m

iddl

e –

third

qu

arte

r of

2nd c

.

5.“l

imes

tone

sy

stem

”=se

cond

ha

lf of

2nd

c.

last

third

of 2

nd –

be

ginn

ing

of 3

rd c

.tu

rn o

f 2nd

– 3

rd

and

3rd c

.

mid

dle

– se

cond

hal

f of

2nd

c.

cann

ot b

e va

luat

ed!

--

--

-m

iddl

e –

end

of 2

nd c

.

last

third

of

2nd

–

begi

nnin

g of

3rd

c.

6.“a

shla

r, st

rong

ly

built

wal

l, af

ter M

arcu

s Au

reliu

s”=

3rd c

.

begi

nnin

g –

first

ha

lf of

3rd c

.3rd

c.

first

third

of

3rd c

.ca

nnot

be

valu

ated

!fro

m th

e 2nd

c.

--

--

-be

ginn

ing

– fir

st h

alf o

f 3rd

c.

7.“m

ould

ed w

alls

, m

acel

lum

-pe

riod

”=m

iddl

e of

3rd c

.?

afte

r fir

st h

alf o

f 3rd

c.?

3rd c

.fir

st th

ird o

f 3rd

c.

cann

ot b

e va

luat

ed!

--

--

--

first

hal

f of

3rd c

.?

8.“4

th c

., st

one-

in-

clay

wal

ls”=

end

of 3

rd c

.?

afte

r fir

st h

alf o

f 3rd

c.?

3rd c

.-

cann

ot b

e va

luat

ed!

--

--

--

end

of 3

rd –

be

ginn

ing

of

4th c

.?

Fi

g. 4

b. A

bsol

ute

chro

nolo

gica

l seq

uenc

e of

the

build

ing

phas

es w

ith th

e da

ting

mat

eria

l (O

. Lán

g)

536 ORSOLyA LÁNG

finally set up in a kind of “concordance table”, that is, the relative chronological sequence of the North-Eastern quarter itself. The find material could after-wards be connected to the identified building phas-es to help create absolute dates for the phases (fig. 4). However, some problems had to be faced during this work. One is that certain buildings were not ex-cavated in a regular manner (from North to South or East to West), some areas were excavated twice, while other areas remained untouched. The diaries of the various excavators sometimes contained con-flicting data about the same feature. The other ma-jor problem was the usability of the find material because if an archaeological feature was described inaccurately in the first place, finds coming from it became suspect from the point of view of dating and would only be used in artefact counts or providing information on the function of the features. For this reason only part of the total find material could be used for dating building phases.

Despite these problems, converting the vari-ous excavation-documentation into an integrated system proved successful in the case of the North-Eastern zone as well: for the first time in the re-search history of the Civil Town, the earliest Roman building phases could be reconstructed, dated and

even some information on the settlement structure and function could be gathered11.

The North–Eastern Zone: Phase 1 (fig. 5)Based on the detailed study (Láng 2012) of the doc-umentation connected to the earliest horizon in this part of the settlement, the earliest features were dug into the yellow, clayey-sandy layer. The excavation results from T. Nagy work at Building # I, this layer sloped steeply to the East (the Danube River) while it rose slightly from North to South (towards Road “D”)12. A small, sandy elevation was observed below Building # XXVI13, which also reflect the presence of occasional sand-dunes in the area. However, this sub-soil layer was only reached in a few of the exca-vations. Thus, features do not yet really display any kind of patterning and unfortunately no pavements associated with them have been observed. Features seem to concentrate in the North and along an East-West oriented stripe, even though this could also be an artefact of the lack of further excavations.

Features included an East-West oriented, V-shaped ditch running parallel to Road “D”, a seg-ment of which was identified below the central part of later Building # I. This was possibly a drainage ditch and not a “soaking pit for a tannery” as T.

Fig. 5. Archaeological features connected to Phase 1 in the North-Eastern zone (drawing by O. Láng)

11 The complete evaluation of the find material of these buildings, re-excavated several times – where available – has just recently been completed within the framework of the author’s PhD dissertation: Láng 2012.

12 Based on the levelling data from trenches # 1 and 2: Nagy 1964a, 14-16.13 Based on the levelling data from the 1993 excavation drawings of E. Márity.

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 537

Nagy had previously suggested14. Possible waste pits or pitfalls can be observed after a large hiatus in the North (below the Western wing of Building # I and Building # XXVI). Three large, aligned and sunken features from what were probably dwellings fol-lowed to the North: two rectangular, semi-sunken pit house (?) and a large, horse-shoe shaped con-struction comprising a ditch and several post holes. The latter could either have been a dwelling or been some kind of out-building15. North of the “zone of the pit houses” some post holes, pits and an imprint of a wooden beam were also brought to light.

