Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Home , Abonoteichos, Cius, Cremna, Ignatievo, Prusias ad Hypium, Shumen fortress

Conference Proceedings of the 4th International Numismatic and Economic Conference

Krakow 12–13 May 2017

Kraków 2019

Pecunia Omnes Vincit Pecunia Omnes Vincit Coin as a medium of exchange throughout centuries

Conference Proceedings of the Fourth International Numismatic and Economic Conference

Krakow, 12-13 May 2017

Edited by Barbara Zając, Paulina Koczwara, Szymon Jellonek

Krakow 2019 Editors Barbara Zając Paulina Koczwara Szymon Jellonek

Scientific mentoring Dr hab. Jarosław Bodzek

Reviewers Dr hab. Márton Kálnoki-Gyöngyössy DSc Dr Witold Garbaczewski Dr Kamil Kopij Dr Kirylo Myzgin Dr Michał Kasiński Dr Bartosz Awianowicz Michał Link-Lenczowski MA

Proofreading Korekto.pl

DTP GroupMedia

Project of cover design Adrian Gajda, photo by Nevyan Mitev © Copyright by Adrian Gajda and Editors; photo Nevyan Mitev

Funding by Financial support of the Foundation of the Students of the Jagiellonian University „BRATNIAK” and History Department of the Jagiellonian University © Copyright by Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University

Krakow 2019

ISBN: 978-83-954337-0-2

Address Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University 11 Gołębia Street 31-007 Krakow Contents

Introduction /7 Carlo Lualdi Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War /9 Szymon Jellonek The Colonial Coinage under Claudius /25 Barbara Zając Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins /41 Paulina Koczwara Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul /57 Paulina Dąbrowska Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland in the Early Roman Period /66 Justyna Rosowska Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow from the 14th century in socio-economical context. Examples from the St Florian’s Street /86 Nevyan Mitev The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) and Vladislav Varnenchik (1434-1444) from Northeastern Bulgaria /101 Katalin Élő The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century /114 Viktors Dāboliņš The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594) /128 Introduction

We would like to present nine articles by young researchers from Italy, Bulgaria, Austria, Latvia, and Poland concerning particular aspects of numismatics. The present publication is a summary of the Fourth International Numismatic and Economic Conference, Pecunia Omnes Vincit, held at the Emeryk Hutten-Czapski Museum and Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, 12‒13 May 2017. The articles direct the reader’s attention to various issues involving aspects of numismatics such as propaganda, coin finds, circulation of coins in certain territories, and forgery. Due to the broadening of the subject of the conference, the publication includes articles dealing with issues related to economics. The subject matter of this publication focuses mostly on aspects of antiquity, the mediaeval and new ages periods. The first group are articles about propaganda and iconographic motifs on coins. One of the articles on the depictions related to the victory in the Third Macedonian War, which took place in the years 171–168 BC. The author analyses both, historiographic and numismatic sources. Analogies are also noticeable in sculpture. The issue related to propaganda is taken up by another text referring to representations in colonial coinage struck during the reign of Claudius. Among local provincial centers, new Roman settlements were founded or settled on earlier cities, which, due to the demand, as well as the population, struck their own coins. These emissions had very specific representations referring to the Roman culture, hence their character suggests a process of romanization of the local population. The city could reproduce similar motifs or introduce new ones. The author of one of the texts touch the problem of the correct attribution of nine monetary issues struck in Bithynia and Pontus without the etnicon indicating mint. The article is attempt to identify individual coins, which mainly indicate the productions in Nicaea, Prusa and Amastris. Provincial coinage needs still intensive research. So far, general studies and catalogues have been published. More detailed analyses allow for a better understanding of the tradition and culture of the population of particular territories included in the Roman Empire. Another text concern Celtic coins, found in the area of the former Cisalpine Gaul between the fifth and the first century BC. The author focused primarily on the coin finds and deposits of Celtic coins on the territories of various European countries, thus 8 Pecunia Omnes Vincit giving a rich comparative background. In addition, the author undertakes to analyse possible reasons for the inflow of coins, and local differences. One of the issues raised in the article are ritual gifts. Coins did not only function economically, but perhaps their presence should be explained through commercial transactions. Another topic focusing on the monetary circulation is the article related to the coin finds of Sigismund of Lux- emburg and Vladislav Varnenchik in northern Bulgaria. The article presents not only the wide circulation of Polish coins during this period, but also highlights the economic and political contacts of both countries. The subject matter related to the metallurgy of the Wielbark Culture is taken up by another article, thus illustrating the rich culture and skills of the people living in western Poland. The author analyses the problem on the basis of archaeological sources from individual positions. Another subject of the articles are counterfeits, focusing on the activities of Claues Kreychel and Hans Krug, living in Latvia and Hungary in the sixteenth century. Coun- terfeits and workshops are being subjected to more and more frequent research by many different scientists. The first of the counterfeiters was copying Lithuanian units, the second Hungarian, providing them with a monogram. Both articles present historical background, types of coins and methods of falsification, detection of fraud and further living of both counterfeiters. The authors also paid attention to the finds and deposits of these forgeries. The last topic in the publication are debtors in medieval Krakow. Based on sociologi- cal and topographical studies reflected in written sources, the author undertakes a very important economic theme, which can thus depict various social relations, statuses, professions or wealth of individual people. The articles presented here constitute careful analysis of various numismatic aspects of the ancient, mediaeval and new ages periods. We are certain that these papers offer an opportunity to expand and supplement existing knowledge, as well as to draw attention to and to stimulate discussion on certain issues. We would like to express our gratitude to Dr hab. Jarosław Bodzek for academic mentoring, as well as to our reviewers, Dr hab. Márton Kálnoki-Gyöngyössy DSc, Dr Witold Garbaczewski Dr Kamil Kopij, Dr Kirylo Myzgin, Dr Michał Kasiński, Dr Bartosz Awianowicz and Michał Link-Lenczowski MA for substantive correction of individual papers. The Editors Carlo Lualdi

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milan, Italy [email protected]

Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian war

Abstract: Roman historical commemoration in figurative arts is an interesting subject of analysis. If we consider the iconographies of the Roman Republican Period, we only have a few examples of representations which can be related to a specific historical event. However, if we consider the figurative evidence in relation to the Third Macedonian war, we can observe two surviving iconographic schemes related to this conflict: the figurative models of the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus at Delphi and the reverse type of the denar minted during 63 BC. by Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus. Modern scholars consider the first example as related to Lucius Aemilius Paullus’ celebration of his military virtue while the second one is connected to the memory of Paullus’ triumph over Perseus held in Rome during 167 BC. Despite the fact that the two representations belong to a subject related to the outcome of the Third Macedo- nian war, a detailed comparison between the two iconographies has never been performed. This study aims to compare the two representations in order to better comprehend the Ro- man Republican figurative language related to military events. The present analysis allows also us to express some new observations about the different figurative and narrative models celebrating and commemorating Roman victories during the Roman Republican Period. Keywords: trophy, Delphi, Lucius Aemilius Paullus, Rome

The ceremony of the Roman Republican triumph was an ephemeral commemoration of the military virtues of the triumphator and it was one of the most important public events for a Roman magistrate.1 Not surprisingly, Roman Republican triumphal art includes a wide range of representations, such as funerary iconographies,2 commemorative paintings,3 friezes,4 sculptures, public monuments, and numismatic iconographies.5 The depictions represented on the reverses of Roman Republican coin issues noticeably have an iconographical scheme related to the triumphal ceremony that includes the dis-

1 Kinnee 2016: 204. 2 Holliday 2002: 33–43. 3 Östenberg 2009: 189–199. 4 Holliday 2002: 43–48; Dillon and Welch 2006: 105–111; Cadario 2016: 19–21; Kinnee 2016: 205–206. 5 Kinnee 2016: 208–217. 10 Pecunia Omnes Vincit play of trophies with prisoners below them.6 This practice is attested by literary sources and by figurative evidence.7 Therefore, it was argued that these representations were made to secure the remembrance of the otherwise ephemeral ceremony.8 These monuments offered several iconographic models which were often represented by Roman Republican moneyers, particularly during the Late Republican Period, on the reverse sides of their coin issues.9 These depictions provide us with a great deal of information about victory commemoration in Roman culture that would otherwise be unknown due to the loss of the vast majority of Roman Republican monuments. This study will focus on the iconographies related to the Roman victory over Perseus and Macedon, mainly the decorative programme of the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus in Delphi (Figs. 1 and 2),10 and the reverse type of the coin issue minted by Lu- cius Aemilus Lepidus Paullus in 63 BC (Figs. 3, 4 ,5 and 6).11 Before moving on to the analysis of the figurative evidence, I will quickly describe the development of the last stage of the Third Macedonian War and the Roman victory celebrations that followed.12 The main sources for these events are Plutarch Aem( . 17–23.2), Livy (44.36.1–44.44.4.), and Cassius Dio. The latter was excerpted by Zonaras (9.22–23), which ultimately derived from Polybius’ account, which is fragmentary. From these sources, we know that military operations quickly developed soon after the Consul Paullus arrived in Greece. The two armies reached the city of Pydna after some strategic movements. We are fortunately able to precisely date the day of these historical events to the 21st of July in 168 BC due to a lunar eclipse that occurred during the night. The following day in the afternoon the two armies started to fight. We do not know exactly how the battle started but it can be easily summarised as close-quartered combat on irregular ground between the Roman legionaries and the Hellenistic phalanx. The Ro- man victory caused the cavalry led by king Perseus of Macedonia to withdraw.13 After this decisive defeat, Perseus surrendered himself to the Roman naval praetor, Gnaeus Octavius, thus bringing about an end to the war. Following this event, it is possible to quote some episodes related to the celebrations of the Roman victory over Macedon. In Athens, Paullus,

6 Cadario 2016: 19–22; Kinnee 2016: 203–208. 7 Kinnee 2016: 204–206. 8 Ibidem: 204. 9 Ibidem: 217. 10 See Holliday 2002: 91–96 and Taylor 2016 with regard to the figurative programme of the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. 11 Regarding this coin issue, see RRC 415/1; Sydenham 926; Babelon Aemilia 10; Weigel 1976; Belloni 1993: 101; Catalli 2003:193; Harlan 2015: 1–3; Cadario 2016: 19–20. 12 For the Third Macedonian War, see Meloni 1953: 349–370; Hammond and Walbank 1988: 505–547; Lendon 2006: 182–219. 13 For the Battle of Pydna, see Lendon 2006: 182–219 and Taylor 2016. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 11

requested the Athenians to send him the most esteemed philosopher for the education of his children, and a painter to adorn his triumph, they made choice of Metrodorus, declaring that he was eminently suited for either purpose; a thing which Paullus admitted to be the case.14 At Delphi, the Consul noticed two incomplete pillars.15 These monuments had originally been commissioned by Perseus, but now, Paullus ordered that they be completed.16 Polybius and Livy both quote the presence of two pillars, whereas Plutarch describes only one marble pillar. Modern analysis of new material evidence has confirmed the presence of a second limestone pillar proving that Polybius and Livy were, in fact, correct.17 Literary sources claim that the Consul placed his own statues on the monuments.18 Paullus also organised an event in Amphipolis that included a parade of the Roman military forces, theatrical performances, athletic games, and religious ceremonies.19 Finally, in 167 BC, Paullus held the triumph over Perseus and Macedonia in Rome. The triumph was held for three days and its celebration was impressive. This was attested by Velleius Paterculus, who said that: Paullus’ triumph so far exceeded all former ones, whether in the greatness of King Perseus himself, or in the display of statues and the amount of money borne in the procession, [...] and by reason of this vast sum eclipsed all previous triumphs by comparison.20 In the following analysis I do not discuss all the elements of Paullus’ triumph, but instead, I point out only details that are relevant to the figurative evidence analysed in the present study. Paullus, following the Roman tradition, displayed various figurative art in the triumphal parade,21 which probably included the tabulae triumphales,22 spoils and war booty from the campaign and finally captives, like king Perseus, his two sons, and his daughter.23 The triumphal parade also included Paullus, his own two sons, and the victorious Roman military forces.

14 Plin. Nat. Hist. 35.135. 15 Bommelaer-Laroche 2016: 219–220. 16 Polyb. 30.10.2; Liv. 45.27.7; Plut. Aem. 28.4. 17 See Jacquemin et al. 1995: 125–136. 18 Pol. 30.10.2; Liv. 45.27.7; Plut. Aem. 28.2. 19 For the festival at Amphipolis, see Erskine 2013. 20 Vell. Pat. 1.9.6. 21 For the Roman Triumphal Procession, see Östenberg 2009. 22 The Tabulae Triumphales were part of the tradition of the Roman triumphal paintings. These art- works were displayed during Roman triumphs and were comprised of several forms showing a large variety of subjects related to successful military campaigns. See Östenberg 2009: 192–199. 23 Cadario 2016: 19, argues that these statements might refer to the display of trophies during Paullus’ triumphal parade. I would argue that the word ‘trophies’ can be used especially when taking into account Betalli’s observations on trophies in Greek and Roman culture. See Betalli 2009: 363. 12 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

The Consul celebrated his victory over Perseus by completing the two pillars originally erected by the king at Delphi near the temple of Apollo. This probably occurred not too long after 168 BC. Material evidence related to these two monuments includes a battle frieze which decorated the base of the equestrian bronze statue of Paullus that was placed on the top of a rectangular marble pillar near the temple of Apollo. The material evidence on the superior base of the marble pillar seems to suggest that Paul- lus was depicted on a rearing horse.24 The model of this representation was probably influenced by the heroic figurative models that were started by Alexander the Great, continued by the Diadochoi, and then included in the Roman figurative language.25 The figurative frieze shows us representations of a fight between infantrymen and horsemen.26 Modern scholars generally agree that this iconography was related to the Battle of Pydna (Figs. 1 and 2).27 Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, however, proposed a different interpretation for the frieze. According to Ridgway, the frieze was commissioned by Perseus and carved before the end of the war between the Roman Republic and the Macedonian kingdom.28 Therefore, the frieze would symbolically represent the victories of the Macedonian army against the Romans before the battle of Pydna.29 Ridgway’s interpretation is problematic for various reasons. First, previous studies have shown that the marble pillars had been made using two different systems of dowels, suggesting the intervention of two different workshops in its construction.30 Analysis of the inscriptions that had been placed on both the pillars brought Jean-François Bommelaer and Dessins de Didier Laroche to suggest that the limestone pillar had been completed first, probably prior to 167 BC. On the other hand, the epigraphs on the marble pillar cannot be related to Perseus and therefore, they must be dated to sometime after 167 BC.31 Finally, Taylor has stated that: “Each panel [of the frieze] instead renders the same triumphant moment: Romans slaughtering the Macedonians”.32 The observations of these latter authors are more con- vincing than those of Ridgway, and it is most likely that the frieze on the pillar is related to the Battle of Pydna. The equipment carried by the fighters represented on the frieze helps us to recognise the culture of the soldiers. The Roman infantrymen carry their

24 Holliday 2002: 93, fig. 45. 25 Holliday 2002: 92; Cadario 2004: 34. 26 The first detailed analysis about the frieze can be found in the important monograph of Kähler 1965. 27 The most recent analysis on the frieze is provided by M.J. Taylor in 2016. 28 Ridgway 2000: 76–80. 29 Ibidem: 83. 30 Coarelli 1996: 65; Kousser 2010: 530 n. 28. This could prove that the making of the marble pillar could have had two different building phases. The first phase following the projects of Perseus and the second one carried out following the instructions of Paullus. 31 Bommelaer and Laroche 2016: 220. 32 Taylor 2016: 572. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 13 oval thyreos-type shields and wear different types of breastplates including the lorica hamata, a cuirass of chain mail. On the other side, the Macedonians are characterised only by their big round shields, which can be defined by the term aspis, decorated with episemata (painted emblems) (Fig. 2).33 One representation of the frieze is associated by modern scholars to Plutarch’s account at the beginning of the battle:34 Towards evening, Aemilius himself, as some say, devised a scheme for making the enemy begin the attack, and the Romans, pursuing a horse which they had driven forth without a bridle, came into collision with them, and the pursuit of this horse brought on a battle.35 This narration ascribes the stratagem of the horse without a bridle to Paullus.36 The other representations of horses include some holes for the bridles that were made of metal. Only this representation does not include any evidence concerning the presence of bridles (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is possible to consider this representation as related to the beginning of the battle of Pydna and to the stratagem conceived by Paullus.37 This could be considered a celebration of Paullus’ tactical skills. The development of the battle described by the literary sources cannot be linked directly to the remaining representations on the frieze. This can be affirmed especially if we consider the close combat between the legionnaires and the soldiers of the Hel- lenistic phalanx. It was surely the main tactical episode during the battle and on this point, all the literary sources agree. The representations of the phalangites in the frieze are very different from the battle-scene depicted on a Hellenistic bronze plaque from Pergamum.38 Therefore, it could be argued that there is no depiction of a Hellenistic phalanx in a pitched battle on the Paullus monument.39 Thus, we cannot consider the frieze a realistic chronicle of the battle. This is also confirmed by the great number of representations of horsemen and by the presence of three nude warriors. The representations of horsemen equipped with chainmail in the frieze belonged probably to the members of the Roman equestrian class. But we know that the cavalry played a fairly marginal role at the battle of Pydna so the representations can hardly be justified if we were to consider only literary source material. We also know that the equestrian and senatorial classes were the two wealthiest upper-elite classes in Roman society. Lucius Aemilius Paullus was a member of the Senate and he was interested in maintaining political and military cooperation with the equestrian social class. Therefore, it is pos-

33 Holliday 2002: 92–96. 34 Holliday 2002: 94; Taylor 2016: 562–563. 35 Plut. Aem. 18.1. 36 Holliday 2002: 94. 37 Taylor 2016: 562. 38 Ibidem: 573, fig. 10. 39 Ibidem: 573. 14 Pecunia Omnes Vincit sible to consider the depictions of the horsemen in the frieze as being merely symbolic allusions to the political and military contributions of the equestrian class rather than ones based in reality. The interpretation of the three nude warriors is controversial. Some scholars be- lieve that the three nude warriors can be considered examples of heroic nudity, an iconographic convention belonging to neo-Attic classicism.40 Other analysis suggests that the three nude warriors can be identified as Gauls,41 which were usually represented nude in battle scenes in Hellenistic art.42 In my opinion, the three nude warriors are not represented with some conventional details of the equipment that allow us to identify them clearly as Gauls like metal neck rings (torques), trousers (brachae) and thyreos-type shields.43 On the other hand, the representations of the Macedonian and the Roman soldiers are easily recognizable and detailed. For these reasons in my opinion the iconography of the frieze from Delphi is characterized by both the influences of neo-Attic classicism, which started in the second century BC, and the Roman social conventions.44 Consideration for the context of where the pillars were erected should be made. The two pillars were probably located near the temple of Apollo at Delphi.45 Shields were hung on the metopes of this building in order to celebrate the Greeks’ victories against external invaders such as the Persians and the Gauls.46 It is, therefore, possible to assume that the representations of the large Macedonian shields, which we can observed on the frieze of Paullus’ monument, were made following this figurative convention in order to clearly identify the defeated cultures. It is also important to underline that the frieze does not include a representation of a trophy. This absence is coherent with the literary accounts describing the events after the battle of Pydna, which do not include any mention about the erection of a trophy on the battlefield by Paullus.47 In summary, the evidence from Delphi regarding Paullus’ victory have celebrative, symbolic and allusive meanings that were related to the contemporary artistic trends similar to the previous dedication. Roman political hegemony, gained through a victorious military confrontation against the Macedonian forces, was represented using a figurative language involving different levels of narration including historical

40 Holliday 2002: 95. 41 Taylor 2016: 564–571. 42 Holliday 2002: 74–76. 43 Conversely these details can be easily observed in a battle frieze showing a Galatomachy, named Reiterschlacht, coming from Ephesus and dated between 189 and 160 BC, now at the Ephesus museum in Wien. Moreno 1994: 252–253. 44 Holliday 2002: 94–95. 45 Bommelaer and Laroche 2016: 219–220. 46 Mercuri 2008: 87; Scott 2014: 171. 47 Liv. 44.45.3–4. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 15 figurative details, symbolic widespread iconographies, and representations of the new ruling culture.48 The silver coin issue minted by Paullus Lepidus shows, on the obverse, a bust of Concordia, diademed and draped facing right. The legend states PAVLLVS LEPIDVS – CONCORDIA.49 On the reverse is shown the representation of a togate figure (Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus) standing and facing left, a trophy, two children standing and facing right (the sons of king Perseus) and a draped male figure standing and facing right (king Perseus himself). Above the trophy, the legend states TER and in exergue, PAVLLVS (Fig. 3). The iconography of the reverse of this coin issue is mostly related to the celebration of the triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus. Lepidus Paullus was not a direct descendant of Aemilius Paullus50 but, as it was argued by Richard David Weigel, “The reference to L. Aemilis Paullus’ three triumphs and the depiction of his victory over Perseus of Macedon would obviously have propaganda value for the Aemilian gens”. 51 The iconography of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus on the reverse of Lepi- dus Paullus’ denar is schematically described by modern scholars: Paullus is represented standing, facing left and completing a trophy by adding to it a rod or a spear.52 Matteo Cadario has recently underlined that Lucius Aemilius Paullus is represented wearing a toga exigua, draped according to the fashion of to the Roman Republican costume of the second century BC. The author suggested also that this detail could bring us to date the iconography of the reverse type to the 167 BC short time after the celebration of Paullus’ triumph.53 In order to verify this hypothesis, we have to analyze the other elements of the reverse type of Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue. First, it is possible to notice that Perseus is represented as a captive, in chains, following Livy’s description about Paullus’ triumph,54 wearing the himation, a Greek clothing explicitly quoted by Plutarch describing Perseus during Paullus’ triumphal parade in Rome55 (Figs. 3, 4 and 5). We can also observe that Perseus’ sons are represented wearing the same type of clothing.56 This is confirmed by a confrontation with the reverse type of

48 Holliday 2002: 92/96. 49 Harlan, in Harlan 2015: 1, highlight the presence of a variant of the coin issue with only PAVLLS on the obverse. 50 Harlan 2015: 3–4. 51 Weigel 1976. 52 See RRC 415/1; Sydenham 926; Babelon Aemilia 10, Weigel 1976; Belloni 1993: 101; Liampi 1998: 160–161; Catalli 2003: 193 and Harlan 2015: 1–3. 53 Cadario 2016: 20. 54 Liv. 45.40.6. 55 Plut. Aem. 34.1. 56 Cadario 2010: 117. 16 Pecunia Omnes Vincit the denar minted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus during the 58 BC.57 These iconographies can be related to the figurative models of the Roman Republican coin issues minted during the first half of the first century BC analysed by Cadario. These coin representations include characters distinguished by the type of clothing: the toga identifies Roman characters while the pallium identifies characters coming from the Hellenistic world, as king Ptolemy V or king Perseus.58 These reverse types allowed for Romans to identify clearly and immediately the different characters on a coin as Roman or Greek and allow us to assume that people coming from different cultures were represented wearing different clothes on Roman Republican coins. A toga or a pallium can be easily depicted, also schematically, on a small size object like a coin and provide an easily interpreted information about the main characters represented. Further confirmation of this figurative convention comes from other evidence and it is well attested in Ro- man sculpture.59 Therefore, it is possible to consider this figurative practice as part of the roman figurative language.60 We can now focus our attention on the iconography of the trophy. It was depicted as if it were built on a trunk of a tree fixed in the ground with some small branches. A hemispherical helmet with an apex and a cuirass ending with a row of pteryges with circular ends hung on the trunk. A circular shield, represented in profile and with hemispherical decorations,61 and a spear hung respectively to the left, and to the right of the breastplate on a horizontal rod. Finally, two greaves are placed at the base of the trunk. This representation could be related to the equipment of the soldiers of the Hel- lenistic phalanx.62 Finally, it is possible to express some observations about Lucius Aemilius Paullus’ depiction. The trophy is shown as erected and complete; therefore, we cannot consider Paullus as completing it by adding a spear or a rod. In addition to this, the literary sources do not provide any description of Paullus erecting a trophy during his triumph. If we observe another representation of the reverse of Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue it is also possible to observe clearly Paullus holding a linear object (Fig. 4).63 It is important

57 RRC 419/2; Cadario 2010: 119. 58 Cadario 2010: 116–119. 59 Ibidem: 115–122. 60 Ibidem: 118–119. 61 Whilst performing this analysis, I identified two new variants of Paullus Lepidus’ reverse type coin, which differs both in the size of the shield and from the type of the cuirass (See figs. 4 and 5). I have not found mention of these variants in previous bibliography. I will provide a detailed analysis about these variants in a further study (forthcoming). 62 About the equipment of the phalangites see Markle 1999; Sekunda 2007: 337–339. 63 The references of the three coins with this representation which I have identified are: American Numismatic Society Collection S.926 – 1896.7.90, Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH Auction 99 Lot 70, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Mail Bid Sale 61 Lot 1435. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 17 to note that the spear of the trophy is parallel to the trunk whereas the object in Paullus’ right hand is depicted as oblique (Figs. 4, 5 and 6). The comparisons for this object can be the reverse type of the coin issue minted by Augustus in 28 BC.64 Here, we can observe a linear object identified by modern scholars as a volumen,65 and the triumphal parade represented on a silver cup from Boscoreale, where we can see a scipio eburneus, an ivory scepter, and one of the Roman ornamenta triumphalia, surmounted by the image of an eagle.66 Despite a vague resemblance and similarity, the object on Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue seems to be smaller than the volumen held by Augustus and it is not surmounted by any image. For these reasons I would argue that it is not actually possible to provide unequivocal identification of the linear object held by Paullus. To summarise, the iconography on the reverse coin of Lepidus Paullus includes some symbols and characters related to Paullus’ triumph held in Rome during 167 BC. But these depictions should not be considered to be a chronicle of Paullus’ triumphal parade.67 Lauren Kinnee also has argued that the juxtaposition of Paullus, Perseus, and his children with a trophy was an imaginary scene “whose iconography has been drawn from contemporary practice”.68 Surely it is possible to observe that the coin iconography represents a somewhat static scene, rather than an episode of a triumphal parade. Additionally, the trophies that are identified by the image, Costly panoplies mounted on poles,69 were displayed before Perseus and his three sons.70 The king of Macedonia is described as preceding Paullus in the triumphal parade. Plutarch states that Paullus was: mounted on a chariot of magnificent adornment […] wearing a purple robe interwoven with gold and holding forth in his right hand a spray of laurel.71 Surely this description cannot be considered as represented on the reverse of Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue.72 On the other hand, however, I wish to highlight that the iconography of the reverse is very detailed if we consider the clothes of Paullus, Perseus, and his children and the representation of the trophy, as I stated before. Furthermore, the reverse of the coin issue minted by Lepidus Paullus cannot be compared directly to the other coin

64 About this coin issue see Rich and Williams 1999; Mantovani 2008. 65 Rich and Williams 1999: 168 and fig. 20.1. 66 Östenberg 2009: 110, fig.9. 67 Cadario 2016: 19–20. 68 Kinnee 2016: 216. 69 Diod. 31.8.10–11. 70 Cadario 2016: 19, provides us some other observations about incongruities between the literary accounts describing Paullus’ triumph and the representation on Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue. 71 Plut. Aem. 34.3. This description seems to be more similar the representation of the triumpator on a Boscoreale silver cup. Östenberg 2009: 110, fig. 9. 72 Cadario 2016: 19. 18 Pecunia Omnes Vincit issues, which include representations of trophies and prisoners which we can define as almost standardized, minted between the 60s and the 50s by Roman moneyers.73 Therefore, in my opinion, we can consider the reverse of the coin type minted by Lepidus Paullus to be characterized by representations of the Roman costume and of the Macedonian military equipment belonging to the first half of the second century BC. These details can be related to the representations celebrating the memory of the triumph of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus displayed in Rome. Triumphal paintings were created to be displayed during Paullus’ triumphal procession. After this ceremony, the tabulae were plausibly exhibited in public in Rome. Literary sources provide evidence that Paullus used to put depictions of his military successes in a public place in Rome before 167 BC. As a matter of fact, Paullus, after his triumph over the Ligurians in 181 BC, Put up a painting in public where the sequence of his achievements was depicted.74 Remembering what we have noted before, it is possible, as some scholars have suggested, that the tabulae included representations of the triumph itself.75 It is also reasonable to think that the tabulae could have been placed in a public place as a memorial of the triumph. If this is true, we could assume that Paul- lus may have repeated this practice for his triumph in 167 BC, thanks, in particular, to the painter Metrodoros from Athens who executed the paintings, which were exposed in the triumphal procession.76 After the ceremony, the painted tabulae were probably displayed in public in Rome, as it happened in 181 BC. Therefore, we could assume that the reverse type of Paullus Lepidus’ coin could prove that in the first century BC there were still figurative depictions of Paullus’ triumph over Perseus and Macedonia in public in Rome. These commemorative and celebrative iconographies were a useful archive for the political communication of the Roman political èlite. This is surely testified by the iconography of the coin issue minted by the brother of Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, during 61 BC.77 By placing a horseman carrying a trophy on the reverse of his coin, Marcus Lepidus chose to recall the military valor of his ancestor Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, consul in 187 and 175 BC. At the end of the III century BC Marcus, who was only fifteen, killed an enemy and saved a Roman citizen during a battle. For this reason, the Senate exceptionally ordered to erect a statue in the Capitoline to honour the young Marcus Lepidus. This public monument was described by Valerius Maximus.78 Modern scholars agree that the reverse of Marcus Lepidus’ coin shows the

73 Ibidem: 21–22. 74 De Vir. Ill. 56. 75 Östenberg 2009: 196. 76 Holliday 2002: 32–33, 92, 198–199; Östenberg 2009: 248. 77 RRC 419/1. 78 Val. Max. 3,1,1. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 19 equestrian statue of his great-grandfather and the dedicatory inscription on the base of the statue,79 that was still visible and recognizable in Rome. This reinforces the hypothesis that public monuments celebrating military achievements of members of Roman families were used as iconographic models by moneyers. Note, however, that these images offered some figurative models which can be reworked by the engravers for the communication aims of the Roman magistrate who choose them. Richard David Weigel clearly synthesises the political use of these images: “The association of a name with past glory was an important consideration in gathering support for one’s political career”.80 About this topic it is also possible to quote an iconography represented on Faustus Sulla’s coin issue minted during 56 BC. The reverse types of this coin issue included a representation of Jugurtha handing Bocchus to Sulla.81 This iconography was known in Rome because the historical event was depicted on a monument placed by king Bocchus of Mauretania in the Capitol,82 and on Lucius Cornelius Sulla’s signet.83 Indeed the representation on the reverse of Faustus Sulla’s coin issue can be linked to iconographic models related to the historical memory of a specific character and to his deeds84 and already known in Rome. A comparison between the iconography of the reverse type of Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue and the representations of frieze at Delphi provide us interesting information about Roman figurative memory about past victories. The subject chosen by Lepidus Paullus does not reproduce figurative models related to Paullus’ monument in Delphi. Indeed, the representation on Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue could be put in relation with the iconographies celebrating the memory of Paullus’ triumph in Rome. Summarizing the representations celebrating the Roman victory during the third Macedonian war show the influence of the contexts where they were displayed or where they were used. The representations related to Paullus’ monument at Delphi show a partial reinterpreta- tion of the visual models displayed in the area near the temple of Apollo. On the other hand, the numismatic iconography can be related both to the representations coming from the Roman Republican figurative tradition about the memory of triumphs and to the symbols of the Roman Republican coin issues minted during the first half of the first century BC. In summary, the analysis of the representations related to the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus at Delphi and the reverse type of Paullus Lepidus’ coin issue provided us with some information about the Roman Republican historical commemoration

79 Cadario 2010: 115–116; Harlan 2015: 33–36. 80 Weigel 1976: 56. 81 RRC 426/1. 82 Plut. Sull. 6.1 and Plut. Mar. 32.2. 83 Camp et al. 1992: 450 n.27. 84 Ibidem: 449–451. 20 Pecunia Omnes Vincit in the visual arts. The study of the reverse type of Paullus Lepidus’ coin issue has allowed us to identify some new details concerning the representation of the trophy. In particular, the weapons represented on the reverse can be related to the military equipment used by the Hellenistic phalanx during the second century BC. This allows us to consider the recent academic hypothesis, which relates to the numismatic iconography of figurative models made and displayed in Rome not long after Paullus’ triumph in Rome in 167 BC, as being more plausible. The reverse type of Lepidus Paullus’ coin issue also shows representations coming from the figurative language regarding the Roman Republican coins minted during the first half of the first century BC. Finally, the confrontation between the iconographies of the decorative programme of Paullus’ monument in Delphi and the numismatic iconography allows us to underscore the influence of context in the selection of the figurative models by the political elite during the late Roman Republic.

Abbreviations RRC – M.H. Crawford. 1991. Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. I-II. Cambridge. Sydenham – E.A. Sydenham. 1952. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London. Babelon – E. Babelon. 1885. Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la république romaine, vulgairement appelées monnaies consulaires. Paris-Londres.

Bibliography Belloni G.G. 1993. La Moneta Romana. Società Politica e Cultura. Roma. Bettalli M. 2009. “I trofei sui campi di battaglia nel mondo greco”. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome–Antiquité 121/2: 363–371. Bommelaer J.F., Laroche D. 2016. Guide de Delphes – Le Site. Sites et monuments VII. Athènes. Cadario M. 2004. La corazza di Alessandro. Loricati di tipo ellenistico dal IV secolo a. C. al II d. C. Milano. Cadario M. 2010. “Quando l’habitus faceva il romano (o il greco). Identità e costume nelle statue iconiche tra il II e I secolo a.C.”. In. E. La Rocca, C. Parisi Presicce (eds.). I Giorni di Roma. L’età della conquista. Catalogo della mostra tenuta a Roma dal marzo al settembre 2010. Milano: 115–124. Cadario M. 2016. “La costruzione di un’immagine di vittoria. L’associazione di trofei e captivi nel mondo romano”. Eidola International Journal of Classical Art History 16: 15–30. Camp J., Ierardi M., McInerey J., Morgan K., Umholtz G. 1992. “A trophy from the Battle of Chaironeia of 86 BC”. American Journal of Archaeology 96/3: 443–455. Catalli F. 2003. La monetazione romana repubblicana. Roma. Coarelli F. 1996. “La cultura artistica a Roma in età repubblicana. IV-II secolo a.C.”. In. F. Coarelli (ed.). Revixit ars : arte e ideologia a Roma : dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana. Roma: 15–84. Dillon S., Welch K.E. 2006. Representations of War in Ancient Rome. Cambridge-New York. Harlan M. 2015. Roman Republican moneyers and their coins 63 BCE -49 BCE. London. Holliday P.J. 2002. The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts. Cambridge. Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 21

Jacquemin A., Laroche D., Lefèvre F. 1995. “Delphes, le roi Persée et les Romains”. Bulletin de Correspon- dance Hellénique 119/1: 125–136. Kähler H. 1965. Der Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi. Monumenta Artis Romanae V. Berlin. Kinnee L. 2016. “The Trophy Tableau Monument in Rome: from Marius to Caecilia Metella”. Journal of Ancient History 4/2: 191–239. Kousser R. 2010. “Hellenistic and Roman Art, 221 BC-AD 337”. In. J. Roisman, I. Worthington (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden: 522–542. Liampi K. 1998. Der Makedonische Schild. Bonn. Mantovani D. 2008. “Leges et iura p(opuli) R(omani) restituit”: principe e diritto in un aureo di Otta- viano”. Athenaeum. Studi di letteratura e storia dell’antichità 96: 5–54. Markle M.M. 1999. “A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of the Macedonian Shield Types”. Hesperia 68: 219–254. Mercuri L. 2008. “Il santuario di Apollo a Delfi dal koion etolico ai dinasti attalidi, ideologie e propaganda nello spazio sacro”. In. A. Carandini and E. Greco (eds.). Workshop di archeologia classica. Paesaggi, ricostruzioni, reperti. Pisa–Roma: 77–102. Moreno P. 1994. Scultura ellenistica. Vols. 1–2. Roma. Ӧstenberg I. 2009. Staging the World. Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Pro- cession. Oxford-New York. Rich W., Williams J.H.C. 1999. “Leges et Iura P.R. Restituit; A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28–27 BC”. The Numismatic Chronicle 159: 169–213. Ridgway B.S. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture. Vol. 2. The Styles of ca. 200-100 B.C. Madison. Sekunda N. 2007. “Military Forces”. In. P. Sabin, H. van Wees, M. Whitby (eds.). The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. Vol. 1. Cambridge: 325–357. Taylor M.J. 2016. “The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna Monument. A Reevaluation”. Hesperia- The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 85: 559–576. Weigel R.D. 1976. “L. Aemilius Paullus and Paullus Aemilius Lepidus”. Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics VII/4: 56. 22 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Figures 1. Frieze of the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus in Delphi (© author) Victory, celebration and memory: Representations of the Third Macedonian War 23

2. Frieze of the monument of Lucius Aemilius Paullus in Delphi, details of the large Macedonian shields (© author) 24 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

3. L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus 63 BC, AR Denarius (www.acsearch.info, Ex Bertolami Fine Arts ArtCoins Roma-ACR Auctions, Auction Mail Bid Sale 1 Lot 137)

4. L. Aemilius Paullus 63 BC, AR Denarius (ww.sixbid.com, Heritage Auctions. Inc. Auction 3019 Lot 26032)

5. L. Aemilius Paullus 63 BC, AR Denarius (www.ikmk.smb.museum, Münzkabinett: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, by kind permission of professor Bernhard Weisser)

6. L. Aemilius Paullus 63 BC, AR Denarius (www.numismatics.org, the collection of the American Numismatic Society, Object Number 1896.7.90) Szymon Jellonek

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland [email protected]

The Colonial Coinage under Claudius

Abstract: On the famous Lyon Tablet, speech of Claudius was transcripted. The emperor made a long-winded digression about the early history of Rome. He pointed out that at the beginning of the Roman Kingdom, plenty of eminent citizens and kings were non- Romans. The ruler used the example from the past to accomplished his own plan. Claudius was eager to extend the privileges to provincial communities. Members of local elites were granted the Roman citizenship. The process of integration was introduced in Roman Empire. The colonies which were Roman enclaves surrounded by indigenous inhabitants, followed this process too. The evidence of integration between Roman colonists and local aborigines are the colonial coins. Keywords: Roman Provincial Coins, Roman Colonies, Roman Colonization

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus is rated as a Roman emperor, some- where between good emperors such as Trajan and Augustus, and the catastrophic lu- natics such as Caligula and Nero. However the unexpected emperor tried to follow the Augustan legacy. Although according to the ancient sources claiming that his wives ruled the state,1 we have tough evidence that Claudius carried his own policy. The famous Lyon Tablet is a great proof, showing Claudius as a sagacious and liberal politician. Since in his speech he summons a Roman colony, the author has decided to examine the colonial coins in times of Claudius to answer the question, whether the liberal approach to colonial societies was just a political trick or his attempts were real.

