Later Roman-Barbarian Contacts in Central Europe: Numismatic Evidence 3786119236, 9783786119234

Citation preview

ALEKSANDER BURSCHE LATER ROMAN - BARBARIAN CONTACTS IN CENTRAL EUROPE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE

KOMMISSION FÜR GESCHICHTE DES ALTERTUMS DER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR ■ MAINZ RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION DES DEUTSCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS • FRANKFURT A. M.

STUDIEN ZU FUNDMÜNZEN DER ANTIKE (SFMA) HERAUSGEGEBEN VON MARIA R.-ALFÖLDI BAND 11

GEBR. M A N N VERLAG • BERLIN

LATER ROMAN - BARBARIAN CONTACTS IN CENTRAL EUROPE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE

SPÄTRÖMISCHE MÜNZFUNDE AUS MITTELEUROPA Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Barbaricum im 3. und 4. Jh. n. Chr.

VON ALEKSANDER BURSCHE

GEBR. M A N N VERLAG • BERLIN

Gefördert durch das Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Bonn, das Hessische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wiesbaden.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Bursche, Aleksander: Later Roman barbarian contacts in central Europe : numismatic evidence = Spätrömische Münzfunde aus Mitteleuropa / Aleksander Bursche. - Berlin : Gebr. Mann, 1996 (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike; Bd. 11) ISBN 3-7861-1923-6 NE: GT

© 1996 by Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. Alle Rechte einschließlich des Rechts zur Vervielfältigung, zur Einspeisung in elektronische Systeme sowie der Übersetzung Vorbehalten. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung der Akademie und des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Gesamtherstellung: Druckerei zu Altenburg GmbH, 04600 Altenburg. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier.

T ab le o f conten ts Acknowledgments....................................................................................................7 1. Preface................................................... 9 2. Theory...................................................................................................... 18 2.1. Coin finds in the context of archaeological cultures................................... 18 2.2. Statistics................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Model of Roman - Barbarian relations...................................................... 20 2.4. Former views...........................................................................................23 3. State of research......................................................................................... 26 3.1. Publication of sources............................................................................... 26 3.2. Representativeness.................................................................................... 36 3.2.1. Germany...................................................................................... 39 3.2.2. Austro-Hungary............................................................................. 42 3.2.3. Poland under the Russian partition..................................................44 3.2.4. The Russian Empire........................................................................ 49 3.2.5. IndependentPoland......................................................................... 49 3.2.6. Conclusions................................................................................. 53 3.3. Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD.............................................................................................58 4. Coins and medallions from 193-395 AD in Barbaricum...........................66 4.1. Description of finds................................................................................... 66 4.2. Chronological distribution....................................................................... 67 4.3. Hoards and denominations. Force of contact............................................ 84 4.4. Denominations and mints. Direction of contact........................................ 91 5. Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum..................................... 95 5.1. Time and place of outflow of coin streams and waves............................. 95 5.2. Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources.................................101 5.2.1. Commerce and warfare..................................................................101 5.2.2. Tributes and ransoms.....................................................................106 5 2 3 .Annua munera................................................................................110 5.2.4. Stipendia and donativa...................................................................114 5.2.5. Annonae foederaticae................................................................... 117 5.2.6. Gifts........................................................................................... 120 5.2.7 .Conclusions................................................................................... 121 5.3. Roman - Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds.................123 5.3.1. AD 194.......................................................................................... 123 5.3.2. The final phase of commerce................................................... 125 5.3.3. Crisis and warfare..........................................................................127 5.3.4. Stabilization under the Constantinian dynasty............................... 129 5.3.5. The breakdown under the House of Valentinian............................133 6. Conclusions.............................................................................................135 7. Deutsche Zusammenfassung.................................................................. 138

6

8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 9. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 10.

Table of contens

List of finds............................................................................................. 144 List of abbreviations............................................................................. 145 Wielbark Culture................................................................................... .147 Luboszyce Culture................................................................................. 161 Westbalt Culture.................................................................................... 170 Przeworsk Culture.................................................................................. 184 Dçbczyno Group........................................................................ 215 Bibliography...........................................................................................221 List of abbreviations............................................................................. 221 Sources................................................................................................... 224 Coin catalogues......................................................................................225 Literature................................................................................................ 226 Tables..................................................................................................... 268

A ck n ow led gm en ts I would like to express my sincere thanks to those who gave me their kind assistance during the progress of this work. I am especially grateful to R.Reece from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London for his consultation on theory and the final revision of the text and A.Krzyżanowska from the Warsaw National Museum, under whose guidance I did my museum practice, for her expert assistance in identifying coins. Access to a substantial body of data concerning coins and medallions originating from finds, and preserved in museum collections I owe to J.P.C.Kent from the British Museum, T.Buttrey and W.E.Metcalf of the American Numismatic Society, B.Schulz of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz, U.Westermark from the Kungliga Myntkabinettet in Stockholm, A.Kromann and J.S.Nielsen from the Nationalmuseet in Copenhagen. Valuable information and assistance in producing the bibliography was provided by K.GodJowski, M.Kaczyriski, A.Kunisz, J.Okulicz, S.Suchodolski, J.Werner, J.Wielowiejski, and R.Wofegiewicz. Useful suggestions made by K.GodIowski, A.Kunisz and J.Okulicz on the typescript contributed to its final shape. Acknowledgements are also due to the participants of seminars for their invaluable observations and advice, in particular to J.Andrzejowski, M.Mielczarek, and W.Nowakowski. Separately I would like to thank W.Sobociriski and K.Sójka-Zielińska for consultation on legal regulations pertaining to hoard finds and A.Góralski for his review of the section on statistics. I address my sincere appreciation to the Hardt Foundation in Vandoeuvres where access was provided to the most recent publications of written sources and works on them, during two visits there in a friendly atmosphere created by Suzanne Moor which contributed to the completion of this text. W.Furley from the Seminar für Klassische Philologie in Heidleberg offered me assistance in the interpretation of Greek texts, while M.Kom of the Eichstätt Katholische Universität and J.den Beef from Netherlands both helped to interpret the Latin. The hospitality offered at the Maison de l’Orient in Lyon by O.Aurensche and the Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Frankfurt am Main by S.von Schnurbein helped the work on editing the text. I am also grateful to G.Depeyrot of the CNRS in Paris for his opinions on certain questions concerning coinage circulation in the late Roman Empire. The statistical foundations of the present work would be lacking were it not for the considerable help of the computer programmer J.Milewski, from the Warsaw University Institute of Informatics, together with financial support granted from Problem R-III-6 /RP III 35/ under Professor J.K.KozIowski. The hard work of translation was carried out by A.Zakrzewska and revised by P.Barford and D.G.Wigg.

8

Acknowledgments

Finally I would like to thank Prof. M.R.-Alföldi for including this volume in SFMA. My mentor, Jerzy Kolendo deserves my special acknowledgement for his effort in closely monitoring the progress of this work. The book I dedicate to my parents. Aleksander Bursche

1. Preface Je crois à Vutilité de longues statistiques, à la necessaire remontée de ces calculs et recherches vers un passé chaque jour plus reculé. F. Braudel, Histoire et sciences sociales: la longue durée, Annales Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 13:1958, p.752.

Relations between two worlds - Roman and Barbarian - constitute a problem which has attracted the attention of several generations of scholars. Already in the late eighteen hundreds a distinct field of study began to emerge - primarily the domain of interest for archaeologists, historians and numismatists. The question of contacts between the Empire and peoples inhabiting lands outside the limes was examined both from the point of view of Roman influence on Barbarians and vice versa, as well as in a broader context, as an illustration of contacts between societies at different levels of development of civilization. In the present work we set out to explore certain manifestations of the relations between these two worlds during a specific period when the relationships in question began to assume a completely novel shape in comparison to that of the bygone "Golden Age" of the Empire, when the initiative was in Roman hands. The Antoninę period witnessed an active policy towards Barbaricum, coupled with intensive economic exploitation of the area. However, during the period of crisis in the 3rd century AD the form of contacts underwent such considerable transformation as to invalidate, in our opinion, all attempts to project the picture of former far-reaching commercial links into the period under discussion. Around AD 250 a crucial change in the balance of power between the Empire and Barbaricum took place with the initiative passing into the hands of Barbarians, Germanic tribes in particular, the result being a prevalence of non-economic contacts. Regrettably, insight into the new form of relations is limited by the paucity of information offered by classical authors, and is particularly scarce with regard to the outlying regions of Barbaricum - the area of main concern in this work. Consequently, information contained in archaeological evidence, especially in finds of imports, becomes of vital importance. Numismatic evidence stands out, often providing grounds for accurate absolute dating, and as a mass of material lending itself to statistical analysis, coins serve to verify hypotheses. Written records additionally demonstrate the significant role played by coins and medallions in the Empire - Barbaricum contacts, notably at the time under study. Comparative analysis of finds of coins and medallions from AD 193-395 from the area occupied by five Central European archaeological cultures provided the basis for a study of the mechanisms and directions in which this category of imports found its way from the Empire to Barbaricum. This is of special relevance for the study of the nature of contacts between the two worlds during the second half of the 3rd and first half of the 4th centuries. At the same time, the manner and

10

Preface

time of transmission of coinage after it left the Empire (including the time of arrival) have been left outside the scope of this study, as has the function of coins in the North, since the evidence collected does not authorize such analysis. A study of this sort would require a basis in the form of coin finds from the entire area of the northern Barbaricum, a task that no scholar could easily accomplish1. The concept of "Central Barbaricum" is used tentatively to denote the territory settled by the populations of five archaeological cultural circles, i.e. the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Luboszyce Cultures and of the Elbe and Westbalt Circles2. The area of the latter, which lies partly outside Central Europe, above all provides comparative material discussed at greater length in a separate paper (Bursche 1992a). The term "Central Barbaricum" has been used on several occasions to define the relevant cultural zones in this way3. Sometimes the Chemiakhov Culture and culture groups from the territory of Bohemia, Slovakia and Moravia are included to form a single cultural province4, but the author was unable to gain access to the evidence from the latter area5, while for the Chemiakhov Culture the work has already been done6. Lack of clarity as to the cultural situation in Bohemia, Slovakia and Moravia during the period under discussion further complicates the task of arranging evidence from this area7.

1 No up-to-date inventories of Roman coin finds are available in 1987 for most of Scandinavia, large parts of West Germany (yet to be included in FMRD, notably Schleswig-Holstein), Bohemia, Slovakia, Trans-Danubian Austria and most of the Ukraine. 2 It is practically impossible to provide an archaeological definition of the terms "group", "culture" or so-called "circle" for Central Europe, as they are used in a very irregular manner. So both cultures and circles are often divided into groups, and the latter can also contain cultures. The borders between groups and cultures, or cultures and circles is usually very unclear and a matter of intuition. In future this problem will need to be reconsidered theoretically. The author has decided to use the above terms in the traditional way here. 3 Starting from papers submitted to the "Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Zones in Central Europe during the Roman Period" conference, held at Nowa Huta and Kraków in 1972; cf. e.g. Godfowski 1976, p.14 ff, Madyda-Legutko 1983, 1986, 1990, Tempelmann-M^czynska 1985, 1985a, 1989, Andrzejowski 1991. Recently T.Samowski (1991) was correct in regarding the term "European Barbaricum" as erroneous, since this name is to be found in written sources (all of them later) referring exclusively to Europe. 4 Cf. e.g. Godfowski 1970, 1976, 1992a, Shchukin 1976, Szczukin 1981. 5 A corrected and more detailed identification of coins is necessary (date and place of issue) for finds from Bohemia and Slovakia requiring a full review of literature, archival records and museum collections cf. Kolnikova 1973, 1979, 1988, 1992, Lamiovâ-Schmiedlovâ 1986, NemeskalovâJiroudkova 1979, Sejbal 1992 (a catalogue of Roman coins from Moravia is being prepared by J.Sejbal jr.). 6 A supplemented and updated inventoiy of Roman coin finds from Ukrainian territory is awaiting publication. 7 The problem is relatively plain and quite well researched for the Early Roman Period (from the time of "the kingdom of Marobodus" to the Marcomanic wars) and rather well discussed starting with German publications (Preidel 1930, Beninger, Freising 1933, Beninger 1937) to the more recent discussion by Czech scholars (e.g. Motykova-Sneidrova 1963, 1965, 1967, or Tejral 1970, 1971; see also Pravëké, p.688-703). Late Roman Period archaeological assemblages were briefly dealt with in the quoted German publications, where they were regarded as a continuation of earlier evidence. Even though numerous sites have since furnished a large body of new data, their synthesis, or at least an effort to give a satisfactory explanation of the cultural situation, has yet to be made. The Late Roman

Preface

11

In our opinion the division of the area under study into the territories of archaeological cultures (substantiated in more detail in the theoretical section) will give much more information than the method used by earlier publications of divisions along modern administrative boundaries (provinces, counties, states, etc.)8« However, such a critérium entails a serious problem: it precludes exact demarcation of the extent of territories analyzed due to both the scarcity of evidence and the obvious indiscernibility of cultural zone boundaries - how they change over time, the existence of uninhabited areas and transitional zones with population overlap. In the Roman and Early Migration Periods the boundaries of the territories inhabited by peoples of respective archaeological cultures often shifted considerably. For instance, the actual rise of the Luboszyce Culture occurred only in the Late Roman Period and earlier this cultural area was deserted (Domański 1979, p.103-112 and 210-211). Vast population shifts in the Wielbark Culture have recently been discussed in detail9. With this in mind it has been assumed here that territorial units were occupied by a given culture over a short time span - roughly corresponding to our period of interest - which is somewhat arbitrarily defined as "Late Roman", using the term in the archaeological sense of relative chronology (the late Roman subperiod) rather than historically10. The relevant period is contained between phases Clb/C2 or C2 and D (until the rise of the Sösdala style) in interregional périodisation corresponding in absolute chronology to the period c. AD 230-375 (but varying in different cultures, especially the Westbalt Circle)11. During this period the boundaries of the cultures under discussion here were relatively stationary. However their more accurate definition calls, for a more detailed study. As a consequence of general guidelines adopted for the definition of the territory of cultures under discussion, their extent sometimes does not coincide perfectly with the true extent of a Late Roman Period culture or archaeological circle. Seeking

Period saw the emergence of local cultural groups in this area. Their relationship to the neighbouring entities requires detailed research (cf. e.g., Zeman 1961, Saka? 1966, Svoboda 1963, Godlowski 1970, 1992a, Tejral 1975, 1986, 1990, Pravëké, p.703 - 713, Kolnik 1980, 1981, 1988). 8 For a fuller account cf. Bursche 1983b, p.17-19 and 47-78. 9 WoZagiewicz 1981, p.80-88,1986a,1986b, Dąbrowska 1981, Machajewski 1980,1981, Godlowski 1986, Kokowski 1986, 1988a, 1988b, Andrzejowski 1989. 10 Chronological assumptions are based on the scheme and terminology of K.Godlowski (1970, 1974, 1985a, 1988). 11 To be more exact, according to K.GodZowski’s (1988, 1992b, p.30) updated view (on the Przeworsk Culture) the onset of phase Clb coincides with AD 230 or a bit earlier (Godlowski 1992a); the end of phase D - with the early 5th century, even as late as 450. This broad spread is the result of the impossibility of pinpointing and defining the emergence of the Sösdala - Untersiebenbrunn style in everyday artifacts. The diverging absolute chronology of the discussed phases are of little relevance to the subject since this time-frame certainly contains the period between AD 250-350. Moreover, insofar as we are able - or unable - to say, no major changes in settlement took place - Godlowski 1985a, p.91 - 123, 1992b, p.33-45.

12

Preface

to obtain the "purest" possible representation of coin finds, namely one most characteristic for a given culture, some territories with unclear cultural affiliation were omitted (i.e. the eastern and southern portion of the Pomeranian Lakeland12) together with those settled by a mixed population, i.e. areas of Saxony west of the Elbe (Meyer 1976, map 4). An attempt was made to avoid bisecting obvious concentrations of relatively homogenous evidence. Boundaries were frequently drawn following natural geographical barriers such as mountains (e.g. the Carpathians), or rivers (the Vistula). Nevertheless, even such an unequivocal procedure posed certain difficulties in view of the occurrence of finds even within these barriers (e.g. in mountain passes and in rivers)13. On the other hand, in many cases excessive detail in the reconstruction of culture boundaries could be dispensed with given the absence of coin finds from the "border" zone. Existing publications were used in defining most boundaries but several detailed analyses using archaeological material were also made for the purpose14. Even if ideas on the territorial extent of cultures now accepted are modified by future research, evidence organized in this manner will essentially retain its statistical validity because over 90% of finds originate from areas unquestionably settled by the population of a given culture (map 1). Based on research by R.Wofegiewicz (1981, 1986a, b), A.Kokowski (1986, 1988a, b)15, D.Kozak (1988), J.Andrzejowski (1989) and the author (Bursche 1988b) the following boundaries have been adopted for the Wielbark Culture: - in the north the Gulf of Gdansk, - in the west the course of the River Vistula, including areas directly adjacent to its left, lower arm, - in the south the River Chodelka, the northern slopes of the Lublin Heights, down to the northern stretches of the Roztocze and Gofogóry Hills including the entire Volhynian Upland, - in the north-east the River Pasłęka including its eastern basin through the Olsztyn Lakeland - following the Rivers Upper Lyna and the Omulew - down to the River Narew. The state of research now does not yet suffice to determine the culture’s eastern boundary in the area south of the upper River Narew and its course through the

12 At the present stage of research it appears that this area, if not largely uninhabitedTor even a vacuum, must have been extremely sparsely settled and was possibly in contact with the Dçbczyno Group - Wofëgiewicz 1986b, p.311-312 (I am grateful to R.Wofegiewicz and H.Machajewski for their guidance on the subject). 13 E.g. a set of finds from the Moravian Gate; three coin finds from Bemartice, district Jesenik; or the Gallienus antoninianus dredged up from the Elbe at Dresden-Neustadt in 1904 (although it is possible that the coin was lost in modem times). 14 E.g. in the western Ukraine, southern Lublin region or upper Oder basin (Opava and Oise area). 15 I am grateful to R.WoZ^giewicz and A.Kokowski for granting access to their material and for their opinion on the question of the territorial extent of the Wielbark Culture.

Preface

13

Polesie region. With no Late Roman Period coin finds known from this area we do not have to propose a more or less arbitrary boundary. The territory of the "Volhynia Group", an intermediate unit between the Wielbark and Chemiakhov Cultures (Szcżukin 1981, Kozak 1988), is included in the discussion by virtue of the clear similarity of the finds from this area to those from Eastern Pomerania (Bursche 1983b, p.48, 1988b). The Przeworsk Culture boundaries are adopted for phase C2, the period when this Culture appears in the part of Greater Poland formerly occupied briefly by the Wielbark Culture (Machajewski 1981), and after the appearance of the Chemiakhov Culture on the Upper Dniester (producing Przeworsk Culture burials in phase C lb)16. In both cases it was thought that 3rd and 4th centuries coins from these areas could be associated with settlement from Late Roman Period. Ultimately the following boundaries were adopted for the Przeworsk Culture: - in the north the northern borders of Greater Poland and Kujavia, - in the east the Vistula and the zone of the Wielbark Culture territory described above, reaching southward to the upper River San basin, - in the west the River Obra down to the bend in the River Oder near Zielona Góra, and along the River Bóbr, - in the south the Carpathian and Sudety Mountains. Finds from the region of the upper Oder near the Moravian Gate presented most problems. Following detailed studies based on the distribution of wheel-turned "grey" pottery, which is one of the prime distinguishing characteristics of Przeworsk Culture at this time17, and on the basis of the composition and distribution of coin finds, it was felt that only evidence from north of the River Opava should be included, leaving out six sites to the south of this river, in the area of the River Oder headwaters and from the Trans-Oise region18. Such a procedure was prompted by the principle of collecting the most homogenous

16 The latest Przeworsk Culture burials in the western Ukraine feature weapons from horizon lia (Godlowski 1968, p.271, tab.7; ibid. 1970a, p.191-193, 1992b, p.33-34, Dąbrowska, Godlowski 1970, p.95-100, Kropotkin 1977, p.183 fig 11; Kozak 1978, 1982, 1983, 1984; private file of T.Dąbrowska, with acknowledgments for offering access to it), the earliest Chemiakhov sites from this area date to phase C2 (Godlowski 1970a, p.193, Baran 1973, Kropotkin 1977, Kozak 1982, cf. also Zachodnia strefa osadnictwa kultury czermachowskiej [ed. J.Gurba, A.Kokowski], Lublin 1986). 17 Dobrzańska 1980, 1982, Godlowski 1985a, p.91-111 and map 7, 1992b, p.38. 18 The following finds are involved: Bitov, Bilovec distr. (Pochitonov 1955, p.275-276, no 1234, Konik 1965, p.29-30 - erroneously mentions four coins, instead of two - see G.Stumpf, Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit, 3:1927, p.74-75); Brezova, Vitkov distr. (Pochitonov 1955, p.283, no 1274, Konik 1965, p.37); Hradec (vicinity of), Opava distr. (Bolin 1926a, p.[118] ref.2, Pochitonov 1955, p.275, no 1232, Konik 1965, p.60); Jablunkovo, Ćesky Tësm distr. {Blätter für Münzfreunde, 10:1902, p.2783, Bender 1953, p. 18, doubled with the Nâvsi find by V.Karger - see Karger 1922, p.30, 1934a, p.101, 1934b, p.31, also Konik 1965, p.61-62), Kamerm Lhotka, Ćesky Tësm distr. - Valentinian I solidus with a suspension loop from between 363-367 (RIC IX, 2b - Karger 1934b, Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny no 165, year XXV from 16 June 1934, p.5, Piotrowicz 1935, p.91-92); Navsi, Ćesky Tësm distr. (very doubtful Karger 1934a, p.101, Bender 1953, p.15-17); Vrchy, Vitkov distr. (Pochitonov 1955, p.278, no 1249, omitted by Konik 1965); a dozen or so 3rd and 4th centuries coin finds discovered in a concentration in Novÿ Jićin and Mistek districts were omitted (see Pochitonov 1955, maps 4 and 5).

14

Preface

representations of coins possible, as characteristic for a given culture. Although much could argue in favour of the possible affiliation of these finds with the Przeworsk Culture, the lack of sufficient proof prevents their inclusion in the group of relevant evidence. The area of coin finds for the Luboszyce Culture was based on G.Domanski’s research (1979) with additional modifications inspired by the more recent study by E.Meyer (1976)19, with the boundaries running as follows: - in the north crossing the Spree-Oder watershed due east of Berlin (slightly south of the River Myślą) and on eastward to the Warta-Noteć confluence, - in the east the Przeworsk Culture territory, - in the south the northern slopes of the Izery and Lusatian Mountains20, - in the west along the River Elbe, down to the Rivers Schwarze Elster and the upper Nuthe to the Spree, south of Berlin. Unlike its eastern margin where unoccupied areas separate Luboszyce territory from that of the Przeworsk Culture (Domański 1979, p.108-112, Godfowski 1985a, p.98-99), the western fringe features a distinct zone of overlapping Luboszyce and Elbe Circle settlement on both banks of the River Elbe in Saxony, including a few ’’Elbe" sites on the left bank (Meyer 1976, map 4). Therefore, the Elbe was adopted here as a tentative boundary. In Brandenburg the "Elbe” settlement area borders directly on to that of the Luboszyce Culture, with coin finds clearly belonging to one culture or the other, and leaving no doubt as to the extent of its territory. The area occupied by Elbe Circle settlement was adopted based on research by R.Laser (1965), B.Schmidt (1976), A.Leube (1976), E.Meyer (1976), G.Mildenberger (1970), H.Schach-Dörges (1970), and R.Wofegiewicz (1981a) and includes the Dçbczyno Group because of close mutual affinities discernible in the archaeological material21. The lack of sufficient access to a larger body of evidence led to the exclusion of groups of finds from the lower left bank of the Elbe, in the eastern part of Lower Saxony, which was occupied by a Langobard population22.

1 G.Domański was not in a position to take note of this publication, his own work having been completed in May 1976. Corrections pertain to the south-western extent of the Luboszyce Culture on the Elbe near Dresden. 20 Therefore two finds from across the Bohemia border, not mentioned by G.Domanski despite their proximity to the area of definite Luboszyce Culture settlement, and the possible burial ground at Bogatynia (cf. Domański 1979, p.222.), were included: Luh in Frydlant distr. and Petrovice, in Żdar distr. (see list of finds). 21 PZP, p.210-216 (R.Wofegiewicz), Godlowski 1983a, Machajewski 1985. 22 Wegewitz 1937, 1940, p.759 Tab.171, Hachmann, Kossack, Kuhn 1962, map 8, Seyer 1968, p.243 Tab.6. The data was collected before the publication of FMRD VII (F.Berger, Ch.Stoess) in 1988. Areas in Holstein were disregarded for the same reason (FMRD VIII will be published in 1994) although in the Late Roman Period they were largely settled by an Elbe Circle population - cf. Genrich 1954, notably map 1.

Preface

15

Thus the Elbe Circle settlement territory was defined by the following boundaries: - in the north the Baltic Sea, - in the east - from the mouth of the River SJupia across the Pomeranian Lakeland to the River Oder bend near Cedynia; from there along the border of the Luboszyce Culture to the west of the confluence of the Schwarze Elster and the Elbe and southwards to the River Mulde, - in the south the upper reaches of the Rivers Weisse Elster and the Saale and the northeastern slopes of the Thuringian Forest, - in the west the western slopes of the Harz to the Elbe around its confluence with Aland. The Bogaczewo, Sudovian, Sambian Cultures and the Lower Neman and West Lithuanian Groups were included in the Westbalt Circle23. Clear links visible in the archaeological material of these cultures also correspond to the presence of sestertii in burials (least common in the Sudovian culture), presumably a funerary custom. In view of considerable differences in the structure of the coin finds it was thought fit to exclude the Middle Lithuanian or "Kaunas” Group from the Circle discussed24, a decision further substantiated by archaeological evidence showing a mixed East-and Westbalt Circle character. Consequently the following boundaries were adopted: - to the north-west the Baltic Sea, - in the north-east from the River Liepaya, southeast up to the River Neman (including its right bank), along the River Szeszupa to the upper course of the River Czarna Hańcza and to the Wigry Lake. To the south the Westbalt Circle is divided from Wielbark Culture territory by a broad stretch of unoccupied lands. A similar phenomenon may be observed on the western extremities of the Westbalt Circle territory. Only in the Olsztyn Lakeland and near the River Pasfcka estuary are the two areas of settlement contiguous. During the Migration Period Westbalt settlement gradually shifted westward to the area along the left bank of the Vistula, previously evacuated by the Wielbark Culture population (Godjowski 1980, p.78-83, maps 6,7,1981, p.104109). Coin and medallion finds minted between AD 193 - 395 were assembled from the cultural territories defined above. Hoards containing mixed material, i.e. with a few coins of the period of interest here alongside mainly later material, were

23 Thanks are addressed here to W.Nowakowski for giving access to his PhD thesis "The Bogaczewo Culture in the Mazurian and Suwałki Lakelands during the Early Roman Period", and to M.Kaczyriski for consultation on Westbalt Circle cultures and their territorial extent. Cf. Engel 1933, p.262-263 figs.l, 2; Śturms 1950, Okulicz 1973, p.408-421, Latvijas, p.98-99, fig.37, Kaczyński 1976, LAA III, p.10-12 maps 1,6,7 (A.Tautavichius), and especially: Nowakowski 1983, p.64 fig.l, 1986, 1990, 1991. 24 Śturms 1950, Tautavichius 1980, p.81 fig.2.

16

Preface

disregarded. They are understood to represent earlier deposits which were hoarded in this form on Imperial territory (gold hoards are almost exclusively involved). Coin finds were assembled from a period longer than that used for this work, in order to render possible a comparison with earlier and later data; also a certain possible time-lag between the issue of coins in the Empire and their northward outflow had to be taken into consideration. The selection of the period 193-395 for the coinage catalogued was motivated by two factors: certain processes at work within the Empire (devaluation of the denarius under Septimius Severus in 194; division of the Empire and monetary reform under Arcadius and Honorius in 395), the resulting changes in the coin outflow to Barbarian lands (sudden interruption in the coin flow to the north after 194) and the actual cessation of the outflow of denominations other than the solidus after the year 395. The year 193 was included only to show the degree of increased outflow in the preceding period. The second factor was the convenience of a clearcut classification of finds. The period opens with the beginning of the reign of Septimius Severus and ends with the death of Theodosius I. Coins issued by earlier or later emperors were disregarded, while those put into circulation by Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus and Septimius Severus on the one hand, and Theodosius I on the other, were automatically included25. In most cases no up-to-date, modem, or even reliable, correct inventories of Roman coin finds from the relevant territories are available. In order to obtain credible and detailed descriptions of the coin finds it was necessary to review in full the available literature and go partially through archives and museum collections in search of general information on finds of coins from the period AD 193-395 from all the territories mentioned (excluding the former East Germany and, to some degree, Majopolska26). Coins and medallions, once catalogued and appropriately organized, provided a basis for the study of contacts between the Roman Empire and peoples of the Central Barbaricum in the period between the 230s and 376, i.e. from the first massive barbarian incursion through the German-Rhaetian-Danubian limes - until a total transformation of the relations between the Empire and the Germanic tribes, marking the onset of the Migration Period. The period under study, unlike the one preceding it, has so far remained a blank in the research of Roman-Barbarian relations, particularly with regard to the interpretation of archaeological evidence

25 With no proven pre-395 Arcadian and Honorian issues represented in our material, coins from the reign of these emperors were not considered. 26 In both cases new, carefully compiled catalogues are available. Supplementary information and corrections are noted in the list of coins from finds from Małopolska (not seen by A.Kunisz) as the author was able to view them in museum collections (especially the E.Benesz collection at the Archaeological Museum in Kraków - cf. Chapter 3), Bursche 1988a.

Preface

17

(including coinage)27. In general it has tended to be regarded as a mere continuation of the earlier period, despite what is suggested by written sources. Our primary objective is not so much to provide an accurate reconstruction of the chronology of events - an account of the relations of the Roman Empire with inhabitants of the barbarian heartland (which would require an even-handed treatment of all categories of evidence, written records in particular) - but rather to gain insight into these relations with the help of a deductively designed model. This work was originally written as a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University in 1988. The numismatic data have been updated up to 1987; later literature could only be taken into consideration to a limited extent.

27 Cf. Chapter 2.

2. Theory In this chapter we propose to deal with a number of diverse theoretical issues each requiring a separate, extensive discussion: - merits of the analysis of Roman coin finds in the context of archaeological cultures, - reasons for employing a set of descriptive and inductive statistical methods1, - description of the model used to investigate relations between the Roman Empire and Barbaric urn, - principles formerly guiding the interpretation of such relations. 2.1. Coin finds in the context of archaeological cultures The study of Roman imports within the context of archaeological cultures has recently been gaining growing recognition2. The advantage of this approach compared to one dealing with imports seen in the framework of administrative or geographical units is undeniable. One of its merits is that it enables us to compare imports with locally made products3 and view them against the background of the local economy, settlement pattem and funerary practices, which are the usual criteria for distinguishing archaeological cultures. This is best illustrated by the treatment - presumably, religiously motivated - of imports by the Westbalts4. The role imports played in the receiving environment will be of less interest than the time and the place they crossed the limes. Suitably processed data on coin-finds will be confronted with information from written sources often referring to specific tribes who were busy invading, receiving tribute from, or allied with the Empire. An ideal solution would be to study the relevant archaeological evidence in the context of territories settled in the Late Roman Period by tribes known to us by name, but obviously this is not possible, as sufficient knowledge of the geographical location of these tribes is lacking. And even if at times there is good evidence for the area they may have inhabited, it is still, apart from a few cases, difficult to demarcate the boundaries of their homeland5. The same written sources often speak of direct Roman contacts with peoples inhabiting the relevant territory, especially during the Late Roman Period, making it possible to equate the moment of outflow with that of influx. In other words there was a direct relationship

1 The methods will be presented in more detail when applied. 2 Domański 1979, Kolendo 1981, 1984, Bursche 1983b, 1988b, Nowakowski 1983, TempelmannM^czynska 1985. 3 Facilitating e.g. rational study of imitations and two-way influence. 4 In the region examined widespread coin deposition in graves occurs only in this circle - cf. Bursche 1992a 5 Schmidt 1934, iowmiański, 1963 vol. I, Machinskir 1976, Kolendo 1981, PZP, p.9-17 (J.Kolendo), Godlowski 1985a, p.126-157, Andrzejowski, Bursche, Nowakowski 1994.

Coin finds in the context of archaeological cultures

19

between the Roman "sender" and the Germanic "recipient", as the representative of an archaeological culture. "Carriers" of an archaeologlxal culture -no matter how narrowly this term is conceived and defined to facilitate the objective classification of material - did constitute, in our opinion, actual socio-economic and religious communities. The influx of Roman imports was affected in a selective manner by culturally defined stylistic trends, and the political and socio-economical situation. The direction of the flow followed the principal routes between cultures (most frequently within boundaries of cultural provinces or circles), and are discernible both in the spheres of religious belief, political relations, and production, as well as in the exchange of locally manufactured goods6. Therefore the study of Roman coin finds (as one category of import) within the context of archaeological cultures is the best-founded solution. It also seems fully justified to tie coin finds from a given culture territory to events noted in written sources concerning a people or a tribe (or possibly tribes) most probably inhabiting at least a part of this territory (Kolendo 1985a, fig.l). However, it is possible to construct a model of these contacts without the need to define the ethnic, or rather tribal identity of archaeological cultures. 2.2. Statistics It is now standard practice to apply statistical methods in numismatics in the same way as in physical anthropology7. This is due to the nature of numismatic material which requires the analysis of frequently extremely numerous series of coins which have somehow to be organized. Until recently, however, only methods of descriptive statistics were employed (Carcassonne 1987, p.15-53) notably various measures of proportion, percentages, ratios, histograms and, more recently, measures of dispersion such as standard deviation, for example R.Reece (1979), who has applied the full range of such methods8. The advantage of representing sets of coin finds in the form of histograms needs no explanation. Methods of inductive statistics have been less popular and have only begun to be applied on a wider scale in numismatic studies over the last two decades (cf. Villaronga I Garriga 1985, Carcassonne 1987, p.56-128). Statistical estimation is

6 Kyhlberg 1986, p.66-72, Werner 1988, Nowakowski 1990, Bitner-Wróblewska 1991, Lund-Hansen 1991, Ethelbeicg 1991, Andrzejowski, Bursche, Nowakowski 1994. 7 SJevons was first to apply them in the study of gold coin metrology in the 19th century; in 1920 notably H. de Nanteuil and G.F.Hill; for Roman coin finds KRegling and S.Bolin. Full literature on the histoiy of the application of statistics in numismatic studies, cf. Metcalf, 1981, p.17-24, cf. also Carcassonne 1987, p.165-166. 8 Reece 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982; alsocf. Mihailescu-Bîrliba 1969, Kolendo, Rysiewski 1978, Wielowiejski, Matuszewski 1979, Depeyrot 1982, 1989, Villaronga I Garriga 1985, Kyhlberg 1986, p.50-64, Carcassonne 1987.

20

Theoiy

most commonly used (e.g. Żabiński 1968, Carcassonne 1987, p.56-74). The statistical testing of hypotheses was also applied for Roman numismatics by Ch.Carcassonne and J.Guey9, above all to compare hoard composition using the chi-squared test. The present study employed the z test (Carcassonne 1987, p.124-125), to disprove or verify hypotheses on the relevance of differences and similarities between the chronological distributions of coins from territories of individual cultures. The resulting basis for deduction is statistically precise and the results obtained are conclusive (with margin of error of 1% or 5%). 2.3. Model of Roman - Barbarian relations A model for the study of Roman-Barbarian relations was employed to avoid the many assorted pitfalls lying in wait for the student of the randomly selected mass of information on the vast and complex (at least from the point of view of source criticism) field of Roman-Barbarian contacts. It seeks to list all possible distortions arising in the study of relationships between the Roman Empire and Barbaricum when analysing a particular subject. Several components of this model are of far more universal nature, but the primary concern is its usefulness for this work. The model (Table 1) is applicable both in the analysis of an entire set or complex of evidence or an individual specimen (import). At a more general level it may be used for studying one set of issues, as well as for comparing any broader group of topics from the field of Roman-Barbarian contacts, whether from an economic or political angle. The model has been developed with special attention paid to the fact that archaeologists and/or numismatists frequently have to resort to records from the 19th century or earlier, often written incidentally by authors who obviously could not be familiar with the recently evolved research apparatus. Such texts should be approached sui-generis as a source of written evidence requiring full application of methods of heuristic and textual criticism from the field of classical epistemology (Quellenforschung)10. Sadly modem publications too often require a similar treatment. For the sake of clarity in our model it was assumed that the very generalized circle of recipients had one single "sender". The "sender" shall denote any resident of the Roman Empire, the individual "recipient" is the "carrier" of an archaeological culture, and as we have already said a member of a loosely defined politico-economic and territorial unit. For our purposes a source shall denote a

’ E.g. Guey, Carcassonne 1975, as well as several articles by J.Guey in BSFN and RN, cf. also Carcassonne 1976, 1987, p.75-128. 10 Presented more fully in the following chapter.

Model of Roman - Barbarian relations

21

Table 1. A model for study of Roman - Barbarian relations

Roman article (a coin) and its occurrence in situ (i.e. as buried in antiquity). Keeping in mind the requirements of an epistemological approach to archaeological evidence (coinage in particular), earlier, written references to coin finds which are 50 or more years old are considered as a source of information, which can be used to reconstruct the data on the primary source (i.e. the description of the specimen and circumstances of its discovery). Contacts between the Roman Empire and Barbarian lands are perceived here as a one way Sender R - Recipient X, Y, Z relation.

22

Theory

A to C denote points in time and are the main subject of this study (ontological level11); 1 to 6 stand for various aspects of source criticism (epistemological level). They will be discussed in chronological order (that is in reverse order to the successive stages of the actual research procedure), starting from the earliest point, which in fact initiated the event, i.e. when the object (set of objects, or information) left Roman territory (from the "sender" to the scholar’s desk). The subject of our study includes: A. Transformation at the output (resulting, for example, from legal prohibitions, economic feasibility). B. Transformations along the line of flow (i.e. intermediaries in the exchange, transit fees, robbery, loss). C. Transformations at the input point (i.e. economically, socially, religiously or aesthetically conditioned demands of the recipient). In the model the point of time В has been simplified, even though independent sources indicate that it could be quite copmlex. An important link in the chain has thus been purposely skipped as of secondary interest to this study. Let us note here a certain paradox: through archaeological evidence it is only possible to capture moment A from the position of the Recipient. In practice only the presence of an imported object on his territory is registered, and not, of course, its absence in the country of the Sender. Only rarely is it possible to recognize this moment from the side of the Sender, when written sources are available12. The following epistemological variables were distinguished: 1. The degree of preservation in the source (prior to its deposition in the ground) of data on moments А, В, C - i.e. output, flow and input (possible processes of selection: melting down, destruction during cremation, preference for a particular category of objects in grave goods or deposition in bogs13). 2. The degree of preservation of the source (i.e. varying durability of organic and metal objects in diverse conditions14). 3. The quality of source acquisition (quality of excavations, and in the case of chance finds, confidence as to the integrity of the assemblage, its primary character, as well as the general level of field research). 4. The level of presentation of Sources in publications and archives (i.e. quality of information regarding the source, notably their degree of completeness;

11 Corresponding to the "living" culture (die lebende Kultur) of HJ. Eggers (1951). 12 And also by information inherent in the imported object itself, by virtue of its Roman origin. 13 Namely pre- and depositional processes. The "defunct" culture (die tote Kultur) of H.J.Eggers (1951) roughly relates to this level, although this term is more narrow, e.g. melting down could have occurred still at the "living" culture (die lebende Kultur) level. 14 Post-depositional processes, corresponding to the "re-discovered" culture (die wiederendeckte Kultur) of H.J.Eggers (1951).

Model of Roman - Barbarian relations

23

description of both the circumstances of discovery and of the artefact). 5. The quality of analysis of records, and information they contain relating to the source, that is the heuristic level (ability to reach such written information), external criticism of the record itself, and of information contained therein (notably criticism of its origin and its analysis), and hermeneutic, especially the ability to interpret (including the breaking of codes: terminological, linguistic, graphic and psychological), as well as the appraisal of the credibility of the information (contained in the written record15). 6. The quality of appreciation of the source (namely the degree of identification of artifacts, and the assessment of the integrity of finds as resting in situ after being buried in antiquity). In different cases, depending on the type of source, the area of occurrence or the range of problems studied, the importance of particular variables may fluctuate, or even become irrelevant. The same is true at the ontological level, in particular for the transformations accompanying the flow from contacts which were of perhaps little or no importance, such as, for instance, Germanic (representative Recipients) looting forays into Roman lands, when moment A occurred at the same time as C. Furthermore, owing to a certain regularity16 some of the epistemological variables are of greater relevance in one territory than in another. Frequently sources relating to the Recipient (e.g. Culture) X may happen to be considerably better researched than those concerning Recipients Y and Z, and in addition be uneven in different groups of sources concerning a single Recipient or Sender. The actual usefulness of the model for a specific area of study may be fully verified by inductive analysis. The present work uses a traditional approach applying - statistics apart - deductional methods of reasoning. When hypotheses were being formulated, constituent components of the model were examined each time to check the correctness of reasoning.

2.4. Former views on Roman - Barbarian contacts So far, research based on the analysis of archaeological and numismatic evidence into the nature of connections between the Roman Empire and Central Barbaricum has followed two basic courses. The first of them is at present represented in Poland primarily by J.Wielowiejski (1970, 1980), KJPrzewoźna (1968, p.92-95), A.Cofta-Broniewska (1979, p.123-173) and G.Domanski (1979,p.143-157) outside Poland by V.V.Kropotkin (1967) or recently by W.Kunow (1980, 1983, 1985, 1986) and U.Lund-Hansen (1987,1988,1989). The Polish scholars like to declare

15 Cf. the following chapter. 16 Its essence is discussed in the following chapters.

24

Theory

their allegiance to LN.Sadowski (1877) and their work shows the influence (in some cases indirect) of H.J .Eggers (1951)17. This standpoint could be termed as pan-commercial, as it views relations between the Roman Empire and Barbaricum during the Roman and Great Migration Period as primarily (or even purely) commercial, and links the arrival of the overwhelming portion of imports to trade. Modem concepts of commerce18, currency, and even market laws have been directly applied to antiquity19. Quite apart from a sometimes inadequate knowledge of classical authors and recent discussions of them, this approach was often the result of theoretical assumptions being infected by general ideological or political trends. The second standpoint is represented by J.Werner (1938, 1949, 1973, 1988), P.Reînecke (1958), A.Radnoti (1967), J.M.Fagerlie (1967), and more recently by K.Redlich (1980), T.Kolnik (1986,1988) and Scandinavian scholars such as O.Kyhlberg (1986), L. Lind (1988) U.Näsman (1989) and KJRandsborg (1986, 1991, p.139-144,168-173). Polish adherents include J.Kolendo (1981,1984), J.Iluk (1985, 1985a, 1988) and, to a large extent, R.Wofegiewicz (1970) and K.Godjfowski (1985a, p.126-157, 1985b). In their opinion Roman-Barbarian contacts were in certain periods predominantly political. Roman products were brought in as loot, tribute, subsidies or payment for service in Roman auxiliary units. This views goes back two hundred years or more, when isolated finds of Roman objects discovered in lands far from the limes were linked to specific events known from written sources20. This line of thought sprang from a notion of history different from that current today21, and frequently involved the literal interpretation of written sources by individuals with a background in humanities and good knowledge of classical records22. Interestingly enough, the claim that political relations determined the movement of goods between the Empire and Barbarian lands in certain periods is championed by historians of such importance as L.Schmidt (1937), A.H.MJones (1964), E.Demougeot (1969, p.535-552,1979,207-228), R.Remondon (1970, p.282-321), E.A.Thompson (1982) and A.Demandt (1989). Many scholars, including S.Bolin (1926a), O.Brogan (1936), K.Majewski (1949),

17 A similar position is taken by H.Willers in his already classic work (1901) and by G.Ekholm in a series of articles (1934, 1935, 1937, 1956). 18 W.Kunow (1980, 1983, 1985) even ventures the expression echter Handel and U.Lund Hansen (1987, 1988) administrierter Handel mit einem Langstreckentransport (cf. Randsborg 1986). On the subject of an obsolete market mentality against historical reality cf. e.g. Polanyi 1968, p.59-77,139-174. 19 Criticism of such a position, folowing K.Polanyi’s work (1968, cf. also, Humphreys 1969) was provided by L.Hedeager (1978). On this subject cf. also Ancient Civilisation, Exchange Systems, Köhler 1985, Cunliffe 1988, p.1-11, 193-201, Ransborg 1986, p.218, 1991, p.140. 20 E.g. Chmielowski 1754, p.47-49, Oertzen 1823, Pyl 1897. 21 Understood as the reconstruction of history, or of a sequence of events. 22 Cf. the following chapter.

Former views on Roman - Barbarian contacts

25

R.E.M.Wheeler (1954), H.JŁowmiański (1963), L.Hedeager (1978, 1987, 1988), R.Laser (1983, p.36-41, 1986) and M. Fulford (1985, 1989) adopted an intermediate position subscribing to varying degrees to the arguments of both trends of interpretation, and often contributing their own valuable comments. However they overlooked certain general rules governing the flow of various categories of Roman products over a period of time. We shall attempt to define this pattern for Roman coins and medallions, an extremely varied category of finds in the period concerned.

3. State of Research 3.1. Publication of Numismatic Sources The value, in terms of scholarship, of records concerning coin and medallion finds varies and depends on several factors. Most such records, especially ones dating back several scores of years, need to be reexamined by means of a classic apparatus of source criticism (Quellenforschung). Successive stages of Quellenforschung used in studying old records of coin finds (published, and in archives) will be described and exemplified. They mirror the rules of procedure of the historical analysis of written sources aimed at reconstructing a historical event. Yet they are not fully congruent, for certain tools, such as source criticism, do not apply, while others have a different significance. Furthermore, with regard to coin finds the situation is more complex: three levels of analysis have to be dealt with, relating respectively to (1) the written record itself (secondary source), (2) information about the source contained in the written record and (3) the primary source proper (the coin find1). This differs from the two-level procedure in classic historical analysis, where a historical fact is reconstructed on the basis of a written source. The stages of Quellenforschung described below discuss variables 3 to 6 (mainly 4 and 5) more fully. Stage one2 consists of the analysis of references to coin finds, seeking to establish their genealogy, that is which of them is primary ("archetypal"), which are only duplicates, and which provide possible supplementary information originating from the primary or independent source. Comparison of the content of records (external criticism) makes it possible to assess their degree of credibility and to detect errors committed in the process of drawing on them. Most characteristic is the erroneous double publication of one and the same find under two placenames3. Incorrect identification of coins may also happen quite frequently4. Errors made at this stage are often detectable, but some knowledge of numismatics and a fair command of historical geography are necessary.

1 Namely the coin itself and its deposition in antiquity. This obviously also pertains to all other categories of archaeological evidence - cf. Kolendo 1974, 1980. 2 The most obvious stage of heuresis, the review of records, is omitted here, where archival research is crucial for coins. The following part is primarily based on the methodological worics of Polish historians i.e. M.Handelsman (1921), G.Labuda (1957) and W.Moszczeńska (1977). Cf. also Giedymin (1958a, 1958b, 1962), Topolski (1983, 1984). 3 For example as a result of incorrect identification of the Polish equivalent of a German place name - e.g. Bursche 1983a, p.230-232 . 4 In our case especially with regard to the Constantinian dynasty, with frequent confusion between Constantine I or II (Constantinus) and Constantius II - cf. Bursche 1983a, p.232.

Publication of numismatic sources

27

Errors arising in transmission of information between the moment of a coin’s discovery to its registration are far more complicated. Here one must reckon with the incorrect reading of the legend or image, misidentification of the emperor, denomination or metal. A coin’s description may also be flawed, while the circumstances of discovery may have been misunderstood or misrepresented. The basic step at this stage is to establish the identity of the finder, of the informant and recorder. This is a method from the arsenal of external criticism (corresponding to criticism of origin). More light will be shed on this question by a diagram illustrating the summarized pattern of transmission of information about a coin find from the moment of discovery to recording (Table 2).

Table 2. Transmission of information on a coin find from the moment of discovery to recording

28

State of research

Person A is a chance finder e.g. a farmer, but also possibly an archaeologist carrying out field work, Person В passes on information about the find, and most frequently is the coin’s owner (e.g. collector, landowner, seller), Person C was in past centuries an antiquarian, teacher or clergyman, in later times more frequently a numismate specialist, Person D records or publishes information about the find, Most commonly C and D are one and the same; C=D when the description of the coin find is provided by a teacher, village priest or numismatist who later publishes it. It happens only exceptionally that A=B=C=D, namely when the discoverer in the 19th century was an amateur archaeologist, in later times a numismatist participating in an excavation. Quite frequently B=C=D, when the publishing person is a collector of coins from coin finds5. Occasionally B=C, when the find is published or recorded by museum staff engaged in collecting coins from finds, or archaeologists (when A could equal D). It is also possible that D hears of the discovery straight from the finder; then there is almost no doubt about the veracity of the description of circumstances of discovery6. If, on the other hand, the chance finder is the sole source of information for identifying a coin, such information is usually of low value. Finally, in some cases A, B, C, D are all different people (A^B^C^D), or more than one person is involved in passing on information, especially between A and В (transmission of information about circumstances of discovery). In the latter case the information should be treated with much caution. To establish the authenticity of a find and the correctness of its identification it is of the utmost importance to reconstruct precisely the manner of transmission of information from the moment of discovery to the written communication. In addition the question prompted by source criticism ought to be answered : who and what were persons А, В, C and D? This requires biographical investigation of the persons involved (who made the discovery, informed about it, identified, described and recorded the find). As a rule it is almost impossible to establish the identity of what is normally a casual finder, usually an anonymous farmer, forestry worker etc., or a mere surname ringing no bell. Having sufficiently detailed information about the person, place and time of discovery there is usually little doubt as to its authenticity, making investigation of the finder on the whole unnecessary. Quite often, however, information on the discovery is transmitted by B, i.e. collectors, amateur antiquarians, more seldom by dealers, or even by the more scrupulous

5 When the source is an archival record or a ticket. 6 Unless these circumstances were in conflict with the interest of the finder - cf. the following chapter.

Publication of numismatic sources

29

landowners recording everything that happened on their property7. In such cases careful inspection of biographical data is a must. Studies done by A.Abramowicz, even if differently oriented, may prove invaluable8, as in the case of Pastor L.D.Hermann9, which showed his informtion on 18th century coin finds from the Töpfer Berg - Pot Hill - at Maseln (now Masjowo)10 in an entirely new light. Insights into informants’ biographies test the reliability of their information. In the case of coins it is important to ascertain whether the locality quoted as the site of a discovery was not, perhaps, rather the place of storage or purchase of a specimen. In particular this concerns sets of coins which are the result of collecting, which sometimes include coins from local finds (Bursche 1980, p.85). More knowledge about the individual who identified the coin helps to establish whether his involvement was purely accidental, whether he was an amateur with some knowledge of antiquities, or a distinguished specialist of the day. In the case of, say, a priest or physician one may trust his reading of the Latin legend; a secondary school teacher of classics, especially a German national, may be regarded as a reliable identifier of the emperor. When the specimen was identified by K.Regling, S.Bolin, L.Piotrowicz or persons of their calibre, there can be no doubt that maximum experience and contemporary numismatic knowledge was employed. Unfortunately more often than not the identifier remains anonymous11. As a rule, using methods of criticism of origin it is often possible to establish his identity, especially if centres, journals and terminology peculiar to different numismatists who could have been involved are known. One formidable contribution was made by J.Kolendo (1985), who identified the author of the archival "Raport Wójtów" (’’Village Headmens’ Report”) on finds from Mazovia as Prot Lelewel, brother of eminent Polish historian Joachim, which considerably enhanced the credibility of his identification of a coin found in 1819 at Cygów, Siedlce Voivodship as a Fulvia Plautilla issue. For the sake of full clarity (notably when little is known about the person who identified the coin) it is necessary to establish what was the level of "professional’’ and amateur ( i.e. of an educated person) knowledge on coins and classical history at the time and place where the identification was made. If an amateur was involved it should be

7 Such information was used for example by M.Jahn, as is indicated by his files (cf. Bursche 1983a, p.227-229 - quoted here as Akten Kalinow, but which can now be identified as the records of a manor at Kalinówce in Opole Voivodship). This information may also be found in the Słownik geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich (Geographical Dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland and other Slav Countries), Warszawa 1880-1902, used in part by A.Kunisz (1973). 8 Abramowicz 1967, 1979, 1983 - cf. also the review by J.Kolendo in Archeologia, XXXV: 1984 (1986), p.219-220, and recently Abramowicz 1991. 9 Abramowicz 1983, p. 164-173, cf. also Kramarek 1969, p.230-233, 236-239. 10 Probably placed there on puipose so that the Pentecost Feast visitors could get the thrill of making astonishing finds. 11 Coin finds were thus published by Dr. Borchardt in the Amtl. Ber.