The Eastern part of the area (Building # XXIX) may have been a marshy, meadow area at that time, so no building activity was observed here.

Thus, the earliest observable period in the Aquincum Civil Town is represented by a few, semi-subterranean pit houses, timber pile constructions, pits and a possible drainage channel. These features do not show any patterning as yet, however, the East-West oriented ditch may be associated with the East-West running main road (“D”) and the pit houses already appear in stripe.

The absolute dating of this phase is based on the few, revaluated finds from the excavations of Building # I and XXVI-XXVII.

Considering the finds related to the above listed features, there are only a few datable pieces because deep excavation trenches were not established and the documentation was not properly carried out (see above).

Amphorae were represented by a Dr. 2-4 (mid-dle of 1st – first quarter of 2nd c. AD), a Rhodian (end of 1st c. AD)16 found below the eastern wing of Building # I and a single Schörgendorfer 558-type shard (middle of 1st – first half of 2nd c.) discovered in Building # XXVI-XXVII (Láng 2012).

Regarding Samian ware, even though no frag-ments could securely be assigned to this phase, the presence of North-Italian fragments (belonging to groups A and B) dated to the reign of Domitian – Trajan and Drag. 37 type shards of La Graufesenque (also lying within the Domitianic – Traianic peri-

od) in layers related to the following phase (Gabler 2013) point towards the beginning of the settlement around the last quarter of the 1st c. AD, which would correspond well with the previous dating of both T. Nagy (so-called “Prebasilical period I”, between the reigns of Vespasian and Domitian) and that of K. Póczy (end of 1st c. AD) (Nagy 1964a, 47; Póczy 1986, 121). This occupation phase seems to have ended around the end of the 1st c. AD17.

The North-Eastern Zone: Phase 2 (fig. 6)The next phase is characterized by a much denser system of pit features sunk into the soggy, blackish-clayey soil that seems to appear at different depths but nearly everywhere in the North-Eastern zone (the Western wing of Building # I, Northern part of Building # XXVI and Building # XXIX)18. This layer also sloped towards the Danube; an intentional, sin-gle-episode filling or landscaping (levelling?) event can be hypothesized because of the homogenous, compact nature of this layer and the fact that all Phase 1 features were filled with this soil, creating most likely19 a new level in this area. The landscape may have looked rather mixed in the zone in Phase 2. The Western part – lying significantly higher – was basically dry, while the Eastern part (Building # XXIX) was a meadow-like, soggy place even in this period20.

This period is also characterized by sunken ar-chaeological features with various functions located along in a stripe (from North to South) including: bigger and smaller parts of pavements, an imprint of a wooden beam, and circular pits (waste pits?) to the North. A well and a pavement fragment bounded by two clay walls (a building?) can also be attributed to this phase. Numerous round pits filled with clay bricks, imprints of beams and postholes appear below the Northern end of the Eastern wing of Building # I. Two rectangular semi-subterranean pit houses can also be attributed to this phase in the East. A stone built oven was even inserted into one of their Eastern walls. The exterior of the possibly clay-walls of the house – reinforced by posts- were plastered. The two buildings were placed close and

14 On the ditch in detail: Láng 2012.15 For the interpretation: Láng 2011, 143-156. 16 About these two pieces: Láng 2011, 151. 17 Apart from the above-mentioned objects, fragments of grey and pale local coarse ware (wheel-thrown but also some hand-

made) and animal bones can be attributed to this phase. 18 For the levelling data in each building, see Láng 2012. 19 A similar solution – though slightly later, in the first half of the 2nd c. – can be observed in the early fossae of the town wall

(particularly the Northern town wall) whose fill may also have been placed there deliberately in a single episode. Recently: Zsidi 2004, 189.

20 Based on pollen analyses: unpublished report of Zs. Medzihradszky in the documentation of Building # XXIX.

538 ORSOLyA LÁNG

parallel to each other, in a North-South direction. To the East, the small, North-South oriented street running between the later Buildings # XXVII and XXVIII was already in use in this phase with its ear-ly layer attributed to this time.

The structure of this settlement-horizon (also mainly composed of pit features) is somewhat better known. Possibly after some intentional landscaping activity, a new level was created for the settlement with larger empty areas to the South, towards the East-West Road (see pavements) and a small build-ing (?) with clay walls. Pit features became much denser to the North and the area that had previously (Phase 1) been occupied by rectangular pit houses, used as dwellings, retained its function. Two other houses were sunk here in Phase 2. Important data on the settlement structure comes from the appear-ance of a small, North-South oriented street to the East (between Buildings # XXVII and XXVIII) as well as a segment of wall.

Industrial activity can be suspected in Phase 2, based on features discovered by E. Márity below the Eastern part of Building # I including waste pits, a well and even some industrial features (“fur-nace”?) may have been located in this zone (Póczy 1970, 182).