Claudius Policy Before we move to colonial coinage it is important to highlight that we know a lot about Claudius’ attitude towards the colonists and provinces and it seems really liberal. Claudian integration policy is well-known from the Lyon Tablet. The transcript of Emperor’s speech given in year 48 AD was placed on bronze tablet and was eventually

1 Suet. Div. Claud. 25, 29. 26 Pecunia Omnes Vincit discovered close to the church of St. Polycarp in 1528.2 Claudius, in his speech to the Senate, supports the ambitions of Gauls in their efforts for public offices at Rome. Claudius: “It is surely an innovation of the divine Augustus, my great-uncle, and of Tiberius Caesar, my uncle, to desire that particularly the flower of the colonies and of the municipal towns, that is to say, all those that contain men of breeding and wealth, should be admitted to this assembly.” [Interruption, seemingly by a senator]: “How now? Is not an Italian senator to be preferred to a provincial senator!?” Claudius: “I will soon explain this point to you, when I submit that part of my acts which I performed as censor, but I do not conceive it needful to repel even the provincials who can do honor to the Senate House. Here is this splendid and powerful colony of Vienna; is it so long since it sent to us senators? From that colony comes Lucius Vestinus, one of the glories of the equestrian order, my personal friend, whom I keep close to myself for the management of my private affairs. Let his sons be suffered---I pray you--- to become priests of the lowest rank, while waiting until, with the lapse of years, they can follow the ad- vancement of their dignity. As for that robber, Valerius Asiaticus from Vienna, I will pass over his hateful name. For I detest that hero of the gymnasium, who brought the consulship into his family before even his colony had obtained the full rights of Roman citizenship. I could say as much of his brother, stamped as unworthy by this unlucky relationship, and incapable henceforth of being a useful member of your body.”3 The speech was noted also by Tacitus.4 In both versions, Claudius, in a long-winded discourse, summons his own Sabine ancestor – Clausus, furthermore, he mentions some non-Roman kings of Rome and points out that the Roman citizenship was gradually extended. Eventually, he indicates the advantages of accepting the provincials to the Senate. He mentioned his friend, who comes from a colony in Vienna (today south French town of Vienne), that has all the virtues to become a senator. In the contrary he presents Athenian and Spartan policy of keeping conquered peoples as alien-born, indicating that these states failed because of that. Emperor’s attempts of extending Ro- man citizenship among provincials and the increasing importance of colonial elites seems to be beyond any doubt. Eventually his pro-integration speech was presented in Lugdunum (where he was born) and quoted by Tacitus.

2 Fishwick 2004: 127. 3 Davis 1913: 186–188. 4 Tac. XI 24. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 27

This speech is often summoned as proof of the Claudian integration policy.5 How- ever, the emperor cared about the quality of Latin language and Roman culture, which were essential for Roman identity.6 There is an anecdote, in which Claudius deprived one of the Lycian envoys of his Roman citizenship: During the investigation of this affair, which was conducted in the senate, he put a question in Latin to one of the envoys who had originally been a Lycian, but had been made a Roman citizen; and when the man failed to understand what was said, he took away his citizenship, saying that it was not proper for a man to be a Roman who had no knowledge of the Romans’ language.7 According to his speech and the anecdote, two relevant observations shall be made. Claudius supported the colonial elites’ ambitions and strengthen integration with provinces. On the one hand, Claudius was extending Roman citizenship and was supporting the integration, but on the other hand, he demanded a sufficient level of Latin language from Roman citizens. Knowing that under Claudius some attempts of integration in provinces took place (at least superficial) and the inhabitants of colonies could apply for honorable offices (like Lucius Vestinus) we can analyze significant medium of identity – local coins. Unfortunately, in the case of mentioned Vienna – Colonia Iulia Viennensis, the last emissions were struck around year 36 BC (RPC I 517). Furthermore, we have no local coins from numerous Iberian colonies were the last issues where emitted under Tibe- rius and Caligula.8 Therefore the focus shall be put on the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, where the coins were struck until the end of third century AD.9 In times of Claudius, eight colonies emitted more than 30 issues.10 All of them were made of bronze, and weigh from 2.36 g (Philippi – RPC I 1652) to 12.41 g (Sinope RPC I 2134).

Foundation Scene In general, the colonial coins contain a few universal motives. The most popular one is the so-called ‘foundation type’ where a priest is plowing with a yoke of oxen.11 This type was in common use from the late Republic and Augustan period. The prototype could be denarius serratus struck under C. Marius in year 81 BC (RRC 378/1c) with a Ceres on obverse and plowing scene on reverse. What is the meaning of such a presentation? On a coin of C. Marius Romulus plowing priest is identified as Romulus and

5 Levick 1967: 186; Kremydi-Sicilianou 2005: 103. 6 Williamson 2005: 22. 7 Cass. Dio LX 17.4. 8 Weiss 2005: 59. 9 Heuchert 2005: 33. 10 Corinth, Patras, Buthrint, Dyme, Cassandrea, Philippi, Sinope, Berytus. 11 Jellonek 2018: 60–75. 28 Pecunia Omnes Vincit the scene is a foundation of Rome. The ritual called Etruscan (Etrusca disciplina) was the act of marking the boundaries by plowing the first furrow sulcus( primigenius) with use of pair of oxen.12 Therefore the depiction of “foundation type” on coins struck in Rome was used to commemorate the city’s birthday. Since colonies were the ’mini-Rome’s following its tradition, law, urban design, social structure and rituals,13 the foundation act was conducted in the same way.14 This event was later commemorated on colonial coins, moreover, sometimes we can even link the emissions with anniversaries (e.g. Patras15). In the age of Claudius three colonies struck coins with such theme (Sinope, Berytus, and Philippi). An analysis shall be started with coins from Berytus because they were designed in the universal mode. There are two issues (RPC I 4545, 4546) with ’founder type’ on the reverse. The design and legend are identical, the only difference is the weight (RPC I 4545 14.33 g; RPC I 4546 11.47 g). The typical titulature of Claudius is presented on the obverse- TI CLAVD CAESAR AVG GERM IMP. On the reverse the abbreviated titles of Berytus are summoned – COL IVL AVG. It is important to highlight that the full name of the colony: Colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Berytus was always presented in shorten version on coins. As mentioned above, the design of ’foundation type’ is universal; the veiled priest is plowing with the yoke of oxen. The motive was in use in Berytus from times of Augustus (RPC I 4540) till Caracalla (Lindgren 2266) and there were usually used on heavier emissions. In contrary there is a Sinopian example that was one of the smallest issue (RPC I 2133) weighing only 4.15 g. Since on the obverse, there is a head of Sol between two horses and there is no mention of the emperor, the issue is called ‘pseudo-autonomous’. On the reverse, there are not one but two priests plowing with the retrograded legend ANN XCVI C I F. Two founders are uncommon for ’foundation scene’ and it is known in Sinope from earlier issue emitted under Caligula (RPC I 2129). What is the meaning of two priests? It seems that the scholars have not hitherto considered the question. A. Filges only indicates on uniqueness of the presentation.16 Since there is no clear solution of ‘two founders’ we can look through a possible explanation of this phenomena. Since in some cases the presented priest can be identified as the emperor who established a colony (Claudius in Acce-Ptolemais RPC I 4749, 4750; Augustus in Cremna RPC III 2805). The colony of Sinope was set up by Julius Caesar in year 45 BC as Colonia Iulia Felix,17 it gained Julian title because the symbolic founder of the colony was the dictator. The other one could be Augustus since under him plenty of colonies

12 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.88; Plut. Rom. 11; Tac. Ann. 12.24. 13 Beard, North and Price 1998a: 329; MacMullen 2000: 127; Howgego 2005: 15. 14 Varro LL 5.143; Eckstein 1979: 88. 15 Grant 1946: 265; Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 48. 16 Filges 2015: 244. 17 Barat 2011: 145–155. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 29 were refound, however usually these colonies gained title Augusta and as far as we know Sinope never obtained such name. The other possibility is connected with the colonial governors – duoviri who played key-role in Sinope’s policy.18 Therefore the double founders can be an allusion to duoviri. Another way of solving this phenomena are the next coins of such type, most probably coming from Philippi. Issues containing similar reverse without any legend were struck in times of Augustus (RPC I 1656), Tiberius (RPC I 1657–59), and Claudius (RPC I 1660) and were discovered mostly in Philippi and Thasos but also in Syria, Armenia, so the circulation was over regional.19 Since there is no ethnikon on the coins, according to Roman Provincial Coins, the most probable mint is Philippi.20 A. Filges denied the possibility that Philippi issues originated the Sinopean coins indicating the distance between cities.21 However, the scholar does not take into consideration the abundant amount of coins and the interregional circulation. Therefore the transfer between these mints cannot be denied. Furthermore, the issues from Philippi weigh about 4.17 g (Sin- opean – 4.15 g), so we can treat them as a similar denomination. It seems plausible that coins struck under August and Tiberius influenced Sinopean mint which struck the similar issue under Caligula and later continued it until Nero (RPC I 2140). If Philippi as the mint is correct, the interpretation of two colonists shall be recon- sidered. M. Grant incorrectly connects Philippi emissions with Antioch and indicates two legions that established colony.22 In the case of Philippi the colonists were originated in praetorian guards,23 therefore two plowing figures do not fit here. Actually, Philippi was established twice as a colony, for the first time under M. Anthony and after the battle of Actium it was refound under Augustus.24 In spite of damnatio memoriae which was conducted after the Actium battle, later memory of Anthony was rehabilitated.25 Despite the fact that it seems barely possible that these two opponents were presented head to head on one reverse, the two colonists could commemorate double foundations of the colony (in 42 BC by M. Anthony and in 30 BC by Augustus). Another option is the presentation of Augustus and his adoptive father- Julius Caesar. The strong argument for such interpretation are other coins struck in Philippi from times of Augustus (RPC I 1650) till Commodus (RPC IV 4259) containing a scene in which statue of Julius Caesar is crowning a statue of Augustus. However, another author’s idea is homonoia

18 Barat 2011: 158. 19 Grant 1946: 113. 20 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 310–311. 21 Filges 2015: 244. 22 Grant 1953: 92. 23 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 36. 24 Ibidem: 31. 25 Varner 2004: 19. 30 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

– the cooperation between two cities two strike common coinage. For the advantage of this assumption stands the fact that there is no ethnikon and two colonists could represent two different colonies. Since such coins circulated widely in the Greek East, there is a possibility that more colonies took part in it. No matter if any of these hypotheses is correct, the problem of two colonists required further investigation.

Military Standards Such as a ‘founder with oxen’ type refers to the birthday of the colony, the legionary standards underlines the military past of settlers.26 Thanks to the coins we can learn more about veterans of which legions were settled down in colonies. In the case of Claudian times, we can analyze three issues from Patras (RPC I 1256), Philippi (RPC I 1651), and Berytus (RPC I 4547). In the case of Patras ‘vexillum’ issue weighs about 9.5 g and it is smaller than the other issue struck under Claudius (RPC I 1255 – 12 g). On the obverse there is a portrait of Claudius turned right with a legend TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG GERM and on a reverse, there is an eagle (aquilla) between two legionary standards (vexilla). There are two legionary numbers X and XII, moreover, the legend is added – COL A A PATR. The full name of colony seems to be Colonia Augusta Achaica Patrensis.27 The ‘pseudo-autonomous’ issue coming from Philippi used to be connected with Augustus,28 however, according to Roman Provincial Coins authors, the material that was used to produce the coins was introduced in Macedonia from times of Claudi- us, therefore the coin could be struck under Claudius or Nero.29 Notwithstanding S. Kremydi pulls the date into the reign of Vespasian or some specimens even into the period between Trajan and Antonius Pius according to more recent discoveries.30 Nevertheless, she does not exclude the possibility of striking these coins in times of Claudius, highlighting that in his times Victoria Augusta was a popular motive.31 There- fore the author decided to include these interesting issues in his consideration. On the obverse, there is Victory on cippus and legend VIC AVG, while on the reverse there are three standards presented with a legend: COHOR PRAE PHIL. Victoria Augusta can be connected with a final battle of Caesarians and Republicans which was fought in the neighborhood, where Anthony and Octavianus defeated an army of Caesar assassins.32

26 Grant 1946: 34. 27 Agalopoullou 1989: 444–447; Idem 1991: 211. 28 Grant 1946: 274–275. 29 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 308. 30 Kremydi 2002: 74, 78–79. 31 Ibidem: 75. 32 Val. Max. 1.8.8; Dio XLVII.45.2. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 31

The other interpretation could be battle of Actium, Claudian conquer of Britain or according to S. Kremydi, victories of Vespasian. Two aquillae are presented on the reverse of coins in Berytos (RPC I 4547), the numbers of legions V and VIII are added. The founding legions were V Macedonica and VIII Gallica.33 Probably since it was the smaller issue (bigger one was with founder type) ethnikon was omitted. Two eagles were in use on coins of Berytus, on the smallest issues, until middle third century AD

Imperial family members The members of the imperial family frequently presented on imperial and provincial coins under Julio-Claudian dynasty. Claudius gained the imperial power in an unprec- edented and unexpected way, he was enthroned by the praetorian guards after the as- sassination of Gaius.34 Therefore he had to strengthen his claims by using the authority of his great ancestors. He divinized his grandmother Livia35 and depicted his father – Drusus the Elder (RIC 69) and mother – Antonia the Younger on a series of golden aurei (RIC 65). Furthermore, the emperor in attempts of ensuring the endurance of Julio- Claudian dynasty promoted his wives and children. Although an effigy of Messalina was never placed on coins struck in Rome,36 her image was widespread in the Greek East. The significant examples are the didrachms from Cappadocian Caesarea (RIC 124) where she is presented on the obverse with a legend: MESSALLINA AVGVSTA. While on the reverse we can see Claudian offspring: OCTAVIA, on the left, BRITTANICVS in the middle clasping hands with Octavia, and ANTONIA holding cornucopia. Mes- salina portraits are also known from other provincial mints like Koinon of Crete (RPC I 1001), Nicaea (RPC I 2034) Aegae (RPC I 2430). In case of colonial coins, her effigy was put on coins in Sinope (RPC I 2130). The draped bust of Messalina is presented in the same mode as on Cappadocian issue with a standard legend: MESSALLINA AVGVSTA. However, this time on the reverse, because an obverse was reserved for the emperor. The children of Claudius and Messalina – Claudia Octavia and Britannicus, plus his daughter from a former marriage with Aelia Paetina – Claudia Antonia were presented on another issue struck in Patrae (RPC I 1255). Three busts are juxtaposed on the reverse above two crossed cornucopiae. The images of Octavia and Antonia are connected with the cornucopiae, while Britannicus in the middle is presented as Claudius’s heir. There is a legend added LIBERIS AVG COL A A P which can be translated as the children of August (emperor Claudius in this case).

33 Jones Hall 2004: 46. 34 Suet. Div. Claud. 10. 35 Suet. Div. Claud. 11. 36 Burns 2007: 35. 32 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Messalina was famous for her impact on Claudius, however, her affairs eventually lost her, and she was put to death in year 48 AD.37 Claudius tried to save the dynasty, so he decided for a controversial move. He married his niece – Agrippina the Younger in January year 49 AD. The image of the daughter of Germanicus soon after was placed on the imperial coins (e.g. RIC 80). Plenty of provincial mints imitated the imperial pattern (e.g. Tomis RPC I 1835; Ephesos RPC I 2624; Philadelphia RPC I 3042; Alexandria RPC I 5194 etc.). Her effigy was presented also on colonial coins from Corinth (RPC I 1183, 1184) and Sinope (RPC I 2134). In the latter case, the issues seem to be struck to commemorate centennial anniversary of colonial foundation, we know that because of the legend on reverse: AGRIPPINAE AVG EX DD AN C CIF, where AN C refers to 55 AD, since the colony was set up in year 45 BC.38 Claudius died in October 54, therefore according to RPC authors, it seem highly improbable that the coin was struck a few months after his death.39 That brings us to a conclusion that an error could occur or the Sinope era had not initiated 1st of January 45 BC as W. Kubitschek assumes40 but rather from July 46 AD as M. Amandry argues.41 Nonetheless, the bust of Agrippina can be understood as a late response to the former issues containing an image of Valeria Mes- salina (RPC I 2130) who suffered some kind of damnatio memoriae.42 The other depiction of Agrippina II comes from two issues in Corinth. This emission differs only the legend on the obverse and the direction of Agrippina’s portrait. In the first case (RPC I 1183), the empress is turned left with the inscription: IVL AGRIP- PINA AVG CAESARIS. While in the other (RPC I 1184) the bust is turned right and inscribed: AGRIPPINA CAESARIS. The depictions of Agrippina II in classical coiffure from Corinth and Sinope imitated the imperial standard that is also known from the sculptures (’Ancona’ type).43 On the reverse of mentioned Corinthian coins there are figures of Nero and Britan- nicus (inscribed in exergue NE BR) facing each other. The added legend mentions local duoviri L Paconius and Cn Publicus: L PACONIO FLAM CN PVBLICIO REGVLO IIVIR COR. Agrippina gained the title of Augusta in year 50 AD, and in the same year her son – Nero was adopted by the emperor. The issues seem to celebrate these events.44 Nero and Britannicus are presented on the coins of Sinope (RPC I 2132). On an obverse, the jugate heads of Claudius sons are juxtaposed. A legend: NER CLAVD CAES

37 Suet. Div. Claud. 39; Burns 2007: 64; Barrett 1996: 93. 38 Barat 2011: 145. 39 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 355. 40 Kubitschek 1908: 66–72. 41 Amandry 1986: 74. 42 Varner 2004: 95. 43 Wood 1988: 419. 44 Amandry 1988: 73. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 33

CLAVD BRITTAN CAE is added to clarify the identification. On the reverse there are two crossed cornucopiae and a caduceus, the added legend CIF ANN XCVI tells us that the coin was struck in year 96 year after the colonial foundation, so probably in year 50 AD, after Nero adoption. It is important to highlight that Britannicus, unlike Nero, was never presented on imperial coins of Claudius. However, he was quite popular in provincial coinage (e.g. Aegeae RPC I 4043; Hierapolis RPC I 2971; Smyrna RPC I 2476). Such a phenomenon happened before in the case of Agrippa Postumus in Corinth (RPC I 1141).The popularity of those members in provinces was though not confirmed with the situation in imperial court. Therefore in case of Britannicus, it seems that after year 50 AD, Nero was planned to be Claudius’s successor.

Local Motives In general the local motives stand for local identity.45 In the case of colonial elites, we can see a twofold approach to locality. On one hand, the settlers manifested its Romanitas by presenting the mentioned vexilla, aquillae and aratrum ritual on coins. On the other hand, the newcomers accepted the local tradition by continuing coinage with typical precolonial motives. A great example of the latter approach is Corinth. The town once destroyed by Romans was later refound by Julius Caesar, and from beginning referred to the great past of Corinth. The first issue contained the symbol of town – Pegasus (RPC I 1116). In times of Claudius apart from mentioned issues with imperial family, there were three types of themes – Acrocorinth (RPC I 1180, 1181), Poseidon (RPC I 1185); Melicertes with dolphin(s) (RPC I 1186–1188). What is important and can be seen as the reminiscence of Claudian integration policy are the coins containing Acrocorinth, which is presented as the hill crowned with a hexastyle temple (in the other version (RPC I 1181) the Pegasus is on top of Acrocorinth). A hexastyle temple was placed on Corinthian coins earlier in times of Tiberius and it was consecrated of Julian house.46 However M. Aman- dry identifies the temple as the temple of Aphrodite,47 which was a popular reverse theme from times of Galba.48 However it is necessary to add that the temple of Aphrodite in second century AD is presented as tetrastyle (e.g. RPC III 173). Presentation of Poseidon statue is a typical way to show the connection between the harbour city with the sea. The sea-god holds dolphin and trident which are his official attributes and he is perceived as the universal deity in the Greco-Roman world. The situation is different with Melicertes who is extremely local hero of Corinth. According

45 Katsari, Mitchell 2008: 223. 46 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 53. 47 Amandry 1988: 72–73. 48 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 54. 34 Pecunia Omnes Vincit to myth, young prince Melicertes was drowned in the sea, however, his body was carried by the dolphin which left it on a shore of Ishtmos, discovered later by Sisyphos who introduced Isthmian games.49 The sanctuary of Melicertes was established in middle first century AD.50 Therefore these issues (and perhaps the Acrocorinth?) can be connected with the consecration. Whatsoever Corinth seems to be the most liberal among colonies. The title colonia was never placed on coins under Claudius, the ‘foundation type’ was never in use there. The reason for almost instant integration can be the fact that Corinth was not a military colony, and the settlers never gained a crucial impact on society.51 Roman Corinth seems to be the successor and continuator of Greek poleis. Another colony that ‘decided’ to follow its own path was Buthrotum, which in opposite to Corinth was set up as a veteran colony.52 The coins produced by the town contained some common for Roman world features such as oak wreath (surrounding legend: CCIB DD PVBL (RPC I 1395)) and palm tree (RPC I 1398). An abbreviation CCIB (Colonia Campestris Iulia Buthrotum), presented on every issue struck under Claudius (RPC I 1395–1399), substituted previous, Augustan name (CA BVT – Co- lonia Augusta Buthrothum) is another evidence of colonial development.53 The local characters are also highlighted. The swimming bullock (RPC I 1399) on the first sight, seems to be an allusion to the significant position of the town on an Epyrus coast.54 However in this case, the mythical foundation of Buthrtotum is depicted on a coin. Ac- cording to local myth the bull that was prepared to be sacrified on the other side of bay, escaped and swimmed to the peninsula, where the animal rested and there was eventually sacrified.55 Therefore the bull was a common motive in Buthrothum coinage. The importance of the maritime and trade tradition is emphasised by the personification of harbour presented with an anchor and cippus (RPC I 1396). The picture of Buthrotum’s mint is completed by a female figure (Fortuna?) holding patera and cornucopia (RPC I 1397). The titulature in times of Claudius is puzzling (C C I B), usually, the name of the colony is translated as Colonia Iulia Buthrothum, is it possible that the second C stands for Claudia? Further investigation shall be conducted. Among colonies and their coinage, there are examples of barely changeable designs over time. In case of Cassandrea, head of Zeus Ammon could be introduced soon after

49 Plautus, Rubens 160–162; Verg. Georg. 436–437; Ovid. Fast. 6.583–582; Met. 4.416–542; Gantz 1993: 176–180. 50 Pawlak 2013: 153. 51 Spawforth 1996: 167–182. 52 Wicckiser 2010: 63. 53 Abdy 2012: 93. 54 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 57–58. 55 Abdy 2012: 91. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 35 the colonial foundation by Q Hortensius in year 43 BC (RPC I 1511) (the identification with Cassandrea is not certain56) and it was continued until Macrinus (SNG Evelpidis 1213). The first colonial issues struck in Cassandrea without doubts were produced -un der Claudius.57 Two emissions (RPC I 1515, 1516) bore the bust of Zeus Ammon with an inscription COL IVL AVG CASSANDR. If it is true that Cassandrea gained the privilege of striking coins under Claudius and decided to present on it the city god – Zeus Am- mon, it is another argument for Claudian integration policy. Another colony that struck coins with the same design for almost two hundred years is a few times mentioned Philippi. Apart from the Victoria Augusta type and an issue with plough and two modii (RPC I 1652), the most significant coins were those with figural scene on its reverse (RPC I 1653, 1654). This type contains on its reverse two figures. On the right there is a statue of togate Julius Caesar who is crowning the cuirassed statue of Augustus. The base on which they are standing is inscribed DIVVS AVG. This type was being reproduced from times of Augustus (RPC I 1650) until Com- modus (RPC IV 4259). The design imitated the statue that was located in some significant place (forum? Temple?) in Philippi, and commemorated the famous battle.58 The reverse legend is a traditional abbreviation of colonial titulature: COL AVG IVL PHILIP. The last remaining colony that struck coins in times of Claudius is Dium. The single issue (RPC I 1507) bore the legend COL AVG DIENSIS DD on the reverse and a puzzling figure with patera and a spear is usually interpreted as Athena.59 This type was repeated later in times of Nero (RPC I 1508).

Conclusion Claudius could not be presented as a charismatic leader and a sophisticated orator. He was rather a pragmatic official that cared more about the state prosperity. Therefore he tried to develop the quality of policy by accepting the new senators from far provinces and by integrating ‘aliens’ to Roman society as we can learn from the Lyon Tablet and Tacitus testimony paraphrasing Claudius’s speech. On the numismatic field, the most striking change between Claudius and former emperors is the ultimate cessation of provincial mintage in the West. The issue struck in Ebusus on the Iberian Peninsula (RPC I 482) was the last and only emission produced under Claudius in the West. However, the end of the Western provincial coinage was not a sudden political act, but rather a gradual process continued for decades.60

56 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 291. 57 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 70. 58 Koortbojian 2013: 202; Jellonek 2017: 50–56. 59 Papageorgiadou-Banis 2004: 70. 60 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 66. 36 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Presented numismatic material proved Claudian libertarian poltics to some point. The case of Cassandrea, where the coin production was introduced or at least resumed from the time of late Republic, and the chosen design was Zeus Ammon shows the liberty in Claudian policy. Corinth and Buthrotum continued its coinage that except Latin legend had nothing in common with colonial patterns. Dium manifested its colonial titles on the single issue. However, the colonies with a strong Romanitas such as Philippi, Patras, Berytus and Sinope were indicating on Roman origins. So called ‘founder type’, vexilla and aquillae were placed on coins. Caesar and Augustus remained the status of the most important motive in Philippi. The status of Claudius wives was far way stronger than his predecessor. The images of Messalina and Agrippina the Younger were popular in the East. Furthermore, referring to the member of the imperial family (Britannicus) who was never presented on imperial coins by the local mints could be read as the act of over-zeal. We can regret that colonies that were set up under Claudius such as Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (modern Cologne), Colonia Claudia Victricensis (Camulodunum) and Colonia Claudia Stabilis Germanicia Felix Ptolemais had not struck coins in times of Claudius. However the last one, under Nero emitted two issues (RPC I 4749, 4750), where the togate man ploughing with two oxen is inscribed as DIVOS CLAVD.

Abbreviations Lindgren – Lindgren H., Kovacs F. 1985. Ancient Bronze Coinage of Asia Minor and the Levant. San Mateo. RIC I – Sutherland C.H.V. 1984. Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1. London. RPC I – Amandry M., Burnett A. et al. (eds.) 1992. The Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. I. From the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69). London/Paris. RPC III – Amandry M., Burnett A. et al. (eds.) 2015. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. III. Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (AD 96–138). London/Paris. RPC IV – Heuchert V., Howgego C. (eds.) 2006. The Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. IV. The Antonines (AD 138–192). Online: 2006 (with temporary numbers) [access 20.09.2018] www.rpc.ashmus.ox.ac. uk/volumes/ RRC – Crawford M.H. 1991. Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. I-II. Cambridge.

Bibliography Abdy R. 2012. “Monuments, myth and small change in Buthrotum (Butrint) during the Early Empire”. In. F. López Sánchez (ed.). The City and the Coin in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Oxford: 91–101. Agalopoullou P. 1989. “Two Unpublished Coins from Patras and the Name of the Roman Colony”. Hes- peria 58/4: 445–447. Agalopoullou P. 1991. “Colonia Augusta Achaica Patrensis. ‘Ψευδοαυτόνομα’ νομί- σματα της Πάτρας από τις ανασκαφές”. In. A.D. Rizakis (ed.). Achaia und Elis in der Antike, Akten des 1. Internationalen Symposiums, Athens, 19-21/5/1989. Μελετήματα 13. Athens: 211–216. The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 37

Amandry M. 1988. Le Monnayage des duovirs corinthiens. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 15. Athens. Barat C. 2011. “La Colonia Iulia Felix Sinope: un example de fondation coloniale au nord del’Anatolie”. In. N. Barrandon, F. Kirbihler (eds.). Les Gouverneurs et les provinciaux sous la Republique romaine. Rennes: 145–167. Burns J. 2007. Great Women of Imperial Rome: Mothers and Wives of the Caesars. London-New York. Davis W.D. 1913. Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources. Vol. II. Rome and the West. Boston. Eckstein M. 1979. “The Foundation Day of Roman “Coloniae”. California Studies in Classical Antiquity 12: 85–97. DOI: 10.2307/25010742. Filges A. 2015. Münzbild und Gemeinschaft: Die Prägungen der römischen Kolonien in Kleinasien. Frank- furter Archäologische Schriften 29. Studien zu Münze und Geld in der griechisch-römischen Welt 2. Bonn. Fishwick D. 2004. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Vol. III. The Provincial Centre; Provincial Cult. Leiden-Boston. Gantz T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Vols. I–II. Baltimore–London. Grant M. 1946. From Imperium to Auctoritas. London. Grant M. 1953. The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus: Controversial Studies. Edinburgh. Heuchert V. 2005. “The Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography”. In. C. How- gego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett (eds.). Coinage and Identity in the Roman Province. Oxford: 29–57. Jones Hall L. 2004. Roman Berytus in Late Antiquity. London. Katsari C., Mitchel K. 2008. “The Roman Colonies of Greece and Asia Minor. Questions of State and Civic Identity”. Atheneum 96/1: 221–249. Koortobojian M. 2013. The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus: Precedents, Consequences, Implications. Cambridge. Kremydi-Sicilianou S. 2002. “Victoria Augusta on Macedonian Coins: Remarks on Dating and Interpreta- tion”. Tekmeria 7: 63–82. DOI: 10.12681/tekmeria.180. Kremydi-Sicilianou S. 2005. “Belonging” to Rome, “Remaining” Greek: Roman Macedonia”. In. C. How- gego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett (eds.). Coinage and Identity in the Roman Province. Oxford: 95–106. Levick B. 1967. Roman Colonies in Asia Minor. Oxford. Papageorgiadou-Bani H. 2004. The Numismatic Iconography of the Roman Colonies in Greece and Local- Spirit and the Expression of Imperial Policy. Athens. Pawlak M. 2013. “Corinth after 44 BC: Ethnical and Cultural Changes”. Electrum 20: 143–162. Spawforth A. 1996. “Roman Corinth: The Formation of a Colonial Elite”. In. A.D. Rizakis (ed.). Roman Onomastic in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects. Proceedings of the Inernational Colloquium on Roman Onomastics Athens, 7-9 September 1993. Μελετήματα 21. Athens: 167–182. Varner E. 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Potraiture. Monumenta Graeca et Romana 10. Leiden-Boston. Weiss P. 2005. “The Cities and Their Money”. In. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett A. (eds.). Coinage and Identity in the Roman Province. Oxford: 57–69. Williamson G. 2005. ”Aspects of Identity”. In. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett (eds.). Coinage and Identity in the Roman Province. Oxford: 19–29. Wood S. 1988. “Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina the Elder in Julio-Claudian Art and Propaganda”. American Journal of Archaeology 92/3: 409–426. 38 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Figures 1. Lyon Tablet (Wikimedia Commons) The Colonial Coinage under Claudius 39

2. Berytus RPC I 4546 (cngcoins.com)

3. Berytus RPC I 4547 (cngcoins.com)

4. Sinope RPC I 2134 (cngcoins.com)

5. Philippi RPC I 1654 (cngcoins.com)

6. Patrae RPC I 1255 (cngcoins.com) 40 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

7. Patrae RPC I 1256 (cngcoins.com)

8. Corinth RPC I 1180 (cngcoins.com)

9. Corinth RPC I 1188 (cngcoins.com)

10. Corinth RPC I 1201 (cngcoins.com) Barbara Zając

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland [email protected]

Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins

Abstract: During the reign of Trajan (98–117 AD), fourteen cities struck coins in the province Bithynia and Pontus. Among registered exemplars for this region, researchers distinguished nine groups of emissions without certain attribution to a certain center. These coins are without ethnikon, very useful factor in recognizing mint. Analysis of dies, effigies, legends, denominations, countermarks of some coins and comparison with earlier and later tradition could provide some answers for proper attribution. Keywords: Bithynia, Pontus, Trajan, mints, attribution, uncertain coins

Bithynia, situated in the northern coast of Anatolia, under the Black Sea, became a Roman province in year 74 BC, after the death of Nicomedes IV. Pontus was annexed by Pompey the Great during the war with Mithridates VI.1 Eleven mints functioned in this province, during the reign of Julio-Claudian dynasty.2 In the next period, under Flavian dynasty, minting activity was led by thirteen cities.3 In a short period of Nerva, only Sinope, a Roman colony, struck coins with his effigy.4 During the reign of Trajan (98–117 AD) in the Roman provinces flourished life, developed architecture and cities. Emperor led a policy of social integration and centralization of the economy in Empire.5 One of the sources, very useful to reconstruct this period, are letters of Pliny the Younger, the imperial governor of Bithynia and Pontus province.6 Reign of Trajan with great prosperity of the Roman Empire has very scanty information according to historical records,7 but some political, economic and social aspects could be reflected by archaeological, epigraphic or numismatic evidences. In this period fourteen cities in

1 Sartre 1997: 284–285; Winniczuk 1987 (2017): 79. 2 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1992: 337. 3 Idem 1999: 92. 4 Idem 2015: 145–146. 5 Bennett 2015: 144, 216–227; Salmeri 2005: 187–207. 6 Plin. Ep. X.; Dębiński, Jońca, Leraczyk, Łuka 2017. 7 Dion Chrysostom; Cass. Dio. LXVIII; Arr. Parth. 42 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Bithynia and Pontus issued coins.8 Among these centers are Important harbors (Byz- antium or Heraclea), metropolises (Nicomedia, Heraclea, Amastris) or autonomous cities (Calchedon) are among these centers. Two colonies (Apamaea and Sinope), whose minting differs from the provincial characteristics due to Roman citizens, placing characteristic images and Latin legends, were located in the region. Silver and bronze coins dominated in the Roman provinces.9 In Bithynia and Pontus lack of silver coins was observed during this period, minting activity was focused on the bronze coinage.

