A Roman gilt finger ring from Přelouč and other Roman‑Period settlement finds

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1, 174–195 ARoman gilt finger ring from Přelouč and other Roman ‑Period settlement finds Jan Jílek– Alena Pukanczová– Matěj Pešta– Patrik Urban ABSTRACT Acollection of Roman Period metal objects was acquired with the help of ametal detector survey in the vicinity of Přelouč. The artefacts were handed over to the City Museum in Přelouč. Of special impor‑ tance among this collection is aRoman gilt finger ring made from acopper alloy, dated back to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, and apyriform balsamarium of the type Bienert 102/103. The collection is dominated by brooches, which can be dated from the end of the 1st century until the 4th century. Most of them belong to the Late or Final Roman Iron Age. This might indicate that the settlement reached its peak within this time period. KEYWORDS Roman imports; finger ring; small metal objects; Roman Iron Age; Roman‑barbarian relations; East Bohemia. INTRODUCTION Until recently, the surroundings of Přelouč could be counted among the regions with very few Roman Iron Age finds (cf. most recently Jílek 2013). The amount of finds distinctly rose after the year 2000, mainly due to collaboration with the informed public.1 One of the aims of this material study is to introduce Roman Iron Age metal finds, stored in the collections of the City Museum in Přelouč and the East Bohemian Museum in Pardubice (Tab.1). The occur‑ rence of Roman artefacts enables us to outline possible Roman ‑barbarian 2 relations and to set them into awider context of East Bohemia. In the studied site we identified several Roman coins, which can be generally dated to the time ‑span of the 2nd to the 4th century. Numismatic material will be treated in aseparate text. 1 At the end of January 2021, the museum in Přelouč already had four long ‑term collaborators. The most significant among them is Mr. Petr Šimák, who has been engaged in surface prospection and metal detector surveying since about 2006. He has collaborated with the museum since 2015 and has handed in about 539 units with finds. Since 2015, many finds have also been donated by Jiří Forchtner, who has been occupied with surface prospection since about 2013. He has handed in about 195 units with finds. 2 The authors employ the term ‘barbarian’ to describe the local population which, in ahistorical interpretation, can be associated with Germanic tribes of the Roman Imperial period. The term is used without any judgemental value and merely as adescriptive instrument meant to distinguish locally produced material culture from the artefacts of Roman ‑provincial provenance. 175JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN The majority of new finds come from an extensive area (Fig. 1) surrounding Přelouč from the northwest to the southeast. The field is currently divided by several roads, which are located in the places of former historical roads that were built from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. It begins near the railway track, then it is interrupted by the road No. I/2 and ascends over the whole area as far as the border of the village of Lhota and the road leading to Jankovice. Behind the road it continues as far as the road to Benešovice village (it even runs into afield in the built ‑up area of Přelouč, near the location Vlipinách). The territory in the sector between Lhota and Benešovice is delimited by the Brložský stream (Brložský potok). It encompasses the cadastral areas of the municipalities of Přelouč, Lhota pod Přeloučí, Škud‑ ly, and Benešovice. The local plot names in this area are ‘ULhoty’, ‘Na černých’, ‘Na Kozinci’, ‘VŘepinách’, ‘Pod Benešovicemi’, ‘Na lomenici’, ‘Na hodinářce’, and ‘Vlipinách’. The overall area is about 3.5 km2. In the vicinity of the delimited territory, there are hills named Kozinec, with aheight of 233 m.a.s.l., and Žebráky with aheight of 252 m.a.s.l. The majority of the territory is situated approximately within the altitude of 205–252 m.a.s.l.3 3 Calculated with the application Analýza výškopisu (https://ags.cuzk.cz/av/). Fig. 1: Spatial distribution of finds in the cadastral districts of Přelouč and Jankovice, dist. Pardu‑ bice, light grey dots– Roman coins, dark grey dots– metal finds from the Roman Period, empty dot– Roman finger ring (elaborated by P.Urban). 176 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Tab.1: List of studied items (created by P.Urban and J. Jílek). Attribution: R = Roman, B = Barbaric; L = Length; W/W* = Width / Width of the knee; Found by: JF = Jiří Forchtner, PŠ = Petr Šimák, ZV = Zde‑ něk Viktorin; Kept in: MP = Museum Přelouč, VČMP = Museum of Eastern Bohemia in Pardubice. ID description Chronology (stage of the RIA) attribution L (mm) W/W* (mm) figure Found at X Y Found by Kept in ‑sachet n° ‑Acc n° ‑Inv. n° 1bronze brooch; type Hrušica C2 Late. C3 R 33 14 Fig. 4:4; Pl. 4/2:3 Přelouč 15.3212983 50.214402 PŠ MP ‑8 ‑73/2016 ‑ A266a 2bronze brooch; Almgren group VII B2/C1. C1 B 24 2 / 2* Fig. 5:1 Přelouč 15.3212983 50.214402 PŠ MP ‑8 ‑73/2016 ‑A266b 3bronze knee brooch; type Jobst 12 A/B B2/C1 R 31 24 Fig. 4:2; Pl. 4/2:2 Přelouč 15.5381022 50.0376364 PŠ MP ‑16 ‑81/2016 ‑A274 4bronze brooch; Almgren group VII C1 B 41 7 / 4* Fig. 5:2 Přelouč 15.3157320 50.27229 PŠ MP ‑30 ‑94/2016 ‑A287 5bronze brooch fragment C1–C3 B 26 4 Fig. 4:5 Přelouč 15.5370522 50.0367689 PŠ MP ‑56 ‑112/2016 ‑A305 9bronze brooch – ‘Elbefibel’C1b–C2 B 30 6* Fig. 5:4 Přelouč 15.5437286 50.0317700 PŠ MP ‑242 ‑190/2016 ‑A376 10 bronze belt buckle cast; type ML G/28 B2–C1a B 27 13 Fig. 4:8; Pl. 4/2:4 Přelouč 15.5343222 50.0361847 PŠ MP ‑280 ‑213/2016 ‑A399a 12 bronze brooch fragment C1–C3 B 25 6 Fig. 5:11 Přelouč 15.54445 50.02785 PŠ MP ‑283 ‑215/2016 ‑A401 13 bronze brooch – Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 31 6* Fig. 5:5 Přelouč 15.54437 50.028 PŠ MP ‑284 ‑216/2016 ‑A402 14 bronze nail unknown ? 