² Caesar, BG i, 39Google Scholar (appearance of Germans described by traders); iv, 2, 3; vi, 25 (journeys across Germany taking sixty days); Dio, lvi, 18, 2. The penetration of Roman goods among the Batavi before their incorporation within the empire has been shown by the excavation of Ubbergen, a Batavian oppidum destroyed in A.D. 70 (Breuer, Oudheid. Med. 1931). Most of the border tribes were at one time or another during the first and second centuries in client relationship to the empire, and there were frequent embassies from the Germanic peoples to Rome, all of which would help to stimulate barbarian interest in Roman goods (J. Klose, Röms Klientel-Randstaaten am Rhein u. an der Donau, 1934).

³ O. Schlüter, s.v. ‘Deutsches Siedelungswesen,’ Hoops, Reallex. i, 1911–1913Google Scholar (with map); L. Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Siämme, 1911, 1934; G. Kossinna, ‘Die Karte der germanischen Funde in der frühen Kaiserzeit,’ Mannus, 1933, 6–40; see also G. Ekholm in CAH xi, 46 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Sprockhoff, E., ‘Handelsgesch. der germanischen Bronzezeit,’ Vorgesch. Forschungen vii, 1930Google Scholar;. J. M. de Navarro, ‘Prehistoric Routes between Northern Europe and Italy denned by the Amber Trade,’ Geog. Journ., 1925, 481–503.

⁵ Cf. sections on roads in ‘Limes-Forschungen,’ (ORL), and infra, notes 16, 20, 25. Caesar shows how well provided Gaul was with tracks and even with bridges.

⁶ Forbes, R. J., ‘Notes on the History of Ancient Roads and their Construction,‘ Allard Pierson Stichting iii, 1934, 38–47Google Scholar. Cf. ‘pontes longi’ of Tac. Ann. i, 63Google Scholar. W. Gaerte, Urpeschichte Ostpreussens, 1929, 207–8.

⁷ J. Vonderau, Denkmäler aus vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeitim Fuldaer Lande, 1931, 43, 54.

⁸ Tac., Germ. 41; Hist., iv, 64–5 Tert., adv. Iud. 7, ‘Germani adhuc usque limites suos transgredi non sinuntur’; Samwer, , ‘Die Grenzpolizei des röm. Reichs,’ Wendeutsche Zeitschr. v, 1886, 314Google Scholar.

⁹ Tac., Ann. xi, 18Google Scholar (A.D. 47, raids of Gannascus and his Chauci); Pliny, NH xvi, 203Google Scholar. Cf. Tac., Germ. 2, ‘oceanus raris ab orbe nostro nayibus aditur.’ The Frisian coasts we e certainly frequented by provincial fishermen (CIL xiii, 8830, end of first century; Korrespondenzblatt des Westdeutschen Zeitschr., 1889, 4).

¹⁰ M. Ebert, Truso, 1926, p. 1 ff (the travels of Wulfstan, ninth century).

¹¹ Aubin, (‘Der Rheinhandel in römischer Zeit,’ BJ cxxx, 1925, 30Google Scholar) believes, presumably on the analogy of the Baltic trading-posts mentioned by Pliny (xxxvii, 45), that at the mouths of the great rivers there were German emporia, a probability for which there is no direct evidence, although Roman coins are frequent enough thereabouts.

¹² Strabo, vii, 2, 1; supra, n. 9.

¹³ Tac., Germ. 44 (Suiones); cf. the Bronze Age rock Carvings of ships and Sailors from Bornholm (Vogel, W., ‘Von den Anfängen deutscher Schiffahrt,’ Praehist. Zeitschr. (PZ) iv, 1–15Google Scholar; s.v. ‘Felsenzeichnung,’ Ebert, Reallex.) Almgren, O., Die ältere Eisenzeit Gotlands i, 1914Google Scholar, ii (with B. Nerman), 1923, 138–43, for Baltic trade. G. Ekholm, in ‘Die Einfuhr von Bronzeschüsseln der röm. Zeit nach Skandinavien,’ Altschlesien, 1934, 252–4, and in op. cit. infra., n. 74, has valuable discussions of trade routes to and in Scandinavia.

¹⁴ Mannus-Bibl. l, 69.

¹⁵ Ibid., 63; K. Schuchhardt, Vorgesch. von Deutschland, 2nd edn., 1934, 280 ff.

¹⁶ ‘Die vorgesch. Strassen in den Sachsenkriegen Karls des Grossen,’ Korrespondenzbl. des Gesamtvereins, lxxx, 1932, 223–80Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Schuchhardt, op. cit. 236.

¹⁸ Tac., Germ. 3; Ihm, P-W s.v. ‘Asciburgium’; E. Norden, Die germ. Urgesch. in Tac., Germania, 2nd edn., 1922, 187–93; Hennig, R., ‘Die Stromverlagerungen des Niederrheins,’ BJ cxxix, 1924, 172–5Google Scholar, holds that prehistoric Asciburgium lay on the right bank of the Rhine, which shifted to the east even in Roman times; other references in Grenier, Manuel ii, 580, n. 4.

¹⁹ The increasing study of such primitive strongholds will do much to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the old roads and of the various periods in which they were important.

²⁰ K. Schumacher, Siedelungs-u. Kulturgesch. der Rheinlande, 1923, 139, 340.

