: Marcus Agrippa and the earliest Roman fortress at Nijmegen: the coin finds from the Hunerberg, in...

ISBN 978 - 84 - 00 - 08740 - 1

DE

L IM

PER

IVM

DE

PO

MP

EY

O A

LA

AV

CTO

RIT

AS

DE

AU

GU

STO

Hom

enaj

e a

Mic

hael

Gra

nt

Departamento de Historia Antigua y ArqueologíaINSTITUTO DE HISTORIAConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasMadrid. España

ANEJOSDE

AESPA XLVII

M.a Paz García-BellidoAntonio MostalacAlicia Jiménez (eds.)

DEL IMPERIVM DE POMPEYOA LA AVCTORITAS DE AUGUSTOHomenaje a Michael Grant

ANEJOSAESPA

XLVII2008

ARCHIVO ESPAÑOLDE

ARQVEOLOGÍA

Anejos de AEspA XLVII 5ÍNDICE

DEL IMPERIVM DE POMPEYOA LA AVCTORITAS DE AUGUSTO

Homenaje a Michael Grant

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

Instituto de HistoriaMADRID, 2008

MARÍA PAZ GARCÍA-BELLIDO

ANTONIO MOSTALAC

ALICIA JIMÉNEZ

(eds.)

MARCUS AGRIPPA AND THE EARLIEST ROMANFORTRESS AT NIJMEGEN: THE COIN FINDS

FROM THE HUNERBERG

BY

FLEUR KEMMERSRadboud University Nijmegen*

SUMMARY

The remarkable coin assemblage from the Augustan le-gionary fortress on the Hunerberg, Nijmegen, The Netherlandsis discussed in some detail. On the basis of a comparison withassemblages from military bases in the Rhine-area a date of19 – 16/12 B.C. is proposed for the fortress, linking it toAgrippa’s second governorship of Gaul. Furthermore atten-tion is paid to coin circulation in the north-west before the largescale production of Nemausus coins.

RÉSUMÉ

Dans cet article l’assemblage singulier des monnaies, pro-venant de la forteresse augustéenne au Hunerberg, à Nimè-gue (aux Pays-Bas) est discuté. A base d’une comparaison desassemblages des monnaies des fortifications militaires le longdu Rhin, la date proposée de cette forteresse est entre 19 et16/12 av. J.-C. Cette date coïncide avec le deuxième gouver-norat de Marcus Agrippa en Gaule. Le roulement des mon-naies avant la fabrication à grande échelle des pièces à Ne-mausus est également traité.

KEY WORDS: Nijmegen. Agrippa. Coins.

MOTS CLÉ: Nijmegen. Agrippa. Monnaies.

INTRODUCTION

It has long since been recognised that of the threeknown Augustan strongholds in the present day cityof Nijmegen, the fortress on the elevated plateaucalled ‘Hunerberg’ is the oldest.1 Estimates to the dateof the fortress were rather vague, since those findsstudied in any detail could only be used to establishthe relative, but not the absolute, chronology of thesite. A study of the coin finds from this site, analysedin their archaeological context, has yielded a more

precise date for the fortress, as well as a better in-sight in its role in the German policy of Augustus.2

In this paper I will first briefly discuss the lay-out andfinds of the Augustan fortress, followed by an over-view of the coin finds. Then I will propose a date forthe assemblage and what this implies for our under-standing of the history of the Rhine-area in Romantimes. Finally, some observations regarding coincirculation in the earliest phase of Augustus’ con-quests in Germania will be made.

THE FORTRESS ON THE HUNERBERG3

With its estimated 42 ha the Augustan legionaryfortress on the Hunerberg is large enough to havehoused 15,000 soldiers, perhaps even more. Its stra-tegic position on the last lateral moraine in the Rhi-ne delta is superb, with commanding views to thenorth and west. The polygonal structure, adapted tothe local geographical conditions, resembles similarlay-outs in Oberaden and Neuss. Excavations in theseventies, eighties and nineties of the twentieth cen-tury have revealed traces of the surrounding wall-and-ditches, the main gates, interval-towers, the praeto-rium, officer’s quarters and barracks (Fig. 1).Fortunately, the Augustan features were clearly se-parable from the traces of the Flavian fortress andcanabae legionis, which were built on top of the re-mains of the Augustan structures. The distinctive

* Department of Classics. POBox 9103 6500 HD Nijme-gen. The Netherlands. [email protected].