Uncertain Bithynian coins Among registered coins for this region, researchers distinguished nine groups of emissions without attribution to certain cities. These coins are without ethnikon, very often useful to proper recognizing mint.10 Some elements might give hint to attribution, compared with emissions from a particular period or other cities. The absence of the mint’s name could suggest the koinon emissions, but there is no reference to this federa- tion. This text is an attempt to assign coins to some specific centers.

Group I: with the name of the proconsul C. Iulius Bassus Coins with the name of the proconsul C. Iulius Bassus (AD 101/102), might be attributed to Nicaea, where the seat of governors was set. Republican tradition was to place proconsul’s name on the coins, and sometimes this was the only source of information regarding governors’ names.11 These coins, most probably, represented two denominations (21mm, 6–8g and 18mm, 2–3g; axis variation: 1, 6, 7 and 12 o’clock). On the obverse there is a portrait of Trajan with standard legend (ΑΥΤΟ ΝER ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣ ΓΕΡΜ, or the legend with some little changes)12 with title ΓΕΡΜA (ΓΕΡΜ or ΓΡΜ), which was adopted at the beginning of his reign (98–99 AD). Four types of effigies are presented on the reverse, with legend attributed to the name of proconsul C. Iulius Bassus (ΕΠΙ Γ ΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΣΟΥ ΑΝΘΥΠΑΤΟΥ). The altar,13 Demeter standing left, with corn ears and long scepter,14 eagle standing on the globe15 and cornucopia (Fig. 1) were depicted on the reverse.16 The last type represented the smaller denomination (18mm, 2–3g). Nicomedia is one of the places where these coins could have been struck, because this was a capital city of the prov-

8 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 118–154; Babelon, Reinach, Waddington 1904–12. 9 IvE 27; Butcher 1988: 31–33. 10 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 136–139. 11 Idem 1992: 337. 12 RPC III 1121–1124. 13 RPC III 1121–1122. 14 RPC III 1123. 15 RPC III 1124. 16 RPC III 1124A. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 43 ince. However, during the reign of Trajan in the legends on the coins is letter Σ, not C used in the legend of this center. Moreover, legends placed on the coins emphasize a title of metropolis and state of the city.17 Analysis of the earlier effigies of emissions struck during the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasty show lack of iconographical types depicted on the coins from Nicomedian mint, with one exception. This type is cornucopia, but compared with an effigy on coins from capital, cornucopia is shown from the other side than this with the name of Bassus.18 Coins with this type represented the same small denomination, which could be an indicator of smaller units. On the denominations attributed to the Prusias mint, altar and Demeter were both presented, however on the coins with Demeter effigy there is a monogram ΠΡ typical for this mint. Based on the effigies, legends, and status of this city, the most plausible mint is the one in Nicaea. In this city, type with an altar appeared under Nero19 and Domitian,20 and represented similar denomination as during the reign of Trajan. Type with Demeter, holding corn-ears and scepter,21 as well as an eagle on the globe,22 was placed during the reign of Domitian. These effigies were placed on the largest denominations (25mm, 7g and 27mm, 12g). For the reign of Trajan one coin was attributed to Nicaea and in the legend, we can see letter Σ, not C. Moreover, these types were used on the units of this mint during the later period.23

Group II: with the legend EIΡHNH ΣEBAΣTH or EIΡHNH CEBACTH Coins with EIΡHNH ΣEBAΣTH or EIΡHNH CEBACTH legend might be related to mint in Amastris.24 Some thesis regarding this attribution is based on the die-link one of coins, style obverse, and effigy of Elpis. These coins represented one denomination (30–31mm, 22–25g, axis: 6 or 12 o’clock). A head of the Emperor, with standard legend including visible changes between letters Σ and C (ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒ ΓΕΡ or ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒΑ ΓΕΡΜ), was depicted on the obverse. Two types of designs are presented, Eirene with olive branch and cornucopia,25 and Elpis, holding a flower and raising the hem of her dress (Fig. 2).26 Effigy of the Eirene might be attributed based on the legend (EIΡHNH ΣEBAΣTH or EIΡHNH CEBACTH),

17 Η ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙС ΚΑΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΒΙΘΥΝΙΑС, ΝΙΚΟ ΜΗ; RPC III 1089–1090. 18 RPC III 1091–1092. 19 RPC I 2049, 2053, 2055, 2059. 20 RPC II 644–645. 21 RPC II 636. 22 RPC II 641. 23 Demeter: RPC IV 5917, 6004; altar: RPC IV 5496–5497, 5111–5112, 6239, 8425, 9680; eagle: RPC IV 5957 – numbers of particular coins could be changes in the future. 24 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 136. 25 RPC III 1125–1126. 26 RPC III 1127. 44 Pecunia Omnes Vincit but on the coins depicted Elpis is only CEBAC.27 The motive of Eirene or Elpis depicted on the larger denominations (30–32mm, 20–24g) was struck in Amastris,28 Abonoteichos,29 Prusias,30 Juliopolis,31 but without the same variation. Legends are depicted only in the mint of Prusias. Effigies of Eirene were put only on the coins of Juli- opolis, Prusias, Nicaea,32 Nicomedia33 between the reign of Julio-Claudian dynasty to a period of Trajan. Elpis was depicted on the exemplars of Amastris, Abonoteichos and Nicaea, but with other legends. In Nicaea, on the coins occurred both, Elpis and Eirene, but with legends related to ethnikon, and in a different style than coins from the later period. Based on the die links, style obverse, same denomination, and effigy of Elpis, the most possible mint is the one in Amastris. Moreover, the personification of Eirene did not occur earlier in this mint. What might confirm this thesis is the fact that on the coins in Amastris legends with letters Σ and C were placed. Some features of the portrait of Emperor are also similar to the busts on the Amastris coins.

Group III: with the legend ΣEBAΣTH OMONOIA or CEBACTH OMONOIA This group should be divided into a few mints. Some coins with ΣEBAΣTH OMO- NOIA or CEBACTH OMONOIA legend might be attributed to Nicaea.34 On these issues two types of effigies are presented – Demeter with corn ears and scepter (31mm, 23–25g (Fig. 4)),35 and on the larger denomination (24–27mm, 11–12g), Eirene with olive branch and cornucopia.36 On the obverse legend letter Σ (ΑΥΤΟ ΝΕΡΟΥΑΣ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒ ΓΕΡ ΔΑ) was placed, but on the reverse letter C (OMONOIA CEBACTH). On both emissions on the reverse with Demeter effigies there is only legend OMO- NOIA.37 These coins are dated back to the beginning of the reign, and after year 102 AD, according to titles obtained by Trajan. One coin might be attributed to Nicaean mint according to die link. Another relation of the style of the obverse is an unattributed coin with NEIKI CEBACTOY ΔΑΚ from group IV.38 Such as legends do not occur in earlier periods, the only effigy of Demeter is the same, however, this motive was a very popular iconographical type on the coins in a lot of mints.

27 It should be noted that on the coin is mistake in this legend – CERAC not CEBAC. 28 RPC III 1199. 29 RPC III 1211. 30 RPC III 1101. 31 RPC III 1099. 32 RPC III 633–634. 33 RPC III 654. 34 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 136. 35 RPC III 1132–1133. 36 RPC III 1131. 37 RPC III 1132–1133. 38 RPC III 1134. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 45

Legend OMONOIA CEBACTH occurred on the coins of Juliopolis during the reign of Trajan,39 and Prusias during the reign of Domitian.40 Coinage from Juliopolis was struck in two units (31–2mm, 25g and 25–6mm, 12g). From the period of Tra- jan, we distinguish two smaller denominations (24–5mm, 9g and 20–21mm, 6g), that could probably be struck by two different mints. One of the reasons that may exclude this city is putting the letter Σ in legends. The most likely mint is Prusias. During the reign of Domitian, denominations with this motive and legend represented only two types (33mm, 22g; 27–28mm, 12g), not corresponding to units from the third group. Type with Demeter (Fig. 3) holding the corn ears are represented as well by the Prusa, Abonoteichos,41 and Amastris,42 but still we don’t have a perfect match. We can only attribute some of the coins from this group to the Nicaean and Prusias mints.

Group IV: with the legend NEIKH CEBACTOY ΔΑΚ and AΡME Coins with NEIKH CEBACTOY ΔΑΚ and AΡME legend might be attributed to Nicaea, based on the die-links of the particular coins (Fig. 5).43 These coins represented two denominations (31–32mm, 23g, axis 6 or 7 o’clock; 25mm, 11g, axis 6 o’clock) and are dated after year 102 AD and 114 AD. On the obverses, and on the later coins, depicted laureate head of emperor with the legend ΑΥΤ IΕΡΟΥΑΣ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕ ΓΕΡ Δ44 or with some little changes45 was depicted. Coins with title ARIΣTO (Optimus) are dated after year 114 AD, when Trajan obtained this title. On the reverses, the main effigy is Nike crowning trophy46 or holding a crown and palm.47 Legends emphasized victory of the emperor in the Dacian war (NEIKH CEBACTOY ΔΑΚ) and conquest of Armenia (NEIKH CEBACTOY, AΡME in exergue). On the coins, legends with letters Σ and C, such as coins with OMONOIA type occur.48 Nicaea could struck these coins according to die link. During the earlier minting activity, coins with Nike motive were registered under the Republican period49 and early period of Julio-Claudian dynasty.50 This type occurred in Amastris and Amisus as well. A legend on the obverse with letter Σ (ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ARIΣTOΣ ΣΕΒ ΓΕΡM), and on the reverse with

39 RPC III 1099. 40 RPC II 672–73, 675–84. 41 RPC III 1213. 42 RPC III 1201–1202. 43 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 136. 44 RPC III 1134. 45 RPC III 1136. 46 RPC III 1134, 1136. 47 RPC III 1135. 48 RPC III 1131. 49 RPC I 2026. 50 RPC I 2027. 46 Pecunia Omnes Vincit letter C (NEIKH CEBACTH, AMA), similar to these uncertain emissions was placed on some types of the coins struck in Amastris. Title of Optimus is noted only on the coins of Heraclea,51 Amastris,52 and Nicea53. Denominations is represented only one with Nike type in Amastris (23–24mm, 9g, axis 6 or 7), but in another stylistic types. In Amisus, coins carried dates from began of the liberty city in 32/31 BC. Type of Nike is one of the main motives presented on the emissions,54 but this specific system makes it impossible to attribute these coins to this mint. The only one coin with this type is noted in Nicomedia mint, during the reign of Nero, and the attribution was based on the countermark.55 The denomination is very similar (24mm, 11g) to one of them, but according to die link the proper mint is Nicaea. This shows how similar effigies were issued on the coins in many centers.

Group V: with the legend ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑ CEBACTH The next category are coins with ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑ CEBACTH legend in two denominations (24mm, 10–11g and 22mm, 6–7g, axis 6 or 12 o’clock). The laureate head of Trajan and standard legend, only with title Germanicus (ΑΥΤO ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒ ΓΕΡ), was placed on the obverses. These coins might be dated back to the beginning of the emperor reign (98–99 AD). The main effigy is Demeter with corn ears and cornucopia with legend ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑ CEBACTH (Fig. 6).56 Earlier emissions were attributed to Amastris57 and Megalopolis Sebasteia in Paphlagonia,58 however, are most probably related to another mint. This legend was never found on the coins from the reign of Trajan in Bithynia and Pontus, nonetheless, the effigy was very popular (e.g. Prusa,59 Juliopolis,60 Amastris,61 Abonoteichos,62 during the reign of Flavian dynasty – Prusias63 and Nicomedia64). Based on the analysis styles, denominations and minting activity of the particular cities, it can be stated that these coins might be related to Prusias mint. This group can be similar to the coins from group III, with the legend

51 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 140–141. 52 Ibidem: 144. 53 Lindgren 132. 54 RPC I 2145, 2154; RPC II 729; RPC III 1231–33, 1237, 1240. 55 RPC I 2084. 56 RPC III 1137–1138. 57 Friedlaender 1863: 140–1. 58 Amandry, Burnett et al. 2015: 139. 59 RPC III 1038. 60 RPC III 1100. 61 RPC III 1200–1202. 62 RPC III 1213. 63 RPC II 673, 679–80. 64 RPC II 656–657. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 47

OMONOIA CEBACTH. Both groups of coins were issued in the same denominations and with the same images.

Group VI: with the legend CEBACTH or ΣEBAΣTH Other coins with CEBACTH or ΣEBAΣTH legend were related to minting activity of Megalopolis-Sebasteia in Paphlagonia or Sebaste in Samaria,65 but according to modern research, numismatics attributed these emissions to Bithynia and Pontus. These coins represented one denomination (21–22mm, 6–7g, axis 1, 6, 7 o’clock). The portrait of emperor accompanied standard legend with title Germanicus and Dacicus was placed on the obverses. Two iconographical types are represented by Demeter with corn ears and scepter66 and Athena with spear and shield67 with legend CEBACTH or ΣEBAΣTH, which occurred alternatively (Fig. 7). Both effigies were issued in two cities, Prusa68 and Amastris.69 On the coins of Prusa, Athena has another presentation. But on the coins of Amastris it co-occurrence in legends C and Σ, the axis has variation 1 and 7 o’clock. Some researchers claim that most probably more than one mint struck these coins (if earlier analyses are correct, Prusias could struck these coins or at least some of them), but primarily these coins might be attributed to Amastris mint

Group VII: with the legend CEBACTOY or ΣEBAΣTOY Coins with CEBACTOY or ΣEBAΣTOY legend might be divided into three denominations (21mm, 6–7g, axis 7 o’clock; 22–24mm, 8–9g, axis 6 and 7 o’clock; 25– 27mm, 12–13g, axis 7 o’clock). The laureate head of Trajan and legend with titles Ger- manicus, Dacicus70 and Optimus71 occurred on the obverses. These coins were struck after year 102 and 114 AD. On the smaller denomination, the legend is incomplete and it is impossible to precisely define the date. Demeter with corn ears and scepter (Fig. 8)72 was placed on the reverse. On the reverse of the next unit, the effigy of Nike holding globe and legends in two variations with letters Σ and C73 were placed. On the reverse of the denomination that might be dated after year 114 AD, Tyche with rud- der and cornucopia74 was depicted. Demeter effigy was a very famous motive, Tyche

65 De Saucy 1874. 66 RPC III 1139–1140. 67 RPC III 1141–1143. 68 RPC III 1038. 69 RPC III 1200–1203, 1206. 70 RPC III 1146–1147. 71 RPC III 1145. 72 RPC III 1144. 73 RPC III 1146–1147. 74 RPC III 1145. 48 Pecunia Omnes Vincit was on the coins of Nicomedia,75 Nicaea,76 Prusias,77 and Amisus.78 Nike, in this type, is a new depiction, in other types, this motive was noted on the coins of Amisus,79 Amastris,80 Nicaea81 and Nicomedia.82 Demeter occurred on the small denomination. One of the ideas for attributing this group was Amastris, but the effigy of Tyche was not registered there. Types with Nike occurred in two legend variations, with letters C and Σ, in denomination 22–23mm, 8–9g. On the other hand, according to various variations of legends, effigies, and denominations, the best attribution might be the mint in Nicaea. Coins with ΔIOC struck during the reign of Trajan, might be attributed to this mint as well. It is some possibility that change of denominations, and types with Nike and Demeter are compatible to denominations of ΔIOC emissions. Co-occurrence of letters Σ and C on the ΔIOC coins, might be characteristic for these coins struck during the long period. Some of these coins struck after year 114 AD. And some of these types were placed on the coins in earlier periods,83 as well as repeated in a later period. However, Prusias is most probably the mint that issued the exemplars. A countermark originating from this mint of (monogram of ΑΥΤΚ, fig. 8) was depicted on one of the coins, placed already during the period of Domitian’s reign.84 This countermark was also on several coins from the period of Trajan’s rule.85 In this case, coins from this group, or at least coins with the Nike effigy, should be assigned to the mint in Prusias.

Group VIII: with the legend ΔIOC A very interesting group are issues with ΔIOC legend and effigies with eagle or altar. Coins were perhaps struck in two denominations (19–21mm, 3–6g and 24mm, 8–9g).86 Obverses of these coins are very similar to others, with titles of the emper- or, Germanicus,87 Dacicus,88 and Optimus.89 These coins were struck in a few periods. At least eight types with altar and four with an eagle, different according to legend,

75 RPC III 1089. 76 RPC II 635. 77 RPC II 683. 78 RPC III 1241–1243. 79 RPC III 1231–1233, 1237, 1240. 80 RPC III 1206. 81 RPC I 2084. 82 RPC I 2026–2027. 83 Demeter: RPC II 636, Tyche: RPC II 635; Nike: RPC I 2026, 2027. 84 Price 1967: 37–38 (on the obverse 1–5); Howgego 2005: 226 (no 608). 85 RPC III 1101–1103. 86 RPC III 1148–1159. 87 RPC III 1148–1149, 1153, 1157. 88 RPC III 1150–1152, 1152A, 1154, 1158A. 89 RPC III 1155. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 49 might be distinguished. Perhaps these coins with ΔIOC legend (Fig. 9), very often noted on the auctions,90 might be attributed to Nicaean types. This city has a very important position in the Roman period, rival with Nicomedia, the capital of the province.91 Dur- ing the reign of Julio-Claudian, Flavian and Antonine’s dynasty, minting activity was very abundant, but during the rule of Trajan, only one emission was noted. At least four denominations (34–36mm, 25–26g; 25–28mm, 10–12g; 20–24mm, 6–8g; 17mm, 3g) might be distinguished among earlier coins. Iconography was focused on the local tradition, such as the founder of the city, Dionysus,92 cist,93 buildings94 or Heracles.95 A popular effigy was an altar,96 as well and eagle.97 Coins with altar are noted during the reign of Nero, in a similar denomination (19–20mm, 4–5g) with ethnic attributed to Nicaean (ΔIONYΣOY KTIΣTIOY NEIKAIΣ).98 Another type, with an altar and legend ΔIOΣ LITAIOY,99 was perhaps emphasizing the cult of Zeus Litaios in Nicaea. On the coins struck during the reign of Domitian effigy of the altar, ethnic and inscription ΔIOΣ was depicted, but coins without ethnic issued as well.100 This motive was continued during the reign of Trajan, struck in various periods and used the same effigy. It suggests some generality, recognition motive and cult by citizens. Coins with altar and eagle, the same denomination, were struck with the name of proconsul C. Iulius Bassus. The most possible seems the to be Nicaean mint. One of the reasons, which disturbs the attribution of these coins to this mint is archaeometry analysis, that suggests different metal than the one used in Nicaea.101 According to minting activity of other centers in Bithynia and Pontus, two cities reflected altar on the coins. Emissions with altar struck in Amisus are different than Prusias and Nicaea. In Prusias minted coins with effigies both, altar and eagle, as well as monogram ΠΡ. But if the earlier analysis is correct, not all of the coins placed the ethnic of center. This city in the Roman period had a similar important position to Nicaea or Nicomedia. Some of the coins from these cities are similar and suggest some relations.

90 E.g. Pecunem 35, 6 September 2015, lot 397; Naville Live Auction 24, 17 July 2016; Schulten 18–20 October 1989, lot 522; Ebay.com, 07 April 2017. 91 Salmeri 2005: 196. 92 RPC I 2030, 2051–52, 2054; RPC II 628, 630, 637–38. 93 RPC I 2050, 2057; RPC II 631. 94 RPC I 2032–33, 2035–39. 95 RPC II 639, 642. 96 RPC I 2049, 2053, 2055, 2059; RPC II 644–45, 710. 97 RPC II 641. 98 RPC I 2049. 99 RPC I 2053. 100 RPC II 710. 101 Amandry, Burnett et al. 1999: 112. 50 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Group IX: with the legend KTICTHC The last group of uncertain coins is represented by exemplar with an eagle on the globe and legend KTICTHC on the reverse (Fig. 10). The laureate head of Trajan with inscription and title Germanicus was depicted on the obverse.102 Coin represented one denomination (22mm, 5g). This specific title occurred on the coins of Tium,103 Cius,104 and Nicaea from the earlier period,105 but this type with an eagle was depicted only on the coins of Nicaea.106 Coins with this motive struck in Prusa,107 Prusias108 and Amastris.109 The most likely attribution seems Nicaean mint according to two types and perhaps typical denomination for Nicaea mint, struck in this period. Word ktistis means founder, and is connected with the foundation of this city by Dionysus.

Similarities in the Bithynian coinage Looking at the coins of particular cities, one can notice some similarities, both in denominations or iconography. Effigies of some cities such as Nicaea, Nicomedia, Pru- sias ad Hypium, Prusa, Amastris, Abonoteichos represented similar types on some of the coins. The similar minting production and relationships are visible between some cities inter alia Heraclea-Tium, and Byzantium-Calchedon. In his PhD thesis, Colin Kraay suggested some centralization in this province, but numismatic material back then was scanty.110 This system could be confirmed by a similar denomination, material, effigies, legends, die-links and the occurrence of the same currency in circulation. Particular emissions in Bithynia and Pontus show some similarities, but not in all aspects, thus denying a strict centralization system, and pointing to a kind of integration between centers. We can see that we don’t have the same denominations and the total compatibility in types of iconography and without some die-links.111 It should be also remembered that urban centers often competed with each other for status, thereby benefiting (in Bithynia and Pontus rivalry between Apamaea and Prusa, or Nicaea and Nicomedia).112 Where did the integration in this period come from? It can be noticed that some images on coins, reproduced in various centers, reflect a more certain char-

102 RPC III 1160. 103 RPC III 1181–82. 104 RPC I 2022–2025; Sommer 1996: 14–151. 105 RPC II 637–39, 641–42. 106 RPC II 641. 107 RPC III 1048. 108 RPC III 1102. 109 RPC III 1205. 110 Kraay 1953. 111 Amandry, Burnett et al 1999: 92. 112 Winniczuk 1987 (2017): 79; Salmeri 2005: 196. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 51 acter of Roman tradition than the local culture of the Ares type113 or personifications. Their source is in the imperial Roman issues struck between 80–82 AD, in the imperial mint located in Thrace or Bithynia. One of the possible reasons for production could be the needs of Bithynia.114 The presence of the coins in Bithynia within the period of Titus and Domitian, intended for wider circulation, may explain the integration (or lack of it, or actually the copying of well-known images from the previous period) of individual centers in a later period. From the other side, similar iconography could only be a sign of a very similar tradition in a region.

Conclusions It seems that the coins have some uncertain attribution that could be divided between mints in Nicaea, Prusias and Amastris. Similar iconographic types, some universal types between them and lack of ethnic does not help to define the mint. Analysis, according to stylistic similarities or legends, is not very obvious in many cases. Other tips such as die links or countermarks are extremely helpful. Certainly, one of the elements of a more reliable assignment would be coin finds, however, due to the small amount of archaeological research and a small number of preserved coins from this period, unfortunately, this is not possible. Nicaea, like one of the most important centers in the province, had to have slightly more productions than one coin included in the latest study. In the earlier and the later period, the minting activity of this city was very abundant. Prusias in the Roman period was one of the lively cities, with economic prosperity.115 A larger amount of coins in this city should be visible. It is also worth paying attention to the lack of ethnicity on uncertain coins. On the one hand, it may mean that these types could be very well known to the citizens of the center, or thus could emphasize the issuer’s person such as Bassus. On the other hand, their circulation could have a much wider range than restricted to one city. More reliable answers will be provided by both later research and the coins themselves.

Abbreviations IvE 27 – Wankel H. (ed.) 1979–1981. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11–17. Bonn. Lindgren 132 – Lindgren H. and Kovacs F. 1985. Ancient Bronze Coinage of Asia Minor and the Levant. San Mateo. RPC I – Amandry M., Burnett A. et al. (eds.) 1992. The Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. I: From the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC -AD 69). London/Paris.

113 RPC III Nicaea 1061, Juliopolis 1098, Amastris 1198. 114 Carradice, Cowell 1987; Amandry, Burnett et al. 1999: 87–91; Burnett 1999; Cahn 1984–5. 115 Bilir Bilir, Pınarcik and Okani 2015: 5. 52 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

RPC II – Amandry M., Burnett A. et al. (eds.) 1999. The Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69-96). London/Paris. RPC III – Amandry M., Burnett A. et al. (eds.) 2015. The Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. III: Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (AD 96-138). London/Paris. RPC IV – Heuchert V., Howgego C. 2006. The Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. IV: The Antonines (AD 138–192). Online: 2006 (with temporary numbers) [access 13.02.2018] www.rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/volumes/

Bibliography Babelon E., Reinach T., Waddington W.H. 1904–1912. Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Paris. Bennett J. 2015. Trajan. Optimus Princeps. Życie i czasy. M.N. Faszcza, M. Baranowski (trans). Oświęcim. Bilir A., Bilir B., Pınarcik P., Okani E. 2015. “The Agriculture and Trade in the Ancient Age in Duzce in the Light of the Prusias ad Hypium Coins”. Proceedings of the 1st International Yewworkshop (Yew 2015 Duzce). 28-30 September/01-4 October 2015. Duzce: 2–9. Burnett A. 1999. “Regional coinage in Thrace and Bithynia during the Flavian period”. Travaux Le Rider: 95–101. Butcher K. 1988. Roman provincial coins: an introduction to the ‘Greek Imperials’. London. Cahn H.A. 1984–1985. “An Imperial Mint in Bithynia”. Israel Numismatic Journal 8: 14–26. Carradice I., Cowell M. 1987. “The minting of Roman imperial bronze coins for circulation in the East: Vespasian to Trajan”. The Numismatic Chronicle 147: 26–50. De Saucy F. 1874. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte: description des monnaies autonomes et imperiales de la Palestine et de l’Arabie Petree. Paris. Dębiński A., Jońca M., Leraczyk I., Łuka A. 2017. Korespondencja Pliniusza Młodszego z cesarzem Tra- janem. Tekst i tłumaczenie. Komentarz. Lublin. Friedländer J. 1863. „Die fürstlich Waldeck‘sche Münzsammlung zu Arolsen“. In. Berliner Blätter für Münz-, Siegel- und Wappenkunde I. Berlin: 140–2. Howgego C.J. 2005. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. London. Kraay C.M. 1953. “The aes coinage of Rome and its subsidiary mints in the West, AD 68–81”. Unpublished thesis. Oxford. Price M.J. 1967. “Countermarks at Prusias ad Hypium”. The Numismatic Chronicle, Seventh Series 7: 37–42. Salmeri G. 2005. “Central power intervention and the economy of the provinces in the Roman Empire: the case of Pontus and Bithynia”. In. S. Mitchell, C. Katsari (eds.). Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor. Swansae: 187–207. Sartre M. 1997. Wschód rzymski. Prowincje i społeczeństwo prowincjonalne we wschodniej części basenu Morza Śródziemnego w okresie od Augusta do Sewerów (31 r.p.n.e.-235 r. n.e.). S. Rościcki (trans.). Wrocław. Sommer K.I. 1996. “Cius or Prusias?”. The Numismatic Chronicle 156: 149–155. Winniczuk L. 1987 (2017) . “Pliniusz w Bitynii”. In. A. Dębiński, M. Jońca, I. Leraczyk and A. Łuka (eds.). Korespondencja Pliniusza Młodszego z cesarzem Trajanem. Tekst i tłumaczenie. Komentarz. Lublin: 79–90. Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 53

Figures 1. Group I: Nicaea? AE 18mm, 2.94g; Trajan (98–117 AD) C. Iulius Bassus (procos) 101/2AD RPC III 1124A; Stumpf 571corr. Obv: ΑΥΤΟ Ν ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ [ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣ] ΓΕΡΜ, laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: ΕΠΙ Γ ΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΣΟΥ ΑΝΘΥΠΑΤΟΥ, cornucopia (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1124A/) 2. Group II: Amastris? AE 31mm, 20.13g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1127 Obv: ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒΑ ΓΕΡΜ, laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: СΕ-RΑС, Elpis standing l., holding up flower in r. hand and raising hem of dress with l. (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1127/) 3. Group III: Prusias? AE 21mm, 5.99g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1130 Obv: ΑΥ [TPAI]ΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒΑ ΓΕ, laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ СΕΒΑСΤΗ, Demeter veiled standing l., holding poppy in r. hand, l. resting on sceptre (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1130/) 4. Group III: Nicaea? AE 32mm, 23.36g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1131, Mi 6, 695/551, vA 886 Obv: ΑΥΤ(Ο) ΝΕΡΟΥΑ(Σ) ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕ(Β or Γ) ΓΕ(Ρ or B?) Δ(Α), laureate head of Trajan, r., with drapery on l. shoulder Rev: ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ СΕΒΑСΤΗ, Eirene standing l., holding olive-branch in r. hand and cornucopia in l. (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1131/) 5. Group IV: Nicaea? AE 31mm, 23.78g; Trajan (98–117 AD), after 102 AD RPC III 1134, Mi 6, 696–7/562 Obv: ΑΥΤ IΕΡΟΥΑΣ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕ ΓΕΡ Δ, laureate head of Trajan, r., with drapery on l. shoulder Rev: ΝΕΙΚΗ СΕΒΑСΤΟΥ ΔΑΚ (in exergue), Nike standing l., crowning trophy with her r. hand, holding palm in l. (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1134/) 6. Group V: Prusias? AE 22mm, 6.38g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1138, MG 464/29 Obv: ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒ ΓΕΡ, laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑ СΕΒΑСΤΗ, Demeter veiled standing l., holding ears of corn in r. hand, l. resting on sceptre (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1138/) 7. Group VI: Amastris? AE 24mm, 4.91g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1141 Obv: ΑΥ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙСΑΡ Σ(ΕΒ ΓΕΡ), laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: СΕΒΑСTH, Athena standing r., brandishing spear with r. hand and holding shield in l. (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1141/) 8. Group VII: Prusias? AE 25mm, 11.39g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1146 Obv: ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒ ΓΕΡΜΑ, laureate head of Trajan, r., GIC 608: monogram of ΑΥΤΚ (?) Rev: СΕΒΑСΤΟΥ, Nike standing l. holding globe (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1146/) 54 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

9. Group VIII: Nicaea? AE 19mm, 5.11g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1148 Obv: [ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ] ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙС[ΑΡ СΕΒΑ ΓΕΡΜ], laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: ΔΙΟС, altar (Wildwinds.com) 10. Group IX: Nicaea? AE 22mm, 5.02g; Trajan (98–117 AD) RPC III 1160, vA 282 Obv: ΑΥΤ ΝΕΡ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟС ΚΑΙСΑΡ СΕΒ ΓΕΡ, laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: ΚΤΙСΤΗС, eagle with wings spread standing facing, head l., on a globe (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/1160/) Mysterious Uncertain Bithynian Coins 55

5 56 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

10 Paulina Koczwara

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland [email protected]

Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul

Abstract: Northern Italy – even after so called Cetic invasion, was a region inhabitated by various indo-European (the Celts) and non-Indo-European (Liguri, Veneti) tribes. (This split on the two smaller regions became visible also in terms of coinage. Western tribes (Liguri and, Insubri and Cenomani) begun to struck their own coins much earlier than tribes from Eastern part (Boi and Veneti). The split is also apparent in the structure of the finds of foreign coins. The coinage from the other parts of Celtic world appeared in the 2nd century BC. For the Eastern part of Cisalpine Gail, predominant are coins minted in Noricum. Much the more complex picture can be seen for Western tribes. On the area inhabited by Insubri, the most common are finds of the Vindelici staters whilst in the region occupied by Cenomani numerous Gallic potins were found. The Alpine region shall be treated separately as this was the area of direct contacts of merchants and pilgrims traveling from Italy to Europe. The paper shall focus on the finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul to examine the relations of Insubrii and Cenomani with Celtic tribes from other parts of the Celtic world. Keywords: the Celts, drachms, Northern Italy, pre-roman period

After the Gallic invasion in the fifth century BC, the area of Northern Italy was occupied by various Celtic tribes. The Cisalpine Gaul was inhabited also by non-In- do-European tribes of Liguri and Veneti. The cultural picture of this region was by no means homogenic – the dissimilarities were caused by the differences between the tribes as well as by the external influences. Whilst for the Eastern tribes an important impact was the Greek colonization in Adria and Spina, the Western tribes had more contacts with Etruscans and other Celtic tribes. The cultural division of North- ern Italy on the Western and Eastern part was evident even until the early Roman period. From the same period in Cisalpine Gaul came the votive hoards deposed in sanctuaries. Aside from many Padan, Roman, and Greek coins, those deposits contained also a significant amount of coins minted in the Celtic world, especially noric obols 58 Pecunia Omnes Vincit and drachms. A similar pattern can be observed also in other important padan sites, especially located nearby important trade routes. In comparison, the amount of Padan drachms found in the sanctuaries or other sites of the rest of the Celtic world is rather little. Aside of the territory of Switzerland, where the presence of the Padan drachms seems to be rather natural since many important trade routes went from Italy through The Alps to Europe, Padan coins were found in a few sites (mostly oppida) in Austria, France, and Germany.1 There are also single finds from Croatia, Great Britain, and Spain. Those are mostly late issues minted by Veneti, Liguri and Insubri. The coins were usually found together with other Celtic, Roman or even Greek coins (early Padan drachms probably circulated together with their Massalian prototypes). What is interesting in terms of the circulation pattern is the fact that aside of massive, votive deposits (like Great Pass of Saint Bernand), Vene- tian drachms did not circulate with Insubrian and Ligurian coins. Venetian coins were found in the area of Noricum, oppida of Boii and Vindelici, and in Eastern Switzerland and Germany. As per France and Western Switzerland, most of the finds are either early (heavy) drachms of Insubri, or the late issues of Insubri and Liguri. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the function of Celtic coins issued outside Cisalpine Gaul in the local circulation and examine if the found patterns can reflect contact between Cisalpine tribes and rest of Celtic world. The nature of relations between tribes shall also be discussed.

The picture of Northern Italy under the so-called Celtic invasion This split on the smaller regions became visible also in terms of coinage. Western tribes (Liguri and Insubri) begun to strike their own coins much earlier than tribes from the Eastern part (Veneti). The split is also apparent in the structure of the finds of foreign coins. The coinage from the other parts of the Celtic world appeared in the second century BC. For the Eastern part of Cisalpine Gail, coins minted in Noricum are predominant.2 Much more complex picture can be seen for Western tribes. On the area inhabited by Insubri, the most common are finds of the Vindelici staters whilst in the region occupied by Cenomani numerous Gallic potins were found. The Alpine region shall be treated separately as this was the area of direct contacts of merchants and pilgrims traveling from Italy to Europe.

1 Saint-Léonard (Valais), Lausanne, Bern, Metz, Castelar de Cadenet, Dürrnberg, Alesia, Ollioules, Igelsdorf, Karlstein, Kelheim, Machling, Neuchatel upon Areuse, Burwein, Brig-Glis, Salzburg. See Stoell- ner-Tardic 1998: 306; Piana Agostinetti 1996: 314; Fisher, Gruel 2001: 11–39; Brenot 1996: 15–32; Overbeck 2000: 65–70; Pautasso 1966: 79–81, 136. 2 Gorini 2011: 288. Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul 59

Although the spread of La Tene artifacts, the fourth century BC is usually considered as a logical consequence of the so-called Celtic invasion of Northern Gaul dated back to the end of the fifth century BC,3 the importance and extension of the very invasion must not be exaggerated. After all, the collapse of Etruscan and Golaseccan economic structures might have been caused by the disintegration of existing urban centres caused by internal or external factors. Assuming that the regression of Etruscan and Golaseccan material culture was the result of the Celtic incursion, the spread of La Tene artifacts and funerary practices does not necessarily imply the Celtic migration.4 Furthermore, the ‘Celticiza- tion’, very much like the later process of Romanization is more the cultural is above all a cultural phenomenon rather than the result of a massive influx of any population. Thus, the cultural change in Cisalpine Gaul might not exactly be a question of the massive migration, but more the process of re-definition of local identities. It was, of course, caused by the Celtic presence and influences, but the scale of the Celtic – so to say – colonisation could have been much smaller than it was originally assumed. So-called Celtic invasion aside, in the fourth century BC can be seen as the beginning of the process of a re-shaping socio-economic structures and cultural identities of peoples of Northern Italy.5 This must have had repercussions. It is important to remember that the La Tene culture wasn’t dominant in north-west Italy – local material culture (Golasecca) with different artifacts and rituals (cremation instead of inhu- mation) was also continuously present, especially on the area of Western Lombardy. Since the third century BC, coins became important as distinctive artifacts represent- ing various local identities, especially that they were issued by almost all the tribes of Cisalpine Gaul.6 Theoretically, all the tribes adapted exactly the same denomination and iconography (imitations of Massalian drachms with Artemis and lion), but the local differences, visible from the very beginning, deepened with time. The differences are visible also in terms of the relations with other Celtic tribes (if we assume that the coin finds reflect the trade/cultural/economic relations that is). The Western part, inhabited by the Venetii, had quite close relations with Noricum. Obviously, the coins of Salassi/Veregri or Hedui were found mostly in the Alpine area. Insubri seems to have quite strong relations with Sequani and other Gallic tribes.

