VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

COINS OR MONEY ?

EXPLORING THE MONETIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF ROMAN COINAGE IN BELGIC GAUL AND LOWER GERMANY 50 BC-AD 450

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. T. Sminia, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der Letteren op dinsdag 28 november 2000 om 13.45 uur in het hoofdgebouw van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105

door

Joris Gerardus Aarts

geboren te Nijmegen

promotor: prof.dr. W.A. van Es Preface

This book is the final result of a research programme that started in 1992. I started writing fairly soon after that, and I wrote it pretty much in the form and sequence which it has now. My ideas about the subject matter and the waysit should be tackled it have of course evolved a great deal since the beginning, and this evolution will be evident to the close reader, or even the not so close reader. In a sense, the book is the story of my struggle with archaeological numismatics, and I have not tried to eliminate this aspect from it. I cannot even say that I emerged as the unambiguous victor; but I have attempted to sweep the battlefield as clean as I was able to. It was a complex affair, and involved knowledge of not only the field of ancient numismatics itself, but also of ancient history, archaeology, economic anthropology and statistics. As a consequence, it will no doubt occasionally many specialists in these various disciplines, to whom I apologize beforehand. In the first chapter an introduction is presented in the aims and methods of the project. After this, two main issues in the discussion about the subject are examined, namely the nature of late Iron Age coinage and the Roman tax system. Chapter 2 is a general discussion of methodology, but certain aspects of it are to be found in later chapters where they were more relevant. The next three chapters offer an analysis of the coin finds of three selected areas: the Dutch river area, Luxemburg and Trier, and The Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area respectively. In chapter 6 the results of the three areas are compared, and some conclusions are drawn with regard to the functions of Roman money in the provinces of Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior, of which the three areas form part. I have given much thought to the presentation of the coin data. Because the coin database is very large (35,636 records), a printed list of all coin finds was out of the question. They had to be summarized in some way. I have chosen to omit the coin finds of Luxemburg and Trier entirely, since they have been published excellently in the FMRL and FMRD. The coin finds of the other two areas are summarized -only numbers of coins are given per issue period, but every site is included. Because this will be insufficient in detail for some, a more comprehensive list (in which Luxemburg and Trier are also included) with issuing authority and denominations is made available on the Internet. It can be downloaded from the site of the Archeological Institute of the Free University of Amsterdam (www.let.vu.nl/arch/aivu/Startpagina.htm; the address may change, not the location of the file on the site of the Institute). If one does not like the Internet, the list can be obtained on CD-ROM from the author (email: [email protected]). However, in a few years the inventory of coin finds will be so outdated by the progressive numbers of detector finds that it would not be advisable to use this list as reference any longer.

I owe thanks to many people without whose help I never could have written this book. I am grateful to Wim van Es, in particular for his endless patience and his continuing belief in the project in times of despair. I thank Richard Reece and Clive Orton for helping me find a usable method to evaluate the (dis)similarity between coin lists, avoiding at the same time the multiple comparison problem which it presents. I am also grateful to everyone else who made my stay at the Archaeological Institute of London an enjoyable one. I offer gratitude to Jos van der Vin and Johan van Heesch for supplying me with the data for the Dutch and Belgian parts of the study areas, and for the suggestions and comments they made during my stay in Leiden and Brussels. I would like to thank Jan Slofstra and Mik Lammers for reading the manuscript, their stimulating discussions and kind criticism. Also I express my gratitude to Jelle Prins; our sharing of research subjects as well as a room supplied me with many ideas and gave occasion to many a pleasant time. I am grateful to Harry Burgers for some of the drawing work that had to be done, and Bert Brouwenstijn for the design of the cover. Last but not least I want to thank my family; my father for correcting my English and Karen, Marein and Daan for putting up with a distraught husband and father at more times than I would have wished.

This publication has also been made possible by the financial support of the Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie.

III Preface to the online edition

Because I still get requests for hard copies of my dissertation every year, and I have run out of them, I have decided to publish my dissertation online. There are very few changes compared to the first edition: I have not tried to actualize data, nor literature, since this would involve too much work. Some figures were digitally corrupted and had to be made anew (they will look more sophisticated and are in full colour, one of the blessings of online publication). The original digital data set, as mentioned in the previous preface, is no longer online. For an updated data set of the Netherlands, I refer to the online databases of PAN and NUMIS, which are publicly available. I hope readers will still find enough of value in the text and analyses of the original work.

Joris Aarts,

June 2020

IV Table of contents

Preface ...... III Preface to the online edition ...... III

Chapter 1 Introduction...... 1

1.1 Aims and background of the research project ...... 1 1.1.1 The concept of monetization ...... 1 1.1.2 The object of this study ...... 2 Limits in time and space ...... 3 Method...... 4 1.1.3 The historical background: some important topics...... 4 1.2 The economic organisation before the coming of the Romans...... 5 1.2.1 Celtic coinage in the Late Iron Age...... 6 The origins of Celtic coinage; reasons for minting and secondary usage ...... 6 The period 125-60 BC ...... 7 The impact of the Gallic wars ...... 8 Late Celtic issues and Roman money ...... 10 1.3 Taxation in the early Empire ...... 10 1.3.1 The sources ...... 11 1.3.2 Roman taxation under the Principate ...... 11 From Caesar to Augustus ...... 12 The impact of the Roman tax-system...... 13 Taxes and trade ...... 13 The impact of taxation in the western provinces; an attempt to an alternative approach . . . . 15

Chapter 2 Methodology ...... 19

2.1 The nature of coin finds ...... 19 2.1.1 Identifying hoards and typology...... 19 2.1.2 Dating hoards, hoard clusters and interpretation of hoards ...... 20 2.1.3 Site finds: sites and settlements ...... 21 2.2 The sense of statistics ...... 22 2.2.1 Preparing the data ...... 23 2.2.2 Statistics and other numerical techniques ...... 24 Correlation analysis ...... 24 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests...... 25 Chronological profiles ...... 27 2.3 The art of representation ...... 28 2.3.1 Chronological distribution of coins ...... 28 2.3.2 Notes on the maps ...... 28

Chapter 3: The coin finds of the Dutch river area...... 30

3.1 Introduction ...... 30 3.2 The physical geography of the area...... 31 3.4 The inventory of the coin finds...... 31 3.4.1 Find spots, find complexes and settlements ...... 31 3.4.2 The coins; identification and classification...... 33 3.5 The analyses of the coin finds ...... 35

V 3.5.1 Geographical distribution ...... 35 3.5.2 The statistical analyses ...... 42 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests...... 42 Correlation analysis ...... 43 Chronological profiles before AD 260 ...... 46 Chronological profiles AD 260-402 ...... 49 Evaluation of the test results...... 49 3.6 Conclusion: the use of Roman coins in the Dutch river area from 50 BC -402 AD ...... 51 3.6.1 The period 50 BC - 69 AD...... 51 Celtic coins ...... 51 Early Roman money ...... 54 3.6.2 The period 69-260 AD ...... 58 Denominations and coin use ...... 63 3.6.3 The late Roman period (AD260-402) ...... 65 Geographical distribution of coins and hoards ...... 66 Late Roman solidi ...... 67 Mints...... 69 Denominations...... 69

Chapter 4 The coin finds of Luxemburg and Trier ...... 71

4.1 Selection of coin finds...... 71 4.2 The sites ...... 73 4.2.1 Settlements and infrastructure ...... 74 The city...... 75 The vici...... 77 The villas ...... 79 Sanctuaries ...... 83 Cemeteries ...... 86 'Substructions romaines' and other sites...... 87 4.3 Coin supply and coin use in the area of Luxemburg and Trier ...... 89 4.3.1 General trends...... 89 4.3.2 Coins and settlement types...... 91 Chronological distribution of the 'mean site' ...... 92 Similarity and dissimilarity of the sites and the mean site ...... 94 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests ...... 94 The correlation analyses ...... 97 The K-S tests; period after 260 AD ...... 98 Chronological profiles ...... 99 Historical implications ...... 102 4.3.3 Conclusion: coin use in Luxemburg and Trier 50 BC-AD 450 ...... 104 The early Roman period (50 BC-AD 69) ...... 104 Celtic coins...... 104 Distribution of early Roman coins ...... 109 The earliest circulation of Roman coins ...... 110 Denominations...... 113 The middle Roman period: AD 69-260 ...... 118 Distribution ...... 118 Coins and contexts...... 119 The late Roman period (AD 260-402) ...... 123

VI Geographical distribution ...... 123 Coin hoards ...... 125 Mints...... 126 Coins and contexts...... 128

Chapter 5 The coin finds of the MDS-area ...... 132

5.1 Introduction ...... 132 5.2 The geography ...... 132 5.2.1 Physical landscapes ...... 132 5.2.2 Cultural landscapes ...... 133 5.2.3 Choice of the region ...... 133 5.3 The coin database ...... 133 5.4 The site database ...... 135 5.5 Sites: the archaeological contexts ...... 137 5.5.1 Distribution ...... 137 5.5.2 Contexts...... 139 The city...... 139 Vici...... 141 Sanctuaries ...... 147 Villas ...... 149 Rural villages ...... 151 Cemeteries and single graves...... 152 Some historical aspects of the settlement system in the MDS-area ...... 153 5.6 Coin supply and coin use in the MDS-area ...... 155 5.6.1 General trends...... 155 5.6.2 Coins and settlement types...... 157 Chronological distribution of the ‘mean site’ ...... 157 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests ...... 158 Before AD 260...... 159 Chronological profiles ...... 160 Historical implications...... 163 Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests AD 260-450 ...... 164 Chronological profiles ...... 164 Historical implications...... 166 5.7 Conclusion: coin use in the MDS-area 50 BC - AD 450...... 168 5.7.1 The early-Roman period (50 BC - AD 69) ...... 168 Celtic coins...... 168 Distribution of early Roman coins ...... 171 The earliest circulation of Roman money...... 171 Denominations...... 174 Gold coins and hoards ...... 174 5.7.2 The middle Roman period (AD 69 - 260) ...... 178 Geographical distribution of coins ...... 178 Coin hoards and aurei ...... 179 Coins and contexts...... 182 Denominations...... 184 5.7.3 The late Roman period (AD 260-402) ...... 186 Geographical distribution of coins ...... 186

VII Hoards and single gold coins ...... 187 Coins and contexts...... 189 Mints and denominations ...... 191

Chapter 6 Conclusion ...... 197

6.1 General aspects of the three areas ...... 197 6.1.1 Size and population...... 197 6.1.2.History of coin recovery ...... 199 6.1.3 Coin supply ...... 199 6.1.4 Roman incentives for coin supply ...... 201 6.2 Monetization and coin circulation in Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany ...... 202 6.2.1 The early Roman period (50 BC - AD 69)...... 202 The nature of Celtic coins and their relation to early Roman coinage ...... 202 Early Roman coins; date of entry and velocity of circulation ...... 205 6.2.2 The middle Roman period AD 69-260 ...... 208 The developing economies of the three areas ...... 208 The use of Roman coins and the extent of monetization; religion and the market ...... 210 The third-century crisis ...... 213 6.2.3 The late Roman period (AD 260-450) ...... 217 Historical continuity and discontinuity ...... 217 Late Roman society and monetization ...... 218 6.3 Epilogue ...... 223

Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)...... 225

Bibliography...... 236

Appendix 1: Issue periods ...... 245 Appendix 2: Pearson and Spearman rank correlations between the chronological distribution of coins of individual sites and the Dutch river area mean before AD 260 ...... 246

Appendix 3: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles of sites of the Dutch river area before AD 260...... 247

Appendix 4: Pearson and Spearman rank correlations between the chronological distribution of coins of individual sites and the Luxemburg mean before AD 260 ...... 248

Appendix 5: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the sites of Luxemburg and Trier before AD 260 . . 250 Appendix 6: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the sites of Luxemburg and Trier AD 260-402 . . . . . 252 Appendix 7: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles of sites of the Dutch river area before AD 260 ...... 257

Appendix 8: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles for the sites of the MDS-area AD 260-402...... 259

Appendix 9: Site list ...... 260 Appendix 10: the coins of the Dutch river area and the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area by site and by issue period . 275 Appendix 11: the hoards of the three area s ...... 312

VIII List of figures

Figure 2.1: the circulation hoard of Ahn-Machtum found in 1958...... 19 Figure 2.2: scatter plot with linear regression line of the coin numbers of Hoogeloon and the mean site...... 24 Figure 2.3: Spearman rank correlation coefficients plotted in rank order ...... 25 Figure 2.4: cumulative percentage curves of Hoogeloon and the MDS mean...... 26 Figure 2.5: results of the K-S tests in the MDS-area ...... 26 Figure 2.6: chronological profile of Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers...... 27 Figure 3.2: results of the K-S tests ...... 42 Figure 3.3: chronological distribution of coins before AD 260 in the eastern and western river area ...... 43 Figure 3.4: scatter plot with regression line of the coin lists of the mean of the Dutch river area (DRA) and Elst...... 44 Figure 3.5: Spearman rank correlation coefficients plotted in rank order ...... 44 Figure 3.6: scatter plot with linear regression line of the coin lists of the mean of the Dutch river area (DRA) and Aalst. . 45 Figure 3.7: Spearman rank correlations without period 3 and 7 (Augustan and Flavian)...... 46 Figure 3.8: chronological profiles of the Dutch river area before AD 260 ...... 47 Figure 3.9: chronological profiles AD 260-450 ...... 49 Figure 3.10a: the chronological distribution of coin finds in the Dutch river area: raw coin numbers ...... 55 Figure 3.10b: the chronological distribution of coin finds in the Dutch river area according to Ravetz’ method...... 55 Figure 3.11: percentages of coin metal by issue period AD 69-260 ...... 64 Figure 3.12: percentage of silver coins in different site types AD 69-260 ...... 64 Figure 3.13: chronological distribution of the hoards of the Dutch river area by their youngest coin...... 66 Figure 3.14: chronological distribution of the late Roman gold coins ...... 68 Figure 3.15: the distribution of late Roman coins by their mint...... 69 Figure 4.1: the coin finds of the temple at the Widdebierg...... 84 Figure 4.2: the coins finds of Hellange...... 86 Figure 4.3: the coin finds of Kayl ...... 86 Figure 4.5: chronological distribution of the coins of Luxemburg and Trier...... 92 Figure 4.6: chronological distribution of the mean site after redistribution of seq1=0...... 93 Figure 4.7: results of the K-S tests ...... 95 Figure 4.8: Pearson correlation coefficients of individual sites with the mean site in the period before 260 AD...... 97 Figure 4.9: Spearman rank correlation coefficients of individual sites with the mean site before AD 260 ...... 98 Figure 4.10: relation between number of coins per site (N) and height of Pearson correlation coefficient...... 98 Figure 4.11: results of the K-S tests AD 260-402...... 99 Figure 4.12: profile 1 ...... 101 Figure 4.13: profile 2 ...... 101 Figure 4.14: profile 3 ...... 101 Figure 4.15: profile 4 ...... 101 Figure 4.16: profile 5 ...... 101 Figure 4.17: profile 6 ...... 101 Figure 4.18: number of coins per site in the Luxemburg area...... 111 Figure 4.19: coin denominations in sanctuaries before 69 AD ...... 114 Figure 4.20: silver coins per issue period before AD 69 in the vici (left) and the other rural sites (right) ...... 115 Figure 4.21: numbers of coins per settlement category before AD 69...... 117 Figure 4.22: coins per site in the Luxemburg area: in detail...... 119 Figure 4.23: coins and settlement categories in the Luxemburg area ...... 120 Figure 4.24: proportion of denari/quinarii, sestertii (Aes I) and dupondii/asses (Aes II) in different settlement categories . . . . 121 Figure 4.25: average number of hoards per year in Luxemburg...... 125 Figure 4.26: coins and settlement categories in the Luxemburg area ...... 129 Figure 4.27: chronological distribution of the late Roman coins of different site categories ...... 130 Figure 5.1: distribution of sites according to coin numbers in Belgium and The Netherlands ...... 136 Figure 5.2: numbers of find spots per site type (y-axis) according to the number of coins (x-axis) ...... 138 Figure 5.3: chronological distribution of the coin finds of Tongeren (all sites) ...... 140

IX Figure 5.4: the coin finds of Maastricht ...... 142 Figure 5.5: the coin finds of Cuijk ...... 143 Figure 5.6: the coin finds of Halder ...... 145 Figure 5.7: the coin finds of Grobbendonk-Steenbergen ...... 146 Figure 5.8: the coin finds of Kontich-Kazerne ...... 146 Figure 5.9: the coin finds of Wijshagen-De Rieten ...... 147 Figure 5.10: the coin finds of Wijnegem-Steenakker ...... 148 Figure 5.11: the coin finds of Empel ...... 148 Figure 5.12: the coin finds of Neerharen-Rekem (Het Kamp) ...... 150 Figure 5.13: the coin finds of Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers ...... 151 Figure 5.14: the coin finds of Riethoven-Heesmortel ...... 151 Figure 5.15: the coins of Plokrooi-Donderslag ...... 152 Figure 5.16: the coins finds of Echt ...... 153 Figure 5.17: the coin finds of Bladel-Kriekeschoor ...... 154 Figure 5.18: the chronological distribution of the ‘mean site’...... 158 Figure 5.19: the corrected chronological distribution of the ’mean site’ ...... 158 Figure 5.20: results of the K-S tests...... 159 Figure 5.22: chronological profiles before AD 260 ...... 161 Figure 5.23: results of the K-S test plotted by issue periods ...... 164 Figure 5.24: chronological profiles AD 260-450 ...... 165 Figure 5.25: geographical distribution of gold Eburon-staters (after Roymans 2000b) ...... 169 Figure 5.26: sites with coins before AD69 and sites with earliest access to Roman coins...... 171 Figure 5.27: distribution of coin numbers by site ...... 172 Figure 5.28: percentage of early Roman coins per issue period by site type...... 174 Figure 5.29: distribution of early Roman coins by site type ...... 174 Figure 5.30: distribution of coins over different site categories AD 69-260 ...... 182 Figure 5.31: chronological distribution of coins by site type AD 69-260...... 184 Figure 5.32: chronological distribution of coins by site type in Luxemburg ...... 185 Figure 5.33: percentages of AR (denarii,quinarii and antoniniani), Aes I (sestertii) and aes II (dupondii and asses) by site type . . . 186 Figure 5.34: chronological distribution of late Roman hoards and single gold coins ...... 190 Figure 6.1: historical overview of coin recovery in all three areas, expressed as coin average per year ...... 198 Figure 6.2: percentage of detector finds in all three areas ...... 199 Figure 6.3 & 6.4: coin supply in the three areas ...... 200 Figure 6.5: coin supply in the three areas expressed as coin numbers ...... 202 Figure 6.6: Celtic coins in the three areas; proportions of gold, silver, potin and bronze ...... 205 Figure 6.7: coin supply to the three areas before AD 260...... 206 Figure 6.8: coin supply in the three areas of study...... 207 Figure 6.9: proportions of denominations in different site categories of the three areas AD 69-260 ...... 211 Figure 6.10: third-century hoards in the three areas ...... 216 Figure 6.11: coin finds of the late Roman period in the three areas ...... 218 Figure 6.12: copies and regular issues in the late Roman period in all three areas...... 220 Figure 6.13: distribution of coins by mint and by denomination in the three areas AD 260-450...... 222

X List of maps

Map 1.1: the three research areas...... 3 Map 3.1: the coin finds of the Dutch river area ...... 32 Map 3.2: distribution of sites according to their chronological profile ...... 48 Map 3.3: the distribution of Celtic coins in the Dutch river area by their metal ...... 51 Map 3.4: coin finds before AD 69 in the Dutch river area ...... 54 Map 3.5: coin finds AD 69-260 in the Dutch river area...... 59 Map 3.6: the coin finds of the late Roman period (AD 260-402) ...... 65 Map 3.7: geographical distribution of late Roman gold coins...... 68 Map 4.1: the coin finds of Luxemburg ...... 74 Map 4.2: the Celtic coins of Luxemburg...... 104 Map 4.3: the coin finds of Luxemburg before AD 69 ...... 110 Map 4.4: Republican coins, Celtic coins and Nemausus-asses in Luxemburg ...... 114 Map 4.5: the coins finds of Luxemburg AD 69-260...... 118 Map 4.6: gold and silver coins in Luxemburg AD 260-402 ...... 123 Map 4.7: coin finds of the middle and late Roman periods in Luxemburg...... 124 Map 5.1: sites of the MDS-area ...... 136 Map 5.2: sites with a known context ...... 143 Map 5.3: geographical distribution of chronological profiles...... 162 Map 5.4: geographical distribution of chronological profiles...... 167 Map 5.5: distribution of Celtic coins by metal...... 170 Map 5.6: geographical distribution of aurei and silver hoards before AD 69...... 176 Map 5.7: geographical distribution of coins AD 69- 260 ...... 179 Map 5.8: hoards and single aurei AD 69-260 ...... 181 Map 5.9: geographical distribution of coins AD 260-402 ...... 187 Map 5.10: hoards and single gold coins AD 260-450...... 189

XI List of tables

Table 3.1: provenance of the coin finds of the Dutch river area...... 32 Table 3.2: coin finds of the Dutch river area distributed over years of recovery...... 33 Table 3.3: certainty of identification of the coins ...... 34 Table 3.4: coins and find spots of the Dutch river area and average number of coins per site (c/s)...... 36 Table 3.5: coins and percentages in the three phases...... 36 Table 3.6: distribution of values for number of coins per site for the east and the west...... 37 Table 3.7: coins, percentages and average number of coins per site (c/s) for sites with less than 200 coins...... 38 Table 3.8: sites with more than 20 coins...... 41 Table 3.9: the Celtic coins of the Dutch river area...... 51 Table 3.10: distribution of denominations of Augustus in Nijmegen-Kops Plateau...... 52 Table 3.11: numbers and percentages of denominations in military and non-military sites before 69 AD...... 56 Table 3.12: the proportion of denominations AD 69-260...... 63 Table 3.13: find spots of late Roman solidi ...... 67 Table 3.14: distribution of late Roman denominations ...... 70 Table 4.1: coin finds of Luxemburg and Trier-Altbachtal ...... 71 Table 4.2: exactness of determination: numbers and percentages ...... 72 Table 4.3: representation of sites on map 4.1 ...... 74 Table 4.4: settlement typology...... 75 Table 4.5: coins of the Altbachtal in early, middle and late Roman period...... 76 Table 4.6: classification of the villas of Luxemburg and numbers of coin finds...... 82 Table 4.7: 'Substructions romaines'/villas...... 87 Table 4.8: other sites...... 88 Table 4.9: coins and sites of Luxemburg and Trier ...... 89 Table 4.10: distribution of values of the number of coins per site...... 94 Table 4.11: Treverian coin types and circulation phases on the Titelberg and in the rest of Luxemburg...... 106 Table 4.12: proportions of gold, silver potin and bronze coins of the Treveri and other tribes...... 109 Table 4.13: Celtic and Republican coins and Nemausus-asses in Luxemburg ...... 112 Table 4.14: Augustan asses in the city and the countryside...... 113 Table 4.15: coin denominations in city, vici and other settlements before AD ...... 115 Table 4.16: denominations AD 69-260 in Trier and the Luxemburg area...... 120 Table 4.17: percentages of mints in Luxemburg and Trier AD 275-402 ...... 127 Table 5.1: sources of coin data ...... 134 Table 5.2: coin finds in The Netherlands and Belgium over the years ...... 135 Table 5.3: characteristics of coin identification of main data sources expressed as percentages ...... 135 Table 5.4: number of coins and sites in the MDS-area ...... 137 Table 5.5: site types and numbers of coins per site type ...... 138 Table 5.6: sites with a known context ...... 144 Table 5.7: the coin finds of the MDS-area in early, middle and late-Roman periods...... 155 Table 5.8: distribution of metal of the Celtic coins ...... 168 Table 5.9: sites with a combination of Nemausus-asses, Celtic bronze and Republican coins ...... 173 Table 5.10: denominations before AD 69 by site type ...... 175 Table 5.11: hoards AD 69-260...... 179 Table 5.12: single aurei AD 69-260 ...... 180 Table 5.13: denominations by site type AD 69-260 ...... 184 Table 5.14: hoards AD 260-450...... 190 Table 5.15: gold coins AD 260-450 ...... 191 Table 5.16: percentages of mints for Tongeren and the MDS-area in the late Roman period ...... 192 Table 5.17a: denominations in the period AD 260-348...... 194 Table 5.17b: denominations in the period AD 348-450...... 194 Table 6.1: sites and their research characteristics by area...... 197 Table 6.2: Celtic and early Roman coins 50 BC - AD 69...... 203

XII Table 6.3: distribution of coins of the Gallic Empire over site types in all three areas ...... 215 Table 6.4: coins and sites in the three areas AD 260-450 ...... 219

XIII Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Aims and background of the research project

In the course of the first century BC, a large part of Northwestern Europe became encapsulated into the Roman Empire. This brought about many changes in the societies of Gaul and Germany, which were incorporated in this early state society. Traditionally, the complex of these changes is summarized with the term ‘romanization’ and the changes were seen as indigenous adaptions in response to Roman culture, where the latter was the dominant and forming agent. Presently, this view is rejected in favour of a more balanced viewpoint on things, which allows more autonomy to indigenous culture. It concentrates on the question how the peoples of Gaul and Germany responded to the contact with Roman culture which led to the creation of a new cultural framework, which can be called Gallo-Roman.

1.1.1 The concept of monetization

One of the central points on which research has been focussed was the economy. Various ancient historians1 took a macro-economic perspective of the Roman empire, and explained the results of Roman expansion into Europe in economic terms. An elemental role in these models was imparted to the concept of monetization of the economy. The term was analogous to romanization, only applied to an economical context, but no less problematical than the former in its meaning. It is surprising how little effort has been made to make the concept explicit. It is true that the ancient historians in question were well-informed on issues which were also current in economic anthropology, particularly in the substantivist school of Polanyi. The substantivists were opposed to a modernistic economic analysis of ‘primitive’ or ancient economies and argued that they were fundamentally different from our modern western one. Many of the analytical principles used in modern economics were not applicable to less complex or ancient societies. Unlike modern western economies, these ‘primitive’ economies were embedded in social and political relations. Gift exchange played a central role in exchange of goods, as opposed to market and commodity exchange in our society. Monetization in this context was seen as the development from tribal gift exchange (in which coins could be used) to market exchange in which most transactions were conducted with money.2 The Roman economy is seen as a largely monetary economy, and when Roman coins were introduced into provincial economies, these economies adopted the monetary use of these coins. Of course, this process of monetization was not always successful in each corner of the empire, and there were areas which were slower than others. The outcome was predictable, however, and the direction of growth was pre-defined. In more recent publications, more attention has been paid to the role of the indigenous element in the process of romanization: however, in this respect the twin concept of monetization seems to have lagged behind. Perhaps this is a consequence of the evolutionistic ideas in Polanyi’s theory. Although some authors have transferred the path to monetization and commoditization of economies to the Late Iron Age societies3, little attention is paid to the survival and coexistence of other types of exchange during Roman times, and the monetary economy always seems the (however abstract it may be) endpoint of every development.4 Likewise, although attempts have been made to quantify the

1 Finley 1973; Crawford 1970; Hopkins 1980; Duncan-Jones 1990; Howgego 1994.

2 Coins are not equal to money: they circulated as valuable objects or limited-purpose money: see section 1.2.1 for a detailed discussion.

3 See Nash 1978 and Wigg 1999 for monetization of Iron Age economies in the first century BC.

4 Bloch & Parry (1989)offer another way of looking at functions of money, in which the classical opposition between pre-monetary and monetary societies is avoided. Polanyi does acknowledge the existence of other modes than market exchange in monetary societies, but marginalizes them. (See Narotzky 1997, 52).

1 monetary economy5, there have been few who have tried to quantify and qualify the extent of other modes of exchange, aside from cursory remarks about the continuance of barter trade and the paying of taxes in kind.6 Admittedly, quantification on this scale is very complicated and abstract, and I do not wish to pretend that the present study will provide the answers, but the fact that it has not been tried is a good illustration of the bias towards monetary exchange. One of the consequences of associating Roman coins with Roman monetary economy, is that the presence of coins tends to be regarded as an index of monetization.7 Although I believe that this is correct to some extent, it is good to be wary of a too easy attitude with regard to coin finds. If, for instance, coins are very widely distributed over a rural area, this does not mean that they were used in the context of monetary exchange, or even that they are to be regarded as money. Nor does a period of increased coin loss in a settlement automatically mean that this was a period of economic prosperity. It is therefore better to abandon the concept of monetization as an analytical instrument, and speak, more neutrally, of coin use and functions of coinage, especially when one aspires to say something about local or regional economies. Monetization in this perspective means the extent to which coins were used for market exchange, and how common this use was to all social strata of Gallo-Roman society. This leaves room to consider all kinds of other use of coins besides the strictly monetary one. The above definition of monetization can be translated into a few preconditions of monetary use of coins, which can be tested on the coin data. Firstly, the monetary system must be adequate to sustain a monetary exchange system. This means that the range of denominations must be sufficient to enable a complete system of different monetary transactions, and that the emphasis must lie on the lower value coins to provide enough money for everyday market exchange. It is evident that the monetary system from Augustus onwards matches these criteria8, but there may be great differences between the viability of a monetary economy and the real situation, particularly in frontier provinces. This brings us to another point: there must be a constant and sufficient supply of coins to the monetary markets in the area. This condition can be met by a regular supply of new coin, but also by the re-use of older coins in new contexts (regional and interregional circulation of coin) through a system of monetary taxes or trade. In this connection, monetization of a certain area means that we must see a constant supply of new coins that increases over time. It can also be expected that there will be an increase of regional illegal coin production in times when the official supply of coins was not sufficient.9

1.1.2 The object of this study

The object of this study is to explore all ways in which Roman coins were used in the provinces of Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany, and how the various functions of coinage changed in the course of the Roman period. It remains a central question whether and to what extent monetization occurs, without ignoring other processes that may have existed and affected the way in which coins were used. The discussion will be based primarily on the analyses of the Roman and Celtic coins that were found in the area of research.

5 Hopkins already does this by defining the monetary economy as ‘a thin veneer of sophistication’ (Hopkins 1980)

6 Perhaps I am doing no justice to the excellent discussion of Duncan-Jones (1990) of the importance of taxes in kind, but his evidence is very scattered over time and place, and it seems very hard to estimate the percentage of taxes which were of a monetary kind and which were not.

7 See for instance Hopkins 1980, 114.

8 That is, in theory. It is still a matter of dispute if the lower denominations such as the semis and the quadrans were available in sufficient quantity in relation to higher denominations. Also, the semis and the quadrans seem to have disappeared rather quickly from the monetary spectrum. They were not struck on a regular basis after Nero (Reece 1970, 37; also Burnett 1987, 58). Looking at coins finds, these denominations have been rarely found outside Italy (Reece 1987, 28-30).

9 Since the identification of copies is a fairly subjective matter and the coins of this study have been identified by various numismatists, it will appear that this aspect of coin supply cannot be analysed in a satisfactory manner.

2 Limits in time and space It would be too time-consuming to make a complete survey of all coin finds in Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. Therefore, three areas within these provinces have been selected to provide us with a representative sample. The choice of the areas was based on several criteria, which were judged relevant to explain interregional variation. The first area is the Dutch river area, which is the area enclosed by the rivers Rhine and Meuse in the north and the south, and the North Sea to the west; to the east the limit is drawn at the eastern border of the Netherlands, where Rhine and Meuse begin to diverge. This area was chosen because it lies at the heart of the Roman frontier, and is primarily a military zone during the Roman period.

Map 1.1: the three research areas. DRA=Dutch river area; MDS=Meuse-Demer-Scheldt-area; LUX=Luxemburg and Trier; 1=coastal dunes; 2=peat; 3=elevation>300m.

The Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area (henceforth MDS-area) is the second, which directly borders on the former area in the north. To the west, it ends at the North Sea coast. The Meuse encloses it also to the east and the rivers Demer and Scheldt form the southern border of this area. This area, although it partly belongs to the wider frontier zone is not military but distinguishes itself by its rural character. The third area comprises the present country of Luxemburg and the German city of Trier. This area is not defined by physical boundaries, but, rather prosaically, by the fact that its coin finds have been excellently published by

3 Weiller.10 Aside from this reason of convenience, the character of this area differs markedly from the other two by the fact that it displayed more urban characteristics. Trier was included in this area as major Roman city, of which the coin finds of the Altbachtal have been published by Alföldi.11

The entire Roman period will be considered, starting from the time contacts between Roman, Celtic and German people intensified during the first century BC. A rather arbitrary starting point has been established at 50 BC, but this will be extended to earlier times if the discussion takes us there. The end is set at AD 402, the classical date for the end of the Roman empire in our area of study. Sometimes, excursions will be made beyond this date as well.

Method 12 The primary method to gain insight into the diversity of coin use is the comparison of coin lists of different sites and finding out if different use patterns can be established Essentially, the chronological distribution of coins and proportions of denominations are considered, and it is investigated whether the differences between sites correlate with their social- economic character. Analysis of the chronological distribution of coin lists has already produced results in Reece’s similar research for Roman Britain.13 The association between coin lists and the social-economic function of sites enables us to make statements about the character and extent of coin use in various settlement types. The comparison of general trends in the three areas will address matters of monetization, coin supply and the influence of historical circumstance on regional coin use.

1.1.3 The historical background: some important topics

In a functional study of Roman coinage which focuses on the periods in which major changes occurred, it seems logical to start with a description of the situation which existed before Roman currency was introduced into what was to become Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. Coinage was not a new phenomenon for the people that lived in this area before the conquest, and it seems likely that, for the Germano-Celtic peoples, Roman coins at first related to already existing coinages and may have been used in similar ways. In the rest of this chapter I shall give my views on the character of these Celtic coinages, concentrating on the question of what role it played in society, how the nature of this coinage seems to change in the course of the first century BC, and whether or not the conquest had any great impact on this process.14 The interaction of Celtic and Roman money will also be discussed, and finally how Celtic coinage came to its end in the first century AD. Because the Roman tax system plays a crucial role in the discussion of the character of the Roman economy and monetization in particular, it will be necessary to look into its nature. This will be discussed after the excursion into Celtic numismatics. Both topics are intended to provide background information, to which I will refer in later chapters.

10 Weiller, Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg (FMRL) 1972-1995 I-V.

11 Alföldi 1979, Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit in Deutschland (FMRD).

12 A more elaborate discussion of methodology will be offered in chapter 2.

13 E.g. Reece 1987.

14 In the inventory of coin finds, Celtic coins were included; they will be part of the discussion insofar as they are relevant to an understanding of the function of early Roman coins in the area of research.

4 1.2 The economic organisation before the coming of the Romans.

At this point a discussion might be given of formalist and substantivist views on tribal economies. However interesting this debate may be, I will not try to contribute to it, not only because many authors have already given an elaborate hearing to both parties15, but also because I have nothing to add. In my opinion the differences between substantivist and formalist views seem to be rather an effect of inadequate views on economies of complex societies (such as our own) than of the misunderstanding of economies in non-complex societies. For instance, there have not been many studies into the embeddedness of complex economies in social and political relations. In the last decade, more attention has been paid to the compatibility of the two schools than to their differences. In the view of Dowling and Hodges16 most of the differences in perspective between formalists and substantivists are gradual as well as thematic ones, which leaves us the possibility to use concepts from both schools to help us understand economies on every level of complexity17. There is a mass of anthropological literature on the subject of economies of segmentary societies (as we may describe the ones we are dealing with), and many ancient historians and archaeologists have drawn upon this source to analyse certain aspects of the economy in the Iron Age, such as long-distance trade with the Mediterranean and Celtic coinage. There have been few attempts, however, to present a more encompassing view of economic relations in Celtic society, except in the book of Roymans18, who tries not unsuccessfully to give a holistic picture of tribal societies in northern Gaul. The first observation we must make is that our area of study can be broadly divided in two parts, a northern and a southern one, which differ considerably in political and economic complexity.19 In the south of Belgic Gaul we find in the first century BC evidence which has been interpreted in terms of highly centralized societies with a hierarchical organization. Archaeologically, these are characterized by a clearly differentiated settlement pattern, with an incipient urbanization well before the Roman conquest. In the north there are acephalous societies with many petty chiefs at a local, and incidental leadership at a higher level -probably only in crisis situations. There is little differentiation in the settlement pattern, and cemeteries do not show great status inequalities in burials as they do in the south of Belgic Gaul. This division can be misleading, because it seems to imply the existence of a clearcut border between the two parts. However, this is not the case: we should look at the area as a continuum between the two extremes described above.20 It seems significant that these regional differences in levels of complexity coincide with the fertility of soils. Roymans points out that core-zones in the Late La Tène phase are located without exception on the rich löss-areas. This leads us to the second observation; not only was agriculture the basis of subsistence in the societies of Gaul in the Late Iron Age, it also seems to have formed the basis of wealth. Wealth was a crucial factor in creating opportunities for the rise of powerful elites with large clientelae. These elites came to monopolize the resources of the land and the exchange with the state societies of the Mediterranean. It also permitted the existence of specialists who did not rely directly on agriculture for their subsistence. In other words, the produce of an agricultural surplus was one condition for the increasing complexity of society. The mobilization of this agricultural surplus is best described in processes of redistribution and exchange. Two types of relations can be distinguished: horizontal ones between equal members of one status group, and vertical

15 An excellent account of this discussion is given by Hodges (1988); see also Haselgrove 1989.

16 Dowling 1980; Hodges 1988. In the field of economic anthropology, a new framework has been developed by Bloch and Parry (1989) which especially may be of use for the understanding of different repertoires of use of money. In this, the opposition between societies with an embedded economy and ‘modern’ economies is left behind. Instead, two spheres of exchange are recognized, which may exist in societies on every level of complexity. The concepts of Bloch and Parry will not be used in this book, however, but are worth exploring for their interpretative potential.

17 This notion of complementarity of the two views is well expressed in the first chapter of Hodges' work on primitive and peasant markets (Hodges 1988).

18 Roymans 1990.

19 Roymans 1990, 44; see also Haselgrove 1990, 49; Roymans 1995.

20 Roymans 1990, 263.

5 relations between members of different status groups. In the former case, one must think of barter between low-level farmers to acquire products they did not produce themselves. Since families at this level were largely self-sufficient, the extent of this barter trade must have been marginal. In the latter case, the members of the elite and their followers (Gefolgschaft) needed an agricultural surplus for subsistence purposes, as well as for other forms of redistribution, such as the giving of feasts and the maintenance of dependent craft specialists. Roymans argues that the surplus was supplied to the elite in the form of tribute by free families (domus), base clients or dependent tribes. From the redistribution of agricultural surplus we must now move to another form of exchange which was very important in Celtic society: the exchange of valuable goods. As we can learn from Caesar21 as well as from anthropo- logical studies, the power of elites was expressed primarily in the number of its clients. Exchange of valuable 'prestige' goods played a crucial role in the acquisition and maintenance of these clientelae. Roymans distinguishes two levels in this gift-exchange, each with its own type of goods. The first level is represented by horizontal, more or less reciprocal exchange within the elite. In this sphere, goods circulate which he defines as 'status-insignia': ornaments of gold, decorated war-chariots, bronze vessels imported from Italy and so on. The second level consists of vertical exchange relations between members of the elite and lower status groups: here we find iron weapons, bronze ornaments, gold (and probably silver) coins, cattle etc. The supply of these prestige goods could proceed in various ways. Some of the goods (coins, weapons, ornaments) were locally produced by dependent craft specialists. Certain other types of goods were only obtainable through long-distance trade with the Mediterranean, such as wine and bronze vessels. A third manner of supply, which should not be underestimated, was booty in raids and warfare. Only in this way could the elite get hold of a major source in long-distance trade with the Mediterranean: slaves. Finally, status goods would find their way back to the elite through gifts of their own clients. From this summary description of subsistence and exchange patterns which existed in Gaul before the Roman conquest, we can draw some conclusions. Firstly, it is evident that we are not dealing with a monetized economy. Most transactions take place without the intervention of a standardized measure of value. Secondly, coins are just one type of valuable goods, circulating only within a distinct sphere of exchange. Finally it is important to notice that exchange of valuable goods was interwoven with social and political relations22. Let us now take a closer look at the circulation and functions of native coinages in northern Gaul.

1.2.1 Celtic coinage in the Late Iron Age.

The origins of Celtic coinage; reasons for minting and secondary usage. In order to understand the functions of native coinages in the Late Iron Age, a brief excursion is necessary into their origins. Most authors agree now that the earliest coinages must be dated in the late third and early second centuries BC.23 In her article on the role of Celtic coinages in the development of state societies in Central Gaul, Daphne Nash24 offers

21 Caesar De Bello Gallico VI, 15.

22 The word 'valuable' must be stressed here. It is very hard to determine to which extent exchange of staple goods, such as food, played a part in Late Iron Age societies. Furthermore, we cannot say much about the character of this exchange. This has various reasons. The exchange of valuables has been a popular topic in anthropological as well as archaeological studies because of its embeddedness in social and political relations: it is as such an invaluable instrument in getting an insight in the power-structures of societies. In addition, valuable goods have a tendency to be over-represented in the archaeological record. Staple goods consist mostly of organic material, which survives only under exceptional circumstances, whereas valuable objects, being largely inorganic, (or conveyed in inorganic containers, such as wine) have more chance of survival in the temperate zones of northwestern Europe

23 Recently, Haselgrove (1999) has reorganized the chronology of Celtic coinages in Belgic Gaul. One of the major changes is in the dating of potin coinage, which is already introduced in the period 200-125 BC, even before the use of silver. This poses the question if it is correct to regard the potin coins as low-value coinage. On the other hand, it remains true that potin is later (60-20 BC) replaced by struck bronze. Perhaps the exterior appearance of Celtic coins (colour, texture) was more important than its metal content in the appreciation by its users. This hypothesis has recently been worked out by Creighton : ‘It could be that MIA/LIA society ‘valued’ not so much the number of atoms of gold in a coin, but rather the colour of the artefact and its resistance to tarnishing’ (Creighton 2000, 40).

24 Nash 1981.

6 an explanation for the widespread adoption of coinage by the Celts. She states that '...it was in service as mercenaries for Hellenistic overlords, especially the kings of Macedon, that the Celts learnt the use of coinage.' This seems indeed a reasonable supposition, seeing that early Celtic coin types were clearly derived from those of 'known mercenary employers' 25. Moreover, the hiring of Celtic mercenaries by Hellenistic kings, who paid for their services in gold coin, is well attested in the written sources.26 On the other hand, it is easy to see how well coins would fit in with the Celtic exchange of valuable goods, since they are a very portable form of wealth. Additionally, payments to large groups of people, such as troops, are a lot easier when made in valuables of a standardized form. On top of it all, coins allowed the elite to put their own stamp (literally) on the prestige goods they dealt out to their clients. Thus they could be a very useful instrument in the internal and external competition of elites. In view of this, one would expect the minting of early Celtic coinage to have taken place in a period of intensified elite competition, which entailed among other things the need for larger and more permanent troops. Nash proposes the end of Celtic migrations in the late third and the conso- lidation of tribal territories in the subsequent period as a likely starting point for the beginning of Celtic coinages. Although beyond direct proof, this seems an adequate hypothesis.27 As soon as coinage was accepted as a useful commodity for the payment of troops, its use could spread to other social and political spheres, for instance as tribute, bride-prices, rents, wergeld, diplomatic and votive gifts, etc.28 This process of changing from a commodity with a limited function to one with multiple purposes culminated at the end of the second and the beginning of the first centuries BC.

The period 125-60 BC The latter part of the second century was the beginning of a period of rapid change within the societies of southern and central Gaul. Nash sees the extending competition within Celtic nobility 'for possession of territory, wealth and armed retinues'29 as one of the main reasons for the growing political and social complexity of the societies of Central Gaul, of which the development of nucleated and defended settlements and the increase in long-distance trade with the Mediterranean are the most obvious manifestations. These developments led to a situation in which authorities had to make more payments on a regular basis. If we may equate intensity of loss of coins with intensity of usage30, and trust our distribution maps to be a reflection of loss patterns, we may conclude that the increasing need for coins is well- documented in the archaeological record. The emissions of coins are much larger than in the period before, as is the number of find spots. In this period, Celtic coinages also changed in a physical sense.31 Before this time, coins were made exclusively of precious metal with a heavy weight and a high purity. In contrast, the late-phase coinages are much baser in their metal content and of lesser weight, which Nash interprets as a spinning out of available resources. Whatever circumstance may have caused this debasement, the new coinages were -according to Nash- better suited for governmental transactions.32

25 The most famous ones perhaps being the gold staters of Philip II and Alexander III of Macedon. The earliest imitation in our area was found in Luxemburg (stater of Hesperange, Weiller 1986).

26 See for instance Polybius 1.67.7; 3.41.9.

27 Incidentally, also for the rise of early Greek coinage the payment of mercenaries has been considered an important factor (Kraay 1964; Rutter 1981). As far as Roman silver is concerned, sustaining the army seems also to be one of the most important factors for minting in the Roman republic (see for instance Reece 1981).

28 Nash 1981; Haselgrove 1984.

29 Nash 1981, 15.

30 See for instance Reece 1987, 29.

31 For potin, see note 22; the early potin coinages, however, only circulate in Haselgrove’s southern and eastern zones (northern Champagne and eastern Paris basin; middle Meuse to the Rhine, which includes our most southern area, that of the Treveri).

32 She actually mentions two administrative functions which should be monetized: internal taxes and fines (Nash 1981,16). However, although the debasement may mean that certain resources were low, Creighton proposes that ‘...a key factor in the debasement of these issues was the maintenance of the colour of the alloy.’ (Creighton 2000, 38).

7 To me, it is not exactly clear why this should be so, although I accept the proposition that the debasement was a consequence of increased need for coinage, in combination with shortage of metal supply. Haselgrove offers a more military explanation for the large emissions of the first century: 'there may have been a close relationship between the scale of striking in Gaulish societies and the incidence of military activity.’33 Roymans34 agrees with this view. Indeed, a peak in coin production is reached during the time of the Gallic wars, so it seems likely that social unrest and warfare were the main cause for increased coin production. This is not to say that Nash's model is completely wrong. It may very well have been the case that coinages were increasingly used for all sorts of payments in the administrative sphere, and did not stay exclusively within the sphere of gift-exchange, however small the scale of these payments may have been. At this moment it is not essential to determine the extent of money circulating outside the cycles of gift-exchange; it is, however, important to note the fact that it did so before Gaul was conquered.

The impact of the Gallic wars It was through the increase in the forming of alliance-networks and the recruitment of clients that the beginning of the Gallic wars saw a substantial rise in the volume of coinage.35 Roymans agrees with Haselgrove that the gold that was necessary to mint these new coinages, was acquired predominantly by melting down the gold objects that were already in circulation.36 In Belgic Gaul, however, the Gallic wars seem to have had a disastrous effect on the wealth in precious metal. The large quantities of gold coins decreased rapidly 37, until at the end the war there seems hardly to be any amount of gold left. Although Haselgrove and Roymans point out various mechanisms by which this drainage of wealth could have taken place, the most important one was probably booty and tribute taken by the Romans.38 The instances in the written sources, in which mention is made of enormous amounts of wealth flowing to Italy during the Gallic wars, are numerous. The result of this was, among other things, that in the course of the war, the Gallic elite struck coins of continually lesser weight and precious metal content, to the point that some coinages hardly contained precious metal at all.39 With respect to this, Haselgrove remarks that 'the war clearly went far to establish the principle of token, the authority or prestige of its issuer now being accepted as guaranteeing coin as a means of payment at a certain rate' 40. However, we should not forget that this does not mean automatically that coins could be used for any kind of payment. It seems probable that coins were at this time still essentially a limited-purpose money, especially in the northern areas of Gaul. Another effect of the Gallic wars is connected to the one already mentioned. By the draining of their wealth, societies in central and northern Gaul could have experienced a set-back in their growth to more complex organization forms. The maintenance of its power structures had always depended mainly on the exchange of valuable goods. As a consequence of the war, many of the prestige goods that were in circulation had vanished, which must have impeded the flow of valuables seriously.41 At the same time, in various areas major population changes had taken place, caused by the decimation and deportation of sometimes considerably large groups of people by the Romans; several people

33 Haselgrove 1984, 87.

34 Roymans 1990, 124-127. We must not however overlook the fact that Roymans is writing primarily about northern Gaul, while the model of Nash is about societies in central Gaul; there may have been a difference, albeit a gradual one.

35 Haselgrove 1984; Roymans 1990

36 This includes earlier coins, which were transformed into new, baser types of lesser weight.

37 According to Haselgrove, this must have happened already for a great part in the first year of the war, as a consequence of the defeat of the 'Belgic' confederacy. in such a short time, that Haselgrove wonders 'how the subsequent revolts of the groups in this area can possibly have been financed at all'.

38 This is exactly the time when Roman gold becomes regularly issued.

39 Armorican types of staters (Nash 1981, 16).

40 Haselgrove 1984, 94.

41 This depended, for an important part, on the availability of precious metal.

8 ended up with new neighbours.42 Old exchange networks were thus disrupted, and it may be inferred that the making of new ones was obstructed by a shortage of valuable goods in the form of gold (and perhaps silver) bullion.43 The question is, how badly was the social and political equilibrium that existed previously shaken by the Gaulish wars? And if this effect was indeed substantial, is there any supportive evidence for this to be found in the archaeological record? Haselgrove in this connection makes the remark that '...the actual military conquest hardly registers archaeologically, apart from its impact on coin production and hoarding'44. This makes it difficult to answer the first question. Nevertheless, there is an indication for the remaining in power of the Gaulish elites: namely the continuation of native coinages after the war.45 The new coinages were largely of base metal, bronze and potin. Because these were of low intrinsic value, most authors stress the fact that they must have differed in function from their precious metal counterparts. Wightman46 states that 'potin provides small change and shows that transactions were increasingly reckoned in monetary terms.' Roymans & Van der Sanden argue that 'both bronze and potin coins could have been used as a mean of exchange within a distinct sphere, for example, that of subsistence ... '.47 Nash makes another point in asserting that 'the introduction of bronze coinage ... is likely to have occurred to facilitate the administration of towns and perhaps especially to provide subsistence money for persons permanently employed on official tasks ... '.48 Without denying the possibility of these assumptions being true, it seems to me that they understate the continuity in function between the pre-war and post-war coinages. Perhaps the solution lies in the distinction between the reasons for the striking of those new coinages, and the way they were being used after entering circulation.49 In my opinion, the prime reason for the elites in issuing bronze and potin coins is to use them in the same way as they made use of precious coinages previously. This could vary regionally, according to the complexity of organization which existed in a particular region, from prestige-gift in patron-client relations, to more sophisticated administrative payments. After entering circulation, however, depending on the needs, coins could be used for other forms of transaction.50 In time, the secondary purposes of these coinages may even have been reinforced by the introduction of Roman coinage. It is possible that increasing availability of gold and silver, and even bronze denominations of Roman coinage after the Gallic wars made the Gaulish bronze and potin coins into a low-value coinage, to be used for more common transactions. In this respect it may be significant that finds of native bronze and potin in this period seem to be concentrated in nucleated settlements, while Roman gold and silver is more to be found in the countryside. A second possible argument for this relation between native and Roman coinages in the latter part of the first century BC, could be that in this period a tendency seems to develop for Celtic denominations to adopt Roman weight-standards. Finally, many of the hoards of the period after the war contained a mixture of precious Gaulish coins and Roman silver, which makes a strong case for a similarity of functions.

42 Willems 1985, 368.

43 This shortage could have been caused by the removal of old valuable goods by the Romans on the one hand, and the difficulty of acquiring new supplies by the breaking down of exchange-networks on the other.

44 Haselgrove 1991, 53.

45 Creighton (forthcoming) is followed by Haselgrove 1999 in regarding the ‘Octavian imagery’ on some coinages after 40 BC (for instance ARDA -Scheers 30a-II) as a sign of the installation of clients of Octavian as new rulers in frontier areas (in this case, Haselgroves’s eastern zone).

46 Wightman 1985, 21.

47 Roymans & Van der Sanden 1980, 183.

48 Nash 1981, 16.

49 Gold coinage did not really vanish after the Gallic wars, although it was much baser in its metal content. In this respect, the occurrence of trimetallic sets of coins in some areas in Haselgrove’s stage 4 (60-30 BC) is interesting, like the ARDA coinage of the Treveri, which was minted in gold, silver and bronze. It is hard not to see these sets as meant for exchange on different levels, or perhaps in different spheres.

50 Exactly this explanation has been given by Haselgrove (1990, 49) for the occurrence of potin coinages in eastern-central Gaul in the first half of the first century BC.

9 Late Celtic issues and Roman money In the late first century gradually a complex situation developed, in which Celtic bronze and to a lesser degree, silver coins circulated alongside Roman money. Above I have argued that the spheres in which both coinages have circulated, may have been different, in spite of the fact that Celtic coinage obviously related to Roman currency. In the sphere of gift-exchange and payment for military service51, I expect that, in the period before Augustus, predominantly Celtic and Roman silver were used. It is likely that Roman (and sporadically Celtic) gold was reserved for diplomatic gifts from the Roman authorities to the upper layer of the Gaulish elite; in the relatively unstable situation which existed between Caesar and Augustus, this was an accepted means of control for the Roman authorities. This Roman gold could, of course, be further distributed down the line of patron-client relationships within Celtic nobility, but at a lower level, silver probably predominated. After perhaps a short initial period of functioning as ‘precious metal’ coinage, Celtic bronze must have been more and more used for other forms of exchange, maybe even reaching the level of low-value medium of exchange at early market-centres. We must, however, be very careful with the terms 'market-exchange' and 'monetization' of the economy. The extent to which low-value coinage in Late Celtic society was used as medium of exchange rather than barter-trade, is yet to be evaluated. In the Augustan period we see the appearance of some large bronze emissions with a wide area of circulation: these are the bronze AVAVCIA coins and the bronzes with the legend GERMANVS INDVTILLI F. These coins are exceptionally numerous in Augustan military camps.52 Some authors have explained this distribution with the idea that native auxiliary troops were paid in these coinages, but this seems rather unlikely.53 We will return to this discussion in chapter 3.

1.3 Taxation in the early Empire

It is commonly accepted that taxation is a factor of profound importance in understanding the monetization processes of the early Roman Empire. This is quite understandable, since most authors seem to agree on the fact that provincial tribute under the Principate was in principle a money tax. By looking at processes of distribution that entailed a. the conversion of agricultural (and other) surpluses into money in order to pay taxes, b. the transportation of this money to the places where it was needed, and c. the spending of this money, a model can be constructed that predicts the integration of the western provinces into a monetized economy. The first one to do so was Hopkins, and the 'propositions' in his article 'Taxes and trade'54 still represent the dominant view on this matter, up to the point that Drinkwater55 respectfully? calls this 'the new orthodoxy'. The nineties, however, have seen the first major critic of Hopkins' model in Duncan-Jones56, who questions some basic assumptions which underlie it. In the following section, a brief overview will be given of the Roman tax system during the Principate, followed by a discussion of the impact it may have had on the monetization of the western provinces.

51 This continued to be a 'Celtic affair' by the relative autonomous position of native auxiliary troops within the Roman army. It is assumed that these troops were paid by their own superior officers, often as not in native coinage.

52 E.g Nuber 1974.

53 Nash 1978, 21: the use of GERMANVS INDVTILLI L-coinage as payment for Gallic auxilia, although she asserts that the evidene is meagre; Doppler (1978, 40) claims the same for AVAVCIA-coins: ‘Offensichtlich wurden sie bei Soldzahlungen als Kleingeld verwendet’. However, I doubt that gallic auxilia would accept these fractional bronzes - as they would perceive them in the context of the Roman army -as pay.

54 Hopkins 1980.

55 Drinkwater 1990, 211.

56 Duncan-Jones 1990.

10 1.3.1 The sources

A short remark is in order concerning our sources for a reconstruction of Roman taxation. Reading the ancient writers, one notices that the instances in which the subject of taxation - or related subjects - is brought up, are many. It does not come within the scope of this publication to give a comprehensive account of these 'loci', but, since modern ancient historians use them continuously, a few comments on their character seems to be in place. Firstly, a discussion of the tax system as such does not exist. This means that the subject of taxation is always just touched upon, and the information is often fragmentary and contradictory. Secondly, the sources which are used by modern authors to reconstruct a synchronic view of the taxation of the Roman Empire during the first three centuries, are geographically as well as periodically widely spread. For example a sixth-century source, the Digest, is frequently quoted to describe a situation which may have existed at least three centuries earlier. This problem, which is not only relevant to the subject of taxation, does not, in my view, get the attention it deserves. This is not to say, however, that the use of sources in such a way is invalid; only that the combination of them might be more critically evaluated. Thirdly, the same comment applies to quantification in ancient sources. Although many ancient historians warn us against the uncritical use of numbers given by ancient writers, amounts in an ancient price list are sometimes treated the same way as the amounts of money Augustus claims to have given away in his Res Gestae. Finally, the specific character of the text should be taken into consideration more often. It is clear that in legal literature terms such as tributum may be used differently from for instance the Satyricon of Petronius or the New Testa- ment. Notwithstanding the problems in interpreting ancient sources about Roman taxation, the fact remains that the corpus of relevant texts is quite large, and on this basis the outlines of the Roman tax-system can be reconstructed. However, there still are a few important points on which information is lacking, and all of these concern the more quantitative aspects of taxation. We shall see that these aspects are crucial in assessing the impact of the tax-system on the monetary circulation.

1.3.2 Roman taxation under the Principate

Our primary interest here is of course the provincial tax-system, which basically remained unaltered during the first three centuries AD. Every province paid tributum, an annual payment, the amount of which was based on an assess-ment of its assets (census). This tributum was not really a tax; the word tributum denoted "... the "contributions" of the provinces to the imperial government ...".57 The central government fixed the total contribution for the province as a whole58 and was probably also responsible for distributing this burden over the towns and their territory in accordance with the results of the census, although this is likely to have been implemented on a provincial level. In addition, the ratio between tax in cash and tax in kind may have been defined. This was where the interference of the Roman authorities ended. The local government59 was responsible for the precise way in which the fixed sum was raised. The local town-councillors could choose between various forms of direct taxation to do so, the most important of which were the tributum soli (land- tax; mostly on the basis of a public declaration of the value of each property) and tributum capitis (poll-tax). This meant that the local authorities maintained a great deal of freedom and "were not simply passive instruments within a general empire-wide tax scheme."60 Thus, the system accommodated a great deal of variation between different provinces and even localities. Moreover, the form in which tributum was raised, could have been, and probably was dictated by already existing local traditions of raising tribute.

57 Goffart 1974.

58 For instance, Caesar set the tax for Gaul at 40.000.000 sestertii (Suetonius Divus Julius , 25).

59 In northern Gaul, the 'local' unit must have been the civitas.

60 Goffart 1974, 11.

11 Most authors agree that the tax-burden under the Roman Empire was low61. The average tribute rates seem to have been less than 10 % of the crop (when paid in kind) or 10 % of the gross product (when paid in cash). However, this only applies to the land-owning class, which paid the tribute. The dependent peasants, as in the time before the Roman conquest, of course had to pay whatever their patron asked of them. We have little information of the discrepancy between what peasants paid in rent to land-owners, and what land-owners subsequently paid in tribute to the Roman authorities62. Ultimately, there was one central official in Belgic Gaul who was responsible for both the collecting and the distributing of imperial funds. This was not the governor of the province (since Augustean times the legatus Augusti pro praetore), but an official appointed only for this purpose: the procurator Augusti provinciae. There were only two procuratores for the Three Gauls, and the one who handled the finances for Gallia Belgica was also responsible for the two Germanies. As such, he was also the paymaster of the armies stationed in the Germanies. A large portion of the tribute of Gallia Belgica would have been directed to the army. Authors like Drinkwater and Wightman, who believe that taxes in Gaul were exclusively paid in money, do not of course credit the procuratores with non-monetary actions, such as the distribution of taxes in kind to the armies. Still, if there were such taxes, the procurator was likely to be the official who went about this task.63 Likewise, the procurator would be the person who determined the amount of taxes to be paid by the different civitates, and whether they should be paid in money or in kind, or both. In these matters he would base his assessments on the census-records, which were upgraded every 25 years.64

Except tributum there were a few other taxes, which seem to have been collected by private companies on behalf of the imperial government. These were the tolls and the harbour-dues (portoria), sales-tax, tax on buying and freeing slaves, and inheritance-tax.65 Although the state income derived from these taxes may have been considerable, the impact they would have had on the monetization of the economy seems negligible, since they were restricted to specific geographical areas. For this reason, they will not be discussed at this point.

From Caesar to Augustus The situation described above refers to the tax-system that existed after the tax reform of Augustus. In the previous period provincial tribute in the Roman Empire was collected by private companies of contractors (publicani). This system of tax-collecting had become a nuisance however, because whole provinces were ruined financially by the nefarious activities of the publicani, who frequently tried to get as rich as possible in the shortest possible time66. Augustus put an end to this abuse by transferring the responsibility to collect taxes to the civitas-authorities. It is unlikely, however, that the newly acquired Tres Galliae were ever submitted to the publicani-system in the period between the conquest of Caesar and the first census of Augustus in 27 BC. Although the idea of tribute was not a new one in Gaul, there existed no large-scale tax-collecting system in Celtic Gaul before the conquest; the Roman

61 See for instance Wightman 1985,47; Drinkwater 1983, 9, 32, 65; Hopkins 1980,105.

62 Hopkins 1980, 121. I doubt the fact, however, that "... taxes were kept quite low with the result that private exactions could be correspondingly high." (ib., 105); I do not believe that the Roman authorities cared about the income of the land-owning class, as long as it provided the tribute that was asked of them.

63 It would be very inefficient if the distribution of tax-goods were handled by another official. It seems the most logical to see the procurator as responsible for reallocation of tax-resources in general.

64 Officially, the census had to take place every 15 years; but this was never done in practice (Drinkwater 1983, 100).

65 These indirect taxes accounted for a large percentage of the income of the Roman state, see Duncan-Jones 1990, 194.

66 See, for instance, the famous process Cicero conducted on behalf of the Sicilians against their governor Verres (Cicero In Verrem).

12 authorities were faced with a total absence of organization in this respect67. Also, the notion of ownership of land in Iron Age Gaul was probably different from that of the Romans68. But if the Republican system was never introduced in Gaul, what exactly must we think of the payment of tributum, which Caesar himself fixed at the annual sum of HS 40.000.000?69 Firstly, we may assume that this sum was not to be paid in cash. This amount of cash was simply not available in Gaul at that time.70 This leaves us to conclude that the larger part of the tribute was paid in kind, probably in the form of supplies and troops for the army. In northern Gaul the only way in which the payment of tribute could have been organized at this time would have been by treaties which Caesar made with tribal leaders. Besides this formal way of collecting tribute, we must also take into account that Caesar and his successors during their stay in Gaul frequently made levies 'on the spot', although it can be questioned that they would be seen as regular payments of tribute. Also, the borderline between public and private finance (Caesar's), and the one between booty and tribute may have been very thin in this transitional period. It is likely that, as all other relations between the indigenous population and the Roman government became more formalized71, this also applied to the collecting of taxes. But we must not forget that the period between the conquest and the first census of Gaul was a very short one. In those 20 years, the minds of Roman officials were probably more occupied with the pacification of the new territory and, perhaps even more so, with the power struggle within the Roman government itself. We should be satisfied with the thought that the collecting of tribute proceeded in a very haphazard way; it is not a good idea to look for a tax-system before Augustus devised one.

The impact of the Roman tax-system It is not an easy task to determine the impact Roman taxation had on society in the Tres Galliae, even if we restrict ourselves to the question if it had any consequences for the monetization of the Roman economy. There are many possible starting points to tackle this problem. To start with, Hopkins' model of 'complementary flow of taxes and trade' and its critics will be discussed. After that, I shall offer an alter-native approach, in which a distinction is made between the different levels of provincial economy.

Taxes and trade Hopkins (1980) takes a macro-economic view of the Roman Empire of the last two centuries of the Republic and the first two of the Principate. In his article he integrates various kinds of evidence (historical, numismatic and archaeological) into a model which, amongst other things, predicts that Roman taxation in money stimulated trade and the growth of a monetary economy. Hopkins begins with making a distinction between rich, tax-exporting provinces and relatively poor tax- importing provinces, the latter of which were frontier-provinces with a strong military presence. In addition, we have the centre of the Empire, which is also tax-consuming, mostly because the central government was seated here. Because the tax-exporting provinces were forced to pay their taxes to a significant(?)72 degree in money, they had to generate cash

67 In older (eastern) provinces, the Roman government could simply adopt the existing tax-organization, which probably included some sort of inventory of property.

68 Wightman 1985,62; Goffart 1974,16.

69 Suetonius Divus Iulius, 25.

70 Theoretically, this sum may have been present in soldier’s wages in the province, but it is hard to imagine that the money was subsequently evenly distributed over the tax-paying population. Based on the evidence of army archives (the forts of Vindolanda and Vindonissa; see for instance Bowman 1994, 77-78), it seems that many soldiers lived in a state of permanent debt: they had spent their money before payday. It is hard to estimate the effect of this form of credit on the amount of money that was paid out in reality, but at least it casts some doubts on the exactness of sums which are based on the theoretical military payroll.

71 Perhaps a new phase in the pacification of the three Gauls was reached with the appointment of Agrippa as governor in 39 BC (cf. Drinkwater 1983,121).

72 It is difficult to understand exactly what weight Hopkins attaches to his propositions. In the qualifications which accompany his propositions, he continuously points out the relative character of his statements. For instance, the monetization of the Roman economy and the commercialization of exchange are important implications of his model; yet he calls the same monetary economy '...a thin veneer of sophisti-

13 by exporting goods of equal value. Thus, taxes in money caused a flow of money and goods from the rich provinces to the centre and the frontiers of the Empire. In this way, long distance trade was stimulated and at the same time, the provinces were more and more integrated into a monetary economy. This represents the essence of Hopkins' model. There are some further arguments with which he supports his propositions. Firstly, he uses the increase of ancient ship-wrecks during the period 200 BC - AD 200, to support the idea of a steep rise in the volume of trade. Secondly, since in his view the increase in trade-volume depends on an increase in the volume of money to finance it, he comes to the conclusion that there had to be a growing supply of coinage in the same period. Equating the relative number of obverse dies to the relative output of new silver coins, Hopkins notices that between 157-50 BC the volume of coins indeed rose by approximately a factor 10, a rather spectacular rise73. Thirdly, he suggests that the monetary economy of the Roman Empire became integrated into a single system during the first two centuries AD. According to Hopkins, the chronological distribution of silver coins shows such similarities in different provinces of the Empire, that this was likely to be caused by "the flow of money taxes and tax- stimulated trade which redistributed...silver coins throughout the Empire."74). Finally, Hopkins tries to give an estimate of the yearly yield of taxation. Assuming a tax-rate of 10 % and estimating the gross product at its minimum level, he arrives at a total tax revenue of HS 824 million per annum75. If military expenditure actually accounted for a large part of the state budget, this seems a reasonable figure76. Taking this total sum for granted, and in view of the fact that the gross product was probably higher than minimum subsistence level, this makes the tax-rate lower than 10 %77. Hopkins' conclusion is that Roman tax-levels were low, which in his view, leaves plenty of room for private exactions78.

For our purposes, the most important element of Hopkins model is that Roman taxation in money led ultimately to the monetization of the economy and the commercialization of exchange. However, the model rests on a few basic assumptions and observations, and an evaluation of these is crucial in determining its usefulness. In his book on the structure and scale of the Roman economy, Duncan-Jones critically evaluated Hopkins' model. His first point is that the impact of taxation in money could not have been great, because for a very large part, taxes were paid in kind: "... there were probably sharp limits to Rome's ability to extract payment of tax in money, and payment in kind may have taken its place in practice, even where money-payment was apparently stipulated ...".79 The limits which Duncan-Jones sees are primarily the limited availability of cash to pay taxes. He thinks that cash payments predominantly occurred in areas which already were to a significant degree monetized, and only in the case of taxes "'which by their nature were levied in money"80. The flow of cash throughout the Empire, which in Hopkins' model is a condition for maintaining the necessary liquidity to ensure the payment of money-taxes, was inadequate.

This inadequacy is apparent, in the first place, from the fact that the inter-regional similarities in chronological distribution of coin finds, which Hopkins interprets as large-scale transfer of coin between regions, are superficial and

cation spread over and tied to the subsistence economy...' (Hopkins 1980,104).

73 The intention for minting a growing amount of coins, however, had probably nothing to do with increases in trade. According to Hopkins minting of coins strongly correlates with military expenditure, although he is too cautious to say that this represented a causal relation.

74 Hopkins 1980, 113.

75 The formula Hopkins uses is: Tax=10%[>(min.gross prod.= population x (min. net consumpt.+seed) x price)] Hopkins 1980, 118.

76 Hopkins calculates the annual cost of the army to be HS 445 million (+ HS 50 million; Hopkins 1980, 125).

77 Hopkins estimates the gross product at somewhat less than twice the minimum subsistence level; Hopkins 1980: 116).

78 For instance, rents. According to Hopkins, rents function in the same way as taxes and competed with them for a limited surplus.

79 Duncan-Jones 1990, 197.

80 Duncan-Jones 1990, 194; by this he means the 'indirect' taxes, such as portoria,

14 due to the bias in coin finds.81 When looking at coin finds in more detail, significant differences occur between regions, which seem to point in the opposite direction: there was little cash flow between the different provinces of the Roman Empire.82 Secondly, interregional trading did not generate cash flow from one region to another; when cargo was sold at some port, the money was mostly used to buy other cargo in the same port83. It was not expedient to travel with an empty ship. Thus money transactions did take place, but probably only within the port of trade: money itself did not travel as an adjunct of trade. Thirdly, there is no strong argument for linking the increase of Mediterranean trade with the institution of money-taxes. Mediterranean trade was already flourishing long before this. The upsurge of trade from the second half of the second century BC onwards may just as well reflect of the take-over of the Carthaginean trade-network by the Romans. Under the Principate, "the strongest motive forces behind growth in long-distance trade ... often seem to have been governmental or official, the need to feed cities which grew both in size ..., the need to ship tax-grain and tax-oil, and the need to supply a large and widely dispersed army.84 Fourthly, according to Hopkins the tax-importing provinces, which were relatively poor, are at the same time the market for the goods sold by tax-exporting provinces to acquire cash for paying taxes. This poses a problem, for where did the frontier provinces get the money that was needed to pay for the goods? Or is the market in this case practically equivalent with the army which was stationed in the tax-importing province?85 This would make the model needlessly complicated. Taxation in kind would, on the other hand, offer a direct link between tax-payer and tax- consumer, if one takes the army to be the main consumer of state funds in frontier provinces.86 Finally, there is no evidence in the ancient sources in favour of the dominance of taxation in money. In the most optimistic view, we can say that on the ground of ancient texts, we simply do not know the proportion of taxes in money and taxes in kind. This leaves us to determine if taxation in money was a possibility on archeological grounds. As we have seen, Duncan-Jones left no stone unturned to invalidate Hopkins' model of complementary flow of taxes and trade. Still, he did not make a strong case for the relative isolation of provincial economies, nor did he present an alternative vision on the extent of monetization of the economy. The 'differences in regional liquidity', 'cellular economy' and ineffectiveness of the Roman government in recovering coin paid out87, which he offers as alternative options, are still awaiting proof. How must we, then, picture the relation between taxes and monetary circulation? In the following section, I will try to approach the tax-system from the bottom up.

The impact of taxation in the western provinces; an attempt to an alternative approach I will start at the local level. This consists of dependent farmers, who had to produce a surplus to pay the rent88. We can

81 A problem with the establishment of whether regional Roman silver circulation pools were sufficiently mixed or not lies in the fact that the coin finds only reflect the money that disappeared from circulation. The processes that lie behind the eventual loss or deposition of coins (chronological, geographical and post-depositional) are so complex that it is the question if they can be used to prove or disprove Hopkins’ thesis at all. In any case, both authors suffer from over-simplification in this respect.

82 Duncan-Jones 1990, 45.

83 Duncan-Jones concentrates, in my view correctly, on shipping trade: this form of transport was most frequently used for large quantities of goods. Transport over land was avoided as much as possible because of its high costs.

84 Duncan-Jones 1990, 46.

85 Only the army provided a market large enough to make a difference, since it did not produce what was needed for its own subsistence. But I doubt that Hopkins has export of subsistence goods in mind.

86 See also Drinkwater and Vertet 1992, 28.

87 Duncan-Jones 1990, 43-44.

88 I use rent as a non-formal term, to indicate what peasants were due to the land-owner; there need not have been a formal agreement in every case.

15 be practically certain that the payment of these rents was made in kind, because conversion of (mainly agricultural) surplus into money was not feasible for peasants at a local level.. These agricultural surpluses were collected by the land- owner. As taxation in this case was tied to property, this means that in fact non-landowning peasants were formally no participants in the tax-system. Nevertheless, it seems improbable that this group did not suffer the consequences of taxation, in particular in regions where no all-encompassing tax-system existed before the Roman conquest (such as Gallia Belgica). The extra produce had to come from somewhere, and the land-owners were not likely to cut their profits. The individual who owned the land was assessed for the amount of land he owned by the authorities of city in which territory the land lay.89 He had to pay the tributum agri, and perhaps also tributum capitis for the people who worked on his land and who were his clients. This payment was to take place in the city, presuming the land-owner was his own boss and not in his turn client of an even bigger patron. There were two possibilities:

1. he had to pay the tax in kind. This meant that he had to transport the quantity of produce which he was due to the city, where it was received and temporarily stored.90If he still had surplus produce left after paying his amount of tribute, and he did not need this for subsistence, he had to sell it for money (in the city) or barter it (at a local market?) for other goods. Since he already had to transport produce to the city, it seems likely that he would convert the rest there as well.

2. He paid the tax in money. Also in this case he had to transport his surplus produce to the city, but now he had to sell it all for money. It seems improbable that he would barter the rest of his surplus.

The second option offers more opportunity to the monetization of exchange, since important consumers (land-owners) would prefer to pay for goods and services in cash. Most of these transactions must have taken place in cities or secondary centres, where those goods and services were to be obtained. This implies that monetization of exchange was exclusively to be expected in primary and secondary centres, and that this process probably went quicker in regions which were already more urbanized. There is a third possibility; a land-owner could also have converted his produce into money in a military settlement. It is an option which may have existed in military zones, which were the least urbanized and where distances from the producer to the administrative centre were the greatest.91 He would then still have to pay his taxes in the administrative centre, unless it were a different form of tax-paying, for instance on basis of some sort of contract with the army.92 In the case of Germania Inferior, we know of such contracts (pactiones), be it not with individuals, but at a higher (local or regional?) level. The civitas Batavorum (certainly before AD 69) delivered troops to the army on the basis of such a pactio93. However, it remains uncertain if this may interpreted as a form of tribute. Tacitus is clear: in the eyes of the Batavi the delivering of troops is not to be seen as tributum; they are practically a free tribe. I doubt if the Roman government looked at it the same way.94 In the above used sense of the word, it certainly was tributum. Perhaps I have put to much emphasis on landownership as a medium for the collection of taxes. It is of course possible that the group of small land-owning farmers was considerably large, and that not all the land was in the hands of a few rich landowners. The situation probably varied from region to region. However, this does not mean that these

89 Dig. 50.15.4.2. Sometimes, in civitates with a low level of urbanization, the civitas capital was the only city. Probably this situation occurred more often in northern Gaul and the Germanies.

90 It would be interesting to calculate the space needed to store the accumulated tribute in kind in the civitas capital and to compare it with the existing archaeological evidence (horrea). Unfortunately, no such capital has been excavated entirely, so we cannot assess the feasibility of this aspect of taxation in kind.

91 This would reduce the cost of transport significantly.

92 In this case, tax payment would again be in kind.

93 Cf. Tacitus Historiae IV, 14; Germania, 29.

94 On this point, I disagree with Willems (1985, 387), who does not consider the supply of troops to be a form of tribute. Perhaps this was true before the Augustan period; thereafter, however the extraordinary position of some tribes quickly dwindled (cf.Drinkwater 1983, 25).

16 small farmers were independent and that they dealt with the authorities in a direct way. The lay-out of rural settlements in Gallia Belgica frequently suggests that relations within the village were not equal: in many cases one inhabitant or family seems to have been more powerful than the others.95 Even if this 'village chief' did not, in a strict sense, own the land which was worked by the villagers, he still profited in some way from his position. The relation between the chief and the rest of the village may not have been one between a landowner and his tenants, but a non-formal one between a patron and his clients. It is reasonable to assume that the patron also monopolized the relations between the village and the authorities.96 Since taxation was an important feature of these relations, this implies that the patron probably was assessed conveniently for the tributum of the village and its inhabitants, and collected and paid it as well. We may conclude, then, that for the working of the tax-system and indeed for the authorities, it did not matter at all whether or not a patron was legally the owner of the land of his clients.97 Patron-client relations did not end at the borders of the rural village.98 Patrons of villages could be the clients of others, and they in their turn could be clients of even more powerful men; these dependency relations only ended at the level of the emperor. In absence of a well-integrated settlement hierarchy and urbanization, as in the case of northern Gallia Belgica, the assessing and collecting of taxes may very well have taken place along these lines.99 Meanwhile, we have arrived at civitas-level. As far as the tribute was not already present in the civitas capital, it had to be transported there. We may assume that a percentage of the tribute stayed behind in the hands of city- authorities, to pay for local governmental costs, although we do not have any direct proof of this. An interesting fact in this respect is that, as far as the tribute was paid in kind, it had to be sold for cash in order to mobilize it for governmental purposes. One way or the other, taxes always led to a certain degree of monetization, even if they were paid in kind. At the same time we may assume that in a military province like Germania Inferior, taxes in kind100 were frequently transferred to the army without the intervention of city authorities.101 In this respect, little monetization is to be expected here outside of the military settlements, unless it was caused by different mechanisms, which lie beyond our present discussion.102 The tax-funds that were not redistributed at civitas-level went to the procurator, who took care of further distribution to other civitates within the provinces which were part of his 'district'103, or to other provinces, as the need arose. At this level, all of the tax-funds that went through the hands of the procurator were likely to be in cash. Although he probably administered the distribution of taxes in kind as well, it was not necessary for the goods to travel via the city where the procurator was seated. In Gallia Belgica and Lower Germany, the area of our study, the larger part of both taxes in kind and in money were absorbed by the Rhine armies. This meant that little tax was left to export, as the model of Hopkins predicts. For the circulation of goods and money, this implies that for the most part it was confined to the area itself. But was the tax-revenue of this 'tax-region' also enough for self-sufficiency? Or were Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior, as Hopkins maintains, dependent on the import of taxes from other regions? We could perhaps find an answer to this question by looking at distribution of archeological finds within and without the area. Only, how is

95 See, for instance, Slofstra 1991.

96 Probably, this monopoly is exactly what the patron owed his position to. For more about patronage, see Wallace-Hadrill 1990.

97 Perhaps these non-formal patron-client relations were even formalized in the actual census-records.

98 Cf. Slofstra 1991, 169.

99 In this structure, perhaps vici - as rural centres - served as further link between rural villages and the city (or the army). Slofstra thinks that in some cases they may have started as tribal pagus centres in the first half of the first century, and that the pagus elite was responsible for collecting taxes (Slofstra 1991, 175).

100 For instance, grain or cattle.

101 This still had to be recorded in the civitas capital, since it was the administrative centre of the province.

102 Perhaps in such provinces money percolated in the economic system by trade in rural centres. I return to this later in this chapter.

103 As we have seen, in our case this was Gallia Belgica and the two Germaniae; the procurator was probably seated in Trier (Drinkwater 1983, 95).

17 distribution of tax-goods to be recognized in the archaeological record? Since transports of grain and other subsistence- goods are bound to leave few traces, we have to rely on coin finds. Now if we accept the criticism of Duncan-Jones on Hopkins' method of looking at chronological distribution of coin finds in order to establish links between tax-importing and tax-exporting regions, we will have to find another way.104 For instance, by analyzing distribution patterns of coinage over various kinds of settlements, one could perhaps discover how money entered the circulation in the study area and how it was distributed thereafter. Also, it is possible to compare distribution patterns of subregions which differ in character, as to get an impression of the velocity of circulation of money; this should give some information on whether or not there was a regular supply of fresh coin, which is important to know if one wants to decide to what degree provincial or regional economies were 'cellular'.105

One of the main points I have tried to make in the section above is that Hopkins' thesis that taxation in money eventually led to a more monetized economy is a plausible one. However, it remains to be seen if the tax-system also brought about an empire-wide flow of money by means of complementary taxes and trade. Also, the extent of this monetization is not clear, and how much of it was caused by other factors is a question still unanswered. Another important implication of the model described above is that a gap is to be expected between the extent to which money was used in rural settlements on the one hand, and cities and military settlements on the other. This is of course a comment of some banality, because the staggering difference between the number of coin finds in cities and in rural settlements is already well-known. Still, it would be interesting to see if this difference is also represented in other variables. Perhaps this would tell us a lot about differences in the use of money in various types of settlements. Finally, a remark must be made about the period before 69 AD, which was in fact the starting point and subject of this section.106 We have seen that the age of Augustus represented a breaking-point in Roman provincial taxation, and that taxation in the time before this was probably an irregular affair in the area of study. Also it is important to note that, especially in the northern half of Gallia Belgica, in this period the focal point in taxation and other exchange relations was the Roman army. This presence was responsible for most of the economic changes that occurred in this period, since it was the only large-scale market for goods and money in a region which was in essence non-urbanized.

104 I am aware of the many problems involved in analyzing and interpreting distribution patterns of coin finds. For a general discussion of these and other methodological problems, see chapter 2. These matters will be dealt with in more detail in the actual analyses of the coin finds.

105 For instance, the military limes-zone with the predominantly rural hinterland, or with a more urbanized area. The three subareas of this research project were chosen with this in mind.

106 I have chosen to cross the boundaries of the period under discussion to be able to give a full discussion of the impact of the Roman tax- system on monetary matters.

18 Chapter 2 Methodology

Coin finds are a complex category of archaeological finds, especially when one tries to analyse them from a synthetic perspective. This involves considerations of a very diverse nature: from the field of numismatics for understanding the phenomenology of coins, from archaeology for depositional factors and matters of distribution, from economic anthropology for the character of money and a conceptual framework and from ancient history in order to combine the archaeological evidence with the written sources. It is therefore unavoidable to spend some words on questions of method. This chapter will briefly discuss the nature of coin finds, the ways of analysing them by means of quantitative and qualitative approaches and of presenting the results of this analysis. Much has been said on the subject of the methodology of coin studies; I will try to discuss only what is necessary to explain the choices that have been made in this study.107

2.1 The nature of coin finds

2.1.1 Identifying hoards and typology

Traditionally, coin finds are divided into two chief categories, differing in the way they were deposited, analysed and interpreted: hoards and stray finds. The principal difference between them is that the first usually consist of a group of coins, which is thought to form a closed context: that is, they were deposited as a group at a particular moment in time. The second category are coins which were lost individually, and although many of them may be found together on the same site, they might have been deposited in different time segments. They are the result of accumulation of coin loss over a certain length of time. One of the most important reasons to distinguish between these two find categories, is the dating of their time of deposition, which will be discussed later. First it will be established how to distinguish between them. In many cases, the circumstances of the find will be the answer to that. Ideally, hoards are found still inside the container in which they were buried, and information is available about its archeological context. Although hoards frequently fulfil the first condition, they hardly at all meet the second. One of the reasons for this is that many of them were found in an era in which archeological context did not matter as much as the find itself. Presently, every archaeologist is imbued with a deep respect for context, but he or she is -alas- rarely identical with the finder of the hoard. As most hoards before 1970

Figure 2.1: the circulation hoard of Ahn-Machtum found in 1958

107 To name a few:: Van Es 1960; Casey & Reece (eds) 1974, Reece 1987, Van Heesch 1998. In fact every comprehensive coin study has a section on methodology.

19 were chance finds during non-archaeological activities which required the movement of soil, nowadays they are recuperated by amateurs with metal detectors who vary in their degree of trustworthiness. Still, in many cases the container of the hoard provides us with evidence for its closed context. When the container is missing, there may be a problem. If a group of coins is found close together it will be frequently regarded as a disturbed hoard, but who defines the degree of closeness? One way of ascertaining that it is indeed a hoard, is to look at how close the coins are with respect to their time of issue. This only works in the case of a so-called circulation hoard, which traditionally displays the highest percentage of coins before the date of its youngest coin (see figure 2.1). The best example of a circulation hoard is a lost purse. Regrettably, in many cases the chronological distribution of coins looks different than that of the hoard of Ahn-Machtum, and the archaeologist is faced with the choice between dismissing the hoard as a hoard or declaring it incomplete. There is a general preference for the latter option. Circulation hoards are regarded as being representative of coin circulation in the time and space it was buried. Another problem with identifying hoards is concerned with the concept of value. Tradition dictates that hoards should be valuable; this probably dates from the time that hoards were called treasure, a term which is presently only used in the context of legal intricacies about the ownership of the hoard.108 However, the present value of a hoard is of no concern to its interpretation; it is the value attributed to it by its former owner which matters. Clearly, it is hard to glean any objective criteria from this. Some hard-earned asses may have meant a lot to a tenant farmer, but were nothing to a wealthy landowner of the decurion class. The solution is naming every find of more than one coin lying closely together a hoard. But what to do with isolated finds of gold coins? It is difficult to picture them as losses109; although this may be true in some extraordinary cases, it is rarely the rule. In this study, these finds are considered to be hoards, but are treated separately from other hoards and stray finds.

Other types of hoards are accumulation hoards: they are the result of collection of coins during a longer period of time. They might be interpreted as the savings of the former owner of the hoard. He may have collected the coins for various reasons, each of those able to affect the structure of the hoard itself. The collection may be literal; in that case the hoard can, for instance, represent a gallery of emperors. The coins may also be true savings, money put away for later use. Frequently, this type of hoard occurs in periods of coin devaluation, in which the coins with a higher weight or higher content of precious metal were withdrawn from circulation. The hoards of the second half of the third century in our area are a good example. The antoninianus was being constantly devalued in this period, and a lot of ‘ better’ antoniniani disappeared into hoards at the time. A completely different accumulation hoard is the votive deposit. Particularly British archeologists use the term hoard for long series of coins ritually deposited at a sanctuary. They are different from settlement finds in the fact that their deposition was intentional, not the result of loss. But they represent no closed context like the other hoards, and as such are fundamentally different. Votive deposits cannot be dated, although the youngest coins can date the time after which no coins were added to the deposit. Even if a sanctuary fell into disuse, the deposit can continue long after that; it is by no means a certain indicator of the end of a sanctuary.

2.1.2 Dating hoards, hoard clusters and interpretation of hoards

Dating a hoard can be straightforward, as in the case of circulation hoards. Since they are a sample of the circulation of coins, the coins of the decennia before the closing coin will be the most numerous. It is common practice to date the burial of these hoards not long after the issue date of the youngest coin. It is possible to date an accumulation hoard the same way, but there are snags. The motive for the forming of hoard may have an influence on the date of burial. The reasons for burying the hoard may not be the same as the reasons for

108 For instance the coroner’s inquest about the Hoxne hoard in Britain, consisting of heaps of late Roman silver coins and silver plate. See Bland and Johns 1993.

109 This depends also on the context of the find.

20 collecting (and selecting) the coins. A hoard that was ‘closed’ or completed could have been buried at a much later date. In most cases, the chance of a longer lapse between completion and burial is greater in the case of accumulation hoards than with circulation hoards.

Hoard clusters are periods in which the number of hoards lies well above the average. Hoarding is a phenomenon concurrent with coin use, and there must have been a ‘normal’ loss rate. When a hoard cluster appears, this is usually taken as a sign that there was an external factor responsible for increased hoarding, but this is not the only possibility. The external factor could just as well be the reason for an increase in the non-retrieval of hoards, while the hoarding itself was average. Sometimes, both situations were true: such an explanation is used for the hoard cluster in the late third century. The traditional explanation is that the unsafe situation of the times was responsible for so-called emergency hoards, as well as for the fact that many hoards were not retrieved by their owners. The latter still applies to the hoards of the late-third century, but the reasons for hoarding may rather be the constant devaluations than the immediate threat needed for an emergency burial of a hoard.

Often, hoards are used to determine the structure of the circulation pool at given moments in time, and to say something about the life-span of certain coin types. Since this use of hoards is intrinsically numismatic and concerns numismatic history, it does not feature in this study very much. Hoards are used more for their information about the use of coins. For instance, accumulation hoards that occur in times of coin devaluation are a clear indication of the fact that the people that used coins were aware of their monetary value and moreover, of imperial policy concerning the currency. Such hoards only appear in contexts in which coins are used in market exchange, and in areas which are familiar with a monetary economy. Another example is the relative exclusiveness of early Roman and Celtic hoards. Mixed hoards are very rare, and this is indicative of a different sphere of use or exclusivity of the social groups that used Roman or respectively Celtic coins.

2.1.3 Site finds: sites and settlements

Technically, a hoard found in a settlement is a site find; here, the term is used instead of the older and vaguer ‘stray finds’. Most coins of this category are lost or deposited in settlements, cemeteries and cumulative votive deposits.110 Sites are not equivalent to settlements. It is possible that one settlement contains various sites or find spots. If we know the archeological context of site finds, we have the choice of treating coins of individual sites separately or considering them representative of the settlement as a whole. The choice in this study varies with the questions asked of the material. In the quantitative analysis of coin finds that makes use of cumulative percentages (see below), the sites or find complexes of Trier-Altbachtal were treated separately to see if they conformed to a chronological pattern. In the comparison of coin finds of different site categories, the coins of the Altbachtal were treated as a whole and as representative of coin loss of a city. This causes some difficulty, since a city always contains more functional elements that may vary also in time, to complicate matters further. Trier-Altbachtal is a large collection of sanctuaries until the later third century, when the area loses its religious significance. As such, the coins may be characteristic of a large sanctuary as well as for a city. It is established in chapter 4 that both functional elements are present in the coin data.111 A similar situation is encountered in the town of Nijmegen. Particularly in the first century AD, the military element is strongly present here. The coin finds of one fort (Kops Plateau) in Nijmegen are so numerous that it would be wrong to see them as representative of a city.112 This, however, confronts us with the problem that military and civilian are hard to distinguish in early Roman Nijmegen: when we disregard all the coins coming from a military context from the rest,

110 It is more appropriate to consider them as site finds, since they bear more similarity to this category.

111 It depends on the way you look at them; in this case, coins seem to behave according to quantum mechanics rather than Newtonian laws.

112 Indeed, so many coins were found there that it would be equally wrong to put the site in the group of forts, but this is more a problem of quantitative analysis and will be discussed later.

21 there is hardly anything left. The same problem will sometimes occur in the case of the vici, although the numerical contrast between find complexes is usually smaller. In many cases the archaeological context of coin finds is less explicitly documented.113 This can cause problems if, for instance, no distinction is made between coins from a settlement and the adjacent cemetery. The same problem arises when a settlement changes its character in the course of time, while at the same time the coins could not be attributed to one of the phases with any certainty.114 Finally, there are cases in which only a location is given for the coin finds (mostly in the form of a toponym), and it is not clear if they belong to an archaeological site which was identified at more or less the same location. Likewise, it is possible that two toponymic references refer to the same site. One of the consequences for the analysis is that the group of unknown sites seems considerably large. Since this group would be reduced in size when contexts would be known, it can produce substantial bias in the comparison between areas with respect to site categories. Sometimes, the group of unknown sites was omitted for this reason.115

2.2 The sense of statistics

By ancient historians, already much thought has been given to the ways in which Roman coins were used within the Roman empire. So far, the most successful approach consisted in constructing a model of the social-economic structure of the Empire, and determining the place of monetary circulation within this structure116. Also from the side of archaeologists the challenge has been taken up to gain more insight in how the coins were actually used, and by whom. However this archaeological interest developed from the seventies onwards, there is still little methodology to tackle this matter. Many researchers have been and are repelled by the host of difficulties which surround the study of coin finds in general, particularly when it comes to trying to take the leap from the actual coin lists of individual sites to statements about the use of the coins found on these sites. Still, we will never know if we do not try. If we want to find out about the use of any object in the past, the only way to do so is by looking at its context. This can be its immediate context, its location in a layer or a feature on a particular site. Or it can be the more general context of the site itself, and the information we have on its function and type. The study of both types of context can give us information about the use of the object. Because we are dealing with a large group of sites, the context we are interested in is of the second type, and thus the most important unit of the analysis is the site on which a coin is found.

One of the pioneers in this kind of research is Reece117, who in the beginning of the seventies became interested in trying to detect different types of coin use in different types of settlements. He did this by comparing the chronological distribution of coins of various sites of Roman Britain with one another to see if any pattern emerged. This turned out to be a successful approach; it seemed that in Britain a different pattern existed for towns and the countryside. Later on, by adding more sites to the picture, this patterning was further developed and adjusted. Recently118 , he proved it to be possible to recognize distinct chronological patterns for different categories of

113 To this must be added that time prevented this study to retrieve contexts on the level of excavation reports or documentation.

114 It seems that Murphy’s law is particularly applicable to coin finds. Even when a settlement is excavated most meticulously, the majority of the coin finds will be in the disturbed top soil of the site.

115 The latter two problems with site identification can also upset distribution patterns on maps. See ‘Notes on the maps’.

116 The article of Hopkins (1980) which ties the use of money to the flow of taxes and goods between tax-consuming and tax-spending provinces has reached an almost canonical status in this debate, with groups of believers and disbelievers.

117 A good overview of his research is to be found in Reece (1987), (especially chapter 5 and 6).

118 Reece 1994.

22 settlements. At the same time, by comparing Britain with other parts of the Roman empire, he showed that there were also substantial regional differences in the supply and use of Roman coins. In this latter work, he also made use of the distribution of denominations in various parts of the empire. Reece refrains (regrettably, in my view) from taking the argument one step further so as to speculate on what these differences could mean both archaeologically and historically. Nevertheless, his methods are so far one of the principal ways of getting nearer to the understanding of the character of the use of Roman money.

Reece (1994) distinguishes three ways to glean information about the use of coins in a certain type of settlement. First, it is possible to compare coin lists of sites of a certain type with each other, that is coin lists of forts with coin lists of villas and so on, and see if they form different groups. The second possibility is to compare coin lists of sites regardless of their type, and see if there are any groups to be discerned. The third way is to create a model for the coin use and loss on different types of sites. The last method is explored in the literature study of chapter 1. Of the first two, the emphasis in this study lies on the second one. This is not wholly a matter of free choice, and is related to an important difference between our material and the British database. Reece's data consist of the coin lists of 140 sites of which the character and occupation period is relatively well known. Of the sites of the Dutch river area, however, the number of sites with the same quality of information is considerably lower. This also applies to the MDS-area; only Luxemburg lies somewhat closer to the British situation. Another point of difference concerns the absolute number of coins per site. Reece's list shows only one site with a coin total of less than 60 coins, whereas in our case, for the majority of sites it lies well below this number (table 3.6). There is, however, another reason to treat each site separately from what we know of its function: in many cases, the archaeological classification of a site is not as strict as it seems. Finally, it may be that if we group sites beforehand , it is distinctly possible that we miss other groupings that may be more relevant with respect to coin use. All these factors give good reason to start from scratch and treat all sites equally.

2.2.1 Preparing the data

For the total number of coins per site, a minimum number of 20 coins has been set in the analysis, to avoid too many zeros on the coin lists. Sometimes, it is necessary to exclude a site from the analyses, because the distribution over the different issue periods is too skewed; usually, this becomes evident during the visual inspection of the test results. The issue periods which have been used are the same that Reece uses, with the exception of the period before Claudius, which is only one period in Reece's system but divided in four parts in our case119. Because the coins were identified by different people, there are sometimes substantial amounts of coins which can be attributed to two (or more) issue periods, because their date range overlaps two periods. To still be able to use these coins, the middle of the date range was computed, and this date attributed again to one issue period.120 The coins with a date range of 40 years or more were not processed in this way, and fall into the ‘missing’ category. Celtic coins were attributed to a single issue period. Strictly, this is not an issue period like the others, and the coins can have widely divergent dates. Still, it was thought better to treat them as a discrete category of coins than attributing them to the Republican or Augustan issue periods, which cover most of the Celtic dates together. This strategy is proved right by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis of the coins of Luxemburg, where the Celtic coins were the most important factor in grouping the sites. The periods before and after AD 260 are dealt with separately. This is done for two reasons. Firstly, there is discontinuity in the coin lists of many sites (as well as discontinuity in occupation) after AD 260. Secondly, the nature of the Roman monetary system underwent fundamental changes in the course of the third century, and one of the

119 The issue periods used in the analyses are listed in Appendix 1.

120 The same technique is used by Ryan (1989) for the analysis of fourth-century Roman coins in southeastern Britain.

23 results was an overall increase in the numbers of coins in circulation. This scale difference alone can easily upset the comparison of coin lists.

2.2.2 Statistics and other numerical techniques

Statistically, the comparing of coin lists of more than two sites is a multi-comparison problem. For such a comparison a complex technique can be used, such as correspondence analysis. However, because such a multivariate analysis processes many variables at the same time, the link between the results and the original problem can become rather complicated. If simpler techniques can be used, this is preferable, since it is much easier to see what happens to the data; in this way, there can be more control over the method used. For our purposes, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and correlation analysis seemed the most useful. These relatively simple techniques, however, can compare only two coin lists at a time, and the result is a measure of difference (K-S test) or similarity (correlation analysis) between the two. It is then possible to group the sites on the basis of the similarity or dissimilarity of their coin lists. However, here we run into a problem. If the correlation coefficient between site A and site B is the same as between site B and site C, this does not automatically mean that the same similarity exists between site A and site C. The degree of similarity may be the same, but the character of this similarity may be quite different. So it is necessary to standardize each comparison. This can be done by comparing the coin list of each individual site with a standard or mean site. This mean site is constructed by simply adding up all the coins of an area per issue period.

Correlation analysis This test calculates a measure of similarity (correlation coefficient) between the coin list of an individual site and that of the average site. A statistical package like SPSS also gives the statistical significance of this similarity, which tells us about the possibility that the similarity is produced by chance. This statistical significance is not very relevant for our purpose, however, for it is not our aim to decide whether the difference between a site and the standard site is 'real'. In fact, the correlation analysis is used here in a non-statistical way, namely as a device to group the sites according to the (dis)similarity of their coin lists. The correlation can be checked by plotting the values of both coin lists against each other, as in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: scatterplot with linear regression line of the coin num bers of Hoogeloon and the mean site; the labels are issue periods

24 The more values lie along a straight line, the higher the (linear) correlation. A rising line denotes a positive correlation, a descending line a negative one. Because the coins are grouped into discrete emission periods, it is best to use the Spearman rank correlation instead of the more current product-moment correlation.121. The correlation coefficients can be plotted in rank order in a graph (figure 2.3). The horizontal axis shows the sites, the vertical axis shows the correlation coefficient of the sites with the average site. If some sites are more equal than others, the sites with the same correlation coefficient will show up as plateaus in the graph, and those sites can be grouped according to their degree of similarity with the average site.

Figure 2.3: Spearman rank correlation coefficients plotted in rank order

The correlation test proved a not very helpful tool for grouping the sites according to their chronological distribution. At first, this was thought to be an effect of the quality of the data of the Dutch river area, which was the first area to be analysed. When the test failed to produce clear results in the Luxemburg area, which is the best-documented one, it was concluded that the test itself was not adequate for solving the problem of comparing the coin list, and it was omitted in the analyses of the MDS-area. The reason why the correlation test was not successful is not entirely clear. It is possible that the fact that this comparison does not observe any (time) sequence in the data is responsible. Another possibility is that linear regression can cause problems with outlying values.122

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests The K-S test compares the cumulative percentages of coins of each emission period of the coin list of an individual site with those of the coin list of the standard site, as is shown in figure 2.4. It uses the greatest difference between these percentages to calculate a measure of difference between the two coin lists. Again, usually the statistical significance of this difference is given as well, but as with the correlation analysis, it is not important for our purpose.123

121 Both correlation tests were used in the analysis; generally, the correlation coefficient falls out somewhat higher when the Spearman rank correlation is used, but the differences were not substantial.

122 See Chapter 3, 48.

123 A statistical package like SPSS also gives the statistical significance of this difference, which tells us about the possibility that the difference is produced by chance. This statistical significance is not very relevant for our purpose, however, for it is not our aim to decide whether the difference between a site and the standard site is 'real'. In fact, the K-S test is used here in a non-statistical way, as a device to group the sites according to the (dis)similarity of their coin lists.

25 Figure 2.4: cumulative percentage curves of Hoogeloon and the MDS mean; the largest difference occurs in the issue period Nerva/Trajanus.

By comparing the results of the tests with the cumulative percentage curves (figure 2.4) it is possible to locate the greatest difference in percentages in a certain issue period. In this way figure 2.5 could be produced, in which the issue periods are set out on the category axis and the greatest difference in percentages on the scale axis. When the cumulative percentage of an individual site lies below that of the mean site, the values are positive. Sites with similar coin lists should cluster around a certain value; these clusters of sites are the groups we are looking for.

Figure 2.5: results of the K-S tests in the MDS-area. On the x-axis the issue periods; the scale-axis shows the positive or negative differences with the MDS-mean. Hoogeloon is categorized as a villa site in this scatterplot (period 8).

In all three areas, the K-S test proved to be of some value in an explorative grouping of the sites. A shortcoming of

26 this test is that it only groups sites on the basis of similarity in the period of the greatest difference. It would be better if the whole time sequence of issue periods were considered. This brings us to another method of comparison, which is again based on the work of Reece.

Chronological profiles In a recent article 124, Reece uses an alternative method for a chronological comparison of the coin lists of 140 sites in Britain. The cumulative percentages of coins per issue period are set off against the percentages of the British mean, by subtracting the mean percentage from that of the individual site in every issue period. The resulting numbers can be plotted as shown in figure 2.6, in which the line shows the difference between the cumulative percentages of the individual site and the mean site; in fact, the zero-line represents the mean. Every graph ends on this line, because the cumulative percentage of the mean site and the individual site are always the same (100 %). The graph shows the build- up of coins in the course of time in contrast with the mean site; positive values thus show a higher build-up of coin numbers in a certain period than the mean site, but this does not mean that the individual site has a higher percentage of coins in that period. Nevertheless, it is chronological profiles of individual sites we are interested in, and how they can be compared with each other. In this way, it is possible to classify sites according to their entire chronological profile.

Figure 2.6: chronological profile of Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers. On the category-axis are issue periods; on the scale axis the difference in cumulative coin percentages with the MDS mean. In the grouping of sites general trends are the most important aspect; two sites may differ in the scale of the difference with the mean, but if they display the same alternation of peaks and troughs (disregarding small variations), this is the basis to group them together. Sometimes this causes a problem, when the general trend is the same, but the characteristic peak (or trough) lies one issue period further or back. In this cases, if there is no other group that bears more similarity to the deviant site, the site is grouped with the others despite its irregularity. The sites that stand alone in their profile can obviously not be used for the grouping.125 It must be observed that identifying groups of sites which share the same profile can at this moment only be done by eye, and this unavoidably brings a subjective element into the comparison. However, it has never been the intention to strive for ‘statistically correct’ methods. The advantage of this way of comparing the chronological distribution of coins of different sites is that the time sequence is left intact in the analysis, and the whole series of issue periods are used for the comparison. Moreover, the graph shows in which periods the individual sites lies under or above the mean.126

124 Reece 1995, 179-206.

125 They may still be of some use in the future: perhaps other similar sites will be discovered.

126 However, the fact that cumulative percentages are used makes the interpretation somewhat more difficult.

27 This method does produce better results than the two statistical techniques, and it is possible to identify different chronological patterns for different site types. The association between a site type and a chronological pattern is never straightforward, however, and it remains a difficult task to translate the patterns into historically meaningful categories. Nevertheless, as a heuristic tool it seems the most promising. Additional research will be necessary to attune the method further, and evaluate its use.

2.3 The art of representation

Some comments are needed with respect to the graphs and maps which are used in this book. The way data is presented has important consequences for the analyses and interpretation thereof; it is thus fundamental to clarify the choices that were made. I will speak only of general aspects here; further details regarding data manipulation are discussed in the sections which discuss the individual graphs and maps.

2.3.1 Chronological distribution of coins127

For general trends in chronological distribution that concern large periods or entire areas, the data is mostly represented in tabular form, which needs little comment. To illustrate the coin lists of individual sites, bar charts are used, where the category axis represents the issue periods and the scale axis coin numbers. The difference between numbers and percentages of the total is nil on the level of the individual site: the statistical package that is used adjusts the scale axis to fit a certain size, which has the same effect as using percentages. As to displaying the length of each issue period in the width of the bar, I always have thought this to be confusing and mostly irrelevant to the discussion, when the comparison of sites is at issue. The only factor of importance is that each site should be treated in the same way, so they are comparable. The coin output of different emperors is not an issue in this book, nor does it need comment that the Flavian period is longer than the Hadrianic. The Ravetz-method, which uses coins pro thousand expressed as a year average, is thus not used here.128 Frequently, the category of missing values (coins that could not be dated within a time-span of 40 years) is left out of the bar chart, particularly when it is large: it depresses the other issue periods, which are important for the discussion. Since we are dealing with large numbers of coins, the assumption is that if these coins could be attributed to a specific issue period, it would not greatly affect the distribution. This cannot be proved, but during the research project it seemed that if a site has a large coin list, new finds will seldom affect the chronological distribution. However, even if this is not true, the category of missing values is only a warning that things could be different, but never a reason to say nothing on the basis of the coins we do have.

2.3.2 Notes on the maps

For each area, a site map was produced by first manually plotting sites on 1:25000 maps. Next, the sites were transferred to other maps of a larger scale to facilitate the making of digital maps. The maps were digitized with AutoCAD, and then converted into a GIS-program (MapInfo) to be able to visualize selections from the coin database. Plotting the sites on the map was not unproblematic. Of some sites, the location was well-documented by coordinates or toponyms which could be traced on the 1:25000 maps. However, since toponyms are idiomatic, it may

127 Many of the aspects discussed in this paragraph can also be applied to distributions of other variables.

128 The full equation of Ravetz looks as follows: (number of coins per issue period/total number of coins)*(1000/number of years of issue period). Its most important aspect is that it eliminates the different length of issue periods, but this is not always relevant; coins mostly reached an area in batches within a short time-span, it did not drip into an area gradually during the years of an issue period, as the Ravetz method might imply.

28 happen that the name does not (exactly) match the one on the map. In many cases other evidence proved that the location was the same, but this was not always true. Sometimes toponyms could not be found on the maps, and not even on older maps of the area. If a rough location was known, the site was plotted anyway. This was also done in cases where only the municipality in which the coins were found was known, if the impression existed that the find report was reliable. In some cases, coins were found at two places which lay so close together on the 1:25000 maps that they were in all probability from one and the same site. Mostly, this occurs when coin finds are reported by different amateurs who use other toponyms.

29 Chapter 3: The coin finds of the Dutch river area.

3.1 Introduction

The boundaries which define the Dutch river area are partly historically inspired, partly chosen for reasons of a geographical nature - the North Sea in the west and the present border between Germany and The Netherlands on the eastern side. The river Rhine coincides with the limes during the greater part of the Roman era, and as such forms the only 'historically correct' demarcation of this area. The river Meuse is more or less the borderline between the Pleistocene deposits of the southern Netherlands, and the fluvial Holocene deposits directly north of the Meuse. Furthermore, the Meuse provides us with a convenient dividing line between the Dutch river area and the second sample area, the Meuse- Demer-Scheldt region. The eastern boundary, the Dutch-German border, is chosen with regard to the availability of the coin finds. For the purposes of this study, these are primarily confined to those present in the archive of the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (henceforth abbreviated as KPK). However, one must not put too much weight on the boundaries themselves, except of course for the limes, because there are other considerations which render the choice of the actual boundaries less important. One is the general position of the area with respect to the centre of the Empire. It is generally assumed that the successfulness of the romanization of a certain area is inversely proportional to the distance from the centre of the Empire. Since monetization in this study is considered to be one of the aspects of romanization, the distance between the sample areas and the centre is a factor of importance. I am not maintaining that the above assumption is correct; one aim of this study is to find out whether or not this view of Roman coinage is valid. Another matter of consideration, strongly connected with the first, are the broad social-political characteristics of the area, which are reflected by its infrastructure during the Roman period. This factor, just like the previous one, is considered a priori to have had a profound influence on the distribution and use of Roman money. In fact, it is the contrast between the three sample areas on these points which matters the most, and there is no point in trying to be exact in the demarcation of a single area.129 The Dutch river area differs from the two other areas on two main points. On the one hand, it is a frontier area, which has had a considerable effect on its social economic characteristics; also, there was always a strong military presence as a result of its position within the Empire.130 One of the questions in this study is whether the Roman army played a crucial role in the distribution of state coinage, so it seems logical to include a heavily militarised zone in our study. In this, it differs markedly with the other two areas. A second factor which is important to notice is that during the Roman period there seems to have been less differentiation in the settlement pattern in this area than in the other two, but this is probably an effect of the state of archaeological research.131 The greatest contrast in this respect is with the third area (Luxemburg and Trier), whereas the second area (the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region), although slightly more differentiated in its settlements than the Dutch river area, shows itself a worthy neighbour.

129 The three areas are shown on map 1.1, p. 3.

130 The particular character of frontier areas is excellently discussed by Whittaker (1994); the line of forts along the Rhine is probably not seen by the Romans as a linear border to their territory (Whittaker 1994, 46), but rather as a marker between structured and unstructured space within the limits of the Roman empire, which coincided with the known world. Nor must the river be seen as an easy line of defense (Whittaker 1994, 56). The Rhine was used as principal line of communication and supply.

131 This might be related to the inadequacies of traditional archaeological site categories than to the real situation. Recent studies have established a more diversified picture of the settlement system in the Dutch river area, but it seems not to conform to traditional types (villa, vicus, rural village; see Slofstra 1991). Also, archeological research has been concentrated for a long time on the forts and the military vici; well-documented excavations of ‘civilian’ sites are scarce. The excavations at Wijk-bij-Duurstede De Horden and De Geer, and the more recent excavations at Tiel-Passewaaij are the only examples of extensive research of rural (civilian) contexts.

30 This chapter will be mainly about the coin finds of one area; the results of the analyses will be compared with those of the other areas in chapter 6. First, a brief outline is given of the geographical situation, after which a description is given of the historical developments in the course of the period that concerns us. Next, the sites of the area are discussed, as well as the analyses of the coin finds. The chapter ends with an attempt to interpret the results in terms of the use of Roman coinage in this area.

3.2 The physical geography of the area

A brief discussion of the main physical characteristics of the area is in order, insofar it is deemed relevant to the distribution pattern of the coin finds.132 The area can be divided into two parts. The eastern half of the area is dominated by Holocene fluvial deposits, alternating stream ridges with basins.133 Pleistocene cover sands are still visible in the extreme eastern part of the area, where Nijmegen lies (partly) high upon an ice-pushed ridge. Speaking in terms of land use, the soil is more suitable for animal husbandry than for agricultural purposes. Because of the unbridled activity of meandering river systems, many archaeological sites that lay close to rivers have suffered from erosion in the course of time.134 The western half of the area was for a long time more susceptible to physical change through the influence of the sea. It consists of a peat zone in the east, and the coastal barriers in the very west of the area, which formed a natural protection against the incursions of the sea; directly behind these coastal barriers lies a marine clay area. Apart from this clay zone, this half of the river area was presumably less attractive for human occupation than its eastern counterpart. And indeed, if we look at archaeological maps on which the sites of the early, middle and late Roman period are plotted, the eastern half of the river area seems at all times to be the most densely populated.135 Our view may be distorted, however, by the intensity of archaeological fieldwork, which, until recently, was somewhat neglective of the western peat areas. Erosion by later marine transgressions and peat winning may have been also considerable factors which affect archaeological visibility of sites. In the western part of the river area, conditions seem to have been best for mixed farming.136

3.4 The inventory of the coin finds

3.4.1 Find spots, find complexes and settlements

One of the aims of the inventory of coin finds was to locate their provenance as exactly as possible. Since settlements are of prime importance in the analysis of the coin finds, it is necessary that the link between the coin finds and settlements of the Dutch river area is well-established. This is not a problem if a site is excavated; mostly a neat coin list is produced, and we can be reasonably certain that the coins on the list are indeed the coins lost within the settlement that was excavated. It is, however, not an easy task to decide if several 'stray finds', which may have been found relatively close to one another, did in fact belong to the coin loss of one settlement. In the archives of the KPK, stray finds are recorded in various ways. For almost every coin, the municipality is registered within which boundaries the coin was found. This is evidently not a very precise indication, since present

132 For a more extensive description, see Willems 1986 for the eastern part, and Bloemers 1978 for the western part of this area.

133 Betuwe Formation: see Berendsen 1997 for a more extensive account.

134 Dykes are presumed to be used only from circa AD 1000. From the 5th century there seems to be evidence for displacement of the course of major rivers, which led to an increase in floods (Berendsen 1997, 101).

135 Van Es e.a. 1988, 88; 92.

136 Bloemers 1978; Kooistra 1996.

31 municipalities may include several ancient settlements, and thus it makes no sense assign all the stray finds to one coin list. In the course of the 20th century, however, more pressure was brought to bear upon the KPK by archaeologists to try, if possible, to be more exact about the precise location of the coin finds. Since most stray finds are reported by amateurs with varying grades of archaeological awareness and reliability, this means that , in spite of the willingness of the personnel of the KPK, it is not always possible to attain explicitness about the provenance of the coins. Still, 33% of the 'stray' coins of the Dutch river can be located at a satisfactory level.137 This means that those 33 % (1165/3559) are traceable to a certain field, street, churchyard, etcetera, on the basis of which it is possible in some cases to reconstruct which coins belonged together on one site list. These groups of stray coins are henceforward designated as find complexes, in order to distinguish them from the actual coin lists, which are produced in the course of the excavation of sites. In table 3.1, numbers of coins are shown according to their provenance.

Dutch river area Nijmegen Kops Provenance Plateau Total

Coins % Coins

Excavations 2246 39 3554 5840

Stray finds dry 3069 53 - 3069

Stray finds wet 489 8 - 489

Unknown 10 10

Total 5814 100 3554 9408 Table 3.1: provenance of the coin finds of the Dutch river area

As can be seen from table 3.1, the settlement Nijmegen-Kops Plateau (site 2) distorts the picture by its sheer number of excavated coins. The 2246 excavated coins which remain when site 2 is disregarded are spread over 36 sites, which have been excavated completely or for a considerable part. If one counts every site at which an excavation has taken place, however small it might have been, the number of sites is 62.

Map 3.1: The coin finds of the Dutch river area When a coin comes from an excavated site, it does not always mean that its provenance is well-documented. There are large differences in the quality of data here; for instance, for nearly every coin of De Horden (site 1) the exact find spot

137 This is leaving out the coins of Nijmegen-Kops Plateau; in this case more than five thousand coins come from only one excavated area.

32 within the settlement is registered, whereas it is nearly impossible to get the same information about the coins of Vechten. For this reason, the coins of Vechten are split into different groups: the coins which are certainly from the fort form site 176, coins of which the provenance is not documented are site 360. Finally the coins which were found during observations at the construction of Rijksweg A12 (Vechten) are labelled site 363. In this case, although nearly every coin of those three sites has been found during excavations, we know of only one third of the coins if they are from one and the same settlement, and what was the nature of this settlement. It may be possible to track down the provenance of the coins in the two other groups, but since it would involve a lot of work plodding through excavation reports, this is not a feasible option in the perspective of this study. Even if excavation is not a guarantee for the quality of the data, it naturally stays important to register whether a coin was retrieved during an excavation or not. At all events, it does give an indication of the status of a coin. In general, we know that an excavated coin belongs on the coin list of a specific settlement, and in most cases we are informed about the nature of that settlement. If we are lucky, we may even know the period during which the settlement existed, although this information is often based on the coin finds themselves. In other words, the fact that a coin comes from an excavation provides us with a basic, and sometimes more than basic context.

