Author Contributions
Conceptualization, I.M. and A.G.; Data curation, I.M. and J.C.; Formal analysis, I.M. and J.C.; Funding acquisition, A.G.; Investigation, I.M. and J.C.; Methodology, I.M. and A.G.; Project administration, I.M. and A.G.; Resources, J.C. and A.G.; Software, I.M. and A.G.; Supervision, I.M., A.G. and B.G.; Validation, I.M., J.C. and B.G.; Visualization, I.M. and B.G.; Writing—original draft, I.M. and J.C.; Writing—review and editing, I.M., J.C., A.G. and B.G.
Figure 1.
Corvin Castle as seen from the modern entrance gate.
Figure 1.
Corvin Castle as seen from the modern entrance gate.
Figure 2.
A sketch of Corvin Castle phases drawn by Möller during his 1907–1914 investigation. The original oval fortress is drawn with bold black lines. Möller had thought the first structure was established at the end of the 13th century, though modern historians believe the fortress began in the middle of the 14th century [
7].
Figure 2.
A sketch of Corvin Castle phases drawn by Möller during his 1907–1914 investigation. The original oval fortress is drawn with bold black lines. Möller had thought the first structure was established at the end of the 13th century, though modern historians believe the fortress began in the middle of the 14th century [
7].
Figure 3.
Bogdan’s map of construction phases and excavations, translated and used with permission of Arhiva INP (Figure 2, [
2]).
Figure 3.
Bogdan’s map of construction phases and excavations, translated and used with permission of Arhiva INP (Figure 2, [
2]).
Figure 4.
Ground plan of Corvin Castle by Franz Neumann, Publicationen der Wiener Bauhutte, Jg. Vl.2, Blatt 13-14, used with permission from Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität Wien, Plansammlung [
8].
Figure 4.
Ground plan of Corvin Castle by Franz Neumann, Publicationen der Wiener Bauhutte, Jg. Vl.2, Blatt 13-14, used with permission from Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität Wien, Plansammlung [
8].
Figure 5.
Summary of scanned areas of the castle (based on
Figure 3).
Figure 5.
Summary of scanned areas of the castle (based on
Figure 3).
Figure 6.
GPR scanning in the Noble’s Man Kitchen, facing eastern exterior wall.
Figure 6.
GPR scanning in the Noble’s Man Kitchen, facing eastern exterior wall.
Figure 7.
Images taken from the White Tower (left) and entrance hall facing the tower (right).
Figure 7.
Images taken from the White Tower (left) and entrance hall facing the tower (right).
Figure 8.
Image of courtyard taken from the balcony of the Bethlen wing.
Figure 8.
Image of courtyard taken from the balcony of the Bethlen wing.
Figure 9.
GPR scanning in the chapel, facing east towards the apse.
Figure 9.
GPR scanning in the chapel, facing east towards the apse.
Figure 10.
Chapel excavation profile as reported by Roman et al. in 2004 and 2012 [
31] and [
3].
Figure 10.
Chapel excavation profile as reported by Roman et al. in 2004 and 2012 [
31] and [
3].
Figure 11.
Velescu’s image of the Diet Hall as it looked before restoration, used with permission ([
1], Arhiva INP).
Figure 11.
Velescu’s image of the Diet Hall as it looked before restoration, used with permission ([
1], Arhiva INP).
Figure 12.
Image of the modern lapidarium.
Figure 12.
Image of the modern lapidarium.
Figure 13.
Features in the northeast sector, including the Bear Pit and the repurposed frame and embedded staircase in the Well Courtyard.
Figure 13.
Features in the northeast sector, including the Bear Pit and the repurposed frame and embedded staircase in the Well Courtyard.
Figure 14.
Depth slices of the Noble’s Man Kitchen showing the excavation backfill in the lower right-hand corner, the exterior wall across the top, and the variable depth of the backfilled trench(es) in lines X3 and X7.
Figure 14.
Depth slices of the Noble’s Man Kitchen showing the excavation backfill in the lower right-hand corner, the exterior wall across the top, and the variable depth of the backfilled trench(es) in lines X3 and X7.
Figure 15.
Deeper slice showing possible wall foundations along the exterior wall and near the 14th century fortress present in the kitchen.
Figure 15.
Deeper slice showing possible wall foundations along the exterior wall and near the 14th century fortress present in the kitchen.
