The study is dedicated to the analysis of hoard consisting of silver ornaments, western European Byzantine and Arab coins; of these last it was only possible to give general information, it is hoped that in the future a publication may be devoted to them. The work was undertaken with the support of the Committee for Scientific Investigation (2HO1H 063 23), conducted by the Poznań Archaeological Museum and directed by under Professor dr. hab. Lech Krzyżaniak.
          In 1996 a project was initiated to create an inventory of hoards discovered in Poland, the project was named Corpus Thesaurorum Poloniae (CTP)¹. During on site verification of the project principles, in August 2001, it was attempted to find the place, where in 10.11.1932 hoard accidentally uncovered by ploughing subsequently taken from the soil by Prof. Zygmunt Zakrzewski. No study was written about the find, and now it must be acknowledged as lost² .
          The hoard was discovered northeast of the village of Kąpiel, in the upper parts of steep sides of a valley falling towards the east, the starting point of a little tributary stream of the River Wrześnica (fig. 1). A straightforward strata-graphic profile was registered – a humus layer of 0.30 m. depth, lying over undisturbed soil, practically all of the historic material came the ploughed layer or the uncultivated soil layer, except for several very small fragments, originating from feature no. 1, explained as a cavity, in which the whole deposit had once been hidden. Held in the cavity were fragments of the lower part of the bowl of a small vessel, ornamented in the upper parts by horizontal grooves (fig. 3, Plate II/VII:A). Parts of the hoard certainly had other protection than just the vessel, made from organic material, indicated by the impression of fabric retained on an fragment of ornament (fig. 6). Also nearby a remarkably deep cavity was registered containing no material that might date the feature, used repeatedly as a hearth with a stone surround (fig. 2).
          The fundamental question for sources so obtained, depending on repeated deposits additionally mixed in degrees by ploughing, is the question of their chronological value; the problem being to what extent may they be treated as a group. Examination yielded 2774 silver historic objects, among which only 2 were not connected with the hoard (fig. 4:1-2). The remaining elements – silver coins and their fragments and also broken pieces of silver jewellery – on the basis of their dispersal, restricted to a few metres around the centre, at which was found the cavity destroyed by the plough and pottery pieces, dependent elements of the deposit, they ought to be regarded as a homogeneous collection.
          The catalogue contains information on all metal historic artefacts found during work at digs in 2001. For all elements of the deposit, in so far as is possible, the same descriptive criteria are applied, noting firstly: (A) – typological characteristics of the artefact, next (B) – destructive activity, including the number and type of stages that resulted in final state of the historic hoard artefact as noted. If it is not possible to distinguish the typological traits of an artefact beyond the indication that it is a piece of coin or ornament, the Catalogue description is limited to point B.
          The scheme used in the study in the coins section (fig. 5) permits precise notation of the shape and size of the described piece of coin, with the markings on the rim, and listing the number and place of the division made and also allows an evaluation of effort applied to their accomplishment. It enables also the exact location of further legible distortion of the piece of coin and its interpretation within the context of the divisions made – the succession of time and connection within the divisions (i.e. the cut on the edge left after the division), or the description of the intended or accidental nature of the destructive effect.
          Typological and chronological analysis of the group. The currently discovered part of the Kąpiel hoard is composed of 2772 silver artefacts consisting of coins – 21+2460 (89.5%) and also ornaments and unfinished items – 2+288 (10.5%). The total weight is 833.17 g., of this coins 674.22 g (80.9%), items other than coins 158.95 g (19.1%).
          Arab³ coins form the most numerous part of the find – 1+1510 that is 54.5% of the items and 56.8% weight. Identified in varying degrees were 1+549 dirhams (36.4%), of the remainder only fragments of conventional inscriptions were identified or they were extremely worn. I entire Arab coin remained – a Samanid dirham of Nah ibn Mansur from the mint of Andaraba, dated the year 978/979 – the most recent orientally dated piece of the hoard. The oldest, from the VII century are 2 Sassanid or Arabo-Sassanid coins. Among the later coins, from the X century, at least 77 were struck in the first half, a further 30 at about the mid X century, and the latest group consists of coins from the second half of the X century. (44). separated into 52 copies of Arab coins and 2 coins of the Kamski Bulgars.
          Among the European coins the issues from the Bavarian area dominate (Plate I/IX:296-299, I/X, I/XI, I/XII, I/XIII, I/XIV, I/XV, I/XVI:484, 486-489, 491-492): 1+197, which constitutes 7.14 % of the number of artefacts, making up 5.95 % of the weight of the group, of which the Bavarian mints certainly struck – 66 in Regensburg and 30 in Nabburg, and in Swabia – 15 in Augsburg and singly in Breisach, Strasburg and Zurich. The oldest of those registered in the Bavarian collection were struck by Princes Henry I (948-955) and Henry II (955-976) and also Prince Ludolf (953-955), the later coins are of Prince Otto (976-982), struck during his usurpation and are the most numerous in the collection (31 items), and the latest are of Prince Henry III (982-985) represented by 6 coins. Among the Swabian issue from Augsburg the coins of Bishop Udalryk (923-973) dominate, especially from the years 954/5-967 and of Bishop Henry I (973-977/8), few are the denarii struck by the Bavarian princes – Prince Otto (976-982) and singly, but as the only one remaining as an entire denarius (Plate I/XIV:410) Prince Henry III (982-985). The remaining coins originate from the mints of Western Swabia: Prince Burchard (954-973) from Breisach, Prince Otto I (973-982) from Zurich and Bishop Erkambold (965-991) from Strasburg. Registered also were 5 fragments of coins with excellently imitated inscriptions, copying denarii from the Bavarian Swabian area (Plate I/XVI:488-498, 491-492). The number of coins from this area in this part of the collection is very high, comparable in this regard – taking account of Polish land and Polabia – only from the find from Zalesie⁴.
          A very high share, the fourth in the collection numerically is taken by Danish half bracteate (5+118 – 4.44 % of the find), though their total weight is not great – 12.45 g, 1.49 % of the weight of the hoard (Plate I/I:12, 21-22, 25-28, 30-34, 36, I/II, I/III, I/IV:112, 115, 129). The group is very compact chronologically, all the exactly dated half bracteate are of 2 types and originate from the second half of the X century. Among 109 examples possible to describe, 96 fragments represent various types struck in Hedeby, copying the much earlier Carolingian coins from Dorestad (B. Malmer CEIII/DIII). 13 coins represent the older varieties of the cross type (Bå/K, KG 10a), originating according to B. Malmer from Jelling or maybe from Roskilde or Lund⁵. The analysed group of half bracteate is the greatest in Poland and is one of the most numerous yet found in Europe.
