ZFs (J5S---{1fj9r)

THE STRUCTURE OF ROMAN IMPORT IN SLOVAKIA
E. Krekovic
Since the time of Eggers there has been a remarkable
increase of the number of Roman imports in Slovakia.
While Eggers refers to 56 sites and several dozens of
objects of Roman provenance, up to now more than 200
sites have yielded about 2,000 pieces of Roman goods this
number does not include coarse pottery. However,
many objects come from sites where more archeological
research of which may bring to light even more fmds of
Roman imports.
The fmds of pottery are numerically the most frequent
among the imported Roman material in Slovakia. They
come almost solely from settlement-sites, grave-finds are
rare. This applies to terra sigillata as well as to other types
of pottery. Especially the settlement-sites in the southwest
region of Slovakia that formerly adjoining the border ofthe
Roman Empire have each yielded several dozens or even
hundreds of fragments of ceramic vessels each. Sites with
fmds of terra sigillata correspond geographically more or
less with sites refered to in connection with other types of
Roman pottery, they only differ in their numbers. Up to the
present time 1125 fragments of terra sigillata have been
found at 134 sites, i.e. an average of 8.4 fragments per site.
In view of the area of the territory being under
consideration this number represents the highest
concentrations within the whole barbaricum including the
Sarmatian territory.
Finds of other types of pottery have not been evaluated
quantitatively but it is obvious that there are thousands of
fragments representing almost each type of pottery found in
the province of Pannonia. Particularly the coarse pottery
provides the best evidence for contacts between barbarians
and the Roman Empire as well as for their intensity. It did
not belong to long-distance trade articles and the
borderland was supplied with it through Roman markets.
Moreover, some vessel forms seem to have been produced
by Roman potters merely to satisfy the needs and taste of
customers from beyond the border. This applies first of all
to so called 'RingschUssel' - a very popular vessel shape
within barbaricum. The fact that pottery has been
discovered at all settlement·sites indicates its widespread
use in every day life. Its various types and vessel shapes
cannot be dated precisely in most cases but there is no
doubt that after the building of the limes had been
completed in the end of the Ist century, the amount of
Roman pottery in barbaricum began to increase. Pottery especially
glazed mortaria - represents almost the only kind
of Roman ware that is found at barbarian sites up to the
beginning ofthe 5th century.
Other kinds of Roman imports have been revealed first
of all through excavations of cemeteries. However
numerically frequent the fmds might appear, the number of
these objects does not correspond with their real
distribution in barbarian environment for several reasons:
1.	 Bronze objects that did not get into graves were
probably melted down (in case they had been broken)
and used as a raw material designed for production of
accessories like brooches, belt-buckles etc.
2.	 The Late Roman Period is chfu-acterized by , the
reduction of grave inventory. Roman imports almost
cease to occur among the. grave-goods (with the
exception of richly furnished burials). Yet the finds of
pottery that may be ascribed to this period provide
evidence of continuing contacts with the Roman
Empire.
3.	 The archeological research of settlement-sites and
publication of finds falls behind
cemeteries.
Bronze vessels are the most numerous
Roman imports. Together with a small
objects coming from settlements 356
the research of
grave-finds of all
amount of these
pieces of bronze
vessels have been discovered at 25 sites in the Slovak
territory this is, on the average, 14.3 pieces per site (the
ladle-strainer-set counts for one vessel). This is a rather
high n~ber in comparison with other regions of
barbaricum. The fact that about 70% of all bronze ve:;sels
has been found in the three cemeteries situated close to
each other Abraham, Sladkovi~ovo and Kostolna (Kolnik
1980) makes it even more exceptional. This cannot be
interpreted as a coincidence, because precisely these three
cemeteries are situated in the centre of so called Vannius
client-kingdom in the southwestern part of Slovakia. The
last one is the richest site, considering the amount of
imports in proportion to the number ofgraves (Tab. 4.1).
In Kostolna 115 imports have been discovered in 68 graves
i.e. an average number of 1.69 find per grave. The most
numerous, as was mentioned above, were the bronze
vessels: an average of one vessel per grave. However, only
234	 E. Krekovic
55.9% of all graves contained imports. Among these,
graves with weapons show the highest concentration of
such finds suggesting that especially burials of warrior class
members were furnished with imported Roman goods. The
same applies also to the other two cemeteries.