²¹ The Limes would serve to regulate traffic to special points and thus facilitate the growth of markets. Kutsch, Hanau Katalog, 1926, 113, ORL, Bd. ii B. 16 Arnsburg, p. 18, gives several examples; at Alteburg-Heftrich in the Taunus, just east of the Roman fort site, a market has been held thrice a year from time immemorial, yet it is far away from modern traffic-routes of importance (ORL, Bd. ii B. 9, p. 5).

²² ORL, Str. i, 149.

²³ Objects of German origin are common in the Taunus forts; Schumacher, op. cit., 126–7 and infra p. 219, n.137.

²⁴ Krüger, op. cit. 229–33 for routes leading north; Müller, K. T. C., Alte Strassen und Wege in Oberhessen, ibre Erkundung und ibre Bedeutung für vor- und fruhgesch. Forscbung, Marburg, 1929Google Scholar; Schumacher, op. cit., 241–42.

²⁵ Schumacher, loc. cit. Along it are Hallstatt and La Tène burials and at Fulda there are Roman finds. Vonderau (supra p. 196, n. 7), 11 ff.

²⁶ W. Schulz, ‘Mitteldeutsch-Südwestdeutsche Beziehungen in der spätrömischen Germanen-kultur,’ Schumacher Festschr., 319–22.

²⁷ This may be due partly to inadequate exploration, partly to thin settlement of an area largely covered with coniferous forest. See Zeiss, H., Bay. Forgesch. Blätt. xi, 1933, 45Google Scholar; Reinecke, Berichte Röm.-germ. Komm. (referred to below as Ber.) xxiii, 1933, 144; ORL St. vii–ix, 13; xiii, 8; xiv 12.

²⁸ E.g. Münster-am-Stein, Kreuznach, Nauheim; Aubin, op. cit. 20; Schumacher, op. cit. 56, 258.

²⁹ ORL Str. vii–ix, 145; xiii, 57; Winkelmann, F., ‘Die vorröm. u. röm. Strassen in Bayern zwischen Donau u. Limes,’ Ber. xi, 1918–1919, 4–56Google Scholar.

³⁰ F. Winkelmann, Eichstätt Museums Katalog, 47. Such a trade would help to account for the rapid rise of the flourishing civil settlement at Öhringen; Weller, , Fundber. aus Schwaben, xii, 1904, 15–31Google Scholar; E. Norden, Altgermanien, 1934, 49 ff. Ammian. xxviii, 5, 11 shows the importance of these springs.

³¹ Germania, xiv, 1930, 40–42Google Scholar; xv, 83–9, 281.

³² Ber. xi, 5, 17–18 (roads from Manching). At Oberstimm near Manching the Romans built a fort, and at Oberstimm there is still held annually a fair which, says Winkelmann, must go back to Roman times at least, and probably to an earlier fair held in the oppidum (E. Norden, Germ. Urgesch. in Tac. Germ. 2nd edn., 505; Eichstätt Kat. 25).

³³ Ber. xi, 9, Eichstätt Museums Kat. 25.

³⁴ Germ. 41; H. Zeiss, op. cit., 42, 44; Barthel, Ber. vi, 167Google Scholar.

³⁵ Wagner, Die Römer in Bayern, 4th edn, 1928, 81; cf. however, Schuchhardt's statement in op. cit., 226, n. 17. ‘Die Hermunduren reichen zur Römerzeit bis zur Donau, wo sie in Regensburg einen Hauptaustauschort an der Grenze haben, und bei den Weltherrschern grosses Vertrauen geniessen.’

³⁶ A. Götze, P. Höfer and P. Zschiesche, Die vor- und früh-gesch. Altertümer Thüringens, 1909, xxxv, draw attention to the La Graufesenque pot at Vippacheldelhausen and the Oberhof patera-handle as indications of early trade between the Thuringian Hermunduri and the south. The handle was found on a forest route leading to Raetia.

³⁷ Schulz, Fürstengrah (infra p. 204, n. 70), 43–47.

³⁸ Reinecke, P., ‘Die Westgrenze vorgesch. Besiedelung in Böhmen,’ Sudeta vii, 26–38Google Scholar. Other roads: H. Preidel, Germanen in Böhmen im Spiegel der Bodenfunde, 1926, 57–8.

³⁹ J. L. Pič, Die Urnengräber Böhmens, 1907; Le Hradischt de Stradonitz, 1906. Preidel, H., ‘Uber den Zusammenhang der markomannischen Kulturentwicklung mit der politischen Geschichte des Stammes,’ Germ. xii, 156–61Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Tacitus, Ann. ii, 62Google Scholar.

⁴¹ J. Klose, op. cit. (supra, p. 195, n. 2), 76.

⁴² Almgren, O., ‘Zur Bedeutung des Markomannenreichs in Böhmen für die Entwicklung der germanischen Industrie in der frühen Kaiserzeit,’ Mannus v, 1913, 265–78Google Scholar; Schumacher Festschrift, 282 (spur of Marcomannic type in Hungary); Preidel (infra, p. 204, n. 70), 1930, ii, 129 ff. In one or two cases the horn itself has been partially preserved (e.g. Lübsow, Schuchhardt, op. cit., 258).

⁴³ Altertümer uns. beidn. Vorzeit v, 1911, 371Google Scholar. (Cf. also 376, 411, 414).

