MEDITERRANEAN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
IN LATE IRON AGE
(LT C2–LT D)
LTC1 – archeologically visible burials
disappeared in most of Central Europe
 from mid 3rd till 1st c. BC we have no idea
what they did with the bodies….
LT B–C1 cemeteries
LT C2–D cemeteries
In LT C2–D (II–I century BC), LT culture
stabilized itself in greater part of temperate
Europe from the Pyrenes and Atlantic coast
to the Carpathians
Until late 20th century, European archaeology
distinguished…
… a Middle La Tène ‚flat grave period‘ (low social
complexity, no central settlements, stress on burial
evidence)
….and a Late La Tène ‚oppida period‘ (appearance of
massive fortified central settlements, colonisation of new
regions, huge technological and economic surge…).
-the seeming sudden transition and radical change from one
of these phases to the other gave rise to hypotheses that it
was due to strong cultural impact from the Mediterranean
(e.g. Boii migrating from Italy… :~/ )
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
LT A
LT B1
LT B2
LT C1
LT C 2
LT D
OPPIDA
Moreover…
1) written sources clearly talk about massive presence of Celts in the Mediterranean in the III BC
2) some III BC innovations of the period are clearly of Mediterranean origin (coinage), other were
declared of Mediterranean origin through circular argument… in some cases it was confirmed by
later research (two-chambre pottery kiln certainly came from Greece… but not necessarily reintroduction
of potter‘s wheel), other are only unconfirmed proposals (e.g. change in bronze
smelting technology)
FLATGRAVES
Celtic invasion
of Greece
The discoveries of the early 21st century showed that it was all
a little more complicated: there was a key transitional phase of
‚pre-oppida period‘ in mid-III–II century BC and the role of
Mediterranean on the transformations was not inexistent but
not as direct as originally imagined.
PRE-OPPIDA
period
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
LT A
LT B1
LT B2
LT C1
LT C 2
LT D
-PRINCELY BURIALS
-SOUTHERN IMPORTS
-CELTIC EXPANSION
-FLAT BURIALS
-END OF BURIALS
-AGLOMERATIONS
-TECHNOLOGIES AND COINS
-OPPIDA
LT C1
LT C 2
LT D
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
LT C–D is characterised by radical transformation of
settlement pattern with sudden reappearance of
central settlements
→ unfortified lowland agglomerations in LT C1–C2
→ fortified hilltop settlements („oppida“) in LT C2–D
-in both cases they cover surfaces of dozens (or
hundreds of) hectars
-both concentrated crafts, trade, and central functions
III–I c. BC LT agglomerations
in Europe (some of them)
Manching
Němčice n.H.
Lacoste
Roseldorf
Nowa
Cerekwia
Bobigny
Principally LT C–C2
Principally LT C2–D
Manching
Roseldorf
Němčice nad Hanou
Nowa Cerekwia
„the amber route corridor“
Manching
Roseldorf
Němčice nad Hanou
Nowa Cerekwia
Manching
-development from a LT C agglomeration to a LT D
oppidum (after a rampart was built in II/I BC)
Already in the LT C phase, the inner
area of Manching was densely
built-up with imposing buildings
and a unitary street grid defining
the orientation of all buildings
The unitary street/building
orientation was maintained
throughout Manching‘s existence.
The orientation was changed
several times by a few degrees
resulting in rebuilding the entire
central part of the settlement
according to the new grid.
Manching – central sanctuary
-in the centre of the settlement throughout its existence
-the shifts of urban grid correspond with orientation of different phases of
the sanctuary (apparently it will also be the reference point for the later
plannig of the rampart)
Manching – central sanctuary
-the findspot of a model tree made of sheet gold
-tree models made of metal did appear in Mediterranean sanctuaries
-the technology of making vegetal elements out of sheet gold has direct
analogies in the Greek world
Roseldorf
-Sandberg
- 40 ha
- LT B2/C1–C2 (probable continuity to LT D is not well defined)
- >1500 coins (officially discovered but unpublished + thousands unofficially
discovered coins… also unpublished if you wondered)
- 3 cult areas (which is the only thing that is excavated)
Sanctuaries = square enclosures with ditches around
-remains of collective banquets = places of ritual feasting
-human and horse remains, weaponry and chariot parts
=> Sacrificed spoils of war
Němčice nad Hanou
-36 ha
-LT B2/C1–C2 (no LT D continuity)
-geophysics, surface survey (legal and
mostly illegal), not a single exacavation
-occupation around an open central area
-a series of enclosures (sanctuaries?)
along one side
-1200 published coins (ca 20 000 – 30 000
discovered coins, most of them lost)
(more on them later)
-massive evidence of bronze working
all over the settlement
- production waste
-insanely rich collection of bronze
artefacts, most of them probably
locally produced
-belt elements…….
...brooches…
...and animal figurines :~)
- over 500 fragments of
glass bracelets which makes
Němčice the second richest
site in this regard in
transalpine Europe
-numerous finds of raw
glass and glass production
waste all over the
settlement
Middle Danube agglomerations and glass working
Nowa Cerekwia
Němčice
Roseldorf
What‘s all this fuss about glass?