30

State of research

determined how well versed he may have been in the literature (including nonscholarly, such as collectors’ publications) he probably used for identification. Having completed these procedures the next step is to check data on the source proper, i.e. a coin’s identification and circumstances of discovery, considering as a primary source only the specimens buried in Roman times. Quite obviously, identifications of numismatic finds have to be verified, as most publications date back considerably in time, while tremendous advances have recently been made in classical numismatics. Not so long ago coins were identified without the benefit of the newest research apparatus so that some even quite recent identifications, notably of place and time of issue, have rapidly been made obsolete by the extraordinary progress of research12. The past practice was to date coins to the reign of an emperor, often incorrectly as some coins were issued before an emperor’s accession (for example those bearing the title of caesar)13 or posthumously. On other occasions current knowledge of numismatics precluded a full description of the legend, occasioned misidentification of representations and spawned other mistakes from which even the best specialists were not immune. A case in point is the slip by the prominent historian and numismatist LJPiotrowicz (1886-1957) who only recorded legible letters from mint marks, leaving out symbols, now an important dating element. Such errors often resulted from misreading, as when in 1935 in the case of the aureus from Skroniow14 LPiotrowicz read the mark as SMA (symbol of Antiochene mint - then thought to be the acronym of Sacra Moneta Augusti) instead of SNA (Nicomedia)15. In 1888 the same happened to Dr. Borchardt, an outstanding amateur numismatist from Gdansk, with the aureus from Straszyn (Bursche 1980, p.90). With even foremost specialists plagued by such lapses, careful analysis and verification of coin descriptions seems fully justified. Coins from finds were often identified and published by people with no post-secondary school classical education, but having only a smattering of Latin which resulted in mistaken identifications of emperors and misread legends or images16. Erroneous recording of legends by coin publishers demands that for the reconstruction of the original inscription epigraphic

12 Identification of coins on the basis of the work of H.Cohen (1859, 1880), the only basic and in principle complete corpus of Roman Coins in the late 19th century and until the 1930s, has now been definitely rendered obsolete by the publication of modem catalogues, in particular the complete RIC corpus. Unfortunately publications using Cohen continue to appear - cf. e.g. Konik 1961, Wojtowicz 1967. 13 E.g. a larger number of coins bearing the name of Constantine II was struck before his accession in 337 than during his reign (i.e. 337-340). 14 Cf. the list of finds (Przeworsk Culture). 15 An error caused by auto-suggestion, an instance of the breaking of a psychological code. 16 E.g. the identification of the emperor as Augustus on the basis of a detail of the obverse legend "AVG" - cf. Kolendo 1966; or Marcus Aurelius instead of Caracalla or Elagabalus on the basis of their abbreviated names (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) or Aurelian instead of one of these three emperors on the basis of a section of a legend reading "AVREL" - for both these cases cf. a series of corrections by S.Bolin (1926a, p.(74) ref.2, p.(82) ref.3, etc).

Publication of numismatic sources

31

methods are applied. Instances of such reconstructions are quoted in the list of finds. Occasionally an apparently insignificant remark may lead to the almost full reconstruction of the appearance of specimen (e.g. Kolendo 1968). The yearbook of the Biblioteka Warszawska contains an anonymous reference dating back to 1842 to the effect that a gold Valerianus medallion some 43g in weight discovered in 1841 during ploughing at Kurów (now in Siedlce voivodship) found its way into the collection of a doctor Kuczyk from Międzyrzec17. Medallions of such weight do not feature among the surviving Valerianus specimens, neither do they occur amongst other 3rd century medallions (never over 26 grammes). 43 grammes approximates or slightly surpasses that of 9 solidi, which is exactly the weight of the Mjfoteczno specimen and another from an unknown locality in Volhynia18, both of which had a suspension loop. Perhaps, the Kurów medallion also had had a loop covering a part of the obverse legend which most probably read as follows: DNVALE[NTIN]IANVSPFAVG, or, as is encountered on such large specimens: DNVALE[NTIN]IANVSIVNPFAVG. Concealment of the letters M NTINM in Valentinian’s name could have caused the misreading for ’’Valerianus". Thus, it is almost certain that this is a Valentinian II medallion19, frequently encountered in finds from Barbaricum. It is still a puzzle how such a staggering error (in the light of present knowledge) could have been made in the identification of an emperor involving a specimen of such large size and certainly perfect legibility - as is the case with almost every medallion of the period. According to A.Ryszard, the original owner of the medallion, the surgeon, Ksawery Kuczyk, who was presumably the "identifier” of the emperor, had been "a connoisseur and collector of Polish coins from antiquity until 1795’’20. His collection of 2,600 specimens consisted almost exclusively of coins from Poland, some of them from local finds. Doctor Kuczyk had a very valuable library, exchanged letters with Polish intellectuals of the time, and is known to have been instrumental in the minting of a number of medallions in the Warsaw mint, among them ones commemorating the founders of the Polish Medical Academy, Edward Raczyński, the Kowno (Kaunas) Madonna, and Nicolaus Copernicus, the latter struck in Paris. However, nothing seems to indicate that Doctor Kuczyk was interested in antiquities. This could give weight to the suspicion that he published the incorrect identification of the medallion immediately after its discovery, without prior consultation with

17 Biblioteka Warszawska, 3: ,1842, p.680. 18 Cf. the list of finds (Wielbark Culture). 19 Valentinian II and III did not issue medallions of this weight - cf. Gnecchi 1912, RIC IX, Toynbee 1944, Dressel 1973. 20 Manuscript MN Kraków 932b: A.Ryszard, Album numizmatyków Polskich 1876 - non vidi (quoting J.Kolendo, whom I thank for granting access to his notes) cf. also Ryszard 1870, p.221.

32

State of research

collectors or antiquarians. Finally, the remoteness of Międzyrzec from intellectual centres of the day possibly sealed the fate of the incorrect identification. Careful study of analogies, of the period of minting and mints which struck Valentinian II medallions demonstrates that the Kurów specimen was issued between 378-383 somewhere in the West of the Empire (most probably in Aquileia or Trier) as no similar specimens are known from the East21. Since according to A.Ryszard’s information, Doctor Kuczyk’s collection, after being purchased by K.Beyer, was sold at an auction in Berlin sometime around 1850 (1842-1879)22, it is highly probable that the medallion could be traced in an auction catalogue, on the basis of the description suggested here. However, so far the search has been unsuccessful. Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient data, we are quite often not in a position to verify the correctness of a coin’s identification; what can be done is to verify the reliability of the identifier and, should a doubt arise, then question such identification. The circumstances of a coin’s discovery are also liable to be misrepresented. Most frequently the place of purchase or storage is recorded as the place of discovery; collections, or secondary sets of coins are with great regularity, stated as an original find. This is extremely difficult to detect, and similar to the verification of a specimen itself, requires as a rule great skill in epistemological procedures, that is very wide knowledge of all the circumstances during evaluation of the sources. Again quite often apparently insignificant, secondary or even tertiary information, which is purely anecdotical as far as the circumstances of discovery, the state of preservation or subsequent fate of a coin are concerned, assume primary importance. A fascinating instance is that of a unique23 Julius Verus Maximus pierced aureus minted between early 236 and early 238. Probably discovered in the early 19th century in a field at Gross Grauden (now Grudynia Wielka in Opole Voivodship), it found its way into the collection of Komissar Mader at GJubczyce (Leobschütz), Upper Silesia (remaining there until 1822)24. In the 1880 Berlin exhibition an analogous specimen was on view, the property of Józef von Morawski, allegedly found at Kotowiecko (now Kalisz Voivodship Katalog Berlin, p.386, no. 58,2). During the 1920s it was auctioned in Paris and subsequently found its way into the Jameson Collection (no 226), and finally was lost25. Fortunately the British Museum has a plaster cast and its photograph was

21 For similar specimens see RIC IX, none were minted in the East. For more on this subject cf. Bursche 1991. 22 Cf. ref.20; it is likely that a part of the collection was taken over by count Zygmunt Czarnecki of Gogolewo who in 1867 purchased 2803 coins and 1378 medallions from K.Beyer, cf. Ryszard 1870, p.209. 23 Only one specimen is known in RIC (IV, 2 no 5). 24 Schramm 1820, p.207, Linge 1828, p.61-62, fig.7; cf. Bursche 1983a, p.223. 25 Information from J.P.C.Kent is hereby acknowledged.

Publication of numismatic sources

33

published in BMCRE (vol. VI, Plate 40). It transpires that this aureus was pierced in precisely the same place as the specimen from Grudynia Wielka26. Therefore, it is fully justified to regard the Kotowiecko find (if it ever occurred) as secondary. It is unlucky that most often insufficient information precludes verification of recorded placenames and circumstances of discovery, but to some extent it is still possible to assess their degree of credibility. The final step of epistemological procedure is to establish the authenticity of the primary source itself (criticism of the nature of source), as one of ancient origin. There are many intermediate categories from the registering of a coin excavated from an ancient site to the intestines of a goose bought in the marketplace27. Coins found by chance during agricultural activity or in the forest do not in principle provoke reservation. Doubt arises if the coin was found in a garden or a park; in this case it should be established every time whether the site had not once been within the area of a larger town (where collectors had been active), or of a manor (its owner an amateur antiquarian). If the latter is so, the authenticity of the find is undermined. It is especially problematic if the discovery took place within the limits of cities such as Dresden, Gdansk, Berlin, Leipzig, Kraków, Szczecin, Warsaw, etc., which were teeming with collectors. Some of the finds from Gdansk (the Motjawa River, for example), Leipzig or Krakow may be authentic, given these localities’ intensive population during the Roman Period, but ones from Szczecin are highly suspect, since in the same period this area was largely uninhabited and under water (Wofegiewicz 1983, p.491, fig.201, and p.493, fig.202). Nevertheless caution is counselled against precipitate dismissal of Roman coin finds from inventories as secondary28, as exemplified by two apparently very doubtful cases. The first concerns instances of Roman coins registered in church collections29. Such coins may be regarded as highly likely local finds (though probably incomplete) coming from within the parish30. This is borne out by two series of coins of remarkable homogeneity recovered in such circumstances31.

26 Cf. Linge 1828, fig.7. 27 Cf. list of finds: Sl^sk (Silesia - Przeworsk Culture, No. 197). 28 Cf. Stribmy 1989, p.365-369; A.Robertson (1970) is perhaps over cautious in disregarding all past information on coins found "by a gentleman in a garden" even in rural areas which leaves fewer than 20 finds. 29 Usually found in "Klingelbeutel" - cf. e.g. Karczyn, (Bolin 1926a, p.(81) no 85 ref.5, Konik 1965, p.67-68), Łagiewniki (Bolin 1926a, p.(81) no 84, Konik 1965, p.86), or Sulislawice (Bolin 1926a, p.(82) no 89, Konik 1965, p.137.). 30 Similarly on the subject Kh.Stribmy (1989, p.365). 31 Krzyżowice - 6 coins from Victorinus to Valens; Laskowice Oławskie - 6 denarii from Trajan to Caracalla - cf. list of finds (Przeworsk Culture).

34

State of research

The other case involves several discoveries of coins found lodged in the bricks of demolished buildings32. Similar to the example just quoted they may be recognized as having been discovered in the vicinity of the locality where they were registered, though more detailed description is out of the question. Before the Second World War every larger manor, notably in Silesia, Wielkopolska and Pomerania had a brickyard using local clay and sand, for unlike today it was uneconomic to transport bricks over larger distances. A special case of non-authenticity of a find is provided by modem forgery. Forged Roman coins first appeared in the Renaissance33 and in greater profusion since 1850, as coin collecting became widespread especially in Germany and Austria. Forgery, excluding Renaissance "medals”, can as a rule be detected only if the original coin itself, or sometimes its copy or reproduction survive (e.g. Bursche 1983a, p.230, fig.3). Otherwise we are once again largely at the mercy of the identifier. Therefore finds of unique coins, or those highly valued by particular collectors, and which for this reason are often forged34, have to be treated with utmost caution. A case in point may be the Johannes "pseudosiliqua" reputedly found at Korytnica in Kielce Voivodship and preserved in Father S.Skurczynski’s collection. Even though the circumstances of discovery and the person of the priest ("the parish archaeologist") are impeccable from the point of view of reliability of information, the Johannes specimen is certainly a forgery35. In the final stage of epistemological procedure it is also difficult to establish the authenticity of a find, and one must make do with only the assessment of the degree of its credibility. The requirements described above were rarely met by scholars cataloguing coin finds from the given area. Data on coin finds should be gleaned from all existing publications, archival records, the autopsy of coins in collections and from direct communications (notably from collectors circles). In practice, however, most authors have been content to compile information from earlier inventories, frequently neglecting to go through all available literature and, worse still, hardly

32 E.g. Kubiak 1979, p.58, no 70 VII, Mikołajczyk 1981, p.41 no 170. 33 Imitations of the time were not genuine forgeries, but merely copied the style of antique coins or medallions. 34 Cf. the catalogue of dies of the famous forger Becker (Hill 1925). Soo too coins with the personification of Germania on the reverse with legend GERMANIA, sought after by German collectors, or ones with the legend IUDEA CAPTA coveted by Christian and Jewish collectors alike. 35 The coin was reportedly found on the dunes in the western part of the village - cf. Kunisz 1959, p.195-196, Kunisz 1985, p.89 no 109 II. The shoddy execution of the reverse (the present author is familiar with the original) otherwise not encountered in silver specimens of the period testifies to its being a modem (according to J.P.C.Kent probably 19th century) forgery. It is also possible that this specimen was produced by casting. The general lack of 5th century silver issues militates against its being an antique imitation, which is confirmed additionally by its chemical composition, which was determined by spectrographic analysis at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Science. Acknowledgements are due to A.Krzyżanowska, J.P.C.Kent and Z.Hensel, the latter, for making the results of analysis available.

Publication of numismatic sources

35

ever attempting to reach the original record, thus omitting the basic epistemological step. Consequently the bulk of catalogues thus produced may be criticised for shortcomings of heuresis (inability to collect all records relating to coin finds), problems of external criticism of written records, in particular their analysis (inability to distinguish primary sources from their derivatives), and the lack of basic elements of hermeneutics (recent numismatic knowledge). The upshot is that these publications contain many errors of duplication, contaminations, omissions and inaccurate information. Some, notably the catalogues by M.Gumowski (1956), EJConik (1965) and, though to a different degree, W J^ga (1956) and V.V.Kropotkin (1961), contain up to 30% errors, gaps and inaccuracies, which are all likely to cause statistical distortion36. These scholars largely limited themselves to the collection of data from earlier publications, making hardly any attempt to obtain additional information from archival material, private catalogues or collections, and were content to update their work with little more than new errors. By contrast as early as the 1920s S. Bolin was aware of the need to apply several epistemological processes in his research on Roman coin finds, and put them into practice. In his work on the inventory of Roman coin finds from the area of "Germania Libera"37 he made an effort both to reidentify coins from museum collections published earlier (visiting museums on his travels) and to reach much archival information, while making full use of epistemological analysis to verify most of the information then available. Sadly Bolin’s corrections (usually to be found in the footnotes) were, as a rule, ignored by authors of later inventories, perhaps due to their lack of knowledge of Swedish. Bolin’s errors and inaccuracies are a bare 5% (of the entire material the author was able to verify) and his inventories continue to provide crucial and reliable data for many areas. Other scholars examining archival records, and largely following this procedure include P.Zschiesche and A.Götze (cf. Götze, Höfer and Zschiesche 1909), who predated Bolin in the use of museum archives in their research on finds from Thüringen. In Poland K.GodJowski (1973) was foremost in these matters, and used German archives in Bytom, Opole and Racibórz Museums in registering finds from Upper Silesia. Compared to other post-1945 work on present-day Poland’s territory his inventory contains the largest amount of new information on Roman coin finds; it is presented in a manner fully compatible with modem scientific requirements38. J.Kolendo wrote several articles dealing with archival records relating to coin finds

36 E.g. too low a number of antoniniani and of pierced coins and exaggerated proportion of coins of Augustus, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius or Aurelian - cf. ref. 16, likewise Bursche 1980, 1983a, cf. also Lind 1979. 37 Bolin 1926a, 1926b, cf. the review by M.Jahn (Mannus, 20: 1928, p.440-442). 38 Other publications of coin finds from the area in question using archival records include: J.Karpowicz (1956, numerous errors), or V.M.Potin (1967, 1971).

36

State of research

making full use of epistemological procedures, thus benefiting the historian in his pursuits39. New finds have emerged since the time of S.Bolin and A.Götze, necessitating updating of their inventories. For the area of concern to us only three up-to-date catalogues meet the requirements of contemporary numismatic scholarship: S.Kubiak (1979 - Mazovia and Podlasia), R.Laser (1980 - former East Germany), and A.Kunisz (1985 - Małopolska and Lublin region). These lists are not immune from a certain number of errors and inaccuracies; I have written on the works by S.Kubiak and A. Kunisz separately (Bursche 1980,1988a), while RJLaser received perhaps over-critical treatment by H.Chantraine (1983)40. On the whole the number of errors and inaccuracies contained in the three inventories quoted is slight, and therefore statistically irrelevant. Unfortunately, in comparison to the work of S.Bolin catalogues covering the remaining territories of interest to us contribute more confusion than new information; besides, they have been rendered obsolete by the recent publication of Roman coin catalogues which make for a more precise description of coinage (notably, their dating). Therefore, a complete epistemological procedure had to be followed with regard to coins and medallions from the period between AD 193-395 from several areas (Pomerania, Wielkopolska, Silesia), that is a review of records, archives and collections, detection of doubles, alleged finds, and finally corrections in the dating of particular coins41. 32. Representativeness The level of registration of coin finds denotes all the factors affecting the quantity of information available to scholars on the finds in a given territory as a proportion of the actual number of coins in the ground. They are a combination of circumstances such as those which restrict insight into tote Kultur in relation to wieder endeckte Kultur as understood by HJ.Eggers (1951), and of a whole group of conditions which regulate the flow of data relating to finds into scholarly circles.

39 Kolendo 1966, 1969, 1985, 1988. A perfect reconstruction of a solidi hoard found in 1754 at Menzeln, Rheinland based on archival records was recently presented by M.R.Kaiser-Raiss, N.Kliissendorf (1984). This publication features an interesting epistemological chapter on the methodological basis for the assessment of the reliability of archival records on coin finds (Kaiser-Raiss, Kliissendorf 1984, p.1-12), on this subject cf. also Stribmy 1989, p.365-368. 40 Several pages of corrections in Chantraine’s publication might suggest a great number of errors committed by R.Laser. In fact H.Chantraine often repeats identical corrections of the date of issue of of coins of the same emperors for succcessive finds where R.Laser had given incorrect dates. Moreover, many corrections or improvements followed from the use of RIC VIII, which was published subsequently, and so was unavailable to R.Laser. 41 The author was unable to pay necessary visits to several museums (regional ones in particular) which may contain unpublished coins from finds. The same is true of the better known surviving archival records; he could not familiarize himself with the J.Kostrzewski’s archive in Zielona Góra or consult documents at the Berlin Staatliche Museen Preußische Kulturbesitz.

Representativeness

37

Over 90% of finds had been made by chance42, usually during farm work, construction or industrial activity. All of these accidental discoveries and their registration is governed by a range of historic, economic and legal circumstances causing the likelihood of a complete record of a coin find to vary from area to area. Thus more than a routine random sample is involved in our study; instead of straightforward selection and comparison of data found in coin catalogues from various regions, we are faced with a highly heterogeneous and complicated situation. It is unrealistic to hope to discover all the causes of this situation, and only their rough approximation is possible. The first level of the state of registration relates to variable 3 in the model presented (acquisition of sources), and shall be described here as "the level of coin detectability". It is necessary to determine to what extent economic, legal and historical conditions in a given area favoured the discovery of coins and the transmission of information about them to the recorder (from A to D). These conditions include the level of economic exploitation of the area, the legal situation of the finder, the state of education and level of public awareness, the degree of popularity of collecting (particularly of scholarly merit), the activity of boards of antiquity and museum units, the level of popularity of archaeology and its status in public awareness in the context of more general attitudes, particularly to local historical monuments. The other level of the state of registration relating to variable 4 (quality of presentation of sources in records) is the level of recording of finds. Here it is necessary to determine circumstances which favoured or obstructed recording of coin finds in a given area. Some of them are the same as in variable 3 (level of education, collectors’ activity, conservation and museum units). The main circumstances are the level of development of local scholarly activity, for example of antiquarians, in particular those specialized in numismatics (especially individuals), and the related state of archival records and archaeological and numismatic periodicals (particularly ones containing sections devoted to coin find registration). In general, the level of registration of coin finds in particular regions is related to a combination of historical factors which can only be assessed by the study of the history of numismatics and archaeology (particularly biographies of "antiquarians", collectors, numismatists and archaeologists), and also of the history of administration and law (chiefly regulations pertaining to hoard finds and their

42 1992a.

The Westbalt Circle is an exception; here most coins were found during excavation, cf. Bursche

38

State of research

application)434. Good command of these fields of study is needed to evaluate the level of registration in a given region realistically. In most cases conclusions following from the discussion of the level of registration of coin finds are decisive for the assessment of their first level of representativeness, where an attempt is made to determine to what degree the data available correspond to the material in the ground. The role of such studies in any attempts at coin find interpretation cannot be emphasized enough. Below observations on the level of detectability and the state of coin find registration are discussed separately, in the hope of reaching a better understanding of the causes of the excessive variation in the level of registration of coin finds from different areas often belonging to a single archaeological culture. Three basic historical periods of distinct conditions in terms of the level of registration may be identified; prior to 1918, 1919-1945, after 1945. The level of registration is then examined against the background of administrative units which are responsible for variations corresponding to them. Next the cataloguing condition of finds is outlined within the framework of specific cultures, whereby an assessment of the degree of representativeness of finds and the detection of possible distortions in the comparison between cultures will be possible. Over 60% of catalogued finds from the areas studied were made before 1918. Finds registered after 1945 as a rule constitute less than 20%^. This contrasts strongly with the case of other groups of archaeological sources obtained in systematically conducted archaeological fieldwork, and not resulting from chance discovery. Therefore it is necessary first to reconstruct the level of registration of coin finds in the period prior to 1918. A high level of recording of finds in some areas as early as the 18th until the middle of the 19th century is usually related to the activity of individuals interested in antiquity, who generally owned coin collections from registered finds45. The highest concentration of finds in the majority of areas discussed occurred in the latter half of 19th century, which may be explained by two causes. This period saw a rapid development of modern agriculture and industry, and an increase in construction, road and railroad building, thus multiplying the

43 For more general considerations on the relationship of public interest in historical monuments, their registration to political and legal conditions, and the creation of suitable attitudes by the state (e.g. acting as patron) cf. Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.13, 40-42, Hill 1936, with particular reference to Sweden from the 17th century onwards. 44 With the exception of Mazovia and the Lublin region, which had been the object of little exploration earlier. 45 Such as J.Ch.Beckmann (first half of the 18th century - Anhalt, Thüringen), Komissar Mader from Głubczyce (Leobschütz - 18/19th centuries), K.B.Preusker (first half of the 19th century - Upper Lausitz to the Elbe). In many cases it will not be possible to specify the relevant literature as the activity of particular persons, societies or museums is known to us only from highly dispersed and often quite numerous references. In order to safeguard the balance of this work it was decided to restrict literature to more general publications.

Representativeness

39

opportunities for coin discovery. For coin collecting flourished among the intelligentsia and landowners, often hand in hand with growing antiquarian interest and at a quite advanced level. Their activity in combination with the lack of awareness on the part of peasants as to the market value of ancient coins, as well as the latter regularly handing in finds to landowners and tenants contributed to a rapidly intensified coin registration. 3.2.1. Germany The highest detectability level of numismatic material in the areas studied prior to 1945 is noted in the lands of the German states, later the German Empire, Weimar Republic and Third Reich. Unt(l the end of 19th century this was mainly the result of effective legal regulation. The territories of the Kingdom of Prussia (also after incorporation into the German Empire) most relevant to our study were until 19Ó0 subject to the Prussian Landrecht of 1794, abbreviated as ALR46. According to the regulations of this extremely exhaustive corpus47, if a hoard was discovered its finder was entitled to a half of it, the other half fell to the owner of the land where the discovery was made, but only under the condition that the authorities (later the police) were informed within four weeks from discovery. Persons concealing information about a find were liable to payment of a penalty as high as half of their share of the hoard48. Thus the cost of informing the authorities or the police was nil and even profitable, but concealment could be troublesome. Coin registration was favoured in this period by the discipline of a law-abiding German (particularly Prussian) society. This high level of detectability of coins was to a great extent the result of the institution of a network of conservation officers organized in Prussia at the initiative of Friedrich Wilhelm IV as early as mid-19th century (Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.49-52, Walicki 1931, p.25-26). The centre in Berlin49, and large museums in provincial capitals50 and other university or municipal museums51 were involved. Through a network of intermediaries such as schoolteachers, clergymen or other amateur-antiquarians museums obtained information on chance archaeological discoveries, Roman coins included. Schoolteachers played a major

46 Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preussischen Staaten von 1794, Frankfurt am Main - Berlin 1970. 47 Themis Polska, 5:1829, p. 199-210. 48 Weiss 1891, Demburg 1893, p.561-563. 49 Coins finds were collected at the Königliches Müzkabinett as well as at the Märkisches Museum. 50 In Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Danzig (Gdansk), Breslau (Wroclaw), Halle and to a lesser extent in Stralsund or Posen (Poznan). 51 E.g. in Dresden (several collections), Elbing (Elbląg), Erfurt, Gera, Greifswald, Görlitz, Jena, Leipzig, Schwerin or Thom (Toruń); also in smaller centres such as Insterburg, Marienburg (Malbork), or Sagan (Żagań). The localities quoted are those which contained coin collections relevant to our subject.

40

State of research

role for in a well developed network of elementary and secondary schools which formed part of the German Empire’s system of universal education they popularized "antiquities", registered local finds and generally invested the provision of information about discoveries with a patriotic aura. Finds were frequently presented to museums by people from all walks of life, from the Bürgermeister and head of the district down to administrators of landed property, merchants, physicians, innkeepers and peasants. The latter half of 19th century saw a rapid growth of interest in things local, and of heightened activity of regional historical and antiquarian societies52. Collections of antiquities attached to these societies began to flourish, growing into museums, with the majority of them containing numismatic sections53. In the period concerned, particularly the 1880s, numerous exhibitions of antiquities from museums and private collections were organized, some of them containing Roman coins from finds54. Schoolteachers for their part continued to stimulate interest in antiquities and collected archaeological artifacts (including coins) from their local area55. Popular presentations of archaeology found their way into school textbooks and books for the young, as is best confirmed by the repeated publication of a well-known picture showing schoolchildren with their teacher at excavations (Gummel 1938, p.242-243, Textabb.l). The group of future informants and contributors of coin finds thus swelled in number. The high level of coin find reporting and recording during this period went hand in hand with the high level of find recording in private files, museum and society

52 E.g. in Bemburg, Brandenburg, Bromberg (Bydgoszcz), Erfurt, Frauenburg (Frombork), Gera (with a seat in Hohenleuben), Görlitz, Greifswald, Graudenz (Grudziądz), Guben (Gubin), Marienwerder (Kwidzyn), Merseburg, Salzwedel, Sangerhausen, Torgau, Thom (Toruń * including a Polish society, cf. Abramowicz 1967, p. 151-152, Kola 1971), Weissenfelds; larger centres included Berlin, Danzig (Gdańsk), Halle, Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Leipzig, Magdeburg, Posen (Poznań) - both Polish and German societies (Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk did not participate in registration work undertaken by the provincial diet in Posen, but acted independently under the supervision of J.Zakrzewski - çf. Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.52), Stettin (Szczecin) or Breslau (Wroclaw). Some societies, such as Halle, Salzwedel or Stettin were significantly older. 53 E.g. in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz), Erfurt, Gera, Görlitz, Greifswald, Grossenhein, Guben (Gubin), Halle, Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Leipzig, Magdeburg, Merseburg, Münchenburg, Posen (Poznań), Salzwedel, Stettin (Szczecin), Torgau, Thom (Toruń) and Weissenfelds. 54 The most significant of them being the 1880 Berlin exhibition - cf. Katalog Berlin. 55 Some secondary schools have a very long record of stimulating antiquarian interests, going back as far as the 17th or early 18th century - e.g. Elbing (A.Aurifaber, U.Woit), Danzig, Thom or Breslau (Saint Elizabeth secondary school - K.Stieff). Elbing and Thom Gymnasia libraries housed at the time collections of Roman coins (cf. Abramowicz 1983, p.109-114). Significant contributions to high detectability of coin finds was made by the following Gymnasium teachers : J.Bühring, Amstadt; W.Fischer, Bemburg; E.Schmidt, Bromberg (Bydgoszcz); H.Bolze, Cottbus; H.Grössler, Eisleben; R.D oit , Elbing (Elbląg); Dr.Borchardt, Danzig (Gdańsk); L.Feyerabend, Görlitz; S.Anger and Dr.Semrau, Graudenz (Grudziądz); H.Jentsch, Guben (Gubin); G.Bujack and P.Schiefferdecker, Königsberg (Kaliningrad); H.Begemann, Neuruppin; W.Schwartz, Posen (Poznań); J.Danneil, Salzwedel; H.L.T.Giesebrecht, H.Lemcke and E.Walter, Stettin (Szczecin), and many others, unknown by name (e.g. from Marienwerder [Kwidzyn]).

Representativeness

41

account books, central publications containing sections on coin finds56 and provincial magazines57, even down to local periodicals58. Information on Roman coin finds, notably the more spectacular, often appeared in local dailies59 or weeklies, which continue to be an extremely valuable but all too often neglected source. Coin finds were also recorded in catalogues of occasional exhibitions, which is particularly important for specimens in private collections (e.g. Katalog Berlin). Gymnasium collections were frequently published in school reports60. The degree of activity of particular museums, societies or gymnasia varied in terms of the extent of reporting and recording of coin finds and obviously depended directly on the work of individuals61. The highly developed network of professional antiquarians in the German Empire, together with the popularisation of activities and the disciplined attitudes of the public, who usually gave information about coin finds, made it possible to introduce changes in a new code (BGB) in force from 1900, which liberalised regulations on hoard finds. The obligation of informing the authorities (or police) as a prerequisite of coming into possession of a find was lifted62. A certain decrease in the number of registered coins in the first two decades of the 20th century (noted in some areas only) was not so much the result of changing regulations as of historical events, particularly the First World War. This period continued to see the foundation of new local historical and antiquarian societies (e.g. in Bautzen) and new magazines noting coin finds (e.g."Schlesien" and "Oberschlesien"). The 1918-1945 period noted a rapid growth of professional activity of archaeologists and numismatists leading to better reporting and registration of coin finds. A number of new regional collections of antiquities were established, supervised by specialists who started conservation activities. In 1930 almost every district {Kreis) had such a local museum {Heimatmuseum). In 1935 the current Minister of Education (Reichserziehungsminister), anxious that their numbers might supersede actual needs, issued instructions to limit their excessive numbers (cf. NfdV, V, 11:1935, 1).

56 Le.: ZfE, Bl.F.Münzf., Bl.F.Münzk., BBfMSuW. 57 E.g. Amtl.Ber., Balt.St., Jber.P., Mitt.Anhalt, MJb., NLMit, Nlaus.Mag, Preuss.Provinz., Prussia, Schl.Provinz., Schl.Vz., Schr.Nat.Ges., SpöGK, Zeit.Posen. 58 Primarily magazines published by regional and antiquarian societies - cf. ref.55. 59 E.g. Bautzener Nachrichten, Breslauer Zeitung. 60 E.g. in Cottbus, Leobschiitz (Głubczyce), Neuruppin, Rattibor (Racibórz) or Wernigerode, such programs also contained accounts of regional prehistory or lists of archaeological finds (including coins) - Gummel 1938, p.212-213, ref.10. 61 To be discussed at length elsewhere. 62 Kodeks cywilny obowigzujgcy na ziemiach zachodnich Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Poznań 1933, p.447-448, § 984 and 1040; cf. Giżyński 1904, Schleiss 1918, actual application - Pick 1915.

42

State of research

Archaeology became widely publicized in daily newspapers, brochures, notice boards and even in early films63. Amateur antiquarians of various professions gathered at reunions64, special training courses in archaeology for schoolteachers were organized every year; one of them, which took place in Breslau in 1932 brought together 300 participants, another, in 1934 over two thousand people (Gummel 1938, p.338, Textabb.3). All these circumstances significantly increased the likelihood of coin discovery and registration. A large number of nationwide and regional periodicals were set up (e.g."Mannus", or NfdV) often containing separate sections concerned with coin finds65. The stream of information continued to flow even during the Second World War. For more than a decade after the war, probably through momentum or rather traditional public discipline, the level of reporting and registering of coin finds on the Elbe was still relatively high. However, regulations in the Civil Code of the German Democratic Republic concerning finds of coins and of other objects of cultural or historical significance, also the Polish Act on protection of cultural heritage, totally depriving the finder of any share in the find66, radically and effectively restricted the flow of information on coin finds. 3.2.2. Austro-Hungary As regards the period prior to 1914, the level of detectability in the Austrian Empire, and later Austro-Hungary (e.g. in Galizien and Teschen Schlesien) was less satisfactory. In the period 1811-1846 hoard finds were subject to the ABGB regulation dividing the hoard equally between the state, the owner of the land and the finder, under condition that local authorities were notified, who in turn were obliged to inform the state government. Furthermore, the administrative authorities were obliged to guard archaeological finds (including coins). Should the find be suppressed by the finder, his share fell to the reporter, or in his absence, to the state. Concealment was not liable to legal proceedings but was considered a breach of administrative regulations. All finds of scientific significance had to be channelled to public collections, whereby museums had first option and the finder of a coin could not demand his share "in natura", only the equivalent value (either estimated or as obtained from the sale)67. After 1846 regulations were somewhat relaxed in the manner of the Napoleonic Code. The state relinquished its right to

63 Cf. Gummel 1938, p.337 and film stored in the Institute of Archaeology archives, Warsaw University, acquired with MJahn’s material from Breslau. 64 E.g. in 1923 in Hannover - Gummel 1938, p.337. 65 E.g. Altpr., A, AB, EJ. 66 Civil Code of the Gemian Democratic Republic, Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdarisk 1979, p.149, § 361. 67 Wróblewski 1914, p.329-331, § 398-401, cf. Demetrykiewicz 1885, Walicki 1931, p.99.

Representativeness

43

a share in the hoard and from then on the finder and owner of land divided it between themselves. The obligation to dispatch valuable finds to public collections and first option for museums was discontinued, while the finder could now obtain his share "in natura"68. At the same time on June 14 1846 a decree was issued in compliance with which "archaeological finds should be guarded as far as it is possible, information pertaining to the more significant filed with the kais. Münzund Antiken-Kabinet in Vienna, while finders should be persuaded - without resorting to coercion - to send particularly interesting and easily portable objects to this same Kabinet" (Wróblewski 1914, р.ЗЗО). In 1852 and 1858 further regulations were issued charging the public with the duty of informing appropriate collections prior to the auction of antique coins and medallions, and allowing them first choice (Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.61). Under such regulations the finder of archaeological objects was therefore obliged to inform the appropriate museums69. In practice many of these regulations were not complied with, and "it has to be admitted that of all of Austrian provinces Galicia fared worst" (Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.57, cf. also Demetrykiewicz 1885). In addition to the above observation, made by WJ.Demetrykiewicz, an archaeologist with a legal education, it should be added that this situation resulted from the overall negative attitude of the Polish population to the foreign partitioning authorities, something WJLDemetrykiewicz could not state clearly in his doctoral dissertation. In 1852 the k.k. Central Komission zur Erforshung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale was established in Vienna, headed by the enterprising and energetic Baron K.Czoernig. The Commission had few powers and after a change of name in 1873 to k.k. CentralKomission zur Erforshung und Erhaltung der Kunst und historischen Denkmale was concerned with architectural monuments and works of art. Thus, information on archaeological finds (including coins) from Galizia and Teschen Schlesien very rarely reached Vienna70, for the role of the Conservation Komission, the Komission and Vienna Archaeological Institute was taken over by centres in Lemberg (Lwów) and Krakau (Kraków). The latter was especially active, having a long tradition of antiquarian studies associated primarily with the Jagellonian University. A coin collection had been attached to the university library from as early as the 16th century, receiving coins from finds from the late 18th century (Skowronek 1981, Kiszą 1985, p.90-91). The Archaeological Museum attached to the Krakow Scholarly Society was established in 185971, the Archaeological

68 Decree of the Court Chamber of June 15, 1846,1.970, § 1-4, cf. Wróblewski 1914, p.330-331, Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.55-56. 69 Later also conservation authorities, and in accordance with a directive of September 14 1868 also the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagellonian University in Kraków. 70 On problems involved in the wider recording initiative undertaken in Galizien cf. Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.69-74, Walicki 1931, p.104. 71 Nosek 1967, p.19, Abramowicz 1967, p.99-103, Kisza 1985, p.93.

44

Slate of research

Cabinet attached to the University was organized in 1867 (Nosek 1967, p.39, Stolpiak 1984, p.23) and the Czapski Museum in 1903 (Kocójowa 1978). All these institutions also collected coins from local finds. The year 1873 marked the birth of the Archaeology and Anthropology Comission of the Academy of Knowledge (Akademia Umiejętności - Nosek 1967, p.40-43, Abramowicz 1967, p.144-145, 1991, p.64-66), and its members, similar to those of the Numismatic Society instituted somewhat later, registered coin finds. Institutions set up in Lwów72 collected and registered coin finds, mainly from an area extending outside the range of the subject of this work. The low level of education and the thin network of schools resulted on the whole in the absence of individuals interested in discoveries of coins. Antiquarian exhibitions organized in 1858 in Kraków (Nosek 1967, p.49, Abramowicz 1967, p.120-122, 1991, p.40-41) and 1885 in Lwów73 also included coins from local finds which were later published in exhibition catalogues. References to discoveries of Roman coins in Galicia vary rarely reached Viennese periodicals74, but were more frequently featured by Kraków periodicals75, also appearing in daily and weekly newspapers76. In the early 20th century a number of regional museums were created in Galicia77, which sometimes received isolated coin finds. 3.2.3. Poland under the Russian partition Certainly the lowest level of coin registering is noted in "Kongress-Polen" (Congress Kingdom) under Russian rule. Hoard finds were regulated by the relevant article of the Napoleonic Code of 1808, according to which "A treasure discovered by a person on his own property belongs to that person; if it is found on someone elese’s property then half of it belongs to the owner of the land and half to the finder"78. It was also in force until 1855 in the Kraków Republic

2 E.g. Uniwersytet Jana Kazimierza, Ossoliński National Institute (in particular the Princes Lubomirski Museum - Abramowicz 1967, p.21), Dzieduszycki Museum and the Ukrainian Schevtchenko Scientific Society with the museum attached to it, the Narodnyl Dorn (National House) and StavropigiTskiT Institute. 73 Nieczuja-Ziemęcki 1885, Katalog Lwów, Nosek 1967, p.49. 74 As e.g. NZ, Jahresh.Österr.Arch.Inst. or Mitt.K.K. 75 Such as ZW AK, RAU, or particularly in the later period the WNA. 76 E.g. "Dwutygodnik naukowy poświęcony archeologii, historii i lingwistyce". 77 E.g. in Nowy S^cz, Przemyśl and Tarnopol, also in Cieszyn, which was not in the same province but in the part of Austro-Hungaiy relevant to our subject - cf. Chwalewik 1926, 1927. 78 Prawo cywilne obowiązujące na obszarze b. Kongresowego Królestwa Polskiego, Warszawa 1923, vol.I, p.228 § 716; the interest of Polish lawyers in the "science of hoards" early in the first half of 19th century is confirmed by the reprint in "Themis Polska" of an article by Professor Gans - cf. ref.47.

Representativeness

45

incorporated by Austria in 184679. Under this regulation conservation interests, if they had been suitably safeguarded legally, should not have obstructed the flow of information on coin finds, yet the political situation in the Russian partition, particularly after the defeat of the November 1831 Uprising, prevented it. The growing popularity of collecting in Poland as early as the late 18th century had favoured recording of coins80. Large private collections also containing coins from local finds were the property of King Stanislaus Augustus or noble families such as the Czartoryskis, S.Poniatowski, and later T.Czacki, St.Lubomirski, Fr. and St.Potocki (Abramowicz 1967, p.9-10, Kisza 1985, p.89). Some of them were subsequently incorporated into museum collections. Nurtured by patriotic motivation, the period after the loss of independence in the first three decades of 19th century witnessed in Poland a surge of interest in and concern about the things of the past, and a fascination with historical monuments, antiquities, including ancient coin finds. The growth of this interest was favoured by the formation and growth of the Polish intelligentsia, which produce an expanding circle of antiquarians81. The Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences (Towarzystwo Warszawskie Przyjaciół Nauk) set up in 180082, thanks to the initiative of the first chairman, J.Ch.Albertrandy83, developed an interest in numismatics. In the "Muzeum i Gabinet Rzeczy Przyrodzonych" (Museum and Cabinet of Natural Material) attached to the Society a numismatic collection was housed which contained coins from gifts, also from local finds (Abramowicz 1967, p.31, Kolendo 1988, p. 174-175). The contributors were most frequently the "military, landowners and officials". A certain unassessed role in the collecting of coin finds was also played by the Numismatic Cabinet of the Royal Warsaw University working in the 1820s under Bentkowski84. The second decade of the 18th century also witnessed the activity of the Scientific Society at Płock Voivodship School led by the bishop of Płock, Prażmowski. Its collection of coins, containing specimens from finds, was housed at the Płock Voivodship Public and School Museum set up in 1821 and was published in the school’s annual

79 Where the Austrian civil code (ABGB) practically came into force only in 1855 (cf. SójkaZielińska 1973, p.40), but in a modified foim, only slightly differing from the Napoleonic civil code. 80 An extensive list of numismatists operating at the turn of the 18th to the 19th centuries is given by T.Czacki, O rzeczy menniczej w Polsce i na Litwie dla uczniów wołyńskiego gimnazjum (written in 1810) - non vidi (after Kolendo 1988). 81 Abramowicz 1967, p.10-44,1991,11-16, Gąssowski 1970, p.33-46, R.Czepulis-Rastenis, "Klassa umysłowa", Inteligencja Królestwa Polskiego 1832-1862, Warszawa 1973, p.32-61. 82 Abramowicz 1967, p.10-11; on the role played by antiquarian interests in the work of the Society cf. A.Kraushar, Towarzystwo Królewskie Przyjaciół Nauk 1800-1832, vol.I-VIII, Kraków-Warszawa 1900-1906, J.Michalski, Z dziejów Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, Warszawa 1953. 83 Albertrandy prepared and published the collection of king Stanislaus Augustus - cf. Kolendo 1988, p.172-175; such prominent people as J.Lelewel, K.WesoIowski, J.Arnold and I.Potocki were members of the Society . 84 J.Bieliński, Królewski Uniwersytet Warszawski (1816-1831), vol.I, Warszawa 1907, p.649, Abramowicz 1967, p.41.

46

State of research

reports85. Coin finds were also registered in the records of the Society of Friends of Sciences (TPN), mentioned in the Society yearbook and occasionally published in the "Biblioteka Warszawska". They were also sometimes noted in private diaries, whence on several occasions they found their way into the "Słownik Geograficzny". Over the first three decades of the 19th century patriotism was the driving force behind antiquarian activity. "Patriotism, the desire to proclaim the glory of the bygone days so that misfortunes which had befallen the motherland would be eased" (Abramowicz 1967, p.41). This mood, so promising for registering coin finds faded completely with the defeat of the November Uprising. In 1832, when the Society of Friends of Sciences was dissolved, its numismatic collection was moved to St.Petersburg. A large part of the Polish intelligentsia had to emigrate, like J.Lelewel who settled in Belgium (Abramowicz 1991, p.29-30). Until 1867 all coins, including those from local finds, were purchased by the Warsaw State Mint, where most probably they were not registered86. Certain finds, primarily medieval coins, were collected and recorded by the members of the Warsaw Numismatic Society founded in 1845 (Triller 1964, Abramowicz 1967, pЛ08) . In 1859 an Imperial Archaeological Commission, attached to the Russian Ministry of the Court, was created, its prerogatives defined by a section of the Legal Code (Volume I, part II, § 2318)87. The Commission was to carry out investigations and research on all antiquities found in the state, and to monitor and supervise major construction work such as road and rail road building if archaeological discovery could be expected, and finally in general to protect treasures and scientific monuments. The commission was thus charged with widely conceived duties of conservation. In order to secure the interest of finders in sending their finds to the Commission a fee was determined "equal in value not only to the actual value of the material but also to the archaeological value and degree of rarity of the object". Artifacts obtained by the Commission were after study to be stored at the Hermitage Museum (the most striking specimens), offered to other museums (including the Warsaw University Numismatic Cabinet), exchanged for other objects and or be returned to their owner. This regulation turned out to be harmful since the Numismatic Section of the Hermitage received only valuable and rare specimens from broken up hoards, while specimens which

85 Abramowicz 1967, p.38-40, W.Rolbiecki, Towarzystwo Naukowe przy Szkole Wojewódzkiej Płockiej (1820-1830), Wrocław 1969, p.196-209, Kolendo 1985, 1988, p.183. 86 Potin 1967, p.6-9, A.Ryszard (1870, p.220) while listing private collectors mention Waleiy Kostrzębski, a former employee of the Warsaw Mint, and the owner of a large numismatic and "excavations” collection. It is possible that a part of this collection had originally come from coins accumulated by. the mint. 87 Cf. Szczęsny Jastrzębowski, Prawo i rozporzgdzenia dotyczące wykopalisk, Światowit, 1:1899, p.171-173.

Representativeness

47

the commission declared to be of no importance for science were returned to the Owners or melted down at the mint. According to the act mentioned above the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Department of General Affairs) periodically issued instructions to all provincial authorities to use their power to safeguard antique objects from destruction, to try to obtain them for the archaeological commission, and above all to see to it that no archeological investigation be conducted on government, church and public land88. These circulars often gave rise to misunderstandings when misinterpreted by an overzealous administrative apparatus and the police. They were used as a basis for confiscation of finds from their owners, ignorant of regulations concerning them. The finds (including coins) were then dispatched to the Imperial Commission89. Apart from cases when a find was made on state or public lands this was in breach of the law, since such finds were in fact the property of the owner of the land who could do with them as he liked (including sell or present them to the Commission). Although coin finds came under the surveillance of an extremely extensive administrative and police apparatus (up to the Governor of a province), such practises negatively affected science on a large scale since coin finds were concealed90. This situation was additionally aggravated by the "distrust of the population towards any initiative of the authorities" (Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.46) and the animosity of Polish society towards the representatives of the administration of the partitioning power and to their regulations91. The relatively few finds which found their way into scholarly circles were registered in the files of the Imperial Archaeological Commission92 and the State Hermitage. The Commission was officially dissolved in 1919, but the amount of information on finds it received even until the start of the First World War was insignificant (Potin 1967, p.9, 1971, 250-251).

88 Cf. circular No. 229 from 1866, No. 22 from 1882, No. 11 from 1884, No. 25 from 1886, No. 13 from 1898, also Demetrykiewicz 1886, p.28, Potin 1967, p.7. 89 The general belief that all artifacts discovered must be sent by the local authorities to the Imperial Comission was contested by E.Majewski in his article Prawo dotyczące wykopalisk, Gazeta Polska, No 22, 1895, (= the same, Drobne prace i notatki z dziedziny Archeologii przedhistorycznej i Etnografii, Warszawa 1897, p.110-111) and Sz. Jastrzębowski, whose article cf. ref.87 was reprinted from Gazeta Radomska no 95 December 10, 1898. W.M.Potin erroneously interpreted the circular (1967, p.7): "on the basis of legal regulations in force... if anyone found a coin or old artifacts, they were handed over to the local police", which would suggest that this was a duty, while in fact it was only recommended that they be handed over for study. Refusal to do so was not liable to penalty, as can be seen from W.M.Potin’s text itself (cf. below, ref.91). The same scholar also exaggerates the care taken by the Imperial commission to issue payments equivalent to the value of coins presented (Potin 1967, p.8, Potin 1971, p.250). 90 Contrary to the opinion of W.M.Potin (1971, p.250). 91 Clear indications of this animosity on the part of the landowning class (better aware of their rights and privileges than peasants) who refused Russian scholars access to coin hoards are quoted by W.M.Potin (1967, p.7-8), although he neglects this extremely important patriotic aspect in his one-sided assessment of the merits of the Imperial Commission. 92 Information of major finds were published in the OAK and IAK.

48

State of research

Largely owing to the hostility of the Polish population to any initiative from the authorities, all attempts (which started as early as 1844) at organizing Polish central conservation and museum services93 failed. Such efforts were further thwarted by restrictions imposed by Russia after the January 1863 Uprising. Coin finds usually passed through the hands of Jewish dealers into private (often foreign) collections, where they were rarely registered, or to jewellers, where they were melted down. The salesmen took advantage of the low level of education and poverty of inhabitants of the Congress Kingdom (Kongress-Polen) and their ignorance as to the actual value of antique objects in order to buy high class items for small sums of money while keeping this practice secret. Thus many coins have vanished without trace. The low level of education did not favour registration of finds. Therefore the period of highly favourable antiquarian interest, which was taken advantage of elsewhere to develop registration of coin finds, was lost in most Polish lands. The harm done in public consciousness in terms of reporting and registration of archaeological finds (including numismatic material) was difficult to remedy. Only after the 1905/1906 Revolution did a certain alleviation of the Russian government’s policy occur, and conditions were created for developing Polish conservation and museum activities. A major role was played by museum sections active in the Polish Sightseeing Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze), and, to a lesser degree, the Industrial-Agricultural Society (Towarzystwo PrzemysłowoRolnicze), the teachers’ milieu and clergymen (Abramowicz 1991, p.96-98). A number of regional museums were created94, sometimes receiving coins from finds into their collections, as did the diocesan museums95. Scientific Societies in Warsaw and PJock were able also to become active. Coin finds began to be registered in museum and society files, and after 1899 began to be published in "Swiatowit". Yet all these developments which were positive for coin registration were frustrated by historical events. 3.2.4. The Russian Empire Volhynia, which until 1914 was part of the Russian Empire, also registers a low level of coin find reporting and recording. According to the legal regulation in

93 Made by e.g. K.Stronczyński - cf. Walicki 1931, p.52, 56-71, Abramowicz 1967, p.81-82, 1991, p.27-28 cf also Martynowski 1881, W sprawie Konserwatorstwa zabytków przeszłości, Przegląd Bibliograficzno-Archeologiczny Warszawski 1:1881, p.1-7. 94 E.g. in Kalisz, Kielce, Lublin, Lodź, Piotrków, Płock, Radom, Włocławek - cf. Chwalewik 1916, 1926, 1927, Stolpiak 1984, p.22-23. 95 E.g. in Płock (created in 1903 - Chwalewik 1927, p.64) or Sandomierz (existing from 1905 Chwalewik 1927, p.187).

