189Arheološki vestnik 74, 2023, 189–200; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.74.05; CC BY-SA The hillfort at Lobor upon which the Our Lady of the Mountain sanctuary (Croatian: Majka Božja Gorska) now stands (henceforth ‘the Lobor hillfort’) is a multi-layered and multi-period site excavated in controlled archaeological excavations starting in the late 1990s.1 It appears that the occupational 1 The fullest overview remains Filipec 2007. I would like to thank Krešimir Filipec for allowing me the opportunity activity on the site follows the general pattern established for the hillfort sites in the region, i.e., an increased activity during the Lt D (starting with Lt D1) period followed by a late antiquity renewal of defensive structures established in prehistoric to study and publish this coin. A Tauriscan Lt D obol from Lobor hillfort (Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia) Tavriskijski mali srebrnik z gradišča pri Loborju iz obdobja Lt D (Hrvaško Zagorje, Hrvaška) Tomislav BILIĆ Izvleček Med strokovnimi arheološkimi izkopavanji na gradišču pri Loborju so našli srebrni novec, podoben tavriskijskim malim srebrnikom tipa Augentyp-Stamm. Naselje je bilo utrjeno v poznem latenu (Lt D), kar je najverjetneje tudi ča- sovni okvir, v katerem je bil novec odložen. Ta trditev je podkrepljena z dejstvom, da na najdišču ni sledov poselitve v zgodnjem cesarskem obdobju. Predpostavimo lahko, da je bil novec skovan v obdobju Lt D1, kar ustreza uveljavljeni kronologiji kovanja tavriskijskih novcev. Podobni novci so bili najdeni na primerljivih višinskih naseljih na ozemlju Tavriskov, vendar njihove prisotnosti predvsem zaradi maloštevilnosti in pomanjkljivih stratigrafskih podatkov, za zdaj ni mogoče poenostavljeno razložiti z uporabo v trgovini. Ključne besede: Hrvaška; Lobor; Tavriski; gradišča; mlajša železna doba; novci; mali srebrniki Abstract A small silver coin complementary to the Augentyp-Stamm Tauriscan obols was found in controlled archaeological excavations at the Lobor hillfort. The hillfort was fortified in the late La Tène period (Lt D), which is also the most likely depositional context of the coin, since the site was clearly not occupied during the early imperial age. It can be assumed that the coin was produced in the earlier part of late La Tène (Lt D1), in accordance with the presently accepted chronology of Tauriscan coins. Similar obols were found at comparable hillfort sites in the Tauriscan area, but, due to their small number and lack of secure stratigraphic contextualization, this phenomenon is not easily explained in terms of commercial exchange. Key words: Croatia; Lobor; Taurisci; hillforts; La Tène period, coins; obols 190 Tomislav BILIĆ periods.2 A single Late Iron Age (hereafter ‘LIA’) coin was found at the Lobor hillfort, unfortunately, in an unclear stratigraphic context. Nevertheless, it is possible to offer some plausible interpretations with respect to both the issuing and deposition date – in general terms – for this coin via an analysis of the published data concerning the Lobor hillfort in combination with a comparison with other similar sites in the region. The coin in question is a Tauriscan obol com- plementary with the Augentyp-Stamm Tauriscan obols.3 Its poorly preserved obverse is lentil-shaped (Buckelavers), with a depiction of a horse to the left on the reverse (Fig. 1). Its weight is 0.59 g, with a diameter of 9.5 mm. It was most likely made of silver bullion, possibly with an admixture of copper or a copper alloy. Since no metallurgical analysis of the coin was conducted, this particular conclusion is based on the analyses of analogous coins from certain comparable sites in modern Slovenia (see below). Its recorded stratigraphic position does not reveal much: the coin was found outside the ‘cinktor’, an arcaded porch surrounding the later church building, surely in a secondary context (recorded as PN = ‘Find No.’ 434). TYPOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS The obol – a small LIA silver coin4 – found at the Lobor hillfort cannot be precisely classified with respect to the hitherto published Tauriscan obols.5 It can, however, be generally associated with certain typologically differentiated groups of these small LIA coins. In terms of typology, metrology and style, it is most akin to an Augentyp-Stamm after KNS 749−755 group of obols from Celje, more precisely, from the bed of the Savinja River, of a median weight of 0.2 g (0.596–0.429 g) (Fig. 2 For bibliography, see the discussion in the conti- nuation of the paper. The important later activity on the hillfort (in the first place, in the medieval period) will not be discussed here. 3 For a preliminary publication of the coin, see Bilić 2021b and Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127. 4 For a thorough discussion of metrological issues related to Tauriscan obols, see Bilić, Dizdar 2016, 119–120. ‘Obol’ is throughout used as a convenient provisional name for the LIA small silver coins (cf. Bilić, Dizdar 2016, 112 No. 58). 5 On some current problems with the classification of Tauriscan obols, see Militký 2015, 143. 2: Augentyp-Stamm after KNS No. 3-749–755).6 These obols are part of a larger class of Tauriscan obols with a lentil-shaped bulge on the obverse (Buckelavers) and a horse to the left on the rever- se.7 Their median weight is 0.4745 g, and most of the coins weigh between 0.55 and 0.40 g (Fig. 2: Buckel-horse).8 These obols differ from the typo- logically similar Karlsteiner Art obols of a median weight of 0.4229 g (Fig. 2: Karlsteiner Art), which were also found in large numbers in Celje (the Savinja), which is perhaps also the place where both of these coin types were issued.9 Another notable class of Tauriscan obols has a depiction of a head on the obverse.10 These small silver coins correspond to the Tauriscan tetradrachms of the Đurđevac (Gjurgjevac) and Frontalgesicht 6 KNS Celje No. 3-749–755, T. 22: 23–29 = Kos 1976, 217 Tab. II: 7–12. Similar pieces were found at Frauenberg (Schachinger 2001, 21−23 Nos. 13−17, cf. 18−19, weight range 0.68−0.56 g, median weight 0.58 g; Fig. 2: Frauen- berg). They were perhaps struck at the site, since, along with the die-related coins, ceramic coin pellet mould tray fragments, of a size consistent with the size of flans used for small silver coins, were also recovered from the site (Schachinger 2001, 27−28). The site of Frauenberg is a sanctuary dated to the late La Tène period (presumably in use throughout the Lt D phase), and all the Augentyp- Stamm obols were found in the earliest occupational layer, thus clearly pertaining to an LIA horizon (presumably Lt D1); they might have been deposited as votive offerings (Schachinger 2001, 18). 