          Somewhat fewer were the Saxon coins in the hoard (4+113), represented by two types – the Sachsenpfennige type I (Plate I/V:178-182, I/VI, I/VII, I/VIII, I/IX:272) and also the denarii of Otto and Adelaide (Plate I/IX:281-293). Among the cross type I, 2+101 were registered, 4 varieties appeared, which Ch. Kilger tried lastly to ascribe to several mints and successive Ludolfing rulers after 965⁶. As the oldest (Kil. KN 1, Dbg 1328) may be counted 1+17 coins, including an obol its fragment (Kil. KN1o, Dbg 1326 and 1970). Generally recognised as later⁷, the variety with the inscription ODDO (an OTTO variety was not noted) inside a chapel, represented in Kąpiel by 0+11 coins (KN 2:1, Dbg 1328), dated about 975-985. Numerous enough are denarii of succeeding types (KN3, Dbg 1325b), dated 970-985 – 1 whole coin and 16 fragments were noted. The latest is of the hoard group (0+7) cross type I (KN 4, Dbg 1329), which the above named researcher ascribed to the times of Otto III – about 985-1000 and to the mint in Halle-Giebichenstein. The second type of Saxon coin, denarii with the names of Otto and Adelaide⁸, generally taken as being Otto III and his consort Adelaide and in consequence dated after 991 the last dated being earlier, being after 983/984⁹. In the hoard trove of Kąpiel appeared 2+ 12 denarii of Otto and Adelaide, thus the majority (2+ 4) of these, which might be precisely identified, belong to type II, with the name OTTO on the arms of a cross, 0+1 to type III, 0+1 to type IV and 0+3 to type III or IV.
          Significant, numbering 47 examples in the group of coins constituted by the Czech issue (Plate I/XVI: 493-498, 500-505, I/XVII, I/XVIII). Represented are several types: Bavarian I-IV, sword I and II, “Byzantine” and the hand-chapel type and also many of their fragments, characteristic of the oldest Czech mint, and struck by Bolesław II (967/72-999), and maybe equally in several cases (Bavarian type I) by Bolesław I (935-967/72). Among the oldest (Bavarian type I), are 9 coins from the current investigation at Kąpiel. The last of them carrying a fragment of the name BIAGOTA, should be ascribed, according to the latest research of W. Hahn, to Bolesław II and his wife Emma (Blagota)¹⁰. In our collection a coin fragment appeared belonging to the Bavarian type I, carrying a cross in the arms 2 and 1 an orb (Šm. 1), considered sometime as the beginning of the Czech mint¹¹. Among the Bavarian type II, dated from about 978¹² are 4 coins from Kąpiel, the next 6 carry images characteristic of the sword type, from which the four first, older (sword type I), struck at the beginning of the 80’s of the X century. The most numerous in the hoard trove are coins of the Bavarian type III, carrying under the roof of a chapel the inscription ONO or ONC – 10 items, dated from about 980¹³. Denarii of the Bavarian III type are in any case markedly more common than the later, besides the sword type II, coins of the Czech type¹⁴ noted among the coins – “Byzantine”, Bavarian IV and hand-chapel, for which the beginning of the issue is designated as around 985¹⁵ or somewhat earlier¹⁶.
          Rhineland coins from Franconia (Plate I/IV:144-148, 151, I/V:155, 157-158) and from Lower Lotharingia (Plate I/V:161-168, 172-173, 176-177) occurred in similar numbers, in several examples. Among these last, besides Cologne denarii of Otto I and Otto II or Otto III, were still noted copied Cologne obols of Otto I, recalling type Dbg 330 and also struck in Trier a denarius of Otto II. Amongst 16 Franconian coins struck in the times of Otto I and Otto II, were identified 5 from the Mainz mint, 4 from Spira and 2 originating from Worms and also 5 whose mint of origin is difficult to identify.
          Byzantine miliares (Plate I/I:1-2, 4-5), which contributed 6 fragments to the recovered hoard were issued by successive emperors from Constantine VII Porphirogenus (913-959) and Roman II (945-963), from the period of the joint rule in the years 945-959, till John I Tzymiskes (969-976).
          Italian coins (Plate I/IV:135, 138-139) are represented at Kąpiel by 5-6 fragments, in the main small and difficult to decipher and thus difficult to unambiguously classify. They originate from the Otto issues, from the mints of northern Italy (Pavia, maybe also Lucca or Milan).
          Based on retained fragments it may be stated that there were 4 English coins in the group (Plate I/I:7-10) types first small cross and first hand, of which the 2 last were issued by Ethelred II (978-1016) from the years 979-985. English coins from times before the Danegeld (from 991), are very rare in Poland – at Kąpiel undoubtedly one of the earliest dated of these has been found.
          Other German coins are modestly represented – from Upper Lotharingia (Plate I/IV:141-143), struck in Metz, Frisian coins from Deventer, connected with Otto III (983/4-1002), coins from the kingdom of the Burgundian Basils (Plate I/IV:134), struck by Conrad the Peaceful (937-993).
          Part of the non-coin hoard analysed, is composed of ornaments, apart from one remaining in fragments (268 pieces). Additionally in this part of the find are 2 examples of cast silver and 18 pieces of bars. In all then 290 pieces, weighing 158.95 g., constituting 10.46% of all pieces of the hoard and 19.08% of its weight. Typologically this part of the inventory is very varied.