-a characteristic innovation of
LT C1 is production of
ornaments made of colourful
glass – bracelets, beads, finger-
rings
-glass production is
documented in all the LT C
agglomerations
https://cas-
cz.academia.edu/NatalieVen
clov%C3%A1
Btw. For anything concerning
LT glass there is Natalie
Venclová in the Institute of
Archaeology in Letenská!
Seamless glass bracelets are
characteristically LT ornament
with no formal or technological
parallels in the Mediterranean or
elsewhere.
Their production required mastering complex set of specialised skills which are not useful for anything more reasonable…
https://cas-cz.academia.edu/Jo%C3%ABlleRolland
…. So much so that modern glassworkers
have not been able to
replicate some the bracelet types even
after ten years of attempts.
=> LT C society allowed for such an
extreme degree of specialisation of
individuals who produced objects of
symbolic value at the best => there was
sufficient subsistence surplus and
sufficient demand for the (useless)
products
https://www.academia.edu/36697378/Rolland_J.
_2017_-
_Tracing_the_skills_and_identifying_masterpiec
es_in_Celtic_glass-
making_specialization_through_Haevernick_gro
up_15_in_J._Kysela_A._Danielisov%C3%A1_J._Mili
tk%C3%BD_eds._Stories_that_made_the_Iron_A
ge._Studies_in_the_Iron_Age_Archaeology_dedi
cated_to_Natalie_Venclov%C3%A1_p.101-_109
Their production required mastering complex set of specialised skills which are not useful for anything more reasonable…
Moreover, all the raw material must have
been imported from the Mediterranean
since the chemical composition of the
glass proofs that it all came from Egypt.
+ three shipwrecks in southern France and
Sardinia demonstrate that hundreds of
kilos of raw glass was actually being
imported to Gaul (we have no idea how it
got to central Europe).
=> Apart from craft specialisation there
must have been enormous trade going on,
of which there are no other traces.
Lequin 2
Sanguinaires A
III/II aC – 1 ton of glass
Su Pallosu
III/ – 20 kg (?) of glass
daVenclová2016
The earliest types of glass
ornaments concentrated in the
Middle Danube region between
Moravia, Eastern Austria,
Western Slovakia and Northern
Hungary
Only in a second phase glassworking
spread also to Bavaria,
Bohemia and Western Austria
Introduction of coinage in central Europe
-all coinages of temperate Europe were imitations of different Mediterranean coinages
-as a rule, several coinages of the same region followed the same model (cf. the map)
-silver coinages were represented in a strip from the Carpathian basin through Northern Italy to southern France while
gold or bimetallic coinages prevailed in the area going from Slovakia to the Atlantic coast
In Central Europe, two (or three) coinages coexisted
in the pre-oppida period:
-the „Boii coinage“ in Moravia, NE Austria, Bohemia
and Silesia (Au + Ag)
-the „Vindelician coinage“ in Bavaria (Au + Ag)
(+ Carpathian basin is a different gallaxy: large,
exclusively silver coins)
Btw: nobody believes nowadays that the coinages
have anything to do with Boii or Videlici – they are
just residues or research history…
from Militký 2018
The first coins in Central Europe
were staters type Athena-Nike,
imitating the coins of Alexander
the Great => post-336/323 BC (1st
half of the III BC???)
-Only staters = heavy (8,5 gr) gold
coins
=> Surely not intended for
everyday transactions but rather
for large payments, for hoarding
and for prestige ends
-Identical motif (Athene/Nike) but
a huge variety of execution
-widespread in the entire central
Europe
=> presumably issued by
numerous authorities
(individuals?) in the entire area
At the latest in early LT C1, two monetary
systems clearly emerged, replacing the
Athena/Nike staters:
- the Athena Alkidemos coinage in Moravia,
Austria and Silesia
- the Bohemian local issues in Bohemia
(Bavaria followed later on)
Athena Alkidemos  the principal motif was taken over from
Macedonian issues of Antigonos Gonatas (post 277 BC) depicting
the statue of Athena (not sure that whoever carved the dies
understood that the figure was supposed to be a female….)
stater
1/3
stater
1/8
stater
1/24
stater
drachma
obolos
Athena Alkidemos coinage was a complex monetary system consisiting of six
or seven denominations in two metals
stater
1/3
stater
1/8
stater
1/24
stater
drachma
obolos
The seemingly weird denominations are in reality a mathematically perfect
system allowing any sum to be payed with the smallest amount of coins.
-the coins were from the very first moment massively present in all
settlements in the area
-(tens of) thousands of coins were issued slightly losing weight over
time => the coins circulate and function entirely as economic tools
There is a lot to say about AA coinage. For whoever is interested, the paper below is
very good:
https://studiahercynia.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/sites/79/2018/07/Tomas_Smely_40-
80.pdf
stater
1/3
stater
1/8
stater
1/24
stater
drachma
obolos
 The AA coinage was a unitary system, devised as such and consciously forced
upon society which previously had no idea what a coin is… and managed to fully
monetise its economy over the course of a single generation.
 The system was shared by the entire Amber road area and developed along the
same pace in the entire area over several decades.
By contrast, Bohemia in the same
period was a total mess: the same
system, the same denominations but
dozens of coin types are documented,
rarely the entire denomination series.
=> Numerous petty authorities and
marginal significance in comparison
with Moravia and Austria
https://www.academia.edu/10892786/Natalie_Venclov%C3%A1_-
_Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Militk%C3%BD_2014_Glass-
making_coinage_and_local_identities_in_the_Middle_Danube_region_in_the_third_and_secon
d_centuries_B.C
Glass production regions and early coinages
overlap representing clear foci of social and
cultural development in LT C1.
