Inflow and redistribution of Roman imperial denarii in the area of Przeworsk, Wielbark and...

3

MUZEUM NARODOWE W KRAKOWIESEKCJA NUMIZMATYCZNA

KOMISJI ARCHEOLOGICZNEJ PANODDZIAŁ W KRAKOWIE

Kraków 2014

Tom IX

4

Komitet naukowy / Scientific Committee: Peter van Alfen, Aleksander Bursche, Franҫois de Callataÿ, Karsten Dahmen, Georges Depeyrot, Zofia Gołubiew, Bogumiła Haczewska, Wiesław Kaczanowicz, Elżbieta Korczyńska, Adam Małkiewicz, Mariusz Mielczarek, Jiří Militký, Janusz A. Ostrowski, Maciej Salamon, Bernhard Weisser

Redakcja / Editorial Board: Redaktor / Editor in Chief – Jarosław Bodzek Zastępca redaktora / Associate Editor – Mateusz Woźniak Sekretarze / Secretaries – Kamil Kopij, Dorota Malarczyk

Redaktor tematyczny / Theme Editor: Peter van Alfen

Redaktor językowy / Linguistic Editor: Peter van Alfen

Recenzenci / Reviewers: Michael Alram, Michel Amandry, Barbara Butent-Stefaniak, Marek Ferenc, Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert, Gerard Fussman, Witold Garbaczewski, Dobrochna Gorlińska, Johan van Heesch, Lutz Ilisch, Andrew Meadows, Vlastimil Novák, Marek Olbrycht, Tomasz Panfil, Zenon Piech, Nikolaus Schindel, Luke Treadwell, Eliza Walczak, David Wigg-Wolf, Marcin Wołoszyn

Redaktor prowadzący / Managing Editor: Anna Kowalczyk

Adiustacja tekstu / Editing: Barbara Leszczyńska-Cyganik, Monika Myszkiewicz

Korekta / Proofreading: Marta Orczykowska, Magdalena Pawłowicz

Tłumaczenia / Translations:Jarosław Bodzek, Marcin Fijak

Opracowanie graficzne / Graphic Design:Luiza Berdak

Adres redakcji / Address of the Editorial Office:Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowieul. Józefa Piłsudskiego 12, 31-109 Krakówtel. (+48) 12 433 58 50e-mail: [email protected]

Wyłączną odpowiedzialność za przestrzeganie praw autorskich dotyczących materiału ilustracyjnego ponoszą autorzy tekstów. Authors of the texts bear the sole responsibility for observing the copyright for illustrations.

Wersją pierwotną Notae Numismaticae – Zapiski Numizmatyczne jest wersja papierowa. The print edition of the Notae Numismaticae – Zapiski Numizmatyczne is treated as its original version.

© Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie i Autorzy, 2014

ISSN 1426-5435

5

SPIS TREŚCI / CONTENTS

9 Od redakcji / From the Editors

ARTYKUŁY / ARTICLES

JAROSŁAW BODZEK 13 A Note on a Satrapal Coin – Perhaps another Mazaces Issue? 20 Uwaga o pewnej monecie satrapiej – czyżby kolejna emisja Mazakesa?

FRAN STROOBANTS 25 How the Sagalassians Stick to Their Gods. Some Unpublished 3rd-Century Coins from Sagalassos 34 Przywiązanie Sagalassyjczyków do własnych bogów. Kilka niepublikowanych monet Sagalassos z III wieku

ARKADIUSZ DYMOWSKI, KIRILL MYZGIN 39 Inflow and Redistribution of Roman Imperial Denarii in the Area of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv Cultures and in the Baltic Islands in the Light of Chronological Structure of Coin Hoards 57 Napływ i redystrybucja rzymskich denarów z okresu cesarstwa na terenie kultur przeworskiej, wielbarskiej i czerniachowskiej oraz na wyspach bałtyckich w świetle struktury chronologicznej skarbów

VITAL’ SIDAROVICH 71 The Finds of Greek and Roman Provincial Coins in Belarus 88 Znaleziska greckich i rzymskich prowincjonalnych monet na Białorusi

ANNA ZAPOLSKA 95 The Coins from the Goldsmith Hoard of Frombork Reconsidered116 Monety ze „Skarbu Złotnika” z Fromborka rozpatrzone na nowo

DOROTA MALARCZYK117 The Early-Medieval Silver Hoard from the Environs of Gniezno. Islamic Coins128 Wczesnośredniowieczny skarb srebrny z okolic Gniezna. Monety islamskie

MATEUSZ BOGUCKI135 Czy istnieją monety Miecława, zbuntowanego cześnika Mieszka II?142 Appendix [Mateusz Bogucki, Jacek Magiera]143 Are there Coins of Miecław, a Rebellious Cup-Bearer of King Mieszko II?

6

LILIA DERGACIOVA147 Powiązania systemów monetarnych litewskiego i mołdawskiego na początku XVI wieku163 Relations between Lithuanian and Moldavian Monetary Systems in the Early 16th Century

PAULINA TARADAJ173 Medal z 1789 roku upamiętniający sejm i uchwałę o powiększeniu armii ze zbiorów Gabinetu Numizmatycznego Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie181 Medal Struck in 1789 in Commemoration of the Polish Sejm Resolution on Army Enlargement, from the Collection of the Numismatic Cabinet of the National Museum in Krakow

ANNA BOCHNAK, AGATA SZTYBER185 Monety nowożytne ze stanowiska 28 w Zakrzowie, gm. Niepołomice, pow. wielicki, woj. małopolskie190 The Modern Coins Found at Zakrzów, Site 28, Niepołomice Borough, Wieliczka County, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

PRZEMYSŁAW MARCIN ŻUKOWSKI195 Władysław Bartynowski (1832–1918). Życie, twórczość i spuścizna archiwalna w zbiorach Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie214 Władysław Bartynowski (1832–1918): Life, Work and Archival Heritage in the Collection of the National Museum in Krakow

ANNA BOCHNAK219 Spis monet polskich i z polskiemi styczność mających znajdujących się w zbiorze Emeryka Czapskiego 1846 r. 5 Decembra Wilno – pierwszy katalog monet Emeryka Hutten-Czapskiego, świadectwo młodzieńczych zainteresowań słynnego kolekcjonera223 A Register of Polish Coins, and of Those Historically Associated with Poland, in the Collection of Emeryk Czapski, as of December 5, 1846, Vilnius – Emeryk Hutten-Czapski’s First Catalogue of Coins, Testimony to the Famous Collector’s Youthful Interests

RECENZJE / REVIEWS

ALEKSANDER BURSCHE231 TERESA GIOVE Pompei. Rinvenimenti monetali nella ‘Regio I, “Studi e Materiali” 16, Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, Roma 2013, 395 pages, numerous tables and graphics, ISBN 978-8-8859-1455-1

7

ARKADIUSZ DYMOWSKI238 HELLE W. HORSNÆS Crossing Boundaries. An Analysis of Roman Coins in Danish Contexts. Vol. 2: Finds from Bornholm, “Studies in Archaeology and History,” Vol. 18:2, Copenhagen 2013, 213 pages, ISBN 978-87-7602-188-7 PAWEŁ GOŁYŹNIAK

DOROTA MALARCZYK243 VLASTIMIL NOVÁK with an excursus by MILENA BRAVERMANOVÁ The Kelč Hoard Revised: Fragments of Islamic Silver Coins, “Monumenta Numismatica”, vol. 1, Prague 2010, 115 pages, 24 plates, ISBN 978-80-7007-324-7

249 GABRIELLA TASSINARI Giovanni Pichler. Raccolta di impronte di intagli e di cammei del Gabinetto Numismatico e Medagliere delle Raccolte Artistiche del Castello Sforzesco di Milano (Dattilioteche 1), Raccolte Artistiche del Castello Sforzesco Milano, Edizioni ennerre S.r.l., Milano 2012, 441 pages, illustrations (chiefly colour), 20 figures, hardcover, ISBN 978-88-87235-73-9

KRONIKA / CHRONICLE

ANDA JAWORUCKA-DRATH255 Kronika Gabinetu Numizmatycznego Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie (2013)261 Chronicle of the National Museum in Krakow’s Numismatic Cabinet (2013)

DIANA BŁOŃSKA269 Archiwum Numizmatyków – podsumowanie projektu po pierwszym roku realizacji273 The Numismatists’s Archive: A Recapitulation of the Project Inaugurated in 2013

NEKROLOG / OBITUARY

ANNA ZAWADZKA279 Jerzy Kolendo – numizmatyk (9 czerwca 1933 – 28 lutego 2014)282 In Memory of Jerzy Kolendo (9 June 1933 – 28 February 2014)

39

Tom IX

Kraków 2014

ARKADIUSZ DYMOWSKI Gdynia

KIRILL MYZGIN

V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Inlow and Redistribution of Roman Imperial Denarii in the Area of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv Cultures and in the Baltic Islands in the Light of Chronological Structure of Coin Hoards

It is quite obvious that Roman coins discovered to the north of the Danubian limes and to the east of the Rhine limes must be treated as evidence of the inlux of Roman coinage to Barbaricum and redistribution of these coins within Barbaricum.1 In many cases it is very hard to conclude whether a given ind is to be interpreted as a direct import from the Empire2 or is more likely to be linked with intertribal, secondary exchange in the Barbarian territory.3 At the current level of research we can

1 The authors are indebted to Dr Helle Horsnæs of the Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, National Museum of Denmark, to Dr Lennart Lind of the Stockholm University and to Vitaliy Sidorovich of the Belaru-sian State University for their assistance in obtaining access to the most recent material from the territories of Denmark, Sweden and Belarus and their advice on how to interpret it. We also extend our thanks to Dr Cristian Găzdac of the Romanian Academy of Science, for similar assistance with inds from the Danubian area.

2 A detailed analysis of circumstances in which Roman coinage passed into Barbarian hands is given by Peter Kehne (P. KEHNE, “Auskünfte antiker Schriftquellen zu Umständen und Großenordnungen des Ablusses römischer Münzen ins Barbaricum vom 1.–5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. – Eine Problemskizze” in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Contexts and Func-tions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), pp. 75–81; cf. also A. BURSCHE, Later Roman-Barbarian Contacts in Central Europe. Numismatic Evidence, Berlin 1996 (“Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike,” vol. 11), pp. 101–121 and IDEM, “Dalsze monety ze skarbu w Liwie, powiat Węgrów. Trzeciowieczne denary na terenach Barbaricum” in: W. KACZANOWICZ (ed.), Studia z dziejów antyku. Pamięci Profesora Andrzeja Kunisza, Ka-towice 2004, p. 198. The political circumstances of the coin inlow to Barbaricum would be e.g., as tribute (e.g., for military support or to guarantee peace), contribution (e.g., paid to the client states of the Roman Empire), loot, ransom, or soldiers’ pay.

3 In the Barbarian territory Roman coins could have been redistributed through intertribal exchange, gifts, plunder (cf. A. BURSCHE, Illerup Ådal 14. Die Münzen, Århus 2013 (“Jutland Archaeological Society Publica-tions” XXV:14, 2010), p. 84) or even grave robbery (cf. M. MĄCZYŃSKA, D. RUDNICKA, “Uwagi wstępne o skarbie z okresu rzymskiego z Łubianej, woj. gdańskie” in: J. KOLENDO (ed.), Nowe znaleziska importów rzymskich z ziem Polski I, Warszawa 1998 (“Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum, Suple-ment,” vol. 1), pp. 42–45).

