Aspects of coin circulation in Roman Dacia

COLLECTION MONETA – 82 ROMAN COINS OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions Proceedings of the ESF/SCH Exploratory Workshop Radziwiłł Palace, Nieborów (Poland) 3-6 September 2005 MONETA, WETTEREN 2008 INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW Front cover: Grossbodungen bog-deposit (Germany); photo by: J. Lipták ©, with kind permission of the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle Back cover: Borochichi hoard (Ukraine); photo by A. Ring ©, with kind permission of the State Archaeological Museum Warsaw Scientific editors Aleksander Bursche (Warszawa) Renata Ciołek (Warszawa) Reinhard Wolters (Tübingen) Translations Authors and Nicholas Sekunda (contribution of Mariusz Mielczarek) Language editors Kathrin Johrden – German (Tübingen) Anna Kinecka – English (Wrocław) Technical editor Anna Zapolska (Warszawa) Cover design Joanna Żero (Warszawa) Published with the support of: European Science Foundation Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD Ostpartnerschaften) Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego Groupement de Recherche Européen Trouvailles monétaires ISBN Dépôt légal © Moneta 2008 MONETA, Hoenderstraat 22, 9230 Wetteren, Belgium, Fax (32) 93 69 59 25 www.cultura - net.com/moneta 2 Aspects of coin circulation in Roman Dacia1 Cristian G zdac The numismatic monographic publications of the last decade focusing on coin circulation and coin finds from Roman Dacia2, central and south–western parts of present day Romania may it possible identify certain patterns of coin circulation on the territory of the former Roman province. As is known, Dacia became a Roman province during the reign of Trajan, was under the Roman administration until the second half of the 3rd century AD, and was partially reconquered by Constantine I (Map 1; map 2). These changes in status make the pattern of coin circulation in the province potentially of interest for frontier studies in general. The aim of this study was to analyse potential differences in monetary circulation in different areas of the province of Dacia, especially in the towns and forts of Dacia Superior and Porolissensis, and in settlements near the Danube of Dacia Malvensis. In order to distinguish specific patterns of coin circulation in Dacia a comparative analysis was made of the material from Dacia and from adjacent provinces. In addition, the numismatic evidence was used also to offer an individual perspective on some historical developments such as the establishment and the abandonment of the province of Dacia by the Roman administration; domestic and external disturbances. The hoards Some observations can be made about the non-recovered hoards in the provinces on the Lower Danube. As Bruun demonstrated, the owner of a hoard might keep only coins mainly of high value, avoiding those with a lower value3. In this respect, a fine example is offered by hoards from Dacia ending with issues from Trebonianus Gallus to Aurelian, which still contain denarii. Altogether, the hoards found in Dacia as well as in the surrounding area suggest that the denarii disappeared gradually after the middle of the 3rd century AD. The hoards ending before the middle of the 3rd century contain mainly single metal coins: gold, silver or bronze, and only in a few cases the hoards have mixed composition. After the middle of the 3rd century hoards contain mostly mixed denominations of denarii and antoniniani4. Two contrasting patterns of denomination hoarding can be distinguished in the group of hoards from Dacia ending with coins of Gordian III – Philip I: a) the “civilian” hoards which contain a larger quantity of denarii than antoniniani (with the percentage varying from 62,8% to 83,8%); b) the “military” hoards5 which have a substantial quantity of antoniniani, varying from 47,6% to hoards consisting entirely of antoniniani6. This difference may be explained by the way the coins entered the hoards. The “civilian” hoards indicate that the denarius was still regarded as coinage with a higher 1 This article was improved upon after a stay at the University of Frankfurt made possible by a fellowship from the Gerda Henkel Foundation. I also take this opportunity to thank Professor Aleksander Bursche for his invitation to include this study in the present volume. 2 Suciu V. 2000; G zdac C. 2002a; G zdac C., Cociú S. 2004; G zdac C. 2006; G zdac C., Isac D. 2007. 3 Bruun C. 1978, p. 114–123. 4 G zdac C. 2002a, p. 77; G zdac C. 2003, p. 187–188. 5 By "military" hoards I meant those found inside auxiliary forts or very close to them. 6 G zdac C. 2003, p. 188. 269 intrinsic value than the silver radiate. The different content of “military” hoards may be linked with the mode of payment of stipendium and donativa to the soldiers. It is significant that in the hoards like those from Pons Aluti and Sl veni II – both findspots were auxiliary forts – even the coins issued under Caracalla and Elagabalus consist of antoniniani only7. This suggests that soldiers’ pay was made mainly in antoniniani. In addition, the “civilian” hoards, indicate that the owners knew the real value of the coinage and tried to hoard the higher value coin, e.g. denarii instead of antoniniani. In some cases, the chronological patterns reveal connections between hoard burial and non-recovery and historical events. In order to identify aspects relevant for Roman Dacia, the province it is worth examining this province in a broader geographical context, i.e. that of other Roman provinces of the Middle8 and Lower Danube. For the area of the Middle and Lower Danube, the largest groups of non-recovered hoards correspond with the period when these provinces were subject to external or internal difficulties (Maps). The period of Marcomannic wars: the hoard finds concentrate in the areas of Carnuntum – Vindobona; the central part of Dacia; the north and east region of Moesia Inferior. Furthermore, the geographical distribution of hoard finds from Dacia ending with Antoninus Pius coins suggests that