          Among the Kąpiel hoard are:
1) 20 ornamented fragments are certainly parts of clasps of a necklace (Plate II/I:1-6, 12-20) and a further 20 mainly small fragments, probably also fragments of clasps (Plate II/I:22-31, 33-34, 38-40),
2) 28 collar beads: oval (Plate II/I:43-46, 48, 50-53), oval with bulging (Plate II/I:54-59), with knobs (so called horns – Plate II/I:60-62), oval polygonal (Plate II/I:64-66), granular ornamented and open work type. Rarer among the examples of oval beads from Kąpiel is the volute ornament decoration, made from twisted filigree or decorated with straight wire in the form of non centrally placed double circles (Plate II/I:51-52). Entirely exceptional is a Scandinavian type of bead, volute ornamented with a broad, flat band of press filigree (Plate II/I:41),
3) fragments from arm rings, bracelets or necklaces (Plate II/I:69-77, 79). One of the arm rings (Plate II/I:69) with extended ribs and fluting, with centrally raised ribs finds an analogy between Danish¹⁷ and Gotland¹⁸. hoard. Hoards from Poland among the hoard, which are pieces of the mentioned type of ornament are dated as being from the beginning of the XI century¹⁷, and thus a fragment from Kąpiel would be the earliest evidence of their diffusion from the northern lands of Poland. Other pieces come from an open arm ring of an almost peaked cross section, with a central strip separating two bands of rhomboid network ornamentation (Plate II/I:70). Arm rings of this type are noted mainly in the hoards of Gotland¹⁸, and the fragment coming from Kąpiel is of that type, Ab 2, dated 950-1050. It appeared in Polish hoards dating in principle from the year 1000, and the Kąpiel hoard is the earliest noted deposit, in which it is noted,
4) 15 necklace fragments – their ends are formed of variously decorated flat pieces (Plate II/II:80-86, 88, 90-94),
5) 24 pieces of wire, constituting 10.33% of the non-coin weight of the hoard trove. (Plate II/II:96-98, 117-136),
6) small bars – 18 fragments (Plate II/II:99-108, II/III:109-116) weighing 31.79% of the non-coin hoard. Works from most frequently four cornered section bar, after forming (spiral twisted) and sometimes ornamented ends act as arm rings¹⁹,
7) 17 fragments of rectangular amulet containers so called “kaptorga” (Plate II/III:137-142, II/IV:143-149, 151-153). it is noted that there are among others two kinds of plastic ornament. One of these is in the form of horses’ heads (Plate II/III:137-138), the second is oval knobs laid in one or two rows (Plate II/III: 139-140),
8) fragments of brooches and pendants (Plate II/IV:154-176), including ring pendant (Plate II/IV:175), having very many analogies in the hoards of Denmark and Gotland. Other type is round pendant, ornamented with a motif of a large scrolled pellet, with a volute shape made of 2 double, twisted wires attached to each other (Plate II/IV:154). In Scandinavian materials pendants are known ornamented with 2,4 and 5 volute scrolls²⁰, this type of ornamented object is equally noted in Polish hoards²¹. The next type is the crossed pendant, represented by fragments of 4 examples, ornamented with a granulation technique, belonging to the later typological varieties. Three of these (Plate II/IV:155-157) link directly to specimens of type C, dated in the Jutland region in the 2 half of the X century, thus in Gotland at the turn of the X century to mid XI century²². The fourth fragment (Plate II/IV:158) shows a somewhat later ornamental trait, which is very geometric, but small granulation is applied, approaching the latest varieties of crossed pendant of Gotland provenance²³. Fragments of bracteate pendant are also differentiated (Plate II/IV:159-163). An element of such an ornament is e.g. fragment (Plate II/IV:160) metal leaf with soldered wire formed into thick pseudo granules (Perlstäben). Further detail of the ornamentation, which may be recognised as a part of a bracteate pendant, is a plait of filigree strip in the shape of a flat braid (Plate II/IV:161), however one may not determine whether the element originates from a round/cirular brooch or a necklace²⁴. The next two bits (Plate II/IV: 162-163) of silver leaf decorated with a plaited ornament entwined with a twisted filigree linking its appearance to the style of Mammen and belongs to the type produced from the X century in Gotland²⁵. Round/circular brooches are well represented (type Sp.1 according to M. Stenberger) – Plate II/IV:168-174). On the face of this type of brooches are stylised motifs filled with filigree and granulation 2-3-4 animal figures in the form of plaited strips, linked to the style of Jellinge²⁶. Four pieces (Plate II/IV:168-171) from Kąpiel belong certainly to variety A, dated 950-970 and first produced in Denmark, later in continental Sweden. Other specimens (Plate II/IV:172) probably originated a little later, dated 970-1000 variety B, typified by the application of thicker granulation²⁷. Certainly of Scandinavian provenance is a broken piece of a silver four-cornered plate, decorated with engraved ornamentation, woven belts surrounding depressions, into which small circles of gold leaf are punched with an inlaying punch (Plate II/IV:167); a technique associated with the Jellinge style. Of similar origin is another – the recovered half separated detail – the recovered half being of cast spherical thickening (Plate II/IV: 176) – this fragment may have come from a ring brooch of type Rs2 according to M. Stenberger,
9) 49 fragments of ear-rings – identified as the following types: with raspberry beads (Plate II/IV:178), with empty beads, so called bubbles, e.g. a fragment from seldom seen ear-rings, made of two oval, empty beads from flat strip, tightly backed with twisted filigree (Plate II/IV:179, II/V:180-181), semi circular with pendants on chains (Plate II/V:183-185), of variously shaped pendants (Plate II/V:187, 190-195,198-199): so called goose feet, in oval, trapezoid or pear form, decorated with a pseudo filigree technique, and also five cornered plain metal sheet and little bubbles, with cylindrical beads (Plate II/V:210,212), with openwork beads (Plate II/V:218-222), Świątki type (Plate II/V:201-208), additional beads (Plate II/V:209,213-217) and curved (Plate II/V:223-224, II/VI:225) from unidentified types of ear-rings,
10) 29 pieces of ornamental elements, which may not be ascribed to defined types of article (Plate II/VI:227-255),
11) 33 unidentified fragments, undecorated articles, described as metal sheet of varying shapes (Plate II/VI:264, II/VII:265-288),
12) so called cast silver (Plate II/VII:289-290), represented by two examples – very small fragments weighing less than 0.5 g – resembling drops of silver formed while casting some silver object, rather than deliberately made objects.
          Destruction analysis. The recovered piece of the Kąpiel hoard is composed of items divided to a very marked degree. No ornament remains in its original form (2 collar beads have not exactly been divided but have been severely crushed), there remain however not counting the oriental parts²⁸, 3 undamaged and 17 entire, yet variously damaged coins.
          The destructive activity is reflected in the weights of the pieces – in a very fragment group the average weight of all of its components is 0.30 g. The largest fragments (910 items), weigh between 0.11-0.20 g, and up to 70.17% of the elements weigh up to 0.30 g. Many of the smallest fragments equally of coins as of ornaments are so tiny that it is difficult to do anything with them even in laboratory conditions (see Plate I/XIX). Using them for exchange transactions would cause particularly great loss, discernible in the archaeological material.