3.4.2 The coins; identification and classification.

Any inventory of the coin finds of a certain region can never be complete. Every day, new coins are brought to light by the activities of archaeologists and amateurs. The latter group is becoming steadily more prolific than the first, because the advent of the metal detector has popularized the hobby of coin collecting (or in many cases, the word 'coin gathering' seems a more adequate term) immensely, to the point that the situation is getting out of hand. Fortunately, a lot of amateurs still report their finds with the KPK, although it is difficult to estimate the number of coins disappearing from the scene in private collections or antiquary shops. Also, even when archaeologists find coins, or when finds are reported to them, it can sometimes take quite a while before the finds are reported to the KPK. This is mildly irritating in the case of stray finds, but unacceptable if the coin list of a major excavated site is being withheld from the archive of the KPK. All coins which were not reported to the KPK before the inventory was concluded (in september 1993) were not included in the database, simply because there was no time to go after them138.

Year Dutch river area Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Total number of coins Number of C/S - site 2 sites Coins det. Coins det. Coins det.

<1800 340 340 75 45

1800-1900 115 115 47 25

1900-1950 1096 1096 90 122

1950-1960 225 225 39 58

1960-1970 600 3 603 92 66

1970-1980 246 63 309 63 86 36

1980-1990 694 1426 12 1563 3694 3001 163 22.7(13.1)

1990-1993 24 719 1852 2595 2571 83 31.3(9.1)

Total 3340 2208 15 3415 8977 5635 - - Table 3.2: coin finds of the Dutch river area distributed over years of recovery. Det.=detector find; C/S=average number of coins per site; site 2=Nijmegen-Kops Plateau. Coin hoards are not included.

138 An exception was made for the coin finds of Nijmegen which were found during excavations between 1959-1977, which have been kindly supplied by J. Boersma.

33 Of all the coins in the database, 62.6% are detector finds. If we exclude site 2 (Nijmegen-Kops Plateau), this is reduced to 29.3 %.139 In any case, it is clear to see that the metal detector has had a vast impact on the number of coins found. Some would see this as a problem, since it could be argued that until now only a small proportion of the coins in this area has been found, and therefore, the sample might be not representative in the light of future finds. However, there is not much we can do about that, and then it remains to be seen if future finds will affect in any major way the qualitative aspects of the coin finds, which are the prime subject of investigation in this study. The sample we have now is already fairly large, and is the result of a long history of coin collecting (table 3.2). As can be seen from table 3.2, there is a steady rise in the number of coin finds in the 20th century, with a slight decline in the seventies, only to increase steeply from 1980 onwards through the use of metal detectors. At the same time both the number of find spots and the average numbers of coins per site is getting larger. This means probably that the metal detector has had a positive influence on the likelihood of finding coins when one is looking for them, as well as on the intensity of the search for coins. All coins have been identified (or 'un-identified') by the staff of the KPK, except for the coins from the excavations in Nijmegen during the years 1957-1971. This has the advantage that in most cases there is uniformity in the variables registered for every coin. Only for the older coin finds sometimes a different system of registration was used. If those coins are still part of the collection, they have been or are in the process of being standardized. Still, there have been changes in the system of the KPK as well. In the seventies, the fact whether or not the find has been made with the help of a detector, has not been mentioned consequently. I suspect the number of detector finds in this period to have been higher in reality than the figure given in table 3.2. Also, the accuracy with respect to the location of the find has increased through time. Since the KPK has used a computer database (from 1986), the coordinates in the National Grid System have been entered for every find (whenever possible). It is important to note at this point that the coins of Nijmegen which reside in the collection of Museum Kam are not part of the database. They were excluded because only the 1st-century coins were available140. In the analyses this would naturally result in a bias towards the early Roman period, which was the reason to opt exclusively for the coins from excavations between 1957 and 1971.

Status Dutch river area Nijmegen Kops Plateau Total

Coins % Coins % Coins %

Exact regular 1846 333 1426 426 3308 369

Copy 50 9 9 3 59 7

Uncertain regular 2057 371 1951 569 4008 447

Uncertain copy 229 41 7 2 236 26

Unidentified regular 1365 246 1 0 1366 152

Total 5547 1000 3430 1000 8977 1000 Table 3.3: certainty of identification of the coins. Coin hoards are not included .

In the database used for this study, the certainty of every coin reference is indicated in the Status field.141 In table 3.3 the scores are shown for the Dutch River area. Obviously, the group 'Uncertain regular' is the largest category. This need not surprise us, because apart from incomplete identification, the slightest doubt of the identifying person is enough to place a coin in this group. In fact the cases of exact matches with the reference work is remarkably high, considering the fact that most coins are site finds. What is more surprising is the low incidence of copies. This, however, could well be

139 The percentage of detector finds has grown exponentially in the last decennium of the 20th century. The low percentage (if one does not count Nijmegen) is caused by the fact that the coin database of the Dutch area was closed the first, at the beginning of 1994.

140 The 1st-century coins are now published in the series of Museum Kam (Mac Dowall e.a.1992).

141 The categories used are the same as in Ryan 1989.

34 due to the bias of the identifier of the coins; the predicate 'copy' is still one of the most subjective labels in the identification of Roman coins, and ideas about what is a copy and what is not have varied greatly through time. In the case of site 2, the low number of copies is presumably caused by the fact that its occupation was probably starkly reduced before the first wave of Claudian copies entered circulation. However, the occurrence of only two Claudian copies in a pool of 155 Claudian coins, especially in an early fort, seems a bit odd. Of course it could be explained away by assuming that a lot of Claudian copies were in too bad a state to be recognized as such, but this is pure speculation. The last category is reserved for coins of which the identification happened a long time ago and is doubtful or very incomplete, or for the cases in which the information of the KPK-archive was derived from a third party and was not verified afterwards.

3.5 The analyses of the coin finds

3.5.1 Geographical distribution

The three different geographical zones of the Dutch river area142 are well reflected by the distribution of find spots (map 3.1). The river clay area in the east shows the highest density, as well as the limes itself. The western peat areas are relatively empty, but the number of find spots picks up again directly behind the coastal dunes in the west. If we compare the distribution of find spots with the distribution of Roman settlements, it is clear that the distribution of coins follows the settlement pattern.143 This may seem a rather obvious statement, but it is important to notice that coins are not exclusive for a certain part of the river area; generally speaking, coins are where settlements are. They are a fairly common artifact occurring on Roman sites in this area. This remark asks for some quantification, because the picture may be different if we take the numbers of coins per site into consideration as well as the density of find spots. Comparing raw numbers of coins of different sites, however, can be a hazardous occupation because of the many circumstances which can be of influence on the retrieval of the coins. How well the site has been investigated, whether or not a metal detector was used, and the chemical properties of the soil are obvious examples. This is for many workers a reason not to use this variable, but it is also the only way of getting at least some insight into possible differences in the mass of circulating coin within a certain area, if we may equate intensity of loss with intensity of use144. For this purpose it seems a valuable tool, however biassed it may be. Also, it is possible to reduce the effects of this bias by taking all the sites into account and looking only for general trends in the material. In our case, the question we must answer first is whether the greater density of find spots in the eastern half of the area means that there were also more coins lost in this area in the course of the Roman period. In order to do this, we must first choose a dividing line between east and west. The choice of this line is based on the physical geography: it should lie between the river clay area in the east and the peat zone in the west. Further, the exact line is drawn on the imaginary borderline between the tribal territories of the Batavians in the east and the Caninefates in the west, both of which must be located in the Dutch river area. This borderline is created by drawing a line between the two tribal capitals (Nijmegen and Voorburg), and drawing a perpendicular line through its middle. This is of course a very coarse method, but sufficient for our purposes145. If we compute the average number of coins per site for both halves of the river area, we get an average of 17.44 coins per site for the eastern part, and an average of 5.93 for the western part146. Even accounting for possible bias, this seems

142 See section 3.2.

143 See note 118.

144 See chapter 2.

145 See Willems 1986, 261. This way of determining tribal territories is very basic, but a good starting point to do so; later on, the territories thus created can be adjusted on the basis of historical and archaeological evidence. In our case, the exact determination of the territories is not relevant.

146 Henceforward, all figures are without site 2 (Nijmegen-Kops Plateau), unless otherwise stated.

35 a significant difference between the eastern and the western part of the river area in numbers of coins lost. In table 3.4, numbers of sites and coins are shown for the eastern and western half of the area according to their period of issue. Of course the issue date of a single coin does not say much about the moment the coin entered the circulation in the Dutch river area, and even less about the date of its deposition. However, in the case of large numbers of coins, we may assume that for the majority of the coins, the moment of a coin entering circulation and being lost subsequently, lies relatively close to the period of its issue. In this table the Roman period is divided in an early, middle and a late phase. Because the phases cover substantial periods of time, the danger of attributing coins to a period to which they do not belong, diminishes even more. This gives us the opportunity to get a rough indication of the variation in the mass of circulating coin in time and space. From table 3.4 we learn that in all three phases more coins were lost in the eastern half of the Dutch river area. In the early Roman phase, the average number of coins per site is more than twice as high in the east. Also, taking the total number of coins per phase into account (table 3.5), the western part of the river area seems to have a slow start compared with the eastern part; the percentage of coins and sites of the Middle Roman phase is considerably higher. The development is much more gradual in the eastern part. In the Middle Roman phase, the average number of coins per site is still lower in the west, but approaches the eastern average the nearest. The number of coins and the number of find spots topple down in both the eastern and the western part in the Late Roman phase, but again the decrease is more pronounced in the west. Also, the average number of coins per site is the lowest of all three phases in both east and west, but for the western part the average is now almost five times as low as the eastern average.

PERIOD EAST WEST ? TOTAL

sites coins c/s sites coins c/s s c sites coins

-69 AD 139 1587 11.42 65 253 3.89 2 204 1840

69-260 AD 185 1695 9.16 141 699 4.95 332 2394

260-402 AD 109 794 7.28 42 70 1.66 157 864

Missing - 319 - - 100 - - - 419

Total - 4395 - - 1122 - - 30 - 5547 Table 3.4: coins and find spots of the Dutch river area and avarage number of coins per site (c/s).

PERIOD EAST WEST TOTAL SITE2

Coins row % Coins row % Coins row % Coins row %

- 69 AD 1587 86.3 253 13.8 1840 100.0 3219 - col. % 36.1 22.6 33.2 93.3

69-260 AD 1695 70.8 699 29.2 2394 100.0 46 - col. % 38.6 62.3 43.2 1.3

260-402 AD 794 91.9 70 8.1 864 100.0 29 - col. % 18.1 6.2 15.6 1.0

Missing 319 76.1 100 23.9 419 100.0 136 - col. % 7.3 8.9 7.6 4.0

Total 4395 79.2 1122 20.2 5547 100.0 3430 100.0 col. % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 3.5: coins and percentages in the three phases.

Before we can start to interpret these differences between east and west, we must look at the distribution of values for the eastern and the western half, in order to evaluate the character of the differences. It is in fact possible that only a few sites with large numbers of coins are responsible for the higher average in the east, and that for most sites, the average would be the same in both areas. On the other hand, if this were not the case, we could infer that coins were indeed used more intensively and extensively in the eastern half (more sites, more coins and more coins per site). In table 3.6, the distribution of the number of coins per site are shown. As could be expected, both distributions show a positive

36 skewness which is created by the bias towards sites with low numbers of coins. In fact, both distributions look quite the same at first sight, only the eastern sites continue after the category 100-200 coins per site, while those of the western sites do not. Also, there seems to be a difference in the sites with low numbers of coins as well. This can be seen most clearly in the percentage of sites with 1-5 coins, which is higher in the west than in the east. The eastern part seems to have relatively more sites in the range 5-15 coins. This implies that the difference in average coins per sites can be located in a category of sites with large numbers of coins, which is so far not represented in the western part. At the same time, in the category sites with low numbers of coins, there is some divergence as well between eastern and western sites. But is the effect of those sites with small numbers large enough to sustain the idea that the overall level of coin use was higher in the east? Or is the higher average of coins per sites in the east purely a result of the intensive use and loss of coins on only a few sites? To decide which one of those hypotheses is true, we must again look at the average number of coins per site, only this time without the sites with more than 200 coins. When we compare table 3.7 with table 3.4, it becomes clear that the impact of sites with more than 200 coins is considerable.

NO OF EAST WEST COINS No. of sites % Cum.% No. of sites % Cum.% D

1-5 160 63.2 63.2 151 79.9 79.9 16.7

5-10 31 12.3 75.5 13 6.9 86.8 11.3

10-15 18 7.1 82.6 5 2.6 89.4 6.8

15-20 10 4.0 86.6 7 3.7 93.1 6.5

20-25 6 2.4 88.9 1 .5 93.7 4.8

25-30 2 .8 89.7 1 .5 94.2 4.5

30-35 5 2.0 91.7 1 .5 94.7 3.0

35-40 0 0.0 91.7 3 1.6 96.3 4.6

40-45 1 .4 92.1 0 0.0 96.3 4.2

45-50 4 1.6 93.7 3 1.6 97.9 4.2

50-60 1 .4 94.1 2 1.1 98.9 4.8

60-70 2 .8 94.9 0 0.0 98.9 4.0

70-80 1 .4 95.3 0 0.0 98.9 3.6

80-90 2 .8 96.0 0 0.0 98.9 2.9

90-100 1 .4 96.4 0 0.0 98.9 2.5

100-200 4 1.6 98.0 3 1.1 100.0 2.0

200-300 2 .8 98.8 0 0.0 100.0 1.2

300-400 0 0.0 98.8 0 0.0 100.0 1.2

400-500 0 0.0 98.8 0 0.0 100.0 1.2

500-1000 2 .8 99.6 0 0.0 100.0 .4 Table 3.6: distribution of values for number of coins per site for the east and the west (D=difference between the cumulative percentages).

The vast difference in average number of coins per site between east and west in the first two phases is now reduced to almost nothing. Only in the third phase does the eastern average remain much higher than the western one. The chronological difference between east and west is also played down in table 3.7. It seems that mainly the four sites with more than 200 coins are responsible for the relatively high percentage of coins of the first phase in the east (table 3.5). Still, the proportion of second phase coins to coins of the first phase remains higher in the west. In phase three the effect

37 of the sites with more than 200 coins is negligible: as we have seen earlier, the ratio of coins of this phase to coins of the second phase is much lower in the west. Summing up, more coins were lost and therefore used in the eastern half of the Dutch river area during the whole Roman period. Partly, this is caused by the continuously higher level of occupation in the eastern part. However, if we take the higher average number of coins lost per site in the east into consideration, the occupation level is not the only factor responsible for the much higher numbers. In this region, there is a category of sites with high numbers of coins which is not matched in the western half, and seems to be one of the main causes of the difference in average number of coins per site between the two areas. There seems to be a east-west difference in the sites with a low number of coins as well, although the effect of this on the average number of coins per site is small. For the moment, we may conclude that it was only in the late Roman period (after 260 AD), that there was more intensive use of money in the east, and this was not only because more people lived there. The four sites which create the different averages in the first and second phases, are WBD-De Horden (site 1), Nijmegen-Hunerberg (site 50), Vechten-castellum (site 176), and Vechten-uncertain provenance (site 360).147 A site which has not been included in the calculations, but undoubtedly would show the same effect as the others is Nijmegen- Kops Plateau (site 2). All of these sites are early forts, as could be expected, except for one anomaly, De Horden, which is a rural village.

PERIOD EAST WEST TOTAL

sites coins c/s sites coins c/s sites coins

-69 AD 135 599 4.44 65 253 3.89 200 852 col. % 23.9 13.8 23.5

69-269 AD 181 988 5.46 141 699 4.95 328 1687 col. % 39.4 29.2 46.5

260-402 AD 105 747 7.11 42 70 1.66 153 817 col. % 29.8 8.1 22.5

Missing - 174 - - 100 - - 274 col. % 6.9 8.9 7.5

Total - 2508 - - 1122 - - 3630 col. % 100 100 100 Table 3.7: coins, percentages and average number of coins per site (c/s) for sites with less than 200 coins.

Both east and west show a higher percentage of coins of the Middle Roman phase, which implies a higher level of use of Roman coins in this phase, what of course may be due to other factors, such as the fact that the second phase is roughly twice as long as the first. Whether or not the first statement bears any truth remains to be seen when we compare the percentages with those of the other two sample areas. Notwithstanding the above, there seems to be also a chronological difference between the two parts, though not so great as suggested in table 3.5. The higher ratio of coins of the Middle Roman period might be a reflection of an altogether later start of coin circulation in the west. Although this cannot be proved, it seems the most probable explanation, particularly because the prime source of bias towards the early phase in the east, the early military forts, has been removed in table 3.7. There are several possible factors which may contribute to this later start in the west. The first of these are the early forts. No one will dispute that the earliest distribution of Roman coinage took place through the presence of the Roman army. In the eastern half of the Dutch river area, this presence achieved a more permanent character at an earlier stage than in the west. The forts in the west are usually believed to have been established in the Claudian era, whereas the earliest Roman settlements are to be located in the east, in Vechten and Nijmegen. This meant that in the Augustan period, more Roman coins were available in the east than in the west. But for this factor to take effect, the coins needed to leave those forts as well. It is not very problematic to conceive how this happened, since the presence of permanent

147 Site 360 is probably a mixture of coins from the fort and the military vicus next to it.

38 Roman settlements in an area is bound to induce more contact between the Roman army and the indigenous population. But there is perhaps another factor at work, which has to do with certain historical developments in the eastern half of the river area in the second half of the 1st century BC and at the beginning of the 1st century AD. Let us start with the situation which existed before the coming of the Romans. The infrastructure in the late Iron Age gives a more sophisticated impression in the eastern zone than in the west; there are more settlements in the east. Willems nevertheless postulates little social differentiation in the eastern river area, and Bloemers (1978), although not explicitly, gives us reason to believe that the situation was not any different in the western part.148 Still, the greater density of occupation in the east is likely to have been a more auspicious situation for the travel of new goods and ideas. The coming of the Batavians somewhere in the second half of the 1st century BC occurs simultaneously with the process of social differentiation.149 Moreover, they made use of coinage, and it is quite possible that they, in the wake of the Romans, introduced the notion of coinage in the eastern River area. It is, however, not improbable that the circulation of Celtic coins in this area started earlier than that. Some gold staters of the Treviri and Eburones have been found here, of which the circulation is usually dated 75-15 BC. Be that as it may, it seems significant that all Celtic coins of the Dutch river area have been found in the east (map 3.2.).150 The circulation of these coins quickly dwindled after the reign of Augustus, and it is not unthinkable that they created an early platform for use of Roman money in the east, regardless of the character this use may have had. I will return to the subject of Celtic coinage later in this chapter. There is still another point which could have promoted an earlier use of Roman coinage in the east, in which the Batavians were instrumental as well. From a very early stage, many young Batavian males entered the service of the Roman army.151 This would have resulted in a quick assimilation of both cultures in this group, although the Batavians retained a sort of autonomy at the beginning.152 Because those troops were based in their home territory, they were a unique instrument of early romanization. This must have been a factor of importance in the distribution of early Roman money in the eastern river area.153

Returning to tables 3.5 and 3.7, we can see that in both east and west, the number of coins drops considerably in the period 260-402 AD, although the fall is less spectacular in the east. In this phase, there is a clear difference between the average number of coins per site of the two areas. As has been said before, this can be explained by a difference in the level of coin use between the two areas. It looks as if coin use almost grinds to a halt in the west, while the general trend in the east is a rise in the average number of coins per site (table 3.7), because of the sharp decline in the number of sites. One might infer from this that the intensity of money use increased in the Late Roman period; in spite of the fact that there was probably less money in circulation than before 260 AD, there were also fewer people to use it. There is, however, an important argument against this. In the 3rd century, there were profound changes in the Roman monetary system. In short, the Augustan system in which the majority of the denominations lay in the middle range of values was replaced by one which eventually consisted almost entirely of low value bronze coins. This would mean that if coins were used for their monetary value, many more coins were needed to perform the same amount of transactions as before. In other words, given an equal use of coinage as in the 2nd century AD, the number of lost coins in the 3rd and 4th centuries should show a enormous increase. This increase is indeed documented by the coin finds of various

148 Willems 1986, 213

149 The present view is that the tribe which occupied the eastern river area in the Late Iron Age, the Eburones, was decimated by Caesar. The Batavians would have been relocated in this area by active Roman policy. Archaeologically, this relocation of people seems to be corroborated by the occurrence of certain silver triquetrum coins, which have their prototype in the West German Rhineland. The Batavii in the Dutch river area must probably be seen as a new conglomerate of the newcomers and the former Eburones (Roymans 1980).

150 One bronze AVAVCIA coin was found in the Roman fort at Velsen (see Vons 1977).

151 Possibly, the supply of troops by the Batavians was considered a form of tribute by the Roman authorities, judging by the fact that, aside from this, they did not have any other obligations. See also Chapter 1.3.2.

152 Batavian soldiers had their own regiments and commanders.

153 Similar processes were at work in the western half of the river area, but probably not as early and not on the same scale as in the east. The earliest ala Caninefas we know of is mentioned by Tacitus to have marched against the Frisii in 28 AD (Ann.IV, 73).

39 provinces, perhaps the strongest in Britannia. In this province, coin loss soars on almost every site in the period after 260 AD.154 Reece (1987) has shown that the percentage of coins from the Late Roman period increases with the distance from the core of the Roman Empire. In Italy itself, coin loss seems to stay at a more or less equal level throughout the Roman period. In accordance with this model, one would expect the same situation to exist in the Dutch river area as in Britain. This is clearly not the case, however. The obvious explanation for the difference between Britain and the Dutch river area is of course the historical discontinuity between the period before and after 260 AD in the latter. In the latter part of the 3rd century, the limes collapses and our area is subject to severe change. It is still unclear with how much upheaval society did change. A lot of settlements cease to exist in this period, among which the forts along the Rhine, although there is not much evidence for violent destruction of settlements.155 We know that a different population lived in these parts at the beginning of the 4th century, probably Franks from the other side of the Rhine.156 Judging from the scarcity of late 3rd-century coins, the supply of new money was discontinued. The area was restored to the Empire in 293 AD by a campaign of Constantius Chlorus. This, however, did not entail a reversal to the society which had existed before the troubles. The Franks who now occupied the Dutch river area were presumably organized along tribal lines, and were not romanized in the way the Batavians and Cananefates had been. Although they were formally part of the Roman empire, they probably retained much of their autonomy. The area in which they lived was until the second half of the 4th century, one of political instability. The relation with Roman authorities was a loose one, which consisted primarily of contacts with the Roman army. Willems even describes the river area as basically a recruiting ground for the army, and not much more. If there were any taxes levied at all, they would most likely have been paid in kind and in services. In other words, there was no real motive for the Roman authorities for a regular supply of money to these parts, except for soldiers' pay; but if we must believe Reece, this too was more and more handed out in kind.157 All in all, the economic structure of the area was so much different from the period before that any development of the monetary system as took place in Britain, was arrested. It is no wonder that the coin loss of the Late Roman phase was relatively low. Since the use of coinage was probably restricted to the Roman army, the difference in intensity of coin use between the eastern and western river area must have been an effect of the higher activity of the army in the east. This is hard to prove from the historical sources, but the fact that the only known military strongholds are in the east is a point in favour of this idea.

154 For actual numbers and percentages, cf. Reece 1991.

155 It is still unclear in how far it is correct to see AD 260 as a clean break between two different periods; a lot of settlements were deserted already before this date. At the same time, earlier, evidently peaceful immigrations of Franks are attested. Finally, there is evidence that forts continued to be occupied after 260 AD, although perhaps at a smaller scale. See Van Es 1991; Lamarcq & Rogge 1996.

156 Willems (1986) assumes that by the time of the reign of Postumus, the area north of the Waal was settled by the new coming Franks.

157 Reece 1987, 118.

40 Site Site name Area No. of coins Occupation Type

1 WBD-De Horden 1 215 I-IIIc (IV?) Rural village

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau 1 3430 IA/II/IV Fort

45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg/ca 1 95 I-IIa/IV Legionary fort

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg 1 257 I-IIa Canabae(?)

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg/o 1 33 I-IIa Canabae

60 Aalst 1 34 Rural village

65 Alem-Oude Maas 1 34 Rural village

84 Buren 1 23 Rural village

99 Echteld 1 48 Rural village

101 Elst-Brienenshof 1 104 I-IIIc/IV Rural centre?

106 Ewijk 1 104 I-IIIc/IV? Rural village

122 Loowaard-Kandia 1 34 I-IIIc Fort

126 Maurik 1 21 IB-IIIc Fort?

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 1 55 IB-IIIc Fort?

143 Ophemert-Elsevier 1 65 I-IIIc/IV? Rural village

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 1 81 I-IIIc/IV? Rural village

161 Wadenoijen 1 34 I-IIIc/IV? Rural village

176 Vechten-castellum 1 528 I-IIIc/IV Fort

179 WBD-De Geer 1 89 I-IIIc/IV Rural village

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld/cem 1 36 I-IIIA Cemetery

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld 1 26 I-IIIA Small town

219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul 1 24 I-IIIA Small town (=218)

221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 1 49 I-IIIA Small town?

224 Valkenburg-no provenance 1 27 I-IIIA ?

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 2 102 I-IIIc/IV? Town

229 Zwammerdam 2 51 IB-IIIc Fort?

272 Beneden-Boven Leeuwen 1 24 I-IIIA? Rural village

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 1 170 I-IIIc/IVa? Rural centre/Villa?

360 Vechten 1 887 I-IIIc/IV? Fort/mil. vicus

363 Vechten-Rijksweg 1 179 I-IIIA? Military vicus?

376 Alphen a/d Rijn 2 59 I-IIIA Canabae

432 Ockenburg 2 47 I-IIIc? Small town?

479 Zwammerdam-castellum 2 111 IB-IIIc Fort

502 Drumpt-Achterveld 1 39 IVb-IVd? Rural village

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof 1 165 I/IV Town

506 Valkenburg-castellum 2 102 I-IIIA? Fort Table 3.8: sites with more than 20 coins; area 1= east, area 2= west.

41 3.5.2 The statistical analyses158

So far I have discussed varying degrees in the intensity of the use of Roman coinage; but this does not say much about how Roman money was used in the Dutch river area, and how this changed through time. For this, we must look at more qualitative aspects of Roman coinage. Two aspects of the coin finds have been selected for this more qualitative approach:

1. the chronological distribution of coins of the individual sites, and 2. analysis of the distribution of different denominations.

The first analysis makes use of statistical techniques to group sites according to their chronological distribution of coins. This form of analysis is based on the methods Reece uses to analyse the site finds of Roman Britain. In table 3.8 all sites with more than 20 coins are listed. Most sites are abandoned in the late 3rd century, and some of them only existed for a shorter span of time. Of the sites which continue to exist after 260 AD, it is uncertain if we are dealing with continuous occupation or re-settlement in the same location. For this reason it seems advisable to restrict our comparison of coin lists to the period up to 260 AD at first. For the creation of the mean site of the Dutch river area, the average number of coins in each issue period of all sites was calculated. Site 2 was again excluded from this calculation, because of its concentration of coins in only a few issue periods.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests The K-S test compares the cumulative percentages of coins of each issue period of the coin list of an individual site with those of coin list of the mean site. It uses the greatest difference between these percentages to calculate a measure of difference between the two coin lists.

Figure 3.2: results of the K-S tests; on the category axis the issue period in which the greatest difference with the mean site occurred; on the scale axis the height of the difference (D)

158 For a more detailed account of the used statistical techniques, see Chapter 2.

42 The results of the K-S tests are shown in fig 3.2. The issue periods are set out on the horizontal axis and the greatest difference in percentages on the vertical axis. There are negative values for the cases in which the percentage of the individual site lay below that of the mean site. A full display of test results is shown in Appendix 3, including the P- values, although the latter are not further used for the evaluation of the results.159 Apparently, there are no real clusters of sites of a particular type, which we are looking for; the values are scattered over the entire plot, although they all stay within the range of period 2 and 12 (period 2=Celtic coins; period 12=Commodus). The only pattern we can speak of is that all vici coin complexes have positive D-values, which means that they lie below the mean site cumulative percentage in the period of their greatest difference. However, if we consider the location of the sites with positive D-values, all of the sites in the western River area show positive D-values; it is an illustration of the fact that coin circulation started at a later date in the western River area. The mean is biased by the fact that there are much more sites in the eastern half of the Dutch river area, where coin circulation starts earlier (Augustan period; see figure 3.3). So the site location acts as a confounder for the correlation between site function and D-value.

Figure 3.3: chronological distribution of coins before AD 260 in the eastern and western river area

Concluding, there are two possible inferences to be made on the basis of the K-S tests: 1. there is no pattern in the chronological distribution of coins of the sites of the Dutch river area, except a general difference between the western and the eastern half. 2. the K-S test (as used) is unsuitable to show a pattern. To reduce the possibility of the second conclusion being true, a different test was used as well: correlation analysis.

Correlation analysis This test calculates a measure of similarity (correlation coefficient) between the coin list of an individual site and that of the average site. The correlation can be checked by plotting the values of both coin lists against each other, as in

159 Of the 35 sites in the test, eleven were not significant at the P=0.05 level. There seems to be no correlation between the statistical significance of the test result and the numbers of coins of the individual site.

43 fig.3.4.160 The more values lie along a straight line, the higher the correlation. A rising line denotes a positive correlation, a descending line a negative one. The grouping of sites proceeds in the same way as with the K-S tests. The correlation coefficients can be plotted in rank order in a graph (fig.3.5).

Figure 3.4: scatterplot with regression line of the coin lists of the mean of the Dutch river area (DRA) and Elst. The numbers in the plot represent issue periods. The horizontal axis shows the sites, the vertical axis shows the correlation coefficient of the sites with the average site. Sites with the same correlation coefficient will show up as plateaus in the graph, and those sites can be grouped according to their degree of similarity with the average site. Figure 3.5 clearly shows that there are no plateaus in the line; this means that there is no chronological pattern discernible in the coin lists of the Dutch river area. The curve of correlation coefficients shows a smooth and steady rise.

Figure 3.5: Spearman rank correlation coefficients plotted in rank order (c=civilian; m=military; mc=unknown)

160 The correlation coefficient in this case is .53 (P=0.04).

44 There is, however one point worth noting; when we group the sites in military (m), and non-military ones (c), there is a tendency for the 'civilian' sites to be on the left side of the graph, while the military sites are on the right side. This means that in general, the military sites show a higher degree of similarity with the average site. An obvious explanation would be the fact that, since military sites tend to have larger number of coins, their influence on the average site would be greater, and their similarity with this site higher. But if this were true, we should expect all sites with a high number of coins to be on the right side of the graph. This is, however, not the case. The site with the largest number of coins Nijmegen-Kops Plateau (site 2), is in the middle of the category-axis. One could argue that this is caused by the fact that the occupation time of this site was relatively short, and that this pushes the correlation down. But what to think of sites like Voorburg (site 226; 102 coins), Rossum-Fort Andries (site 300; 170 coins) and Ewijk (site 106; 104 coins), all on the left of the middle? This may imply that there were different factors at work than merely the total number of coins per site, and that they might be of a more qualitative nature. Let us for a moment return to the visualization of the correlations coefficients, the scatter plots. A characteristic of correlation analysis is that it tests only so-called linear correlation, expressed by the line one can draw through the points so that the distance of all points to the line is the smallest possible (regression line). This linearity, however, can cause difficulties in the case of outlying values. This is made clear in fig.3.6; all issue periods cluster more or less randomly at the left side of the scatterplot, except for period 3 and 7 (Augustan and Flavian), which have high values in both the mean site (x-axis) as in Aalst (y-axis).

Figure 3.6: scatterplot with linear regression line of the coin lists of the mean of the Dutch river area (DRA) and Aalst. The numbers in the plot are issue periods.

The correlation coefficient of site 60 (Aalst) with the mean site is .45, which is much higher than we would expect from the scatterplot. This effect could also appear in the other correlations, because the place of period 3 and 7 are fixed on the x-axis: they will always be on the right side of the plot, since the mean site stays the same. To see if these two issue periods are distorting our view, the correlation analysis was run again, this time without period 3 and 7. The results are shown in fig. 3.7. Now, the curve shows two plateaus, which we have been looking for, and should in our definition should form separate groups of sites (groups 2 and 3). But how separate are they? The rise of the curve between the two plateaus is not mind-staggering. If in fact the difference between the two groups is negligible, this would give us a very large coherent group of sites which share more or less the same degree of similarity with the average site, and two incoherent small groups. To check the difference between group 2 and 3, an new average was created for each group, and the

45 association between the two groups was evaluated by means of a Chi-square test. This test has a high positive result when site 2 is included in group 2 (Chi-Sq.=22.48; P=0.01), but shows that there is little difference between the two groups when this site is left out (Chi-Sq.=8.58; P=0.57).161 Although the usual bias of site 2 is suppressed by excluding periods 3 and 7, the coin list is probably so truncated that it still has a great influence on the result of the test. Our conclusion must be that there is no real difference between the two groups in terms of the chronological distribution of coins. Geographically too, there is no discernible difference between the sites of group 2 and 3, although it is interesting that all sites of those groups are located in the north of the river area, if not on the border of the Rhine itself. They are either of a military nature themselves or lie in the vicinity of military settlements. The sites with the lowest correlation with the average site are all non-military and lie in the south of the river area. Figure 3.7 shows that a great deal of the variation between the sites in the chronological distribution of coins is related with the Augustan and Flavian periods, since the groups of sites with the same level of correlation with the mean site is much larger when these periods are left out of the calculation. It does not give us any significant grouping of sites. The correlation analysis corroborates the evidence found with the K-S tests: there is no significant pattern in the chronological distribution of coins of the sites of the Dutch river area, although some difference was detected between military and non-military sites. It is, however, hard to tell the nature of this difference on the basis of the correlation analysis.

Fig.3.7: Spearman rank correlations without period 3 and 7 (Augustan and Flavian).

Chronological profiles before AD 260 Based on another method which has been devised by Reece, chronological profiles represent a third way to compare coin lists of different sites.162 It works similarly to the K-S tests, but compares entire cumulative percentage curves instead of looking only at the period of greatest difference. Again, the curves of individual sites are compared with that of the mean site, which is the same as the one used in the other methods. The results are summarized in Appendix 3, and the geographical location of sites by their chronological profiles is on map 3.2. Seven different chronological profiles have been distinguished for the sites of the Dutch river area, displayed in figure 3.8. The first one can be characterized by an early peak in the issue periods 2-4 (Augustus-Caligula), after which the curve steadily goes downhill until AD 260. It lies entirely above the mean site, which is represented by the 0-line..

161 To avoid too low expected values, it was necessary to join periods 12 and 13, and 14 and 15. However, a K-S test gives the same answer: when site 2 is included, D= 0.46; P= 0.00. Without site 2, D= 0.10; P= 0.74.

162 Reece 1995.

46 47 Six sites share this profile, but they seem to have little in common. The second profile also lies almost entirely above the mean. It starts with a relative low percentage of Celtic and Republican coins, but after that it shows a peak in issue periods 6 and 7 (Nero and Flavii), then slopes down again until AD 260. There are five sites in this profile, four of which are in Nijmegen; only the rural village of Wijk-bij-Duurstede-D Horden is anomalous in this group. The third profile starts well below the mean, with a trough in periods 4-6. Thereafter, it increases sharply until periods 9-10 (Hadrian-Antoninus Pius), after which it stays more or less at the same level. There are eight sites with this profile, all of which except one (site 300) lie in the western half of the Dutch river area. Profile 4 looks very alike the previous one, only the trough falls later in periods 7-9 (Flavii-Hadrian); after this, it shows the same sharp increase until periods 10-11 (Ant.Pius-M. Aurelius). Also in this profile there are eight sites, most of which lie in the western half. Profile 5 starts on the mean, decreases until periods 10-12 (Ant.Pius-Commodus), after which it displays a sharp rise until AD 260. Only three sites share this profile. Profile 6 is not so outspoken, but it comprises two sites which show a gradually increasing curve, although it is with ups and downs. Profile 7 seems to display a wildly fluctuating curve, but this is an effect of drawing it to the same scale as the other profiles. In fact, it varies little from the mean. It is shared by a heterogenous group of four sites. Three of them are located in the western river area, and one in the east (Valkenburg).

The results of the comparison of chronological profiles shows that no direct relation exists between the site type and chronological profile. Only in the case of profile 2, it appears to be so; four of the five sites are from the city of Nijmegen, but closer inspection tells us that three of these represent find complexes from the legionary camp on the Hunerberg, which can be considered to be one site rather than three distinct ones. However, there is another pattern to be observed in the data. Map 3.2 shows that six of the eight sites with profile 3 are located in the western half of the Dutch river area; this also applies to five of the eight sites in profile 4. The sites with profiles 1, 2 and 5 seem to cluster in the eastern part. This division confirms an already observed chronological difference between the eastern and western half of the Dutch river area., namely that coin circulation in general appears to have started later in the west than in the east. Because we are dealing with cumulative percentages, it is logical that this difference dominates the chronological profiles as well; this is why sites with profile 3 or 4 start well below the mean of the Dutch river area, and the sites of profile 1 and 2 lie high above it. Because the mean represents the average coin loss of all sites, it is more heavily influenced by the greater number of sites in the eastern half, which is responsible for the higher level of the mean in the 1st century AD, when it is compared with the sites of the west. The main difference between profile 3 and profile 4 is that the curve picks up in Flavian times in the former, and during Hadrian’s reign in the latter. It is interesting that the sites of profile 3 should cluster on the Rhine, and those of profile 4 in the hinterland. It illustrates nicely that the supply of coins to the hinterland was connected to the interaction with the forts and military vici in the military zone along the Rhine.

The chronological profiles of the Dutch river area also show the shortcomings of the variable used in the statistical tests. Because the chronological distribution of coins is used, the test result are more vulnerable to factors which affect the chronological distribution of coins on a regional level. In this case the chronological gap between the eastern and the western part of the Dutch river area obscures any pattern that may be connected to the functional aspects of the sites.

48 Map 3.2: distribution of sites according to their chronological prof ile (numbers are profiles)

Chronological profiles AD 260-402 The late Roman period has even less sites with a sufficient amount of coins for analysis. Since this period is shorter than the period before AD 260, the limit of coin numbers was lowered to a minimum of ten coins to be included in the analyses. This leaves 20 sites for analysis of their chronological profile, of which the details are also in Appendix 3. This is not much, and it means that there are not many sites in each profile. Fourteen sites could be attributed to a specific profile, and five profiles can be distinguished (see figure 3.9). The sites in the first profile start high above the mean in period 16 (AD 260-275) and show a constant decline after this. The three sites of this profile are Ommeren, Ophemert-Elsevier and Vechten (terrain of the former? castellum). The second profile has only two sites, and can be characterized by a sharp peak in period 19 and a down-sloping line after this. The two sites are Echteld and Rossum-Fort Andries. The third profile is shared by three sites. It starts below the mean until period 19; after this it shows a sharp increase until periods 20 or 21, then it slopes down again. The 4th-century stronghold of Nijmegen is in this profile, the area to the west of the former castra on the Hunerberg (also in Nijmegen), and Wijk-bij-Duurstede-De Geer. The fourth profile is not very homogeneous. It consists of sites which start below the mean, and show a general increase until period 24 with many ups and downs in between. The sites in this profile are Elst-Brienenshof, Ewijk, Drumpt-Het Achterveld and Aalst. Finally, the sites of profile 5 start above the mean, show a sharp decline in period 20; it goes up again in period 21, down in period 23 and up in period 24. The two sites of profile 5, Aalst-Nedereindse straat and Wadenoijen have an almost identical curve.

As in the period before AD 260, it is hard to associate the profiles with site types, particularly because the character of many sites is unknown in this period. Still it is possible to distinguish two main groups of sites, which coincide with some general characteristics of chronological profiles. There is a group of sites with relatively high percentages of 4th-century coins (profiles 3 and 4) and another group that has almost no 4th-century coins but a high percentage of late 3rd-century coins (sites in profiles 1 and 2). It is noticeable that two find complexes of Nijmegen are in the former group, and the others in this group lie close to Nijmegen. The sites of the latter group lie more to the west, although most stay within the eastern half of the Dutch river area. I will return to this division in section 3.6.3.

Evaluation of the test results Concluding, it is hard to link the functional aspects of the settlements with their coin lists on the basis of the chronological distribution of their coins, as Reece was able to do for his 140 British sites. The factor described in the previous section seems to be mainly responsible for this. On the other hand, it is possible that the archaeological material used for the analysis is too scanty. By this I mean that the number of sites which are well-excavated and documented and additionally have more than 20 coins, is relatively low in our area. We have a few well-investigated sites, such as De

49 Horden, Valkenburg, and Nijmegen, but of the majority of the sites the character is not overly clear, except the fact whether they are military or not. Aside from this, it may be possible that the traditional archaeological site categories are not adequate for describing the settlement system of the Dutch river area, which may be the reason why so few sites can be attributed to a well-defined type.163

Figure 3.9: chronological profiles 260-450.

Another difference with the British situation is that the sites perhaps existed for too short a time to show a chronological

163 In the last few years, many sites in the Dutch river area have been (partially) excavated, if not published yet. It remains the question whether the observed differentiation in the settlement system is characteristic for the area in question, or that the higher quality (and quantity) of data shows the obsoleteness of traditional archeological settlement typology in general.

50 pattern. Reece's patterning started with the establishment of very broad differences in the ratio between early and late Roman coins. In our case, however, most settlements cease to exist before the late 3rd century. If this difference in fact affects the patterning in the data must be seen when the other study areas are discussed. Beside these possible shortcomings of the archeological material used, there may also be more historical factors at work. The results of the correlation analysis imply that the military sites have had a great hand in the distribution of the coins over the settlements, although there is no real discernible military pattern. This may mean that the distribution of coins to the forts along the Rhine itself had better not be seen as a regular wave which hit the forts simultaneously; each fort seems to show a more or less singular supply during the period until 260 AD. At the same time, since the supply to the forts was thus individualized, the further distribution to the rest of the settlements must have followed even more irregular paths, which is reflected by the random chronological distributions of their coin lists. The further implications are that the economy of the settlements of the river area was probably tied to the military element in this zone, and not organized along the lines of the town-country relations which we see in other parts of the empire. I will return to this in chapter 6, where this area is compared with the other two.

3.6 Conclusion: the use of Roman coins in the Dutch river area 50 BC - AD 402

In this last section the evidence of the previous analyses will be assimilated into a historical overview of the use of Roman coins in the early, middle and late Roman period. Some new evidence will come from the analysis of the denominations and the discussion of the role of late Celtic money. Also, the hoards of the Dutch river area will enter the picture, and their place in the monetary circulation.

3.6.1 The period 50 BC - 69 AD

Celtic coins Table 3.9 gives an overview of all Celtic coins found in the Dutch river area and their geographical distribution is shown on map 3.3.164 Evidently, it is very hard to ascertain at what time the Celtic coins entered the Dutch river area. For the end of the circulation of Celtic coins we can adopt the usual date, which lies somewhere at the beginning of the reign of Tiberius.165 So most coins will have been lost and used before this time. Roymans distinguishes two periods in the circulation of Celtic coins at Empel: phase 1 (70-15 BC), which in Empel only consists of gold and silver issues, and phase 2 (15 BC -AD 50) which features entirely bronze and potin coins.166 Table 3.9 shows that only 20% of the coins in the Dutch river area belong to phase 1, and that this early circulation is dominated by silver triquetrum coins, which is considered to be a Batavian issue.167 Also one gold stater of the Eburones was found in Sint-Andries, which may point to an even earlier circulation of gold.168 The pre-Roman circulation of late Iron Age coinage in the Dutch river area was modest, to say the least, and it started at a fairly late date. Most gold and silver in this phase must be seen as part of cycles of gift exchange, where they were used as valuable objects in social and political contexts.

164 After the closing of the database, many Celtic coins have been added to the finds of the Dutch river area in particular through the increased activities of metal detector amateurs; for more recent figures, see Roymans forthcoming a and b.

165 Perhaps I should say production instead of circulation: evidently, Celtic issues may have stayed longer in circulation. If we accept Wigg’s hypothesis (Wigg 1999) that Claudian copies are really coins struck in the indigenous tradition, the circulation of most coins which are discussed here will antedate the Claudian period.

166 Roymans 1994, 113. The caesura at 15 BC is based on the occurrence of Celtic coins in Roman army camps, which did not exist before 15 BC. One could argue, however, that the presence or absence of Celtic issues may not be interpreted entirely in chronological terms: other processes of selection could be at work. But it is our only chronological point reference at the moment.

167 Roymans & Van der Sanden 1980; Roymans 1999.

168 Since the closing of the database more of these coins have surfaced in the Dutch river area (see Roymans forthcoming b).

51 In Nijmegen-Kops Plateau (site 2), all coins except one are from phase 2, as was to be expected from a site which starts around 10 BC. The coins of this phase are dominated by bronze issues, in particular the AVAVCIA-coins, and, to a much lesser degree, bronze triquetrum coins. It seems significant that most bronze coins of the triquetrum type were found outside of site 2, although they were still in circulation during at least part of the existence of the fort at Nijmegen-Kops Plateau. Another difference between site 2 and the rest is that the percentage of AVAVCIA coins is twice as high in the fort as in the rest of the Dutch river area. It is striking that the proportions between the three classes of Scheers are more or less equal in Nijmegen and the rest of the Dutch river area.169 It suggests that the AVAVCIA-coins in rural contexts are the product of secondary loss: they may have been brought home by Batavian soldiers on leave.

Site 2 Other sites170 Total Issuing authority Type Metal coins % coins %

Eburones Scheers 30 AV 1 1.1

Treviri Scheers 299 AV 1 1.1

Roymans phase 1 - BN 8743 AV 1 1.1 19 (18) 70- 15 BC Nervii Scheers 216 AV 2 2.2

‘Triquetrum’ Roymans 16a AR 1 0.2 12 13.3

Annaroveci Scheers 352-58 AR 1 1.1

‘Triquetrum’ Roymans 16a/b AES 9 1.7 17 18.9

AVAVCIA Scheers 217 I AES 44 8.3 3 3.3

Scheers 217 II AES 376 70.9 35 38.9

Scheers 217 III AES 13 2.5 1 1.1

601 (71) Roymans phase 2 Scheers 217 AES 5 0.9 10 11.1 15 BC- AD 50 - AES 1 1.1

GERMANVSIN RIC 249 AES 3 0.6 DVTILLI L

Other AES Various AES 77 14.5 5 5.6

Other potin various POT 2 0.4

Total 530 100.0 90 100.0 620 (89) Table 3.9: the Celtic coins of the Dutch river area. Totals between brackets are numbers without site 2.

This would mean a relatively late date for the deposition of AVAVCIA coins on rural sites in general, although it cannot be proven in the case of individual sites. Also, it would mean that the AVAVCIA coins, even if they are found in a rural context, must be seen primarily as part of Roman coin circulation.171

169 Scheers sees the class I coins (with the AVAVCIA-legend) as the earliest (Scheers 1996, 15; they are contemporary with or succeeding the ANNAROVECI-quinarii, to which they are linked iconographically, she places them in the period 30-20 BC). Class II coins (which may have been produced in an atelier near Haltern (Scheers 1996, 23)) and Class III coins are later. However, it remains a point of discussion if these classes really have any chronological meaning. The iconographical link of the reverse with the ANNAROVECI-quinarii, which is the main argument for the dating of class I coins, is not indisputable.

170 The report of a hoard of 30 Ambiani staters at Elst is very doubtful, and is therefore not included in this table.

171 Needless to say that they could have been used in a non-monetary way once they entered these rural context, just like Roman coins.

52 Map 3.3: The distribution of Celtic coins in the Dutch riv er area by their metal

Like in phase 1, this leaves us with a indigenous coin circulation that mostly consisted of triquetrum coins in the period after 15 BC. The different proportion of these coins in Nijmegen and the rest of the Dutch river area implies that in this phase still a separate circuit of coin use existed alongside the Roman circulation pool, in which Roman and Celtic issues were mixed, like in de fort at Nijmegen. Since the AVAVCIA coin seems to be the most prominent Celtic issue in the context of early Roman coin circulation, they will be discussed in some more detail. Some authors state that they were intentionally made to imitate the Roman quadrans, and indeed most of the AVAVCIA coins display a similar weight.172 The fact that they circulated in early Roman forts and that they almost always are found together with other Roman coins implies that they formed part of or were indeed closely linked to the circulation of early Roman coins. Other authors think that these coins were issued as pay for the local auxilia, but this interpretation is not unproblematic. It would mean that auxiliary soldiers were paid in quadrantes, whereas their 'Roman' counterparts were paid probably in silver coin, or at least in higher denominations.173 If this was the case, they either were grossly underpaid, or the auxilia had a different notion of what these coins meant altogether.174 But why would these coins be made to resemble Roman quadrantes if this were true? It does not make a very strong case for the interpretation of soldier's pay. One thing is clear, however: the AVAVCIA coins were not issued by the Roman authorities. The question is, who struck them and for which purpose? In chapter 1 we have seen that low value bronze coinage was a common occurrence in late Celtic society, although the reasons for striking these issues remain somewhat unclear. None of these coinages were produced on such a large scale as the AVAVCIA coins. Combined with the fact that they are mostly found in Augustan centres, that is, early Roman forts and early towns (like Tongeren), it looks as if they were produced for a Roman rather than a native market. The successfulness of this coinage could well have originated in the need for small change in the early military settlements (see table 3.10). Since Roman soldiers were probably paid in large denominations, they needed to change their pay into denominations small enough to enable them to buy foodstuffs and other things in the camp shops or in the adjacent

172 Nash 1978, 21; Doppler 1978, 40; see note 52.

173 Soldiers may have been paid in a mixture of silver and bronze. There is no direct evidence to support this, but the amounts of wage mentioned in pay records suggests that it was impossible to pay them without using bronze small change (see for instance Speidel 1992, 88). It seems that soldiers rarely received the standard amount of pay: mostly it was balanced with outstanding loans (debet ex priore ratione...; frequent; see also Alston1994, 117) or bonuses (less frequent).

174 Alston (1994, 122) makes a reasonable case for the fact that auxiliaries receive the same pay as legionary soldiers.

53 military vicus. Since most ordinary things were priced mostly in asses, there must have been a need for smaller denominations like semisses and quadrantes.

Denomination Official Halved Quarted Total

Sestertius 15 35 1 15

Dupondius 12 2 - 47

As 1400 482 10 1401

Semis 14 - - 496

Quadrans 22 - - 470

AVAVCIA 438 - - Table 3.10: distribution of denominations of Augustus in Nijmegen-Kops Plateau: the totals are not row totals, but totals of coins of one value (AVAVCIA coins and quarted asses counted as quadrantes, half dupondii as asses, halved sestertii as dupondii).

If we consider the bronze denominations of Augustus found in Nijmegen-Kops Plateau, it is clear that the official supply of semisses and quadrantes is marginal. However, if one counts halved asses as semisses, the number increases drastically. The quarted asses are not so numerous, and that makes the quadrans a seriously under-represented denomination. If on the other hand the AVAVCIA coins are counted as quadrantes, their number is up to par with the semisses. This argues for a use of AVAVCIA coins as ordinary Roman quadrantes, and supports the idea that they were issued with this purpose in mind. There is one problem with this line of thought. If there existed a need for low value bronze coins in the early forts, why do we not find any coins with a lower value than the as from after the reign of Augustus? It is, of course, possible, or indeed extremely probable that the Augustan coins continued to be in circulation after 14 AD, and that there was perhaps no need to supply the existing stock of semisses and quadrantes with new ones. The relatively low proportion of semisses and quadrantes in the 1st century remains a problem. But let us return to the AVAVCIA-issues. If they were produced for a largely 'Roman' market, what was the benefit for the issuer? Firstly, the issuer had to be a member (or more than one) of the elite to have the disposal of the resources to strike the coinage. By striking the coins in his own name, he would enjoy the prestige which went with this. Secondly, if there existed the direct link with a 'Roman' market, the coins would be changed into Roman coins of higher value, presumably silver or even gold. The disposal of this gold and silver would have further enhanced the position of the producer(s) of the AVAVCIA coins, since they could be used in the Late Iron Age sphere of exchange of valuable goods on the one hand, and on the 'Roman' side, he could profit from the monetary exchange with early 'Roman' centres, that is forts and towns. The end of the production of these coins is at the same time that all other late Iron Age coinages stop, and probably has to do with a Roman policy of discouragement. If this interpretation is correct, the distribution of AVAVCIA coins in the rest of our area probably went along with other Augustan coins, and will have happened primarily through the early forts. A similar process may have existed for the GERMANVS INDVTILLI L coinage, which shows more or less the same distribution pattern.

Early Roman money In the Dutch river area, 5059 coins are from the early Roman period (-69 AD). Evidently, there will be an overlap with the next period, but as has been said before, we will work on the assumption that the majority of the coins was indeed lost and used in this phase. Of these coins, 63% was found on one site, Nijmegen Kops Plateau (site 2). If we count this site in, more than 50% of all coin finds antedate 69 AD; without site 2, this is 32%. Considering the relative shortness of this period, the percentage of coins is remarkably high. This is in sharp contrast with the situation in Britain, where the proportion of coins before AD 69 is much lower. Partly, this is caused by the later incorporation of Britain into the Roman empire, but it is not improbable that the higher numbers of coins in the river area has to do with the Augustan expansion politics. This led to the concentration of armies at the Rhine in preparation for an invasion into German territory, and, along with it, a considerable infusion of Augustan money. In our area this heightened military activity was primarily located in the early forts of Nijmegen and Vechten.

54 Map 3.4: coin finds before AD 69 in the Dutch river area

After the reign of Augustus and the failure to advance the imperial frontier up to the river Elbe, the Augustan initiative was not enthusiastically taken up by his successors, finally to be completely abandoned by Claudius. The Rhine was established as permanent border of the empire, and consolidated with a string of forts of a much smaller size than the Augustan offensive camps. This newly adopted defensive policy probably cost less than the setting up of an invasion, and the need for money presumably decreased.

Figure 3.10a: the chronological distribution of coin finds in the Dutch river area: raw coin numbers

If this explanation for the relatively high percentage of coins before 69 AD is true, we should expect to see a relatively high number of Augustan coins. In figures 3.10a and 3.10b, the average coin loss per issue period is plotted for the entire River area, except for site 2, which would of course distort the picture in favour of the Augustan coins. One bar chart gives the percentage of coins of every issue period of the total: this gives us the opportunity to inspect the relative proportions of each issue period. The second bar chart (fig. 3.10b) is corrected for the length of the period, and gives

55 the average coin loss per year: this gives more insight in the intensity of use of coins in the course of time.175 The bar chart in figure 3.10a shows indeed a peak under Augustus (period 3), and a considerable percentage of Republican silver as well, which perhaps belonged for a part to the Augustan pool of coinage. However, we cannot take this as proof for the hypothesis stated above. Only by comparing this graph with those of non-frontier areas of the Empire will it become clear if the peaks in the early Roman period are significant. This will further be discussed in chapter 6.

Figure 3.10b: the chronological distribution of coin finds in the Dutch river area according to Ravetz’ method

We have seen before that the Roman army was probably the most important instrument for the distribution of early coins. The army probably was also responsible for an earlier start of coin circulation in the eastern river area. The question we must answer now is how this early money was used in the settlements outside the forts. It is important to realize that if the supply of non-military sites happened through the forts, the coin finds in these settlements can be regarded as a sample from the coins of the forts. It would be very naive to think that this sample would be a random one: naturally, various selection processes must have taken place, which caused only certain coins from the forts to reach the settlements. These selection processes may have had to do with the distance of the settlement from the fort, the nature of the contact with the fort and many other factors which are dependent on the unique nature of every settlement. What interests us, however, if there are general trends in which the coins of the forts differed from those of all other settlements. It is these general trends which can tell us something about the difference in the use of coins between military and non-military sites. One of the most important questions is how 'monetized' this use was in the native settlements compared to that of the forts. In other words, how far reaching was the use of Roman money in the native economy? One way to get some insight into this problem is to look at the relative proportion of denominations. In chapter 1 we have defined monetization as the level of integration of coined money in all economic transactions. A measure of the extent of the use of money is the intensity of use in small everyday exchange. If the intensity is high, the low value coins must be around in sufficient numbers to sustain such everyday exchange. In the case of Roman money, this would mean that the emphasis must lie on the lower bronze denominations, the quadrantes, semisses and the asses.

175 The methodological aspects are further discussed in chapter 2.

56 Denomi- Nijmegen Vechten Valkenburg- Other forts Zwammerdam Mil/civ Civ nation Kops plateau castellum

c%c%c%c%c %c%c%

AV 2 0.1 1 0.5 2 3.2 0 0 1 1.5 0 0 12 1.7

AR 249 7.7 37 16.8 2 3.2 11 6.8 2 3 19 12.6 166 23.4

AES I 83 2.6 12 5.5 10 16.1 13 8 18 26.9 12 7.9 34 4.8

AES II 2322 72.2 155 70.5 48 77.4 131 80.9 46 68.7 112 74.2 36 51.1 1830 36.8 135 61.4 104 64.2 45 67.2 110 72.8 331 46.6

AES III 37 1.1 2 0.9 0 0.0 3 1.9 0 0.0 4 2.6 10 1.4 943 29.3 34 15.5 0 0.0 32 19.7 1 1.5 6 3.9 77 10.8

AES 523 16.3 13 5.9 - - 4 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 106 14.9 109 3.4 1 0.5 2 0.6 71 10.0

Missing 2 0.1 0 0.0 - - 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.6 19 2.7

Total 3218 100.0 220 100.0 62 100.0 162 100.0 67 100.0 151 100. 710 100.0 0 Table 3.11: numbers and percentages of denominations in military and non-military sites before 69 AD; c=coins; numbers and percentages in italics are corrected values when halved asses are counted as semisses, quarted asses and AVAVCIA coins as quadrantes.

However, not even in the centre of the empire enough quadrantes and semisses are found to the as, around which denomination the monetary circulation seems to have gravitated in the 1st century AD. This raises questions about the level of monetization in the centre as well as in the peripheral areas of the empire. However, this question will not be answered at this point. For now, we will regard the circulation in the forts as representative of the 'Roman' use of money, opposed to the native use of money in the non-military settlements. In other words, the proportion of the denominations in the forts will be our measure for that in the other settlements. If the relative proportions are the same in the native settlements, there is no reason to assume a difference in the level of monetization with that of the forts. If we find that some denominations have clearly been selected in the native settlements, however, this may be an indication of a difference in use. In table 3.11, only the forts with more than 50 coins in the phase before 69 AD are plotted separately; they are Nijmegen-Kops Plateau, Vechten, Zwammerdam and Valkenburg-castellum. Then there is a group of sites which lie very close to a fort (including canabae and military vici), and finally there is a group of 'civilian' sites, which lie more in the hinterland.176 It is assumed that the sites in this last group have less direct ties with the forts than those of the second group, by their lesser proximity to a fort. Site 360 (Vechten-no provenance) was not included in this table because it could not be placed in any one of the groups. All groups of sites show a considerable preference for dupondii and asses.177 The percentages of these denominations seem to be lower in the 'civilian' sites, but a lot of Aes II may be hidden in the category AES. All sites seem to share a low percentage of semisses and quadrantes (Aes III), although if we count cut asses as semisses and AVAVCIA coins as quadrantes (numbers and percentages in italics), the percentage of Aes III goes up in site 2 and site 176, which are the early forts, and, surprisingly, in the civilian sites. This is based on the assumption that the AVAVCIA coins circulated as quadrantes outside the forts as well, which is a rather shaky one. If, however, we do not count the AVAVCIA coins as AES III, the percentage of AES III is still higher in the 'civilian' sites (5.9 %) than in the sites which are close to a fort. This might be explained as a functional difference in circulation between the two groups of sites, except that the later forts show an absence of AESIII as well. A more likely explanation of the relative high occurrence of AES III is to regard it as a temporary phenomenon; only in the Augustan period does the circulation of semisses and quadrantes seem to have been

176 This last group is formed by excluding all sites of the first and second groups from the database.

177 The asses are the largest group within the category of Aes II.

57 more than marginal, both in military and non-military sites.178 I will return to this in a later chapter, when we compare the percentages of the sites of the Dutch river area with those of the other areas. For now, the proportion of AESIII seems to be roughly the same in military and non-military sites, albeit that the percentage is somewhat lower in the latter group, even if AVAVCIA coins are counted as quadrantes. There are, however, too few early forts to examine if it lies significantly lower. Also in the case of gold coins and sestertii there does not seem to be a great deal of difference between military and non-military sites. Silver coins are more interesting: in non-military sites, the percentage of silver is considerably higher. Here we may have evidence for functional differences between coin circulation outside and inside the forts. But what does it mean? Since it seems that nearly all coins in this period were supplied through the forts, it means that a selection has taken place, which changed the relative proportion of denominations which went to the non-military settlements.179 In our case selection took place in favour of silver coins. Still, the overall distribution of denominations in the three groups does not show enough difference to conclude that there was an essential difference in the character of the coin circulation in military and non-military sites. Gold and silver did not predominate in the 'civilian' settlements, as one would expect in the case of a not-monetized, essentially Celtic use of Roman money. As far as Roman money circulated in native settlements, they used more or less the same denominations as in the forts, although somewhat more silver, and somewhat less asses. This makes the use of Roman money a principally 'Roman' phenomenon: there is little evidence for an interpretatio Celtica. Although on the grounds of relative proportions of denominations it seems that the native use of Roman money does not seem to have been different from that in the forts, this does not mean that the native economy was thoroughly monetized from the moment Roman money infused in the native settlement. This is more a problem of scale, in how many transactions money passed hands. Answering this question would involve a sort calculation how many coins per head there were in the native settlements, the settlements close to a fort and the forts themselves. This is impossible to do at the moment, because we have no way of knowing the exact population in the first two types of settlement. However, we may perhaps assume that the native economy, which did not involve a great deal of monetary transaction, changed overnight into a monetized one. It seems more probable that Roman money functioned as limited purpose money, to deal predominantly with 'Roman' transactions. Examples of this use are exchange with military settlements and possibly the payment of taxes. It is even possible that some Roman gold and silver still ended up in tribal exchange of valuable goods, but this type of use was quickly becoming a marginal instead of a principal one. The higher percentage of silver in the native settlements may have to do with the continuation of these tribal networks, but this is pure conjecture. Finally, something must be said about site 360. This site shows a very high percentage of silver coins (44%; 221/502). In all probability the distribution of denominations is skewed in this case by the fact that a large proportion of the coins of Vechten comes from private collectors. It is likely that they showed a preference for silver coins.180

3.6.2 The period 69-260 AD

Of this period, 2068 coins were found in the Dutch river area. This seems to be a steep decline compared to the period before 69 AD (5059 coins), but this is brought to proportion with the realization that 3219 coins in the first period are from site 2, which leaves us with a total of 1840 coins of the first period apart from site 2. Nevertheless, it seems that there was no sharp increase in the coins that were used in the period 69-260 AD, especially considering that this period, as far as the influx of Roman coins is concerned, has a much longer time-span than the first one. In fact, if the number of coins in each period is divided by the number of years in that period, the relative proportion of coins of the second

178 Augustan semisses and quadrantes may have continued to be in circulation after 14 AD, but the circulation of AESIII must have dwindled before the Claudian forts were founded.

179 See earlier in this chapter.

180 See Tymann 1996.

58 period would be halved.181 This implies that the average loss (and use) of coins per year drops dramatically in the second period. However, this average per year raises all kinds of methodological questions. A very basic problem is that we are not counting the years in which coins were used and lost, but the years of the reign in which they were struck. This would be correct if coins were supplied and used in a very regular pattern. But if the supply and use of coins were intermittent, so to speak, this would have repercussions on the average per year. This makes the comparison of coin totals as far as the whole region is concerned, less reliable. Regrettably, it is impossible to estimate the level of error in the comparison. There are, however, two ways by which these problems can be reduced. First, by comparing the totals per period with those of another region; this will be dealt with in a later chapter. Secondly, it is possible to look at the relative increase and decrease of coin loss of different groups of sites, for instance eastern and western sites, or military and non-military ones.182 These methodological problems should not be seen as to invalidate the comparison of absolute totals completely. It is still possible to do so, only one must be aware of the possible errors it might convey. Therefore, we may say that coin loss increased in the river area during the second period, but we cannot be sure how far this is simply a consequence of the fact that the total of issue periods was twice as long in the second phase. Following this, it is better to look at relative proportions of coins in different subgroups of sites.

Map 3.5: coin finds AD 69-260 in the Dutch river area

Earlier in this chapter, I have demonstrated that the number of coins of this period shows a clear increase. Also, the number of sites grows; if percentages are considered, this increase is sharper in the western than in the eastern river area. This means that the use of coins was becoming more wide-spread, particularly in the west. The higher proportion of coins of the first period in the east was explained by the greater military activity in this phase in the east. Similarly, it is to be expected that coin loss increased in the west at the moment that the forts along the Rhine were established there, which happened during the reign of Claudius. But this cannot be the only explanation in this case, because there was a sharp rise in the number of sites as well. Figure 3.3 (p.43) shows the percentual difference between the two areas in the chronological distribution of coins over different issue periods. The later start of coin use in the west is clearly visible; while the earliest peak in the east is located in the Augustan period, in the west it shows in the Claudian period. Both area reach the same level of coin use in Flavian times, and run a distinctly more parallel course in the middle Roman period. One might point out that, as the number of settlements in general increased in this period, the number of settlements

181 Coins of the first period would be divided by 100 (this would be an optimistic view of the duration of this period), those of the second period by 200, and the last by 140.

182 See paragraph 3.5.1.

59 which yield Roman coins went up too. However, this does not give any reason why use of coins ran parallel with the density of habitation. There are several possible incentives for more extensive use of coinage:

1. more intensive contacts between settlements and the Roman army 2. integration into Roman system of money taxes, which involved the marketing of surpluses in some way. 3. increasing specialist activities, especially when they are concentrated, like in the case of building projects. 4. urbanization

Concerning the first point, since the army in this period was very stationary, the effects of this factor may account in the west for the influx of more coins into the native settlements, but it does not explain the more wide-spread use of Roman money. The Claudian consolidation of the border and the later Flavian reorganization may have cost a great deal of money, but there is no reason why the money which it involved should have ended up in the native villages beyond the direct frontier zone, since most of the work was done by the army itself. Moreover, it was argued before that the distribution of money in the eastern half of the area was greatly enhanced by the fact that most soldiers had the opportunity to return to their homes on a frequent basis. From the fifties onwards, however, Batavian soldiers were placed elsewhere in the empire, which would have slowed down these integration processes significantly. Another consideration is that the number of soldiers occupying the forts grew considerably less from Trajan onwards, never to reach again the level of the first half of the 1st century. This must have had effects on the official, 'military' supply of money to our area. There is no hard evidence for the date from which the native population began to pay taxes at a regular basis. Tacitus tells us that the Batavians were exempt from paying tributa183, at least if one does not count the supply of auxiliary troops as such; strictly speaking, tributa entails all goods and services which are paid by dependent peoples to the Roman state184. However one may interpret the remarks of Tacitus, it may be inferred that the Batavians were not subject to any monetary taxation before the year 69 AD. After the revolt, things changed for the Batavians. Although we cannot be sure, it looks as if their earlier status as gens foederata was revoked. Probably, they were forced to accept a regular civitas-organization, which they had not known before185. It is quite likely that the Batavians had to pay regular taxes from then on; whether these were to be paid in money or not is an entire other question. Evidently, it is no longer taken for granted that the taxes in the early Empire were money taxes. Duncan-Jones186 has shown that the role of taxes in kind was larger than the model of Hopkins allows for187. In chapter 1 even a 'mixed payment' in both money and kind was considered to be possible. This does nothing to solve our problem, however; it only shows that, as far as historic sources are concerned, we know nothing of the nature of taxation in our area. This is even more so for the western half of the river area. Although Bloemers (1978) cautiously implies that the position of the Cananefates might have been not so different from that of the Batavians, there is no real positive evidence for such a notion. By default it seems safer to assume that they did not have an exceptional position like their eastern neighbours. This means that the Cananefates may have been earlier subject to regular taxation. Again, we do not know how they paid their taxes. Also, it remains unclear how 'regular' taxation could have been possible before AD 69. Bloemers

183 Tacitus Germ. 29; Hist.IV,17; V,25.

184 See chapter 1; Goffart 1974.

185 The inscription on the altar stone of Ruimel (CIL XIII,8771), which mentions a summus magistratus Batavorum instead of the duoviri who were normally at the head of a civitas, is generally accepted as proof for the absence of a civitas structure in the first half of the 1st century AD. However, the same inscription does indicate a measure of centralization of government; thus it is better to see the actual implementation of the civitas-organization as the end of a process, not as a 'clean' start (see Willems 1986, 390-1; Bloemers 1978, 83).

186 Duncan-Jones 1990.

187 Hopkins 1980; for a more elaborate discussion of Roman taxation, see chapter 1.

60 thinks that only after this date a civitas organization was implemented in the western river area188. This makes the period before this a time of transition, in which no definitive structure existed for the central administration of the river area. It seems unlikely that in this first formative period taxes would have been paid in money on a large scale. In this respect, I am inclined to believe the opposite of Bloemers' proposition that 'Die Stellung der Cananefaten hat offensichtlich mehr Ähnlichkeit mit der batavischen als mit der frisischen.'189. For the period after AD 69, the proposition of money taxes seems more attractive. We may assume that in both east and west, governmental organization was as romanized as it would become in the next few centuries. This implies that tributary relations between the native population and the Roman authorities were formalized, which at least must have provided the opportunity to pay taxes in money. Still, this is no proof that they actually did so. But it does offer a plausible explanation for the wider distribution of Roman money over the settlements of the Dutch river area, if not for the possible190 increase in the volume of money in circulation. To be able to pay money taxes, (mostly agrarian) produce had to be converted into money. This required the existence of more or less central markets, where produce could be traded for money. In the river area there are three possible markets which could fulfill this requirement. In the first place, the Roman forts. Although Willems states that 'at least part of army's food was always imported'191. He bases his statement on both archaeological and epigraphical grounds. However, this evidence seems to point out that it was mainly grain which was imported, probably from the loess areas in Gallia Belgica. Also, luxury foods like olive oil and wine must have come from outside the river area. Still, this leaves enough room for local supplements of the military diet, of which the most important may have been fresh meat. Both Willems and Bloemers think that cattle herding was the basis of subsistence in this area, and indeed this has been confirmed by later research.192 However, one main characteristic of the military market was that there were considerable fluctuations in demand, which accompanied each significant movement of troops. These fluctuations made it unreliable, and this would create difficult situations in times when army size was greatly reduced. Also, the supply of new money which was needed to pay the taxes with, would in such times diminish. This economic dependence on the Roman army would have been reduced if there were other possibilities to market produce for money. A likely candidate for such a market is the city. The population of a city was per se dependent on the supply of agricultural produce, which a lot of people in the city did not provide for themselves. In the Dutch river area there are two possible urban markets in this period. The first is Nijmegen, or rather Ulpia Noviomagus. This civic centre came in the place of the earlier oppidum batavorum, which was presumably destroyed during the revolt in AD 69. The new town was founded under Flavian rule on the bank of the river Waal, to serve as a new capital of the civitas batavorum. Since the new town appears to start from scratch, this must have generated considerable building activities in the last half of the 1st century AD. This, and the army pay meant, according to Willems, an enormous boost to economic activity and '.. [must have] been the source of wealth for increasing numbers of the local population.'193. This may have been true, but the economic benefit rests on the assumption that the native population was involved in the building programs in the form of native labour, and that the building was not exclusively sponsored and undertaken by the Roman army. However, there was a potential market for native agrarian produce in Nijmegen at least while the building activities were going on. Regrettably, we do not know a lot about the town itself, and how it developed after Flavian times. Like Willems says, 'Ulpia Noviomagus seems to have been a town that never quite made it as such.'194. Still, in his view it functioned as

188 Bloemers 1978, 84.

189 Bloemers 1978, 81; the Frisii paid their tribute in cowhides.

190 See previous discussion about methodology and absolute numbers of coins.

191 Willems 1986, 424.

192 See for instance Willems 1986, 424. For a synthesis of this discussion, see Roymans 1996, 72-84

193 Willems 1986, 403.

194 Willems 1986, 428.

61 a market centre in which locally produced food supported the administrative superstructure, artisans and traders of the town. It seems likely that this food was paid for in Roman money, and as such it warranted a flux of money from the town to the countryside. The coin finds of Nijmegen, meanwhile, do nothing to sustain this view, although they do not oppose it either. Up to now, we have virtually no information on coin finds in the new civic centre; all coins seem to come from military and semi-military contexts. This makes it very hard to determine the impact of the money from Ulpia Noviomagus on the countryside, let alone make a difference between military and civilian coin distribution. The model above must remain so until more information on coin loss in Noviomagus is available. However, there is one indicator for the scale of integration of rural and urban economy: this is the development of a villa system. A villa is a farm which produced systematically for an urban market, and was owned by wealthy land- owners. These land-owners lived (part-time or full-time) in the city which they produced for. They were usually also politically involved in the town. Their status was based on their good relationship with the Roman authorities, which was mostly symbolized by the display of certain status goods. This is probably one of the reasons why villa's are mostly thoroughly romanized buildings. Also in the town these rich land-owners displayed their wealth by commissioning public buildings or events. A city like Tongeren in Gallia Belgica is surrounded by this type of settlement, which were the main suppliers of food to the city. If we thus find a well-developed villa-system, this points towards a highly integrated form of an urban-rural economy. In the Dutch river area, there is some evidence which might be indicative of the existence of villa's. Willems identifies a number of 34 potential villa's , of which eighteen are reasonably certain. However, only one villa is completely excavated. The rest is only partially known, mostly through the occurrence of certain finds thought to be characteristic for a villa, such as fragments of wall-painting, parts of a heating system, pieces of mosaic etcetera. However, all these finds are typical for many other types romanized building as well; in many cases the finds may just as well belong to a temple. There is no real material basis to assume that a villa economy developed in the Dutch river area during the 2nd century AD. Roymans sees the Dutch river area essentially as one of the ‘non-villa-landscapes’ of the northwestern Roman empire.195 However he acknowledges that there are some ‘real’ villas in the area, even they are not part of an economic system that is based on the supply of agrarian produce to urban markets.196 Thus, the grain that was needed to feed the major civic centres and the Roman army, did not come from the rural hinterland of the area itself. Still, Roymans observes a growing orientation of rural villages on urban and military markets in the supply of meat, hides and horses.197 In other words, the Dutch river area showed the same intensification of rural produce as in -what Roymans calls- the villa landscapes. Roymans has a view of the tax system in the Dutch river area which agrees with the one presented above for the period before AD 69. He proposes a mixed payment of taxes in both army troops and horses and cattle, which was laid down in a special tax treaty. Taxes were paid in kind, and not at any point converted into cash. But he believes in the continuation of the tax treaty after this date, and here I have some doubts. Although it is true that Batavians continued to enlist in the Roman army after AD 69, perhaps even on a large scale, it does not seem likely that Roman authorities would continue to consider this a tax payment. Since local leaders did not have troops in their service anymore (like in the early-Roman period), it was not theirs to offer this as payment any longer. I believe service in the Roman army became more normalised, and an affair of individual choice. This would mean that a substantial part of the taxes had to be paid in other goods, or money. Roymans leaves enough room for the conversion of an extra surplus into money198, which was further used for display of wealth, mainly in the form of building activity. This could be used as an explanation for the observed intensification of coin use in this period. But perhaps the increased need for meeting new tax payments which were paid before in the

195 Roymans 1996, 70.

196 Although these lie outside of our area; Roymans includes the whole of the southern Netherlands in his discussion.

197 Roymans 1996, 83.

198 On top of what was needed for paying taxes; Roymans 1996, 87.

62 form of manpower for the Roman army, was more instrumental in the wider spread of coin use in the middle Roman period. The ‘tremendous display of wealth’ which Roymans observes is perhaps formulated too strongly in the case of the Dutch river area, if one compares it with other regions of northwestern Europe in the same age. Whether or not more taxes had to be paid in cash in the middle Roman period, for meeting extra tax demands as well as for display of wealth in the form of increased building, the agrarian surplus had to be converted into money. Since there is no evidence for a well-integrated urban-rural economy in the form of a villa system which supplied the city and vici with corn, it seems more likely that the surplus was directed at the military market in this area. This hypothesis is sustained by the chronological distribution of coins (figure 3.10). When army numbers begin to decrease from the beginning of the 2nd century, both curves slope downhill, and never really recover. It must be seen if this is a development that is characteristic for the Dutch river area and not a general decline in all areas. We will return to this subject in chapter 6.

Figure 3.11: percentages of coin metal by issue period AD 69-260

Denominations and coin use Table 3.12 shows the proportion of denominations in the middle Roman period. The most remarkable feature is the high percentage of silver in all settlements compared with the early Roman period. To see if this is an effect of the relatively high percentage of Severan silver, the chronological distribution of coin metal is shown in figure 3.11. It is clear that, in general, the percentage of silver is the highest in the Severan period, and the percentage line of silver runs complementary to that of the bronze coins, which shows a continuous decline throughout the period AD 69-260. Nevertheless, the percentage of silver before AD 193 seems on the high side compared to bronze, even when the general (empire-wide) devaluation of coinage is taken into account. To see if this is indeed characteristic for the coin circulation in the Dutch river area, the percentages have to be compared with those of the other areas; this will be done in chapter 6. What can be done at this point, is to see if the chronological distribution of silver is the same for every site type. Figure 3.12 shows the chronological distribution of silver coins in different site types. Although there is a general homogeneity, there is a remarkable difference between the city, the vici and the military sites on the one hand, and the rural sites (villages and villas)and cemeteries on the other. It is most outspoken in the percentages of the Severan period, where the former group of sites shows a higher percentage of silver than the latter. It is likely that the difference is an effect of the higher percentage of silver in the previous periods in the rural sites. Whereas the high percentage of silver coins in the Severan period is a reflection of the shift from bronze to silver coins

63 in the northwestern empire, it means something different in the period before this.199

Denomination Site 176 Other forts Site 479 Mil/civ Civ

coins % coins` % coins % coins % coins %

AV 1 0.6 0 0 1 2.3 3 0.4 5 0.4

AR 35 21.5 25 14.3 4 9.3 208 28.6 476 35.5

AES I 26 16.0 31 17.7 15 34.9 74 10.2 299 22.3

AES II 93 57.1 116 66.3 23 53.5 201 27.6 348 25.9

AES III 6 3.7 3 1.7 0 0 6 0.8 8 0.6

AES 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 32.3 141 10.5

Missing 2 1.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 29 2.2

Total 163 100.0 175 100.0 67 100.0 728 100.0 1342 100.0 Table 3.12: the proportion of denominations AD 69-260; Mil=military; Civ=civilian

It may be an indication of a difference in coin use between urban and rural contexts. Since the city and military sites probably represent the monetary use of coins (which is underlined by the higher percentage of bronze), the higher percentage of silver in rural contexts point to other forms of coin use.

Figure 3.12: percentage of silver coins in different site types AD 69-260

Although this is by no means a reason to think that the countryside was not integrated into the monetary economy (which is illustrated by the general pattern in figure 3.11 and 3.12), other than monetary use of coins may be the cause of the percentual difference between urban and rural.200 The rural coins must not be seen as casual losses but partly as

199 Actually, the high percentage of silver in the first half of the 3rd century is caused by the very low numbers of sestertii .In this, the Dutch river area displays the same pattern as Britain and North France (Reece 1987, 112), whereas Italy and South France have high percentages of sestertii of the 3rd century. If this should be a crisis of supply, it is strange that this does not apply to the silver.

200 It must be noted that it is hard to distinguish between the urban and military element of the Dutch river area. The coin finds of Nijmegen are biassed by an over-representation of coin complexes from military contexts; likewise, many vicus coins come from the military vici which lay close to the forts.

64 deliberately depositions, which were probably of a ritual nature. The other, non-ritual part may have been used in monetary exchange, but not in the rural sites themselves: it is likely that many of these coins were stored for later use in urban market exchange. In this way, the incidence of scattered hoards in rural sites might be higher than expected.

3.6.3 The late Roman period (AD260-402)

It is hard to envision what precisely did happen in the late 3rd century. The traditional view is that gallo-Roman society came to an abrupt end through the invasions of the Franks around AD 260; many settlements were destroyed in the process, and the inhabitants of the area were killed or fled to the south. Today, this view is more qualified. There is evidence that already in the early 3rd century, Frankish people began to migrate across the Rhine and to settle in the border areas. Although it cannot be denied that some upheaval took place in the mid-third century, it have been nothing more than an intensification of an already ongoing process of population change.201 It is not the intention of this book to settle the issue of what really happened in the Dutch river area during the late third and fourth centuries. However, it is important to state that in the 4th century, the people who lived in the Dutch river area were not the same as before. They were not as familiar with coin use as their predecessors, and did not use coins for market exchange in their original home territories. Additionally, the gallo-Roman infrastructure of the area had all but disappeared, and existing economic links between settlements had been broken. Coins did not travel the same ways as in the earlier 3rd century.

Map 3.6: the coin finds of the late Roman period (AD260-402)

The number of coins of the late Roman period is dramatically lower than that of the early and middle Roman periods (864 coins; a decrease of 64% compared to the previous period). It may be objected that the late Roman period is shorter than the previous by 50 years, but this is easily refuted. Because the nature of the Roman money changed during the 3rd century into a system which was dominated by enormous numbers of low-value bronze coins, it can be expected that the late Roman period shows a marked increase in coin numbers. This expectation is fulfilled in Britain and in the Luxemburg area (see chapter 4), where coin numbers soar during the period AD 260-402.

201 See Willems 1990, 73-77; Lamarcq & Rogge 1996,97. According to Willems the Batavians remained in the Betuwe until the definite end of the civitas batavorum around AD 350, with Nijmegen as their centre. However, this depends on how one reads the sources. Eumenius (Pan.Lat VI, (VII), 5, 3.)tells us that Constantius Chlorus liberated the Betuwe from the Franks: this means that they already occupied the territory in the latter half of the 3rd century. Even if Eumenius is correct, it does not mean that after the actions of Constantius Chlorus society in the eastern river area was restored to the situation that existed before the coming of the Franks. The same holds for the earlier sweep of the Betuwe by Postumus (Van Es 1972, 52).

65 The explanation for the relatively low numbers of late Roman coins in the Dutch river area lies probably in the above mentioned fact that its population was gradually replaced by trans-Rhenish groups which did not use coins on a large scale, and at any rate not in a monetary way. The old economic system which was at least partly monetized did not exist any longer. If former supply routes were at all re-established in this period after their break-down in the middle of the 3rd century, the previous motives for supplying the area with coins did not apply anymore. The coin finds of this period were supplied for different reasons, and to different people as before. This makes it difficult to compare the coin finds of this period with the previous one, also because there are few sites with sufficiently large coin numbers for analysis.

Geographical distribution of coins and hoards Map 3.6 shows the location of coin finds of the late Roman period. As expected, the majority of find spots is in the eastern half of the Dutch river area. Another difference between the two sub-areas is that there are almost no sites in the west which have both late 3rd-century coins and 4th-century coins. Also, the sites of the western half with coins of the period AD 260-296 are concentrated in the utmost west, whereas 4th-century coins have also been found along the Rhine in the north. Thus, it seems there is more evidence for discontinuity between the late third and the 4th century in the west than in the east, but also in the east, 4th-century coins are distributed more widely than coins of the late 3rd century. The difference between the eastern and the western River area is the largest in this period. The east has 794 coins, ten times as much as the west (70 coins). Probably, this is caused to the fact that the activities of the Roman government in the 4th century did not reach any further than the southern and eastern parts of the Netherlands. Also, the population of the western river area shows a considerable decrease, which may or may not be related to the statement in the previous paragraph, but it will have been at least partly responsible for the low coin numbers in the west.202

Figure 3.13: chronological distribution of the hoards of the Dutch river area by their youngest coin

The absence of coin hoards of the late 3rd century is striking. There are three hoards which date from the first half of the 3rd century: Arnhem 1731, consisting of 7 denarii and ending with a denarius of Severus Alexander; Kerk-Avezaath 1888 (five denarii, ending with Clodius Albinus) and Eck en Wiel 1908 (34 antoniniani, ending with Philippus I). Apparently, the upheaval in the second half of the 3rd century does not provoke an increase in hoarding, which puts the supposed connection between hoard clusters of the late 3rd century and invasions of trans-Rhenish peoples in serious doubt. All

202 Van Es e.a. 1988, 92. The situation was probably not as bad as the map suggests; when it is compared with map 3.6, it is evident that there must have been more settlements.

66 hoards in the bar chart of figure 3.13 except one are located in the eastern half of the Dutch river area; this is in accordance with the distribution of single finds.

Late Roman solidi A specific type of hoard is represented by the late Roman solidi. They are mostly finds of one coin, and are technically not a hoard. However, their value renders it unlikely that they were lost (although this remains a possibility for every individual gold coin), and therefore it is better to consider them as hoards. The find spots of the solidi are represented in table 3.13 and their chronological distribution is shown in figure 3.14. Map 3.7 displays their geographical distribution. Almost half of the solidi are datable to the first half of the 5th century, a time in which also many bronze hoards are buried south of the Dutch river area.203 However, the find of late Roman solidi in the context of Merovingian graves (site 488) warns us that dating these coins can be tricky if no find context is known. So it remains a possibility, that the hoard cluster at the beginning of the 5th century in fact represents a series of hoards that must be stretched out in time.

Site Name Issue period Years Coins 73 Bemmel 20 330-348 1 80 Beuningen-De Heuve 24 388-402 1 93 Doornik 25 >402 1 94 Dreumel 22 364-378 2 24 388-402 1 125 Maurik-Parkstraat 25 >402 1 126 Maurik 22 364-378 1 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng 0 IV 3 25 >402 5 141 Ophemert 25 >402 1 174 Rhenen 23 378-388 2 25 >402 2 228 Wassenaar-Meijendel 21 348-364 1 246 Geldermalsen-Bottesteijn 25 >402 1 248 Gendt-Hooge Hof 22 364-378 1 254 Heesselt 25 >402 1 276 Lienden-Vogelzangseweg 0 IV 1 289 Opheusden 22 364-378 1 335 Het Goy 25 >402 1 360 Vechten 25 >402 1 403 Ter Heijde-Duinen 16 260-275 1 488 Rhenen-grafveld 23 378-388 1 25 >402 1 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 22 364-378 1 Total 33 Table 3.13: find spots of late Roman solidi

It is tempting to associate the 5th-century hoard cluster with the breakdown of the Roman frontier, but the former possibility might invalidate this interpretation. A point in favour, however, is the fact that in the second half of the 4th -century gold coins are a relatively frequent occurrence compared with earlier periods. This may be the result of intensified hoarding activity, but can also be taken as evidence for an higher importance of gold in the coin circulation

203 See chapter 5 for a discussion of these late Roman bronze hoards.

67 of the latter half of the 4th century. The hoards between AD 364 and 402 can in this respect be seen as normal hoarding rate, and the peak after AD 402 as caused by the collapse of the Roman frontier.

Map 3.7: geographical distribution of late Roman gold coins. The numbers in the plot represent the issue periods of the coins

If the latter interpretation is valid, the greater importance of gold in the second half of the 4th century must be explained. The Valentinian solidi may be related to the reorganization of the frontier zone by this emperor, which involved his personal stay in these parts. Gold always travelled with the emperor in this period, and the finds of the Dutch river area may be representative of contacts in the ceremonial sphere between Valentinian and local (Frankish) leaders. Map 3.7 and table 3.13 show that all solidi are from rural contexts.204 This can be considered as further evidence of the circulation of these coins in the ceremonial sphere, since they are not found in urban or military contexts. If the gold was used for monetary payments for the purpose of building and other infrastructural improvements, we would expect them in the latter contexts.

Figure 3.14: chronological distribution of the late Roman gold coins

If the hypothesis for the Valentinian gold is correct, it might be inferred that similar processes were at work in the other periods as well. The late Roman gold of the Dutch river area in this respects shows forms of coin use analogous to early Roman gold in the first half of the 1st century AD.

204 It is remarkable that the solidi cluster in the middle of the eastern river area , an area which seems to have been important from the late 1st century BC until late Roman times. This is contrary to the discontinuity in habitation which is supposed to have occurred in the late Roman period. For the earlier importance of this area, see for instance Roymans (forthcoming).

68 Mints It is hardly worth the effort to compare the composition of coin lists of sites according to the place where the coins were minted: the sites which have enough coins for such a comparison are simply to few, their period of existence is too short, or there were too few coins which could be attributed to a mint. Figure 3.15 shows the distribution of mints for the entire Dutch river area. Fifty-two percent of the coins could not be attributed to a mint; they are left out of the pie charts. Fifty-four percent of the coins of the period AD 260-296 was supplied by Rome; the 35% from Gaul represent the coins of the Gallic Empire. In the 4th century, the main part of the coins was supplied by Trier (45%; first half of the 4th century). Other important mints in this period are Rome, Lyons and Arles (particularly in the latter half of the 4th century). In chapter 6, where this area is compared with the other two, it will be seen if there are patterns to be observed which are characteristic of the Dutch river area.

Figure 3.15: distribution of late Roman coins by their mint: to the left, coins from the period AD 260-296; to the right, coins from the period AD 296-402

Denominations In the analysis of late Roman denominations, we encounter the same problem as before. There are relatively few sites with enough coins to make a comparison worth wile. Additionally, the life span of coins is much shorter, particularly in the 4th century, which means that chronological differences between sites can clutter up our view. At the same time, there are simply too few coins to split the 4th century into meaningful subdivisions. As a compromise, the late Roman period is divided into to parts: the period AD 260-348 and the period AD 348-450. Table 3.14 shows the distribution of denominations in the two sub-periods. Table 3.14 shows that in the period AD 260-348 first the antoninianus, and then the follis predominates, both in fact bronze coins. In the next period, the most important role is also played by bronze denominations of different size and weight. However, in contrast with the former period, the percentage of gold is very high.205 Earlier, we have seen that the gold coins are located mostly in the countryside, and are absent from urban and military contexts. At the same time, the chronological profiles of the period AD 260-450 show that the sites with large coin numbers in the latter half of the 4th-century cluster around Nijmegen (besides Nijmegen itself), while the sites with large coin numbers in the 3rd century are definitely rural. This suggests that while there was still some integration of rural sites in the monetary economy in the 3rd century, monetary use of coins had contracted to the urban centre in the 4th century. The coins on rural sites in the 4th century had presumably other than monetary functions, whereby the gold circulated in the context of ceremonial exchange or was deposited ritually, and bronze - as far as it was not saved for monetary use

205 See the discussion of late Roman gold above. Strictly speaking, the gold coins are hoards and should not be discussed together with stray finds. It would give a false view of the spectrum of denominations to omit them, however.

69 in the context of the city - perhaps as objects for ritual use or as scrap metal.206

AD 260-348 AD 348-450 AD 260-450

coins % coins % coins %

AV 2 0.4 27 11.9 4 3.5

AR 3 0.5 2 0.9 1 0.9

Anton 311 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Follis 253 41.5 6 2.6 21 18.4

AES I 1 0.2 3 1.3 0.0 0.0

AES II 1 0.2 49 21.6 2 1.8

AES III 5 0.8 55 24.2 6 5.3

AES IV 7 1.2 58 25.6 62 53.4

AES 21 3.4 23 10.1 16 14.0

Unknown 7 1.2 3 1.3 0.0 0.0

Total 610 100.0 227 100.0 114 100.0 Table 3.14: distribution of late Roman denominations; column 6 and 7 represent the denominations of coins which could not be placed in one of the sub-periods.

206 There is some evidence for the use of bronze coins as metal for making other bronze objects, such as fibulae, although not in the Dutch river area itself (late 4th-century ‘German’ villages in the MDS-area; see chapter 5)

70 Chapter 4 The coin finds of Luxemburg and Trier

4.1 Selection of coin finds

The database of the third area of the present research project consists of the coin finds of Luxemburg and of Trier, as far as they have been published in the series of the Fundmünzen (FMRL). For Luxemburg, the four parts of the publication of Weiller (Weiller 1972, 1977, 1983, 1990) have been used.207 In the first and most comprehensive part, Weiller has made an inventory of all coins which were known to have been found in Luxemburg up to 1970. This comprises various private coin collections of different size and antiquity and coins from excavations (mostly conducted by the Musée d'histoire et d'art). Somewhat more than 4000 coins are from recent coin collecting activities. In the three remaining supplements, most of the coins are more or less recent finds by amateurs; a relatively small proportion of finds comes from excavations which were carried out between 1970 and 1989, sizeable excavation complexes being the vici of the Titelberg and Dalheim. Counting the fact that the first part covers more than three centuries of coin collecting, the enormous increase in the number of coins in the last few years becomes evident in table 4.1: 24% of the coins have been found in a period of 19 years. Although the method of collecting is not recorded in the FMRL in any structural way, we may safely assume that the coins in the last three volumes were, for a major part, detector finds.

Publication Years coins %

Weiller 1972 + 1650-1970208 37847 62

Weiller 1977 1970-1976 2437 4

Weiller 1983 1976-1980 1815 3

Weiller 1990 1980-1989 10287 17

Alföldi 1970 1938-1943 8991 14

Total 61377 100 Table 4.1: coin finds of Luxemburg (first 4 rows) and Trier-Altbachtal (fifth row)

One must be aware of the bias in the coins from the older collections. A perfect example of selection in favour of higher denominations by collectors is the fact mentioned by an 19th-century collector that 3rd-century copies were in such low regard, that they were referred to as trash and sold to the copper smith by the pound.209 Also, a reverse kind of selection took place during the second World War, when many coins were stolen from museums by the Nazi's. Not all coin finds of the FMRL were entered in the database. To limit the time spent on entering data, the supple- ments of find complexes which were already very large in volume one (such as Dalheim-Petzel and the Titelberg) have been left out. This decision was based on the supposition that the new finds would add very little to the structural composition of the coin pools of these settlements.

The coin finds of Trier are restricted to the temple complex and late Roman buildings in the Altbachtal. The rest of the coin finds of Trier have not yet been published in the Fundmünzen series. This is regrettable, because it means that

207 A fifth supplement in the series was published in 1995.

208 The first recording of coin finds took place a few years after 1660 by a Jesuit.

209 Namentlich is das Luxemburger Land eine unversiegbare Quelle dieses Schundens. Es werden hier tausende und abermals tausende solcher barbarischer Münzen gefunden und ich habe sie Pfundweise an der Kupfersmied verkaufen sehen.' (Weiller 1977,16).

71 the coins of the only city in our area come from a context which was predominantly religious in character, and is as such representative of only one of the functions of a city.210 All finds from the Altbachtal are from an excavation conducted by Loeschke in the years 1938-1943. The coins were given a first work-over by Gose; soon after this, many coins were lost due to 'Bombardierungen und Nachkriegswirren'.211 Sometimes the information of these lost coins could be retrieved through surviving notes or rub-offs by Gose. The coins were finally published in the FMRD series by Alföldi (1979). The original documentation of the coin finds is frequently plagued by lack of detail: Alföldi was in many cases not able to assign coins to one layer or context, dependent as she was on the commentary written on coin bags and a general 'Löckerplan' made by Gose, which often did not include the information of the most recent excavations. Thus, coins assigned to a particular temple could often include intrusions of a later context, for instance a late Roman road or a cellar. Nevertheless, Alföldi has tried to identify so-called 'Kollektiv-funde', or find complexes. These find com- plexes are groups of coins which were found so close together that one may infer that they were deposited as a group. Because of the rather vague and probably biassed meaning of this term, the 'Kollektiv-funde' are clearly not synonymous with hoards. In the analysis of the coin finds, therefore, these coins are treated as casual losses. Their grouping has been retained by tagging each find complex as a separate site.

In table 4.2, the degree of exactness of identification of the coins is displayed, and how many coins are originals or copies.212 The total number of exact identifications is high, which must be partly due to the quality of the coins, partly to the fact that most of the coins have been looked at in recent times for the benefit of their publication in the FMRL series.213 Finally, the style of the identifier plays a role: some will allow more doubt in their identification than others. This last point is probably not a very influential factor. There is a remarkable difference between site finds and hoards. In the coin hoards there seems to be much more material which could not be identified exactly.

Identification Site finds Hoards Total

coins % coins % coins %

Exact 12193 42 9325 29 21518 35

Exact-other mint 143 0 540 2 683 1

Exact-copy 414 1 192 1 606 1

Incomplete 10831 37 16886 52 27917 45

Incomplete-copy? 5239 18 987 3 6226 10

Uncertain 280 1 4347 13 4627 8

Total 29101 100 32278 100 61377 100 Table 4.2: Exactness of identification: numbers and percentages

The reason for this is not clear. It may be that the influence of chance is stronger in hoards, because larger numbers of coins were buried together and subjected to the same post-depositional processes during the same lapse of time. If circumstances are bad, they are bad for a whole lot of coins. The incidence of copies is perhaps not as high as one would expect, but, as stated above, the original number of 3rd-

210 Only in the 4th century AD was the religious function of this area reduced; part of the area is replaced by buildings of a secular nature.

211 Gose 1972.

212 Since the identification of a coin as a copy is prone to subjective criteria, the distinction between copies and regulars belongs in this table.

213 By exact I mean a complete identification of a coin by means of the designation to a coin type in a catalogue, preferably RIC. Exact- other mint means that only the mint of the corresponding coin type is different. The categories used are the same as in Ryan 1988.

72 century copies must have been significantly higher before they started disappearing in the melting pot. Again, there is an unexpected difference between site finds and hoards. Both in absolute and relative terms site finds show a larger amount of copies. Because most coins were identified as copies by one person, this bias of the identifier does not account for the difference between the two groups.214 The last category 'Uncertain' contains coins of uncertain provenance, mostly in combination with a low level of information about the coins: here we find for instance the vague information that perhaps on a 'not precisely known' location a 'large' number of 'possibly gold' coins were found, which were 'possibly Roman'. These coins will be left out of the analyses.

4.2 The sites

A total of 886 find spots have been recorded for the Luxemburg/Trier area. Of these, 132 are from various locations within the Altbachtal in Trier, a mix of sanctuaries and late Roman buildings. The rest of the find spots are scattered all over Luxemburg (map4.1). The sites were distinguished at the most detailed level possible, and several of them may be clustered into one settlement. For instance, the vici of the Titelberg comprises a number of 14 sites or find spots in the site database. In some cases, it is relatively easy to assemble a settlement out of its component parts, as in the case of the Titelberg, but in others this may cause problems. It is difficult to decide whether we should count a sanctuary in a town as a separate settlement, or treat its coin finds as coming from a town as a whole. Still, this is an important distinction to be made if we want to use settlements in the analysis of coins finds according to their difference in character.215 However, in such cases of functional ambiguity it is possible to repeat the analysis for both cases. This is harder when two sites are close to one another, without sufficient information being available as to their character and extent. Do both sites belong to the same settlement and are they to be treated as one, or as two separate settlements? In most cases, the original separation of coin finds was retained. Only if the distance between two find spots was less than a hundred metres, the two find spots were deemed to be of one settlement. These sites were given a new site number in a second database which is a copy of the original database, with sites merged into greater entities where possible. This new database was used for the analyses. Of course, the new site numbers were updated in (a copy of) the coin database as well. At first, the sites were traced on ordnance survey maps on a scale of 1:20.000, and subsequently plotted on an ordnance survey map with the scale 1:100.000. Map 4.1 is a digitized version of the latter type of map. Only 78% of the find spots is plotted on map 4.1. This is a consequence of the scale of the map, which makes it impossible to distinguish between find spots which are too close together: one dot may thus represent several site numbers. Another reason for not mapping a site is the absence of detail in the original reference of the site's location; when only the name of the community in which the coin was found is mentioned, this frequently means that the coin may have been found anywhere within the boundaries of this community, - and sometimes even this last statement can be doubted -. There are exceptions, however: if no other coins are present in the vicinity, and we have only the non-precise reference of a community, the centre of this community was plotted as the place where the coin was found. Other- wise, the omission of sites with an uncertain location would have caused gaps in the distribution pattern where in reality there are none.

214 This bias is nicely illustrated by the much higher proportion of not-exactly identified copies.

215 See chapter 3.

73 Map 4.1: the coin finds of Luxemburg and Trier

Location Sites %

Exact location on map 568 64

Not-exact location on map 121 14

Not on map 197 22

Total 886 100 Table 4.3: representation of sites on map 4.1

Finally, there is a group of sites which have a toponym and should therefore have been traceable on a detailed ordnance survey map, but were not. They were treated in the same way as the sites with an non-exact location.

4.2.1 Settlements and infrastructure

Table 4.4 is essentially based on Weiller's characterization of sites. The term find complex refers to coins coming from a single find spot: a site may contain several of these find complexes, particularly the larger ones like Trier and the vici. Some sites are problematic in their characterization, because their function varied in time. It was not possible

74 in all cases to attribute the coin finds to a single phase in the site’s existence. Sometimes, the exact context of the find was not documented; but in general Murphy’s Law dictates that most coin finds, regardless of excavation standards should be found in the disturbed topsoil.

Settlement type Find complexes No. of coins Hoards Coins in hoards Coin total

City 132 9042 - - 9042

Vicus216 26 9952 7 15692 25644

Villa 69 2448 8 3115 5563

Sanctuary 8 2724 - - 2724

Single tomb 30 105 - - 105

Cemetery 67 637 5 1095 1732

'Substr. romaines' 127 2024 6 734 2758

Other sites 12 27 1 89 116

Unknown 347 2090 37 11554 13644

Total 836 29098 64 32278 61377 Table 4.4: settlement typology

The city and vici are a problem because they comprise several functional elements, and it is the question if the patter- n of a sanctuary within a vicus conforms to rural sanctuaries in general or to the larger entity, the vicus itself. In the coin analyses the choice of the functional interpretation of the context fell on the larger entity to begin with; in some cases it was necessary to see what happened if a find complex within the city or vicus was grouped according to its functional element. A good example are the find complexes of Trier itself. Should the coin finds be regarded as typical for a city, or for a sanctuary? Most coins before AD 260 come from a ritual context. This is a fundamental problem of the archaeological classification of sites, and although it will be discussed, it cannot be solved here. Table 4.4 shows that about 50% of the find complexes could be assigned to a settlement type, which is not a bad result, compared, for instance, to the Dutch river area. However, a large group remains rather vague; 'substructions romains' can belong to a whole range of settlements, from a single farmstead to a large temple or villa complex. The only certainty we have is that it concerns a building with a stone foundation. We cannot speculate to which type the majority of sites of this category belongs. In any case, it may be suspected that, the otherwise invisible settlement type of the rural farmstead or group of farms may well form part of the 'substructions'. In this region, stone as building material probably conveys no special significance concerning the status of the building; even the most humble shed may be built in stone. Some of the villas in table 4.4 are 'substruction romains' of which additional 'villa-esque' features are known, if such features exist at all.217

The city Trier is the only city in this area, and was most likely the capital of the civitas treverorum218. It started as a newly founded vicus during the Augustan age on the road from Lyon to the Rhine. Its function as an administrative centre and favourable position at the cross-section of important trade routes (Lyon-Köln and Reims-Mainz) resulted in a

216 With this term I refer to the definition of Hiddink 1991.

217 Since in most cases the exact plan is not known, features as mosaic floors, floor heating and wall painting are seen as characteristic for a villa. In the majority of the cases this will be a correct judgement, but sometimes the same features may pertain to other buildings, like baths.

218 Heinen 1985, 50.

75 quick development to a full-fledged city with colonial rights during the 1st century AD.219 A striking feature was the occurrence of large urban domus (some covered an entire insula) from fairly early times (second half 1st century). The full area within the city walls, which were erected in the second half of the 2nd century AD, amounted to 285 ha.220 Trier continued its blooming existence until well into the 3rd century. Although there is no direct proof of upheaval at the time of the Germanic invasion in 260 AD, Trier must have suffered just like her surrounding countryside, where there is ample evidence of violent destruction of settlements. This view is corroborated by the large-scale rebuilding in Trier at the beginning of the 4th century AD. During the Gallic Empire, coinage was minted at Trier, and Elmer and Lafaurie take this as evidence for the fact that Postumus also made Trier his residence.221 The city continued to be the seat of imperial residence until 274 AD, with the possible exception of the reign of Victorinus.222 After 274 AD, Trier and the civitas Treverorum were continually plagued by waves of pillaging and plundering Germanic tribes, which lasted until the end of the reign of Diocletian (305 AD). After this, a period of relative tranquillity saw the rise of Trier to one of the most important and wealthy cities of the Late Roman Empire of the West. Trier became one of the residences for the emperors of the 4th century, and one of the seats of the imperial mint (291-430 AD).223 All the find complexes of Trier are from only one part of the city, the Altbachtal. This temple complex is located in the south-east quadrant of the city, just outside of the known street grid. It is very large (5 ha.), and consists of a large number of temples of various form and extent, a theatre and other religious features. One seventh of the area was excavated by Loeschke in the twenties and thirties of this century and yielded a massive quantity of finds, among which more than 300 terracottas and 9043 coins. The temple complex was in use from the early 1st century AD until the late 3rd and early 4th century. After this, the religious centre declined under the influence of Christianity. The area was still in use in the 4th century, but had clearly lost most of its religious character. Many temples were converted to houses with Frankish occupants. The complex lay outside the city walls during the first two centuries AD, after which it was incorporated in the city. Most of the find complexes, as we have seen above, are not closed contexts, but groups of coins found 'close together'. It is therefore hard to discern between the coins which belong to the early Roman phase, in which case they have a religious context, and the coins of the latter 3rd and 4th centuries, which presumably reflect a more secular use. One way to deal with this is to treat the coins of the early and late phase separately, but there is bound to be some overlap. I shall return to this problem later in this chapter.

Period Coins % No. of find complexes

50 BC- AD 69 537 5,9 90

AD 69-260 845 9,3 105

AD 260-450 6706 74,2 118

Missing 954 10,6 101

Total 9042 100 132 Table 4.5: coins of the Altbachtal in early, middle and late Roman period. Note: the total number of find complexes is not a column total.

219 Founded only in 17 BC, Trier already had a fair share of private and public buildings during the latter part of the reign of Augustus (Heinen 1985, 53).

220 Of course, this includes a lot of empty space.

221 Elmer 1941; Lafaurie 1975.

222 The mint of Victorinus was set up at Köln, and possibly Trier; consequently, Trier is not completely disqualified as imperial residence at this time.

223 Since Diocletian, Trier became the metropolis of the province Belgica prima as well as the diocesis Galliarum. Furthermore, in the course of the 4th century the praefectus praetorio Galliarum was also established at Trier. This official was at the head of the dioceses Brittanniae, Galliae, Viennensis and Hispaniae.

76 The rest of the coins of Trier are not included in the database, as they have not been published yet in the FMRD. This might raise the question of how representative the coin finds of the Altbachtal are for the city of Trier as a whole. A significant point in this respect is that the area was in use during the entire period that Trier existed.

Thus, only the question remains if the specific character of the area is reflected by the coin finds, and if other find complexes, such as the forum, have their own specific pattern. If the answer to this is positive, it is true that we cannot speak of the coins of the Altbachtal as a representative sample, but on the other hand it means that the establishment of such patterns represent a way of gaining insight into different kinds of money use. Although we cannot do this for Trier itself, the finds of the Altbachtal may be contrasted with the rural finds of Luxemburg. It remains to be seen which pattern is stronger: that of the city or that of the group of sanctuaries. Judging from the proportion of the late coins of the Altbachtal (71% of the coins can be dated after 260 AD), it may be expected that the city pattern will be the strongest.224

The vici The Titelberg was already an important central settlement (oppidum) in pre-Roman times.225 It is difficult to pinpoint a date for the start of the occupation on the Titelberg, but it must have been somewhere in the first half of the 1st century BC. The Celtic settlement survived the Gallic War and the Treverian revolt of 30 BC, the results of which are attested in a burnt layer datable to this period. Between these two events, the oppidum of the Titelberg must have played an important role in the Treverian society of this time, as is evident from the fact that coins were produced here during this period, among others those with the legend ARDA226. We must be careful, however, not to attach too much value to this phenomenon; coins were produced at other Treverian oppida too, like the Martberg. This, and the fact that Caesar does not mention one single capital of the Treveri makes us wary of blandly assuming the Titelberg to be the capital of the civitas treverorum before Augusta Treverorum (Trier) took over this function. Whether or not this is the case, for some reason the importance of the settlement on the Titelberg seems to have diminished in Roman times, for the vicus which occupied the Titelberg from the Augustan age was much smaller and more modest in its extent than its predecessor. Through its position on the road Metz-Arlon-Tongeren, it kept its function as a market as before. It produced iron and limestone, the latter being used widely for funerary monuments in the eastern Treverian area. In the first half of the 3rd century AD there were also glass works. Around 270 AD, the vicus seems to have been destroyed in an attack, after which it was rebuilt on a still smaller scale. This last settlement existed until 450 AD. We know of four hoards from the Titelberg, one of which contains a large number of 3rd-century imitations which presumably were made at a local forgery. The rest of the coins are single finds (largest number: 4162 coins), and some complexes found during excavations of the vicus and the cemeteries (521 coins) belonging to it. Although late Iron Age occupation has been attested at Dalheim-Petzel from the fourth until the 1st century BC, the Roman vicus was newly founded in the years 18/17 BC, during the consulate of Agrippa. Krier believes that the Celtic settlement was given up after the sedition of 30/29 BC; the new 'Roman' settlement was meant to be a statio along the road on the left bank of the Moselle, which ran from Metz to Trier.227 This vicus is relatively well-known to us by a series of excavations and air reconnaissance, and seems to have been one of the major settlements in the civitas treverorum, with an area of 30 ha. Its market function is illustrated by the porticus and a string of shops along the main road. Additionally, Dalheim (or Ricciacus) shows its services to the surrounding area by a number of public buildings, such as a mansio, a theatre, baths and a temple complex. Also, it provided a wide range of artisan activity, among which leather working, the production of pottery, iron forges, textiles, etc. The luxurious villas in the direct

224 See table 4.5.

225 Metzler 1995.

226 Numerous moulds of different issues of Treverian bronze coin were found on the Titelberg.

227 Krier 1981.

77 vicinity seem to exemplify further the attraction of Dalheim as a regional centre228. The successfulness of the vicus of Dalheim compared to that on the Titelberg could have been the result of its closeness to Trier, and perhaps the greater importance of the road on which Ricciacus was situated.229 The small town of Ricciacus was not spared the calamities which befell the area in the years 270-276 AD: it was set fire to and looted, and after this the public buildings of the vicus seem to be abandoned permanently. Around 320 AD, a burgus was built, which was devastated again in the period 350-353 AD. The occupation of this fort lasted until the 5th century; after this, Merovingian houses and a cemetery show that habitation had moved to a slightly different location. The coin finds of Dalheim-Petzel consist of five hoards, including a very large one of 14.669 coins, which was found in 1842. They are all datable to the late 3rd century, except the last one, which ends with a coin of Constantine I. The other coins are single finds (3856), some of which are from excavations. Only a small portion of the vicus of Mamer has been excavated. The total area of occupation must have been some six ha., which is even smaller than the vicus on the Titelberg. Mamer seems to have had a late start: the earliest strip houses are dateable to the Claudian era. Once again, the settlement began as a way station along the road Reims- Trier and the waters of the Mamer. Apart from the houses, two cemeteries, baths and a few pottery workshops were excavated. In the second half of the 3rd century, Mamer was destroyed; after that, occupation was scant and impro- vised; people were living in the ruins of the vicus. In the 4th century, a horreum was erected on top of the ancient baths. Mamer was deserted at the beginning of the 5th century. In 1973 a hoard was found on the site of the vicus, which consisted of 172 coins, probably buried shortly after 392 AD. Single finds of coins were made during (small) excavations of the MHA, and of course by amateurs walking the site; the latter amounted to 828 coins, of which 311 are from the baths of the vicus (Mamer-Woosen). Very little is known of the vici of Altrier, Niederanven-Hostert and Wasserbillig(-Boxbierg?). The finds at Altrier indicate an occupation from the first until the 5th century. The vicus may have functioned as a religious centre, among other things; traces of a sanctuary have been discovered, as well as a number of terracotta cult statues which seem to have been produced locally.230 Weiller lists fourteen coin complexes from the vicus area and its immediate surround- ings. Two of them are hoards, one ending with a coin of Julia Mamaea (235 AD), and one with a coin of Claudius II (270 AD). The find complex from the vicus area itself shows an unbroken series of 493 coins from the first until the 5th century. The vicus of Niederanven-Hostert is mentioned by Sulpicius Severus and also in the Itinerarium Antonini as Andethanna(le vicus). It seems to have been one of the road stations on the road Reims-Trier. Because no systematic survey or excavations has taken place, we know practically nothing of its structure or extent. From the finds we may cautiously conclude that the settlement existed during the first four centuries AD. Virtually no coin finds were documented for this site (eight coins); considering the fact that the site is rather rich in other casual finds, this lack of coins seems odd. Finally, the vicus of Wasserbillig is slightly better documented than the previous two. The vicus lies at the point where the river Sûre flows into the Moselle. It is located at the junction of two roads231 which cross the Sûre, and has an estimated area of seven ha. Harbour works have been established at the mouth of the Sûre, close to the bridge. A votive inscription shows that in 232 AD a sanctuary was built for Mercurius and Rosmerta. A total of 94 coins have been found in the area of Wasserbillig. Only of twelve coins can we be certain that they were indeed from the vicus (Site 865; Pont sur la Sûre); other find complexes have been retrieved in various places, all within a radius of one kilometre from the bridge. Perhaps this points to a dispersed settlement form. Ternes (1971) gives an additional list of other 'vicus-like settlements', but they will not be considered as vici here, because evidence is too scant for a lot of those settlements to say anything about their character. Furthermore, a few

228 Krier (in Petit & Mangin 1994) mentions the possibility of Dalheim being the centre of a pagus.

229 See Hiddink 1991, 224.

230 Ternes 1971.

231 Reims-Trier and Metz-Trier; the roads continue as one after the bridge at Wasserbillig.

78 of them are clearly villas, and therefore representative of another type entirely. This is not to say that the secondary centres mentioned above were the only ones of their kind. There must have been more of these, mostly located at main roads, road-crossings and river-crossings232. As far as we can see, the origins of the vici in Luxemburg are fairly early. Trier, Dalheim and the Titelberg started as vici during the reign of Augustus; Mamer followed suit under Claudius. The other vici are not so well-dated, but are likely to have started before the middle of the 1st century AD233. The fact that they are laid out on the main roads shows that they were intimately connected with communication lines between cities and towns. This created a direct link with the romanized culture of the cities, in particular the civitas capitals such as Trier, but also relative large centres as Arlon. The vici profited from the stream of goods which went from city to city and probably played an intermediary role in the flow of raw materials from the countryside to the city. Both by opportunity and function they were thus likely to partake in the monetary economy.