Roseldorf
Waldalgesheim
Breisach Hochstetten
Hurbanovo
Manching
Teurnia
München
Obermenzing
Mannersdorf
Szob
PřítlukyStebno
IV–III/II century imports in
central Europe are few and
– having probably arrived by
complicated and individual
itineraries – do not say
much by themselves…
(btw. the imports from
Roseldorf are a grape pip
and dill seed).
The only category which may
help us understand something
are coins.
In Němčice nad Hanou, there
are 76 Mediterranean coins out
of the 1070 published pieces
218-197 B.C.
170-168 B.C.
1. NěmčiceThese finds were interpreted by H.Chr.
Noeske as coins brought back by
mercenaries coming back from the
Second Punic War and from the 6th
Syrian war
https://www.academia.edu/3618161/%C4%8Ci%C5%BE
m%C3%A1%C5%99_M._Koln%C3%ADkov%C3%A1_E._No
eske_H.-CH._N%C4%9Bm%C4%8Dice-
V%C3%ADcem%C4%9B%C5%99ice_ein_neues_Handels
-
_und_Industriezentrum_der_Latenezeit_in_M%C3%
A4hren._Germania_86_2008_655-700
I disagree as I will try to explain…
https://www.academia.edu/35260554/Sitos_chr%C3
%A9mata_Chaklos_eikona_K_%C5%99eck%C3%BDm_
minc%C3%ADm_ve_st%C5%99edn%C3%AD_Evrop%C4
%9B_mlad%C5%A1%C3%AD_doby_%C5%BEelezn%C3%A
9_Sitos_khr%C3%A9mata_Khalkos_eikona_On_Gree
k_coins_in_central_Europe_in_the_Late_Iron_Age_
Period_
681 coins
45 regions
97 cities
54 sovereigns
pracovníoblastri
Bohemia
(almost)
complete
data
incomplete
data
(=> sampled)
insufficient
data
(=> excluded)
The principal problem is, that Noeske completely overlooked the (quite
numerous) Greek (and akin) coins elsewhere in central Europe
-by the way comparison with northen Italy will come in handy
Africa /Numidia
Punics
west
Greek Sicily
Magna
Graecia
Greece
and
Thrace
Orient
Etruria
The coins can be
distinguished according
to their provenance
17%
11%
1%
4%
3%
20%
22%
22%
Němčice [76]
1%
23%
16%
1%
4%
3%
17%
26%
8%
NE Italy (4th–mid 2nd BC) [213]
1%
26%
16%
5%9%
3%1%
14%
19%
6%
NE Italy [319]
1%
19%
20%
4%
3%
1%
17%
20%
15%
middle Danube – Eastern Alps [143]
3%
24%
26%
10%
8%
16%
3% 10%
SE Germany /
Upper Austria [38]
34%
5%39%
3% 5%
11%
3%
Bohemia [38]
-the coin spectrum of Němčice is clearly very similar
to that of the Middle Danube/east Alpine area
but also to that of Northern Italy!
-the differences can be explained by chronological
reasons
-southern Germany is still relatively similar to the
other areas while Bohemia is completely
different
I = NE Italy
T = Transalpine Area
Pt I
Pt II
Pt III
Pt IV
Pt V
Pt VI
Pt VI /Pt
IV
Pt IV-Pt
VIII
Pt VIII
Pt IX
Pt X
nebo
násl.
Pt X + kl
III
Pt XII
kl VII
0
5
10
15
20
25
I
T
The similarity between
central Europe and Italy is
reflected also in more
detailed comparison of the
individual issuers:
-in Ptolemaic coins, the best
represented rulers match in
both areas….
Arpi
Brundisium
Cales
Canusium
Graxa
Herakleia
Kroton
Locri Epizephyrii
Metapont
Neapolis
Paestum
Rhegion
Suessa
Tarent
Teate
Thurii
Valentia
Velia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
I
T
I = NE Italy
T = Transalpine Area…as do the better
represented cities of Magna
Graecia…
Dionysios I?
Timoleon
Pyrrhos
Agathokles
Hiketás
Hieron II
Hieron II?
Roma
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
I
T
2. Greek coins in Central Europe and NE ItalyI = NE Italy
T = Transalpine Area…the individual issuers of
the very numerous
Syracusan coins….
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
I
T
2. Greek coins in Central Europe and NE ItalyI = NE Italy
T = Transalpine Area
…and the few Greek cities
that are represented by more
than one coin ….
Alexandros II
Filippos II
Alexandros III
Alexandros III?
Filippos III Arrhidaios
Kassandros
Démétrios Poliorkétés
Antigonos Gonatas
Alexandros IV
Filippos V
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
I
2. Greek coins in Central Europe and NE ItalyI = NE Italy
T = Transalpine AreaThe single significant
dissonance are Macedonian
coins which are much more
common in Central Europe
than in Italy.
?
?
2nd–1st c. BC
3rd–2nd c. BC
4th c. BC
=> The Greek coins probably came to Central Europe in three waves:
-first, Macedonian coins arrived via the Balkans in late IV /
early III century BC (~ Macedonian models of local coinage)
-then a bunch of different coins from the entire
Mediterranean via Italy in III/II century
-the II–I century wave is not interesting for us now
The coins spectra of the second
phase are so similar in Italy and in
different parts of central Europe,
that the coins most likely crossed
the Alps not as single pieces but
in bulk.