          The most divided coins are Czech coins of the so-called Bavarian type I (only fragments – 3.75 parts of 1 example), of the Bavarian – Swabian issues of the times of Henry II (955-976) and older (3.2 parts, equally detached fragments). Among successive in this regard Sachsenpfennige type I (average 3.0, two whole – 1.9%), the most divided are those last, recognised as being the latest²⁹ (KN4 – 3,3 parts). On average 2.9 times divided are the Bavarian and Swabian issues of Prince Otto (976-982). Two, a little higher, parts mark succeeding Czech denarii (Šm. 12 – 2.3), Danish half bracteate from Hedeby (2.2, three undivided examples – 3.2%), Lower Lotharingian coins (2.1, one whole – 5.9%) and Bavarian Swabian denarii of Prince Henry III (982-985) – 2 parts, 1 entire coin remains. On average less than 2 parts are noted among Franconian coins (1.9, but here 3 entire – 17.6%), later Scandinavian half bracteate (1.5 parts, two entire – 15.4%), Saxon denarii of Otto and Adelaide (1.4 parts, 2 whole – 14.3%) and the remaining types of Czech coins (sword type, Šm. 8 – 1.2, type hand-chapel, Šm. 30 – 0.5; among Czech coins of the later types there were also 6 whole coins -12.8%). The question remains for further study, does analytical observation of a statistical nature, concerning the fragmentation of the coins in the group have any chronological value.
          Decidedly the greatest percentage of coins bearing cuts are found among the Saxon issues (62.4%), of which more of them are the denarii of Otto and Adelaide (78.9%) than of the Sachsenpennige type I (60.2%). Markedly less of the Lower Lotharingian coins are cut (47%), the Czech follows (45%), then the Bavarian (39.4%) and the Franconian (37.5%). The least, for 17.9% were the cut Scandinavian half bracteate, which beside the Bavarian and Saxon coins had the greatest number of bent edges and rims and bent out edges.
          The coins are bent to varying degrees; one may indicate numerous incidents where distortion is not the result of division. The group of coin fragments is also signified as they have bent parts, and sometimes the bend follows a cut to the edge or rim and the larger group, in which after a cut the edge is bent of twisted at various angles. For example, up to 39 of 47 Czech coins are to varying degrees and in differing ways bent, most often as a result of division, however in the case of 17 of them the bend cannot be linked with division – this concerns among others whole coins. The bending of parts of the metal sheet by the edge of 45 or 90o, previous cuts and bends at the edges. Other examples are provided by the Scandinavian half bracteate, among which 5 undivided remain, but 3 of these have been bent several times. The bending of these coins has occurred often in the group, and carried out in several repeated ways. On three whole and several coin fragments bent with the rim bent into the centre of the coin “in the envelope” (Plate I/II:47, 52, 67), on several others there are several parallel bends as in an accordion (Plate I/IV:129), further bent in half (Plate I/I:12, I/II:50, 65, I/III: 99), the next bent fragment of rim or edge, sometimes first cut before bending.
           A much greater problem is posed by the observation of the form of destruction, discernable on the ornaments, mainly caused by the variety of their shapes and technique of manufacture. Additionally the division of the spatial form may in larger parts have an unintentional character, if it follows crushing of the object (division along the break – e.g. collar beads or ear-rings). For rectangular amulet containers (so called “kaptorga”) and clasps of a necklace one may seek a repetitiveness of the division along the axis of these objects. In detail the means of division is determined by the form, in the case of an item made from rods, wire or thicker metal strip (necklaces, arm rings, bracelets, ear-rings in pieces and unfinished products). Also the degree of complexity of the construction affects the number and type of divisions (ear-rings, rectangular amulet containers). It already shows from the above comments that the number of divisions and their average, is not in the group comparable for various types of ornaments, regarding ornaments of different types; one may however attempt to compare them in this regard with ornaments of different deposits or finds. The cuts on non-coin parts of the hoard are almost exclusive to and many times noted among substantial items made from rod, wire or metal strip. Rods were cut mostly, being pieces of bars or maybe because sometimes ornaments were made from them and the number of cuts at times exceeded 20 and the appearance of them on all the pieces, exceeds the count from other products, maybe excepting some fragments of necklaces. Numerous cuts appear also on wire, arm rings, bracelets and in lesser numbers on collar buckles. However they are entirely sporadic among delicate ornaments decorated with filigree and granulation (ear-rings, pendants and brooches of Scandinavian origin) and undefined ornaments, and they were not noted on beads and rectangular amulet containers so called “kaptorga”.
           These forms of distortion, effected on silver objects in the end deposited in the soil, as yet have not been convincingly explained³⁰, though various attempts have been made³¹ or at least studied³². The spectrum of activity is wider here in any case, needing to have regard also for such variation in material from Kąpiel, and not connected with the division of coins, repeated bending of their little fragments, the “compound” of whole coins and their greater parts and at least some of the bent rims and edges³³. These distractions were thus various – changing shapes and weights of articles (divisions), only the shape (bending, compounding, buckling and crushing) or leaving traces on the surfaces or edges, however without change to weight and shape of the object (cuts). Some of the articles, especially the divided dirhams and part of the ornaments might have been deposited in the earth in that already changed form³⁴, however the majority subjected to the described treatment in the Baltic region, and in any case Central and North-West Europe, for they originate from there. At least some of the mentioned occurrences (cutting, bending, subjecting the remainder to frequent cutting and compounding), might be understood in the category of the significance of the silver. Should that be considered with reference to the person (receiving, perhaps transferring the silver), place (distinguishable stage points of the route of the silver’s journey), or also circumstance (customs in the area of social behaviour and recognised systems of values and economic activity)’ currently this is not a means of solution. Consequently – one may not exclude, that all the actions described already, equally the dividing, served the same purpose; the division thus might have been some form of branding silver products, yet very intrusive on the material of the object and irreversible, through that very discernable in archaeological material.
          Other forms of interference are piercing openings, changing maybe temporarily the function of 11 coins from Kąpiel.