1 The other two are the stronghold on the Kops Plateau(Beliën, this volume) and the small encampment at Trajanus-plein (Willems and van Enckevort 2005, 70-71).

2 This paper is a summary of a larger study on coin findsfrom the Hunerberg-Nijmegen. A full publication of finds,methods, analysis and results can be found in Kemmers2006, preliminary results were published in Kemmers 2005and Kemmers 2007 (submitted 2004).

3 The excavations of the Augustan legionary fortress arestill awaiting full publication. An overview of the excavatedfeatures and special finds can be found in Haalebos 2002 andHaalebos 2006.

166 Del imperium de Pompeyo a la auctoritas de Augusto Anejos de AEspA XLVII

ceramics found in association with the Augustanfeatures, led the excavators to suppose a very earlydate for the fortress, comparable to Oberaden, andprobably Dangstetten and Neuss as well. Especiallythe stamps on Arretine ware were comparable to thoseat the latter two fortresses, whereas the Aco-beakers,Rippenbecher and Becher mit innen gekehltem Randalso found on site are general indicators of a milita-ry occupation in the penultimate decade BC. It isimportant to realise that the fortress on the Huner-berg is completely independent of the stronghold onthe Kops Plateau. These camps, situated several hun-dreds of meters apart, represent two distinct occupa-

tion periods in Roman Nijmegen, the settlement onthe Kops Plateau only starting after the abandonmentof the one on the Hunerberg.

THE COIN FINDS

The excavations of the years 1987-1997 by theRadboud University Nijmegen yielded over 3,500Roman coins, both from the Augustan legionary for-tress and the overlaying Flavian canabae legionis. Acareful analysis of archaeological contexts and dis-tribution patterns showed that of these 3,500 coins

Fig. 1. The lay-out of the Augustan legionary fortress on the Hunerberg, Nijmegen. The coin finds discussed in this paperwere excavated in the area surrounded by the dotted line. (Map by E. Ponten and F. Vermeer).

Anejos de AEspA XLVII 167MARCUS AGRIPPA AND THE EARLIEST ROMAN FORTRESS AT NIJMEGEN

only 283 could with certainty be ascribed to theAugustan phase of habitation on site. These 283 coinsconsisted of eleven Roman silver coins, seventy-oneCeltic coins and 201 Roman bronze coins.

The youngest silver coin among the seven denar-ii and four quinarii was an ‘Asia-Recepta’ quinarius,issued by Octavian in 29-27 B.C. Of the remainingsilver coins, six had been struck in the years of thecivil war, with dates ranging between 55 and 42 B.C.One coin was clearly Republican in design, but couldnot be attributed to a specific type, one had been struckin the second century B.C. and two coins had beenminted in 69 and 68 B.C. respectively. Silver coinsin general, and Republican ones in particular, areknown to have had extended circulation periods inantiquity. In the Hunerberg-assemblage they can onlyprovide a terminus post quem for the fortress: 29 B.C.

Among the Celtic coins found in the Augustanfortress three groups can be distinguished: regionallyminted coins, supra-regionally minted coins and ex-otic coins (Fig. 2). The first group consists of bronzerainbowcups (2), a quinarius of the tanzendesMännlein-type and Avavcia-coins. The last type dom-inates the entire Celtic coin assemblage: 29 pieces,fifteen of which are of the epigraphic type (Scheers217/I), three of the anepigraphic type (Scheers 217/II) and eleven of either the epigraphic or anepigraphictype. Among the supra-regionally minted coins arepieces of the Treverii (5), Parisii (1), Suessiones (2),Remi (1), Bellovaci (1), Nervii (5), Ambiani (1),Atrebates (1) and Mediomatrici (2). The produc-tion dates of both the regionally and supra-region-ally minted coins have been explored in depth byHaselgrove in his paper on coinages in Northern

Fig. 2. The Celtic coins found on the Hunerberg.


Gaul.4 The majority of the North Gaulish Celtic coinson the Hunerberg was produced in Haselgrove’s stage4 (60-20 B.C.), more precisely in the period 40-20B.C. Only one Treveran coin was minted in Hasel-grove’s stage 3 (125-60 B.C.). All regionally issuedcoins, with the exception of the epigraphic Avavciacoins,5 were minted in Haselgrove’s stage 5 (20 B.C.— early first century A.D.). As exotic coins are de-fined those coins at the Hunerberg that are far out-side their general area of circulation; coins mintedin Massalia (2), by the Sequani (1), Allobroges (2),Petrocorii (1) and Pictones (1).