Barbarian attack was on the central–eastern part of Dacia during the reign of this emperor as confirmed by classical authors9 (Map 3). The period from Septimius Severus to Maximinus I Thrax was characterised by a relative calm in the area of the Middle and Lower Danube, reflected also by the small number of hoards found in places far one from another (Map 4; map 5). Then, the period of the Carpian wars in the middle of the 3rd century AD is marked by a greater concentration of hoard finds in the provinces of Dacia and Moesia Inferior only. The hoards end with coins of Gordian III and Philip I (Map 6). A major invasion of the Goths in AD 250/251 in the province of Moesia Inferior is also marked by a greater concentration of hoard finds in this province. At the same time, in Dacia, the number of hoards ending with coins from Trajan Decius is extremely low (Map 7). It is known from ancient literary sources, e.g., Historia Augusta, that during the reign of Valerianus I and Gallienus, Pannonia and Moesia Inferior were the most turbulent provinces on the Lower Danube10. The former was disturbed by Sarmatian attacks as well as by internal conflict between usurpers Ingenuus and Regalianus. The mapping of the hoards ending with coins issued in this period is in concord with the literary sources (Map 8). After the great victory of Claudius II against the Goths, the period AD 268–284 was one of relative calm in the region of the Lower Danube. Therefore, the number of hoards ending in this period is scarce (Map 9). Basing on the geographical distribution of the hoards it is possible to indicate which roads were the most unsafe ones in the provinces of the Lower Danube (Map 10): A) in Pannonia Superior: Carnuntum – Scarbantia – Poetovio B) in Pannonia Inferior: Aquincum – Intercissa 7 8 G zdac C. 2003, loc. cit. The division of the Danube area used here is based on a document issued by IHP UNESCO, 1999, which divides the Danube into three segments, the upper Danube from the source to the castle of Devin/Bratislava, where the river Morava flows into the Danube, the central Danube from Devin to the Iron Gate on the border of Serbia and Romania, and the lower Danube downstream of the Iron Gate to the Danube Delta”. Document: The Danube River Channel Training. Description of Regulation Measures and Flood Control on the Danube River, at: http://portal.unesco.org/es/files/ 27248/11151131883Danube_River_Channel_Training.pdf/Danube+River+Channel+Training.pdf. 9 SHA, Vita Pii, 5, 4; Aelius Aristide, XXVI, 7: “the wars (…) started by the madness of Dacians”; Polyainos, VI: “following the numerous wars, which were prepared with your father [Antoninus Pius]: (…) the Dacians were defeated”. 10 SHA, Triginta Tyranni, 9; 10, 1; Eutropius IX, 8, 2; Aurelius Victor, 33, 2. 270 C) in Moesia Superior: Viminacium – Horreum Margum – Naissus D) in Moesia Inferior: 1. Oescus – Melta – Philippolis; 2. Montana – Melta – Marcianopolis E) in Dacia: 1. Sucidava – Arutela; 2. Drobeta – Ulpia Traiana – Sarmizegetusa through the Vulcan Pass One can easily notice that the unsafe roads correspond in fact with the main roads in each of the provinces mentioned above. Considering that roads are a frequent place of discovery of hoTtards another possible reason for the burying and subsequent non-recovery of hoards may have been the actions of thieves. There is evidence in epigraphic sources from Dacia that travellers were killed by thieves, “interfecti a latronibus”, in the area of the town of Drobeta, near the Danube11, on the road Drobeta – Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, where most of the hoards buried on the roads in the province of Dacia have been recovered. Moreover, the geographical location of the hoards indicates that by the middle of the 3rd century AD for the province of Dacia the unsafe area was its central region, whereas after this period southern part of the province, Dacia Malvensis, became the most troubled (Maps). a) Coin circulation in Dacia basing on single coin finds. b) The general pattern of coin circulation in Dacia Basing on numismatic material from the published Dacian sites a general graph of isolated coin finds/year for the province of Dacia was developed (fig. 1)12. It is possible to distinguish four main sequences of the monetary circulation in Dacia: 1 the period from Trajan to Antoninus Pius with a constant coefficient of coin finds; 2 the period AD 161–192 which sees a decrease in the number of coin finds; 3 the period AD 193–253 marked by a major increase in coin finds which peaks under Philip I; 4 the period AD 253–337 with the lowest coefficient of coin finds (Fig.1). 120 90 60 30 0 117 138 138 161 161 180 180 192 193 218 218 238 238 244 244 249 249 253 253 268 268 275 275 284 284 305 306 337 271 98 117 Finds/ Year 47,9 53,3 88,2 48 11,8 21,5 5,7 3,6 18,9 39 35,1 36,7 23,6 36 12,2 Fig. 1. A graph of coin finds/year for the province of Dacia (after G zdac 2002a, p. 431). The gradual decrease for the period AD 161–180 and AD 180–192 in this area has been explained by some authors in terms of a putative reduction in the coin supply during the Marcomannic wars13. However, given that during the same period other provinces show the same pattern, this may have been a time of a reduction in coin production for reasons other than Marcomannic wars. 11 12 Russu I. I. 1977, p. 71, 118. G zdac C. 2002a, p. 86. 