          Chronology of the hoard. At the Kąpiel deposit a range of elements of varying origin and age are assembled. The structure – the significant domination of Arab dirhams, constituting over half of the mass of the hoard, the large number of ornaments, very intensive fragmentation of all the components of the deposit – typical of the older deposits of Wielkopolska, from the 2 half of the X century. Among the coins from the region of Bavaria – Swabia, the latest are the denarii of Prince Henry III (982-985) – from the short three year extent of his rule, originate 7 coins, among these only the Bavarian-Swabian remain entire. There is a lack of common coins of Prince Henry II from the second period of his rule (985-995). Relevant to the dating of the Kąpiel hoard is the chronology of the fairly numerous Czech denarii present in it, represented by as many as 8 types. Her are the oldest type of Bavarian denarius I, ascribed to Prince Bolesław I (935-967/72) or to Bolesław II (967/72-999) and coins of the latter ruler, belonging to the Bavarian types II and III, which appeared in hidden hoard after 983³⁵. The latest in the group are coins of the Czech sword type I, II(?), Bavarian IV, “Byzantine” and hand-chapel type, from which the last type may be dated from 985. Among the Saxon coins, equally the Sachsenpfennige, as the denarii with the name of Otto and Adelaide are found further varieties belonging to the latest in the group. The problem of dating the Sachsenpfennige type I – KN 4 for the years 985-1000 is debatable, though the presence of 7 of their fragments at Kąpiel is not contradictory to the attempt. Of greater significance for dating not only the Kąpiel deposit is the last proposed chronology for dating denarii of Otto and Adelaide by German researchers – after 983/4³⁶, instead of the generally accepted till now – after 991. Among the Otto issues, equally in Germany as in Italy, only 1 fragment, originating from Frisian coins struck in Deventer may be with certainty linked with the royal governments of Otto III (983/4-996), the remainder are ascribed to Otto I and II. The European part of the deposit is chronologically compact – practically all the coins originate from issues struck after the mid X century. The latest Scandinavian half bracteate from Kąpiel may be dated after 975/980, and the English coins of Ethelred II after 979. A significant number of the oriental coins also originate from the 2 half of the X century, the latest of them being dated 978/9. The latest Byzantine coins were struck by Emperor John Tzymiskes (969-976).
       All the above presented data enables one to date the Kąpiel hoard as after 985, and most probably in the 2 half of the 80’s of the X century.
          This dating is not contradicted by the results of analysis of the non-monetary part of the deposit. It should be emphasised that this hoard deposit is currently the earliest dated find in Wielkopolska, containing a very substantial number of elements of Nordic origin and one of the oldest in Poland³⁷. The hoard could not have been assembled from elements locally available it must have been brought to Kąpiel as a compact collection from an external, Scandinavian source. The youngest forms among the ornaments at Kapiel are round brooches of type Sp. 1, variety B, dated 970-1000³⁸.
          Attempt at reconstructing the size of the hoard of Kąpiel. On the basis of the proportions discovered in 1932-1933 and in 2001 and the data on their structure, one may describe the Kąpiel deposit as large, weighing above 3 kg, and composed of about 80 whole coins and more than 10,000 coin fragments. In the deposit there was certainly a necklace woven from silver wire (unknown type). The hoard ought to contain about 1100 ornament fragments and unfinished items.
          Attempt at interpreting the character of the deposit. The study concerns a group, belonging to very numerous early medieval deposits of silver distinguishing the Baltic region, against the background of European relationships of the IX-XI centuries. The proposed concept³⁹ of the nature of this find is based upon the principle of monetary function of silver in many forms, though motives beyond economics are indicated for the collection of metal artefacts. Practically all of the reflection on early medieval silver objects, occurring singly and in groups, currently in Polish literature on the subject, is directed defining their economic-commercial role and the possibility of interpreting these sources using economic theories and concepts, especially connected with the various monetary functions⁴⁰. There are here 3 approaches – the large number of deposits proportional to the large mass of silver in circulation (R. Kiersnowski), the large number of hoards oppositely proportional to the amount of silver on the market (S. Tabaczyński) and lastly the lack of measurable association between these amounts⁴¹. This last, supported by many observations on the proposition, that the phenomenon of early medieval deposits may not be explained solely within economic laws and concepts, the more so as it is accompanied by leading to the interpretation of the varied numbers of deposits on particular new terrains, a plainly non economic category of concepts – custom⁴². This custom of hiding (keeping) hoards in the earth or its lack had to explain the few deposits in Małopolska, being after all on a similar level of economic development as the rest of Poland and noted beside Pomerania for the greatest number of loose finds⁴³, additional having the greatest indicator for silver discovered in graves⁴⁴. In consequence, one may this custom has no economic justification.
          The Kąpiel hoard, is part of the greatest wave of Wielkopolska deposits, appearing generally after the mid X century, including the 1 half of the XI century and disappearing by the end of the 3 quarter of that century. The number of un-recovered hoards left on the territory of the current Wielkopolska province as late as the turn of the XVII and XVIII centuries reached again the levels from the years 950-1050. Wielkopolska is here only one of the regions of North, East and Central Europe, in which this appearance is visible, in clear contrast to the neighbouring German territories, where hoards from this period practically do not exist. Only somewhat larger – taking account of the size of the country – the number of Czech deposits, explain their effect at times on the Baltic region, and in England the effect of Scandinavia⁴⁵. In Wielkopolska none other might have been direction of the inspiration of this custom, where it appeared late, one hundred and several dozen years later than Pomerania, Russia and in Scandinavia. One must pose the question, whether this appearance may be explained as an expression of cultural adoption, or does one se here the presence of bearers of an alien tradition. Sometimes several times greater numbers of deposits at the birth of the state, than in later periods, through the lack of evidence of the then more marked circulation of silver money in whatever form⁴⁶, may not be explained only by the custom of concealing possessed assets in the earth. The problem of the conscious leaving of deposits, caused by ideological (religious) factors. For it does seem that the gross deposits of the Baltic region have such characteristic other than utilitarian traits, and discoveries are so numerous over an extensive, yet sufficiently compact terrain (the eastern part of Scandinavia, Russia, Polabia Poland), from a period lasting over 200 and the strongly marked activity of people of Scandinavian origin in Europe, may have association with their beliefs. This already present⁴⁷ proposition certainly must be remembered, though equally with certain modifications. Professionally arguments are posed recalling the significance of such a custom, concerning in any case not all Scandinavians, but as observed F. Kmietowicz on the basis of the dispersal of finds – Swedes⁴⁸, “the people of Yngwy” from the sagas of the Yngling⁴⁹. On the homelands of the Varangian warriors the greatest number of hoards have been noted, with in this regard those of Russia being in second place, an association of at least a substantial number of the deposits with the presence of Scandinavians, the inclusion of armed companies in not negated⁵⁰. The significant number of Scandinavian relics other than deposits in Russia, is a reflection of the activity of the northern craftsmen and merchants, and even warriors though they create nothing. Deposits on Polish land, third numerically after Scandinavia and Russia, after Pomerania, where they appear in the IX century and where the presence of the Vikings is confirmed at least equally early⁵¹, originate in principle not until the 2 half of the X and the XI centuries. The fundamental problem, while establishing an economic mechanism for accumulating precious metal, is a question equivalent to the inflow of silver. For the lack on a greater scale of Western Slavonic imports on the territory, to which it was to come, from the lack of indicated sources of goods leaving no archaeological traces⁵². Such an equivalent is not however necessary, if the effecting mechanism was not the market and economic compulsion to “accumulate hoard”, but from other than utilitarian needs. Apart from single finds of hoard on land now Polish (excepting Pomerania), they appear in significant numbers not until after the mid X century. Thus there is then, a great probability of the presence of Scandinavian warriors in the military structure of the first Polish state. Written sources indicate this indirectly, grave finds, Scandinavian elements in settlement sites, establish lastly the possibility of Scandinavian settlement⁵³.