Perhaps due to the soil-conditions (soggy area) described above, the Eastern edge of the North-Eastern zone may have lain on the periphery of the settlement (landfill?): many animal bones and the nearly complete absence of pottery finds below Building # XXIX suggest this function here21.

The finds from this settlement phase were much more numerous and come from an increased number of archaeological features22. Datable dat-ing material comprised terra sigillata fragments from the Phase 2 layer below the Eastern wing of Building # I and included North – Italian group B fragments (Consp. 39/43) and South Gaulish pieces (mainly Drag. 37 – type pieces from Bannassac and La Graufesenque). These can be dated to the end of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd c. AD23. A much wider spectrum of amphorae types can be observed among the shards from this phase encompassing Rhodian, Aquincum 78, Dr. 6B, Dr. 2-4, 7-11 and Schörgendorfer 558 types which could be identi-fied in the blackish layer below the Eastern wing of Building # I and XXIX. Their presence supports the early presence of Aegean wine, North Italian olive and Istrian olive oil in Aquincum and mainly date between the first quarter – middle of 2nd c. AD24. Pannonian stamped pottery fragments also ap-

Fig. 6. Archaeological features connected to Phase 2 in the North-Eastern zone (drawing by O. Láng)

21 T. Láng 2005, 75. Something similar was experienced close to the Northern town wall: T. Láng 2005a, 225-227; 2006, 51-59.22 For the list of finds and dating info for this phase, see Láng 2012.23 I am grateful to Dénes Gabler for his help in identifying the fragments. 24 I am grateful for the help of Piroska Hárshegyi for identifying the pieces.

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 539

peared in pit fills and layers connected to this ho-rizon, among which Lágymányos group IIIR-type (end of 1st – beginning of 2nd c.) could be identified25. The fill of the horse-shoe shaped construction also belonging to Phase 2 included a glass spoon-bowl and amphorae fragments types Dr. 2-4 and Rhodian which also provide an end of 1st c. AD data to the end of Phase 2. Based on the above listed finds, and also corresponding to T. Nagy’s periodization (“Prebasilical I”) Phase 2 may be datable to between the end of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd c. AD, that is to say, this site was a village-like, two-phase settle-ment with each phase lasting for 10-20 years.

The Aquincum Vicus: Possible Layouts Considering the location of the features and the building phases described above, two possible solu-tions emerge for the form and extension of the early settlement (Láng 2012; fig. 7).

1. Segments of V-shaped ditches were unearthed in the earliest layers at several places in the Civil Town. These ditch segments may mark the edges of the settlement, even though vici “fortified” with ditches are very rare in Pannonia, but common in the Western provinces (Kovács 1999, 37, 156; for the case of Vindobona (2nd c.) – Müller et al. 2011, 47). Accordingly, the Northern border of the Aquincum vicus may have been the East-West oriented early ditch discovered below the later Northern defences of the town by P. Zsidi (recently in Zsidi 2002, 34). The fill of this ditch was the very same “homogene-ous, blackish clay” that also filled Phase 1 features.

The Southern edge of the settlement may be marked by another East-West oriented ditch, parts of which were excavated below the Southern part of the later macellum and the House of Victorinus, running parallel with “E” street26. The Western con-tinuation of the ditch is still not known. T. Nagy’s old idea concerning the borders of the vicus can be re-interpreted in this context: he thought that the early settlement did not extend South of street “E”

(namely South of the macellum) as only 1st century AD finds were found in layers (in the zone of the building of the collegium centonariorum and the so-called Painter’s house). No 1st century AD fea-tures were discovered27.

More problematic is the identification of the Western and Eastern borders of the settlement, partly because the Western part of the town – apart from a few small areas – is to all extents and pur-poses unexcavated. However, the earliest cemetery of the town, the so-called “Aranyhegyi Stream” cemetery, lies slightly to the North of the main East-West road but parallel to it (its exact extent is un-known). This cemetery should mark the border of the vicus on the West28. Such a topographical layout for a cemetery (i.e. located on the town’s periphery beyond the borders of the settlement) is typical for vici29. The small pottery workshop discovered below the so-called Military Depot (along the Aranyhegyi Stream) may also mark the edge of the settlement: this workshop was active between the Flavian era up to the first decade of the 2nd century AD. Its connec-tion to the settlement was already noted by K. Póczy (Nagy 1942a, 629-630; Póczy / Zsidi 1992a, 39-40).

The Eastern town edge is also uncertain be-cause there have been few excavations here as well. The area once sloped steeply so that Roman period layers now lie deep below the present surface. The presence of buildings of the old Gas Factory and the housing estate located there also throw up ob-stacles to further research30. However, the absence of archaeological features and finds related to the early phase below Building # XXIX suggest that this area was peripheral when the settlement was a vicus (Phases 1 and 2) only expanding in this direction when urbanization got underway (Phase 3) (Láng 2012).