Apart from the Celtic coins described above, tencoins could, due to heavy wear or corrosion, not beidentified any further. Another three coins were leg-ible, but could not be attributed to a specific issuingauthority. A parallel for these coins was found in aspecimen from the Titelberg in Luxemburg.6

The majority of the coin finds from the Augus-tan legionary fortress on the Hunerberg are Romanbronze coins. These too can be divided in threegroups: Republican, Imperatorial and Imperial issues(Fig. 3). The majority of the Republican bronzes wereheavily worn and eighty of them had been halved.Among the imperatorial bronzes three series arepresent: coins of the Copia-type (35), RPC 514/515,minted at Lyons, coins of the Vienna-type (30), RPC517, and coins of the Divos-Julius type (23),RPC 620/621, minted in Northern Italy. These coinshad all been issued in the years 38-36 B.C. Remark-able, apart from their sheer number, is the dominanceof Copia over Vienna-pieces, as this is exactly theother way round on most sites.7 Divos-Julius coinsare a rarity in assemblages outside Northern Italy.8

In the Rhine-area finds have only been reported from

Neuss and Mainz.9 The imperial bronzes from theHunerberg consist of eleven coins of the first seriesof Nemausus (RPC 523), one coin of the earliestemission of the same city (RPC 522) and seven coinsof the second series of Moneyers’ Issues from Rome.Apart from being small in number, the imperialbronzes had not been countermarked and show onlyslight traces of wear.

THE DATE OF THE FORTRESS AND ITS ROLEIN THE GERMAN POLICY OF AUGUSTUS

The coin assemblage as such from the Augustanlegionary fortress only provides us with termini postquos: 29 B.C. for the silver coins, 20 B.C. for theCeltic coins and 16/15 B.C. for the Roman bronzecoins. Fortunately, coin circulation during the Augus-tan conquest of Germania is characterized by a rap-id turnover of bronze coins. Every five to ten yearsthe coin pool changes entirely, new coins enteringcirculation and older coins disappearing almost com-pletely. In a recent paper Wigg-Wolf has assembledthe evidence, and set out the arguments once more.10

The earliest phase recognised is the fortress at Dang-stetten, thought to have been occupied in the mid/late-10s B.C.11 Its coin assemblage consists of over sev-enty percent Nemausus coins of the first series, al-most twenty percent bronzes issued before 31 B.C.,and approximately ten percent Moneyers’ Issues fromRome12 (Fig. 4). At Oberaden, dendrochronologicallydated to 11 to 8/7 B.C., Nemausus coins of the firstseries (frequently countermarked) augment up tonearly a hundred percent of the assemblage13 (Fig. 4).At Haltern, thought to have been inhabited between5 B.C. and A.D. 9, Nemausus coins have almostcompletely been replaced by Lugdunum I coins14 (Fig.4). This dominance of coins of the first altar seriesfrom Lyons is complete in the coin assemblage ofKalkriese15 (Fig.4), on solid arguments thought to bethe remains of the clades Variana in A.D. 9. The fortat Velsen, in the Rhine-delta, commonly associatedwith Germanicus’ campaigns of A.D. 15/16, showsa different coin assemblage again. At this time, coins

4 Haselgrove 1999.5 Scheers 1996 convincingly argues for a minting date of

30-20 B.C. for the epigraphis Avavcia-coins.6 Weiller 1977, FMRL II, plate XII, no. 165.7 Kemmers 2006, 39.8 Burnett e.a. 1992, 161.

Fig. 3. The Roman bronze coins found on the Hunerberg.

9 Chantraine 1982; Gorecki 2006.10 Wigg-Wolf 2007, 122-125.11 Roth-Rubi 2006, 56-63 argues for an earlier date of

Dangstetten, but her argument is difficult to follow and hasbeen critically received (see the foreword by Fingerlin 12-13in the same volume).

12 Fingerlin 1986 and 1998.13 Ilisch 1992.14 FMRD VI.4 4057.15 Berger 1996.


of the second altar series from Lyons are present inlarge numbers, as well as countermarked Moneyers’Issues16 (Fig. 4).