Sounds weird? What‘s even
weirder, most of them are of
bronze, not Ag or Au… why to
import bronze?
1) Because bronze is a metal and it has its value anyway?
(the Celts in Northern Italy used bronze as Charon‘s obolus down to the II–I BC)
Why bronze coins?
Afr
21%
Egy
3%
It_Sic_Gr
1%
Pun
58%
Rm
4%
other
3% AE
11%
Vrankamen (190)
Egy
3%
It_Gr / Sic_Gr
1%
Pun
33%
Afr
22%
Rm
3%
AE
38%
Mazin (1617)
Mdtrrn coins from Němčice = 810 g of bronze much
favoured are the huuuuuuuuuge Ptolemaic pieces
2) Because bronze is a metal and therefore was imported as raw material?
e.g. in Dalmatia, hundreds of bronze coins were hoarded along with raw bronze in the II–I BC
Why bronze coins?
3) And what if they did not care (only) about the metal but (also) about the image?
Why bronze coins?
-LT C1/C2 was a key period also in LT art which after centuries
of abstraction and hidden meanings suddendly found
appreciation for images
Don‘t forget that the coins come from the same site which
produced also an impressive collection of bronze ducks which
stand right mid-way the good old LT art and the horrible ends it
will take in the II–I BC.
After all, this democratisation of image is another aspect of the
LT C social transformations
https://www.academia.edu/39772542/the_Celts_2018_2019_-
_La_T%C3%A8ne_Art
p. 151–155
The best example of it is this guy from cca the same period
I don‘t like him and will tell you nothing more about him :~)
→the „Němčice horizon“ = a middle out of three chronological horizons of the influx of Greek coins to central Europe
→ the majority (or all) of the coins of the Němčice horizon came to Central Europe through NE Italy
→ there is no proof that the coins movement across the Alps ilustrates specific historical events
(no more Boii and no more mercenaries please ….)
→ a new life of the imported coins in the Transalpine area → local movement and a (new?) specific function
THE OPPIDA PERIOD
mid-II–I century BC
Roman occupation of Po valley
foundation of Aquileia
the Cimbri and Teutons campaign
Norican king with Caesar against Pompey
Roman conquest of the Alps
Roman conquest of southern Gaul
Gallic war
Boii attack at Noreia
Suebi (Ariovist) invasion of E Gaul
Boii decimated by the Dacians
190 BC
181 BC
122-118 BC
113-102 BC
before 58 BC
before 58 BC
58–50 BC
49 BC
40‘s BC
35 BC
15 BC
FACTS
conquest of Illyricum and Pannonia by Octavian
RELEVANT
CONJECTURES
-establishing contacts
between Rome and the
eastern Alps and NE Balkans
-establishment of political
links between Rome and
Haedui in Gaul
IRELEVANT
CONJECTURES
-resettlement of the Boii from
Italy to Bohemia (we have
discussed it sufficiently)
-Any details of whence, where,
when, and why whoever was
moving.
the Cimbri and Teutones
Germanic (?) peoples from
Danemark / N Germany/?
defeated by the Boii in the
„Hercynian forest“ and
driven to the Balkans
113 BC defeating the Romans
at Noreia
→ towards the Helveti and
to Gaul
109, 107, 105 BC – defeating
Romans in Gaul
→ campaign to Spain and
Italy
102, 102 BC – finally defeated
by Gaius Marius in
battles of Aquae Sextiae
and Vercelli
Boii?
Noreia
113 BC
Boii?
Boii?
‚the Boii who dwell beyond the Rhine,
were crossing (the Danube?) to Noricum
and who (had?) beseiged Noreia‘ joined
the Helvetii who tried to migrate to
western Gaul in order to avoid the
Germans (threatening Roman allies the
Haedui).
Boii?
Boii?
Boii?
the German Suebi
lead by Ariovistus
occupied eastern
Gaul
Germans push
the Celts out
beyond the
Rhine
We learn about the events of 58
BC (and slightly before) thanks
to the first book of Caesar‘s Gallic
Wars (but read it aware of his
propagandistic interests)
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex
t?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001
Haedui
-Rome was politically fully involved in Gaul (close relations with Haedui but also with Ariovistus!)
-Caesar needed to :
1) justify his deeds with protection of interests of Rome
- protecting Roman allies (Haedui, Norici)
- preventing problems in the Roman sphere of interest (and why not also enlarging it?)
2) Glorify his exploits by conquering the entire Gaul
-constant mentions of tense relations between Celts and Germans = fearmongering recalling the only Germans the
Romans had encountered – the Cimbri. By driving the germanic threat from Gaul he made himself a new
Marius.
-by contrasting Gaul with the („Germanic“) territories beyond the Rhine he himself defined the Gaul to conquer and
did not need to worry about the rest (it is not at all sure, it is even unlikely that a distinction between Gaul and
„Germany“ existed beforehand for the Gauls themselves)
-Boii were represented as threat because they (incidentally) endanger Roman interests in Noricum and Gaul, otherwise
Caesar doesn‘t care much about them
=> The Roman sphere of interests involved Gaul and eastern Alps. The Romans were somewhat aware of central
Europe but did not care much (yet).
