Once Upon a Time in Germania Magna

Home , Barbaricum, Germania, Germania (book), Marsi (Germanic), Terra sigillata, Usipetes

Once Upon A Time in Germania Magna

The relation between terra sigillata and the historical events in the northwestern and northeastern Europe (1-400 CE)

Matea Cavka Lund University Department of Archaeology and Ancient History Archaeology and Ancient History: Master’s Thesis - Archaeology, ARKM21, Spring 2018 Supervisors: Fredrik Ekengren and Nicolò Dell’Unto

1 2 ABSTRACT

During the period of the Roman Imperial Period the area north of the Roman limes, Germania Magna, was influenced from the Roman Empire. The varied interactions between the Romans and the Germanic population, living beyond the northern frontier, has broadly been studied during centuries. One of these aspects have been to further understand the relation and the Roman- Germanic interaction by investigating if the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire have affected the influx of these goods as well as the Germanic population. Countless of different vessels have been studied and has been believed to have been traveling together. However, later studies have shown that there seems to have been a difference in the material of the Roman pottery terra sigillata. It seems that this pottery type has followed another distribution pattern in comparison to the other vessels. Although the distribution pattern has shown to be different in comparison to the military and diplomatic campaigns, not much focus has been given to the impact of this on the distribution of terra sigillata. Therefore, this thesis is to further relate episodes of military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire to the distribution of terra sigillata north of the Roman limes. With the use of distribution maps made in a Geographical Information System as well as compilations of Roman finds it has been possible to analyze the material. Furthermore, the narrow dating of terra sigillata has further made it easier to discuss this. It has been proven that the distribution of terra sigillata has been following the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. However, this has not been the only reason for the distribution. An increase of terra sigillata in Germania Magna in the period around 150 CE to 200 CE suggests that the distribution was not longer only following the military development beyond the frontier. A suggestion is that there was an increase in the market as more consumers were introduced. It is possible that the export of terra sigillata was no longer in the need for military and diplomatic campaigns to travel. Furthermore, a contextual difference between the northwestern and the northeastern distribution shows that terra sigillata in the northeast have had a determined value as the majority of these have been found in burial contexts. The different changes in the production and the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire seems to not have had any affect on the contextual difference in the northeast. However, the area beyond the frontier along the Danube, which was closer to the Roman presence in the northeast could further indicate if this correlate to the northern distribution.

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, a big thank you to my supervisors Fredrik Ekengren for lending me almost all of your books in your library, but also of course thank you for your work as supervisor, and thank you Nicoló Dell’Unto for helping me through the jungle of technology. Another big thank you to Victor Lundström for your tips and tricks with GIS, and also thank you Johan Åhlfeldt for lending me your dataset over Roman cities and towns. Last, but not the least, a big thank you to Anna Hornsby, Anna Isberg, and Oscar Wiberg for your tremendous help as well.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Aims and research questions 1 1.2 History of research 3 1.3 Theoretical framework 7 1.4 Material and method 10

1.4.1 Complications and limitations 13 2 THE DISTRIBUTION OF TERRA SIGILLATA 16

2.1 What is terra sigillata? 16

2.1.1 Terra sigillata production sites and their chronology 17

2.2 Distribution of terra sigillata beyond the limes 18 3 HISTORICAL EVENTS AND RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS 25

3.1 Roman military development and settlement patterns 25

3.1.1 Military development along the Rhine (ca. 50 BCE-150 CE) 25

3.1.2 Military development along Danube (ca. 150-200 CE) 29

3.1.3 The crisis of the third century (ca. 200-375 CE) 31

3.2 The relation between the distribution and the historical events 32

3.2.1 Phase 1 32

3.2.2 Phase 2 33

3.2.3 Phase 3 35 4 DISCUSSION 36

4.1 Possible reasons behind the production 36 4.2 A military connection? 40 4.3 The division between northwest and northeast 44

5 4.4 Concluding remarks 46 5 CONCLUSIONS 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 49 APPENDIX 54

6 7 8 1 INTRODUCTION

During the period of the Roman Empire numerous parts of both the Empire’s provinces and areas beyond the Roman frontier were provided with Roman goods. These goods could consist of various of objects such as vessels made of bronze, silver, and ceramics. Likewise, weapons, jewelry, and everyday commodities such as razors and combs were also provided to the areas connected to the Roman Empire. One example of a Roman type of ceramic that was distributed was terra sigillata which is known for its intense manufacture and vast distribution from the first century BCE to the third century CE (Bulmer 1980: 2, 13, 26; Webster 1996: 3). For many decades, Roman objects have been studied in order to understand the interaction between the Roman Empire and the people living north of the Roman borders, the area sometimes referred to as Germania Magna. By investigating the distribution of Roman goods, scholars are discussing the function and importance of the Roman Empire’s political and economic relations with the Germanic population. Examples of research are the studies that analyze the effect of Roman historical events such as military and diplomatic campaigns on the distribution of Roman goods beyond the northern frontiers. These events are sometimes visible in the archaeological material in the form of military developments such as battles, installations of military forts and other installations along the Roman frontiers. Cases of Germanic settlements becoming Roman or even the establishment of Roman towns in the area of Germania Magna are also common which shows a more complex relation between the Romans and the Germanic population. Through the increase of Roman presence beyond the frontiers, with both settlements and material culture, the Empire could further secure the northern frontiers against Germanic invasions. However, looking back at previous research, the discussion regarding the effect of such historical events on the distribution of terra sigillata has occasionally been lacking, or even sometimes completely neglected. Previous research, as it will be further presented in the next section, has furthermore often focused on the quantity of the Roman objects in general, making it impossible to see if the historical events had any regional effect on the influx of Roman goods.

1.1 Aims and research questions To understand the aims of this thesis we have to take a closer look on the previous research made in this field. As mentioned earlier, previous research has rarely tried to relate the patterns in the distribution of terra sigillata to various episodes in Roman military and political history. One of these is Lotte Hedeager’s research which contributes to the theoretical framework regarding the exchange of Roman goods between the Roman Empire and the Germanic population. Hedeager’s study makes some interesting observations regarding the quantitative distribution which we will take a closer look here. Her analysis is mainly based on quantitative and statistical information about the distribution of Roman goods, consisting mainly of objects of bronze, glass, silver, weapons, brooches, and ceramic (Hedeager 1979: 199). To investigate the exchange that may have taken place she related the distribution of the archaeological material with certain historical episodes in Roman history. While investigating this, Hedeager suggested that during the Roman Imperial Period, bronze, silver, weapons, and to a lesser degree glass were often deposited together

1 indicating that these objects traveled together. On the other hand, brooches and ceramics show a different pattern suggesting that these traveled separately from the other objects. Although her study is mainly based on quantitative differences, she briefly mentions regional differences in the distribution. By looking more closely at the northeastern part of the Roman frontier, near the river Danube, Hedeager observes interesting regional distribution patterns. Such patterns might have been caused by the Marcomanni tribe and its political and diplomatic relationships with the Roman Empire, resulting in a high frequency of Roman goods in the area. However, when this diplomatic relationship is lost, during the Marcomannic Wars (160-180 CE), a more normal pattern of distribution is visible. Simultaneously, the corresponding area in the northwest followed with an increase of Roman goods which suggests a shift in the regional influx of Roman goods (Hedeager 1979: 202, 204). Other regional observations made by Hedeager is that the area near the northern frontiers, along the river Rhine, shows a different distribution pattern compared to a ”buffer area” 200 km from this frontier. The area near this frontier shows a low frequency of Roman goods, but Hedeager stresses that there are still evidence of Roman activities and the presence of Roman civilians along this ”border zone” in both northwestern and northeastern part of Germania. Despite the political difficulties near the northern frontiers, a diplomatic relationship between the areas outside the Roman territory was still possible to develop. Hedeager suggests that this ”border zone” could perhaps function as some kind of buffer between the Roman Empire and the Germanic invasions during political turbulent periods (Hedeager 1979: 207). While making these short mentions of regional shifts in the influx of Roman goods she continues by writing that the distribution of Roman goods make up a homogeneous pattern over time and that the political and economic developments of the Roman Empire did not affect the quantity of these objects beyond the Roman territory (Hedeager 1979: 205f). However, would these regional differences she briefly mentions correspond if we were to study the material more regionally instead of investigating the differences in quantity? The aim of this thesis is to further explore the initial observations made by Hedeager by applying a more regional perspective on the distribution patterns and their possible correspondence to various episodes in Roman military and political history. Focus will lie on the Roman ceramic terra sigillata in the area of Germania Magna. Not only does it show a different distributional pattern in comparison to other categories of Roman objects, but terra sigillata can also give us a greater opportunity to discuss regional differences since several of its types are possible to date within a couple of decades or less. This make it possible to investigate the distribution patterns from a historical perspective, and then see whether they correspond to the results of Hedeager’s quantitative analysis. Furthermore, as it will presented in the next section, terra sigillata in recent research have been proved to have followed a different distribution pattern. However, this have not been deliberately compared to the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire, but have instead been neglected as focus has been given to vessels especially made by bronze and glass. Terra sigillata could give us additional insight into the Roman-Germanic relation and needs to further investigated. Therefore, the research questions in this thesis are:

2 • What are the patterns of distribution of terra sigillata north of the limes? • How does the distribution of terra sigillata correspond to the general Roman historical events, such as military and diplomatic campaigns, affecting the area north of the limes?

1.2 History of research While a focus on the distribution of terra sigillata beyond the limes has seemingly been lacking in previous research, general studies on Roman goods beyond the Roman borders of the Empire, particularly focusing on vessels of metal and glass, is an old and extensive field of research. One of the earlier studies of Roman goods in Northern Europe is by Hans Jürgen Eggers (1951). He did not only make observations in distribution patterns of the material, but also cataloged and created new typologies of all the Roman goods found in his area of study. Based on this new typo- logy he could discuss possible trading routes between Germania and the Roman Empire during the Roman Iron Age. In his discussion he presented a few observations regarding the effect of certain historical events on the distribution pattern of Roman objects. He mainly discussed the military developments of the Roman Empire, such as military installations along the Rhine, as well as military assaults between the Empire and the Germanic tribes. Eggers did not make further observations regarding the regional influx of Roman objects and continued by discussing possible trading routes. He concluded that specific trading routes are probable, however they are hard to distinguish. The archaeological material suggested that waterways were the main mode of transportation of objects to Scandinavia, but also partially in Central Europe. The way terra sigillata was discussed in Eggers research was similar to that of vessels of bronze and glass. However, he observed that a ca. 100 km zone of a small border trade consisting of especially terra sigillata and fibulae, while the outside zone consisted of along distance trade in which bronze, silver, and glass vessels were traded (Eggers 1951: 37, 64-70). As already shortly presented, Lotte Hedeager’s study from 1979 is focused on quantitative and statistical analysis of the distribution of Roman goods outside the Roman frontiers. She made observations between the archaeological material and historical events to suggest possible mech- anisms of the exchange between the Germanic area and the Roman Empire (Hedeager 1976: 191). To make her quantitative analysis she divided the area of study into 200 km intervals, starting from the Roman border along Rhine and Danube. She then made her observations depending on the objects dating and the amount of goods in these intervals, comparing them to historical events to give the reasons why this is quantity present in the intervals. Hedeager concluded that the mechanism of the exchange between the Roman Empire and the Germanic population can be divided into inter-regional and intra-regional exchanges. Inter-regional exchange is based on primary and secondary exchanges, where primary exchange includes commodities viewed as prestige goods with a higher value and is therefore traded over longer distances. Secondary exchange includes necessities and goods often used by soldiers or merchants. On the other hand intra-regional exchange includes high- and low-ranking transactions within local exchanges, where the high ranking exchange, similar to primary exchange, includes prestige goods traded over long distances and low-ranking exchanges including daily necessities. In broad sense, these two categories explain the exchange between regional (inter-regional) and local (intra- regional) exchanges, where the primary exchanges are mainly used as political tools between larger

3 regions, and the high ranking exchange for exchange in smaller regions (Hedeager 1979: 198ff, 212f). In her material she also made a few observation regarding the distribution of the Roman goods in Scandinavia. Hedeager examined that the Roman goods did not reach farther north than 600 km from the border and that the last 200 km showed a very low frequency of Roman goods. She discussed shortly the reasons for this, but mainly stressed that the difficulties of transporting fragile goods could not be the reasons for this low frequency as glass could be transported to further distances and is found in a large quantity in this area (Hedeager 1979: 202, 204). A later, more complete discussion of the Roman goods’ distribution patterns and exchange between the Germanic population and the Roman Empire was conducted by Ulla Lund Hansen (1987). Similar to Eggers, she created a new chronology of the Roman goods outside of the Roman Empire with a extend in the material. This chronological analysis is based on the Danish material dating to the Roman Iron Age, but also other chronological analyses. With this she discussed possible forms of trading between the areas of Scandinavia, Germania, and the Roman Empire. In order to do so she discussed the Roman goods in the Scandinavian societies during the Roman Iron Age, and the interactions between the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes which could give explanations to the distribution of Roman goods in Scandinavia (Lund Hansen 1987: 239-253, 256, 254-266). Lund Hansen observed that historical sources write about southern parts of Germania and how these areas were supplied with Roman goods through their relation with the Roman Empire in the form of tributary payment, objects used in bribery, and as actual trading goods brought by Roman merchants. Lund Hansen suggested that these can give clues to the form of exchange. Furthermore, she explained that the military movement of the Roman Empire around the first century CE between the Rhine and the river Elbe did affect the supply and influx of Roman goods to the Germanic area (Lund Hansen 1987: 166-168, 256f). Additionally, along the northeastern parts of the Roman frontier, by the river Danube, she observed that the different types of goods show that the Germanic tribes could have had a contact with the Roman Empire near Danube through the areas of Poland and then continuing to southeast Denmark. Meaning that the Danish area could have had an eastern contact for the Roman goods during the Roman Iron Age. The political events that were brought about by the Marcomannic Wars in the second century CE decreased the supply of the Roman goods in this area. She further explained that this is also visible in the Scandinavian material and she suggested that the decrease of Roman goods in the area along Danube could show a connection with Scandinavia as the material of Roman goods also decreases in this area around the same time (Lund Hansen 1987: 257f). Additionally, she further suggested that the political turmoil of the Roman Empire starting in the second century and continuing in the third and fourth century CE did have an effect on the supply of Roman goods outside of the Roman territory with the influx slowly decreasing during these centuries (Lund Hansen 1987: 165, 260f, 265). Lund Hansen argued for that the exchange between the Roman Empire and Scandinavia could be due to the demand the Scandinavian people had on Roman goods. The Roman goods had a value in the hierarchical societies in Scandinavia, as the possession of these could indicate a higher status. This is mainly based on the fact that the majority of these goods have been discovered in graves where multiple other Roman goods have been found, therefore interpreting the grave with higher status (Lund Hansen 1987: 265). She also suggested that Denmark had a central position in Scandi- navia during the Roman Iron Age due to the range of goods and the general amount of goods that 4 has been found in Denmark indicating a better contact with areas in Central Europe, as the supply of Roman goods to Norway and Sweden is also decreasing during the same time as the decrease in influx of goods to Denmark (Lund Hansen 1987: 265, 257f). The supply was reinstalled, but later started to decrease yet again around 250-300 CE. However, by the time in which the Roman Empire was divided into West and East in 395 CE, the contact between Scandinavia and the Roman Empire is believed to have been lost. During the same time in Scandinavia, a shift in central position was taking place. Instead of southeastern Funen and Jutland being the central positions, centers in Scania, Öland, Gotland, and centers in eastern and western Norway were starting to emerge. The influx of Roman goods were soon substituted with material culture from the Frankish Empire making the connection with the Roman Empire completely lost (Lund Hansen 1987: 239-253, 254-265). In Lund Hansen’s study she observed that terra sigillata did not follow the same distribution as vessels made of bronze, silver, or glass. However, there is no further investigation to this and it is only briefly addressed (Lund Hansen 1987: 179). Stephan Berke is another scholar who in 1990, investigated the bronze and terra sigillata vessels found in Germania to give further insight in the Roman-Germanic exchange. His observations are that the exchange of bronze vessels starts in the last quarter of the first century BCE. Meanwhile, the terra sigillata exchange did not start until the middle of the first century CE, when simultaneously a decline in the transport of bronze vessels is present. It is not until the second quarter of the second century that the import number starts to rise again. Berke saw an increase of terra sigillata especially between the years 130-170 CE, however he believes the main import period is between the periods 170/180 and 230/270 CE where both bronze vessels and terra sigillata are both imported in large amounts. With the crisis of the third century a decrease in the import is visible, until it completely stopped before the fourth century. His aim was to investigate whether bronze and terra sigillata vessels could give insight into the chronology of the Roman-Germanic trade. Additional, he wanted to further investigate the trade routes and the relations between the receivers and traders of the Roman objects. Berke makes his own chronology of the bronze vessels and concludes that the circulation of the bronze could no be fitted into the chronology of Eggers and that it was not possible in distinguishing whether the circulation of the bronze was long or short. However, terra sigillata creates a more direct dating and show a shorter circulation. He believes that the bronze and terra sigillata vessels have been transported to Germania in the form of war booty, gifts, or other trading objects (Berke 1990: 102-105). Michael Erdrich’s (2001) study focused on the northwestern part of Germania. In response to previous research having disregarded the military aspects of the finds, he centers his research in this area (Erdrich 2001: 11). His regional focus is the area between the rivers Rhine and Elbe, in northwestern Europe as well as narrowed in on the period from the late Roman Republic and Caesar's conquest of Gaul, to the collapse of the Gallic Empire in the end of the third century. Instead of dating the deposit of the Roman goods in the Germanic societies, he investigated the time in which these goods could have possibly come in contact with the Germanic population. To achieve this, he compared the object’s time of production and its time of circulation with the historical events from written historical sources. He stressed that the historical events such as the military activity between the Rhine and Elbe did affect the distribution pattern which could show an interaction between the Germanic population and soldiers from the Roman military. The

5 observation Erdrich suggested are that the Roman goods were introduced to the research area in six different phases (Erdrich 2001: 144-150). With his study, he could easier discussed the way in which the historical events could have affected the distribution of Roman objects beyond the Rhine. The archaeological material he mainly investigated were bronze objects in the form of, e.g., casseroles, bronze and glass vessels, terra sigillata, as well as fibulae, weapons and other military equipment, other ceramics such as terra nigra, varia, and coins (Erdrich 2001: 36-65). The casseroles, which were mostly produced during the first century BCE and first century CE, are believed to have a connection to the Roman military. These were often produced in either Italian or later Gaulish workshops which corresponds with the material of terra sigillata. The earlier terra sigillata had recently been interpreted as objects that was produced for the military forces, thus also moving the production of terra sigillata from the Italian workshops to production sites in Southern Gaul. The casseroles and the earlier terra sigillata could be connected. He concluded his research by stating that the military and political development of the Roman Empire affected the influx of the Roman objects to the northwestern parts of Germania (Erdrich 2001: 43, 139-143). Lastly, Thomas Grane’s (2007) thesis is one of the more recent studies regarding the pattern of Roman goods in relation to historical events of the Roman Empire as well as the Roman-Germanic relation. Similar to Lund Hansen, he especially focuses on the relation between these objects and the area of Scandinavia. His aim was to further present the knowledge of the Roman relations to the northern parts of Europe, with a main focus on southern Scandinavia. He further discussed the military-political connections between the Roman Empire and southern Scandinavia, as previous research showed that a military-political connection had been present between these areas. It is in this theme that Grane created an overview of possible connections. To achieve this he used the archaeological material from both the prehistoric and classical fields, in addition to the literary sources. One of his main focus was on further examine the relation to Roman auxiliary or foederati which he stressed has not been fully noted in previous research. The foundation for this is that the grave goods can be interpreted as indications of diplomatic connections, but also auxiliary connections. Therefore the archaeological material for his study are certain Germanic finds near the Roman territory which may be similar objects found in burials contexts in southern Scandinavia (Grane 2007: 5-8, 261). In his investigation of the Roman and southern Scandinavian relation he suggested that various types of different forms of interaction between these areas have been present from the time of Augustus to probably the death of Probus. Not only is this connection different throughout time, but the close contact he believed, has also changed over time. When it comes to war booty which could indicate military presence, he suggested that any possible Roman involvement based on war booty is more likely theoretical and could be connected to the Romans paying another tribe to engage in war with another. However, this will never be answered if no written sources tell about this relation (Grane 2007: 274). Grane mentioned important points in previous research which are worth mentioning. Continental research has either shown a neglect of the Scandinavian material of Roman finds when discussing the Roman-Germanic connection. Problems related to the chronology of the Roman Iron Age exists as well. Sometimes dating is purely based on the Roman finds, even for the Germanic contexts, and argued for that the local material should also be taken into account when dating Germanic contexts (Grane 2007: 279-281). He concluded that the military political relations may have existed between the Roman Empire and Southern Scandinavia during the period between the first century to third century CE. This is based on the various different evidence that supports this connection, one of 6 these being the find of a complete Roman banquet set found in a grave in Hoby, Denmark. One of the cups found in the grave is marked with the name Silius. This was the name of one of the legate of the Roman army stationed at the upper parts of Rhine in 14-21 CE. Grane speculated about this indicating that a possible chieftain was active on the Roman side during the Augustan military campaigns. The written sources also tell about Romans giving tribal gifts in diplomatic forms which could further indicate a Roman-Germanic relation (Grane 2007: 33, 283). The way in which he addressed terra sigillata is that of a more military approach in comparison to previous research. He often referred to terra sigillata found on the continent as these have been found in multiple military contexts such as Roman forts. However, any further discussion regarding this was speculated (Grane 2007: 40, 58f) His discussion regarding terra sigillata in Southern Scandinavia is more fully addressed. He believed that trading between the Scandinavian societies may have happened. He suggested that the increase of terra sigillata on Funen, Denmark, is a result to the fact that Lundeborg was emerging as an important trading port and that the other sites on Funen were closely connected to Lundeborg which could explain the increase of terra sigillata in this area (Grane 2007: 160). It is visible in previous research that the studies regarding terra sigillata have varied. The early research seems to often discussed terra sigillata together with other Roman vessels of different material. While a difference in the distribution between these vessels is evident, further discussion regarding this has not been conducted. However, in recent years, different approaches have been made for studying the Roman goods in Germania Magna. Erdrich and Grane especially observed a military connection of the material, especially with the material of terra sigillata. These observations of terra sigillata in a military context would be interesting to further explore in the whole area of Germania Magna. Moreover, only in recent years has the material also been discussed with regard to the Germanic population. Expect for recent research, portraying the landscape of Germania as inhabited has not been the focus of other studies. With the focus on the material of terra sigillata, I want to further explore this area as inhabited by different settlements and societies; both Roman and Germanic. As shown, Roman goods, especially terra sigillata, have mainly been portrayed as objects with a higher prestige value and, as mentioned previously, terra sigillata are often clumped together with other types vessels. Hedeager mentioned that some goods were bought and used for daily use, but there are no further discussion regarding this topic. However, the researches by Erdrich and Grane provides a different approach to these goods as it opens up new ways of discussing the material. It is visible that different forms of exchanges seem to have been present between the Romans and the Germanic population. This may indicate that these goods had different types of value. Therefore, I do not believe that all Roman goods, especially terra sigillata, can be approached with a set value, such as prestige objects. Instead, as some of the previous researchers already have observed, the value of these goods changes as it travels and this will be discussed in the next section.