2. A segment of a V-shaped ditch filled with the same blackish, clayey material discovered below the Western part of the Southern defences of the later town (Zsidi 1990, 147-152, fig. 12 / 2) con-

25 The shards were dated by Alexandra Nagy, whom I would like to express my thanks. 26 Madarassy 1991, 33 and excavation documentation by M. Kaba in 1960 (BTM RA ltsz.: 353-77). It has been identified as a drain-

age channel inside the town by P. Zsidi: Zsidi 1990, footnote 15.27 For the same reason, it is unlikely that the segment of an early ditch (?) found below the Southern defences of the later town and

considered part of some military installations, actually marked the Southern edge of the settlement: Zsidi 2004, 189.28 The relation of the cemetery – in use between the Flavian era and the middle of the 2nd c. AD – to the vicus was also considered

by K. Póczy: Póczy / Zsidi 1992a, 39; Zsidi 2002, 36. Recent research indicates later use of the cemetery as well: Lassányi 2005, 81-90; Lassányi / Bechtold 2006, 73-78.

29 Rorison 2001, 45: the topographical situation is very similar to that of the vici in yutz, Florange – Daspich – Ebange (Gallia). 30 The nearness of the Eastern edge of the settlement is further indicated by the fact that there were only a very few features and

largely refuse pit (animal bones and only a few pottery shards) in the black, clayey layer below Building # XXIX. The activity of water springs is also very intensive here.

540 ORSOLyA LÁNG

Fig. 7. Possible solutions (1 and 2) for the layout of the early Aquincum settlement phase (drawing by K. Kolozsvári)

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 541

tradicts the theory described above. This raises further questions concerning the form and edges of the vicus. P. Zsidi suggests that the early ditch segments both below the Northern and Southern defences indicate that the area had a military use in this phase (see above) possibly lasting until the first decade of the 2nd century AD. It may be of in-terest in this regard that B. Kuzsinszky described the Western side as a fort and the Eastern side as its canabae in his very first interpretation of the site, even though this hypothesis did not make ref-erence to the at that time virtually unknown early settlement31.

Rethinking the latter idea, the question arises whether there actually was a fort on the Western side with civilians connected to the army (family and veterans) settled in the Eastern side, that is, the vicus militaris? In this case, the Northern, Eastern and Southern edges of the vicus would be the same as in the first case, while the incipient town may have been bordered by the fort itself to the West. The cemetery by the Aranyhegyi Stream may have lain outside the fort, close to its Western wall. Supporting P. Zsidi’s suggestion of a military pres-ence, is it possible that the Southern ditch segment excavated by her was really part of the defensive sys-tem of the early fort? The military character of the Western settlement side is further confirmed by the presence of another early fort by the Filatori gát ly-ing along the same North-South road that crossed the Civil Town (Zsidi, in print). These two features nicely fit the alignment system. The distance be-tween them is approximately 0.5 leuga (1.1 km)32.

However, the ideas described above are still only theoretical. More excavation work would be needed – especially on the Western side – to answer this question.

The Aquincum Vicus: InterpretationConsidering the two above-mentioned possibilities, the first seems more plausible, not only because no militaria or archaeological features related to mil-itary use have been found so far anywhere in the area of the Aquincum Civil Town, but also because the main East-West road (later Road “D”), coming from the Solymár valley and reaching the Danube River at this ford and harbour point must have been important since prehistoric times33. This busy road crossed a North-South running terrace and was lined on both sides by dry, flood-free areas to the East, approximately up to the zone of later Building # XXIX34. This is where the first core of the settle-ment may have been formed in the North-Eastern quarter of the later town. The Western extension of this terrace – given the lack of excavation data – is not yet known. Several small sand-dunes and hol-lows segmented the steeply sloping area running towards the river.

For the above-mentioned reasons, both geo-graphical location and strategic position played im-portant roles in the formation of the settlement35, although these favourable conditions were not ex-ploited in previous periods (by the Celtic and previ-ous Prehistoric populations). The North-South ori-ented Road “C” that later was to become so impor-tant was still of minor importance in this phase36.