Archaeology of Late La Tène period in Central Europe
-over LT C2, the occupation spread to previously
unoccupied territories
-a series of fortified hill-top settlements of entirely
new type – oppida – was established (in Bohemia they
mostly concentrate in the southern half of the country
Between LT C2 and LT D2, oppida
appeared in most of LT Europe
though with a significant
variability from region to region
in terms of typology, chronology,
material culture, etc.
http://oppida.org/
In early 1900s Joseph
Déchelette first realised the
striking similarity of material
culture between several
European fortified sites,
defining thus a „civilisation
des oppida“.
Currently we tend to see
more diversity within the LT
Europe than Déchelette but
still admit that much of the
phenomenon is very similar
throughout Europe.
Blah blah blah blah oppida
Blah bla oppidum blah
oppidorum blah blah …..
-hill-top site
-fortified
-of at least 5/10 /25
/30 hectars
-dated to LT C2–D
-with…
…centrale functions
… concentration of
inhabitants, cratfs and
trade
… coin production
-the word is taken from Caesar meaning simply „town“
-in archaeological usage it became a very specific technical
term whose criteria may vary from region to region (and
from archaeologist to archaeologist)
-not all „archaelogical oppida“ correspond with „Caesar‘s
oppida“ … many archaeologists do not realize it (Caesar
doesn‘t care)
Oppida – the problems:
1) definition
Oppida – the problems:
2) too much focus
on them
-mainly in the 20th century all research attention was dedicated to the oppida, while other settlement forms were
ignored (including agglomerations, some of which could be called „oppida“ by Caesar)
Hill-top site
LT C1 LT C2 LT D1a LT
D1b
LT
D2a
LT
D2b
Berry
Châteaumeillant A O O O
-Levroux les Arénes
-Levroux Tour
A A
O O O
Auvergne
Varennes sur allier A A
-Aulnat
-Corent
-Gergovie
-Gondole
A A
O O O
O
O
Central-Eastern. France
-Avallon „Damoiseau“ A A
-Avallon/Aballo O O
-Bibracte
-Sources de l‘Yonne
o O O O
A
-Chalon – Lux
-Chalon – St. Rémy
a A A a
A
-Verdun – Le Bourg
-Verdun – Petit Chauvrot
a
- Mâcon
- Varennes-lès-Mâcon
-Saint-Symphorien
o O O
A
A
Besançon + a O O O O
Upper Rhine
-Breisach Hochstetten
-Breisach Münsterberg
A A A A
V
-Basel Gasfabrik
- Basel Münsterhügel
A A A ?
? V
- Tarodunum
-Zarten-Rotacker
O
A A
oppidum
agglomération occupation
Thuringia
Gleichberg + O O O
Jüchsen a? A? A? A?
Moravia
Němčice A A
Staré Hradisko O O O
Middle Danube
Oberleiserberg V V V V
Roseldorf A A a A
Thunau am Kamp
A a
V V
Bratislava O O
LT C1 LT C2 LT D1a LT
D1b
LT
D2
southern Bavaria
Manching A A O O Kelheim
? ? O O Berching-Pollanten
A A A A Egglfing
A A a a a
A A A A
Fentbachschanze ? ? O O
Steinebach A A A A
Bohemia
Lovosice A A A A
Mšec 1 a a
Mšecké Žehrovice ++ ++ +
Závist +? O O O
Stradonice +? +? O O
Hrazany O O O
Třísov O O O
České Lhotice O O
Oppida – the problems:
3) too diversified to
make sense
From region to region the
relation between oppida,
agglomerations and other
sites vary and so probably
did their function
Most oppida were newly founded in quite
peripherical areas (For better defensibility?
Access to raw materials?)
Bibracte – Mont Beuvray near Autun in Burgundy
Manching is atypical in most respects (but Manching is always special…)
-located in a fertile lowland
-an earlier agglomeration only secondarily enclosed by a rampart
-much of the enclosed area was left unoccupied…but the latter is
a common feature in all oppida
Manching
Stradonice
If there is one oppidum to know in Bohemia, it is Stradonice
Staré Hradisko
In Moravia the choice is much simpler: there is only one real
oppidum, Staré Hradisko
-oppida ramparts combined
timber and rubble stone in
purely transalpine tradition
with no Mediterranean
analogies or antecedants
(Btw. also from the
urbanistic point of view,
there is no link between
the oppida and
Mediterranean towns)
Even though newly founded, the
oppida were often located in
places of earlier Hallstatt period
hillforts, or settlements or with
Hallstatt period tumuli.
Often there are traces of LT B or
LT C human presence in the site of
future oppida.
 New foundations but clearly
with link to an earlier
occupation, perhaps even with
intentional ideological
exploitation or the tradition
linked with the site.
 All that is to say that no
Mediterranean impulse was
needed for oppida to be
devised.
