The distribution of the silver counterfeited coins

Portadillas 1 18/9/09 14:25 Página 5 ÁNGEL MORILLO, NORBERT HANEL & ESPERANZA MARTÍN (eds.) LIMES XX XX CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ESTUDIOS SOBRE LA FRONTERA ROMANA XXTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES León (España), Septiembre, 2006 Congreso celebrado bajo la presidencia de honor de su Majestad el Rey de España y con el apoyo de la Universidad de León Anejos de Gladius 13 (Vol. 1) CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS INSTITUTO HISTÓRICO HOFFMEYER. INSTITUTO DE ARQUEOLOGÍA DE MÉRIDA EDICIONES POLIFEMO Madrid, 2009 XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1487 THE DISTRIBUTION OF SILVER COUNTERFEITED COINS IN THE FORTS FROM ROMAN DACIA. FRAUD OR MONETARY POLICY? ˘ CRISTIAN GAZDAC The systematic excavations at various sites of the former Dacia (today a large part of Romania) (see Figs. 11-12), Roman towns, forts and villages provide us with an impressive quantity of artefacts. Amongst them a special category is the numismatic evidence. The accurate analysis of this evidence together with the re-study of some of the old coin-finds from sites revealed an interesting aspect: almost 25% of the denarii bearing the portraits of the emperors from Trajan to Maximinus I Thrax found at sites from Roman Dacia are plated (Gazdac & Gazdac-Alföldy, ˘ ˘ 2001: 142). And at some sites the value of this percentage even passes 50% (see Figs. 1-2, 6). Such a situation raises some questions such as: are these coins the result of an activity with a deliberate intention to fraud the monetary system or is a monetary policy involved? Were these coins issued for a special purpose and suppose to supply a special category of peoples (e. g. military or civilians)? Was a general phenomenon throughout the Empire or a particular one for Dacia? To all these questions we hope to offer plausible answers. We will also try to emphasize a methodological aspect: in two of the cases it will be pointed out the coin-finds situation before and after an accurate study on the numismatic evidence coming from a site. But first one should ask himself if there was a Roman legislation against counterfeiting the official coinage. And if it was the case how severe was this law? The first law concerning the counterfeiting of coinage of which we are aware is the edictum cum poena et iudicio of Marius Gratidianus of c. 84 BC (Mommsen, 1870: 82-84) According to Grierson this law did not survive “the return of Sulla and the praetor’s execution” (Grierson, 1956: 242, n. 1). The basis of the Roman law of counterfeiting is considered by the same author as a section in Sulla’s lex Cornelia de falsis (c. 81 BC) (Grierson, 1956: 242), also known as lex Cornelia testamentaria nummaria 1 (Grierson, 1956: 242 no. 2). The original text is lost, although some of its clauses survived in Ulpian’s summary quoted in the Digestae: 1 Cicero, in Verrem 2, I, 42. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1488 1488 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 Lege Cornelia cavetur, ut, qui in aurum vitii quid addiderit, qui argenteos nummos adulterinos flaverit, falsi crimine teneri. Eadem poena adficitur etiam is qui, cum prohibere tale quid posset, non prohibuit 2. It can be seen that counterfeiting and conniving at counterfeiting of the silver coinage was considered a crime. At the same time, the buying and selling of coins made of tin and lead, which were mistaken for silver, was also prohibited. There were no specifications about the gold coins, as apart from emergency issues no other gold was issued by the mint of Rome during the Republic. Outside Rome, fairly large issues were struck by military commanders, owing to their imperium (Grierson, 1956: 242, no. 4). In the context of this law gold is addressed in the context of controlling the quality of metal used by the goldsmiths (Grierson, 1956: 242). The punishments for counterfeiting the silver coinage are described in the Institutiones 3 and consist of death for slaves and banishment for free men: … Legis poena in servos ultimum supplicium est, quod et in lege de sicariis et veneficis servatur, liberos vero deportatio 4. It can be observed that according to this law counterfeiting was considered a form of fraud and not an offence against the state. This situation was profoundly changed under the Principate. The sources which give information about the content of the lex Cornelia under the Principate are the replies of the emperors to some provincial governors through manuals of law such as Gaius’ Libri ad edictum provinciale, Ulpian’s Libri de officio proconsulis and Paul’s Sententiae. The most detailed source on this aspect is given in Paul’s Sententiae. Dating to the 3rd century AD, the text reflects the practice during the reigns of the Antonines (apud Grierson, 1956: 243): Lege Cornelia (…) qui nummos aureos argenteos adultaverit, lavaverit, conflaverit, raserit, corruperit, vitiaverit, vultuque principum signatam monetam, praeter adulterinam, reprobaverit: honestiores quidem in insulam deportantur, humiliores autem aut in metallum