⁴⁴ In their grave-furniture much Roman provincial work is found, including Belgic ware, which they were prompt to imitate. Cf. F. Behn, ‘Zurersten germanischen Besiedelung Starkenburgs,’ Schum. Fest. 178; Ber. vii, 156, find of Aucissa fibula.

⁴⁵ M. P. Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1926, 176; J. M. de Navarro, op. cit., 496 ff. Cary and Warmington, The Ancient Explorers, 1929, 119.

⁴⁶ NH xxxvii, 45.

⁴⁷ Geog. II, xi; see discussion by G. Schütte, Ptolemy's Maps of Northern Europe, 1917. Ptolemy gives a number of settlements along the route and there seems some likelihood that Eburonum=Brunn (placed correctly 1° north of the Danube), Kalisia=Kaliscz, and Askankalis=Osielsk.

⁴⁸ Jahn, M., ‘Die oberschlesischen Funde aus der röm. Kaiserzt.,’ PZ x, 1918, 80–149Google Scholar, xiii–xiv, 127 ff.; ‘Herkunft der schles. Wandalen,’ Mannus-Bibl. xxii, 1922, 78–94; S. Bolin, Fynden av Romerska mynt i det fria Germanien, 1926; Beninger, , ‘Quadische und wandalische Kulturbeziehungen,’ Mitt. der Anthrop. Gesell., Vienna, lxii, 78–100Google Scholar. It is worth noting that the chief medieval trade route here avoided the Moravian Gates themselves to swing across the Jeseniky a few miles to the west (de la Blache, Vidal, Géographie universelle, iv, 2, 1931, 581Google Scholar); isolated finds of coins suggest that the Jeseniky road was also known and used in Roman times.

⁴⁹ Wiberg, op. cit., 45.

⁵⁰ J. N. von Sadowski, Die Handelsstrassen der Griechen und Römer, 1877, 9–10. This work pays special attention to the swamps and crossings of east German rivers.

⁵¹ M. Ebert, Truso, 1926, 35 ff.

⁵² Ibid., 35 n. 1.

⁵³ Jungklaus, Röm. Funde in Pommern, 1924, 112 f.

⁵⁴ L. Schmidt, op. cit. i, 2nd edn., 1925Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Eugippius, , Vit. Severini xxii, 2Google Scholar (cf. ix, 1).

⁵⁶ V. Pârvan, Getica, 1926, 757, 794 (French summary); O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, 1935, ch. viii.

⁵⁷ A few coins have been found on the approaches to the passes through the Carpathians (Bolin, Fynden av r. mynt, Appendix, 119); the Samian found at Dzwinogrod in Poland is far from other Roman finds and is thought to have come through Dacia (Jamka, infra, p. 216, n. 115); the Iazyges were allowed to trade with the Roxolani across Dacia, Dio lxxii, 19; Sadowski (op. cit., 187–92) describes a route from the Bukowina to the Bug and the Baltic; Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in S. Russia, 1922, 215.

⁵⁸ H. Kiepert (Atlas) shows two hypothetical roads based on settlements noted by Ptolemy; at Szeged on the Theiss an inscription with the word ‘mercator’ was found recently, Klose, op. cit. 121 n.; finds in Iazygian-Sarmatian burials in the Alföld show strong Roman influence, and in the third century the German tribes pressing between the rivers must have come within the sphere of this trade (M. Parducz, ‘Römerzeitliche Funde des grossen ungarischen Alföld’ (German summary), Dolgozatok (Szeged), vii, 1931).

⁵⁹ Dio lxxi, 11, 15, lxxii, 2. Cf. ILS 395, burgus of ä.D. 185 near Aquincum: ‘PRAESIDIIS PER LOCA OPPORTVNA AD CLANDESTINOS LATR VNCVLORVM TRANSITVS OPPOSITIS.’

⁶⁰ Themistius, Orat. x, 135Google Scholar, Ammian. xxvii, 5, 7. For control of border trade, cf. ILS 775, inscription at Gran of 371: ‘HVNC · BVRGUM · CVI · NOMEN · COMMERCIVM · QVA · CAVSA · ET · FACTVS · EST · A FVNDAMENTIS · CONSTRVXIT · ET · AD · SVMMAM · MANVM · OPERIS … PERVENIRI · FACIT.’

⁶¹ B. Salin, Die altgermanische Thierornamentik, 1904; M. Rostovtzeff (op. cit. supra,n. 57), 216; PZ i, 1909, 74.

⁶² The rise of Christianity among the Goths and Vandals and the development of runes are important indications of the extent to which those tribes were open to influences from the empire. A number of Gothic cemeteries have been examined in South Russia, Hungary and Roumania, and their contents reveal considerable Graeco-Roman influence, see Schmidt, op. cit. i, 247–8Google Scholar; Ebert, Südrussland im Altertum, 1921; Diculescu, C. C., ‘Die Wandalen und die Goten in Ungarn und Rumänien,’ Mannus-Bibl. xxxiv, 1923Google Scholar; Brenner, Ber., 1912, 262 ff.; Reinecke, , Mainzer Zeitschr. i, 1906, 42–50Google Scholar. An even more distant connection is reflected in the hoard from Pietroasa, Transylvania, which includes two vessels of Sassanian workmanship–perhaps presents in the course of diplomatic relationship between Goth and Persian (A. Odobesco, Le trésor de Pétrossa, 1889–1900, Pt. iv, 91). Oszotropataka, north of the Theiss bend, is one of the chief early Vandal sites, and yielded rich Roman goods and a coin of Herennia Etruscilla (249–51).