40

ARKADIUSZ DYMOWSKI, KIRILL MYZGIN

specify different zones of inlux and redistribution of Roman coins within the European Barbaricum. These zones can be characterized by speciic features of coin inds, e.g., chronological and denomi-national structure of coinage and frequency. One of these zones is the region of the West Balt cultures where – in contrast to adjacent areas – there is an evident domination of bronze coinage, mainly 2nd and 3rd century sestertii.4 Another example is pre-Roman Dacia where there is an interesting phenomenon of numerous hoards of Roman Republican denarii recorded in the territory of modern Romania.5 The large lands inhabited by the people of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv cul-tures during the Roman Period (i.e., contemporary Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, western Belarus and western Russia), and also some of the Baltic islands – Gotland, Bornholm and, most probably, Öland6

form a separate zone of inlux and redistribution of 1st–2nd (3rd) century Imperial denarii.The Przeworsk culture took form in central and southern parts of present-day Poland as a re-

sult of adaptation by the local population of models from the La Tène (Celtic) culture.7 In its early

stages – during the late pre-Roman Period (2nd-1st century BC; phases A1-A3) – its territory included, Lower, and parts of Upper Silesia, Greater Poland, Kuyavia, parts of Mazovia, Podlahia, the Lublin Region and Lesser Poland. During phase A3, Przeworsk settlement spread to the upper reaches of the Southern Bug and the Dniester.8 During the early Roman Period (beginning of the 1st - middle of the 2nd century AD; phases B1-B2) the distribution area of Przeworsk inds expanded signiicantly from Lower Silesia, northern Greater Poland, Kuyavia, northern Mazovia and western Podlahia to the Lublin Region and eastern Lesser Poland.9 The beginning of the late Roman Period (the second half of the 2nd century; phases B2/C1-C1a) was a time of a major shift of the Przeworsk culture region caused by the expansion of the Wielbark culture people. The most notable development was the relocation of the population southward (to eastern Slovakia, north-eastern Hungary and northern Romania) and, during phase C2, a signiicant expansion to the south-east and the west, to the area of modern north-western Ukraine.10 The late Roman period (phase C3) brings signiicant changes in the

4 A. BURSCHE, “Roman coinage in the West Baltic Circle,” Barbaricum 2, Warszawa 1992, pp. 231–239; A. ZAPOLSKA, “Römische Münzen in Wesbaltischen Kulturkreis – Kontexte un Funktionen” in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), pp. 181–188.

5 M.H. CRAWFORD, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Econ-omy, Berkley–Los Angeles 1985, pp. 226–235; K. LOCKYEAR, Patterns and process in late Roman Republican coin hoards, 157–2 BC, Oxford 2007, pp. 167–168.

6 Cf. L. LIND, “The Monetary Reforms of the Romans and the Finds of Roman Denarii in Eastern and Northern Europe,” Current Swedish Archaeology 1, 1993, pp. 136–140; A. BURSCHE, “Roman coins in Scan-dinavia. Some remarks from the Continental perspective” in: J. PIND et al. (eds.), “Drik – og du vil leve skønt.” Festskrift til Ula Lund Hansen på 60-årsdagen d. 18 august 2002, Copenhagen 2002, p. 71; IDEM, „Dalsze mon-ety…,” p. 200; IDEM, “Relations between the Late Roman World and Barbarian Europe in the light of the coin inds,” Bulletin du Cercle d’Études Numismatiques 43, 2006, pp. 221–222; H. HORSNÆS, Crossing Boundaries. An Analysis of Roman Coins in Danish Contexts. Vol. 2: Finds from Bornholm, Copenhagen 2013, pp. 73–80.

7 J. ANDRZEJOWSKI, “Przeworsk Culture. A brief story (for the foreigners)” in: U. LUND HANSEN, A. BITNER-WRÓBLEWSKA (eds.), Worlds Apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age. Network Denmark–Poland, 2005–2008, Kobenhavn–Warszawa 2010, p. 60.

8 Ibidem, p. 61, igs. 1–3. 9 Ibidem, p. 70, ig. 9.10 Ibidem, pp. 77–78, igs. 19–20.

41

INFLOW AND REDISTRIBUTION...

material culture and funeral rite.11 The latest Przeworsk culture deposits are dated to the Migration Period (phase D1), not later than the 1st half – middle of the 5th century, and its range is now limited to the areas of central Poland.12

The origin of the Wielbark culture is associated with the migration during the irst half of the 1st

century AD of Gothic tribes from Scandinavia to the region of the Oksywie culture.13 Two phases are distinguished in the existence of this culture: Lubowice (B1–B2) and Cecele (C1/C2–D1).14 During its early stage the Wielbark culture occupied the lands of Pomerania (except for its western part), areas to the east of the Lower Vistula and north-western reaches of Greater Poland.15 During the second half of the 2nd century, i.e., in late Roman Period phases B2/C1 (onset of C1a), the culture spread south-east, to the lands occupied by the Przeworsk culture.16 During phase C2 the Wielbark culture took in its range the eastern area of Mazovia and Podlahia in the north, lands on the Middle Vistula in the west; in the south, it extended beyond the river Wieprz and in the east, to the lands of western Polessia and Volhynia.17 During its inal phase (C3–D1) its easternmost regions came under the Chernyakhiv culture settlement. The latest Wielbark culture deposits are datable to phase D1.18

Many scholars identiied the people of the Chernyakhiv culture with a Gothic federation of Germanic and non-Germanic tribes.19 Genetically the archaeological material of this culture is con-

nected with the Przeworsk Culture, and especially, with the Wielbark culture. According to Boris Magomedov, at its onset (230–270s; phase C1b) the Chernyakhiv culture took in its range areas of western and central Ukraine and the territory of Moldova.20 During its next phase, one of greater stability (270–330s, phase C2 – early C3) its territory expanded to the area between the rivers Prut and Siret, to Muntenia and the north-western Black Sea region.21 During the 330–370s, (“the era of Ermanaric;” phase C3) the culture is still established in Muntenia and parts of Transylvania, and also, in the forest-steppe zone on the left bank of the Dnieper and extends north to the Desna and Seym rivers, in the east – to the Seversky Donets and the lower reaches of the Dnieper.22 The end of the Chernyakhiv culture came with the arrival and domination of the Huns in late 4th – beginning of the 5th century, which in relative chronology corresponds to phase D1.23

11 Ibidem, p. 81.12 Ibidem, pp. 91–92; ig. 34.13 A. KOKOWSKI, “Die Wielbark-Kultur – Goten in Mittel- und Osteuropa” in: U. LUND HANSEN,

A. BITNER-WRÓBLEWSKA (eds.), Worlds Apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age. Network Denmark–Poland, 2005–2008, Kobenhavn–Warszawa 2010, pp. 111–112.

14 Ibidem, p. 113.15 Ibidem, p. 114, maps 1 and 2.16 Ibidem, p. 115, map 3.17 Ibidem, p. 117, map 4.18 Ibidem, p. 117, map 5.19 M. SHCHUKIN, M. KAZANSKI, O. SHAROV, Des Goths aux Huns: Le Nord de la mer Noire au

Bas –Empire et a l’époque des Grandes Migrations, Oxford 2006, p. 38; B.V. MAGOMEDOV, Chernâkhovskaâ kul’tura. Problema etnosa, Lublin 2001, p. 140.

20 Ibidem, p. 139, ig. 88.21 Ibidem, pp. 140–141, ig. 89.22 Ibidem, p. 143, ig. 90.23 Ibidem, pp. 146–147, ig. 91.

42


As regards Scandinavia, including Gotland, Öland and Bornholm, in Roman times (the Roman Iron Age, 1st-4th century AD), directly before and after that, there is no signiicant cultural change. There region continued to be settled groups from the circle of post-Celtic cultures of the Roman Pe-

riod. Changes in material culture primarily relect a strong inluence of the Roman Empire. The result is the appearance of a large variety of Roman imports in Scandinavia.24

On the territory of the European Barbaricum at large and especially within the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone indicated in the title, both hoards and small (stray) inds (i.e., single and cumulative inds; both with and without an archaeological context) of Roman coins show a strong domination of 1st–2nd century denarii, late Nero (54–68) to early Septimius Severus (193–211), with a small group of 3rd century issues.25 In terms of chronological structure there is some evident similarity between individual denarius hoards26 and also, between hoards and single inds.27

Contrary to past views expressed by Polish researchers, more notably, Andrzej Kunisz28 and Jerzy Wielowiejski,29 who propose to connect the inlux of Roman coins, continuous but varying in its intensity, with long-distance trade, the results of more recent studies indicate that the inlow of 1st–2nd

century denarii from the Empire to the European Barbaricum ought to be dated to the 2nd century, or possibly, at the latest, to the irst half of the 3rd century. According to Aleksander Bursche the great wave of denarius inlux, issued in the period between AD 64 and 194/195, to the regions of the Prze-

worsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv cultures, and to the Baltic islands, deinitely is associated with political contacts between Romans and Barbarians. Roman coinage entered the region during a short period between the Marcomannic Wars (167–180) and the early reign of Septimius Severus.30 In the

irst half of the 3rd century the gradually devalued silver coinage found its way to the Barbarian hinter-land in a relatively insigniicant number.31 According to quite similar views voiced by Frank Berger, 1st–2nd century denarii were brought to north-western Germany in the period of Marcus Aurelius (161–180) to early Septimius Severus.32 Reinhard Wolters speculated that the mass inlux of denarii

24 J. ULRIKSEN, “The Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Period in the Western Baltic” in: K.M. HANSEN, K.B. PEDERSEN (eds.), Across the Western Baltic, Vordingborg 2006, pp. 231–234.

25 Cf. T. LUCCHELLI, La moneta nei rapporti tra Roma e l’Europa barbarica: aspetti e problemi, Firenze 1998, pp. 4–163.

26 LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” pp. 137–139; A. BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege und der Zuluß römischer Münzen in das Barbaricum” in: H. FRIESINGER, J. TEJRAL, A. STUPPNER (eds.), Mar-komannenkrige. Ursachen und Wirkungen, Brno 1994, pp. 472–474; R. REECE, “Roman coin hoards in Da-cia and beyond” in: Roman Coins and Archaeology. Collected Papers, Wetteren 2003 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 32), pp. 195–304; A. DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia napływu denarów rzymskich z I–III w. na ziemie Polski w świetle analizy nowego materiału ze znalezisk drobnych,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne LVII, 2013, pp. 105–109; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 78.

27 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” p. 104; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 52.28 A. KUNISZ, “Kontakty ludności ziem polskich z Imperium Rzymskim w świetle znalezisk monetar-

nych,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne IX, 1965, pp. 164–171; IDEM, Chronologia napływu pieniądza rzymskiego na ziemie Małopolski, Wrocław 1969, pp. 14–137.

29 J. WIELOWIEJSKI, Kontakty Noricum i Pannonii z ludami północnymi, Wrocław 1970, pp. 119–146; IDEM (ed.), Prahistoria ziem polskich. Tom V: Późny okres lateński i okres rzymski, Wrocław 1981, pp. 400–410.

30 BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp. 472–475; IDEM, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 196–198; IDEM, “Relations…,” p. 222.