1.3 Theoretical framework Multiple researchers have discussed and suggested different types of theoretical framework for the exchange that occurred between the Roman Empire and the Germanic population. The purpose of this thesis is not to further contribute to this framework, but instead give a closer look on the value shift and changes in an object’s identity that happens during different forms of exchange. To

7 understand the general ideas of these value shifts the theoretical suggestions provided by Helle Vandkilde (2000) and Arjun Appadurai (1986) will be discussed below. Vandkilde suggests that material culture should be understood and approached from the perspec- tives of form, function, and context. In broad sense, these three divisions can be explained as social function, symbolic meaning and factors in creating cultural identities as an object move through specific cultural contexts and boundaries. These contexts are socially flexible and as material culture has the ability to move, it also possess the ability to survive these contextual changes. Every contextual change will result in a transformation of the object’s identity. These contextual changes and transformation of identities can also be translated to objects in exchange. Vandkilde explains that moving things are infused with value, because it is this value that makes the moving of the objects possible. As stated earlier, this movement is affecting the identity of an object. In other words, identity is unstable and not only due to changes in social structures, but also in the mobility of the object (Vandkilde 2000: 31, 43f). According to Vandkilde, things in transaction, or exchange, can posses alienability or inalienability. An object with alienability can be transferred between different ownership, while inalienable things are restricted to a very few ownerships. The usual category for dividing things into alienable and inalienable are commodities and gifts. Commodities are seen as alienable things as they can be transacted and changeable between different ownerships. Commodities are infused with function and meaning, but these are momentarily stopped because the main purpose of the commodity is to be exchanged. Commodities are therefore fully able to circulate. This circulation can transform the commodity into valuables as their likelihood to be exchanged. Putting it differently, commodities that are in circulation could also increase in value. This is often referred to as commodification (Vandkilde 2000: 32f). Inalienable objects in the form of gifts are transacted through relationships and can both be a thing or an act. Gifts are things which are restricted in their transfer and very often in their ownership. These gifts differ in value as their meaning and function are dependent on their context, which could also be translated as the relation between the gift and a particular individual in the possession of an object. Some inalienable objects can also circulate, however, these circulations are restricted and even so in a more personalized form such as objects in alliances and objects in ritual contexts. Meanwhile, there are also things which are not available for circulation which are often heirlooms or particular social and ceremonial things (Vandkilde 2000: 32f, 35, 38). Things in transaction can either be alienable or inalienable, and alienable objects can transform to inalienable things and vice versa. It is the perspective of social life of things that makes it possible to investigate the transformation between these two (Vandkilde 2000: 38, 43f). Appadurai suggests that instead of investigating the biography of objects, the social lives of things makes it possible to trace different category of finds and the change of values of the things during an exchange. The social life of things and the biography of things are not entirely different matters. Social life makes it possible to distinguish objects over large periods of time and at different social levels. These different social levels change the form, meaning, and structure of the short-termed and specific course of the commodity. This is also the case for biography of objects, it is however harder to document this as the biography of objects usually works with individual and small shifts in the life of the thing. The usual division between the social life and biography of a thing is that social life is often referred to large-scale courses and long term patterns, while the

8 biography of things is referred to small-scale courses and short-term patterns (Appadurai 1986: 3, 36). However, to actually see possible links between the exchange and value shifts Appadurai argues for something he refers to as politics which are, in broad sense, relations, assumptions, and contests connected to power. Politics can take the forms as politics of diversion and display, authenticity and authentication, knowledge and ignorance, expertise and sumptuary control, connoisseurship, and lastly mobilized demand. These different forms of politics are different factors that could affect the exchange and value, which are created by economical changes, and are embodied in commodities as they are exchanged (Appadurai 1986: 3, 56f). The commodities which are a part of exchange are sometimes referred to as commodity flows. Appadurai continues by suggesting that these commodity flows could be affected as the value of the object changes. Furthermore, the elites in societies, which usually have the monopoly of these commodity flows, could try and put restriction of these flows or even stopping them completely, which then would affect the demand of the commodities. However, commodities have the ability to travel between cultures, which have specific systems of value, and as such political control of the demand is always in the risk of getting disturbed. It is possible to witness the disturbance in the commodity flows in many societies. These disturbances can be closed universes where the commodities are trapped and the regulations in these universes decide how commodities flow (Appadurai 1986: 56f). To conclude Appadurai’s theoretical framework regarding value shifts is that the relation within and between the various dimensions of politics, are all connected to the ideas of demand. In other words, by adding different dimensions of politics when examining it makes it possible to see links between the exchange, or flow, of commodities and the various systems of value. Value shifts are embodied in commodities and changed as they are a part of an exchange which all could be affected by different forms of politics. What can we get out of all this? Both Appadurai and Vandkilde talks about objects and that during movement by exchange the object changes identity, or value as a part of the object’s identity. Objects in exchange have value, function, and meaning, and these are transformed when the transaction has taken place. Different things have different value, some objects which are seen as commodities are often infused with a different kind of value. Context also plays an important role as it is closely associated with materiel culture and as Vandkilde suggested, the transformation of context affects the object’s identity and value. What is clearly visible is that the value of a thing is closely connected to the mobility and transformation of the object. How all of this relates in practice will be presented through a closer look on some of the different kind of aspects regarding the movements of Roman objects. The nature of the trade of the Roman Empire is varied and comes in numerous different forms. It extends from small trade stations at markets to the more large-scale and controlled trading where the receiver held a monopoly of certain Roman goods. But forms of diplomatic gift-giving, and other forms of more loosely natured monopoly were also active both during the Roman Republic and Imperial Period (Grane 2007: 9, 133). Other researchers have pointed out the different forms of transaction of the Roman goods between the Roman Empire and Germanic population. First of all we have the theoretical framework presented by Hedeager which have been presented in the previous section. Her inter-regional and intra-regional categories could easily be referenced as

9 alienable objects, as she refers to objects which are bought, both commodities and daily necessities. However, the gift-giving part of diplomatic gifts is not featured in her model of Roman exchange. Erdrich also mentioned how the Germanic population becoming more used to stationed markets as the presence of the Roman Empire did increase. But recent research has also showed the form of diplomatic gift-giving of the Roman Empire. During the beginning of the Roman Principate, after the defeat of the Roman army at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE, the Roman strategy for conquering shifted from a more military central strategy to that more similar to diplomatic strategies. These diplomatic strategies had already been used during the Republic period by Caesar during his conquest of Gaul. The Roman Empire would create diplomatic partners with tribes in the vicinity of the Roman frontier and these would protect the Roman frontiers from other tribes in case of emergency. Pro-Roman tribal leaders would be chosen by the Empire so that the contact between the areas would be further strengthen. These diplomatic partners would provide resources such as auxiliaries or grain and the tribal leaders would receive roman support, in the forms of finances and agriculture and possibly material culture in return. At the same time, we have suggestions that the Roman goods have moved as war booty (Erdrich 2001; Goldsworthy 2016: 410f; Grane 2007: 133-135, 215; Grane 2017: 95; Mata 2017: 8; Morely 2010: 105). What does all this mean? Material culture possesses the ability to move, and are often referred to as objects in transactions. In this case, the objects which are in some kind of transaction are Roman goods, especially in this thesis, terra sigillata. The identity of these objects can be transformed when they are part of a transaction. This transformation could become visible by investigating the social life of the objects as this perspective makes it possible to investigate objects and their transition. Some kind of transformation has happened when it comes to the transaction of terra sigillata as the context in which these have been found differs from the northwestern and northeastern parts of Ger- mania. Some kind of re-contextualization has taken place and this could possibly be due to a change in value of the terra sigillata along the way. Different forms of transaction could also be a possible explanation to why there is a difference in the distribution. This will be further discussed in chapter 4. A clear difference in value has been present in the material of terra sigillata. We can establish that the terra sigillata has been exchanged, and that transactions and exchanges have been in different forms. Terra sigillata has been through a value shift, however, this exact value shift is unknown to us. This thesis will not investigated the different value shift and transformation of identity of the terra sigillata, instead it will constitute that different values and identities are present in order to fully discuss the material and its distribution. In order to incorporate the different ways in which terra sigillata has moved, both as alienable and inalienable objects, this thesis will refer to these as object’s that travel.

1.4 Material and method For investigating the relation between the distributional pattern of the produced terra sigillata and historical events of the Roman Empire which seemingly have had an affect on the Germanic world, the material used in this study are the finds of terra sigillata in the area beyond the limes. Roman ceramic has, according to previous scholars followed a different pattern in comparison to other Roman vessels. In particular, terra sigillata can possibly give a relatively narrow dating, usually

10 dating the production of the terra sigillata to a few decades. This make it possible to discuss the effect of historical events on the distributional pattern of terra sigillata in detail. Erdrich’s approach is fairly similar to this thesis, however, there are some differences. Firstly, this thesis will be focused on the distribution of terra sigillata for the reasons mentioned previously. Secondly, a larger area will be incorporated to this study as the distribution of terra sigillata in the whole area of Germania Magna is analyzed. Furthermore, in order to see the value shifts which are discussed in the previous section, contextual information has been incorporated to the study, as well as limiting the material to terra sigillata which have been produced and transported to sites during the period of the Roman presence beyond the limes. This was to make sure that the the travels of the objects would be value shifts that could possibly be connected to the Roman Empire. The material of terra sigillata has been collected through published research, one of these being the project Corpus der Römischen Funde im Barbaricum (CRFB) which started in 1994 and is currently still collecting and publishing all of the Roman objects found in areas outside of the Roman territory with a focus on the area north of the Roman Empire. The areas that have been investigated and published in CRFB are areas of Northern Germany, Masuria in Poland, and the Roman findings found in Lithuania. The material of Germany has so far been published in eight volumes that treats all of the German states, except for the states Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Baden Württemberg, Bavaria, and the eastern part of Thuringia. The material of Poland has been published in two volumes: Masuria and Lesser Poland. The area of Masuria (DRFB P1) has been available, however the area of Lesser Poland has not been accessible. The material of Lithuania has been available as well, however, there have been no finds of terra sigillata in Lithuania, along with Norway, Iceland, and Finland, and therefore has these areas not been featured in this study. The areas which have not been available in CRFB have been acquired from Berke’s research in 1990, which have been previously mentioned in the history of research. These areas consists of regions in the Netherlands as well as the areas of today’s Poland. There are some complications that have come with the use of Berke’s material that is further discussed in section 1.4.1. The material from southern Scandinavia has been acquired from published material which have been processed during my BA-thesis. Information about the historical events, Roman and Germanic settlement patterns, as well as other political and diplomatic events have likewise been collected from already processed and published material. Due to time management I have chosen to focus mainly on the archaeological material making it impossible to also work with literary sources for the information about the historical events. Therefore I have turn to already published work on this. After collecting the material of terra sigillata in Northern and Central Europe, limitations had to be made. As this study focuses on the historical events of the Roman Empire that took place during the Roman Imperial Period until the beginning of the fall of Western Roman Empire (27 BCE-395 CE), the contexts of the findings had to be dated sometime during this period, indicating that the circulation of the objects have been during the time in which there was Roman presence in the area. The material has therefore been restricted to the findings in which the contexts dates from between 27 BCE to 395/400 CE. To also discuss the terra sigillata production’s relation to the historical events, datings of the terra sigillata were needed, especially more narrowly dated terra sigillata. Accordingly, finds found in contexts dating to after 395 CE and finds with either no dating of

11 context, no dating of object, or a very broad dating have not been features in this study. The material therefore consists of a total of 901 finds of terra sigillata1. In order to analyze the relationship between the distribution pattern and historical events, the material has been divided into phases which have been based on the time of production of the terra sigillata. Unfortunately, a few finds have been dated to a later period in comparison to their contexts, meaning that the dating of the contexts spans over a couple of centuries while the dating of the fragment instead spans within these period. The assumptions that have been made regarding this is that depending on the objects time of production these have been imported to Germania sometime after this moment. This exact moment of import is unknown, but the production period gives us some insight of when these goods could have been imported, and therefore are phases based on this time of production. To put the findings of terra sigillata in their corresponding phase, the dating of the objects which had their dating written in letters had to be changed to a dating written in numbers. This could bring some complications due to the dating written in letters are not intended to be a direct dating. However this has not been affecting the study as the objects already had been dated, with a rang extending from about 5 decades to around 100 year. Writing these in numbers still correspond to the original dating. When all of the material had been collected and processed, the findings were provided with y and x coordinates so that the sites could be visualized in a geographic information system (GIS). The information about these sites has been acquired from the CRFB which occasionally was lacking due to the the documentation being lost or never made in the first place. This has given the sites an approximate location of roughly 50-200 m. However, in some cases the documentation has been too partial which has resulted in a few sites with a location accuracy of about 500 m. Lastly, the material has been visualized in a GIS software. The GIS software used in this study was QGIS 2.8.1 Wien with the projection coordinate systems World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84, EPSG: 4326) and SWEREF 99 TM (EPSG: 3006) in order to project the whole extent of northern Europe. To visualize the data in a space which corresponds to the landscape of the Roman Imperial Period, datasets provided by Ancient World Mapping Center (AWMC) were used in this study. The full reference of the datasets from AWMC are written in the bibliography section. The datasets used were the waterways, ancient coastlines, and the Roman roads. AWMC2 is part of an interdisciplinary research center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Their goal is to promote cartography, historical geography, and geographic information science in the field of ancient studies. Their dataset are available as an open source and are based on the work of the Classical Atlas Project that published Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (R. J. A. Talbert ed., 2000). AWMC also has a partnership with Pledis for refining the geographic dataset for the ancient world. Worth mentioning is that the dataset is not fully reliable as mapping the ancient world is not something that will be exactly true to how the morphology of the landscape actually looked. It is also mentioned in the AWMC project that the Roman roads near the Rhine and Danube are not an accurate presentation of the actual roads, however they give clues to possible path of these roads. The same goes for the topographical

1 This material has been simplified in order to present this in the appendices. For further information see the attached file.

2 http://awmc.unc.edu/wordpress/ 12 datasets, where they also give an insight into how the landscape could have appeared during this time. Another dataset used in this study is data of the major Roman towns, vicus, civitas capitals, and legionary fortress. It has been used in order to further visualize a space which is true to the historical period. This dataset has been processed and provided by Johan Åhlfeldt and is part of the project Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire (DARE)3 at Lund University which is available online. The DARE project, in collaboration with the Pelagios project, was created in 2012 with a tiled based map of the Roman Empire. It later became a part of the online historical GIS called Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire and is now hosted by the Department of Archaeology and Classical History at Lund University. In similarity to AWMC, the DARE project is inspired by the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World to create a more accurate digital map with digital resources. All of the sites, which are not distributional sites of terra sigillata, are all provided from Åhlfeldt’s dataset unless otherwise mentioned. With the help of these datasets, a space in which the distributional pattern of terra sigillata could be visualized, superimposed with the historical landscape, made it possible to analyze the material. Lastly, the distribution is then compared to episodes of the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire in order to see the relation between these.

1.4.1 Complications and limitations Some complications have surfaced when working with this material. Firstly, most of the material has been excavated in the 1930s or 1940s, sometimes even during the 19th century. The documentation of these excavations were usually lacking due to being lost or documentation of the site was not fully made during the excavation. Information regarding the material excavated from the 1930s and 1940s is often lacking mainly due to poorly documented excavations, but also documentation, and sometimes sites, have been destroyed during World War II. Due to this, some sites and findings had to be disregarded. Working with distributional maps will also have its complications as the representability of the material could always be questioned when working with these types of maps as the material often show a fraction of the real material. However, this is the case when studying an archaeological material. Furthermore, some finds had to be disregarded due to lack of information. Although these distribution maps show a fraction of the material, they give us an idea of what the major distribution could have looked like. Also restricting the material to findings which have been found in contexts dated to the Roman Imperial Period can bring complications as some sites, which dating extends to the Migration Period could also have had connections during the Roman Imperial Period. However, in order to restrict the material, limitations regarding the time frame had to be made. Terra sigillata dating to the Migration Period and later shows also that the objects could have had a longer circulation, however as this study focuses on terra sigillata that does not have long circulation period. It is arguable that the sites which are dated to the Migration Period had an effect on the Roman Empire, however for limitation purposes these sites have been excluded. The objects could have reached the sites but as this study requires a more narrow dating in order to see any relation

3 http://dare.ht.lu.se/ 13 between the distribution patterns and the major historical events of the Roman Empire, these sites had to be disregarded. Unfortunately, areas along the northeastern parts of Germania, especially the areas along the river Danube has not been available in this study. The reason for not having these areas in this study has mainly been due to time management as well as the material of Roman goods in some areas has not been processed and published. The southern borders of the distributional patterns, which will be presented later in the study, does not represent a break in the distribution but is purely because these areas have not been featured in the study. Furthermore, connecting to this problem has been the material collected from Berke’s research from 1990. Here, further information about the sites and context in which the material has been found, has not been available. Datings of the contexts have seemingly not been featured in his Figure 1. The chronologies of Eggers (1951) (Blue) and Lund Hansen (1987) (Green) showing the division study. However, he shortly discusses the time of between Early Roman Iron Age (B) and Later Roman circulation of terra sigillata in Germania. He sug- Iron Age (C). Periods A and D are also part of their chronology, and equals the Pre-Roman Period as well as gests that the circulation has been relatively short the Migration period. However these are not in all areas which is also similar to the material in incorporated to this study. Central Europe. With this information, additional assumptions about the material collected from the Netherlands and Poland has been deposit around the same period as the material collected from Germany. Further complications with this material has also been that the sites have not been provided with enough information regarding the findings location. In the case of the material collected from Poland, the administrative division was reformed in 1999 making it hard to collect the information about the sites, as these were provided with only the name of the site and the provinces. Due to this, multiple findings from this area were discarded. Another obstacle has been the chronology used for dating the objects and contexts. Working with a material which extends over a relatively large area has meant that different chronologies have been used for the dating of the objects and their contexts. Although the chronological framework for the Roman Iron Age (ca. 0-400 CE) is similar in the areas featured in this study, the subsections of these periods is where they differ. Roman goods in Scandinavia have mainly been dated by the chronology made by Lund Hansen. As mentioned in the history of research, she contributes with a new chronology of the Roman findings in Scandinavia. This chronology of the Roman Iron Age is sectioned into two parts, the older and younger Roman Iron Age. These are then further sectioned into seven main periods as well with one period overlapping between the transition from older to younger Roman Iron Age as seen in figure 1. On the other hand, the Roman material in Central Europe has been dated according to Egger’s chronology. Likewise his chronology is divided into

14 Rhine

Figure 2. Map showing the distribution of terra nigra and terra rubra. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AWMC. two main parts, older and younger Roman Iron Age. However, as the Roman Iron Age in Lund Hansen’s chronology spans between 1-400 CE, Egger’s chronology between 1-375 CE, with an idea that the Roman Iron Age ends with the believed beginning of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in around 375 CE. Furthermore, Eggers chronology is sectioned into six periods which differs from Lund Hansen’s chronology. To avoid misinterpretations and further complications regarding this, the dating of the findings have been chosen to be written in numbers according to their chronology as the different names and periods of the chronologies does not change the actual dating of the object. Another issue is the different ceramic types. Terra nigra and terra rubra are two different types of produced terra sigillata which differs in the color and fashion of the forms. Terra nigra is black- gloss ware and terra rubra has a more reddish-pink color. These are produced during the same time as terra sigillata, however terra nigra and terra rubra follows a different distributional pattern in comparison to terra sigillata (Fig. 2). This distribution is indeed interesting and could also give further insight into the their relation to historical events. Due to the difference in distribution patterns, these two types will not be featured in this study.

15 2 THE DISTRIBUTION OF TERRA SIGILLATA

The analysis has been divided into two parts. The distribution of terra sigillata and its chronological phases will be presented in this chapter, with a short introduction to terra sigillata and its production sites. The overall Roman political and military development in the Germanic area between the first century BCE and the third century CE are then later summarized and discussed in chapter 3. To conclude the results of the analysis, chapter 3 ends with a summary where the distribution of terra sigillata is compared to the historical events.