Representativeness

49

force a buried hoard was the property of the owner of the land96. Just as in the Congress Kingdom the political situation in Volhynia at the outset of 19th century did not favour registration of coin finds. Antiquarian interest fuelled by patriotic fervor flourished primarily under patronage of the Liceum Wołyńskie (Volhynia Lycée) in Krzemieniec97, but witthe passage of time the situation deteriorated. The creation of the Imperial Archaeological Commission did little to remedy it, although some indications of its more intensive activity may be noted in Volhynia, particularly towards the close of 19th century. Yet its operation was thwarted by the same factors as in the Congress Kingdom and on the whole the situation in Volhynia greatly resembled that of the Congress Kingdom. The bulk of finds was never reported nor registered in the appropriate institutions. The negligible numbers which were reported were noted in the files of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and the Hermitage. References to coin finds were published in provincial archaeological maps (Antonovitch 1901) and proceedings from archaeological meetings98. Occasionally, contrary to regulations in force, coins from finds found their way into museum collections bypassing the Imperial Commission, mainly to those in the provincial capital of Kiev9910. 3.2.5. Independent Poland After the First World War a rapid growth of museum and conservation services took place in newly independent Poland, yet it only improved the level of reporting and recording of coin finds slightly. A centrally organized network of conservation officers began to be formed, directed by the State Gathering of Conservation Officers of Prehistoric Monuments (Państwowe Grono Konserwatorów Zabytków Przedhistorycznych)™. A widescale publicity campaign was initiated - both in the press101 and through a series of lectures, as well as annual vacation courses for elementary school teachers organized by the Polish Teachers Society102,

96 Prawo Cywilne Ziem Wschodnich, VolX, part I Zwód Praw Rosyjskich, Warszawa 1932, vol.I, p.216 ait.430 and 486. 97 The Lyceum had its own collection also featuring coins from local finds - Abramowicz 1967, p.16-17, Kolendo 1969 - praising T.Czacki’s virtues in this respect. 98 Tr.Arch.S., also OAK and IAK. 99 E.g. museums at the St.Vladimir University, the Nestor Latopis Historical Society and the Clerical Academy. 100 Antoniewicz 1953, p.41, 50, Gąssowski 1970, p.167, 193-200, Stolpiak 1984, p.53-61, 93-101, 134-142, Abramowicz 1991, p.114-115. 101 E.g. Kurjer Polski, Przegląd Współczesny, Dziennik Poznański, Kurier Poznański, Gazeta Bydgoska, Gazeta Warszawska and notably, Ziemia, Goniec Częstochowski and Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny - cf. Stolpiak 1984, p.76, p. 119-120, 163-164. 102 Stolpiak 1984, p. 159-162: e.g. including special programs of lectures for schoolteachers and clergy (Stolpiak 1984, p.59), appeals were made to teachers in the educational press (Stolpiak 1984, p.119), and notice boards were made showing prehistoric objects for exhibition in schools (Stolpiak 1984, p.162).

50

State of research

lectures at regional divisions of the Polish Tourist and Nature Lovers Society103, special talks given to locals by conservation officers and other professional archaeologists during fieldwork (Stolpiak 1984, p.159), and publicity activities directed at the police (Stolpiak 1984, p.120). This expanding program of publicity for archaeology also created a favorable atmosphere for reporting and registration of coin finds, but more tangible results could be expected to appear only after enough time had elapsed for awareness to spread to larger circles of society (notably through the education system). Certain slips of legal and organisational nature prevented this, aggravated markedly after 1928, together with the absence of a uniform concept of operation in the field of archaeological museum and conservation services in the highly polarized milieu of prehistorians104. From 1928 until 1962 the "Act on the protection of monuments of the President of the Polish Republic" was in force, obliging the owners of land and tenants, as well as the finders, to immediately inform first level conservation services about a find105. While this act largely upheld the law on property in the Napoleonic Code according to article 27, "Artifacts from excavations or finds may be confiscated by the State, self-government unions or private persons engaged in protection of monuments, at their request or with their approval", the regulation posed a threat to the property rights of private individuals to numismatic finds, and in conjunction with the notorious confiscation of the Boroczyce hoard106 was an argument against reporting coin finds. In 1928 the archaeological conservation services ceased to exist and their sections were taken over by the central State Archaeological Museum. It was expected that the Museum would function as the sole institution in the country supervising protection of archaeological monuments. In practice this turned out to be impossible without full time employees working continuously in the field107. The so-called museum envoys were unable to undertake these duties, being as a rule amateurs working to protect monuments on a voluntary basis. During the period 1918-1939 it was not possible to create a uniform museum system, as museums were the property of municipalities, various institutions and

103 Stolpiak 1984, p.160; also for the Warsaw Civil Engineering Society - Stolpiak 1984, p.119. 1W A critical account of these issues is to be published in the second vol. of B.Stolpiak’s book, covering 1928-1939. It will fill a glaring gap in the historiography of Polish archaeology, conservation and museums of the Second Polish Republic. Existing accounts (Kostrzewski 1949, Antoniewicz 1953, Nosek 1967) were written by persons actively involved in the events of the period and as such are highly subjective; recently also Abramowicz 1991, p.115-138. 105 Dziennik Ustaw RP, No 29 March 14, 1928, item 265, § 25-27. 106 The first case of enforcement of this law, which was accompanied by a major argument between the Lublin Conservation Officer and the State Archaeological Museum. The full documentation concerning the discoveiy and later history of the Boroczyce hoard including letters, court records and newspaper articles is in the State Archaeological Museum archives awaiting study. 107 Antoniewicz 1953, p.41-42, Nosek 1967, p.108, Gąssowski 1970, p.167-169, Stolpiak 1984, p.141-142, 147, Abramowicz 1991, p.115-116.

Representativeness

51

private individuals. The maintenance of museums was left to the free initiative of social entities, such as the Association of Museums in Poland founded in 1921, or the Polish Sightseeing Society, which fostered the growth of regional museums108, some of which collected coin finds. The reinstatement of an independent Polish state fuelled local patriotism, as well as the desire to emphasize the role of particular regions, which led to the creation of district museums featuring sections devoted to the past history of the area. A major role in the purchase of private collections was played by the Łódź Ethnographical Museum set up in 1921 (Mikołajczyk 1981, p.5-7) and the Museum of the Volhynian Friends of the Sciences Society in Fuck (Muzeum Wołyńskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk - Piotrowicz 1939, p.3). The level of registration of finds was also raised by the activities of the members of the Polish Numismatic Society and the Polish Prehistoric Society, as well as other such associations, particularly in larger university centres with a chair of archaeology (e.g. Poznań, Kraków, Warszawa and Lwów). Finds continued to be published in the WNA and sporadically in newly established periodicals such as ZOW and WA. Information on coin finds occasionally also appeared in the daily press (notably in IKC). Owing to the difficulties outlined above the period 1918-1939 did not bring any significant improvements in the registration of finds, even though a number of professional coin specialists were active at the time109. After the Second World War substantial changes took place in the organization of conservation and museum services. A central network of conservation was set up, and frequently Voivodship conservation officers were actively engaged in the recording of coin finds. The Polish Archaeological and Numismatic Society operated on a very wide scale, with numerous divisions set up all over the country. Many new members who joined the numismatic section of the Society were owners of antique coin collections featuring specimens from local finds. A widely publicised campaign was developed seeking to raise public awareness of the significance of coin finds for science. Foremost in their registration was the Łódź Archaeological and Ethnographic Museum, the Numismatic Cabinet of the State Archaeological Museum, and the Numismatic and Medallion Cabinet of the National Museum ih Warsaw, which supervised purchases made through the "Desa" numismatic salon over a long period. Coin find publication became "monopolized" by the Wiadomości Numizmatyczne, although sporadic notices appeared also in various archaeological publications and daily newspapers. Large scale fieldwork carried out by a growing number of professional archaeologists brought about increasingly frequent discoveries of Roman coins in

10* Leading museums in this period were those in Bydgoszcz, Katowice, Płock, Kielce, Sandomierz and Toruń - Stolpiak 1984, p.66-67, 142-144. 109 E.g. L.Piotrowicz, M.Gumowski and Z.Zakrzewski.

52

State of research

archaeological contexts. Nevertheless, the majority of finds of coins (particularly hoards) are still discovered by chance. Two factors, unsuitable legal regulation and the growing attraction of coin collecting and consequently their high market value, made even the deployment of substantial means and forces largely a futile exercise. According to the 15 February 1962 Act On the Protection of Cultural Heritage and Museums, in force to this day, archaeological finds are the property of the state110. The finder is obliged to notify the appropriate conservation officer immediately, the chairman of the appropriate national council or the museum or an archaeological unit. Individuals who comply with these regulations are entitled to a State award (in practice up to 10% of value of the find), but which does not imply that it is the duty of the State to do so. This has on several occasions provoked misunderstandings, and attempts to issue such an award were blocked (i.e. it was impossible to define the financing source). A person who failed to report a find was guilty of an offence, and was liable to imprisonment for a period up to three months, or to a fine of a symbolic amount. Enforcement of this regulation on several occasions, and particularly the confiscation of hoards, caused almost as much harm in terms of reducing the level of registration of finds as the unlawful confiscations of 19th century carried out by the Russian administration. A finder interested in financial gain quickly learnt to conceal his find. This article of the act soon lost any meaning111, and contrary to its intention and letter, and in the name of science, museums began to purchase coins from local finds, although they were often impeded by meagre funds. The amount of red tape involved in the the sale of coins to a museum has prompted finders to prefer private collectors who now significantly outnumber professional archaeologists. Collectors conscious of the illegal nature of their acquisitions are wary of registering them, and even more so of making them known to professionals. Sadly enough, this was also true with regard to collectors belonging to the Polish Archaeological and Numismatic Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne i Numizmatyczne), and from 1991 to the Polish Numismatic Society. 3.2.6. Conclusions All the conditions described above, legal conditions, implementation of regulations, operation of administration, institutions, societies and publishers affected the reporting and registration of coin finds in the territories under study. Certain factors favouring the reporting and registration of coin finds in various areas and periods were indicated. As a result the average number of coins found per year in former Germany territories incorporated into the present area of Poland

110 Dziennik Ustaw No. 10, February 15, 1962, item 48, § 24 and 77 item 3. 1,1 This situation was not remedied by the recently introduced amendments of the act.

Representativeness

53

was three times higher for the periods between the 1860s and 1900 and 1918-1939 than during the last forty years in modem Poland. Furthermore, it should be added that the majority of finds noted in this period come from archaeological fieldwork. Similarly hoards recorded in the period from the mid- 19th century until 1945 from the entire post-war Polish territory is three times as high as that of the last four decades112. An attempt was made above to outline the context in which the most important factor influencing the level of coin find registration operated; the individual, amateur, history enthusiast, antiquarian or professional numismatist and archaeologist. It would be impossible to depict their decisive role without going in extenso into the history of antiquarianism, archaeology and numismatics, particularly without studying the biographies of over a hundred numismatists113. What follows below is an attempt at assessing the level of cataloguing of coins from the culture areas under study. Without doubt the highest level of Roman coin find registration is noted in the territory of the Elbe Circle, which in the 19th century largely lay in the Prussian Kingdom, and was later incorporated in the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Given the varying degree of interest in antiquity in particular regions this level is not uniform. It is highest in Thüringen and Anhalt, slightly lower in Brandenburg and Western Pomerania, still lower in Mecklenburg where there ara few cultural centres and, understandably, fewer individuals interested in local monuments. A fairly high and relatively even level of registration is noted in the Luboszyce Culture area, primarily owing to a large number of enthusiastic scholars operating in the area as early as in the 18th century, who noted archaeological finds. Areas occupied during the Late Roman Period by the Przeworsk Culture population are extremely varied in terms of the state of research. Some regions show a high degree of coin find recording, predominantly former German areas, such as the vicinity of Wroc/aw (Breslau), or the G/ubczyce (Leobschütz) heights. There are others where information is almost totally lacking, even though they are known to have been densely populated in the period in question (e.g. the area around Radom). Generally speaking, Silesia heads the list, followed by Małopolska, Kujavia, the Poznan region, and the vicinity of dź. The list is closed by south-eastern Wielkopolska (with the exception of Kalisz and thereabouts), and south-western Mazovia.

112 The eastern reaches of Poland, notably the Lublin region are an honourable exception in terms of coin find cataloguing, which is due more to the activity of a number of individuals rather than to the prevailing conditions cf. Kokowski 1984, Bursche 19Й6. 113 To be discussed elsewhere, cf. also Bursche 1986.'

54

State of research

Wielbark Culture areas show a similar varying degree of information. The level of registration is high in Eastern Pomerania and the Chejm region, and very bad elsewhere. The Westbalt Circle area is the best example of how the level of registration of Roman coin finds is related to the activity of individuals. All Roman coins from East Prussian finds (former Ostpreussen) which were in museum collections in the 1920s, most often unpublished and originally discovered in the late 19th century, owe their publication to the Swedish numismatist S.Bolin (1926b). The lack of coin specialists in East Prussian museums is responsible for the fact that there almost no data on coin finds in this area from the period between the Wars. After 1945 the only information available comes almost exclusively from Lithuanian territory (P.Kulikauskas, A.TautaviCius, M.Michelbertas 1972). Nevertheless, given the specific nature of coin finds from the Westbalt area - most of them are grave finds - their registration is fairly even and quite high. The level of research in this area is discussed elsewhere (Bursche 1992a). Is it possible then to compare the level of coin find registration from cultural areas which are so disparate in terms of research? It appears to be impracticable and will never be possible, because too many non-measurable factors are involved, such as individual human activity. Such comparisons may only be descriptive and not quantitative, and will always rely to a certain extent on intuition. Nevertheless we aie faced with the study of particular regions affected by the activity of a single centre and the same individuals. A detailed study of sources of information relating to coin finds, and how they found their way into written records, and comparison with coin evidence from other periods makes it possible to establish the existence on a given territory of actual concentrations, and areas devoid of coin finds. On the whole a high level of representativeness is noted for areas of the Elbe Circle and Luboszyce Culture, southern parts of the Przeworsk Culture (Silesia and, to a lesser extent, Małopolska) and the northern reaches of the Wielbark Culture (East Pomerania and the Che/m region). A decidedly low level is noted in the central and southern portions of the Wielbark Culture territory (Mazovia, Podlahia, Volhynia) and the central and eastern reaches of the Przeworsk Culture. Even the definition of such categories as high and low levels of representativeness frequently does not allow for direct comparison within a given category* as it is always possible that one of the areas might in a certain aspect be more representative than the other, something which it is very difficult to establish owing to insufficient data. The state of research on Roman coin finds in areas under study presented above offers a somewhat different insight into the representativeness of finds than has

Representativeness

55

previously been available114. This will be particularly interesting in terms of the possibility of comparison of series of coins from different cultural areas. The primary task is to establish when and to what extent the existing differences may result from varying degrees of representativeness of finds from the territories of the cultures compared. It is worth noting that in the case of the Wielbark and Przeworsk Cultures the majority of comparable coins come from finds in areas of higher representativeness, where their numbers exceed that in the remainder of their territory. This problem will be discussed elsewhere in this work. Our primary concern will be the first level of representativeness, e.g. to examine to what extent the number of coins recorded corresponds to the bulk still in the ground, as most distortions arise at this stage. Doubtless the absolute number of finds is the element most dependent on the state of research. Obviously it is a futile exercise to make detailed quantitative comparisons between cultures or smaller regions that have been subject to a one-way distortion dependent on the state of research. All statements about a higher density of coin finds in one area as compared to another are as a rule impossible to verify. Practice indicates that a higher number of finds in a definite territory usually results from better research. It seems, therefore, that comparisons of the quantity of finds, barring special cases and microregional studies, are pointless115. This work will concern itself with other aspects, such as the participation of denominations and "mints" in finds from particular cultures, the ratio of hoards to single finds, and particularly chronological sequences. To what extent do the coins recorded correspond in this respect to those still awaiting discovery? Given that the quality of research is high it is possible to assume that registered finds approximately correspond to the mass in the ground, and if in every case the description of the coin is available any distortions are irrelevant from the point of view of statistics. If the registering of coin finds is poor, certain one-way distortions occur. The most striking finds were those most likely to have been noted, such as hoards and gold coins, less so silver coins, and copper alloy coins which are usually corroded were unattractive, and if discovered were only very rarely registered. In view of these considerations if there is a higher proportion of gold to "bronze" coins in an area with a lower level of registration as compared to better researched regions, then there is reason to believe that this is a result of the state of research. A reverse fatio will certainly be a reflection of reality (similar to the situation

114 A.Matuszewski. J.Wielowiejski. Statystyczna metoda badania reprezentatywności znalezisk monet rzymskich, part I, WN, 15:1971, p.129-144, part II, WN, 18:1974, part III, WN, 20:1976, p.216-232; Wielowiejski, Matuszewski 1979, Wielowiejski 1984 and earlier works by J.Wielowiejski quoted therein. On the subject cf. Bursche 1983b, p.52. 115 E.g. J.Wielowiejski (1970, p.245-254) uses density of finds as one of attributes in defining zones with distinctive coin use.

56

State of research

when a higher average number of gold coins is registered in a poorly researched territorial unit, than in a better studied one). The same is true for the ratio of hoards to single finds: if in the Elbe Circle this ratio is significantly lower than, for instance, in the Wielbark Culture this could be a result of research. A higher average number of hoards per unit of area in the Wielbark than in the Elbe Circle is a reflection of genuine tendencies. In this study it is of utmost importance to establish whether, at the first level of representativeness, any significant distortions could have occurred with respect to the chronological sequences of coins dated to the period AD 193-395. It seems that this aspect should be relatively free from distortions. In theory it may be expected that the proportion of coins from the first half of the third century (when denarii still contained a considerable amount of silver) will be higher than the proportions in the mass of undiscovered coins. Distortions may also occur in the case of a high proportion of gold coins in registered finds which are additionally lacking in "chronological sensitivity". It should be stressed once again that when tendencies which are opposite to theoretical expectations resulting from differences in the state of research occur, these tendencies can be related to reality. Clearly no factor on this level of representativeness could cause distortions in the proportion of mints in the registered mass of coins. It may be said therefore that the varied state of research caused distortions above all in the number of finds, participation of denominations and the proportion of hoards to single finds116, thus affecting chronological sequences of coin finds in individual cultures only to a small degree117. The proportion of mints is not affected at all. It is also essential to establish what possible distortions could have occurred at the second level of representativeness (model variable 1 and 2), i.e. to what extent the mass of coinage in the ground corresponds to the bulk of coins which found their way to the studied culture areas. Such distortions may have taken place especially if coin deposition was intentional. Both in the case of hoarding and ritual deposition it is to be expected that coins made from one type of metal might be selected118. This factor could have given rise to certain distortions in the number of finds from culture areas resulting from varied cult practices, especially in the proportions of coins produced from particular metals and in the proportion of hoards to single finds. It did not significantly affect chronological sequences of finds or mint proportions. In order to indicate concrete directions of distortion

116 Extreme caution is therefore needed when making inferences on the basis of this proportion on the function of coins in a given area - cf. e.g. Niewęgłowski 1965. 117 Unless different chronology (the time of inflow) went hand in hand with differentiation of metal (e.g. as in the Migration Period in Pomerania) which is of little relevance to the period under study. 118 E.g. gold coins in graves - in the so-called chieftain’s graves of the Leuna-Hassleben-Zakrzów horizon (Werner 1973) or brass coins - Bursche 1992a.

Representativeness

57

caused by this factor it would be useful to make a detailed comparison of coins from graves with other specimens (within each culture), part of which must have been lost by accident. Differences observed would point to the direction of distortions but not their scale, which is primarily dependent on the state of research. With the exception of the Westbalt Circle the number of grave finds is insufficient to make up a statistical sample warranting any far reaching conclusions119. Certain factors of the second degree of representativeness could theoretically distort chronological coin sequences in relation to the mass which flowed to a given culture area. Hoards, ritual deposits and casual losses might be deposited in larger numbers in times of trouble, that is wars or insecurity. It is also possible that in certain areas at a particular time (such as when the scarcity of metal was particularly acute) coins were melted down in larger number than in other areas120. It seems, however, that both these factors, if they did indeed occur, would hardly affect chronological sequences, as no market economy laws which could have caused withdrawal of older, better issues operated in Barbaricum121. In both cases coins from a dominant period in a given culture would have continued to be buried. On the other hand, as a result of a preference for a particular metal or alloy, melting down could have drasticly distorted the proportion of various metals in the mass of coinage which was buried, when compared to the mass originally flowing into the area. However this hypothesis does not lend itself to verification. The study of the state of research and representativeness of finds indicates that the registered mass of coins largely corresponds to the coin populations reaching culture territories in terms of chronological composition and mint participation, while in other aspects it could diverge significantly.

119 6 coins were found in graves dated to the relevant period in the Luboszyce Culture (1 sestertius and 2 antoninians), 6 in the Wielbark Culture (1 sestertius, 2 antoniniani, 1 aureus, 2 4th century aes), 8 in the Przeworsk Culture (6 gold coins, 1 denarius and 1 antoninianus mounted in a fibula), 18 in the Elbe Circle (10 aurei - all in skeleton graves of the Leuna-Hassleben horizon, 2 denarii, 1 sestertius, 4 antoniniani and one 4th century aes). E.g. Pomerania registers 2 hoards (Frombork and the as yet unpublished łubiana) collected during the Migration Period indicating that at that time, when far-reaching exchange with the Empire had been interrupted, in some areas of Barbaricum Roman coins minted even a few centuries earlier were used for melting down (Godjowski 1972). 121 This is confirmed by denarii discovered in large numbers in assemblages from the developed phase of the Late Roman Period, and even from the Migration Period over almost entire Central Barbaricum including also the Chemiakhov Culture - cf. Bursche 1983b, p.63-64, 1992c.

58

State of research

33. Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD The study of coin circulation in the Roman Empire is based mainly on coin finds. Written sources offer very little insight in this respect and are generally used only as complementary evidence122. Until recently the Imperial monetary system was investigated exclusively through analyses of hoards. The value of this class of evidence is seriously impaired by hoard composition being the result of selection dictated by thesaurization and as such unlikely to reflect the actual proportion of issues, denominations, metals etc. in circulation. One confirmation is the homogenous composition of most such deposits in terms of metal. Nevertheless, many far-reaching conclusions have been drawn from the study of hoards, as it is normally possible to define accurately the time a coin hoard was completed123. One such point concerns the basic phenomenon of continued devaluation of coinage in the 3rd and 4th cents. - the time certain issues remained in circulation in different regions of the Empire, in other words the speed with which markets responded to monetary reform. In this respect coin hoards will continue to provide a basic source of data, which can only be checked against series of coins excavated at narrowly dated sites or other closed assemblages such as grave deposits124. In future coins from grave assemblages could also be used for this purpose125. Generally hoards are a selection of coins from circulation (very seldom directly from the treasury) and - as single selection was largely impossible - had as a rule been collected over several score years126, and favoured better, that is to say usually older coinage. Therefore a negligible proportion of particular (usually older) issues in a group of similarly dated deposits probably indicates that their number in circulation at the time in question was insignificant. It also likely that

122 They provide data for reconstruction of the monetary system (notably, proportions between denominations), purchasing power (prices) and, in general, the significance of coins in the economy. Papyri and epigraphic records are important sources of information. List of sources for the 3rd century cf. Callu 1969, p.546-547, also Kunisz 1971, p.31-32; sources on the 4th century were widely used in later worics by J.P.Callu (1973, 1975, 1978, 1980a, 1980b). 123 Principles of hoard find interpretation for use in the study of currency circulation were formulated already by K.Regling (1912). Until the 70s knowledge on currency circulation in the Roman Empire was based almost exclusively on the analysis of hoards (e.g. Bolin 1958); on this subject cf. Kunisz 1971, p.22-29, Carson 1983, Bursche 1983b, p.56, Bruun 1987. 124 Notably short-lived castella, unfortunately, quite rare for the period under study. 125 Particularly from Danubien provinces - e.g. in Pannonian cemeteries where many graves featured several, up to 20 or more aes, mainly 4th century coins - cf. Fülep 1977, Burger 1979, Sagi 1981, FMRU I. Their position with respect to the burial, most frequently in the area of pelvis or thighbone as, e.g. Somogyszil - cf. Burger 1979, less often near the feet - e.g. in Keszthely-Dobogó - cf. Sâgi 1981, indicates that the coins had originally rested in a money pouch usually attached at the belt. Thus, such assemblages may be viewed as a most representative sample for the mass of coins involved in circulation at a given time. On the less satisfactory results from northern Gaul cf. Górecki 1975, 1979. 126 Extensive remarks of theoretical nature on the subject of various hoard types, assembled over brief or longer period, cf. Kunisz 1971, p.24-27, Callu 1979, Depeyrot 1982, p. 165 166, Bruun 1987.

Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during 3rd and 4th centuries AD

59

these issues had been practically withdrawn from circulation some time before the hoard was completed (being in high demand), which moment should be treated as a terminus ante quem. While useless for determining the proportion of denominations and, particularly, of metals in circulation, hoards provide slightly more data on the proportion of issues from particular mints in a chronological and territorial context. This is especially interesting for the period examined in this work, even though often a very limited number of hoards dated to certain periods from the territories under study is available, and so complete coin sequences are lacking. Moreover, given the long distances over which some hoards had been carried by merchants or the military, the proportions of coins comprising them need not be characteristic for the find area. Any study of mint participation in the stock of coinage circulating in a given region should preferably rely primarily on single coin finds127. As coin reports from Roman sites (or even from entire regions of the Empire itself) have only recently started to be published on a wider scale128 this field of research is still in its early stages129. Insufficient data from certain regions made it necessary to consider limited local collections largely made up of coins from nearby find sites (Reece 1973, 1974a). Single finds are also useful in the analysis of changing coin proportions in a given territory during a specific time-span. But unlike the analyses discussed earlier it is still uncertain to what extent these proportions reflect real-life circulationratios. In addition, although the differences noted obviously reflect historical circumstances, it is still unclear to what degree they are related to the output of a mint, fluctuation in distribution or the time a given issue remained in circulation.

127 Single finds are understood here as the opposite of complexes where more than one coin which were found together in the same context clearly fomi a single assemblage (generally hoards). The latter are here called "complex finds". The former could have been buried deliberately or lost accidentally, and can be registered in an archaeological context or in isolation. In archaeological literature the term "small finds" as the opposite of hoards is more commonly used for them. Putting single finds'in a'class of their own facilitates a uniform analysis of them. On the other hand, small complex finds e.g. from graves rather than hoards, may occasionally be useful in research employing methods analogous to those used in study of hoards - cf. Górecki 1975, 1979, Bursche 1992a. 128 Cf. particularly FMRD, FMRÖ, FMRL, FMRS1, FMRU, Oveibeck 1973. 129 These studies were pioneered by F.Kenner {Römische Funde in Wien aus den Jahren 1904 und 1905, Jahrbuch der Zentralkomissjon, NF, 3:1905, p. 137-230), and were continued notably, by G.Elmer {Der römische Geldverkehr in Carnuntum, NZ, 66: 1933, p.55-67) and M.R.-Alföldi (1954); related analyses also by J.Winkler (1962). On the role of single finds cf. H.Gebhart, K.Kraft, H.Ktithmann, P.R.Franke, K.Christ, Bemerkungen zur kritischen Neuaufnahme der Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschlandy JNG, 7:1956, p.67, P.Grierson, The Interpretation o f Coin Finds y NC, ser.VII, 5:1965, p.I-XIII, Wielowiejski 1970, p.108-113, 121-123, Kunisz 1971, p.29-31, J.Casey, The interpretation o f Romano-British site fin d S y [in:] Coins and the Archaeologist (ed.J.Casey, R.Reece), BAR 4, Oxford 1974, p.35-51, P.Cumow, Coin lists: some problems o f the smaller sitet ibidem, p.52-63, Reece 1974a, 1977, 1978, 1979, Noeske 1979. Recently, besides R.Reece (1973, 1978, 1982) single finds have been used more widely for reconstruction of circulation of currency by Biró-Sey (1977), J.Fitz (1978, vol.l), C.E.King (1979), J.Lallemand (1979, 1983, 1991), G.Depeyrot (1982) and D.G.Wigg (1991); less successfully also by A.Sz.Burger (1981).

60

State of research

It is also not clear whether the increased proportion of coins in a given time span characteristic for a site or region is the result of prosperity or crisis. Recent studies suggest that in certain periods the latter case was more probable130. Relations between denominations, and even between metals circulating in a given region may also be established from studying single finds but, contrary to the belief of certain scholars, the picture obtained is not free from distortion since coins were carefully selected prior to intentional deposition131. Moreover, a relatively smaller number of valuable specimens feature among single finds because extra care was taken not to lose them132. Following the theoretical considerations outlined above a brief review will be made of coin circulation in the Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Denarii hoards buried soon after 194 do not vary significantly from deposits from before Septimius Severus133. Substantial debasement of the denarius (Walker 1978) made no impact on hoard composition, probably because it escaped general notice (or understanding) of a population accustomed since time immemorial to good, valuable coinage, and not ready to comprehend why the Emperor should debase his own currency. The reform could not have been kept a secret for long; "forgers" of coins were well aware of it134. Thus at first as is shown by hoard composition, the reform did not affect circulation in a significant manner. Similarly, the introduction by Caracalla of a new denomination - the antoninianus - which was highly overvalued, made little impression on circulation because it was released in small numbers compared to the total stock of silver coinage. Moreover, possession of an antoninianus might have been considered more valuable than ownership of

130 E.g. in the mid 3rd century in Pannonia - cf. Carson 1972, or, in the late 4th century in Western provinces - cf. Reece 1973, p.244. 131 E.g. as a rule the lowest aes denominations were deposited in graves - cf. Górecki 1975 and note 125. 132 Distortions which could have occured at the first stage of representativeness are omitted, notably those related to modem day activity on Roman sites (usually found under modem urban complexes); on this subject cf. Reece 1973, p.245-246. 133 Since S.Bolin presented a reconstruction of circulation in the Empire till the end of 3rd century in his monumental, albeit controversial work (1958) the only comprehensive review of monetary circulation during the first four decades of the 3rd century (until 238) was made by A.Kunisz (1971); cf. also Kunisz 1973a and recently Schubert 1992. List of denarii hoard composition cf. Bolin 1958, p.53. Polemic discussion of S.Bolin’s theses - cf. reviews of his work in: NC, ser.VI, 19:1959, p.232234 (H.Mattingly), RN, ser.VI, v.2:1959-1960, p.350-353 (J.P.Callu), Historia (Wiesbaden), vol.9:1960, p.380-383 (Th.Pekâiy), JRS, v.50:1960, p.266-268 (Ph.Grierson), also, H.J.Kellner, W.Specht, Feingehalt und Gewicht des römischen Denars, JNG, v.l 1:1961, p.43-51. 134 In general coins were cast in moulds in the period following the Severan reform, which seems no accident; on semi-official activity of such workshops (or, possibly, to tacit consent of the authorities) - Kunisz 1971, p.94, 1978a, p.129-134. On discovery of casting moulds for production of imitations cf. e.g., M.R.-Alföldi 1971, 1974, FMRD IV 1189-1191, also, Kunisz 1971, p.92-93 (here also discussion of cast denarii finds) 1978a, p.129-130, Peter 1990, p.78-80. At the time when such moulds were produced (Elagabalus and early Severus Alexander) a certain number of pre-194 issues continued in circulation (some 10-30% - Kunisz 1971, p.83-85), which indicates that coins for recasting must have been selected.

Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during 3rd and 4th centuries AD

61

a denarius. Doubtless the issue of this new unit could have adversely affected the Roman consciousness by undermining the trust in the "foundations of the Roman mbnetary system". Hoards from the 220s and 30s indicate a constant, gradually accelerated decline in proportion of pre-Severan issues, more rapid than in the earlier processes of coin withdrawal135. Around AD 230, 1st and 2nd centuries côrns practically lost their importance (Kunisz 1971, p.83-89, recently Schubert 1992), apparently less due to market reaction than the recovery by the minting authority making a profit from melting down old silver coinage. Presumably the considerable volume of denarii from assemblages in Barbaricum dating to the later stage of the Late Roman (phase C2) or even the Migration Period136, left the Empire en masse no later than 230 AD137. Hoards from the 240s register a sharp drop in the proportion of older coins138 suggesting a violent market reaction to the resumed minting of the antoninianus and its mass issue. From this time older issues in hoards become increasingly rare (Callu 1969, p.252-253, Schubert 1992). In certain periods some were withdrawn from circulation within a dozen years, which determines the latest possible date for their outflow beyond the limes. For instance under Decius, denarii had practically disappeared from circulation (Callu 1969, p.254-255, Schubert 1992). A view of these processes in the 3rd century is presented in the classic and in many respects pioneering work by LP.Callu (1969), which is however, somewhat distorted and incomplete as statistical analysis was not applied on a large scale139. His diagrams group together hoards assembled over a brief time span, i.e. close to the period they were buried, with (sometimes quite numerous) deposits possibly formed much earlier, and successively topped up over the years, so-call "Frühere Vermögen" (cf. Schubert 1992). As a result, the mean values of proportions of older coins are sometimes higher in deposits hoarded in a later period. As a rule, in most cases, especially those of the oldest coins, these mean values are

135 The activities of argentarti and nummularii (Andreau 1987, p.520-659, Depeyrot 1991, p.140142, 273) together with intensified hoarding and re-casting of pre-reform coinage by jewellers and forgers could have played quite a significant part (Bursche 1992c). 136 Bursche 1983b, p.63-64, 1992c; in Sweden, particularly Gotland - cf. Kyhlberg 1986, p.20-21, Lind 1981, 1988, 1991, Fonnesbech-Sandberg 1989, Nielsen 1989. Recent excavation of the Przeworsk Culture settlement at Jakuszowice have so far (until 1991) unearthed 38 denarii from Late Roman Period strata (part of them subaerati), the youngest dated to Septimus Severus (Kunisz 1985, p.262-265, no 341, Godlowski 1991, p.670, 1992, p.50 and information from K.GodJowski); on analogous finds from Gudme and Lundeborg on Fyn cf. Kromann, Vang Petersen 1985, Kromann 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990a, 1990b, Nielsen 1989. 137 The recent suggestion by L.Lind (1988, 1991) to shift this date to the mid-third century or even later is unacceptable in the light of evidence from the territory of the Empire since the Reka-Devnia hoard should be considered as unique; on this subject cf. Nielsen 1989, p.34, Skaare 1992, p. 26-27, Schubert 1992, Bursche 1992c. 138 Assemblages dated to Gordian III usually have proportions of pre-194 coinage under 2.5% Callu 1969, p.250-251, Kunisz 1971, p.84, Schubert 1992. 139 Graphical representations such as those in work by R.Reece (1974b) or G.Depeyrot (1982) are particularly lacking.

62

State of research

exaggerated. To investigate the proportion of issues in circulation during a given period, deposits apparently initiated much earlier ought to be disregarded. This is possible by using objectivized and simple methods140. This would help to identify distinct clusters of hoards fairly uniform in terms of composition in a given time span, most probably having proportions of issues closest to the ratios in circulation. The Copemicus-Gresham Law also affected gold and "bronze” coinage (the former generally absent from actual circulation). Hoards record a decline in proportions of older gold coins, particularly in the last quarter of the 3rd century (Callu 1969, p.427-428). According to A.Kunisz, the accelerated elimination of pre-Severan gold coinage from "circulation" was due to hoarding and reminting as early as around the 250s (Kunisz 1971, p.76-77), provoked by the considerable repeated reduction of the weight of the aureus which occurred at this time141. Somewhat more complicated processes affecting aes coinage will only be mentioned in passing142. Originally a token coinage in character, its overvaluation dropped and in the end it was actually overvalued, due to the official maintenance of its old exchange rate with the silver coinage (Kunisz 1979a, p.33-35). When the Greek Imperial mints foundered (Jones 1963, Schönert-Geiss 1968), central issues were discontinued and at the nadir of the antoninianus, i.e from the 260s, aes coins started to be withdrawn. These issues await fuller in depth studies. In recent years circulation of currency in the 4th century (from the Diocletianic reforms) has become better understood particularly owing to the monographs by P.Bastien143 which are erudite and exemplary in terms of Quellenforschung, comprehensively articles by J.P.Callu (1973,1975,1978,1980a) and ingenious and illuminating discussion by G.Depeyrot (1982, 1991, p.197-223)144. Computer diagrams developed by GDepeyrot on the basis of hoard composition analysis are a handy tool for accurately determining the time of withdrawal of older issues from circulation. For example, deposits from the time of the Tetrarchy show a small proportion of pre-294 coins in circulation145 while pre-318 coins are almost completely absent from hoards formed between 318-330, which is doubtlessly connected to their recall from circulation in this period (Depeyrot 1982, Tab. 106). Certainly, the process of withdrawal of coinage was most significantly affected by

140 Such as the mean or standard deviation - cf. e.g., Aubin, Carcassonne 1976, Reece 1981 and other papers in PACT; non-distinction between hoards types by J.P.Callu (1969) as given by A.Kunisz (1971, p.25). J.P.Callu himself altered his approach somewhat in his later works (e.g. Callu 1979). 141 From the reign of Caracalla onwards - Callu 1969, p.430-445, Kunisz 1971, p.77. 142 Discussed at a greater length elsewhere - Bursche 1992a, cf. also Buttrey 1972. 143 Bastien, Vaselle 1965, Bastien, Huvelin 1969, Bastien 1972, Bastien, Cothenet 1974. 144 Earlier, relevant publications include an article by M.R.-Alföldi (1963). 145 Bastien 1972, Bastien, Cothenet 1974, Depeyrot 1982, p.155, 196, Tab. 104. However, in this case, the hoards do not reflect the true proportions of different denominations in circulation - radiates and folles were surely hoarded separately cf. Bruun 1987, p.15,22, Stribmy 1989, p.421.

Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during 3rd and 4th centuries AD

63

monetary reforms in 294, 318, 330 and 348146, as well as successive reductions in the weight of the follis or of its fractions in 307-313 (five times), 321-322, 326, 335-336, 341147, and later changes in metrology in 353, 354, 358, 362, 364 and 388148. Over the latter half of the 4th century this process was less pronounced and uneven in different regions of the Empire due to interruptions in distribution (Soprani 1969, Callu 1980a, p.97-99, Wigg 1991). The insufficient number of solidi finds, notably from the first half of the 4th century does not offer much insight into the rate at which they were withdrawn from circulation (or, rather, from the body of hoarded coins) in the period under discussion. The majority of deposits have a fairly homogenous composition with a low proportion of coins predating the time of closing of the hoard by typically 20 years (Depeyrot 1982, Tab. 123, 124). This may be explained by the nature of fiscal-administrative policies with regard to gold coinage implemented at the time149 rather than by the inconsequential reduction in weight. Further studies should include other gold specimens (including medallions) and view them in a broader historical context, similar to recent discussion of 4th century silver currency (Callu 1980b). In the light of this research we can say that a relatively large volume of silver coinage entered circulation around the 350s and continued into the 390s, mainly in the areas near the limes150 and in Britain151. According to JJP.Callu, reissue of the argenteus between 364-367 caused the withdrawal of its pre-358 issues (Callu 1980b, p.218-221, Depeyrot 1982, Tab.123). Nevertheless, he suggests that silver coins, siliquae in particular, which were minted in considerable amounts after this date, continued in circulation for a relatively long time until as late as until the 390s (Callu 1980b, p.227, Depeyrot 1982, p. 176-179, Tab. 124). Matters of territorial distribution are still unclear. The question of issues from individual minting centres, and their share in circulation in the first half of the 3rd century during the heyday of Greek Imperial mints operating alongside the central mint in the city of Rome, has been frequently broached but is still unclear152.

146 Kent 1967, Callu 1973, Kunisz 1978, p.78-80, Brenot 1978, Depeyrot 1982, p.49-97, Tab.107108. 147 Bastien, Vaselle 1965, Bastien, Cothenet 1974, Bastien 1967, Bastien, Huvelin 1969, Walker 1967, Callu 1973, 1975, Depeyrot 1982, p.15-76, Tab.104-107, 1991, p.198-207, Hendy 1985, p.462467. 148 Callu 1980a, Depeyrot 1982, p.98-152, Tab.110-112, 1991, p.198-207, Lallemand 1983, Hendy 1985, p. 468-475: 149 Kent 1956, Jones 1964, p.436-440, Paschoud 1976, Veyne 1979, Reece 1984 - notably his model of circulation of coins of different metal; recently Depeyrot 1991, p.207-218. 150 Notably in the third quarter of the 4th century and particularly in Danubian areas - Callu 1980b, p.217-221. 151 In the later period (turn of the 4th and 5th cents. AD) - Carson 1976, Callu 1980b, p.225-225. 152 Callu 1969, p.11-115 (on the basis of hoard finds), Kunisz 1971, p.103-136, 1976 (including single finds). For Danubian provinces - Fitz 1978, vol.l, p.26-83, Bursche 1984.

64

State of research

Circulation of Greek Imperial aes denominations was generally strictly limited to the centre or province of origin. They reached areas on the limes brought in by the army on the move (Fitz 1978, vol.l, p.26-83, Bursche 1984, p.239-240) but their overall importance for local circulation beyond the limes is doubtful. Similarly, distribution of 3rd century senatorial coinage was limited to Italy. Second century bronze coins continued in use in Gaul and Britain; during the first half of the third century Noricum was supplied with a large volume of limesfalsa, which together with issues from Viminacium also played a significant role in Pannonia153. The question of the proportion in the overall circulation from Gallienus to the Diocletianic reform of issues released by centrally supervised provincial mints striking all denominations is still poorly understood by numismatists, presumably owing to the insufficient knowledge of the monetary policy of the period154 and practical difficulties involved in the identification of usually poorly minted, much imitated and poorly preserved coins. The attempt to clarify this question made in this work requires further study. Recent research by R.Reece (1973, 1978, 1982, 1984) and GDepeyrot (1982)155 makes it possible to examine the variations in proportions of mints in the mass of coins in circulation in particular regions in the period following the 294 reforms. Although certain dissimilarities in approach156 and differently selected time spans foil attempts at comparison of their respective diagrams, both scholars were equally successful in pinpointing certain general tendencies157. In short, recent research confirms earlier suggestions158 that a new supply of aes coinage to a given market orignated largely from the nearest active mint. Distance regulated the proportion of issues from a given mint in circulation on a given territory. There were many exceptions to this rule in certain periods and territories. Percentage distribution diagrams for finds of aes coins from non-central mints indicate the existence of a connection between distribution and administrative divisions, and highlight disturbances in distribution, frequently political in origin, especially common after the mid 4th century159. As perturbations went hand in hand with the fluctuating output of individual mints and consequently, led to an uneven supply to the market, it would be useful to have representative diagrams

153 More on the subject cf. Bursche 1992a. 154 The RIC corpus for coinage of second half of 3rd century (until the Diocletianic reform) has many gaps and is now largely outdated (e.g. in terms of dating or identification of mints) - cf. most recently FMRU, I. p.401-437 (J.Fitz). 155 Most recently on the circulation around the middle of the 4th century - D.Wigg 1991. 156 Particularly as G.Depeyrot put imitations under a separate heading. 157 Such as the identification of principal mints supplying the studied territory at the time in question. 158 E.g. Brenot 1978, p.13, Huvelin, Brenot, Callu 1978, p.175-178. 159 E.g. under Magnentius - Bastien 1964, Depeyrot 1982, Tab. 143-190 - period 20 and recently Wigg 1991.

Coin circulation in the Roman Empire during 3rd and 4th centuries AD

65

for every region of the Empire. Further field research and, even more so, more reports on coin finds from the Eastern territories of the Empire (including the Dacian Dioecese) are needed. 4th century gold denominations (solidi), primarily destined for payment160, were not in normal circulation. Finds show that the patterns characteristic for the percentages of aes emissions from particular mints were less marked for the gold currency, although still relevant. Apparently gold coinage travelled further from the mint to the user161 than aes before finally coming to rest in the ground.

160 Cf. ref.149. 161 The emperor, high ranking officials or, in particular, a military officer.

4. Coins and Medallions from 193-395 AD in Barbaricum 4.1. Description of finds Coins from 837 finds were analyzed in the present work (cf. Table 3)1. Table 3. Coins from finds in the five archaeological cultures culture

no. of finds

no. of coins

Elbe Luboszyce Wielbark Przeworsk Westbalt

285 75 103 243 131

4012 129 1683 383 165

139 18 44 144 04

7 18 29 4

Total

837

1246

345

69

no. of mintmarked coins

no. of hoards 11

The study encompassed only finds which were reliable and contained sufficient information for statistical inferences5. Chronological distribution and denomination composition were established on the basis of 1246 coins, mint participation on the basis of 345 specimens, sufficiently large figures to justify in almost all cases a full range of statistical analyses6. In a separate analysis all 69 hoards ending with coins from 193-395 from the territory concerned are studied, 40 of them are reliably dated to the 3rd or 4th

1 Data updated for 1987, cf. Bursche 1989. 2 Ibis number does not include hoards from Pija, Holtzaleben and Sibin as many of the coins owe their precise identification to chance. If considered in statistical analysis, coins from these hoards would significantly distort its results. These deposits will be examined separately - çf. chapter 4.3; they were also taken into account during analysis of chronological distribution - cf. pl81-84. 3 Similarly as in note 2, hoards from Stara Wieś and Zamość were omitted. 4 Eight specimens with mint marks (dated to the latter half of the 3rd and the 4th cents.) recovered from the Westbalt Cultures territory could not serve as a basis for conclusions, and as such have not been included in the table. 5 Imprecisely identified coins were disregarded, such as "3rd century" or "Constantinian dynasty aes" etc. 6 Mint participation was not examined in Luboszyce material in most periods, nor for some periods in Wielbark.

Description of finds

67

centuries7. Lack of sufficient information on hoard composition, particularly those dated to the latter half of the third and to the fourth century, with only a small number of exceptions8 precluded the drawing of more far-reaching conclusions. 42. Chronological distribution The chronological distribution of coin finds from the territory under study was plotted individually for each culture. The data were then compared using descriptive and inductive statistical methods. Modem computing routines proved very helpful, especially for calculating the results of statistical tests - operations which are very time consuming and tedious by traditional methods8. Finding the more usual methods of depicting coin finds by histogram not accurate enough for our purpose (the most popular shows the "date of reign"9), the chronological distribution of coins was plotted in a special histogram. Precision was particularly needed in the case of the first half of the 4th century with regard to the long reigns of Constantine I and Constantius II, and the high, volume of preaccession and posthumous issues10. The diagram of the chronological distribution of coins for a given culture was intended to include coins datable to a year and be directly comparable with diagrams for other cultures. This turned out to be unworkable since information on coins varied widely; some were datable precisely to a year, others only to the period of all issues of a given emperor (sometimes 30 years or more). Ultimately, frequencies of coins from each culture set into time-spans from 193 to AD 395, and dated as precisely as possible, were put into a formula using the following symbols: j - index of years, that is definite years within the period 193-395, Pi - time-span, К - total number of time-spans Pi9 i=l,...,K, ti - number of years covered by Pj П; - number of coins relating to time-span Pi9

7 The remaining hoards include primarily denarii and a number of sestertii deposits, and end with coins of Septimius Severus or Julia Domna (including some where the youngest specimens date possibly to the 2nd century). 8 I.e. hoards from Holtzaleben, Piła, Sibin, Stara Wieś, and to a lesser degree from Moczyły, Zamość and Zagórzyn. 8 Over a miHion multiplication operations were made. 9 This must be replaced by "period of issue" particularly in the 4th century, to overcome problems caused, for example, by most issues for Constantine II dating from before his elevation to Augustus. 10 Solutions proposed by R.Reece (1973, 1978, 1982 - cf. Bursche 1983b, p. 56), or G.Depeyrot (1982) could not be applied here as the majority of specimens were known only from description, and could not be dated as accurately.

Coins and Medallions from 193-395 AD in Baibaricum

68

Jb. t; - average number of coins per year for definite time-span P, If we assume \ as an average number of coins per given year j from a definite culture then: К n;

V Ei=lT assuming ą = 0, if time-span P; does not cover year j. ca - total of coins under investigation from a definite culture being the sum of the average numbers of coins in all years: К 395

ш = 5^ nt = i=l

A,j

j=193

j - average number of coins per given year j from a definite culture expressed in per cent: Ф; * Û) ‘ 100% The value of for the 203 years from 193 to 395 was calculated using a matrix (Table 4) where time-spans P; were put in a sequence according to their initial years, ф; is statistically represented as a one-dimensional table of weighted mean coin frequencies. The elements are mean coin frequencies per given year weighted by the total number of coins from a given culture. Table 4 y e a rs

time-

i

sp an s

-» 193 194

1

2

ni

n2

t.

^2

ni

n2

t,

t2

3

(...)

к

^193 0

~ ^193

... 0

...

•

tr

^194

•

•

(...)

nk 395

0

0

0

4.

i

i

n,

n2

n3

к Hi ...

Ф1

*i

...

t;

x 100%

= Ф193

^194 со 1 1 0 0 %

= Ф 194

со x 1 0 0 %

=Ф |

(0

À395 ” ^395

CO

x 100%

= Фз95

4.

Пк

è„,

i=l 93 ^

j=193^

= (0

100%

i=l

If time-span P; does not cover year j then matrix element (i j) equals 0.

Chronological distribution

69

E x a mp l e "

и

Let us consider year j=300 for the Przeworsk Culture assuming that we have co=200 coins for the 193-395 AD period and year 300 is represented by 6 coins dated as follows: 1 coin - time-span 297-300, 1 coin - time-span 298-301, 2 coins - time-span 299-301, 2 coins dated to year 300. Let us assume the following indexes for the time-spans: Plco=297-302, numt>er of years of issue t100=4 number oi{coins n100= l ti P101=298-301, ti " n101= l t1M=4 ti it P102=299-300, 1*102=2 tm=3 tr tt Р,оз=300, n l03=2 tl03= l Other time-spans (i = 100, 101, 102) do not cover year 300, therefore п=0. Thus: n io o П101 П102 П103 1 1 2 2 1 +: +: + ti0 3 = 4 + 4 + 3 + T = Зб 401 402 *100 Therefore: ! 7 8

ф 300 "" Зб

X

100 % = 1 Ï 2 %

200 A300 and X300 are represented in the graph as follows:

The values are represented in a section of the matrix (Table 5); X and Y were filled assuming that 6 coins are the only finds from 193-395.

11

Values used are imaginary.

7U

Coins and Medallions from 193-395 AD in Barbaricum

T able 5

j i

«i

П 99

ti

^99

100

101

102

103

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

À^96- 0

104

(...)

Y

и

99

о

(...)

гчГ

i —>

П99

296

к

П;

П99

ti

*99

ni

П99

~k

*99

П;

П99

297

298

299

T

300

0

301

t99

1

3

4

0

1

1

4

4

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

Х297 12 6

0

0

0

0

À ^98 12 14

t99

T

T

T

0

1

1

2

2

0

4

4

3

1

1

2

0

^299

12

38

0 «104

0

^ зоо

12

11

A

0

0

0

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

II 04

1

2

2

«104

«i

i

i

0

0

A /3 0 1

*104

12

«104

1

i

i

0

0

1

1

2

2

0 и

X

П 99

i

ti

C0 = 6

If all 194

Wielbark & S ? Przeworsk 2. ->230s Luboszyce 3. 248/249 Luboszyce (SW?) 4. 219-ca 250 Wielbark 5. ca 170 Westbalt Rhine ca 253 (Italy?) 6. 251 Wielbark (E?) 7. 259 Luboszyce (W ?) 8. 270/271 Elbe Rhine N.Italy Przeworsk 9. 215-275 10. 252/258-268/287 Wielbark Przeworsk 11. 322/323 Rhine 354/355 (-335) Illyr (336-) Wielbark 12. 336/338-360 Przeworsk 13. early 380s ? W? Westbalt 14. from 250s-> Luboszyce 15. from 284—> Wielbark E? 16. from 360s-> -

-

-

-

-

-

++ +

intensity, very marked force intensity, marked force intensity, low force intensity, very low force

Type

wave weak stream weak wave stream stream stream weak weak wave or wave and stream weak stream weak weak streams

Intensity Force Metal

++ +

++ ++

AR

-

BIL

+ -

-

AE

++

+

+ AUtBIL BIL + + + AU + + BIL

-

+

-

+

BIL

+

AU

-

-

-

-

+

AU

Time and place of outflow of coin streams and waves

101

252/256 - 269 (possibly until 287) saw a similar phenomenon for the Wielbark Culture, as is indicated by relevance tests and the absence of hoards20. Relevance test results, notably for the periods 284-319, 322-340 and 376-395, and the general lack of registered hoards and solidi after AD 284 mark an almost total break in the inflow of coinage to the Luboszyce Culture area. A similar phenomenon is noted in histograms and relevance tests for the Wielbark Culture territory during 336/338-360, a period with no recorded solidi or medallion finds; the deposit from Zamość could have left the Empire at the earliest around the close of this period. Table 9 gives a summary of the points discussed above (cf. Bursche 1989). The period from the 230s until 376 AD saw the outflow of at least four streams and two waves of coinage from the Empire to Central Barbaricum. Some general points may be drawn from the histograms of the arithmetical and weighted mean values for the entire area of Central Barbaricum. The absolute rises in the percentage of coin finds are registered for the year 193 and the second half of the third century (notably 238-274); weakening occurs around 290 (280-293) and after 340. Except in the Przeworsk Culture 3rd century coins evidently dominate over 4th century issues21. It is quite interesting to note that in comparision with tendencies observed within the Empire, the percentage of antoniniani marked "ХХГ and fourth century aes coins (notably ones from the final years of the Houses of Constantine and Valentinian) is low. It seems that this cannot be due only to an unsatisfactory state of research, as it is a prevailing tendency in well investigated areas (such as Silesia and Thüringen) and is therefore a reflection of reality. 5.2. Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources 5.2.1. Commerce and warfare To gain insight into relationships between the Roman Empire and Central Barbaricum during the second half of the 3rd and first half of the 4th century the results obtained from statistical analysis of coinage will be compared with the picture offered by classical authors. We do not propose to conduct a comprehensive historical study of all written sources pertaining to our subject. The aim is to establish a generalized model of relationships in the relevant period. It appeared more useful to define classes of Roman-Barbarian relations significant for

20 The decline in the number of issues in this period noted in the Przeworsk and Wielbaik Culture areas is even more puzzling given that the lątter half of 260s and early 270s saw the most intensive coin production in the 3rd century - Depeyrot, Hollard 1987, p.62-64. 21 To the greatest extent in the Westbalt Circle and in the Luboszyce Culture.