Finds of foreign Celtic coins in the Western Part of Northern Italy There is a huge disproportion between finds of Padan coins in Europe and foreign Celtic coins in Northern Italy: for now, c.a. 90 Padan coins have been found in Europe, whilst in

3 Dated to 390 (Livy 5.33) or 388 BC (Pol. 2.17). For the concept of ‘invasion’ cf. Haeussler 2007: 53–56, De Marinis 1988: 183. 4 Haeussler 2013: 45. 5 Ibidem: 45–46. 6 Except Senones and Boi (due to early Roman conquest). 60 Pecunia Omnes Vincit the Western part of Northern Italy, we only know of more than 250 foreign Celtic coins.7 The finds usually concentrate in big groups, usually present in votive finds or oppida. The biggest votive find is San Gran Bernard Pas. This is one of the most important points of the trade route between Italy and Europe. Despite the height (located in Alps), it was accessible for wheeled transport. There was also one of the most prominent sanctuaries of the Celtic World. Over 400 Celtic coins were found there. C.a. twenty-five percent were potins8 – foreign Celtic small change (made of bronze) issued mostly by Sequani, but also Leuci, Mandubi, Aedui, Helvetii This could be the votive deposit, but also the payment for accessing the Alps and the trade route. In both cases, the usage of small change would be natural. In Ligurian oppidum of Casalecchio do Reno a few imitations of Massalian obols issued between the late third and early second century BC, were found, possibly by Veragri.9 Those coins circulated together with Massalian prototypes, especially in the area of Liguria which was the region very unlike the rest of Cisalpine Gaul – it was inhabited by the non-Indo-European tribe of Ligurii that wasn’t influenced by celtisation as much as the rest of Cisalpine Gaul was. Although Liguri were one of the first tribes who adopted the coins (it is possible that they were the first and the Celts adapted the Greek coins to own needs) of Massalia, their customs and material culture differed significantly from the rest tribes of Northern Italy. In the Ligurian area in circulation were almost exclusively their own coins and Massalian issues (Liguri had very strong economic relations with Massalia).10 As for the golden Salassian staters, they were all found in the Aosta Valley in 18th and 19th century. From 13 known specimens, only one is preserved in the Accademia di Sant’Anselmo (Aosta).11 The rest were either sold or lost and there is no more information of the context of finds or even the exact place. The finds of Vindelici rainbow staters were spread to whole Northern Italy (there is also one specimen known from Toscania, Manche and Sicily), but they concentrated in the area of Lombardy and Aosta. Few specimens are also known from Veneto.12 It is usually connected with the war with Cimbri and Teutoni at the end of second century BC, but the case of stater fraction known from Butera and the find of Manerbio are dated back to the half of first century BC (Ceasar’s Gallic campaign) or even later, to the Augustian period. Perhaps the find of the Danubian stater can also be associated with the Augustus campaigns. The process of hoarding, especially if the subject is the

7 See the graphs at the end of the text. 8 Pautasso 1966: 165–170. 9 Arslan 1998: 69–76; Arslan 1999: 185–194; Arslan 2004: 67–70; Arslan 2009: 172. 10 Fea 1995: 118. 11 Pautasso 1966: 140–141; Piana Agostinetti 1996: 213–214. 12 Pautasso 1975: 102; Arslan 1996: 227; Arslan 1998: 107. Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul 61 gold coins, is a well-known practice in times of war. The stater from Butera was a tomb deposit,13 but the part of the rainbow staters might be deposited during the civil wars, even if they came to Cisalpine Gauls with Caesar’s soldiers after the Gallic campaign. The part of finds can be dated back a little bit latter – to the very end of first century BC, after the conquest of Raetia.The finds from the Aosta Valley might be earlier simply because it was the Alpine region and the finds of gold staters are not uncommon there.

The ritual gift exchange Ritual gift exchange (ceremonial exchange) in early societies was the transfer of goods that, regardless of the fact if it was voluntary or not, was a part ritual or social behaviour. The transfer of goods or services that, although regarded as voluntary by the people involved, is part of the expected social behaviour. Gift exchange is characterized by gener- osity and (also from the recipient side who is obliged to accept a gift as it is – refusal of accepting the gift is, in fact to refuse of social connection14 or even the declaration of war), it is a result of social relationship that either exists or is about to be created. The profit from the gift exchange is rather of social or prestigious matter than a purely material advantage. The gift exchange is a circular process: all parties involved are obliged to give, receive and return the gift of at least equal value. The gift exchange is, in fact, obligatory.15 The gift exchange was not meant to simply the spread of the goods and services -be tween individuals for it was a contract between groups who make contacts and created obligations to fulfill. For groups, and not individuals, which carry on the exchange, make contracts, and are bound by obligations.16 Even though material goods were a subject of an exchange, the real importance was in the ritual and relationship that would percent in military assistance or closer contacts between peoples (e.g., marriages, succession to wealth, common interest and policy). Even if goods from exchange came into circulation, it was not due to their material value, but as an element of the contract.

13 Boehringer 1991: 58. 14 No man is so generous he will jib at accepting A gift in return for a gift, No man so rich that it really gives him Pain to be repaid A man should be loyal through life to friends, And return gift for gift, If you find a friend you fully trust And wish for his good-will, exchange thoughts, exchange gifts, Go often to his house Hávamál v. 39, 42, 44 15 Mauss 2004: 70–79. 16 Idem 2009: 130–133. 62 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

The subject of exchange might technically be each thing concerned as a property, but its symbolical and material value was also an important aspect: it should be something that makes a man (mostly chief) rich and powerful in every sense of that word. It might be material goods, people (women or children) or rituals. In theory values should never stop circulating. In antiquity, especially among peoples with a relatively undeveloped economy, there was rarely any economic justification for the necessity of minting coins. It is the matter of discussion if the Padan coins in time gained also monetary function.17 Or if inten- sified production of local drachms was to pay taxes and tributes to Rome.18 Possibly local coinage was used to pay for the troops and the subject of hoarding. The presence of coins with legends written in the local languages19 seems to confirm the symbolical and prestigious aspects of local coinage, especially that the legends are interpreted as the records of the chiefs’ names. It could be an indication that for local elites, coins were the subject of the ritual gift exchange. In the circulation pattern of Western part of Cisalpine Gaul the concentration of finds in areas of settlement can be seen (e.g. Milan, Bergamo, Brescello, over Lago di Como and Lago di Garda) which can reflect several big centers serving as ports of trade or one big center of trade (in that case, that would be Milan) distributing goods between smaller tribes. The existence of ports of trade, also for security aspects, was often a necessity for early society economies to enable the trade between the individuals and the tribes, but also the gift exchange.20 The ritual gift exchange was probably performed between the people of Cisalpine Gaul, but the presence of coins issued in other parts of the Celtic world and the presence of Padan coins in the areas of France, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland might be an indication that the ritual gift exchange was performed also between more distant tribes. The disproportion between coin finds: the great number of potins in Cisalpine Gaul versus relatively small amount Padan drachms in Gallic oppida in Southern France might be a result of the very nature of the ritual gift exchange: the returning gift should have at least the same value but doesn’t have to be similar.

Conclusions. The function of non-padan Celtic coinage in Cisalpine Gaul Cisalpine Gaul was not a homogenous region – it was divided by at least two smaller microregions of which each of them had several different backgrounds (Golaseccan, Etruscan, Greek, and Ligurian). Although the material culture was similar, the differ-

17 Pautasso 1970: 161. 18 Gorini 2011: 288–289. 19 Cf. Morandi 1996: 85–96; Morandi 1999: 164–185; Arslan 1991–1992: 23–24. 20 Dalton 1965: 47–50; Hodges 1982: 19–33; Polanyi 1947: 112–113; Idem 1963: 30–31. Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul 63 ences can be seen in the funeral practices or based on the local coins. Thus, there is no definite answer for the function of not only foreign Celtic, but also local coins in the circulation. Noric coins were excluded from the official monetary circulation in the area con- trolled by Rome at the end of first century BC21 and deposited in local sanctuaries, including an area of Veneto. The similar character has an offering at Gran San Bernard Pass where was one of the highest Celtic sanctuaries was located.22 But the rest of finds does not seem to have a votive character. The presence of Regenbogenschuesselche staters might relate to war with Cimbri and Teutoni and the later Gallic Wars, especially that similar coin was found also in the area of Sicily – in Butera.23 In the area of Liguria other than local Celtic coins were not found that often, so the most common explanation is that Celtic imitations of Massalian obols were confused with the Greek originals that were common in this area or just circulated together.24 Of course, the obvious explanation would be economic or trade relation between different tribes and whilst it’s entirely possible and visible in the archaeological material for Transalpine area, there are not enough evidence to trace the trace activity with e.g. Alesia or Machling. The context of those finds is interesting. Whilst local coins circulated together with Roman currency, the foreign Celtic coins were not reported in those finds. They did, although, circulate with the local currency, judging by their presence in the hoards and finds of the local coins. Although Padan drachms were very often found in the funeral context (together with Roman or Greek coins),25 other Celtic coins were not spotted in a similar context. It would probably exclude the hypothesis that an influx of foreign Celtic coins was a result of migration or marriages between tribes as in this case the coins – as an element of identity – would be present in the funerary equipment. Most of those coins were deposited in the late second or early first century BC, when the Romans were conquering Northern Italy, Gaul and Switzerland. While the deposits could also be the result of hoarding typical for periods of wars, it might also reflect the manifestation of Celtic identity via entering to the circulation bigger number of local coins or creating new bonds with distant tribes through the ritual gift exchange. One explanation does not exclude others: ritual gift exchange might be connected with trade activities, people movement (in this case marriages), need to stress a local identity or to find a new ally in a face of Roman conquest.

21 Probably about 16 BC, when Romans conquered Regnum Noricum. Cf. Gorini 2008: 244–256. 22 Hunt 2008: 265–274. 23 Steffgen, Ziegaus 1994: 27; Boehringer 1991: 58. 24 Gorini 2011: 283–285. 25 Cf. Crawford 1985: 295–296; Biondani 2014: 490–494. 64 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Literary sources Hávamál – The Words of Odin the High One from the Elder or Poetic Edda, O. Bray (trans). Ashliman D.L. (ed.). Oxford 2011. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, W. Weisseborn (ed.). Leipzig 1930. Polubius, The Histories vol II, W.R. Paton (trans.). Princeton 1922.

Bibliography Arslan E.A. 1991–1992. “Le monete padane preromane a Budapeszt”. Numizmatikai Közlöny XC-XCI: 9–33. Arslan E.A. 1996. “La monete rinvenute in Lombardia”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). La monetazione preromana dell’Italia Settentrionale, Approvvigionamento del metallo, coniazione, circolazione. Bordighera, 16-17 settembre 1994. Rivista di Studi Liguri 61. Borgighera: 219–228. Arslan E.A. 1998. “Celti Padani e Marsiglia. Un obolo a Casalecchio di Reno”. In. U. Peter (ed.). Stephanos Numismaticos: Edith Schoenert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: 69–76. Arslan E.A. 1999. “Celti Padani e Marsiglia. Nuovi ritrovamenti a Casalecchio di Reno”. Revue Belge de Numismatique CXLV: 185–195. Arslan E.A. 2004. “Dagli Golasecchiani agli Insubri”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). Celti dal cuore dell’Europa all’Insubria II. Celti d’Insubria. Guerrieri del territorio di Varese, Catalogo della mostra. Varese: 18–25. Arslan E.A. 2009. “Gli <> massalioti di Bergeggi”. In. M.B. Giannttasio, G. Odetti (eds.). Monte S. Elena (Bergeggi). Un sito Ligure d’altura affacciato sul mare. Scavi 1999-2006. Firenze: 169–178. Biondani F. 2014. “Monete celtico-padane e monete romane nelle necropoli celtiche nel Veronese”. In. M.-J. Rouliere-Lambert et al (eds.). Les Celtes et le Nord de l’Italie (Premier et Second Âges du fer). Actes du XXXVIe colloque international de l’ Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer. (Vérone, 17-20 mai 2012). Vérone: 489–494. Boehringer Ch. 1991. “Ein Goldmünzen süddeutscher Kelten aus Sizilien”. In. H.-C. Noeske, H. Schubert (eds.). Die Münze. Bild – Botschaft – Bedeutung. Festschrift M. Radnoti Alföldi. Frankfurt: 51–64. Brenot C. 1996. “Des drachmes de Marseille aux drachmes de Cisalpine. Nouvelles remarques”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). La monetazione preromana dell’Italia Settentrionale, Approvvigionamento del metallo, coniazione, circolazione. Borgighera, 16-17 settembre 1994. Rivista di Studi Liguri 61. Borgighera: 15–32. Crawford M.H. 1985. Coinage and Money under the Late Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy. London. Dalton G. 1965. “Primitive money”. American Anthropologist 67: 44–65. DOI: 10.1525/ aa.1965.67.1.02a00040. De Marinis R. 1988. “Mantovano tra invasioni galliche e romanizzazione: appunti per una ricerca”. In. R. De Marinis (ed.). Gli Etruschi a nord del Po II. Catalogo Mostra Mantova. Mantova: 183–187. Fea G. 1995. “Presenze numismatiche preromane nel Piemonte meridionale”. In. G. Gorini (ed.). Forme di contatto tra moneta locale e moneta straniera nel mondo antico. Atti del convegno internazionale. Aosta 13-14 Ottobre 1995. Aosta: 109–131. Fisher B, Gruel K. 2001. “Les monnaies gauloises: enseignements et questions”. In. M. Reddé, S. von Schn- urbein (eds.). Alésia. Fouilles et récherches franco-allemandes sur les travaux militaires romains autour du Mont-Auxois (1991-1997). Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres XXII. Paris: 11–19. Gorini G. 2008. “Aspetti della monetazione autonoma della Gallia Cisalpina e del Norico“. Numizmatische Zeitschrift 116/117: 95–101. Finds of Celtic coins in the Western part of Cisalpine Gaul 65

Gorini G. 2011. “Il deposito di Serra Ricco Rico gli altri depositi dell’Eta del Ferro in Italia Settentrionale“. In. Tra protostoria e storia. Studi in onore di Loredana Capuis. Antenor Quaderni 20. Roma: 281–294. Haeussler R. 2007. “At the margin of Italy. Ligurians and Celts in North-West Italy”. In. G. Bradley, C. Isayev, E. Riva (eds.). Ancient Italy: Regions without boundaries. Exeter: 45–78. Haeussler R. 2013. “De-constructing ethnic identities: becoming Roman in western Cisalpine Gaul?”. In. K. Lomas, A. Gardner, E. Herring (eds.). Creating ethnicities and identities in the Roman World. BICS supplement 120. London: 35–70. Hodges R. 1982. Dark Age Economics. The Origins of Towns and Trade A.D. 600–1000. London. Hunt P. 2008. “Summus Poeninus on the Grand St Bernard Pass”. Journal of Roman Archaeology XI: 265–2744. Mauss M. 2004. “Extracts from the Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies”. In. V. Bu- chli (ed.). Material culture : critical concepts in the social sciences I.2. London: 65–127. Mauss M. 2009. “The Nature of Culture”. In. J.D. Moore (ed.). Visions of culture. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: 125–137. Morandi A. 1996. “Su alcuni aspetti epigrafici della monetazione padano-celtica”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). La monetazione preromana dell’ Italia Settentrionale. Approvvigionamento del metallo, coniazione, circolazione. Bordighera 16-17 settembre 1994. Rivista di Studi Liguri 61. Bordighera: 83–112. Morandi A. 1999. “Epigrafia vascolare celtica fra Ticino e Como”. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 77: 151–187. Pautasso A. 1966. Le monete preromane dell’Italia Settentrionale. Varese. Pautasso A. 1970. “Contributi alla documentazione della monetazione padana”. Sibrium X: 161–187. Pautasso A. 1975. “Sui ritrovamenti di stateri vindelici nel Vercellese”. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini LXXVII: 75–104. Piana Agostinetti P. 1996. “La monetazione preromana dell’Italia nordoccidentale”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). La monetazione preromana dell’Italia Settentrionale, Approvvigionamento del metallo, coniazione, circolazione, Bordighera 16-17 settembre 1994. Rivista di Studi Liguri 61. Bordighera: 179–343. Polanyi K. 1947. “Our obsolete market mentality: Civilization Must Find a New Thought Pattern”. Com- mentary III/2: 109–117. Polanyi K. 1963. “Ports of Trade in Early Societies”. The Journal of Economic History 23/1: 30–45. Overbeck B. 2000. “Funde von “Monete padane” aus Bayern”. In. E.A. Arslan (ed.). Atti Giornata di studio su “I Leponti e la moneta”, Locarno 16 novembre 1996. Locarno: 65–70. Steffgen U., Ziegaus B. 1994. “Untersuchungen zum Beginn der keltischen Goldprägung in Süd- deutschland”. Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 44: 9–34. Stoellner-Tardic 1998. “Kleine Mitteilungen: Eine griechische Muenze vom Duerrnberg bei Hallein. Land Salzburg”. Germania 76/1: 304–310. Paulina Dąbrowska

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland [email protected]

Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland in the Early Roman Period

Abstract: For many years, a small number of iron objects in the Wielbark Culture was thought to be connected with the custom of not putting it into graves according to Ryszard Wołągiewicz thesis stated in 1974 in „Zagadnienie stylu wczesnorzymskiego w kulturze wielbarskiej”.1 Since that time, the research conducted resulted in the increase of data – especially concerning settlements where concentrations of remains of slag-pit bloomery furnaces and other objects used for iron production can be found. Some of them concentrated in the area of the Lower Vistula River – for example Rumia-Zagórze or Gościcino, dis. We- jherowo. In my paper, I will analyze types, function and spatial organization of objects that can be connected to the iron production, as well as, its scale and impact on the economy of the Wielbark Culture. The issue I would like to present is a result of my MA thesis on settlements of the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland in the Early Roman Period. My research is based mostly on archaeological reports and literature, including examples from other cultures, for comparison purpose. Keywords: the Wielbark Culture, Roman period, iron production

One of the most significant features of the Wielbark Culture is the small number of iron objects used as elements of dress and toiletry accessories put into graves. They would mostly be made of bronze or less often of silver or gold.2 However, research conducted on graveyards established during the Pre-Roman Period: Pruszcz Gdański, dis. Pruszcz Gdański,3 and the Early Roman Period, for example Odry, dis. Czersk,4 Leśno, dis. Brusy,5

1 Wołągiewicz 1974: 129–152. 2 Ibidem: 129–152; Idem 1981: 165–168. 3 Pietrzak 1997. 4 Grabarczyk 1997. 5 Walenta 2009. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 67

Ulkowy, dis. Pszczółki,6 Weklice, dis. Elbląg7 proves existences of iron artifacts such as belt buckles, belt mounts, casket lock keys, casket lid mounts, knives, sickle knives, Schlan- genkopf bracelet and brooches including types foiled with silver probably on the bigger scale than it is accepted in literature. Above-mentioned sites are only a few examples as the subject is much more complex and was a case of separate studies.8 A high number of iron findings was noticed also in the settlement called Lipianki, dis. Kwidzyn, which is unusual in comparison to the other settlements of the Wielbark Culture.9 This idea can be supported by different category of objects used for iron production that can be found in the settlements of the Wielbark Culture.10 I collected data on 71 settlements of the Wielbark Culture in the Early Roman Period in Pomerania and in northern Great Poland.11 Twenty two of them contained such objects usually grouped into production units concentrated around the remains of the slag-pit bloomery furnaces.12 They usually consisted of a few to several stone hearths of the oval and/or rectangular shape of differently interpreted function, charcoal piles, and stone lay-outs. Each category of objects will be discussed in a separate paragraph according to its function in the process of iron smelting.

The source of iron ore The analysis of remains of slags taken from slag-pit bloomery furnaces was conducted for site no. 3 in Leśno, dis. Brusy13 and for site no. 1 in Stroszki,14 dis. Nekla. In both cases, a high content of phosphorus was found and the content of iron was between 26–43% and 28–64%. It leads to the conclusion that the source of iron ore were probably high phosphorus bog turfs or muddy ores, which were a part of marsh areas, river valleys, lakes or water meadows.15 This idea can be supported by the fact that most of the settlements, especially the ones situated in the area of Lower Vistula, where located in such landforms, preferably near bog areas.16 Not only could it be used as a source of iron ore, but also as the area for garden crops and sheep or cattle grazing.17 Five pits

6 Tuszyńska 2005. 7 Natuniewicz-Sekuła and Okulicz-Kozaryn 2011. 8 Gładysz 1998; Woińska 2016. 9 Ostasz 2015; Strobin 2015. 10 Woińska 2016: 138–145. 11 See map 1. 12 See fig. 1. 13 Walenta 2009: 83. 14 Gałęzowska 2005: 338. 15 Pleiner 2000: 88. 16 Przewoźna 1971: 174. 17 Kurnatowski and Wiślański 1966: 49–56; Kittel 2005: 56–57. 68 Pecunia Omnes Vincit interpreted as remains of excavation after ore mining were observed in Lipianki, dis. Kwidzyn nearby objects identified as bloomery fires, however, lack of detailed information prevents jumping into conclusions.18 Objects associated with iron ore working were found in Stanisławie.19 The author thought they were used for pre-working the iron ore and then for storage. However, using the same object for two different purposes may seem impractical. Taking into consideration the traces of burnt clay, big dimension and location in the separate cluster, one can consider using the objects only for the ore- roasting process.20 The remains of iron ore were also found in different objects in Stro- szki such as buildings, hearths, slag-pits, and pits among which one type was thought to be used specifically for iron ore storage.21

Production of charcoal Charcoal was essential as a fuel in the process of iron smelting, as well as, for another usage in daily life and different branches of economy.22 There are two different ways of charcoal burning that can be found in the archaeological sources, well documented in the Przeworsk Culture.23 The first one was also well described in XIX century source.24 It was deep, an oval pit filled with dry small branches at its bottom that were lit up and then gradually layered with wood to the ¾ height. All of it was covered with soil and left for twenty four hours.25 The second one created a pile that consisted of a long pole in the middle which was obliquely layered with wood. The whole construction was covered with branches and turf and stuck with soil and clay. The fire was set through the inlet created by pulling out the pole.26 The air flow was provided by holes made in the outer cover. This method lasted longer – from a few days up to a few weeks, but gave better results in the amount of charcoal collected.27 There is no evidence of using charcoal burning pits in the territory of the Wielbark Culture in the Early Roman Period. As for the charcoal pile, there are four known objects interpreted as remains of charcoal piles found in the context of iron production units in the settlements of the Wielbark Culture in Stroszki, dis. Nekla,28 but the trace of the pole was found only in one object. Taking into consideration its rectangular shape

18 Ostasz 2015: 62; see below under „Ore-roasting”. 19 Gołębiewski 2003: 205. 20 See below under „Ore-roasting”. 21 Gałęzowska 2005: 311–312. 22 Pleiner 2000: 115–118; Orzechowski 2013: 65–72. 23 Skowron 2010: 422–423. 24 Kozłowski 1846: 96–97. 25 Pleiner 2000: 121. 26 Ibidem: 125; Orzechowski 2013: 65. 27 Skowron 2010: 423. 28 Gałęzowska 2005: 314. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 69 and dimensions one can consider identifying them as the sunken charcoal piles – the hybrid between charcoal pits and charcoal piles that could be found in Holy Cross Mountain in the Przeworsk Culture.29 The other object described as charcoal pile was found in Konikowo,30 dis. Śmieszyno, but details given in the publication are not sufficient enough to verify this information. The low number of charcoal piles may be a result of difficulties with identification, as they could have been used as a regular hearth later on.31 On the other hand, some authors lean towards the interpretation that the rectangular or oval hearths were utilized as objects for burning charcoal.32 The 73 hearths were found in Rumia-Zagórze, dis. Wejherowo, where they were grouped among the slag-pit furnaces.33 The information attached in the publication leads to the conclusion that the shape varies from oval to rectangular, but the exact number of each type is not given. Due to the high content of charcoal M. Pietrzak classifies them as objects used for charcoal burning.34 Such interpretation of the function of rectangular hearths is criticized by Szymon Orzechowski in the context of the Przeworsk Culture. He points out that their structure does not correspond with the construction of such charcoal piles.35 Another explanation of the absence of the remains of charcoal piles within settlements in the Wielbark Culture might be its location which, due to safety and practical reasons, could have been moved outside of the settlements at the place of logging – similar as it is assumed regarding the Przeworsk Culture.36

Ore-roasting Ore-roasting is a process of heating lumps of ore in temperature from 400 to 800°C in order to transform it in two ways – chemically, from non-oxide to oxide, and physi- cally by making it more porous. Such preparation makes it more prone to the reduction process in bloomery furnaces.37 The objects used for roasting of iron ore in the Wielbark Culture are thought to be rectangular hearths. They were found within production units in sites: Klonówka 7/54,

29 Pleiner 2000: 122; Orzechowski 2013: 65–72. 30 Lachowicz 1975: 95. 31 Ibidem: 423. 32 Pietrzak 1995: 171; Ostasz 2005: 477; Piotrowska 2011: 252. 33 See fig. 2. 34 Pietrzak 1995: 167, 171. 35 Orzechowski 2013: 71–72; see: below under „Ore-roasting”. 36 Ibidem: 67. 37 Pleiner 2000: 107; Orzechowski 2013: 61. 70 Pecunia Omnes Vincit dis. Starogard Gdański,38 Rogowo 4, dis. Białogard,39 Rumia-Zagórze, dis. Wejherowo,40 Siemirowice, dis. Cewice,41 Głuszyno 1, settlement I, dis. Słupsk,42 Tarnowo Pałuckie, dis. Wągrowiec.43 They were built of one or two, rarely three layers of stone-layout of a different stage of preservation. They were usually from 0,6 to 2 meter long, from 0,7 up to 1,5 meter wide and from 0,1 to 0,4 meter deep on average. Their inventory was rather poor and consisted of charcoal, burning layer, sometimes animal bones, fragments of pottery and clay. Although rectangular hearths are linked to ore-roasting process there is no evidence of ore in them. It may result from lack of methodical verification which would be checking the surface of such an object with a magnet.44 On the other hand the presence of animal bones or fragments of pottery can point to its multifunctional or secondary use or completely different function. Rectangular hearths were also discovered in Bogucino, dis. Kołobrzeg,45 Klonówka 47, dis. Starogard Gdański,46 Sztum, dis. loco47 and Wilcze Laski, dis. Szczecinek.48 In Bogucino and Sztum they were additionally framed with wooden logs. Some researchers interpret them as objects used for firing pottery.49 In Lipianki, dis. Kwidzyn, six objects described as bloomery fires were unearthed, but the author suggests that they could have been used for ore-roasting.50 In addition, the site is also rich in rectangular hearths of similar structure as abovementioned ones, but defining its function proves to be difficult.51 A critical approach to the idea of using rectangular hearths for roasting of iron ore is presented by Szymon Orzechowski whose studies considered the iron smelting in the Przeworsk Culture.52 He underlines that the interpretation of the function of the rectangular hearths varies and is often misused.53 The lack of studies concerning this type of objects makes it impossible to identify their purpose properly.54 He sees the remains of objects used for roasting of iron ore as shallow pits of the rectangular or oval shape of

38 Krauze and Rogalski 2003: 239. 39 Machajewski 1980: 28–31. 40 Pietrzak 1995: 166–167; the site is listed due to the form of object even though its function can be interpreted differently; see: above under “Production of charcoal”; see fig. 2. 41 Ibidem: 168. 42 Machajewski 1995: 41–45. 43 Dernoga 2000b: 214–215. 44 Pleiner 2000: 110; Skowron 2010: 423. 45 Strzyżewski 1973: 79–89. 46 Kalka 2005: 445–446. 47 Heym 1938: 115–123. 48 Krzyszewski 1998: 125–128. 49 Przewoźna 1971: 190; Kalka 2005: 445. 50 Ostasz 2015: 62. 51 Ibidem: 70–71. 52 Orzechowski 2013: 61–64. 53 Ibidem: 64. 54 Ibidem: 71–72. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 71 quite big dimensions that could be spotted rather single than in large numbers as they were re-used. Its filling consisted mainly of remains of roasted ore, and the walls showed signs of using the high temperature.55 Nevertheless, the number of this kind of objects found within the Przeworsk Culture is low in proportion to the number of slag-pits. This is explained by the fact that roasting of iron ore was more likely to be conducted at the place of mining the source for both – safe56 and practical reasons.57 The above mentioned opinion makes one consider if the rectangular hearths in the Wielbark Culture can be connected with the ore-roasting process, especially if there are no remains of iron ore inside of them and their fillings slightly differ from one to -an other which can point to different functions. As for those that are grouped within iron smelting production units one may connect them with one of the stages of the process, but defining the exact function still poses a problem.

Iron smelting The bloomery furnaces discovered in the Wielbark Culture settlements can be classified as slag-pit furnaces with free standing shafts according to the classification of R. Pleiner.58 Only lower parts remained until this day as the above ground part was destroyed after each usage. They were unearthed on the following sites: Głuszyno 1, settlement II, dis. Słupsk (3 obj.),59 Gościcino, dis. Wejherowo (20 obj.),60 Imielno, dis. Łubowo (7 obj.),61 Kleszczewko, dis. Pszczółki (2 obj.),62 Klonówka 7/54, dis. Starogard Gdański (4 obj.),63 Konikowo, dis. Śmieszyno (9 obj.),64 Leśno 3, dis. Brusy (11 obj.),65 Łosino 15, dis. Kobylnica (10 obj.),66 Poznań-Sołacz, dis. Loco (3 obj.),67 Rumia-Zagórze, dis. Wejherowo (19 obj.),68 Siemirowice, dis. Cewice (2 obj.),69 Stanisławie 37, dis. Tczew (unknown),70 Stroszki, dis. Nekla (19 obj.),71 Tarnowo Pałuckie, dis. Wągrowiec (8 obj.),72

55 Ibidem: 61–62. 56 They created a pile made of layers of wood and iron ore that was set on fire. 57 Orzechowski 2013: 62–63. 58 Pleiner 2000: 157–158. 59 Machajewski 1995: 43. 60 Pietrzak 1995: 168–169. 61 Strzyżewski 1992: 47–48. 62 Schindler 1940: 53–54; Pietrzak 1995: 166. 63 Krauze and Rogalski 2003: 239. 64 Lachowicz 1975: 93–94. 65 Walenta 2009: 81–83. 66 Piotrowska 2011: 256–250. 67 Gałęzowska 2005: 16–18. 68 Pietrzak 1995: 166–167, see fig. 3. 69 Ibidem: 168. 70 Gołębiewski 2003: 205. 71 Gałęzowska 2005: 314–315. 72 Dernoga 2000b: 211–213. 72 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Warszkowo 26, dis. Sławno (2 obj.),73 Widzino, dis. Kobylnica (2 obj.).74 Slag-pits furnaces were usually grouped into ‘disorganized’ clusters according to the classification of K. Bielenin.75 If the cluster consisted of 1 to 10 objects they can be classified as individual and as small if the number was from 11 to 20.76 A number of slag-pit furnace clusters within one site was usually single except for Konikowo with two clusters per 4 and 5 slag-pit furnaces, Łosino 15 with two cluster per 6 and 4 slag-pits furnaces and Stroszki with three cluster per 6, 4 and 9 slag-pits furnaces. The size of slag-pits let us identify them as small or typical of one-time use according to the typology of K. Bielenin.77 Small slag-pit furnaces were up to 0,3 meter in diameter and up to 0,45 meter deep. Typical slag-pits were from 0,3 to 0,5 meter in diameter and up to 0,5 meter deep. Big slag-pits, which diameter and depth were higher than 0,5 meter were observed only in Stroszki. Taking into consideration different analogies and the presence of remains of clay and fragments of walls inside of slag-pits it can be concluded that the shaft was probably made of the wooden frame filled with clay.78 The remains of inlets that provided air supply were found only in Stroszki. The filling of slag-pits usually consisted of the burning layer at the bottom and near walls, burned clay, charcoal and fragments of slag. The exact weight of fragments of slag is known in Stroszki – from 0,4 to 2,35 kilo with one exception – 13,35 kilo and Tarnowo Pałuckie – 0,4 kilo. As for the slag blocks, there are only three sites that contain them: Łosino 15 with two fragments of upper part of slag blocks found inside of the slag-pits, Stroszki with one fragment of 3,68 kg-slag block laying on the surface of the production unit and Głuszyno (settlement 1) with one slag block inside the slag-pit. Their dimensions were rather small, up to 0,3 meter in diameter and 0,35 meter in depth which generally suits the size of slag-pits furnaces observed in other sites of the Wielbark Culture. The fact that these are only ‘fragments’ of slag blocks makes it hard to reconstruct the exact shape and capacity of pits and therefore the amount of iron that could have been produced. According to the research of K. Bielenin slag-pits of 0,45 meter in diameter could contain the 70 kilo slag block that takes 140 kilos of the iron ore and gives about 14 kilos of the iron.79 Assuming that it took an hour to smelt 8–10 kilo of iron, the whole process could last up to 14 hours.80 Based on these calculations it can be concluded that the amount of iron produced at once, provided that all of the slag-pit furnaces were in

73 Kasprowicz 1992: 44; Idem 2003: 22. 74 Ostasz, Strobin and Ślusarska 2011: 227–228. 75 Bielenin 1973: 79. 76 Ibidem: 79. 77 Ibidem: 52. 78 Ibidem: 55–56; Pietrzak 1995: 167; Pleiner 2000: 149–159: Ibidem: 151, fig. 36; Piotrowska 2011: 258. 79 Bielenin and Suliga 2008: 57. 80 Bielenin 1973: 26. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 73 use, for example in Gościcino, summed up to 280 kilos. Nevertheless, the lack of slag blocks in situ proves that furnaces could have been reused, so the capacity of production may have been higher.81 The finding from Rogowo 4, dis. Białogard82 shows the possibility that iron production could have been carried in closed buildings. Object 77 was below-ground building with pole construction situated on the small hill. Its interior was equipped with hearth located in the middle and slag-pit bloomery furnace situated by the northern wall where the entrance was considered to be. Such location of the slag-pit was dictated by the air supply. The fragments of slag were scattered outside of the building on the surface area of 30 areas.83 The presence of hearth may suggest that the process of the iron production and bloom working may have been joined together in the same object. The building was 84 probably established in the first phase of settlement existence which was A3-B1/B2 phases.