2.1 What is terra sigillata? As briefly mentioned in the introduction, terra sigillata is a Roman type of ceramic that was produced from around 50/30 BCE to the fourth century CE. Not only is the ceramic known for its glossy, red-orange surface, but it is also characterized for its large production and vast export to areas both inside and outside of the Roman Empire. In its early stages of production, in around 50/30 BCE, terra sigillata had a resemblance to the black-gloss wares that were produced during the Roman Republic and was heavily influenced by Greek Megarian black-gloss ware, which was produced during the second century BCE. The exact time of transition from black-gloss to red-slip ware is still unknown today. However, the archaeological material from early production sites shows us that the production of terra sigillata started in around 50/30 BCE (Bulmer 1980: 2, 13, 26; Van Oyen 2015: 281, 283; Webster 1996: 3). What makes terra sigillata different from other types of ceramic? Instead of clay being formed on a potter’s wheel, this type of ceramic was produced from pressing clay into a mold either by hand or with the help of a potter’s wheel. This mold, often carved with decorative motifs such as mythological scenes and floral patterns, was made of ceramic and fired until completely solid. The clay in the mold was then left to dry, resulting in the fresh clay shrinking, making it possible for the clay to be removed from its mold. The foot ring, or other extended parts of a vessel or plate, was applied after the clay had been removed from the mold. Some molds already incorporated some extended parts, however the majority of terra sigillata had to be assembled outside of the mold. As a last step before firing the ceramic, the object was dipped in a ceramic slip, a mixture between clay and water, giving the object a finishing glossy surface. The object was left to dry a second time until finally fired at low temperature in an oxidizing atmosphere, which was the key point in obtaining the red-glossy surface. While the ceramic was in the kiln, the mold was cleaned and reused for other terra sigillata objects (Bulmer 1980: 6f, 16; Van Oyen 2015: 283; Webster 1996: 6, 9-12). What then makes it possible to closely date this type of ceramic, sometimes to phases spanning over mere decades? Terra sigillata was produced at different production sites, which will be further explained in the next section, which had a chronological order. Various different traits of the vessels or plates, such as motifs and stamps, give clues as to which workshop produced them, connecting them with the chronological order of the production site. These traits could also be differences in the quality of the ceramic and the style of the relief decoration. However, the most important indication is the maker’s stamp on the objects. These stamps indicate which potter made the vessel, or sometimes the mold, as molds also could be transported and used at other workshops. It is possible

16 with these stamps to connect the object with its production site and even narrowing it down to the active period of the potter, giving the object a narrow dating of mere decades (Bulmer 1980: 35; Webster 1996: 4-8).

2.1.1 Terra sigillata production sites and their chronology The chronological order of the productions sites are based on the fact that different workshops were active at different periods of time. Additionally, the location of these sites moved in the same pace as the expansion of the Roman Empire. The production began in around 50/30 BCE at workshops located in today’s central Italy (Fig. 3), two examples of these are Arezzo and Pisa. However, soon after the firing vessels in oxidizing atmosphere had begun, the production was moved to southern Gaul in late first century BCE, in around 20-15 BCE. The reason behind the establishment of production sites in southern Gaul is debated and many scholars suggest that the movement of production could have been to more easily provide terra sigillata to the northern Roman frontiers along the river Rhine. One of the early production sites located in southern Gaul was Lyon where production of terra sigillata started in around 20-15 BCE. However, the production soon ended in Lyon, in around 25 CE, and shifted to workshops in La Graufesenque, where the production had already started in around 10 BCE, and continued to produce terra sigillata until around 110/150 CE when it was abruptly ended. This is

Elbe Vistula

Rhine

Seine

Loire

Garonne Danube Po

Figure 3. Map which shows the location of the production sites mentioned in the text. The purple markers indicate the location of the workshops of the early terra sigillata production, the blue markers show the workshops active in the second century, and the green marker shows the location of the production site Argonne which was the last known workshop in late third century. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

17 possibly due to the increase of workshops in Les Martres-de-Veyre in around 100 CE. Throughout the first century CE the production and export of terra sigillata flourished and by the end of the first century the production moved further north (Berke 1990: 59f; Bulmer 1980: 15f; Hartley 1969: 237f; Van Oyen 2015: 281f, 285-287; Webster 1996: 1-3). Around the same time as the production started in La Graufesenque, imitations of terra sigillata were produced in Lezoux and it is believed that the actual terra sigillata production in this workshop begun around 100 CE and ended in around 195 CE (Berke 1990: 59f; Bulmer 1980: 15f). The flourishing period of production in the second century resulted in a increase of production sites in northern and central Gaul (Fig. 3). Multiple large sites were established such as Trier (ca. 130-275 CE), Rheinzabern (ca. 140/150-275 CE), and Westerndorf (ca. 180-230/240 CE). The establishment of the production at the site Westerndorf could be connected to the historical events of the Marcomannic Wars in 160-180 CE, probably due to the increased military focus in this area during that period. During the same period, smaller production sites also emerged such as La Madeleine (ca. 90-140 CE), Heiligenberg (ca. 90-160 CE), Lavoye (ca. 140-180 CE), and Blickweiler (ca. 140-180 CE) (Berke 1990: 63f, 68-70). The production at larger workshops ended around the same period in 275 CE. A decline in the export, especially to the Germanic area, is archaeologically visible and few new production sites were established. The site Argonne, located in today’s northeastern France, is where the later terra sigillata production continued. It is believed that the production at Argonne started in around 275 CE when the production ended at the workshops established during the second century. The production continued until it stopped completely in the beginning of the fourth century CE (Berke 1990: 69f; Webster: 1996: 3).

2.2 Distribution of terra sigillata beyond the limes The material has been divided into a number of chronological phases, spanning between ca. 50 BCE to ca. 400 Phase 1 (11) Phase 2a (11) CE. The phases have been based on the objects time of Phase 2b (127) Phase 3 (44) production as clear periods in the production of terra 150 sigillata are visible. Phase 1 dates to between ca. 50 BCE-100 CE and phase 2 to between 100-200/250 CE. 100 Phase 2 has furthermore been divided into two parts, 2a and 2b, as the production has visibly increases during the period between 100-250 CE. Phase 2a dates to ca. 50 100-150 CE, while phase 2b dates to ca. 150-200/250 CE. Lastly, phase 3 spans the period between ca. 0 200/250-350 CE where a decrease in the material is Sites visible. Table 1. Table showing the total amount of sites The overlap between phase 2b and phase 3 is due to in where terra sigillata has been found. the period of production overlapping as well. Objects which have been dated to the period of 150-250 CE has been divided into phase 2b as these could have been produced during the second century as well as the beginning of third century. On the other hand vessels which date to the overlapping period 200-250 CE has been divided into phase 3

18 as these objects were produced only in the third century. This will be taken into account when later presenting and discussing the distributional pattern and the historical events. One important factor to take into account is that the research area does not extend to the river Danube and the frontiers located between the Rhine and Danube. Phase 1 (ca. 50 BCE-100 CE) is characterized by the early stages of terra sigillata production on the early Italian sites, in Lyon, and at La Graufesenque. The distribution of vessels from these sites (Fig. 4) is closely connected to the north and central parts of Europe where the majority of the finds have been found, tough a few fragments have also been found further east. A large amount of finds have especially been found in Waldgirmes, a Roman-Germanic settlement dated to the period of Augustus. The finds at Waldgirmes are dated relatively early in comparison to the other finds, and most of the vessels have been produced in the Italian workshops, mainly Arezzo, as well as in Lyon. The other sites shown in figure 4 contains finds which are dated to later produced terra sigillata mainly from La Graufesenque. Furthermore, finds of early terra sigillata production have also been found in military installations along the Rhine, as well as at military installations located in Germanic areas such as Haltern, and Oberaden (Fig. 11) where a large amount of early terra sigillata has also been found. Here are different delivery patterns visible were decorated terra sigillata at Oberaden was mainly produced in Arezzo and Pisa, but at the terra sigillata at Haltern has mostly been produced in Pisa (Rudnick 1995: 151f, 235). It seems that specific workshops have been providing specific sites with terra sigillata; in other words, it seems like the provision and

Neman

Elbe Weser Vistula

Rhine

Figure 4. Map showing the distribution of the early terra sigillata in phase 1. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC. 19 Figure 5. Map showing the finds found in settlements (phase 1). Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

Figure 6. Map showing the finds found in burials (phase 1). Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

production of terra sigillata is more regulated during this period. Furthermore, terra sigillata outside of the military installations has been mainly produced at Lyon and La Graufesenque which could indicate a shift in the production. Additionally, giving a closer look of the finds it is apparent that the majority of terra sigillata produced during this phase is found in settlement contexts (Fig. 5). These are also mainly restricted to the northwestern area, while in the northeast the finds have been found in cremation burials (Fig. 6). These sites are Deetz in Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany, a presumed cremation burial in Vippachedelhuasen, and two cremation burials in Poland, Żerków and Zubrza (Pobiel). No finds in burial contexts are found near the northwestern frontiers. Later in phase 2 (ca. 100-250 CE) there is an increase of the export and import to the area beyond the Roman territory. Investigating the whole period of 100-250 CE shows that terra sigillata produced during this period is not only found in multiple areas, but also in new variation of contexts. Now terra sigillata is found in both cremation and inhumation burials, as well as in settlement contexts. However, the division between northeast and northwest is still present, where the terra sigillata found in the northwestern area is mostly found in settlement contexts. Although some cases of burial contexts are also present, the settlement context is more dominant. In the

20 northeastern area, the majority of finds are found in burial contexts, especially cremation burials, but also in a few cases of inhumation burials. There is also a broader range of different forms of terra sigillata produced during this period, indicating that the regulation regarding the import is perhaps not present during phase 2. A closer look in the beginning of phase 2, phase 2a, shows that the increase in the distribution previously mentioned occurs after ca. 150 CE. The distribution during phase 2a is more restricted to the northwestern area of Germania and the frontiers along Rhine (Fig. 7). It is somewhat similar to the distribution of phase 1, however there are no finds in the northeastern parts of Germania. Even though this phase shows a difference in the extent of the distribution pattern, there are still finds recovered from cremation burials. These are only found at one site (Ichstedt), in two different burials (see appendix), while the majority of the finds have been found in settlement contexts (Fig. 7). Furthermore, where there previously was a variety of different forms being imported in phase 1, phase 2a shows instead a more homogeneous import of similar forms. One of the dominating forms, which has been found more frequently than others, is the bowl Dragendorff 37 which is a half spherical bowl often decorated with a relief. Still, a few occasional finds of other types have been found, but these are very few. The shift in the location of production sites is visible during this phase. Finds discovered in Germania dating to this phase have mainly been produced at workshops located in central Gaul, such as Blickweiler, Trier, La Madeleine, Heiligenberg, and even one find

Elbe B

Rhine

A C

Figure 7. An overview of the distribution of terra sigillata during the phase 2a. A = an overview of all finds from phase 2a, B = settlement contexts, C= cremation burial. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

21 Neman

Elbe Vistula

Rhine

Figure 8. Overview of the sites where terra sigillata from phase 2b have been found. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

A B

C D

Figure 9. Map showing the different contexts of the finds produced during phase 2b. A = settlement contexts, B = cremation burials, C = inhumation burials, D = unknown burials. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from from AWMC. 22 of early production at Rheinzabern (see appendix). However, the majority of finds from phase 2a could not be tied to specific workshops, which means that it is impossible to see any correlation between the production sites and specific areas, which was visible during phase 1. During the second part of phase 2, phase 2b, the increase in the distribution of terra sigillata is visible, as mentioned previously (Table 1). Not only is the distribution more widely spread during this period (Fig. 8), but multiple different forms and types are now found in both the northwestern, central, and northeastern part of Germania (see appendix). The majority of the finds are still type Dragendorff 37, however, during this phase various other forms are found as well, such as plates, smaller bowls, cups, beakers, mortars, etc. Seemingly, the form Dragendorff 37 and Dragendorff 33, which is a cup without decoration, are mostly found in the northeastern area of Germania, while the more various forms are found closer to the northwestern frontier. A closer look at where these different forms have been produced shows that they are from multiple of the major production sites such as Rheinzabern, Trier, Lezoux, and Westerndorf. While finds from Rheinzabern have a more widely spread distribution, objects produced in Westerndorf are mainly found in the northeastern part indicating that this production site could have been connected to that area. To further add, the terra sigillata found in the northeastern part has been produced during a later stage, around 180 CE, which could further form some kind of connection between the finds in the northeast and Westerndorf. Finds produced at Trier and Lezoux are more widely spread and have been found in both northwestern and central Germania. Finds from smaller workshops such as Blickweiler and Lavoye are mainly found in the northwestern area which could further indicate different areas being provided by specific production sites (see appendix). Moreover, the difference in context which was clearly visible in phase 1 is yet again visible in phase 2b. In the northeast, as well in Scandinavia, the finds are primarily found in burials. Terra sigillata from this phase is also now found in inhumation burials and these are mostly found in the northeastern part of Germania. The settlement contexts are still found in the northwest (Fig. 9). Lastly, during phase 3 (ca. 200/250-350 CE), there is another decrease of terra sigillata where the production sites active during previous phase are closed down and the distribution narrowed (Fig. 10). Although some of the major production sites were active during the beginning of the third century, not many of the objects produced were imported to Germania. In the end of third century another production site emerges in Argonne, located in today’s northeastern France, which was active during the period around 275-350 CE. The distribution shows that the last stages of terra sigillata production in Rheinzabern were still transporting objects over vast distances. However, with the ending of Rheinzabern and the production shift to Argonne, the focus is mainly in northwestern Germania, as finds from Argonne have mainly been found at sites in the today’s Netherlands (see appendix). Still, a visible difference in context between the northwest and northeast which is also similar to the differences previously stated in phase 1 and 2b. The most dominant form is still the bowl Dragendorff 37, however, when the production is moved to Argonne this is instead replaced with the form Chenet 320, which is a bowl similar to that of Dragendorff 37. To shortly conclude, through the distribution of terra sigillata in Germania, it is possible to see an increase of the transportation of the objects which were produced in the second century to the middle of third century. Before this increase in production, a more controlled environment seems to have had been the case for the distribution in phase 1. It is similar for the case of phase 3, although

23 it seems that in this phase the production of terra sigillata in Central Europe decreased with the production shift to one main workshop at Argonne. Furthermore, there seems to have been more connections with specific production sites with specific area as well as a difference in contexts between the northwestern and northeastern parts of Germania. This will be further discussed in the next chapter.

Neman

Elbe

Vistula

Rhine

B C D

Figure 10. Map of the distribution of terra sigillata in phase 3 and its different contexts. A = an overview of the terra sigillata produced during phase 3, B = settlement contexts, C = cremation burials, D = inhumation burials. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC.

24 3 HISTORICAL EVENTS AND RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS This chapter will present a summary of the main periods of Roman military and diplomatic campaigns in the area of Germania. Additional to these campaigns, both Roman and Germanic settlement patterns are also investigated in order to show further interactions between the Romans and the Germanic population. This is all later analyzed together with the distributional patterns of terra sigillata which were presented in the previous chapter.

3.1 Roman military development and settlement patterns It will be visible in this section that different interactions were present between the Romans and the Germanic population during the different periods. The first known large-scale interaction is during the time of Julius Caesar’s conquest over Gaul in around 58-50 BCE, and the first establishment of the northern frontiers along the Rhine. However, it is not until after the civil wars, which followed the assassination of Caesar in 44 BCE, that further military campaigns were focused beyond the northern frontiers. Although a firm military presence in Germania was present from the period of Augustus the general Roman presence did also bring civil settlements which shows that the Roman- Germanic interaction was not purely military based. Three main differences in the Roman military development are clear. The first military interaction is more closely connected to the activity between the rivers Rhine and Elbe during the first century CE. The end of the second century shows a change in the military focus and it is instead shifted to the northeastern frontiers along the river Danube. By the time of the third century multiple areas along the northern frontiers were unstable both along the northwestern and the northeastern frontiers.

3.1.1 Military development along the Rhine (ca. 50 BCE-150 CE) As mentioned earlier, the northern frontiers along the Rhine had already been established after the Gallic Wars. However, after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BCE the Roman Republic was soon divided in civil war for the struggle of power. During the wars between Octavian, adoptive son of Caesar, and the assassins, the military campaigns were primarily focused in the Mediterranean area until the victory of Octavian. He was soon thereafter appointed as Augustus, the sole emperor of the Roman Empire in 27 BCE. Following the start of the Roman Imperial Period the military focus was relocated to the northern frontiers and multiple areas in the Alps and Balkans were made into Roman provinces. Further plans, during the Augustan military campaigns, were to also extend the northwestern frontiers and conquering the area from Rhine to the river Elbe, located further north. As a result, multiple military sites, such as Roman castella, were installed both along Rhine but also beyond the frontier (Fig. 11). Additional, as already mentioned earlier, the general increase of Roman presence also brought the establishment of civil settlements. This shows that the Roman- Germanic interaction was not purely based on military developments. These civil settlements were often situated near nearby Germanic settlements, additional diplomatic relations were also common between the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes to further secure the frontiers. Furthermore, this is visible in the archaeological record. The material before the military developments in the area 25 Elbe Weser

Rhine

Figure 11. Map showing the larger military installations and Roman settlements between Rhine and Elbe during the first military campaigns during Augustus as well as the Roman-Germanic battles of both Battle at the Teutoburg Forest (Kalkriese) and later Battle at the Harzhorn which is further mentioned later. The Roman military installations beyond the frontier are based from Becker & Rasbach 2015: 4. The Roman forts along the frontier has been provided by Johan Åhlfeldt. Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC. between Rhine and Elbe was very sparse and mainly bonze vessels from Late Roman Republic workshops have been recovered. However, as the military developments increased in the area so did the Roman goods. There are increasingly fragments of terra sigillata, but also bronze and silver coins. The presence of coins indicate that the Germanic population was becoming more accustomed to Roman goods and of stationed marketplaces (Ausbüttel 2012: 55-56; Derks 2009: 37, 40-50; Erdrich 2001: 146f; Grane 2007: 32, 133-135; Laser 1983a: 278f, 281f; Scarre 1995: 32-35; Seyer 1983: 43; Wells 1999: 70f, 85, 89f). The Roman presence in the area between the Rhine and Elbe did not only introduce Roman material culture to the Germanic population, but other things, which were a part of the daily life of Romans such as amphitheaters, baths, roads, and other administrative buildings. This would later become known as Romanization, or Latinization, which would also include the more complex aspects of the Roman-Germanic relation. Romanization incorporates the spread of the Roman language, customs, objects, techniques, and people. Discussions within the Romanization often talks about acculturation. Acculturation is equivalent to the process of cultural, social, and psycho- logical change that emerges when cultures blend. In the case of acculturation processes within romanization these processes often stems from a long-lasting contact between societies of different cultural backgrounds and the Roman Empire. The main concept is that when one side of the cultural

26 blending is military, organizationally, and technologically superior, behavioral adjustments and cultural change would then occur in the lesser ”dominant” culture. This does not necessarily mean that the main force of cultural change is the ”dominant” society, contrary, cultural change is also affected by emulation effects belonging to the lesser ”dominant” culture. Therefore, acculturation processes should not be viewed as one-sided exchange between societies but instead as an interaction between individuals (Heather 2006: 38; Krausse 2005: 56f; Morely 2010: 102; Webster 2001: 216; Woolf 1995: 339, 341, 347). One example of these more peaceful interactions is the site Waldgirmes. This site was first believed to have been another Roman military installation. However, recent excavations have shown that this was instead a Roman-Germanic settlement during the period of the early Roman Principate. The site was surrounded by a ”wall-and-ditch” fortification, which is a common feature for the Roman military installations. Still, the site has been equipped with a forum instead that of a principia. Additionally, other features such as civil buildings, and other settlement structures made the site resemble more of a Roman settlement than a military site. The material culture at Waldgirmes also show a large amount of locally produced ceramic along with Roman ceramic, indicating a Roman-Germanic interaction. The absence of military equipment, which would otherwise be present at military sites further indicates that Waldgirmes was a civil settlement where the Romans and the Germanic population lived in correlation to each other (Becker & Rasbach 2015: 339-349; Grane 2007: 14, 21f). Around 6 CE, rebellions in the Balkans broke out making the main military focus to momentarily shift away from the northern frontiers. Military campaigns to conquer the area between Rhine and Elbe were still held but due to the military mainly being focused in the Balkan area the Roman Empire was defeated in the forest of Teutoburg near Kalkriese. In 9 CE three Roman legions, lead by Arminius, a Germanic chieftain which served the Roman military as an auxiliary lieutenant, were lead into an ambushed where these three legion were almost completely destroyed. This came to be later known as the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. The plans to further extend the Roman territory further north were halted and the Roman military retreated west, to the Rhine in order to strengthen the frontiers against Germanic invasions. Both military installations and Roman civil settlements were abandoned, however this abandonment has been discussed by researchers. One example of this is the double legionary camp at Marktbreit which shows this site was abandoned before its construction was finished. However, it is unknown exactly when this site was abandoned. Some believe it was before the rebellions in the Balkans in 6 CE, while other believes it to have happened after 9 CE as Marktbreit should have played an important role in the Romanization of the Germanic population in the area. Although the military sites and settlements were abandoned, the diplomatic contact with some Germanic tribes was not completely lost and were kept even until the second century CE (Brodersen 2005: 32; Cunliffe 1994: 430; Derks 2009: 43f; Grane 2007: 14, 19-23, 31; Laser 1983a: 281-283; Scarre 1995: 41-43, 46f; Wells 1999: 3). After the retreat of the Roman forces, there is an increase of Roman ceramic which is believed to indicate the Germanic population visiting and ransacking the abandoned military installations. Furthermore, soon after the Augustan military development there is no indication of a Roman- Germanic exchange, however, during the middle of the first century CE bronze and glass vessels, as well as fragments of terra sigillata are yet again exported to Germania. This is believed to have been

27 the result of a change in military strategy of the Roman Empire as it was no longer regarding the areas beyond the northern frontier as part of the Empire. This gave cause to additional military installations along the Upper and Lower parts of the Rhine. New treaties were formed by the Empire and the diplomatic relations, that were established during the time of Augustus, were now forced to supply soldiers to the Roman military if necessary (Erdrich 2001: 147-149). During the decades after 9 CE, the military expansions were instead focused further south of the Rhine, around the area of today’s Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany, and it was planned to further connect the area between the Rhine and Danube. Military campaigns in along the Rhine were still active mainly by the general Germanicus and emperor Tiberius in the decade after the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest in order to structure the Germanic invasions. Continuing the ﬁrst century CE, the Roman Empire evaded and battled different revolts against the Germanic tribes which would sometimes result in almost destroying the northern frontiers. Showing that although the military expansions and campaigns had stopped in the area between Rhine and Elbe, the military developments along the river Rhine and Danube were still present. From the beginning of the second century until around 150 CE the northern frontiers were seen as restored and peace was celebrated for around 50 years. Military developments continued in Britain and the province of Dacia, located in today’s eastern Romania. However, the northern frontiers were soon put under political turbulence yet again (Cunliffe 1994: 430f; Grane 2007: 45; Heather 2006: 46f; Kemkes 2005: 45; Laser 1983a: 284-287). When it comes to the Germanic settlement patterns during the Roman Imperial Period not much is actually known about these sites. The patterns are more closely documented and studied in some area compared to other areas. Germanic settlements in the northern and western part of Germania have been studied and recorded in more detail than the settlements studied in eastern Germania. The main reason behind this is mainly due to the mobility of the Germanic settlements. This resulted in not many urban settlements having the chance to develop. However, this does not mean that large Germanic settlements did not exists. On the contrary, multiple excavations in northern Germania shows that larger settlements existed and that these often showed longer inhabitation since the first millennium BCE. Previous research states that there seems to have been Germanic settlements migration closer towards the military sites during the Augustan military campaigns. Additional, the northeastern settlement pattern has seemingly followed the river Oder (Eggers 1952: 64; Cunliffe 1994: 452f; Keiling 1983: 99; Leube 1983: 396-399). The non-establishment of bigger urban centers is further believed to be due to the economic structures in the Germanic settlement. The economy was mainly based on local production and it was therefore no need for more complex pattern of long-distance trade. This often resulted in wealth and prestige in these societies being based on whoever was in possession of the monopoly of the local production. The introduction of Roman markets added value to the local production as well as providing the Germanic settlements with a broader range of lower valued objects. This would further extend the dimensions of exchange in these settlements. The changes in exchange led to social and other economic changes in the settlement structures. Examples of this is the increase in the local production with more specialized productions (Cunliffe 1994: 444f; Heather 2006: 91-94). The Germanic areas were indeed inhabited by different settlements and societies. These were often referred to Germanic tribes, which are often mentioned in Roman written sources. These tribes had different relationships with the Roman Empire; some had a more diplomatic relation,

28 while others completely opposed the Roman presence. Some of the tribes mentioned in written sources are the Angrivarrii, Bructeri, Chatti, Marcomanni, Marsi, Tubantes, and Usipetes, and the northern Germanic tribes in today’s Scandinavia. The whole extent and active periods of these tribes are not entirely known and it is still a hot topic in research today. However, it is believed that multiple tribes were active during the Roman military campaigns in Germania. Furthermore, it is believed that the Germanic warriors which almost destroyed three Roman legions in 9 CE, were an alliance of different tribes (Grane 2007: 33; Kemkes 2005: 51; Seyer 1983: 49-55). After the restoration of peace in around 100 CE not much is known about what happened to the tribes. It is believed that the establishment of military installations during the first century CE did have some kind of effect on the Germanic tribes in the northwestern part of Germania. The mobile nature of the settlements and the establishment of a frontier on the southern side of Rhine resulted in Germanic settlements not being able to migrate further south, but instead had to move further north along the Rhine affecting the settlements in that area and resulting in multiple movements of other settlements. As stated earlier, researchers believe that the Germanic tribes and the Roman settlements lived in correlation to each other until the crisis of the third century (Cunliffe 1994: 427 -430; Grane 2007: 43f).