102

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

the outflow of coinage, rather than attempt to link the departure of particular groups of objects (including coins) to concrete data22 - often a controversial exercise. In any case, information in written records pertaining to the period concerned, and the 3rd century in particular, is exceedingly fragmentary23. Therefore some of the data on the nature of contact relating to coin outflow beyond the limes presented below go beyond the 238-375 time-span, while others concern certain peoples whose relationship to the populations of Central Barbaricum is straightforward. With direct, credible written accounts scarce, and certain classes of information absent in others (because of their specific nature), we have had to resort to sources which are as close as possible in time and place to our problem. Formerly scholars studying site-finds from Central Barbaricum independently of the time of their arrival there related the coinage to economic contacts - i.e. commerce, particularly long-distance24. Such trade connections along the amber route under the Antoninę and Severan houses are reliably recorded in written sources and confirmed by the unequivocal character of the archaeological material25. Concentrations of hoards ending with denarii from the latter half of the 2nd century discovered in areas possibly engaged in amber trade may be related to this commerce26, yet it would be a gross oversimplification to associate all denarii hoards with the amber trade27.

22 This is particularly risky when historically interpreting isolated hoards lacking a broader context, (e.g. from Hildesheim - cf. Wheeler 1954, p.54, recently on this subject Zedelius 1977) and even more so for single coin finds taken out of context, as is the case in some early publications. It is equally unfounded to illustrate concrete information in written sources by coin-finds often selected at random, as frequently seen in historical works e.g. Demougeot 1969, p.522-525. In her subsequent volume (1979, p.209-217) she is more cautious in formulating conclusions on the basis of more comprehensive material. For a recent interesting theoretical consideration of the subject cf. Okamura 1988, p.150-167. 23 A.H.M.Jones (1964, p.23) writes of the sources on the third century: "The period is like a dark tunnel, illumined from either end, and by rare and exiguous light wells in the interval". Cf. discussions of third and fourth century sources on the late Empire - Jones 1964, Rémondon 1977 (with a sizeable bibliography, p.22-48), Brauer 1975, Mac Mullen 1976, Grant 1976, Chastagnol 1982, Demandt 1989, p.1-34 also A.Alföldi 1967 and works on particular written sources (Syme 1968, den Boer 1972, Barnes 1978) or introductions to critical editions (e.g. Paschoud 1971). 24 Starting from the already classic work by C.F.Wiberg (1867) and J.N.Sadowski (1877), through O.Brogan (1936) to V.V.Kropotkin (1961), J.Wielowiejski (1970,1980), G.Domański (1979, p. 143-157) and, to a degree, also A.Kunisz (1969). 25 Okulicz 1976, Wielowiejski 1980, Kolendo 1981, Godjowski 1985b. 26 Particularly in contrast with the absence of such finds in Elbe Circle area. Additionally, it should be remembered that distortions may occur on the second level of representativeness as a significant number of silver coins in certain areas may have been melted down. 27 A part of them could presumably have arrived as tribute during the Marcommannic Wars (Dio LXXI 11-12 vol.III, p.252-254 Boissevain and 19, vol.III, p.274 Boissevain) or under Commodus (Dio LXXIII 6, *vol.Ill, p.310-311 Boissevain) - cf. Gordon 1949, p.63, especially as ransom - cf. Kolendo 1982, p.42-43, 1987, p.230-234. It is also highly probable that particularly large sums were paid to Barbarians to the north of Danube in 193-194 in exchange for peace on the limes which was practically unprotected for a long period (possibly with the exception of Legio X Gemina at Vindobona) - Birley 1971, p.159-178 - or in return for their support in the Civil Wars - cf recently Pitts 1991, p.51, Berger 1992, p.157-160. This fact might well have been omitted in the ancient sources, which were on the

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

103

Written sources, including epigraphic material, provide no reliable evidence for the existence of a far-flung exchange with the North or other more distant areas of Barbaricum during the second half of the 3rd and 4th centuries*28. Some data is available on cross-border trade in the 4th century (particularly along the Danube)29. But the absence of relevant information in the accounts does not allow definite historical conclusions. None of the written records of the time match the calibre of Tacitus or Pliny, and no chronicle of the geographical and ethnic situation is available, not because they were lost over the ages but because they never existed. The only possible exception is Herrenius Dexippus (Millar 1969) and presumably the unique and complex situation in the period discussed is responsible for such a paucity of written records30. Thus, starting from the third decade of the 3rd century (in fact since Cassius Dio’s work) until the turn of the century, as a result of a drastically lowered intellectual level, a few generally mediocre authors limited their scope to recording basic events taking place in the Empire. More extensive ethnographic and geographical descriptions were not attempted, owing both to the discouraging climate of the age and the limited ambition of historians. Moreover, information on events taking place outside their own region - not to mention from areas beyond the limes - was insufficient (e.g. Millar 1969, p.26). The crisis did not favour dissemination and, consequently, survival of the small number of historical works of the time. Later historians trying to chronicle 3rd century events had little information to go on, and sometimes remedied this by inserting fictional figures and facts31. As for the following century the situation is much improved, although new difficulties arise from the fact that many historical works were commissioned which were apologetical or even panegyrical in character32. On a historical level they are limited in scope to matters that were considered to be of particular importance - the struggle against Barbarians and internal strife (especially the

whole well-disposed towards Septimius Severus. 28 Together with India or the Far East - on the subject cf. MiUer 1969, Warmington 1974, Dihle 1978, Raschke 1978. A truly exceptional piece of information is to the effect that in 284: "An important Roman business-delegation with thirty thousand rolls of thin ahgalwood" arrived in China - Ferguson 1978, p.594-595; cf. also exchange with Ceylon, which started in the mid-4th centuiy and developed somewhat later - Miller 1969, p.151, Walburg 1985, p.37. Referring to epigraphic material cf. notably Schlippschuh 1974, p.77 and especially p. 191 on the lack of inscriptions on negotiatiores from the second half of the 3rd centuiy (the latest is from 251 - CIL VI 1101). 29 E.g. Amm.Marc. XXVII 5,7 - on Terwingi in 367, cf. Patsch 1928, p.32, Thompson 1956, p.376, Stallknecht 1969, p.34 f., Wolfram 1979, p.65 and 74, Demougeot 19/9, p.208, Fitz 1980, p.332, Demandt 1989, p.349. 30 Cf. articles by A.Alföldi (1967), also Remondon 1970, p.97-312, Alföldy 1974. 31 As in Historia Augusta written in late 4th centuiy - cf. articles by R.Syme (1971, 1983), also Polverini 1976, Barnes 1978. 32 Straub 1963, Paschoud 1971, Zucchelli 1976, Dauge 1981, p.325-330, Chastagnol 1982, p.13-29, Austin 1983.

104

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

succession). Ammianus Marcelinus, one of the few authors who most probably had information on large areas of Barbaricum, and whose work survives largely intact, was not interested in a more extensive presentation of these facts33. For similar reasons patristic literature contains almost no relevant information34. In other words it would seem that at least during the latter half of the 3rd century the widespread intense links between the Empire and Central Barbaricum were broken off. The period of incessant wars with Barbarians which even led to the death of emperors and even threatened the Eternal City itself, internecine strife, usurpations which caused the severance of ties between provinces, the decline of towns and the faltering monetary economy35 did not favour long distance trade expeditions as they were too risky36. It is interesting that written sources on the period from Elagabalus to Diocletian (AD 301) never mention amber - the primary Northern import37. This cannot be explained by the character of records alone, as they contain references to other luxury items, sometimes more exotic. Furthermore, material from excavations in the areas of the Empire, sadly, more often then not

33 Neronova 1966, Camus 1967, Crump 1975, Blockley 1975, Sabbah 1978, Austin 1979, Dauge 1981, p.330-352, Rosen 1982, Frézouls 1983, and especially Wiedemann 1986. 34 With the exception of sources on the beginnings of Christianity among the Goths - cf. Jones 1964, pp.23, 37, 77 and 154-156, Chastagnol 1982, p.30-32, Heather 1986. 35 Cf. literature on the 3rd centuiy ref. 23 as well as Manni 1949, Alföldy 1966, Demougeot 1969, Brauer 1975, Kunisz 1978, Hartmann 1982, p.40-59, Drinkwater 1987, Okamura 1988, König 1989, Demandt 1989, p.34-61 and articles in The Roman West. 36 Characteristically, general historical studies on the latter half of 3rd and 4th centuries when describing the Empire’s external relations more often than not neglect to mention remote trade links (e.g. Jones 1964). The section on various forms of Barbarian penetration and contacts with the Empire in the 3rd century in the highly intuitive work of E.Demougeot (Demougeot 1969, p.535-552) does not mention exchange (the section on the 4th century differs in this respect - Demougeot 1979, p.207-228). In distant trade G.Rémondon (1970, p.310-312) allows only for sea routes and possibly Orient-bound trade caravans supplying the court at Constantinople with luxurious goods. J.I.Miller (1969, p.220) writes on relations with the Orient: "commerce declined to a certain extent in the third century", while the later period witnessed only links by sea (mainly to Ceylon). Similarly, O.Schlippschuh (1974, p. 181, 189-190) with regard to trade in European parts of the Empire, notes its collapse in the third century and the fact that in this and the following century imports could not have found their way beyond the limes by way of exchange; cf. recently Demandt 1989, p.348-349. 37 Presumably, the reference on amber in SHA, Heliog.31.8 does not pertain to the first quarter of 3rd century. The life of Elagabalus is admittedly one of more credible biographies included in the SHA as is manifested in the almost total non-occurrence of fictitious names and in the large body of information on historical personages and events in which it differs greatly from other vitae (Syme 1983, p.99-108). Its value is further enhanced by the fact that it is probably based largely on Marius Maximus (Syme 1971, p.113-134, Barnes 1978). But while this is true of the first part of the vita which contains the narrative account of the emperor’s reign (to 18.3), the fragment in question was taken from the next section (18.4-33.8) which relates Elagabalus’ eccentricities (Syme 1971, p.l 18 describes this section as "scandalous in more ways than one") and is entirely invented by the author (Bames 1978, p.56-57). Therefore the reference to the objet de luxe - amber probably refers to the time when SHA was completed, namely, the late fourth century (Syme 1983, p.209-223; views on dating collected by K.P. Johne 1976, p.11-46) and so. could be used to measure popularity of amber in the Empire during that period (recently Kolendo 1992). Amber is mentioned under Diocletian in the edict on maximum prices (acus sucineus) Ed.Diocletiani 13,10, ed. M.Giacchero 1974, p.164-165; cf recently Kolendo 1992.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

105

still unpublished, do not record amber in burials dated to the second half of 3rd century, although it is present in earlier and later (4th century) graves38. The political and economic situation in the period, and to a large degree in the 4th century did not support this free, peaceful and regular flow of commodities which was necessary for the functioning of external commerce (Polanyi, 1968, p.158166). It follows from the above considerations that coins departed beyond the limes in a non-commercial manner. Written sources record the following possible ways in which Roman coins could have fallen into barbarian hands: - a single tribute (contribution), - ransoming of captives (redemptio captivorum), - annual tribute (annua munera), - army pay (stipendia and donativa) to Germanic peoples fighting in Roman auxiliary forces, - payment of specified sums under a treaty-alliance with Barbarians (annonae foederaticae). Certain indirect evidence indicates that coinage - and even more so medallions were carried across the border in diplomatic undertakings as gifts. Another way mentioned by classical authors, by which many Roman goods reached barbarian hands, was as plunder, particularly common in the period of recurring incursions into the Empire39, but this could not have been a very impotrant factor for coinage40. Similarly, desertions to the north of Roman military units noted in written accounts were few, and as such could not have been significant. It should be stressed here that the various forms of contact quoted earlier are sometimes impossible to separate41 and are largely the reflection of the "Roman" and, at the same time, "modem" viewpoint. Germanic peoples may have understood most of these relations as broadly conceived ceremonial or prestige exchange of goods and services42. Nevertheless, this classification may prove useful to assess the changes which the various (from a modern point of view)

38 Grave assemblages from recent as yet unpublished sources viewed by the author at museums in Aquilea, Ravenna, Köln, Trier and Xanten (exhibition in 1986 from excavations in Nijmegen: "Schlichte Gräber - Reiche Gräber. Römische Funde aus Nijmegen" : Ulpia Noviomagus, grave 1,1982 - 12 amber ornaments in the 4th century context). A similar situation can be seen in Britain in both settlement and cemetery contexts (P.M.Barford pers. comm.). 39 Werner 1938, Reinecke 1958, Ulbert 1974, Kolendo 1981, p.436, Bernhard, Engels, Engels, Petrovszky 1990. 40 The hoard from Połaniec comprising Republican and Augustian denarii should be viewed as exceptional (Kolendo 1986), cf. also ref. 144. 41 It is especially difficult to establish the exact time of origin of the foedus. Moreover a payment that was originally planned as an annual tribute could, under certain cirumstances, have turned into a one-off payment. 42 E.g Mauss 1950, Polanyi, Arensberg, Pearson 1957, p.243-270, Hedeager 1978, p.211-213,1987, 1988, Kyhlberg 1986, p.14-16, 25, Randsborg 1991.

106

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

forms of contact could have effected the psychological, mental, social and economic consciousness (e.g. role of coinage) of Germanic tribes43. These non­ commercial routes of flow of Roman goods (including coins) outside the Empire (notably gifts and single tribute payments) were already in evidence during the Early Empire44 and even in the later Republican period, but they now assumed a totally distinct dimension. Their growing significance attained a critical level towards the AD 250s, when they became the primary channel conveying coins to Barbaricum, continuing at least until the close of the century. 5.2.2. Tributes and ransoms Single payment of tribute can be exemplified by passages in Cassius Dio and Herodian which probably refer to the Alamans in AD 213 and 234. These accounts require much caution since in the 3rd century payment of tribute by an emperor was still an ignominious act45, carefully concealed for fear of its being used in defamatory anti-imperial campaigns. Information in Dio Cassius (LXXVII 14, 2-3, vol, III, p.390-391 Boissevain) calls for some comment. The first paragraph survives in slightly different form in the (almost parallel) texts of Xiphilinus (332-333), Petr. Patr. (Exc.Val 144) and Exc.Vat (377)46, but the section concerning the alleged purchase of a victory by Caracalla (Petr. Patr.), and the agreement concluded with the Alamans and Cenni47 which bought their sham defeat with a large sum of money (Xiph., Exc.Val), are in principle in agreement with Cassius Dio’s account of the payment of tribute in coinage (Okamura 1988, p.116-119). Another passage (14,3) relating to payment of golden pieces (= coins) of pure metal to tribes living near the mouth of the Elbe River (Okamura 1988, p.129), could be less credible. The shameful fact of Caracalla paying Barbarians with good gold is used by Dio as a starting point

43 E.g Polanyi 1968, p. 175-203, Werner 1973, Hedeager 1978,1987,1988, Suchodolski 1982, p.57174, Bursche 1983b, p.77-78, Kyhlberg 1986, p.14-16, Randsborg 1991. 44 Particularly under the Julian-Claudian House and during the Marcommannic Wars - cf, Horn 1930, Gordon 1949, p.60-63, Christ 1959, Saddington 1961, Callies 1964, Braund 1984, p.62-64, Peschel 1986. 45 Already emphasized by E.Gibbon (1776) who was also aware of the role played by tributes, contributions and gifts in Roman foreign policy. 46 Cf. Okamura 1988, p. 102-109. This interesting, however hardly obtainable in Europe work, I could discuss here only to a limited extent. 47 The tribal name Cenni (K êvvoi) found in Cassius Dio (LXXVII 14,1, vol.HI, p.390 Boissevain) is evidently related to the subsequent passage which is usually corrected to Chatti (Xftxxoi), particularly becaùse in Exc.Val. 377 {cod. Peiressianus) - one of the better texts - the Chatti are mentioned directly afterwards. This version also uses the name Alamans twice (earlier in 13,4 vol.HI, p.388 Boissevain) and it would seem that the event described may probably be linked to both tribes - САН XII, p.47-48 (S.N.Millar), Millar 1964, p.155, Demougeot 1969, p.243 -245., H.von Petrikovitz, Chaten II (in:) Hoops IV, 1981, p. 379 f.; Bering-Staschewski 1981, p.88 (though poorly argued) and Okamura 1988, p.110-116 disagree.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

107

for harsh criticism of him and culminating with the following statement (15,2, vol.ni, p. 391 Boissevain): "Antoninus devastated the whole land and the whole sea and left nothing anywhere unharmed"48. Given that Dio was quite capable of possesing firsthand information on Caracalla’s wars in Germania - ignoble aspects included49 - and the details noted (notably, on Germanic women) it is safe to assume that passage 14, 1-2 records real events, and that in AD 21350 the Germanic tribes (Alamans ?) received tribute in coinage from the emperor. The other interesting reference concerns events in 234 related by Herodian (V.7.9.), according to which Severus Alexander crossed the Rhine by a pontoon bridge51 (near Mainz) and sent envoys to the Germanic tribe52 to discuss peaceful settlement, pledging to meet all their demands and assuring them large sums of money (Okamura 1988, p.193-194, Demandt 1989, p.39). Herodian goes on to say that this was a most effective way of dealing with the Germanic peoples, who were tightfisted and always ready to declare peace in return for gold. In the Roman historian’s opinion this motivated Alexander’s readiness to buy a truce rather than risk the perils of war. While barbarian cupidity is obviously one of Herodian’s many stereotypes53 the incident depicted deserves some consideration. Herodian’s method consisted of the selection of facts (most often correct) to classify and interpret an event, the interpretation being political more than rhetorical or moralizing (Whittaker 1969, p.LVIII). Our extremely limited knowledge of Herodian’s biography54 makes it difficult to verify his access to information, but we know that his history was written ten years after the events in question55, and while holding the office of apparitor56 he could have acquainted himself with senatorial documents and have travelled in the provinces.

48 Transi, by E. Cary, cf. Dio's Roman History, The Loeb Classical Library, London 1955, vol. IX, p.315. 49 He could have obtained the information during his stay in Rome from e.g. the philosophers Philostratus of Lemnos or Philiscus, the latter a high court official and participant in Caracalla’s campaign of 213 - cf, Millar 1964, p.18-19, somewhat differently in Letta 1979, p.146. 50 That there was a war in this year on the Rhaetian limes as well as a triumph over Germanic tribes is confirmed by CIL VI, 2086 and the obverse legend Victoria Germanica (RIC IV,1, p.245 no 237 and p.260 no 316) together with the cognomen Germanicus Maximus on coins with TRP XVI (RIC IV,1 p.241 n.) - cf. Bêchait 1969, p.54-56, Geuenich 1982, p.27-30, Keller 1989, p.92, 110-111, Castritius 1990, p.71-84; recently all the written records, numismatic and archaeological data were discussed in detail by L.Okamura (1988, p.8-146, 1990, p.45-48). 51 Presumably depicted on coins and medallions dated to 235 (TRP XIIII) - RIC IV, p.68. 52 Probably Alamans - САН XII, p.71 (W.Ensslin), Roeren 1960, p.215 f., Demougeot 1969, p.250 f.; Okamura 1988, p.168-173 disagrees. 53 Cf. Whittaker 1969, p.LII-LVIII and comment on p.36. 54 We know only what he writes about himself - Whittaker 1969, p.IX. 55 C.R.Whittaker (1969, S.X-XIV) dates the text to approximately AD 244. 56 A low-ranking official. They included scribae responsible for office records in the city of Rome R.E. 11,3, kol. 191-194 Whittaker 1969, s.XIX-XXIII

108

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

Since Herodian did not view the payment of tribute as dishonourable57, and the passage concerned is not rhetorical or moralizing in character, it is plausible that he assessed the situation in the manner described above, and that the event really took place58. In other words Severus Alexander indeed offered to pay tribute to the the Germanic tribe (Alamans ?) in exchange for peace59. It follows from the above that payments of tribute served directly to protect the frontiers and keep Barbarians out of the Empire. They were a single incentive for making peace in situations of immediate threat, and as such could only affect peoples living close to the limes or having territory adjacent to it at any time. A payment similarly occasional in nature was the ransom of hostages from enemies (redemptio ad hostibus), which has received little attention particular where the Late Empire is concerned60. Until the decline of the Antonines this was done on a limited scale by private individuals, notably tradesmen (Levy 1943, p.169-170). From the Marcomannic Wars the scale became such that redemptio captivorum61 by private persons was insufficient, and it acquired state importance. Captives were easy to take and much valued by Barbarians. In consequence the incessant far-ranging incursions into imperial lands during the 3rd century crisis, and to a lesser extent in the 4th century, the number of captured Romans must have gone into tens of thousands62, some of whom were presumably ransomed. This question requires detailed study, especially of patristic literature which is very helpful63. No reliable information is available to gauge the size of such a single tribute or ransom. According to Cassius Dio (LXXVIII 17,3 vol.III, p. 421 Boissevain) in AD 217 they became exorbitant, equalling the amount of the pay of the whole

57 Confirmed by the last sentence in the passage. 58 In his commentary C.R.Whittaker refers to Herod. 1.6.8 (Commodus’ officers buy peace from Barbarians in exchange for large sums of money) and holds that the payment of this contribution is yet another of Herodian’s stereotypes used in relation to imperial defeats. However, this view is not reinforced by other arguments, while our interpretation of particular fragments of the passage are confirmed by other sources (including numismatics - cf. ref.44). If C.R. Whittaker’s commentary were accepted it would be pertinent to investigate the source of such a stereotype and its neglible moral impact in Herodian’s time (an emperor should not be defeated in battle, but he may buy peace without dishonour). This would indicate a far-reaching and rapid change in mentality as a result of events. 59 Ultimately the peace and payment of tribute did not occur because of a rebellion by troops - cf. САН XII, p.71 (W.fensslin), cf. Okamura 1988, p.168-194. For later tributes to the Alamans cf. Demandt 1989, p.40. 60 Beside a very general study by E.Levy (1943). A detailed study of legal aspects of redemptio is available in L.Armirante (Captivitas e postliminum, Napoli 1950, Prigonia di guerra, riscatto e postliminum, vol.I-II, Napoli 1969, 1970) who mostly deals with the Early Empire. On this subject cf. Kolendo 1982, p.40-41, 1987, p.227-228, 1992a - who quotes further literature. 61 Cf. Kolendo 1982, p.42-43, 1987, p.230-231, 1992a. 62 E.g. in 251 Trebonianus Gallus as part of a pact concluded with Barbarians acquiesces in the detention of all Roman prisoners of war taken after the defeat at Abrittus (including nobles) - Zos. I 24,2; fuller discussion of this passage on a p. 112-113. 63 The church saw the ransoming of captives as a humanitarian and charitable act - for the relevant patristic literature cf. Levy 1943, p. 171-172, and recently Depeyrot 1991, p.87.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

109

army. This reference, for similar reasons to the passage discussed above (LXVII 14,3) should be treated with reserve. Cassius Dio (LXXVIII 27,1 voLIII, p.434 Boissevain) records that gifts (in coin) offered to Artabanus and his followers by Macrinus64 in exchange for peace amounted to some fifty million drachmas65, but the context of this information66 significantly lowers the credibility of this sum67. Likewise unproductive is the reference in the Res Gestae Divi Saporis inscription68 to a ransom of five hundred thousand units paid to Shapur I by Philip the Arab in 244, as we do not know what monetary unit was involved69. Most often it was assumed that the aureus was the denomination70, making this an unacceptably high sum of about two and a half tonnes of gold71. Subsequently, R.Göbl (1974, p.21) put forward a more feasible interpretation suggesting, that while the amount is given in denarii of account, the ransom was actually paid in gold72. This would lower the sum 25 times73 to a more realistic twenty thousand aurei, which could then be seen as corresponding to the number of hostages - one aureus per head. But the foregoing suggestions are only very tentative. Bearing in mind the mentality of the ancients the "great numbers" noted in records could very well mean "a lot".

M Probably in the winter of 217/218, or early 218 at the latest - Gordon 1949, p.64, Millar 1964, p.165, Callu 1969, p.313, Bering-Staschewski 1981, p.99, Winter 1988, p.27. 65 According to J.Guey (1961, p.267) denarii. 66 The enormous sum surrendered to Barbarians serves as the ultimate proof of Macrinus’ humiliation, who according to Cassius Dio was loath to resolve the conflict through combat because of innate cowardice and the lack of discipline among his troops. 67 According to F.Millar (1964, p.165) Dio, who was in Rome at the time, could have had his own source of information other than the missive to the senate quoted in his work, since he mentions that the emperor himself concealed the truth. That such a source existed is highly improbable since Dio is known to have left Rome immediately after the events described to take office as curator of Pergamon and Smyrna - Millar 1964, p.23, Letta 1979, p.129, 147. Even if F.Millar’s suggestion was accepted internal criticism of the passage would discredit the sum; it may only signify "a very great amount". 68 Parthian text (with translation) - Spregling 1953, p.15, 1.4, Greek text - Maricq 1958, p.306, 1.89, cf. also translation of discussed passages - Guey 1961, p.261, ref.3, Pekâiy 1961, p.275; cf. recently Winter 1988, p.95-123. 69 For the interpretation of dinar ("dynr") cf. below. 70 The same conclusion was reached independently by J.Guey (1961) and Th.Pekary (1961), reportedly also by T.V.Buttrey (cf. Guey 1961, p.247) - but to our knowledge, the conclusions of the latter have not been published, cf. Winter 1988, p.100-101, 118. 71 If mean weight of a Gordian III aureus is taken as basis for calculations (4.83 g. - cf. Callu 1969, p.432) - the contribution was paid in AD 244. 72 The latter is the subject of universal agreement. 73 Assuming that the ratio of aureus to the denarius of account (Rechendenar) was the traditional 1:25 - Gobi 1974, p.21, but this is highly questionable - cf. T.V.Buttrey, Dio, Zonaras and the value o f the Roman aureus, JRS, vol.51:1961, p.40-45, Callu 1969, p.444-445, recently Depeyrot 1988.

по

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

According to almost all of the written sources, including Cassius Dio (LXXVII 14,3) and Herodian (V.7,9), contributions and ransoms were paid in gold74. Understandably, this type of payment was most popular in the 3rd century75, the period which must have seen a transfer of considerable quantities of gold coin to the most hostile Barbarians. Towards the close of this century, and in particular during first three quarters of the 4th century, the means of outflow of coinage gradually changed as a new category of contacts came into play76. 5.2.3. Annua munera Another proposed form of relationship between the Empire and Barbaricum entailing the flow of coinage were the annual allowances, frequently termed "subsidies" by English scholars77, although the author would argue that the Latin term annua munera used by Jordanes is better. Setting the annua munera in a category by itself follows from the fact that it heralds a major qualitative change in Roman-Barbarian relations. Unfortunately most information on such payments made in the 3rd century is to be found in authors of the 5th century and later, obviously making it difficult to establish and assess the reliability of their primary sources.

74 It is possible that the 50 million Macrinus allegedly offered Aitabanus (cf. p.109), irrespective of the actual sum mentioned, could have been calculated in credit units (denarii or drachms), and the payment made in gold. Information from Julian (Ep. ad Ath. 280 a, p.266 Bidez) could be an exception, but it concerns a 4th centuiy event; for the intention of Florentius to make a single payment of two thousand pounds of silver to the Alamans and Franks - cf. Gordon 1949, p. 64 and Iluk 1985, p.86,-91, 1987, p.9; the latter erroneously gives the name of the emperor as Constans instead of Constantius II, resulting in incorrect dates for the payment - 337-350. He also gives the metal as gold instead of silver and a seems to think that the tribute was actually paid, although later on in the passage (280 b, p.227 Bidez) it is clearly stated that no payment was made (cf. Delmaire 1977, p.328). Presumably two thousand pounds of silver should not be viewed as a credit unit, as after 350 AD silver was widely used in payment to Barbarians. 75 Possibly starting from the Marcomannic Wars - cf. Gordon 1949, p.65. 76 Although this is known to have occurred at the time, as confirmed by the passage in Julian (cf. ref.74). At the same time it appears that the scale is exaggerated both by Julian (as regards his predecessors of the House of Constantine) and by Ammianus Marcellinus for propaganda and moralizing puiposes (Demandt 1965, p.23-24, Paschoud 1967, p.42-46, Stallknecht 1969, p.43-58, Fontaine 1977, p.155 ref.352, Elliott 1983, Frézouls 1983). According to Amm. Marc. (XXIV 3,4) the emperor Julian when addressing his troops was to explain that payment to Barbarians would have brought the empire to extreme poverty. 77 The English "subsidy" is a broad teim signifying "tribute" in a historical context. Therefore C.D.Gordon in his article (1949) comprehensively discusses forms of payment to the Barbarians without making a selection. Similarly, P.C.Blockley (1985) understands "subsidy" as remuneration (single and recurrent) for "good behaviour" and payment for military assistance. The best term denoting "annual payment" exists in German - "J a h re sg e ld e rrecently A.Demandt (1989) has used also the term "Stillłialtegelder".

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

in

A preserved fragment of a work by Petrus Patricius (Petr. Patr., fr.8, FGH, vol.4, p.186-187) records an event supposedly taking place in the late 230s (238?)78, in the context of an annual payment to the Goths. Petrus Patricius, as curator of the empress Theodora, also held other offices at the court in Ravenna and was close to the pope (FHG, vol.4, p.181-183, Antonopoulos 1986), so that he could have had access to the best sources of information preserved in the imperial library and archives. Unfortunately, as Petrus’ history covering the period from 43 BC until Julian79 survives only in a highly fragmentary condition, little inference can be made as to his sources of information. The relevant passage presents a dialogue overflowing with rhetoric between Tullius Menophilus, governor of Moesia Inferior in 238-24180 and envoys of the Carpii brazenly demanding payment similar, or higher than, that delivered to the Goths. The introduction to the discourse leaves no doubt that annual payment in coinage is involved. The credibility of this passage, though difficult to assess, is reinforced by the simultaneous mention of the Carpii and Goths, known to have coexisted during the third quarter of the 3rd century, and to a greater extent by the mention of Tullius Menophilus himself81. Thus, the source Petrus Patricius used may have been quite a serious one, possibly Dexippus. The surviving passage does not clearly indicate what Petrus Patricius’ view of the payments made to Barbarians was, but it seems that in the 6th century this was something natural, although we may be falling victim to a stereotyped topos here (possibly one which was taken over from the primary source). Another fragment talking of an analogous payment to the Persians in exchange for "friendship" seems to support this assumption (Petr. Patr., fr.9, FHG, vol.4, p.187)82. Other sources confirm that the Goths indeed received annua munera in this early period83. Jordanes (Getica 89) writes that when under Philip the Arab payment

78 L.Schmidt (1934, p.204 ref.2) links this payment to the invasion of 238 and the surrender of captives, while C.D.Gordon (1949, p.63) dates the events in question to approximately 240. E.Demougeot (1969, p.395) dates them to 238, similarly Paschoud 1971, p.147 ref.51, Wolfram 1979, p.43, Bums 1980, p.13, Strzelczyk 1984, p.59, 88 and Demandt 1989, p.41. The latter believes that this payment resulted in the withdrawal of the Goths from Moesia Inferior, recently L.Okamura (1988, p.218-219) proposed a different chronology. 79 Undoubtedly for the 3rd century he used Dexippus, as is confirmed e.g. by fragment 12 (FHG, vol.4, p.188). 80 Schmidt 1934, p.204, Stein 1940, p.98-99, Fitz 1966, p.31-32, Demougeot 1969, p.395-397, Loriot 1975, Thomasson 1977, p.29-30, Okamura 1988, p.218. 81 Confirmed by other sources, including numismatic ones - Pick 1898, p.187, 301, no 1087-1097, p.307 no 1121-1170, Thomasson 1977, p.30, Okamura 1988, p.218-219. 82 Under Valerian (approx. AD 260); the euphemistic term "for friendship" should apparently be understood as a commitment (possibly in form of an treaty) to non-aggression. On the understanding of positive aspects of "tributes" by sixth century authors, when they were systematically paid by Justinian, cf. Blockley 1985, p.62. 83 I.e. in the early years of the invasions mentioned, at the time of their arrival on the Black Sea Schmidt 1934, p.203-204, Demougeot 1969, p.255-256,393-409, Loriot 1975, Wolfram 1979, p.40-53, Strzelczyk 1984, p.59, 86-89, Demandt 1989, p.41.

112

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

to the Goths ceased they turned from friends into enemies: nam quamvis remoti sub regibus viverent suis, rei publicae tarnen Romanae foederati erant et annua munera percipiebant. The application of the term foederati to the Goths at the time of Philip the Arab is an obvious transposition of later conditions84, probably an interpretation of why Romans paid money at that times. Given the extremely high reliability of the sources used by Jordanes for his synopsis85, it may safely be assumed that the Goths received annua munera during the 240s in return for "friendship"86. The circumstances in which annual payments to the Goths were resumed in 25187 under Trebonianus Gallus are described in the work of Zosimos, recently discussed in an exemplary fashion by Fr. Paschoud. According to this (Zos. I 24,2), the newly elevated Trebonianus fell on such difficult times that he was obliged not only to let Barbarians88 depart with their plunder and captives (including nobles), but also had to promise them yearly payment89. He then departed for Rome very proud of his treaty with Barbarians90 (Zos. I 25,1). The account by Zosimos is not critical in tone of the emperor, rather it tries to justify his inglorious action by pointing to specific circumstances91. Anyhow, in the 5th century when Zosimos composed his history (Paschoud 1971, p.XII-XIV, 1989, p.80-81, Damsholt 1977), to conclude peace on conditions dictated by the invader (including payment of annua munera) had become such a familiar practice92 that it ceased to offend as much as it had two centuries earlier. If the source used by Zosimos may be trusted, the relevant passage would provide

84 On tendencies of the author of Getica (Jordanes/Casiodorus) eager to prove eternal alliance of Goths to Roman world and civilisation - cf. e.g. Bursche 1983b, p.73. 85 Cassiodorus (cf. Fridh 1973, p.V-XIII); on the relationship between Getica and the history of Cassiodorus cf. works by A.Momigliano (1955, 1956 and later); there is a recent recapitulation of the relevant literature in Zwolski 1984, 75-88, cf. also Bamish 1984, Brian 1987. 86 Schmidt 1934, p.205, Demougeot 1969, p.398-400, Demandt 1989, p.41; J.Strzelczyk (1984, p.88) links the tribute mentioned in Getica directly to annual payments referred to in Petrus Patricius. 87 Cf. Schmidt 1934, p.208-209, RE XVI (1958), col. 1986 (R.Hanslik), CAH, vol.XII, p.167 (A.Alföldi), Demougeot 1969, p.413-417, Wolfram 1979, p.46, Strzelczyk 1984, p.90, Okamura 1988, p.224. 88 Obviously Goths - cf. Paschoud 1971, p.147-148, ref. 51. 89 The term applied by Zosimos %OQrjyelv generally denotes "subsidy", "payment", but is used by later historians metaphorically as "contribution" - cf. Stephanus 1954, col. 1587, Udell, Scott 1968, p.1999 - "supplies for war". 90 The passage in question js not ironic. 91 On Zosimos’ tendencies cf. Paschoud 1971, p.LXVI-LXX and Zuccheli 1976, which differs on many points with the former, but is in general in agreement with his assessment of Zosimos; also Ridley 1972. 92 E.g. Fagerlie 1967, p.XXIH, Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p.l 13-124, 180-186, Delamire 1977, p.328, Goffart 1980, p.211-230, Iluk 1985, 1985a, Blockley 198S, Hendy 1985, p.260-262, Kyhlberg 1986, p.64-65.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

113

valuable factual evidence. So far this source remains unidentified93 but given that from around the middle of the 3rd century, and especially from the times of Decius (chapter 23) Zosimos’ account becomes more extensive indeed, much more so than the compressed passages in Aurelius Victor, Eutropius or Eunapius, then he must have drawn from a source unknown to us94, probably close in time to the events described. Zosimos’ record is affirmed by other sources95, one of them a possibly independent information in the 12th century author Zonaras, mentioning that under the treaty concluded by Trebonianus Gallus with the Barbarians, the Romans had to pay annual sums in exchange for protection from invasions coming from the East96. It seems justified to accept the proposition put forward by L. Schmidt that the treaty made by Trebonianus with the Goths, which must have entailed amongst other things payment of specified sums, was observed for two years97. It was broken in the spring of 253 when the governor of Moesia Inferior, M. Aemilius Aemilianus kept part of the payment for himself (Demougeot 1969, p. 417-421, Wolfram 1979, p.48, Okamura 1988, p.225). The last record of yearly payments to Germanic tribes to be discussed here is to be found in a fragment of Dexippos’ Skythikcг98, recounting a dialogue that is similar in terms of rhetoric99 to one in Petrus Patricius100, between a barbarian messenger and the emperor Aurelian. Negotiations conducted in Pannonia (Millar 1969, p. 24) concerned the demands of the Juthungi that the Romans resume their annual payment (Okamura 1988, p.297-298). The source which provided the Athenian aristocrat Dexippos, who probably never strayed far from his home town, with information on events taking place a great distance away only shortly before his own times is unknown to us (Millar

93 We do not know his source for his work up to 1,46 but 1,47 to V,25 is unquestionably based on Eunapius - Ridley 1969/1970, 1972, Paschoud 1971, p.XXXIX-LXI, 1985, 1989, p.82-100, Baldini 1984, 1986. 94 Ridley 1969/1970, Paschoud 1971, p.XXVI, 1989, p.91-94, Blockley 1980, Baldini 1984, p.179230. 95 Joh.Ant. fr.150 (FHG, vol.4, p.598), Zon.XII, 21. 96 It is also possible that the passage in question is a contamination of two unknown references, the second of them relating to the 4th century (Eusebius, V.Const. IV,5), perhaps to thefoedus in AD 332, cf. Schmidt 1934, p.224. 97 Schmidt 1934, p.209, based on Getica 106. The treatment by E.Demougeot (1969, p.413-416) of mentions in Zosimos and Zonaras to large-scale Gothic invasions is too literal; L.Schmidt treated this information with due caution (1934, p.209 ref.l), also Strzelczyk 1984, p.90, Okamura 1988, p.225. 98 Dexippos fr.6 (FGH), cf. Radnoti 1967, p.1-5, Millar 1969, p.23-26, Demougeot 1969, p.512, Blockley 1971, p.711, Laser 1983, p.54 ref.94, Okamura 1988, p.284-287. 99 Based on Thucydides, views on war and peace, but containing factual information as well J.Stein, Dexippus et Herodianum rerum scriptores quatenus Thucydidem secuti sint, Bonn 1957, p.4851, Radnoti 1967, p.3, Millar 1969, p.25, Blockley 1971, p.711. 100 Cf. p .ll l.

114

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

1969, p.20-21, 26, Blockley 1971, p.712), but as internal criticism of the text does not disprove this piece of information, which is provided by an author who is remarkably reliable for his times, it may be accepted that at some time just before 270101 the Juthungi received annual payment from the Romans. This form of payment seems to have been at its peak during the second and third quarters of the 3rd century102. According to the passages discussed, in the period of intensified warfare against the Persians, and when highly restive Germanic tribes were harrying the limes, and the Roman army was powerless, payments were made which constisted of a contribution paid for several years in exchange for respecting the boundaries of the Empire103. Annua muttera were an economic alternative to military action (Blockley 1985, p.62), serving to a great extent to preserve the territorial status quo of the Empire during such a turbulent time10*. None of the realiable records mention the metal of the coins used for annual payments to the Barbarians, so it is uncertain whether they were made in gold, as in the case of single payment. If it were so, it seems that authors hostile to the emperors would have recorded this iniquity with glee. 5.2.4. Stipendia and donativa Considerable amounts of coinage found their way into the hands of Germans serving in Roman auxiliary forces as pay (Speidel 1975). This practice sporadic in the earlier period, notably during the Marcomannic Wars, is reported to have increased rapidly in frequency and scale from Maximinus I onwards105. As this development is frequently mentioned in the written sources and is unanimously accepted by scholars, only those passages which possibly refer to peoples

101 So far the best reconstruction of events was given by A.AIföldi, even though some of the large number of sources used by him are rather ambiguous (САН, XII, p.156-157; somewhat differently Alföldi 1969, p.427-430), cf. alsoCAH, XII, p.298-299 (H.Mattingly), Paschoud 1971, p .4 3 ,162 ref.76 and p.163 ref.77, which entirely conform to Alföldi’s views; recently also Okamura 1988, p.283-298. 102 This refers only to the period under discussion in this work, for in the fifth century, notably the second quarter (from AD 424), analogous payments to the Huns, and later to the Goths, Persians and Avars must have been several times higher Üiat the sums paid in the third century - Fagerlie 1967, p.XXIII, Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p.180-186, Delmaire 1977, p.328, Hendy 1985, p.260-263, Blockley 1985, Iluk 1985, 1985a, 1988, p.126-140, Kyhlberg 1986, p.64-65, Demandt 1989, p.167-209. Annual payments were also issued in the fourth century, as is indicated by several passages in Ammianus Marcellinus - cf. Gordon 1949, p.64, e.g. to the Persians in AD 363 (Amm.Marc. XXV 7,7 - cf. Elliott 1983, p. 135-138, Blockley 1985, p.63) to the Goths in AD 303 (V.Const. IV, 5 - cf. Demandt 1989, p.51) or to the Alamans around AD 365 (Amm.Marc. XXVI 5,7 - cf. Marié 1984, p.214 ref.52, Iluk 1987, p. 16). Frequently it is uncertain whether we are not dealing with a foedus, part of which involved a commitment to such payments. However, this form of payment played a less important role than in the periods immediately before and after. 103 Different in this from the annonae foederaticae discussed below. 104 In the third century only the Agri Decumates and Dacia were lost. 105 For the same practice under Caracalla and Macrinus, also as bodyguards, - cf. Speidel 1975, p.226-228, Okamura 1988, 2, p.444-450.

Coin stream outflow in the light o f written sources

115

inhabiting territories relevant to our study will be quoted in brief. No attempt will be made to establish the overall scale of the phenomenon itself. According to Herodian (VII.8.10), a large number of Germanic peoples were involved in the struggle of Maximinus against Pupienus and Balbinus in AD 238, some of whom were conquered by the emperor or persuaded to conclude an alliance with the Empire106. Herodian’s text leaves no doubts that Roman troops of the period included Germanic auxilia (VIII.6.6, VIII.7.8, VIII.8.2 and VIII.8.5), as well as cavalry - vexilationes (VIII. 1.3, VIII.4.3): such auxilia are even supposed to have been stationed in Rome for a time (VIIL8.7). In 242 during his march eastward, Gordian III routed Gothic invaders107 and probably obliged them to provide reinforcements. The participation of Germanic (including Gothic) units in the Persian campaign is confirmed by an inscription set up by Shapur I in 262108. In 270 Vandals (Hasdings ?) who had been defeated in Pannonia dispatched an auxiliary unit of two thousand horsemen109, and are generally identified after Th. Mommsen with the later ala VIII Vandilorum stationed in Egypt (probably under Diocletian)110. The forces of the Gallic Empire under Victorinus included, according to the SHA, Tyr.Trig.6.2111, inngetia auxilia Germanorum. Their presence in the army of the Gallic usurpers is substantiated by a Laelianus aureus struck in 268 at Trier with the legend VIRTUS MILITUM and personification of Germania holding a legionary insignia with the legend XXX112

106 On this subject cf. САН, XII, p.81 (W.Ensslin), Whittaker 1969, 289 ref.2, Okamura 1988, p.202. On worthless references in SHA, Max. et Balb. 12.5, 14.3, 16.3 - Syme 1971, p.170-173, 184188, Kerler 1970, p.148-151, Barnes 1978, p.29, 61. 107 SHA, Gord.26.4 - the information is probably reliable, in that it possibly derives from Dexippus, cf. Kerler 1970, p.154-155, Barnes 1978, p.62-63. 108 Res Gestae 1,7, Maricq, Honigman 1953, p .ll, Spregling 1953, p.15 f., Maricq 1958, p.306, Bailey 1974, p.82-83, Gobi 1974, p.15, Wolfram 1979, p.6-7, 43, Winter 1988, p.80-123, Demandt 1989, p.42, 268. 109 For a full description Dexip. fr.7,2 - 7,4 (FGH) - cf. Ensslin 1941, p.13, Millar 1969, p.25, Demougeot 1969, p.538 (incorrectly dates this to AD 271), Strzelczyk 1992, p.61-62; that Aurelian fought against the Barbarians at this time is confirmed by Zos. I, 48 (Scythians, probably meaning Goths) and by SHA, Aurel.18.2 (Suebians and Saimatians) - cf. Callies 1964, p.130, G.Alföldy 1966, p.5-7, A.Alföldi 1969, p.427-430, Kerler 1970, p.215-220, Paschoud 1971, p.43, 161 ref.76, Barnes 1978, p.75, Okamura 1988, p.283-287, Demandt 1989, p.268. 110 Mentioned in Not.Dig., Or., XXVIII,25 - Mommsen 1908, vol.6, p.282, Schmidt 1934, p.105106, 1942, p.10-11, Ensslin 1941, p.13, Courtois 1955, p.33; Kerler 1970, p.218; Hoffmann 1969, p.246; Speidel 1975, p.224 and Castritius 1990, p.79 also draw attention to the ala 1 Alamannorum, ala / Juthitngomm and ala I Quadorum. 111 According to T.D.Bames (1978, p.29, 67-69) this passage of the vitae (Tyr.Trig.60) is an exception among the totally fictitious lives of despots and may be credible, in as much as it derives from Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Latin epitome or their sources. Cf. also Syme 1971, p.210-211. 112 RIC, V,2, p.372 No 2; legio XXX Ulpia Victrix was stationed at Vetera on the lower Rhine - cf. Drinkwater 1987, p.176, Werner 1973. According to the latter these may have been auxilia of Franks, Alamans or Burgundians, see also Laser 1983, p.54 and Drinkwater 1987, p.225 who maintains that they were Thuringi.

116

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

In 278 Probus attacked the Alamans on the right bank of the river Rhine carrying off booty and sixteen thousand captives whom he divided into groups of 50 and 60 and pressed into service in numeri and milites limitanei in various provinces113. Some Lugii on the Rhine were also subdued114, and their chief Semnon and his son taken hostage115. In another war on the river Lech Probus routed Burgundians and Vandals (Silings ?), capturing their chief Igillus116 and a number of Barbarians who probably then made up a Germanic contingent of the Roman army stationed in Britain (Zos. I 68,3, cf. Salamon 1971, p.98, 101, Strzelczyk 1992, p.66-67). During the first Tetrarchy, units made up of Goths117 took part in the Persian wars of emperor Galerius, and according to an exaggerated statement in the Getica (110) were responsible for the crushing defeat of Achilleus at the hands of Diocletian after an eight month siege of Alexandria118. In the summer of 324 Licinius was supported against Constantine at the battle of Chrysopolis by Gothic units under their chief Alica119. Although in later years new forms of Roman-Barbarian "cooperation” prevailed, the short-lived one-off participation of Germanic units on the side of the Romans

113 SHA Prob.14.7, according to T.D.Bames (1978, p.30,76) the whole biography of Probus derives from an unknown source and is almost entirely an invention of the author of the vitae; but participation of defeated Germanic tribes in Roman army at the time is confirmed in other sources (e.g. Zos. I 68,3), cf. Ensslin 1941, p.12, Demougeot 1969, p.536-537, Salamon 1971, Okamura 1988, p.313-314. 114 The identification of the Longiones (Aoytcoveç) in Zosimos with the Lugii seems almost certain - cf. RE XIII, kol. 1715-1717 (M.Schönfeld), Lowmiański 1963, vol.I, p.192-194, Strzelczyk 1992, p.31. 115 Zos. I 67,3. The events are reconstructed here following the commentary of Fr.Paschoud (1971, p.173-175, ref.96) who clarifies confusion existing since E.Dannhäuser (1909, p.45-49) and follows G.Vitucci (1952, p.40-45) in defending the credibility of Zosimos' account. The first campaign against the Longiones = Lugii would have taken place on the Rhine in AD 277 or 278 (Zos. I 67,1 69,1 and SHA Prob. 12.3). Furthermore, Fr.Paschoud suggests that Semnon would be one of the nine reguli who according to SHA, Prob. 13.5 beseeched Probus for peace, cf. Okamura 1988, p.313 and 353 ref.97. 116 Zos. I 68.1. Localization of the second campaign (Fr.Paschoud 1971, p.175 ref.97) on the Lech river (in Latin - Licca - Ven. Fort., Mart.4, 642, in Greek - A ixiaç -Ptol. Geogr. 2,12, 1.3) is the result of Th.Mommsen’s inspired emendation of aiyuoç to Aiyuoç) making sense of manuscript V and adhering to the passage in SHA, Prob. 16.1 referring to pacification of Rhaetia by Probus. This correction was accepted by F.Norden (1934, p.19 ref.5) and G.Vitucci (1952, p.48-49) both of whom date this campaign to AD 279; L.Schmidt (1934, p.105, 1942, p.9) places the battle on the Lech in AD 278 since together with the majority of German scholars he identifies the Longiones with the Vandals, and thus turns two series of campaigns differentiated by Zosimos into one; cf. also Lowmiański 1963, vol. I, p.194, Perrin 1968, p.103, Okamura 1988, p.317, Strzelczyk 1992, p.31,66 differentiates two campaings, however places the latter on the Main river. 117 Getica 110, cf. B.Stallknecht (1969, p.19) and H.Wolfram (1979, p.59, 62) who date this Persian war to AD 297, while T.D.Bames (1976a, p. 183-195) is possibly right to place the first Persian campaign in AD 296, and the second in AD 298, cf. Winter 1988, p.157-162. 118 According to T.D.Bames (1976a, p. 181) the rebellion of Achilleus started in July or August AD 297, Alexandria was taken the next spring or summer, cf. also T.C.Skeat, Papyri from Panopolis, London 1964, P.X-XIII. 119 Anon.Vales. 5,27, rather than Getica 111, which is corrupt - cf. Schmidt 1934, p.225 f., Thompson 1956, p.376, Stallknecht 1969, p.34, Wolfram 1979, p.65, Demougeot 1979, p.63, Bames 1980, p.29, Strzelczyk 1984, p.96.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

117

continued into the 4th century particularly during usurpations, which were generally supported by Germanic troops120. Germanic units fighting alongside Roman troops (as part of auxilia, numeri, etc.) received regular army pay, Stipendium, which at this time was issued in base coinage (i.e. antoniniani, and aes in the 4th century). Moreover after victories, for merit, or on other special occasions such as imperial anniversaries soldiers, including the Germanic untis and notably their more illustrious chiefs, probably received additional payments in silver and gold (in ingots or coins)121. Frequent mentions in written sources relating to participation of Germanic units on the Roman side in the 3rd century indicates the large scale of this practice, suggesting that it may be linked to the outflow of base coins to Barbaricum. 5.2.5. Annonae foederaticae In the 4th century, particularly from the reign of Constantine I, the presence of Germanic elements in the army, both the limitanei stationed on the limes and central units - comitatenses - and even in the highest officer’s corps becomes a mass phenomenon122. The participation of Germanic tribes in Roman wars takes on a new and formal character, defined by a long-term agreement, the foedus. Much confusion surrounds the usage of this term in contemporary literature, partly as the result of differing application by classical authors123 who often used it freely124, but in the main caused by the divergent meanings conferred on it by scholars, some of whom neglect to define it. Thus, B.Stallknecht (1969), E.Demougeot (1969, p.441) or H.Wolfram (1979, p.65) use it for treaties with Barbarians (primarily Goths) concluded as early as around mid-3rd century, which in fact were isolated agreements and involved annual payments. A.Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg (1947, p.35-87) views the 4th century foedus as a regular element of classical politics tracing it back to the Greek polis and to the hellenistic period,

120 E.g. under Procopius - Zos. IV,7, Eun.Hist.fr.37, p.52 (ed. Blockley), Amm.Marc. XXVI 6.11 and 10.3, XXVII 5. 1-2 - cf. Schmidt 1934, p.227 ref.5, 230-231, Salamon 1972, p.377-378, ref.39, Wolfram 1979, p.65,70, Paschoud 1979, p.345 ref.119, Blockley 1981, p.138 ref.81, Elbem 1984, p.72, Demandt 1989, p.269 or under Magnentius - Demandt 1989, p. 84, Iluk 1987, p.13, Wigg 1991, p.1930. 121 Mainly donativa - Amm.Marc. XXIV 3.3, Zos. Ill 13,3 cf. Mazzarino 1956, p.467-468, Salomonson 1961, p.72 f., Jones 1964, p.440, Paschoud 1976, 1979, p.l 18 ref.36, Delmaire 1977, p.312-314, Callu 1980b, p.227 ref.219, Bursche 1983b, p.75, Hendy 1985, p. 175-189, Iluk 1985a, 1987, p.15-18, Depeyrot 1991, p.75-84,. 122 This is confirmed by prosopographic evidence - cf. Ensslin 1941, p.14-15, van Berchem 1952, p.89-111, Waas 1965, p.9-16, sources p.79-134, Martindale, Jones, Morris 1971, Seyfarth 1976, Günther 1976, p.228-231, Demougeot 1979, p.72-77,119-120, 845-846, Johne 1986, Demandt 1989, p.270-272, Depeyrot 1991, p.82-86. 123 Thus it is used differently during the Republic and in the Late Empire - cf. Chrysos 1973, p.54. 124 Most often for reasons of propaganda as in the case of Cassiodorus/Jordanes - cf. Bursche 1983b, P-73.