13 Ardevan R. 1993, p. 111–113; Gudea N. 1994, p. 77. In the period AD 193–218, the coefficient rises again and is characterised by a great number of finds of denarii. The increase in silver coins and scarcity of bronze finds from this period seem to be a general pattern for most areas of the Roman Empire. A possible explanation could be the process of gradual debasement of the silver coinage14. The period AD 218–238 shows an increase in the coin finds coefficient. This period is characterised by an increase in both silver coins and provincial issues. The next two reigns, Gordian III and Philip I, have the highest coefficient/year of the entire period of study (Fig. 1). In the reign of Gordian III this situation can be explained by finds of a large number of antoniniani, but in the period of Philip I the main reason was the minting of a new monetary series “PROVINCIA DACIA”. The coefficient of finds/year for the reign of Philip I is almost twice as high as it was in the preceding period. The last period of Roman administration in Dacia – AD 253–275 – is represented by a very low value of finds/year. The coin–finds coefficient shows a further decline during the post–Roman period, AD 275–305. Coins dating from after the abandonment of the province are rarely found in sites of the former province. This situation is not surprising as Dacia in this period was a territory on the periphery of a coinage-based tax system of the Roman world. Roman goods continued to be brought to the region but the lack of a well-defined Roman structure of society and economy meant that the intensity was lower than under the Roman administration15. Although in the period AD 306–337 Dacia officially was an abandoned territory the monetary index records an increase in value (Fig. 1). This upward trend may be explained in terms of a partial re-conquest of the southern territory of Dacia and by the abundance of bronze coins produced by a large number of mints16. Regional patterns of coin circulation in Dacia For the province of Dacia the site finds revealed differences in the pattern of monetary circulation in sites located in the northern and central part of the province, in Dacia Apulensis and Porolissensis, as compared to sites found in the southern part of the province or on the left bank of the Danube, in Dacia Malvensis (Fig. 2). By AD 249–253 the percentage of finds/year is much higher for sites in the interior of the province. This peculiar situation may be due to the location in Dacia Apulensis and Porolissensis of the majority of towns (6 out of 9) and by the greater concentration of military bases, including the two legions. A close value of the index for the two areas is recorded for the period AD 218–238 and AD 238–244. The reason for this is due to the higher percentage of provincial coins issued in this period found on the sites on the left bank of the Danube. This situation indicates that these issues entered the province of Dacia by way of the settlements along the Danube. The percentage value of coin finds/year registers a different pattern for the two regions of Dacia during the final period of Roman administration and the post–provincial period. Starting from the AD 253–268 the percentage of coin finds/year in southern sites becomes higher than that in northern sites. For the ensuing period the percentage recorded for southern sites shows a strong upward trend for AD 268–275, followed by a gradual decrease until the reign of Constantine I; while the 14 For the discussion about the reduction of weight and fineness of denarius between Nero and Septimius Severus see: Crawford M. 1978, p. 152–158; Mac Dowall D. W. 1979, p. 143; Carson R. 1967, p. 226; Carson R. 1990, p. 61. 15 For the intensity of Roman good finds in the centre and at the periphery, and hinterland of the Roman empire, see Hedeager L. 1978, p. 191–216; Hedeager L. 1987, p. 125–140. 16 King C. E. 1976, p. 80. 272 percentage for the northern sites shows a steady decrease and is at a very low value. The higher value recorded in southern sites for the period AD 268–275 can be tentatively explained by high traffic in the area of the Danube crossing, especially at Drobeta and Sucidava, caused by the abandonment of the province and the foundation of new provinces, Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediteranensis, south of the river. The proximity of the Empire engendered a much higher percentage of coin finds in the southern area for the post– provincial period than for those found in the northern sites. The pattern is more apparent for the issues of Constantine I when there is an increase of the coin finds in the territory of the former province of Dacia. We may claim that this increase is due almost entirely to the finds from the southern sites. In some cases even a local pattern of coin discovery may be observed. 25 % f/year 20 20 15,4 North sites South sites 15 11 11,311,2 10 9,5 8,8 8,7 5,3 5 3,3 4,2 2,5 2,9 1,8 1,2 9,4 8,2 4,7 13,5 10,6 7,4 14,5 3,4 2,2 1,4 0,6 3,1 0,2 2,2 0,3 0 PERIOD Fig. 2. A comparative graph of isolated finds from the north and south sites of Dacia (after G zdac 2002a, p. 447). Recent publication of numismatic material from Drobeta, separated into main find– spots, the town territory and the fort17, makes possible further analyses of monetary circulation within the same site (Fig. 3). Until the period AD 253–268, the fluctuation of indexes for the town and the auxiliary fort is similar. At the same time, the percentage of the coefficient of finds/year for the auxiliary fort is higher or slightly higher than the one for the finds from the area of the town of Drobeta, except during the reign of Philip I. After that, during the period AD 253–268 and AD 268–275, the coefficient calculated for the auxiliary fort registers a dramatic decrease in comparison to the coefficient for the town, which during the period AD 253–268 demonstrates a “normal” decrease, similar as in the case of the province of Dacia. At the same time, for the next period, AD 268–275, both coefficients rise again, but the value recorded for the town is huge – the highest for the entire period studied – while the value for the auxiliary fort of Drobeta is only median value. Also, the increase of the coefficient of finds/year for this period concerning the auxiliary fort may have been influenced by the sharp increase in the town's index. As for the period following the abandonment of Dacia, the area of the auxiliary fort again produces more coin–finds than the town of Drobeta. This situation could be explained by arguing that the site of the auxiliary fort was reused by the local population, presumably as a fortified place. The reuse of this fort under Constantine I as a military stronghold is marked by a huge increase in the number of coin–finds from this area as 17 Stâng I. 1998, p. 144–187. 