Hill-top site
LT C1 LT C2 LT D1a LT
D1b
LT
D2a
LT
D2b
Berry
Châteaumeillant A O O O
-Levroux les Arénes
-Levroux Tour
A A
O O O
Auvergne
Varennes sur allier A A
-Aulnat
-Corent
-Gergovie
-Gondole
A A
O O O
O
O
Central-Eastern. France
-Avallon „Damoiseau“ A A
-Avallon/Aballo O O
-Bibracte
-Sources de l‘Yonne
o O O O
A
-Chalon – Lux
-Chalon – St. Rémy
a A A a
A
-Verdun – Le Bourg
-Verdun – Petit Chauvrot
a
- Mâcon
- Varennes-lès-Mâcon
-Saint-Symphorien
o O O
A
A
Besançon + a O O O O
Upper Rhine
-Breisach Hochstetten
-Breisach Münsterberg
A A A A
V
-Basel Gasfabrik
- Basel Münsterhügel
A A A ?
? V
- Tarodunum
-Zarten-Rotacker
O
A A
oppidum
agglomération occupation
Thuringia
Gleichberg + O O O
Jüchsen a? A? A? A?
Moravia
Němčice A A
Staré Hradisko O O O
Middle Danube
Oberleiserberg V V V V
Roseldorf A A a A
Thunau am Kamp
A a
V V
Bratislava O O
LT C1 LT C2 LT D1a LT
D1b
LT
D2
southern Bavaria
Manching A A O O Kelheim
? ? O O Berching-Pollanten
A A A A Egglfing
A A a a a
A A A A
Fentbachschanze ? ? O O
Steinebach A A A A
Bohemia
Lovosice A A A A
Mšec 1 a a
Mšecké Žehrovice ++ ++ +
Závist +? O O O
Stradonice +? +? O O
Hrazany O O O
Třísov O O O
České Lhotice O O
Btw. all the oppida in central Europe appeared
already in LT C2 (ca 150 BC) and last until LT D1b
(ca 50 BC) which is significantly earlier than in Gaul
(both in terms of appearance and abandon)
The coinages of the pre-oppida period…
…disappeared and were reaplced by
a new coin type, the „shell stater“
massively issued in southern part of
Bohemia (that‘s where all the oppida
emerged in this period)
The denomination system was still
that of the Athena Alkidemos only
with new abstract motifs.
It‘s the same stuff
everywhere….
Třísov
Stradonice
Staré Hradisko
Oberleiserberg
Bratislava
Žehuň
LT C = 8
LT D1 = 7 gr
LT D2 =6,5 gr
99–95 % Au Although the coins
progressively lost
weight (which is a sign
of functioning
economy), the purity
of gold was kept very
high all the time
(unlike e.g. Bavarian
coinage in which the
gold is much less
pure).
=> Apart from actual
coins, the „shell
staters coinage“ may
have been also
commodity i.e. minted
gold meant for export.
This hypothesis is supported by numerous finds of large hoards of
Bohemian coins discovered in a vast area from Alsace to Serbia
with one even in Tuscany.
MEDITERRANEAN AND THE TRANSALPINE EUROPE IN THE OPPIDA PERIOD
Gaul (direct contact with Roman Province) × Central Europe
Gaul
Central Europe
https://www.academia.edu/39772548/the_Celts_2018_2019_-_Bohemia_and_Mediterranean
p. 287–292
-Gaul was flooded with millions of amphorae
-There is a significant correspondence between specific
export and consumption => firmly established trade
relations and stable trade going on for many decades
-Among the principal consumption/redistribution areas
there is the territory of Haedui – the principal allies of Rome
F. Olmer
The economic connection of Gaul is
the introduction of quinarius coins
aligned with Roman coinage and
creating thus a „monetary union“
between Rome and Central-Eastern
Gaul (= Haedui) in the I century BC
It‘s all very different in Central Europe in which btw three areas are worth comparig: Bohemia, *Bavaria (=Bavaria, Upper
Austria, Southern Thuringhia) and *Moravia (= Moravia, Lower Austria, SW Slovakia)
The principal evidence of imported objects are fragments of bronze vessels
…. Lots of fragments of bronze vessels
Three out of many
sheets just from the
oppidum of
Stradonice
Between genuine luxury
and geniune trash
Fotku střepu
mirrors
Medical
instruments
Finger rings
and gemstones
Glass vessels
very few pottery
fragments
Writing implements
otherstuff
bronze
vessels
62%
finger rings
18%
jewellery
8%
writing instr.
3%
medical
instr.
1%
glass vessels
2%
pottery
2%
amphorae
1%
ecofacts
0% other
3%
Bohemia
except mirrors
[270]
bronze
vessels
55%
finger rings
3%
jewellery
4%
writing
instr.
1%
medical
instr.
4%
glass
vessels
7%
pottery
4%
amphorae
20%
ecofacts
1%
other
2%
*Bavaria
(except mirrors)
[177]
bronze vessels
43%
finger rings
2%
jewellery
13%
writing
instruments
3%
medical
instruments
1%
glass vessels
22%
pottery
8%
amphorae
4%
ecofacts
1%
other
3%
*Moravia
except mirrors
[105]
-all regions share the same categories represented by the same object types in roughly the same proportions
 Regular trade concerning all the regions
The absolute majority of finds come from oppida (dark grey)
-most imports concentrate in always one site per region (Stradonice in Bohemia,
Manching in *Bavaria, Staré Hradisko in *Moravia)
-the same sites have also the most varied and „complete“spectrum of import
categories
-while Bohemia is the region with most finds, the objects are represented in the
smallest number of sites, 95% of them are oppida. In the other two regions the
sites are both more numerous and more varied.