118

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

and applying it to agreements with client states up to the Migration Period125. G.B. Lander (1976, p.7-8) makes no distinctions whatsoever in the meaning this term had in the times of Augustus or Constantine the Great, and appears to equate it with ’’alliance". C.D.Gordon (1949, p.64) treats foedus in 4th and 5th century context as an euphemism. The discussion focuses mainly on the legal status of the feederati - whether under a treaty they were fully autonomous126 or dependent127. It is often neglected that proponents of the first possibility are prone to broaden the meaning of the term while their adversaries tend to limit it to the AD 332 pact with Goths128. In this study the late Roman foedus is understood in the sense E.Chrysos (1973, p.58) gives it as a type of long-term alliance necessarily combining two elements payments and supply of troops. Moreover, it seems that the relationship between Romans and Barbarians so defined need not be restricted to the Gothic alliance of 332 (cf. Günther 1976,228, Asche 1983, p.96-108 on the "Alamannia Romana"). The involvement of Barbarian outfits in the service of the Roman army under this form of alliance may date to as early as the latter half of the 3rd. century, possibly with the first foedus concluded between Gallienus and Marcomanni who were settled in Pannonia129. Its conditions remain obscure, including the crucial question of monetary obligations to the Marcomanni130. The best recorded foedus was that between Constantine I and the Goths (Tervingii) following their defeat in 332131. The emperor undertook to deliver annual payments of annonae foederaticae in return for a fighting auxiliary unit132. A careful study of Eusebius’ text shows that an entirely novel form of

125 This historically weak approach of this remarkable person has rightly been criticised - e.g. J.Straub, HZ, 171:1951, p.l 10-113. 126 I.e. Horn 1930, Stauffenberg 1947, p.78-87, Gaudemet 1967, p.725-726, Stallknecht 1969, p.1920, Asche 1983, p.121. 127 E.g. Th.Mommsen 1952, 650-665 - the ’'autonomous subjects", Schmidt 1934, p.227-229, Demougeot 1974, 1979, p.69-70, 1981, 1983, p.110-112, Günther 1976, p.227, Demandt 1989, p.269270 and above all Chiysos 1973. 128 With the exception of earlier woiks by E.Demougeot (e.g. 1969). 129 Epit. 33,1; Not. Dign. Oc.XXXIV,24 - cf. van Berchem 1955, Gaudemet 1967, p.725, Stallknecht 1969, p.102, Kerler 1970, p.178, Schlumberger 1974, p.152, Eadie 1980, p.1047-1048, Okamura 1988, p.274, 446. 130 In this situation it is not fully certain whether the term "foedus” may be applied to the alliance with the Marcomanni, although their settlement on Roman territory must certainly have imposed military obligations on them. The policy of settling Barbarian tribes in the provinces was continued by Probus - SHA Prob. 18.1-2, cf. Salamon 1971, Bums 1980, p.18. 131 Notably Anon. Vales. 6, 31-32, Eutr. В rev. X,7, Get. 112, V.Const IV,5; Libanius, Or.59, 89-91; a somewhat different chronology of events put forward by E.A.Thompson (1956) is insufficiently corroborated by source analysis, and as such has been rejected in relevant literature - cf. Stallknecht 1969, p.17, 31-43, recently Brockmeier 1987, Demandt 1989, p.78. 132 According to the Getica (112) forty thousand men; L. Schmidt (1934, p.227 ref.5) believes that this is an exaggeration; however other, figures given in Zos. IV 7,2 (ten thousand) and Amm. Marc. XXVI 10.3 (three thousand) refer to the later stage of fulfillment of the alliance - cf. also Piganiol 1972, p.59, Chiysos 1973, p.52-53, Paschoud 1979, p.345 ref.119, Wolfram 1979, p.65, Demougeot 1979,

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

119

payment had been involved (V.Const. IV,5 - cf. Chrysos 1973, p.59), and the classical author was well aware of the new quality, noting its difference from tributes and annua munera paid in the past. It is irrelevant here whether the annonae foederaticae constituted a compensation or reparations for damages and expenses incurred while protecting the frontier, as proposed by T.Mommsen (1908, p.211), or were intended to cover the costs of supplying an auxiliary unit to complement the imperial troops and the limitanei, as E.Chrysos believes (1973, p.58). Annonae foederaticae was issued chiefly in coin133, and inferring from the evidence from a slightly later period, in gold and silver (Themist. Or. p.205-206, Teub.). The novel, and significant element of the 332 treaty was its long-term nature134. It was observed until 367135 and subsequently renewed several times136. Literary sources note the repeated participation of Gothic outfits in Roman wars of the time, notably those in the East137, suggesting that the Roman side must have fulfilled their part of the bargain and that a large volume of money entered the lands beyond the Danube. The foedus alliance was probably the predominant factor responsible for the movement of coinage to Barbaricum in the 4th cent (Kolnik 1986, 1988, Kolnikovâ 1992, р.42ЧЗ).

p.69, Marié 1984, p.229 ref.133, Brockmeier 1987, p.81, Demandt 1989, p.78. According to H.Wolfram (1979, p.65) and E.A.Thompson (1956, p.377) this foedus also permitted resumption of trade with Roman neighbours across the Danube, but this is not reliably confirmed by the sources, and need not necessarily be associated with the alliance in question. 133 Notably Julian, De Caesaribus 329a (30, p.61, Bidez); under Valens the Goths also received clothing and grain - Themist. Or. 10, p.205-206 (Teub.), cf. Schmidt 1934, p.227 ref.5, Thompson 1956, p.375, Brockmeier 1987, p.84. 134 This was also stressed by classical authors - e.g. Amm.Marc. XXVI 6.11 (Marié, 1984, p.217 ref.70), also XXVII 5.1 relating to events of AD 366 (after Gothic support given to Procopius) mentions the obligations of the Goths due under thzfoedus to the legal emperor Valens of maintaining long-term peace (foederibusque longae pacts obstricta), presumably in reference to the alliance of AD 332. The emendation "longae" (instead of "inge" found in the best manuscript V or "ingenuae", "ingenue" elsewhere) proposed by Liesenberg and maintained by J.C.Rolfe and W.Seyfarth is the only acceptable solution. The correction to "iuge" put forward by M.-A.Marié in the most recent edition of the text (1984, p.248 ref.215), although admittedly better supported from the point of view of palaeography, is inadmissible for the following reasons: the form "iuge", according to M.-A.Marié the adverb of "iugis" ("continuously lasting", latin "continuus", "perpetuus"), in place of the correct form "iugiter" was used exclusively by poets (TLL VII, p.630). Furthermore, M.-A.Marié fails to note that Amm. Marc, had indeed used the correct iugiter four times in his work (Chiabö 1983, p.417, de Jonge 1977, p.349), once in the same chapter (XXVI 3.6). 135 Altough this was not a period of uninterrupted peace, as is confirmed by the need to fortify Dobruja in 337 and 340, and the later unrest on the frontier - cf. Schmidt 1934, p.229 n., Wolfram 1979, p.66-67. 136 In AD 382 and later, cf. e.g. Stallknecht 1969, p.74-87 and Demougeot 1974, 1979, p.151-161, 1981, Barceló 1981, Brockmeier 1987, p.100, Demandt 1989, p.127. 137 E.g. in AD 339, 345, 348, 358, 360, 363 and 366 - Lib. Or.LIX, 89, Amm.Marc. XVII 13.19, XX 8.1, XXIII 2.7, XXVI 10.3, Zos. Ill 25,6, cf. Stallknecht 1969, p.35.

120

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

5.2.6. Gifts Written sources offer indirect evidence on yet another form of relations which could have led to the direct arrival of Roman coins and medallions in the more distant reaches of Barbaricum; diplomatic missions to the hinterland and the gifts frequently carried by them138. The lack of direct written evidence relating to such events is probably due to the nature of the sources available139. Subversive operations behind enemy lines relying on money as the main means of persuasion could have been a confidential matter, or at least no claim to glory, and as such were perhaps carefully concealed140. Nevertheless some indications allow us to suggest that such activity did indeed go on in the relevant period, though its scale cannot now be gauged. Cassius Dio (LXXVII 20,3, p.398 Boissevain) writes that on his way East Caracalla sowed dissension among heretofore friendly Vandals and Marcomans141, possibly by means of diplomacy sweetened by gifts. That subversion had been an instrument of Roman diplomacy of the period is confirmed by a secret agreement concluded between Constantius II and the Alaman chief Chnodomar aimed against Magnentius. Consequently, when the legitimate emperor invaded the Italian peninsula in 352 the Alamans crossed the upper Rhine and attacked the northern flank of the areas held by the usurper Magnentius142. The effect of this form of relations could also have reached further into the barbarian hinterland, as is demonstrated by three letters preserved in Cassiodorus’ collection of official correspondence written in the 520s143 in the name of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric to the Varnii, Hesti and Hermunduri (Cass.Var.V,I, V,II, V,III respectively). Even if they are not to be taken literally, these letters

138 K.Majewski (1949, p.14-15) has suggested this in particular for medallions, cf. also Wielowiejski 1981. m Cf. p.103-104. 140 Possibly confimied by the negative evaluation of such conduct in Cassius Dio (LXXVII 20,2J, p.398 Boissevain) in the section immediately preceding the passage discussed below. 141 This information presumably relates to AD 214 (e.g. Schmidt 1934, p.104) when there were hostilities in Dacia while Caracalla was marching through Thracia. According to F.Millar (1964, p.22) it could also apply to winter AD 214/215, when the court (including Cassius Dio) stayed in Nicomedia, or possibly even to spring 215, when Dio returned to Rome to participate in a session of the Senate where Caracalla’s letter supposedly mentioning the event was read (cf. Bering-Staschewski 1981, p.88, otherwise Letta 1979, p.142-144). In fact Dio could have had direct knowledge on the event or have heard it from e.g. Philostratus. According to HXowmiahski (1963, vol.I, p.243, 268 ref.791) this information refers to Vandals (Hasdings) living on the Tisa river; cf. recently Okamura 1988, p. 129-130 and Strzelczyk 1992, p.58 - the latter refers to Silings. 142 Amm.Marc. XVI 12.4-5, cf. Bastien 1964, p.22-23, Demougeot 1979, p.82, 86-88, Iluk 1987, p.10-13, Demandt 1989, p.84; for confirmation of this Alaman incursion from coin finds particularly from Rhineland - cf. Schwartz 1957, Callu 1980b, p.218, Wigg 1991. Finds from Barbaricum which include coins of Magnentius are concentrated in Westphalia. Moreover a solidi hoard ending with the usurper’s coins was recently found in Gudme on Fyn (Kromann, Vang Petersen 1985, Kromann 1987, 1989, p.267-270, 1990a, p.80-82). 143 Around AD 522/526, cf. Kx>wmianski 1963, vol.II, p.285-286, Fridh 1968.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

121

indicate that it was considered possible in the 6th century to maintain direct relations with tribes inhabiting remote northern lands, and although the 6th century was a very special time of great migrations, it seems feasible that similar ties could have existed earlier. 5.2.7. Conclusions Listed below (Table 10) are the various forms of political relations between the Empire and Barbarians drawn from a study of the written sources which could have led to the outflow of coinage beyond the limes. Table 10 Type of relation 1. Single tribute 2. Ransoming of captives 3. Annua mimera 4. Stipendium & donativum 5. Annonae foederaticae 6. Diplomatic gifts

Metal AV (+AR) AV (+AR) AV + other base metal coins AV +A R AV + AR + other mainly AV

Period of dominance 3rd cent. 3rd cent. 3rd centfrom 238 3rd cent.from AD 230 - 4th cent. 4th cent. ?

In the light of written sources coins do not appear to have played a significant role in booty looted en masse by Barbarians, but such an argument ex silentio is rather flimsy, especially bearing in mind the nature of the evidence at hand144. In keeping with the objectives defined in the theoretical chapter 2, the means whereby coins reached Central Barbaricum, having once come into barbarian possession, most often in the region of the limes, will not be investigated. However, we should note that at least in the cases of single tribute payments and gifts an almost direct transfer of coin from the Empire to the remote North is conceivable. In other cases a "percolation of objects” (cf. Kolendo 1981, p.459) must have taken place by way of internal exchange between Barbarians,

144 There is archaeological evidence for looted coins, particularly from the famous bog-finds in Jutland (Thorsberg, Nydam, Illernp - Balling 1962, Ukjær, L0nstrup 1983, Ilkjær 1989), where several denarii were found together with weapons (including Roman ones), ornaments, attire etc. However, it has been emphasised (Ilkjær, L0nstmp 1983, Ilkjær 1989,1990) that all of these booty-sacrifices were the result of internal wars within North Europe; on coins from the recently discovered booty-find from Neupotz (Rhineland) cf. Berhnard, Engels, Engels, Petrovszky 1990. Perhaps the quartered aurei from Stara Wieś in the territory of the Wielbark culture, the manner of deposition of which was quite remarkable (cf. list of finds), also implies that it was booty.

122

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

particularly non-commercial in nature145, or linked to reemigration to the Barbarian heartland of Germanic populations who had attained wealth near the Empire146. Usually quoted in context with the latter are the Heruli who, as recorded by Procopius147, abandoned the Danube as a tribe returning to their homeland in the North148. The same author (Proc., Bell.Vand. 1,22) refers to a mission sent to king Genseric who reigned over Vandals in Africa by kinsmen from his homeland requesting he relinquish his right to the land of his forefathers149. No matter whence the envoys had travelled - from a Vandal homeland in Silesia (Schwarz 1956, p.96) or Slovakia150, or that Procopius invented the reference to an event which took place a hundred years before his time151, this story indicates that far-reaching direct contact could have been preserved by members of a single tribe during a period as unstable as the one studied in this paper. Moreover, tribal links in the 3rd and 4th centuries could have been much stronger than during the Migration Period. The records examined in this chapter chiefly concern peoples who at least during part of the relevant period or immediately before or after it inhabited areas of Central Barbaricum. Written sources which indicate the presence of these tribes further south or west in later periods present a highly generalized picture. It seems implausible that we can apply this information to whole tribes, but rather to smaller migratory groups or troops152. The core of the society remained in its homeland for longer, but kept in touch with their kin who had emigrated. It might be useful to make a comparison with the modem age migration to the Americas which in terms of non-economic flow of goods might have resembled

145 The ceremonial exchange of gifts by Gemianic peoples is mentioned by Tacitus, Germ. 15, 18, cf. Mauss 1950, p.250-251. About the so-called prestige economy - cf. Hedeager 1987, i988, Kyhlberg 1986, p.14-16, 25, Randsborg 1991. 146 With regard to 5th and 6th century solidi this thesis is defended at length by H.Lowmiański (1963, vol.II, p.287-292) developing J.Wemer’s (1949, p.265-270) notion of the "military origin" of the influx of solidi, put forward earlier by S.Lindquist (1945, 1950). This model could happily be applied to the earlier period, as done to some degree by A.Radnoti (1967) and J.Werner (1973). 147 Proc., Bell.Goth. II 15,1. Cf. Kolendo 1981, p.462-463. 148 I.e. to Scandinavia; this took place around AD 512 - on the subject at length Lowmiański 1963, vol.II, p.303-310, Dritten 1975, Demougeot 1979, p.237-238, Godlowski 1979, p. 42 also Kolendo 1981, p.462, Parczewski 1988, p.116. 149 Presumably around the mid-fifth century; cf. Lowmiański 1963, vol.II, p.301-303, Kuranc 1973, Dritten 1975, Strzelczyk 1992, p.220-221 - before AD 442. 150 H.JLowmianski (1963, vol.II, p.301-302) and J.Strzelczyk (1992, p.220) favours this option. 151 Such a concept was also suggested by HXowmianski (1963, vol.II, p.302-303). According to him the entire story could have been invented "as an edifying example of mutability of fortune", which seems probable since Procopius could have relied only on verbal information - cf. RE 45 (1957), kol. 414 (B.Rubin). 152 This is confirmed by archaeological sources, particularly the continuous use of certain burial grounds extending over the entire territory of cultures discussed until at least phase D. (I.e. prior to AD 376). It seems, however, that the final disappearance of settlements of the Late Roman Period tradition might be connected with Slavic migration (apart from the Westbalt Circle area) - Godlowski 1979, 1980, 1983b, Demougeot 1979, p.753-761, Parczewski 1988, 1991.

Coin stream outflow in the light of written sources

123

the situation 1500 years before. Some of the emigres maintained ties with their country and relatives for over a century, resulting in various "imports" - gold coinage among them - finding their way to communities on the other side of the Atlantic. 5.3. Roman-Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds 5.3.1. AD 194 Comparison of results obtained from the analysis of finds with information in written records makes it possible to draw a picture of relations of the Roman Empire with Central Barbaricum involving the flow of coinage. An effort will be made to shed historical light on streams and waves distinguished earlier, and reasons for the waning of contact. AD 194 marks the end in the outflow of a wave of coins (denarii) to Wielbark and Przeworsk Culture lands. To a certain extent, this wave may be linked with remote exchange, with amber the main detectable commodity153. This does not mean to say that all exchange was discontinued, only that the flow of denarii was interrupted; other categories of Roman imports (including sestertii) still found their way to the area, some such as Samian ware in substantial quantities154. The reasons for the rapid decline in participation of post-194 denarii in finds from the entire area of northern Barbaricum (excluding the buffer zone) are the object of much controversy. This phenomenon is linked by most scholars to the lowering of silver content by Septimius Severus in AD 194, which supposedly resulted in the shunning of depreciated coinage or selection of better issues by Barbarian peoples155. This explanation has met with criticism156 as the grounds that it would not have been easy to distinguish between denari from before and

153 As noted earlier (p.102 ref.27) it would however be an oversimplification to link all denarii finds with exchange. 154 Rutkowski 1960, p.39, Godlowski 1965, p.56, 1985b, p.346, Wielowiejski 1970, p.80-81, Kolendo 1981, p.465; R.Wofcgiewicz (1970, p.234), who does not take into account ceramic imports, dates the "Danish" wave of imports to just after AD 200. It is possible that Samian ware was an exception; moreover, given numerous corrections in dating (e.g. Bernhard 1981, King 1981, Bursche 1992b) current views on the Samian will have to be seriously reexamined. On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that the period in question (phase Clb) is the time of maximum intensity in the influx of imports to Denmark, particularly to Zeeland (Randsborg 1986, Nielsen 1986, p.148 Fig.l, Lund Hansen 1987, 1988, 1989). 155 This hypothesis was independently put forward by MJ.Guey (1955, p.208-209) and formulated by J.Wielowiejski (1969) and A.Kunisz (1969, p.90-91). Cf. Wielowiejski 1978 - with the earlier literature, also Mihäilescu-BMiba 1980, p.97-100. This position is also taken by MH.Crawford who expressed it in his unpublished paper: "The Coinage o f the Roman Empire, the Provinces and the Barbarians” read at the Xth International Numismatic Congress, London, 9 Sept. 1986. 156 Kolendo 1978, cf. also Bursche 1983b, p.71-72.

124

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

after the reform157 and the universal nature of the phenomenon, observable in Scotland, Africa and India alike158. A far more likely theory is that some type of barrier was imposed by the Empire. Its proposed legal nature - a ban on the export of denarii (or silver) beyond the frontier (Kolendo 1978) - does not withstand criticism since various historical records demonstrate that such embargoes were commonly breached159. An economic barrier is a more likely explanation. Vast numbers of denarii exported in earlier periods and the weakening activity of mines unable to meet current demand emptied the imperial treasury160, and the ensuing scarcity of silver and silver coin on the market meant that the real value of the metal, and of the denarii must have risen (Depeyrot 1988, 1991, p,125-126). Even if this increase was balanced to some measure by a reduced silver content in the denarius this lowering escaped notice in the Empire (as indicated by hoards)161. The increase in real value of silver (and denarii), which was presumably particularly rapid early in the reign of Septimius Severus, made its export far beyond the limes unprofitable where fine fluctuations in value did not penetrate and "traditional relations" persisted162. Roman merchants (negotiator.es) involved in far-reaching exchange were the first to observe this tendency163, less so the remainder of the Roman population. Perhaps this could be a satisfactory explanation for the relatively higher proportion of post-194 denarii in areas bordering the limes than further out. Obviously, it is only a working hypothesis and needs to be verified against as complete numismatic material as possible dated

157 Metrological analyses of 2nd and 3rd century silver done by D.R.Walker (1978) indicate that the degree of debasement of the denarius by Septimius Severus has to date been exaggerated. In fact the decrease equalled 15% of the silver content in the denarius in comparison to the latest Commodian issues (Walker 1978, p.49-51, 59, 129-130, 141-142). The technical possibilities of determining alloy quality in antiquity are fairly well known (Bogaert 1976, Andreau 1987, p.521-525). 158 Miller 1969, p.238, Robertson 1970, Waimington 1974, p.272-318, Dihle 1978, p.572-573, Raschke 1978, p.665-668, Reece 1981. It is characteristic that 3rd century Roman coins found in the Far East include, apart from the recently published Septimius Severus aureus from India (Hill 1984), a Maximinus I sestertius dated to AD 235-236 (RIC IV, 2 No 43) unearthed at a camp at Mytho in Cochinchina, South Vietnam (Warmington 1974, p.126, 355 /no 106/, RN,9: 1864, p.481 - A.L. i.e. Adrien de Longpérier based on information from M.Botet, Marine Infantry captain). 159 Possibly true also of the lex Julia maiestatis prohibiting trade with enemies (Kolendo 1972, p.8688, 1978, p.171). 160 The result of unfortunate fiscal policies of Commodus (Walker 1978, p.126-127) and notably of vast donativa issued to the army at the imperial accessions in AD 193 (Birley 1971, p.147, 150,154, 164, 166, Walker 1978, p.129, Kolendo 1978). Septimius Severus also needed large amount of coins to pay three newly created legions (Birley 1971, p.171). 161 Cf. p.60. 162 In as much as it is possible to talk about stable relations in the non-market economy of Barbaricum, where Roman coinage could not have functioned as a standard value at that time (cf. Polanyi 1969, p.175-203, similarly Kyhlberg 1986, p.25, in contrast to Hedeager 1988, p.152). 163 Direct contacts between negotiatores and "money changers" who check the coinage in circulation - i.e. nummularii, argentarii, coactores - are confirmed by epigraphical sources - Andreau 1987, p.554560, cf. also Schlippschuh 1974, p. 115.

Roman - Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds

125

to the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries assembled from the Empire and beyond. This is discussed at a greater length elsewhere (Bursche 1992c). Lack of traces of the denarius wave which began in the second century in Luboszyce Culture material presumably relates to the fact that this culture was still in the process of formation during the latter half of second century in a previously uninhabited area, far from the trade routes (Domański 1979, p.101-112,201-211). The wave of 2nd century coinage is also absent in Elbe Circle territory. It is possible that no relations (at least ones involving coinage) were maintained by the Empire with tribes living in the area164. 5.3.2. The final phase of commerce The Elbe material registers (at least in intensity) no weakening in coin influx in the first three decades of the 3rd century. This is probably due to the predominance of aes issues in the bulk of coinage reaching this area, an understandable phenomenon given that the economic barrier suggested above placed a restriction only on silver. Until the 240s silver coins presumably reached Barbaricum only as a result of exchange close to the limes'65. In addition to the economic restrictions and possibly greater economic feasibility of using commodities other than "silver" coins (e.g. terra sigillata or glass vessels) a new political factor appeared toward the close of the 230s which was ultimately to bring about the total severance of traditional distant exchange links. An obvious weakening in the outflow of coinage to Wielbark and Luboszyce Culture lands lasted until the appearance around the mid-3rd of the first stream century of an indisputably non-commercial nature. The Westbalt Circle is an extreme phenomenon (Bursche 1992a). A wave of aes (mainly sestertii) which flowed out of the Rhineland by sea from the Marcomannic Wars until around the mid-3rd century must have grown in intensity after the reign of Commodus. During the first half of the third century Westbalt lands were the main area of exchange with the Empire involving coinage. These relations were particularly lively in the 240s (possibly with direct links with Italy) when traditional links with Pannonia were interrupted166 and resulted in a persisting demand for amber among the Roman nobility167. Reasons for the discontinuation

164 Laser 1982, p.33-36; of course, there is room for some faults on the second level of representativeness - such as a mass melting down of silver coins, but this is highly unlikely. 165 Van Es 1960, Wielo wiejski 1970, p.137-138, Kolnikova 1973, p.168-176, 1988 and recently Stribmy 1989. 166 Perhaps the same reason that precipitated the evident though short-lived interruption of links along the "amber route" during the Marcomannic Wars, leading to the establishment and growth of this roundabout route - cf. Bursche 1992a. 167 Cf. p.104, ref.37.

126

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbariami

of this direction of exchange relations in this period should be sought primarily in areas to the north of Pannonia. Barbarian movements taking place on the Danube under Severus Alexander168 developed into warfare under his successor, Maximinus I, who was forced to spend a significant period of his reign in Pannonia. The cognomina deivictarium gentium (Schmidt 1934, p.203, Demougeot 1969, p.252-253, Okamura 1988, p.195-202) he acquired during his brief reign indicate that at that time lands to the north of this part of the limes were rife with chaos. The bend of the Danube was directly threatened, as shown by the cognomina "Maximiana" given to troops stationed in this area169. But Maximinus’ warfare with the Barbarians was still offensive in character. Under Gordian III the Carpii became more active on the Lower Danube and Gothic invaders put in an appearance170. Under Philippus Arab the legion stationed at Brigetio was reinforced by a vexillatio of Legio II Augusta from Britain171. However, the main danger to Pannonia lay to the east, and the unrest described presumably did not affect the "amber route". Apparently warfare and population movement in Barbaricum were the direct cause of breaks in this traditional exchange route, as is suggested by archaeological evidence for a settlement shift in the southern areas of the Przeworsk Culture (God/owski 1985a, p.93-109, map 6), and by references in the Getica (97) to hostilities between the Gepid king Fastida and Burgundians and Goths, apparently before the mid-3rd century172. It is possible that this unique reference to strife in the Barbarian heartlands owes its origin in some way to the frustration of expeditions for "northern gold" and the renown it may have gained. This period also marks the end of the wave of "mass" Roman imports to Central Barbaricum (discernible particularly for Samian)173. This roundabout link with lands rich in amber, i.e. with populations inhabiting the Westbalt Circle settlement area, was relinquished soon after AD 253, possibly when the risk exceeded profit due to increased Germanic activity on the Rhine in the 250s. The break could have been caused directly by Alaman attacks (e.g. in AD 254) reaching Gaul, as well as by invading Franks putting in an appearance

168 Schmidt 1934, p.201, Demougeot 1969, p.251-252, Barkóczi 1980, p.103. 169 Mócsy 1974, p.202, Barkóczi 1980, p.104, differently Okamura 1988, p.195-202. 170 Schmidt 1934, p.204-205, Lowmiański 1963, vol.I, p.264, Demougeot 1969, p.255-256,393-397, Bichir 1976, p.234-235, Wolfram 1979, p.42-43, Okamura 1988, p.205-218, Demandt 1989, p.41. 171 Mócsy 1974, p.204, 1977, p.563-565, Barkóczi 1980, p.104. 172 Following the correct reasoning of H.Lowmiański (1963, vol.I, p.266-267) and K.GodIowski (1985, p.151, ref. 73) who place Ostrogotha’s reign towards the end of the first half of third century, unlike L.Schmidt who dates the battle on the Olt river as late as before AD 290 (Schmidt 1934, p.530), although elsewhere he admits that this chronology is vague (Schmidt 1934, p.202). 173 During phase (e.g. approximately first three decades of the third century) a special concentration of imports in the area of the Danish straits is registered, indicating a western direction of inflow (Wofegiewicz 1970, Lund Hansen 1987, p.202-208, 1988).

Roman - Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds

127

at this time174. After the disastrous year of AD 259, when internal disintegration of the Empire led to the creation of the Gallic Empire175 and Saxon pirates controlled the North Sea176, obviously no efforts could have been made to restore these relations. 5.3.3. Crisis and warfare Coin streams recorded around the mid-third century in the Luboszyce, Wielbark and Elbe Circle ex definitio indicate the occurrence of short-lived, and single-event political relations (in 248/249 and 259, 251, 270/271 respectively). Given the lack of evidence in written sources the historical background of these streams must be reconstructed on the basis of metal composition. This shows that two streams of small change leaving the Empire for Luboszyce Culture lands ten years apart are most likely related to army pay issued in Rhaetia or the Rhineland to Germanic tribes fighting on the Roman side. This does not mean to say that peoples inhabiting the Luboszyce Culture area were physically involved in this warfare, only that they must have been in contact with those who were. Interestingly enough, the apogee in relations with the Empire occurs in the period of the most intensive settlement of this culture177. Reference to Burgundians migrating towards the limes and invading the Empire may also be related to these facts178. The stream of gold registered for the year AD 251 in the Wielbark culture may be linked to information in Zosimos, confirmed in other sources, on annual payments issued by Trebonianus Gallus to the Goths at this date179. The stream which departed for Elbe Circle territory in AD 270 should probably be linked to two events. The outflow of aurei from the Gallic Emprie was discussed by J.Werner (1973), who suggested remuneration to chiefs (regali) of ingentia auxilia Germamrum participating, according to SHA, in the conflict on the side of the usurper Victorinus (Drinkwater 1987, p.31, 68-69, 89, 225). Other links are implied by the outflux from north Italy of large deposits of extremely debased antoniniani, in the context of the appearance of Germanic units in this area

17d Roeren 1960, Alföldi 1967, p.346, 360-361, Demougeot 1969, p.484-500, Johne 1978, p.80, Eadie 1980, Okamura 1988, p.243-271, Demandt 1989, p.40. 175 Roeren 1960, Alföldi 1967, p.361-369, Demougeot 1969, p.496-502, Johne 1978, p.81-82, Demandt 1989, p.240. 176 From about 260-270 AD onwards the Saxon Shore defences were constructed in the face of the real threat from Germanic invaders - Johnson 1980, p.71-78, 1983, 1989, p.41-44, Maan 1989, p.4-5, Вrulet 1989. 177 During Domanski’s phase III (Domański 1979, p.109, Fig.33) cf. also Kolendo 1984. 178 Schmidt 1934, p.130-132, I^owmianski 1963, vol.I, p.240,265-268, Demougeot 1969, p.476-479. 179 Cf. p.112-113.

128

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

and the payment of annual tribute to the Juthungi180. The Gallienus quaternio struck in AD 263 at Milan found in Ockritz may likewise be linked with these events181. It is extremely interesting that during the period of the most intensive RomanBarbarian warfare and incessant Germanic incursions (particularly Gothic, until their defeat at Naissus), a very marked weakening is registered in the outflux of coins to the outlying reaches of Central Barbaricum, i.e. in the Przeworsk (practically all of 215-275) and Wielbark (252/258-268/287) cultures182, the only exception to this being the Westbalt Circle. The case of the Przeworsk Culture is particularly telling for it received a significantly lower quantity of coins, and this, taken together with single finds of aurei, may be the result of intercultural exchange183. This same period saw the waning of the wave of mass imports with an entirely new categories coming into evidence, notably luxury items, some of which were evidently originally part of Roman temple furnishings and could have found their way north only as plunder184. Apparently after the mid-third century the economic interests of the Empire turned away from the outlying Barbarian lands to the defence of the frontiers and internal strife185. The hypothesis is thereby validated that plunder taken by tribes settled in the culture areas under study, or received throuh contacts with their inhabitants, need not have contained coins186. The only exception may have been Greek Imperial issues found in profusion in the Wielbark Culture area which are no longer explainable solely as a sure indicator of Gothic invasion and looting routes (Bursche 1983b, 72-73), as they could have reached the North as a remnant of payment to Gothic auxiliary units fighting in the East and moving with the Roman army through the provinces187. The Chejmszczyzna hoard of Alexandrian tetradrachmas may thus be a part of the remuneration received by the Goths for assistance in the conflict with Achilleus.

180 Cf. p. 113-114 as well as Alföldi 1967, p.427-430, Radnoti 1967, Demougeot 1969, p.511-514, Okamura 1988, p.284-298. 181 cf. page 85 ref.43.For a slightly different inteipretation of the find cf. Bierbaum 1940 and Okamura 1988, p.348, ref.53 who has mentioned in this context the find of three other Gallienus gold medallions and several solidi from a Geiman grave (?) in Thiingersheim near Würzburg (FMRD 1.6, 6110, Okamura 1988, p.843-844, no 413a). 182 A similar low proportion of coins from this period are registered in the Chemiakhov Culture area, which is surprising given that the third century saw the emergence and prosperity of this culture Shchukin 1976. 183 With the exception of finds from Zakrzów horizon burials - cf. above. 184 Wemer 1938, Reinecke 1958, Kolendo 1981, p.463, 1984, p.174, on new finds of bootysacrifices from Hagenbach and Neupotz (Rhineland) cf. Bernhard, Engels, Engels, Petrovszky 1990. 185 Cf. p.104 and ref.35. 186 Cf. ref.144. 187 From Moesia to Asia and Egypt, cf. p.l 16.

Roman • Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds

129

From AD 284 there is an evident weakening in Luboszyce Culture material which lasts until the decline of this culture. Apparently following a brief peak in relations with the Empire around AD 250, ostensibly political in nature, the population of this territory fell out of the sphere of Roman interest. The subsequent massive migration of Luboszyce Culture groups, and the loss of links with the original area of settlement may be seen as a reverberation of this situation. It is possible to associate these phenomena in a very tentative manner with the migration of Burgundians and their settling to the south of the river Main188. In addition it should be stressed that the Luboszyce Culture area lay away from the possible exchange routes or other lines of Roman-Barbarian contact of any importance in the fourth century. 5.3.4. Stabilization under the Constantinian dynasty From the reign of Constantine the Great certain Central Barbaricum lands reentered the sphere of Roman interest, when a relatively stable political situation and economic development189 favoured the re-establishment of trade links with distant lands19019. The various forms of political relations with Barbarians discussed above were also responsible for the preservation of the Empire’s territorial status quom . The second quarter of the fourth century saw a relative intensification in the outflux of aes coin to Przeworsk Culture territory. Initially the wave originated in the Rhineland, later from Illyricum192. The indisputable coin wave from the Rhineland relates to economic phenomena, but the question of what commodity the Przeworsk Culture area had to offer in exchange still remains. If trade links with the Empire did in fact exist, they cannot have been as significant as in the second century, as is confirmed by the low value of 4th century aes issues. On the other hand, it is quite curious that the longer and surely more difficult route from the Rhineland to the Przeworsk Culture area was used193.

188 Cf. ref.178, for the archaeological evidence see Schulze-Dörrlamm 1985, p.548-561. 189 Jones 1964, p.80-109. Rémondon 1970,p.l32-149, MacMullen 1970, Chastagnol 1982, Demandt 1989, p.61-80. 190 Rémondon 1970, p.310-311, Dihle 1978, p.572-573, Ferguson 1978, p.588, Walburg 1985. 191 Continuation of past foreign policies (notably diplomatic ties) by Constantine I and his successors is discussed in detail by B.Stafflcnecht (1969), cf. also Barceló 1981, Asche 1983, Demougeot 1983, Frézouls 1983. 192 Unnoted by A.Kunisz (1969) and consequently by E.Demougeot (1979, p.215-216) who examined coins of the "Constantines" as a single group. 193 The Baltic route could be confirmed by a larger proportion of Constantine I issues of Western provenance registered in Denmark (Nielsen 1986, p.151 Fig.2); also interesting is a concentration of Western issues dating to this period (including two hoards) recorded for the Dçbczyno Group - Bursche 1985, p.40-41, cf. ref. 15. On the archaeological evidence for the connections of the Przeworsk culture territory with the north Gaul and Rhineland in the fourth century AD cf. Schulze-Dörrlamm 1985.

130

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

From the time of Diocletian the Rhineland once again assumed a leading place in the Roman economy and politics. After AD 293 Trier became one of the four main imperial residences (Johne 1978, p.95, Laser 1983, p.48), and in the late 310s Constantine the Great spent a considerable length of time there while conducting the war with the Franks and Alamans194. During his reign the situation on the Rhineland limes was relatively stable and the infrequent wars were predominantly offensive, unlike in Pannonia195, but since the abandonment of Dacia the Danubian limes was vulnerable to constant invasion by highly active Gothic, and Sarmatian tribes. This necessitated the additional reinforcement of the Pannonian frontier, which was undertaken on a large scale by Constantine I in the late 320s after his victory over Licinius196. Perhaps the lack of stability along the middle and lower Danube over the first three decades of the fourth century (Demougeot 1979, p.63-72, 1983) in contrast to a measure of security on the Rhine made it possible to maintain exchange links along a circular route from the Rhineland to Przeworsk territory. It is imaginable that they even owed their maintenance to movements of tribes in Barbaricum197 which effectively blocked the old exchange route. Such a barrier, if it ever existed, must have been lifted some time before AD 335, when the Romans re-established relations along traditional lines. It is difficult to say conclüsively whether this was due to the foedus of AD 332 with the Goths, and Geberic’s victory over the Vandals (Hasdings) led by Visimar on the Maros river three years later, which precipitated the latter’s (perhaps a certain group of Hasdings) exodus to Pannonia198, but the coincidence is quite striking. Certainly from this time for some quarter of a century Pannonia was unharassed by

1M Stallknecht 1969, p.32-33, Seyfarth 1978, p.103, Demougeot 1979, p.56-59, Barceló 1981, p.1233, Asche 1983, p.37-39, and, in particular, Grünewald 1989. 195 Used here in the traditional sense, essentially denoting Pannonia I and Valeria. 196 Schmidt 1934, p.226, Soprani 1969a, Barkóczi 1980, p.111-112, Demandt 1989, p.70-71. 197 Particularly intensive over the latter half of 3rd century - cf. e.g. Kxjwmianski 1963, vol. I, p.266273, Demougeot 1969, p.391-552. 198 Get. 113-115, Schmidt 1934, p.106 dates the clash on the river Maras to AD 335 at the same time rejecting Get. 115 referring to settlement of Vandals by Constantine I as military colonists in Pannonia (Tunc perpauci Vandali, qui evasissent, collecta inbellium suorum manu, infortunata patria relinquentes Pannoniam sibi a Constantino petierunt ibique per IX annos plus minus sedibus locatis imperatorum decretis ut incolae famularunt). As E.Demougeot correctly remarks (1979, p.314 ref.29) this was caused by the adoption of an erroneous reading of the approximate number of years of their stay in Pannonia (XL or CL instead of LX). If LX is accepted then the following sentence in Get. 115 gains in likelihood (Unde iam post longum ab Stiliconae mag. mil. et ex consule atque patricio invitati Gallias occupaverunt, ubi finitimos depraadantes non adeo fixas sedes habuerunt) and makes it possible to accept E.Demougeot’s view (1979, p.315-316) that this group of Vandals joined their tribesmen in Gaul in AD 406. The reading LX annos was also approved by Ch.Courtois (1959, p.34 ref. 6) according to whom Vandals stayed in Pannonia until AD 395 (but not till AD 378 - XL annos). E.Demougeot (1979, p.316) places the migration of Gepids to eastern Transylvania also after AD 336, and attempts to relate these events to coin finds from Barbaricum, cf also Demougeot 1983; recently J.Strzelczyk (1992, p.63-64, 79) after L.Schmidt rejects the passage in Get. 115 referring to settlement of Vandals in Pannonia.

Roman - Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds

131

invasions199, and the development of limes defences by Constantine I may also have playöd a role. The period of economic stabilization in the provinces200 came to an end in AD 357 when Sarmatians and Quadi despoiled Pannonia and Moesia Superior201, and the Juthungi did he same in Rhaetia (Thiiry 1992), but it is difficult to say whether these events alone put a stop to the flow of coins to Przeworsk lands, which in fact apparently occurred somewhat earlier. Gold medallions of Constantine II (AD 338) and Constans (AD 340) - the first commemorating the emperor’s 20th anniversary202 the latter Constans’ triumph over Sarmatians203 - presumably found their way to this remote region of Barbaricum along the same line of contact. While it is inconceivable that Barbarians could have come into their possession by way of trade, it is difficult to say whether the medallions had served as remuneration for particular merit on the part of Germanic nobiles fighting on Roman side204, or as an element of diplomatic activities directed beyond the limes. Conceivably, their presentation could have been connected in some way to the occasion on which they were minted - as donativa205 at an imperial anniversary or a gift of military merit during a triumph. Similarly two gold medallions in Wielbark Culture material dated to late AD 335 (or early 336 at the latest) struck by Constantine I at Thessalonica and Constantius II at Constantinople, presumably to celebrate the assumption by Dalmatius of the

199 Mócsy 1974, p.279 f., Demougeot 1979, p.77-83, Barkóczi 1980, p.112. 200 Móscy 1974, p.280-285, Demougeot 1979 p.77-83, Barkóczi 1980, p.113-114. 201 Amm. Marc. XVII 12,4-16 - cf. Szidat 1972, Mócsy 1974, p.286 f., Demougeot 1979, p.91, 95, 301-302, Barkóczi 1980, p.112. 202 This specimen was not included in RIC VIII, cf. Bursche 1991, p.145-146. Vota XX-XXX appears on Constantine II coins in AD 337-340 (RIC VIII, p.51). The emperor passed the autumn of AD 337 in Pannonia (Barnes 1980, p.162,1981, p.262, 1982, p.85), possibly also visiting Thessalonica (J.P.C.Kent in RIC VIII erroneously places here on Dec 6 Constantine II instead of Constans, Cod.Theod. 11.7.7, cf. Bames 1980, p.164 ref.17), which would confirm the reason for the striking of this medallion. 203 This is indicated by the presence of a quiver among trophies depicted on the reverse (in the exergue) - cf. Bames 1981, p.399 ref.25. W.Weiser (1987, p.163) and P.Bruun (1987a, p.194-197) wrongly relate this medallion to Constans’ German (Franks) victory in 342. The date of issue is indicated by the time at which Constans acquired the cognomen of Sarmaticus (together with Constantius II - Bames 1981, p.262) as well by his sojourn in Aquileia (confirmed - 9 April AD 340 Bames 1980, p.165), cf. Bruun 1987a, Bursche 1991, p.151-152. The moving by T.D.Bames (1976b, p.154, 1980, p.162, 164, 1981, p.262, 399 refs.23-26) of the Sarmatian conflict to AD 337-338 on the basis of unclear inferences regarding the continuous sojourn by Constantine II in the East seems highly unlikely given that the triumph occurred only in AD 340. Tbe inscription from Troesmis (ILS 724) which gives the Sarmaticus cognomen to both emperors is dated to the entire period AD 337-340 and the proposition by O.Seeck (1919, p.187) placing the campaign in AD 339 is more plausible - cf. also Bruun 1987a. 204 E.g. Vandals in Pannonia (cf. ref. 187). The Constans medallion from AD 340 could also have found its way to Barbaricum during a campaign against Franks conducted by the emperor in AD 341342, ultimately defeating them beyond the Rhine on their own territory (Bames 1980, p.165, Weiser 1987, Bruun 1987a, Iluk 1987, p.9, Demandt 1989, p.82), cf. Bursche 1991, p.152. 205 On sums issued as donativa cf. Jones 1964, p.440, Callu 1980b, Bursche 1983, p.75, Jahn 1984, p.53-58, Hendy 1985, p. 175-189, recently Bastien 1988, Depeyrot 1991, p.75-84.

132

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

title of Caesar, could have been presented to Gothic nobiles as remuneration for their first notable achievements under obligations ensuing from the alliance2061. The significant weakening in the Wielbark Culture in AD 336/338-355/360 and the scarcity of coin finds in Chemiakhov territory dated to the same period207 is plainly contradicted by references in written sources to repeated participation of Gothic units in Roman campaigns208, and is a puzzle. From the final years of Constantius II the issue of the annonae foederaticae is confirmed by numerous finds in Moldavia, Transylvania and Multenia of siliquae, silver and gold ingots, and vessels209 which are evidently related to the Zamość hoard siliquae, coins from burial grounds in Mazuria and sites in Denmark210. Perhaps this horizon of finds should be linked with the formation under Hermanaric of a strong alliance under Gothic leadership, which gained ascendancy over areas apparently stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic. It is possible that some finds (e.g. the Jovianus medallion) found their way to this area as gifts or payment for protection from Slavic pressure211.

206 It may be no accident that Dalmatius was the one to receive the region on the lower Danube and Greece (Moesian and Thracian dioeceses) - Anon. Vales 6,35 (Ripant Gothicam Dalmatius tuebatur), Epit. 41.20 and the frequently disregarded inscription from Delphi (Année Epigraphique 59: 1948, p.23 no 50) - cf. Jones 1964, p.85 ref.15, Bames 1981, p.261-262,1982, p.198-199. In AD 335 Constantine the Great celebrated his tricennalia, and presumably towards the end of this year he stayed in Thessalonica (RIC 7, Thess 203, Bames 1982, p.79-80), which could have prompted the striking of the medallion, just as the Constantius II specimen could have been issued on the occasion of the emperor’s sojourn in AD 336 in Constantinople (Bames 1982, p.85). In AD 336 Constantine I conducted a campaign north of the Danube regaining part of Dacia (Bames 1982, p.80). It is possible that Gothic allied forces participated in this campaign on the side of the emperor, later receiving payment for this service (JuLCaes. 329a-d). Cf. also Bursche 1991, p.149-151. It is interesting that the majority of solidi and medallions of the House of Constantine discovered in Denmark, particularly in Fyn, were struck in the West (predominantly in Trier), and presumably should be linked with other events - i.e. warfare against Magnentius - Kromann, Vang Petersen 1985, Kromann 1985, p.129-131, 1986, p.271, 1987, p.72, 1989, p.263-274. 207 Kropotkin 1961, Preda 1975, Nudel’man 1976, 1985, p.30-31, tab.3, p.51-56, Mihailescu-Bîrliba 1980. 208 Cf. ref.137. 209 This area also registers later finds, cf. literature from ref.196, Iliescu 1965, Baratte 1976, 1978, Callu 1980b, p.218-221, Overbeck, Overbeck 1986; contrary to the opinion of D.L.Duncan (1983, p.172-173) these finds also occur outside territory occupied by Taifals, while association of these exceptional finds with Roman trans-Danubian trade is an absolute misunderstanding. 2,0 Particularly from Gudme on Fyn, both stray finds and a hoard containing 285 siliquae dated to approx. 340-368/369, ninety five percent of them minted in the East (mainly in Constantinople) Kromann, Vang Petersen 1985, Kroman 1985, p.129-131, 1986, p.266-271, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990a, p.99-100. There are also recent finds from Lundeborg - Thomsen 1988, Kromann 1990b and pers. comm, from Per O.Thomsen. Also in a rich grave at Htfje Tâstrup in Zeeland (Constantius II siliqua with a suspension loop from Nicomedia) - Fonnesbech-Sandberg 1990, p.58, fig. 13; siliquae from 3 graves in Norway - cf. Skaare 1976, p.35. Fragments of silver vases from MIoteczno and silver vessels and Jovianus medallion from Boroczyce presumably belong to the same horizon - cf. Bursche 1983, p.67-69. 211 GetAS, 247 - E.g. Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p.23-30, Demougeot 1979, p.324-346, Godjowski 1979, Bums 1980, p.35-36, Parczewski 1988, 1991, Bursche 1991, p.151.

Roman - Barbarian relations in the light of numismatic finds

133

5.3.5. The breakdown under the House of Valentinian Valentinian I was the last emperor to resist the pressure of Barbarian tribes successfully. During his reign extensive defence works were conducted on the Danube, setting up new camps and outposts to the north of the frontier between 366-370 (particularly in AD 367), and building in 371-373 a line of watch-towers along the limes to facilitate speedy communication (Demougeot 1979, p.117, Barkóczi 1980, p. 115). To this period dates the relatively high number of aes coins found near the limes, particularly in Slovakia (Kolnikova 1973, p.168-177, 1988, 1992). Valentinian’s policies might in theory have included a more extensive diplomatic campaign but this is not reflected in archaeological material from the more distant north. Medallions of Valens, Valentinian I and II (Bursche 1991), as well as solidi dated to their reign212 (making up the bulk of the Zagórzyn and presumably the Laskowo hoard, as well as those from Denmark) found their way into Germanic hands in a totally altered situation. The defeat at Adrianople precipitated chaos in the entire territory of the Empire213. In AD 379 Huns, Goths and Alans214 were given permission to settle in Pannonia II and Valeria under the status offoederati. In AD 382 a foedus was concluded with Tervingii on similar conditions to those 50 years earlier - i.e. exemption from customs duty and payment of annonae foederaticae in return for the defense of frontiers and military assistance215. In AD 383-4 Hunnic and Alannic foederati were used in Rhaetia and Germania against the Juthungi216, while in AD 385 Ostrotgothic foederati were used by Valentinian II in a religious conflict in the region of Milan (Schmidt 1934, p.261, Vârady 1969, p.425). In AD 388 Magnus Maximus, having promised an annual payment to the Franks, solicited their assistance in his campaign against Theodosius I217, who in turn engaged units of Pannonian foederati. Hunnic foederati played a decisive role in the battle of Siscia, Alans and Ostrogoths at Poetovio (Vârady 1969, p.58-61, Wolfram 1979,

212 The subject is only touched upon since interrelation of single finds of solidi is hampered by incompleteness of data from the territory concerned, particularly with regard to later specimens. Therefore only medallions of the House of Valentinian and the Zagórzyn hoard, which contains solidi evidently originally hoarded in the 4th century were considered. 2,3 Straub 1942, Bums 1973, Demougeot 1979, p.121-125, 141-146, Demandt 1989, p.122-129. 214 Vârady 1969, p.31-36, Stallknecht 1969, p.76, Demougeot 1974, p.145-149, 1981, p.389, Wolfram 1979, p.154-155, 310, Heather 1986, Paschoud 1989a, p.183. 215 Demougeot 1974, p.153-157, 1979, p.151-153, 1981, p.390, Wolfram 1979, p.156-157, Asche 1983, p.122-124, Gluschanin 1989, p.230-231, Demandt 1989, p.126-127. 216 Recruited from Pannonia II and paid in gold the same year - cf. Vârady 1969, p.42-44, Demougeot 1974, p.150, 1979, p.123-124, Iluk 1987, p.16. 2,7 Seyfarth 1978, p.129, Demougeot 1979, p.124-125, Iluk 1987, p.17, Demandt 1989, p. 132; the unique find of a Magnus Maximus solidus at Dargart in the Elbe Circle territoiy is connected probably in some way to these events - Laser, Liiders 1970.