273 compared to the coin finds recovered in the area of the town dating from the same period. The case of Drobeta suggests that the auxiliary troop, if it continued to be garrisoned at the site, had a bad coin supply in the period which followed the reign of Philip I. 40 35 30 25 25 20 15 10 5 0 1,5 1,7 2,9 1,7 1,5 1,7 2,5 0,5 1,1 0,5 0,5 0,2 4 1,1 8,3 8,1 8,9 17,8 14,2 13,7 11,9 8,1 9,5 2,5 4,1 0,5 5,6 2,9 % finds/ period 36,1 town auxiliary fort PERIOD Fig. 3. A comparative graph of isolated finds from the fort and town of DROBETA (after G zdac 2002a, p. 447). Fig. 4. A comparative graph of coin finds from auxiliary forts in Dacia and Pannonia (after G zdac 2002b, p. 756). As has been recently demonstrated, the comparison between coin finds from auxiliary forts in Dacia and from auxiliary forts in Pannonia indicates that until the AD 249–253 the intensity of coin finds in Dacia was much higher in auxiliary forts in Dacia than in Pannonia18 (Fig. 4). Starting with this period, the comparative graph for coin–finds from auxiliary forts in these two provinces follows two opposite trends. The coefficient for Pannonia registers a huge 18 G zdac C. 2002b, p. 737–756. 274 increase and an ascending tendency for the period AD 249–275 while for the auxiliary forts of Dacia the same coefficient records a dramatic decrease, especially for the period AD 253– 268. It may be affirmed that if the auxiliary forts of Dacia had not been abandoned under the reign of Gallienus then at least they were facing a serious problem of coin supply in this period. The coin series “PROVINCIA DACIA” A specific aspect of coin circulation is represented by the coin series “PROVINCIA DACIA”. The first issue was struck in AD 246 during the reign of Philip I. Although a local coinage, dated by a provincial year, this coinage was struck in accordance with the official Roman bronze denominations: sestertius, dupondius, as (Plate I)19. Moreover, it followed the same pattern of debasement as coins minted in Rome: the smaller denominations (dupondius, as) gradually disappeared (Fig. 5); the sestertius denomination followed the same tricky trend of keeping the size of its diameter accompanied by a major increase in weight (Figs. 6, 7)20. The design style of this coinage on all its denominations is greatly similar to that of the monetary series “P M S COL VIM” issued at Viminacium (Moesia Superior) (Plate I). This suggests that actually the two types of coinage were issued by the same mint of Viminacium. Fig. 5. Proportions of denominations for coin finds “PROVINCIA DACIA” in Roman Dacia (after Alföldy–G zdac, G zdac 2002–2003, p. 248, fig. 4). In Dacia, this coinage is recorded at nearly all the Roman sites which continued to be in existence until the reign of Philip I. Understandably enough, the largest sites and the most well-researched and published ones in Dacia produced the greatest quantity of coin finds of this monetary series (Map 11)21. Cataloguing these coins it can be noticed that the first two years of minting of this coinage apparently also were the most productive ones (Fig. 8). After this, starting with the 3rd year of issue the coin series “PROVINCIA DACIA” registered a strong decline until the series was discontinued altogether in AD 256–25722. In fact, for the period after the reign of Philip I until Valerianus I it is the coinage from Viminacium which starts being recorded more frequently in Roman Dacia than the series “PROVINCIA DACIA” (Fig. 9). 19 20 Martin F. 1992, p. 7–9; Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 247–249. Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 248–249. 21 Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 249. 22 Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 250. 275 Fig. 6. Fluctuation of the average diameter for the coinage “PROVINCIA DACIA” (after Alföldy–G zdac, G zdac 2002–2003, p. 249, fig. 5). Fig. 7. Fluctuation in the average weight for the coinage “PROVINCIA DACIA” (after Alföldy–G zdac, G zdac 2002–2003, p. 249, fig. 6)23. 180 No. pieces 162 150 126 120 90 60 25 18 6 11 1 1 2 2 0 30 0 AN. I 246-247 AN. II 247-248 AN. III 248-249 AN. IIII 249- AN. V 250-251 AN. VI 251-252 AN. VII 252250 253 AN. VIII 253- AN. IX 254-255 AN. X 255-256 AN. XI 256-257 254 Year of issue Fig. 8. Finds of “PROVINCIA DACIA” coins in Roman Dacia (after Alföldy–G zdac, G zdac 2002–2003, p. 250, fig. 7). 23 The absence of values for years 6th and 11th of issue is caused by absence of finds of relevant coins at Roman sites and the state of publication of single samples in the catalogue by Ferenc Martin, see Martin F. 1992, p. 101, 106. 276 100% 100 80 57,2 44,3 34,8 33,3 "PROVINCIA DACIA" 53 60 39,6 "P M S COL VIM" 40 20 9,2 11,9 10,4 5 3,3 2,3 3,8 4,8 0 0,4 4,7 0,3 1,4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244-249 249-253 253-268 244-249 249-253 253-268 244-249 249-253 253-268 244-249 249-253 253-268 244-249 249-253 253-268 Fig. 9. A comparative graph of % for coinages “PROVINCIA DACIA” and “P M S COL VIM” (Viminacium), single coin finds, at Roman sites on the Middle and Lower Danube (after Alföldy–G zdac, G zdac, 2002–2003, p. 254, fig. 13). The cataloguing of coin finds “PROVINCIA DACIA” reveals another interesting aspect. Over 90% of the coin finds of this type minted after the reign of Philip I occurred at sites located in the southern region of Dacia (e.g. Dierna, Drobeta)24. If we agree that these coins were mainly used for and by the army25 – at Porolissum 64% of the coins “PROVINCIA DACIA” were discovered within the fort26 – then it seems that by/during the reign of Valerianus I the troops either had left the province or the new coin hardly made it to this area. At the same time, a comparative analysis of the distribution of the finds of “PROVINCIA DACIA” and “P M S COL VIM” coins indicates two different phenomena. While the coins minted at Viminacium were intended to cover the shortage of bronze coin supply from Rome in the provinces of Pannonia, Moesia Superior