Bloom working The main product of the smelting process was bloom which was the mass consist- ing of iron with slug inclusions that needed to be removed in order to obtain the pure product.85 This process could be accomplished by reheating bloom in hearths and then forging it by hammering on anvils.86 The archaeological evidence of bloom working can be hard to read as it could have been done right after finishing the smelting process on the surface of the ground without preparing special objects.87 Nevertheless, there are known findings of hearths which function is thought to be reheating of bloom. The main criteria for classification are the content of the slag and localization within or nearby the smelting complex. Such objects, usually of circular or oval, less often rectangular shape were excavated in Konikowo (9 obj.),88 Leśno 3 (4 obj.), 89 Łosino 15 (7 obj.),90 Poznań-Sołacz (9 obj.),91 Stanisławie 37 (unknown),92 Stroszki 1 (13 obj.)93 and Warszkowo 26 (1 obj.).94 Their dimensions were on average

81 Pleiner 2000: 149–150; Gałęzowska 2005: 315. 82 Machajewski 1980: 26–27, 34; Ibidem: 42, fig. 19. 83 Ibidem: 34. 84 Ibidem: 26. 85 Pleiner 2000: 215–216. 86 Ibidem: 215. 87 Ibidem: 215, 218. 88 Lachowicz 1975: 93–94. 89 Walenta 2009: 82–83. 90 Piotrowska 2011: 298. 91 Gałęzowska 1999: 18. 92 Gołębiewski 2003: 205–206. 93 Gałęzowska 2005: 312–313; see fig. 6. 94 Kasprowicz 1992: 44; Idem 2003: 22. 74 Pecunia Omnes Vincit from 1,1 to 1,5 meter in diameter and from 0,2–0,4 meter in depth. Its filling consisted of usually one layer of stone-layout, burning layer, fragments of slag and charcoal. The most interesting seems to be rectangular hearth of type I according to A. Gałęzowska95 from Stroszki were stones where strongly burned which is very important information for identification of reheating objects, though it is often missing in publications. In -ad dition, the prospection with magnet showed the presence of tiny fragments of iron in the form of dust or in the size of a grain of sand.96 Rectangular hearths with remains of slag and stone anvils grouped within the smelting complex were also discovered in Poznań-Sołacz.97 This is a good example of how the process of bloom reheating and iron forging could have been concentrated in one place.98 The similar hearth was found in Siedleczko, dis. Wągrowiec.99 The object F194 from Łosino 15 stands out with a high content of slag – 63 kg and remains of the shaft inside of it.100 Another category of objects that can be used for bloom working are stone-layouts that are documented on the settlements – single or in a group of four or six in Leśno 3, dis. Brusy,101 Głuszyno 1, settlement 1, dis. Słupsk,102 Kleszczewko, dis. Pszczółki,103 Poznań-Sołacz, dis. Loco,104 Stroszki 1, dis. Nekla105 and Widzino, dis. Kobylnica.106 They were situated in a row or scattered within the smelting complex. Its shape differed – from the triangle in Widzino and Kleszczewko, trapeze in Kleszczewko, rectangular in Stroszki 1 and oval in Poznań-Sołacz and Leśno 3. Although its function, only one stone-layout, in Widzino, contained the remains of slag. The information on the degree of burnout is given only for Leśno 3. One stone anvil was found in the stone-layout in Stroszki. Considering given information it can be assumed that some of stone-layouts were used for reheating while others for forging or both.

Smithies The other problem is the existence of smithies. According to ethnographical and contemporary analogies, the smithy should be equipped with hearth, bellow, anvil, charcoal supplies and vessel for cooling tools.107 The object that fits this schedule best

95 Ibidem: 312. 96 Ibidem: 313. 97 Idem 1999: 18; see fig. 1. 98 Pleiner 2000: 215. 99 Dernoga 2000a: 193; Ibidem: 189, fig. 4. 100 Piotrowska 2011: 256–258. 101 Walenta 2009: 83. 102 Machajewski 1995: 43. 103 Schindler 1940: 53–54. 104 Gałęzowska 1999: 18. 105 Gałęzowska 2005: 314. 106 Ostasz, Strobin and Ślusarska 2011: 228. 107 Żółkiewski and Grabianowski 2006: 37–40. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 75 was found in Stroszki, dis. Nekla, where it was located in below-ground buildings without pole construction.108 It formed a complex with 8 slag-pits, 3 hearths, 1 charcoal, and 2 pits. The main criteria for its classification were the existence of the stone hearth slightly higher than the rest of the object, concentration of slag and the pile of burned charcoal. The process of iron forging could have also been carried out inside of the building in Rogowo 4.109 The smithies may have been located in the exterior area as well. Such an object, which was oval hearth surrounded by pole pits, was found in Leśno 24, dis. Brusy.110 The main reason for identifying it as smithy was the discovery of iron ferrule in the nearby pit. However, no remains of iron ore or slag make this interpretation doubtful. Still, the lack of magnet prospection makes it impossible to conclude if the by-product of ductile iron-working in the form of iron-fillings were present inside of the abovementioned buildings and the object from Leśno, which is the most reasonable argument for the smithy identification.111

Conclusions Most of the settlements from the Lower Vistula and Middle Pomerania with objects used for iron production were established back in the phase A3 of the Pre-Roman Pe- riod and were still inhabited in the Early Roman Period or started its existence at the beginning of the Early Roman Period.112 Unfortunately, poor inventory of objects used for the iron production makes it impossible to settle their exact chronology. Neverthe- less, considering no visible inhabitance break, it can be assumed that the ability of the iron production was derived from the Oksywie Culture and probably continued into the Early Roman Period.113 This theory may be supported by findings of the iron sickle knives in graves which are thought to be the tradition brought from the Oksywie Cul- 114 ture. The settlements from northern Great Poland were established later, in the 2B phase which fits the rhythm of changes in the Wielbark Culture.115 The disperse of settlements with the iron production objects seems to be rather regular with a stronger concentration in Middle Pomerania and the area of Lower Vistula River, but the insufficient state of research prevents reliable conclusions. As for the area

108 Gałęzowska 2005: 310–311. 109 See above under „Iron smelting”. 110 Walenta 2003: 315–316. 111 Żółkiewski and Grabianowski 2006: 41, 43. 112 Kleszczewko, Gościcino, Głuszyno, Konikowo, Rogowo 4, Rumia-Zagórze, Klonówka 7/54. 113 Woińska 2016: 138–139. 114 Wołągiewicz 1981: 166; Gładysz 1998: 50–51; Walenta 2009: 70; Woińska 2016: 96–98. 115 Machajewski 1981: 123–133. 76 Pecunia Omnes Vincit of Lower Vistula it may be the effect of general higher population density which was the result of the more suitable environmental and, therefore, economic conditions.116 The process of the iron production was carried out within the area of settlement, but in production units separated from the living area. The objects used for iron production were grouped together although its internal structure was rather disorganized. More organized smelting complexes were found in Poznań-Sołacz and Stroszki. The number of slag pits furnaces within one site was rather small in comparison to complexes from the territory of the Przeworsk Culture from the Holy Cross Mountains.117 It leads to the conclusion that the iron production in the Wielbark Culture supposed to meet the daily needs of the people. On the other hand, if it is assumed that slag pits were reused, the capacity of production could have been higher. The latest finds from Rogowo, dis. Lubicz118 can change the perspective on that problem. The site is located in the southern part of Chełmno Land from which there is known only one other settlement of the Wielbark Culture, Nowa Wieś Chełmińska.119 The production part of settlement consisted of 513 altogether (!) slag pit furnaces grouped into disorganized clusters. Most of them were from 0,4 to 0,8 meter in diameter. Similar to the previous discoveries, there was no remain of slag block inside of them. The author also points to the remains of lime usage during the process of iron smelting. The traces of lime were also found inside of the slag pit furnaces in Kleszczewko.120 This subject was brought by different authors121 as limekiln were also found within the production sites of the Wielbark Culture, for example in smelting complex in Poznań-Sołacz.122 The above-mentioned data could be a sign of the fact that some of the settlements of the Wielbark Culture specialized in the iron production on the bigger scale. As far as it is known the specialization in the one branch of production in the Wielbark Culture was characteristic for some settlements in the Lower Vistula River such as Pruszcz Gdański123 (lime production) and probably Stanisławie124 (antler tool production). However, without further research, the settlement found in Rogowo must be considered in terms of exception that needs to be verified by the next wide-area excavations, metallurgic analyzes, and more detailed publications.

116 Przewoźna 1963: 298–300; Idem 1974: 39; Okulicz 1989: 120; Kolendo 1998: 107–113; Cieśliński 2010: 19–20. 117 Bielenin 1974; Orzechowski 2013. 118 Bokiniec 2016. 119 Przewoźna 1971: 223. 120 Schindler 1940: 53–54; Pietrzak 1995: 166. 121 Pyrgała 1972: 251–253; Michałowski and Sobucki 2011: 301. 122 Gałęzowska 1999: 18. 123 Pietrzak 1968; Ostasz 2005. 124 Gołębiewski 2003. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 77

Bibliography Bielenin K. 1973. „Dymarski piec szybowy zagłębiony (typu kotlinkowego) w Europie Starożytnej”. Materiały Archeologiczne 14: 5–101. Bielenin K. 1974. Starożytne górnictwo i hutnictwo żelaza w Górach Świętkorzyskich. Warszawa-Krakow. Bielenin K., Suliga I. 2008. „The ancient slag-pit furnace and the reduction process in the light of new archaeological concept and metallurgical research”. Metallurgy and Foundry Engineering 34/1: 53–78. Bokiniec E. 2016a. Rogowo, gmina Lubicz, województwo kujawsko-pomorskie. Stanowisko 23. Osada kultury wielbarskiej. Tom 1. Katalog: odcinki A,B,E. Toruń. Bokiniec E. 2016b. Rogowo, gmina Lubicz, województwo kujawsko-pomorskie. Stanowisko 23. Osada kultury wielbarskiej. Tom 1. Katalog: odcinki C,D. Toruń. Cieśliński A. 2010. Kulturelle Veränferungen und Besiedlungsabläufe im Gebiet der Wielbark-Kultur an Łyna, Pasłęka und oberer Drwęca. Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Neue Folge 17. Berlin. Dernoga M. 2000a. „Osada kultury wielbarskiej z okresu wpływów rzymskich w Siedleczku, stanowisko 4 (gm. Wągrowiec, woj. wielkopolskie)”. Studia i materiały do dziejów Pałuk. Środowisko naturalne i osadnictwo w łekieńskim kompleksie osadniczym 3: 185–204. Dernoga M. 2000b. „Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych na osadzie z okresu wpływów rzymskich w Tarnowie Pałuckim, stanowisko 13 (gm. Wągrowiec, woj. wielkopolskie). Studia i materiały do dziejów Pałuk. Środowisko naturalne i osadnictwo w łekieńskim kompleksie osadniczym 3: 207–231. Gałęzowska A. 1999. „Sołacz w okresie wpływów rzymskich. Odkrycia archeologiczne z końca XIX i początku XX wieku”. Kronika Miasta Poznania 3: 7–27. Gałęzowska A. 2005. „Osada kultury pomorskiej, przeworskiej i wielbarskiej w Stroszkach powiecie wrzesińskim”. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses: annales Musei Archaeologici Posnanienses 40: 281–453. Gładysz M. 1998. ”Zabytki żelazne w inwentarzach grobowych kultury wielbarskiej i grupy masłomęckiej”. Studia Gothica 2: 35–88. Grabarczyk T. 1997. Kultura wielbarska na Pojezierzach Kaszubskim i Krajeńskim. Łódź. Gołębiewski A. 2003. „Wstępne wyniki badań osady z okresu wpływów rzymskich w Stanisławiu, gmina Tczew, stanowisko 37”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XIII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 201–209. Heym W. 1938. “Töpferöfen der Grossgermanenzeit am Parletensee am Sthum”. Elbinger Jahrbuch 15: 115–123. Kalka P. 2005. „Osada ludności kultury wielbarskiej w Klonówce, gm. Starogard Gdański. Stan. 47 (na trasie autostrady A1 numer 140). Badania w latach 2000–2003”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XIV Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 441–470. Kasprowicz T. 1992. „Warszkowo, gmina Sławno, stan. 26- ze studiów nad budownictwem z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego i okresu wpływów rzymskich na Pomorzu Środkowym”. Dorzecze. Zeszyt archeologiczny 1: 42–67. Kasprowicz T. 2003. „Stałość w zmienności- osadnictwo z przełomu er w Warszkowie”. In. W. Raczkowski (ed.). Historia i kultura ziemi sławieńskiej 2. Sławno: 11–29. Kittel P. 2005. Uwarunkowania środowiskowe lokalizacji osadnictwa pradziejowego na Pojezierzu Kaszub- skim i w północnej części Borów Tucholskich. Łódź. Kolendo J. 1998. „Rejon ujścia Wisły w oczach starożytnych”. In. A. Bursch, R. Chowaniec, W. Nowa- kowski (eds.). Świat antyczny i Barbarzyńcy. Teksty, zabytki, refleksja nad przeszłością 1. Warszawa: 107–113. Krauze E., Rogalski B. 2003. „Osada ludności kultury wielbarskiej w Klonówce, powiat Stargard Szczeciński, stanowisko 7/54”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XIII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 237–259. 78 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Krzyszowski A. 1998. „Osada z okresu rzymskiego w miejscowości Wilcze Laski, gm. Szczecinek, stanowisko 10”. Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 44: 125–142. Kurnatowski S., Wiślański T. 1966. „Rola archeologii w badaniach historyczno-przyrodniczych nad przemianami środowiska geograficznego”. Studia z Dziejów Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego 8: 49–55. Lachowicz F. 1975. „Podokres późnolateński i okres wpływów rzymskich (od 125 r. p.n.e do 375 r. n.e.)”. In. M. Sikora (ed.). Pradzieje Pomorza Środkowego. Poznań-Słupsk: 87–121. Machajewski H. 1980. „Osada z późnego okresu przedrzymskiego i rzymskiego w Rogowie (stan. 4), woj. Koszalińskie”. In. J. Żak (ed.). Studia i materiały do osadnictwa Pomorza Środkowego na przełomie er. Koszalin: 7–58. Machajewski H. 1981. „Kultura wielbarska, a kultura przeworska w Wielkopolsce”. In. T. Malinowski (ed.). Problemy kultury wielbarskiej. Słupsk: 127–133. Machajewski H. 1995. „Osadnictwo z okresu przedrzymskiego, rzymskiego i wędrówek ludów na stanowisku 1 w Głuszynie, woj. słupskie”. Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 41: 39–64. Michałowski A., Sobucki A. 2011. „Piece wapiennicze z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego i okresu wpływów rzymskich w Wielkpolsce”. In. A. Jaszewska, A. Michalak (eds.). Ogień-żywioł ujarzmiony i nieujarzmiony. Konferencja w Garbiczu, 5-6 VI 2008. Biblioteka Środkowego Nadodrza 4. Zielona Góra: 273–310. Natuniewicz-Sekuła M., Okulicz-Kozaryn J. 2011. Weklice. A Cemetery of the Wielbark Culture on the Eastern Margin of Vistula Delta (Excavations 1984-2004). Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica 17. Warszawa. Okulicz J. 1989. „Das Gräberfeld von Weklice zur Besiedlungsgeschichte des Weichseldeltaraums in der Römischen Kaiserzeit”. Archeologia Polski 40: 115–127. Orzechowski S. 2013. Region żelaza. Centra hutnicze kultury przeworskiej. Łódź. Ostasz A. 2005. „Osada produkcyjna z okresu wpływów rzymskich w Pruszczu Gdańskim, stanowisko nr 42”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XIV Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 471–487. Ostasz A. 2015. „Osada kultury oksywskiej i wielbarskiej w Lipiankach, gm. Kwidzyn, stan. 3”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). Kontakty ponadregionalne kultury wielbarskiej. Przemiany kulturowe w okresie wpływów rzymskich na Pomorzu. Gdańsk: 51–125. Ostasz A., Strobin A., Ślusarska K. 2011. „Wielokulturowe stanowisko w Widzinie, pow. Słupsk, nr w miejscowości 8, AZP: 10–28/153”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XVII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 211–247. Pawlak T., Fudziński P. 2011. „Badania ratownicze na osadzie w Koleczkowie, gm. Szemud, stan. 12”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XVII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1, Gdańsk: 323–327. Pietrzak M. 1968. „Piece do wypalania wapna ze starszego okresu wpływów rzymskich w Pruszczu Gdańskim”. Pomorania Antiqua 2: 267–282. Pietrzak M. 1995. „Z badań nad kulturami oksywską i wielbarską na lewobrzeżnym Powiślu”. In. W. Fil- ipkowiak (ed.). Najnowsze kierunki badań najdawniejszych dziejów Pomorza. X Pomorska Sesja Ar- cheologów z okazji 40-lecia powrotu Pomorza do Polski. Szczecin: 163–177. Pietrzak M. 1997. Pruszcz Gdański. Fundstelle 10- ein Gräberfeld der Oksywie und Wielbark-Kultur in Ostpommern. Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica 4. Kraków. Piotrowska M. 2011. „Osadnictwo z okresu wpływów rzymskich z rejonu gminy Kobylnica”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XVII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 247–262. Pleiner R. 2000. Iron in Archaeology: the European Bloomery Smelters. Prague. Przewoźna K. 1963. ”Kształtowanie się skupisk osadniczych u ujścia Wisły w okresach późno lateńskim i wpływów rzymskich”. Archeologia Polski 8/2: 298–300. Przewoźna K. 1971. „Osiedla z okresów późnolateńskiego i wpływów rzymskich na Pomorzu Wschod- nim”. Pomorania Antiqua 3: 163–279. Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 79

Przewoźna K. 1974. Struktura i rozwój zasiedlenia południowo-wschodniej strefy nadbałtyckiej u schyłku starożytności. Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej 8/1. Poznań. Pyrgała J. 1972. Mikroregion osadniczy między Wisłą a dolną Wkrą w okresie rzymskim. Wrocław- Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk. Rogalski B. 2009/2010. „Wyniki badań archeologicznych na stanowisku 30 w Warszkowie, pow. Sławno, woj. Zachodniopomorskie”. Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 6/7 (1): Archeologia: 87–121. Skowron J. 2010. „Obiekty produkcyjne z osad kultury przeworskiej w Polsce środkowej”. In. J. Beljak, G. Bŕezinová, V. Varsik (eds.). Archeológia Barbarov 2009. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae. Com- municationes 10. Nitra: 419–448. Schindler R. 1940. “Germanische Siedlungsfunde am Danziger Höhenran”. Gothiskandza 2: 44–55. Strobin A. 2015. „Osada kultury oksywskiej i wielbarskiej w Lipiankach, gm. Kwidzyn, stan. 3 (część II – źródła ruchome)”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). Kontakty ponadregionalne kultury wielbarskiej. Przemiany kulturowe w okresie wpływów rzymskich na Pomorzu. Gdańsk: 126–193. Strzyżewski C. 1973. „Sprawozdanie z badań weryfikacyjnych i wykopaliskowych na terenie osady z okresów późnolateńskiego w wczesnorzymskiego w Bogucinie, pow. Kołobrzeg w latach 1970–1972”. Koszalińskie Zeszyty Muzealne 3: 79–89. Strzyżewski C. 1992. „Imielno, stan. 14 i 17”. Informator Archeologiczny, badania 1992: 47–48. Tuszyńska M. 2005. Ulkowy. Cmentarzysko kultury wielbarskiej na Pomorzu Gdańskim (Badania na trasie autostrady A1 Gdańsk-Toruń). Z analizami specjalistycznym Jerzego Maika i Franciszka Rożnowskiego. Gdańsk. Walenta K. 2003. „Osada wielokulturowa w Leśnie, stanowisko 24, gmina Brusy. Badania w roku 2000”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). XIII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza 1. Gdańsk: 311–317. Walenta K. 2009. Leśno i mikroregion w okresie rzymskim. Chojnice. Woińska M. 2016. Wyroby żelazne z obszaru osadnictwa kultury wielbarskiej. Unpublished. Warsaw Uni- versity. Wołągiewicz R. 1965. „Cmentarzysko z okresu późnolateńskiego i rzymskiego w Warszkowie, pow. Sławno”. Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 11: 179–281. Wołągiewicz R. 1974. „Zagadnienie stylu wczesnorzymskiego w kulturze wielbarskiej”. In. F.J. Lachowicz (ed.). Studia Archaeologica Pomeranica. Koszalin: 129–152. Wołągiewicz R. 1981. „Kultura oksywska i wielbarska”. In. J. Wielowiejski (ed.). Prahistoria Ziem Polskich. Tom V. Późny okres lateński i okres rzymski. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: 135–178. Żółkiewski M. 2007. „Osada kultury wielbarskiej i przeworskiej w Imielnie, pow. Gniezno”. In. M. Fudziński, H. Paner (eds.). Nowe materiały i interpretacje. Stan dyskusji na temat kultury wielbarskiej. Gdańsk: 583–606. Żółkiewski M., Grabianowski N. 2006. „Kuźnia starożytna, kuźnia współczesna. Uwagi na temat możliwości interpretacyjnych”. In. A. Jaszewska, S. Groblica (eds.). Współczesnymi drogami w przeszłość. IV Polsko-Niemiecko Spotkania Archeologiczne, Dychów, 15-18 listopada 2005. Zielona Góra: 33–52. 80 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Map 1. Location of the settlements of the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland with traces of iron production in comparison to the settlements without traces of iron production. Scale 1:2900000 (own elaboration). 1. Głuszyno, stan. 1, osada I; 2. Gościcino; 3. Imielno, stan. 14, 15, 17; 4. Kleszczewko; 5. Klonówka, stan. 7/54; 6. Koleczkowo, stan. 12; 7. Konikowo; 8. Leśno, stan. 3; 9. Leśno, stan. 24; 10. Lipianki, stan. 3; 11. Łosino, stan. 15; 12. Poznań-Sołacz; 13. Rogowo, stan. 4; 14. Rumia-Zagórze, stan. 3; 15. Siedleczko, stan. 4; 16. Siemirowice; 17. Stanisławie, stan. 37; 18. Stroszki, stan. 1; 19. Tarnowo Pałuckie, stan. 13; 20. Warszkowo, stan. 26; 21. Warszkowo, stan. 30; 22. Widzino, stan. 8 Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 81

Figures 1. Poznań-Sołacz, dis. loco – the plan of excavated area of the settlement. Legend: a- the border of trench; b- the pit from removing tree; c-the row; d-destroyed area; e-contemporary trench; f-the point of distance measure; g-pit; I-IX- hearths and stone-layout; H- slag-pit furnace; W- limekiln; 44, 60- pits of the Wielbark Culture (Gałęzowska 2005: 14). 82 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

2. Rumia-Zagórze, dis. Wejherowo – hearth nr 55. Scale 1:20 (Pietrzak 1995:167). Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 83

3. Rumia-Zagórze, dis. Wejherowo – plans and profiles of slag-pit bloomery furnaces. Legend: 1-stones; 2-intensively black soil; 3-grey-black soil; 4-clay; 5-finery fragments of charcoal; 6-burned wooden logs; 7-slag. Scale 1:20 (Pietrzak 1995: 165). 84 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Table 1. List of sites of the Wielbark Culture settlements with iron production traces in the Pomerania and northern Great Poland.

Site Place District Objects Dated Literature number

1 Głuszyno Słupsk 1 (settle- 1 hearth, 3 slag Phases: A2 – B1 Machajewski ment 1) pits, 1 pit, 1 stone- H. 1995 -layout

2 Gościcino Wejherowo 2 20 slag pits, Pre-Roman Pietrzak M. 1995 hearths (unknown Period – Early number) Roman Period

3 Imielno Łubowo 14, 15, 17 site 14 i 17 – 3 fur- Phases: B2 – C1b Strzyżewski naces, 8 hearths, 7 C. 1992, slag pits; site 15 – 8 Żółkiewski slag pits M. 2007

4 Kleszczewko Pszczółki - 3 hearths, 2 slag Phases: A3 – B1 Schindler R. 1940; pits, 6 stone-lay- Pietrzak M. 1968 outs

5 Klonówka Starogard 7/54 21 hearths, 5 slag Phases: B1-C2 Krause E., Rogalski Gdański pits, 4 pits B. 2003

6 Koleczkowo Szemud 12 1 hearth Phases: A3-B1 Pawlak T., Fudziński P. 2011

7 Konikowo Śmieszyno - hearths (unknown Phases: A3-B2 Lachowicz F. 1975 number), 9 slag pits, 1 charcoal pile (?)

8 Leśno Brusy 3 11slag pits, 4 sto- Phases: B1b-C1 Walenta K. 2009 ne-layouts

9 Leśno Brusy 24 1 hearth (smithy Phases: B2/C1-C1 Walenta K. 1998, ?), 1 pit Walenta K. 2003

10 Lipianki Kwidzyn 3 6 bloomery fires, Phases: A2 – D Ostasz A. 2015, 4 pits (iron ore Strobin A. 2015 mining ?)

11 Łosino Kobylnica 15 18 hearths, 11 slag Phases: B2-C1 Piotrowska M. 2011 pits, 2 pits

12 Poznań- Loco - 9 hearths, 3 slag Phases: B2-C1 Gałęzowska Sołacz pits, 1 stone-lay- A. 1999 out, 1 lime furnace Iron production in the Wielbark Culture in Pomerania and northern Great Poland ... 85

Site Place District Objects Dated Literature number

13 Rogowo Białogard 4 3 hearths, 1 below- Phases: A3-B1/B2 Machajewski -ground building H. 1980 with 1 slag pit and 1 hearth (smithy ?)

14 Rumia- Wejherowo 3 73 hearths, 19 slag Early Roman Pietrzak M. 1995 Zagórze pits Period

15 Siedleczko Wągrowiec 4 1 hearth Phases: B2-C1 Dernoga M. 2000a

16 Siemirowice Cewice 10 hearths (unknown Pre-Roman Pietrzak M.1995 number), 2 slag Period-Early pits Roman Period

17 Stanisławie Kwidzyn 37 hearths (unknown Phases: B2/C1- D Gołębiewski number), slag A. 2003 pits (unknown number), 3 objects connected with iron ore working

18 Stroszki Nekla 1 2 below-ground Phases: B2/C1-C1a Gałęzowska buildings (one A. 2005 smithy, second – unspecified), 5 hearths, 19 slag pits, 2 charcoal piles (?), 19 pits (17 connected with iron ore working ?)

19 Tarnowo Wągrowiec 13 5 hearths, 8 slag Phases: B2-C1 Dernoga M. 2000b Pałuckie pits

20 Warszkowo Sławno 26 1 hearth, 2 blo- Phases: A2/A 3- Kasprowicz T. 1991, omery fires (slag beginning of C2 Kasprowicz T. 2003 pits?)

21 Warszkowo Sławno 30 1 below ground Phases: A2/A 3-B1 Wołągiewicz building with R. 1965, Rogalski fragments of slag B. 2009/2010 inside

22 Widzino Kobylnica 8 1 hearth, 2 slag Phases: B2/C1-C2 Ostasz A., Strobin pits, 1 stone-layout A., Ślusarska K. 2011 Justyna Rosowska

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland [email protected]

Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow from the 14th century in socio-economical context. Examples from the St Florian’s Street

Abstract: The issue of the debtors living in the 14th century Krakow has been presented by an example analysis of a small fragment of the medieval civitas which is the area of the St Florian’s Street. Records derived from Assessors and Councils books have been used for the analysis. Particular figures of debtors and creditors have been presented. Five different law situations, related to the property located at analyzed street were characterized by using available specific literature. That part helped to show a variety of the whole problem. Ob- servations could have been made in the specific character of the social and economic sphere of the medieval Krakow, and have given first important questions for further analysis. To build a complex picture of social-economic relations within the medieval Cracow citizens, the indebtedness studies should be continued. Keywords: debt, Krakow, society, medieval

Introduction The main theme of this article is the issue of debtors living in the 14th century Kra- kow. It presents figures of those citizens, who took out a loan, and which have been registered in the accessible historical sources, finding themselves in various law situations. The other, also important site of the problem, which appears here as well, are those, who decided to oblige somebody with a loan. Therefore their examples were shown, as a necessary complement to the issue. The analysis includes only a fragment of the medieval civitas which is the area of the St Florian’s Street. It is caused by the article’s objectives. Above all, it keeps a connection with my work carried out up to now which concerns citizens living in this street in 14th century.1 In this way, some observations could be made in the specific character of the social and economic sphere of the medieval Krakow. Secondly, this short article serves

1 Rosowska 2012. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 87 only as an initiation of further work, and accordingly to this, gives only first answers, and asks first questions about the topic, showing possible hypothesis for the continua- tion of the issue, especially in presented socio-economic context.

Sources Assessors and Councils books are the sources this article refers to. Precisely, it is a group of them, which was published2 and at the same time, it includes all the records dated back to the 14th century. Various state of preservation of the original manuscripts caused, that almost all records related to the middle part of mentioned century stay unknown. Unfortunately, it complicates to a great degree analysis of this kind of sources, some questions making some questions impossible to answer. One should not forget, that quality of mentioned editions is not perfect. It requires verification with its existing manuscript version and supplements, as M. Starzyński emphasizes.3 Nevertheless, for the necessity of the article and its thesis, this has a secondary meaning, as the article is only an introduction to the problem, and for that, the published material is sufficient. And however, still, Assessors and Councils books are a mine of information about medieval life in the city, this definitely should be exploited, not omitted.4 Assessors and Councils books are composed of thousands of records related to the particular legal actions, e.g. selling and buying a property/movables, making testaments, establishing an institution of law protection, incurring a debt and lending on security or pawning the property/movables, etc. Records, which treat of actions relating to the institution of debt were the most important during the analysis, and especially this part has been taken under the analysis. However, as it appeared, outwardly records which do not mention the debt action, but still are related to debtors, may also contain supplementary and often crucial information. This should also not be overlooked, as examples mentioned below show.

Methodology The problem of making debts, and other various types of loans, taking mortgages, etc. is a very interesting aspect related to the property located in the medieval civitas. Es- pecially, that all mentioned goods could be also understood as an equivalent of money. Issues regarding property transactions are discussed, closely related to a debt taking and its repayment. However, it should be noted that transactions on movables were

2 Piekosiński, Szujski 1878; Krzyżanowski 1904. 3 Starzyński 2008: 165–178. 4 Rymaszewski 2016: 69–80. 88 Pecunia Omnes Vincit equally frequent.5 The article shows what can be found on the subject in the Assessors and Councils books, and whether it is possible to observe the fate of a given debtor, from the beginning to the final of a given transaction. It was shown that very often the whole action, from incurring a debt to paying off or executing a pledge, at that time was described in the Assessors and Councils books. On the St Florian’s Street in the 14th century lived both debtors and creditors. The basic criterion for the analysis was the location of the pledged6 property on this very street. According to the query, the number of at least 21 debtors was obtained, which correspond to 15 cases only, as some of debtors were in a joint debt. However, as to the number of debts incurred, information about four various types of loans was found according to the St Florian’s Street property, and some the debtors incurred a debt for several times (Tab. 1). It should be mentioned that it was possible that the citizen, who was recognized as a resident of St Florian’s Street was also indebted to his property which had a different location, however, the analysis below has not taken this part of debts into an account. First, according to the content of the particular records, and on the basis of available information, the type of a registered debt was determined. This is important because in the Middle Ages, as it is nowadays, it could have taken many different forms. Then, the identification of individual participants of the transaction was made and, where possible, the transaction finale was given. Finally, four creditors from St. Florian’s Street have been shortly described to complete the picture. Both the position of individual citizens and property took on pledge were interesting. On the one hand, the question concerned the social status of debtors and creditors. Then, it was checked what kind of properties within the examined street were pledged. The last issue was the state of indebtedness of the individual citizens, who were included in the analysis. This small article already shows how complex the problem is. However, only issues resulting from the selected group of sources are discussed, and this does not reflect the whole problem of debt in medieval Cracow. Therefore, I recommend specialist literature to the interested reader.7

Literature While discussing the state of research on the issue of debt in medieval city law, it should be noted that still not all problems connected with it have been examined in

5 One example from 14th century St Florian’s Street had been found, when: Petrus Houpt recognovit se in X mrc. Petro Melczer obligari, obligando VI equos, quod transeant nomine suo, quousque persolvet, KŁK 1186. 6 Matuszewski 1979: 4–5; see also: Lesiński 1980: 187–196; Bardach 1973: 303–304. 7 See the part about the literature and also the bibliography attached to the article. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 89 detail.8 Most publications draw attention to the complexity of this issue. The most numerous group are studies dealing generally with city law, its interesting and complex genesis, character and development.9 In the case of urban realities, a publication is available, e.g. about different forms of credit.10 A large group of publications, referring to the issue of medieval city law, focuses on selected problems, such as the development of city private law or the question of the confiscation of property, elaborated mostly by Rymaszewski.11 The first volume of the work edited by Bardach, the canonical position, also concerns the subject matter discussed.12 Most often I refer to the latter, as well as to the work of Bukowska. Last but not least, Estreichers’s publications should be mentioned, although they were made in the first half of the 20th century, they are close to the discussed issues of city private law.13

Historical context Researchers point out that the medieval legal system in its shape has not yet been sufficient. The Middle Ages was the time when the law took its shape and began to stiffen itself. Also, diversity in the forms of incurring debts should be included.14 Private law at that time did not yet have abstract and certain legal constructions. Similarly, there was still great freedom in shaping it. In fact, it made it necessary, even in its details, to provide for the legal protection, which the then legal system was not yet able to offer. Hence probably the diversity and heterogeneity of legal regulations, are often incom- prehensible to us now.15 The basis of a medieval private law was Roman law after its adaptation carried -al ready back in the Franconian times. From the half of the 12th century, Western Europe acknowledged Corpus Iuris of Emperor Justinian. Combined with the needs of medieval people it has become another basis for civil law. This is the result of a compilation caused by a long struggle between the rights of Barbarian tribes and Roman law. Everything that can be found in Assessors and Councils books, in that, mostly has its beginning

8 A work on land law was created: Matuszewski 1979. 9 Estreicher 1934: 26–33. 10 Lesiński 1980: 187–196. 11 Bukowska 1967; Rymaszewski 1969: 201–221; Idem 1972: 295–299; Idem 2015. 12 Bardach 1973. 13 Estreicher 1901; Idem 1934. 14 As part of the introduction, at least four ways of taking debt in medieval city should be listed, after Lesiński: - inter Christianos, often guarded by a pledge, - usura Judeorum, with many differences according to the first one, - buying a rent/annuity, - selling the property with the right of repurchase, see: Lesiński 1980: 187. 15 Lesiński 1980: 193–194. 90 Pecunia Omnes Vincit and explanation.16 It is important to remember that medieval law was largely a customary law, with its many regional differences and inaccuracies.17 Therefore, medieval private law usually worked on a case study.18 It was not that much normalized as the Roman law was, which had more experience, especially in the case of trade and industry. This was the main difference, mostly because the medieval private law was primarily developed under the need of agrarian issues. When it comes to debts and loans, and also property transactions, the medieval private law in a city environment has still not been developed in the shape it was already needed.19 It should be underlined that every city founded on German municipal law, like Krakow was, had its own location privilege, which described, that the city should be governed and organized in accordance with German law, and at the same time it was also the source and beginning of the municipal court. The basic source of German law is Sachsenspiegel (1215–1235), but a collection of city law used on Polish territory was mostly the Magdeburg Weichbild (Ius municipale magdeburgense) which explains the system of municipal courts and Magdeburg law. In Krakow it was available for its citizens in an edition of Konrad of Opole (from the beginning of the 14th century). If something was unclear, a court could send query a Magdeburg. Nevertheless, cities were trying to gain their independence from it.20

The process of taking a debt. Debtors and creditors Turning to the most important part of the article, in which particular examples of incurring debts (lat. obligatio, in obligatione tenere, possidere obligatorio, pignus) are explained, it is necessary first to mention the legal formula accompanying probably every transaction recorded in the cited books. Drawing on the tradition of customary law, and thus confirming the ceremony and legality of each transaction, several procedures had to be carried out while incurring a debt: –– a proper transaction is public: in the presence of court, neighbors, witnesses, etc., and necessary when it goes about property, because at the beginning a property belonged to the whole family (lat. propinqui, relating to the rest of a family), on the one hand, to give the family the possibility to make a protest, on the second, the presence of court gave law security for the action (allowing for the case of loss by omission);

16 Estreicher 1934: 2–3, 4–5. 17 Bardach 1973: 159–164. 18 About the private property see: Bardach 1973: 279–319, 489–511. 19 Estreicher 1934: 4–6. 20 Bardach 1973: 163–164, 374–375, about court organization: 483–486, and further about the specif- ics of organization of medieval city and its institutions: 206–210, 212–214, and its later changes: 400–408; Rymaszewski 1995: 29–32. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 91