7 Kos 1976, 220–221, Pl. II: 2–14; KNS pp. 29–33, 63–67, Pl. 22: 14–36; 23; 24: 1–17; 40: 18–19,21–25; 42: 22–26. Previously, these coins were in general called ‘East Norican’, but today they are appropriately referred to as ‘Tauriscan’ (Schachinger 2020, 60). 8 KNS pp. 28, 62. 9 KNS pp. 28, 62; Bilić, Dizdar 2016, 120. 10 Kos 1979. Fig. 1: Tauriscan obol from the Lobor hillfort. Scale = 3:1. Sl. 1: Tavriški mali srebrnik z loborskega gradišča. M. = 3:1. 191A Tauriscan Lt D obol from Lobor hillfort (Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia) type.11 The median weight of these (at the time, the only three known coins of this type) obols is 0.62 g (Fig. 2: [head-horse]),12 but this value should no longer be taken as confirmed, since the documented weight of the coin Kos 1979, No. 3 = Kos 2015, No. 10 was subsequently dismissed as unreliable.13 Without this piece, the median weight can be calculated on the basis of mere two coins. Certainly, the weight of the Đurđevac obols calculated from a much larger corpus of coins that have appeared in the meantime (mostly on the numismatic market) is more relevant. Thus, the median weight of the Đurđevac obols of Kos’ group 1 (of a head-horse type) is 0.830 g, with the weights ranging between 0.96 and 0.63 g (Fig. 2: Đurđevac).14 The chronology of Tauriscan obols, including the coin found at the Lobor hillfort, is derived from the chronology of corresponding tetradrachms. The time span in question encompasses the period from the late first half of the 2nd c. BC onwards, i.e., from the late Lt C2 or the Lt C2/D1 transiti- on onwards.15 Instead of tediously repeating the 11 In Kos 2015, 458 Cat. No. 10, the coin Kos 1979, No. 3 (here classified as Augentyp-Stamm) is now reclassified as a Đurđevac-type coin. 12 Kos 1979, 32–33. 13 Kos 2015, 458, 465. 14 Kos 2015, 464–465. 15 For the dating of early Tauriscan obols, see Bilić, Dizdar 2016 (Lt C2); these obols, depicting a horse on arguments for this particular time-frame as the starting-date for the issuing of Tauriscan coins in general, I will here merely refer the reader to a study offering the latest extensive overview of all the available evidence.16 This thorough analysis points out certain problems in the proofs upon which this dating is based (the Ljubljanica and Enemonzo hoards) but concludes that there is no solid evidence contradicting it, thus allowing it to stand, at least until new finds would make this dating no longer tenable. Considering the larger weight of the horse-horse obols, it seems possible (solely on metrological grounds) to somewhat narrow down the proposed time frame for the Lobor piece. The Buckel-horse obols (their issue and use) can thus be dated to the Lt D period (150–15 BC), most likely Lt D1 (150–80 BC), which, as will be shown below, corresponds to the available archaeological data, while their deposition, as will also be shown below, could not have been later than the end of the Lt D2 period. Naturally, this (perhaps overly precise) chronolo- gical frame will have to be either corroborated or falsified by stratigraphically positioned finds from controlled archaeological excavations. both sides, are of a median weight of 0.90 g (Bilić, Dizdar 2016, 119). 16 Bilić 2022. The key work is Kos, Šemrov 2003; see also Kos 2007; 2012; Kos, Mirnik 2011. Groups of obols mentioned in the text / Mali srebrniki, omenjeni v članku Median weight / Mediana teže Weight span / Razpon teže horse-horse / konj-konj 0.90 g 1.00–0.66/0.67 g Đurđevac 0.830 g 0.96–0.63 g [head-horse / glava-konj] [0.62 g] [0.97 (Kos 1979)/0.92 (Kos 2015)–0.404 g] Frauenberg 0.58 g 0.68–0.56 g Lobor 0.59 g Augentyp-Stamm / očesni tip (after / po KNS 3-749–755) 0.52 g 0.596–0.429 g Buckel-horse / lečasto izbočenje-konj 0.4745 g 0.55–0.40 g (most pieces / večina); 0.770–0.190 g (all / vsi) Karlsteiner Art / Karlsteinska zvrst 0.4229 g Fig. 2: Median weights and weight spans of different groups of obols mentioned in the text. Sl. 2: Srednje vrednosti in razponi tež različnih skupin malih srebrnikov omenjenih v članku. 192 Tomislav BILIĆ STRATIGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS Unfortunately, the Lobor hillfort obol is not such a securely contextualized find, since it was found, as already noted, in a secondary context, and not in a stratigraphically indicative setting. Nevertheless, there are indeed traces of LIA layers on the Lobor hillfort that provide an adequate context for the obol. The largest-scale construction works on the Lobor hillfort were conducted during the ‘late La Tène period’, i.e., during ‘the 2nd–1st c. BC’.17 A ditch and an earthen rampart with a timber palisade were part of this construction works, together with traces of large-scale levelling and the remains of a large spacious building dating from the late La Tène period, more precisely, from the turn of the old and new era.18 Furthermore, only a modest number of 1st and 2nd c. – the early post- La Tène period – small finds was recovered from the Lobor hillfort.19 At the earliest during the Marcomannic Wars, but more realistically in the 3rd–4th c., the prehistoric hillfort was converted into a late antique fortified stronghold, with the erection of a stone wall on top of the La Tène-period earthen ram- part.20 Roman provincial pottery of the 3rd–4th c. and coins of the 3rd–5th c. are the dominant small finds on the Lobor hillfort datable to antiquity.21 The analysis of numismatic record documented 17 Filipec 2002, 16; 2007, 415; 2008, 58; Filipec 2021a, 31. It remains unclear whether the periods encompassed by the time-frame 2nd–1st c. BC (i.e., 200–1 BC), that is, Lt C2–D2 (Drnić 2015, 13) are meant here, or specifically the late La Tène period proper, i.e., Lt D1–D2, 150–1 BC (Drnić 2015, 13). Taking into account the date proposed for the structure mentioned immediately below in the main text, it can be presumed that the latter is correct. 