The villas Fifty-three coin complexes are from villas (see table 4.4).234 This is a not very well-documented group of settlements in Luxemburg. A few have been excavated, but the efforts of archaeologists seem to have concentrated more on the larger, more luxurious villa complexes like Echternach than on the much larger group of stone farm buildings. Heinen distinguishes two types of villas. The first type is that of the luxury villa; usually a large complex consisting of a main building with all the trappings of Romanity, usually the living-quarters of the villa-owner (pars urbana). In most cases, this type of villa also has a pars rustica, orientated along the longitudinal axis and facing the main building. Its buildings are laid out along the sides of a rectangular open square. The buildings are mostly seen as having an economic function: workshops, and living quarters of the people who worked the estate. By the size of the complex, it may be inferred that the grounds of the villa were considerably large. In some cases, the pars rustica seems to be absent, implying that the villa was used purely for residential purposes. It may be, however, that in these cases the excavation was limited to the main building, and that the rest was missed by the excavators. This villa type was owned by members of the local nobilitas, who, judging by the lushfulness of the living quarters, spent at least part of the year here. A good example of this type is the villa of Echternach-Schwarzacht. Within this group there are also more modest representations of the first type. The distinction between pars urbana and pars rustica is still present, but the scale of the complex is considerably smaller, and the two parts are more integrated. These smaller villas consist of a main building with a large court, surrounded by the buildings of the pars rustica. Often, this type of villa has its own cemetery and sanctuary, lying at some distance from the villa itself. The villa of Newel serves as Heinen's example, but since this villa lies outside Luxemburg it is not represented in our database235. The best example within our area is perhaps the villa at Mersch-Mies (site 739; regrettably, a complete plan of the site is not available). The owners of this kind of villa are probably to be found in the lesser ranks of the elite, although the presence of a temple belonging to the villa, as in Newel, does make a statement about the local power of the owner.236 The largest group of villas is of the second type. This type is considerably smaller in size. Its structure resembles that of the first type, with a frontal corridor or porticus flanked by two wings, but there is no clear distinction between pars domestica and pars rustica; it seems that both functions are integrated into one building. Sometimes there are additional structures which can be interpreted as farm buildings, but they do not seem to have been incorporated

232 There is some evidence for the existence of a vicus at Echternach, where the roads which connect Reims and Trier and Cologne and Trier cross the river Sûre (Metzler e.a. 1981, 363).

233 For this matter, vici in general seem to have their origins in the first half of the 1st century AD; very few start at a later date.

234 These finds were from 52 villa sites.

235 The villa of Newel lies north of Trier, not far from the road from Trier to Cologne.

236 The owner of the villa of Mersch was probably of the equestrian class, according to an inscription found on the villa premises (cf. Wightman 1985, 111). Perhaps a similar rank must be extrapolated for the owner of the villa of Newel.

79 in a structural lay-out of the whole villa, as in the axial structures of the larger villas. In many cases, however, the evidence for the larger context of the main building is scanty, due to the perceptual and methodological limitations of excavators. The same goes for possible predecessors of the villa. The transition from wooden farm buildings to ones of stone is generally accepted to have taken place everywhere in the villa regions of north-western Europe during the second half of the 2nd century AD. But where are the wooden predecessors in our case? Not a single one is attested for our area; in fact the only farm known to us, the house of Beaufort, is dated to the early LaTène period (Ternes 1979). This leaves us with a considerable gap until the first occurrence of the villas in stone. Also, this means that there is nothing for the Luxemburger peasant to live in, and that this serious condition exists during the entire Roman period, because apart from the villas, there is no evidence of other simpler dwellings.237 The aedificia of Caesar are thus absent from the archeological record.238 Returning to the villas, it is difficult to link the second type with a specific social group. Assuming that peasants did not own villas and must have lived elsewhere, we must be dealing with a group of well-to-do farmers which did not form part of the urban or semi-urban elite of the larger villas. They may not have played a significant role in the political life of the city, but it is not unthinkable that they did have some power at a local level, presumably that of the vicus. And it should not be forgotten that even within this last group there may have been considerable differences in the size of the estate and the social status of the owner. It is even possible that this third group of villas contains a lot of isolated farmsteads which indeed were the home of the 'rural poor'. It is not self-evident that buildings in stone are off-limits for peasants in an area where stone was relatively abundant. Of course, we would not expect these farms to be equipped with wall-paintings and mosaics, but so little is known about many of the villas that the list may easily hide a group like this. In table 4.6 an attempt is made to classify the villas of Luxemburg239. The classification in table 4.6 is very tentative and should not be used as basis for other work. The assignment of a villa to a certain type is based on the intuitive and relative order made by Weiller; in some cases a plan of the villa was available or the finds suggested a particular type.240 The most important observation we can make is that the settlement type called 'villa' does not represent a homogenous group of settlements. In fact the term refers to a highly differentiated type of rural site, of which certain common characteristics make clear that villas interacted in some way, and related as it were to a shared ideology. That there were mutual relations between villas as well as between villas and other sites is easy to understand on a theoretical level. Since Treverian society was many-layered and complex even before the Roman annexation, there must have existed an intricate pattern of land-ownership which connected large landowners, smaller ones and peasants through patronage-relations and debt-bondage. The main features of landownership will basically have continued along the same lines into the Roman period, with occasional restructuring after periods of political upheaval.241 Also, there are indications of power relations between the villa and the vicus. Sometimes a vicus can be shown to lie on the estate of a villa. In such cases, it is suggested by some that the vicani were dependent labourers of

237 Except for the so-called mardelles, circular stone structures in which sometimes traces of human occupation are found; however, a large part of them (if not all) seem to be natural formations. This does not exclude human occupation, but the stone circles are not enough to fill the gap. The same can be said about some of the buildings on the larger villa estates, which were possibly the living quarters of dependent peasants. They do not cut the cake.

238 Caesar mentions three types of settlement for the (Treverian) civitas: oppida, vici and aedificia. By the last term he probably means the isolated farmstead.

239 That is, the villas at which coins were found.

240 Weiller (FMRL 1972-1992) indicates the relative importance of a villa by remarks as 'villa de grande importance', villa importante, or the less specific 'vastes substructions'. All of the villas with such qualifications could theoretically be of the first or second type; it seems safest to ascribe them to the second type. If Weiller does not give any comment, and no other documentation is available, the villa is listed under 'type unknown'.

241 For instance, the participation of the Treverian elite in the Batavian revolt, which led to the flight (or expulsion) of 113 members of the Treverian senate, must have had severe consequences in property relations.

80 the owner of the villa242. Finally, the link between the villa and the city is well-known through their economic ties, and the political and cultural life of wealthy landowners in the city. However, there remain many difficulties in under- standing the precise nature of these relations and getting a more quantitative view on them. This is mainly caused by the deficiency of archaeological evidence.243 Economically speaking, villas encompass the entire scale from the varied production on a subsistence level to the highly specialized production for a large market. Large estates, like Echternach and Mersch probably produced food for the urban market, while villas of a lesser extent sold (part of) their produce on more local markets. These could be regular markets of the vici, or rural fairs which were held less often, for instance those held at sanctuaries. Whatever the scale of the market produce, a minimum surplus was required from every villa owner in order to pay taxes, and to be able to buy (or trade) things which were not produced on the farm itself. Through its contacts with the market, each villa was automatically, in one way or another, tied in to the monetary circulation. The character of the market and its involvement with monetary transactions determined the level of money-use of the villa which was connected with it. Since the urban and semi-urban markets were the most mone- tized, a villa-owner who had large-scale dealings with the city (for instance grain supplies) is more likely to partake in the monetary economy244 than the peasant who sold or traded his cabbage on a local rural market. In that way the size of the estate may be indicative of the degree of involvement of a villa in the monetary economy. The quality of the data, regrettably, does not allow us to make a quantitative statement about the presence or absence of coins on villa estates. Table 4.6 only shows the villas which do produce coin finds. It is clear that there are villas which do not, like -to take a famous example- the villa of Bollendorf. It is not possible to be certain that there were no coins lost at such a villa in Antiquity, simply because there are too many other factors which might be responsible for the absence of coins. This hinders the discussion about the amount of coin losses of a villa in relation to the size of its estate. From table 4.6 it will be clear that there is no straightforward correlation between villa type and the amount of coin finds. Still, it comes as no surprise that the highest number of casual finds occur at one of the largest villa estates (Echternach). Looking at the larger coin complexes of villas (>20 coins), we see that virtually no coins were found before Nero, which implies that the overall coin circulation at villas did not start before 69 AD. In fact it is only at Nospelt and Echternach that coins earlier than Nero were found, and this may have to do with the occupation of the site before the villa was built. In Nospelt, the nearby presence of moderately rich graves of the Late Iron Age supports this view. In Echternach there are until now no indications for an earlier occupation. In the view of the excavators the villa was conceived and built as a whole in the second half of the 1st century AD.

242 The possible vici at the bridge across the Sûre close to the villa of Echternach-Schwarzacht may be an example of such a relation (Metzler e.a.1981, 362).

243 A recurrent problem with the term villa is the fact the confusion between the archaeological phenomenon (type of building, lay-out) and it social-economic function as an estate producing for an urban market. Regrettably, to recognize a site as a villa one nearly always has to look at its material form, and infer its function from there. Thus, it is easy to miss sites with a similar function but another appearance.

244 With the term 'monetary economy' I refer to the part of the economy that was monetized, without making a statement about its scale. See also Chapter 1 for a more elaborate discussion of the term.

81 Villa type 1 date coins hoard Villa type unknown date coins hoard

Burmerange-Tritlingen? ? 18 - Brouch-Gaerlecksbierg - 3 -

Echternach-Schwarzacht I-IV 680 - Burmerange-Lann - 9 -

Bous - 48 - Christnach-centre - 11 -

Burmerange-Hénsdref - 1 - Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser - 202 6

Contern-Enert der Hangels - 35 - Dondelange-Telpescholz - 15 -

DickWeiller-Riedchen - 15 - Dreiborn-Jail - 10 -

Diekirch-Guirengaart - 1 - Dudelange-Bierensheck - 8 -

Givenich-Op de Léieren - 15 - Feulen-Breidert - 7 -

Herborn-Op de Maueren - 98 - Givenich-Giwicherwis - 23 26

Kayl-Hunnemesch-Klöppel - 2 - Goesdorf-Op Mecher - 67 -

Mersch-Mies IB-IV 70 - Grevenmacher-Alkirch I-III 2 -

Moersdorf-Sartdorff - 2 - Grevenmacher-Rue des Tanneurs - 1 -

Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert - 5u 40 Haller-Op der Mölchen - 1 -

Mondorf-Daundorf-Brill - 2 - Heisdorf-Stengber - 9 -

Sanem-Roudenuecht - 11 - Huscherange-Langen-Weller - 5 -

Villa type 2 Junglinster-Raemescheck - 2 -

Bigelbach-Op dem Hais'chen ?-IVA 7 - Kayl-A Feschtem - 1 -

Christnach-Wollefsbierg - 15 - Kayl-An den Schurel I-IV 5 -

Diekirch-centre? - 8 - Luxembourg-Bonnevoie - 66 -

Nospelt-Miecher A Ia-? 78 - Macer-Aedemer - 6 -

Nospelt-Miecher B - 17 2768 Macer-Gaschtbierg - 1 -

Schifflange-A Betteling - 7 - Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert - - 24

Schifflange-Bergemersté - 2 - Niederpallen-Op Wëller - 1 -

Wasserbillig-Langsur-An de Fréin IB-IV ? 19 - Oberpallen-An Döpperchen - 2 -

Villa type unknown Remerschen-Mecheren ?/II-IV 8 187

Aspelt-Op de Kleppen - 254 - Remich-Buschland - 8 -

Berdorf-Koudelt - 2 - RippWeiller-Laach 27 -

Bertrange-Rothen Zillen - 42 - Rosport-Buurg 4 -

Bertrange-Tossebierg - 23 - SandWeiller-Hédeschlass 1 -

Biwer-Brill - 2 8 Senningen-Senniger Knupp 8 -

Boulaide-An der Mecher - 5 - Soleuvre-Vir Haneboesch 2 -

Walferdange-Heisdorf-Hougericht - 56

Weilerl-La-Tour-Mëchel 20 -

Table 4.6: classification of the villas of Luxemburg and num- bers of coin finds. Dates, where available, are not based on coin lists.

82 After 69 AD, most villas show an irregular pattern of coin loss until 260 AD: from this moment coin loss soars during the latter 3rd and the 4th century AD. In this preponderance of Late Roman coins the villas follow the general trend of the other settlements in Luxemburg.

Sanctuaries Religious sites have a twofold nature in Antiquity. First, they are of course places of worship of gods, and they offer space to cult activity. Secondly, they display more secular characteristics, in particular through the fairs which were held at the sanctuary during religious festivals and through the lodging of pilgrims and other visitors. The larger the area a sanctuary served, the more extensive and permanent the secular services of the sanctuary were.245 If, for instance, the sanctuary is located at sacred springs, permanent accommodation facilities can be expected for visitors who come for a cure of their ailments. In fact, such lodgings have been found at several sacred baths.246 The point of the distinction between secular and religious activities at religious sites is that, in terms of coin deposition, votive deposition of coins are likely to produce another coin distribution pattern than coins lost during monetary transactions, because deposition means that the coins were selected by the dedicant, and are different from random losses. In the archaeological record it is not always possible to make this distinction. In our case, there are a few sites where deliberate deposition of coins can be detected by looking at the place where they were found. At Steinsel-Relent and also Dalheim-Buchholz, the coins were found on both sides of the entrance to the cella, and this seems a more likely place for votive deposition than for casual loss.247 In fact, the space between the cella and the exterior wall is supposedly a ritual area, and all objects which are buried there may well be interpreted as having ritual significance248. As soon as we are outside of this ritual space, it becomes very hard to say anything about the meaning of coin finds. Sometimes, the association of coins with other objects of ritual significance can point to deposition rather than casual loss, but no such information is available for the sanctuaries mentioned above. Finally, if we are certain that no other activities have taken place at a religious site simply because of the smallness of its size, the case for votive deposition of coins gets stronger. Thus, the coins found at two open-air sanctuaries are likely to have a ritual meaning. Although the site of Trier-Altbachtal has been discussed before, a few remarks about this temple complex will be added here. In the first place, the sheer size of it implies that its function was not limited to the city of Trier itself. Secondly, it seems that the temples were solely used for Gallo-Roman cults; none of the temples display Italic features, as for instance the temple 'Am Herrenbrünchen', which overlooks the Altbachtal. All dedications are to Gallo-Roman deities, and in most cases to Matres or Matrones. There is no evidence for purely Roman cults. These two features of the sanctuary of the Altbachtal imply that it functioned on the level of the civitas, and as such played an important part in the upholding of Treverian identity. Since the cult of Matrones is usually associated with the pagus249, the Altbachtal may have fulfilled a similar function for the Treverian pagi as the Altar of Lugdunum did for the Gallic civitates. This central function and exclusiveness seems to have diminished in the course of time: a Mithras temple was erected here in the 3rd century, which obviously represents an extraneous cult, probably more for the benefit of the

245 The term 'secular' refers to 20th-century (west-European) perceptions of such matters. Probably, this distinction between religious and secular activities was non-existent, or at least non-important in the eyes of the Gallo-Roman population.

246 For instance, the sacred baths of Heckenmünster (Heinen 1985,189).

247 For a more elaborate study of votive gifts in the temples of the Treveri, see Kyll 1966. Coins were deposited in wells and on the floor of the cella, and sometimes in boxes, but most coins were found near the cella doors.

248 Even in this situation one should be aware of the possibility of secondary scattering of objects after the sanctuary has fallen into disuse.

249 See Hertz 1989, and Scheid 1994 for the opposite view. Matrones frequently bear pagus names, although in the Rhineland the names refer mostly to smaller local groups. This, however, does not affect the point made about the function of the Altbachtal.

83 citizens of Trier itself than of the population of the civitas Treverorum as a whole250. It is virtually impossible to distinguish the votive deposits from the casual losses of the Altbachtal. Alföldi has identified several find complexes (groups of coins found close together), but if some of them are votive deposits, even those might easily be contaminated with casually lost coins. The Altbachtal find complexes of table 4.4 are not only the ones identified by Alföldi, but also represent find groups which were spread over larger areas, but still near to a particular building. Besides the temples of Trier-Altbachtal, there are four temples in Luxemburg where coins were found within its ritual space. These are Steinsel-Relent, Dalheim-Buchholz, Grevenmacher-Beim Buergruef and Widdebierg- Lampecht. Additionally, there is a sacral cave on the Titelberg which probably belonged to a glass workshop, and a possible early Christian sanctuary (Givenich-Chateau). The evidence for the interpretation, however, is very meagre, so this site will not be considered here, also because it does not belong in this group with respect to its functional aspects. Finally, there are two open-air sanctuaries, Kayl-A Feschtem and Hellange-Léimhé'cht. All rural temples, and even all the temples of the Altbachtal are of the Gallo-Roman form, that is, a rectangular cella with an ambulatory. Purely 'Roman' temples are only documented in Trier itself or in the direct vicinity of Trier251. This reflects the usual situation in Gallia Belgica, where 'wholly classical temples were as rare as purely Roman gods.' 252. The list of rural temples must be much larger than the five mentioned above, and it is a little worrying that no coin finds are attested for other religious sites in Luxemburg. Coins are very common finds on temple complexes in this part of the Empire, and there is no reason to think that this would be different in the area of study. The most likely explanation for this lack of coin finds on religious sites must therefore lie in the state of research in Luxemburg.

Figure 4.1. The coins finds of the sanctuary at the Widdebbierg.

It is hard to date the building of the temple at Steinsel-Relent. The bulk of pottery finds is from the 4th century AD, but there is also some material from the 1st and the 3rd centuries. It is clear, however, that, since the coins too are mainly from the 4th century, this was the most intensive period of worship. Judging from a votive inscription on a

250 This view is strengthened by the fact that the temple of Mithras is partly built on the remains of the (cult) theatre, one of the elements which unified the temples of the Altbachtal in earlier times. The temple may have been particularly used by the soldiers in the service of the Gallic emperors.

251 For instance, the temple Am Herrenbrünchen, which looks out over the Altbachtal, and the temple of Lenus Mars on the bank of the Irrbach.

252 Wightman 1985, 183.

84 tabula ansata which was found near the temple, Cerunincus was the god (or one of the gods) worshipped here.253 A total of 1327 coins was found at the temple complex. Many of the coins were located on both sides of the entrance to the cella, and have been interpreted by Weiller as votive gifts. Unfortunately, due to an error in the archive system of the Museum of Trier, the precise contexts of the coins are lost, so the votive gifts cannot be distinguished from the rest of the coin finds. The number of coins compared with that of other temples in this area seems exceptionally large, and could be an indication of the importance of the temple in the 4th century. It may well have functioned on a regional level254. The temple of Dalheim-Buchholz lies outside of the vicus itself. Partial excavations have taken place in 1934-5, but the documentation is not good. There is no plan available, and it is not known which god(s) were worshipped here. With such scanty evidence, it is hard to say if the temple had any regional significance. The finds are predomi- nantly from the 4th century, but there is no firm basis for dating the period of use. Only 26 coins were found, ‘derrière le mur extérieur de la façade: à droite et à gauche de la porte’ (Weiller 1972), more or less at the same place as the coins of Steinsel-Relent. This suggests that these coins can be interpreted as votive gifts. Of the temple at Widdebierg-Lampecht (figure 4.1), there is no contextual information available, because the temple (which lies in a stone quarry) was destroyed at the beginning of the 20th century. Two votive inscriptions tell us that the temple was dedicated to Lenus Mars-Veraudunus and the goddess Inciona. The inscriptions can be dated to the end of the second and the beginning of the 3rd century AD, which gives us a minimalistic indication for the dating of the temple. The considerable number of coin finds (858) implies that the temple may have functioned on a regional rather than local level in the period after 260 AD. The coin list of Lampecht (fig. 4.1) suggests a longer occupation than this, the beginnings going back to early Roman times. The occurrence of Republican and Celtic coins may even point to pre-Roman roots. Even less is known about the temple of Grevenmacher-Beim Buerggruef. The only evidence that we are dealing with a religious site comes from a tabula ansata with a dedication to Mars Vegnius. There is no information about the plan of the temple, the period of use (not considering the coins), or the place where the coins were found. Again, most of the 243 coins are from the period after 260 AD, though there are some coins from the 2nd century as well. The two following sites are not temples, but open-air sanctuaries. One, Hellange-Léimhé'cht, is described by Weiller as a 'petit aire à offrande' on the Roman road. Although this sanctuary or holy place must have had a purely local function by it's very nature, the fact that it lies along the Roman road is probably responsible for the considerable number of coins found at this spot (196). The second one, Kayl-A Feschtem, is probably a sanctuary which belonged to the villa at this place. No information is available about the form of this sanctuary, which produced 50 coin finds. These two evidently local sanctuaries are interesting, not only because they are the only two open-air ones, but also because they show a marked difference in the chronological distribution of the coin finds compared with the other religious sites. Most of the other temples follow the general trend of coin finds in Luxemburg, with a high pro- portion of coins after 260 AD. However, the two local sanctuaries show a peak in the coins between the Flavians and Severus Alexander (222 AD; fig. 4.2 and 4.3 ). At first thought, this might be explained in the case of Kayl by the fact that the sanctuary was related to a villa, which could have ceased to exist (just as many others did) during the troubles of the late 3rd century.255 But in both cases, the coin list does not stop in 260 AD; on the contrary, Hellange displays an uninterrupted series until the first half of the 4th century. Kayl has no coins of the period 222-260 AD, but picks up again in the late 3rd and 4th century. This implies the existence of a relation between the character of the site and the chronological distribution of coins, but it remains rather tentative, due to the fact that we only have two examples of this type of site.

253 Krier & Weiller 1982.

254 According to Krier, -incus is a common suffix in Treverian placenames, and Cerunincus would be a local surname of a more wide-spread divinity (Krier & Weiller 1982).

255 Regrettably, the villa of Kayl is not datable.

85 Figure 4.2: the coins finds of Hellange Figure 4.3: the coin finds of Kayl

Cemeteries Cemeteries stand apart from the sites discussed until now, because they are not places where people lived. However, a few things ought to be said about this group, since a substantial part of the find complexes (between 92 and 107) in table 4.4 are from a funerary context.256 There is no information on the provenance of the five hoards other than the fact that they were found on the grounds of a Roman cemetery. They might be from single graves, but the possibil- ity cannot be ruled out that they have no funerary meaning, that is, they might have been buried there for other reasons. When it is known that coin finds were from a single grave, they are displayed in the category ‘Single graves’ in table 4.4, regardless of the fact that the grave may be part of a larger cemetery. The rest of the coin finds automati- cally falls under the head ‘Cemeteries’. As in the rest of the three Gauls, the Treveri knew a variety of ways to bury their dead. The practice of cremation was continued from pre-Roman times into the 1st century AD, and stayed the most current way of burial until the 2nd century. During the second and third centuries, inhumation graves were more common than cremation graves. In this period we find also the largest number of funerary monuments.257 Cities and vici have their own (large) cemeter- ies, while sometimes several rural settlements (villas or villages) share the same one, as probably was the case in the cemetery of Mertert-Weiler (Lellig). Tumuli are usually associated with burials of villa-owners; in our area, we have only four examples of tumuli in which coins were found. There must have been many more; part of the abscence of coins in tumuli must be explained by the fact that many tumuli were robbed of their grave goods in the course of the centuries. The single graves can give us an impression of the amount of coins usually accompanying the dead, which rarely seems to exceed the number of four. There are only four cases in which more were found, and the largest find was 17 coins in a pot in a grave located in Trier-Altbachtal. It is possible, however that some of the hoards are indeed purses which were among the possessions of the dead. Coins are found in graves of all types, and are certainly not restricted to the most lavish ones. On the contrary, it seems that there is no apparent relation between the number of coins and the external characteristics of a grave.258 The same is true for the denominations of the coins found in graves; silver coins are very rare. Mostly, the one or two bronze coins may be interpreted as ferry-money for Charon or his Gallo-Roman counterpart. If there are more than two coins, they are more likely to be the contents of a purse. Even then the coins might be looked upon as travel money. In this respect, the sending along of coins with the dead seems to be a custom that is more Roman than Gallic in its nature. Celtic coins are seldom (if ever) found in graves of the pre-Roman period, and in the Roman period presence or absence of coins in a grave does not really seem an exponent of the wealth of the dead person, but more

256 This range is due to sites with an unclear context; they may be from graves or from other features.

257 According to Wightman (1985, 163), the period between 140 and 260 AD was the most prolific in grave monuments.

258 Of course, this view might easily change if , apart from the exterior of the grave, the rest of the grave goods were considered. This falls outside the scope of the present study.

86 a matter of belief. Although we do not find many coins inside tombs, they are a regular feature on funerary reliefs. The most well- known of these reliefs are those on the monuments of Neumagen (which for a large part are originally from Trier). The scenes depict men keeping accounts, counting heaps of coins lying on a table, or farmers paying the rent to their landlord (who is probably also the grave's occupant). Sometimes coins are directly associated with trading activities, as in one of the scenes on the grave pillar of Igel, which shows the sale of textiles. In these cases the coins depicted refer to the status and wealth of the dead person, and reach an effect which a purse of denarii on the inside of the tomb would fail to achieve.259 Coins found in graves are really hoards in the strict sense; they were selected from the coin pool and deliberately buried. As such, it may look strange to treat them the same as coins from settlements and show their chronological distribution in a bar chart. Still, we may do so if the large hoards are singled out. Then we can compare the general chronological trend with that of other site types. A large group of very small hoards is methodologically the same as a large group of casual finds, except for the fact that the coins in the first group were selected.

Substruction/ villa coins date

Christnach-Op de Maueren 5 -

Heffingen-Op der Knupp 1 -

Nagem-Heedhaiser 3 -

Nagem-Heedhaiser I 10

Table 4.7: 'Substructions romaines'/villas

'Substructions romaines' and other sites The category 'substructions romaines' in table 4.4 is a large group of sites, but one that has no homogeneity whatso- ever. The term is used by Weiller and other French-speaking researchers, and simply refers to stone buildings datable to the Roman era. This means that a 'substruction romaine' may belong to any of the settlement types mentioned above, except for, of course, a city. In fact, most of them will be villas or rural sanctuaries: vici were less densely spread over the landscape, and are less likely to remain unrecognized. Table 4.7 shows the 'substructions' which are, in all probability, villas.260 In table 4.8 all sites are displayed which could not be placed within one of the other categories. Notably, there are five so-called camps retranchés or fortified camps among them. This term usually refers to an area surrounded by a (low) earthen wall, where Roman artifacts are found, but no clear building or other features. Apart from the unlikely interpretation as fortified place there are several other possibilities. The walls may have had the function of a ritual enclosure, in which case the site is a sanctuary, or they may have served as walls surrounding a peasant village just as we know them in the frontier zone. In the latter case there must have been wooden farm houses within the enclo- sure, the remains of which were missed somehow. A more detailed analysis of the finds could help to decide which possibility is the most likely, but this falls outside the scope of this study. The coins alone are too few to shed any light on the problem.

259 These monuments with scenes showing aspects of commercial life - as Heinen (1985, 171) correctly points out - are not to be seen as an indication of the rise of a new social group of traders. The wealthy land-owners and successful businessmen were probably the same people, and the taboo on commercial activities in Roman senatorial circles may not have been as strong in the upper classes of Roman Gaul.

260 This classification is purely based on circumstantial evidence, such as a tumulus lying closeby, or vestiges of plumbing on the site. This is also the reason why they are not in table 4.6, although the distinction between villa of an unknown type and these sites is vague.

87 Other sites coins character

Bollendorf-Pont Kalekapp 1 cave

Bourglinster-Beddelstaen 1 camp retranché

Differdange-Op Kreizwé 1 prehist. site

Dudelange-Gehaansbierg 52 late Roman fort

Hesperange-Pont sur l’Alzette 5 bridge

Itzig-Gantebaensmillen 1 camp retranché

Larochette-Delsebett 1 camp retranché

Lorentzweiler-Kaasselt 2 camp retranché

Luxembourg-Kirchberg-Kiem 1 Roman road

Mersch-Mamerlayen 33 caves

Pfaffenthal-Hiel 1 Roman road

Prettingen-Prettinger Bierg 9 camp retranché Table 4.8: Other sites

88 4.3 Coin supply and coin use in the area of Luxemburg and Trier

Until now, the discussion of coins and sites of Luxemburg has been primarily descriptive. In the following section a more qualitative analysis of coins and sites will be presented, and an attempt will be made to reach some conclusions about the supply, distribution and use of coins in this area. First, general trends will be discussed with respect to the area as a whole; secondly the relation between settlement type and coin use will be investigated, following the same method as was done for the Dutch river area in chapter 3. Because there is more recognizable diversity between settlements in Luxemburg, it is possible to try some other ways of analysis as well.261

4.3.1. General trends

In table 4.9, the number of coins of early, middle and late Roman periods are shown for the whole of Luxemburg. The coins of Trier are separated from the rest, because they represent a large number of coins coming from one settlement, and this could distort the general picture. As in chapter 3, the numbers in Table 4.9 are seen as represen- tative sample of the coin supply to this region in Antiquity.

PERIOD LUXEMBURG TRIER TOTAL

coins row % sites c/s coins row % sites c/s

- 69 AD 3565 81.3 246 14.49 822 18.7 110 7.47 4387 col % 17.8 9.1 15.1

69-260 AD 2138 71.7 331 6.46 845 28.3 104 8.13 2983 col % 10.7 9.4 10.3

260-450 AD 13609 68.0 415 32.79 6420 32.0 118 54.41 20029 col % 67.9 71.0 68.8

Missing 745 43.8 190 3.92 955 56.2 101 9.46 1700 col % 3.7 10.6 5.8

Total 20057 68.9* 689* 29.11* 9042 31.1* 132* 68.50* 29099 Table 4.9. Coins and sites of Luxemburg and Trier; the numbers marked with a "*" are not column totals; c/s= coins divided by sites.

The most arresting thing in this table is the overwhelming preponderance of late-Roman coins in both Trier and Luxemburg. This means that, in terms of absolute numbers, coin supply to this area increases on a vast scale after 260 AD. This is a striking difference with coin supply in the Dutch river area, where exactly the opposite develop- ment takes place. This difference can be partly explained by the different historical circumstances in the two areas. The breaking-down of the limes in 270 AD caused the Dutch river area - in terms of political significance - to be marginalized. The frontier was left in the hands of peoples from across the Rhine, who agreed to defend it in exchange for the right to settle within the boundaries of the Roman empire. The main reason for the Roman government to supply this area with coinage was thus removed: it did not have to send any more army pay and means for supplies. As for circulation of coins within the area, two main propellants had become obsolete in the 4th century: the money taxes and the army market. In short, these factors led to the decrease in the need for coin supply at government level, and a decrease in coin use on a regional level. In the area of Luxemburg and Trier, however, settlements did recover from the collapse of the frontier in 270 AD. In fact, Trier became an imperial residence and seat of the mint in the 4th century, whereas many of the settlements in the civitas treverorum were restored to a thriving existence. This partly explains the large proportion of late Roman coinage in this region.

261 I do not mean to say that all settlements in the Dutch river area are the same; but in Luxemburg they simply fit better in the more or less defined archaeological categories, and there are also more sites per category.

89 Another factor which is responsible for the increase in the number of coins lies in the nature of late Roman coinage itself. One of its characteristics is the emphasis on base metal low-value coins. Although it is still hard to compare the net value of late Roman bronze with coins before 260 AD, it is clear that it lies significantly lower in the first case. In terms of purchasing power, the quantitative leap in the late Roman period could be less outspoken than in terms of absolute numbers of coins. Of course, since the same is true for the Dutch river area, the proportional difference between the two areas stays the same. But what does this mean with respect to the early Roman period? It seems strange that an area with a low level of romanization like the Dutch river area kicks off with a full-fledged monetary circulation, while Luxemburg, which has a longer history of contact with the Roman empire, and reaches an early high level of integration in the Roman empire and urbanization, should lag behind.262 Before we begin to interpret these numbers in historical terms, we must be aware that one of the effects of using percentages is that the high incidence of late Roman coins in Luxem- burg causes the percentage of early Roman coinage to be low. In absolute numbers, however, it is possible that Luxemburg surpasses the Dutch river area in the early Roman period. Therefore, the absolute numbers of coins as well as the average number of coins per site must be considered. There are obvious traps in comparing absolute numbers of coins of different areas. The research history and physical characteristics of the soil of an area, for example, can cause large differences in number of finds. Another factor of importance is the number of square kilometres which have been surveyed. As for the latter, the area of survey of Luxemburg broadly compares with that of the Dutch river area. The other possible arguments against comparison can be neutralized by the observation that Luxemburg in general has much more coin finds and find spots than the Dutch river area. So research history and soil characteristics can never be used to explain the low numbers of coins before 260 AD. For the period before 69 AD, the absolute number of coins in Luxemburg is 3565, and the average number of coins per site is 14.49. In the Dutch river area, the numbers are 5059 and 24.79. These numbers seem very high, but 3219 coins are from the early Roman fort in Nijmegen. If this site is disregarded, there are 1840 coins from the period before 69 AD, and the average per site is 9.02. It is clear that the presence of the army plays an important role in the supply of coin to the Dutch river area in the early Roman period.263 Still, the overall picture is that coin supply in Luxemburg and Trier was in both absolute and relative numbers considerably lower. The quick urbanization processes of the civitas treverorum were no match for the impact of the large-scale presence of the Roman army at the frontier. Unexpectedly, the number of coins decreases in the period between 69 and 260 AD. It seems strange that this should be the case, considering that the period is roughly twice as long as the first, and that this is the time of the pax romana, which is considered to be a period of political stability and economic growth. However, at a closer look this decrease is due to the large number of Celtic coins in the period before 69 AD. If we count again, this time excluding Celtic coins, the corrected number for the first period is 1526 coins, and an average of 6.2 coins per site.264 This also brings the percentage of coins before 69 AD closer to that of Trier (Luxemburg 8.5%; Trier 9.1%), and the average number of coins per site down to 6.2. One argument for not counting the Celtic coins is that part of them is pre-Roman, and belong to an entirely different monetary circuit than the early Roman coins. The most important consideration is, however, that 93% of the Celtic coins are from only one site, the vicus on the Titelberg. Since we are speaking of general trends, this high number of Celtic coins is an anomaly. The effect of disregarding the Celtic coins in the first period is that there is indeed an increase in the number of coins of the period 69-260 AD, but only a very slight one (2%) compared to the 10% increase in the Dutch river area. This is still not the increase one would expect in view of what has been said before; however, the difference in percentual increase between the two areas is influenced by the different percentages of the third period. This

262 This assertion is not without its problems because of the presence of the Roman army in this frontier area, which can be seen as an outstanding example of Romanity. Outside the camps, however, the level of integration was relatively low.

263 For a more detailed discussion of the coin supply to the Dutch river area, see chapter 3, 58.

264 Partly, these Celtic coins belong to the pre-Roman period; the Celtic coins will be discussed later in this chapter.

90 becomes clear when the number of the coins of the first period is divided by that of the second period. In the Dutch river area this quotient is 76.8 (1840/2394), while in the Luxemburg area it is 71.3 (1526/2138). This shows that the increase in the Luxemburg area is in fact larger than in the Dutch river area, but not by much. However, looked at it this way, the increase in both areas is 30% and 40% respectively , and this is more in accordance with what may be expected.265 We can get an impression how much of this increase can be explained by the greater length of the second period, by comparing the average number of coins per year instead of period totals. Assuming for the moment that coin supply to both areas started in the Augustan period, the year averages for the two periods in the Dutch river area are 19.16 (27 BC-69 AD) and 12.53 (69-260 AD). In the Luxemburg area they are 15.89 and 11.19. Now, in both areas the annual rate of coin loss actually drops after 69 AD by approximately 30%. This percentage is of course far from exact, since part of the coinage issued before 69 AD may have reached both areas later than this date. However, one of the preconcepts of this study is that the peak in the supply and use of coins of an issue period will lie closest to the latest date of issue. This means that the decrease in average annual coin loss may have been considerably lower than 30%, but it will certainly not be the reverse case: it is thus safe to assume that coin supply did decrease in some way after 69 AD, or in the worst case, stayed at the same level. Meanwhile, there is a definite rise in the number of find spots. The average number of coins per site stays almost the same as the (corrected) average of the previous period (6.2). What this means in terms of Roman coin supply to the Luxemburg area is that it practically kept level from the beginning of the Roman occupation until 260 AD. Roman coins did, however, have a wider range in the period between 69-260 AD. This might be just an effect of an increase in the density of settlements, but, as we already remarked in chapter 3, the fact that coins go where people go is in itself a significant one. Until 260 AD, the development in the Luxemburg area is remarkably similar to that of the Dutch river area. After this, however, all similarity stops. While coin loss in the latter area drops to half as much as the period before, in the Luxemburg area it increases by 500%. The year average goes up to 71.62 coins, while in the Dutch river area it decreases to 4.5 coins per year. The average number of coins per site in this period is 32.79 in Luxemburg; in the Dutch river area it is 5.5. We may conclude that coin use rises to an exponential level in the late Roman period in the first case, while in the latter it becomes a shadow of what has been before. In this period the number of find spots is the highest of all three periods in Luxemburg; in the Dutch river area they decrease by almost 60%. It may be objected that, since the coinage of the late Roman period was transformed into a low-value base metal coinage, it is wrong to compare raw numbers of coins. The purchasing power of the volume of late Roman coinage may have been so low that one simply needed many more coins to conduct the same monetary transactions as before. So the only thing which did change, was the nature of Roman coinage, and we cannot base any conclusions about late Roman monetization on the evidence of coin finds. Clearly, this line of argument is too simple. Regardless of its worth, it is a fact that there was much more money around than in the previous periods. It is therefore in itself not wrong to compare numbers of coins, but one must be careful about the conclusions that can be based on this comparison. The question is: can this numerical increase in coins lost be interpreted as an indication of a more extensive use of money? According to the hypothesis that 'money is lost the most when it changes owner', it might be concluded that more money changed hands; but what we really need to know is if the number of money-users increased, or if there were changes in the social groups of money- users. One positive fact pointing to a higher number of money-users could be that the number of sites with coins reaches a peak in the late Roman period too: compared with the period 69-260 AD, it shows an increase of 25%. However, to try to get an answer to the questions formulated above we must descend to a more detailed level of analysis, that of the settlements.

4.3.2 Coins and settlement types

The main question in this section is whether it is possible to discern patterns of coin loss that are characteristic of

265 The percentual increase is computed by dividing the difference between the the number of coins of the two periods by the number of coins of the first period. In the case of the Dutch river area, this is (2394-1840)/1840=30.1%; in Luxemburg it is (2138-1526)/1526=- 40%.

91 settlement types; does, for instance, a temple show another loss pattern than a vicus? If this is the case, we might be able to translate these differences in terms of coin use. As we have seen in Chapter 2, this question can be tackled in various ways. It is possible to group coin lists of settlements of the same type together and see if there are differences between the groups; or one can look for patterns in all coin lists together and see if the patterns found correspond with known archaeological categories. These can be settlement types, but also geographical groupings of settlements, like in Chapter 3 the distinction between the eastern and western part of the Dutch river area. In this section, both methods will be tried, beginning with the latter.

Chronological distribution of the 'mean site' To compare all coin lists which each other, a coin list of the 'mean site' was created, with which every other coin list of individual sites can be compared. The coin list of the 'mean site' is constructed simply by counting all coins of Luxemburg and Trier by issue period. Obviously, this coin list of the mean site has little to do with a statistical mean, seeing that the distribution of the number of coins per site is not normal but heavily skewed towards the sites with low numbers of coins. Still, it is possible to look at this mean site as fairly representative of the coin supply to this area during the Roman age; it is thus not wholly a constructed list with no meaning. It is in fact identical to what British archeological-numismatists call the 'background population', with one major difference: the British mean is composed only from coin lists of sites with many coins, and single finds are excluded.266 In our mean site, they are included. The reason to do so is to get a picture as complete as possible of the coin supply to this area, by using all information available to us. Finds of one or two coins can hardly be seen as being representative of the coins which reached that particular site in Antiquity, because of the influence of secondary circumstances, like the intensity of the search or the quality of the soil.

Figure 4.5: chronological distribution of the coins of L uxemburg and Trier

When all these small finds are taken together, however, the effect of these factors will be smoothed out, and does not matter anymore, since we are using the coins as representative of the regional coin supply, not of that of the individual site. Figure 4.5 shows the chronological distribution of coins of the mean site. This time, the Roman period is divided into the 25 smaller issue periods. Period 0 consists of the coins which could not be placed in any of the 24 issue periods. The number of these coins is very high (5749), so that they need to be inspected further. Of these coins, 1313 were classified just as 'Roman', and another 1584 could only be assigned to one or two centuries of the Roman period. This brings the remaining total of coins which can be dated to a time span of 50 years and less, but which do not fit in one of the

266 The sites which are used by Reece and Casey have mostly several hundred or thousand coins. Reece has published the coin lists of 140 sites of Roman Britain (Reece 1991).

92 issue periods, to 2852. To see if this group of coins would affect the chronological distribution of the mean site, a procedure was followed which allows to place them as yet within the frame of issue periods. Of every coin, the middle of the date range was computed, and this new date fitted to an issue period. The result of this redistribution of coins can be seen in fig 4.6. The effect of the 2852 added coins is particularly visible in the late Roman period, but it only accentuates the distribution and does not alter it. The 2897 remaining coins which cannot be redistributed in this way are useless for this analysis, but 1584 coins of these could still be used in the analyses where larger periods are used (see for instance paragraph 4.3.1). It is clear that the late Roman coins (period 16-25) have literally a depressing effect on the issue periods before 260 AD. Although the period 260-450 AD has peaks of its own, the overall level of coin loss is - regardless of these peaks - higher than in the preceding periods. The only exception are the Celtic coins of period 2; but strictly speaking, this is not really a chronologically sound group, although many of the coins can be placed in the early Roman or even Augustan period. The period before 260 AD can be subdivided in three phases: the initial phase

Figure 4.6: chronological distribution of the mean site after redistribution of seq1=0 which starts under Augustus and ends before Nero (period 6); a period of continuous and stable coin loss from Nero until Commodus, and a period of slightly less, but still continuous coin loss from Commodus until the Gallic Empire. The late Roman peaks are in period 16 (260-275), period 20 (330-348) and period 22 (364-378). Whether these peaks are caused by regional historical circumstances or are just periods of high coin output seen on an imperial level, can only be decided when this regional pattern is compared with those of the other areas of study.267 At this point, possible regional factors of importance could be the Gallic empire of the late 3rd century, and the mint activity of Trier in the 4th century. As has been said, the mean site is not a real mean: table 4.10 shows the distribution of site totals, to get an impression from the composition of the mean site. It is evident that sites with large coin numbers can have a considerable influence on the chronological distribution of the mean site. A good example, which has been discussed before, is the vicus on the Titelberg, which is almost by itself responsible for the peak in period 2 of the mean site. So if we included period 2 in the comparison between individual site and the mean site, almost every other site would probably show up as different from the mean in this period. This anomaly of the Titelberg vicus provides us also with a control of the validity of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which is used to evaluate the difference between the individual sites and the mean site.

267 See chapter 6.

93 No of coins sites % cum. %

1-5 508 60.7 60.7

5-10 85 10.2 70.8

10-15 43 5.1 76.0

15-20 25 3.0 79.0

20-25 19 2.3 81,2

25-30 18 2.2 83.4

30-35 8 1.0 84.3

35-40 14 1.7 86.0

40-45 11 1.3 87.3

45-50 11 1.3 88.6

50-60 19 2.3 90.0

60-70 7 .8 91.8

70-80 9 1.1 92.8

80-90 5 0,6 93.4

90-100 6 0,7 94.1

100-200 23 2.7 96.9

200-300 12 1.4 98.3

300-400 5 0,6 98.9

400-500 3 0,4 99.3

500-1000 3 0,4 99.6

1000-5000 3 0,4 100.0 Table 4.10: distribution of values of the number of coins per site.

Similarity and dissimilarity of the sites and the mean site Because of the very high numbers of coins after 260 AD, it is possible that opposition between early and late-Roman coins obscures relatively smaller variations between sites in the issue periods before 260 AD. Therefore, the coins of early and late Roman coins are treated separately in the analyses. For the period before 260 AD, sites were selected with a minimum average of one coin per issue period, which comes down to 15 coins; for the late Roman period this minimum is 10 coins.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests There are 48 sites which fulfil the criterium of minimally 15 coins before 260 AD. The results of the Kolmogorov- Smirnov (K-S) tests are plotted in figure 4.7; a complete presentation is offered in Appendix 1.268 Figure 4.7 shows the level of difference (D) between the individual sites and the mean site on the y-axis, while the issue periods in which the largest difference occurs are on the x-axis (periods 1-15). When D is positive, this means that the cumula- tive percentage of coins lies under the level of the mean site; when D is negative, it lies higher than that of the mean site. All tests were significant at the level P<0.05, except in the case of site 835 (Titelberg-X1907; P=0.899).

268 For a discussion of the methodological aspects of the K-S test, see Chapter 2.

94 Figure 4.7: results of the K-S tests. D on the y-axis represents the greatest difference in cumulative percentages between individual sites and the mean site; the issue periods are on the x-axis. The three sites with negative values are find complexes from the Titelberg

Figure 4.7 clearly shows several clusters of sites. First and foremost, there is period 2 (Celtic coins), in which - as expected - the largest group of sites lie below the mean site. At the same time a few sites have negative values in this period, and it is not surprising that these are find complexes from the Titelberg. This corroborates the expectation that most differences would occur in period 2, since the peak in the mean site in this period is caused by the high number of Celtic coins from the Titelberg. Also, it validates the use of the K-S test for evaluating differences between coin lists of different sites. It is an interesting fact that the group of sites which have the highest positive D-value in period 2 are find complexes from Trier-Altbachtal: in fact only three of the 21 sites of this cluster are not from Trier. This could point to a relation between the period in which the highest D-value occurs and the function or the location of the sites. A similar observation can be made in period 3, the age of Augustus. Five of the eight sites which have the highest D-value in this period are from vici, and from different vici: Altrier, Dalheim, Mamer (2) and the Titelberg. These are also all of the vici which have a sufficient number of pre-260 coins to have been included in the test. Four of the five even cluster around the same value. The only site which does not is the Titelberg, which has a negative D-value in this period, but this is probably an effect of the percentage of Celtic coins of the Titelberg site, which is higher than that of the mean site. The other outlier in this period is the villa of Echternach-Schwarzacht, which has relatively many coins in later periods. Two other non-vici in this group are the cemetery of Marscherward-Colbetter Dael, and Trier-Altbachtal 19/21/22A, which really is a conglomerate of several find complexes (four temples on top of each

95 other). It seems strange that all vici are below the value of the mean site in a period in which most of them were founded. This is probably because they have a relative higher number of coins of post-Augustan periods than most other sites, and not because they have so few Augustan coins. Indeed, one look at figure 4.9 informs us that there is a lapse after Augustus (period 3). Only one site has its greatest D-value in period 4 (Tiberius/Caligula): Trier-Altbachtal 37A, which is surprisingly a Mithras temple. Since this temple can hardly have been built before the 3rd century AD, this find complex is probably a mixture of coins of an earlier structure and the 3rd-century temple. Period 5 is less outspoken in the character of the sites represented, but three of the four rural sanctuaries can be found in this group, Steinsel-Rellent, Widdebierg-Lampecht and Kayl-A Feschtem. There are again two find complexes from the Altbachtal, one 'Opfer-grube' and the other one finds of the aqueduct. The outlier (835) is provided by a find complex of the Titelberg, which is an exceptional site in every way. The cumulative percentage curve of this site is almost identical with that of the mean site, and its highest D-value is in fact very small (0.09).269 The next period features again a high percentage of find complexes from Trier-Altbachtal (5/6). They represent a mishmash of sites: finds from the Epona temple (896), from a cult pillar (898), from drainage pipes (925), and two cellars (941 & 2104), one of which contained hundreds of terracotta statues . Finally, the next two periods (7; Flavians and 9; Hadrian) have too few sites to speak of a group or a cluster. Site 633 has its greatest D-Value in period 9, but this is not surprising, since its coin list starts in period 7. Concluding, we may say that a pattern seems to emerge from the K-S tests, which shows a possible link between the character of the site and its chronological distribution of coins. Trier differs from the mean site in periods 2 and 6. The fact that it does not seem to matter whether the coins come from a temple, a drainage system or house suggests that this group of sites distinguishes itself more by their location or as coin finds of a city than by the religious character of the Altbachtal. The cluster in period 2 is caused by the total absence of Celtic coins on the Altbachtal sites, but also because the sites lie closer to the mean in the other periods before 260 AD. The cluster in period 6 is harder to explain. It might become more clear if we consider the composition of the groups in more detail later in this chapter. The second group of sites consists of the vici. They all show their greatest difference in the period of Augustus, which at first sight seems logical, because this is the period in which most vici start their existence. However, the expectation that these sites would lie above the mean in this period and hence, as a consequence, have a negative D- value, is not answered to. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, nearly all sites selected for the K-S tests have a coin list which starts with Augustus, so just like the vici they have an early start and the vici are no exception in this respect. Secondly, the fact that the mean site begins its cumulative percentage curve with an abnormally high percentage of Celtic coins provides it with a head start which is perhaps hard to gain on by the other sites (except for those which caused the peak in period 2 in the first place, the coins of the Titelberg). Thirdly, the relatively high percentage of coins of later issue periods is the cause of a relatively low percentage of Augustan coins. Only the third possibility does nothing to solve our problem. This, however, will be discussed later in this chapter, when groups of sites of the same type will be compared with each other. At this point, the second explanation seems the most likely. The third group is that of the rural sanctuaries, which all have their highest D-values in period 5. Although their coin lists start off in period 3, coin numbers stay low until the second half of the 1st century AD, after which all of them show a considerable rise in their cumulative percentage curve. Site 664, which is the only sanctuary which falls outside this group (D-value in period 7), shares this characteristic with the other temples, but has a still later peak. The other site types, villas, 'substructions romaines' and cemeteries are less represented in this group of sites with more than 15 coins before 260 AD, and when they are they do not seem to cluster in one of the issue periods. They might still have a characteristic pattern of coin loss like the others, but there are too few of them to show up as a group in the K-S tests.

269 In this case, the terms 'outlier' and 'exceptional' are hardly adequate: since the curves of the mean site and this site are almost identical, it is the 'most normal' site imaginable.

96 The correlation analyses In the correlation analysis, the same 48 sites were used as for the K-S tests. For every site the correlation between its coin list and that of the mean site was computed in two ways: by the Pearson correlation test and the Spearman rank correlation. The sites were then plotted in figures 4.8 and 4.9 according to the height of their correlation coefficients (r) with the mean site.270 Sites with similar r's will show up as a plateau in the graph, and can be grouped together by their level of similarity with the coin list of the mean site. All statistics are in Appendix 1. Because it was highly probable that the level of similarity with the mean site would be low for all sites if we included the Celtic coins, these were left out at the onset. Both figure 4.8 and 4.9 show a wide range of r's from very small negative values to .83, which is very high. It might be expected that sites with high numbers of coins have a larger influence on the mean and thus would show a higher correlation coefficient. One glance at figure 4.10, in which the height of r is plotted against the number of coins, informs us that there is no apparent relation between those two variables. It is slightly worrying that there seems to be a positive relation between the height of r and the statistical significance (expressed in P; see Appendix 1). I have no explanation for this phenomenon; it could have been caused by the number of zeroes in the coin lists of the individual sites.271

Figure 4.8: Pearson correlation coefficients (y-axis) of individual sites (x-axis) with the mean site in the period before 260 AD.

However, statistical significance does not concern us at this point, but the question if the correlation analysis produces results does. It is clear that the overall tendency in both graphs is a gradually sloping line with only very weak jumps in the level of r. With some reserve it is possible to see three plateaus in the Pearson correlation coefficients (fig.4.8), which provides us with three groups of sites. However, at a closer inspection, the groups do not distinguish themselves by any functional similarity like they did in the K-S tests. The same goes for the Spearman rank coefficients (fig.4.9). The slope of the line is even more gradual here than was the case with the Pearson correlation coefficients; so any groupings of sites are fainter. There is no real change in the number of significant cases either. If there are any groups of sites here, they do not have anything in common as regards their function; in fact, they seem to have nothing in common at all.

270 The correlation coefficients are expressions of the measure of similarity between the two coin lists. For a more detailed discussion of the method, see Chapter 2.

271 A greater number of zeroes in the individual coin list does affect the statistical significance of the test.

97 Figure 4.9: Spearman rank correlation coefficients (y-axis) of individual sites (x-axis) with the mean site before AD 260

The fact that the correlation analyses do not produce results, and have failed to do so before - in contrast with the K- S tests -, throws some doubt on the suitability of the former to bring to light similarity of the coin lists of different sites.272 Although the methodological causes of this are not exactly clear, part of the explanation may lie in the fact that correlation analysis tests for linear relations between two coin lists, and disregards other types of relations.273

The K-S tests: period after 260 AD Because the number of issue periods in the late Roman period is lower than before 260 AD, the minimum number of coins for inclusion in the tests is ten (for 9 issue periods). There are 167 sites which meet this condition, so the group of sites is three times as high as in the early Roman period. All statistics are included in Appendix 2. Figure 4.11 shows the results of the tests. The contrast with the period before 260 AD (fig.4.7) is clear: the D-values are spread more widely than in figure 4.7, and we see many more negative values. Also, the percentage of non-significant tests is higher than before; statistical significance (P<0.05) is, like before, related to the height of the D-value.

Figure 4.10: relation between number of coins per site (N) and heigth of Pear- son correlation coefficient

272 See chapter 3.

273 See chapter 2, 27.

98 Figure 4.11: results of the K-S tests AD 260-402; on the left the find complexes of Trier, to the right the sites of luxemburg.

It is difficult to identify groups of sites which cluster around the same value in the same issue period. Most sites have their largest D-value in periods 19, 20 and 21 (317-364 AD). Within these periods it is possible to see three clusters of sites, if only by contrasting their range of values with those of the rest of the sites in each period. In period 19 (317-330 AD) a group of sites show D-values between 0.20 and 0.40. They consist mainly of Trier-Altbachtal-sites (23/26). The second cluster, in period 20 (330-348 AD), has negative D-values in the range -0.15 until -0.30. This cluster distinguishes itself by a large number of 'substructions romaines' and villas (11/14). The last cluster in period 21 (348-364 AD) has negative D-values from -0.10 to -0.30, and can be characterized by a preference for sites from the Altbachtal. Although this is a further indication for the existence of a relation between the character of a site and the chronological profile of its coin list, a large number of sites is not represented in the clusters, and thus not classified as belonging to a group. This may have to do with how the K-S test works: it only looks at one period in which the largest difference with the mean site occurs. It does not evaluate the whole chronological sequence of the coin lists. This is not a problem if one period can be used to classify a large number of sites, as was the case with the Celtic coins in the period before 260 AD. However, in the late Roman period single periods can be used to identify some groups of sites, but not enough. It might help if we should have a way of comparing whole chronological profiles of coin lists instead of looking at only one period at the time.

Chronological profiles To achieve this, a method can be used which has been recently developed by Reece for a chronological comparison of his 140 sites in Britain.274 He also uses cumulative percentages of coins per issue period, and sets them off against the percentages of the British mean, by subtracting the mean percentage from that of the individual site in every issue period. The resulting numbers can be plotted as shown in figure 4.12, in which the line represents the difference between the cumulative percentages of the individual site and the mean site; in fact, the y=0 line can be seen as the mean. Every graph ends on this line, because the cumulative percentage of the mean site and the individual site are always the same (100%). The graph shows the build-up of coins in the course of time in contrast with the mean site; positive values thus show a higher build-up of coin numbers in a certain period than the mean site, but this does not necessarily mean that the individual site has a higher percentage of coins in that period. Nevertheless, it is chronological profiles of individual sites we are interested in, and how they can be compared with each other. In this way, it is possible to classify sites according to their entire chronological profile. It must be observed that identifying groups with the same profile can at this moment only be done by eye, and thus has a subjective element in it. Another point which must be mentioned is that the mean site used here has a different composition than the

274 Reece 1995.

99 mean used by Reece. The British mean consists of the coins of the 140 sites which were selected by Reece, whereas our mean site comprises every coin which was reportedly found in Luxemburg. In this way, the Luxemburg mean is less biassed in favour of sites with large numbers of coins. Comparing the graphs, it was possible to identify 6 chronological profiles, which 133 of the 168 sites could be ascribed to (see Appendix 2; c-type). All 6 profiles are very homogeneous, the sites showing only very little variation. Profile 1 (fig.4.12) is characterized by a relatively high start in period 16 (260-275 AD), dropping to a minimum in period 19 (317-330 AD), rising in period 20 (330-348 AD), falling in period 21 (348-364 AD) and peaking in period 22 (364-378 AD). Five sites show such a profile, three of Trier-Altbachtal and two other, one of which is the villa of Echternach-Schwarzacht. Profile 2 (fig 4.13) begins with relatively high numbers in period 16, gradually sloping downwards until period 19, a minimum in period 20, and a steep rise to period 22. Forty sites belong to this profile, 24 of which are from the Altbachtal; three of the six rural sanctuaries are also in this group. The characteristics for profile 3 (fig.4.14) are a steep rise from period 19 to 20, period 21 which stays more or less at the same level, and a sharp decline in period 22, followed by a much more gradual decline in the last two periods (378-388 and 388-402 AD), which gives this profile the form of a hat. There are 40 sites in this group: 25 sites from the Altbachtal, and the other 15 all 'substructions romaines', apart from one rural sanctuary, Widdebierg-Lampecht. Profile 4 (fig.4.15) starts with the highest peak in period 16 and gradually slopes down to the last period, with small variations in between. This is a group of 37 sites, with 12 sites from the Altbachtal. The most remarkable is that 8 of the 10 vici complexes are in this group, the exception being the vicus and theatre of Dalheim. Also the two open- air rural sanctuaries (Kayl-A Feschtem and Hellange-Léimhéi'cht) show such a profile. The rest of the sites are all villa complexes or 'substructions romaines', and the combined finds of the cemeteries of Marscherwald. Profile 5 (fig.4.16) is roughly similar to profile 3, only it has no hat-like shape. There is a gradual decline from period 16 to period 19, which is followed by a steep rise up to period 22, and ends with a gradual downward sloping line onto period 24. It is a small group of 5 sites from the Altbachtal and one The final profile 6 (fig.4.17) shows a gradual down slope until period 21, a steep decline in period 22, more or less the same level in period 23 and a sharp rise in period 24. This too is a small group of 7 sites:3 from Trier, 2 from Dalheim and 2 from Dudelange, one of which is a late-Roman fort. This grouping of sites shows a different picture from the one based on the K-S tests in the period before 260 AD. In the first place, although some of the groups comply with the functional distinctions between sites, they seem less exclusive in this respect than in the period before 260 AD. The group which stands out the most is that of the vici: they share all the same profile, except Dalheim. The rural sanctuaries are less clearly defined by their chronolo- gical profile, but half of them are together in profile 2. Villas and 'substructions romaines' belong mostly to profiles 3 and 4. Secondly, the find groups of Trier-Altbachtal are evenly spread over all six profiles; in each profile they make up roughly 50% of the sites. This apparent lack of internal coherence in find complexes in the late Roman city of Trier may be seen as a sign that functional similarity is not the prime factor in determining the chronological profile of sites. Still, this would be in contradiction with the findings in the period before 260 AD and with the similarities between other sites of the same type in the late Roman period.

100 Figure 4.12: profile 1 Figure 4.13: profile 2

Figure 4.15: profile 4 Figure 4.14: profile 3

Figure 4.16: profile 5 Figure 4.17: profile 6

Another explanation therefore could be that, while in the period before 260 AD the Altbachtal sites displayed a strong functional unity (as a religious centre), in the late Roman period religious and secular features were mixed and this resulted in the chronological variability of their coins lists. Whatever interpretation may be given, one thing is clear: in the late Roman period, the fact that all coins of the Altbachtal come from the city does not have any connection with chronological tendencies in the coin lists. In other words, the late Roman city has become invisible in this respect. This seems strange, but this problem might be solved if we consider how chronological profiles and functional aspects of sites may be related. The fact that find complexes share a common chronological distribution suggests that their similarity is caused not by chance, but by a common factor, namely a similar periodicity in the supply of coins which led to the forma- tion of a particular find complex. We might say that, if the coin lists of two sites have a strong similarity in the chronological sense, the history of their coin supply will also be similar, even if the reasons for the supply are diffe- rent. In other words, these sites show more or less the same intensity of coin use at the same periods. The reasons

101 for a similarity in the ups and downs in coin activity on different sites might be their functional similarity, which can entail a common need for coins at certain periods. To give a hypothetical example of such a mechanism: a period in which a few major disasters occur in a certain region, like famine and the plague, leads to increased offerings of coins at temples to ensure the good-will of the gods. The coins offered would be taken from the circulation pool at that moment, which has a distinct chronological composition.275 This would leave its mark in the coin lists of all sanc- tuaries in this region. This example may sound too simple and unrealistic, but it shows my point: coin lists of sites are not a sample of the supply of one coin a year during a longer period, but represent several chronologically separated 'bursts' of coin supply. Although Trier as a whole does not belong to one chronological profile, its find complexes can be grouped together in various profiles which share characteristics with other sites in Luxemburg. According to the interpretation above, the different groups of find complexes are the result of several periods of increased loss. This causes the differentiation of their chronological pattern in a relatively small area. The fact that all 'rural' chronological profiles are represented in the find complexes of Trier, can be explained by two factors. In the first place, it seems likely that Trier is the main source of coin supply to the countryside in the period 260-450 AD. Secondly, the relation between a group of find complexes in Trier and a group of rural sites, which is expressed in a shared chronological profile, points to more intensive economic relations between Trier and the selection of rural sites in a particular segment of time. Within the context of the rural sites, a chronological profile is ‘coloured’ by the selection of coins created by these temporary intensifications of the economic ties with Trier, whereas in Trier itself the colouring is done by the sample of the coin circulation at the same moment in time.276

Historical implications Looking at general tendencies in the different chronological profiles, there are two interesting points. One is that there are three profiles with a substantially higher amount of sites than the other three. The main reason that the latter are mentioned here is that future coin finds may fit into the smaller groups, making them more than a few anomalous sites which they are now. For a more general picture, we must focus on the three large groups. The second point is that all profiles except one (profile 3) start with a relatively high level of late 3rd-century coins, then drop to a minimum and finally show some recovery at some point in the 4th century. Again, there is one exception, for the sites of profile 4 never really recover from their downward tendency. Most sites rise again after period 19, which is part of the reign of Constantine the Great (317 AD). All sites which do recover after this period start their curve below the average; the sites of profile 4 start a good deal above the average in the late 3rd century. This is of course due to the fact that we are dealing with cumulative percentages and every curve must end on the zero-line (the average minus the individual site=100%-100%=0). Disregarding Trier for the moment, the sites of which are equally represented in all the profiles, it appears that the group which does not recover contains nearly all the vicus sites, along with some villas and two rural sanctuaries. This implies that while coin supply to the urban communities was in decline, the importance of rural settlements rose in the course of the 4th century. This matches what we know historically and archaeologically about the 4th century. Parallel developments are attested in Britain, where it can also be traced numismatically,277 but it is a common phenomenon in the whole western empire.278 The only vicus which does not show a constant decline from the late 3rd century onwards is Dalheim. In fact, the curve of Dalheim starts like that of the other vici above the average in the late 3rd century, but instead of a decline

275 This composition would in theory match with that of circulation hoards of this period.

276 A chronological profile differs from the composition of a hoard insofar as it is not a closed find: therefore, most chronological profiles contain coins of periods which fall outside the time-range which coloured the profile in the first place.

277 Reece 1987, 93; the proportion of coins of 259-294 to coins of 330-402 seems to correlate with the opposition between urban and rural sites. Civitas capitals and small towns (vici) have the greatest proportion of late 3rd-century coins, while villas and temples show a higher proportion of 4th-century coins. The distinction between small towns and strictly rural sites is, as in our case, less defined than that between cities and the rest, but still noticeable.

278 See for instance Wightman 1985, chapter 10 for the developments in Belgic Gaul; Keay 1988, chapter 8 for Roman Spain.

102 shows an increasing level until it reaches a peak in period 19 (317-330 AD). After this it's downhill again. This may be an effect of the military presence in Dalheim from 320 AD, when a burgus was built on the premises of the vicus. Still, if the presence of soldiers was the reason for the increasing coin supply, the question remains why soon after the establishment of the burgus coin supply decreased, while occupation is attested until the 5th century. However, if we look at the profile of another late-Roman fort, Dudelange-Gehaansbierg, the similarities are remarkable. It has a somewhat earlier peak in period 17, but after this decline sets in. Like Dalheim, the deepest fall is reached in period 22, after which there is a steady recovery until the end of the 4th century. Regrettably, we have no other late-Roman forts to compare with, but the notable similarity of the two profiles suggests a similar pattern of coin supply. It is an interesting fact that villas, which are always assumed to be economically dependent on the city, do not all show the same decline as the vici. About 50% of the villas do: 9 of the 19 are in profile 4. Still, this leaves the other half which do not bow to the economic decline of the urban communities in Luxemburg. This means that, if one accepts the fact that also in the late Roman period villas were oriented to an urban market, the 'successful ones' must have found another market than the vici for their produce. The only possible candidate for this is the late Roman city of Trier. This is in accordance with the above-mentioned hypothesis that the economic relations with Trier were decisive for the intensity of coin supply to rural settlements in the 4th century. If we consider the distribution of the villas over the region, the 'successful' villas do not evidently cluster around Trier. This may seem strange in the light of the importance of Trier as market for agricultural produce, but the influence of other factors can explain this. It is, for instance, possible that the size and character of the produce of an estate may be involved, or the social-political status of the owner of the villa (his contacts in Trier). This is evident in the case of the villa of Echternach-Schwarzacht, where both the size of the estate and luxury of the main building imply a high-ranking owner. The same is probably true for the villas of Aspelt and Contern-Enert der Hangels, which were of the same type as that of Echternach (see table 4.6b, p.88). Dissappointingly, we have no such detailed information about the other villas. Another category of sites which show the same tendency for recovery at some point during the 4th century are the rural sanctuaries. Only the two open-air sanctuaries of Hellange and Kayl-A Feschtem behave in the same way as the vici. The temples of Steinsel-Relent, Grevenmacher-Beim Buergruef and Widdebierg-Lampecht share the same chronological profile, which begins considerably below average in the late 3rd century and continues to decline until the second half of the 4th century (period 21; 348-364 AD); then coin supply increases rapidly in the next period, after which it more or less stays at the same level. Again, there is a clear parallel with the situation in late-Roman Britain, where temple sites show the same revival in the second half of the 4th century. It is possible that, with the shift from an urban to a more rural society, temples appeared as the new rural centres in the late-Roman age. Whether this means that they functioned as rural markets as well as cult centres is not easy to say. But perhaps the close association between cult practices and rural markets, which existed from pre-Roman times never had dissappea red during the Roman period; the flourishing of the vici may have merely caused a temporary eclipse of this economic function, which reappeared when the vici lost their importance.

103 4.3.3 Conclusion: coin use in Luxemburg and Trier 50 BC-AD 450

The early Roman period (50 BC-AD 69)

Celtic coins Numerically speaking, the story of Celtic coins in our area is largely the story of the oppidum of the Titelberg: 1907 of the 2036 coins (93.6%!) were found in this central place of the Treveri. The actual percentage is even higher, because the latest finds of the Titelberg are not included in the present study.279 In his recently published thesis on the oppidum of the Titelberg, Metzler presents an excellent discussion of the Celtic coins of the Titelberg (Metzler 1995), including the coins found on other sites in Luxemburg; as far as the Titelberg is concerned, however, he only uses the coins from excavations between 1983 and 1985. This leaves room for some comments on and perhaps additions to his work.

Map 4.2: the Celtic coins of Luxemburg

For a full summary of Metzler's conclusions, I refer to his publication. In the following part, I will discuss some of his observations which are important for the present study. To begin with the distribution of Celtic coins as shown on map 4.2280, one can see that they are spread more or less evenly over the southern half of Luxemburg. The relative absence of coins in the northern half of Luxemburg must be seen as conforming to a more general pattern of

279 Only the coins of the first volume of Weiller's inventory are included: the time for entering coin finds in the database was limited. I estimate that at least 70% of the total finds of the Titelberg until now have been processed; since we are talking about more than 2000 coins, I think it is safe to see this as a representative sample. However, the numbers used in this chapter can as a result be somewhat different than the ones used by Metzler in his recently published thesis on the Titelberg (1995).

280 This map is practically the same as that offered by Metzler (Abbildung 100, 149). It was drawn without knowledge of Metzler's map, but is based on the same material. There are some differences, however, which I cannot explain, such as the number of find spots, which is lower on Metzler's map than on mine.

104 archeological finds in this area. Either the steep hills of northern Luxemburg were thinly populated in the Iron Age and Roman period, or the whites on the map represent a Fundlücke. I think the first possibility to be the most likely one. A total of 68 sites has been recorded. Most sites (except the Titelberg, of course) do not have more than one or two coins, but there are some exceptions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, three of the four sites with more than 10 coins are vici in the Roman period: the Titelberg itself, Dalheim, and Altrier. The fourth is Schandel-Kreizmier, a site of which I have no information. In all aspects, this must have been an exceptional place, not only because of its relatively high number of Celtic coins; from early Roman times onto the late 4th century this site shows a higher than average coin loss. The intensity of coin loss suggests either a vicus or a sanctuary, although the possibility of a villa with a late-Iron- Age predecessor cannot be rejected. Without information about other finds, we can say nothing with certainty. The high numbers of Celtic coins in Dalheim have given some researchers the notion that an oppidum was located here in pre-Roman times, but no other finds sustain this view. If the coins must be indicative of such a central place, it must have been a relatively late apparition, since the majority of the coins are from the the second half of the 1st century BC. Additionally, no other metals were found than bronze and potin, which are regarded to be representative of the later phases of Celtic coinage. This, and the absence of other material evidence for the existence of an oppidum at Dalheim suggests in my opinion that the Celtic coins must have circulated together with Roman coins in the Augustan vicus. Only one argument can be brought against this, and it has to do with a pecularity in the distribution of sites with a more than average amount of Celtic coins. All four sites seem to have their own territories, which roughly coincide with watersheds of the main rivers in the area. In fact, the southern part of Luxemburg seems to be cut up in four more or less equal parts, each with a central place: the Titelberg in the south-west, Dalheim in the south-east, Schandel- Kreizmier in the northwest, and Altrier in the northeast. This territoriality, connected to the evidence of the coins, might be interpreted as the existence of four pagi in the late Iron Age, each with its own centre. The evidence, admittedly, is circumstantial, but on the other hand too strong to be entirely neglected. An additional, but equally circumstantial argument might lie in the fact that three of the four alleged pagus-centres (or possibly all of them) later developed into Roman vici. Regrettably, there is no epigraphical evidence to sustain the existence of these pagi in Roman times: only three Treverian pagi are attested in inscriptions, of which two lie outside the area of study, and the third is untraceable.281 A good 75% of all Celtic coins are of Treverian issue.282 Metzler distinguishes four phases in the circulation of Treverian coins:283 phase 1: circulation of exclusively gold coins (Metzler's coin types 1-5), before 100 BC phase 2: 100-50 BC. Circulation of gold, silver and potin (Metzler's coin types 12, 13, 17, 18, 19-21); from circa 80 BC there is evidence of coin production on the Titelberg phase 3: 50-30 BC; at first gold and silver coins continue to circulate, but in very modest quantities (Metzler's coin types 14-16). They are completely eclipsed by the massive bronze emissions with the legends of HIRTIVS and ARDA (coin types 22-27) phase 4: 30-1? BC284; circulation of low value bronze coins with legends CARINAS and GERMANVS INDVTILLI L (coin types 28-29), both of which were at least partly produced on the Titelberg.

281 See Heinen 1985, Band 1, p104. The pagus Carucum lies north of Bitburg, the pagus Vilcias (if it may be identified with Wilz) lies in the northern half of Luxemburg (according to Heinen just beyond the border of the civitas treverorum) and the pagus Teucorias has not been located so far.

282 Twenty-nine coins types are commonly ascribed to the Treveri (Metzler types 1-29), but a recent find causes him to strike types 9-11 from the list (Eye-staters Latour 8799, Latour 8821 (VOCARANT) and Latour 8815 (LVCOTIOS)), being more likely issues of the Suessiones or the Remi (Metzler 1995, 148).

283 Metzler 1995, 162.

284 Metzler is not very clear about the end of this period "...etwa die 3 letzten Jahrzehnte des 1.Jahr-hunderts v.Chr..." (1995, 162). Elsewhere he suggests that the Celtic coins may be part of the Augustan circulation of Dalheim, which could mean that they continued to circulate even in the 1st century AD.

105 Table 4.11 shows a summary of the coin finds in each of the phases, found on the Titelberg and in the rest of Luxemburg. The numbers are based on the inventory that was made for this study, not on the numbers which Metzler uses. His tables show the same material for Luxemburg (except for Dalheim), but for the Titelberg only the coins of recent excavations. Treverian coins of the earliest phase, eye-staters of the type Armoricani Emigrati, were not found, not in Luxemburg as a whole, nor on the Titelberg itself. Evidently, in this part of the Civitas Treverorum, coins did not begin to circulate until the 1st century BC. From the beginning, however, the supreme role of the Titelberg in the coin circulation is clear: 93% of the coins of phase 1 was found on the Titelberg. Of course, the fact that they were found on the Titelberg only means that they ended up there, that is to say, were lost or deposited. We cannot conclude that all coin transactions actually took place there.

TREVERIAN COINS

Phases Coin Metal Titelberg Luxemburg types

coins % total % coins % total %

1 <100 BC 1-5 AV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12-13 AV 5 1.5 10 41.6

17-18 AR 121 37.2 3 12.5 2 100-50 BC 325 23.70 24 36.4 19-21 POT285 199 61.2 11 45.8

14-16 AV 3 0.3 2 5.7 3 50-30 BC 964 70.3 35 53.0 22-27 AES 961 99.7 33 94.2

4 >30 BC 28-29 AES 83 100 83 6.1 7 100 7 10.6

Total 1372 1372 100.0 66 66 100.0

Table 4.11: Treverian coin types and circulation phases on the Titelberg and in the rest of Luxemburg; columns 7 and 11 show percentages of the total number of Treverian coins.

Table 4.11 shows that both the Titelberg and the rest of Luxemburg have the same general tendencies: no coins of phase 1, the highest amount of coins in phase 3, between 50 and 30 BC, the next highest in phase 2, and the lowest in phase 4. Metzler maintains that there are no real chronological differences between the coins of the Titelberg and Luxemburg. The circulation of Celtic coins in the countryside as opposed to the centre, is residual: things really happened on the Titelberg. He supports this with the observation that gold coins form the major part of the 'rural' circulation, whereas gold coins on the Titelberg amount to less than one percent. The coins in the countryside are in his opinion money that ended up in the piggy bank (Sparstrumpf) of farmsteads or were deposited at sanctuaries; low value bronze and potin coins circulated in the centre. The coin circulation of the Titelberg is, according to Metzler, strongly asso- ciated with trade; coins are seen to accompany other types of valuable goods, especially those connected with the Mediterranean trade. The Titelberg is the last chain of the Rhone-Saone-Moselle-axis, and its coins are an indication of the successfulness of this trade connection. Another possible explanation for the considerable amount of HIRTIVS- and ARDA-issues is offered tentatively by Metzler - payment of Treverian auxilia. Implicitly, by stating that the countryside of Luxemburg was reluctant to accept a monetary economy, Metzler suggests that the coins on the Titelberg were part of such an economy.286

285 Recently, the chronology of potin is adjusted by Haselgrove (1999), but most of these potin coins may be placed in Haselgrove’s stage 3 (125-60 BC) which more or less coincides with Metzlers period.

286 Metzler 1995, 150.

106 When the economic importance of the Titelberg decreases around 20 BC,287 there is also a dip in the numbers of Celtic coins. At the same time we see a growing number of Roman bronze, notably Nemausus-asses. Since Metzler assumes a similar function for late Celtic as well as for Roman bronze, coin circulation seems just to slide from the late-Iron Age into the early Roman period, only with another type of coins.

I do not totally agree with Metzler's view. I accept the fact that most coins were lost on the Titelberg, and that this points to the central function of this oppidum in the Civitas Treverorum of the late Iron Age. I do not, however, agree with his interpretation of the circulation of Celtic coins in Luxemburg and on the Titelberg. First, the general chronology in Treverian coins (which in both circulations form the major part of all Celtic coins) seems to be the same on the Titelberg and in the countryside. A closer inspection of table 4.11, however, shows that the proportion of coins of phase 2 is considerably higher in the countryside than on the Titelberg. This implies two things:

1. in phase 3, coin loss seems to show even more centralistic tendencies than in phase 2. This could be explained by the decreasing importance of the oppidum on the Martberg, which before this time is presumably the centre of the eastern part of Treverian territory. The Titelberg becomes the centre of the whole civitas after the Caesarian wars. This fact is mentioned by Metzler, although he connects it with the relatively even distribution of Celtic coins of phase 2 over the whole of Treverian territory, not with the difference in proportion of phase 2-coins of the centre and the countryside. 2. the proportional difference of phase 2-coins in both coin pools shows that the coins in the countryside are not merely a residual distribution of a circulation which really took place on the Titelberg; it has its own chronology, even if the general characteristics are dictated by the Titelberg.288

Secondly, it is not true that gold coins form the majority of the coins found in the countryside. This may be so when just the number of find spots is recorded, but it is not true of the numbers of coins.289 It must be conceded that the proportion of gold coins is significantly higher in the countryside than on the Titelberg, particularly in phase 2, but even in phase 3, when gold is getting scarce in general (see table 4.11). If this, however, is not indicative of a chronological difference between the two pools, as Metzler says it is not, it shows that the character of both circula- tions is different in this respect. Metzler explains this difference as between a monetary and non-monetary coin circulation. However, one cannot simply overlook the fact that in phase 2 potin coins are still in the majority in both coin pools. This does not, in my opinion, reflect a reluctance of the countryside to accept the monetary economy of the oppida, if this is the correct interpretation of the coin circulation. In other words, one must explain the occurrence of bronze and potin coins in the countryside, which Metzler does not do. Thirdly, the equation of Late Iron Age bronze with early Roman bronze is too simplistic. One major difference between the two coinages is that, just like other valuable goods in Late Iron Age society, coins were deposited in ritual contexts on a large scale. Studies of the find spots of these goods show that their distribution is far from random: they are found in the ritualistic contexts of temples, rivers and graves.290 Although Roman coins were deposited in graves and temples too, the distribution of Roman coins is likely to reflect coin loss as well as coin deposition, in any case more so than Celtic coins and depending on the context.291 The next question is: were bronze

287 This is a consequence of the departure of an army contingent which was based here after the uprising of 30 BC, and of the simultanuous rise of a new centre at Dalheim, which eclipsed the settlement on the Titelberg (Metzler 1995, 572).

288 Of course, the general chronological similarity of both coin pools is caused by the fact that most Treverian coins were manufactured on the Titelberg.

289 Metzler 1995, 150.

290 See for instance Roymans 1987; Roymans 1995.

291 In cities and vici, coin loss will have been more frequent than deposition, while Roman coin finds in rural contexts may reflect deliberate ritual deposition and hoarding (many stray finds may in fact be part of scattered hoards).

107 coins seen as valuable goods, and were they deposited as such? If depots of late Iron Age temples are considered292, it is clear that these coins were indeed ritually disposed of, just like gold and silver coins. The occurrence of potin and bronze coins may be more a result of shortages in gold and silver in Late Iron Age societies (see chapter 2), than the deliberate production of 'low-value' coinages. If scarcity of precious metals was the prime mover in the introduction of other metals, it is likely that the new coins were originally intended for the same purposes as when gold and silver were available in sufficient quantity.293 Assuming that gold and silver were used for smoothing all kinds of relations between persons of higher social rank, and, in accordance with this, between high-ranking persons and the gods, a similar function may be inferred for potin (since it circulated alongside gold).294 Bronze coins are a different story, but it would be too simplistic to assume that bronze was exclusively used for market exchange and small transactions. Because the same shift is apparent in the coins deposited at sanctuaries as in other contexts, this seems indeed a likely development. But things were more complicated than this. Because the potin and bronze coins were added to the circulation and did not replace the gold and silver standard, these coins were presumably deemed to be of lower value, albeit alone by the relative abundance of them. Consequently, a new, lower level was introduced in the circulation of precious goods, which had the potential for other uses besides the traditional ones. It is conceivable that the potin and bronze coinages could be put to use in lower spheres of exchange, even at the subsistence level. In other words, money could be used for more purposes than before; as such, coin use developed a more general, and therefore, more monetized character. Still, we cannot speak of a monetary economy in the second half of the 1st century BC. The ceremonial and religious aspects of coin use remained paramount, and use in lower spheres must be seen more as ceremonial exchange between persons of lesser rank and between those persons and the gods, than wide-spread use for the payment of goods and services. The role of deposition in the distribution of bronze and potin coins must, therefore, not be underestimated. Fourthly, the use of coins in intertribal exchange of goods seems not to have been the most important295, although here a difference becomes visible between the Titelberg and the countryside. The preponderance of Treverian issues (on the Titelberg at least 72%; in the countryside 64.1%) indicates that coin circulation was largely a phenomenon that occurred at a tribal level, at least in the case of the Civitas Treverorum. If we interpret the presence of coins of other tribes as a result of intertribal exchange (see table 4.12), it is evident that, both in the oppidum on the Titelberg as in the countryside, bronze coins are still the most strongly represented. However, in both coin pools there are considerable differences between coins of other tribes and Treverian issues. On the Titelberg there is more emphasis on the silver and potin coins; gold is absent, as with the Treverian coins, so the middle range of values is better represented in exchange relations. The same is true for the countryside: bronze coins are still the best represented in the coin pool, but the differ- ence with potin coins is virtually non-existent. Unlike the coins of the Titelberg, the percentage of silver coins of other tribes is the same as that of the Treverian coins. Gold coins are somewhat lower in number, but the propor- tional difference with the Titelberg is still considerable. The relatively lower percentage bronze coins of other tribes in both coin pools points to a lesser importance of bronze in exchange relations. The fact that they are still present in considerable numbers, might be due to the fact that the Treveri and other tribes were very prolific in the production of bronze coin in the second half of the 1st century BC. This means that the lower percentage of bronze could also be interpreted as the decreasing importance of money in intertribal relations, or as a decrease in the intensity of these relations. Perhaps, if the middle and high range in the value of coins were preferred in exchange relations, the shortage of gold and silver after Caesar could have led to a lesser importance of coinage in intertribal exchange, in particular those between higher-ranking members of the elite.

292 See for instance the ritual deposits of the temple of Empel (Reijnen 1994).

293 Not so much the fact that gold and silver were ‘precious metals’ as their influence on the colour and texture of the coin may have been the most important for its users. See Creighton 2000, 38.

294 An argument against this would be the fact that potin coinages were later replaced by struck bronze (see Haselgrove 1999).

295 If it is correct to assume that coins were a means to facilitate exchange of other goods, and not one of the exchanged goods itself. The first use of coins represents in my opinion a 'monetary' use, while the second is 'pre-monetary'. Metzler, by his association between coins and trade, takes the second view for the Celtic coins of the Titelberg.

108 Titelberg Luxemburg

Metal Coins % Total Coins % Total

AV 0 0 4 10.8

OTHER AR 87 21.6 1 2.7 402 37 TRIBES POT 97 24.1 13 35.1

AES 218 54.2 14 37.8

AV 8 0.5 12 18.2

AR 121 8.8 2 2.9 TREVERI 1370 66 POT 199 14.5 10 14.7

AES 1042 76.1 42 61.8

Table 4.12: proportions of gold, silver potin and bronze coins of the Treveri and other tribes.

This leaves us with the following facts. First, the majority of all Celtic coins in the Luxemburg area were deposited or lost on the oppidum of the Titelberg. Secondly, the high proportion of bronze and potin coinages is the same on the Titelberg and in the countryside, and does not in a general way suggest a difference in the use of coinage. Apart from this, the occurrence of gold coins is higher in the countryside than in the oppidum. This could be explained by the fact that the Titelberg became more important in the time that gold and silver were already getting scarce, namely after the Gallic wars, while the oppidum on the Martberg lost its importance. However, if the difference is not chronological, it means that gold coins were more important in the circulation of the countryside, and that they may be representative of exchange on another level. Indeed, Roymans recognizes different levels in exchange of valuable goods296: gold may have belonged to another level than silver, potin and bronze coins. If this higher level might be associated with the higher ranking elite, the higher incidence of gold in the countryside should not surprise us: the elite did not live within the oppida on the Titelberg and Martberg, but had its residence in the countryside. If this explanation is correct, it shows the existence of a coin circulation independent of the Titelberg. One other thing must be discussed here. Metzler mentions the existence of a large sanctuary on the eastern half of the Titelberg. The coins found in the context of this sanctuary are destined for a future publication. Still, since the majority of the Celtic coins found on the Titelberg were evenly distributed over the entire plateau, we may assume that a considerable part of the coin finds were originally deposited at this sanctuary. Another fact which supports the notion of large-scale deposition of valuable goods at this sanctuary, is the relatively fast decrease of these goods after + 20 BC. Metzler explains this decrease by the departure of auxilia which are assumed to have been present on the Titelberg from 30 BC. This military presence is also held responsible for the finds of Italian terra sigillata, Spanish wine amphoras and fibulae datable to this period. I think that the discontinuity in the use of the sanctuary might have more to do with this disappearance of valuable goods, including coins, than the departure of auxiliary troops. Since deposition of valuable goods was practised on a great scale long before the arrival of the auxilia, I do not see them as instrumental for the wealth of the oppidum. The sanctuary, however, was indeed a factor of continuity until its falling into disuse after 20 BC. The entire oppidum seems to have been affected by this.297 Perhaps the two phenomena are not mutually exclusive, but connected with each other. The soldiers of the auxilia may of course just as well be the cause of increased deposition of coins at the sanctuary on the Titelberg, particularly so if one accepts the idea that these troops were paid in their own native coinage.

Distribution of early Roman coins There are 200 sites with early Roman coins. The average number of coins per site in this period (not counting the

296 Roymans 1995, 48.

297 It is not clear whether the disuse of the sanctuary was either the cause or one of the effects of the loss of importance of the Titelberg as Treverian centre. It is clear, however, that they are related facts.

109 Celtic coins) is 4.8. As can be seen in figure 4.18, 88% of the 200 sites have five or less early Roman coins. Only seven sites have more than 30 coins, and they are all vici.298 The average number of coins per site is relatively high for an area which did not have a direct relation with the Roman army, like the Dutch river area. The average there lies around four coins per site in this period, which is below that of Luxemburg. I think the early development of the vici in Luxemburg is responsible for the high average.299

Map 4.3: the coin finds of Luxemburg before AD 69

Map 4.3 shows that the coins are relatively evenly spread over the more densely populated southern half of Luxemburg. Of course, the map has little historical depth: we cannot see clearly how the first distribution took place, since our view is cluttered by the presence of early coins at sites which were late in joining the monetary circuit. This effect of the long life-cycle of early Roman coins cannot be eliminated from the map: it would take a detailed study into excavation contexts, which lies outside the scope of this study. What we can see is a light clustering of sites around vici, which supports the proposition that they played a key role in the early distribution of Roman coins. The most prolific area is the area which surrounds the vicus of Altrier, but this could also be an effect of the closeness of Trier.

The earliest circulation of Roman coins A well-known problem with Roman coins is that they continued to circulate long after the date of their issue. This circulation period decreased in the course of the Roman period, but in the time before AD 69 the time-lag between date of issue and circulation entry in our area could be considerable. Thus, it is hard to determine which coins of early issue in fact belonged to the earliest circulation period in our area, which, in theory, would be the coins with the earliest date of issue: Republican and Augustan emissions. In general, it is assumed in this study that the highest

298 The only site which is not a vicus consists of the combined finds of the Marcherwald cemeteries (near Altrier).

299 As I will argue in the next section, this early start was closely connected to the establishment of the city of Trier.

110 percentage of the coins of a certain issue period will be in circulation closest to this date of issue.300 However, this assumption is only admissible when large numbers of coins are considered. At the site level this can become a problem, especially if an issue period is represented by only a few coins. Still, it is possible to identify some guide types, which exclusively belong to an early context. First, we have late Celtic bronze, when it is found together with early Roman money. It seems illogical to include these coins in a discussion of early Roman money, but it is very likely that late Celtic coins circulated in a Roman context, and assumed some of its functions, so it would be

Figure 4.18: number of coins per site in the Luxemburg area. equally wrong not to include them. These coins are in circulation until early Tiberian times at the latest. Secondly, there are the Augustan Nemausus asses which probably did not circulate anymore after AD 9.301 Other Augustan issues, the moneyer series and particularly the Lyon asses could remain in circulation for a long time. In the case of isolated finds, it is entirely possible that an occasional Lyon as was lost as late as the end of the 1st century. Even more problematical are Republican coins; their date of issue bears little relation to their date of loss, which could be any time in the 1st century AD. The most likely case for an early circulation of Roman money in a certain place is, in absence of dated contexts, when late Celtic bronze, Augustan Nemausus asses and Republican coins are found together (see map 4.4). The combination of the three of them is limited to 6 sites, four of which develop into Roman vici (and possibly five), and of course the city of Trier. The first four are Altrier, Dalheim, Mamer and the Titelberg; the fifth is Schandel-Kreizmier, which, as we have said before, is a likely candidate for a pagus-centre in pre-Roman times. In these five cases we can be reasonably sure that Roman coin circulation started in the earliest phase, which is the Augustan period at the latest. A closer look at Augustan asses offers a relative chronology for the start of the circulation of Roman coins. Table 4.14 shows that the highest percentage of Nemausus asses is to be found on the Titelberg. The vici come second, and again the settlement of Schandel-Kreizmier is remarkably similar to the vici. The Titelberg stands apart from the rest of the vici, or even all settlements, because the percentage of Nemausus-asses is exceedingly high: it is the site in Luxemburg where we find the earliest circulation of Roman bronze. The presence of these asses can perhaps be related to the stationing of auxilia at the oppidum. Republican silver may have had a wider circulation in the late Iron Age, but this cannot be proven, since it could have entered circulation just as well at any time during the 1st century AD.

300 See chapter 2.

301 Van Heesch 1996.

111 Site Site name Function Republic Celtic Nemausus-asses Total coins < AD 69

511/962 Altrier Vicus 5 13 2 81

581 Dalheim Vicus 8 22 5 132

1062/4 Mamer Vicus 3 7 1 33

834-44 Titelberg Vicus 20 1907 139 2329

802 Schandel-Kreizmier ? 3 17 3 52

Trier-Altbachtal City 15 2 11 537

516 Altwies-Hédefeldchen Villa 1 3 - 6

597 Echternach-Schwarzacht Villa 1 3 - 20

1165 Hersberg-Altrier ? 1 2 - 8

712 Howald ? 1 2 - 2

772 Pétange-Réimerhaff Substr.? 1 4 - 6

730/1071-2 Marscherwald Cemetery 1 2 - 39

881 Widdebierg-Lampecht Sanctuary 2 1 - 6

608 Eischen-Gaalgebierg ? - 1 1 7

612 Ellange-Passen ? - 1 1 4

618 Esch-sur-Alzette-Ellergronn ? 1 - 1 2

542 Bigonville-Flatzbour ? - - 1 4

1319 Niedercorn-Hunneg Feld ? - - 1 1 Table 4.13: Celtic and Republican coins and Nemausus-asses in Luxemburg

Surprisingly, the percentage of Nemausus-asses in Trier is even lower than that of the rural sites, but coins of this type are found only on a few sites of the latter category: the percentage is not representative of a general trend in the countryside. However, both Trier and the rural settlements are the latest in joining the monetary circuit. It is hard to imagine that coin circulation in Trier started later than in the vici of Luxemburg. The low percentage of Nemausus-asses in Trier may be caused by the fact that the sanctuaries at the Altbachtal were not all built in one day; in fact the coins of the Altbachtal are a mixture of different find complexes, each of which may have different date ranges. The fact that we find Nemausus-asses at this site means that the area must have been in use before AD 9; the low percentage of these coins implies that it had not yet developed into the large complex which was (partly) excavated. For more reliable information on the beginning of coin circulation in Trier, we must await the publication of the large coin complexes of the other parts of Roman Trier. Returning to table 4.13, it seems that in most cases there is continuity from the late Iron Age onwards, that is in terms of coin loss. It is hard to prove that this continuity in coin finds represents a functional continuity as well. In other words, did late Celtic coinage and early Roman coinage share the same functions as well as the same place of use? And if this was the case, was late Celtic money used in a 'Roman' way or vice versa? To answer this question it is necessary to understand the special position of vici in the early settlement system. Nearly all vici were already some sort of central places in the late-Iron Age. An important feature of all of them is the presence of a sanctuary of more than local importance. Earlier, I have argued that the concentration of Celtic coins at these places must be seen essentially as ritual depositions. Early Roman coinage might have been used in the same way, and, if so, these coins must have been distributed along the same channels as before. However, if we consider the Celtic and Early Roman coins found in the rural settlements outside the vici, another pattern emerges.

112 Sites Nemausus- Lyon-asse s MM-asse s Other asse s Unknown Total asse s asse s

coins row% coins row% coins row% coins row% coins row% coins

Trier 11 5,1 166 77,6 24 11,2 5 2,3 8 3,7 214

Vici 8 15,4 30 57,7 5 9,6 1 1,9 8 15,4 52

Schandel-K 3 15 15 75 1 5 1 5 0 0 20

Titelberg 139 52,1 96 40 18 6,7 13 4,9 1 0,4 267

Other sites 5 6,3 47 58,8 15 18,8 4 5 9 11,3 80

Total 166 26,2 354 55,9 63 10 24 3,8 26 4,1 633 Table 4.14: Augustan asses in the city and the countryside

Earlier in this chapter the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests have shown that the vici form a separate group from the other settlements, and that this separation probably has something to do with the early Roman period. Closer study of tables 4.13 and 4.14 supports the division between vici and other settlements even further. Nearly all of the other sites in table 4.13 show a combination of Republican and Celtic coins; early Augustan coins were not found here302. Moreover, many sites show a gap between early Roman times and the second half of the 1st century AD; after this coin loss seems to happen on a more regular basis, as we can clearly see in the examples Pétange-Réimershaff (site 772), the villa of Echternach (site 597), and the sanctuary on the Widdebierg (fig. 4.1). In these cases I think that Roman money of the Augustan and Republican periods was used in exactly the same way as Celtic money; most of the coin finds are ritual depositions in a sacred place, or in a few cases lost/buried by someone of the rural elite. Roman money was being completely absorbed by Celtic standards of use. However, this gap between the circulation of early Roman money and money of the second half of the 1st century is not to be seen in the vici. Here, we have a continuous loss pattern starting in Augustan times until 260 AD. Thus, it is likely that something else was happening in the vici than in the rest of the countryside. For a better understanding of the processes at work, we must take a closer look at the coins that circulated in the city, the vici and in the other settlements.

Denominations Comparing the relative numbers of denominations of Trier, the vici and the rest of the countryside (see table 4.15), it seems that the difference between the vici and the other settlements is virtually absent. It is between the city and the countryside that the largest differences occur. First, the ratio of silver to bronze coins is much higher in the rural sett- lements than in the city. Secondly, Trier has relatively many quadrantes and semisses. The preponderance of coins of lower value in Trier might at first sight be explained by the fact that the coins are from a sanctuary and lower-value coins were preferred as votive gifts.303 One quick look at other sanctuaries in Luxemburg shows that this preference is not visible in their coin lists. In fact the proportion of silver coins is higher (13.3%) than average in these religious contexts304. Thus, it seems that the urban character of the coin finds of the Altbachtal is perhaps stronger than its religious aspects

302 This statement is somewhat limited by the fact that Nemausus-asses are the only coins of which we can be certain that they were early Augustan. There must have been others, but it is at this moment impossible to decide which other Augustan coins belong to the earliest circulation.

303 See for instance Reijnen 1994. He interprets the high incidence of quadrantes in the votive deposits of Empel as a preference of dedicants for low-value coins.

304 The high percentage of silver in the sanctuaries may well be biased by the fact that the total number of coin finds in religious contexts belonging to this period is rather low (fifteen coins). However, the percentage of silver coins in sanctuaries is even higher (20%) in the period 69-260 AD, when we have a total number of 262 coins coming from sanctuaries, so the 13% before 69 AD may be a realistic figure.

113 Map 4.4: Republican coins, Celtic coins and Nemausus asses in Luxemburg Figure 4.20 shows the chronological distribution of silver coins in the vici and the other rural settlements. The difference between the vici and the other rural settlements is small. More interesting is the fact that only Republican silver is found in sanctuaries and cemeteries, in both of which cases coins were ritually deposited. This might be interpreted as a deliberate selection of Republican silver for ritual purposes, but perhaps this is stretching the evidence a bit, since the number of silver coins in question is rather low.

Figure 4.19: coin denominations in sanctuaries before 69 AD The same applies to the silver coins of Trier, which are so much under-represented that a consideration of chrono- logical distribution would be nonsensical. Thus, both in the proportion of silver coins and in their chronological distribution vici behave like the rest of the rural settlements, and the only remaining opposition is that between city and countryside.

114 Trier Vici Other settl. Denominations coins % coins % coins %

AV 0 0 0 0 4 1.2

AR 9 1.7 68 11.6 39 11.8

AES I 7 1.3 9 1.5 8 2.4

AES II 475 89.0 468 79.5 258 78.2

AES III 39 7.3 19 3.2 13 3.9

AES 4 0.7 24 4.1 8 2.4

Total 534 100 589 100 330 100 Table 4.15: coin denominations in city, vici and other settlements before AD 69. Aes I are sestertii, aes II dupondii and asses, Aes III semisses and quadrantes.

Figure 4.20: silver coins per issue period before AD 69 in the vici (left) and the other rural sites (right)

Also, within the spectrum of the bronze coins we see a divergence between Trier and rural Luxemburg, insofar as the proportion of low-value bronze (semisses and quadrantes) is considerably higher in the city than in the countryside.305 Again, there is no real difference between the vici and the other rural settlements in this respect.

In conclusion we may say that there is no basis in the material to assume that coin circulation in the vici before AD 69 had a different character from that of other rural settlements. The only thing in which the vici were different, was the fact that coin supply seems to have started earlier than in the other rural sites in the first decades of the 1st century AD, and that it was more substantial. The difference is thus more a matter of scale and chronology than of quality. There were only two distinct patterns of coin use: that of the city and that of the countryside. But what does all this say about the use of money in the early Roman period? First, the substantial and uninter- rupted series of coins in the city and the vici show a continuity of coin supply to these places. This means that they both had a demand for coins and the means to get them. The higher ratio of bronze to silver coins and the higher proportion of low-value bronze coins in Trier would fit in a more monetized character of exchange in the city. They imply a higher amount of lesser payments, which in turn can be interpreted as more intensive use of money in the sphere of market exchange. It is remarkable that the difference between the city and the countryside (and the vici in particular) should be so

305 This is, of course, a detail, because the as seems to be the centre of gravity in the coin finds both in the city as in the country, like everywhere else in the Roman Empire in the first and even second centuries AD. But this is clearly a general feature of the Roman monetary system, and it is the difference in detail that allows a more localized interpretation.The Roman government did not issue coins to satisfy private needs, but just to serve its own purposes (see chapter 2), and the general distribution of denominations anywhere in the empire will be a reflection of this fact (see also Reece 1973).

115 great in the early Roman period. The functional difference between the two was thus already established at an early date. Trier was meant to be a city from the beginning: there is no question of an organic development from a vicus to a city. This view is sustained by the fact that already from the early 1st century AD, Trier had an aura of urbanity through its public buildings306. These early building projects were probably instrumental in starting off the circulation of low-value bronze. Many people must have found employment in these projects, and they were paid in new Roman coin. As they bought their foodstuffs at the markets of Trier, this must have been an important impetus for the monetization of everyday exchange in the city. In no small way, building projects were responsible for the flow of early Roman coin to Trier as well as the creation of a monetary market which needed a regular supply of fresh coins. It would be wrong to infer from table 4.15, however, that silver did not play a part in the coin circulation of the city. It seems more likely that silver left the city before it managed to get lost. In other words, silver coins did not so much circulate within the city itself, they were used for most in its contacts with the outside world: silver coins were tied into a more than local circuit, while bronze coins, after entering the city did not leave it again. Part of the silver coins of the city probably ended up in the countryside, where it would be lost, hoarded or ritually disposed of. Presumably, another part of the silver was transferred to other destinations, in the form of tax-payments or interre- gional trade. This is structurally in agreement with Hopkins’ thesis of taxes and trade (Hopkins 1980), although this is meant more as a qualitative than a quantitative statement.307 Whether the taxes were monetary or paid in kind, in any case the urban elite needed Roman money to pay for the establishment of their city. Although they were rich men in terms of the possession of land and clientelae, they must have been short on money at first. This means that in the early Roman period they were dependent on cash loans from Roman patrons. This is well-attested by the case of the treverian nobleman Florus, who was the leader of a revolt that seems to have been at least partly inspired by the inability to meet the crushing rates of interest.308 Thus, the first substantial money flow to Trier was likely to be borrowed money, presumably with land as its corollary. The loans must have consisted mostly of denarii and possibly aurei for the sake of easy and safe transport, but bronze fractions were needed to make use of it by the workers in order to buy things.309 This led to the coming of a new specialist to the city of Trier, the money-changer or nummularius.310 He played an important role in the supply and checking of bronze denominations. It is entirely possible that he bought bronze coin directly from the mint at Lyon311. Eventually the loans plus interest had to be paid back by the urban elite, which required cash to do so. There were three ways for them to earn this cash.312 One was by selling off the surpluses of their estates on monetary markets, a second to invest in trade (although they had to loan more cash to finance the setup), and a third was to exact tribute from their dependent tenants in cash. The third option seems somewhat unlikely in the first decades of the 1st century AD, in which period money still had to find its way to the different social groups that made up indigenous society. In other words, there was not enough cash around to make the system work. This leaves us with the other two options. Since no sane member of the decurion class would invest everything in trade, most would try a combination of both. Selling off surpluses must

306 See Heinen 1985.

307 I do not necessarily agree with Hopkins’ empire-wide redistribution of silver coins; Duncan-Jones (1990) has shown in a satisfactory way that there were substantial differences between provinces. Perhaps it is better to assume that the province was the most important unit of circulation of Roman silver; in any case, these coins were used for non-local transactions.

308 Tacitus Ann. III, 40-6.

309 This view is shared by Howgego (1992); although he stresses the role of the city in purchasing the loans instead of individual initiatives of elite members.

310 Andreau (1987) distinguishes between the nummularii, who only changed and tested coins, and argentarii, who also provided loans (Andreau 1987, 329); however, it seems likely that nummularii could provide credit as well in places where a higher level banker was absent, such as local fairs and sanctuaries. In the case of Trier, such activities were probably conducted by argentarii.

311 See for instance Harl 1996, 244.

312 Of course, some of these people were in goverment service and were paid a salary by the Roman government. I doubt if this would have been sufficent to fulfill their needs.

116 have been the most popular solution, since it meant the least risks. One can think of agrarian surpluses in the first place, but also exploitation of industries like pottery and metal working. Such ties between villa-owners and vicus- industries did indeed seem to exist, as in the case of Echternach313 By these loans, the urban elite was swiftly becoming dependent on the monetary economy. Because their need for money was permanent, the cash flow in the cities and vici was important for them. These centres were the markets where they could convert the produce of their estates into coin. Unlike the frontier provinces, where the pay of armies ensured a regular supply of fresh money, the Treveri had to make use of different ways to maintain liquidity. Of course, long-distance trade would have brought new money to the Luxemburg area, but I do not think it was sufficient to maintain the monetary economy. Also, occasionally, patrons from outside the area314 would have donated sums for the sake of public buildings and events. However, if the model described above is correct, there must have been the opportunity to place an order for fresh money at the imperial mint. Although there is enough reason to think that there was already some sort of monetary economy in the city and the vici in the first half of the 1st century AD, it is not easy to quantify the extent. The relative extent of monetarism in this area is a question which I will attempt to answer in Chapter 6 of this book, which deals with the comparison of the three areas. For now, it must suffice to say that there is no evidence of cash shortage in this early phase. The incidence of countermarked and halved bronze money is very low compared with other areas: both are well below 1%, whereas the Dutch river area and MDS-area show higher percentages. Another indication for shortage of cash is the occurrence of copies. The recognition of copies, however, is such a subjective activity that we cannot safely use the numbers, particularly since we are dealing with coin identifications of different numismatists.

Figure 4.21: numbers of coins per settlement category before AD 69.

It can be dangerous to use this negative evidence of cash shortage as an indication that there was sufficient money to satisfy the needs of Trier and the Luxemburg area, but we have little else to go on. If the proposition that there was sufficient money around is correct, it can mean two things: 1. the need for cash was still so low that it did not matter if coin supply fluctuated: in this case, monetization of the economy was a marginal phenomenon. 2. Regular supply of new money was ensured by commissioning the imperial mint; periods in which the regular flow of money (taxes, trade, gifts) was low were met by buying coin. Let us return to the countryside now. Figure 4.21 shows the numbers of coins per settlement category. The prime position of the vici is clear. Outside the vici, the high percentage of coins from cemeteries is striking.

313 See Metzler e.a. 1981, 363.

314 Even the members of the imperial family; for instance Gaius and Lucius (Augustus’ grandsons; see Heinen 1985, 41).

117 If we count coins from sanctuaries and graves as ritual, we may say that ritual disposition of coins played an impor- tant part in the rural use of Roman money before AD 69. It does not mean, however, that people in the countryside had a different perspective of Roman money than those in the city. Indeed, the people who conducted business in the city and vici may well have been the same as those who deposited coins at sanctuaries and gave them along with their dead. In fact, the proportions of denomination, which were discussed above, suggest the same: there is no difference between vici and other rural sites. The differences between city and countryside seems to be one inspired by context of use rather than by different perceptions of money by the people who lived there.

The middle Roman period (AD 69-260)

Distribution The number of sites with coins from this period is 331, an increase of 65.5% compared to the period before. The average number of coins per site has also gone up to 6.5. Figure 4.18 shows that the difference between the distribu- tion of coins per site lies in particular in the sites with 1-5 coins; there are also more sites with 10-30 coins. After this, the two periods are virtually the same. This suggests a wider availability of coins in this period, but no increase in

Map 4.5: the coins finds of Luxemburg AD 69-260 intensity of coin use. In other words: more people had access to coins, but otherwise coin use stayed at the same level. Map 4.5. presents the same picture. There are more find spots, but the overall distribution pattern does not change much. The rise in the number of find spots of coins could be just as well a reflection of a population increase in the countryside, but the fact remains that coins accompany people. Wherever we look, coins are always there. This is a striking contrast between Roman and Celtic coinage, because the distribution of the latter was much more restricted to certain groups of people. In other words, the wide distribution of Roman coins implies that many people

118 were tied in to the monetary economy in some way. Still, if the similarity between the (statistical) distribution of coins per site of the early and middle Roman period can be taken to mean that the wider availablility of coins was not attended with an increased intensity of coin use, there are two possible explanations. The first is that the economy was as monetized as it would get from the very first beginning, and after a first period of fundamental change, did not develop any further. The second explanation would be that the level of coin use fluctuated, and periods of high coin use alternated with periods of low activity. These fluctuations are masked by the length of the period chosen for analysis (AD69-260). Indeed, if we take a detailed view of the site categories with more than 6 coins, and divide the middle Roman period more or less over two centuries, the fluctuations become visible (see figure 4.22), particularly in the categories of sites with more than 40 coins. The second explanation, however, has consequences for the concept of monetiza- tion as a phenomenon of linear growth: it suggests periodicity in the level of coin use. Still, the general tendency in figure 4.22 is that of a rising level of coin use. This holds especially for the sites with low numbers of coins, but even in the sites with higher numbers, the overall picture is one of a slight increase over time. The fluctuations in the level of use must be seen as a nuance of the more general development. Of course, a mere inspection of coin numbers does not provide information about how the coins were used. For this, we need to look at more qualitative properties in the next paragraph.

Figure 4.22: coins per site in the Luxemburg area: detail.

Coins and contexts In figure 4.23 the distribution of coins over different settlement categories is shown. The general rise in numbers of coins is apparent when it is compared with figure 4.21. The paramount position of the vici is the same as in the previous period. But the gap between the vici and the other settlement types has lessened. The greatest increase occurs in the groups of villas and sanctuaries. Another group which has relatively twice as many coins as before, is that of the ‘substructions romaines’. It can probably be counted with the two aforesaid groups, so that villas and sanctuaries show an even greater increase. Again, the importance of ritually deposited coins is clear: coins at sanctuaries and in cemeteries form the largest group after the vici. Table 4.16, however, shows that there were differences in the coins used for deposition. In the period before AD 69, the percentage of silver coins in ritual depositions at sanctuaries was at the same level as in the villas and the vici. In the middle Roman period, the percentage of silver coins is definitely lower than in the other two categories.

119 This could mean that the Celtic tradition to dedicate gold and silver coins at sanctuaries disappeared in the course of the 1st century AD. The shift to dedications of lower value may be an expression of ideological change, but it could also be a reflection of differences in the group of dedicants. Celtic elites were in a way dependent on sanctuaries for their display of wealth. In the course of the Roman period, however, they found other channels for this visual reminder of their power, for instance the financing of public works and spectacles. As such, dedications at sanctuar- ies may have attracted lower social classes who were only interested in securing the support of the deity in question. Of course, larger gifts could be looked upon as a way to heighten the chance of success, but most common people could not spare the money for this. In other words, the changing spectrum of denominations in sanctuaries could be

Figure 4.23: coins and settlement categories in the Luxemburg area an effect of the ‘democratization’ of these holy places. The relation between the dedicant and the deity might have been a more direct one than in Celtic times, in which perhaps the elite tried to dominate this relation by acting as intermediaries. Interestingly, we see a converse movement in the coins found in graves. Before AD 69, nearly all coins (78.3%) were asses which were possibly the piece placed into the mouth of the deceased to pay Charon for his fare.315 In the middle Roman period, the spectrum of denominations is more balanced in favour of silver coins and sestertii.

Trier Vici Villas Sanctuaries Graves Substr.rom. Unknown

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

AV 1 0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,4 2 0,8

Den/Q 31 3,7 279 29,5 37 20,9 20 7,6 32 13 32 14 31 11,9

Anton 13 1,5 91 9,7 12 6,8 14 5,3 1 0,4 14 6,1 15 6,3

AES I 196 23,2 215 23 53 29,9 73 27,9 33 13,4 69 30,3 83 32,8

AES II 572 67,7 316 33,6 62 35 150 57,3 149 60,5 93 40,9 99 39,2

AES 2 0,2 4 0,4 1 0,6 0 0 0 0 1 0,4 0 0 III

AES 20 2,4 5 0,5 1 0,6 3 1,1 24 9,8 7 3,1 4 1,6

Unkn. 10 1,2 27 2,9 11 6,2 2 0,8 7 2,8 11 4,4 19 7,5

Total 845 100 935 100 177 100 262 100 246 100 228 100 253 100 Table 4.16: denominations AD 69-260 in Trier and the Luxemburg area.

315 The quantitative approach of this study does not allow detailed analysis of coins found in graves; however, even if coins were placed in the mouth or hands of the deceased, it does not automatically mean that they were Charon-coins, and that the Treveri adopted Graeco- Roman mortuary symbolism. See Gorecki 1975, 236-247.

120 This too, could be the mark of a new tradition in burial rites, in which it was more common to give the dead a (small) purse of coins for use in the hereafter. Indeed, the practice of sending items of everyday use along with the dead was a growing phenomenon in general. Another possible explanation for the increasing value of money accompanying the dead is that this money followed the trend of devaluation seen in the world of the living. Indeed, here the shift of focus from the as to the sestertius in the course of the 2nd century, and still later, the denarius is well known. It is an interesting , but not altogether surprising fact that money should be subjected to the same kind of inflation in death as in real life. After all, it was offered by the living. Whatever the case may be, the discontinuation of this practice at the end of this period is visible in the fact that only one antoninianus was found in the context of a grave. This will be even clearer by the total absence of coins in funerary contexts after AD 260 (see next section). Another category of settlements which show a substantial rise in the numbers of coins of this period, are the villas. Of course, here we are not dealing with ritually deposited coins, but with coins lost and buried. In fact, it seems likely that most coins are from scattered hoards, because it is hard to imagine a villa as a place where many coins circulated and were lost in the process316. In fact, it is evident both from a theoretical point of view and the absolute numbers of coins per site, which are much lower than that of the vici. Partly, the increase of coins on villas are of course due to the fact that mostly this kind of settlement only reached its recognized form after the early Roman period. Thus, there are more coins at villas simply because there are more villas in the middle Roman period. The median of numbers of coins per villa is 2; much lower than that of sanctuar- ies. As said above, this is not indicative of the possession of money by villa-owners, but of the use of coins on the site itself, which is minimal.

Figure 4.24: proportion of denari/quinarii, sestertii (Aes I) and dupondii/asses (Aes II) in different settlement categories

Still, there is enough reason to believe that villa-owners participated fully in the monetary economy. This consider- ation is partly theoretical. Many villa-estates were owned by the urban elite, whether or not actually living in the city. In order to enjoy the benefits of urban life and fulfilling its responsibilities, members of this elite had to have access

316 An exception to this is perhaps the doling out of money by patrons to their clients. The evidence for such practices, however, is meagre for our area. Most of it is derived from mediterranean parallels and the (disputed) interpretation of funerary reliefs of Neumagen (Drinkwater 1981).

121 to hard cash.317 To obtain this, this class of wealthy estate-owners had various options, which were basically the same as in the period before AD69 (see previous section). However, as vici and cities grew, their market potential increased too: the demand for foodstuffs and raw materials must have been higher. The population of the city and perhaps to a lesser degree that of the vici must have paid for these goods in cash, bringing more money to the countryside. A great deal of this money must have been spent again in the city and vici; the rest ended up in hoards and ritual contexts. As villas were farms which were oriented upon these (semi-)urban markets, they profited the most from this increased demand. The high number of coins in table 4.16 of Trier and the vici show that more money was lost at places were it was spent, but the difference between monetary and ritual use of money can be gleaned from the spectrum of denomina- tions. Comparing the spectrum of denominations in the different settlement categories (table 4.16), it seems the most fundamental differences occur in three categories: denarii/quinarii, sestertii (Aes I) and dupondii and asses (Aes II). These categories are set out in figure 4.24. There is one main division: it is defined by the percentage of dupondii/asses, and creates a group with a high percentage Aes II (Trier, sanctuaries and cemeteries) and one with a low percentage (vici, villas, ‘substructions romaines’ and sites of unknown category). At first sight, the interpretation seems obvious. Since the graph divides neatly settlements with a ritual and non-ritual character, it is tempting to say that the denomination spectrum shows a difference between ritual and monetary use of coins. There is one problem, however. Trier is part of the ritual group, which stresses its character as a sanctuary in the middle Roman period, not as a city. Earlier in this chapter, it was suggested that in the early Roman period the relatively low percentage of silver distinguished Trier from the rural sanctuaries of Luxemburg and therefore could be indicative of a urban pattern of coin use. Also, analysis of chrono- logical patterns in the coins set Trier apart from all other settlements in the period before AD 260. But if Trier were representative of the monetary use of coins, as was indicated by the analysis of chronological patterns, we would like to see more silver coins and sestertii, as in the villas and vici. Perhaps there is no real contradiction here. While the chronological patterns suggest that Trier was a city, the denomination spectrum shows the ritual character of the Altbachtal. Also, it is clear that there is no opposition between non-monetary or ritual use of money and the degree of monetization. On the contrary, the coin finds of the Altbachtal are a good illustration of the money that was being selected for ritual use after AD 69 in a monetized, urban society. In this perspective, the division between monetary transactions and ritual use of money may exist only in our modern minds. For a dedicant in the Altbachtal in the 2nd century AD, the difference between buying a bread from the baker or a service from a god may not have been so great.