3.1.2 Military development along Danube (ca. 150-200 CE) As already stated in the previous section, the establishment of the northern frontiers did affect the mobility of the Germanic tribes and settlements. The movement of one settlement could create other settlement’s movement as well. This was but one factor that contributed to what later would be called the Marcomannic Wars (Cunliffe 1994: 443; Grane 2007: 45). The main factors leading to the Marcomannic Wars in 166-180 CE could be more closely connected to political factors. The first one known by researchers is when the neighboring tribes near the Danube refused to help emperor Domitian during the battles with the Dacian tribes which resulted in a Roman defeat. Further reasons, also perhaps the most notorious, is the gathering of Germanic tribes north of the river Danube in around 160 CE and the later crossing of the frontiers by these tribes in 162 CE. These different political events resulted with a response of war from the Roman Empire which can be divided into three parts. The first war, between 166-170 CE, was led to a Roman victory which is believed to have been followed by a re-establishment of the destroyed frontiers, as well as negotiations and peace conditions. This political turbulence is visible in the archaeological material through hoard finds, destruction layers of military and civic structures, as well an increase in the construction of marching camps and stationed forts (Grane 2007: 51, 54-57; Kehne 2009: 99-102, 104; Laser 1986: 32; Wells 1999: 125). The second Marcomannic War was between 172-175 CE, when the Roman legions stationed at Danube crossed the frontiers and into the Marcomannic territory, in response to the tribe opposing on multiple peace conditions. This resulted in another Roman victory. The location of military installations north of Danube shows that the amber road along the river Morava is believed to have had strategic important as multiple military installations have been found along this route. The amber road was an ancient road believed to have been first used in Baltic amber trading during the Neolithic (Gimbutas 1985: 231; Mráv 2013). Furthermore, the huge concentration of Roman military camps in the area of Mušov, in today’s southwestern Czech Republic, were also

29 strategically important, mostly used for more civic commercial-political centers (Grane 2007: 58-60, Kehne 2009: 103-105). Soon after, in 177 CE, the political problems started again and resulted in the third Marcomannic War between 177-180 CE. The war was another Roman victory and thereby ending the Germanic invasions near the river Danube (Grane 2007: 61f; Kehne 2009: 106f). The Roman settlement patterns during this period were closely connected to the military activity during the Marcomannic Wars. Similar to the area between Rhine and Elbe, multiple military sites and civil settlements were established along and beyond the Danube. The Roman settlements show similarities as multiple are fortified and shaped like a perfect square, very common for the Roman military sites, and further fortification structures such as stone walls and palisade. There were also various types of masonry buildings where some were provided with heating systems, and Roman baths which shows similarities with military developments from the previous century. Furthermore, these installations were often established close to nearby Germanic settlements. There are speculations regarding the actual function of these sites and researchers believe that these were purely military installations and trading did not occur on these sites. However, multiple sites show that a peaceful interaction between the Romans and the Germanic population was present even though the strong military presence (Grane 2007: 46-49; Laser 1983b: 304f; Scarre 1995: 86f). Roman military settlements beyond the Danube shows an increase further north along the river Morava indicating on a Roman presence further along the river. At the same time a larger Germanic settlement is located near the military site Zádov (Komoróczy 2009: 114f). There are still some questions around the aftermath of the Marcomannic Wars. The northeastern frontiers were further strengthen but the exact reason why is unknown. Some believe that they were strengthen purely out of a military view, while some other believes that the northeastern frontiers were in need of a reconstruction due to decaying oak palisades (Kemkes 2005: 44-53). Before the end of the first century CE a decrease is visible in the influx of Roman goods. However, this is soon changed when the military developments during the Marcomannic Wars take place along the northeastern frontier. Terra sigillata produced at Rheinzabern have been found in this area, and is believed to have been purchased at markets at the military installations along the Danube. During the end of the second century there is another decrease in the influx due to new foreign policies of the Roman Empire. A redefinition of the Roman frontiers as well as increased security relocated the focus of the expansion and reinforcements of the military installations along Rhine and Danube (Erdrich 2001: 149f). In the 190s CE the areas along the northeastern frontiers were experiencing a increase in the Roman presence as towns with Roman streets and other Roman features were established. How- ever, in the beginning of the third century, tribal confederacies between the Alamanni and Franci close to the northern frontiers were starting to form. These confederacies soon crossed the Danube frontiers which would result in the abandonment of the frontiers in around 260 CE. These external threats from the Germanic tribes, along with political problems with the Persian Empire in the east, lead to economic and political difficulties within the Roman Empire. The archaeological material shows that civil settlements were abandoned and the inhabitants moved to the more protecting castellum and larger castrum (Malcolm 1994: 448f; Grane 2007: 112, Kehne 2009: 107; Krüger 1986: 15).

30 3.1.3 The crisis of the third century (ca. 200-375 CE) The crisis of the third century is characterized by the Roman Empire being plunged into political troubles due to various different political, economic, and social troubles. Written sources tell about the weakening of the Empire, mostly due to multiple Germanic invasions and the growing power of the Roman military which would result in the period of the solider emperors (Fingerlin 2005: 452; Geschwinde et al. 2009: 231; Ulrich Nuber 2005: 442). The crisis of the third century was first triggered by the migration of Germanic settlements to the south, as well as the Marcomannic Wars in 160s CE. In around 213 CE the first mentioning of the Germanic confederation Alammani crossed the Roman limes located in today’s Baden-Württem- berg. In the same year emperor Caracalla held military campaigns beyond the limes against the Alamanni. However, in 233 CE the tribe continued to invade the Roman areas surrounding the river Mainz and countermeasures until 235 CE where emperor Severus Alexander hastened to the northern limes soon after the military campaign in Persia around 220s CE. He was however killed by his own soldiers and replaced by Maximinus Thrax which became the first soldier emperor. This did not stop the Germanic invasions. Thrax continued the military campaigns in Germania where one is Battle at Harzhorn (Fig. 11), however it is unknown if the battle was lead by Thrax or the previous Alexander. The battle was however, During the political turbulence of the soldier emperors and along with the Germanic invasions, the military installations along the northern frontiers were destroyed and restored on various different occasions (Eck 2009: 184f; Fingerlin 2005: 453-456; Geschwinde et al. 2009: 231f; Grane 2007: 81, 85f; Heather 2006: 84f; Krüger 1986: 16; Laser 1986: 35-37; Schmidt 1986: 338f; Wells 1999: 259f). Not only are the military installations destroyed and rebuilt, but civic settlements were also reduced on both sides of the northern frontiers. However, there is evidence of Germanic settlers until around 280 CE near the abandoned and destroyed military sites and Roman settlements. The emerge of Germanic settlers near the frontiers has been discussed by researchers. Some argue that the Germanic settlements were established after the abandonment, while others argue that these settlements already existed before the abandonment. When the Roman settlements were inhabited by the Germanic population, the Roman building form, such as baths and other administrative buildings were completely discarded and substituted with the Germanic building form consisting mainly of longhouses (Donat 1986: 81-83; Fingerlin 2005: 460f; Grane 2007: 98f; Ulrich Nuber 2005: 442). Similar to the previous phase is a decrease of Roman goods visible during the beginning of the third century CE. Coins suggests that a closer contact between the Germanic societies and the Gallic Empire was more present. Overall, the Roman-Germanic contact was gradually lost and replaced (Erdrich 2001: 150; Laser 1986: 42-44). With the continued political problems which led to the division between Western and Eastern Rome and lastly the fall of the northern frontier along the Rhine in 475 CE. There are multiple speculations regarding the fall of the Roman frontiers in late fourth century. Previous researchers believed that the abandonment was sudden, however, new research show that the northern frontiers were not abandoned all at once but that the civic settlements were moved to the military installations that were still active and fully functional until the complete fall of the frontiers in the fifth century. The peaceful interactions present during the previous centuries were transformed to a more

31 militaristic attitude and by the time of the invasions of the Frankish Empire along the northwestern frontiers, the contact between Germania Magna and the Roman Empire is believed to have been completely lost (Fingerlin 2005: 456f; Grane 2007: 90-98; Günther 1986: 632f; Heather 2006: 431; Kemkes 2005: 52f; Laser 1986: 45-48; Lund Hansen 1987: 254-265).

3.2 The relation between the distribution and the historical events The analysis of the distribution of terra sigillata made in chapter two and the summary of the historical events presented above will be analyzed and discussed together in this section. This is made to easier see patterns in the effect of the historical events on the terra sigillata distribution.

3.2.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 is characterized by the early stages of the terra sigillata production. The main active production sites were the Italian workshops, mainly Arezzo and Pisa, as well as Lyon and later La Graufesenque. An overview of the northern frontiers during the period between around 50 BCE to 100 CE shows an increase in the military developments along and beyond the Rhine. A general overview of the Roman military and diplomatic campaigns along with the terra sigillata distribution is that there seems to be difference between the period before the Battle at the Teutoburg forest and the following period. As the military focus relocated to the frontier along the Rhine and further plans were to extend this to the river Elbe during the Augustan period there is an increase in the stationed military installations beyond the border. The terra sigillata production had already started in around 50/30 BCE, however it was not transported to Germania until the military developments in the area begun during the period of Augustus. Seemingly, terra sigillata that have been found at these sites are closely connected to the workshops in Pisa and Arezzo. In fact, giving a closer look to these military sites shows a different delivery pattern. Large amount of decorated terra sigillata has been found at Haltern and Neuss. Decorated terra sigillata has also been found at multiple other sites such as Bonn, Köln, Nijmegen, Oberaden, Xanten, but there is a larger amount found at Haltern and Neuss. These finds have mainly been produced at either Arezzo or Pisa, while only a few fragments have been produced at the later workshop in Lyon. Giving a further look on the sites Haltern and Oberaden shows a different delivery pattern although they are located close to each other. Early terra sigillata that has been produced at Pisa has mainly been transported to Haltern, while terra sigillata found in Oberaden have mainly been produced at Arezzo (Rudnick 1995: 151f, 235). What is possible to see is that the Italian workshops are the only workshops which have produced terra sigillata which have been transported to the northern frontiers. However, soon after the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest the production establishes in southern Gaul, one of these being the workshop at Lyon. It is possible to see that the production moved to southern Gaul after the abandonment of the military sites in around 9 CE which could be connected. Furthermore, there is a additional change when the production ends at Lyon and is resumed at La Graufesenque, where the majority of the terra sigillata which have been produced at La Graufesenque has been found beyond the military sites (Fig. 12). While these shifts in the production indicates that the production is

32 Elbe

Vistula

Figure 12. Map showing the military position during the period of Augustus and the finds of terra sigillata. The Roman military installations beyond the frontier are based from Becker & Rasbach 2015: 4. The Roman forts along the frontier has been provided by Johan Åhlfeldt Map by Matea Cavka with the help of digital resources from AMWC. possibly connected to the military development the terra sigillata in phase 1 seems to be very restricted. Moreover, there seems to be a contextual difference between the northwestern and northeastern distribution. Early terra sigillata found in the northwestern part of Germania are mainly found in settlement contexts, while the few fragments of terra sigillata in the northeast have been recovered from cremation burials. This contextual difference seems to not have been affected by the military development as the majority of these have been produced after the main military campaigns in the area between the Rhine and Elbe.

3.2.2 Phase 2 The analysis of the distribution phase 2 (ca. 100-250 CE) can be divided into two different parts; phase 2a and phase 2b. The same can be said for the historical events during the period between 100-ca. 250 CE. As shortly mentioned previously, the northern frontier in the beginning of the second century is believed to have been restored and peace was supposed to have ruled until 150 CE when the political troubles, especially along the Danube, yet again started. A closer look during phase 2a, also during the period when the Roman Empire is believed to have been in peace, the distribution of terra sigillata is similar to that of the distribution of phase 1. However the finds seems to be mainly restricted to the northwestern area of Germania. These finds

33 have been produced at the early stages of another shift in production where the workshops are now located in Central Gaul. These mainly consists of the smaller workshops such as La Madeleine and Heiligenberg, but also the early stage of the more larger workshop at Trier. The sparse finds during this phase could be due to the restriction which was also present in phase 1. However, one difference from the distribution of phase 1 is that there seems to be a pattern regarding the different forms being transported. The spherical formed and decorated bowl, Dragendorff 37, starts to emerge during phase 2a and is the form which has been most frequently found. Furthermore, as the shift in production in previous phase 1 was during military presence, this phase shows a shift in the production to central Gaul although there is no increase in the military presence. Except for these two differences, the distribution during phase 2a is similar to the distribution during phase 1. As the political problems along the northern frontiers increased around 150 CE, the distribution of terra sigillata seems to have increased as well. Giving a closer look on the distribution of terra sigillata produced after 150 CE shows that the terra sigillata in the northwestern area of Germania is more closely dated to before the Marcomannic Wars, while in the northeast is the terra sigillata more closely dated to both during and after the Marcomannic Wars. The Scandinavian material shows similarities with the material found in Poland and the northwestern material as well as the dating of the products. The increase of terra sigillata in the northeast could perhaps be connected with the increase of Roman presence in the area as a result of the Marcomannic Wars. Moreover, there seems to be an increase in the production as well as multiple major production sites such as Lezoux, Rheinzabern, Trier, and Westerndorf are now active. The workshops at Westerndorf could be further connected to the increase of Roman presence in the northeast as products that were produced at Westerndorf are only found in the northeastern part of Germania. Additionally, the products that are transported during this phase seems to have been in a wider range of products were now different types of plates, cups, and bowls have been found. Another factor that shows the increase is that terra sigillata is now also found at multiple different sites; both larger and smaller settlements. While it seems that the terra sigillata distribution in the northwest is hard to connect it is possible to say that the political troubles along the Danube did not affect the distribution of terra sigillata in the northwest. Overall, it seems that the restriction that is visible in phase 1 and phase 2a is no longer present during the phase 2b. The contextual division between northwest and northeast is clearly visible during phase 2b. Terra sigillata produced in phase 2b have also been found in inhumation burials along with the finds in cremation burials in the northeast. Terra sigillata in the northwest is still mainly found in settlement contexts. Another interesting observation is the relationship between southern Scandinavia and Germania. The finds in southern Scandinavia date to the period both before and after the Marcomannic Wars. The fact that the Scandinavian material shows a contextual similarity with the northeastern part of Germania could indicate that these products traveled from this area. However, the lack of terra sigillata in today’s area of the Baltic countries (CRFB L) suggests that if the terra sigillata was transported from the areas of today’s Poland, they would have traveled directly west in the Baltic Sea and not to the areas east, indicating of some kind of possible direct contact with the areas. There are multiple possibilities to the material found in southern Scandinavia which will be discussed further in chapter 4.

34 3.2.3 Phase 3 Lastly, there is a decrease in both the production and transportation of terra sigillata during phase 3 (ca. 200/250-350 CE). During this period the political turbulence of crisis of the third century seems to be closely connected with the decrease in the production and export beyond the northern frontiers. The Roman Empire was during the third century not only fighting with almost all of its surrounding neighbors, but the political unstableness with soldier emperors weakened the Empire. The military focus was shifted to campaigns in the Persian Empire. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes were forming confederacies in order to end the Roman occupation of the area and soon crossed the northeastern frontiers. The political trouble along the northeastern frontiers continued during the third and fourth century and was soon followed by troubles at the northwestern frontiers until the Roman Empire’s fall during the fifth century CE. Looking closer at the distribution of terra sigillata shows some similarities with the historical events of the third century. By the time of the conflicts at the northern frontiers in the end of the third century CE, all of the larger production sites had stopped producing terra sigillata and the production was soon relocated to Argonne. The beginning of the third century could therefore be the last stages of the larger workshops from the second century, because the political turbulence increased, the production was perhaps decreased. Still, even though there is military presence during this period along the northern frontier, a decrease in both the production and transportation is present. It seems that the production and transportation is moved to Argonne and mainly focused in the northwest due to the political troubles instead of the increase that is visible in the previous phase. Another difference is the fact that the political troubles during this period are far more focused than in the previous phases. This is the period where the northern frontiers are destroyed and rebuilt until later completely abandoned after the fall of the Roman Empire. To conclude, it seems that the terra sigillata production was affected by the countless conflicts along the northern frontier during the third century.

35 4 DISCUSSION

The previous chapter clearly showed two patterns between the terra sigillata distribution and the historical events, where especially two main patterns were visible. These patterns are following:

1. Terra sigillata has seemingly followed the military focus of the Roman Empire during its early production. However, during the period of ca. 150-250 CE an increase began in Germania that could not only be the result by an increase of Roman presence in the northeast. 2. There is a clear contextual difference between the northwestern and northeastern distribution which is present during all phases of the terra sigillata export to Germania.

Was the terra sigillata production geared towards providing the northern frontiers with vessels? Furthermore, as stated above, in the period between 150-250 CE there is an increase in production as multiple production sites were now active. However this increase does not only follow the military and the overall Roman presence in the region, but instead indicate that something else could have been the reason behind the increase. It seems to be connected to the terra sigillata production. So, in order to discuss the first observation we need to first look closer into the possible reasons behind the terra sigillata production. The second part of this chapter will address the second observation. The discussion will incorporate key points from the previous two discussions, but the main emphasis will be given to the possible value shifts that may explain the diverse patterns in terra sigillata distribution.

4.1 Possible reasons behind the production The possible reasons behind the terra sigillata production is a subject which have just recently been addressed in discussions. These discussions have mainly focused on the early stages of the production. They have been fairly connected to ideas of investments which Astrid Van Oyen explains were necessary for the terra sigillata production. The investments required for the terra sigillata production were raw materials as well as skilled craftsmen to achieve the oxidizing atmosphere crucial for the firing of the products. The investments were possibly provided for and by landowners, who owned the raw material in the form of clay. Although the organization behind the terra sigillata production is unknown, different patterns are distinguishable in both the distribution of terra sigillata and the emergence and shifts of production sites. Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the production sites were linked to different transport sites and distribution networks. This is especially clearly defined during the early stages of the production at the Italian workshops. The smaller workshops Torrita di Siena and Scop- pieto were probably based on a collection of older workshops that did not engage in long-distance trade, while the larger sites such as Arezzo and Pisa were engaging in long-distances trade as products from these two workshops have been found around the northern frontier along the Rhine. Additionally, Arezzo seems to had a specific distribution network in comparison to the workshop in Pisa which Van Oyen explains could have been the result of different contacts with specific traders and markets (Van Oyen 2015: 283-285).