Based on detailed examination of the finds from the North-Eastern zone (Láng 2012) – also support-ed by results from earlier research37 – the following conclusion can be drawn. The first traces of Roman occupation (Phase 1) can be found in the Western, higher part of the North-Eastern zone and can be dated to the last quarter of the 1st century AD. The pit houses, refuse pits and ditches lining the main East-West road were dug into a thin brownish soil

31 See footnote 2.32 This distance is measured between the early ditch on the Southern edge of the Western part of the Civil Town and the supposed

Northern edge of the Filatorigát construction. For the reconstruction of the layout of the alignment system: Zsidi 2007, 62-65.33 The significance of the East-West running road connected to the foundation of settlement was also suggested by T. Nagy: Nagy

1971, 66. For the location of the ford: Zsidi 2007, 67. The proximity of rivers and the connection to a main road (or road-network) both could have been important factors in the location of vici: Rorison 2001, 19-20. K. Póczy assigned Road “D” to the reign of Domitian: Póczy 2004, 108.

Strip buildings of as yet unknown date have recently been noted along this East-West running road, West of the Western gate of the town using geophysical methods. Their presence also strengthens the first hypothesis about the existence of an elongated vicus. The survey was carried out by the ÖAI and directed by Dr. S. (Groh in 2011 Groh et al. in print).

34 The later town was mainly built on an elevated, sandy area. The North-Eastern quarter sloped steeply towards the Danube River. Thus, the highest area may have been the zone of the forum. Kérdő / Schweitzer 2010, 54-55, fig. 16.

35 For its strategic position and geographical location: Nagy 1942, 372; Kovács 1997-1998, 289; Zsidi 2004, 188.36 Road “C” was long considered the main road for the early settlement: Márity 1992, 65.37 The first traces were dated to the reign of Vespasian: Nagy 1964a, 48. Late Flavian period development was supposed by: Gabler

1977, 147, fn. 23. Domitian date was favoured by: Nagy 1942, 372.

542 ORSOLyA LÁNG

layer that covers the sandy subsoil. Some twenty (?) years later (Phase 2), the so far only sporadically placed dwellings and other features began to display some kind of regularity. A village-like settlement began to develop38 paired with marked landscap-ing activity as well. A blackish, clayey layer lay on the surface here, eliminating the sunken features from the previous phase and also filling-in the hol-lows between the sand dunes. This landscaping also transformed the slope running towards the river. Thus, a larger area was created in the zone of later Building # I (basilica) that was suitable for dwell-ings. The settlement began to expand to the East as well, even though floods frequently hit the area, demonstrated by the thin sandy layers discovered during the excavations of Building # XXIX (see above)39. More features can now be associated with this phase (pit houses, gravel pavements, pits with various functions) all dug into this blackish, clayey layer. Based on the archaeological features and finds discovered so far, this North-Eastern zone had a ci-vilian function and a military use for the area can-not be demonstrated (Zsidi 2002, 34).

Accordingly, its legal status was as a vicus be-longing to the civitas Eraviscorum. Administratively, it must have been subordinated to the civitas at the Víziváros40. However – as was also described earlier by K. Póczy and L. Nagy – it did not develop from an indigenous settlement (Nagy 1942, 372; 1964a, 48; 1971, 59; 1973, 125). Recent research on the find material from the earliest phases of North-Eastern zone strengthened previous observations that the finds connected to these phases speak clearly to a Romanized lifestyle (presence of terra sigillata, in-cense burners, oil lamps, glass spoons etc.) even though the semi-subterranean houses do display some Late Iron Age influences41.

The civil character of the early settlement and its suggested edges (see above) raises another possibili-

ty concerning the affiliation of the vicus. Connecting the previous theories of L. Nagy, K. Póczy and D. Gabler it is probable that the settlement – whose territory was torn out of the civitas Eraviscorum – owed its existence to the legionary fortress (Gabler 1977, 147, footnote 23; Kovács 1997/1998, 289; Póczy 2004, 85, 107). The connection between the early Aquincum settlement and the legionary for-tress is partly confirmed by the founding date42 (last quarter of the 1st century AD) and partly the fact that the distance between the supposed Northern border of the 1st century AD fortress and the prob-able Southern edge of the vicus (along the “E” road) is 1 leuga (2.2 km), which corresponds closely to the average distances between fortresses and civil settle-ments in Pannonia, even though this distance might vary due to geographical conditions43. The reason for this distance is that a large area was provided for the growing settlement beforehand (Kovács 1999, 111). The inhabitants of the early Aquincum settlement may have comprised a group of Roman citizens, veterans and their families as well as mer-chants taking advantage of the busy East-West road and the nearby harbour. Indigenous settlers may also have come from surrounding villages looking for a better life44.

Several analogies can be cited concerning the form of the Aquincum vicus. It is enough to men-tion the structure of the Civil Town of Vindobona (Kronberger 2009, 56-59; Müller et al. 2011, 30, 36, 42), but the situation is also similar for vici in Germania, where the ground plan of settlements did not change, even during the later Roman period (municipium Arae Flaviae) (Sommer 1999, Abb. 1). Bliesbruch in Gallia may also be mentioned since the proccess of gradual development of the elon-gated plots in the western (commercial- and crafts-men’s) quarter along the main road can be observed (Petit 2001, 39, fig. 6; Rorison 2001, 209, fig. 41).