The non-ritual, monetary use of coins in the graph is represented by the vici and the villas. They are characterized by a relative high number of denarii and sestertii compared to asses and dupondii. There is a difference , however, between the percentage denarii compared to sestertii of vici and villas. When we consider the chronological distribution of silver in vici and villas, it becomes clear that only until the reign of M.Aurelius the percentage of silver in villas is slightly lower; from this period onwards, villas have more silver coins. I cannot imagine what the cause is of this phenomenon. If the above statement that coins on villa terrains are, more than in the vici, the remnants of scattered hoards instead of casual loss, the bias in the recovery of these hoards might explain the difference. Finally, a word about the categories ‘substructions’ and ‘unknown’ in figure 4.24. They are closer to the vici and villas than to the ritual group, and are thus more representative of the monetary use of coins. It seems that the number of sanctuaries or cemeteries concealed in these groups are low. On the other hand, they differ from the vici and villas in the percentage of silver coins, which is definitely lower. It may be that a settlement category is present in these groups which was until then mysteriously absent from both the coin analyses and from other archaeological data; the agricultural villages. By these I mean the hamlets consisting of several farms or the isolated farmsteads. However their absence from the archeological record might be explained, it is a settlement type that must have existed. If indeed we may place them in the category ‘unknown’ or even ‘substructions’ (see p.93), they are character- ized by a monetary use of coins, but one with a bias towards sestertii and dupondii. Compared to the vici and villas, they were definitely ‘poorer’, as we might expect of these villages.

317 By responsibilities I mean the liturgies that the urban elite was supposed to fullfil.

122 The late Roman period (AD 260-402)

Geographical distribution The number of sites in this period increases even further; with a total of 422, the top of coin loss in Luxemburg has been reached. This increase of 78% compared to the period AD 69-260 is the steepest we have seen so far. The average number of coins per site rises to 45.4 (not counting Trier!), which is nearly eight times as high as the previous period. These very high coin numbers, however, will surprise no one; it is a well-documented fact that, with the devaluations and reforms which rapidly followed each other from the second half of the 3rd century onwards, numbers of coin loss soared throughout the Empire.318

Map 4.6: gold and silver coins in Luxemburg AD 260-402

This phenomenon makes it hard to compare this period with the middle Roman period, since the structure of Roman currency, which had existed since Augustus, was abandoned in the late 3rd century. The nature of the new coinage, in particular that of the 4th century, is still not fully understood. For example, it is difficult to relate the purchase value of late Roman coinage to that of the previous period. Prices, like the ones listed in the edict of Diocletian, are in notational denarii; the value of the actual coins was subject to frequent and sharp variations. The enormous inflation that occurred during the 4th century and as a consequence, the constant reforms and retariffing of the bronze nummi, leaves us in the dark regarding the actual value of bronze money.319 There are a few certainties; the

318 For a good description of these devaluations and reforms, see Harl 1996.

319 The tariffing and rate of exchange of the nummus between AD 325 and 445 remains speculative. Harl (1996, 168) offers a hypothetical table of values. Inflation after 348 reached a point where prices and wages were no longer expressed in nummi but sealed bags with great numbers of nummi, which were called folles (hence the incorrect name for the bronze coins of the first half of the 4th century). According to Harl, the emperors of the 4th century revalued the nummus when the rate of exchange to the solidus exceeded 12.000 nummi, or when

123 value of bronze coins were mere fractions of those of the bronze denominations of the Augustan coinage. Silver coinage played a very subdued part in late Roman coinage320; only bronze and gold were used in numbers, and were representative of wholly different economic spheres. The state tried to monopolize the gold coinage, and issued bronze coins to retrieve it through tax payments. It is not very clear to me how successful the Roman state was in this endeavour; more and more taxes were being paid in kind in this period. This of course has consequences for patterns of coin loss; clearly gold will not be lost as frequently as low-value bronze coins, nor will it have circulated as widely as bronze coinage. Also, finds of gold coins will not be reported as frequently in modern times, particularly so in the decades of the metal detector amateur. And if they are reported, the recorded find spot will not always be accurate or even the correct one, since some amateurs will want to protect their ‘hot spots’. Consequently, more bias is to be expected in distribution maps of late Roman coin finds.

Map 4.7: coin finds of the middle and late Roman periods in Luxemburg

In fact, casual finds of gold and silver coins are scarce in the late Roman period, as we can see on map 4.6. Addition- ally, there has been found only one 4th-century gold hoard in entire Luxemburg (Ahn-Machtum, in the Moselle), if we

the number of nummi equivalent to one pound of gold weighed more than 25 Roman pounds; ‘Rates of exchange beyond either level were just physically unmanageable.’ (Harl 1996, 167).

320 However, in the second half of the 4th century, silver coins were used in larger numbers in some frontier provinces (e.g. Britain).

124 do not consider the other finds of gold as such.321 In any case, all of the casual finds are single coins, whereas the Moselle-hoard contains 342 pieces. The further increase in the number of sites with coins, however, means that coin use reached its greatest extension in the late Roman period, regardless of the bulk value of coins in circulation, which might have been less than in the previous periods. There are no striking changes in the general distribution pattern, but only 193 of the 560 sites on map 4.7 have coins of both the middle and the late Roman period. The most likely explanation for this is that on many locations there is continuity of habitation, but settlements moved somewhat within their territories, or were reoccupied. This may have to do with the troubles around AD 260, when many settlements suffered from the socio-political instability within the Empire caused by large-scale migrations of peoples into the Roman Empire. However, if coin loss is any indication, map 4.7 shows that Roman Luxemburg witnessed a remarkable recovery in the 4th century. There are more sites with coins than ever before. The relative worthlessness of 4th-century coins might be responsible for the higher average numbers of coins per site, but the density of the find spots implies that, despite their low value, coins were used extensively. Moreover, people continued using them even though values fluctuated wildly, coins were demonetised on a frequent basis; 4th-century coinage seems to have been a burden rather than a blessing, if we must believe the literary sources of the time.322 Consequently, either this last view of late Roman coinage is false, or people had grown so dependent on it that it was impossible to go without. As we will see later, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Figure 4.25: average number of hoards per year in Luxemburg; N represents the real number of hoards in each issue period.

Coin hoards Almost 78% of all coin hoards in Luxemburg belong to the late Roman period. More than 50% concentrate in a time-span of 34 years (28 of the 54 have a terminus post quem between AD 260 and AD 296; see figure 4.25). This conforms to the usual pattern of the north-western provinces of the Empire. The period 260-296 is the only one which deviates from the apparent ‘normal’ non-recovery rate of 2 or 3 hoards per emission period.323 This concentra- tion of hoards in the late 3rd century can be explained in two basic ways: the first is an increase in the scale of

321 However, there is a real possibility that the casual finds of gold were in fact also intentionally buried, and must be seen as hoards as well. By their association with casual finds of lower-value coins, they were placed in this category, which is perhaps the wrong one.

322 See Harl 1996, 158-180.

323 Figure 4.29 shows the year average instead of the number of hoards per emission period; the general pattern stays the same.

125 hoarding, while the level of non-recovered hoards stayed the same. The second is an increase in the number of non- recovered hoards, while hoarding stayed at the same level. Both explanations have been offered: the second, more traditional one seeks to explain the concentration of hoards by the socio-political circumstances of the second half of the 3rd century. In particular the so-called barbarian invasions of AD 270, which left in their wake a trail of non- recovered hoards of owners who died or fled.324 The first explanation, which sees the concentration of hoards basically as an increase in hoarding, places the cause in the economic sphere. In this view, the rapidly changing monetary system with its constant devaluations and demonetizations drove people increasingly to hoard the older, ‘good’ money.325 This type of explanation is supported by the sestertii-hoards which end with a coin of Postumus; they contain mostly sestertii from the period before Postumus introduced the double sestertius, which did not weigh much more than a single old sestertius.326 This type of explanation is more sophisticated than the older one in the numismatical sense and applies to a longer time-range than the second. Indeed, the instability in the late Roman monetary system seems the most probable explanation for the constantly higher average number of hoards per year in the second half of the 3rd and the 4th century (see fig. 4.25). Still, it offers no sufficient reason for the peak in non-recovered hoards in the late 3rd century.327 There might be some truth in the political view after all. This is further supported by the apparent shift in site location in the late Roman period, which was discussed earlier in this section (p.26). Whatever the exact nature of migration328 and economic malaise at this time, the impact of social-political instability is evident in more than just the coin finds. As said before , the annual average of hoards in the 4th century which is definitely higher than in the early and middle Roman periods, but stays at a more or less constant level, can be explained sufficiently by consecutive devaluations and demonetizations. A striking (but hardly unknown) phenomenon is the occurrence of late 3rd-century antoniniani in hoards up until the late 4th century, which normally means that they were still in circulation at that time. Perhaps, in a period in which money changed face value so often, people were more concerned with weight and purity than the actual denomina- tion. In this sense, these late antoniniani fitted perfectly in with 4th-century bronze coin. However, it seems strange that these bronze coins escaped reminting for so long, while their fourth-century counterparts were reminted on a regular basis. One possibility is that the output of late antoniniani was so vast, that the survival of some of them need not surprise us. Another possible explanation is that they were used as non-official money in times of shortage, and did not exist officially, so they were not subject to imperial legislation banning or recalling certain types of coin. They may even have had an aura of happier times (the revival of which were commemorated in the FEL TEMP REP- issues of the mid-fourth century), and were symbolic of trust and stability, even if the period in which they were originally minted was not. In this respect, they could have belonged to the same sphere as the still older denarii of the middle Roman period, which appear as amulets in Frankish graves of the fourth and early 5th century.

Mints One of the advantages of late Roman coinage is that it bears the mark of the mint where it came from. This offers us better opportunities to follow the path of a coin from the moment it leaves the mint until it arrived at the place where it was found. For instance, it may be supposed that the more heterogeneous a coin find is with regard to the

324 See for instance Blanchet 1900.

325 Wightman 1985, 196.

326 See Van Heesch 1998, 147-155 for an excellent and up-to-date discussion of these hoards. Other examples are the withdrawal of denarii in AD 253 which led to hoarding of denarii in the period thereafter, or the devaluation of the antonininianus of AD 269, which removed the semblance of it being a silver coin for good.

327 Wightman makes a rather mysterious comment about the reasons for these hoards being monetary as well (Wightman 1985, 196).

328 There is, of course, ample evidence of migrations of trans-Rhenish groups deep into the Empire, but the question remains if the violence and destruction which went along with it are the only cause for the upheaval, or rather transformation of Roman society in the north-western provinces. An example of internally generated violence are the so-called Bagaudae, groups of bandits who made Gaul unsafe in the latter part of the third century (see Drinkwater 1987).

126 mints where the coins were struck, the further it will be removed from the mint. Conversely, if all coins of one context are from one mint, there may be a more direct link between the mint and the place of loss. Also, when groups of sites can be discerned which share the same distribution of mints, this may signify that they were supplied by the same route; thus, there might be implications for economic ties between settlements or regions. Needless to say that this may raise more questions than we can answer, because there are many factors which can influence and thus muddle the clear picture we hope for. One of these factors may be the time-frame during which individual mints were active. No mint in the 4th century produced a constant stream of coins; production was intermittent. Thus, variations in the (statistical) distribution of mints between contexts may be more indicative of chronological processes than of coin supply. Another factor which possibly clouds our view is one of scale. Luxemburg may be too small to see any differenti- ation in the distribution of mints. However, this is a problem which can be dealt with when all three regions are compared. Table 4.17 shows that, with the exception of the period AD 348-364, the distribution of supplying mints is roughly the same in Trier and in the sites of Luxemburg. Between AD 275 and 296, the main mint supplying both to Trier and to Luxemburg is Lyon. The low number of coins in this period in Trier prohibits any further analysis. In Luxemburg, the range of supplying mints is wider than that of Trier. This is a pattern that repeats itself in almost every other period. Coins from Britannia are in low supply compared to Trier; here, we see more eastern mints represented.

Mint 275-296 296-317 317-330 330-348 348-364 364-378 378-388 388-402

TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX TR LUX

Rome 9,1 2,4 2 3,4 2,6 1,1 1,6 2,8 1,9 3,8 9,2 7,9 1,3 2,4 4,3 2,9

Trier 0 8,2 72,1 66,3 66 70,1 75,2 70 23,5 72,5 13,2 14,9 52,5 38 39,4 38,2

Lyon 72,7 77,6 7,6 7,4 11,9 6,3 12,8 12,3 1,9 11,3 23,1 21,5 20 30,8 17,3 14,3

Arles 0 0 9,1 5,8 4,6 3,3 6 9,8 2,2 4,5 37,4 37 20 24 17,3 35,2

Amiens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,4 1,5 0 0 0 0 0 0

London 9,1 1,2 5,6 10,6 5,2 7,6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gaul (copies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,5 0 66,8 0 0,1 0 2,5 0 0 0

Aquileia 0 1,2 0 0,4 0,5 0,7 0,8 1,5 0 1,5 12,4 9,7 1,3 1,9 14,4 7,7

Ticinum 0 4,7 1 2,1 4,1 4,8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Siscia 0 0 0 0,4 3,1 2,8 1,3 1,2 1,5 1,9 4,5 8,3 2,5 1 0 0

Thessalonica 0 0 0,5 2 0,5 1,5 0,2 0,6 0 0 0,1 0,1 0 0 0 0,4

Constantino- 0 0 0 0 0 0,2 0,8 0,6 0 1,1 0 0,2 0 1 0 0,4 ple

Cyzicus 0 1,2 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antiochia 0 2,4 0 0,4 0 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,4 0 0 0 0,5 0 0,4

Alexandria 0 1,2 0 0,2 0 0 0 0,2 0 0,4 0 0,1 0 0 0 0,4

Heraclea 0 0 0 0,9 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,4 0 0 0,1 0 0 0 0,4

Camulodu- 9,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 num

No.of coins 11 85 197 567 194 538 1117 2170 268 265 1007 1414 80 208 208 272 Table 4.17: percentages of mints in Luxemburg and Trier AD 275-402

Between AD 296 and 348, Trier is the most important source of supply in Luxemburg and Trier itself, as might be expected from Trier’s activity as imperial mint. For the rest, London remains a substantial subsidiary mint until its closure after AD 326.329 Other important mints for both Trier and Luxemburg are Lyon and Arles throughout the 4th

329 Kent 1981.

127 century. Rome is a constant factor on both sides, but never a substantial one. Other mints which are constantly represented in the coins of Trier and Luxemburg are Aquileia and Siscia. They both seem to profit from the lessened activity the mint of Trier in the period AD 364-378. Between AD 348 and 364 a major difference occurs in the main supplying mints between Trier and Luxemburg. The largest percentage in Luxemburg is still provided by Trier, followed by Lyon. In Trier itself, however, Trier accounts for only 23.5% of the coins. Lyon is of no importance, and the only substantial source is Gaul. Interpreting this difference in terms of money supply, however, presents a problem. All the coins from Gaul are copies. This is still no reason for concern, were it not that the coins of Trier and Luxemburg were treated by different specialists: Weiller in the case of Luxemburg, Alföldi in the case of Trier. Because identifying copies is a highly subjective matter, this renders the collections of Trier and Luxemburg uncomparable as far as copies are concerned. Maybe I am too pessimistic about this, and in that case the observed difference is real. But I cannot think of any historical reason why this period should be different for Trier, particularly in view of the fact that the general distribution patterns are the same in almost every other period. In the last forty years of the 4th century, the dominance of the mint of Trier in both distributions is greatly diminished in favour of Lyon and Arles. Also, the variety of supplying mints is lower than that in the first half of the 4th century. In conclusion we can say that it seems that there is a strong case for a regional distribution pattern. The differ- ences in mints supplying to Trier and Luxemburg are in details, not in the general pattern. The confirmation of this regional pattern will be looked at in the final synthesis of the three areas of study. It is difficult to judge the significance of the differences in detail between the two distributions. Perhaps they are strong enough to sustain the view that not all money on the sites in Luxemburg did travel by way of Trier, and that there were some direct interregional economic links responsible for the differences in the distribution of mints. It might well be that our view of the economic function of the city is too centralistic: in this I agree with Whittaker, who points out the possibility of other economic ties, for instance between villas and vici, which bypassed the city altogether.330 However, this proposition is not without its problems, because there are many other factors (chronolog- ical ones, for instance), which could have caused this marginal variation in the distribution of mints. On the whole, the homogeneity in the distribution of mints suggests a economic cohesion in the 4th century that was more of a regional nature. The number of 4th -century coins which could be attributed to a mint is too low in many settlements to see if this homogeneity in Luxemburg is real, or that the distribution between sites shows too much variation to speak of a regional pattern.

Coins and contexts In the discussion of the geographical distribution of late Roman coins, the problem of site-continuity was one of the issues. Even if there is continuity of habitation at the same location, it does not mean automatically that the character of the site has not changed in the course of time. However, I will ignore this problem for the time being, and assume that wherever coin loss continues without pause from the middle into the late-Roman period, the character of the site did not change dramatically. Figure 4.26 shows the number of coins per site category. Apart from the scale of the y-axis there are not many differences with the middle-Roman period (see fig.4.23). Vici still lead the way in raw number of lost coins. The custom of burying coins with the dead has decreased to a fraction of the periods before. Coin loss on villas seems to have reached almost the same level as that of the sanctuaries; it lagged somewhat behind in the middle Roman period. If we should not look further than this, it would seem that the often discussed regression of urban centres in the 4th century is not visible in coin loss patterns. Indeed, it seems in contradiction with the conclusion we reached before about the shift from vici to sanctuaries as rural sites with centralistic functions ( see p. 108-109).

330 In fact Whittaker (1990) marginalizes the importance of the urban market in the Roman economy, which may be taking the argument too far. The high number of coins in the city, which is still many times that of any single settlement in the countryside, places it in the heart of the monetary economy.

128 However, in figure 4.26, the late Roman period is viewed as a whole, while we looked at smaller time-units before (issue periods). Let us consider this finer chronology again, and see if it is possible to reconcile both views. Figure 4.27 shows a high uniformity in the chronological distribution of coins with respect to settlement types. However, if we break down this figure per type, it becomes clear that figure 4.27 does not properly reveal everything. In the next three figures, vici, villas and sanctuaries are treated separately and only sites with 50 coins or more were selected. This time, another pattern emerges. The conclusion that vici show a decline in the course of the 4th century, which was reached earlier in a different way, seems to hold strongly. Just like before, the vicus of Dalheim (site 581) is an exception. The revival in the periods AD 330-348 and AD 364-378 does nothing to correct the general down-hill tendency. The level of coin loss at the end of the 3rd century is never reached again. As far as villas are concerned, there are some which follow the same declining curve as the vici, and others which do not. The latter group shows an increase in coin loss in the second half of the 4th century and reaches its culmina- tion in the period AD 364-378.

Figure 4.26: coins and settlement categories in the Luxemburg area

Finally, the sanctuaries. Unfortunately, there are only three of them with more than 50 coins, but all three show a pattern that is markedly different from that of the vici. They all start low at the end of the 3rd century, and show an increasing line of coin loss in the course of the 4th century. Unlike the other two, the temple of Steinsel-Rellent (site 881) does not participate in the peak in the late 4th century. The fact that figure 4.27 does not reveal everything does not render it useless. It shows that all settlements in Luxemburg peak in the same issue periods: at the end of the 3rd century, in het mid-fourth century and under the Valentinian dynasty. Whether this is a regional pattern or not, we will see in the synthesis of all three areas of study. It goes perhaps too far to conclude that the monetary economy of the urban centres was dealt a severe blow in the course of the 4th century. But the general tendencies in the graphs of vici, villas and sanctuaries show a movement away from the urban centres to the rural settlements, and perhaps the beginnings of a demonetization which would only really materialize in the course of the 5th century, after the actual break-down of the Roman Empire.

129 Figure 4.27: chronological distribution of the late Roman coins of different site categories (upper left). The categories are split up by site in the next three line charts

130 Chapter 5 The coin finds of the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt-area

5.1 Introduction

The third area of this research project is geographically defined by three rivers: the Meuse in the north and the east, the Demer and Scheldt in the south.332 The western boundary is formed by the North Sea. Because the exact course of the Meuse in Roman times is not known, a zone of several kilometres on the present-day east bank was included in the inventory of coin finds. The coin data are mainly from unpublicized sources: for The Netherlands, the primary source was the database of the Dutch Penningkabinet at Leiden; this was completed with data from various archaeologists.333 For Belgium, the coin data are from the Penningkabinet at Brussels. The database was closed in 1996.

5.2 The geography

5.2.1 Physical landscapes

As far as the physical aspects of the landscape are concerned, the MDS-area is not a self-contained unit. According to the classification of landscapes by Berendsen (1997), the main part consists of the southern sandy region. This is a relatively flat area, mainly covered by Pleistocene sands. It comprises the central part of the MDS-area, roughly coinciding with the province of North-Brabant in The Netherlands and Antwerpen in Belgium. The middle-high sands were the most attractive for agriculture; the higher soils were too dry, the lower ones too wet. Because even the middle- high soils were relatively poor in mineral content, they were fertilized with manure since the Iron Age, but only since the Middle Ages on a large scale, in which period the so-called essen-system was developed. In this system, cattle (mainly sheep) grazed on the heaths (high soils), and the manure of these sheep was collected and spread over the middle-high agricultural soils. By this process, the level of these soils grew every year, so that nowadays a thick layer of soil (called esdek; frequently more than one metre thick) covers the Roman level. As a consequence, the archaeological visibility is highly affected by this land use. The esdekken were ploughed most frequently, but in many cases the top-layer was too thick to be penetrated by the plough, and no archaeological finds saw the light in this manner. On the other hand, the esdekken were most effective in protecting the archaeological sites beneath it. This protection did not exist on the lower and higher grounds. Ploughing these soils is destructive for archaeological sites, but it does produce a lot of surface finds. However, these heaths and wet soils were less adequate for agricultural purposes and remained relatively intact for a long time. Only in the course of the 20th century is the protection of sites by the esdekken threatened by the extraction of the pleistocene sand which lies beneath it. These sands are very suitable for building purposes, and the selling of this sand can be very profitable for farmers. The esdek is removed, the underlying pleistocene sand is gathered and the soil of the esdek is replaced again. Through this process, archaeological sites face utter destruction (and have been destructed at a distressing rate in the past decades). A sad side effect is that archaeological finds turn up at every ‘de-soiling’, so that in many cases the blind spots of the esdekken are filled in. In the meantime every archaeological context is destroyed, which devalues the significance of these finds enormously.

The west of this area and the region called The Peel in the eastern part were covered with peat. These peats have been reclaimed for the largest part in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the reclamations have had consequences

332 In the rest of this chapter the abbreviation MDS-area will be used.

333 J.Prins, a fellow researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, who is currently writing a thesis on the coins of the Kempen region (a smaller area within the MDS-area) supplied the data for this region. Prof.dr. N.Roymans kindly made available the coin finds of his excavations of the temple of Empel

132 for the archaeological visibility in these parts, but, since they were poor soils, they have never been densely populated. Finally, we have the löss-landscapes of Dutch and Belgian Limburg, which lie on the eastern and south-eastern borders of our area. They are characterized by a relatively high relief, and are dominated by the river Meuse, which shaped the area into a terassic landscape, mainly covered by löss. This silty loam has excellent agricultural qualities, and has been used as farmland since the Neolithic. Habitation concentrated in the river valleys in pre-Roman times; since the Roman age also the wooded plateaus were populated. Many sites on the banks of the Meuse have been eroded, sometimes by the river itself, sometimes through human activities, such as the extraction of gravel. In the south of this region limestone and coal was extracted on a large scale in the first half of the 20th century.

5.2.2 Cultural landscapes

On a wider geographical scale, this area belongs to two cultural landscapes, which have been defined by Roymans (1995). He discerns two basic landscapes in northern Gaul, in which cultural and physical aspects of the landscape are intimately connected. In the first place there are zones with relatively poor agricultural soils, which are predominantly used for herding cattle and are related to an essential pastoral and martial ideology of the people who live there. The second landscape consists of the more fertile soils of north-western Europe and are dominated by agriculture. In Roman times, this was where the Roman villa thrived. The population within these areas were characterized by an agrarian ideology. It is in those areas that urbanization was successful during the Roman era, while on the poorer soils urbanization never really developed. The largest part of the MDS-area falls into the first category; only the southern part of Dutch Limburg and Belgian Limburg is part of the above-mentioned villa-landscapes.

5.2.3 Choice of the region

The MDS-area was chosen for its character as rural hinterland, in which neither the military element is prominent (compared to the Dutch River area), nor did the urbanization reach the level of the area of Luxemburg and Trier. Since the perspective of this study is mainly social-economic, the contrasting character of the three study areas was thought to have impact on their economies, and hence on coin use and monetization. The new, more culturally oriented approach of Roymans can add a further dimension to this study, but it must be clear that the area was initially chosen before the publication in which he introduced this perspective for the first time.

5.3 The coin database

The database of the MDS-area contains 24344 coins, and has 7300 records; 64% of the coins are part of coin hoards (45 hoards), the remaining 36% are single finds. Table 5.1 shows the source of the coin data in the database. The Dutch part of the MDS-area seems to be more prolific than the Belgic one. This is mostly so in the publicized hoards: two thirds of the coins in hoards are from the Netherlands. However, the difference is not so much between numbers of hoards, which are even slightly higher in Belgium (see table 5.2), but lies in three Dutch hoards with very large numbers of coins; Vught (4775 coins), Hapert (2573 coins) and Baarlo (3032 coins).334 Not counting these outliers, Belgium has a higher average number of coins per hoard. The Dutch part of the MDS-area also exceeds the Belgian part in the number of single coin finds, although the difference is less dramatic than with the coin hoards.

334 We only know of this hoard that in 1830, at the church in Baarlo pots with 32 aurei and 3000 silver coins of Augustus were found. We must regard this find with some caution, however.

133 The Netherlands Belgium Data Source Total Single finds Hoards Single finds Hoards

KPK Leiden 3463 4472 - - 7935

Museum Brussels - - 3513 649 4162

Publications 309 7448 22 2962 10741

Data J. Prins335 440 6 - - 446

Data N.Roymans 1060 0 - - 1060

Total 5272 11926 3535 3611 24344 Table 5.1: sources of coin data

As can be seen in table 5.2, in both countries the number of coin finds shows a steep rise from 1950 onwards. This probably has two main causes: in the first place, more coins were found during excavations. Since both the number of excavations and the scale of the excavated surfaces have grown substantially since the late sixties, the number of coin finds increased as well. The second reason for the vast increase in the latter half of the 20th century is the popularity of the metal detector, which made coin-collecting a wide-spread hobby from the seventies onwards.336 Less than a third of the coins have been completely identified (table 5.3); mostly, some features of the coin are missing (incomplete identification; 64.7% of the total). Compared to the data of Luxemburg, and even that of the Dutch river area, the percentage of complete identifications is rather low, although there are differences within the MDS area as well.337 Perhaps this is an effect of the relative high percentage of older identifications in this area, which have not been re-evaluated. The percentage of incomplete copies is unusually high in the coin identifications of the museum in Brussels. It does not seem to be an effect of the different identification of one type of coin or of the coins of one period: the copies of both the Penningkabinet Leiden and the Museum of Brussels show peaks in the same issue periods, only the number of copies is much higher in the Brussels’ case. This could nevertheless be caused by differences in identification, since of course both archives have their own particularities in this respect. However, the possibility of a historical explanation for this should not be excluded. he coin data of Tongeren are probably not complete. This is due to the existence of two archives in which coin finds of Tongeren have been recorded: the museum in Brussels and the Gallo-Roman museum of Tongeren. There is considerable overlap between the two archives, and because of lack of time the coin survey was limited to the archive of the museum in Brussels. However, the large collection of the coin finds of Tongeren in the museum in Brussels is deemed sufficient for the purposes of this study. If the need should arise, the (less detailed) data of the museum of Tongeren, which I have collected for my thesis will be used as a control group.338 A further advantage of using the Tongeren collection of Brussels, is the fact that a large part of these coin finds are from recent excavations by the IAP339; the main part of the coins in het museum of Tongeren are from older collections; information about the provenance of these coins is less detailed and less reliable.340

335 A few sites have now been published by Prins (Prins 1991; 1993; 1994).

336 Of course the systematic use of detectors at excavations has also played an important role in the increase of coins from excavations.

337 J.Prins has a markedly higher percentage of complete identifications and is in this respect closer to the percentages of Weiller (Luxemburg) and Alföldi (Trier).

338 Aarts 1989, 31.

339 The largest body of coins is from the excavations of the Kielenstraat-site (534 coins; 28.4% of the total).

340 The most important collection of the Museum in Tongeren is that of Baron De Schaetzen. The provenance of these coins is mostly recorded as ‘from the city of Tongeren’; no further information of contexts is available. Since Baron De Schaetzen frequently bought coins from locals, even the coins labelled ‘Tongeren’ may have come from localities in the surrounding countryside. Although we may assume that

134 The Netherlands Belgium Period coins % hoards coins % hoards

<1800 42 0,8 3 10 0,3 4

1800-1850 244 4,6 5 10 0,3 4

1850-1900 153 2,9 2 74 2,1 5

1900-1950 332 6,3 6 50 1,4 8

1950-1995 4501 85,4 7 3391 95,9 3

Total 5272 100 23 3535 100 24 Table 5.2: coin finds in The Netherlands and Belgium over the years; coins in hoards are not counted under ‘coins’.

Identification KPK Leiden Mus.Brussels Publications J.Prins Total

Exact 26,9 29 17,8 39,3 26,7

As-same mint 0 0,8 0,3 0,2 0,4

Copy 0,3 0,7 4,8 0,9 0,7

Incomplete regular 66,4 53 76,8 52,3 56,5

Incomplete copy 3,8 14,9 0,3 3,4 8,2

Uncertain 2,5 1,8 0 0 1,8

Unknown 0 0 0 0 5,7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 Table 5.3: characteristics of coin identification of main data sources expressed as percentages.

5.4 The site database

A total of 687 sites has been recorded for the MDS-area, not counting the hoards. Table 5.4 shows the distribution of coins and sites in Belgium and The Netherlands. Tongeren and Maastricht are listed separately, because they would distort the general picture. Just as in the other two areas, a settlement can contain more than one site, or rather find spot: thus, the coins of Tongeren come from 22 find spots, and Maastricht has even 45, most of them coming from the area within the 4th-century walls. The sites are the smallest geographical units at which coins were recorded. Detailed as it may look, these smallest units can in fact be rather vague denotations. In Belgium, for instance, coin finds were for a long time recorded per community, and might have originally come from different locations within that community. However, in the site database, they are treated the same way as the coin finds coming from one excavated area, which is also a site. In table 5.4 the column ‘Exact location’ indicates the number of sites which are find complexes coming from one area and have an exact location on map 5.1. A considerable difference exists between the Belgic and the Dutch part of the MDS-area: the number of sites and coins is much higher in The Netherlands. On the other hand, the average number of coins per site is much higher in Belgium, even when the coin finds of Tongeren are not counted. To see where this difference comes from it is first necessary to inspect the distribution of coins per site in Belgium and The Netherlands. Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of sites according to their number of coins. In both Belgium and The Netherlands the highest percentage of sites lies, not surprisingly, in the range 1-5 coins, and for both they are the same; this class was omitted from figure 5.1, because it

most coins are from the city of Tongeren itself, the provenance is not as reliable as that recorded in the archive in Brussels.

135 would suppress the other classes.

Figure 5.1: distribution of sites according to coin num bers in Belgium and The Netherlands

Map 5.1: sites of the MDS-area

It is clear that the higher average number of coins per site in Belgium is due to a negative factor, namely the relative high number of Dutch sites with 20 coins and less. This is no historical phenomenon, but is caused by a difference in research

136 infrastructure of both countries. In The Netherlands a much larger network of detector amateurs has existed until now, who reported their finds to the Dutch Penningkabinet in Leiden.

coins sites Exact location coins/sites

Belgium 1654 111 82 14,9

The Netherlands 4348 483 282 9,9

Tongeren 1857 22 22 84,4

Maastricht 920 45 45 20,4

Total 8779 661 432 13,3 Table 5.4: number of coins and sites in the MDS-area

Although the number of amateurs in Belgium is perhaps as high as in The Netherlands, their readiness to report their finds has been much lower. Also, the staff of the Museum of Brussels may have been less active in this respect until recently341. This also explains the higher number of sites and of coin finds in The Netherlands. Table 5.4 also illustrates the high density of coin finds in the towns of Tongeren and Maastricht, and the reason why they will be treated separately in the coin analyses. On map 5.1 only the sites with an exact location were plotted to begin with; however, where empty places occurred as a consequence of the absence of information on the exact find spot , some sites whose about location is known were added. Coin finds with an uncertain provenance were omitted. As we can see, the coin finds are concentrated along the main rivers of the area, and follow the general settlement pattern. The different intensity of research in the Belgian and the Dutch part shows as well in the filling-up of the relative less densely populated areas between the rivers.

5.5 Sites: the archaeological contexts

5.5.1 Distribution

Table 5.5 shows the distribution of site types in the MDS-area. Only 25% of the 665 find complexes could be assigned to a site type; the other 75% we have not enough information about. Hoards are excluded from this list. ‘No.of sites’ in the table represents the number of individual sites, which can contain more than one find spot each. Looking at coin numbers per site type, we see that the distribution is rather similar to that of Luxemburg. The 4 sites with the highest number of coins are in both cases city, vici, villas and sanctuaries, in that order342. There are also differences; in the MDS- area we encounter a site type which does not exist in Luxemburg, namely that of the rural village. Conversely, the so- called ‘Roman substructures’ are absent in the MDS-area. It would be too simplistic to say that this is only a question of names, and that we are talking about the same settlement types. Although there were indications that the substructures in Luxemburg may for a part consist of just those rural villages which seem to lack in Luxemburg, there may be some villas and sanctuaries in that group as well.343 We simply do not know, because we have only the surface finds to go on. Disregarding both site types, the cemeteries come fifth in numbers of coins in both areas.

341 With the recent appointment of Johan van Heesch, there is every reason to think that find reports will increase.

342 I am not counting the category of unknown sites, which is of course the highest in raw coin numbers in both areas.

343 See Chapter 4, 129.

137 Site type find spots coins coin % sites

City 22 1881 21,2 1

Vic us 51 1359 15,4 7

Villa 17 753 8,5 17

Rural village 18 211 2,4 18

Sanctuary 4 1260 14,2 4

Ritual place (wet) 3 15 0,2 3

Single grave 24 119 1,3 24

Cemetery 27 414 4,7 27

Other 1 9 0,1 1

Unknown 497 2832 32 497

Total 665 8853 100 599

Table 5.5: site types and numbers of coins per site type; ‘sites’ refers to the real number of settlements

To see if there are large differences in coin numbers between the sites of each site type, figure 5.2 shows the numbers of coin in relation to the sites of individual site types. It is evident that the vici and sanctuaries have the largest variation, whereas cemeteries, villas and rural villages concentrate in the left half of the graph, that is, sites with 100 coins or less. The city is of course to the utmost right of the graph.

Figure 5.2: numbers of find spots per site type (y-axis) according to the number of coins (x-axis)

In the group of the vici, Maastricht stands alone, with its 920 coins. The sites with less than hundred coins are really

138 smaller find spots within the area of a larger vicus, like Cuijk. If we do not count Maastricht, the rest of the vici show a considerable fall in coin numbers, below that of the villas, which may have historical significance. I will deal with this later in this chapter. In the group of the sanctuaries, almost every site falls into a different class of coin numbers; at the top of the list is the sanctuary of Empel, with 1060 coins. Most of the villas have 20 coins or less; this may be caused by the fact that most of them were not excavated, or at least not fully, and a lot of the coins are surface finds. The two villas which have been fully excavated jump right into the higher classes; the villa at Hoogeloon with 68 coins, and the villa of Neerharen-Rekem with 614 coins. The same is true for the rural villages, but some of them seem to surpass the villas in coin numbers, which may at first sight surprise us. The highest number of coins(80) is reached in Riethoven-Heesmortel, where a large area was excavated (4 ha). Burial sites are concentrated in the classes of 30 coins and less; most of them fall into the class of 1-5 coins. In the group of single graves this reflects historical fact, but in the group of cemeteries the sites in this class are mostly poorly known. Again, the cemeteries which have been thoroughly investigated are the more prolific ones in numbers of coins: Plokrooi-Donderslag (212 coins), Bladel-Kriekeschoor (74 coins) and Echt (73 coins). A very small group of three sites is that of the ritual (wet) sites: all of them have only 10 coins or less. Nevertheless, they were considered to be a separate group, which is characterized by the combination of a few valuable objects in a wet environment. In two cases this was a well, in the third the bank of a river. Although their ritual meaning cannot be proven, the character of the finds and their context points in this direction.344 Concluding, it is evident from figure 5.2 that the level of research is an important factor in the distribution of coin numbers over site types. If any conclusions can be drawn from differences in coin numbers, it is better to consider the better known sites and regard them as representative of the whole group, than looking at the groups themselves. Of course, this does not automatically mean that the same holds for the chronological distribution and distribution of denominations. Before comparing the different site types, I will briefly discuss the sites in table 5.5 and figure 5.2. All sites with a known context are listed in table 5.6; their location is plotted on map 5.2.

5.5.2 Contexts

The city345 Tongeren is the only site in the MDS-area which can claim to have been a Roman city. Tongeren was the caput civitatis of the Tungri, the most northern specimen of Belgic Gaul, or as some think, Lower Germany.346 It lies at the crossing of two important roads; the road Bavai-Cologne and the road to the north along the banks of the Meuse, which connected the city with the towns of Traiectum ad Mosam (Maastricht) and Coriovallum (Heerlen) and ended in Nijmegen. The ancient name of Tongeren is Atuatuca Tungrorum (stronghold of the Tungri). It is unclear how far it may be identified with the Roman camp at Atuatuca mentioned by Caesar.347 Lately, new evidence has come up which may

344 For a discussion of the ritual character of certain find groups, see Slofstra & Van der Sanden 1989 and Prins 1994.

345 I use the term city to distinguish it from the group of towns or vici. Although the differences in physical appearance between Tongeren and, for instance, Maastricht may be small, the administrative function of Tongeren places it into another league of settlements, that of the civitas capitals.

346 The discussion of the positioning of Tongeren in one of both provinces has gained momentum since the discovery of an inscription in which the status of Tongeren as municipium is confirmed. Because there should be no municipia in the province of Gallia Belgica, Tongeren must belong by default to Germania Inferior. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it is not very relevant to our subject. If it belongs to the province of Lower Germany, however, the most northern civitas capital is Nijmegen.

347 Caesar De Bello Gallico II,35,1; III,7.

139 confirm the existence of an early Roman camp, but the dates are Augustan, not earlier.348 Tongeren is mentioned by Ammianus349 as one of the richest cities of Gaul in the 4th century. It took some time, however, to earn this predicate. The excavations at the Kielentraat showed the humble beginnings of the Augustan settlement, which consisted of clusters of farm buildings. Nevertheless, even these farms were laid out according to the checkerboard-system, which is characteristic for all new Roman urban settlements. If indeed an early Roman camp existed, it is likely that the first settlement looked much like any other garrison town. Excavations show several complexes of town houses, all built in wood.350 But the checkerboard system shows that Tongeren was set up from the beginning to become the capital of the civitas of the Tungri, presumably because of its favourable position at the crossing of two main roads. A wide-spread burnt layer is associated with the Batavian revolt in AD 69, during which much of the town was destroyed by fire. Although stone was by no means the universal building material in the Flavian period, there is evidence that more and more buildings were erected in stone. Since many remains are still hidden by later buildings we have not much knowledge of the nature of public building in Tongeren. One exception is the monumental sanctuary in the north- western part of the city. In the same period, the water supply of the city was enhanced by the construction of an aquaduct to the west. Also, the first horrea that we know of date from the first half of the 2nd century, and show the importance of Tongeren as market centre. It is no coincidence that in the same time villa estates appear in the surroundings of Tongeren, which were specialized agricultural undertakings producing for the urban market. Other Roman substructions and finds have been interpreted as remains from a forum and a bath complex.351 The building of stone walls around the city (4544 m) in the first half of the 2nd century, however, probably did much for the urban appearance of Tongeren.

Figure 5.3: chronological distribution of the coin finds of Tongeren ( all sites)

348 See Vanderhoeven e.a. 1992, 126.

349 Ammianus Marcellinus XV,11,7.

350 See Vanvinckenroye 1985, 57.

351 Vanvinckenroye 1985, 25.

140 The disturbances of the 3rd century left few traces in Tongeren; except for some charcoal layers which probably reflect normal fire hazards, the most remarkable occurrence is the falling into disuse of the large horrea of the city. The decrease of market activity which can be assumed from this fact is seen in more cities ands towns in Gaul in the latter half of the 3rd century. It is symptomatic of a general shift in the rural economy away from the urban centres. Judging from the much shorter walls of this period (2680 m) the city area was reduced to a much smaller size. Like many towns, Tongeren underwent a transformation from a market centre to a more consumptive place where rich citizens had rather sumptuous houses. These large and richly decorated houses seemed to dominate the view of Tongeren in the 4th century, and were probably responsible for the earlier-mentioned remark of Ammianus. The second half of the 4th century is, according to Vanvinckenroye, a period of reduced prosperity, if one may take the grave goods as indicator of economic circumstance and not as an exponent of changes in funerary rituals.352 Numismatically speaking, the chronological distribution of coins of Tongeren does not particularly support the former view. Still, there is evidence of a steady decrease in the population in the course of the second half of the 4th century. We are able to follow the history of Tongeren into the first decades of the 5th century, but after that, the dearth of archeological and historical data leaves us with a rather shady end to late Roman occupation of this city. The coin finds of Tongeren are divided over 23 find complexes. The largest is Tongeren-Kielenstraat (534 coins); the coins were found during the excavations of the IAP of the years 1989-1991, and are from several occupational periods. Another large complex is that of ‘Voeding Vos’, which is located outside the walls of the city; the nature of the site is not clear. Many coin finds are from the cemeteries of Tongeren, the most important one lying to the south-west of Tongeren along the Koninksemse Steenweg. Of these coins 67 are certainly from the cemetery, but the find spot of the largest part (more than 300 coins), although found close to the excavated area, is regrettably not exactly located. Their provenance from the cemetery is likely but not certain.

Vici Four vici are known in the MDS-area (see table 5.6); Maastricht, Grobbendonk, Halder and Cuijk. One other well-known vicus is situated in the present town of Heerlen (Coriovallum), which is not included in this study, although it lies very close to Maastricht. The most important vicus is that of Maastricht, which seems to be in another league than the other vici. It is the only vicus which can be called -subjective as it is- a town; the others are more rural centres. Both the physical appearance of Maastricht and the number of coin finds (920 coins) confirm this view. Again, it is probably the situation of Maastricht at a crossing of the Meuse (hence its name Traiectum ad Mosam353) and of several roads354 which was responsible for the propitious growth of the vicus. Like Tongeren, Maastricht was founded in the Augustan age. Earlier occupation in the late iron Age has been attested on the north bank of the river Jeker, and south of the east half of Maastricht called Wyck. A Celtic oppidum was thought to have existed on the St.Pietersberg (Caestert), a hill south of the city, but it has been re-interpreted as a Augustan military camp. Of the occupational history of Maastricht in the 1st century AD we know very little, undoubtedly because of the difficult access to the deep-lying layers of this period. Remains of a wooden bridge have been uncovered, which was one of the most important reasons for the existence of Maastricht in the first place. Apart from this, the peepholes into 1st- century Maastricht are too small to offer anything concrete. More is known about the second and third centuries, although the picture is by no means complete. Several public

352 Vanvinckenroye 1985, 57.

353 This is the late medieval name of Maastricht, but has been commonly used as Roman name by archaeologists and ancient historians. Strictly speaking, Maastricht has no Roman name, except for a vague reference of Tacitus to its bridge: ‘pons Mosae fluminis’ (Hist. IV,66)

354 See Panhuysen 1996, 21-30.

141 buildings have been excavated, the best-known of which are a bath complex and a large sanctuary (hotel Derlon)355; the other buildings tell a less explicit tale, but it is possible that remains of a mansio were found close to the baths. Other buildings are a two-aisled building which has been reconstructed as a basilica and some wooden buildings along the Heerbaan and west of the Havenstraat.

Figure 5.4: the coin finds of Maastricht

Around AD 270 the settlement seems to have been destroyed completely. At several locations, however, there are traces of rebuilding shortly afterwards. The main feature of 4th-century Maastricht is a fortification (castellum) built in Constantinian times on the west-bank of the Meuse in the area of the Onze Lieve Vrouwe church. This stronghold enclosed an area of 1.5 ha and seems to have offered protection for the bridge as well as for a large horreum inside it. This implies that the granary was owned by the Roman authorities, possibly for the supply to troops along the Meuse and Rhine. Other 4th-century remains have been discovered, but they are too fragmentary to say anything more. Although our knowledge of the Roman town of Maastricht is scanty, some of its vical grandeur is reflected in its spolia. A large quantity of building blocks and parts of demolished funerary monuments356 have survived by their inclusion in later buildings. An interesting phenomenon in the funerary sculpture of Maastricht is the replacement of martial motives in the 1st century by scenes from daily life of the second and third centuries. This could mean that the social group which engaged in monumental grave sculpture changed from army veterans to wealthy villa owners, as Panhuysen seems to think. On the other hand, it could also reflect a change in value systems of elite groups which assimilated more and more urban traits in a society in which martiality disappeared as a basis of power. The coin finds of Maastricht are largely from the area which has been investigated the most thoroughly: the Stokstraat- Kwartier. The most prominent feature of this area is the 4th-century castellum; this can be the cause of over-representation of 4th-century coins (see figure 5.4). Another vicus, of less stature than Maastricht but also located at a bridge over the Meuse, is Cuijk. It started off as a fort in the Claudian period which protected the crossing of the road from Tongeren to Nijmegen across the Meuse.

355 Of this sanctuary the only things we know is that it was enclosed by a wall and featured one of the larger Jupiter-pillars of the north-western Empire.

356 The cemeteries of which these monuments were once part of, are just as obscure as the rest of Roman Maastricht.

142 Figure 5.5: the coin finds of Cuijk

Map 5.2: sites with a known context

143 Site Name Type coins Site Name Type coins

- Tongeren city 1881 1418 Bornem-Scheldedijk Sanctuary? 2

- Maastricht vicus 920 1986 Sevenum I Ritual site 9

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenbergen vicus 215 2078 Zandhoven I Ritual site 4

- Cuijk vicus 181 2070 Battel-Zennegat Ritual site 2

1358 Neerharen-Rekem villa 614 1865 Baexem-Op den Bosch Grave 4

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers villa 68 1953 Maasniel-De Straat Grave 4

1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker villa 14 1747 Hoogeloon-Kabouterberg Grave 2

1921 Heer-Backerbosch villa 12 1993 Stein-Houtereind Grave 2

1610 Grevenbicht-De Kempen villa 9 1674 Cuik-Maasstraat Grave 1

1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat villa 8 1933 Ittervoort-Neeritter Grave 1

1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg villa 7 1754 Knegsel-Steensel Grave 1

1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herk villa 6 1773 Mill-Hollandder Broek Grave 1

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat villa 5 1823 Valkenswaard Grave 1

1930 Hout-Goudakker villa? 3 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Cemetery 212

1628 Obbicht villa 3 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Cemetery 74

1408 Vechmaal-Zouwveld villa 3 - Echt (various sites) Cemetery 73

1339 Herderen-Watertoren villa 2 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Cemetery 22

1389 Vechmaal-Walenveld villa 2 1643 Alphen-Grafheuvels Cemetery 20

1870 Beesel I villa 1 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel Cemetery 14

1390 Broekom-Sassenbroekberg villa 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan het Moorbos Cemetery 14

1625 Neer-Backerbosch villa 1 1670 Casteren-Casterse Molen Cemetery 9

1977 Obbicht-Steenakker villa 1 1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Cemetery 6

1715 Halder Rural village 13 1425 Geel-Lissel Cemetery? 6

1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Rural village 80 1968 Montfort Cemetery 6

1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Rural village 33 1918 Heel II Cemetery 5

1363 Kolis Rural village? 26 1943 Linne I Cemetery 5

1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstr Rural village 14 1892 Echt-Koningsbosch Cemetery? 4

2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats Rural village? 11 1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen Cemetery 4

2029 Rumst-Molenveld Rural village 9 1427 Grobbendonk-Hoogveld Cemetery 4

1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen Rural village 8 1939 Kesseleik-Hei Cemetery 3

1336 Donk Rural village 6 1717 Hapert-De Vloed Cemetery 3

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen Rural village 6 1998 Swalmen-De Hout Cemetery 3

1791 Oss-Ussen Rural village 5 1884 Diekendaal Cemetery 2

1917 Heel I Rural village 4 1446 Meerhout-Grote Nete Cemetery 2

1413 Antwerpen-Vleeshuis Rural village? 3 1348 Opgrimbie-Hoekstraat Cemetery 2

1364 Hork I Rural village? 3 1382 Vorsen-DryTommen Cemetery 2

1386 Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek Rural village 3 1410 Herderen I Cemetery 1

1359 Neerpelt-Kolisbos Rural village 2 1878 Born-Buchten Cemetery 1

1424 Ekeren-Wilgehoee Rural village 1 1663 Boxmeer I Cemetery 1

2077 Muizen-Wielenveld Rural village 1 1890 Echt-Vuilslakkenweg Cemetery 1

1352 Smeerkaas-Ducatonweg Rural village 1 1911 Haelen-Starrebosch Cemetery 1

2143 Empel-Temple Sanctuary 1060 1716 Halder I Cemetery 1

1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Sanctuary 151 1347 Kortessem Cemetery 1

2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Sanctuary? 47 1624 Nederweert-Wessemerdijk Cemetery 1

1467 Wijnegem-steenakker Sanctuary 20

Table 5.6: sites with a known context

144 Recently, this bridge has been uncovered by underwater archeologists.357 Next to the castellum a vicus developed which provided the necessary goods and services for the fort. Under Trajan the fort was dismantled, but the vicus continued to exist, which implies that it already functioned as a centre for the surrounding countryside as well as the fort. It was a typical road-town, which featured houses of wood and of stone, gravel roads and two temples. This vicus fell into disuse/was destroyed around AD 270. In the 4th century a fort was built in the same place again under the emperor Constantine. Valentinian rebuilt this wooden fort in stone. The fort was used until the beginning of the 5th century. Because the vicus encroached on the terrain of the former castellum in the course of the 2nd century, it is impossible to distinguish the coin finds of the fort from those of the vicus. Again, the coins of the 4th century dominate the chronological distribution (fig.5.5). The period between the end of the vicus and the beginning of the 4th-century castellum is clearly visible in the bar chart. The antoniniani of the period 260-275 are probably 4th-century too.358 Surprisingly, the coin numbers from the period of the first castellum are rather low. The increase in coin loss after the discontinuation of the fort can have two reasons. The first is that the building of the vicus in the location of the fort has removed a large part of the lost coins. The second is more interesting. It would mean that the departure of troops had a positive effect on the monetary economy of the vicus. This seems an unlikely course of events, and considering that the coin numbers from the fort are too low by far, the first explanation is probably the best. The vicus at Halder seems to have been smaller than that of Cuijk, but our view is biased by the limited extent of the excavated area in the former place. The reason for its existence is not as evident as in the cases of Cuijk and Maastricht. The interpretation as a vicus is mainly based on the finds of an pottery oven and traces of iron-working, and this seems rather insufficient. Combined with the low number of coins coming from the site it is safer to regard Halder as a rural settlement. The site lies at the confluence of the Dommel and the Essche Stroom. The number of coin finds is very low, but the chronological distribution is still informative. Coin loss begins under Nero; the Augustan coins probably all date from after AD 54.359 From this time on, coin loss continues until the second half of the 2nd century. After this, coin circulation stops; whether this means the end of the vicus is uncertain. It is possible that other, later periods will be represented in - still to uncover - coins of unexcavated areas. The low number of coin finds is in favour of this argument, but the fact that no stray finds of later periods have been recorded from the area of the vicus, plus the fact that the bar chart shows a continuous loss in a limited period, may imply that the existence of the vicus was indeed cut short after Hadrianus.

Figure 5.6: the coin finds of Halder

Judging from the 215 coins which have been found at Grobbendonk-Steenbergen, this vicus has had a longer lifetime than Halder. Also, it has been excavated more completely, although according to the excavator only 1.5 of the 20 ha of the

357 Goudswaard 1995.

358 Antoniniani from the late 3rd century are a common occurrence in 4th-century hoards in this area. See for instance Lallemand 1965a; Lallemand 1965b.

359 Meanwhile, after the closing of the database, ten Celtic coins have been found on the site, although I have no information on their context, and if whether are to be regarded as pre-Roman or not.

145 original vicus were uncovered. This settlement was also founded at a confluence of two rivers: the Nete and the Aa. It was probably surrounded by a ditch, and consisted of several wooden buildings in the 1st century. One large wooden building has been interpreted as a mansio, around which the rest of the settlement conglomerated. In the 2nd century the wooden buildings were taken down and replaced by ones of stone.

Figure 5.7: the coin finds of Grobbendonk-Steenbergen

Three temples were erected on the north side of the vicus; close by, on the west side of a public square, lies a building which may have been the public baths. There is evidence of metalworking and pottery manufacture in the vicus. The chronological distribution (fig.5.7) of the coins shows an early start of the coin circulation, probably in the Augustan period.360 Coin loss is at its peak from Nero until the end of the 2nd century (Commodus; period 11); after this it continues at a lesser pace. The circulation of coins stops after AD 270, which coincides with the end of the vicus.

Figure 5.8: the coin finds of Kontich-Kazerne

The last vicus is that of Kontich-Kazernen, which is again smaller than Grobbendonk; it covered an area of 3 ha. It is a typical roadside village, with wooden houses stretching out along the road, and a temple in the middle, which was built

360 The mansio, which is supposed to be the first building of the vicus, is dated in the Claudian period. However, the occurrence of an AVAVCIA-coin and several Republican denarii and moneyers asses from Augustus imply a possible earlier start for the settlement.

146 in stone in the 2nd century. It existed from the first to the middle of the 3rd century AD, at which time the vicus was abandoned. As in Grobbendonk there are traces of pottery manufacture and metalworking. The coin finds of Kontich are not many. One may ask why, considering the fact that a great deal of the settlement has been excavated. The absence of coins after Commodus can be caused by the small number of coin finds. The supply of coins from the first half of the 3rd century is low in this area, and the chance to miss them in the coin list increases diametrically with the coin numbers. Likewise, the absence of pre-Flavian coins does not mean that coin circulation did not start before this.

Sanctuaries Temples are a regular feature in all of the vici described above. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between vici with a temple and sanctuaries with adjacent buildings. The sanctuary at Wijshagen is a good example. Maes and Van Impe361 interpret the site as a vicus and stress the importance of commercial services. Slofstra and Van der Sanden362 consider the ritual aspect to be the dominant feature, largely on the basis of the finds, which are characteristic for votive gifts. They think that the postholes surrounding the temple are not from wooden buildings but are ritual configurations of wooden posts. Indeed, the combination of coins and other metal objects (like fibulae) seem to be typical of other ritual sites in the north-western Empire. It is therefore best to see the coins of Wijshagen primarily as ritually deposited, and for us this is the only important distinction. It does not matter very much if one calls it a vicus or a sanctuary. The coin finds (fig. 5.9) show an early start of deposition of coins, judging from the occurrence of Nemausus- and Moneyer-asses of Augustus. The Republican denarii may belong to the early spectrum, but can be also of a later date. The absence of Celtic coins make the existence of a Celtic predecessor improbable. The votive gifts end with a coin of Commodus, but the sanctuary continued to be used until the second half of the 3rd century.

Figure 5.9: the coin finds of Wijshagen-De Rieten

Another settlement which balances on the edge between vicus and sanctuary is that of Wijnegem-Steenakker. Apart from a square wooden temple several other wooden buildings were found, and a well. The excavator is unclear about the function of the buildings, whether they are annexes of the sanctuary or separate houses. The settlement existed from the beginning of the 1st century until the the second half of the third.

361 Maes & Van Impe 1986.

362 Slofstra & Van der Sanden 1987.

147 Most of the coins were found within the temple (42/48), so it seems safe to assume they were ritually deposited. Unfortunately, one third of the coins could not be attributed to a single issue period, which leaves a very small basis for a chronological distribution. Figure 5.10 offers a very irregular view, which cannot reflect any historical reality. The most striking feature is the high percentage of Augustan coins, but there is little else to say on the basis of this bar chart.

Figure 5.10: the coin finds of Wijnegem-Steenakker

The third major temple in our area is that of Empel. Originally, this site was not included in the database since no information was available at that time. However, the site is too extraordinary to ignore, and because the excavator was so kind as to let me use the still unpublished data, it was added at a later stage. Judging from the coin finds alone, the temple is in an entirely other league than the temples mentioned above.

Figure 5.11: the coin finds of Empel; Celtic coins were omitted, because their number would obscure the other issue periods.

A total of 1060 coins were found on this site, which is even more than all sites within Maastricht. The largest part consists of 810 Celtic coins; the remaining 250 are Roman. The number of coins, coming from one temple site, is exceptional

148 for this area. This is partly caused by the intensive use of the metal detector before, after and during the excavation.363 But this cannot be the only explanation for the difference between this temple and the other religious sites in this area. I will return to this subject later in this chapter. According to Roymans, the sanctuary started off as a temple of a subgroup of the Eburones. After their demise by Caesar, the site seems to have continued as a Batavian sanctuary, deep into Roman times. Although the finds of the temple complex date its use until AD 200 at the least, coin deposition is concentrated in the period 70 BC until AD 50. The coins of the 4th century are not associated in any direct way with the temple, since it did not survive the 3rd century. Almost all of the coins were found in a secondary context, as the area was levelled in the 20th century. Within the context of major sanctuaries in the MDS-area finally the large find complexes of Kessel, Maren and Lith should be mentioned. The finds were collected during gravel extraction of large areas on the south bank of the Meuse. Among numerous other finds364 a large number of coins were recovered from the gravel pits. It is unlikely that the finds are from only one settlement, considering the total amount of finds and the surface of the area involved. But particularly the Lith-group of finds could be reconstructed as ritual depositions on the basis of the combination of Celtic coins, fibulae and other metal objects, which seems to be characteristic of votive finds in this area.365 Besides these larger ritual centres, there are also some smaller ritual sites in the MDS-area. At the villa annex village of Hoogeloon, a ritual enclosure was found. It is a square area enclosed by a ditch. Within the enclosure several wooden posts were placed in a pattern that might have ritual significance. Votive finds, including fibulae and 4 Roman coins are mostly from the ditch. Further, there are three sites which might be of a ritual character: Sevenum, Battel-Zennegat and Zandhoven. This is based on the combination of coin finds with other metal objects in a wet context, such as the bank of a river, or a well. I cannot prove that these places had any ritual significance, but it would be wrong to discount them.

Villas From the ritual places of the MDS-area we move on to the villas. As we can see in table 5.6, there are 18 villas known in this area. Map 5.2 shows that most of them lie in the south of our area, in particular on the löss-soils of Dutch and Belgic Limburg. As was mentioned before, the MDS-area combines two main physical and cultural landscapes, which seems to have had consequences for the social-economic structure of the countryside. On the one hand we have the agriculturally poorer coversands of the main part of the MDS-area, which is characterized by extensive mixed farming. Here we find rural villages with or without an enclosure.366 Some of the enclosed settlements developed into -what Slofstra calls- a proto-villa.367 As a villa can be defined as an agrarian business producing for an urban market, a proto- villa is a business which was becoming involved in this ‘villa-mode of production’, but did not make the grade. They usually appear as indigenous farms, but they frequently display a porticus. There are some examples of farms on the sandy soils which did succeed in their efforts to participate in the villa-economy. They are characterized by the Romanized appearance of the main building, but do not have the typical form of the villa estate with a pars rustica and a pars urbana. These villas continue to lie within the enclosed settlements in which they developed. On the other hand we have the fertile löss soils, which were used for intensive cultivation of grain. These soils lie on the northern fringes of the so-called villa-landscape of the Haspengouw. In this area a full villa-system developed at the end of the 1st century, which consisted of specialized farms producing for the urban market. Indeed, these villas tend to

363 Roymans 1994, 123 (note 1).

364 The finds include some large architectural elements recovered at Kessel, which might have been from a temple, perhaps even from the temple of Empel.

365 Slofstra & Van der Sanden 1987.

366 According to Slofstra (1991), enclosed settlements show signs of social stratification within the village, while not-enclosed ones did not, or to a much less degree.

367 Slofstra 1991.

149 cluster around urban centres.368 A fine example of a successful villa on sandy soil is that of Neerharen-Rekem. It was built in the middle of an enclosed rural village in the Flavian period. Around AD 250 the villa was deserted. On the same spot a so-called German village arose in the second half of the 3rd century, which existed until the beginning of the 5th century. Almost all coins are from the last settlement; there are virtually none from the villa period. All issue periods are dwarfed by the number of coins between AD388-402 (408/614 coins). It is possible that the coins from this period are part of a scattered hoard, although this option is not mentioned by the excavators369. More coins from before AD260 were found in a similar villa at Hoogeloon. Just as in Neerharen the settlement started as a rural village consisting of several farmsteads within an enclosure. In the Flavian period one of the farms was rebuilt as a villa. This villa too, fell into disuse in the first half of the 3rd century; the farms continued to exist until AD 270. In this settlement 69 Roman coins were found of the period before AD 260. Coin circulation starts early in the 1st century, judging from the high percentage of Augustan coins in combinaton with a Celtic AVAVCIA coin. But the majority of the coins is from the period during which the villa existed; at the same time, it is an interesting fact that the coin finds do not in particular cluster at the villa, but seem to be distributed over the entire village. If the existence of the villa was responsible for a higher coin loss in the settlement as a whole, this implies that the villa and the rest of the village operated as an economic unity.

Figure 5.12: the coin finds of Neerharen-Rekem (Het Kamp); in order to see the coins before AD260, the range of the y-axis was shortened

On the sandy soils, these two villas are the only ‘successful’ ones if we may assume that they aspired to participate in a villa-economy. It is hard to explain the difference in coin numbers before AD260 between the two villas as a result of the intensity of metal-detecting, since the coin total of Neerharen exceeds that of Hoogeloon by far. However, this could also be caused by the fact that Hoogeloon did not have habitation in the late-Roman period, in which the fractional value of bronze coins made coin loss a much more common phenomenon than before. All other villas on the sandy soils (see tabel 5.6) must be classified as proto-villas, to speak in Slofstra’s terms. In some cases porticus-houses were found, in others the state of research does not allow us to make such an observation.370

368 With this term I refer also to the larger vici, which were really rural centres, but displayed the same consumption patterns as the urban centres

369 De Boe 1987.

370 For example in Oss-Ussen-Westerveld and Donk. As a matter of fact, Slofstra warns us for the danger of automatically interpreting every porticus-house as a proto-villa.

150 Figure 5.13: the coin finds of Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers

It is perhaps better to count proto-villas which lie in a rural village as village, as was done in the case of Donk for instance. Most of the villas, however, lie on the löss soils of Dutch and Belgian Limburg, along the banks of the Meuse or in a cluster at Tongeren.

Rural villages As was said before, there are two sorts of rural villages; enclosed ones with evidence of social stratification within the village, and not-enclosed ones, which seem to lack any hierarchical relations. Regrettably, there is not enough information available to make a sound grouping according to this criterium. There are 18 villages in the MDS-area, which seem to form three clusters. The first lies in the valley of the Scheldt, the second in the stream valleys of the Dommel and subsidiary rivers, and the third in the valley of the Meuse.

Figure 5.14: the coin finds of Riethoven-Heesmortel

151 Two good examples which lie very close to one another, are Riethoven-Heesmortel and the earlier dicussed Hoogeloon- Kerkakkers. Both were excavated completely and are thus well comparable.371 Not only is Hoogeloon enclosed by a double ditch, while Riethoven was not; in the first settlement the farms are laid out around an open square, while in the second all farms cluster along the same axis. Both settlements begin in the early 1st century and end in the second half of the third. Hoogeloon features 30 house plans, not including the villa; Riethoven has slightly more: 32. Two other main differences are the occurrence of a villa and a ritual enclosure in Hoogeloon. If we might have cherished the notion that in Hoogeloon the villa was responsible for an upsurge in the intensity of coin loss in the 2nd century, this thought is quickly dispensed with by the fact that in Riethoven more coins were found than in Hoogeloon. The excavator and techniques used were the same. If anything, coin finds should have been lower in Riethoven, because the site did not have the protection of an esdek, as in the case of Hoogeloon. The bar charts are remarkably similar and show a chronological pattern which exceeds the level of the individual settlement. We will establish later on if this is a regional pattern or one which is determined by the character of the settlement. None of the other rural villages display as many coin finds as the two discussed above; partly, this will be an effect of the extent of the excavated area, and the systematic use of a metal detector. Only the village at Kolis in Belgium has more than 20 coins; the rest fall below the 10 (except for Oss-Ussen-IJsselstraat which has fourteen coins).

Cemeteries and single graves A first glance at map 5.2 and table 5.6 will show that this group of sites is the largest (44 sites). This can largely be explained by the fact that, however limited the observations, these sites are the easiest recognizable of all site types discussed so far. There are a few cemeteries which clearly belong to one of the settlements discussed above, but similar settlements can of course be assumed to have lain close to each of the other funerary sites. Insofar, cemeteries and graves complete the picture of habitation in the MDS-area.

Figure 5.15: the coins of Plokrooi-Donderslag

The most prolific in numbers of coins are the cemeteries of Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek and of Echt. Plokrooi stands at the absolute top with 212 coins, of which sadly less than half could be assigned to single issue periods. But there is a slight problem with the finds of Plokrooi. All 212 coins were found by amateurs with metal detectors in the years 1993/4. At the moment, it is not clear to me if the coins are from the cemetery or the rural village, which lies close by. Since the cemetery was excavated in 1990-2, it seems unlikely that so many coins were missed during the excavations. Perhaps it

371 Both settlements cover a surface of around 4 ha.

152 is better to assume that the coins are indeed from the -still to be investigated- settlement. But even if the coins are from a rural village, the number of coins is much higher than in other rural villages. We cannot decide at this stage what the exact context of these coins is; it is even possible that they are a combination of finds from both the village and the cemetery.

Figure 5.16: the coins finds of Echt

In the case of Echt, we are sure that the coins are from a Roman cemetery. It is not completely excavated, the coins are from graves of different parts of the same cemetery which have been examined. A total of 86 coins was retrieved from the graves. All graves from the 1st century AD contain only 1 coin, but in the 2nd century, several graves have 3, 4 and 7 coins. If this is indicative of a change in ritual or inflation following people into their grave is hard to say. Regrettably, I have no information on coin numbers per grave in the third and fourth centuries, when inflation progressed at a terrifying rate. If the change was inspired by devaluation of money, one would expect an increasing number of coins in later graves. Perhaps we can get an answer to this question later. The bar chart of the cemetery of Echt shows a gap in the late 3rd century, at which time there were either no coins included in the graves or there were no burials. Most of the graves in our area which were datable contain only one coin; tumuli, which are mostly seen as burial places of villa-owners, are not richer in either the value or the number of coins which were offered with the dead. There are only five tumuli in the coin database. There are of course a lot more tumuli in the MDS-area than this, in particular on the löss soils, but they were not excavated or did not yield any coins. Another cemetery with a relative high number of coins is that of Bladel-Kriekeschoor (74 coins). This cemetery distinguishes itself from the others by a high percentage of coins from the early 1st century. Some historical aspects of the settlement system in the MDS-area Slofstra, in his discussion of the settlement system of the MDS-area, does not include the left bank of the Meuse in his analysis, nor the löss area in which Tongeren is situated. While this might have the benefit of more unity in the landscape under discussion, and therefore possibly more unity in economic and ideological interactions of the people who live there, it carries the danger of studying regional patterns to much in isolation of their direct surroundings. Although I am sure that Slofstra is aware of this danger, the löss zone on the east and the south borders of the area have not been excluded in this study. The Roman city of Tongeren must have had its sphere of influence well into the south-east of our area, although it is hard to define any limits. Speaking in terms of official administration, it is well possible that census- records/administration of part of the area resided in Tongeren, and not in Nijmegen, the other civitas-capital in the Dutch river area.

153 Figure 5.17: the coin finds of Bladel-Kriekeschoor Perhaps this discussion is the same as the one concerning the ‘exact’ borderline between the civitas Batavorum and the civitas Tungrorum. I think that the limits of the former civitas have reached well into the south of the Netherlands, and possibly into the north of Belgium. This still leaves some space for Tongeren. But even if we knew the location of this border, it would not mean automatically that it divided two different cultures any more than national borders do now. Culturally speaking, there are no hard lines of divide but rather a sliding scale between cultural entities. This is particularly characteristic of the frontier zone, which comprised roughly the entire MDS-area, but also includes the Dutch river area and the area directly north of the Rhine. The sliding scale is between the outspoken military zone in the river area, the rural hinterland of this zone and the more ‘urban’ area of the south. The MDS-area was partly focussed on the military sphere to the north, partly by the area organized by more ‘civilian’ lines to the south. This situation is not engendered by Roman occupation of the territory, but more a result of Roman sensitivity to pre- existing indigenous patterns. In pre-Roman times, the same cultural differences existed between the cattle-herding peoples with strongly developed martial values in the north, and the agricultural peoples of the south, who more readily embraced the ‘urban’ ideologies which articulated well with Roman values.372 This cultural opposition continued to exist into Roman times, and was still strong in the 1st century AD. Afterwards, at the end of the first and first half of the 2nd century both cultural patterns seem to merge with one another or become harder to notice to the modern eye. This characteristic melting pot of the frontier makes it hard to understand the political and economic structures in this region, because there was much room for variation. This was already briefly touched upon in the dicussion of the villas in our area, which seem to be affected by these conflicting cultures. It does not lie in the grasp of this study to solve any problems in this respect, but maybe the analysis of the coin finds can help to understand the economic structure of the area better. At the end of the first and beginning of the 2nd century villa-economies developed on the löss soils, in which Tongeren played an important role as market-centre for the surpluses created on villa-estates. Although not many villas lay outside the direct sphere of Tongeren to the north, it does not mean that the farms on the sandy soils did not profit from the same economic structure. The villa at Hoogeloon is an excellent example, but there were doubtless many others which continued to look like farms. It is possible that it was a matter of deliberate choice not to invest in the Gallo-roman exterior of a farm building. Other ways of display of wealth and influence are thinkable, which may be more along the

372 See Roymans 1999 for a more elaborate discussion.

154 lines of the other cultural pattern, for instance votive gifts at important sanctuaries. The 1st century votive depositions at the temple of Empel might be a good example. Reasoning along the same lines, it is possible that the development of urban markets induced a new settlement hierarchy, in which some rural villages may have become dependent on other villages, villas or rural centres. At the same time it should not be forgotten that the Roman army along the Rhine must have had its influences as well. Part of our area was Batavian, and a lot of Batavians served in the Roman army; moreover, they were stationed in their own territory before the revolt of AD 69. It is not likely that the discovery of a Roman military diploma on the terrain of the villa in Hoogeloon is wholly coincidental. But although Batavian presence in the Roman army was paramount, Tungri were also well represented in the Roman auxilia. Thus the Roman military was deeply rooted in indigenous society. It is likely that this also forged economic ties between the army and the people of the MDS-area; indeed, the army must have been an attractive market for agrarian produce, meat and horses. Perhaps the lessening of forces along the Rhine which set in from Trajanus did have serious consequences for the economy in the 2nd century. It may have caused many to look at the cities of Nijmegen and Tongeren as new markets for their products. This change could also have been responsible for a shift into the direction of urban ideologies. Society in the MDS-area received a considerable set-back in the middle of the 3rd century. We cannot blame it all on raids of Franks and other peoples of the north, since many settlements seem to have been deserted prior to the violence of the third quarter of the 3rd century. There are marks of violent destruction at some places, but in many there are none. The 4th century saw the recovery of some settlements. Others were re-occupied by newcomers, like in the case of Neerharen-Rekem. At the vici of Cuijk and Maastricht the military element was strongly present in the forts that were built there. The city of Tongeren thrived during this century, however her appearance was changed in a dwelling place of the very rich. Late Roman villas do not exist in this area as they do in Britain or Luxemburg. The economic basis for this type of settlement had apparently disappeared. None of the earlier existing sanctuaries revived in the 4th century. At Empel, the 4th-century coins have nothing to do with the temple. Perhaps this is related to the influx of new people into the area, although the absence of clearly defined ritual sites might be a blind spot in the state of research.

5.6 Coin supply and coin use in the MDS-area

Thus far, five different settlement types have been discussed: the city, rural centres (vici), villas, rural villages and sanctuaries. This conforms to the common typology used by archaeologists. But however convenient typologies can be, historical reality is different, of course. We have seen that there exists a lot of variation between the individual sites belonging to the same settlement type. There is an enormous difference between the vicus of Maastricht and that of Grobbendonk; the variation between rural villages too is considerable. Finally, the votive deposit found in a well in Sevenum belongs to another class than the deposits of the Gallo-Roman temples of Empel, Maastricht and Tongeren. It be far from me to ignore these apparent differences within sites classes, but in fact only one question concerns us in this study: are distinctions between sites useful to explain differences in deposition patterns of coins, and does this offer any information in the use of these coins?

5.6.1 General trends

Table 5.7 shows numbers and percentages of coins of the MDS-area in the early, middle and late-Roman periods. Like in the previous chapters, the distribution is regarded to be representative of the coin supply to this region in the course of the Roman period. Sites with large numbers of coins were treated separately, to neutralize the effect they would have on the general distribution. It is clear that there are considerable differences in percentages of early, middle an late-Roman coins. The general pattern shows an increase in coin loss in the middle Roman period and a decrease in the late Roman age. In Tongeren, however, late Roman coins cover more than half of the total, and coin loss is stronger in the early Roman period than in the middle Roman period. Maastricht shows an ever increasing tendency in coin loss, culminating in the late Roman

155 period. Empel shows a reverse development, even when Celtic coins are not counted (150 early Roman coins).This immediately poses the question if there is a general pattern at all. We have not seen so much variation in the Dutch river area nor in Luxemburg and Trier.

Tongeren Maastricht Empel Other sites Total

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

- AD69 419 22,3 54 5,9 960 90,6 845 17,1 3968 37,8

AD 69-260 361 19,2 94 10,2 75 7,1 1749 35,4 2279 43,4

AD260-402 1006 53,5 706 76,7 25 2,4 1430 28,9 3167 30,2

Missing 95 5,1 66 7,2 0 0 920 18,6 1081 10,3

Total 1881 100 920 100 1060 100 4944 100 10495 100 Table 5.7: the coin finds of the MDS-area in early, middle and late-Roman periods

In Maastricht we have seen that post-depositional processes are responsible for the high percentage of Roman coins. For Tongeren and Empel this is a less likely explanation. There is no evidence here that the earliest levels were less accessible for excavation than the later ones. The contrast between Empel, Tongeren and the other sites of the MDS-area deserves a historical explanation. The chronological distribution of Empel is characterized by a very high percentage of coins before AD 69. The low number of late-Roman coins does not concern us here, because the temple did not exist anymore at this time. This is different in the period between 69-260. Other finds at Empel of this period show that the temple was still a religious centre of importance; so the change has to be found in the character of the votive finds. Clearly, coins were very important as votive gift in the early Roman period. However, this view must be qualified a bit. Of the 960 coins before AD69, 810 are Celtic, although the largest part of them were deposited in the early 1st century AD. It seems that the temple was frequented by people who possessed these coins, and the most likely group in this context are Batavians.373 The combination of coins, weapons and other militaria suggest even a specific group of Batavi, namely the soldiers who were part of the Roman auxilia.374 It was a group which had easy access to late Celtic coins, perhaps were even paid in them. After the Batavian revolt, however, the practice of allowing Batavian auxilia to serve in their own tribal territory was discontinued. The temple was still one of the major Batavian religious centres in this area, but the military element was not so strongly represented as before. It is possible that soldiers were still under the group of dedicants, but they would be troops from other parts of the Empire. The sanctuary probably lost its exclusivity as centre of Batavian martiality cult. It is unprovable that this change in character had consequences for the nature of its votive deposits, but the sudden decrease in coins after AD 69 seems more than coincidental. Tongeren follows Maastricht in the preponderance of late-Roman coins, which makes one wonder if the coin finds of Maastricht are that biassed after all. But the decrease of coins in the middle-Roman period is striking. It is the opposite of what one would expect, considering the development of a villa-economy at the end of the 1st century, in which Tongeren was a major market centre. This must have generated cash flow within Tongeren, as surpluses were converted into money there, and money was invested in large building projects.375 However, at a closer inspection of the pre-Flavian period376, it is clear that only two issue periods are responsible for the large number of coins before AD 69: the Celtic

373 See among others Reijnen 1994, 130.

374 Technically, these troops were not yet the regular auxilia used by the Roman army, but so-called tumultuarii who were led by Batavian war- leaders. See Willems 1984, 227.

375 These building projects may have been extended to the villas in the countryside, since the money which paid for these villa buildings probably stayed in the city.

376 See figure 5.3, p. 148.

156 and Augustan periods.377 Almost 80% of the Celtic coins are bronze, and therefore dateable after 50 BC. Further, a considerable amount of Augustan coins are Nemausus-asses and moneyer-asses; these too may be dated in the early 1st century AD.378 So the Augustan period was a time of extraordinarily high coin loss; since Tongeren did at that time not mean much as a city, the presence of these coins must be associated with army activity. This is in so early a phase the only explanation for high numbers of coin reaching Tongeren. Disregarding this early spectrum of coin loss, as it is associated with military activity more than urban economy, we can indeed record an increase in coin loss in the period after AD 69. This softens the seeming contradiction between an upsurge in economic activity and a decrease in coin loss, as discussed above. Finally, the sites without exceptional high coin numbers display a distribution still different than the others. They are characterized by an increase of coin loss in the period AD 69-260 as in Maastricht, but differ from this vicus in the relative low percentage of late-Roman coins. This is explained more easily by the life-span of many settlements, of which a good many cease to exist in the second half of the 3rd century. Thus, almost all differences can be explained by historical circumstance. But help as it may to understand why there are differences in chronological distribution, how can we maintain that the sum or the mean chronological distribution is representative of coin supply to this region? The answer is that we cannot. Clearly, speaking in general terms, the MDS- area is highly differentiated in the aspect of coin supply. Two interesting questions remain; one is whether this differentiation is present within the group of sites with smaller coin numbers as well. The second question is if the differences become less outspoken when we look at smaller issue periods. I shall try to answer these questions in the following section.

5.6.2 Coins and settlement types

To get an insight in the variation in coin use of site groups, I will, just as in the previous chapters, compare the chronological distribution of the individual sites with that of a hypothetical ‘mean site’. Also, it will be established if observed patterns correlate with different site types.

Chronological distribution of the ‘mean site’ Now we have ascertained that this mean site indeed is nothing more than a construction, which bears no relation to a general pattern of coin supply to this region, we do not have to worry much about its composition. The importance of this mean chronological distribution lies in the provision of a standard measure against which individual distributions may be set off, which enables us to make them comparable with each other. Therefore, all coins of table 5.7 were included in the construction of the mean site. The result is shown in the bar chart of figure 5.18. In the distribution of the mean site, the unidentified coins will be omitted. Also, the coins of Empel are not included in the mean distribution, this time for a methodological reason. Since cumulative percentages are being used in the comparison between the mean site and the individual sites, the very high number of Celtic coins would obscure differences which occur later on in the Roman period. Eventually, the mean site which will be used for the comparisons looks like the bar chart in figure 5.19.

The Kolmorov-Smirnov tests Because many sites cease to exist around the middle of the 3rd century AD, and new sites appear in the late 3rd and 4th centuries, the Roman period was subdivided for the sake of the tests into the period before AD 260 and the period AD 260-402. Otherwise, this major difference in site occupation time would have cluttered any other pattern in the data. For the first period sites were selected with a minimum of fifteen coins which could be dated to single issue periods. The second period allows for sites with a minimum of ten coins. The same correction of date ranges was used as in the

377 Of course the Celtic period does not exist in its own right; it was created to distinguish between early Roman and Celtic coins, which may have circulated in the same time span.

378 Of the Augustan coins, 16.6% are moneyer-asses and 10% are Nemausus-asses.

157 forming of the mean site (see previous paragraph).

Figure 5.18: the chronological distribution of the ‘mean site’

Figure 5.19: the corrected chronological distribution of the ’m ean site’

Before AD 260 The result of the K-S tests are shown in appendix 7. In the same way as in the earlier chapters, P-values are listed for each

158 test, but not further used in the evaluation of the test results.379 There seems to be no correlation between the number of coins and the statistic significance of the tests, although sites with coin numbers higher than 50 rarely have P-values below 0.05.380

Figure 5.20: results of the K-S tests. On the x-axis the issue period in which the greatest difference with the mean site occurred; on the y-axis the height of the difference.

Negative values on the y-axis mean that the cumulative percentage of an individual site in a particular issue period lies above that of the mean site; positive values mean the opposite. The scatterplot in figure 5.20 shows that the time range in which the greatest difference with the mean site occurs is large; it varies between the Republican period and the reign of M.Aurelius. The sites with negative differences are neatly separated from those with a positive value. What is more, site types seem to have a predilection for one of the two groups. Find complexes in the city (Tongeren), and sanctuaries all have negative D-values381, while vici, cemeteries, villas and rural villages all show positive D-values. The groups are almost mutually exclusive. The three exceptions are the cemetery of Bladel-Kriekeschoor, which has a negative D-value, and Tongeren-Voeding-Vos, which has a positive one. Finally there is one find complex in Maastricht which deviates from the general pattern. Also, the sites with positive D-values in figure 5.20 imply that a positive correlation exists between the height of the D-value and the progression of time. A Spearman rank correlation test shows that there is indeed a significant correlation between these variables.382 Speaking in common words, this means that, as time progressed, the difference between

379 See chapter 2, 27.

380 P>0.05

381 D-value= the quantification of the difference between the cumulative percentage of the mean site and that of the individual site

382 Spearman’s rho gives a correlation coefficient of 0.652 at P=0.01. Pearson’ correlation is also significant at the P=0.01 level; correlation coefficient= 0.635.

159 cumulative percentage curves between individual sites and the mean site increased. What does this mean? Although the more or less even distribution of sites along the time scale indicates that there is no clustering of site types in one issue period, there is a pattern. The find complexes in the city and in the sanctuaries all lie above the mean site in the period of their greatest difference; those in the vici, villas, rural villages and cemeteries lie under the mean. This does not have any bearing on the coin loss of these site types; since we are dealing with cumulative percentages, periods which lie under the mean are always compensated in other issue periods. But it does have significance for the variation of individual sites with the mean site. If a D-value of a site is negative in a particular issue period, it follows that the variation with the mean in the other periods of that site is less than that. However, a true indication of the total variation of individual sites with the mean site cannot be reconstructed from the K-S tests, because the test looks only to the period in which the largest difference occurs. This will be dealt with later in this chapter. The question is now: can we make something of the observed pattern? Evidently, part of the interpretation must be a division between urban and rural find complexes. But why are the sanctuaries in the urban group, and the vici in the rural group? An answer to the last question could be that the vici in the MDS-area are indeed more rural than urban centres, which is a major difference with Luxemburg, where find complexes in vici articulated more with the city. It is surprising, however, that in this respect there is no clear difference between Maastricht, which definitely had more urban aspirations and the other vici. However, the only exception of a vicus lying above the mean is a find complex of Maastricht (Maastricht I). Still, the sanctuaries of the MDS-area are clearly non-urban sites. Evidently, there is another factor which places this settlement type in the ‘urban’ group. Perhaps we will be able to identify it later. Finally, we will consider the correlation between issue periods and sites with a positive D-value. This means that the later the D-value occurs, the higher it will be. Sites with a late D-value have a relatively high percentage of coins in the later issue periods. The mean site approaches a straight line from 10% in the Republican period to 100% in AD260, and the large quantity of coins has an equalizing effect on its course. Individual sites, which have less coins, will tend to have more peaks and troughs. Thus, the later the jump in coin numbers of an individual site, the higher the difference between cumulative percentage curves will be.

Chronological profiles The K-S tests have the disadvantage of looking only at the period of the greatest difference between the mean site and the individual site. To consider the whole of the chronological distribution before AD 260, chronological profiles were constructed like in the preceding chapters.383 The same 45 sites were used as in the K-S tests. Six profiles could be construed, to which 44 sites could be assigned. Only the coin finds of Echt do not fit in any one of the profiles. Map 5.3 shows the geographical distribution of chronological profiles. Profile 1 lies well above the mean site in the 1st century AD. In fact it peaks in the Augustan period; it has few coins from the Republican period, but Celtic coins are well-represented. From the Augustan period onwards it shows a downward tendency, the steepest fall occurring between Nero (period 6) and Aurelius (period 10). This profile is shared by ten sites, the majority of which is either urban or religious. The two find complexes with an unknown character might well fall in the ritual group.384 The association of early Roman and Celtic coins and other metal objects is often indicative of votive finds. The sites in this profile are widely scattered over the entire area, except of course the find complexes of Tongeren. Profile 2 is characterized by a downward slope from the beginning. In contrast with the previous profile the sites in this profile display a high percentage of Republican coins, and start off well above the mean site; it is not much different from profile 1. There are only two sites sharing this profile: Berg I, and an unknown location in Venlo or the surroundings of Venlo. The relation between the two profiles is underscored by the fact that the sites Berg I and Berg- reservoir are very close together.

383 A chronological profile of a site can be constructed by subtracting the cumulative percentage of the mean site in each issue period from that of the individual site. See chapter 2. See appendix 7 and 8 for details on the sites.

384 Berg-reservoir (which probably belong to the same settlement) and Lith-Litse Ham.

160 Figure 5.22: chronological profiles before AD 260

Profile 3 lies almost entirely under the mean site, which means that it has high percentages of coins in the later issue periods; the line climbs steeply after Commodus (period 11). But also the pre-Flavian periods are clearly present; after the end of the 1st century, however, we see a steep decline, which is only restored in the 3rd century. There are eight sites in this profile, and they do not stand out by similarity in function, but almost all of them are very close to the Meuse. Profile 4 is not a real profile in the sense that all of the sites follow more or less the same pattern. Rather, it is a collection of profiles which can be quite different from one another, but they have one thing in common: a very fluctuating pattern, and not as in the other profiles, a movement that can be summed up in a few broad characteristics. The fluctuation does

161 not bear a clear relationship with a low number of fully-identified coins per site. Because of this common trait, the sites were grouped together in spite of their differences. There are twelve sites which show this pattern. They are not unified by a common function, although there are relatively many rural villages in this group. However, map 5.3 shows a concentration of sites in the so-called Kempen-region in the heart of the MDS-area. Also, there are three find complexes in Tongeren which share this fluctuating trend. Profile 5 is the opposite of profile 1; it lies almost entirely below the mean site, and has the highest percentages of coins in the 2nd century AD, after Trajan. This profile bears some resemblance to profile 3, but it does not have so many coins from the pre-Flavian period and is better equipped with coins of the 2nd century. There are ten sites in this profile. There is no dominating settlement type, and it does not seem to have a geographical pattern either, except perhaps for the group of four sites in Belgium. They lie rather neatly along an east-west axis, suggestive of a Roman road. To my knowledge, however, there is no other evidence for a road connecting the vici of Kontich and Grobbendonk with the settlements of Meerhout and Plokrooi-Donderslag, although a road between the first two seems likely. Finally, profile 6 lies entirely above the mean site, and follows profiles 1and 2 in this respect. It is different by a peak in the first half of the 2nd century AD and relatively low numbers of pre-Flavian coins. The exception of Republican coins can be explained by the possibility that these coins were a late arrival, a common occurrence with Republican denarii, which can frequently be found in Flavian contexts.385 There are only three sites which share this profile.

Map 5.3: geographical distribution of chronological profiles

Historical implications It is difficult to interpret the chronological patterns found in historical terms, but there seem to be two main factors which affect the profiles. Profiles 1,2 and 6 can be associated with functional similarity between the sites. All of these profiles are characteristic of urban or ritual find complexes. The other profiles are not clearly determined by the factor

385 Mac Dowall 1992.

162 of functional similarity, but have, however slight in the case of profile 5, geographical patterning. Profiles 1 and 2 are characterized by a high percentage of pre-Flavian coins. In the case of the urban find complexes, it fulfils the expectation that these centres were the first to participate in the monetary economy. This early urban monetary circuit probably reflects governmental money flow, which must have been largely dictated by military requirements at this early stage. The ritual deposits in this group are another matter. The relatively large-scale depositions in this period are a continuation of the central place Celtic coins played in late-Iron Age votive gifts. This continuity in votive ritual is well- illustrated by the coins of the temple of Empel, which shows a uninterrupted flow of Celtic and early-Roman coins.386 Other ritual deposits with a evidently early peak are Hapert-Hoogpoort and Berg. Two questions come to the fore: why do these ritual places show such high numbers of early Roman coins just like urban complexes, and secondly, who had access to these coins? The connection between the two becomes clear when the case of Empel is considered. The occurrence of militaria with coins in the votive deposits shows that soldiers were an important group of dedicants. It seems likely that this group was also the main source for coins in the votive deposits, since it was the only one which could have been tied in to the early governmental money flow. In fact, the presence of early-Roman coins in these deposits show that soldiers were, from the beginning, paid in coins. Additionally, it may seem that soldiers were an important group of dedicants at ritual places, but this is not necessarily so. The high percentage of coins and militaria in these votive deposits may mean nothing more than that these objects have a higher survival rate than other votive gifts, which may have been made of organic material for instance. The presence of the metal objects does not make the ritual deposits a wholly military affair. Another thing, which reminds us of the position of Trier in the Luxemburg area387, is the fact that find complexes of Tongeren occur in every profile except the last. In the case of Trier, this was explained by the rhythm of supply. This city was a major source of coins for the settlements in Luxemburg. All chronological patterns were represented in the find complexes of Trier, but only a selection of these patterns occurred in particular groups of sites. The selection in each group was caused by periods of more and less intensive contact with Trier. It is possible that Tongeren was, like Trier in the Treverian area, a major source of supply of Roman coins to the settlements of the MDS-area. The peaks and troughs in each chronological profile may consequently be indicative of the intensity of supply to each group. It would be nice if it were possible to connect the periodicity of supply with site types. However, this seems only possible in profiles 1 and 2. The period of greatest influx of coins from Tongeren to the sanctuaries of the MDS-area was pre-Flavian. Profiles 3, 4 and 5, however, are not characterized by a common functionality, but show some geographical patterning. Thus, profile 3 might indicate that coin travelled along the Meuse route most intensively in the pre-Flavian period and at the end of the second and first half of the 3rd century. But we must be careful not to attach too much significance to the chronological profiles. There may well have been other, hidden factors which have determined the profiles or rather supply patterns. For instance, the military sites to the north of our area may well have been as important in the coin supply as Tongeren. The value of the method, however, lies in the fact that it shows that Tongeren did play a part in the supply of coins to our area, and that it was by no means an entirely military affair in the frontier zone. Finally, it is an interesting fact that the sites of profile 4 seem to cluster in the heart of our area. It is the part which is the most distant from the major routes in the area. Even more interesting is that profile 4 is defined by the high irregularity of coin loss. It could mean that supply in this zone was haphazard and determined by chance. A circumstance contributing to the fluctuating pattern might also be that these sites lie more or less halfway between the military sites of the north and Tongeren in the south. Coin loss might reflect contacts with both sides, each with its own character.

386 See p.157 for a bar chart of Empel

387 See chapter 4, 105-106.

163 Figure 5.23: results of the K-S test plotted by issue periods. On the x -axis the issue periods, the y-axis displays the difference with the mean site.

Kolmorov-Smirnov tests AD 260-450 For the late Roman period, only the sites with ten coins or more were selected. The details of the K-S tests are in Appendix 8388; figure 5.23 shows the most important results. As before, the height of the difference with the mean site is displayed for each site on the scale axis, the issue period in which it occurs is on the category axis. Regarding the site types, a new category has appeared, the late Roman fort (at Maastricht and Cuijk). At the same time, there are no late Roman villas that we know of in the MDS-area, and the same applies to vici and sanctuaries. This poses a problem for the comparison with the early Roman period and the interpretation of these K-S tests in general. However, there are a few general remarks to be made. Most differences occur in issue period 20 (AD 330-348) and later, and they cluster in the aforementioned period and in period 22 (AD 364-378). The clustering in these two issue periods is similar to the situation we encountered in the Luxemburg/Trier area. Both are periods in which major military operations took place at the frontier, involving infrastructural reorganization. The find complexes of Tongeren are concentrated in the lower right quadrant of the scatterplot, which means that (excluding one find spot) all differences with the mean fall in the second half of the 4th century and Tongeren lies above the mean in this period. Unlike the situation in the period before AD 260, the cemeteries are grouped with Tongeren by the fact that they all have negative D-values.

Chronological profiles To get a more complete view of the differences between individual sites and the mean in each issue period, the cumulative percentages of the mean were subtracted from that of the individual sites. As before, it is possible to discern

388 Only ten of the 34 sites are not significant at the P=0.05 level. This time, it seems that number of coins of a site are correlated with the statistical significance of the K-S test.

164 6 chronological profiles389 , which are plotted in figure 5.24. Profile 1 consists exclusively of find complexes in Tongeren. It is characterized by a more or less straight line up until periods 23 (AD378-388), during which it lies constantly above the mean; after this it steeply declines.

Figure 5.24: chronological profiles AD 260-450

389 Details are in Appendix 8.

165 Profile 2 is a mixture of find complexes in Tongeren, Maastricht and Cuijk, and is thus a combination of city and forts. It starts well under the mean and rises to a peak from period 19 (AD 275-296) until period 22( AD 364-378) and 23 (AD 378-388). After this it declines again, just like profile 1. Profile 3 comprises two cemeteries and the site ‘Hotel Derlon’ in Maastricht. The last-mentioned was a gallo-Roman temple in the early and middle Roman periods, but it is unclear what happened after AD 270. It is tempting to think that the place held its ritual significance, and that profile 3 represents a ritual group. The profile itself is rather similar to profile 1, except for the relatively low level in period 16 (AD 260-275). Profile 4 can be applied to six sites, two of which are in Maastricht. The character of the other sites is unknown, but they all lie on the border of the Meuse (at various locations). The considerable find complexes of Kessel are in this group. It lies below the mean almost the entire period, to rise steeply in period 24 (AD 388-402); the lowest point is reached in period 20 (AD 296-315). Profile 5 has only four sites, three of which are in Maastricht. The other one is Lith. Its main characteristics are two peaks in period 19 and 23; it is a fluctuating profile Finally, profile 6 consists of seven sites. Three find complexes are from Teeffelen; also the ‘German’ village of Neerharen can be placed in this group. It is very similar to profile 4, but the lowest point lies in period 23, so the coins from AD 388-402 are important in this group. Profiles 4 and 6 represent in this respect the opposite of the other profiles which all show a steep decline in this period. The presence of the sites of the Maaskant is prominent in these two profiles.390

Historical implications Map 5.4 shows clearly that the distribution of sites with enough coins for the analysis (more than 9 coins ) is limited to two areas. The first is the so-called Maaskant on the northeast side of the MDS-area; the second one is the region of Tongeren and Maastricht, which is located in the southeast. Each has two major places with several large find complexes, Kessel and Cuijk in the north, and Tongeren and Maastricht in the south. Another interesting phenomenon is that the two profiles which are characterized by a relative large number of late 4th-century coins (issue period AD 388-402) are mostly situated in the north, while the other profiles have a preference for the south. The exception here is Cuijk, but this fort is an outlier of the northern group. A last observation is that one chronological profile is completely composed of find complexes in Tongeren; the others are shared by more than one site. Also, if the site ‘Hotel Derlon’ retained some of its earlier ritual significance in the 4th century, this would make profile 3 exclusively ritual, as the two others are cemeteries. Thus, there seem to be two factors of importance in the chronological distribution of coins in the late-Roman period. The first one is geographical, but may be intimately connected with historical circumstance. Profiles 1, 3 and 5 display a peak in Constantinian times (issue period 20) which can be associated with the military activities of Constantius Chlorus who seems to have restored order in Batavian territory after the troubles of the late 3rd century.391 Judging from the chronological aspects of the coins only, one of the bases of his operations seems to have been Tongeren. Profile 2, mainly characterized by the high level of Valentinian coins, leads us to another important phase of activity of the Roman government in our area. In conclusion, it seems clear that the main source of coin supply lies in the military sphere. Furthermore, the contrast between sites with large numbers of coins and sites with few or only one coin is the greatest in the late-Roman period. Once coins entered the area by way of military payments, they seem to have hardly penetrated the hinterland. This picture emerges even stronger when one realizes that the actual value represented at all the sites with less than 5 coins is virtually zero. This indicates that overall monetary use of coins was low, and that the single coins found at sites had another function than a monetary one. This other function might be a symbolic one. Indeed, imperial propaganda was an important reason to issue and distribute coinage, and this might have been the strongest in the low-value bronze coinage.

390 In fact, all sites are located directly on the south border of the Meuse; the entire Maaskant is larger than this.

391 See for instance De Boone 1954, 58

166 Map 5.4: geographical distribution of chronological profiles

On the Roman side, coins were symbolic of who was in power at the time and the reasons why he should remain so.392 On the other side, the symbolic value depended more on the recipient of the coins. The romanized population of the empire, which had grown used to Roman coin use, probably understood the message which was intended and a certain amount of people also could read the legends. But from the mid-3rd century onwards, more and more people from Germania Libera entered Roman territory, whether by force, invitation or plain tolerance. It is possible that they even constituted the main part of the population in our area in the 4th century. One must assume that their command of Latin was low, and, while inside the Empire, they remained outsiders in terms of gallo-Roman culture. Thus, they would have interpreted Roman symbols in entirely other ways. For them, the iconic part of coins may have been more important. Speculative as this may be, the portrait of the emperor may have symbolized the abstract, almost godly power that was Rome. Coins may by extension simply have been tokens of power for these people. They may have been kept as amulets, as many Roman coins with holes in later Merovingian graves seem to illustrate; or they might have been deposited in ritual contexts, although this is hard to verify. Little is known about late Roman ritual places. In any case, this use of coins did not make it necessary to posses many of them, and this might explain the limited distribution of coins in non-military contexts.

392 Values of restoration of peace, order and the conservation of the empire are paramount in coin legends of the third and fourth centuries (see for instance Burnett 1987).

167 5.7 Conclusion: coin use in the MDS-area 50 BC - AD 450

5.7.1 The early-Roman period (50 BC - AD 69)

Celtic coins In table 5.8 the metal distribution of Celtic coins is represented. It may give the impression that the percentage of Celtic coins is rather high in the MDS-area; almost 27% of the coins before AD 69 is Celtic. But 810 of the 1051 Celtic coins come from the temple site at Empel. If we do not count the coins of this place, the percentage of Celtic coins falls to the more humble level of 6. Most sites offer only 1 or 2 coins; exceptions are Tongeren (127), Berg (which lies very close to Tongeren; 9), Maastricht (7; various find spots), Wolder (8), Beegden (7), and Hapert-Hoogpoort (47). The gravel- extraction pits at Maren-Kessel-Lith offer another 30 coins, but these may be from different settlements. In fact, only Tongeren distinguishes itself by its number of Celtic coins besides Empel. The paramount place of Empel with regard to raw numbers of coins is probably not wholly caused by historical circumstance, since it is one of the few ritual sites which were fully investigated with the systematic use of a metal detector. The gap between Empel and the other sites is so large, however, that an explanation completely based on intensity of research would not be right.

Denomination Tongeren Empel Other sites Total

coins % coins % coins % coins %

AV 19 15 26 3,2 13 12,1 58 5,6

AR 3 2,4 44 5,4 29 27,1 76 7,3

AES 99 78 732 90,5 63 58,9 894 85,7

Potin 6 4,7 7 0,9 2 1,9 15 1,4

Total 127 100 809 100 107 100 1043 100 Table 5.8: distribution of metal of the Celtic coins

By far the largest group is that of the bronze coins, the circulation of which can be dated mostly around the turn of the millennium. Without considering the issues in detail, gold and silver coins generally can be dated earlier, in the 1st century BC.393 Silver coins are second, although there is a considerable difference between Tongeren and Empel on the one side, and the rest of the sites on the other. In the first two sites, the proportion silver:bronze is 1:33 and 1:16, in the other sites it is 1:2. This means that the circulation of bronze was much more centralized than that of silver, or rather, bronze coins were deposited on a larger scale. Since bronze represents the latest phase of the circulation of Celtic coins, the difference seems to be a chronological one. The concentration of bronze in Tongeren and Empel must be associated with the presence of indigenous auxiliaries, which seem to have monopolized the possession of coin in the latest phase. Empel was clearly a religious centre of importance for auxiliary soldiers, which shows in the nature and extent of its ritual deposits. Whether the same applies to Tongeren is unclear. However, the presence of troops in the early 1st century AD seems to be undisputed at late.394 Interestingly, while both in Empel and in Tongeren AVAVCIA coins are the most common, no bronze triquetrum coins of the type Roymans 16b were found in Tongeren.

393 In this, I follow Roymans (1994,114). He distinguishes two phases in the circulation of Celtic coins in the Netherlands; the first 70 - 15 BC, the second 15 BC - AD 50. The end of the second phase seems to me the latest possibility for Celtic coins being around; most coins of phase two will have circulated in the early 1st century AD.

394 See Vanvinckenroye 1992; Vanderhoeven e.a. 1992, 125.

168 Figure 5.25: geographical distribution of gold Eburon-staters ( after Roymans forthcoming b); the site numbers and different symbols are Roymans’.

In Empel, these coins take up 27% of all bronze coins. Since this group of triquetrum coins is thought to be a typical Batavian issue, it follows that there were not many Batavian soldiers located in Tongeren at this time.395 The complete absence of these coins even suggests that there was little interaction between the tribal territories of the Batavi and the Tungri. Looking at silver and gold coins in Tongeren and Empel, there seems to be little common ground between these two sites; the issues represented are almost completely different. There is one exception: the gold staters of the Eburones. But in Tongeren, these coins represent 27% of all gold coins, while this is 90.1% in Empel. It is possible that the idea of the centre of this tribe lying in central Belgium must be reversed. It is true that the area between Empel and Tongeren is almost devoid of Eburon-staters, but recent finds show that they were very common in the Dutch river area.396 Another thing that is unexpected, is the occurrence of gold coins in Tongeren. As gold coins are representative for the early phase in the circulation of Celtic coins, why do they show up in Tongeren at all? Tongeren is thought to be a new settlement of the early 1st century, a time by which Celtic gold coins had already vanished from circulation.397 Regrettably, the exact find spot of these coins within Tongeren is unknown, and this may also offer the explanation. Since the coins with an unspecified find spot within Tongeren usually are part of older collections, they may well have been from the surrounding countryside. One such find complex, which lies just outside Tongeren, is Berg. This site offers a large spectrum of Celtic coins, among which two gold Eburon-staters. Berg seems a likely candidate for the real provenance of Celtic gold from Tongeren. This would also explain the near-absence of silver in Tongeren, since at the time that Tongeren was founded, the circulation of Celtic silver had all but come to an end.

395 Roymans forthcoming a; triquetrum coins of the Bochum type were still in circulation in Augustan times.

396 Roymans forthcoming b; the quantity in which they are found here even suggests that they were struck in this region.

397 Or at the latest, the late 1st century BC. See Vanderhoeven e.a. 1992, 92-94; Vanderhoeven & Vyncier 1991, 109.

169 Map 5.5: distribution of Celtic coins by metal

Regarding the geographical distribution of Celtic coins (map 5.5), it is evident that circulation was almost entirely limited to the eastern half of the area. This is a phenomenon we have encountered before in the Dutch river area, where the same division existed. In the latter area it was explained by the existence of two tribal territories, that of the Batavi in the east and that of the Cananefates in the west. Batavi were thought to have made use of coins before the coming of the Romans398, while the Cananefates did not know this tradition. Because the circulation of Roman coins did start relatively late in the western half, it missed the late Celtic bronze which circulated alongside Roman money in the early 1st century AD. The only Celtic coin in this area is an AVAVCIA-coin found in Velsen, which is indeed the earliest settlement in this area in which coins were used.399 There are three exceptions to this observation; three Celtic coins were found along the southern border of the MDS-area in Belgium. One gold stater of the Eburones was found in Antwerpen and a gold stater of the Nervii in Deurne400; one AVAVCIA-coin in the vicus of Grobbendonk. Whether these coins can be taken as markers of the southern border for the territory of the Cananefates is uncertain, but it is a possibility. Finally there seems to be a difference between the distribution of gold, which is limited to the southern half of the MDS-area, and that of silver and bronze, both of which show more or less the same distribution pattern. Here we see the same gap that was already mentioned for the Eburon-staters, since Celtic gold is found to the north of Empel in the eastern Dutch river area. Did a faction of a southern tribe (possibly the Eburones) settle in the first half of the 1st century BC in the Dutch river area, travelling along the Meuse and introducing the use of coinage in their new territory? If this is true, the other Celtic gold in the Dutch river area is part of Eburonic coin circulation as well.

398 In any case the tribal section of the Chatti which migrated to this area from the lower-Rhine between 50 and 30 BC; the Batavi are most likely a conglomerate tribe of these newcomers and remnants of the tribe of the Eburones which was decimated by Caesar .

399 See chapter 3. Strictly speaking Velsen lies to the north of the Dutch river area; besides the AVAVCIA-coin, recently a stater of the Nervii was found in a rural settlement at Castricum (close to Velsen; see Hagers & Sier 1999). These are the only two Celtic coins found west of Utrecht.

400 Antwerpen -Scheers 31; Deurne -Scheers 29.

170 Figure 5.26: left map shows all sites with coins before AD 69; right m ap shows sites with earliest access to Roman coins

Distribution of early Roman coins A total of 1182 coins of the early Roman period were found in 197 sites. The average number of coins is 6.2, higher than that of Luxemburg (4.8) and the Dutch river area (4.4).401 Figure 5.27 shows the distribution of coins by site in the early, middle and late Roman period. Since the number of sites with 1-5 coins was the highest in all three periods, this class of sites was omitted from the bar chart, because it would obscure the rest of the classes. It is clear, however, that the number of sites with 6-10 and 11-20 coins in the early Roman period is relatively low compared to the other two periods. In other words, there is a bigger contrast between sites with relatively few coins and sites with large numbers of coins; the distribution is less even than after AD 69. The map on the left of figure 5.26 shows the geographical distribution of all coins before AD 69. Again, there is a striking difference between the western and eastern half of the MDS-area. However, for the first time we see coin using sites in the west, albeit on a small scale. Comparison with maps showing all early Roman sites402, it is clear that the uneven distribution is partly caused by a less densely habitation or a Fundlücke in the western half.

The earliest circulation of Roman money I have argued in chapter 4 that the distribution of coins before AD 69 does not say much about the beginning of the circulation of Roman money, simply because many of these coins could have been in use for a long time before they were lost or deposited.403 However, it is possible to trace the earliest circulation by looking at some guide types. Like in chapter 4, the occurrence of late Celtic bronze, Nemausus-asses and Republican coins at a site is considered to be indicative of coin use at the beginning of the 1st century AD. The reason for this is straightforward in the case of Celtic bronze and Nemausus- asses, since they did not circulate after the Augustan period.404 Republican denarii could have been used during a longer period, but when they appear in combination with one of the two coin types mentioned, it is likely that they represent an early phase. Isolated finds of republican coins are not counted here, nor is isolated Celtic bronze. The map on the right side of figure 5.26 shows the sites with the earliest Roman money; the numbers of coins per site are found in table 5.9. Only 29 of the 192 sites (15%) seem to have participated in the earliest coin circulation; furthermore, most of them seem to cluster along the main waterways of the area. Of course, the number of sites with an early access to Roman coins might have been larger, but we have no means to verify this.

401 If Nijmegen-Kops Plateau and other military sites are included, however, the average in the Dutch river area lies much higher: 11.4 coins per site.

402 See Verwers 1998; Sheet I; Van Es e.a. 1988, 88.

403 Chapter 4, 117.

404 The third and latest series of Nemausus-asses was struck between AD 10 and 14. Burnett (e.a.) 1992, Roman provincial coinage, 153-155.

171 Figure 5.27: distribution of coin numbers by site

Tongeren and Empel are the only sites with all three of the guide types; the rest has just two. There are also some sites with only Nemausus-asses, which point undoubtedly to coin use before AD 9. Wouw I is in this respect a remarkable site, since it lies in the western half of the MDS-area and has two Nemausus-asses. Regrettably, we do not know the nature of the finds. The vici all have a later start, except Grobbendonk and Maastricht. In the last case, however, the coins are from various find spots, and it is uncertain if they are from the vicus itself. This is a contrast with Luxemburg, where the vici were clearly the earliest centres of circulation of Roman money. Sanctuaries or ritual places are not only sites with relatively many early-Roman coins, they also stand out by their high number of Republican denarii. Notably, there are three rural villages which show signs of an early access to Roman coins, but only the settlement along the Meuse (Venlo) does have a Nemausus-as. Perhaps the sites with these coins are even earlier than the rest. The later start of the vici of the MDS-area implies that there was no early monetary tie between the city and rural centres, as was the case in Luxemburg. The finds of the earliest coins are confined to either the city, as administrative centre of the area, and ritual places. Finds in other places are sporadic and do not point to a participation in any monetary economy. The presence of these earliest coins in the countryside must be explained by the return of soldiers of the auxilia (or rather tumultuarii) who visited their home. These soldiers used coins in their native context by depositing them in ritual places, as is well- illustrated by the coins of Empel, but they may also have left coins at home or lost them. In the latter two cases, these finds do not reflect rural coin use. It is important to note that whenever these coins are found, they were in all probability the property of soldiers.405 To see what happened after the earliest phase of coin circulation, the graph in figure 5.28 shows the distribution of issue periods by site type. Evidently, coins of Augustus form the main part of coin circulation in the first half of the 1st century; this applies to all site types, but there are some differences. Surprising are the almost congruent lines of Tongeren and of the rural settlements, which are characterized by a peak in Augustan coins (60%), and almost equal percentages in the following issue periods. Only under Nero there is a slight increase again.

405 Perhaps it is better to speak of warriors, since these early units of soldiers bear a strong resemblance to native bands.

172 Site Name Function Nemausus- Celtic Republican Total before AD 69 asse s bronze coins

9999 Tongeren City 16 99 34 377

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Vicus 0 1 2 49

8888 Maastricht Vicus? 0 7 3 51

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Rural settlement 0 1 1 15

1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Rural settlement 0 1 2 25

2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats Rural settlement 1 0 0 3

2143 Empel Sanctuary 7 731 25 881

1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Sanctuary 1 0 16 45

2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Sanctuary 0 6 16 36

1357 Maaseik-Aan het Moorbos Cemetery 1 0 0 4

1332 Berg-Trappenberg Ritual? 0 5 7 12

1651 Berghem-Heide Unknown 1 0 0 1

1597 Beegden I Unknown 0 5 1 7

1875 Blerick-Maas Unknown 1 0 0 2

1335 Dilsen-Feresne Unknown 1 0 0 1

1931 Hunsel* Unknown 1 0 1 1

1345 Koninksem* Unknown 1 1 0 6

1347 Kortessem Unknown 1 0 0 1

1755 Lage Mierde Unknown 1 0 0 1

1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Unknown 0 2 5 16

1759 Lith-Maas Unknown 0 4 4 11

1565 Lith/2 Unknown 1 0 0 1

1629 Ottersum* Unknown 1 0 0 2

1588 St.Oedenrode* Unknown 1 0 0 2

1824 Veghel* Unknown 0 1 1 2

2007 Venlo-Casinoweg Unknown 1 0 0 1

2008 Venray* Unknown 1 0 0 2

2012 Well* Unknown 1 0 0 1

1647 Wouw I Unknown 2 0 0 1

Total 41 864 118 1557 Table 5.9: sites with a combination of Nemausus-asses, Celtic bronze and Republican coins. An asterisk means that the precise find spot within the municipality is unknown. Note: the total of the last column is no row total.

Even the distribution within of Augustan issues is quite similar: the only difference is a higher percentage of Nemausus asses in Tongeren. Two of the three rural settlements are Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers and Riethoven-Heesmortel, both of which were excavated completely. Are they exceptions, or are they representative of the whole group of rural settlements? If the former is true, this implies a direct monetary tie between the two settlements and Tongeren, but what was the nature of this exceptional relation? However, the data is too limited to answer these questions.

173 Figure 5.28: percentage of early Roman coins per issue period by site type

Vici and cemeteries both show a marked increase towards the end of the early Roman period. In the case of the cemeteries, the increase starts under Claudius, but this can be an effect of a relatively low percentage of Augustan coins. The practice of depositing coins in graves does not really start before the second half of the 1st century AD, and this confirms the view that it was in essence a Roman custom. Vici do not seem to be particularly early participants in the Roman monetary system. Only under Nero does coin use increase, and it is very likely that many Augustan coins are to be dated after Augustus, possibly even from the middle of the 1st century AD. Only Grobbendonk shows signs of an early start of coin circulation, but then this is the most southern of the vici of the MDS-area. Comparing the graph of figure 5.28 with the bar chart in figure 5.29, this confirms

Figure 5.29: distribution of early Roman coins by site type

174 the view that the most important site category besides Tongeren is that of the sanctuaries. Vici and cemeteries406 are also represented, but as we have seen, they concentrate towards the end of the early Roman period. There are eight rural settlements with coins before AD 69, but only 5 have Augustan coins. Figure 5.28 shows that these five indeed follow the same chronological pattern, except Kolis, which has Republican but no Augustan coins and must therefore be dated later than the others. The other four rural settlements all have coin lists which start with Nero; they could have had access to Roman coins at the end of the early Roman period, but it is more likely that coin use started under the Flavians. The similarity in chronological distribution of coins between the five early rural settlements and Tongeren and the fact that they had early access to Roman coins, is indicative of a special relationship with the Roman authorities. Indeed the special position of the settlements of Hoogeloon and Riethoven are confirmed by the presence of other early Roman finds, Italian samian ware for instance. I do not have the same detailed information about the other sites, but these early imports might be attested there as well. Could it be that they were the home villages of ranking officers in the auxilia? Unfortunately, an attempt to answer such a question would go beyond the limits of this study

Denominations Gold coins and hoards With respect to gold coins it must be observed that chances that single gold coins were accidentally lost are very small, so it is better to treat them as hoards and to regard them as deliberate depositions. Table 5.10 shows that gold coins are absent in all settlements which could be ascribed to a type. Since the category ‘Unknown’ is supposedly a mixture of the other types, this must be an effect of loss of data. This is not surprising, since finds of gold coins are the least reported of all metals. Still, compared to find reports of Celtic gold, the evidence for Roman aurei seems meagre. This may imply that, notwithstanding the report factor, aurei were scarce in the early Roman period. When they are found, it is not in the context of settlements, but as isolated hoards or ritual deposits.

City Vic i Villas Rural village Sanctuaries Cemeteries Unknown

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

AV 2 0,6

Aureus 20 6,1

Denarius 31 11,9 8 8,9 1 5,3 6 12,2 30 50,8 4 6,7 80 24,5

Quinarius 3 1,2 2 3,4 2 0,6

AR 1 0,3

Sestertius 2 0,8 1 1,1 2 4,1 2 3,4 4 6,7 18 5,5

Dupondius 11 4,2 9 10 3 6,1 1 1,7 6 10 13 4

As 171 65,8 65 72,2 17 89,5 33 67,3 22 37,3 44 73,3 172 52,6

Semis 7+10 6,9 3+1 4,4 1 5,3 1+3 8,2 1 1,7 1+6 2,1

Quadrans 5 1,9 1 1,1 1 0,3

Dup./as 1 2 5 1,5

Aes 15 5,8 1 1,1 1 1,7 2 3,3 5 1,5

Other 5 2

Unknown 1 1,1 6 1,8

Total 260 100 90 100 19 100 49 100 59 100 60 100 332 100 Table 5.10: denominations before AD 69 by site type; the ‘+numbers ‘ in the semis-cells are halved asses.