⁶³ Rostovtzeff, op. cit. 214–15; T. Kendrick, A History of the Vikings, 1930, chs. v and vi, Viking trade.

⁶⁴ T. J. Arné, Det Stora Svitjod, 1917, 16, also his ‘Tenetid och romersk, järnalder i Ryssland med särskild hänsyn till de romerska denarfynden,’ Oldtiden, vii, 1918, 207–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Cary and Warmington, The Ancient Explorers, 1929, 110–11.

⁶⁶ Ebert, Südrussland, 359; Arné, op. cit., 1917, 14; Kossinna, G., ‘Zu meiner Ostgermanenkarte,’ Mannus, xvi, 1924, 160–75Google Scholar; cf. his map with that of Tackenberg, K., ‘Zu den Wanderungen der Ostgermanen,’ Mannus, xxii, 1930, 268–95Google Scholar. For routes cf. Korduba, M., ‘Die ostgermanischen Handelswege durch die Ukraine um die Mitte des ersten Jahrtausends vor Chr. Geb.’ Swiatowit, xv, 1933, 179–91Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Jordanes, Getica iv, ‘magna ubertate regionum.’

⁶⁸ His reputed overlordship over the Aestii, Jordanes, , Getica xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ Moora, H., ‘Zur Frage nach der Herkunft des ostbaltischen emailverzierten Schmucks,’ SMYA xl, 1934Google Scholar; Die Vorzeit Estlands, 1932, 40; M. Schmiedehelm, ‘Über die Beziehungen zwischen dem Weichselgebiet und Estland zur röm. Eisenzeit,’ Riga Congress, 1930, 395–405.

⁷⁰ The chief publications used in the preparation of the distribution-maps are given below and will be referred to in later footnotes simply by the author's name or by a convenient abbreviation. Works dealing with single classes of objects are not given here, but under the appropriate section.

A. Auerbach, Die vor- und. frúhgesch. Altertümer Ostthüringens, 1930.

R. Beltz, Die vorgesch. Altertümer des Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 1910.

E. Beninger und H. Friesing, Die germ. Bodenfunde in Mähren, 1933.

E. Beninger, Die Germanenzeit in Niederösterreich, 1934.

Blume, E., ‘Die germ. Stämme und die Kulturen zwischen Oder und Passarge zur röm. Kaiserzeit,’ Mannus-Bibl. viii, 1912Google Scholar.

P. Boeles, Friesland tot de Elfde Eeuw, 1927.

J. Eisner, ‘Die vor- und frühgesch. des Landes Slowakei’ (German summary), Slovensko v Praveku, 1933.

W. Gaerte, Urgesch. Ostpreussens, 1929.

A. E. van Giffen, ‘Oudheidkundige aanteekeningen over Drentsche vondsten,’ Nieuswe Drentsche Volksalmanak, 1934, 85 ff.

A. Götze, P. Höfer and P. Zschiesche, Die vor- und frühgesch. Altertümer Thüringens, 1909.

P. Grimm, Die vor- und frühgesch. Besiedelung des Unternharzes und seines Vorlandes, 1930.

Hackman, A., ‘Die ältesten eisenzeitlichen Funde in Finnland,’ Mannus v, 1913, 279–299Google Scholar.

K. H. Jacob-Friesen, Einführung in niedersachsens Urgesch., 2nd edn., 1934.

E. Jungklaus, Römische Funde in Pommern, 1924.

O. Krone, Vorgesch. des Landes Braunschweig, 1931.

O. Kunkel, ‘Einführgut im vor- und frühgesch. Pommern,’ Riga Congress, 1930, 175–186.

O. Kunkel, Oberhessens vorges. Altertümer, 1926.

W. La Baume, Vorgesch. von Westpreussen, 1920.

J. Mestorf, Vorgesch. Altertümer aus Schleswig-Holstein, 1885.

O. Montelius, Kulturgesch. Schwedens, 1906, 163–213.

S. Müller, Ordning af Danmarks Oldsager, (Jernalderen), 1895.

J. L. Pič, Die Urnengräber Böhmens, 1907.

H. Preidel, Germanen in Böhmen im Spiegel der Bodenfunde, 1926.

Preidel, H., Die germanischen Kulturen in Böhmen und ibre Träger, vols. i, ii, 1930Google Scholar.

Reinecke, P., ‘Die kaiserzeitlichen Germanenfunde aus dem bayerischen Anteil an der Germania Magna,’ Ber. xxiii, 1933, 144–204Google Scholar.

H. Schetelig, Préhistoire de la Norvège, 1926.

W. Schulz, ‘Ost- und Elbgermanen in spätröm. Zeit in den Ostkreisen der Prov. Sachsen,’ Jahr. f.d. vorg. der säch. Thür. Länder, 1931.

Schulz, W. and Zahn, R., ‘Das Fürstengrab von Hassleben,’ R.-Germ. Forsch. vii, 1933Google Scholar.

Schumacher Festschrift, 1930.

Stieren, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens, 1929.

