DOI Artikel:
S̆van̆a, Kamil: Basic characteristics of the Late Roman glazed mortars from the auxiliary fort at Iz̆a, bridgehead of Brigetio
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41949#0173
171
Tab. 2. Late Roman glazed mortars from Iza: relation
between the colour of the glaze and the rim type
Colour of the glaze
Amount of sherds
Type 1
Other type
Not identified
brown
8 pcs.
74%
13%
13%
honey
89 pcs.
59%
22%
19%
yellowish brown
30 pcs.
60%
20%
20%
greenish brown
61 pcs.
72%
9%
20%
orange
37 pcs.
59%
19%
22%
yellow
75 pcs.
54%
29%
17%
yellowish green & olive
191 pcs.
52%
33%
15%
green
52 pcs.
62%
29%
9%
total
534 pcs.
-
-
-
Rim surface and even the entire unglazed part of the vessel body was often painted in
shades of red, red-brown or brown. There does not seem to be a chronological seąuence
foi- the use of paint contrary to what can be found on some other sites.13 Painting still
occurs even on the late production, as confirmed by finds from structures dated to the end
of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century (see below). One interesting base frag-
ment had painted red lines. No other form of decoration has been identified on the mortars
from Iza with the exception of horizontal ribbing of the surface on some of the vessels.
Several pieces exhibit evidence of repair and longer usage which resulted in pebbles
and glaze on the lower parts of the inner wali being completely worn out. On some of the
vessels mistakes in the production and firing processes or glaze application are recogni-
zable. Amongst them are deformations of the walls or rims, surface traces of other vessels
stuck together during the firing process, peeling, bubbles and cracks in the glaze.
Eight main rim types, some with variants [Fig. 2], were distinguished based on typo-
logical criteria. Conical mortars of type 1 with horizontally stretched rims were the most
numerous [Tab. 3], similarly as in the rest of the Danube provinces.14 Vessels of this par-
ticular type are considered to be the oldest among glazed mortars as they are closest to
the earlier broad-collared and thick-walled forms. This is especially true of examples with
broad and thick rims; type lc especially can be seen as being directly derived from older
mortar forms.15 The earliest parallels for glazed type 1 a—1 c originated from the last decades
of the third and the beginning of the fourth century,16 but vessels of this shape were still
around in the late limes fortifications17 dated to the end of the fourth and the beginning of
the fifth century.
13 E.g. Cvjetićanin 2006, p. 23.
14 See Cvjetićanin 2006, pp. 21-24.
15 E.g. Groh, Sedlmayer 2002, fig. 136: 120, 190,
302, 303, 387.
16 Gassner, Jilek 1999, pp. 53, 62, figs. 4, 9; Gass-
NER 2009, pp. 53-54, pis. 1: 3c, 2: 2b.
17 E.g. Acs-Vaspuszta, found in Valentinian and post-
-Valentinian period layers (Ottomanyi 1989, p. 508,
fig. 117: 46, 48), Leanyfalu, burgus built in the
Valentinian period (Ottomanyi 1991, p. 90, pl. 13:
70-72), Vienna , phases 5 and 6 (after AD 370) of
the Roman military barracks at Judenplatz (Adler-
-Wolfl2010, p. 316).
Tab. 2. Late Roman glazed mortars from Iza: relation
between the colour of the glaze and the rim type
Colour of the glaze
Amount of sherds
Type 1
Other type
Not identified
brown
8 pcs.
74%
13%
13%
honey
89 pcs.
59%
22%
19%
yellowish brown
30 pcs.
60%
20%
20%
greenish brown
61 pcs.
72%
9%
20%
orange
37 pcs.
59%
19%
22%
yellow
75 pcs.
54%
29%
17%
yellowish green & olive
191 pcs.
52%
33%
15%
green
52 pcs.
62%
29%
9%
total
534 pcs.
-
-
-
Rim surface and even the entire unglazed part of the vessel body was often painted in
shades of red, red-brown or brown. There does not seem to be a chronological seąuence
foi- the use of paint contrary to what can be found on some other sites.13 Painting still
occurs even on the late production, as confirmed by finds from structures dated to the end
of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century (see below). One interesting base frag-
ment had painted red lines. No other form of decoration has been identified on the mortars
from Iza with the exception of horizontal ribbing of the surface on some of the vessels.
Several pieces exhibit evidence of repair and longer usage which resulted in pebbles
and glaze on the lower parts of the inner wali being completely worn out. On some of the
vessels mistakes in the production and firing processes or glaze application are recogni-
zable. Amongst them are deformations of the walls or rims, surface traces of other vessels
stuck together during the firing process, peeling, bubbles and cracks in the glaze.
Eight main rim types, some with variants [Fig. 2], were distinguished based on typo-
logical criteria. Conical mortars of type 1 with horizontally stretched rims were the most
numerous [Tab. 3], similarly as in the rest of the Danube provinces.14 Vessels of this par-
ticular type are considered to be the oldest among glazed mortars as they are closest to
the earlier broad-collared and thick-walled forms. This is especially true of examples with
broad and thick rims; type lc especially can be seen as being directly derived from older
mortar forms.15 The earliest parallels for glazed type 1 a—1 c originated from the last decades
of the third and the beginning of the fourth century,16 but vessels of this shape were still
around in the late limes fortifications17 dated to the end of the fourth and the beginning of
the fifth century.
13 E.g. Cvjetićanin 2006, p. 23.
14 See Cvjetićanin 2006, pp. 21-24.
15 E.g. Groh, Sedlmayer 2002, fig. 136: 120, 190,
302, 303, 387.
16 Gassner, Jilek 1999, pp. 53, 62, figs. 4, 9; Gass-
NER 2009, pp. 53-54, pis. 1: 3c, 2: 2b.
17 E.g. Acs-Vaspuszta, found in Valentinian and post-
-Valentinian period layers (Ottomanyi 1989, p. 508,
fig. 117: 46, 48), Leanyfalu, burgus built in the
Valentinian period (Ottomanyi 1991, p. 90, pl. 13:
70-72), Vienna , phases 5 and 6 (after AD 370) of
the Roman military barracks at Judenplatz (Adler-
-Wolfl2010, p. 316).