In theory, any coin assemblage of an Augustan sitecan be fitted into the known sequence of assemblagesdescribed above and thus be dated. If we try this forthe coin assemblage from the Hunerberg however, wefind no close parallel for it (Fig. 4). Nemausus coinsare hardly present, thereby excluding a relation withthe Oberaden-phase, but this is not compensated forby altar-issues from Lyons (as in the later assemblag-es of Haltern and Kalkriese). The only other sitewhere Republican and Imperatorial issues play anypart at all, though still tiny when compared to Ni-jmegen, is the fortress at Dangstetten — the oldestone. The earliest phase of the fortress at Neuss toois thought to have been founded around 16 B.C. Sinceit is not possible to separate earlier and later habita-tion periods from this site, it was not included in fig-ure 4. If we single out the republican bronzes, im-peratorial bronzes and Nemausus I and Moneyers’issues (both without countermarks) from the entireNeuss-assemblage17 and compare this to both Dang-stetten and the Hunerberg (Fig. 5), then a clear con-secutive order is visible. At Dangstetten, thought to

have been founded around 15 B.C., Nemausus coinsare dominant. At Neuss, presumably inhabited from17/16 B.C. onward, Nemausus coins barely reach alevel of thirty percent, while Republican bronzesconstitute just over fifteen percent of the assemblageand Imperatorial bronzes around forty percent. AtNijmegen-Hunerberg, Nemausus coins are less thanten percent of the total assemblage, while Republi-can and Imperatorial bronzes both represent 45 % ofthe total amount of coins. Therefore it can only beconcluded that the legionary fortress at Nijmegen wasfounded before the one at Neuss. It was abandonedagain sometime between 15 and 12 B.C., the periodbetween the terminus post quem of the youngestbronze coin and the start of Drusus’ campaigns alongthe Lippe, characterized by the enormous input ofNemausus coins and the IMP and wheel countermarkson them.18 When exactly the Roman occupation onthe Hunerberg started is less easily solved. Given therelatively small amount of finds, the excavators pos-tulated the theory that the site was inhabited for sev-eral years only.19 As the fortress was clearly found-ed before 16 B.C., lasted several years only and Celticcoins of the 20s B.C. are plentiful, we are of theopinion that the fortress on the Hunerberg should be

Fig. 4. The proportions of bronze coin series on dated sites of the Augustan period in chronological order, compared to theassemblage of the Hunerberg, Nijmegen.

16 Bosman 1997.17 Chantraine 1982.

18 Ilisch 1992, 178.19 Haalebos 2002, 406.


seen in association with the second governorship ofMarcus Agrippa in Gaul in 19/18 B.C.20

After the emperor himself, Agrippa was the mostprominent man in the empire. If he was sent to Gaulin 19/18 B.C., rather than another member of thesenatorial elite, there must have been a need for hisabilities. Historical sources mention unrest in Gauland troubles with the Germanic tribes across theRhine.21 The period also sees the expansion ofthe road network in Northern Gaul22 and the Ubii, andperhaps the Batavi too, were transferred to the Rhine-land.23 It seems likely that the fortress on the Hun-erberg, and Agrippa’s involvement in Gaul are relatedto these events. Considerable forces would have beenneeded to fight German aggression and transferfriendly tribes to function as a buffer. The locationof the fortress at Nijmegen and its size fit well intosuch an operation. Although Agrippa’s sojourn inGaul in 19/18 B.C. must have been important, theonly archaeological relict so far immediately linkedto his policy seems to be the bridge across the Mo-

selle at Trier, dendrochronologically dated to 18B.C.24 The fortress at Nijmegen seems to be moresubstantial evidence for Roman concerns with theRhineland preceding Augustus’ presence in Gaulfrom 16 B.C. onward. There is a possibility that thetroops stationed at Nijmegen from 19/18 B.C. on-wards were involved in the defeat of Lollius, in thevicinity of Neuss, in 16 B.C.

COIN CIRCULATION IN THE RHINE-AREABEFORE DRUSUS’ CAMPAIGNS

The Augustan fortress at Nijmegen thus representsa phase before the well-organised campaigns of Dru-sus. It is clear from the coin assemblage that boththe silver and bronze coinages in use at the timewere rather old. Brand new coins from Nemaususand Rome are present, but in small numbers only. Ap-parently coin production at those sites, and subsequenttransport of the produce to the north, was as yet notat its full height. The Republican coins in the assem-blage are all very worn and usually halved (81 out of90 pieces). The imperatorial coins are slightly less

Fig. 5. The proportions of Republican, imperatorial and Augustan bronzes in the coin assemblages of Dangstetten, Neussand Nijmegen-Hunerberg.