Tackenberg, K., ‘Die Wandalen in Niederschlesien,’ Vorgesch. Forsch. i, 1925Google Scholar.

Tallgren, A. M., Zur Archäologie Eestis i, Dorpat, 1922Google Scholar.

J. Vonderau, Denkmäler aus vor- und frühgeschtlicher Zeit im Fuldaer Lande, 1931.

H. Willers, Die röm. Bronzeeimer von Hemmoor, Hannover, 1901.

H. Willers, Die röm. Bronzeeimer von Hemmoor, Bronzeindustrie von Capua und von Niedergermanien, 1907.

The principal periodicals used were: Berichte d. röm.-germ. Kommission (Ber.); Fornvännen, Germania; Mannus; Mannus Ergänzungsband; Mannus-Bibliothek; Mainzer Zeitschrift (MZ); Röm.-germ. Korrespondenzblatt; Praehist. Zeitschr. (PZ); Prussia; Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie.

⁷¹ Sture Bolin, Fynden av romerska mynt i det fria Germanien, 1926; résumé in Ber. xix, 1929, 86–145Google Scholar; addenda in Germ. xv, 267–71, and in the ‘Fundchronik’ of later volumes and, for E. Prussia, in Prussia, 1926, 203–240. Also Reinecke, Ber. xxiiiGoogle Scholar; Petsch, Die vorgesch. Münzfunde Pommerns, Univ. Greifswald, 1931. The finds shown on figs. 8 and 9 include hoards; numerous grave finds (the coins are occasionally, as at Hassleben, found in the mouths of the deceased, a Mediterranean custom); rarer finds in known German settlements; and scattered surface finds.

⁷² Germ. 5.

⁷³ In a hoard of 62 denarii found at Aschendorf 61 were Republican, 1 Augustan, 41 had serrate edges. (Willers, 1901, 193.)

⁷⁴ E.g. vessels in Denmark and Hanover corresponding with forms found at Aylesford and Ornavasso (Willers 1907, 19, Archaeologia, lii, 1890, 378Google Scholar); in Bohemia the continuity from late La Téne to Roman times is specially noteworthy (Preidel, Pič); the early pails, which occur most frequently in Bohemia and along the Elbe, are types which continued to be produced until the end of the first century B.C. and at the risk of some inconsistency these have been included in the map (see Willers, 1907, 1–29). Ekholm, G. (‘Zur Gesch. des röm.-germ. Handels’ Acta Arch, vi, 1935, 49–98Google Scholar), records pre-Empire bronze vessels in Scandinavia.

⁷⁵ A lamp was found in central Esthonia (Moora, Die Vorzeit Estlands, 35).

⁷⁶ Schumacher Fest. 316–18; Willers (1907, 94–9) thought that some of these, such as the beautiful situla dedicated to Apollo Grannus found at Fycklinge in Sweden, might represent a trade in outworn temple ornaments.

⁷⁷ Willers, 1907, 62 ff.; Germania ix, 39, xvi, 221; Almgren, , Gotland, i, 1914Google Scholar, fig. 271. The fine enamelled second-century bowls found at Maltbroek, Denmark, and in the sacred well at Pyrmont near the Weser, are Gallic (Henry, F., ‘Emailleurs d'Occident,’ Préhistoire ii, 1933, 112, 120Google Scholar). Mid- and late-Empire: Steiner, P., ‘Messing-Seiher mit Halbdeckel aus rhein. Werkstätten,’ Altschlesien v, 1934, 255–66Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ ‘Gallisk-Skandinaviska Förbindelser under äldre Kcjsartid,’ Fornv. xxx, 1935, 193–205Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Sprater, F., Die Pfalz unter den Römern, ii, 1930, 103Google Scholar; cf. Steiner (op. cit. supra n. 77,) 258; Schulz, Hassleben, 45, n. 3.

⁸⁰ Willers, opera cit.

⁸¹ Sprater, op. cit., 104.

⁸² Strabo vii, 2.

⁸³ Acta Arch, vi, 82 ff.

⁸⁴ In a review of several works of Ekholm, , Germania xx, 1936, 146–150Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ C. Fredrich, Die in Ostdeutschland gefundenen römischen Bronzestatuetten, 1912.

⁸⁶ Willersii, 96 (VICθICCIUS CANICCI V · s · L · M. –a Celtic name).

⁸⁷ Almgren, O., ‘Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen,’ 2nd edn., Mannus-Bibl. xxxii, 1913Google Scholar. In the Pyrmont Well find, out of 225 brooches, 40 were Roman (Jacob-Friesen, 173).

⁸⁸ H. Schetelig, The Cruciform Brooches of Norway, 1906, 9.

⁸⁹ Supra, p. 200, n. 42. Preidel, 1930, ii, 133.

⁹⁰ Cf. R. G. Collingwood, Archaeology of Roman Britain, 1930, section on brooches.

⁹¹ Schulz, W., ‘Zur Entstehung der Augenfibel,’ Germania x, 1926, 110–12Google Scholar.

⁹² Almgren, and Nerman, , Gotland, iiGoogle Scholar, fig. 187.

⁹³ ‘Herkunft des ostbaltischen emailverzierten Schmucks.’ It has hitherto been generally believed that these ornaments developed among the Goths in SW Russia; cf. Gaerte, 240.