406 Cemeteries, just like sanctuaries, are also representative of ritual use of coins.

175 Most aurei are single finds; their geographical distribution is visible on map 5.6, together with the hoards which are datable to this period. Looking at the date of issue of the aurei, it appears that 11 of the 20 are Neronian. One might argue that Gresham’s law is applicable here, since Nero degraded the purity of the aureus. However, this implies a thoroughly monetized economy, which does not seem likely to have existed in the first half of the 1st century AD. The aurei of Nero invite another explanation, which is more in accordance with tribal economies.

Map 5.6: geographical distribution of aurei and silver hoards before AD 69.

Celtic gold must be placed in the sphere of ceremonial exchange. Mostly, this will have taken place between members of tribal elites of different tribes or between tribal chiefs and their followers. Similarly, it can be an expression of the relation between tribal elites and their gods; this accounts for the gold coins found in ritual contexts. In times of political instability, such as war, ceremonial exchange will increase because of the need for alliances between men or between men and the gods. This is illustrated by the enormous output of Celtic gold during the Gallic wars. It disappeared as quickly as it was minted, mostly taken away as booty by the Roman army. Gold was replaced by other metals, first by silver, later by bronze and potin. I expect little change in the function of Celtic coinage, except perhaps in the latest bronze issues which are found mainly in the context of Roman military camps. Roman authorities were aware of ceremonial exchange of valuable goods. There are numerous examples of gifts by Roman authorities to tribal chiefs or kings outside the Empire, not only in the early Roman period, but throughout the history of the Roman Empire. At the end of the early Roman period, various factors played a role in the distribution of Roman gold in the MDS- area. In the first place, after the death of Nero there was a great deal of political instability both within the heart of the Roman empire and at the fringe. Local factors colluded with imperial politics, which culminated in the Batavian revolt in AD 69. This created the need for political alliances between (sections of) tribes and the need of tribal chiefs to strengthen the bond with their followers. At the same time, the Roman government tried to regain control of the situation by forming alliances with the main players of the tribal revolt. All this will have taken place in the realm of ceremonial exchange, in which gold coins played their traditional part. As tribal leaders, such as Civilis, had access to Roman gold through their service in the Roman army (and through plunder of Roman camps), they will have made use of this in the ceremonial sphere. At the Roman side of things, Roman authorities will have tried to ensure loyalty of tribal chiefs by the same mechanism. In this context we must place the aurei of Nero. The hoard of 24 aurei found in the castellum of Utrecht is probably an exponent of high-level politics; the isolated finds in the MDS-area suggest lower level distribution

176 of gold, and are perhaps mostly part of ritual deposits.407 In accordance with this explanation, the geographical distribution of aurei is not random: the finds are concentrated in the Batavian heartland. Little can be said about the three silver hoards which are dateable to this period. The most northern hoard was found in Den Bosch-De Maij; the only information we have about this hoard is that it included Republican denarii. It is thus not even certain that it can be dated in the early Roman period. The second was found at Breendonk-Kasteel and consisted of 196 Republican denarii; detailed information about issues we have not. The last one was discovered at Herentals in 1881. Four quinarii of the gens Porcia were recorded, but it is possible that the hoard was in fact larger than this. Considering the distribution of denominations over different site types (see table 5.10), a few remarks can be made. Again, Tongeren and the rural villages seem to correlate in the proportion of denominations; most remarkable is the high percentage of semisses in the last group, since such small bronzes are usually associated with a monetary economy. Indeed, if one compares this percentage with that of the unknown category, the difference is clear. As the latter category of sites is definitely rural, the exceptional position of the rural villages is further illustrated. This confirms the earlier stated view that the source of these coins was the Roman army, and that it must be seen as soldier’s wages brought home. This is substantiated by the fact that the percentage of countermarked asses is high in the rural villages (30%), a phenomenon characteristic of Roman army camps. Also the denominations of the vici show a similar pattern; the as is paramount, the percentage of silver is low, and there is a scattering of small bronze. Sanctuaries are entirely different; here silver coins dominate and the as is reduced to 37%. The percentage of small bronze coins is low. This shows that silver played an important part in dedications to the gods, which we have seen earlier in the sanctuaries of Luxemburg in the early Roman period. Comparing this with the distribution of the unknown category, it seems likely that the ritual use of coins is well-represented also in this group, since the percentage of denarii is markedly higher that in the non-ritual sites. Concluding, we may say that ritual use of money prevailed in the early Roman age in the countryside. What is more, the dominant use of silver coins for this purpose shows that there is a strong continuity with the late Iron Age. Dedications of money were a prerogative of the tribal elite, and this is still the case before AD 69. There is one exception, and this is the temple of Empel. It was not included in table 5.10, because it was clear that the distribution of denominations was wholly different in this case. The percentage of silver coins is still higher than that of the non-ritual sites, but not even half that of other sanctuaries in the MDS-area. More telling are the numerous halved and countermarked asses, which place Empel in the group of Tongeren and the rural settlements. As contacts with the Roman army were the main explanation in these cases, the same can be applied to Empel. Indeed, the other finds at Empel show that Roman auxiliaries were an important group of dedicants at this place.408 In conclusion , the earliest distribution of Roman coins in the MDS-area seems to have been a limited affair, and is first and foremost tied up with the activity of the Roman army or government, which is essentially the same thing. Payment of wages and other payments needed to run frontier business was responsible for early money flow. Native people only acquired money by being somehow connected with these activities. Secondary use of Roman coins by natives seems to have been ritual in character in the first place. In this, silver and probably gold played a relative important role. First, native elites who possessed these coins continued the practice of displaying their wealth by offering high value coins at holy places and did not have an evident monetary or economic view on money and what to do with it. This is also illustrated by the distribution of Neronian aurei in traditional tribal networks. There is also no clear sign of monetary interaction between Tongeren and the emerging vici of the MDS-area; this confirms the idea of a low level of economic integration in this phase. Similarity in coin patterns between the city and rural villages does not point to early monetization either, but shows only that native soldiers took some of the money they earned back to their home villages. If this money was used, it would be in a ritual context of a local sanctuary or holy place409. After an initial phase with a limited distribution of coins, possession of Roman money spread rapidly in the first half of the 1st century, and the average number of coins per site is relatively high. This quantitative leap does not correspond

407 See chapter 3, 71. For the hoard of Utrecht, see Haak & Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, 1960.

408 See earlier in this chapter, p.157.

409 In this period, there must have been a host of open-space ritual places, which are archeologically visible only by the occurrence of certain characteristic finds (mostly coins and other metal objects). See Derks 1996, 126.

177 with a change in use of Roman money, but reflects the scale to which the Batavi were involved in the Roman army. However, we must not underestimate the effectiveness of the latter in spreading ideas along with material culture; by their continuing service, Batavian soldiers were becoming quickly familiar with Roman ways of using money, and they would take these ideas home with them. But before AD 69, there were a few factors which impeded the implementation of these ideas. In the first place, tribal identity was still very strong. Even in service of the Roman army, Batavian soldiers were more like tribal warriors led by their own chiefs; by this construction, they were able to maintain the value systems they were used to, and their pride of their autonomy would stimulate this. Secondly, the Roman authorities were in no hurry to impose a formal structure in this area, as they regarded it as a military frontier zone. Tributa equalled levy of troops and did not ask for an elaborate tax system, which may have speeded up monetization in other areas. However, apart from these halting factors, the conditions were such that any change in the political equilibrium of this area could have dramatic effects on the cultural situation. The events of AD 69 and 70 supplied the fuel for this change.

178 5.7.2 The middle Roman period (AD 69 - 260)

Geographical distribution of coins The number of coins in this phase is double that of the previous period; so has the number of sites; 2251 coins were found at 372 sites. Of course, we are comparing two periods of different lengths; just counting Roman coins, the early Roman period only covers something more than half a century, while the middle Roman period is much longer: almost 200 years. Looking at year averages, the early Roman period shows a loss rate of 23.6 coins per year and the middle Roman period only 11.3. However, it would be wrong to conclude that coin use grew less during the middle Roman period. This would only be true if coin loss was constant each year, and it clearly was not. Coin loss during the middle Roman period concentrated in the latter half of the first and the whole 2nd century AD; after the reign of M.Aurelius it went quickly downhill. In fact, the year average does not tell us much in itself.

Map 5.7: geographical distribution of coins AD 69- 260

Looking at map 5.7, there are evident clusters of finds in the Maaskant (in the northeast, on the southern bank of the Meuse); again on both sides of the Meuse in the middle of Dutch Limburg; downstream of the Dommel and the Aa (area of Den Bosch) and finally the Kempen region (area of Eindhoven), again the Dutch side of it. It is this last region which puts the historicity of this distribution pattern in question. The Kempen are characterized by agriculturally poor soils, they are not strategically vital and from an infrastructural point of view not particularly interesting in Roman times. The concentration of finds in this region lies really in the fact that it has been investigated thoroughly in the past decades. The same applies to the Maaskant. If those clusters are indeed representative for the density of sites in the whole MDS-area, map 5.7 would almost be redundant; sites are spread all over the area.410 Although there are evidently research factors at work which determine the distribution of coin finds, the value of the

410 The explanation for the cluster in mid-Limburg might be that there have been extensive extractions of gravel in this zone.

179 maps lies in particular in the comparison of subsequent periods in time. Compared with figure 5.26 (- AD 69) the greater density of sites with coins is apparent; also the balance between the eastern and the western part is somewhat corrected, although still most of the sites are concentrated in the east. The distribution of coins (see fig.5.27) over the sites shows some differences with the other two periods. The number of sites with less than six coins is higher than in the early Roman period and the middle Roman period shows the highest number of sites in the range 41-50 coins. But in the higher ranges, this period has the least sites of all three periods. This implies that, while coin use had become more widespread in the middle Roman period, the intensity of loss or deposition of coins grew less.

Siteno Name Date Issue per. AV AR AES Total

1818 Terheijden 1780 AD 79 7 24 24

1454 Nijlen 1770 AD 96 7 12 120?

1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk 1936 AD 117 8 42 42

1360 Neerpelt-Kleine Brogel 1935 AD 180 11 26 260?

2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat 1963 AD 180 11 20 20

1550 Haps 1986 AD 180 11 50 50

1775 Nederwetten-Op de Heibult 1939 AD 180 11 1 100?

1350 Overrepen AD 180 11 34 34

2049 Wijshagen 1930 AD 180 11 11 11

1538 Gassel 1988 AD 192 12 19 19

2055 Achel 1936 AD 192 12 73 168?

1419 Bornem-Hingene 1786 AD 217 13 42 ?

2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren 1833 AD 238 14 14 14

1351 Paal 1905 AD 239 15 273 500?

1858 Strijp 1919 AD 249 15 25 19 44

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker 1979 AD 253 15 2 18 20 Table 5.11: hoards AD 69-260

Coin hoards and aurei There are sixteen hoards which can be dated to this period; additionally, eleven single aurei were found at nine sites. The details are represented in table 5.11 and 5.12 and map 5.8. Two gold hoards (containing more than one coin; see table 5.11 and 5.12) were found in the western half of the MDS- area; moreover, they belong to the same issue period (Flavii). Another Flavian aureus was also found in this area. This might be coincidental, but an alternative explanation comes to mind. It is possible that we must regard these gold hoards in the same way as we did the aurei in the early Roman period. In this view, it is significant that both hoards with a substantial amount of aurei are dated at the beginning of the middle Roman period, and that all later hoards consist of silver and bronze coins. Also, four of the eleven single aurei can be dated to the Flavian period.411 It is conceivable that these gold hoards were the last remnants of a ‘embedded’ use of gold in tribal gift exchange. I do not think, however, that this use continued into the 2nd century AD.

411 Three of the aurei are even datable before AD 79.

180 Siteno Name Site type Date Issue per. Coins

1437 Lier I Unknown AD 79 7 1

1631 Roermond-bos Unknown AD 79 7 1

6666 Echt Cemetery? AD 79 7 1

1822 Uden-Leijgraaf Unknown AD 96 7 1

1790 Oss Unknown AD 117 8 1

1790 Oss Unknown AD 138 9 1

1554 Den Bosch Unknown AD 138 9 1

1879 Born-Kasteel Unknown AD 161 10 1

1389 Vechmaal-Walenveld Villa AD 180 11 2

1926 Herten Unknown AD 180 11 1

Total 11 Table 5.12: single aurei AD 69-260

Map 5.8: hoards and single aurei AD 69-260; the numbers indicate the issue period in which the find is dated

After the Flavii, we do not find substantial gold hoards anymore. It is perhaps no coincidence, that the latest of these hoards occur in the western half of the MDS-area, a region which seems to have lagged behind in the use of coins altogether. Eight of the hoards are datable in the last two decades of the 2nd century AD and also three of the single aurei.412 This

412 At the villa of Vechmaal, two aurei were found: technically, it should be counted as a hoard, but the number lies much closer to the finds of single aurei, so it is listed with the single finds.

181 cluster of hoards corresponds with a general decline in coin loss in all settlements after the reign of M.Aurelius (see figure 5.18). Although the decline is visible in a larger area of northwestern Europe (see chapter 4), the number of hoards in this period is uncommonly high. If we explain these hoards by purely numismatical factors, as Harl does, the substantial debasement of the denarius by M.Aurelius caused hoarding of good denarii, and the inflation which ensued precipitated a very low output of bronze coins.413 However apt this explanation may be in the case of the general decline in bronze after M.Aurelius, it does nothing for the difference in numbers of hoards in different regions. While the two silver hoards can indeed be seen as a result of storing ‘good’ denarii, the explanation of bronze hoards buried in a time in which relatively little new money arrived in our area is more problematical. The solution lies in just this last-mentioned fact. Presumably, the cluster of hoards at the end of the 2nd century is not a real cluster at all, but represents a normal hoarding rate during a longer period from M.Aurelius to the middle of the 3rd century AD. Hoards of a clearly later date show that 2nd-century bronze was still in common use in the first half of the 3rd century. With a stall in the influx of new bronze from the centre, it is very likely that some 3rd-century hoards consisted entirely of 2nd-century money. The possibility of this being true is further sustained by the fact that some of the hoards dated to the reign of Commodus are incomplete, such as Neerpelt, Nederwetten and Achel. An important implication of the shift in hoards from gold and silver to bronze in the course of the middle Roman period is that it shows the development of a form of monetary economy. Of course, hoards can be all kinds of things; they may be hidden purses (like Paal) or savings, but also votive deposits (like Wijnegem). It is often difficult to determine the character of the hoard, since find circumstances are rarely well-documented. Still, even if the bronze hoards would be all votive deposits, the fact that they do not contain high-value coins since the Flavians shows that possession of money was no longer the privilege of the native elite, but had ‘democratized’ in some way.

Figure 5.30: distribution of coins over different site categories AD 69-260; N represents the number of sites in each category

The post-Flavian aurei can also be either hoards or ritual deposits, but their function during circulation was probably a monetary one. The two aurei found on the site of a Roman villa at Vechmaal are a good example of storage of wealth.

413 Harl 1996, 95. For the debasements under M.Aurelius and Commodus, see Walker 1977, 58-60. The silver content under M. Aurelius is erratic: the mean fluctuates between 77% and 81%; under Commodus, the debasement has taken a structural course.

182 Perhaps their burial was also a reaction to the lowering of the silver standard under M.Aurelius.

Coins and contexts The bar chart in figure 5.30 shows the distribution of coins over the different site categories. When compared with the period before AD 69 (see fig. 5.29), the differences between categories seem to have levelled out The number of coins of Tongeren is rather low, in particular compared to the early Roman period, but the view is distorted by the fact that not all coin finds of Tongeren are in the database. If the coins of the Coin Cabinet in Tongeren are added, the number will approximately double.414 The reason why this effect is not visible in the early Roman period is probably due to the fact that coins of this period are well-represented in the excavation of Tongeren-Kielenstraat. However, the corrected number of Tongeren for the middle Roman period lies well below that of Trier. The difference in calibre between the two cities is clear. Tongeren does not stand out so much as Trier does with the sites in Luxemburg.415 Another difference between the early and middle Roman periods is the decrease in the importance of ritual deposition at sanctuaries. However, ritual use of coins is compensated by the growing number of coins in funerary contexts. Together, the percentage of coins in ritual contexts stays more or less at the same level. The group of villas is new; all villas develop in the Flavian period at the earliest. The early Roman coins that were found on villa sites have been either in use during a long time, or they belong to settlements which existed prior to the villa at the same location. Except for these differences and a general increase of number of coins per site type, there seem to be no substantial variations with the early Roman period. The vici display twice as many coins as in the period before AD 69, but their relative proportion compared to other site types is equal. Looking at the chronological distribution of coins, it is evident that the general tendency (see figure 5.31) is a descending line from the Flavian period onwards; the greatest dip comes after the reign of M.Aurelius. The sudden increase under Antoninus Pius of city, vici and rural villages is striking. On the other side are the sanctuaries, cemeteries and villas, which all display a gradually down-sloping line. Considering the different site types in more detail, it is clear that there is sometimes considerable variation within each group. However, even in this variation it is possible to see patterns. In the graphs of the vici, rural villages and villas, the settlements located in the south of the MDS-area do not conform with the general down-sloping trend, but show peaks in the coin loss of later issue periods. Thus, it is possible to discern two supply zones, of which the southern one continued to receive fresh coins on a considerable scale long after the northern zone. This might be interpreted as a difference in the source of coin supply, which in the southern case may be Tongeren, in the northern one Nijmegen or the forts along the Rhine. The pattern is not crystal clear, but to ascribe any form of exclusiveness to the two supply zones would be wrong. The variation in the pattern can be explained for instance by the existing contacts between settlements of the two groups. This pattern does not apply to the ritual sites of the MDS-area. They conform to the general pattern, and the difference between north and south is perhaps eclipsed by other factors. One could think of a decrease in the ritual use of coins both in funeral contexts and ritual deposits. We have already seen in Luxemburg how fewer coins were included in burials during the course of the middle Roman period. There is one anomalous cemetery in this group, and that is the cemetery which belongs to the rural village or villa of Hoogeloon. While the settlement conforms to the northern group, the cemetery defies both the north-south pattern and the tendency of ever decreasing coin numbers of cemeteries. The explanation must lie in local circumstances, but I cannot think of any which would produce this effect. Both the fact that vici are not particularly over-represented in the distribution of coins (see fig.5.30) and the general declining trend during the middle Roman period, do not give the impression of a firmly established monetary economy in this period. On the contrary, the Flavian peak and subsequent fall in coin loss raises the suspicion that the Roman army was the prime mover of monetary flow in the MDS-area. As soon as the army is reduced in size, coin loss seems to follow. Unlike the situation in Luxemburg , where the interplay between city and vici established a firm ground for monetary exchange, the MDS-area seems never to have reached this point (see figure 5.32).

414 Aarts 1989, 31 and appendix 10.

415 The contrast is even sharper when one takes into account that only the coins of the Altbachtal are counted in the case of Trier.

183 Figure 5.31: chronological distribution of coins by sites type AD 69-260; for the graphs of separate types only those with 1 0 coins or more were selected

184 However, this is not to say that some form of monetary economy did not develop in this area, only that it took place on a smaller scale, and that it seems to have been dependent on the Roman army. Perhaps this can be further clarified by looking at denominations.

Figure 5.32: chronological distribution of coins by site type in Luxemburg; although the same decline is visible under Commodus, the pattern before AD 180 is different from that of the MDS-area: here coin loss for all site types peak during the second century AD.

Denominations Of course, the almost Empire-wide shift from asses and dupondii to sestertii in the course of the 2nd century is also visible in table 5.13. This is a general effect of inflation on the output of Roman mints. What concerns us more are the variations which do not conform to imperial developments, but are typical for the area of research. A marked difference with the early Roman period is the move from silver to bronze in votive deposits at sanctuaries, in particular because the percentage of silver increases in cemeteries. Ritual use of coins seems to gravitate towards funerary contexts in this period, but also the significance of the gift seems to change. It may be that coins are more often used for accompanying the dead in the form of purses; money seems to have become as common an object as pottery. The shift from silver to bronze at sanctuaries shows on the one hand that native elites had found other ways for displaying their wealth and power than by giving valuable objects to the gods. They would invest in the building of a temple, other buildings, or monuments for instance. On the other hand, common people found their way to the temples and gave small valuables as votive gifts. The bronze coins in votive deposits perhaps show that services from gods could be bought by money just as they could be bought from mortal men. As such, they can be an indication of the spread of monetization. However much the familiarity of people with coins used in a monetary way may point to an emerging monetization, it says nothing of the scale on which it took place. As was mentioned in the previous section, it seems likely that it never gained enough momentum to continue without the impetus of the nearby Roman army. It is evident from table 5.13 that most differences are confined to the proportion of silver, sestertii and dupondii and asses. To further illustrate these differences, they are plotted in figure 5.33. Differently from the period before AD 69, the city and the vici are very close together this time. Remarkably, the unknown category is close to these two as well. This might be an effect of the fact that the group consists of site types which are on opposite sides of the graph, that is villas, rural villages, sanctuaries and cemeteries, thus producing a false mean. The city, vici and villas distinguish themselves by a relatively high percentage of silver; the villas stand apart from the rest by their low percentage of aes I and aes II.

185 City Vic i Villas Rural village Sanctuaries Cemeteries Unknown

C%C%C%C%C%C%C%

Aureus 2 2 1 0,3 8 0,8

Denarius 26 9,9 35 14,8 16 16 12 9,9 4 6,6 42 11,4 163 17,1

Quinarius 1 0,4 1 0,1

Anton 9 3,4 2 0,8 11 11 3 0,3

AR 3 1,3 1 1 1 0,1

Sestertius 76 28,9 68 28,7 27 27 43 35,5 21 34,4 108 29,3 274 28,7

Dupondius 65 24,7 47 19,8 11 11 22 18,2 19 31,1 64 17,4 139 14,6

As 83 31,6 62 26,2 18 18 31 25,6 16 26,2 112 30,4 290 30,4

Semis 2 1,7

Quadrans 1 0,8

Dup./as 2 0,8 8 3,4 7 7 4 3,3

Aes 1 0,4 7 3 7 7 4 3,3 11 3 51 5,3

Unknown 5 2,1 2 1,7 7 1,9 24 2,5

Total 263 100 237 100 100 100 121 100 60 100 345 100 954 100 Table 5.13: denominations by site type AD 69-260

Sanctuaries, rural villages and cemeteries are characterized by low percentages of silver and somewhat higher levels of aes II. Cemeteries lie closer to the city, perhaps because the cemeteries of Tongeren are included in this group. Except for the villas, the aes II is in all types more or less on the same level. The greatest variation is in the proportion AR : sestertii (aes I).

Figure 5.33: percentages of AR (denarii,quinarii and antoniniani), Aes I (sestertii) and aes II (dupondii and asses) by site type

186 The fact that there is an urban group opposed to a rural one indicates that we can expect a monetized economy in the city and vici. Sanctuaries and cemeteries as representatives of ritual use of money are indeed on the same side of the graph, but further apart than we would expect. However, if we inspect the cemeteries in further detail, the relatively higher percentage of silver is caused by only two cemeteries: the first is the south-west cemetery of Tongeren, the second is the rather anomalous cemetery of Echt. The latter has 45.8% denarii, which is unusually high for a cemetery. Not all the finds could be attributed to single gaves, so we cannot rule out the possibility of a scattered hoard. But we know of at least four graves in which one or more denarii were found, and even one stone sarcophagus with an aureus. Taking into account the size of the cemetery and the richness of the gifts, Echt may well have been the cemetery of a vicus. If we discount these ‘urban’ cemeteries, the resulting group of rural cemeteries lies much closer to that of the sanctuaries and rural villages, and the opposition between not only urban and rural but also ritual and non-ritual use becomes clear. The higher percentage of silver in the urban pattern of city, vici and villas is probably caused by the fact that in these cases coin loss is representative of money flow, whereas the money found in ritual contexts and rural villages has reached its end point. In this respect silver coins indicate the participation of a site in more than local money flows, such as generated by taxes and trade. Concluding the analysis of the middle Roman period, a plausible case can be made for monetization of the economy, creating a distinct urban and rural pattern of coin loss. An economic connection seems to have formed between city, vici and villas, which did not exist in the previous period. Historically, this development can be explained by the fact that the MDS-area received a civitas-organization under Flavian rule, which probably entailed regularization of taxes. Tribal social and political structures, which could persist in the earlier period by the special position of Batavii in the Roman army, broke down soon after the reorganization of the Flavians. Perhaps as compensation, there was much sponsoring of public building under the Flavians, and this created economic opportunities for the urban centres. New markets developed, from which villas and vici profited. However, the chronological analyses demonstrated that the supply of coin proceeded through two channels: the military settlements in the north and Tongeren in the south. The sites which were more oriented to the northern supply route were probably more dependent on the Roman army, and suffered the most in times when army size was reduced. This may not only apply to the northern zone, but to the entire MDS-area. The proximity of the army produced great opportunities as long it was there, but it also prevented the development of an independent economic system.

Map 5.9: geographical distribution of coins AD 260-402

187 5.7.3 The late Roman period (AD 260-402)

Geographical distribution of coins The number of coins in this period is 3155, and this means an increase of roughly 30% compared to the middle Roman period. The percentage of late Roman coins is less than that of Trier and Luxemburg, but higher than that of the Dutch river area. The increase is not spectacular, considering that the Roman monetary system had undergone substantial changes in the second half of the 3rd century. In actual value, the coins of this period represent a fraction of that of the previous period.416 The number of sites decreased in the late Roman period, and has more or less returned to the level of the period before AD 69. The total number is half as much as that of the middle Roman period, i.e. 178 sites. This causes the site average to rise to 19.7, but this number is hardly comparable to that of previous periods. In fact, the number of sites was reduced even more dramatically in the second half of the 3rd century. There are only 61 sites which have coins from the period AD 260-296, and the actual number may even be lower, if one considers that late 3rd-century antoniniani were still in circulation during the entire 4th century. Of these sites, only 38 continue into the 4th century; 114 sites have only 4th-century coins. Map 5.9 shows that coins of the second half of the 3rd century are spread rather randomly over the entire MDS-area. The 4th-century coins are clustered on the borders of the Meuse in the first place; it seems to have been the main supply route for 4th-century coins. Additionally, there is a linear pattern of coin finds in the northern half of the MDS-area. The southern half is virtually empty, except for finds around Tongeren and along the Demer. Looking at the distribution of coin numbers over the sites (see fig. 5.27), we see that the number of sites with less than 5 coins and 6-10 coins are the largest categories. The contrast between sites with few and sites with many coins is the greatest in this period, and they are even further apart when one thinks of the actual value of the coins. The near exclusivity of sites with 3rd-century and 4th-century coins does not do much for continuity in coin use. Judging by the number of sites from the 3rd century, coin use almost dwindled to a halt in this period.

Hoards and single gold coins Fifteen hoards were found which could be dated to the late Roman period, and another 23 single gold coins. There is a cluster of seven hoards in the last 30 years of the 3rd century, of which five are datable to a time-span of thirteen years (Postumus - Tetricus I). Another cluster can be dated in the first 20 years of the 5th century. Only three hoards can be placed in the 4th century. In both hoard clusters there is one very large hoard: the one of Vught-Bleijendijk, which consists of 4775 antoniniani, and the hoard of Hapert at the beginning of the 5th century with 2598 aes III coins.417 In fact, apart from the gold hoards only those two represent a considerable monetary value, since late-third-century antoniniani hardly have any worth; this is even more so for the aes III/IV coins of the late 4th century.418 Unfortunately, however, in many cases we do not know the original number of coins in the hoard. The chronological distribution is not really affected by taking the single gold coins into account, except for the Valentinian period (AD 364-378; see figure 5.34). They form another chronological cluster; so we have three periods of exceptional hoarding. The rest may be regarded as a normal hoarding pattern. The two chronological clusters are common in the northwestern part of the Empire.419 The 5th-century cluster and the Valentinian one are missing in Luxemburg, however. The latter is interesting, because it does not coincide with a period of disaster, but with the consolidation of Valentinian; a traditional explanation of death or flight prohibiting the owners of recovering the hoards cannot be applied

416 For a more elaborate discussion of the changes in the monetary system, see chapter 3, 70.

417 Kanters 1965/6.

418 Although it is hard to determine the actual value of the coins in the late third and fourth centuries, and therefore the value of the hoards can only be estimated.

419 Bastien 1978; Van Gansbeke 1952.

188 in this case. However, there is a slight difference with the other two clusters in the fact that this one is for a large part made up by single gold coins. It is possible that this means that the distinction between ‘real hoards’ and single gold coins is justified in the context of hoard clusters. It is difficult to assess the extent of the so-called barbarian invasions in the third quarter of the 3rd century, and in particular how violent they were. As was said before, many settlements were deserted in the first half of this century without any signs of violence. For the sites that ended around AD 270, it is in many cases unclear if they were violently destroyed, or simply given up. Even then, it remains a possibility that people continued to live there, or that new people moved in. The end of a settlement is frequently dated by the cessation of datable ‘Roman’ artifacts. But what is really dated is the end of supply of these wares. In this case, the break-down of communications and supply routes is documented, and not the end of habitation.

Map 5.9: hoards and single gold coins AD 260-450; the numbers represent the issue period to which they can be dated

Whatever the case, the situation in the second half of the 3rd century was serious, and the Romanized society of Belgic Gaul and Germania Inferior would never be the same anymore. It is clear that many new people came to live in the MDS- area who might be described as Salian Franks; but as with other ethnic groups, a new identity did not mean that all the former people ceased to exist. However, the Franks that did enter our area did have another background than the Batavians and Tungri which lived there before (and no doubt continued to do so). In the new order, Roman peasant society and the tribal society of the Franks from across the Rhine encountered each other. To see the Franks as uncultured barbarians, however, would be accepting the partial view of Roman historians. In fact they were part of highly organized tribal chiefdoms, which had assimilated many traits of Gallo-Roman culture in the contacts of the previous centuries. Still, they did not use money on the scale and with the same sophistication as it was being used within the bounds of the Roman empire itself. Roman coins were precious objects in the first place, as Celtic coins were for the Iron Age Celtic societies before. Their most important role lay in the sphere of ceremonial gift exchange. Their arrival in this area coincided with a time in which the old economic networks were disintegrating, and the finances of Gallo-Roman society were restructured. This applied to the nature of Roman coinage as well as other aspects,

189 such as the tax-system. In other words, the traditions of monetary economy were disappearing rapidly and it is the question what replaced it. Part of this question can be answered by looking at what happened to our area in the 4th century, when order was restored under Constantine the Great. It seems that society never again reached the level of complexity of the middle Roman period, and that the integration of the economy into larger networks was low. It must be realized in this respect that the turnover of people in this period was much higher than before: it seems that the influx of new people into the area was constant, which makes it hard to establish society on organized Roman terms. Governmental activity in this eternal frontier zone seems to have been synonymous with military operations. The physical presence of the Roman emperor in lower Germany did not lessen the distance between him and the people who lived here. Only a loose connection existed between the local inhabitants and the Roman authorities Many things were organized by contracting local (Frankian) people to man a fort or other tasks. A complicating factor in this respect is what exact status these local people in Roman service had. Did they get paid for their services, and if so, in money or otherwise?

Figure 5.34: chronological distribution of late Roman hoards and single gold coins

It is tempting to think of the circulation of gold coins in the same terms as in the earliest beginning of circulation of Roman coins. In this view they were payments of the Roman authorities to local Salian chiefs to ensure cooperation, and these coins were subsequently taken up in gift exchange chains. Two periods stand out in the number of finds of single gold coins: the reign of Valentinian and the last decade of the 4th century. Around AD 369, Valentinian reorganized the frontier zone and (re-)built many forts along the Rhine in the process.420 In the same year he even visited Nijmegen. It could be that the solidi are the remnants of Valentinian’s stay in these parts and are representative of his contacts with local leaders. I do not think that they are connected with his building activities, as these were probably executed by his army and not by the local population. Ceremonial gifts are an even more likely explanation for the solidi of the last decade of the 4th century; the Roman grip

420 See Ammianus Marcellinus XXVIII.2.1.

190 on the frontier was at an all time low, and troops were spread thinly over numerous problematic areas. The Roman government would have tried to minimize the use of force by the old method of forming alliances with friendly kings.421

Coins and contexts Compared to the middle Roman period, the information we have about the nature of sites is scant. A few sites are well- known. Tongeren was a prosperous city in the late Roman period. It is the only settlement in our area with a large number of coin finds which are not directly related with army activities. Some form of an urban monetary economy must have existed there, but it must have been mainly oriented to the area to the south of Tongeren, since the rural ties to the north by ways of the villas had been broken. This solitary position of Tongeren is perhaps attested by chronological profile 1, which consists entirely of find complexes of this city. Profile 2, which is well-represented too in Tongeren is shared with the forts in Maastricht and Cuijk, and this profile is probably connected with the Valentinian reorganization.422 There are two forts that we know of: Cuijk and Maastricht, but a considerable part of the fort of Cuijk has dissappeared by the later activities of the Meuse. It was built in wood under Constantine and rebuilt in stone by Valentinian. Maastricht was completely destroyed around AD 270, but there are traces of rebuilding shortly afterwards. The fort was built in Constantinian times. The coin finds of Cuijk are dominated by profile 2: the rebuilding under Valentinian has left it marks here, or older contexts are under-represented by later fluvial erosion.

Siteno Name Date Issue per. AV AR AES Total

1854 Helmond 1917 AD 268 16 25 ?

2048 Noord-Brabant 1848 AD 268 16 25? 25? 50?

1361 Riemst 1905 AD 268 16 73 200?

1468 Wommelgem 1631 AD 268 16 13 ?

2052 Koninksem 1892 AD 273 16 57 300?

2064 Maastricht AD 290 17 99 1 100

1841 Vught-Bleijendijk AD 290 17 4775 4775

1853 ‘sGravenmoer 1835 AD 321 19 19 3 21

1462 St.Amands 1801 AD 337 20 19 19

1799 Rijen AD395 22 3 3

2054 Helchteren <1910 AD 395 24 259 2 261

1930 Hout-goudakker AD 402 24 3 3

1355 Lier AD 402 24 15 15

1397 Tongeren 1990 AD 402 24 47 47

1719 Hapert 1933 AD 408 25 12 2541 2598

2115 Blerick? 1994 AD 411 25 6 6

2050 Obbicht 1963-68 AD 423 25 9 9? Table 5.14: hoards AD 260-450

Apart from the cemeteries of Tongeren, there are the finds of the cemetery of Echt, which is regrettably badly documented. These are the only ritual sites that are known of in the late Roman period. The cemetery of Echt and one

421 See for instance Claudianus XVIII, In Eutropium I, 377-383 about treaties between Honorius and Chauki and Suevi.

422 See figure 5.24 for the late Roman profiles.

191 of Tongeren share profile 3; the other cemetery of Tongeren is in profile 1, but is probably contaminated with finds within the city walls. The group of ritual sites is small, but since it is exclusively ritual, it is possible that the other site in this group Maastricht-Hotel Derlon is ritual too. It was the site of a temple in the middle Roman period, and it may have kept its ritual significance in the late Roman period. Another recognizable group, of which unfortunately only one had sufficient coins to make analysis possible, is that of the ‘German’ village.423 Only Neerharen-Rekem is representative of this group, but clearly one rural settlement is not enough to see any pattern. Its number of coins from the period 388-402 is remarkably high. It shares this feature with some find complexes from Maastricht and a few sites of the Maaskant. Perhaps the numerous site finds of Kessel-Maren-Lith are either from a fort, or from such ‘German’ villages. The first option seems the most likely to me, given the continuous series of coins which were found there from the early to the late Roman period. A development from vicus to late Roman fort as in Maastricht might be conjectured for this cluster of find complexes. But the original contexts were destroyed by the gravel extractions of the 20th century. Although the evidence is not staggering, it is clear that there are chronological patterns which are connected with the character of the sites. An important distinction is that between the city and forts on the one side, and the rural sites on the other. However, political circumstances seem to have had a greater impact on the supply and use of coins than the economic situation. Money entered the area in an old way, by military payments, but it was spent only in forts and in the city. But if this is true, what should be thought of the large number of coins found in German villages?

Siteno Name Site type Date Issue per. Coins

1946 Linne? Unknown ? ? 1

1846 Vught-Steenwijk Unknown ? 16 1

1464 Turnhout Unknown ? 16 1

1923 Helden Unknown ? 18 1

Maastricht Fort ? 20 1

1876 Blerick Unknown ? 22 1

1518 Cuijk Fort? ? 22 1

1773 Mill-Hollanderbroek/weapon grave Unknown ? 22 1

1627 Obbicht Unknown ? 22 1

1615 Linne? Unknown ? 23 1

1972 Neer Unknown ? 23 1

1658 Beugen Unknown ? 24 1

1707 Goirle-Abcoven Unknown ? 25 1

1917 Heel Unknown ? 25 1

Maastricht Fort? ? 25 1

1976 Obbicht-Kempenweg Villa? ? 25 2

Total 23 Table 5.15: gold coins AD 260-450

The answer lies probably in the interweaving of military and civilian contexts. The German villages with large numbers of coins all lie along the Meuse, and those up-country (like Donk) were considerably less well-equipped with coins. It seems likely that the people in the villages on the banks of the Meuse serviced the army in some way, perhaps by fighting on a temporary basis, perhaps in the furnishing of supplies, or both. The recruitment of German troops in the Roman army is well-attested in the literary sources. In this light, the protectorate of the emperor Julian of the Salian Franks might

423 The coins of Gennep were regrettably not at my disposal before the database was closed.

192 have been very similar to the treaty which existed between the Roman government and the Batavi in the 1st century AD.424

Mints and denominations Table 5.16 shows the relative proportions of mints in the coins of Tongeren and the rest of the MDS-area. N represents the raw number of coins which could be attributed to a mint in each issue period. This number also prohibited any further differentiation in the sites of the MDS-area, because it would be too small to be meaningful. Even the completely identified coins of Tongeren are stretched thin. This also applies to the 920 late-Roman coins of Maastricht: simply too few coins could be attributed to a mint. If we find any differences in the distribution of supplying mints between Tongeren and the rest of the sites, we cannot be certain if the difference in the second group is caused by the deviation of only a few sites with a large number of coins in the designated period, or that we have found a general trend. In the period AD 296-364, Trier is the principal mint for both Tongeren and the rest of the MDS-area. Between AD 296 and AD 330, however, there are considerable differences in the percentages of the subsidiary mints.

AD 260-275 AD 275-296 AD 296-317 AD 317-330 AD 330-348 AD 348-364 AD 364-378 AD 378-388 AD 388-402

TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD TO MD

Rome 13,5 19,5 6,5 29,4 6,7 4,9 5,9 9,1 11,8 15,1 7,8 8,3 14,3 10 26,7

Trier 2,3 1,6 2,2 45,5 48,9 65,6 61,5 59,3 57,1 59,1 64,7 11 16,4 16,7 18,4 40 110

Lyons 6,5 2,9 18,2 8,9 3,1 19,2 15,9 17,1 13,6 11,8 13,7 21,6 16,7 32,7 25 16,8

Arles 3,1 13,2 10 9,1 8,8 34,2 32,8 41,7 20,4 20 33

London 2,2 27,3 17,8 12,5 11,5

Aquileia 2,2 3,1 1,6 0,6 12,3 9,5 8,3 10,2 5 8,4

Ticinum 2,2 4,5 2,2 6,3

Milan 0,6 2,3

Siscia 2,2 2,9 2,2 1,6 3,5 4,5 2,9 12,3 6 0,5

Contant 1,1 2,9 4,5 2,6 0,5 inople

Gaul 74 70,3 78,3 55,9 0,5 0,9

Cologne 9,6 6,3

Other 8,8 4,5 11 6,3 7,6 1,6 3 1,4 2,6 8,3 4 3

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

N 311 128 46 34 22 45 32 26 182 170 22 34 73 116 12 49 20 191 Table 5.16: percentages of mints for Tongeren and the MDS-area in the late Roman period; N stands for the raw number of coins. MD stands for MDS-area

In AD 296-317, the proportion of Lyons is twice as high in Tongeren, while in the directly following period AD 317-330 the role of Lyons is reversed, and the percentage of this mint is seven times as high in the rest of the MDS-area. In the former period, the proportion in coins from London and Rome are also substantially different. If this is not simply an effect of change caused by the relatively low numbers of coins in these issue periods, it follows that Tongeren was by far not the only source of coins for the sites of the MDS-area. More uniform is the coin supply of AD 330-364, in which period even the ranking of subsidiary mints in the coins of Tongeren and the rest of the MDS-area is the same. Two factors can be responsible for this uniformity. The first is the existence of a dominant regional supply pattern, by which local differences in coin supply are obscured. The second is that Tongeren was the main source of coins in the region. In the first case, an explanation must be found why this regional pattern was not dominant in the other periods, in the second case the question why other sources of supply dried up in

424 See Ammianus XVII.8; Zosimus, Historia Nova III 6.

193 this period has to be accounted for. It might be that the activities of the imperial house in the first decades of the 4th century, which entailed even the physical presence of high court members in the area, had an impact on the coin supply of individual sites, since it was discontinued after the reorganizations were concluded.425 In this case, the second explanation seems the most likely. However, the relatively lower numbers of coins in the period of greatest activity seems to argue against the case. Still, it would be incorrect to reject it on these grounds alone, since these numbers are affected by the complete/incomplete identification of the coins. After AD 364, the uniformity in the coin supply has disappeared again. Between AD 364 and AD 378, the main supplying mint is Arles, but again there are considerable differences in subsidiary mints; in AD 378-388, even the main supplying mint is different, but this could also be caused by the low number of coins in Tongeren. For Tongeren the main source of supply is Arles, for the rest of the MDS-area it is Lyons. The same paucity of coins is to be seen in the period AD 388-402 in Tongeren. At this time the main supplying mint is also different: Trier for Tongeren, Arles for the rest of the MDS-area. The recurrent variation in supplying mints after AD 364 could be caused by the same factor as in the first decades of the 4th century, namely the impact of the reorganization of the area by Valentinian, through which a direct link with the imperial mint was established. It is during the reign of Valentinian that the largest differences occur. In this case, however, Tongeren seems not to have been re-established as the major source of coins, like in AD 330-364. This would be in accordance with the view that Tongeren gradually lost its importance in the latter half of the 4th century. Table 5.17a and 5.17b show the proportion of denominations in the late Roman period. The selection of sites is based on their coin numbers and not on their nature. The relatively short circulation span of late-Roman coins makes it difficult to eliminate the time factor in the tables, so a basic division between the period AD 260-348 and AD 348-450 has been made. Even so it is almost impossible to explain differences in percentages of denominations in other than chronological terms. For instance, the striking difference between Tongeren and Tongeren-cemetery in the period AD 260-348 may be caused by a deliberate selection of lower value antoniniani in funerary context. But it may just as well be explained by the fact that there are fewer graves of the first half of the 4th century, or by a temporary change in burial customs. However, in this case the latter explanation seems less likely because the same trend is visible in the second half of the 4th century. Another, perhaps better example of this chronological bias are the coins of Neerharen. The percentage of AES IV is exceptionally high, but is caused by the fact that most of the coins date from the period AD 388-402, in which monetary output consisted of little else than this denomination. On the other hand, the material does not allow a breaking-up into smaller issue periods, since the coin numbers would become to small for analytical purposes. Thus, the value of denominational analysis is not very high, and I will confine myself to a few general remarks. First, it seems that gold and silver are virtually absent in the urban settlements. This may not be surprising in the case of silver, since this has clearly not played a role of importance in the late Roman coin circulation of the northwestern provinces.426 But we know that gold was of greater consequence in the context of governmental monetary exchange; it is strange that late-Roman solidi should be absent in the urban finds, while it is evidently there in the rural settlements. This discrepancy may be explained by find circumstances, but I cannot think of any that would create such a considerable contrast. Another explanation would be that coin deposition patterns have been the primary cause for the difference between urban and rural contexts. While gold was part of monetary exchange cycles that connected city and forts with other settlements, in rural settlements it stood at the end of an exchange chain and was more likely to be (permanently) deposited in a ritual (as votive gift) or secular order (in hoards). In other words, in urban and military contexts gold remained in circulation until it was converted to valuables in another form.427 The chance that it was lost during

425 For instance Constantius Chlorus in the last few years of the 3rd century.

426 With the exception of Britain, where the occurrence of siliquae in hoards as well as in settlement finds is more common. (see Archer 1979).

427 To get a complete picture of circulation of money in the late Roman age, it is necessary to consider the circulation of gold and silver in other forms than coin. We know for instance that gold played an important part in incidental payments of the Roman army, in the form of multiples or other objects. See for instance Duncan-Jones 1994.

194 transactions is very small. Finally, it is possible that the high percentage of solidi in the countryside reflects real differences between coin use in rural contexts on the one hand, and urban and military contexts on the other. We have seen in chapter 3 that the same difference is visible in the late Roman coin distribution of the Dutch river area. In the latter case, the discrepancy in gold percentage was also explained by different use patterns, whereby the gold in the countryside circulated mainly in the ceremonial sphere. Originally the coins reflect high-level contacts between the imperial house and local (Frankish) leaders, but in a later phase they may have been redistributed along chains of gift exchange of followers. In fact, this explanation does not oppose the notion of the previous paragraph. Gold may have circulated in military and urban contexts as well, only there is a greater chance that it was used for monetary transactions there. A similar contrast can be expected for the bronze coins. It is likely that they were used for monetary payments in the context of towns and forts, while in a rural setting they might have been used for ritual depositions or as scrap metal for the making of other bronze objects, such as fibulae.

TO TO/c MA CU NE Other

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

AV 1 0,4 3 0,9

AR 1 0,2

Anton 190 39,7 67 61,5 102 42,5 4 6,6 5 17,9 113 32,5

Follis 253 52,8 31 28,4 112 46,7 53 86,9 16 57,2 180 51,7

AES III 2 0,8 1 0,3

AES IV 10 4,2

AES 35 7,3 11 10,1 13 5,5 4 6,5 7 25 51 14,7

Total 479 100 109 100 240 100 61 100 28 100 348 100 Table 5.17a: denominations in the period AD 260-348. TO=Tongeren; TO/c=Tongeren-cemetery; MA=Maastricht; CU=Cuijk; NE=Neerharen-Rekem; Other=other sites.

TO TO/c MA CU NE Other

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

AV 2 1 14 4,8

AR 6 2

Follis 3 2,7 1 2,3 3 1,4 1 0,3

AES I 3 2,7 2 1 2 0,7

AES II 9 8 4 9,1 23 11,1 12 21,4 1 0,9 38 13

AES III 72 63,7 21 47,7 66 31,7 25 44,6 14 12,1 105 35,8

AES IV 22 19,5 15 34,1 108 51,9 17 30,4 94 81 115 39,2

AES 4 3,5 3 6,8 4 1,9 2 3,6 7 6 10 4,1

Total 113 100 44 100 208 100 56 100 116 100 291 100 Table 5.17b: denominations in the period AD 348-450. TO=Tongeren; TO/c=Tongeren-cemetery; MA=Maastricht; CU=Cuijk; NE=Neerharen-Rekem; Other=other sites.

In this respect, there is no real difference in patterns of coin use between the late Roman period and the earlier periods: the use of coins was dependent on the context it was used in. But a great contrast may be the connection between the two

195 spheres of use. While in the early and middle Roman periods the urban/military sphere interacted with the rural sphere, the connection between the two was broken in the late Roman period. In the earlier periods the same people could use coins in different ways, depending on the context, but in the late Roman period, there seem to have been more exclusive forms of use in which people were more confined to one context.

196 Chapter 6 Conclusion

In this concluding chapter a comparison will be made between the three areas which have been discussed in the foregoing chapters. In doing so a deeper understanding will be sought of the variability of functions of Roman money in the whole of Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. The three areas are assumed to be representative of different aspects of these provinces. The Dutch river area is a region which was dominated by Roman army activity; or more accurately, it is a military zone and part of the frontier of the Roman empire. The MDS-area lies directly behind it, and much as it it must be considered a part of the frontier as well, the landscape is more rural and not as heavily militarized. Thirdly, Luxemburg and Trier display more urban characteristics, and the military aspect is not really present in this area. These different characters of the three areas were expected to have an influence on the ways Roman coinage was introduced and subsequently used regionally. In the following part we will see how different they really were in terms of coin use, and how this developed in the course of the Roman period. Firstly, general aspects of the three areas will be compared; thereafter, a diachronic discussion of money use will follow, which will be set up thematically.

6.1 General aspects of the three areas

6.1.1 Size and population

To get an insight into the comparability of coin numbers, we will briefly consider the size and population of each area. Map 1.1 (p. 3) shows all three areas together. It is evident that the MDS-area is by far the largest of the three. It is roughly twice the size of the Dutch river area, and almost 6 times that of Luxemburg. Size alone does not say much, and we must also give an estimate of the population density in each area before we can turn to a numerical comparison of coin use. This, however, is much more difficult. The site database only contains sites at which coins have been found, which rules out the sites which have no coins, either because no coins were used or because other factors are at work. Also, to obtain a full evaluation, formation processes must be considered which regard mainly the soil characteristics and the intensity of research. This information is not readily available for all three areas, and it would take us too far to investigate it in full detail. So we must accept the limitations which this research project entails, and see what we can do with our data.

DRA MDS LUX

Sites % Sites % Sites %

Partly excav. 33 7.6 39 5.3 71 9.4

Excavated 28 6.1 39 5.3 58(189)* 7.7

Surveyed 1 0.2 3 0.4

Accidental/dry 336 76.0 612 83.5 619 82.0

Accidental/wet 40 9.0 40 5.5 7 0.9

Unknown 5 1.1

Total 443 100.0 733 100.0 755(886)* 100.0

Size correction 221.5 F=2 244.3 F=3 755 F=1 Table 6.1: sites and their research characteristics by area. ‘Size correction’ represents the number of sites in each area divided by their relative size, F standing for the size factor. ‘*’ : the number between brackets displays the number of sites when all sites of the Altbachtal are included.

197 Firstly, the site density (of coin-using sites) will be considered. Table 6.1 shows the site data for each area; in the last row the number of sites is corrected for the relative size of the area. Luxemburg represents one size unit, by which the others are measured. It is clear that Luxemburg has the highest density of coin using sites in the entire Roman period. Of course, this is a simplification of things: the total area was used in the correction, and not the habitable zone in each area. Large parts of the Dutch river area and MDS-area were not fit for human occupation, and so the size factor must be smaller in reality. Another factor which can confuse the site data almost to a point at which it becomes worthless, is the intensity of research. There is, for instance, a striking difference in site density between the Dutch part of the MDS-area (which is much higher) and the Belgian part.429 Both display the same landscape characteristics, and there are no deviant historical circumstances which would account for the difference. Therefore, the cause must lie in the intensity of research.430 Although these factors limit the conclusions which can be drawn from the site density, the above said size factor cannot be ruled out completely. A considerable gap remains between the site density of Luxemburg on the one hand, and the Dutch river area and MDS-area on the other. Of course, just this observation is not enough to say anything definitive about the intensity of coin use. We must place this in the context of coin averages per site and in time. I will return to this later.

Figure 6.1: historical overview of coin recovery in all three areas, expressed as coin average per year Looking at find circumstances, the percentages show they are roughly equal for all three areas, although they differ in detail. One of the differences lies in the percentage of accidental finds in wet zones, which is substantially higher in the Dutch river area and the MDS-area. This is simply because there are more wet zones in these two areas than in Luxemburg, and more human activity (such as dredging) has taken place by which Roman and Celtic coins saw the light. Secondly, the percentage of partially and fully excavated sites is higher in Luxemburg, even if one does count the Trier-Altbachtal as one. Striking, however, is the fact that relatively more coins were recovered during excavations in the two other areas (see table 6.1); perhaps this is an effect of a more systematic use of metal detectors in the excavations of the MDS-area and the Dutch river area, or in any case the fact that Luxemburg has more excavations dating before the time that detectors were used in this way.431

429 See chapter 5, map 5.1 (p. 136).

430 Although in this case it is more the organization of coin find registry; I have the impression that many more stray finds are reported faithfully at the Dutch Penningkabinet than at its Belgian counterpart in Brussels.

431 Also, the database of Luxemburg does not include all of the coins of the more recent large-scale excavations (such as Dalheim and the Titelberg); see chapter 4, 75.

198 The low percentages of survey data in all areas does not say much about the quality or quantity of surveys in any of these areas, but rather of the very limited availability of survey data. It can also be an expression of the way coin finds are registered; in some cases information on the nature of the coin retrieving process is lacking in detail.

6.1.2 History of coin recovery

This subject has already been touched upon in the previous section, but deserves a fuller investigation. Figure 6.1 shows the history of coin recovery in all three areas. Because the periods vary in length, the number of coins in each period was divided by the number of years such as to provide a year average. It is clear that the introduction of the metal detector in the seventies has had a vast effect in every area, but it was not the only factor which influenced the scale on which coins were recovered. Just as important were the large scale excavations of sites which were richly endowed with Roman and Celtic coins. For Luxemburg, the most important ones were the excavations of the oppidum and vicus of the Titelberg in the seventies, but also excavations of important vici like Dalheim, Altrier and temples such as Widdebierg-Lampecht. The Dutch river area has the earliest start in the years before the metal detector, which is due to large-scale excavations of the forts along the Rhine. The dip in the nineties in this area is really a peak if one counts the excavations of the military site of Nijmegen-Kops Plateau, which has produced over 5000 coins (of which more than 3000 are in the database). The peak in the eighties and nineties of the MDS-area is caused primarily by intensive excavations at Tongeren and Maastricht. The popularity of the metal detector has led in the Netherlands to a great increase in both the number of sites of certain regions432, and in the number of coins per site. Also, as I have said before, the infrastructure of find registration by the Dutch Penningkabinet has fulfilled an important role in making these data available for research purposes. This infrastructure is far less developed in both other areas, which is particularly evident in the coin data of Belgium, resulting in a lower site density and lower average number of coins per site. The percentage of detector finds (fig. 6.2) is the lowest in Luxemburg, but this again does not mean it is being less used. Of a number of large find complexes, it is unknown to me if a metal detector was used systematically. The site

Figure 6.2: percentage of detector finds in all three areas; the percentage detector finds in Luxemburg is too small to see. density maybe partly caused by a longer history of coin interest in Luxemburg, but is likely to have some historical depth as well (see paragraph above). The low average of coin finds in the nineties is of course an effect of the use of the FMRL as data source.

6.1.3 Coin supply

After this brief evaluation of non-historical factors on the quantity and quality of coin finds, we turn now to the historical interpretation of the data. As we are concerned with general trends in this section, the possibility of any of the factors discussed above having a distorting effect is not great, since such large numbers of coins and sites are

432 The Kempen in South-Brabant being the most prolific in recent years.

199 involved.433 By looking at the chronological distribution of coins in all three areas, we can note the differences in the history of coin supply between the three. Figure 6.3 shows the number of coins in each period as percentage of the total of each area. In order to get an impression of the general tendency, figure 6.4 does the same, but uses cumulative percentages. To start with figure 6.3, the Dutch river area distinguishes itself from the others by a massive supply of coins in the 1st century AD. The contrast is even higher in reality, since the coins of Nijmegen-Kops Plateau are not included here. They would distort the picture too heavily, since a major part of these coins are Augustan and they are from one exceptional site. Still, this site confirms the picture of figure 6.3; it seems that coins enter the Dutch river area in two main waves: the Augustan period and the Flavian period. This is also true for the other two areas, but the peaks are not as outspoken as in the Dutch river area, and the level of supply is much lower. In Luxemburg they are the lowest. The only exception is formed by Celtic coins, which show very high percentages in Luxemburg and the MDS-area. However, it must be considered that in both cases only one site is responsible for the peaks. In Luxemburg, this is the Titelberg; for the MDS-area it is the temple of Empel.

Figure 6.3 and 6.4: coin supply in the three areas; to the left, percentages of the total of each area; to the right, cumulative percentages

The reason for the high supply levels in the 1st century lies clearly in the fact that the Dutch river area is a military zone, and the establishment of the forts along the Rhine cost money. Indeed, we have seen that large numbers of these first- century coins are to be found in the forts themselves. However, this is not to say that this early money never reached the hinterland. Particularly in the eastern half of the Dutch river area, early Roman coins were distributed rapidly after entering the area. In Chapter 3, it was suggested that this was because of the vast numbers of Batavians serving in the Roman army, combined with the fact that they served in their own home territory, at least until AD 69.434 Another factor, which could have played a part in the spreading of coin use may have been the familiarity with Celtic coins, which existed exclusively in the eastern part of the area. Probably, the unfamiliarity with coins in the western part combined with the fact that the limes was established slightly later there, caused a later start in the use of Roman coins. I will return to the subject of early coin use later in this chapter. From the beginning of the 2nd century, coin supply seems to be on an equal level in the Dutch river area and in the MDS-area. The slower ascent of the latter area in figure 6.4 says more of the virtual absence of 4th-century coins in the Dutch river area than of supply levels beforehand. Luxemburg lags behind until the mid-3rd century, after which coin supply shoots up, both in percentages and in absolute numbers. However, the very high levels of late-Roman coins affect the view presented for the earlier periods. Looking at raw numbers of coins, Luxemburg reaches equal levels of coin supply from the middle of the 2nd century AD (Antonine period).

433 This can cause problems on a more detailed level, however. We have seen the effect on site density; another one is average number of coins per site.

434 Recent research has shown that even after the Batavian revolt of AD 69, Batavian troops continued to be deployed in their home territory. Haalebos & Willems 1999.

200 Figure 6.5: coin supply in the three areas expressed as coin numbers.

Coin supply in the late Roman period seems to come in waves again, which coincide in all three areas: the first between AD 260-275, the second between AD 330-348 and the last major one under Valentinian (AD364-378). In Luxemburg and the MDS-area there is an additional peak between AD 388-402.

In fact, all three areas show a different history of coin supply. The Dutch river area shows a rapid start in the 1st century in which coin supply reached levels which were never attained again during Roman times. Luxemburg starts off on a small scale; coin supply increases from the mid-2nd century onwards but reaches peak levels in the late Roman period. Finally, the MDS-area seems to develop between the two extremes, and follows the most uneventful curve of the three. The contrast beween the three seems to correlate with the level of army activity in the first two centuries, but for the third and the 4th century there are other factors at play. Here, the most decisive influence seems to be the level of urbanism in the area. As was said before, I believe that the same impulse the Roman army brought to the economy of the Dutch river area in the 1st century caused a frustrated development of the ‘civilian’ infrastructure.

6.1.4 Roman incentives for coin supply

Roman governmental costs and in particular military expenditure have always been considered to have been the prime mover of Roman coin supply. Many authors on the subject seem to agree that the Roman authorities were not interested in maintaining cash flow within provinces on the level of civilian market by a steady supply of coins.435 The implication of this is that coin circulation within a certain region had to make do with the money which was brought into circulation by governmental expenditure. The result was a chronic shortage of cash, which could be met by means of various alternatives. A much-cited one is the striking of copies or forging of coins, in various degrees of official sanctioning; another one is the all-pervasiveness of credit436 However, the examples of cash shortage seem to limit themselves to specific periods in time, and do not represent the chronic problem one would expect.437 Also, one must

435 See for instance Reece 1987, 114 ff.

436 Casey 1992.

437 To my knowledge, there are four: the liquidity crisis of land-owning debtors under Tiberius (AD 33), the Claudian copies, the barbarous radiates of the late 3rd century and the ‘fallen horseman’ copies in the 4th century.

201 take into account that coin forgery can be a lucrative business and need not be a concomitant of money shortage.438 The drastic withdrawal of Roman troops from the Rhine in the 2nd century did have a marked effect on the coin supply of the Dutch river area (see figure 6.3) and seems to support the above said hypothesis about the reasons for coin supply. Likewise, the high percentage of late Roman coins in Luxemburg and Trier can hardly be seen as unconnected with the presence of the Roman emperors in Trier during the 4th century. But military presence has never been great in the MDS-area and in Luxemburg, and it is hard to explain the continuous flow of Roman coins throughout the Roman period in these cases as residual, resulting from governmental finance alone. In this respect figure 6.3 can give the wrong impression. The percentage curves of the three areas until AD 260 seem to diminish in accordance with their closeness to the forts along the Rhine and to make a case for the military character of coin supply in Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. But if we consider the raw numbers of coins (see figure 6.5, a different picture emerges. From the second half of the 2nd century coin supply is at the same level in Luxemburg as in the other two areas, even higher if one considers the amount of land involved, which is considerably smaller. Particularly between AD 150 and 260, this cannot be explained away by the presence of the Roman government in Trier. This is strong evidence for the existence of other supply mechanisms besides the military one. Another point in favour of other means of coin supply is more theoretical. The permanent flow of Roman coins to all three areas during the entire Roman period makes clear that at some stage and to some degree the economy must have been monetized. Obviously, there would be no point in continuously sending coins if they were not being used. If one further accepts the fact that there was no chronic shortage of cash, there must have existed a steady coin supply of a more ‘civilian’ nature. The structure of this ‘civilian’ supply has already been speculated upon in chapter 4, where it was argued that Trier could not have grown into a city without a regular supply of fresh coins. It seems likely that city authorities, perhaps even wealthy individuals, were able to order supply of cash directly at the mint, when it was needed for tax purposes or other matters.439 At a practical level things were arranged by money-changers or bankers, either in civil service or as private entrepreneurs. 440 This, however, is not to underestimate the importance of the coin supply which was in military or governmental hands. The peaks of in the coin supply in figure 6.4 and 6.6 coincide too closely with periods of high activity in these realms.

6.2 Monetization and coin circulation in Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany

6.2.1 The early Roman period (50 BC - AD 69)

The nature of Celtic coins and their relation to early Roman coinage In chapter 1, the use of Celtic coins was described in terms of a model constructed by various authors in the field. Mainly, these coins were seen as primitive valuables which were distributed along chains of Gallic chiefs and followers. Their circulation took place in the realm of gift exchange as limited-purpose money. Although there may have been a development towards their use in market exchange, this type of use probably remained at the fringes of late Iron Age society, particularly in northern Gaul, which is the subject of this research. Also, the use of coins for market exchange would refer to the late Iron Age bronze and potin coinages, and not to the gold and silver which mainly circulated before 30 BC. This also shows the problem of distinguishing between indigenous development and changes which were due to the transformation from Celtic to Romano-Celtic society. At the time Celtic bronze was struck, these processes were already well under way. The question is: what can our data add to our understanding of late Iron Age coinage, and how is it related to

438 This type of forgery, however, would result in the copying of higher-value coins (for example the denarii moulds of St.Mard in Belgium). See also King 1996.

439 Such as building projects.

440 See also Harl 1996, 244.

202 Roman monetary ways? The distribution patterns of Celtic coins in all three areas have one thing in common: the coins are more or less evenly spread over the area, but more than 75% of the finds is concentrated in one find spot (see table 6.2).441 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau, an early Roman fort in the Dutch river area, yielded 530 coins, which is 80% of all Celtic coins. In the MDS-area 810 Celtic coins were retrieved at the temple of Hercules Magusanus at Empel (78%).442 In Luxemburg, the oppidum of the Titelberg was good for 1895 (coins 93% of the total).

What does this tell us? First, we may conclude that most coins were lost at the central places, and therefore these were the places where they were used the most. However, this could be a false view of things. The mass of coin finds on these sites consist of late Celtic bronze; gold and silver are distributed more evenly. Also, we cannot compare Nijmegen with the other two: Nijmegen is a fort, which is a specific ‘Roman’ environment, while the other two are important religious centres in their area. The finds of Nijmegen represent the latest phase in the circulation of Celtic coins, and they were used in a Roman context. In the other two cases, it is most likely that we must rather speak of coin deposition than of coin loss, whereas for Nijmegen the opposite is true. In fact, these different contexts represent two features of the use of Celtic coins. In the case of Nijmegen, it was argued in chapter 3 that the AVAVCIA bronzes, which represent 94% of the total, were used presumably as Roman quadrantes.443 Celtic coins were used in a Roman context, probably in a Roman, monetized way: to serve as small change for day tot day payments.444

DRA NKP MDS EMP LUX Titel

coins % coins % coins % coins % coins % coins %

Republic 372 19.1 298 9.0 280 21.6 23 2.5 63 9.7 22 1.0

Celtic 136 7.0 530 15.9 241 18.6 809 89.5 144 22.2. 1895 83.0

Augustus 537 27.5 2104 63.3 417 32.1 49 5.4 157 24.2 262 11.5

Tib./Cal 372 19.1 216 6.5 97 7.5 9 1.0 101 15.5 49 2.1

Claudius 256 13.1 155 4.7 104 8.0 9 1.0 52 8.0 13 0.6

Nero 278 14.2 20 0.6 160 12.3 5 0.6 133 20.5 42 1.8

Total 1951 100 3323 100 1299 100 904 100 650 100 2283 100 Table 6.2: Celtic and early Roman coins 50 BC - AD 69. DRA=Dutch river area; NKP=Nijmegen-Kops Plateau; MDS=MDS-area; EMP=Empel; LUX=Luxemburg; Titel=Titelberg

The other two places are representative of the other side of the spectrum. The coins of the temple of Empel are without doubt to be interpreted as votive gifts to Hercules Magusanus, while also an important part of the finds of the Titelberg were deposited at the sanctuary on the plateau.445 They reflect an important use of coins during the Celtic period and illustrate that relations between ordinary humans on the one side and between humans and gods on the other, were not so different as they might seem to us. Another important difference is conveyed by these two aspects of use of Celtic coins. As I have said, the coins lost

441 In the case of the Dutch river area, this applies to the eastern half of it. No Celtic coins were found west of Utrecht, except for one AVAVCIA coin in the early Roman fort at Velsen.

442 Since the Dutch river area and the MDS-area are adjacent to one another, the division is of course artificial, and the temple of Empel might just as well be the center of the Dutch river area. This is not the point, however. Like Roman coins gravitated towards the cities of the Empire, Celtic coins had their own centers of coin accumulation.

443 Although I must agree with Wigg that they were not struck as quadrantes in the first place, but by their weight articulated nicely with the Roman monetary system (Wigg 1996, 3-4).

444 The Celtic coins of Tongeren must be seen in the same way as those of Nijmegen, that is, circulating in a Roman context.

445 The bronze coins that were not part of the votive deposits of the sanctuary on the Titelberg might be cautiously interpreted as coins lost during transactions; the Titelberg was also an important market centre.

203 at the fort in Nijmegen must be seen as representative of loss, while the coins at the other two sites were for the most part intentionally deposited. Thus, the latter represent the last stage in the circulation of Celtic coins. As such, they may mask other types of use which might have taken place earlier in their life cycle. In other words, we may get the impression that the votive use of coins was paramount, and other functions were marginal. This would seem to be a wrong conclusion. Coin loss will always be proportionally weaker than coin deposition, because there was no intention to lose, and on the other hand, there existed special places which attracted coin deposition: temples and other holy places.

Figure 6.6 shows that the percentage of Celtic gold and silver is equal in the three areas outside the central place, roughly 25%. The Dutch river area has more gold, but this is caused by a rather unreliable report of 30 Ambiani staters, reported to have been found at Elst. In the central places, the percentage of bronze (and potin in the case of the Titelberg) is much higher. Since Celtic bronze is characteristic of the latest phase of circulation, there seems to be a chronological difference between the two coin pools. Aside from the fort at Nijmegen, which is representative of the Roman circulation of Celtic coins, coin use seems to display more centralistic tendencies in the period 30 BC-AD 21.446 This might be explained as an effect of the Gallic wars, which are thought to have had a centralizing influence on Celtic society in general. In this respect, important sanctuaries could have been used by Celtic elites as rallying points for Celtic identity, which was under pressure from Roman expansion. Some sanctuaries may have ousted other holy places because of the newly attributed political significance of the former. Coinage, as an expedient token of identity and power may have gained in importance within the sphere of votive gifts. This, and not the monetizing tendencies in Celtic economies, seems to be the most important cause of the huge output of late Celtic bronze coinages. This is not to say that they could not have been used in any monetary way; here, context is the key to the understanding of coin use. Within the Roman context of the fort of Nijmegen, Celtic bronze could be used (by Batavian soldiers!) as small change in the sphere of market exchange. But outside of these spearheads of Roman coin use, monetary use of coins became marginal, while the users could be the same people.

Finally, the use of Roman coins in tribal gift exchange must be discussed. Before Caesar’s conquest, Roman silver may have been brought into circulation by Roman authorities as diplomatic gifts to Gallic chiefs. The possession of these coins may have enhanced the status of the receiver in two ways; first, by the value of metal which they represented, and secondly by its being a symbol of Roman power. Once in the possession of a chief, these coins could have been passed on along the client networks. Part of the Republican denarii which are scattered over the countryside of all three areas can be explained as pre-conquest finds. However, it is probably not a large part, and presumably they must be dated in the time after the Gallic wars, as Celtic gold and silver became scarce. This is also a likely explanation for the fact that Roman gold and silver rarely (if at all) appear in hoards together with Celtic gold and silver. Early hoards which consist mainly of Republican silver and end with Augustan denarii, can be interpreted in this light.447 That this type of use of Roman gold and silver could continue long into the Roman era is illustrated by the Neronian aurei of the MDS-area.448

446 The dates are arbitrary: I mean the last decades of the 1st century BC and the first decades of the 1st century AD.

447 For instance the hoards of Breendonk and Hingene.

448 See chapter 5, 186. In fact, all of the pre-Flavian gold in the MDS-area is explained as part of gift exchange chains which originated with the Roman authorities (which at the time of the Batavian revolt could well have been Batavian officers) and travelled along clientela networks.

204 Figure 6.6: Celtic coins in the three areas: proportions of gold (AV), silver (AR), potin and bronze (AES).

Early Roman coins; date of entry and velocity of circulation Two important questions to be asked about the coin circulation of the early Roman period are: when and how did they enter the area for the first time in substantial numbers, and secondly: how were they distributed? Figure 6.7 shows the main differences in supply of Roman coins between the three areas. Clearly, the presence of the

205 army in the Dutch river area is the cause of a substantial higher number of coins before Trajan. The coins seem to reach the area in two major bursts: one under Augustus, and another one under the Flavians. The peaks are the same as in the other two areas, but they are much more outspoken here.449 It illustrates once more the main reason for Roman authorities supplying coin to a certain region. Notwithstanding the difference between the three areas, we can safely assume that coin supply and use started in the Augustan era in all three areas. In the Dutch river area, the points of entry are clear: they are the forts along the Rhine, in particular those in the eastern zone.450 But what of the other two areas? The most likely candidates are the places of the MDS-area and Luxemburg, which were designated by the Roman authorities to serve as administrative centres. For Luxemburg, this was Trier, and for the MDS-area these were the cities of Tongeren and Nijmegen. However, since military and non military is hard to distinguish in the latter and because at the moment of inventarization almost all coin data were from the military sites in Nijmegen, we will disregard it for the moment.

Figure 6.7: coin supply to the three areas before AD 260. DRA=Dutch river area; LUX=Luxemburg and Trier; MDS=MDS-area.

Figure 6.8 sustains the view that the cities and military settlements were the earliest to receive coins in substantial numbers. As regards the velocity of distribution of the earliest (Augustan) coins, it is possible to say something as well. The lines of the military and non-military sites lies much closer together than the city and the countryside in the other two areas.451 As a general remark, it may be maintained that dissemination of Roman coins took place much more rapidly in the Dutch river area than in the areas away from the frontier. The reason for this was already given in chapter 3. Since the Roman army in pre-Flavian times consisted mainly of Batavian soldiers, they had the opportunity to spend their leave at their own homesteads. Of course, in this way coins would spread more quickly over the countryside. But does this mean that the Dutch river area became also monetized more quickly than the others? I think not. Although Batavian soldiers would have picked up Roman ways of using coins by being paid out in Roman money and subsequently using it in a monetary way in the camps and military vici, there was no real incentive to transplant this monetary use to the territory of their homes. It was too early for money taxes to have gained any ground, and in any

449 The two peaks are of course regionally determined (there is for obvious reasons no Augustan peak in the coin supply to Britain), and also a exponent of the vast output of coins in these issue periods, which also served the periods in between. But the difference between the areas remains, especially if one realizes that the graph is made on the basis of raw coin numbers and not percentages.

450 The forts in the eastern half of the Dutch river area are the oldest (see chapter 3).

451 Perhaps this is an important reason why the statistical tests showed so little results with respect to the chronological distribution of coins.

206 case the Batavians were taxed by supplying troops, at least before AD 69. Also, we have seen earlier that Roman money was being used in traditional ways far into the 1st century AD, and that the nature of coin use was determined by the context of use rather than by any other factor. The votive finds of the temple of Empel are a good illustration of the fact that Roman coins were being used in traditional non-monetary ways, although the dedicants were mainly Batavian soldiers who probably knew how to use money in market exchange as well.

Dutch river area Luxemburg and Trier

Figure 6.8: coin supply in the three areas of study; military settlements and cities are separated from the rest. The fort Nijmegen- Kops Plateau is not included, since 80% of its coins are Augustan, and this would distort the picture too m uch.

In the Luxemburg area there is a striking difference between Trier and the vici on the one side, and the rural settlements on the other. The city of Trier was the point where Roman coins entered the area in the first decades of the 1st century AD, but also the vici played a significant part in this early monetary circulation. The reason for the Roman authorities to supply Trier with coin was probably twofold. The official money flow served to create a new administrative centre in the area and this generated all kinds of official payments. At the same time, the local elite, which was synonymous with the local Roman authorities took it upon themselves to create a worthy seat for such a centre. As I have said in chapter 4, Trier acquired an urban appearance rather quickly. The building projects in the 1st century must have generated the need for cash payments, and did contribute in no small way to the monetization of city life. Besides the official supply of coins in the form of governmental payments, another coin flow existed in the form of loans of Roman patrons to Treverian clients to spend on the creation of a city. But what of the vici? How did they participate in this early monetary circuit? In chapter 4, this difference between vici and other rural sites was already observed. It was argued that circulation of Roman coins began later in the latter group. So the monetary interaction was between the city and the vici only. Just as in the case of the Dutch river area, it was too early yet for the exaction of direct money taxes in the countryside. However, one source of income for the decurion class could have been the sale of agrarian surplus. It is a possibility that vici served as early intermediary market for the needs of the city. Local elites might have sold this surplus at the vici markets to middlemen, who made a profit by reselling it on the urban market. The local elite might have paid their taxes with the cash they received from the middlemen, and they may have invested it in the enhancement of their vicus. Later in the 1st century, these people perhaps rationalized their way of income and became villa-owners. The above hypothesis suggests a division between urban elites and local elites, which were based at the vici. This division is sustained by the later development of different classes of villa’s.452 The local elites might be connected with the villa, which remained essentially a specialized farmstead (type 2). The villa’s of the urban elite, however, were large estates with luxury dwellings for the owners, temporary refuges from the hectic life of the city (type 1). As one can see in figure 6.9, the headstart of the vici did not last long. By the mid-1st century AD, the line of other

452 See chapter 4, 85.

207 rural settlements converges with that of Trier and the vici. By then, most people participated in the monetary circulation in some way. Of course, there still remains the question how the coins were used. This question will be addressed in the next section (middle Roman period). It remains to comment on the MDS-area. The general trend in the graph lies between that of the Dutch river area and Luxemburg. Also in this case, there is an initial gap between Tongeren and the other sites. Tongeren is one of the points through which coins entered the area at first, but probably not the only one. The MDS-area lies within the frontier area, and is as such connected with the Roman army and Nijmegen too.453 The story of early circulation of Roman coins bears more similarity to that of the Dutch river area than that of Luxemburg, which is logical, because these two areas lie next to each other. The impact of the army is somewhat less in the MDS-area, but we must not forget that part of Batavian territory lay in its northern half. Indeed, in chapter 5 we have seen that the percentage of countermarked asses and semisses is high in the rural villages which lie in this part of the MDS-area, a phenomenon characteristic of military camps. So what caused the flow of early Roman money to Tongeren? Although it is often called a city, this predicate is apt only for the late Roman period. Perhaps it is better to think of Tongeren as a frontier town. Nevertheless, it was designated to become the civitas capital of the civitas Tungrorum, and as such played an administrative role. Such a function attracted money, but probably not enough to explain all of the early Roman money which was found there. There must have been other factors at play.

One aspect of both the Dutch river area and the MDS-area has thus far not been discussed, and that is the economic consequences of the presence of the Roman army. It was a common situation that armies were accompanied by traders who profited from army needs, be it by official contract or by supplying soldiers with wine women and song outside of the camps. Both the ordinary supply of food and clothing and extra items like pottery and other objects for daily use had to be taken care of. Since foodstuffs were best obtained as close to the camps as possible, this would put a new demand for agrarian surplus in the area. This surplus was perhaps mobilized by traders or negotiatores, who were characteristically based in the frontier towns of Nijmegen and Tongeren. Inscriptions like those on the altars of the sanctuary at Domburg bear witness to this new group of traders.454 They played probably an important part in the economic boost which was caused by the Roman army, and profited the most from it. That the benefits were in the early Roman period largely for this group and not the local population, is attested by the fact that not many ‘Roman’ luxury items are found outside of the larger centres. This would change over time, as we shall see in the middle Roman period. Economically speaking, the army had a position which seems rather isolated from the area in which it was based. It is not surprising that the military element in the frontier towns was prominent in this period. However, it does supply us with an explanation of early money flow to the towns of the area.

6.2.2 The middle Roman period AD (69-260)

The developing economies of the three areas Looking again at figure 6.8, the Flavian period is for all three areas a time of high coin numbers. However, we must allow for the length of the period involved, and the high output of coins by the Flavian emperors in general. Aside from this, it is clear that the highest peak is to be found in the Dutch river area. After the Batavian revolt of AD 69, things changed in the Dutch river area. Although it is thought that the special treaty of the Batavi remained intact after this date, it is clear that there were substantial changes in the organization of the area. For one thing, Batavian soldiers were no longer based in their home territories, which must have had an impact on the directness of the contact between the Roman army and the local population. Also, the Roman authorities started in earnest to transform an irregular frontier

453 The same goes for all areas. The boundaries of these areas are artificial and inspired by the limitations of this research project. Evidently, connections existed with places which fall outside our field of vision ( for instance the vicus of Arlon which lies just outside of Luxemburg..

454 Although no inscriptions were found at Domburg which mentioned tradesmen of Tongeren, an inscription of Vechten speaks of negotiatores living there (CIL XIII, 8815).

208 area into a standard Roman province, a process which was ended formally under Domitian, when it became part of the province of Lower Germany. It is unclear to what extent the Batavi remained a gens foederata with no formal tax obligations. I tend to think that this changed too, although it cannot be proven and it is even harder to indicate when this should have happened. Also in the military sphere there were changes; from Claudian times, the Rhine began to be established as a line of forts, which meant that some new ones were built and already existing ones were subjected to extensive rebuilding. This process took more than a few years: there is new evidence for substantial building under Trajan and Hadrian.455 These infrastructural projects entailed a new stimulus to the local economy, since it meant work for a lot of troops and perhaps locals, who all needed to be fed, clothed and paid. Specialists were attracted from outside the region, who established local industries in the vici and towns of the area. New elites became firmly established in the towns of the area, consisting of landowning Batavians who belonged to the pro-Roman faction and probably nouveau-riche merchants who made their fortune by their dealings with the army. This elite had nothing to gain by clinging to traditional forms of power display, since their power was based on their position in a Gallo-Roman society. Like any good Gallo-Roman elite, they would invest in public building and events. This new way of asserting their position can be followed in the votive deposits of sanctuaries in the area. In the early Roman period these deposits distinguished themselves by a relatively high percentage of silver coins.456 In the following period, however, high value coins seem to have vanished as votive gifts. This implies that coins were used as votive gifts by lower social groups; the elite invested more and more in temples and sculpture. Coins had lost their power for the elite and became ordinary objects of daily use. In other words, for them at least coins had turned into money. Although the Roman army thus was a stimulus to the economy of the Dutch river area, at the same time it created a profound dependency on this special sort of market. But regrettably for the people for whom the army was a source of wealth, it was not a stable factor. So when army numbers started to be reduced from the beginning of the 2nd century AD, things began to slide downhill. This becomes clear when we compare the graphs of the Dutch river area with that of Luxemburg. The latter shows a steady increase of coins from the Flavians until the end of the 2nd century, while that of the Dutch river area displays a downward tendency during the same period. That the Roman army really remained an external factor in the economy of the Dutch river area, is also witnessed by the fact that the vici and villa’s which thrive in the Luxemburg area never developed in the Dutch river area. The balanced economy between city, vici and villa’s which existed in Luxemburg was not to be found here. Despite the fact that it now was part of a full-fledged Roman province, it remained at heart what it was before: a frontier area. Luxemburg shows a wholly different picture. The steady increase of coin use during the middle Roman period (until the end of the 2nd century) is an exponent of a well-integrated economy. City and vici continued to grow, thus forming an ever-increasing market for foodstuffs and industrial produce like pottery, glass and metalwork. The combination of a steady growing urban population with a increasing demand caused prices to fall and made the availability of goods considerably larger, thereby again sustaining the demand. In other words, it is likely that a monetary economy flourished in the city of Trier and the vici. These markets were , in contrast to the army market in the Dutch river area, a stable factor in the regional economy and had a considerable integrating effect on it. Earlier, we have mentioned the development of villa’s, which took care of the need for agrarian produce and were rationalizing their production. Besides being consumer markets for goods, vici also produced both for the city and the countryside. For the latter, they were also service centres; they offered religious services as well as entertainment. By their function, they were an important instrument in familiarizing the rural population with the use of money in market exchange, and at the same time supplying cash for agrarian produce. All in all, a favourable situation for the exaction of money taxes, and since this was viable, it is likely that the Roman authorities made use of the opportunity. These developments can not only be followed in the chronological distribution of coins (see figure 6.8), but the fact that coins were used by more people and were more widely distributed is illustrated by the increase in the number of coin-using settlements and their geographical distribution.457

455 See Hessing 1999. He makes no mention of costs, however, nor of the impact it must have had on the region.

456 Relatively meaning compared to other sites in this period. See Chapter 3.

457 Chapter 4, map 4.5.

209 The central function of the city and vici in the monetary economy is confirmed by the still large gap in coin numbers between these settlements and the other sites.458

Finally, the MDS-area seems to display a bit from both worlds. Like the Dutch river area, the same downward trend is to be seen in the use of coins in the course of the 2nd century, but it is not as dramatic. This might be explained in two ways, which are mutually exclusive. The first explanation is a methodological one. Because figure 6.8 deals with percentages of the total amount of coins in each area, the Flavian peak of the Dutch river area makes the following decline look much more dramatic as in the case of the MDS-area. Thus, there is no real difference between the two graphs, except for the much higher percentage of Flavian coins in the first-mentioned. Consequently, the monetary circulation of both areas seems to follow the same path. The second explanation (which I prefer) is that the economic dependency on the Roman army was not so great in the MDS-area, and that particularly in the south, the economy shared more characteristics with that of Luxemburg. In favour of this argument is the fact that, again in the south and eastern parts of the MDS-area villa’s began to develop on the fertile löss soils. This implies the existence of economic relations with the city, and it is no coincidence that they cluster around Tongeren. Evidently, Tongeren was enough of a market to sustain these villa’s, and this shows the existence of an economic system which was independent from the army. It seems that Tongeren did indeed develop from a frontier town into a real city, although it clearly never reached the calibre of Trier. Although also the MDS-area seems to suffer the negative consequences of a decreasing army force on the border, the situation was not as bad as in the Dutch river area. It is likely that its economy had more resilience by the fact that it was not completely oriented on the military market.

The use of Roman coins and the extent of monetization: religion and the market It is difficult to answer the question to what extent one can speak of a monetized economy in the three areas. The principal way to address the question of monetization was to find out if the chronological distribution of coins and the proportion of different denominations of sites correlated with their character. The idea was that different patterns of coin use would reflect the manner in which different settlement types were involved in the monetary economy. 459 Although some differences were found with respect to both aspects, the similarities between sites were sometimes more remarkable. It was expected that the proportion of denominations of the cities and the vici would be different from that of the rural settlements, thus sustaining the economic opposition between city and countryside, between monetized and non- or less-monetized. In fact, such an opposition was not to be found. Initial surprise at this fact was replaced by the realization that it was perhaps wrong to think in terms of such oppositions, and that it was better to speak of different contexts of coin use than of different kinds of use tied to specific social-economic groups. What does this mean in terms of monetization and coin use if we consider the coin finds themselves? Firstly, the difference between the urban sites and rural sites existed, but was particularly a matter of scale. This becomes apparent in figure 6.9, which shows the distribution of denominations of all three areas in the early and middle Roman periods.460 The scale difference between the urban settlements and the rural is most evident in Luxemburg, particularly so in the early-Roman period. During the middle Roman period, coin use becomes more widespread over the countryside and the gap between urban and rural lessens. The same situation is visible in the MDS-area, but the difference in scale is clearly less outspoken than in Luxemburg.

458 Although the difference is not so great as in the early Roman period.

459 For a more comprehensive account of the methodology, see chapter 2.

460 Celtic coins are not included in the bar charts of the early Roman period, albeit that they featured partly alongside Roman coins. The effect of earlier Celtic coins and of the Titelberg would distort the view too much; the same counts for the sanctuary at Empel in the MDS-area..

210 Figure 6.9: proportions of denominations in different site categories of the three areas 50BC-AD260.

211 The reason for this lies presumably in the fact that Trier and the vici of Luxemburg and their counterparts in the MDS- area are in a wholly different league. In fact, the divergence between urban and rural becomes even less in the MDS-area when one realizes that the large proportion of coins with an unknown context are really from rural sites.461 A different view is presented in the Dutch river area, where the city is virtually absent. This is probably not representative of the true situation. Little is known of the civilian occupation of Nijmegen in the early Roman period; the military element seems to have dominated. Absent from the graph is the fort Nijmegen-Kops Plateau, which would falsely influence the percentage of coins of the city, when counted as coins coming from Nijmegen, and of the forts, when counted as a fort. At this time it is hard to distinguish military from civilian in early Roman Nijmegen, and perhaps it will prove to be impossible. As it is, in a numerical way the forts seem to play the role of the city and vici in the other areas. Regrettably, at this moment there are no coin data available for Ulpia Noviomagus, the civilian settlement of Nijmegen on the border of the river Waal.462 So also the graph of the middle Roman period cannot be corrected. Although the contrast between urban and rural in sheer numbers of coins is much more outspoken in the Luxemburg area, this does not mean that the people in Tongeren used coins in a different way from the population of Trier. This too is largely a matter of scale. It may be safely assumed that Tongeren and the vici of the MDS-area were the places in which Roman coins were used in market exchange, just as in Trier and the vici of Luxemburg. The impact that the monetary economy of the latter must have had on its countryside was probably equalled by the monetizing impact of the army in the MDS-area and the Dutch river area. By this I mean that the rural population became familiarized with the use of coins in market exchange, not that they actually used coins in this way within rural settlements. As far as they had relations with urban markets, they would have had to make use of coins, although other forms of exchange may well have co-existed. By selling produce, serving in the Roman army or working seasonally in city projects they would have gained access to Roman money. Much of this would also be spent in the city or in the rural centres, but figure 6.9 makes clear that there was another important way to use coins in rural contexts, and this lay in the ritual area. The ritual element is represented in the coins that were deposited in sanctuaries (and other holy places) and in graves. In all three areas it is evident that the ritual use of coins formed an important part of rural coin use. Both votive coins and coins in cemeteries are strongly represented in the rural spectrum of Luxemburg. The same goes for the MDS-area, although the number of coins deposited at sanctuaries grows less in the middle Roman period. They seem to be compensated by the simultaneously increased number of coins in cemeteries. The Dutch river area seems to have the less developed ritual use of coins, but there are two aspects which indicate that it might be more than the graph suggests. In the first place, the border between the MDS-area and the Dutch river area is not a real one, but one adopted for the sake of this research project. The temple of Empel, which is an important sanctuary of the MDS-area, lies very close to the Dutch river area as well. In some respects it might be better to consider the two areas as one continuum. The second aspect is an archaeological consideration, and concerns the visibility of ritual places. In absence of a Gallo-Roman temple with a recognizable ground plan, most other ritual sites are not as visible archaeologically. Much depends on the coincidence of an archaeologist looking for them in a certain area.463 It is thus entirely possible that the group of ‘unknown’ sites in the Dutch river area hides some ritual sites, and that part of the coins must be votive. This can be true of the other two areas as well, but there is one element that suggests the presence of ritual sites in the early Roman period. The sanctuaries are the only group of sites which distinguish themselves by a deviant pattern of represented denominations. In the Luxemburg area, this was shown for the proportion of silver coins and sestertii versus dupondii and asses in the sanctuaries of the middle Roman period.464 For the early Roman period the ritual places of the MDS-area stand apart by their relatively large proportion of silver. Since the percentage of silver is rather over-represented in the group of unknown sites in the Dutch river area, this could point to the presence of ritual complexes therein. All in all, there is enough evidence to show that the ritual use of coins was important in rural (and urban) coin use, and that in some cases even selection of denominations can be shown. To be sure, it does not mean that the countryside

461 Vici are excepted: there is no large number of coins from an unknown vicus hidden in the ‘Unknown’ category.

462 There have been a number of recent excavations in Ulpia Noviomagus, but there is no information on coin finds available.

463 See for instance Slofstra & Van der Sanden 1989.

464 See chapter 4, p xx.

212 was not integrated in the monetary economy. But the use of coins in market exchange was limited to urban contexts, because that is where the monetary markets were; besides this, coins were also used in relations with the supernatural. Nor is this symptomatic for coin use of Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. Coins were being used in ritual contexts throughout the Mediterranean world as well, although attributed meanings of these votive coins may have differed in time and place. The antlered god spitting money, which we encounter on Treverian reliefs is an image that belongs clearly to Gallic cosmology.465

One final word about figure 6.9. At first sight it may be surprising that the percentage of silver increases in the middle Roman period in all three areas. However, if we take a closer look, it becomes clear that most of this silver consists of Severan denarii, and that the silver appears relatively late on the scene. It is not completely clear what happened in the monetary circulation of the first half of the 3rd century, when bronze was scarce, and silver was constantly being devalued. Is this part of the overall shift to higher denominations, which can be followed in figure 6.9 as well? This, and other aspects of 3rd-century monetary circulation will be the subject if the next section.

The third-century ‘crisis’ In all three areas coin supply comes to a grinding halt under Commodus, at the end of the 2nd century AD. This conforms to the overall picture in the Western empire. The exact reason for this is not clear. Harl claims that it was an effect of the various re-coinages by Marcus Aurelius, who debased the denarius several times to cover his debts incurred by the frontier wars. This debasement caused a halt in the production of low-value bronze coinage, which before constituted the bulk of circulating coin.466 Under Severus, production of bronze was shortly revived, although mainly sestertii were struck.467 The explanation puts the ball entirely in the court of monetary history, but it is at this moment the most likely one. The debasements of Aurelius marked the beginning of the transformation of the Roman monetary system, which had until then remained stable since the reform of Augustus. However, it is just one chain in a link of events that affected the whole of Gallo-Roman society in the 3rd century. These developments have been commonly summarized as the 3rd-century crisis, but I think the term has too many derogatory implications; the more neutral terms ‘change’ or ‘transformation’ are preferred here. In the following, I will try to sketch the most important elements of this transformation, focussing on what is important for an understanding of the monetary circulation in Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany. At the end of the 2nd century, the Pax Romana began to crack at the seams.468 There was an increasing pressure on the borders of the empire, which could no longer be met by offensive tactics, that is, incursions into enemy territory and expansion wars. Earlier, the expansion impetus of the Roman empire generated income, and wars were, to speak in modern terms, cost-effective. From now on, they only cost money, and a lot of it. These costs consisted of army payrolls, regular wages as well as donativa.469 But also a lot of bullion went to aggressors who could not be restrained by military force.470 Apart from the fact that these wars emptied the treasury and vastly reduced the bullion stock, it made emperors more dependent on their armies at a time that succession by adoption did not work as well as it had before. This created more instability in the political centre of the empire, which resulted in a succession of a long string of very short-lived emperors. Since it was important to gain the loyalty of the army, emperors competed with would-be or real usurpers in the height of a soldiers’ pay. Severus effectively doubled the wages of the army, and he was not the last to

465 Krier & Weiller 1982.

466 Harl 1996, 95.

467 Presumably because prices had increased to match debasements, which rendered the lower bronze denominations obsolete and too expensive to produce.

468 The following account is for the most part based on Drinkwater 1983, Whightman 1985 and Harl 1996.

469 These bonuses paid by emperors to the army at special occasions, such as their accession, could attain huge proportions. Marcus Aurelius squandered all of the financial reserves of his predecessor on accessional gifts; the Praetorian guard, for instance, received HS 20.000 per head (Duncan-Jones 1994,14).

470 For instance, in AD 244 Philippus Arabs paid a sum of 500.000 aurei to ensure peace with the Sassanid empire (Harl 1996, 129).

213 increase them. The increased demand for coin combined with the dearth of specie so that debasement became unavoidable. This at first resulted in the slashing of the weight and fineness of the denarius, but ultimately in the minting of a new coin, the antoninianus, which was tariffed as a double denarius, but weighed only one and a half as much and contained less silver. The antoninianus too, was not spared a series of debasements, until it became a billion coin around the middle of the 3rd century. The worth of coins had become so unstable that prices began to be cited in so-called denarii communes, which were converted into antoniniani at the current rate.471 The internal safety of the Roman empire was not only threatened by external raids and wars, but it also struggled with internal social unrest. In the course of the 3rd century, we hear more and more of marauding bands in Gaul. The explanation for this does not concern us here, but one of the effects was that it hampered long-distance trade. Long- established land and sea routes were becoming more of a risk for tradesmen, but also for official money transports. At the same time, the denarius as central denomination in this long-distance trade was eroded by debasements. It was one of the factors which led to regionalization of economies. Established centres of production and distribution of trade goods were an advantage in this situation, and perhaps this led to the severe regional differences and unequal distribution of wealth, which led Drinkwater to qualify the idea of a all-over 3rd-century crisis in Gaul.472 Two other important effects of the changing monetary system and regionalization is the frustration of the tax system insofar as it was being paid in money, and the collapse of at least some cash markets. Cities and towns which were not located in favourable areas473 must have suffered from stagnant money supply and the hoarding of old more valuable coins. This presumably had a negative effect on villa’s which were dependent on a cash market system, in particular the small ones, which had no other financial reserves. Cities and towns which were affected in this way, were rapidly becoming less attractive for the elite to invest in by sponsoring (aemulatio) or even by their physical presence Money taxes were becoming harder to deliver, because of the dearth of good silver and the diminishing of Hopkins’ complementary flow of taxes and trade. This again contributed to the lessening of governmental income at a time it needed it the most. A considerable number of people must have lived in tax arrears, but it was uncertain if the Roman government was able to obtain them anyway.

The above-mentioned regional variation is well-illustrated by figure 6.8. After the drying up of the money supply under Commodus, there is some revival in Severan times, but after this the gap between Luxemburg and the Dutch river area widens. Luxemburg and Trier rise to heights of coin loss that are unequalled before. The Dutch river area continues a downward trend from which it will never recover. The MDS-area is a different story. In particular after the Severan period it displays a worse fall than the other two until AD 260. Under the Gallic empire the MDS-area shows a remarkable recovery, and the coin loss in the late third and fourth centuries is more like that of Luxemburg than that of the Dutch river area (see also figure 6.5). The difference between the Dutch river area and Luxemburg can be explained by the difference in economic resources that was discussed before. The former was greatly dependent on the presence of the Roman army and did not develop markets outside the military one. Luxemburg on the other hand had a fully integrated economic system which included villa’s producing for the urban market, and a thriving artisan industry and trade in the vici and the city. Because of its advantageous location along important routes, this was an area which showed more resilience in the face of 3rd-century troubles. This again made the Treverian area more attractive to important and resourceful people: It is no coincidence that Trier was one of the centres of Roman authority under the Gallic empire474 and later in the 4th century. Although it is no match for Luxemburg in raw numbers of late 3rd-century coins, the chronological pattern of the MDS-area bears more similarity to this area than to its nearest neighbour, the Dutch river area. A more detailed look is presented in table 6.3, which shows the distribution of coins of the period AD 260-274 over different site types in

471 Harl 1996, 131.

472 Drinkwater 1983, 221.

473 Not favourable by their location and resources, but also by local circumstances, such as raids or epidemic disease.

474 Postumus had his headquarters at Köln, but there is evidence for the establishment of a mint in Trier. For the position of Trier and Köln under the Gallic Empir, see Wightman 1986, 193-194

214 all three areas. It is evident that the Luxemburg area surpasses the other two both in number of coins and in site numbers. The Dutch river area shows some unexpected elements, such as the absence of coins from Nijmegen, the only city in the area. This does not reflect the true situation but is representative of a blank spot in the database.475

Dutch River area MDS-area Luxemburg and Trier

Coins Sites Coins Sites Coins Sites

City 0 1 231 1 1154 1

Vici 11 2 97 3 2430 5

Villae 9 2 15 5 580 37

Forts 24 2 0 0 0 0

Rural 17 4 0 0 0 0 settlements

Sanctuaries 0 0 0 0 393 7

Cemeteries 7 2 133 4 82 13

Substr.rom. 0 0 0 0 355 60

Unknown 228 62 78 40 292 90

Total 296 75 554 53 5286 213 Table 6.3: distribution of coins of the Gallic Empire over site types in all three areas.

Regrettably, 77% of all coins of this period were found on sites of the ‘Unknown’ category. Further inspection of these sites shows that they cluster in the eastern river area, in particular in the Betuwe. It is an interesting fact that the division between the eastern and western parts of the Dutch river area, which already existed in pre-Roman times, should continue well into the Roman era. Perhaps this can be taken as an illustration that the regional economic integration was low in this area.476 The number of coins in this area is so marginal that we can hardly speak of any clustering of coins in sites of a certain type. This is different in the MDS-area, where the largest part of the coins of the Gallic Empire are to be found in Tongeren. The high number of coins in cemeteries is misleading: 90% of these coins are in the southwest cemetery of Tongeren. The vici are next in numbers of coins, but here also 93% is from the vicus of Maastricht. Not only do coins of the Gallic Empire cluster in certain site types, but they are concentrated in the southeast of the MDS-area as well. This shows that the MDS-area is not at all to be seen as an economic unity. With the exception of the southeastern part of the area, it is more an extension of the frontier zone of the Dutch river area; the former part articulates more with the fertile löss areas that lie to the south, and resembles the economic structure of the Trier area. Tongeren might have started out as a frontier town and may indeed have profited from the military markets of the north, but it was also tied in to the villa system and participated in trade and artisan networks of the better developed vici of the south. This structural difference between the southeastern part of the MDS-area and the rest had already evolved from the end of the 1st century AD, but became apparent in the course of the 3rd century, and would remain so until the end of the Roman empire in the west.

Figure 6.10 shows the 3rd-century hoards in the three areas. The cluster in the MDS-area at the end of the 2nd century is an excellent illustration of the disappearance of good silver from the circulation at the time of the sharp

475 At the time of the inventory, no coin data were available for Ulpia Noviomagus.

476 Perhaps other, non-economic factors were responsible as well, but they are no matter of discussion here..

215 devaluations at the end of the 2nd century477. Also, it confirms the existence of a monetary economy in which at least some people were aware of such factors. However, it seems strange that this cluster is only apparent in the MDS-area, and not in Luxemburg and the Dutch river area. The absence of late 2nd-century hoards in the latter makes it unlikely that pirate raids had anything to do with it.478 But if the devaluation of the denarius is the correct explanation, why should there not be more of these hoards in Luxemburg? Perhaps they were there originally, but were the circumstances more conducive for recovery in Luxemburg. The coastal troubles may have had something to do with it after all, and might have been responsible for the non-recovery of hoards in the MDS-area. This still leaves us with the absence of hoards in the Dutch river area, but it is not unthinkable that this military zone was avoided by raiders. The second cluster of hoards is the well-known one in the third quarter of the 3rd century AD. The peak in Luxemburg corroborates the evidence from table 6.3 that both the MDS-area and the Dutch river area were of marginal importance during the Gallic Empire. Clearly, there were no cogent reasons for supplying this region with coins, and the ones that did find their way to the frontier seem to have ended up for the most part in Tongeren.

Figure 6.10: 3rd-century hoards in the three areas

The factors responsible for the hoard cluster in the late 3rd century have been the subject of many a debate; mostly the outcome was one of two explanations: firstly, the so-called barbarian invasions of the period around AD 270, which caused many owners never to regain their buried hoards. The reason for hoarding is also sought in the unrest of the times. The second explanation lies more in the realm of numismatic history, and concerns the unremitted series of re- coinages during the 3rd century. These constant devaluations drove a lot of earlier, ‘better’ coins into hoards. Indeed, only 5 of the 20 hoards ending with a coin of the Gallic Empire consist entirely of late, ‘bad’ antoniniani; the others all contain earlier antoniniani, and the second explanation seems the most likely one for these hoards. That is, for their existence: in many cases, the reason for their non-recovery was different. As was said before, this cluster of hoards probably is due to a combination of intensified hoarding and increased non-recovery. The late hoards in Luxemburg reflect the growing distrust of new money, and the effect of this distrust was a growing emphasis on weight and purity of metal instead of the coins themselves, also illustrated by the citing of prices in notational denarii which were mentioned before. Ultimately, it led to the further demonetization of the economy in the 4th century.

477 The cluster under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus must be seen as one; the hoards ending with a coin of Aurelius may well be contemporary with hoards ending with a coin of Commodus.

478 It is in this time that there is evidence of forts along the coast like Oudenburg and perhaps Aardenburg.

216 6.2.3 The late Roman period (AD 260-450)

Historical continuity and discontinuity The last decades of the 3rd century were a period of turmoil and disaster in all three areas. Many settlements were destroyed by invaders from across the Rhine, others were abandoned by their inhabitants before it could happen to them. It is hard to ascertain what happened on the level of the individual site, since not all fires are evidence of violent destruction. It is as with hoards: the unrest of the times are probably the reason that they were not retrieved, as settlements were not rebuilt after a fire for the same reason. The cause for burial of the hoard may be entirely different, as it may be for the fire in a village. Nevertheless, it is clear that the society of the late 3rd century underwent a severe shock. The way each area came out of this differs markedly. The 4th-century population of the Dutch river area and a large part of the MDS-area was entirely different from that of the first half of the 3rd century. This northern zone was inhabited by groups of Germans479, who settled there or were actively placed there by the Roman authorities in the course of the 4th century. The relation of these groups could vary in degree of independence, but ultimately a lot of them were being used for the ‘defense’ or rather ‘policing’ of the area, and were called limitanei in this capacity.480 Regular military operations were being carried out by highly mobile units of soldiers, the so-called comitatenses, but they formed no sedentary part of the local inhabitants of the two northern areas. If they were around for a longer time, they could probably be found in the forts of Cuijk and Maastricht, or in Tongeren, but they were presumably not the only occupants of these military strongholds. Archaeologically, the rural habitation pattern of the late 3rd century and first half of the 4th century is hard to follow. Some earlier settlements might have been re-used temporarily, but it is difficult to see any permanent new settlements. In many cases finds (among which coins) bear witness to human activity, but there is a lack of features which can be archeologically read as settlement buildings.481 Perhaps the temporary nature of many buildings makes them hard to recognize as such. It is only in the second half of the 4th century that we encounter regular settlements again, in the form of so-called Germanic villages. These villages were of a more permanent character and may be related to the treaty between Julian and the Salian Franks, the latter of who were allowed to occupy Toxandria, which probably for a large part coincides with MDS- area.482 The German villages of Donk, Neerharen, Geldrop and Gennep show that the Salii who lived there were involved in agriculture and bronze manufacture; finds of weapons in graves bear evidence to their occasional capacity of soldiers. The north saw various periods of military consolidation: under Constantius Chlorus at the end of the 3rd century, under Constantine in the first half of the 4th century, and under Valentinian during the years 364-378. The latter two show up in the coin finds of the area; the first does not (see figure 6.11). The situation changes again dramatically after AD 402, when the last vestiges of the imperial structure were wiped out in north-western Europe, or in any case thoroughly (and violently) transformed. Luxemburg does not undergo such a fundamental change in population and social-economic structure. Until the end of the western Roman empire at the beginning of the 5th century, it remained one of the core areas of the western empire. This doe not mean that Luxemburg and Trier did not suffer from the violent migrations of the late third and fourth centuries, but, in the end, the ‘Roman’ political and social infrastructure stayed better intact. In fact the different outcome of events in the three areas was a result of earlier developments (see previous section). At the end of the 3rd century, Trier and the whole of the civitas Treverorum were the constant target of plundering groups of Germans; after this the situation stabilized and Trier rose to be one of the most important centres of the late western empire. Under Diocletian, it became the centre of the diocese Belgica Prima, and it was one of the imperial residences and seat of the mint during the 4th century.

479 I use the term ‘German’ loosely; the reality of identities like ‘Franks’ and ‘Germans’ is a completely different discussion, which is not relevant to our subject..

480 They could be foederati (th e highest possible degree of independence while living inside the borders of the empire), dedicitii (literally surrendered to the clemency of the Roman authorities, but they had a degree of independence, like the Salian Franks) or even more dependent groups of coloni, although the latter was more common in an area with latifundia.

481 For instance Wijk-bij-Duurstede-De Geer, which has many late-Roman artifacts, but no unambiguous evidence for occupation.

482 In this treaty, the Salii receive the status of dedicitii in AD 358; clearly, they already inhabited the area ‘illegally’ before this (see Lamarcq & Rogge 1996, 107; Ammianus Marcellinus XVII, 8).

217 Figure 6.11: coin finds of the late Roman period in the three areas; to the left, raw coin numbers; to the right, percentages of the total of each area. The coins which could not be attributed to a single issue period are om itted

Although many settlements were destroyed or deserted as a result of the collapse of the frontier in AD 270, the countryside of Luxemburg seems to be well-populated in the late Roman period. All of the vici continue to exist in some form or another, and the villa-system seems to have remained intact, although it was restructured in favour of the large holding. The basis for the social-economic structure was therefore not as deeply affected as in the two other areas. It was established in chapter 4, however, that although there was continuity in settlement patterns, there is not much to say for place continuity. Many sites were re-established at different locations, if we may draw conclusions on the coin evidence.483

Late Roman society and monetization Developments in late-Roman society are nothing but the follow-up of new structures laid down in the course of the 3rd century. Although the exterior of the coinage underwent regular changes, it behaved according to the same pattern as in the 3rd century, and was subject to perpetual demonetizations and recoinages. The 3rd century had witnessed the end of silver coinage; in the 4th century, the nummus went the same way as the antoninianus. It started out as a silver coin, but quickly lost weight and silver content.484 In the second half of the 4th century, silver coins had all but disappeared from circulation, and only gold and low-value bronze remained. I specifically refer to silver coins, because silver still circulated in bullion form, as multiples or plain treasure. This circulation of bullion is a logical consequence of the growing distrust of regular coinage. As we have seen before in the 3rd century, this was more and more conceived of as metal of a certain purity and weight, because of its fluctuating nature. Prices were still tariffed in notational denarii (denarii communes), and instead of individual very debased nummi, sealed bags of nummi with a certified weight and purity were used in exchange relations, the folles.485 It is probably not coincidental that coin weights and scales are more frequent finds on 4th-century sites.486 This circulation of bullion silver (and gold) poses a problem in that it falls outside the scope of this study. However, at the same time, it was an important element of late-Roman monetary circulation, if we may use this term. Therefore, we see only the part which consisted of base metal coins, since gold rarely survives, if it was lost in the first place. Still, it is possible to compare three areas and note their differences. The state monopolized the gold as well as it could; it needed it to pay a growing apparatus of state servants, occasional hand-outs of the army and the hiring of trans-Rhenish Germans, who were frequently paid in pure gold.487 But what of the low-value bronze and billion coins? Presumably, many of them were struck to meet payment of ordinary soldiers’ wages, but they were needed as well to sustain monetary markets and their dependents in core areas. The contrast between such a core and marginal areas is well illustrated by the sheer difference in numbers of late-Roman coins and coin-using sites between Trier and Luxemburg on the one hand, and the Dutch river area and MDS-area on

483 See chapter 4, map 4.11.

484 See Harl 1996, 164.

485 The follis was later (incorrectly) adopted as name for the nummus.

486 For instance Wijk-bij-Duurstede, where two late-Roman weights were found (Van der Vin 1990).

487 For a 3rd-century example based on archeological finds see Lamarcq & Rogge 1996, 95.

218 the other. Reece sees the high numbers of late-Roman low-value coins as an important impetus for the monetary economy in Britain, since it permitted even the smallest transaction to be conducted in money.488 This view is sustained by the high incidence of copies in periods when money was short.

AREA COINS SITES

Luxemburg 14178 422

Trier 6706 1

MDS-area 2187 208

Tongeren 969 1

Dutch river area 951 159

Total 24991 791 Table 6.4: coins and sites in the three areas AD 260-450

Regrettably, comparison between areas in this respect is difficult, since identifying copies is still a very subjective pursuit. The bar chart in figure 6.12 shows that copying was particularly frequent during the Gallic Empire and the years thereafter489, but seems to be a more marginal phenomenon in the 4th century, the highest percentages being those of ‘fallen-horseman’ copies of the mid-4th century. That they were found in equal percentages in all three areas, does not say much about differences in monetization: it tells us more about where the copies were struck.

The line chart on the right in figure 6.11 deals with coin percentages of the total in each area, so as to eliminate differences in coin numbers. The lines representing the coin loss of the three areas and their cities are remarkably similar. In all cases, there are three peaks of intensive coin loss. The first is the period of the Gallic Empire; a second peak is Constantinian (AD 317-330) and the third is the reign of Valentinian. The Valentinian peak is absent in the Dutch river area, which shows a downward trend in its coin loss in the second half of the 4th century. We can safely say that monetary circulation here had all but ended after AD 348. The MDS-area displays an entirely different pattern: not only does it follow the curve of Luxemburg and Trier, but it has a striking period of high coin loss at the end of the 4th century. This is caused by relatively high coin numbers in the so-called Germanic villages. It is significant that Tongeren seems to conform to the declining curve of Luxemburg and Trier in this period: the peak in the Germanic villages does not reflect any monetary relation with the city. The late coins of the Germanic villages can also be traced in the distribution of denominations in the MDS-area. The difference with Luxemburg is almost entirely due to the high percentage of aes IV, which occurs mostly in these late settlements of Salian Franks. It is not likely that these coins fulfilled any monetary function. The coins were probably received in payment for delivery of goods and services to the forts in the area; the villages with the most coins lie close to an important supply route, the river Meuse. Since these Franks presumably had the status of limitanei, they might be occasionally paid for military services, but they were excluded from regular payments of wages, bonuses and retirement benefits. Whether they were paid or not, however, it could not have been a regular source of income. The goods they could have sold for money were grain and bronze objects, the manufacture of which seems to have been a regular feature in these settlements. This may also provide us with a destination for the coins: it seems more than likely that they ultimately disappeared into the melting pot. The occasional finds of imported pottery from Trier does not indicate a lively trade with the city, nor that these goods were paid for in money (although they may have been). In short, the coins found in the settlements of the second half of the 4th century are not really reflective of a participation in the monetary economy. The forts are a different story. They were small, however, and spans of occupation by the same troops were probably short. Because of their dependence on supplies, however, they were economically connected with the urban centres and possibly local rural settlements. Little money was spent in the forts themselves, although it is likely that they attracted small markets. Most of the money would have been travelling with the soldiers, and would have ended up in

488 See for instance Reece 1987.

489 Many of the late 3rd-century barbarous radiates are grouped in the period AD 275-296.

219 places that still knew a monetary market, that is, the cities and larger vici. The rural settlements of the Dutch river area behaved according to the same pattern as in the MDS-area. The ties between urban centres and the countryside which had been severed in the late 3rd century, were never renewed again. The population was probably fairly isolated compared to the previous period, except for the occasional presence of soldiers during a military campaign.

Figure 6.12: copies and regular issues in the late Roman period in all three areas

Since there were no forts in the area, however, this presence was always short-lived and had no real impact on local society. The pie chart in figure 6.13 has an exceptional feature: a rather high percentage of solidi. It is the only area where gold passes the limit of one percent which is applied to the pie charts. Considering these solidi in more detail, it is clear that a large part of them are Valentinian or in any case late-4th century in date. These coins must be associated with the campaign of this emperor against a group of Franks and Saxons which had invaded Batavia and the area to the south; it ended with the victory of Valentinian in AD 373 at Deuso.490 The relation of these coins to this campaign may be a direct one and explained as losses by troops. Indirectly, they might also have been payments to Germanic mercenaries used in this campaign, although there is no literary evidence for the latter. In the first case, the lost gold was not really part of coin circulation in the area, but a foreign element therein. In the latter case, the solidi were converted from money to valuable objects as soon as they were paid out, because German mercenaries were not familiar with monetary use of coins.491

Finally, Luxemburg and Trier. Before, this area was designated as one of the core areas of the late Roman empire. We have seen that the settlement pattern and inherent social-economic structure stayed basically intact. The economic relations between urban and rural settlements that existed before was not really different from that of the 3rd century, although the same is probably not true for the position of the peasant population in the area, since they became tied to the land and the owner of it. The time for small holdings and tenant-farmers was over. The land-owning elite still lived in the city, but their residences at their great estates in the countryside became more important than before, in case it was opportune to leave the city because of external threats or tax burden. They were probably the people who had to carry the weight in this respect, since whole areas must have been written off, and taxes that did come in were increasingly paid in goods. Trier and Luxemburg were probably one of the areas which still

490 Ammianus Marcellinus XXVIII, 5, 1-8. Presumably Deuso was located at the present village of Diessen in the Dutch province of North- Brabant .

491 That is, according to their state of service; some of these troops might be regular employees of the Roman authorities and be in frequent contact with late-Roman society, in which case they are not really different from the regular army.

220 yielded money taxes.492 The economy of late Roman Trier must still have been a monetary one; it is difficult to picture it otherwise, and the number of coin finds alone seems to sustain the view. Reece’s hypothesis for late Roman Britain seems to be true for Trier as well. The vici continued to fulfill their role as rural centres of production and distribution, and stood in close economic relation with the city, at least until the mid-4th century. After this coin loss seems to be in decline, and their position as markets may have been taken over by rural sanctuaries.493

492 The German laeti and dedicitii of the northern areas were in all probability exempt from taxation.

493 For a more detailed discussion of the shift from vici to sanctuaries in the late 4th century, see chapter 4, p 128-129.

221 Figure 6.13: distribution of coins by mint (left) and coins by denomination (right) in the three areas AD 260-450. Slices of less than 1% are collapsed into the group labelled ‘ Other’ in the mint pie charts. Only coins of which the mint could be identified are included in the mint pie charts.