dantur aut in crucem tolluntur; servi autem postve manumissi capite puniuntur. After this brief excurse on the Roman legislation we can see that the law was extremely severe about those trying to fraud the monetary system. Still the reality in the field shows a different picture. In order to seek for explanations we chose four military sites where the numismatic material has been analysed quite recently and the results are of high interest for the present topic. These military sites are (Fig. 12): Potaissa (today, Turda) –legionary fort; Porolissum (today, Moigrad) –auxiliary fort; Ilisua –cavalry fort; Gherla –cavalry fort. ¸ At the same time, seeking for general and specific patterns we also pick up some “civilian” sites such are (see map of Roman Dacia): Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (today Sarmizegetusa) –capital of the province of Dacia; Apulum (today Alba Iulia) –two urban settlements and a legionary fort; although at Apulum was the garrison of the legio XIII gemina the state of publication of the numismatic evidence does not allow at the moment a clear separation between coins found ˘ within the fort and the towns. Micasasa –a pottery centre; Orlea –a rural site on the bank of the Danube, where probably there was a Roman bridge across the river. 2 Digesta 48, 40, 9. 3 Due to the late date of the Institutiones, Grierson has expressed doubts about the accuracy of this source concerning the punishments in the original version of the lex Cornelia de falsis (1956: 242 n. 3). 4 Institutiones 4, 18, 7-8. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1489 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 MOESIA & DACIA 1489 FIG. 1. Graph of the silver coin finds from Porolissum (the fort on “Pomet Hill” and the custom-house) FIG. 2. Graph of the silver coin finds from Ilisua –cavalry fort ¸ XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1490 1490 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 In the case of the site of Porolissum we analyze de coins from the custom house and the auxiliary fort on the hill “Pomet”. There was another fort at Porolissum, the one on the hill “Citera” but owing to the state of research and publication not relevant data is provided by this fort. The comparative graph of genuine and plated coins from these two spots of the site of Porolissum shows a strong dominance of the plated silver coins (Fig. 1) (Gazdac & Gudea, 2006: ˘ 44-57). In fact it is easy to notice that the plated silver coins bearing the portraits of issuers such as Trajan, Antoninus Pius, of the period AD 193–218, and the of the period AD 238–253 were found in a larger number than the genuine coins. The peak is represented by the reign of Septimius Severus. From 64 denarii found at these two findspots, 40 are plated. At Ilisua the situation is relatively similar (Fig. 2) (Gazdac 2002: tab. F 6). The plated coins ¸ ˘ are more numerous than the genuine one for Trajan, period AD 193–218 and the emperors of the period AD 218–238. At the same time the number of both categories is in a tie for Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Like in the case of the site Porolissum also at Ilisua the peak for the ¸ plated coins is represented by the period of AD 193–218. The next two sites: Potaissa and Gherla beside the main aims of this study represent also methodological cases. Based on the publications accessible to me the coin finds from the site of Potaissa (Winkler & Hopârtean, 1973) 5 the graph of silver coinage indicate a massive presence of genuine denarii and antoniniani at this site (Fig. 3). One can see a total contradiction to what we have seen at the previous forts. Were the legionary soldiers so much privileged that to receive only “good” coins? The recent excavations in the principia and the military baths together with a better analysis of the numismatic material showed quite a different picture (Fig. 4) (the data are taken from Pîslaru, 2002: 82-89: for the coins found in the baths; Pîslaru, 2004: 94-116: for the coins found in the principia). Although the genuine silver coins keep dominating the number of plated coin finds strongly increased, reaching the highest number for the same period of AD 193–218. The same situation applies to the site of the cavalry fort from Gherla but here the picture is even more contrasting than at the previous site. The first graph is based on the publications of the coin finds without knowing the findspot (civilian settlement, fort or private collections) or an accurate study of the coins (Ardevan, 1993: 111-222; Gazdac, 2002: tab. F 7). Again the ˘ genuine coins seemed to be the only silver coinage to be found at this site with only a very small number of plated coins (Fig. 5). Then following the identification of the findspots 6 and a detailed study of the coins found within the location of the auxiliary fort we arrived to a new graph of coin finds from the fort of Gherla (Fig. 6). It can be observed that the proportion between genuine and plated finds has changed, especially for the periods of AD 193–218 and AD 218–238. The plated coins bearing the portraits of the emperors of these two periods overwhelmed the number of the genuine coin finds of the same issuers. In order to establish if we have here a specific monetary phenomenon targeting military sites or a general phenomenon throughout the province and the Empire we did the same approach for some civilian settlements of Dacia, as we have mentioned above. 