31 Ibidem, p. 222.32 F. BERGER, Untersuchungen zu römerzeitlichen Münzfunden in Nordwestdeutschland, Berlin 1992,

pp. 157–159; IDEM, “Die Römischen Fundmünzen in Niedersachsen und Westfalen. Kontext und Funktionen”

43


to the North began in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161), or possibly, Marcus Aurelius and ceased in the inal years of Commodus (180–192), possibly shortly after the accession of Septimius Sever-us.33 On the other hand, basing mostly on Swedish inds, Lennart Lind presented a thesis that pay-

ments of 1st–3rd century denarii made to Barbarians from the Roman state treasury started not earlier than in the 240s–260s.34 However, this thesis was criticised by other researchers.35 Tomaso Lucchelli, having analysed inds, especially hoards, from the territory of the whole northern, central and eastern European Barbaricum, dated the onset of the denarius inlux to the period from Trajan36 (98–117) to Antoninus Pius, its end to AD 194–195 or slightly later.37 In the opinion of Michael Erdrich, a great amount of subsidia was paid by the Romans to the Germanic tribes on the north-western border of the Empire starting from the Marcomannic Wars, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, until the death of Commodus and the coming to power of Pertinax in AD 192/193. On occasions, the payments continued to around AD 198 when, after the civil war, Septimius Severus deinitely strengthened the limes.38 And inally, Richard Reece, based on the chronological structure of selected hoards from the Barbarian territory, accepts that 1st–3rd century denarii might have continued to enter the region in a great quantity into the 230s or even for a little longer.39 As regards the inlux of denarii to the Baltic islands the dominant view is that redistributed coins came there from the mainland, especially from the area of present-day Poland.40

From an Eastern European point of view the problem of the time of arrival of 1st–2nd century denarii to the territory of Eastern Europe, more speciically – modern Ukraine, the region of the Chernyakhiv culture included – has quite an impressive historiography with two separate groups of views. One are researchers who claim that Roman denarii came to the Eastern European Barbari-cum simultaneously with their circulation on the territory of the Empire, or only with a little delay. Aleksandr Fenin41 and Mikhail Braichevskii42 related the beginning of the inlux to the second half of

in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Con-texts and Functions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), p. 105.

33 R. WOLTERS, Nummi Signati. Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägungen und Geldwittschaft, München 1999, pp. 385–386.

34 L. LIND, Romerska denarer funna i Sverige, Stockholm 1988, pp. 205–208.35 K. SKAARE, Zur Methode der Fundauswertung Römischer Denare in Hinblick auf das skandinavische

Fundaufkomen, Wien 1992 (“Letterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses,” vol. 4), pp. 26–27; LUCCHELLI, La mo-neta…, pp. 154–156; WOLTERS, Nummi…, p. 388; BURSCHE, “Roman coins…,” pp. 71–72; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 78–79.

36 To be precise, after 107 AD, when Trajan withdrew denarii struck before AD 64; LUCCHELLI, La mo-neta…, pp. 160 –161.

37 Ibidem, pp. 161 –162.38 M. ERDRICH, Rom und die Barbaren. Das Verhältnis zwischen dem Imperium Romanum und den ger-

manischen Stämmen vor seiner Nordwestgrenze vor der späten Republik bis zum Gallischen Sonderreich, Mainz 2001, pp. 127–128.

39 R. REECE, “Roman silver goes abroad” in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), p. 70.

40 LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” pp. 139–140; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 85.41 O.V. FENIN, Znahidki rims’kikh monet u Prikarpatti, Arkheologiâ V, 1951, p. 101.42 M.Û. BRAICHEVSKII, Rims‘ka moneta ta teritoriï Ukraïni, Kiïv 1959, p. 18.

44


the 1st century. Vladislav Kropotkin,43 Georgi Fedorov,44 Emmanuil Rikman,45 Avraam Nudelman,46

Georgi Nebeeridze and several other researchers proposed the beginning of the 2nd century as the earliest date of the denarius inlux. Virtually all of these researchers associated the process of Roman denarius inlow to the Barbarian territory with a lively trade maintained with the Roman Empire and the reduction of the denarius low with the deterioration of the quality of silver coinage in late 2nd

century. It is also notable that this starting date of the denarius inlux was almost the only argument in favour of the early dating of the Chernyakhiv culture. Only Vladislav Kropotkin suggested that a signiicant proportion of coins could have arrived as a result of military and political activity of the Barbarians during the 3rd century.47 In late 1960s and 70s the early dating of the Chernyakhiv culture was re-examined and shifted to the onset of the 3rd century.48 With this dating the denarii no longer “it” the chronological frames of that culture and look archaic. In this situation it was necessary to propose a different date for the onset of the denarius inlow and to ind a different source for it. Boris Magomedov concluded that the Roman denarii came to the Chernyakhiv area with a signiicant delay during the Gothic wars of the mid-3rd century as plunder or payments made by the Romans.49 This

view has some support of other researchers.50 A comparative quantitative analysis of 1st–2nd century denarius hoards discovered in the regions of the Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhiv cultures led Kirill Myzgin to conclude that the coins came to Eastern Europe with the arrival of a Germanic population from the Central European Barbaricum.51

Before we start comparing the chronological structure of individual coin series from inds it may be useful to note the differences in the time span of circulation of 1st and 2nd century denarii. In the Roman Empire they are no longer in evidence at the end of the irst half of the 3rd century.52

43 V.V. KROPOTKIN, Ekonomicheskie svâzi Vostochnoi Evropy v I tysâcheletii nashei ery, Moskva 1967, pp. 79–81.

44 G.B. FEDOROV, “Rimskie i rannevizantiiskie monety na territorii Moldavskoi SSR” in: M. MACREA (ed.), Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejulîmplinirii a 60 de ani, Bucureti 1960, p. 186.

45 E.A. RIKMAN, Etnicheskaâ istorija Podnestrov‘â i prilegaûshego Podunav‘â v pervykh vekakh nashei ery, Moskva 1975, p. 232.

46 А.А. NUDELMAN, “Rimskaâ moneta v mezhdurech‘e Dnestra, Pruta i Dunaja” in: V.L. ÂNIN (ed.), Numizmatika antichnogo Prichernomor‘â, Kiev 1982, p. 129.

47 V.V. KROPOTKIN, Klady rimskikh monet na territorii SSSR, Moskva 1961 (“Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov,” Vyp. G. 4–4), pp. 24–25.

48 M.B. SHCHUKIN, “O treh datirovkakh chernâkhovskoi kul’tury,” Kratkie soobshchenija Instituta arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR 166, 1967, pp. 8–13; IDEM, “O nachal’noi date chernâkhovskoi kul’tury,” Prace Archeologiczne 422, part 22, 1976, pp. 303–317; IDEM, “K voprosu o verkhnei khronologicheskoi granice chernâkhovskoi kul’tury,” Kratkie soobshchenija Instituta arheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR 178, 1979, pp. 17–22.

49 B.V. MAGOMEDOV, Chernâkhovskaâ kul‘tura Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor‘â, Kiev 1987, p. 79.50 S.V. PIVOVAROV, “Ryms’ki moneti v starozhitnostâkh chernâkhivs’koi kul’tury” in: G.K. KOZHOLIAK

(ed.), Pitannâ starodavn’oi ta seredn’ovichnoi istorii, arkheologii i etnologii, vol. 2, Chernivci 1999, p. 22; M.B. SHCHUKIN, Gotskij put’. Goty, Rim i chernâkhovskaâ kul’tura, Sankt-Peterburg 2005, p. 202; О.V. ŠAROV, Kera-micheskij kompleks nekropolâ Chatyr-Dag. Khronologiâ kompleksov s rimskimi importami (krasnolakovaâ keramika), Sankt-Peterburg 2007, pp. 34–35; K.V. MYZGIN, “K voprosu o vremeni postupleniâ rimskikh monet v sredu chernâk-hovskogo naseleniâ,” Vestnik Kharkivs’kogo national’nogo universitetu imeni V.N. Karazina 40, 2008, pp. 51–52.

51 IDEM, “Rimskie monety v areale chernâkhovskoj kul’tury: problema istichnikov postu pleni,” Stratum plus Anthropology and Archaeology 4, 2013, p. 223.

52 Cf. H. SCHUBERT, Das Verhältnis von Denar zu Antoninian in der Münzschätzen der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Wien 1992 (“Letterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses, ” vol. 4), pp. 267–271.

45


In the European Barbaricum these same denarii continue in evidence until the Migration Period, at least until approximately AD 500. This is conirmed by numerous inds from the Migration Period.53

Consequently, the denarius inds from Barbaricum cannot be directly compared to the denarius inds from the Roman territory.54 It is also necessary to take into consideration the speciic character of the “Barbarian” inds. The pool of 1st–2nd century denarii, presumably brought to Barbaricum before the end of the 2nd century, continued in use there much longer and, presumably, in different ways55 to

that within the Empire. Moreover, on Roman territory new issues of denarii, struck in the inal years of the 2nd century and during the 3rd century, entered circulation and, because of inlation, replaced older coins56 on a very much larger scale than within Barbaricum. For this reason the chronological structure of coin sets formed in Barbaricum may be very individual, different from the chronological structure of deposits from the Empire. Possible similarities may be misleading.57 At the same time, as coins continued to be used within Barbaricum, assemblages of 1st– 2nd century denarii were aug-

mented by adding later coins which presumably found their way into Barbarian hands later and independently from the 1st–2nd century denarii, e.g., the 3rd century denarii mentioned earlier, or 4th

century solidi.58 Thus, as part of the “barbarian” assemblages with a chronological structure that we can refer directly to the pool of 1st– 2nd century denarii in circulation within the Empire at the time of the export of the denarii beyond the limes, we have a relatively small number of later coins, added at a later date. In a similar way groups of 1st– 2nd century denarii obtained directly from the Empire may have had added to them other 1st– 2nd century denarii, so commonly used by the Barbarians. If the number of these secondary additions was negligible in relation to the size of the assemblage, they did not disrupt their original, “imperial” chronological structure in any signiicant manner but may represent in it the oldest or, especially, the youngest coins. Thus, for assemblages of 1st–2nd century denarii from Barbaricum we should adopt the rule – something that we are aware may be regarded as highly controversial – that the youngest coin in an assemblage marks the terminus post quem of its deposition but cannot be the decisive factor dating the time of inlux from the territory of the Empire

53 A brief and comprehensive description of the phenomenon is given by Aleksander Bursche in: A. BUR-SCHE, “Rola źródeł numizmatycznych w studiach nad sytuacją osadniczą i kulturową na ziemiach polskich u schyłku starożytności” in: P. KACZANOWSKI, M. PARCZEWSKI (eds.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Kraków 2005, pp. 203–205. One example we can quote in this context is the hoard from Zagórzyn (now Za-gorzyn) in Greater Poland. Dated by objects accompanying the coins to not earlier than the turn of the 5th and 6th cc., the hoard comprised around 3000 (possibly more) 1st–2nd century denarii (with only 13 specimens re-corded, Hadrian to Commodus), 4th century solidi, at least six gold medallions and two gold Germanic bracteates (A. BURSCHE, Złote medaliony rzymskie w Barbaricum. Symbolika prestiżu i władzy społeczeństw barbarzyń-skich u schyłku starożytności, Warszawa 1998 (“Światowit,” Supplement Series A: Antiquity, vol. 2), pp. 51–61).

54 Cf. REECE, “Roman coin hoards…,” pp. 295–304; IDEM, “Roman silver…,” pp. 69–71.55 See A. BURSCHE, “Function of Roman coins in Barbaricum of Later Antiquity. An anthropological es-

say” in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), pp. 398–408.

56 Cf. SCHUBERT, “Das Verhältnis…,” pp. 267–271.57 Cf. LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” pp. 138–139; IDEM, “Gresham’s Law and the Disappearance

of the pre-Severen Denarii in the Roman Empire during the Third Century AD” in: M. ASOLATI, G. GORINI (eds.), Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica e di Storia Monetaria, Padova, 28–29 ottobre 2005, Padova 2006, pp. 59–66.

58 BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 202–204.

46


of the main body of the hoard denarii. The factor recognized in this case as decisive would be the chronological structure of the deposit (Figs. 1–11).

A comparative analysis of the chronological structure of small inds and hoards of Imperial de-

narii from Poland led Arkadiusz Dymowski to conclude that these two categories appear to be parts of the same, highly homogeneous pool of coins.59 The study of the chronological pattern of inds from Bornholm conducted by Helle Horsnæs brought the same result.60 Once it is made for denarius inds from other regions of Barbaricum, especially Ukraine, this line of research may be expected to bring analogical conclusions. The hoards might then be treated as a representative pool of Roman denarii from all manner of inds from a given area. What is evident at present is that the hoards from Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, western Belarus, western Russia, Gotland, Bornholm and Öland all have a highly similar chronological structure within a few speciied types.61 And this is the starting point for the analysis presented below.