18 Cf. Filipec 2007, 415; 2008, 82–83; 2021a, 31 (where the building is dated to the 1st c. BC); Ciglenečki 2016, 12; Filipec, Heinrich-Tamáska, Šimek 2020, 213. 19 Filipec, Heinrich-Tamáska, Šimek 2020, 213; Fi- lipec 2021b, 33; Filipec 2007, 415 (cf. Filipec 2021b, 39) interprets these finds as settlement remains, but without further elaboration. At the same time, he emphasized a 3rdc. increase in the number of finds. Filipec, Heinrich-Tamáska, Šimek 2020, 218 seem to accept Ciglenečki’s alternative interpretation of the 1st−2nd c. material. 20 Filipec 2002, 17; 2007, 415–416 (late antiquity, 3rd– 4th c.); 2008, 58, 60 (Marcomannic Wars); 2021b, 35 (late antiquity, 3rd–4th c.), 33, 39 (2nd/3rd c., after Marcomannic Wars); Ciglenečki 2016, 17–18 (late antiquity, 3rd–4th c.). 21 Filipec 2007, 417; 2008, 65. Filipec 2021b, 37 dis- tinguishes two phases of use of ceramic vessels: from the 1st to the mid-3rd (less) and thenceforth to the 6th c. (more pronounced). in the archaeological excavations shows that the earliest – and significantly worn – Roman coin is a Trajan’s sestertius of 108–109/110.22 As such, it cannot support any speculations on the activities conducted at the site during the 2nd c. A more intensive, although still modest in volume and intermittent, presence of coins on the hillfort is documented from the second third of the 3rd c. onwards.23 The stratigraphic situation at the Lobor hillfort is comparable with two other hillfort sites in the region, Kuzelin and Graci-Donje Orešje, both on Medvednica Mountain.24 At Kuzelin, LIA finds are exclusively dated to the LT D1 period, i.e., 150–80 BC.25 After the late La Tène occupation of the site, which most likely ended in the late 1st c. BC, there are no traces of Roman presence until the second half of the 2nd c., an observation which includes the numismatic finds.26 In terms of numismatic record, a similar situation obtains at the Graci-Donje Orešje site, where five heavily worn copper and bronze asses issued during the reign of Antoninus Pius represent the earliest imperial coins recorded on the site, where a significant number of LIA coins was also recovered.27 Unfortunately, there is no study of the circulation of Antonine bronzes in the region, but it is known that they were used as small change in the north-western provinces of the Empire during the Severan Period.28 The state of wear of Antonine copper and bronze asses from the Graci-Donje Orešje site suggests that these coins might have also been in circulation here for a longer period, perhaps precisely in the same period as their counterparts in the north-western provinces of the Empire. It seems evident that the situation determined at these two hillfort sites from Medvednica is at least partially comparable with the Lobor hillfort. The numismatic records from all three sites are analogous in that they all contain LIA coins but no early imperial ones, as well as in that there is a renewal of some numismatic activity in the late 2nd or early 3rd c. Furthermore, the numismatic record from these sites corresponds to the other 22 See Nađ 2021 and Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127. 23 Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127−128. 24 See Bilić 2017, 236; 2019; 2022 (an in-depth analysis). 25 Dizdar 2011, 87–88. The dates for Lt D1 in Drnić 2015, 13. 26 Sokol 1994, 200–201; 1997, 221; 1998, 10; 2003, 201; 2009, 154; Bilić 2017, 236; Migotti 2019, 93. 27 Bilić 2019, 75, Figs. 89, 94, 97–98, 100 (imperial coins). 28 Kemmers 2009, 147, 158. 193A Tauriscan Lt D obol from Lobor hillfort (Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia) archaeological finds. In the case of Kuzelin, this claim is supported by previously published material, while, in the case of Graci-Donje Orešje, somewhat less so but still sufficient for the claim to stand.29 These three sites, situated roughly between Medvednica and Ivanščica mountains, are part of a much wider phenomenon of (re)using elevated positions in late antiquity and can be compared with a large number of similar sites in the broa- der region. Furthermore, some of these sites can be directly compared with the Lobor hillfort by the presence of Augentyp-Stamm obols in similar contexts. In general terms, this re(activation) of elevated positions can be dated at the earliest to the second half of the 3rd c.30 Even though it was occasionally claimed that both Kuzelin and the Lobor hillfort, perhaps also the Graci-Donje Orešje site, offer some proof for an earlier date, it does not seem prudent to draw general conclusions on the functioning of archaeological sites in certain periods based on a small number of sporadic finds, coins or otherwise.31 Thus, the occupation of the site of Veliki vrh nad Osredkom pri Posredi is dated to the middle or the second half of the 3rd c.,32 despite the presence of an (worn) as of Hadrian and a dupondius of Commodus in the numismatic record.33 A comparable situation ob- taining at the Tonovcov grad site is interpreted in very similar terms.34 It is thus possible to recognize certain patterns in numismatic and archaeologi- cal records, but only a comprehensive analysis of the entire record is necessary in order to reach generalized conclusions based on the remains of material culture. What can be inferred, with some certainty, from this discussion of occupational activity on the Lobor hillfort, which, moreover, conforms to the settlement pattern in the immediate vicinity and 29 See Mačković 2019, 35, 40, 43 (metal La Tène objects, (late) antique finds); Drnić 2019 (metal and ceramic La Tène objects); Migotti 2019, 93–94 (possible late antique stronghold). For the Lobor hillfort, see above and Nikšić 2021. 30 Ciglenečki 1990, 147, 155–156, 164, 166–168; 1994, 239, 241–243; 1999, 292, 306, where he explicitly dismisses the possibility that the hillforts were settled and/or fortified in the second half of the 2nd c. (cf. 1990, 155, 166; 2016, 14); 2008, 485–487; 2016, 14–16; Migotti 2019, 93. 