28 12 Fig. 4:3 Přelouč 15.5440892 50.0274883 PŠ MP ‑296 ‑224/2016 ‑A410 177JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN ID description Chronology (stage of the RIA) attribution L (mm) W/W* (mm) figure Found at X Y Found by Kept in ‑sachet n° ‑Acc n° ‑Inv. n° 15 bronze brooch ‑ Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 50 5 / 7* Fig. 5:7 Přelouč 15.54641 50.02808 PŠ MP ‑297 ‑225/2016 ‑A411 16 bronze brooch ‑ Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 36 7* Fig. 5:6 Přelouč 15.54196 50.02901 PŠ MP ‑298 ‑226/2016 ‑A412 17 bronze brooch; type Schulze 169/185, Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 45 7 / 7* Fig. 5:8 Přelouč 15.5481325 50.0279286 JF MP ‑ ‑70/2017 ‑A459 18 Roman bronze gilded ring 2nd–3rd cen‑ tury AD R 32 Fig. 2; Pl. 4/1:1 Přelouč 15.546154 50.025993 PŠ MP ‑360 ‑204/2017 ‑A465 19 iron spur; type Ginalski E5b B2b–B2/C1 B 30 47 Fig. 4:7 Jankovice 15.53996 50.01679 PŠ MP ‑360 ‑205/2017 ‑A466 20 bronze brooch; type Schulze 169/185, Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 43 7 / 4* Fig. 5:9 Přelouč 15.545413 50.02733 PŠ MP ‑362 ‑206/2017 ‑A467 21 bronze brooch – Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 44 5* Fig. 5:10 Přelouč 15.544949 50.0262222 PŠ MP ‑363 ‑207/2017 ‑A468 22 bronze brooch; type Schulze 106 C3 B 51 7 / 5* Fig. 4:9 Přelouč 15.548257 50.02826 PŠ MP ‑364 ‑208/2017 ‑A469 23 bronze brooch; type A70/73 B1c–B2a R 46 9 / 3* Fig. 4:1; Pl. 4/2:1 Přelouč 15.543156 50.02764 PŠ MP ‑365 ‑209/2017 ‑A470 24 bronze brooch – Elbefibel C1b–C2 B 41 8 Fig. 5:12 Přelouč 15.538034 50.030727 PŠ MP ‑366 ‑210/2017 ‑A471 178 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 ID description Chronology (stage of the RIA) attribution L (mm) W/W* (mm) figure Found at X Y Found by Kept in ‑sachet n° ‑Acc n° ‑Inv. n° 26 bronze brooch with pointed/rectangular foot; Almgren group VI/2 C1–C3 B 50 4 Fig. 5:3 Přelouč 15.5485935 50.027065 PŠ MP ‑411 ‑251/2017 ‑A503 29 crossbow brooch with a knob on the head – Bügelknopffibel Late C2. C3 B 37 5* Fig. 4:6 Přelouč 15.5481622 50.0281864 JF MP ‑ ‑311/2020 ‑A647 55 bronze balsamari‑ um fragment; type Bienert 102/103 1st–3rd/4th century AD R 35 29 Fig. 3:1 Přelouč. V Řepinách   ZV VČMP ‑ ‑550/2016 ‑AR011211 56 iron knife blade fragment with a bronze sleeve 1st–6th century B 54 18 Fig. 4:10 Přelouč. VŘepinách, plot n°1054/2   ZV VČMP ‑ ‑553/2016 ‑AR011474 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The settlement is located at the south ‑eastern edge of the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin. The bedrock in the whole area is composed of marlstones of the Upper Cretaceous Jizera Formation. At the southern border of the site, these marlstones were overlaid in the Middle Pleistocene by aMindelian river terrace, from which only asmall relic of the surrounding gravels are preserved to this day. Much more extensive relics of ayounger Rissian river terrace are pre‑ served in the central part of the site. Anarrow strip of aeolian sands, which were blown out from the uncovered Würmian alluvial deposits of the River Elbe, is preserved south of the state road No. I/2. The youngest sediments are Holocene alluvial deposits along the Elbe and the Brložský stream (SW edge of the territory, the name is not mentioned in the cut ‑out) and the deluvio ‑fluvial sediments lining these deposits. The gravel ‑sand layer of the alluvial plain emerged gradually during the Holocene, the origins of the loam layer are chronologically re‑ lated to the deforestation of the foothills that are located higher in the river basin, i.e., to the intensive colonisation of the foothills of the Krkonoše Mountains and the Orlické Mountains (Orlické hory). In terms of geomorphology,4 the site is situated in the subsystem of the East Bohemian Plain, in the geomorphological unit Svitavská pahorkatina, sub ‑unit Chrudimská tabule and district Heřmanoměstecká tabule.5 4 For ageneral overview of natural environment cf. https://aopkcr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webap‑ pviewer/index.html?id=ee190990a1be4ac685d5f7c69c637ae4 5 The author of the paragraph about geological conditions is Jiří Šura (East Bohemian Museum in Pardubice). 179JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN The landscape cover is composed of arable land, agricultural areas with cultural steppe. Natural vegetation is represented by oak ‑hornbeam groves, riparian woodland and alder forests. The climate is determined by its location in Central Europe, the site is situated in the warm zone T2. The average annual temperature varies between 8 and 9 °C, the average July temperature is above 18 °C. The natural course of the River Elbe is situated in the vicinity, about 1.1–3.6 kilometres away from the site (Brzicová 2016).6 HISTORY OF RESEARCH ‘Archaeological excavations might still bring many more surprises in the future, but nowa ‑ days we can only say that tangible or written evidence of permanent settlement, older than athousand years, is missing so far’ (Vorel 1999, 6). The historian Petr Vorel included these words in the first