222 6.3 Epilogue

At the beginning of the research project reported on here, it was expected that there was a distinction between rural and urban patterns of coin loss and deposition, and that the use of coins was related to the character of the sites. The different functional aspects of sites would be used to get an insight into different patterns of use. The long-term perspective would add temporal depth to these use patterns and show how they developed through time.494 Although these premises were basically correct, one important aspect of coin use was initially overlooked. The use patterns on rural sites were indeed different from the urban ones, and this was visible in both the chronological distribution of coins and in some cases in the relative proportion of denominations. Ritual deposition of coins seemed to be the principal use of coins in the countryside itself. The coins which were not deposited in this way were in fact part of urban coin circulation, but they were only lost or buried in a rural context. It was not that the countryside was less monetized than the city, nor is it true that coins were only used for market exchange in urban contexts, as the coin finds of the Altbachtal alone show by simply being there. The rural population participated in the urban monetary economy, but the city and vici were the main places where such a use took place. If people used money in the countryside, they used it for ritual purposes, to accompany their dead or sacrifice to the gods. This has consequences for the way we look at coin finds in rural contexts. The coins we find in a rural settlement like that of Hoogeloon in the MDS-area or De Horden in de Dutch river area is hardly representative of a local coin circulation.495 They are the produce of loss, or in some cases non-recognized ritual deposits. Because this is so, it is also less likely that they were lost gradually as an exponent of daily coin use. It seems plausible that a considerable amount of coins found in such contexts are in reality (small) scattered hoards that were not recognized as such. We cannot exclude the possibility of local fairs at which coins were used, nor of travelling salesmen offering terra sigillata dishes for money. But the percentage of coins used in such contexts is probably low, and small fairs are more likely to be partially monetized (if at all). Most of the monetary exchange took place in the context of the larger markets, the vici. One remark must be added about local fairs. Very frequently, these happenings would be associated with a religious occasion, and the place where they were held is more likely to have been a sanctuary than a village (if they were separate). In these contexts, coins were put sooner to ritual use than that they would be used in monetary transactions in the sphere of the profane.496 The above can also be applied to villa’s. They were by their nature tied in with the monetary economy of the city and the towns, and produced for monetary markets. Even large sums of money could be involved, but they do not warrant the expectation of finding a lot of coins at villa sites. On the contrary, villa sites are generally bad places to look for huge amounts of coins. Evidently, this is because the monetary transactions rarely took place in the context of the villa itself497, but in the city or the town they did business with. Some money would be kept at the villa itself, but it would not be much, only enough for transactions that could not wait until the next visit to a city or town.498

As for the impact of the Roman army on monetization, it is clear that this may indeed have initially speeded up the process. Generally, coin use seems to have spread the most rapidly in the Dutch river area, in which the military presence was the strongest. The contrast with Luxemburg and Trier is clear, although there are, of course, examples of early coin use as well. An unwelcome consequence of the impact of the Roman army on the monetary economy of the Dutch river area was that the area became economically dependent on its presence. When the army numbers dwindled as a result of the pressure on other frontiers in the course of the 2nd century AD, this had a depressing effect on the regional economy, from which it never fully recovered. The Dutch river area never developed an economic

494 The introduction offers a more detailed discussion.

495 For an analysis of depositional processes of coins in the context of a rural settlement, see Aarts 1994.

496 The buying of small votive gifts excluded.

497 The only example I can think of are hand-outs of money by villa owners to their clients like the one depicted on a funerary relief from Remagen. Even this is not unambiguous in its interpretation: Drinkwater (1981) was the first to interpret it as the doling out of money to clients, while other authors see it as a representation of the sale of goods.

498 Sometimes, more coins are found at villa sites because of the illegal minting of coins; a villa provided in such cases an ideal concealment of this activity. One such forgery was found in Luxemburg, another in Belgium (the latter lying outside the area of research, St.Mard). In both cases it concerns the production of false Severan denarii.

223 interaction between city, vici and villa’s on the scale that existed in Luxemburg and Trier, where it formed the essence of economic growth. The MDS-area did not provide us with a third area that stood apart from the other two by its character, as was expected at the outset of the research project. The northern half and southwestern part of it rather look like the Dutch river area as far as monetary aspects are concerned, while the southeastern part (Dutch and Belgic Limburg) does behave more according to the economic pattern of Luxemburg. It is the latter part of the MDS-area which shows enough economic resilience to overcome the 3rd-century crisis.

224 Samenvatting

Munten of geld? Een onderzoek naar de monetarisatie en de functies van het Romeinse geld in Gallia Belgica en Nedergermanië 50 v.Chr. - 450 n.Chr.

Inleiding Toen rond de jaartelling onze streken deel werden van het Romeinse rijk, deed vrijwel onmiddellijk ook Romeins muntgeld zijn intrede. Dit verschijnsel is algemeen bekend, met name bij mensen die regelmatig de Nederlandse bodem afstruinen op zoek naar oud metaal. Waar men echter veel minder over weet, is wat dit Romeinse geld hier deed. Het is immers niet alleen te vinden op de terreinen van de voormalige kampen van het Romeinse leger aan de Rijn, maar ook in het kleinste boerengehucht in het achterland. Deze munten passeerden dus niet slechts de handen van soldaten in Romeinse dienst, maar ook die van de boer die hetzelfde land ploegde als vóór de Romeinse bezetting. Deze alomtegenwoordige vondstcategorie heeft vaker aanleiding gegeven om te denken dat de Romeinen hun geldeconomie hier hebben geïmporteerd. Maar werd Romeins geld in de noordwestelijke provincies van het Romeinse rijk wel op een ‘Romeinse’ manier gebruikt?

Centraal in dit onderzoek staat deze vraag naar de functies van Romeins geld in de Romeinse provincies Gallia Belgica en Germania Inferior, en hoe deze veranderden in de loop van de Romeinse periode. De materiële basis voor het onderzoek ligt in de muntvondsten uit de Late IJzertijd en Romeinse tijd van drie deelgebieden in deze provincies: ten eerste het Nederlands rivierengebied, in de tweede plaats het gebied tussen de rivieren Maas, Demer en Schelde en tenslotte Luxemburg en Trier. De deelgebieden worden beschouwd als representatief voor het totale onderzoeksgebied en zijn gekozen op grond van criteria die relevant worden geacht voor het verklaren van interregionale variatie in geldgebruik. Het Nederlands rivierengebied is een onderdeel van de Romeinse frontier (in de zin van Whittaker 1998), en wordt gekenmerkt door een sterke militaire aanwezigheid in de Romeinse periode. Het Maas-Demer-Schelde (MDS) gebied is een primair rurale zone, dat ook nog tot de frontier gerekend mag worden, maar dat buiten de militaire zone in de directe omgeving van de limes valt. Tenslotte vertegenwoordigen Luxemburg en Trier het meer verstedelijkte gebied binnen de provincie Gallia Belgica, met Trier als belangrijke Romeinse stad. Ook in historische zin is het gebied afgebakend; als ondergrens wordt 50 voor Chr. genomen, en als sluitdatum 450 n.Chr. Binnen deze periode valt evenwel de nadruk op de jaren waarin de grootste veranderingen te verwachten zijn in geldgebruik, namelijk de vroeg-Romeinse periode, de derde eeuw en de laat-Romeinse tijd.

Veel aandacht wordt besteed aan de monetariseringskwestie. Binnen de oude geschiedenis worden de veranderingen die optraden in het gebruik van geld gedurende de Romeinse periode wel samengevat onder het begrip van monetarisering van de economie. Het idee daarbij is dat de Romeinse economie als monetair gezien kan worden, en de voor-Romeinse samenlevingen in het onderzoeksgebied als pre-monetair. De algemeen aanvaarde hypothese is dat de inheemse economieën eveneens een monetair karakter kregen door hun integratie in de overkoepelende economie van het Romeinse rijk, waarin Romeins geld een centrale rol speelde. Het voornaamste integratiemiddel wordt gezien in het samenspel tussen lange afstandhandel en het Romeinse belastingsysteem. Het is echter de vraag in hoeverre er gedurende de Romeinse periode sprake was van een monetaire economie, waarin geld werd gebruikt als universeel betaalmiddel op alle niveau’s. Zonder twijfel is er sprake van monetarisering van de inheems-Romeinse samenlevingen, maar het is de vraag of dit gebruik van geld inderdaad zo overheersend was dat men kan spreken van een monetaire economie zoals die bestond in het centrum van het Romeinse rijk. Een nadeel van de monetariseringsdiscussie is dat alle nadruk ligt op het gebruik van geld voor market exchange, en beheerst wordt door de oppositie monetair en pre-monetair. Het is echter duidelijk dat naast het gebruik van geld in deze context, er andere gebruikssferen bestonden van geld, die dreigen te worden ondergesneeuwd door alles te beschouwen in het licht van bovengenoemde oppositie. Deze andere gebruikssferen, zoals het gebruik van

225 geld in rituele context, lopen het gevaar te worden afgedaan als marginale verschijnselen, terwijl het maar zeer de vraag is of dat zo was. In dit onderzoek wordt een poging gedaan om het complete gebruiksrepertoire van Romeins geld te overzien. De methode die wordt gehanteerd is voor een belangrijk deel kwantitatief van aard en geïnspireerd op soortgelijk Brits onderzoek van Reece. Hierbij wordt gekeken naar verschillen in muntverliespatronen tussen sites, en of de aangetroffen verschillen in verband kunnen worden gebracht met het sociaal-economische karakter van deze sites. Zo is het mogelijk om verschillen op te sporen in het gebruik van geld naargelang de archeologische context. Door het chronologische aspect kunnen de ontwikkelingen in de loop van de Romeinse tijd worden gevolgd. Denominatieanalyse verschaft hierbij het inzicht in het karakter van het geldgebruik in verschillende contexten. Het spreekt vanzelf dat deze kwantitatieve analyses worden geïnterpreteerd met behulp van het historische kader zoals dat naar voren komt in de archeologische en oud-historische literatuur, waarbij ook begrippen uit de economische antropologie een belangrijke rol spelen. Naast de hierboven besproken zaken gaat het eerste hoofdstuk in op twee thema’s die centraal staan binnen de monetariseringsdiscussie. In de eerste plaats is dit de voor-Romeinse situatie, en de rol van geld in de samenlevingen van de Late IJzertijd. In de tweede plaats komt de discussie van het Romeinse belastingsysteem en van wat voor invloed dit is geweest op de inheemse economieën. Het concept van een oppositie tussen pre-monetaire en monetaire samenlevingen is afkomstig uit de economische antropologie, met name vorm gegeven in de theorieën van Karl Polanyi. Hij maakt een fundamenteel onderscheid tussen embedded economies en market economies. In de eerste categorie is er sprake van persoonlijke uitwisselingssystemen die sterk afhankelijk zijn van hun sociaal-politiek context. De tweede categorie wordt gekenmerkt door de onthechting van uitwisseling van haar sociaal-politieke context, en de dominantie van de gedepersonaliseerde market exchange. De tribale samenlevingen uit de late IJzertijd moeten worden beschouwd als ‘embedded’ in bovengenoemde zin, terwijl de Romeinse economie meer trekken vertoont van een market economy. Munten hebben dan ook niet dezelfde functie in de inheemse samenlevingen als Romeins geld in de economie van het Romeinse rijk. Gouden, zilveren en wellicht ook potinmunten speelden een rol in de geschenkenuitwisseling (gift exchange) als waarde-object. Deze gift exchange vond plaats in verschillende sferen van de samenleving, waarbij goud waarschijnlijk circuleerde bij uitwisseling tussen een tribale hoofdman en zijn gevolg. Zilver en potin werd waarschijnlijk ook gebruikt in de context van gift exchange. Men kan hierbij denken aan soldijbetaling, weergeld en bruidsschatten en votiefgaven, maar dit zijn slechts enkele voorbeelden. In de context van de alledaagse transacties (subsistence) speelde geld waarschijnlijk een veel mindere rol, of het zou moeten zijn dat het relatief late kopergeld in deze context werd gebruikt. Hoe het ook zij, het karakter van Keltische munten was niet afgestemd op het gebruik als universeel betaalmiddel. Slechts enkele emissies treden op in meer dan een metaalsoort (er zijn een paar trimetallische emissies, zoals de Treverische ARDA-munten), maar over het algemeen was het bereik van denominaties (als men daarvan kan spreken) onvoldoende om alledaags geldverkeer mogelijk te maken. Geld werd dus gebruikt als limited-purpose money, voor een beperkt scala van transacties. De inheemse koper-emissies uit de Augusteïsche periode (AVAVCIA munten en munten met de legende GERMANVS INDVTILLI L) komen in grote getale voor in de Romeinse legerkampen langs de Rijn. Ofschoon enkele auteurs deze muntjes willen zien in de context van soldijbetalingen van hulptroepen, is een gebruik als kleingeld (quadrantes) in de Romeinse context van kampen en kampdorpen veel waarschijnlijker.

Hoofdstuk 1 wordt afgesloten met een discussie van het Romeinse belastingsysteem. Er zijn talrijke passages te noemen in de antieke literatuur waarin belastingen aan de orde komen; zo is het mogelijk om de belangrijkste elementen van het Romeinse belastingsysteem te reconstrueren. Het is echter moeilijk om op grond van de antieke bronnen een goed beeld te krijgen van de kwantitatieve aspecten ervan. Voor deze studie zijn vooral de provinciale belastingen van belang. Deze tributa werden op basis van een inventarisatie van de hulpbronnen van een provincie (census) bepaald door de centrale Romeinse autoriteiten, en zij konden worden geheven in geld, in natura of in een combinatie van beiden. De voornaamste discussie onder oud- historici speelt zich af omtrent de vraag in hoeverre de betaling van tributum een monetair karakter had. In deze discussie staan de visies van Hopkins en Duncan-Jones tegenover elkaar. Hopkins gelooft dat het belastingsysteem en de daarmee gepaarde handel een belangrijke monetariserend effect heeft gehad op de economie

226 van het Romeinse rijk. Duncan-Jones’ voornaamste kritiek hierop is dat Hopkins’ premisse dat belastingen vooral in geld werden voldaan niet klopt. Ook hij is echter niet in staat om de verhouding tussen belasting in geld en in natura te kwantificeren, en Duncan-Jones biedt geen werkelijk alternatief voor het model van Hopkins. Door het belastingsysteem in de noordwestelijke provincies van onderaf te reconstrueren blijkt dat Hopkins’ model de beste mogelijkheden biedt om het monetariseringsproces in Gallia Belgica en Nedergermanië te verklaren.

Methode Hoofdstuk 2 behelst een uiteenzetting over de methoden die in dit onderzoek worden gehanteerd. Allereerst wordt ingegaan op het karakter van muntvondsten. Het traditionele onderscheid tussen losse vondsten en schatvondsten wordt aan de orde gesteld, waarbij het bij de laatste gaat om een groep munten die samen een gesloten context vormen. Losse vondsten worden gezien als het resultaat van de accumulatie van muntverlies gedurende een bepaalde tijd. Schatvondsten kunnen worden onderscheiden in circulatieschatten (purse-hoards) en accumulatieschatten (spaarschatten). Votiefdepots worden gerekend tot de laatste groep, hoewel een belangrijk verschil is dat de munten in votiefdepots niet noodzakelijkerwijs op hetzelfde tijdstip zijn gedeponeerd. Het is niet altijd goed mogelijk om een onderscheid te maken tussen schatvondsten en losse vondsten. Het komt regelmatig voor dat een schatvondst in de loop van de tijd in meer of mindere mate verspreid is geraakt over een terrein. Een deel van de losse vondsten in nederzettingscontext bestaat waarschijnlijk uit verspreide schatvondsten, die later niet meer als zodanig herkend zijn. Aangezien het verbergen van muntschatten een veelvoorkomende manier was om geld voor langere tijd te bewaren, zijn in later tijd teruggevonden schatvondsten tot op zekere hoogte representatief voor het ‘normale’ verlies (schatvondsten zijn vaak makkelijker te begraven dan terug te vinden). Anders wordt het wanneer er sprake is van een duidelijk cluster van schatvondsten in een beperkte tijd en plaats (schatvondsthorizonten). Het is aannemelijk dat er externe factoren verantwoordelijk zijn voor de toegenomen schatvondstfrequentie. Traditioneel wordt deze in verband gebracht met sociaal-politieke onrust (noodschatten), maar er zijn meerdere verklaringen denkbaar (bijvoorbeeld het oppotten van ‘goed’ zilver ten tijde van een devaluatie). Losse vondsten zijn bijna altijd nederzettingsvondsten, ook al is de nederzetting niet altijd herkend: het percentage onderweg verloren munten is verwaarloosbaar. In dit onderzoek wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen ‘sites’ en nederzettingen. Een site is hier een groep munten die in een bepaalde nederzettingscontext zijn gevonden (vondstcomplex). Hoewel vaak de nederzettingsvondsten equivalent zijn met site-vondsten, komt het regelmatig voor dat in een nederzettingen verschillende vondstcomplexen zijn aangetroffen. Soms leidt dit tot interpretatieproblemen. Dit heeft te maken met het inherente probleem van archeologische nederzettingstypologieën dat steden en vici zijn opgebouwd uit kleinere elementen. De munten van een stad kunnen bijvoorbeeld afkomstig zijn uit een heiligdom en een militaire versterking. Wanneer men probeert om muntvondstpatronen te koppelen aan het karakter van de nederzetting, zoals in dit onderzoek gebeurt, is het niet altijd duidelijk of de munten moeten worden gerekend bij het kleinste element (de militaire versterking bijvoorbeeld), of aan het grotere geheel (de stad). Dit probleem speelt met name in de steden een rol: de muntvondsten uit Trier zijn hiervan een goed voorbeeld. Zij zijn allemaal afkomstig uit het Altbachtal, dat gedurende de eerste drie eeuwen een belangrijke religieuze functie had; tegelijkertijd horen zij ook bij de muntvondsten van de stad Trier. Het grootste deel van de muntvondsten van Nijmegen is afkomstig van het Kops Plateau, een vroeg-Romeinse militaire versterking. In de analyses van de muntvondsten wordt hier uitgegaan van de kleinste eenheid, bij de interpretatie wordt natuurlijk ook het grotere geheel in acht genomen. Een belangrijk onderdeel van de analyses van de muntvondsten bestaat uit het vergelijken van de chronologische distributie van munten van verschillende sites. Daarbij wordt gezocht naar patronen in het muntverlies die gekoppeld kunnen worden aan de functionele aspecten van de nederzetting waar de munten zijn gevonden. Op grond hiervan kunnen dan uitspraken worden gedaan over het gebruik van munten in verschillende contexten, waarbij met name het verschil tussen stad en platteland van belang is. Deze methode is eerder toegepast door Reece voor de muntvondsten van een groot aantal nederzettingen in Brittannia. Er wordt gewerkt met twee statistische technieken: correlatie-analyse en de Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, die beide kunnen worden gebruikt om twee populaties met elkaar vergelijken. Steeds wordt de chronologische verdeling van de munten van een site vergeleken met de gemiddelde verdeling van de regio tot welke de site behoort. Voor de statistische tests wordt de

227 Romeinse periode onderverdeeld in de tijd vóór 260 na Chr. en de periode 260-450 na Chr., omdat een groot aantal sites maar in één van de perioden bestaat, en omdat het karakter van het Romeinse geldsysteem van de laat- Romeinse tijd aanzienlijk verschilt van de periode ervoor. Voor de analyses van de periode vóór 260 v.Chr. werd een minimum van vijftien munten gehanteerd, voor de laat-Romeinse periode een minimum van tien munten (één munt per emissieperiode). In de loop van het onderzoek is hier nog een derde analyse aan toegevoegd, die de cumulatieve percentages van individuele sites vergelijkt met de gemiddelde verdeling (chronologische profielen). Met deze methode is het mogelijk om de totale chronologische distributie te analyseren (de Kolmogorov-Smirnov test let alleen op de periode van het grootste verschil).

De muntvondsten van het Nederlands rivierengebied Hoofdstuk 3 gaat over de muntvondsten van het Nederlands rivierengebied. Er zijn in totaal 9408 munten opgenomen in de database, waarvan 3594 munten afkomstig zijn van het fort Nijmegen-Kops Plateau. Het grootste deel bestaat uit nederzettingsvondsten; slecht 431 munten maken deel uit van schatvondsten. Bij de analyses wordt Nijmegen-Kops Plateau apart behandeld, omdat deze site de verhoudingen anders zou scheeftrekken. Er blijkt een algemeen verschil te bestaan tussen de oostelijke en de westelijke helft van het rivierengebied, die ruwweg samenvallen met de territoria van de Bataven (oosten) en de Caninefaten (westen). Er zijn meer vindplaatsen in het oostelijk deel, en het gemiddeld aantal munten per site ligt beduidend hoger. Gedeeltelijk is dit verschil te verklaren vanuit de intensievere bewoning van het oostelijk deel gedurende de Romeinse tijd, maar dit geldt niet voor het hoger gemiddelde. Nader bezien wordt dit verschil met name bepaald door de hoge aantallen muntvondsten van de vroege forten in Nijmegen en Vechten, en de rurale nederzetting van Wijk-bij Duurstede-De Horden. Daarnaast is de groep van sites met slechts één munt groter in het westen, terwijl in het oosten de sites met lage aantallen munten toch vaak meer dan één munt laten zien. Het verschil wordt verklaard door een latere start van de geldomloop in het westelijk deel van het rivierengebied in de vroeg-Romeinse tijd. Dit latere begin is een gevolg van het feit dat het oostelijk deel betrokken was bij het Augusteische offensief tegen het Vrije Germanië, met als gevolg dat daar al vroeg sprake was van een hoge troepenconcentratie. Dit verklaart de grotere toevoer van geld naar het oostelijk deel van het rivierengebied, maar nog niet waarom het geld zich tevens sneller verspreidde. Dit laatste fenomeen wordt in verband gebracht met het feit dat een groot deel van de mannelijke Bataafse bevolking dienst nam in het Romeinse leger, als onderdeel van een verbond (pactio) tussen deze stam en de Romeinse overheid. Aangezien deze Bataven waren gelegerd in hun eigen stamgebied, was er sprake van een vroege interactie tussen de forten en de rurale nederzettingen. Het vroeg-Romeinse geld in rurale context zou volgens deze hypothese voornamelijk bestaan uit meegebrachte soldij; overigens vervulde dit geld, eenmaal op het platteland, waarschijnlijk geen monetaire functie meer. Een verschijnsel dat wellicht gerelateerd is aan het voorgaande is dat de verspreiding van Keltische munten beperkt is tot het oostelijk gebied. Het lijkt erop dat al in de voor-Romeinse tijd het oostelijke deel bekend was met het gebruik van munten, en het zou kunnen dat dit de plaatselijke bevolking ontvankelijker maakte voor het gebruik van Romeins geld. Er zijn 40 sites die een voldoende aantal munten hadden voor de statistische analyses van de periode vóór 260 n.Chr., en 20 sites voor de laat-Romeinse tijd. De Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests leverden geen duidelijk patroon op in de chronologische distributie van muntvondsten. Dit geldt in zekere zin ook voor de correlatieanalyse, maar hier was wel sprake van een klein verschil tussen militaire en niet-militaire nederzettingen. Tenslotte wordt het beeld bevestigd door de chronologische profielen van de sites. Met deze laatste methode werd ook het chronologisch verschil tussen de oostelijk en westelijke helft nog eens duidelijk gemaakt. Dit wil zeggen dat met name de laatste methode wel geschikt is voor het aantonen van verschillende chronologische tendensen. Het betekent ook dat we voorzichtig mogen concluderen dat een duidelijk chronologisch patroon ontbreekt in de sites van het rivierengebied. Er is een algemene trend zichtbaar dat militaire sites veel invloed hebben op de chronologische verdeling van munten, maar er is tevens geen duidelijk militair patroon. Er wordt gesuggereerd dat dit te maken kan hebben met een sterk geïndividualiseerde toevoer van geld naar de forten. Aangezien de forten tevens de belangrijkste bron van geld vormen voor het achterland, wordt de chronologische verdeling ook hier gekenmerkt door het ontbreken van een duidelijk patroon.

228 Hoofdstuk 3 eindigt met een chronologische bespreking van de geldcirculatie van het rivierengebied. Verreweg de meeste Keltische munten (80%) horen thuis in de vroeg-Romeinse periode (15v.Chr-50 n.Chr.). Er is sprake van een eerdere fase in de circulatie van LIJT munten, die ongeveer gedateerd kan worden tussen 70 en 15 v.Chr. Deze lijkt vooral te bestaan uit zilveren triquetrum munten, die als Bataafse emissie worden beschouwd. Daarnaast zijn er ook enkele gouden Eburonen-staters gevonden die wijzen op een vóór-Bataafse circulatie, maar deze vondsten bevinden zich in het uiterste noorden van hun verspreidingsgebied. De vroegste fase bestaat dus uit goud en zilveren munten, die een functie hadden als geschenk of betaalmiddel in de sociaal-politieke sfeer. Het grootste gedeelte van de munten uit fase 2 bestaat uit bronzen munten, en dan met name de AVAVCIA- munten, die in groten getale zijn gevonden in het vroege fort op het Kops Plateau. Daarnaast vinden we deze munten ook terug in rurale context, maar een gelijke verdeling van de Scheers-klassen in het fort en daarbuiten maakt een secundaire verspreiding vanuit het fort aannemelijk. Deze munten moeten vooral gezien worden als onderdeel van de Romeinse geldcirculatie tijdens Augustus en kort daarna, waar ze vermoedelijk dienst deden als quadrantes, hoewel een begin in inheemse context waarschijnlijk wordt geacht. Het is mogelijk dat degene die de munten sloeg zowel een belangrijke positie had in het Romeinse leger als in de tribale organisatie (of liever de pre- civitas-structuur). Naast deze AVAVCIA-munten vormden de bronzen triquetrum munten een apart geldcircuit dat vooral in inheemse sfeer moet worden geplaatst: zij ontbreken namelijk in militaire context. Hun functie is onduidelijk, maar moet meer in de tribale uitwisselingssfeer worden gezocht. Het percentage vroeg-Romeinse munten (periode tot 69 n.Chr.) in het Nederlands rivierengebied is hoog, zelfs als men het fort van het Kops Plateau niet meerekent. Dit geldt met name voor het oostelijk deel, waar het verschijnsel al eerder in verband werd gebracht met de recrutering van Bataafse hulptroepen. De analyse van denominaties wijst uit dat het zwaartepunt van de vroeg-Romeinse geldcirculatie ligt rond de as en de dupondius. Het percentage semissen en quadrantes is lager dan verwacht mag worden bij het gebruik van geld voor market exchange, maar dit is gedeeltelijk een interpretatieprobleem dat te maken heeft met het karakter van het Romeinse geldsysteem in het algemeen, waarin er relatief te weinig kleingeld circuleert. Het gebruik van AVAVCIA munten als quadrantes en het halveren van munten in de Augusteïsche periode lijkt dit gebrek aan kleingeld te onderstrepen. Dit verschijnsel zien we zowel in de vroeg-Romeinse forten als in de vroege rurale nederzettingen terug. Er is weinig verschil te constateren tussen de denominatieverhoudingen tussen Romeinse kampen en daarbuiten, afgezien van een verhoogd percentage zilvergeld op het platteland. Het is mogelijk dat Romeins goud en zilver nog gedeeltelijk circuleerde in traditionele uitwisselingssferen. Daarnaast moet het geld vooral worden gezien als limited-purpose money dat werd gebruikt in de context van uitwisseling in militaire sites en het stedelijk centrum. Er is slechts een geringe toename van het aantal munten in de midden-Romeinse periode (69-260 n.Chr.). Wel wijst een groter aantal vindplaatsen op een wijdere verspreiding van muntgebruik in deze periode. De reden hiervoor is waarschijnlijk te vinden in het feit dat het rivierengebied na 69 n.Chr. werd geïntegreerd in het Romeinse belastingsysteem. Hierbij werd agrarisch surplus geconverteerd in geld door handel met het leger en de stad, Nijmegen. In Nijmegen zelf is deze ontwikkeling slecht te volgen door de scheve verhouding in de muntvondsten, die voor het grootste deel komen uit militaire context; de munten uit Ulpia Noviomagus zijn slecht bekend. De economische afhankelijkheid van de militaire markt wordt zichtbaar door de afname van de hoeveelheid geld in de loop van de tweede eeuw, parallel met de afbouw van de militaire aanwezigheid in het gebied. De denominatieanalyse laat een aanmerkelijk verschil zien tussen het geldgebruik in de stad en op het platteland. Dit wil niet zeggen dat het platteland niet geïntegreerd was in de monetaire economie, maar het duidt op een oppositie tussen muntverlies en depositie, waarbij het laatste een relatief grote rol speelde in rurale context. Het verschil tussen oost en west is in de laat-Romeinse periode (260-402 n.Chr.) het grootst. Het aantal vindplaatsen en aantal muntvondsten is vele malen hoger in het oostelijk deel. Er zijn slechts weinig vindplaatsen in het westen die zowel munten uit de late derde eeuw als vierde-eeuwse munten hebben en de vindplaatsen met vierde-eeuwse munten zijn geconcentreerd langs de Rijn. In het oosten zijn meer vindplaatsen met een continu muntgebruik vanaf de late derde eeuw. Hier zijn de vindplaatsen met vierde eeuwse munten geconcentreerd rond Nijmegen. Opvallend is het lage aantal schatvondsten uit de tweede helft van de derde eeuw, terwijl ten zuiden van het rivierengebied sprake is van een schatvondsthorizont in deze periode. Het gemiddeld aantal schatvondsten was in voorgaande perioden ook al vrij laag. In de tweede helft van de vierde eeuw zijn relatief veel losse solidi gevonden. Deze zijn met name te dateren in de regeringstijd van Valentinianus I (364-378 n.Chr.) en aan het begin van de vijfde

229 eeuw, hoewel deze late cluster misschien slechts schijn is door het voorkomen van solidi in post-Romeinse context. De cluster onder Valentinianus wordt in verband gebracht met de reorganisatie van het gebied door deze keizer, waarbij de solidi contacten tussen de keizer en lokale Frankische leiders weerspiegelen. Het goud vinden we alleen in rurale context, en dit wordt gezien als een aanwijzing voor het gebruik van goud in gift-exchange en rituele deposities. Het late bronsgeld kan in stedelijke context gebruikt zijn in marktverkeer, maar in rurale context wordt een gebruik als ‘scrap metal’ of een ritueel gebruik waarschijnlijk geacht.

De muntvondsten van Luxemburg en Trier Hoofdstuk vier gaat in op de muntvondsten van Luxemburg en Trier. In de database zijn 61377 munten opgenomen, die afkomstig zijn van 886 vindplaatsen. Hiervan zijn er 132 gelokaliseerd in Trier-Altbachtal. Alleen de muntvondsten uit het Altbachtal zijn gepubliceerd; het gaat hier om een groot tempelcomplex dat heeft bestaan gedurende de eerste drie eeuwen van onze jaartelling. In de laat-Romeinse tijd verloor het haar religieuze functie, en werd het tot woongebied. Dit zou een bias in de muntvondsten van de stad kunnen opleveren, gezien het tweevoudige karakter van het Altbachtal. Deze tweezijdigheid komt dan ook in de analyses tot uitdrukking. Het overgrote deel van de muntvondsten kan worden gedateerd in de laat-Romeinse periode (Trier 71%; Luxemburg 67%). Dit heeft te maken met de historische ontwikkeling van het gebied, dat in de laat-Romeinse eeuw een belangrijk centrum vormt (Trier is zowel keizerlijke residentie als muntplaats in de vierde eeuw). Deels is het hoge percentage ook te verklaren uit het karakter van het laat-Romeinse geldsysteem, dat voor een belangrijk deel bestaat uit zeer kleine bronzen denominaties. Er zijn voor de statistische analyses 48 sites met voldoende munten uit de periode vóór 260 n.Chr., en 167 sites in de laat-Romeinse periode. Ditmaal kunnen op grond van de KS-tests drie groepen sites worden onderscheiden met elk een eigen chronologisch patroon: Trier, de vici en de heiligdommen. De overige nederzettingstypen zijn minder duidelijk. Opvallend is dat hoewel de munten uit het Altbachtal afkomstig zijn uit zowel rituele als niet-rituele context, zij toch samen een groep vormen; dit pleit voor het bestaan van een stedelijk patroon dat sterker is dan het religieuze karakter van het Altbachtal. Correlatieanalyse levert geen resultaten op en de conclusie is dat deze methode het minst geschikt is voor het herkennen van chronologische patronen in de muntvondsten van sites. De K-S tests en chronologische profielen van de laat-Romeinse periode laten zien dat de groepen een minder uitgesproken karakter hebben dan in de periode vòòr 260 n.Chr. De sites van Trier zijn netjes verspreid over alle profielen, wat waarschijnlijk te maken heeft met haar functie als belangrijkste distributiecentrum van geld in deze periode. Verder is een chronologische verschuiving waar te nemen van de vici in de late derde eeuw en het begin van de vierde eeuw naar heiligdommen en de op de stedelijke markt georiënteerde villae in de tweede helft van de vierde eeuw, die wellicht de functie van rurale centra overnemen van de vici. De nederzetting op de Titelberg herbergt het leeuwenaandeel van de munten uit de late IJzertijd (93%). Daarbuiten zijn er nog eens 68 vindplaatsen, meestal met één of twee munten; grotere aantallen vinden we in de plaatsen die zich later tot vici ontwikkelen. Driekwart van de munten bestaat uit Treverische emissies. De chronologie van Metzler wordt gehanteerd voor de indeling van de circulatie in de late IJzertijd in vier fasen. De hypothese van Metzler dat er op de Titelberg sprake is van een monetaire economie en daarbuiten niet, wordt evenwel niet geaccepteerd. Zowel voor de Titelberg als daarbuiten wordt voor goud en zilvergeld gift exchange of betalingen in de sociaal politieke sfeer aangenomen (zilvergeld vooral voor betaling van troepen) en voor het bronsgeld wellicht een functie in de uitwisseling van goederen in de subsistence-sfeer, maar dan alleen in de context van het oppidum. Er zijn 200 sites met munten uit de vroeg-Romeinse tijd; de sites met hoge aantallen zijn vooral de stad en de vici. De vroegste muntomloop is eveneens te vinden in deze sites. De denominatieverhoudingen laten geen wezenlijk ander beeld zien in de vici als in de rest van de rurale nederzettingen. Wel bestaat er een duidelijk verschil tussen de stad en het platteland, waarbij het percentage zilver hoger is in de rurale sites, en kleine bronsdenominaties (semissen en quadrantes) in de stad. Dit laatste wordt verklaard door een intensiever gebruik van geld in Trier voor alledaagse transacties. Het hogere percentage zilver op het platteland wordt gezien als een resultaat van depositieprocessen. Zilvergeld in de stad had een functie in interregionaal geldverkeer, en verliet de stad waarschijnlijk even hard als het

230 binnenkwam. Het zilvergeld op het platteland bleef lokaal en kwam uiteindelijk terecht in bewaarschatten en rituele deposities. De geldtoevoer naar dit gebied wordt verklaard vanuit de behoefte van de Treverische elite om hun stad in te richten. Daarvoor was geld nodig, en zij verkregen dat in de vorm van leningen van externe Romeinse patroni. Deze leningen zullen vooral in goud en zilvergeld zijn geweest. Geldwisselaars zorgden voor de conversie naar brons, die nodig was om de bouwprojecten te voorzien; er wordt geopperd dat deze nummularii wellicht ook direct bronsgeld bestelden bij de muntplaats. Het geld van de leningen moest worden terugverdiend door de elite, en dit gebeurde door de verkoop van agrarische surplussen op de stedelijke markt en ten dele ook door handel. Zij werden hierdoor snel afhankelijk van een monetaire economie, en waren gebaat bij een gestage toevoer van geld naar de stad en de vici (markten). Het blijft echter moeilijk om de omvang van deze monetaire economie in de vroeg-Romeinse tijd te kwantificeren. Het gebruik van geld buiten de stad en de vici moet vooral worden gezocht in de rituele sfeer van votiefdepots en funeraire contexten. In de midden-Romeinse tijd stijgt het aantal sites naar 331 en het gemiddeld aantal munten per site naar 6.5; het muntgebruik lijkt intensiever te worden. De stad en de vici staan nog steeds bovenaan in absolute aantallen, maar de kloof tussen de vici en de overige rurale nederzettingen wordt kleiner, met name wat de villae en heiligdommen betreft. De verschuiving van zilver naar bronsgeld in votiefdepots wijst wellicht op een verandering in de groep van dedicanten. De elite heeft inmiddels andere manieren gevonden voor haar ‘display of wealth’, met name in de bouw van monumenten. In de graven zien we een tegenovergestelde ontwikkeling, die mogelijk te duiden is als een betekenisverandering in het meegeven van geld aan de dode. Het toegenomen percentage van munten van villae heeft waarschijnlijk te maken met de groei van de villa-economie in deze periode, waarbij deze bedrijven produceerden voor een monetaire stedelijke markt. Het blijft echter de vraag in hoeverre dit tot uiting komt in depositie (of verlies) van geld op villaterreinen. De analyse van denominaties toont een verschil tussen een rituele groep sites en een niet-rituele. De aanwezigheid van Trier in de rituele groep lijkt een contradictie, maar is het niet: de chronologische verdeling van munten plaatst Trier in de stedelijke groep, de denominatieverhoudingen weerspiegelen de (rituele) selectieprocessen uit een gemonetariseerd geldcircuit. Tenslotte zijn er 422 sites met munten uit de laat-Romeinse periode. Het gemiddelde per site is gestegen naar 45,4 munten, maar dit hangt ook samen met het veranderde karakter van het laat-Romeinse geldsysteem. In deze periode circuleren vooral goud (vooral in het domein van de autoriteiten) en een enorme hoeveelheid laagwaardig brons. Er is weinig verschil in de algemene geografische verspreiding van muntvondsten met de voorgaande periode, maar weinig sites tonen een continu muntgebruik tussen de late derde eeuw en de vierde eeuw. Dit zou kunnen betekenen dat er kleine lokale verschuivingen plaatsvonden in het bewoningspatroon tengevolge van de politieke wanorde van de tweede helft van de derde eeuw. Van de muntschatten kan 78% geplaatst worden in de laat- Romeinse tijd, en 50% in de late derde eeuw: we kunnen hier dus met recht spreken van een schatvondsthorizont. Deze wordt enerzijds verklaard door een toename in het gebruik van schatten als buffer tegen de constante ontwaarding van geld, anderzijds door een toenemend aantal schatten dat niet meer werd hervonden door hun eigenaar tengevolge van de politieke situatie. In de verdeling van muntplaatsen zien we in Trier hetzelfde patroon als in de sites van Luxemburg, dat wijst op het belang van Trier als distributiecentrum van geld en een grote regionale cohesie. De verdeling over verschillende typen sites laat zien dat het zwaartepunt op het platteland in de tweede helft van de vierde eeuw verschuift van de vici naar de heiligdommen en enkele villae.

De muntvondsten van het Maas-Demer-Schelde-gebied De muntvondsten van het Maas-Demer-Schelde-gebied worden besproken in hoofdstuk 5. Er zijn in totaal 24.344 muntvondsten, waarvan 63% deel uitmaakt van schatvondsten. Het aantal vindplaatsen is 687. De munten uit het Belgische deel van het gebied zijn ondervertegenwoordigd door de stand van het onderzoek. Van de 8779 nederzettingsvondsten komen er 1857 uit Tongeren, 920 uit Maastricht en 1060 uit Empel. Deze nederzettingen verschillen overigens zeer in de verhouding tussen vroeg- midden- en laat-Romeinse munten. Het hoge percentage laat-Romeinse munten in Maastricht is verklaarbaar door post-depositionele processen. Empel heeft een hoog percentage munten uit de vroeg-Romeinse tijd door haar functie als centrum van de Bataafse martiale cultus. Tussen

231 Tongeren en de overige sites van het MDS-gebied bestaan eveneens aanzienlijke verschillen. De vraag wordt gesteld of dezelfde differentiatie optreedt bij de overige sites van het gebied. Zowel de K-S tests als de chronologische profielen vóór 260 n.Chr. (45 sites) laten zien dat er twee groepen sites zijn: Tongeren en de heiligdommen aan de ene kant, vici en rurale nederzettingen aan de andere kant. De eerste groep wordt gekenmerkt door een hoog percentage munten uit de Augusteïsche periode, de andere sites komen pas later op gang. Voor de stad hangt deze vroege start samen met activiteiten van militaire en organisatorische aard die plaatsvonden in dit gebied. Voor de heiligdommen wordt gesuggereerd dat soldaten een belangrijke groep dedicanten vormden. Tongeren is aanwezig in alle chronologische profielen en dit wordt gezien als een aanwijzing dat Tongeren een belangrijke rol vervulde in de geldtoevoer naar het gebied. De K-S tests van de laat-Romeinse periode (29 sites; clusters in de Maaskant en rond Tongeren) tonen aan dat de grootste variatie optreedt in de periodes 330-348 n.Chr. (Constantinisch) en 364-378 n.Chr. (Valentinianus), de tijd waarin grote militaire operaties plaatsvonden in het frontier-gebied. De chronologische profielen bevestigen dit beeld, en laten zien dat er zich een cluster sites bevindt met hoge percentages laat-vierde-eeuwse munten in het noorden, en een cluster sites met een Constantinische piek in het zuiden van het gebied. Net als in Luxemburg zijn de meeste munten uit de late IJzertijd afkomstig van één site: de tempel van Empel (809/1051); verder gaat het, afgezien van Tongeren om één à twee munten per site. Een andere overeenkomst met Luxemburg is het hogere percentage zilver en goud buiten deze twee sites. Het grootste deel van het brons dateert uit de Augusteïsche periode, en bestaat uit AVAVCIA-munten. De Keltische munten zijn -net zoals in het rivierengebied- beperkt tot de oostelijke helft van het gebied, behalve in het uiterste zuiden. Er zijn 197 sites met munten uit de vroeg-Romeinse tijd, en het gaat in totaal om 1182 munten. De vici hebben een relatief late start; het muntgebruik begint pas echt toe te nemen onder Nero, aan het eind van de periode. Dit geldt niet voor de stad en de heiligdommen, die horen bij het vroegste geldcircuit. Er zijn dus geen aanwijzingen voor een vroege monetaire verbinding tussen de stad en de vici, zoals in Luxemburg wel het geval was. Er zijn redelijk veel losse aurei die dateren uit deze periode; daarvan is meer dan de helft Neroons. Zij worden geassocieerd met de Bataafse opstand, waarbij zij functioneerden als betalingen van de Romeinse autoriteiten aan lokale tribale leiders, waarna zij verder werden verspreid via tribale gift exchange ketens. De stad en de agrarische nederzettingen hebben een sterk overeenkomstig spectrum in het bronsgeld, met een relatief hoog percentage quadrantes (daartoe worden ook de AVAVCIA-munten gerekend) en semissen. In de context van de stad kan dit wijzen op het begin van een monetair geldverkeer, op het platteland gaat het waarschijnlijk bij het bronsgeld om door soldaten meegebrachte soldij. De heiligdommen onderscheiden zich door een hoog percentage zilver, behalve de soldatentempel te Empel. In de midden-Romeinse periode zien we een sterke toename in het aantal muntvondsten (2251) en het aantal sites (372), dat als een groeiende intensiteit in muntgebruik kan worden opgevat. Er zijn in deze periode zestien schatten en elf losse aurei; een groot deel hiervan dateert uit de Flavische periode en mag wellicht nog worden gezien als behorend bij de naweeën van de opstand. Daarnaast is er een horizont aan het eind van de tweede eeuw, hoewel enige twijfel bestaat of dit een werkelijk cluster is. Door de stagnatie van de geldtoevoer die optreedt aan het begin van de derde eeuw is het mogelijk dat deze schatten in de loop van een langere periode zijn begraven. De vici zijn wat aantal munten betreft gestegen tot het niveau van de stad. Tongeren blijkt in vergelijking met Trier een stad van bescheiden proporties. Het percentage munten uit een rituele context blijft ongeveer hetzelfde, maar er treedt een verschuiving op van de heiligdommen naar de funeraire contexten. De chronologische verdeling van munten laat twee zones in de toevoer van geld zien; een zuidelijke (vanuit Tongeren) en een noordelijke (waarschijnlijk vanuit Nijmegen en de kampen langs de Rijn). De denominatieverhoudingen tonen dezelfde verschuiving van zilver naar brons die we al in Luxemburg hebben gezien. De stad, vici en villae hebben nu een sterk overeenkomstig spectrum en tonen een toenemende integratie in de monetaire economie. De grote bouwactiviteit onder de Flavii leidde tot het ontstaan van nieuwe markten, waar vici en villae van profiteerden Toch blijft het gebied tevens afhankelijk van de militaire markt, en er is dan ook een dalende lijn in het muntgebruik te zien die parallel loopt met de afbouw van het Romeinse leger in de frontier-zone. De 3155 munten uit de laat-Romeinse periode laten een sterkere stijging zien dan in het Nederlands rivierengebied, maar vergeleken met Luxemburg en Trier vallen ze in het niet (ook gezien de waarde van de munten).

232 Het aantal sites neemt af naar 178 en er zijn slechts 61 sites met munten uit de late derde eeuw. Vrijwel géén sites laten een continu muntgebruik zien van de late derde eeuw tot in de vierde eeuw. Vijftien schatvondsten dateren uit deze periode, en 23 losse solidi. Er is een schatvondsthorizont in de late derde eeuw en één aan het begin van de vijfde eeuw. De cluster van losse solidi onder Valentinianus I worden in verband gebracht met de reorganisaties van de keizer in dit gebied, waarbij het goud wellicht werd gebruikt voor betalingen van de overheid aan Frankische leiders; zo gauw de munten echter in het inheemse circuit terechtkwamen, is het goed voorstelbaar dat zij vervolgens -net zoals in de vroeg-Romeinse periode weer deel werden van de tribale uitwisseling van kostbare goederen. Voor de horizont aan het einde van de derde eeuw en aan het begin van de vijfde eeuw lijkt een oorzaak in de politieke situatie het waarschijnlijkst. Daarbij moet worden opgemerkt dat de ‘grote’ schatten van Hapert en Vught (en wellicht ook een aantal kleinere) vrijwel zeker in het licht van een nog bestaande, maar sterk gereduceerde monetaire economie moeten worden bezien. Van de oorspronkelijke inheems-Romeinse bevolking was na de chaotische omstandigheden rond 270 n.Chr. weinig meer overgebleven. Zij bestond langzamerhand geheel uit Frankische stammen, die tevoren niet binnen de grenzen van het Romeinse rijk hadden gehoord. Het is ondenkbaar dat de monetaire economie uit de voorgaande periode nog bestond in de laat-Romeinse tijd, noch is het waarschijnlijk dat zij in de loop van de vierde eeuw in haar oude vorm werd hersteld. Voor zover er sprake was van monetair muntgebruik, was dat geconcentreerd in de stad en mogelijk in de laat-Romeinse forten. Tongeren was in deze tijd waarschijnlijk meer georiënteerd op het gebied ten zuiden van deze stad. Geld kwam naar het gebied al gevolg van militaire operaties in deze streken. Het laat-Romeinse brons kan wellicht worden begrepen in termen van aan Franken uitbetaalde soldij. Deze konden de munten gebruiken in de context van het fort of de stad in monetaire zin, maar daarbuiten is een functie als ritueel object of als ‘scrap metal’ waarschijnlijk.

Synthese: de functies van het Romeinse geld in de provincies Gallia Belgica en Germania Inferior Het laatste hoofdstuk bestaat uit een vergelijking tussen de drie deelgebieden en enige conclusies ten aanzien van de functies van het Romeinse geld in de provincies Gallia Belgica en Germania Inferior. Na een algemene analyse van de munttoevoer in de drie gebieden en de processen die hieraan ten grondslag liggen, volgt een chronologische bespreking van de geldcirculatie en monetarisatie van het onderzoeksgebied. In de voor-Romeinse periode circuleerde goud- en zilvergeld in de context van tribale gift exchange: het bronsgeld was wellicht geschikt voor betalingen in de alledaagse sfeer, maar dan vooral in de context van centrale markten, zoals de Titelberg. Het laatste bronsgeld, de AVAVCIA-munten, circuleerden in Augusteische tijd en waren een onderdeel van een Romeinse geldcirculatie. Ook Romeins zilver- en goudgeld kon in de vroeg-Romeinse tijd nog circuleren in de context van tribale gift-exchange, zoals de vroeg-Romeinse aurei in het MDS-gebied worden uitgelegd. De circulatie van Romeins geld begint in de Augusteische periode; in het rivierengebied concentreren de allervroegste vondsten zich in de militaire nederzettingen (en Nijmegen), voor Luxemburg zijn Trier en de vici de belangrijkste plaatsen voor de instroom van vroege munten. Er vindt in het Nederlands rivierengebied een snelle verspreiding van munten plaats door Bataafse soldaten die terugkeren naar huis. Zo raakte de plaatselijke bevolking ook snel bekend met het gebruik van munten als geld, hoewel zij niet in deze hoedanigheid circuleerden op het platteland. In Luxemburg en Trier ontstond in stad en vici al snel een monetair circuit, deels door de betalingen die de organisatie van de civitas met zich meebracht, deels door een proces dat in gang werd gezet door de bouwprojecten in Trier. De vici waren daarbij betrokken als vroege markten, waarin het agrarisch surplus werd omgezet in geld. Het MDS-gebied volgt grotendeels hetzelfde patroon als het Nederlands rivierengebied. Het vroege geld in Tongeren heeft te maken met haar rol als frontier-stad, waarbij negotiatores een belangrijke rol speelden bij het ontginnen van de militaire markten van het noorden. In de midden-Romeinse tijd veranderde er veel in de organisatie van het Nederlands rivierengebied. De Bataafse hulptroepen waren niet meer gelegerd in hun eigen gebied, en er werden waarschijnlijk reguliere belastingen ingevoerd. Vanaf Claudius (tot onder Trajanus en Hadrianus) vonden er veel infrastructurele projecten plaats die te maken hadden met de inrichting van de limes. Dit betekende een grote impuls voor het ontstaan van een monetaire economie van het gebied, maar creëerde tegelijkertijd een grote economische afhankelijkheid van de militaire markten. Een geïntegreerde economische eenheid tussen stad, vici en villae kwam hier niet van de grond. De effecten

233 van deze afhankelijkheid worden duidelijk inde dalende curve van het muntgebruik gedurende de tweede eeuw, die parallel verloopt met de afbouw van het militaire element. In Luxemburg daarentegen kan het gestaag groeiende muntgebruik gedurende deze periode worden gezien als een exponent van deze geïntegreerde economische eenheid. Stad en vici worden steeds belangrijker monetaire markten voor agrarische producten en ambachtelijke producten zoals glas, aardewerk, metaal en natuursteen. Deze markten vormden een stabiele factor in de monetaire economie, in tegenstelling tot de militaire markten van het noorden. De vici speelden een belangrijke rol in het bekendmaken van de rurale bevolking met monetaire uitwisseling, wat een gunstige situatie schiep voor het innen van geldbelasting. Het noordelijke deel van het MDS-gebied articuleert met het Nederlands rivierengebied en vertoont dezelfde afhankelijkheid van de militaire markt. Het zuidoostelijke deel en Tongeren laten meer overeenkomsten met de situatie in Luxemburg en Trier zien, zij het op bescheidener schaal. Het oorspronkelijke uitgangspunt van een gemonetariseerde stad en een niet- of minder gemonetariseerd platteland blijkt niet te kloppen. De plattelandsbevolking was gemonetariseerd; zij gebruikten geld voor market exchange in de monetaire markten van de vici en de steden; op het platteland zelf was het gebruik van munten vooral van rituele aard, hetzij in votiefdepots, hetzij in funeraire of andere rituele contexten. Muntvondsten in rurale context moeten met name worden gezien als deposities van rituele aard, of als in de loop van de tijd verspreid geraakte schatvondsten. Het is dus beter te spreken van verschillende gebruikscontexten van geld dan een verschil in geldgebruik tussen stad en platteland of tussen verschillende sociale groepen. In alle gebieden loopt de geldtoevoer sterk terug onder Commodus, een patroon dat te zien is in een grotere zone van het Romeinse westen. Dit luidt het einde in van het tot dan toe stabiele Augusteïsche geldsysteem. De uitgaven van de Romeinse overheid stijgen tot grote hoogte door de kosten van het leger in de derde eeuw, een gevolg van de interne en externe instabiliteit van de politieke situatie. Er is een grote behoefte aan geld, maar tegelijkertijd een tekort aan muntmetaal. Dit leidt tot chronische devaluaties van het geld, een proces dat goed te volgen is aan de hand van de antoninianus, de nieuwe munteenheid. De interne onrust in het rijk zorgt eveneens voor een toenemende regionalisatie van economieën en dit leidt tot een grote differentiatie tussen regio’s, waarbij de reeds bestaande centra van productie en distributie in een voordelige situatie verkeren. Luxemburg en Trier vormen zulk een kerngebied in de laat-Romeinse periode. In de meer afhankelijke gebieden, zoals het Nederlands rivierengebied en ten dele het MDS-gebied, ontstond een stagnatie in de geldtoevoer en verdween veel ouder geld in schatten, wat een nadelig effect had op de monetaire markten; geldbelasting werd zo veel moeilijker te realiseren. Deze ontwikkelingen en het contrast tussen de regio’s is goed te zien in de algemene chronologische verdeling van muntvondsten in de drie gebieden. In Luxemburg stijgt het geldgebruik enorm in deze periode, in de overige twee is geen sprake meer van echt herstel in de laat-Romeinse tijd (behalve het zuidoosten van het MDS-gebied). Ook de schatvondsten van de derde eeuw weerspiegelen de beroeringen van de tijd. De cluster van schatvondsten in de late derde eeuw wordt verklaard door een toegenomen intensiteit in het begraven van schatten die deels aan de geldontwaarding te danken is, en door een falen van de eigenaars om hun schatten weer op te graven. De laatste decennia van de derde eeuw vormen een roerige tijd in alle drie de gebieden. Veel nederzettingen worden in deze tijd verwoest of verlaten. De bevolking van het Nederlands rivierengebied en het MDS-gebied is aan het begin van de vierde eeuw volkomen verschillend van die van de voorgaande periode. Het gebied wordt nu bewoond door overrijnse Franken, die regelmatig werden ingezet voor de handhaving van de orde in het gebied. De nederzettingen uit deze tijd zijn archeologisch slecht zichtbaar; pas in de tweede helft van de vierde eeuw kennen we de zogenaamde Germaanse nederzettingen, die waarschijnlijk bewoond werden door Salische Franken, op basis van een speciaal verdrag. Na 402 n.Chr. zijn de laatste sporen van het Romeinse rijk in deze streken uitgewist. In Luxemburg zijn de veranderingen in de bevolking en sociaal-economische structuur veel minder ingrijpend. In grote lijnen blijft de inheems-Romeinse infrastructuur intact, en dit geldt ook voor de monetaire economie. Veel vici en villae blijven bestaan in deze periode en er is veel nieuwe bewoning op het platteland. Het laat-Romeinse geldsysteem in het onderzoeksgebied bestaat vooral uit goud en laagwaardig brons; zilver circuleerde alleen in de vorm van kostbaarheden en baar metaal. Een groeiend wantrouwen in de steeds devaluerende munten leidde tot een groter belang van metaalgewicht in de uitwisseling. De staat probeerde het goud te monopoliseren; het werd gebruikt voor betalingen van het staatsapparaat en Germaanse huurtroepen. Brons werd gebruikt voor de betaling van reguliere soldaten en was nodig voor het in stand houden van de monetaire markten.

234 Afgezien van het schaalverschil zijn in de munttoevoer in alle drie de gebieden pieken te zien in de perioden van het Gallische rijk, Constantijn de Grote en Valentinianus I (de laatste ontbreekt in het Nederlands rivierengebied). Het MDS-gebied wordt gekenmerkt door een hoog percentage laat-vierde-eeuwse munten door de hoge aantallen bronzen munten in de Germaanse nederzettingen. Er is echter geen verband tussen deze nederzettingen en de stad, die in dezelfde periode een dalende curve laat zien. Het brons kwam waarschijnlijk binnen door soldijbetaling, maar verdwijnt al snel in de smeltkroes. Ook goud is in eerste instantie betaalmiddel door de Romeinse overheid aan Frankische leiders voor diensten, maar circuleren daarna verder als waarde-object in gift exchange. In het kerngebied van Luxemburg en Trier blijft de economische relatie tussen vici, villae en stad grotendeels intact. In de loop van de vierde eeuw wordt de positie van de vici als rurale centra overgenomen door de heiligdommen

235 Bibliography

Classical texts

Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. J.C. Rolfe, 1972-1986, London. (Loeb Classical Library). Caesar, De Bello Gallico, ed. Hondius, Groningen 1947. (abbr. BG) Cicero, The Verrine orations, ed. L.G.H. Greenwood, London 1966-1967. (Loeb Classical Library). Claudius Claudianus, In Eutropium, ed. M.Gesner, Hildesheim 1969. Eutropius, Breviarum historiae romanae, ed. H.R. Dietsch, Leipzig 1877 (Teubner; abbr. Breviarum). Justinianus, Digesta, ed. P.Kruger & TH. Mommsen, Berlin 1963-1997 (abbr. Dig.). Panegyrici Latini, ed. V.Paladini & P.Fedeli, Rome, 1976. (abbr. Pan.Lat.) Polybius, The Histories 1-4, ed. W.R. Paton, London 1926-1954. (Loeb Classical Library). Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, ed. J.C.Rolfe 1959-1960, London. (Loeb Classical Library). Tacitus, Annales, ed. P.K. Huibregtse, Groningen 1967. Tacitus, Germania, ed. A.A. Lund, Heidelberg 1988. Tacitus, Historiae, ed. C.D. Fisher, Oxford 1977 (abbr. Hist.) Zosimos, Historia Nova, ed. F.Paschoud, 1971-1989, Paris.

Abbreviations

AB Archaeologia Belgica Arch. Korr. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt BAR British Archaeological Reports BJ Bonner Jahrbücher BRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission BROB Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum EN Etudes Numismatiques JMP Jaarboek voor Munt-en Penningkunde JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology OMROL Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheiden te Leiden RBN Revue Belge de Numismatique

Aarts, J.G., 1989: Geld uit de grond; een onderzoek naar de geldcirkulatie en monetarisatie van de Maas-Demer-Schelde-regio, Amsterdam. Unpublished MA-thesis Free University of Amsterdam.

Aarts, J.G., 1994: Romeinse munten op de Horden, in: Van Es & Hessing, Romeinen Friezen en Franken in het hart van Nederland, 138-144.

Alföldi, M.R., 1979: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit in Deutschland. Abt. IV Rheinland-Pfalz. Band 3.1 Stadt Trier (3001- 3002), Berlin, 1979.

Alston, R. 1994: 'Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian', in: JRS LXXXIV, 113-123.

Andreau, J., 1987: La vie financière dans le monde romain: les métiers de manieurs d'argent, (IVe siècle av. J.-C. - IIIe siècle ap. J.- C), Rome. (Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 265).

236 Archer, S., 1979: ' Late Roman Gold and Silver Coins Hoards In Britain: a Gazeteer', in: P.J.Casey (ed.)The End of Roman Britain, Oxford.

Bastien, P. 1978: Trésors de la Gaule septentrionale. La circulation monétaire à la fin du IIIème et au début du IVème siècle. Revue du Nord 60, 789-812.

Berendsen, H.J.A. 1997: Landschappelijk Nederland. Assen. (Fysische geografie van Nederland).

Blagg, T. & M. Millett (eds), 1990: The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford.

Blanchet, A., 1900: Les trésors de monnaies romaines et les invasions germaniques en Gaule, Paris.

Bloch, M. & J. Parry, 1989: Introduction: money and the morality of exchange, in: Bloch & Parry (eds), Money and the morality of exchange, Cambridge.

Bloemers, J.H.F., 1978: Rijswijk (Z.H.), ‘De Bult’: eine Siedlung der Cananefaten, Amersfoort.

Bowman, A.K., 1994: Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier. Vindolanda and its people. London.

Branigan, K.& D. Miles (eds), 1988: The economies of Romano-British villas, Sheffield.

Burnett, A., 1987: Coinage in the Roman world, London.

Burnett, A. (e.a.), 1992: Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume 1; from the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC - AD 69), London.

Cahen-Delhaye, A., e.a. 1995: Un quartier de l'agglomération gallo-romaine de Saint-Mard (Virton), Namur, (Etudes et documents. Fouilles 1).

Carson, R. & C. Kraay (eds) 1978: Scripta nummaria Romana., Essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London.

Casey, P.J., ed., 1979: The End of Roman Britain, Oxford (BAR 71).

Casey, P.J., 1992: ‘The monetization of a third world economy: money supply in Britain in the first century AD’, in: Wood & Queiroga, Current research on the Romanization of the western provinces, 95-99.

Collis, J.R., 1971: 'Functional and theoretical interpretations of British coinage', in: World Archaeology 3 (vol.1), 71-84.

Crawford, M.H., 1970: 'Money and exchange in the Roman world', in: Journal of Roman Studies, 60 40-48.

Creighton, J., (forthcoming) 'Links between the classical imagery in post-Caesarian Belgica and the rest of the Roman world', in: J., Metzler, D. Wigg (eds),: Die Kelten und Rom: neue numismatische Forschungen., Berlin. (SFMA).

Creighton, J., 2000: Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge.

Cunliffe, B., 1981: 'Money and society in pre-Roman Britain', in: B., Cunliffe, ed., Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems, 29-39.

Cunliffe, B. (ed), 1981: Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems., Cambridge. CBA Research Reports 38.

237 De Boe, G., 1987: ‘Bewoning rond de villa te Neerharen-Rekem’, in: P.Stuart & M.E.Th. De Groot (eds), Langs de weg, Heerlen, 51-54.

Depeyrot, G., (e.a.), 1987: Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l'antiquité à nos jours, Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986, Leuven. (Numismatica Lovaniensia 7).

Derks, T., 1996: Goden, tempels en religieuze praktijken. De transformatie van religieuze ideeën en waarden in Romeins Gallië, Amsterdam, Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Doppler, H.W., 1977: 'Die Keltische Münzen von Vindonissa', in: Jahresbericht Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa, 37-61.

Dowling, J.H., 1980: The Goodfellows vs. The Dalton Gang, the assumptions of economic anthropology., in: Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 292-308.

Drinkwater, J.& H.Vertet, 1992: 'Opportunity or opposition in Roman Gaul', in: M., Wood, F. Queiroga, eds, Current research on the Romanization of the western provinces., 25-28.

Drinkwater, J.F., 1990: 'For better or for worse?, Towards an assessment of the Economic and Social consequences of the Roman Conquest of Gaul.', in: Blagg & Millett, The Early Roman Empire in the West, 210-219.

Drinkwater, J.F., 1983: Roman Gaul, London.

Drinkwater, J.F., 1987: The Gallic Empire. Separatism and continuity in the northwestern provinces of the Roman empire, AD 260- 274, Stuttgart. (Historia Einzelschriften 52).

Duncan-Jones, R., 1990: Structure and scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge.

Duncan-Jones, R., 1994: Money and government in the Roman Empire, Cambridge.

Elmer, G., 1941: 'Die Münzprägung der gallischen Kaiser in Köln, Trier und Mailand', in: Bonner Jahrbücher 146, 1- 106.

Finley, M.I., 1973: The ancient economy, London.

Goffart, W., 1974: Caput and colonate, towards a history of late Roman taxation., Toronto.

Gorecki, J., 1975: 'Münzbeigabe in römerzeitliche Körpergräbern', in: BRGK, 56, 179-468.

Gose, E., 1972: Der gallo-römische Tempelbezirk in Altbachtal zu Trier I-II, Mainz am Rhein.(Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen 7).

Goudswaard, B., 1995 'A Late-Roman Bridge in the Meuse at Cuijk, the Netherlands', in: Archäol.Korr., 25, 233-241.

Gruel, K., 1995: 'Les potins Gaulois: typologie, diffusion, chronologie.', in: Gallia 52, 1-144.

Hagers, J-K.A. & M.M. Sier, 1999: Castricum-Oosterbuurt, bewoningssporen uit de Romeinse tijd en middeleeuwen, Amersfoort. (Rapportage archeologische monumentenzorg 53).

Haak, A.C. & A.N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, 1960: 'De Romeinse muntvondst van het Domplein te Utrecht', in: JMP 47, 1-6.

238 Haalebos, J.K. & W.J.H. Willems, 1999: 'Recent research on the limes in the Netherlands', in: JRA 12, 247-262.

Hanson, W.S. & L.J.F. Keppie, (eds), 1979: Roman Frontier Studies 1979 XII, Oxford. (BAR IS 71)

Harl, K.W., 1996: Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC - AD 700, London.

Haselgrove, C., 1984: 'Warfare and its aftermath as reflected in the precious metal coinage of Belgic Gaul.', in: OJA 3, 81-105.

Haselgrove, C., 1987: Iron Age Coinage in South-East England, Oxford. (BAR 174).

Haselgrove, C., 1990: 'The Romanization of Belgic Gaul: some archaeological perspectives.', in: Blagg & Millett, The Early Roman Empire in the West, 45-71.

Haselgrove, C., 1999: 'The Development of Iron Age Coinage in Belgic Gaul.', in: The Numismatic Chronicle, 159, 111- 168.

Heesch, J. van, 1996: 'Les monnaies augustéennnes sur quelques sites belges. Contribution à l'étude de la chronologie de l'occupation romaine du nord de la Gaule', in: M., Lodewijckx, (ed), Archaeological and historical aspects of West- European societies., Album amicorum André Van Doorselaer, Leuven. (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 8), 97-107.

Heesch, J. van, 1998: De muntcirculatie tijden s de Romeinse tijd in het noordwesten van Gallia Belgica. De civitates van de Nerviërs en de Menapiërs (ca.50 vChr-450 nChr.), Brussel. (Monografie van Nationale Archeologie 11).

Heinen, H., 1985: Trier und das Trevererland in römischer Zeit, Trier.

Hertz, P., 1989: Einheimische Kulte und ethnische Strukturen. Methodische Überlegungen am Beispiel der Provinzen Germania Inferior, Germania Superior und Belgica, in: H.E. Herzig & R.Frei-Stolba (eds), Labor omnibus unus. Gerold Walser zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, Stuttgart. (Historia Einzelschriften 60), 206-218.

Hessing, W.A.M., 1999: 'Building Programmes for the Lower Rhine Limes. The impact of the Visits of Trajan and Hadrian to the Lower Rhine', in: H. Sarfatij, (e.a.), In Discussion with the Past. Archaeological studies presented to W.A. van Es, Zwolle, 149-156.

Hiddink, H.A., 1991: 'Rural centres in the Roman settlement system of Northern Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior', in: N.Roymans & F.Theuws (eds), Images of the past, studies on ancient societies of northwestern Europe, Amsterdam. (Studies in prae- en protohistorie 7), 201-233.

Hodges, R., 1988: Primitive and Peasant Markets, Oxford. (New Perspectives on the Past).

Hopkins, K., 1980: 'Taxes and trade in the Roman empire (200 BC - AD 400)', in: Journal of Roman Studies 70, 101- 125.

Howgego, C., 1992: 'The supply and use of money in the Roman world, 200 BC - AD 300', in: JRS 82, 1-31.

Howgego, C., 1994: 'Coin circulation and the integration of the Roman economy', in: Journal of Roman Archaeology 7, 5-21.

Jones, R.F.J. (e.a.), 1988: First Millennium Papers. Western Europe in the First Millennium AD, Oxford. (BAR IS 401).

239 Kanters, H.J., 1965/6: 'The Romeinse muntschat van Vught (Valerianus-aurelianus)', in: JMP 52/53, 73-126.

Keay, S.J., 1988: Roman Spain, London.

Kent, J., 1981: 'The origins of coinage in Britain', in: Cunliffe (ed.), Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems, 40-42.

Kent, J., 1981: The Roman imperial coinage 8, The family of Constantine I AD 337-364, London.

King, C.E., 1996: 'Roman copies', in: King & Wigg (eds), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world, 219-236.

King, C.E. & D.G. Wigg (eds), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world, Berlin. (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 10).

Kooistra, L.I., 1996: Borderland Farming., Possibilities and Limitations of Farming in the Roman Period and Early Middle Ages between the Rhine and Meuse, Assen.

Kraay, C.M., 1964: ‘Hoards, small change and the origin of coinage’, in: Journal of Historical Studies 84, 76-91.

Krier, J., 1981: Die Treverer ausserhalb ihrer Civitas. Mobilität und Afstieg, Trier. (TZ Beiheft 5).

Krier, J. & R. Weiller, 1982: 'Neues zum römischen Tempelbezirk von Steinsel Rëlent', in: Hémecht 34, 255-270.

Kyll, N., 1966: 'Heidnische Weihe- und Votivgaben aus der Römerzeit des Trierer Landes', in: TZ 29, 5-113.

Lafaurie, J., 1975: 'L'empire gaulois. Apport de la numismatique', in: H.Temporini & W.Haase (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 853-1012.

Lallemand, J., 1995: 'Les moules monétaires de Saint-Mard (Virton, Belgique) et les moules de monnaies impériales romaines en Europe: essai de répertoire', in: A.Cahen-Delhaye (e.a.), Un quartier de l'agglomération gallo-romaine de Saint- Mard (Virton), Namur. (Etudes et documents. Fouilles 1), 141-177.

Lallemand, J., 1965a: ‘Lierre: Bronzes de Constantin I à Arcadius-Honorius, in: EN 3, 49-87.

Lallemand, J., 1965b: 'Koninksem: Bronzes de Claude II à Arcadius-Honorius', in: EN 3, 89-107.

Lamarcq, D. & M. Rogge, De taalgrens. Van de oude tot de nieuwe Belgen., Leuven.

Lodewijckx, M. (ed), 1996: Archaeological and historical aspects of West-European societies. Album amicorum André Van Doorselaer, Leuven. (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 8).

Mac Dowall, D., A. Hubrecht & W. de Jong, 1992: Description of the collections in the Provinciaal Museum G.M. Kam at Nijmegen 12. The Roman coins:: Republic and Empire up to Nerva, Nijmegen.

Maes, K. & L. van Impe, 1986: 'Begraafplaats uit de IJzertijd en Romeinse vondsten op 'de Rietem' te Wijshagen (gem. Meeuwen-Gruitrode)', in: AB II, 1, 47-56.

Mattern, S.P., 1999: Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate, London.

Metzler, J. & D. Wigg (eds), forthcoming: Die Kelten und Rom: neue numismatische Forschungen, Berlin. (SFMA).

240 Metzler, J. (e.a.), 1981: Ausgrabungen in Echternach, Luxembourg. (Publication du Ministère des Affaires Culturelles et de la Ville d'Echternach).

Metzler, J. (e.a.), 1995: Integration in the Early Roman West., The role of Culture and Ideology, Luxembourg. (Dossiers d'Archéologie du Musée National d'Histoire et d'Art IV).

Metzler, J., 1995: Das treverische Oppidum auf dem Titelberg (G.-H. Luxemburg). Zur Kontinuität zwischen der spätkeltischen und der frührömischen Zeit in Nord-Gallien I-II, Luxembourg. (Dossiers de l'Archéologie d'Histoire et et d'Art 3).

Narotzky, S., 1997: New Directions in Economic Anthropology, London, 1997.

Nash, D., 1978: 'Plus ça change..., currency in Central Gaul from Julius Caesar to Nero', in: Carson & Kraay, Scripta nummaria Romana.. Essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland, 12-31.

Nash, D., 'Coinage and state development in Central Gaul', in: Cunliffe (ed), Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems, 10-17.

Nuber, E., 1974: 'Der frührömische Münzumlauf in Köln', in: Kölner Jahrbuch Für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 14, 28-89.

Panhuysen, T.A.S.M., 1996: Romeins Maastricht en zijn beelden, Maastricht.

Petit, J-P. & M. Mangin (eds), 1994: Atlas des agglomérations sécondaires de la Gaule Belgique et des Germaniae, Paris.

Prins, J.W., 1991: 'Het depot Nederwetten 1989/1990', in: JMP 78, 132-142.

Prins, J.W., 1993: ‘Depot Nederwetten 1989/1990 'revisited' en Nederwetten II’, in: JMP 80, 23-36.

Prins, J.W., 1994: ‘The coin finds from the Hoogpoort near Hapert. Early Roman monetary circulation in the Brabantse Kempen’, in: Helinium 34, 134-163.

Ravetz, A., 1964: 'The fourth-century inflation and Romano-British coin finds', in: Numismatic Chronicle 7, 201-231.

Reece, R.M, 1988: 'Interpreting Roman hoards', in: World Archaeology 20 (vol.2), 261-269.

Reece, R.M., 'Coin finds and coin production', in: G.Depeyrot (e.a.), 1987: Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l'antiquité à nos jours. Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986, 335-341.

Reece, R.M., 1986: 'The effect of frontiers', in: Studien Zu Den Militärgrenzen Roms III, 13.Internationaler Limeskongress, Aalen 1983, Stuttgart, 758-759.

Reece, R.M., 1984: 'Mints, markets and the military', in: Blagg & King, Military and Civilian in Roman Britain. Cultural relationships in a Frontier Province, 143-159.

Reece, R.M., 1973: 'Roman coinage in the western empire', in: Britannia 4, 227-251.

Reece, R.M., 1987: Coinage in Roman Britain., London.

Reece, R.M., 1991: Roman coins from 140 sites in Britain, Oxford, Provisional edition. (Cotswold Studies, Volume IV).

Reece, R.M., 1995: 'Site-finds in Roman Britain', in: Britannia XXVI, 179-206.

241 Reece, R.M., 'Coins and villas', in: K.Branigan & D.Miles (eds), The economies of Romano-British villas, Sheffield, 34-41.

Reece,R.M., 1970: Roman Coins, London.

Reijnen, R., 1994: 'Romeinse munten en het offer als gebaar', in: N.Roymans & T.Derks, De tempel van Empel, Een Hercules-heiligdom in het woongebied van de Bataven, 124-131.

Roymans, N. & F. Theuws (eds), Images of the past, studies on ancient societies of northwestern Europe, Amsterdam. (Studies in prae- en protohistorie 7).

Roymans, N.G.A.M., 1995: 'Romanization, cultural identity and the ethnic discussion., The integration of Lower Rhine populations in the Roman empire.', in: Metzler (e.a)., Integration in the Early Roman West. The role of Culture and Ideology, 47-64.

Roymans, N.G.A.M., 1996: 'The sword or the plough. Regional dynamics in the romanization of Belgic Gaul and the Rhineland area.', in: Roymans (ed), From the sword to the plough. Three studies on the earliest romanisation of northern Gaul, 9- 126.

Roymans, N.G.A.M.& W. van der Sanden, 1980: 'Celtic coins from the Netherlands and their archaeological context.', in: BROB 30, 173-254.

Roymans, N.G.A.M., 1990: Tribal societies in northern Gaul. An anthropological perpective, Amsterdam. Cingula 12.

Roymans, N.G.A.M. &, T. Derks (eds), 1994 De tempel van Empel. Een Hercules-heiligdom in het woongebied van de Bataven, Den Bosch. (Graven naar het Brabantse verleden 2)

Roymans, N.G.A.M. (ed), From the sword to the plough. Three studies on the earliest romanisation of northern Gaul, Amsterdam. (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies I).

Roymans, N.G.A.M. 1999, Romeinse frontierpolitiek en de etnogenese van de Bataven, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen Deel XC (Vereniging Gelre), 15-39.

Roymans, N.G.A.M., (forthcoming)a: The Lower Rhine triquetrum coinages and the ethnogenesis of the Batavi, in: Th. Grünewald & H.-J. Schalles (eds), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in der nördlichen Germania Inferior, Xanten.

Roymans, N.G.A.M. (forthcoming)b, Production, circulation and deposition of the Eburonean triskeles staters.

Rutter, N.K., 1981: Early Greek coinage and the influence of the Athenian state, in: Cunliffe (ed), Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems, 1-9.

Ryan, N., 1988: Fourth-century coin finds from Roman Britain. A computer analysis, Oxford. (BAR 183).

Sarfatij, H., (e.a.), 1999: In Discussion with the Past. Archaeological studies presented to W.A. van Es, Zwolle.

Scheers, S., 1981: 'The origins and evolution of coinage in Belgic Gaul', in: Cunliffe, Coinage and society in Britain and Gaul, some current problems, 18-23.

Scheers, S., 1977: Traité de numismatique celtique 2 : La Gaule belgique, Paris. (Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 195).

242 Scheers, S., 1996: 'Frappe et circulation monétaire sur le territoire de la future Civitas Tungrorum', in: RBN CXLII, 5-51.

Scheid, J., 1995: ' Der Tempelbezirk im Altbachtal zu Trier: ein "Nationalheiligtum"?', in: J.Metzler (e.a.) Integration in the Early Roman West.The role of Culture and Ideology, Luxembourg, 101-110

Schlüter, W. & R. Wiegels (eds), 1999: Rom, Germanien und die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 2. Bis 5. September 1996 an der Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück.

Slofsta, J. & W. van der Sanden, 1988: 'Rurale cultusplaatsen uit de Romeinse tijd in het Maas-Demer-Schelde- gebied', in: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 127-168.

Slofstra, J., 'Changing settlement systems in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area during the Early Roman period', in: Roymans & Theuws, Images of the past, studies on ancient societies of northwestern Europe, 131-199.

Speidel, M.A., 1992: 'Roman army pay scales', in: JRS LXXXII, 87-106.

Ternes, C.-M., 1971: Das römische Luxemburg, Zürich.

Tour, H. de la, 1892: Atlas de monnaies gauloises, Paris.

Tymann, T.D. 1996, ‘Romeinse munten uit Vechten’, in: OMROL 76, 139-152.

Vanderhoeven, A., G. Vyncier & P. Vyncier, 1991: 'Het oudheidkundig bodemonderzoek aan de Kielenstraat te Tongeren. Interimverslag 1987', in: Archeologie in Vlaanderen I, 107-124.

Vanderhoeven, A. (e.a.), 1992: 'Het oudheidkundig bodemonderzoek aan de Kielenstraat te Tongeren (prov. Limburg). Interimverslag 1990-1993 -1. De voor-Flavische bewoning', in: Archeologie in Vlaanderen II, 89-146.

Vanvinckenroye, W., 1985: Tongeren Romeinse stad, Tielt.

Vanvinckenroye, W., 1992: 'Enkele beschouwingen over Tongeren in de Augusteïsche tijd', in: Tongerse Annalen, VI, 1- 10.

Van der Vin, J., 1990: ‘Een laat-Romeins (munt-)gewicht uit Wijk bij Duurstede, een bijproduct van de keizerlijke munt’, in: De Beeldenaar 14 (vol.3), 123-129.

Vin, J. van der, 1991: ' Vondsten op het Kops Plateau te Nijmegen', in: De Beeldenaar 15 (vol. 2), 317-322.

Van Es, W.A. 1960: De Romeinse muntvondsten uit de drie noordelijke provincies; een periodisering der relaties, Groningen.

Van Es, W.A. 1972: De Romeinen in Nederland, Bussum.

Van Es, W.A. (e.a), 1988: Archeologie in Nederland. De rijkdom van het bodemarchief, Amsterdam.

Van Es, W.A. 1991: Van Maastricht naar Rhenen, een wandeling in de laat-Romeinse tijd, Amsterdam. (Dertiende Kroon- voordracht).

Van Es, W.A. & W.A.M. Hessing (eds) 1994, Romeinen, Friezen en Franken in het hart van Nederland. Van Traiectum tot Dorestad 50 v.Chr-900 n.Chr. Utrecht.

243 Van Gansbeke, P. 1952: Les invasions germaniques en Gaule sous le règne de Postume (259-268) et le témoignage des monnaies, in: RBN 98, 5-30.

Verwers, W.J.H. 1998: North Brabant in Roman and Early Medieval Times: Habitation History. Amersfoort, Dissertation Free University of Amsterdam.

Vons, P., 1977: 'The identification of heavily corroded Roman coins found at Velsen', in: BROB 27, 139-163.

Walker, D.R., 1976: The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage. Part I: from Augustus to Domitian, Oxford. (BAR Suppl.Ser. 5).

Walker, D.R., 1977: The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage. Part II: from Nerva to Commodus, Oxford. (BAR Suppl.Ser. 22).

Walker, D.R., 1978: The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage. Part III: from Pertinax to Uranius Antoninus, Oxford. (BAR Suppl. Ser. 40).

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), 1990: Patronage in ancient society, London.

Weiller, R., 1972: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grosshertzogtum Luxemburg I, Berlin.

Weiller, R., 1977: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg II, Berlin.

Weiller, R., 1983: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg III, Berlin.

Weiller, R., 1986: 'Zum Beginn des Münzumlaufs im Gebiet der Treverer', in: TZ 49, 209-221.

Weiller, R., 1990: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg IV, Berlin.

Weiller, R., 1995: Die Fundmünzen der römische Zeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg V, Berlin.

Whittaker, C.R., 1990: 'The consumer city revisited: the vicus and the city', in: JRA 3, 110-118.

Whittaker, C.R., 1994: Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A social and economic study, London.

Wigg, D.G., 1996: 'Die Rolle des Militärs bei der Münzversorgung und Münzwirtschaft am Rhein in der frühen Kaiserzeit', in: W.Schlüter & R.Wiegels (eds), Rom, Germanien und die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese, 1-16.

Wigg, D.G., 1999: 'The development of the monetary economy in N Gaul in the late La Tène and early Roman periods', in: JRA, Supplementary Series 32, 99-124.

Wightman, E.M., 1985: Gallia Belgica, London.

Willems, W.J.H., 1986: Romans and Batavians, a Regional Study in the Dutch Eastern River Area, Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Willems, W.J.H., 1990: Romeins Nijmegen, Vier eeuwen stad en centrum aan de Waal, Utrecht. (Historische Reeks Nijmegen 2).

Wood, M. & F. Queiroga (eds), Current research on the Romanization of the western provinces., Oxford. (BAR (IS) 575).

244 Appendix 1: Issue periods

Seq Issue period

0 Missing

1 Republic

2 Celtic

3 Augustus

4 Tib/Cal.

5 Claudius

6 Nero-68

7 Flavii

8 Nerva/Traj

9 Hadrian

10 Ant.Pius

11 M.Aurelius

12 Commodus

13 193-222

14 222-238

15 238-260

16 260-275

17 275-296

18 296-317

19 317-330

20 330-348

21 348-364

22 364-378

23 378-388

24 388-402

25 >402

245 Appendix 2: Pearson and Spearman rank correlations between the chronological distribution of coins of individual sites and the Dutch river area mean before AD 260

Site Name Pearson Spearman N Pearson N2 Spearman corr. rank corr. 2 rank 2

1 WBD-De Horden 0.716 0.829 182 0.073 28 0.477

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau 0.343 0.491 3183 -0.162 16 0.279

45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 0.862 0.752 47 0.311 36 0.616

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* 0.855 0.725 242 0.046 35 0.488

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost 0.903 0.844 31 0.452 39 0.813

60 Aalst* 0.452 0.381 23 0.167 18 0.282

65 Alem-Oude Maas 0.427 0.603 22 0.325 17 0.573

84 Buren* 0.607 0.182 21 0.256 26 0.245

99 Echteld* 0.273 0.133 20 0.088 13 0.143

101 Elst-Brienenshof 0.536 0.689 42 0.200 20 0.511

106 Ewijk* 0.318 0.432 14 0.556 15 0.518

122 Loowaard-Kandia 0.559 0.580 30 0.166 25 0.430

126 Maurik* 0.296 0.601 18 0.412 14 0.720

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 0.485 0.500 25 0.208 19 0.340

176 Vechten-castellum 0.881 0.895 378 0.075 38 0.297

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 0.143 0.238 18 0.122 7 0.257

182 Alphen a/d Rijn* 0.840 0.786 39 0.441 34 0.724

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld 0.716 0.482 22 0.445 28 0.507

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz. 0.229 0.281 21 0.211 11 0.306

219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul 0.803 0.532 20 0.165 32 0.320

221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 0.554 0.531 45 0.267 23 0.455

224 Valkenburg* 0.109 -0.031 25 -0.135 6 -0.162

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 0.724 0.477 89 0.205 30 0.310

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen 0.557 0.466 24 -0.010 24 0.131

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 0.809 0.881 155 0.102 33 0.295

360 Vechten* 0.866 0.728 878 0.017 37 0.298

363 Vechten-Rijksweg 0.788 0.578 159 0.187 31 0.439

376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan 0.696 0.603 5 0.222 17 0.494

385 Europoort-baggervondsten 0.271 0.097 34 -0.093 12 -0.097

432 Ockenburgh* 0.208 0.722 42 0.016 10 0.491

479 Zwammerdam-castellum 0.720 0.758 109 0.262 29 0.503

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 0.549 0.286 38 0.106 22 0.239

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 0.198 0.372 60 -0.183 9 0.268

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; Pearson corr= Pearson correlation; Spearman rank= Spearman rank correlation; N2, Pearson 2 and Spearman rank 2 represent the test results when the Augustan and Flavian periods are omitted.

246 Appendix 3: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles for the sites of the Dutch river area before AD 260

Site Name Profile N D Period Pos.D Neg.D P-value

1 WBD-De Horden 2 182 0.276 3 0.000 -0.276 0.000

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau 1 3183 0.639 0.000 -0.639 0.000

45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 2 47 0.317 7 0.096 -0.317 0.000

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* 2 242 0.306 7 0.056 -0.306 0.000

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost 2 31 0.316 7 0.065 -0.316 0.004

60 Aalst* 7 23 0.098 8 0.098 -0.076 0.981

65 Alem-Oude Maas 1 22 0.414 4 0.077 -0.414 0.001

84 Buren* 7 21 0.141 2 0.099 -0.141 0.803

99 Echteld* 1 20 0.325 3 0.141 -0.325 0.030

101 Elst-Brienenshof 7 42 0.101 10 0.101 -0.044 0.788

106 Ewijk* 14 0.133 0.125 -0.133 0.967

122 Loowaard-Kandia 5 30 0.174 12 0.174 -0.059 0.328

126 Maurik* 4 18 0.342 7 0.342 -0.010 0.030

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 4 25 0.327 9 0.327 -0.010 0.010

135 Nieuwaal* 13 0.671 2 0.077 -0.671 0.000

138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng 5 0.291 11 0.291 -0.086 0.793

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 5 19 0.103 10 0.103 -0.094 0.989

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 5 39 0.219 8 0.219 -0.133 0.049

161 Wadenoijen* 6 0.266 6 0.266 -0.090 0.790

176 Vechten-castellum 1 378 0.168 5 0.003 -0.168 0.000

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 4 18 0.373 8 0.373 -0.010 0.014

182 Alphen a/d Rijn* 3 39

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld 3 22 0.205 6 0.205 -0.188 0.315

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz. 1 21 0.147 6 0.147 -0.037 0.758

219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul 4 20 0.470 7 0.470 -0.042 0.000

221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 3 45 0.241 6 0.241 -0.050 0.011

224 Valkenburg* 7 25 0.127 9 0.127 -0.037 0.818

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 4 89 0.474 7 0.474 0.000 0.000

229 Zwammerdam* 6 32 0.189 4 0.189 -0.047 0.209

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen 4 24 0.536 0.536 -0.037 0.000

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 3 155 0.252 0.252 -0.010 0.000

360 Vechten* 1 878 0.144 4 0.000 -0.144 0.000

363 Vechten-Rijksweg 3 159 0.123 5 0.123 -0.010 0.020

376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan 5 0.223 4 0.223 -0.097 0.027

385 Europoort-baggervondsten 3 34 0.168 5 0.168 -0.034 0.296

432 Ockenburgh* 4 42 0.396 8 0.396 0.000 0.000

479 Zwammerdam-castellum 3 109 0.213 4 0.213 -0.204 0.000

487 Rossum-Waal 4 34 0.090 7 0.090 -0.073 0.947

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 3 38 0.354 6 0.354 0.000 0.000

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 2 60 0.517 6 0.010 -0.517 0.000

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; D=absolute difference; issue period=period of the greatest difference with the Luxemburg mean; Neg.D= negative difference; Pos.D=positive difference; Profile=chronological profile

247 Appendix 4: Pearson and Spearman rank correlations between the chronological distribution of coins of individual sites and the Luxemburg mean before AD 260

Site Name N Pearson corr. P-value Spearman rank P-value

511 Altrier-Vicus 193 0.673 0.008 0.742 0.002

581 Dalheim-Petzel/Ricciacus 553 0.200 0.494 0.484 0.079

597 Echternach-Schwarzacht 55 0.521 0.056 0.562 0.036

604 Echternach-Canton D' 20 0.271 0.349 0.449 0.107

633 Filsdorf-Kiischtebierg 21 0.369 0.194 0.309 0.282

664 Hellange-Lémhéi'cht 122 0.315 0.273 0.467 0.092

711 Grengewald-Kiem 17 0.447 0.109 0.431 0.124

727 Marscherwald-Colbetter Dael 20 0.119 0.685 0.144 0.624

730 Marscherwald-cemeteries1-3 68 0.371 0.192 0.493 0.073

739 Mersch-Mies 15 0.276 0.340 0.614 0.019

765 Nospelt-Miecher/A 16 0.284 0.325 0.349 0.221

772 P'tange-Roudenhaff/Reimerhaff 22 0.236 0.416 0.295 0.307

802 Schandel-Kreizmier 111 0.900 0.000 0.836 0.000

828 Steinsel-Rëllent 27 0.441 0.115 0.709 0.005

835 TetelbiergX1907 33 0.675 0.008 0.482 0.081

836 Tetelbierg-Fouille A 106 0.579 0.030 0.289 0.316

838 Tetelbierg-Fouille C 260 0.595 0.025 0.251 0.387

844 Tetelbierg-single finds 2182 0.806 0.001 0.773 0.001

881 Widdebierg/Mensdorf-Lampecht 40 0.176 0.547 0.234 0.421

895 Trier-Altbachtal/6a-single finds 15 0.768 0.001 0.595 0.025

896 Trier-Altbachtal/7-single finds 21 0.251 0.386 0.453 0.104

898 Trier-Altbachtal/9 15 0.563 0.036 0.657 0.011

899 Trier-Altbachtal/10 18 0.699 0.005 0.759 0.002

910 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22A 49 0.466 0.093 0.617 0.019

916 Trier-Altbachtal/26A 39 0.513 0.061 0.477 0.085

918 Trier-Altbachtal/26C 18 0.327 0.354 0.427 0.133

920 Trier-Altbachtal/27 17 0.665 0.010 0.633 0.015

921 Trier-Altbachtal/28 18 0.568 0.034 0.401 0.156

925 Trier-Altbachtal/30a 15 0.582 0.029 0.705 0.005

928 Trier-Altbachtal/33A 18 0.578 0.031 0.539 0.047

930 Trier-Altbachtal/33a 16 0.831 0.000 0.792 0.001

932 Trier-Altbachtal/34aA 31 0.717 0.004 0.490 9.999

937 Trier-Altbachtal/35A 24 0.529 0.052 0.469 0.091

939 Trier-Altbachtal/36A 68 0.797 0.001 0.794 0.001

941 Trier-Altbachtal/36C-# 18 0.326 0.255 0.369 0.193

943 Trier-Altbachtal/37A 34 0.345 0.227 0.465 0.094

950 Trier-Altbachtal/37aA 30 0.142 0.144 0.480 0.082

1062 Mamer-Bierg/2 96 0.294 0.308 0.544 0.044

248 Site Name N Pearson corr. P-value Spearman rank P-value

1067 Mamer-Woosen 57 0.311 0.278 0.557 0.039

1204 Septfontaines-Deckt 30 0.597 0.024 0.628 0.016

1495 Trier-Altbachtal/39bA 25 0.750 0.002 0.734 0.003

1498 Trier-Altbachtal/41 43 0.559 0.038 0.583 0.029

1500 Trier-Altbachtal/43A 35 0.869 0.000 0.782 0.001

2084 Trier-Altbachtal/44A 15 0.294 0.308 0.271 0.348

2088 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49A 30 0.569 0.034 0.334 0.244

2104 Trier-Altbachtal/52 29 0.534 0.049 0.608 0.021

2136 Trier-Altbachtal/74 17 0.473 0.088 0.663 0.010

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; Pearson corr= Pearson correlation; Spearman rank= Spearman rank correlation.

249 Appendix 5: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the sites of Luxemburg and Trier before AD 260

Site Name N D Issue period Neg. D Pos.D

511 Altrier-Vicus 193 0.306 3 -0.030 0.306

581 Dalheim-Petzel/Ricciacus 553 0.357 3 -0.025 0.357

597 Echternach-Schwarzacht 55 0.731 3 -0.003 0.731

604 Echternach-Canton D' 20 0.523 6 0.000 0.523

633 Filsdorf-Kiischtebierg 21 0.636 9 0.000 0.636

664 Hellange-Lémhéi'cht 122 0.580 7 0.000 0.580

711 Grengewald-Kiem 17 0.514 6 -0.101 0.514

727 Marscherwald-Colbetter Dael 20 0.387 3 -0.323 0.387

730 Marscherwald-cemeteries1-3 68 0.370 2 -0.166 0.370

739 Mersch-Mies 15 0.470 5 -0.066 0.470

765 Nospelt-Miecher/A 16 0.504 7 -0.066 0.504

772 P'tange-Roudenhaff/Réimerhaff 22 0.311 7 -0.031 0.311

802 Schandel-Kreizmier 111 0.205 2 -0.013 0.205

828 Steinsel-Rellent 27 0.500 5 -0.064 0.500

835 TetelbiergX1907 33 0.099 5 -0.099 0.000

836 Tetelbierg-Fouille A 106 0.398 2 -0.398 0.000

838 Tetelbierg-Fouille C 260 0.452 3 -0.452 0.000

844 Tetelbierg-single finds 2182 0.371 2 -0.371 0.000

881 Widdebierg/Mensdorf-Lampecht 40 0.437 5 -0.035 0.437

895 Trier-Altbachtal/6a-single finds 15 0.385 2 -0.066 0.385

896 Trier-Altbachtal/7-single finds 21 0.526 6 -0.040 0.526

898 Trier-Altbachtal/9 15 0.506 6 -0.040 0.506

899 Trier-Altbachtal/10 18 0.385 2 -0.010 0.385

910 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22A 49 0.426 3 -0.006 0.426

916 Trier-Altbachtal/26A 39 0.385 2 -0.076 0.385

918 Trier-Altbachtal/26C 18 0.537 5 -0.101 0.537

920 Trier-Altbachtal/27 17 0.385 2 -0.066 0.385

921 Trier-Altbachtal/28 18 0.385 2 -0.149 0.385

925 Trier-Altbachtal/30a 15 0.440 6 -0.040 0.440

928 Trier-Altbachtal/33A 18 0.329 2 -0.127 0.329

930 Trier-Altbachtal/33a 16 0.385 2 -0.067 0.385

932 Trier-Altbachtal/34aA 31 0.320 2 -0.139 0.320

937 Trier-Altbachtal/35A 24 0.344 2 -0.073 0.344

939 Trier-Altbachtal/36A 68 0.370 2 -0.087 0.370

941 Trier-Altbachtal/36C-# 18 0.537 6 0.000 0.537

943 Trier-Altbachtal/37A 34 0.461 4 0.000 0.461

950 Trier-Altbachtal/37aA 30 0.319 2 -0.094 0.319

1062 Mamer-Bierg/2 96 0.383 3 -0.006 0.383

1067 Mamer-Woosen 57 0.469 3 -0.022 0.469

250 Site Name N D Issue period Neg. D Pos.D

1204 Septfontaines-Deckt 30 0.385 2 -0.202 0.385

1495 Trier-Altbachtal/39bA 25 0.385 2 -0.066 0.385

1498 Trier-Altbachtal/41 43 0.385 2 -0.152 0.385

1500 Trier-Altbachtal/43A 35 0.385 2 -0.016 0.385

2084 Trier-Altbachtal/44A 15 0.385 2 -0.192 0.385

2088 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49A 30 0.385 2 -0.164 0.385

2104 Trier-Altbachtal/52 29 0.470 6 -0.040 0.470

2136 Trier-Altbachtal/74 17 0.478 5 -0.075 0.478

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; D=absolute difference; issue period=period of the greatest difference with the Luxemburg mean; Neg.D= negative difference; Pos.D=positive difference

251 Appendix 6: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the sites of Luxemburg and Trier AD 260-402

Site Name Profile D Period Neg.D P-value N

511 Altrier-Vicus 0 -0.412 16 -0.412 0.000 259

516 Altwies-H'defeldchen/Zweiserei 2 0.166 21 0.000 0.001 146

517 Aspelt-Op de Kleppen 3 -0.307 21 -0.307 0.099 16

518 Aspelt-Op de Maueren 2 0.232 21 0.000 0.000 210

533 Bertrange-Tossebierg-H'deschla 2 0.644 21 -0.012 0.000 20

570 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser 4 -0.420 16 -0.420 0.000 163

573 Contern-Enert der Hangels 2 -0.147 17 -0.147 0.539 30

581 Dalheim-Petzel/Ricciacus 7 -0.043 19 -0.043 0.001 2659

585 Dalheim-Buchholz 2 0.421 21 -0.039 0.001 22

597 Echternach-Schwarzacht 2 0.099 20 0.000 0.001 390

600 Echternach* 0 0.095 16 -0.062 0.908 35

604 Echternach-Canton D' 4 -0.379 19 -0.379 0.000 52

612 Ellange-Passen 0 -0.139 16 -0.139 0.292 50

637 Frisange-Stenge Strachen 3 -0.046 16 -0.046 1.000 22

646 Luxembourg* 4 -0.241 19 -0.241 0.087 27

649 Grevenmacher-Beim Buerggruef 2 0.075 20 -0.044 0.285 173

664 Hellange-L'mh'i'cht 4 -0.567 18 -0.567 0.000 23

714 Pfaffenthal-Pont sur l'Alzette 1 0.084 21 -0.001 0.418 110

723 Mamer-Katherinnenh"usercher 3 -0.247 20 -0.247 0.197 19

730 Marscherwald-cemeteries1-3 4 -0.485 16 -0.485 0.000 24

739 Mersch-Mies 0 0.048 17 -0.008 1.000 39

765 Nospelt-Miecher/A 4 -0.591 19 -0.591 0.000 52

772 P'tange-Roudenhaff/R'imerhaff 4 -0.187 19 -0.187 0.325 26

787 Remich-R'imicherboesch 4 -0.629 17 -0.629 0.000 17

794 Rippweiler-Laach 4 -0.390 16 -0.390 0.003 21

802 Schandel-Kreizmier 4 -0.233 19 -0.233 0.000 246

809 Schlindermanderscheid-Kamp 4 -0.782 16 -0.782 0.000 54

818 Soleuvre-Zolverknapp 0 -0.147 21 -0.147 0.657 25

828 Steinsel-Rellent 2 0.244 21 0.000 0.000 1167

835 TetelbiergX1907 4 -0.291 16 -0.291 0.005 36

836 Tetelbierg-Fouille A 4 -0.652 17 -0.652 0.000 21

838 Tetelbierg-Fouille C 4 -0.649 19 -0.649 0.000 37

844 Tetelbierg-single finds 4 -0.224 17 -0.224 0.000 1501

866 Wasserbillig-Boxbierg 4 -0.227 19 -0.227 0.280 19

876 Weiler-La-Tour-M%chel 4 -0.264 19 -0.264 0.326 13

881 Widdebierg/Mensdorf-Lampecht 3 -0.221 20 -0.221 0.000 653

885 Trier-Altbachtal/1-2A-single f 2 0.449 21 -0.077 0.000 262

886 Trier-Altbachtal/1-2B-#1 2 0.507 20 -0.007 0.000 142

889 Trier-Altbachtal/4-single find 4 -0.307 19 -0.307 0.000 82

890 Trier-Altbachtal/4a-single fin 1 0.170 19 -0.055 0.299 33

252 Site Name Profile D Period Neg.D P-value N

891 Trier-Altbachtal/5-single find 5 0.199 19 -0.157 0.052 46

892 Trier-Altbachtal/5a-single fin 2 -0.176 16 -0.176 0.779 14

893 Trier-Altbachtal/6A-single fin 5 0.239 19 0.000 0.000 239

894 Trier-Altbachtal/6B-# 5 0.278 19 -0.233 0.004 41

895 Trier-Altbachtal/6a-single fin 2 0.167 21 -0.062 0.664 19

896 Trier-Altbachtal/7-single find 5 -0.235 21 -0.235 0.422 14

897 Trier-Altbachtal/8-single find 5 -0.175 21 -0.175 0.196 38

898 Trier-Altbachtal/9 4 -0.274 18 -0.274 0.040 26

899 Trier-Altbachtal/10 4 -0.167 16 -0.167 0.546 23

900 Trier-Altbachtal/11A-single fi 5 -0.189 21 -0.189 0.177 34

902 Trier-Altbachtal/12 5 -0.102 21 -0.102 0.751 44

903 Trier-Altbachtal/13A-single fi 0 0.094 16 -0.085 0.987 23

905 Trier-Altbachtal/14 0 0.236 19 -0.062 0.071 30

906 Trier-Altbachtal/15 2 0.197 20 -0.065 0.039 51

907 Trier-Altbachtal/16 2 0.279 21 -0.068 0.000 58

908 Trier-Altbachtal/17 5 0.261 19 -0.079 0.444 11

909 Trier-Altbachtal/18 0 -0.086 99 -0.086 0.999 18

910 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22A 5 0.079 19 -0.034 0.999 22

913 Trier-Altbachtal/23 0 0.193 21 -0.085 0.761 12

914 Trier-Altbachtal/24 6 0.261 19 -0.085 0.101 22

915 Trier-Altbachtal/25 4 -0.225 19 -0.225 0.143 26

916 Trier-Altbachtal/26A 0 -0.056 22 -0.056 0.903 104

917 Trier-Altbachtal/26B 5 0.280 19 -0.092 0.222 14

919 Trier-Altbachtal/26a 2 0.366 20 0.000 0.000 32

920 Trier-Altbachtal/27 0 -0.126 17 -0.126 0.747 29

921 Trier-Altbachtal/28 0 0.303 18 -0.062 0.185 13

922 Trier-Altbachtal/28a 4 -0.280 19 -0.280 0.102 19

923 Trier-Altbachtal/29 2 0.193 21 -0.025 0.048 50

924 Trier-Altbachtal/30 0 -0.119 21 -0.119 0.756 32

925 Trier-Altbachtal/30a 5 0.086 16 -0.068 0.744 63

927 Trier-Altbachtal/32 4 -0.593 17 -0.593 0.000 26

928 Trier-Altbachtal/33A 3 -0.236 20 -0.236 0.108 26

929 Trier-Altbachtal/33B 2 0.186 20 -0.054 0.330 26

930 Trier-Altbachtal/33a 2 0.140 20 -0.041 0.133 69

931 Trier-Altbachtal/34 2 0.288 20 0.000 0.032 25

932 Trier-Altbachtal/34aA 0 0.080 16 -0.029 0.623 89

935 Trier-Altbachtal/34bA 5 0.081 19 -0.009 0.968 37

936 Trier-Altbachtal/34bB-# 0 0.226 18 0.000 0.522 13

937 Trier-Altbachtal/35A 4 -0.104 17 -0.104 0.584 56

938 Trier-Altbachtal/35B 4 -0.641 17 -0.641 0.000 19

939 Trier-Altbachtal/36A 0 0.160 18 -0.005 0.000 210

940 Trier-Altbachtal/36B-# 7 0.284 23 0.000 0.000 57

253 Site Name Profile D Period Neg.D P-value N

941 Trier-Altbachtal/36C-# 0 0.099 16 -0.057 0.475 73

943 Trier-Altbachtal/37A 5 0.159 17 -0.077 0.000 222

944 Trier-Altbachtal/37B-# 4 0.153 16 -0.078 0.391 35

945 Trier-Altbachtal/37C-# 3 -0.298 21 -0.298 0.000 246

946 Trier-Altbachtal/37D-# 5 0.194 19 -0.161 0.003 89

947 Trier-Altbachtal/37E-# 5 0.185 19 -0.029 0.571 18

949 Trier-Altbachtal/37G-# 5 -0.248 21 -0.248 0.031 34

950 Trier-Altbachtal/37aA 0 0.174 19 0.000 0.000 158

951 Trier-Altbachtal/37aB-# 7 0.455 22 0.000 0.000 174

952 Trier-Altbachtal/37aC-# 2 0.381 20 -0.085 0.000 30

955 Trier-Altbachtal/37aF-# 6 0.352 19 0.000 0.002 28

956 Trier-Altbachtal/37aG-# 5 -0.300 20 -0.300 0.066 19

957 Trier-Altbachtal/37aH-# 1 0.276 19 0.000 0.032 27

959 Trier-Altbachtal/38A 2 -0.183 16 -0.183 0.108 44

962 Altrier I 4 -0.449 19 -0.449 0.036 10

973 Bech-Kleinmacher-Frieteschweng 0 0.181 16 -0.019 0.597 18

1004 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chateau 7 0.249 22 -0.019 0.034 33

1022 Flaxweiler-Tonn-Tumulus 0 0.104 21 -0.079 0.407 73

1027 Goesdorf-Op Mecher 4 -0.115 19 -0.115 0.406 60

1048 Kehlen-Sch'imerech 3 -0.213 21 -0.213 0.111 32

1062 Mamer-Bierg/2 4 -0.199 17 -0.199 0.000 303

1067 Mamer-Woosen 4 -0.336 19 -0.336 0.000 179

1073 Medernach-Paleschmaierchen 2 0.460 21 -0.036 0.000 77

1077 Mertert-Tempelsklouster 5 -0.152 20 -0.152 0.608 25

1133 Beyren-Auf Mees 2 0.332 20 0.000 0.031 19

1134 Beyren-Uespelt 3 -0.298 20 -0.298 0.003 37

1135 Biwer-Kneppchen 5 0.184 19 -0.098 0.386 24

1140 Christnach-Laangheck 0 0.136 16 -0.106 0.813 22

1142 Colbette-Nock 0 0.208 18 0.000 0.327 21

1150 Dudelange-Dennert 7 0.449 22 0.000 0.005 15

1151 Echternach-Schwarzacht/2 1 0.310 21 0.000 0.020 24

1156 Flaxweiler-Duskar 0 -0.110 21 -0.110 0.086 132

1163 Helperknapp I 0 -0.167 19 -0.167 0.940 27

1164 Herborn-Op de Maueren 4 -0.340 16 -0.340 0.000 71

1165 Hersberg-Altrier-Vor dem Wald 0 0.101 16 -0.005 0.960 25

1177 Lenningen-Maes 3 -0.301 20 -0.301 0.002 39

1181 Manternach-Katzelt 3 -0.352 20 -0.352 0.002 29

1182 Manternach-Zwirvel 3 0.197 19 -0.182 0.001 104

1186 Mensdorf-Kl'iweier/Kl'iwis 0 0.219 18 -0.140 0.611 12

1211 Welfrange-Kleppchen 2 0.191 20 -0.005 0.158 35

1213 Welfrange-Maure Feld 6 0.209 19 -0.085 0.096 35

1221 Bech-Kleinmacher-Hueschtert 3 -0.307 20 -0.307 0.047 20

254 Site Name Profile D Period Neg.D P-value N

1229 Bertrange-Rothen Zillen 0 0.151 17 -0.036 0.340 39

1242 Calmus-Maison 8 3 -0.352 20 -0.352 0.000 45

1250 Dalheim-Hossegronn 0 0.086 23 -0.056 0.988 27

1272 Givenich-Giwicherwis-sf 4 -0.374 16 -0.374 0.013 18

1275 Nospelt-Miecher/D 0 -0.149 21 -0.149 0.796 19

1277 Nospelt-Miecher/E 4 -0.293 20 -0.293 0.000 152

1284 Herborn-Brill/Schampeschbaach 5 -0.260 21 -0.260 0.006 43

1292 Kayl-A Feschtem/2 4 -0.378 17 -0.378 0.009 19

1300 Luxembourg-Bonnevoie-Kaltreis 2 0.382 20 0.000 0.000 64

1315 Mondercange-Mausereck 3 -0.299 20 -0.299 0.000 75

1326 Reckange-Op der Strooss 0 -0.606 18 -0.606 0.001 11

1489 Trier-Altbachtal/38B-# 4 -0.518 19 -0.518 0.000 23

1490 Trier-Altbachtal/38aA 2 0.153 21 -0.050 0.034 87

1493 Trier-Altbachtal/39aA 0 0.209 21 -0.001 0.114 33

1495 Trier-Altbachtal/39bA 2 0.043 21 -0.019 1.000 20

1497 Trier-Altbachtal/40/64 4 -0.565 18 -0.565 0.000 68

1498 Trier-Altbachtal/41 2 0.114 20 -0.085 0.829 30

1500 Trier-Altbachtal/43A 2 0.148 20 0.000 0.001 170

2082 Trier-Altbachtal/43B-# 6 0.291 19 -0.085 0.000 83

2084 Trier-Altbachtal/44A 2 0.208 19 0.000 0.000 157

2085 Trier-Altbachtal/44B-# 2 0.628 21 -0.020 0.000 46

2086 Trier-Altbachtal/45/46 5 0.209 19 -0.164 0.005 70

2088 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49A 5 0.236 19 -0.105 0.000 139

2091 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49D-# 3 -0.294 20 -0.294 0.107 17

2092 Trier-Altbachtal/50A 6 0.240 19 -0.018 0.011 45

2104 Trier-Altbachtal/52 2 0.271 20 -0.033 0.000 69

2117 Trier-Altbachtal/53 6 0.153 99 -0.033 0.391 35

2120 Trier-Altbachtal/58A 2 0.240 20 0.000 0.089 27

2122 Trier-Altbachtal/60 0 0.430 21 -0.085 0.000 38

2123 Trier-Altbachtal/61/63 4 -0.582 19 -0.582 0.000 15

2124 Trier-Altbachtal/65 0 0.195 19 -0.085 0.175 32

2125 Trier-Altbachtal/66 7 -0.050 18 -0.050 1.000 51

2126 Trier-Altbachtal/67 2 0.148 20 -0.140 0.956 12

2127 Trier-Altbachtal/68 3 -0.307 21 -0.307 0.120 15

2128 Trier-Altbachtal/68a 3 -0.295 20 -0.295 0.005 35

2129 Trier-Altbachtal/70A 2 0.255 20 -0.056 0.000 181

2130 Trier-Altbachtal/70B-# 2 0.381 21 -0.022 0.019 16

2131 Trier-Altbachtal/71A 2 0.291 21 0.000 0.000 201

2132 Trier-Altbachtal/71B-# 2 0.531 21 -0.062 0.000 43

2134 Trier-Altbachtal/73A 1 0.252 19 0.000 0.000 111

2135 Trier-Altbachtal/73B-# 3 0.352 19 -0.068 0.000 42

2136 Trier-Altbachtal/74 2 0.311 21 -0.003 0.003 34

255 Site Name Profile D Period Neg.D P-value N

2137 Trier-Altbachtal/75 0 0.118 17 -0.006 0.167 89

2138 Trier-Altbachtal/76 0 0.113 21 -0.062 0.766 25

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; D=absolute difference; issue period=period of the greatest difference with the Luxemburg mean; Neg.D= negative difference; Pos.D=positive difference; profile=chronological profile

256 Appendix 7: results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles of sites of the MDS-area before AD 260

Site Name D POS.D Neg.D P-value N Period Profile

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg -0.240 0.011 -0.240 0.082 28 2 1

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 0.419 0.419 -0.028 0.172 7 10 3

1363 Kolis I 0.175 0.175 -0.103 0.575 20 3 4

1367 Tongeren* -0.462 0.046 -0.462 0.000 194 3 1

1368 Tongeren I -0.202 0.000 -0.202 0.108 36 6 1

1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat -0.193 0.045 -0.193 0.000 296 6 1

1372 Tongeren-stad -0.117 0.083 -0.117 0.422 57 10 4

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 0.280 0.280 0.000 0.000 92 4 5

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 0.307 0.307 -0.016 0.047 20 7 4

1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem -0.144 0.000 -0.144 0.040 97 7 6

1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag 0.318 0.318 -0.057 0.000 96 6 5

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 0.336 0.336 0.000 0.023 20 9 3

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan -0.217 0.000 -0.217 0.577 13 8 4

1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat -0.483 0.083 -0.483 0.000 22 6 1

1404 Berg I -0.368 0.043 -0.368 0.046 14 3 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 0.133 0.133 -0.036 0.013 149 2 5

1436 Kontich-Kazernen 0.382 0.382 -0.057 0.019 16 6 5

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen 0.381 0.381 -0.153 0.236 7 6 5

1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker -0.179 0.153 -0.179 0.483 22 3 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 0.195 0.195 -0.093 0.972 25 3 6

1537 Gassel I 0.518 0.518 -0.028 0.000 18 8 3

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers 0.208 0.208 0.000 0.015 57 8 4

1574 Oirschot I 0.428 0.428 0.000 0.000 26 9 3

1576 Oirschot III 0.349 0.349 -0.060 0.000 63 6 5

1592 Teeffelen* -0.132 0.024 -0.132 0.097 14 1 4

1633 Maastricht I -0.350 0.083 -0.350 0.012 21 7 6

1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor -0.155 0.130 -0.155 0.147 55 9 4

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht 0.216 0.216 -0.076 0.086 34 5 5

1759 Lith-Maas -0.155 0.117 -0.155 0.568 26 2 3

1760 Lith-Lithse Ham -0.401 0.000 -0.401 0.000 34 3 1

1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel 0.098 0.098 -0.048 0.513 72 2 4

1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten 0.163 0.163 -0.058 0.824 15 8 4

1877 Born I 0.524 0.521 0.000 0.001 15 11 3

1885 Echt* 0.235 0.235 -0.095 0.084 29 5 0

2001 Venlo* -0.417 0.017 -0.417 0.001 22 1 2

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 0.336 0.336 0.000 0.069 15 9 3

2024 Maastricht-O.L.Vrouweplein 0.184 0.184 -0.076 0.851 11 3 4

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 0.402 0.402 -0.760 0.109 9 9 3

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 0.575 0.037 -0.525 0.000 22 5 1

2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers 0.296 0.296 -0.057 0.087 18 8 4

257 Site Name D POS.D Neg.D P-value N Period Profile

2106 Knegsel I -0.293 0.231 -0.293 0.000 55 7 5

2107 Knegsel II 0.386 0.386 -0.016 0.042 13 10 4

2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort -0.470 0.000 -0.470 0.000 46 5 1

2140 Nederwetten I 0.222 0.222 -0.066 0.000 184 4 5

2141 Nederwetten II 0.436 0.436 -0.153 0.010 14 7 5

2143 Empel -0.742 0.058 -0.742 0.000 950 2 1

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; D=absolute difference; period=period of the greatest difference with theDutch river area mean; Neg.D= negative difference; Pos.D=positive difference; Profile=chronological profile

258 Appendix 8: Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and chronological profiles for the sites of the MDS-area AD 260-402

Site Name N D Pos.D Neg.D P-value Period

1346 Koninksem-Paspoel 12 -0.472 0.227 -0.472 0.010 20

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 501 0.537 0.537 0.000 0.000 22

1367 Tongeren* 190 -0.209 0.004 -0.209 0.000 22

1368 Tongeren I 39 -0.325 0.000 -0.325 0.001 22

1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 178 -0.304 0.000 -0.304 0.000 20

1372 Tongeren-stad 55 -0.307 0.000 -0.307 0.000 22

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 227 -0.381 0.000 -0.381 0.000 17

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 36 -0.239 0.116 -0.239 0.035 21

1378 Tongeren&surrounding area 16 -0.325 0.262 -0.325 0.069 22

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 171 -0.443 0.105 -0.443 0.000 22

1518 Cuijk* 70 -0.168 0.156 -0.168 0.042 17

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 106 0.189 0.189 -0.115 0.001 21

1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 10 -0.184 0.175 -0.184 0.887 23

1592 Teeffelen* 37 0.508 0.508 0.000 0.000 22

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 29 0.188 0.188 -0.013 0.265 21

1619 Maastricht-omgeving 13 -0.279 0.117 -0.279 0.265 21

1633 Maastricht I 65 -0.249 0.030 -0.249 0.001 22

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 12 0.528 0.528 0.000 0.003 20

1752 Kessel-Lith 44 0.437 0.437 -0.034 0.000 20

1856 Teeffelen I 37 0.526 0.526 0.000 0.000 23

1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 61 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.000 22

1885 Echt* 12 -0.139 0.111 -0.139 0.975 20

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 139 0.262 0.262 0.000 0.000 22

2024 Maastricht-O.L.Vrouweplein 134 0.132 0.132 0.000 0.023 20

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 14 -0.290 0.000 -0.290 0.191 21

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 57 -0.402 0.000 -0.402 0.000 20

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 77 0.333 0.333 0.000 0.000 20

2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 14 -0.141 0.032 -0.141 0.943 23

2143 Empel 13 0.297 0.297 0.000 0.203 20

N= number of coins which could be dated within a single issue period; D=absolute difference; period=period of the greatest difference with the MDS-mean; Neg.D= negative difference; Pos.D=positive difference.