31 For a sceptical view on the possibility that Kuzelin was settled and fortified during the Marcomannic Wars, see Ciglenečki 2016, 14–15. 32 Ciglenečki 1990, 152–153, 166. 33 Ciglenečki 1990, 150. 34 Kos 2011, 229–231; Modrijan, Milavec 2011, 166. in the wider region, is that the LIA coin found at the hillfort almost certainly pertains to the site’s LIA context, even though it cannot be claimed with any certainty whether this context is limited to the early Lt D1 period, despite the fact that LIA coins, including obols, were circulating deep into the early imperial period in the region.35 These assertions are further corroborated by the appearance of a similar phenomenon on several sites in modern Slovenia, which share the same cultural background with the sites in modern Croatia analysed thus far. In archaeological terms, this is the area encompassed by the LIA Mokronog group or, in terms of tribal affiliations, the area occupied by the Taurisci tribal alliance. Thus, one Augentyp-Stamm obol was found in comparable circumstances at the Korinjski hrib site.36 Un- fortunately, the comparison also extends to the non-revealing stratigraphic context of the find. The obol was found ‘na strmini pod nasipom / at the steep slope beneath the rampart’.37 It can be presumed that the rampart in question is a late antiquity rampart, since a La Tène one is not men- tioned in the description of LIA layers and finds at Korinjski hrib.38 Furthermore, it appears that the coin is kept in a private collection, suggesting a find obtained by a metal detector, rather than in controlled archaeological excavations.39 Nevertheless, considering that there is a well- -documented La Tène horizon at the site, it is presumed that the obol should be understood as coming from a LIA context of the 2nd–1st c. BC.40 The LIA horizon on Korinjski hrib is dated to the Lt D1 and D2 periods,41 which corresponds with the situation at the Lobor hillfort. Moreover, Ko- rinjski hrib is also a late antique fortified elevated stronghold, which is another suggestive parallel with Lobor. It appears that in both cases (i.e., the Lobor hillfort and Korinjski hrib) a comparable situation obtains, where a LIA (more precisely, 35 For the use of the LIA coins during the Julio-Clau- dian period at Sisak, Ljubljana and Magdalensberg see Bilić 2018; 2021a; Kos 2006, 72; Krmnicek 2010, 96–98, 127–139, respectively. See also KNS pp. 34, 68. 36 Kos 2020, 123 Cat. No. 4, Fig. 5.1:4; 130, 136 Cat. No. 4 (weight 0.65 g). 37 Kos 2020, 123. 38 Grahek 2020, 296–298. 39 Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 132 No. 6; Kos 2020, 136 Cat. No. 4. 40 Kos 2020, 123. 41 Ciglenečki, Milavec, Modrijan 2020, 335–336; Grahek 2020, 296–298, 304. 194 Tomislav BILIĆ late La Tène) horizon at a site represents the depositional context of a Tauriscan obol, while later late antique settlement and fortification at the site cannot in any plausible way be associated with the deposition. It can thus be inferred that the depositional context of the Augentyp-Stamm obols (both those found at the Lobor hillfort and Korinjski hrib and elsewhere) in terms of relative chronology, is the Lt D period, which is also, it can be presumed, the date of their production. In addition, these two coins are not unique finds of their type: three more Augentyp-Stamm obols were found at elevated fortified sites in modern Slovenia (Fig. 3). However, all three coins (from Stari grad-Hošperk above Unec, Sveta Ana above Vrhpeč and Zbelovska gora) are apparently kept in private collections, which once again suggest that they were found with the aid of metal detectors.42 Thus we can only presume that their depositional context is similar to the Lobor hillfort obol. A metallurgical analysis of these three coins, toge- 42 Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 131 No. 1 (0.68 g), 131–132 No. 8 (0.51 g), 132 No. 5 (0.71 g). ther with the analysis of the Korinjski hrib piece, has shown that the obols of the Augentyp-Stamm type were produced mainly of silver, with certain additions of copper, tin, and lead. Moreover, these coins have a silver-enriched surface, with a much larger share of copper in their core.43 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION The Tauriscan obol found at the Lobor hillfort was undoubtedly deposited during the late La Tène period (Lt D). It was also very likely produced in the same period, probably during its earlier part (Lt D1). It is very similar to the Augentyp-Stamm obols defined by Peter Kos, with a characteristic lentil-shaped bulge on the obverse and a Tau- 43 For the results of the surface metallurgical (PIXE) analysis of the Augentyp-Stamm obols from the sites in Slovenia see Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 133 Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8; Šmit et al. 2020. For the PGAA analysis of the bulk composition of the coins (but only in terms of Ag and Cu), see Šmit et al. 2020. It can be presumed that the Lobor hillfort obol had a similar metal composition. Fig. 3: Map displaying sites mentioned in the text. Sl. 3: Karta najdišč, omenjenih v besedilu. 195A Tauriscan Lt D obol from Lobor hillfort (Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia) riscan-type horse on the reverse. It seems that these obols regularly appear at elevated fortified sites throughout the region, which were occupied during the Lt D period (starting with Lt D1), but then abandoned, or almost abandoned, until the second half of the 3rd c. at the earliest. They do not appear in large numbers (in fact, only a single coin appears per site), so their function cannot be unambiguously determined. Recently, a careful study of coin production and use in temperate Europe has reintroduced the established and astute argument that the appearance of fractions in a system of coinage suggests the existence of regular commercial exchange. However, the context that the authors of this study observe is composed of a series of large open settlements emerging in the 3rd c. BC (perhaps in the mid-century), where large quantities of coins were found.44 This is hardly a parallel for the Lobor hillfort and the comparable sites studied here, where a low number of sporadic coin finds, including obols, is scattered over a number of fortified, often difficult to approach, hillforts. Another model associates the use of coins in market exchange with the emergence of oppida in the 2nd half of the 2nd c. BC in northern Gaul, which functioned (occasionally) until the end of the 1st c. BC. The model is sustained by the existence of a trimetallic system, the significant rise in the amount of coins in circulation, and, especially, the appearance of smaller denomination coinage in the form of silver fractions and bronze/potin coins.45 The situation in the Tauriscan area fits much better into this 44 Hiriart et al. 2020, 205, cf. 183, 195−196. 