chapter of the first volume of the 1999 book Dějiny města Přelouče (History of the town of Přelouč). At the beginning of 2021, we can say that archaeological knowledge of the prehistoric, protohistoric, and early medieval period in the history of Přelouč and the surrounding region is already more extensive than it was in the late 1990s. New finds discovered in the past six years have shed alittle light on these periods. In connection with agradual restoration of the activity of the City Museum in Přelouč (the museum lost its legal identity in 1992 after aninety ‑year ‑long existence and its collections were administered by non ‑professional curators from the early 1990s to 2012), asuccessful collaboration has been developed since 2015 between the curator of museum collections and amateurs interested in surface prospection and detector surveying.7 They hand their finds in to the archaeological collection of the museum in Přelouč, which consults with the Archaeological department of the East Bohemian Museum in Pardubice (J. Jílek, T. Jošková, and J. Musil) about these finds. Until now, we did not yet know of any finds from the site in question. In other words, none of the archaeological objects previously kept in the museum in Přelouč (or in nearby museums) can be reliably localised to this site. From among the recent finds acquired after the year 2000, fragments of Bronze Age axes (Brzicová 2016, obr.1), La Tène artefacts (Jošková– Militký– Pešta 2020, 311–325), fragment of aMigration Period brooch (Matoušková 2015, 517, obr.2 B), and high medieval strap end fittings (Musil 2020, 165–172) have been published so far. STATISTICS– NEW ACQUISITIONS OF THE MUSEUM IN PŘELOUČ The statistical evaluation of newly acquired archaeological finds is alittle problematic be‑ cause the registration system of newly acquired objects is not unified. We can often find more sub‑numbers under the same inventory number. For the purpose of statistic calculations in this article we therefore prefer to use the number of units. Their number increased by about 784 from 2015 until 31st January 2021. From the area outlined above we know of 573 units, that 6 The distance was measured through https://ags.cuzk.cz/geoprohlizec/. 7 The archaeological collection of the museum in Přelouč developed in afirst phase from its origins after 1902 to about the 1950s. In this first phase, atotal of 252 inventory numbers were added to the collection. This collection was recently treated in aMaster’sThesis by Matouš Krátký under the su‑ pervision of J. Jílek (Krátký 2019). This numerical series then continued in asecond phase after 2015 and on 31 st January 2021, the collection already included 670 inventory numbers. This implies that 418 new inventory numbers were added. Unlike the first phase, they represent smaller objects, mostly made from metal. The objects are dated to the time period from the Bronze Age to the 20th century. 180 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 is 73 % of the total. The remaining units come from cadastral areas of other municipalities in the region around Přelouč or from other locations in the vicinity of Přelouč. The finds, of course, are often dated either to aparticular century or to aspecific period of time thus forming larger groups, therefore, they have been divided based on chronology. It follows from their basic statistics that most objects date to the modern period (16.93%). This is followed by medieval through modern ‑era finds (14.48%), and then finds whose date cannot be specified within abroad period spanning from the Bronze Age to the 20th century (11.52%). Also frequent is the Bronze Age (8.38%) and, surprisingly enough, also the Roman Iron Age (6.98%). Over five per cent are finds from the Early Modern Age (6.80%) and objects from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages (6.81%). As indicated in the Introduction, the present paper will focus on the Roman Iron Age finds. Fig. 2: Přelouč, Pardubice Dist., Roman bronze gilt finger ring (drawing by A. Pukanczová). ARTEFACTUAL ANALYSIS ROMAN ARTEFACTS Bronze ‑gilt finger ring The hexagonal ring weighing 16.31 g was made from solid metal (Tab.1:18; Fig. 2; Pl. 4/1:1). The hoop has bevelled shoulders, which widen towards the bezel. Each shoulder bears three longi‑ tudinal grooves with gilding residues preserved both inside the grooves and in the inner part of the hoop. The bezel plate, with aslightly raised edge, is considerably deformed. It originally bore an inset precious ‑stone or glass ‑paste or metal inlay (probably an intaglio) sized 18.10 × 14.48 mm. Unfortunately, no remnants of the adhesive with which the intaglio was attached are preserved in the ring bezel or even detected by the elemental analysis. The presence of an intaglio is assumed based on stylistic analysis and on parallels available to the Přelouč ring (e.g., Humer ed. 2009, 397, Kat. Nr. 1544; Henkel 1913, 119, Cat. No. 1302). The hoop of the ring is not complete. The measurable inner diameter of the hoop is 21.75 mm, the outer diameter is 32.0 mm. 181JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN The described ring resembles the type Guiraud 3, which was particularly popular in the 3rd century (Guiraud 1989, 185, fig. 21: 53). The bevelled hoop makes it also similar to the type III after A. Facsády (2009, 36–37), which is generally dated to the turn of the 2nd and 3rd cen‑ turies. This type of finger ring finds analogies in Carnuntum (Pl. 4/1:3; Humer ed. 2009, 397, cat. no. 1544), or Cologne/Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (Pl. 4/1:4; Henkel 1913, 119, cat. no. 1302). Another example might be abronze ‑gilt finger ring without aspecified context, kept in the J. Paul Getty Museum (Pl. 4/1:2; Spier 1992, 128, cat. no. 343). All these examples represent bronze ‑gilt rings. However, similar forms of rings also occur in silver, gold or only bronze and iron versions (Humer ed. 2009, 395–397, Kat. Nr. 1499, 1539, 1540, 1542–1545; Spier 1992, 128, cat. no. 343; Marshall 1907, 46–47, 93, 215–216, 220, cat. no. 263, 268, 550, 1403, 1404, 1440; Henkel 1913, 30, 53, 61, 118–119, 127, 164, Kat. Nr. 205, 206, 386, 443, 1301, 1303, 1386, 1814, 1815). With regard to shape and decoration, the ring from Přelouč can be dated back to the 3rd century AD. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, finger ring hoops were given an elliptical shape, often polygonal, with shoulders inclined to the outside from the bezel (Laser 1985, 134). In the course of the 3rd century, the shoulders became distinct and sharp and were often decorated with grooves, volutes or crescent ‑shaped openings (Laser 1985, 134). The diameter of these rings in almost all cases varies between 22 mm and 35 mm, which clearly indicates that they were probably made for and worn by men (Swift 2017, 152). Tab.2: Přelouč, Pardubice distr., elemental composition of the Roman bronze gilt finger ring (created by A. Pukanczová).  gilt parts (%) cast body of the ring (%) Ti 0.28 0.12 Fe 4.39 4.93 Ni 0.06 0.03 Cu 55.68 57.62 Zn 3.15 3.35 As 0.51 0.89 Ag 0.5 0.49 Sn 15.2 15.09 Sb 0.36 0.39 Au 13.98 0.1 Hg 1.15 ND Pb 12.59 17.85 The ring was subjected to elemental analysis using aDelta professional handheld X‑ray analys‑ er. Out of atotal of eight measurements, set to analytical mode with 60 second screening time, four measurements were focused on places with gilding residues (the middle grooves on both sides of the bezel, the inner side of the shoulders) and four measurements were focused on the non ‑gilt parts of the ring (the bezel, the outer side of the shoulders) (see Tab.2). The gilt parts exhibit on average ahigh proportion of copper (55.68%), tin (15.2%), gold (13.98%), and lead (12.59%), alower percentage of iron (4.39%), zinc (3.15%), mercury (1.15%), and atrace amount of silver (0.5%). The cast body of the ring shows average elemental values of copper (57.62%), lead (17.85%), tin (15.09%), iron (4.93%), and zinc (3.35%). Two measurements have 182 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Fig. 3: Přelouč, Pardubice Dist. 1– Roman bronze pyriform balsamarium (drawing and photo by A. Pukanczová); 2– bronze balsamarium from the collection of the Regional Museum and Gallery in Jičín (after Ulrychová 2020); 3– parallels from the territory of the Roman Empire: Rott‑ weil– Arae Flaviae (after Flügel 1994); 4–6– Tawern and specimens with unspecified prove‑ nance (after Bienert 2007) (2–6: not to scale). 189JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN settlements and graves, particularly in the Middle Danube region, where they also represent one of the characteristic finds from the second half of the 2nd century (Zeman 2017, 151; Kraj‑ čovič 2020, graf 4). The fragment of an unfinished bronze buckle– ablank (Tab.1:10; Fig. 4:8; Pl. 4/2:4) might also be dated to the Roman Iron Age. The artefact most probably represents amiscast buckle belonging to the group ML G/type 28, which dates back to the time ‑span of the stages B2 to C1a (Madyda ‑Legutko 1986, 51, 57, Taf. 15:28). Its presence at the site can be considered indirect evidence for the production of objects from non ‑ferrous metals in the settlement. However, this assumption cannot be reliably proved due to the find context. The artefact must therefore be regarded as afind of the ‘4th category Anzeichen einer Verarbeitung’ according to H. U. Voß (Voss– Hammer– Lutz eds. 1998, 131–132, Tab.4). Indisputable evidence for the on ‑site production of this buckle is to be confirmed by archaeological excavation. Considering the category of tools, we have to mention one part of an iron knife with abronze socket decorated with incised lines (Tab.1: 56; Fig. 4:10). The socket might have been part of awooden/bone/antler grip or it might have reinforced the knife grip. This type of knife in various modifications is already identifiable among the material from the Early (Schmidt– Nitzschke 1989, 89, Taf. 71:g; Kolník 1980, p.36, Taf. XXIII:c) and Late (Rybová 1970, 35, 91, Taf. XX:4) Roman Iron Age and it also occurs in the early (Svoboda 1965, 265, Tab.XLV:8; Pescheck 1978, 42, Taf. 30:13) and late (Geisler 1998, 65, Taf. 61:3) stages of the Migration Period. The sockets are usually made both from iron and from non ‑ferrous metals and are often decorated with linear engravings. As it follows from the chronological distri‑ bution, this type of knife does not count among chronologically significant finds. Due to its find context, abronze nail with ahemispherical/mushroom ‑shaped head (Tab.1:14; Fig. 4:3) can be dated only within abroad time ‑span. However, parallels are also known from the Roman Iron Age, when similar nails were used to fasten fittings to wooden caskets (cf. Jíleketal. 