⁹⁴ Salin (supra, p. 202, n. 62). N. Åberg, Franken und Westgoten in der Völkerwanderungszeit, 1922, Map I; Almgren, Studien, 250–2; Ebert, M., ‘Zur Gesch. der Fibel m. u. F.,’ PZ. iii, 1911, 232–7Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Schuchhardt, Vorgesch. 254. K. H. Jacob-Friesen, 152. Germania Romana v, 2nd edn., plates 41–3.

⁹⁶ W. Schulz and R. Zahn (supra, p. 204, n. 70).

⁹⁷ Willers 1901, 198, 181.

⁹⁸ Drexel, ; Germania iv, 85Google Scholar; Friis-Johansen, K., ‘Hoby-Fundet,’ Nord. Fortidsminder, Bd. ii, 3, 1923Google Scholar. cf. Tac., Germ. 5 Dobson, D. P., ‘Roman influence in the North,’ Greece and Rome v, 1936, 73–89Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Kunkel, Mannus Ergbd. v, 1927, 122–3Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ The most remarkable collection is the Petroasa hoard, supra, p. 202, n. 62; Jacob-Friesen, 163 (gold objects from Lengerich, Hanove).

¹⁰¹ Jahn, M. ‘Die Bewaffnung der Germanen in der älteren Eisenzeit,’ Mannus-Bibl. xvi, 1916, 213–4Google Scholar; Preidel, 1930, i, 230 (spurs), 231 (swords); Gaerte (supra, p. 204, n. 70), 211. Almgren and Nerman, 596; Germ. xv, 71–75.

¹⁰² A. Lorange, Den yngre jernalders svaerd; H. Schetelig, Préhistoire de la Norvège, 1926, 143; Montelius, Kulturgesch., 183.

¹⁰³ Cod. Iust. 4, 41, 2 (Marcianus).

¹⁰⁴ Schumacher, Ackerbau (Röm.-Gena.Zentral-Museum, 1022), 22. Altenburg near Cassel; six Roman ploughshares—a merchant's stock in trade ? Körner, a cache of tods—old iron ? Schetelig (supra, p. 204, n. 70), 145, Norwegian tools under Roman influence.

¹⁰⁵ O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, 1935, 172; W. Hansen, Aus der Vorzeit von Hamburg und Umgehung, 1933, 165; relevant articles in Ebert Reallex.; Reinecke, , Germania x, 87–95Google Scholar; Tacitus, Germ. 43 (Cotini).

¹⁰⁶ Prohibition in later Empire: Digest, 39, 4, 11 (Paulus); Cod. Iust., 4, 41, 2.

¹⁰⁷ Davies, op. cit, I. (He writes, following Undset, of copper coins imported as bullion by the Germans, but the studies of Bolin and others do not agree with this.)

¹⁰⁸ Cf. B. Nerman, The Poetic Edda in the Light of Archaeology, 1931, 12 (gold), 16 (silver).

¹⁰⁹ Cf. the dagger of Col. Lawrence now at All Souls' College Oxford, with gold hilt and sheath made from melted down sovereigns paid out to the Arabs by the British government. Roman coins were also often pierced and used as pendants. Gold export prohibited, Cod. Iust. 63, 2.

¹¹⁰ Dragendorff, H., ‘Terrasigillatafunde aus Norddeutschland und Skandinavien,’ Zeit. f. Eth., xxxviii, 1906, 369–77Google Scholar. It is to be noted that very little Terra Nigra occurs because the trade did not get going early enough. But there is also some wheel-decorated Samian, of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, in Western Germany and in Thuringia (e.g. from Gotha, , Germania, xx, 1936, 203Google Scholar; from Friesland, Boeles (supra, n. 70), 104).

¹¹¹ Jamka, R., ‘Les vases en terre sigillée en Pologne,’ Przeglad Archeologiczny, iv, 1930–32Google Scholar. Cf. Antoniewicz, W.. Rev. Arch. lxxxiv–v, 1924, 295–300Google Scholar.

¹¹² Scandinavia: Montelius, Kulturgesch. Schwedens, 1906, 190. North and Central Germany: Schmidt i, 114–5. Jahn, , Altschlesien i, 1926, 13 ffGoogle Scholar. Riga Congress, 1930, 177, fig. 3. Schlesiens Vorzt., 1924, 20 f. Western Germany: Ber. vii, 169. Schuchhardt 282 (fourth-century Saxon). Friesland, J. H. Holwerda, Nederland's Vroegste Geschiedenis, 3rd edn., 1925, 147. Bavaria: Reinecke, Germania, 1934, 121 (late). Bohemia: Zpravy i, 1929, 43–5Google Scholar (second century); Preidel, 1930, i, 160 ff. Austria: L. Franz, Ber. xviii, 140Google Scholar; Beninger u. Friesing, 118, 94–95. S-W. Russia: Ebert, Südrussland im Altertum, 1921, 362; Reinecke MZ, 1906, 42–50.

¹¹³ K. Tackenberg, Die Wandalen in Niederschlesien, 1925, Taf. 23.

¹¹⁴ Lamps: Preidel, 1930, i, 171 (second- and third-century Rhenish, fourth-century Italian); Vonderau (supra, p. 204, n. 70), 22 (candlestick); Dr. Moora has kindly informed me of a Latvian example. Terracotta: Boeles, 1927, 5; van Giffen, Drentsche Volksalmanak, 1934, 94.