45 Wigg-Wolf 2011, 307–312. Potin coins are small cast bronze pieces. BILIĆ, T. 2017, Coin circulation in the pre-Imperial period in north-west Croatia. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 50, 223–253. BILIĆ, T. 2018 Predcarski novac iz Siska / Pre-Imperial coinage from Sisak. – In: I. Drnić (ed.), Segestika i Siscija – od ruba imperija do provincijskog središta / Segestica and Siscia – from the Periphery of the Empire to a Provincial Center, 267–277, Zagreb. BILIĆ, T. 2019, Numizmatički nalazi s lokaliteta Donje Orešje-Graci. – In: M. Houška, R. Mačković (eds.), Graci od prapovijesti do antike, 71–79, Sveti Ivan Zelina. BILIĆ, T. 2021a, Augustan coins from Sisak and coin cir- culation in the Augustan period in Siscia. – Journal of Archaeological Numismatics 11/2021, 61–88. BILIĆ, T. 2021b, Kat. / Cat. 159. – In: K. Filipec, M. Bun- čić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power−20 Years of Archaeological Research, 217, Zagreb. BILIĆ, T. 2022, Late Iron Age coinage in southwestern Pannonia: Coins of the Đurđevac (Gjurgjevac) tradition, The Numismatic Chronicle 182/2022, 119–152. model,46 but there are still major differences in that there is little or no evidence for the use of bronze coinage (although there is evidence for a debasement of silver coins),47 there are only a handful of settlements with a significantly inc- reased number of coin finds, including smaller denomination coins (the hillforts with a modest volume of coin finds, as already noted, were also current in this period), and, of course, there is no trimetallic system. At the same time, the extremely large number of small LIA coins from the Savinja at Celje, including a number of the Augentyp-Stamm obols, cannot be compared with the hillfort sites, due to the different character of the settlements and the fact that the Savinja find most probably represents a temple treasury (i.e., a series of votive deposits).48 Nevertheless, the Savinja finds do show that the small Tauriscan coins were produced in large numbers, which indeed offers a partial pa- rallel with the situation envisaged by Hiriart et al. and, especially, Wigg-Wolf. However, the overall distribution and actual usage of these small coins (i.e., their function in Tauriscan society) must remain an open question until more information becomes available.49 46 Cf. Schachinger 2020, 63−64, 68, who summarily applies a similar model to a later phase of Carnic-Norican- Tauriscan coinage (increased quantity and wider distribution of coins, introduction of smaller denominations). 47 See Bilić 2022, where this debasement is interpreted in non-market terms. 48 Šemrov 2011, 11; Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 127; cf. Tiefengraber 2011, 95. On temple depositions of coins in the LIA period see Wigg-Wolf 2005. 49 Tellingly, the Savinja finds account for as much as 84 % of all small LIA silver coins in the entire territory of modern Slovenia (Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 127 No. 5). 196 Tomislav BILIĆ BILIĆ, T., M. DIZDAR 2016, A Lt C2 Tauriscan fractional coin from the Zvonimirovo-Veliko polje cemetery. – In: M. Asolati, B. Callegher, A. Saccocci (eds.), Suadente nummo vetere. Studi in onore di Giovanni Gorini, 107–125, Padova. CIGLENEČKI, S. 1990, K problemu datacije nastanka rimskodobnih višinskih utrdb v jugovzhodnoalpskem prostoru / Zum Datierungsproblem der Entstehung der römerzeitlichen Höhenbefestigungen im Südostalpenra- um. – Arheološki vestnik 41, 147–176. CIGLENEČKI, S. 1994, Höhenbefestigungen als Siedlungs- grundeinheit der Spatantike in Slowenien. – Arheološki vestnik 45, 239–266. CIGLENEČKI, S. 1999, Results and problems in the ar- chaeology of the Late Antiquity in Slovenia / Izsledki in problemi poznoantične arheologije v Sloveniji. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 287–309. CIGLENEČKI, S. 2008, Castra und Höhensiedlungen vom 3. bis. 6. Jahrhundert in Slowenien. – In: H. Steuer, V. Bierbrauer (eds.), Höhensiedlungen zwischen Antike und Mittelalter von den Ardennen bis zur Adria, 481–532. CIGLENEČKI, S. 2016, Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Höhenbefestigungen von der La-Tene-Zeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. – In: M. Lehner, B. Schrettle (eds.), Zentralort und Tempelberg. Siedlungs- und Kultentwic- klung am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz im Vergleich, Akten des Kolloquiums vom 4. - 5. Mai 2015 im Schloss Seggau, Studien zur Archäologie der Steiermark 1, 11–24. CIGLENEČKI, S., T. MILAVEC, Z. MODRIJAN 2020, Kronologija poselitve Korinjskega hriba / Settlement chronology of Korinjski hrib. – In: S. Ciglenečki, Z. Modrijan, T. Milavec, Korinjski hrib in poznoantične vojaške utrdbe v Iliriku / Korinjski hrib and late antique military forts in Illyricum, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 39, 335–340. (DOI: 10.3986/9789610502555) DIZDAR, M. 2011, The La Tène culture in central Croatia. The problem of the Eastern border of the Taurisci in the Podravina region. – In: M. Guštin, M. Jevtić (eds.), The Eastern Celts. The communities between the Alps and the Black Sea, 71–90. DRNIĆ, I. 2015, Kupinovo, groblje latenske kulture / Kupinovo, a La Tène Culture Cemetery. – Katalozi i monografije Arheološkoga muzeja u Zagrebu 12. DRNIĆ, I. 2019 Naselje mlađeg željeznog doba s nalazišta Donje Orešje-Graci. – In: M. Houška, R. Mačković (eds.), Graci od prapovijesti do antike, 59–70, Sveti Ivan Zelina. FILIPEC, K. 2002, Lobor: Majka Božja Gorska. – Gornja Stubica. FILIPEC, K. 2007, 10 Jahre archäologischer Grabung in Lobor (1998–2007). – Hortus artium medievalium 13.2, 411–422. FILIPEC, K. 2008, Arheološko-povijesni vodič po svetištu Majke Božje Gorske u Loboru. – Zagreb, Lobor. FILIPEC, K. 2021a, Početci / The beginnings – In: K. Filipec, M. Bunčić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power −20 Years of Archaeological Research, 29−32, Zagreb. FILIPEC, K. 2021b, Antički i kasnoantički Lobor / Lobor in the Roman period and Late Antiquity. – In: K. Filipec, M. Bunčić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power −20 Years of Archaeo- logical Research, 33−53, Zagreb. FILIPEC, K., O. HEINRICH-TAMÁSKA, M. ŠIMEK 2020, New results from the eastern margins of the Alps – Hilltop settlements in Pannonia in Late Antiquity. – In: E. Cavada, M. Zagermann (eds.), Alpine Festungen 400–1000. Chronologie, Räume und Funktionen, Netzwerke, Interpretationen. Akten des Kolloquiums in München am 13. und 14. September 2018, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 68, 199–224. GRAHEK, L. 2020, Prazgodovinske sledi na Korinjskem hribu in pri Malem Korinju / Prehistoric traces at Ko- rinjski hrib and near Mali Korinj. – In: S. Ciglenečki, Z. Modrijan, T. Milavec, Korinjski hrib in poznoantične vojaške utrdbe v Iliriku / Korinjski hrib and late antique military forts in Illyricum, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 39, 291–325. (DOI: 10.3986/9789612545871) HIRIART et al. 2020 = Hiriart, E., T. Smělý, J. Genechesi, K. Gruel, S. Nieto-Pelletier, D. Wigg-Wolf 2020, Coi- nages and economic practices between the 3rd century and the beginning of the 2nd century BC in temperate Europe. – In: G. Pierrevelcin, J. Kysela, S. Fichtl (eds.), Unité et diversité du monde celtique. Actes du 42e colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Prague, 10–13 mai 2018), 181–212. KEMMERS 2009, From bronze to silver: coin circulation in the early third century AD. – Revue belge de Numi- smatique et de Sigillographie 155, 143–158. KNS = KOS, P. 1977 Keltski novci Slovenije / Keltische Münzen Sloweniens. – Situla 18. KOS, P. 1976, Mali noriški srebrniki s konjički (Norische Kleinsilbermünzen mit Pferdchen). – Arheološki vestnik 25, 213–224. KOS, P. 1979, Ostnorische Kleinsilbermünzen mit beidse- itiger Darstellung. – Schweizer Münzblätter 29, 31–34. KOS, P. 2006, Analiza novčanih najdb/ The analysis of the coin finds. – In: L. Plesničar Gec (ed.), Emonski forum / Emona forum, 71–84, Koper. KOS, P. 2007, The beginnings of the coinage of Celtic tribes in the southeastern Alps. – Slovenská numizma- tika 18, 59–68. KOS, P. 2011, Novčne najdbe / Coin finds. – In: Z. Modri- jan, T. Milavec, Poznoantična utrjena naselbina Tonov- cov grad pri Kobaridu. Najdbe / Late antique fortified settlement Tonovcov grad near Kobarid. Finds, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 24, 221–238. (DOI: 10.3986/9789612545871) KOS, P. 2012, The VES· group – the earliest Tauriscan tetradrachms. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 45, 93–113. KOS, P. 2015, Small silver Tauriscan coins of the Đurđevac type. – Arheloški vestnik 66, 455–466. KOS, P. 2020, Numizmatične najdbe. – In: S. Ciglenečki, Z. Modrijan, T. Milavec, Korinjski hrib in poznoantične vojaške utrdbe v Iliriku / Korinjski hrib and late antique military forts in Illyricum, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 39, 123–140. DOI: 10.3986/9789610502555 KOS, P., I. MIRNIK 2011, Coin hoards from Croatia XVII. The Križovljan (Varaždin) hoard of Celtic tetradrachms (1843). – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 44, 77–130. 197A Tauriscan Lt D obol from Lobor hillfort (Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia) KOS, P., A. ŠEMROV 2003, Skupna najdba keltskih in rim- skih novcev v reki Ljubljanici: Doprinos h kronologiji novcev plemena Tavriskov / A hoard of Celtic and Roman coins from the Ljubljanica River. A contribution to the chronology of the coinage of the Taurisci. – Arheološki vestnik 54, 381–95. KRMNICEK, S. 2010, Münze und Geld im Frührömischen Ostalpenraum. Studien zum Münzumlauf und zur Funktion von Münzgeld anhand der Funde und Befunde vom Magdalensberg. − Kärntner Museumsschriften 80, Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 17. LAHARNAR, B., Ž. ŠMIT, A. ŠEMROV 2017, On La Tène silver finds from Slovenia. – In: J. Kysela, A. Danielisová, J. Militký (eds.), Stories that made the Iron Age. Studies in Iron Age archaeology dedicated to Natalie Venclová, 123–137, Praha. MAČKOVIĆ, R. 2019, Arheološka istraživanja na platou Graci-Topolnjak. – In: M. Houška, R. Mačković, (eds.), Graci od prapovijesti do antike, 26–45, Sveti Ivan Zelina. MIGOTTI, B. 2019, Razdoblje antike u široj okolici Svetog Ivana Zeline– In: M. Houška, R. Mačković, (eds.), Graci od prapovijesti do antike, 26–98, Sveti Ivan Zelina. MILITKÝ, J. 2015, Oppidum Hradiště u Stradonic. Komen- tovaný katalog mincovních nálezů a dokladů mincovní výroby. – Praha. MODRIJAN, Z., T. MILAVEC 2011, Stavbni razvoj in kro- nologija / Building development and chronology. – In: S. Ciglenečki, Z. Modrijan, T. Milavec, Poznoantična utrjena naselbina Tonovcov grad pri Kobaridu: naselbinski ostanki in interpretacija / Late antique fortified settlement Tonovcov grad near Kobarid: settlement remains and interpretation, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 23, 163–213. (DOI: 10.3986/9789612545840) NAĐ, M. 2021, Kat. / Cat. 160. – In: K. Filipec, M. Bunčić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power −20 Years of Archaeological Research, 217, Zagreb. NAĐ, M., T. BILIĆ 2021, Numizmatički nalazi / The numismatic finds. – In: K. Filipec, M. Bunčić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power −20 Years of Archaeological Research, 127−129, Zagreb. NIKŠIĆ P. 2021, Kat. / Cat. 8. – In: K. Filipec, M. Bunčić (eds.), Lobor. Ranosrednjovjekovno središte moći − 20 godina arheoloških istraživanja / Lobor. An Early Medieval Center of Power −20 Years of Archaeological Research, 135, Zagreb. SCHACHINGER, U. 2001, Die keltischen Münzen aus einem spätlatènezeitlichen Heiligtum am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz / Steiermark. − Numismatische Zeitschrift 108−109, 17−32. SCHACHINGER, U. 2020, Do ut des – cultic coin deposits at the Drava River