Currently we have a record of 86 hoards containing not less than 50 Imperial denarii (excluding Barbarian imitations) with a well determined chronological composition:62 37 deposits from Poland,63

59 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 93–121.60 HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 52.61 Cf. LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” pp. 137–139; BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp.

471–485; REECE, “Roman coin hoards…,” pp. 299–303; DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 104–109; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 73–80.

62 It is notable that quite often the hoard composition is known only from early archival records, sometimes as old as the 18th or 19th century. They cannot be treated as fully reliable but are all that is available to us.

63 Błotnica Strzelecka (A. KUNISZ, Katalog skarbów monet rzymskich odkrytych na ziemiach polskich, Warszawa 1973 (“Materiały do prahistorii ziem polskich,” vol. V, part 5), pp. 14–15; P. KACZANOWSKI, U. MARGOS, Tabula Imperii Romani. M-34 – Kraków, Kraków 2002, p. 17; R. CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Polen: Schlesien, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 83), pp. 23–25), Chmielów Piaskowy (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 22–24; IDEM, Znaleziska monet rzymskich z Małopolski, Wrocław 1985, pp. 37–45; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 27–34), Dąbrowno (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 24–26; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 49–56; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 42–47), Dorotowo (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 27; R. CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Polen: Pommern, Wetteren 2007 (“Coll-ection Moneta,” vol. 67), pp. 36–38), Drzewicz Nowy (now Nowy Drzewicz) (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 27–28; A. KRZYŻANOWSKA, Skarb denarów rzymskich z Drzewicza, Wrocław 1976; S. KUBIAK, Znaleziska monet rzymskich z Mazowsza i Podlasia, Wrocław 1979, pp. 29–43), Dziedzice (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 28; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Schlesien, pp. 60–61), Gierłoż (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 32; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pom-mern, pp. 63–66), Golub-Dobrzyń (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 34–35; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pommern, pp. 67–82), Gostynin (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 36; KUBIAK, Znaleziska…, pp. 44–45), Iwno (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 42–43), Jerzmanowice II (A. DYMOWSKI, “Skarby monet rzymskich odkryte w ostatnim czasie na terenie Jury Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne LI, 2007, pp. 63–68; IDEM, Znaleziska monet rzymskich z terenu Polski rejestrowane w pierwszych latach XXI wieku. Aspekty źródłoznawcze, Zielona Góra 2011, pp. 203–209), Korzkiew (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 53; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 89–93; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 105–108), Ląd (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 60–61), Liw (ibidem, p. 61; KUBIAK, Zna-leziska…, pp. 49–50; A. ROMANOWSKI, Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Polen: Rechtsufriges Maso-wien und Podlachien, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 84), pp. 60–69), Łęgowo (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 61–62), Malkowice (ibidem, pp. 64–65; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 113–117; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 138–141), Nietulisko Małe I (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 71–72; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 126–148; K. MITKOWA-SZUBERT, The Nietulisko Małe Hoards of Roman Denarii, Warszawa 1989; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 147–203; M. BIBORSKI, J. BODZEK, P. KACZANOWSKI, “Nietulisko Małe Ho-ard I Rediscovered – Preliminary Information,” Notae Numismaticae V, 2004, pp. 49–59), Nietulisko Małe II (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 72–73; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 148–149; MITKOWA-SZUBERT, The Nietulisko…; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 203–220), Ossa-Rywałdzik (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 79; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pommern, pp. 139–150), Paczółtowice (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 81; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 159–160; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 233–237), Podzamcze (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 64;

47


25 from Ukraine,64 3 from Russia,65 2 from Belarus,66 1 from Moldova,67 15 from Gotland,68 2 from

KUBIAK, Znaleziska…, pp. 59–60; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 136–137; ROMANOWSKI, Die Fundmünzen…, pp. 100–106; IDEM, “Kolejne denary rzymskie z miejscowości Podzamcze, pow. garwo-liński. Rejon ujścia Okrzejki w świetle znalezisk monet rzymskich,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne LIII, 2009, pp. 225–230), Przewodów (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 90; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 174–178; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 253–256), Przędzel (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 91–92; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 179–181; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 256–257), Resko (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 96; CIOŁEK, Die Fund-münzen… Pommern, pp. 200–206), Romanów (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 98; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 185–188; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 268–281; W. FEDOROWICZ, “Trzecia część skarbu denarów rzymskich z Romanowa,” Lubelskie Wiadomości Numizmatyczne XII, 2003, pp. 5–47), Ruszczyzna (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 99; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 191–194; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 284–288), Siedlimowo (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 102–103), Skrobaczów (ibidem, p. 104; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 201–204; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 298–300), Słochy Annopolskie (unpublished); Sopot (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 106–107; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pommern, pp. 222–227), Swaryczów (KUNISZ, Kata-log…, pp. 110–111; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 211–214; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 312–315), Szczytno (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 112; W. NOWAKOWSKI, Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum, Polen – Band I: Masuren, Warszawa 2001, p. 107), Tokary (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 114–115; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 219–233; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 322–330), Wilków (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp.126–127; IDEM, Znaleziska…, pp. 241–245; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 343–346), Wrocław (KUNISZ, Katalog…, pp. 131–132; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Schlesien, pp. 293–295), Zbój-na (KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 136; KUBIAK, Znaleziska…, pp. 77–78; ROMANOWSKI, Die Fundmünzen…, pp. 150–152), Żulice (KUNISZ, Znaleziska…, pp. 259–260; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 366–374, B. PASZKIEWICZ, “Skarb z Żulic [1970] bez końca” in: P. ŁUCZKIEWICZ et. al. (eds.), Europa Barbari-ca. Ćwierć wieku archeologii w Masłomęczu, Lublin 2005, “Monumenta Studia Gothica,” vol. IV, pp. 369–373).

64 Antonìvka (V.V. KROPOTKIN, “Dopolnenie k spisku nahodok rimskih monet,” Stratum plus Anth-ropology & Archaeology 6, 2000, p. 61, no. 1169), Borochice (K. MITKOWA-SZUBERT, “Zawartość, losy i próba interpretacji skarbu rzymskiego z Boroczyc na Wołyniu,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne XLIII, 1999, pp. 137–150); Borynâ (KROPOTKIN, “Dopolnenie…,” p. 54, no. 347), Černicâ (ibidem, pp. 60–61, no. 868a (393)), Chutove (G.V. BEIDIN, K.V. MYZGIN, Monetno-veshevoi klad rimskogo vremeni iz srednego techeniâ basseina r. Vorskla, Odessa 2010 (“Zapiski otdela numizmatiki i torevtiki Odesskogo arkheologicheskogo muzeâ,” Vyp. 2), pp. 44–64), Glins’k I (B.V. MAGOMEDOV, L.R. KAROEVA, “Skarb denariïv bilâ s. Glins’k,” Arheologiâ 62, 1988, pp. 82–86; Û. SHILIN, “Nova informaciâ pro chernâkhivs’ke poselennâ bílâ s. Glins’k Vinnic’koï ob-lastí” in: T.R. SOLOMONOVA (ed.) Podíl’s’ka starovina. Naukovij zbiornik. Do 85–richcha v chasu zasnuvanna Vinnic’kogo oblasnogo kraeznavchogo muzeu, Vinnicâ 2003, pp. 58–65), Harkìv (Kharkiv) – environs (unpubli-shed), Kolantaïv (KROPOTKIN, “Dopolnenie…,” p. 27, no. 1800), Lipovec’ (ibidem, p. 24, no. 1738), Luchicì (ibidem, p. 59, no. 676), Lukishina (V.P. GLUSHENKO, “Klad rimskikh denariev iz s. Lukishina,” Numizmatika i epigraika IV, Moskva 1989, pp. 19–52), Mazepincì (KROPOTKIN, Klady…, p. 60, no. 496), Novooleksandrìvka (M.Û. BRAICHEVSKII, Rims‘ka moneta…, p. 132, no. 124), Novograd (Novohrad) Volins’kìi (KROPOTKIN, Klady…, p. 55, no. 382), Pereorki (ibidem, p. 51, no. 295), Rogincì (ibidem, p. 78, no. 955), Rubche (IDEM, “Dopolnenie…,” pp. 57–58, no. 317), Sarniki (Gornye) (IDEM, Klady…, p. 76, no. 914), Starì Valki I (S.V. KO-DACKIJ, K.V. MYZGIN, “Noviï skarb rims’kih denariïv z okolic’ sela Starí Valki,” forthcoming), Starì Valki II (ibidem), (Starìâ) Romanìvka (KROPOTKIN, “Dopolnenie…,” p. 26, no. 1775), Turìâ (IDEM, Klady…, p. 89, no. 1271), Ulânìvka (G.E. HRABAN, “Klad rimskikh denariev iz s. Pogorelogo,” Sovetskaâ arkheologiâ 2, 1958, p. 255), Vìnnicâ (Vinnytsia) – environs (O. KUZ’MENKO, “Klad rims’kikh denariïv,” Numizmatika i faleristika 3 (39), 2006, pp. 6–10), Zbuzh (KROPOTKIN, “Dopolnenie…,” p. 60, no 839).

65 Belgorod (V.P. GLUSHENKO, “Novyj klad rimskikh denariev,” Vestnik drevnej istorii 2 (189), 1989, pp. 68–74), Prâmicyno (O.A. RADÛSH, “Nakhodki monet rimskogo vremeni s territorii Kurskoj oblasti” in: V.V. ENUKOV, K.F. SOKOL (eds.), Slavâno–russkie drevnosti Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’â: materialy konf., posbâsh. 75-letiû so dlâ poždeniâ K. F. Sokola, Kursk 2008, p. 143), Sevenki (ibidem, p. 142).

66 Lyshchytsy (V.S. SIDOROVICH, “Lyŝickij klad rimskikh monet” in: XV Vserossijskaâ numizmatiches-kaâ konferenciâ. Tezisy dokladov i soobshenij, Moskva 2009, pp. 44–45), Malech (IDEM, “Malechskij klad rim-skikh denariev (osnovnye itogi issledovaniâ)” in: K. FILIPOW, B. KUKLIK (eds.), Pieniądz i systemy monetarne – wspólne dziedzictwo Europy, Augustów–Warszawa 2012, pp. 29–35).

67 Bendery-Tighina (A. POPA, L. CIOBANU, Moneda romană în Basarabia. Ghid metodic, Chişinău 2003, p. 67).

68 Bjärs I (L. LIND, Roman denarii found in Sweden, 2. Catalogue. Text, Stockholm 1981 (“Acta Univer-sitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology,” vol. 11:2), pp. 42–43, no. 46), Bomunds

48


Bornholm69 and 1 from Öland.70 Barbarian imitations, pre-Neronian denarii and coins of denomina-

tions other than denarii present in these hoards are not taken into account in subsequent statistical analysis. The number of hoards recorded in each region cannot be regarded as a reliable index of the distribution of deposits because of the differences in the status of research. The level of recording of inds in Poland is much lower than in the Scandinavian countries but on the other hand much higher than in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union. For this reason the actual number of denarii hoards in Ukraine may be much higher than has been recorded in reference literature.

With the exception of some rare pre-Neronian denarii (mostly Republican) and a small quantity of 3rd century denarii, the 86 hoards named above comprise coins struck during the later reign of Nero (from AD 64 onwards) until the early reign of Septimius Severus (to around AD 194/195). According to Aleksander Bursche, later denarii found in hoards, especially 3rd century issues, may be regarded as later, presumably secondary, additions made on the Barbarian territory.71 Although the chronologi-cal framework of these hoards is closely deined, their chronological structure is quite diverse. Some hoards have an older structure. Others are characterized by a relatively younger distribution of issues. Based on the Polish inds Arkadiusz Dymowski deined ive types of hoards of 1st–2nd century denarii: A, B, C, BC and D.72 It appears that Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian and Moldovan hoards, as well as the deposits from the Baltic islands, can be described using the same system. The only exception is a Ukrainian hoard discovered in the environs of Vìnnicâ (Vinnytsia), that is so far hard to interpret.