¹¹⁵ Kisa, A., Das Glas im Altertume, 3 vols., with appendix to vol. iii, 1908Google Scholar, by O. Almgren, Die Funde antiker Gläser in Skandinavien, 903–20.

¹¹⁶ Almgren, op. cit., 904; Ekholm, infra, n. 119.

¹¹⁷ Almgren and Nerman, Gotland, 1923, fig. 452; Schetelig, 164; Karpinska, Les Tumulus de la période romaine en Pologne, 1926, 156 (view that glass went to Poland from SW Russia in the third and fourth centuries); Egger, Germania, 1936, 150.

¹¹⁸ Preidel, 1930, 194 ff.; cf. Bolin's theory in regard to the coin-stream of the late second century.

¹¹⁹ Müller, S., ‘Juellinge-Fundet,’ Nord. Fortidsminder ii, I, 1911Google Scholar; Ekholm, G., ‘Orientalische Glasgefässe in Skandinavien,’ Eur. Sept. Ant. x, 61–72Google Scholar.

¹²⁰ B. Nerman, Poetic Edda, 23; cf. Kisa ii, 206

¹²¹ O. Kunkel, 1930; Jungklaus, 1923, 88 ff.; also Matthes, Ost Prignitz (mostly third century), Preidel, 1930, 316 ff.; H. Moora, Die Vorzeit Estlands 1932, 35.

¹²² Hoops, Reallex. ii, 388Google Scholar (a series of words derived from Latin); the etymology of the Gothic word Kaupon (Kaufmann), from Lat. caupo, innkeeper or petty tradesman, or caupona shop, or tavern, may be remembered for what it is worth.

¹²³ It is true that these vessels may to some extent have been used in consuming native drinks; cf. remains at Juellinge (n. 119, supra).

¹²⁴ A number of amphorae have been found at Ubbergen, the Batavian oppidum destroyed A.D. 70 (supra, p. 195, n. 2); another first-century find at Recklinghausen (Westphalia), Albrecht, C., Mitt. des Landesmus. Westfal. xvi, 1931Google Scholar; in the Siegkreis (Rademacher, C., Mannus i, 1909, 92Google Scholar).

¹²⁵ Schumacher, , Sied. u. Kult.gesch. der Rheinlande, i, 169–70Google Scholar; PZ vi, 240, 245. Caes. BG iv, 26 (if the Suebi discouraged the wine trade, it was probably carried on by their neighbours).

¹²⁶ Schumacher, op. cit., ii, 250Google Scholar; Willers, 1901, 200.

¹²⁷ Tac., Germ. 23; Dio, writing of the Bastarnae, (li, 24, 2, Loeb), says, ‘the whole Scythian race is insatiable in the use of wine and quickly becomes sodden with it.’

¹²⁸ Cod. Iust. iv, 41, 1.

¹²⁹ Amm. 27, 5, 7. Among the goods whose exports are forbidden are corn (Dig. xxxix, 4, 11) and oil (Cod. Iust. iv, 41, 1).

¹³⁰ Schetelig, op. cit., 1926, 141 (also Norwegian system of weights derived from Rome).

¹³¹ Hörter, , ‘Die Basaltlava Industrie bei Mayen,’ Mannus vi, 292–94, 1914Google Scholar (example at Kiel). Examples at Waltrop (Westphalia), Stieren, , Bodenaltertümer, i, 26Google Scholar, ii, 191; at Baldesheim, , Germania, xv, 88Google Scholar; Paderborn (Koenen, , Mannus xiii, 1921Google Scholar, 1906 military?); near Troisdorf, Siegkreis (Mannus i, 91).

¹³² A group of minor imports from the Rhenish borderland may be mentioned: We cannot be sure whether women's hair, or hair dye, or goose-feathers came from free Germany or from the Germans within the Empire. Pliny describes a certain herb ‘Britannica’ from the Frisian coast. Hair dye: Pliny, xxviii, 191, Martial, xiv, 26, 176, viii, 33, 20; Suet., Cal. 47; Silius, iii, 608; Ovid, Am. i, 14Google Scholar, 45; Tac., Agric. 39; Hoops, Reallex, s.v. ‘Gans.’ Herb: NH xxv, 20.

¹³³ Germ. 5, ‘pecoram fecunda.’ Ann. iv, 72, Frisian ox-hide tribute (leather was an important part of the Roman soldier's equipment). Panegyr. Lat. iv, 9, 3 (A.D. 297): ‘Arat nunc mihi Chamavus et Frisius…et frequentat nundinas meas pecore venali.’ The procuring of wild beasts for the arena was doubtless mainly left to the troops, and many inscriptions have survived showing the importance of hunting along the frontiers (e.g. CIL xiii, 8639, an ursarius leg. at Xanten). The bison was shown in Rome (NH viii, 38). It has been suggested that the procurator of the imperial games who sent his emissary to the Baltic (supra, p. 200) may have instructed him to bring back animals and slaves as well as amber.

¹³⁴ Boeles (supra, p. 204, n. 70), 67; Girard, Textes ⁵, 848 f.

¹³⁵ Cf. the firm in CIL xiii, 8830 (supra, p. 196, n. 9).

¹³⁶ SHA Vit. Probi, xiv, 3; Ammian, xvii, 10, 4 and 9; cf. supra p. 218.