Figure 16.
GPR lines and photograph of the 1cm thick northern wall in the kitchen with different phases and wall treatments on the surface. Note the supporting elements indicated on the western (left) side.
Figure 16.
GPR lines and photograph of the 1cm thick northern wall in the kitchen with different phases and wall treatments on the surface. Note the supporting elements indicated on the western (left) side.
Figure 17.
Bogdan’s reported profiles (with author translations) from the white tower and entrance hall. H1 is in the tower (east), H2 is in the entrance hall (west) (figure from Bogdan (1970, [
2] used with permission).
Figure 17.
Bogdan’s reported profiles (with author translations) from the white tower and entrance hall. H1 is in the tower (east), H2 is in the entrance hall (west) (figure from Bogdan (1970, [
2] used with permission).
Figure 18.
Depth slice at 0.8 m (16 ns) and radargrams showing the transition from bedrock foundation to built up masonry foundations in the White Tower. Note the location of the backfilled trench H1 through the center, where the foundation is homogeneous and modern. Note that the lines presented belong to two grids but are oriented in the tower as shown.
Figure 18.
Depth slice at 0.8 m (16 ns) and radargrams showing the transition from bedrock foundation to built up masonry foundations in the White Tower. Note the location of the backfilled trench H1 through the center, where the foundation is homogeneous and modern. Note that the lines presented belong to two grids but are oriented in the tower as shown.
Figure 19.
Shallow depth slice of tower at 55 cm (11 ns), showing feature in the central southeast half of the tower.
Figure 19.
Shallow depth slice of tower at 55 cm (11 ns), showing feature in the central southeast half of the tower.
Figure 20.
0.8 m depth slice showing the cross cutting of two walls (upper half, 0.8 m) and the dipping reflector from the other figure (lower half, 0.8 m). 1.55 m depth slice and lines show the bottom of the backfilled trench H2, also shown in two representative lines (X11 and X20). NB: contrast slightly enhanced in these slices.
Figure 20.
0.8 m depth slice showing the cross cutting of two walls (upper half, 0.8 m) and the dipping reflector from the other figure (lower half, 0.8 m). 1.55 m depth slice and lines show the bottom of the backfilled trench H2, also shown in two representative lines (X11 and X20). NB: contrast slightly enhanced in these slices.
Figure 21.
Radargrams showing the dipping reflector across the center of the room, possibly in line with the dotted wall noted in Bogdan’s map and an earlier boundary. Also notice the wall foundation which appears in lines in G2 and which may correspond to the original stone fortress shown in solid black on the Bogdan and Möller maps.
Figure 21.
Radargrams showing the dipping reflector across the center of the room, possibly in line with the dotted wall noted in Bogdan’s map and an earlier boundary. Also notice the wall foundation which appears in lines in G2 and which may correspond to the original stone fortress shown in solid black on the Bogdan and Möller maps.
Figure 22.
Possible identification of original 14th century fortress under the courtyard side of the entrance hall (shown on the right-hand side of each line) with the Möller map [
7].
Figure 22.
Possible identification of original 14th century fortress under the courtyard side of the entrance hall (shown on the right-hand side of each line) with the Möller map [
7].
Figure 23.
Depth slices and radargrams from the courtyard scans. Lines X23 and X24 show the two wall foundations (on the left); In X23, X24, and Y30, note the upward sloping reflections from underlying geology. Line Y8 is typical of the southern (left) half of the courtyard, with both geological and anthropogenic features.
Figure 23.
Depth slices and radargrams from the courtyard scans. Lines X23 and X24 show the two wall foundations (on the left); In X23, X24, and Y30, note the upward sloping reflections from underlying geology. Line Y8 is typical of the southern (left) half of the courtyard, with both geological and anthropogenic features.
Figure 24.
GPR scans of the crypt showing depth slices of the upper portion (0.4 m) and the floor (starting at 1.25 m). Note the change in fill from east to west visible in line Y8 and near X8 that likely indicates the inclusion of the 14th century fortress wall.
Figure 24.
GPR scans of the crypt showing depth slices of the upper portion (0.4 m) and the floor (starting at 1.25 m). Note the change in fill from east to west visible in line Y8 and near X8 that likely indicates the inclusion of the 14th century fortress wall.
Figure 25.