2020, 269, obr.6:25, also with further literature). CONCLUSIONS Metal detector surveys of the studied settlement site have yielded 24 objects, out of which five were Roman imports (Tab.1). The most numerous find type in the collection are brooches, of which atotal of 18 pieces were identified (15 barbarian and 3 Roman provincial brooches). Aspecial position in the collection is occupied by agild bronze male finger ring, which can be dated on the basis of acomparison with Roman provincial finds to the late 2nd through the 3rd centuries AD. This dating is also supported by the elemental composition of the alloy, which was analysed with the help of the pXRF method. The results have revealed that the ring was made from leaded bronze, which occurred with higher frequency beginning in the 2nd centu‑ ry. It is to be mentioned that this type of Roman jewellery is not really frequent in the Czech lands. From the Germanic settlement milieu, we can name the earlier published specimens from Kadaň ‑Jezerka (Kruta 1972, 326, tab.I:3), Tuklaty (Píč 1897, 378–379, tab.XXXVI:4), Prosiměřice (Jílek– Řebounová 2009), and from other sites (see Beckmann 1969, 91–92; Ondřejová 1983; Droberjar 2002, 268). 190 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Tab.3: Chronological distribution of finds (created by J. Jílek). Stage/Phase Number of finds Period Number of finds B1c–B2a 1 early RIA 1 B2–C1a 1 middle RIA 5 B2b, B2/C1 1 middle RIA B2/C1, C1 2 middle RIA B2–C1b/C2 1 middle/late RIA C1b, C2 8 late RIA 8 C2 late, C3 3 final RIA 3 If we turn our attention to the settlement chronology (Tab.3), the first human activities in the site can be traced to the Early Roman Period. They are documented by aso far isolated find of abrooch type A70/73, dated to the end of the 1st century and to the first third of the 2nd centu‑ ry (phases B1c through B2a; for details about chronology, see Jílek 2013). This chronological horizon is already well identified in barbarian settlements in East Bohemia (Jílek– Joštová 2020, 58, tab.E, graf 3). Ahigher number of finds come from the Middle Roman Period from which we know of aRoman provincial knee brooch Jobst type 12 A/B, an iron spur Ginalski type E5b, and afragment of amiscast bronze buckle ML G/28. The occurrence of aRoman knee brooch at the site is in accordance with development tendencies, which are known both from the territory of East Bohemia (Jílek– Joštová 2020) and from the Middle Danube region (Jílek 2020, tab.1, fig. 10). Unfortunately, the fragment of aRoman pyriform unguentarium Bienert type 102/103 can‑ not be dated precisely, mainly due to the absence of any well dated contexts in the territory of the Roman Empire. The majority of brooches come from the Late Roman Period, particularly from the phase C1b and the stage C2 (Tab.3). It is in this stage that the majority of barbarian brooches (8 pieces in total) fall. The occurrence of artefacts from the stage C3 is not very high, but not insignificant. By these we mean afragment of the catch ‑plate of abrooch with aknob on the bow, abrooch from the group Schulze 106 and, of course, aRoman provincial brooch of the type Hrušica. This brooch neatly completes the picture of the distribution of Late Roman products in East Bohemia, which is where the last notable influx of Roman imports to Bohemia occurred (on this topic most recently Jílek– Horník 2019, Tab.1, Abb. 5–6). But how to interpret the collection as awhole? The unstratified detector finds, however attractive they might be for an antiquarian analysis, do not provide much information due to their specific find context. Of certain significance, considering the study of manufacturing activities, is the fragment of amiscast buckle, which indirectly indicates the processing of copper alloys. As regards the Roman bronze gilt finger ring, it is difficult to resist the urge to speculate that this personal ornament may have reached the territory of East Bohemia as aresult of interactions with the Roman milieu. However, we cannot yet reliably answer whether it is evidence of trade relations with Danube regional centres, or of the return of awarrior who served in the Roman auxiliary forces (on this possibility narratively e.g., Wells 2001). The gilt Roman ring can be also considered astatus symbol, belonging to the category of so ‑called prestige goods (cf. Skóra 2015, 177–178). 191JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN BIBLIOGRAPHY Almgren, O. 1923: Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte mit Berück - sichtigung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen. Mannus ‑Bibliothek 32. Leipzig. Becker, M. 2016: Metallgefäße aus Siedlungsfunden Mitteldeutschlands im Vergleich mit den Fundspektren der Brand‑ und Körpergräber– Methodische Anmerkungen zur Fundüberlieferung, Chronologie und Befundstrukturen. In: Voss– Scheessel eds. 2016, 5–24. Beckmann, Ch. 1969: Metallfingerringe der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien. Saalburg Jahrbuch 26, 5–106. Beneš, Z. 2020: Šlotava. Katalog nálezů. Praha. Beková, M.– Droberjar, E. 2005: Bohatý ženský kostrový hrob zmladší doby římské ve Slepoticích (Par‑ dubický kraj) [Ein reich ausgestattetes Frauenkörpergrab aus der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit in Slepotice, Landeskreis Pardubice]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 9, 401–439. Bienert, B. 2007: Die römischen Bronzegefäße im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier. Trierer Zeitschrift, Beiheft 31. Trier. Blažek, J. 1995: Die jung‑ und spätkaiserzeitlichen Skelettgräber in Nordwestböhmen. Arbeitsund Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 37, 139–161. Brzicová, R.2016: Nálezy bronzových seker zPřelouče, okr. Pardubice [Findings of bronze axes from Přelouč (Pardubice district)]. Praehistorica XXXIII/1‑2, 85–88. Čižmářetal. 2010 = Čižmář, M.– Čižmářová, J.– Kejzlar, M.