38 See also E. Márity’s idea of the “village-like” settlement: supra p. 532.39 The results of the excavation carried out West of this zone (forum) by K. Póczy, may complement these observations. She identi-

fied semi-subterranean pit houses and workshops here: Póczy 1970, 182; 2004, 108, 155-156.40 Kovács 1997-1998, 289; Zsidi 2002, 33. Earlier, Nagy T. considered the antecedent of the Aquincum Civil Town to be the civitas

centre: Nagy 1973, 125.41 The situation is similar at the auxiliary vici: Kovács 1999, 147 ff.42 Apart from the dating finds, data from other Pannonian vici also attest that they also formed at this time, for example at

Vindobona: Müller et al. 2011, 35.43 Mócsy 1953, 195: Vindobona – 1.7 km, Brigetio – 2.5 km, carnuntum – 2.5 km. The situation is similar for example in numidia

as well (vicus Verecundia – fortress of Lambaesis): Kovács 1999, 111 and 117; Recent research describes the distance as 1 leuga for Vindobona: Müller et al. 2011, 31.

44 Concerning vicus society: Nagy 1973, 132; Kovács 1997/1998, 289. Data from the dead buried in the Aranyhegyi Stream cem-etery also provide information: veterans of the legio ii Adiutrix, legio X Gemina, legio XXii Primigenia and citizens from Cologne were buried here (Zsidi 2002, 113-114). The presence of Celtic inhabitants in the Albertfalva vicus can also be explained by eco-nomic forces: Beszédes 2011, 63.

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 543

In the vicus of Malain (Gallia) the settlement has an elongated form (mainly with workshops), ori-ented to the main road (Rorison 2001, 135). Recent geophysical surveys have revealed a similarly, elon-gated early settlement structure for the Civil Town of carnuntum45.

Anyway, the form, legal status and edges of the two-phase vicus developed with the settlement keep-ing its village-like appearance until the beginning of Trajan’s reign as data from following phases exhibit changes in connection to the fact that Aquincum be-came the capital of the province and urbanization began after AD 106. The first street-network was laid out as the first permanent buildings and the aq-ueduct were constructed46.

SummaryThe earliest settlement phases at the Aquincum Civil Town have always been debated. Several hypotheses have been published about possible civilian ante-cedents (vicus), an indigenous village or a military use. However, because the find materials from pre-vious excavations were not published or only in pre-liminary form, none of these ideas could be dem-onstrated. A few years ago the revaluation of the excavation materials from a contiguous area in the North-Eastern zone of the settlement allowed us to distinguish phases in this area, thus, identi-fying the earliest settlement horizon. According to this research, a two-phase, civilian vicus can be re-constructed with semi-subterranean houses placed in rows (?), a horseshoe-shaped feature and refuse pits located along the East-West road. Only a few

data are available concerning the function of the “buildings”, however, earlier research predicted the presence of a glass furnace for example. No militaria or any military features have been identified so far, supporting the hypothesis that this site was a purely civilian settlement.

The detailed study of the find material that could be dated (mainly terra sigillata, ampho-rae and Pannonian stamped pottery) showed that Phase 1 could have started around the last quarter of the 1st c. AD and lasted until the end of the cen-tury, while Phase 2 ended around the beginning/first decades of the 2nd c. AD, a time which already marked the debut of urbanization at the settlement and also overlap with the division of the province and Aquincum becoming the capital of Pannonia inferior in AD 106.

Based on the location of the features, two possibilities emerge for the layout of the settle-ment. It could have either been an elongated “Straßensiedlung”47 type settlement sitting along the main East-West road coming from the Buda hills and leading down to the Danube River or it may also be possible that a military fort occupied the Western part of the later town with the Eastern area constituting its vicus. The analogous vici, the structure of the early settlement and the character of the finds rather speak for the first version. The present work also supported previous research that suggested this site was a civil settlement closely con-nected to the foundation of the legionary fortress and inhabited by indigenous people, as well as mer-chants, veterans and Roman citizens.

45 Groh et al. in print. 46 Summary: Zsidi 2002, 35-36.47 The type has been recently termed “linear-ribbon” in Anglo-Saxon terminology: Rorison 2001, 33.

BibliographyBeszédes, J. 2011. Ausgrabungsergebnisse von der römischen Lager und der Siedlung in Albertfalva. – Budapest Régiségei 44, 58-74.

Gabler, D. 2013/14. Terra Sigillata im nördlichen Teil der Zivilstadt von Aquincum. In: Die Zivilstädte von Aquincum und Carnuntum. In: Groh S. (ed.). Forschungen zur Urbanistik und Handelsgeschichte. Zentraleuropäische Archäologie. In print.