259 Appendix 9: the sites of three areas

An asterisk (*) behind the site name means that the exact location of the coin finds within the municipality is unknown; a dollarsign ($) represents a hoard. Some site numbers were cancelled from the list when they were identical with other sites.

Site Name 85 Bijlandse Waard* 131 Nederhemert*

Dutch river area 86 Culemborg 132 Neerijnen-Hoge Tieflaar II

1 WBD-De Horden 87 Deest* 133 Neerijnen*

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau 88 Deil* 134 Neerijnen-villaterrein

5 Bennekom-Achterstraat 89 Deil-Hooiblok 135 Nieuwaal*

6 Rhenen-Utrechtsestraatweg II 90 Delwijnen* 136 Ommeren*

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg 91 Dodewaard* 137 Ommeren-Ommerensche Veld

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat 92 Doornenburg* 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng

15 Arnhem-Meinerswijk 93 Doornik* 139 Oosterhout-De Grift

19 Ressen-Kerkenhof 94 Dreumel* 140 Oosterhout-Verburgtskolk

20 Ressen-De Woerdt 95 Driel* 141 Ophemert*

24 Druten-Klepperhei 96 Drumpt 142 Ophemert-Brede Weg

27 Beuningen-De Tinnegieter 97 Druten* 143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof

39 Nijmegen-Hees 98 Druten-Boldershof 144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol

41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I 99 Echteld* 145 Opijnen*

45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 100 Eck en Wiel* 146 Passewaaij*

46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt 101 Elst-Brienenshof 147 Rossum*

47 Nijmegen-Museum Kamstraat 102 Elst* 148 Rumpt*

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* 103 Enspijk* 149 Sint Andries*

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost 104 Est* 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd

60 Aalst* 105 IJzendoorn* 152 Tiel-Villa

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 106 Ewijk* 153 Tiel-Eierland

62 Aam* 107 Gameren* 154 Tiel*

63 Alem* 108 Geldermalsen* 155 Valburg*

64 Alem-Marensche Waarden 109 Gellicum* 156 Velddriel-Hoenzaderdrielsedijk

65 Alem-Oude Maas 111 Haaften* 157 Nijmegen-uiterwaarden

66 Alphen-a/d-Maas* 112 Hedel* 158 Waardenburg*

67 Ammerzoden* 113 Heteren* 159 Waardenburg-Woerden

68 Arnhem-Prinsenhof 114 Heumensoord* 160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat

69 Arnhem* 115 Homoet* 161 Wadenoijen*

70 Batenburg* 116 Kapel-Avezaath* 162 Wageningen*

71 Beek* 117 Kerk-Avezaath I 163 Wijchen-Grafveld

72 Beesd* 118 Kerkdriel* 164 Zaltbommel*

73 Bemmel* 119 Kerkwijk* 165 Zennewijnen*

74 Berg en Dal* 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria 166 Zoelen*

75 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn II 121 Lienden* 167 Zoelen-Uiterdijk

76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* 122 Loowaard-Kandia 168 Zoelen-Beldert

77 Bergakker* 123 Maurik-Rijnoever 169 Zuilichem*

78 Bergharen-De Galgenberg 124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok

79 Betuwe* 125 Maurik-Parkstraat 172 Odijk*

80 Beuningen-De Heuve 126 Maurik* 173 Remmerden*

81 Beusichem* 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 174 Rhenen*

82 Bommelerwaard* 128 Medel-Hoge Hof 175 Schalkwijk*

83 Bruchem* 129 Merm* 176 Vechten-castellum

84 Buren* 130 Meteren-De Dell 177 Waal-Utrecht

260 Site Name

178 Wijk bij Duurstede* 226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 275 Leur*

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 227 Voorburg* 276 Lienden-Vogelenzangseweg

180 Woerden-Oranjestraat 228 Wassenaar-Meijendel 277 Loenen-Vrijenberg

181 Alblasserdam* 229 Zwammerdam* 278 Lunen*

183 Alphen a/d Rijn-De Vork 230 Velsen-Velserbroekpolder 279 Alphen-Maas

184 Alphen a/d Rijn-Kerk-Zanen 231 Velsen* 280 Meerten*

185 Alphen a/d Rijn-Kortsteekterpold 232 Velsen-Hoogovens 281 Meerten-Hoogmeien

186 Alphen a/d Rijn-Lemkes 233 Aalburg-Polstraat 282 Meteren*

187 Alphen a/d Rijn-Europasingel 234 Genderen* 283 Millingen a/d Rijn-sarkofaag

188 Alphen a/d Rijn-algemeen 235 Genderen-Kerkhof 284 Millingen a/d Rijn*

189 Arkel-Linge 236 Woudrichem* 285 Ochten*

190 Bodegraven* 237 Echteld-De Vaalt 286 Ochten-Appelenborg

191 Delft-Rijswijk 238 Echteld-De Heul(=De Hul?) 287 Oosterhout(GL)*

192 Den Haag-Waalsdorp 239 Echteld-De Hoge Hof 288 Nijmegen-no context

193 Den Haag-Vleerstraat 240 Elst-De Park 289 Opheusden*

194 Dirksland* 241 Elst-begraafplaats 290 Overasselt*

195 Dordrecht-Rietdijkshaven 243 Erlecom* 291 Kesteren-Oudendam

196 Dordrecht-Poelstraat 244 Ewijk-De Hoge Woerd 292 Persingen*

197 Giessenburg-ruine 245 Ewijk-Ewijkse Velden 293 Raayen*

198 Gorinchem* 246 Geldermalsen-Bottesteijn 294 Randwijk-De Woerd

199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg 247 Gendt-Loohof 295 Ressen*

200 Katwijk* 248 Gendt-Hooge Hof 296 Rijswijk*

201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen 249 Haalderen* 297 Rossum-baggervondsten

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan 250 Hatert* 298 Rossum-De Waarden

203 Koudekerk a/d Rijn 251 Hatert-grafveld 299 Rossum-Maas

204 Leiden-Ir.Driesenplein 252 Nijmegen-De Hulzen 300 Rossum-Fort Andries

205 Leiden-Houtsingel 253 Heerewaarden-Maas 301 Tiel-Waal

206 Leiden-Merenwijk 254 Heesselt* 302 Tiel-De Kellen

207 Leiden-Hoge Woerd 255 Hemmen-De Wuust 303 Tiel-Groenmarkt

208 Leiderdorp- 256 Hernen-De Wijnakker 304 Tuil*

209 Leiderdorp-Buitenhof-oost 257 Herveld* 305 Ubbergen*

210 Leiderdorp-monding Does 258 Herwijnen-Waal 306 Velddriel*

211 Leiderdorp-algemeen 259 Heteren-Uilenburg 307 Vuren-Waaldijk

212 Papendrecht* 260 Heteren-Nijburg 308 Nijmegen-Waal

213 Rijswijk-Vliet 261 Heumen* 309 Beneden-Leeuwen-Waal

214 Rijswijk-Wilhelminapark 262 Heumen-Jachtlaan 310 Waal*

215 Leiden-Roomburg 263 Heumen-Heumensoord 311 Ewijk-Waal

216 Rotterdam* 264 Hien-De Wuurdjes 312 Wageningen-Keijenberg

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld 265 Horssen* 313 Westervoort*

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz. 266 Huissen* 314 Alverna-Klooster

219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul 267 Hurwenen* 315 Wijchen*

220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz. 268 Ingen* 316 Wijchen-Merelstraat

221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 269 Kesteren-Hoge Woerd 317 Wijchen-Bullenkamp

222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb. 270 Kesteren-grafveld 318 Wijchen-Aalsburg

223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* 271 Kesteren* 319 IJsseloord*

224 Valkenburg* 272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen 320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum

225 Valkenburg-Middenweg 273 Lent-Waalbrug 321 Zetten-De Woerd

261 Site Name

322 Zoelen-Retse Straat 373 Alblasserdam-nederzetting '73 420 Leiden-Burchtheuvel

323 Zoelen-Rooienstein 374 Alblasserdam-nederzetting '62 421 Leiden-Maredijk

324 Zoelmond* 375 Alphen a/d Rijn-Oude Rijn 422 Leiden-Leliestraat

325 Amerongen-zandafgraving 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan 424 Leidschendam*

326 Amerongen-De Natewisch 377 Arkel* 425 Oude Maas-Botlekbrug

327 Amerongen-Zuylestein 378 Bodegraven-Oud-Bodegraafseweg 426 Maassluis-baggervondsten

328 Amerongen* 379 Boskoop I 427 Papendrecht-Merwedeoever

329 Bunnik* 380 Delft* 428 Monster*

330 Cothen-Dorpstraat 381 Dordrecht* 429 Moordrecht*

331 Cothen-De Zemelen 382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten 430 Naaldwijk*

333 Elst(Utr.)* 383 Dubbeldam-Merwedeoever 431 Numansdorp*

334 Rhenen-Straatweg 384 Europoort-Eurorama 432 Ockenburgh*

335 Het Goy* 385 Europoort-baggervondsten 433 Oostvoorne-strand

336 Honswijk* 386 Europoort-Oranjesluis 434 Oud-Alblas*

337 Houten-Looyendaal 387 Europoort-7e Petroleumhaven 435 Papendrecht-Merwededijk

338 Houten-Wayense Dijk 388 Europoort-Maasvlakte-Oostvoorne 436 Papendrecht-Bethlehemkerk

339 Houten* 389 Europoort* 437 Poeldijk I

340 Jutphaas-Nedereindse polder 390 Giessen-Nieuwkerk 438 Rockanje-Strype

341 De Meern-De Woerd 391 Giessendam* 439 Rockanje*

342 De Meern* 392 Gouderak* 440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch

344 Nieuwegein* 393 Den Haag* 441 Rotterdam-Krooswijk/Duifhuis

345 Rhenen-Prattenburg 394 Den Haag-Zuiderpark 442 Rotterdam-Oude Plantage

346 Schalkwijk-Pothoek 395 Den Haag-Westeinde 443 Rijnsburg I

347 Tull en het Waal* 396 Den Haag-Yselubweg? 444 Rijswijk-Rijswijkseweg

348 Utrecht-Domplein I 397 Den Haag-Bosjes van Poot 445 Rijswijk I

350 Nieuwegein-Noord-Zuilenstein 398 Den Haag-Scheveningse Bosjes 446 Rijswijk-De Bult

351 Utrecht-Korte Nieuwstraat 399 Den Haag-Regentesselaan 447 Scheveningen*

352 Utrecht-Domstraat 400 Giessendam I 448 Schiedam-Nieuwe Maas

353 Utrecht-Hoog Catharijne 401 Heukelum* 449 Schiedam*

354 Utrecht-Kromme Nieuwe Gracht 402 Heukelum-Vogelswerf 450 Schipluiden-Harnaschpolder

355 Utrecht* 403 Ter Heijde-duinen 451 Schipluiden*

356 Utrecht-Paushuize 404 Hoogmade-Doorpolderkade 452 Schoonhoven I

357 Utrecht-Fortlaan 405 Katwijk-Brittenburg 453 Schoonrewoerd-Kerk

358 Utrecht-Vecht I 406 Katwijk-Additionele Kanaal 454 Sliedrecht-baggervondsten

359 Utrecht-Vecht II 407 Katwijk-Katwijk-Binnen/kleinduin 455 Spijkenisse-bageervondsten

360 Vechten* 408 Katwijk-Het Mallegat 456 Spijkenisse*

362 Vechten-Mereveldseweg 409 Kethel-Groenoord 457 Stompwijk*

363 Vechten-Rijksweg 410 Kethel I 458 Streefkerk*

364 Vechten-Kromme Rijn 411 Kethel* 459 Valkenburg-castellum(?)

365 Zeist* 412 Koudekerk-De Hondsdijk 460 Vianen*

366 Andel* 413 Kijkduin-duinen 461 Vlaardingen-Kethelweg

367 Drongelen* 414 Leerdam* 462 Vlaardingen-baggervondsten

368 Eethen* 415 Leiden-Jan van Houtkade 463 Vlaardingen*

369 Wijk en Aalburg-Veldstraat I 416 Leiden-Witte Singel 464 Vlaardingen-Holysingel

370 Molenhoek* 417 Leiden-haagweg 465 Voorschoten-Delftsche Schouw

371 Sleeuwijk* 418 Leiden* 466 Voorschoten-Haaswijk

372 Aarlanderveen* 419 Leiden-Utrechtse Veer 467 Voorschoten*

262 Site Name

468 Voorschoten I 511 Altrier-Vicus 558 Burmerange-Tritlingen$1920

469 Wassenaar* 512 Altrier-Vogelbusch 559 Burmerange-Lann

470 Wassenaar I 513 Altrier-Hersberg 560 Buschdorf*

471 Wateringen-De Rhyenhof 514 Altrier-Zittig 561 Cap*

472 Wateringen* 515 Altwies$ 562 Christnach-Eglise paroissiale

473 Werkendam* 516 Altwies-H,defeldchen/Zweiserei 563 Christnach-Wollefsbierg

474 Woerden-castellum 517 Aspelt-Op de Kleppen 564 Christnach-Op de Maueren

475 Woerden* 518 Aspelt-Op de Maueren 565 Christnach*

476 Zevenhuizen I 519 Aspelt* 566 Colbette I

477 Zoetermeer* 520 Bascharage I 567 Consdorf-Buurgkapp

478 Zoeterwoude* 521 Beaufort-Hallerbaach 569 Consdorf-Ousterholz

479 Zwammerdam-castellum 522 Beaufort* 570 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser

480 Zwammerdam-St.Anna Hoeve 523 Bech* 571 Consdorf*

481 Zwartewaal-jachthaven 524 Berbourg* 572 Contern-Thielen-Oicht$1860

482 Voorburg-Mariannelaan 525 Berchem-Steedspad$1783 573 Contern-Enert der Hangels

483 Voorburg-Arentsburg/Vlietoever 526 Berdorf-Raiberhiel$1909 574 Contern*

484 Voorburg-Wilhelmusterrein 527 Berdorf-Friemholz 575 Dahlem-cimetiSre

485 Voorburg-Oost Duivesteyn 528 Berdorf-Kalkesbaach 576 Dalheim-Petzel$1881

486 Rossum-Maas I 529 Berdorf* 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850

487 Rossum-Waal 530 Beringen-Vicinalwege 578 Dalheim-Petzel$1952

488 Rhenen-grafveld 531 Beringen-Sprangert 579 Dalheim-Petzel$<1967

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 532 Bertrange-Tossebierg-K,impen 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842

490 Europoort-Botlek 533 Bertrange-Tossebierg-H,deschlass 581 Dalheim-Petzel/Ricciacus

491 Europoort-Rozenburg 534 Bertrange-An den Zillest%cker 582 Dalheim-Village

492 Alphen a/d Rijn I 535 Bertrange* 583 Dalheim-Wendelfeld

493 Rotterdam-Spuisluis 536 Bettange* 584 Dalheim-H,dscheier

494 Ouderkerk a/d IJssel 537 Bettborn* 585 Dalheim-Buchholz

495 Houten-Grote Geer 538 Bettendorf$1847 586 Dickweiler I

496 Neerijnen-Westerbroek 539 Betzdorf-Bous 587 Dickweiler-Riedchen

497 Neerijnen-Veelust 540 Betzdorf* 588 Dickweiler-Kiem

498 Neerijnen-Breeuwert 541 Bigelbach-Op dem Hais'chen 589 Diekirch-Villa/environs

499 Maurik-Zwarte Paard 542 Bigonville-Flatzbour 590 Differdange-Rollesberg

500 Buren-Het Nieuwland 543 Bigonville-In Dermicht 591 Differdange*

501 Nijmegen-Rivierenbuurt 544 Bigonville-Kimm 592 Dondelange-Telpeschholz/villa

502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 545 Bigonville* 593 Donnange I

503 Nijmegen-Pretoriumstraat 546 Bilsdorf* 594 Donven*

504 Nijmegen* 547 Binsfeld-Op Millschend 595 Dreiborn-Jail/Villa

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 548 Birtrange* 596 Dudelange*

1556 Heusden-Between Maas & Waal 549 Blaschette-Herbstfeld 597 Echternach-Schwarzacht

1987 St.Odili%nberg* 550 Born-G,int Girst 598 Echternach$1844

551 Born* 599 Echternach I

Luxemburg and Trier 552 Boulaide-An der Mecher 600 Echternach*

506 Ahn-Machtum-Moselle$ 553 Bourscheid-Chateau 601 Echternach-Basilisque St.Willibr

507 Altlinster-Haertgeslay 554 Bous-Villa 602 Echternach-Abbaye des B,n,dictin

508 Altlinster-Peifers-Moor 555 Breidweiler* 603 Echternach-Eglise SS.Pierre

509 Altrier-$1861 556 Bridel-Kaalscheier 604 Echternach-Canton D'

510 Altrier-$1817/18 557 Burange* 605 Ehnen-Kelterbierg

263 Site Name

606 Ehnen-Meesteschbierg 654 Hachiville-Les Fyes de Wiltz 702 Lellingen-Op der Maes$1928

607 Ehnen* 655 Hagen$1940-45 703 Lieler I

608 Eischen-Gaalgebierg-Op de Griewe 656 Haller-Halerbach 704 Lintgen$1849

609 Ell-Eglise 657 Hassel* 705 Lorentzweiler-Jonge Bandels

610 Ell I 658 Hautcharage-Paerchen 706 Lullange-Antoniushaff

611 Ellange I 659 Heffingen-B,zebierg 707 Lullange-Lulger Kreiz

612 Ellange-Passen 660 Heffingen-Albuurg 708 Clausen*

613 Ermsdorf$1880 661 Heiderscheid* 709 Dinselt-Rum/Rham$1590

614 Ermsdorf-W%lkeboesch 662 Heinerscheid-Fischbach/DreiHiwel 710 Dinselt-Rum/Rham*

615 Ermsdorf* 663 Hellange-B,inert 711 Grengewald-Kiem

616 Ernzen-I 664 Hellange-L,mh,i'cht 712 Howald*

617 Esch-sur-Alzette I 665 Hellange-A Maarken 713 Merl I

618 Esch-sur-Alzette-Ellergronn 666 Hellange-Rodesch Pesch 714 Pfaffenthal-Pont sur l'Alzette

619 Esch-sur-Alzette-Gaalgebierg 667 Helperknapp* 715 Pfaffenthal-Chap.St Matthieu

620 Esch-sur-Alzette-Gadeslach 668 Helperknapp-Helperich/Bill 716 Pfaffenthal-Maison d'Ecole

621 Esch-sur-Alzette* 669 Helperknapp-Helperich/Grevenknap 717 Pfaffenthal-Hiel

622 Ettelbr?ck-Heng$1856 670 Helperknapp-Grevenknapp 718 Pfaffenthal-Hiel*

623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 671 Herborn-Op de Suelen 719 Pfaffenthal-Rue Mohrfels

624 Ettelbr?ck-Nuck/Wandhaff 672 Hersberg-Altrier-Kaaselt 720 Val St.-Croix-Sch,iss

625 Ettelbr?ck-Pensionat St.Anne 673 Hersberg-Koukhaed 721 Luxembourg-Faubourg

626 Feulen-Op Kochert/Bucheknapp 674 Hesperange-Pont sur l'Alzette 722 Mamer-Bierg/Schlassbierg

628 Feulen-Breidert 675 Hesperange* 723 Mamer-Katherinnenh,usercher

629 Feulen-Haupteschhaff 676 Hivange-Kordegaertchen 724 Mamer-Ruisseau 'Mamer'

630 Feulen-Oberfeulen 677 Hollenfels-Am Bidendall 725 Mamer-Um Rouer

631 Feulen-Niederfeulen 678 Holler$1871 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66

632 Filsdorf-Haed/L,millen$193? 679 Holzthum-Gebrannteb"sch 727 Marscherwald-Colbetter Dael

633 Filsdorf-Kiischtebierg 680 Holzthum-P%nzebierg/Heideschdelt 728 Marscherwald-Rippiger dael

634 Filsdorf* 681 Hostert* 729 Marscherwald-Hemstaler Dael

635 Flaxweiler-Tonn/2 682 Hostert-Hosterter Berg 730 Marscherwald-cemeteries1-3

636 Folschette* 683 Huncherange-Langen-Weller 731 Medernach$1863

637 Frisange-Stenge Strachen 684 Huttange* 732 Medernach I

638 Frisange* 685 Junglinster-Aechholz 733 Medernach-Larochette

639 Garnich I 686 Junglinster-Bruchlach 734 Mensdorf*

640 Gilsdorf-Henchel 687 Junglinster-Raemeschheck 735 Mersch-Am Bongert

641 Luxembourg*$1911 688 Junglinster* 736 Mersch*

642 Luxembourg$I 689 Kahler$1920-5 737 Mersch-An der Jeich

643 Luxembourg$II 690 Kayl-An der Schurel/Gehaansbierg 738 Mersch-Mamerlayen

644 Luxembourg$III 691 Kehlen-Vall,e de la Mamer/Altm?h 739 Mersch-Mies

645 Luxembourg$IV 692 Kehlen-Goldkaul 740 Mertert*

646 Luxembourg* 693 Kehlen* 741 Meysembourg$1859

647 Greiveldange-Auf dem Mees 694 Kleinbettingen$1921 742 Michelau-Enteschbach/Fl,bur

648 Grevenmacher-Alkirch 695 Kleinbettingen* 743 Michelau-Fl,bur

649 Grevenmacher-Beim Buerggruef 696 Kr,kelsbierg-Mont Cr,qui 744 Moersdorf I

650 Grevenmacher* 697 Larochette-Huesel, 745 Moestroff*

651 Grevenmacher-Canton de 698 Larochette I 746 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert

652 Grosbous$1843 700 Lellig* 747 Mondorf*

653 Grosbous* 701 Lenningen$1865 748 Moselle*

264 Site Name

749 M?llerthal I 796 Rodange* 844 Tetelbierg-single finds

750 M?llerthal* 797 Roedchen* 845 Troine-Trotten

751 M?nschecker-Fuussbierg 798 Saeul-Saeul-Brouch 846 Tetelbierg-Hiel

752 M?nschecker I 799 Sandweiler-Birelerhaff 847 Tetelbierg-Hiel*

753 Munshausen* 800 Sandweiler-H,deschlass 848 Tetelbierg-Stronck

754 Nagem-P%tz Mier/Heedhaiser$1854 801 Sanem-Grueweleck 849 Useldange-Chateau m,di,val

755 Nagem-P%tz Mier/Heedhaiser I 802 Schandel-Kreizmier 850 Vianden-Schlassbierg

756 Nagem-Heedhaiser/Haubour 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 851 Vichten-Jardin du PresbytSre

757 Nagem-Om Tambour 804 Scheidgen-An der Leiwerdelt 852 Vichten-Wampicherhiel

758 Nieder-Anven-Andethana 805 Scheidgen* 853 Vichten*

759 Niedercorn I 806 Schengen-Stroumbierg 854 Waldbillig$184?

760 Niederdonven I 807 Schifflange-Dumontshaff 855 Waldbillig-Baachbierg

761 Niederdonven II 808 Schifflange* 857 Waldbillig-Kƒsselter H,icht

762 Niederwampach I 809 Schlindermanderscheid-Kamp 858 Waldbillig-Niesendall

763 Niederwampach-Schleif 810 Schoenfels* 859 Waldbillig*

764 Nommern-Albuurg 811 Schoos-Gallons Griecht 860 Waldbredimus-Gondelange/Alen...

765 Nospelt-Miecher/A 812 Schuttrange* 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$

766 Nospelt-Miecher/B 813 Senningen-Senninger Knupp 862 Walferdange/Heisdorf*

767 Nospelt-Kr%ckelbierg 815 Septfontaines-Kinneksfeld$16?? 863 Walsdorf I

768 Nospelt-Op der Tonn 816 Septfontaines-Simmerschmelz$1817 864 Wasserbillig I

769 Oesling*$1859 817 Septfontaines-Griefchen 865 Wasserbillig-Pont sur la S-re

770 Oetrange I 818 Soleuvre-Zolverknapp 866 Wasserbillig-Boxbierg

771 Osweiler-Am Kirchefloer 819 Stadtbredimus-M,rchen 867 Wasserbillig-Sernig

772 P,tange-Roudenhaff/R,imerhaff 820 Stadtbredimus-Rauknupp 868 Wasserbillig*

773 P,tange-Rommelshaff 821 Stadtbredimus* 869 Wecker-Pont sur la Syre

774 P,tange* 822 Steinfort-Jardin du presbytSre 870 Weiler-La-Tour-Baackuewen

775 Petit-Nobressart-Um Grendeler .. 823 Steinfort-Jennenbierg 871 Weiler-La-Tour-Entre Baackuewen.

776 Pontpierre-St,bierg 824 Steinfort-Schwaarzenhaff 872 Weiler-La-Tour-G,rdercher

777 Pratz-Haedekn,ppchen 825 Steinfort* 873 Weiler-La-Tour-Haals

778 Rambrouch-plateau 826 Steinheim I 874 Weiler-La-Tour-L"tschweiler

779 Reckange-Elenter Kapel/Kuelerech 827 Steinsel-village 875 Weiler-La-Tour-Masselter Strache

780 Reckange-Reiderfeld/Hosbich 828 Steinsel-Rellent 876 Weiler-La-Tour-M%chel

781 Reckange-Sulgen 829 Strassen-Schl,dbierg 877 Weiler-La-Tour-Schwirtzgaard

782 Reckange-sur-Mess-,glise 830 Strassen* 878 Welfrange-Hunnenst,cker

783 Redange* 831 Syren* 879 Welscheid-Wark-Baeschterbaach$

784 Reichlange-Stertz/L,ipesch$1892 832 Tetelbierg$1969 880 Weyer I

785 Remerschen-Gr,ischen 833 Tetelbierg$1952 881 Widdebierg/Mensdorf-Lampecht

786 Remich-Buschland 834 TetelbiergX1868 882 Wiltz I

787 Remich-R,imicherboesch 835 TetelbiergX1907 883 Wiltz II

788 Remich-R,imicherboesch/Calvaire 836 Tetelbierg-Fouille A 884 Wormeldange I

789 Remich-Pont de Remich 837 Tetelbierg-Fouille B 885 Trier-Altbachtal/1-2A-single fin

790 Remich-Sellwingert 838 Tetelbierg-Fouille C 886 Trier-Altbachtal/1-2B-#1

791 Remich* 839 Tetelbierg-Rue antique 887 Trier-Altbachtal/3A-single finds

792 Reuland-Op der H,d$1916-20 840 Tetelbierg-Fouille C/new road 888 Trier-Altbachtal/3B-#

793 Reuland-Mierscherw, 841 Tetelbierg-Proefsleuf 5 889 Trier-Altbachtal/4-single finds

794 Rippweiler-Laach 842 Tetelbierg-Fouille D 890 Trier-Altbachtal/4a-single finds

795 Rodange-Usines de Rodange 843 Tetelbierg-Tombs 891 Trier-Altbachtal/5-single finds

265 Site Name

892 Trier-Altbachtal/5a-single finds 939 Trier-Altbachtal/36A 986 Brouch/Wecker-Gaerlecksbierg

893 Trier-Altbachtal/6A-single finds 940 Trier-Altbachtal/36B-# 987 Brouch/Wecker-Laangert

894 Trier-Altbachtal/6B-# 941 Trier-Altbachtal/36C-# 988 Buschdorf-Op Kalkhof

895 Trier-Altbachtal/6a-single finds 942 Trier-Altbachtal/36D-# 989 Buschdorf-Uecht

896 Trier-Altbachtal/7-single finds 943 Trier-Altbachtal/37A 990 Consdorf-Kalkesbaach

897 Trier-Altbachtal/8-single finds 944 Trier-Altbachtal/37B-# 991 Contern-Haed-Kackerterhaff

898 Trier-Altbachtal/9 945 Trier-Altbachtal/37C-# 992 Gruchten*

899 Trier-Altbachtal/10 946 Trier-Altbachtal/37D-# 993 Dalheim-Village$1965

900 Trier-Altbachtal/11A-single find 947 Trier-Altbachtal/37E-# 994 Dalheim-Kreizbierg

901 Trier-Altbachtal/11B-# 948 Trier-Altbachtal/37F-# 995 Dalheim-Neiensbierg

902 Trier-Altbachtal/12 949 Trier-Altbachtal/37G-# 996 Dalheim-W,inkelhiel

903 Trier-Altbachtal/13A-single find 950 Trier-Altbachtal/37aA 997 Diekirch-Guirengaart

904 Trier-Altbachtal/13B-# 951 Trier-Altbachtal/37aB-# 998 Diekirch-Herrenberg

905 Trier-Altbachtal/14 952 Trier-Altbachtal/37aC-# 999 Differdange I

906 Trier-Altbachtal/15 953 Trier-Altbachtal/37aD-# 1000 Differdange-Gondel

907 Trier-Altbachtal/16 954 Trier-Altbachtal/37aE-# 1001 Differdange-Tillebierg

908 Trier-Altbachtal/17 955 Trier-Altbachtal/37aF-# 1002 Dreiborn-In den J?nken

909 Trier-Altbachtal/18 956 Trier-Altbachtal/37aG-# 1003 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chapelle

910 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22A 957 Trier-Altbachtal/37aH-# 1004 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chateau

911 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22B-# 958 Trier-Altbachtal/37aJ-# 1005 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chateau/#

912 Trier-Altbachtal/19/21/22C-# 959 Trier-Altbachtal/38A 1006 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chateau/3

913 Trier-Altbachtal/23 960 Ahn I 1007 Dudelange I

914 Trier-Altbachtal/24 961 Altrier$1910 1008 Dudelange-Hauwep,rchen

915 Trier-Altbachtal/25 962 Altrier I 1009 Dudelange-Tattebierg

916 Trier-Altbachtal/26A 963 Altrier-Kellneschgronn 1010 Echternach-K%fferbur

917 Trier-Altbachtal/26B 964 Altrier-Kreizenh,icht 1011 Enscherange-Am Band

918 Trier-Altbachtal/26C 965 Altrier-Op der Weislaychen 1012 Enscherange-Steinkaul-Drei Kreuz

919 Trier-Altbachtal/26a 966 Altrier-Virum Wald 1013 Eppeldorf-Op der B"lz

920 Trier-Altbachtal/27 967 Altwies-Laangen Aker 1015 Ernzen-Moulin

921 Trier-Altbachtal/28 968 Altwies-Onner Etzelt 1016 Erpeldange-Biergfeld-Schammel

922 Trier-Altbachtal/28a 969 Asselborn-Klounkebierg 1017 Esch-sur-Alzette-Barbuurg

923 Trier-Altbachtal/29 970 Bascharage-Lauterbann 1018 Ettelbr?ck-church

924 Trier-Altbachtal/30 971 Beaufort-Op Seiwescht 1019 Fentange-Fennerholz-Am Boesch

925 Trier-Altbachtal/30a 972 Bech-Brill 1020 Flaxweiler-Buchegewan

926 Trier-Altbachtal/31 973 Bech-Kleinmacher-Frieteschwenger 1021 Flaxweiler*

927 Trier-Altbachtal/32 974 Beckerich* 1022 Flaxweiler-Tonn-Tumulus

928 Trier-Altbachtal/33A 975 Beckerich-Kr,ber-Op Huttent 1023 Gilsdorf*

929 Trier-Altbachtal/33B 976 Bettel-Op Weiler 1024 Givenich-Chateau

930 Trier-Altbachtal/33a 977 Beyren-G,ier 1025 Goesdorf-Mahn,ltgen-Bereltsbaach

931 Trier-Altbachtal/34 978 Beyren* 1026 Goesdorf-Mahn,ltgen-Beersesbaa/2

932 Trier-Altbachtal/34aA 979 Bissen I 1027 Goesdorf-Op Mecher

933 Trier-Altbachtal/34aB-# 980 Biwer-Brill 1028 Gostingen-Haerebierg

934 Trier-Altbachtal/34aC-# 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 1029 Grevenmacher-Laangwies

935 Trier-Altbachtal/34bA 982 Blumenthal-H,sterbierg$1948 1030 Grevenmacher-Rue des Tanneurs

936 Trier-Altbachtal/34bB-# 983 Blumenthal-H,sterbierg-s 1031 Grevenmacher-Bord de la Moselle

937 Trier-Altbachtal/35A 984 Boudler-Maierchen 1032 Grevenmacher-Heck

938 Trier-Altbachtal/35B 985 Bridel-Gerdensboesch-B?bengr?nch 1033 Haller-Op der M"lchen

266 Site Name

1034 Haller* 1083 Mertert-Weiler/5 1132 Bettendorf-Fouerbierg/"nner Foos

1035 Hassel-Op der Plaetz/Trierweg 1085 Mertzig-Tonnheck 1133 Beyren-Auf Mees

1036 Heffingen I 1086 Mondorf-Daundorf/Wisebrill 1134 Beyren-Uespelt

1037 Heisdorf-Pac du Couvent 1087 Niedercorn-Frankenfeld 1135 Biwer-Kneppchen

1038 Heisdorf-Mies 1088 Niederdonven-Tueschaker 1136 Blaschette*

1039 Heisdorf-Stengber 1089 Pettingen-Hougericht 1137 Bous*

1040 Hellange-An den Hespen 1090 Reckange-sur Mess-Haaschtecken 1138 Burmerange-Auf der Acht

1041 Hemstal-Johannisfeld 1091 Remerschen-Op Fuus 1139 Burmerange-H,nsdref

1042 Holler-An der Huscht 1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 1140 Christnach-Laangheck

1043 Huldange/Beho-Voie romaine 1093 Remerschen-Mecheren/single finds 1141 Colbette-Rue de Colbette

1044 Junglinster-Groussen Dr,isch 1094 Remerschen-Mecheren/monument 1142 Colbette-Nock

1045 Kaundorf-Permesknupp 1095 Reuland* 1143 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser$1978

1046 Kayl-Bei der Waasserbruch 1096 Rodange I 1145 Cruchten-Op dem Weissefierchten

1047 Kehlen-Juckelsboesch 1097 Roodt-Lez-El-Oenneschteboesch 1146 Dorscheid-Maison 18

1048 Kehlen-Sch,imerech 1098 Rumelange I 1148 Dreiborn-Im Lamecker

1049 Lellingen$1900 1099 Savelborn-H,icht/Kalefeld 1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975

1050 Lintgen* 1100 Schandel-Op den Tommen 1150 Dudelange-Dennert

1051 Luxembourg-Fetschenhaff 1101 Schieren I 1151 Echternach-Schwarzacht/2

1053 Luxembourg-Howald 1102 Schifflange I 1152 Ellange-Maierchen

1054 Luxembourg-Kirchberg-Kiem/1 1103 Schifflange-Corps de Garde 1153 Esch-sur-Alzette-Kazebierg

1055 Luxembourg-Kirchberg-Kiem/2 1104 Schifflange-Op Stengerech 1154 Fentange-G,isselbierg

1056 Luxembourg-Limpertsberg 1105 Schleif-Wirtz-haisjen 1155 Filsdorf-Haed-L,millen

1057 Luxembourg-Neudorf 1106 Selscheid-Dont/Om Knapp 1156 Flaxweiler-Duskar

1058 Luxembourg-Val des Bons Malades 1107 Senningen-Senninger Knupp/2 1157 Gilsdorf-Tirelbaach/Am Al

1059 Machtum I 1108 Soleuvre-Strumeschbaach 1158 Gonderange-Sch,iferbierg

1060 Mamer-An den Aessen-Gaaschtbierg 1109 Soleuvre-Vir Haneboesch 1159 Gostingen-G,ier

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 1110 Steinsel* 1160 Grevenmacher-Gruewereck

1062 Mamer-Bierg/2 1111 Tuntange-Himel 1161 Hassel-Maessen

1063 Mamer-Bierg/3 1112 Wasserbillig-Spatz 1162 Heffingen-Kallekkaulen

1064 Mamer-Bierg/4 1113 Weiler-La-Tour-Op der Holzdr,isc 1163 Helperknapp I

1065 Mamer-Bierg/5 1115 Wolwelange-Um Kneppchen 1164 Herborn-Op de Maueren

1066 Mamer-Oenner Kinneksgrond 1116 Wormeldange-Elterbierg 1165 Hersberg-Altrier-Vor dem Wald

1067 Mamer-Woosen 1117 Wormeldange-Laumeringen 1166 Hesperange-R,izefeld

1068 Manternach-Schorenshaff 1118 Wormeldange-Ruckelsgaart 1167 Hovelange-Kaasselbierg

1069 Marscherwald-Colbetter Dael & 1119 Wormeldange-Wousselt 1168 Kahler-Maison 23.

1070 Marscherwald-Zittiger Dael 1120 Ahn-Tauwenacker 1169 Kapenacker-Baetingen

1071 Marscherwald-Kuebebuer 1121 Ahn* 1170 Kayl-Hunnemesch/Kl"ppel

1072 Marscherwald* 1122 Alscheid I 1171 Kayl*

1073 Medernach-Paleschmaierchen 1123 Altrier-Margrond 1172 Keispelt-An der Raemeschkaul

1074 Medernach* 1124 Altwies-Rue J.B.Molitor 1174 Lellig-Alten Kimm

1075 Mersch-Haard 1125 Altwies-A Mecher/Wouschtel 1175 Lenningen-Dueslaecher

1077 Mertert-Tempelsklouster 1126 Beaufort I 1176 Lenningen-An der Laangend,len

1078 Mertert-Weiler 1127 Bech/Kleinmacher-Maison Kisch 1177 Lenningen-Maes

1079 Mertert$1971 1128 Bech/Kleinmacher-Traveaux 1178 Merl*

1080 Mertert-Weiler/2 1129 Beckerich-Kuelebierg 1179 Pulverm?hl*

1081 Mertert-Weiler/3 1130 Bettembourg-Falteschbierg 1180 Mamer-Gaschtbierg

1082 Mertert-Weiler/4 1131 Bettembourg-Leschemer 1181 Manternach-Katzelt

267 Site Name

1182 Manternach-Zwirvel 1231 Betzdorf-Kaetzer 1279 Haller-Rue des Romains

1183 Medernach-M%ttelste Koon 1232 Bissen-Am P%ttenerwee 1280 Hautcharage-Lannwis

1184 Medingen-Zennebierg 1233 Bollendorf-Pont-Kalekapp 1281 Haut-Martelange-Op dem Huf

1185 Meispelt-Hobuch 1234 Bourglinster-Beddelstaen 1282 Heffingen-Op der Knupp

1186 Mensdorf-Kl,iweier/Kl,iwis 1235 Bourglinster-In der Klick 1283 Heisdorf-Uecht

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 1236 Bous-Schlaed 1284 Herborn-Brill/Schampeschbaach

1188 Nommern-Lock/1 1237 Budersberg-Im Batz 1285 Hesperange-In der Altwies

1189 Nommern-Lock/2 1238 Budersberg-Op de Kiirten 1286 Holzem-Lotzeterknapp

1190 Oberpallen-Um Diggel 1239 Burmerange-Tritlingen-sf 1287 Holzem*

1191 Oberpallen-Um Kuest 1240 Burmerange-In der donnen Acht 1288 Itzig-Gantebaensmillen

1192 Osweiler-Simpelbaach 1241 Burmerange-Haeregaard 1289 Kahler-Rue des Champs

1193 Prettingen-Prettener Bierg 1242 Calmus-Maison 8 1290 Kaundorf*

1194 Remich-Maateberg/Mousel Feld 1243 Calmus-An der Mies/Lanzfeld 1291 Kayl-A Feschtem/1

1195 Remich-R,imicherboesch-Krommfur 1244 Calmus-Saeulerloch 1292 Kayl-A Feschtem/2

1196 Reuland I 1245 Canach-Eisleck 1293 Larochette-Delsebett

1197 Sanem-Roudenuecht/1 1246 Christnach-Auf Bundelshoecht 1294 Larochette-Verluerekascht

1198 Sanem-Roudenuecht/2 1247 Colmar-Berg-Brongesbierg 1295 Lieler-Op Lotzenbour

1199 Sanem-Roudenuecht* 1248 Consdorf-Larebierg 1296 Lorentzweiler-Kaasselt

1201 Schifflange-A Betteling 1249 Contern-Auf dem Ewend 1297 Luxembourg-Ville

1202 Schifflange-Bergemerst, 1250 Dalheim-Hossegronn 1298 Luxembourg-Rue Large

1203 Schwebsange-Op de Musel Laengten 1251 Dalheim-Haedscheier 1299 Luxembourg-Rue de la Semois

1204 Septfontaines-Deckt 1252 Dickweiler-Maurefeld 1300 Luxembourg-Bonnevoie-Kaltreis

1205 Sûre* 1253 Differdange-Op Kreizw, 1301 Luxembourg-Cents-Rue C.Simonis

1206 Syren-Laange Wenkel 1254 Dippach-Village 1302 Luxembourg-city*

1207 Vianden-Chateau fort 1255 Dippach-Am ale Wee 1303 Luxembourg-Hollerich

1208 Waldbillig-Rue des Fleurs 1256 Dippach-Am Hals 1304 Machtum-Dall/Reimetzer

1209 Waldbillig-Ale St,broch 1257 Dudelange-Bierensheck/Buedem 1305 Mamer-Aedemer

1210 Wasserbillig-Rue Boxberg 1258 Dudelange-Kolschebierg 1306 Mamer-Eweleck

1211 Welfrange-Kleppchen 1259 Ehner-Beim Kaaschtebur 1307 Mamer*

1213 Welfrange-Maure Feld 1260 Elvange-Grousst Kreiz/Graff Krei 1308 Medingen-In der Leesgen

1214 Welscheid-Chemin de Kohn/Kiem 1261 Emerange-Weigaard/Schwaarzaerd 1309 Meispelt-Op Filsched

1215 Wiltz-Neidierfchen/Rue M.Thilges 1262 Ermsdorf-B,lzhaff ruines 1310 Mersch-B%nzert

1216 Wormeldange-Haut-Berreggaass 1263 Ermsdorf-Schanzheck 1311 Mertert-Weiler*

1217 Altlinster-Weyerpad 1264 Erpeldange-Graveyard 1312 Moersdorf-Sartdorff

1218 Altrier-Margrond/Auf der Rausch 1265 Esch-sur-Alzette-H,defeldchen 1313 Mompach-Birweiler

1219 Bascharage-Hengeschwis 1266 Esch-sur-Alzette-Gl,icht 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972

1220 Bascharage-Op der Steerausch 1267 Esch-sur-Alzette-H,nzebierg 1315 Mondercange-Mausereck

1221 Bech-Kleinmacher-Hueschtert 1268 Everlange-Op dem Raer 1316 Mondorf-Schanzbierg

1222 Berchem-Kopecht 1269 Fentange-Rue de Bettembourg 1317 Niedercorn-Rue Theis

1223 Berdorf-Hammhaff 1270 Garnich-Steeb%sch 1318 Niedercorn-Fuussboesch

1224 Berdorf-Koudelt 1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 1319 Niedercorn-Hunneg Feld

1225 Berdorf-Melebur 1272 Givenich-Giwicherwis-sf 1320 Niedercorn-Kollest,k

1226 Berdorf-Op Kasselt 1273 Givenich-Op de L,ieren 1321 Niederdonven-Haedelecker

1227 Berg-Bamhaff 1275 Nospelt-Miecher/D 1322 Niederpallen-Op W%ller

1228 Bergem-Op dem Rascht$? 1276 Nospelt-Miecher/E$1983 1323 Nospelt-Breiberg

1229 Bertrange-Rothen Zillen 1277 Nospelt-Miecher/E 1324 Oberpallen-An D"ppercher

1230 Bettendorf-Schoofsboesch$<1935 1278 Nospelt-Op der Tonn/2 1325 Prettingen-Seisselbaach

268 Site Name

1326 Reckange-Op der Strooss 2092 Trier-Altbachtal/50A 1342 Kanne-Eben-Emael

1327 Remich-Z,in Morgen 2093 Trier-Altbachtal/50B-# 1343 Kessenich-Hezerheide

1328 Roeser-Auf dem Maes 2094 Trier-Altbachtal/50C-# 1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof

1329 Rosport-Buurg 2095 Trier-Altbachtal/51A 1345 Koninksem*

1330 Rosport-Auf Spanischen Grever 2096 Trier-Altbachtal/51B-# 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel

1331 Sandweiler-Koschter Janshaff 2097 Trier-Altbachtal/51C-# 1347 Kortessem-cemetery

1470 Schifflange-Auf den Kehmen 2098 Trier-Altbachtal/51D-# 1348 Opgrimbie-Hoekstraat

1471 Schifflange-Auf den Moeden 2099 Trier-Altbachtal/51E 1349 Ophoven*

1472 Schuttrange-Op dem Kallek 2100 Trier-Altbachtal/51F 1350 Overrepen$?

1473 Soleuvre-In den Ferden 2101 Trier-Altbachtal/51G-# 1351 Paal$1905

1474 Steinheim* 2102 Trier-Altbachtal/51H-# 1352 Smeerkaas-Ducatonweg

1475 Syren-Gelsbierg 2103 Trier-Altbachtal/51J-# 1353 Lauw I

1476 Vianden-Eglise des Trinitaires 2104 Trier-Altbachtal/52 1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat

1477 Waldbillig-Kneppchen 2117 Trier-Altbachtal/53 1355 Lier$

1478 Warken-Lopert 2118 Trier-Altbachtal/54/69 1356 Maaseik*

1479 Wasserbillig-Ville 2119 Trier-Altbachtal/56/57 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos

1480 Wasserbillig-Mont,e de la Mosell 2120 Trier-Altbachtal/58A 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp

1481 Wasserbillig-Im Merterberg 2121 Trier-Altbachtal/58B-# 1359 Neerpelt-Kolisbos

1482 Wasserbillig-Langsur-An de Fr,in 2122 Trier-Altbachtal/60 1360 Neerpelt-Kleine-Brogel$1935

1483 Wasserbillig-Langsur-Op Ewent 2123 Trier-Altbachtal/61/63 1361 Riemst$1905

1484 Wecker*$1972 2124 Trier-Altbachtal/65 1362 Rutten-Strijdmakkerstraat

1485 Weiswampach* 2125 Trier-Altbachtal/66 1363 Kolis I

1486 Wickrange-Op der Kopp 2126 Trier-Altbachtal/67 1364 Hork I

1487 Wormeldange* 2127 Trier-Altbachtal/68 1365 St.Truiden-,cole technique

1488 Zoufftgen-Klausbour 2128 Trier-Altbachtal/68a 1366 Hagendoren-Kommel I

1489 Trier-Altbachtal/38B-# 2129 Trier-Altbachtal/70A 1367 Tongeren*

1490 Trier-Altbachtal/38aA 2130 Trier-Altbachtal/70B-# 1368 Tongeren I

1491 Trier-Altbachtal/38aB-# 2131 Trier-Altbachtal/71A 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat

1492 Trier-Altbachtal/39 2132 Trier-Altbachtal/71B-# 1370 Tongeren-Kanjelstraat

1493 Trier-Altbachtal/39aA 2133 Trier-Altbachtal/72 1371 Tongeren-Driekruizenweg

1494 Trier-Altbachtal/39aB-# 2134 Trier-Altbachtal/73A 1372 Tongeren-stad

1495 Trier-Altbachtal/39bA 2135 Trier-Altbachtal/73B-# 1373 Tongeren-Korvelstraat

1496 Trier-Altbachtal/39bB-# 2136 Trier-Altbachtal/74 1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg

1497 Trier-Altbachtal/40/64 2137 Trier-Altbachtal/75 1375 Tongeren-Op de Motten

1498 Trier-Altbachtal/41 2138 Trier-Altbachtal/76 1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat

1499 Trier-Altbachtal/42 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld

1500 Trier-Altbachtal/43A Meuse-Demer-Scheldt-area 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area

2082 Trier-Altbachtal/43B-# 1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg 1379 Valmeer*

2083 Trier-Altbachtal/43C-# 1333 Betekom-Demer 1380 Velm-Molenbeek

2084 Trier-Altbachtal/44A 1334 Bommershoven* 1381 Vlijtingen I

2085 Trier-Altbachtal/44B-# 1335 Dilsen-Feresne 1382 Vorsen-Dry Tommen

2086 Trier-Altbachtal/45/46 1336 Donk-nederzetting 1383 Zelem-Klooster/St.Jansbergkastee

2087 Trier-Altbachtal/47 1337 Engelmanshoven-Lot A 1384 Zolder*

2088 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49A 1338 Halen-omgeving 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem

2089 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49B-# 1339 Herderen-watertoren 1386 Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek

2090 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49C-# 1340 Herderen* 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag

2091 Trier-Altbachtal/48/49D-# 1341 Hombroek* 1388 Meeuwen I

269 Site Name

1389 Vechmaal-Walenveld 1436 Kontich-Kazernen 1514 Cuijk I

1390 Broekom-Sassenbroekberg 1437 Lier I 1515 Cuijk II

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat 1438 Lier-Binnen-Nete 1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 1439 Lier-omgeving 1517 Cuijk-Vorstendom

1393 Tongeren-Cockaertstombe 1440 Lille-Galgenberg 1518 Cuijk*

1394 Tongeren-Mulken 1441 Mechelen-Hanswijk$1936 1519 Cuijk-Bejaardentehuis

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 1442 Mechelen-Dijle 1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei 1443 Mechelen-Geerdegemveld 1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan

1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 1444 Mechelen*$1841 1522 Cuijk III

1398 Tongeren-Bilzersteenweg 1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen 1523 Cuijk-Maasoever

1399 Tongeren-Schuttersgang 1446 Meerhout-Grote Nete 1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat

1400 Tongeren-Jasminstraat 1447 Meerhout-Boekenrode/Olmsebaan 1525 Deursen*

1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat 1448 Meerhout-Genebroek 1526 Dinther-Kerk

1402 Tongeren-Watertorenstraat 1449 Meerhout-Gestel 1527 Eindhoven-Heuvelterrein

1403 Tongeren-Ambi-Hotel 1450 Meerhout-Hakkenrode 1528 Eindhoven-Dommel

1404 Berg I 1451 Meerhout-Hazebroek 1529 Eindhoven I

1405 Koninksem-Hoogveldstraat 1452 Meerhout-Steenheuvels 1530 Empel*

1406 Kolis II 1453 Postel I 1531 Escharen-Boerderij De Klein

1407 Wijshagen-Aan de Bunders 1454 Nijlen$1770 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld

1408 Vechmaal-Zouwveld 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen 1533 Escharen I

1409 Overpelt* 1456 Oud-Turnhout-De Mellen 1534 Escharen-Rotsche weg

1410 Herderen I 1457 Rijmenam-Kasteel 1535 Escharen-Escharensche Veld/2

1411 Riemst-Kerkstraat 1458 Rumst-Kasteel 1536 Escharen-Raam

1412 Antwerpen-Schelde 1459 Rumst-St.Pieterskerk 1537 Gassel I

1413 Antwerpen-Vleeshuis/Stadhuis 1460 Schoten-Schoten Bos 1538 Gassel I$1988

1414 Antwerpen* 1461 St.Amands* 1539 Gassel-De Cork

1415 Hulzen-Grees 1462 St.Amands$1801 1540 Gassel*

1416 Hulzen-Kerkhof 1463 St.Katelijne-Waver-Kasteel Kauwe 1541 Geertruidenberg*

1417 Hulzen-'t Oud Blok 1464 Turnhout I 1542 Geertruidenberg-Koestraat

1418 Bornem-Scheldedijk 1465 Vorselaar-Heikant 1543 Geertruidenberg-Vestingwallen

1419 Bornem-Hingene$1786 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker 1544 Geertruidenberg-Amertak

1420 Brecht* 1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg

1421 Breendonk-Kasteel van Meerhof$ 1468 Wommelgem$1631 1546 Geldrop-Begraafplaats 't Zand

1422 Deurne-Kasteel Boekenberg* 1469 Wommelgem-Kerk 1547 Gemond I

1423 Duffel* 1501 Alphen I 1548 Grave-Maasstraat

1424 Ekeren-Wilgenhoeve 1502 Bavel* 1549 Halder*

1425 Geel-Lissel 1503 Beers* 1550 Haps$1986

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 1504 Berlicum* 1551 Heesbeen*

1427 Grobbendonk-Hoogveld 1505 Best I 1552 Helvoirt*

1428 Grobbendonk-Floris Primstraat 1506 Boschkant I 1553 Den Bosch-Pettelaarse plas

1429 Grobbendonk-Boshoven 1507 Boxtel I 1554 Den Bosch*

1430 Grobbendonk-Klokkeven 1508 Boxtel II 1555 Den Bosch-Maas

1431 Herentals$1881-2 1509 Boxtel III 1557 Hilvarenbeek-Van Aldeneijkstraat

1432 Hingene$1846 1510 Breda-Haagse Beemden 1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers

1433 Hingene$1783 1511 Breda* 1559 Hapert I

1434 Hoogstraten-Vlamingenstraat 1512 Breda-Hoge Vucht 1560 Hoogeloon-Hoogcasterenseweg

1435 Kempen* 1513 Budel I 1561 Den Hout*

270 Site Name

1562 Kessel-Baggergaten 1609 Grevenbicht* 1656 Berlicum-Hoogstraat

1563 Lith-Klein Bergen 1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen 1657 Berlicum-Oude Bossche Baan

1564 Lith* 1611 Groeningen* 1658 Beugen I

1565 Lith*/2 1612 Horst-centrum 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor

1566 Maren-Jachthaven 1613 Hout-Blerick 1660 Borkel-grens

1567 Maren-Kessel 1614 Kessel-De Bercht 1661 Vierlingsbeek-Molenbeek

1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 1615 Linne-omgeving van Linne 1662 Boxmeer*

1569 Nederweert-Strateris 1616 Maastricht-Wolder 1663 Boxmeer I

1570 Nistelrode-Vorsseld 1617 Maastricht-St.Pietersberg 1664 Boxmeer-Fabrieksstraat

1571 Oijen* 1618 Maastricht-De Heeg 1665 Breda-Saksen Weimarlaan

1572 Oirschot* 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 1666 Breda-Ulvenhout

1573 Oirschot-Kasteren 1620 Meijel-Berg 1667 Breda-Princenhage

1574 Oirschot I 1621 Meijel-Willibrordushof 1668 Budel*

1575 Oirschot II 1622 Mook* 1669 Casteren-De Polder

1576 Oirschot III 1623 Mook-Mokerhei 1670 Casteren-Casterse Molen

1577 Oosterhout(BR)* 1624 Nederweert-Wessemerdijk 1671 Chaam I

1578 Oss-Vierwindenlaan 1625 Neer-Backerbosch 1672 Cuijk-Wolfskuil

1579 Ossendrecht* 1626 Neeritter-Oude Herberg 1673 Cuijk-Maas

1580 Oud-Gastel-Stoofstraat 1627 Obbicht* 1674 Cuijk-Maasstraat

1581 Oud-Heusden* 1628 Obbicht-villa 1675 Cuijk&omgeving

1582 Ravenstein* 1629 Ottersum* 1676 Benedenland van Cuijk

1583 Rijsbergen I 1630 Roermond I 1677 Dennenburg*

1584 St.Michielsgestel* 1631 Roermond-Bos 1678 Deurne I$1910

1585 St.Michielsgestel-Hazenakker 1632 R"mer?* 1679 Deurne*

1586 St.Michielsgestel I 1633 Maastricht I 1680 Deurne II

1587 St.Michielsgestel-Barri%r weg 1634 Rijkel-grindwinning 1681 Deurne-St.Jozef

1588 St.Oedenrode* 1635 Maastricht-St.Pieter 1682 Deursen I

1589 Someren I 1636 Venlo-trimbaan 1683 Diessen*

1590 Son-Hooidonkse Akkers 1637 Venlo-Kop van de Wiert 1684 Drunen*

1591 Son* 1638 Weert-Tuindorpstraat 1685 Eindhoven-stad

1592 Teeffelen* 1639 Wolder* 1686 Eindhoven*

1593 Velp I 1640 Aa* 1687 Eindhoven-Heesterakker

1594 Vught-Dommel 1641 Aalst-Brug Tongelreep 1688 Eindhoven-Oude Gracht

1595 Maastricht-Amby 1642 Aarle* 1689 Eindhoven-centrum

1596 Arcen-Bierbrouwerij 1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 1690 Empel-Maaspoort

1597 Beegden I 1644 Alphen-'wachttoren' 1691 Engelen-Kerk

1598 Beegden* 1645 Alphen* 1692 Engelen-Dieze/eiland

1599 Beesel-Schoolberg 1646 Alphen-Op den Dekt 1693 Engelen-Maas

1600 Beesel-Schellekensberg 1647 Wouw I 1694 Esch I$1766

1601 Beesel-Rijkel 1648 Bakel* 1695 Esch-Tongersche? heide

1602 Boekend* 1649 Beers-Het Westen 1696 Esch*

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 1650 Bergeijk* 1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht

1604 Gennep* 1651 Berghem-Heide 1698 Escharen*

1605 Gennep-Maaskamp 1652 Berghem-Het Broek 1699 Escharen-Escharensche brug

1606 Gennep-Veenweg 1653 Berghem-Op de Hoge Tussenreten 1700 Escharen-Rotse Weg

1607 Genooi-Hogeweg 1654 Berlicum-Aa 1701 Gassel-Hogendijk

1608 Grashoek* 1655 Berlicum I 1702 Geldrop*

271 Site Name

1703 Gemonde-De Hogert 1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 1797 Rosmalen-De Bunder

1704 Gemonde* 1751 Kessel* 1798 Ruimel-Kapelberg

1705 Gilze-Rijen I 1752 Kessel-Lith 1799 Rijen*

1706 Ginneken* 1753 Linden* 1800 Rijsbergen-Tiggeltsche Akkers

1707 Goirle-Abcoven 1754 Knegsel-Steensel 1801 Schaijk*

1708 Goirle* 1755 Lage Mierde I 1802 Schaijk-Hoogheistraat

1709 Grave* 1756 Leende* 1803 Schaijk-Gaalsche Heide

1710 Grave-Maas 1757 Leende-Akker Oosterik 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936

1711 Grave-Maas/2 1758 Lieshout I 1805 Someren-Aa

1712 Groeningen I 1759 Lith-Maas 1806 Someren*

1713 Linden I 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham 1807 Son-Dommel

1714 Halder-oven 1761 Lith-Tussen de Stegen 1808 St.Agatha I

1715 Halder-Doveninstituut 1762 Lithoijen-Klootskamp 1809 St.Michielsgestel-Schijndelseweg

1716 Halder I 1763 Luijksgestel* 1810 St.Michielsgestel-Zegenweg

1717 Hapert-De Vloed 1764 Maas I 1811 St.Oedenrode-Nijnsel

1718 Hapert-Beerze 1765 Maas* 1812 Stiphout-Oude Toren

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 1766 Maashees$1840 1813 Teeffelen II

1720 Hapert* 1767 Maashees-Vliegenberg 1814 Teeffelen-Akker De Honing

1721 Haren I 1768 Maren-Oude Maas 1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds

1722 Hedikhuizen* 1769 Maren* 1816 Teeffelen-Weteringstraat

1723 Hedikhuizen-dorp 1770 Maren-Maas 1817 Teeffelen-Eikberg

1724 Heerle* 1771 Megen-Maas 1818 Terheijden$1780

1725 Heers$1893 1772 Megen I 1819 Terover I

1726 Heesbeen I 1773 Mill-Hollander Broek 1820 Tilburg*

1727 Heeswijk-Kasteel 1774 Mun I 1821 Uden I

1728 Heeswijk* 1775 Nederwetten-Op de Heibult$1939 1822 Uden-Leijgraaf

1729 Helmond-Kerkstraat 1776 Netersel-Kasteel 1823 Valkenswaard-grafveld

1730 Helmond-Molenstraat/Paterskerk 1777 Noord-Brabant* 1824 Veghel*

1731 Helvoirt-hei 1778 Nuenen-Boord 1825 Veghel I

1732 Herpen-Molenveld 1779 Oisterwijk-Ven 1826 Veghel-Aa

1733 Herpen* 1780 Oisterwijk* 1827 Veldhoven-opgr. RMO 1909

1734 Den Bosch-De Maij 1781 Oosterhout-Muldersteeg 1828 Veldhoven-Koningshof

1735 Den Bosch-Dieze 1782 Oosterhout-Oude Bredasebaan 1829 Veldhoven-De Heiblom

1736 Den Bosch-IJzeren Vrouw 1783 Oosterhout-Houtsche Akkers 1830 Veldhoven-Heers

1737 Den Bosch-Jan Heinstraat 1784 Oosterhout-Markkanaal 1831 Veldhoven-Oeyenbosch

1738 Den Bosch-Postelstraat 1785 Oijen-Lutterweg 1832 Velp-Het Doevestuk

1739 Den Bosch-Berewoutstraat 1786 Orthen-IJZeren Oom 1833 Velp*

1740 Den Bosch-Schutsluis 1787 Oss-omgeving 1834 Vianen I

1741 Den Bosch-Orthenpoort 1788 Oss-Danenhoef 1835 Vierlingsbeek-Smakterveld

1742 Heult* 1789 Oss-Ossche Meer 1836 Vierlingsbeek*

1743 Heusden-Pelsestraat 1790 Oss* 1837 Vlierden-Hei bij Asten

1744 Hilvarenbeek* 1791 Oss-Ussen 1838 Vlierden-Brouwhuis

1745 Nieuw-Vossemeer-Hogendijk? 1792 Oudenbosch* 1839 Vorstenbosch*

1746 Hoogeind* 1793 Ravenstein-De Kalfsheuvel 1840 Vught-Bleijendijk

1747 Hoogeloon-Kaboutersberg 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel 1841 Vught-Bleijendijk$1962

1748 Den Hout-Ruiterspoor 1795 Roosendaal* 1842 Vught-Gentdijk

1749 St.Oedenrode-Jekschot$1942 1796 Rosmalen* 1843 Vught*

272 Site Name

1844 Vught-Huize Bergen 1891 Echt-Stadsgracht 1938 Kessel-Donkzicht

1845 Vught-Esch 1892 Echt-Koningsbosch 1939 Kesseleik-Hei

1846 Vught-Steenwijk 1893 Echt-graf Ham 1940 Kesseleik-Lauterd

1847 Waalwijk-Eerste Zeine 1894 Echt-graf Doordhuis 1941 Leeuwen*

1848 Walik I 1895 Echt-Peyerstraat 1942 Limmel*

1849 Westerhoven-Lange Akkers 1896 Echt-graf Ophoven 1943 Linne I

1850 Woensel$?1607 1897 Echt-Op de Haeselaar 1944 Linne-Mortelshof

1851 Wolfswinkel-Oorlogskerkhof 1898 Echt-graf Tuinstraat 1945 Linne-Osseberg

1852 Wouw* 1899 Echt-graf Steenfabriek 1946 Linne*

1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 1900 Echt-graf Slagmolen 1947 Hanik-Valkenberg

1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 1901 Eijsden-Caestert Beemden 1948 Lottum-Kerk

1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten 1902 Eijsden* 1949 Gennep-Maas

1856 Teeffelen I 1903 Gennep-Niers 1950 Mook-Maas

1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat 1904 Geulle* 1951 Maas(L)*

1858 Strijp$1919 1905 Geysteren-Horst 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker

1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 1906 Grevenbicht I 1953 Maasniel-De Straat

1860 Amby-Op de Heukel 1907 Grubbenvorst-Hermanushoeve 1954 Meerlo*

1861 Asselt* 1908 Grubbenvorst* 1955 Meerlo-Gun

1862 Baarlo* 1909 Haelen-Melenberg 1956 Meerlo-Postbaan

1863 Baarlo-Kerk$1830 1910 Haelen* 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg

1864 Baexem* 1911 Haelen-Starrebosch 1958 Meerssen*

1865 Baexem-Op den Bosch 1912 Haelen-zandafgraving 1959 Merum-Drususberg

1866 Baexem-Op den Bosch/2 1913 Hanssum* 1960 Merum*

1867 Beek-DSM 1914 Heel* 1961 Middelaar-Mokerplas

1868 Beek-opgraving Steenbakkerij 1915 Heel-Langven 1962 Middelaar-Witteweg

1869 Beesel* 1916 Heel-Reutsberg 1963 Montfort$1888

1870 Beesel I 1917 Heel I 1964 Montfort-Rozendaal

1871 Kessel(L) I 1918 Heel II 1965 Montfort-Groot Broek

1872 Beesel-Het Haselt 1919 Heel-Pompstation 1966 Montfort-Genoudenhof

1873 Beesel-Prinsendijk 1920 Heel-Beegder heide 1967 Montfort*

1874 Bergen-Akker Duitse grens 1921 Heer-Backerbosch 1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn

1875 Blerick-Maas 1922 Heer* 1969 Montfort-Het Broek

1876 Blerick* 1923 Helden* 1970 Mook-Plasmolense Hof

1877 Born I 1924 Helden-Houwenberg 1971 Mook-Lodewijkstraat

1878 Born-Buchten 1925 Herten-Ool 1972 Neer*

1879 Born-Kasteel 1926 Herten* 1973 Neer-De Boshei

1880 Broekhuizenvorst-Kasteel Ooijen 1927 Heythuizen-Houwenberg/Houtsberg? 1974 Nunhem-Nunhemmer Heide

1881 Buggenum-Wijnardenweg 1928 Horn* 1975 Obbicht-Op het Campus

1882 Buggenum* 1929 Horst* 1976 Obbicht-Kempenweg

1883 Bunde-Weg Meerssen-Beek 1930 Hout-goudakker 1977 Obbicht-Steenakker

1884 Diekendaal* 1931 Hunsel* 1978 Oijen(L)

1885 Echt* 1932 Hunsel-Baakhuisven 1979 Peij*

1886 Echt-Peij 1933 Ittervoort-Neeritter 1980 Reuver-De Schans

1887 Echt-Eikenstraat 1934 Ittervoort* 1981 Reuver-Keulseweg

1888 Echt-Abeelstraat 1935 Ittervoort-Kessenich 1982 Roermond-Mouterij Beltjeur

1889 Echt-Kerk 1936 Kessel I 1983 Roermond-Maas

1890 Echt-Vuilslakkeweg? 1937 Kessel-Tasbeek 1984 Roermond-Brugstraat

273 Site Name

1985 Rothem* 2033 Maastricht-Helmstraat 2080 Rumst-Nete

1986 Sevenum I 2034 Maastricht-Wilhelminabrug 2081 Wommelgem-Uilenbaan

1988 St.Odili%nberg-'t Sittert 2035 Maastricht-St.Bernardusstraat 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers

1989 St.Odili%nberg* 2036 Maastricht-Wittevrouwenveld 2106 Knegsel I

1990 St.Odili%nberg II 2037 Maastricht-St.Pieterstraat 2107 Knegsel II

1991 Stein-Nieuwstraat 2038 Maastricht-Graaf v. Waldeckstraa 2108 Duizel-De Heidalen

1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg 2039 Maastricht-St.Servaesbrug 2109 Geldrop I

1993 Stein-Houtereind 2040 Maastricht-St.Servaeskerk 2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast

1994 Stein* 2041 Maastricht-Industrieweg 2111 Geldrop II

1995 Stevensweert* 2042 Maastricht-Maas/Eksterstraat 2112 Geldrop-Genoenhuis

1996 Tegelen-Steijl 2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 2113 Vessem-Grootakker

1997 Susteren* 2044 Maastricht-Belfort 2114 Hapert-Steenakkers

1998 Swalmen-De Hout 2045 Maastricht-Vrijthof 2115 Blerick I$1994

1999 Swolgen* 2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 2116 Bladel-De Bus

2000 Tegelen-Oelerheide 2047 Maastricht-Randwijck 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort

2001 Venlo* 2048 N.-Brabant$1848 2140 Nederwetten I

2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats 2049 Wijshagen$1930 2141 Nederwetten II

2003 Venlo I 2050 Obbicht$1963-8 2143 Empel-temple

2004 Venlo-Grote Kerkstraat 2051 Grobbendonk$<1869

2005 Venlo II 2052 Koninksem I$1892

2006 Venlo-Jodenstraat 2053 Mechelen$<1842

2007 Venlo-Casinoweg 2054 Helchteren$<1910

2008 Venray* 2055 Achel$1936

2009 Vredepeel-Polse Koelen 2056 Maastricht-C,ramique

2010 Wanssum-Pesch weide 2057 Maastricht-St.Maartenslaan

2011 Wanssum* 2058 Maastricht-Eikelkeslei

2012 Well* 2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon

2013 Wessem* 2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas

2014 Beegden-Maas 2061 Maastricht-Hondstraat

2015 Catsop-Hemelbeek 2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat

2016 Roermond* 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat

2017 Maastricht-Augustijnenkerk 2064 Maastricht-O.L.Vrouweplein$1983

2018 Maastricht-Jodenstraat 2065 Maastricht-St.Servaas-Stiftskape

2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 2066 Koninksem$1894

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 2067 Balen-Wezel-Kopbergen

2021 Maastricht* 2068 Dessel-Brasel

2022 Maastricht-Boschstraat 2069 Mechelen-Battel*

2023 Maastricht-Kleine Gracht 2070 Battel-Zennegat

2024 Maastricht-O.L.Vrouweplein 2071 Battel-Varkenstraat

2025 Maastricht-St.Maartenspoort 2072 Mechelen-omgeving

2026 Maastricht-Wijk/grafveld 2073 Mechelen-Koeiepoort

2027 Maastricht-O.L.Vrouwepoort 2074 Genebroek-Hertstraat

2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat 2075 Genebroek-Herenststaat

2029 Maastricht-Kruisherengang 2076 Genebroek-Peeterslei

2030 Maastricht-Maasbrug 2077 Muizen-Wielenveld

2031 Maastricht-Maas 2078 Zandhoven I

2032 Maastricht-H.Geeststraat 2079 Rumst-Molenveld

274 Appendix 10: the coins of the Dutch river area and the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area by site and by issue period

Site Name Period Coins 24 Druten-Klepperhei AntPius 1

Dutch river area 24 Druten-Klepperhei 222-238 1

1 WBD-De Horden Missing 24 24 Druten-Klepperhei 260-275 1

1 WBD-De Horden Republic 27 27 Beuningen-De Tinnegieter Flavii 1

1 WBD-De Horden Celtic 9 39 Nijmegen-Hees Missing 6

1 WBD-De Horden Augustus 42 39 Nijmegen-Hees Augustus 2

1 WBD-De Horden Tib/Cal 14 39 Nijmegen-Hees Tib/Cal 1

1 WBD-De Horden Claudius 18 39 Nijmegen-Hees Claudius 1

1 WBD-De Horden Nero-68 19 39 Nijmegen-Hees Flavii 4

1 WBD-De Horden Flavii 26 39 Nijmegen-Hees Nerva/Traj 3

1 WBD-De Horden Nerva/Traj 7 39 Nijmegen-Hees AntPius 2

1 WBD-De Horden Hadrian 6 39 Nijmegen-Hees 330-348 1

1 WBD-De Horden AntPius 7 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I Augustus 3

1 WBD-De Horden Commodus 1 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I Tib/Cal 2

1 WBD-De Horden 193-222 6 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I Hadrian 1

1 WBD-De Horden 260-275 3 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I AntPius 1

1 WBD-De Horden 330-348 2 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I MAurelius 1

1 WBD-De Horden 348-364 3 41 Nijmegen-Valkhof I 193-222 1

1 WBD-De Horden 378-388 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Missing 10

5 Bennekom-Achterstraat Missing 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Augustus 14

6 Rhenen-Utrechtsestraatweg II 296-317 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Tib/Cal 7

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg Missing 2 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Claudius 4

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg AntPius 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Nero-68 4

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg 238-260 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Flavii 15

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg 275-296 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Nerva/Traj 2

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg 296-317 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west Hadrian 1

7 Wageningen-Diedenweg 348-364 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 275-296 1

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat Missing 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 296-317 3

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat Republic 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 317-330 2

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat Augustus 3 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 330-348 29

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat Flavii 1 45 Nijmegen-Hunerberg west 348-364 3

9 Kesteren-Nedereindsestraat Commodus 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt Missing 1

15 Arnhem-Meinerswijk Missing 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt Augustus 1

15 Arnhem-Meinerswijk Nero-68 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt Flavii 3

15 Arnhem-Meinerswijk Flavii 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt Nerva/Traj 3

19 Ressen-Kerkenhof Celtic 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt Hadrian 1

19 Ressen-Kerkenhof Augustus 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt AntPius 1

19 Ressen-Kerkenhof Flavii 1 46 Nijmegen-Schildersbuurt MAurelius 2

19 Ressen-Kerkenhof 193-222 1 47 Nijmegen-Museum Kamstraat Flavii 1

20 Ressen-De Woerdt Celtic 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Missing 12

20 Ressen-De Woerdt Augustus 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Republic 7

20 Ressen-De Woerdt Nero-68 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Celtic 4

20 Ressen-De Woerdt MAurelius 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Augustus 58

20 Ressen-De Woerdt Commodus 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Tib/Cal 6

20 Ressen-De Woerdt 193-222 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Claudius 17

20 Ressen-De Woerdt 260-275 2 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Nero-68 37

20 Ressen-De Woerdt 330-348 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Flavii 96

24 Druten-Klepperhei Augustus 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* Nerva/Traj 16

24 Druten-Klepperhei Claudius 1 50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* AntPius 1

275 Site Name Period Coins

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* MAurelius 1 65 Alem-Oude Maas Nerva/Traj 3

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* 260-275 1 65 Alem-Oude Maas Hadrian 1

50 Nijmegen-Hunerberg* 364-378 1 65 Alem-Oude Maas AntPius 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Missing 2 66 Alphen-a/d-Maas* Missing 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Republic 1 66 Alphen-a/d-Maas* Tib/Cal 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Augustus 7 67 Ammerzoden* Flavii 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Tib/Cal 6 67 Ammerzoden* Nerva/Traj 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Claudius 1 68 Arnhem-Prinsenhof 330-348 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Nero-68 1 69 Arnhem* Republic 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Flavii 13 69 Arnhem* Tib/Cal 1

52 Nijmegen-Hunerberg oost Nerva/Traj 2 69 Arnhem* Nero-68 1

60 Aalst* Missing 1 69 Arnhem* Flavii 1

60 Aalst* Republic 1 69 Arnhem* Nerva/Traj 3

60 Aalst* Celtic 3 69 Arnhem* AntPius 1

60 Aalst* Augustus 2 69 Arnhem* MAurelius 2

60 Aalst* Tib/Cal 2 69 Arnhem* 193-222 1

60 Aalst* Nero-68 2 69 Arnhem* 222-238 2

60 Aalst* Flavii 3 69 Arnhem* 238-260 1

60 Aalst* Nerva/Traj 1 70 Batenburg* Flavii 3

60 Aalst* Hadrian 3 70 Batenburg* Nerva/Traj 1

60 Aalst* AntPius 2 70 Batenburg* MAurelius 1

60 Aalst* MAurelius 1 70 Batenburg* 222-238 1

60 Aalst* Commodus 1 71 Beek* Missing 42

60 Aalst* 193-222 2 71 Beek* Augustus 1

60 Aalst* 260-275 1 71 Beek* Nero-68 1

60 Aalst* 317-330 1 71 Beek* Flavii 1

60 Aalst* 330-348 3 71 Beek* Commodus 1

60 Aalst* 348-364 1 71 Beek* 348-364 1

60 Aalst* 364-378 1 72 Beesd* 378-388 1

60 Aalst* 378-388 1 73 Bemmel* MAurelius 1

60 Aalst* 388-402 2 73 Bemmel* 330-348 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Missing 2 74 Berg en Dal* Flavii 5

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Celtic 2 74 Berg en Dal* Nerva/Traj 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Augustus 1 75 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn II Missing 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Flavii 1 75 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn II MAurelius 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat MAurelius 1 76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* Augustus 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 260-275 12 76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* Flavii 3

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 330-348 2 76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* AntPius 4

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 348-364 3 76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* MAurelius 3

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 364-378 1 76 Berg en Dal-De Holdeurn* 193-222 1

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 388-402 3 77 Bergakker* AntPius 1

62 Aam* Nerva/Traj 1 77 Bergakker* 193-222 2

63 Alem* Missing 1 77 Bergakker* 222-238 1

64 Alem-Marensche Waarden Celtic 1 77 Bergakker* 330-348 1

64 Alem-Marensche Waarden Augustus 1 78 Bergharen-De Galgenberg 317-330 1

64 Alem-Marensche Waarden Flavii 1 78 Bergharen-De Galgenberg 330-348 1

64 Alem-Marensche Waarden Commodus 1 79 Betuwe* Claudius 1

65 Alem-Oude Maas Celtic 3 79 Betuwe* Nero-68 1

65 Alem-Oude Maas Augustus 8 79 Betuwe* Hadrian 1

65 Alem-Oude Maas Tib/Cal 5 80 Beuningen-De Heuve Commodus 1

65 Alem-Oude Maas Flavii 1 80 Beuningen-De Heuve 348-364 1

276 Site Name Period Coins

80 Beuningen-De Heuve 364-378 1 99 Echteld* Republic 1

80 Beuningen-De Heuve 378-388 2 99 Echteld* Celtic 3

80 Beuningen-De Heuve 388-402 1 99 Echteld* Augustus 7

81 Beusichem* 260-275 1 99 Echteld* Tib/Cal 1

81 Beusichem* 378-388 1 99 Echteld* Flavii 1

82 Bommelerwaard* 378-388 1 99 Echteld* Nerva/Traj 1

83 Bruchem* Flavii 2 99 Echteld* MAurelius 1

83 Bruchem* 193-222 2 99 Echteld* Commodus 1

84 Buren* Republic 4 99 Echteld* 193-222 3

84 Buren* Celtic 1 99 Echteld* 222-238 1

84 Buren* Tib/Cal 1 99 Echteld* 260-275 16

84 Buren* Nero-68 1 99 Echteld* 317-330 10

84 Buren* Flavii 7 100 Eck en Wiel* Missing 5

84 Buren* Hadrian 2 100 Eck en Wiel* MAurelius 2

84 Buren* MAurelius 2 100 Eck en Wiel* Commodus 2

84 Buren* 193-222 2 100 Eck en Wiel* 193-222 6

84 Buren* 222-238 1 100 Eck en Wiel* 222-238 10

84 Buren* 317-330 1 100 Eck en Wiel* 238-260 20

84 Buren* 348-364 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Missing 2

85 Bijlandse Waard* Republic 57 101 Elst-Brienenshof Missing 3

85 Bijlandse Waard* Augustus 4 101 Elst-Brienenshof Republic 2

85 Bijlandse Waard* Claudius 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Celtic 1

86 Culemborg 330-348 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Augustus 6

87 Deest* Nero-68 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Tib/Cal 6

88 Deil* Missing 2 101 Elst-Brienenshof Claudius 2

88 Deil* Celtic 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Nero-68 1

88 Deil* Claudius 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Flavii 4

88 Deil* Nero-68 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof Nerva/Traj 6

88 Deil* Flavii 3 101 Elst-Brienenshof Hadrian 2

88 Deil* Nerva/Traj 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof AntPius 1

88 Deil* 260-275 3 101 Elst-Brienenshof MAurelius 8

89 Deil-Hooiblok 260-275 2 101 Elst-Brienenshof 193-222 2

89 Deil-Hooiblok 330-348 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 222-238 1

90 Delwijnen* Missing 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 260-275 8

91 Dodewaard* Missing 2 101 Elst-Brienenshof 296-317 1

91 Dodewaard* Republic 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 317-330 6

91 Dodewaard* MAurelius 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 330-348 14

91 Dodewaard* 193-222 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 348-364 2

92 Doornenburg* Flavii 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 364-378 15

93 Doornik* >402 1 101 Elst-Brienenshof 378-388 3

94 Dreumel* 364-378 2 101 Elst-Brienenshof 388-402 8

94 Dreumel* 388-402 1 102 Elst* Missing 1

95 Driel* Missing 1 102 Elst* Celtic 32

95 Driel* Augustus 1 102 Elst* Augustus 3

95 Driel* MAurelius 1 102 Elst* Flavii 1

96 Drumpt Missing 2 102 Elst* 193-222 2

97 Druten* Missing 1 102 Elst* 296-317 1

97 Druten* Republic 1 102 Elst* 330-348 4

97 Druten* Nerva/Traj 1 102 Elst* 364-378 2

98 Druten-Boldershof Missing 1 102 Elst* 388-402 1

99 Echteld* Missing 2 103 Enspijk* Missing 1

277 Site Name Period Coins

103 Enspijk* Republic 1 112 Hedel* Nerva/Traj 1

104 Est* Celtic 1 112 Hedel* Hadrian 1

104 Est* AntPius 1 112 Hedel* AntPius 1

104 Est* MAurelius 1 113 Heteren* Nero-68 1

104 Est* 193-222 1 113 Heteren* Flavii 1

104 Est* 260-275 1 113 Heteren* Hadrian 1

104 Est* 317-330 1 113 Heteren* 238-260 1

104 Est* 330-348 1 113 Heteren* 260-275 1

105 IJzendoorn* Missing 1 114 Heumensoord* 364-378 8

105 IJzendoorn* Celtic 1 115 Homoet* Augustus 1

105 IJzendoorn* Augustus 2 116 Kapel-Avezaath* Missing 1

105 IJzendoorn* Claudius 2 116 Kapel-Avezaath* AntPius 1

105 IJzendoorn* Nero-68 1 117 Kerk-Avezaath I Augustus 3

105 IJzendoorn* Flavii 1 117 Kerk-Avezaath I Flavii 1

105 IJzendoorn* Nerva/Traj 1 117 Kerk-Avezaath I Hadrian 1

105 IJzendoorn* Hadrian 3 117 Kerk-Avezaath I AntPius 2

105 IJzendoorn* Commodus 1 117 Kerk-Avezaath I MAurelius 1

105 IJzendoorn* 193-222 1 117 Kerk-Avezaath I 193-222 1

105 IJzendoorn* 260-275 2 117 Kerk-Avezaath I 260-275 1

105 IJzendoorn* 330-348 4 117 Kerk-Avezaath I 317-330 1

106 Ewijk* Missing 30 118 Kerkdriel* Commodus 2

106 Ewijk* Republic 1 119 Kerkwijk* Augustus 1

106 Ewijk* Celtic 1 119 Kerkwijk* Tib/Cal 1

106 Ewijk* Augustus 3 119 Kerkwijk* Flavii 1

106 Ewijk* Tib/Cal 1 119 Kerkwijk* Hadrian 2

106 Ewijk* Nero-68 1 119 Kerkwijk* MAurelius 1

106 Ewijk* Nerva/Traj 2 119 Kerkwijk* 193-222 1

106 Ewijk* AntPius 1 119 Kerkwijk* 364-378 1

106 Ewijk* MAurelius 2 119 Kerkwijk* 378-388 4

106 Ewijk* 193-222 2 119 Kerkwijk* 388-402 2

106 Ewijk* 260-275 7 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria Augustus 3

106 Ewijk* 317-330 4 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria Tib/Cal 3

106 Ewijk* 330-348 4 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria Claudius 1

106 Ewijk* 348-364 2 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria Nero-68 1

106 Ewijk* 364-378 5 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria Hadrian 2

106 Ewijk* 378-388 1 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria AntPius 2

106 Ewijk* 388-402 6 120 Kesteren-Villa Maria 193-222 1

106 Ewijk* >402 2 121 Lienden* Celtic 4

107 Gameren* Republic 1 121 Lienden* Augustus 1

108 Geldermalsen* Nerva/Traj 1 121 Lienden* Tib/Cal 1

108 Geldermalsen* 260-275 1 121 Lienden* Claudius 1

109 Gellicum* Missing 2 121 Lienden* Flavii 2

109 Gellicum* Nerva/Traj 2 121 Lienden* MAurelius 1

109 Gellicum* 193-222 1 121 Lienden* 330-348 1

110 Missing 2 122 Loowaard-Kandia Missing 4

111 Haaften* Celtic 1 122 Loowaard-Kandia Republic 1

111 Haaften* Claudius 1 122 Loowaard-Kandia Augustus 6

112 Hedel* Missing 4 122 Loowaard-Kandia Tib/Cal 2

112 Hedel* Republic 1 122 Loowaard-Kandia Claudius 4

112 Hedel* Celtic 1 122 Loowaard-Kandia Nero-68 1

112 Hedel* Augustus 1 122 Loowaard-Kandia Flavii 4

278 Site Name Period Coins

122 Loowaard-Kandia Nerva/Traj 2 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering MAurelius 4

122 Loowaard-Kandia Hadrian 1 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 193-222 2

122 Loowaard-Kandia MAurelius 1 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 222-238 1

122 Loowaard-Kandia 193-222 6 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 260-275 6

122 Loowaard-Kandia 222-238 2 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 296-317 1

123 Maurik-Rijnoever Nero-68 2 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 317-330 2

123 Maurik-Rijnoever Flavii 4 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 330-348 3

123 Maurik-Rijnoever Nerva/Traj 1 127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering 348-364 3

123 Maurik-Rijnoever Hadrian 1 128 Medel-Hoge Hof Nero-68 1

123 Maurik-Rijnoever AntPius 2 128 Medel-Hoge Hof Nerva/Traj 1

123 Maurik-Rijnoever Commodus 1 128 Medel-Hoge Hof 330-348 2

123 Maurik-Rijnoever 260-275 1 129 Merm* Celtic 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik Republic 1 129 Merm* Flavii 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik Tib/Cal 3 129 Merm* 193-222 2

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik Nero-68 1 129 Merm* 222-238 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik Flavii 5 130 Meteren-De Dell Hadrian 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik Nerva/Traj 1 131 Nederhemert* Augustus 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik 193-222 1 132 Neerijnen-Hoge Tieflaar II Missing 6

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik 260-275 1 132 Neerijnen-Hoge Tieflaar II Republic 1

124 Maurik-Eiland van Maurik 330-348 1 132 Neerijnen-Hoge Tieflaar II Augustus 2

125 Maurik-Parkstraat Missing 1 133 Neerijnen* Missing 3

125 Maurik-Parkstraat Augustus 2 133 Neerijnen* Nerva/Traj 2

125 Maurik-Parkstraat Tib/Cal 1 133 Neerijnen* Hadrian 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat Claudius 2 133 Neerijnen* 378-388 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat Nerva/Traj 1 134 Neerijnen-villaterrein 260-275 10

125 Maurik-Parkstraat AntPius 1 135 Nieuwaal* Missing 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat MAurelius 4 135 Nieuwaal* Celtic 10

125 Maurik-Parkstraat 193-222 3 135 Nieuwaal* Tib/Cal 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat 222-238 2 135 Nieuwaal* Flavii 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat 348-364 2 135 Nieuwaal* 193-222 1

125 Maurik-Parkstraat >402 1 135 Nieuwaal* 260-275 5

126 Maurik* Republic 1 135 Nieuwaal* 330-348 1

126 Maurik* Augustus 1 135 Nieuwaal* 364-378 3

126 Maurik* Tib/Cal 1 135 Nieuwaal* 378-388 4

126 Maurik* Claudius 1 135 Nieuwaal* 388-402 1

126 Maurik* Flavii 1 136 Ommeren* Missing 1

126 Maurik* Nerva/Traj 5 136 Ommeren* Republic 1

126 Maurik* Hadrian 2 136 Ommeren* Nero-68 1

126 Maurik* AntPius 3 136 Ommeren* MAurelius 1

126 Maurik* MAurelius 1 136 Ommeren* 260-275 7

126 Maurik* 193-222 1 136 Ommeren* 317-330 1

126 Maurik* 222-238 1 136 Ommeren* 330-348 3

126 Maurik* 260-275 2 137 Ommeren-Ommerensche Veld Republic 1

126 Maurik* 364-378 1 137 Ommeren-Ommerensche Veld Nerva/Traj 1

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Missing 15 137 Ommeren-Ommerensche Veld >402 1

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Augustus 3 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng Missing 4

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Tib/Cal 1 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng Tib/Cal 2

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Flavii 4 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng Flavii 1

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Nerva/Traj 2 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng Commodus 1

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering Hadrian 1 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng 222-238 1

127 Maurik-Maurikse Wetering AntPius 7 138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng 260-275 31

279 Site Name Period Coins

138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng 330-348 2 145 Opijnen* Nero-68 1

138 Ommeren-De Oude Eng >402 5 145 Opijnen* 260-275 2

139 Oosterhout-De Grift 348-364 1 146 Passewaaij* Nerva/Traj 1

140 Oosterhout-Verburgtskolk 330-348 1 146 Passewaaij* AntPius 1

141 Ophemert* Missing 1 146 Passewaaij* 193-222 1

141 Ophemert* Celtic 1 146 Passewaaij* 260-275 3

141 Ophemert* Nero-68 1 147 Rossum* Republic 1

141 Ophemert* Nerva/Traj 2 147 Rossum* Tib/Cal 1

141 Ophemert* AntPius 1 147 Rossum* Claudius 1

141 Ophemert* MAurelius 1 147 Rossum* Nero-68 1

141 Ophemert* 193-222 1 147 Rossum* Flavii 1

141 Ophemert* 222-238 2 147 Rossum* Nerva/Traj 2

141 Ophemert* 238-260 1 147 Rossum* Hadrian 2

141 Ophemert* 317-330 2 147 Rossum* MAurelius 1

141 Ophemert* 330-348 1 147 Rossum* 193-222 2

141 Ophemert* 348-364 2 147 Rossum* 222-238 2

141 Ophemert* >402 1 147 Rossum* 238-260 4

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg Missing 2 147 Rossum* 260-275 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg Nerva/Traj 1 148 Rumpt* Celtic 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg AntPius 2 148 Rumpt* AntPius 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg MAurelius 2 148 Rumpt* 193-222 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg 260-275 5 149 Sint Andries* Celtic 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg 364-378 1 149 Sint Andries* Claudius 1

142 Ophemert-Brede Weg 388-402 1 149 Sint Andries* Nerva/Traj 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Missing 3 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd Celtic 2

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Celtic 3 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd Augustus 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Augustus 1 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd Nero-68 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Tib/Cal 2 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd Flavii 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Nero-68 4 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd 260-275 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof Nerva/Traj 4 150 Slijk-Ewijk-Kleine Woerd 330-348 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof MAurelius 2 151 260-275 5

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 193-222 2 152 Tiel-Villa Missing 3

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 238-260 1 152 Tiel-Villa 317-330 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 260-275 31 152 Tiel-Villa 330-348 2

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 330-348 9 152 Tiel-Villa 364-378 3

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 348-364 1 153 Tiel-Eierland Commodus 1

143 Ophemert-Elsevier/Keizershof 378-388 2 153 Tiel-Eierland 330-348 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Missing 1 154 Tiel* Missing 2

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Republic 1 154 Tiel* Augustus 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Augustus 2 154 Tiel* Tib/Cal 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Claudius 1 154 Tiel* Nero-68 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Flavii 1 154 Tiel* Flavii 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Nerva/Traj 1 154 Tiel* AntPius 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol Hadrian 2 154 Tiel* 238-260 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol AntPius 1 154 Tiel* 260-275 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol MAurelius 2 155 Valburg* Missing 2

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol 193-222 1 155 Valburg* Tib/Cal 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol 238-260 1 155 Valburg* Flavii 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol 260-275 2 155 Valburg* Hadrian 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol 275-296 1 155 Valburg* AntPius 1

144 Ophemert-Wilhelminahoeve/Mastmol 348-364 1 156 Velddriel-Hoenzaderdrielsedijk 222-238 2

280 Site Name Period Coins

157 Nijmegen-uiterwaarden Missing 1 164 Zaltbommel* Nero-68 1

158 Waardenburg* Augustus 1 164 Zaltbommel* Flavii 2

158 Waardenburg* Nero-68 1 164 Zaltbommel* Hadrian 1

158 Waardenburg* Nerva/Traj 1 164 Zaltbommel* 238-260 1

158 Waardenburg* 222-238 1 164 Zaltbommel* 330-348 1

158 Waardenburg* 238-260 1 165 Zennewijnen* Missing 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Missing 11 165 Zennewijnen* Claudius 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Republic 1 165 Zennewijnen* AntPius 4

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Celtic 8 165 Zennewijnen* MAurelius 2

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Augustus 3 166 Zoelen* Missing 2

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Nero-68 2 166 Zoelen* Augustus 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Flavii 3 166 Zoelen* Tib/Cal 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Nerva/Traj 2 166 Zoelen* Nerva/Traj 2

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Hadrian 6 166 Zoelen* Hadrian 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden AntPius 1 166 Zoelen* MAurelius 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden MAurelius 1 166 Zoelen* 348-364 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden Commodus 1 166 Zoelen* 388-402 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 193-222 7 167 Zoelen-Uiterdijk Tib/Cal 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 222-238 4 167 Zoelen-Uiterdijk 193-222 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 260-275 17 168 Zoelen-Beldert Missing 2

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 275-296 1 168 Zoelen-Beldert Celtic 3

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 330-348 5 168 Zoelen-Beldert Flavii 1

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 378-388 4 168 Zoelen-Beldert Hadrian 2

159 Waardenburg-Woerden 388-402 4 168 Zoelen-Beldert 260-275 2

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat Nero-68 1 169 Zuilichem* Tib/Cal 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat Flavii 1 169 Zuilichem* Nerva/Traj 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat Nerva/Traj 2 170 Celtic 2

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat AntPius 1 170 Augustus 2

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat MAurelius 2 170 193-222 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat 222-238 1 170 330-348 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat 260-275 1 170 364-378 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat 348-364 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Missing 1

160 Wadenoijen-Ophemertsestraat 378-388 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Augustus 3

161 Wadenoijen* Missing 21 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Tib/Cal 1

161 Wadenoijen* Republic 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Claudius 3

161 Wadenoijen* Flavii 2 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Flavii 2

161 Wadenoijen* Hadrian 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok Nerva/Traj 1

161 Wadenoijen* MAurelius 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok AntPius 3

161 Wadenoijen* 193-222 1 171 Nieuwegein-Blokhoeve/'t Blok 193-222 1

161 Wadenoijen* 260-275 3 172 Odijk* Celtic 1

161 Wadenoijen* 348-364 1 173 Remmerden* MAurelius 1

161 Wadenoijen* 388-402 3 174 Rhenen* Celtic 3

162 Wageningen* Nero-68 1 174 Rhenen* MAurelius 1

162 Wageningen* 193-222 1 174 Rhenen* Commodus 1

162 Wageningen* 348-364 1 174 Rhenen* 238-260 1

163 Wijchen-Grafveld Missing 4 174 Rhenen* 260-275 2

163 Wijchen-Grafveld Republic 1 174 Rhenen* 275-296 1

163 Wijchen-Grafveld Nerva/Traj 2 174 Rhenen* 348-364 2

163 Wijchen-Grafveld 330-348 1 174 Rhenen* 378-388 2

164 Zaltbommel* Celtic 1 174 Rhenen* >402 2

164 Zaltbommel* Tib/Cal 1 175 Schalkwijk* Nerva/Traj 1

281 Site Name Period Coins

175 Schalkwijk* Hadrian 1 182 Nerva/Traj 2

176 Vechten-castellum Missing 120 182 Hadrian 5

176 Vechten-castellum Republic 28 182 AntPius 2

176 Vechten-castellum Celtic 12 182 Commodus 1

176 Vechten-castellum Augustus 77 182 193-222 1

176 Vechten-castellum Tib/Cal 59 182 222-238 1

176 Vechten-castellum Claudius 29 183 Alphen a/d Rijn-De Vork Republic 2

176 Vechten-castellum Nero-68 13 183 Alphen a/d Rijn-De Vork Claudius 1

176 Vechten-castellum Flavii 75 183 Alphen a/d Rijn-De Vork Nerva/Traj 1

176 Vechten-castellum Nerva/Traj 18 183 Alphen a/d Rijn-De Vork AntPius 1

176 Vechten-castellum Hadrian 9 184 Alphen a/d Rijn-Kerk-Zanen Flavii 2

176 Vechten-castellum AntPius 28 184 Alphen a/d Rijn-Kerk-Zanen Hadrian 2

176 Vechten-castellum MAurelius 7 185 Alphen a/d Rijn-Kortsteekterpold Nero-68 1

176 Vechten-castellum Commodus 6 186 Alphen a/d Rijn-Lemkes Hadrian 1

176 Vechten-castellum 193-222 11 187 Alphen a/d Rijn-Europasingel Nerva/Traj 1

176 Vechten-castellum 222-238 5 188 Alphen a/d Rijn-algemeen AntPius 1

176 Vechten-castellum 238-260 1 189 Arkel-Linge 193-222 1

176 Vechten-castellum 260-275 23 190 Bodegraven* Tib/Cal 2

176 Vechten-castellum 317-330 2 190 Bodegraven* Claudius 2

176 Vechten-castellum 348-364 4 190 Bodegraven* Flavii 2

176 Vechten-castellum 378-388 1 190 Bodegraven* Nerva/Traj 1

177 Waal-Utrecht 222-238 1 190 Bodegraven* AntPius 1

178 Wijk bij Duurstede* Missing 2 191 Delft-Rijswijk AntPius 1

178 Wijk bij Duurstede* Hadrian 1 192 Den Haag-Waalsdorp 193-222 1

178 Wijk bij Duurstede* 193-222 1 193 Den Haag-Vleerstraat 330-348 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Missing 13 194 Dirksland* Hadrian 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Celtic 1 195 Dordrecht-Rietdijkshaven AntPius 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Augustus 1 196 Dordrecht-Poelstraat Nero-68 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Tib/Cal 1 197 Giessenburg-ruine Flavii 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Flavii 2 198 Gorinchem* Augustus 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Nerva/Traj 1 198 Gorinchem* Tib/Cal 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer Hadrian 2 198 Gorinchem* Flavii 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer AntPius 1 198 Gorinchem* Nerva/Traj 2

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer MAurelius 6 198 Gorinchem* 193-222 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 193-222 2 198 Gorinchem* 260-275 2

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 222-238 1 198 Gorinchem* 364-378 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 260-275 11 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg Missing 4

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 296-317 1 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg Augustus 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 317-330 1 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg Hadrian 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 330-348 27 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg AntPius 1

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 348-364 15 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg MAurelius 2

179 Wijk bij Duurstede-De Geer 378-388 2 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg 193-222 2

180 Woerden-Oranjestraat Flavii 1 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg 222-238 4

181 Alblasserdam* Nerva/Traj 1 199 Den Haag-Scheveningseweg 260-275 1

181 Alblasserdam* 330-348 1 200 Katwijk* Flavii 1

182 Missing 13 200 Katwijk* Hadrian 1

182 Augustus 3 200 Katwijk* AntPius 3

182 Tib/Cal 1 201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen Missing 1

182 Claudius 3 201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen Flavii 2

182 Nero-68 3 201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen Nerva/Traj 1

182 Flavii 17 201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen Hadrian 1

282 Site Name Period Coins

201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen 193-222 2 218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz AntPius 3

201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen 222-238 2 218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz MAurelius 2

201 Katwijk-uitwateringssluizen 260-275 3 218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz 193-222 2

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan Augustus 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Missing 4

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan Claudius 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Augustus 1

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan Flavii 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Flavii 2

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan Nerva/Traj 2 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Nerva/Traj 3

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan Hadrian 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Hadrian 2

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan AntPius 4 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul AntPius 6

202 Katwijk-Zanderij Westerbaan 330-348 2 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul MAurelius 4

203 Koudekerk a/d Rijn Flavii 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul Commodus 1

204 Leiden-IrDriesenplein Missing 1 219 Valkenburg-Marktveld/geul 193-222 1

205 Leiden-Houtsingel Hadrian 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Missing 1

206 Leiden-Merenwijk Nero-68 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Republic 1

207 Leiden-Hoge Woerd MAurelius 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Augustus 2

208 Leiderdorp- Flavii 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Tib/Cal 4

209 Leiderdorp-Buitenhof-oost Hadrian 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Claudius 3

210 Leiderdorp-monding Does Nerva/Traj 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz Flavii 5

211 Leiderdorp-algemeen Nerva/Traj 1 220 Valkenburg-De Woerd/nederz MAurelius 1

212 Papendrecht* Flavii 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Missing 4

212 Papendrecht* Nerva/Traj 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Republic 1

213 Rijswijk-Vliet 275-296 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Augustus 4

214 Rijswijk-Wilhelminapark 222-238 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Claudius 1

215 Leiden-Roomburg Augustus 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Nero-68 3

215 Leiden-Roomburg Tib/Cal 2 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Flavii 18

215 Leiden-Roomburg Claudius 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Nerva/Traj 4

215 Leiden-Roomburg Nero-68 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Hadrian 5

215 Leiden-Roomburg Flavii 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul AntPius 4

215 Leiden-Roomburg Nerva/Traj 3 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul MAurelius 1

215 Leiden-Roomburg AntPius 2 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul Commodus 2

215 Leiden-Roomburg MAurelius 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 193-222 1

215 Leiden-Roomburg Commodus 1 221 Valkenburg-De Woerd/geul 222-238 1

215 Leiden-Roomburg 193-222 1 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb Missing 1

215 Leiden-Roomburg 222-238 1 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb Tib/Cal 2

216 Rotterdam* Tib/Cal 1 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb Flavii 1

216 Rotterdam* Hadrian 1 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb Nerva/Traj 1

216 Rotterdam* AntPius 1 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb Hadrian 1

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Missing 14 222 Valkenburg-vondstkontext onb AntPius 2

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Augustus 3 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Missing 2

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Tib/Cal 2 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Tib/Cal 1

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Flavii 8 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Nero-68 2

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Nerva/Traj 5 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Flavii 1

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld Hadrian 3 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Hadrian 1

217 Valkenburg-Marktveld AntPius 1 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* AntPius 2

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Missing 7 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* MAurelius 2

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Republic 2 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* Commodus 2

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Augustus 9 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* 193-222 3

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Tib/Cal 3 223 Valkenburg-De Woerd* 222-238 1

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Nero-68 1 224 Valkenburg* Missing 2

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Flavii 7 224 Valkenburg* Augustus 4

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Hadrian 1 224 Valkenburg* Tib/Cal 2

283 Site Name Period Coins

224 Valkenburg* Claudius 4 233 Aalburg-Polstraat 193-222 1

224 Valkenburg* Nero-68 1 234 Genderen* Flavii 1

224 Valkenburg* Flavii 3 235 Genderen-Kerkhof 388-402 1

224 Valkenburg* Nerva/Traj 2 236 Woudrichem* Missing 2

224 Valkenburg* AntPius 3 236 Woudrichem* Augustus 1

224 Valkenburg* MAurelius 1 237 Echteld-De Vaalt Augustus 1

224 Valkenburg* Commodus 1 238 Echteld-De Heul(=De Hul?) Flavii 1

224 Valkenburg* 193-222 4 239 Echteld-De Hoge Hof Hadrian 1

225 Valkenburg-Middenweg Nerva/Traj 1 240 Elst-De Park AntPius 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Missing 6 241 Elst-begraafplaats Commodus 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Augustus 1 242 Republic 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Tib/Cal 2 243 Erlecom* Flavii 2

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Nero-68 1 244 Ewijk-De Hoge Woerd Missing 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Flavii 9 244 Ewijk-De Hoge Woerd 378-388 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Nerva/Traj 10 244 Ewijk-De Hoge Woerd 388-402 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Hadrian 14 245 Ewijk-Ewijkse Velden Nerva/Traj 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg AntPius 12 246 Geldermalsen-Bottesteijn Claudius 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg MAurelius 15 246 Geldermalsen-Bottesteijn >402 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg Commodus 5 247 Gendt-Loohof Celtic 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 193-222 12 248 Gendt-Hooge Hof 364-378 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 222-238 5 249 Haalderen* Republic 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 238-260 3 250 Hatert* Nero-68 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 260-275 3 251 Hatert-grafveld Flavii 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 296-317 2 252 Nijmegen-De Hulzen Nerva/Traj 1

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 330-348 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas Tib/Cal 5

226 Voorburg-Arentsburg 348-364 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas Flavii 3

227 Voorburg* Flavii 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas Nerva/Traj 1

227 Voorburg* Nerva/Traj 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas Hadrian 2

227 Voorburg* Hadrian 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas AntPius 1

227 Voorburg* MAurelius 1 253 Heerewaarden-Maas 317-330 2

228 Wassenaar-Meijendel 348-364 1 254 Heesselt* Republic 1

229 Zwammerdam* Missing 19 254 Heesselt* Flavii 1

229 Zwammerdam* Augustus 2 254 Heesselt* Hadrian 1

229 Zwammerdam* Tib/Cal 2 254 Heesselt* AntPius 1

229 Zwammerdam* Claudius 3 254 Heesselt* 193-222 1

229 Zwammerdam* Nero-68 2 254 Heesselt* >402 1

229 Zwammerdam* Flavii 10 255 Hemmen-De Wuust Nero-68 1

229 Zwammerdam* Hadrian 2 255 Hemmen-De Wuust Nerva/Traj 1

229 Zwammerdam* AntPius 6 256 Hernen-De Wijnakker 193-222 1

229 Zwammerdam* MAurelius 3 257 Herveld* Tib/Cal 1

229 Zwammerdam* 193-222 1 257 Herveld* Flavii 1

229 Zwammerdam* 222-238 1 257 Herveld* AntPius 1

230 Velsen-Velserbroekpolder Republic 2 257 Herveld* 260-275 1

230 Velsen-Velserbroekpolder Tib/Cal 3 257 Herveld* 296-317 1

230 Velsen-Velserbroekpolder Claudius 1 257 Herveld* 317-330 1

230 Velsen-Velserbroekpolder Nero-68 1 258 Herwijnen-Waal Augustus 1

231 Velsen* Republic 1 259 Heteren-Uilenburg Augustus 1

231 Velsen* Augustus 3 260 Heteren-Nijburg 378-388 1

231 Velsen* Tib/Cal 1 261 Heumen* Missing 4

231 Velsen* MAurelius 1 261 Heumen* AntPius 1

232 Velsen-Hoogovens 260-275 2 261 Heumen* Commodus 1

284 Site Name Period Coins

261 Heumen* 260-275 2 282 Meteren* Flavii 1

261 Heumen* 317-330 1 282 Meteren* 238-260 1

261 Heumen* 364-378 2 283 Millingen a/d Rijn-sarkofaag Tib/Cal 1

262 Heumen-Jachtlaan MAurelius 1 283 Millingen a/d Rijn-sarkofaag Flavii 1

263 Heumen-Heumensoord 260-275 1 284 Millingen a/d Rijn* Missing 1

263 Heumen-Heumensoord 364-378 1 284 Millingen a/d Rijn* Flavii 2

264 Hien-De Wuurdjes 260-275 2 284 Millingen a/d Rijn* Nerva/Traj 1

265 Horssen* Missing 3 284 Millingen a/d Rijn* 260-275 1

266 Huissen* AntPius 1 285 Ochten* Missing 1

267 Hurwenen* Flavii 1 285 Ochten* Augustus 1

267 Hurwenen* Nerva/Traj 1 285 Ochten* Nero-68 1

268 Ingen* Nero-68 1 286 Ochten-Appelenborg Nero-68 1

268 Ingen* Flavii 3 286 Ochten-Appelenborg 317-330 1

268 Ingen* Nerva/Traj 1 287 Oosterhout(GL)* Missing 2

268 Ingen* Hadrian 1 288 Nijmegen-no context Augustus 1

268 Ingen* AntPius 3 289 Opheusden* Missing 2

269 Kesteren-Hoge Woerd Republic 1 289 Opheusden* Augustus 1

269 Kesteren-Hoge Woerd Flavii 1 289 Opheusden* Hadrian 2

270 Kesteren-grafveld Missing 1 289 Opheusden* AntPius 1

271 Kesteren* Augustus 3 289 Opheusden* MAurelius 1

271 Kesteren* Tib/Cal 1 289 Opheusden* 364-378 1

271 Kesteren* Flavii 1 290 Overasselt* Missing 2

271 Kesteren* Nerva/Traj 5 291 Kesteren-Oudendam AntPius 1

271 Kesteren* Hadrian 2 292 Persingen* Missing 2

271 Kesteren* AntPius 2 293 Raayen* AntPius 1

271 Kesteren* 193-222 1 294 Randwijk-De Woerd Missing 1

271 Kesteren* 222-238 1 294 Randwijk-De Woerd 193-222 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen Tib/Cal 1 295 Ressen* Flavii 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen Flavii 1 295 Ressen* 260-275 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen Nerva/Traj 7 295 Ressen* 330-348 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen Hadrian 3 296 Rijswijk* Nerva/Traj 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen AntPius 3 296 Rijswijk* 193-222 3

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen MAurelius 7 296 Rijswijk* 222-238 1

272 Beneden-Boven-leeuwen 193-222 2 296 Rijswijk* 330-348 1

273 Lent-Waalbrug AntPius 1 297 Rossum-baggervondsten Missing 2

275 Leur* Missing 2 297 Rossum-baggervondsten Republic 1

276 Lienden-Vogelenzangseweg Missing 1 297 Rossum-baggervondsten Tib/Cal 3

276 Lienden-Vogelenzangseweg Flavii 1 297 Rossum-baggervondsten Nerva/Traj 1

276 Lienden-Vogelenzangseweg 260-275 1 297 Rossum-baggervondsten Hadrian 4

277 Loenen-Vrijenberg 317-330 2 297 Rossum-baggervondsten AntPius 6

277 Loenen-Vrijenberg 330-348 2 297 Rossum-baggervondsten MAurelius 1

278 Lunen* Nerva/Traj 1 297 Rossum-baggervondsten 193-222 1

279 Alphen-Maas Tib/Cal 1 298 Rossum-De Waarden Missing 2

280 Meerten* Tib/Cal 1 298 Rossum-De Waarden Republic 3

280 Meerten* Flavii 1 298 Rossum-De Waarden Augustus 2

280 Meerten* MAurelius 1 298 Rossum-De Waarden AntPius 1

280 Meerten* Commodus 1 299 Rossum-Maas Republic 3

280 Meerten* 193-222 1 299 Rossum-Maas Celtic 1

280 Meerten* 222-238 1 300 Rossum-Fort Andries Republic 2

281 Meerten-Hoogmeien Nero-68 2 300 Rossum-Fort Andries Augustus 6

282 Meteren* Missing 2 300 Rossum-Fort Andries Tib/Cal 7

285 Site Name Period Coins

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Claudius 7 320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum Nerva/Traj 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Nero-68 10 320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum AntPius 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Flavii 25 320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum MAurelius 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Nerva/Traj 24 320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum 260-275 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Hadrian 11 321 Zetten-De Woerd Nero-68 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries AntPius 24 321 Zetten-De Woerd Nerva/Traj 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries MAurelius 18 321 Zetten-De Woerd AntPius 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries Commodus 4 321 Zetten-De Woerd 222-238 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 193-222 7 321 Zetten-De Woerd 330-348 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 222-238 10 322 Zoelen-Retse Straat Tib/Cal 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 260-275 8 323 Zoelen-Rooienstein Missing 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 275-296 1 324 Zoelmond* 238-260 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 317-330 5 325 Amerongen-zandafgraving Flavii 1

300 Rossum-Fort Andries 330-348 1 325 Amerongen-zandafgraving 238-260 1

301 Tiel-Waal Republic 1 326 Amerongen-De Natewisch Hadrian 1

301 Tiel-Waal Flavii 1 327 Amerongen-Zuylestein Flavii 1

302 Tiel-De Kellen AntPius 1 328 Amerongen* MAurelius 1

303 Tiel-Groenmarkt Missing 1 329 Bunnik* Missing 2

304 Tuil* Missing 2 330 Cothen-Dorpstraat Tib/Cal 1

305 Ubbergen* Claudius 1 330 Cothen-Dorpstraat Hadrian 1

305 Ubbergen* Flavii 1 330 Cothen-Dorpstraat 296-317 1

305 Ubbergen* AntPius 1 331 Cothen-De Zemelen Claudius 1

306 Velddriel* Hadrian 1 331 Cothen-De Zemelen Nero-68 1

307 Vuren-Waaldijk 330-348 1 331 Cothen-De Zemelen Flavii 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal Republic 2 331 Cothen-De Zemelen AntPius 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal Tib/Cal 1 332 330-348 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal Flavii 1 333 Elst(Utr)* 238-260 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal Nerva/Traj 1 334 Rhenen-Straatweg 260-275 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal 193-222 1 334 Rhenen-Straatweg 364-378 1

308 Nijmegen-Waal 222-238 1 335 Het Goy* Republic 5

308 Nijmegen-Waal 296-317 6 335 Het Goy* >402 1

309 Beneden-Leeuwen-Waal Flavii 1 336 Honswijk* Flavii 1

310 Waal* Hadrian 1 337 Houten-Looyendaal Flavii 1

310 Waal* AntPius 1 338 Houten-Wayense Dijk MAurelius 1

311 Ewijk-Waal AntPius 2 339 Houten* Missing 6

312 Wageningen-Keijenberg Missing 3 339 Houten* Republic 1

313 Westervoort* Missing 2 339 Houten* Celtic 2

314 Alverna-Klooster Augustus 1 339 Houten* Augustus 5

315 Wijchen* Missing 7 339 Houten* Tib/Cal 1

315 Wijchen* Nero-68 1 339 Houten* Flavii 1

315 Wijchen* Flavii 1 339 Houten* Nerva/Traj 2

315 Wijchen* MAurelius 1 339 Houten* AntPius 1

315 Wijchen* 330-348 1 339 Houten* 260-275 1

316 Wijchen-Merelstraat Missing 1 340 Jutphaas-Nedereindse polder Missing 2

316 Wijchen-Merelstraat Flavii 1 340 Jutphaas-Nedereindse polder Tib/Cal 1

316 Wijchen-Merelstraat Hadrian 2 341 De Meern-De Woerd Missing 6

317 Wijchen-Bullenkamp Flavii 1 341 De Meern-De Woerd Republic 1

317 Wijchen-Bullenkamp MAurelius 1 341 De Meern-De Woerd Augustus 1

318 Wijchen-Aalsburg Commodus 1 341 De Meern-De Woerd Tib/Cal 2

319 IJsseloord* Missing 2 341 De Meern-De Woerd Nero-68 2

320 IJzendoorn-De Pottum Flavii 1 341 De Meern-De Woerd Flavii 2

286 Site Name Period Coins

341 De Meern-De Woerd Nerva/Traj 1 360 Vechten* Commodus 8

341 De Meern-De Woerd 193-222 1 360 Vechten* 193-222 47

342 De Meern* Claudius 1 360 Vechten* 222-238 20

342 De Meern* Flavii 1 360 Vechten* 238-260 4

342 De Meern* 238-260 1 360 Vechten* 296-317 1

343 Augustus 1 360 Vechten* 348-364 1

343 Flavii 1 360 Vechten* 364-378 1

344 Nieuwegein* 193-222 1 360 Vechten* >402 1

345 Rhenen-Prattenburg Tib/Cal 1 362 Vechten-Mereveldseweg Missing 1

346 Schalkwijk-Pothoek Nerva/Traj 1 362 Vechten-Mereveldseweg Hadrian 1

346 Schalkwijk-Pothoek AntPius 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Missing 20

347 Tull en het Waal* Nerva/Traj 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Republic 11

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Augustus 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Celtic 1