– Kolníková, E.: Detektorová prospekce archeo‑ logických lokalit na Moravě vroku 2009 [Metal Detector Prospecting of Archaeological sites in Moravia during 2009]. Přehled výzkumů 51, 125–138. Den Boesterd, M.H.P.1956: The Bronze Vessels in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen. Description of the collections in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen 5. Nijmegen. Droberjar, E. 2002: Encyklopedie římské agermánské archeologie vČechách ana Moravě. Praha. Droberjar, E. 2016: Poznámky knálezům římských spon na území Čech [Bemerkungen zu den Funden der römischen Fibeln in Böhmen]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 20, 827–844. Droberjar, E.– John, J.– Zavřel, P.2017: Římské agermánské spony ze Sedlce azdalších jihočeských lokalit [Römische und germanische Fibeln aus Sedlec und aus weiteren südbömischen Fundstellen]. In: Droberjar– Komoróczy eds. 2017, 199–226. Droberjar, E.– Komoróczy, B. eds. 2017: Římské agermánské spony ve střední Evropě. Archeologie barbarů 2012. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 53. Brno. Droberjar, E.– Militký, J. 2020: Kovové artefakty na sídlištích zdoby římské ve Všechlapech aKrchlebích (okr. Nymburk). [Metallartefakte in den Siedlungen aus römischen Kaiserzeit in Všechlapy und Krchleby (Bezirk Nymburk)]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 24, 465–482. Ďuga, M.– Vachůtová, D.– Zeman, T. 2017: Spony zgermánského sídliště vHrubé Vrbce „Za Bařinou“. In: Droberjar– Komoróczy eds. 2017, 269–285. Erdrichetal. eds. 2020 = Erdrich, M.– Komoróczy, B.– Madejski, P.– Vlach, M.: Marcomannic Wars and Antonine Plague. Selected essays on two disasters that shook the Roman World. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 61. Brno. Facsády, R.A. 2009: Jewellery in Aquincum. Az Aquincumi Múzeum gyűjteménye 1. Budapest. Flügel, Ch. 1994: Römische Bronzegefäße aus Arae Flaviae– Rottweil. Fundberichte aus Baden -Württemberg 19/1, 207–218. Geisler, H. 1998: Das frühbairische Gräberfeld Straubing -BajuwarenstraßeI. Internationale Archäologie 30. Rahden. Ginalski, J. 1991: Ostrogi kabłąkowe kultury przeworskiej. Klasyfikacja typologiczna [Bügelsporen der Przeworsk ‑Kultur, eine typologische Klassifikation]. Przegląd Archeologiczny 38, 53–84. 192 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Giumlia ‑Mair, A. 2001: Colouring treatments on ancient copper alloys. Revue de Métallurgie, Cahiers ďInformations Techniques 98/9, 767–776. Giumlia ‑Mair, A. 2020: Plating and Surface Treatments on Ancient Metalwork. Advances in Archaeomaterials 1, 1–26. Gugl, Ch. 1995: Die römischen Fibeln aus Virunum. Klagenfurt. Guiraud, H. 1989: Bagues et anneaux à ľépoque romaine en Gaule. Gallia 46, 173–211. Henkel, F. 1913: Die römischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande und der benachbarten Gebiete. Berlin. Höck, A. 2009: Considerazioni sulle Fibule Tardoromane del tipo Hrušica. In: M. Buora– S. Seidel (eds.): Fibule Antiche del Friuli. Monografie Archeologiche dei Civici Musei di Udine 9. Udine, 55–61. Holliger, Ch.– Holliger, C. 1985: Bronzegefäße aus Vindonissa 2. Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa 1985, 5–44. Horník, P.– Kmošek, J. 2020: Spony zdoby římské zTřebechovic pod Orebem (okr. Hradec Králové) [Ro‑ man period fibulae from Třebechovice pod Orebem (Hradec Králové District)]. Archeologie východních Čech 19, 106–116. Humer, F. ed. 2009: Von Kaisern und Bürgern. Antike Kostbarkeiten aus Carnuntum. Wien. Humeretal. eds. 2014 = Humer, F.– Kremer, G.– Pollhammer, E.– Pülz, A.: A.D. 313– Von Carnuntum zum Christentum. Ausstellung im Archäologischen Museum Carnuntinum, Bad Deutsch ‑Altenburg, März 2013– Oktober 2016. St. Pölten. Jílek, J. 2012: Bronzové nádoby zdoby římské zMoravy anaddunajské části Dolního Rakouska [Roman period bronze vessels in Moravia and in Lower Austria North of the Danube]. Pardubice. Jílek, J. 2013: Doba římská ve východních aseverovýchodních Čechách [The Roman Period in East and Northeast Bohemia. Study of interactions between the Germanic and Roman societies the Roman Period]. PhD Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University in Brno. Brno. Jílek, J. 2015: Roman Metal Vessels in the Milieu of Germanic Elites in the Middle Danube Region. Studia Hercynia 19/1‑2, 169–188. Jílek, J. 2017: Spony barbarské provenience zdoby římské ve východních Čechách [Roman period brooches in east Bohemia]. In: Na hranicích impéria. Extra fines imperii. Jaroslavu Tejralovi k80. narozeninám. Brno, 141–164. Jílek, J. 2020: Comparative research on Roman imports to Moravia before, during and after, the Marcoman‑ nic Wars, based on published finds (state of research until 2010). In: Erdrichetal. eds. 2020, 159–172. Jílek, J.– Řebounová, O. 2009: Bronzový prsten se skleněnou vložkou zdoby římské zProsiměřic, okr. Znojmo [Römisch ‑kaiserzeitlicher bronzener Fingerring mit Glaseinlage aus Prosiměřice, Bez. Znojmo]. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, řada archeologická M 12‑13 (2007–2008), 107–114. Jílek, J.– Kuča, M. 2017: Moravský Krumlov, okr. Znojmo. Přehled výzkumů 58/1, 251–252. Jílek, J.– Horník, P.2019: Provinzialrömische Zwiebelknopffibeln in Ostböhmen und Bemerkungen zum Fund aus Prag ‑Šárka. In: M. Karwowski– B. Komoróczy– P.Trebsche (eds.): Auf den Spuren der Barbaren. Archäologie der Barbaren 2015. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 60. Brno, 225–234. Jílek, J.– Horník, P.