near Rosegg/Rožek in Carinthia (Austria). Analysis of the find inventory in the Museum Archeo Norico, Deutschlandsberg (Styria, Austria). – Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 7.4, 58–78. SOKOL, V. 1994, Das spätantike Kastrum auf dem Kuzelin bei Donja Glavnica. – Arheološki vestnik 45, 199–209. SOKOL, V. 1997, Northwestern Croatia in the Late Roman Period. – Arheološki vestnik 48, 219–230. SOKOL, V. 1998, Rimski metal s Kuzelina. – Zagreb. SOKOL, V. 2003, Arheološki lokaliteti na području sesve- tskog Prigorja. – In: A. Gulin (ed.), Sveti Ivan Zelina i zelinski kraj u prošlosti, 199–210, Sveti Ivan Zelina. SOKOL, V. 2009, Kuzelin. – In: A. Durman, (ed.), Stotinu hrvatskih arheoloških nalazišta, 154–155, Zagreb. ŠEMROV, A. 2011, Numizmatične najdbe iz Celja in Savinje v luči novih dognanj. – (unpublished Master’s thesis, Univerza na Primorskem, Koper). ŠMIT et al. 2020 = Šmit, Ž., B. Maróti, Zs. Kasztovszky, A. Šemrov, P. Kos 2020, Analysis of Celtic small silver coins from Slovenia by PIXE and PGAA. – Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12: 155, 12 pp. (DOI: 10.1007/ s12520-020-01124-z) TIEFENGRABER, G. 2011, The ‘oppidum Celeia. – In: M. Guštin, M. Jevtić (eds.), The Eastern Celts: the Commu- nities between the Alps and the Black Sea, 91−98, Koper. WIGG-WOLF, D. 2005, Coins and ritual in late Iron Age and early Roman sanctuaries in the territory of the Treveri. – In: C. Haselgrove, D. Wigg-Wolf (eds.), Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices, 361–79, Mainz. WIGG-WOLF, D. 2011, The function of Celtic coinages in Northern Gaul – In: M. P. García-Bellido, L. Callega- rin, A. Jiménez Díez (eds.), Barter, Money and Coinage in the Ancient Mediterranean (10th–1st centuries BC), 301–14, Madrid. 198 Tomislav BILIĆ Tavriskijski mali srebrnik z gradišča pri Loborju iz obdobja Lt D (Hrvaško Zagorje, Hrvaška) Povzetek TIPOLOŠKA RAZMIŠLJANJA Raziskave višinskega naselja nad Loborjem, kjer je danes cerkev Matere Božje Gorske, so se odvijale v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Rezultati arheoloških izkopavanj kažejo, da gre za večplastno najdišče, ki je bilo obljudeno v različnih – prazgodovinskih in zgodovinskih – obdobjih.1 Poselitvena dinamika ustreza vzorcu, značilnemu za višinska naselja v regiji. Opazni povečani aktivnosti v obdobju Lt D (z začetkom v Lt D1) sledi poznoantična obnova prazgodovinskih obrambnih struktur. Na loborskem gradišču je bil najden le en keltski novec, žal brez jasnega stratigrafskega konteksta. Kljub temu je mogoče z analizo objavljenih raziskav na gradišču in primerjavo z drugimi podobnimi najdišči v regiji ponuditi razmeroma verodostojno interpretacijo časa njegovega nastanka in odlaganja. Novec iz pozne železne dobe je mali srebr- nik plemenske zveze Tavriskov, primerljiv s tavriskijskimi malimi srebrniki očesnega tipa (Augentyp-Stamm).2 Na averju je lečasto izbočenje (Buckelavers), na reverju pa konj, usmerjen v levo (sl. 1). Teža novca je 0,59 g, premer pa 9,5 mm. Dokumentirana stratigrafska lega ne razkriva veliko: novec je bil najden zunaj cerkvene ograde, obokanega portika, ki obdaja poznejšo cerkev, nedvomno v sekundarnem kontekstu (dokumen- tiran kot PN 434). Loborskega malega srebrnika ni mogoče natančno opredeliti na podlagi objavljenega tavriskijskega drobiža. Kljub temu ga je mogoče tipološko, me- roslovno in stilno povezati s skupino tavriskijskih malih srebrnikov iz Savinje v Celju s povprečno težo 0,52 g (sl. 2: Augentyp-Stamm po KNS, št. 3-749–755).3 Ti sodijo v večjo skupino tavriskijskih 1 Filipec 2007. Zahvaljujem se Krešimirju Filipcu za možnost študije in objave novca. 2 Preliminarna objava v Bilić 2021b in Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127. 3 KNS št. 3-749–755, t. 22: 23–29 = Kos 1976, 217 tab. 2: 7–12. Podobni mali srebrniki so bili najdeni in verjetno kovani na Frauenbergu, poznolatenskem svetišču, kamor so bili morda položeni kot votivni darovi (Schachinger 2001, 18−19, 21−23 št. 13−17, 27−28). malih srebrnikov z lečasto grbo na averju (Bucke- lavers) in konjem, usmerjenim v levo, na reverju.4 Kronologija tavriskijskih malih srebrnikov, vkl- jučno z loborskim primerkom, izhaja iz kronologije ustreznih tetradrahem. Kronološki razpon obsega obdobje od pozne prve polovice 2. stoletja pr. n. št., tj. od poznega Lt C2 ali od prehoda Lt C2/D1 naprej.5 Da bi se izognili ponavljanju argumentov, ki so bili podlaga za postavitev tega časovnega okvira za splošno datiranje kovanja tavrijskijskih novcev, se sklicujem na končni temeljni pregled vseh razpoložljivih dokazov in razpravo o njih.6 V omenjeni analizi so izpostavljeni nekateri problemi pri interpretaciji dokazov, na katerih temelji datacija (zakladni najdbi iz Ljubljanice in Enemonza), vendar po ugotovitvah ni trdnih dokazov, ki bi jo ovrgli, vsaj dokler se ne pojavijo nova spoznanja, zaradi katerih je lahko ta datacija nevzdržna. Ob upoštevanju večje povprečne teže najzgod- nejših tavriskijskih malih srebrnikov tipa konj-konj (sl. 2: konj-konj), bi lahko le na podlagi analize tež predlagani okvir za datacijo loborskega novca nekoliko zožili. Kovanje in uporabo malih keltskih srebrnikov tipa lečasto izbočenje-konj bi lahko datirali v obdobje Lt D (150–15 pr. n. št.), najverjetneje v Lt D1 (150–80 pr. n. št.), kar ustreza razpoložlji- vim arheološkim podatkom. Njihovo odlaganje, o čemer bo več govora v nadaljevanju, ne more biti poznejše od konca Lt D2. Seveda bodo morale ta morda preveč natančen časovni okvir potrditi ali ovreči stratigrafsko umeščene najdbe, pridobljene s strokovnimi arheološkimi raziskavami. STRATIGRAFSKA RAZMIŠLJANJA Čeprav za loborsko najdbo ni znana natančna stratigrafska lega, so sledovi mlajšeželeznodobnih plasti na najdišču primeren kontekst za datacijo 4 Kos 1976, 220–221, tab. 2: 2–14; KNS, 29–33, 63–67, t. 22: 14–36; 23; 24: 1–17; 40: 18–19,21–25; 42: 22–26 5 Za datiranje zgodnjih tavriskijskih malih srebrnikov glej Bilić, Dizdar 2016 (Lt C2). 6 Bilić 2022. Temeljno delo je Kos, Šemrov 2003; glej še: Kos 2007; 2012; Kos, Mirnik 2011. 199Tavriskijski mali srebrnik z gradišča pri Loborju iz obdobja Lt D (Hrvaško Zagorje, Hrvaška) tavriskijskega malega srebrnika. Najobsežnejša gradbena dela na najdišču so bila opravljena v poznem latenu, v obdobju od 2. do 1. st. pr. n. št.7 Poleg tega je število najdb, ki jih lahko dati- ramo v zgodnje rimsko obdobje (1. in 2. st.), zelo skromno.8 Najverjetneje v obdobju 3.