Hoards containing coins not later than Hadrian (117–138), very rare indeed, may be classiied as type A and divided into two sub-types: A–1 and A–2 (for details see Table 1). Sub-type A–2 hoards (Fig. 1) are deposits ending in the denarii of Hadrian recorded on the Przeworsk culture territory (Map 1). Type A–1 would be hoards which end in the coins of Trajan or earlier. Small inds, mostly from the area of the Przeworsk culture, have yielded quite a large group of denarii of Trajan which have no analogy in the hoards. Perhaps, these coins should be interpreted as the irst wave of Imperial denarii which came to the area of present-day central and southern Poland, probably in connection

i Burgen (ibidem, p. 78, no. 79), Boters (ibidem, pp. 19–22, no. 9), Djupbrunns (ibidem, pp. 69–72, no. 63; IDEM, Hoards, Gotland, Hogrän par., Djupbrunns, Stockholm University 2013 (“Roman Denarii. Hoards and Stray Finds in Sweden,” 2013, vol. 2), pp. 1–32), Gandarve II (IDEM, Roman denarii…, pp. 14–19, no. 8a–g), Hal-legårda I (ibidem, pp. 44–48, no. 53a–b), Havor (ibidem, pp. 49–50, no. 55), Kams (ibidem, pp. 75–77, no. 73), Öja (ibidem, pp. 94–95, no. 121), Öjvide I (ibidem, pp. 79–80, no. 85a), Oxarve (ibidem, pp. 52–53, no. 61a–b), Robbenarve (ibidem, pp. 37–41, no. 43), Sigdes (ibidem, pp. 24–31, no. 18), Sindarve (ibidem, pp. 53–69, no. 62), Sojvide (ibidem, pp. 82–87, no. 89).

69 Robbedale (ibidem, p. 113, no. 193), Udmarken (ibidem, p. 113, no. 194). There are also a few new hoards found recently on Bornholm, mostly by amateur metal detectorists, e.g., Sorte Muld and Smørenge (HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 44). Unfortunately, at these sites there is no possibility to distinguish conclusively between coins from single inds and coins from hoards scattered during agricultural ieldwork. At the same time, according to the research of Helle Horsnæs, the chronological pattern of hoards discovered in the past (such as e.g., Robbedale and Udmarken) and of assemblages of recently discovered denarii is very similar (ibidem, pp. 43–45, 52). For this reason, from the perspective of their chronological structure, the Robbedale and Udmarken deposits may be treated as series representative for Bornholm.

70 Hulterstad (LIND, Roman denarii…, pp. 103–104, no. 148).71 BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 202–204.72 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 105–109.

49


with the Dacian Wars (101–106 AD).73 And that is why, although no type A–1 hoards have been recorded so far it is quite probable that they will be discovered in future. It is notable that not all the deposits of denarii lacking coins younger than Hadrian ought to be attributed as a matter of course to type A. The chronological structure of a small hoard from the environs of Polanów in Pomerania (with only 18 recorded coins, Otho to Hadrian)74 is similar to assemblages type B described below. The hoard is too small to analyse its composition more reliably but in terms of its chronological struc-

ture, it might have originally been an assemblage similar to those dated to the period after the death of Hadrian, to the reign of Antoninus Pius, or even a little later. It looks as if the coins of Antoninus Pius did not “make it into” the small statistical sample of the 18 coins from Polanów, although one would expect to see them here.

The irst large group of hoards, mostly from the areas of the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures (Map 1), are deposits of later chronological structure with the youngest coins of Marcus Aurelius according to the classiication of Aleksander Bursche;75 in our later discussion they are referred to as hoards type B76 (Table 1) and dated to the second half of the reign of Antoninus Pius (sub-type B-1; Fig. 2) until the early years of Marcus Aurelius77 (sub-type B-2; Fig. 3), or possibly, even to the irst years of the reign of Commodus (sub-type B-3; Fig. 4). Most probably some of these denarii entered our area during the second half of the reign of Antoninus Pius, in circumstances dificult to deter-mine.78 Moreover, a view that most of these coins reached the territory of present-day Poland during the early years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius in connection with the Marcomannic Wars cannot be discounted.79 Given the historical events, especially, the Marcomannic Wars, and the similarity of type B hoards to some deposits known from the Danubian region80 (see Table 1), a southern direction of import is highly probable.

The second big group of hoards according to Aleksander Bursche, found in the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv areas, as well as in Gotland (Map 1), are deposits of an earlier chronologi-cal structure with the youngest coins of Septimius Severus;81 in our later discussion they are referred to as hoards type C82 (Table 1) and dated for the most part to the irst years of the reign of Septimius

73 KUNISZ, Chronologia…, pp. 62–63; A. ROMANOWSKI, “Dolina środkowej Prosny w świetle znale-zisk monet rzymskich” in: S. SUCHODOLSKI, M. ZAWADZKI (eds.), Od Kalisii do Kalisza. Skarby Doliny Prosny. Katalog wystawy. Zamek Królewski w Warszawie, 30 kwietnia 2010 – 30 maja 2010, Warszawa 2010, p. 38; DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” p. 112.

74 CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pommern, pp. 180–181.75 BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp. 471–473, 479.76 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” p. 105.77 In our view, the younger coins (late Marcus Aurelius and Commodus) in hoards sub–types B-1 and B-2

should be treated as later additions. 78 Ibidem, p. 106–107.79 BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp. 471–475; IDEM, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 196–198;

IDEM, “Relations…,” p. 222.80 Cf. C. GǍZDAC, Monetary Circulation in Dacia and the Provinces from Middle and Lower Danube

from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106–337), Cluj–Napoca 2010 (Second edition, revised and added, “Coins from Roman Sites and Collections of Roman Coins from Romania,” vol. VII), pp. 69–74 and material on enclosed CD.

81 BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp. 471–473, 480.82 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” p. 107.

50


Severus (sub-type C-3; Fig. 7). Looking into the reasons for the inlow one can formulate a hypoth-

esis that these were payments from the Imperial treasury made in exchange for keeping the peace on the Danubian border,83 which was left without protection during the 193–197 civil war in the Empire. This would explain why the Barbarians did not attack the weakly defended limes, the same area that had seen some ierce ighting several years earlier. Payments made to Barbarians allowed Septimius Severus to use the Danubian army in the internal struggle for the imperial throne.84 There is also

a much smaller number of type C hoards that we can date tentatively to the later reign of Marcus Aurelius (sub-type C-1; Fig. 5) and to the reign of Commodus (sub-type C-2; Fig. 6). Considering the chronological structure of the Commodan and Severan hoards recorded in the Roman provinces on the Danube85 the probability of the Danubian direction of import of a type C pool of denarii is low.

Hoards type BC (see Table 1), present in the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv areas and, possibly, in Gotland (Map 1), usually ending in coins of Septimius Severus, have a chronological pattern similar to hoard types B (especially their part up to Antoninus Pius) and C (especially their part from Marcus Aurelius) (Fig. 7). From the Polish perspective, where inds are dominated by type B and C pools of denarii, this structure resembles a mixed set of subsets of type B and C of similar size.86 How-

ever, if we take into account a wider spectrum of inds, especially from Scandinavia and present-day Romania, these hoards must be regarded as early Severan deposits, with a chronological pattern alterna-

tive to type C-3. They could have been brought in from the Danubian region during the irst years of the reign of Septimius Severus, in similar circumstances (but from a different direction?) as type C-3 hoards.

Group D87 (see Table 1) are hoards of a later chronological structure with the youngest coins of Septimius Severus according to the classiication of Aleksander Bursche.88 They are recorded across the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone. These are deposits which appeared in Barbaricum as a result of the “ageing” of type C hoards, and perhaps, also type B/C hoards, or alternately, were formed in a secondary manner drawing from the “aged” pool of coins circulating within Barbaricum outside of hoards. As a result of the extended use of 1st–2nd century denarii until the Migration Period a part of them became seriously worn and damaged. The irst to become so would have been the older, 1st century coins, followed by early 2nd century coins. In this way hoards with a decreasing number of coins of the Flavian dynasty were formed, followed in succession by those with coins of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Thus, hoards type D would be assemblages having a chronological structure of the original sets modiied as a result of the gradual wear and tear of coins, initially of the older ones, which makes such modiied hoards similar to the younger group of depos-

its from the Roman territory, but with the reservation that Barbarian hoards type D are not topped up with 3rd century denarii, brought to Barbaricum in trace amounts, on a scale not larger than minimal.

83 BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” p. 198.84 R. CIOŁEK, “Znaleziska monet rzymskich na Śląsku: wnioski z nowego inwentarza,” Wiadomości Nu-

mizmatyczne LIII, 2009, p. 159.85 GǍZDAC, Monetary circulation…, and material on enclosed CD.86 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 107–109.87 Ibidem, pp. 108–109.88 BURSCHE, “Die Markomannenkriege…,” pp. 471–473, 481, see also p. 483.

51


Based on the chronological pattern one can assume there were relative differences in the time-period over which individual pools of denarii type D took form. For example, the Gierłoż hoard, which con-

tained quite a large number of Vespasianic and Trajanic issues, may be treated as a deposit buried in the ground a little earlier than the Swaryczów hoard, with its single Vespasianic coin and no denarii of Trajan at all. This leads us to deine sub-types D-1 (oldest structure), D-2 (median structure) and D-3 (the youngest structure) for different chronological patterns of hoard type D (Table 1). In case of type D hoards these sub-types are just one marker supporting the (relative) dating of the time of deposition of the hoard; other markers would be, for example, the archaeological context and objects present in these hoards next to the coins. The legitimacy of late dating of type D hoards is supported by the fact that among 68 hoards from the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv areas taken into ac-

count there are three, all of them type D (Borochice,89 Chutove90 and Dąbrowno91), which, apart from the denarii, included artifacts dated to the late Roman Period or the Migration Period.92 At the same

time, analogical artifacts with a similarly late dating were present also in a type C hoard (Djupbrunns, Gotland93). It is quite likely that in some cases (especially on Gotland?) the denarii found in hoards could have been subject to slower wear and, for this reason, the coin sets could have retained their pattern of a type C hoard deeper into the Migration Period. Could it be that the denarii from Gotland inds were used in a slightly different manner than in the continental parts of Barbaricum?

As regards type D deposits from the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone, they are a group deined by Richard Reece as “forward-looking” hoards of Septimius Severus (i.e., of a chron-

ological pattern indicating a later dating than that suggested by the youngest coin) and, probably, also as “normal” hoards of Severus Alexander (i.e., of a chronological pattern indicating that the deposit should be dated according to the date of issue of the youngest coin).94 Richard Reece assumed that the core of these hoards had been formed inside the Empire, which implicated their chronological structure as a whole,95 and this leads us to the conclusion that denarius pool type D had left the Em-

pire after Septimius Severus, in the 230s, or even later.96 However, this theory does not explain why

89 The hoard contained a gold medallion of Jovian (9½–solidi multiplum with a suspension loop and frame) struck in 364 AD (MITKOWA-SZUBERT, “Zawartość…,” pp. 145–146).

90 The hoard contained an iron ire steel with an eyelet for suspension, Type IA of Andrzej Kokowski (“Przeworsk” type), a lint, fragments of an iron chain, and a clay biconical spindlewhorl (BEIDIN, MYZGIN, “Monetno–veŝevoi…,” p. 48).

91 Next to the denarii the hoard contained a gold necklace dated to the Migration Period (KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, pp. 42–47; BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” p. 203).