20 Wightman 1974 for an overview of historically attestedevents in Gaul in the period between Caesar and Augustus.

21 Dio, 54.11.1.22 Strabo 4.6.11.23 Tacitus, Annales, 12.27.1; Heinrichs 2003, 336-337. 24 Hollstein 1980, 135.


worn and less frequently halved (73 out of 88 pieces).The coins from Rome and Nemausus are in a fine con-dition, showing almost no traces of wear. The impor-tance of non-Roman coinages is clearly visible: on theHunerberg the ratio between Roman bronze coins andCeltic coins is approximately 3:1.

As new coins were only slowly entering circula-tion, completely in contrast with the situation severalyears later at Oberaden, the coin assemblage of theHunerberg provides some insights in the previouswhereabouts of the troops stationed there. The pres-ence of the Divos Julius coins from Northern Italyis quite remarkable. Their presence in Neuss has ledHeinrichs to assume a northern Italian provenance ofthe soldiers there.25 For Nijmegen we might assumethe same, especially when combined with the numer-ous coins from Southern Gaul – both Roman provin-cial and Celtic issues – indicating a marching routefrom Northern Italy over the Rhone, Saône, Moseland Meuse-valleys to Nijmegen.26

All in all, the coin assemblage from the Huner-berg is at this moment unique in its kind. In itself,it might be used as a standard for coin circulation inthe first half of the 10s B.C. and take its place in thesequence of assemblages linked to the Augustan cam-paigns in Germania.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen = ALLEN, 1995.ALLEN, D., 1995: Catalogue of the Celtic coins in the

British Museum, with supplementary materialfrom other British collections. Volume III, bronzecoins of Gaul, London.

BERGER, F., 1996: Kalkriese 1. Die römischen Fund-münzen, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 55,Mainz.

BOSMAN, A.V.A.J., 1997: Het culturele vondstmate-riaal van de vroeg-Romeinse versterking Velsen1, Amsterdam.

BURNETT, A.M. et alii, 1992: Roman provincial coin-age I, from the death of Caesar to the death ofVitellius (44 BC – AD 69), London.

CHANTRAINE, H., 1982: Novaesium VIII. Die antikenFundmünzen von Neuss. Gesamtkatalog der Aus-grabungen 1955-1978, Limesforschungen 20,Berlin.

dLT = de la TOUR, 1892.FINGERLIN, G., 1986: Dangstetten I, Katalog der

Funde (Fundstellen 1 bis 603), Forschungen undBerichte zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 22, Stuttgart.

— 1998: Dangstetten II, Katalog der Funde (Fund-stellen 604-1358), Forschungen und Berichte zurVor- und frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg69, Stuttgart.

FMRD VI .4 = KORZUS, 1971.FMRL II = WEILLER, 1977.GORECKI, J., 2006: Die Fundmünzen der römischen

Zeit in Deutschland, Abteilung IV Rheinland-Pfalz, Band 1, Nachtrag 1, Stadt Mainz, Mainz.

HAALEBOS, J.K., 2002: «Die früheste Belegung desHunerberges in Nijmegen», in PH. FREEMAN, J.BENNETT, Z. FIEMA AND B. HOFFMANN (eds.): LimesXVIII, Proceedings of the XVIIIth InternationalCongress of Roman Frontier Studies held inAmman, Jordan (September 2000), BAR Int. Ser.1084, Oxford, 403-414.

— 2006: «Nimègue-Noviomagus», in M. REDDÉ, R.BRULET, R. FELLMAN, J.K. HAALEBOS AND S. VON

SCHNURBEIN (eds.): L’architecture de la Gaule ro-maine – Les fortification militaires, Documentsd’archéologie française 100, Paris, 349-358.

HASELGROVE, C., 1999: «The development of Iron Agecoinage in Belgic Gaul», The Numismatic Chron-icle 159, London, 111-168.

HEINRICHS, J., 2000: «Überlegungen zur Versorgungaugusteischer Truppen mit Münzgeld. Ein neuesModell und daraus ableitbare Indizien für einenWandel in der Konzeption des Germanien-Krieg-es nach Drusus», in L. MOOREN (ed.): Politics, ad-ministration and society in the Hellenistic andRoman world, Studia Hellenistica 36, Leuven,155-214.

— 2003: «Ubier, Chatten, Bataver. Mittel-und Nied-errhein ca. 70-1 v.Chr. anhand germanischerMünzen», in TH. GRÜNEWALD AND S. SEIBEL (eds.):Kontinuität und Diskontinuität. Germania Infe-rior am Beginn und am Ende der römischenHerrschaft, Berlin, 266-344.