– Kopřivová, J. 2019: Ein Körpergrab der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Lovčice (okr. Hradec Králové/CZ). Jahrbuch des Römisch -Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 61/1 (2014), 179–198. Jílek, J.– Joštová, K. 2020: Osídlení zdoby římské vÚhřeticích, okr. Chrudim [Roman period settlement at Úhřetice (Chrudim district)]. Východočeský sborník historický 37, 5–99. Jíleketal. 2020 = Jílek, J.– Fojtík, P.– Popelka, M.– Kala, J.: Žárový hrob zdoby římské zPustiměře, okr. Vyškov. Příspěvek kpoznání pohřebních výbav ženských hrobů zkonce 2. století [The cremation burial from the Roman Period in Pustiměř, Vyškov district. Acontribution to our knowledge of grave goods in female burials from the end of the 2nd century]. Študijné zvesti Archeologického ústavu SAV 67/2, 259–283. Jobst, W. 1975: Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum. Forschungen in Lauriacum 10. Linz. Jošková, T.– Militký, J.– Pešta, M. 2020: Nálezy zdoby laténské na Přeloučsku. In: I. Čižmář– H. Čižmářová– A. Humpolová (eds.): Jantarová stezka vproměnách času. Brno, 311–325. 193JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN Jouttijärvi, A. 2017: Paper for special issue on “Aspects of Ancient Metallurgy” Roman alloying practice. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2017, 1–14. DOI:10.1080/10426914.2017.1279325. Klemet, J. 2016: Buntmetallverarbeitung von einer kaiserzeitlichen Ansiedlung in Neunheilingen, Unstrut‑ ‑Hainich ‑Kreis. In: Voss– Scheessel eds. 2016, 817–838. Koch, U. 1984: Die Metallfunde der frühgeschichtlichen Perioden aus den Plangrabungen 1967–1981. Der Runde Berg bei Urach 5. Heidelberg. Kolník, T. 1980: Römerzeitliche Gräberfelder in der Slowakei. Archaeologica Slovaca FontesXIV. Bratislava. Komoróczyetal. 2020 = Komoróczy, B.– Rajtár, J.– Vlach, M.– HüssenC.M.: Acompanion to the archaeo‑ logical sources of Roman military interventions into the Germanic territory north of the Danube during the Marcomannic Wars. In: Erdrichetal. eds. 2020, 173–254. Kornhäuserová, V. 2020: Chronologická aprostorová distribuce nálezů spon doby římské na sídlišti vMikulově [Chronological and spatial distribution of brooches from the Roman period found on the settlement in Mikulov]. Unpublished BA Thesis. Department of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University in Brno. Krajčovič, O. 2020: Ostrohy zdoby rímskej na Morave, naddunajskej časti Dolného Rakúska ajuhozápadného Slovenska [Roman period spurs in Moravia, Lower Austria north of the Danube and in south west Slovakia]. Unpublished BA Thesis. Department of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University in Brno. Krátký, M. 2019: Archeologická sbírka Městského muzea vPřelouči, její složení adějiny. Unpublished Master Thesis. Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, University of Pardubice. Pardubice. Kruta, V. 1972: Železářská osada ze starší doby římské Kadaň–Jezerka (okr. Chomutov) [Ľagglomération sidérurgique barbaro ‑romaine de Kadaň ‑Jezerka (Bohême du NO)]. Archeologické rozhledy 24, 317–327, 367–368. Laser, R.1985: Die römischen Fingerringe und Gemmen auf dem Gebiet der DDR. Arbeitsund Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 29, 133–158. Mączyńska, M. 2011: Der frühvölkerwanderungszeitliche Hortfund aus Łubiana, Kreis Kościerzyna (Pom‑ mern). Bericht RGK 90 (2009), 14–416. Madyda ‑Legutko, R.1986: Die Gürtelschnallen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum. BAR international series 360. Oxford. Marshall, F.H. 1907: Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum. London. Matoušková, A. 2015: Miniaturní klešťovité spony zvýchodních Čech zdoby stěhování národů [Miniature fibulae of ‘thuringian type’ (Zangenfibeln) from the eastern Bohemia from Migration Period]. In: L. Tysz‑ ler– E. Droberjar (eds.): Barbari Superiores et Inferiores. Archeologia barbarzyńców 2014. Łódź– Wieluń, 517–524. Milavec, T. 2011: Metal finds. In: Z. Modrijan– T. Milavec (eds.): Late antique fortified settlement Tonovcov Grad near Kobarid. 2– Finds. Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 24. Ljubljana, 21–75. Mráv, Z. 2013: Eiserne Klappstühle aus kaiserzeitlichen Bestattungen der einheimischen Elite in Pannonien. Zu den Beigaben der Bade‑ und Reinigungsgarnitur pannonischer Wagengräber. Archaeologiai Értesítő 138, 105–144. Musil, J. 2020: Středověká nákončí sgeometrickou rytou výzdobou zvýchodočeské oblasti [Medieval strap ends with geometric engraved decoration from the east Bohemian region]. In: I. Hlobil– M. Dospěl (eds.): Uprostřed koruny České. Kolektivní monografie NAKIII. Prostějov, 165–172. Nuber, H.U. 1988: Antike Bronzen aus Baden -Württemberg. Schriften des Limesmuseums Aalen 40. Aalen– Stuttgart. Ondřejová, I. 1983: Römischer Schmuck und Gemmen aus Böhmen und Mähren. In: P.Oliva– A. Frolíková (eds.): Concilium Eirene XVI 2. Proceedings of the 16 th International Eirene Conference, Prague 31.8.– 4.9.1982. Praha, 165–169. 194 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Ortisi, S.– Pröttel, P.M. 2002: Römische Kleinfunde aus Burghöfe 2. Frühgeschichtliche und Provinzialrömis‑ che Archäologie, Materialen und Forschungen 6. Rahden. Pescheck, Ch. 1978: Die germanischen Bodenfunde der römischen Kaiserzeit im Mainfranken. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 27. München. Píč, J.L. 1897: Sídliště uTuklat. Archaeologický výzkum ve středních Čechách. Památky archeologické XVII/5, 367–379. Roxburghetal. 2018 = Roxburgh,M.A.– Heeren, S.– Huisman, D.J.