92 Some other hoards of 1st–2nd century denarii from the territory of the Central and Eastern European Barbaricum also contained 4th century coins and artifacts with a late dating (see e.g., ibidem, p. 202–203; K.V. MYZGIN, “Monetno–veševje klady na territorii černâhovskoj kul’tury,” Drevnosti 10, 2011, pp. 130–138; V. SHAPOSHNIK, “Kompleks chernâkhovskoi kul‘tury iz Khar‘kovskoj oblasti,” Domongol 1, 2010, pp. 147–148). Unfortunately, with no closer information at hand we cannot determine the chronological pattern of the denarii within those deposits.

93 In the Djupbrunns hoard there were two gold Germanic bracteats dated to the Migration Period (LIND, Roman denarii…, p. 69; IDEM, “Hoards…,” pp. 4, 30).

94 REECE, “Roman silver…,” pp. 69–70; cf. IDEM, “The ‘normal’ hoard (1981)” in: Roman Coins and Archaeology. Collected Papers, Wetteren 2003 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 32), pp. 283–288.

95 IDEM, “Roman silver…,” pp. 64–65.96 Ibidem, p. 71.

52


within such a larger number of type D there are so few denarii, or none at all, issued later than the irst years of the reign of Septimius Severus. In assemblages formed on the territory of the Empire after the reign of Septimius Severus there should deinitely be a larger number of younger denarii.97 As

a rule, Richard Reece does not allow the possibility that assemblages of 1st–2nd (3rd) century denarii were formed in Barbaricum. We also agree with this assumption but, in our opinion, in Barbaricum there was a possibility of quite a deep modiication of the original chronological structure of the de-

narius assemblages. This process was caused by the gradual wear of the coins, irst of all, of the older issues which had been circulated inside the Empire for several dozen years earlier and used by the Barbarians for a long period of time after that. Assemblages formed in this way in Barbaricum can be very similar to sets formed within the Empire in the irst decades of the 3rd century, but the “Barbar-ian” assemblages contain a much smaller number of 3rd century denarii than the “Imperial” deposits.98

Normal hoards of Severus Alexander, subsequently referred to as hoard type E-1 (Table 1), are presumably also to be found in the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone but have not been recorded as yet as sets that we could describe in detail. A possible type E-1 deposit is the hoard found in the region of Vìnnicâ (Vinnytsia). The Alwernia hoard99 from southern Poland is another, surviving only as a small fragment (7 determined pieces). In some cases it is dificult to decide whether a given hoard is a type D deposit with some later additions of 3rd century denarii or type E-1. A good example of this is the Hulterstad hoard from Öland (in the present paper referred to as type D), containing 66 denarii determined as 1st–2nd century, and three 3rd century denarii. We propose to distinguish as type E-2 (Table 1) mixed sets of 1st–3rd century denarii and 3rd century antoniniani ending in coins not later than Valerian I (253–260). A very good example of a type E-2 deposit is a rather small hoard (17 determined pieces) from Owczarnia100 in northern Poland, in the Wielbark culture region. This small coin pool of types E-1 and E-2 was deinitely imported to the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone from the Empire during the 3rd century.

As a matter of fact, there is an alternative explanation of the way in which type B, C and D hoards discovered in the territory of present-day Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Scandinavia were formed. As Helmut Schubert has proved, hoards found within the Empire dated to the same period can differ signiicantly in their chronological pattern.101 Some hoards have an

obviously archaic structure (Frühere Vermögen – former wealth), other hoards have an intermediate structure and apparently were formed over a longer period (Gesparte Gelder – savings), still others are dominated by the latest emissions (Verborgene Geldbeträge – hidden salary). In this case type B-1 deposits would be “former wealth,” imaginably taken out of the Empire in times of Marcus Au-

relius as implied by the youngest coins in most of these hoards. Deposits types C-3 and D, especially those topped up with one or more 3rd century denarii, could be treated as “former wealth,” amassed

97 See SCHUBERT, “Das Verhältnis…,” pp. 262–267. 98 Cf. BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 198–204. 99 KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 12; IDEM, Znaleziska…, p. 23–24; B. PASZKIEWICZ, “Znaleziska monet za-

rejestrowane w Katedrze Archeologii UMCS w 1999 r.,” Fontes Numismatici I, 2000, p. 10; KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula…, p. 7.

100 KUNISZ, Katalog…, p. 80; CIOŁEK, Die Fundmünzen… Pommern, pp. 152–153.101 SCHUBERT, “Das Verhältnis…,” pp. 260–278; see also REECE, “Roman silver…,” pp. 68–71.

53

still in the territory of the Empire during the irst decades of the 3rd century and exported to Barbari-cum during the same period. If so, it would be dificult to explain why there are (almost) no type C and D hoards dated to the 220s–230s in the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone that we could classify as “savings” and “hidden salary” imported from the Empire. The suggestion that Barbarians refused to accept devalued denarii struck after AD 194102 or that 1st–2nd century denarii had been kept by the Roman authorities for at least a few decades and later issued to Barbarians in the 3rd century,103 are unconvincing.

Our view is that the territorial distribution of hoard types A, B, C, BC and D is of key impor-tance. As Richard Reece observed some time ago, hoards from the lands of the former Soviet Union (predominantly present-day Ukraine) have a younger chronological pattern than deposits found far-ther to the west.104 What is the reason for this? Simply, we have a great number of type A, B, C and BC hoards from Poland. Hoards type D are also quite numerous but they do not prevail, unlike in Ukraine, where type D hoards dominate strongly and have a later chronological pattern. More spe-

ciically, in Przeworsk culture region only two type A (A-2) hoards have been discovered so far. Next to them there were numerous hoards type B-1, B-2, C-3 and D, and some rare type B-3, C-2 and BC deposits (Maps 1105 and 2). In the Wielbark culture region, hoards type B (B-1 and B-2) and C (C-3) appear to be less numerous than in the Przeworsk region (see map 1). There was also a single type BC hoard and a large number of type D hoards. The latter dominate in the area of the Chernyakhiv culture, where hoards type B, C and BC are very rare. Finally, we have a record of some rare hoards from the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv areas we can classify tentatively as type E.

As regards the Baltic islands, we have two “classic” hoards from Bornholm (Udmarken and Robbedale) with a type D structure (D-1 and D-2 respectively). Similarly, the chronological pattern of the whole pool of denarii from Bornholm seems to be type D-1.106 Most of the hoards from Gotland are type C-3 deposits with just a handful of type D-1. Also from Gotland, we have a single type C-1 hoard (Bomunds i Burgen) and a single deposit we can classify tentatively as type BC (Öja). The Gotland pool of denarii from small inds (leaving out coins younger than Septimius Severus and imi-tations) seems to be chronologically a borderline case of C-3 and D-1.107 And inally, the only hoard from Öland (Hulterstad) can be described as type D-3.

In our opinion all of the numismatic data, taken in tandem with input from archaeology, in-

dicates that a great wave of Roman Imperial denarii came to the Przeworsk culture area from the

102 KUNISZ, Chronologia…, pp. 90–92; WIELOWIEJSKI, Kontakty…, pp. 134–138. Opposing view in: BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 196–204.

103 LIND, “Gresham’s Law…,” pp. 62–63. Opposing views in: SKAARE, “Zur Methode…,” pp. 26–27; LUCCHELLI, La moneta…, pp. 154–156; WOLTERS, Nummi…, p. 388; BURSCHE, “Roman coins…,” pp. 71–72; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, pp. 78–79.

104 REECE, “Roman coin hoards…,” p. 303.105 Hoard types A and B from the Przeworsk culture region occupied by the Wielbark culture during phase

B2/C1 (western Mazovia and Podlahia, Lublin Region and western Belarus) presumably may be attributed to the Przeworsk culture population.

106 See HORSNÆS, Crossing…, pp. 53, ig. 23.107 See ibidem, p. 74, ig. 49.


54

territory of the Empire between the reign of Trajan108 and Septimius Severus. For the Wielbark cul-ture area the same started a little later, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, or possibly, of Marcus Aurelius. This wave is likely to have had two peaks:109 the irst one (smaller, typically with hoard types B-1 and B-2) in the reign of Antoninus Pius and/or Marcus Aurelius, and the second one (much bigger, with hoards type C-3 and a small number of type BC deposits), in the early reign of Septimius Severus. There are some hoards (mainly in the Przeworsk area?) datable to the in-between period (until late Marcus Aurelius or until Commodus) but these are very rare. Pool B denarii are much more promi-nent in small inds from the Przeworsk culture region than in those on the Wielbark culture area.110

Because of this we cannot rule out the possibility that the target area of direct import from the Empire of B-1 and B-2 pools of denarii was limited only to the Przeworsk culture region; this earlier sub-wave could have reached the Wielbark culture region through redistribution from their neighbours to the south, i.e., from Przeworsk culture region.

Some of this coinage found its way into the ground (as dropped coins and hoard types A, B, C, BC) in the Przeworsk and Wielbark regions (Map 1) before the end of Roman Period phase C1a (i.e., before the end of the irst decade of the 3rd century). The rest, type C-3 in particular, continued in circulation in this area until the Migration Period (probably between phase C1b and phase D, pos-

sibly even until phase E), gradually evolving in their pattern into hoards type D (Map 2). Moreover, the denarius pool D was taken by the migrating Wielbark (Gothic) people on their way south-east. Especially that, according to the current views, the Wielbark culture played a decisive role during the initial stage of emergence of the Chernyakhiv culture – when its population penetrated to the lands on the Dniester and the area of present-day Moldova during the irst half of the 3rd century (phases C1a–C1b).111 The mass occurrence of 1st–2nd century Roman denarii on the territory of Eastern Europe is also linked to the Wielbark (Gothic) population.112 Consequently, hoards type D discovered on the Chernyakhiv region (Map 2) should be considered as evidence of a late redistribution (at the earliest, during phase C1b, i.e., AD 210s or later) of 1st–2nd century denarii brought in from the Wielbark cul-ture region. The limited number of type B, C and BC deposits discovered on the Chernyakhiv culture area may be interpreted as structurally unmodiied “family wealth” brought by Gothic ancestors from their Wielbark homeland.

108 There is a noticeable modest proportion of denarii of Domitian in inds from southern and central Poland. A signiicant part of these denarii, struck from slightly better quality silver than earlier and later denarii, disap-peared from circulation within the Empire during the 2nd century (LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” p. 139). It is possible that the denarii of Domitian were taken out from circulation as a result of damnatio memoriae (con-demnation of memory) passed on the emperor after his death in 96 (DYMOWSKI, Znaleziska…, pp. 78, 105). Moreover, among Przeworsk culture inds in general there are no denarii older than AD 64, withdrawn from circu-lation in the territory of the Empire under Trajan’s edict of 107 (LUCCHELLI, La moneta…, pp. 160–161). This would be indirect evidence for dating the inlow of the whole pool of 1st–2nd-century denarii to the 2nd century.

109 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 110–113. Basing on the chronological composition of denarius inds in Barbaricum, Helle Horsnæs reached a similar conclusion, namely that there were two major and quite distinct groups of hoards, one of them earlier than the other; HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 78.

110 DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 110–113.111 MAGOMEDOV, Chernâkhovskaâ… etnosa, pp. 115–116; SHCHUKIN, Gotskij…, pp. 103–108;

О.V. SHAROV, Ranâia faza chernâkhovskoi kultury, Stratum plus (Kišinev) 4, 2011, pp. 321–340.112 MYZGIN, “Rimskie…,” p. 223.