and Dacia, the “PROVINCIA DACIA” series seems to have been struck with only the province of Dacia in mind (Fig. 9)27. Most probably, this coinage it was supposed to cover the needs of the military for bronze coin. The minting of the “PROVINCIA DACIA” series proved a temporary and inefficient solution since right after the reign of Philip I it met with ‘competition’ from its “twin” series of “P M S COL VIM”. Plated silver coins – a monetary policy? Recent analyses of numismatic material from different sites in Dacia have revealed many instances of the presence of ancient imitations and copies: hybrids, “barbarous”, plated, and cast coins28. In the case of gold issues, no finds of such coinage have been recorded for Dacia. This is a general pattern for the Roman Empire that next to being severely punished by the law gold coinage was not used regularly in daily transactions, unlike silver coinage. The most common ancient imitations are plated silver denominations. In case of coin finds from the Roman town of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa the plated denarii represent 17,3% of the aggregate number of denarii found at this site with 7,1% of the antoniniani finds also plated29. 24 25 Alföldy G. 2002; Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2008 (forthcoming). Another indirectly argument on this line may be offered by Callu who has considered that after AD 250 the mint from Dacia has moved to Viminacium, which, according to the same author had a quasi–military statute, Callu J. P. 1969, p. 18, 111. 26 Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 251, fig. 9. 27 Alföldy–G zdac A., G zdac C. 2002–2003, p. 253–256; fig. 13; pls. 1–3. 28 G zdac C. 2002a, p. 94–95; G zdac C., Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 137–154. 29 G zdac C., Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 140. 277 At Drobeta, 29,1% of the denarii are plated. It has to be noted that all the plated denarii were recovered from the area of auxiliary forts where they represent 63,6% of finds of this denomination30. Let me point out here that due to the state of research and publication of other urban sites of Roman Dacia (e.g. Apulum, Napoca, Tibiscum, Dierna) it is not possible to gain a clearer view of the presence of plated coins at these sites31. Finds of plated coins are known also from the best researched and published auxiliary forts in Roman Dacia: at Buciumi: 22,6% of the denarii are plated; at Romita, 11,5% of denarii and 1 out of 3 antoniniani are plated; at Iliúua, 56,4% of denarii and 3 out of 9 antoniniani are plated32, at Gherla, 47,3% of denarii and 2 out of 4 antoniniani are plated33. Unfortunately, the situation of Roman Dacian non-urban sites is similar to that of the urban sites – the level of research of the former is extremely poor at the moment. Only two rural sites are presented here, with the picture of plated coins found at these places. At Mic sasa and Orlea, 28,4% and 37,7% of denarii are plated. At Orlea, also 2 out of 21 antoniniani are plated. One may say that imitation denarii have a very high incidence in the countryside but it must be emphasized that these two sites should be regarded as unusual rural sites. Mic sasa was a well–developed pottery centre, while Orlea was an important place close to the Danube with a bridge34 over the river, and was also in close neighbourhood of the quasi–urban settlement of Sucidava. Therefore, both sites may be considered as ones with a high intensity of monetary circulation. Until more information from other rural sites in Dacia becomes available it is difficult to say whether the incidence of imitation coinage at these two sites represents a pattern for rural sites from this province in general or is their distinctive characteristic resulting from their specific position. It must be emphasized that even within the same site it is possible to observe certain local patterns. At Porolissum, 29,5% of denarii and 20% of antoniniani are plated, but some parts of the site produced a much greater quantity than the average of the site as a whole35. In the case of the customs house (statio portorii), 63% of the denarii finds are ancient copies, mainly plated (23 plated and 6 billon denarii)36. At the moment, the most plausible explanation37 for such a strong presence of imitation coins at statio portorii at Porolissum could be the military presence there. The analysis of numismatic evidence from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum indicates that out of the total number of denarii found at this site, 53% are copies (plated, billon, barbarous pieces)38. Close values obtained for the two parts of the site of Porolissum, the customs house and the auxiliary fort, indicate that this large number of copies may have a common explanation: daily losses or discarded coins from the military personnel39 on duty at statio portorii. At this stage of research, the general situation of isolated coin finds from Roman Dacia indicates that 23,6% of the denarii bearing the portraits of the emperors from Trajan to Maximinus I Thrax are plated. 30 31 G zdac C., Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 140. In the case of the Roman site of Apulum (two coloniae and a Roman legionary fort) the numismatic monograph is in the works: G zdac C., Suciu V. 2009 (forthcoming). 32 G zdac C., Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 140. 33 G zdac C., Z greanu R. 2009, (forthcoming). 34 Tudor D 1971, p. 17–19. 35 G zdac C. , Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 141. 36 Gudea N. 1996, p. 69. 37 For other hypotheses on the high number of plated coins from station portorii at Porolissum, see G zdac C., Alföldy–G zdac A. 2001, p. 141. 38 Gudea N. 1996, p. 70, n. 34. 39 Basing on archaeological evidence it has been suggested that a vexilatio of cohors V Lingonum stationed at the statio portorii, see Gudea N. 1996, 76. 