¹³⁷ von Uslar, R., ‘Die germanische Keramik in den Kastellen Zugmantel und Saalburg,’ Saalburg-Jahrb. viii, 1934, 61–96Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Supra, p. 198.

¹³⁹ Supra, p. 211.

¹⁴⁰ Agric. 39.

¹⁴¹ Ann. ii, 24; xii, 27; xiii, 56; Germ. 24; Dio, lvi; 22, 4 (ransom of Roman prisoners); lxxi, 13.

¹⁴² Agric. 28, ‘ac fuere quos per commercia venundatos et in nostram usque ripam mutatione ementium adductos indicium tanti casus inlustravit’; cf. Frisian slaves, probably coming into Roman hands Ann. iv, 72.

¹⁴³ Carnuntum Führer, 58, NAT(IONI) ERMVNDVR; CIL iii, 11301.

¹⁴³ Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928, 18. Clem. Alex. Paed. 3, 4.

¹⁴⁵ Stein, s.v. ‘Handel’ Hoops, Reallex. § 29; cf. CIL xiii, 8348, C AIACIVS P F STEL MANGO (from Cologne).

¹⁴⁶ Blümner, P-W, s.v. ‘Bernstein,’ 295–304, 1897. Discussion of the nature of amber and the possibilities of distinguishing the Baltic from other types by W. La Baume, s.v. ‘Bernstein’ in Ebert, Reallex. and de Navarro, op. cit.

¹⁴⁷ Pliny, NH xxxvii, 33Google Scholar. Some Pomeranian amber may also have gone south, thus accounting for the large quantities of Roman goods in Pomerania.

¹⁴⁸ Germ. 45.

¹⁴⁹ G. Brusin, Aquileia, Guida storica e artistica, 1929, 162–9; Gli scavi di Aquileia, 1934, 213, 232; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 71, .506.

¹⁵⁰ Notes, supra, also NH xxii, 99, Martial, iii, 65, 5; iv, 32, 59; vi, 15; Juv., vi, 573; ix, 50; Clem. Alex., Paed. 3, 2Google Scholar; Strom. 2, 6.

¹⁵¹ xxxvii, 45.

¹⁵² v, 12.

¹⁵³ NH xxxvii, 49. (As Friedländer⁹ ii, 325—remarks, the necklaces worn as amulets by Lombard peasant women cannot have been particularly costly.)

¹⁵⁴ SHA, Vita Elagab. 31.

¹⁵⁵ Fine pieces of Roman amber are relatively scarce, but there are small collections in some of the museums (e.g. British Museum, Louvre, Bibl. Nationale, Nîmes, Brussels, Leiden, Utrecht, Wallraf-Reichart Museum at Cologne, Bonn, Trier, Worms, Terme Museum at Rome, Vienna, Budapest: Messrs. G. C. Dunning and A. D. Trendall have kindly helped me in collecting records). Brusin notes large quantities of amber objects at Aquileia, Udine and Trieste. Amber beads are not uncommon in collections of Roman and provincial antiquities. Chinese records of trade with Ta-Ts'in (the Roman empire and Syria in particular) in the third century mention amber among its products: this may be re-exported amber (F. Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, 1885, 41, 73, 245).

¹⁵⁶ Preidel, 1930, i, 325, states that after 200 it is more common in Bohemian burials.

¹⁵⁷ E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 1913, 441; Herodotus is familiar with northern fur-bearing animals; Schrader, Reallex. der Indogerm. Altertumsk., s.v. ‘Pelzkleider.’

¹⁵⁸ Minns, 210, 248, 430: Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks, 22.

¹⁵⁹ Get. iii, 21, ‘alia vero gens ibi [isle of Scanzia] moratur Suethans quae velut Thuringi equis utuntur eximiis. Hi quoque sunt qui in usus Romanorum saphirinas pelles, commercio inter-veniente, per alias innumeras gentes transmittunt, famosi pellium decora nigredine.’

¹⁶⁰ W. Capelle, Das alte Germanien, 1929, Plate, p. 144; K. Schumacher, Germanen-Darstellungen, 1912, 81–82 (fig.).

¹⁶¹ Ann. iv, 72.

¹⁶² Germ. 17. Jacob-Friesen, op. cit., 177, mentions a female corpse found in a peat bog near Juellinge, wearing a short fur cloak (Fellmantel).

¹⁶³ SHA, Vita Sev. Alex, 24; Cod. Theod. xiii, 4, 2; Dig. l, 6, 6 (from Tarrutenus Paternus, probably time of Commodus).

¹⁶⁴ CIL iii, p. 23. Neither beaver nor marten need come from the far north (Juv., 12, 34); Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. v, 7Google Scholar, 4, ‘pelliti … castorinati.’

¹⁶⁵ Minns, op. cit., 441, n. 2, refers to a stele of a Greek furrier of the sixth century A.D. at Kertch.

¹⁶⁶ s.v. ‘Finno-Ugrier,’ Ebert, Reallex.

¹⁶⁷ M. Bang, Die Germanen im römischen Dienst bis zum Regierungsantritt Constantius I, 1906.

¹⁶⁸ E.g., repatriation of the bodyguards of Nero, Caracalla and Pupienus.

¹⁶⁹ Klose, op. cit., 150 (Geldzahlungen).