36 This type of pattern is also visible in the move of production from Arezzo to Pisa in the first century BCE. It is believed that the potter known as Ateius moved from Arezzo to Pisa and established a workshop there. Further chemical analyses of the stamps shows that the Ateius workshops were indeed moved from Arezzo to Pisa. The reason for this move has been speculated and it is believed that economic possibilities could have been one reason as Pisa is closer to the Tyrr- henian Sea which could provide an easier access for overseas trading. The same route had been used in previous centuries for the trading of wine and other fine wares connected to drinking culture. With the move of the potter Ateius, it is possible to see a shift in the focus towards the northern frontiers. By the end of the first century BCE the production was already taken up in southern Gaul, such as Lyon and La Graufesenque. Other early workshops in the area of southern Gaul seem to not be connected to a long-distance trade, however the production at Lyon and La Graufesenque show a different patterns. These two workshops show a further focus which targeted the long-distance trade to the northern frontiers (Van Oyen 2015: 285f). Looking further into the production at Lyon shows some additional interesting patterns. Products with the stamp of Ateius found at the northern frontiers was previously believed to have been produced at Pisa. However, new chemical analyses of the sherds shows that these could be traced back to Lyon. Further analyses of the molds used in the production could be traced back to Arezzo. It is believed that the Ateius workshops were established in Lyon as a branch workshop for the same reason for the more to Pisa: Lyon provided an easy access to the river Rhine and the northern frontier. This strong link between Arezzo and Lyon has also sparked the discussion whether the production was instead actually Ateius moving but perhaps instead people who previously worked at the Ateius workshops. It has been suggested that the chemical analyses of the molds and them indicating that they were produced in Arezzo be evidence that slaves, which were a big part in the workforce during the terra sigillata production, were freed and free to set up their own businesses without any economic dependence. This interpretation could be further strengthen as the production in Arezzo and Pisa has been associated with Roman slaves as part of the workforce. This is still debated however, although strong links between the workshop in Arezzo and the workshops established in Lyon is visible (Van Oyen 2015: 286f). Further links with the emergence of terra sigillata production in Lyon could be connected to the fact that Lyon was seen as a political and administrative center (Van Oyen 2015: 286). Lyon had become a Roman colony in around 43 BCE and in 27 BCE Lyon was further instituted as the provincial capital of the Three Gauls, further providing easier access to the northern frontiers. Where the Italian workshops were more connected to the rural areas, Lyon showed an emergence of the production in a more urban setting. The smaller production sites which did not engage in long- distance trade were instead established in a more rural setting. This way in which the emergence of Lyon as a center for political interventions and the movement of both ideas and people, such as techniques, investments, and potters, could create the focus of a long-distance trade (Van Oyen 2015: 286f). As already mentioned in chapter 2, the production in Lyon was not continued for long and the it was soon moved to La Graufesenque, which had already started with the pre-production of terra sigillata under Roman influences in the end of the first century BCE. La Graufesenque, and the workshop in Lezoux during the second century CE, show similarities as both sites were located on

37 the countryside and were not affected by the larger Roman cities in the vicinity. The emergence of, yet again, rural workshops and the end of the urban production site at Lyon shows that once long- distance trade was established, further investments were needed for the actual distribution network and infrastructure. Once again, the production was moved further north and perhaps closer to their destination. Van Oyen brings a valid point to the discussion when she asks why the relocation of the production sites in central Gaul did not happen earlier. The presence of military markets along the northern frontier had been present since the beginning of the terra sigillata production in the first century BCE. She brings up the Roman conquered area of Britain and asks the same question in order to give an explanation to the question. Different factors could explain why the production was not established in Britain. The first factor could be connected to the access to raw materials as recent excavations show that a large amount of wood was needed to fuel the kilns in a large scale production. The Roman cities in Britain were not located close to large forested areas, indicating that the necessary amount of fuel was not available. Another factor is previous trading routes that the terra sigillata distribution could have followed as in the case with the emerge of production at Pisa. Various important investments were not available for the emergence of production sites in Britain which could indicate the same for the early stage of the terra sigillata production. The actual reasons behind the emerge of production sites and the reasons to why some workshops did not emerge in specific areas is still discussed. However, it is possible to see that with the emerge of the production sites during the second century the cities were no longer a center for the terra sigillata production. Potters, molds, and different types traveled along with their styles, techniques, and fashions. Cities were no longer needed for the movement of production and once the production in central Gaul took off, the connection with the Roman cities was seemingly lost. However, the cities could still contribute to the terra sigillata export. Many shipments were in need to pass through larger cities and warehouses depending on whether the products would travel to the Mediterranean area or to the northern frontier. In order words, cities could affect the direction of the products. Terra sigillata was now unlikely to have been perceived as an urban commodity by the consumers (Van Oyen 2015: 287-289). However, this brings the question if this corresponds to the material beyond the northern frontier. This is further addressed in third section of this chapter. Further observations within the production sites during the second century CE shows a different consumption pattern in the British material. The terra sigillata now produced, was transported to different kinds of contexts. This is a contrast to the previous consumption pattern of the early terra sigillata. Products from southern Gaul tended to be found on military and more urban sites, while products from central Gaul are more widely spread between both large cities and rural settlements. Furthermore, it also seems like the decorated terra sigillata bowls were particularly high valued in rural settlements after the post-conquest period (Van Oyen 2015: 290). In her study, van Oyen has proved the role of Roman cities as some kind of switching device within the networks. Cities were amplifiers and mediators for the flow of terra sigillata across the western Roman Empire. They could, through their position within a network, add or reduce connections. The cities in Roman Italy provided a mean to break into the economic potential of long-distance trade and during the later part of the first century BCE the politically urban centers in southern Gaul and their movement of people and ideas shifted the location of production. However, the focus of the investments changed from urban centers to more rural setting (Van Oyen 2015:

38 291f). These observations of the relationship between the urban and rural settings in the terra sigillata production could give further insight in the organization of the production. Could these changes in the production perhaps been due to private entrepreneurs who saw economic opportunities with expanding the production? The increase of political urban centers where people and ideas could move more freely could have been a reasons for the emergence of the production at Lyon; could private entrepreneurs have established the production? This approach which is more connected to economic opportunities and the producers socio- economic relation to the emergence of terra sigillata production site can be seen in Harri Kiiskinen’s (2013) discussion. He especially focuses on the early emergence of Arezzo in the area of Roman Etruria, during the political troubles of Sulla’s first civil war in around 88 BCE. The political troubles that followed the later part of the Roman Republic is believed to have resulted in an emergence of a terra sigillata production. While different parts of the Etruscan territory was confiscated by the Romans and then later assigned to political influenced people belonging to the higher class of the society, he argues that the terra sigillata production could not have been owned by higher class people. Kiiskinen believes that the emerge of Arezzo was closely connected to the landowners (Kiiskinen 2013: 54). As their lands were getting confiscated and reassigned, people started to ensure their livelihood indicating some kind of survival strategy during politically, unstable, periods. Previous landowners were sometimes allowed to still take care of the land although assigned to someone else. As a result, an increase in the investment of ceramic production, which not as closely connected to the land as agricultural developments, could be made as this was not in the risk of getting assigned to someone else, further connecting it to the socio-economic relation between actors and the emergence of production. Other things such as kilns, tools, and raw material were all important for the production, but he argues, similar to van Oyen that the terra sigillata production was heavily dependent on skilled workforce (Kiiskinen 2013: 54f). Kiiskinen’s main argument is that the emergence of terra sigillata production at Arezzo was a sign of economical survival of actors, in this case landowners, that saw economic opportunities. He further connects it to the fact that the origins of the production did not rest on the influx of Roman colonists to the area, but was instead a local tradition of ceramic production which suddenly acquired larger importance for those who were in need of economic stability (Kiiskinen 2013: 57). From these two studies we learn that there are some suggestions to possible reasons behind the production of terra sigillata. Although we can not know for sure what started it and what made the production relocate closer to the northern frontier, there are still clues to the possible reasons. The idea of economic stability being connected to the emergence of Arezzo could possibly be further connected to the emergence of other later workshops. Furthermore, there seems to have been a shift in the production in Britain as the early stage of the production was mainly exported to urban settlements. However, when the later production sites during the second century emerges, terra sigillata is exported to both urban and rural settlements. Could this possibly be the case for the material around the northern frontiers? Could this shift have some connection with private entrepreneurs who saw economic opportunities with the production or was it still connected to providing the frontiers with terra sigillata? This will be discussed in the next section with focus of the material of terra sigillata in Germania Magna and its relation to the unfolding Roman engagements in the area that we are able to draw from the historical sources.

39 4.2 A military connection? As analyzed in the previous chapter, the terra sigillata production and distribution to the area beyond the northern frontier has shown different patterns during the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. These episodes further show that different military focuses has been presented which have resulted in different influxes of terra sigillata. During phase 1, before the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the early terra sigillata produced at the Italian workshops and Lyon seems to mainly be restricted to the Roman military sites both along and beyond the Rhine. How- ever, after the retreat of the Roman military as a result of the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest, there is seemingly a shift in the production. Terra sigillata is no longer restricted to the Roman military sites, but is now also exported to Germanic contexts beyond the frontier. A shift in the production seems to have happened at La Graufesenque as the majority of the finds have shown to have been produced at this workshop (see appendix). This shift in the production could be connected to the strategic change of the Roman Empire in the area between Rhine and Elbe to that of more diplomatic efforts. It further seems that after around 100 CE there is another relocation of the production. The terra sigillata production has now moved further north and is located in Central Gaul. However, the distribution during the beginning of the second century CE shows similarities with the distribution from phase 1 as it is seemingly still quite restricted, now especially to the northwestern area of Germania. It is not until around 150 CE that multiple larger and smaller workshops in Central Gaul are established, such as Rheinzabern and Westerndorf, and an increase in both the export and distribution is evident. The regulation that may have been present earlier seems to not exists during phase 2b. Terra sigillata that has been produced during phase 2b is now found in various other contexts, in both larger and smaller settlements, and different types of burial contexts. A large variety of forms are now also exported beyond the frontier. Terra sigillata produced between 150-250 CE seems to have moved more freely in comparison to the previous phases. During the last stages of the terra sigillata production it is clear that the Roman military was struggling to keep control of the northern frontier. The Roman Empire had to evade various different rebellions and was in war with almost all of its surrounding neighbors. The terra sigillata production and export was perhaps affected since not many new production sites were established after the larger production sites such as Trier and Rheinzabern were discontinued. There seem to also be a general decrease in the distribution as terra sigillata is, yet again, only found in the northwestern part of Germania. These observations in the production pattern, as well as the distribution, are similar to the observations made by Van Oyen regarding Roman Britain, mentioned in the previous section. It seems like the distribution along with the production was affected by the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. This leads us to question whether the terra sigillata production was exclusively geared towards providing the Roman military and the general Roman presence with terra sigillata. However, as already analyzed in the previous chapter, terra sigillata did not only followed the Roman presence, which indicates that there is more to this. The closer look that was given to the establishment of the early terra sigillata production in the previous section shows that the first stage of the production was mainly for providing the northern frontier with terra sigillata. This is strengthen by the fact that the terra sigillata has mainly been

40 found at Roman military sites along and beyond the Rhine. Furthermore, the establishment of the branch workshop at Lyon is further believed to be connected to providing the northern frontiers with terra sigillata. However, the production at Arezzo and Pisa shows that a long-distance trade was already present, so why was there a need for a workshop closer to the northern frontier if a long-distance trade was already present? As discussed in the previous section, the early terra sigillata production could be connected to socio-economic relation between an actor and the establishment of a production. Was this the case for the establishment of production at Lyon? We can not say for sure that the establishment of a terra sigillata production at Lyon was due to the same reasons as the emerge of production at Arezzo and Pisa but it is possible. The establishment of production at Pisa was for easier access to the frontiers and this could also have been the case for the establishment of Lyon, as mentioned earlier. Additionally, the emergence of a production at Lyon is supposed to have been realized through slaves who had previously worked at the Italian workshops, now believed to have economic freedom. So, there is a possibility that the production at Lyon was connected to the socio-economic relation between the emerge of the production and the individual. However, as clearly visible in the distribution, decorated terra sigillata in Germania was mainly restricted to the Roman military sites and settlements. Although the nature of Roman-Germanic interaction was peaceful within the time- frame of early terra sigillata production, the distribution of it, and seemingly of other objects expect bronze vessels, appears more restricted to the Roman presence. This changes soon after the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest, as well as the end of the production at Lyon, as the production moves to La Graufesenque. Terra sigillata produced at this site is now found in Germanic contexts beyond the Roman installations. Why is there a change in the production now? As Rome changed its approach from a military focus to a primarily diplomatic one, there is a possibility that the Roman material culture, in this case terra sigillata, was more available to the Germanic population. There is a possibility that with the increase of the Roman-Germanic interaction in the later decades after the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest, the Germanic population could have been more aware of Roman material culture which would have led to an increase in the amount of consumers. Based on the previous discussions, I suggest that the emergence of the later terra sigillata production could also be connected to an increase in the demand. This could be further connected to the shift of a large-scale production as entrepreneurs saw economic opportunities and stability in this production. Although the military and diplomatic campaigns are mainly focused to the northeast during phase 2b, there is an increase in both the production and distribution. This could be explained with the idea that the market was more open and the distribution perhaps even more directly intended for the Germanic population. However, the question still remains why there was a shift in the production in the first place. Was there a need for terra sigillata or was it simply due to economic opportunities seen by the individuals behind the productions? The Roman presence beyond the Rhine during the first century CE was greater and more direct than the presence beyond the Danube during the second century CE, but the amount of different sites in the possession of terra sigillata is more evident in the second century. This could further indicate that the increase in phase 2b was due to a more open market as the demand of terra sigillata was perhaps greater during this period as well. There is a possibility that the Germanic population was more aware of Roman material culture and as a result it was easier available than previously. Still, there are terra sigillata

41 that have followed the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. One clear example of this is the establishment of the workshop at Westerndorf after the events of the Marcomannic War in 180 CE. There is a possibility that the increased Roman-Germanic interaction in the northeastern part of Germania resulted in a more open market with the introduction of additional consumers in the northeast. At the same time, the period in which the production at Westerndorf emerges corresponds to the military and diplomatic approaches made after the Marcomannic War to prevent further rebellions. Accordingly, it seems that these campaigns could have increased and made the market more open. Additionally, the increase could also have been due to a larger investment in the production. While the early terra sigillata production was focused on a long-distance trade, the Central Gaulish production could have instead been focusing on a large-scale production. The production was perhaps now more close to the northern frontiers and therefore there was no longer a need for a long-distance trade and investments could instead be put to create a larger-scale production. The production pattern in late third century CE could further strengthen that investments were made for a large-scale production. The terra sigillata production during the third century CE was visible smaller. However, the production was still located in Central Gaul, but investments in a large-scale production was perhaps not made due to the political troubles during this period. The distribution pattern of the later terra sigillata produced at Argonne also looked different as it is mainly focused in the northwestern part, further indicating that the previous large-scale production was not present during the third century. This could be related to something happening with the market due to the multiple Germanic invasions along the frontier. Furthermore, the actual emergence of the production at Argonne after 275 CE shows yet again irregular production patterns in comparison to the military developments that were present in the area. Although the production is seemingly not following the military campaigns during the third century, the reason behind the production is unknown as the large-scale production from previously had ended but the demand in the northwestern area still remained. It is possible that when the Germanic tribes turned hostile to the Roman presence the demand of Roman goods also dropped. However, this requires further investigations of multiple categories of other Roman goods in order to be fully understood. Additionally, the interesting observation made by Van Oyen regarding the late move of the production to Central Gaul although there already was a Roman presence along the Rhine in the first century CE, could perhaps further indicate that there was no need for a large-scale production of the early terra sigillata. Rather, as the increase of the market started in phase 2, the production had to move closer in order to fill the demand that was increasing beyond the frontiers. Up until this point the discussion has been focused on the terra sigillata which was supposedly transported directly from the Roman Empire to the Germanic population. However, as it also already have been discussed in the theory section in chapter 1, the terra sigillata could have traveled in multiple different ways, especially within the Germanic societies as well. It was stated in the analysis that the Germanic societies did not have an extensive long-distance trade before the introduction of Roman goods as there was no need for this due to the economy being primarily based on local production. However, is it possible that the increase in the distribution, of the terra sigillata in phase 2b, was an effect of an established long-distance trade between the Germanic societies? One possible indication of terra sigillata being exchanged within the Germanic societies

42 is the contextual similarity between the northeastern part of Germania and Southern Scandinavia. The majority of finds in Southern Scandinavia, in today’s Denmark, shows a similarity with the northeastern part of Germania as these have mainly been found in burial contexts with terra sigillata produced both during phase 2b and the overlapping period between phase 2b and phase 3. This contextual similarity as well as a similarity in dating of the objects could indicate that the terra sigillata found in Denmark had traveled from northeastern Germania. Meanwhile, the fragments of earlier terra sigillata found near Lund, Sweden, shows that these traveled before the events of the Marcomannic Wars and possibly directly to Southern Scandinavia as the fragments’ circulation period is seemingly very short. Furthermore, the similarity in context also seems to match up with the material from northwestern Germania indicating that this was perhaps traveled from this area instead. The exact location from where these objects have traveled from is unknown, but the contextual similarities show that there is a possibility that the terra sigillata found in Southern Scandinavia traveled from the Germanic societies especially located in the northeast. This could be further connected to the discussion regarding value shifts mentioned in chapter 1. It is possible that the shifts in value in Southern Scandinavia as well as an increase in the market made it possible for the terra sigillata to travel to this area. However it is still unknown whether this had any actual affect as it is unknown if the terra sigillata fragments were exchanged as alienable or inalienable objects to Southern Scandinavia. This is further discussed in the next section. To conclude the present discussion, it is possible to say that the distribution of terra sigillata not only followed the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. There seems to be other driving forces. The first observation, which has also been discussed in previous research, is that the early terra sigillata production was established as a reaction to economic instability, and it is possible that could have been further connected to private entrepreneurs who saw it as an economic opportunity. The second observation it that there could have been an increase in the demand and as a result making the market of terra sigillata more open and available for both Romans and the Germanic population. The early stage of the terra sigillata production seems to have been under a very regulated market which was mostly restricted to the Roman presence between the Rhine and Elbe. As the production shifted to Southern Gaul it is possible to see that the terra sigillata was slowly being transported to the Germanic population. The later shift of the production to Central Gaul may indicate an investment in large-scale production instead of long-distance trade. This large-scale production does not completely follow the military as large amount of terra sigillata in the northwest is dated to before the Marcomannic Wars which was the military and diplomatic focus in the second century CE. While the northeastern distribution shows connections with the Marcomannic Wars as there is an increase in terra sigillata beyond the Danube as well as the establishment of Westerndorf which was intended for a production for the northeast. This wider distribution which is present from the terra sigillata produced during phase 2b could also be due to an exchange within the Germanic population. Overall, it seems that starting from the emergence of production at La Graufesenque, the terra sigillata production was more focused on the areas beyond the northern frontier. When there was a possible increase in the market as more consumers were introduced, the production was relocated to Central Gaul as investments were to focus more on a large-scale production instead that of a long- distance export. It is unknown whether the change to a more large-scale focus is connected to the

43 military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire, however it seems that from the beginning of the production at La Graufesenque until the end of the production at Rheinzabern, the terra sigillata production and export was increased possibly due to an expansion of the market as well as the introduction of more consumers, possibly as a result of the increase in Roman-Germanic interaction.

4.3 The division between northwest and northeast In the previous chapter we observed a contextual difference between the northwest and northeast during the whole period of production and export of terra sigillata to Germania Magna. As already mentioned, this difference consists of terra sigillata found in the northwest mainly being found in settlement contexts, while terra sigillata in the northeast mainly being found in different burial contexts. In this section the reasons behind this difference will be discussed by taking a closer look at the way in which these two areas have come in contact with terra sigillata. The northwestern area, especially the area between the rivers Rhine and Elbe, was the area which was in first contact with a more direct Roman presence. As mentioned in chapter 2, terra sigillata in the Roman Empire was viewed as normal table ware and is believed to have been used as everyday ceramics. However, the northeast seemingly came in direct contact with Rome a bit later in comparison to the northwest, as the majority of the finds found in the northeast have been dated to around the period of the Marcomannic Wars. If we take a further look at how the shifts in terra sigillata production could have affected this we can clearly see that although the production moved and changed from a focus on a long-distance trade to a large-scale production in Central Gaul, the contextual difference is still present. This means that the shifts in the production did not have an effect on the contextual difference. It seems that there is a difference in the value attributed to the terra sigillata between these two areas. The question is then if the early introduction to terra sigillata in the northwest did affect the way in which the Germanic population viewed terra sigillata. The northwest was supposedly under the influence of Roman marketplaces which have been suggested by different researchers (Cunliffe 1994: 441; Erdrich 2001: 147). This could indeed have given terra sigillata a set value in the northwest, while the northeastern area was never in such direct contact with the Roman presence as the northwestern area. However, during the period after the Marcomannic War, the Germanic area closer to the northeastern frontier along the Danube was supposedly under heavy Roman influence which included the introduction of stationed marketplaces. Still, this seemingly did not have any effect on the way in which this material was viewed in the northeast. Furthermore, the increase of terra sigillata in the northeast, with the emergence of the production at Westerndorf, suggests that although the focus was changed to that of the northeast the contextual difference was still present, meaning that the value was set for the terra sigillata in this region. It seems like the different shifts and changes in the production and the different military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire did not affect the way in which terra sigillata in the northeast was viewed. The terra sigillata found on settlements in the northwest may indicate that they were perceived in the same way as within the Roman Empire as this area was over a more heavy Roman presence when perhaps terra sigillata was first introduced to the Germanic population. We can establish that the value of terra sigillata in the northwest was highly connected to the Roman 44 presence in the area. What, then caused the question what actually made the terra sigillata in the northeast to be viewed differently? It is evident that neither the shifts in the production, the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire, nor the suggestion that these were bought at Roman marketplaces, had any affect on the material. The northeast, as already mentioned, was also never under the same Roman influence as the northwest. The Roman presence in this area was mainly active in the area closer to the frontiers along the Danube. This leaves us with the question if the way in which terra sigillata traveled to the northeastern part of Germania did affect the value of the objects. This could correspond to the theoretical framework presented by Hedeager (1979). However, the fact that terra sigillata has been found in a few burials during phase 2b and 3 may indicate that parts of the northwestern area shared similar value on terra sigillata as in the northeast. The theoretical framework presented by Hedeager could explain why there is a contextual difference in the material. As discussed in chapter 1, objects change value as they travel. Could this be the case for terra sigillata in the northeast? The emergence of the production at Westerndorf may indicate a regular trade between Romans and the Germanic population. But a further exchange within the Germanic societies, perhaps as part of a trade in alienable goods or perhaps in the form of inalienable gifts, is also possible. An investigation of the area closer to the northeastern frontiers could further shed some light regarding this discussion. To conclude this section, the contextual difference between the northwestern and northeastern has shown to be the result of different factors. The reasons behind why terra sigillata in the northwest is mainly found in settlement contexts could be due to the heavy Roman presence that was present in the area during the early introduction of terra sigillata during the first century CE. On the other hand, the terra sigillata found in the northeast is not as easily explained as the northwestern area. The northeastern are has seemingly not been affected by the shifts and changes in the production, the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire, or the stationed marketplaces introduced by the Romans. What did result in the terra sigillata being deposited in burial contexts in the northeast? The way in which these objects have traveled could give insight into this contextual difference. However, the exact reason behind the travel of these goods are unknown to us as multiple different interaction between the Romans and the Germanic population could have resulted in an exchange of material culture. The possibilities that have been discussed are that the terra sigillata found in the northeast could have been resulted in an exchange between the Germanic societies, or the fact that the objects could have been traveled in the form as an inalienable object, while in the northwest would the objects travel as alienable objects, which would give the objects different types of value. Although there is a possibility that the terra sigillata in the northwest respectively the northeastern area of Germania could have been traveled as both alienable and inalienable objects. However, it is hard to distinguish which objects were the alienable and which were inalienable. What is possible to say is that there seems to have been a set type of value in the northeast and it would be interesting in investigating the relation between this area and the area closer to the frontiers along the Danube to see if the Roman presence in this area had an impact on the value of terra sigillata and if this instead correspond to the contextual pattern in the northwestern area of Germania Magna.