– van Os, B.J.H.: Non ‑Destructive Survey of Early Roman Copper ‑Alloy Brooches Using Portable X ‑Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. Archaeometry 61/1, 55–69. DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12414. Rybová, A. 1970: Das Brandgräberfeld der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit von Pňov. Archeologické studijní ma‑ teriály 9. Praha. Sedlmayer, H. 1995: Die römischen Fibeln von Wels. Sonderreihe zum Jahrbuch des Musealvereines Wels 4. Wels. Sedlmayer, H. 1999: Die römischen Bronzegefäße in Noricum. Montagnac. Sedlmayer, H. 2009: Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. Funde der Grabungsjahre 1948–2002 und Altfunde des 19. Jahrhunderts. Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 16. Klagenfurt am Wörthersee. Sedlmayer, H. 2016: Die Spektren römischer Bronzegefäße in Noricum und dem angrenzenden Barbaricum im Vergleich– Typen des 2./3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. In: Voss– Scheessel eds. 2016, 379–397. Schleiermacher, M. 1993: Die römischen Fibeln von Kempten -Cambodunum. Cambodunumforschungen 5. Kallmünz, 11–52. Schmid, S. 2010: Die römischen Fibeln aus Wien. Wien. Schmidt, Ch.G. 2014: Vorbild Feind? Der mitteldeutsche Fundplatz Frienstedt. Germanische Elite unter römischem Einfluss. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Christian‑ ‑Albrechts ‑Universität zu Kiel. Kiel. Schmidt, B.– Nitzschke, W. 1989: Ein Gräberfeld der Spätlatènezeit und der frührömischen Kaiserzeit bei Schkopau, Kr. Merseburg. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle 42. Berlin. Schulte, L. 2011: Die Fibeln mit hohem Nadelhalter (Almgren Gruppe VII). Göttinger Schriften zur Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 32. Neumünster. Schulze, M. 1977: Die spätkaiserzeitlichen Armbrustfibeln mit festem Nadelhalter. Antiquitas 19. Bonn. Skóra, K. 2015: Struktura społeczna ludności kultury wielbarskiej. Łódź. Spier, J. 1992: Ancient Gems and Finger Rings. Catalogue of the Collections. The J. Paul Getty Museum Malibu, California. Malibu. Svoboda, B. 1948: Čechy ařímské imperium [Bohemia and the Roman Empire]. Praha. Svoboda, B. 1965: Čechy vdobě stěhování národů [Böhmen in der Völkerwanderungszeit]. Praha. Swift, E. 2017: Roman Artefacts and Society. Design, Behaviour and Experience. Oxford. Tejral, J. 1992: Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Mitteleuropa. In: K. Godłowski– R. Madyda ‑Legutko (eds.): Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie von der Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 227–248. Ulrychová, E. 2020: Nálezy zdoby římské astěhování národů na území okresu Jičín [Funde der römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit im Gebiet des Bezirkes Jičín]. Zprávy České archeologické společnosti, suppl. 114. Praha. Ulrychová, E.– Jančo, M. 2004: Nález bronzového balzamária (amforisku, aryballu) vkatastri obce Češov, okr. Jičín [Ein Fund von dem römischen Balsamarium (Amforiskos, Aryballos) aus dem Kataster Češov, Bez. Jičín (Ostböhmen)]. Muzejní avlastivědná práce 42 / Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností 112, 97–103. Varsik, V. 2017: Niekoľko poznámok kvýskytu spôn shrotitou nôžkou na juhozápadnom Slovensku (skupina Almgren VI, 2) [Einige Bemerkungen zum Vorkommen der Fibeln mit spitzigem Fuss in der SW ‑Slowakei (Gruppe Almgren VI,2)]. In: Droberjar– Komoróczy eds. 2017, 321–337. 195JAN JÍLEK– ALENA PUKANCZOVÁ– MATĚJ PEŠTA– PATRIK URBAN Vích, D. 2014: Spony zdoby římské ze severní části Boskovické brázdy [Kaiserzeitliche Fibeln aus dem Nord‑ teil des Boskovitzer Furche (Boskovická Brázda)]. Archeologické rozhledy 66, 704–730. Vorel, P.1999: Dějiny města Přelouče 1. 1086–1618. Přelouč. Voss, H.U.– Hammer, P.– Lutz, J. eds. 1998: Römische und germanische Bunt‑ und Edelmetallfunde im Vergleich. Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen ausgehend von elbgermanischen Körpergräbern. Bericht RGK 79, 123–157. Voss, H.U.– Scheessel, N.M. eds. 2016: Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Ch. im Reich und im Barbaricum– ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Kolloquien zur Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 22. Frankfurt a. M.– Bonn. Wells, P.2001: The Barbarians Speak. How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton. Zeman, T. 2017: Střední Pomoraví vdobě římské. Svědectví povrchové prospekce [Middle Morava River valley in the Roman Period. The evidence of field survey]. Archaeologica Olomucensia 2. Olomouc. Internet sources https://ags.cuzk.cz/av/ https://ags.cuzk.cz/geoprohlizec/ https://aopkcr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ee190990a1be4ac685d5f7c69c637ae4) Jan Jílek Ústav archeologie amuzeologie, oddělení klasické archeologie, FF MU Arna Nováka 1 602 00 Brno Východočeské muzeum vPardubicích Zámek č.p. 2 530 02 Pardubice [email protected] ORCID: 0000‑0003‑1751‑6030 Alena Pukanczová Patrik Urban Ústav archeologie amuzeologie, odd. klasické archeologie, FF MU Arna Nováka 1 602 00 Brno [email protected].cz [email protected] Matěj Pešta Městské muzeum Přelouč Masarykovo náměstí 26 535 01 Přelouč [email protected] 222 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Pl. 4/1: Přelouč, Pardubice Dist., Roman bronze gilt finger ring (1), (photo by A. Pukanczová), Roman bronze gilt finger ring without specified context, stored in the J. Paul Getty Museum in California (after Spier 1992) (2), Roman bronze gilt finger ring from Carnuntum (after Humer ed. 2009) (3), Roman bronze gilt finger ring from Cologne (after Henkel 1913) (4). Pl. 4/2: Přelouč, Pardubice Dist., Roman brooches (1–3) and miscast buckle (4), (photo by A. Pukan‑ czová).