          As J. Tambor considers, the time of the disappearance of the analysed hoards concurs with the end of the political and commercial activity of the Normans, and the longest laid deposits are there where they appeared earliest (Gotland, Scania, North Russia and Pomerania)⁵⁴. The count of Polish hoards is decidedly greater in the areas lying definitely in the north – Pomerania, Wielkopolska, northern Mazowia, through this it is not Pomerania but Wielkopolska that gathers the greatest number of deposits in the 1 half of the XI century. On lands very much to the east and the south there are also deposits, though in lesser numbers. Hoards appear in still less, but significant against the background of the rest of Europe, in the Czech lands, from whence equally comes mention of the presence of Vikings at the court of the Przemyślids, known to us even by the name Vikings⁵⁵. Attention is drawn to the rapid assimilation of the Scandinavian merchants (Upplanders) in Wolin⁵⁶, or the Varangian dynasty in Russia, and simultaneously by the continuation by the descendants of Scandinavians of certain traditions⁵⁷. Maybe a trace of such a continuation by 2-3 settled generations are discoveries of very closely situated deposits, which are separated however by several to several dozen years (e.g. Dzierznica I and II, Gralewo I and II, Kłecko I and II, Obra and Obra Nowa, Ołobok I and II)⁵⁸. Traces of another custom, coming from this group confirmed by Icelandic sagas, is the custom of “borrowing” grave furnishing from the dead and giving them back later with compensation⁵⁹, there are anomalies noted in the inventories of some hoards – occurring singly or with some elements being younger by a few or a few dozen years than the rest of the group (Obra Nowa, Poznań VI, Zalesie – Wielkopolska province, Gębice, Kotowice – Lower Silesia province, Rzewin – Mazowia province, Drohiczyn – Podlaskie province, hoard from the collections of Kórnik and others)⁶⁰.
          The character of the deposits may at least in part linked with the destructive activity, to which their elements were subjected. It may not be excluded that for the gatherers of silver for purposes associated with beliefs, there would not be a difference in principle between whole objects and their fragments – not on the economic basis of the value of particular pieces of silver but in accord with the principle, known from research into religion pars pro toto and the symbolic substitution for whole items by their parts. Thus one may explain the wholesale division and other destructive activity, and even perhaps through insufficient silver and few incoming amounts, it might in this way be possible to establish new deposits necessary for doctrine and tradition.
          The picture of cultural and economic change after “taking” – moving the layer of deposits into non economic spheres of social activity, in the areas where they occur it seems very much in accord with information from other sources, including written transmissions⁶¹ and other archaeological data. The origin of all deposits is not attached to the explanation presented here, however a few of their parts certainly had the character of pocket treasure, singly reflecting, seemingly, the oncoming economic processes – yet one must see them in the proper proportions and evaluate the intensity of these appearances in similar numbers as on territory beyond the Baltic region.
          Conclusion. The Kąpiel hoard is one of the oldest Polish deposits. This hoard, as one of not many in Poland, has currently full data concerning equally the place and means of discovery, very significant and representative analysis of the inventoried elements, and data of a cultural and environmental context.

Footnotes:
¹M. and M. Andrałojć 2002, p. 133-159.
²Kept in the Poznań Archaeological Museum 32+4 coins inventoried in 1974 as originating from Kąpiel, probably belong to another deposit.
³Oriental coins from the Kąpiel hoard are not a subject of this study – they were classified by D. Malarczyk . Only basic dates relevant to the chronology of the group are given here.
⁴M. Dekówna, J. Reyman, S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 176; greater numbers of these coins is characteristic of Czech hoards or deposits such as those in the Kórnik collection, formed probably in Czech territory.
⁵B. Malmer 1966, p. 342, S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 159.
⁶Ch. Kilger 2000, p. 173-174; a tendency to ascribe them after H.Dannenberg to the Magdeburg mint , though e.g. J. Menadier oldest version assigned mints in Merseburg; not excluding also further mints, in which they might have been struck e.g. Bardowick, Gittelde, or Giebichenstein – cf. S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 17-19.
⁷S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 18.
⁸Earlier J. Menadier and A. Suhle ascribed them to Otto I and his wife Adelaide – Suchodolski 1971, p. 19.
⁹G. Hatz 1991, p. 16 n.
¹⁰W. Hahn 1978/79.
¹¹S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 43-44.
¹²S. Suchodolski 1998, p. 8.
¹³S. Suchodolski 1998, p. 11.
¹⁴S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 214.
¹⁵S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 49-51, 78-79.
¹⁶S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 215.
¹⁷J. Żak 1963, no. cat. 71, 108, 220, fig.. 104:45, 1967, p. 233.
¹⁸M. Stenberger 1958, p. 104 (arm rings of this type defined as being incomparably the most common in Gotland hoards).
¹⁹M. Stenberger 1947, fig.. 35:2-4, 36:3-10, 39:4, 6-9, 40:3-6.
²⁰M. Stenberger 1947, fig.. 151:1-2; fig. 193:4 ; fig. 213:3; 1958, fig. 40:1-7; R. Skovmand 1942, p. fig. 14 ; fig. 11; Wł. Duczko 1985, p. 37, fig. 25, 26 and fig. 23, p. 36.
²¹M. Dekówna, J. Reyman, S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 111, Plate VIII:1-2; J. Żak 1963, p.140, fig. 99.
²²J. Żak 1967, p. 215.
²³M. Stenberger 1947, fig. 250:1 (Hejslunds, Ksp. Havdhem; 1958, fig. 41:1-2).