–– some formalities must be done, with the symbolic and sacral meaning of gestures (lat. fides facta – that have come already from the Franconian times); –– entering into the book, for a proof; –– initially, still an action did not need to be registered, although then it was also valid, only proof was difficult because then witnesses were needed; –– since the 14th century registration to court books was necessary, it had a constitu- tive meaning, and without it the action was invalid; –– from the 15th century, special books were kept only for those actions (individual records have become easier to search). It was a solemn act that was publicly made, often before the court, and it meant the debtor’s commitment and statement, that if he would not repay his debts, the loaner can do the execution on his own. It was the establishment of responsibility as well. Responsibilities were described in books, and the most often it was a pledge, not a personal responsibility.21 Moreover, it is important to point, that ownership and possession were being distinguished also in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, it should be recalled that usury and lending at interest, was not possible in a Christian environment, so only interest-free loans were provided. The latter problem has been commented below.22

Their stories 1. A clean pledge had no repurchase date, and the creditor could not demand the return of debt, because, a pledged property was still in the possession of the debtor until the repurchase. The latter was only a right, not an obligation, and it resembled a buying and a selling with the right of repurchase. The possibility of the buyout was over after 30 years, and then it became a pledge for bankruptcy: if the debtor did not repurchase the debt, the pledge became the property of the creditor, and then, the latter could keep it or bid.23 Item iudicium fuit feria sexta in vigilia beati Andree per P.[etrum] guis Aduo- catum, tunc domina vxor Iohannis zuiczuf medium braseatorium sicut possedit et tenuit dicto N.[icolao] virsinc obligauit in platea sancti ffloriani. Scabini sunt suprascripti: Iohannes Romancz, N. Cruceburck et ceteri.24

21 Bardach 1973: 306–312, 509–511. 22 For wide perspective of such customs see: Estreicher 1901: 65–130; Bardach 1973: 308–311; about the organization of medieval cities courts see: Bardach 1973: 276–279; Estreicher 1934: 6–9, 28–30; Bardach 1973: 282, 317, 417–418, and on the prohibition for Jews to grant loans with a pledge: Bardach 1973: 509. 23 K 795a; KŁK 774; 2330/2331; Bukowska 1967: 71; Bardach 1973: 303–304; Lesiński 1980: 190–191; Matuszewski 1979: 11–63, although last two mentioned publications include information which mostly relate to a land law. 24 K 795a. 92 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Nameless lady, a widow after Johannes “zuiczuf”, indebted half of her brewery, which had in her possession and ownership, to Nicolaus “virsinc” (actually Wierzynek). Cur- rent assessors have signed below this record. According to this kind of a pledge, considering tardiness of a debtor, the creditor first had to sue the debtor three times. After the third deadline, when the debtor failed to appear, the owner became involved in the mortgage. For the first time, the debtor could have given the assets to the creditor, and by himself, he was being called for re- purchasing the pledge. If not, the creditor held the pledged property for one year and six weeks, when the debtor could still buy it. After that date, only the creditor obtained full freedom to dispose of the pledged property.25 According to Bukowska, and her interpretation of Sachsenspiegel a pawn means that loaner could not demand restitution of the debt by restoring somebody’s property. If the loaner has sold the property under the pledge, and the profit was inferior to the property’s value, he was not allowed to demand offset from the debtor. Also if the pledge has suffered destruction, by an accident, a cost was incurred by a loaner, because he could not demand the repay of debt, and the debtor, if the value of a pledge was greater than the loan he received.26 Nevertheless it was the practice confirmed for the 16th and 17th century, the above remark can be in part used as an analogy for cases from the 14th century, as the examples show. 2. Pledge without holding was carried out with the use of court books, where the transaction was recorded. The debtor encumbered his goods but did not give them to the creditor to use. As a result, making several debts on one property was possible, and still, the owner and debtor, in one person, could fully use his property.27 As the possibility of making more than one loan in this situation existed, the debtor should have remembered about one condition, that every next loan incurred on this pledge should be lower than the original debt.28 One debtor from the St Florian’s Street pledged his property adjacent to the home of Arnold Welker two times, in 1368 and 1369, but probably, it was not the case described above, because the value of the second loan exceeded the amount of the first debt (respectively 44 and 47 grzywnas). Most likely, Jan Martini, while incurring the debt for the second time, has already repaid his first debt.29 It is not possible to show an accurate example of this kind of a pledge, because every potential pledge without holding among analyzed records could potentially turn into

25 Bukowska 1967: 71. 26 Bukowska 1967: 67; for grounds of such reference see: Bardach 1973: 502–506. 27 K 891; Bukowska 1967: 71–74; Estreicher 1934: 9–11; Bardach 1973: 503–506. 28 Bukowska 1967: 71–74. 29 KŁK 287, 368. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 93 a utility pledge with holding. Not knowing all the finals of the particular cases it is impossible to assess how many of debts have been repaid on time, and how many not. 3. Pledge without holding, which could turn into a utility pledge with holding happened when the debtor had not repaid the debt on time, so the creditor could plait (pl. wwiązać się)30 into the possession of the pledged property without suing again the debtor in court. It is noticeable, that this kind of loan should have its repayment date.31 C.[oram] q.[uo] i.[udicio] Johannes Pustolka et Steno Pustolka, fratrem, racione V m(a)rc.[is] pol.[onici] veri debiti minus II scot.[orum] aream ipsorum in platea sancti Floriani circa Jacobum Beznos Nicolao Edelingi obligarunt, pro- mittentes super festo sancti Johannis baptiste proxime exsolvere, quod si non, extunc dictus Edelingi dictam aream obligare aut vendere poterit, ac si iura civitatis omnia peregisset.32 Two brothers: Johannes and Steno, indebted themselves for almost five grzywnas, pawning their plot to Nicolaus Edeling. This debt had its repayment date, which was the upcoming feast of John the Baptist. After that day, the creditor, according to law, could have taken their plot as a pledge, for himself to own or bid it. Additionally, the example shows, the debt was joint by two brothers. There were two possibilities of such situation, where first was called in Latin pro parte rata, as the hands were divided, thus each person standing behind the debt was responsible for its own part of the debt. The second possibility called in Latin manu coniuncta, when there was solidarity in debt repayment.33 Agnes, Barbara, Allexius, pueri condam Nicolai Trapper, Agatha eorum mater, Nicolao Gleyvicz eiusdem domine Agathe fratre pro tutore recepto, domum ipsorum in platea sancti Floriani ob varietatem debitorum personalium et census, quo eadem domus obliga ta extitit, quibus forte successu temporis annichilar- etur omnimode, vera sic exigente et racionali causa Johanni Salomonis predicto pro.. m(a)rc.[is] vero vendicionis resignaverunt et promiserunt (titulo) etc.34 Children of the deceased Nicolaus Trapper, and their mother, declared, that their house is indebted because of numerous loans, and because of that they are bidding the property to Jan Salomon. That was the result of an institution of dampnum: when, if the debtor has not repaid his debt on time, then to his debt interest was included, and sometimes it could have been even as high as the debt itself (totidem, alterum tantum). It was the way to force

30 Bardach 1973: 300–302, 502–503. 31 K 137/279; KŁK 287; 360; 368; 404; 528; 938; 1065; 1999; Bukowska 1967: 71–74; Bardach 1973: 503–506. 32 KŁK 404. 33 Bardach 1973: 307–308. 34 KŁK 1065. 94 Pecunia Omnes Vincit the one to repayment, and also a way for making a profit.35 As the example above shows, these burdens could have eventually compelled the debtor to bid the property. An additional solution was, that the pledged goods could have been repurchased in the first place by relatives, by using the right of closeness ius( propinquitatis). In a city where individual owners wanted to secure their claims, so that they would not lose their possessions and the production, carried out often at home workshop, could be continued, it was important to keep the property in hand. The creditor was entitled to enter the possession of the property only because of the debtor’s delay, then even without having to go to court. This right arose through an entry in the book and in connection with it, the debtor could not be released from liability by selling other things to the account of his debt.36 4. Buying an annuity/a rent for a loan, for which every successive owner of the pledged property had to constantly provide money on certain dates. It could have lasted a set time, a lifetime, or even be eternal. The annuity/rent could have been repurchased by returning the loan, from German term: Wyderkauf (in Germ. means ‘a repurchase’). In Sachsenspiegel rents were still treated as property.37 Anna Jurziconis consors promisit et astrinxit se ad ½ m(a)rc.[is] census Kather- ine [eiusdem Anne sororis] puero Wenceslai sartoris de quarta parte domus in platea sancti Floriani site, domui Staszconis Caym contiguam(s), singulis annis super beati Michaelis.38 Anna, a wife of Jurzic indebted herself for an annuity which was equal to a half of a grzywna. The creditor, her sister’s son Wenceslaus. Anna incurred ¼ of her house for one year until the feast of Saint Michael. Because of the conditions and consequences that this practice could have caused, buying an annuity/a rent it resembled usury in a way. However, in those times there was a canonical prohibition of usury among Christians, which resulted in several methods of avoiding it or bypassing this rule. One of them, opposite to usury, was a pledge to lease, which unfortunately does not have its example among analyzed records. Accord- ing to this practice the pledge user benefited from the pledges on the debt, in a way that flowing profits went towards the debt incurred, so after some time, the pledged property could be returned to the debtor. That was great support against usury.39 Another option was a utility pledge with the transfer of holding (Germ. ältere Sat- zung), not ownership. As a result, the creditor could live in the pledged property, take rent from it, and it included also pledge of an individual room. Profits from the property

35 Lesiński 1980: 188–189. 36 Ibidem: 188–189. 37 KŁK 223; 1214; Bukowska 1967: 74; Bardach 1973: 503–506. 38 KŁK 1214. 39 Bukowska 1967: 68. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 95 could have been counted as either a percentage from debt or credited to a debt repayment. This pledge corresponded to the requirements resulting from the prohibition of usury, when the benefits were actually counted on the repayment of the debt. However, in practice, often it could have been not respected.40 5. Usury. In connection with the abovementioned practices, usury was another possibility of indebtedness in medieval Krakow. An example at St Florian’s Street was also noted.41 As already mentioned, usury could not be done by Christians. For this reason, Jews most often engaged with it. Item domina Zyznyna recognovit se in XVI m(a)rc.[is] gr.[ossorum] obligari et obligavit sibi Smyl Judeo domum suam in platea sancti Floriani sitam prope Cunadum Tost, taliter si ipsa domina easdem non solverit XVI mrc. infra quin- denam tunc qualibet marca, quousque non persolverit, grossus septimanatim accrescet in usura..42 Lady Zyznina indebted herself for 16 grzywnas to Jew Smyl, pledging her house. If she would not repay her debt in two weeks, then, every grzywna she borrowed, per every week would be increased by one grosch. One hand it should be remembered that in the context of debt there are people pledging their property for borrowed money. The other was the creditors who borrowed this money by entering into a contract with their debtors. At St Florian’s Street, sources mention at least four of them: Johannes Salomon,43 Martin Kosszik,44 Wenceslaus sar- tor45 and Johannes Goltsmet.46 An example of Johannes Salomon shows, that a creditor could have had more than one debtor.47 However, debtors could come from various areas of the city, and definitely not necessarily from the same street as the creditor.48 Moreover, already at this stage of research, it can be argued that some creditors could have been in possession of a significant amount of pledges, which could also translate into higher their financial status.49 For instance, Johannes Salomon during his life was in possession of such goods, as: a shop, a garden, a pond, and four cottages, a house from the auction, a house in Okół pledged to him by one of his debtors, and a tenement house

40 Ibidem. 41 KŁK 1017. 42 KŁK 1017. 43 KŁK 845; 1065; 1157; 1192; About the Salomon family, see: Ptaśnik 1914: 33–39. 44 KŁK 2269; 2330; 2331. 45 KŁK 929; 1214. 46 KŁK 1841; 1879; 1883. 47 KŁK 1065; 1157. An even more prominent example is Johannes Goltsmet, who in the studied records appeared as a creditor three times: KŁK 1101; 1279; 1879, although this applies to properties from other parts of Cracow. 48 See annotation 46. 49 Ptaśnik 1914: 33. 96 Pecunia Omnes Vincit at St Florian’s Street.50 While Johannes Goltsmet was in possession of a house pledged to him by one of his debtors at St. John Street, and another one at Szewska Street, a cloth bazaar also pledged to him by one of his debtors, 1/4 of a house at St Florian’s Street, a house, brewery and a malt house at “Fratrum Minorum” Street, and a stall/shop and four bread benches/stalls.51 In addition, according to the available information, at least some of the creditors also held important functions in the council or city bench, as e.g. Johannes de Ohlau, Al- lexius de Rathibor, Petrus Melczer, and Petrus Weyngart, who also was related to St Flo- rian’s Street, by holding there a property. Therefore, there is a high probability that they had enjoyed respect and high trust among the public. Mentioned Johannes Goldsmet and Johannes Salomon previously held court functions, somehow associated with trust and high status: Goltsmet twice served as a court tutor,52 while Salomon – four times.53 Jan Tropper, in accordance with the above thesis, as a frequent tutor54 and prosecu- tor55 could enjoy respect and trust among the public, although he himself was also in debt.56 Moreover, other examples, Johannes Tempilfeld, and Nicolaus Strelicz held various municipal offices, as Councilor and Assessor, which also, however, did not prevent them from indebting their property.57 These are arguments for the need to undertake a further, extensive analysis of the whole source material, of which only a part has been used for this analysis, to create a reliable picture. There is no clear distinction, so the inhabitants of Krakow cannot be divided into two groups of creditors and debtors, completely separated from each other. The examples show that for a more realistic picture analysis of all records is needed. The vast amount of information from the analysis of debts can also be useful for studying society and economics in a medieval city. The examples show how the debt relations from one street were arranged and they prove that for this reason, it is also worth analyzing the whole available sources. Moreover, most probably it is impossible to omit Kazimiria in these analyzes. The social status of debtors was varied, as the examples taken from the top of social hierarchy. Debtors were a diverse group, which is why it is difficult to make any further conclusions. The more reliable statistical sample is needed.

50 KŁK 983; 996; 1065; 1082; 1157. 51 KŁK 1101; 1102; 1279; 1841; 1879; 1883; 2387. 52 KŁK 1616; 2226. 53 KŁK 845; 914; 915; 1191. 54 KŁK 1464; 1466; 1624, 1891; 2120; 2192; 2226. 55 KŁK 1514. 56 KŁK 1179; 1964; 1965. 57 E.g. patrician Michołaj Bochner indebted his tenement house to Jew Lewek, one of most popular then, see: Ptaśnik 1913: 65. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 97

Conclusions The problem of indebtedness of properties owned by Krakow citizens in the Middle Ages enriches the broad socio-economic context of the urban community’s life. This deepens the knowledge about the realities prevailing in the 14th century Krakow, both by presenting the history of individual debtors or creditors, and in a collective approach by forming a picture of a social group, diverse in many respects, hierarchical, connected by mutual economic relations, and, what is equally important by the bonds of kinship. Understanding the social hierarchy in the city, and an attempt to correlate it with the urban space give a simple and understandable picture, to some extent a schematic one: Jan Salomon was a patrician, so he was able to afford debtors and grant numerous loans. By contrast, by imposing a problem of debt, the image is corrected, and the inaccuracies present in this scheme are often more emphasized. Some results may help in finding information where more surface data is unclear. Have only the poorest citizens indebted themselves? The relationships between a group of rich citizens and those from the poorer layer are interesting. It is worth asking if there were collectors of urban goods in a medieval Krakow? A further observation is that it is evident how often transactions analyzed in terms of sales and purchase had their primary cause and relationship with the debt incurred, sometimes resulting from the debt of the owner of a given property.

Further questions It is definitely necessary to deepen the study of the records regarding incurring various types of debts in the urban environment. This is an important issue in several respects. First of all, as Rymaszewski has already pointed out, the problem should be viewed from the legal point of view. Next, as it was shown on examples, the analyzed issue helps in the social-economic characteristic of Krakow citizens. Understanding debt issues help to explain the complex aspect of owning property within the city. The latter, even if it was in the immediate vicinity of the center – the most important place in terms of wealth, and also in terms of symbolism – still could has been a frequent object of a pledge. Since a complete picture was not obtained, all records should be studied, even those that do not directly concern the debt, as they may still be in its context. The property of one citizen may have been located in various parts of the city, therefore the analysis of one street only does not necessarily reflect its financial status. Single observations can only signal a problem and prepare some of the questions because stopping the analysis only on a selected group can in this case significantly distort the result. 98 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Abbreviations K – Piekosiński F., Szujski J. (ed.) 1878. Najstarsze księgi i rachunki miasta Krakowa od roku 1300 do 1400. Kraków. KŁK – Krzyżanowski S. (ed.) 1904. Księgi ławnicze krakowskie 1365-1376 i 1390-1397. Kraków.

Bibliography Bardach J. (ed.) 1973. Historia państwa i prawa Polski, t. I: Do połowy XV wieku. Warszawa. Bukowska K. 1967. Orzecznictwo krakowskich sądów wyższych w sporach o nieruchomości miejskie (XVI- XVIII w.). Studium z historii prawa rzymskiego w Polsce. Warszawa. Estreicher S. 1901. Początki prawa umownego. Kraków. Estreicher S. 1934. Charakter prawa prywatnego i jego rozwój w wiekach średnich. Kraków. Lesiński B. 1980. „O prawnych formach kredytu w Polsce średniowiecznej”. Czasopismo Prawno-Histo- ryczne XXXII/2: 187–196. Matuszewski J.S. 1979. „Zastaw nieruchomości w polskim prawie ziemskim do końca XV stulecia”. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Nauki Humanistyczno- Społeczne. Folia Iuridica. Seria I/53: 37–63. Ptaśnik J. 1913. „Studya nad patrycjatem krakowskim wieków średnich. Część pierwsza”. Rocznik His- toryczny XV: 23–95. Ptaśnik J. 1914. „Studya nad patrycjatem krakowskim wieków średnich. Część druga”. Rocznik History- czny XVI: 1–90. Rosowska J. 2012. Socjotopografia ulicy Floriańskiej w Krakowie w XIV wieku. Typescript of the MA thesis. Kraków. Rymaszewski Z. 1969. „Z zagadnień rozwoju miejskiego prawa prywatnego w Polsce, (Na marginesie książki K. Bukowskiej pt. Orzecznictwo sądów wyższych w sporach o nieruchomości miejskie w XVI- XVIII w.)”. Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne XXI/2: 201–221. Rymaszewski Z. 1972. „Jeszcze raz w sprawie rozwoju miejskiego prawa prywatnego w Polsce (w związku z odpowiedzią Krystyny Bukowskiej)”. Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne XXIV/1: 295–299. Rymaszewski Z. 1995. „O prawie miejskim w średniowiecznej Polsce”. In. D. Bieńkowska (ed.). Wielkie miasta. Czynniki integrujące i dezintegrujące. Łódź, 17-19. maja 1994. Tom I. Łódź: 26–33. Rymaszewski Z. 2015. Areszt rzeczy jako zabezpieczenie wierzytelności w miastach Polski średniowiecznej. Łódź. Rymaszewski Z. 2016. „Z badań nad operacjami majątkowymi w średniowiecznym Krakowie”. In. M. Głuszak, D. Wiśniewska-Jóźwiak (eds.). Nil nisi veritas. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Jackowi Matuszewskiemu. Łódź: 69–80. Sondel J. 2005. Słownik łacińsko-polski dla prawników i historyków. Kraków. Starzyński M. 2008. „Nad średniowiecznymi księgami rachunkowymi miasta Krakowa”. Rocznik His- toryczny LXXIV: 165–178. Debtors in the Assessors and Council books of the Krakow ... 99

A clean Pledge without Buying pledge holding, which could an Usury with turned into an utility annuity/a holding pledge with holding rent

Staske der Snyder/ 1310 (137) Stasco sartor 1313 (279)

domina vxor Iohannis 1325 (795a) zuiczuf

Hilla relicta Sere cum Hencone filio suo et 1327 (891) filiabus suis

1368 [287] Johannes Martini/ 1367 [223] Hannus Mertin 1369 [368]

Katherina Petri 1369 [360] Czwicsof/Czwyskhof 1374 [938] uxor/relicta

Johannes Pustolka et 1369 [404] Steno Pustolka, fratres

Pustolca 1371 [528]

Bartko Chusonk/ 1372 [774] Chustnik

1374 Zyznina [1017]

Agnes, Barbara, Allexius, pueri condam 1375 [1065] Nicolai Trapper, Agatha eorum mater

Anna Jurziconis 1376 [1214] consors

Johannes Reychil 1394 [1999] 100 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

A clean Pledge without Buying pledge holding, which could an Usury with turned into an utility annuity/a holding pledge with holding rent

Nicolaus Strelicz/ Miczko Strzelicz et 1396 [2330] Georgius/Georius 1396 [2331] Botner

Tab. 1. Krakow citizens who have indebted their property at St Florian’s Street in the 14th century (The number of each record was given in brackets, where: (K58), and [KŁK59]. The date given for each record is the year of its preparation. A few such records in one cell means that all were involved in the same matter. Longer gaps that occurred in the source material were marked by empty row)

58 Piekosiński, Szujski 1878. 59 Krzyżanowski 1904. Nevyan Mitev

St. Cyril and St. Methodius University Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria [email protected]

The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) and Vladislav Varnenchik (1434-1444) from Northeastern Bulgaria

Abstract: According to the author of this study, Sigismund’s and Vladislav’s coins found in Northeast Bulgaria mark the army’s march as it is described in “The Holy wars of sultan Murad son of Mehmed khan”. In this source it is said that the Christians have passed through Tarnovo – Kosovo – Shumen – Madara – Provadia – Petrich – Mihalich before reaching Varna. The so far presented numismatic data overlaps with the information given by the Ottoman chronicler and there is no doubt that the presence of most of the coins, found in Northeast Bulgaria is a consequence of the march of Vladislav Varnenchik and Yanosh Huniadi. The numismatic findings that are connected with the army of Vladislav Varnenchik, give us additional information about the crusaders. The coins found in Bulgarian lands represent the different emissions that were used for payment in the Christian army. The assumption that after the defeat near Varna some crusaders escaped through coastal way to Balchik and Kavarna was based only on arms and armor found in Northeast Bulgaria. However, nowadays the same theory is strengthened by numismatic data as well. Although so far studied historical sources say nothing about this route, the truthfulness of this assumption is proved by the archaeological findings. Keywords: Vladislav Varnenchik, Sigismund of Luxemburg, coins, battle of Varna

Shkorpil brothers, at the beginning of the 20th century, are the first researchers, who mentioned the coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchik from the vicinity of the battlefield in Varna.1 The largest number of these coins, till now, has been registered in the Shumen fortress. I. Jordanov published twenty-one pieces of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) and one of Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444).2 Later on, Zh. Zhekova published new emissions of the two rulers coming from the same fortress, which significantly increases the number of the coins.3 Konstantin Dochev published sixteen silver coins and two other copper pieces of King Sigismund from the

1 Shkorpil 1923: 20. 2 Yordanov 1975: 141–152. 3 Zhekova 2001: 429–443; Idem 2006: №1399–1461. 102 Pecunia Omnes Vincit old Bulgarian capital Veliko Tarnovo.4 L. Lazarov documented two silver coins of the Holy Roman Emperor from the fortress of Ovech (today Provadia), which nowadays are kept in the depository of the History Museum in Dalgopol.5 Ivan Jordanov published the coin of the young Polish-Hungarian king from Kavarna6 and Dimitar Dimitrov from Balchik.7 In some articles, the author of this paper published new coins of the two rulers – a golden specimen of Vladislav III from the district of Dobrich8 and two silver denariuses, found in the vineyards of Aksakovo town, close to the fortress of Mihalich.9 Sigismund’s coins are the following: golden gulden, silver parvus and two copper quartings from the Varna district and one silver denar from the district of Veliko Tarnovo.10 I have also tried to collect and examine the coins of Vladislav Varnenchik from Northeastern Bulgaria (15 specimens until now).11 Those are the published coins of the two rulers till now. The Goals of this study are: 1. To examine all coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchick from Northeastern Bulgaria. 2. To explain relation between the aforementioned finds and the Crusade (autumn 1444).

Main discussion about the distribution of the coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchick in Northeastern Bulgaria The proliferations of the coins belonging to Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchik within the Bulgarian lands is one of the most controversial topics in the Bulgarian historiography. There are two opinions about it. First theory – according to some scholars, so far registered emissions are a part of normal coin circulation in that period. As L. Lazarov noted, it is impossible to draw a final conclusion about the circulation of these coins.12 According to another research by the same author, two discovered coins of Sigismund in the Ovech fortress emerged due to the commercial interactions between the Ottoman state and the countries of North of Danube River.13 K. Dochev believes that the discovered coins of Sigismund in Tarnovo emerged in those places as a result of the coin circulation in the city in end

4 Dochev 1994: 271–280; Idem 2004: 175. 5 Lazarov 2001: №182–183. 6 Yordanov 1982: 57–59. 7 Dimitrov 1995: 173–179. 8 Mitev 2013a: 141–142. 9 Idem 2014a: 127–129. 10 Idem 2015: 388–392. 11 Idem 2014b: 201–208. 12 Lazarov 1992: 37. 13 Idem 2001: 37. The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 103 of 14th and the beginning of 15th century.14 It is worth mentioning that I. Jordanov also considers the possibility of connecting the specimens of Sigismund and Vladislav from Shumen with the coin circulation in the fortress.15 Second theory – others consider that these coins were left there by the army of Vladislav Varnenchik and Yanosh Hunyadi in autumn 1444. However, Zh. Zhekova has a different opinion. According to the author, these coins were brought to these places by the crusaders. Zh. Zhekova connects the archaeological data from the Shumen fortress to the information presented in one of the most famous sources about the battle of Varna – the poem of Michael Behaim and concludes that the coins were discovered in the places where the fortress was attacked and the Christian soldiers were killed.16 I also support Zhekova’s conclusions, but first of all I would like to discuss the sources that provide useful information on the problem under investigation.

Historian sources about the route of the army The road that the army went from Nikopol to Shumen has been the subject of serious debates in historiography. The first problem is the identification on the “Rachautsch” fortress mentioned by Michael Behaim.17 The second problem comes from the localization of the ancient Roman road that Andreas de Palatio mentioned in his letter to cardinal Ludovic in Rome and Gregorius from Sanoc. As it is said in the aforementioned letter, many Roman buildings, arcs and columns, cities and palaces were situated on this very road. Greek and Latin inscriptions were also found there.18 The third source that mentions the route Nikopol-Osam-Tarnovo-Kosovo-Shumen is the Ottoman Chronicle “The Holy Wars of Sultan Murad, Son of Mehmed Khan”.19

The historiography about the problem: First theory The first researcher who identified the above mentioned fortress in the poem of Behaim “Rahauch” with Oryhovitsa (Gorna Oryhovitsa) is Konstantin Irechek.20 Karel and Herman Shkorpil wrote that after Nikopol, the Christian army headed to Nikiup (the former Roman city Nicopolis ad Istrum, located near to Veliko Tarnovo) and from

14 Dochev 1994: 271–280. 15 Yordanov 1982: 57–59. 16 Zhekova 2001: 429–443; Idem 2006: 54–55. 17 Kolarov 1970:181. 18 Mirchev 1964: 88–90. 19 Kalitsin 1994: 88–109. 20 Irechek 1899: 857. 104 Pecunia Omnes Vincit there through the vicinity of Popovo to Shumen and Novi Pazar.21 A similar opinion has also been drawn by the Polish scholar Jan Dombrowski.22 Based on the letter of Andrea de Palatsio, Georgi Balaschev also supports the opinion of Shkorpil brothers.23 Milko Mirchev believes that after Nikopol the Vladislav’s soldiers headed to the southeast, to the old Roman road, where they passed through Oryhovitsa and Novi Pazar.24 Aleksandar Kuzev made a special research about the route of the army. According to the author, “The name Rahauch in Behaim is similar to Rahauvidge – Turkish form of the Bulgarian name Rahovitsa or Rahovets, which today is Gorna Oryahovitsa”. Kuzev opposes Atanas Ishirkov who believes that the distance between Nikopol and Oryho- vitsa is too long to be covered in one day. Kuzev considers that Behaim wrote his poem according to Hans Miogest, who had been in Ottoman captivity during sixteen years, which most probably led to some inaccuracies.25 Based on the ottoman source, “The Holy Wars of Sultan Murad son of Mehmed khan”, Tsveta Raichevska indicates the following route – Nikopol-Osam-Tarnovo-Kosovo-Shumen. The author believes that after Nikopol the crusaders headed to the southeast and camped near G. Oryahovitsa.26 Exactly from there were sent two detachments that attacked Tarnovo.

The Second theory The German military historian G. Kioler proposed that after Nikopol the army of Vladislav continued its way near the Danube River and after that, through some other Roman roads, headed to Novi Pazar.27 The Austrian historian, Leopold Kupelwizer thinks that Rahauch is the same as Razgrad and considers that exactly from there the crusaders continued their way.28 Atanas Ishirkov also supports this theory, but identifies Rahauch as Oryahovo in the Danube, because it is impossible to reach Oryahovitsa from Nikopol just in one day. According to the author, although the fortress is not mentioned in the sources, it was probably seized by the crusaders. Ishirkov claims that it took the army six days to reach Novi Pazar from Nikopol, as it passed the Roman road, which swerves from Danube before Ruse and to the valley of the river Bely Lom to Razgrad, Pliska and Novi Pazar. The author identified Pliska with the ruins mentioned by Palatio.29 Stephan Nedev justified the opinion of Ishirkov by the fact that in that period the antic city of Abritus had not been yet found. Therefore, Stephan Nedev

21 Shkorpil 1908: 50. 22 Dąbrowski 1922: 174–180. 23 Balaschev 1935: 15. 24 Mirchev 1955: 5. 25 Kuzev 1973: 139–152. 26 Raychevska 2004: 20–32. 27 Köhler 1882: 42–43, Anm. 5. 28 Kupelwieser 1899: 87–88. 29 Ishirkov 1923: 25–51. The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 105 agrees with the opinion of Ishirkov. However, according to him, the ruins mentioned in the letter of Palatio were remnants of Abritus (today Razgrad). The author believes that “In order to cross the sea coast as soon as possible, probably Vladislav and Hu- nyadi considered the two possible routes and in the end they chose the left one, which was located in the north and was relatively shorter (the first route – Nikiup – Fiseka – N. Pazar stretched over 300 km; the second safer and shorter Nikopol-Razgrad-Novi Pazar stretched over 250 km, located far away from the Ghats Mountains and from their fortresses)”.30 Bistra Tsvetkova thought that the crusaders passed through some of the antic or medieval settlements near to Razgrad, namely, Abritus or Cherven.31 Wincenty Swoboda also supports this theory.32

Distribution of the coins in Northeastern Bulgaria Only 97 specimens of Sigismund’s coins have been published from Northeastern Bulgaria until today. The biggest part of them was discovered in Shumen district – 59 pieces in total. The Old Bulgarian capital -Veliko Tarnovo is the second place after Shumen where a large number of Sigismund of Luxemburg‘s coins have been revealed – 19 specimens in total. Two coins from Veliki Preslav and two silver denars are from the medieval fortress Ovech (today Provadia). Four coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg are preserved at the depository of the Ar- chaeological Museum in Varna, discovered in the vicinity of Varna. A small coin hoard containing 11 coins belonging to Sigismund were uncovered during the archaeological excavations in Silistra. The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg have been found in the following places: Ve- liko Tarnovo – Veliki Preslav – Shumen – Provadia – Varna –Silistra. The coins are presented by the following specimens: golden coins (golden guldens), silver denars, silver parvuses, silver ducats, copper quartings. Nineteen specimens belonging to Vladislav Varnenchik have been revealed in Northeastern Bulgaria. They are: 5 from Shumen district (including the only one known Polish denar); four from the vicinity of the battlefield in Varna; two from Kavarna, one from Balchik, four from the vineyards in Aksakovo town (in the area of the fortress Mihalich); one coin from Dobrich disrict; one belonging to the young Polish-Hungarian king found during the excavations in Silistra and one from Petrich kale (today village of Razdelna). The coins of Vladislav Varnenchik have been found in the following places:

30 Nedev 1969: 211. 31 Tsvetkova 1979: 302. 32 Swoboda 1994: 42. 106 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Shumen – Petrich kale – Mihalich kale – Varna – Kavarna – Balchik – Silistra. The coins of the young king are presented by the following specimens: golden coins (golden guldens), silver Hungarian denars and silver Polish denar.

The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchik as numismatic data to the route of the Crusader army in Northeastern Bulgaria Due to the fact that Sigismund King reigned for a long time and the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman state had a common border, it is possible that some of these coins were used for local purposes in these lands at that time. However, it is important to note that the coins of Sigismund and Vladislav have not been found in Northwestern Bulgaria so far. The aforementioned fact strongly supports our theory that the emissions of this ruler are a consequence of the Crusade. If these coins were part of the local circulation, they most probably would be found in Northwestern Bulgaria. It is less likely that these coins would be present in Northeastern Bulgaria, because the border of the two countries is to the northwest. So far, no Vladislav’s coins have been found in such big cities of Northeast Bulgaria, as Cherven, Ovech, Tarnovo, etc. All the specimens were found in the places where battles between the crusades and the Ottomans took place. There is no doubt that the aforementioned coins of Varnenchik were not in local coin circulation and their presence in Bulgarian lands cannot be connected with the local trade and commercial interactions. Those facts reinforce Zhekova’s view that those coins were distributed in the above mentioned areas by the army of crusaders in the autumn of 1444. Most of Sigismund’s emissions were found at those places where Vladislav’s coins were also revealed. Exceptions are: Veliko Tarnovo, Preslav and Ovech where only specimens of the Holy Roman Emperor have been found. If we take a look at the place where above mentioned coins were found, we will see that Sigismund’s emissions were discovered in Veliko Tarnovo, Shumen, Ovech, the region of Varna and Silistra, while those of Vladislav – in Shumen, region of Varna, Kavarna, Balchik, region of Dobrich and Silistra. If we use the already found coins as a trail of the crusaders’ march in Northeast Bulgaria, with the help of the numismatic data we can shed light on a very important issue. Numismatic data shows that emissions of Sigismund and Vladislav are not present in the vicinities between Nikopol and Razgrad, as also from Razgrad to Shumen. All the evidence applied by the proponents of the second route to Shumen is circumstantial. Sigismund’s and Vladislav’s coins found in Northeast Bulgaria mark the army’s march as it is described in “The Holy wars of sultan Murad son of Mehmed khan”. In this source it is said that the Christians have passed through Tarnovo – Kosovo – Shumen – Madara – Provadia – Petrich – Mihalich before reaching Varna. The so far presented numismatic data overlaps with the information given by the Ottoman chronicler and The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 107 there is no doubt that the presence of most of the coins, found in Northeast Bulgaria is a consequence of the march of Vladislav Varnenchik and Yanosh Hunyadi.33 After reaching Nikopolis, the Christian army continued its march to Shumen through G. Oryahovitsa (Ryahovets). Exactly there they camped and from there they sent the detachment of five hundred men to attack Veliko Tarnovo, but the troops were defeated and most of the soldiers were killed. After reaching Ryahovets, the army marched to Shumen, passing rough Boaza passage, near today’s Targovishte city. After seizing Shumen fortress, the crusaders continued their way to Ovech and took control over the fortresses of Madara and Vanchan. After Ovech, the army seized the fortresses of Petrich and Mihalich. In the battle of Varna on 10th of November 1444, the crusaders suffered a crushing defeat. Most of the remaining military forces fled the battlefield. One part of the troops headed to Ignatievo and Devnya, others ran to the Frangian heights and Batova valley. From there, one part of the Christian soldiers continued to Silistra and the others to Balchik and Kavarna. The numismatic data and the archaeological findings (arms and armor) are so far overlapping one another. Most arms and parts of armor, found in the aforementioned areas, may be linked to the army of crusaders.34 Based on that information we can assume that the above-described route is credible. The total number of Vladislav’s coins is many times less than those of Sigismund. Zh. Zhekova has claimed that Sigismund’s coins served exactly as basic payment currency in the crusade army. From all of the ruler’s emissions found in Bulgaria so far, there has been documented only one golden coin, and the rest – more than 90 emissions are silver and copper coins. In my opinion, hypothetically, Vladislav’s coins were used as the means of payment by the nobles of the crusaders, while Sigismund’s ones were intended for the common troops. In the future, the new archaeological excavations and so far unknown private col- lections may lead us to new numismatic findings. The new findings may change some of the above stated conclusions. It is obvious that Vladislav Varnenchik’s coins were not used in the monetary circulation of the 15th century Bulgarian city. On the base of the above mentioned assumption, we can conclude that Vladislav Varnenchik’s coins in that areas were brought by the army of crusaders. King Sigismund’s coins that are many times more than those of Vladislav, were not widely used in the most fortresses of that time. As we mentioned above, most of Sigismund’s coins were found at the same places where Vladislav’s coins were also present and in the fortresses that crusaders passed through. The author believes that most of those emissions found in Northeast Bulgaria were brought to those areas by the crusaders in the autumn of 1444.