Tab. 4.1 Numbers ofRoman imports in three
cemeteries in Southwest Slovakia
No.
of imports
No.
ofgraves
Average
number
Kostolna 1,15 68 1.69
Sladkovirovo 101 88 1.14
Abraham 150 238 0.63
A slightly smaller number of imports (101) has been found
at Sladkovi~ovo - 1.14 on average. Only 34.1% of all
graves contained objects of Roman provenance. The
highest number of Roman imports comes from Abraham
(150) - yet only from 15.7% of all graves, i.e. on average
0.63 object per grave.
The distribution of Roman imports may represent an
indicator ofsocial differentiation in the members ofsociety,
buried in these three cemeteries. The most richly furnished
graves contained five and more Roman imports, especially
bronze vessels. However, objects of Germanic provenance
are more numerous. The fact, however, that mentioned
cemeteries are characterized by cremation graves and,
moreover, that the richest among them contain weapons
does not allow to label them as chieftains' graves. In the
territory of Slovakia such graves are situated outside large
cremation cemeteries and they are exclusively inhumation
graves.
Among other kinds of imports, brooches are the most
frequent. Fifty-seven sites have yielded 253 items - that
means 4.4 per site. Other types ofRoman imports are not so
numerous (Tab. 4.2).
Tab. 4.2 Number ofvarious Roman imports in Slovakia
No.
o(pieces
No.
o(sites
Average
number
Terra sigillata 1,125 134 8.4
Bronze vessels 356 25 14.3
Brooches 253 57 4.4
Glass vessels 70 31 2.3
Glass beads 60 25 2.4
Militaria 29 13 2.2
Tab. 4.2 does not include categories that do not exceed 15
pieces - such as silver vessels, noric-pannonic belt-sets and
pottery lamps to mention the most important ones. Only
small numbers of various types of jewelry and other
artifacts have been found, although some of them represent
unique examples of craftmanship. This applies especially to
bronze tripods, a massive golden bracelet and an alabaster
vase.
In view of the size of the Slovak territory, the
concentration of Roman imports in Slovakia is
considerable. Moreover, most of the finds are concentrated
in the southwestern part of Slovakia, that means close to the
border of the Roman Empire. In connection with this fact
the above-mentioned data become even more interesting.
However, the evaluation of Roman import in terms of
political geography of modem states may not be quite
correct. It is better to focus on archeological cultures or
ethnic groups. In this respect, the attention should be
directed to the territory of Southwest Slovakia, the centre of
the area settled by Germanic Quadi. The question is
whether the concentration of objects of Roman provenance
in this area is connected with the proximity of the limes or
whether there are also other factors playing a role in the
distribution of Roman import within this territory. It seems
that the phenomenon could be enlightened if the following
facts are considered:
I.	 The comparison of regions adjoining the limes leads to
the conclusion that Roman imports were not distributed
equally among them. With the exception of the
southwestern part of Slovakia, there is only a small area
situated opposite the legionary fortresses of Novaesium
and Colonia Agrippina, where a significant concentration
of bronze and glass vessels can be observed
(Kunow 1983, 174, 178, 179; Lund-Hansen 1987, 185).
The proximity of the border itself does not inevitably
imply the concentration of imports.
2.	 Long-distance trade was directed to the centres of
barbarian power or to client-kingdoms. The existence of
such formations provided the barbarians an access to
Roman markets and enabled them to profit from the
long-distance trade.
3.	 Considerable amounts of imported goods imply a high
population-density. This applies also to the territory of
southwestern Slovakia. It has been proven by finds of
numerous sites from prehistoric periods. Favourable
circwnstances - fertile plains and abundance of water
sources - resulted in a considerably high population­
density.
4.	 One of the most important trade routes - the Amber
route -led accross the territory ofthe Quadi.
5.	 Rivers running from the barbarian territory into the
Danube provided an advantageous connection with the
Roman Empire.
6.	 Legionary fortresses (Camuntum and Brigetio) situated
in close proximity to this area represented at the same
time big centres ofproduction and commerce.