²⁴J. Slaski, S. Tabaczyński 1959, fig. 14, p. 45.
²⁵M. Stenberger 1958, p. 56; H. Kóčka-Krenz 1983, p. 146.
²⁶R. Skovmand 1942, p. 70; M. Stenberger 1958, p. 33, 35; J.Żak 1967, p. 196; H. Kóčka-Krenz 1983, p. 135.
²⁷J. Żak 1967, p. 196.
²⁸In the oriental parts 1 undivided dirham remained.
²⁹K. Kilger 2000, p. 173-174.
³⁰B. Malmer 1985, p. 51.
³¹R. Kiersnowski 1960, p. 447 n; S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 198; S. Tabaczyński 1987, p. 226-227. Division interpreted as an effect of economic factors – necessity of obtaining lesser monetary units for application to the needs of local trade – divisions reflected size of transactions borne, or primary role was as weight in commercial transactions and the scale needed to be filled with tiny fragments of silver. Cutting was a test of silver purity in artefacts or marked successively made transactions (B. Malmer 1985, p. 51).
³²A. Kmietowicz, W. Kubiak 1969, catalogue; M. Dekówna, J. Reyman, S. Suchodolski 1974, catalogue of ornaments.
³³Idea of analysing bends arose on the basis of study of ornaments, and not coins – known to us from autopsies, and not- publication on Kuźnica Czarnkowa hoard, Wielkopolska province (Numismatic Collection National Museum in Poznań), found on semi circular ear-rings pendants, bent in repeatable and deliberate fashion.
³⁴J. Tambor 1991, p. 28-29
³⁵S. Suchodolski 1998, p. 11.
³⁶G. Hatz 1991, p. 16 n.; V. Hatz 1991, p.28 n.
³⁷Przytór is dated with Scandinavian elements after 950 (should be dated after 980, include 3 cross type half bractea – M. KG 10a), Bogucino and Gralewo after 995 and 996, and Kąty after 1000 – cf. J. Żak 1967, table p. 340-356; Gębice dated after 985 – S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 214.
³⁸J. Żak 1967, p. 196.
³⁹V. Jammer 1952, p. 42 n., M. Stenberger 1958, p. 307-320, S. Tabaczyński 1959, p. 1-47, 1987, p. 177-207, R. Kiersnowski 1960, S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 189-204, 1995, p. 67-70, J. Gaul 1979, p. 69 n., 1981, p. 48 n., 1983, p. 238 n., W. Łosiński 1988, p. 138-150, 1995, p. 72-75; W. Dzieduszycki 1995, p. 63-80; in these studies further literature.
⁴⁰This interpretation key, used like an ideas pendulum, was not limited to monetary finds of different periods. Virtually identical schemes, especially used proposed concepts, might be observed in some studies of bronze hoards, older by 2 millennia than this group – W. Szafrański 1955.
⁴¹S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 190-193. Author considers subject cautiously: “the find does not constitute a fully measurable indicator of quantity and quality of the mass of precious metal or the intensity of its circulation”.
⁴²S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 194-195.
⁴³S. Suchodolski 1982, p. 10.
⁴⁴R. Kiersnowski 1960, p. 30-31. In the poorest in this regard Wielkopolska this indicator is ten times lower.
⁴⁵S. Suchodolski 1971, p. 195.
⁴⁶The number of loose finds is low in Poland, apart from Pomerania, which is in accord with the conviction that silver fragments may reflect extent of circulation, and in each case reflect it better than deposits.
⁴⁷H. Seger 1929, p. 156, H. A. Knorr 1937, p. 4.
⁴⁸F. Kmietowicz 1972, p. 66.
⁴⁹M. Stenberger 1958, p. 309, S. Piekarczyk 1979, p. 108-109.
⁵⁰F. Kmietowicz 1972, p. 86, W. Łosiński 1988, p. 147, J. Tambor 1991, p. 25.
⁵¹L. Leciejewicz 1993, p. 51-58, W. Łosiński 1988, p. 147-150, there further literature.
⁵²F. Kmietowicz 1972, p. 68-71, W. Łosiński 1988, p. 149, there further literature.
⁵³M. Kara 1991, p. 99-120, L. Leciejewicz 1993, p. 59-61, there further literature. Discoveries in 2003 should also be remembered (cf. footnote 2) bronze signet ring, richly ornamented in Scandinavian style, on greatest early medieval fortified settlement in Wielkopolska – in Grzybowo, gm. Września. Object originates from ploughed layer, and found near place, where before early medieval much divided hoard had been found (cf. J. Slaski, S. Tabaczyński 1959, no. 37, p.23), dated by us initially as of the 60’s X century.
⁵⁴J. Tambor 1991, p. 40, there earlier literature.
⁵⁵L. Leciejewicz 1993, p. 60. Tunna and Gommon described as “proceres”, murdered a Czech saint – Princess Ludmiła; the title shows that they were then of the court elite.
⁵⁶J. Żak 1967, p. 172. Based on the tale of Adam of Brema one may infer that successively Saxon and Danish merchants stayed there separately.
⁵⁷L. Leciejewicz 1993, p. 60. According to the well-based concept of W. Semkowicza, the well-known family of Awdaniec was of Nordic origin (from Norse auda, audr – property, treasure), in which it seems the tradition of giving first names of directly Norse etymology is continued.
⁵⁸J. Slaski, S. Tabaczyński 1959.
⁵⁹M. Adamus 1970, p. 38 n.; W. Dzieduszycki 1995, p. 32, here payment for using grave gifts was a gold ring.
⁶⁰S. Suchodolski 1974, p. 213, footnote. 8, before removing suggestions of the possibility of mixing certain elements of some groups; A. Felczak, D. Malarczyk, S. Małachowska 1997, p. 4 and 12.
⁶¹F. Kmietowicz 1972, p. 81, points out, that Gotland, hoard house of Scandinavia, and thus the region of the potentially greatest economic contacts, is not named in any sources until the XII century. Probably Poland, concentrating a very large number of deposits, was a commercial counterpart, as wrote Gall Anonim not long afterwards: “country (…) removed (…) from roads of travellers and little known to anyone, save those who for trade travel through Russia” (p. 84).

Literature:
Abbreviations:

Sl. Ant. – Slavia Antiqua
WN – Wiadomości Numizmatyczne
Adamus M. 1970, Tajemnica sag i run, Wrocław.