5 It must be mentioned here that a more recent PhD thesis on the monetary circulation at Potaissa was not available to me. 6 I am grateful to Mr. Radu Zagrean (University of Cluj-Napoca) who kindly helped me to separate the today folk ˘ names of places on the fort area from those belonging to the civilian settlement area. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1491 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 MOESIA & DACIA 1491 FIG. 3. Graph of the silver coin finds from Potaissa –situation at glance FIG. 4. Graph of the silver coin finds from Potaissa –the principia and the baths XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1492 1492 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 FIG. 5. Graph of the silver coin finds from Gherla –situation at glance FIG. 6. Graph of the silver coin finds from Gherla –cavalry fort XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1493 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 MOESIA & DACIA 1493 FIG. 7. Graph of the silver coin finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa –Roman town The graph of the single silver coin finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Fig. 7) (Gazdac & ˘ Cocis, 2004) clearly indicates that the genuine denarii were found in a much higher number than ¸ the plated ones. Even so, it is easy to notice the same period of AD 193–218 for the highest number of the plated coin finds at this site. At the site of Apulum (Fig. 8) (Gazdac, 2002: tab. F 1) the situation indicates even a stronger ˘ dominance of the genuine denarii in comparison with the plated denarii. But here we must draw the attention that the way the coin collection was organized in the beginning of the 20th century and the absence of a detailed catalogue may have led to the “splitting” of some hoards (Winkler, 1965: 239), as well as the misinterpretation of plated coins as genuine ones. Moving towards rural site the graph of the site Micasasa (Fig. 9) (Mitrofan & Ardevan, 1997: ˘ 119-133) show the same dominance of the genuine denarii versus plated pieces. The number of plated pieces rises again for the period AD 193–218. In the case of the last site analysed in this study, the rural settlement of Orlea, the presence of plated denarii is quite a strong one compare to what we have seen at the previous “civilian” sites (Fig. 10) (Gazdac, 2002: tab. F 12). The explanation may be sought in the location of this locality ˘ on the bank of the Danube where probably a bridge across the river was in use in the Roman times. Therefore many of these coins could be the results of a ritual process while crossing the river. In conclusion, it can be suggested that despite severe legislation against counterfeiting the counterfeited coins were produced at a large scale in Roman Dacia. The comparison between military and civilian sites indicates that the plated coins were used for the payments of the troops (mainly the auxiliary ones?). The situation is not a particular one for Dacia as such a situation has already been suggested for the similar finds from Augusta Raurica (Peter, 1990: 74-96). In this case these coins probably played the role of what was called “monnaie de nécessité” or “notgeld”, which A. Kunisz has defined as monetary series “produced XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1494 1494 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 FIG. 8. Graph of the silver coin finds from Apulum –Roman towns FIG. 9. Graph of the silver coin finds from Micasasa –pottery centre ˘ XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1495 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 MOESIA & DACIA 1495 FIG. 10. Graph of the silver coin finds from Orlea –rural settlement on the bank of the Danube without official authorization in order to supplement a short-term insufficiency of circulating coin which had inhibited commercial exchanges” (Kunisz, 1987: 256) and G. Boon added that these false coins “continue until, eventually good new coin was provided” (Boon, 1974: 117118). In this situation, a possible period of shortage of official coin in Roman Dacia could have created an occasion when a “legitimate trade in such coins” was temporarily carried out. The large-scale outbreaks of copying Roman coins cover a wide area of the empire. This could indicate ignorance of the legislation, or even some small support from local authorities, especially in the periods of a shortage of the official coin. Similarly, it seems that this phenomenon was closely associated with the army. Moreover, according to Dio Cassius, the plated coins were sometimes furnished to the people even by the official mint. Thus, Caracalla was blamed to have manufactured a coinage of a lead core plated with silver and a coinage of a copper core plated with gold 7. The outbreak of copying Roman coinage in Dacia may suggest that this province was amongst those who suffered in some period(s) a shortage of official coin, mainly silver. As in the western frontier provinces, in Dacia the largest number of the false coins belongs to those pieces depicting the emperors of the period AD 193–238. This massive presence of the plated silver coins also indicates that the outbreaks of the 2nd and rd 3 centuries of imitative coinage took place not only in the western frontier provinces of the Empire but also in Dacia (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, 1996: 246). 