Gabler, D. 1977. A dunai limes I-II. századi történetének néhány kérdése / Some Remarks on the History of the Danubian Limes of the First and Second Century. – Archaeológiai Értesítő 104, 145-175.

Groh, S. / Láng, O. / Sedlmyer, H. / Zsidi, P. in print. Neues zur Urbanistik der Zivilstädte von Aquincum – Budapest und Carnuntum – Petronell. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

Kaba, m. 1963. Römerzeitliche Gebäudereste beim Király-Bad. Budapest Régiségei 20, 259-298.

Kérdő, K. / Schweitzer, F. 2010. Aquincum. Ókori táj – ókori város / Aquincum. Ancient landscape – ancient town. Budapest.

Kovács, P. 1999. Vicus és castellum kapcsolata az alsó- pannoniai limes mentén / Relation between vicus and castel-lum along the Lower Pannonian limes (=Studia Classica I).

Kovács, P. 1997/1998. Civitas Eraviscorum. – Antaeus 24, 278-295.

Kronberger, m. 2009. Vindobona, das Römische Wien. Wien.

Kuzsinszky, B. 1891. Az aquincumi amphiteatrum. Függelékül: két lakóház. Az 1890 és részben a 1891-ki papföldi ásatások / The Aquincum amphitheater. Appendix: two dwelling houses. The Papföld excavations in 1890 and partly in 1891. – Budapest Régiségei 3, 81-139.

544 ORSOLyA LÁNG

Kuzsinszky, B. 1890. Az aquincumi ásatások 1882-84 és 1889 / Excavations in Aquincum in 1882-84 and 1889. – Budapest Régiségei 2, 75-160.

Lassányi, G. 2005. Excavations in the cemetery on the Aranyhegyi stream. – Aquincumi Füzetek 11, 81-90.

Lassányi, G. / Bechtold, E. 2006. Recent excavations in the cemetery along the Aranyhegyi stream. Aquincumi Füzetek 12, 73-78.

Láng, O. 2012. Urban problems in the Civil Town of Aquincum. The so-called “Northern band”. ELTE Faculty of Arts, PhD School of History Science, Archaeological PhD Program. Budapest. Unpublished PhD dissertation.

Láng, O. 2011. Indigenous sanctuary in the northeastern zone of the Aquincum Civil Town – was it ever there at all? In: I. Lazar (ed.). Akten des 4. Internationalen Symposiums über römische Städte in Noricum und Pannonien. Koper. 143-156.

Láng, O. 2001. Az aquincumi macellum: ásatási anyagfel-dolgozás és építészeti analógiák (az 1965.évi ástás anyaga) / The Aquincum macellum: evaluation of the excava-tion material and architectural analogies. ELTE Faculty of Arts, Institute of Archaeological Science. Supervisors: Dr. Borhy László egy.doc., Dr. Gabler Dénes egy.doc. Budapest. Unpublished MA thesis.

madarassy, O. 1991. # 64/10. – Régészeti Füzetek 43, 33.

márity, E. 1996. # 49/9. – Régészeti Füzetek 47, 36.

márity, E. 1994. # 50/2. – Régészeti Füzetek 46, 34.

márity, E. 1993. # 49/6. – Régészeti Füzetek 45, 34.

márity, E. 1992. Chronological problems and special fea-tures in the structure of the civilian city of Aquincum. – Communicationes Archaologicae Hungariae, 65–73.

mócsy, A. 1953. Das territorium legionis und die canabae in Pannonien. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, 179-200.

müller, m. / mader, i. / chinelli, R. (eds.) 2011. Entlang des Rennwegs. Die römische Zivilsiedlung von Vindobona.Wien.

nagy, T. 1973. Római kor / Roman Period. In: Gerevich L.(ed.). Budapest története I. / History of Budapest I. Budapest.

nagy, T. 1971. Der Vicus und das Municipium von Aquincum. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23, 59-81.

nagy, T. 1964. III. ker. Aquincumi polgárváros területe. Basilica / The area of the Aquincum Civil Town. Basilica. – Budapest Régiségei 21, 295-336.

nagy, T. 1964a. Perióduskutatások az aquincumi polgárváros területén / Erforschung der Perioden im Zentral – Gebiete der Zivilstadt von Aquincum. – Budapest Régiségei 21, 9-54.

nagy, L.1942. Topográfia, polgárváros / Topography, Civil Town. In: Alföldi, A. / Nagy, L. / László, Gy. (eds.). Budapest története I.-II. Budapest. 366-385.

nagy, L.1942a. Agyagművesség / Ceramics. In: Alföldi, A. / Nagy, L. / László, Gy. (eds.). Budapest története I.-II. Budapest. 627-650.

németh, m. 1973. Újonnan összeállított falfestmény Aquincumból / Neu zusammengestelltes Wandgemälde aus Aquincum. – Budapest Régiségei 23, 115-120.