278 An analysis of monetary circulation in the provinces adjacent to Dacia revealed the following results40. Plated denarii depicting emperors from the period AD 98–238 represent 11,8% and 7,3% finds of this denomination recorded in Pannonia Superior and Pannonia Inferior respectively. Due to the state of research and publication, plated antoniniani revealed significant results for this study only for the province of Pannonia Superior (Fig. 10)41. It can be observed that almost a quarter of the isolated silver Roman single coin finds from Roman Dacia are ancient copies of some kind of mistreated silver content. The majority of these copies were recovered at auxiliary forts which suggests that they were used for paying the troops. If these copies were accepted, for a while in daily transactions or payments, they were very rarely considered to be worth keeping. Apart from the hoards consisting entirely of copies42, which probably had a special destination, imitation coinage very rarely occurs in other hoards from the area of the Middle and Lower Danube. The outbreak of copying of the Roman coinage in Dacia may suggest that this province was amongst those which suffered during some period or periods from a shortage of official coin supply, mainly silver. As in the western frontier provinces, in Dacia, the largest number of false coins belongs to those pieces depicting the emperors of the period AD 193–238. The higher percentage of plated silver denominations in Dacia as compared to both provinces of Pannonia could be a result of a larger number of auxiliary troops (Fig. 10). This aspect also indicates that the outbreaks of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of imitative coinage took place further east than has been known until now43. It seems that this phenomenon was closely associated with the army. Fig. 10. A comparative graph of % plated silver denominations (after G zdac 2002a, p. 449). The numismatic evidence and historical events A comparative analysis of coin finds from Roman sites having dissimilar historical backgrounds but with a good state of research and publication of the numismatic material may have shed new light on the major turning points in the history of Dacia. In case of our study, 40 41 G zdac C. 2002a, p. 94–95. For details on the state of research and publication of the numismatic material from sites from Pannonia Inferior, Moesia Superior and Inferior, see G zdac C. 2002a, p 5–11. 42 This is the case of the 232 silver cast coins of the hoard found at Apulum, see Suciu V. 2000, p. 328; G zdac C. 2002a, p. 72. 43 For the concentration of the outbreaks of the Roman coin copies in the 2nd and 3rd century AD in the western frontier provinces see King C. E. 1996, p. 246. 279 we refer to the time when the province was conquered by Rome and to the time of its abandoning in the second half of the 3rd century AD. It is understandable that the presence of a great number of troops and settlers, as was the case of Dacia, called for a substantial injection of coinage to cover the need for payments and transactions. At the other end of the scale, the withdrawal from the province of Roman army and administration led to a sharp decrease in coin supply to that territory. Therefore, a comparative analysis of the better published numismatic material from some sites in Dacia (Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Porolissum) and other similar sites from the area of the Upper, Middle and Lower Danube (Ovilava, Carnuntum, Poetovio) using a comparative monetary coefficient revealed interesting specific patterns44. In the case of the reign of Trajan and Hadrian, the value of this comparative monetary coefficient is much higher for Dacian sites than for the other three sites in different provinces (Fig. 11)45. Certainly it must be mentioned here that the highest values in the case of the site Porolissum are under direct influence from the presence at this site of a great number of plated coins. The same explanation applies to the value of the monetary coefficient for coins depicting the issuers from the period AD 193–218. Fig. 11. The comparative monetary coefficient for the sites Porolissum, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Carnuntum, Ovilava, Poetovio (after G zdac 2006, p. 495). Another distinct pattern reflected by a comparative analysis of these sites corresponds to the reign of Philip I (AD 244–249). The minting of the series “PROVINCIA DACIA” had a strong regional impact on this province (Fig. 11). As mentioned above, the same graph is extremely relevant for the time of abandoning of Dacia by the Roman administration. The dramatic decrease in the comparative monetary coefficient which dropped to extremely low values for the periods AD 253–275 indicates that Roman Dacia started to be faced with a poor coin supply already starting from the period AD 253–268. The same situation is also reflected on the scale of the entire province by another comparative graph showing the percentage of coin finds for the reign of Valerianus I – Gallienus, and Gallienus alone, from Dacia and Pannonia (Fig. 12). 44 45 G zdac C. 2006, p. 483–495. The analysis was carried out on single coin finds from these sites. No hoards have been included. 280 Fig. 12. Comparative graph of % finds/year for the reign of Valerianus I – Gallienus (AD. 253–259) and Gallienus (AD 259–268). In conclusion, it may be affirmed that indeed, the moment of inception of the province of Dacia and its first years of existence are reflected by a strong injection with coin. The main cause was a major presence of the army and administration which determined a strong development of a monetary economy, at least in military and urban environments. The ‘reverse side of the coin’ is that the withdrawal of Roman administration from Dacia is reflected by the shortage in the supply of coinage to the study region in later periods. Bibliography ALFÖLDY G. 2002, Circula ia monedei “PROVINCIA DACIA” în Dacia, University of Cluj– Napoca, (BA thesis, manuscript). ALFÖLDY–G ZDAC A., G ZDAC C. 2002–2003, The coinage “PROVINCIA DACIA” – a coinage for one province only (AD. 246–257)?, Acta Musei Napocensis 39/I, p. 247–258. ALFÖLDY–G ZDAC A., G ZDAC C. 2008 (forthcoming), The