In comparison with other regions adjoining the border of
the Roman Empire, the unique simultaneous coexistence of
all of these factors had brought about. a considerable
increase concentration of Roman imports in the southwest
of Slovak territory.
The structure ofRoman import in Slovakia 235
"
,
''''.-.
I
~J''-'' r'".J ,..
.I" .
'''-. -"- 'vI "
"
' . 0
?/"d .......
"­~ ~ I ":
/
/
(
/
Fig.4.6 Sites with Roman import in Slovakia.
As regards the ways of distribution of Roman imports most barbarian authorities whenever their negotiations took
modem archeologists admit accept that what is referred to place. This mechanism of 'displacement' will have been
as exchange and trade is in fact only a manifestation of especially relevant within the border of barbarian territory:
various ways of distribution of artifacts revealed by it could have been one of the ways that enabled the Roman
archeological methods. Therefore some authors prefer the goods to more over considerable distances. It is, however,
term 'displacement' to the word 'trade' (Needham 1993, difficult to prove that fact by archeological means. In view
162). ofthe wide-spread custom of reciprocal exchange observed
Though the above-mentioned problem is outside the in numbers of communities studied by ethnologists, the role
scope of this paper I would like to direct attention to one of of the direct commercial contacts between Roman
its aspects, using modem economic criteria in the study of merchants and barbarians seems to be overestimated to
barbarian communities. Behavior of these communities did some degree.
not always correspond with rational or economic principles. Even if there is evidence for the presence of Roman
It was influenced by various rituals as also the ethnologic merchants in a Germanic context (according to Tacitus'
literature proclaims. Ritually conditioned commercial links reports) their activities took place mainly in centres I of
can be assumed to have existed in barbarian society 9uring barbarian power or along the long-distance trade routes. A
the Roman Age, especially in its earlier phases~ Such dense network of trade routes in barbaricum used by
relations must have been exposed to changes, mainly due Roman merchants is not presumed to have existed, though
the economic influence of the Roman Empire. These the distribution of some Roman imports would be in favour
changes can be expected to have impinged first of all upon of this idea. In my opinion the Romans offered their goods
the borderland., in the course of the life of two or three in some local centres situated in the first contact zone and
generations. In the territory far beyond the frontier the from there they were distributed by other means. The
changes must have occurred later and their intensity reciprocal exchange of gifts - within one community or in
decreased with the distance from the border. This does not relation to its interaction with other communities is
only apply to the use of Roman coins but the changes presumably the most common mechanism. It is not so
affected the whole of life of barbarian society and thus also important to find out exactly which events were connected
the traditional relationships within barbarian communities. with such an exchange of gifts. This could hardly be
One such traditional links is represented also by the ascertained by archeological means. In case of regular
reciprocal exchange of gifts, residues of which can still be gatherings, the reciprocal exchange might have reached a
seen even in modem societies. A thorough analysis of this considerable volume. According to Renfrew (1993, 9) such
phenomenon was published by a French sociologist Maus gatherings have been observed in almost every human
(1970, orig. 1924) some 70 years ago. The exchange of community. However, there are also other ways of
gifts was presumably also practised between Roman and interaction of bigger or smaller communities that could
236 E. Krekovic
have resulted in an exchange of gifts. I do not propose this Bronze- und Glassgellissen. G5ttinger Schriften zur
to be the only means of distribution of Roman products Vor- und Fruhgeschichte 21, NeumOnster.
within barbarian territory. But it is surely one of the Lund-Hansen, D., 1987. R5mischer Import im Norden.
possible alternatives for the uncritical use of modem Warenaustausch zwischen dem ROmischen Reich und
economic principles in the study of barbarian communities. dem freien Germanien unter besonderer Berilcksichtigung
Nordeuropas, Kobenhavn.
Bibliography Mauss, M., 1970. The Gift, London.
Needham, S., 1993. Displacemant and exchange in
Kolnfk, T., 1980. R5merzeitliche Gr!iberfelder in del' archeological methodology, in: Trade and Exchange in
Siowakei, Bratislava. Prehistoric Europe, Oxford, 161-169.
Kunow, J., 1983, Del' r5mische Import in del' Germania Renfrew, C., 1993. Trade beyond the Material, in: Trade
libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen. Studien zu and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxford, 5-16.