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Tib/Cal 4 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Augustus 11

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Claudius 8 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Tib/Cal 10

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Nero-68 37 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Claudius 7

349 Flavii 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Nero-68 13

350 Nieuwegein-Noord-Zuilenstein Augustus 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Flavii 31

351 Utrecht-Korte Nieuwstraat Flavii 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Nerva/Traj 18

352 Utrecht-Domstraat Flavii 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Hadrian 13

353 Utrecht-Hoog Catharijne Commodus 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg AntPius 13

354 Utrecht-Kromme Nieuwe Gracht Hadrian 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg MAurelius 7

355 Utrecht* Celtic 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg Commodus 3

355 Utrecht* Flavii 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg 193-222 11

355 Utrecht* AntPius 1 363 Vechten-Rijksweg 222-238 10

355 Utrecht* MAurelius 3 364 Vechten-Kromme Rijn 296-317 1

355 Utrecht* 238-260 1 365 Zeist* 296-317 1

355 Utrecht* 260-275 4 366 Andel* Flavii 1

355 Utrecht* 317-330 1 367 Drongelen* AntPius 1

355 Utrecht* 330-348 1 367 Drongelen* 388-402 1

355 Utrecht* 348-364 1 368 Eethen* 238-260 1

356 Utrecht-Paushuize Flavii 1 369 Wijk en Aalburg-Veldstraat I Missing 1

356 Utrecht-Paushuize Nerva/Traj 1 370 Molenhoek* Augustus 1

356 Utrecht-Paushuize Hadrian 2 371 Sleeuwijk* Missing 1

356 Utrecht-Paushuize 222-238 1 372 Aarlanderveen* Republic 1

357 Utrecht-Fortlaan 364-378 1 373 Alblasserdam-nederzetting '73 Augustus 1

358 Utrecht-Vecht I Commodus 1 374 Alblasserdam-nederzetting '62 Flavii 1

358 Utrecht-Vecht I 238-260 1 375 Alphen a/d Rijn-Oude Rijn Tib/Cal 1

359 Utrecht-Vecht II 317-330 2 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan Missing 2

360 Vechten* Missing 5 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan Claudius 1

360 Vechten* Republic 160 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan Flavii 2

360 Vechten* Celtic 1 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan Nerva/Traj 1

360 Vechten* Augustus 113 376 Alphen a/d Rijn-Julianalaan MAurelius 1

360 Vechten* Tib/Cal 128 377 Arkel* Nerva/Traj 1

360 Vechten* Claudius 42 377 Arkel* AntPius 1

360 Vechten* Nero-68 57 377 Arkel* 222-238 1

360 Vechten* Flavii 152 377 Arkel* 260-275 1

360 Vechten* Nerva/Traj 61 378 Bodegraven-Oud-Bodegraafseweg Flavii 2

360 Vechten* Hadrian 38 379 Boskoop I Missing 2

360 Vechten* AntPius 33 380 Delft* Missing 2

360 Vechten* MAurelius 14 381 Dordrecht* Nero-68 1

287 Site Name Period Coins

381 Dordrecht* Flavii 1 399 Den Haag-Regentesselaan 330-348 1

381 Dordrecht* MAurelius 1 400 Giessendam I 238-260 1

382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten Missing 1 401 Heukelum* Augustus 1

382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten AntPius 4 401 Heukelum* Flavii 1

382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten MAurelius 1 401 Heukelum* Nerva/Traj 1

382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten 222-238 1 402 Heukelum-Vogelswerf AntPius 1

382 Dordrecht-baggervondsten 260-275 4 403 Ter Heijde-duinen 260-275 1

383 Dubbeldam-Merwedeoever 260-275 1 404 Hoogmade-Doorpolderkade Flavii 1

384 Europoort-Eurorama Nero-68 1 405 Katwijk-Brittenburg 193-222 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Republic 2 405 Katwijk-Brittenburg 222-238 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Augustus 2 406 Katwijk-Additionele Kanaal Tib/Cal 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Tib/Cal 2 406 Katwijk-Additionele Kanaal Hadrian 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Claudius 1 407 Katwijk-Katwijk-Binnen/kleinduin Flavii 2

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Nero-68 3 408 Katwijk-Het Mallegat 193-222 2

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Flavii 8 409 Kethel-Groenoord AntPius 2

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Nerva/Traj 7 410 Kethel I Missing 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Hadrian 1 411 Kethel* 260-275 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten AntPius 1 412 Koudekerk-De Hondsdijk Nerva/Traj 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten MAurelius 4 413 Kijkduin-duinen Augustus 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten Commodus 1 413 Kijkduin-duinen Hadrian 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten 222-238 1 413 Kijkduin-duinen 364-378 1

385 Europoort-baggervondsten 238-260 1 414 Leerdam* Flavii 1

386 Europoort-Oranjesluis Republic 1 415 Leiden-Jan van Houtkade Claudius 1

386 Europoort-Oranjesluis Flavii 1 416 Leiden-Witte Singel Flavii 1

386 Europoort-Oranjesluis Nerva/Traj 1 416 Leiden-Witte Singel Nerva/Traj 1

386 Europoort-Oranjesluis Hadrian 3 417 Leiden-haagweg Nerva/Traj 1

386 Europoort-Oranjesluis MAurelius 3 418 Leiden* Missing 1

387 Europoort-7e Petroleumhaven Flavii 1 418 Leiden* MAurelius 1

387 Europoort-7e Petroleumhaven Hadrian 1 418 Leiden* 260-275 2

387 Europoort-7e Petroleumhaven 222-238 1 419 Leiden-Utrechtse Veer MAurelius 1

388 Europoort-Maasvlakte-Oostvoorne Augustus 1 420 Leiden-Burchtheuvel Missing 1

388 Europoort-Maasvlakte-Oostvoorne Flavii 1 420 Leiden-Burchtheuvel Flavii 2

388 Europoort-Maasvlakte-Oostvoorne 238-260 1 420 Leiden-Burchtheuvel Nerva/Traj 2

388 Europoort-Maasvlakte-Oostvoorne 260-275 1 420 Leiden-Burchtheuvel Hadrian 2

389 Europoort* Tib/Cal 1 421 Leiden-Maredijk 222-238 1

389 Europoort* MAurelius 1 422 Leiden-Leliestraat 348-364 1

390 Giessen-Nieuwkerk Flavii 1 423 Missing 1

391 Giessendam* Tib/Cal 1 424 Leidschendam* Missing 1

391 Giessendam* Commodus 1 424 Leidschendam* 238-260 1

392 Gouderak* Missing 2 424 Leidschendam* 260-275 1

393 Den Haag* Augustus 1 425 Oude Maas-Botlekbrug AntPius 1

393 Den Haag* Flavii 1 426 Maassluis-baggervondsten 193-222 1

393 Den Haag* Nerva/Traj 1 427 Papendrecht-Merwedeoever Republic 2

393 Den Haag* 330-348 2 428 Monster* 317-330 1

393 Den Haag* 348-364 1 429 Moordrecht* Missing 2

394 Den Haag-Zuiderpark Missing 1 430 Naaldwijk* Missing 1

395 Den Haag-Westeinde 222-238 1 431 Numansdorp* Missing 2

395 Den Haag-Westeinde 296-317 1 432 Ockenburgh* Missing 2

396 Den Haag-Yselubweg? 260-275 1 432 Ockenburgh* Republic 3

397 Den Haag-Bosjes van Poot 275-296 1 432 Ockenburgh* Augustus 2

398 Den Haag-Scheveningse Bosjes Missing 1 432 Ockenburgh* Flavii 6

288 Site Name Period Coins

432 Ockenburgh* Nerva/Traj 2 460 Vianen* Flavii 1

432 Ockenburgh* Hadrian 4 461 Vlaardingen-Kethelweg Tib/Cal 1

432 Ockenburgh* AntPius 5 462 Vlaardingen-baggervondsten Hadrian 1

432 Ockenburgh* MAurelius 5 463 Vlaardingen* AntPius 1

432 Ockenburgh* Commodus 3 464 Vlaardingen-Holysingel 222-238 1

432 Ockenburgh* 193-222 8 465 Voorschoten-Delftsche Schouw Augustus 1

432 Ockenburgh* 222-238 3 466 Voorschoten-Haaswijk Flavii 1

432 Ockenburgh* 238-260 1 467 Voorschoten* Nerva/Traj 1

432 Ockenburgh* 260-275 3 467 Voorschoten* AntPius 1

433 Oostvoorne-strand Missing 1 468 Voorschoten I 238-260 1

434 Oud-Alblas* Nerva/Traj 1 469 Wassenaar* Flavii 1

435 Papendrecht-Merwededijk Flavii 1 469 Wassenaar* MAurelius 1

436 Papendrecht-Bethlehemkerk Commodus 1 470 Wassenaar I Nerva/Traj 1

437 Poeldijk I Republic 1 471 Wateringen-De Rhyenhof Nerva/Traj 1

437 Poeldijk I 260-275 1 472 Wateringen* 330-348 1

438 Rockanje-Strype Missing 1 473 Werkendam* 296-317 1

438 Rockanje-Strype MAurelius 1 473 Werkendam* 317-330 1

439 Rockanje* 348-364 1 474 Woerden-castellum Missing 1

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch Tib/Cal 1 474 Woerden-castellum Augustus 1

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch Flavii 2 474 Woerden-castellum Tib/Cal 1

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch Nerva/Traj 2 474 Woerden-castellum Nero-68 3

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch Hadrian 2 474 Woerden-castellum Flavii 3

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch MAurelius 1 474 Woerden-castellum Nerva/Traj 4

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch 222-238 1 474 Woerden-castellum Hadrian 1

440 Rotterdam-Kralingsche Bosch 317-330 1 474 Woerden-castellum AntPius 3

441 Rotterdam-Krooswijk/Duifhuis Hadrian 2 474 Woerden-castellum MAurelius 1

442 Rotterdam-Oude Plantage Missing 2 474 Woerden-castellum 222-238 1

443 Rijnsburg I Missing 2 475 Woerden* Republic 1

443 Rijnsburg I Tib/Cal 1 475 Woerden* Augustus 1

443 Rijnsburg I Hadrian 1 475 Woerden* Flavii 1

444 Rijswijk-Rijswijkseweg Nerva/Traj 1 475 Woerden* Nerva/Traj 2

445 Rijswijk I Commodus 1 475 Woerden* AntPius 2

446 Rijswijk-De Bult 260-275 1 475 Woerden* 317-330 1

447 Scheveningen* Claudius 1 475 Woerden* 330-348 1

448 Schiedam-Nieuwe Maas Tib/Cal 1 475 Woerden* 364-378 1

449 Schiedam* Missing 2 475 Woerden* 378-388 1

450 Schipluiden-Harnaschpolder Hadrian 1 476 Zevenhuizen I Nerva/Traj 1

451 Schipluiden* 238-260 1 477 Zoetermeer* MAurelius 1

452 Schoonhoven I Claudius 1 478 Zoeterwoude* Flavii 1

452 Schoonhoven I Flavii 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Missing 2

453 Schoonrewoerd-Kerk Nerva/Traj 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Republic 1

454 Sliedrecht-baggervondsten Hadrian 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Augustus 5

455 Spijkenisse-bageervondsten Missing 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Tib/Cal 5

455 Spijkenisse-bageervondsten MAurelius 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Claudius 52

456 Spijkenisse* Missing 2 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Nero-68 3

457 Stompwijk* AntPius 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Flavii 13

457 Stompwijk* Commodus 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Nerva/Traj 9

458 Streefkerk* MAurelius 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum Hadrian 7

459 Valkenburg-castellum(?) Claudius 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum AntPius 7

459 Valkenburg-castellum(?) MAurelius 1 479 Zwammerdam-castellum MAurelius 5

460 Vianen* Missing 2 479 Zwammerdam-castellum 193-222 2

289 Site Name Period Coins

480 Zwammerdam-StAnna Hoeve Missing 2 489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 238-260 1

480 Zwammerdam-StAnna Hoeve Claudius 1 490 Europoort-Botlek Tib/Cal 1

480 Zwammerdam-StAnna Hoeve Flavii 1 490 Europoort-Botlek Claudius 1

481 Zwartewaal-jachthaven Republic 1 490 Europoort-Botlek Flavii 2

482 Voorburg-Mariannelaan Nero-68 1 490 Europoort-Botlek Hadrian 2

482 Voorburg-Mariannelaan 222-238 1 490 Europoort-Botlek AntPius 1

483 Voorburg-Arentsburg/Vlietoever Hadrian 2 490 Europoort-Botlek 193-222 2

483 Voorburg-Arentsburg/Vlietoever AntPius 1 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Missing 1

484 Voorburg-Wilhelmusterrein Nerva/Traj 1 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Republic 1

485 Voorburg-Oost Duivesteyn Nerva/Traj 1 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Augustus 1

485 Voorburg-Oost Duivesteyn AntPius 1 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Flavii 1

486 Rossum-Maas I Augustus 3 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Nerva/Traj 2

486 Rossum-Maas I Tib/Cal 1 491 Europoort-Rozenburg Hadrian 2

486 Rossum-Maas I Claudius 3 491 Europoort-Rozenburg 260-275 3

486 Rossum-Maas I Flavii 3 492 Alphen a/d Rijn I Missing 3

487 Rossum-Waal Republic 1 492 Alphen a/d Rijn I Augustus 1

487 Rossum-Waal Celtic 3 492 Alphen a/d Rijn I Nero-68 1

487 Rossum-Waal Augustus 5 492 Alphen a/d Rijn I Hadrian 3

487 Rossum-Waal Tib/Cal 3 493 Rotterdam-Spuisluis Hadrian 1

487 Rossum-Waal Claudius 1 493 Rotterdam-Spuisluis MAurelius 2

487 Rossum-Waal Flavii 5 494 Ouderkerk a/d IJssel Tib/Cal 2

487 Rossum-Waal Nerva/Traj 4 494 Ouderkerk a/d IJssel Flavii 2

487 Rossum-Waal Hadrian 5 494 Ouderkerk a/d IJssel Nerva/Traj 1

487 Rossum-Waal AntPius 4 494 Ouderkerk a/d IJssel 296-317 1

487 Rossum-Waal Commodus 1 495 Houten-Grote Geer Republic 1

487 Rossum-Waal 193-222 2 495 Houten-Grote Geer Tib/Cal 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld Missing 2 495 Houten-Grote Geer Flavii 3

488 Rhenen-grafveld Republic 1 495 Houten-Grote Geer MAurelius 2

488 Rhenen-grafveld Nero-68 1 495 Houten-Grote Geer 193-222 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld Flavii 1 496 Neerijnen-Westerbroek Missing 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld Nerva/Traj 1 496 Neerijnen-Westerbroek Nero-68 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld AntPius 4 496 Neerijnen-Westerbroek Hadrian 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld MAurelius 3 497 Neerijnen-Veelust Missing 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld Commodus 2 498 Neerijnen-Breeuwert Missing 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld 193-222 4 498 Neerijnen-Breeuwert Celtic 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld 238-260 2 499 Maurik-Zwarte Paard 193-222 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld 260-275 2 500 Buren-Het Nieuwland Tib/Cal 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld 378-388 1 500 Buren-Het Nieuwland 260-275 1

488 Rhenen-grafveld >402 1 501 Nijmegen-Rivierenbuurt Tib/Cal 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Missing 1 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld Missing 10

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Republic 1 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld MAurelius 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Augustus 1 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 260-275 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Claudius 1 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 317-330 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Flavii 9 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 330-348 2

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Nerva/Traj 7 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 348-364 3

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Hadrian 7 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 364-378 2

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg AntPius 2 502 Drumpt-Het Achterveld 388-402 3

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg MAurelius 4 503 Nijmegen-Pretoriumstraat Flavii 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg Commodus 1 504 Nijmegen* Flavii 1

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 193-222 3 504 Nijmegen* 193-222 2

489 Europoort-Nieuwe Waterweg 222-238 1 505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Missing 29

290 Site Name Period Coins

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Republic 4 1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof Republic 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Celtic 4 1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof Augustus 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Augustus 29 1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof Hadrian 2

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Tib/Cal 6 1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof MAurelius 2

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Claudius 8 1345 Koninksem* Celtic 2

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Nero-68 6 1345 Koninksem* Augustus 4

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving Flavii 3 1345 Koninksem* Tib/Cal 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 260-275 5 1345 Koninksem* 260-275 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 296-317 3 1345 Koninksem* 364-378 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 317-330 1 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel Missing 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 330-348 56 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel Celtic 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 348-364 3 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel 296-317 2

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 364-378 7 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel 317-330 1

505 Nijmegen-Valkhof&omgeving 378-388 1 1346 Koninksem-Paspoel 330-348 9

1347 Kortessem-cemetery Augustus 1

Meuse Demer-Scheldt area 1348 Opgrimbie-Hoekstraat Nerva/Traj 2

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Missing 1 1349 Ophoven* Flavii 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Republic 2 1349 Ophoven* 317-330 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Celtic 9 1352 Smeerkaas-Ducatonweg Nerva/Traj 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Augustus 3 1353 Lauw I Flavii 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Nero-68 2 1353 Lauw I Nerva/Traj 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Flavii 1 1353 Lauw I Hadrian 5

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Nerva/Traj 2 1353 Lauw I AntPius 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Hadrian 3 1353 Lauw I MAurelius 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg AntPius 2 1353 Lauw I Commodus 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg MAurelius 2 1353 Lauw I 193-222 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg Commodus 1 1353 Lauw I 260-275 7

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg 193-222 1 1353 Lauw I 275-296 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg 260-275 2 1353 Lauw I 317-330 1

1332 Berg-Reservoir/Trappenberg 330-348 5 1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat Nerva/Traj 1

1333 Betekom-Demer 317-330 1 1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat MAurelius 1

1333 Betekom-Demer 330-348 4 1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat 260-275 5

1334 Bommershoven* Flavii 1 1354 Lauw-Donkelstraat 348-364 1

1335 Dilsen-Feresne Augustus 1 1356 Maaseik* Celtic 1

1336 Donk-nederzetting Missing 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Augustus 3

1336 Donk-nederzetting Flavii 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Nero-68 1

1336 Donk-nederzetting Nerva/Traj 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Flavii 3

1336 Donk-nederzetting AntPius 2 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Nerva/Traj 1

1336 Donk-nederzetting Commodus 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Hadrian 2

1337 Engelmanshoven-Lot A 260-275 2 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos AntPius 2

1338 Halen-omgeving Missing 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos MAurelius 1

1339 Herderen-watertoren MAurelius 1 1357 Maaseik-Aan 't Moorbos Commodus 1

1339 Herderen-watertoren 260-275 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp Missing 106

1340 Herderen* Celtic 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp Augustus 2

1340 Herderen* Flavii 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp Flavii 1

1340 Herderen* AntPius 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp MAurelius 1

1340 Herderen* MAurelius 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp Commodus 2

1341 Hombroek* Republic 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 193-222 1

1342 Kanne-Eben-Emael Flavii 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 260-275 6

1343 Kessenich-Hezerheide AntPius 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 296-317 2

1344 Kessenich-Kerkhof Missing 1 1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 330-348 31

291 Site Name Period Coins

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 348-364 9 1368 Tongeren I Tib/Cal 1

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 364-378 23 1368 Tongeren I Claudius 2

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 378-388 22 1368 Tongeren I Nero-68 2

1358 Neerharen-Rekem-Het Kamp 388-402 408 1368 Tongeren I Flavii 2

1359 Neerpelt-Kolisbos Nero-68 1 1368 Tongeren I Nerva/Traj 2

1359 Neerpelt-Kolisbos Commodus 1 1368 Tongeren I Hadrian 4

1362 Rutten-Strijdmakkerstraat Celtic 1 1368 Tongeren I AntPius 4

1363 Kolis I Missing 5 1368 Tongeren I MAurelius 1

1363 Kolis I Republic 2 1368 Tongeren I 193-222 2

1363 Kolis I Tib/Cal 1 1368 Tongeren I 260-275 20

1363 Kolis I Claudius 2 1368 Tongeren I 330-348 11

1363 Kolis I Nero-68 1 1368 Tongeren I 364-378 7

1363 Kolis I Flavii 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Missing 62

1363 Kolis I Nerva/Traj 4 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Republic 17

1363 Kolis I Hadrian 2 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Celtic 15

1363 Kolis II Hadrian 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Augustus 80

1363 Kolis I AntPius 6 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Tib/Cal 20

1363 Kolis I MAurelius 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Claudius 16

1364 Hork I Nerva/Traj 2 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Nero-68 22

1364 Hork I AntPius 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Flavii 29

1365 StTruiden-,cole technique Republic 0 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Nerva/Traj 35

1366 Hagendoren-Kommel I Missing 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat Hadrian 20

1366 Hagendoren-Kommel I Hadrian 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat AntPius 25

1367 Tongeren* Missing 3 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat MAurelius 5

1367 Tongeren* Republic 7 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 193-222 5

1367 Tongeren* Celtic 98 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 222-238 2

1367 Tongeren* Augustus 38 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 238-260 5

1367 Tongeren* Tib/Cal 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 260-275 76

1367 Tongeren* Claudius 2 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 275-296 3

1367 Tongeren* Flavii 6 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 296-317 5

1367 Tongeren* Nerva/Traj 9 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 317-330 11

1367 Tongeren* Hadrian 7 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 330-348 51

1367 Tongeren* AntPius 8 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 348-364 3

1367 Tongeren* MAurelius 9 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 364-378 22

1367 Tongeren* Commodus 1 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 378-388 2

1367 Tongeren* 193-222 6 1369 Tongeren-Kielenstraat 388-402 3

1367 Tongeren* 238-260 2 1370 Tongeren-Kanjelstraat 260-275 1

1367 Tongeren* 260-275 36 1370 Tongeren-Kanjelstraat 330-348 1

1367 Tongeren* 275-296 13 1370 Tongeren-Kanjelstraat 364-378 1

1367 Tongeren* 296-317 1 1371 Tongeren-Driekruizenweg Augustus 1

1367 Tongeren* 317-330 10 1372 Tongeren-stad Missing 2

1367 Tongeren* 330-348 68 1372 Tongeren-stad Republic 1

1367 Tongeren* 348-364 10 1372 Tongeren-stad Celtic 3

1367 Tongeren* 364-378 29 1372 Tongeren-stad Augustus 11

1367 Tongeren* 378-388 7 1372 Tongeren-stad Tib/Cal 3

1367 Tongeren* 388-402 15 1372 Tongeren-stad Claudius 1

1367 Tongeren* >402 1 1372 Tongeren-stad Nero-68 4

1368 Tongeren I Missing 7 1372 Tongeren-stad Flavii 5

1368 Tongeren I Republic 3 1372 Tongeren-stad Nerva/Traj 9

1368 Tongeren I Celtic 6 1372 Tongeren-stad Hadrian 5

1368 Tongeren I Augustus 7 1372 Tongeren-stad AntPius 13

292 Site Name Period Coins

1372 Tongeren-stad 193-222 2 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 317-330 5

1372 Tongeren-stad 260-275 17 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 330-348 9

1372 Tongeren-stad 275-296 2 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 348-364 3

1372 Tongeren-stad 296-317 2 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 378-388 3

1372 Tongeren-stad 317-330 4 1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 388-402 4

1372 Tongeren-stad 330-348 13 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area Republic 1

1372 Tongeren-stad 348-364 6 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area Augustus 3

1372 Tongeren-stad 364-378 9 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area Claudius 1

1372 Tongeren-stad 388-402 1 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area Flavii 1

1373 Tongeren-Korvelstraat 317-330 1 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area Hadrian 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Missing 6 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area AntPius 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Augustus 4 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area 317-330 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Tib/Cal 1 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area 330-348 10

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Nero-68 6 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area 348-364 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Flavii 15 1378 Tongeren&surrounding area 364-378 4

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Nerva/Traj 9 1379 Valmeer* Celtic 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Hadrian 11 1379 Valmeer* 193-222 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg AntPius 15 1380 Velm-Molenbeek Missing 6

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg MAurelius 17 1380 Velm-Molenbeek 330-348 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg Commodus 3 1380 Velm-Molenbeek 348-364 2

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 193-222 5 1380 Velm-Molenbeek 388-402 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 222-238 3 1381 Vlijtingen I Hadrian 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 238-260 3 1382 Vorsen-Dry Tommen Flavii 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 260-275 122 1382 Vorsen-Dry Tommen Hadrian 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 275-296 15 1383 Zelem-Klooster/StJansbergkastee 330-348 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 296-317 1 1384 Zolder* Celtic 1

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 317-330 4 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Missing 54

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 330-348 38 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Republic 16

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 348-364 7 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Augustus 13

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 364-378 21 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Tib/Cal 2

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 378-388 4 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Claudius 8

1374 Tongeren-Koninksemse Steenweg 388-402 14 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Nero-68 6

1375 Tongeren-Op de Motten Republic 1 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Flavii 18

1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat Missing 1 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Nerva/Traj 12

1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat Flavii 1 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Hadrian 7

1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat Hadrian 2 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem AntPius 4

1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat 238-260 1 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem MAurelius 10

1376 Tongeren-Lindenstraat 260-275 1 1385 Wijshagen-De Rietem Commodus 1

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Missing 11 1386 Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek Missing 1

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Claudius 1 1386 Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek Nerva/Traj 1

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Nero-68 2 1386 Plokrooi-Donderslagbeek AntPius 1

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Flavii 1 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Missing 116

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Nerva/Traj 5 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Augustus 1

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Hadrian 2 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Claudius 2

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld AntPius 4 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Nero-68 3

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld MAurelius 3 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Flavii 19

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld Commodus 1 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Nerva/Traj 18

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 222-238 1 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Hadrian 25

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 260-275 3 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag AntPius 11

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 275-296 1 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag MAurelius 11

1377 Tongeren-ZW-grafveld 296-317 8 1387 Plokrooi-Donderslag Commodus 6

293 Site Name Period Coins

1389 Vechmaal-Walenveld MAurelius 2 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Missing 4

1390 Broekom-Sassenbroekberg Flavii 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Celtic 5

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat Missing 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Augustus 11

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat Augustus 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Claudius 1

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat Nerva/Traj 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Nero-68 2

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat 238-260 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Flavii 1

1391 Rosmeer-Diepestraat 260-275 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat Hadrian 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Republic 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat MAurelius 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Augustus 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat 260-275 7

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Tib/Cal 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat 330-348 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Claudius 1 1401 Tongeren-Hondstraat 388-402 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Flavii 2 1402 Tongeren-Watertorenstraat Flavii 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Nerva/Traj 1 1403 Tongeren-Ambi-Hotel Augustus 3

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Hadrian 1 1403 Tongeren-Ambi-Hotel Hadrian 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos AntPius 3 1403 Tongeren-Ambi-Hotel AntPius 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos MAurelius 2 1404 Berg I Missing 3

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos Commodus 1 1404 Berg I Republic 5

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 193-222 4 1404 Berg I Augustus 4

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 222-238 1 1404 Berg I Nero-68 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 238-260 1 1404 Berg I Flavii 1

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 260-275 50 1404 Berg I AntPius 2

1392 Tongeren-Voeding Vos 275-296 5 1404 Berg I 222-238 1

1393 Tongeren-Cockaertstombe AntPius 1 1404 Berg I 260-275 3

1393 Tongeren-Cockaertstombe 317-330 1 1404 Berg I 275-296 1

1394 Tongeren-Mulken Missing 2 1404 Berg I 296-317 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Missing 7 1404 Berg I 330-348 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Republic 3 1405 Koninksem-Hoogveldstraat 330-348 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Augustus 1 1407 Wijshagen-Aan de Bunders Missing 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Tib/Cal 1 1408 Vechmaal-Zouwveld Augustus 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Nero-68 2 1408 Vechmaal-Zouwveld 260-275 2

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan Nerva/Traj 4 1409 Overpelt* AntPius 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan AntPius 2 1410 Herderen I Nero-68 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 260-275 21 1411 Riemst-Kerkstraat 296-317 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 275-296 3 1412 Antwerpen-Schelde Nero-68 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 296-317 2 1412 Antwerpen-Schelde Hadrian 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 317-330 6 1413 Antwerpen-Vleeshuis/Stadhuis MAurelius 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 330-348 134 1413 Antwerpen-Vleeshuis/Stadhuis Commodus 2

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 348-364 4 1414 Antwerpen* Celtic 1

1395 Tongeren-Rode Kruislaan 364-378 1 1414 Antwerpen* Hadrian 1

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei Missing 3 1415 Hulzen-Grees Missing 2

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei Augustus 1 1416 Hulzen-Kerkhof Nerva/Traj 1

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei Nerva/Traj 2 1417 Hulzen-'t Oud Blok MAurelius 1

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei Commodus 1 1418 Bornem-Scheldedijk Missing 2

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei 260-275 1 1420 Brecht* Missing 3

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei 317-330 1 1422 Deurne-Kasteel Boekenberg* Celtic 1

1396 Tongeren-Romeinse Kassei 330-348 14 1423 Duffel* Nerva/Traj 1

1398 Tongeren-Bilzersteenweg AntPius 1 1424 Ekeren-Wilgenhoeve Hadrian 1

1398 Tongeren-Bilzersteenweg MAurelius 1 1425 Geel-Lissel Missing 4

1398 Tongeren-Bilzersteenweg 317-330 1 1425 Geel-Lissel MAurelius 1

1399 Tongeren-Schuttersgang Augustus 1 1425 Geel-Lissel Commodus 1

1400 Tongeren-Jasminstraat 330-348 1 1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Missing 63

294 Site Name Period Coins

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Republic 2 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen Missing 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Celtic 1 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen Nero-68 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Augustus 21 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen AntPius 3

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Tib/Cal 5 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen MAurelius 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Claudius 5 1455 Oelegem-Steenbergen Commodus 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Nero-68 15 1456 Oud-Turnhout-De Mellen Missing 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Flavii 32 1457 Rijmenam-Kasteel$ 317-330 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Nerva/Traj 18 1457 Rijmenam-Kasteel$ 330-348 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Hadrian 13 1458 Rumst-Kasteel Missing 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg AntPius 18 1459 Rumst-StPieterskerk Missing 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg MAurelius 7 1459 Rumst-StPieterskerk Nerva/Traj 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg Commodus 6 1459 Rumst-StPieterskerk Hadrian 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 193-222 3 1460 Schoten-Schoten Bos MAurelius 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 222-238 1 1461 StAmands* AntPius 1

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 238-260 2 1463 StKatelijne-Waver-Kasteel Kauwe Missing 2

1426 Grobbendonk-Steenberg 260-275 3 1464 Turnhout I 260-275 1

1427 Grobbendonk-Hoogveld Missing 1 1465 Vorselaar-Heikant Nerva/Traj 1

1427 Grobbendonk-Hoogveld Hadrian 1 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Missing 11

1427 Grobbendonk-Hoogveld AntPius 2 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Augustus 10

1428 Grobbendonk-Floris Primstraat Nerva/Traj 1 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Claudius 1

1429 Grobbendonk-Boshoven Missing 2 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Nero-68 1

1430 Grobbendonk-Klokkeven Flavii 1 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Flavii 2

1434 Hoogstraten-Vlamingenstraat Missing 1 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Nerva/Traj 1

1435 Kempen* AntPius 1 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Hadrian 1

1436 Kontich-Kazernen Missing 14 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker MAurelius 4

1436 Kontich-Kazernen Flavii 2 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker Commodus 1

1436 Kontich-Kazernen Nerva/Traj 2 1466 Wijnegem-Steenakker 193-222 1

1436 Kontich-Kazernen Hadrian 4 1469 Wommelgem-Kerk Missing 3

1436 Kontich-Kazernen AntPius 4 1501 Alphen I Nerva/Traj 1

1436 Kontich-Kazernen MAurelius 1 1502 Bavel* 260-275 1

1436 Kontich-Kazernen Commodus 3 1503 Beers* Missing 2

1437 Lier I Flavii 1 1503 Beers* Augustus 2

1438 Lier-Binnen-Nete 193-222 1 1503 Beers* Flavii 2

1439 Lier-omgeving MAurelius 1 1503 Beers* Nerva/Traj 1

1440 Lille-Galgenberg Missing 2 1503 Beers* Hadrian 1

1442 Mechelen-Dijle 238-260 1 1504 Berlicum* Hadrian 2

1442 Mechelen-Dijle 296-317 1 1505 Best I MAurelius 1

1443 Mechelen-Geerdegemveld 296-317 1 1506 Boschkant I 238-260 1

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen Missing 23 1507 Boxtel I MAurelius 1

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen Flavii 2 1508 Boxtel II Missing 1

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen Nerva/Traj 3 1508 Boxtel II Celtic 1

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen Hadrian 1 1509 Boxtel III MAurelius 1

1445 Meerhout-Straalse Bossen AntPius 1 1510 Breda-Haagse Beemden 275-296 1

1446 Meerhout-Grote Nete Missing 2 1510 Breda-Haagse Beemden 330-348 1

1447 Meerhout-Boekenrode/Olmsebaan Nero-68 1 1510 Breda-Haagse Beemden 364-378 1

1448 Meerhout-Genebroek Missing 1 1510 Breda-Haagse Beemden 388-402 1

1449 Meerhout-Gestel Missing 1 1511 Breda* Hadrian 1

1450 Meerhout-Hakkenrode AntPius 1 1512 Breda-Hoge Vucht Missing 1

1451 Meerhout-Hazebroek Hadrian 1 1513 Budel I Celtic 1

1452 Meerhout-Steenheuvels Missing 1 1514 Cuijk I 330-348 1

1453 Postel I Missing 2 1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat Missing 2

295 Site Name Period Coins

1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat Flavii 3 1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 348-364 9

1516 Cuijk II Nerva/Traj 1 1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 364-378 22

1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat Hadrian 2 1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 378-388 5

1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat AntPius 3 1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 388-402 18

1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat Commodus 1 1525 Deursen* Nerva/Traj 1

1516 Cuijk-Grotestraat 364-378 1 1525 Deursen* Hadrian 2

1517 Cuijk-Vorstendom Flavii 1 1525 Deursen* 378-388 2

1517 Cuijk-Vorstendom Nerva/Traj 1 1526 Dinther-Kerk Missing 4

1517 Cuijk-Vorstendom 330-348 2 1526 Dinther-Kerk Republic 1

1518 Cuijk* Missing 1 1526 Dinther-Kerk Nero-68 1

1518 Cuijk* Augustus 3 1526 Dinther-Kerk Flavii 1

1518 Cuijk* Tib/Cal 4 1526 Dinther-Kerk Nerva/Traj 3

1518 Cuijk* Flavii 1 1527 Eindhoven-Heuvelterrein Missing 1

1518 Cuijk* 260-275 5 1528 Eindhoven-Dommel Republic 1

1518 Cuijk* 296-317 1 1529 Eindhoven I Augustus 1

1518 Cuijk* 317-330 6 1529 Eindhoven I Flavii 1

1518 Cuijk* 330-348 31 1529 Eindhoven I Nerva/Traj 1

1518 Cuijk* 348-364 2 1529 Eindhoven I AntPius 1

1518 Cuijk* 364-378 14 1530 Empel* Nerva/Traj 1

1518 Cuijk* 378-388 1 1530 Empel* AntPius 1

1518 Cuijk* 388-402 10 1531 Escharen-Boerderij De Klein Augustus 1

1519 Cuijk-Bejaardentehuis Nero-68 1 1531 Escharen-Boerderij De Klein Nerva/Traj 1

1519 Cuijk-Bejaardentehuis MAurelius 1 1531 Escharen-Boerderij De Klein 296-317 1

1519 Cuijk-Bejaardentehuis 317-330 1 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld Nero-68 1

1519 Cuijk-Bejaardentehuis 364-378 2 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld Nerva/Traj 1

1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen Flavii 1 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld AntPius 1

1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen Nerva/Traj 1 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld 348-364 1

1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen AntPius 1 1532 Escharen-Escharensche Veld 378-388 1

1520 Cuijk-Heeswijkse Kampen MAurelius 1 1533 Escharen I Missing 3

1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Missing 1 1533 Escharen I Augustus 1

1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Tib/Cal 1 1533 Escharen I Nero-68 1

1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Flavii 1 1533 Escharen I Nerva/Traj 1

1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Nerva/Traj 1 1533 Escharen I Hadrian 2

1521 Cuijk-Havenlaan Hadrian 2 1533 Escharen I AntPius 1

1522 Cuijk III Flavii 1 1533 Escharen I MAurelius 1

1523 Cuijk-Maasoever Missing 1 1533 Escharen I Commodus 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Missing 18 1533 Escharen I 193-222 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Augustus 2 1534 Escharen-Rotsche weg AntPius 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Tib/Cal 3 1535 Escharen-Escharensche Veld/2 Nerva/Traj 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Claudius 1 1535 Escharen-Escharensche Veld/2 364-378 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Nero-68 2 1536 Escharen-Raam Hadrian 2

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Flavii 7 1537 Gassel-De Cork Missing 3

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Nerva/Traj 3 1537 Gassel I Republic 0

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat Hadrian 1 1537 Gassel-De Cork Celtic 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat AntPius 3 1537 Gassel-De Cork Augustus 3

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat MAurelius 1 1537 Gassel I Nero-68 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 193-222 2 1537 Gassel I Nerva/Traj 1

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 260-275 4 1537 Gassel I Hadrian 3

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 296-317 4 1537 Gassel I AntPius 2

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 317-330 4 1537 Gassel I MAurelius 7

1524 Cuijk-Kerkstraat 330-348 40 1537 Gassel I 193-222 4

296 Site Name Period Coins

1537 Gassel-De Cork 330-348 2 1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers 238-260 1

1540 Gassel* Celtic 1 1561 Den Hout* Missing 1

1540 Gassel* 193-222 1 1561 Den Hout* Augustus 1

1540 Gassel* 260-275 1 1562 Kessel-Baggergaten Republic 1

1540 Gassel* 296-317 1 1562 Kessel-Baggergaten Nero-68 1

1541 Geertruidenberg* Missing 1 1562 Kessel-Baggergaten 193-222 1

1542 Geertruidenberg-Koestraat Missing 1 1562 Kessel-Baggergaten 378-388 1

1542 Geertruidenberg-Koestraat Nerva/Traj 1 1563 Lith-Klein Bergen Tib/Cal 1

1543 Geertruidenberg-Vestingwallen Flavii 1 1563 Lith-Klein Bergen Nero-68 1

1544 Geertruidenberg-Amertak Hadrian 1 1563 Lith-Klein Bergen Flavii 1

1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg Missing 2 1564 Lith* Celtic 1

1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg Augustus 1 1564 Lith* Tib/Cal 1

1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg Flavii 1 1564 Lith* Claudius 1

1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg Nerva/Traj 5 1564 Lith* 364-378 2

1545 Geldrop-Genoenhuizerweg Hadrian 1 1564 Lith* 378-388 1

1545 Geldrop-Begraafplaats 't Zand MAurelius 1 1564 Lith* 388-402 2

1547 Gemond I Nerva/Traj 1 1565 Lith*/2 Augustus 1

1548 Grave-Maasstraat Nero-68 1 1565 Lith*/2 348-364 1

1549 Halder* Nero-68 1 1565 Lith*/2 378-388 1

1549 Halder* Nerva/Traj 1 1566 Maren-Jachthaven Republic 1

1551 Heesbeen* AntPius 1 1566 Maren-Jachthaven Augustus 1

1551 Heesbeen* MAurelius 1 1566 Maren-Jachthaven Flavii 1

1551 Heesbeen* 330-348 1 1567 Maren-Kessel 388-402 1

1552 Helvoirt* 296-317 1 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof Missing 2

1553 Den Bosch-Pettelaarse plas Flavii 1 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 260-275 1

1554 Den Bosch* Republic 131 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 317-330 1

1554 Den Bosch* Augustus 1 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 330-348 2

1554 Den Bosch* Nero-68 1 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 364-378 1

1554 Den Bosch* Flavii 2 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 378-388 4

1554 Den Bosch* Hadrian 1 1568 Megen-De Hoge Hof 388-402 1

1554 Den Bosch* MAurelius 2 1569 Nederweert-Strateris Missing 1

1554 Den Bosch* 378-388 1 1569 Nederweert-Strateris Celtic 1

1554 Den Bosch* 388-402 1 1570 Nistelrode-Vorsseld Missing 1

1555 Den Bosch-Maas Claudius 1 1571 Oijen* 330-348 1

1555 Den Bosch-Maas 330-348 1 1571 Oijen* 378-388 1

1556 Nerva/Traj 2 1571 Oijen* 388-402 3

1557 Hilvarenbeek-Van Aldeneijkstraat 222-238 1 1572 Oirschot* Republic 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Missing 11 1572 Oirschot* Hadrian 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Republic 1 1572 Oirschot* MAurelius 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Celtic 1 1573 Oirschot-Kasteren Missing 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Augustus 9 1574 Oirschot I Missing 10

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Tib/Cal 1 1574 Oirschot II Missing 6

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Claudius 2 1574 Oirschot III Missing 28

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Flavii 6 1574 Oirschot I Republic 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Nerva/Traj 4 1574 Oirschot III Augustus 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Hoogcasterenseweg Hadrian 1 1574 Oirschot I Tib/Cal 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers Hadrian 11 1574 Oirschot III Nero-68 1

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers AntPius 10 1574 Oirschot I Flavii 2

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers MAurelius 6 1574 Oirschot II Flavii 2

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers 193-222 2 1574 Oirschot III Flavii 8

1558 Hoogeloon-Kerkakkers 222-238 3 1574 Oirschot I Nerva/Traj 3

297 Site Name Period Coins

1574 Oirschot II Nerva/Traj 2 1587 StMichielsgestel-Barri%r weg 275-296 1

1574 Oirschot III Nerva/Traj 18 1588 StOedenrode* Augustus 1

1574 Oirschot I Hadrian 1 1588 StOedenrode* Nero-68 1

1574 Oirschot II Hadrian 3 1588 StOedenrode* AntPius 1

1574 Oirschot III Hadrian 21 1588 StOedenrode* MAurelius 1

1574 Oirschot I AntPius 6 1588 StOedenrode* 193-222 1

1574 Oirschot II AntPius 1 1589 Someren I Missing 1

1574 Oirschot III AntPius 6 1590 Son-Hooidonkse Akkers Missing 3

1574 Oirschot I MAurelius 10 1590 Son-Hooidonkse Akkers Flavii 1

1574 Oirschot III MAurelius 7 1590 Son-Hooidonkse Akkers AntPius 1

1574 Oirschot III 193-222 1 1591 Son* 222-238 1

1574 Oirschot I 222-238 1 1592 Teeffelen* Missing 37

1574 Oirschot I 238-260 1 1592 Teeffelen* Republic 3

1577 Oosterhout(BR)* Claudius 1 1592 Teeffelen* Augustus 1

1577 Oosterhout(BR)* 193-222 1 1592 Teeffelen* Tib/Cal 1

1577 Oosterhout(BR)* 364-378 1 1592 Teeffelen* Flavii 2

1578 Oss-Vierwindenlaan 222-238 1 1592 Teeffelen* Nerva/Traj 2

1579 Ossendrecht* Commodus 1 1592 Teeffelen* Hadrian 2

1580 Oud-Gastel-Stoofstraat Missing 1 1592 Teeffelen* AntPius 2

1580 Oud-Gastel-Stoofstraat 364-378 1 1592 Teeffelen* MAurelius 1

1581 Oud-Heusden* Augustus 1 1592 Teeffelen* 260-275 1

1581 Oud-Heusden* Hadrian 1 1592 Teeffelen* 330-348 3

1581 Oud-Heusden* 348-364 1 1592 Teeffelen* 348-364 1

1581 Oud-Heusden* 364-378 2 1592 Teeffelen* 364-378 1

1582 Ravenstein* Missing 2 1592 Teeffelen* 378-388 3

1582 Ravenstein* Nerva/Traj 1 1592 Teeffelen* 388-402 27

1582 Ravenstein* Hadrian 1 1592 Teeffelen* >402 1

1582 Ravenstein* 364-378 1 1593 Velp I 330-348 3

1582 Ravenstein* 388-402 1 1593 Velp I 348-364 1

1583 Rijsbergen I Nerva/Traj 1 1594 Vught-Dommel Flavii 1

1583 Rijsbergen I AntPius 3 1595 Maastricht-Amby Celtic 1

1583 Rijsbergen I MAurelius 1 1596 Arcen-Bierbrouwerij Hadrian 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Republic 2 1597 Beegden I Republic 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Celtic 1 1597 Beegden I Celtic 5

1584 StMichielsgestel* Augustus 2 1597 Beegden I Augustus 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Claudius 1 1597 Beegden I Flavii 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Flavii 3 1597 Beegden I Hadrian 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Nerva/Traj 1 1597 Beegden I AntPius 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* Hadrian 1 1597 Beegden I Commodus 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* 193-222 1 1597 Beegden I 296-317 2

1584 StMichielsgestel* 260-275 4 1597 Beegden I 317-330 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* 378-388 1 1597 Beegden I 330-348 1

1584 StMichielsgestel* 388-402 1 1597 Beegden I 348-364 1

1585 StMichielsgestel-Hazenakker Flavii 2 1597 Beegden I 364-378 3

1586 StMichielsgestel I Nerva/Traj 2 1598 Beegden* Missing 2

1586 StMichielsgestel I AntPius 1 1598 Beegden* Celtic 2

1586 StMichielsgestel I 260-275 1 1598 Beegden* 330-348 2

1587 StMichielsgestel-Barri%r weg Celtic 1 1599 Beesel-Schoolberg MAurelius 1

1587 StMichielsgestel-Barri%r weg Flavii 1 1599 Beesel-Schoolberg Commodus 1

1587 StMichielsgestel-Barri%r weg Nerva/Traj 1 1600 Beesel-Schellekensberg Claudius 1

1587 StMichielsgestel-Barri%r weg AntPius 1 1600 Beesel-Schellekensberg MAurelius 1

298 Site Name Period Coins

1601 Beesel-Rijkel Nerva/Traj 2 1611 Groeningen* Hadrian 1

1602 Boekend* Missing 2 1611 Groeningen* 296-317 1

1602 Boekend* Augustus 1 1611 Groeningen* 348-364 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever Missing 6 1612 Horst-centrum Republic 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever Augustus 1 1613 Hout-Blerick AntPius 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever Claudius 1 1614 Kessel-De Bercht Republic 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever Hadrian 1 1615 Linne-omgeving van Linne 378-388 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 238-260 1 1616 Maastricht-Wolder 330-348 2

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 260-275 6 1617 Maastricht-StPietersberg 330-348 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 317-330 2 1617 Maastricht-StPietersberg 364-378 2

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 330-348 3 1617 Maastricht-StPietersberg 388-402 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 364-378 8 1618 Maastricht-De Heeg 193-222 1

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 378-388 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving Missing 2

1603 Borgharen-Maasoever 388-402 9 1619 Maastricht-omgeving Celtic 1

1604 Gennep* 317-330 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving Augustus 1

1604 Gennep* 364-378 3 1619 Maastricht-omgeving MAurelius 2

1604 Gennep* 378-388 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving Commodus 1

1606 Gennep-Veenweg 296-317 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 193-222 3

1607 Genooi-Hogeweg Augustus 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 260-275 1

1608 Grashoek* Missing 2 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 275-296 1

1608 Grashoek* Augustus 6 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 317-330 1

1608 Grashoek* Nerva/Traj 3 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 330-348 5

1608 Grashoek* AntPius 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 348-364 2

1608 Grashoek* MAurelius 1 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 364-378 1

1609 Grevenbicht* Missing 5 1619 Maastricht-omgeving 388-402 1

1609 Grevenbicht* Republic 1 1620 Meijel-Berg 296-317 1

1609 Grevenbicht* Augustus 1 1621 Meijel-Willibrordushof 364-378 1

1609 Grevenbicht* Nero-68 2 1621 Meijel-Willibrordushof 388-402 1

1609 Grevenbicht* Nerva/Traj 2 1622 Mook* Missing 2

1609 Grevenbicht* MAurelius 1 1622 Mook* Augustus 2

1609 Grevenbicht* 330-348 1 1622 Mook* Claudius 1

1609 Grevenbicht* 364-378 2 1622 Mook* Flavii 3

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Missing 3 1622 Mook* AntPius 3

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Tib/Cal 1 1622 Mook* 275-296 1

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Claudius 1 1622 Mook* 317-330 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus Nero-68 1 1622 Mook* 330-348 1

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Flavii 1 1623 Mook-Mokerhei Flavii 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus Nerva/Traj 1 1624 Nederweert-Wessemerdijk MAurelius 1

1610 Obbicht-villa Nerva/Traj 1 1625 Neer-Backerbosch Missing 1

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Hadrian 1 1626 Neeritter-Oude Herberg Nerva/Traj 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus MAurelius 1 1627 Obbicht* 364-378 2

1610 Obbicht-villa MAurelius 1 1629 Ottersum* Augustus 2

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen Commodus 1 1629 Ottersum* Hadrian 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus Commodus 1 1629 Ottersum* 364-378 1

1610 Grevenbicht-villa De Kempen 193-222 1 1630 Roermond I Tib/Cal 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus 260-275 1 1631 Roermond-Bos Flavii 1

1610 Obbicht-Kempenweg 296-317 1 1632 R"mer?* Nerva/Traj 2

1610 Obbicht-Kempenweg 330-348 2 1632 R"mer?* Hadrian 1

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus 330-348 2 1632 R"mer?* AntPius 1

1610 Obbicht-villa 364-378 1 1632 R"mer?* MAurelius 3

1610 Obbicht-Op het Campus >402 1 1633 Maastricht I Missing 7

299 Site Name Period Coins

1633 Maastricht I Celtic 2 1650 Bergeijk* Missing 2

1633 Maastricht I Augustus 5 1650 Bergeijk* Augustus 1

1633 Maastricht I Claudius 1 1651 Berghem-Heide Augustus 1

1633 Maastricht I Nero-68 5 1652 Berghem-Het Broek Missing 1

1633 Maastricht I Flavii 5 1653 Berghem-Op de Hoge Tussenreten 364-378 1

1633 Maastricht I Nerva/Traj 1 1653 Berghem-Op de Hoge Tussenreten 388-402 2

1633 Maastricht I AntPius 1 1654 Berlicum-Aa Flavii 1

1633 Maastricht I 193-222 1 1654 Berlicum-Aa Commodus 1

1633 Maastricht I 260-275 12 1655 Berlicum I Hadrian 1

1633 Maastricht I 275-296 2 1656 Berlicum-Hoogstraat Nero-68 1

1633 Maastricht I 296-317 1 1657 Berlicum-Oude Bossche Baan MAurelius 1

1633 Maastricht I 317-330 2 1658 Beugen I 388-402 1

1633 Maastricht I 330-348 31 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Missing 19

1633 Maastricht I 364-378 11 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Celtic 2

1633 Maastricht I 378-388 2 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Augustus 6

1633 Maastricht I 388-402 3 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Tib/Cal 5

1634 Rijkel-grindwinning 260-275 2 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Claudius 8

1635 Maastricht-StPieter Republic 1 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Flavii 4

1635 Maastricht-StPieter 260-275 1 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Nerva/Traj 11

1635 Maastricht-StPieter 330-348 1 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor Hadrian 13

1636 Venlo-trimbaan Flavii 1 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor AntPius 3

1637 Venlo-Kop van de Wiert Augustus 1 1659 Bladel-Kriekeschoor MAurelius 3

1638 Weert-Tuindorpstraat AntPius 1 1660 Borkel-grens Nero-68 1

1639 Wolder* Celtic 8 1661 Vierlingsbeek-Molenbeek 222-238 1

1640 Aa* 193-222 1 1662 Boxmeer* Augustus 1

1641 Aalst-Brug Tongelreep Augustus 1 1662 Boxmeer* Tib/Cal 1

1641 Aalst-Brug Tongelreep Tib/Cal 1 1663 Boxmeer I Nerva/Traj 2

1642 Aarle* Missing 2 1663 Boxmeer I AntPius 1

1642 Aarle* 260-275 2 1663 Boxmeer I MAurelius 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels Missing 1 1664 Boxmeer-Fabrieksstraat Hadrian 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels Augustus 1 1665 Breda-Saksen Weimarlaan Flavii 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels Flavii 7 1666 Breda-Ulvenhout MAurelius 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels Nerva/Traj 2 1667 Breda-Princenhage 330-348 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels Commodus 1 1668 Budel* Missing 2

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 222-238 1 1668 Budel* Tib/Cal 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 238-260 1 1668 Budel* Nero-68 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 260-275 1 1668 Budel* Nerva/Traj 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 275-296 4 1668 Budel* Hadrian 1

1643 Alphen-grafheuvels 317-330 1 1669 Casteren-Casterse Molen Missing 1

1644 Alphen-'wachttoren' Hadrian 1 1669 Casteren-De Polder Missing 2

1644 Alphen-'wachttoren' AntPius 1 1669 Casteren-Casterse Molen Hadrian 4

1645 Alphen* Flavii 1 1669 Casteren-Casterse Molen AntPius 2

1645 Alphen* 193-222 1 1671 Chaam I Missing 30

1646 Alphen-Op den Dekt MAurelius 1 1672 Cuijk-Wolfskuil Nerva/Traj 1

1647 Wouw I Augustus 1 1673 Cuijk-Maas Nerva/Traj 1

1647 Wouw I Nerva/Traj 1 1673 Cuijk-Maas 296-317 1

1648 Bakel* Missing 1 1673 Cuijk-Maas 317-330 1

1649 Beers-Het Westen Augustus 1 1673 Cuijk-Maas 330-348 5

1649 Beers-Het Westen Claudius 1 1674 Cuijk-Maasstraat Flavii 1

1649 Beers-Het Westen Hadrian 1 1675 Cuijk&omgeving Augustus 1

1649 Beers-Het Westen AntPius 2 1675 Cuijk&omgeving Tib/Cal 1

300 Site Name Period Coins

1675 Cuijk&omgeving Claudius 1 1698 Escharen* AntPius 1

1675 Cuijk&omgeving Nerva/Traj 1 1698 Escharen* 238-260 3

1675 Cuijk&omgeving AntPius 1 1698 Escharen* 330-348 1

1675 Cuijk&omgeving MAurelius 2 1699 Escharen-Escharensche brug Nerva/Traj 1

1675 Cuijk&omgeving 260-275 1 1700 Escharen-Rotse Weg 193-222 1

1675 Cuijk&omgeving 296-317 2 1700 Escharen-Rotse Weg 317-330 1

1675 Cuijk&omgeving 364-378 1 1701 Gassel-Hogendijk Hadrian 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk Missing 18 1702 Geldrop* Nero-68 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk Augustus 1 1703 Gemonde-De Hogert MAurelius 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk Flavii 1 1704 Gemonde* Missing 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk Nerva/Traj 2 1705 Gilze-Rijen I MAurelius 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk AntPius 1 1706 Ginneken* Nero-68 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk 193-222 2 1707 Goirle-Abcoven >402 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk 222-238 1 1708 Goirle* Missing 2

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk 238-260 5 1709 Grave* Augustus 1

1676 Benedenland van Cuijk 260-275 4 1709 Grave* Flavii 1

1677 Dennenburg* 388-402 1 1709 Grave* Hadrian 1

1679 Deurne* Missing 1 1709 Grave* 260-275 2

1679 Deurne* Republic 1 1709 Grave* 317-330 1

1680 Deurne II MAurelius 1 1710 Grave-Maas Missing 1

1681 Deurne-StJozef MAurelius 1 1710 Grave-Maas Celtic 2

1682 Deursen I AntPius 1 1710 Grave-Maas Flavii 1

1682 Deursen I 193-222 2 1710 Grave-Maas AntPius 2

1683 Diessen* 296-317 1 1710 Grave-Maas Commodus 1

1684 Drunen* AntPius 1 1710 Grave-Maas 238-260 2

1685 Eindhoven-stad Republic 1 1710 Grave-Maas 260-275 2

1686 Eindhoven* Augustus 1 1710 Grave-Maas 296-317 1

1686 Eindhoven* 193-222 1 1710 Grave-Maas 330-348 2

1686 Eindhoven* 330-348 1 1710 Grave-Maas 348-364 2

1687 Eindhoven-Heesterakker Flavii 1 1711 Grave-Maas/2 AntPius 1

1687 Eindhoven-Heesterakker Hadrian 1 1711 Grave-Maas/2 MAurelius 1

1687 Eindhoven-Heesterakker MAurelius 1 1711 Grave-Maas/2 317-330 1

1688 Eindhoven-Oude Gracht Hadrian 1 1711 Grave-Maas/2 330-348 2

1689 Eindhoven-centrum AntPius 1 1712 Groeningen I Missing 2

1690 Empel-Maaspoort Missing 1 1713 Linden I Flavii 1

1691 Engelen-Kerk Nerva/Traj 2 1714 Halder-oven Augustus 1

1691 Engelen-Kerk Hadrian 1 1714 Halder-oven Nero-68 1

1691 Engelen-Kerk AntPius 1 1715 Halder-Doveninstituut Missing 3

1692 Engelen-Dieze/eiland Flavii 1 1715 Halder-Doveninstituut Augustus 1

1693 Engelen-Maas Missing 2 1715 Halder-Doveninstituut Flavii 4

1695 Esch-Tongersche? heide Claudius 1 1715 Halder-Doveninstituut Nerva/Traj 2

1696 Esch* 348-364 1 1715 Halder-Doveninstituut Hadrian 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Missing 11 1716 Halder I Missing 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Augustus 4 1717 Hapert-De Vloed Missing 2

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Nero-68 2 1717 Hapert-De Vloed Nerva/Traj 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Flavii 6 1718 Hapert-Beerze Missing 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Nerva/Traj 3 1720 Hapert* Tib/Cal 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht Hadrian 4 1721 Haren I MAurelius 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht AntPius 12 1722 Hedikhuizen* MAurelius 1

1697 Escharen-Hoge Burcht MAurelius 3 1723 Hedikhuizen-dorp 222-238 1

1698 Escharen* Nerva/Traj 2 1724 Heerle* Missing 2

301 Site Name Period Coins

1726 Heesbeen I Missing 1 1758 Lieshout I 238-260 3

1727 Heeswijk-Kasteel Republic 1 1759 Lith-Maas Missing 11

1727 Heeswijk-Kasteel 238-260 1 1759 Lith-Maas Republic 4

1728 Heeswijk* 348-364 1 1759 Lith-Maas Celtic 4

1729 Helmond-Kerkstraat 296-317 1 1759 Lith-Maas Tib/Cal 1

1730 Helmond-Molenstraat/Paterskerk 317-330 1 1759 Lith-Maas Claudius 1

1730 Helmond-Molenstraat/Paterskerk 330-348 1 1759 Lith-Maas Nero-68 1

1730 Helmond-Molenstraat/Paterskerk 348-364 1 1759 Lith-Maas Flavii 3

1731 Helvoirt-hei Missing 1 1759 Lith-Maas Nerva/Traj 1

1732 Herpen-Molenveld Nero-68 1 1759 Lith-Maas Hadrian 2

1733 Herpen* Nerva/Traj 1 1759 Lith-Maas AntPius 2

1735 Den Bosch-Dieze Augustus 3 1759 Lith-Maas MAurelius 5

1735 Den Bosch-Dieze Tib/Cal 1 1759 Lith-Maas 193-222 2

1736 Den Bosch-IJzeren Vrouw Augustus 1 1759 Lith-Maas 260-275 2

1737 Den Bosch-Jan Heinstraat Missing 1 1759 Lith-Maas 296-317 1

1738 Den Bosch-Postelstraat Nerva/Traj 1 1759 Lith-Maas 317-330 1

1739 Den Bosch-Berewoutstraat Nerva/Traj 1 1759 Lith-Maas 330-348 3

1740 Den Bosch-Schutsluis Hadrian 1 1759 Lith-Maas 378-388 2

1740 Den Bosch-Schutsluis 364-378 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Missing 7

1741 Den Bosch-Orthenpoort 348-364 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Republic 5

1742 Heult* Nerva/Traj 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Celtic 12

1743 Heusden-Pelsestraat AntPius 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Augustus 6

1743 Heusden-Pelsestraat 193-222 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Nero-68 3

1744 Hilvarenbeek* Missing 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Flavii 1

1745 Nieuw-Vossemeer-Hogendijk? Missing 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Nerva/Traj 3

1746 Hoogeind* Missing 2 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Hadrian 1

1748 Den Hout-Ruiterspoor Tib/Cal 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham AntPius 1

1748 Den Hout-Ruiterspoor Hadrian 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham MAurelius 1

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden Missing 2 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham Commodus 1

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden Celtic 12 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham 260-275 3

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden Tib/Cal 2 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham 317-330 1

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 348-364 1 1760 Lith-Lithse Ham 364-378 1

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 364-378 3 1761 Lith-Tussen de Stegen Republic 1

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 378-388 1 1761 Lith-Tussen de Stegen Flavii 2

1750 Kessel-Kesselsche Waarden 388-402 7 1761 Lith-Tussen de Stegen AntPius 1

1751 Kessel* Missing 1 1761 Lith-Tussen de Stegen MAurelius 2

1752 Kessel-Lith Missing 22 1762 Lithoijen-Klootskamp Missing 7

1752 Kessel-Lith Hadrian 1 1762 Lithoijen-Klootskamp AntPius 1

1752 Kessel-Lith 330-348 4 1762 Lithoijen-Klootskamp 193-222 1

1752 Kessel-Lith 348-364 2 1763 Luijksgestel* 260-275 1

1752 Kessel-Lith 364-378 23 1764 Maas I Claudius 1

1752 Kessel-Lith 378-388 4 1765 Maas* Nero-68 2

1752 Kessel-Lith 388-402 11 1765 Maas* Flavii 1

1753 Linden* Flavii 1 1765 Maas* Nerva/Traj 2

1754 Knegsel-Steensel AntPius 1 1767 Maashees-Vliegenberg AntPius 1

1755 Lage Mierde I Missing 1 1767 Maashees-Vliegenberg 193-222 1

1755 Lage Mierde I Augustus 1 1768 Maren-Oude Maas Celtic 2

1756 Leende* Augustus 1 1769 Maren* AntPius 1

1756 Leende* Claudius 1 1769 Maren* 260-275 1

1756 Leende* Nero-68 1 1770 Maren-Maas Nero-68 1

1757 Leende-Akker Oosterik Flavii 1 1770 Maren-Maas Flavii 1

302 Site Name Period Coins

1770 Maren-Maas Nerva/Traj 1 1788 Oss-Danenhoef 238-260 1

1770 Maren-Maas Hadrian 2 1789 Oss-Ossche Meer Missing 2

1770 Maren-Maas AntPius 2 1789 Oss-Ossche Meer Augustus 1

1770 Maren-Maas Commodus 1 1789 Oss-Ossche Meer Tib/Cal 1

1770 Maren-Maas 222-238 1 1790 Oss* Nerva/Traj 1

1770 Maren-Maas 260-275 1 1790 Oss* Hadrian 2

1770 Maren-Maas 317-330 2 1790 Oss* 193-222 2

1770 Maren-Maas 378-388 1 1790 Oss* 222-238 1

1771 Megen-Maas Republic 2 1791 Oss-Ussen Missing 2

1771 Megen-Maas Celtic 1 1791 Oss-Ussen Augustus 1

1771 Megen-Maas Augustus 1 1791 Oss-Ussen Flavii 1

1771 Megen-Maas Nero-68 1 1791 Oss-Ussen Nerva/Traj 1

1772 Megen I Augustus 2 1792 Oudenbosch* MAurelius 1

1772 Megen I MAurelius 1 1793 Ravenstein-De Kalfsheuvel 330-348 1

1772 Megen I 193-222 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Missing 8

1772 Megen I 260-275 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Republic 2

1772 Megen I 388-402 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Celtic 2

1773 Mill-Hollander Broek 364-378 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Augustus 14

1774 Mun I 330-348 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Tib/Cal 3

1776 Netersel-Kasteel Republic 2 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Nero-68 3

1776 Netersel-Kasteel Flavii 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Flavii 8

1777 Noord-Brabant* Celtic 4 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Nerva/Traj 13

1777 Noord-Brabant* MAurelius 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel Hadrian 10

1777 Noord-Brabant* 193-222 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel AntPius 8

1777 Noord-Brabant* 260-275 3 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel MAurelius 7

1777 Noord-Brabant* 330-348 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel 193-222 1

1778 Nuenen-Boord MAurelius 1 1794 Riethoven-Heesmortel 222-238 1

1779 Oisterwijk-Ven 193-222 1 1795 Roosendaal* Augustus 1

1779 Oisterwijk-Ven 238-260 2 1796 Rosmalen* AntPius 1

1780 Oisterwijk* Hadrian 1 1797 Rosmalen-De Bunder MAurelius 1

1781 Oosterhout-Muldersteeg Missing 3 1798 Ruimel-Kapelberg 222-238 1

1781 Oosterhout-Muldersteeg Hadrian 1 1799 Rijen* 364-378 5

1782 Oosterhout-Oude Bredasebaan MAurelius 1 1800 Rijsbergen-Tiggeltsche Akkers Missing 1

1783 Oosterhout-Houtsche Akkers 193-222 1 1800 Rijsbergen-Tiggeltsche Akkers Flavii 1

1784 Oosterhout-Markkanaal Augustus 1 1800 Rijsbergen-Tiggeltsche Akkers MAurelius 3

1784 Oosterhout-Markkanaal 222-238 1 1801 Schaijk* AntPius 1

1785 Oijen-Lutterweg Missing 13 1802 Schaijk-Hoogheistraat MAurelius 1

1785 Oijen-Lutterweg Hadrian 1 1803 Schaijk-Gaalsche Heide Missing 2

1785 Oijen-Lutterweg 317-330 1 1805 Someren-Aa Hadrian 1

1785 Oijen-Lutterweg 330-348 1 1806 Someren* 364-378 2

1785 Oijen-Lutterweg 388-402 4 1807 Son-Dommel Hadrian 1

1786 Orthen-IJZeren Oom Missing 2 1808 StAgatha I Nerva/Traj 1

1786 Orthen-IJZeren Oom Augustus 1 1809 StMichielsgestel-Schijndelseweg Tib/Cal 1

1787 Oss-omgeving Missing 1 1810 StMichielsgestel-Zegenweg Nerva/Traj 1

1787 Oss-omgeving Augustus 2 1811 StOedenrode-Nijnsel 222-238 1

1787 Oss-omgeving Claudius 2 1812 Stiphout-Oude Toren 275-296 1

1787 Oss-omgeving Flavii 4 1813 Teeffelen II Missing 2

1787 Oss-omgeving AntPius 1 1813 Teeffelen II Celtic 1

1787 Oss-omgeving MAurelius 1 1813 Teeffelen II Flavii 1

1787 Oss-omgeving 222-238 2 1813 Teeffelen II 260-275 4

1787 Oss-omgeving 317-330 1 1813 Teeffelen II 388-402 2

303 Site Name Period Coins

1814 Teeffelen-Akker De Honing Celtic 1 1843 Vught* Flavii 1

1814 Teeffelen-Akker De Honing 193-222 1 1843 Vught* AntPius 1

1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds Missing 2 1843 Vught* Commodus 1

1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds Claudius 1 1843 Vught* 260-275 1

1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds Hadrian 1 1844 Vught-Huize Bergen 222-238 1

1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds AntPius 1 1845 Vught-Esch Missing 2

1815 Teeffelen-dredge finds MAurelius 1 1846 Vught-Steenwijk 260-275 1

1816 Teeffelen-Weteringstraat 260-275 1 1847 Waalwijk-Eerste Zeine Missing 1

1817 Teeffelen-Eikberg Missing 4 1848 Walik I Tib/Cal 1

1819 Terover I Missing 2 1849 Westerhoven-Lange Akkers Celtic 1

1820 Tilburg* Hadrian 1 1851 Wolfswinkel-Oorlogskerkhof Nerva/Traj 1

1820 Tilburg* 317-330 3 1852 Wouw* Augustus 1

1821 Uden I Republic 1 1852 Wouw* Nerva/Traj 1

1822 Uden-Leijgraaf Flavii 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Celtic 2

1823 Valkenswaard-grafveld Missing 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Augustus 3

1824 Veghel* Republic 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Nero-68 1

1824 Veghel* Celtic 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Nerva/Traj 1

1825 Veghel I Augustus 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Hadrian 3

1826 Veghel-Aa Missing 8 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten AntPius 3

1826 Veghel-Aa Flavii 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten Commodus 1

1826 Veghel-Aa MAurelius 1 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten 222-238 1

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 Missing 2 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten 260-275 1

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 Nerva/Traj 5 1855 Lith/Maren/Kessel-baggervondsten 364-378 1

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 Hadrian 1 1856 Teeffelen I Missing 6

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 AntPius 1 1856 Teeffelen I 260-275 1

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 Commodus 1 1856 Teeffelen I 317-330 1

1827 Veldhoven-opgr RMO 1909 193-222 1 1856 Teeffelen I 330-348 3

1828 Veldhoven-Koningshof Augustus 1 1856 Teeffelen I 364-378 1

1828 Veldhoven-Heers MAurelius 1 1856 Teeffelen I 388-402 30

1828 Veldhoven-Koningshof MAurelius 1 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat Missing 9

1828 Veldhoven-Heers 238-260 2 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat Nero-68 1

1829 Veldhoven-De Heiblom AntPius 2 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat Nerva/Traj 1

1829 Veldhoven-De Heiblom MAurelius 2 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat AntPius 1

1829 Veldhoven-De Heiblom Commodus 1 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat MAurelius 1

1831 Veldhoven-Oeyenbosch Missing 10 1857 Oss-Ussen/IJsselstraat Commodus 1

1831 Veldhoven-Oeyenbosch 296-317 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten Missing 6

1831 Veldhoven-Oeyenbosch 317-330 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten Republic 1

1832 Velp-Het Doevestuk Hadrian 2 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten Augustus 2

1833 Velp* 317-330 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten Nero-68 1

1834 Vianen I AntPius 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten Hadrian 1

1834 Vianen I 317-330 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 260-275 1

1834 Vianen I 364-378 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 330-348 6

1835 Vierlingsbeek-Smakterveld Nero-68 2 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 364-378 5

1835 Vierlingsbeek-Smakterveld Flavii 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 378-388 6

1836 Vierlingsbeek* Nerva/Traj 1 1859 Teeffelen-baggervondsten 388-402 41

1837 Vlierden-Hei bij Asten Nero-68 3 1860 Amby-Op de Heukel Nerva/Traj 1

1838 Vlierden-Brouwhuis Nerva/Traj 2 1861 Asselt* MAurelius 1

1838 Vlierden-Brouwhuis Hadrian 2 1862 Baarlo* Republic 1

1839 Vorstenbosch* Augustus 1 1862 Baarlo* Augustus 1

1840 Vught-Bleijendijk AntPius 3 1862 Baarlo* Flavii 2

1842 Vught-Gentdijk Flavii 1 1862 Baarlo* MAurelius 1

304 Site Name Period Coins

1864 Baexem* Augustus 1 1886 Echt-Peij Republic 1

1865 Baexem-Op den Bosch/2 Missing 2 1886 Echt-Peij Flavii 1

1865 Baexem-Op den Bosch AntPius 1 1886 Echt-Peij MAurelius 1

1865 Baexem-Op den Bosch/2 238-260 1 1887 Echt-Eikenstraat Nero-68 1

1867 Beek-DSM Missing 11 1887 Echt-Eikenstraat 330-348 1

1867 Beek-DSM 317-330 1 1887 Echt-Eikenstraat 348-364 1

1868 Beek-opgraving Steenbakkerij Missing 4 1887 Echt-Eikenstraat 364-378 1

1869 Beesel* Missing 3 1888 Echt-Abeelstraat Flavii 2

1869 Beesel* Republic 2 1888 Echt-Abeelstraat AntPius 1

1869 Beesel* Nerva/Traj 1 1888 Echt-Abeelstraat Commodus 1

1870 Beesel I Hadrian 1 1889 Echt-Kerk Flavii 1

1871 Kessel(L) I MAurelius 1 1890 Echt-Vuilslakkeweg? Nerva/Traj 1

1872 Beesel-Het Haselt MAurelius 1 1891 Echt-Stadsgracht Flavii 1

1873 Beesel-Prinsendijk 193-222 1 1892 Echt-Koningsbosch Flavii 2

1874 Bergen-Akker Duitse grens Nero-68 1 1892 Echt-Koningsbosch Nerva/Traj 1

1875 Blerick-Maas Missing 2 1892 Echt-Koningsbosch AntPius 1

1875 Blerick-Maas Augustus 2 1893 Echt-graf Ham Nerva/Traj 2

1875 Blerick-Maas 317-330 1 1894 Echt-graf Doordhuis Nerva/Traj 1

1876 Blerick* 296-317 1 1894 Echt-graf Doordhuis Hadrian 3

1876 Blerick* 364-378 1 1895 Echt-Peyerstraat Nerva/Traj 1

1877 Born I Flavii 1 1895 Echt-Peyerstraat 275-296 1

1877 Born I Nerva/Traj 2 1895 Echt-Peyerstraat 317-330 1

1877 Born I Hadrian 3 1895 Echt-Peyerstraat 378-388 1

1877 Born I Commodus 1 1896 Echt-graf Ophoven AntPius 2

1877 Born I 193-222 1 1896 Echt-graf Ophoven MAurelius 1

1877 Born I 222-238 3 1897 Echt-Op de Haeselaar AntPius 1

1877 Born I 238-260 4 1898 Echt-graf Tuinstraat 260-275 2

1878 Born-Buchten Missing 1 1898 Echt-graf Tuinstraat 275-296 2

1879 Born-Kasteel AntPius 1 1898 Echt-graf Tuinstraat 330-348 1

1880 Broekhuizenvorst-Kasteel Ooijen Missing 14 1899 Echt-graf Steenfabriek 260-275 2

1881 Buggenum-Wijnardenweg Nerva/Traj 1 1899 Echt-graf Steenfabriek 317-330 1

1882 Buggenum* MAurelius 1 1899 Echt-graf Steenfabriek 388-402 3

1883 Bunde-Weg Meerssen-Beek 317-330 2 1899 Echt-graf Steenfabriek >402 1

1884 Diekendaal* Missing 2 1900 Echt-graf Slagmolen 296-317 1

1885 Echt* Missing 4 1900 Echt-graf Slagmolen 330-348 1

1885 Echt* Republic 2 1901 Eijsden-Caestert Beemden MAurelius 1

1885 Echt* Claudius 1 1901 Eijsden-Caestert Beemden 348-364 1

1885 Echt* Nero-68 2 1901 Eijsden-Caestert Beemden 364-378 1

1885 Echt* Flavii 12 1902 Eijsden* 330-348 1

1885 Echt* Nerva/Traj 4 1902 Eijsden* 364-378 1

1885 Echt* Hadrian 2 1903 Gennep-Niers 348-364 3

1885 Echt* AntPius 4 1904 Geulle* Missing 2

1885 Echt* MAurelius 2 1904 Geulle* Nerva/Traj 2

1885 Echt* 260-275 1 1905 Geysteren-Horst Flavii 1

1885 Echt* 275-296 2 1905 Geysteren-Horst Hadrian 1

1885 Echt* 296-317 1 1905 Geysteren-Horst 260-275 1

1885 Echt* 317-330 1 1906 Grevenbicht I 296-317 1

1885 Echt* 330-348 3 1907 Grubbenvorst-Hermanushoeve Nerva/Traj 3

1885 Echt* 364-378 1 1908 Grubbenvorst* AntPius 1

1885 Echt* 378-388 1 1909 Haelen-Melenberg Augustus 1

1885 Echt* 388-402 2 1909 Haelen-Melenberg Tib/Cal 1

305 Site Name Period Coins

1909 Haelen-Melenberg Claudius 1 1936 Kessel I Nerva/Traj 1

1909 Haelen-Melenberg Hadrian 2 1937 Kessel-Tasbeek 388-402 1

1909 Haelen-Melenberg AntPius 4 1938 Kessel-Donkzicht Celtic 1

1910 Haelen* Missing 2 1939 Kesseleik-Hei Claudius 1

1910 Haelen* Nerva/Traj 1 1939 Kesseleik-Hei Flavii 1

1911 Haelen-Starrebosch Nerva/Traj 1 1939 Kesseleik-Hei Hadrian 1

1912 Haelen-zandafgraving 317-330 1 1940 Kesseleik-Lauterd 193-222 1

1913 Hanssum* Nerva/Traj 1 1941 Leeuwen* Missing 2

1914 Heel* Missing 1 1942 Limmel* Missing 3

1914 Heel* Tib/Cal 1 1942 Limmel* MAurelius 1

1915 Heel-Langven Missing 2 1942 Limmel* Commodus 1

1915 Heel-Langven Tib/Cal 3 1943 Linne I Tib/Cal 1

1915 Heel-Langven Claudius 1 1943 Linne I Claudius 1

1915 Heel-Langven AntPius 2 1943 Linne I Flavii 2

1915 Heel-Langven 330-348 2 1943 Linne I Nerva/Traj 1

1915 Heel-Langven 364-378 1 1944 Linne-Mortelshof MAurelius 1

1915 Heel-Langven 378-388 2 1945 Linne-Osseberg Missing 1

1915 Heel-Langven 388-402 1 1945 Linne-Osseberg Tib/Cal 1

1916 Heel-Reutsberg Tib/Cal 1 1945 Linne-Osseberg AntPius 1

1917 Heel I Flavii 2 1945 Linne-Osseberg 348-364 1

1917 Heel I Commodus 1 1946 Linne* Missing 1

1917 Heel I >402 1 1947 Hanik-Valkenberg Augustus 1

1918 Heel II Flavii 1 1948 Lottum-Kerk 260-275 1

1918 Heel II AntPius 4 1948 Lottum-Kerk 364-378 1

1919 Heel-Pompstation Nerva/Traj 1 1949 Gennep-Maas Celtic 1

1920 Heel-Beegder heide MAurelius 1 1950 Mook-Maas Missing 2

1921 Heer-Backerbosch Missing 2 1951 Maas(L)* Claudius 1

1921 Heer-Backerbosch Flavii 4 1951 Maas(L)* Nero-68 1

1921 Heer-Backerbosch Nerva/Traj 1 1951 Maas(L)* Flavii 1

1921 Heer-Backerbosch AntPius 1 1951 Maas(L)* Nerva/Traj 1

1921 Heer-Backerbosch MAurelius 1 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker Hadrian 2

1921 Heer-Backerbosch 193-222 3 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker AntPius 2

1922 Heer* Hadrian 1 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker 193-222 1

1923 Helden* Augustus 1 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker 238-260 8

1923 Helden* Tib/Cal 1 1952 Maasbracht-Steenakker 330-348 1

1923 Helden* AntPius 1 1953 Maasniel-De Straat Missing 1

1923 Helden* 296-317 1 1953 Maasniel-De Straat Augustus 1

1924 Helden-Houwenberg 193-222 1 1953 Maasniel-De Straat Flavii 1

1925 Herten-Ool Republic 1 1953 Maasniel-De Straat AntPius 1

1926 Herten* MAurelius 1 1954 Meerlo* Republic 1

1927 Heythuizen-Houwenberg/Houtsberg? 193-222 1 1955 Meerlo-Gun Augustus 1

1928 Horn* Missing 2 1956 Meerlo-Postbaan Nerva/Traj 1

1928 Horn* Celtic 1 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg Tib/Cal 1

1929 Horst* Hadrian 1 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg Flavii 1

1929 Horst* 317-330 1 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg Nerva/Traj 2

1930 Hout-goudakker 364-378 2 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg Hadrian 1

1931 Hunsel* Republic 1 1957 Meerssen-Onderste Herkenberg AntPius 1

1932 Hunsel-Baakhuisven Tib/Cal 1 1958 Meerssen* Missing 1

1933 Ittervoort-Neeritter AntPius 1 1958 Meerssen* Nero-68 1

1934 Ittervoort* AntPius 1 1959 Merum-Drususberg Republic 1

1935 Ittervoort-Kessenich 317-330 2 1960 Merum* Claudius 3

306 Site Name Period Coins

1960 Merum* 193-222 1 1989 StOdili%nberg* 317-330 1

1960 Merum* 222-238 1 1989 StOdili%nberg* 348-364 1

1961 Middelaar-Mokerplas Flavii 1 1990 StOdili%nberg II 378-388 1

1962 Middelaar-Witteweg 317-330 1 1991 Stein-Nieuwstraat Republic 1

1964 Montfort-Rozendaal Republic 1 1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg Missing 1

1965 Montfort-Groot Broek Nero-68 1 1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg Flavii 1

1966 Montfort-Genoudenhof Nero-68 1 1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg Commodus 1

1966 Montfort-Genoudenhof Flavii 1 1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg 296-317 2

1967 Montfort* Missing 1 1992 Stein-Villa Holenweg 364-378 2

1967 Montfort* Flavii 2 1993 Stein-Houtereind Nerva/Traj 1

1967 Montfort* Nerva/Traj 1 1993 Stein-Houtereind Hadrian 1

1967 Montfort* Hadrian 2 1994 Stein* 260-275 1

1967 Montfort* AntPius 1 1994 Stein* 275-296 1

1967 Montfort* 222-238 3 1994 Stein* 330-348 1

1967 Montfort* 348-364 1 1995 Stevensweert* Missing 2

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn AntPius 1 1995 Stevensweert* AntPius 1

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn 260-275 1 1996 Tegelen-Steijl 317-330 1

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn 330-348 1 1997 Susteren* 296-317 1

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn 364-378 1 1997 Susteren* 317-330 1

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn 378-388 1 1998 Swalmen-De Hout Missing 1

1968 Montfort-grafvondsetn 388-402 1 1998 Swalmen-De Hout Flavii 2

1969 Montfort-Het Broek 193-222 1 1999 Swolgen* Missing 1

1970 Mook-Plasmolense Hof AntPius 1 1999 Swolgen* Nerva/Traj 1

1971 Mook-Lodewijkstraat AntPius 2 1999 Swolgen* 317-330 1

1972 Neer* Augustus 1 2000 Tegelen-Oelerheide MAurelius 1

1972 Neer* Nerva/Traj 1 2001 Venlo* Republic 11

1972 Neer* 378-388 1 2001 Venlo* Nero-68 1

1973 Neer-De Boshei 260-275 2 2001 Venlo* Flavii 3

1974 Nunhem-Nunhemmer Heide MAurelius 1 2001 Venlo* Nerva/Traj 1

1977 Obbicht-Steenakker 330-348 1 2001 Venlo* Hadrian 1

1978 Oijen(L) Missing 14 2001 Venlo* AntPius 3

1979 Peij* Missing 1 2001 Venlo* MAurelius 1

1980 Reuver-De Schans MAurelius 1 2001 Venlo* 222-238 1

1981 Reuver-Keulseweg 364-378 1 2001 Venlo* 260-275 2

1982 Roermond-Mouterij Beltjeur Augustus 1 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats Missing 2

1983 Roermond-Maas AntPius 1 2002 Venlo-Jodenstraat Missing 1

1983 Roermond-Maas 222-238 1 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats Augustus 3

1984 Roermond-Brugstraat AntPius 2 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats Flavii 1

1985 Rothem* Nero-68 1 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats AntPius 2

1986 Sevenum I 330-348 1 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats 260-275 1

1986 Sevenum I 348-364 1 2002 Venlo-Hakkesplaats 296-317 1

1986 Sevenum I 364-378 1 2003 Venlo I Augustus 1

1986 Sevenum I 388-402 6 2003 Venlo I MAurelius 1

1987 Augustus 1 2003 Venlo I 193-222 1

1987 Nero-68 1 2004 Venlo-Grote Kerkstraat MAurelius 1

1988 StOdili%nberg-'t Sittert Nero-68 1 2005 Venlo II Nero-68 1

1989 StOdili%nberg* Nerva/Traj 2 2007 Venlo-Casinoweg Augustus 1

1989 StOdili%nberg* AntPius 1 2008 Venray* Augustus 1

1989 StOdili%nberg* MAurelius 2 2008 Venray* Tib/Cal 1

1989 StOdili%nberg* 193-222 1 2009 Vredepeel-Polse Koelen AntPius 1

1989 StOdili%nberg* 296-317 1 2010 Wanssum-Pesch weide AntPius 1

307 Site Name Period Coins

2011 Wanssum* Missing 1 2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 348-364 14

2012 Well* Augustus 1 2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 364-378 16

2013 Wessem* Flavii 1 2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 378-388 6

2013 Wessem* Nerva/Traj 1 2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 388-402 45

2013 Wessem* 193-222 2 2025 Maastricht-StMaartenspoort Hadrian 1

2014 Beegden-Maas 348-364 1 2026 Maastricht-Wijk/grafveld MAurelius 1

2015 Catsop-Hemelbeek MAurelius 1 2027 Maastricht-OLVrouwepoort Missing 1

2016 Roermond* Tib/Cal 1 2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat Missing 2

2017 Maastricht-Augustijnenkerk Missing 4 2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat Flavii 2

2018 Maastricht-Jodenstraat Nerva/Traj 4 2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat Nerva/Traj 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Missing 14 2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat MAurelius 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Augustus 2 2028 Maastricht-Grote Straat 222-238 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Tib/Cal 1 2029 Maastricht-Kruisherengang Missing 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Nerva/Traj 2 2030 Maastricht-Maasbrug Missing 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Hadrian 1 2030 Maastricht-Maasbrug AntPius 3

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat AntPius 6 2030 Maastricht-Maasbrug 317-330 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat MAurelius 1 2030 Maastricht-Maasbrug 348-364 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat Commodus 1 2031 Maastricht-Maas Flavii 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 238-260 1 2031 Maastricht-Maas 260-275 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 260-275 18 2032 Maastricht-HGeeststraat Missing 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 275-296 4 2032 Maastricht-HGeeststraat Flavii 2

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 296-317 4 2033 Maastricht-Helmstraat Nerva/Traj 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 317-330 4 2034 Maastricht-Wilhelminabrug Nero-68 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 330-348 12 2035 Maastricht-StBernardusstraat Tib/Cal 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 348-364 7 2035 Maastricht-StBernardusstraat Claudius 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 364-378 8 2035 Maastricht-StBernardusstraat Flavii 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 378-388 11 2035 Maastricht-StBernardusstraat Nerva/Traj 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat 388-402 70 2035 Maastricht-StBernardusstraat Hadrian 1

2020 Maastricht-Stokstraat >402 1 2036 Maastricht-Wittevrouwenveld MAurelius 1

2021 Maastricht* Missing 1 2037 Maastricht-StPieterstraat Nero-68 1

2021 Maastricht* Hadrian 1 2037 Maastricht-StPieterstraat 260-275 1

2021 Maastricht* AntPius 1 2037 Maastricht-StPieterstraat 388-402 1

2021 Maastricht* MAurelius 1 2038 Maastricht-Graaf v Waldeckstraa Nero-68 1

2021 Maastricht* 317-330 1 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug Missing 1

2022 Maastricht-Boschstraat Missing 2 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug Flavii 1

2022 Maastricht-Boschstraat AntPius 1 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug Nerva/Traj 1

2023 Maastricht-Kleine Gracht Missing 1 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug Hadrian 1

2023 Maastricht-Kleine Gracht >402 1 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug AntPius 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Missing 108 2039 Maastricht-StServaesbrug Commodus 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Celtic 1 2040 Maastricht-StServaeskerk Missing 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Tib/Cal 1 2040 Maastricht-StServaeskerk Nerva/Traj 2

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Nero-68 1 2040 Maastricht-StServaeskerk 330-348 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Flavii 1 2040 Maastricht-StServaeskerk 364-378 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Nerva/Traj 2 2041 Maastricht-Industrieweg 378-388 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein Hadrian 1 2042 Maastricht-Maas/Eksterstraat MAurelius 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein AntPius 2 2042 Maastricht-Maas/Eksterstraat 330-348 2

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein MAurelius 2 2042 Maastricht-Maas/Eksterstraat 364-378 2

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 260-275 25 2044 Maastricht-Belfort Nerva/Traj 1

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 275-296 3 2045 Maastricht-Vrijthof Nerva/Traj 2

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 317-330 2 2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat Missing 24

2024 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein 330-348 23 2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat Augustus 3

308 Site Name Period Coins

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat AntPius 1 2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 364-378 15

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 260-275 6 2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 378-388 9

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 330-348 4 2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 388-402 33

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 348-364 2 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat Missing 7

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 378-388 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat AntPius 2

2046 Maastricht-Havenstraat 388-402 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat MAurelius 1

2047 Maastricht-Randwijck AntPius 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 260-275 4

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique Missing 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 296-317 1

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique Commodus 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 317-330 1

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique 193-222 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 330-348 2

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique 330-348 4 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 364-378 1

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique 364-378 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 378-388 3

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique 378-388 1 2063 Maastricht-Pasestraat 388-402 2

2056 Maastricht-C,ramique 388-402 1 2065 Maastricht-StServaas-Stiftskape 364-378 1

2057 Maastricht-StMaartenslaan 364-378 1 2067 Balen-Wezel-Kopbergen Missing 2

2058 Maastricht-Eikelkeslei AntPius 1 2068 Dessel-Brasel Flavii 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon Missing 31 2069 Mechelen-Battel* Flavii 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon Republic 1 2069 Mechelen-Battel* Nerva/Traj 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon Flavii 2 2070 Battel-Zennegat Missing 2

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon AntPius 3 2071 Battel-Varkenstraat 388-402 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon MAurelius 3 2072 Mechelen-omgeving Missing 17

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 260-275 18 2073 Mechelen-Koeiepoort Missing 2

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 275-296 14 2074 Genebroek-Hertstraat Missing 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 296-317 3 2074 Genebroek-Hertstraat Republic 3

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 317-330 2 2074 Genebroek-Hertstraat Nerva/Traj 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 330-348 16 2074 Genebroek-Hertstraat AntPius 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 364-378 1 2075 Genebroek-Herenststaat Republic 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 378-388 1 2076 Genebroek-Peeterslei Nerva/Traj 1

2059 Maastricht-Hotel Derlon 388-402 2 2076 Genebroek-Peeterslei AntPius 1

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas Missing 8 2077 Muizen-Wielenveld Missing 1

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas AntPius 1 2078 Zandhoven I Missing 3

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas 275-296 1 2078 Zandhoven I AntPius 1

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas 317-330 1 2079 Rumst-Molenveld Flavii 1

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas 330-348 1 2079 Rumst-Molenveld Hadrian 3

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas 364-378 1 2079 Rumst-Molenveld AntPius 2

2060 Maastricht-Houtmaas 388-402 1 2079 Rumst-Molenveld 193-222 1

2061 Maastricht-Hondstraat Missing 1 2079 Rumst-Molenveld 260-275 2

2061 Maastricht-Hondstraat 260-275 1 2080 Rumst-Nete AntPius 2

2061 Maastricht-Hondstraat 330-348 5 2081 Wommelgem-Uilenbaan Nero-68 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Missing 5 2081 Wommelgem-Uilenbaan Flavii 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Republic 1 2081 Wommelgem-Uilenbaan 317-330 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Celtic 4 2105 Hoogeloon-Kaboutersberg Missing 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Augustus 13 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Missing 4

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Tib/Cal 1 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Celtic 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Claudius 1 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Augustus 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat Flavii 1 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Claudius 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 222-238 1 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Flavii 3

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 260-275 3 2105 Hoogeloon-Kaboutersberg Nerva/Traj 1

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 275-296 1 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Hadrian 4

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 330-348 11 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers MAurelius 7

2062 Maastricht-Wolfstraat 348-364 5 2105 Hoogeloon-Koeboschakkers Commodus 1

309 Site Name Period Coins

2106 Knegsel I Missing 28 2114 Hapert-Steenakkers AntPius 2

2106 Knegsel I Republic 1 2114 Hapert-Steenakkers MAurelius 1

2106 Knegsel I Augustus 3 2114 Hapert-Steenakkers 238-260 1

2106 Knegsel I Claudius 5 2116 Bladel-De Bus Missing 2

2106 Knegsel I Nero-68 6 2116 Bladel-De Bus Flavii 1

2106 Knegsel I Flavii 29 2116 Bladel-De Bus AntPius 1

2106 Knegsel I Nerva/Traj 6 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Republic 16

2106 Knegsel I Hadrian 3 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Celtic 7

2106 Knegsel I AntPius 2 2139 Hapert I Celtic 1

2107 Knegsel II Missing 2 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Augustus 9

2107 Knegsel II Claudius 1 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Tib/Cal 2

2107 Knegsel II Nero-68 1 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Claudius 3

2107 Knegsel II Flavii 2 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Flavii 2

2107 Knegsel II Nerva/Traj 2 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort Nerva/Traj 6

2107 Knegsel II MAurelius 1 2139 Hapert-Hoogpoort MAurelius 1

2107 Knegsel II Commodus 1 2140 Nederwetten I Missing 104

2107 Knegsel II 193-222 4 2140 Nederwetten I Augustus 12

2107 Knegsel II 222-238 1 2140 Nederwetten I Tib/Cal 3

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen Missing 1 2140 Nederwetten I Claudius 9

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen Flavii 1 2140 Nederwetten I Nero-68 9

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen Hadrian 1 2140 Nederwetten I Flavii 37

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen AntPius 2 2140 Nederwetten I Nerva/Traj 28

2108 Duizel-De Heidalen 193-222 1 2140 Nederwetten I Hadrian 47

2109 Geldrop I Republic 1 2140 Nederwetten I AntPius 23

2109 Geldrop I Nerva/Traj 2 2140 Nederwetten I MAurelius 14

2109 Geldrop I Hadrian 1 2140 Nederwetten I Commodus 2

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast Missing 4 2141 Nederwetten II Missing 7

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast Claudius 1 2141 Nederwetten II Flavii 1

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast Flavii 2 2141 Nederwetten II Nerva/Traj 4

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast Nerva/Traj 1 2141 Nederwetten II Hadrian 4

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast Hadrian 1 2141 Nederwetten II AntPius 5

2110 Geldrop-Hoogspanningsmast AntPius 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Missing 14

2111 Geldrop II Augustus 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Republic 23

2111 Geldrop II Flavii 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Celtic 809

2111 Geldrop II Nerva/Traj 3 2143 Empel-sanctuary Augustus 49

2112 Geldrop-Genoenhuis Celtic 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Tib/Cal 9

2112 Geldrop-Genoenhuis Augustus 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Claudius 9

2112 Geldrop-Genoenhuis Flavii 2 2143 Empel-sanctuary Nero-68 5

2112 Geldrop-Genoenhuis Nerva/Traj 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Flavii 14

2113 Vessem-Grootakker Celtic 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Nerva/Traj 6

2113 Vessem-Grootakker Augustus 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Hadrian 7

2113 Vessem-Grootakker Tib/Cal 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary AntPius 7

2113 Vessem-Grootakker Flavii 2 2143 Empel-sanctuary MAurelius 3

2113 Vessem-Grootakker AntPius 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary Commodus 4

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Missing 2 2143 Empel-sanctuary 193-222 2

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Augustus 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary 222-238 2

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Tib/Cal 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary 317-330 1

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Claudius 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary 330-348 2

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Flavii 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary 348-364 2

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Nerva/Traj 1 2143 Empel-sanctuary 364-378 2

2114 Hapert-Steenakkers Hadrian 2 2143 Empel-sanctuary 378-388 1

310 Site Name Period Coins

2143 Empel-sanctuary 388-402 5

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Missing 21

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Republic 107

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Celtic 0

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Augustus 333

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Tib/Cal. 100

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Claudius 77

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Nero-68 119

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Flavii 321

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Nerva/Traj 258

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Hadrian 238

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Ant.Pius 274

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren M.Aurelius 226

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren Commodus 73

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 193-222 208

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 222-238 21

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 238-260 394

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 260-275 144

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 275-296 260

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 296-317 108

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 317-330 98

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 330-348 100

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 348-364 70

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 364-378 34

9999 Tongeren-Museum Tongeren 378-388 2

311 Appendix 11: the hoards of the three areas

Site Name Period Coins Metal 510 Altrier-$1817/18 Missing 2 AR

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Missing 1 AR 510 Altrier-$1817/18 Missing 2 AES

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Republic 95 AR 510 Altrier-$1817/18 Nero-68 1 AR

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Celtic 20 AES 510 Altrier-$1817/18 Nerva/Traj 1 AR

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Augustus 27 AR 510 Altrier-$1817/18 AntPius 1 AR

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Augustus 19 AES 510 Altrier-$1817/18 MAurelius 1 AR

2 Nijmegen-Kops Plateau Tib/Cal 2 AR 510 Altrier-$1817/18 Commodus 2 AV

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Missing 10 AR 510 Altrier-$1817/18 193-222 1 AR

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Missing 3 AES 510 Altrier-$1817/18 222-238 1 AR

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat Celtic 2 AES 515 Altwies$ Missing 2 -

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 260-275 3 AR 525 Berchem-Steedspad$1783 Missing 2 AV

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 348-364 1 AES 525 Berchem-Steedspad$1783 Missing 2 AR

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 364-378 1 AES 525 Berchem-Steedspad$1783 Missing 2 AES

61 Aalst-Nedereindsestraat 388-402 3 AES 526 Berdorf-Raiberhiel$1909 Missing 24 -

69 Arnhem* Flavii 1 AR 526 Berdorf-Raiberhiel$1909 260-275 65 AR

69 Arnhem* Nerva/Traj 3 AR 538 Bettendorf$1847 Missing 2 -

69 Arnhem* AntPius 1 AR 558 Burmerange-Tritlingen$1920 238-260 27 AR

69 Arnhem* 193-222 1 AR 558 Burmerange-Tritlingen$1920 260-275 572 AR

69 Arnhem* 222-238 1 AR 558 Burmerange-Tritlingen$1920 275-296 12 AR

71 Beek* Missing 38 AES 572 Contern-Thielen-Oicht$1860 238-260 78 AR

71 Beek* Nero-68 1 AV 572 Contern-Thielen-Oicht$1860 260-275 25 AR

85 Bijlandse Waard* Republic 57 AR 576 Dalheim-Petzel$1881 Flavii 1 AR

85 Bijlandse Waard* Augustus 4 AR 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850 Missing 98 AR

94 Dreumel* 364-378 2 AV 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850 Missing 2 AES

94 Dreumel* 388-402 1 AV 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850 193-222 21 AR

100 Eck en Wiel* 193-222 5 AR 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850 222-238 15 AR

100 Eck en Wiel* 222-238 9 AR 577 Dalheim-Petzel$1850 238-260 14 AR

100 Eck en Wiel* 238-260 20 AR 578 Dalheim-Petzel$1952 260-275 10 AR

102 Elst* Celtic 30 AV 579 Dalheim-Petzel$<1967 238-260 1 AR

117 Kerk-Avezaath I Augustus 1 AR 579 Dalheim-Petzel$<1967 260-275 219 AR

117 Kerk-Avezaath I Hadrian 1 AR 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842 Missing 2 AR

117 Kerk-Avezaath I AntPius 2 AR 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842 Missing 9 AES

117 Kerk-Avezaath I 193-222 1 AR 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842 275-296 6 AR

121 Lienden* Celtic 4 AES 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842 296-317 9485 AES

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Missing 2 AES 580 Dalheim-Petzel$1842 317-330 5167 AES

218 Valkenburg-Marktveld/nederz Augustus 9 AES 598 Echternach$1844 238-260 3 AR

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Augustus 1 AV 598 Echternach$1844 260-275 2 AR

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Tib/Cal 4 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 222-238 1 AR

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Claudius 8 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 260-275 4 AR

348 Utrecht-Domplein I Nero-68 37 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 296-317 4 AR

506 Ahn-Machtum-Moselle$ Missing 53 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 296-317 165 AES

506 Ahn-Machtum-Moselle$ 330-348 1 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 317-330 8 AR

506 Ahn-Machtum-Moselle$ 348-364 1 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 317-330 1905 AES

506 Ahn-Machtum-Moselle$ 364-378 53 AV 613 Ermsdorf$1880 330-348 666 AES

509 Altrier-$1861 Missing 13 - 622 Ettelbr?ck-Heng$1856 238-260 243 AR

509 Altrier-$1861 Hadrian 4 AES 622 Ettelbr?ck-Heng$1856 260-275 358 AR

509 Altrier-$1861 193-222 4 AR 623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 Missing 251 AR

509 Altrier-$1861 222-238 2 AR 623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 Missing 92 AES

509 Altrier-$1861 238-260 6 AR 623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 238-260 2 AR

509 Altrier-$1861 260-275 1 AR 623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 260-275 1197 AR

312 Site Name Period Coins Metal

623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 275-296 388 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 Missing 23 AES

623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 296-317 5 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 Flavii 4 AES

623 Ettelbr?ck-Lopert$1889 296-317 46 AES 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 Nerva/Traj 7 AES

632 Filsdorf-Haed/L,millen$193? Missing 24 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 Hadrian 14 AES

632 Filsdorf-Haed/L,millen$193? 260-275 1 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 AntPius 8 AES

641 Luxembourg*$1911 348-364 120 AES 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 MAurelius 7 AES

642 Luxembourg$I 260-275 35 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 Commodus 1 AES

643 Luxembourg$II Missing 1 AR 803 Scheidgen-Alrodeschhaff$1927 193-222 3 AES

643 Luxembourg$II 260-275 22 AR 815 Septfontaines-Kinneksfeld$16?? 260-275 23 AR

643 Luxembourg$II 275-296 4 AR 832 Tetelbierg$1969 Republic 2 AR

644 Luxembourg$III 260-275 97 AR 832 Tetelbierg$1969 Celtic 1 AV

645 Luxembourg$IV 364-378 12 AES 832 Tetelbierg$1969 Celtic 7 AR

652 Grosbous$1843 Missing 2 AR 832 Tetelbierg$1969 Celtic 8 AES

652 Grosbous$1843 193-222 10 AR 833 Tetelbierg$1952 Missing 3 Unkno w 652 Grosbous$1843 222-238 7 AR 833 Tetelbierg$1952 Augustus 1 AES 652 Grosbous$1843 238-260 44 AR 833 Tetelbierg$1952 260-275 450 AR 655 Hagen$1940-45 Celtic 3 AV 833 Tetelbierg$1952 275-296 16 AR 678 Holler$1871 Flavii 1 AR 854 Waldbillig$184? Missing 2 - 678 Holler$1871 Nerva/Traj 3 AR 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$ 260-275 1 AR 678 Holler$1871 Hadrian 3 AR 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$ 296-317 44 AES 678 Holler$1871 AntPius 1 AR 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$ 317-330 5 AES 678 Holler$1871 MAurelius 4 AR 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$ 330-348 5 AES 689 Kahler$1920-5 238-260 1 AR 861 Walferdange/Heisdorf-Hougericht$ 348-364 1 AES 689 Kahler$1920-5 260-275 28 AR 879 Welscheid-Wark-Baeschterbaach$ 260-275 700 AR 694 Kleinbettingen$1921 Missing 933 AR 961 Altrier$1910 260-275 100 AR 694 Kleinbettingen$1921 222-238 1 AR 961 Altrier$1910 275-296 5 AR 694 Kleinbettingen$1921 238-260 40 AR 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 Missing 2 - 694 Kleinbettingen$1921 260-275 85 AR 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 260-275 1 AR 701 Lenningen$1865 260-275 129 - 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 296-317 1 AES 702 Lellingen-Op der Maes$1928 Flavii 1 AR 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 317-330 2 AES 702 Lellingen-Op der Maes$1928 260-275 2 AR 981 Biwer-Brill$1933 330-348 2 AES 702 Lellingen-Op der Maes$1928 296-317 5 AES 982 Blumenthal-H,sterbierg$1948 238-260 1 AR 704 Lintgen$1849 238-260 2 AR 982 Blumenthal-H,sterbierg$1948 260-275 37 AR 704 Lintgen$1849 260-275 25 AR 982 Blumenthal-H,sterbierg$1948 275-296 4 AR 709 Dinselt-Rum/Rham$1590 Missing 2 AES 993 Dalheim-Village$1965 260-275 1 AR 709 Dinselt-Rum/Rham$1590 296-317 6 AES 993 Dalheim-Village$1965 275-296 1 AR 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 Missing 3 AR 1049 Lellingen$1900 Missing 2 - 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 Missing 2 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Missing 1 AES 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 260-275 10 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Republic 1 AR 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 296-317 45 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Nero-68 1 AES 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 317-330 146 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Flavii 1 AES 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 330-348 50 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Nerva/Traj 2 AES 726 Marscherwald-Breidweiler Dael$66 348-364 767 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Hadrian 1 AES 731 Medernach$1863 260-275 19 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 AntPius 4 AES 741 Meysembourg$1859 Missing 2 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 MAurelius 2 AES 754 Nagem-P%tz Mier/Heedhaiser$1854 238-260 3 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 Commodus 1 AES 754 Nagem-P%tz Mier/Heedhaiser$1854 260-275 5 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 193-222 1 AR 769 Oesling*$1859 260-275 40 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 193-222 1 AES 769 Oesling*$1859 348-364 1 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 222-238 1 AR 784 Reichlange-Stertz/L,ipesch$1892 260-275 400 AR 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 238-260 2 AR 792 Reuland-Op der H,d$1916-20 296-317 7 AES 1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 260-275 91 AR

313 Site Name Period Coins Metal

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 275-296 10 AR 1276 Nospelt-Miecher/E$1983 222-238 1 -

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 296-317 4 AES 1276 Nospelt-Miecher/E$1983 238-260 39 AR

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 317-330 2 AES 1276 Nospelt-Miecher/E$1983 260-275 2616 AR

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 330-348 26 AES 1276 Nospelt-Miecher/E$1983 275-296 112 AR

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 348-364 1 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Missing 4 AES

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 364-378 15 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Flavii 2 AES

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 378-388 1 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Nerva/Traj 1 AR

1061 Mamer-Bierg$1973 388-402 3 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Nerva/Traj 2 AES

1079 Mertert$1971 Flavii 1 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Hadrian 3 AES

1079 Mertert$1971 Nerva/Traj 2 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 AntPius 3 AES

1079 Mertert$1971 Hadrian 2 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 MAurelius 3 AES

1079 Mertert$1971 MAurelius 1 AR 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 Commodus 2 AES

1079 Mertert$1971 MAurelius 4 AES 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 222-238 3 AR

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 Missing 1 - 1314 Mompach-Pafebierg/Bongert$1972 238-260 1 AR

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 Missing 1 AES 1484 Wecker*$1972 Missing 3000 AR

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 260-275 19 AR 1350 Overrepen$? Missing 4 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 260-275 1 AES 1350 Overrepen$? Flavii 4 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 275-296 7 AR 1350 Overrepen$? Nerva/Traj 4 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 317-330 2 AES 1350 Overrepen$? Hadrian 11 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 330-348 6 AES 1350 Overrepen$? AntPius 9 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 348-364 9 AES 1350 Overrepen$? MAurelius 2 AES

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 364-378 65 AES 1351 Paal$1905 Flavii 1 AR

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 378-388 12 AES 1351 Paal$1905 Hadrian 1 AR

1092 Remerschen-Mecheren$1970 388-402 64 AES 1351 Paal$1905 AntPius 2 AR

1143 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser$1978 Missing 4 AES 1351 Paal$1905 MAurelius 3 AR

1143 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser$1978 317-330 1 AES 1351 Paal$1905 Commodus 6 AR

1143 Consdorf-Wichtelcheshaiser$1978 330-348 1 AES 1351 Paal$1905 193-222 174 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 Missing 1 AES 1351 Paal$1905 222-238 85 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 260-275 4 AR 1351 Paal$1905 238-260 1 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 296-317 3 AES 1355 Lier$ 388-402 15 AES

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 330-348 5 AES 1360 Neerpelt-Kleine-Brogel$1935 Republic 16 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 348-364 7 AES 1360 Neerpelt-Kleine-Brogel$1935 Augustus 2 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 364-378 2 AES 1360 Neerpelt-Kleine-Brogel$1935 Nero-68 1 AR

1149 Dudelange-Gehaansbierg-Chat$1975 388-402 18 AES 1360 Neerpelt-Kleine-Brogel$1935 Flavii 7 AR

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 Missing 6 AR 1361 Riemst$1905 238-260 39 AR

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 Missing 14 AES 1361 Riemst$1905 260-275 34 AR

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 Hadrian 1 AES 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 Missing 20 AES

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 AntPius 2 AES 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 296-317 1 AES

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 MAurelius 3 AES 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 330-348 3 AES

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 Commodus 2 AES 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 378-388 1 AES

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 193-222 1 AES 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 388-402 1 -

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 222-238 7 AR 1397 Tongeren-Jasminstraat$1990 388-402 21 AES

1187 Mompach-Pafebierg-Bongert$1919 238-260 4 AR 1419 Bornem-Hingene$1786 AntPius 4 AES

1228 Bergem-Op dem Rascht$? 260-275 2 AR 1419 Bornem-Hingene$1786 MAurelius 12 AES

1230 Bettendorf-Schoofsboesch$<1935 260-275 1 AR 1419 Bornem-Hingene$1786 Commodus 14 AES

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 Nerva/Traj 8 AES 1419 Bornem-Hingene$1786 193-222 12 AES

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 Hadrian 2 AES 1421 Breendonk-Kasteel van Meerhof$ Republic 14 AR

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 AntPius 6 AES 1431 Herentals$1881-2 Republic 2 AR

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 MAurelius 5 AES 1432 Hingene$1846 Republic 26 AR

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 Commodus 4 AES 1432 Hingene$1846 Augustus 18 AR

1271 Givenich-Giwicherwis$1983 193-222 1 AES 1432 Hingene$1846 Tib/Cal 1 AR

314 Site Name Period Coins Metal

1433 Hingene$1783 Missing 17 AES 1766 Maashees$1840 Missing 500 AR

1441 Mechelen-Hanswijk$1936 Missing 2 AV 1775 Nederwetten-Op de Heibult$1939 MAurelius 1 AES

1444 Mechelen*$1841 Missing 2 AES 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936 Augustus 2 AES

1454 Nijlen$1770 Claudius 2 AV 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936 Tib/Cal 1 AES

1454 Nijlen$1770 Nero-68 5 AV 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936 Nero-68 10 AES

1454 Nijlen$1770 Flavii 5 AV 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936 Flavii 26 AES

1462 StAmands$1801 222-238 1 AES 1804 Someren-Maarhezerdijk$1936 Nerva/Traj 3 AES

1462 StAmands$1801 260-275 17 AES 1818 Terheijden$1780 Nero-68 12 AV

1462 StAmands$1801 317-330 1 AES 1818 Terheijden$1780 Flavii 12 AV

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 Missing 6 AES 1841 Vught-Bleijendijk$1962 238-260 13 AR

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 Nerva/Traj 2 AES 1841 Vught-Bleijendijk$1962 260-275 4685 AR

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 Hadrian 5 AES 1841 Vught-Bleijendijk$1962 275-296 77 AR

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 AntPius 1 AES 1850 Woensel$?1607 Missing 141 AR

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 MAurelius 3 AES 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 Missing 1 AR

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 Commodus 1 AES 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 Missing 2 AES

1467 Wijnegem-Steenakker$1979 238-260 2 AR 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 238-260 1 AR

1468 Wommelgem$1631 193-222 2 AR 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 260-275 17 AR

1468 Wommelgem$1631 222-238 2 AR 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 296-317 1 AES

1468 Wommelgem$1631 238-260 8 AR 1853 's-Gravenmoer$1835 317-330 1 AES

1468 Wommelgem$1631 260-275 1 AR 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 Republic 2 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 Missing 6 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 Flavii 9 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 Flavii 4 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 Nerva/Traj 4 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 Nerva/Traj 3 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 Hadrian 2 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 Hadrian 1 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 AntPius 3 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 AntPius 1 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 MAurelius 1 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 MAurelius 3 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 Commodus 1 AR

1538 Gassel I$1988 Commodus 1 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 193-222 1 AR

1550 Haps$1986 Missing 18 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 238-260 1 AR

1550 Haps$1986 Augustus 1 AES 1854 Helmond-Omgeving$1917 260-275 1 AR

1550 Haps$1986 Flavii 2 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 Missing 3 AES

1550 Haps$1986 Nerva/Traj 2 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 Nerva/Traj 2 AES

1550 Haps$1986 Hadrian 12 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 AntPius 8 AES

1550 Haps$1986 AntPius 7 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 MAurelius 4 AES

1550 Haps$1986 MAurelius 8 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 Commodus 2 AES

1678 Deurne I$1910 296-317 9 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 193-222 8 AR

1678 Deurne I$1910 317-330 30 AES 1858 Strijp$1919 222-238 4 AR

1694 Esch I$1766 Missing 400 AR 1858 Strijp$1919 238-260 13 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 Missing 11 AES 1863 Baarlo-Kerk$1830 Missing 32 AV

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 260-275 9 AR 1863 Baarlo-Kerk$1830 Missing 3000 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 275-296 3 AR 1963 Montfort$1888 Missing 36 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 296-317 2 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 Missing 1 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 317-330 2 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 Tib/Cal 1 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 330-348 63 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 Flavii 1 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 348-364 42 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 MAurelius 1 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 364-378 34 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 Commodus 1 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 378-388 88 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 193-222 7 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 388-402 2310 AES 2019 Maastricht-In de oude muren$1833 222-238 2 AR

1719 Hapert-Zuiveringsinstituut$1939 >402 9 AES 2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 Nero-68 1 AR

1725 Heers$1893 Missing 25 AES 2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 Flavii 5 AR

1734 Den Bosch-De Maij$ Missing 2 AR 2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 Nerva/Traj 2 AR

1734 Den Bosch-De Maij$ Republic 2 AR 2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 Hadrian 3 AR

315 Site Name Period Coins Metal

2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 AntPius 4 AR

2043 Maastricht-Stokstraat$1963 MAurelius 5 AR

2048 N-Brabant$1848 Nero-68 1 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 Flavii 1 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 Nerva/Traj 2 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 Hadrian 2 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 AntPius 2 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 MAurelius 1 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 Commodus 1 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 193-222 5 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 222-238 3 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 238-260 7 -

2048 N-Brabant$1848 260-275 3 -

2049 Wijshagen$1930 Missing 1 AES

2049 Wijshagen$1930 Flavii 1 AES

2049 Wijshagen$1930 Nerva/Traj 3 AES

2049 Wijshagen$1930 Hadrian 3 AES

2049 Wijshagen$1930 MAurelius 3 AES

2050 Obbicht$1963-8 364-378 3 AV

2050 Obbicht$1963-8 378-388 2 AV

2050 Obbicht$1963-8 388-402 3 AV

2050 Obbicht$1963-8 >402 1 AV

2051 Grobbendonk$<1869 Missing 2 -

2052 Koninksem I$1892 260-275 57 AR

2053 Mechelen$<1842 Missing 2 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 Missing 100 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 260-275 2 AR

2054 Helchteren$<1910 330-348 2 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 348-364 3 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 364-378 5 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 378-388 17 AES

2054 Helchteren$<1910 388-402 132 AES

2055 Achel$1936 Missing 22 AES

2055 Achel$1936 Flavii 7 AES

2055 Achel$1936 Nerva/Traj 4 AES

2055 Achel$1936 Hadrian 19 AES

2055 Achel$1936 AntPius 14 AES

2055 Achel$1936 MAurelius 5 AES

2055 Achel$1936 Commodus 2 AES

2064 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein$1983 Missing 1 AES

2064 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein$1983 260-275 97 AR

2064 Maastricht-OLVrouweplein$1983 275-296 2 AR

2066 Koninksem$1894 Missing 216 AES

2115 Blerick I$1994 364-378 1 AV

2115 Blerick I$1994 378-388 1 AV

2115 Blerick I$1994 388-402 3 AV

2115 Blerick I$1994 >402 1 AV

316