7 Cass. Dio 78, 14, 4. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1496 1496 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 FIG. 11. The Roman Empire in the 2nd–3rd century AD (after N. Gudea) Such a large number of Roman copies in Dacia raise the problem of where they were produced. In the territories of the former western provinces of the Roman Empire, a large numbers of clay moulds to cast denarii and bronze denominations, coin-dies to strike denarii spoilt cast coins, coin-shaped bars in the 3rd century has been recovered, especially from Britain and Gaul (King, 1996: 241). Owing to the presence a spoilt bronze coin a monetary workshop may have been located at the auxiliary fort of Ilisua (Protase & Gaiu, 1997: 65, no. 163, pl. 87). ¸ It has been generally considered reasonable that “if very large quantities of imitations are recovered from a site then the copies may have been [hypothetically] produced within or near it” (King, 1996: 241). On the basis of these criteria, in Dacia until now the presence of a “semiofficial” mints at Porolissum has been suggested (Winkler, 1964: 220). This argument can also be used in the case of the monetary workshop from Ilisua where the plated denarii represents 56,4% ¸ of the total number this denomination found at this site. The possibility that the workshop from ¸ Ilisua could produce both silver and bronze copies is not unusual. There are already many sites from western provinces in which moulds to produce silver and bronze coins have been found together (King, 1996: 241). At the end we have to point out a methodological suggestion. A detail analyze of the coin evidence found at sites is imperious requested in order to establish a correct proportion between genuine and counterfeited coins. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1497 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 MOESIA & DACIA 1497 FIG. 12. Map of the Roman Dacia showing the sites under study BIBLIOGRAPHY ARDEVAN, R. (1993): “Circulatia monetara în asezarea romana de la Gherla”, Ephemeris ¸ ˘ ¸ ˘ Napocensis 3, 111-122. BOON, G. (1974): “Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain”, J. CASEY & R. REESE (eds.): Coins and the Archaeologist, Oxford, 102-182. ˘ CRSCRCR = GAZDAC, C. (ed.): Coins from Roman sites and collections of Roman coins from Romania, Cluj-Napoca. ˘ GAZDAC, C. (2002): Monetary circulation in Dacia and the provinces from the Middle and Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106–337), Cluj-Napoca. ˘ ¸ GAZDAC, C. & COCIS, S. (2004): Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, CRSCRCR I, Cluj-Napoca. ˘ ˘ GAZDAC, C. & GAZDAC-ALFÖLDY, A. (2001): “The Roman law against counterfeiting between theory and practice: the case of Roman Dacia”, Acta Mus. Napocensis 38/1, 137-154. ˘ GAZDAC, C. & GUDEA, N. (2006): Porolissum, CRSCRCR II, Cluj-Napoca. GRIERSON, P. (1956): “The Roman Law of Counterfeiting”, Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly, Oxford, 240-261. XI, 3 Gazdac 23/7/09 18:28 Página 1498 1498 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 KING, C. (1996): “Roman copies”, C. E. KING & D. W. WIGG (eds.): Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world. The 13th Oxford Symposium Coinage Monetary Hist. (1993), Stud. Fundmünzen Ant. 7, Berlin, 237-263. KUNISZ, A. (1987): “La monnaie de nécessité à l’époque du Haut-Empire romain: problèmes et controverses”, G. DEPEYROT (ed.): Rythmes de la production monétaire de l’antiquité à nos jours, Actes Coll. Internat. (Paris, 1986), Num. Lovaniensia 7, Louvain-la-Neuve, 256-265. MITROFAN, I. & ARDEVAN, R. (1997): “Découvertes monétaires dans l’établissment romain de Micasasa”, Stud. ¸i Cerc. Num. 11, 119-133. ˘ s MOMMSEN, Th. (1870): Histoire de la monnaie romaine, Paris. PETER, M. (1990): Eine Werkstätte zur Herstellung von subaeraten Denaren in Augusta Raurica, Stud. Fundmünzen Ant. 7, Mainz. s PÎSLARU, M. (2002): “Monedele din termele castrului de la Potaissa (campaniile 1993 ¸i 1995–2001)”, Simpozion de numismatica, Chisinau, 79-94. ˘ ¸ ˘ PÎSLARU, M. (2004): “Ritrovamenti monetari nei principia del castrum legionario di Potaissa (Dacia)”, Riv. Italiana Num. Scien. affine 105, 93-133. ¸ ¸ PROTASE, D. & GAIU, C. (1997): Castrul roman de la Ilisua, Bistrita. ¸ ˘ WINKLER, I. (1964): “Despre circulatia monetara la Porolissum”, Acta Mus. Napocensis 1, 215224. ¸ ˘ WINKLER, I. (1965): “Circulatia monetara la Apulum”, Acta Mus. Napocensis 2, 215-256. ˘ WINKLER, I. & HOPÂRTEAN, A. (1973): Moneda antica la Potaissa, Cluj-Napoca.