–4. st. so prazgodovinsko gradišče preuredili v veliko pozno- antično trdnjavo s postavitvijo kamnitega obzidja na ostankih latenskega zemljenega nasipa.9 Med antičnim gradivom prevladuje rimska provincialna keramika 3.‒4. st. in novci iz 3.‒5. st.10 Analiza nu- mizmatičnega gradiva je pokazala, da je najzgodnejši rimski novec Trajanov močno obrabljen sesterc, kovan med letoma 108 in 109/110.11 Kot tak ne more podpreti domnev o aktivnostih na najdišču v 2. st. Od druge tretjine 3. st. je prisotnost denarja na gradišču opazno intenzivnejša, čeprav še vedno skromna in občasno prekinjena.12 Stratigrafska situacija na najdišču Lobor-Majka Božja Gorska je primerljiva z višinskima naseljema Kuzelin in Graci-Donje Orešje na Medvednici.13 Ta tri najdišča so del širšega pojava ponovne uporabe višinskih naselij v pozni antiki in jih je mogoče primerjati z velikim številom podobnih nahajališč v širši regiji. Še več, nekatera od teh najdišč lahko po prisotnosti tavriskijskih malih srebrnikov očesnega tipa v podobnih kontekstih neposredno primerjamo z Loborjem. To ponovno aktiviranje višinskih naselij lahko datiramo najprej v drugo polovico 3. stoletja.14 Čeprav se včasih trdi, da najdbe s Kuzelina in Loborja, morda tudi z najdišča Graci-Donje Orešje, ponujajo dokaze za zgodnejšo datacijo, se sklepanje o življenju ar- heoloških najdišč na podlagi redkih posameznih najdb, naj gre za novce ali drugo gradivo, ne zdi pravilno.15 Tako datiramo poselitev Velikega vrha nad Osredkom pri Podsredi v sredino ali drugo polovico 3. stoletja,16 ne glede na prisotnost ob- 7 Filipec 2002, 16; 2007, 415; 2008, 58; Filipec 2021a, 31. Verjetno je govor o obdobju Lt D1–D2, 150–1 pr. n. št. (Drnić 2015, 13). 8 Filipec 2007, 415; 2021b, 33, 39; Filipec, Heinrich- Tamáska, Šimek 2020, 213, 218. 9 Filipec 2002, 17; 2007, 415–416; 2008, 58, 60; 2021b, 33, 35, 39; Ciglenečki 2016, 17–18. 10 Filipec 2007, 417; 2008, 65; 2021b, 37. 11 Nađ 2021; Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127. 12 Nađ, Bilić 2021, 127−128. 13 Glej Bilić 2017, 236; 2019; 2022 (obširna analiza). 14 Ciglenečki 1990, 147, 155–156, 164, 166–168; 1994, 239, 241–243; 1999, 292, 306; 2008, 485–487; 2016, 14–16; Migotti 2019, 93. 15 Cfr. za Kuzelin Ciglenečki 2016, 14–15. 16 Ciglenečki 1990, 152–153, 166. rabljenega Hadrijanovega asa in Commodovega sesterca v numizmatičnem zapisu najdišča.17 Primerljiva situacija na Tonovcovem gradu je interpretirana zelo podobno.18 Torej je mogoče prepoznati določene vzorce v numizmatičnih in arheoloških zapisih, toda samo z izčrpno analizo vseh podatkov lahko pridemo do splošnih zakl- jučkov na podlagi ostankov materialne kulture. Ta razmišljanja podkrepi tudi pojav fenomena, ki je primerljiv z loborsko najdbo tavriskijskega malega srebrnika, ponavlja pa se na več najdiščih v Sloveniji (Korinjski hrib, Stari grad-Hošperk nad Uncem, Sveta Ana nad Vrhpečjo, Zbelovska gora; sl. 3).19 Ta imajo skupno kulturno ozadje s tukaj analiziranimi najdišči na Hrvaškem. Gre za območje, poseljeno z nosilci mlajšeželeznodobne mokronoške skupine, v etničnem smislu Tavriski. ZAKLJUČNA RAZPRAVA Tavriskijski mali srebrnik, najden na Loborju, je nedvomno prišel v zemljo v poznolatenskem obdobju (Lt D). Zelo verjetno je tudi skovan v istem obdobju, verjetno v starejšem delu (Lt D1). Zelo je podoben tavriskijskim malim srebrnikom očesnega tipa iz KNS, št. 3-749–755, z značilno grbo na averju in konjem na reverju. Zdi se, da se takšni novci praviloma pojavljajo na višinskih naseljih iz obdobja Lt D (z začetkom v Lt D1) v širši regiji. Ta so bila po koncu mlajše železne dobe opuščena ali skoraj opuščena, najmanj do druge polovice 3. stoletja. Majhno število novcev (zabeležen je le en tovrstni mali srebrnik na naj- dišče) onemogoča nedvoumno določitev njihove funkcije v tavriskijski družbi. Mali srebrniki manjše vrednosti, ki izhajajo iz osnovne tavriskijske tetradrahme, bi lahko naka- zovali nastanek ali obstoj redne tržne menjave. Vendar so konteksti, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče priti do takšnega zaključka (večje število velikih neutrjenih naselbin, nastalih v 3. stoletju pr. n. št., znotraj katerih je bilo najdenih veliko novcev),20 slabe vzporednice situaciji na Loborju in primerlji- vih najdiščih v regiji. V težko dostopnih višinskih naseljih je namreč število naključno najdenih novcev majhno, vključno s srebrnim drobižem. Drug pri- 17 Ciglenečki 1990, 150. 18 Kos 2011, 229–231; Modrijan, Milavec 2011, 166. 19 Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 131−132; Kos 2020, 123, 136. 20 Hiriart et al. 2020, 205, cfr. 183, 195−196. 200 Tomislav BILIĆ merljiv model povezuje uporabo kovancev v tržni menjavi s pojavom oppida in temelji na obstoju trimetalnega sistema, povečanem številu novcev v obtoku ter pojavu manjših apoenov v srebru in ulitih v bronu.21 Razmere na območju Tavriskov se bolje ujemajo s tem modelom,22 vendar so tudi pomembne razlike: malo je dokazov o uporabi bronastih kovancev, malo je naselij z večjim šte- vilom numizmatičnih najdb, vključno z drobižem, in trimetalni denarni sistem ni prisoten. Veliko število malih srebrnikov iz struge Savinje v Celju se ne more primerjati z višinskimi naselbinami zaradi njihovih različnih značajev in dejstva, da najdbe iz Savinje verjetno predstavljajo tempeljsko 21 Wigg-Wolf 2011, 307–312. 22 Cfr. Schachinger 2020, 63−64, 68 za podoben model. Illustrations: Fig. 1 (photo: I. Krajcar). Slikovno gradivo: Sl. 1 (foto: I. Krajcar). Tomislav BILIĆ Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskog 10 HR-10000 Zagreb tbilic@amz.hr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-2561 zakladnico.23 Vendar kaže, da so bili tavriskijski mali srebrniki kovani v večjih količinah, kar predstavlja določeno vzporednico s prej opisanimi modeli. Po drugi strani ostaja model distribucije in dejanske uporabe teh malih kovancev, tj. njihova vloga v tavriskijskih skupnostih, nerešeno vprašanje, dokler ne bo na voljo več podatkov. Prevod: Primož Pavlin 23 Šemrov 2011, 11; Laharnar, Šmit, Šemrov 2017, 127; cfr. Tiefengraber 2011, 95.