HOLLSTEIN, E., 1980: Mitteleuropäische Eichenchro-nologie. Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen 11,Mainz.

ILISCH, P., 1992: «Die Münzen aus den Ausgrabungenim Römerlager Oberaden», in J.-S. KÜHLBORN

(ed.): Das Römerlager in Oberaden III, die Aus-grabungen im nordwestlichen Lagerbereich undweitere Baustellenuntersuchungen der Jahre1962-1988. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 27,Münster, 175-202.

KEMMERS, F., 2005: «The coin finds from the Augus-tan legionary fortress at Nijmegen (The Nether-

25 Heinrichs, 2000, 185.26 This theme is explored in debt in Kemmers (in press).


lands): Coin circulation in the Lower Rhine areabefore Drusus’ campaigns», in C. ALFARO, C.MARCOS AND P. OTERO (eds.): XIII Congreso In-ternacional de Numismática Madrid 2003, Actas-Proceedings-Actes, Madrid, 987-990.

— 2006: Coins for a legion. An analysis of the coinfinds from the Augustan legionary fortress andFlavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Studien zuFundmünzen der Antike 21, Mainz.

— 2007: «A military presence on the Lower Rhinebefore Drusus’ campaigns. The coin finds ofthe Augustan legionary fortress at Nijmegen»,in G.A. LEHMANN AND R. WIEGELS (eds.): Rö-mische Präsenz und Herrschaft im Germanien deraugusteischen Zeit. Der Fundplatz von Kalkrieseim Kontext neuerer Forschungen und Aus-grabungsbefunde. Abhandlungen der Akademieder Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Band 279, Göt-tingen, 183-199.

— in press: «Contexts and phases: suggestions fora new approach to Celtic coins in Roman forts»,in J. VAN HEESCH (ed.): Festschrift for SimoneScheers, Brussels.

KORZUS, B., 1971: Die Fundmünzen der römischenZeit in Deutschland, VI,4: Münster, Berlin.

RIC = SUTHERLAND, 1984RPC = BURNETT et alii, 1992.ROTH-RUBI, K., 2006: Dangstetten III: Das Tafelge-

schirr aus dem Militärlager von Dangstetten. For-schungen und Berichte zur Vor-und Frühgeschich-te in Baden-Württemberg 103, Stuttgart.

Scheers = SCHEERS, 1977

SCHEERS, S. 1977. Traité de numismatique celtique II.La Gaule Belgique, Paris.

— 1996: «Frappe et circulation monétaire sur le ter-ritoire de la future civitas Tungrorum», RevueBelge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie 142,Brussels, 5-51.

SUTHERLAND, C.H.V., 1984: The Roman ImperialCoinage, volume 1, revised edition, from the deathof Caesar to the death of Vitellius, London.

TOUR, H. de la, 1892: Atlas des monnaies gauloises,Paris.

WEILLER, R., 1977: Die Fundmünzen der römischenZeit im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg II, Berlin.

WIGG-WOLF, D.G., 2007: «Dating Kalkriese: thenumismatic evidence», in G.A. LEHMANN AND R.WIEGELS (eds.): Römische Präsenz und Herrschaftim Germanien der augusteischen Zeit. Der Fund-platz von Kalkriese im Kontext neuerer For-schungen und Ausgrabungsbefunde. Abhandlun-gen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zuGöttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, drit-te Folge, Band 279, Göttingen, 119-134.

WIGHTMAN, E.M., 1974: «La Gaule chevelue entreCésar et Auguste», in Actes du IXe Congrès in-ternational d’études sur les frontières romaines,Mamaia, 6-13 septembre 1972, in Pippidi (ed.),Bucuresti, 473-483.

WILLEMS, W.J.H. and VAN ENCKEVORT, H., 2005: «Dekampementen van de hulptroepen», in W.J.H.WILLEMS, H. VAN ENCKEVORT, J.K. HAALEBOS AND

J. THIJSSEN (eds.): Nijmegen, geschiedenis van deoudste stad van Nederland. Prehistorie en Oud-heid, Nijmegen, 70-73.

: Marcus Agrippa and the earliest Roman fortress at Nijmegen: the coin finds from the Hunerberg, in...

Documents

Transcript of : Marcus Agrippa and the earliest Roman fortress at Nijmegen: the coin finds from the Hunerberg, in...