management of a monetary crisis ? The “P M S COL VIM” and “PROVINCIA DACIA” coinages in the Roman monetary policy of the 3rd century AD, Numismatische Zeitschrift 116. ARDEVAN R. 1993, Circula ia monetar în aúezarea roman de la Gherla, Ephemeris Napocensis, vol. 3, p. 111–113. BRUUN C. 1978, Site finds and hoarding behaviour, [in:] Carson R., Kraay C. M. (eds.), Scripta nummaria Romana: essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland, Spink, London, p. 114–123. CALLU J. P. 1969, La politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311, Paris. CARSON R. 1965, The Reform of Aurelian, Revue Numismatique 7, p. 225–235. CARSON R. 1990, Coins of the Roman Empire, London–New York. CRAWFORD M. 1978, Ancient Devaluations: a general theory, Les “dévaluations” à Rome. Epoque républicaine et impériale (Rome, 13–15 novembre 1975 1 Gdansk 19–21 octobre 1978), Collection de l'École française de Rome 37, p. 147–158. G ZDAC C. 2002a, Monetary circulation in Dacia and the provinces from the Middle and Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106–337), Cluj–Napoca. 281 G ZDAC C. 2002b, Monetary circulation and the abandonment of the auxiliary forts from Dacia, [in:] Freeman P. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVIIIth Roman Frontier Congress Amman, Jordan. September 2000, British Archaeological Reports 1084 (II), Oxford, p. 737–756. G ZDAC C. 2003, Patterns of monetary circulation in Dacia and the Lower Danube region from Trajan to Constantine I, Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis XL, p. 187–208. G ZDAC C. 2006, The coinage and the Roman conquest of Dacia. A comparative study by sites: Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Porolissum, Ovilava, Carnuntum, Poetovio, [in:] Teodor E. S., entea O. (eds.), Dacia Augusti provincia, crearea provinciei. Actele simpozionului desf úurat în 13–14 octombrie 2006 la Muzeul Na ional de Istorie a României, Bucureúti, editura Cetatea de Scaun, Bucureúti, p. 483–495 G ZDAC C., ALFÖLDY–G ZDAC A. 2001, The Roman law against counterfeiting between theory and practice: the case of Roman Dacia, Acta Musei Napocensis 38, p. 137–154. G ZDAC C., COCIù S. 2004, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Mega Publishing House, Cluj–Napoca. G ZDAC C., GUDEA N. 2006, Porolissum, Cluj–Napoca. G ZDAC C., ISAC D. 2007, The Roman auxiliary forts of SAMVM (C úeiu) and Gil u, Cluj– Napoca. G ZDAC C., SUCIU V. 2009 (forthcoming), Apulum, Cluj–Napoca. G ZDAC C., Z GREANU R. 2009 (forthcoming), Reinterpreting the numismatic evidence. A methodological case study: the auxiliary fort from Gherla (Cluj county, Romania), Cercet ri de numismatic , vol. XIII. GUDEA N. 1994, Dacia Porolissensis în timpul r zboaielor marcomanice, Acta Musei Porolissensis 18, p. 67–93. GUDEA N. 1996, Porolissum. Un complex daco–roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. II. Vama roman . Monografie arheologic . Contribu ii la cunoaúterea sistemului vamal din provinciile dacice, Muzeul Na ional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj–Napoca. HEDEAGER L. 1978, A Quantitative Analysis of Roman Imports in Europe North of the Limes (0– 400 A.D.), and the Question of Roman–Germanic Exchange, [in:] Kristiansen K., Paludan– Müller C. (eds.), New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, Lyngby, Odense, p. 191–216. EDEAGER L. 1987, Empire, frontier and the barbarian hinterland: Rome and northern Europe from AD 1–400, [in:] Rowlands M. J., Larsen C. S., Kristiansen K. (eds.), Centre and periphery in the ancient world, Cambridge, p. 125–140. KING C. E. 1976, The value of hoards and site finds in relation to monetary circulation in the late third and early 4th centuries AD, Studien zur Fundmünzen der Antike, vol. 1, Ergebnisse des FMRD–Colloquiums vom 8–13 Februar 1976 in Frankfurt am Main und Bad Homburg v.d.H. KING C. E. 1996, Roman copies, [in:] King C. E., Wigg D. W. (eds.), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world: the thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25. – 27.3.1993: a NATO advanced research workshop, Studien zur Fundmünzen der Antike, vol. 10, Berlin, p. 237–263. Mac DOWALL D. W. 1979, The western Coinages of Nero, Numismatic Notes and Monographs, vol. 161, New York. MARTIN F. 1992, Kolonialprägungen aus Moesia Superior und Dacia, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. RUSSU I. I. 1977, Inscrip iile Daciei Romane. Oltenia úi Muntenia, vol. III/1, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureúti. STÂNG I. 1998, Via a economic la Drobeta în secolele II– VI p.Ch., Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureúti, p. 144–187. SUCIU V. 2000, Quelques considérations sur les trésors monétaires de la Dacie romaine, [in:] Ciugudean H., Moga V. (eds.), Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire, Alba Iulia, p. 323–332. SUCIU V. 2002, Tezaure monetare din Dacia roman úi postroman , Cluj–Napoca. TUDOR D. 1971, Podurile romane de la Dun rea de Jos, Editura Academiei, Bucureúti, p. 17–19. 282 Maps 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 Plate I Denominations of “PROVINCIA DACIA” coinage: sestertius, dupondius, as. Stylistic similarity: sestertius “PROVINCIA DACIA”, sestertius “P M S COL VIM”. 294 Contents / Inhaltverzeichnis Preface (Aleksander Bursche, Renata Cioáek) .....................................................................3 Einleitung (Aleksander Bursche, Renata Cioáek) ................................................................5 Einführung Römische Münzen jenseits der Reichsgrenzen (Reinhard Wolters) .............7 SESSION I: THE COINS IN THE EMPIRE AND BEFORE ..........................................................11 Mariusz Mielczarek, On Greek coin finds from the Central European Barbaricum .........11 David Wigg-Wolf, Coinage on the periphery .....................................................................35 Johan van Heesch, On the edge of the market economy: coins used in social transactions, as ornaments and as bullion in the Roman Empire ..................................49 Richard Reece, Roman silver goes abroad .........................................................................59 Peter Kehne, Auskünfte antiker Schriftquellen zu Umständen und Größenordnungen des Abflusses römischer Münzen ins Barbaricum vom 1.