134

Contacts of the Roman Empire with Barbaricum

p.159), where the foederati no longer participated as independent units with their traditional equipment and tactics having adopted the Roman model and been integrated into the regular army218. Presumably medallions and solidi could have reached barbarian hands by way of remuneration received under the circumstances described, thus anticipating the vast sums delivered to the Huns and their allies in the 5th century219. Once again it should be stressed that owing to incomplete data it has been necessary to disregard a whole set of issues concerning the manner of inflow of coins to Central Barbaricum, venturing only in the case of gold medallions so far as to adopt H.^owmianski’s ideas (1963, vol.I, p.393-394, vol.II, p.293-284) on the role of Goths as intermediaries.

2111 Varady 1969, p.67-74, Demougeot 1974. p.154-157, 1979, p.121-131,153-156, Baricóczi 1980, p.117. 219 Cf. ref.92, Goffart 1980, p.211-230, Hendy 1985, p.260-262, Kyhlberg 1986, p.64-65. Demand! 1989, p.167-168, Bursche 1991, p.153.

6. Conclusions On the basis of coin finds1 I have attempted to demonstrate that political relations between the Roman Empire and Barbaricum played a dominant role in the third and fourth century, partly invalidating the popular concept of the leading role of economic contact during this period. Thorough assessment of the representativeness of the sources, of major consequence here, ensured that the state of research (i.e. level of find registration) did not significantly distort the chronological distribution or mint frequency in the individual coin groups. Analysis of the material led to the identification of measures and factors defining intensity, strength and direction of contact. Some of the points made at this stage were not fully used, thus no attempt was made to interpret the differences and similarities between cultures, since that would be outside the main concern of this study, which was to examine Roman-Barbarian relations in terms of the flow of Roman coinage. It turned out that the coin flow was not always as constant as the continuous inflow of issues (particularly denarii) which occurred during the second century AD. Statistical procedures made it possible to distinguish coin streams and waves percolating to the area concerned from the Empire, as well as periods of weakened contacts. Likewise the time of their outflow and in some cases area of origin were established. These conclusions formed the basis for reconstructing relations between the Romans and Barbarians in AD 238-376. The initial assumption was that coin waves should be linked to long-distance exchange, and streams to political relations. Written sources were consulted with a view to confirming the latter category, and the results of statistical analysis were confronted with data from classical records. The author is aware that his interpretation of individual coin waves and streams as the outcome of specific political or economic events may in some cases be incorrect, and they may partly be invalidated as new sources become available. But it was not the main aim of this study to identify links between periods of waxing or waning coin proportions and concrete historical events, rather to indicate the connections between archaeological and historical evidence. I believe that the picture obtained from the analysis of numismatic material reflects concrete historical events, even though at times it is very difficult to give them substance because written records are often lacking. It is as if we were presented with a historical record with many facts missing. Thus, even though no data is available concerning the historical context of the influx from the Empire of distinct streams of base metal coinage observable in the Luboszyce Culture in the third century, analysis of the metals involved allowed for a highly hypothetical

Written records being used only as a complementary source.

136

Conclusions

reconstruction of the type of contact which could have caused these streams. The most plausible explanation would be to link these streams to stipendia issued to Germanic auxiliaries serving in the Roman forces along the upper Rhine. At times the problems were similar to those hindering the interpretation of 5th and 6th centuries finds from Gotland and Öland2. Our position was that of a student of political history of the Bohemian Basin in the first quarter of the first century who was deprived of information from Tacitus on the existence of the client state of Marbodus, having to make do with the concentration of Roman imports, growth of local production and intensification of settlement discernible in the closely dated phase Bla3. During this study two chronological categories had to be distinguished: a) shorttime ("microtime”) used to measure the history of events in Lacombe’s definition, and b) the longer term, applicable to the history of "tendencies”, "la longue durée" of F.Braudel (1958, p.752-753). The former category was understood to relate to coin streams. Concrete types of political relations instrumental in coin flow were identified in compliance with the requirements of the history of events ("histoire événementielle”) on the basis of "direct sources" (Braudel 1958, 735). Coin waves and periods of reduced flow were used to gain insight into the "longue durée" category and the economic history associated with it. With direct sources being scarce it was necessary to rely on theoretical considerations4, reinforced by a few indirect sources. We demonstrated that only a few of the periods of coin wave outflow studied coincide with times of economic prosperity in the Empire, for example until the middle of third century, and, to a lesser degree, under the House of Constantine. Intervals of intensive exchange alternate with pronounced and dominant periods of reduced contact, which correspond to periods of stark economic decline. During those periods Barbarian tribes took the initiative and contacts assumed a political character. Thus from the mid-third century the bulk of coins departing from the Empire did so as a result of political circumstances, the type and duration of which we have tried to identify. Striking changes in the direction of contacts could be quite clearly identified in the numismatic material. Apart from during the second quarter of the fourth

2 Mainly the need to indicate the manner of inßux of streams of solidi so far north, and even more to explain the rapid collapse and disappearance of settlement in the interior of Öland at the close of the 5th century (according to Fagerlie in 476/477), and the less pronounced traces of destruction on Gotland dated to soon after the mid-sixth century. Insufficient written records preclude in practice identification of the attacking tribe - cf. Arne 1931, Nennan 1935, Werner 1949, Lindquist 1950, and particularly, Stemberger 1955. Klindt-Jenscn 1957. I6owmianski 1963, vol.II, p.28>295, Fagerlie 1967; also, although quite differently, Kyhlberg 1986, p.65-66. 3 Cf. especially Dobias 1960. Motykova-Sneiderovd 1963, Woftigiewicz 1970, 4 For justification of this kind of approach cf. F.Braudel, Pour une économie historique, Revue Economique 1950, no 1.

Conclusions

137

century, lines of communication to Pannonia were blocked throughout the entire period studied; sea routes grew in importance from the Marcomanic Wars onwards, above all for the Baltic coast areas, and to lesser extent for the Przeworsk Culture (until AD 336), as did the eastern routes also. These changes are thought to have been caused by tribal movements in the zone between the Carpathians and the Danube, which are confirmed by archaeological evidence. Although the picture of Roman-Barbarian relations was formulated only on the basis of the study of coins, the regularities observed are quite broad. Coins constitute an extremely diagnostic and convenient source. This study should, of course, be complemented by an investigation of other classes of imports5, along with the associated problems of establishing their source and chronology6. However, any such study will probably only lead to minor alterations, for example suggesting an alternative political relationship such as an increased dominance of plunder. It is interesting that the period under study does not register any wave of imports which might be linked, like terra sigillata, to exchange or trade with the Barbarian territory concerned7. Thus most of the fourth century glass vessels found in Central Europe aie now known to have been produced in Barbarian workshops8. Insights gained from study of other classes of imports aie therefore not expected to significantly affect the picture of the dominance of political over economical factors in Roman-Barbarian relations from the 250s onwards.

5 For future in-depth study it would be necessary to make a comparison with numismatic material from other cultures of Barbaricum. Here the "buffer" zone would be particularly interesting. Only then might we attempt to define the time, manner and possible routes of influx of particular groups of coinage. Material from barbarian territories outside Europe should constitute an important point of reference, notably in statistical studies, and preferably be collected from archival records or museum collections, and not from often incomplete catalogues and general lists. A wider source base of this kind would make it possible to verify some of the suggestions put forward in the present work and also indicate how typical the phenomena observed were, and which of them had inlra-cullural or universal significance. й Other than terra sigillata of course. 7 Waves of imports distinguished by R.WoJ^giewicz (1970) terminate in principle around AD 210. The later period registers only a "terminal" wave euphemistically denoting the entire highly varied group of imports which put in an appearance over a period as long as the combined duration of the four earlier waves. It seems that such a situation must be due to more than just limitations imposed by the method. 8 Rau 1974, 1975, Shchapova 1983, Näsman 1984.

7, Deutsche Zusammenfassung Spätrömische Münzfunde aus Mitteleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Barbaricum im 3. und 4. Jh.n.Chr. 1. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den Funden römischer Münzen aus den Jahren 193-395 n.Chr. auf dem Gebiet von Mitteleuropa. Zweck dieser Analyse ist die Ermittlung der Richtungen, der Zeit und der Ursachen des Münzabflusses aus dem Imperium in das Barbaricum. Den räumlichen Rahmen bilden die Grenzen von fünf archäologischen Kulturkomplexen der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit (Stufen Clb-D). Es handelt sich dabei um die Przeworsk-, die Wielbark- und die Luboszyce-Kultur sowie um den westbaltischen und den elbgermanischen-Kulturkreis (Karte 1). Die genauere Ermittlung ihrer Grenzen erfordert manchmal Dciailstudien. Als Quellenbasis dienen die in den Jahren 193395 n.Chr. geprägten Münzen und Medaillons, die aus den Funden von den erwähnten Gebieten stammen. 2.1. Die Fundanalyse der römischen Münzen im Rahmen der Untersuchung von archäologischen Kulturen erfolgt aus dem Mangel eines anderen Kriteriums heraus, das die Grenzziehung der Besiedlungszonen Mitteleuropas in der Spätantike ermöglichen würde. Unsere heutigen Kenntnisse sind meistens zu gering, um die Grenzen der Besiedlung einzelner Völker genau markieren und einzeichnen zu können; andererseits lassen sich oft manche Stämme mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit innerhalb der bestimmten archäologischen Kulturen unterbringen. Dadurch wird die Möglichkeit eröffnet einen Vergleich der Münzfunde aus dem Gebiet einer bestimmten Kultur mit den in den schriftlichen Quellen überlieferten Ereignissen, die ein konkretes Volk oder einen Stamm betreffen, durchzuführen. 2.2. Die Anwendung von erweiterten Methoden der Induktionsstatistik hat sich aus der Absicht ergeben, ein Werkzeug für eine objektive Analyse des umfangreichen Materials zu gewinnen. Eine Verifikation der Hypothesen zur Wichtigkeit von Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschieden in der zeitlichen Verteilung der Münzen, die auf den Gebieten der einzelnen Kulturen gefunden wurden, wird somit ermöglicht. Manche Methoden der statistischen Erprobung von Hypothesen (besonders der Chi-Quadrat-Tcst) wurden schon früher bei numismatischen Untersuchungen verwendet. 2.3. Um die Probleme der Erforschung der römisch-barbarischen Kontakte zu verdeutlichen, wurde ein theoretisches Modell geschaffen, das sowohl die epistemologische Ebene (Probleme aus dem Gebiet der Quellenforschung) als auch die ontologische Ebene berücksichtigt (Table 1, vS.21). Es wurde auf die zweistufige Abfolge der Quellenkritik verwiesen, die mit der Tatsache zusammenhängt, daß der zeitgenössische Forscher die entfernte Vergangenheit häufig aufgrund von nicht erhaltenen Quellen (z.B. Münzfunde), die nur aus

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

139

sekundären, oftmals archivalischen Überlieferungen des 19.Jhs. oder noch früher bekannt sind, rekonstruieren muß. 2.4. In der bisherigen Interpretation der Kontakte zwischen dem römischen Reich und dem Barbaricum waren die meisten Archäologen aus Mittel- und Osteuropa vom ökonomischen Charakter dieser Verbindungen überzeugt; des öfteren wurden sie auch auf die Spätantike übertragen. Die Überzeugung vom Handelscharakter dieser Beziehungen war einerseits ein Resultat der Fortsetzung von Untersuchungen, die aus der Forschungstradition von H.J. Eggers (1951) stammen, andererseits hängt sic mit dem häufig (unbewußten Einfluß) des Marxismus zusammen. Solche Meinungen bilden einen krassen Widerspruch zu der Aussage der sich auf die Periode der Spätkaiserzeit beziehenden schriftlichen Quellen, was häufig, besonders in der letzten Zeit, von westlichen Geschichtsforschern betont wird. 3.1. Da die meisten römischen Münzen, die aus den Funden in Mitteleuropa stammen, nicht mehr zugänglich sind, hat man sich notgedrungen auf das Material aus Veröffentlichungen gestützt (Table 2, S.27). Die Mehrheit von diesen, insbesondere bei älteren Publikationen und Überlieferungen, enthält zahlreiche Irrtümer und Ungenauigkeiten, die sich aus Fehlern der Autoren, aus einem unzureichenden Stand des Wissens oder/und aus der mangelnden Möglichkeit, den erst in der letzten Zeit entstandenen wissenschaftlichen Apparat (z.B. die RICKataloge) zu nutzen, ergeben. Der Autor stellt anhand konkreter Beispiele die aufeinander folgenden Etappen der wissenschaftlichen Vorgehensweise dar und klassifiziert die häufigsten Fehler. Er stellt auch den Glaubwürdigkeitsgrad der Angaben, die sich in den bisher veröffentlichten Fuiidiiiventaren von römischen Münzen aus Mitteleuropa befinden, fest. 3.2. Da die Gebiete, aus denen das Material stammt, in der Neuzeit mehreren Staaten angehörten - mit verschiedenen Denkmalschutz- und Fundgesetzen, mit unterschiedlichem Entwicklungsstand der Wissenschaft, des Schul- und Muscumswesens, der Denkmalpflege, des Publikationswesens, der Altertums- und Geschichtsvereine, mit abweichenden lokalen Traditionen und unterschiedlichem allgemeinen Interesse an vaterländischen Denkmälern, ist es fraglich, ob die Funde repräsentativ sind. Der Autor hat die grundlegenden Faktoren, die den unterschiedlichen Stand der Münzregistrierung vom Ende des 18. Jhs. an beeinflußt haben, einer detaillierten Analyse unterzogen, unter Berücksichtigung der verschiedenen Perioden der jeweiligen politischen Staaten: Deutschland (3.2.1.), Österreich-ungarische Monarchie (3.2.2.), Polen unter russischer Besatzung (3.2.3.), Kaiserreich Rußland (3.2.4.) und unabhängiges Polen (3.2.5.). Die größte Bedeutung für das Übermitteln von Informationen über Münzfunde hatte die Tätigkeit von einzelnen Personen - des Altertumsfreundes, Mümzsammlers, Archäologen und Numismatikers. Ein Hauptaugenmerk des Autors gilt auch der Rolle von entsprechenden rechtlichen Regelungen, besonders ihrer Anwendung in

140

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

der Praxis bezüglich des Informationszuflusses über Funde, wie auch den unterschiedlichen politischen Umständen bei der Entwicklung des Interesses an den lokalen Denkmälern, die durch patriotische Beweggründe stimuliert sind. Diese Faktoren waren u.a. die Ursache dafür, daß die zweite Hälfte des 19. Jhs. - das Zeitalter Mommsens, in dem die Bedingungen sehr günstig waren, so daß sich die Geschichtswissenschaften entwickelten, das Interesse für Altertums- oder Regionalforschungen groß war, das Sammeln an Bedeutung gewonnen hat und dadurch bedingt die Anzahl von registrierten Münzfunden rapide stieg - in dieser Hinsicht in den meisten Gebieten Polens ungünstig war. Aus denselben nationalpatriotischen Beweggründen, aufgrund derer die deutsche Bevölkerung ihre lokalen Behörden oder Museen von auch nur kleinsten archäologischen Entdeckungen informiert hat, hat die polnische Bevölkerung, die der Besatzungsmacht und ihren Vertretern (z.B. der Polizei) gegenüber feindlich gesinnt war und entsprechende Verordnungen boykottierte, jegliche Informationen zurückgehalten. Die berühmtesten polnischen Wissenschaftler, wie z.B. Joachim Lelewel, mußten nach 1831 emigrieren und haben vielfach keine vaterländichen Denkmäler mehr bearbeitet. Der Stand der Fundregistrierung römischer Münzen, auf den derart unterschiedliche Faktoren eingewirkt haben, bildet ein äußerst kompliziertes territoriales Mosaik. Dies macht eine räumliche Analyse der Entdeckungen, sowie einen Vergleich ihrer Häufigkeit in den einzelnen Räumen oder eine Untersuchung der Nominalstmktur in der Praxis unmöglich (3.2.6.). Die chronologische Struktur oder die Repräsentation der Münzstätten, was zum grundlegenden Thema des Beitrags gehört, wird dadurch jedoch grundsätzlich nicht gestört. 3.3. Es wurde eine Übersicht des aktuellen Standes der Forschungen zur Geldzirkulation im Römischen Reich des 3. und 4. Jhs.n.Chr. angefertigt hinsichtlich der Geschwindigkeit, mit der die einzelnen Emissionen aus dem Umlauf verschwanden, sowie den Problemen bei der Distribution. Dabei wurde insbesonders Augenmerk auf die territoriale Verbreitung der einzelnen Nominalien und der Emissionen aus den einzelnen Münzstätten gelegt. Dies hat Feststellungen über die Zeit des Abflusses und zur Provenienz der im weiteren Teil des Beitrags zu analysierenden unterschiedenen Wellen und Münzströme ermöglicht. 4.1. Aus dem untersuchten Gebiet liegen 837 Fundkomplexe mit Schlußmünzen aus den Jahren 193-395 n.Chr. vor, darunter 69 Schatzfunde (Table 3, S.66). 4.2. Um eine detaillierte chronologische Analyse des gesammelten Materials zu ermöglichen, wurde eine Methode benutzt, die eine grafische Darstellung mit einer Genauigkeit bis auf ein Jahr erlaubt (Tables 4-5, S.68-9). Es wurden für die einzenlen Kulturen Diagramme mit der chronologischen Aufteilung der Münzen angefertigt, sowie ein als Bezugspunkt fungierendes Diagramm in zwei Varianten (für das arithmetische Mittel und das gewichtete Mittel) für den ganzen untersuchten Raum (Table 6, S.73, Tables WII). Durch die Verwendung der

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

141

Methoden der Induktionsstatistik (Z-Tcst) sind dem Material aus den einzelnen Kulturräumen chronologische Grenzen gesetzt worden» die erhebliche Unterschiede im Vergleich zum Diagramm des Mittelwerts aufweisen (Table 8, S.77, Tables IVVIII), Es wird darauf hingewiesen, welche von diesen Unterschieden das Resultat eines verstärkten Emmissionszuflusses sind und welche aus einer Abnahme erfolgen. 4.3. Die detaillierte chronologische Analyse der Schätze und der Nominalien (besonders der Anteil der Goldmünzen) hat dazu gedient, die "Kontaktintensität" zu bestimmen. 4.4. Die Nominalaufteilung (z.B. Sesterze des 3.Jhs.n.Chr.) und die Proportionen der Emissionen aus den einzelnen Münzstätten haben die Bestimmung der grundlegenden "Kontaktrichtungen" ermöglicht, das heißt die Provenienz der erwähnten Münzgruppen. 5.1. Durch den Vergleich von Zeitabschnitten mit verstärkten Emissionen innerhalb der einzelnen Kulturräume, mit der Geschwindigkeit mit der die Emissionen auf dem Gebiet des Römischen Reiches verschwanden, war es möglich, die Münzströme und -wellen zu unterscheiden und den Zeitraum ihres Abflußes aus dem Gebiet des Imperiums zu bestimmen (Table 9, S.100). 5.2. Die Analyse der schriftlichen Quellen hatte dem Zweck gedient, die Gründe für den Abfluß der Münzen in das Barbaricum zu untersuchen. Es wurde festgestellt, daß in der Zeit der allgemeinen Krise des Kaiserreichs, in Zeiten intensiver Kämpfe gegen die Barbaren, der Handel eine äußerst geringe und in manchen Perioden gar keine Rolle spielte (5.2.1.). Für die betreffende Zeit hat man zwischen den folgenden Formen des Münzzuflusses in das Barbaricum zu unterscheiden: einmalige Tribute (Kriegsentschädigungen, Stillhaltegelder), einschließlich Kriegsgefangenenfreikauf {redemptio ab hostibus, 5.2.2.), Jahresgelder {annua mimera, 5.2.3.), Soldzahlungen an die Hilfstruppen {stipendia und donativa, 5.2.4.), Zahlungen an Föderalen (annonae foederaticae 5.2.5.) und diplomatische Geschenke (5.2.6.). Die Beule hat hingegen keine bedeutende Rolle bei dem Geldabfluß gespielt. Es wurde für das 3. und 4. Jh.n.Chr. der Versuch unternommen, das Edelmetall bestimmten Kategorien von Abgaben zuzuordnen, sowie auch den Zeitraum festzulegen, in dem diese Abgaben vorherrschend waren (Table 10, S.121). Aus den Grenzgebieten des Kaiserreiches wurden die Münzen in das Barbaricum durch heimkehrende germanische Truppen mitgebracht oder kamen dorthin infolge von Familien - bzw. Stammeskontakten zwischen den Barbaren, die sich in der Nähe der Limeszone (auch auf dem Gebiet des Imperiums) aufgehalten haben und weiter im Norden und Osten ansässig waren ( 6 .2 . 6.).

5.3. Aufgrund der Gesamtanalyse der numismatischen Funde und den konkreten Daten in den schriftlichen Quellen wurde der Versuch unternommen, die Kontakte der Römer mit den Barbaren im 3. und 4. Jh.n.Chr. zu rekonstruieren. Es wird

142

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

darauf hingewiesen, daß man eine ansehnliche Welle von Denaren in das Barbaricum die am Anfang der Regierungszeit des Septimius Severus ihr Ende hatte, teilweise mit Handelsaustausch in Verbindung bringen kann. Wahrscheinlich hing dessen Ende mit einer rapiden Preissteigerung des Silbers und der somit nicht lohnenden Ausfuhr dieses Metalls zusammen (5,3.1., Bursche 1992c). Mit dem Bemsteinhandel dürfte zweifelsohne die Flut von Bronzemünzen (vor allem Scsterze) verbunden werden, die aus dem Rheinland an die südliche Küste der Ostsee in den Jahren 180-250 n.Chr. kam (5.3.2., Bursche 1992a). Die Münzströme, die während der Krise des 3. Jhs.n.Chr. in das Barbaricum kamen, spiegeln hingegen die verschiedenen Formen der bereits früher genannten politischen Kontakte wieder (5.3.3.). So kann man z.B. Münzströme mit einem großen Anteil von Goldmünzen, die im Jahre 251 n.Chr. die Gebiete der WielbarkKultur erreicht haben, mit den von Jordanes erwähnten Jahreszahlungen an die Goten zur Zeit des Trebonianus Gallus verbinden. Außer den kurzen Perioden des verstärkten Einflusses von Münzen im 3. Jh.n.Chr. lassen sich auf dem Gebiet der Przeworsk-, Wielbark- und Luboszyce-Kultur Perioden mit deutlich schwächeren Zufluß an Münzen nach weisen. In diesen Phasen haben die tiefer im Barbaricum gelegenen Gebiete in der Ökonomie und der Politik des Römischen Reiches, das mit inneren Konflikten und mit der direkten Verteidigung der Grenzen beschäftigt war, eine immer geringere Rolle gespielt. Der Zufluß von Bronzemünzen in die Gebiete der Przeworsk-Kultur im zweiten Viertel des 4. Jh.n.Chr. zeugt von einer gewissen Kontaktbelebung unter der konstantinischen Dynastie, einer Periode der vorübergehenden Stabilisierung (5.3.4.). Nach dieser Periode sind für die Kontakte mit dem Barbaricum während der valeiUinianischen Dynastie als einziges numismatisches Zeugnis die Goldmünzen und Medallions zu betrachten, die dorthin wahrscheinlich als Belohnungen (donativa) oder Geschenke an die germanischen Heeresführer für die Erfüllung von Bündnisverpflichtungen (foederati, 5.3.5.) kamen. Unter stark veränderten historischen Bedingungen land seit der Mitte des 5. Jhs.n.Chr. eine weitere Flut großer Münzströme (Solidi) in das Gebiet der Ostsee statt. 6. In der Schlußfolgerung wird betont, daß der Zufluß von römischen Münzen nach Mitteleuropa in der Spätantike keine kontinuierliche Dauererscheinung war. Die genannten Münzströme haben nach der Terminologie von F. Braudel Erscheinungen aus dem Bereich der "historié événementielle" widerspiegelt, die Wellen dagegen "la longue-durée". Die vorgelegten Vorschläge zur Verbindung von bestimmten Münzströmen und -wellen, die aus dem Kaiserreich ins Barbaricum kamen, mit bestimmten politischen Ereignissen oder Erscheinungen wirtschaftlicher Art dürften in der Regel unrichtig sein. Nichtsdestoweniger ist das Bild, das durch die Funde und jenes, das durch die aus schriftlichen Quellen rekonstruierte Geschichte vermittelt wird, von außergewöhnlicher Kohärenz. Nur einige wenige Münzströme fallen in die Phase der ökonomischen Konjunktur des

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

143

Kaiserreichs, d. h. in die Zeit bis in die Mitte des 3. Jhs.n.Chr., sowie in beschränktem Umfang in die Zeit der konstantinischen Dynastie. Diese vom Handel gekennzeichneten starken Phasen der Verbindungen sind durch deutliche, ja dominierende Perioden der Kontaktabsch wächungen voneinander getrennt. In der Dimension der ökonomischen Geschichte entsprechen sie den Zeiten eines absoluten Zusammenbruches der Handelsbeziehungen. In diesen Perioden ergreifen die barbarischen Stämme die Initiative, indem sie den Kontakten einen eindeutig politischen Charakter verleihen. Infolgedessen sind die meisten Münzen von der Mitte des 3. Jhs.n.Chr. an zweifelsohne nicht im Rahmen eines Handels aus dem Kaiserreich nach außen geflutet, sondern infolge von bestimmten Erscheinungen politischer Art. Zu den interessanten Beobachtungen kann man die sich deutlich im numismatischen Material abzeichnende Änderung der Kontaktrichtungen zwischen dem Kaiserreich und den erwähnten Teilen des Barbaricums zählen. Während nahezu der gesamten Periode trat ein Zusammenbruch der bis dahin auf Miinzzufluß basierenden Kontakte ein, insoweit Pannonien als Durchgangsgebiet entfiel. Gleichzeitig erfolgte eine Kontaktintensivierung auf dem Seeweg entlang der Ostseeküste und aus östlicher Richtung. Für diese Veränderungen hat man die Migrationsbewegungen zwischen den Karpaten und der Ostsee als die wahrscheinlichste Ursache angenommen, die im Besiedlungsbild aufgrund des archäologischen Materials als deutliche Veränderung sichtbar wird. Das dargestellte Bild der Kontakte des Römischen Reiches mit dem Barbaricum wird durch die Quellen begrenzt, die uns zur Verfügung stehen. In der Praxis sind sie auf eine Kategorie - die Münzfunde - beschränkt. Trotzdem war die Betrachtung vielfältiger Gesetzmäßigkeiten möglich, da die Münzen eine für die Geschichtsforschung sehr aufschlußreiche und dankbare Quelle sind. Die Berücksichtigung der übrigen Kategorien des römischen Imports dürften das aus der Gesamtanalyse von numismatischen und schriftlichen Quellen abgeleitete Bild der Dominanz von politischen Kontakten über ökonomischen Kontakten in den Beziehungen zwischen dem Kaiseneich und dem Barbaricum nach der Mitte des 3. Jh.n.Chr. nicht ändern. 8. Im Katalog wurden die Münzfunde mit der Ausnahme des elbgermanischen Kulturkreises, wo man sich auf die Bearbeitung von R.Laser (1980) mit einer Ergänzung von H.Chantraine (1983) gestützt hat, nach archäologischen Kulturen verzeichnet. Die Daten, die im Katalog und im Beitrag enthalten sind, sind bis zum Jahre 1987 aktualisiert. Funde, die aus späteren Veröffentlichungen bekannt wurden, jedoch im Beitrag unberücksichtigt geblieben sind, sind im Katalog mit dem Buchstaben V nach der laufenden Nummer gekennzeichet.

8, L ist o f find s Following the method of coin studies adopted in the work all coin finds analyzed statistically are listed alphabetically within the framework of cultures: Luboszyce, Wielbark, Przeworsk and Westbalt Circle. As coin finds from the Elbe Circle were almost all included in R.Laser’s inventory (1980), which was the main source (with pertinent corrections by KChantraine [1983] taken into consideration), our list includes only finds from the Dębczyno Group. Elbe Circle coin material includes all reliable finds from the period 193-395 in sections I, II, III, IV: 02, 08, 10, 11, 13, 15-4, 16, 17, V: 01, 02, 05, 11, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII: 10-1, 16, XIII, XV or West Berlin in Laser’s inventory. The description of the finds is restricted to information directly used in the study: denomination, mint and presumed date of issue. Place names are given as far as possible in the locally used version (those written in Cyrillic alphabet were transliterated - with original names in brackets). Where it was not possible to identify the current place name, or where no current counterpart exists, former German names were used (the case of most East Prussian sites), or Polish (in Volhynia). Thus Westbalt sites may be given in Polish, Lithuanian, Russian or German. The identification of the issuer includes only the name of the person authorized to issue coins without giving the name of the emperor each time. Dates given next to the coin denote the timespan to which each issue was dated for the requirements of the statistic analysis. Where more accurate dating was not possible, this date bracket coincides with entire timespan during which coins bearing the name of a given issuer were struck. If pre-accession or posthumous issues were scarce the date period was restricted to the time of reign. It was decided to omit all information on find circumstances and in most cases the archaeological context, keeping only the numismatic context. The literature quoted includes only those publications which give the fullest data on the find; if such information can be found in a catalogue of finds from a given culture territory then only this catalogue is quoted; other publications are referred to only if they provide complementary information (such as evidence facilitating identification of a coin). In cases when identification of a mint or more accurate dating of a coin was done by the author - signalled every time by the letter "AMin brackets - the list of literature quotes the publication used as the source for this.

List of abbreviations used in list of finds

145

8.1. List of abbreviations used in list of finds AE - Bronze, copper or brass coin of indeterminate denomination AE I - "Bronze” coin referred to in literature as "large bronze" AE II - "Bronze" coin referred to in literature as "medium bronze" AE III - "Bronze" coin referred to in literature as a "small bronze" Alex. - Alexandria An. - Antoninianus At. - Silver approx. - Approximately AR - Silver coin of indeterminate denomination AV - Gold coin of indeterminate denomination Au. - Gold Aur. - Aureus Aut. - Autonomous issue C. - Coin of indeterminate metal Cen. - Centenionalis cm. - Cemetery Const. - Constantinople D. - Denarius Dup. - Dupondius Dses. - Double sestertius E. - Eastern mint f. - former Fol. - Follis (with its fractions) gm. - Gmina (Polish administrative unit)

gr.

- Grave

h. - Hoard ind. - Indeterminate Kr. - Kreis (German administrative unit) Mai. - Maiorina Marcian,- Marcianopolis Med. - Medallion ob. - Oblast (О блает - Russian administrative unit) okr. - Okres (Administrativeunit in Czecho-Slovakia) p. - Previously PMA - Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne (State Archaeological Museum), Warszawa pow. - Powiat (Polish administrative unit) r. - Right

146

S. Ses. Sil. sim. Sol. sp. Stkr. t. Tet. Thessal. var. voi. v.e. W.

List o f finds

- Southern mint - Sestertius - Siliqua - Similar - Solidus - Specimen - Stadtkreis - Town - Tetradrachma - Thessalonica - Variant - Voivodship (Polish administrative unit) - Voivodship capital - Western mint

147

Wielbark culture

8.2. Wielbark culture 1. ANTONOVCY (АНТОНОВЦЫ), ob. Ternopol’ (Тернополь) An. Philip Arab 244-247 Rome RIC 33 With 4 D. Bursche 1980, p.82. 2. BÏ.ÇDOWO. voi. Toruń Mai. Theodosius I Bursche 1980, p.88 .

383-392

Nicomedia

LRBC 2565

(A)

{A )

3. BOROCHICY (БОРОЧИЦЫ). ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) Med.Au. Jovianus 363-364 Const. RIC 168 (A) Mounted, with a loop, in h. approx. 10 kg D. together with Ar vessels and ingots. PMA Archive, "Boroczyce" file, W.Antoniewicz, Der Fund von Boroczyce, NK, 28-29, 1929-1930, p.26-28, M.A.Tikhanova (М .А .Тиханова), Borochickiîkład (Борочицкий клал), SA, 25:1956, р.301-317. Bursche 1991, р.150-151. fig.4. 4. BUDIATICHI (БЫДЯТИЧИ), ob. Volyn’ (Волынь) An. Gordian III 238-244 Antonovich 1901. p.61 (erroneously D.) 5. BYDGOSZCZ, v.c. Fol. Constantine I 306-337 Fol. Constantine II 317-340 Potcmski 1963, p.75. Tab. XXI, 3.4. 6 . BYDGOSZCZ (Rynkowo), v.c.

Fol. Constantine I Bursche 1980, p.87 7. CHEŁMNO, voi. Toruń Dses. Postumus Fol. Constantine I With AE I ind. Bolin 1926a. p.( 101).

306-337

260-263 306-337

148

List of finds

8 . CYGÓW, voi. Siedlce

M Fulvia Plautilla 202-205 Kolendo 1985, p.45, 1988, p.176. 9. DRWĘCA (river, p.pow.Brodnica), voi.Toruń AE Caracalla 196-217 Aut. With 3 M Aut. in a h.(?). Bursche 1980, p.86 . 10. ELBLĄG (ul.Św.Ducha). v.c. An. Carinus copy Bursche 1980, p.82. 11. ELBLĄG (Przedmieście Warszawskie), v.c.

AE III Magnus Maximus Dorr 1893, р.61. 12. ELB LAG, v.c. (vicinity?) An. Gallienus An. Claudius II An. Tetricus I Fol. Constantius II Fol. Constantius II Cen. Julian Cen. Valentinian I Number of finds unidentified. Wolsbom 1888, p.115-116.

383-388

257-259 268-270 270-273 330-336 337-341 355-361 363-365

Milan Rome

RIC 495 RIC 104

(A) (A)

Rome Arelate

(A) (A)

LRBC 490

(A)

RIC 61b RIC 145

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

13. GARBINA, voi.Elblÿg Fol. Crispus 317-326 Dorr 1893, p.64, Bolin 1926b, p.208. 14. GDANSK, v.c. Fol. Constantine I Fol. Constantine I 3 Fol. Constantine I Fol. Licinius I Fol. Licinius I Bursche 1980, p.86 .

312-313 Thessal. 317-318 Arelate 313-319 313-317 E. 313-317

Wielbark culture

149

15. GDAŃSK, v.c. An. Claudius II 268-270 Schwandl 1905, p.131, Bolin 1926a, p.(98). 16. GDANSK, v.c. Med.Ae Caracalla 198-217 Perinthus Lengnich 1780, Bursche 1980, p.89, 1983c, p.197.

Schönert 602 (A)

17. GDAŃSK (Nowy Port), v.c. An. Tetricus ? 270-273 With 4 AE (?) Gumowski 1956, p. 1 12 (dubious find). 18. GDAŃSK (Oliwa), v.c. An. Claudius II 268-270 Mai. Constantius II 348-350 With 2 D. Amtl.Ber., 20:1899 (1900), p.43. 19. GDAŃSK (Olszynka), v.c. Ses. Otacilia Severa Ses. Hostilian Bursche 1980, p.88 .

Rome Cyzicus

RIC 138 RIC 74

244-249 Rome RIC 209a 251 Rome RIC 251

(A) (A)

(A) (A)

20. GDAŃSK (Ujeścisko), v.c. D. Julia Domna 193-217 With 3 D. Baczko 1780. p.9, Bolin 1926a, p.(96). 21. GIERLOŻ, gm .Ostróda, voi. Olsztyn D. Macrinus 217-218 In a h. of 1124 D.. with 4 Septimius Severus and 1 Julia Domna. Kunisz 1973, p.32. 22. GLINKI, voi. Warszawa Cen. Constantius II Cen. Valentinian I

355-368 364-367

Kubiak 1979, p.44. Bursche 1980, p.87.

Arclale Const.

LRBC 458 (A) LRBC 2068 or LRBC 2085

150

List of finds

23. GOLUB-DOBRZYŃ (vicinity of), voi. Toruń An. Diocletian 284-294 With ind. AE Lissauer 1887, p.148, Bursche 1980, p.90 - dubtious. 24. GOLUB-DOBRZYŃ (Golub), voi. Toruń D. Clodius Albinus 193-195 Rome BMCRE43 In a h. of 554 D. with Scptimius Severus AD 193 D. A.Krzyżanowska, Skarb denarów rzymskich z Golubia nad Drwęcę. WN, 4:1960, p. 129-207. 25. GOEÇBIE (=HOŁUBIĘ), voi. Zamość Aur. Gordian III 238-144 Kunisz 1985, p.262. 26. GOSZYN, gm.Tczew, voi.Gdaiîsk D. Severus Alexander 222-235 In a h. with approx. 700 D., 14 identified, including 2 Seplimius Severus. Bursche 1980, p.85-86. 27. GOŚCIERADZ. voi.Bydgoszcz An. Philip Arab 244-249 Potemski 1963, p.103. Tab.XXI,2, Bursche 1980, p.83. 28. GRONOWO ELBLĄSKIE, voi.Elblytg D. Geta Bursche 1980, p.88.

200-202

(A)

Rome

RIC 18(A)

29. GRÓDKOWO, voi.P|ock D. Septimius Severus 193-211 In a h. of approx. 3000-6000 AR, 1540 identified, including 1 Pertinax and 1 Clodius Albinus. Kubiak 1979, p.47-48, Triller 1991, p.25-27. 30. GRUDZIĄDZ, voi.Toruii D. Julia Domna 193-217 D. Caracalla 196-217 With Othon D. Schwandt 1905, p.20, Bolin 1926a, p.(100).

151

Wielbark culture

31. GRUDZIĄDZ (Rudnik), voi .Toruń AE Theodosius I 379-395 IŁęga 1951, p.8. 32. GRUDZIĄDZ (vicinity of), voi.Toruiî Fol. Galerius 310 Alex. RIC 121a(A) Reportedly with Trajan AE III and 2 Antoninus Pius AE I (Ses.). Bursche 1980, p.90-91: S.Bolin’s (1926a, p./100/ ref 4) uncertainty as to authenticity of the find are propably unfounded since the Trajan "small bronze" need not have been a false "denarius" but rather a D. subaeratus. 33. GZIKI, voi.Torun Ses. Caracalla 196-217 With Lucilla Ses. Amtl.Ber., 14:1893 (1894), p.33, Bolin 1926a, p.(96). 34. IALOVICHI (ЯЛОВИЧИ), ob. Rovno (Ровно) AE I Gordian III 240 Viminacium Piotrowicz 1939, p.4.

Pick

35. IVAN1CHI (ИВАНИЧИ). ob. Rovno (Ровно) Fol. Maximinus 308-311 Alex. Mielczarek 1982, p.34.

RIC 121c

79-80(A)

36. IVANICHI (ИВАНИЧИ), ob. Rovno (Ровно) Cen. Valentinian 364-392 Siscia Mielczarek 1982, p.34-35. 37. JARNICE, voi.Siedlce D. Ckxlius Albinus 193 Rome BMCRE 38 D. Clodius Albinus 193-197 In a h. with 235 D. examined. W.Kropotkin, Skarb denarów rzymskich (l-И w.n.e.) z Jarnic (woj. warszawskie), WN, 15:1971, p.3I-38, Kubiak 1979, p.43-44 - with errors. 37a. KNIAHININ (Княхинин). ob.Rovno (Ровно) AE II Gordian III 238-242 Hadrianopolis BMC 37 K.Mitkowa-Szubert. Znaleziska monet antycznych poświadczone w dokumentach Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie, WN, XXXV: 1991, p. 177.

152

Lisi o f finds

38. KOMOROWO ŻURAWSKIE, voi.Elblyg Sol. Theodosius I 379-395 Wolsborn 1888, p.116, Don- 1893. p.64. 39. KORYTNICA. voi.Siedlcc An. Trajan Decius Bursche 1980, p.83.

249-251 Rome

RIC 28b

(A)

39а. KOSMÓW, voi.Zamosé Aur. Postumus 259-268 Cologne RIC 263 (A) A.Kokowski, Grupa masiomęcka и’ okresie rzymskim, Lublin 1987, Fig. 19. 40. (f.) KOŹLIN, ob.Rovno (Ровно) AE Gordian III 238-244 Marcian. Pick 1189 (A) A.Kietlińska, Nowe dane do mapy monel starożytnych, WA, 36:1971, p.228. 41. KRASOV (KPACOB), ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) Sol. M ian 355-363 Antonovich 1901. p.59. Cynkajowski 1961, p.130. 42. KRĘPIEC, voi.Gdańsk Cen. Valentinian I

367-375 Siscia

LRBC 1323 or LRBC 1327 (A)

Bursche 1980, p.88 . 43. KUNDZIN, voi. Białystok D. Septimius Severus 193-211 In a h. of over 1000 D., 14 of them identified, together with beads and fragment of At objects. Kubiak 1979, p.54. 44. KURÓW, voi.Siedlce Med.Au Valentinian II 378-383 Trier or Aquileia (?) Biblioteka Warszawska, 3:1842, p.680, Kubiak 1979, p.55 - enoneously Valerian cf. also p.31-32 in present work, Triller 1991, p.37-38, Bursche 1991a, p.147-149

153

Wielbark culture

45. LASKI (ЛАСКИ), ob.VolyrT (Волынь) Au medallions with suspension loops, 4 of them 9.solidi, two ó.solidi and one 3.solidi (probably from second half of fourth century) together with Ar and Au objects. E.I. de-Vitte (Е.И. Д е-В итте), Arkheolgicheskaia nakhoclka v seie Laskovet Vladimiro-Volynskogo uezda v. 1610 godu, (А р х е о л о ги ческа я на холка в селе Л аскове, Влалим кро-В олы нского у е зл а в . 1610 го л у ), Chteniia v istoricheskom obshchestve Nestora-letopistsa (Ч т е к я в и сторическом о б щ естве Н е с т о р а -л е т о л и с ц а ), 14,11: 1900, р.86-101, M.A.Tikhanova (М .А .Тиханова), Laskovskiî kład (Ласковский клал), SA, 29:1960, р. 196-204 incorrectly reconstruct the weight of medallions. 46. LUBARTÓW. voi.Lublin Fol. Constantine I Kunisz 1985, p. 110.

306-337

47. LUBIESZEWO, voi.Elbljtg Aur. Gordian III Bursche 1980, p.88.

241-243

Rome

RIC 97

48. LUBLIN, v.c. Fol. Galerius 308-311 Cyzicus Nosek, 1951, p.163 (Fig.) and 311, Bursche 1988a, p.212, 49. LUCK (ЛУЦК), ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) D. Scptimius Severus 198-200 Rome D. Elagabalus 220-222 Rome With 3 other D. Piotrowicz 1939, p.4. 50. MACIEJOWICE, voi.Siedlce D. Septimius Severus 193 In a h. with 32 identified D. Kubiak 1979, p.59-60. 51. MARYNOWY, voi.Elbl?g Fol. Constantine (?) With a Marcianna Ses. Bolin 1926a, p.(101).

306-340

Rome

(A)

(A)

RIC 135 RIC 106

RIC 13

(A) (A)

154

List o f finds

52. MAZANKI, voi.Torurt Fol. Maximian Herculius 295-305 (A) Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, 2:1911, p.10 (K.Chmielecki). 53. MJŁAWA, voi.Ciechanów An. Aurelian Bursche 1980, p.87.

270-275

Antioch

RIC 388

(A)

54. M^OTECZNO, voi.Elbl?g Med.Au. Constanlius II 335 Const. RIC 89 With a suspension loop, probably in a h. with 14 Ar and Au objects. M.Ebert, Neuerwerbungen des Prussia-Museunis, Prussia, 24:1923, p.154-172, Tab .6 and 7a, Toynbee 1944, p.198-199, H.Bott, Zur dalierung der Funde aus Hammersdoif (Ostpreussen), JRGZM 23:24; 1976/1977 (1982), p.139-153, Tab.37,5 and 6 , Bursche 1991, p.147 fig.2. 55. MUSZAKI, voi.Olsztyn An. Probus 276-282 Fol(?) Maximian Herculius 295-305 3 Foi. Constantine I 306-337 In a h. of indeterminate number of AE and AR, with Antoninus Pius D. Bolin 1926b, p.232, Kunisz 1973, p.70. 56. (f.) MYSZKOWCE, ob.Volyif (Волынь) D. Severus Alexander 222-228 Antioch An. Gordian III 243-244 Rome An. Philip Arab 244-247 Rome An. Trajan Decius 249-251 Rome An. Trajan Decius 249-251 Rome An. Herrenia Etruscilla 249-251 Rome In a h. Bursche 1980, p.83. 57. NICPONIA, voi.Gdaiisk An. Gordian III Bursche 1980, p.88 .

243-244

Rome

58. NIEDANOWO, voi.01sztyn An. Galerius 293-295 Cyzicus Unpublished, identified by A.Krzyżanowska.

RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC

300-301 151 49b 16c 28b 58b

RIC 148

RIC 717

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

(A)

155

Wielbark culture

59. N O W A W IEŚ C H E Ł M IŃ SK A . voi.T on m D. Caracalla 196-217

Lissauer 1887, p.147. 60. NOWE DOBRA, voi.Torurt An. Probus 276-282 Schr.Nat.Ges., 8,2:1889, p.115 (Dr Lierau). 61. NOWOGRÓD (MJodzianowo), voi.Łomża Ses. Gordian III 238-244 Kubiak 1979, p.62. 62. OSTROG (ОСТРОГ), ob.Rovno (Ровно) Sol. Theodosius I 379-395 Const. Bursche 1980, p.88 . 63. OSTRÓWEK, voLSiedlce Fol. Galerius Togetherwith 2 Ses. Kubiak 1979, p.63. 64. OWCZARNIA, voi.Elblyg D. Septimius Severus 2 D.(?) Caracalla An.(?) Elagabalus D. Julia Maesa 2 An. Gordian III 2. An. Philip Arab An. Herennia Etruscilla 2 An. Trebonianus Gallus In a h. with 4 earlier D. Bursche 1980, p.85.

301-303

Lugdunum

RIC 164b(A )

193-211 196-217 218-222 222-235 238-244 244-249 249-251 251-253

65. (f.) PERESOPNICA ob.Rovno (Ровно) AE II Septimius Severus 193-211 Martian. Together with Antoninus Pius D. Piotrowicz 1939, p.4-5. 66 . PIASKI, voi.Elblag

D. Septimius Severus 193-211 Lissauer 1887, p.150, Bolin 1926a, p.(101).

Pick 571

(A)

156

Lisi o f finds

67. PRZEZMARK, gm.ElbUig, voi.Elblçig An. Victorinus 268-270 An. Tetricus(?) 270-273 An. Aurelian 270-275 An. Maximian Herculius 285-295 2 Fol. Constantine I 306-337 Fol. Crispus 317-326 Fol.(?) Constantine II 337-340 AE III Valentinian II 375-392 4 AE III Valentinian II 378-383 (URBS ROMA) AE III House of Constantine In a h. with one ind. AE. Bursche 1980, p.84-85.

E.

68. PUŁAWY (vicinity of), voi.Lublin Fol. Constantine I 306-337 Kunisz 1985, p.182. 69. RADZYŃ CHEŁMIŃSKI, voi.Torun Fol. Constantine I 306-337 Amtl.Ber., 12:1891 (1892), p.16. 7 0 . (f.p o w .) R Ó W N O (Р О В Н О ), ob .R ovn o

AE II Macrinus 217-218 Marcian. Piotrowicz 1939, p.5, (incorrectly Pick 571). 71. ROŻDŻAŁÓW, voi.Chelm D. Julia Domna 211-217 In a h. of 47 D„ 45 identified. Kunisz 1985, p.188-190. 72. RUMIA, voi.Gdatisk D. Severus Alexander Amtl.Ber., 12:1891 (1892), p.16.

222-235

73. RYPIN, voi.Włocławek Aur. Herennia Etruscilla Kubiak 1979, p.67.

249-251

Rome

Pick 730

RIC 385b

(A)

Wielbark culture

74. RYWAJLD, voi.Torun Tct. Claudius II Bursche 1980, p.89.

269-270 Alex.

157

Milne 4265

(A)

75. RYWAJLDZIK, voi.Torun D. Septimius Severus 200-201 Rome RIC 171a D. Julia Domna 193-217 Rome RIC 538 In a h, of approx. 1000 D., 360 of them accurately identified, including also 2 earlier Septimius Severus. P. La Baume, Der Schatzfund von Ossa, Kreis Löbau (in:) Documenta Archaeologica Wolfgang La Baume Dedicata, Bonn 1956, p.34-68. 76. SIENNICA, voi.Siedlce An. Philip Arab (?) Kubiak 1979, p.67.

244-249

77. STARA WIEŚ, voi.Siedlce A group find of Aur fragments unearthed at a burial ground from four pits arranged in a semicircle between graves. A total of quarter fragments of 22 Aur. (out of 28 fragments one aureus was fully reassembled, another in 3/4, yet another in 1/ 2 , the remaining 19 are in a single fragment). Aur. Gordian III 238-239 Rome RIC 10 lxl/4 Aur. Gordian III 238-239 Rome RIC 41 lxl/4 Aur. Philip Arab 244-248 Rome RIC 36 1x4/4 Aur. Otacilia Severa 244-248 Rome RIC 123 lxl/4 Aur. Trajan Decius 248-251 Rome RIC 7 or 29 lxl/2 Aur. Trajan Decius 248-251 Rome RIC 7 2x1/2 Aur. Trajan Decius 248-251 Rome RIC 21 2x1/4 Aur. Trajan Decius 248-251 Rome RIC 28 6x1/4 Aur. Trajan Decius 248-251 Rome lxl/4 Aur. Herennia Etruscilla 248-251 Rome RIC 58 1x3/4 Aur. Herennia Etruscilla 248-251 Rome lxl/4 Aur. Herennia Etruscilla 248-251 Rome RIC 59 2x1/4 Aur. Herennia Etruscilla 248-251 Rome lxl/4 Aur. Hostilian 250-251 Rome RIC 181 lxl/4 Kubiak 1979, p.69-70. 78. STODZEW, voi.Siedlce Aur. Galerius 303-304 Nicomedia Kubiak 1979, p.70, Triller 1991, p.59.

RIC 17

158 79. STRASZYN, voi.Gdansk Aur. Maximian Herculius Bursche 1980, p.90.

List o f finds

295

Nicomedia

RIC 8 (?)

(A)

80. (f.) SZYMKOWCE, ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) AE III Gallienus 253-268 Ephesus Kolendo 1969, p. 104-105. 81. ŚNIATYCZE, voi.Zamosc Ses. Philip Arab 244-249 Kunisz 1985, p.215, Triller 1991, p.61. 82. TOKARY. voi.Zamosc 2 D. Septimius Severus 193-194 Rome RIC 18 D. Septimius Severus 193-194 Rome RIC 23 D. Septimius Severus 193-194 Rome RIC 24 In a h. of some 600-700 D. 433 of them identified, including one Pertinax. Kunisz 1985, p.219-233, Triller 1991, s.61.

83. (f.) UJEŹDŹCE, ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) Fol. Licinius 321-324 Piotrowicz 1939, p.5.

E.

(A)

84. VOLHYNIA (Волынь) Med.Au. Constantine I 335 Thessal. RIC 204 E.M.Pridik (Е.М.Придик), Neizdannyi zolowi medal' on Konstantina Velikogo V Gos . En n i t a z h e ( Н е и з д а н н ы й золотой медальон К он стан ти н а Великого в Гос. Е рм итаж е), Doklady A.N.S.S.S.R. (Доклады А.НС.С.С.П.). 1930, no 1, р.11-17, Fig.l, Toynbee 1944, р.198199, Bursche 1991, p. 147-148, fig.3. 85. VOLHYNIA (Волынь) D. Maximinus I 236 Rome RIC 14 An. Herennia Etruscilla 250-251 Rome RIC 138 An. Hostilian 251 Rome RIC 177b Baczko 1780, p.6-11 (?-non vidi), Abramowicz 1983, p.181-182. 86 . VOLHYNIA (Волынь) (along the Luck-Równe railway line)

An. Gallienus 256-268 Rome Mikołajczyk, 1981, p.62, Mielczarek 1982, p.36.