Petit, J.-P. 2001. Architecture et urbanisme dans une ag-glomération secondaire de la Gaule Belgique au Haut – Empire: Bliesbruch. In: Altekamp, S. / Schäfer, A. (eds.). The impact of Rome on Settlements in the North Western and Danube Provinces (=BAR International Series 921). Oxford. 37-56.

Póczy, K. 2004. Aquincum, Budapest római kori történelmi városmagja / Aquincum, the historical core of Budapest. Budapest.

Póczy, K. 2003. Veränderung des Rechtsstatus der Siedlung. In: Zsidi, P. (ed.). Forschungen in Aquincum 1969-2002. Budapest. 125-126.

Póczy, K. 1986. Die Zivilstadt (municipum, später colonia). In: Polenz, H. (ed.). Das Römische Budapest. Münster. 121-130.

Póczy, K.1970. Anwendung neuerer Ausgrabungsergebnisse bei der Ruinenkonservierung in der Bürgerstadt Aquincum. – Acta Technica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 67, 177-194.

Póczy, K. / Hajnóczi, Gy. 1973. # 63. – Régészeti Füzetek 26, 34-35.

Póczy, K. / Hajnóczi, Gy. 1971. # 35. – Régészeti Füzetek 24, 26-27.

Póczy, K. / Zsidi, P. 1992. # 47/14, 2. – Régészeti Füzetek 44, 32.

Póczy, K. / Zsidi, P. 1992a. Römische Keramik in Aquincum. Budapest.

Rorison, m. 2001. Vici in Roman Gaul (= BAR International Series 933). Oxford.

Sommer, S. c. 1999. Vom Kastell zum municipium – zur Struktur von Arae Flaviae. In: Hazel, N. / Schucany, C. (eds.). Colonia – Municipium – Vicus. Struktur und Entwicklung städtischer Siedlungen in Noricum, Räetien und Obergermanien (= BAR International Series 783). Oxford. 59-64.

Szilágyi, J. 1968. # 29. – Régészeti Füzetek 21, 23.

Szilágyi, J. 1967. # 38. – Régészeti Füzetek 20, 32-33.

Szilágyi, J. 1950. Jelentés a Fővárosi Ókortörténeti (Aquincumi) Múzeum kutatásairól és szerzeményeiről az 1945-1948. évek folyamán / Rapport sur les recherches et les nouvelles acquisi-tions du Musée Municipal d’Histoire Antique (Aquincum) de 1945 à 1948. – Budapest Régiségei 15, 305-331.

T. Láng, O. 2008. “Strip house with an atrium – residence wing”: authentication excavation in the northeastern part of the Aquincum Civil Town III. – Aquincumi Füzetek 14, 71-80.

T. Láng, O. 2007. “Strip house with an atrium residence wing”: authentication excavation in the northeastern part of the Aquincum Civil Town. – Aquincumi Füzetek 13, 117-128.

T. Láng, O. 2006. Buildings and parts of a road by the northern town wall of the Aquincum Civil Town. – Aquincumi Füzetek 12, 51-59.

T. Láng, O. 2005. The “Peristyle house”: authenticating exca-vation in the Northeast part of the Aquincum Civil Town. – Aquincumi Füzetek 11, 68-80.

T. Láng, O. 2005a. 16. Budapest, III.Pók u. Hrsz: 23229/1. – Aquincumi Füzetek 11, 225-227.

T. Láng, O. 2003. Reconsidering the Aquincum macellum: analogies and origines. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54, 165-204.

THE BEGINNINGS: NEW DATA ON THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENT PHASES AT THE Aquincum CIVIL TOWN 545

Zsidi, P. in print. Roman period military complex in the area of Aquincum, during the time of the construction of the limes – Budapest Régiségei. Zsidi, P. 2007. A Duna szerepe Aquincum topográfiájában / Die Rolle der Donau in der Topographie von Aquincum. – Budapest Régiségei 41, 45-84.Zsidi, P. 2004. Aquincum topográfiája / The topography of Aquincum. – Specimina Nova 18, 167-226.

Zsidi, P. 2002. Aquincum polgárvárosa / The Aquincum Civil Town. Budapest.

Zsidi, P. 1990. Aquincum polgárvárosának városfala és védművei az újabb kutatások tükrében / Stadtmauer und Verteidigunssystem der Zivilstadt von Aquincum im Spiegel der Neuesten Forschungsergebnisse. – Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 143-169.

Dr. Orsolya LángBTM Aquincumi MúzeumaZáhony u.4H-1031 Budapestlang.orsolya@mail.iif.hu

546 ORSOLyA LÁNG