33 Mitev 2013b: 154–159; Idem 2014b: 201–208. 34 Parushev 2004: 33–44; Idem 2008: 239–257; Mitev 2016: 779–790. 108 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

The numismatic findings that are connected with the army of Vladislav Varnenchik, give us additional information about the crusaders. The coins found in Bulgarian lands represent the different emissions that were used for payment in the Christian army. The assumption that after the defeat near Varna some crusaders escaped through coastal way to Balchik and Kavarna was based only on arms and armor found in Northeast Bulgaria. However, nowadays the same theory is strengthened by numismatic data as well. Although so far studied historical sources say nothing about this route, the truthfulness of this assumption is proved by the archaeological findings.

Bibliography Balaschev G. 1935. Pohodite na polsko-madzharskia kral Vladislav III Yagelo prez 1443-1444 godina protiv turtsite i bitkata pri Varna. Sofia. Dąbrowski J. 1922. Władysław I Jagiellończyk na Węgrzech (1440-1444). Warszawa. Dimitrov M. 1995. «Monetite ot Dionisopolis-Karvuna: kato izvor za administrativnata, politicheskata i stopanskata istoria na Severozapadnoto Chernomorie ot IV v. pr. Hr. do sredata na XV vek.». Do- brudzha 12: 173–179. Dochev K. 1994. «Parichnoto obrashtenie v Tarnovo v kraya na XIV i nachaloto na XV v.». Trudove na VTU „Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy” 32: 271–280. Dochev K. 2004. “Monetite ot manastira „Velikata lavra” „Sv. 40 machenitsi” vav Veliko Tarnovo”. In. Srednovekovno Tarnovo. Arheologicheski prouchvania. Yubileen sbornik po sluchay trideset godini ot sazdavaneto na filiala na Arheologicheskia institut s muzey pri Balgarskata akademia na naukite. Veliko Tarnovo: 144–198. Irechek K. 1899. Patuvania po Bulgaria. Plovdiv. Ishirkov A. 1923. Pohodite na kral Vladislav III v Bulgaria v 1443 i 1444 g. Sofia. Kalitsin M. 1994. Pisanie za verskite bitki na sultan Murad, sin na Mehmed han. Sofia. Kolarov H. 1970. „Dva malko izvestni izvora za bitkata na narodite na 10 noemvri 1444g. pri Varna.”. INMV VI (XXI): 171–193. Köhler G. 1882. Die Schlachten von Nicopoli und Warna. Breslau. Kupelwieser G. 1899. Die Kampfe Ungarns mit den Osmanen bis zur Schlacht bei Mohacs 1526, Zweite umg. Auflage. Wien-Leipzig. Kuzev A. 1973. „Marshrutat na Vladislav III Yagelo do Varna.”. INMV IX (XXIV): 139–152. Lazarov L. 1992. „Pogled varhu monetnata tsirkulatsia v dneshnite balgarski zemi prez XV vek (spored dannite na kolektivnite nahodki)”. Numizmatika i sfragistika 1–2: 33–51. Lazarov L. 2001. Danni za monetnata tsirkulatsia na Provadiyskata krepost (po materiali ot Dalgopolskia muzey). Numizmatichni prouchvania i materiali 3. Veliko Tarnovo. Mirchev M. 1955. Vladislav Varnenchik. Varna. Mirchev M. 1964. „Andreas de Palatsio. Pismo za porazhenieto pri Varna, izprateno do kardinal Ludo- vik.”. IVAD XV: 85–95. Mitev N. 2013a. „Zlaten gulden na Vladislav III Varnenchik (1440–1444) ot Dobrichko”. Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika 9: 141–142. Mitev N. 2013b. “Marshrutat na krastonosnata armia na Vladislav Varnenchik v Severoiztochna Bulgaria (po numizmatichni danni)”. Zhurnal za istoricheski i arheologicheski izsledvania 2: 154–159. The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 109

Mitev N. 2014a. „Dva srebarni denara na Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) ot fonda na PMBD-1444g”. Ot nahodkata do vitrinata 10: 127–129. Mitev N. 2014b. “Monetite na Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) ot Severoiztochna Bulgaria”. Numizma- tika, sfragistika i epigrafika 10: 201–208. Mitev N. 2015. „Nepublikuvani ungarski moneti na kral Sigizmund I Lyuksemburgski (1387–1437) ot Sevroiztochna Bulgaria”. In. Materiali ot Chetvartata natsionalana konferentsia „Patuvane kam Bul- garia”. Shumen: 388–392. Mitev N. 2016. „Vaorazhenieto ot pohoda na Vladislav Varnenchik v Severoiztochna Bulgaria prez esenta na 1444 godina. Chast parva (mechove, boyni nozhove i shpaga)”. In. Velikotarnovskiyat universitet „Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy“ i balgarskata arheologia. Prof. d-r Boris Borisov. Uchenitsi i priyateli. Veliko Tarnovo: 779–790. Nedev S. 1969. „Patishtata na Vladislav III i Murad II kam Varna prez 1444 g.”. In. Sbornik ot izsledvania i dokumenti v chest na 525–ta godishnina ot bitkata kray Varna. Sofia: 208–233. Parushev V. 2004. „Novi nahodki na orazhie ot krastonosnia pohod prez 1444 g.“. INMV XL (LV): 33–44. Parushev V. 2008. „Orazhia i snaryazhenie ot voyskata na Vladislav III Yagelo. Nepublikuvani nahodki“. INMV XLIV(LIX): 239–257. Raychevska Ts. 2004. „Krastonosniyat pohod ot 1444 g. spored osmanskata hronika „Pisanie za verskite bitki na sultan Murad han”. INMV XL (LV): 20–32. Shkorpil H. and K. 1908. „Pohodat na Vladislav prez Bulgaria v 1444g. i bitkata pri Varna“. IVAD: 48–67. Shkorpil H. and K. 1923. Vladislav Varnenchik 1444-1923 g. Varna. Swoboda W. 1994. Warna 1444. Krakow. Tsvetkova B. 1979. Pametna bitka na narodite. Varna. Yordanov I. 1975. “Chuzhdi moneti v parichnia pazar na srednovekoven Shumen (XIII-XV v.)”. Godishnik na muzeite v Severna Bulgaria 1: 141–152. Yordanov I. 1982. «Moneti ot Chirakman» In. Chirakman – Karvuna – Kavarna. Sofia: 57–59. Zhekova Zh. 2001. «Ungarski moneti ot Shumenska krepost». In. Bulgaria, balgarite i tehnite sasedi prez vekovete. Izsledvania i materiali ot nauchnata konferentsia v pamet na dots. d-r Hristo Kolarov. Veliko Tarnovo: 429–443. Zhekova Zh. 2006. Moneti i monetno obrashtenie v srednovekovnia Shumen. Sofia. 110 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Figures 1. Golden gulden of king Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

2. Silver denarius of king Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

3. Silver parvus of king Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

4. Copper quarting of king Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014) The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 111

5. Golden gulden of king Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

6. Polish silver denarius of king Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

7. Hungarian silver denarius of king Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014)

8. Hungarian silver denarius of king Vladislav Varnenchik (1434–1444) (Photo by N. Mitev, 2014) 112 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Map. 1. Distribution of the coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg and Vladislav Varnenchik in Northeast- ern Bulgaria (Map made by N. Mitev, 2017)

Map. 2. A map showing the route of the Crusader army in Northern Bulgaria, supporting the first theory about the problem (Map made by N. Mitev, 2017) The coins of Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) ... 113

Map. 3. A map showing the route of the Crusader army in Northeastern Bulgaria after Nicopolis, supporting the second theory about the problem. (Map after Swoboda, 1994) Katalin Élő

Institute of Numismatics and Monetary History University of Vienna Vienna, Austria [email protected]

The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century

Abstract: In the coin hoard of Fohregg, Lower Austria (final date 1533) there is the amount of ca. 3900 Hungarian deniers, and among them some pieces with a strange monogram on the reverse under the picture of the Madonna: the monogram of Hans Krug. Hans Krug was a member of a goldsmith-family in Nuremberg in the early16th century. He was also a goldsmith trained by his father, who held the same name, and worked in the mint of the city as well – he had different functions. In 1519 Hans Krug went to Kremnica in Hungary, where he stayed till his death in 1528. The sources tell us he had several functions there and in the mint of Buda. However most of the coins with his monogram are not from Kremnica or Buda but from Visegrád, a town and mint near the Hungarian capital Buda. Does the monogram mean he was a mint master or an engraver? How and why did he come to Visegrád? The written sources do not tell us much about this topic, the only evidence for his stay in Visegrád are the coins. Keywords: Hans Krug, hoard of Fohregg, goldsmith, Hungary

Introduction – The Hoard of Fohregg, goldsmith Before I write about Hans Krug and his coins, I’d like to give a short introduction of the hoard of Fohregg, which is the starting point of my observations. The hoard was found in 2009 in Fohregg (Lower Austria, near Melk) in a house without a basement, in a corner in a pot. It consists of ca. 3900 Hungarian deniers from the late reign of King Matthias Corvinus (1458–1490) till the early reign of Ferdinand I (1526–1564). The closing date of the hoard is the year 1533. This year forbid Ferdinand I the use of the Hungarian deniers in Austria with the deadline of 2nd of February 1534 – a connection between the hiding of the hoard and this date seems to have to be thinking of.1

1 Kenner 1902: 229. The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 115

The content of the hoard of Fohregg is as in the following table:

Country Authority Pieces Percent

Matthias I Corvinus (1458–1490) 5 Deniers 0,1 %

Wladislaw II (1490–1516) 37 Deniers 0,9 %

Louis II (1516–1526) 156 Deniers 4,0 % Hungary Johann Zápolya (1526–1540) 13 Deniers 0,3 %

Ferdinand I (1526–1564) 3.567 Deniers 91,4 %

Count Nikolaus III Zrínyi († 1534) 108 Deniers 2,8 %

Antonio II (1402–1412) 13 Denari / Soldi 0,3 % Aquileia Ludovico IV (1412–1439) 5 Denari / Soldi 0,1 %

Saxony Johann und Georg (1525–1528) 1 Zinsgroschen

Poland Alexander (1501–1506) 1 Halbgroschen

Sum 3.904 coins3

Table 1: content of the Fohregg-Hoard by Hubert Emmerig2

As we can see, most of the coins are from Ferdinand I and the second most from the previous King Louis II, among these, there are also the coins of Hans Krug, which I introduce later. There were two monetary reforms in the time period of the coins in the hoard, one, which had an influence on the content and one, which didn’t. 3 The content of the hoard is mainly influenced by the monetary reform of King Mat- thias Corvinus, who changed the system in 1467. All silver coins had to be made from 0.500-fine silver,4 and he also determined the pictures: on the obverse should be the Hungarian crest formed by quarters with the family-crest of the king in the centre and on the reverse should be the Holy Mary with the Child.5 Another reform, the so called

2 All numbers of the exemplars are temporary. 3 To be added ca. 28 unidentified coins and fragments, also ca. 53 coins, from which each two or three pieces are stuck and are therefore unidentified. 4 Kubinyi 1998: 113 writes: to determine the fineness under the reign of Matthias is not easy, because we don’t have any contemporary records. 5 Huszár 1975: 12. Gyöngyössy 2003: 54: the Holy Mary as a coin picture stayed on the Hungarian coins till the middle of the 20th century. The motive was chosen according the personal worship of Matthias (ibidem: 55). 116 Pecunia Omnes Vincit moneta nova of Louis II, had no influence on the hoard, because these were the coins made only in half of the silver before but hold with force on the same rate; they were minted only for a few years (1521–1525), because people didn’t want to take them.6

Life and Career of Hans Krug Hans Krug was born around 1485 in Nuremberg.7 His father, Hans Krug the Elder, had a goldsmith-atelier in Nuremberg, where he trained his sons, Hans and Ludwig, to become goldsmiths.8 Hans Krug the Younger became master in 1513 and on 14th of April he got the job as die cutter in the mint of Nuremberg.9 He had a quick career: in 1514 he became an assayer in the same mint.10 In 1517 he became mint-master.11 Also in this year, he negotiated about dies for the bishop of Osnabrück and Paderborn.12 In 1519 Hans Krug became a warden, but he held this position only temporary and he should have taken guarantors and given a surety of 200.000 Gulden in the case he or his servants should make any damage.13 The last year he is mentioned in Nuremberg is the time 1519.14 Hans Krug died in 1528 or 1529.15

6 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 128; Huszár 1958: 105. 7 ADB 17: 214; Rosenberg 1925: 32; DBE 6: 126; Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859. 8 Baader 1862: 20 writes: Hans Krug the Elder was one of the best-known die cutters of the city; he is supposed to have made coin dies for the Hungarian king and had also worked for the Saxonian elec- tor, Friedrich the wise. – Lochner 1875: 121 writes: Hans Krug the Elder had from two wives six children (Hans, Ludwig, Erasmus, Paulus, Endres und Ursula). – ADB 17: 214; DBE 6: 126; Nürnberger Künstler- lexikon 2: 859; Huszár 1927/28: 76; Rosenberg 1925: 32. 9 Baader 1860: 38 writes: Hans Krug got this job on the 12th of April and he got eight Gulden for equipment. – Baader 1862: 22; Lochner 1875: 121 writes Hans Krug became on the 27th of August master (so he got the job actually before he became master), the eight Gulden for equipment are also mentioned here. – ADB 17: 214; Hampe 1904: No. 934 mentions only that the young Hans Krug became a die cutter and got eight Gulden for equipment. – Forrer 3: 228; Rosenberg 1925: 32; Thieme-Becker 22: 3; Huszár 1927/28: 76; Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Huszár 1983; DBE 6: 126; Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859 writes: he had this position till 1518. 10 Baader 1862: 22; Hampe 1904: No. 937 (23th of April); Rosenberg 1925: 32; Thieme-Becker 22: 3; DBE 6: 126; Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859 (mentions the year 1513). 11 Forrer 3: 228; Rosenberg 1925: 32; Thieme-Becker 22: 3; DBE 6: 126; Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859. 12 Hampe 1904: No. 1114 (4th January 1518); Thieme-Becker 22: 3; Huszár 1927/28: 76 (1518); Paulinyi 1949/50: 39 (1518); Kohlhaussen 1968: 370 (January 1518-October 1519); Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859. It is nowhere mentioned if the dies were actually made. 13 Baader 1862: 22 mentions also a caution of 2.000 Gulden. – Lochner 1875: 121 writes: the guarantors are only for teh person of Hans Krug responsible, for the damages have he and his wife to pay. – ADB 17: 214; – for more details see Hampe 1904: No. 1205 (10th October 1519); No. 1207 (13th October 1519); No. 1208 (19 th October 1519); No. 1209 (24th October 1519); No. 1214 (27th October 1519) – Huszár 1927/28: 76. 14 Kohlhaussen 1968: 370. 15 Lochner 1875: 122–123 writes about more possibilities and more very different details, because he used different sources (he don’t name these sources). – ADB 17: 215 writes 1558 (it is too late and not correct) – Hampe 1904: No. 1669 (10th February 1529) mentions a child of the late Hans Krug. – Forrer 3: 228 writes: Hans Krug died 1518 because he wasn’t working after this year in the mint of Nuremberg The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 117

Work in Nuremberg The activities of Hans Krug in Nuremberg are not available in more details than I described earlier. However, there are two reliquaries attributed to him, which he was supposed to make in Nuremberg as he worked there as a goldsmith.16 These are gilded ostensoirs with floral ornaments and figurines – the scenes are from the life of Christ: the Foot Washing and the Last Supper.17 At the back stand the date 1518 and an inscription of the donator.18 The attribution to Hans Krug is based on an invoice from 1518, in which is written, that the money was given to a “Krugsknechten” (servant of Krug).19 Because there are no other goldsmith-works known of Hans Krug, it is impossible to tell, whether he made these two reliquaries or not.

Work in Hungary Literary Sources Hans Krug of Nuremberg had a dubious and controversial role in the Hungarian coin minting in the first half of the 16th century.20 In 1516 Krug was listed as a tester of the chamber of Kremnica.21 He seems to have given up his original job as a die cutter because the position of a tester brought a better salary.22 Krug and the die cutter at that time, Master Klaus, managed a legal matter for Georg Thurzó.23 That could be a charge against the lower count of the chamber, Johannes Hub, as it is mentioned by Probszt.24 Hans Krug gave up this position and looked for more income in the mining indus- tries: in Selmec he gained a part of the Schaidgaden (a facility to separate copper from

(this argument is incorrect). – Rosenberg 1925: 32 (1528); Thieme-Becker 22: 3; Huszár 1927/28: 76 (1528); Probszt 1958: 85 (ca. 1532); DBE 6: 126 (1529); Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2: 859 (1528). 16 Rosenberg 1925: 32 No. 3736a and No. 3736b. – Today in the Treasure Chamber of the Kunsthis- torischen Museum in Vienna, exhibited in the Treasure Chamber of the Emperor in Room 12 (links to the descriptions and pictures: www.khm.at/de/object/290736ed78 and www.khm.at/de/object/778899b7fd – last visited 16th June 2017). – Thieme-Becker 22:3; DBE 6: 126 also mentions medals, but without any further information. 17 Rosenberg 1925: 32. 18 Ibidem. 19 Rosenberg 1925: 32–33. This argument is too superficial, because his father and his brother booth had the surname Krug and worked as goldsmith in Nuremberg at that time. 20 He is not the first member of his family working for the Hungarian king: his father, Hans Krug the Elder, made also dies in 1499 for the Hungarian king with the permission of the council of Nuremberg (Baader 1862: 20). – Gyöngyössy 2007: 168. 21 Krizskó 1880: 63 lists Hans Krug as tester already in 1508 but since Hans Krug became a master first in 1513 such an early journey abroad would only be possible as a part of his educations – but such an educational journey isn’t mentioned in the records. – Paulinyi 1949/50: 38; Probszt 1958: 85; Huszár 1966/67: 201; Gyöngyössy 2003: 183. 22 Probszt 1958: 85; Gyöngyössy 2003: 183. 23 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Probszt 1958: 85; Gyöngyössy 2003: 183. 24 Probszt 1958: 85. 118 Pecunia Omnes Vincit silver).25 His part (the half) of the Schaidgaden was donated to Stephan Pempflinger by Queen Maria in 1528 and this donation was confirmed by King Ferdinand I in 1532.26 Probszt writes about the Schaidgaden in Kremnica.27 Although we know from a letter of Sebastian Pempflinger to queen Maria in 1533 that it has to be the Schaidgaden of Selmec: he got the half of it after the death of Hans Krug and at the time of the letter he had a quarter of it which he sold to Bernhard Beheim for 300 Gulden – so he could have it alone.28 Meanwhile, Hans Krug became a member of the jury and a town judge in Krem- nica.29 This shows that at this time he had to have a huge fortune and become a well- respected citizen of the city – this may be a result of his involvement in the mint. The fact that Krug was always looking for more prestigious jobs and got them, is often explained with lack of artistic ambitions and with the opinion, he was only an economical adventurer of his time.30 In my opinion, this is a one-sided view and is built on the fact that we don’t know any medals from him which could show artistic ambitions. The fact that Krug took positions which gave him more income and influence, shows very well that he had ambitions even if not necessary as an artist. Only the claim that he gained his fortune through abuse of his office and unfaithful management gives us the picture of an economical adventurer. Hans Krug didn’t only work in the mining cities. In 1521–1526 he worked as a repre- sentative of Alexius Thurzó in the minting in Buda.31 His precise job and duty are not known, he might have been a die cutter, what can be proved thanks to coins or a tester32 for which we have a letter of Queen Maria in which she refers to him as a probator.33 In the draft of a justification of Alexius Thurzó to King Louis II (1516–1526) – written in 1525 – Hans Krug is referred as a sworn mint-master of the king in Kremnica.34 Hermann writes that Hans Krug of Nuremberg was a familiaris of Alexius Thurzó and

25 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Huszár 1966/67: 201. 26 Probszt 1958: 85; Heiß 1976: 62, footnote 71 writes, that Hans Krug lost his part because he stood on the side of Johann Zápolya. 27 Probszt 1958: 85. 28 Péch 1884: 138 (full text of the letter is printed in the footnote of the pages 138–139). 29 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Probszt 1958: 85; Heiß 1976: 62 mentions him as Johannes Krueg. 30 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39 compares the situation with the families Beheim and Gritti, but both of these families had more influence at the court than Hans Krug ever (Bernhard Beheim at the court of Maria and Louis II and Ludovicus Gritti at the court of Johann Zápolya). 31 Huszár 1983: 87; Gyöngyössy 2007: 168 writes that Hans Krug was surely 1521–1526 in Buda and worked there and in Visegrád in the minting. 32 Hermann 1975: 313 writes he was a mint-master. – Huszár 1983: 87 writes he might have had also another function. 33 Huszár 1983: 87. 34 Probszt 1958: 85; Kohlhaussen 1968: 370; Heiß 1976: 62 footnote 71 writes only that Hans Krug was a mint master under the count of the chamber Alexius Thurzó but don’t mentions the city. The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 119 a mint-master in Buda.35 She also mentions a letter which Krug wrote on the 14th of April in 1523 to Thurzó, and that the attachment of this letter contained an account of the chamber of Buda.36 We can see that the records regarding his jobs and positions of in Buda aren’t consistent. Moreover, Hans Krug did not only work for the king. This can be proved with a letter which was written by Alexius Thurzó on the 31st of December 1521 to the palatine Stephan Báthori; in this letter, Thurzó asks Báthori not to intervene in the minting and to give up his plan of assigning “Hanskruck” to minting for himself and for the bishop of Veszprém.37 After the battle of Mohács (21st August 1526) and the death of King Louis II, Hans Krug joined Johann Zápolya (1526–1540) and as the town-judge, closed the gates in 1527 before the troops of Ferdinand I (1526–1564).38 He fired the lower count of the chamber of the widowed queen Maria and gave the job to an other person, so he played the role of the main count of the chamber which he wasn’t – in other words, he usurped this position and was de facto a count of the chamber of Johann Zápolya.39 Gyöngyössy refers to him as a “talented die cutter who functioned also as a count of chamber”.40 As the situation went bad he fled to Germany and took with silver coins in the value of 40.000 Gulden which was left by Ladislaus Szalkay (archbishop of Esztergom) for Queen Maria and trusted to him.41 Thanks to the events, the picture of an adventurer was fixed and completed. This is the last thing known about his life and actions in Hungary. All sources tell that Hans Krug died in Kremnica. There are two possibilities: first, he come back after this flight to Germany; second, he didn’t came back but nobody knows where he died and therefore last place of his residence was recorded as the place of his death.

35 Hermann 1975: 313. 36 Hermann 1975: 313. There is a similar letter with the same date about the accounts of the chamber of Kremnica from the Fugger-factor Hans Alber. So she deduces that the Fugger-Thurzó-Company divided the work and responsibility like this: the chamber of Buda was in the hands of Thurzó led by Hans Krug and the chamber of Kremnica was in the hands of the Fuggers led by Hans Alber (ibidem). Both letters were mentioned also in Huszár 1983: 86. 37 Kelényi 1944: 17–18 writes that the letter was written in 1522. – Huszár 1958: 111; Huszár 1966/67: 201; Hermann 1975: 313; Huszár 1983: 86. 38 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Probszt 1958: 85; Huszár 1966/67: 201. 39 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Probszt 1958: 85 (the fired lower count of chamber was Johannes Dobravic- zky); Heiß 1976: 62 footnote 71: Hans Krug didn’t let the German soldiers of Maria in the city and as the lower count of the chamber acted against him, he fired him. – Gyöngyössy 2007: 164 writes that Hans Krug fired the lower count of the chamber of Maria to take over of the administration of the chamber. 40 Gyöngyössy 2007: 164. 41 Paulinyi 1949/50: 39; Probszt 1958: 85; Kohlhaussen 1968: 371; Heiß 1976: 62 footnote 71 mentions two different amounts of money: a big sum of money which was left for the queen and a reserve of silver coins in the approximately value of 40.000 Gulden. 120 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Coins with his Monogram The known coins, as well as, the coins of the Fohregg-Hoard only partly support the above mentioned picture. In this chapter, I will describe these coins and with their help, I will try to find out more about Hans Krug’s time in Hungary. The monogram of Hans Krug – the first letter of his name as capitals in ligature – is on the reverse of some Hungarian deniers of King Louis II, placed under the Madonna. This sign was first (and as far as I know only) examined by Lajos Huszár in the article in 1983. He identified it as the monogram of Hans Krug who was recorded in the time of the minting of these coins in Hungary in connection with coin making. I couldn’t find any controversial opinions which means that this is an accepted fact in the Hungarian numismatics. This sign appears only on the so called antiqua moneta and only in a couple of mints.42 The letters of the mint stand regularly on both sides of the Madonna, the monogram HK stands under the Madonna in the space of the legend. In the article of Huszár the following mint marks and years are listed:

Huszár Today in Budapest

A – A 1526 1526 (1 Ex.)

K – H 1515 1515 (1 Ex.)

V – A 1526 1526 (5 Ex.)

A – V 1515; 1526 1515 (1 Ex.); 1526 (9 Ex.)

– V 1526 1526 (1 Ex.)

L – V 1526 1526 (7 Ex.)

Table 2: the known mint marks and years by Huszár and today in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest

The year 1515 is problematic because Louis II became king only in 1516. Huszár examined the coins of the Hungarian National Museum which he found to be original, so this may be an error of the die cutter.43 The solving of the mint mark of this coin isn’t that problematic. K – H means Kremnica and Hans Thurzó (count of the chamber 1515–1521).44 The mint mark matches the year but doesn’t match the king whose name is in the legend.

42 Huszár 1983: 85. 43 I examined the pieces and they don’t show any traces of a re-working. 44 Gyöngyössy 2003: 182. Hans Thurzó was count of the chamber with his brothers Georg (1508–1521) and Alexius (1515–1521). The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 121

In the mint marks, V – A, A – V, – V and L – V mean the letters as follows: V is Visegrád, A is Alexius Thurzó and L is King Louis II. The mint mark A – A isn’t clear but it means Buda or Visegrád.45 Alexius Thurzó got the task to change and re-struck the bad moneta nova into good antiqua moneta.46 The monogram of the King comes from the moneta nova – the name of the king instead of the name of the count of the chamber stands on these coins.47 An earlier scholar, Géza Jeszenszky, wrote an article in 1927/28 which treats the coins of Louis II and gives an elaborate list of his mint marks and their meanings. He did only register the monogram HK on some coins, but didn’t try to solve it.48 He knew the following mint marks and years:

A – V 1520; 1526

V – A 1526

L – V 1526

Table 3: the mint marks and years of the coins with HK by Jeszenszky We can see that he knew fewer years and mint marks but he described them more precisely – he separated the pieces as variant which had rosettes beside of HK.49 In my opinion, these are the rosettes which normally separate the words of the legend and have therefore no connection with the monogram.50 There is also a problematic issue: the year 1520. In his argumentation, Jeszenszky said that because all other coins are from the year 1526, they are connected and the year 1520 has to be false struck or false read.51 As a proof for these coins, he mentioned he knew two such coins in the hoard of Terezovác.52

45 Huszár 1983: 85. 46 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 130; Huszár 1958: 113. 47 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 139; 143. 48 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 139 writes only that this has to be the monogram of the die cutter but doesn’t mention any name. 49 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 143: V – A No. 74. without and No. 75. with rosettes; No. 77. without and No. 78. with rosettes. But: ibidem: 142: A – V No. 53. only mentions that it also exists with rosettes. 50 I couldn’t control it because Jeszenszky didn’t give pictures and didn’t mention the current place of the coins. But the pieces in the Fohregg-Hoard strengthen my view. 51 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 139. 52 To the content of this hoard see Éremleletek: 84–85. The hoard was found „for a couple of years“ in Terezovác, Slawony, on a meadow. The jar was broken and the coins were handed to the workers – later they were collected again and the find was given to the authorities. The hoard contents 680 coins in good condition and 1 coins in bad condition – they are Hungarian deniers from the reign of Matthias Corvi- nus (1458–1490) till the reign of Ferdinand I (1526–1564). There are also coins with the monogram HK with the mint mark A – V (two from year 1520 and one from year 1526). – Mirnik 1981: Nr. 726; Dukat 122 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

In the Fohregg-Hoard the following coins with the monogram of Hans Krug are included:

K – H 1526 Cat. Nr. 41. (1)

Cat. Nr. 49. (1), Cat. Nr. 50. (1), Cat. Nr. 51. (1), Cat. Nr. 52. (1), Cat. Nr. 53Ba A – V 1526 (2), Cat. Nr. 53Bb (1), Cat. Nr. 53. (1), 53C (1), Cat. Nr. 53A (2)

L – V 1526 Cat. Nr. 56. (1), Cat. Nr. 55 (1)

Table 4: known years and mint marks of the coins with HK in the Fohregg-Hoard53

From this table we can see that most of these coins are from the mint of Visegrád – this correlates with the two articles I mentioned above – only one coin comes from Kremnica. All coins in the find are from the year 1526 – this strengthens the opinion of the two authors (and I agree with them) that the years 1515 and 1520 must be an error. In this case, the mint mark K – H with the year is much more problematic than previously in the article of Huszár because in his list, the combination K – H and 1515 was correct. In case of this coin it is not – in 1526 Hans Thurzó was no more count of the chamber.54 So on this piece, the year is correct but the mint mark isn’t. The most reasonable is to search the error in the mint mark this time because the year must be correct (see the other coins with HK). In 1526 Bernhard Beheim was the count of the chamber in Kremnica – it is possible that the die cutter wrote an H instead of a B.55 After this account of the coins, I will now move to the meaning of the coins. From the tables, we can see that Hans Krug must have been in Visegrád in 1526 because most of his coins come from that mint. However, one difficulty still exist: no one of the sources and records mention him in Visegrád. The fact he wasn’t continuously in Kremnica is unproblematic – he also worked in Buda under Alexius Thurzó for a longer time: 1521–1526.56 The coins from Visegrád with HK come from this time. But if he was in Buda, how did his monogram come on coins from Visegrád? To answer this question we have to look at the situation of the minting in 1526.

– Mirnik 2005: 137 writes that this hoard of Suhopolje (Terezovác) might have been one or two dispersed hoards. Notices on the find are in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. 53 Every catalogue number in the article is only temporary. The work on the catalogue isn’t finished yet. 54 Gyöngyössy 2003: 182 writes that Hans Thurzó was 1515–1521 count of the chamber in Kremnica. 55 Krizskó 1880: 44 Queen Maria took over the mining cities in 1524 and named a new main count of the chamber: Bernhard Beheim. – Jeszenszky 1927/28: 137; Heiß 1974: 130; Erdélyi 1998: 126; Gyöngyössy 2007: 162; Gyöngyössy 2010: 21; Gyöngyössy 2012: 105. 56 Huszár 1983: 87; Gyöngyössy 2010: 26 writes that Hans Krug worked in this time also in Visegrád. The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 123

Alexius Thurzó got the task in 1525 restrucking the moneta nova into antiqua moneta in Buda.57 For this job, he recommended many workers to work as fast as possible.58 A clue for the fact that the work wasn’t going on fast enough is a letter of Queen Maria. At the beginning of May 1526, the Queen wrote a letter to the mint of Kremnica and asked to send workers with tools to Buda as fast as possible.59 These workers were sent to Visegrád on 29th May but in the beginning of June, they were back in Buda again.60 Additionally, 25 workers with tools were sent from Vienna to Buda.61 But the coins couldn’t be produced fast enough to the required amount.62 It is clearly visible that in this year, just before the battle of Mohács, there was chaos and hurry in the minting. My first hypothesis regarding Hans Krug’s presence in Visegrád is that he went there with the other workers at the end of May from Buda and worked in Visegrád – with all the movements I described above, it is easy to think of.63 The second hypothesis is that Hans Krug cut these dies for Visegrád while he was still in Buda. This would mean that the dies were made central; but that also means transporting and a waste of time – if we remember the hurry I described above, it is suboptimal. It seems to be more logical to make everything local if possible. So the question if Hans Krug was in Visegrád could not be answered. Another interesting question is in which position did he cut his monogram in the dies? Possibilities are: die cutter or mint master. As a die cutter, he had the opportunity to make the die with his monogram, so it would be a believable solution. This time in Hungary the mint masters didn’t put their names on the coins the mint mark was composed out of the names of the count of the chamber and the mint.64 This version is not that easy but still possible. In 1525 Hans Krug was named “sworn mint master of the king in Kremnica” – so he could still hold this position in 1526.65 But because this writing deals with earlier times it is also possible that he wasn’t mint master any more in 1526. It isn’t mentioned

57 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 142; Huszár 1958: 113; Huszár 1966/67: 198; Huszár 1969: 159. 58 That wasn’t his only problem: for this job he had to take 30.000 Gulden credit of the Fuggers but that wasn’t enough to finish the task. See Jeszenszky 1927/28: 130–134; Huszár 1958: 113 (as surety he gave his lands). – Thruzó wrote a letter to King Louis II and quit this job – the king had to permit that Thurzó has to fulfil it only to the edge of his possibilities (Jeszenszky 1927/28: 131). 59 Krizskó 1880: 52; Jeszenszky 1927/28: 131; Huszár 1958: 115. 60 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 131. 61 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 132; Huszár 1958: 107 writes that these 25 workers were sent earlier for the minting of the moneta nova. 62 Jeszenszky 1927/28: 132. 63 Huszár 1958: 115 writes that it was obviously a custom to let the workers od Buda work also in Visegrád. This strengthens my first hypothesis. 64 There are also mints which used a symbol of the whole community rather than one of a single person (e.g. Košice). 65 Probszt 1958: 85; Kohlhaussen 1968: 370. 124 Pecunia Omnes Vincit in the recording that a mint master was sent from Buda to Visegrád. Because this was an important position it would be mentioned, I assume. Following this argument, Hans Krug wasn’t a mint master of Kremnica in 1526 as he was in Buda and worked as a die cutter. Another argument for this theory is that there are coins with A – V and L – V also without HK under the Madonna.66 The mint master was the leader of the whole production and therefore he would sign all of the coins, but there were more die cutters and they would only sign the dies they made. Gyöngyössy also writes about him: “the talented but adventure-liking die cutter Hans Krug played an important role in the minting in Visegrád”.67 This sentence also strengthens the theory that he wasn’t a mint master but a die cutter in Buda and in Visegrád.

Summary Hans Krug came from a goldsmith-family of Nuremberg. At the beginning of his career, he worked in the mint of Nuremberg and became a mint master. He also made dies for the bishop of Osnabrück and Paderborn and shortly after this he moved to Hungary for good. Hans Krug is mentioned in Kremnica as early as 1526 but it is more likely that he worked continuously in the Hungarian minting only since 1519. He is mentioned as a mint master in Kremnica but he also worked as a die cutter in Buda and Visegrád. He cut his master-sign, his monogram HK: on the dies he made which was unusual in Hungary at that time. After the battle of Mohács and the death of King Louis II in 1526, he joined Johann Zápolya. He functioned also as a count of the chamber in Kremnica as he replaced the lower count of the chamber. As the situation turned in the favour of the Habsburg candidate, Ferdinand I, Hans Krug run away with a high sum of money which was left for Queen Maria and trusted to him. He died soon after.