Lines investigating features on the southern side of the chapel. In the slice at 1.5 m, it is clear that there are two separate features, likely early wall foundations. The upper foundation (in lines X12 and X14) may be part of the original 14th century fortress, which ran through the center of the chapel from North to South according to the Bogdan and Möller maps.
Figure 25.
Lines investigating features on the southern side of the chapel. In the slice at 1.5 m, it is clear that there are two separate features, likely early wall foundations. The upper foundation (in lines X12 and X14) may be part of the original 14th century fortress, which ran through the center of the chapel from North to South according to the Bogdan and Möller maps.
Figure 26.
Lines in the apse showing foundations of walls or courtyards on the chapel’s exterior, as indicated by Möller and Neumann’s plan; this detail is omitted from Bogdan’s map. In Y8, note the abrupt surface change from the carpet across the front of the apse (also visible in the depth slice).
Figure 26.
Lines in the apse showing foundations of walls or courtyards on the chapel’s exterior, as indicated by Möller and Neumann’s plan; this detail is omitted from Bogdan’s map. In Y8, note the abrupt surface change from the carpet across the front of the apse (also visible in the depth slice).
Figure 27.
Representative radargrams of the Neboisa tower and gallery; note the arch reflections in the edges of the gallery (Y0), also visible in the first half of X1.
Figure 27.
Representative radargrams of the Neboisa tower and gallery; note the arch reflections in the edges of the gallery (Y0), also visible in the first half of X1.
Figure 28.
Depth slices and radargrams showing different aspects of the Knight’s Hall vaulted ceiling from the floor in the Diet Hall above. Notice the curvature of the vaults in line Y11 and the rib visible in line X59.
Figure 28.
Depth slices and radargrams showing different aspects of the Knight’s Hall vaulted ceiling from the floor in the Diet Hall above. Notice the curvature of the vaults in line Y11 and the rib visible in line X59.
Figure 29.
GPR results from the Knight’s Hall. The interpreted features are included in the map, shown in the depth slice, and also visible in the linescans.
Figure 29.
GPR results from the Knight’s Hall. The interpreted features are included in the map, shown in the depth slice, and also visible in the linescans.
Figure 30.
GPR results from the Lapidarium showing the variety of features. In the Y lines, notice the built-up foundations at the north end and the deep feature in the center; in X10, note the deep feature at the beginning of the scan; in X3, the bedrock to masonry foundation at the end of the line; the possible trench floor in Y4G3*; the built up foundations and high humidity in Y3 G4*.
Figure 30.
GPR results from the Lapidarium showing the variety of features. In the Y lines, notice the built-up foundations at the north end and the deep feature in the center; in X10, note the deep feature at the beginning of the scan; in X3, the bedrock to masonry foundation at the end of the line; the possible trench floor in Y4G3*; the built up foundations and high humidity in Y3 G4*.
Figure 31.
In the eastern courtyard with the well, the most significant feature found with the GPR is the wall foundation running east–west (near the center of Y1). This is the outer wall of an earlier room (shown in the inset) which appears on some maps of castle (such as
Figure 2 and
Figure 4).
Figure 31.
In the eastern courtyard with the well, the most significant feature found with the GPR is the wall foundation running east–west (near the center of Y1). This is the outer wall of an earlier room (shown in the inset) which appears on some maps of castle (such as
Figure 2 and
Figure 4).
Figure 32.
Selected lines and depth slices from the Bear Pit. Note the rubble piles on the southern edge (and in X5) and the predominant areas of high scatter vs. low scatter.
Figure 32.
Selected lines and depth slices from the Bear Pit. Note the rubble piles on the southern edge (and in X5) and the predominant areas of high scatter vs. low scatter.
Figure 33.
GPR scans and results from the northeast sector.
Figure 33.
GPR scans and results from the northeast sector.
Figure 34.
Compilation of scanned and identified foundations. The foundation composition in the chapel is still unknown, but likely contains both built-up and bedrock foundations. Note the unscanned areas and comparison to the solid black 14th century extent walls, overlain on map from Bogdan (1970, [
2].)
Figure 34.
Compilation of scanned and identified foundations. The foundation composition in the chapel is still unknown, but likely contains both built-up and bedrock foundations. Note the unscanned areas and comparison to the solid black 14th century extent walls, overlain on map from Bogdan (1970, [
2].)