Andrałojć M. i M. 2002, Skarby – powrót do źródeł, Sl.Ant., t. XLIII, s. 133-159.
Dekówna M., Reyman J., Suchodolski S. 1974, Wczesnośredniowieczny skarb srebrny z Za-lesia powiat Słupca, t. II, Monety bizantyjskie. Monety zachodnioeuropejskie. Ozdoby. Pod-sumowanie, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk.
Duczko W. 1985, Birka V. The filigree and granulation work of the Viking Period, Stocholm.
Dzieduszycki W. 1995, Kruszce w systemach wartości i wymiany społeczeństwa Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej, Poznań.
Felczak A., Malarczyk D., Małachowska S. 1997, Skarb monet i ozdób z X wieku z Obry Nowej, WN R. XLI, z. 1-2, s. 1-27.
Gaul J. 1979, Upieniężnienie wymiany w zachodniej części strefy bałtyckiej w 2 połowie V-VI w. n.e., WN, R. XXIII, z. 2, s. 69-86.
– 1981, Pieniądz brązowy, szklany, żelazny w zachodniej części strefy bałtyckiej w V-VI wie-ku, WN, R. XXV, s. 32-37.
– 1983, Denary rzymskie z I i II w. w znaleziskach okresu wędrówek ludów w zachodniej strefie Morza Bałtyckiego, WN, R. XXVII, s. 238-248.
Hatz G. 1991, Otto-Adelheid-Pfennige, Literaturüberblick 1952-1990, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX – XI in Suecia repertis. Nova sereies 7, Stockholm, s. 9 – 24.
Hatz V. 1991, Die Otto-Adelheid-Pfennige in den schwedischen Funden der Wikingerzeit, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX – XI in Suecia repertis. Nova sereies 7, Stockholm, s. 25-57.
Jammer V. 1952, Die Anfäge der Münzprägung im Herzogtum Sachsen (IX und XI Jahrhundert), Hamburg.
Kara M. 1991, Z badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi grobami i uzbrojeniem z terenu Wielkopolski, [w:] L. Leciejewicz (red.) Od plemienia do państwa. Śląsk na tle wczesnośredniowiecznej Słowiańszczyzny Zachodniej, Wrocław, s. 99-120.
Kilger Ch. 2000, Pfennigmärkte und Währungslandschaften Monetarisierungen im sächsisch-slawischen Grenzland ca. 965-1120, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia repertis. Nova Series 15, Stockholm.
Kiersnowski R. 1960, Pieniądz kruszcowy w Polsce wczesnośredniowiecznej, Warszawa.
Kmietowicz A., Kubiak W. 1969, Wczesnośredniowieczny skarb srebrny z Zalesia powiat Słupca, t. I, Monety arabskie, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków.
Kmietowicz F. 1972, Niektóre problemy napływu kruszcu srebrnego na ziemie polskie we wczesnym średniowieczu, WN, R. XVI, z. 2, s. 65-90.
Knorr H. A. 1937, Die slawische Keramik zwischen Elbe und Oder, Mannus Bücherei, t. 58, Leipzig.
Kóčka-Krenz H. 1983, Złotnictwo skandynawskie IX-XI wieku, Poznań.
Leciejewicz L. 1993, Normanowie nad Odrą i Wisłą w IX-X wieku, Kwartalnik Historyczny 4, s. 49-62.
Łosiński W. 1988, Chronologia napływu najstarszej monety arabskiej na terytorium Europy, Sl.Ant., t. 31, s. 93-181.
Malmer B. 1966, Nordiska mynt före ar 1000, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, series in 8°, No 4, Lund.
– 1985, Some thoughts on the secondary treatment of Viking-Age coins found on Gotland and Poland, [w:] S.K. Kuczyński, S. Suchodolski (red), Nummus et historia. Pieniądz Europy średniowiecznej, Warszawa, s.49-56.
Piekarczyk S. 1979, Mitologia germańska, Warszawa.
Seger H. 1929, Die schlesischen Silberfunde der spät-slawischen Zeit, Altschlesien, t. 2, s. 129-161.
Skovmand R. 1942, De danske skattefund fra Vikingetiden og den aeldste Middelalder inditil omkring 1150, Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, t. 32, s. 1-275.
Slaski J., Tabaczyński S. 1959, Wczesnośredniowieczne skarby srebrne Wielkopolski, Mate- riały, [w:] Polskie Badania Archeologiczne, t. 1,Warszawa-Wrocław. Stenberger M. 1947, Die Schatzfunde Gotlands der Wikingerzeit, Fundbeschreibung und Ta-feln, t. II, Lund.
-1958, Die Schatzfunde Gotlands der Wikingerzeit, Text, t. I, Stockholm.
Suchodolski S. 1971, Początki mennictwa w Europie środkowej, wschodniej i północnej, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków.
– 1974, Dziesiątowieczny skarb z Gębic – odnaleziony, WN, R. XVIII, z 4, s. 211-218.
– 1982, Wstęp [w:] Gajewski L., Górska I., Paderewska L, Pyrgała J, Szymański W., Skarby wczesnośredniowieczne z obszaru Polski. Atlas, s. 9-13, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź.
– 1995, Jeszcze o początkach gospodarki towarowo-pieniężnej na ziemiach polskich. Uwagi na marginesie prac Władysława Łosińskiego, WN, R. XXXIX, z. 1-2, s. 67-71.
– 1998, Spór o początki mennictwa w Czechach i w Polsce, WN, R. XLII, z. 1-2, s. 5-20.
Szafrański W. 1955, Skarby brązowe z epoki wspólnoty pierwotnej (IV i V okres epoki brą-zowej) w Wielkopolsce, Warszawa-Wrocław.
Tabaczyński S. 1959, Zagadnienie klasyfikacji wczesnośredniowiecznych znalezisk pieniądza kruszcowego w Polsce, WN R. III, s. 1-47.
– 1987, Archeologia średniowiecza. Problemy. Źródła. Metody. Cele badawcze, Wrocław.
Tambor J. 1991, Pieniężne funkcje biżuterii srebrnej na ziemiach polskich w X-XI w, WN, R. XXXIII, (1989), s. 12-43.
Żak J. 1963, “Importy” skandynawskie na ziemiach zachodniosłowiańskich od IX do XI wie- ku, (Część katalogowa), Poznań.
– 1967, “Importy” skandynawskie na ziemiach zachodniosłowiańskich od IX do XI wieku, (Część analityczna), Poznań.

email of authors: refugium@mail.icpnet.pl