DOI issue:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI article:Nadvirniak, Oleksandr; Pogorilets, Oleg; Nadvirniak, Oleksandr A.: An assemblage of Antoniniani from the Late Roman site of Pereginka (Balakiri) 2
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41338#0206
OLEKSANDR NADYIRNIAK, OLEG POGORILETS, OLEKSANDRA. NADYIRNIAK
204
Though the literaturę on the events of the first half of the first millennium,
including various aspects of Roman coin circulation in Southeast Europę, is ąuite
rich, the topie of the distribution of antoniniani and a discussion of their place
and role in socio-economic processes operating in the “Barbarian” ethnocultural
associations east of Limes Romanus in the 3rd century have not attracted due
attention. In our opinion, the reasons for this are rooted, in the first place,
in the scarcity of the source base.
For the same reason, we do not think it is justified to speculate on the possible
routes by which the antoniniani of the assemblage from Pereginka (Balakiri)
2 arrived in the territory of the Southeast European forest-steppe. They could have
arrived here as loot captured by “Barbarians” during battles from the years AD
247-251 or as part of the payments promised by Trebonianus Gallus to “Barbarian”
tribal or military leaders.
Eąually realistic is the supposition that the coin assemblage may be part of
the wages paid out to regular or federate troops. According to Zosimus (Zos.,
I, 28), in response to the successive invasion of “Barbarians” - indignant with
the reduction of their payments by Aemilian, who became emperor in AD 253 -
not only were the invaders completely defeated, but a successful raid into their
territory was carried out.22 The antoniniani could also have belonged to the Roman
soldiers from the legions that rebelled in Moesia and, during the defeat of
the “Barbarians,” joined the coalition of their tribes.23
Finally, for the same reasons, we do not intend to make any far-fetched
inferences either on the ethnical or social affiliation of the holders of the antoninian
assemblage from Pereginka (Balakiri) 2 described herein or on the cultural
attribution of the site itself. A true picture can only emerge as a result of stationary
archaeological excavations of the find site.
Nevertheless, even now we can tell that the archaeological aspect of
the assemblage of antoniniani described here is unique. In contrast to the Pereginka
site of the Chemyakhiv culture,24 situated 400-450 m to the north, where abundant
amounts of hand-made and wheel-thrown pottery predominate on the surface,
pottery is scarce at Pereginka (Balakiri) 2. Nevertheless, despite the lack of frag-
ments of hand-built and wheel-thrown pottery of the Chemyakhiv culture, hand-
made pottery was also found here, close in form and shard temper to the pottery
of the Przeworsk and Wielbark’ cultures but also that of the Zubritska (West-
2015: 150-151; MYZGIN 2008: 57; IDEM 2010: 50-63; SICINSKIY 2000: 53-54; SHOSTOPAL 2007: 43, no.
19; 44, no. 35; 45, no. 54; 89, no. 69; 90, no. 70.
22 PANCHENKO 2015: 73.
23 LAVROV 2003: 332.
24 STROTSEN’ 2009: 2-A\ PETRAUSKAS, KOYAE, POGORILETS’ and NADY1RNYAK 2015: 5-6.
204
Though the literaturę on the events of the first half of the first millennium,
including various aspects of Roman coin circulation in Southeast Europę, is ąuite
rich, the topie of the distribution of antoniniani and a discussion of their place
and role in socio-economic processes operating in the “Barbarian” ethnocultural
associations east of Limes Romanus in the 3rd century have not attracted due
attention. In our opinion, the reasons for this are rooted, in the first place,
in the scarcity of the source base.
For the same reason, we do not think it is justified to speculate on the possible
routes by which the antoniniani of the assemblage from Pereginka (Balakiri)
2 arrived in the territory of the Southeast European forest-steppe. They could have
arrived here as loot captured by “Barbarians” during battles from the years AD
247-251 or as part of the payments promised by Trebonianus Gallus to “Barbarian”
tribal or military leaders.
Eąually realistic is the supposition that the coin assemblage may be part of
the wages paid out to regular or federate troops. According to Zosimus (Zos.,
I, 28), in response to the successive invasion of “Barbarians” - indignant with
the reduction of their payments by Aemilian, who became emperor in AD 253 -
not only were the invaders completely defeated, but a successful raid into their
territory was carried out.22 The antoniniani could also have belonged to the Roman
soldiers from the legions that rebelled in Moesia and, during the defeat of
the “Barbarians,” joined the coalition of their tribes.23
Finally, for the same reasons, we do not intend to make any far-fetched
inferences either on the ethnical or social affiliation of the holders of the antoninian
assemblage from Pereginka (Balakiri) 2 described herein or on the cultural
attribution of the site itself. A true picture can only emerge as a result of stationary
archaeological excavations of the find site.
Nevertheless, even now we can tell that the archaeological aspect of
the assemblage of antoniniani described here is unique. In contrast to the Pereginka
site of the Chemyakhiv culture,24 situated 400-450 m to the north, where abundant
amounts of hand-made and wheel-thrown pottery predominate on the surface,
pottery is scarce at Pereginka (Balakiri) 2. Nevertheless, despite the lack of frag-
ments of hand-built and wheel-thrown pottery of the Chemyakhiv culture, hand-
made pottery was also found here, close in form and shard temper to the pottery
of the Przeworsk and Wielbark’ cultures but also that of the Zubritska (West-
2015: 150-151; MYZGIN 2008: 57; IDEM 2010: 50-63; SICINSKIY 2000: 53-54; SHOSTOPAL 2007: 43, no.
19; 44, no. 35; 45, no. 54; 89, no. 69; 90, no. 70.
22 PANCHENKO 2015: 73.
23 LAVROV 2003: 332.
24 STROTSEN’ 2009: 2-A\ PETRAUSKAS, KOYAE, POGORILETS’ and NADY1RNYAK 2015: 5-6.