Bohemia is characterised by very numerous finds of imported
finger rings with intaglios….
Cat.
n°
N°
measu
rement
s
Fe Cu Zn Sn
S1 3 0,70 84,77 4,45 x
S2 2-side 1,75 58,55 22,95 x
S2 3-bezel 1,53 59,66 6,52 x
S8 7-bezel 0,19 70,22 9,80 x
S8 5-side 0,30 82,50 3,19 x
S9 2-surf. 1,49 61,15 7,71 x
S9 3- frgm 1,50 75,48 11,89 x
S10 4 1,33 63,72 8,42 1,34
S11 2 0,87 75,64 9,63 0,34
S12 2 0,34 77,63 4,90 x
S13 2 0,55 84,37 8,14 0,36
S14 3 0,78 83,67 5,76 0,06
S15 2-side 0,13 92,16 3,49 x
S15 1-bezel 0,39 82,26 4,11 x
S16 2 0,36 85,42 9,05 x
S26
3-
surface
1,09 81,38 7,10 0,52
S27 2-side 0,52 85,38 3,36 x
… but in actual fact, the
„intaglios“ are in their majority
glass paste junk in which the
motifs are rarely visible and the
copper alloy rings are made of
brass (which looks like gold and
which was not known in central
Europe in the period)
=> Did the Romans sell them
junk made of fake gold with
crappy fake intaglios?
Yes, why not…?
There are extremely few
amphorae or pottery in
Central Europe…
(3 in Stradonice, 3 in Staré
Hradisko, ca 35 in
Manching… the two
points are wrongly placed)
Stradonice
Staré
Hradisko
Bratislava
Magdalensberg
Manching
Berching
-Pollanten
Heidengraben
…but their distribution
shows something….
Campania
Tuscany
Po valley
unknown
The pattern is strikingly
similar in the case of (equally
rare) imported black-gloss
pottery…
… and bronze jugs…
 Central Europe was
apparently in
contact with Italy
via Gaul and
Bavaria or via
Eastern Alps and
the Middle Danube
region
 Bohemia stood in
between the two
circuits as a passive
black hole
dependent on the
two other regions
 Bohemia exported huge bulks of high quality gold coinage…
 Bohemia imported some bronze vessels, but also many mirrors, glass
beads, and rings made of fake gold…not very flattering analogies
come to one‘s mind….
Unlike Bohemia, *Bavaria and *Moravia are better furnished with really
luxurious objects (glass vesels) and with e.g. pottery which demonstates
better understanding for Mediterranean ways of live.
Wider distribution of imports in *Bavaria and *Moravia suggests their greater
exclusivity in Bohemia where they were accessible only to a few selected
central sites.
All imports necessarily came to Bohemia through *Bavaria or *Moravia rather
than directly from Italy.
Blava
Around the middle of the I century BC,
the LT culture in central Europe
came to its end.
Manching in its latest phases (LT D1b =
2/4 of I BC) showed decline in all
the signs of its previous social,
economic, and architectural
complexity.
Most oppida were abandoned (only
Stradonice may have survived to
the ¾ of I BC but only as a shade of
what it was) and LT culture
disappeared…
…while at the other
end of Central Europe,
a new oppidum and
the only real centre of
the period surged
rapidly and suddenly:
Bratislava.
?
Bratislava
The existence of Bratislava oppidum
had been known for a long time,
most famously thanks to several
large hoards of coins combining
local version of the „shell staters“
with purely local „Biatec“
tetradrachmas – large silver coins
imitating Roman denarii and bearing
inscriptions (names?) in Latin
characters (e.g. Biatec, Nonnos
Bussumarus, Ainorix etc.)
… but then large
rescue excavations
in the Bratislava
castle in 2009–2014
revealed something
unexpected….
Wherever LT period levels were preserved,
there were remains of structures built in
Roman construction techniques:
-walls of opus incertum (cement-bound
rubble stones)
-floor in opus signinum (cement-based
conglomerate with ground and polished
surface)
-wall paintings (only minuscule fragments
are preserved)
-though strangely, there is not a single
fragment of rooftiles (I have an
explanation… what do you think about it?)
Excavated
Reconstructed
Floors in opus signinum – the decoration
correspond to floors documented in
contemporary Northern Italy
Walls in opus incertum
The building on the Castle court is a large 23×9 m
structure with twice as thick (= twice as high) walls
as the other buildings and based on the preserved
floor fragments probably without any inner
partition walls => a building extremely similar to
Roman basilicas.
23 × 9 m
24 × 14 m
Btw. the fact that they resemble basilicas
does not mean that they also had the same
functions.
https://www.academia.edu/1347269/Un_exce_s_de_la_
romanisation_L_identification_dans_les_villes_gauloise
s_de_monuments_civiques_romains
Incidentally, a building of basically
identical form and dimensions built in
the same period of ca. 50 BC was
discovered in Bibracte (i.e. the capital
of Haedui repeatedly frequented by
Caesar and his troops in exactly this
period).
Adr
87%
Tyrrh
7%
Tyrrh Kampánie
1%
Tyrrh ?
2%
Tyrrh Dr 2-4
2%
Knidos
?