55

A small number of denarii from later years of the reign of Septimius Severus and his 3rd cen-

tury successors, mixed presumably to some extent with older denarii,113 was introduced during the 3rd century, until the end of the 230s and 240s (to the area covering the Przeworsk and Chernyakhiv cultures?), or possibly later, around the mid-3rd century, as an addition to antoniniani114 (to the regions of the Wielbark culture and, possibly, also that of the Chernyakhiv culture). These late denarii could have been hoarded in type E deposits or used to top up type C and D assemblages.115

In the case of Bornholm, and possibly also of Öland, we agree with the claim that 1st–2nd century denarii came there as a result of redistribution, from the territory of present-day Poland. As with the Chernyakhiv culture, this may have happened during Roman Period phase C1b at the earliest or, very likely, later. In the case of Gotland, the problem is more complex. Finds from this island are dominat-ed by hoard type C-3. It seems that most of the coins came there as an unmodiied pool of a Severan pattern. Basing only on the chronological structure of inds from Gotland it is hard to decide whether the Imperial denarii came to the island directly from the Empire or were redistributed from the con-

tinental part of Barbaricum. What is quite certain is that they must have come relatively early, at the end of the 2nd century, perhaps slightly later. The dating proposed for the Bomunds i Burgen hoard (in the later reign of Marcus Aurelius?) suggests the process could have started even a little earlier.

When it comes to the denarius hoards, the occurrence of type D deposits is the most typical feature in the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone. In general, deposits of this kind are recorded in abundance everywhere on this area (Map 2). At the same time, some type D hoards (or their close analogies) have been discovered outside this zone, especially in north-western Germany116

(Laatzen, Lengerich) and on the Great Hungarian Plain117 (Kecel II and Mende in Hungary, Ghirişa II in Romania). There are a few ways to explain this. Firstly, other Barbarian territories may have been supported with Roman denarii during the same period, from the same direction, for the same reason, and used in the same way as in the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone. The same is equally likely for north-western Germany and the Great Hungarian Plain, where type C (C-3) hoards, a modiication of which interpreted as type D are also recorded (Lashorst in Germany, Miskolc in Hungary). Secondly, some of the Barbarian tribes had been migrating during the late Roman Period and the Migration Period. For example, some of the Przeworsk culture population, identiied with the Vandals, moved in the direction of the Great Hungarian Plain during the late Roman Period.118 Most

113 During the 230s, possibly even later, until the mid-3rd century, many 2nd-century denarii, as well as some older ones, continued in circulation within the Empire; cf. SCHUBERT, “Das Verhältnis…,” pp. 262–271.

114 BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” p. 201; A. DYMOWSKI, “A Roman antoninianus of Egnatia Mariniana found in the Kujavian region. The third century silver coinage in the region of the Przeworsk culture,” Notae Numismaticae – Zapiski Numizmatyczne VII, 2012, pp. 95–100.

115 Cf. BURSCHE, “Dalsze monety…,” pp. 200–204.116 HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 79.117 Ibidem, p. 73–80; cf. LIND, “The Monetary Reforms…,” p. 137.118 P. KACZANOWSKI, R. MADYDA-LEGUTKO, “Strefy kulturowe w Europie Środkowej w okresie

rzymskim” in: P. KACZANOWSKI, M. PARCZEWSKI (eds.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Kraków 2005, p. 130. The Hungarian researchers tend to attribute all hoards of the Imperial denarii found on the Great Hungarian Plain invariably to Sarmatians (E. FARKAS, M. TORBÁGYI, “Sarmatians and the Roman coins” in: A. BURSCHE, R. CIOŁEK, R. WOLTERS (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire. Ways and Phases, Con-texts and Functions, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 82), pp. 255–264; I. VIDA, “Late 2nd Century


56

probably, they took their wealth, Roman denarii included, to their new homeland. Type D depositions discovered in the former Roman province of Dacia (Lujerdiu) abandoned by the Romans during the 270s and subsequently occupied by various Barbarian tribes, including the Goths, can be interpreted in the same way. Thirdly, we have to take into consideration the possibility of intertribal redistribu-

tion of Roman denarii. In the case of north-western Germany, Helle Horsnæs named that a relux of 2nd century denarii from more distant areas in the east.119

In any case, the comparative analysis of hoards from Central and Eastern European Barbari-cum, as well as from Scandinavian inds, once again highlights the crucial issue of the time and direction of the inlow of 1st–2nd (3rd) century Roman coinage to the Barbarian environment, and is relevant for the much-discussed question of the origin of the Chernyakhiv culture and the connec-

tions between continental Barbaricum and the Baltic islands. We can see that Roman 1st–2nd century denarii, whether found in hoards or in small inds, are a direct relection on a complex of cultural and historical processes taking place in Barbaricum during the Roman Period and the Migration Period, between the 2nd and 5th centuries, or even later.

Future studies should focus irst of all on documenting and cataloguing inds of Imperial de-

narii, especially small (stray) inds from Ukraine, Poland and Belarus, using modern academic stan-

dards. This record needs analysis and interpretation. Hoards and small inds should be compared within subregions, especially on the areas of archaeological cultures in the Przeworsk–Wielbark–Chernyakhiv–Baltic zone. Moreover, we need to compare the inds from this zone against deposits from all other regions of the European Barbaricum, and from the Roman provinces too. Other than that, there is need to continue the study of imitative coins and their geographic distribution. We need to correlate the numismatic material with the input from archaeology, something that appears to be crucial in the study of Roman coin inds on the Barbarian territory. This is not to say that this has not been done before, but more in-depth and comprehensive research is needed to resolve issues still in need of resolution.

The authors of this article acknowledge the funding received from the National Centre of Science, granted on the basis of Decision no. DEC-2011/02/A/HS3/00389.

Contact the authors at: [email protected], [email protected]: Anna Kinecka

Sarmatian Coin Hoards” in: S. BÍRÓ (ed.), Ex oficina… Studia in honorem Dénes Gabler, Györ 2009, pp. 574–577). However it is possible that some of these hoards are assemblages deposited by Germanic tribes while they stayed in the region, during the late Roman Period and in the Migration Period.

119 HORSNÆS, Crossing…, p. 79.


57


STRESZCZENIE

Napływ i redystrybucja rzymskich denarów z okresu cesarstwa na terenie kultur przeworskiej, wielbarskiej i czerniachowskiej oraz na wyspach bałtyckich w świetle struktury chronologicznej skarbów

W opinii autorów tereny zamieszkałe w okresie wpływów rzymskich przez ludność kultur przeworskiej, wielbarskiej i czerniachowskiej (obszary współcze-

snej Polski, Ukrainy, Mołdawii, zachodniej Białorusi i zachodniej Rosji) oraz nie-

które z wysp bałtyckich (Gotlandia, Bornholm i przypuszczalnie również Olandia) w świetle struktury chronologicznej znalezisk powinny być traktowane jako od-

dzielna strefa napływu i redystrybucji denarów cesarstwa rzymskiego z I–II (III) w.Na terenie europejskiego Barbaricum, a w szczególności w ramach strefy

przeworsko-wielbarsko-czerniachowsko-bałtyckiej, w znaleziskach drobnych (po-

jedynczych i kumulatywnych) i w skarbach zaznacza się wyraźna dominacja dena-

rów z I–II w., wybitych w okresie pomiędzy ostatnimi latami panowania Nerona a początkiem rządów Septymiusza Sewera. Wykorzystując jako materiał źródło-

wy 86 skarbów z opisanego wyżej terenu, zawierających nie mniej niż 50 dena-

rów o określonej chronologii emisji, można określić sześć głównych typów de-

pozytów pod względem ich struktury chronologicznej. Grupa A to skarby z mo-

netami nie późniejszymi niż emisje Hadriana. Drugą z grup stanowią depozyty typu B, datowane na okres od drugiej połowy rządów Antoninusa Piusa do wcze-

snych lat rządów Marka Aureliusza. Trzecią i czwartą grupą są depozyty typu C i BC, w większości datowane na pierwsze lata rządów Septymiusza Sewera. Z ko-

lei skarby grupy D, należące do piątej grupy, to zespoły o zmodyikowanej struk-

turze chronologicznej zespołów pierwotnych (przede wszystkim typu C) w wyni-ku stopniowego zużywania się monet, w pierwszej kolejności starszych. Szósta grupa, typu E, to depozyty denarów lub mieszane denarów i antoninianów, które napłynęły z terenu imperium w III w., nie później niż na początku lat 50. tego stulecia. Cechą wyróżniającą strefę przeworsko-wielbarsko-czerniachowsko-bał-tycką jest powszechne występowanie na tym terenie depozytów typu D.

Zdaniem autorów materiał numizmatyczny (w tym wypadku struktura chro-

nologiczna skarbów i znalezisk drobnych) w połączeniu z danymi archeologiczny-

mi wskazuje, że wielka fala napływu denarów cesarskich dotarła do terenów kultu-

ry przeworskiej między panowaniem Trajana a panowaniem Septymiusza Sewera. Dla terenów kultury wielbarskiej to samo zjawisko rozpoczęło się nieco później, za rządów Antoninusa Piusa lub Marka Aureliusza. Dwa wyraźne nasilenia tej fali

58

należy datować na okres panowania Antoninusa Piusa lub/i Marka Aureliusza (mniej-sza kulminacja) oraz na początek rządów Septymiusza Sewera (znacznie większe nasilenie). Część tego pieniądza traiła do ziemi na terenach kultury przeworskiej i wielbarskiej przed końcem pierwszej dekady III w., jako zespoły typu A, B, C i BC. Pozostałe denary, w przeważającej mierze pula typu C, były w użyciu na tym terenie po okres wędrówek ludów, stopniowo zmieniając swoją strukturę w pulę typu D. Ponadto pieniądz ten w ramach redystrybucji został zabrany przez migru-

jące plemiona gockie na południowy wschód, na tereny kultury czerniachowskiej. Proces ten rozpoczął się nie wcześniej niż w pierwszych latach III w. Nieliczne denary z III w., zapewne w jakimś stopniu przemieszane z denarami starszymi, napływały na tereny kultur przeworskiej, wielbarskiej i czerniachowskiej w III w., do przełomu lat 30. i 40. tegoż stulecia, bądź też później, w połowie III w., jako domieszka do antoninianów, w ramach zespołów typu E. W wypadku Bornholmu i Olandii, gdzie odnotowano wyłącznie zespoły typu D, denary rzymskie z I–II w. traiły przypuszczalnie w ramach redystrybucji z terenów obecnej Polski, nie wcześniej niż w III w. Przypadek Gotlandii jest nieco bardziej skomplikowany: większość skarbów z tej wyspy ma strukturę chronologiczną typu C, nieco mniej liczne są depozyty typu D. Albo denary cesarskie w swojej masie napłynęły tam za Septymiusza Sewera bezpośrednio z obszaru imperium, albo dotarły na wyspę za pośrednictwem kontynentalnej części Barbaricum, w tym samym czasie lub niewiele później.


59

Geographic distribution of hoard types A, B, C and BC 1 – hoard type A; 2 – hoard type B; 3 – hoard type C; 4 – hoard type BC; 5 – range of the Wielbark culture (phase C1a); 6 – former territories of the Przeworsk culture occupied by the Wielbark culture during Roman Period phase B2/C1; 7 – territorial range of the Przeworsk culture (phase C1a). Hoard numbering as in Table 1.

MAP 1

60

Geographic distribution of hoard type D1 – hoard type D; 2 – territorial range of the Wielbark culture (phases C1b–C3); 2 –range of the Przeworsk culture (phases C1b–C3); 2 –range of the Chernyakhiv culture (phases C1b–C3). Hoard numbering in Table 1.