Abbreviations ADB 17 – Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Bd. 17 [General German Biography. Vol. 17]. Leipzig 1883. DBE 6 – Killy W., Vierhaus R. (eds.) 1997. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie. Bd. 6 [German Biographi- cal Encyclopaedia. Vol. 6]. München. Forrer 3 – Forrer L. 1907. Biographical Dictionary of Medallists, Coin-, Gem- ans Seal-Engravers, Mint- Masters &c. Ancient and Modern. With References to their Works. B.C. 500-A. D. 1900. Vol. 3. London. Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon 2 – Grieb M.H. (hrsg.) 2007. Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon. Bildende Künstler, Kunsthandwerker, Gelehrte, Sammler, Kulturschaffende und Mäzene vom 12. bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bd. 2 [Nuremberger Lexikon of Artists. Fine Arts, Crafts, Scholars, Collectors, Cultur- maker and Patrons from the 12th Century til the Middle of the 20th Century. Vol. 2]. München.

66 See Jeszenszky 1927/28: 143 No. 73 (V – A) and No. 76 (L – V). Such coins are also in Fohregg- Hoard present. 67 Gyöngyössy 2012: 116. The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 125

Thieme-Becker 22 – Vollmer H. (hrsg.) 1929. Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, begründet von Ulrich Thieme und Felix Becker. Bd. 22 [General Lexicon of the Fine Artists from the Antiquity till the Present Times. Vol. 22]. Leipzig.

Bibliography Baader J. 1860. Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte Nürnbergs. Bd. 1 [Articles to the History of Art in Nuremberg. Vol. 1]. Nördlingen. Baader J. 1862. Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte Nürnbergs. Bd. 2 [Articles to the History of Art in Nuremberg. Vol. 2]. Nördlingen. Dukat Z., Mirnik I. 2005. „Nacrt numismatičke topografije Podravine [An outline of the Numismatic Topography of Podravina]“. Podravina 4/8: 121–146. Erdélyi G. 1998. „Egy kivételes karrier Mohács előtti kezdetei: Bethlenfalvi Thurzó Elek [The Beginnings of an extraordinary Career before Mohács: Alexius Thurzó of Bethlenfalva]“. In. P. Tusor P. (ed.). R. Várkonyi Ágnes emlékkönyv. Születésének 70. évfordulója ünnepére. Budapest: 118–132. „Éremleletek [Coin finds]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny XV (1916): 84–86. Gyöngyössy M. 2003. Pénzgazdálkodás és monetáris politika a késő középkori Magyarországon [Economy and monetary politics in the Hungary of the Late Middle Ages]. Dissertation. Budapest. Gyöngyössy M. 2007. „Königin Maria und die Kremnitzer Münzprägung [Queen Maria and the Minting in Kremnica]“. In. M. Fuchs, O. Réthelyi (eds.). Maria von Ungarn. Eine Renaissancefürstin. Münster: 161–177. Gyöngyössy M. 2010. A királyi Magyarország pénztörténete (1527-1608) [Monetary History of the Hungar- ian Monarchy 1527–1608]. Budapest. Gyöngyössy M. 2012. Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1540 [Hungarian Monetary History 1000–1540]. Bu- dapest. Hampe T. 1904. Nürnberger Ratsverlässe über Kunst und Künstler im Zeitalter der Spätgotik und Renais- sance (1449) 1474-1618 (1633). Bd I (1449) 1474-1570. Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunst- technik des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Bd. XI [Decisions of the Council of Nuremberg about Art and Artists in the Times of Late Gothic and Renaissance. Vol. 11]. Wien–Leipzig. Heiß G. 1974. „Politik und Ratgeber der Königin Maria von Ungarn in den Jahren 1521–1531 [Politics and Advisors of Queen Maria of Hungary in the years 1521–1531]”. Mittelungen des Instituts für Öster- reichische Geschichtsforschung 82: 119–180. Heiß G. 1976. „Die ungarischen, böhmischen und österreichischen Besitzungen der Königin Maria (1505–1558) und ihre Verwaltung. 2. Teil: Die Besitzungen [The Hungarian, Bohemian and Austrian Possessions of Queen Maria and their Managing]“. Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchiv 29: 52–121. Hermann Zs. 1975. „Államháztartás és a pénz értéke a Mohács előtti Magyarországon. Megjegyzések Thurzó Elek költségvetési előirányzatához [Houshold of the State and the Value of the Money in Hungary before Mohács. Notes on the Budget-Plan of Alexius Thurzó]“. Századok 109: 301–336. Huszár L. 1927/28. „Körmöcbányai éremvésők és emlékérmek a XVI-XVII. században [Die Cutters and Medals from Kremnica ind the 16–17th Century]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny XXVI-XXVII: 72–121. Huszár L. 1958. A budai pénzverés története a középkorban [The History of the Minting in Buda in the Middle Ages]. Budapest. Huszár L. 1966/67. „A visegrádi pénzverde a középkorban [The Mint of Visegrád in the Middle Ages]“. Folia Archaeologica 18: 195–204. Huszár L. 1969. „Pénzverés Szomolnokon a XVI. században [Minting in Smolnik in the 16th Century]“. Folia Archeologica 20: 155–162. 126 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Huszár L. 1975. A Habsburg-házi királyok pénzei [The Coins of the Kings of the House of Habsburg]. Budapest. Huszár L. 1983. „Különös monogramm II. Lajos dénárain [A strange monogram on the Deniers of Louis II]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny LXXX-LXXXI: 85–87. Jeszenszky G. 1927/28. „II. Lajos denárai [The Deniers of Louis II]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny XXVI-XXVII: 127–143. Kelényi B.O. 1944. „Budai Oklevelek pénzörténeti adatai [Data of Monetary History in the Charters of Buda]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny XLII: 15–20. Kenner F. 1902. „Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte der Münzen und Medaillen unter Kaiser Ferdinand I. (1520 bis 1564) [Articles of Charters to the History of Coins and Medals under Emperor Ferdinand I]“. Numismatische Zeitschrift 34: 215–308. Kohlhaussen H. 1968. Nürnberger Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters und der Dürerzeit 1240 bis 1540 [Goldsmith-Art in Nuremberg of the Middle Afes and the Time of Dürer]. Berlin. Krizskó P. 1880. A körmöci régi kamara és grófjai [The Old chmaber of Kremnica and its Counts]. Értekezések a történelmi tudományok köréből VIII/X. 1879. Budapest. Kubinyi A. 1998. „A későközépkori magyar-nyugati kereskedelmi kapcsolatok [The Trade-connections between Hungary and the West in the Late Middle Ages]“. In. P. Tusor (ed.). R. Várkonyi Ágnes emlék- könyv. Születésének 70. évfordulója ünnepére. Budapest: 109–117. Lochner G.W.K. (hrsg.) 1875. Des Johann Neudörfer Schreib- und Rechenmeisters zu Nürnberg Nachrichten von Künstlern und Werkleuten daselbst aus dem Jahre 1547 nebst der Fortsetzung des Andreas Gulden. Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance X [News about Artist and Craftsmen in Nuremberg of Johann Neudörfer from the year 1547]. Wien. Mirnik I. 1981. Coin Hoards in Yugoslavia. BAR International Series 95. Oxford. Paulinyi O. 1949/50. „Adatok a körmöcbányai éremvésők és emlékérmek kérdéséhez a XVI. század első feléből [Data about the Die Cutters and Medals of Kremnica from the first Half of the 16th Century]“. Numizmatikai Közlöny XLVIII-XLVIX: 37–42. Péch A. 1884. Alsó-Magyarország bányamivelésének története. Bd. 1 [History of the Mining in Lower- Hungary. Vol. 1]. Budapest. Probszt G. 1958. Das deutsche Element im Personal der niederungarischen Bergstädte [The German Ele- ment in the Personal of the Mining Cities in Lower-Hungary]. München. Rosenberg M. 1925. Der Goldschmiede Merkzeichen. Bd. 3 [The Signs of the Goldsmiths. Vol. 3]. Frankfurt ad Main. The “Economical Adventurer” Hans Krug in Hungary in the 16th Century 127

Figures All photos were taken by Kristina Klein (University of Vienna, Institute of Classical Archaeology).

1: The monogram of Hans Krug, cut from coin Cat. No. 52

2: Coin Cat. No. 41. Mint of Visegrád, 1526, enlarged (2:1)

3: Coin Cat. No. 52. Mint of Kremnica, 1526, enlarged (2:1)

4: Coin Cat. No. 56. Mint of Visegrád, 1526, enlarged (2:1) Viktors Dāboliņš

Institute of Latvian History University of Latvia Riga, Latvia [email protected]

The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)*

Abstract: This article analyzes the documents of the trial of non-guild artisan Claues Krey- chel, a Lübeck born goldsmith who was arrested and put on trial in Riga on the suspicion of counterfeiting of coins. The records of his trial are the only evidence of the counterfeiting in Riga under the Polish rule (1581–1621). These documents allow to distinguish non-guild artisans as another group of coin-counterfeiters and offer a rare possibility to examine range of aspects that have been unclear regarding the counterfeiting in the Baltics: sociopolitical background of non-guild artisans, the sources, and techniques of counterfeiting, and legal aspects. Keywords: Claus Kreychel, guilds, counterfeiting, goldsmith, Riga, numismatics, black market

In medieval and early modern Baltic numismatics, different categories of coin counterfeiters have been identified. Most common and widespread were forgeries of small change (schillings) produced occasionally under the protection of magnates and land- lords of Polotzk (modern Belarus),1 Suczawa (Romania) and Bērzaune (Latvia).2 Some forgeries were produced in the mints by mint staff ,3 while other counterfeits may have come into circulation through the economic exchanges with foreign tradesmen and artisans. The recent discovery of trial documents of Claues Kreychel allows to distinguish another group of coin counterfeiters – the non-guild artisans (Bönhasen).4 Due to the shortage of specific documental evidences, in the Baltic numismatics, very few scholars have tried to identify non-guild artisans as a coin-counterfeiters. What

* Research funding has been provided by the University of Latvia project “Latvijas teritorija kā dažādu kultūrtelpu, reliģiju, politisko, sociālo un ekonomisko interešu saskarsmes zona no aizvēstures līdz mūsdienām” (AAP2016/B060). 1 Ceplīte 1968: 14; Boiko-Gagarin 2017: 292-295. 2 Platbārzdis 1968. 3 Leimus 1984: 107–122; Leimus 2010: 84–85; Dāboliņš 2016: 149–160; Sarkkinen 2016: 139–148. 4 Previously, Māra Caune mentioned the trial process of C. Kreychel in her article. She transcribed his name differently, as Klāvs Kreishets. Caune 2005: 48. Confusion can be explained by the differences of spelling of his name in the documents: Claus Creihel, Clausen Kreychel, Claues Kreychel. The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)* 129 we do know about the dubious and often illegal actions of non-guild artisans in Riga can be largely based upon the documental studies about guilds and journeymen of Riga carried by Stieda and Mettig5 and Ā.Zeida.6 Zeida suggested that the restrictions of guilds during the early modern history kept more and more soon-to-be artisans on the streets, therefore forcing them to indulge in non-legal activities. Some studies dealing with criminal issues of the period7 regard the social and economic crisis that followed the Livonian war (1558–1583) as a profound factor on the morals and social mobility of society members. In regards to the subject, the recent work of A. Boiko-Gagarin8 provides a general outlook. Boiko-Gagarin takes a closer look at the early modern counterfeits of Central and Eastern Europe through the lens of numismatical finds. He claims that the counterfeiting was largely a phenomenon of urban culture, where the artisanship usually took place. The counterfeiters used the same methods and materials as goldsmiths, conse- quently, they had the same background. While counterfeiting of Baltic coins expanded in different periods and regions9 their production by non-guild artisans could not be backed by written evidence. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide first general insight on this specific group of counterfeiters and the related written documents. This article takes the form of illustrative case study and gives attention to the related documents: the overview of C. Kreychel’s previous two trials,10 trial records,11 letter of C. Kreychel addressed to the City Council12 and a letter of goldsmith journeyman Samuel to the court vogts.13 In the first part, the author gives an overview of the illegal “career” of C. Kreychel and the course of the 1594 trial. Further on author discusses several problematic aspects of the subject, first, the production, materials, and methods of C. Kreychel, second, the socially-political environment of counterfeiters, and third, legal issues of the counterfeiting. In addition, a few things should be mentioned that require careful reading of this case. It is difficult to draw parallels having no reliable comparative data. The mint and the goldsmith guild of Riga, which opposed such matters,14 do not inform us of similar cases. Likewise, we are not able to attribute any of C. Kreychel’s production in real life for the simple reason that counterfeiters didn’t sign their production. Counterfeiters usually lived anonymous lives. Therefore, as the

5 Stieda and Mettig 1896. 6 Zeida 1967. 7 Caune 2005: 35–60; Kivimäe 2003: 249–275. 8 Boiko-Gagarin 2017. 9 Ibidem: 93–94, 113, 166, 171–174, 292, 401–402. 10 LV VA 1593. 11 LVVA 1594: I. 12 LVVA 1594: II. 13 LVVA 1594: III. 14 Stieda and Mettig 1896: 130–131. 130 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Carlo Ginzburg has demonstrated in his seminal work “The Cheese and the worms”, such examples of microhistory give voice to personality, while “so many others like him who lived and died without leaving a trace – we know nothing”.15 There is very little we know about Claues Kreychel. What we do know covers a range of five years of his lifetime in Riga, from 1590 to 1594.16 Claues or Claus Kreychel was born in Lübeck, a major city of the once mighty Hanseatic League. We can suggest that Claues Kreychel traveled to Riga as a journeyman in order to gain experience (Wander- jahr), which was required of an aspirant artisan. Not everyone would get the admission to the guild. In accordance to the latest schrag, signed by the Polish King Sigismund III on 26th April 1582, all jewelry had to be produced within the guild (beschlossenn ambt), 12 masters were accepted, similarly, a limited number of apprentices and journeymen could be employed by the master. In addition, journeymen were not allowed to work on private orders, nor to produce anything from cheaper metals, unless discussed with the elterman or master in person.17 The last regulations included a new rule which draws a borderline between the guild persons and non-guild persons by penalising any illegal craftsman within the two miles of city walls (the so-called Banmeil) by confiscating their instruments and materials, and expulsion.18 This is where we come to meet C. Kreychel for the first time. According to the oldest records at our disposal, the overview of C. Kreychel’s previous two trials, C. Kreychel was active in Vorburg, the outer bailey. Vorburg was an open part of the city castle, stretching on both sides of the city wall, obviously within the range of city jurisdiction. In 1593 the goldsmith guild reported to the city council on the breach of its regulations, because C. Kreychel had sold some silver items. C. Kreychel responded that before 21st March 1590 he had produced a silver chain in the value of 21 schillings. According to his testimony, he was not aware of the fact that the city jurisdiction extends into the Vorburg. Another excuse was his miserable situation, in which he found himself starv- ing. Apparently, C. Kreychel also was accused of melting of coins. He replied that it was done by Ludwig, a journeyman of certain Bert Alberding.19 Both cases allow to suggest that after reaching Riga C. Kreychel had registered his occupation and possibly even signed a contract with someone from the goldsmith guild. Afterwards, perhaps due to poverty, he had undertaken illegal activities, including working with coins, or to put it in the mouth of the court vogt “vordechtiger goldtschmiede arbeit”.20 As a consequence, under the threat of death, he was expelled

15 Ginzburg 1993: 128. 16 There is no bibliographical data available about C. Kreychel in literature. 17 Leistikow 1995: 15; Zeida 1967: 36; Stieda and Mettig 1896: 127–130, 311–312. 18 Stieda and Mettig 1896: 311–312. 19 LV VA 1593. 20 LVVA 1594: II: fol.3r. The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)* 131 from the city and city market. After some while, he returned and was captured again. On finding out about his criminal past, it was decided to move the trial from lower, castle court (Schlosgerichte) jurisdiction to the higher – city court (Statgerichte). The decision could be explained otherwise, too – since the rights of coinage belonged to the sovereign, any violation of these rights was classified as the offense of seignior and had to be persecuted accordingly. The court was represented by Otto Kanne, the secretary of the city and the governor or Statdthalter of Riga. There were three interrogations altogether, on 17th, 20th and 27th April.

Overview of the trial C. Kreychel was accused of counterfeiting of thaler (thalers halber, pfenning oder thaler, thaler) for a Jacobo Koppen from the city castle. Judges wished to examine the information and find out whether he had forged some other coins as well. Initially, C. Kreychel testified that the aforementioned thaler was cast in the mould and the loop was mounted and it served as a medal (Schow Pfennig). No other coin copies were produced, only some brooches and a chain for purse was made from the silver of coins (pfennig silber). His main activity was producing different kinds of brass beads and likewise jewelry.21 Two eyewitnesses – the journeyman Jacob Baddermhen from Kuchelmeße in Mecklenburg and goldsmith journeyman Samuel von Mengeringhusen in Hessen were questioned several times. Both witnesses denied any counterfeiting activities of C. Kreychel. On the other hand, they reported different cases of C. Kreychel’s making of coin copies. In the first court session on 17th April the mint master of Riga Henrich Wolff I (1588–1614/15) was questioned about the usage of the certain needle (Nadel), which was brought to the court together with some raw material and artifacts (etzliche rauche materi vnd sonsten gemachte sachen) from the workshop of C. Krey- chel.22 Unfortunately, the report of the trial do not specify what has been meant with that. We do not know whether there was anyone else questioned before the court, neither we have the slightest notation as to whether the other associates of C. Kreychel were enquired. Nevertheless, the preserved documents prove that the judges were able to collect a variety of evidences about the coinage of C. Kreychel: copies of coins and jewelry, names of associates, suppliers, and purchasers.

Copying of coins If we sum up the testimonies, the production of coins at the C. Kreychel workshop amounted to at least four thaler copies, a dozen of old Lithuanian coins, which were overstruck as jettons, and another one or two Lithuanian 6-groschen, which were cast

21 Ibidem: fol.3–4. 22 Ibidem: fol.4v. 132 Pecunia Omnes Vincit or overstruck. In the first session journeymen testified that they had seen one mould of a reichs thaler. Perhaps, through the intelligence of H.Wulff I, the court found out that it was the mould of a Brandenburg thaler. It is, however, not clear, how many moulds did C. Kreychel have altogether. Jacob mentioned that he had seen one mould or pattern of Lithuanian 6-groschen (patron23 oder geprege von Littawische Muntze vff 24 ß).24 C. Kreychel did agree that he had cast one 6-groschen. According to Samuel’s testimony, Claues cast a medal (Schow Pfennig) from silver coins for the deceased Dutchman.25 Were all these jettons cast in the same mould or different ones? And how many did he have when he mentioned the moulds (patronen), that could be found in open space in his workshop and everyone could see them?26 As to the making of these coin copies, journeymen denied any of C. Kreychel’s accusations of being involved in producing of them. They pleaded working only on common assignments, mostly jewelry, which contained no coins. Both journeymen and C. Kreychel worked independently, which may explain the differences between the testimonies of both journeymen. On the contrary to journeymen, C. Kreychel didn’t deny making coin copies. He hadn’t specifically learned to cast copies of coins from anyone, because “ein Ieder goldschmidt khönte nachgießsen”. 27 By pointing to this well known fact, C. Kreychel implied that the goldsmith’s expertise doesn’t make him a suspect. Another common technique used by C. Kreychel was silver and gold plating. Ex- cept for one thaler which was made from coin silver delivered by the peasant from Arensburg (Kuressaare, Estonia), all his thalers were silver or gold plated. In the inquisition of 20th April, while exposed to torture, C. Kreychel testified that during the Shrove Tuesday (Fastnacht) he had learned silver plating from the belt master Christ- off Christoff( der gurdler).28 This was the plating with mercury amalgam. Mintmaster of Riga H. Wulff I confirmed that with the same method and needle from his workshop one could cover coins by gold or silver layer. As an example, mint master brought a counterfeit of notthaler.29 Another silver plating technique C. Kreychel learned from the journeyman of the belt master Christoff was tinning with salmiak (tin coating).30 For manufacturing the blanks of coins and other jewelry cheapest available materials were used: zinc, brass, copper.

23 There are different meanings of the wordpatron “ ” – mould, pattern, model, and sample. It is, however, not clear which is the appropriate one. 24 LVVA 1594: fol.3v. 25 Ibidem: fol.6v. 26 Ibidem: fol.7r. 27 Ibidem: fol.5v. 28 Ibidem: fol.5v. 29 Ibidem: fol.4v. 30 Ibidem: fol.6v. The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)* 133

C. Kreychel testified that together with Samuel he had reminted (gestosen) about a dozen of Lithuanian coins (dutschen Littwisch) into medals (Schow Pfenninge).31 Pos- sibly, one Lithuanian 6-groschen was restruck as well.32 It is not clear what dies and punches were used. The usage of these instruments was limited to the mint and the magistrate, who kept the old dies. Usually, they were produced by die-cutters. Thus we can only speculate how did C. Kreychel get hold of them – through some illegal activities or through acquaintance. What we see is that from technological point of view counterfeiting was a rather demanding occupation. The risk of counterfeiting coins could pay off by producing only great amounts, which was obviously not the case. C. Kreychel’s counterfeiting activity was meager, if not unnoticable. According to C. Kreychel, coins were not distributed in the market as a means of payment. Even so, they wouldn’t make any noticeable impact on the monetary market. All thalers were commissioned by private persons, likewise the chain for the purse of miller’s wife Regina and the medal-token for the deceased Dutchman. C. Kreychel named the production of different beads and jewelry from brass as his main occupation.33 This was testified by both journeymen who regularly assisted on such commissions: brooches, beads, rings, necklaces, etc. In other words, Kreychel’s activities in the falsification of coins34 were ambiguous. Produced coins could be classified as replicas or imitations used as memorabilia and component of jewelry pieces. Since ancient times coins were used not only as means of payment but also as an adornments of clothes, jewelry, and tokens on special occasions, and there was nothing illegal of producing or having them. Otherwise, if we compare the techniques used by C. Kreychel and in other parts of Europe, it can be concluded that in Riga the counterfeits were produced with similar methods and materials as elsewhere in Europe.35

The environment and social network of C. Kreychel C. Kreychel lived on the edge of urban society. Facing many examinations and harsh working conditions at the master’s workshop, a journeyman could be easily lured on the wrong path. Vorburg and the suburb were less than cosy and secure places to stay, but the close vicinity to the city made it more tolerable. The ‘magnetism’ of Vorburg could be explained by the fact that since the Middle-Ages it had no clear political adherence to the city or its jurisdiction. Neither citizens nor castlemen lived on their properties there. Various auxialiary buildings – stables, workshops, barns, granaries as well as quarters for servants and gardens were located there and were inhabited by servants, peasants

31 Ibidem: fol.6r. 32 Ibidem: fol.3v. 33 Ibidem: fol.3v. 34 Boiko-Gagarin 2017: 292–295. 35 Boiko-Gagarin and Shatalin 2013: 107; Botrè and Hurter 2000. 134 Pecunia Omnes Vincit and at times also ‘not so welcome’ social elements, like criminals, beggars, and other social outcasts.36 Due to his occupation and several expulsions from the city C. Krey- chel lived a rather mobile lifestyle, and attrackted associates from the same background and different environs. In one of his travels to the countryside binnen( landes) he had visited a Latvian woman Pļaviņa (frawen Plawschen), also his journeyman Jacob had been lured from his former master in Mitau (Jelgava, 55km south from Riga) the previous autumn. As noted by Baiba Vaska, 16th century witnessed dissappearance of jewelry making in the Latvian countryside. Instead, city craftsmen began to serve the needs of peasants.37 C. Kreychel may have easily found a common language with the local peasantry. He was married to the daughter of the Pļaviņa woman, who was assisting in C. Kreychel’s trade by selling the goods in the city.38 There was another girl in the city who had commissioned brooches.39 Peasants can be seen also among the suppliers of silver, which was mostly coin silver. Besides the commissions of the peasant from Arensburg and the miller’s wife another name earns our attention. In his testimony, C. Kreychel mentioned that he received coin silver from the captain from city castle (wallischen Captain zu Schloße).40 It is not clear, however, whether this person can be identified with Jacobo Koppen from the castle, who had commissioned the fateful thaler or some another person. During the trial, several other names of commissioners appeared: Marz von Glagow, Dietrich Vinger and Cristoff Dhene. Judging by their names and commissions – cheap metal bracelets, rings, chains – they appear to be Germans of low social status. Unfortunately, none of these persons could be further identified. The trial of C. Kreychel evoked suspicions of the real size of black market in Riga. Potentially, there were many more able of the same non-legal activities of coin counterfeiters – casting of coins, tinning and plating of items and making jewelry. Even larger was the number of associates – suppliers of sources and contacts, sellers, distributors. In the black market the social stratification, origin, and education played a little role and were not stipulated by any legal regulations. In addition, black market perspectives may have been more lucrative than the ones regulated by the guild system. For example, both journeymen Jacob and Samuel had arranged a contract that both assist C. Krey- chel and share the income.41 Samuel agreed to work with C. Kreychel by an agree- ment that he would not get punished. To what Claues assured that “Er solte sich nichts besorgen, die herrn von Riga wusten woll das er sölche arbeit machen, So wheren auch

36 Caune 2005: 44–46. 37 Vaska 2017: 99. 38 LVVA 1594: fol.6v, 7v. 39 Ibidem: fol.6r. 40 Ibidem: fol.6v. 41 LVVA 1594: III: fol.9r. The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)* 135 die goldtschmiede in der Statt mit ihme woll zufrieden”.42 At the same time, these kind of relations were plagued by dishonesty and lies. Samuel complained that C. Kreychel had cheated them on financial matters.43 Nenetheless, popularity of the black market production and potential threat to the goldsmiths and local coinage was great enough to take measures. Just some month after the trial, August 1594, in order to guard the privileges granted by the Polish King, Magistrate made inquiry of the Bönhasen and compiled a list of persons to be outcast of Vorburg. The list contained 105 names, including two goldsmiths, several belt masters, innkeepers et al. However, none of their names appear in the trial documents.44

Judicial aspects On 17th May, C. Kreychel wrote a letter from the prison to the City Council express- ing gratitude that despite his “groben Mißhandlung” magistrate didn’t turn against him with the harshness of the law and retained his life. In accordance with the pronounced sentence, C. Kreychel promised to leave the city, to live a fair life “Vnndt mich aller Vorbotenen arbeidt Vnnd Muntzfälscherey, gäntzlich enthalten will”.45 His letter tells us that he did confess in counterfeiting of coins in the end, and that he was sentenced to expulsion from the city, the same sentence which was prescribed in case of bönhasen. Evidently, neither the previous violations of law nor the last criminal episode seems to have made any difference to the severity of his sentence. Should we trust that the court took into consideration his arguments about the “meines alters Vnndt muehesäligen zu- standts auch meiner eherlichen freundtschaff zu Lubeck”?46 For much more complete understanding of the last sentence and the whole process we should briefly outline the legal principles governing the investigation of criminal matters (Peinliche Gerichtssachen) and the legal codes in use. The judicial tradition of 16th century Livonian courts have been studied by German legal historians Friedrich Georg von Bunge47 and Jakob G.L. Napiersky.48 In the later years J. Kivimäe49 and H. Pihlajamäki50 have contributed significantly to the understanding of judicial traditions of early modern Estonia. After the submission of Estonia to the Swedish rule (1561) the guiding principles of the trials were inherited from Lübeck code, while the criminal issues were tried according to the

42 Ibidem: I: fol.7r. 43 Ibidem: III: fol.9. 44 Caune 2005: 48–49. 45 Ibidem: II: fol.11v. 46 Ibidem: fol.11v. 47 Bunge 1874. 48 Napiersky 1876. 49 Kivimäe 2003. 50 Pihlajamäki 2017. 136 Pecunia Omnes Vincit inquisition.51 Kivimäe suggests that the Carolina, the legal code of Emperor Charles V (1532) could also be in use.52 In the neighboring Riga, the situation was similar, only that the Polish legal procedures were implemented here after the subjugation of Riga in 1581.53 Riga town law was inherited from Hamburg, as well as the stipulations against counterfeiting.54 Judging by the trial records Carolina was consulted in Riga as well. In respect to the violation of the goldsmith oath (1593) there is a notification in margin: als Baten sie vermüege des Caroli quinti Consatution (Articulo 108.) ihnen an leib und leben zustraffen.55 In addition, Article 111 in Carolina singled out three cases which determined coin counterfeiting: Item inn dreierley weiß würd die müntz gefelscht, Erstlich wann eyner betriegli- cher weiß eyns andern zeychen darauff schlecht, Zum andern wann eyner vnrecht metall darzu setzt, Zum dritten, so eyner der müntz jre rechte schwere geuerlich benimbt, solche mümtzfelscher sollen machuolgemder massen gestrafft werden.56 Neither illegal minting of coins nor changing of composition of coins nor the face value was allowed. There could be no compromises in the ownership of princely rights i.e., minting rights. Those found guilty were sentenced to death. However, as noted before, Carolina had only subsidiary importance to the laws of local lands.57 Examples from the Baltic history shows a rather relaxed judicial attitude towards such matters. In every case, excluding one – when the guilty one was executed by burning, every single counterfeiter was expelled or fined.58 What we can suggest is that from the legal point of view the understanding of muntzfälscherey was very wide in Riga. The trial of C. Kreychel lets us assume that there was no distinction between one and the other way of making coins, whether harmful or harmless. Each suspicious case had to be persecuted according to the law. Probably it was connected to the fact that the monetary market of Riga accepted the diversity of currencies of different scales and quality in use.

Summary C. Kreychel is the only known non-guild artisan (Bönhase) that has been tried for counterfeiting of coins in the Baltics so far. The trial documents of C. Kreychel allow to contextualizing the illegal activities of counterfeiters in early modern society. In Riga,

51 Bunge 1874: 163, 167. 52 Kivimäe 2003: 264–265. 53 Bunge 1874: 259. 54 Napiersky 1876. 55 LVVA 1593: fol.2r. 56 Carolina 1800: 59. 57 https://www.revolvy.com/page/Constitutio-Criminalis-Carolina 58 Leimus 1984: 107–122; Leimus 2010: 84–85; Dāboliņš 2016: 149–160; Sarkkinen 2016: 139–148. The Trial of Non-Guild Artisan Claues Kreychel (1594)* 137 market relations were ruled by the guild system and restrictions, which prescribed the numbers of artisans, quality standards and prices for production. The shortage of low cost wares created a niche, which would be filled by poor artisans making cheap copies of jewelry and coins. The testimonies of C. Kreychel prove that coins as ornaments were popular among the lower strata of urban societies and peasants, but not as widespread as other jewelry – brooches, beads, rings et al. C. Kreychel made ‘counterfeits’ by casting copies of coins or striking them. Coins were cast mainly on commissions and using the foreign samples – Brandeburg thalers and Lithuanian 6-groschen – for moulds. Both jewelry and coins were silver or gold plated using the two widespread techniques – mercury amalgamation and tin coating. Overall, the case of C. Kreychel leads us to three conclusions. The production of C. Kreychel cannot be identified with any counterfeits of the local coinage of Riga, Tartu, Tallinn or other Baltic mints. We can assume that counterfeiting of local coins was prosecuted more strictly, therefore foreign currencies were favorised. The making of copies/replicas or imitations was treated as the breach of seigniorial minting rights but were not sentenced with the prescribed severity. In Riga, the same counterfeiting techniques were widespread as elsewhere in Europe.

Acknowledgements An earlier version of this article was published in Latvijas Universitātes žurnāls. Vēsture 2017/2: 98–111. DOI: 10.22364/luzv.3.2017.07

Written sources LVVA 1593. – The overview of C. Kreychel’s previous two trials [Middle Low German.], 10.03.1593. Latvijas Nacionālais arhīvs, Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs, Rīga (henceforth: – LVVA), 673–1-1026, 2.–2. lp.v. LVVA 1594: I – Trial records [Middle Low German], 1594. LVVA, 673–1-1026, 3.–7. lp.v. LVVA 1594: II – Letter of C.Kreychel addressed to the City Council [Middle Low German], 16.05.1594. LVVA, ibidem, 11.–12. lp. LVVA 1594: III – A letter of goldsmith journeyman Samuel to the court vogts [Middle Low German], 22.04.1594. LVVA, 673–1- 1026, 9.–10. lp.v.

Bibliography Boiko-Gagarin A. 2017. Falshivomonetnichestvo v centraljnoj i vostochnoj Evrope v epohu srednevekovja i rannevo novovo vremeni / The coin counterfeiting in the Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Age and the Early Modern time. Kiev. Boiko-Gagarin A., Shatalin I. 2013. “Counterfeit orts of Sigismund III Vasa”. Оrti Sigizmunda III Vazi 2: 31–39. Botrè B., Hurter S.M. 2000. “The earliest roman counterfeit by means of gold/mercury amalgam”. Sch- weizerische numismatische Rundschau = Revue suisse de numismatique = Rivista svizzera di numismatica 79: 107–111. 138 Pecunia Omnes Vincit

Bunge F.G. 1874. Geschichte des Gerichtswesens und Gerichtsverfahrens in Liv-, Est- und Curland. Reval. Carolina 1800. Hals oder Peinliche gerichtsordnung Kaiser Karls V. und des H. Röm. Reichs nach der Originalausgabe vom J. 1533 und 1534 verglichen […] mitgetheilt werden von D. Johann Christoph Koch. Giessen. Caune M. 2005. “Rīgas pils priekšpils un kroņa Priekšpils. Teritorija un iedzīvotāji”. Latvijas Arhīvi 2: 35–60. Ceplīte R. 1968. “XV–XVI gs. Livonijas monētu depozīts Ružinas ciemā (jaunākā – 1564. gada monēta)”. In. Latvijas PSR Vēstures muzejs. Raksti. Numismātika. Rīga: 7–110. Dāboliņš V. 2016. “Riga mint masters Georg Albrecht Hille (1700) and Johann Christian Hille (1700– 1701).” In. I. Leimus (ed.), Between Klaipeda and Turku. Decennary volume of the Association of Baltic Numismatists. Numismatica Baltica 1. Tallinn: 149–160. Ginzburg C. 1993. The cheese and the worms. Translated by John and Anne Tedeschi. Baltimore. Kivimäe J. 2003. “Women, the Devil, and a Cat’s Head: The Trial of Anna and Tobbe Mall in Reval, 1594”. Journal of Baltic Studies 34/3: 249–275. Leimus I. 1984. “Jakob Richerdes’ myntningsaffär i Finland och i Reval”. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 2: 107–122. Leimus I. 2010. “How did mintmaster Leinhart Pauwermann die?”. Suomen museo 117: 84–85. Leistikow A. 1996. Baltisches Silber. Lüneburg. Napiersky J.G.L. 1876. Die Quellen des Rigischen Stadtrechts bis zum Jahr 1673. Riga Pihlajamäki H. 2017. Conquest and the Law in swedish Livonia (Ca. 1630–1710). Leiden. Platbārzdis A. 1968. Die Königliche Schwedische Münze in Livland. Stockholm Sarkkinen H. 2016. “Meinhard der Lar’s counterfeiting in Reval (Tallin) 1568?”. In. I. Leimus (ed.), Be- tween Klaipeda and Turku. Decennary volume of the Association of Baltic Numismatists. Numismatica Baltica 1. Tallinn: 139–148. Stieda W., Mettig C. 1896. Schragen der Gilden und Aemter der Stadt Riga bis 1621. Riga. Vaska B. 2017. Rotas un ornaments Latvijā no 13. gs. līdz 18. gs. vidum. Rīga. Zeida Ā. 1967. Algotais darbaspēks Rīgas cunftu amatniecībā feodālisma laikā (14. gs. otrā puse – 19. gs. vidus). Manuskripta I un II daļas kserokopijas, 1967. Rīgas vēstures un kuģniecības muzeja Zinātniskais arhīvs, Nr. 1333 un 1370 (I un II daļa). (Thesis manuscript, kept at the Museum of the History of Riga and Navigation ) We would like to present nine articles by young researchers from Italy, Bulgaria, Austria, Latvia, and Poland concerning particular aspects of numismatics. The present publication is a summary of the Fourth International Numismatic and Economic Conference Pecunia Omnes Vincit held at the Emeryk Hutten-Czapski Museum and Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, 12-13 May 2017.

The articles direct the reader’s attention to various issues involving aspects of numismatics such as propaganda, coin finds, circulation, forgery, and economics. The subject matter of this publication focuses mostly on aspects of antiquity, mediaeval and new ages periods.

ISBN: 978-83-954337-0-2