RIC 249(?)

(A) (A) (A)

159

Wielbark culture

86 a. VOLHYNIA (Волынь)

Med. Au Gallienus 263 Rome RIO 1 Gnecchi 1912, p.6 , no 1, Pl.2,6; Dressel 1973, p.255, P1.XVII,9; localization ascertained by J.Kolendo, pers. com. 87. WAPLEWO WIELKIE, voi.Elblag Aur. Postumus 259-268 Bursche 1983a. p.227-228, Fig. 1.

Cologne

RIC 267

(A)

Siscia

RIC 220

(A)

88 . WARLUBIE, voi.Bydgoszcz

An. Aurelian Bursche 1980, p.83-84. 89. WĄBRZEŹNO, voi.Toruii Ses. Philip Arab An. Aurelian Fol.(?) Maximian Herculius Fol. Maxentius 2 Fol. Constantine I In a h. with a Faustina II Dup. Bursche 1980, p. 85.

270-275

244-249 270-275 295-305 306-312 306-337 and Aelius Ses.

89a. WARSZAWA (south ot), v.c. Med. Au Gratian 375-378 Trier Detailed localisation unknown (Przeworsk culture ?). T.Zawadzki pers.com., publication forthcoming in WN.

RIC 38c

90. WIDLICE, voi.Toruii Cen. Valens 376-375 Siscia LRBC, p.72-74 (A) Bursche 1980, p.91; S.Bolin’s doubts (1926a, p./100/ ref 3) arise from the fact that this coin was found with 3 AE dated to Augustus, Claudius and Aelius; there are no grounds however for excluding it from the find list. 91. WIKROWO, voi.Elblag Fol. Constantine II Bursche 1980, p.87.

317-337

92. WILKÓW, voi.Zamość D. Pcrtinax 193 Rome In a h. of some 150 D„ 97 of them identified. Kunisz 1985, p.241-244.

(A)

RIC 4a

160

93. WŁODAWA, voi.Chełm Tetr. Maximian Herculius Kunisz 1985, p.246.

List of finds

288-289

Alex.

94. WŁODAWA, voi.CheJm Tetr. Numerianus 284-285 Alex. Tetr. Maximian Herculius 287-288 Alex. Tetr. Diocletian 290-291 Alex. In a h. of " 1 and 1/2 litre" of C. minted in the E. bearing (Tetr.?). Kokowski 1984, p.29,44, Kunisz 1985, p.36. 95. (f.v.) W01ŁYŃ (ВОЛЫНЬ) AE II Gordian III 241-242 Piotrowicz 1939, p.7.

Viminacium

Milne 4921

Milne 4793 Milne 4860 Milne 4968 inscriptions in Greek

Pick 79-80

(A)

96. (f.v.) WOJŁYŃ (ВОЛЫНЬ) Ses. Gordian III 238-244 Piotrowicz 1939, p.7 (printing error in catalogue identification of coin). 97. (f.v.) WOKYŃ (ВОЛЫНЬ) Aur. Gordian III 241-243 Piotrowicz 1939, p.7.

Rome

RIC 108

(A)

98. (f.v.) WOKYŃ (ВОЛЫНЬ) An. Herennia Etruscilla 249-251 Piotrowicz 1939, p.7.

Rome

RIC 59b

(A)

99. (f.) ZABOROL (ЗА Б 0Р 0Л ), ob.Volyn’ (Волынь) An. Gordian III 241-243 Rome Piotrowicz 1939, p.6 . 100. ZAMOŚĆ, v.c. Sil. Constantius II 3 Sil. Constantius II Sil. Constantius II Sil. Constantius II 5 Sil. Constantius II 5 Sil. Constantius II In a h. with Ar ornaments.

340-351 351-355 350-355 351-355 351-355 351-355

Nicomedia Sirmium Thessal. Nicomedia Const.

RIC 83

RIC 40-41 RIC 15 RIC 163 RIC 80 RIC 102

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

161

Wielbark culture

W.Kropolkin, Skarb srebrnych monel i przedmiotów z IV w. ne. z Zamościa, WN, 14:1970, p.15-17, Kunisz 1985, p.253, Bursche 1988a, p.214. 101. ZĄBROWO, voi.Elbląg D. Didia Clara 193 In a D. h., 12 of them identified. Regling 1912, p.249, Bolin 1926a, p.(102), Kunisz 1973, p.135-136. 102. ZBÓJNA, voi.poniża D. Pertinax 193 D. Didius Julianus 193 Med.Au. Philip Arab 248 Rome RIC 11 (A) In a h. of over 200 D„ 139 specimens identified, and several Med. Dressel 1973, Tab.XVl, no 133, Kubiak 1979, p.55. 77-78, Triller 1991, p.69. 103. ZBUZH (ЗБУ Ж ), ob.Rovno (Ровно) D. Septimius Severus 195 Rome In a h. with 177 D., and Ar and Au ornaments. Kropotkin 1961, p.73. 104. ZIELONA. voi.Ciechanôw An. TetricusC?) Copy Elmer 764 or 767.

RIC 61

270-273 (?)

W N . 1 0:1966, p .1 8 6 (A .K rzyżan ow sk a), Kubiak 1979, p .7 8 -7 9 .

8.3. Luboszyce culture 1. AURITZ, Kr.Bautzen Fol. Constantine I 321 Laser 1980, p.315, Chantraine 1983, p.88.

Trier

2. BAUTZEN, Kr.Bautzen An. Maximian Herculius 290-294 Lugdunum Mai. Constanlius II 348-361 Possibly with a Nero as. Laser 1980, p.315-316, Chantraine 1983, p.88. 3. BAUTZEN, Kr.Bautzen An. Maximian Herculius 289 Cen. "period of the Constantines" Laser 1980, p.316.

Lugdunum

RIC305

RIC 399

RIC 457

162

List o f finds

4. BOBROWICE, voi.Zielona Góra Ar Caracalla 196-217 ZfE, 6:1874, p.(171), Bursche 1983a, p.233. 5. BOJADŁA, voi.Zielona Góra Ses. Gordian III 238-244 A, 1:1926, p.51. 6 . BOLESŁAWIEC (vicinity of), voi.Jelenia Góra

An. Gordian III 240 Rome RIC 38 (A) Bunzlauer Sonntagsblatt zum Nutzen und zur Unterhaltung für Stadt und Landy 25:1841, p.294, Bursche 1983a, p.234. 7. BÖNITZ. Kr. Bad Liebenwerda Aur. Septimius Severus 202-210 Laser 1980, p,122.

Rome

RIC 305

Rome

RIC 648

8 . BREITENDORF, Kr.Bautzen

Ses. Severus Alexander Laser 1980, p.317. 9. BUCKOW, Kr .Strausberg Tel. Gordian I Laser 1980, p.120.

231-235

237-238

10. BUDACHÓW, voi. Zielona Góra Cen. Constans 348-350 Bursche 1983a, p.236. 11. COTTBUS, Stkr.Coübus An. Caracalla D. Severus Alexander D. Julia Mamea An. Gordian III An. Philip Arab An. Tarajan Decius An. Trebonianus Gallus An. Volusian An. Valerianus 2 An. Gallienus An. Salonina

215 222-228 222-235 238-244 244-249 249-251 251-253 251-253 256-257 253-260 257-258

Alex.

Cyzicus

RIC 73

Rome Rome

RIC 260b RIC 143

Rome Rome

RIC 180 RIC 72

Lugdunum

RIC 7

(A)

163

Lu bos zy ce culture

An. Saloninus 258-260 Lugdunum Laser 1980. p.142-143. Chantraine 1983, p.81. 12. COTTBUS. Stkr.Cottbus An. Claudius 11 Laser 1980. p.143.

RIC 9

268-270

13. COTTBUS, Stkr.Cottbus C. Severus Alexander 222-235 C. Gordian III 238-244 C. Maximinus (I?) 235-235 C. Philip 244-249 C. Probus 276-282 With at least 6 earlier C. Laser 1980, p.132-133^ Chantraine 1983, p.81. 14. CZERNA, voiJelenia Góra Fol. Constantine 1 306-337 With another AE. Tackenberg 1925, p.60, Frenzel 1926, p.123. 15. DOBERLUNG, Kr.Finsterwalde C. Gordian III 238-244 Laser 1980, p.133. 16. DRAGOWINA, voLZielona Góra Aur. Septimius Severus 208 Bursche 1983a, p.230-231.

Rome

17. ELSTER WERDA (vicinity of) Kr. Bad Lieberwerda An. Claudius II 268-270 An. Claudius II 268-270 Milan Laser 1980, p.129-130. 18. FERNNEUENDORF, Kr.Zossen Ses. Julia Domna 193-217 In a h. with over 40 Ses., 38 of them identified. Laser 1980, p.102.

RIC

RIC 104 RIC 145

224b(A)

164

Lisi o f finds

19. FRAUENDORF, Kr.Cottbus AE Gordian III 238-244 Laser 1980, p.131-132, Chantraine, 1983, p.81. 20. GĘBICE, voi.Zielona Góra D. Septimius Severus D. Elagabalus Possibly with Faustina II D. Bursche 1983a, p.234.

193-194 Rome 218-222 Rome

21. GIESSMANNSDORF, KrLuckau An. Caracalla 215 D. Maximinus I 235 An. Herennia Etruscilla 249-251 An. Valerianus 256-257 An. Gallicnus 257 An. Valerianus 258 An. Salonina 258 Laser 1980, p.138-139. 22. GROSS JAUER, Kr.Calau C. Gordian III (?) Laser 1980, p.130-131.

Rome Rome Rome Rome Lugdunum Milan Lugdunum

RIC 2-17(A) RIC 88 (A)

RIC 263 c-e RIC 7 А RIC 65 a-b RIC 117 RIC 40 RIC 256 RIC 5

238-244

23. GROSS LÜBBENAU. Kr.Calau An. Philip Arab 244-247 Rome Laser 1980, p.131.

RIC 28c

24. GROSSENHAIN, Kr.Grossenhein Aur. Gallienus 257-268 Laser 1980, p. 324, Chantraine 1983, p.89.

RIC 85

Lugdunum

25. GUBIN, voLZielona Góra An. Gordian III 238-239 Rome RIC 6 Bursche 1983a. p.236, Chantraine 1983, p.81 - incorrect localization. 26. HARTAU, Kr.Zittau An.(?) Aurelian Laser 1980, p.332.

270-275

(A)

165

Luboszyce culture

27. HENRYKÓW LUBAŃSKI, voiJelenia Góra AE Septimius Severus 193-211 Konik 1965, p.59. 28. HOHENBUCKO. Kr.Herzberg Aur. Severus Alexander 222-235 (?) copy Laser 1980, р.135. 29. KETSCHENDORF, Kr.Fürstenwalde An. Gordian III 238-240 Laser 1980, p.116, Chantraine 1983, p.81. 30. KNAPPENDRODE, Kr.Hoyerswerda An. Gallienus 260-268 Laser 1980, p.137, Chantraine 1983, p.81.

RIC 658

31. KÖNIGSHAIN, Kr.Görlitz An. Trebonianus Gallus 251-153Antioch Laser 1980, p.323. Konik 1965, p.45-46 - as Działoszyn.

RIC 80

32. KRAUSCHÜTZ, Kr.Bad Liebenwerda An. Tetricus II 270-274 Laser 1980, p. 122-123.

RIC 270

33. LAWALDE, Kr.Löbau Ses. Philip Arab 248 Laser 1980, p.327, Chantraine 1983, p.89.

Rome

34. LEBUS, Kr.Seelow Aur. Diocletian 284-305 With another AV. Laser 1980, p, 117-118, Chantraine 1983, p.81 35. LIEBEROSE, Kr.Beeskow Cen. Gratian 367-378 Laser 1980, p.113. Chantraine 1983, p.80. 36. LÖBAU, Kr.Löbau An. Aurelian Laser 1980. p.327.

270-275

RIC 159

166

List of finds

37. LOCHOW, KrXuckenwalde An. Caracalla Laser 1980, p.94.

215

38. LUBAŃ, voiJelenia Góra C. Valentinian Preusker 1843, p.134.

364-392

Rome

RIC 272c-d

Rome Rome Rome

RIC 151 RIC 57 RIC 59

39. LÜBBEN, Kr.Liibben An. Gordian III 238-244 Laser 1980, p.140, Chantraine 1983, p.81. 40. LÜBBEN, Kr.Liibben C. Constantine I 306-337 Laser 1980, p.140, Chantraine 1983, p.81. 41. LUCKAU, Kr.Luckau An. Gordian III An. Philip Arab An. Philip Arab Laser 1980, p. 139-140.

243-244 247-249 247-249

42. LUH, okr.Frydlant Cen. Valentinian I 364-375 Bolin 1926a, p.(106), Sudeta, 2:1926, p.14, Tal'. I (M.Jahn). 43. MALTERHAUSEN, KrJüterbog Fol. Licinius I 312 Laser 1980, p.91, Chantraine 1983, p.79.

Thessal.

RIC 53

Rome

RIC 335 or 338 (A)

44. MENGELSDORF, Kr.Görlitz C. Severus Alexander 222-235 Laser 1980, p.323. 45. MOKRA, voi.Ziclona Góra An. Julia Mamea Bursche 1983a, p.236.

222-235

46. MÜLLROSE, Kr .Eisenhüttenstadt Aur. Diocletian 294-305 Laser 1980. p.115, Chantraine 1983, p.80.

Luboszyce culture

167

47. MÜNCHEBERG, Kr.Strausberg C. Severus Alexander 222-235 Laser 1980, p.120. 48. NEUZELLE, Kr.Eisenhüttenstadt Mcd.Ae Severus Alexander 222-235 Laser 1980, p.120.

Perinthus

Schönen 782

49. NIEDERLEHME, Kr.Königs Wusterhausen An. Valerianus 253-260 Laser 1980, p.93. 50. NOWOGRÓD BORZAŃSKI, voi.Zielona Góra Fol. Helena 324-340 Fol. Theodora 337-340 ZfE, 4:1872, p.162, Bolin 1926a, p.(83), ref 4 - doubts authenticity of the find, due to rarity of coins, Domański 1979, p.246 incorrectly identifies Theodora as spouse of Constantine II (sic!) Chlorus instead of Constantius II. 51. OKRAGLICA, voiJelenia Góra D. Julia Domna 193-217 Schachmann 1780, p.38 ref u. 52. PETROVICE, okr.Zddr Tetr. Gallienus Nlaus.Mag.. 3:1927, p.25. 135.

258-259

Alex.

53. PLATKOW. Kr.Seelow Aur. Numerianus 282-283 Antioch Laser 1980, p. 118, Chantraine 1983a, p.71.

RIC 373

54. POLE, voi.Zielona Góra Ses. Julia Domna Bursche 1983a, p.236.

RIC 564

55. PREITITZ, Kr.Bautzen Aur. Postumus Laser 1980, p.319-320.

196-211 Rome

259-268

RIC 36 var.

168

List o f finds

56. RADEBEUL, Kr.Dresden Ses. Gordian III 240-244 Laser 1980, p.321, Chantraine 1983, p.89.

Rome

RIO 297a

57. RADNICA, voi.Ziclona Góra D. Julia Mamea 222-235 An. Gordian III 238-244 3 An. Philip Arab 244-249 An. Olacilia Severa 244-249 An. Trajan Decius 249-251 In a h. Bolin 1926a, p.(65), Kunisz 1973, p.93-94. 58. RADOMICE, voi. Jelenia Góra Fol. Constantine I 306-337 Fol. Crispus 317-326 Fol. Constantine II 317-340 AE Constantius II 337-361 AE Helena 360-363(7) Reported to have been found with other coins in this area. Bolin 1926a, p.(81) ref. 2, Tackenberg 1925, p.60. 59. RADOGOSZCZ, voiJelenia Góra Cen. Valentinian I 364-375 H.A.Schultz, Die Burgunden im Gebiet der heutigen preussischen Oberlausitz, Jahreshefte der Gesellschaft für Anthropologie und Urgeschichte der Oberlausitz, 4:1937. p.37. 60. RAGOW, Kr.Königs Wusterhausen D. Macrinus 217-218 Laser 1980, p.93. 61. RIESDORF, Kr.Jüterbog C. Severus Alexander Laser 1980, p.91.

222-235

62. RASZYN, voLZielona Góra An. Gordian III Bursche 1983a, p.236.

241-243

Rome

RIC 86

(A)

169

63. STEINBACH, Kr.Drcsden Fol. Constantine II 320 Laser 1980, P.322, Chantraine 1983, p.89. 64. STÖSITZ, Kr.Riesa Aur. Aurelian Laser 1980, p.331-332.

Siscia

RIC 117

Rome Rome

RIC 152 RIC 5-6 RIC 18

270-275

65. TÄTZSCHWITZ, Kr.Hoyerswerda C. Gordian III 238-244 Laser 1980, p.137. 66. TRZEB IEL, voi.Ziclona Góra An. Elagabalus 218-222 D. Maximinus I 237-238 An. Gallienus 258-259 With Marcus Aurelius D. Bursche 1983a, p.234.

(A) (A) (A)

67. WELLMITZ, Kr.Eisenhüttenstadt Tet. Diocletian 284-296 Alex. Fol. Constantine I 310-318 Laser 1980, p. 115-116, Chantraine 1983, p.80. 68. WERCHOW, Kr.Calau 2 An. Gordian III 238-244 An. Philip Arab 244-247 Rome RIC 28c or 29 (A) With another An. Schl. Provinz., 66:1817, p.510-511 ref xx, Laser 1980, p.131. 69. WILHELMSAUE, Kr.Fiirstenwalde Ses. Septimius Severus 195 With Faustina I Ses. Laser 1980, p.117. 70. ZABELLITZ, Kr.Grossenhain Aur. Probus 276-282 Laser 1980, p.326.

Rome

RIC 689

170

List o f finds

7 1 . Z G O R Z E L E C , v o iJ e le n ia Góra S es. M axim inus 1 2 3 5 -2 3 8 L aser 1980, p .338.

72. ZIELONA GÓRA, v.c. 5 AR Gordian III 5 Tet.

R om e

RIC 81

238-244 Alex.

P o ssib ly the sam e co in s, in a h. o f so m e 5 0 0 late R om an C .

AB, 3:1928, p.29, A, 3:1931, p.307, Kunisz 1973, p.136-137. 73. ZIELONA GÓRA. v.c. An. Philip Arab 244-249 AB, 2:1927, p.78, A, 3:1931, p.100. 74. ZITTAU, Kr.Ziltau Fol. Constantius II 324-361 Laser 1980, p.332-333, Chantraine 1983, p.89. 75. ŻARY, voi .Zielona Góra Aur. Postumus Bolin 1926a, p.(68).

259-268

8.4. Westbalt circle 1. ANDULIAI, r.Klaipêdos AE Maximinus I In a gr. with Faustina II AE. Bolin 1926b, p.227.

235-238

2. AUKŚTKIEMIAI, r.Klaipêdos Ses. Diadumenian 238 In gr. 16 with Ses. fragments. Ses. In gr. 38 with Marcus Aurelius Ses. Severus Alexander Ses. Maximinus I Ses. Gordian III Scs. Otacilia Severa In gr. 219

222-250 Ses. 222-235 235-238 238-244 244-249

Westbalt circle

171

2 Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 In gr. 264 with Commodus Ses. 2 Ses. Severus Alexander In gr.321

222-235

Ses. Gordian III 238-244 Ses. Otacilia Severa 244-249 Fromgr. 330 with Hadrian Ses. Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 From gr, 338 with Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius Ses. and 2 ind. Ses. Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 From gr. 350 with Commodus and ind. Ses. Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 From gr. 356 with Marcus Aurelius and Faustina II Ses. Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 From gr. 365 with ind. Ses. and AE IL Ses. Maximinus I From gr. 379 with ind. Ses.

235-238

Ses. Severus Alexander From gr. 388.

222-235

Ses. Severus Alexander Ses. Maximinus I From gr.389 with ind. Ses.

222-235 235-238

Ses. Gordian III 238-244 Loose find from cm. with Lucilla Ses. Ses. Septimius Severus Loose find from cm.

193-211

172 Ses. Philip II Loose find from cm.

Lisi of finds

247-249

Ses. Herennia Etruscilla 249-251 Loose find from cm. with ind. Ses. Ses. Julia Mamea Loose find from cm. Bolin 1926b. p.228-230.

222-235

3. B A B IĘ T A , v o i.O lsztyn

Ses. Severus Alexander In gr. 424. Bolin 1926b, p.187.

222-235

4. BOĆWINKA, voi.SuwaJki Sil. Constantius II 351-355 Cyzicus RIC 102(A) From cm. Tischler 1878. p.215. Bolin 1926b, p.221 - incorrectly Constantine II. 5. BOGACZEWO (Kula), voi.Suwalki Ses. Philip Arab 244-249 From cm. Bolin 1926b. p.227. 6. CHAPAEVO (ЧАПАЕВО), ob.Kaliningrad (К ал и н и н град ) 2 C. Maximinus I 235-238 C. Gordian III 238-244 Possibly from cm. Bolin 1926b, p.235-236 and ref. 49 7. DAVYDOVKA (ДАВЫДОВКА), ob.Kaliningrad (К ал и н и н гр ад ) Scs. Caracalla 196-217 From gr. 5. Bolin 1926b, p.226 and ref 42. 8. DLUŻEC, voi.Olsztyn Scs. Maximinus I In gr.I41. Bolin 1926b, p.237.

235-238

173

Westball circle

9. DUBROVKA (Л У БРОВКА), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Pcrtinax 193 Bolin 1926b, p.234. 10. (f.) EISLIETHEN, ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Fol.(?) Conslantius I 293-306 From gr.36a Bolin 1926b, p.211. 11. ELANOVKA (ЕЛАНОВКА), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 In gr. 22 with Faustina II and ind. Ses. Bolin“ 1926b, p.234. 12. GIERKOŻ, gm.Kętrzyn, voi.Olsztyn Ses. Philip Arab 244-249 From cm. with Faustina II Ses. Tischler 1878, p.267, Bolin 1926b, p.236. 13. (f.) GREBIETEN, ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Philip Arab 244-249 From cm, Bolin 1926b, p.213. 14. GRODZISKO, voi.Suwałki 2 Ses. Severus Alexander From cm.

231-235

Rome

RIC 635

(A)

Ses. Gordian III 244-249 From cm. Helwing 1717, p.95-96, Erl.Pr.. 4:1728, p.76-77 - on Severus Alexander: it is highly unlikely that the two Ses. were one and the same (the full description could have pertained to only one of them); also Bolin 1926b, p.206. 15. GRUNAJKI, voi.Suwałki Sil. Conslantius II 351-355 Sirmium Sil. Constantius II 351-355 Const. In a gr. ZfE, 3:1871, p.8-9 (R.Virchow), Tischler 1878, p.215.

RIC 15 RIC 102

(A) (A)

174

Lisi of finds

16. GUTY, voi.Suwalki D. Caracalla 196-197C?) From cm. Bczzcnberger 1904, p.82, Bolin 1926b, p.227. 17. GVARDEÎSK (ГВАРЛЕЙС1С), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) AE II Julia Macsa 218-222 Bolin 1926b, p.239. 18. JAROSLAVSKOE (ЯРОСЛАВСКОЕ). ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) AEI 211-250(?) Aut. From c. with 2 Ses. (?). including Trajan. AEI Caracalla 196-217 Laodicea From cm. with Trajan Ses. Bolin 1926b, p.217 (could this be a double?). 19. KALININGRAD (f. Charlottenberg) (КАЛИ НИН ГРАД), ob.Kalingrad C. Constantius II 324-361 Bolin 1926b, p.224. 20. KALININGRAD (?) (f. Rosenau) (КАЛИ НИН ГРАД), ob. Kaliningrad AE II Gordian III 238-244 Marican. Pick 1164 var. (A) From cm. Bercndt 1874, p.20 and Tab.VIII, 46 obverse corresponds to Pick 1153 or 1156. 21. KALININGRAD (?) (f. Friedrichsberg) (КАЛИНИНГРАД), ob. Kaliningrad Ses. Gordian III 238-244 From cm. Bolin 1926b, p.224 (localization suspect). 22. KLAIPEDA (vicinity), r.Klaipćdos Ses. Gordian III 238-244 With Trajan Ses. Michelbertas 1972. p. 115. 23. KOCZEK, voi.Olsztyn Ses. Gordian III 238-239 Rome In gr.25. Hollack, Peiser 1904. p.21. Bolin 1926b, p.224.

RIC 256a

(A)

West ball circle

24. KOSEWO, voi.Olsztyn Ses. Herennius Elruscus ln gr.4. BoIiiT 1926b. p.236.

175

249-251

25. KOTEL’NIKOVO (КОТЕЛ ЬНИКОВО). ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Gordian III 240 Rome R1C 271 (A) In gr.6 Ses. Scptimius Severus In gr. 12

193-211

AE I Caracalla 196-217 Nicopolis ad Mestum In gr.31 with e.g. gold bar. SpöGK, 21:1880, p.265, SpöGK. 22:1881. p.228 (incorrectly with AD 239), 229. 232, Bolin 1926b. p.219. 26. KRYLOVO (КРЫЛОВО), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) AE Severus Alexander 222-235 Bolin 1926b. p.221. 27. KURMAIĆ1AI. r.Kretingos Ses. Severus Alexander In gr. 8 with Faustina II Ses.

222-235

Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 In gr. 10 with Marcus Aurelius Ses. Kulikauskas 1951. p.318 fig.3, p.319 l'ig.5, 342-344, Michelbertas 1972, p.115. 28. KUTY. voi.SuwaJki AE Gallienus

253-268

Pisidia (Ant.)

Presumably from cm. Antoniewicz 1955. 29. LASOWJEC. voi.Olsztyn Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 In gr.109. Hollack, Peiscr 1904, p.22, Bolin 1926b, p.237.

Krzyżanowska XXL 49 (A)

176

L is i o t‘ f in d s

30. LAZDININKAI, r.Kietingos Ses. Caracalla 196-217 In gr.34 with Antoninus Pius and Lucilla Ses. Michelbertas 1972, p,115. 31. LETNOE (ЛЕТНОЕ), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 In gr. 96. Boliif 1926b, p.218. 32. LIUBLINO (ЛЮБЛИНО), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) An. 212-250 (?) In gr.36 Bolin 1926b, p.218 dates this coin to AD 211-250; this date bracket in the light of current knowledge on the beginning of issue of the antoninianus requires correction. 33. MACHARY, voi.Olsztyn AE I Philip Arab 247 Viminacium In gr.209. Hollack, Peiser 1904, p.21, Tab.V. Bolin 1926b. p.237.

Pick 105

(A)

34. MALAIA KLIMOVKA (М АЛАЯ КЛИМ ОВКА), ob.Kaliningrad AE Philip Arab 247-249 Bolin 1926b, p.209. 35. MALINKA. voi.Suwalki AE Julia Mamea Bolin 1926b, p.227.

222-235

36. MINE (valcy near Śernai?), r.Klaipćdos As Gordian III 241 Rome AM, 3:1866, p.661 (H.Genthe). Michelbertas 1972. p.28. 37. MOJTYNY. gm.Piecki, voi.Olsztyn Ses. Scptimius Severus 194 Rome In gr.5. Hollack. Peiser 1904. p.22. 43. Bolin 1926b. p.237.

RIC 306

(A)

RIC 670

(A)

177

Weslbal! circle

38. MRĄGOWO (vicinity of). voi.Olsztyn AE Julia Mamea 222-235 Rome RIC 668-669 (A) Bayer 1722. p.42 Tab.I. fig.2; RIC 668 - Ses.. RIC 669 - as. 39. MUNTOWO, voi.Olsztyn AE II Caracalla In gr.79. Bolin' 1926b, p.236.

196-217

40. MUROMSKOE (МУРОМСКОЕ). ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Julia Maesa 218-222 From cm. Prussia. 21:1900, p.360, Bolin 1926b, p.215. 41. NATANGIA Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 Ses. Gordian III 238-244 With 7 other Ses., starting from Trajan (a single find?). Bolin 1926b, p.239. 42. NAWIADY, voi.Olsztyn AE Caracalla 196-217 Serdica Ses. Severus Alexander 227 Rome In gr. Hollback, Peiscr 1904. p.22. Bolin 1926b, p.236-237.

RuSiCka 206 RIC 456

(A) (A)

43. NEMANSKOE (HEMAHCKOE), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) An. Aurelian (?) 270-275 Presumably from cm. with Marcus Aurelius AE. ZfE, 12:1880, p. 132, Bolin 1926b. p.235.: coin identified incorrectly as an Aurelian AE (could this be an earlier Marcus Aurelius Ses.?). 44. NIMERZATÈ, r.Palangos AE Severus Alexander 231-235 Rome RIC 642-447 (A) Bayer 1722. p.44, Erl.Pr. 3:1726, p.247-248, Michelbertas 1972. p. 116; legend analogous for Ses., Dup. and Asses. 45. NOVOSTROEVO (НОВОСТРОЕВО), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) C. Severus Alexander 222-235 Bock 1783. vol.l. p.612, Bolin 1.926b, p.209.

178

Lisi o f finds

46. ONUFRYJEWO, voi.Suwafld Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 In gi\216. Bolin 1926b, p.237. 47. (t) OSTPREUSSEN 2 Tel. Maximian Herculius Bolin 1926b, p.240.

285-296

Alex.

48. PALANGA, m.Lettland Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 Ses. Philip II 247-249 With other C. TaulaviCius 1968, p.124, Michelbertas 1972, p.II8. 49. PALANGA (Baltijos aikStèje), m.Lettland Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 In gr.l with a Marcus Aurelius Ses. and another ind. Ses. Ses. Julia Mamea In gr.8.

222-235

Ses. Maximinus I Ses. Philip Arab Ses. Philip II In gr.10.

235-238 244-249 247-249

Ses. Gordian III 238-244 In gr.I4 with Marcus Aurelius Ses. Ses. Caracalla Ses. Julia Maesa In gr.20 with Trajan Ses.

196-217 218-222

Ses. Maximinus I From the cm.

235-238

AE II Gordian III 238-244 From the cm. Tautaviëius 1968, 135-137, Michelbertas 1972, р.П8.

Westbalt circle

50. PETRELIAI. r.Silulés Ses. Severus Alexander Bolin 1926b. p.223.

179

222-235

51. PLEŚKUĆIAI (Pangcsai), r.Klaipédos Ses. Caracalla 196-217 In gr. 2 with 10 Ses., including 1 Hadrian, 1 Faustina and 1 Commodus. Bolin 1926b, p.230, Michelbertas 1972, p.l 18. 52. PliOCICZNO, voi.SuwaJki C. Gordian III 238-244 In a gr. with another ind. C. W.Gronau, Ausgrabungen an der Grenze Osipreussens, Germanen-Erbe, 7:1942, p.124. 53. PODDUBNOE (ПОДДУБНОЕ), ob.Kaliningrad (К ал и н и н град) Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 From a cm. Bolin 1926b. p.225. 54. POVAROVKA (ПОВАРОВКА). ob.Kaliningrad (К ал и н и н град) Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 From a cm. Bolin 1926b, p.214. 55. PRUDY (ПРУДЫ). ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Gordian III 238-244 In gr.2. Bolin 1926b. p.225. 56. PUTILOVO (ПУТИЛОВО). ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Julia Mamea 222-235 In gr.225. Bolin 1926b. p.210-211. 57. RODNIKI (РОДНИКИ), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) An. Pi obus 276-282 Bolin 1926b, p.238.

180

L is t o f f in d s

58. ROVNOE (РОВНОЕ), ob.Kaliningrac! (К алининград) Ses. Séverus Alexander 222-235 In gr.5 Ses. Scptimius Severus 193-211 Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 In a cm. with other C. (isolated finds ?). Bolin 1926b, p.216. 59. RUDAIĆIAI, r.Kretingos Ses. Maximinus I In gr.l (=48) with ind. Ses. Michelbertas 1972. p. 119. 60. RYN, voi.Suwaflri Fol. Constantine I AM 4:1867, p.87.

235-238

318-319 Ticinum

R1C 82

(A)

61. SAMBIA Ses. Caracalla 196-217 With 4 Ses.: 2 Hadrian, 1 Antoninus Pius and 1 Marcus Aurelius. Bolin 1926b, p.215. 62. SAULAŻOLIAI, r.Klaipćdos Med.Ae Geta 209-212 Tarsus In a h. of some 60-70 AE, with 50 Ses. identified from Trajan to Commodus. Michelbertas 1972, p.64. fig.20; p.120, 125. 63. SENKAI. r.Kretingos AE Caracalla Michelbertas 1972. p.120.

196-217

64. ŚERNAI, r.Klaipćdos AE II Severus Alexander 222-235 In gr.8 with an another aut.AE II. Ses. Severus Alexander In gr,50 with Hadrian Ses.

231-235

Macedonia

Gaebler 497-498 (A)

(A)

181

Westbalt circle

Ses. Scs. Ses. Ses. Ses. In gr.67.

Gordian III Gordian III Otacilia Severn Trajan Decius Trebonianus Gallus

243-244 243-244 248 249-251 251-253

Rome Rome Rome Rome Rome

RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC

337a 336 200a 119A 116a

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

Ses. Gordian III 238-244 Loose find from cm. with another Ses. AE Gordian III 238-244 Loose find from cm. F.Rühl. Die Münzen des Schemer Gräberfeldes. SpöGK, 17:1876. (1877), р.169170. Bolin 1926b. p.231; autonomous issues from Macedonia, (presumably Beroea - cf. M.Pricc. Coins of the Macedonians. Edinburgh and London 1974, p.36) should most probably be dated to early Severus Alexander, although Gordian III is also likely (Gaebler 656-657 - the additional star on the reverse which could have been overlooked in F.Riihl’s description); it is also possible that lo o s e finds of Gordian III issues, reportedly independently of each other are in fact a doubled information about one find. 65. SEROVO (CEPOBO), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) AE Severus Alexander 222-235 Bolin 1926b, p.209. 66. SKANDAWA. voi.Olsztyn Ses. Severus Alexander 223 In a h. with 21 D. from Trajan (oldest from AD 104) to Commodus and 10 other Ses. from Antoninus Pius. BBfMSuW, 5:1870. p.325. AM, 7:1870. p.738. Bolin 1926b, p.221. 67. SKÈRIA1, r.Klaipèdos Ses. Gordian III 238-244 From a cm. possibly with 3 other Ses.: Lucius Verus. from 160-192 (?) and ind. Bolin 1926b. p.231, Michelbcrtas 1972, p.120. 68. SMALNINKAI, r.Mariampo! 3 Fol. Constantine I 306-336 Antioch In a h. from lake Orijos with 208 AE. S.Sajauskas, Romos monety lobis prie Orijos. Kulluros barai, 1972. No 1, p.57.

182

L is i o f fin d s

69. SOVETSK (f.Tilsit). (СОВЕТСК),ob.Kaliningrad (К ал и н и н град ) AE Licinius 308-324 Bolin 1926b, p.238. 70. SOVETSK (f.Tilsit, vicinity of) (СОВЕТСК), ob.Kaliningrad AE Philip Arab 244-149 Bolin 1926b, p.238. 71. SOVETSK (f.Bendiglauken) (СОВЕТСК), ob.Kaliningrad Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 Ses. Severus Alexander 226 Rome RIC 440 Ses. Severus Alexander 231-235 Rome RIC 648 From a cm. possibly with other AE. Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 Ses. Severus Alexander 232 Rome RIC 528 Ses. Trajan Decius 249-251 From a cm. with 3 ind. Ses. (one possibly Caracalla or Elagabalus). SpöGK, 23:1882, p.141, 147. Bolin 1926b, p.238.

(A) (A)

(A)

72. SPYCHOWO (Spychöwko). voi.Oisztyn Ses. Trajan Dccias 249-251 Rome RIC 112a or 113a (A) In gr.262 Hollack, Peiser 1904. p.21 - incorrectly daté to AD 250. Bolin 1926b. p.233. 73. SVETLOGORSK (СВЕТЛОГОРСК), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 From a cm. Bolin 1926b, p.214. 74. STARE KIEJKUTY, voi.Oisztyn AE I Severus Alexander 222-235 Prusa Waddington 137 (A) In gr.25. Hollack. Peiser 1904, p.21 fig. 19, Bolin 1926b, p.233. Antoniewicz 1955, p.359 all incorrectly identify the mint as Prusias instead of Prusa in Bithynia. 75. STRAGNAI. r.Kalipèdos 2 Ses. Severus Alexander 222-235 Ses. Gordian III 238-244 From a cm. during excavation by A.Bezzenbergcr, possibly separate finds.

West bah circle

Ses. Gordian III From a cm. Michelbcrtas 1972, p.121.

183

238-244

76. SZCZYTNO. voi.Olszlyn D. Septimius Severus 193-211 In a h. of some 200 D. of which 60 were identified. Toppen 1870, p.51-52 (according to the report of Schubert from Königsberg), Bolin 1926b. p.233. 77. SZTYNORT, voi.SuwaJki AB Julia Domna 193-217 Tomis Pick 2800 (A) Ses. Severus Alexander 231-235 Rome RIC 645 (A) Ses. Julia Mamca 222-235 Rome RIC 670 (A) Ses. Maximinus I 235 Rome RIC 58 (A) Ses. Gordian III 240-244 Rome RIC 279a (A) Ses. Gordian III 243 Rome RIC 303a (A) Ses. Otacilia Severn 244-249 Rome RIC 203a (A) Ses. Hcrennia Etruscilla 249-251 Rome RIC 136b (A) AE Constans 348-350 (A) From a number of finds in and around lake Mamry, and other localities in Sztynort village. Bolin 1926b, p.206, Liegle 1930, Kunisz 1970, p.113 - incorrectly as a h.; origin of the Constans AE is uncertain. 78. VASIL'KOVO (БАСИЛ ЬКОВО), ob.Kaliningrad (К алининград) Scs. Severus Alexander 222-235 ln gr.44. Holin' 1926b, p.211. 79. VILKYCIAI. r.Silutès C. Maximinus I 235-238 In a h. with 90 C. identified, from Hadrian 10 Commodus. Bayer 1722, p.44.. Erl.Pr.. 1:1724, p.418, 3:1726, p.247, Bolin 1926b, p.232: the latest coin in the h. is identified as Maximian but undoubtedly it is a Maximinus. 80. WAWROCHY, voi.Olszlyn AE Elagabalus In gr.136 Bolin 1926b. p.233.

218-222

Marcianopolis

184

List of finds

81. ZAOSTROV’E (3A0CTP0B ЬЕ), ob.Kaliningrad Ses. Maximinus I 235-238 From a cm. Bolin 1926b. p.216. 82. ZHUKOVSKOE (ЖУКОВСКОЕ), ob. Kaliningrad (К алининград) 2 Ses. Scptimius Severus 193-211 In a h. of 138 Ses., 106 of them identified. Bezzenberger 1904, p.XIX. Bolin 1926b, p.215. 8.5. Przeworsk culture 1. ALWERNIA, voi. Kraków D. Septimius Severus D. Aquilia Scvcra D. Severus Alexander D. Julia Mamea In a h. of some 1/2 litre D. Kunisz 1985, p.23.

193-211 220-222 222-235 222-235

2. ANDRZEJÓW, voi.Łódź Fol. Constantine I Kubiak 1979, p.23.

330-333

Siscia

RIC 219

3. BELCZ MAŁY. voi.Leszno Aur. Severus Alexander Bursche 1983a, p.229, fig.2.

231-235

Rome

RIC 237

(A)

223 330-333

Rome Const.

RIC 396 RIC 63

(A) (A)

282

Siscia

RIC 192

4. BERNARTICE, okrJesenik Ses. Severus Alexander Fol. Constantine I With a Commodus as. Bursche 1983a. p.235. 5. BIAŁUTY. voi.Warszawa Aur. Carinus Kubiak 1979, p.25. 6. BIECZ, voi.Krosno An. Otacilia Scvcra Kunisz 1985, p.27.

244-249

Rome

RIC 125c

185

Przeworsk culture

7. BIELAWA, voi.WaJbrzych AE Gordian Konik 1965, p.29.

238-244

8. BIESIEKIERZ NAWOJOWY, voi.Łódź D. Septimius Severus 193-194 D. Julia Domna 193-196 In a h. Kubiak 1979, p.23-24.

RIC 2-17 RIC 536

9. BŁASZKI, voLSieradz Mai. Constans 348-350 WN, 2:1958, p.44 (A.Gupieniec). 10. BŁONIE, voi.Warszawa Fol. Licinius I Kubiak 1979, p.25.

313-315

(A)

Siscia

RIC 8

11. BŁOTNICA STRZELECKA, voi.Opole 3 D. Septimius Severus 193-211 D. Julia Domna 193-217 In a h. of some 100 D., 94 of them studied. ZfE, 12:1880, p.(276), Bolin 1926a, p.(74-73) ref.3, Kunisz 1973, p.14-15, Godjowski 1973, p.374. 12. BOCHNIA, voi.Tarnów An. Diocletian Kunisz 1985, p.30-31.

291

Heraclea

RIC 284

13. BOCHNIA (vicinity of ), voi.Tarnow An. ind. 253-294 Kunisz 1985, p.31. 14. BOHUŚOV, okr.Kinov An. Aurelian 270-275 Gumowski 1960, p.4, Pochitonov 1955, p.225 (under FulStejn). 15. BOLKÓW, voiJelenia Góra An. Tctricus I 270-274 Bursche 1983a, p.235.

RIC 148

186

List o f finds

16. BRZEG, voi. Opole Cen. Constantius II Bolin 1926a, p.(71).

348-361

17. BRZESKO, voi.Tamôw Fol. Crispus Fol. Constans Bursche 1988a, p.210.

323 Lugdunum 347-348 Siscia

RIC 215 RIC 183

(A) (A)

18. BRZEŚĆ KUJAWSKI, voi.WJocJawek AE Valentinian 1 364-375 Kubiak 1979, p.26. 19. BRZEŹNICA, voi.Katowice AE Constans (?) 333-350 Bursche 1983a, p.232. 20. BYSTRZYCA, voi.WrocJaw Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 Pescheck 1939, p.374. 21. BYTOM (Gómiki), voi.Katowice Fol. Constantine 1 316 Bursche 1983a, p.232.

Trier

RIC 93 or I00-102(A)

22. CHLUDOWO, voi.Poznan Sol. Theodosius I copy Fredrich 1909, p.205, Bolin 1926a, p.(88). 23. CHMIELÓW, voi.Kielce D. Septimius Severus 193-195 Rome D. Julia Domna 193-196 Rome In a h. of some 400 D. of which 340 were identified. Kunisz 1985, p.37-45. 24. CHORULA, voi.Opole AE Gordian III Ses., Dup. or as. God/owski 1973, p.324.

240-244

Rome

RIC 22 RIC536

RIC 297

(A)

187

Przeworsk culture

25. CHRZASZCZYCE, voi.Opole Fol. Constantine I 310-313 Godjowski 1973, p.345.

Trier

RIC 876(A)

25a. CUDZYNOWICE (or vicinity), voi.Kielce Ses. Severus Alexander 231 Rome WN, 33:1989, p.72-73 (M.Kruszyński). 26. CZARNY DUNAJEC, voLNowy S?cz An. Florianus 276 Kunisz 1985, p.47.

Scrdica

RIC 558(A)

RIC111

27. CZERWIĘCICE, voi.Kalowicc Fol. Constantine 1 310-317 Trier Fol. Constantine I 324-330 With Trajan D. GodJowski 1973. p.264. 28. DALEWICE, voi.Krakôw D. Maximinus I Kunisz 1985, p.48-49.

235

Rome

(A) (A)

RIC 1

29. DABROWNO, voi.Czçstochowa D. Clodius Albinus 193-195 Rome RIC 5c D. Septimius Severus 193-195 Rome RIC 24 D. Julia Domna 193-217 D. Fluvia Plautilla 202-205 In a h. of some 500 D., of which 222 (+35) were identified, with an Au. necklace. Kunisz 1985, p.49-56. 30. DOLNA, voi.Opole Aur. Diocletian 284-305 Schl. Provinz. N.F., 5:1866, p.360, Bolin 1926a, p.(74). 31. DRZEW1CZ NOWY, voi. Skierniewice D. Clodius Albinus 194-195 Rome D. Septimius Severus 194-195 Rome 12 D. Julia Domna 193-196 Rome D. Macrinus 217-218 Rome

RIC 5 RIC 43 RIC536 RIC 59

188

List of finds

With earlier D. : 1 Clodius Albinus and 6 Septimius Severus in a hoard of some 1600 D., 1263 of them identified; with an Au pendant. Kubiak 1979, p.2943. 32. DUSZNIKI ZDRÓJ, voi.WaJbrzych An. Tetricus II 270-274 AB, 2:1927, p.58. 33. DZIAŁOSZYCE, voi.Kielce Fol. Constantine I 326-328 Bursche 1988a, p.210.

Thessal.

RIC 153

33a.DZIALOSZYCE, voi.Kielce Aur. Gallien 253-268 Rome RIC 52 var. (A) K.Tunia, Aureus Gallietui z Działoszyc, woj.kieleckie, WN, 32:1988, p.202-205, fig.l. 34. GLIWICE (Łabędy), voi.Kalowice Mai. Constantius II 351 Godjowski 1973, p.272.

Trier

35. GŁOGÓW, voi.Legnica Tet. (?) ind. Bursche 1983a, p.235.

Alex.

253-296

36. GŁUBCZYCE, voi.Opole C. Constantine II 317-340 With C. of the House of Constantine. Godjowski 1973, p.284. 37. GŁUBCZYCE. voi.Opole AV Maxentius Presumably Sol. or Aur. Godjowski 1973, p.284.

306-312

38. GNIEZNO (vicinity of), voi.Poznań Aur. Elagabalus 218-222 Lissauer 1887, p.146. Kaialog Berlin, p.386.

RIC 308

or 311(A)

189

Przeworsk culture

39. GNOJNO (Mogilice), voi.Kielce Fol. Crispus 321-324 Cen. Constantius II 348-355 WN, 2:1958, p.45, Bursche 1988a, p.210. 40. GOSTWICA. voi.Nowy Sgcz Aur. Tacitus Kunisz 1985, p.64-65. 41. GÓRZEC, voi.WrocJaw An. Gordian III Bolin 1926a, p.(83).

Siscia

275-276 Rome

(A) (A)

RIC 78

238-244

42. GRABOSZYCE, voi.Bielsko Biaja D. Seplimius Severus 194 Kunisz 1985, p.66. 43. GRABINY (?), voi.Tarnôw Cen. Gratian 378-383 Trier RIC 65a Cen. Arcadius 383-388 Aquilcia RIC 45c With Hadrian D. Piotrowicz 1936, p. 100 as Grabowa, Bursche 1988a. p.210.

(A) (A)

44. GRODKÓW (vicinity of), voi.Opolc An. Probus 276-282 Possibly with Vespasian andAntoninus Pius AE. Godjowski 1973, p.296. 46. GRUDYNIA WIELKA, voi.Opolc Aur. Julius VerusMaximus 236-238 Bursche 1983a, p.233. 47. HUSÓW. voi.Rzeszów Fol. Licinius I Bursche 1988a. p.21I.

310-316

48. IGOŁOMIA, voi.Krakôw D. Gordian III Kunisz 1985, p.72.

238-244

Rome

RIC 5

(A)

(A)

Rome

RIC 129

190

List o f finds

49. INOWROCŁAW, voi.Bydgoszcz Ses. Septimius Severus 194 Fredrich 1909, p.207.

Rome

RIO 183

(A)

50. INOWROCŁAW, voi.Bydgoszcz Aur. Julia Domna 193-217 Z IE, 6:1874, p.I72. 51. JAKSONÓW, voi.Wroclaw Sol. Constantius II Bursche 1980, p.232.

324-367

52. JAKUBOWO, voi.Poznań Ses. Gordian III Fredrich 1909, p.208.

238-244

53. JAROSŁAW, voi.Przemysl An. Philip Arab 244-247 Rome Ses. Philip Arab 244-249 Rome An. Probus 276-282 Rome An. Probus 276-282 Ticinum An. Probus 276-282 Siscia Fol. Maximian Herculius 295 Siscia Fol. Galerius 300-305 Aquilcia Fol. Maxentius 307 Aquileia Cen. Constantius Gallus 351-355 Siscia Opozda 1965, p.227-229, Bursche 1988a, p.211. 54. JASTRZÇBIEC. voi.Kielce Fol. Constantine I Bursche 1988a, p.211.

317-318

Thessal.

RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC

50 180a 170 498 783 85b

RIC 113

RIC 19

(A)

(A) (A) (A) (A)

(A)

55. JAWOR, voi.Wroclaw C. Diocletian 284-305 H.Seger, Schlesische Fundchronik, Schl.Vor., 6:1896, p.56, Bolin 1926a, p.(81), Konik 1965, p.63 and 42 (doubled under Cieszków). 56. JAWOR, voi.Legnica D. Caracalla 196-217 With 3 D.: Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Bolin 1926a, p.(76).

Przeworsk culture

191

57. JEZIORKO. voi.Konin D. Julia Domna 193-217 In a h. of D.. 15 coins identified. Kunisz 1973. p.45-46, Mikołajczyk 1981. p.30. 58. JÇDRZEJÔW, voi.Kiclce D. Septimius Severus Possibly with other D. Kunisz 1985, p.79-80.

193-211

59. JOANKA, voi.Kalisz ?D. Septimus Sevems 193-211 In a h. with some 180 D., including one Clodius Albinus. Kunisz 1973, p.47. 60. JONINY, voi.Tarnôw An. Gordian III Kunisz 1985, p.81-82.

238-244 Rome

RIC 143

61. JUNCEWO, voi.Bydgosz.cz Aur. Victorinus Bursche 1980, p.88.

268-270 S.

RIC 26a

62. KAMIEŃ. voi.WrocJaw An. Probus Bursche 1983a, p.236.

276-282 Siscia

RIC 665

63. KAZIMIERZA WIELKA. voi.Kielce Aur. Gallienus 253-268 Rome Kunisz 1985. p.84.

RIC 45

64. KAZIMIERZA WIELKA. voi.Kielce Cen. Constantius II 348-350 Cyzicus Cen. Julian 355-361 Siscia Bursche 1988a, p.211.

RIC 74 RIC 397

(A)

(A) (A)

65. KAKOLEWO, voi.Leszno Fol. Constantine I 306-337 B.Erzcpki, Nowe maieryaly do archeologicznej mapy Wielkopolski, Dwutygodnik Naukowy Poświęcony Archeologii, Historyi i Lingwistyce, 2:1879, p.290, Katalog Berlin, p.386. Fredrich 1909, p.208.

192

List o f finds

66. KĘDZIERZYN KOŹLE (SJawçcice), voi.Opole AE Constantius II 324-361 Alex. Bolin 1926a, p.(72). 67. KĘDZIERZYN KOŹLE, voi.Opole An. Probus 276-282 Ticinum (?) Fol. Constantine I 313-318 Fol. Constantine I 320-325 Fol. Constantine I(?) 324-329 Fol. Constantine II 330-336 Fol. Constans 337-340 Fol. Constans 337-350 Fol. Valentinian I 364-375 2 Fol. Valens 364-378 Number of finds unknown. Godjowski 1973, p.307.

RIC 532

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

67a. KIELCE (region of, in Jędrzejów direction), v.c. D. Pertinax 193 BMCRE 13 In a h. of 50-60 D., 40 of them identified. M.Kruszyński, Zaginiony skarb denarów rzymskich z Kielecczyzny, WN, 32:1988, p.195-201. 68. KIETLICE, voi.Opole Aur. Gordian III Bursche 1983a, p.229.

238-239

69. KLECZA DOLNA, voi.Bielsko Bia/a Fol. Constantine I 306-337 With 4 earlier С. Kunisz 1985, р.85. 70. KOŃCZYCE MALE. voi.Katowice Fol. Constantine II 317-340 Cen.(?) Constantius II 348-361 (?) 2 Ceil. Valens 364-378 With 5 other C. from a number of finds (?). Kunisz 1973, p.51 (as a h.), Godjowski 1973, p.270.

RIC

8(A)

193

Przeworsk culture

71. KOŚCIAN, voi.Leszno Fol. Maximian Herculius 294-307 Fol. Constantius Chlorus 294-306 Fredrich 1909, p.209, Bolin 1926a, p.(87). 72. KOTOWIECKO, voi.Kalisz D. Pertinax 193 D. Julia Domna 193-217 With 13 earlier D. - number of finds unidentified. Sadowski 1977, p.188, Katalog Berlin, p.386, Fredrich 1909, p.209. 73. KOZA WIELKA, voi.Kalisz D. Julia Domna 211-217 Gupieniec 1954, p.44, Tab.XIII, 12.