MAP 2

61

Fig. 1. Chronological proile120 of hoard type A-2 (Gostynin)

120 Frequency polygon based on the model described in: DYMOWSKI, “Chronologia…,” pp. 99–103.

Fig. 2. Chronological proiles of type B-1 hoards (Żulice, Łęgowo, Starì Valki I + II)

62

Fig. 3. Chronological proiles of type B-2 hoards (Korzkiew, Sopot, Lyshchytsy)

Fig. 4. Chronological proile of type B-3 hoard (Dziedzice)

63

Fig. 5. Chronological proile of type C-1 hoard (Bomunds i Burgen)

Fig. 6. Chronological proile of type C-2 hoard (Iwno)

64

Fig. 7. Chronological proiles of type C-3 hoards (Drzewicz Nowy, Sindarve, Antonìvka)

Fig. 8. Chronological proiles of type BC hoards (Ossa-Rywałdzik, Chmielów Piaskowy, Lukishina)

65

Fig. 9. Chronological proiles of type D-1 hoards (Kams, Gierłoż, Udmarken, Ulânìvka)

Fig. 10. Chronological proiles of type D-2 hoards (Borochice, Rogincy, Robbedale)

66

Fig. 11. Chronological proiles of type D-3 hoards (Golub-Dobrzyń, Swaryczów, Glins’k I, Pereorki)

67

TABLE 1

Hoard Type

Characteristics (Only denarii) Hoards Territorial

distributionOutlow time

from the Empire Notes

A-1 Deposit ends in coins of Trajan. None recorded to date Przeworsk culture (?) Trajan (98–117)

Taking into consideration the chronological structure of single and cumulative inds from the Przeworsk culture territory, deposits of this type are quite likely

to be found in the future.

A-2

Deposit ends in coins of Hadrian. The number of Domitian coins is similar to those of Vespasian and

Trajan respectively.

1) Gostynin, POL121

2) Słochy Annopolskie, POLPrzeworsk

culture

Hadrian (117–138), or possibly, the irst years of the reign of Antoninus Pius

(138–161)

B-1

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure: about 70-80% coins up to Trajan and

90% or more coins up to Hadrian; usually the amount of Domitian coins is relatively very small in comparison to Vespasian and

Trajan emissions; more Trajan coins than emissions of Hadrian. The latest coins (not numerous)

are Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius or Commodus.

3) Dorotowo, POL4) Łęgowo, POL

5) Przewodów, POL6) Przędzel, POL

7) Starì Valki I, UKR8) Starì Valki II, UKR

9) Żulice, POLExamples of other

analogies:122

Jever, DEUKluk, CZE

Nádudvar, HUNNeuhaus/Oste, DEUSchwepnitz, DEU

Vyškovce nad Ipl’om, SVKZalahosszufalu II, HUN

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

Chernyakhiv culture

(occasionally (?))

Half of the reign of Antoninus Pius

(138–161) or the irst years of the reign

of Marcus Aurelius (161–180) (?)

Coins of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in the

hoard should be treated as later additions?

B-2

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure (similar to B-1, but relatively younger):

less than 60% coins up to Trajan or less than 85% coins up to

Hadrian; usually the amount of Domitian coins is relatively very small in comparison to Vespasian

and Trajan emissions; usually more (or similar amount) coins of Trajan than of Hadrian. The latest coins (not numerous) are

Marcus Aurelius or Commodus.

10) Korzkiew, POL11) Lyshchytsy, BLR

12) Paczółtowice, POL13) Siedlimowo, POL

14) Sopot, POLExamples of other analogies:Durostorum (Silistra) II, BGR

Hede, SWEMocsolad, HUNRåmose, DNK

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

First years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius

(161–180)

Coins of Commodus in the hoard should be

treated as later additions?

121 According to the ISO 3166-1 standard: AUS=Austria, BGR=Bulgaria, BLR=Belarus, CZE=Czech Re-public, DEU=Germany, DNK=Denmark, HUN=Hungary, MDA=Moldova, NDL= Netherlands, POL=Poland, ROU=Romania, RUS=Russian Federation, SRB=Serbia, SWE=Sweden, SVK=Slovakia, SVN=Slovenia, UKR=Ukraine.

122 Composition of hoards after: G. DEPEYROT, D. MOISIL, Les trésors de deniers de Trajan à Bal-bin en Roumanie, Wetteren 2008 (“Collection Moneta,” vol. 73) (Romanian hoards); FARKAS, TORBÁGYI, “Sarmatians….” (Nádudvar, Zalahosszufalu II); M.R.-ALFÖLDI, H. GEBHART, H.-M. VON KAENEL, K. KRAFT (eds.), Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Deuschland, vol. I–XIV, Berlin 1960–2010 (German hoards); GǍZDAC, Monetary circulation…(Bela Reka, Durostorum II, Mocsolad, Pavlikeni, Prelasko, Vindo-bona II); KACZANOWSKI, MARGOS, Tabula… (Vyškovce nad Ipl’om); LIND, Roman denarii… (Swedish hoards and also Kecel II, Mende and Råmose), LUCCHELLI, La moneta… (Barger–Compascuum, Miskolc); J. MILITKÝ, Nálezy řeckých, římských a raně byzantských mincí v Čechách (5. století před Kristem až 7. století po Kristu). Komentovaný katalog nálezového fondu, Praha 2013 (Kluk).

Hoards of Imperial denarii from the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv culture areas and from the Baltic islands by type

68

B-3

Deposits of a chronological structure similar to B-1 and B-2, but relatively younger; the latest coins (about 20%) are Marcus Aurelius (or Commodus (?)).

15) Dziedzice, POL (?)Examples of other analogies:Alba Iulia (Apulum) I, ROU

Pavlikeni, BGR

Przeworsk culture (?)

Later years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–180) or irst

years of the reign of Commodus (180–192)

(?)

Hard to deine due to lack of closely determined

inds in suficient quantity in the study area.

Sub-types B-3, C-1 and C-2 have been deined

on the basis of one hoard each but we expect to see deposits having an

analogical chronological structure recorded

sometime in the future in the study area.

C-1

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure: over 20% coins up to Trajan and about 50% coins up to Hadrian; not as many

coins of Trajan and more of Antoninus Pius than Hadrian;

not as many coins of Marcus Aurelius than of Antoninus Pius.

The latest coins are from the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

16) Bomunds i Burgen, SWE-Gotland Gotland

Later years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius

(161–180) (?)

C-2

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure

(similar to C-1 but relatively younger): at least 10% coins

up to Trajan, at least 20% coins up to Hadrian, most coins struck under Antoninus Pius. The latest

coins are Commodus (not numerous).

17) Iwno, POL (?)Examples of other analogies:Barger-Compascuum, NDL

Bela Reka, SRBPrelasko, SVN

Vindobona II, AUS

Przeworsk culture (?) Commodus (180–192).

C-3

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure

(similar to C-1 and C-2 but relatively younger): at least 10%

coins up to Trajan and at least 20% coins up to Hadrian; about 50–60% coins struck under Antoninus Pius

and Marcus Aurelius; smaller number of Commodus coins than

of Marcus Aurelius. The latest coins are Commodus

or Septimius Severus (not numerous).

18) Antonìvka, UKR19) Bjärs I, SWE-Gotland

20) Błotnica Strzelecka, POL21) Djupbrunns, SWE-

Gotland

22) Drzewicz Nowy, POL23) Gandarve II, SWE-

Gotland

24) Hallegårda I, SWE-Gotland

25) Kolantaïv, UKR26) Nietulisko Małe I, POL27) Nietulisko Małe II, POL28) Öjvide I, SWE-Gotland29) Oxarve, SWE-Gotland

30) Resko, POL31) Robbenarve, SWE-

Gotland

32) Sigdes, SWE-Gotland33) Sindarve, SWE-Gotland34) Sojvide, SWE-Gotland

Examples of other analogies:Lashorst, DEUMiskolc, HUN

Munteneşti, ROU

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

Chernyakhiv cultureGotland

First years of the reign of Septimius Severus

(193–211)

Coins younger than the irst years of the reign

of Septimius Severus should be treated as later

additions to hoards.

BC

Deposits of a characteristic chronological structure with

features similar to both B-type (especially in part up

to Antoninus Pius) and C-type (especially in part from Marcus Aurelius) hoards. The structure

resembles a mix of subsets of B and C type of similar size. The latest coins are Commodus

or Septimius Severus (not numerous).

35) Chmielów Piaskowy, POL36) Ossa-Rywałdzik, POL37) Lukishina, UKR (?)

38) Öja, SWE-Gotland (?)Examples of other analogies:

Ciolpani, ROUFlintarp, SWEMăgura, ROUPuriceni, ROU

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

Chernyakhiv culture (?)Gotland (?)


(193–211)

69

D-1

Deposits similar to type C hoards (particularly C-3), but with

a younger proile (esp. fewer coins up to Hadrian); at least 5% coins up to Trajan and at least 10% coins up to Hadrian;

usually over 60% coins struck under Antoninus Pius and Marcus

Aurelius. The latest coins are Septimius Severus.

39) Anga, SWE-Gotland40) Belgorod, RUS

41) Bendery (Tighina), MDA42) Chutove, UKR43) Gierłoż, POL

44) Havor, SWE-Gotland45) Kams, SWE-Gotland

46) Ląd, POL47) Liw, POL

48) Podzamcze, POL49) Prâmicyno, RUS

50) (Staraâ) Romanìvka, UKR51) Ruszczyzna, POL

52) Sevenki, RUS53) Szczytno, POL

54) Turìâ, UKR55) Udmarken, DNK-

Bornholm56) Ulânìvka, UKR

Examples of other analogies:Kecel II, HUNLaatzen, DEUMende, HUN

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

Chernyakhiv culture

BornholmGotland


(193–211)

Hoards which probably appeared as a result

of the “ageing” of hoards of type C (C-3) in the area

of Barbaricum. As a result of a long use of 1st–2nd century denarii

until the Migration Period a part of them became

seriously worn. The irst to be so affected were

older coins (up to Hadrian).

Apparently, type D-1 hoards were deposited irst, followed by type

D-2, and inally, type D-3.

Coins later than from the irst years of the reign

of Septimius Severus found in hoards should

be treated as later additions.

D-2

As above, but less than 5% coins up to Trajan and at least 10%

coins up to Hadrian; over 60% (up to over 80%) coins struck

under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

57) Borochice, UKR58) Borynâ, UKR

59) Chernicâ, UKR60) Dąbrowno, POL61) Harkìv (Kharkiv)

– environs, UKR62) Jerzmanowice II, POL

63) Malech, BLR64) Malkowice, POL

65) Novooleksandrìvka, UKR66) Robbedale, DNK-

Bornholm67) Rogincì, UKR68) Rubche, UKR

69) Skorbaczów, POL

Przeworsk culture

Chernyakhiv culture

Bornholm

D-3

As above, but less than 10% coins up to Hadrian; over 60%

(up to over 90%) coins struck under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

70) Glins’k I, UKR71) Golub-Dobrzyń, POL

72) Hulterstad, SWE-Öland (?)73) Lipovec’, UKR74) Luchicì, UKR

75) Mazepincì, UKR76) Novograd (Novohrad)

Volins’kìj, UKR77) Pereorki, UKR78) Romanów, POL

79) Sarniki (Gornye), UKR80) Swaryczów, POL

81) Tokary, POL82) Wilków, POL83) Wrocław, POL84) Zbójna, POL85) Zbuzh, UKR

Examples of other analogies:Ghirişa II, ROULengerich, DEULujerdiu, ROU

Przeworsk culture

Wielbark culture

Chernyakhiv culture

Öland (?)

E-1Deposits of 1st–2nd c. denarii with a signiicant percentage

of 3rd c. denarii

86) Vìnnicâ (Vinnytsia) – environs, UKR (?)

(Alwernia, POL (?))

Przeworsk culture (?)

Chernyakhiv culture (?)

230s (?)Hard to deine due to lack of closely

determined inds in suficient quantity.

E-2As above, but with addition

of 3rd c. antoniniani (struck before Valerian I)

(Owczarnia, POL)

Wielbark culture

(Chernyakhiv culture (?))

late 240s/early 250s

Inflow and redistribution of Roman imperial denarii in the area of Przeworsk, Wielbark and...

Documents

Transcript of Inflow and redistribution of Roman imperial denarii in the area of Przeworsk, Wielbark and...