45 4.4 Concluding remarks The discussion in this chapter has shown that the distribution of terra sigillata has been partially affected by the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. The early stage of the terra sigillata production seems to be restricted to the Roman presence, especially the Augustan and early Tiberian military campaigns. However, an increase in both the distribution and production around the middle of the second century shows a distribution pattern that is not only connected to the military campaigns of the Roman Empire. Giving a closer look on the reasons behind the terra sigillata production showed valuable aspects which could give further explanations to this increase. Although the organization regarding the terra sigillata production is unknown to us, other valuable observations made in recent research around the socio-economic relation between the entrepreneurs and the emerge of a production have open up a new way to discuss the distribution and production of terra sigillata in Germania Magna. The discussion showed that the from the emerge of production at La Graufesenque the terra sigillata production was more focused on a long-distance trade. However, when there was an increase in the market as more consumers were introduced, a increase in the demand, as well as a more open market both between Romans and the Germanic population, but also within the Ger- manic societies, made the production to change from a long-distance trade to instead focus on a large-scale production. It is unknown if this change in the production was an effect of the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire or if could be connected to the socio-economic relation between the production and a private entrepreneurs who saw economic opportunities with the production.

46 5 CONCLUSIONS

The aim for this study was to investigate whether the distribution of terra sigillata was affected by the military and diplomatic campaigns. Accordingly, it has shown that the distribution of terra sigillata in Germania Magna was partially affected by the main episodes of the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. A closer analysis of the distribution shows that the early terra sigillata production was more restricted to the Roman presence during the first century CE. However, during the middle of the second century CE a clear increase in both the distribution and production is visible. This increase can not only be explained as the result of military campaigns along the northeastern frontier, and shows that something happened to the production during this period. The last stage of the terra sigillata production further indicates that the distribution did not merely follow the military and diplomatic campaigns. In order to fully discuss this a closer look had to be given on the reasons behind the terra sigillata production. This made it possible to see that the production could have been driven by individual entrepreneurs who saw economic opportunities, or to ensure economic stability, with the production. In order words, it seems like there was some kind of socio-economic relation between the individual and the emergence of the production. This could then have been the force behind the different shifts and changes in the production. A further discussion regarding the production also showed that the focus of the workshops could have changed, from a long-distance trade in the early terra sigillata production at the Italian workshops, Lyon, and La Graufesenque, to a large-scale production at both larger and smaller workshops in Central Gaul in the second century CE. My suggestion is that parts of the terra sigillata distribution could be closely connected to the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire. However, as presented in the discussion recent studies have discussed the possibility of these economic factors behind the emergence of the production. I believe this to have been the case for the shift of the production to Central Gaul in the second century CE. The increase in the total amount of production sites, as well as the increase in the distribution may indicate a possible increase in the total amount of consumers, especially in the area of Germania Magna. This could have further contributed to more open trade during the second century and early third century CE. In the period during the last stage of the terra sigillata production I believe that the visible decrease especially in around 270 CE could be closely connected to the multiple political troubles along the frontiers at that time. There could also have been a decrease in the market which resulted in a downscaled production and the loss of need of multiple production sites. Has the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire affected the distribution of terra sigillata? Yes, these campaigns partially affected both the terra sigillata production and the distribution in Germania Magna. It should be added that there is a possibility that the socio-economic relation with the entrepreneurs and the emergence of a production also did affect the distribution beyond the northern frontier. However, it is unclear if these campaigns did have any effect on the entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the contextual difference between the northwest and northeast, which has seemingly not been affected by the military and diplomatic campaigns, show that the terra sigillata in the northeast has perhaps had a set type of value. This would be interesting to compare to the area

47 closer to the Danube in order to see if the Roman presence along that front actually had an impact on the terra sigillata material in the northeast, or if this pattern is special for the area which have been studied. How does this correspond to previous research? By giving a closer look on the distribution and production of terra sigillata as well as the military and diplomatic campaigns of the Roman Empire it is evident that this type of Roman vessel have been connected to the military and the general Roman presence as observed by Erdrich and Grane. However, it seems that with the Roman- Germanic interaction an increase in the market was available even if the objects traveled as alienable or inalienable objects. This indicating that the distribution and production was no longer in the need of the military to continue the production which was now perhaps also for people beyond the limes. Studying this material over a vast area has proven to have shown important aspects in the Roman-Germanic interaction. The quantitative observations made by Hedeager in the material of Roman goods have been hard to distinguish in this study, as no clear quantitative difference have been visible. However, by investigating the material with a more regional approach has shown that different influxes were present during the production of terra sigillata to Germania Magna.

48 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrectsen, E. 1968. Fynske Jernaldersgrave. Band III. Fynske Studier VII. Odense Bys Museer. Andelsbogtrykkeriet. Odense. Albrectsen, E. 1971a. Fynske Jernaldersgrave. Band IV.1 Tekst. Fynske Studier IX. Odense Bys Museer. Andelsbogtrykkeriet. Odense. Albrectsen, E. 1971b. Fynske Jernaldersgrave. Band IV.2 Tavler. Fynske Studier IX. Odense Bys Museer. Andelsbogtrykkeriet. Odense. Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In The Social Life of Things. Edit. Appadurai, A. (pp. 3-63) Ausbüttel, F.M. 2012. Die Verwaltung des Rhein-Main-Gebietes in römischer Zeit. In Römer im Rhein-Main-Gebiet. Edit., Ausbüttel, F.M., Krebs, U., Maier, G. (pp. 55-66) Becker, A. & Rasbach, G. 2015. Waldgirmes. Die Ausgrabungen in der spätaugusteischen Siedlung von Lahnau-Waldgirmes (1993-2009). Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Band 71. Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Darmstadt. Berke, S. 1990. Römische Bronzegefässe und Terra Sigillata in der Germania Liberia. Boreas Beihaft 7. Münster. Brodersen, K. 2005. ”Aus römischer sicht”. Rhein und Neckar am Rand der Welt. In Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellung des Landes Baden- Württemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober 2005 bis 8. Januar 2006. (pp. 30-33) Bulmer, M. 1980. An Introduction to Roman Samian Ware. Chester Archaeological Society. Gee and Son. Denbigh. Bunte, C. 1960. Ein Terra sigillata Fund von Kroneborg, Schonen. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum. (pp. 216-222) CRFB D1 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 1994. Deutschland, Band 1: Bundesländer Brandenburg och Berlin. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D2 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 1995. Deutschland, Band 2: Freistaat Sachsen. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D3 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 1998. Deutschland, Band 3: Bundesland Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D4 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2002. Deutschland, Band 4: Hansestadt Bremen und Bundesland Niedersachen. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D5 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2004. Deutschland, Band 5: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg und Land Schleswig-Holstein. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn.

49 CRFB D6 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2006. Deutschland, Band 6: Land Sachsen-Anhalt. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D7 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2009. Deutschland, Band 7: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Landesteile Westfalen und Lippe. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB D8,1 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2017. Deutschland, Band 8,1: Freeistat Thüringen. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn. CRFB P1 = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2001. Polen, Band 1: Masuren. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warszawa. CRFB L = Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum. 2001. Litauen. Universität Vilnius Lehrstuhl für Archäologie. Vilnius. Cunliffe, B. 1994. The Impact of Rome on Barbarian Society, 140 BCE-AD 300. In The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe. Edit., Cunliffe, B. (pp. 411-446) Derks, H. 2009. Die Varusschlacht. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht - Konflikt. Red. Stefan Burmester & Heidrun Derks (pp. 36-55) Donat, P. 1986. Hausbau und Siedlung. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 2. (pp. 81-89) Eck, W. 2009. Die politische Situation im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Das Imperium Romanum und die Provinzen am Rhein. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht - Konflikt. Edit., Stefan Burmester & Heidrun Derks. (pp. 184-191) Eggers, H. J. 1951. Der römischen Import im freien Germanien. Text. J.J. Augustin. Glückstadt. Erdrich, M. 2001. Rom und die Barbaren: das Verhältnis zwischen dem Imperium Romanum und den germanischen Stämmen von seiner Nordwestgrenze von der späten römischen Republik bis zum gallischen Sonderreich. Römisch-germanische Forschungen, 58. Mainz am Rhein. Zabern. Fingerlin, G. 2005. Von den Römern zu den Alamannen. In Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober 2005 bis 8. Januar 2006. (pp. 452-462) Geschwinde, M., Haßmann, H., Lönne, P, Meyer, M. Moosbauer, G. 2009. Roms vergessener Feldzug. Das neu entdeckte Schlachtfeld am Harzhorn in Niedersachsen. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht - Konflikt. Edit., Stefan Burmester & Heidrun Derks. (pp. 228-232) Gimbutas, M. 1985. East Baltic amber in the fourth and third millennia B.C. In Journal of Baltic Studies 16 (3). (pp. 231-256) Goldsworthy, A. 2016. Pax Romana. War Peace and Conquest in the Roman World. Yale University Press. Grane, T. 2007. The Roman Empire and Southern Scandinavia - A Northern Connection! University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen.

50 Grane, T. 2017. Moderns Perceptions of Roman-Scandinavian Relations: Research History and Interpretations. In Romans & Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers. Archaeology, Ideology & Identities in the North. Edit., Gonzales Sanchez, S. & Guglielmi, A. (pp. 83-104) Günther, R. 1986. Römer und Germanen im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 2. (pp. 632-646) Hartley, B.R. 1969. Samian Ware or Terra Sigillata. In The Archaeology of Roman Britain with A Chapter by B.R. Hartley on Samian Ware. (pp. 235- 251) Heather, P. 2006. The Fall of the Roman Empire. A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Hedeager, L. 1980. A Quantitative Analysis of Roman Imports in Europe North of the Limes (0-400 A.D.), and the Question of Roman-Germanic Exchange. In New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Edit., Kristiansen, K. & Paludan-Müller, C. (pp. 191-216) Helander, A. 1997. Ett Terra Sigillata-kärl i Linköping - det hittills nordligaste fyndet. In Fornvännen 92:2. (pp. 49-56) Henriksen, M. B. 2009. Brudager Mark - en romertidsgravplads nær Gudme på Sydøstfyn. Band 1. Fynske Studier 22. Odense Bys Museer. Odense. Kehne, P. 2009. Rom in Not. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht - Konflikt. Edit., Stefan Burmester & Heidrun Derks. (pp. 98-108) Keiling, H. 1983. Die Entstehung der Jastorfkultur und zeitgleicher Kulturen im Rhein- Weser- Gebiet und deren geographische Verbreitung. In Die Germaninen. Ein Handbuch. Band 1. (pp. 86-104) Kemkes, M. 2005. Vom Rhein an den limes und wieder zurück. Die Besetzungsgeschichte Südwestdeutschlands. In Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober 2005 bis 8. Januar 2006. (pp. 44-55) Komoróczy, B. 2009. Marcomannia. Der Militärschlag gegen die Markomannen und Quaden - ein archäologischer Survey. In 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht - Konflikt. Edit., Stefan Burmester & Heidrun Derks. (pp. 114-125) Krausse, D. 2005. Das Phänomen Romansierung. Antiker Vorläufer der Globalisierung? In Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober 2005 bis 8. Januar 2006. (pp. 56-62) Krüger, B. 1986. Die historische Situation zu Beginn des 3. Jahrhunderts. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 2. (pp. 11-20) Laser, R. 1983a. Römisch-germanische Beziehungen und die Angriffe des Imperiums gegen Germanien. Abwehrkämpfe germanischer Stämme und römische Germanien - Politik bis um die Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts. In Die Germaninen. Ein Handbuch. Band 1. (pp. 276-289)

51 Laser, R. 1983b. Wirtschaftlich Auswirkungen der römisch-germanischen Beziehungen. In Die Germaninen. Ein Handbuch. Band 1. (pp. 305-320) Laser, R. 1986. Römisch-germanische Beziehungen im 3. Jahrhundert. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 2. (pp. 32-56) Leube, A. 1983. Die nördlichen Elbgermanen und die angrenzenden Stämme bis zur Oder. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 1. (pp. 386-398) Lund Hansen, U. 1982. Die skandinavischen Terra Sigillata-Funde Zu ihrer Herkunft, Datierung und Relation zu den übrigen römischen Importen der jüngeren Kaiserzeit. In Studien zur Sachsenforshung 3. (pp. 75-99) Lund Hansen, U. 1987. Römischer Import im Norden. Det Kongelige nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Köpenhamn. Lund Hansen, U. 2014. Ein Reibschalenfragment aus Vorasse (Region Syddanmark/DK) - erster Fund von Reibschalen in Skandinavien. Honesta Missione - Festschrift für Barbara Pferdehirt. (pp. 445-454) Malcom, T. 1994. Barbarian Europe, AD 300-700. In The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe. Red., Cunliffe, B. (pp. 447-482) Mata, K. 2017. Of Barbarians and Boundaries: The Making and Remaking of Transcultural Discourse. In Romans & Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers. Archaeology, Ideology & Identities in the North. Edit., Gonzales Sanchez, S. & Guglielmi, A. (pp. 8-33) Morely, N. 2010. The Roman Empire: Roots of Imperialism. Pluto Press. London & New York. Mráv, Z. 2013. The Roman Army Along the Amber Road Between Poetovio and Carnuntum in the 1st Century A.D. - Archaeological Evidence. In Communicationes Archælogicæ Hungariæ. (pp. 49-100) Nielsen, P. O. 1994. The Gudme-Lundeborg Project Interdisciplinary Research 1988-91. In The Archaeology of Gudme and Lundeborg: papers presented at a conference at Svendborg, October 1991. Band 10. (pp. 16-22) Petterson, P. 2007. Terra sigillata från Söderåkra i Möre, Småland. In Fornvännen 2007:3. (pp. 200-202) Rudnick, B.P.M. 1995. Die verzierte Arretina aus Oberaden und Haltern. Bodenaltertümer Wesyfalens 31. Philipp von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein. Scarre, C. 1995. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome. Penguin Books. Schmidt, B. 1986. Die Alamannen. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 2. (pp. 336-360) Selling, D. 1938. Terra sigillatafynd i det fria Germanien. Kulturhistoriska studier tillägnade Nils Åberg. (pp. 101-114) Seyer, R. 1983. Antike Nachrichten. In Die Germanen. Ein Handbuch. Band 1. (pp. 37-63) Talbert, R. J. A. 2000. The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton University Press.

52 Thomsen, P. O. 1993. Handelspladsen ved Lundeborg. Lundeborg - en handelsplads fra jernalderen. Skrifter fra Svendborg og Omegns museum. Band 32. (pp. 68-101) Ulrich Nuber, H. 2005. Staatskrise im 3. Jahrhundert. In Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart 1. Oktober 2005 bis 8. Januar 2006. (pp. 442-451) Van Oyen, A. 2015. The Roman City as Articulated Through Terra Sigillata. In Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34 (3). (pp. 279-299) Vandkilde, H. 2000. Material Culture and Scandinavian Archaeology: A Review of the Concepts of Form, Function, and Context. In Form, Function & Context. Material culture studies in Scandinavian archaeology. Edit., Olausson, D. & Vandkilde, H. (pp. 3-49). Webster, J. 2001. Creolizing the Roman Provinces. In American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. 105(2). (pp. 209-225) Webster, P. 1996. Roman Samian Pottery in Britain. Practical Handbook in Archaeology 13. Council for British Archaeology. York. Wells, P. S. 1999. The Barbarians Speak. How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton University Press. Oxfordshire. Woolf, G. 1995. Beyond Romans and natives. In World Archaeology. Vol. 28(3). (pp. 339-350)

Digital resources The files from Ancient World Mapping Center are available under the Open Database License (ODbL 1.0). Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents License (DbCL 1.0).

Ancient World Mapping Center. ”rivers_plygons_final.shp”. [Accessed: April 9th, 2018. 12.59 PM]

Ancient World Mapping Center. ”inlandwater.shp”. [Accessed: April 9th, 2018. 13.31 PM]

Ancient World Mapping Center. ”openwater.shp”. [Accessed: April 9th, 2018. 14. 09 PM]

Ancient World Mapping Center. ”ba_roads.shp”. [Accessed: April 9th, 2018. 14.25 PM]

53 APPENDIX

ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID1 Zwenkau Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of La CRFB D2 29 1st century Graufesenque XIII-07-18/1.1

ID2 Deetz Germany Phase 1 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 70-80 CE La CRFB D6 burial 29 Graufesenque VII-17-1/1.1

ID3 Deetz Germany Phase 1 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 70-80 CE La CRFB D6 burial 29 Graufesenque VII-17-1/1.2

ID4 Hemschlar Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Before 50 South Gaul CRFB D7 CE IX-10-1/2.1

ID5 Vippache- Germany Phase 1 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff Late La CRFB D8,1 delhausen burial? 29 Neronian to Graufesenque XVII-17.25/1.3 early Vespasian

ID6 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Consectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 364

ID7 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2-3 Principate Rasbach 2015: 364

ID8 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 365

ID9 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID10 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID11 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 21,4? Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID12 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID13 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 8,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID14 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22-25 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID15 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 31 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID16 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 24/31 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID17 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

54 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID18 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18? Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID19 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4.1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID20 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2.5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID21 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID22 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 19,2.1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID23 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 2,4 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 366

ID24 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4/5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID25 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 266

ID26 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1-2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID27 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 366

ID28 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 367

ID29 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 367

ID30 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 22,1 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 268

ID31 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368

ID32 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID33 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1.5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID34 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID35 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,2/4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

55 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID36 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID37 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID38 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 368.

ID39 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & known 2? BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 371

ID40 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3? Principate Rasbach 2015: 371

ID41 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 371

ID42 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 371

ID43 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,10 Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID44 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 4,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID45 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID46 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID47 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID48 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID49 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 372.

ID50 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID51 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID52 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID53 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

56 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID54 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Cha- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & lice Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID55 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID56 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2.1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID57 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 373.

ID58 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & known 12 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID59 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID60 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID61 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4.1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID62 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,10 Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID63 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1.1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID64 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 2,5 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID65 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID66 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID67 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 2,5 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID68 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate/ Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Bowl Principate Rasbach 2015: 374.

ID69 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 375.

ID70 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1.4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 375.

ID71 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 375.

57 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID72 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 375.

ID73 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 375.

ID74 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 376.

ID75 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 377.

ID76 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 377.

ID77 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 377.

ID78 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 4,1-11 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID79 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Vessel Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID80 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Vessel Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID81 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID82 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID83 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID84 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 378.

ID85 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 379.

ID86 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 379.

ID87 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 379.

ID88 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,2/4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID89 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

58 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID90 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID91 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID92 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID93 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID94 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & B12,3-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 380.

ID95 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 15 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID96 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,12-13 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID97 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID98 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID99 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID100 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID101 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 14 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID102 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,10 Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID103 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14? Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID104 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate? Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID105 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 12,1/3 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 381.

ID106 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 4,6/13 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 382.

ID107 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 382.

59 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID108 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 382.

ID109 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID110 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID111 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID112 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID113 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Lyon Becker & (imita- 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 383.

ID114 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID115 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID116 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 383.

ID117 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 384.

ID118 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 384.

ID119 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID120 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID121 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID122 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID123 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 7 Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID124 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID125 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 385.

60 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID126 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate? Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID127 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 4,12 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID128 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 14,1.4/5 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID129 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 385.

ID130 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 387.

ID131 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID132 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID133 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3.4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID134 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID135 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID136 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 388.

ID137 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 22,1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 389.

ID138 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 389.

ID139 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 389.

ID140 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 390.

ID141 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1-2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 390.

ID142 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 390.

ID143 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate? Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 390.

61 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID144 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 390.

ID145 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID146 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID147 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID148 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 18var. Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID149 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3/4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID150 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID151 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID152 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID153 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22, 1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID154 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl? Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID155 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID156 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID157 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 3,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID158 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID159 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 391.

ID160 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 23 Principate Rasbach 2015: 392.

ID161 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 392.

62 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID162 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 393.

ID163 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 393.

ID164 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 395.

ID165 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 397.

ID166 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Haltern Becker & (imita- 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 397.

ID167 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate? Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 398.

ID168 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 399.

ID169 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 399.

ID170 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 12,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 399.

ID171 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 399.

ID172 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,9 Principate Rasbach 2015: 399.

ID173 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 401.

ID174 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 401.