1%
+ there are hundreds of
fragments of amphorae (mostly
from the Adriatic but also from
Greece)
Other imports on the other
hand are not that breathtaking…
they are there but they
do not exceed the norm of an
oppidum
bronze
vessels
53%
finger
rings
17%
jewellery
9%
writing
instruments
4%
medical
instruments
1%
mirrors
9%
glass
vessels
1%
pottery
1%
amphorae
1%
other
4%
Stradonice
[220]
bronze
vessels
34%
ecofacts
1%
finger
rings
1%jewellery
8%
writing
instr.
3%
mirrors
23%
glass
vessels
23%
pottery
2%
amphorae
4%
other
1%
Staré Hradisko
[95]
bronze
vessels
44%
ecofacts
1%
finger
rings
2%
jewellery
2%
writing
instr.
1%
medical
instr.
3%
mirrors
13%
glass
vessels
8%
pottery
3%
amphorae
22%
other
1%
Manching [156]
bronze
vessels
8%
finger rings
2%writing
instrument
s
7%glass
vessels
3%pottery
12%
amphorae
66%
other
2%
Bratislava [59]
In comparison with the rather similar other large
oppida, in Bratislava there are much more
numerous amphorae and pottery, other
categories are represented in insignificantly low
numbers
=> Bratislava is more similar to oppida in Gaul
than to those in Central Europe
writing
instrument
s
15%
medical
instrument
s
2%
pottery
81%
amphorae
2%
Wien [53]
Worth comparison with Bratislava is another site recently
discovered in Vienna: Wien-Rochusmarkt.
-here a few LT D1b–2 settlement pits produced impressive
series of imported pottery and other artefacts.
(pseudo)amber
Roman tableware
Roman cooking pottery
Writing instruments
Local pot with a Latin
inscription
bronze
vessels
53%
finger
rings
17%
jewellery
9%
writing
instruments
4%
medical
instruments
1%
mirrors
9%
glass
vessels
1%
pottery
1%
amphorae
1%
other
4%
Stradonice
[220]
bronze
vessels
8%
finger rings
2%writing
instrument
s
7%glass
vessels
3%pottery
12%
amphorae
66%
other
2%
Bratislava [59]
writing
instrument
s
15%
medical
instrument
s
2%
pottery
81%
amphorae
2%
Wien [53]
=> Stradonice/Manching/SH, Vienna, and Bratislava are three very differentstories:
-numerous luxurious or exotic
goods in a purely LT milieu
-no significant signs of adoption
of Mediterranean way of life:
bronze vessels could be used for
consumption of beer or mead,
writing was common in Gaul in
local languages, no other
artefacts suggesting more than
that Mediterranean was
fashionable
-massive import of bulky amphorae,
relatively more (but still very few)
pottery, some local imtation of
Roman tabelware but also of cooking
vessels
=> More direct access to trade,
deeper aquaintance with
Mediterranean way of life and
someattempts to imitate it but
essentially still LT milieu
-very few amphorae (goods) but
numerous Roman cooking vessels, lot
of writing and writing in Latin =>
living the Roman way
=> Roman traders?
 What is Bratislava???
-extremely powerful elite issuing a
new coinage (modelled on Roman
coins and using Latin script)
-unprecedented contact with Italy
evidenced by massive import of wine
and mainly by the large and
extermely numerous buildings which
must have been carried out by Italian
architects
Strabo VII, 3, 11; VII, 3, 2; VII, 5, 6
Taurisci
Scordisci
Boii?
The only thing we know directly about the area
from written sources is that Dacians decimated the
Pannonian Celts sometime between 40s and mid
30s BC
The end of Bratislava was often associated with
this event… no more.
Boiohaemum
The next thing we learn is that in 6 AD Tiberius prepared to
marched against Marobudus „from Carnuntum“ (ca. midway
between Bratislava and Vienna) (Velleius Paterculus II,108–109)
Some colleagues suggested that this Carnuntum was actually
Bratislava… for no good reason.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20
Dressel 1
Dressel 2-4
Lamboglia 2
Dressel 6A
Lamb. 2/Dr. 6A
Brindisine
Middle Adriatic ovoid. amph.
Pula 43 a.C.
Dangstetten 15-8/7 a.C.
Tiberius‘ campaign
against Marobudus
The Bratislava amphorae date to ca. 50s–30s BC, some other imports suggest that
the site could have been occupied at the latest in early 20s BC…
=> Bratislava possibly survived the Dacians but was abandoned long time before
Tiberius crossed the Alps
Amphorae Some other stuff
 supreme interest of Caesar, (Marc Antony, Assinius Polio,) and Octavian for
the region and surely need for local allies
 Bratislava may be the result of forging alliance in a strategic place of
Carpathian basin, attaching them to Rome with prestige gifts.
… the project failed for an unknown reason (Dacians?) and when
Roman re-appeared in the region around BC/AD, there was nothing left after
Bratislava or the LT culture
What we know indirectly about Cetral Europe of the period
59 BC – Caesar received Galia Cisalpina and Illyricum as his proconsular
provinces, Galia transalpina was added later after its governor died
58 BC – all Caesar‘s legions stood at Aquileia ready to conquer someting though
perhaps not Gaul where they ended up later that year
49 BC – the Norican king sent troops to help Caesar => personal alliance
maintained by Caesar?
44 BC – Caesar planed a campaign against the Dacians (= conquest of Carpathian
basin)
35 BC – first thing Octavian did after gaining control over Italy was conquest of
Carpathian basin