–5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. – Eine Problemskizze ...................................................75 SESSION II: BARBARICUM – THE WEST ..............................................................................89 Peter Guest, On the edge of the Empire: the supply and use of Roman coins in Wales......................................................................................................................... 89 Nicholas Holmes, The denarius hoards from Birnie, North-East Scotland: a case study ............................................................................................................ 91 Fleur Kemmers, Interaction or indifference? The Roman coin finds from the Lower Rhine delta ......................................................... 93 Frank Berger, Die römischen Fundmünzen in Niedersachsen und Westfalen. Kontext und Funktionen ..................................................................................................... 105 Holger Komnick, Römerzeitliche Münzfunde in Nordostdeutschland zwischen Elbe und Oder ..................................................................................................... 113 421 SESSION III: BARBARICUM – THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH-EAST ...................................135 Helle Horsnæs, Roman coins and their contexts in Denmark ............................................. 135 Line Bjerg, The Ginderup hoard – a re-evaluation of the early denarii in Jutland............ 147 Renata Cioáek, Ein Beitrag zur Funktion römischer Münzen in der Wielbark und in der Przeworsk-Kultur .................................................................. 157 Boris Magomedov, Coins as a source of insight on Chernyakhiv tribes ............................ 171 Anna Zapolska, Römische Münzen im Westbaltischen Kulturkreis – Kontexte und Funktionen .................................................................................................... 179 Marcin Woáoszyn, Byzantine coins from the 6th and the 7th c. from Poland and their East-Central European context. Ways and phases, contexts and functions ........................................................................................................ 195 SESSION IV: BARBARICUM – DANUBE AND BEYOND ........................................................225 Wolfgang Szaivert, Die Münzverteilung im mittleren Donauraum in römischer Zeit .................................................................................................................. 225 Günther Dembski, Die römischen Fundmünzen aus Österreich außerhalb des Imperium Romanum .................................................................................. 227 Ji í Militký, Die römischen Fundmünzen in Böhmen – Kontexte und Funktionen. Notizen zu dem heutigen Stand der Forschung ................................. 231 Eva Kolníková, Die römischen Fundmünzen in der Slowakei – Kontext und Funktion .......................................................................................................... 245 Edit Farkas, Melinda Torbágyi, Sarmatians and the Roman coins ................................... 255 Delia Moisil, Roman coins on the Lower Danube – context and function.......................... 267 Cristian G zdac, Aspects of coin circulation in Roman Dacia ........................................... 269 Peter Guest, Roman Gold and Hun Kings: the use and hoarding of solidi in the late fourth and fifth centuries................................................................................... 295 SESSION V: REGIONAL PATTERNS – THE EAST AND THE SOUTH .....................................309 Tedo Dundua, Influx of Roman coins in Georgia ................................................................. 309 Georges Depeyrot, Roman coins in Armenia......................................................................... 321 422 Hans-Christopher Noeske, Ex Africa semper aliquid novi – Funde antiker und islamischer Münzen im Niltal vom 1. Katarakt bis südlich des 6. Katarakts .................................................................................................................... 329 David Mac Dowall, The context and function of the Roman coins found in India .......... 331 Kathrin Johrden, Reinhard Wolters, Die römischen Fundmünzen in Indien................. 341 Reinhold Walburg, Rome beyond its eastern frontiers: “Chicken feed copper” in ancient r La k . The impact of a foreign currency on the local economy ........... 355 SESSION VI: FUNCTIONS IN BARBARICUM ........................................................................363 Jerzy Kolendo, Die Germania des Tacitus und die Funktionen römischer Münzen im Barbaricum .................................................................................... 363 Jan Bemmann, Römische Münzen in Gräbern des Mittel- und Nordeuropaeischen Barbaricum ......................................................................................... 377 Michael Erdrich, Überlegungen zu Altstücken in kaiserzeitlichen Grab- und Schatzfunden im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum ....................................... 379 Markus Peter, Imitations of Roman coins in non-Roman contexts: some remarks ...................................................................................................... 389 Aleksander Bursche, Function of Roman coins in Barbaricum of Later Antiquity. An anthropological essay .................................................................................................... 395 List of participants in alphabetic order ................................................................................ 417 Contents / Inhaltverzeichnis ............................................................................................421 423