ID175 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 36 Principate Rasbach 2015: 401.

ID176 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 401.

ID177 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 402.

ID178 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 402.

ID179 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 402.

63 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID180 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 402.

ID181 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID182 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID183 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID184 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID185 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID186 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 18,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID187 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID188 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID189 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Cup Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID190 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID191 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 404.

ID192 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & known 2,5 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 405.

ID193 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 405.

ID194 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 406.

ID195 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

ID196 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

ID197 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

64 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID198 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

ID199 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

ID200 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 407.

ID201 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,7-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 408.

ID202 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 408.

ID203 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 408.

ID204 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID205 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID206 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID207 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID208 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID209 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 410.

ID210 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID211 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID212 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID213 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID214 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID215 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,15 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

65 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID216 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID217 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID218 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID219 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 7 ca. 10 Lyon Becker & BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID220 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 411.

ID221 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 412.

ID222 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 413.

ID223 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 413.

ID224 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 413.

ID225 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 413.

ID226 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 413.

ID227 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 414.

ID228 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 414.

ID229 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 415.

ID230 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 415.

ID231 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 415.

ID232 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,10 Principate Rasbach 2015: 415.

ID233 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 415.

66 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID234 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate? Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID235 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID236 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID237 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID238 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID239 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 416.

ID240 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B ca. 10 Lyon Becker & known 4,1-11 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 417.

ID241 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 417.

ID242 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18? Principate Rasbach 2015: 417.

ID243 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 417.

ID244 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID245 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 15,1 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID246 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID247 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Haltern Becker & (imita- 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 418.

ID248 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4/5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID249 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & B4 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID250 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 418.

ID251 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

67 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID252 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID253 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID254 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,14-17 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID255 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID256 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID257 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID258 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 15/31,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID259 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID260 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID261 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID262 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID263 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID264 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Lyon Becker & (imita- 22,6 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 420.

ID265 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,9 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID266 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,7-12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID267 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,10 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID268 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 4,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID269 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

68 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID270 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID271 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID272 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 420.

ID273 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 421.

ID274 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 421.

ID275 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,14 Principate Rasbach 2015: 421.

ID276 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 421.

ID277 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 421.

ID278 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 422.

ID279 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 423.

ID280 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 424.

ID281 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Unkno Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & wn 4,1-11 Principate Rasbach 2015: 426.

ID282 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 426.

ID283 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18? Principate Rasbach 2015: 426.

ID284 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 426.

ID285 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 7? Principate Rasbach 2015: 427.

ID286 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 428.

ID287 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

69 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID288 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

ID289 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

ID290 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 19,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

ID291 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

ID292 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 429.

ID293 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 430.

ID294 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID295 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID296 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID297 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID298 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID299 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4var. Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID300 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 431.

ID301 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 433.

ID302 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 26,1 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 433.

ID303 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 433.

ID304 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 433.

ID305 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 434.

70 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID306 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 434.

ID307 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 434.

ID308 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 434.

ID309 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 435.

ID310 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 436.

ID311 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID312 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID313 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID314 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID315 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22/26 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID316 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Lyon Becker & (imita- 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 438.

ID317 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID318 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID319 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID320 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID321 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID322 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID323 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

71 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID324 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID325 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1/2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID326 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID327 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID328 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID329 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID330 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 438.

ID331 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 440.

ID332 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 26,1 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 440.

ID333 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 440.

ID334 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 440.

ID335 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & known 22,1 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID336 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & (imita- 22,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 441.

ID337 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,1-13 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID338 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID339 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID340 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID341 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

72 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID342 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID343 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID344 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 12,1 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID345 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12? Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID346 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1-2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID347 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID348 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 1,7 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID349 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID350 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18/19 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID351 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID352 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18? Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID353 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID354 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID355 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID356 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID357 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,2/4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID358 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID359 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

73 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID360 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID361 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID362 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID363 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID364 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID365 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID366 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID367 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID368 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID369 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 18,2 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID370 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 441.

ID371 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 442.

ID372 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 442.

ID373 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 444.

ID374 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 444.

ID375 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 444.

ID376 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 444.

ID377 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 444.

74 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID378 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 445.

ID379 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 18,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 445.

ID380 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & (imita- 22,1 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: tion) 445.

ID381 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 445.

ID382 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 1,7 Principate Rasbach 2015: 445.

ID383 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 445.

ID384 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: (imita- 445. tion)

ID385 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & (imita- 22 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: tion) 445.

ID386 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID387 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3 Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID388 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3/4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID389 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3-4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID390 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID391 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID392 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 448.

ID393 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 14? Principate Rasbach 2015: 450.

ID394 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown ca. 10 Lyon Becker & known BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 451.

ID395 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 451.

75 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID396 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 451.

ID397 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 451.

ID398 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID399 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID400 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown ca. 10 Lyon Becker & known BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID401 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID402 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID403 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID404 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID405 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 452.

ID406 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 12,3 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 453.

ID407 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 18,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID408 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 6 Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID409 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID410 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID411 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B ca. 10 Lyon Becker & 1,6 BCE-25 CE Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID412 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12.1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID413 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 14,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

76 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID414 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18? Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID415 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID416 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID417 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID418 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID419 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4,12 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID420 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID421 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID422 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID423 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID424 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22? Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID425 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID426 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID427 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 455.

ID428 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 456.

ID429 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 25,1 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 457.

ID430 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1 Principate Rasbach 2015: 457.

ID431 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,3 Principate Rasbach 2015: 457.

77 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID432 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 457.

ID433 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 457.

ID434 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 459.

ID435 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & (imita- 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: tion) 459.

ID436 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 459.

ID437 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2/4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 460.

ID438 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18,2/4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 461.

ID439 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 463.

ID440 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 464.

ID441 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 464.

ID442 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 464.

ID443 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 464.

ID444 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 2,7 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID445 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & 3,13 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID446 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,4.2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID447 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,5.2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID448 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18, 2.4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID449 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

78 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID450 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22,1.4 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID451 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 23,2 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID452 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 26? or 22,6 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID453 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22/23 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID454 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 22-27 Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID455 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID456 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & known Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID457 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 465.

ID458 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 12,2/4-5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 469.

ID459 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus Early Roman Unknown Becker & 18 Principate Rasbach 2015: 469.

ID460 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 469.

ID461 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 470.

ID462 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Unknown Early Roman Unknown Becker & Principate Rasbach 2015: 470.

ID463 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 18,2.5 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 471.

ID464 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 18,2.4 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 471.

ID465 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Un- Conspectus B Early Roman Unknown Becker & known 2,5 Principate Rasbach 2015: 473.

ID466 Waldgirmes Germany Phase 1 Settlement Plate Conspectus 50/30 BCE- Italian Becker & 18,2 ca. 20 CE Rasbach 2015: 473.

ID467 Brillerij Netherla Phase 1 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st century La Berke 1990: nds 37 CE/2nd half Graufesenque 191 of 1st century CE

79 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID468 Garnwerd Netherla Phase 1 Settlement Plate/ Dragendorff Vespasian- La Berke 1990: nds Shal- 18/31 domitian/2nd Graufesenque 194 low half of 1st century CE

ID469 Kimswerd Netherla Phase 1 Settlement Plate/ Dragendorff 1st century La Berke 1990: nds Shal- 18/31 CE/1st half Graufesenque 196 low of 1st century CE

ID470 Winsum Netherla Phase 1 Settlement Un- Unknown 40/30BCE- Italian Berke 1990: nds known middle of 1st 199 century CE

ID471 Żerków Poland Phase 1 Cremation Shal- Dragendorff 1-20- 2nd La Berke 1990: burial low 27 half of 1st Graufesenque 220 bowl century CE

ID472 Zubrza Poland Phase 1 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 1-20 CE-2nd South Gaul Berke 1990: (Pobiel) burial 24/25 half of 1st 221 century CE

ID473 Borstel Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd century Lezoux CRFB D6 burial? 38/44 VII-13-4/1.20

ID474 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd century- Unknown CRFB D7 37 beginning of X-01-1/23.52 3rd century

ID475 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd century- Unknown CRFB D7 37 beginning of X-01-1/23.92 3th century?

ID476 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl? Dragendorff 2nd century- Unknown CRFB D7 37? beginning of X-01-1/23.105 3rd century

ID477 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup or Unknown 2nd century? Unknown CRFB D7 bowl X-07-8/17.24

ID478 Waltrop Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd century Lavoye/La CRFB D7 37 Madeleine XI-06-10/3.2

ID479 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish? Dragendorff 2nd century Unknown CRFB D8,1 32? XVII-06-7/2.47

ID480 Möre, Sweden Phase 2 Burial? Bowl? Dragendorff 2nd century Rheinzabern? Petterson 2007: Söderåkra 37? 200

ID481 Eythra Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 100-125 CE? Heiligenberg? CRFB D2 (2a) 37 XIII-07-3/1.1

ID482 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st half of La Madeleine CRFB D4 tumersiel (2a) 37 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.4

ID483 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2a) 30/Gose 24 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.6

ID484 Gielde Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Curle 15 1st half of Middle Gaul CRFB D4 (2a) 2nd century XXII-10-6/1.1

ID485 Uhrsleben Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Probably Unknown CRFB D6 (2a) 37 Antonian VII-05-18/1.1

ID486 Bösenburg Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl? Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Unknown CRFB D6 (2a) 37? 2nd century VIII-04-2/1.2

ID487 Bösenburg Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Blickweiler CRFB D6 (2a) 37 2nd century VIII-04-2/1.2

80 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID488 Bösenburg Germany Phase 2 Settlement Vessel Unknown 2nd fourth of Unknown CRFB D6 (2a) 2nd century VIII-04-2/1.2

ID489 West- Germany Phase 2 Stray find?/ Bowl Dragendorff 130-150 CE Trier CRFB D7 büderich (2a) Burial? 37 IX-11-12/19.1

ID490 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Trier CRFB D7 (2a) 37 2nd century X-07-8/17.20

ID491 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Shal- Dragendorff Around 1st Chémery- CRFB D8,1 (2a) burial low 31 third of 2nd Faulquemont XVII-07-16/1.1 bowl century 2

ID492 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2a) burial 37 2nd century? XVII-07-16/1.3 6

ID493 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Vessel Unknown 2nd fourth of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2a) burial 2nd century? XVII-07-16/1.3 6

ID494 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Vessel Unknown 2nd fourth of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2a) burial 2nd century? XVII-07-16/1.3 6

ID495 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 90-140 CE La Madeleine Berke 1990: nds (2a) 37 191

ID496 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 90-160 CE Heiligenberg? Berke 1990: nds (2a) 37 191

ID497 Kimswerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sa 90-160 CE Heiligenberg Berke 1990: nds (2a) 196

ID498 Raskwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 90-140 CE La Madeleine Berke 1990: nds (2a) 37 198

ID499 Damme Germany Phase 2 Inhumation Bowl Dragendorff 175-225 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D1 (2b) burial 37 V-08-3/1.3

ID500 Wüste Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 175-225 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D1 Kun- (2b) 37 V-09-15/1.1 ndersdorf

ID501 Wüste Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 150-250 CE Rheinzabern? CRFB D1 Kun- (2b) 33 V-09-15/1.1 ndersdorf

ID502 Liebersee Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last third of Rheinzabern CRFB D2 (2b) 37 2nd century? XIII-09-4/2.1

ID503 Rekum Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) low 31 2nd century XVIII-**-1/14.1 bowl to middle of 3rd century

ID504 Wartum Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 37 2nd century XVIII-**-1/19.1

ID505 Wartum Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 33 2nd century XVIII-**-1/19.2

ID506 Arle Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-195 CE Middle Gaul CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XIX-07-2/1.1

ID507 Arle Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) low 31 2nd century XIX-07-2/1.2 bowl and 1st half of 3rd century

81 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID508 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-190 CE Trier CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 37 XIX-12-3/2.2

ID509 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-190 CE Trier CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 37 XIX-12-3/2.3

ID510 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 175-225 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 37 XIX-12-3/2.5

ID511 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 37 century XIX-12-3/2.7

ID512 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 37 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.8 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID513 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.10 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID514 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.11 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID515 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.12 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID516 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.13 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID517 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) low 31 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.14 bowl and 1st half of 3rd century

ID518 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.15 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID519 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.16 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID520 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.17 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID521 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) low 31 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.18 bowl and 1st half of 3rd century

82 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID522 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 33 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.19 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID523 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 33 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.20 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID524 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.21 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID525 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.22 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID526 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.23 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID527 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) known 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.24 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID528 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) low 31 century to XIX-12-3/2.26 bowl middle of 3rd century

ID529 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 54/Déchelette century and XIX-12-3/2.27 72 early 3rd century

ID530 Ben- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sb 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 tumersiel (2b) 2nd century XIX-12-3/2.28

ID531 Erpen Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XIX-14-9/3.1 72 early 3rd century

ID532 Oldendorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 45 century and XIX-14-13/3.4 1st half of 3rd century

ID533 Oldendorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 45 century and XIX-14-13/3.5 1st half of 3rd century

ID534 Hunter- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 brück (2b) 45 century and XIX-16-4/2.3 Wührden 1st half of 3rd century

ID535 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-190 CE Middle Gaul CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XIX-16-5/1.1

83 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID536 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 145-190 CE Middle Gaul CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XIX-16-5/1.2

ID537 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 45 century and XIX-16-5/1.3 1st half of 3rd century

ID538 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Plate/ Dragenorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) Shal- 18/31? century and XIX-16-5/1.4 low 1st half of bowl? 3rd century

ID539 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Plate Niederbieber 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 5b 2nd century XIX-16-5/1.5 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID540 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 37 2nd century XIX-16-5/1.6 and 3rd century

ID541 Einswarden Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) low 31 2nd century XIX-16-5/1.7 bowl and 1st half of 3rd century

ID542 Brill Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 145-190 CE Middle Gaul CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XIX-17-1/1.1

ID543 Aldorf- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Barnstorf (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XX-02-1/2.26 72 early 3rd century

ID544 Aldorf- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Barnstorf (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XX-02-1/2.27 72 early 3rd century

ID545 Aldorf- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Barnstorf (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XX-02-1/2.28 72 early 3rd century

ID546 Tündern Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 54/Déchelette century and XX-03-4/3.1 72 early 3rd century

ID547 Bavenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 33 2nd century XX-05-9/1.4 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID548 Bavenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 33 2nd century XX-05-9/1.5 and 1st half of 3rd century

ID549 Bavenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish/ Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D4 (2b) Cup 32/33 2nd century XX-05-9/1.6

ID550 Bavenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 54/Déchelette century and XX-05-9/1.7 72 late 3rd century

84 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID551 Burg- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-190 CE Trier CRFB D4 stemmen (2b) 37 XX-05-10/1.1

ID552 Burg- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Probably Unknown CRFB D4 stemmen (2b) 37 2nd half of XX-05-10/1.2 2nd century

ID553 Burg- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff Probably Unknown CRFB D4 stemmen (2b) low 31? 2nd half of XX-05-10/1.2 bowl? 2nd century

ID554 Burg- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff Probably Unknown CRFB D4 stemmen (2b) low 31 2nd half of XX-05-10/1.2 bowl? 2nd century

ID555 Möllen- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern? CRFB D4 beck (2b) burial 37 2nd century XX-08-4/1.5

ID556 Möllen- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd and Unknown CRFB D4 beck (2b) burial 54/Déchelette early 3rd XX-08-4/1.6 72 century

ID557 Höltjer Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of La Madeleine CRFB D4 Höhe (2b) burial 37 2nd century XXI-02-6/6.3

ID558 Höltjer Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Höhe (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XXI-02-6/6.4 72 early 3rd century

ID559 Oxstedter Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Heide (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XXI-02-6/9.1 72 early 3rd century

ID560 Oxstedter Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 Heide (2b) burial 54/Déchelette century and XXI-02-6/9.2 72 early 3rd century

ID561 Warstade Germany Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) burial ? 45/Déchelette 2nd century - XXI-02-11/2.16 72? middle (?) of 3rd century

ID562 Köhlen Germany Phase 2 Cremation Shal- Dragendorff From 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) burial low 31/ half of 2nd XXI-02-12/1.2 bowl/ Niederbieber century and Plate 5 1st half of 3rd century

ID563 Uthlede Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-190 CE Trier CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XXI-02-26/1.1

ID564 Wester- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 150-170 CE Trier CRFB D4 wanna (2b) burial 37 XXI-02-27/1.27

ID565 Asch- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 warden (2b) known century to XXI-06-5/1.1 middle of 3rd century

ID566 Neuen- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 kirchen (2b) 37 century to XXI-06-5/2.1 middle of 3rd century

ID567 Westerholz Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 175-230 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D4 (2b) 37 XXI-07-7/1.1

85 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID568 Lob- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 machtersen (2b) 37 2nd century XXII-02-1/2.11 and early 3rd century

ID569 Kleiner Germany Phase 2 Settlement? Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern? CRFB D4 Hagen (2b) 37 2nd century XXII-04-3/4.1

ID570 Oldendorp Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff Late 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 54 century and XXII-07-3/1.3 early 3rd century

ID571 Salzder- Germany Phase 2 Settlement? Bowl Dragendorff Middle 2nd Middle Gaul/ CRFB D4 helden (2b) 37 century to La Madeleine XXII-07-3/2.1 early 3rd century

ID572 Cremlingen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) low 31 2nd century XXII-10-2/1.1 bowl and 1st half of 3rd century

ID573 Halchter Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D4 (2b) 38 to middle XXII-10-12/3.1 3rd century

ID574 Ostermoor Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-05-6/1.1 and 3rd century

ID575 Tofting Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-190 CE Middle Gaul CRFB D5 (2b) 37 XXIV-07-7/1.1

ID576 Tofting Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff Middle 2nd- Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) low 31 middle 3rd XXIV-07-7/1.2 bowl century

ID577 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Lavoye CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.1 and early 3rd century

ID578 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.5 and early 3rd century

ID579 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.6 and early 3rd century

ID580 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Trier CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.10 and early 3rd century

ID581 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Trier CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.11 to early 3rd century

ID582 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.12 and 3rd century

86 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID583 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.13 and 3rd century

ID584 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 37 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.14 and 3rd century

ID585 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) low 31 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.15 bowl and 3rd century

ID586 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 33 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.16 and 3rd century

ID587 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 54/Déchelette 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.17 72 and 3rd century

ID588 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) 54/Déchelette 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.18 72 and 3rd century

ID589 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID590 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID591 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID592 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID593 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID594 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID595 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

87 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID596 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID597 Hodorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D5 (2b) known 2nd century XXIV-14-2/1.19 and beginning of 3rd century

ID598 Borstel Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D6 (2b) burial? 37 2nd century VII-13-4/1.19 to ca. 170 CE

ID599 Nacht- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish? Dragendorff Ca. 2nd half Rheinzabern CRFB D6 erstedt (2b) 32? of 2nd VIII-01-8/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID600 Preußlitz Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff Ca. 2nd half Rheinzabern? CRFB D6 (2b) 32 of 2nd VIII-02-15/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID601 Schloß Germany Phase 2 Settlement? Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D6 Oberwieder (2b) 33 2nd VIII-06-9/1.1 stedt century-1st half of 3rd century

ID602 Quenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D6 (2b) 32 2nd VIII-06-10/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID603 Quenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D6 (2b) 37 2nd VIII-06-10/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID604 Roßbach Germany Phase 2 Settlement? Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D6 (2b) 33 2nd VIII-10-19/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID605 Roßbach Germany Phase 2 Settlement? Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D6 (2b) 37 2nd VIII-10-19/1.1 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID606 Großjena Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D6 (2b) 37 of 2nd VIII-11-5/1.4 century

ID607 Großjena Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D6 (2b) 37 of 2nd VIII-11-5/1.4 century

ID608 Großjena Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff Antonian- Rheinzabern? CRFB D6 (2b) 32 Verlarian? VIII-11-5/1.27

ID609 Zäckwar Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff Probably Unknown CRFB D6 (2b) 32 2nd half of VIII-11-14/1.1 2nd century

88 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID610 Freyburg Germany Phase 2 Cremation Plate Ludowici Tb End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D6 (Unstrut) (2b) burial century VIII-12-2/1.10

ID611 Ballenstedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Antonian- Rheinzabern CRFB D6 (2b) 37 Verlarian? VIII-13-2/1.1

ID612 Groß- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Dish Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D6 kühnau (2b) burial 32 2nd century - VIII-21-1/1.11 1st half of 3rd century

ID613 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-220 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D7 (2b) 37 IX-01-1/6.11

ID614 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 18/Alzey 6 century-first IX-01-1/6.22 half of 3rd century

ID615 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl? Dragendorff End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 37? century - IX-01-1/6.29 beginning of 3rd century?