RIC 388c

74. KOZA WIELKA, voLKalisz An. Gallienus 253-268 E. (?) Gupieniec 1954, p.44, Tab.XIII, 10.

RIC 669 var. (A)

75. KOZINIEC, voi.WaJbrzych AE Constantius II Bolin 1926a, p.(72).

324-362

76. KRAKÓW, v.c. 2 An. Probus Kunisz 1985, p.94.

276-282

(A)

RIC 641 ff.

77. KRAKÓW (Łobzów), v.c. Sol.(?) Constantine II 330-337 Siscia RIC 220 (A) The described reverse (CONCORDIA EXERCITVS) is known only from Fol. This is presumably an unknown type of Sol., or more likely, the legend was read incorrectly (a modern imitation is also possible). Bursche 1988a, p.211. 78. KRAKÓW (ul.Warszawska). An. Gallienus An. Aurelian Fol. Constantine I Fol. Constantine II AE III Constantius II Cen. Julian

v.c. 253-268 270-275 306-337 317-340 324-361 355-363

194

List o f finds

Cen. Valentinian 1 364-375 Cen. Theodosius I 379-395 In a h. of 187 An, second half of IHrd and IV century AE. Kunisz 1985, p.96. 79. KRAKÓW (Wawel), v.c. Fol. Maxentius 309-312 Ostia RIC 403-404 (A) WNA, 5:1913, p.187, Piotrowicz 1928-29, p.54, Bursche 1988, p.212. 80. KRAKÓW (Wawel), v.c. An. Aurelian Piotrowicz 1928-29, p.54.

270-275 Cyzicus

RIC 346

81. KRAKÓW (Wawel), v.c. Fol. Galerius Kunisz 1985, p.100.

308-310

RIC 101a

82. KRAKÓW (Wawel), v.c. AE Philip Arab Kunisz 1985, p.100.

244-249

Alex.

(A)

83. KRAKÓW (Bieżanów), v.c. D. Caracalla 196-217 WNA, 5:1905, p.374. Kunisz 1985, p.96. 84. KRAKÓW (Nowa Huta), v.c. Fol. Constantine I 312-315 Mai. Constantius II 351-354 Alex. With 2 D. from a number of isolated finds. WN, 11:1967, p.246 (T.Opozda), Bursche 1988, p.212. 85. KRASNYSTAW, voi.CheJm An. Aurelian Kokowski 1984, p.45.

270-275

86. KRASNYSTAW, (vicinity of). voi.Chefm Sol. Theodosius I 379-395 Kokowski 1984, p.45.

(A) RIC 72-73(A)

Przeworsk culiure

87. KRAŚNIK, voi-Lublin AE II Philip Arab 245 Fol. Constantine I 316 Opozda 1970, p.52, Bursche 1988, p.212. 88. KRNOV, c.okr. Cen. Valentinian I Pochitonov 1955, p.287.

364-375

89. KROBIA, voi.Leszno Aur. Diocletian Fredrich 1909, p.209.

284-305

90. KROMOLÓW, voi.Opole C. Constantine Godlowski 1973, p.326.

306-340

Viminacium Trier

195

Pick 103 RIC 97

91. KROSNO, v.c. (?) Fol. Constantine 306-340 Together with 5 other House of Constantine C. Kunisz 1985, p.105. 92. KROTOSZYN, voi.Kalisz Tet. Diocletian 284-296 In a h. of 26 AE (possibly debased Ar.Tct.). Kunisz 1973, p.56. 93. KRUSZWICA, voi.Bydgoszcz An. Herennia Etruscilla 249-251 Fredrich 1909, p.209. 94. KRUSZYNA, voi.Czçstochowa Fol. Constantine I 310-313 Trier? Kubiak 1979, p.53. 95. KRZEMIONKI, voLKielce Fol. Maximian Herculius Fol. Constantine I Kunisz 1985, p.106.

294-308 306-337

RIC 890 ?

(A) (A)

196

List o f finds

96. KRZYŻANOWICE, voi.Katowice Ses. Septimius Severus 193-211 Godlewski 1973, p.365. 97. KRZYŻOWICE, voi.Opole An. Victorinus Fol. Conslantine I Fol. Constantine I 2 Fol. Constantius II Cen. Valens Bursche 1983a, p.229.

268-270 S. 330-337 337-340 W. 337-340 364-367 Siscia

98. KUDOWA ZDRÓJ, voi.WaJbr/ych An. Gallienus 253-238 Bursche 1983a. p.236.

Rome

99. KUTNO, voi.PJock Dup. Maximinus I 236-238 Rome S. Gordian III 240 Rome Allegedly in a h. with a Marcus Aurelius as. Kubiak 1979, p.55.

RIC 57-60

RIC 6b

(A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

RIC 330

(A)

RIC 86 RIC 281

(A) (A)

100. LASKOW1CE OPAWSKIE, voi.WrocJaw D. Caracalla 201-206 Rome RIC 141 With 5 earlier D. Kruse 1819, p.141-144, Bolin 1926a, p.(82), (90-91) refs 2 and 3.

(A)

101. LAD, voi.Konin D. Didus Julian 193 D. Clodius Albinus 193-197 2D . Septimius Severus 193-211 D. Julia Domna 193-217 In a h. of some 700 D., of which 110 were identified. Katalog Berlin, p.85. Fredrich 1909, p.241, Kunisz 1973, p.60. 102. LECHITÓW (Sydowel), voi.Leszno Aur. Postumus 263 Bursche 1983a, p.233.

Lugdunum

RIC 15

(A)

197

Przeworsk culture

103. LEDNOGÓRA, voi.Poznań AE(?) Diocletian 284-305 AE Maximian Herculius 285-308 Fredrich 1909, p.209, 1913, p.156, Bolin 1926a, p.(86) incorrectly as Diocletian D., which denomination relates probably only to a Marcus Aurelius C. found in this locality. 104. LEGNICA, v.c. An. Diocletian Fol. Constantine I Bursche 1983a, p.234. 105. LEGNICA, v.c. Fol. Constantine I AE Valens With 3 ind. AE. Konik 1965, p.83. 106. LEŻAJSK, voi.Rzcszôw D. Septimius Severus With a Vespasian D. Kunisz 1985, p.108.

290-291 Lugdunum 310-313

RIC 34

(A)

329 Rome 364-378

RIC 318-319 (A)

200-201 Rome

RIC 171a

323-324 Trier

RIC 435

107. L E Ż A JSK , v o i.R z e sz o w

Fol. Constantine I Bursche 1988, p.212.

(A)

108. LUDWIKOWICE KŁODZKIE, voi.WaJbrzych An. Salonina 253-268 A, 1:1926, p.51, Bolin 1926a, p.(81). 109. JLAGIEWNIKI, voi.Wroclaw Aur. Trajan Decius 249-251 Bursche 1983a, p.231. 110. EÓDŹ, v.c. AE Philip Arab AE Severus Alexander Kubiak 1979, p.58.

244-248 Antioch Piz. Krzyżanowska IX 19 222-235 Antioch Syr. BMC 468-469.

198

List of finds

111. ŁUPICE, voi.Konin AE II Tranquiilina Bursche 1980, p.88.

238-244

Dcultum

112. ŁYSZKOWICE, voi.Sieradz D. Septimius Severus 194-198 Rome WN, 21:1977, p. 119 (H.Kaczmarek). 113. MALKOWICE, voi .Kielce D. Pertinax D. Septimius Severus In a h. Kunisz 1985, p.113-117.

193 194

Rome Rome

Jurukova394-AI (A)

RIC 29A or 120c

RIC 2 RIC 32 or 44

114. MASŁÓW, voi.Wroc/aw Aur. Aurelian

270-275 Milan, Ticinum RIC 86 or 169 (A) or Siscia Bursche 1983a, p.233-234 - given that the discovery was made in circumstances described by L.D.Hermann (1711, p .l55) may give rise to doubt, nevertheless the coin's discovery in the vicinity of Masłów is still quite likely. 114a. MAZOWSZE (MAZOVIA), south from Warszawa Med. Au Gratianus 375-378 Trier (?) RIC 38c (?) T.Zawadzki, Medalion cesarza Gracjana znaleziony w okolicach Warszawy, WN, 1993 - in print. 115. MIECHÓW, voi.Kielce An. Valerianus With Trajan and Faustina D. Kunisz 1985, p.121.

253-260

116. MIĘDZYBÓRZ (vicinity of). voi.Kalisz Dup. Caracalla 213-217 An. Gallienus 258-259 Lugdunum With 4 earlier D. probably found separately. Bursche 1983a, p.231-232. 117. MOKRACZ, voi.Piotrków AE II Caracalla With a Claudius S. Kubiak 1979, p.62.

196-211

Serdica

(A) RIC 18(A)

Przeworsk culture

118. MRZYGJĆÓD, voi.Krosno An. Maximian Herculius Fol. Licinius I Fol. Licinius II Cen.(?) Theodosius I Kunisz 1985, p.123-124.

199

285-294 308-324 317-324 379-395

119. MUROWANA GOŚLINA, voi.Poznaii D. Geta 198-200 Rome WN, 19:1975, p.170.

RIC 2

(A)

RIC 160b

(A) (A) (A)

119a. MY SLAW CZYCE, voi.Kraków An, Claudius II 268-270 From lhe seulement excavated by L.Domańska. Unpublished. 120. NAMYSŁÓW, voLOpole An. Philip Arab A, 3:1931, p.309.

244-249

121. NEKLA. voi.Poznaii Fol. Diocletian 294-305 Fol. ? 312-313 2 Fol Galerius 312-313 Alex. Reportedly with Nero AE I minted in the East. Fredrich 1913, p.155-156. 122. NIEDŹWIEDŹ, voi.Krakow D. Maximinus I 235-236 Rome Kunisz 1985, p.124-125.

RIC 12 ?

123. NIETULISKO MALE, voi.KieIce 2D . Julia Domna 196-211 Rome RIC 582 D. Caracalla 202 Rome RIC 64 In a h. of 3170 D., all of them examined, with earlier specimens: 3 Pertinax, 2 Manlia Scantilla, 1 Didia Clara. 3 Clodius Albinus, 19 Septimius Severus, 5 Julia Domna. Kunisz 1985, p.125-148, Milkowa-Szubert 1989.

200

List o f finds

124. NIETULISKO MA1ŁE, voi.Kielce 7 D. Septimius Severus 193-198 In a h., 1371 coins identified, with earlier coins: 1 Pertinax, 2 Didius Julianus, 4 Clodius Albinus, 2 Julia Domna. Kunisz 1985, p.148-149, Mitkowa-Szubert 1989. 125. NISKO, voi.Tamobrzeg Fol. Licinius II Fol. Constantine I Fol. Constantine I Fol. Constantius II Bursche 1988, p.212.

317-320 323-324 327-328 327-328

Antioch Trier Trier Trier

RIC RIC RIC RIC

29 435 509 507

(A) (A) (A) (A)

126. NOWA CEREKWIĄ, voi.Opole D. Septimius Severus 197 Hänisch 1842, p.8-9. 127. NOWA CEREKWIĄ, voi.Opole D. Caracalla 198-199 Bolin 1926a, p.(78). 128. NOWA CEREKWIĄ, voi.Opole Aur. Herennia Elruscilla 249-251 Bolin 1926a, p.(78-79). 129. NOWA CEREKWIĄ, voi.Opole C. 253-340 Linge 1828, p.61.

(A)

130. NOWA SKUPIA, voi.Kielce Med.Ae Gallienus and Saloninus (?) 256-259 With Hadrian S. Opozda 1967, p.245. 131. NOWY SĄCZ (Zabefczc), v.c. An. Postumus 259-268 With Marciana S. Kunisz 1985, p.152.

Köln (?)

RIC 316

Przeworsk culture

201

132. OCHLA, voi.Leszno C. Gordian III 238-244 Katalog Berlin, p.386, Fredrich 1909, p.386. 133. OCHODZE, voi.Opole D. Clodius Albinus 193-197 In a h. of some 70 D. G.Raschke, Ein Schatzfund römischer Silbermünzen in Ochotz, Oppelner Heimatkalender, 1933, p.34-38, GodJTowski 1973, p.353-354. 134. OLEŚNICA, voi.Wroclaw Aur. Gordian III Abramowicz 1983, p.99.

241-243

Rome

RIC 97

(A)

135. OPATÓW, voi.Czçstochowa An. Claudius II 268-270 (A) K.Godfowski, Opatów, district of Kłobuck, Recherches Archéologiques de 1971, p.29, fig.2,e - erroneously as Aurelian. 136. OPATÓW, voi.Tarnobrzcg Aur. Gordian III 239 Rome RIC 18 (A) K.Bielenin, Sprawozdania z badań nad starożytnym hutnictwem świętokrzyskim, przeprowadzonych w 1967 r,. Materiały Archeologiczne, 10:1969, p.242-243 (photograph), Bursche 1988, p.212.

137. OPOCZKI, voi.Włocławek Med.Au Constans 340-350 Aquileia RIC 35 Pinder, Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preuss.Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1856, p.216-217, Friedlaender 1868, p.148-149, Tab.XLVI, Dressel 1973, Tab.24 No.216, Weiser 1987, p.163, Taf.28/6, Bursche 1991, p.151-152, fig.5. 138. OPOLE, v.c. 3 AE Maximian Herculius 285-303 2 AE Constantius 293-361 With alleged Augustus AE, possibly from several finds. Klose 1902-1903, p.304-305, Bolin 1926a, p.(82) ref.5 - questions authenticity of find.

202

139. OSOBLAHA, ok.Kmov C. Valens With earlier C. Pochitonov 1955, p.292,

List o f finds

364-378

140. OSOBLAHA, ok.Kmov Foi. Constantine l 324-330 Pochitonov 1955. p. 277 - doubling the find or two identical Fol. were found in the same locality. 141. OSTROWAS, voi.WJocZawek 2 An. Claudius II 268-270 An. Tclricus 270-274 Mai. Magnus Maximus 382-388 Fredrich 1913, p. 158. 142. OTfcOCZYN, voi.WJocJawek AR Elagabalus 218-222 Gumowski 1956, рЛ 10. 142a.OŻARÓW MAZOWIECKI, voi. Warszawa Cen. Constantius II 350-355 Thessal. Cen. Valentinianus 1 or Valens 364-367 Alex. WN, 31:1987, p.99 (K.Mitkowa-Szubcil)

RIC 189 RIC 1

143. PADEW NARODOWA, voi.Tarnobrzeg 3 Fol. Constantine I 323-324 Trier Fol. Constantine I 327-328 Trier Bursche 1988, p.212.

RIC 435 RIC 504

(A) (A)

144. PARSZOWICE, voi.Legnica Aur. Probus 276-282 Lugdunum Schl.Prov., 4:1865. p.164. BBfMSuW, 3:1866. p.300.

RIC 12

(A)

145. PÇCISZÔW, voi.Wroclaw Sol. Constantine II Jahn 1926. p.103.

317-340

203

Przeworsk culture

146. PĘCISZÓW, voi.Wroclaw Sol. Constantius II Hermann 1711, p.155.

340-350

147. PIETROWICE WIELKIE, voi.Katowicc An. Tetricus II 270-274 Godlowski 1973, p.372. 148. PIK ULICE, voi.Przemysl Fol. Galerius Fol. Constanline I Bursche 1988, p.213.

308-309 335-336

Cyzicus Aquileia

R1C 47 R1C 136

(A) (A)

149. P1LSZCZ, voi.Opole An. Probus Godlowski 1973, p.291.

276-282

Siscia (7)

RIC 598 var.

(A)

Rome

RIC 144 (?)

150. PIOTRKOWICE, voi.Krakôw An. Gordian III 240-244 Kunisz 1985. p. 163.

151. PODEMSZCZYZNA, voi.Przemyśl Fol. Constantine I 313-315 Trier Opozda 1965, p.229, Bursche 1988, p.213.

RIC 40

(A)

152. POPOWICE, voi.Bydgoszcz D. Pertinax 193 Fredrich 1909, p.211. 153. POZNAŃ, v.c. AE II Julia Mamea Fredrich 1909, p.211.

222-235

154. PRÓSZKÓW, voi.Opole Fol. Galerius Godlowski 1973. p.355.

303

Carthagina

RIC 35b or 36 (A)

155. PRZEMĘT, voi. Leszno AE Julia Domna 193-217 J.Kostr/ewski, Nowe nabytki Działu przedhistorycznego Muzeum Tow. Przyjaciół Nauk w Poznaniu w latach 1922-1925, PA. 3,3:1927 (1928), p.228.

204

List o f finds

156. PRZEMYŚL (ul.Grunwaldzka), v.c. An. Gallienus 260-268 Rome With another An. and an ind. С. Kunisz 1985, p.172. 157. PRZEMYŚL (vicinity of), v.c. Med.Au Valens 375-378 (?) Trier Kolendo 1968, p.103-108.

RIC 278

similar to RIC 37, 38 a,b

158. PYSZCZYN, voi.Wałbrzych Aur. Severus Alexander 235 Bursche 1983a, p.231.

(A)

159. PYSZNICA, voi.Tamobrzcg Fol. Constanlius II 327-328 Foi. Constanlius II 327-328 Bursche 1988, p.213.

Trier Trier

RIC 506 RIC 507

160. RACIBÓRZ, voLKatowice Fol. Galerius Godjowski 1973, p.372.

300-301

Aquileia

RIC 30b or32b(A)

161. RACIBÓRZ, voi.Katowice Sol. Constantine I Bursche 1983a, p.229.

335

Siscia

RIC 242-244 (A)

(A) (A)

162. RACIBÓRZ (Studzienna), voi.Katowice Aur. Aurelian 270-275 Milan or Ticinum RIC 92-94 (A) Bursche 1983a, p.223. 162a. RADOMSKO, voi.Piotrków 306-337 Fol. Constantine I K.Mitkowa-Szubert, Znaleziska monet antycznych poświadczone w dokumentacji Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie, WN, XXXV: 1991, p. 178. 163. RAKÓW, voi.Opole Sol. Constans Jahn 1926, p. 103.

340-350

Thessal.

RIC 69-71

(A)

Przeworsk culture

164. RAKÓW, voi.Wroclaw C. Diocletian Bolin 1926a, p.(81-82).

284-305

165. RAKÓWKI, voi.Kielcc An. Probus Kunis/. 1985, p.184.

276-282

,Siscia

205

R1C 715 Var.

166. ROGOŻANY, voi.Opole AE Septimius Severus 195-196 Rome R1C 702 (A) AE Severus Alexander 222-235 An. Gallienus 253-268 Fol. Constantine I 317-340 With 6 ealier AE. Correspondent der schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Cultui\ 1:1820, p.207-208, Linge 1822, p.9. 1828, p.59-64. 167. ROMANÓW, voi.Zamość D. Septimius Severus 194-195 Rome BMCRE81 In a h. of some 700 D., 350 of them identified, including earlier specimens: 1 Didus Julian, 1 Septimius Severus and 2 Clodius Albinus. W .Fedorowicz, Druga cześć skarbu denarów rzymskich z Romanowa, WN, 28:1984, p.55-83, Kunisz 1985, p.185-188. 168. ROSZOW1CKI LAS, voi.Opole C. 3rd c. AB, 12:193, p.165. 169. RÓWNE, voi.Opole D. Elagabalus or Severus Alexander 218-235 Bursche 1983a, p.229. 170. RÓŻYCE, voi.PJock S. Severus Alexander With Commodus D. Kubiak 1979, p.66-67.

231-235

Rome

171. RUSZCZYZNA, voi.Zamosc D. Didius Julian 193 Rome In a h. of some 85 D., till of them identified. Kunisz 1985, p.191-194.

(A)

RIC 635

RIC 3

206

List o f finds

172. RYBNO. voi.Skiemiewice C. Kubiak 1979. p.67.

3rd. c.

173. RZEPIENNIK STRZYŻEWSKI. voi.Tarnow S. Gordian III 240-244 Rome Kunisz 1985, p.194.

RIC 297

174. RZESZÓW (ul. Dąbrowskie go), v.c. An. Probus 276-282 Antioch Aleksiewicz 1958, p.58, Tab.IX, Kunisz 1985, p.195.

RIC 923

(A)

175. RZESZÓW, v.c. Sol. Valentinian I 364-367 Siscia RIC 2a (A) K.PrzybysIawski, Monety rzymskie znalezione na naszych ziemiach, WNA, 6:1907, p.604, Bursche 1988, p.213, Triller 1991, p.61. 176. SANDOMIERZ, voi.Tamobrzeg Fol. Constantine I 330-333 Kunisz 1985, p.196.

Siscia

177. SANDOMIERZ (vicinity of), voi.Tamobrzeg D. Gordian III 240 Rome With Vespasian and Lucilla D. Kunisz 1985, p.197. 178. SANOK, voi.Krosno D. Severus Alexander Kunisz 1985, p.197-198.

RIC 219

RIC 114

222-235

179. SĘDZISZÓW MAŁOPOLSKI, voi.Rzcszów An. Philip Arab 247 Rome Fol. Constantine I 324-325 Trier Bursche 1988, p.213. 180. SKALMIEROWICE, voi.Bydgoszcz D. Didia Clara 193 With Antoninus Pius D. Fredrich 1909, p.213, Bolin 1926a. p.(89).

RIC 386 RIC 449

(A) (A)

Przeworsk culture

181. SKAŁKA, voi.Wroclaw Aur. Postumus Bolin 1926a, p.(71).

259-268

182. SKAWINA (Korabniki), voi.Krakow Fol. Maximian Herculius 301-307 Lugdunum Fol. Maxentius 309-312 Ostia Fol. Licinius I 313-315 Siscia WN, 11:1967, p.244 (T.Opozda), Bursche 1988, p.211. 183. SKROBACZÓW, voi.Kielce D. Septimius Severus 195 Rome D. Julia Domna 193-196 Rome In a h. of some 100 D., 89 of them identified. Kunisz 1985, p.201-204. 184. SKRONIÓW, voi.Kielce Aur. Diocletian Bursche 1988, p.213.

207

294

185. SOKOLNIKI, voi.Tarnobrz.eg 2 Fol. Constantius II 327-328 Fol Constantius II copy Piotrowicz 1936, p.I04.

Nicomedia

(A) RIC 14 or 35 (A) (A)

RIC 122c RIC 536

RIC 5a

Trier RIC 507

(A)

(A)

186. STALOWA WOLA (vicinity of Rozwadów), voi. Tarnobrzeg Fol. Constantine II or Constantius II 317-337 Mai. Constantius II 348-355 Kunisz 1985, p.207, Bursche 1988, p.213. 187. STARÇZYNEK, voi.PiJa D. Maximinus I With Antoninus Pius D. Bursche 1980, p.89.

235

188. STRÇGOBORZYCE, voi.Krakow Fol. Licinius I 315-316 Bursche 1988, p.213.

Rome

Heraclea

RIC

RIC 13

7A (A)

(A)

208

List o f finds

189. STRYKÓW, voi.Leur histoire, des origines à la fin du premier Royaume (534), Neuchâtel.

Pesch eck C hг. 1939 Die früh wandali sehe Kultur in Mittelschesien (100 vor bis 200 nach Chr.). Leipzig. Peschei K. 1986

Rom und der Norden bis zur Festigung der römischen Rheingrenze, (in:) Die Antike und Europa, p.ll-13.

Peter M. 1990

Eine Werkslätte zur Herstellung von subacraten Denaren in Augusta Raurica. SFMA. 7.

Petersen E. 1935

Schlesien von den Eiszeit bis ins Mittelalter, Berlin-Leipzig.

Pick B. 1898 1915

see Pick (Coin Catalogues) Die Ansprüche der Museen auf Schatz-und Gräberfunde, Museumskunde, 11, p. 168-190,

Piganiol A. 1972

L’Empire chrétien, Paris.

256

Bibliography

Piotrowicz L. 1928-1929 Monety rzymskie znalezione w Krakowie, WNA, 12, p.52-56. 1935 Nowe znaleziska złotych monet rzymskich w Polsce, WNA, 17, p.88-92. 1936 Znaleziska monet greckich i rzymskich przy budowie kolei małopolskich, WNA, 17, p.95109. 1939 Monety rzymskie w Muzeum Wołyńskim w Lucku, Kraków. Pitts L.F. 1991

Relations between Rome and the German ‘Kings’ on the middle Danube in the first to fourth centuries A.D., JRS, 79, p.45-58.

Pochitonov E. 1955 Należy antickÿch minci v Cechach, na Moravë a ve Slezsku, (in:) Należy minci v Cechach, na Moravë a ve Slezsku, 1 , Praha, p. 87-314. Polany i K. 1968

Primitive, Archaic and Modem Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi (ed.G.Dalton), New York.

Polanyi K., Arensberg C.M., Pearson H.W. 1957 The Place of Economies in Societies, (in:) Trade and Market in Early Empires, New' York. Polverini L. 1976 Storiografia c propaganda. La crisi del III secolo nella sloriografia Latina dcl IV, (in:) I canali della propaganda nel monde antico (ed.M.Sordi), Contributi delTlstituto di storia antica, 4, Milano, p.252-270. Pot emski C. 1963 Pradzieje Bydgoszczy i powiatu bydgoskiego, Bydgoszcz. Potin V.M 1967 1971 Preda C. 1975

Preidcl Tl 1930

Znaleziska monet na obszarze Polski według dawnych archiwów leningradzkich, WN, 1f, zeszyt dodatkowy. as above, pari II, 1890-1913, WN, 15, p.199-256.

Circulapa monedelor romane postaureliene în Dacia, Studii §i cercelüri de istorie veche §i arhcologie, 26, p.441-486.

Die germanischen Kulturen in Böhmen und ihre Träger, 1-2, Kassel-WilhebnshÖhe.

Preusker K.B. 1843 Blicke in die vaterländische Vorzeit, 2, Leipzig. Przewoźna К. 1968 Importy rzymskie na Pomorzu Wschodnim. Pomorania Antiqua, 2. p.75-99.

Literature

Pyl Th. 1897

257

Der Fund von Hohendorf südlich Wolgast, Die Greifswalder Sammlungen vaterländischer Altertümer, 2, p.51-58.

Radnoti A. 1967 Die germanischen Verbündeten der Römer, Vortrag v.3-11Л 967, (in:) Deutsch-Italienische Vereinigung, 3, Frankfurt/Main, p.1-20. R.-Allold i M. 1954 Der Geldverkehr von Intercisa. Intercisa I (ed. L.Barkóczi et ah), Archeologia Hungarica, 33, p. 142-167. 1963 Fragen des Münzumlaufs im 4. Jahrhundert n.Ch., JNG, 13, p.75-104. 1971 Die Gussfomien und gegossenen11Fälschungen" kaiserzeitlicher Münzen, Chiron, 1, p.351363. 1974 Die "Fälscherförmchen” von Pachten, Germania, 52, p.426-447.

Randsborg K. 1986 Römische Gläser und Bronzegefässe im Norden: Ein Kommentar, AA, 57, 211-228. 1991 The first millennium AD in Europe and the Mediterranean: an archaeological essay, Cambridge.

Raschke M.G. 1978 New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East, ANRW, II, 9,2, p.604-1378. Rau H.G. 1972 1973 1974 1975 Redlich C. 1980

Reece R. 1973 1974a 1974b 1977 1978 1979 1981

Körpergräber mit Glasbeigaben des 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts im Oder-WeichselRaum, Acta Praehistorica et Archaelogica, 3 (1973), p. 109-214. Facettschliffgläser und die Chronologie der Spätkaiserzeit, Archaeologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 3, p.441-445. Zur Provenienzfrage spätantiker Gläser, Archaeologisches Korrcspondenzblatt, 4, p.37I377. Spätantike Glasfunde im Karpatenraum, ZfO, 24, p.464-385.

Politische und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Bronzegefässe an Unterelbe und Saale zur Zeit der Römerkriege, SzS, 2, p.329-374.

Roman Coinage in the Western Empire, Britannia, 4, p.227-251. Clustering of Coin Finds in Britain, France and Italy, (in:) Coins and Archaeologists (ed.J.Casey, R.Reece), BAR, 4, Oxford, p.65-77. Numerical Aspects of Roman Coin Hoards in Britain, ibidem, p.78-94. Coinage and Currency, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 14, p.167-178. Bronze coinage in Roman Britain and the Western Provinces, A.D.330-402, (in:) Scripta Nuramaria Romana (ed.R.A.G.Carson, C.M.Kraay), London, p.124-138. Zur Auswertung und Interpretation römischer Fundmünzen aus Siedlungen, SFMA, 1, p. 175-195. The "Normal" Hoard, PACT, p.299-308.

258

1982 1984

Regling K. 1912

Bibliography

Roman Coinage in the Western Mediterranean: A Quantitative Approach, Opus, 1,2, p.341-350. Mints. Markets and the Military, (in:) Military and Civilians in Roman Britain (ed.T.EC.Blagg, A.C.King), BAR BS, 136, Oxford, p .l43-160.

Römischer Denarfund von Fröndenburg, ZfN, 29, p.l 89-253.

Reinecke P. 1958 Hinfuhr- oder Beutegut ?, BJ, 157, p.246-252. Rémondon R. 1970 La crise de l'empire romain. De Marc - Aurele à Anastase, Nouvelle Clio,XI, Paris, Ridley R.T. 1969/1970 Hunapius and Zosimus, Helikon, 9-10, p.574-592. 1972 Zosimus the Historian, Byzantinischen Zeitschrift, 65, p.277-302. Robertson A.S. 1970 Roman Finds from non-Roman Sites in Scotland, Britannia, 1 . p. 198-226. Roeren R. 1960

Rosen K. 1982

Zur Archäologie und Geschichte Süd Westdeutschlands im 3. bis 5. Jahrhundert n.Chr., JRGZ, 7, p.214-294.

Ammianus Marcellinus, Erträge der Forschung. 183, Darmstadt.

Rutkowski В. 1960 Terra sigiiiata znalezione w Polsce, Wroclaw. Ryszard A. 1870

Sabbah G. 1978

Spis prywatnych zbieraczów z wyszczególnieniem ich zbiorów i kierunku, w jakim przedewszystkiem swoim sludyom się oddaje. Rocznik dla archeologów, numizmatyków i bibliografów polskich, (1873), p.207-237.

La méthode d’Animien Marcellin: recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les Res Gestae, Paris.

Saddington D.B, 1961 Roman Attitudes to the "Extemae Gentes” of the North, Acta Classica (Cape Town), 4, p.90-104. Sadowski J.N. 1877 Die Handelsstrassen der Griechen und Römer durch das Flussgebiet der Oder, Weichsel, der Dniepr und Memel zur Ostsee, Jena. Sagi К. 1981

Das römische Gräberfeld von Keszthely-Dobogó, Budapest.

Literature

Saka? V. 1966

259

Mladsi doba finiska v podkrusnohorske oblasli, Pamatky archeologické, 57, p.604-648.

Salamon M. 1970 Przyczyny zaniku mennic miejskich w Azji Mniejszej w drugiej połowie lllw.n.e., WN, 14, p. 146-160. 1971 Polityka osiedlania plemion barbarzyńskich w prowincjach rzymskich za cesarza Probusa (276-282), Prace Naukowe UŚ, 18, Prace histoiyczne, 2, p.95-103. 1972 Rzekoma wojna ludowa w' Tracji i Azji Mniejszej w czasie uzurpacji Prokopiusza (365366), Eos, 60, p.369-379. Sallct von Л. 1866 Griechische und römische Münzen aus der Ober- und Niedcrlausitz, NLaus.Mag., 43, p.41 55. Salomonsofi J.W. 1961 Zwei spätrömische Geschenk - Silberbarren mit eingcstempelicn Inschriften in Leiden, Oudheidkundige Medelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Outheiden te Leiden, 42, p.63-77. Sarnowski T. 1991 Barbaricum und ein Bellum Bosporanum in einer Inschrift aus Preslav, ZPE, 87, p.137144. Schach-Dörges H. 1970 Die Bodenfundc des 3. bis 6 . Jahrhunderts nach Chr. zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder, Offa-Bücher NF, 23, Neumünstcr. Schachmann C.A. 1780 Beobachtungen ueber das Gebirge bey Koenigshayn in der Oberlausitz, Dresden. Schlei ss R. 1918

Das Schatzrecht in vergleichender Darstellung, Diss. Greifswald, Hamburg.

Schlippschuh O. 1974 Die Händler im römischen Kaiserreich in Gallien, Gemianien und den Donauprovinzen Ration, Noricum und Pannonien, Amsterdam. Schlumberger J. 1974 Die Epitome de Caesaribus, Untersuchungen zur heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Vestigia 18, München. Schmidt B. 1961 Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland, Halle. 1976 Zur kulturellen Gliederung des Miueielbe- und Saalegebietes während der spälromischen Kaiserzeil und frühen Völkerwandemngszeit, (in:) Kultury archeologiczne, p.341-354. Schmidt L. 1934 1942

Die Ostgermanen, Geschichte der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgang der Volke wände rung, München. Geschichte der Wandalen, München.

260

Bibliography

Schönett-Geiss E. 1968 Das Ende der Provinzialprägung in Thrakien und Mosten, Klio, 50, p.251-256. Schramm A. 1820 Münzen in Oberschlesien gefunden, sowie Nachricht von der Sammlung des Herm Just.Comm.Mader zu Leobschütz, Correspondenz der Schlesichen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Kultur, 1 , p .205-208, Schubert H. 1992 Das Verhältnis von Denar zu Antoninian in den Münzschätzen der ersten Hälfte des 3.Jahrhunderts n.Chr.. LNV, 4, p.259-280. Schulten P.N. 1974 Die römische Münzstätte Trier von der Wiederaufnahme ihrer Tätigkeit unter Diocletian bis zum Ende der Folles-Prägung, Frankfuit/Main. Schulze-Dörrlamm M. 1985 Gennanische Kriegeräber mit Schwertbeigabe in Mitteleuropa aus dem späten 3.Jahrhundert und der ersten Hälfte des 4.Jahrhunderts n.Chr., JRGZM, 32, p.509-569. Schwandt W. 1905 Wcstpreussischc Münzfunde. Festschrift zum XV. deutschen Geographentag, В riesen. Schwartz F. 1875 Materialien zu einer praehistorisehen Karte der Provinz Posen, Posen. Schwartz J. 1957 Trouvailles monétaires et invasions germaniques sous Magnence et Décence, Cahiers alsaciens d*Archéologie, d’Art et d'Histoiro, 1, p.33-49. Schwarz E. 1956 Sceck O. 1919

Das Vordringen der Slawen nach Westen, Studien zur Ostforschung, 15, p.84-126.

Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr.: Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographic der christlichen Kaiserzeil, Stuttgart.

Sejbal J. jun. 1992 Methoden der Bearbeitung der Funde römischer kaiserzeitlicher Münzen aus Mähren (Tschechoslowakei) und ihre Auswertung. LNV, 4, p.49-64. Seyfart W. 1976 1978

Gcmianen in römischen Diensten im 4.Jh., (in:) Römer und Germanen, p.24l-252. Die Entwicklung im 4Jahrhundert (306-406/407), (in:) Die Römer, p.98-136.

Seycr R. 1968

Antike Nachrichten zu germanischen Stammessitzen, ZfA, 2, p.232-255.

Literature

Shchapova J.L. (Щапова Й JL ) 1983 Ochcrki istorii drevnego с т е к л о д е л и я X Moskva.

steklodeliia

261

(О черки

и сто р и и

лревнего

Shchukin M.B. (Щукин М .Б; sec also Szczukin M.B.) 1976 О nachalno! date chemiakhovskoî kul’tury (О началной Черняховской культуры), (in:) Kultury archeologiczne, p.303-317. Sinapius J. 1706/1707

Skaare K. 1976 1992

лате

Olsnographia, Oder Eigentliche Beschreibung des Oelssnischen Fürstenlhums in NiederSchlesien, Leipzig und Franckfun.

Coins and Coinage in Viking-Agc Norway, Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö. Zur Methode der Fundauswertung römischer Denare in Hinblick auf das skandinavische Fundaufkommen, LNV, 4, p. 19-31.

Skowronek St. 1981 W poszukiwaniu kolekcji monet starożytnych Stanisława Grzepskiego (1524-1570), Studia Archeologiczne, 1, p.205-211. Soproni S. 1969 1969a

Über den Münzumlauf in Pannonien zu Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts. Folia Archaeologica, 20, p.69-78. Limes Sarmatiae, Archeologiai Ertesitö, 96, p.43-53.

Sójka-Zielińska К. 1973

Wielkie kodyfikacje cywilne XIX wieku, Warszawa.

Speidel M.P. 1975 The Rise of Ethnic Units in the Roman Imperial Army, ANRW, 11,3, p.202-231. Spregling M. 1953 Third Century Iran. Sapor and Kartir, Chicago. Stallknecht В. 1969 Untersuchungen zur römischen Aussenpolilik in der Spätantike (309-395 n. Chr.), Habeil Diss., Reihe Alte Geschichte, 7, Bonn. Stauffenberg Graf Schenk von A. 1947 Das Imperium und die Völkwanderung, München o.J. Stein A. 1940

Die Legaten von Moesicn, Budapest.

Stephanus H. 1954 Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, Graz. Stembergcr M. 1955 Vallhagar: A Migration Period Settlement on Gotland/Sweden, Part II, Stockholm.

262

Stolpiak ß. 1984 Straub J. 1942 1963

Stribmy K. 1989

Bibliography

Rozwój prahistorii polskiej w okresie 20-lecia międzywojennego, Poznań.

Die Wirkung der Niederlage bei Adrianopel auf die Diskussion über das Germanenproblem in der spätrömischen Literatur, Philologus, 95, p.255-286. Heidnische GcSchichtsapologetik in der Christlichen Spätantike, Antiquitas, 4, Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung, 1, Bonn.

Römer rechts des Rheins nach 260 n.Chr. Kartierung, Strukturanalyse und Synopse spätrömischer Münzreichen zwischen Koblenz und Regensburg, BRGK, 70 (1990), p.35 L 506.

Strzelczyk J. 1984 Goci - rzeczywistość i legenda. Warszawa. 1992 Wandalowie i ich afrykańskie państwo. Warszawa. Suchodolski S. 1982 Moneta i obrót pieniężny w Europie Zachodniej, Wrocjaw -Wars zawa -К raków -Gdańsк Lodź. Svoboda В. 1963 Zum Verhältnis frügeschichtlicher Funde des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts aus Bayern und Bömen, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 28, p.97-116. Syme R. 1968 1971 1983

Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, Oxford. Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta, Oxford. Historia Augusta Papers, Oxford.

Szczukin M,B. (see also Shchukin M.B.) 1981 Zabytki wiclbarskie a kultura czcmiachowska, (in:) Problemy, p. 135-161. Szidat J. 1972

Sturms E. 1950

Der Feldzug C o n sta n ts’Il an der mittleren Donau im Jahre 358 n.Chr., Historia, (Wiesbaden). 21, p.712-720.

Frügeschichtliche Fundgruppen und heutige Dialektgruppen im Lettland und Litauen, (in:) Ur- und Friigeschichte als historische Wissenschaft, Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Emst Wahle, Hcidleberg, p.68-75.

Tackenberg K. 1925 Die Wandalen in Niederschlesien, Berlin. Tautaviöius A. 1968 Palangos kapinynas, (in:) Lieluvos archeologiniai paniinklai. Lie tuvos pajûrio I-VII a. kapinyniai, Vilnius, p. 123-137.

Literature

263

Tautavichius A.Z. (Таутавичюс A 3 .) 1980 Baltskie plemena na territorii Litvy v 1 tysiachel.n.e. (Балтские племена на территории Литвы в I тысячел. н.е.), (in:) Iz drevneïsheï istorii Baltskikh narodov (Из древнейшей истории Балтских Народов), Riga, р.80-88. Tej rai J. 1970 1971 1975 1986 1990

Po&atky doby fimské па Moravë z hlediska hrobovÿch nâlezü, Stydijne Zvesii AÜSAV, 18, p. 107-192. Piïspëvek к datovani moravskÿch hrobovÿch nâlezü ze sklonku stadu a z poćatky mladsi doby fimské, Slovenska Archeologia, 19:1971, p.27-93. Die Probleme der späten römischer Kaiserzeit in Mähren, Studie Archeologického Üstavu Ceskoslovenskc Akademie Vëd v Brné, III,2, Praha. Fremde Einflüsse und kulturelle Veränderungen nördlich der mittleren Donau zu Beginn der Völkerwanderungszeit, (in:) Peregrinatio Gothica, p.175-238. Archäologischer Beitrag zu Erkenntnis der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Ethnostrukluren nördlich der mittleren Donau (in:) Typen der Etlmogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern (ed. il.Friesinger, F.Daim), 2, Wien, p.9-87.

Tempelmann -M^czyns ka M. 1985 Części stroju kobiecego w okresie rzymskim na obszarze środkowowschodnioeuropejskiego Barbaricum, Kraków. 1985a Die Perlen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Phase der Völkerwanderungszeii im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricums, Mainz. 1989 Das Frauentrachtzubchör des mittel- und osteuropäischen Barbaricums in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Kraków. Thonmsson B.E. 1977 Laterculi Praesidium. Moesia, Dacia, Thracia. Gothoburgi Westrogolhoruin. Thompson E.A. 1956 Constantine, Constantius II and the lower Danube frontier, Hernies, 84, p.372-381. 1982 Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire, Madison. Thomsen P.O. 1988 Lundeborg, Ârbog 1987 for Svendborg & Omegns Museum, p. 17-29. Thüry G.E. 1992

Chronologische und numismatische Bemerkungen zu den Gcnnaneneinfällen von "357”, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 57, p.305-310.

Tischler O. 1878

Ostprcussische Gräberfelder, III, SpöGK, 19, (1879), p.159-268.

Topolski J. 1983 1984

Teoria wiedzy historycznej, Poznań. Metodologia historii, Warszawa.

Toppen M. 1870

Geschichte Masurens. Ein Beitrag zur preussisches Landes und Kulturgeschichte, Danzig.

264

Bibliography

Toynbee J.M C 1944 Roman Medallions, (in:) Numismatic Studies, 5, New York. Triller E. 1964 1991 Ulbert G. 1974

Värady L. 1969 Veync P. 1979

Karol Beyer - numizmatyk i archeolog (1818-1877), WN, 8 , p.189-199. Wykopaliska monet Karola Beyera, WN, 35, р. 1-104.

Straubing und Nydam, Zu römischen Langschwertem der späten Limeszeit, (in:) Studien zur Vor- und Fiühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, Festschrift für J.Wemer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed.G. Kos sack, G.Ulbert), Münich, p.197-216.

Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens, Budapest.

Rome devant la prétendue fuite dc Гог: mercantilisme ou politique disciplinaire, AESC, 34,2, p.211-244.

Villarongu I Garriga L. 1985 Estadistica aplicada a la numismatica, Barcelona. Vitucci G. 1952

L’imperatore Probo, Roma.

Waas M. 1965

Germanen im römischen Dienst im 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus, Bonn.

Walburg R. 1985 Antike Münzen aus Sri Lanka/Ceylon. Die Bedeutung römischer Münzen und ihren Nachahmungen für der Geldumlauf auf Ceylon (in:) SFMA, 3, p.27-271. Walicki M. 1931 Sprawa inwentaryzacji zabytków w dobie Królestwa Polskiego (1827-1862), Warszawa. Walker D.R. 1967 A transient coinage reform A.D. 326, NC, 7, VII, p.71-82. 1978 The metrology of the Roman silver coinage, III. From Pertinax to Uranius Antoninus, BAR, Supl.Ser. 40. Oxford: Warmington E.H. 1974 The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India, London-New York2. Wegewitz W. 1937 Die langobardische Kultur im Gau Moswidi (Nicderelbe) zu Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung, Die Umenfricdhöfe in Niedersachsen, 2, Hildesheim. 1940 Die Langobarden an der Niederelbe, (in:) Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stämme, 2, Westgermanen, Berlin, p.744-826.

Literature

Wefels И. 1921

Fund römischer Münzen, Berliner Münzblätier, 42, p. 145-150, Tab.90-94.

Weiller R. 1972 1977

Monnaies antiques découvertes au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 1, Berlin. as above, 2, Berlin.

Weiser W. 1987

265

Felicium Tcmporum Reparatio. Kaiser Constans Frühut Gefangene Franken aus ihren Dörfern, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau, 6 6 , p.161-179.

Weiss E.L. 1891 Das Recht des Finders, Göttingen. Werner J. 1938 1949 1973

1988

Die römischen Bronzegeschirrdepots des 3. Jahrhunderts und die mitteldeutsche Skcleügräbengruppe, Maiburger Studien, 1 , p.259-268. Zu den auf Öland und Gotland gefundenen byzantinischen Goldmünzen, Fomvännen, 44, p.257-286. Bemerkungen zur mitteldeutschen Skelettgräbengruppe Hassleben-Leuna. Zur Herkunft der ingentia auxilia Germanorum des gallischen Sonderreiches in den Jahren 259-247 n.Chr., (in:) Mitteldeutsche Forschungen, 74,1, Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger, 1, KölnWien, p.1-30. Danćeny und ßrangstrup. Untersuchungen zur Cemjachov-Kuliur zwischen Sereth und Dnestr und zu den ’’Rcichtumszentren” auf Fünen, BJ, 188, p.241-286.

Wheeler M. 1954 Rome beyond the imperial frontiers, London. Whittaker C.R. 1969 see Herod. (Sources) Wiberg CF. 1867 Der Einfluss der klassischen Völker auf dem Norden durch den Handelsverkehr, Hamburg. Wiedemann T.E.J. 1986 Between man and beasts. Barbarians in Ammianus Marcellinus, (in:) Fast perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman historical writing. Papers presented at a conference in Leeds, 6 -8 April 1983 (ed. I.S.Moxon, J.D.Smart, A,J.Woodman), Cambridge, p. 189-211. Wielowiejski J. 1969 Wpływ reform monetarnych w latach 63-215 na przyjmowanie srebrnych pieniędzy rzymskich przez ludy północne, WN, 13, p. 11-17. 1970 Kontakty Noricum i Pannonii z ludami północnymi, Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków. 1970a Uwagi o rozmieszczeniu znalezisk i funkcji rzymskich medalionów oraz monet adaptowanych do zawieszenia, WN, 14, p. 129-145. 1978 Der Einfluss der Devaluation des Denars auf die Annahme römischer Münzen durch die hinter der Donau ansässigen Völker, (in:) Dévaluations, 2, p. 155-167.

Bibliography

266

1979

1980 1984

Funde von römischen Medillons zu beiden Seilen des Rhein-Donau-Limes, (in:) Roman Frontier Studies, 12, Papers presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (ed.W.S.Hanson, LJ.F.Keppic), BAR IS, 71, p.1077-1089. Główny szlak bursztynowy w czasacli Cesarstwa Rzymskiego, Wrocjaw-WarszawaKrakó w-Gdańsk. Pieniądz rzymski na ziemiach polskich. Stan i perspektywy badań, (in:) Pieniądz starożytny. Stan i perspektywy polskich badań (eds. M. Męcie wska, A.Szczecinna), Katowice, p.78-97.

Wielowicjski J., Matuszewski A. 1979 Anwendung der statistischen Methode zur Erforschung der Umlaufstruktur von römischen Münzen in Mitteleuropa, SFMA, 1, p.265-280. Wigg D. 1991

Willers H. 1901 Winkler J. 1962

Winter E. 1988

Münzumlauf in Nordgal lien um die Milte des 4. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. Numismatische Zeugnisse für die Usurpation des Magnentius und die damit verbundenen Germaneneinfälle, SFMA. 8.

Die römischen Bronzeeimer von Hcmmor, Hannover und Leipzig.

Der Münzumlauf in Apulum, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humbolt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesell Schafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe. 11,4, p.617-624.

Die säsänidisch-römischen Friedens Verträge des 3 Jahrhunderts n.Chr. - ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York-Paris.

Wojtowicz S. 1967 Skarb denarów rzymskich z Wrocławia na tle innych skarbów śliskich II-III w.. Ze Skarbca Kultury, 18, p.211-267. Wolfram H. 1979

Geschichte der Goten, Müchen.

W ols bom (name unknown)

jgg8

Münzfunde aus Ost- und Westprcussen, AM, 25, p. 110-116.

WoJagiewicz R. 1970 Der Zufluss römischer Importe in das Gebiet nördlich der mittleren Donau in der älteren Kaiserzeit, ZfA, 4. p. 222-249. 1981 Kultura wielbarska - problemy interpretacji etnicznej, (in:) Problemy, p.79-106. 1981л Grupy kulturowe na pograniczu kregu nadjabskiego (in:) PZP, p.200-216. 1983 U schyłku starożytności. Okres prcedrzymski i rzymski (IV w.p.n.e. - V w.n.c.), (in:) Dzieje Szczecina (ed.W.Filipowiak, G.Labuda), Warszawa-Poznań, p.469-520. 1986 a Die Goten im Bereich der Wielbark-Kułiur, (in:) Peregrhmtio Gothicа, p.63-98. 1986b Stan badań nad okresem rzymskim na Pomorzu, (in:) Stan i potrzeby, p.299-317.

Literature

267

Wróblewski S. 1914 Powszechny Austriacki Kodeks Cywilny. Kraków. Zedelius V. 1977 Hildesheimer Silberfund - ein Händlerdepot?, Alt-Hildesheim, 48, p.83-86. Zeman J. 1961

Sevemi Morava v mladsi dobe fimske, Praha.

Zucchclli G. 1976 La propaganda anticonstanliniana c la falsi fi cazione slorica in Zosimo, (in:) I canali della propaganda nel mondo antiсо (ed.M.Sordi), Conlributi delPIstituto di sloria antica, 4, p.229-251. Z wolski E. 1984

Kasjodor i Jordanes. Historia gocka czyli scytyjska Europa, Rozprawy Wydziału Hisloiyczno-Filologieznego. 49, Lublin.

Żabiński Z. 1968 Stosowanie teorii estymacji statystycznej w badaniach numizmatycznych, WN, p.1-17.

10. Tables Tables in lhe text 1. A model for study of Roman-Barbarian relations 2. Transmission of information on a coin find from the moment of discovery to recording 3. Coins from finds in the five archaeological cultures 4. Matrix of mean coin frequencies 5. Section of the matrix - an example 6 . Histograms of chronological distribution of coin finds 7. Comparison of test z and Fp - results 8 . Diagrams of test results for significance of differences 9. Streams and waves of coins flowing to Central Europe 10. Forms of political relations between the Roman Empire and the Barbarians

p. 21 p. 27 p. 66 p. 68 p. 69 p.

73

p.

76

p.

77

p. Ю0 p, 121

Tables at the end I. Histograms of chronological distribution of all coins from finds within the territory of: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszyce culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture e. the Westbalt circle 11. Histograms of chronological distribution of the latest coins from finds within the territory of: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszyce culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture e. the Westbalt circle Ilia. Histograms of the chronological distribution of the latest coins from finds in Central Europe. lllb. Histograms of the chronological distribution of all coins from finds in Central Europe.

Tables

269

IV. Diagrams of the test results for significance of differences between: a. the Elbe circle and the Luboszyce culture b. the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures c. the Luboszyce and Wielbark cultures d. the Elbe circle and the Wielbark culture e. the Luboszyce and Przeworsk cultures f. the Elbe circle and the Przeworsk culture V. Diagrams of the test results for significance of similarities between: a. the Elbe circle and the Luboszyce culture b. the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures c. the Luboszyce and Wielbark cultures d. the Elbe circle and the Wielbark culture e. the Luboszyce and Przeworsk cultures f. the Elbe circle and the Przeworsk culture VI. Diagrams of the lest results for significance of differences between arithmetic mean for Central Europe and: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszyce culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture VII. Diagrams of the test results for significance of differences between weighted average for Central Europe and: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszyce culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture VIII. Diagrams of the test results for significance of similarities between arithmetic mean for Central Europe and: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszyce culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture

270

Tables

IX. Diagrams of Ihe test results for significance of similarities between weighted average for Central Europe and: a. the Elbe circle b. the Luboszycc culture c. the Przeworsk culture d. the Wielbark culture

Tables

Table la

Table I b

271

272

Table le

Table Id

Tables

Tables

Table le

Table Ha

273

274

Table II b

Table He

Tables

Tables

Table II d

Table Ile

275

276

Table III a

Table III b

Tables