ID616 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Niederbieber end of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 21b century- IX-01-1/6.41 beginning of 3rd century

ID617 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Niederbieber end of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 21b century- IX-01-1/6.42 beginning of 3rd century

ID618 Harpen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Niederbieber end of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 21b century- IX-01-1/6.43 beginning of 3rd century

ID619 Mengede Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D7 (2b) 37 century- IX-02-1/17.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID620 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 175-250 CE Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) burial 37/ X-01-1/22.2 Niederbieber 16

ID621 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of East Gaul CRFB D7 (2b) burial 37 2nd century- X-01-1/22.18 middle of 3th century

ID622 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D7 X- (2b) 37 century- 01-1/23.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID623 Sieker Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 37 century-first X-01-1/23.93 half of 3rd century

ID624 Oeting- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 180-250 CE Unknown CRFB D7 hausen (2b) 33 X-03-4/2.2

ID625 Grastrup- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-220 CE Trier CRFB D7 Hölsen, (2b) 37 X-05-2/5.3 'Hündersen'

89 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID626 Grastrup- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Trier CRFB D7 Hölsen, (2b) 37 century-1st X-05-2/5.4 'Hündersen' half of 3rd century

ID627 Lügde Germany Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern CRFB D7 (2b) 37 /220 CE X-05-12/1.8

ID628 Minden Germany Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern CRFB D7 (2b) 37 /220 CE X-06-5/4.1

ID629 Minden Germany Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern? CRFB D7 (2b) 37 /220 CE X-06-5/5.3

ID630 Minden Germany Phase 2 Burial Shal- Dragendorff Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) low 31 century- X-06-5/6.1 bowl middle 3rd century

ID631 Lahde Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-225 CE Trier CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-06-6/6.1

ID632 Lahde Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-200 CE? Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-06-6/6.2

ID633 Lahde Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165/170 Trier CRFB D7 (2b) 37 CE X-06-6/6.4

ID634 Lahde Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 170-190 CE Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-06-6/6.5

ID635 Costedt Germany Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-06-7/5.1

ID636 Costedt Germany Phase 2 Burial Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of East Gaul CRFB D7 (2b) 40/ 2nd century- X-06-7/5.13 Niederbieber middle 3rd 10 century

ID637 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160-195 CE Lezoux CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-07-8/17.4

ID638 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Trier CRFB D7 (2b) 37 2nd century X-07-8/17.29

ID639 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-200 CE Lezoux CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-07-8/17.33

ID640 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-200 CE Lezoux CRFB D7 (2b) sherds 37 X-07-8/17.34 connected to the vessel in pit P77/13 9b)

ID641 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-200 CE Lezoux CRFB D7 (2b) sherd 37 X-07-8/17.35 connected to the vessel in pit P77/13 9b)

ID642 Paderborn Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-200 CE Rheinzabern? CRFB D7 (2b) 37 X-07-8/17.37

90 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID643 Erin Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 21b century- XI-06-1/6.82 beginning of 3rd century

ID644 Erin Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 24b century- XI-06-1/6.83 beginning of 3rd century

ID645 Erin Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 19 century- XI-06-1/6.84 beginning of 3rd century

ID646 Erin Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 21b century- XI-06-1/6.86 beginning of 3rd century

ID647 Herten Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 37 century- XI-06-6/1.1 beginning of 3rd century

ID648 Herten Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 15 century- XI-06-6/1.2 beginning of 3rd century

ID649 Herten Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 15 century- XI-06-6/1.3 beginning of 3rd century

ID650 Herten Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 15 century- XI-06-6/1.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID651 Herten Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D7 (2b) 38 century- XI-06-6/1.5 beginning of 3rd century

ID652 Sülzdorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle 2nd Blickweiler CRFB D8,1 (Haina) (2b) 37 century XVII-05-12/3.1 2

ID653 Sülzdorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-260CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (Haina) (2b) 37 XVII-05-12/3.1 5

ID654 Arnstadt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Dragendorff Last third of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 54 2nd XVII-06-1/4.1 century-1st third of 3rd century?

ID655 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 185 CE-2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 third of 3rd XVII-06-7/1.25 century

ID656 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140/270 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/1.28

ID657 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 of 2nd XVII-06-7/2.13 century/1st fourth of 3rd century?

91 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID658 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last third of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century? XVII-06-7/2.18

ID659 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 of 2nd XVII-06-7/2.19 century

ID660 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-250/270 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 CE XVII-06-7/2.24

ID661 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 165-245 CE? Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/2.27

ID662 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 165-245 CE? Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/2.28

ID663 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-250/270 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 CE XVII-06-7/2.29

ID664 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 165-245 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/2.30

ID665 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 170-240/250 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 CE XVII-06-7/2.32

ID666 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-260 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/2.33

ID667 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-260 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 XVII-06-7/2.34

ID668 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Shal- Dragendorff Middle 2nd Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) low 31/ century-1st XVII-06-7/2.37 bowl/ Niederbieber third of 3rd Plate 1b century

ID669 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd XVII-06-7/2.38 century-1st third of 3rd century

ID670 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff Middle of Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33 2nd century- XVII-06-7/2.39 beginning of 3rd century

ID671 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff Late 2nd Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) 45 century- XVII-06-7/2.40 middle of 3rd century

ID672 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Beaker Niederbieber End of 2nd Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) 24b/25 century- XVII-06-7/2.43 beginning of 3rd century; especially middle of 3rd century

ID673 Haarhausen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff Middle 2nd Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33 century- XVII-06-7/2.50 middle 3rd century

ID674 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Shal- Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) burial low 31 2nd century XVII-07-16/1.4 bowl

ID675 Ichstedt Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) burial 37 of 2nd XVII-07-16/1.2 century 1

92 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID676 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 32 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.1 beginning of 3rd century

ID677 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Dish/ Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) Plate 32/ 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.1 Niederbieber beginning of 5b 3rd century

ID678 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.1 beginning of 3rd century

ID679 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.2 beginning of 3rd century

ID680 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.3 beginning of 3rd century

ID681 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Unknown CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33? 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.3 beginning of 3rd century

ID682 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 36/38 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID683 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-08-1/1.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID684 Bielen Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-08-1/.14 beginning of 3rd century

ID685 Großwechs Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 170/180-230 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 ungen (2b) 37 /240 CE XVII-08-4/1.1

ID686 Heringen/ Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 Helme (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-08-5/3.1 beginning of 3rd century

ID687 Heringen/ Germany Phase 2 Settlement Vessel Unknown 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 Helme (2b) 2nd XVII-08-5/3.3 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID688 Nordhausen Germany Phase 2 Inhumation Bowl/ Niederbieber 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) burial Plate 6a 2nd century- XVII-08-9/2.10 early 3rd century

ID689 Nordhausen Germany Phase 2 Inhumation Bowl Niederbieber End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) burial 19 century-early XVII-08-9/2.11 3rd century

ID690 Steigerthal Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Last fourth Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 of 2nd XVII-08-10/1.3 century

93 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID691 Steigerthal Germany Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 2nd half of Trier CRFB D8,1 (2b) 33 2nd century- XVII-08-10/1.4 beginning of 3rd century

ID692 Uthleben Germany Phase 2 Settlement Vessel Unknown 2nd half of Rheinzabern? CRFB D8,1 (2b) 2nd XVII-08-13/1.2 century-1st half of 3rd century

ID693 Uthleben Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-08-13/2.2 beginning of 3rd century

ID694 Buttstädt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 century-2nd XVII-13-7/1.9 third of 3rd century

ID695 Frohndorf Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 2nd century XVII-13-11/4.2

ID696 Großneu- Germany Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 hausen (2b) burial 37 century-1st XVII-13-13/1.2 half of 3rd century

ID697 Olbers- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 3rd fourth of Lezoux CRFB D8,1 leben (2b) 37 2nd century XVII-13-26/2.1

ID698 Udestedt Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (2b) 37 century-1st XVII-13-34/2.1 half of 3rd century

ID699 Großo- Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 3rd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 bringen (2b) 37 2nd century- XVII-17-7/1.1 middle of 3rd century

ID700 Neumark Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle-2nd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 (bei (2b) 37 half of 2nd XVII-17-19/2.1 Weimar) century

ID701 Ottstedt am Germany Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd half of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 Berge (2b) 37 2nd century XVII-17-22/1.2

ID702 Babięta Poland Phase Cremation Bowl Rogers 135-170 CE? Lezoux CRFB P1 2b burial C51-53? NMR-3-1/1

ID703 Babięta Poland Phase Cremation Bowl Unknown 135-170 CE? Lezoux CRFB P1 2b burial NMR-3-1/2

ID704 Babiety Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux? Berke 1990: (2b) 37 200

ID705 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 200

ID706 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 200

ID707 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Vessel Unknown 160/170-210 Unknown Berke 1990: (2b) burial /220 CE 200

ID708 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 200

ID709 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 200

94 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID710 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 200

ID711 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 200

ID712 Biała Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 CE 200

ID713 Drochlin Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 202

ID714 Gostkowo Poland Phase 2 Inhumation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 205

ID715 Grodzisk Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: Mazo- (2b) 37 /220 CE 206 wiecki

ID716 Igołomia Poland Phase 2 Settlement Vessel Unknown 140/150-260 Unknown Berke 1990: (2b) /275 CE? 206

ID717 Igołomia Poland Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: (2b) 43 /275 CE? 206

ID718 Kębliny Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 206f

ID719 Kębliny Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 207

ID720 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /275 CE? 207

ID721 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Lezoux Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 207

ID722 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: (2b) 37 207

ID723 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 207

ID724 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 207

ID725 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /275 CE? 207

ID726 Kietrz Poland Phase 2 Burial site Vessel Unknown 140/150-260 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: (2b) /275 CE? 207

ID727 Konin Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 208

ID728 Konin Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 208

ID729 Konin Poland Phase 2 Cremation Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Rheinzabern/ Berke 1990: (2b) burial CE Westerndorf 208

ID730 Konin Poland Phase 2 Unknown Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) CE 208

ID731 Konin Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-160 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /170 CE 208

ID732 Krajanka Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 209

95 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID733 Kutno Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) CE? 209

ID734 Lachmi- Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: rowice (2b) burial 37 210

ID735 Lachmi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: rowice (2b) 37 CE 210

ID736 Lachmi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 C Lezoux Berke 1990: rowice (2b) 37 210

ID737 Lachmi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: rowice (2b) 37 CE 210

ID738 Lachmi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: rowice (2b) 37 CE 210

ID739 Retkinia Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: 211 (2b) 37 CE

ID740 Młodzi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: 211 kowo (2b) CE

ID741 Młodzi- Poland Phase 2 Burial Beaker Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: 211 kowo (2b) 54 /275 CE?

ID742 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Trier? Berke 1990: (2b) 37 2nd 212 century-1st third of 3rd century?

ID743 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 160/170-210 Rheinzabern/ Berke 1990: (2b) /220 CE Westerndorf 212

ID744 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE? 212

ID745 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /275 CE? 212

ID746 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 213

ID747 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) CE 213

ID748 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Unknown Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) CE 213

ID749 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 213

ID750 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 213

ID751 Opatów Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 213

ID752 Pięczkowo Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) /275 CE? 214

ID753 Sadłowo Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) 37 /220 CE 215

ID754 Tarnów Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: Opolski (2b) 37 CE 217

ID755 Trupianka Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 217

96 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID756 Witas- Poland Phase 2 Unknown Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: zewice (2b) 37 218

ID757 Witas- Poland Phase 2 Unknown Vessel Unknown 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: zewice (2b) /220 CE 218

ID758 Witas- Poland Phase 2 Unknown Vessel Unknown 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: zewice (2b) CE 218

ID759 Zadowice Poland Phase 2 Burial Vessel Unknown 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) /220 CE 220

ID760 Zadowice Poland Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) 37 CE 220

ID761 Zalew Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /275 CE? 220

ID762 Zgierz Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 220

ID763 Zgierz Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Berke 1990: (2b) burial? 37 CE 220

ID764 Zubrza Poland Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: (Pobiel) (2b) burial 37 /275 CE 221

ID765 Arum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 /220 CE 190

ID766 Blija II Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Vessel Niederbieber 140-180 CE Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 8 190

ID767 Blija II Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 /220 CE 190

ID768 Blija II Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 /220 CE 190

ID769 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 190

ID770 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 190

ID771 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 190

ID772 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 191

ID773 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Cup Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: nds (2b) 33 191

ID774 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Plate? Ludowici Ti 140/150-275 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) CE 191

ID775 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 191

ID776 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 191

ID777 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 191f

ID778 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 2nd fourth of Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) known 2nd century CE- 1st third of 3rd century CE

97 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID779 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37

ID780 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37 2nd century CE- 1st third of 3rd century CE

ID781 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37

ID782 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37

ID783 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37

ID784 Brillerij Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) 37

ID785 Wierhuizen Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sa 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990:192 nds (2b) /220 CE

ID786 Eenum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 193

ID787 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sa- 140-180 CE Blickweiler Berke 1990: nds (2b) Sb 193

ID788 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 193

ID789 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 193

ID790 Ferwert Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 /220 CE 194

ID791 Ferwert Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-275 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 CE 194

ID792 Ferwert Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-275 Rheinzabern? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 CE 194

ID793 Garnwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sa 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) /220 CE 194

ID794 Garnwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 2nd century 195 CE-1st third of 3rd century CE

ID795 Garnwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE? Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 195

ID796 Joeswerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 196

ID797 Marssum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Dish Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 32 /220 CE 196

ID798 Onder- Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Berke 1990: dendam nds (2b) 37 196

ID799 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 197

ID800 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Ludowici SB 140-180 CE? Blickweiler Berke 1990: nds (2b) 197

98 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID801 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE? Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 197

ID802 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Trier? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 2nd century 197 CE- 1st third of 3rd century CE?

ID803 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Trier? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 2nd century 197 CE- 1st third of 3rd century CE?

ID804 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 197

ID805 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 197

ID806 Oostum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE? Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 197

ID807 Raskwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 198

ID808 Raskwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 198

ID809 Raskwerd Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE Lavoye? Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 198

ID810 Wierum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-275 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 CE 198

ID811 Wierum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-165 CE Trier Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 198

ID812 Wierum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE? Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 198

ID813 Wierum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140-180 CE? Lavoye Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 199

ID814 Wirdum Netherla Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 140/150-160 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds (2b) 37 /170 CE 199

ID815 Kroneborg Sweden Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 1-150/160 Unknown Bunte 1960: (2b) known CE 216; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 449, 474

ID816 Kroneborg Sweden Phase 2 Settlement Un- Unknown 1-150/160 Unknown Bunte 1960: (2b) known CE 216; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 449, 475

ID817 Känne Sweden Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf? Selling 1938: (Kärna) (2b) 37 CE 101, 111; Lund Hansen 1982: 90; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 446, 474; Berke 1990: 243; Helander 1997: 51

99 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID818 Enekrogen Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Eggers 1951: III (2b) burial? 37 /220 CE 90; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 418, 474; Berke 1990: 130

ID819 Sluesgård Denmark Phase 2 Inhumation Un- Unknown 150/160-400 Unknown Lund Hansen (2b) burial known CE 1987: 182, 474

ID820 Valløby Denmark Phase 2 Inhumation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Eggers 1951: (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 86; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 413, 474; Berke 1990: 131

ID821 Himlingøje Denmark Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Lund Hansen 1980 (2b) 37 1987: 182, 413, 474; Berke 1990: 249

ID822 Lundsgård Denmark Phase 2 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 180-233/240 Westerndorf Eggers 1951: (2b) 37 CE 82f; Lund Hansen 1982: 83; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 420, 474; Berke 1990: 252

ID823 Lindeskov Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 150/160-400 Rheinzabern? Albrectsen Hestehave (2b) burial 37 CE 1968: 78; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 426, 474

ID824 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Albrectsen -marken (2b) burial 54 /220 CE 1971a: 109; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 422, 474; Berke 1990: 130

ID825 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Albrectsen -marken (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 1971a: 71f; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 423, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Henriksen 2009: 380f

ID826 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 2 Burnt area Bowl? Dragendorff 150/160-250 Rheinzabern? Albrectsen -marken (2b) 37? /260 CE 1971a: 81; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 423, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Berke 1990: 130; Henriksen 2009: 380f

ID827 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Un- Unknown 150/160-250 Unknown Albrectsen -marken (2b) burial known /260 CE 1971a: 83; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 423, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Henriksen 2009: 380f

100 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID828 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 2 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Albrectsen -marken (2b) burial 37 /220 CE 1971a: 94; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 425, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Berke 1990: 131; Henriksen 2009: 380

ID829 Vorbasse Denmark Phase 2 Settlement Mortar Dragendorff 150/160-400 Unknown Lund Hansen (2b) 45 CE 2014: 430, 445

ID830 Enderup- Denmark Phase 2 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 150-195 CE Lezoux Lund Hansen skov (2b) 37 1982: 82f; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 430, 474; Berke 1990: 249

ID831 Kablow Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Niederbieber 2nd half of Trier CRFB D1 27/Gose 177 3rd century? IV-05-6/2.5

ID832 Wilhelm- Germany Phase 3 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 200-230 CE? Rheinzabern CRFB D1 saue, burial 37 V-07-9/1.25 Spreeau

ID833 Dewit Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st third of Rheinzabern CRFB D2 37 3rd century XIII-07-2/1.1

ID834 Kachlin Germany Phase 3 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 1st third of Rheinzabern CRFB D3 burial 30/Gose 24 3rd century I-10-5/1.3

ID835 Kachlin Germany Phase 3 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff 1st third of Rheinzabern CRFB D3 burial 54/Gose 162 3rd century I-10-5/1.4

ID836 Holzhausen Germany Phase 3 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff Around 200 Trier CRFB D4 burial 37 CE XIX-13-6/1.1

ID837 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.2

ID838 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.3

ID839 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.4

ID840 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.7

ID841 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.8

ID842 Hodorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D5 37 3rd century XXIV-14-2/1.9

ID843 Rockenthin Germany Phase 3 Cremation Bowl Dragendorff 3rd century Rheinzabern? CRFB D6 (Andorf, burial 37 VII-10-15/1.2 Henningen)

ID844 Bösau Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Probably last Rheinzabern CRFB D6 (Groß- 37 third of 3rd VIII-07-1/1.1 grimma) century

ID845 Wulfen Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Probably Rheinzabern CRFB D6 37 2nd third of VIII-09-26/2.1 3rd century

ID846 Leuna Germany Phase 3 Inhumation Bowl Dragendorff 1st fourth of Rheinzabern CRFB D6 burial 37 3rd century VIII-10-12/1.23

101 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID847 Leuna Germany Phase 3 Inhumation Bowl Dragendorff 2nd fourth of Rheinzabern CRFB D6 burial 37 3rd century VIII-10-12/1.27 (until after 260)

ID848 Harpen Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff End of 2nd Rheinzabern? CRFB D7 37 century-end IX-01-1/6.21 of 3rd century

ID849 Mengede Germany Phase 3 Burial Bowl Dragendorff 3rd century? Unknown CRFB D7 37 IX-02-1/16.3

ID850 Sieker Germany Phase 3 Cremation Beaker Dragendorff Beginning to Unknown CRFB D7 burial 10/54 the middle of X-01-1/22.3 3rd century

ID851 Oeting- Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 3rd century Unknown CRFB D7 hausen 37 X-03-4/2.1

ID852 Lahde Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff from 250 CE Unknown CRFB D7 37/Gose 18 X-06-6/6.3

ID853 Lahde Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 200-225 CE Unknown CRFB D7 37 X-06-6/6.6

ID854 Paderborn Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 210-275 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D7 37 X-07-8/17.31

ID855 Paderborn Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 210-275 CE Unknown CRFB D7 37 X-07-8/17.32

ID856 Bocholt Germany Phase 3 Settlement? Bowl Dragendorff 3rd century? Rheinzabern? CRFB D7 37 XI-04-2/4.1

ID857 Erin Germany Phase 3 Settlement Beaker Niederbieber 1st half of Unknown CRFB D7 27 3rd century XI-06-1/6.85

ID858 Schmede- Germany Phase 3 Settlement Un- Unknown 3rd-4th Unknown CRFB D7 hausen known century XI-07-2/2.1

ID859 Haarhausen Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 200-260 CE Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 XVII-06-7/2.41

ID860 Bielen Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 210/230-260 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 /270 CE XVII-08-1/1.5

ID861 Heringen/ Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Middle 3rd Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 Helme 37 century-2nd XVII-08-5/1.1 half of 3rd century

ID862 Steigerthal Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff Around 200 Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 CE-1st half XVII-08-10/1.5 of 3rd century

ID863 Buttstädt Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st fourth of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 3rd century XVII-13-7/1.2

ID864 Buttstädt Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st fourth of Unknown CRFB D8,1 37 3rd century XVII-13-7/1.3

ID865 Frohndorf Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st fourth of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 3rd century XVII-13-11/4.3

ID866 Olbers- Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 2nd third of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 leben 37 3rd century XVII-13-26/2.2

ID867 Olbers- Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Unknown 2nd third of Unknown CRFB D8,1 leben 3rd century? XVII-13-26/2.3

102 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID868 Udestedt Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 1st third of Rheinzabern CRFB D8,1 37 3rd century XVII-13-34/1.1

ID869 Wenigen- Germany Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Dragendorff 3rd Unknown CRFB D8,1 sömmern 37 century-4th XVII-13-37/1.1 century

ID870 Szcytno Poland Phase 3 Burial Vessel Unknown 210/220-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: /275 CE 217

ID871 Cornjum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 190 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID872 Cornjum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 313 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 190 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID873 Cornjum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 313 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 190 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID874 Cornjum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 190 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID875 Brillerij Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 342 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 191 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID876 Brillerij Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 191 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID877 Dronrijp Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 193 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID878 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Dragendorff 210/220-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds 37 /275 CE 193

ID879 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 193 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID880 Feerwerd Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 193 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID881 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 193 century-first fourth of 4th century

103 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID882 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 193 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID883 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID884 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID885 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID886 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID887 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID888 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID889 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Mortar Chenet 322c Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID890 Ferwert Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 194 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID891 Goutum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 195 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID892 Hallum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chennet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 195 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID893 Hege- Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: beintum nds of 3rd 196 century-first fourth of 4th century

104 ID Site Country Phase Context Form Type Dating of Production Reference object site

ID894 Marssum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 196 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID895 Menaldum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 313 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 196 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID896 Ooster- Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: beintum nds of 3rd 196 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID897 Tzum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Vessel Dragendorff 210/220-260 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: nds 37 /275 CE 198

ID898 Gross Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Ludowici Sa 160/170-210 Rheinzabern Berke 1990: Tolsum nds /220 CE 198

ID899 Wijnaldum Netherla Phase 3 Settlement Bowl Chenet 320 Last fourth Argonne Berke 1990: nds of 3rd 199 century-first fourth of 4th century

ID900 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 3 Inhumation Bowl? Dragendorff 210/220-250 Rheinzabern? Albrectsen -marken burial 37? /260 CE 1971a: 115f; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 423, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Henriksen 2009: 380f

ID901 Møllegårds Denmark Phase 3 Cremation Un- Unknown 210/220-250 Unknown Albrectsen -marken burial known /260 CE 1971a: 81; Albrectsen 1971b: 85; Lund Hansen 1987: 182, 423, 474; Thomsen 1993: 77; Nielsen 1994: 17f; Henriksen 2009: 380f

105